{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1467","title":"Report: ''Double Funding of the Incentive Schools,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1996-12-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Double Funding of the Incentive Schools,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1467"],"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":["00:00:40"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1630","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, cross-district teacher retirement and employee health insurance issues, PCSSD strike issue, LRSD fourth quarter status report, and ODM budget concerns","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1996-11"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Jacksonville South Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","Jacksonville North Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education, Secondary","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School employees","School districts","Teachers","Employee rights","Retirement","Insurance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, cross-district teacher retirement and employee health insurance issues, PCSSD strike issue, LRSD fourth quarter status report, and ODM budget concerns"],"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/1630"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["124 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Court of Appeals, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools),District Court, two orders; District Court, pre-trial brief of Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) on teacher retirement and employee health insurance issues; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) prehearing brief; District Court, three orders; District Court, response of Joshua intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools); Court of Appeals, amended certificate of service; District Court, order; District Court, response to the motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration regarding the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, brief in response to the motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration regarding the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) fourth quarter status report addendum program planning and budgeting document for desegregation progress; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1996-97 first quarter status report program planning and budgeting document for desegregation programs; District Court, motion for summary judgment by the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court, brief in support of Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching; District Court, statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to the LRSD, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching; District Court, affidavit of Donald M. Stewart; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua motion to request Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, notice of filing, LRSD November program planning and budgeting tool; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) objection to proposed Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to response of Joshua intervenors to PCSSD's motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools)  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT  HAEL E. GANS lerk of Court U.S. COURT \u0026 CUSTOM HOUSE 1114 MARKET STREET ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63101 VOICE (314) 539-3600 AB!S (B00I 652-B671 http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/8th.cir November 6, 1996 Mr. Christopher John Heller FRIDAY \u0026 ELDREDGE 2000 First Commercial Building 400 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEVE NOV 8 ,996 t Desegregation Monl\\on,1~ O!Me o ~- ~ ---- Re: 96-2047EALR L.R. School Dist. vs. Servicemaster Manag. Dear Counsel: Enclosed is a copy of an order entered today in the above case. jmh Enclosures cc: Joseph Steven Mowery John C. Everett Samuel Arnold Perroni William Henry Trice III Richard Wilson Roachell John W. Walker Norman J. Chachkin Philip K. Lyon M. Samuel Jones III Nelwyn L. Davis Tim C. Humphries Office of Deseg. Monitor Horace A. Walker Perlestra Hollingsworth Kenne~h G. Torrence Otis Henry Storey Petre's Stenograph Jim McCormack District Court Case Number: 82-CV-866 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2047EALR L. R. School District, Appellant, v. Servicemaster Management, et al., Appellees.          Appeal from the United States District Com:t for the Eastern District of Arkansas Upon review of the notice of appeal and appellant's opening brief, this Court has determined that this appeal was mistakenly captioned. The Clerk is directed to correct the case caption and provide the parties with a new service list. Appellant's counsel is directed to serve his opening brief upon those parties not previously served within seven days of the date of this order and provide the com:t with proof of service. Those appellees who have not previously filed responsive briefs may have to and including December 11, 1996 to file their briefs. Appellant's supplemental reply brief shall be due on or before December 27, 1996. November 6, 1996 Ordev:tc:r:J\"~~ Rule 27;)  Clerk, U.S. Court of~s, Eighth Circuit Novembez 5, 1996 Case Numbez: 96-2047 Distzict Couzt/Agency Case Numbez(s): 82-CV-866 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIS'TRICT; Plaintiff - Appellant LORENE JOSHUA; Intezvenoz Plaintiff - Appellee SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES; Intezvenoz below - Appellee ANNE MITCHELL ; BOB MOORE; PAT GEE; PAT RAYBURN; MARY J . GAGE; NORTH LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; PULASKI ASSOCIATION OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS; LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; ALEXA ARMS'TRONG; KARLOS ARMS'TRONG; ED BULLINGTON; KHAYYAM DAVIS; JANICE DENT; JOHN HARRISON; ALVIN HUDSON; TATIA HUDSON; MILTON JACKSON; LESLIE JOSHUA; STACY JOSHUA; WAYNE JOSHUA; KATHERINE KNIGHT; SARA MATTHEWS; BECKY MCKINNEY; DERRICK MILES; JANICE MILES; JOHN M. MILES; NAACP; JOYCE PERSON; BRIAN TAYLOR; HILTON TAYLOR; PARSHA TAYLOR; ROBERT WILLINGHAM; TONYA WILLINGHAM Intezvenoz Plaintiffs - Appellees V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEON BARNES; SHERYL DUNN; MAC FAULKNER; RICHARD A. GIDDINGS; MARIANNE GOSSER; DON HINDMAN; SHIRLEY LOWERY; BOB LYON; GEORGE A. MCCRARY; BOB MOORE; STEVE MORLEY; BUDDY RAINES; DAVID SAIN; BOB STENDER; DALE WARD; JOHN WARD; JUDY WEAR; GRAINGER WILLIAMS; PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIS'TRICT; STATE OF ARKANSAS; Defendants - Appellees OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR; Claimant - Appellee HORACE A. WALKER; P.A. HOLLINGSWORTH; KENNETH G. TORRENCE; PHILIP E. KAPLAN; JANET PULLIAM; JOHN BILHEIMER Movant - Appellees DALE CHARLES ; ROBERT L . BROWN, SR. ; GWEN HEVEY .J:ACKSON; DIANE DAVIS; RAYMOND FRAZIER Plaintiffs - Appellees - V. PULASKI COUNfY BOARD OF EDUCATION; 0. G. JACOYELLI, Individually and as President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District; PATRICIA GEE, Individually and in her official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock Schood District, A Public Body; DR. GEORGE CANNON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; JOHN f-OORE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; 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; DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; W. D. HAMILTON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; CECIL BAILEY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a Public Corporate; 11-IOMAS BROUGJITON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a Public Corporate; DR. MARTIN ZDLDESSY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a Public Corporate Defendants - Appellees November 5, 1996 jmh 96-2047 L.R. School Dist. v. Servicemaster Manag. Mr. Christopher John Heller FRIDAY \u0026 ELDREDGE 2000 First Commercial Building 400 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Joseph Steven Mowery GIROIR \u0026 GREGORY Suite 1900 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Everett EVERETT \u0026 STILLS P.O. Box 1646 3822 N. Parkview Drive Fayetteville, AR 72702 Mr. Samuel Arnold Perroni THE PERRONI LAW FIRM, P.A. 801 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2103 Mr. William Henry Trice III HOWELL \u0026 PRICE 211 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Wilson Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREETT Suite 504 401 w. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.C. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 16th Floor 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013 Mr. Philip K. Lyon JACK \u0026 LYON 3400 TCBY Building 425 w. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT \u0026 LINDSEY 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Mr. Nelwyn Leone Davis PULASKI COUN1Y ATTORNEY Suite 400 201 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim C. Humphries ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Office 0 Desegregation Monitor 510 Heritage West Building 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72204 Mr. Horace A. Walker Second \u0026 Center Streets 518 Pyramid Place Little Rock, AR 72203-1448 Mr. Perlesta Arthur Hollingsworth HOLLINGSWORIB LAW FIRM 415 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Kenneth G. Torrence 1721 Abigail Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Mr. Otis Henry Storey HOOVER \u0026 STOREY Suite 1100 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Petre's Stenograph Court Reporter PETRE S1ENOGRAPH SERVICE 207 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Jim McCormack Clerk U.S. DIS'IRICT COURT, EASTERN ARKANSAS Room 402 600 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 . . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. NOV 1 :5 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS Office 01 Deseg;s9aton Monilcrina IJ\\iTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION TO ENLARGE JACKSONVILLE NORTH AND SOUTH The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. The PCSSD presently operates Jacksonville North Junior High School and Jacksonville South Junior High School. By order dated March 27, 1996, this Court approved the conversion of one of these junior high schools to be operated as a middle school housing grades six and seven and the other as a junior high school housing grades eight and nine. 2. After having gone through the appropriate public forum process, the PCSSD has determined to operate Jacksonville North as the middle school and Jacksonville South as the junior high school. 3. This reorganization adds grade six to the middle school and therefore necessarily substantially increases the number of seats necessary to house all of the students in the t wo reconfigured schools. Because of this, the PCS SD seeks the permission of this Court to add eight ,classrooms at Jacksonville South and three classrooms to what is presently Jacksonville North. 4. Any impacts upon the residual racial balance in the two reconfigured schools will be positive. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for a further order of this Court authorizing the construction of these classrooms for the 1997-1998 school year. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By_-\u003e\u003c------'-\"\"?\"'\"\"9-..=-:.------'--\"-~=---J,,c=-\u003e------- M. A 76060) a ski County ict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On November / 2--, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 - IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPEC1AL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * NOV 1 i 1996 Office of Desegregalion Monuormg FilcD U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN Di STRICT ARKANSAS ;mv 1 21996 * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET.AL., * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Bv:Q'.7.w~ '- ~EPCLERK * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER Pending before the Court are several motions filed by the parties concerning the effect of the State's new funding formula on the Settlement Agreement. See docket entries 2668, 2685, 2690, 2695, 2715, and 2737. Also before the Court are the State's Motions to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Abstention [docket entries 2713 \u0026 2771] and a Motion to Intervene by a number of school districts in the state [docket entry 2715]. The Court has determined that a conference with the parties and movants would be useful in determining the status of the issues involved and the Court's alternatives in dealing with the matter. For example, the Court believes it might be helpful to determine whether the issues of teacher retirement and employee insurance can be addressed without awaiting resolution of the Lakeview case. This will not be an evidentiary hearing. Therefore, the Court will hold a conference on Tuesday, November 19, 1996, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3C (#305) of the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse Building. SO ORDERED this 12th day of November 1996. 2 NOV 1 5 1996 iWV 1 4 1996 Office of Desegregation M9nitormg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLERK , C, .....,_ :;,..-, . - - ..., . --~- -~---~ ..... ....... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL. ; * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER The Court has received the proposed 1996-97 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. See attached letter and budget document. The parties may file any objections to the proposed budget within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of en try of this Order. Af7\\ DATED this _11__ day of November 1996. --uNITErfST A TES DIST rH!S cocu:\u003c:F ,:: ;- :- - -J c; J '.),.::-.. : :\u003cET SHEET IN CC.,MPLIANCE w, l h nULE S8 Ai-JC/OR 79 (a) FRCP ~ ON II ( I 1 ( 9 fp 8Y 1C - ._ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor November 13, 1996 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax {501) 371-0100 The 1996-97 budget for ODM is attached for the parties' review and your approval. . TI1e format of our 1996-97 budget follows that of previous years, including annotation to explain revenue calculations, budget category definitions, 1995-96 budgeted and actual expenses by category, and the amount budgeted for each area in 1996-97. Most of the ODM expenditure categories for this year are budgeted comparably to last year. Any salary increases for ODM staff are 3.29%, which is the prevailing annual experience step increase on the three districts' salary scales. Again this year, I have chosen not to accept an increase in salary. You will note a marked increase in the Benefits category, due to the changes in the State's method of handling health insurance premiums and teacher retirement. These changes have similarly effected all three Pulaski County school districts, constituting a significant growth in this budget area. We have contained 1995-96 expenditures such that they were below the projected budget; once again, we have credited that difference proportionately to each of the school districts' pro rated contribution to our 1996-97 budget. If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: All Counsel OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 1996-97 BUDGET REVENUE 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET State of Arkansas 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 LASO 154,276.00 154,276.00 223,889.00 Credit (see note below) 44,455.00 44,455 .00 19,197.00 NLRSD 55,510.00 55 ,510.00 80,121.00 Credi1 (see note below) 15,995.00 15,995.00 6,870.00 PCSSD 125,014.00 125,014.00 184,831 .00 Credit (see note below) 36,023.00 36,023.00 15,848.00 Interest 6,123.96 Total Revenue 631 273.00 637,396.96 730756.00 Note: Every budget cycle, ODM credits each distnct a pro rata proportion of the unspent amount of the previous year's budget. We apply this amount toward the current budget allocation. See Annotated 1996-97 Budget. EXPENDITURES 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET Communications 7,870.00 7,641 .69 7,870.00 Dues and Fees 2,700.00 3,205.00 3,300.00 Eouipment 10,614.00 10,444.08 14,159.00 Food Services 250.00 204.98 250.00 Manaoement Services 3,000.00 292.50 3,000.00 Periodicals 500.00 453.84 500.00 Printino and Bindino 10,340.00 5,077.59 6,000.00 Prof. and Tech. Services 28,497.00 22,614.15 28,497.00 Rent 46,204.00 46,204.00 48,417.00 Repairs and Maintenance 1,231 .00 1,414.93 1,500.00 Resource Library 1,000.00 372.11 500.00 Salaries 444,854.00 425,981.98 468,904.00 Benefits 49 ,613.00 44,770.84 120,109.00 Staff Development 1,000.00 1,007.00 1,000.00 Supplies 7,750 .00 7,552.84 7,750 .00 Travel 15,850.00 18,244.12 19,000.00 Total Expenditures 631,273.00 595,481 .65 730,756.00 ANNOTATED ODM 1996-97 BUDGET REYE UE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Coop) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis ... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ... 10/1/95 % of Total 1996-97 Budget 1995-96 Credit 1996-97 Budget Enrollment Enrollment Allocation /Budget not spent) Payment LRSD 24.876 45.80 243,086.00 19.197.00 223.889.00 NLRSD 8.901 16.39 86,991 .00 6,870.00 80,121 .00 PCSSO 20.534 37.81 200.679.00 15,848.00 184,831.00 State of AR -0- -0- 200.000.00 -0- 200,000.00 Total 54,311 100.00 730,756.00 41 ,915.00 688,841.00 Step-by-step process used to determine districts' contributions to ODM 1995-96 budget: I. The State of Arkansas' contribution is subtracted from OD M's total budget: 730,756.00 200,000.00 530,756.00 2. Based on the previous year's October I enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the State's contribution): LRSD 530,756.00 X 45.80 243,086.25 NLRSD 530,756.00 X 16.39 86,990.91 PCSSD 530,756.00 X 37.81 200,678.84 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share of OD M's unspent 1995-96 budget: LRSD 243,086.25 -19,197.21 223,889.04 NLRSD 86,990.91 -6,869.92 . 80,120 .99 PCSSD 200,678.84 -15,848.18 184,830.66 4. Each district will contribute these amounts to ODM's 1996-97 budget: LRSD 223,889.00 NLRSD 80,121 .00 PCSSD 184,831 .00 Page 2 - EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 1995-96 Budget 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Expenditures Amount 7.870.00 7,641 .69 7,870.00 Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 2,700.00 3,205.00 3,300.00 The bulk of the 1995-96 expenditures were for seminar and conference registration fees; membership renewals were for $510.00, including membership fees of $250.00 for joining the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 10.614.00 10,444.08 14,159.00 We will upgrade our computer hardware by replacing six computers which are out-dated, overloaded, and repeatedly breaking down, resulting in extensive down time, lost data, and repair expense. We will also replace a thermo-paper fax with a plain paper fax. We will add a color copier to help trim out-of-office copying expenses. Page 3 Food Services: Expenditures for food or preparation and serving of food, which may include catering. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 250.00 204.98 250.00 Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 3.000.00 292.50 3,000.00 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals of less than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budget Expenditures Amount 500.00 453.84 500.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job pnntmg and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 10,340.00 5,077.59 6,000 .00 With last year's purchase of the Duplicating Management Program (DMP) and this year's purchase of a color copier, we will be able to do most printing in-house. The above budget is the annual cost of the DMP ($4,994.36) plus $1,000.00 for printing we cannot do in-house, such as letterhead and - envelopes. Page 4 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 1995-96 1995-96 Budoet Exoenditures 28,497.00 22,614.15 Arkansas Financial Services Temporary help/specialized services 1996-97 Budgeted Amount 28,497.00 23,497.00 5 000.00 28,497.00 The 1995-96 expenditures covered the services of three expert witnesses, a computer technologist, and additional office and administrative help. To date, ODM has not needed Arkansas Financial Services (AFS) to complete the terms of a previous agreement. However, because services ultimately may be required, we are electing to maintain the AFS agreement and, thus, have budgeted an allotment for AFS. Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 46,204 00 46 204.00 48 .417.00 According to the lease agreement negotiated in 1995, the 1996-97 rent will increase 4.7%. Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budget Expendilures Amounl 1,231 00 141493 1.500 00 Page 5 Resource Library: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 1.00000 372.11 500.00 Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 444 854 .00 425 .981 98 468,904 00 Most of the salary changes between 1995-96 and 1996-97 reflect a 3.29% increase, which is comparable to the annual step increase in the three Pulaski County school districts. Exceptions are noted below: Salaries: I Name of Emeloyee I 1995-96 Salary I 1996-97 Sala!}'. Ann Brown 1 104,1 64.00 Melissa Guldin 2 44.042.00 Gene Jones 3 33,031 .00 Norman Marshall 55,052.00 Marcie Powell 55,052.00 Horace Smith 55,052.00 Research Associate 4 26,000.00 Pollv Ramer 41,323.00 Linda Brvant 22,915.00 Jackie Banks 5 8,223.00 Total 444,854.00 1 Ann Brown declined to accept a salary increase for 1996-97. 2Melissa Guldin works 4/5 time. 104.1 64.00 45.490.00 47.815.00 56.863.00 56,863.00 56,863.00 26.000.00 42.683.00 23.669.00 8,494.00 468.904.00 I 3During 1995-96, Gene Jones increased his work time from 3/5 to 4/5 time. Therefore, his annual salary increased to $45,925.60, which included Gene's election to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits. 4Position not filled. 5Jackie Banks works 25 hours per week. Page 6 Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but arc over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 49.613.00 44.770 84 120,1 09.00 Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's budgeted fringe benefits: Name Travel Social Hospital- Lile Dental Hospital Short Retire- Total Allowance Securitv ization Ins. lndemnitv Term ment Benefits Brown 1,800.00 5.423.88 1,968.00 44.1 6 188.64 60.96 62.88 12.715.68 22.264.20 Guldin 1.200.00 3,571 .79 1,968.00 44.1 6 188.64 60.96 62.88 5,602.80 12.699.23 Jones 960.00 3.731 .29 5,853.00 10.544.29 Marshall 1.200.00 4.441 .82 1,968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 6,967.56 14,934.02 Powell 1,200.00 4 441 .82 1,968.00 44 16 188.64 60.96 62.88 6,967.56 14,934.02 Smith 1.200.00 4.441 .82 1,968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 6.967.56 14,934.02 Research 600.00 2.034.90 1,968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 3,192.00 8,1 51 .54 Ramer 3.265.25 1.968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 5,121 .96 10.n1.85 Brvant 1.810.68 1,968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 2.840.28 6.959.04 Banks 649.79 1,968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 1.019.28 3.977 15 Total 8.1 60.00 33.813.04 17,712.00 364.32 1.697 76 548.64 565.92 57,247.68 120.109.36 The following changes have occurred since the 1995-96 budget year, and are reflected above in the 1996-97 budget figures:  The State of Arkansas shifted the burden of the expense for health insurance from state funds to the employer, causing hospitalization to increase 227% per employee, from $50. l 0 per month in 1995-96 to $164.00 per month in 1996-97.  Long-term disability (workman's comp) is no longer available as an employee benefit.  Short-term disability increased 7%, from $4.90 per month in 1995-96 to $5.24 per month in 1996-97.  The State of Arkansas shifted the total expense of teacher retirement from state funds to the employer. causing an additional 12% expenditure.  Jackie Banks increased her working hours to 25 per week and, therefore, is now eligible to receive benefits.  Gene Jones again elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits. Page 7 Staff Development: Services performed by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 1 00000 1,00700 1 000.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out. or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 7,750.00 7,552.84 7,750.00 Travel: Expenditure for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 15,850.00 18.244.12 19,000.00 The 1995-96 expenditures exceeded the budget as a result of the travel expenses for the three expert witnesses called by Judge Susan Webber Wright. The 1996-97 budget reflects the potential for additional expert witnesses to be called on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors. Page 8 ~ . J l . .:-: i~) us c,~rr;r ~T ~._11,.'.iT ~A~--: i  r . ~7 ...._,~;,.J,''f1.S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOV 1 8 1996 fL'-11) - Dffice of Dosegrega!Jon ;'w.in:il'Jiin~ DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS r. PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DY~TRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ON TEACHER RETIREMENT AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUES Introduction In its most recent decision concerning the responsibilities of State of Arkansas pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, this court said: \"The state of Arkansas needs to focus on its obligation in the settlement to give the Pulaski County school districts special consideration to enable these districts to meet their numerous and burdensome obligations under the settlement. The court reminds the state of the Eighth Circuit's specific findings about the state's complicated and lengthy history of promotion of unconstitutional racial segregation which has led to this interminable litigation.\" Memorandum and Order, January 13, 1995, p. 16. Following a ~ulaski County chancery court determination that the Arkansas school finance system was unconstitutional, the state adopted the \"Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995.\" Ark. Code Ann. 6-20- 301 rt seq. Under the new finance system, Arkansas school districts are required to fund certain programs which were previously funded by the state, including teacher retirement and health insurance. The state funds which were previously used to pay the full cost of each Arkansas school district's teacher retirement and employee health insurance obligations are now distributed through the new formula which pays districts according to their average daily membership. As a result, there exists a huge gap between the Pulaski County districts and the rest of the state with respect to the proportion of state funding for teacher retirement and employee heal th insurance. As with the recently decided workers' compensation issue, \"[t]his disparity arose because the state's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d. 1013, 1018 (8th Cir. 1996). The Pulaski County districts' claims for fair treatment with respect to state funding of teacher retirement and employee health insurance are no different than their recent successful claims for a proportional share of workers' compensation funding. The state must distribute funds \"to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Id. 2 II. Teacher Retirement contribution The state budgeted $134,500,000 to fund teacher retirement for the 1996-97 school year. This money was distributed through the new funding formula according to average daily membership, which bears no rational relationship to a particular district's costs for teacher retirement. As a result, the percentage of actual teacher retirement contributions funded statewide excluding Pulaski County is 102. 89 percent. See Exhibit 1. The average funding in the Pulaski County school districts is 74.66 percent. LRSD receives only 68.57 percent of the cost of its teacher retirement contributions. PCSSD and NLRSD receive only 78.89 percent and 82.94 percent respectively of their cost of teacher retirement contributions. In a recent case squarely on point concerning state distribution of funding for workers' compensation insurance, this court refused to allow the Pulas "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1665","title":"Court filings concerning Joshua intervenor's fee petition of November 1995, LRSD's motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction, PCSSD teacher strike issue, and LRSD program and budget tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","School management and organization","School employees","School districts","Education and state","Lawyers","Teachers","Employee rights","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Joshua intervenor's fee petition of November 1995, LRSD's motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction, PCSSD teacher strike issue, and LRSD program and budget tool."],"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/1665"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["13 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) witness list; District Court, order; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, substituted motion to intervene by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, substituted claim in intervention of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court, motion for reconsideration; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for reconsideration; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration concerning their fee petition of November 1995; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion for reconsideration regarding their fee petition; District Court, motion for an extension of time to respond to Joshua's September 1996 motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, opposition of the Joshua intervenors to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for reconsideration of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply and memorandum brief in support of its reply to motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration concerning their fee petition of November 1995; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration regarding the teacher strike issue; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their motion for reconsideration regarding the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, order; District Court, response of the Joshua intervenors to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) extension request regarding Joshua intervenors' fee petition of October 1996; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) October program planning and budgeting tool FY 1998; District Court, motion to request Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, C:CT O 11996 vs. * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * * * * * * * * Intervenor. * ORDER OCi J 1996 Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for approval of the interdistrict magnet school budget for the 1996-97 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court in a letter dated September 12, 1996 [attached]. Any objections to this request must be filed on or before October 15, 1996. 5t IT IS SO ORDERED this / day of October 1996. \u003e n1~~~ \\~ TSDIRICJUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56 ANO/OR 79(a)FRCP ON I0/1196 BY vs:: \\ i 282 9 Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Direcior September 12, 1996 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 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: RECEIVED sus.~ER.s OF B=RWRrGrrr SEP 1 7 1996 U. S. DISTRICT Jl.JDGE (501) 758-0156 In a letter dated June 24, 1996, the Magnet Review Comfnittee submitted the 1996-97 interdistrict magnet schools' budget (labeled Draft 4) in the amount of $16,961,535 for your approval. The total amount budgeted was based on a per-pupil expenditure of $4,660 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,639.7 students. This budget submittal also showed an increase of $597 .00 per student over the 1995-96 budget, with the first year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. Draft 4 of the interdistrict magnet schools' budget, however, did not reflect any results of salary negotiations which were in progress. Salary negotiations have now been completed, and Draft 5 of the interdistrict magnet schools' budget is attached herewith. Draft 5 includes the revised salary figures and fringe benefits, as well as the first year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan. These factors have resulted in an upward adjustment for tne 1996-97 budget from $4,660 per-pupil expenditure to $4,782, an increase of $122.00 per student from Draft 4 submitted to you on June 24, 1996, and a resulting overall increase of $719 .00 per student over the 199 5-96 budget. The total revised budget amount for the 1996-97 interdistrict magnet schools' budget is now $17,361,466. The Magnet Review Committee approved this revised budget (Draft 5) during its regular meeting on September l 0, 1996. The MRC now respectfully requests your approval. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. One of our primary goals is to ensure efficient and effective cost containment while continuing to deliver attractive instructional programs. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise prudent oversight of the magnet schools' budget. !. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- September 12, 1996 Thank you for your consideration and response to this important matter. Sincerely, l~~ Magnet Review Committee ATTACHMENT: CC: 1996-97 lnterdistrict Magnet Schools' Budget (Approved Draft 5) Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM , 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6 0 S337,925 6 0 S352 057 60 S3625'2 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10 0 S498.372 10 0 S475 200 10 0 S464 55i 03 Spec1alIsts 39 2 S1 262,967 39.2 $1 ,261 .287 39 2 S1 .327 018 04 Counselors 12.4 $418.344 12.4 S476,775 12 4 S485.416 05 Media Spec. 6.5 S232.294 6 5 $237 .118 65 S246 812 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 00 $0 0.0 so 1 0 S33 000 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 08 Foreign Lano. 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 09 Vocat ional 12.6 S408. 793 12.6 $410,775 12 6 S410 213 10 Special Education 7.7 $303,215 8 2 $291 732 82 S277 703 11 Gifted 54 S197.313 54 $193,626 54 $199 281 12 Classroom 175 9 S5 544 709 176 9 S5. 770 069 177 9 S5 929 2;-5 13 Substitutes 0.0 S141 .654 co S162 174 00 S154 99C 14 Other-K1nderqarten 14.0 S430.419 14 0 S470.419 14 0 S493 279 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 289 7 S9 776.005 291 2 S10 101 232 293 2 S10 384 452 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 19 0 S331 .216 20 0 S360 466 20 0 S345 , ~ STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 S153,060 54 $159 275 54 S167 347 17 Custodians 28.5 S351 .307 29 0 S361 256 29 0 S394 758 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 SC 00 so 00 SC 19 Para professionals-Other 60 S130.786 60 S126 778 60 S147 035 20 Other-Aides 37 0 S269 245 37 0 S294 451 37 0 S305 326 21 Fringe 8enef1ts (20) xxxxxxxx S1 221 .133 S1 261 .!44 xxxxxxxx S3 207 241 TOT AL SUPPORT SAL.ARY 95 9 S2.456.748. 97 4 S2 563 571 97 4 S4 567 425 TOTAL (10-20) XXXXJO()O( S12 232.753 S12.664 903 xxxxxxxx S1.! 951 a:-s PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es x:xxxxxxx S529.201 $583 967 xxxxxxxx S5.91 944 SERVICES 23 Travel lOOOOOOO( S28.648 S44 557 xxxx:xxxx S33 .600 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOOO( so so xxxxxxxx SB 15J 25 Other lOOOOOOO( S125.316 S63 614 xxxx:xxxx S75 97  TOTAL (30) lOOOOOOO( S683.165 $692,137 S710 265 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office xxxxxxxx so so S3 600 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxxx S353.697 y S336 537 S373 203 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxxx $38,223 S47 864 S29 65J 29 Other $17,581 S21 , 103 $28 476 TOTAL (40) S409 501 y S405 .503 S434.929 CAPITAL 30 Equipment )()()00000( S122.540 S98 368 xxxxxx:xx S351 816 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair etc. xxxxxxxx so so xxxx:xxxx S5.500 (50) 32 Other lOOOOOOO( $0 y yy so S35C TOTAL (50) $122.540 y S98 368 xxxxxxxx S357 566 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )()()00000( $13,975 S15994 xxxxxxxx s~ .. 54.; (60) 34 other )()()00000( so so xxxxxxxx S~ I TOTAL (60) lOOOOOOO( S13.975 S16 994 xxxx:xxxx S11 64.! I TOTAL (30-601 )()()00000( S1 ,229, 181 $1 213 802 xxxx:xxxx S1 514 5:;.; I TOTAL (10-60 ) 385 6 S 13.461 ,934 388 6 $13 877 905 390 6 S16.466 382 TOTAL LINE ITEMS {SECOND PAGE) $816,096 S874 401 S895 064 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $14,278,030 xxxxxx $14,752,306 xxxxxx $17,361.466 Line Item Costs  Actual Actual Budaet 1994-95 1995-96 1996 -97 Stipends S 18 594 S20 833 S68 323 Other Ob1ects $0 so so Indirect Costs St35.687 S769 926 s-11 251 Vocational $15 065 $31 996 S32.000 Athletics $25 586 S30 952 S32 .000 Gifted Proqrams $498 S377 S500 Plant Services $17,460 $15 000 S 15.000 Read1nq S188 S417 $500 Science $0 so so Enol1sh $500 S900 S1 500 Special Education S2.518 S3 999 S4 000 xxxxxx $0 so so xxxxxx so so so xxxxxx so so so Total Line Items S816.096 $874 401 S895 064 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,522.80 3,630.89 3 630.89 Total r::osts $14.278,030 $14,752.306 $17 361 ,466 Per Pupil Cost $4,053 $4,063 $4,782 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94.95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Booker Magnet School . F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $56,095 1 0 $57 ,267 1 0 S59 663 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $52,333 1 0 S41 ,994 1 0 S40,672 03 Specialists 7.0 $217,496 7.0 $254,408 7 0 S261 ,827 04 Counselors 2.0 S67,432 20 $70,167 2.0 S,3 553 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,190 1.0 S39 000 1 0 S39.960 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 00 so 1.0 S33 000 07 MUSIC 00 $0 0.0 so 00 so 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 00 so 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1.3 $51,870 1.3 $52,948 1 3 S34 ,055 11 Gifted 1.0 $37,221 1.0 $38,031 1.0 S38,946 12 Cla ssroom 30.2 $965,196 30 2 S1 ,016,033 30.2 S1 031 ,056 13 Substitutes 0.0 $25,235 0.0 $16,708 00 S20 COO 14 Other-Kindergarten 40 $126,536 4 0 $127935 4 0 S134 40C TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1 .637,604 48.5 S1,714 .490 49 5 S1 767 31 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31 ,932 20 $32 915 20 S33 -23 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28.104 1 0 S30. 747 1 0 S30 :'25 17 Custodians 40 $50 716 4.0 S45.217 4 0 S53 110 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 00 so 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 00 so 00 so 00 so 20 Other-Aides 70 S55,860 70 $64 468 7 0 S62.894 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx:x S199,799 $209,864 S528.136 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14 0 $366.411 14 0 -$383,212 14.0 $708 596 TOTAL (10-20) . S2,004 016 $2.097 701 $2,475 727 .I PURCHASED 22 Ut!l1t1es $66.393  $77,731 $78 070 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxx:x S3.817 $6 721 S5 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aoreements xxxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxxx $10.475 S4 657 S2 780 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx:x S80 685 S89 108 S85 35C MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pa l's Office XlOOCOOO( xxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom XlOOCOOO( $48 677 $19 417 xxxxxxxx 342 J,9 (40) 28 Media XlOOCOOO( so S5 922 S6 sc 29 Other xxx:xxxxx S3 218 xxxxxxxx S3 518 S4 205 TOTAL (40) xxx:xxxxx $51 ,895 - S28 35- xxxxxxxx ~52 ~3! CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxx:xxxxx $15 651 S5.581 S4t Q\" I OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1nq Repair, etc. S2 500 (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $15.651 $5.581 S46 .921 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $0 $245 $250 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $0 $245 S250 TOTAL (30-60) $148,231 $123.791 $185455 TOTAL (10-60) 62.5 $2,152,247 62.5 $2,221 492 63 5 $2,661 182 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) S130,151 $134 187 S142998 GRAND TOTAL XlOCXXX $2,282,398 xxxxxx $2,355,680 xxxxxx $2,804,180 Line Item Costs  Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends $2,550 $7,428 S20.733 Other Objects Indirect Costs $117.710 $123,189 S118,602 Vocational $2,410 so so Athletics $4,094 50 so Gifted Programs $80 5117 $155 Plant Services $2,794 S2.550 S2.505 Reading $30 571 $84 Science 50 so so English $80 S153 $251 Special Education S403 S680 S668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $130 151 5134 187 s~2 998 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 19%-97 3rd Qtr ADM or Pro1 559 60 594 05 594 05 Total Costs S2 282.398 $2 355 680 $2804,180 Per Pupil Cost $4,079 $3,965 $4,720 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Carver Magnet School . F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budoet CERTIFIED 01 Pr1nc1pal 1.0 $49,673 1.0 S53,423 1 0 S55 761 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1 0 $39,816 1.0 $41,602 1.0 S43 871 03 Specialists 8 0 S287,352 8.0 $238,979 80 S262.515 04 Counselors 20 $63,337 20 S65,001 20 S68.259 05 Media Spec 1 5 $48,897 1 5 $50 145 1 5 S52 230 06 Art-Pert /Prod 00 $0 00 $0 00 so 07 Music 00 so 00 so 00 so 08 Fore1qn Lano 00 $0 0.0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 00 $0 00 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1 0 $45,076 1 5 S46.511 1 5 S48 9G1 11 Gifted 1.4 $52,136 1 4 $45.188 1 4 S57 800 12 Classroom 24 3 S630 244 24 3 S683,406 24 3 S707 479 13 Substitutes 0.0 $23,223 0.0 S36.998 00 S17.150 14 Other-K1nderQarten 4 0 S88 ,097 4 0 S121 858 40 S131 099 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44 2 S1,327 849 44 7 S1 383 111 .!4 7 S1445C64 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 S47,887 3 0 S47.543 30 ss 1 ce2 STAFF 16 Nurses 1 0 S31,806 1 0 S30,330 1 0 S34 275 17 Custodians 4 0 S41 ,564 40 S43,474 4 0 S45 328 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 0.0 so 00 so 00 SC 19 Pa raprofess1onals-Other 0.0 so 00 so 00 S:J 20 Other-Aides 11 0 $89,247 11 0 S91 .044 11.0 S94 342 21 Fnnqe Benefits(20) XXXX)O()O( S177,960 S185 651 S4 75.080 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $388,465 19.0 S398,042 19 0 S700 945 TOTAL (10-20) S1,716,314 S1.,781 ,153 S2, 146,009 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es $67,508 S65,064 S7.1.899 SERVICES 23 Travel $7,524 S18,594 $9 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $14,292 $7.181 S8 591 TOTAL (30) $89.324 S90.839 S89 490 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office XXXX)O()O( SUPPLIES 27 ReQular Classroom XXXX)O()O( S66 .365 S60 846 S68 OCO (40) 28 Media XXXX)O()O( $1 ,039 S11 530 S2 000 29 Other S3, 113 S3 942 xxxxxxxx S3 .500 TOTAL (40) XXXX)O()O( S?0,517 S76 318 xxxxxxxx S73,500 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXXX)O()O( $14,917 $6,070 xxxxxxxx S56.240 OUTLAY 31 Bulld1nq Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other XXXX)O()O( TOTAL (50) $14,917 S6 070 S56.240 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $6,495 S6,863 S3,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $6,495 $6 ,863 S3 .000 TOTAL (30-60 ) S181 .253 S180,090 S222.230 TOTAL (10-60 ) 63 2 S1 ,897 567 63 .7 S1 961 243 63 7 S2 368.239 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) S145 549 S123.660 S143 566 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $2,043,116 xxxxxx $2,084,903 xxxxxx $2,511 ,905 Line Item Co5ts - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends S9,973 S4 811 S28 990 Other Ob1ects Ind irect Costs $125,067 S115 -189 s111 189 Vocational S2.561 so so Athletics S4,350 so so Gifted Proqrams $85 S109 S145 Plant Services S2. 968 $2 400 S2 385 Reading S32 $67 S82 Science so so so English S85 S144 :5239 Special Education $428 S640 S636 xxxxxx XXJOOO( XXJOOO( Total Line Items $145549 S123 660 S143 666 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Otr ADM or ProJ. 582.50 595.67 595 67 Total Costs $2,043.116 S2.084 903 S2 511 905 Per Pupil Cost $3,507 $3,500 $4,217 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94.95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Gibbs Magnet School - F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $40,467 1.0 $46.100 1 0 $45 602 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1.0 $65,021 1 0 S44,974 1 0 S47 .653 03 Spec1al1sts 58 $164 ,180 5 8 $169808 5 8 $182 294 04 Counselors 1 0 $41 ,051 1.0 $41 ,861 1 0 $42,870 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $39,625 1.0 S39 140 1 0 $42,303 06 Art-Perf /Prod. 00 so 00 $0 00 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 00 $0 00 so 08 Fore1qn Lang. 0.0 $0 00 $0 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 00 so 10 Special Education 1 5 $71,708 1.5 $58 950 1 5 $56.132 11 Gifted 1 0 $34,567 1 0 S35 377 1.0 S24 850 12 Classroom 15 0 $423,335 15 0 S442 440 15 0 s~co 12a 13 Substitutes 00 $14 ,238 00 S9 030 00 S14.CCC 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $60,096 2 0 S6 1. ~17 2 0 S6~ ~37 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 29 3 $954 288 29 3 S949 396 29 3 s s8o -5a SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1 4 S12, 127 1 4 S19 010 1 4 S20 060 STAFF 16 Nurses 08 $10,787 0 8 S 12 958 08 S 13 702 17 Custodians 3 0 S40.155 30 $37 ,641 30 S38 323 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 00 SC 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 00 so 00 so 00 so 20 Other-Aides 5 6 S26,814 56 $33 864 5.6 $45 637 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) xxxxxxxx S119,391 S119 320 S31Q,946 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 S209,274 10.8 S222.793 10.8 S428.668 TOTAL (10-20) $1 ,163,560 $1 ,172.187 XlOOOOOO( S1 ,409 436 PURCHASED 22 Util1t1es xxxxxxxx S31 .890 S35 . 783 S38 ,577 SERVICES 23 Travel $1,479 $2 527 XlOOOOOO( S2.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements XlOOOOOO( S25C 25 Other $7,117 S4 255 XlOOOOOO( $2,100 TOTAL (30) $40.486 S42.565 S42.927 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office xxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxxx S25.601 II $19 527 )0000000( $35 000 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxxx $2,305 S5 291 S3 500 29 Other $1 ,542 $1 821 $1 860 TOTAL (40) xxxxx:xxx S29,449 S26.638 S40 360 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $12,842 S11 287 $49 035 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair. etc. (50) 32 Other T )0000000( TOTAL (50) )000()()()0( S12,842 S11 287 .xxxxxxxx S49.035 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees S1 321 S1 567 )0000000( S994 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $1 ,321 S1 567 S994 TOTAL (30-60) )000()()()0( S84,098 S82 057 $133 3'6 TOTAL (10-60) 40 1 S1247658 40.1 S1 254 245 40 .1 S1 542.752 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) S55 825 $71 178 S685\" 7 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $1,303,4')3 xxxxxx $1,325,419 xxxxxx $1,611,369 Line Item Costs - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends so so so Other ObIects Indirect Costs S51 ,498 S69 :94 Sc6 -, 3 Vocational S1 055 so so Athletics S1 .791 so so Gifted Proqrams S35 S60 580 Plant Services S1 222 S' ~50 S' 3C5 Read1na S13 S33 S42 Science so so so Enql1sh S35 S81 s2s Spec1ul Education $176 S360 S348 xxxxxx )()()()00( )()()()00( Total Line Items S55 825 S71 178 S661 - Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Qtr ADM or ProJ. 289 10 290 60 290 60 Total Costs S1 .303.483 $1 ,325.419 $1611 ,369 Per Pupil Cost $4,509 $4,561 $5 ,545 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96 -97 Williams Magnet School - F.T.E. Actual f .T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budciet CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 S60.896 1 0 S62. 128 1 0 $64 55 - STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1 0 $40,205 1 0 S41 ,246 1 0 $43 238 03 Speciali sts 5 0 $184 522 5 0 S188.658 5 0 S 195 7J8 04 Coun selors 1 4 S41 ,395 1 4 S50.648 1 4 S43 362 05 Media Spec. 1 0 S29.1 17 1.0 S30, 706 1.0 $32.313 06 Art-Peri /Prod. 0.0 so 0 0 $0 00 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 08 Fore1Qn Lanq 00 $0 0.0 so 0 0 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1.1 $29,147 1.1 $29,957 1. 1 S42,724 11 Gifted 2.0 $73,389 2.0 $75,030 2 0 $77.685 12 Classroom 20.0 S666 653 20 0 $704 799 20 0 S711 283 13 Substitutes 0.0 S11 467 0.0 $12.190 00 S16 CCO 14 0th er-Kinderciarten 3.0 S114,639 3.0 S117,049 3 0 s;19 _9-3 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 S1 .251 ,430 35 5 S1 .312 .612 35 5 S1 346 993 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 26 $37,966 2 6 S41 219 26 SJ2 227 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 S35.551 1 0 S36.694 1.0 S38 t.27 17 Custodians 3 5 S46,384 4 0 S48 426 40 S54,336 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 0.0 so 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 00 so 0.0 so 20 Other-Aides 90 S38 036 90 S42.437 9.0 S4 7 -;-5 21 Frinae Benefits(20' xxxxxxxx S 156.998 S163,340 $422.312 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.1 $314,935 16.6 S332.115 16 6 S605.078 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxxx $1 566,365 S1 644 726 S1 ,952.071 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es xxxxxxxx S39.636 S51 988 S52, 119 SERVICES 23 Travel xxx:xxxxx $558 )()000000( $1 573 $3 -oc (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other xxxxxxxx S13 .763 S3.-66 S4 65C TOTAL (30 ) xxx:xxxxx S53 957 )()C.()()()00( S5 7. 327 S60 .:es MATERIALS, 25 Princ1pal 's Office xxx:xxxxx )()C.()()()00( SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom xxx:xxxxx S54 558 S40 466 x:xxxxxxx S59 35t. (40) 28 Media xxx:xxxxx S4 034 )()00()()00( S5 163 S5,000 29 Other xxxxxxxx S1 713 S2 096 S1 366 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxx S60,306  S47, 726 S65 750 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxxx S15,921 )()000000( S28 553 S38 6J0 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1ng Repair etc. XXXXXlOO( (50) 32 Other S350 TOTAL /50) S15,921 $28.553 S38 950 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XXXXXlOO( $1 ,544 S3 304 S200 (60) 34 Other XXXXXlOO( TOTAL (60) $1 ,544 $3,304 S800 TOTAL (30-60) $131 ,729 S136 910 $165 969 TOTAL (1 0-60) 51 .6 $1 ,698,094 52.1 S1 781 ,636 52.1 $2.118 040 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $106,906 $106,894 $109,192 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxx $1,805,000 xxxxxx $1,888,530 xxxxxx $2,227,232 Line Item Costs - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends S3.232 S4 Oi2 S10.000 Other Objects Indirect Costs S95,639 $100 091 S96 364 Vocation al S1 ,958 so so Athletics S3 326 :50 so Gifted Proorams S65 $90 $120 Plant Services $2,270 $1 ,950 $1 935 Reading $24 $54 $63 Science $0 so so Enolls~ $65 $117 $194 Special Education S327 S520 ssc xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items S106 906 S106694 S109 192 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 . 1996-97 3rd Qtr ADM or ProJ. 449.80 496 17 496 17 Total Costs S1 805,000 $1 ,888 530 S2 227 232 Per Pupil Cost $4,013 $3,806 $4,489 1996-87 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Mann Magnet School . F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. BudQet CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $64 646 1 0 S65 818 1 0 S67 16C STAFF 02 Asst Pr1n 3 0 5146 643 3 0 5147 909 3 0 s31 J,2 03 Spec1al1sts 3.6 S102.932 3.6 S103 631 3 6 so3 o:o 04 Counselors 3 0 574 142 3 0 5114 903 3 0 Sl 19 49;- 05 Media Spec. 1 0 S42.120 1 0 S42 951 1 J S43 98 06 Art-Pert /Prod. 00 so 00 SC 00 so 07 Music 00 so 00 so 0 0 so 08 Fore1qn Lang 0.0 so 00 so 0 0 so 09 Vocational 5 6 5192 183 5 6 $198 :\"36 5 6 S'91 956 10 Special Education 1 3 S50.553 1 3 550 898 1 3 540 94;- 11 Gifted 00 so 00 so 00 so 12 Classroom 46 8 S 1 464,542 46 8 S1 ,524 966 4, 8 Si 5.!6 :-73 13 Substitutes 0.0 S36,319 00 S37,832 0 0 S36.200 14 Other-Kinderqarten 0.0 so 00 so 00 so TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65 3 S2.174.080 65 3 S2.287 643 66 3 S2 281 232 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 40 568,815 5.0 S82.502 5 0 sa5 41 ~ STAFF 16 Nurses 1 0 S32,359 1 0 S33 4 72 1 0 $34 275 17 Custodians 6.0 $66,778 6.0 S73 986 60 S74 94, 18 Paraorofess1onals-Chptr 1 0.0 so 0.0 so 00 SC 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1 0 $33,357 1.0 S31 ,444 1 0 S31 937 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $33,285 2.4 $33,901 2 4 S29445 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) xxxxxxxx S263.037 $275 972 S682 54c TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14 4 $497,631. 15.4 $531 ,276 15.4 S938 .558 TOTAL (10-20) $2,671.701 $2,818 921 $3 219 791 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es xxxxxxxx $155,343 $160,645 S169 940 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxxx $10,011 $6,563 xx:xxxxxx $6,900 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements $4 500 25 Other xxxxxxxx $45,210 $35,376 $36 980 TOTAL (30) )000()000( $210,564 S202.583 xx:xxxxxx S218320 MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pal's Office xxxxxxxx S2 750 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXXXlOOO( $81 026 S98 .129 S76 2r (40) 28 Media lOOOOOOO( S9.486 XXX)OOO()( 59 981 xx:xxxxxx S7 COC 29 Other xxxxxxxx $2,421 . S3. 929 xx:xxxxxx S5 90C TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxx S92.933 S112.039 S91 927 CAPITAL 30 Equipment )000()000( $37 285 $21 987 xxxxxxxx S80 520 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1nq Repair. etc. )000()()00( S3 OOC (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $37 285 $21 987 S83 520 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )000()000( $1 ,104 $1 277 S2 400 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $1 ,104 $1 ,277 S2.400 TOTAL (30-60) $341 ,886 S337 886 S396 167 TOTAL (10-60) 79 7 $3013,587 80 7 $3,156.807 81 7 S3 615 958 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $191 880 $205 681 S203 007 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxx $3,205,467 xxxxxx $3 ,362,488 xxxxxx $3,818,965 Line Item Costs - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 St1oends $480 $1 698 $4 600 Other Ob1ects Indirect Costs $176,565 $169 384 $163 077 Vocational $3,616 $15 998 $16 000 Athletics $6,140 $13 928 $14 500 Gifted Programs $118 so $0 Plant Services $4 190 $3 450 $3 450 Reading $46 $96 S115 Science $0 so so English $120 S207 S345 Special Education $605 S920 S92C XX)()()()( xxxxxx xxxxxx Tota l Line Items S191 880 $205 681 S203 007 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3ro Otr ADM or Pro1 842 80 82 1 75 s2 1 ,5 Total Costs S3 205,467 $3,362 488 S3818965 Per Pupil Cost $3,803 $4,092 $4,647 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Parkview Magnet School - F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 S66 148 1 0 $67 ,321 1 0 S69 939 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin 30 S 154,354 30 $157 ,476 3 0 S158. 145 03 Spec1alIsts 9 8 $306 ,485 98 $305 ,803 98 $321 014 04 Counselors 30 S130 987 3.0 $133,995 3.0 $137,875 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,345 1.0 S35, 176 1.0 S36.020 06 Art-P erf./P rod. 0.0 $0 00 so 0.0 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 00 $0 0.0 so 08 Fore1qn Lanq. 00 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 09 Vocatio nal 7 0 $216,610 7 0 $212,039 7.0 $218,257 10 Special Education 1 5 $54 861 1 5 $52,468 1 5 $54 946 11 Gifted 0 0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 12 Classroom 39 6 $1 394 739 40 6 $1,398.425 40 6 S1 472.557 13 Substitutes 0.0 S31 172 00 $49,417 00 S51 640 14 Other-Kind erg art en 1 0 S41 051 1 0 S41 .861 1 0 S42 e-c TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66 9 S2.430 752 67 9 S2 453 979 67 9 S2 563 :252 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 S132 489 60 S137 277 60 s1 1 2.:39 STAFF 16 Nurses 06 S14 453 0.6 S15 075 06 S15 9.;,: 17 Custodians 80 S105.710 80 $112.513 8 0 s12e e48 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 00 so 19 Paraorofess1ona ls-Other 5 0 S97.429 so S95 334 so S1i5C98 20 Other-Aides 20 S26,003 2.0 S28 739 2.0 S25. 231 21 Fringe Benefits(20} lOOOOOOOC $303.948 $307 297 $788 222 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21 .6 $680,032  21 .6 $696,234 21 6 $1 ,185581 TOTAL (10-20) $3,110,784 $3,150,214 $3.748844 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es lOOOOOOOC $168,431 $192,757 S181 ,339 SERVICES 23 Travel SS,259 $8.580 S7 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements lOOOOOOOC S4 COO 25 Other lOOOOOOOC S34 459 S8,379 S20 :::-D TOTAL (30) S208.149 S209,715 s2132:;9 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office Sc::O SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom S77 470 S98, 152 XlOOOOO\u003cX S92 .:s3 (40) 28 Media S21,359 $9.976 S6 COO 29 Other $5 574 $5,796 S11 625 TOTAL (40) $104 403 $113,924 $110 958 CAPITAL 30 Equipment S25.924 S24,889 S83 000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. vvvvvvvv (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $25,924 S24,889 . S83.000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees S3 511 S3. 738 S4 200 (60) 34 Other xx:xxxxxx )()0()()000( TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxxx S3 511 S3. 738 XlOOOOO\u003cX S4 2CJO TOTAL (30-60) )()()0()()00( S341 987 S352 267 XlOOOOO\u003cX S41 1 367 TOTAL (10-60) 88 5 S3452,771 89 5 $3 502,481 89 5 S4160211 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $185 785 $232 801 S227 ::'.l4 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $3,638,556 xxxxxx $3 ,735,282 xxxxxx $4,387,815 Line Item Costs  Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 St1oends $2 359 S2 824 $4 000 Other Ob1ects Indirect Costs S,69 208 5192 482 S'.85 316 Vocationa l SJ 465 S15 998 S16 000 Ath let ics S5 885 517023 S 17 500 Gifted Proorams $115 so so Plant Services $4 016 SJ 300 S3 420 Read1nq $43 596 S 114 Science so so SC Enolish $115 S198 5342 Special Eaucat1on 5579 S880 :591: XXXXX:\u003c XX)()()()( XX)()()()( Total Line Items S185,785 5232 801 S227 604 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Otr. ADM or ProJ. 799.00 832.65 832 65 Total Costs S3.638.556 $3.735 282 S4387815 Per Pupil Cost $4,554 $4,486 $5 ,270 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF Pllli A!Kfe'duNTY, ARKANSAS ~ 4~ o'3 R LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 Ot) oc1 -, r EC Er .r\"F?~ OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS; ME.KiBER~ ~- ,' '-. ts~.Y, OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, J.L. WILS~ffQ~~~,b,.R\\\\~~sP-S OCT i PRESIDENT; ODELL DA VIS, JR., VICE PRES'ID'ENT; 1996 SIDNEY FITZHUGH, SR., MEMBER; IRMA MOREHOUSE, SECRETARY; WILLIAM WARD, Office of Desegregat;or, IAOOi!011fl MEMBER; VELMA LARKIN, MEMBER; GENORA ......, FRAZIER, MEMBER; AND LEON PHILLIPS, JR., SUPERINTENDENT PLAINTIFFS vs. NO. 92-5318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; JIMMIE LOU FISHER LUMPKIN, TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; REP. BOBBY HOGUE, SPEAKER OF THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STANLEY RUSS, PRESIDENT PROTEMPORE OF THE ARKANSAS SENATE; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GENE WILHOIT, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JAMES McCLARTY, CHAIRMAN; EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., MEMBER; CARL E. BAGGETT, MEMBER; GARY BEASLEY, MEMBER; MARTHA DIXON, MEMBER; WILLIAM B. FISHER, MEMBER; JAMES WHITMORE, MEMBER; LUKE GORDY, MEMBER; BETTY PICKETT, MEMBER; ELAINE SCOTT, MEMBER; RICHARD SMITH, MEMBER; SHERRY WALKER, MEMBER WITNESS LIST DEFENDANTS Comes now the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order, and for its Witness List, states as follows: James Smith, Superintendent orth Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8000 Barry K.incl North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8000 and Danny Reed Director of Special Education North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8000 These witnesses will testify generally concerning the impact of the state funding formula on the North Little Rock School District. Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (50n1) 375-1122 d-;p ;f{ \u0026J :- /J ! vU-~Y STEPHEN W. JONES # ZJS083 ALLEN CARNEY #94122 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 1st day of October, 1996 sent via U.S. Mail one copy of the foregoing to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 William P. Thompson James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jimmy Lee Wilson 801 Perry Street Helena, Arkansas 72342 Bill Llewellyn P.O. Box 287 M~=g;;;;;: u]~ Stephen W. Jones 3 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * * FiL~D ~ US OISTi\":ICT COU~T EA.:, TERIJ DISTRICT I\\R;-ANSAS OCT O 2 1996 JAMi:Sr~~ORivlACK, CLERK By: \\_~JUb\u0026QT\\ / DEP CLER!( OCT 3 1996 Intervenor. * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Office of Desegregation Mornionng * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRQER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors asking the Court to issue a written order setting forth its ruling on the Pulaski County Special School District's motion for equitable relief [doc. # 2780]. In that motion, the PCSSD asked the Court to order striking teachers back to work. The Court grants the Joshua Intervenors' motion [doc. # 2822]. At the conclusion of the August 29, 1996 hearing on the motion, which the Court treated as a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court directed the court reporter to transcribe the Court's findings and file them as the Court's Order. See doc. # 2786. On August 30, 1996, the findings were filed as a transcript. See doc. # 2801. (sc.t.- .fr.1,1rosa-,f\u003e+ .f.ld ,..,. /i'b,4 .--y) The Court, therefore, pursuant to the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the transcript filed on August 30, 1996, hereby grants the motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District on August 27, 1996. 11\u0026 SO ORDERED this 2-_ day of October 1996. ; fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 5\" AN,A 79(1!}.FRCf' IN ON dJ,fd,/96 BY 17  \\~  2 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS; MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, J.L. WILSON, PRESIDENT; ODELL DA VIS, JR., VICE PRESIDENT; SIDNEY FITZHUGH, SR., MEMBER; IRMA MOREHOUSE, SECRET ARY; WILLIAM WARD, MEMBER; VELMA LARKIN, MEMBER; GENORA FRAZIER, MEMBER; AND LEON PHILLIPS, JR., SUPERINTENDENT vs. NO. 92-5318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; JIMMIE LOU FISHER LUMPKIN, TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; REP. BOBBY HOGUE, SPEAKER OF THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STANLEY RUSS, PRESIDENT PROTEMPORE OF THE ARKANSAS SENATE; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GENE WILHOIT, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JAl'1ES McCLARTY, CHAIRMAN; EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., MEMBER; CARLE. BAGGETT, MEMBER; GARY BEASLEY, MEMBER "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_234","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and 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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1996-10-01"],"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","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and 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/234"],"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":["124 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- Linle Rock School Dis1ric1 Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting October 24, 1996 LRSD BIRACIAL COMMITTEE The Biracial committee for LRSD continues holding monthly established meetings. The committee completed the election_ of officers at the October 1, 1996, meeting. The officers are: Jerome gundue - Chairman Jack Gilbert - Co-Chairman Ann Scoggins - Secretary At the October meeting the Bi-racial committee received an overview of the monitoring process by Dr. Ed Jackson. Director of Planning, Research. and Evaluation. along with Dr. Paul Smith, LRSD monitor. Attached (attachment 1) is a copy of an addendum added to the 1996-97 Monitoring Instrument used by the Biracial Committee. The Office of Desegregation and Monitoring suggested that the recruitment section of the plan be covered during the monitoring process, therefore, the committee accepted the addendum. The next meeting will be on ovember 5, 1996, at 6:00 p.m .. LRSD COUNTS The official October 1, 1996, count submitted to the State Department is attached (attachment 2). This official count compares the 1996-97 with the 1995-96 count. An enrollment report (attachment 3) shows enrollment by school and grade at all LRSD schools on October 1, 1996. (Note: The report shows \"LRSD Internal Report\" because the official report submitted to State Department does not include totals. The grand total submitted to the State Department is 47 students less than our count shows due to the \"special schools\" which are Elizabeth Mitchell, Easter Seals, and a NLR facility for children with disabilities.) Attached (attachment 4) is the 4 year old count for schools that provide a 4 year old program. This count indicates the number enrolled as of October 1, 1996, the number of vacancies at each school, and capacities. I From: ,i:1?-- Return D Keep or Toss 131- [ Post-II 7668 03M 1993 ADDENDUM TO LRSD BIRACIAL COMMITTEE INCENTIVE SCHOOL CHECKLIST 1996-97 STUDENT RECRUITMENT PROGRAM ATTACHME1N T SCHOOL: ___________ PRINCIPAL: _________ _ MONITORS:--------~--- DATE: ______ _ 1. A student recruitment plan is in place. YES NO EVIDENCE: --------------------- 2. A student recruitment committee is in place. YES NO EVIDENCE: _______________ _ 3. Total number of students recruited in the school during the last quarter._ Black__ White YES NO EVIDENCE: _______________ _ 4. Number of students newly recruited during the last semester. __ _ Black__ White YES NO EVIDENCE: _______________ _ ADDENDUM TO BIRACIAL COMMITTEE INCENTIVE SCHOOL CHECKLIST STUDENT RECRUITMENT PROGRAM Page2 5. Total number of parents who have toured your school for possible enrollment of students. -- Black -- White YES NO EVIDENCE: ___________________ _ Att Ii\u0026gt; /J /~,/ //o./ c\n~::S 1?'77 _P, ~ J\n,,JI - ~I -/ C) -~.\n:)- /07..3 \u0026amp;,~ -' ,iill' /?-0 e,/?. ~ -/,J ~p\nt-d1I ~? /?7 __\nJl J?~.3 d/.,,YJ::, - /3 -..3 0 - /t\n, ..5Y,I /9-y .:\n'7] FO?' 7\n.l .. - I 0 -------------------------------------- 0 ' 95-96.XLS Little Rock School District October 1. 1996 Comparison Comparison - October 2. 1995 to October 1 1996 October 2. 1995 II October I. 1996 \"\" ... .'!, ... 0. . 2 QJ : \"0 \" \"0 \" 2 QJ .\n~ .c .. .. ~ .c ------- --- cii\n::. cii cii 0 ~ central Hs  1017 543 31 1591 63.92% !1().J0,..,,635 38 1777 Fair HS --- 651 246 8 905 71.93% -Me\\} 168 6 813 Ha!JHS - - - --- ----- 626 262 40 928 67.46% 597 197 29 823 McCteitan fis0 - - 727 6 S0A2% 766~ 151 171 90~ 9 926 ---------- - Parl\u0026lt;ViewHs -1-17 373 35 855 52.18% 458h'f 385 36 879 Sob-Total 3468 1595 120 5183 66.91% --..665 1536 118 5218 w/o Magnets 3021 1222 85 4328 69.80% -1151 82 4339 Cloverdale JH 527 73 9 609 86.54% 553~ 70 16 639 Dunbar 1w -1-lO 279 13 732 60.11% 451 ~ 299 25, 775, forest Heights JH 576 165 16 759 76.15% 485 135, 10 6301 Henderson JH .. 623 152 17' 792 78.66% 610 116 15 741 -- Mabe/vale JH 363 125 3 491 73.93% 347 116 5 468, Mann JH 451 382 14 847 53.25% 443 395 16 854 Pulaski Heights JH 447 327 7 781 57.23% 462. 314 9 785 Southwest JH 512 84 16 612 83.66% 466 113 15 594 Sub-Total 3941 1587 95 5623 70.09% 3817 1558 111 5486 w/o Magnets 3490 1205 81 4776 73.07% 3374 1163 95 4632 Badgect 166 -1-l 0 210 79.05% 185 32 2 219 Bate 243 85 19 347 70.03% 266 94 15 375 Baseline 247 75 5. 327 75.54% 241 56 5 302 ffooker 316 267 21 6().J 52.32% 313 272 18 603' Brady 250 124 20 394 63.45% 236, 103 32 371 Carver 326 290 13 629 51.83% 311 i 274, 19 604 Chicot 345 99 8 452 76.33% 3641 127 27 518 I Cloverdale 384 64 5 453 84.77% 439 51 10 500 Dodd 190 97 7 294 64.63% 156 82 4 242 Fair Park 211 53 6 270 78.15% 1931 55 7 255, Forest Park 205 222 8 435 47.13% 2181 227 4 449 Franklin 400 24 7 431 92.81 % 4141 31 7 452 FU/bright 255 254 9 518 49.23% 265 227 8 500 Carland' 235 2 18 255 92.16% 2541 6 17 277 Geyer Springs 231 71 8 310 74.52% 233, 69 8 3101 Gibbs 165 132 10, 307 53.75% 1601 146 I 6, 312' Jefferson 210 285' 6 501 41.92% 207 282'. 81 4971 King- 289 230 12' 531 54.43% 332 279 11, 6221 Mabe/vale 318' 139 3, 460 69.13% 308f 1041 6 4181 McDermott 259 213 151 487 53.18% 277[ 196 16 4891 Meadowcliff 3051 931 2: 400 76.25% 285[ 82 6 373I Mitchell' 2501 7' 01 2571 97.28% 248 12 21 262I Ottercreek 1391 193' 7' 3391 41.00% 132[ 1701 81 310[ Putaski Heights 1891 207 10. 406 46.55% 245 2001 91 4541 RightseW 210, 6' 31 219 95.89% 237 SI 41 2461 Rockefeller 259 131' 161 406 63.79% 266 1551 151 436 Romine- 213\n80 9 302 70.53% 201 82[ 21 ! 304I Terry 2391 279 18, 536 44.59% 231 2661 181 515I Wakefield 368 51 JO! 4291 85.78% 3851 381 131 4361 washing ton - 422 210 241 656, 64.33% 392 2721 44, 708 Watson 353' 84 7' 444 79.50% 394 801 51 479 Western Hills 2081 106 1 315 66.03% 219 92[ 1 I 3121 Williams 264 232' 12, 508 51.97% 2591 2261 16[ 501 Wilson 304' 72' 8, 3841 79.17% 294 57[ 11 I 362 woodruff 1701 81 ! 31 254 66.93% 185 SOI 31 268 Special Schools 17i 291 01 46 36.96% 16 311 0I 47 Sub-Total 9155 i 4631 330114116, 64.86% 9361 I 4561 I 406 1 14328 I w/o Magnets 8067: 3681 274 12022 67.10% 83021 36121 3471122611 .'!, \"\" 0. . cii 62.13% 78.72% 72.54% 82.72% 52.10% 68.32% 71.61% 86.54% 58.19% 76.98% 82.32% 74.15% 51.87% 58.85% 78.45% 69.58% 72.84% 84.-17% ~0.93% 79.80% 51.91 % 63.61% 51.49% 70.27% 87.80% 64.46% 75.69% 48.55% 91.59% 53.00% 91.70% 75.16% 51.28% 41.65% 53.38% 73.68% 56.65% 76.41 % 94.66% 42.58% 53.96% 96.34% 61.01% 66.12% 44.85% 88.30% 55.37% 82.25% 70.19% 51.70% 81.22% 69.03% 34.04% 65.33% 67.71% Grand Total 16564 7813 545 24922 66.46% :l\u0026amp;Ui I 7655 I 635 1 25032 [ 66.89%  Magnet  Magnet Program 11 Incentive - lnterdistrict Office of Student Assignment ATTACHME2N T II :?:- :?:- .u. .u. .C. . .C. .' 0 o'\n- 1891 -114 954 -141 1291 -468 1199 -273 1000 -121 6335 -1117 5335 -996 868 -229 812 -37 858 -228 907 -166 614 -146 0 850 4 745 40 737 -143 6391 -905 5541 -909 257 -38 401 -26 390 -88 656 -53.., 467 -96 613 -9 558 -40 492 8 328 -86 351 -96 399 50 434 18 540 -40 0 298 -21 328 -18 353 -41 492. 5 728 -106 515 -97p 517 -28 465 -92 298 -36 351, -41 ~ Q ~t-1~' t~ 374 80 258 -12 469 -33 487 -183 515 o_ 492 -56 .. 836 -128 492 -13 328' -16 '\\.Q. j ~ ~l- ~~ \" ~f 517, -16 394 -32 324\n-56 \", 15717 -1389 13578 I -1317 28443 -3411 ~\\ c) ~ ~,Jy,,'j_ ,,. - v ~ 0 --- z / C~)/\n\" I ~I I 3_\n 97 ~/4 /3 e: /\u0026lt;:, R/ C 0 / / 77 , ATTACHME3N T October I State Department Enrollment Report (LRSD I~TER:\\Al REPORT) -- - - - - --- - ---------- - - - - -- --- - All Enrolled Students: /JI-( lct-W, ---------- -- - ------------ --------- 001 CE 'TRAL Grade Classes Wi\\l \\VF BM BF Hl\\1 HF :\\:\\ 1 AF li\\1 IF Total -:\n\u0026lt; I J ID 125 128 2:!7 249 3 2 5 5 (I () 7-U ~I ~ II 106 94 146 170 () 5 4 () 527 0 12 73 108 112 155 () 2 -+ 6 (I () 460 ~ KF 2 0 I 15 16 () () () () 0 0 32 97~ s 0 0 11 3 () () () 0 () () 14 TOTAL FOR CENTRAL 304 331 511 593 3 5 14 15 0 1 1777 002 HALL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ~ 3\n) 10 22 26 104 96 -+ 2 3 0 0 258 11 35 39 103 93 2 -+ 2 0 0 279 /::\n1%\u0026gt; 12 24 43 77 95 2 2 5 0 0 249 0 KF 2 7 6 0 0 0 () 0 0 16 / s 4 1 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 '?I A TOTAL FOR HALL 86 111 303 294 8 4 11 6 () 0 . 823 003 MANN MIS Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 56 84 70 78 2 0 2 0 \"294 08 49 75 57 92 1 2 2 0 1 280 09 62 69 60 86 0 2 0 0 0 280 TOTAL FOR MANN MIS 167 228 187 256 3 4 4 3 0 2 854 005 PARKVIEW Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total -,\u0026lt; 0 w 10 72 70 82 80 2 3 0 0 311 / .\n$. 13 11 56 82 56 102 4 5 2 0 0 308 0 12 50 55 57 68 3 4 2 5 2 247 / ::J KF 1 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 ,1G!V ?a TOTAL FOR PARKVIEW 178 207 202 256 8 10 6 9 2 1 879 006 BOOKER Grade Classes WM WF BM BF BM HF AM AF IM -IF Total 01 5 16 17 19 23 2 0 2 0 0 0 79 02 3 18 16 21 23 0 2 0 0 0 81 03 3 23 16 19 22 0 1 0 0 0 82 04 4 23 23 26 22 0 2 I 0 0 98 05 4 14 32 27 21 1 0 0 0 97 06 4 21 20 24 28 0 1 I 0 0 0 95 KF 4 13 20 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 TOTAL FOR BOOKER 128 144 152 161 3 7 7 l 0 0 603 007 DUNBAR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 51 45 80 91 3 2 2 2 0 0 276 08 58 48 78 59 3 1 2 2 0 252 09 38 59 68 74 3 3 0 0 0 246 s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FOR DUNBAR 147 152 227 224 7 6 7 4 () 775 LRSD Information Senices Department I -- -- - - ------------- -- - - All Enrolled Students: ///-( le 1-'H, ---- - ------ - -- - --------- ----- - 008 F:\\IR Gradr Classrs \\\\\n\\I \\\\F B\\1 BF II \\I II F .-\\ \\I .-\\F 1\\1 IF Total - -- --- - - - - - --- ----- -- ~ ---tl- -tr + _j.). -tr --- -ti --11 H- -tt- 'y1 Ill 21 -'1' - l :\n5 12(, (I () () () JI(, 11 2  31 103 lll\u0026lt;J () () () 270 12 27 27 71 7  I) II () () () 200 s  2 l  7 (I () () () () () 27 TOTAL FOR FAIR 76 92 ~16 2 0 2 2 0 0 ~ti 009 FORST HT Grade Classes WM -WF BM BF HM HF Al\\l AF IM IF Total 07 25 16 79 73 (I () 0 0 195 08 26 19 82 87 2 () () 0 218 09 19 22 80 70 0 2 () 2 0 0 195 s 4 4 12 2 0 0 () () 0 0 22 TOTAL FOR FORST HT 74 61 253 232 2 3 3 2 0 0 630 010 PUL HT J Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 51 52 91 68 0 3 0 0 267 08 58 59 7  77 0 0 0 0 270 09 -+3 47 78 65 I 0 () I 0 0 235 s 3 I 5 -+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 TOTAL FOR PUL HT J 155 159 2-+8 21-+ 1 2 :z -+ 0 0 785 011 SOUTHWST Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 29 25 84 54 I 4 0 0 0 198 08 14 10 83 85 2 2 0 0 0 197 09 11 21 81 65 3 0 0 0 0 182 s 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 TOTAL FOR SOUTHWST 56 57 261 205 6 7 0 2 0 0 59-+ 012 MCCLELLA Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ~ 0 cJ 10 29 21 155 150 0 2 0 0 0 358 /.:5 \u0026amp;\u0026gt; 11 19 20 109 126 3 1 0 0 0 279 L- 12 27 31 88 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 251 /~ KF 0 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 )6 s 2 2 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 9-fl., TOTAL FOR MCCLELLA 77 74 375 391 3 i 2 0 1 0 926 013 HENDERSN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 19 12 110 88 2 1 2 0 () 235 08 22 9 101 96 1 0 0 0 231 09 28 24 87 106 5 0 0 0 0 251 s 2 0 17 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 TOTAL FOR HENDERSN 71 45 315 295 7 2 4 1 0 741 015 CLOVRJR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 9 11 91 89 4 () () 0 0 205 08 8 9 97 99 3 I 2 () 0 220 ] LRSD Information Services Department -----  -------- ------------ ---------- --- . ------- - - . All Enrolled Students: 0 /-( h 1-96 ------------ -------- ----------- - ---- -- ( I') 17 15 'S. - 'S -' () 2 (I (I :!05 s I (I 7 (I () () (I () (I ') TOTAL FOR CLOVR JR 35 35 282 271  6  2 0 II (,39 016 MABELJR Grade Classes Wl\\1 WF 81\\1 BF Hl\\1 HF :\\1'1 AF 11\\1 IF Total 07 21 11 5-l 62 () 0 () () 2 () 150 08 25 1-l  8  6 {) () () () () 13  09 17 22 68 GO () 0 0 () 169 s 3 3 3 6 () () 0 () 0 () 15 TOTAL FOR MABEL JR 66 50 173 174 1 2 0 (I 2 0 468 1117 BALE Grade Classes WM \\VF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 8  19 17 0 () I 0 0 50 02 3 4 6 22 16 0 l 0 () 0 0 49 03 5 2 18 13 0 0 0 0 0 () 38 O  2 8 7 15 15 0 I 0 () 0 47 05 3  5 17 14 0 0 0 () 0 41 06 5 2 21 12 0 0 0 0 0 41 E  5  0 0 0 0 0 0 14 KF  10 4 15 25 3 2 0 0 0 0 59 PK 10 5 9 9 0 0 0 36 V TOTAL FOR BALE 55 39 141 125 4 5 4 1 0 375 018 BRADY Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 IO 12 18 13 0  0 l 60 02 3 8 5 20 18 0 0 0 0 53 03 3 8 9 18 8 0 3 2 0 0 49 04 3 7 4 20 12 0 2 0 0 47 05 8 0 8 6 2 I I l 0 0 27 06 2 5 6 24 13 0 2 0 I 0 0 51 E 4 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 4 3 10 23 20 2 l 0 0 0 0 59 PK 2 4 6 4 0 0 0 0 18 TOTAL FOR BRADY 52 51 141 95 4 9 10 8 0 t 371 019 BADGETT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 3 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 02 1 2 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 03 l 3 2 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 20 04 3 0 4 11 10 0 0 0 0 0 26 05 0 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 06 2 2 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 E 0 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 KF 2 3 2 20 IO 0 0 0 () 0 0 35 PK 3 3 17 8 0 0 () 0 0 0 31 TOT AL FOR BADGETT 14 18 107 78 II 0 0 0 II 2 219 0211 MCDERMOT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Scnices Department 3 --- - - ---- -- - -- ---------- -- - --- --- ----- - -- - - All Enrolled Students: (/ /-( ). 1-'J(, --- --- -- --- ----- ------ ---- -------- -- !ii I 'J 12 IX 24 (I II II II II 74 112 12 I:, 2X Ii II II II i~ o:\n3 17 17 20 17 (I () 2 () () H 04 3 Ll 12 19 25 () () () (I () 70 05 3 11 11 22 22 () () 2 I) () () 68 0(\u0026gt; 3 18 10 18 21 () 2 () () () 70 u 3 16 13 19 7 () () () 58 TOTAL FOR MCDERMOT 106 90 1-U 133 3 3 6 4 0 0 489 021 CARVER Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF 11\\1 IF Total 01 3 17 13 17 18 () () 2 () 0 68 02 4 21 17 24 19 0 0 2 0 0 84 03 4 23 14 33 16 I I 0 3 () 0 91 04 3 26 19 32 18 0 1 0 0 98 05 4 23 24 24 29 0 () () 103 06 4 33 17 32 20 0 0 0 0 0 103 KF 3 17 10 17 12 0 0 () 0 0 57 TOTAL FOR CARVER 160 114 179 132 I 4 6 8 0 0 604 022 BASELINE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 3 16 20 0 0 0 0 () 0 40 02 5 17 17 0 0 I 0 0 0 41 03 2 4 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 04 2 4 2 15 13 0 0 0 0 0 35 05 2 1 1 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 06 1 3 8 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 30 E 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 4 6 9 25 17 0 0 0 0 1 59 PK 7 4 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 TOTAL FOR BASELINE 27 29 124 117 I 1 I 0 0 2 302 023 FAIRPRK Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 2 2 16 10 0 0 0 0 32 02 2 2 3 18 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 03 2 5 2 11 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 04 2 3 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 28 05 2 2 13 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 06 2 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 KF 2 7 5 13 14 0 0 0 0 0 40 PK 10 6 7 IO 0 0 0 36 TOTAL FOR FAIR PRK 32 23 102 91 4 I I 0 0 255 024 FORST PK Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 21 17 15 19 0 0 0 0 0 73 02 4 17 21 19 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 03 17 18 13 18 0 0 0 I 0 0 67 04 2 14 16 12 JO 0 0 () 0 0 53 LRSD Information Senices Department -I -------- -- - - ---------------------- --- - ---- - --- ,\\II Enrolled Students: 0/-Clu-'II -- ------ - - -- --- --- ----- O:i 2 11 II I Ir, Ir, II II ii II ll ='-+ 11(, ' I-+ I 'J 15 20 II II () () 11 (I (,X KF 3 19 13 16 12 II () (I () () () (,11 TOTAL FOR FORST PK I 13 11-+ 106 I I::? 0 I) 3 0 0 -+-+') 025 FRANKLIN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF Ai\\1 AF IM IF Total 01  2 28 \"? '- () () 0 0 () () 63 02 3 0 32 30 0 0 0 0 0 () 63 03 3 2 27 19 1 () 0 0 () 0 50 0-+ 3 () 2 8 18 0 () 0 0 0 0 28 05 3 () 18 23 0 2 0 0 0 0  06 2 () 17 21 I 0 () 0 () () .JO E 2 I 7 4 0 () 0 () 0 0 14 Kf 5 3 5 32 37 () 0 0 I 0 0 78 PK 5 4 24 37 I 0 I 0 0 0 72 TOT AL FOR FRANKLIN 16 15 193 221 3 2 1 0 0 452 026 GARLAND Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 0 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 02 2 0 I 17 17 3 l 0 0 0 0 39 03 2 0 0 18 10 0 0 0 0 0 29 o .. 3 0 0 19 16 3 0 0 0 0 39 05 2 0 0 14 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 06 2 0 0 16 15 l 2 0 0 0 0 34 E 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Kf 2 l 14 21 2 0 0 0 0 40 PK 0 8 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 18 TOTAL FOR GARLAND 3 3 128 126 10 7 0 0 0 0 277 027 GIBBS Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 10 11 9 14 0 0 0 0 0 45 02 2 12 6 14 10 2 l l 0 0 0 46 03 2 9 12 17 8 l 0 0 0 0 0 47 04 2 12 13 7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 05 2 11 8 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 06 2 13 9 10 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 KF 2 10 10 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 TOTAL FOR GIBBS 77 69 81 79 3 1 1 1 0 0 312 028 CHICOT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 8 9 22 25 3 4 0 0 0 () 71 02 4 13 5 24 26 4 0 0 0 0 73 03 5 5 6 26 24 l 0 0 0 0 0 62 04 2 5 9 25 21 3 () 0 0 0 0 63 05 4 9 7 23 23 0 2 I 0 0 0 65 06 3 5 3 26 25 2 0 0 0 63 E 7 4 7 6 0 0 0 0 () 25 LRSD Information Senices Department 5 ------- - - -- - ---- -- -- All Enrolled Students: (1/.()((.')f, ----- --- ------- - --- . -------- KF IO s ,, IX , - (I () () (I II (,0 PK -+ !() 1(1 II () () I) (I (I J11 TOTAL FOR CHICOT 66 61 185 179 15 8 J () 0 51S 029 WEST HIL Grade Classes Wl\\1 WF Bl\\l BF HI\\I HF Ai\\1 AF li\\1 IF Total ---------- 01 3 7 8 13 18 0 () 0 I) () -0 02 -+ (, 16 19 () () 0 0 () () -+5 03 3 7 2 21 11 () () 0 () 0 0 -+I 0-+ 2 11 7 17 17 () () () 0 () 0 5:? 05 2 6 JO 12 13 () 0 () 0 () () -+ 1 06 6 6 16 18 0 0 () () () () 46 KF 2 -+ 8 18 JO () () 0 () () () .rn TOTAL FOR WEST HIL -+5 -+7 113 106 0 0 0 1 () 0 31:? 030 JEFFRSN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 28 18 1-+ 1-+ 0 0 0 0 0 75 02 3 17 13 1-+ 11 0 0 0 () 57 03 3 16 23 18 16 0 0 I 0 0 75 04 3 21 25 16 1-+ 0 0 0 0 0 77 05 3 22 16 17 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 06 3 29 19 JO 10 0 0 I 0 I 0 70 E 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 KF -+ 17 15 9 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 TOTAL FORJEFFRSN 153 129 101 106 0 1 4 1 2 0 -+97 031 CLOVREL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 7 3 38 .io 2 0 0 0 0 91 02 2 3 3 28 31 0 2 0 0 0 0 67 03 2 3 2 28 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 04 1 3 2 21 26 0 0 0 0 0 53 05 2 0 24 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 06 2 5 3 25 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 E 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 KF 5 3 4 36 36 0 2 0 0 0 0 81 PK 4 5 10 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 36 TOT AL FOR CLOVR EL 29 22 211 228 2 8 0 0 0 () 500 032 DODD Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total OJ 3 9 6 10 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 02 2 2 2 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-+ 03 2 8 14 9 1 0 0 0 0 35 04 2 8 9 13 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 -+5 05 2 7 10 7 0 I 0 0 0 0 26 06 8 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 E 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 IO KF 3 II 5 9 5 I 0 0 0 () 0 31 TOTAL FOR DODD 42 40 86 70 2 2 0 0 0 () 242 LRSD Information Seniccs Department 6 ------ - -------------- -------------- All Enrolled Students: ()/.()((.\u0026lt;){, -- __ ,._ ---- ----- --- -- - - ---- - - -- ----- - ---- .. - .. OJJ J\\IE.-\\DCLIF Gratk Classl'S \\DI WF 13\\1 BF II \\I II F .-\\ \\I AF rn IF Tot.ti ----- - --------- - - - ---- --- . ------ --- --- - -- .. ------ ---- - -- UI :\nX  2X I 7 II ll (I I) II ='S 112 2  7 22 I  () I) II () ()  8 113 :\n7 5 2') 13 () II () () 0 55 II  2 8 3 15 17 () () I () 46 05 2 8 3 22 20 () (I () () () (l 53 06 2 6 9 16 2  () () () ll () () 55 KF 3 4 6 2  2  () 0 () () () 0 58 TOTAL FOR MEADCLIF 45 37 156 129 1 1 2 (I 2 (I 373 034 MITCHELL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF Hl\\1 HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 () 20 17 0 () () 0 0 0 38 02 2 0 17 14 0 0 0 () 0 0 32 03 2 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 0 () 0 32 04 3 2 0 12 9 0 0 0 0 () 0 23 05 2 0 2 16 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 06 2 0 14 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 E 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 KF 2 18 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 PK 2 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 18 TOTAL FOR MITCHELL 7 5 123 125 0 0 0 0 1 262 035 ML KING Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 26 26 21 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 02 4 14 27 22 20 0 0 0 0 0 84 03 2 13 13 19 21 0 0 2 0 0 69 04 3 19 13 26 16 1 0 0 2 0 78 05 2 16 13 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 51 06 3 12 11 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 59 E 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 KF 5 25 17 35 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 PK 14 20 24 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 71 TOTAL FORM L KING 139 140 178 154 2 0 3 5 1 0 622 036 ROCKFELR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 6 9 13 23 0 0 2 0 0 54 02 3 12 8 21 13 0 0 0 0 56 03 2 6 3 13 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 44 04 3 9 10 16 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 51 05 2 10 8 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 06 2 3 6 13 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 40 KF 3 13 9 14 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 52 PK 20 23 25 28 0 1 0 0 99 TOTAL FOR ROCKFELR 79 76 128 138 7 3 2 3 (I 0 436 037 GEYER SP Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ()) 2 2 5 14 24 0 0 0 () 0 46 LRSD Information Senices Department 7 -- -- - . --- ----- - . ------ -- -- - -. --- - - All Enrolled Students: (//.( ict-'lf, --------- . -- -- - -- - --- - ------- ------- -- 02 2 7 I:, 21 (I II (I ii II .j:, o.~ 2 .j I 7 2b (I II (I (I (I II :,() (l.j 2 3 II 10 ,- (I (I () () () 27 (15 5 7 20 7 () 2 () () () () .j) ()(, 5 2 8 12 () (I () () () () 27 KF 2 3 6 15 12 () () (} () 38 PK 8 7 12 9 () () () () () () JC, TOTAL FOR GEYER SP 29 40 112 121 3 4 0 0 0 3 Ill 038 PUL HT E Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 19 1-l 16 ')' _., () (} () () (} () 72 02 3 18 12 18 ')' _., 0 () () (} (} 0 71 H 03 3 19 20 17 13 3 0 0 0 0 73 r, ().j 3 16 13 21 20 0 0 0 0 0 71 ' 05 2 8 16 16 15 () 0 0 0 0 0 55 06 2 12 9 14 16 () 2 0 0 0 0 53 KF 3 9 15 19 14 0 0 () 0 59 TOT AL FOR PUL HT E 101 99 121 124 4 4 1 0 0 0 45-l 039 RIGHTSEL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 0 0 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 02 2 0 0 14 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 03 0 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 04 2 0 21 12 2 0 0 0 0 37 05 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 06 2 0 0 19 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KF 2 2 0 18 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 PK 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 18 TOTAL FOR RIGHTSEL 4 1 118 119 1 3 0 0 0 0 246 040 ROMINE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 7 5 17 14 0 1 0 0 46 02 3 6 5 18 11 2 I 0 0 0 0 43 03 2 4 8 12 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 40 04 2 6 5 10 8 I 0 I 0 0 0 31 05 3 3 12 7 2 0 0 0 0 28 06 3 2 8 6 0 I 0 0 0 0 20 E 2 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 KF 4 5 4 21 15 0 0 0 0 47 PK 9 4 11 8 0 2 2 0 0 0 36 TOTAL FOR ROMINE 45 37 116 85 7 7 5 2 () 0 304 042 ,11.., cu,rrT,r Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 'f'f\"'-oJ,.1.J.,VA ,, 01 6 16 13 43 32 4 2 0 0 () 111 02 5 20 16 29 26 2 0 0 3 () () 96 03 3 24 II 25 22 0 3 () (} 87 LRSD Information Scnices Department \u0026gt;5 --------- -- - - - --------- ---- ---- --------- - - All Enrolled Students: --- ---- ------- ---- - --- 0I-Oct-9fi II  5 2.\nI  ,- 12 , , II , - I - - - II () H2 115 IX 2  I'! l\u0026lt;J (I (I 2 II () HJ ()(, () l\u0026lt;J I 'J )X 27  2 () I) () 1111 E 2 () (l I) () () (I 0 4 \"-F 5 17 15 16 29 2  () () () o 83 PK 11 10 12 14 2 (l 2 0 0 52 TOTAL FOR WASHNGTN 150 122 210 182 18 10 4 12 0 II 7118 043 WILLIAMS Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 17 13 17 20 0 () 0 0 69 02 3 13 18 16 18 () 0 0 I 0 67 03 3 14 21 18 18 o 0 () 1 0 0 72 04 3 18 20 18 20 () 0 () 0 0 0 76 05 3 17 18 28 13 0 0 o 2 0 79 06 3 16 15 18 24 0 0 4 0 0 78 KF 3 13 13 12 19 0 () I 0 60 TOTAL FOR WILLIAMS 1()8 118 127 132 1 II 4 8 1 2 501 044 WILSON Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 4 3 15 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 02 4 6 4 14 28 2 0 0 0 0 I 55 03 3 I 5 28 19 I 0 0 0 0 55 04 2 2 3 19 15 0 0 0 0 0 40 05 2 3 4 18 11 I 0 0 0 0 0 37 06 5 I 8 13 0 I 0 0 0 0 28 E 0 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 KF 3 3 3 30 16 2 0 0 0 0 55 PK 2 7 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 TOTAL FOR WILSON 27 30 155 139 5 5 0 0 0 1 3(\u0026gt;2 045 WOODRUFF Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 3 6 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 02 2 5 5 21 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 03 2 2 3 20 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 04 2 8 3 18 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 05 1 8 1 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 06 5 4 7 5 0 0 (j 0 0 22 KF 2 6 5 11 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 39 PK 4 12 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 36 TOTAL FOR WOODRUFF 41 39 105 80 0 2 1 0 0 0 268 046 MABEL EL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 12 5 31 18 0 0 0 0 0 67 02 3 8 3 23 18 0 0 0 0 () 53 03 2 6 5 21 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 04 2 7 20 19 I 0 0 0 0 0 48 05 2 6 6 15 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 LRSD Information Sen\"ices De11artment 9 ._ - -- -- - -- -- ------------- - --- -- ----- - All Enrolled Students: {}/-\u0026lt; !, 1-'H, ------------- - ---- ----- - ()(, J() 12 ::o 2(, II ti II 11 II (,') E (I 5 () II ti II () II I) (, f..:.F -I ') 7 1-1 2(, 2 I) () () () (I 5X Pf..:. 2. -I 7 -I () () () (I () I) 17 TOTAL FOR MABEL EL 55 49 156 152 4 0 0 0 418 on TERRY Grade Classes WM WF BM BF Hl\\1 HF Al\\1 AF 11\\1 IF Total 01 4 20 28 18 I-+ () () () () () 81 02 3 19 17 17 16 0 () () () 2 72 03 3 23 16 JO 17 1 () 0 0 69 0-1 3 29 12 17 20 () 0 2 () () () 80 05 3 13 18 17 20 () () 2 () 0 71 06 3 I-+ 16 15 1-+ 0 () 2 (} 63 KF -+ 23 18 19 17 0 0 0 2 0 () 79 TOTAL FOR TERRY 14 I 125 113 118 0 7 7 2 515 048 FULBRIGH Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 -+ 14 2-+ 20 19 0 0 0 0 79 02 3 14 21 23 12 0 2 0 0 () 73 03 3 15 16 18 ?~ _j 0 0 0 () 0 0 72 04 3 9 JO 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 60 05 2 18 I-+ 14 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 06 3 12 16 23 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 E -+ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 6 12 27 17 20 0 l 0 0 0 78 TOTAL FOR FULBRIGH 98 129 141 124 1 1 5 0 0 500 050 OTTER CR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 15 15 9 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 46 02 2 13 12 11 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 42 03 2 13 15 JO 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 47 04 2 11 11 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 42 05 2 5 12 6 14 0 0 0 0 2 0 39 06 2 18 8 13 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 KF 2 13 9 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 TOTAL FOR OTTER CR 88 82 71 61 1 2 1 0 3 310 051 WAKEFIEL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 3 31 24 0 0 0 0 0 60 02 2 7 2 29 31 2 1 I 0 0 74 03 5 4 29 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 04 2 1 29 16 3 2 0 0 0 0 53 05 2 4 3 21 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 06 2 4 1 28 30 0 0 0 0 () 64 KF 4 2 3 27 27 0 0 1 0 0 0 60 TOTAL FOR WAKEFIEL 23 15 194 191 5 5 2 0 0 436 052 WATSON Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Senices Department JO ---- ----- ----------------- All Enrolled Students: 0/-()((_I)(, ------- ---- Ill 5 .:\n\u0026gt;t, 2i {I (I () (I -5i ll2  2 8 '' ~i () II (I ll {I ii 03 I 5  2  20 II (I II () {I =-  O  2  8 19 ,') () (l () () () () 53 05 J 5 (, 25 2  () () () () () () 60 06 2  3 26 16 () () () () () () 49 E () I () () () () () () () () KF 5 5 3 ~') .)_  O () 0 () () () () 80 PK 6 6 8 15 () 0 I () 0 () 36 TOTAL FOR WATSON 36 44 203 191 2 2 () () () 479 GRAND TOTAL 3826 3798 8482 82  5 173 164 139 125 17 1784986 ,. ,/ ) ~Ctfj LRSD Information Senices Department JI - --- --  - - - --- -- -- Students who live outside LRSD but attend an LRSD school: () /-( ), /-'/(, ------------- - --- ------------ 11111 CE\\TR.-\\L Grade Classes \\\\:\\I \\\\F 8\\1 BF ~1:\\1 II F .UI :\\F I\\I IF Total ----- .. --- -- -- -------- -- -- - Ill 7 17 tl tl II ti , - ti II II :2(, 11 9 8 () () () I) () () () IS 12 12 11 l () () () () () () 25 TOTAL FOR CENTRAL 28 36 2 0 0 2 (I 0 0 69 002 HALL Cratic Classes WM WF Bi\\1 BF Hl\\1 HF AI\\I AF ll\\1 IF Total JO () () () () () () () () () 11 -+ 2 () () 0 0 () () () () (i 12 2 7 () 0 () 0 0 () () () 9 TOTAL FOR HALL 6 10 () 0 0 () () () 0 0 16 003 MANN M/S Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF 11\\l IF Total 07 20 3-+ ._,.~, 31 0 0 0 () 0 109 08 25 29 15 -+0 0 0 I l () () 111 09 29 28 18 32 0 0 0 0 () 108 TOTAL FOR MANN M/S 7-+ 91 56 103 0 0 l 328 005 PARKVIEW Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 3-+ 20 26 29 0 0 0 0 0 110 11 19 36 ,~., 31 3 l 0 0 0 0 113 12 21 19 19 20 2 0 0 l 0 0 82 TOTAL FORPARKVIEW 74 75 68 80 5 1 0 2 0 0 305 006 BOOKER Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 7 10 5 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 31 02 3 11 6 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 35 03 3 14 11 9 7 0 0 0 0 43 o .. 4 9 10 7 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 33 05 4 6 22 ~ 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 06 4 10 12 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 KF 4 7 10 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 26 TOTAL FOR BOOKER 64 81 51 55 2 4 1 0 0 0 258 007 DUNBAR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 08 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IO 09 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 TOTAL FOR DUNBAR 9 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 008 FAIR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 () (i TOTAL FOR FAIR 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 (I 11 009 FORST HT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Scniccs Department /] . ---- -- .. -- - ------------ --- - ----- Students who live outside LRSD but attend an LRSD school: li/-Uo-W, -- ----- --- ---- -- --- ------ (Ii () II (I II () II II II 2 ox () () () (I II II II () I) s () 1 () I) () () () () () II TOTAL FOR FORST HT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 010 PUL HT J Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF Ai\\t AF IM IF Total 07 () () () () () () () () () 08 2 3 (} (} (} () () (} () 6 09 () I I 0 () () 0 (} 0 3 s 1 0 () () () 0 0 () 0 0 1 TOT AL FOR PUL HT J 4 4 2 (I (I () 0 () () 11 1111 SOUTHWST Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF Al\\l AF IM IF Total 07 0 0 () 0 () 0 () 0 0 1 TOTALFORSOUTHWST 1 () 0 0 () 0 0 (I 0 0 1 012 MCCLELLA Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 TOTAL FOR MCCLELLA 3 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 013 HENDERSN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 08 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 09 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 TOTAL FOR HENDERSN 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 015 CLOVRJR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL FOR CLOVR JR 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 016 MABEL JR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 08 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I TOTAL FOR MABEL JR 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 017 BALE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL FOR BALE 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 018 BRADY Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total o .. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FOR BRADY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 019 BADGETT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Senices Department /3 - -- . - -  ------ - - - -- --- --- . Students who live outside LRSD hut attend an LRSD school: () /-(}, r-W, ---- - - - --- Pl--: II II II II It II II ii : TOT.-\\L FOR BADGETT (I (I (I (I (I II II (I ~ --- - - - -- - 020 I\\ICDERl\\lOT Graue Classes \\\\'M \\\\'F B1\\1 BF H:\\1 II F .-\\:\\1 .-\\F 11\\1 IF Total ------- - ----------- ------- - ------ --- ------ ()3 3 () () () (I (I (I () (I () 05 3 t) () () () () () () () () 06 3 I () () () () () () () () 2 D\" 3 () () () () () () () () () TOTAL FOR MCDERMOT 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 021 CARVER Graue Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF 11\\1 IF Total 01 3 9 10 8 6 () () () 0 () 3  02  12 8 7 7 0 () () () 0 0 3  03  16 10 10 6 () () 0 () 0 0  2 o  3 20 10 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 50 05  15 17 7 15 0 0 0 () 0 0 5  06  25 12 13 6 0 0 0 () 0 () 56 KF 3 8    0 0 0 0 0 () 20 TOTAL FOR CARVER 105 71 65  7 (I 0 0 0 290 022 BASELINE Gracie Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total KF  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PK 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 0 2 TOTAL FOR BASELINE 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I 0 3 023 FAIRPRK Graue Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total PK 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 TOTAL FOR FAIR PRK 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 024 FORST PK Gracie Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 02 -+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FOR FORST PK 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 025 FRANKLIN Gracie Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total PK 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL FOR FRANKLIN 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 2 027 GIBBS Gracie Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 4 4 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 02 2 5 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 03 2 5 4 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 21 04 2 4 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1, 05 2 4 5 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 06 2 6 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 KF 2 3 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 TOTAL FOR GIBBS 31 25 20 32 2 0 0 0 0 (I 110 028 CHICOT Gracie Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Senices Department I-I --- - - -- - -- ---- -- ---- Students who live outside LRSD but attend an LRSD school: II/-\u0026lt; lcr-W, -- - - --- - Ill 2 (I II II II 11 II {l II II 02 -I II II II II Ii II 11 II II o\n5 () () (I () II (I () ll (I 05 -I () () (I () II () () () II l)(i 3 () () () (I (I () () () () E I (I (I () () () () () (I 2 K.F 3 0 () () () () () () () (I PK () I () () () () () () () (I TOT AL FOR CHICOT -I 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 029 WEST HIL Gratle Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF Al\\l AF IM IF Total 05 2 0 () () () (I 0 () () () K.F 2 () () 0 () 0 0 () 0 () TOTAL FOR WEST HIL 2 () () 0 () () 0 0 () () ::? 030 JEFFRSN Gratle Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 06 3 0 0 () 0 0 () 0 0 0 KF -I 0 0 () 0 () 0 0 0 () I TOT AL FOR JEFFRSN 1 1 0 0 0 () 0 () 0 () 2 032 DODD Gratle Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 () () 2 0-1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 05 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FOR DODD 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 033 MEADCLIF Gratle Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 03 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 KF 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I TOTAL FOR MEADCLIF 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 035 ML KING Gratle Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 11 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 02 4 7 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-1 03 2 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0-1 3 13 10 0 0 0 0 1 () 0 25 05 2 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 13 06 3 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 12 KF 5 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 PK 11 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 () 19 TOTAL FORM L KING 71 77 0 2 0 () 2 (I 0 153 036 ROCKFELR Gratle Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 -I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 3 02 3 2 1 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 5 03 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 () 5 0-1 3 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 () 2 05 2 2 () 0 () () () 0 () -I LRSD Information Sen-ices Department 15 - - - Sllldents who live outside LRSD but attend an LRSD school: // I -UU- W, -- ---- ---- --- - - --------- - . 11(, 2 I) II II (I fl I) It (I II KF 5  II II II fl II II II 111 PK  12 I) I) II (I () () () () I(, TOTAL FOR ROCKFELR 15 23 J 2 0 0 0  (, 037 GEYER SP Grade Classes Wl\\1 WF BM BF Hl\\1 HF Ai\\l AF 11\\1 IF Total K.F 2 () () () () 0 () () () 0 I PK () () () () () () () () 2 TOTAL FOR GEYER SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 038 PUL HT E Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 () () () () () () 0 0 2 02 3 0 () () () 0 () () () 0 03 3 0 I () 0 () 0 () () () () O  3 0 0 0 0 0 () () () () 05 2 () 0 () () () () () () 2 06 2 2 () 0 0 0 0 0 () () 0 2 TOT AL FOR PUL HT E 5  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 039 RJGHTSEL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total D  2 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 () 2 PK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FOR RJGHTSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 3 040 ROMINE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 03 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 KF 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 PK 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 TOTAL FOR ROMINE 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 042 WASHNGTN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 02 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 03 3 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 JO O  5 7 4 0 0 () 0 0 1 0 0 12 05 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 06 6 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 5 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 9 PK 3 3 () 0 0 0 0 0 () 7 TOTAL FOR WASHNGTN 42 28 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 73 1143 WILLIAMS Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 9 6 7 6 0 0 0 0 () 0 28 02 3 6 9 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 2/i 03 3 9 9 7 6 0 0 0 1 () () 32 04 3 IO I  2 7 0 0 () 0 () () 33 05 3 8 9 7 6 0 0 0 () 32 06 3 7 5 6 8 () 0 0 () () () 26 LRSD Information Seniccs Department /f, -- - - Students who live outside LRSO hut attend an LRSD school: (I I-Ou-'Jfi -- - . -- -- -- - -- . -- ------ 1--:.F ~ - 111 () ' () (l (I II :?7 TOT.-\\L FOR WILU.-\\,1S 57 59 35 4X (I (I 2 2ll4 044 WILSON Grade Classes WI\\I WF Bi\\1 BF H,1 HF .UI .\\F li\\1 IF Total - ------ - --- 05 2 (). () (I () () () () () () Iv 3 () () () () () () () () () PK 2 () () () () () () () () () 2 TOT AL FOR WILSON 2 2 (I (I 0 0 (I (I (I (I 4 1145 WOODRUFF Grade Classes WM -WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 02 2 () 0 () () () 0 () 0 0 1 04 2 l () () () () 0 () () 0 2 Iv 2 2 () () 0 () () () () () 3 PK 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 TOTAL FOR WOODRUFF 5 3 0 (I (I 0 I) 0 0 9 046 MABEL EL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total PK 0 0 0 ll 0 0 u 0 0 1 TOTAL FOR MABEL EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 047 TERRY Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 06 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL FOR TERRY 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 048 FULBRIGH Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 05 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 E I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL FOR FULBRIGH 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 050 OTTER CR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 04 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL FOR OTTER CR 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 GRAND TOTAL 637 657 302 377 14 11 7 12 1 2 2020 LRSD Information Senices Department 17 Last Year's Graduates: l:i-\u0026lt; I. 1-Yf 1101 CDTRAL Gradl' Cla~~o \\DI \\\\'F 13'1 BF II \\I II F :\\ \\( .-\\F 1\\1 IF T11tal G 'X' - 11-1 I 1., 171 -I II II -l')-1 TOT AL FOR CE\\TR.-\\L 8J I I~ I IJ 171  II II -''J.t --- ------- --------- . --- ------ -- - ------ - - 1102 HALL Grade Classes Wi\\1 WF Bi\\1 BF H\\1 HF .-\\\\1 AF 1\\1 IF Total - ----- ------------ G .t7 -12 77 9(, (l () () 271 TOT.-\\L FOR H.-\\LL .t7  2 77 9(, 0 J J J 0 II ::?71 005 PARKVIEW Grade Classes WM WF BM BF Hl\\l HF Ai\\! AF IM IF Total G 51 .t5 58 8-t () 5 () 0 () ll HJ TOTAL FOR PARK\\'IEW 51 .t5 58 8-t 0 5 0 () 0 0 HJ 008 FAIR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF A\\1 AF IM IF Total G 33 50 73 83 () Ii 2 {) 0 2-t::? TOT.-\\L FOR FAIR 33 50 73 83 () 0 ::? 0 () 2-t::? 012 MCCLELLA Grade Classes WM WF BM BF Hl\\1 HF Ai\\l AF IM IF Total G 29 26 6-t 89 () () 0 0 210 TOTAL FOR MCCLELLA 29 26 6-t 89 0 () () 0 210 GRAND TOTAL 2.t3 277 385 523 10 IJ 8 () () 1  60 l!:J LRSD Information Scnices De11artmcnt SCHOOL BLACK WHITE Badgett 25 6 Bale 18 IS Baseline 25 11 Brady to 6 Chicot 21 14 Cloverdale 25 9 Fair Park 17 16 Franklin 61 9 Garland 15 1 Geyer Springs 21 IS King 36 34 Mabelvale 11 6 Mitchell 13 3 Rightsell 16 I Rockefeller 27 26 Romine 19 13 Washington 26 21 Watson 23 12 Wilson 9 9 Woodruff 19 16 Total 437 243 Little Rock School District FOUR YEAR OLD ENROLLMENT OCTOBER 1, 1996 OTHER TOTAL OPENINGS 0 31 3 36 0 36 2 18 I 36 2 36 3 36 2 72 2 18 0 36 1 71 0 17 2 18 I 18 0 53 4 36 5 52 I 36 0 18 I 36 30 7IO 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 I 0 2 0 0 0 to % BLACK CAPACITY  -8\"io\" 36 50% 36 ~~ -%'% 36 56% 18 ss -59% 36 C.7 -'ffl\"% 36 ~1 --48-o/o 36 85% 72 ~ -84-% 18 ~'g -59'f.,f- 36 51% 72 65% 18 7~ /J 10 18 89% 18 51% 54 53% 36 50% 54 64% 36 50% 18 53% 36 62% 720 10/03/1996 15:55 5013242281 LRSDS TUDENTA SSIGNM ~.. :2 .~....... ....................... . DiRaooRf SrudooA niGNME MLi mR od ScliooDl ismicr SOI S~ l.JmREo ckA, R7 2202  Tdq\u0026gt;kO~NoE1 ., 242109  fAie ~o1 -}2 4228 1 re -() D fY'l 3?/-0/00 NUMIEA 0, 'AGts. INCl.UCINCi COVER PAGE 01 ------------- 10/03/1995 15:55 50132\u0026lt;!2281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGN~l SCHOOL Ce.tral Hall Pad(view Magnet Fait McClellan To(a)Sr. Hl2h Mitm Mamet Jr. Duhbar Jr. Foriest Hciahts Jr. Pulmki Heilhts Jr. So~diwcat Jr. HendersonJr . Cl\u0026lt;JYCrdaJlre. Mabelvalc Jr. To4al Jr. Rlllh ~tcr Munet Bale Badactt Budine Bract,, Caivcr MallDCt Chb,t ClctverdaleE lem. ~d Fait Park Folillt Park Frahklin Fulbriaht Oailand L/1TLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1, 1996 IJLACK WHITE OTHER 1104 620 53 597 195 31 458 373 48 639 167 7 766 140 20 3564 1495 159 443 380 31 451 294 30 485 134 11 462 312 11 466 110 18 609 114 18 553 53 33 347 115 6 3816 1512 158 313 261 29 266 90 19 185 30 4 241 51 10 236 100 35 311 267 26 364 124 30 439 48 13 156 81 5 193 53 9 218 225 6 414 26 12 265 227 8 2'i4 2 21 TOTAL. 1777 823 879 813 926 5218 854 775 630 785 594 - 741 639 468 5486 603 375 219 302 371 604 518 500 242 255 449 452 500 277 10/03/1996 15:55 50132,f2281 L.RSD STU[ 1ENT ASSIGl'-IM PAGE OJ Ge~ Springs 233 67 10 310 Gibba Maltl\\Ct 160 138 14 312 Jcfft:tson 207 281 9 497 Klnli: 332 270 20 622 MabelvaleE lem. 308 98 12 4}8 Mcbermott 277 191 21 489 Medowcliff 285 82 6 373 Mittbell 248 8 6 262 Ot* Creek 132 169 9 310 Pululd Heiihts Elem. 245 191 18 454 Ridluell 237 4 5 246 Roqb:fcller 266 145 25 436 Roipine 201 75 28 304 TertY 231 258 26 515 Wabficld 385 28 23 436 Waih.intton 392 247 69 - 708 Wa~ 394 75 10 479 WCJ1CmHi lls 219 90 3 312 WiBlams Ma2ne1 259 220 22 501 WU.On 294 54 14 362 Wobdruff 185 75 8 26B TotiaEl lem. 9345 4351 585 14281 To611LRSD 16725 7358 902 24985  I Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 06 Totals Percentages Grade 1-6 Percentages Totals 47 64 47 49 47 56 49 359 ~i7 312 '. North Little Rock Public Schools Amboy Elementary 6002-050 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 19 8 11 7 2 14 16 17 15 2 1-2 16 12 7 0 19 14 7 8 1 12 19 7 7 1 23 13 10 10 0 26 8 8 7 0 125 94 72 61 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 34.8% 26.2% 20.1% 17.0% 1.7% 0.3% di\u0026lt;? 13~ 7 106 86 61 54 4 1 34.0% 27.6% 19.6% 17.3% 1.3% 0.3%\n. ~::.  l,  - : . ~ .:  .  '., , . ~ . J  t   ' ' . . _,  0 1\nI\n.,? ,,1 ,-  0 .,    Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 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 I ! 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% i ! . 0 0 10 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% I  f Jf: ::f : 1 . ' ,, . ,.,  l Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 06 Totals Percentages Grades 1-6 Percentages ..\n . .,,. Totals 25 19 26 18 27 19 30 164 .J/'I o/.o 139 North Little Rock Public Schools Belwood Elementary 6002-053 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 9 7 4 4 0 1 6 1 7 4 0 1 6 3 9 7 1 0 6 1 5 6 0 0 3 9 9 6 0 0 7 5 4 3 0 0 7 9 5 7 1 1 44 35 43 37 2 3 26.8% 21.3% 26.2% 22.6% 1.2% 1.8% 71 g-o -5 35 28 39 33 2 2 25.2% 20.1% 28.1% 23.7% 1.4% 1.4% ( ,,\n,'\": : .. ,  /,.-\"'.' 1\"1-,. ~- 1 ,.-:V  .: , . :,f~ ,' ti ,j ,.\n~ \u0026gt;. '  l ,\n/! . Asian/Pl M F 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% Ami/Ats M F 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% I i, . I I I '. ! I I ' ' 1 I .~~~ ~ ,. ,\n\\\n~J ,\n\nl .:\n,,\nr Grade Totals J 34 K 114 01 84 02 75 03 73 04 71 05 62 06 78 Totals 591 Percentages \u0026lt;g/J.. Grades 1-6 443 Percentages . . ,, '\u0026lt;.\nf., _.-~ '\n: North Little Rock Public Schools Boone Park Elementary 6002-054 K-6 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 3 3 12 16 0 0 7 7 45 54 0 1 10 7 34 30 3 0 9 5 35 26 0 0 8 6 33 25 1 0 10 3 35 22 0 1 5 7 25 25 0 0 9 9 30. 29 1 0 61 47 249 227 5 2 10.3% 8.0% 42.1% 38.4% 0.8% 0.3% 10\"6 -'/Jc\n, 7 51 37 192 157 5 1 11.5% 8.4% 43.3% 35.4% 1.1% 0.2% . ,  I  ~~/:-: . /}~~,1. . :~:~\n~._\n:\n, ~   ,, .~.:, \n~.-.,,:. I  Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 .\n ' j t 1 _.,. . :\n~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% 0.0% . 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ' i\n l  I  ' Grade Totals J 36 K 84 01 55 02 37 03 I 40 04 39 05 46 06 49 Totals 386 Percentages 7-Yl~ Grades 1-6 266 Percentages -. ' North Little Rock Public Schools Central Elementary 6002-059 K-6  October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 4 2 14 15 0 1 4 6 41 33 0 0 3 7 24 21 0 0 5 3 19 10 0 0 8 5 15 12 0 0 7 6 13 12 1 0 7 9 20 8 1 0 4 13 17 13 2 0 42 51 163 124 4 1 10.9% 13.2% 42.2% 32.1% 1.0% 0.3% 93 ~C?7 (p 34 43 108 76 4 0 12.8% 16.2% 40.6% 28.6% 1.5% 0.0% I . '', , I  ~ ~: . . ' I . : ~J .\nf le \n . : -: '\\te:? i\n-_. ?i~. _ .. __ t:~::~LJ{,/L Asian/Pl M F 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% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .I 1 0.0% 0.3% 0 ' 1 0.0% 0.4% ':'j . j .,.\n~ ~ ' . ~' '.. I I i:\n.)'.ff ... i. i \\(l ,_ Grade Totals K 25 01 38 02 37 03 34 04 26 05 51 06 49 Totals 260 Percentages -f,\n)-]. Grades 1-6 235 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Crestwood Elementary 6002-055 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 7 11 4 3 0 0 11 7 9 11 0 0 9 9 10 9 0 0 8 13 8 5 0 0 7 8 5 5 0 1 25 8 10 8 0 0 13 13 10 13 0 0 80 69 56 54 0 1 30.8% 26.5% 21.5% 20.8% 0.0% 0.4% ).J/'1 //{) I 73 58 52 51 0 1 31.1% 24.7% 22.1% 21.7% 0.0% 0.4% i .,, . . Asian/Pl M F 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% Aml/Als M F 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% '' I , I I, ,  I . ! i . ,.. ... '\n. ' . . .'. Grade Totals K 30 01 25 02 25 03 24 04 28 05 23 06 32 Totals 187 Percentages 7'il,. Grades 1-6 157 North Little Rock Public Schools Glenview Elementary 6002-056 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 3 3 13 11 0 0 4 2 8 11 0 0 2 4 10 9 0 0 1 2 12 9 0 0 4 7 7 10 0 0 4 0 6 13 0 0 3 3 16 10 0 0 21 21 72 73 0 0 11.2% 11.2% 38.5% 39.0% 0.0% 0.0% -J/\n).- J-'/5 0 18 18 59 62 0 0 11.5% 11.5% 37.6% 39.5% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl M F 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% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% ',. r  ,,_ .'i.,f: fJ, t ~{t, ~t,~ ~-!, /:i!,  1 .:ji~ ~ r}::' .. 1\n. , . '\n, Grade Totals K 53 01 76 02 56 03 50 04 50 05 46 06 48 Totals 379 Percentages ~i'- Grades 1-6 326 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Indian Hills Elementary 6002-057 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 14 25 5 7 0 0 14 19 20 19 1 1 16 12 12 15 0 0 9 11 16 13 0 0 13 7 13 15 1 0 9 6 10 20 0 0 8 7 17 16 0 0 83 87 93 105 2 1 21.9% 23.0% 24.5% 27.7% 0.5% 0.3% I.,,.,'? /Ci,. // 69 62 88 98 2 1 21.2% 19.0% 27.0% 30.1% 0.6% 0.3% ,,.,  .: ' . . '  '  f'.: . .J :z/  :, : 1~{,.,~u,,\n,N.)}.: \\ :: .f. .  ,. :? Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 0.8% 0.8% 0.5% 0.0% ' 2 3 1 0 0.6% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% ' I I ,~-.., . ...... .t.{.. ~.{@~: ,,. . . ~ Grade Totals K 16 01 29 02 33 03 34 04 27 05 30 06 43 Totals 212 Percentages _,SJ//,. Grade 1-6 196 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Lakewood Elementary 6002-058 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 4 4 6 2 0 0 8 5 10 6 0 0 10 6 5 12 0 0 10 4 9 11 0 I 0 5 4 9 9 0 0 8 9 6 7 0 0 7 12 11 12 1 0 52 44 56 59 1 0 24.5% 20.8% 26.4% 27.8% 0.5% 0.0% 9i II~ I 48 40 50 57 1 0 24.5% 20.4% 25.5% 29.1% 0.5% 0.0% I  '1 . '' Asian/Pl M F 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% ,. Aml/Als M F 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% 'I). ' \u0026gt;,' 14 \n:if ',., .t,, , } : ,, '1V: '_. \" .,~. Grade Totals K 59 01 62 02 57 03 66 04 57 05 63 06 78 Totals 442 Percentages l.~/4 Grades 1-6 383 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Lynch Drive Elementary 6002-060 K-6 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 9 12 16 21 0 1 10 9 21 22 0 0 9 12 24 12 0 0 10 15 21 20 0 0 12 . 12 18 15 0 0 12 14 23 14 0 0 19 13 23 23 0 0 81 87 146 127 0 1 18.3% 19.7% 33.0% 28.7% 0.0% 0.2% l~'-6 ~73. I 72 75 130 106 0 0 18.8% 19.6% 33.9% 27.7% 0.0% 0.0% . I Asian/Pl M F 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% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 I 0 0.0% 0.0% I' I I .\".:'{I ,''. I _(\n~y ,.~ I Grade Totals K 24 01 28 02 37 03 33 04 20 05 29 06 41 Totals 212 '7C1 Grades 1-6 188\n: ' North Little Rock Public Schools Meadow Park Elementary 6002-061 K-6 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 3 2 11 8 0 0 2 7 8 11 0 0 1 7 17 11 0 0 6 3 13 11 0 0 6 3 6 5 0 0 5 6 6 12 0 0 6 6 10 19 0 0 29 34 71 77 0 0 13.7% 16.0% 33.5% 36.3% 0.0% 0.0% u?\u0026gt;\n-ri / 26 32 60 69 0 0 13.8% 17.0% 31.9% 36.7% 0.0% 0.0% , .. I . . ,'.,' ._. .\u0026gt; I'. :i :,: .' '  Jli~i,, ...i .. . :  Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , .. ' 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / .fj- ' 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% .. . I I' !\n,\n. I . . ~ ' 'Y, ' ' I . : I . . I ' ! ~ ., ! ' tl'\n'' I , }, I .. ~.,~-I\ni  I i i\n.. \"' l .. '. -~~ !:1 ,. '  t ~\\ . . -'t.:\n. ' !. Grade Totals K 67 01 64 02 75 03 66 04 65 05 51 06 73 Totals 461 Percentages ~~l-- Grades 1-6 394 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools North Heights Elementary 6002-063 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 27 16 10 9 2 3 16 18 16 11 1 2 25 13 15 15 3 4 18 17 7 18 2 4 14 20 15 11 3 2 15 10 8 12 3 3 23 18 14 13 1 4 138 112 85 89 15 22 29.9% 24.3% 18.4% 19.3% 3.3% 4.8% ,.\n.so 17- ~1 111 96 75 80 13 19 28.2% 24.4% 19.0% 20.3% 3.3% 4.8% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 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% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 '. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% . i I  I I ' . ' ' ' ' 'f. . 1:: ] ' . ,  t,. J,  '.. ~,:~ . ' . \\ .. I ' .\n.\\S, ...\\ F...~. . ~\n.t.\n~ ~ :~ _~hJ%f:1 1\u0026lt;_,   ,? .... _,,\n,,.__ it. .' r l ,l,1 ,,, . ' I,, ,:r..'t'r , . .. i  .J ) \u0026gt; ' Grade Totals K 41 01 49 02 44 03 41 04 36 05 48 06 23 Totals 282 Percentages ~TJI) Grades 1-6 241 PercentaQes i.:\n 'I North Little Rock Public Schools Park Hill Elementary 6002-064 K-6 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 10 15 11 4 0 1 6 18 15 10 0 0 12 7 11 13 0 0 10 9 6 16 0 0 13 6 9 8 0 0 14 14 13 7 0 0 4 9 4 6 0 0 69 78 69 64 0 1 24.5% 27.7% 24.5% 22.7% 0.0% 0.4% JJ/7 133 ~ 59 63 58 60 0 0 24.5% 26.1% 24.1% 24.9% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.4% 0.0% 1 0 0.4% 0.0% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,, 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% .. '' \"''\" k  '.  . JI ' . ~. .\u0026lt; ..!~ -.:' ... North Little Rock Public Schools  Pike View Elementary 6002-065 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hisoanic Asian/Pl Grade Totals M F M F M F M F K 61 16 11 16 16 1 0 0 1 01 67 15 9 23 20 0 0 0 0 02 59 15 10 19 15 0 0 0 0 03 31 7 5 10 9 0 0 0 0 04 49 11 16 14 7 1 0 0 0 05 62 14 13 13 22 0 0 0 0 06 47 14 6 16 10 1 0 0 0 Totals 376 92 70 111 99 3 0 0 1 Percentages 24.5% 18.6% 29.5% 26.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% ,,5? /~\nJ- ~/\u0026lt;) ..J/ Grades 1-6 315 76 59 95 83 2 0 0 0 Percentages 24.1% 18.7% 30.2% 26.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% '-I' . . ' . ,,-\nt~tI \\:JL..Ii. i ~::1ll:~t::.t..?,  .J..,t, .j : f \u0026gt; Aml/Als M F 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% I ' i. I!.:\nI . ~Jo,, .  i}:t , ~- .:J.,~ '~t~ii:. .., .\u0026gt;. l ,~.. . l   i  . L -'~f  '!(' .. ' , . f, ., -:':,(.\n:1 .. ., ~ \\ , !~,?~ l ~ f  ' .. / :{1.: J~  '' Ii.-~' . i':'.tf\nt:\u0026lt;~- ,. ~t:I I \u0026lt;I.  \n1~~j~ f ~ ..\\\n.~\nrir 1\\- : ',\\}:1 ~. .  \"i'i! i ~ ')''t,9, I  ', .... , '/ ::.\"' \"1 '~ :',t Grade J K 01 02 03 ' 04 05 06 Totals Percentages Grades 1-6 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Redwood Elementary 6002-067 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic Totals M F M F M F 25 1 0 13 11 0 0 39 0 1 20 18 0 0 29 0 0 14 15 0 0 39 0 2 21 16 0 0 25 1 1 11 12 0 0 26 1 0 15 10 0 0 23 0 1 8 14 0 0 24 1 1 10 12 0 0 230 4 6 112 108 0 0 1.7% 2.6% 48.7% 47.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9~\n,. JO ~\n2.a 0 166 3 5 79 79 0 0 1.8% 3.0% 47.6% 47.6% 0.0% 0.0% I,. 1  ~ : ::~_}{/~ ::'::\\\n~t'l -~:-:::j\n,:I .i. (::}\n,\n' Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 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 0 ,. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ' 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% I I ' ! I ! ' i . I ' I, , . I 1 . '\u0026lt; ' --',u', ' ...,.. . i ' ~.-,)J . ''' .)I' .: . \\\n:\nr'. \" 0  if,:\n_\n\\~, -,' ,!, - ' ,\"i.\nI '\niP, . . f. ~ -\nl } I   :(~ ,~-~ :  I {  JJ-. ,I. ' -z.~. Grade Totals K 39 01 48 02 40 03 48 04 35 05 47 06 70 Totals 327 Percentages l'..O\nJ. Grades 1-6 288 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Seventh Street Elementary 6002-069 K-6 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 0 0 14 25 0 0 6 6 14 22 0 0 6 5 20 9 0 0 11 11 13 11 1 n2 5 12 9 9 0 0 11 17' 13 5 0 1 18 21 18 13 0 0 57 72 101 94 1 /K 17.4% 22.0% 30.9% 28.7% 0.3% 0.6%\n.\n2._'-f\n\u0026lt;16 .?, 57 72 87 69 1 2 19.8% 25.0% 30.2% 24.0% 0.3% 0.7% Asian/Pl M F 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% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ' 0 0 ' 0 0 I 0 1 .. 0 0.3% 0.0% 1 ,. 0 0.3% 0.0% i: I  i i i.' l : I. j 1 ! i i 1. i Grade Totals 07 264 08 243 Totals 507 Percentages M North Little Rock Public'Schools Lakewood Middle School 6002-070 07-08 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 79 71 56 53 1 2 95 66 40 42 0 0 174 137 96 95 1 2, 34.3% 27.0% 18.9% 18.7% 191 ' ' 0.2% 0.4% \" '.i . _, , j).t : ,,.,, l~~\nt{ ~h,.j .r _,_.,,J,J\\ r~i'i!~J,.:.,,..-:,.i. 1~~- -4.~i:\": :_.+k~t,1i\n.. ' .{f:r'Uio  ~,--:.,:,.ff~ I \u0026lt;t(r-. Asian/Pl . ~ .. Aml/Als M  F. -, .. M F 0 '2 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 2. 0 ' 0 0.0% ,0.4% 0.0% 0.0% . \"! \\ \\ \\ \\ 1 ' ,I \nI 1  ' Grade Totals 07 305 08 300 Totals 605  I l . , L.\\:.:~. . . - M North Little Rock Public Schools Ridgeroad Middle School 6002-072 07-08 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 65 56 85 90 3 5 67 58 86 81 5 2 132 114 171 171 8 7 21.8% 18.8% 28.3% 28.3% 1.3% 1.2% .. , \\ Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% . !  ... l , '. :1.\n.. ! . ' , ..... ' J -~ :1:~{,'.  ' ~~- ~ ~'/?. .: l/:,-,~ \\~ ..  t,1 .\u0026gt;.:.? ,_ .\n.(' !\\\n'.'t~' .... ,. ~. \n. .-:r:'. ~:~ \\.\n ~I  / ( , \\l:~..,.  :/(}X I V l Grade Totals 07 149 08 163 09 4 10 2 11 1 12 2 Totals 321 Percentages a,J ..  I' M North Little Rock Public Schools Rose City Middle School 6002-077 07-08 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 30 24 44 46 3 2 36 32 46 48 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 68 58 92 96 4 2 21.2% 18.1% 28.7% 29.9% 1.2% 0.6% 1 , _. ..  ' . '  I ':., I : : , ~ '.  f . ,\n_.,~\n.., ..... Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.3% 0.0% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 ' 0 0 , 0 0.0% 0.0% I  : i~t ~ ., , _\n: I~ /~\" .'I:.\\:.-~ .~~ f J\" Grade Totals M 06 2 07 9 08 14 09 35 10 25 11 ' 17 12 .20 Totals 122  North Little Rock Public Schools Argenta Academy 6002-076 06-12 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 4 1 8 1 0 8 0 15 10 1 2 2 17 4 0 2 1 10 4 0 3 3 9 5 0 21 7 66 25 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Percentages 17.2% 5.7% 54.1% 20.5% 0.8% 0.8% qi '\n. ~ .\n). ~ ~ -. ~ ~\n- ~... : ?- . ,\n,: ... : t/ bL . ,.ti.'.J? f Ji:izr ~t:f.':\n.\n: (:t it '.:  ... Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Aml/Als M F 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.8% 0.0% i I ,i ' I' ' ! I i 1 i ' ! ' .. . ,,., \\ ( .f ~,., t~~:.,'iAt . . {. ~ .\n::~ '! ~ ... 'j-\\Y.\" ._., Grade Totals 09 691 10 680 Totals 1371 Percentages ~ . ) ' .. .. North Little Rock Public Schools NLRHS-East Campus 6002-075 09-10 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 156 141 179 200 6 7 163 162 159 186 1 4 319 303 338 386 7 11 23.3% 22.1% 24.7% 28.2% 0.5% 0.8% / I ,  ..'. .. -~  ' . \\\n'. _. .......\" ~ol : :'t ~\n'~ ' ._ _.,,! , I I :.t~,,-i.\n~J -!:,:. l.\n: Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 3 3 0 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% I  ' ,. i 1 I I ' ' ,\n, \nI . ' -\n_ t,\n, .: \u0026lt;'.~\nJ ,/rt ' . ' .. . ,=._,,\n.. '-\u0026lt;'' .\n~\n, - ,. '. ' Grade Totals 09 38 10 70 11 577 12 574 Totals 1259 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools NLRHS-West Campus 6002-076 11-12 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 4 4 15 14 1 0 19 11 24 16 0 0 161 137 133 132 4 5 146 165 118 135 5 2 330 317 290 297 10 7 26.2% 25.2% 23.0% 23.6% 0.8% 0.6% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 4 o '\n0 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% ., . ,:\ni : i I I ! I I I, I I. .I .\n,1 : . ,\n,, ' ' ~ ' :.'!., . . ~-  '\u0026lt; ... ~:..-t~\", .. ':\",\\ .,  \\~ r:\n:1. \\(\\\u0026lt;\n{ ,t1~1:\".~~~)' ~JI .,__. ,,- :'  ,J:.)'  ~., ,\nV t ~!:- ' .:,I .. North Little Rock Public Schools SUMMARY October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic Grade Totals M F M F M F Elementary 4868 978 907 1499 1398 39 34 Percentages 20.1% 18.6% 30.8% 28.7% 0.8% 0.7% Grades 1-6 4049 838 774 1233 1134 34 26 Percentaoes 20.7% 19.1% 30.5% 28.0% 0.8% 0.6% Secondary 4185 1044 936 1053 1070 31 30 Percentages 24.9% 22.4% 25.2% 25.6% 0.7% 0.7% District Totals 9053 2022 1843 2552 2468 70 64 Percentages 22.3% 20.4% 28.2% 27.3% 0.8% 0.7% District 1-12 8234 1882 1740 2286 2204 65 56 22.9% 21.1% 27.8% 26.8% 0.8% 0.7% /-IZ ~J_?,t/ I\u0026lt; 7 Z'f ,t\nI''~ )\nI '7 t? 1Jirmlt..r7 iW,J~ CJ5 'f ~ y'J t) I ~~ ,1?~ uol~ ... I i' . , ..  ... . ,_, ~ \" ,: '.\\\n- ' ,. ~ ,. ..\n#  _,..\n .,. , ~--l., -,~\\~ ~ :'\"\nt \"r .. :._ Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 4 4 4 1 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 3 3 3 1 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 8 10 2 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 12 14 6 \" 2 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 11 13 5 2 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0%\n)eC.- J. ,q~o P Id). \"?r\n- fd\"\"' ~ .. ~- ~\nf~  glf J  I . ,, . ~  I' : ' ' ~ , ,_ ...  ~ ':,,.:~~\n'  f 'j '~  .. ~\n,_r ' .. . ~ ,\n. \\ t .. : .... .,.  ,-ct ~r\nr . 8. ', , Grade Totals Pre-school 95 ::. Kindergarten 724 01 737 02 687 03 632 04 603 05 656 06 736 07 727 08 720 09 768 10 777 11 595 12 596 North Little Rock Public Schools SUMMARY BY GRADE October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 8 5 39 42 0 1 8.4% 5.3% 41.1% 44.2% 0.0% 1.1% 132 128 227 222 5 7 18.2% 17.7% 31.4% 30.7% 0.7% 1.0% 125 131 240 228 7 4 17.0% 17.8% 32.6% 30.9% 0.9% 0.5% 137 114 239 186 4 4 19.9% 16.6% 34.8% 27.1% 0,6% 0.6% 132 117 186 186 5 5 20.9% 18.5% 29.4% 29.4% 0.8% 0.8% 123 132 184 151 7 5 20.4% 21.9% 30.5% 25.0% 1.2% 0.8% 159 132 175 180 4 4 24.2% 20.1% 26.7% 27.4% 0.6% 0.6% 163 148 210 203 7 5 22.1% 20.1% 28.5% 27.6% 1.0% 0.7% 175 151 191 190 7 9 24.1% 20.8% 26.3% 26.1% 1.0% 1.2% 202 157 180 172 6 2 28.1% 21.8% 25.0% 23.9% 0.8% 0.3% 170 146 209 225 8 8 22.1% 19.0% 27.2% 29.3% 1.0% 1.0% 184 176 200 206 1 4 23.7% 22.7% 25.7% 26.5% 0.1% 0.5% 163 138 143 137 4 5 27.4% 23.2% 24.0% 23.0% 0.7% 0.8% 149 168 129 140 5 2 25.0% 28.2% 21.6% 23.5% 0.8% 0.3% Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0.1% 0.1% 0 2 0.0% . 0.3% 1 1 0.1% 0.1% 1 0 0.2% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 0 0.2% 0.0% 0 0 0.0%  0.0% 0 2 0.0% 0.3% 0 1 0.0% 0.1% 0 1 0.0% 0.1% 4 2 0.5% 0.3% 2 3 0.3% 0.5% 2 1 0.3% 0.2% Aml/Als M F 0 '' 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 i 0 0.1% 0.0% 0 ,\n0 0.0% 0.0% 0 .\n0 0.0% 0.0% 1 :i 0 0.2% 0.0% 1 ' 0  0.2% 0.0% 0 : 1 0.0% 0.2% 0 1\n0 0.0% 0.0% 2 ,\\ 0 0.3% 0.0% 0 : 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 :1 1 0.0% 0.1% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 I 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% ' I, Figures in columns 2 thtu 14 should be to the nearest whole number C. Resident pupils sent to other c5st(s) Lndet \"M to M\" transfers List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County Pulaski County P4 North little Rock 0. Total C cf colurT'JlS 12. 13. 14. These wiD be u,ed for MF?/Transp. A.Kpi urposes E. Non-re:i:ident pupils received from other district(s) unde\u0026lt; \"M to M\" tnnsfers. list Districts LEA HO. Pulaski County North Little Rocle Pulaski County - P4 G. Total E ADT - ADA - ADM Thiirq,ortis due \"ithin fifte:a(l~l ch)\"Sa ftCTthcm d ofthc qmru-r( ,,vk. Cock Am. 6-J\u0026amp;,-213S, upp 1991). Sc:i::douecopylO~ office of Loal Fisa.l Scniccs., it.( Capi~ ~lall. Room 202-A. Lialc Rod.. Mmsu r...20 I md ooc copy to the Coumy Board o(Edacatioa. Ea:h quzrur ts 10 ~ 00 !cu dim fem (40) .mdo o mOR thzDf iftv {!lOld a\"'- I I l I l I  s  1 I  I  KINDERGARTEN GRADES DAYS [N A'TTE-.l\u0026gt;A.l'\\CE DAYS ADM 0 .. .\\Y S IS ATJ'D'DA.~CE DAYS ABSE:s'T' TOTAL TOTAL ~ TOTAL COL TOTAL T COL4+5 011l T' ?,\n\"'r 2+3 .I.!'-,( /COL I T ,T COLL~C,..--S 43 4023 4023 160 97 43252 43252 43 2042 2042 90 50 42 6226 6226 -- 40 1927 1927 24 49 15377 15377 40 80 80 2 1576 1576 40 1923 1923 57 50 40 2007 2007 24 51 16953 16953 H. Number ot kindergarten ptJpa enroned this quiirtet: full-rime: il Add:itioaaJiasttua:ioasOlltac:k. I 10 11 11 1l I \" 1 -12 C0\"13C-.cD TOTAL DAYS GRADESK-12 ABSE?,T TOTAL ADT -~A \"\" TOTAL T+Nl COL 9+10 /COL COL. 2+7 JCOL COL 4.,.9 .'COL COL 4-ST 7-!-\u0026amp; I I I 9-10.COLI 1955 1051 1099 1099 1149 358 157 148 - 148 157 1,248 1,248 1,.305 526 398 433 446 77 41 41 43 ' 603 439' 474 489 PlN-09--00-0055 /91 W/P4 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT November 11, 1996 Ms. Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage west Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Guldin: 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216-8601 (501) 490-2000 NOV 1 2 1996 Officeo f DesegregatioMn. ornto110~ In response to your memorandum of October 28, 1996, requesting our school capacity figures for 1996-97 school year. Please note the capacity changes for the following four schools: Arnold Drive - Oakbrooke - Sylvan Hills El. - Mills Hi. 420 to 390 555 to 475 519 to 469 780 to 850 I hope this information will help aid you in your report. Sincerely,\n!\n.cf?-1'--- Assistant Superintendent EH:bh c: Mr. Billy Bowles Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: October 28, 1996 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Ed Hogan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, Pulaski County Special School District From: Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Subject: School Capacity Figures for 1996-97 We are currently at work on the 1996-97 Racial Balance Report. This year, as last, we plan to include a chart that makes the comparison between each school's enrollment and its capacity. A copy of the 1995-96 PCSSD chart is enclosed. Please review the information and notify us if any of the capacities have changed. We need any notice of change by Tuesday, November 12, 1996. If we do not hear from you, we will assume that all capacities remain unchanged, and we will publish the figures you furnished last year. Thank you for your help. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: October 28, 1996 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Ed Hogan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, Pulaski County Special School District From: Subject: Melissa Guldin~tsociate Monitor School Capacity Figures for 1996-97 We are currently at work on the 1996-97 Racial Balance Report. This year, as last, we plan to include a chart that makes the comparison between each school's enrollment and its capacity. A copy of the 1995-96 PCSSD chart is enclosed. Please review the information and notify us if any of the capacities have changed. We need any notice of change by Tuesday, November 12, 1996. If we do not hear from you, we will assume that all capacities remain unchanged, and we will publish the figures you furnished last year. Thank you for your help. Elementary Schools Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson Total aae 64 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CURRENT YEAR ENROLLMENT TO CAPACITY COMPARISON Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Oct 1, 1995 1995-96 Percentage Junior High Oct 1, 1995 Enrollment Capacity Filled Schools Enrollment 343 420 82% Fuller 879 380 420 90% Jacksonville North 631 318 328 97% Jacksonville South 508 485 768 63% Northwood 980 635 664 96% Robinson 464 552 600 92% Scott Alternative Sch 47 661 800 83% Sylvan Hills 848 309 340 91% Total 4,357 790 820 96% 462 465 99% 381 526 72% 325 525 62% 752 785 96% Senior High Schools Oct 1, 1995 Enrollment 484 599 81% Jacksonville 996 308 365 84% Mills 751 451 476 95% North Pulaski 815 455 555 82% Oak Grove Jr./Sr. 892 498 440 113% Robinson 358 579 656 88% Sylvan Hills 803 387 500 77% 136 280 49% Total 4,615 463 492 94% 444 519 86% 420 444 95% 544 570 95% 11,562 13,357 87% Grand Total Oct 1, 1995 for PCSSD Enrollment 20,534 1995-96 Percentage Capacity Filled 945 93% 737 86% 727 70% 1,014 97% 514 90% 125 38% 925 92% 4,987 87% 1995-96 Percentage Capacity Filled 1,025 97% 780 96% 900 91% 935 95% 506 71% 998 80% 5,144 90% 1995-96 Percentage Capacity Filled 23,488 87% r C:~..._ P.1 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 EAsr DixoN ROAD LITTLER oa\u0026lt;.A, RKANSAS7 2206 (501) 490~2000 Date: I I I ~I:\n(,J Time: To: () From: Number of Pages /\n(including cover sheet): ------'\nL~. __ _ Message I ., POST 0rnCE Box 8601 LrITLER oa\u0026lt;, ARKANSAS 72216 FAX (501) 490-0483 LI/') IV\\_ From: ~ Return D Keep or Toss\u0026lt;t'.J [ Post-11\"7668COM1 993 ___:-- ~ t.J / t'../:.,,-\u0026lt;-,-2./ ()J./t\\../j v~j/J--i.,T7\\_ s I J NOV 05 '% ~19: -1'3 OCTOBER 1, 1996 ENROLLMENT REPORT WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIA.NI P. ISL.!\\:'.1[ SCHOOL BJy'S GIRLS rois cm.s 8JiS Gill[$ BJiS GIRLS Fuller Jr. High 267 -)~9 188 ,B8f96 /,Es l 4 2 J'ville North i19?\n~.\n/3/ /~ 213 86 117 127 6 2 2 J'ville South 1.3I~ ~00 II 160 158 101 99 3 1 3 J'ville High 352 ~\n1~0 161 ~61 /3/ 2 l 7 4 Mills High -Yc:?S ..J/OtJ 246 179 224 176 I/ 2 l l 7 North Pulaski 289' !?C\u0026gt; ~\n}-, /6 281 113 89 3 6 2 3 Northwood (,, 1J' i.\n,18' ,3d- 363 315 108 110 2 8 7 3 Oak Grove 371 ~81310 114 ~.l2 /..\ni., 5 1 2 4 Rob Jr. High ~i60 /d I 161 56 57 l Rob. High ~I(,, ./~- I 160' 156 83 39 l S.Hills Jr. . ~~69 ~9 .5 308 155 734 2 1 l S. Hills High ~'2so [.\n,17 /,..).., 301 106 l J' . l 6 4 l l TOTAL SEC. ~i1'5'.:i C ~,1~7 1~1 3,191 1 .,763 1,526 1 , 4.ll 27 32 28 31 fc~3~l: ~ ~~o .\n,,t. 'if' DIST. TOTAL 7,077 o,320 3,425 ,.., .,, -?Q -:, 76 58 46 62 P.3 (11-4-96) M--1.lmf'ESGMJ EOtS Grn:S l 3 l l 1 l l 5 4 ! Tor.~\n: 843! ~ ~7 a\u0026amp; I 653 7 529: I 978: ~ ~ 1-1, : 836: 7871 918' ~ 9.i9 -'. .-.\n-):-J ~~9 ~ ,l, i s,1i ~cg ~~ -a7 ~~ : 8i0 9,Qigj 15 11 I 20,295 63 1 (NOTE: Students attending the Alte=~ative Learning Center at Scott are included in the totals of their home school.) ~ ~/4,,::s ' /(,_\n/..!,1)~\n) ~ C -r 1tJ ~') / /{) g C) /J ~ (] ~,)70 -35 .a  7~ -17 ~ (?L/ d// =1Ct, ~5 0 I ~, t\\1~V' ?'-'J /..::\n_,/ ,/4 ~ 9 d\"G, 0 ~ ~ --\"\"\") ) ~ ~~K (o~ v --19 ~3 0 7, .9~ ~S( :ii )?1 /.:2? //~ :::::H'f -11 1o - 2 - F.2 OCTOBER 1, 1996 ENROLLMENT REPORT ( 11-4-96) SCHOOL lv'HITE BLACK HI SPA'\\ilC ~ P rq .ll1\\n Lll\\f Thr'~ I BJ.iS GIN.S EDYS r.,rns ~ GIR[S EUiS I GrRl:S Fn,a::\nr.\nn:\nrc:\n'ltJll-L / Adkins /'!O //9 ..3 93 97 60 59 312 I , ... l l Arnold Drive 149 r{['7 44 f3 39 ~, , ..... 381 Baker ~3'/ 76 --Y2 124 115 39 36 l 1 318 Bates 112 ::)1/ 99 129 ..is-'123 I 1 464 Bayou Mete (,0~ It\n, /0 310 292 9 7 6 1 l 1 l 628 Cato 225 i\n,'/,5 190 63 1/8' 55 9 2 4 2 1 542 Clinton 207 :1167 156 .::?-6189 ,::3() 6 5 4 4 I l 739 College Station 102 /717 83 1.3-f 51 /0 2 l 3 4 323 Crystal Hill I-IIG, 14~f1s .3 209 207 181 2 l 778 I ~I~ //~ o/ I Dupree 169 147 58 55 l l 3 l 3 438 , Fuller Elem. 76 /13 llO ~~ 112 ~ l l l l 375 Harris 73 1.a0, 76 /(,/ 85 7 6 , ... 303 I rf''v ~oS ,If\u0026amp;) J'ville Elem. 202 214 161 144 2 3 l 3 l 731 Landmark 147 \u0026amp;ia-s 138 122 dlo/ 97 504 Lawson 138 ~..i/1 109 21 ~11 26 294 I Oak Grove Elem. ~14 /0/ 7 160 156 so 51 ? l l 421 ~35 /10 g Oakbrooke 185 150 59 51 1 2 l 2 1 1 41\n- _,j Pine Forest l..3#8' n ID 189 159 46 52 3 l 2 4 456 Pinewood a,,ID 191 I~ 164 176 94 97 5 l 5 l 54.3 Robinson Elem. 30\n,..,. iO 157 145 40 40 382 Scott r~ 46 36 24 -i5 21 127 Sherwood 169 31-..'.\n,~ g 60 10(, 46 .\n1., 2 416 Sylvan Hills Elem. 1~9 I~/ II 161 .59 42 6 5 422 ..:)30 /G,5 .\nJ- Taylor 117 113 98 67 l 1 397 1 Tolleson -yo~ /..,1\u0026amp;\" 202 200 57 71 530 l ~~ ~(,,)'~ TOTAL ELEM. 3,886 7 1,899 1,794 \"1..1,9/ ! 26 18 31 I 10 7 ll,27i _ _,,:iCT 30 \"?13 11 : lb P. 1 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 EA.s0rt xON RoAO I.mu Roa\u0026lt;, ARKANSAS 72206 (501) 490-2000 Date: IO /_30/f/ /\nI Time: To: From: Number of Pages (includingc overs heet): --=0:a._.._.. .., _ ( I I Message POSTO FFICEB ox 8601 LTILE Rea:, AR.KANSAS 72216 FA,.X(S01)4900483 '\\ 1, I I ! : SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meta Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Elem. Harris J'ville Elem. Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Elem. Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Elem. Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Elem. Taylor Tolleson TOTAL ELEM. OCTOBER 1, 1996 ENROLLMENT REPORT 93 97 60 39 149 147 44 39 124 115 39 36 112 99 129 123 310 292 9 7 190 63 56 208 168 l56 190 77 83 51 209 207 181 1-17 58 55 76 73 llO l I ::.12 73 62 76 I 85 I 202 161 144 147 138 122 138 109 21 26 160 156 so I 51 185 150 59 51 I 1asi 159 46 52 164 176 94 98 157 l.45 40 40 46 36 24 21 169 139 60 46 161 1~9 59 42 117 113 98 67 202 200 57 71 3,887 3,558 1,899 1,797 1. l l 2 6 6 l - I .r. I 2 3 5 2 6 l, 49 l l l l 5 1 I ll ., -r l 2 , .J.. 1 26 l 4 3 l 1 I 2 , .J.. 18 l l ..I. . s ,.., ~ I..:.. ( 10-29-96) 4 4 3 l l 2 1 -, , 3.:sl l l 2 4 2 3 l l 2 4 5 3.\nJf 377 72:3 I ~201 '--1 l.L ! 530 I 31 l.1.. .5. ..- ol ~30 P.: OCTOBER 1, 1996 ENROLLME!'IT REPORT ( l0-20-96) WiI'Y::: 8._t.C.{ - nLSEllNIC ASi!l-VP .IS!:)N). A.:::!'D':::S:.\n?0 SCHOOL l:::!.J.!.., \\=_\"\u0026lt;1 :--, ~l::S ll.L::) aJ't'S Gl.RTS invs c::~.S ~ GIH(S Fulfer Jr. High 267 179 l8~ .i% ,eJ :\nl 4 2 4 2 J'ville North .. 211 182 115 127 sl 2 .., 2 2 ~ J' ville South 160 160 :01 99 3 .L 3 l 3 J'ville High 353 290 161 163 .., .. 1 7 4 7 4 Mills High 246 180 2?' -C _,/-Q , . 2 1 .l ,_ i l I 7 North Pulaski 289 281 114 89 3 6 2 .) 2 3 Northwood 363 315 108 111 .., .:. 8 7 3 7 3 Oak Grove .-:.:-,1/_ 310 114 112 5 1. I 2 I ~ I 4 I I I Rob Jr. High l60 loO 57 :-) .I, I - I ' ' Rob. High 15S ~53 78 39 I l I l ! I S.Hills Jr. 309 269 155 lj4 2 I ' , l I I I s. Hills High 301 2s1I 105 I lll C ., l , .., - l I l TOTAL SEC. 3,189 I 2,760 , -...-. 1,.~:4 r 7, I - , :)L,j -I ,.j_ 28 3: 28 31 DIST. TOTAL 7,076 I ,'j I j- 13 3,422 3 ., ,., 76 s7 I '46 , ..... ,.c...:...!. c~ 46 62 (The srudents at che .U~emat:ive Leam.irlg Ce.11te:c-had to be lcf\u0026lt;'.)rt~ .i..\". the figures for their tare schcols) . .') .. '!Crr.\n.~. s~~, 6~3 I ~31 S\\S:2 en :~.:. (\nl\"_\"-\nI C - - ....~ : I 42tS ~..)..:,. I a-:-2 C .. .\n9 ,G-~2 20,J-\n-6 ' I\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\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_1003","title":"\"Educational Equity Monitoring 1995-96, Second Semester Summary Report,\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, 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":["1996-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Educational Equity Monitoring 1995-96, Second Semester Summary Report,\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, 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/1003"],"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":["202 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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1631","title":"Court Filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental memorandum regarding the issue of an award of attorneys' fees and costs","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":["Walker, John W."],"dc_date":["1996-08-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers","Court records","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School discipline","Student assistance programs","School improvement programs","Education--Evaluation","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental memorandum regarding the issue of an award of attorneys' fees and costs"],"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/1631"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  Rece,,,En~~HN w. WALKER. P.A.  A'ITORNEY AT LAW AVG 1 2 1996 Office of Desegregation Monijorin9 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKErr------ ---- ----- - RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. August 9, 1996 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Office of Oe~eg, cgation Monijorifl.n,, , , United States District Judge  . , ..._ _, United states Federal Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find our supplemental memorandum which supports our contention for compensation for work on behalf of particular class members relative to our motion for fees. Also enclosed are Attachments A, B, c, which address disparate discipline in the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts. I have also asked Ms. Springer, of my office, to give a supplemental affidavit contrasting the ODM and Joshua monitoring reports with respect to the North Little Rock School District. Attachment Dis a copy of an affidavit that I submitted to the Court in my motion for fees in the Day-Hollowell case which supports my request for $250.00. Finally, we further remind the Court of our enclosure one which was attached to our opposition to LRSD's request for release of federal court jurisdiction which also supports our position for fees in this matter. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown REcec~\"-D - AUG 1 2 1996 f'ol,\\;,~ij;:.s.s _c.!LcdIJN 01s1r.1ci p.. Office Of Deseg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I i\u003c' Q 9 i99o ragation M~RN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS P.,ul.l \\(  ........._________ WESTERN DIVISION cor-MP-C\\(, CLE.P,   M  , - JP-MES \\N_~:-~ .. ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Bf ~rtrc:,-~- v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS Joshua Intervenors' Supplemental Memorandum Regarding the Issue of an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs Decisions Recognizing as Compensable Work on Behalf of a Class Member(s) As Well As Preparation of a Report on Monitoring (1.) Brewster v. Dukakis, 544 F.Supp. 1069, 1072 (D.Mass. 1982), aff'd as modified on other issues, 786 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1986) In describing the \"vigorous and necessary role in implementation\" played by plaintiffs' counsel, in a case involving the deinstitutionalization of persons with mental disabilities, the district court includes in part \"report[ing] and vigorously press[ing] charges of client abuse or neglect both in the community and in the hospital [and] represent[ing] clients during hearings on the drafting of individual service plans called for in the Decree .... \" The court of appeals quoted with approval the district court's having distinguished the roles of the \"court-appointed monitor\" and plaintiffs' counsel by noting counsel's responsibility for \"advocating on behalf of plaintiff class 1 responsibility for \"advocating on behalf of plaintiff class members.\" See 786 F.2d at 19 n.5. (2.) Eirhart v. Libbey-Owens-Ford co., 996 F.2d 846, 850-51 (7th Cir. 1993) In case involving sex discrimination in employment where the court had earlier approved a consent decree, the court ruled that compensable \"post-decree work\" included work on \"a dispute over whether a class member had shown 'good cause' under the terms of the decree to delay the starting date of her employment with Libbey.\") (3.) McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1461 (8th Cir. 1988) In a case involving conditions and practices on death row in a Missouri penetentiary, the court's description of appropriate monitoring activities by counsel included \"interviewing prisoners [and] investigating complaints .... \" (4.) Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 856-57 (9th Cir. 1987) In a case involving compliance with the Constitution and federal and state law in the construction of a freeway, the court of appeals quoted with approval a list of postjudgment activities identified by the district court as compensable, including the following: \"[i]Tenant relocation issue: assisting Advocate's office in resolving disputes between Advocate's Office and Caltrans regarding orderly removal of remaining corridor residents. [ii] Housing priorities for displacees: mediating disputes between the Advocate's Office and Caltrans to ensure the preservation of priority for displacees who are forced out prior 2 to availability of housing .... [iii] status Conferences: preparation of quarterly reports for court's Quarterly Conference on staus of project.\" In an opinion addressing fees for a subsequent period, the district court described the quarterly reports as follows: \"providing quarterly comprehensive reports to the court which summarize the progress made in implementing their decree and draw to the court's attention potential areas of difficulty; ... \" See Keith, 644 F.Supp. 1312, 1314 (C.D.Cal. 1986). (5.) Duran v. Carruthers, 885 F.2d 1492, 1496 (10th cir. 1989) In approving fees for postjudgment services, the court quoted with approval the district court's description of compensable activities by counsel in Brewster v. Dukakis. supra, - including activities on behalf of class members. (6.) Alexander v. Hill, 625 F.Supp. 567, 568, 569 (W.D.N.C. 185) In case involving compliance with federal time limits for processing Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Medicaid applications, the court identified as compensable time spent by counsel in \"review[ing] thousands of documents and hundreds of files in ten counties across the state as well as Medicaid files 3 at the Disability Determination Section in Raleigh.\" ohn w. Walker# 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing supplemental memorandum was s~~~ via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~day of Aug\"M//,~,.., v6\"ohnw. Walker \\... 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER STATE OF ARKANSAS) SS) COUNTY OF ___ ) Comes now the affiant, Joy C. Springer, who after first being duly sworn, states as follows: 1. This affidavit supplements my affidavit dated November 21, 1995, in which I described work performed in this case totaling over 3100 hours. It is to give a contrast between the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors' monitoring reports with respect to the North Little Rock School District. 2. The Joshua reports for the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, which included the monitoring of the North Little Rock School District, differed from the reports of the Office of Des~gregation Monitoring in that the gathering of information for the Joshua reports included on-site visits to every school in the North Little Rock School District. The Joshua reports were 1 based, in part, upon information secured during these school - visits and interviews with the principals and other staff members. The Joshua reports also set forth anecdotal information from students, parents, and staff (a feature present in ODM reports to a lesser extent). Joshua's reports integrated statistical data from schools profiles. They further addressed more areas of operation of the NLRSD than the ODM has addressed in its reports concerning this district. Areas in the Joshua reports included curriculum, discipline, parental involvement, staffing, student enrollment by school and in particular programs, student participation in activities, and general areas of concern. The overall findings of the Joshua reports indicated that there was a substantial amount of noncompliance by each of the districts including North Little Rock regarding their - commitments to address achievement disparities, discipline disparities, integrated parental involvement, student assignments, integrated staffing, overrepresentation in special education, and underrepresentation in gifted and advanced placement classes. 3. I am familiar with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and its charge to monitor the settlement agreement for the Pulaski County school districts. I also have some knowledge of the ODM's areas of concentration for their monitoring activities in previous years after having met with members of the ODM, staff on several occasions. Moreover, I have read the reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring that have been 2 distributed for last five years. - 4. Based upon my recollection, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has produced written reports relating to five specific areas of .the North Little Rock School District over the last five years. These areas are racial balance, alternative schools, student participation in two of the many extracurricular activities, achievement disparity and buildings. 5. The ODM's first written published report on the North Little Rock School District was dated December 18, 1992. It was entitled 111991-92 Monitoring Report on the Alternative Schools: LRSD, NLRSD and PCCSD.\" The second written published report was dated February 26, 1993. This report was entitled \"NLRHS-West Campus 1992-93 Spirit Team Recruitment and Selection Process.\" It was completed, in part, as a result of a motion for - preliminary injunction by the Joshua Intervenors regarding the selection of cheerleaders and spirit team members at North Little Rock West campus. There have been at least two written published reports on Racial Balance dated January 12, 1994 and January 31, 1995. The next written published report was entitled \"Status Report on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD.\" The last written published report regarding North Little Rock was recently released on July 31, 1996 and was entitled \"Report on Elementary School Facilities in the North Little Rock School District.\" 6. This is not to say that the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has not been monitoring this District in other areas 3 since the settlement agreement simply because there is no written - report. Joshua has not completed a written monitoring report since its report of June 27, 1993, however, they have continued to monitor compliance with the settlement agreement in all three districts including North Little Rock . 7. I believe that there has been value to our monitoring every school in the three school districts. For at least two years straight, we visited every school in the North Little Rock School. I further believe that our frequent visits to these schools conveyed a sense that we would be vigilant about determining compliance with the agreements. Our visits also identified activities needed to improve compliance, not only in the North Little Rock School District, but in Little Rock and Pulaski County as well. We received feedback from principals and - staff regarding our findings in all three districts. I have read the foregoing affidavit and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __9 _d ay of August, 1996. Notary Public 1 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9-/7-~~3 4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES October 13, 1995 Ms. Joy Springer Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Springer: 2700 POPLAR Enclosed is a report of our disciplinary referral summary by action taken. The report is a cumulative record as of June 9, 1995 for the 1994-95 school year. - Suspensions are listed in the following areas: 09 Student Assignment Class (SAC) 10 Home Suspension 11 Boys/Girls Club Suspension ~z1o ~ff.1Iiff c~ Director of Student Affairs P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 B . ., .  Ref : , DI!JOl~ Fii .E YEAft : NLRBl\u003e9S CUML'l /\\TIVE 01~ NORTH 1.ITTLE ROCK HIGH EICHOOl. - i l/i2 R- f\u003cEFERR/\\LB - ---- - -- - - - TOTl'IL- - - - ----   - -  --.. EcLt\\CK -- -- ... - - -tc  -- --NON--llLhCI\u003c -- -  - - \" CODI:: 081.:RIPTION B...._o, lHIL ar UDE:NTQ 'Hll'Al-:c---LE- - Fl'~Al .. 6 .. l 'JlAl----HAl--.li- - - H:;.H..i . \u0026;..,:J'QT-.i.L.- - -lo--~iC .. --- - - - Ot Cun~rnc wl th Studn't R 201 181 20\" 143 130 i ~ tc ~ a ~ i 7 ~ B i~3 13~ i9  i06 94 l 2 \" 47 41 6 ~ 02 Cnnf'rance w I -th Pareni'  R - - -- -fi5------l2---f - -- -- --i:O-- -- - -- 'i\u003e --- t.- -  -- a - -----;J-----Q--------------- ------- B st to s  e 7 1\" 3 3 o K 03 Confrnc with Btudnt nd P r nt R 9 6 3 M 7 ~ 3 K 2 ~ 0  a a s 3  7 4 3  t s o  0-4  Fl   - .. 0 ---------- O  -- ~  --  -  -- - -- - - ---- - 0 - -- ---- 0-*--- -- 0 - -- --- -- 0 --~-- ------ - - - ---- - ------- 8 0 0 0 N O O O  0 0 0 015 R O O O w O O O  0 0 0 \" B O O O w O o o  0 0 0  --oe-O-tW'nt ton Hall ------ - - --- -  -  - - - - - R - ---l9? t 76--2f--l2\u0026----l ? ---- --...;,:;i . ___ _,r.-4 ___ _.._ ___ __________ _ 8 l~l 122 19  04 7 2 12   ~7 LO 7 ~ 07 8tudnt WI ll H~ Up Tim R O O o w O o O  0 0 o ~ B O O O w O o o  O O O  ---- 8tudnt Placwd c,n -P.-obat Ion --- -- - -- R ----45--- -- i!l-4----tcf- ----~---;;,,!,- - ---=.,..-. -- 4.:.! - - ---4o- ---4__..._ _____________ _ B 3B 28 10  ~7 20 7 * ii 9 3  09 R 203 2i8 6~ w 219 164 5 5  64 ~4 lO  B 172 123  9  129 07 42  43 ~6 7  ~ - -H.-- 1tuw .. wnw I cm---- - - - - - ---  --------i!I,;;. 29 2 N 22---- I ! i--- - - - ------s----- --\"\"----+--1---------------- , 13 2e 26 2 .. 20 t '.? 1 .. a 7 1 .. R 45 43 ~  43 4 1 2 - 2 2 0\" 8 25 23 2 M 23 2t 2 N 2 2 0  li flc:,y/Glrl Club Susp:nlan ---- - -- . ....... -----;----ft--0-- - ----- - ------ - -0-  - ---- 0 - - - -'--\u003ci,_ _ _ .... ,_ ________________ _ Bue au ... nlan lt--'t\"'r-ea~urdy ttct,aol--------- us Rco111 .. nded Expulwlan --;.-- - Ottnor -- ------ l7 11,.11llan a o o o .. o o o  o R 20 i9 i w i2 il 1  B 0 8 B 18 17 t  12 S\\ l\" 6 6 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. R 29-4 20!5 89  S.69 lt.i-!---1!Fl '---f,li!t!!l!5;.---~9'i'~-.;.---;,hi!--~------------- B 209 i36 73  1 2 0 ~i. -49  1~9 R 4 4 0 w  4 0 N 0 a 4 4 o \" 4 4 o  o o:S (\u003e 0 0 ., ---- - --- ---R---26--- 2l---6 ----  iii! a:'i~ --   -- ----- -2 - -----------i---------------- 0 24 19 ~  22 1~ 4  2 i l w A 4 4 0 w  4 0 N O O O tt 8 4 4 0 N 4 4 0 N O O O N - -   - - --- -- - ------------'l\"'O-- Rfi'.FERR,l,t;a-------'l'-,--- -95l-- - Q--\u0026f.15-----.....,.- - i....,_. _ .. - -~\\'!.,..__-.;,.. ,.. .::. .__ _. .,_..----------------- TOTAL STUDENTS---- 83~ 6~2 183 tt Si,6 ' 432 i ~ 'I \" ;;,9 ~~-o .. ,9 ... ---  - . . ------ -------------- ----------- - ---- - - -------- - - ----- - ---- -- -- --- -- ---------------------------- tt----- -- -- - -- - ----- ------------ - - - - - - ----------- - ------ - -------------- - --  ,, \"' ----------------------- ---- --------------- ------------------------------------------------ . ------ -- - ------ -- - ---------- - ---- - --- ----------- ---------------------------- - - - - ----------- ------- - -- ---- ---- ---- - - --------------- --- - -- -- -- ---------------------- - --- - - - -------------- ----  - ----........ -- --- ...,1----- ---- - ------------- --- ------------------------- - -------- - - --------- ------------ --------------  Ref, , DIU01 .5. F II. E r'EAF~ , NL.l~BlY~ CLIHUI..ATIVE 013 NORl.H l . ITlLE ROCK Hl~H 6CHOOL  \u003c\u003e9/10 F\u003c   REFl'RR/\\Lfl COl\u003ett hl!:8Cft I F-r I UN 8-... Cl UAt . f'I I UDl;.HTfJ 0l with Gtudnt 02 0:1 Con1'rnc wl th Studer,t and Pa, en1: 0-4 oa Detwntlr,n Hall 07 Student Will Hak Up 11~ oe  8tudnt Placed on  0Prohe  lan 09 Studnt \"'--nt ClaaaC\u0026IIIC\u003e 1--to - - - eu.,....,., \". ll B\u003ev  /Clr l Club Suepanlon R 97 63 34  66  6 2 0,. 31 9 86 ~5 31 tt ~9 40 J ,, N ',,,l.7 17 i. -4 .. l2 \" R - S\"' --- 10 --   .. .. -  ~2-----9---- -i'l---- 2 --- --i ~ ---if------- - ----- ----- 13 14 so 'I ,. 12 9 :J,. 2 1 i \" R  9 3B 11 ,. ~!5 ~6 9  \\  I ~ 2  B 44 34 10  31 23 a 13 11 2  R i'i. 14   -'?   ~.5 - - - --+-   \u003c!r- .., -----6- - --- S----l--------- - - -- ----------- - - -- 8 ~1 14 7 N ~~ 9 6 - 6 ~ i N R 64  7 17  47 39 12  17 12 l5  a 5a  s 1 7   i ~,;, 12  17 ~ l5  -Fe  .. 1.096-- .. ---13.5 3!ii'I - *   - ? ;\u003e-~ ----9\u0026---- ~------~--~ ~,._-______________ _ U ~92 31~ 180  339 203 136  J~3 109 ~~\" R 6 3 3  4 1 3  2 2 O \" B 6 3 3   ~ 3  2 2 0  A -- f'\u003eB  ,,, -  115  - . .. . ii() - - - - - -H--  --9--:;us-----9 .. ----4..-.. _ a ~- 39 1~  30 21 ,  2  1a R 669   7\"' 19~ tt tsO   I 3  11 lf;6 w 1-!.!5 ! l:;\u003e6 e 3~~ 232 li2  ~~7 \\ 1~? ea w ?7 7 3  - .... - - A -- -i4H - - -  87 --   -- f. - - -----  -----\u0026fl---+----.4-a------.'\"-,._ _ -;--.-- ------- ------ a 7:S 62 S.3  47 3 1 i O  2 8 ! 2!5 R 79 ~~ 24  67 ~lJ t9 ~ 12 ' 7 8 64. 4~ 22 N ~3 :56 17  11-~ 6 ::s \"  - --- - ----- A - -0 ---- -- \u003c\u003e --- - ----- ----- - ~\u003e- - --- - O-----O- --- -Q- ---\u003c\u003e_.~ - - - ----------- B O O O  0 U O  0 l:I 8uw Buepnalan R 13 11 2  10 9 1  3 B 12 iO 2 * 9 13 1 ~ 3 0 2 2 0 .. i .. i .. 1--,....---,alt  ~rd..., -tk:hoa l ----------     - - - -- -~- -- !5tcd - --- i5  '1-- --6,..__..._07 26!0 f.--2-- -~'6------'i~--..+.--------------- B 297 i9f l06  226 137 09\" 71 !;4 17  Ui R 2 2 0  2 ~ O  O O O M Q 2 2 0 M 2 ~ () - 0 0 0 M --;.-ath.r -- ----  - - - --- ---- --- -   - - - - - ---fl -  20'- --ti39 - --65   -  ib7- ----i0=! ----6-- 7 ;,.,_ _ ... ,...-_.. ______________ _ B 1153 100 153 tt 11.3 70 \u003c11 :s  ... 0 :JO 10 \" 17 EPullon R :J 2 1  2 .l I.  i .1 0 \"' B 3 2 1 N 2 1 l M l l O M t---  - - -  ---- -  - - ----T0TM;- ftt!:Fe:~--t:t---~'1'6---2066  --9f 1  -tt - 220-4 --1\\-- 'IA- --- '?5'6---lli! --- fSfl~.+.l-=s----- ------------ T01.AL STIIDENTel-- 17:,::s t.i-4? :\"17l, * 12:,10 7e1 ::.  'l:':i \" 4'1!5 3l,... 1., 1  - ----  -   - - - ----  ---- ----.. - - --... - - -- - - .. ... . .. ... - .... ----- --- - -- -- - - - - ------ - --- ------- --------------- 1------ - - - - - - ---- - ----------- - ------- ---- ----- - -- ---------  -- - - ---- - --- ---- - ------------------------- - - -- ----------- --- . - ..... -- - - - --------  . _ ,, -- -- --  - - ---- - -- ---------- .... ---- ------ - . .. - ---- - .. -- -   . - -- - - - ---- ---- -- ---- --- - ------ ---------- --------------- ------  - -- -- - - - - ---------- -- --- - ----------- - --- ----- - ----- --- - - --- - - - ---- - -------- ------ .. ---------------------- It----- --   --. -    - -- --- ---- ---  - ------ ---- ------  -\"-- -  -----  ----\"- - - - - - - - ---------- .. - . ---- --------  Rt : j OJHOj .J. FJI i;_ ,E. Af~ , \u003c811'15 CllHUL,,TIVE 020 ,,._ l\"l,RNATIVE CENTER - i::l.1:HE,~TA \u003c l' R-  REF HRF\u003cALB   - -- l oTAL--     - N      --  Etl.r.CI\u003c --  -  - --  - -NON EtL-.CI\u003c -- --\" COl\u003eE IIESC\"I,.TIUN e~AC;\"I UAI. STUDENTe TOTril. HfllL e - FE_H ... l.E*\"f O'f\"';---+fN-:E--f-r.H,t,LE\u003c\u003effH-.a.L Hi1lLE - -F:H,i,l:E=-- - - - ------------- 01 C1.,11 frnc with Ytudnt r~ o o 0 M O O O M O 0 6 .. a o o \" 02 C1.,n'frnc  WI th Prn1\" -  - - o  -- - -o - 0 M O ( ) 0 M O O ? M --o-,. - -\u0026- ---- 0---- - -0 ------~----e-1,..~-------------- B O 0 \u003c\u003e N O O OM O O O 4 03 Ct\u003enfrnc with l3tudent Htid Prnt R \u003c\u003e o () M O i) 0 M O O ()  t a o o 0 N O I) \\) H O {\u003e 0 .. o .. F-r lvl lv Denied  - R O  0   O  ,.  O --- --- -.:) ----  \u0026 --   0 ---------\u003e----- - ------------- a o o \u003c\u003e M O D O  0 0 0  OS Bhavlar Contract R 0 o 0 M O O \u003c\u003e M O O O \" 13 0 0 0 M O O O  0 0 0  - \"()6 - l)tntlon Hall  - -  R -    O -  O -- \u003c\u003e . ..   0-----~-----0----  0-----.... ---~----------------- ~) 0 0 0 N O () () M O () 0 M 07 8tudnt Will Hk Up 11~ R O 0 0  0 \u003c\u003e O  0 0 0  a o o (). 0 () 0 N O O Off 09 9tudnt Plcd on  ,...,.obatlon R   \u003c\u003e -  o - 0 ... - 0 --  - --0------0----.-   0- -- --0----0-------------------- B O 0 ()  0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 M 09 81udn't Alvn,...ni Cl\u003cBAC) R O 0 0 * 0 U O ,. 0 0 0  B o O \u003c\u003e  0 o O ,. 0 0 0  ~O-- 8uwpnlon--- -   --  --  ----- --- R - - le--  -\u003c   -   --- ... - - ~ - - - --.\u003e- --------- . 0 ---~----\u003ci------------------ B 1 0 1  1 0 l M O O 0 ll 8'\u003eys/Clrl Club l:luspnslon R O 0 0 M O O O N O O O tt 8 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 \" 0 0 0 N -t~ --1'lt School Sup  IC-6, R -   O  -o 0 * 0 ---- - --- -- - 0-  0 ------ - -0 ------- -....--0-----0--.----------------- B O \u003c\u003e 0 M O O O M O O O \" 13 811  auspenelon R o O \u003c\u003e w o n o  o o o B O 0 \u003c\u003e  o n o  o o o .. 1--1~--1_11.,tvrday Br.hoot ---   - --- - - -- - --- - - - - O -- -- -- O -\u003c -  - --  -\u0026 - - ------~- - - - - ~...------o - ---.-. ----------------------- a o o (1 M O O O ,. 0 0 0  lS Rac....,_ndd EPullon R O O 0 M O O O M O O O ff B O O () M 0 0 () M 0 0 0 tt -;-  Oth...-   - ---- -  ----- -- R - -   0 -- O - - -  0 - ...  \u003c\u003e-   - -- - ,\u003e---- -- 0 - - - --0 - ----~---~---------------- B o O 0 w O D O  0 0 0 ff 17 11!:pulslone R O 0 0 0 0 0 N O U O  0 0 0 \" 0 .. 0 0 6 .. 0 0 0 .. ------- TO\"I\",._._. ~f'-ll!:RR1'l:-- --- - - -t------- O - - 1 -tt --- ---------0 l 11 --- \u003c\u003e- ----\u003e---....._._ _______________ _ TOTAL BTUDENTB---- 1 O 1 M l O 1  0 0 0 .. I----- - - . - - -- . - - ------------- - . ---------- - ----- -- ----- - --- - ----- -------- --- ---------------------------- ,___ - - -- --- -  - -- ---- -- -------- - - --- ---------- - - . ----  - - . - -  -  .... -- - --- . -------- - --------- --- - - --------------- --- . - -- - ---------- ------ . -- ------------- ------- - -- -- -- . ----- --- - ---- - -- ---- -------------- -- - - - . -- --------- ------ ------ -- -- - '  - -- . - -- -  -----------------  ----------- ------- --- -.  ---- .. - ----- .... .. - --- -- -- --- - - - ----- --------- - - - __, _ .  - - - --- ----- - -- ------- ----- --- -- - - - --- --- -- -- - - - - Rw1 : OIHOS JSL DI ,.c Ip l In., y t\u003cwf.,.el fl umot y FJlE YEAR : NLRS095 Act lon rlcen CUHULATIVE 021 ALTCRNATIVE CEN.fEF\u003c BECONl\u003eAF\u003cY R- REFfcRRALS  --TOl AL.--- -----   -------- EoLACI\u003c - - - - - -- ----- --NON-ltLACI\u003c  - - ----,. COi'\u003e DESCRl~TION 8MAc,uAL t!ITUDt!.HT1S Tl]TAl_ - H ... Lt! l'E.HM:E..-'1-0TAL----HM..::E r1: 11. ..L Eto'FeTT'\"'\"'\"1L.c:---il~\"\"ML.::iEE..---FF.'tiEl::tt1.\" \".'=.L ::iEF---....- -------------- 0t 02 03 oa Cun'frnc wl th Stu.dnt Con'feruc Mith Utuden t nd P r nt ~rlvllev Denied R 5 a  3 2  3 3 2 l. l \" l 0 l .. .. l 0 i - -- R --- --~- --- -  1-- - - - - - ~ - ----1-----e..-..----\u0026-----~-----e ........ ---------------- 8 t s o t 1 0 .. 0 0 0 R t3 t2 1  9 0 ..  3 t .. e 1t 10 s ,. a 0  3 2 i .,  --- R  -- - 1 ---  t - -- ---O- - - - ----\u003e-- --,-.,,._--+---- --+-----e,-,,._--------------- B l l O ,. 0 R O o O ,. 0 S O O O N 0 0 0 () 0  0 .. 0 .. l 1. 0 . 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 .. --o - 1\u003etwntlon Hatt - -- ---- -------- ~ 07 cw it 115 l7 Studnt Will Hk Up Tlfflw t!J'tudwn1' r-tc:d an ,-raba  ton - u  pwnwt01-r------ Boy  /Glrle Club Bu Pnlon -l~\u0026chaal-a~fjlCf-,~llo+t--- - Bue Bu  Pnlon -1t~day ttchool---------- --  11,alelon B l l O ,. R o o o  B O O o ,. i 0 0 l () () 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 ..   - ----- R  t ---- ----0 -----+----+---e-.----\u0026-----~---.Q..---------------- B t l O ,. 0 .. 0 0 0 R 63  6 t7 tt 16 .. 6 !5 l .. B 46 32 t4,. 13  6 s i .. ----- - R 415 a~--f.------'---- -\u003e--~\u003c+--\u003e---''-------''----------------------- B :It 24 7  7 .. 3 3 0 .. R 6 5 S tt l. .. l l 0 .. a 6 ~ s ,. .. s. .. t l 0 .. - ------ -A----\u0026---- ~ - -----\u003c~-----Q--- ---0----~:\u003e------0----.Q..----------------- s 0 0 O ,. R 3 3 o tt B 3 3 o  0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 .. .. 0 t \" i 0 0 .. l 0 .. l 0 .. --------iRFt---t a---- -ta- ~-----H\u003e----+\u003ci\u003e----\u003co\u003e-.--- -31-----;a----\u003c-\u003e------------------ s 10 to o  a a 0  2 2 0 .. R   o  2 2 0  2 2 0 .. B   O  2 ~ 0 .. 2 2 0 .. - - - ---A-------- - - t ------c.  - - - -,--- --~ - --~ ... B l l Ott i l 0 .. 0 0 0 .. R e  t   3 1. .. i i 0 .. B 8  l  4 3 l  l l. 0 .. - - ---- --,-OT-.t- REFERftH::------wo-----~- -3-- - a4---!-.ta~\u003c!...---.~!W9 \u003e-4o\u003e---2-~- ---?-4.----.!li-o\"-------------- TOT ... L STUDENTS-- - - t2S 99 26  to  81 ::' :~ .. ::? i 19 3 .. --------- - - - ------- -- -- - ---- - --- - -- - - --- .. - ----- - - - --- --- ---- -- - -------- --- --- --- - ---- ,.... ________ . . - - -- - - -------- . -- --- ---- - -- - -------- ---- ---- . ------------ --- ----- - - --- --- -------- - - --- - . -- - - -- - - ----- ----- -- .. ------- - - - - ----  -------------------------------------- ----- - -------------- - ------ - - - R , , 01aot ~ FJI.E tEAn , ~Bb9S DI \"'c Ip l I nrv r-.cef.A l aununrv Et ,.. Act on--n CUHIJI \"TJVE 024 HIDGEf\u003cUAD HIDDLE GCHC.JOL R REFfi RRAL!3 -  - -  - -  rOTAL------ ----- - - r.L.ACI\u003c --- --- - -N -- --NONBLACI\u003c -  conE DF.BCAJ~TJON S-ACIU,..l, 9TUDP.:NT13 TOTAi, H/IILE FF.HAI Ettl\"OT~-tt11ot::E FCtl,.,I .. E..-'fG'f-M;---t-tM::E --~-t?H#'.t:l~-------------- Ol C,\u003enfrenc \"'I 'th Student R 1J\\ 48 36 M ~,9 :41 :.?l3 tt :.?S I 7 0 \" 8 64 30 34  4S 19 26 N 1.? fl 8  02 - ft'  -.- !, - -  -- 22 - - - 72 --- - !~?-------f\"\"l - - --,-a-.--- i.0------+1----e---------------- a ~IJ 19 iY tt ~~ 1~ 12 tt ~~ 7 7 ~ o::s R 17 9 a Ll \"' 7\" 6 ~ 1.  G 17 9 a tt ll 4 7  6 ~ l \" 04 I'\u003c l O :I   -t - t\"~ - - ---t----- -O------O------e----------------- S l o 1  l o 1  o o o  OS R 1 0 l  l O i  0 0 0  B 1 O IN l O 1N O O Ow :  !f~ 1.1; ---~:-: -- t~------~1- - - -;~-: --~:---....;,:;,w_3'l----tl-t63-.,.. ,_ _____________ 07 Eltudent WI ll Hake Up Tl11te R 2 2 O  2 ~ O  0 O O  B 2 ~ (}  2 2 0  0 0 0  -oa - etudent ~lcd un l\"\"rablan R  - -   0- -  0 ---0 ....... --$--- -  (  - ------- 4;9._----88---------------------- B O O O w O o O N O O O  09 R 436 2::13 183 tt :ns'I' 1.31 l~B \" 177 S22 !~S \" B 21B 126 B~  130 73 ~7 M 0::1 ~3 32  ------  --- A - -- Ul1   - 1.06- --?~---- :l-33 -----7.,;\u003e---\u003c\"rt--.... 1381------ac, _-+_,_ _____________ _ B 10? 60 4? N 79 4L 30 w 30 19 Ii ll R 3~ 26 \"/  22 IH 4 N 11 a 3  9 30 23 \"1 N 20 j6 4 N iO 7 ~\" ~-.-t 8choot  8u--it(-t  - - - - --     ---   - - - R - - -   O O -- -  0 . ... ____ ______ ___ ~\u003e - -----0- -- ----Q-\"---'--v----v-,_ _____________ _ B O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 \" t3 8u S\u0026\u0026Pnlan R 11 7 4  lO 7 3  l O l\" ~.--.-~urday echa~n-1.1--------- . _____- -=--t~~---S:--6:-:__a:_ ___ 3 ~---\",3_'-\u003c,.__ _ .,.a1----i~oe----P.i1.-.\". -------------- 8 106 '50 eit..  68 30 3B \" ~18 ;.\u003eO i 8 us Rcaa11tndd Expulsion R o O o  0 o O \" 0 0 0  S O O O  0 0 0 w O O O  --- - - ~ - ---tU- - - Si   ----El~    66 ---iilf.l  -- S-8-- H5----t-3-------\u003c--------------- S ~... 30 2~ .. 42 ::a\u003c, :?2  1.2 10 2 .. 17 Expulsions R i i O i 1 \u003c\u003e 0 0 ON B l 1 0  i 1 O  0 0 0  - --- - -- -- -------- - TOT.-.t- ftef't!:ftftH.;\u0026------1.-1. r?----685-- --49~- ---,''!f-9-----41 a --- 36-t:------398 267 TOT\"'L STUDENTS----- 7615 42\\5 ::S40 \" 15J 1 ' 270 241. \" 2~\u003c'1 1t,:5 i~------------------ '19 .. f--- - --- -  -------- --- - - ------- - - -- -  -------------- ------ -- -------- -- ---- - -------------------------------------- - -  ---- - --- ---- ------- ------- .. ------------- ----   .. ------------- a-----  --- - --- -------- - - ---  ------ --   - - - ---- ---- -  - -   - --- -- - --- -- - --------  -  -- -------------- -t------ -- ------------------------------ ------ - .. - -- -------------------------- . . --  .. --------- --- - -------- - -------- -    - . . - - - ----- --- ------------ ------- -------- ---- --- - --------- - - - - - - --- -- - ----- - Rf , D180S .58L Fll.E YEAR I NU~8D9:5 CUHULATIVE 02!3 I. AKEWODD HIDDLE\" SCHOi.iL -,1'09/9:S R- REFE,RRALB -  ---- --- TOTAL--- ---- -  - ----- -BLACl\u003c ----- - - --- -----NON- \u0026LACK- --- __ ,. CODE DESCRIPTION  \u0026ACTUAi:- STUD\"NTIS TMTl\\l~---HM:t!'\" ---- ~!:Hlllt:1! .. TOTnt;;---=:e--f\"eHnt:eto-'f'O'l''l'~,._,tL=--tl1ilAAtL:tE~---11f'-'f!E~l111,,,,,t:L:tE::-\"...------ ---------- 01 02 03 0:5 C~nfrnc Nlth Btudnt --oa- Detent Ian tta t t 07 --oe 09 ll Poys/C.lrls Club 8usplitnlon R 53 33 20  ::S9 2 :5 l .6  l\"' 10 .. .. a  6 29 17.. 3\"' 2t 13\" 12 ---- -- ft ---:s 2 ---t  . 2 e ~ .. :t B 3 2 l  l O 1  2 2 0 .. Parent R 2  B 6  1.0 5 ~ -  .J 1 a 1  a 6  ,o ~ 5\"  3 l \" .. - - ---  - --- ft -  - \"1.--- ---0 - - - t -- - ----1,------ -\u003c, -\u0026-._--- ----- ---,,._.---------------- 8 l O 1 M l O l  0 0 0 .. R 6 2   :5 1 4  i 1 0 .. B 6 2 4  :5 l 4  l l 0 .. -   '  -- -  - -- ft- - -T:?-----\"41!, .. -\"21!,(t -~.,\"1\u003e---~22'17'!~.,_-~2~(71'6-\"ilNt----5!2\".J-~0,-----1;~t---,M!.....,,._.-------------- 8 29:S l68 12~  11-11 ;\u003e1~ 93 ,. l 1.2 70 -42 M R 2 1 1  2 1 l  0 0 0 .. a 2 1 1 ,. 2 1 1 ,. o R -  - - 1.:t--- --  9  - .... -  -- 't.- ~ ----.+-.....-- -=.\u003c\u003e-- ----------0-- ------------- 8 13 9   ll ? 4 2 ~ 0 .. 2 0 .. R 187 138 49  144 97  7  43 .. , 2 .. e 110 e5 33,. 07 56 31.. 31 29 2 .. .. --- --- -- -ft--26----- -i: -- --------- l5 _____ __,-,-------------------------- s 19 l  5  12 a 4  7 6 S: .. R 29 15 l  M ~2 0 14 N 7 7 0 .. B 19 ll B  13 5 ~  6 \"' 0 .. l---t:::t--tt- -t1chaat-a-c1\u003c-a-,---- ------ --- - - - ------ R- ---~ --------o ---- e -- - ----0-------,~ \u0026-- ----e----\u0026------------------- e O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 .. R 27 17 lO  23 14 9 w 4 :1 l e 27 17 10,. 23 14 9  - \"' --------ta, da .,- 8chau 1- --------- -- - ------\"--t1 'l\"?-----85 49 - --_.!_, -,..-----a+----e\u0026------.1,-.--------------- 3 l .. B 9:5 :59 36  67 ~l 30  28 ::!2 6 .. UJ R 2 l lM 2 I l 0 0 0 .. S 2 l 1 w 2 l 1 ,. O 0 0  -- -- --   -  ft-  - -6~--- - - - -~4----lB ... -   49- ---- EIS.----1:,,._.-- .l a------1Hil-----t---o ..... -------------- S \"'\"' 32 12  3:5 2  11  9 e l .. 17 R O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 .. e o o o .. o o o ,. o 0 0 .. - - ----- - TOT~f\"t!:,-fttf'\"t.,._\"-ILL11111---- ---~2d'l\"---eso--.....a? - --'9\u0026o-- ___....s.,.~--aff--tt---l:!lot-------liets-----..:.,,,1,-..... ------------- TOTAL STUDENTS--- 702 438 264 t0 4fl'4 270 206 \" 218 l,',O :;a .. t------------------ -- ------------- t------------------------ - - --- --------------- ----- - - --------------------------------------------- ,_ __________ __ . --- ------ ----- - - ------------------- ---- ------ ---------------- -- -------------------------- --------- ------- --------------------------- --------- - - --- ----------------- ------------- - ------------- - --------- ---------- - - - ----- -------- ---------------. -- -------  ------ ----- ------ ---- ---- ------ - -- -- --  \u003e----------- --- -- - -- --- --- - ----- - -- - -- - ------------ ------ --- -- ----- - ----- - --- - - - ---- - - - -------------------- --------- - ----------- ----- - - - - ---------- - - - --- - -------------- --- ------- -------- - - --- - ------- - -- -- -- ------ ------ - ----- - ---------- ----- --- ------ ------------ -------------  ... ... --- --  - - --- - --. -- - ------- - -- - - ---  ------ ------- --- ----------------- .. .   - - --- --  ---------- ----- - - -- ---------- -- - -- ----- -- ----------- Ref : ' DlBOl- Fll E \u003cEAR : NU'\u003cSD9:S CUHULi\\TIVE 026 HOBE CITY HlVDLE SCHOOL CODE DESCR?PTtnN Ol 02 - cc,n'f'rnc wl th Prnt - -- c,,nfranc with atudent f\"rlvllv Dnld 9.t,avlor Contract - -oa---- Dtantlan Hll -------- 07 Student Will Hak Up lime Dt10c:lplln y R-nl !.um,narv ,,c i I on T. k ., .. f\"\u003c- r\u003cEFE:RRA "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_155","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation 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":["Office of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation"],"dc_date":["1996-07-15"],"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","School integration","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation 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/155"],"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":["69 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\nI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I nitonng I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S SEMIANNUAL MONITORING REPORT JULY 15, 1996 A. MONITORING OVERVIE\\:, 2 B. ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE 6 C. TEST DATA 281 D. BUDGET INFORMATION 306 E. STUDENT DISCIPLINE 374 F. MAJORITY TO MINORITY TRANSFER 621 G. ECOE MONITORING 641 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. MONITORING OVERVIEW During the 1995-96 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 the following Cycle V schools: Little Rock School District (9) Carver Magnet Elementary, Cloverdale Elementary, Geyer Springs Elementary, Gibbs Magnet Elementary, Hall High School, King Magnet Elementary, Mabelvale Elementary, MeadowcliffElementary, and Pulaski Heights Junior High. (Please note that Pulaski Heights Elementary School was one of the schools reported to be in Cycle V. In actuality, it should have been Pulaski Heights Junior High School that was included in the February, 1996 monitoring report. Pulaski Heights Junior High School is a Cycle V ECOE school while Pulaski Heights Elementary School is a Cycle I ECOE school and should be reported in the 1996-97 monitoring reports. Therefore, quantitative data for Pulaski Junior High School is incomplete at th.is time.) North Little Rock School District (6) Amboy Elementary, Central Elementary, Crestwood Elementary, Lakewood Elementary, Meadow Park Elementary, and Seventh Street Elementary. Pulaski County Special School District (7) Baker Interdistrict Elementary, Cato Elementary, Crystal Hills Interdistrict Magnet Elementary, Dupree Elementary, Fuller Elementary, Landmark Elementary, and Murrell Taylor Elementary. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. A. All parties to the suit were invited to participate in the monitoring process during the ADE monitoring update on November 8, 1995. MONITORING PROCESS MONITORING SCHEDULE (_ 1 /1..,c-f(A The monitoring teams visited schools in accordance with an established schedule of announced and unannounced visits. Announced visits were scheduled from February 26, 1996 to May 10, 1996. Monitors conducted monitoring visits using instruments developed to align with the established criteria for the Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (ECOE). Monitors completed classroom observations, a principal's interview, and a document review 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 tenninology 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's 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. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are non-discriminatory. 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 cocunicular 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 district wide 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 Majority to Minority Transfers. 14. Evidence that magnet schools are an effective inter-district remedy for racial balance. Results of the announ_ed and unannounced monitoring for the fourteen elements - - are included in the ECOE monitoring section of this reP.ort. 4 ENROLLMENT/ ATTENDANCE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: CYCLE FIVE SCHOOLS SOURCE: LRSD I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B. ENROLLMENT/A1TENDANCE DATA The Allen letter requires the collection of the following Attendance/Enrollment data from the three Pulaski County 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 V schools excluding Pulaski Heights Junior High School. Concept Definition: For the purposes of desegregation monitoring, the Arkansas Department of Education, North Little Rock School District, Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District defin~d an instructional pr~!F':'.!1 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 ofthis 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. 6 TOTAL ENROLLMENT I l _,_ BY GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ___________________ Cf) r z w 0 :::, r Cf) LL 0 a: w (0 ~ :::, z 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollrnent ------65----------------------------------------- Grade 1 Transported ~on-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (65) White Female (16) IIIBlack Female (18) -  White Males (14) - Black Male (17) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- Cf) I-z w 0 ::, I-Cf) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::, z 100 80 60 40 20 0 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrolln1ent 91 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (91) White Female (18) _ c\nJ8IackF emale (17) White Male (24) Black Male (32) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrolln1ent 120 .------------------, ~ 100 z w o::: \u0026gt; 80 I-C/) LL 60 0 a: cwa 40 ~ ~ 20 0 107 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (107) White Female (19) ~Black Female (21) White Male (36) Black Male (31) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- 120 .-----------------, ~ 100 z w o 80 ::::) I-C/) LL 60 0 a: ~ 40 ~ ::::, z 20 0 107 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (107) - White Female (28) C!'.JBlackF emale (30) - White Male (25) Black Male (24) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- Cl) I-z w 0 :::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w al ~ :::\u0026gt; z 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enroilment 105 r\n_ : ,,,,., - \" -: ,.l ~ , . , .''. , ' \u0026lt;~ I ' -- ,_ __\u0026lt; , --------------------------75-------- Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (105) White Female (18)  Black Female (20) White Male (35) Black Male (32) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CJ) I- z w 0 =\u0026gt; I-CJ) LL 0 a: w en ~ z= \u0026gt; 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enroliment 101 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (101) White Female (21) - - Black Female (24) White Male (27) Black Male (29) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: 80 Cl) 70 I- z w 60 0 ::::, 50 I-Cl) LL 40 0 c:c 30 w co ~ 20 ::::, z 10 0 LRSD Total Enroliment ------- 68-----------------------------------64 ______ _ Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (68) White Female (4) GJ Black Female (26) White Male (5) Black Male (33) ------------------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: 60 Cr l) 50 z w 0 40 ~ r Cl) LL 30 0 a: w 20 Cl) ~ ~ z 10 0 LRSD To\"l 'al E.ill.V-I-I rr..I l!lmI ent 54 53 ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- 1 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (54) White Female (3) [![J8Iack Female (26) White Male (6) Black Male (19) ------------------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: Cl) I- z w 0 ::, I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::, z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LRSD Total Enrollment 51 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (51) _ White Female (3) rgBlack Female (24) - White Male (6) Black Male (18) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 60 ~--------------, Cl) 50 ~ z w O 40 :) ~ Cl) LL 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ :) Z 10 0 50 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (50) White Female (3) illlBlack Female (27) White Male (1) Black Male (19) ------------------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: 60 Cr-l) 50 z w 0 40 :::) r- Cl) LL 30 0 a: w 20 al ~ :::) z 10 0 LRSD Total Enrollment 51 ----------------------------4-7-------- Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (51) White Female (4) Black Female (19) - White Male (8) Black Male (20) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 00 'l\"'\"1 ------------------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD Totai Enrolln1ent 50 ,-----------------, ~z 40 w 0 ~ 30 Cl) LL 0 a: 20 ' w co ~ z= \u0026gt; 10 0 45 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (45) White Female (1) Black Female (24) White Male (2) Black Male (18) ------------------- 50 en rz- 40 UJ 0 :::J r- 30 en LL 0 a: 20 UJ ca ~ :z:: J 10 0 - GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Totai Enrollment 41 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (41) White Female (6) _ @Black Female (20) White Male (2) _ Black Male (13) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 60 .----------------~ ~ 50 -------45------------------------------------------z LJ.J O 40 ::\u0026gt; r(/) LL 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ ::\u0026gt; Z 10 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (46) White Female (5) GBlack Female (20) White Male (7) Black Male (14) ------------------- 40 35 Cl) I-z w 30 0 :::, 25 I-Cl) LL 20 0 a: 15 w Cl) ~ 10 :::, z 5 0 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 35 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (35) White Female (3) LJBlack Female (11) White Male (5) Black Male (16) ------------------- GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD 50 ~--------------- ~ 40 z w 0 ~ 30 Cl) LL 0 a: 20 w m ~ :::) z 10 0 42 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (42) White Female (6) G:J Black Female (13) White Male (3) Black Male (20) ------------------- Cf) I-z w C :::) I-Cf) LL 0 a: w ca ~ :::) z 30 25 , 20 15 10, 5 / 0 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (26) White Female (2) li:lBlack Female (8) White Male (5) Black Male (11) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 50 ~-------------~ ~ 40 z w 0 ~ 30 Cf) LL 0 a: 20 w co :?! :z:J 10 0 43 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -z1 - - - - - - - Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (43) White Female (5) EBlack Female (18) White Male (3) Black Male (17) ------------------- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: Cl) ~ z w 0 :::) ~ Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::) z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LRSD Total Enrollment -------48---------------------------------------------- TOTAL ENROLLMENT (48) \\0 White Female (6) Ill Black Female (10) White Male (18) ('-1 - Black Male (14) Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 50 .------------------, ~z 40 - w 0 ~ 30 - Cf) LL 0 a: 20 w co ~ :z:: \u0026gt; 10 0 44 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (44) - White Female (12) []]Black Female (8) - White Male (8) Black Male (16) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 50 ~--------------~ CJ) 42 ~ 40 TOTAL w 0 ENROLLMENT (42) 00 ~ 30 CJ) LL 0 a: 20 w a) ~ 10 z 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp - White Female (10) CJ Black Female (13) White Male (11) Black Male (8) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ~ ------------------- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 50 .------------------, ~z 40 w 0 ~ 30 Cl) LL 0 a: 20 w CXl ~ :z:: :::\u0026gt; 10 0 40 TOTAL --------------------------------------- ENROLLMENT (40) ----------------------------27-------- White Female (8) CJ Black Female (10) _ White Male (9) Black Male (13) Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: (/) ~ z w 0 ::J ~ (/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::J z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LRSD Total Enrollment -------45--------------------------------------------- TOTAL ENROLLMEN(4T6 ) Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp White Female (4) tlli Black Female (13) White Male (17) _ Black Male (12) GRADET, RANSPORTEADN DN ON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Fnrolin1ent 50 ,-----------------, (I) 1z- 40 w 0 ~ 30 (I) LL 0 a: 20 w al ~ 10 z 0 45 ----------------------------27-------- Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (45) White Female CIJBlack Female White Male Black Male ------------------- Cf) I-z w 0 ::\u0026gt; I-Cf) LL 0 a: w m ~ ::\u0026gt; z HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD 400 350 ------s-30------------------------------------------- 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Grade 10 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (330) White Female (48) ~Black Female (117) White Male (41) Black Male (124) ------------------- (/) I-z w 0 ::) I- (/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::) z HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 To, ta-11 CL nr,d. ,~viiil meHr. + * h. ------287------------------------------------------ 253 Grade 11 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (287) White Female (50) Iii Black Female (110) White Male (33) Black Male (94) ------------------- HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD 300 ,------------------, 250 ~ z ~ 200 :::::, rCf) LL 150 0 a: w ca 100 ~ :::::, z 50 0 270 Grade 12 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (270) IIIIWhite Female (59) EBlack Female (76) White Male (54) Black Male (81) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: ~ z w 0 :::\u0026gt; ~ Cf) LL 0 a: w ca ~ :::\u0026gt; z LRSD 100 .--------------------, 80 ______7_7 ___________________________________ ________ 68 60 40 20 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (77) White Female (11) Black Female (24) White Male (16) Black Male (26) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: Cf) I-z w 0 :::, I-Cf) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::, z 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LRSD Total Enrollment -------5-7--------------------------------------------- TOTAL 50 ENROLLMENT (57) Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp White Female (11) - CJBlack Female (14) _ White Male (12) Black Male (20) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 .. a: w a) ~ ::::\u0026gt; z LRSD Tota 1 c-rollment ... I L.11 . .1 80 70 _____6_8__ ________________________________ _________ 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (68) White Female (13) cIJBlack Female (16) White Male (18) Black Male (21) ------------------- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD T ot,i,a 1a F_ nrou1 men t 60 .-----------------~ ~ 50 -------48-------------------------------------------- z ~ 40 :) IC/) LL 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ :) z 10 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (48) IIIWhite Female (15)  Black Female (11) White Male (12) Black Male (10) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enroilment 60 .-------------------, ~ 50 z w o 40 :::) I-- Cf) LL 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ :::) 2 10 0 51 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (51) - White Female (8) lmLlBlackF emale (16) - White Male (12) Black Male (14) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ---------------~--- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: Cf) I-z w 0 :J I-Cf) LL 0 a: w m ~ :J z LRSD Total Enrollment 60 50 _____48 _________________________________ __________ TOTAL 40 ----------------------------37-------- ENROLLMENT (48) 0 s::r White Female (10) 30 - ~Black Female (10) 20 10 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED White Male (13) Black Male (15) ------------------- MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: Cl) 1- z w 0 ::, IC/) LL 0 a: w cc ~ ::, z LRSD 100 ,---------------, 80 -------74------------------------------------------ 60 40 20 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (74) White Female (8)  Black Female (20) White Male (12) Black Male (34) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- en I-z w 0 ::) I-Cl) u. 0 a: w al ~ ::::\u0026gt; z MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 - - - - LRSD Total Enrolln1ent 61 TOTAL ENROLLMENT (61) -----------------------------3t)-------- White Female (11) Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp ~Black Female (18) White Male (12) - Black Male (20) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ---------------~--- MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 :::, I-Cl) LL 0 a: w m ~ :::, z LRSD Total Enrollment 80 .---------------~ 70 ------- 68 ---------------------------------------------- 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 - - - - Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (68) White Female (13) ~Black Female (18) - White Male (18) _ Black Male (21) ___G_RAD_E, T_RAN_SPO_RTED_ AN_D NO_N-T_RANS_POR_TED_ ,.. __ _ MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: 60 Cf) I- 50 z w 0 40 ::::) I-Cf) LL 30 O a: w 20 al ~ ::::) z 10 0 LRSD To~al Enrollment 50 - TOTAL ENROLLMENT (50) White Female (15) ----------------------------26 ------- Black Female (11) 24 White Male (12)  Black Male (12) Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: 60 Cf) I- 50 z w 0 40 ::, I-Cf) LL 30 0 a: w 20 co ~ ::, z 10 0 - - - - LRSD Totai Enrollment 51 TOTAL ENROLLMENT (51) White Female (9) ---------28--------------------------- Black Female (16) White Male (12) - Black Male (14) Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z IJJ 0 :.:.:.:.\u0026gt;.. Cl) LL 0 a: w r:c ~ :::\u0026gt; z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LRSD Total Enrolln1ent -------48--------------------------------------------- TOTAL ENROLLMENT (48) White Female (10) Black Female (10) --------------------------2s-------- 22 White Male (13) _  Black Male (15) Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: C/) I- z w Cl ::, I-C/) LL 0 a: w m ~ ::, z 70 60 50 - 40 - 30 20 10 0 LRSD Total Enrollment 62 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (62) White Female (7) Black Female (19) - White Male (6)  Black Male (30) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED t-- \"\"' ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: 70 en 60 I-z w 50 0 ::::, eI-n 40 LL 0 30 a: w co :E 20 ::::, z 10 0 LRSD Total Enrolh11ent 62 - - - --------- 35 ---------- -- - -- - Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (62) White Female (5) Black Female (18) White Male (9) Black Male (30) ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 60 .----------------------, ~ 50 - z w 0 ::) ~ CJ) LL 0 a: ~ 20 ~ ::) z 10 - 0 50 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (50) White Female (2) Black Female (23) White Male (9) Black Male (16) ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enroliment 80 ~-------------~ ~ 70 -------66---------------------------------------------- TOTAL ~ 60 ENROLLMENT (66) 0 :::, Ien LL 0 a: w ca ~ :::, z 0 --------------------------------------- ~-----~ Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp White Female (3) Black Female (27) - White Male (11) _ Black Male (25) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 0 lt') ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD 60 .--------------------, ~ 50 z w O 40 ::::\u0026gt; I-C/) u. 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ ::::\u0026gt; Z 10 0 54 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (54) White Female (8) Black Female (25) White Male (7) Black Male (14) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 ::::, I-Cl) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::::, z LRSD Total Enrollment 60 50 49 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (49) White Female (8) Black Female (13) White Male (9) Black Male (19) ------------------- i i ENROLLMENT/ ATTENDENCE i\n!Fi i ~ l\"\"\"\" ~ lemI -IL r~= I T .. L W\"\"\"'!i\\/ilt...,.. I'! i\"\"\" 1 .~. I \"' I .,, I ~ ~ SOURCE: NLRSD ,OOL ~ ll) Ol\u0026amp;S ------------------- TOTAL ENROLLMENT BY GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Cl) I-z w 0 :::::, I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::, z 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 64 TOTAL ENROLLMENT (64) White Female (13) ----------------------------------- Black Female (21) _ White Male (10)  Black Male (20) Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED II') II') ------------------- AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 70 62 60 Cl) ..... z w 50 0 :::) I- 40 Cl) LL 0 30 a: w co ~ 20 :::) z 10 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (62) White Female (11) \\0 riiBlack Female (18) White Male (16) Black Male (17) an ------------------- AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Cf) I-z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cf) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 70 ,-------------------, 60 ______5_8 ___________________________________ _________ 50 - ____________________________ 4g_ ______ _ 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (58) White Female (20) t--- ln!Black Female (14) White Male (10) Black Male (14) 11) ------------------- - AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Cl) I- z w 0 :::::) I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::::) z 80 70 -------a5------------------------------------------- 60 50 --------------------------4a------- 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (66) White Female (10) Black Female (14) White Male (22) Black Male (20) 00 lO ------------------- AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Cl) I-z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w cc ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 - 63 Tota-l ' rC- rI- rU-B-1I1 meIn. ,il~ H Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (63) White Female (6) ., Black Female ( 15) White Male (26) Black Male (16) ------------------- AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Total Enrollment 60 ~------------~ ~ 50 z ~ 40 :::\u0026gt; I-C/} u. 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ :::\u0026gt; z 10 0 53 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (53) White Female (14) Black Female (16) White Male (11)  Black Male ( 12) ------------------- ~z 11.1 0 :::) I-CJ) LL 0 a: 11.1 al ~ :::) z CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: 50 40 30 20 10 0 NLRSD Total Enrollment ------37--------------------------------------- 33 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (37) White Female (7) Black Female (10) White Male (7)  Black Male ( 13) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED --------~---------- CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Total Enrollment 50 .---------------~ z~ 40 w 0 ~ 30 Cf) u.. 0 a: 20 - w (ll ~ ::, 10 - z 0 41 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (41) White Female (9) [][]Black Female (13) White Male (6) Black Male (13) ------------------- CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 45 Cl) TOTAL Iz- 40 ENROLLMENT (45) tf\") w \\0 0 :::, 30 White Female (6) I-Cl) u. ldlBlack Female (13) 0 20 White Male (8) a: w Black Male (18) al ~ ::::\u0026gt; 10 z 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------~ Cl) I-z w 0 :::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NLRSD Total Enroilment ----------4--9--- ---------------------------------- Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (49) White Female (10) Black Female (7) White Male (13) Black Male (19) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: Cl) ..... z w 0 :.:.:.\u0026gt;.. Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NLRSD Total Enrollment -- -- --4 7--- - --- - -- -- -- -- -- ---- - -- -------- -- -- -- - - TOTAL Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp ENROLLMENT (47) White Female (15) ~ Black Female (15) White Male (5) Black Male (12) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ----~---------~---- CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 .-------------------, g? 40 z w 0 ~ 30 Cl) LL 0 a: 20 w m ~ z= \u0026gt; 10 0 43 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (43) White Female (6) ~Black Female (14) White Male (12) Black Male (11) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ----------~-------- CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 :::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 32 NLRSD T . . E 1 g ota1 nro11n1en1 TOTAL ENROLLMENT (32) r-- \\C ---------------------------1-a-------- White Female (7) ,B lack Female (8) - White Male (9) _  Black Male (8) Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 ::::, I=- Cl) u.. 0 . a: w ca ~ :::\u0026gt; z NLRSD 35 30 -------2a------------------------------------------ 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (28) White Female (7) 1 Black Female (5) White Male (9)  Black Male (7) CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cl) I=- z w 0 :J I=- Cf) LL 0 a: w m ~ :::\u0026gt; z 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 NLRSD Total Enrollment _____29 _________________________________ __________ TOTAL ENROLLMENT (29) ---------------------------1-a------- White Female (6) Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp Black Female (5) White Male (9) Black Male (9) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 .-----------------, ~ 40 ------ 39 ----------------------------------------z - w 0 ~ 30 CJ) LL 0 a: 20 w m ~ :::, 10 z 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (39) White Female (7) Black Female (8) White Male (14)  Black Male (10) ------------------- CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: 50 Cl) Iz-= 40 w 0 :::\u0026gt; I- 30 Cl) LL 0 a: 20 w m ~ ::J 10 z 0 - - - 45 NLRSD TOTAL --------------------------------------- ENROLLMENT (45) ----------------------------27-------- White Female (9) Black Female (13) _ White Male (12) Black Male (11) Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ~--~--------------- CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cf) I-z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; 1-- Cf) LL 0 a: w cc ~ ::::\u0026gt; z NLRSD Total Enrollment 35 32 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (32) White Female (10) EBlack Female (9) llllWhite Male (3) Black Male (10) --~---------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 :::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::::\u0026gt; z NLRSD 40 35 35 30 25 20 -------- 19 _______________________ __ 16 15 10 5 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (35) White Female (9) ~Black Female (7) White Male (4) Black Male (15) ------------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 35 .-----------------, ~ 30 -------2-8--------------------------------------------z LU 0 ::::, IC/) LL 0 a: LU m ~ ::::, z 10 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (28) White Female (4) llilBlack Female (6) IIIWhite Male (8) Black Male (10) ------------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 30 ..------------------, ~z w 25 _____2.4 _ _________________________________ ___________  20 1- U) LL 15 0 ffi 10 - al ~ :z:\u0026gt; 5 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (24) tr) ~-----~ t-- White Female (6) Black Female (6) White Male (7) Black Male (5) ------------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cf) I- z LU 0 ::::::\u0026gt; I-Cf) LL 0 a: LU co ~ ::::::\u0026gt; z NLRSD rotal Enroiln1enl 35 30 _____2_._9 _ _______________________________ ___________ 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (29) White Female (8) Black Female (8) White Male (7) Black Male (6) ------------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 ,-------------------, ~z 40 w 0 :::, 1e-n 30 LL ~ 20 w m :~::, 10 z 0 42 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (42) White Female (13) Black Female ( 11) White Male (8)  Black Male (10) t--, t--, ------------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z UJ 0 :::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w ca ~ :::\u0026gt; z NLRSD Total Enrollment 40 35 _____3_4 ------------------------------------------ 30 25 --------------------------2-3------- 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (34) White Female Black Female (10) White Male (10) Black Male (7) 00 t-- ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: Cl) I== z w 0 ::) I== Cl) LL 0 er: w m ~ ::) z 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 NLRSD ------ 33 --------------------------------32 _______ TOTAL -------------------- - ENROLLMENT (33) 1 - White Female Black Female White Male -  Black Male Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: ~ z w 0 :J I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z NLRSD Total Enrollment 40 36 30 20 10 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (36) White Female ,,rn,, Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cf) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 NLRSD Total Enrollment _____2_9_. _ ______________________28--_---_---___T OTAL 1 ENROLLMENT (29) White Female ,.,,B lack Female - White Male Black Male Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ~ 00 ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: C/) I-z w 0 ::J I-C/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::J z NLRSD 35 30 ______2 9_ __________________________________________ 25 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (29) White Female --Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 .--------------------, Cl) ~ 40 w 0 ~ 30 Cl) LL ~ 20 w co ~ 10 z 0 41 40 1 - TOTAL ENROLLMENT (41) White Female IIBlack Female White Male Black Male Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Total Enroliment 50 ,----------------, TOTAL ~ 40 _____39 _________________________3_7_ ______________E NROLLMENT (39) w 0 ~ 30 Cl) LL 0 a: 20 w m ~ :::) z 10 0 2 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported White Female Black Female White Male Black Male GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Total Enrollment 50 .-----------------, ~ z 40 w 0 ~ 30 CJ) LL aO: 20 w co :~:, 10 z 0 43 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (43) l!IIIWhite Female Black Female White Male Black Male lr) QC) ------------------- en I-z w 0 ::) I- en LL. 0 a: w OJ ~ :::, z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 --------------------------3-7-------- Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported TOTAL ENROLLMENT (50) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 ~------------~ ~z 40 w 0 ::, 1- 30 Cl) LL ~ 20 w co ~ 10 :::::\u0026gt; z 0 43 __________________29 ___________ Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (43) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male t-- 00 ------------------- 60 ~ 50 z w 0 40 :::) I-Cl) LL 30 0 a: w co 20 ~ :::) z 10 0 SEVENTH STREET .. ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Total Enrollment 50 TOTAL - ENROLLMENT (50) - ---------------------------------------- White Female \"'\", Black Female ----------24- ---------------2a-------- White Male Black Male Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 00 00 ------------------- ~ z w 0 ::J IC/) LL 0 a: w cc ~ ::J z SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 100 .-----------------------, TOTAL 80 ---------74--------------------------------------------------- ENROLLMENT (74) 60 - 40 - 20 - 0 White Female BBlack Female - White Male Black Male Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 0\"0\" ------------------- Cl) I-z w Cl ::::\u0026gt; I- (/) LL 0 a: w m ~ :::\u0026gt; z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Total Enrolln1ent 54 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported TOTAL ENROLLMENT (54) White Female :+. Black Female White Male Black Male GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED -------------------- ENROLLMENT/ ATTENDANCE SOURCE: PCSSD ----~-----------~-- TOTAL ENROLLMENT BY GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ----------------~-- BAKER INTERDIST. ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 50 ~-----------~ ~ z UJ 0 40 -----_ 39 -------------------------------------- ~ 30 Cl) LL. ~ 20 w m ~ 10 z 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (39) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male --~-~-------------- BAKER INTERDIST. ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 50 .---------------------, ~z 40 w 0 ~ 30 en LL 0 a:: 20 w m ~ :::, 10 z 0 41 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (41) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male --~-~-------------- (/) rz- - w 0 ::) r= Cl} LL 0 a: w cc ~ :::\u0026gt; z 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 BAKER INTERDIST. ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 35 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported TOTAL ENROLLMENT (35) White Female ~Black Female BWhite Male Black Male GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED --~---------------- 35 Cl) 30 I- z w 25 0 ::::) I- 20 Cl) LL 0 15 a: w cc 10 ~ ::::) z 5 0 BAKER INTERDIST. ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 30 - ----------23----------------------------- - - - - Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (30) .----------, White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ~z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w al ~ ::::\u0026gt; z BAKER INTERDIST. ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 35 TOTAL _______2_9__ _____________________E_N__R_O LLMENT( 35) i- - - Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED White Female m!Black Female White Male Black Male 0\"1 ----~-------------- z~ w 0 ::, I-CJ) u. 0 a: w cc ~ ::, z BAKER INTERDIST. ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 40 35 35 30 --------27- ---------------------- 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (35) White Female -iBlack Female BWhite Male Black Male 00 O'\\ L. - - .... :aa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 100 ....--------------------, ~z w 0 :::\u0026gt; rC/) LL 0 a: 40 - w m ~ ~ 20 - 0 87 -------------------------------------- TOTAL ENROLLMENT (87) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ----~-------------- CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD ~ z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w m ~ ::\u0026gt; z 100 ,-------------------, 80 ______7_8 ___________________________________T_O_T_A_L_ __ 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ENROLLMENT (78) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD CJ) I-z w 0 :) I- en LL 0 a: w co ~ :::) z T otai enrollment 70 62 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (62) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD ~ z w 0 ::) IC/) LL 0 a: w m ~ ::::\u0026gt; z T , . = p . otai t:nronment 100 ,-------------------, 86 60 40 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (86) White Female . Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD ~z LU 0 :J Ien LL 0 100 ~-------------~ 80 -------76------------------------------------------- a: 40 - w co ~ ~ 20 - 0 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (76) White Female\nBlack Female White Male Black Male -------------------- L-CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD ~ z w 0 :J IC/) LL 0 a: w 0) ~ :J z 100 ,------------------, 80 -------7~-------------------------------------------  39 ---------35 ------------------------ 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (74) White Female ,,SC Black Female BWhite Male Black Male ------------------ ~z UJ 0 ::, IC/) LL 0 a: UJ cc ~ ::, z CRYSTAL HILLS INTERDIST. MAGNET: PCSSD 70 .--------------------, 60 --------55----------------------------_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TOTAL ENROLLMENT (56) 50 - 40 - 30 - 20 10 - 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED White Female  Black Female White Male Black Male lr) Q ,-,! ~------------------ CRYSTAL HILLS INTERDIST. Cl) I- z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z MAGNET: PCSSD 50 44 40 --------------------------37------- 30 20 10 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (44) White Female ,-.. Black Female White Male Black Male ---~--------------- ~ z UJ 0 ::::\u0026gt; CRYSTAL HILLS INTERDIST. MAGNET: PCSSD Total Enroiiment 70 ~----------------, 60 -------_5_8_ _-- --- ------ ---- -- -------- --- ---- --- ------- --- - TOTAL ENROLLMENT (58) 50 - ~ 40 - White Female EBlack Female _ White Male Black Male LL 0 a: UJ co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 30 - 20 - 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CRYSTAL HILLS INTERDIST. 60 en 1-- 50 z w 0 40 ::::, 1-- en u. 30 0 a: w 20 co ~ ::::, 10 z 0 - - - - - MAGNET: PCSSD Total Enrollment 50 TOTAL ENROLLMENT (50) White Female Black Female White Male _ Black Male Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CRYSTAL HILLS INTERDIST. 70 Cl) 60 I-z w 50 0 :::, 1-- CJ) 40 LL 0 30 a: W. co 20 ~ ::J z 10 0 MAGNET: PCSSD 64 - - -----------------------------45------- - - Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (64) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- CRYSTAL HILLS INTERDIST. MAGNET: PCSSD Total Enrollment 80 .-------------------, ~ 70 ------- 68 ---------------------------------------------- m 60 - Cl ~ 50 Cl) LL 0 a: 30 w en ~ :::\u0026gt; z 20 - 10 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (68) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- 70 CJ) 60 t=- z UJ 50 0 :J J=- CJ) 40 LJ... 0 30 a: w co 20 ~ ::) z 10 0 DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 64 - - - - - - Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (64) White Female , Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- ~z w 0 ::) IC/) LL 0 a: w al ~ :::\u0026gt; z DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total Enrollment 80 ~--------------~ 70 ---------66------------------------------------------------ TOTAL 60 - ---------------------------------------- ENROLLMENT (66) 50 - 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- ~ z w 0 ::) IC/) LL 0 a: w m ~ ::) z DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 70 .-------------------~ 60 --------55-------------------------------------------------- 50 - TOTAL ENROLLMENT (56) White Female m!Black Female 30 White Male 20 10 -  Black Male 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- ~ z w 0 :::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 a: w m ~ :::\u0026gt; z DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD T0 I~ a11 t...=... nr-ouq men t 100 .--------------------, 80 80 - ----------55---------------------------- 20 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (80) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- 70 Cl) 60 I- z w 50 0 ::\u0026gt; I- Cl) 40 LL 0 30 a: w m 20 ~ ::, z 10 0 DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 63 - - - - - Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (63) White Female 1\"=-Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- 70 Cl) 60 t- z w 50 0 :::\u0026gt; I-=- 40 U) LL 0 30 a: w al 20 ~ :::\u0026gt; z 10 0 DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 63 - - - - Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (63) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- ~ z w 0 ::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 a: w CXl ~ :::\u0026gt; z FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 50 .--------------------, 44 43 20 1 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (44) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male t-,-.( ,-.( ------------------- ~ z w FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total Enrollment 60 ~--------------~ 50 --------4.8------------------ -- --------- -- ---- -- --------- -- TOTAL ENROLLMENT (48) Cl 40 - :::) IC/) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::\u0026gt; z 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- 50 CJ) Iz- 40 w Cl :::\u0026gt; I- 30 CJ) LL 0 a: 20 w m ~ ::::\u0026gt; 10 z 0 - - - FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total Enrollment 42 ----------37---------------------------- TOTAL Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported ENROLLMENT (42) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------~ ~ z w 0 :::, Ien LL 0 a: w co ~ :::, z FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD \"\"\\j1\"\" o t a I fc\"\"\": nrohi n-1en 1 70 .--------------------, 60 --------513------------------------------------------------- 50 - 30 20 10 0 51 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (56) White Female \u0026amp;!Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- 60 ~ 50 z w 0 40 :J I-Cf) u.. 30 0 a: w co 20 ~ :J z 10 0 FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total l::nroilment 53 - --------------------- - - --------------------- - - 2 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (53) White Female :.,,B. lack Female White Male Black Male -------------------- FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 60 51 Cl) 50 - I-z ----------------------------------------- TOTAL ENROLLMENT (51) w 0 40 - :::\u0026gt; --------------------- .---------, IIWhite Female I-Cl) LL 30 - 0 li!Black Female --------------------- White Male a: w co 20 - Black Male --------------------- ....._ ____ ~ ~ :::\u0026gt; z 10 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- ~ z w 0 :) 1- (j) LL 0 a: w m ~ :) z LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total Enrollment 70 .-------------------. 60 ---------5-9-- ----------------------------------------------- 50 30 20 10 0 -----------30---------------------------- Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (59) White Female ~Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- CJ) 1-- z w 0 :.:_::.\u0026gt;. CJ) LL 0 a: w co ~ =\u0026gt; z LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PCSSD T _,,,_g .  irF= -=n '\"~1-\nm. ,,.,,.. .. ,., ~ ULdl ~ .1 \\..h , 1 cI l 61 - - - - - - Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (61) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- ~ z w 0 ::, IC/) LL 0 a: w m ~ ::, z LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 100 .----------------~ 80 -- - - -- -78 - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- -- - -- - - - 40 20 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (78) White Female (18) Black Female (18) White Male (27) Black Male (15) ---~--------------- LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total Enrollment 100 ..-----------------, ~ 80 ------74--------------------------------------- z w 0 ~ 60 en LL 0 a: 40 w co ~ z= \u0026gt; 20 0 Grade 4 TransportedNon-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (74) White Female (23) Black Female ( 11) White Male (21) Black Male (19) ------------------- LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 100 .------------------, ~ 80 -------75------------ ------------------------------ w 0 ~ 60 Cf) LL 0 a: 40 w al ~ :z: , 20 0 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (75) White Female (23) Black Female (14) White Male (26) Black Male (12) ------------------- LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 80 ,------------------, ~ 70 -------6-7--------------------------------------------- as 60 Cl ::::\u0026gt; 50 IC/) LL 0 aw: 30 co ~ 20 ::J z 10 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (67) IIIWhite Female (26) ~Black Female (13) White Male (20) Black Male (8) ------------------- TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 80 ,----------------~ ~ zw 60 0 ::\u0026gt; t- CI) LL 40  0 a: w co ~ 20  ::\u0026gt; z 0 72 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (72) White Female (26) IBBlack Female (9) White Male (24)  Black Male ( 13) --------------~---- TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 60 ,----------------, ~ 50 z w O 40 ::J I-C/) LL 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ ::) z 10 0 54 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (54) White Female (19) ,.,, Black Female (5) White Male (13) Black Male (17) -----------~------- TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total Enrollrnent 70 .-------------------, ~ 60 z w 50 0 :::, ~ 40 LL O 30 a: w m 20 ~ :::, Z 10 0 60 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (60) White Female (23) ii!Black Female (9) IIIWhite Male (20)  Black Male (8) ------------------- Cl) I= z w 0 :::, I=- Cl) LL 0 a: w ca ~ ::) z TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total r-nrol'mAnt fl f: I C, I I ~- 70 60 _____58 _________________________________ __________ 50 40 --------------------------------------- 30 20 10 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (58) White Female (15) Black Female (14) White Male (14) Black Male (15) ------------------- TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 70 62 CJ) 60 TOTAL Iz- ENROLLMENT (62)  w 50 0 ~ ::\u0026gt; White Female (18) ~ I- ~ en 40 Black Female (9) LL 0 30 White Male (18) a: w Black Male (17) co 20 ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 10 0 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- Cl) I=-- z w C) ::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w m ~ :::, z 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 62 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported TOTAL ENROLLMENT (62) White Female (19) fillliill8IacFk emale (13) White Male (16) Black Male (14) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- ENROLLMENT LJTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY COMPENSATORY EDUCATION, TRANSPORTED, AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ------------------- Carver Magnet Elementary: 60 Cl) I- ' ' z 50 ' ' w 0 ' ' :::\u0026gt; 40 ' I-Cl) ' ' u.. 30 , 0 , , a: 20 , w r:o , ~ 10 ' , :::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment ' ' ' BM 17 13 17 LRSD n ent ----40---------------------------- BF 18 4 18 WM 13 2 14 WF 17 3 16 36 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Carver Magnet Elementary: ~z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; ~ Cl) 100 60 ,' , 76 LL 0 a: w al ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 40 ,, __ 20 ,' 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 32 Transported 12 Enrollment 32 BF 17 8 17 LRSD nr nt WM WF 23 14 4 4 24 18 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Carver Magnet Elementary: LRSD 80 ~ z , w , 0 60 , ::J I-Cl) , , LL 40 , 0 a: w , , co 20 , ~ ::J z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 31 21 28 18 Transported 10 12 8 8 Enrollment 31 21 28 19 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Carver Magnet Elementary: LRSD n en 80 (/) , , , , r 70 , , , z , , , , -- -- - - -- - ---sa --- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- - -- - - - - -- - ---------------59------ 54 w , 0 60 , ::) , _ _ D Compensatory Ed. r 50 , (/) ' (\"') D Transported ~ , LL 40 , 0 , a: 30 , w , co 20 , ~ , ::) 10 , z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 24 8 24 BF 30 8 30 WM 24 5 25 WF 26 5 28 __ CJ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Carver Magnet Elementary: LRSD f r er 100 Cl) ~ , z , w 80 , ------------- ~------~ 0 ::J , ~ 60 , Cl) LL 0 , 40 , a: w Cl) , , ~ 20 , ::J z o---~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 32 20 35 17 13 8 4 5 32 20 35 18 D Compensatory Ed. Transported ~ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Carver Magnet Elementary: 80 Cf) 1- z ~ 60 ,' =\u0026gt; 1- Cf) LL 40 ,' 0 a: cwo 20 ,' ~ =z \u0026gt; LRSD r r rnen o---~----.~-~-- Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM BF WM WF 29 24 27 21 15 7 8 7 29 24 27 21 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Cloverdale Elementary: LRSD 80 Cf) Iz- 70 w / 0 60 , :::) / / I- 50 , Cf) / / LL 40 , 0 / a: 30 , w / / co 20 , ~ / / :::) 10 , z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 35 1 33 nro lment - -as--------------------------------------- ----sa---------------------------- BF 30 2 26 WM 3 1 5 WF 4 0 4 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Cloverdale Elementary: LRSD 2 nr lment 53 60 Cl) I- , z 50 , w 0 , :::) 40 , I-Cl) , LL 30 , 0 , a: w 20 , co , ~ , 10 , :::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 28 27 4 1 Transported O O 1 0 Enrollment 19 26 6 3 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Cloverdale Elementary: LRSD 60 , , nr rner ________5_2_ -_--- ----------------------- ~z 50 ,' ,' w , 0 :) JC/) LL 0 a: w Cl) ~ :) z 40 ,' 30 ,' 10 ,' , ----11----------------- 6 , o--~-~----- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 17 25 5 3 2 3 0 0 18 24 6 3  Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Cloverdale Elementary: LRSD 60 Cl) r- , z 50 , w 0 , :::\u0026gt; 40 , r- Cl) , LL 30 , 0 a: , w 20, Cl) ~ , 10 , :::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM BF 19 28 2 2 19 27 WM 0 0 1 en WF 1 0 3 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Cloverdale Elementary: LRSD 50 Cl) I-z , w 40 , 0 :::::\u0026gt; , I- 30 , Cl) LL 0 , 20 , a: w co , ~ 10 , :::::\u0026gt; z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 20 Transported 2 Enrollment 20 5 Enrollment - _42 ------ 41 ___________________ ________ BF 20 2 19 ------------------------ WM 5 0 8 WF 1 0 4 ,---------~  Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 1.0 ~ \"'\"' ------------------- Cloverdale Elementary: LRSD 60 Cl) I- , z 50 , w 0 , ::\u0026gt; 40 , I-Cl) , LL 30 , 0 a: , w 20 , Cl) ~ , 10 , ::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , , BM 18 3 18 BF 28 1 24 r r llment 53 WM 2 1 2 WF 3 0 1 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Geyer Springs Elementary: 60 10 ,' , , LRSD Enr llrnent 47 0 -------.-------.----,------r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 19 21 1 9 Transported 3 6 0 1 Enrollment 13 20 2 6 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. --------~----~----- Geyer Springs Elementary: 60 Cl) I- , z 50 , w 0 , ::) 40 , I-Cl) , LL 30, 0 a: , w 20 , co ~ , 10 , ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment LRSD , ------------50---------------------------- , , , BM 16 6 14 BF 23 7 20 WM 5 2 7 WF 5 1 5 ~ Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. - - - - .. - .. - ...-. - .. - - - - - - .. Geyer Springs Elementary: 35 (f) I- , z 30 , w , 0 25 , :J I- , (f) 20 , LL , 0 15 , a: , w 10 , en ~ , :J 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , BM 13 3 16 LRSD ___2_6 --------------------------- BF 12 3 11 WM 4 1 5 WF 3 3 3 ~ Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 0 tr) ,-..f -------------------- Geyer Springs Elementary: 60 Cl) I-z 50 , w 0 , ::J 40 , I-Cl) , LL 30 , 0 , a: , w 20, a) ~ 10 , ::J z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 21 11 20 LRSD lme _52_ _________________________ _____________ __-3 0--__ _ _ _ _ ________ _ _ _____ _ _ _ D Compensatory Ed. BF 13 4 13 WM 2 1 3 WF 5 0 6 D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Geyer Springs Elementary: 30 Cf) I- , / z w 25 , 0 / ::::, 20 , I-Cf) , LL 15 , 0 , a: / w 10 , c:c ~ / ::::, 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 11 4 11 LRSD Enr )llmen 1 J _26_ _________________________ _____________ BF 9 5 8 WM 5 1 5 WF 2 0 2  Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ----~-------------- Geyer Springs Elementary: 50 ~z w 40, 0 ::J tC/) LL 0 cc w co LRSD ------------------------ ~ ::J z 0--------.------.---- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 15 18 3 5 Transported 7 8 1 0 Enrollment 17 18 3 5 ,----------, D Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ~ lO ~ ----~~------------- Gibbs Magnet Elementary: LRSD r r llment 50 -----------------------38 ---------------- Cf) , , , I- , , z , , w 40 , ------------- 0 D Compensatory Ed. ::J , , l-/). :r I- 30 , ------------- D Transported ~ Cf) LL D Enrollment 0 , 20 , , a: w a:::i , , ~ 10 , ::J z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 14 10 16 5 Transported 3 0 4 1 Enrollment 14 10 18 6 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. -~~---------------- Gibbs Magnet Elementary: 35 en I- , z 30, UJ , , 0 25 , ::) I- , , en 20 , LL , , 0 15 , a: , UJ , 10 , co ~ , , ::) 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 16 0 16 LRSD __________________________ 26 _____ _ BF 8 0 8 WM 7 1 8 WF 12 2 12 Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. I/') I/') ~ -----~------------- Gibbs Magnet Elementary: LRSD r lmen 27 30 en I- , , z 25 , w 0 , , ::J 20 , I- en / LL 15 , 0 / a: , w 10 , cc , ~ , 5' ::J z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 8 13 11 10 Transported 3 1 2 4 Enrollment 8 13 11 10  Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Gibbs Magnet Elementary: LRSD Enr \u0026gt;llmen 35 ' -3E}--------------------------------------( j)I- ' z 30 ,' w 0 :::) 1- (j) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::) z 25 ,' / 10 ,' / 5 ,' / 0 I'-------~----.---~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 13 10 8 8 Transported 4 2 6 1 Enrollment 13 10 9 8 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported G1 Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. 157 t--tr) ...-4 ------------------- Gibbs Magnet Elementary: LRSD e Enrollment 1 ) 50 / / -----------------------38 ---------------- Cl) I- / z / LU 40 , ------------- 0  Compensatory Ed. ::) / 00 I- 30 , D Transported l/) ------------- ,-.( Cl) u. Q Enrollment 0 / a: 20 , LU co / ~ 10 , ::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 12 13 16 5 Transported 3 2 5 2 Enrollment 12 13 17 4 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. 1------------------- Gibbs Magnet Elementary: LRSD llm rt 35 / -2g- ------------------2g- ---------------- I-Cf) z 30 ,' ___2_._6_ ~_- -------------- w 0 :) 1- Cf) LL 0 a: w 0) ~ :) z , 25 ,' , 20 ,' , 15 ,'1----- 10 ,' 5 ,' 0--------,-----,-----.-----f' BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 13 12 11 8 Transported 3 2 7 6 Enrollment 13 12 11 9 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- 250 Cl) t-z , w 200, 0 ::::\u0026gt; , t- 150 , Cl) LL 0 , 100 , a: w co , ~ 50 , ::::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment Hall High: LRSD , , , BM 0 111 124 BF 0 95 117 nrullm r t ------------------------ WM 0 16 41 WF 0 25 48 .-----------, D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: High 10-12. Note: Hall High reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. -----~------------- Hall High: LRSD 250 Cl) I- , z , w 200, 0 ::J / I- 150 , Cl) LL 0 , / 100 , a: w cc , / ~ 50 , ::J z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 0 88 94 BF 0 107 110 ------------------------ WM 0 16 33 WF 0 22 50 .------------, D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: High 10-12. Note: Hall High reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. -----~------------- Hall High: LRSD 200 ~z ~ 150 ,' :J I-C/) LL 100 ,' 0 t-------,- a: w co ~ :J z / 50 ,' 0---------- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0 0 0 0 80 68 16 21 81 76 54 59 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported _ _ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: High 10-12. Note: Hall High reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- M. L. King Magnet Elementary: 60 Cl) ~ , z 50 , w 0 , :::\u0026gt; 40 , ~ Cl) , LL 30 , 0 a: , w 20 , co ~ , 10 , :::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , BM 26 0 26 BF 23 1 24 LRSD 1r )lln-1 r t WM 14 3 16 WF 21 5 21 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported kiLl Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- M. L. King Magnet Elementary: 50 Cl) I- z , w 40 , 0 :::\u0026gt; , , I- 30 , Cl) LL 0 , 20 , a: w co , ~ 10 , :::\u0026gt; z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 20 Transported 1 Enrollment 20 LRSD 2 nrollment _41_ __________________________ ____________ --- 30---------------------------- ,-------- BF 14 2 14 WM 12 2 12 26  Compensatory Ed. WF 9 2 11 D Transported B Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- M. L. King Magnet Elementary: 50 ~ , z , w 40 , 0 :J , 30 , , I-CJ) LL 0 , 20 , a: w , a:) , ~ 10 , :J z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 21 2 21 BF 16 2 16 LRSD ------------- ,----------, WM 16 3 18 WF 12 2 13 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- M. L. King Magnet Elementary: LRSD nrollrn nt 3 5 , , , , -----------------------29--------31 _ ----- (/)I- ,,' z 30 ,' ,, / UJ / , -2{}---- 0 25, / ::J IC/) u.. 0 a: UJ co ~ ::J z , 20 ,' 15 ,' 10 ,' 5 ,' 0---..------.--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 10 10 12 14 Transported 0 1 5 2 Enrollment 10 11 12 15 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. 1,0 1,0 ~ ------------------- M. L. King Magnet Elementary: LRSD r 40 0 l'---------r------,...--------r--------r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 14 16 11 9 2 4 0 2 14 16 12 9  Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ ~ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- M. L. King Magnet Elementary: LRSD Enr llment 1 40 , , -34--------------------------------------- , , ~ 35 ,' ----- --- ------ .------------, z w 0 ::J IC/) _ _ D Compensatory Ed. LL 0 a: w co ~ ::J z 10 , , , 01'----,------,-------,r------r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed.  15 10 12 10 Transported 4 1 2 4 Enrollment 15 10 13 10 D Transported CJ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. 00 1,0 ~ ------------------- Mabelvale Elementary: LRSD 80 ~ 70 ,' z ~ 60 ,' ::J IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::J z 20 ,' 10 ,' nrollmen 0-------,----,---------.---------\nBM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 24 25 10 6 Transported 9 8 2 2 Enrollment 34 20 12 8 CJ Compensatory Ed. D Transported  Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Mabelvale Elementary: LRSD 2 Enrollment - 1 S-J 70 ,' 57 Cl) ~ 60 ,' w 0 50 ,' ::) ~ 40 ,' LL 0 30 ,' cc w 20 ,' co ~ ::) z 10 ,' ----41---------------------------- ,-----------, 6d Compensatory Ed. D Transported ----1-9-------2-2------ Ga Enrollment / 0 -----.-------,------,-------r Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM BF WM WF 22 21 6 8 15 6 1 3 20 14 12 11 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Mabelvale Elementary: LRSD 60 (f) ..... , z 50 , w 0 , ::::\u0026gt; 40 , ..... (f) , LL 30 , 0 a: , w 20 , co ~ , 10 , ::::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 24 8 21 ,, 3 Enrollment - 1 J c ----39---------------------------- BF 16 7 16 WM 5 0 18 WF 11 3 13 ~ Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Mabelvale Elementary: LRSD G e 4 Enrollment - 1 45 50 Cl) / I- / z / w 40 , 0 ::) / I- 30 , Cl) LL 0 / 20 , a: w a::i / ~ 10 , ::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 15 25 7 6 Transported 11 9 3 1 Enrollment 10 11 12 15 5 6 Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Mabelvale Elementary: LRSD 60 CJ) r- , z 50 , UJ 0 , :::\u0026gt; r- 40, CJ) , , LL 30 , 0 , a: , UJ 20 , co :E , 10 , :::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 21 11 14 5 nrolln nt ________5_2_ -_--- ----------------------- BF 25 11 16 WM 14 4 12 WF 12 2 9 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Mabelvale Elementary: LRSD 50 Cl) I- , z , LU 40 , 0 ::\u0026gt; , , I- 30 , Cl) LL 0 , , 20 , a: LU co , , ~ 10 , ::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment r e 6 Enrollment - 1 BM 19 8 15 -4--2- --------40- -------------------------- BF 22 8 10 WM 6 4 13 WF 10 2 10 Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadowcliff Elementary: LRSD 70 Cz/) 1- 60 ,, w , Cl 50 ,, ::::) IC/) LL 0 cc w co ~ ::::) z , 40 ,, 30 ,, I 20 ,' 10 / I ' 1 Enrollment I -60--------------------------------------- -----7-- --------!1------ o,...._------,-------,-----.----~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 16 5 1 2 Transported 14 11 0 2 Enrollment 30 19 6 7 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadowcliff Elementary: LRSD 80 ~z 70 / UJ 0 ::::\u0026gt; Ien LL 0 a: UJ co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z , 60 ,' , 50 ,' , 20 ,' , 10 ,' - --, - ..-. -- ... ~~\no\n-~--,,T_ \"%w..~~,.n,:\n', t .:\n-19\n ~p~---~:~ \\ ~ .. : , - ' ~.. 2 Enr llment - 1 35 -----g------------------ 5 0 ------.-------.----,--- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 12 6 0 0 Transported 24 11 0 0 Enrollment 30 18 9 5 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ----~-------------- Meadowcliff Elementary: LRSD 50 (J) I-z 40 , , w 0 =\u0026gt; , I- 30 , (J) LL 0 , 20, a: w co , ~ 10 , z= \u0026gt; 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported BM 7 9 Er r llment _________4_1_ _ ____________________ ______ BF 3 15 WM 2 0 WF 0 1 Enrollment 16 23 9 2 CJ Compensatory Ed. D Transported ~ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. t-t- .,...\n------------------- Meadowcliff Elementary: LRSD Enrollment - 1 60 , ------------50 --------------------------- Cl) , , t- , , z 50 , w 0 , ::J 40, t- Cl) , LL 30 , 0 , a: , w 20 , cc , ~ , 10 , ::J z 0------------- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 8 8 3 0 10 15 0 2 25 27 11 3 J D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 00 ,t-..... ------------------- Meadowcliff Elementary: LRSD 60 Cl) I- , z 50 , w 0 , :::) 40 , I-Cl) , LL 30 , 0 a: , w 20 , co ~ , 10 , :::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported , , , , , , , BM 8 12 nrollmer ------------51---------------------------- BF 8 18 WM 2 2 WF 2 1 Enrollment 14 25 7 8 Q Compensatory Ed. D Transported GJ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadowcliff Elementary: LRSD 6 Enr llment 50 42 Cf) r- , z , w 40 , ----------------------------------- ,------------, 0 ::J , , ~ Compensatory Ed. r- 30 , Cf) D Transported LL 0 , 20 , a: D Enrollment w cc , , ~ 10 , ::J z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 9 4 3 2 Transported 14 9 2 0 Enrollment 19 13 9 8 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 0 00 ~ ----~--------------1 ENROLLMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY COMPENSATORY EDUCATION, TRANSPORTED, AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM .-I 00 .-I ------------------- Amboy Elementary: NLRSD 70 Cl) Iz- 60 UJ / 0 50 , ::J I- / Cl) 40 , LL / 0 30 , a: / UJ / cc 20 , ~ / ::J 10 , z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment Gra e 1 Enrol ment - 1995-9 53 BM 18 15 20 BF 19 16 21 56 ----21--- WM 10 1 10 WF 13 1 13 27 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------~ Amboy Elementary: NLRSD Jracl 2 Enrollment - 19~ 5-96 60 ------------------------------------------- / 47 Cl) / I- / z LU 50 , 0 / D Compensatory Ed. / :::\u0026gt; 40 , I- D Transported Cl) / LL 30 , D Enrollment \"'l 0 00 / ~ a: / 20 , LU Cl) ~ / 10 , :::\u0026gt; z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 15 16 17 12 Transported 13 13 0 0 Enrollment 17 18 16 11 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Amboy Elementary: NLRSD 50 Cf) I-z / LU 40 , 0 ::::\u0026gt; / I- 30 , Cf) LL 0 / 20 , a: LU co / ~ 10 , ::::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0r a e 3 Enrollrnent - 1995-96 / / / BM 14 14 14 42 ----------------------------------40------ BF 11 9 14 WM 11 0 10 WF 19 1 20 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ~ 00 ~ ------------------- Amboy Elementary: NLRSD r J e 4 nr\nllment - 19 5-96 60 CJ) r , z 50 , w 0 , , :::) 40 , r CJ) , LL 30 , 0 , , a: 20 , w en ~ , 10 , :::) z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 18 Transported 11 Enrollment 20 BF 14 7 14 WM 22 2 22 WF 10 0 10 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. tr) 00 ~ ------------------- Amboy Elementary: NLRSD r' de 5 Enrollment - 19 5-96 60 ~z 50 ,' w 0 :::) , 40 , 53 , tCI) LL 0 a: w c::c 30 ,' 1--------r --- I======= , 20 ,' 1---- ~ :::) z 10 ,' 0 -------.--------.------,----- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 17 14 26 5 9 12 1 1 16 15 26 6 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Amboy Elementary: NLRSD 50 ~ / m 40 ,, 0 r=-\u0026gt; / 30 ,' Cf) LL O 20 ,' a: w ~ 10 ,' z= \u0026gt; de 6 Er rolln1ent - 1995-96 / ------------40---------------------------- 33 ~- ---------------2g------ ...-----------, D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment o--~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 12 15 12 15 9 9 0 0 12 16 11 14 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. t-- 00 ~ ------------------- Central Elementary: NLRSD r c d  1 nrollment - -1 5-9 J 40 ~z 35 / , -3---------------------------------------- ,.,, .....___ __,, ~ 30 ,' ~ 25 / 1----CI) ___2_1__ _____________Co_m_p ensatory Ed. 18 ,,----___,,.__ D Transported LL 20 ,' 0 a: UJ cc ~ :::, z 15 ,, __ 10 ,' 5 ,' .,,.__ _ ____,, 01'---------~--- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 10 10 7 5 Transported 12 8 7 6 Enrollment 13 10 7 7 D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 00 00 ~ Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Central Elementary: NLRSD Gr dd 2 nrollment - 1995- , -35--------------------------------------- 40 Cl) r- 35 // z ~ 30 // ::) ..... Cl) 25 // 20 // , 1------r / LL 0 a: w co 15 // --- ~ ::) z / 10 // / 5/ ___3_. 1_ ___________________ ________ --------- 23 ~-___,,,__ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment 0 -------.------,-----.-------f' BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 14 10 7 9 Transported 8 8 4 5 Enrollment 13 13 6 9 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 0\"0\" ~ ------------------- Central Elementary: NLRSD 60 en I-z 50 w 0 / =\u0026gt; 40 , I- en / LL 30 , 0 a: / w 20 , cc ~ / 10 , z= \u0026gt; 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment / Gra e 3 Enrollrnent - 1995-9 46 BM 14 14 18 ____a i____________________________D Compensatory Ed. BF 9 10 13 22 D Transported -------------- 18 ---- D Enrollment WM 8 6 8 WF 8 4 6 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Central Elementary: NLRSD \\rade 4 Enrollment - 1995-9 60 40 ,' 30 ,' , 20 ,,i--- 10 ,' o--~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 17 6 12 9 12 6 10 8 19 7 13 10 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. l\"\"i 0'. l\"\"i ------------------- Central Elementary: NLRSD G de 5 Ent lln1ent - 1 q95_95 50 __________4_1_ ________________4_2_ _- ---- / / ~ ,/ 34 -- d] 40 ,, 0 -- :::\u0026gt; IC/) 30 ,' / LL 0 20 , a: w ca ~ :::\u0026gt; z 10 ,' / o--~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 13 14 4 16 9 12 3 11 12 15 5 15 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Central Elementary: NLRSD 40 Cl) Iz- 35 UJ , 0 30 , :J , I- 25 , Cl) , LL 20 , 0 , a: 15 , UJ , Cl) 10 , ~ , :J 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , r r J 6 Enrollment - 19~ -96 BM 10 10 11 BF 14 5 14 WM 11 6 12 WF 6 4 6 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crestwood Elementary: NLRSD 30 Cf) I-z w 25 0 , :::\u0026gt; I- 20 , Cf) , u.. 15 , 0 a: , w 10 , co ~ , :::\u0026gt; 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment Gra e 1 Enrollment - 1995-96 , , BM 8 5 8 ------------2-5---------------------------- 21 BF 9 8 8 WM 9 0 9 WF 6 1 7 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crestwood Elementary: NLRSD 25 Cl) ~ / z / w 20 , 0 ::) / ~ 15 , Cl) LL 0 / 10 , a: w a:::i / / ~ 5' ::) z 0  Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment rade 2 Enrollment - 1985-96 21 BM 8 6 7 BF 7 5 5 17 WM 9 0 9 18 WF 7 0 7 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crestwood Elementary: NLRSD :JI .d~ o Enr llment 19 - 6 30 , -25 -------------------------------------- , ~z 25 ,' w 0 :J 20 ,' I- --- 13 Cl) LL 15 ,' 0 a: 10 ,' w co ~ 5 ,' :) z 0 l'---------.--------,-----,--------r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 8 5 10 6 Transported 8 3 0 0 Enrollment 9 5 9 6 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crestwood Elementary: NLRSD G1 a . e 4 Enrollment - 1995-9 / / -2 8 ------------------29 ---------------- ___2 1__ / 25 , / 20 ,' 1------f\" 15 ,'  1--- 10 ,' 5 ,' 0 I'------.--------,-----.-------\u0026lt; BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 9 8 15 8 Transported 9 5 0 0 Enrollment 10 8 14 7 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crestwood Elementary: NLRSD j_ 1 18 5 Er, llr11 ,nt - 1 40 Cl) ------------34 --------------------------- , -30--- ------------------------ Iz- 35 / / w / 0 30 , ::, / / I- 25 , Cl) / ----24-----------------~-----~ ----rg------ D Compensatory Ed. _ _ D Transported LL 20 , 0 / / a: 15 , D Enrollment w / cc 10 , ~ / ::, 5' z 0 l'---------,-----,---------.---- Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM BF WM WF 11 11 12 10 8 10 0 0 11 13 12 9 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 00 C's ,-.( ------------------- Crestwood Elementary: NLRSD 35 Cl) I- / z 30 , w / Cl 25 , :J I- / Cl) 20 , LL / 0 15 , a: / w 10 , co ~ / / :J 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Graoe 6 Enrollment - 199 -9b BM 12 9 _31_ __________________________ ____________ ----2----------------------------- BF 10 6 __________2_1_ ___ .-- ----------, WM 4 0 WF 11 0 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment Enrollment 10 9 3 10 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Lakewood Elementary: NLRSD 50 Cf) I- , z , w 40 , 0 ::) , I- 30 , Cf) LL 0 , 20 , a: w ca , , ~ 10 , ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment tad 1 nrollment - 19 5-96 BM 14 13 15 42 ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ~------~ D Compensatory Ed. ___2_1 _ __________________ 18 -----  Transported BF 8 6 7 WM 5 0 4 WF 9 0 9 D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Lakewood Elementary: NLRSD (1de 2 Enrollment - 1995-96 ,,' -29 ------------------------------------- 35 ,' ,............___ ~z 30 ,, , '- ---.\n.\n......__ w , O 25 ,' :::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 , 15 ,' a: -- w 10 ,' en ~ :::\u0026gt; z , 5 ,' 0---,.-------,------,-------r BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 11 8 10 7 9 4 5 0 0 6 8 4 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. -------------------- ,----- Lakewood Elementary: NLRSD 20 Cl) I-z w / 0 15 ' =\u0026gt; I-Cl) / LL 10 ' 0 a: w / / co 5' ~ z= \u0026gt; 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment G de 3 nrollment - 1995-96 16 16 BM BF 7 6 4 4 5 6 WM 6 1 7 WF 6 0 6 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Lakewood Elementary: NLRSD \\3r d ~ 4 Enrollment - 19 5-96 15 ,' a: 10 ,' w Cl) ~ 5 ,' ::\u0026gt; z 1---- , o---~-~~-~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 8 8 7 8 Transported 6 8 2 0 Enrollment 6 8 7 8 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Lakewood Elementary: NLRSD 20 ,   15 ,  Grade 5 Enrollment - 1 95-96 _________3_1_ __ ____________________ ______ 27 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment a: 1-- UJ 10 ,  co ~ 5 ,  z o--~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 10 11 7 14 6 9 1 0 10 11 8 13 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Lakewood Elementary: NLRSD 30 / 15 ,' / 10 , / 5 ,' r 1e 6 nrollment - 19 -9  / / , / , ------------25 ----------------------------- 1------:--- D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment 0 -------.------,-----.---~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 8 9 10 6 5 6 0 0 7 10 10 7 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadow Park Elementary: 35 ~ , z 30 , LU , , 0 25 , ::J , ~ , en 20 , LL , , 0 15 , cc , LU 10 , co ~ , ::J 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment NLRSD Gr\u0026lt;-1de1 nrolln1ent - 1c BM 17 0 14 _31_ _________________________ _____________ BF WM 9 3 0 0 8 2 WF 12 1 9 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadow Park Elementary: 30 Cl) I- , , z 25 , w 0 , , , :::) 20 , I-Cl) , , LL 15 , 0 cc: , w 10 , co ~ , 5' :::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , , , , , , , , , BM 9 0 9 NLRSD c d , 2 Enroll n1ent - '19S)r.:_g 27 ------ 18 BF 14 0 13 WM 9 1 7 WF 4 2 7 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadow Park Elementary: 20 Cl) I- z / w / 0 15 , ::) I-Cl) / / LL 10 , 0 a: w / / en 5' ~ ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment NLRSD ,. de 3 nr llment - 1995-96 18 BM 9 0 9 ---------------4-5--------4-5------ 11 --------- BF 6 0 5 WM 7 0 8 WF 7 1 7 __ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadow Park Elementary: NLRSD 4 l.nrollment - 19 5-96 22 25 Cl) , , I- , , , z , w 20 , 0 , 12 , :::\u0026gt; / , I- 15 , Cl) LL 0 / 10 , a: w cc , ~ 5' :::\u0026gt; z 0-------,----.-----------.----- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 6 12 6 8 Transported O O 2 2 Enrollment 6 10 5 8 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadow Park Elementary: NLRSD ,._rl ~ 5 nrollment - 19 )~)-9b 35 (/)I- , z 30 ,' ,, / w , 0 =\u0026gt; IC/) 25 ,' ,/ , , __1_ 6 __ 20 ,' 15 ,' LL 0 a: w co 10 ,'1----- ~ z= \u0026gt; 5 ,' 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , BM 8 0 8 BF 16 0 16 32 WM 6 0 7 WF 11 1 10 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadow Park Elementary: 30 Cl) I-z w 25 0 / =\u0026gt; 20 , I-Cl) / LL 15 , 0 / cc / w 10 ' co / ~ / =\u0026gt; 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment NLRSD , le 6 Enrollment - 199t}-96 BM 12 0 11 BF 11 0 10 WM 8 1 7 WF 12 1 11 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Seventh Street Elementary: NLRSD G cl J e 1 n r II men t - 'l ) i:: - ~ 50 ~ // 37 m 40 ,, f---- o ::) .,_ 30 // Cl) LL O 20 / __ a: LU a) ~ 10 // ::) z 0 l'---------.-------,,----~-------r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 19 10 6 4 0 0 3 3 18 13 6 6 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Seventh Street Elementary: NLRSD G .,.de 2 Er rollment - 1 5-9 40 Cl) Iz- 35 , w , 0 30 , I=- \u0026gt; 25 Cl) , , LL 20 , 0 , a: 15 , w , co 10 , ~ , =\u0026gt; 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 12 0 13 ----------------------------------3------ -25-------------------24-- 22 BF 9 0 13 WM 8 7 9 WF 14 6 15 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. __ D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Seventh Street Elementary: 35 en Iz- 30 UJ / 0 25 ' =\u0026gt; I- / en 20 ' LL / 0 15 , a: UJ / ca 10 ' ~ / =\u0026gt; 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment NLRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1995-96 / / / BM 14 1 13 __________________________________ 31 _____ _ 28 s--.:..\n, ,~ .c-\"~,.,,.,. D Compensatory Ed. ~~~--fl --  Transported BF 9 1 10 WM 7 4 8 WF 11 8 12 -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Seventh Street Elementary: NLRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1995-96 60 ,' -----------------------48 --------------- ,,  ~=:-:-:a 44 ~z LU 0 50 ,' :r:-::\u0026gt;4 0 C/) LL 30 0 a: 20 ,' LU co ~ z= \u0026gt; 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 11 0 8 BF 8 1 8 WM 19 11 18 WF 16 12 16 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION lnstrucHonal Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Seventh Street Elementary: NLRSD GrcJ ie 5 nrollment - 1995-96 60 ~z 50 // w 0 40 // ::::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 30 ,, 0 a: w co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 20 // 10 ,  52 , -----------------------4g----------------- --4--2-- ----------- /  t=:=:=== o---~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 21 17 17 18 1 0 14 15 20 17 18 19 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Seventh Street Elementary: NLRSD i nroll. ent - 1 L 5_9c 60 g? z 50 w 0 :::\u0026gt; 40 I-C/) LL 30 ,' 0 aw: 20 co 55 _j_j __ , ~ :::\u0026gt; z 10 ,' 1---- 01\u0026lt;--------------,---- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 5 14 20 12 Transported 0 0 15 9 Enrollment 6 16 20 12 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- ENROLLMENT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BY COMPENSATORY EDUCATION, TRANSPORTED, AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM 00 ,-j N ------------------- Baker Elementary: Cl) I- 50 m 40 ,, 0 ::J ,' I- 30 ,' Cl) LL O 20 ,' a: / cwa ,, ' ~ 10 ,' ::J z nrollment , -----------------------38 / / -----------------1------t' / 5 6 0 -------,-------,------r---~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 5 6 1 3 Transported O O 17 14 Enrollment O O 20 19 PCSSD 6  Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Baker Elementary: PCSSD 2 Enrollment 50 (J) , I- / / z / w 40 , / 0 , / / :) / I- 30, (J) LL 0 / / 20 , a: 13 w co / ~ 10 , :) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 7 5 5 6 Transported 3 0 14 17 Enrollment 3 1 18 19 42 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Baker Elementary: PCSSD nrolln1ent 1 -----------------------34 ---------------- 40 ,/ 33 Cl) ------------------ zr- 35 / ,, ,/ ----------------_l------1' w 30 / ,,/ 0 , ----------------- ::) rC/) LL 0 15 ,,' ,,,,' ffi ,' , -------------5--- ca 1 O ,' ,/ 2 ~ , , ::J 5 , z 0 -------,-------,--~-- BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported BM 2 0 3 3 5 1 15 10 Enrollment O 1 16 18 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Baker Elementary: PCSSD 1rolln1e t _______________________ 3.1 ________________ _ 35 / (J) / / / I- / / 30 / / z / / / w / / / 0 25 / / / ::) / / / I- / / / 20 / / (J) / / / LL / / / / 0 15 / / / / / a: / / w / / 10 / / / co / / / ~ / / 5 / ::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 2 2 3 Transported O O 13 10 Enrollment O O 16 14 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. -------------------1 Baker Elementary: PCSSD nr )!In n 1 J 50 ~m 40 ,' ------------- ~-------~ 0 ::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 30 ,' 0 20 ,' a: w co ~ ::\u0026gt; z 10 ,' , , o--~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0 0 1 0 0 1 19 9 1 1 21 12 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. --------~---------- - Baker Elementary: 40 Cl) I-z , LU , 30 , 0 :::, I-Cl) , , LL 20 , 0 a: , LU , , en 10 , ~ :::, z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported , , , , , , , , , , , BM 0 0 nrollm n ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- BF 2 0 WM 0 16 WF 0 11 Enrollment O O 21 14 PCSSD __ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------1 Cato Elementary: ~z w 0 :::, IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::, 60 50 40 30 20 10 , , , , , , , , , , , Er r llmer , , , , , , , , , , , , , , z o--~-----,-----.---- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 10 6 13 16 Enrollment 15 6 33 33 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Cato Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Cato Elementary: Enr )llr11ent 50 , ~ ,/ a:i 40 ,' 0 , :J IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ :J z 30 ,' , 20 ,' 0------------.----- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0 0 0 0 6 5 12 14 7 7 32 32 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Cato Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Cato Elementary: enrollment 40 Cl) , I- , z , , w , 0 30 , ----------------- :::\u0026gt; I- , Cl) , , LL 20 , 0 a: w , co 10 , ~ :::\u0026gt; z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 6 3 9 11 Enrollment 7 7 22 26 PCSSD G D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Cato Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Cato Elementary: 70 Cl) r- / 60 , / z / / / w / 0 50 , / / ::\u0026gt; / / r- / / / 40 , / Cl) / / / / LL / / / 0 30 , , /. /. er: w 20 , co ~ / / ::\u0026gt; 10 , z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 0 Transported 10 Enrollment 11 , Enr llment BF 0 4 7 WM 0 20 42 WF 0 9 26 PCSSD u D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Cato Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. 00 ('l ('l ------------------- Cato Elementary: 60 Cf) I- , z 50 , w 0 , :::) 40 , I-Cf) , LL 30 , 0 a: , w 20 , 0) ~ , 10 , :::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 4 3 11 18 Enrollment 5 4 36 31 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Cato Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Cato Elementary: PCSSD Enrollm n 50 ----------------- Cl) , , I- , z , w 40 , , ----------------- 0 , , , , D Compensatory Ed. :::) , , , I- 30 , ----------------- - - D Transported Cl) u. D Enrollment 0 , 20 , a: w cc , 10 , , ~ :::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 7 1 14 13 Enrollment 10 3 33 28 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Cato Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. 0 t'f\") M ------------------- Crystal Hills Magnet Elementary: PCSSD nrollrn .,n J 60 ----------------------------------48------ 40 ,' 10 ,' 01\u0026lt;--~------- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 18 8 6 5 Transported O O 5 10 Enrollment O O 23 33 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crystal Hills Magnet Elementary: PCSSD 1 U( 9 30 , Cl) ,,' ~ 25 / / ------------------w 0 ::::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 20 ,' ,' , 15 ,' ,,' ----------------- , , , , 10 ,' ,' ----------------- , 5 ,' 0-----------,..---- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 3 4 0 0 Transported 0 0 4 3 Enrollment O O 23 21  Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crystal Hills Magnet Elementary: 50 Cl) I- , , z 40, , w , , 0 ::, , , I- 30, Cl) , , LL , 0 , 20 , cc w a) , ~ 10 , ::, z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 13 Transported 0 Enrollment 0 PCSSD roll 1en 43 ----------------- ----------------- 13 BF WM WF 1 1 4 0 12 7 0 30 28 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- l Crystal Hills Magnet Elementary: PCSSD nrollr 1ent 33 , 10 ,' , 5' 0 ----...------,,----~-~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 8 7 4 1 Transported 0 0 4 4 Enrollment O O 22 28 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crystal Hills Magnet Elementary: 50 Cf) , I- , z , w 40 , 0 , , :::) , , I- 30, Cf) , LL , , 0 , a: 20 , w co , ~ 10 , :::) z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 6 Transported 0 Enrollment 0 PCSSD BF 2 0 0 Enrollment 1 ~- WM 2 10 29 WF 1 9 35 45 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crystal Hills Magnet Elementary: PCSSD nr llment 60 Cf) Iz- 50 ,' ' / ----------------- w ,' 0:: ::\u0026gt;4 0 ,, ' / ----------------- I- ,' Cf) LL 0 a: w Cl) ~ z= \u0026gt; 30 ,, ' ,, , ----------------- ' 20 ,' ' ,,' ----------------- , 10 ,' 0 ----.-------,--~------f' BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 5 8 3 0 Transported 0 0 10 9 Enrollment O O 40 28 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Dupree Elementary: PCSSD 50 ~ ,' m 40 ,, 0 ::\u0026gt; ~ Cl) 30 ,' , 20 , LL 0 a: w ca , ,,___ ________ \"-' 1---- ~ 10 , --- ::\u0026gt; z 0 l'------,----------.------.---- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0 0 0 0 3 7 17 13 6 9 23 26 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Dupree Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Dupree Elementary: PCSSD 50 Cl) I- , z , , w 40 , 0 :) , , I- 30 , Cl) LL 0 , , 20 , a: w co , ~ 10 , :) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , , , ----------------- , ----------------- , , , BM BF 0 0 5 6 7 7 WM 0 15 25 WF 0 17 27 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Dupree Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Dupree Elementary: Pesso 40 ~ z ,' ~ 30 ,' ::) I-C/) LL 0 a: 20 ,' , 1 Enrollment UJ co 10 ,' --- ~ ::) z 0 l'--------,-------,-----,-------f' BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0 0 0 0 7 6 14 7 8 9 24 15 l } ) D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Dupree Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Dupree Elementary: PCSSD n llmen J 60 Cf) , I- , z 50 ,, ----------------- / , w / 0 / / D Compensatory Ed. / ----------------- ::) 40 , I- D Transported Cf) / 30 , ----------------- LL D Enrollment 0 cc / w 20, co ~ / 10 , ::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 4 7 26 18 Enrollment 10 10 31 29 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Dupree Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. 0 \"1' (',l ------------------- Dupree Elementary: PCSSD 50 ~ ct] 40 , 0 ::::) 1- (J) LL 30 , O 20 a: w ~ 10 ::::) z Err llrnent / 0 ~---,------,----~--~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0 0 0 0 3 8 18 14 5 10 28 20 CJ Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Dupree Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Dupree Elementary: 50 , ~ ,,,,,' m 40 ,, 0 ::, IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::, z 30 ,' 20 ,' 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , , , , , , , , , , BM 0 7 9 BF 0 3 6 r 11r r r WM 0 14 26 WF 0 16 22 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Dupree Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Fuller Elementary: Enrollmen - 50 / -40--------------------------------------- Cl) / I-z / w 40 , ------------------------ 0 :::) / I- 30 , Cl) LL 0 / , 20 , a: w co , / ~ 10 , :::) z 01\u0026lt;----~------- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 8 4 3 1 16 15 6 6 16 15 7 6 PCSSD .--------------, D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. --------~---------- Fuller Elementary: nro ln1 n 30 (f) I- / z 25 , w 0 / / :::::\u0026gt; 20 , I- (f) / LL 15 , 0 a: / w 10 , co ~ / 5' :::::\u0026gt; z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 2 5 2 0 Transported 12 11 9 9 Enrollment 13 11 13 11 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. -------------------1 Fuller Elementary: PCSSD 35 Cl) I- , z 30 , w , 0 25 , :::) , I- , Cl) 20 , LL , 0 15 , a: , w 10 , co ~ , :::) 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 5 13 13 Enr llmen ) _31_ _________________________ _____________ BF 1 9 9 WM 1 6 10 WF 1 9 10 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- B Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Fuller Elementary: PCSSD nr Im nt J 50 Cl) I-z , UJ 40 , 0 ::, , , I- 30, Cl) u.. 0 , , 20 , a: UJ co , 10 , , ~ ::, z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 10 5 0 3 Transported 15 13 12 11 Enrollment 16 13 16 11 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. --------~---------- Fuller Elementary: PCSSD 40 Cl) I- z w 30 , 0 ::::) I-Cl) / LL 20 , 0 a: w / en 10 , ~ ::::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM BF 8 3 14 15 14 15 Enrolln1ent - 1 Jt\u0026gt;- WM 3 14 15 WF 2 8 9 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported EJ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Fuller Elementary: 40 , 10 ,' , , , , Enr llment 0 -----,------,------r---~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 3 4 0 2 9 7 16 10 11 7 22 11 PCSSD 6 Compensatory Ed. D Transported EJ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. --------~---------- Landmark Elementary: PCSSD (J) 80 , I- , z 70 , w , 0 60 , ::::\u0026gt; , I- 50 , (J) , , LL 40 , 0 , cc 30 , w , (l) 20 , ~ , , ::::\u0026gt; 10 , z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 26 18 21 BF 9 9 10 Enr llment 1 WM 13 5 13 WF 17 4 15 Compensatory Ed. __ D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. --------~---------- Landmark Elementary: PCSSD Enrollment 1 ~ 50 ~ ,/ m 40 ,, 0 =\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 a: w c:o ~ z= \u0026gt; 30 ,' 20 ,' 10 ,' , , , , , 45 ,' ------------3g--------40--- 0 -------r-------,----,---~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 9 12 18 19 Transported 10 13 6 6 Enrollment 11 14 16 20 96 E3I Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION I Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 1 ------------------- Landmark Elementary: PCSSD Er rollment J 64 ~ 70 ,/ 52 z 60 / ,,,,, 47 w 0 :::J 50 ,' ~ 40 / LL 0 30 ,' a: ~ 2 0 , , i--:-~- ~ 10 ,' z 0 --~-----,.----.---- BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 17 15 15 18 26 17 16 11 6 18 27 18 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Landmark Elementary: PCSSD Enrollment 1 70 ,' 57 Cl) ~ 60 ,' 53 ---------------50----------------- w 0 ::J IC/) LL 0 a: w OJ ~ ::J z , 50 ,' , 30 ,' 20 ,' 10 ,' 0 --~--.-------,---- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 21 13 22 21 Transported 17 9 7 9 Enrollment 19 11 21 23 CJ Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Landmark Elementary: PCSSD 80 Cl) 1- z w 0 ::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 40 ,' 0a : 30 ,' __ _ cwo 20 ,' ~ --- ::\u0026gt; 10 ,' z r. Enr llmen 66 0 !'----------.-----,,----,------~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 13 14 24 21 Transported 10 12 16 11 Enrollment 12 14 26 23 D Compensatory Ed. _ _ D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Landmark Elementary: PCSSD E::nr )llment J , ----------------------------------70 ----- 80 , , Cl) ---------------------------- ..... 70 / ,,/ z , ---------------------------- w 60 / ,,/ 0 / I, - - - - - - - - - - - - 3a---- ~ 50, / Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z 40 ,,' ,,,,' ,' _22 __ 30 ,' 20 , , ------ -- 10 , 0 -----.-----,----~-----(' BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 8 13 18 28 Transported 6 12 7 16 Enrollment 8 13 20 26 _ _ EJ Compensatory Ed. __ D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Taylor Elementary: 40 ~ z ,' ~ 30 ,' ::\u0026gt; I-Cf) LL 20 ,' 0 a: cwo 10 ,' ~ ::\u0026gt; z n llment 0-------~-- Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM BF WM WF 0 0 0 0 4 1 14 10 13 9 24 26 PCSSD _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported 13:1E nrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Taylor Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Taylor Elementary: PCSSD L Enr llment - 1 -96 30 / ----------------------------- , / Cl) , / t- , z 25 , w 0 , [TI Compensatory Ed. :::\u0026gt; 20 , t- D Transported Cl) , LL 15 , Enrollment 0 a: , w 10 , co ~ , :::\u0026gt; 5' z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 5 3 4 9 Enrollment 17 5 13 19 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Taylor Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. \\C lO (',l ------------------- Taylor Elementary: 35 , , , 30 , , 25 , 20 ,' , , , , , , , nr llmen , , ----------------~~~ 15 ,' / 10 ,' 5 ,' 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , BM 0 0 8 BF 0 1 9 WM 0 9 20 WF 0 10 23 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported Enrollment Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Taylor Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Taylor Elementary: PCSSD Enrollment 30 , , , Cl) , , I- , z 25 ,, ---------------------------- w 0 , , EJ Compensatory Ed. ::\u0026gt; 20 , I- D Transported Cl) , LL 15 , D Enrollment 0 a: , w 10 ' co\n~ , ::\u0026gt; 5' z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 6 3 7 14 Enrollment 15 14 14 15 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Taylor Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. 00 lO ('l ------------------- Taylor Elementary: PCSSD 30 Cf) J- , z 25 , w 0 , ::) 20 , J-Cf) , LL 15 , 0 a: , w 10 , en ~ , 5' ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , , BM 0 3 14 BF 0 3 6 Enrollment - 19 ~ WM 0 7 18 WF 0 8 18 Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Taylor Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Taylor Elementary: En ollment 35 / / ' Cl) / / r / / z 30, / ' ' / w / ----------------- 0 ' / 25 , / / :::J / / r / Cl) 20 , LL / ' 0 15 , a: / w 10 , co ~ / / :::J 5' z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 6 3 9 13 Enrollment 14 13 16 19 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Taylor Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- ENROLLMENT MAGNET SCHOOLS BY COMPENSATORY EDUCATION, TRANSPORTED, AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ,-t I.D N ------------------- MANN MAGNET JUNIOR HIGH: LRSD r t 300 , , , -----------2 44------------------2 3 g----- en / I- / / z 250' / UJ / 0 / _15_8_ / ::\u0026gt; 200 ' I- en / LL 150 , 0 / a: / UJ 100 , co ~ / 50 ' ::\u0026gt; z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 62 91 57 82 Transported 34 62 57 75 Enrollment 62 91 57 82 _c D Compensatory Ed.  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts and Science Magnet Junior High (7-9) ------------------- MANN MAGNET JUNIOR HIGH: LRSD 8 Enrollment - '19 5 ~ 219 250 Cl) -----------2 03-------1 g 1--- --- I-z ll.J 200 167-- 0 :) , I- 150 , Cl) LL , 0 , 100 , a: ll.J ca , ~ 50 , :) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 63 77 65 73 Transported 41  49 61 73 Enrollment 63 77 65 73 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts and Science Magnet Junior High (7-9) ------------------- MANN MAGNET JUNIOR HIGH: 250 Cl) I- , z , , UJ 200 , 0 ::\u0026gt; , , I- 150 , Cl) LL 0 , 100 , a: UJ c::c , , :?! 50 , ::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , BM 73 53 73 BF 81 59 81 LRSD 1rollment \"I \u0026gt;~-c WM 59 56 59 WF 60 52 60 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported  Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts and Science Magnet Junior High (7-9) ------------------- Parkview Magnet High: LRSD r 1 1tl O .nrolln1ent , -----------301--------------------------- 350 ,' 271 Cl) ,,..,.\" ~ 300 ,' ,,/ w ,' O 250 ,' ::::, IC/) 200 , 178 LL 0 a: w c:a 150 ,' t------t\" ~ ::::, z 100 ,' 50 ,' 0---------,----,----------,------r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 60 101 58 91 Transported 58 99 56 89 Enrollment 60 101 58 91 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported -- o Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts and Science Magnet High (10-12) ------------------- Parkview Magnet High: LRSD 250 Cf) I- / z / / w 200 , 0 ::\u0026gt; / I- 150 , Cf) LL 0 / 100 , a: w co / / ~ 50 , ::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment r i 1 1 1 E n r J 11n 1 r t 1 5 / / / 180 / BM 61 58 61 BF 75 73 75 223 WM 59 58 59 WF 73 71 73 217 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported ru Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts and Science Magnet High (10-12) ------------------- Parkview Magnet High: LRSD 300 Cl) I-z LU 250 0 , , ::\u0026gt; 200 , I-Cl) , LL 150 , 0 a: , 100 , LU a:l ~ , 50 , ::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment J  1d . -12 Enrollment ~ 1 q _q5 , , BM 59 57 59 ----------------------------------245----- BF 74 74 74 222 WM 44 43 44 WF 83 80 83 D Compensatory Ed.  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts and Science Magnet High (10-12) ------------------- Booker Magnet Elementary: 100 (I) I- z w 80 0 ::) , , I- 60 , (I) LL 0 , 40 , a: w co , / ~ 20 , ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 24 21 24 LRSD nr )lln1ent = 1 ----------- 79---------------------------- 69 i\u0026lt;-----'--- 70 BF 27 25 27 WM 24 22 24 WF 19 16 19 D Compensatory Ed.  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Booker Magnet Elementary: 100 en ~ / z / w 80 , 0 ::) / ~ 60 , en LL 0 / 40 ' a: w co / / ~ 20 , ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment LRSD 2 E1 rollrn nt - 9 ) - ----------------------------------76 ____ _ / , _52__ __- - --~?_ __---s_a --,__ D Compensatory Ed. BM BF 21 22 20 21 21 22 WM 20 18 20 WF 26 24 26 --  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts Magnet Elementary (1-6) O\"I 1,0 N ------------------- Booker Magnet Elementary:  LRSD 100 Cl) r- / z / / w 80 , 0 ::::\u0026gt; / / r- 60 , Cl) LL. / 0 40 , / a: w co / / ~ 20 , z= \u0026gt; 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment / / / _... 1 ~ :_,,t :nr )ilment 1 i , - ,, --------------------------------- 1s----- 71 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported  Enrollment BM BF WM WF 22 20 22 19 18 19 24 23 24 27 24 27 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Booker Magnet Elementary: 100 Cl) I-z w 80 0 ::) / I- 60 , Cl) LL 0 / 40 , a: w cc / ~ 20 , ::) z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 21 Transported 21 Enrollment 21 LRSD 4 Enrollment - ~1~ b- BF 15 13 15 WM 13 11 13 WF 25 24 25 74 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Booker Magnet Elementary: LRSD ~  - r l I n1 n - 7 120 Cl) 92 1- z w 0 :J IC/) ---------------61------ D Compensatory Ed. LL 0 a: w en ~ :J z 60 ,' 40 ,' 20 ,' 53 / 0 ------,----........-------r-----r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 23 31 18 21 22 30 17 19 23 31 18 21  Transported  Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Booker Magnet Elementary: 100 Cl) I- , z , w 80 , 0 :::\u0026gt; , , I- 60 , Cl) LL , 0 , 40 , a: w co , ~ 20 , :::\u0026gt; z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 26 Transported 24 Enrollment 26 LRSD j Enr llment - 1 BF WM WF 24 19 26 24 17 25 24 19 26 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported CJ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Williams Magnet Elementary: 70 Cl) I- 60 / / z / / / UJ / 0 50 , :J I- / Cl) 40 , LL / 0 30 , a: / / UJ 20 , co ~ / :J 10 , z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 16 Transported 14 Enrollment 16 46 BF 22 20 22 LRSD Enrollment 19' le\n96 64 _- --49--_- -__5 2_ ____ _ WM 17 15 17 WF 18 16 18 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported  Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Basic Skills Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Williams Magnet Elementary: 80 Cl) / / / Iz- 70 , w 60 0 ::::\u0026gt; / I- 50 , Cl) / LL 40 , 0 / / a: 30 , w / co 20 , ~ / ::::\u0026gt; 10 , z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment / / BM 20 19 20 LRSD Je 2 Enr llment - 1 ~ ~,5~96 BF 16 14 16 WM 17 15 17 WF 22 22 22 66 _ _ D Compensatory Ed.  Transported u Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Basic Skills Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Williams Magnet Elementary: LRSD I ltnent - 1 70 ,,,, ------------59--------------------ss----- ~z ,/ , -59---60 , ,, -- ----I w , ------ 0 50, :::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z 40 ,' 30 ,' , 10 , i----- 0 --~--,---------.-------(' BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 17 20 14 20 Transported 16 19 12 18 Enrollment 17 20 14 20 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported --  Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Basic Skills Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Williams Magnet Elementary: 100 Cl) I-z , w 80 , 0 ::::\u0026gt; , I- 60 , Cl) LL 0 , 40 , a: w co , ~ 20 , ::::\u0026gt; z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 29 Transported 27 Enrollment 29 85 LRSD i4 E:nr lln1 ~rat 1 ---------------59-------55-----.-----------, D Compensatory Ed. BF 12 11 12 WM 20 19 20 WF 19 18 19 --  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Basic Skills Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Williams Magnet Elementary: 60 ,  50 ,  40 ,  10 ,  LRSD 65 0 -------,----.----------,--------f\" BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 19 22 16 18 Transported 19 21 15 18 Enrollment 19 22 16 18 __ D Compensatory Ed.  Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Basic Skills Magnet Elementary (1-6) 00 t-M ------------------- Williams Magnet Elementary: 80 10 ,' 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment LRSD rade Enrollment - 19 5- 6 BM 17 17 17 BF 22 21 22 65 WM 15 15 15 WF 18 17 18 D Compensatory Ed.  Transported __ C'.J Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Basic Skills Magnet Elementary (1-6) -------------------1 TEST DATA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: CYCLE FIVE SCHOOLS 0 00 N ------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C. TEST DATA The Allen letter requires the collection of the following norm referenced test data on the three school districts in Pulaski County: Since 1991-92 the ADE has collected test data by using the Stanford Achievement Test-8. Scores for 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 have previously been reported in the 1994 Interim Monitoring Report, the February 1995 Semiannual Report and the July 1995 Semiannual Report. Scores for the spring of 1994-95 and the fall of 1995-96 school years are outlined on the following pages. The graphs on the following pages indicate the results by composite score on the Stanford Achievement Test by race, gender, grade, school, SES and teacher. 281 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD w 0 z ~ ~ LL 0 1- z w 0 a: w Q. w 8 Cf) w t: ~ ~ 8 100 60 20 84 86 85 82 85 BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !spring 95 - Grade 4 IIIIIFall 95 - Grade 5 I SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility NE 66.3% \\ RC 5.1% NE= Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free F 28.6% N 00 N Teacher administering test was Linda Ammel ----------~-------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD w 0 z 80 2 60 ~ ~ LL 0 fz w 0 a: w 40 0.. w ~ 0 (f) ~ ~ 20 ~ g 71 BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC 8.6% NE 40.2% F 51.2% I NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free Teacher administering test was Lorraine Mosby ----------------~-- GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD w () z z Li!i ~ LL 0 I-z w () a: w 0.. w a: 0 () Cl) w !::: Cl) ~ ~ 0 () 80 70 60 50 / 40 30 20 10 / / / / / / / / / / 65 0.__--------------~ BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !spring 95 - Grade 4 IIIIIFall 95 - Grade 5 j Teacher administering test was Linda Parker SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC F 54.8% NE 40.0% I NE= Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free -----~-----------~- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD w 0 z z\n'.S 2: IL 0 1- z w 0 a: w D. w 15 0 Cf) ~ ~ 2: 8 120 100 80 60 40 ,, 20 / / / / 95 o~--------------- BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility NE 4.9% 62.5% 32.6% NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free 1./) 00 ('l Teacher administering test was Judy Bryant ----------~-------- HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD w 0 z 80 ~ 60 ,, ~ LL 0 1- z w ffi IL 40 w ~ 0 Cf) w !::: ~ 20 ~ 0 0 71 70 0\"-------------------J BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Grade 4 aFall 95 - Grade 5 I SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC 2.0% NE= Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free Teacher administering test was Linda Porter ------------~---~-- M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD 100 SES ____________ 83 83 ____________________ _ Based on Free Lunch Eligibility w 0 2 80 ~ :': LL 0 1- z w 0 a: w 0. w 8 40 Cf) w I- ~ ::'i: 20 8 BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER Jspring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grades I Teacher administering test was Geraldine Johnson ------------ RC 6.4% NE 49.0% I F 44.6% NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free - - - - - - -1 w 0 z ~ ~ LL 0 fz w 0 a: w Q. w 8 Cf) w f- ~ ~ 0 0 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD 100 80 60 ,' 40 20 / ---------------------------------- 81--- ,, 77 / / / / / / / / BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC 8.5% \\ F 62.6% NE = Not Eligible NE 28.9% / 00 00 N RC = Reduced Cost Teacher administering test was Lee Van Enk F = Free ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD 80 70 w 0 z ~ 60 ~ IL 0 fz w 0 a: w a.. w ~ 0 Cl) w t: 50 40 30 / / ~ 20 ,, ~ 0 0 10 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / BM 69 _____________ 52_ __ _ BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I F-\u0026lt;ES SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC F 66.5% 8.5% \\ NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free NE Teacher administering test was Tracye Thomason ------~------------ TEST DATA NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: CYCLE FIVE SCHOOLS 0 a, N -------------------- AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD M SES 70 / / / 65 65 w / ------------- 0 / z ,' ~ 60 ,' 2 ,' LL O 50 f-z w ffi 0. w 8 (I) w t: 40 ,' 30 ,' ~ 20 2 8 10 ', / / BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I Teacher administering test was Barbara Woodyear Based on Free Lunch Eligibility NE 42.8% F 52.2% I NE= Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free ----------~--~----- w 0 z z ~ ~ LL 0 1- z w 0 ffi 0.. w ~ 0 Cf) w !::: ~ ~ 0 0 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY:. NLRSD 100 80 40 20 01\u0026lt;------------------r BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grades j SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility 67.9% RC 3.2% NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free NE Teacher administering test was Pat Siegel ------------------- . CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD S.....A,,. \".I, ..8 \\C...J'Vf \"'QRES UJ 0 z ~ 2: LL 0 fz UJ 0 a: UJ 0.. UJ ~ 0 Cf) ~ Cf) i 2: 8 100 80 _, 60 40 / 20 / / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 79- - -81 - 80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - // 76 / / BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I Teacher administering test was Linda Wilson SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC 2.5% NE 53.3% F 44.2% NE= Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free ------------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD UJ 0 .100 Z 80 ~ 2: LL 0 ~ 60 UJ 0 a: UJ D.. UJ ~ 40 0 Cf) ~ ~ 2: 20 g BM 90 BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER Jspring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 J RES SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility NE 47.3% I F 51.4% NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free Teacher administering test was Kaye Lowe ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 70 63 / / / / w 60 0 z z / / ~ 50 / ~ LL ----------- 0 / I- / z / w 40 0 a: ---------- w Q. w 30 / ~ 0 (J) w t: 20 (J) ~ ~ 0 0 10 0 ~---------------' BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 51 Teacher administering test was Sam Mascuilli SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility 74.0% RC 6.6% NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free ------------------- w 0 z ~ ~ LL 0 fz w 0 ffi Q. w ~ 0 Cl) w t: ~ ~ 0 0 SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD SAT 8 SCORES 100 80 / 60 ,/ 40 / 20 / / / / / / 88 0\"----------------~ BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC 1.3% NE 44.8% F 53.9% NE = Not Eligible Teacher administering test was Marsha Paul RC = Reduced Cost F = Free ------------------- TEST DATA I /\\ C+-KCI N y I ,. re t-- I \".'. 0\"I ~ ,~~.. ~ rn ~-'\"',\\I ~') ' .  I\"\"\"' w,,mI\u0026lt; N 1_--,-T-R- I Ta ~y L ,. aS ~  I ~ .. I -~ ------------------- BAKER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD w 0 z z ~ ~ LL 0 1- z w 0 a: w Q. w ~ 0 (f) w I- ~ ~ 0 0 100 80 60 / 40 20 0\"---------------~ BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Gr\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\u003eOffice of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation\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_152","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation 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":["Office of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation"],"dc_date":["1996-07-15"],"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","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation 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/152"],"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":["38 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\nl D J nitorin9 LRSD PROGRAM COST -:~-::..-... .,cf~ tt:-::~ .\ni~~:~~\"I' ' 308 Little Rock School District (LRSD) The following is a summary of the LRSD Program Cost Section of the July 15, 1996 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 through March 31, 1996 and is estimated for the fiscal year. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 5 schools. The programs funded by the Cycle 5 schools are also included. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are also presented for the Cycle 5 schools. Cost per student information is presented for the: district\nelementary school programs\njunior high school programs\nhigh school programs\nand Cycle 5 school programs. Graphs indicate total program cost and average cost per student rates for elementary, junior high and high school programs. 309 rT' LOCAUSTATE LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS 8001001 CENTRAL HIGH 3,187,056 1,562,623 328,669 8001002 HALL HIGH 2,191,579 923,114 191,706 8001003 MANN JR. HIGH 0 842,5-40 174,973 8001- PARKVIEW HIGH 0 Be0,498 176,626 8001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 800,820 124,774 8001007 OUNBAR JR. HIGH 1,402,978 728,148 151,217 8001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 1,573,787 755,004 156,794 8001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 1,66e,881 776,888 161,339 8001011 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 1,127,909 608,778 126,427 8001013 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 1,762,542 787,830 183,612 8001017 BALE ELEM 873,788 310,357 84,483 8001018 BRADY ELEM 840,180 375,015 77,881 8001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 819,919 484,436 100,806 8001021 CARVERaEM 0 826,888 129,939 8001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 801,488 232,788 48,340 8001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 849,728 432,710 89,862 6001026 FRANKLIN ELEM 0 380,094 74,782 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 0 235,752 48,959 8001027 GIB8SELEM 0 305,384 83,420 8001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 637,567 313,341 86,073 6001030 JEFFERSON aEM 837,781 488,362 103,497 6001033 MEAOOWCLIFF aEM eee.100 397,894 82,632 8001034 MITCHELL ELEM 0 282,810 84,637 8001036 MLKINGaEM 54,804 487,578 115,027 8001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 1586,562 403,862 113,872 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 0 199,942 41,523 8001040 ROMINE ELEM 886,880 287,564 55,570 8001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 1,188,126 599,825 124,588 8001043 WILLILAMS aEM 0 805,325 104,943 8001044 WILSONaEM 700,003 364,073 75,608 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 392,888 216,862 48,034 8001047 TERRY ELEM 828,801 633,178 110,727 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 961,524 515,273 107,009 8001000 ROCKEFELLERE LEM 0 311,352 84,660 8001061 BADGETT ELEM 387,305 173,084 35,948 6001062 BASELINE ELEM 519,919 289,486 80,115 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 944,183 431,715 89,656 6001004 CLOVERDALE ELEM 579,813 397,894 82,832 6001056 DAVID O'OOOD ELEM 517,068 292,452 80,735 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 633,250 271,563 56,396 6001067 MABELVALE ELEM 747,949 440,668 91,515 6001068 OTTER CREEK ELEM 569,718 337,215 70,031 6001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 893,524 426,741 88,623 6001080 WATSON ELEM 872,937 406,847 84,491 6001081 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 1,143,329 805,794 125,807 8001062 MABELVALEJ R. HIGH 1,244,332 488,415 101,431 8001063 JA FAIR HIGH 1,941,790 900,235 186.~5 6001084 MCCLELLAN HIGH 2,176,823 899,240 186,748 NIA METRO HIGH 1,027,915 0 0 NIA ALT LEARNING CTR 33,830 0 0 NIA ISHELEM 12,015 0 0 TOT AL PROGRAM EXPENSE 37,262,354 2 ,026,827 4,989,738 SOURCE: -See the not aectlon on the next page for explanatlona of th categorle . The Llttle Rock School D13tncFt inance omce. - - - - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY 96/96 FUNDING SOURCES FEDERAL LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM 10,492 0 107,425 21,078 6,120 0 82,659 1,351 M86 0 57,190 0 o,639 0 57,730 0 3,983 0 40,782 0 4,827 0 49,425 133,661 5,006 36,828 51,248 87,811 5,151 0 52,734 76,174 4,036 57,280 41,323 103,110 5,223 34,382 83,476 131,417 2,056 27,534 21,088 76,951 2,486 36,177 25,455 49,831 3,212 28,924 32,883 4,269 4,148 0 42,470 0 1,543 32,289 15,800 eo,729 2,869 37,364 29,371 15,254 2,387 80,962 24,442 1,122,980 1,563 4,412 16,002 800.788 2,026 0 20,729 0 2,077 28,111 21.289 4,403 3,304 36,238 33,828 17,357 2,638 44,102 27,008 18,220 1,741 30,894 17,825 890,948 3,034 36,788 31,069 1,026,237 2,878 31,832 27,413 13,889 1,326 29,832 13,572 874,772 1,774 34,1127 18,163 111,788 3,977 87,414 40,715 182,703 3,3e0 0 34,300 0 2,414 36,112 24,713 39,148 1,436 32,487 14,720 51,330 3,535 0 36,191 9,513 3,416 29,277 34,978 18,825 2,064 119,283 21,134 1,345,421 1,147 27,264 11,749 83,842 1,919 36,888 19,649 70,718 2,862 88,811 29,304 83,517 2,638 33.795 27,008 81,497 1,939 8,485 19,851 15,310 1,800 31,149 18,433 84,721 2,922 86,804 29,912 52,876 2,236 30,876 22,889 14,185 2,829 83,735 28,966 12,962 2,897 34,455 27,616 88,316 4,016 52,428 41,120 86,736 3,238 2,271 33,153 29,101 5,968 0 61,108 22,927 5,962 0 61,039 34,776 0 35,510 0 0 0 0 0 256,346 0 0 0 0 159,293 1,359,880 1,630,891 7,856,384 - - - - DESEGREGATION DISTRICT MAGNET TRANS 370,756 0 184,336 216,255 0 115,853 197,379 2,063,752 87,487 199,244 2,326,882 88,313 140,752 1,425,443 82,387 170,561 0 75,608 178,873 0 78,397 181,999 0 80,870 142,617 0 83,214 184,563 0 81,806 72,706 0 32,227 87,854 0 38,940 113,487 0 80,302 148,578 1,257,1162 84,970 54,830 0 24,170 101,370 0 44,931 84,358 0 37,391 56,229 0 24,480 71,541 775,244 31,710 73,406 0 32,eae 118,780 0 51,748 93,213 0 41,318 81,521 0 27,269 107,1115 0 47,513 94,612 0 41,1138 48,840 0 20,781 82,886 0 27,786 140,519 0 82,284 118,381 1,143,488 52,471 86,290 0 37,804 80,801 0 22,517 124,906 0 56,364 120,711 0 63,804 72,940 0 32,330 40,548 0 17,973 87,813 0 30,067 101,137 0 44,828 93,213 0 41,318 68,512 0 30,367 83,818 0 28,198 103,234 0 48,768 78,998 0 35,015 99,971 0 44,311 95,311 0 42,248 141,917 0 62,904 114,420 0 80,715 210,8~ 0 93,478 210,862 0 93,374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,628,692 8,992,448 2,494,869 - - - TOTALS TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEGAL 03131196 FYIW96 4,189 5,776,823 8,837,048 2,444 3,891,061 6,518,803 2.230 3,431,137 5,130,141 2,261 3,707,183 M42,8n 1,600 2,400,831 3,569,:2()! 1,1127 2,718,370 4,064,432 1,999 2,923,n1 4,371,470 2,056 2,902,872 4,340,294 1,811 2,276,305 3,403,469 2,085 3,206,936 4,794,922 822 1,281,942 1,918,724 1183 1,334,812 1,995,774 1.282 1,839,319 2,481,065 1,886 2,273,111 3,398,693 818 972,270 1,483,711 1,148 1,404,804 2,100,125 953 1,768,339 2,829,020 824 1,187,789 1,775,949 608 1,270,881 1,900,158 829 1,078,812 1,812,711 1,319 1,111111,184 2,5-40,573 1-,053 1,374,179 2,064,635 1,147,840 1,716,219 1,211 1,880,148 2,781,238 1,0l!II 1,297,415 1,939,869 529 1,028,797 1,638,229 708 1,287,843 1,895,348 1,888 2,391,719 3,578,032 1,338 1,953,573 2,935,880 954 1,365,127 2,041,100 574 828,411 1,238,817 1,411 1,703,426 2,548,918 1,384 1,633,879 2,741,1165 824 1,1120,008 2,870,743 468 759,115 1,135,008 788 1,097,312 1,840,871 1,143 1,787,126 2,842,156 1,053 1,340,869 2,004,815 774 1,013,493 1,015,347 719 1,089,862 1,829,517 1,187 1,801,405 2,394,377 893 1,181,854 1,737,172 1,130 1,482,792 2,187,126 1,077 1,485,993 2,178,961 1,804 2,264,655 3,386,080 1,293 2,068,369 3,092,588 2,383 3,425,737 5,122,088 2,380 3,871,004 5,488,784 0 1,063,425 1,590,004 0 291,976 436,554 0 12,015 17,964 83,597 94,464,753 1  1,241,095 - - - 0 ..-\n('f') Funding Categories L.ocal\u0026amp;Stal9 Federal DeHg NOTES FOR LRSD TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE SCHEDULE FOR FY 95/96 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; Stall, o-g Total Categories This category consists of axpenses Incurred relative to regular program expense, district expanse, transportation expanse and legal expanse funded by unrestricted local, stat and federal sources. This category consists of expenses lncur..-.d relative to federal program expense and district expanse funded by reslrlcted federal sources. This category consists of expanses Incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expanse, magnet expanse, transportation expanse and legal expanse funded from desegregation sources. Total at 03/31/gtj The totals In this column represent actual costs Incurred for each school site through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total for FY ll~ The totals In this column represent the total estimated expanse for each school site for ftscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The LJttle Rock School 0/\u0026amp;trict Finan,::. Office.   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE Ii SCHOOL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY 911/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAI./STATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT MAGNET TRANS 6001002 HALL HIGH 2,191,679 1123,114 191,706 6,120 0 62,~9 1,351 216,255 0 96,~3 6001021 CARVER ELEM 0 1!26,688 129,939 4,148 0 42,470 0 146,678 1,257,662 114,1170 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 306,384 63,420 2,026 0 20,729 0 71,541 TT8,244 31,710 6001033 MEAOOWCLIFF ELEM 866,103 3117,894 82,632 2,638 , 102 27,008 18,220 93,213 0 41,316 6001035 ML KING ELEM 54,!504 487,878 95,027 3,034 36,788 31,059 1,026,237 107,198 0 47,813 tl001004 CLOVERDALE ELEM 8711,813 3117,894 82,632 2,638 33,796 27,008 81,497 93,213 0 41,316 tl001088 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 833,256 271,883 88,3911 1,800 31,149 16,433 114,721 63,618 0 28,196 tl001057 MABEL\\IALE ELEM 747,949 440,688 91,616 2,922 86,1104 29,1112 82,576 103,234 0 48,788 TOTAL CYCLE 8 PRCIGRAM EXPENSE 4,TT3,203 3,8111,783 7113,257 25,325 231,438 zjj9,276 1,264,702 894,847 2,032,1109 3'\"',834 The district's Total Program Expense as of March 31, 1186 was $14,484,713, and Total Program Expense for the fiscal year Is expected to be $141,241,otli. The programs funded In uch of the Cycle I schools are Indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs In Cycle I Schools. Funding categortee Local \u0026amp; State De#(/ Th  category lncludN funding from focal 90Ul'CM, r.gular ate aourcn, and unl'Ntrtcted f9deral 80Urcn. Th  cat.gory lnctudM funding from rNtricted fedral eourcn which mult be accounted tor Nparately from the Gtneral Fund. Toil ca1-gofy conailbl ol funding lor d-regauon purpoHI. Expenu Categor1N Loce/ \u0026amp; Stote Th61 categofy conaletl of expenau Incurred relative to regular program expenN, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestrk:ted local, state and federal eources. Thtl categOf)' con latl of XJMn ... Incurred relatNe to federal program expenN and dlltnct expense funded by restricted federal sources. Th  category conI11t1 of ex.,.nMt Incurred relatlw to deHgregaUOn program xpenN, dlstr1ct expense, magnet xpense, transportation expense and legal expense tunded from deaegregaUon 10urces. Total Categorle Total at 03131\ng~ The totals In th61 column represent actual costs Incurred tor each of the Cycle 5 schools through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total for FY Q.W6 The totads In thts column represent the tot.al estimated expense tor each or the Cycle 5 schools tor fiscal year 199511996. SOURCE' The Little Roel\u0026lt; School Dl$tr/ct Finance Office.     TOTALS TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FDR LEGAL 03131/96 FY96196 2,4 3,691,081 8,618,803 1,1166 2,273,111 3,396,693 806 1,270,881 1,11001, 88 1,003 1,374,179 2,004,638 1,211 1,860,148 2,781,239 1,003 1,340,869 2,004,818 719 1,089,882 1,1!211,817 1,157 1,801,408 2,394,3TT 10,111 14,801,494 21,11\u0026amp;2,~ PROGRAMS Four-Year Old Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music AcceleratedL eaming Itinerant lnstructlon ResourceR oom Special Class Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Guidance Services Library Services High School Marketing/District Ed-Coop Business Ed-Coop Business Ed- Skill Training Trade \u0026amp; Ind-Coop Consumer/Marketing Coord Career-Coop SOURCE:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 5 Schools FY95/96 MEADOWCLIFF HALL HIGH CARVER ELEM GIBBS ELEM ELEM KING ELEM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X The uttte Rock School District Finance Offica. CLOVERDALE GEYER SPRINGS ELEM ELEM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MABELVALE ELEM X X X X X X X X X X X X - ('I') ~ ('I') I I I I II I I I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL.AS OF TOTAL.FOR COST PER STU LEA, SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03/31/96 FY 95196 FOR FY95196 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 1,591 5,108,640 107,425 560,358 5,776,623 8,637,048 5,429 6001002 HALLH IGH 928 3,312,519 62,659 315,903 3,691,081 5,518,803 5,947 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 847 1,023,099 57,190 2,350,848 3,431,137 5,130,141 6,057 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 855 1,032,763 57,730 2,616,690 3,707,183 . 5,542,878 6,483 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 604 n9,577 40,782 1,630,1n 2,400,531 3,589,208 5,942 6001007 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 732 2,287,168 49,425 381,m 2,718,370 4,064,432 5,553 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIG 759 2,490,571 88,076 345,080 2,923,n7 4,371 ,'476 5,760 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIG 781 2,509,239 52,734 340,899 2,902,872 4,340,294 5,557 6001011 SOVTHWEST JR. HIGH 612 1,867,150 98,603 310,552 2,276,305 3,403,469 5,561 6001013 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 792 2,719,207 87,858 399,871 3,206,936 4,794,922 6,054 6001017 BALE ELEM 312 1,050,636 -48,600 182,706 1.281,942 1,916,724 6,143 6001018 BRADY ELEM 377 1,095,562 61,632 177,618 1,334,812 1,995,77  5.294 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM -487 1,408,1n 61,807 169,340 1,639,319 2,451,065 5,033 6001021 CARVER ELEM 629 759,775 42,470 1,470,866 2,273,111 3,398,693 5,403 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 234 784,136 -48,089 140,045 972,270 1,453,711 6,212 600102  FOREST PARK ELEM 435 1,175,169 66,735 162,700 1,404,604 2,100,125 4,828 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 362 437,263 75,394 1,245,682 1,758,339 2,629,020 7,262 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 237 286,274 20,414 881,101 1,187,789 1,775,949 7,493 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 307 370,829 20.n9 879,303 1,270,861 1,900,156 6,189 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 315 918,058 49,380 111,17  1,078,612 1,612,711 5,120 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 501 1,442,944 69,066 187,174 1,699,184 2,540,573 5,071 6001033 MEADOWCUFF ELEM 400 1,149,267 71,110 153,802 1,374,179 2,054,635 5,137 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 264 318,888 -48,519 780,433 1,147,840 1,716,219 6,501 6001035 ML KING ELEM 460 610,143 67,847 1,182,156 1,860,146 2,781239 6,046 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 406 1,086,964 58,945 151,506 1,297,415 1,939,859 4,778 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 201 242,791 43,104 742,902 1,028,797 1,538,229 7,653 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 269 1,011,588 53,090 202,965 1,267,643 1,895,345 7,046 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 603 1,896,496 108,129 387,094 2,391,719 3,576,032 5,930 6001043 WIWLAMS ELEM 508 613,618 34,300 1,315,655 1,963,573 2,935,880 5,779 . 6001044 WILSON ELEM 366 1,142,098 59,825 163,204 1,365,127 2,041,100 5,577 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 218 656,012 47,177 125,222 828,411 1,238,617 5,682 6001047 TERRY ELEM 536 1,476,041 36,191 191,194 1,703,426 2,546,916 4,752 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 518 1,577,222 64,253 192,404 1,a33,879 2,741,965 5,293 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 313 378,076 90,417 1,451,515 1,920,008 2,870,743 9,172 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 174 597,-481 39,013 122,621 759,115 1,135,008 6,523 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 291 871,421 56,537 169,354 1,097,312 1,640,671 5,638 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 434 1,468,386 98,115 200,625 1,767,126 2,642,158 6,088 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 400 1,062,977 60,803 217,079 1,340,859 2,004,815 ~.012 6001055 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 294 872,194 26,336 114,963 1,013,493 1,515,347 5,154 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 273 863,014 49,582 177,256 1,089,852 1,629,517 5,969 6001057 MABELVALE ELEM 443 1,283,054 115,516 202,835 1,601,405 2,394,377 5,405 6001058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 339 979,198 53,565 129,091 1,161,854 1,737,172 5,124 6001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 429 1,211,717 92,701 158,374 1,462,792 2,187,126 5,098 6001060 WATSON ELEM 409 1,166,972 62,071 226,950 1,455,993 2,176,961 5,323 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 609 1,878,946 93,5-48 292,161 2,264,655 3,386,050 5,560 6001062 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 491 1,837,416 35,424 195,529 2,068,369 3,092,568 6,299 6001063 JAFAJR HIGH 905 3,034,948 61,106 329,683 3,425,737 5,122,068 5,660 6001064 MCCLELLAN HIGH 904 3,268,773 61,039 341,192 3,671,004 5,488,784 6,072 NIA METRO HIGH NIA 1,027,915 35,510 0 1,063,425 1,590,004 NIA NIA ALT LEARNING CTR NIA 33,630 0 258,346 291,976 436,554 NIA NIA ISH ELEM NIA 12,015 0 0 12,015 17,964 NIA TOTAL EXPENSE 24,154 66,438,212 2,990,571 25,035,970 94,464,753 141,241,095 5,848 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. See the note section on the nexl page for explanations or the categories. 314 I I NOTES FOR LRSD COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FOR FY 95/96 Funding Categorie5 Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Thi\" category includes funding from local sources, regular state aources, and unrestricted federal aources. This category includes funding from restricted federal aources 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 Categories This category consists of expen\u0026amp;e$ incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Thia category consists of expen\u0026amp;e$ funded by restricted federal aources. This category consists of expen\u0026amp;e$ Incurred relative to desegregation program\" funded from desegregation aources. Total at 03131/96 The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each school site through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total for FY 95196 The totals in this column represent the total estimated expense for each school site for fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: Th\u0026amp; Uttle Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal S\u0026amp;rVices Dr.sion of the ADE. 315 I I II I I I    II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 5 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL C 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL OESEG 03/31/96 FY95196 6001002 HALlHIGH 1128 3,312,519 62,659 315,903 3,691,081 5,518,803 6001021 CARVER ELEM 629 759,nS 42,470 1,470,866 2,273,111 3,398,693 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 307 370,829 20,ns 879,303 1,270,861 1,900,156 6001033 MEAOOWCUFF ELEM 400 1,149,267 71,110 153,802 1,374,179 2,054,635 6001035 MLKJNG ELEM 460 610,143 67,847 1,182,156 1,860,146 2,781,239 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 400 1,062,sn 60,803 217,079 1,340,859 2,004,815 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 273 863,014 49,582 1n,2ss 1,089,852 1,629,517 6001057 MABELVALE ELEM 443 1,283,054 115,516 202,835 1,601,405 2,394,377 TOTAL EXPENSE 3,640 9,411,578 490,716 4,599,200 14,501,-494 21,682,235 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96 . Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Daseg Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Daseg Total Categories Total at 0:v.11196 Total for FY 9~ SOURCE: This category includes funding from locaJ source., regular \u0026amp;late source., and unrestricted federal source.. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund . This category con\u0026amp;lsts ol funding for desegregation purposes. This category con\u0026amp;lsts ol expenoes incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists ol e,q::,enoesfu nded by restrided federal sources. This category consists ol expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent actual cosl5 incurred for each of the Cycle 5 schools through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. The totals in this column represent the total estimated 8xpen$8 for each of the Cycle 5 schools for fiscal year 1995/1996. The UttJe RocJc School District Finance Otnce and the Local Flsca/ SeMces D/vsJon of the ADE. 316 FOR FY95196 5,s.47 5,403 6,189 5,137 6,046 5,012 5,969 5,405 5,646   I 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 76,758,158 54.3% 5,751 5,848 (97) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 32,583,352 23.1% 5,795 5,848 (53) HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 31,899,585 22.6% 6,155 5,848 307 LRSD PROGRAM COST LRSD COST PER STUDENT 80000000 60000000 40000000 20000000 0 PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 95/96 Program costs consist of the total estimated cost for FY 95/96 for the indicated category of school programs . The percentage of program cost to the estimated total district cost of $141,241,095 for FY 95/96 The estimated total program cost for FY 95/96 to the total number of students in the program category. DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU The total estimated cost for FY 95/96 of $141,241,095 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 stude 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. 317  I II   II    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL @ 1001/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03/31/96 FY 95196 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 6'.),4 729,fi77 40,782 1,630,172 2,400,531 3,589,208 6001017 BALE ELEM 312 1,050,636 48,600 182.706 1,281,942 1,916,724 6001018 BRADY ELEM 377 1,095,562 61,632 177,618 1,334,812 1,995,774 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 487 1,408,172 61,807 169,340 1,639,319 2,451,065 6001021 CARVER ELEM 629 7fS,775 42,470 1,470,866 2,273,111 3,398,693 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 234 784,136 48,089 140,045 972,270 1,453,711 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM ,435 1,175,169 66,735 162,700 1,404,604 2,100,125 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 362 437,263 75,394 1,245,682 1,758,339 2,629,020 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 237 286,274 20,414 881,101 1,187,789 1,775,949 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 'J/J7 370,829 20.729 879,303 1,270,861 1,900.156 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 315 918,058 9,380 111,174 1,078,612 1,612,711 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 501 1.442,944 69,066 187.174 1,699,184 2,540,573 6001033 MEAOOWCUFF ELEM 400 1,1 9,267 71,110 153,802 1,374,179 2,054,635 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 264 318,888 48,519 780,433 1,147,840 1,716,219 6001035 ML KING ELEM 460 610,143 67,847 1,182,156 1,860,146 2,781,239 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 06 1,086,964 58,945 151,506 1,297,415 1,939,859 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 201 242,791 43,104 742,902 1,028,797 1,538,229 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 269 1,011,588 53,090 202,965 1,267,643 1,895,345 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 603 1,896,496 108,129 387,094 2,391.719 3,576,032 6001043 WILLILAMS ELEM 508 613,618 34,300 1,315,655 1,963,573 2,935,880 6001044 WILSON ELEM 366 1,142,098 59,825 163,204 1,365,127 2,041,100 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 218 656,012 47,177 125,222 828.411 1,238,617 6001047 TERRY ELEM 536 1,476,041 36,191 191,194 1.703,426 2,546,916 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 518 1,577,222 64,253 192,404 1,833,879 2.741,965 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 313 378,076 90,417 1,451,515 1,920,008 2,870,743 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 174 597,481 39,013 122,621 759,115 1,135,008 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 291 871,421 56,537 169,354 1,097,312 1,640,671 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 434 1,468,386 98,115 200,625 1,767.126 2,642.158 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 400 1,062,977 60,803 217,079 1,340,859 2,004,815 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 294 872,194 26,336 114,963 1,013,493 1,515,347 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 273 863,014 9,582 177,256 1,089,852 1,629,517 6001057 MABELVALE ELEM 43 1,283,054 115,516 202,835 1,601,405 2,394,377 6001058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 339 979.198 53,565 129,091 1,161,854 1.737, 172 6001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM  29 1,211,717 92,701 158,374 1,462,792 2,187,126 6001060 WATSON ELEM 409 1,166,972 62,071 226,950 1,455,993 2,176,961 NIA Al T LEARNING CTR NIA 33,630 0 258,346 291,976 436,554 NIA ISH ELEM NIA 12,015 0 0 12,015 17,964 TOTAL EXPENSE 13,348 33,039,658 2,042,244 16,255,427 51,337,329 76,758,158 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96 . Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal IJeseg Expensa Categortu Local \u0026amp; State Federal IJeseg Tobi Cat.gortas Thi\u0026amp; category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal oources. This cateQO\u0026lt;Yin cludes funding from restrided federal sources ..tlich must be accounted fo, oeparately from the General Fund. This categOIY consists of funding to, desegregation purposes. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This categOIY consists of expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This categOIY consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. FOR FY 95196 5,942 6,143 5,294 5,033 5,403 6,212  ,828 7,262 7,493 6,189 5,120 5,071 5,137 6,501 6,046 4,778 7,653 7,046 5,930 5,779 5,577 5,682 4,752 5,293 9,172 6,523 5,638 6,088 5,012 5,154 5,969 5,405 5,124 5,098 5,323 NIA NIA 5,751 Tola/ at 03/31196 The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each of the elementary 6Chools through March 31, 1996 fo, fiscal year 199511996. Tola/ for FY 95'96 The totals in this column represent the total estimated expense fo, each of the elementary 5Chools fo, fi\u0026amp;cal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The Utfie Rock School District Finance Offtee and the Local Fiscal Services Oivsion of the ADE. 318 I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROUMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR COST PER STU LEAi SCHOOL @10/01195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03/31~ FY 95196 FOR FY95/96 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH \u0026amp;47 1,023,099 57,190 2,350,848 3,431,137 5,130,141 6,057 6001007 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 732 2,287,168 49,425 381,m 2,718,370 4,064,432 5,553 6001009 FOREST HEIGKTS JR. HIGH 759 2,490,571 88,076 345,080 2,923,n7 4,371,476 5,760 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 781 2,509,239 52,73-4 3\"0,899 2,902,an 4,3\"0,29-4 5,557 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 612 1,867,150 98,603 310,552 2,276,305 3,\"3,469 5,561 6001013 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 792 2,719,207 87,858 399,871 3,206,936 4,794,922 6,05o4 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 609 1,878,9,46 93,5\"8 292,161 2,26\",655 3,386,050 5,560 6001062 MASELVAI.E JR. HIGH 4Sl1 1,837,416 35,424 195,529 2,068,369 3,092,568 6,299 TOTAL EXPENSE 5,623 16,612,796 562,858 4,616,717 21,792,371 32,583,352 5,795 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding Categories LDCa/ \u0026amp; State Federal 09S8fl Expense Categor1u Local \u0026amp; state Federal 09S8fl Tot.al Categories Tola/ at OJl.lf/96 Tola/ kx FY 95'96 SOURCE: This calegOl'f includes lunding from local sources, regular state sources, and un\"\"\"1icted federal sources. This categOl'f includes funding from r8\"1ricted federal sources which must be accounted lor separately from the General Fund. This categOl'f consists o( funding lor desegregation purpose,\n. This calegory consists o( expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This categOl'f consists o( expenses lunded by restricted lederal sources. This categOl'f consisl$ o( expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs lunded lrom desegregation aources. The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each o( the junior high schools_through March 31, 1996 ror fiscal )'8\"r 1995/1996. The totals in this column represent the total estimaled expense for each o( the junior high schools for f16Cal year 1995/1996. Tile LlttJe Rocle School District Finance Otrlce and the L.ccaJ Fiscal S8MC8S DlvsJoo of the ADE. 319 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROUMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEAi SCHOOL G 10101/95 STATE FEDERAL OESEG 03131196 95196 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 1,591 5,108,3-40 107,25 560,358 5,776,623 8,637,048 6001002 HAI.LH IGH 928 3,312,519 62,659 315,903 3,691,081 5,518,803 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 855 1,032,763 57,730 2,616,690 3,707,183 5,542,878 6001063 JAFAIR HIGH 905 3,034,948 61,106 329,683 3,425,737 5,122,068 6001064 MCCLELl.AN HIGH 904 3.268,m 81,039 341,192 3,671,004 5,488,78 NIA METRO HIGH NIA 1,027,915 35,510 0 1,063,425 1,590,004 TOTAL EXPENSE 5,183 16,785,758 385,469 4,163,826 21,335,053 31,899,585 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding Categories Locsl \u0026amp; Sta ta Fed\u0026amp;ra/ Deseg Expense Categories Locsl \u0026amp; State Fed\u0026amp;ra/ Deseg Tot.al Categories Total st 03/311!16 Total for FY 9!196 SOURCE: This catego,y includes funding from local aources, regular state sourcea, and unrestricted federal sources. This catego,y includes funding from restricted federal sources which muol be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This catego,y consists o( funding for desegregation purposeo. This catego,y consists o( expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This catego,y consists o( expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This catego,y consists o/ expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each of the high schools through March 31, 1996 for f1Scal year 1995/1996. The totals in this column represent the tolal estimated expense for each o/ the high schools for fiscal year 1995/1996. The LJttJeR ock Scllool District Finance Otr,ce and the LOCBIF isc.BJS OMOOSO iYsion of the ADE. 320 COST PER STU FOR FY95196 5,429 5,947 6,483 5,660 6,072 NIA 6,155 I I II I I I I I I I I I I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 5 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE FY 95/96 TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES TOTALS LEA# 6001002 6001021 6001027 6001033 6001035 6001054 6001056 6001057 Teacher Expense SCHOOL @03/31/96 FY95/96 @03/31/96 FY 95/96 @03/31/96 HALL HIGH 1,450,674 2,188,496 155,403 223,269 1,606,077 CARVER ELEM 719,480 1,139,139 67,803 99,784 787,283 GIBBS ELEM 474,097 750,629 57,082 84,006 531,179 MEADOWCLIFF ELEM 486,568 790,686 39,002 57,412 525,570 ML KJNG ELEM 695,440 1,136,995 51,887 75,479 747,327 CLOVERDALE ELEM 450,771 745,652 28,826 42,149 479,597 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM -410,894 514,585 36,835 55,734 447,729 MABELVALE ELEM 542,107 866,012 66,694 100,001 608,801 TOTAL 5,230,031 8,132,194 503,532 737,834 5,733,563 Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries for FY 95/96 is expected to be $62,647,464 or 44.4 percent of total expense for FY 95/96 of $141,241,095. At 0l/31196 Actual teacher salary expense for each Cycle 5 school as of March 31, 1996. FY 95196 Expected teacher salary expense for each Cycle 5 school for FY 95/96. Administrator Expense At 0l/31196 FY95tll6 SOURCE: Actual administrator salary expense for each Cycle 5 school as of March 31, 1996. Expected administrator salary expense for each Cycle 5 school for FY 95/96. The Utile Rock School District Finance Office. 321 FY95/96 2,411,765 1,238,923 834,635 848,098 1,212,474 787,801 570,319 966,013 8,870,028 NLRSD PROGRAM COST ?ew.:n 't\\, \"J.f. ~ct!! .~ - 322 I I I I I I I I I I I I North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) The following is a summary of the NLRSD Program Cost Section of the July 15, 1996 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 through March 31, 1996 and is estimated for the fiscal year. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 5 schools. The programs funded by the Cycle 5 schools are also included. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are also presented for the Cycle 5 schools. Cost per student information is presented for the: district\nelementary school programs\njunior high school programs\nhigh school programs\nand Cycle 5 school programs. Graphs indicate total program cost and average cost per student rates for elementary, junior high and high school programs. 323 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY961M FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL LEA# SCHOOi. PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGI\\L PROGRAM DISTRICT 8002080 AMBOY ELEMENTARY 738,642 363,080 57,718 815 153,856 \u0026lt;10,n1 = BELWOOO ELEMENTARY 321,463 104,201 18,1566 234 9,808 11,702 II002064 BOONE PARK ELEM 708,428 384,780 68,401 797 141,688 39,843 80020e6 CRESlWOOO ELEMENTARY 434,683 200,960 31,947 461 8,121 22,688 80020C58 GLENVIEWE LEMENTA RY 427,384 172,842 21,4n 388 36,248 19,410 8002067 IND!AN HILLS ELEMENTARY 766,808 315,812 60.= 708 90,689 36,478 8002068 LAKEW000 ELEMENTARY 348,464 186.247 29,460 418 47,871 20,804 8002069 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 787,114 333,278 62,983 748 116,966 37,428 8002080 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 708,828 369,742 57,190 808 88,329 40,400 8002061 MEADOW PARK ELEM 414,188 187,728 29,844 421 43,288 21,082 8002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY --329,144 52,328 739 81,114 36,984 6002084 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 423,898 238,174 37,864 1536 41,711 -it\n,747 80020e6 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 883,008 288,140 45,489 842 32,868 32,134 6002067 REOWOOO ELEMENTARY 4112,178 184,420 29,318 414 87,611 20,711 8002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 708,717 311,m 49,1566 700 119,llM 36,013 8002070 LAKEW000 MIDOI.E SCHOOi. 1,099,080 401,0112 63,763 800 82 46,043 80020n RIOGEROAO MIDOI.E SCHOOi. 1,219,088 498,en 1nn 1,120 38,817 68,003 8002075 NLR HIGH SCHOOl.~T 2,888,819 1,073,439 170,= 2,410 25,686 120,649 8002078 NLR HIGH SCHOOI.-WEST 2,1121,488 1,044,494 166,048 2,346 80,887 117,299 80020n ROSE CITY MIOOLE SCHOOi. 1,081,418 301,028 47,856 878 46,828 33,808 8002078 BARING CROSS CENTER 220,701 33,080 5,269 74 46,982 3,716 NIA SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE 318,881 0 0 0 25,373 0 NIA ELEMENTARYA LTERNATIVE 284,863 0 0 0 11,841 0 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 18,847,818 7,2711,204 1,157,208 18,342 1,136,225 817,470 Funding CatogorlN Loce/\u0026amp; Salt ExpnN Co1ogor1N Tlucallgory-~lrom--.reguornite....-ces,and\"\"\"'1\u0026lt;:lodf-..i-. Tiu callgo\u0026lt;y- ~ 1rom. --1--.i -- rruat bo oc:c:o\u0026lt;mfldo r--lolytrom ti GenonllF tn!. Tiu callgory c:onnla of flnilig lor ~Ion- PROGRAM 4,788 6,081 3,808 4,319 10,983 4,849 4,883 4,788 4,824 4,862 4,990 4,848 14,360 4,073 4,957 423 342 11,224 22,389 376 0 34,494 19,281 174,462 OESEGREGI\\TION DISTRICT TRANS LEGI\\L 4,843 10,130 3.- 1,333 2,1107 1,048 4,1537 8,899 3,687 2,570 6,807 2,021 2,210 4,822 1,738 4,040 B.814 3,178 2,369 6,189 U63 4,262 8,289 3,361 4,801 10,037 3.817 2,401 5,238 1,887 4.208 8,184 3,308 3,048 8,846 2,396 3,658 7,984 2,an 2,369 6,148 1,864 3,987 8,699 3,136 6,130 11,181 4,033 8,378 13,914 5,014 13,728 29,ll50 10,793 13,368 29,143 10,502 3,860 8,399 3,027 423 823 333 0 0 0 0 0 0 93,0113 203,100 73,190 Loe,,/ \u0026amp; Slolt Tiu callgo\u0026lt;ycorwiata of-- lncu-red r-.lolve lo reguor prosrom ---...._.Ion _and - flmed by ...-ontcled local, 11111 ond fedoral-. Tlucatego\u0026lt;yc:onntaof--lncuTed-lof-..iprosrom-ondc:ln1ct--byren1clodfedonll-. O..eg Tlucallgo\u0026lt;yc:onntaof __ lncuTed lo ~1onprosrm-. --...._.Ion_ ond lego/- Mded lrom ,.__1on ....-ca. Tololot03131M Tholoall lnlll ---- coni lncuTedforeocllachool altohoogl Morch 31, 1996forllacalyer 1995/1996. Tolo/ for FY 8MG Tho loall In Illa ---ti - --lod -for Ncll achool al1e for flacal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The North Ul/le Rock School Dlatrlcl F/nonc,, 0/IJce. TOTALS TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR 03/311118 FY- 1,277,i40 2,048,169 474,322 1594,813 1,323,844 2,074,384 714,127 1,139,360 700,482 1,089,218 1,2ao,3n 1,848.- Me,328 1,038,310 1,310,198 2,016,420 1,274,178 2,036,3116 710,818 1,108,1153 1,198,434 1.1194,808 786,883 1,289,6-43 1,108,148 1,714,825 808,084 1,198,319 1,184,108 1,843,829 1,630,717 2,478,433 1,918,828 2,973,638 4,348,1127 8,818,337 4,387,733 8,697,895 1,609,089 2,146,034 310,490 360,487 378,748 378,746 315,1166 315,886 29,697,113 46,000,000 - c-I=f 'o ff 7\u0026lt;:Jd'!\n-.(,\"'\u0026lt;T\nz,--- 6=~-- NORTHLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 5 SCHOOL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY95/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL/STATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION TOTALS TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL 03/31196 6002050 AMBOY ELEMENTARY 738,542 363,050 57,716 815 53,855 40,771 4,768 4,843 10,130 3,650 1,277,940 6002055 CRESlWOOD ELEMENTARY 434,563 200,960 31,947 451 9,121 22,568 4,319 2,570 5,607 2,021 714,127 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 348,454 185,247 29,450 416 47,871 20,804 4,683 2,369 5,169 1,863 846,326 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 767,114 333,279 52,983 748 96,966 37,428 4,768 4,262 9,299 3,351 1,310,196 6002061 MEADOW PARK ELEM 414,188 187,728 29,844 421 43,268 21,082 4,862 2,401 5,238 1,887 710,919 6002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 706,717 311,777 49,565 700 59,555 35,013 4,957 3,967 8,699 3,135 1,184,105 TOTAL CYCLE 5 PROGRAM EXPENSE 3,409,578 1,582,041 251,505 3,551 310,636 177,666 28,357 20,232 44,142 15,907 5,843,615 The district's Total Program Expense as of March 31, 1996 was $29,597,113, and Total Program Expense for the fiscal year la expected to be $45,000,000. The programs funded In each of the Cycle 5 schools are Indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs In Cycle 5 Schools.\" Funding catagortu Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category Includes funding from local 1011rces, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This categoryI ncludes funding from Nlltricted -ral sources which must be 11CCOUntfeodr separately from the General Fund. This category consists rA funding for desegregation purposes. Expanse Catagorlu Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Categorlu This category consists rA e,cpenaa Incurred relati\\/e to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal 1011rces. This category consists rA expenses Incurred relati\\/e to federal program expense and distrtct expense funded by restricted federal 1011rces. This category consists rA e,cpenaa Incurred relati\\/e to desegregation program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation 1011rcee. Total at 03/31196 The totals in this column represent actual costs Incurred for each rlthe Cycle 5 ochools through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995.'1996. Total for FY 95,96 The totals In this column represent the total estimated expense for each of the Cycle 5 schools for fiscal year 1995.'1996. SOURCE: The North Little Rock School District Finance Off,ce. FY 95196 2,046,159 1,139,360 1,038,310 2,015,420 1,108,153 1,843,829 9,191,231 PROGRAMS Four-Year Old Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Special Class Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Guidance Services Library Services SOURCE: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 5 Schools FY 95/96 AMBOY CRESTWOOD LAKEWOOD CENTRAL MEADOW ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM PARK ELEM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 7TH STREET ELEM X X X X X X X X ' N CV) I I I I I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROU.MENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS Of TOTAL FOR COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL C 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03131196 FY 95196 FOR FY 95196 6002050 AMBOY ELEMENTARY 439 1,160,123 94,626 23,191 1,277,940 2,046,159 4,661 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 126 442,463 21,510 10,349 474,322 694,813 5,514 6002054 BCX)NE PARK ELEM 429 1,120,404 181,429 21,811 1,323,644 2,074,364 4,835 6002055 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 243 667,921 31,689 14,517 714,127 1,139,360 4,689 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 209 628,071 55,658 19,753 703,482 1,069,218 5,116 6002057 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY 382 1,133,451 126,047 20,879 1,280,377 1,948,850 5,102 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 224 563,567 68,675 14,084 646,326 1,038,310 4,635 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 403 1,154,124 134,394 21,680 1,310,198 2,015,420 5,001 6002060 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 435 1,124,368 126,729 23,079 1,274,176 2,035,396 4,679 6002061 MEAl)()','J PARK ELEM 227 632,181 64,350 14,388 710,919 1,108,153 4,882 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 398 1,078,664 98,078 21,692 1,198,434 1,894,906 4,761 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 288 700,471 68,458 16,734 785,663 1,289,643 4,478 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 346 1,015,277 64,992 28,880 1,109,149 1,714,625 4,956 6002067 RED'NOOD ELEMENTARY 223 706,330 88,322 13,432 808,084 1,198,319 5,374 6002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 377 1,068,759 94,568 20,778 1,184,105 1,843,829 4,891 6002070 LAKEWOOD MIDDlE SCHOOL 485 1,564,835 45,105 20,777 1,630,717 2,479,433 5,112 6002072 RIDGEROAD MIDDlE SCHOOL 603 1,798,160 94,820 25,648 1,918,628 2,973,836 4,932 6002075 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,298 4,135,118 146,114 65,695 4,346,927 6,618,337 5,099 6002076 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,263 4,134,355 177,986 75,392 4,387,733 6,597,895 5,224 6002077 ROSE CrTY MIDDlE SCHOOL 364 1,410,973 82,434 15,652 1,509,059 2,146,034 5,896 6002078 BARING CROSS CENTER 40 259,114 49,697 1,679 310,490 380,487 9,512 NIA SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE 0 316,881 25,373 34,494 376,748 376,748 0 NIA ELEMENTARY ALTERNATIVE 0 284,963 11,641 19,261 315,865 315,865 0 TOTAL EXPENSE 8,802 27,100,573 1,952,695 543,845 29,597,113 45,000,000 5,112 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Thi5 category inciude\u0026amp; funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Expense Categories Thi5 catego,y inciude\u0026amp; funding from restncted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Thi5 catego,y C0n6ists a funding for desegregation ~. Local \u0026amp; State This category consists a expensei\nincurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources Federal Thi5 category consists a expensei\nfunded by restricted federal sources. 0eseg Thi5 category consists a expenses incutTed relative to de\u0026amp;egregation programs funded from desegregation 50Urces. Total Cat.gorln Total at O.ll.31196 The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each 5Chool site through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total for FY 95'% The totals in lhi5 column represent the total estimated expense for each school site for fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE. The North LJttle Rock School District Finance Otr,ce and the Local Fiscal Services Divsion of the ADE. 327 I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 5 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL @ 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL OESEG 03/31196 FY95196 6002050 AMBOY ELEMENTARY 439 1,160,123 94,626 23,191 1,277,!MO 2,046,159 6002055 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 243 667,921 31,689 14,517 714,127 1,139,360 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 224 563,567 68,675 14,084 646,326 1,038,310 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 403 1,154,124 134,394 21,680 1,310,198 2,015,420 6002061 MEADOW PARK ELEM 227 632,181 64,350 14,388 710,919 1,108,153 6002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 377 1,068,759 94,568 20,778 1,184,105 1,843,829 TOTAL EXPENSE 1,913 5,246,675 488,302 108,638 5,843,615 9,191,231 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Thi\u0026amp; category includes funding from local \u0026amp;OUrcesr,e gular state sources, and un,estncted federal sources. Oeseg Expense Categorlas Local \u0026amp; State Federal Oeseg Total Categories Total at 03/31196 Tota/for FY 95196 SOURCE: This category includes funding from restlicted federal IOUrces v.tlich must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists al funding for desegregation purpose\u0026amp;. This categO/)' consists al expenses Incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, slate and federal sources. This category consists al expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists al expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from cle\u0026amp;egregation liOUrces. The totals in this column represent actual co6ls incurred for each al the Cycle 5 schools through Maren 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. The totals in this column represent the total estimated e\u0026gt;\u0026lt;pellSe for each al the Cycle 5 6Chools for fiscal year 1995/1996. The North Little Rock School District Finanoe Olf,ce and the Local Fiscal Setvices Q\nvsjoo of the ADE.. 328 COST PER STU FOR FY95/96 4,661 4,689 4,635 5,001 4,882 4,891 4,805 l I I I I I I I I 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 23,807,717 52.9% 4,971 5,112 (141) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 7,599,303 16.9% 5,234 5,112 122 HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 13,592,980 30.2% 5,308 5,112 196 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 5300 5200 5100 5000 4900 4800 FY 95/96 Program costs consist of the total estimated cost for FY 95/96 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of program cost to the estimated total district cost of $45,000,000 for FY 95/96. The estimated total program cost for FY 95196 to the total number of students in the program category. The total estimated cost for FY 95196 of $45,000,000 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1995 of8,802. 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. 329 l I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROU.MEITT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SO-OOl. a 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03/31196 FY 95196 6002050 AMBOY ELEMEITTARY -439 1,160,123 94,626 23,191 1,277,940 2,046,159 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMEITTARY 126 442,463 21,510 10,349 474,322 694,813 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 429 1,120,404 181,429 21,811 1,323,644 2,074,364 6002055 CRESTWOOD ELEMEITTARY 243 667,921 31,689 14,517 714,127 1,139,360 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMEITTARY 209 628,071 55,658 19,753 703,482 1,069,218 6002057 INDIAN HIU.S ELEMEITTARY 382 1,133,451 126,047 20,879 1,280,377 1,948,850 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMEITTARY 224 563,567 68,675 14,084 646,326 1,038,310 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMEITTARY 403 1,154,124 134,394 21,680 1,310,198 2,015,420 6002060 l YNCH DRIVE ELEM 435 1,124,368 126,729 23,079 1,274,176 2,035,396 6002061 MEAr:O\u0026gt;NPARKELEM 227 632,181 64,350 14,388 710,919 1,108,153 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMEITTARY 398 1,078,664 98,078 21,692 1,198,434 1,894,906 6002064 PARK Hill ELEMEITTARY 288 700,471 68,458 16,734 785,663 1,289,643 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMEITTARY 346 1,015,277 64,992 28,880 1,109,149 1,714,625 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMEITTARY 223 706,330 88,322 13,432 808,084 1,198,319 6002069 SEVEITTH STREET ELEM 377 1,068,759 94,568 20,778 1,184,105 1,843,829 6002078 BARING CROSS CENTER 40 259,114 49,697 1,679 310,490 380,487 NIA ELEMEITTARY ALTERNATIVE 0 284,963 11,641 19,261 315,865 315,865 TOTAL EXPENSE  ,789 13,740,251 1,380,863 306,187 15,  27,301 23,807,717 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding CalegoriH LDca/ \u0026amp; State This catego,y includes funding from local 50Urces, regular state 50Urces, and unrestricted tederal 50Urces. This category Includes funding from reslricted federal 60Urces which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. 09seg Thi5 catego,y consists a! funding for de5egregation purposes. Expensa Categories Local \u0026amp; State This catego,y consists a! expenses incurred relawe to regular program e\u0026gt;\u0026lt;pen,\ne funded by unrestricted local, state and federal 50Urces. Federal This catego,y consists ct expenses funded by reslricted federal 50Urces. 09seg This catego,y consists ct expenses incurred -,ti,e to de5egregation programs funded from desegregation 50Urces. Total CalegorlH Total at 031.31196 The totals in this column represent actual 005ts incurred for each o( the elementary school$ through March 31, 1996 for fiocal year 1995/1996. T eta/ for FY 95'96 The totals in lhi5 column represent the tolal estimated e,q:,ense for each ct the elementary school$ for liscaJ year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The North Little Roel\u0026lt;S. chool District Finanoe OITioea nd tl\u0026gt;9 Local Fiscal Services Divsion of the ADE. 330 COST PER STU FOR FY 95196 4,661 5,514 4,835 4,689 5,116 5,102 4,635 5,001 4,679 4,882 4,761 4,478 4,956 5,374 4,891 9,512 NIA 4,971 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROUMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL @ 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03131196 FY 95196 6002070 LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 485 1,564,835 '45,105 20,TT7 1,630,717 2,479,433 6002072 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 603 1,798,160 94,820 25,648 1,918,628 2,973,836 6002077 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 364 1,410,973 82,434 15,652 1,509,059 2,146,034 I TOT Al EXPENSE 1,\u0026lt;452 4,773,968 222,359 62,077 5,058,404 7,599,303 I Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95196. Funding categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal I Oeseg Expense categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Oeseg I Total ~orles Total at 0.Jr.Jl/96 Total tor FY 95'96 SOURCE: I I I This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restrided federal sources 'Mlich must be accounted tor separately from the General Fund. This category consi6ls cl funding for desegregation purpo,\nes. This category consists cl expense!i Incurred rela!Ne to regular program e,q,ense funded by unrestricted local, slate and federal 60Urce6. This category consists cl expenses funded by restricted ,-.,.i sources. This category consists cl expen,\neo incurred relalNe to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each cl the junior high schools through March 31, 1996 to, fiscal year 1995/1996. The totals in this column represent the total estimated expense for each cl the junior high schools for fiscal year 1995/1996. The North Uttle Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Ser,ices 0/vsion of the ADE.. 331 COST PER STU FOR FY 95196 5,112 4,932 5,896 5,234 I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SOlOOL C!l 1Ml1195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03/31/96 95/96 6002075 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,298 \u0026lt;1,135,118 146,11\u0026lt;1 65,695 \u0026lt;1,346,927 6,618,337 6002076 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,263 \u0026lt;1,134,355 177,986 75,392 \u0026lt;1,387,733 6,597,895 NIA SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE 0 316,881 25,373 34,-494 376,748 376,748 TOTAL EXPENSE 2,561 8,586,354 349,473 175,581 9,111,408 13,592,980 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95196. Funding categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Expense categories LDca/ \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total categories This catego,y includes funding from local sources, regular st.ate 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 consi\u0026amp;ts a funding for desegregation purpo,\ne,\n. This catego,y con\u0026amp;ists a expenses incuned ralalNe to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, st.ate and federal oources. This catego,y consi6b\na e,cpenses funded by restricted federal sources. This catego,y c:on\u0026amp;ists a expenseo incuned relawe to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. Total at OJIJ1~ The totals in this column represent adual C06t1i incurred for each a the high 6Chools through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total lex FY 9~ The totals in this column represent the total estimated expense for each dthe high schools for fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The Ncxth LJttle Roci\u0026lt; School Distnct Finance Otr,ce and the Local Fiscal S\u0026amp;vioes Divsion of the A.DE. 332 COST PER STU FOR FY 95/96 5,099 5,224 NIA 5,308 I I I I I I I LEAi 6002050 6002055 6002058 6002059 6002061 6002069 Teach er Expense _ At 03131196 FY9~6 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 5 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE FY 95196 TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES SCHOOL C 03131196 FY 95196 @03131196 FY 95196 AMBOY ELEMENTARY c.t,691 745,591 56,880 80,318 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 260,575 432,668 30,195 43,169 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 202,752 361,389 27,790 39,749 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 488,857 TT4\n262 58,525 80,041 MEADOW PARK ELEM 234,529 395\n290 32,195 44,314 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 393,303 660\n294 30\n265 50,393 TOTAL 2,014,707 3,369,494 235,850 337,984 Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries for FY 95/96 is estimated to be $20,533,600 or 45.6 percent of total expense for FY 95/96 of $45,000,000. Actual taact- salary expense for each Cycle 5 school as of March 31, 1996. Expected teacher salary expense for each Cycle 5 school for FY 95196. Administrator Expense AtD3131A15 FY9~6 SOURCE: Actual administrator salary expense for each Cycle 5 school as of March 31, 1996. Expected administrator salary expense for each Cycle 5 school for FY 95196. The North LittJe Rock School District Finance Otriai. 333 TOTALS C 03131196 FY95/96 491,571 825,909 200,no 475,837 230,542 401,138 547,382 854,303 266,724 439,604 423,568 710,687 2\n250,557 3,707,478 I I '  I I I I PCSSD PROGRAM COST 334 Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) The following is a summary of the PCSSD Program Cost Section of the July 15, 1996 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 through April 30, 1996 and is estimated for the fiscal year. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 5 schools. The programs funded by the Cycle 5 schools are also included. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are also presented for the Cycle 5 schools. Cost per student information is presented for the: district\nelementary school programs\njunior high school programs\nhigh school programs\nand Cycle 5 school programs. Graphs indicate total program cost and average cost per student rates for elementary, junior high and high school programs. 335 ~ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LOCAUSTA TE LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS 1v6003090 HOMER ADKINS ELEM 746,912 298,831 80,516 8003092 BAKER ELEM 710,124 292,395 78,781 8003093 CRY ST AL HILL ELEM 1,323,883 874,899 181,841 8003094 BAYOU METO ELEM 1,237,865 583,870 157,315 8003095 CLINTON ELEM 1,178,267 544,332 146,882 8003099 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 779,404 424,800 114,456 8003100 FULLER ELEM 841,559 318,140 85,718 8003102 HARRIS ELEM 818,085 298,831 80,516 8003103 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 1,326,885 891,449 186,301 8003104 LANDMARK ELEM 964,390 445,029 119,906 8003105 LAWSON ELEM 758,177 283,200 78,304 8003108 TOlLESON ELEM 908,815 500,197 134,771 8003108 OAK GROVE ELEM 923,923 349,403 94,141 8003110 ROBINSON ELEM 932,095 355,839 95,875 8003111 SCOTT ELEM 467,241 125,049 33,893 8003112 SHERWOOD ELEM 940,321 425,719 114,704 8003113 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 1,188,937 408,249 109,997 8003118 JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 1,401,049 583,870 157,315 8003117 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 1,301,945 470,774 126,843 8003120 FULLER JR. HIGH 2,123,485 811,901 218,755 8003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 2,076,807 788,914 212,581 8003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 2,741,051 917,842 247,245 8003125 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 1,965,718 891,449 188,301 8003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 2,488,988 826,813 222,719 8003127 ROBINSON HIGH 1,161,758 331,933 89,434 8003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 2,554,994 742,021 199,926 8003129 CATO ELEM 990,812 507,553 136,753 8003130 PINEWOOD ELEM 970,185 532,379 143,442 8003135 COLLEGE STATION ELEM 529,913 264,120 76,552 6003138 N. PULASKI HIGH 2,481,986 750,296 202,156 8003137 ARNOLD DRNE ELEM 720,188 349,403 94,141 8003139 OAKBROOKE ELEM 1,058,269 418,384 112,722 6003140 NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 2,603,098 903,849 243,529 6003141 TAYLOR ELEM 921,185 386,182 104,051 6003142 PINE FOREST ELEM 918,002 457,901 123,375 6003143 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 1,168,099 430,317 115,942 6003146 BATES ELEM 1,209,500 445,948 120,154 NIA SCOTT ALTERNATNE 13,088 0 0 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 47,360,321 18,651,661 5,025,413 SOURCE: S the not s.etlon on the next IMP for explanatton. of the categories. The Pulaki County Special School Di,trict Finance Office. TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES FEDERAL LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM 1,372 137,779 37,068 4,990 1,342 53,321 36,270 164,898 3,098 191,726 83.717 260,158 2,880 132,405 72,425 1,471 2,499 198,095 87,521 262,305 1,950 114,359 52,894 2,188 1,480 202,720 39,463 95,877 1,372 154,759 37,068 37,159 3,174 224,098 85,770 23,141 2,043 191,577 55,203 110,728 1,300 64,402 35,129 1,503 2,296 81,128 82,046 0 1,804 139,007 43,341 132,971 1,834 104,800 44,140 0 574 93,342 15,512 1,464 1,954 54,599 52,808 0 1,874 55,593 50,841 0 2,880 75,126 72,425 20,161 2,161 73,791 58,396 19,617 3,727 138,605 100,711 432,022 3,621 89,759 97,860 33,882 4,212 81,895 113,627 0 3,174 109,481 85,770 492,104 3,795 134,447 102,536 26,506 1,524 88,473 41,174 17,896 3,406 87,677 92,043 1,961 2,330 145,219 62,959 2,247 2,444 123,983 88,038 1,256 1,304 115,654 35,243 406,614 3,444 115,553 93,069 0 1,804 51,951 43,341 0 1,921 87,086 51,895 0 4,149 145,525 112,117 26,675 1,773 147,936 47,903 2,505 2,102 82,895 56,800 1,810 1,975 70,631 53,378 50,448 2,047 264,862 55,317 248,251 0 72 0 370,810 85,619 4,384,331 2,313,618 3,253,438 DESEGREGATION DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL 39,710 18,408 4,300 38,855 18,010 4,207 89,884 41,569 9,711 11\n588 35,963 8,401 72,334 33,527 7,832 58,449 26,185 8,112 42,278 19,595 4,577 39,710 18,408 4,300 91,883 42,589 9,948 59,138 27,411 8,403 37,833 17,443 4,075 88,489 30,809 7,197 48,430 21,521 5,027 47,286 21,917 5,120 18,817 7,702 1,799 58,572 26,221 8,125 54,250 25,145 5,874 77,587 35,982 8,401 62,559 28,997 6,774 107,889 50,008 11,882 104,835 48,592 11,351 121,941 58,521 13,203 91,883 42,589 9,948 109,844 50,914 11,884 44,109 20,445 4,776 98,603 45,704 10,876 67,446 31,262 7,303 70,745 32,791 7,660 37,755 17,500 4,088 99,703 48,213 10,795 46,430 21,521 5,027 55,594 25,788 8,020 120,108 55,671 13,005 51,318 23,786 5,556 60,848 28,204 8,588 57,183 26,505 6,192 59,260 27,487 6,416 0 0 0 2,478,524 1,148,819 268,365 TOTALS TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR IW30l96 FY 95196 1,369,884 1,804,401 1,398,203 1,837,588 2,860,086 3,349,719 2,309,783 2,705,207 2,511,374 2,941,309 1,578,577 1,848,822 1,851,385 1,934,094 1,468,206 1,742,980 2,865,219 3,144,915 1,981,828 2,321,107 1,299,186 1,521,577 1.m.128 2,077,382 1,757,368 2,058,221 1,608,708 1,884,109 783,013 893,837 1,879,023 1,966,464 1,880,560 2,202,503 2,434,578 2,851,364 2,151,857 2,520,244 3,998,785 4,883,357 3,467,962 4,081,884 4,297,537 5,033,254 3,878,418 4,308,145 3,956,236 4,833,524 1,781,320 2,086,273 3,837,011 4,493,889 1,953,884 2,288,379 1,950,903 2,284,888 1,508,743 1,767,032 3,783,215 4,430,883 1,333,586 1,561,889 1,817,639 2,128,810 4,227,726 4,951,492 1,692,195 1,981,890 1,718,525 2,012,728 1,980,670 2,319,751 2,439,222 2,856,605 383,970 449,704 64,990,109 99,540,000 \\.0 CV') CV') NOTES FOR PCSSD TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 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. Thia category Includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Thia category conslala of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Categories Thia category conslala of expenaea Incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, otate and tlederal sources. Thia category conalala of expenaea Incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. Thia category conaista of~ Incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregationo ournes. Total at 04l3Q,,96 The totals In this column represent actual costs Incurred for each school lite through April 30, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total for FY 95'96 The totals In this column represent the total estimated expense for each school site for li$cal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The Pulaski County Special School District Finanoe Off,oe. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 5 SCHOOL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY 116/96 FUNDING SOURCES ,p 1Y LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGA TlON TOTALS TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL eoo3092 BAKER ELEM 710,124 292,395 78,781 1,342 53,321 38,270 184,898 38,855 18,010 4,207 0003093 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 1,323,083 074,899 181,841 3,098 191,726 83,717 260,158 89,884 41,seG 9,711 eoo3()gg WARREN DUPREE ELEM m,404 424,800 114,456 1,950 114,359 52,894 2,188 58,449 26,1e5 e,112 8003100 FULLER ELEM 841,558 318,140 e5,718 1,490 202,720 39,463 115,877 42,279 19,5115 4,577 8003104 LANDMARK ELEM 984,3110 445,029 119,906 2,043 191,577 55,203 110,728 SG,138 27,411 e,403 8003129 CATO ELEM 1190,912 507,553 138,753 2,330 145,219 82,959 2,247 97,449 31,262 7,303 8003141 TAYLOR ELEM 921,1116 388,182 104,051 1,m 147,938 47,1103 2,505 51,318 23,788 5,569 TOTAL CYCLE 5 PROGRAM EXPENSE e,531,157 3,048,998 821,509 13,- 1,048,856 378,208 938,1101 405,109 187,788 43,- The district's Total Program Expense as of Aprll 30, 1996 was $84,990,109, and Total Program Expense for the ftscal year Is expected to be $99,540,000. The programs funded In each of the Cycle I schools are Indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs In Cycle 5 Schools.\" Funding catagorles Local \u0026amp; stale Thia categot'y Includes lundln\nfrom local _,,_, 19gulars late 10Urcet1a, nd unrea1rk:tedf ederal oources. Thia category Includes lundln\nfrom -.:.d _,.,_,,_which must be accounted for separately from the Gen ral Fund. Thia categot'y consisla al lundin\nfor deeegregatlon pu_.. ExpanM categories Local \u0026amp; Stale Thia catego,y conaisla al expenua inc,Jn.d - to 19gular program expense, di.triet expense, trll--,,orta1ion expense and '\"9al expense funded by unreatricted local, slate and federal -,rces. This category conalsta rA expen ... Incurred relatiYe to federal program expense and district expense funded by reatricted federal sources. O..eg This category consists of expen ... Incurred r..-M to desegregation program expense, district expenae, tranaportation expense and legal expense funded from deaegrwgation aources. Total catagorles Total t04./3tWtl The totals in this column 18prsent actual oos1sin cun.d for each of the Cycle 5 schools through April 30, 1996 forfiacal year 1995/1996. Total for FY 115,VO The totals In this column reprsentthe total Htimeted expense for each of the Cycle 5 schools for fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The Pulaaki County Special School Diatrlct Finance Offtce. \u0026lt;W30IIHI FYll5/Ve 1,388,203 1,837,588 2,860,081! 3,349,719 1,578,577 1,948,822 1,951,385 1,934,094 1,981,828 2,321,107 1,953,984 2,288,379 1,992,1115 1,981,1180 13,119,158 15,381,5711 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 5 Schools FY 95/96 BAKER CRYSTAL HILL DUPREE FULLER LANDMARK PROGRAMS ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM Pre-School X X Kindergarten X X X X X Elementary X X X X X Reading X Resource Room X X X X X Special Class X X 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. CATO ELEM X X X X X X X TAYLOR ELEM X X X X X X X Q'\\ C\"\") C\"\") I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 96/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL C 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG \u0026lt;w.30/96 FY95196 FOR FY 95196 6003090 HOMER ADKINS ELEM 325 1,127,631 174,847 67,406 1,369,884 1,60oC,\u0026lt;I01 4,937 6003092 BAKER ELEM 318 1,082,642 89,591 225,970 1,398,203 1,637,568 5,150 6003093 CRY ST Al. HILL ELEM 734 2.183,521 275,443 401,122 2.860,086 3,349,719 4,564 6003094 BAYOU METO ELEM 635 1,981,530 204,630 123,423 2.309,783 2,705,207 4,260 6003095 CUNTON a.EM 592 1,869,760 265,616 375,998 2,511,374 2,941,309 4,968 6003099 WARREN DUPREE a.EM 462 1,320,610 167,053 80,914 1.57s,sn 1,848,822 4,002 6003100 FULLER ELEM 346 1,246,BTT 242.183 162,325 1,651,385 1,934,094 5,590 6003102 HARRIS EL8,I 325 1,196,80' 191,827 99,575 1,488,206 1,742,980 5,363 6003103 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 752 2.207,789 309,868 167,562 2,685,219 3,144,915 4,182 60031'4 LANDMARK ELEM 484 1,531,368 246,780 203,680 1,981,828 2,321,107 4,796 6003105 LAWSON ELEM 308 1,118,981 119,531 60,654 1,299,166 1,521,5TT 4,940 6003106 TOLLESON ELEM 544 1,546,079 123,174 1'4,475 1,m.128 2,0TT,382 3,819 6003108 OAK GROVE ELEM 380 1,369,071 182,348 205,949 1,757,368 2,058,221 5,416 6003110 ROBINSON ELEM 387 1,385,443 148,940 74,323 1,608,706 1,884,109 4,868 6003111 SCOTT ELEM 136 626,557 108,854 27,602 763,013 893,637 6,571 6003112 SHERWOOD ELEM 463 1,482.698 107,\u0026lt;107 88,918 1,679,023 1,966,464 4,247 6003113 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 444 1,689,057 106,234 85,269 1,880,560 2,202,503 4,961 6003116 JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 635 2.144,914 147,551 142,111 2.Gl,576 2,851,364 4,ol90 6003117 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 512 1,901,723 132,187 117,947 2.151,857 2,520,244 4,922 6003120 FULLER JR. HIGH 883 3,157,868 239,316 601,601 3,998,785 4,683,357 5,304 6003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 858 3,081,703 187,619 198,660 3,467,982 4,061,684 4,734 6003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 998 3,910,150 195,722 191,665 4,297,537 5,033,254 5,043 6003125 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 752 2,846,642 195,251 636,525 3,678,418 4,308,145 5,729 6003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 899 3,520,095 236,983 199,158 3,956,236 4,6l3,524 5,154 6003127 ROBINSON HIGH 361 1,584,647 109,647 87,026 1,781,320 2,086,273 5,TT9 6003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 807 3,500,347 179,720 156,944 3,837,011 4,4!13,689 5,569 6003129 CATO ELEM 552 1,637,448 208,178 108,258 1,953,884 2,288,379 4,146 6003130 PINEWOOD ELEM 579 1,648,430 190,021 112,452 1,950,903 2,284,888 3,946 6003135 COLLEGE ST A TION ELEM 309 891,689 150,897 465,957 1,508,743 1,767,032 5,719 6003136 N. PUL.ASKHJ IGH 816 3,417,882 208,622 156,711 3,783,215 4,430,883 5,430 6003137 ARNOLD DRIVE ELEM 380 1,165,316 95,292 72,978 1,333,586 1,561,689 4,110 6003139 OAKBROOKE ELEM 455 1,591,276 138,981 87,382 1,817,639 2,128,810 4,679 60031\u0026lt;1() NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 983 3,754,625 257,642 215,459 4,227,726 4,951,492 5,037 6003141 TAYLOR ELEM 420 1,413,191 195,839 83,165 1,692,195 1,981,890 4,719 6003142 PINE FOREST ELEM 498 1,501,380 119,695 97,450 1,718,525 2,012.728 4,o.42 6003143 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 468 1,716,333 124,009 140,328 1,980,670 2,319,751 4,957 6003146 BATES ELEM 485 1,TT7,649 320,179 341,394 2.439,222 2,856,805 5,890 SCOTT Al. TERNA TIVE 13,088 n 370,810 383,970 449,7().4 NIA TOT Al. EXPENSE 20,285 71,143,014 6,697,949 7,149,146 84,990,109 99,540,000 4,907 Cost PN student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1996 enrollment figures and the tot.al estimated expense for FY 95196. Funding CategoriH Local \u0026amp; Slale federai o.s..g Loc,il \u0026amp; Slale This catego\u0026lt;y includes funding from local '\"\"\"\"rog ular s1a1e '\"\"\"\"an d \\llll8Slric:lad federal oourta. This category includes funding from reslric:tedfe deral sources ..tlich must be 1CCO\u0026lt;Jntefodr o\neparatelyfr om the General Fund. This category c:onsisls o( funding tor desegropobon - This category consists o( expenses ina!rred rolatiw ID regular program expense funded by unr.ttictad local, stata and fedal sources. This category consists o( expenses funded by '11Strict8dle deral sources. OeJeg This category consiS1s o/ expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. Total Cmgorlu Total at 04/.l0'96 The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred tor oach school site through April 30, 1996 for fiscal year 199511996. Total lor FY 95'96 The lotlls in this column represent the lotll estimated expense for each school site for fiscal year 199511996. SOURCE: The Ptila.ski County Spec,al School Di.slricl f-,c\ne Qffa, and the Local Fisal Sa-vices Divsion cl the ADE. 340 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 5 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROL.LMEl',ff LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL C 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 04/30/96 FY95/96 6003092 BAKER ELEM 318 1,082,642 89,591 225,970 1,398,203 1,637,568 6003093 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 73'1 2,183,521 275,443 401,122 2,860,086 3,349,719 6003099 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 462 1,320,610 167,053 90,914 1,578,577 1,848,822 6003100 FULLER ELEM 346 1,246,877 242,183 162,325 1,651,385 1,934,094 6003104 LANDMARK ELEM 484 1,531,368 246,780 203,680 1,981,828 2,321,107 6003129 CATO ELEM 552 1,637,448 208,178 108,258 1,953,884 2,288,379 6003141 TAYLOR ELEM -420 1,-413,191 195,839 83,165 1,692,195 1,981,890 TOTAL EXPENSE 3,316 10,415,657 1,425,067 1,275,,43,4 13,116,158 15,361,579 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Deseg This categOI)' includes lunding from local sources, regular stale 600/CeS, and unrestricted federal sources. Thi,\ncategOI)' includes funding from restricted federal sources - musl be accounted for oeparately from the General Fund. This category consists o/ lunding for desegregation purpooes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Catagories This categOI)' consists o/ expenses incurred relali\u0026gt;,e to regular program expen\u0026amp;e lunded by unrestricted local, 6late and federal sources. This categOI)' consists o/ expenses lunded by restricted federal sources. Thi6 categOI)' consists o/ expenses incurred re!a!Ne to desegregation program5 funded from desegregation sources. Total at 04l3lW6 The totals in thi6 column represent adual ooota incurred for each o/ the Cycle 5 IChools through April 30, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total to, FY 9\u0026amp;-95 The tctal6 in thi6 column represent the total e6limated expense for each o/ the Cycle 5 ocllaols b fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The PulasW County Special School Disttict Finance o,r,ce and tile Local Fiscal Services Divoon of tile ADE. 341 COST PER STU FOR FY 95/96 5,150 4,564 4,002 5,590 4,796 4,146 -4,719 4,633 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 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 53,166,140 53.4% 4,700 4,907 (207) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 21,387,892 21.5% 4,929 4,907 22 HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 24,985,968 25.1% 5,393 4,907 486 PCSSD PROGRAM COST PCSSD COST PER STU 60000000 40000000 20000000 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 4600 4400 FY 95/96 Program costs consists of the total estimated cost for FY 95/96 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of program cost to the estimated total district cost of $99,540,000 for FY 95/96. The estimated total program cost for FY 95/96 to the total number of students in the program category. The total estimated cost for FY 95/96 of $99,540,000 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1995 of 20,285. 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 Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. 342 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL @ 10KJ1/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 04/30/96 FY 95/96 6003090 HOMER ADKINS ELEM , 325 1,127,631 17~.847 67,\"'6 1,369,884 1,604,401 6003092 BAKER ELEM 318 1,082,642 89,591 225,970 1,398,203 1,637,568 6003093 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 734 2,183,521 275,443 401,122 2,860,086 3,349,719 6003094 BAYOU METO ELEM 635 1,981,530 204,830 123,423 2,309,783 2,705,207 6003095 CLINTON ELEM 592 1,869,760 265,616 375,998 2,511,374 2,941,309 6003099 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 462 1,320,610 167,053 90,914 1,578,Sn 1,848,822 6003100 FULLER ELEM 346 1,246,Bn 242,183 162,325 1,651,385 1,934,094 6003102 HARRIS ELEM 325 1,196,804 191,827 99,575 1,488,206 1,742,980 6003103 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 752 2,207,789 309,868 167,562 2,685,219 3,144,915 6003104 LANDMARK ELEM ,484 1,531,368 246,760 203,680 1,981,828 2,321,107 6003105 LAWSON ELEM 308 1,118,981 119,531 60,654 1,299,166 1,521,577 6003106 TOLLESON ELEM 544 1,546,079 123,174 104,475 1,773,728 2,077,382 6003108 OAK GROVE ELEM 380 1,369,071 182,348 205,949 1,757,368 2,058,221 6003110 ROBINSON ELEM 387 1,385,443 148,940 74,323 1,608,706 1,884,109 6003111 SCOTT ELEM 136 626,557 108,854 27,602 763,013 893,637 6003112 SHERWOOO ELEM 463 1,482,698 107,407 88,918 1,679,023 1,966,464 6003113 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 444 1,689,057 106,234 85,269 1,860,560 2,202,503 6003129 CATO ELEM 552 1,637,448 208,178 108,258 1,953,884 2,288,379 6003130 PINEWOOO ELEM 579 1,648,430 190,021 112,452 1,950,903 2,284,888 6003135 COLLEGE STATION ELEM 309 891,889 150,897 465,957 1,508,743 1,767,032 6003137 ARNOLD DRIVE ELEM 380 1,165,316 95,292 72,978 1,333,586 1,561,889 6003139 OAKBROOKE ELEM 455 1,591,276 138,981 87,382 1,817,639 2,128,810 6003141 TAYLOR ELEM 420 1,413,191 195,839 83,165 1,692,195 1,981,890 6003142 PINE FOREST ELEM 498 1,501,360 119,695 97,450 1,718,525 2,012,728 6003146 BATES ELEM 485 1,1n,649 320,179 341,394 2,439,222 2,856,805 SCOTT ALTERNATIVE 13,088 72 370,810 383,970 449,704 TOTAL EXPENSE 11,313 36,606,085 4,483,660 4,305,011 45,394,776 53,166,140 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95196. Funding Catagorles Local \u0026amp; Stale Oeseg 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 oeparately from the General Fund. This category consists c:J funding for desegregation purp06e6. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; Slate Federal Total Categories This category con\u0026amp;ists c:J expenses incurred relatille to regular program expense funded by unmstricted local, state and federal oources. This category consist,\nol expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists c:Je xpenses incurred relatille to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. Tola/ at 04/3005 The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each ot the elementary 6Chools through April 30, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Tola/ for FY 95196 The totals in this column represent the total estimated expense for each c:J the elementary schools for fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: Tt\u0026gt;e Pulaski County Special School District Finance Off,ce and the Local Fiscal Services Divsion of the ADE. 343 COST PER S1U FOR F\\'95196 4,937 5,150 4,564 4,260 4,968 4,002 5,590 5,363 4,182 4,796 4,940 4i 3,819 5,416 4,868 6,571 4,247 4,961 4,146 3,946 5,719 4,110 4,679 4,719 4,042 5,890 NIA 4.700 I I I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR. HIGH PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROU.MENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 04/30/96 FY95J96 6003116 JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 635 2,144,914 147,551 142,111 2,434,576 2,851,364 6003117 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 512 1,901,723 132,187 117,947 2,151,857 2,520,244 6003120 FULLER JR. HIGH 883 3,157,868 239,316 601,601 3,998,785 4,683,357 6003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 858 3,081,703 187,619 198,660 3,467,982 4,061,684 6003140 NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 983 3,754,625 257,642 215,459 4,227,726 4,951,492 6003143 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 468 1,716,333 124,009 140,328 1,980,670 2,319,751 TOTAL EXPENSE 4,339 15,757,166 1,088,324 1,416,106 18,261,596 21,387,892 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding Catagorlas Local \u0026amp; Slate Federal Des,,g This catego,y includes funding from local sources, regular state source,\n, and unreotricted lederal sources. This catego,y includes funding from restricted lederal .ource,\nwhich must be 8CCOUntefdo r separately from the General Fund. This category con,\nisU\ncl funding for desegregation purpoGe$. Expense CatagorlH Local\u0026amp; Slate Federal Des,,g Total Catagoria,\nTotal at 04l.3()\n'96 Total for FY 95196 SOURCE: This catego,y consists al expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state ar\u0026gt;d federal sources. This category consists al expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This catego,y consists al expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column ~t actual costs incurred for each cl the junior high schools ttvough April 30, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. The totals in this column repreM!Ot the total estimated expense for each cl the junior high schoofolsr l iscaJy ear 1995/1996. The Pulaski County Special School Distnct Finanoe Oflice and tt\u0026gt;e Local Fiscal Sarvices Divsxx, of tl\u0026gt;e ADE.. 344 COST PER STU FOR FY 95/96 4,490 4,922 5,304 4,734 5,037 4,957 4,929 I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 I FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS I ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SQ-IOOL G 1001195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 04/30/96 FY95196 6003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 998 3,910,150 195,722 191,665 4,297,537 5,033,25\" I 6003125 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 752 2,646,6\"2 195,251 636,525 3,678,418 4,308, 1\"5 6003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 899 3,520,095 236,983 199,158 3,956,236 4,633,524 6003127 ROBINSON HIGH 361 1,58\u0026lt;1,6\"7 109,647 87,026 1,781,320 2,086,273 6003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 807 3,500,3\"7 179,720 156,944 3,837,011 4,\"93,889 6003136 N. PULASKI HIGH 816 3,417,882 208,622 156,711 3,783,215 4,43-0,883 I TOTAL EXPENSE 4,633 18,779,763 1,125,945 1,428,029 21,333,737 24,985,968 I Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95196. I I I I I I I I I I I Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This catego,y includes funding from local source,\n, regular state \u0026amp;OUl'CeS, and unresllicled federal \u0026amp;OUrces. Federal This catego,y includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. De.seg This catego,y comists o1 funding for desegregation purpo5eS. Expanse Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Catagor1as To/al at 041Ja196 Total fcx FY 95196 SOURCE: This catego,y consists ol expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This catego,y consists ol expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consist,\nol expenses incurred relatr,oeto desegregation programs funded from desegregation \u0026amp;OUrces. The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each ol the high schools through April 30, 1996 for fiscal year 199511996. The totals in this column re..--,! the total estimated expense for each d the high school5 for fiscal year 199511996. The Pulaski County Special School District Finance orrce and the Local Fiscal Services Divsion d the ADE.. 345 COSTPERS1U FOR FY 95196 5,043 5,729 5,154 5,779 5,569 5,43-0 5,393 I I I I I I I I I I LEAi 6003092 6003093 6003099 6003100 6003104 6003129 6003141 TeachN Expense At 04/JQ/96 FYSISl!,6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 5 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE FY 95196 TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES TOTALS SCHOOL @04/30/96 FY 95/86 @04/30l96 FY95/96 @04/30/96 FY95/96 BAKER ELEM 446,505 597,979 87,163 116,733 533,668 714,712 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 903,976 1,210,645 122,566 164,146 1,026,542 1,374,791 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 535,645 717,360 81,649 109,348 617,294 826,708 FULLER ELEM 546,708 732,176 67,391 90,253 614,099 822,429 LANDMARK ELEM 830,982 845,039 78,135 104,642 709,117 949,681 CATO ELEM 674,680 903,562 81,310 108,894 755,990 1,012,456 TAYLOR ELEM 585,498 784,125 74,090 99,225 659,588 883,350 TOTAL 4,323,994 5,790,886 592,304 793,241 4,916,298 6,584,127 Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries for FY 95/96 is estimated to be $45,397,250 or 45.6 percent of total expense for FY 95/96 of $99,540,000. Actual teacher salary expense for I08ch Cycle S school u of April 30, 1996. Expected teacM\u0026lt; salary expense for each Cycle 5 school for FY 95196. Administrator Expense At 0413(1196 SOURCE: Actual administrator salary expense for I08ch Cycle 5 school u of April 30, 1996. Expected administrator salary expense for each Cycle 5 school for FY 95/96. Thfl Pulaski CO\u0026lt;Jnty Special School District Finar,ce Office. 346 TRANSPORTATION -  COST 347 U.l I I I I I I D. BUDGET INFORM.A TION 2. Transportation cost and funding source. Transportation costs for FY 95/96 are presented for the three school districts in Pulaski County as specified by the Allen Letter. Transportation cost information for the LRSD and the NLRSD contains actual expenses by funding source for FY 95/96 through March 31, 1996. Transportation expense information for the PCSSD contains actual expenses by funding source for FY 95/96 through April 30, 1996. Outsourcing costs, bus driver salaries and replacement parts expense are also addressed. 348 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEA# 60-01 60-02 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE FY 95/96 AS OF MARCH 31, 1996 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL\u0026amp; DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL DESEG LITTLE ROCK 4,989,738 0 2,494,869 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 1,157,209 0 203,100 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 5,025,413 0 1,148,819 TOTAL 0 3,846,788 TRANSPORTATION FY 95/96 THRU 03/31/96 8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 TOTAL 7,484,607 1,360,309 6,174,232 15,u Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal Oeseg 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 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. Deseg NOTE: SOURCES: This category consists of transportalion costs incurred relative lo desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. The expenses for the PCSSO are for FY 95/96 through April 30, 1996. The Finance Off1Ces of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 349 %OF TRANS EXP TO TOTAL :XP FOR 03/31/96 7.9% 4.6% 7.3% ~ l, \" (- I I I I I I I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL TOTAL LRSD NLRSD PCSSD SOURCES: FY 95/96 AS OF MARCH 31, 1996 BUS DRIVER REPLACEMENT OUTSOURCING SALARIES PARTS TOTAL 5,182,587 666,476 0 5,849,063 0 544,939 91,286 636,225 0 2,641,505 322,716 2,964,221 5,182,587 3,852,920 414,002 9,449,509 Outsourcing costs accounted for 69.2 percent of the total transportation expense of $7,484,607. Bus driver salaries, exclusive of any bus driver salaries included in the outsourcing fee, accounted for 8.9 percent of the total transportation epxense. The district did not incur any replacement part costs because this was included in the outsourcing costs. The district does not outsource its transportation function\ntherefore, no outsourcing costs were incurred. Bus driver salaries accounted for 40.1 percent of the total transportation expense of $1,360,309. Replacement parts accounted for 6.7 percent of the total transportation expense. The district does not outsource its transportation function\ntherefore, no outsourcing costs were incurred. Bus driver salaries accounted for 42.8 percent of the total transportation expense of $6,174,232. Replacement parts accounted for 5.2 percent of the total transportation expense. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 350 ,1 \\., \\J l I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I LRSD TRANSPORTATION COST 351 l( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ITTI S:: ~nr.K ~r.1-1nn1 nl~T~lr.T TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU MARCH 31, 1996 LRSD TRANSPORTATION FY 95/96 THRU 03/31/96 LEGEND 5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 LOCAUSTATE 0 FED DESEG TOTAL 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 Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Deseg SOURCE: This category consists of transportation costs funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Of the total transportation expense in the LRSD through March 31, 1996, outsourcing costs accounted for $5,182,587 or 69.2 percent of total transportation expense, and bus driver salaries, exclusive of any bus driver salaries included in the outsourcing costs, accounted for $666,476 or 8.9 percent of the total transportation expense. The district did not incur any cost for replacement parts because this is included in the outsourcing fees. The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 352 4,989,738 0 2,494,869 7,484,607 i'll l., \" I I I I NLRSD 1 TRANSPORTATION COST 353 lb t, \" 1 I l I I I I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU MARCH 31, 1996 NLRSD TRANSPORTATION FY 95/96 THRU 03/31/96 LEGEND 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 LOCAUSTATE 0 FED DESEG TOTAL 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. I Expense Categories I I I I I I 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. Deseg This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. SOURCE: Of the total transportation expense in the NLRSD through March 31, 1996, bus driver salaries accounted for $544,939 or 40.1 percent of total transportation expense, and replacement parts accounted for $91,286 or 6.7 percent of total transportation expense. The district did not have any outsourcing transportation expense. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 354 1,157,209 0 203,100 1,360,309 PCSSD - 1 TRANSPORTATION I COST 355 I I I I I I I I I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU APRIL 30, 1996 PCSSD TRANSPORTATION FY 95/96 TH RU 04/30/96 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 ,::,'Yo .. \"      '  ~--- DE FUNDING SOURCES -LEGEND LOCAUSTATE FED DESEG TOTAL Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal Oeseg 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 This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Oeseg This category consists of transportation costs funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Of the total transportation expense in the PCSSD through April 30, 1996, bus driver salaries accounted for $2,641,505 or 42.8 percent of total transportation expense, and replacement parts accounted for $322,716 or 5.2 percent of the total transportation expense. The district did not have any outsourcing transportation expense. SOURCE: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. 356 ~ 5,025,413 0 1,148,819 6,174,232 I I I . I I I I LEGAL FEES 357 I I I I I I I D. BUDGET INFORMATION 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. Legal fees are reported by funding source and type of service for each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The information is as of March 31, 1996 for the LRSD and the NLRSD. The PCSSD information is as of April 30, 1996. The LRSD's legal fees totaled $222,890 for FY 95/96 through March 31, 1996. The district's legal expense in FY 94/95 was $315,036. Legal fees for the NLRSD totaled $89,532 as of March 31, 1996. The district's legal expense for FY 94/95 totaled $98,087. Legal fees for the PCSSD increased 67.4 percent from $211,463 in FY 94/95 to $353,984 in FY 95/96 through April 30, 1996. 358 I I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS LEGAL EXPENSE FY 95/96 AS OF MARCH 31, 1996 FUNDING SOURCES ~ LOCAL\u0026amp; LEA# DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL DESEG 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 159,293 0 63,597 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 16,342 0 73,190 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 85,619 0 268,365 TOTAL 261,254 0 405,152 LEGAL FY 95/96 THRU 03/31 /96 Funding Categories 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 222,890 89,532 353,984 666,406 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 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. NOTE: The expenses for the PCSSD are for FY 95196 through April 30, 1996. SOURCES: The Finance Off,ces of each of the school districts in Pu/ask/ County. 359 %OF LEGAL EXP TO TOTAL EXPAT03/31/96 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.9% I I I I I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL TOTAL LEGAL BY CATEGORY LRSD NLRSD PCSSD SOURCES: LEGAL EXPENSE BY CATEGORIES FY 95/96 AS OF MARCH 31, 1996 LEGAL CATEGORIES FUNDING SOURCES LOCALJSTATE DESEG SPECIAL ED/ TEACHER/ DUE PROCESS EMPLOYEE OTHER DESEG TOTAL 15,498 81,598 62,197 63,597 222,890 0 12,284 4,058 73,190 89,532 25,853 40,057 19,709 268,365 353,984 41,351 133,939 85,964 405,152 666,406 Special Ed/due process fees accounted for 7.0 percent of the total legal expense at March 31, 1996 of$222,890. Teacher/employee fees accounted for 36.6 percent of the total legal expense. Other fees accounted for 27.9 percent of the total legal expense. Desegregation fees accounted for 28.5 percent of the total legal expense. Teacher/employee fees accounted for 13.7 percent of the total legal expense at March 31, 1996 of $89,532. Other fees accounted for 4.5 percent of the total legal expense. Desegregation fees accounted for 81.8 percent of the total legal expense. There were no fees incurred regarding Special Ed/due process litigation. Special Ed/due process fees accounted for 7.3 percent of the total legal expense at April 30, 1996 of $353,984. Teacher/employee fees accounted for 11.3 percent of the total legal expense. Other fees accounted for 5.6 percent of the total legal expense. Desegregation fees accounted for 75.8 percent of the total legal expense. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 360 I I I I I I I LRSD LEGAL FEES 361 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGAL EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU MARCH 31, 1996 LRSD LEGAL FY 95/96 THRU 03/31/96 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 LEGEND LOCAUSTATE FED DESEG TOTAL 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 Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Deseg This category consists of legal expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Of the total legal expense in the LRSD through March 31, 1996, Special Ed/due process fees accounted for $15,498 or 7.0 percent of total legal expense, teacher/employee fees accounted for $81,598 or 36.6 percent of total legal expense, other ligitation fees accounted for $62,197 or 27.9 percent of total legal expense, and desegregation fees accounted for $63,597 or 28.5 percent of total legal expense. SOURCE: The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 362 159,293 0 63,597 I I I I 1 NLRSD LEGAL FEES I I I I . I 363 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NORTH UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DiSTRiCT LEGAL EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU MARCH 31, 1996 NLRSD LEGAL FY 95/96 THRU 03/31 /96 LEGEND 80000 60000 40000 20000 LOCAUSTATE 0 FED DESEG FUNDING SOURCES TnTAL 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 separateiy from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Deseg SOURCE: This category consists of legal expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Of the total legal expense in the NLRSD through March 31, 1996, teacher/employee fees accounted for $12,284 or 13.7 percent of total legal expense, desegregation fees accounted for $73,190 or 81.8 percent of total legal expense, and other fees accounted for $4,058 or 4. 5 percent of total legal expense. No Special Ed/due process fees were incurred during FY 95/96. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 364 16,342 0 73,190 89,532 I I I I I I I . I I I I I PCSSD LEGAL FEES 365 I I I I I I I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGAL EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU APRIL 30, 1996 PCSSD LEGAL FY 95/96 THRU 04/30/96 LEGEND LOCAUSTATE FED DESEG FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL Funding Categories I Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. I I I I I I I I 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 Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Deseg This category consists of legal expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Of the total legal expense in the PCSSD through April 30, 1 996, Special Ed/due process fees accounted for $25,853 or 7.3 percent of total legal expense, teacher/employee fees accounted for $40,057 or 11.3 percent of total legal expense, desegregation fees accounted for $268,365 or 75.8 percent of total legal expense, and other fees accounted for $19,709 or 5.6 percent of total legal expense. SOURCE: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. 366 85,619 0 268,365 353,984 I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 367 I I I I I I I D. BUDGET INFORMATION 4. Compensatory Education Program cost. Compensatory Education costs incurred and funds received from the ADE for Compensatory Education by each of the three districts in Pulaski County during FY 95/96 are presented in this section of the July 15, 1996 Monitoring Report. The information for the LRSD and the NLRSD for FY 95/96 through March 31, 1996, and the PCSSD information is for FY 95/96 through April 30, 1996. 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 LRSD incurred Compensatory Education costs totaling $3,323,890 in FY 95/96 as ofMarch 31, 1996. The ADE paid the district $4,970,262 in FY 95/96 to fund their Compensatory Education programs. As ofFY 95/96, the LRSD has received $56,601,950 or 95.7 percent of the total amount of$59,129,886 due to the district by the ADE for Compensatory Education. The NLRSD incurred expenses totaling $267,555 in FY 95/96 as of March 3 1, 1996 for Compensatory Education programs. The district was paid $389,025 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement for Compensatory Education during FY 95/96. As of FY 95/96, the district has received $4,000,000 or 100.0 percent of the funds due to the district by the ADE for Compensatory Education as specified in the Settlement Agreement. The PCSSD incurred Compensatory Education expenses totaling $2,063,550 in FY 95/96 as of April 30, 1996. The district did not receive any funding from the ADE for Compensatory Education programs in FY 95/96. The last payment made by the ADE to the district for Compensatory Education was in FY 94/95 in the amount of $2,500,000, and at that time, the district had been paid a total of$16,000,000 by the ADE for Compensatory Education as required by the Settlement Agreement. 368 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEA, 60--01 60--02 60--03 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL TOTAL COMPENSATORY EDUCATION FY 95/96 AS OF MARCH 31, 1996 TOTAL DESEGREG.IITION COMPED EXPENSE EXPENSE 25,036,970 3,323,890 543,85 267,555 7,149,1 6 2,063,550 32,nB,961 5,654,995 COMPED FY 95/96 THRU 03/31/96 000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 COMPEDPMTS FROM ADE IN FY 95196  ,970,262 389,025 0 5,359,287 PERCENT OF COMPED EXP TOOESEG EXP 13.3% 9.2% 28.9% 17.3% Compensatory Education Payments Made by the \u0026gt;DE. LRSD NLRSD PCSSO Total Oeseg Expense Comp Ed Expense The distric1 has received a total of $56,601,950 for Compensatory Education as o! FY 95196. The Settlement Ag,__,, stipulates that the \u0026gt;DE. I\u0026amp; to pay the LRSD  total $59,129,886 for Compensatory Education. The distric1 received  total o1 $ ,000,000 for Compensatory Education as ol FY 95196. As ol FY 95196, the ADE. has fully funded their CompM1Satory Education oi,jigations to the distric1 as stipulated In the Settlement ~- As ol FY 95196, the ADE. had fully funded their Compensatory Education obligations to the district totaling $16,000,000 as stip,,lated in the SeltlemMrt Ag.._,_,t. The total desegregation expense incurred In FY 95196 through March 31, 1996 for LRSD and NLRSD and through April 30, 1996 for PCSSD as detailed in the Program Cost ponion of the Budget Section o( the monttoring report. Compensatory Education expense incurred in FY 95196 through March 31, 1996 for LRSD and NLRSD and through April 30, 1996 for PCSSD. Comp Ed Pmts Compensatory Education payments by the ADEt.o the distric1in FY 95196.  of Comp Ed Ratio of Compensatory Education expense to desegregation expense in FY 95196 through March 31, 1996 Exp to Deseg for LRSD and NLRSD and through April 30, 1996 for PCSSD. Expense NOTE: The expenses tor the PCSSD are tor FY 95\"96 through Aprll 30, 1996. 369 I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I MAGNET SCHOOL COST 370 I I I I I I I D. BUDGE INFORMATION 5. Magnet school cost Magnet school costs incurred and funds received from the ADE for magnet school operational costs by the LRSD during FY 95/96 are presented in this section of the July 15, 1996 Monitoring Report. The information presented is actual costs incurred for FY 95/96 through March 31, 1996 and the estimate of total costs for the fiscal year. As of March 31, 1996, the district has incurred magnet operational costs totaling $8,992,448 and has received $5,375,278 or 72.9 percent of the total amount due to the district from the ADE for magnet operational costs. 371 I I I I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS LEA# SCHOOL 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 6001021 CARVER ELEM 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 6001043 WILLILAMS ELEM TOTAL MAGNET EXPENSE Funding Categories LOCAL\u0026amp; STATE FEDERAL DESEG 0 0 2,063,752 0 0 2,326,882 0 0 1,425,443 0 0 1,257,662 0 0 nS,244 0 0 1,143,465 0 0 8,992,448 MAGNET EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU 03/31/96 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 MN PY BK CV GBwL TOTAL AS OF 3131/96 2,063,752 2,326,882 1,425,443 1,257,662 nS,244 1,143,465 8,992,448 Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrastric1ed federal sources. F\u0026amp;deral This category ir\u0026gt;cludes funding from restricted fedefal 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 re!atille 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 relatiw to magnet p,ograms funded from desegregation sources. 372 TOTAL FOR FY 95196 3,385,630 3,817,300 2,338,470 2,063,222 1,271,805 1,875,879 14,752,306 STUDENT DISCIPLINE -------------- --- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E. STUDENT DISCIPLINE: REFERRALS The Allen Letter requires the collection of the following student discipline data: 1. Number of discipline referrals by school and teacher reported by race, gender, grade, subject and teachers' years of experience. 2. Student suspensions, exclusions and expulsions according to type of infractions, length of punishment by race, gender, school and teacher. This information follows: The following Cycle V schools reported no discipline referrals for quarters 1-3 of the 1995-96 school year\nthus, no graphs appear for these school sites and grade levels. Little Rock School District  Carver Magnet Elementary  Gibbs Magnet Elementary\nGrade 2  Hall High Schools  Mabelvale Elementary\nGrade 6  MeadowcliffElementary\nGrade 1 Pulaski County Special School District  Baker Elementary  Cato Elementary\nGrade 1  Landmark Elementary\nGrades 1, 2, 5 and 6 The following graphs indicate the number of discipline referrals by school and teacher, reported by race, gender, grade, subject and teachers' years of experience for the Cycle V schools. Pulaski Heights Junior High School is not included. 374 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY 7 6 / 5 / 4 / 3 2 / 1 NO. OF REFERRALS /-----6------------------------------------------------- -------~----------------------------------- 0 -----,---------r--------,-------( BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENC Dudeck (4) Rogers (18) 1 5 SUBJECT: Grade 1 0 1 RACE AND GENDER 0 Dudeck (4) lllilRogers (18) CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / --- i---------------------------------------------- 1 BM BF WM WF Betton (3) 1 0 0 0 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 2 1.1 x -~ . ' TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE I Betton (3) j \\0 t--- ~ CLOVERDALEEL EMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / , ----------------------------- 2 -------------------- / / 2 / / / / 1 / 0 1'-----,---------,--------,,------( TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE / vanecko (22) / BM BF WM WF Vanecko (22) 0 0 2 0 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 3 t-- t-- ('f') - - - - -------- - - - - - CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY (]uarters NO. OF REFERRALS ----2---------------------------------------------- 2 / 1 / BM BF WM WF 0 -------~--~-------( TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Tripcony (17) 2 0 0 0 lTripcony (17) I RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 4 2 / 1 / 0 Ellis (31) CLOVERDALEEL EMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ----2-------------------------------------------------- BM 2 ------------------------------------i------- BF WM 0 0 RACE AND GENDER WF 1 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE I Ellis (31) / SUBJECT: Grade 5 ---------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ----1------------1--------------------------------- 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Cokeley (20) 1 1 0 0 J 1111cokeley(2 0) I RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 6 - - -I - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY Ceuarters NO. OF REFERRALS 5 / , ---4------------------------------------------- 4 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Rhodes, M. (5) 4 0 0 0 j llllllRhodes, M. (5) / RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 1 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY 5 4 / 3 / 2 / 1 Douglas, P. (13) / / NO. OF REFERRALS ----------------4-------------------------------- BM BF WM 3 4 0 RACE AND GENDER WF 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Joouglas, P. (13) SUBJECT: Grade 2 - - - - - - - ....: - - - GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY 3 / 2 / 1 / 0 Frahm, T. (8) Bohra, B. (7) / / SUBJECT: Cluarters NO. OF REFERRALS -----------------J---------------------------------- ------2--------------------- BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 2 1 1 0 Frahm, T. (8) 2 1 111B1o hra, B. (7) RACE AND GENDER Grade 3 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY [= NO. OF REFERRALS 50 40 / 37 30 / 20 / 10 / 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Miller, P. (4) 13 6 0 0 IIDllMiller, P. (4) Bibbs, J. (9) 24 12 Bibbs, J. (9) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 4 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ---~-----------------------~------------------- 1 / 0 ------,-------,------,---- TE ACHE R'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Stubblefield, E. (7) 1 0 1 0 I stubblefield, E. (7) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 5 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 25 21 20, 15 10 5 / 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Peterson, T. (9) 1 2 ID Peterson, T. (9) Jarboe, J. (2) 20 5 6 5 lil\u0026amp;Jarboe, J. (2) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 6 GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / / ----------------------------1------------------- / 1 / 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Newsome (19) 0 0 1 0 j111Newsome (19)j RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 1 t--, 00 ~ GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / --- 2----------------------------------------------- 2 / -------~---------------------------------- 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Weaver (2) 2 0 ll'ililWeaver (2) Kimball (18) 1 0 Kimball (18) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 3 00 00 ~ GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY (:\u0026gt;.uartc NO. OF REFERRALS / -----------------------------~-------------------- 1 / / / 0 1'----------.----------,--------.----------r' BM BF WM WF Robinson (22) 0 0 1 0 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 4 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE !Robinson (22) I GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY [llS(::IPI iNE REFERRALS: Quarters 1-3 (95-96) 6 5 / 4 3 / 2 / 1 / NO. OF REFERRALS / ----5----------- --------------------------------------- ----------------------1---------------------- 0 ---~--------,-------,------ BM BF WM WF TE ACHE R'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Luzzi (15) Dunn (1) 3 2 SUBJECT: Grade 5 0 1 0 RACE AND GENDER -------------- - !Illuzzi (15) Dunn (1) - - -- - 2 / 1 / 0 Guinn (4) GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ----2-------------------------------------------------- BM BF WM 2 0 0 RACE AND GENDER WF 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE !Guinn (4) I SUBJECT: Grade 6 --------- M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ----1------------------------------------------------- 1 / o---~-----,-------,.---~ TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE I Norwood (2) I BM BF WM WF Norwood (2) 1 0 0 0 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 1 M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ___-- 3_ _________________3_ ___________ __________ ____ 3 2 / 1 Smith (21) Fletcher (14) Gunnell (3) BM 1 2 BF WM 0 3 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 2 - - - - ------ WF 1 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE  Smith (21) Fletcher (14) Gunnell (3) - - - - M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 25 20, 15 , 10, 5 Rutherford (3) Martin (11) Cooper (3) 21 BM 2 10 9 SUBJECT: Grade 3 BF WM 1 1 1 1 RACE AND GENDER WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 1 ~Rutherford (3) Martin (11) Cooper (3) ... - - M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY C.)uarters NO. OF REFERRALS 5 ---4---------------------------------------------- 4 / -------3--------------------------------- 3 2 / -------1-------------------- 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE  Van Patter (3) 4 2 llil!Van Patter (3) Jenkins (11) 1 1 0 Jenkins (11) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 4 M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY 25 20 / 15, 10 / 5 / 0 Capps (16) Davis (1) Goodman (3) NO. OF REFERRALS ------------19----------------------------- BM BF 8 5 9 5 1 WM 2 13 4 WF 0 RACE AND GENDER OM OF 0 2 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE  Capps (16) Davis (1) Goodman (3) SUBJECT: Grade 5 - -------------- M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY 5 4 3 / 2 / 1 Harris (3) NO. OF REFERRALS ---4------------------------------------------ ------2------------------------------- BM BF WM WF 4 2 0 0 RACE AND GENDER TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE !Harris (3) I SUBJECT: Grade 6 - --- ...., - ---------- MABELVALE ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / ----------------------------------------------2-------- 2' / -------------------------------- 1------ 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Carr (1) 0 1 Lee (7) 0 1 1 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 1 IIIR - -. - ----- --..., ~ - - MABELVALE ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 7 ----6------------------------------------------------------ / / 6' 5 4  _______________________ 3 _______________________ _ 3  2 1 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Witt (16) 1 2  Witt (16) Sims (17) 2 1 Sims (17) Moore (19) 3 0 0 Moore (19) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 2 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / __-_3 ------------------------------------------------- --------2------------------------------------ 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Raney (14) 2 0 0 Raney (14) Dees (12) 1 2 Dees (12) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 3 ... 0 R cker (7) Ca well (7) Geach (25) MABELVALEELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ---2---------------------------------------------- -------------------1-------------------- BM BF WM WF 1 0 1 0 1 RACE AND GENDER TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE  Rucker (7) lillCaldwell (7) Coach (25) SUBJECT: Grade 4 - --_,\n- - - - ---- --- - MABELVALE ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS _______________3_._ _____ ____________________________ ______ 3' 2' _____1__ ____ _____________ _______ 1 , 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Beard (0) 1 0  Beard (0) Pinkerton (5) 1 Pinkerton (5) Durham (15) 1 2 1 Durham (15) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 5 ~----------------..-.- ---....- - MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS , ---3-------------------------------------------- 3 / -------------------2------------------- 2 / 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Wetzel, M. (1 O) 2 0 ~Wetzel, M. (10) Burgess, L. (24) 2 llill!Burgess, L. (24) Bishop, I. (18) 1 0 Bishop, I. (18) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 2 MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ---~------------------------------------------- 1 / BM BF WM WF Craig, D. (18) 1 0 0 0 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 3 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE !Craig, D. (18) I MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY 6 4 / 2 / 1 Robinson, S. (5) Hence, V. (25) Childs, S. (10) / / NO. OF REFERRALS / --5----------------------------------- --------------3--------------- BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 2 1  Robinson, S. (5) 1 2 1 0 Hence, V. (25) 2 1 Childs, S. (10) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 4 --------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY 3 / 2 / 1 / 0 Burgess, S. (1) Cox, S. (9) SUBJECT: NO. OF REFERRALS ~r,n ~~ g,.= ! L- ---3-----------3-------------------------------- BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 1 1 0 IIIIIIBurgess, S. (1) 2 2 0 Cox, S. (9) RACE AND GENDER Grade 5 MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY 3 / 2 / 1 / / / Quarters NO. OF REFERRALS / ------------------------------3-------------------- 0 -----,-------,-------,------(' BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Lewis, L. (16) 2 0 3 0 !Lewis, L. (16) I RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 6 00 0 -.::t' ------~ AMBOY ELEMENTARY 12 2 ,' Warren, J. (25) Veasley, J. (8) Thornton, C. (18) Jeffrey, R. (5) Hensley, S. (7) Amaden, C. (1) NO. OF REFERRALS --tO---------------------------------- -----2 ----------------------- 1 BM BF WM WF 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 4 1 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 1 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Amaden, C. (1) li!l!Hensley, S. (7) ~Jeffrey, R. (5) lllllThornton, C. (18) Veasley, J. (8)  Warren, J. (25) AMBOY ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 5 / --4---------------------------------- -----2------------------------- 2 / 1 / 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Summons, T. (1) 1 1 0 0 Jeffrey, R. (5) Mayherhoff, C. (13) 1 0 0 0 ll!lllawhon, J. (21) Lawhon, J. (21) 1 1 0 0 GJMayherhoff, C. (13) Jeffrey, R. (5) 1 0 0 0 liiiSummons, T. (1) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 2 - - - - - AMBOY ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 7 --6--------------------------------------- 6 5 4 3 -----2---------------------------- 2 1 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Summons, T. (1) 2 0 Jeffrey, R. (5) Smith, K. (1) 3 2 1 lffl!ISmith, K. (1) Jeffrey, R. (5) 1 B'f11SummonsT, . (1) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 3 AMBOY ELEMENTARY (Juarters NO. OF REFERRALS 16 / __1 4 ____________________________ _______ 14 ,  -------------------------------- 12 .  -1_Q --------------- --------------- 10 ,  8 / 6 .  4 / 2 / 0 Veasley, J. (8) Summons, T. ( 1) Sullivan, L. (2) Reeves, M. (6) Powell, H. (21) Hooper, G. (2) Hickman, D. (4) BM 2 1 1 1 5 Allen, C. (20) 4 SUBJECT: Grade 4 BF 1 1 1 WM 5 2 3 RACE AND GENDER WF 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE l!!IAllen, C. (20) l!!ii!Hickman, D. (4) ~Hooper, G. (2) lli!!Powell, H. (21)  Reeves, M. (6)  Sullivan, L. (2) summons, T. (1) IIIVeasley, J. (8) AMBOY ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 14 / __________________j2_ ___________ _________ / 12 -' -------------------- / / 10   / -------------------- 8 / /~=7=\"'\u0026lt;1 6 / 4 / 2 / / 0 l'-----------r-----,-----,------, BM Summons, T (1) Milsap, C. (1) 1 Manning, P. (1) 1 Kelso, B. (16) Jeffrey, R. (5) 1 Hickman, D. (4) 2 Gardner, N. (10) 2 SUBJECT: Grade 5 BF 1 2 1 1 2 WM 1 2 4 5 RACE AND GENDER WF 1 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Gardner, N. (10) Hickman, D. (4)  Jeffrey, R. (5) Kelso, 8. (16)  Manning, P. (1)  Milsap, C. (1) Summons, T. (1) - - 5 4 / 3 2 1 Scott, M. (8) Reeves, M. (6) Morow, N. (31) Kelso, B. (16) Jeffrey, R. (5) Hickman, D. (4) Hibbard, J. (34) AMBOY ELEMENTARY Quarters 1-3 t 95-96) \\_ NO. OF REFERRALS / -- 4 -------- 4 -------------------------- _____j _________________ BM BF WM WF 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 RACE AND GENDER TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE l!IHibbard, J. (34) ll!l!llHickman, D. (4)  Jeffrey, R. (5) lilKelso, B. (16)  Morow, N. (31)  Reeves, M. (6) Scott, M. (8) SUBJECT: Grade 6 - - CENTRAELL EMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 16 14 ,  12 ,  10 , 8 / 2 / / / AMi\u0026amp;\u0026amp;i#h#MiiAAP\u0026amp; %iiW%\u0026amp;i?\u0026amp;\u0026amp;f-tMW6 ifiiiiki\u0026amp;ii%MfM-I 0 I'--------.----,--------.---- Southard, C. (6) Hassell, L. (5) Bradford, P. (20) BM 2 12 1 SUBJECT: Grade 1 BF 0 0 0 WM 0 0 0 RACE AND GENDER WF 0 0 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Bradford, P. (20) liilllHassell, L. (5)  Southard, C. (6) - CENTRAELL EMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 7 6 / 5 / 4 3 / 2 / 1 / 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Perreault, L. (6) 1 0 0 0 Atherton, R. (5) Harper, K. (4) Atherton, R. (5) 4 0 2 0 lllilHarper, K. (4) 1 1 0 0  Perreault, L. (6) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 2 CENTRAELL EMENTARY H\\IE F\u0026lt;E E'l~RALS: NO. OF REFERRALS 10 9 8 / --------------0--------------- 4 / / 2 ,' BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Young, M. (22) 6 2 4 0 Roders, A. (23) 0 0 1 0 Allen, E. (16) Pendergraft, A. (0) 0 0 1 0 lilllColeman, R. (15) Diffey, D (20) 1 0 0 0  Diffey, D (20) Pendergraft, A (0) Coleman, R. (15) 1 0 0 0  Roders, A (23) Allen, E. (16) 1 0 0 0  Young, M. (22) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 3 - - CENTRAELL EMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS BM Wolfe, S. (4) Setzler, N. (18) Pendergraft, A. (0) Goldsby, 0. (31) Custer, R. (5) SUBJECT: Grade 4 1 2 5 1 BF WM 1 1 RACE AND GENDER WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 0 ,.. .,... - Custer, R. (5) llllillGoldsby, 0. (31)  Pendergraft, A. (0) lllilSetzler, N. (18) Wolfe, S. (4) - --- - 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Moody, S. (5) Lipsmeyer, L. (25) Custer, R. (5) Coleman, R. (15) CENTRAELL EMENTARY / NO. OF REFERRALS BM BF 2 2 2 WM 2 1 1 WF RACE AND GENDER OM 1 Quarters \"1= 3 OF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BMoody, S. (5) l:iS Lipsmeyer, L. (25) IIIIICuster, R. (5) Coleman, R. (15) SUBJECT: GRADE 5 CENTRAELL EMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS Young, M. (22) Whitten, W. (21) Perreault, L. (6) Moody, S. (5) Mathews, B. (25) Lipsmeyer, L. (25) Hickman, C. (1) Dunn, S. (28) Coleman, R. (15) Acklin, C. (19) BM 1 1 1 1 3 6 SUBJECT: GRADE 6 BF WM WF OM 0 1 5 1 1 2 6 1 1 2 1 RACE AND GENDER OF 0 Acklin, C. (19)  Coleman, R. (15) Dunn, S. (28) Hickman, C. (1) C:Jlipsmeyer, L. (25)  Mathews, B. (25) Moody, S. (5) IIIIPerreault, L. (6) Whitten, W. (21) Young, M. (22) CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 3 / 2 / 1 / Wilson, L. (26) Saltmarsh, J. ( 19) Powers, J. (1) / LS: Cl NO. OF REFERRALS , --3------------------------------------ BM 1 1 1 -------------------------2------ BF WM 1 1 GRADE AND RACE WF 1 1 SUBJECT: GRADE 1 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Powers, J. (1) BSaltmarsh, J. (19) Wilson, L. (26) CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 10 8 6 4 2 / 0 Wilson, L. (26) Thomas, L. (0) Powers, J. (1) Hargrave, L. (1) Fuselier, A (18) NO. OF REFERRALS ------2-----------2------------------ BM 3 2 2 1 1 BF 1 1 WM 2 GRADE AND RACE WF 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Wilson, L. (26) !illlThomas, L. (0)  Powers, J. (1) ml Hargrave, L. (1) Fuselier, A (18) SUBJECT: GRADE 2 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 8 7 ,/ 6 / 5 ,/ 4 ,/ 3 / 2 ,/ 1 ,/ NO. OF REFERRALS __ ]_ __________________________________ _ / ----2-------------------------- 0 ---~--~-~--- BM BF WM WF Warrior, W. (0) 1 0 0 Sheppard, K. (5) 3 Pace, S. (1) 1 Hargrave, L. (1) 1 Cummings, L. (3) 1 Bryant, R. (12) 2 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: GRADE 3 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Bryant, R. (12) ll!Cummings, L. (3) ~Hargrave, L. (1) II Pace, S. (1)  Sheppard, K. (5) Warrior, W. (0) CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 12 10 / 8 / 6 / 4 / 2 / 0 Wilson, L. (26) Sheppard, K. (5) Powers, J. (1) Pace, S. (6) Hargrave, L. (1) Fulmer, L. (4) NO. OF REFERRALS 11 BM 2 1 1 1 1 5 -----8----------------------------- BF 2 1 1 1 3 1 WM 1 RACE AND GENDER WF 0 SUBJECT: GRADE 4 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Wilson, L. (26)  Sheppard, K. (5) Iii Powers, J. ( 1)  Pace, S. (6) ll!'!!lllHargraveL, . (1) l!!IIFulmer, L. (4) CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / --12---------------------------------- 12 8 / 4 3 0 BM BF WM WF Warrior, L. (0) 1 0 Slattery, L. (12) 1 Powers, J. (1) 2 Pace, S. (6) 2 Harris, M. (3) 1 Hargrave, L. (1) 2 1 Gaines, H. (1) 1 Fulmer, L. (4) 1 Anderson, S. (24) 2 1 SUBJECT: GRADE 5 RACE AND GENDER TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Anderson, S. (24) liil!Fulmer, L. (4) B:?i!GainesH, . (1) l!li!Hargrave, L. (1)  Harris, M. (3)  Pace, S. (6) Powers, J. (1) lil!Slattery, L. (12) Warrior, L. (0) CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 25 20 / 15 10 5 / NO. OF REFERRALS t-,,,,-,-~=\"\"\" 0------------ Wilson, L. (26) Warrior, W. (0) Ware, E. (1) Slattery, L. ( 12) Powers, J. (1) BM 2 1 1 1 3 Hargrave, L. (1) 6 Gaines, H. (1) 7 Burnett, J. (20) 1 SUBJECT: GRADE 6 BF 1 1 2 WM 0 RACE AND GENDER WF 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Wilson, L. (26) warrior, W. (0) Ware, E. (1)  Slattery, L. (12) liiilPowers, J. (1)  Hargrave, L. (1) IIIIIGaines, H. (1) Burnett, J. (20) LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS // --- i ------------------------1-------------------- 1 / BM BF WM WF 0 ------,----------r-----,-------( TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Lowe, K. (14) 1 0 1 0 !Lowe, K. (14) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: GRADE 1 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY il i NO. OF REFERRALS 3 / 2 / 1 / Scott, S. (O) Lowe, K. (14) Cothern, L. (3) BM 1 1 1 SUBJECT: GRADE 2 BF WM 3 2 RACE AND GENDER uarters 1-3 (95-96) WF 0 ' F TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE @Scott, S. (0) Lowe, K. (14) IIICothern, L. (3) LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 1.2 1 / 0.8 , 0.6 , 0.4 , 0.2 , Lowe, K. (14) Huddleston, K. (1) , NO. OF REFERRALS , --1-------------------1--------------BM BF WM WF 1 0 0 1 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: GRADE 3 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Huddleston, K. (1) l!Rllowe, K. (14) LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 5 / ---4--------------------------------------------- 4 / 3 / -------2-------------------------------- 2 / 1 / 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Lowe, K. (14) 2 2 0 0 li!lllllowe, K. (14) Hickman, C. (2) 2 Hickman, C. (2) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: GRADE 4 l~\"ii\"',Z1 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 7 -------------0--------------------------- 6 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1 / / / / / . ----------- -----~----------------- 0 I'------,-----,-----,----- BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Lowe, K. (14) Kerth, K. (2) Hickman, C. (2) Cothern, L. (3) Briggs, A. (3) Barrett-Smith, G. (3) SUBJECT: GRADE 5\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\u003eOffice of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation\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_1453","title":"Report: ''1995-96 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1996-07-12"],"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 enrollment","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''1995-96 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1453"],"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":["191 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_262","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's Semiannual Monitoring Report, Volume 3","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":["1996-06-15"],"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 3"],"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/262"],"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":["84 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\nG ECOE CYCLE V MONITORING REPORT 642 ECOE MONITORING REPORT UPDATE: In the last monitoring report on the ECOE Cycle V schools, twenty-one schools within the three Pulaski County school districts were included. These were all to be schools which were assigned to Cycle V of the ECOE school improvement process. Please note that Pulaski Heights Elementary School was one of the schools reported to be in Cycle V. In actuality. it should have been Pulaski Heights Junior High School that was included in the February, 1996 monitoring report. Pulaski Heights Junior High School is a Cycle V ECOE school while Pulaski Heights Elementary School is a Cycle I ECOE school and should be reported in the 1996-97 monitoring reports. A report on the progress of Pulaski Height Junior High School in ECOE Cycle V is included in this document. CYCLE V PROGRE REPORT: During the spring semester of 1996 the Cycle V ECOE schools finalized the school improvement plan in preparation for the upcoming external team visit. Final decisions were made at the building level utilizing teaming acti,ities. The final document was submitted to the appropriate district office for printing or printing was done at the building level. The school improvement document wa then mailed to all team member for perusal prior to the external visit. A copy of the impro\\'em nt plan for each of the ECOE Cycle V school is included with thi report. The completion of the team vi it and the ubmitting of the team report to each choo] places the school at th implem ntation tag for trategies created through the ECOE proc ~. A copy of the improvem nt plan for each of th ycle V ECOE school is on file at th AD . TEAM VI IT External team ,, re e tabli. hed during the foll and pring in preparation for late spring \\'i it date . Team compo ition g nerall) included a chairp r on from the rkan as Department of Education. cla ro m teacher.' and r pre entatiYe from ollege and l 1niversitie . Th teams gen rally c n i t d of fi, e member'. Team re pon ibilitie during th two da  \\'i it included peru al of the accumulat d data at the chool ite. inter\\'iew with variou steering committe memb r and cla r om vi itation. orth entra] ssociation guidelin s and standard V\\ ere reviewed during the team vi it a w 11 a a ment of the chool impro ement proc r ferr d to as ECOE. The major re ult of the t\\\\ da ,t ma] t am \\'i it , a a writt n report generat d by th t am ba ed on the ob rvati n mad during th vi it. This \\vritt n report contain tr ngth and recommendation of th ch I impr ,, m nt proce plu a narrati e that incorporat th chool improvement proce . th t am vi it acti, itie and th crit ria. Thi writt n report i mai 1 d to th appropriate up rint ndent a ,, ell a each eparat chool withing thirty w rking day of the t am \\'i it. c P) f th team , i it r p rt for each f th ycle cho I i includ d in thi docum nt. 643  DATA UTILIZATION: Each Cycle V school collected data in preparation for making decisions in the school improvement process. Three types of data ,\nvere used in this process. Those data types were perceptual, archival and achievement. A perceptual instrument was utilized by each school in the data collection process. Students, parents and teachers were surveyed in order to gather information about cunent perceptions of stakeholders of each particular school. Needs assessments were conducted based on the results and interpretations of these data types. Decisions as to potential strategies to address identified needs were made utilizing teaming methods and were based on data findings. brainstorming activities and current educational research. Each school ECOE improvement plan included narratives that describe the data and how they were utilized in the decision making processes. References to various data types and uses are generally found in several places within the school improvement document. The most notable data reference are found in the school profile or review of data and in the four target narratives. 644 AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL :!\\ORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ~ORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72118 FEBRUARY 20 - 21, 1996 REPORT OF THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTE\\TIED CO~1PREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION Submitted to: !\\1r. James Smith, Superintendent March 25, 1996 Ms. Beverly Kelso Principal, Amboy Elementary School Copies to: Dr. Emma Bass NCA State Director Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director, ADE Mr. James A. Hester Co-Coordinator, Field SerYices Ms. Suzy Shaunfield Steering Committee Chairperson Compiled by Mr. Bob Paulovich Field Services Specialist 645  NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION FEBRUARY 20 - 21, 1996 AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NCA/ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. BOB P AULOVICH, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Mr. Ron Looper, Chairperson Staff Development Specialist Little Rock School District 600 South Ringold Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mrs. Ann Biggers Administrator of Gifted Programs Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall= Room 105-C Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dr. Bob Lump kins Professor of Elementary Education Henderson State University P.O. Box 7644 Arkadelphia, Arkansas 71999 646 Mrs. Donna Brown Teacher Perrin Elementary School 1201 Smithers Drive Benton, Arkansas 72015 Mr. Dean Burbank Collegeville Elementary School Bryant School District 200 Northwest 4th St. Bryant, Arkansas 72022 FOREWORD On February 20-21, 1996 five rcprc ntatives of the Arkansas North Central Association/Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (NCA/ECOE) State Committee visited Amboy Elementary School. The comments in this report have been based on the visitors' observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas NCA/ECOE) State Committee that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Amboy Elementary School as they proceed with the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team, recommendations have been made to reinforce the school's conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different, but are in support of the school improvement team's conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The NCA/ECOE team would like to take this opportunity to thank the Amboy Elementary NCA/ECOE Steering Committee staff, administration, students. board, and community representatives for a superb two-day visit. The students and staff were most courteous, informative, and cooperative throughout the visit. The student guides certainly did their utmost to provide directions to specific areas and to assist with information. The food and various amenities provided by parents and local businesses added to an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks for making this NCA/ECOE team visit valuable through the process utilized and the School Improvement Plan de eloped to meet the needs of all the students at Amboy Elementary. 647 CHAIR SUMMARY: VISITING TEAM REPORT Amboy Accelerated Elementary School is located in a neighborhood setting, two blocks from McArthur Drive. It is one of fifteen elementary schools in the North Little Rock School District. The school population of 400 students which is very mobile with 20% of the students being bused from other neighborhoods. The racial makeup of the school is 53% black and 47% white. The staff consists of the principal. a half-time assistant principal, 21 certified staff members, and 21 non-certified. The school plant and grounds seemed to be well utilized to encompass the school population and programs. Modifications have been made in the building to provide a more structured environment for the teaching learning process. The NCA/ECOE Self Study Process which began in February of 1995, actually became an extension of the Accelerated School Problem Solving Model. As they began looking at the ECOE process, the faculty found a direct correlation between the frameworks of both. Teams were already in place from the Accelerated Program in which they called cadres.\" These teams began working in the target areas as a part of the school improvement process. The following targets were selected for improvement: 1. School Climate\n2. Parent and Commuruty Involvement\n3. Clear School Purpose: and 4. Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement. They began with the review of the mission statement and ex:1.mined it to find the degree to which it met the philosophy and beliefs of the schools constituents. Within the accelerated program, achievement data collection and analysis had already begun. The data was broken down and graphed by student populations of black males, white males, black females, and white females. The progress of the district was also charted as a means of identifying needs. The perceptual data was categorized by combining strongly agree and agree scores in one category, and strongly disagree along with disagree scores in another. The perceptual data was used as a means of support for selecting the targets. A vast amount of archival data was also used in the process. The staff interviews and meeting notes indicated that all members of the school were involved in the school improvement process. There was evidence throughout the school improvement plan that the vision was the driving force for Amboy Elementary School and Community. 648 District Recommendations There are none to report at this time. School Improvement Recommendations: 1.  The Committee recommends the identification of specific actions designed for the subpopulations. 2. The committee recommends that a specific person (position) be identified to be responsible for completing the action. 3. The sidewalk between the portable building and the main building needs a guard over the gutter drain. 4. Replace the tile that is cracked. 5. Medications need to be in a locked area. 649 SCHOOL CLIMATE Strengths: 1. Repairing the parking lot and installing new lighting facilitates better access to the school and promotes a safe physical environment. 2. The staff of Amboy Elementary has promoted a love for reading through the \"Read Me A Rainbow\" program. 3. An intervention class has been established to eliminate distractions in the regular classroom. This program is a means of in-school suspension. Recommendations: 1. Resources, such as PT A funds and fund raisers,needs to be pursued to further improve the playground and any other area the faculty chooses to aesthetically improve. 2. Involve grandparents~ parents, and students, along with the teachers. in choices concerning aesthetic improvements in the school. 3. In-service training should be given to all the noncertified staff involved in lunch or recess supervision dealing \\Vith behavior problems and proper management of students. PARE T AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Strengths: 1. A number of special programs have been implemented along with plans for additional programs which have the potential of informing and involving parents and the community (For example, DARE, STARS, VIPS, CHAMPS, READING RECOVERY, READING RAINBOW). 2. The availability of extension telephones in each major area of the school facility facilitates better teacher-parent communication. 3. A monthly newsletter is sent to parents during the school year which provides parents with information relative to school events, special programs, etc. 4. Student work displayed throughout the school plant demonstrates an emphasis on learning and achievement on how parents and community leaders visit the building. 650 5. Teachers, students. and staff personnel demonstrate pride in their school by the general cleanliness of the facility and visual displays. Recommendations: 1. The parent information center has the potential of providing a viable service to parents, but additional planning may be needed relative to its physical location. 2. An ad hoc committee composed of teachers, parents, community, and business leaders should be formed to re-examine the proposed plan for piloting.the teacher-parent communication system. 3. The five year plan may need revising after the 1996/1997 school term. For example, action #2 on page 31 addresses a school wide behavior plan which should be moved to year two or three. 4. Continued efforts should be made to alleviate bus and automobile traffic flow problems. A comprehensive plan may require the construction and/or development of additional parking areas. The plan should also address adding loading and unloading sites for buses and automobiles. 5. Teachers, students. and parent volunteers may assume the responsibility for publishing the monthly newsletter. 6. The school plant appears to be due for routine maintenance and repair. This may include painting (interior and exterior) replacement of missing floor tiles, etc. CLEARS CHOOLP URPOSE Strengths: 1. It is very evident that the school's improvement plan (Clear School Purpose) was well planned. Teachers, students and parents were involved in the planning, surveying and carrying out the whole process of the plan. 2. Campus mission statement and motto was posted throughout the building. Students were involved in activities to learn what the mission of the campus was by: Making announcements on the speaker, writing assignments, what Amboy means to me, classroom discussions, taking the mission into parts and letting students tell what it means, (plays, role playing) and going over it at PT A meetings. 3. The staff was involved in every aspect of the ECOE plan. Data gathering began in 1994 and analyzed by the staff in 1995. 651 3. A monthly newsletter is written to inform parents of the mission, current affairs, projects, etc. Recommendations: 1. The improvement plan actions should be reviewed yearly to determine if actions in years two - five could be moved up. 2. Campus mission statement should be large enough to be visible and readable. 3. Prepare a system of orientation for new parents/students to familiarize parents/students with the mission of the campus, programs, curriculum, volunteer opportunities, campus schedules, etc. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. The infusion of the many varied reading~ math, and writing activities into all aspects of the curriculum helps stimulate motivation of students and makes curriculum relevant. 2. Using other materials and pieces of literature beyond the district reading text to teach reading and its connectedness to all aspects of the curriculum is commendable. 3. The enthusiasm and dedication of faculty can be seen throughout the entire school. Recommendations: 1. Explore specific instructional strategies, such as the Shared Inquiry Method, of discussing literature from the Junior Great Books Program that could add to the success of the reading program. 2. To better meet the needs of all students, consider in-service on Learning Styles for all faculty and staff. 3. Contact a specialist from higher education and/or Arkansas Department of Education for a variety of ideas that have proven sound for increasing reading scores\ntherefore decreasing disparity. 4. Review the literature to analyze what other schools with similar concerns have done to help alleviate the problem of disparity in similar areas. 653 Perceptual Survey Use: Amboy Elementary School Amboy Elementary School analyzed the perceptual data and noted the following weaknesses: Only 55% of the parents felt the building and grounds were in good repair. Parents and students did not understand the vision and School purpose of Amboy. Parents did not understand or promote the instructional program. More motivational speakers were needed. As a result, the following outcomes and actions were developed: To improve parent and student perceptions concerning an attractive and inviting  campus. Students. staff. and community will increase understanding of and respect for Amboy's vision. To increase parental involvement in instructional programs. Contact community organizations for motivational speakers. 654 (J'\\ V1 V1 14 ELEMENTS IN THE ALLEN LETTER I. E idence that policie , procedures, rules and regulations are developed and implemented to facilitate de egregation. AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS EVIDENCE IN ECOESCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SITE VISITS ANNOUNCED A. Is Acti\\ ity Taking Place? B. Available Evidence A. Yes B. Document/Record Principal's Interview SITE VISITS UNANNOUNCED A. Is Activity Taking Place? 8. Available Evidence A. Yes B. Document/Record Principal's Interview Vl ' ' 2. Evidence that plan related to reducing achievement disparity between black and nonblack students are progressi ely successful. [mplement portfolio assessments, pp.18-19 Implement '\"Reading Across the Curriculum\". p.22 Develop reading incentives. p.23 Establish tudcnt author center, p.23 Provide behavioral rewards. p.13 Re earch factors contributing to absenteeism. p.15 Implement a parent student and teacher contract for homework completion, p.27 Invite guest speakers for special interest groups, p.27 Inform parents of student ' behavior on a consistent basis, p.31 A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Record B. Document/Record Principal\"s Interview Principal' s Interview O\"\\ VI -.....J \"I .) . 4. 5. 6. E idence that student as ignments to schools, classes and programs at each organizational le el are made without bia. Evidence that staff development days authoriz d as a re, ult of the Agreement are u ed to facilitate the d egregation process. E idence that travel time to and from school I not disproportionate among black and nonblack students and the percentage of black students transported for de egregation is not significantly greater than the percentage of non-black students transported for de gregation. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse tudent population. A revie\\v of grouping practices Student Profile ( comp ed. special ed. honor roll. gifted math students. Chapter I students. and summer School students). p.3 Encourage all staff members to attend K-4 Math Crusade, p.15 Test all students for Early Prevention of chool Failure, p.15 A . Yes A. Yes B. Document/Record B. Document/Record Principal's Interview Principal' s Interview A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Record B. Document/Record Principal's Interview Principal's Interview A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Record B. Document/Record . A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Record B. Document/Record Observation O'\\ V1 co 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appra1 smg or counseling students are non-discriminatory. A. Yes B. Document/Record Vl ' \\.0 8. Evidence that curricular content and instructional strategies are uti I ized to meet the diver e needs of the student population erved. Implement a parent student and teacher contract for homework completion. p.27 Invite guest speakers for special interest groups. p.27 Promote a Parent Week. p.29 Encourage all staff members to attend K-4 Math Crusade. p.15 Extend Reading Recovery to include students in K-3. p.15 Establish a bulletin board to highlight parental involvement. p.29 Familiarize parents with appropriate books/reading material . p.30 Research factors that contribute to students scoring in the lowest quartile. p.15. Examine literature for strategies in reading and writing that would affect disparity. p. 16 A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Record B. Document/Record Principars Interview Principal' s Interview (J'\\ (J'\\ 0 9. 10. 11. Evidence that personnel I recruited, employed and assigned in a manner to meet the goals of a de egregating school di trict. E idence that procedures related to extracurricular and cocurricular acti ities arc developed and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the tudent population. E idence of diverse repre entation on appointed district wide and chool-based committees. A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Record B. Document/Record Principal's InterYi w Principal' s Interview A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Recor=l B. Document/Record A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Recor B. Document/Record Principal' s Intervi w Principal s Interview (J'\\ (J'\\ t--' 12. 13. 14. Evidence of efforts to ensure that parent attendance at school functions is not disproportionate to the student population. Evidence of success related to Majority to Minority transfers Evidence that magnet schools are an effective i nterdistrict remedy for racial balance. Written invitations to parents during School hours, p.12 Invite parents as speakers. p.25 Utilization of parent and community VIPS volunteers. p.25 Organize a parent talent show. p.26 Contact community organization for speakers. p.26 A. Yes A. Yes 8. Document/Record 8. Document/Record A. Yes A. Yes B. Desegregation Files 8. Desegregation Files A. NIA 8. NIA B. NIA Copies to: BAKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72211 APRIL 2 - 3, 1996 REPORT OF THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTE DED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION Submitted to: Mr. Bobby Lester, Superintendent May 24, 1996 Ms. Ila ewberry PrincipaL Baker Elementary School Ms. Peggy Mears teering Committee Chairperson Compiled by: Mr. John 1cKinnon Field Services Specialist Dr. Emma Bas NCA State Director Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director, ADE Mr. James A. Hester Co-Coordinator. Field Services 662 NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION APRIL 2 - 3, 1996 BAKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NCA/ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. JOHN MCKINNON, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Mr. Bob Paulovich, Chairperson Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 Ms. Susan Beard, Teacher Terry Elementary School 10800 Mara Lynn Drive Little Rock. Arkansas 72211 Ms. Sue Walls Instructional Resources Center Little Rock School District 600 South Ringo Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 663 Ms. Donna Stiles, Teacher Bale Elementary School 6501 West 32nd Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Dr. Jody Musgrove, Professor Center for Academic Excellence University of Central Arkansas Box 5006 201 Donaghey Conway. Arkansas 72035 FOREWORD On April 2 -3, 1996, five representatives of the Arkansas North Central Association/Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (NCA/ECOE) State Committee visited Baker Elementary School. The comments in this report have been based on the visitors' observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas NCA/ECOE State committee that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Baker Elementary School as they proceed with the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team. recommendations have been made to reinforce the School's conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases. will not be new and different, but are in support of the School improvement team s conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The NCA/ECOE team would like to take this opportunity to thank the Baker Elementary NCA/ECOE Steering Committee. staff. administration. students. board and community representatives for a superb two-day visit. The students and staff were most courteous. informative. and cooperative throughout the ,isit. The student guides certainly did their utmost to provide direction to specific areas and to assist with information. The food and various amenities provided by parent and local businesses added to an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks for making this CA/ECOE team visit valuable through the process utilized and the School Improvement Plan developed to meet the needs of all the students at Baker Elementary School. 664 CHAIR SUMMARY: VISITING TEAM REPORT J. W. Baker Interdistrict Elementary School is located in western Little Rock. It currently serves students in kindergarten through sixth grade. The building was constructed in 1959, and is in excellent repair. Recently, four classrooms. a multipurpose room. and a twenty-eight station computer Jab. The Schoo] has several specialty programs. Alpha. LEAP. Extended Day Care, and an awardwinning Economic Specialty Program are all incorporated into the School day. The staff at Baker Interdistrict Elementary School consists of twenty seven percent black and seventy three percent white personnel. It includes fourteen regular classroom teachers. two re ourc t ach rs. one Alpha teacher. one LEAP t ach r. one coun elor, one media peciali t one economic specialist and several paraprofessionals. Baker Elementary School began the NCA/ECOE proces during 1994, and the process continued until April 1996, when the NCA/ECOE visiting team was on campus. The principal, Ms. Ila ewberry. appointed the steering committee chairperson, and together they selected the steering committee. The steering committee was responsible for the distribution, collection, and analysis of the perceptual. archival. and achievement data. After close examination of the archi\\'al and achie\\'ement data. the staff selected the following targets for improvement: 1. Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement 2. School Climate~ 3. Time on Task/Opportunity To Learn\nand 4. High Expectations. Later, four target area subcommittees were formed and each was chaired by one member of the steering committee. The faculty developed outcomes and actions during the spring of 1995. Implementation began Augu t of 1995. It is evident to the visiting team, that the steering committee provided outstanding leadership throughout the NCA/ECOE process at Baker Elementary. A high level of enthusiasm exists among staff regarding the chool 's plans for impro ement. All faculty members were in vol ed in the process. and are knO\\: ledgeable of the process and the plan. A student profile wa developed emphasizing that there is a need to reduce the disparity between black and v bite 665 students and the plan was written with the subpopulation in mind. The visiting team would like to commend the faculty for the efforts. and we realize the process was difficult and time consuming. We hope our input will help improve an already strong ECOE report. District Recommendations: There are none to report at this time. School Improvement Recommendations: 1. Being that the perceptual surveys were not made available to the staff, the visiting team strongly recommends to re-survey faculty, parents, and students and compare the results to the improvement plan. 2. The visiting team strongly recommends that during early morning planning time, students be monitored in an area other than classrooms in order to provide uninterrupted planning time. 3. Cover exposed concrete edges of the front basketball concrete for safety reasons .. 4. In order to ensure action implementation. specify a specific person responsible by position. 5. In order to have a five-year plan, continue to col1ect and analyze the data and continue to develop the School Improvement Plan. 6. The perceptual data should be available to the faculty for School improvement development. 7. Actions should be developed to a higher degree of specificity. 666 MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. The staff provides for a variety of techniques, including the use of technology on a regular basis, to improve reading comprehension and Stanford 8 scores. 2. The staff utilizes a potent resource at Baker, parent volunteers. for tutoring in reading comprehension and good test taking skills. 3. The staff verifies evidence that all items listed on the time line have taken place to date. Recommendations: 1. Further refine the frequency/value of alternative measures. such as portfolios. 2. Work with media specialist. teachers. and parents to provide more media center time or alternate access to printed material. 3. Refine the prescription sheet/prescription folders to list specific strategies of concern/ instruction based on tanford 8 comprehensive reading sub-scores. SCHOOL CLIMATE Strengths: 1. The School is a safe place to work. 2. Good di cipline exi ts in clas rooms. 3. Students take pride and are proud of their School. 4. Teachers and student were on task and good learning was taking place. Recommendations: 1. An outcome for disciplin management plan could be separate from the safety and 667 security of students. 2. Continue to develop School spirit activities ongoing in years two through five. OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN/TIME ON TASK Strengths: 1. Classrooms are organized to provide instructional opportunities for a variety of learning styles. 2. Classroom disruptions are kept to a minimum helping maximize time on task. 3. The facility is attractive and well maintained, creating an atmosphere conducive to learning. 4. Cooperative learning strategies are in evidence. 5. Creative strategies for integrating economic into the curriculum are evident in most areas of the School. 6. An active Economics Education Speciali tis an obvious asset to their program. 7. The program of parents serving as tutors for students needing help in reading is commendable. Recommendation : 1. An ongoing program of staff development in integrating economics into the curriculum is needed and would be very beneficial in helping new teachers and teachers not well-versed in economic education. 2. The outcome identified on page 34 of the plan is in reality an action and is listed as action on page 36. This needs clarification. 3. The time line for this part of the plan needs serious revision. In essence, this portion of the plan has nothing beyond January 1996, and the actions listed have not been compl t d. 668 4. Specific instructional strategies should be identified to help reduce the disparity in test scores between black and white students. There strategies (i.e., peer tutoring) should be incorporated into the plan .. 5. How the actions identified on page 36 of the plan will bring about the desired goal needs to be more clearly explained. HIGH EXPECTATIONS Strengths: 1. The administrators/teachers effectively use the \"Real-Life\" Economics program to achieve the desired outcome. 2. Displays of student work were commendable. 3. Use of School-wide motivational speakers appears to be an effective tool. Recommendations: 1. Survey data that revealed concerns leading to the choice of High Expectations as a target area should be available for review. 2. Continue to enlist the aid of the faculty and staff to submit topics and motivational speakers on a monthly basis. Consider the use of a young speaker such as a high School student body president, valedictorian, etc. Younger children can be positively influenced by older children. 3. Additional actions should be developed for years two through five of the ECOE cycle. 669 a PERCEPTUAL SURVEY USE: BAKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Perceptual surveys were administered by the School, but the results were not used in developing the School improvement plan because, according to the School, the results were lost. 670 BAKER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 14 ELEMENTS IN THE STRATEGIES TO SITE VISITS SITE VISITS ALLEN LETTER ADDRESS EVIDENCE IN ANNOU CED UNANNOUNCED ECOESCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1. Evidence that policies, Revise and implement A. Yes A. Yes procedures, rules and Discipline Management Plan. regulations are developed p.19 B. Document /record B. Document/record and implemented to Principal's lnterview Principal' s Interview facilitate desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans Incentive program. A. No A. Yes related to reducing p.24 achievement disparity B. ADE Desegregation Files B. Documentation/record between black and Improve test-taking Principal's Interview nonblack students are skills, p. 30 progressively successful. 3. Evidence that student A. Yes A. Yes assignments to schools, classes and programs at B. ADE Desegregation Files B. Documentation/record each organizational level Principal' s Interview are made without bias. 4. Evidence that staff Teaching/learning styles, p.25 A. Yes A. Yes development days authorized as a result of B. Document/record B. Document/record the Agreement are used to Principal' s Interview Principal' s Interview facilitate the desegregation process. ()'I -.J N 5. 6. 7. 8. Evidence that travel time to and from school is not disproportionate among black and nonblack students and the percentage of black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the percentage of non-black students transported for desegregation. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are non-discriminatory. Evidence that curricular Utilize computer lab, content and instructional p.28 strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of Increase use of media the student population p.29 served. A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record center. Observation Observation Conference Conference Principal' s Interview 9. Evidence that personnel A. Yes A. Yes is recruited, employed and assigned in a manner B. Document/record B. Document/record to meet the goals of a Principal's Interview Principal's Interview desegregating school district. 10. Evidence that procedures Implement Student CounciL A. Yes A. Yes related t extracurricular p.20 and cocurricular acti itics B. Document/record B. Document/record arc dev loped and Implement Student implemented to identify Ambassadors. p.20 and eliminate conditions that re ult in participation that is disproportionate to the tudent population. 11. Evidence of diverse A. Yes A. Yes representation on appointed district wide B. Document/record B. Document/record and schoo I-based Confernce committees. Principars Interview 12. Evidence of efforts to A. Yes A. Yes ensure that parent attendance at school B. Document/Record B. Document/record function is not disproportionate to the tudent population. 13. Evidence of success A. NIA A. NIA related to Majority to Minority transfers 8. No M-to-M students were B. No M-to-M students were reported reported 14. Evidence that magnet A. NIA A. NIA chools are an effective interdistrict remedy for B. NIA B. NIA racial balance. CARVER MAGNET SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 APRIL 22 - 23, 1996 REPORT OF THE ORTH CE TRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTE DED COMPREHE SIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION Copies to: Dr. Emma Bas N CA State Director Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director, ADE Mr. James a. Hester Co-Coordinator_ Field er ice Submitted to: Dr. Henry William , Superintendent May 24, 1996 Ms. Diane Barksdale Principal. Carver Magnet School M . Linda Amm 1 and s. Mary mith 't ering Committee Co-Chairpersons Compiled by: Mr. David Watts Field Services pecialist 675 NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION APRIL 22 - 23, 1996 CARVER MAGNET SCHOOL NCA/ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. DAVID WATTS, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Mrs. Alice Simelton. Chairperson Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall. Room 301-B Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 Ms. Kim Hearn. Teacher Harris Elementary School 4424 Highway 161, North No. Little Rock. Arkansas 7211 7 Ms. Carla Batton. Teacher Boone Park Elementary School 1400 Crutcher 't. No. Little Rock. Arkansas 72114 676 Ms. Debbie Barnes, Professor University of Central Arkansas 201 Donaghey Avenue Conway, Arkansas 72035-0001 Ms. Susie Jackson. Principal Indian Hills Elementary School 6800 Indian Hills Drive o. Little Rock, Arkansas 72116 FOREWORD On April 22 - 23, 1996, five representatives of the Arkansas North Central Association/Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (NCA/ECOE) State Committee visited Carver Magnet School. The comments in this report have been based on the visitors' observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas NCA/ECOE State committee that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Carver Magnet School as they proceed with the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team. recommendations have been made to reinforce the School's conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases. will not be new and different but are in support of the School improvement team's conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster fmiher service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The NCA/ECOE team would like to take this opportunity to thank the Carver Magnet NCA/ECOE Steering Committee. staff. administration, students. board. and community representatives for a superb t,\\o-day visit. The students and staff were most courteous. informative. and cooperati\\'e throughout the \\'i it. The student guides certainly did their utmost to provide directions to specific areas and to a sist with information. The food and various amenities pro\\'ided by parents and local businesses added to an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks for making this CA/ECOE team visit valuable through the process utilized and the School Improvement Plan developed to meet the needs of all the students at Carver Magnet School. 677 CHAIR SUMMARY: VISITING TEAM REPORT Carver Magnet School began their self-study during the fall 1994-95 School year. with the assistance of Field Services Specialists from the Arkansas Department of Education. a Schoolwide meeting was held to explain the self-study process. The principal, Ms. Diane Barksdale, appointed a Building Steering Committee to organize this effort. The steering committee established four subcommittees to begin the distribution, collection, and disaggregation of achievement, archival, and perceptual data. After close examination of all data, the staff selected the following targets for improvement: 1. High Expectations\n2. Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement\n3. Parent and Communit  Involvement and 4. School Climate. During the early stages of the School improvement process, the staff, with the involvement of parents, developed a vision statement. Afterwards, specific learner outcomes were developed for concentration for the next five years. Target committees were selected and began additional data collection in order to determine outcomes for the School Improvement Plan. It is evident to the visiting team that the steering committee worked diligently throughout the NCA/ECOE process at Carver Magnet School. The faculty was involved in the process and communicated a sense of pride in the success of their efforts. They intend to follow through with their plan to evaluate its success for regular revision. Administrative support, both district and building level, was provided for the staff tluoughout the self-evaluation. Arrangements were made to provide release time for committees, and there was continuous support from the Arkansas Department of Education. The Carver Magnet School Educational Programs are designed to ensure that quality programs are accessible for all students. Programs are being implemented that reflect the schools' mission/vision statement and goals. The curriculum is broad in scope and provides for individual differences through a variety of programs. Through the NCA/ECOE self-study, the staff has assessed the effectiveness of the schools' instructional program and has developed a plan for improvement of the programs. Support of the core instructional program is provided through guidance services by two full-time counselors and two media specialists. Carver is a Science and Math Magnet setting with a computer lab and a star planetarium. Hands on manipulatives, models, problem solving, and critical thinking skills are emphasized. The math and science labs are equipped with state of the 678 art materials and equipment to appeal to students varying learning modalities. Classrooms are equipped with closed circuit cable television, computers. and video cassette recorders. The School is to be commended on working toward equity in staffing. There are two male teachers on staff and both administrators are female. Th~ outcomes process has been internalized by the staff at Carver magnet School. The visiting team had a very productive visit time at the School site, and they commend them for their efforts. We offer the following recommendations. District Recommendations: There are none to report at this time. School Improvement Recommendations: 1. Include research from Gold Files in the School improvement process. 2. Continuously review the ECOE process to ensure that it is ongoing. 679 HIGH EXPECTATIONS Strengths: 1. Students and faculty are extremely polite and friendly. 2. There are extensive programs available to students which provide hands-on experiences. 3. Teachers use a variety of teaching techniques and methods. Recommendations: 1. Further develop the proce s for writing the improvement plan. Use survey results and other data to create specific objectives and outcomes. then write actions which directly relate to the objectives. 2. The Improvement Plan should be written for five years with more detail given to years one and two. 3. Prepare a plan to impl m nt specific program (example: in-School postal service. consistent portfolio evaluation system) which will develop and improve the programs. 4. Include areas from the narrative in the actions if appropriate (Carver's Courteous Kid ). 5. Continuously review the mission statement for understanding by all stakeholders. SCHOOL CLIMATE trengths: 1. Carver magnet has a broad variety of activities and opportunities for students within the pull-out programs offered. 2. Teachers at Carver magnet do a great job displaying student work throughout the building. 680 ,, E: ,,. ....... Recommendations: 1. 2. 3. The visiting team recommends incorporating a glossary of terms to identify words and acronyms in the ECOE plan. Consideration should be given to realignment of actions and goals, so actions are specifically directed toward a certain goal. The School should explore possibilities of involving students on the ECOE conunittees. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUD\"ENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. Students are provided an opportunity to be interactive learners. 2. Classrooms reflect \"print\"' to reinforce skills taught. 3. Multiple assessments are used. 4. Students appear to be very open and friendly. 5. The staff appears to be cooperative. Recommendations: 1. Utilize the results of all assessment tools to help plan instructional strategies to decrease disparities among subgroups. 2. Provide in-depth training to provide an understanding of the ECOE process. 3. List preexisting programs or strategies separately or designate which are new and which were previously in use. 4. Utilize data relevant to School improvement. 5. Specify beginning dates and ending dates for each action. 6. Denote names of persons responsible for implementing each action. 681 7. Record minutes for each committee meeting. 8. Research publications to provide data to assist in formulating actions to address disparities. 9. Designate specific strategies to decrease the drastic differences between math and science. PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Strengths: 1. The Carver newsletter is a wonderful way to communicate with the parents. 2. The parenting classes offered by the counselors is a wonderful program for parents. 3. The Men of Carver program is a great way to encourage male involvement at Carver Magnet. 4. The parent involvement in School activities and decisions is extremely high. Recommendation : 1. The visiting team recommend that each action in a plan should have staff development. 2. It is recommended that the time line should be more specific to the month and date. 3. Consideration should be given to including the Men of Carver program to the plan. 682 PERCEPTUAL SURVEY RESULTS: CARVER MAGNET SCHOOL Upon reviewing the results of the Little Rock School District Climate Survey, the Carver ECOE committees identified the following needs: Students lack a sense of the value of education. Teachers need to improve planning in order to address the needs of all students. Parental awareness of all programs/procedures at Carver is often inadequate. Some students do not enjoy being at School. Based on these findings, several examples of the selected outcomes are listed below: Incorporate a variety of teaching strategies to address the needs of all students. Increase awareness of programs/procedures on the part of the Carver parents. Improve the quality and type of staff development activities for teachers. Incorporate multiple assessment techniques. 683 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD 14 ELEMENTS IN THE STRATEGIES TO SITE VISITS SITE VISITS ALLEN LETTER ADDRESS EVIDENCE IN ANNOUNCED UNANNOUNCED ECOESCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN A. Is Activity Taking A. Is Activity Taking Place? Place? B. Available Evidence. B. Available Evidence. 1. Evidence that policie . Provide staff training on A. Yes A. Yes procedures, rules and po itive di cipline and conflict regulations are developed resolution. p.37 B. Document/Record B. Document/Record and implemented to Principal's Interview Principal' s Interview facilitate desegregation. Provide parenting classes. p. 47 a recruitment team will be established. p.3 7 co' Vl 2. Evidence that plans related to reducing achievement disparity between black and nonblack students are progressively successful. Summer reading intervention A. Yes A. Yes program for K-2 students B. Document/Record B. Document/Record Math inventories Principal's Interview Principal's Interview Observation Observation Use of Kilgore observation inventory Use of portfolio assessment EPSF program to assess Kindergarten students. pp.2 7- 28 Summer reading intervention program. p. 2 7 Use of the Phelps Kindergarten Readiness Scale. p.28 Rhythm of Reading summer program. EPSF program Enrichment classes will be provided for ALL students in grades K-2, p.20 Reading inventories used with all students with difficulties Q'\\ co Q'\\ ,, ..). E idence that student assignments to schools. cla ses and programs at each organizational level arc made without bias. Cooperative learning will be A. Yes A. Yes used in classrooms B. Document/Record B. Document/Record Iland -on activities will be Observation Principal' s Interview used in integrating curriculum Principal's Interview areas. p.21 .. ummer reading intervention program Reading inventories to students with reading difficulties Math inventories se of Kilgore observation inventory Josten Learning System reports will be used Portfolio assessment will be implemented EPSF program used. pp. 27- 28 Summer reading intervention program Reading inventories. Portfolio 4. Evidence that staff Schedule taff training in A. Yes A. Yes development days positive discipline and conflict authorized as a result of resolution. p.3 7 B. Document/Record B. Document/Record the Agreement are used to Principal's Interview Principal's Interview facilitate the de gregation process. 5. ~ idence that travel time A. Yes A. Yes to and from , chool i not disproportionat among B. Document/Record B. Document/Record black and nonblack tudents and the percentage of black tudent transported for desegregation is not ignificantly greater than Q\"\\ 00 the percentage of non- -..J black students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance A. Yes A. Yes and counseling is . designed to meet the B. Document/Record B. Document/Record needs of a diverse student population. 7. Evidence of internal A. Yes A. Yes procedures for ensuring that materials for B. Document/Record B. Document/Record appraising or counseling tudent are non-di criminatory. 8. Evidence that curricular Expand the schedule of multi- A. Yes A. Yes content and instructional cultural speakers for students. strategies are utilized to staff and parents. p.38 B. Document/Record B. Document/Record meet the diverse needs of Observation Principal' s Interview the tudent population Principal's Interview r d. 9. Evidence that personnel A. Yes A. Yes is recruited. employed and a signed in a manner B. Document/Record B. Document/Record t meet the goal of a Observation Principal's Interview de egregating school Principal s I ntcrview district. IO. Evidence that procedures A. Yes A. Yes related to extracurricular ffi co and cocurricular activities B. Document/Record B. Document/Record arc de eloped and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the tudent population. 1 I. Evidence of diver e A. Yes A. Yes representation on appointed district wide B. Document/Record B. Document/Record and school-based Principal's Interview Principal's Interview committees. 12. Evidence of efforts to Increase parental A. Yes A. Yes ensure that parent communication through u e of attendance at school the '\"Car er Courier .. and B. Document/Report B. Document/Report functions i not 'Carver Magnet Live. .. p.37 Principal's Interview disproportionate to the tudent population. Adjust parent conference times to better meet the needs of parents Increase use of\"positi\\'c corrc pondcncc Parenting clas cs wi 11 be offered. p. 4 7 13. E idence or ucccs /\\. NIA A. Yes (J'\\ co related to Majority to \\.0 Minority tran fer B. No M-to-M Students B. Document/Record Reported Principal's Interview 14. Evidence that magnet Student work will be displayed A. Yes A. Yes chools are an effective at Magnet Fair interdistrict remedy for B. ADE Desegregation B. Document/Record racial balance. Music students will perform at files Principal s Interview Magnet Fair. p.3 7 Copies to: CATO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72120 APRIL 2 - 3, 1996 REPORT OF THE ORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTE DED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION Submitted to: Mr. Bobby Lester, Superintendent May 24, 1996 Ms. Linda Remele Principal. Cato Elementary School Ms. Alice Robertson teering Committee Chairperson Compiled by: Mr. John McKinnon Field Services Specialist Dr. Emma Bas NCA State Director Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director, ADE Mr. James a. Hester Co-Coordinator. Field Ser ices 690 NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION APRIL 2 - 3, 1996 CATO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NCA/ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. JOHN MCKINNON, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Ms. Trish Hays, Chairperson Northwest Arkansas Education Service Cooperative 409 N. Thompson Springdale, Arkansas 72764 Ms. Shirley Rolax, Teacher Cloverdale Elementary School 6500 Hinkson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Ms. Sue Beck. Teacher Bryant Elementary School 200 NW 4th Street Bryant Arkansas 72022 691 Dr. Mary Rollins, Professor Arkansas Tech University Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Mr. Jerry Worm, Principal Meadowcliff Elementary School 25 Sheraton Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 FOREWORD On April 2 - 3, 1996, five representatives of the Arkansas North Central Association/Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (NCA/ECOE) State Committee visited Cato Elementary School. The comments in this report have been based on the visitors' observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas NCA/ECOE State committee that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Cato Elementary School as they proceed with the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team, recommendations have been made to reinforce the School's conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different but are in support of the School improvement team's conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The NCA/ECOE team would like to take this opportunity to thank the Cato Elementary CA/ECOE teering Committee. staff. administration. students, board. and community representatives for a superb two-day visit. The students and staff were most courteous, informative. and cooperative throughout the visit. The student guides certainly did their utmost to provide directions to specific areas and to assist \\Vith information. The food and various amenities provided by parents and local businesses added to an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks for making this CA/ECOE team visit valuable through the process utilized and the School Improvement Plan developed to meet the needs of all the students at Cato Elementary School. 692 CHAIR SUMMARY: VISITING TEAM REPORT Cato Road Elementary School began the NCA/ECOE self-study process in the fall of 1994. with the selection of a steering committee. The committee began their leadership of the NCA/ECOE process by creating the mission and outlining a method_ of collecting, disaggregating. and analyzing three types of data (achievement, archival and perceptual). Based on data collected, a student profile was developed for students scoring below the 50th percentile on the MA T-6 and SA T-8 standardized testing. a comparison of the data revealed a disparity between black and white students in all academic areas. The four correlates targeted for improvement were: 1. Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement:  2. Time on Task/ Opportunity to Learn~ 3. School Climate~ and 4. Parent and Community Involvement It was apparent that parents, support staff, community patrons, and students were all involved in the School improvement process. Numerous meetings were held throughout the School year to discuss strengths, concerns, and to research strategies prior to the formulation of the School improvement plan. The visiting team began their day with the School's principal and steering chairs presentation of an overview of their self-study and the development of their School Improvement Plan. Immediately following the School s orientation, the visiting team began the evaluation process with an orientation and review of achievement archival, and perceptual data prepared by the Cato Elementary School staff. Individual team members toured the facility, visited with their respective chairperson, and interviewed committee members to gather additional information to clarify any portion of the process or School Improvement Plan. The building was well kept, attractive, in good repair, and the open area concept was well organized and conducive to learning. The classrooms were 'colorfur' and contained vital information relative to themes and concepts being presented. Tours of the School validated the teachers' willingness to work as teams within their grade level areas and to include and promote the involvement of parents and community patrons as volunteers. In general, the data base for subpopulations is adequate and may be used by teachers and administrative personnel to modify instructional and programmatic strategies. Processes are being developed to evaluate programs and actions implemented for the purpose of reducing achievement disparity between the major demographic groups and raising the achievement level of low performing subgroups. 693 The goals, which have been articulated, are linked to the mission appropriate for each correlate and the direction of the program. Their processes and planning are on target and are coordinated with the existing desegregation plan the district has been implementing. In-service and professional de elopment programs have been implemented in order to provide staff with innovative and researched based strategies. An example of one program is the conflict resolution program. This particular program is a student centered, student driven, and student initiated program. The program allows students to become resolvers of their own conflict, thus encouraging self-discipline and responsibility for their own actions. It was evident to the visiting team that the steering committee provided outstanding leadership throughout the NCA/ECOE process. Strong administrative support, both district and building level, was provided for staff throughout the self-study. The staff sought not only to meet the intent of the School improvement process, but also exemplified the spirit of the process. All staff members involved in the process were knowledgeable of the process and the plan, communicated a sense of pride in their efforts. and will continue with their plan and evaluate its effectiveness. In general, the Cato Elementary chool is to be commended for their well organized plan and their comprehensive efforts. The visiting team had a very productive two days and offer the following recommendations for continued improvement: District Recommendations: There are none to report at this time. School Improvement Recommendations: 1. Maintain the steering committee and continue the use of release time for the staff to monitor the progress of the plan and make revisions and amendments as necessary. Communicate the School Improvement Plan with any new staff member. 2. Utilize the process of continuous review of student assessment as a vehicle to modify curriculum and instruction for improved student growth and achievement and to complement the existing desegregation plan outlined by the district. 3. Establish a research committee to research and provide continuous communication and 'Best Practices\" to each target committee. Schedule opportunities for staff to share these \"Best Practices'' ideas and instructional strategies. 4. Continuous contact \\ ith your ADE Field Service Specialist is recommended regarding progress in the chool lmpro ement process. 5. Celebrate your successes as you progress through your improvement plan. 694 MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. The focus of the improvement of test-taking skills should have a positive impact on reducing the disparity in socialization and achievement between disadvantaged and minority students. 2. The monthly and yearly themes suppo11 the curriculum \\Vithin and among grade levels. 3. The team teaching approach allows teachers to frequently monitor individual student learning, both formally and informally. Recommendations: 1. The School should consider the inclusion of a comparative study for the purpose of monitoring the progrcs~ of ~tudcnts. It is rec mmcndcd that the disparity be calculated in percentages by race and gender. Example: student scoring below 50th percentile. 2. The committee should revisit the data to more clearly define the targeted population. Specifically as to the subpopulations by male, female is suggested. 3. Include lower achieving student accomplishments in the awards program. Example: Any improvement in grades. behavior and/or attendance, etc., could be considered. SCHOOL CLIMATE trengths: 1. The incentives in place promote interesting activities which in turn promote positive consequences for good behavior. 2. The monthly awards program encourages a positive climate by recognizing the achie ements of students and attendance records. 3. Morning Cato ews produced by fifth and sixth gifted and talented students provide a wonderful opening for the day. Representation of students is diverse. 4. Staff monitoring.of unloading of cars and School buses, greeting of students b principaL and friendliness of office per onnel presents a positi e feeling tone. The \"team\" attitude among staff seemed to impact the entire chool climate. 695 5. The manner in which student resolvers were selected represented total involvement of students and ensured the balance of raciaJ representation. 6. The open space design lends itself to allowing interdependence among the teachers. There appears to be a feeling among teachers that all are responsible for ensuring discipline and providing children with support in making \"choices\". 7. Scripts used for handling conflict resolution is very effective. The manner in which teachers support student resolvers by referring disruptions to the resolvers provide student-driven responsibility for discipline maintenance. The program currently in place ensures racial equity and consistency among all students. 8. The School Climate Committee thoroughly explained the process for determining areas of emphasis, and demonstrated that they had brainstormed a number of topics with a broad representative group and reached consensus that discipline and conflict resolution would be the focus of their study. 9. The annual and monthly themes provide a feeling of unity and direction which supports the School vision. Recommendations: 1. ln view of the effectiveness of utilizing student resolvers for recess duty, the committee members interviewed felt that consideration could be given to extend the assignment of student resolvers\" to include lunchroom duty. This could increase the effectiveness and impact of a student driven approach to discipline and shared responsibility for a fair and consistent approach to discipline. 2. The resource room appeared to be providing an important service for the entire School. In view of the close coordination with classroom teachers, it is suggested that an increase in computer support be provided at the same level as available in most of the classrooms. Consideration should be given as to the readiness of students to manage and care for the computer equipment. TIME ON TASK/OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN Strengths: 1. The improvement plan lists activities that will increase efficiency in this area throughout 696 the five-year plan. 2. The plan involves student participation in instruction (peer tutoring. buddy system, conflict resolution) which enhances student learning and teacher focus on student needs. 3. Ample support staff and parent volunteers increase time on task and addresses individual student needs in a positive way. 4. The coordinated efforts between the resource teacher and other teachers enhance time on task opportunities for the students. 5. Grade level. cross grade level. and School wide activities allow all students to be included in the total School program. 6. The reorganization of pull-out programs (Title I) lends itself to an increase of in. tructional focus and allows. upport taff and tudent to addrc, I arning o curring within the classroom. 7. The self-discipline and commitment of students and staff are significant factors in the overall positive climate of the School and realization of the importance of instructional time. Recommendations: 1. ,., .) . Continue to provide the ame commitment in the future as is displayed at present. Re, ie\\\\ . tudent interaction program to prevent and cull any duplication of efforts and programs. Consider reviewing the schedules to determine if adequate preparation, planning, and release time is provided for teachers. There appears to be numerous activities being implemented as a result of the self-study and from the district's desegregation plan. PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Strengths: 1. Community business partners play an active and integral part of the chool structure at Cato Elementar_ . trong linkage with communit sen ices is exemplified by the 697 visitation of the counselor from the Children's and Families office three days a week. 2. a high level of parental support is evidenced by the willingness and comfort level of the teachers to call parents and follov-7-up with the discipline referral program. 3. The \"Cato Hot Line\" service is an excellent source for families to receive updated information about School activities and events, and the Cato Spirit Newsletter provides a communication link with parents and faculty. 4. The flexible scheduling of the parent/teacher conferences encourage a high percentage of participation from parents. 5. The Title I program provides informative meetings and workshops with babysitting and refreshments a an added incentive for complete family participation. 6. The open space organization encourages and readily allows visitors the opportunity to observe instruction and interactions of staff and students. 7. The active volunteer program is evidenced by the level of instructional support provided by parent volunteers. This support is conducive to a positive learning environment and assist teachers in addressing the various levels of ability. 8. ln\\'olving parents in conflict resolution training suppo1is classroom and School discipline management. Recommendations: 1. Consider providing \"parenting training for families to adopt the conflict resolution in the home. Training would include linkage with business and professional leaders in the community. a stronger impact of the training for both teachers and parents might be documented by monitoring the number of conflict resolution repo1is which are submitted following the expanded training for teachers and implementation of the resolution model in the home. 1 Establish a parent team on the parent/community committee to rotate their involvement to more effectively accompli h ECOE goals. This would move toward a more active involvement from the parents. 698 CATO ROAD ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 14 ELEMENTS IN THE STRATEGIES TO SITE VISITS SITE VISITS ALLEN LETTER ADDRESS EVIDENCE IN ANNOUNCED UNANNOUNCED ECOESCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN A. Is Activity Taking Place? A. Is Activity Taking Place? B. Available Evidence B. Available Evidence 1. E idence that policies. A. Yes A. Yes procedures, rules and regulations are developed B. Document/record B. Document/record and implemented to Principal's Interview Principal s Interview -...I 8 facilitate desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans Implement variety of reading Not Known Not Known related to reducing activities. pp. 19-21 achievement disparity between black and nonblack students are progressively successful. 3. Evidence that student A. Yes A. Yes assignments to schools. classes and programs at B. Document/record B. Document/record ach organizational level Principal s Interview Principal' s Interview are made without bias. --..J 0 I-' 4. 5. 6. 7. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement are used to facil:tate the de. cgregation proces . E idence that travel time to and from chool i not di proportionate among black and nonblack student and the percentage of black tudent transported for de egregation is not ignificantly greater than th percentage of non-black students transported for de egregation. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling tudents are non-discriminatory. A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record Principal's Interview Principal' s Interview A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record A. Yes . A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record ---.J 0 N 8. 9. 10. 11. Evidence that curricular content and instructional strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of the student population served. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and assigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregating school district. Evidence that procedures related to extracurricular and cocurricular activities are developed and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the student population . . Evidence of diverse representation on appointed district wide and school-based committees. Implement variety of reading activities. pp. I 9-21 Conflict resolution training for students and teachers. pp. 27- 29 Involve students in multi modal learning activities. p.33 A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record Observation Observation Principal s Interview Principal' s Interview A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record Principal s Interview Principal's Interview A. No A. Yes B. Document/record A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record Principal' s Interview Principal' s Interview -.....J 0 w 12. 13. 14. Evidence of efforts to ensure that parent attendance at school functions is not di proportionate to the tudent population. Evidence of succes related to Majority to Minority transfers Evidence that magnet chools are an effective interdistrict remedy for racial balance. Parent classes on conflict resolution, p. 3 7 Annual grade level teacher-parent meeting. p. 3 7 Parent classe on connict r solution, p. 3 7  xpand volunteer program. p. 38 Semi-annual play-ground improvement day. p. 39 Adopt-a-grandparent program. p. 39 A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record A. Yes A. Yes B. ADE Desegregation files B. ADE Desegregation files NIA NIA CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72116 FEBRUARY 20 - 21, 1996 REPORT OF THE NORTH CENTRA.L ASSOCIATION/ EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION Copies to: Dr. Emma Bass NCA State Director Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director, ADE Submitted to: Mr. James Smith= Superintendent March 25, 1996 Ms. Pat Siegel Principal, Central Elementary School Ms. Annette Rodgers Steering Committee Chairperson Compiled by: Mr. Bob Paulovich Field Sen-ices Specialist Mr. James A. Hester Co-Coordinator Field Ser\\'ices 704 NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION FEBRUARY 20 - 21, 1996 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NCA/ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. BOB PAVLOVICH, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Mrs. Alice Simelton, Chairperson Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mrs. Gwen Zeigler Principal Terry Elementary School 10800 Mara Lynn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Ms. Jewell Walker Basic Academic Services University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 1200 North University Drive Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601 705 Mrs. Ann Dawson Teacher Ringold Elementary School 536 River St. Benton, Arkansas 72015 Mr. Doug Vann Teacher Bryant Middle School 200 Northwest 4th St. Bryant, Arkansas 72022 FOREWORD On February 20 - 21, 1996, five representatives of the Arkansas North Central Association/ Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (NCA/ECOE) State Committee visited Central Elementary School. The comments in this report have been based on the visitors' observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas NCA/ECOE State Committee that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Central Elementary School as they proceed with the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team, recommendations have been made to reinforce the school's conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different, but are in support of the school improvement team's conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The NCAIECOE team would like to take this opportunity to thank the Central Elementary NCAIECOE Steering Committee, staff, administration, students, board, and community representatives for a superb two-day visit. The students and staff were most courteous, informative, and cooperative throughout the visit. The student guides certainly did their utmost to provide directions to specific areas and to assist with information. The food and various amenities provided by parents and local businesses added to an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks for making this NCA/ECOE team visit valuable through the process utilized and the School Improvement Plan developed to meet the needs of all the students at Central Elementary. 706 CHAIR SUMMARY: VISITING TEAM REPORT Central Elementary School began their NCA/ECOE self study in the fall of 1995, with the assistance of Field Services Specialists froin the Arkansas Department of Education. The principal, Ms. Pat Siegel, appointed a Building Steering Committee to organize this effort. The steering committee established four sub-committees to begin the distribution, collection, and disaggregation of achievement, archival, and perceptual data. After close examination of all data, the staff selected the following targets for improvement: 1. Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement\n2. School Climate\n3. Instructional Leadership: and 4. Parent and Community Involvement. During the early stages of the school improvement process. the staff developed a vision statement. Afterwards, specific learner outcomes were deYeloped for concentration for the next five years. Target committees were selected and began additional data collection in order to determine outcomes for the School Impro\\'ement Plan. The Central Elementary School Education Program is designed to ensure that quality programs are accessible for all students. Programs are being implemented that reflects the schools mission/vision statement and goals. The curriculum is broad in scope and provides for individual differences through a variety of programs. Through the NCAIECOE self-study, the staff has assessed the effectiveness of the school's instructional program and has developed a plan for improvement of the programs. Support of the core instructional program is provided through guidance services by the counselors, a nurse, a licensed social worker, and several students from the UALR School of Social Work are full-time as a pilot program. The entire school is a Chapter 1 school. The implementation of a .. mini\" middle school was underway and appeared to be progressing successfully. The school plant is clean and attractive. The school facility has three levels, and the only level that is handicapped accessible is the ground level. If there are students with handicaps, all services would be made readily available. 707 It is evident to the visiting team that the steering committee provided thorough, outstanding leadership throughout the NCA/ECOE process at Central Elementary. A high level of enthusiasm exists among administration, staff, and students regarding the school's plans for improvement. As evidenced by surveys, cooperation, collaboration of administration, and staff, teacher/learner relationships are very positive. All faculty members were involved in the process, are knowledgeable of the process and the plan, and communicZlte a sense of pride in the success of their efforts. They intend to follow through with their plan to evaluate its successes for regular revision and have, in fact, begun the implementation of the actions for year one. Administrative support, both district and building level, was provided for the staff throughout the self-evaluation. The principal kept abreast of all aspects of the planning process, consulted with committee members regularly, and permitted them to carry out their responsibilities. Arrangements were made to provide release time for committees, and there was continuous support from the Arkansas Department of Education. District Recommendations There is none at this time. School Improvement Recommendations: 1. Provide covers for all electrical outlets that evidenced throughout the building. 2. Repair hole in wall in the Gym where outlets have been removed. 3. Ensure that electrical wiring is out of reach of students. 708 MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. The initiation of a fifth and sixth grade mini middle schoolwas begun. Specialized instruction enable faculty to spend more time plann:ng and researching innovative ways of presenting material,which should result in improved student learning. 2. There is the use of a tutor to provide individualized help to students. 3. There is the use of positive reinforcement to decrease disciplinary problems, such as \"Caught YouBeing Good~ program. Recommendations: 1. Provide in-depth in service relative to Portfolio use and evaluation. 2. Develop specific~ school-wide guidelines for Portfolio Management. 3. Determine and document student improvement on more immediate measures than the Stanford 8 (e.g. compare students' grades in courses from each nine-week period, etc.) 4. Conduct research to determine the extent to which neighborhood students are benefitting from activities (e.g.~ decrease in number of black n1ales and area \\\\.-bite males receiving disciplinary referrals, increase in achievement level of black males and area white males, etc.) 5. Reinstitute Mentor Program with high schooL which provides mentors for students from neighborhood, especially black males and area white males. SCHOOL CLIMATE Strengths: 1. The School Climate actions are designed and implemented to enhance the morale of the faculty and staff members. 2. The actions in this S~hool Improvement Plan include reassessment procedures for continued examination of programs to foster self-esteem among students. 709 Recommendations: 1. Continue the focus on decreasing discipline suspensions, and expulsions rates. 2. Give consideration to being more specific in your time line in the way of including definite months with years. INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP Strengths: 1. Teachers seem to know their children and their needs. 2. Teachers are sharing ideas and helping each other. 3. Actions for Year one have been implemented. 4. Computer Lab with Reading. Math, and Writing is available for students. Recommendations: 1. To ensure action implementation. person responsible should be more specific by position. 2. Have forms for each teacher to stay on target. Ha,'e a time frame established. 3. Set a time for peer coaching and taking notes. PARENT AND COl\\1MUNITY INVOLVEMENT Strengths: 1. The school has a P.art-time parent coordinator to assist in making parent contacts. 2. Great ideas for Reading Day Career Day, \"Wishing Well\", thank you notes, having special speakers, field trips citizens of the week. awards each nine weeks involving businesses such as McDonald's, TOI Fridays, etc have been implemented. 3. There is a good partnership which targets in olvement with families with super community partner with Boys Club. 4. There s a great caring staff and administration: example getting coats for students in need and Christmas tree for student. 710 5. There's a geat preschool program which meets needs of community and at-risk youngsters and social work involvement 6. There's good involvement for Halloween Carnival fund raising and caroling in community at Christmas and good ideas and activities involving community for Black History Month celebrations. 7. There is great participation with parents and grandparents eating lunch with students. 8. There is good contact with local National Guard facilities and the local dentist. 9. There is a great summer program to get students involved in local businesses and making connections between class studies and on the job application of studies. (Wonderful!) Recommendations: 1. It is vital to find a parent from the local neighborhood that can make contacts with local parents and works with the parent coordinator. 2. Add additional businesses for partnerships such as Food King to donate groceries for parties and refreshments, prizes for students and Hardees for prizes for students and door prizes for PT A. TCBY has an edible bookmark reading program available that would coordinate well with reading program. 3. Invite parents to come join in special days that are entertaining non threatening, and \"Low intimidation,\" such as day with Junior High or Senior High bands, or a day for field trip, career day, etc. 4. Have an Open House prior to first day of school in the fall. 5. Send notes or mail them home to parents for communicating when students do well, such as citizens of the week, special recognition, etc., to break down \"intimidation\" of parents who may have had poor experience in their earlier school setting. 6. Pizza Hut is a good contact for free personal pan pizzas and so are local video rental businesses. 711 Perceptual Survey Use: Central Elementary School Central Elementary School reviewed the perceptual data and noted the following areas of concern: Students lack respect for themselves and others. Improve student self-esteem and self-motivation. Staff morale needs continued improvement. Facilities need improvement. As a result, the following outcomes were developed: Increase student achievement through improved student behavior. To improvt stucic:nts\" sLlf-LstLLlll ~nd s lf-moti\\'\n1tion. Continue to improve staff morale. 712 -.......J ~ w 1. 2. 14 ELEMENTS IN THE ALLEN LETTER Evidence that policies, procedures, rules and regulations are developed and implemented to facilitate de egregation. Evidence that plans related to reducing achievement disparity between black and nonblack students are progressively successful. STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS EVIDENCE IN ECOESCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Initiate a ''Caught Being Good\" program, p.41 Initiate a tudent of the week picture program (reward). p.42 Initiate a Student- Administrator Luncheon program. p.43 Student Profile. p.4 Ref er to Perceptual Survey attachment Initiate Co-operative Learning. p.36 Develop guidelines for Portfolio Assessment p.36 Organize a grade 5-6 mini-middle SchooL p.36 Provide more educational field trips, p.39 SITE VISITS SITE VISITS ANNOUNCED UNANNOUNCED A. Is Activity Taking Place? A. Is Activity Taking Place? B. Available Evidence B. Available Evidence A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Record B. Document/Record Principal's Interview Principal s Interview A. Yes . A. Yes B. Document/Record B. Document/Record Principal's Interview Principal' s Interview 3. Evidence that student A. Yes A. Yes a ignments to schools. classes and program at B. Document/Record B. Document/Record each organizational level Principal' s Interview Principal's Interview are made without bia . Observation 4. Evidence that staff A. Yes A. Yes development days authorized as a result of B. Document/Record B. Document/Record the Agreement are used to Principal' s Interview Principal's Interview faci I itate the de egregation process. 5. Evidence that travel time A. Yes A. Yes to and from chool is not disproportionate among B. Document/Record B. Document/Record black and nonblack tudents and the percentage of black -.....J tudents transported for ....... .l::-- de gregation is not ignificantly greater than the percentage of non-black students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance Pilot field placement for social A. Yes A. Yes and counseling is workers, p.41 designed to meet the B. Document/Record B. Document/Record needs of a diverse student Observation population. 7. Evidence of internal A. Yes A. Yes procedure for ensuring that materials for B. Document/Record B. Document/Record appraising or coun el ing tudent are non-di criminatory. 8. Evidence that curricular Use Title I tutor to provide A. Yes A. Yes content and instructional individualized help. p.36 strategies are utilized to B. Document/Record B. Document/Record meet the diverse needs of Find more community Principal s Interview Principal's Interview the student population resources to provide individual served. help to students. p.38 Initiate an intervention classroom. p.41 Implement flexible grouping to meet individual needs. p.8 Expand staff knowledge and use of varied teaching strategies. p.8 9. Evidence that per onnel A. Yes A. Yes is recruited, employed and assigned in a manner B. Document/Record B. Document/Record ...J to meet the goals of a Principal's Interview Principal's Interview ~ VI desegregating school district. 10. Evidence that procedures Implement Student Council, A. Yes A. Yes related to extracurricular p.20 and cocurricular activities B. Document/Record B. Document/Record are developed and Implement Student implemented to identify Ambassadors. p.20 and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the tudent population. 11. E idence of diverse A. Yes A. Yes representation on appointed district wide B. Document/Record B. Document/Record and school-based committees. 12. Evidence of efforts to Initiate a Family Reading Day, A. No A.No ensure that parent p.15 attendance at school B. B. functions is not Hire a parent coordinator, disproportionate to the p.14 student population. Develop a staff \"Wishing Weir' for parents to donate items, p.16 Design a variety of thank-you notes to be sent home when parents help. p.17 Develop a newsletter bi-annual I y by each classroom, p.19 --...J Develop and use a parent- ~ O'\\ teacher contract form, p. 19 13. Evidence of success A. Yes A. Yes related to Majority to Minority transfers B. Desegregation Files B. Desegregation Files 14. Evidence that magnet A. NIA A. NIA schools are an effective interdistrict remedy for B. NIA B. NIA racial balance. CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72209 APRIL 22 - 23, 1996 REPORT OF THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION Submitted to: Dr. Henry Williams May 24, 1996 Mr. Frederick Fields Principal, Cloverdale Elementary School Ms. Cherry Norman and Ms. Shirley Rolax Steering Committee Co-Chairpersons Copies to: Dr. Emma Bass NCA State Director Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director, ADE Mr. James a. Hester Co-Coordinator, Field Services Compiled by: Mr. David Watts Field Services Specialist 717 NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION APRIL 22 - 23, 1996 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NCA/ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. DAVID WATTS, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Mr. Bob Paulovich, Chairperson Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol MalL Room 301-B Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 Ms. Marianne Wells, Teacher Meadow Park Elementary School 400 Eureka Garden Road North Little Rock, Arkansas 72117 Ms. Karen Slayden, Teacher Pine Forest Elementary School 400 Pine Forest Drive Maumelle. Arkansas 72113 718 Dr. Dick Clough, Professor University of Central Arkansas 201 Donaghey A venue Conway, Arkansas 72035-0001 Ms. Lyn Russell, Teacher Landmark Elementary School 16712 Arch St. Pike Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 FOREWORD On April 22 - 23, 1996, five representatives of the Arkansas North Central Association/Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (NCA/ECOE) State Committee visited Cloverdale Elementary School. The comments in this report have been based on the visitors' observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas NCA/ECOE State Committee that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Cloverdale Elementary School as they proceed with the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team, recommendations have been m~de to reinforce the School's conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different, but are in support of the School improvement team's conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The NCA/ECOE team would like to take this opportunity to thank the Cloverdale Elementary NCA/ECOE Steering Committee, staff, administration, students, board, and community representatives for a superb two-day visit. The students and staff were most courteous, informative. and cooperative throughout the visit. The student guides certainly did their utmost to provide directions to specific areas and to assist with information. The food and various amenities provided by parents and local businesses added to an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks for making this NCA/ECOE team visit valuable through the process utilized and the School Improvement Plan developed to meet the needs of all the students at Cloverdale Elementary School. 719 CHAIR SUMMARY: VISITING TEAM REPORT Cloverdale Elementary School is located in South,,:est Little Rock and was constructed in 1959. The well maintained facility accommodates 450 students and consists of 21 classrooms, a spacious library, a large teacher work area, a health suite, a spacious counselor's suite, a teacher's lounge, a conference room, and a cafetorium which is shared with Cloverdale Junior High School. The staff consists of 29 certified teachers, which include 21 regular classroom teachers and specialists, a principaL a nurse, six instructional specialists, five supervision aides, three custodians, and one secretary. Cloverdale Elementary School began the Extended COE process during the fall of 1994. The process continued through April of 1996, when the CA/ECOE visiting team was on campus. The steering committee chairpersons were selected by the building principal, Mr. Freddie Fields. The steering committee was responsible for the distribution, collection, and analysis of the perceptual. archival, and achievement data. Each member of the steering committee served as chairperson of one of the target committees. The staff chose to address all seven correlate as sub-categories under the four indicators of success. Although the staff cho e this approach, it proved to the visiting team to be extremely difficult confu ing, and frustrating for the Cloverdale faculty and staff. It is evident to the visiting team that the steering committee provided outstanding leadership throughout the CA/ECOE process at Cloverdale Elementary School. a high level of enthusiasm exists among the administration and staff. All faculty members were involved in the process, are knowledgeable of the plan, and communicate a high sense of pride for their effort and final School Improvement Plan. There was strong administrative support from the administration at the district le el and the Arkansas Department of Education. It is obviou to the visiting team that the faculty and staff at Cloverdale Elementary chool worked long and hard throughout the proces . We understand the process was difficult and time consuming. We hope our input will help impro, e an already strong ECOE report. Thank you for a most enjoyable visit. District Recommendation : There are none to report at thi time. 720 School Improvement Recommendations: 1. Specify a month and year for action implementation. 2. Persons responsible for implementation should be named by position. It should be one person rather than just teachers. 3. Actions should be developed to a higher degree of specificity. 4. Re-examine the surveys and address any item that had a negative type response. 5. Transfer the actions on to large chart paper or poster board by month, year, and person(s) responsible. This will help to visually internalize the entire time line. Strong consideration should be given to priority and delaying least important actions for implementation during later years of the five-year cycle. 6. Considering the volume of staff development in the School Improvement Plan, identify a primary and intermediate teacher to coordinate staff development for curriculum needs. 7. The visiting team strongly recommends that more classroom manipulation (hands-on) materials be provided. 721 TIME ON TASK Strengths: 1. The staff has developed several projects throughout the plan to increase student achievement that also can reduce the disparity of math and reading scores. 2. The Prime Time, Student Council, Behavior Honor Roll, and Lunch with the Principal are each representative of positive programs to enhance the School climate through student assignment and student activities. Recommendations: 1. The faculty may want to utilize volunteer parents to make centers and teach two to three children to use each center. 2. For portfolio assessment and abacus literacy, the clear School purpose committee could implement vertical and horizontal meetings to coordinate curriculum criteria. HIGH EXPECTATIONS Strength: The staff and parent cooperation in School activities is creatively planned. The Parent's Night Out program shows a real commitment by the teacher to work cooperatively with parents. Recommendation: The staff may want to investigate the Family Math. Science, and Literacy Program and continue K-4 Crusade training for K-4 teachers. Other programs that might be investigated are: Math Their Way and Box-It-Or-Bag-It-Math. 722 SCHOOL CLIMATE Strength: Outcomes were developed with student achievement being the primary focus. Recommendations: I. Under Parent and Community Involvement. consider adding a staff meeting for total staff approval and/or awareness of the criteria for awards. 2. Under evaluation of School Climate, consider providing documentation of work involved in the action instead of relying totally on observation. 3. In reference to Time On Task, action four. consider a more detailed explanation. Strengths: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP/PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 1. The administration and teachers have already implemented a variety of new '\"parent involvement\" activities which has increased parental involvement aimed at improving student achievement. 2. The staff has demonstrated commitment to implementation of new discipline guidelines. including a \"detention hall and time out'' approach, that has the potential for enhancing student achievement. 3. The School has a wide array of student recognition programs and activities designed to promote high expectations, as well as to motivate improved achievement on the part of all students. 4. The School has demonstrated strong commitment to community involvement by successfully implementing outstanding programs in VIPS and Partners In Education. 723 Recommendations: 1. Consideration should be given to utilizing one staff member on-site to coordinate the implementation of all parent and community involvement activities, particularly those related to fostering student achievement. 2. In regard to the goal of \"involving students of all cultures in leadership activities,'' the administration and staff should explore additional specific activities aimed at increasing participation for students in K-2. 3. The staff should continue to work on developing and enhancing parent leadership in PT A activities by conducting leadership workshops, such as those offered by the Arkansas Parent-Teacher Association. 4. Teacher utilization of interdisciplinary thematic units would be enhanced by additional staff development activities conducted by district subject matter specialists and/or supervisors. 724 PERCEPTUAL SURVEY RESULTS: CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Upon reviewing the results of the ECOE perceptual survey, the Cloverdale ECOE committees identified the following needs: There was a lack of cohesion on the staff and within the student body. There is a perception that policies are inconsistent. There is too much negative reinforcement. There is not enough parental involvement from some identifiable groups. Based on these findings, several examples of the selected outcomes are listed below: Greatly increase the number of parental volunteers within the School. Increase on-site, hands-on activities for all students.  Increase the modes of presentation to students to meet the needs of all types of learner. Increase self-esteem program availability for students. 725 -.J N (J'\\ 1. 2. CLOVERDALEELEMENTARY:LRSD 14 ELEMENTS IN THE STRATEGIES TO SITE VISITS SITE VISITS ALLEN LETTER ADDRESS EVIDENCE IN ANNOUNCED UNANNOUNCED ECOESCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN A. Is Activity Taking Place? A. Is Activity Taking Place B. Available Evidence B. Availble Evidence Evidence that policies, A. Yes A. Yes procedures rules and regulations are developed B. Document/Records B. Document/Records and implemented to Principal's Interview Principal' s Interview facilitate desegregation. Evidence that plans Eliminate classroom A. Yes A. Yes related to reducing interruptions achievement disparity B. Desegregation Files B. Document/Record between black and Introduce the use of thematic Principal' s Interview nonblack students are units across the curricula progressively successful. Provide an after School tutoring program, p. 57 Provide leadership opportunities for all students, p. 54 Provide TESA training for all staff members, p.66 -.J N -.J 3. 4. Evidence that student a ignments to school . cla es and programs at each organizational level are made without bias. Evidence that taff development days auth dzcd as a result of th greement arc u cd to facilitat.e the desegregation procc 5. Evidence that travel time to and from chool is not di proportionate among black and nonblack student and the percentage of black tudents tran ported for de egregation is not ignificantly greater than the percentage of nonblack students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is de igned to meet the need of a di verse student population. Recruit volunteers at local churches and colleges. p. 80 Continuously urvey staff for need and desires as far as training. p. 79 A. Yes B. Document/Records Principal's Interview A. Yes B. Document/Records Principal's Intcnic\\v A. Yes 8. Document/Records A. Yes B. Document/Records A. Yes B. Document/Records Principars Interview A. Yes B. Document/Records Principal's Interview A. Yes B. Document/Records A. Yes B. Document/Records -......J N co 7. 8. 9. 10. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are non-discriminatory. Evidence that curricular content and instructional trategies are utilized to meet the diverse need. of the student population served. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and assigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregating school district. Evidence that procedures related to extracurricular and cocurricular activities are developed and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the student population. A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Records B. Document/Records Initiate the 'trainer of trainers'' A. Yes A. Yes program, p.66 B. Document/Records B. Document/Records Thematic uni ts incorporated Observation Principal's Interview across the curricula. p.57 Principal s r ntcrview Classroom Observation Curriculum compacting for gifted students, p.66 Recruit early child hood A. Yes A. Yes volunteers by contacting local colleges. p.80 B. Document/Records B. Document/Records Principal' s Interview A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Records B. Document/Records -i N I..O 11. 12. 13. 14. [:videncc of diverse repre entation on appointed district wide and chool-ba ed committee . r: idence of effort to en. ure that parent attcndanc at.cho I functions is not disprop rtionate to the . tudcnt population. J idence of succe related to Majority to Minority transfers Evidence that magnet chools are an effective interdi trict remedy for racial balance. A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Records B. Document/Records Principars Inter ie\\v Principal's Interview Develop ,oluntecr recruitment A. Yes A. Yes materials B. Document/Records B. Document/Records Ifo. ta VIP break fa t Increase the number of PTA program I lost the Cloverdale Fashion how. p.53 0 A. Yes B. Desegregation Files B. Document/Records Principal's Interview A. NIA A. Yes B. NIA B. Document/Records CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKL\\NSAS 72116 FEBRUARY 22 - 23, 1996 REPORT OF THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION TEAM VISIT Submitted to: Mr. James Smith. Superintendent Jv1arch 25. 1996 I\\1s. Linda Wilson Principal, Crestwood Elementary School Copies to: Dr. Emma Bass N CA State Director Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director. ADE Mr. James A. Hester Co-Coordinator, Field Services Ms. Karen Fuselier Steering Committee Chairperson Compiled by: 1r. Bob Paulo,ich Field SerYices Specialist 730 NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION FEBRUARY 22 - 23, 1996 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NCA/ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. BOB PAVLOVICH, GENERAL\"CHAIRPERSON Mrs. Alice Simelton, Chairperson Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Felicia Hobbs Assistant Principal Gibbs Magnet Elementary School 1115 W. 16th St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Mr. Wes Whitley Program Advisor, Title 1 Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas TJ.201 731 Mrs. Sheila Holicer Counselor Westbrook Elementary School 2621 Highway 229 Benton, Arkansas 72015 Dr. Betty Dickson Assistant Professor University of Central Arkansas 186 Pebble Beach Dr. Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 CHAIR SUMMARY: VISITING TEAM REPORT Crestwood Elementary began their NCA/ECOE self-study the fall of 1995, with the assistance of Field Services Specialists from the Arkansas Department of Education. A school-wide meeting was held to explain the self-study process. The Crestwood Elementary School Educational program is designed to ensure that the quality programs are accessible for all students. Programs are being implemented that reflect the school's mission/vision statement and goals. The curriculum is broad in scope and provides for individual differences through a variety of programs. Through the NCA/ECOE self-study, the staff has assessed the effectiveness of the schools instructional programs and has developed a plan for improvement of the program. The community displays its support for the school by parent volunteers and partnerships with businesses in the community. Support of the core instructional program is provided through guidance services by the counselor. The school offers Special Education services provided in a resource room and selfcontained classroom. The school plant is clean, attractive, and in good repair. The custodial and maintenance services are above average. The principal, Ms. Linda Wilson, appointed a building steering committee to organize this effort. The steering committee established four subcommittees to begin the distribution, collection, and disaggregation of achievement, archival, and perceptual data. After close examination of all data, the staff selected the following targets for improvement: 1. Clear School Purpose\n2. High Expectations\n3. Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement\nand 4. Parent and Community Involvement. During the early stages of the school improvement process, the staff with the involvement of parents, developed a vision statement. Then specific learner outcomes were developed for concentration for the next five years. Target committees were selected and began additional data collection in order to determine outcomes for the School Improvement Plan. It is evident to the visiting team that the steering committee provided thorough, outstanding leadership throughout the NCA/ECOE process at Crestwood Elementary. A high level of enthusiasm exists among administration and staff. Teacher/learner relationships are very positive. All faculty members were involved in the process, are knowledgeable of the process, and the plan, and communicate a sense of pride in the success of their efforts. They intend to follow through with their plan to evaluate its success for regular revision and have, in fact, begun the implementation of the actions for year one. 732 FOREWORD On February 22 - 23, 1996, five representatives of the Arkansas North Central Association/ Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (NCA/ECOE) State Committee visited Crestwood Elementary School. The comments in this report have been based on the visitors' observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas NCA/ECOE State Committee that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Crestwood Elementary School as they proceed with the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team, recommendations have been made to reinforce the school's conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different, but are in support of the school improvement team's conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The NCA/ECOE team would like to take this opportunity to thank the Crestwood Elementary NCA/ECOE Steering Committee, staff, administration students, board, and community representatives for a superb two-day visit. The students and staff were most courteous, informative, and cooperative throughout the visit. The student guides certainly did their utmost to provide directions to specific areas and to assist with information. The food and various amenities provided by parents and local businesses added to an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks for making this NCA/ECOE team visit valuable through the process utilized and the School Improvement Plan developed to meet the needs of all the students at Crestwood Elementary. 733 Administrative support, both district and building level, was provided for the staff throughout the self-evaluation. The principal kept abreast of all aspects of the planning process, consulted with committees and committee members regularly, and permitted them to carry out their responsibilities. Arrangements were made to provide release time for committees and continuous support from the Arkansas Department of Education. District Recommendations There are none to report at this time. School Improvement Recommendations: 1. None 734 HIGH EXPECTATIONS Strengths: 1. The survey of parents and community was very thorough and the response was good. 2.. The multicultural units for each grade were interesting for students and teacher. 3. There seems to be strong parent and community support. 4. The addition of reading daily is a real plus to get higher expectations. 5. The field trips do enrich your curriculum. Recommendations: Consider distributing the responsibility to staff members other than the chairperson. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACIDEVEMENT Strengths: 1. Teachers use a variety of tools to identify students' strengths and weaknesses. 2. Teachers use portfolios to assess and improve students' achievement. Through portfolios, students are able to judge how much they are growing. Recommendations: 1. Students can select teachers, other students, parents, and principals to evaluate their portfolios. The shcng should be non-threatening. 2. Materials in portfolios should be dated so that growth can be evaluated. 3. Never send a child to a lower grade for instruction. This lowers a child's self-esteem and could foster a dislike for school. 735 CLEAR SCHOOL PURPOSE Strengths: 1. The method of surveying parents to determine their concerns regarding communication was of great benefit. 2. Thirty-four percent of parents responded to the survey. 3. Teachers have a positive attitude regarding the use of a weekly newsletter. 4. Every student has the opportunity to actually check their own progress. 5. Revisions will be made as needed to check students progress. 6. Consistent communication between parents and teachers is positive. 7. The lines of communication are regular and consistent. 8. Contracting with parents as a means of accountability appears effective. Recomrnendati ons: 1. Data should be compiled to determine effectiveness of weekly reports. 2. More parent involvement is needed on the target area for feedback. 3. A specific person should be named to carry out various tasks. 4. Other means should be explored to fund actions such as grants, P .I.E., fundraisers, etc. 5. A survey needs to be conducted more frequently to get a more comparative measure. 6. Student should be able to articulate the school's mission/purpose. 736 PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Strengths: 1. There needs to be an iniation of a parent resource library at the entrance of the building. 2. Transportation to school needs to be provided for parents when needed. Recommendation: There should be a calendar twice a year to detail events in addition to your monthly communication. 737 Perceptual Survey Use: Crestwood Elementary School Crestwood Elementary chool analyzed the perceptual data and noted the following concerns: Parents were not satisfied with the degree of communication. Some parental dissatisfaction with the knowledge of School goals. Students were not satisfied with their degree of interest in the curriculum. Teachers felt a need for alternative assessments. The disparity of black and white students test scores was still great. As a result, the following actions and outcomes were developed: To improve communication with each parent and student about the students' activities. achievements. and progress. To emich the curriculum by providing more experiences for all students. Expand the use of portfolio assessments. See infusion document. Quality of Education. reduction in racial academic disparity. 738 -.....J w \\.0 1. 14 ELEMENTS IN THE ALLEN LETTER E idence that policies, procedure , rule and regulations are developed and implemented to facilit~te de egr gation. STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS EVIDENCE IN ECOESCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SITE VISITS SITE VISITS ANNOUNCED UNANNOUNCED A. Is Activity Taking Place? A. Is Activity Taking Place? B. Available Evidence B. Available Evidence A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/Record B. Document/Record Principal's Interview Principal's Interview Evidence that plans related to reducing achievement disparity Develop an accumulative B. Document/Record B. Document/Record between black and reading Ii t for each student_ Principal's Interview nonblack students are p.14 progre ively successful. Adopt a new reading theme each year with reading the major focu . p.15 [nitiate. monitor. and expand p rtfolio assessment. p.22 Revise and continue peer tutoring. p. 18 Expand the adult tutoring program. p. 18 -....J J::-- Revise the special programs 0 for students that show no growth for two y ars. p.19 Collect statistics to compare the disparity of scores for years one. p.19 3. E idence that student A. Yes A. Yes ass1gnm to schools, cla ses and programs at B. Document/Record B. Document/Record each organizational level Principal's Interview are made without bias. Observation 4. E idence that staff A. Yes A. Yes development days authorized as a r suit of B. Document/Record B. Document/Record the Agreement are used to Principal's Interview facilitate the desegregation process. 5. Evidence that travel time A. Yes A. Yes to and from school is not di proportionate among B. Document/Record B. Document/Record black and nonblack students and the percentage of black tudents transported for desegregation is not ignificantly greater than the percentage of non-black students tran, ported fi r de egr gation. 6. Evidence that guidance A. Yes A. Yes and counseling i de igned to meet the B. Document/Record B. Document/Record needs of a diverse student population. -..c...-J- 7. Evidence of internal A. Yes A. Yes ...... procedures for en uring that material for B. Document/Record B. Document/Record appraising or coun eling tudcnts are non-di criminatory. 8. I::.vidence that curricular To promote the appreciation of A. Yes A.Yes content and instructional cultural diversity through the trategies are utilized to study of cultural diversity and B. Document/Record B. Document/Record meet the diverse needs of the celebration of heritage Principal s Interview Principal' s Interview the student population (School goal #8) Observation served. 9.  vid nee that personnel A. Yes A. Yes 1 recruited, employed and a signed in a manner B. Document/Record B. Document/Record t meet the goals of a Principal's Interview Principal' s Interview de egregating chool di trict. 10. Evidence that procedure A.No A. Yes related to extracurricular and cocurricular activities B. Document/Record are developed and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to th tudent population. 11. Evidence of diverse A. Yes A. Yes repre ntation on appointed district wid B. Document/Record B. Document/Record and chool-ba ed Principal' s Interview committee . 12. E idence of efforts to Utilize a newsletter to inform A.No A.No ensure that parent parents of the mission attendance at school statement. p.24 B. ......... functions is not ,J::-- N di proportionate to the Provide a Parent Center, p.24 tudent population. Issue communication from each class detailing events and progress. p.24 Establish a home reading program for parents and students. p.24 Increase parents in the VIPS program, p.25 13. E idence of success A.NIA A. Yes related to Majority to Minority transfers B. No M-to-M students B. Desegregation Files reported -..J ~ lJ.) I 4. Evidence that magnet chools are an effective interdistrict remedy for racial balance. A. NIA B. NIA A. NIA B. NIA Copies to: Dr. Emma Bass CRYSTAL HILL ELEMENT ARY SCHOOL PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72118 APRIL 16 - 17, 1996 REPORT OF THE NORTH CE TRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTE DED COMPREHE SIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION Submitted to: Mr. Bobby Lester, Superintendent May 24, 1996 Ms. Wanda Ruffins Principal. Cry tal Hill Elementary School Ms. DiAnn Carland Ms. J. J. Morley Ms. Janie Naylor Steering Committee Chairpersons Compiled by: Mr. John McKinnon Field Ser\\'ices Specialist CA State Director Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director. ADE Mr. James a. H ter Co-Coordinator. Field erv1ce 744 NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION/ EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION APRIL 16 - 17, 1996 CRYSTAL HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NCA/ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. JOHN MCKINNON, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Mr. Bob Paulovich, Chairperson Arkansas Department to Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Lisa Lewis. Teacher Meadowcliff Elementary chool 25 Sheraton Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Dr. Ryixuan Mao. Profe or Philander Smith College 812 West 13th treet Little Rock, Arkansa 72203 745 Dr. Samuel Branch, Principal Fair Park Elementary School 616 No. Harrison Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Deodis Fleming, Teacher David O 'Dodd Elementary School 6423 Stagecoach Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Ms. Lillie Carter, Principal Pulaski Heights Elementary School 319 o. Pine Street Little Rock. Arkansas 72205 FOREWORD On April 16-17. 1996. ix representatives of the Arkansas North Central Association/Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (NCA/ECOE) State Committee visited Crystal Hill Elementary School. The comments in this report have been based on the visitors observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas NCA/ECOE State Committee that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Crystal Hill Elementary School as they proceed with the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team. recommendations have been made to reinforce the school's conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different. but are in support of the school improvement team's conclusions. Recommendations ha\\'e been made to foster further ervice and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The NCA/ECOE team would like to take this opportunity to thank Crystal Hill Elementary NCA/ECOE Steering Committee. staff, administration, students. board and community representatives for a superb two-day visit. The students and staff were most courteous, informative. and cooperative throughout the visit. The student guides certainly did their utmost to provide directions to specific areas and to assist with information. The food and various amenities provided by parents and local businesses added to an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks for making this CA/ECOE team visit valuable through the process utilized and the chool Improvement Plan de\\eloped to meet the needs of all the students at Crystal Hill Elementary. 746 CHAIR SUMMARY: VISITING TEAM REPORT Crystal Hill Elementary Communications Magnet School is located within the North Little Rock City Limits at 5001 Doyle Venable Drive. The building was constructed in 1991-92. and consists of 35 classrooms, an office area. a cafeteria, a multi-purpose room, media center, and a Community Based Instruction area. The facilities are in excellent repair and provide adequate lighting and space to meet the needs of the 775 students. The building staff consists of 35 prekindergarten through sixth grade teachers, a principal. two assistant principals, two counselors, one home school consultant, one media specialist and five custodians, one CBI teacher, three resources teachers. one Language Enrichment ActiYities Program teacher, a communication specialist. two alpha teachers, two part-time speech specialists, occupational therapist. and a extended day care director. The classrooms and hallways were beautifully decorated with students work. The magnet theme of communications. written, oral, and visual is integrated into the regular classrooms by the classroom teachers and the communications specialist, which are all certified teachers. Crystal Hill Elementary Communications chool began the ECOE process during the fall of 1994. The process continued through April of 1996. when the ECOE visiting team was on campus. The principal. Ms. Wanda Ruffins. asked for taff volunteers to head the ECOE teering committee. Later. th teering committee attended an in- er\\'ice explaining the process at the Pulaski County Special School District Central office. After the staff was in-serviced on the complete process. staff members signed up for one of the following committees: 1. Writing and Proofreading 2. Archival Data 3. Opportunity to learn/Time on Task 4. School Climat 5. Clear chool Purpo e 6. Monitoring and Assessment 7. High Expectations 8. Parent Involvement 9. Instructional Leadership During the fall. the staff collected the archi al. perceptual. and achievement data. The school had been in e 'istence for only two year . which led to a limited supply of data. 747 After a close examination of the data, the staff chose the following areas for improvement: 1. Parent and Community Involvement 2. School Climate: 3. Instructional Leadership 4. Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement~ and 5. Clear School Purpose. Specific learner outcomes were developed for concentration for the next five years with improving student achievement being the primary focus. It was evident to the visiting team that the teering committee provided outstanding leadership throughout the ECOE process. A high level of pride and enthusiasm exists among administration and staff regarding the chools  plan for improvement. All faculty members were involved in the process and were knowledgeable of the process and plan. It is obvious to the visiting team that the faculty and staff worked long and hard. We understand the process was difficult and time consuming. We hope our input will improve an already strong ECOE report. District Recommendations: There are none to report at thi time. School Improvement Recommendations 1. In order to ensure action implementation the persons responsible should be smaller in size i.e., principal committee chair, or counselor. 2. Yearly re-visit the plan to make nece ary adjustments and revisions. 748 MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. There are many wonderful programs in place to decrease the disparity\nL.E.A.R., Jostens Learning Lab, Title I Paraprofessionals, portfolfo assessment, and teacher-made tests. In addition, there are teachers who have completed K-4 Crusade training. 2. Teacher enthusiasm is a strength. Recommendation: Readjust time lines and write specific strategies to address disparity. INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP Strength: The school is doing much more than i indicated in the plan. Recommendations: 1. Be specific when interacting with students about why you are with them. Tell them that you are keeping up with what is happening in the classroom. 2. Be visible when teachers have special activities in their classrooms and say something about the activity. 3. Consider looking at the archival data to make a decision about the administration s invol\\'ement in classroom activities. SCHOOL CLIMATE Strengths: 1. The many clubs and activities used to encourage students positive behavior is excellent within the school community. 749 2. To help encourage positive discipline within the school community, training parents in the Discipline Management Plan is a strong asset. Recommendations: It is recommended that parents, teachers, and students be re-surveyed in the area of school discipline to see if it has improved since the last survey date. CLEAR SCHOOL PURPOSE Strength: The administrators and teachers have done an outstanding job at integrating the outcome related to the target area with the school's communication theme. Recommendation: In reference to item 1, action 1, the school may want to decide the procedure for selecting the Communications Curriculum Committee Members and when the team will be in place. PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT trength: The school displays a strong commitment to the increase of parent attendance at PT A meetings. Recommendations: 1. It is recommended that the school keep track of parent attendance at PTA meetings. and find out what might keep some parent from coming by, using a brief questionnaire at the beginning of each school year. 2. It is recommended that the school use weekly newsletters in color-coded paper. with a student staff to inform parents and community of the progress of the school. 750 PERCEPTUAL SURVEY USE: CRYSTAL HILL ELEME TARY SCHOOL Crystal Hill Elementary School analyzed the perceptual data and noted the following concerns: Students did feel the principal always knew what was going on in classrooms. Parents did not feel the administration effectively informed the community about the school's progress. Parents and students expressed concern about consistent school discipline. As a result. the following outcomes and goals were developed: More opportunities will be provided for the administrators to become actively involved in daily classroom activities. School leaders will regularly address the community at PT A meetings to effectively inform parents of school progress. Improve consistent discipline throughout the community and transitional areas of the schooL with responsibility being shared by all the staff. 751 -......J Vl N 1. 2. CRYSTAL HILL MAGNET ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 14 ELEMENTS IN THE STRATEGIES TO SITE VISITS SITE VISITS ALLEN LETTER ADDRESS EVIDENCE IN ANNOUNCED UNANNOUNCED ECOESCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN A. Is Activity Taking Place? A. Is Activity Taking Place B. Available Evidence B. Available Evidence Evidence that policie . Develop. teach. and uniformly A. Yes A. Yes procedures. rule and enforce rules for halls. re t-regulations are developed rooms. cafeteria. and B. Document/record B. Document/record and implemented to playground. pp. 38-40 Principal s Interview Principal' s Interview facilitate desegregation. Evidence that plans Develop transition plans for B. Conference A. No related to reducing students moving to new grade. achievement disparity p. 56 between black and nonblack students are Teach test-taking skills to progressively successful. students, pp. 56, 57 Develop strands of communications skills needed but not evident in entering 3rd and 4th grade students. p. 64 --....J V1 w 3. 4. 5. 6. Evidence that student assignments to schools. classes and programs at each organizational level are made without bias. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement are used to facilitate the desegregation process. Evidence that travel time to and from school is not di proportionate among black and nonblack students and the percentage of black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the percentage of non-black students transported for desegregation. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record Principal s Interview Principal' s Interview A. Yes A. Yes B. Document/record B. Document/record Principal's Interview Observation Principal's Interview A. Not known A. Yes 8. Document/record A.\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_1624","title":"Court filings: District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; District Court, memorandum brief in support of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; seventeen exhibits","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-05-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","Educational statistics","Education--Standards","School enrollment","School improvement programs","Magnet schools","Student assistance programs","Student suspension","School discipline","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; District Court, memorandum brief in support of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; seventeen exhibits"],"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/1624"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["58 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1390","title":"Proceedings: ''Testimony of David J. Armor, Ph.D.,'' Volume II","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-05-15"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","Magnet schools","School employees","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Testimony of David J. Armor, Ph.D.,'' Volume II"],"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/1390"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["35 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":22,"next_page":23,"prev_page":21,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":252,"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}}]}}