{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_480","title":"Incentive Schools: Enrollment registration","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":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Enrollment registration"],"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/480"],"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":["79 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\nSchool Enrollment Summary Year Black White Total %Blk Mitchell 1989-90 220 19 239 92 1990-91 183 24 207 88 1991-92 285 27 312 91 Six Year Comparison: 1989-90 to 1994-95  14% increase in total enrollment  37% decrease in white enrollment  18% increase in black enrollment 1992-93 232 32 264 88 1993-94 215 15 230 93 1994-95 260 12 272 96 Two Year Comparison: 1993-94 to 1994-95  18% increase in total enrollment  20% decrease in white enrollment  21 % increase in black enrollment Rightsell 1989-90 194 17 211 92 1990-91 191 2 193 99 Rockefeller Stephens Total 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 282 239 184 225 215 195 282 250 240 248 225 190 235 202 141 1,643 1,455 1,962 1,690 1,261 1,372 7 10 5 4 35 76 121 111 100 122 1 12 10 7 4 180 215 273 247 193 224 289 249 189 229 250 271 403 361 340 370 226 202 245 209 145 1,823 1,670 2,235 1,937 1,454 1,596 98 96 97 98 86 72 70 69 71 67 99 94 96 97 97 90 87 88 87 87 86 Six Year Comparison: 1989-90 to 1994-95  9% increase in total enrollment  76% decrease in white student enrollment  16% increase in black enrollment Two Year Comparison: 1993-94 to 1994-95  21 % increase in total enrollment  20% decrease in white enrollment  22% increase in black enrollment Six Year Comparison\n1989-90 to 1994-95  48% increase in total enrollment  249% increase in white enrollment  15% increase in black enrollment Two Year Comparison: 1993-94 to 1994-95  9% increase in total enrollment  22% increase in white enrollment  3% increase in black enrollment Note: LRSD closed Stephens Incentive School after the 1993-94 school year. Six Year Comparison: 1989-90 to 1994-95*  12% decrease in total enrollment  24% increase in white enrollment  16% decrease in black enrollment Two Year Comparison: 1993-94 to 1994-95*  10% increase in total enrollment  16% increase in white enrollment  9% increase in black enrollment Note\nThe 1993-94 totals do not include Ish School, which closed after 1992-93, and the 1994-95 totals do not include Stephens School, which closed after 1993-94 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATION 1. Page 2B0BSSPE1.XLS Four Year Old 94-95 Unit 17 18 19 22 23 25 26 28 31 34 35 36 37 39 40 42 44 45 46 52 Unit Name Bale__________ Brady_________ Badgett Baseline_______ Fair Park______ Franklin_______ Garland_______ Chicot________ Cloverdale Elem Mitchell_______ M.L. King______ Rockefeller Geyer Springs Rightsell_______ Romine_______ Washington Wilson________ Woodruff______ Mablevale Elem Watson Sum of Budget 89606.43 57360.21 102110.61 99862.73 62893.73 155681.3 57293.21 59221.35 160067.69 41192.09 174301.09 295636.85 104416.85 45360.01 90299.61 151496.77 50190.04 96522.58 48403.04 102784.66 $2,044,700.85  k  Page 1LRSD INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 (Budgeted) 1995-96 Ajea School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure Over or Under $1,887.46 (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $3,888.17 IXL 1,375 (=) $5,346,233.75 1259 $4,895,206.03 $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 * Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $2,249.24 m 5.8% (=) $2,379.70 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,267.16 1,259 (=) $5,372,354.44 2235 $9,537,102.60 $9,242,255.96 ($294,846.64) $2,602.66 (X) 8% (=) $2,758.82 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,646.28 2,235 (=) $10,384,435.80 1937 $8,999,844.36 $9,418,773.90 $418,929.54 $2,678.60 $2,678.60 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,566.06 IXL 1,750 {=) $7,990,605.00 1454 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 $24,151,934.95 8,994 $2,685.34 Page 58 *$2,685.34 ' \u0026gt; $2,685.34 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,572.80 IXL 1,454 $6,648,851.20 Budgeted Amt: $6,664,904.48 $1^3.28 4(^'3, 3%\u0026gt;7n.aft 6[KV1 Expenditures and Budgets Used for Double Funding Calculations School Name Actual 93-94 Utilities Actual 93-94 Less Utilities Per Pupil Budget 94-95 Utilities Budget 94-95 Less Utilities Enrollment Octi 1993 Per Pupil Bale Brady Badgett Baseline Fair Park Chicot Western Hills Cloverdale Dodd Meadov^liff Geyer Springs Wilson Woodruff Mablevale Wakefield Watson $1,165,211.25 $1,121,638.48 $686,853,56 $1,046,959.92 $910,017.61 $1,619,203.18 $909,702.70 $1,036,001.67 $852,795.10 $989,665.59 $834,274.19 $1,209,887.38 $745,465.03 $1,225,013.15 $1,141,353,36 $1,230,108.91 $16,724,151,08 $33,346.45 $44,615.10 $27,966.77 $57,504.03 $47,536.23 $63,894.53 $48,623.98 $36,545.84 $42,876.89 $37,882.58 $38,985.56 $48,834.66 $31,985.17 $49,333.45 $38,500.04 $57,731.80 $706,163.08 $1,131,864.80 $1,077,023.38 $658,886.79 $989,455.89 $862,481.38 $1,555,308.65 $861,078,72 $999,455.83 $809,918,21 $951,783.01 $795,288.63 $1,161,052.72 $713,479.86 $1,175,679.70 $1,102,853.32 $1,172,377.11 $16,017,988.00 $3,735.53 $2,712.91 $3,486.17 $2,884.71 $3,279.40 $3,055.62 $2,593.61 $2,589,26 $2,773.69 $2,193.05 $2,761.42 $3,279.81 $3,023.22 $2,409.18 $2,467.23 $2,652.44 $2,808.70 $1,056,119.49 $1,082,673.15 $711,871.49 $954,238.93 $904,418.87 $1,665,024.95 $895,302.85 $1,062,880.57 $792,569,26 $1,030,111.70 $889,186.41 $1,143,942,77 $812,668.36 $1,333,783.30 $1,096,024,44 $1,264,399.71 $16,695,216.25 $35,610.00 $41,500,00 $28,900,00 $57,100.00 $71,000.00 $69,900.00 $41,400.00 $65,000.00 $38,050.00 $35,400.00 $36,500.00 $46,900,00 $34,700,00 $60,100.00 $37,000.00 $55,400.00 $754,460.00 $1,020,509.49 $1,041,173.15 $682,971.49 $897,138.93 $833,418.87 $1,595,124.95 $853,902.85 $997,880.57 $754,519.26 $994,711.70 $852,686.41 $1,097,042.77 $777,968.36 $1,273,683.30 $1,059,024.44 $1,208,999.71 $15,940,756.25 303 397 189 343 263 509 332 386 292 434 288 354 236 488 447 442 5703 $3,368.02 $2,622.60 $3,613.61 $2,615.57 $3,168.89 $3,133.84 $2,572.00 $2,585.18 $2,583.97 $2,291.96 $2,960.72 $3,098.99 $3,296.48 $2,610.01 $2,369.18 $2,735.29 $2,795.15 Forest Park Otter Creek Terry Pulaski Heights McDermott Jefferson Fullbright $1,081,979.30 $877,709.48 $1,327,023.54 $1,051,634.65 $1,367,742,56 $1,386,166.54 $1,400,551.11 $8,264,285,31 $46,347.16 $53,082.86 $53,402.20 $42,695.45 $54,475.66 $47,023.44 $62,419.36 $359,446.13 $1,035,632.14 $824,626.62 $1,273,621.34 $1,008,939.20 $1,313,266.90 $1,339,143.10 $1,338,131.75 $8,133,361.05 $2,261.21 $2,418.26 $2,270,27 $2,535.02 $2,580.09 $2,657,03 $2,573.33 $2,471.40 $1,061,390.39 $906,899.29 $1,359,572.17 $1,046,741.59 $1,323,527,09 $1,400,384,59 $1,482,113,58 $8,580,628,70 $43,500.00 $52,700.00 $47,900.00 $50,250.00 $62,100.00 $54,000.00 $59,000.00 $369,450.00 $1,017,890.39 $854,199.29 $1,311,672.17 $996,491.59 $1,261,427,09 $1,346,384.59 $1,423,113.58 $8,211,178.70 458 341 561 398 509 504 520 3291 $2,222,47 $2,504.98 $2,338.10 $2,503.75 $2,478.25 $2,671.40 $2,736.76 $2,495.04 M.L. King Romine Washington $1,902,991,37 $1,273,786,59 $2,182,962,72 $5,359,740.68 $87,371.46 $52,418.95 $79,736.42 $219,526.83 $1,815,619.91 $1,221,367.64 $2,103,226.30 $5,140,213.85 $3,283.22 $3,656.79 $2,917.10 $3,196.65 $1,780,160,90 $1,294,178.25 $2,288,685.19 $5,363,024.34 $70,845.00 $58,500.00 $73,700.00 $203,045.00 $1,709,315,90 $1,235,678.25 $2,214,985.19 $5,159,979.34 553 334 721 1608 $3,090.99 $3,699.64 $3,072.10 $3,208.94 Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller $1,607,057.54 $1,489,885.73 $0.00 $1,333,678.59 $1,242,640.87 $1,182,801.44 $2,113,811.34 $8,969,875.51 $60,278.63 $31,198,45 $0.00 $54,797.53 $35,595,51 $40,955,33 $104,803,25 $327,628,70 $1,546,778.91 $1,458,687.28 $0.00 $1,278,881.06 $1,207,045.36 $1,141,846.11 $2,009,008.09 $8,642,246.81 $4,483.42 $7,115.55 $5,560.35 $1,532,787.86 $1,198,522.28 $0.00 $1,157,109.41 $8,324.45$ 3.00 $6,041.51 $5,908.85 $5,943.77 $1,149,130.10 $1,915,554,83 $6,953,104.48 $58,500.00 $34,600.00 $0.00 $56,300.00 $0.00 $41,100.00 $97,700.00 $288,200.00 $1,474,287.86 $1,163,922.28 $0.00 $1,100,809.41 $0.00 $1,108,030.10 $1,817,854.83 $6,664,904.48 345 205 0 230 145 189 340 1454 $4,273.30 $5,677.67 $0.00 $4,786.13 $p.oo $5,862.59 $5,346.63 $4,583.84 ALLELEM.XLSSheetl Area Scool Per Pupil Double FUnd $ $ $ 2,698.87 1,887.46 4,586.33 1416 $6,494,243.28 $6,069,741.02 $ 424,502.26 Page 1fflAPK^P 353 H I \u0026lt;^1 r /7 3 y 1'^ /^ I I n l\\0ci6fLFeuC(C I IQ-T- /(^ O o 73*6 152^ __ s ! 51^ ^'3 /S Ci /y/c. IWG 'The under-enrollment resulted in increased costs for educating each child in the incentive schools for this reason: Every school has fixed costs that represent a sizable overhead\nbut at the incentive schools, desegregation plan staffing and program requirements impose an exceptionally high overhead burden that is not directly proportional to enrollment. If an incentive school operates at 75 percent of capacity, for example, the cost to the district is essentially the same as operating that school at 100 percent of capacity. This means that, by diligently recruiting eligible children to each school up to the maximum permissible class size, there would be no increased cost to the system to have a fully populated school rather than one only three-quarters enrolled. Secondly, although the incentive schools have offered a host of special programs and services, the district has made little effort to evaluate the effectiveness of these features with an eye to refining, enhancing, eliminating, or otherwise making needed changes in the schools' offerings. To allot resources to programs that yield a high return on the investmentespecially when measured in terms of success for childrenis defensible, even laudable\nbut to spend high dollars without constantly monitoring and evaluating the extent of \"the bang for the buck\" is inconsistent with solid management principles as well as with the intent of the desegregation agreements. Thirdly, the district has also missed opportunities to effect significant efficiencies in the incentive schools. For example, it is possible to combine two very small classes into one which still meets the guidelines for pupil-to-teacher ratios. The district could also evaluate the educational merit and relative cost of enlarging classes somewhat and adding more classroom aides, rather than maintaining very small classes that are staffed with additional teachers. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS In 1993-94, the LRSD spent more than two million dollars over its incentive school double funding obligation. The district did not fill the schools to capacity, neglected to evaluate programs and adjust them accordingly, and failed to exercise stringent administrative oversight to contain costs. Consequently, during a time of severe budget constraints, the district spent far more money in the incentive schools than it was obligated to invest. When the LRSD overspends in the incentive schools, less monies are then available for other schools, buildings which serve the majority of LRSD black students, the class for whom the desegregation settlements were to specifically benefit. In sum, the district has not positioned itself to try to achieve appropriate economies in the incentive schools while still providing the promised level of financial support and concomitant outcomes for students. RECOMMENDATIONS ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Page 107Including four-year-olds 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 (Budgeted) Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected PerPupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure $1,887.46 $2,249.24 $2,602.66 $2,678.60 *$2,698.87 Over or Under (X) 6% (X) 5.8% (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $3,888.17 1,375 (=) $5,346,233.75 ____________ $4,895,206.03 $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 (=) $2,379.70 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,267.16 1X1 1,259 (=) $5,372,354.44 2,235 $9,537,102.60 $9,242,255.96 ($294,846.64) (=) $2,758.82 (-r) $1,887.46 (=) $4,646.28 2,235 (=) $10,384,435.80 1j937 $8,999,844.36 $9,418,773.90 $418,929.54 $2,678.60 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,566.06 1X1 1,750 (=) $7,990,605.00 1,454 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 $2,698.87 (-r) $1,887.46 (=) $4,586.33 1X1 1,454 $6,668,523.82 1,596 $7,319,782.68 Budgeted Amt: $6,664,904.48 ($654,878.20) * Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $23,118,495.03 8,566 $2,698.87 There is no 1995-96 projection made because this report is made far earlier in the budget cycle than previous years. No reliable budget or enrollment data is currently available. \u0026gt; Including four-year-olds 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure 1994-95 (Budgeted! $1,887.46 (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (-\u0026gt;) $1,887.46 (=) $3,888 17 1,375 (=) $5,346,233 75 ___________1,259 $4,895,206.03 Over or Under $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $2,249,24 $2,602.66 $2,678.60 *$2,698.87 (X) 5.8% (X) 6% (=) $2,379.70 (+) $1.887.46 (=) $4,267.16 1,259 (=) $5,372.354.44 ___________2,235 $9,537,102.60 $9.242,255.96 ($294,846.64) $23,118,495.03 8,566 $2,698.87 (=) $2,758.82 (+) $1.887.46 (=) $4,646.28 IXL 2,235 (\") $10,384,435.80 ____________1J37 $8.999,844.36 $9.418,773.90 $418,929.54 $2,678.60 (\u0026lt;) $1,887 46 $2,698.87 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,566.06 1,750 () $7,990,605 00 ___________1,454 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 () $4,586.33 (X) 1,454 $6,668,523.82 _______V596 $7,319,782.68 Budgeted Amt: $6,664,904.48 ($654,878.20) Page 78FTE 94-95 projection 25 26 34 36 39 41 49 Franklin Garland Mitchell Rockefeller Rightsell Stephens Ish 62 50 50 72 44 46 Projected Enrollment 343 202 219 380 189 324 1333 1454 Budget 1993-1994 1,567,895.13 1,408,766.60 1,311,925.15 1,764,565.20 1,264,255.01 1,271,662.69 42,611.25 8,631,681.03 Actual 1993-1994 1,546,778.91 1,458,687.28 1,278,881.06 2,009,008.09 1,141,846.11 1,207,045.36 Budget 1994-95 1,470,801.12 1,155,781.08 1,067,628.08 1,772,486.00 1,094,589.52 Per Student Cost 4,288.05 5,721.69 4,875.01 4,664.44 5,791.48 Utilities have been removed from these budget \u0026amp; actuals______|_________ Budget dated 7/26/94 is the source I Budget 93-94 8,642,246.81 5943.77 Obligation 5918.55 8605571.70 36,675.11 8605580.93 6,561,285.80 $6,648,851.20 (87,565.40) Page 1 4,922.19 4572.80Elementary School 1994-95 Budget Bale Brady Badgett McDermott Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Cloverdale Elem Dodd Meadowcliff Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Fulbright Otter Creek Wakefield Watson Total Area Sch Budget Area Sch Per Pupil Expenditure Total Utilities $ 1,056,119.49 $ 1,082,673.15 $ 711,871.49 $ 1,323,527.09 $ $ 954,238.93 904,418.87 $ 1,061,390.39 $ 1,665,024.95 $ 895,302.85 $ 1,400,384.59 $ 1,062,880.57 $ 792,569.26 $ 1,030,111.70 $ 889,186.41 $ 1,046,741.59 $ 1,143,942.77 $ 812,668.36 $ 1,333,783.30 $ 1,359,572.17 $ 1,482,113.58 $ 906,899.29 $ 1,096,024.44 $ 1,264,399.71 $ 25,275,844.95 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 35,610.00 41,500.00 28,900.00 62,100.00 57,100.00 48,500.00 43,500.00 69,900.00 41,400.00 54,000.00 33,500.00 38,050.00 $ 35,400.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 36,500.00 50,250.00 46,900.00 34,700.00 60,100.00 47,900.00 59,000.00 52,700.00 37,000.00 55,400.00 $ 1,069,910.00 Elementary Area Schoo 1993-94 Enrollment Budget 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Enrollment 4-Year-Old Program $ $ Total 4-Yr-Old Total Utilities 4-Year-Old Program Total 4-Yr-Old 89,606.43 57,360.21 $ 102,110.61 $ $ $ 303 397 189 509 18 17 16 99,862.73 62,893.73 59,221.35 $ 160,067.69 $ 104,416.85 $ $ $ 343 263 458 509 332 504 386 292 434 288 398 31 15 18 40 18 50,190.04 96,522.58 48,403.04 $ 102,784.66 $ 1,033,439.92 23,172,495.03 354 236 488 561 520 341 447 442 8994 2,576.44 17 15 0 16 221 $ 1,083,387.59 $ 1,149,455.90 $ 705,780.58 $ 1,324,461.87 $ $ 974,549.40 925,563.40 $ 1,132,508.11 $ 1,619,962.49 $ 927,759.48 $ 1,440,461.57 $ 1,108,921.38 $ 918,043.56 $ 1,146,039.01 $ 824,349.76 $ 1,005,827.72 $ 1,161,523.47 $ 736,629.81 $ 1,346,067.80 $ 1,366,303.23 $ 1,546,659.74 $ 940,017.05 $ 1,180,715.44 $ 1,204,877.93 $ 25,769,866.29 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 35,610.00 41,500.00 28,900.00 62,100.00 57,100.00 48,500.00 43,500.00 34,950.00 41,400.00 54,000.00 33,500.00 38,050.00 35,400.00 36,500.00 50,250.00 46,900.00 34,700.00 60,100.00 47,900.00 59,000.00 52,700.00 37,000.00 55,400.00 $1,034,960.00 $ 108,257.56 309 35 $ $ $ $ $ 60,127.84 93,566.33 99,836.65 51,435.59 59,275.80 $ 146,846.13 $ 105,151.88 $ $ $ $ 51,031.96 88,158.77 49,432.29 97,699.79 $1,010,820.59 23,724,085.70 408 177 494 326 282 432 503 317 502 392 298 411 300 420 345 243 474 559 542 359 413 427 8933 2,655.78 17 25 36 36 18 47 37 18 36 18 36 359I INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to double fund each incentive school. The commitment to this enhanced financial support appears in both the Interdistrict Plan and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan. The explanation of incentive school double funding belowfirst appeared in the 1992 ODM Incentive School Monitoring Report. We have added current year findings. REQUIREMENTS Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences and activities. (Interdistrict. Plan, pg. 4) The Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the Court-approved desegregation plan as incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 1) BACKGROUND None of the desegregation plans nor the financial settlement agreement specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21, 1990, counsel for the LRSD explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per-pupil expenditure in the district's area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD attorney was firm in the district's commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the district's average per-pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding. Since that time, the district's basic per-pupil expenditure has risen substantially because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. To control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the \"base year\" of 1989- 90. The LRSD computed the base year average per-pupil expenditure by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1, 1989 total enrollment. This calculation yielded a base year per-pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each subsequent year, the district multiplies the previous year's actual per-pupil expenditure by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per-pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students who have been recorded as the previous year's October 1 enrollment data (not including the children enrolled in classes for infants through three-year-old's at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. This year, the four-year- Page 75 olds were excluded from the obligation calculation. The rational for excluding them is that they are not included in any other allocation of funds, such as MFPA. There is no state funding for the four- year-old program, it is paid for by the district on the basis of actual expense and not enrollment. This section of the monitoring report was prepared prior to the end of the 1994-95 fiscal year, so we calculated the districts 1994-95 double funding obligation by using budgeted figures. In past years, the actual expenditures have exceeded the budgeted amounts. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1994- 95, excluding the four-year-olds, all based on figures supplied by the LRSD. LRSD INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 (Budqeted) Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure Over or Under $1,887.46 $2,249.24 $2,602.66 $2,678.60 *$2,698.87 (X) 6% (X) 5.8% (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $3,888.17 1,375 (=) $5,346,233.75 T259 $4,895,206.03 $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 (=) $2,379.70 {+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,267.16 (X) 1,259 (=) $5,372,354.44 2J35 $9,537,102.60 $9,242,255.96 ($294,846.64) (=) $2,758.82 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,646.28 2,235 (=) $10,384,435.80 1,937 $8,999,844.36 $9,418,773.90 $418,929.54 $2,678.60 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,566.06 1,750 (=) $7,990,605.00 1,454 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 $2,698.87 (+) $1,887.46 (-) $4,586.33 1,454 $6,668,523.82 1,416 $6,494,243.28 Budgeted Am1: $6,069,741.02 ($424,502.26) 1X1 * Excluding four-year-olds: Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $23,118,495.03 8,566 $2,698.87 There is no 1995-96 projection made because this report is made far eartier in the budget cycle than previous years. No reliable budget or enrollment data is currently available. FINDINGS The LRSD double funds the incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan are in place. This year, the per-pupil budgeted amount is $4,286.54, an amount that is 6.5% below the double funding obligation. Because actual expenditures usually exceed the amount budgeted, the LRSD will probably meet the double funding obligation. Page 76Despite the closing of Stephens, according to the October 1 official enrollment report, the remaining incentive schools had 35 more children in the four-year-old program and 107 more enrolled in K-6 than in 1993-94. Enrollment increased at each one of the incentive schools. As pointed out in last years report, under enrollment results in increased costs for educating each child because of the fixed costs. The efforts of the district to increase the enrollment while holding the line on expenditures resulted in cost contaitunent and better use of the dollars spent. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS In 1993-94, the LRSD spent more than two million dollars over its incentive school double funding obligation. This year, although the chart shows they are not double funding the incentive schools, they are closer to meeting their double funding obligation. As stated in the finding, because the time we monitored the incentive schools was much earlier than last year, actual expenditures could not be obtained. Therefore, we used budgeted figures, which usually are smaller than actual expenditures. If actual expenditures are larger than the budgeted amount, the district may or may not meet its double funding obligation. Continued monitoring and evaluation of the programs and services in the incentive schools is necessary to get the greatest return on the programs that are determined to be effective in improving the success of children. RECOMMENDATION ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Page 77Including four-year-olds 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 (Budoeted) Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure Over or Under $1,887.46 (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (+) $1,887.46 (-) $3,888.17 1,375 (=) $5,346,233.75 1,259- $4,895,206.03 $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 * Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $2,249.24 $2,602.66 $2,678.60 *$2,698.87 (X) 5.8% (X) 6% (=) $2,379.70 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $2,758.82 (+) $1,887.46 $2,678.60 (+) $1,887.46 $2,698.87 (-r) $1,887.46 (=) $4,267.16 (- 11 (=) $4,646.28 (=) $4,566.06 'sA ) (=) $4,586.33 (X) 1,259 (=) $5,372,354.44 2,235- $9,537,102.60 $9,242,255.96 ($294,846.64) $23,118,495.03 8,566 $2,698.87 (X) 2,235 1X1 1,750 1,454 (=) $10,384,435.80 223^ (=) $7,990,605.00 1,454 $6,668,523.82 1,596 $8,999,844.36 $9,418,773.90 $418,929.54 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 $7,319,782.68 Budgeted Amt: $6,664,904.48 ($654,878.20) Jf - S'! .^1'^ There is no 1995-96 projection made because this report is made far earlier in the budget cycle than previous yearn. No reliable budget or enrollment data is currently available. I 1^*^ _ I J. , o Page 7829 that may be raised by the Court. And I would think that if it's raised by ODM, then it would be -- and not resolved by the parties, then it would somethinc appropriate for the Court. 't THE COURT: Well, let me tell you my side. have a substantial concern. I really do. I de And even if Joshua and all the other parties agree to amend these racial balance guidelines, I don't want you to believe that if the Court approves the amendment, that the Court is in any way absolving the district of its obligation to continue to recruit students of both races to meet it's racial balance goals as set forth in the plan. And I think that if the Court should agree to the guidelines that are set forth in the student assignment handbook, that at least sends the message tc the community and to the district, particularly, that the Court is no longer concerned with the recruitment obligations that the district undertook to recruit. again, students of both races to meet those guidelines in the schools in the district. I realize the argument that the district has is sometimes that these goals as set forth in the plan are really unattainable in given situations. And I realize that's true, because the numbers -- the students just are not there in the right proportions. plan. But if you ask the Court to amend the I want you to re-enforce to the Court your continuing commitment to reach those goals that are set CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-6779eg 30 forth in the plan. Othezrwise, I don't believe, in gooc faith, I could approve the amendment. And does the 0D^' understand that. I have not discussed this with her ir this direct term, but you understand what I'm saying? MS. BROWN: Yes, ma'am, I believe I do. THE COURT: So, when you talk to the parties, keep in mind that if the Court goes along with the amended racial balance guidelines, I don't want to absolve the district in any way of its obligation to continue tc recruit students of both races to desegregate these schools. because that's that is what you have committed to. Another thing that I brought up, last hearing, was modification of your interdistrict school assignment policy, which allows you to place only about 9 percent Bl- of your own interdistrict interdistrict schools. white students in What have you decided to de with respect to this, Mr. Heller? Or do you have a witness on this. Does anyone -- is Dr. Mayo here? MR. HELLER: Honor. that. Dr. Mayo is out of the state, your And there has been no official action yet to de That's been discussed among the counsel members. but there has not yet been a proposal presented to the Board. THE COURT: Let me say this: In discussing -- Dr. Williams, did you want to say something about this? CANDACE MATTHEWS, OCR, CVR (501) 227-6779DR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. 31 I just wanted to say that we agreed that we would allow more students tc attend. THE COURT: You would allow more you've set another ceiling on the number of interdistrict white students? DR. WILLIAMS: We're working on it. THE COURT: You are. You plan to set a ceiling, though. DR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. THE COURT: I want to emphasize. I know that you have stated, on the record, that you are reluctant just to open the doors to white students in your owr district and these interdistrict schools, really for a couple of reasons. One is the plan requires you tc recruit whites from the county. And the other, is you do get the M to M transfer money. One thing I have not done, and I mentioned this to the monitors, I have not really sat down with the monitors to assess the financial impact of your receiving or not receiving N to M money in these interdistrict schools. Keep ir mind that you're obligated to continue to desegregate these schools no matter whether the students come fron Pulaski County, which is where you want them to come from, or Little Rock. I am interested in seeing these interdistrict Little Rock Schools desegregated. I realize that the plan calls. first, for them to be CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-6779 T 32 recruited from the whites to be recruited from the county. If that is not fully successful, it would satisfy the Court to see them recruited from those schools in the western reaches, northwest Little Rock, that are predominately white. s And I'm very interested in seeing this modification. And furthermore, I would like the monitors to take look at what is the a financial impact. It might not be as much as yon think. It really might not be. Because you have tc pool your M to M money now in any event with the county. And when you don't educate one of yours and send one of yours off, I know you get money. But yon also get extra money for keeping -- I mean for bringinc them in from the county. So, I just really don't know what the -- have you ever done an analysis of that on a per-pupil basis, Mr. Heller, to your knowledge? MR. HELLER: Your Honor, the only analysis we did was back when we first proposed the incentives or the interdistrict schools to the special master. And we did an analysis which showed that at the ideal composition by districts, those schools would generate enough M to M transfer money to fund them --to nearly fund them. But we haven't done an individual impact of the difference between having a Little Rock student enrolled or having a Pulaski County student enrolled recently. THE COURT: But you don't get minimum foundation CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-677933 money from students you send. The receiving district gets that. Yet you do get M to M money for the students you send\nis that not correct? MR. HELLER: Well, the receiving district is supposed to receive the full cost of educating the student. The sending district gets one-half of its table rate. THE COURT: But no MFPA money? MR. HELLER: Well, I guess that is it. The table rate they would otherwise get for a student remaininc in the district. they get half of that. When the students I THE COURT: Oh. So, it is just half and not -- knew that you got something for sending a student. But in any event, I know that the district has said that this is its reason that -- I want to emphasize that, tc me. it's more important that you desegregate these schools than it is that you get the M to M money. Which, of course, is very much to your advantage. Anc there are a lot of empty seats in these in. say, King, right now. Ml MR. HELLER: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. HELLER: Our concern has also been. your Honor, the impact on the sending schools. But I think that's something that might be a more appropriate limitation than just an overall percentage limitation. CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-677934 THE COURT: Well, I certainly agree that we want to watch the impact on descending schools. But I de believe that the figures that the monitors supplied last time will show that some of these schools car benefit by sending whites to central Little Rock, if we can persuade them that it would be to their benefit tc attend. And by setting the 9 percent ceiling, there were parents who, reportedly, were upset by that. And I don't like to upset parents. I know - I recognize that there are some faces in the audience who I believe } are the faces of parents. Because I haven't seen you here before. And I assume that that's why you're here. Mr. Walker, I'm sorry -- I won't I haven't let me ask -- I'll ask you this, first, and then I'll ask about Clinton about the not the President, the school. You indicted that you would provide the Court with a proposed Order on the Stephens matter. Are you still intending to do that, or do you want the Court tc prepare the Order? Keep in mind, I know whose duty it is to prepare it. It's mine. MR. WALKER: No, your Honor. I do intend to de so. And you'll have one before the end of the day. THE COURT: All right. Fine. Well, that will  give us something to work on. In a case like this, I almost never sign off on the draft counsel prepares. It's very unusual for counsel to prepare a draft. I know it is usual or customary in state court for this CANDACE MATTHEWS, OCR, CVR (501) 227-677935 sort of thing to be done. But we do have we are blessed with somewhat greater resources, and I have an excellent staff. So, I will look forward to getting it. What is the status on recruitment of black students for the Clinton, the William J. Clinter Interdistrict School, that the county is building? MR. BOWLES: Your Honor, we, at this time, have about 98 students registered for Clinton from the Little Rock School District. There is some informatior that's going to be going out to the students' residence jointly with Little Rock. We are making preparations to recruit those students who will be at Stephens if. in fact, Stephens is closed. And we have some other recruitment tools that we're using jointly with the Little Rock School District to increase that number tc as close to the 200 as possible. THE COURT: How many of the 98 are from Stephens, or do you know? MR. BOWLES: At this point, I don't know, your Honor. That information can be obtained, but we've not cycled it by schools at this point. They may have that in the Little Rock School District. THE COURT: Well, I believe you can count on Stephens being closed. That's what these everyone had asked the Court to do. and I said. \"Fine.\" stopped short of signing off on the stipulation. I CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-6779Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (SOI) 371-0100 Date: April 18, 1995 To: Russ Mayo \\ aU From: Brown Subject: Registration Figures According to your March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update to the Board of Directors, all student assignment letters were scheduled for mailing by April 17, 1995. Since that date has now passed, please immediately forward to me the following information, current to date: . 1. The number of students who have registered for the 1995-96 school year, including new students, returning students, M-to-M transfers, intradistrict transfers, and magnet assignments. Include all kindergartens, four-year-old programs, and other early childhood classes. 2. The number of students by school, grade level, race, and gender. 3. For magnet schools (the original, six stipulation magnets), registration by sending district and the number of vacant magnet seats still remaining by district and by grade level. 4. The number of vacant seats currently remaining at each LRSD school by grade level. 5. The number of attendance zone students who still have not registered for next year, by school attendance zone and grade level. 6. Tlie extent to which the number of students attending school in their home attendance zones has changed up or down from last year, by both number and percentage, for each schools attendance zone. (List and compare the figures for both 1994-95 and 1995-96.) In addition. Id appreciate your clearing up some confusing information that appears on page two of the March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update. Item #1 reads, 'Two years ago by this time, about 1,200 kindergartners registered. Last year, it was 1,400, and this year it is 1,490. We are doing a better job with advertising pre-registration...\" Yet, the chart immediately following does not reflect the narrative numbers for 1994-95, so the initial impression the table gives is that kindergarten registration is considerably below that of last year. Perhaps the chart mixes the final first-day total kindergarten enrollment for 1994-95 with the preliminary February registration numbers for 1995-96? Please explain.Page Two April 18. 1995 Also on the same page in tlie Update, the chart depicting four-year-old applications for the 1995- 96 school year does not contain a comparison to 1994-95 numbers from a similar time during last years recruitment period. Therefore, please provide me the total number of black children and white children who had applied for the four-year-old program for the 1994-95 school year at the conclusion of the pre-registration period last year (or at the date which most closely corresponds to the date of the four-year-old information in the Update. Please designate the date of the preliminary 1994-95 numbers as well as those for 1995-96.) Thank you very much.Attachment 3 LRSD Enrollment v. Attendance Zone Attendance Zone Summary May 2, 1995 Attachment 3 April 27, 1995 Central HS\" FairHS Hall HS McClellan HS Sub-Total Cloverdale JH\" Dunbar JH Forest Heights JH Henderson JH Mabelvale JH Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH Sub-Total u n CD 842 493 422 648 2405 415 384 349 478 267 265 341 2499 u n CD Z 3 o c 01 I o 366 176 165 161 868 tT 69 131 124 103 269 110 877 1208 669 587 809 3273 486 453 480 602 370 534 451 3376 c lU W5 869 945 857 4246 643 679 789 860 574 733 624 4902 N \u0026lt; _c 5! c December 2, 1994 76.70% 76.99% 62.12% 94.40% 77.08% 75.58% 66.72% 60.84% 70.00% 64.46% 72.85% 72.28% 68.87% JO u ra m 864 489 428 661 2442 440 409 335 496 281 301 363 2625 o n CD Z 387 182 176 157 902 81 79 156 176 107 308 112 1019 c 2 o 1251 671 604 818 3344 521 488 491 672 388 609 475 3644 \u0026lt;u E o c lU 1646 915 917 943 4422 613 736 720 917 527 830 570 4913 N \u0026lt; c 0) u c V o IC 5 April 27,1995 76.00% 73.33% 65.87% 86.74% 75.64% 84.99% 66.30% 68.19% 73.28% 73.62% 73.37% 83.33% 74.17% -0.7% -3.7% 3.8% -7.7% -1.4% 9.4% -0.4% 7.4% 3.3% 9.2% 0.5% 11.1% 5.3% \u0026lt;u u c  0) c Q ot 43 2 17 9 71 35 35 11 70 18 75 24 268 Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodnjff Sub-Total Grand Total 70 112 141 104 171 212 83 105 61 241 138 141 135 75 200 102 173 163 69 50 166 113 105 230 246 96 142 52 2405 ^09 46 53 52 85 91 37 78 55 191 9 242 15 37 245 113 189 109 3 194 180 0 13 277 66 75 90 68 36 2649 4394 116 165 193 189 262 249 161 160 252 250 380 156 172 320 313 291 282 166 263 230 166 126 382 296 321 186 210 88 634? 12994 180 300 309 377 454 382 286 283 422 445 546 269 285 483 486 478 414 256 356 407 225 388 551 391 422 304 347 230 10276 19424 64.44% 55.00% 62.46% 50.13% 57.71% 65.18% 56.29% 56.54% 59.72% 56.18% 69.60% 57.99% 60.35% 66.25% 64.40% 60.88% 68.12% 64.84% 73.88% 56.51% 73.78% 32.47% 69.33% 75.70% 76.07% 61.18% 60.52% 38.26% 61.75% 66.90% 70 132 154 103 189 262 86 99 63 227 157 146 140 86 202 130 172 162 74 55 153 113 101 258 265 111 158 44 3912 8979 32 52 52 93 76 33 62 49 210 8 263 17 37 277 102 203 90 2 186 189 5 15 299 52 61 88 76 40 2669 4590 102 184 206 196 265 295 148 148 273 235 420 163 177 363 304 333 262 164 260 244 158 128 400 310 326 199 234 84 6581 13^ 163 316 305 368 439 415 275 256 441 428 565 267 274 505 434 493 392 256 351 441 220 420 550 391 426 286 353 220 10250 \"lO^ 62.58% 58.23% 67.54% 53.26% 60.36% 71.08% 53.82% 57.81% 61.90% 54.91% 74.34% 61.05% 64.60% 71.88% 70.05% 67.55% 66.84% 64.06% 74.07% 55.33% 71.82% 30.48% 72.73% 79.28% 76.53% 69.58% 66.29% 38.18% 64.20% 69.29% -1.9% 3.2% 5.1% 3.1% 2.7% 5.9% -2.5% 1.3% 2.2% -1.3% 4.7% 3.1% 4.2% 5.6% 5.6% 6.7% -1.3% -0.8% 0.2% -1.2% -2.0% To^ 3.4% 3.6% 0.5% 8.4% 5.8% -0.1% 2.5% 2.4% -14 19 13 7 3 46 -13 -12 21 -15 40 7 5 43 -9 42 -20 -2 -3 14 -8 2 18 14 5 13 24 -4 236 575 Secondary numbers are based on May 2, 1995 data. Elementary numbers are based on December 2, 1994 94_95AZ.XLS Office of Desegregation 5/3/95Attachment 2 1995-96 STIPULATION MAGNET SEAT SUMMARY/MAY 1, 1995 LRSD ALLOCATION VACANCIES AS OF 5/1/95 STUDENTS ON WAITING LIST BOOKER # VAC. 80 29 18 47 12 11 23 34 34 26 24 26 33 32 25 10 10 10 12 12 12 11 69 84 52 81 70 65 84 52 81 70 65 CARVER 60 21 14 35 50 54 GIBBS WILLIAMS 15 32 10 21 14 14 40 12 17 11 60 15 15 13 12 14 21 14 16 11 23 35 80 82 20 68 52 54 29 48 58 40 65 67 74 38 63 69 36 57 40 55 89 82 23 69 13 12 11 54 53 76 80 65 47 41 65 66 37 59 61 40 65 69 74 92 116 145 116 122 87 96 little Roch School DmItkI K 1 2 3 4 5 6 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 K 1 2 3 4 5 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 B 4 4 4 6 5 4 3 8 2 6 3 3 2 4 0 7 8 6 6 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 W T B W T B 0 6 6 6 6 7 5 2 8 2 5 3 3 9 2 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 4 6 5 2 5 3 6 6 4 9 7 (19 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 5 4 6 6 4 0 2 4 2 3 5 2 2 5 5 4 5 9 0 T 0 0 4 0 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 9 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 6 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 2 4 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 3 . 1 8 3 0 0 2 01995-96 STIPULATION MAGNET SEAT SUMMARY/MAY 1,1995 LRSD ALLOCATION VACANCIES AS OF 5/1/95 STUDENTS ON WAITING LIST PARKVIEW SCIENCE # VAC. B W T B T B T 10 100 30 29 59 0 0 0 115 47 162 11 18 4 4 8 4 4 8 149 0 150 12* 24 5 6 11 5 6 11 104 0 105 PARKVIEW ARTS Band 10 46 14 13 27 41 42 11 13 63 63 12 15 56 56 0 0 0 1 4 3 7 4 3 7 0 2 5 7 2 - 5 7 0 Dance 10 39 13 10 23 35 41 11 14 57 57 12 16 40 40 0 0 0 6 4 4 8 4 4 8 0 2 6 8 2 6 8 0 Speech/ Drama 10 56 17 18 35 76 25 101 11 11 114 119 12 66 69 0 0 0 2 3 5 2 0 5 0 6 2 1 3 2 0 3 0 Orchestra 10 14 4 4 8 0 1 1 5 0 5 11 4 1 1 6 1 2 1 2 6 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 Visual Arts 10 39 12 11 23 53 27 80 11 94 103 12 43 43 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vocal Music 10 37 11 11 22 0 0 0 38 11 49 11 10 2 2 4 2 4 68 0 68 12 11 T 3 5 2 3 5 41 0 41 Students should have completed Chemistry and Algebra II iittlr Roell School District1995-96 STIPULATION MAGNET SEAT SUMMARY/MAY 1,1995 LRSD ALLOCATION VACANCIES AS OF 5/1/95 STUDENTS ON WAITING LIST MANN ARTS # VAC. 200 58 58 116 229 33 262 251 38 289 285 31 326 B w T B W T B W T 7 8 6 1 1 2 9 6 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 MANN SCIENCE 7 8 9 100 29 29 58 187 47 234 10 202 232 37 26 239 258 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 1 2 3 little R\u0026lt;xk School OitIrkI/} Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM {995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent kUtjiT fviOfittcrin^ Date: May 3, 1995 Subject: Registration Information Requested 4-18-95 In response to your memo dated 4-18-95 requesting information regarding registration, I have enclosed several documents that will explain the questions you have. 1. The number of students who have registered for the 1995-96 school year, including new students, returning students, M-to-M transfers, intradistrict transfers, and magnet assignments. Include all kindergartens, four-year-old programs, and other early childhood classes. Response: Attachment 1 This is a current counts reports that will show the actual number of all students registered for the 1995-96 school year. This includes new students, returning students, M-to-M transfers. intradistrict transfers, and magnet assignments. It also includes all kindergartens, four-year-old programs, and other early childhood classes. 2. The number of students by school, grade level, race, and gender. Response: Attachment 1 This report indicates the number of students registered by race and gender by school and grade level. 3. For magnet schools (the original, six stipulation magnets), registration by sending district and the number of vacant magnet seats still remaining by district and by grade level. Response: Attachment 2 This is a magnet seat summary for the original six stipulation magnets as of 5-1-95 for the 1995- 96 school year. Please note that this is only information from LRSD. This information also includes information on the number of students on Waiting Lists, which might be useful. Information on other districts has not been made available to us. I am uncertain on whether or not they have completed their registration process.Ann Brown Response May 3, 1995 2 4, The number of vacant seats currently remaining at each LRSD school by grade level. Response: Attachment 1 The counts reports show the total number of students assigned and the total capacity per grade level. The vacant seats may be determined by simply subtracting the number assigned from the capacity. Waiting lists are currently being worked to fill vacancies for the 1995-96 school year. At Booker Arts Magnet (55.3%) black students are being placed when they can be matched with white students. 5. The number of attendance zone students who still have not registered for next year, by school attendance zone and grade level. Response: Currently we have no way of determining the exact number of students living in each attendance zone of the Little Rock School District. Therefore, we cannot determine the number of students who have not registered for the 1995-96 school year in their attendance zone. We are open to your suggestions. 6. The extent to which the number of students attending school in their home attendance zones has changed up or down from last year, by both number and percentage, for each schools attendance zone. (List and compare the figures for both 1994-95 and 1995-96) Response: Attachment 3 The Enrollment v. Attendance Zone chart represents the number of students registered for their attendance zone schools in 1994-1995 and projected for 1995-96 by race. This chart also indicates the percentage and the change (+ or -) for the 1995-96 school year. Concerning your comments on the March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update, your conclusion is accurate. The table below represents the data you requested on the four-year-old program registration: Four-Year-Old Applicants Date 3-14-94 2-21-95 Black \"6^ 586 White 173 139 Total \"837 725 % Black 79% 81% C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, SuperintendentDate: May 8. 1995 To: Melissa and Bob From: Subject: LRSD registration information Russ Mayo has finally sent me the registration information I requested last month. Polly has a copy of the letter I sent Russ and the data we received. Id like the two of you to collaborate on reviewing the information. Please let me know by next week (after the Abacus Report is into the team editing stage): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Whether the information is complete, i.e., are my questions all answered? Both the good and bad news embedded in the data. Be specific. Where the district is compared to last year, especially as far as racial balance and filling the schools goes. Anything the district needs to clarify, expand, or revise. Your suggestions for any follow up communication you think I need to initiate. Anything else I should know or think about. Tlianks very much. ( 05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 02 / Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Board of Directors Through: From\nDate: Russ Mayo, Assd May 8,1995 hs. Superintendent date Superintendent Subject\nDesegregation Update May. The attached information represents the desegregation update for the month of05/69/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 03 Little Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting May 25,1995 LRSD Btracial Committee The Bi-racial committee began monitoring on May 2,1995. The monitoring visits to all Incentive Schools will be completed by May 31,1995. LRSD Tool/Board Action Required ACTION Board review of tentative budget Conduct Board Work Session tentative budget on SCHEDULED START 5-25-95 5-29-95 SCHEDULED FINISH 5-25-95 5-31-95 LRSD Pre-Registration Counts by School SCHOOL Central 'Hall Parkview Fair McClellan Mann Punbar________ Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest______ Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Booker Bale ~ Brady Badgett McDermott Carver Baseline________ Fair Park Forest Park Franklin________ Garland Gibbs Chicot__________ Western Hills BLACK 1057 632 404 665 735 444 495 513 484 444 624 507 392 298 228 228 127 251 318 228 184 199 385 232 164 318 192 205 as of May f WHITE ~ 548 261 364 243 190 388 226 191 346 107 180 94 131 221 79 121 35 232 278 71 64 238 26 9 127 105 91 T 299 r ,1995 OTHER 47 28 33 _______7 14 21 14 22 7 20 26 8 3 19 10 18 0 19 17 5 7 8 14 27 14 6 ~~..... 7 total 1652 921 801 915 939 853 735 726 837 571 830 609 _526 538 317 367 162 502 613 304 255 445 425 268 305 429 290 511 % BLACK 64.0% 68.6% 50.4% 72.7% 78.3% 52,1% 67.3% 70.7% 57.8% 77.8% 7S.2% 83.3% 74.5% 55.4% 71.9% 62.1% 78.4% 50,0% 51,9% 75.0% 72.2% 44.7% 90.6% 86.6% 53.0% 74.1% 66.2% 40.1%05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 04 i Des^ngation Update Board of Directors Meeting 2 SCHOOL Cloverdale Dodd Meadowcliff Mitchell King___________ Rockefeller Geyer Springs Pulagkt Heights Rightaell_______ Romine Waahington Williams Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Fulbright______ Otter Creek Wakefield Watson TOTAL BLACK 343 174 283 243 306 260 203 213 207 218 451 251 259 135 306 217 254 153 328 335 16,096 WHITE 65 89 100 8 229 142 69 215 8 75 213 226 87 77 119 311 299 191 50 79 7,917 OTHER 8 7 0 3 16 18 3 15 4 14 26 14 8 11 11 30 16 7 14 8 661 TOTAL 416 270 383 254 553 420 275 443 219 307 690 491 354 223 438 558 569 351 392 422 24,674 % BLACK 82.5% 64.4% 73.9% 95.7% 55.7% 61.9% 73.8% 48.1% 94.5% 71.0% 65.4% 51.1% 73.2% 60.5% 70.3% 38.9% 44.6% 43.6% 83.7% 79.4% 65.2% LRSD Desegregation Transfers Attached you will find the information requested regarding the Secondary Desegregation Transfers.J 05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 05 Rationale for Junior High Desegregation Transfers 19HM Ttie Student assignment office received (208) desegregation transfer applications for Junior high schools. 46% of the applications were granted for a total of 96 students. 78 seventh grade students, 40 seventh grade students were granted transfers to PHJH, 29 to FHJH, 3 to MJH, 5 to hjh and 1 to SWJH. 10 eighth grade students, 4 to fhjh, 4 to phjh and 2 to HJH. 8 ninth grade students were granted transfers, 1 to FHJH, 6 to PHJH and 1 to hjh. Black students from the Cloverdate and southwest attendance zones received the majority of Junior high transfers because the transfers benefited the sending and receiving schools where racial balance Is a concern. Pulaski Heights JR High could have received more black students because of their racial balance, but capacity is limited. Transfers were granted to all students except, where racial balance would not remain constant or Improve. Therefore, 16 eighth grade applicants and 5 ninth grade applicants were denied. Racial balance before and after transfers were as follows\nSCHOOL Cloverdile Forett Heightt Hentlerson Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Southwest^^ $ 83.3% 71.3% 737% 74.4% 55.5% 76 3% I 1 832% 71.3% 75.0% 74.5% 58.0% 77.6%J 05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 06 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96 DESEGREGATION TRANSFER APPLICATION SUMMARY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7TH GRADE: 8TH GRADE\nSTH GRADE: TOTAL APPUCATIONS RECEI\\KD: Total 169 26 18 208 Black 12S 23 10 1S8 MTl/ta 44 3 3 50 %Blk 74% 88% 77% 76% II# OF REQUEST TO SCHOOL OF REQUEST FROM SCHOoH GRADE 8th TOTAL BLACK 0 0 2 1 0 5 2 10 WHITE 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 TOTAL 0 0 4 1 0 6 2 13 SCHOOL CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST BLACK 1 2 4 1 0 0 2 10 WHITE Q 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 TOTAL \"l 2 4 3 0 0 3 13 GRADE BTH TOTAL SLACK 1 0 6 4 0 8 4 23 WHITE 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 TOTAL 1 0 6 4 0 11 4 26 SCHOOL CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST SLACK 2 4 3 3 4 0 1 23 WHITE 0 1 0 2 0 0 . 0 3 TOTAL 2 5 3 5 4 0 7 26 GRADE 7TH TOTAL SLACK 12 0 26 5 8 66 6 125 W1ITE 1 0 13 4 7 18 1 44 TOTAL 13 0 41 9 15 84 7 169 SCHOOL CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST ALACK 24 12 9 16 21 0 43 125 WHITE 4 4 6 18 2 0 10 44 TOTAL 28 16 15 34 23 0 S3 169 95-W DC5BG JH TRANSFERS Pige 1t M/'as/nsa 15.58 3815242281 LR5B STUBCNT ^55151-114 PA5C 8? 199S-S6 SmraOR HIGH PBSEgRKGATION TRAWSPBRS TOTAL APPLICATIONS RECEIVED: lOTH GRADE IITH GRADE 12TH GRADE 176 21 4 APPLICATIONS GRAOTED: lOTH GRADE IITH GRADE 12TH GRADE 119 21 4 percentage of total applications granted 71.6* APPLICATIONS DENIED: 10TH GRADE IITH GRADE 12TH GRADE 57 0 0 RATIONALE All 11th and 12th grade applications were granted because space was available and the number of applicants was so small as to not impact the racial balance at any of the four schools. Racial balance inhibited the movement of 57 10th grade  The racial percentages of each school's 10th grade class before applicants. were as follows: Central Hall Fair McClellan considering desegregation transfers 59.4% 73.8% 73.6% 83.1% Therefore, any black students who requested a transfer out of Central to Hall, to Fair, or to McClellan were denied. Likewise, any white students who requested a transfer out of McClellan were denied. Two black students, one at Hall and one at Fair, who requested transfers to McClellan, also were denied.05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 08 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 10TH GRADE DESEGREGATION TRANSFERS IjO OF REQUEST TO SCHOOL 1| II# OF REQUEST FROM SCHOOL^ GRADE 10th TOTAL BLACK 2Q 54 51 7 138 WHITE 13 11 14 0 38 TOTAL 39 65 65 7 176 SCHOOL Cwrtnl Fair Hall MeCMIan BLACK WHITE YofAL 52 13 16 57 I 138 22 2 11 3 38 7A 15 27 60 176Sheets Chart 4 LRSD Elementary Enrollment Years Page 1\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_1139","title":"Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations"],"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/1139"],"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":["218 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n{r!cei\" ~ J / 1. - IZ - fr' ~o,-A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1995-96 ()D,M eo,\nve. a i)CC . I 2 I I (ff? 5 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1995-96 Program Name EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS (Alphabetical Order) Academic Progress Incentive Grant Academic Support Program Alternative Learning Center Booker Arts Magnet Carver Math/Science Magnet Central International Studies Communications Services Dunbar International Studies Four-Year Old/City Wide Early Childhood Gibbs International Studies Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Human Resources Mann Science/Arts Magnet McClellan Community McClellan Business/Communications New Futures (Teaming) Parkview Science/Arts Magnet Transportation (Special Education) Vocational Education Williams Magnet Program Name: Administrative Summary APIG/Focused Activities Implementation Plan 1995-96 Program Description and History From 1991-1994: The Academic Incentive Grant Program was intended to provide funds to identify and implement strategies based on promising practices to enhance student achievement and reduce the disproportionality in academic achievement among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and economic status. Each area school would be able to apply for a total of $75,000 over a three-year period. This amount would be issued to the schools in increments of $25,000 each year, and the carryover of funds would be permitted. Area schools may receive funds to identify and implement strategies based on promising practices to enhance student achievement and reduce the disparities in academic achievement among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and economic status. Teachers, building administrators and patrons would participate in the development of the local school proposal. Grant proposals should avoid additional personnel costs to the extent possible. The District would not assume responsibility for continuing costs that occur after the expiration of the funding period. Approval Criteria: A panel reviewed all applications according to the following: (1) A detailed and wellplanned proposal\n(2) appropriate goals and objects\n(3) We/I-documented need\n(4) innovativeness\n(5) potential for replicability\n(6) realistic budget\n(7) quality of evaluation\n(8) ability to continue after grant period ends\n(9) documentation of teacher, administrator, and patron involvement during proposal development\nand, (10) use of volunteers and/or collaborative efforts with businesses, outside organizations, etc. Focused Activities - Each area school could have a fundamentally sound and strong basic education program. Each area school would also have the option of developing focused activities (which may center around a theme) after appropriate community and parental involvement. All focused activities must promote the desegregation objectives ordered by the court. The elementary area schools (Non-incentive and non-interdistrict) received an annual allocation for implementing the focused activities for the school year. The purpose of the focused activities was threefold: (1) to promote the school as a \"community of learning\" among parents, staff and students\n(2) to provide enrichment opportunities at the building level\n(3) to ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the elementary area schools. The focused activities of each area school would be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the school's environment and day-today activities. The academic performance of area school students would indicate achievement gained partially as a result of enrichment experiences provided by the core program and enrichment 'activities. Area school students would participate in ongoing, 1 meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. All area schools would be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. A business case on APIG/Focused Activities was submitted to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and approved on April 12, 1995. (The recommendation in the business case stated that the Little Rock School District will redirect its effort to provide equitable opportunities to elementary area schools by eliminating the grant writing process and providing additional funds through annual appropriations in each area schools' operating budget. Annually each elementary area school would be funded $20 per student as of the October 1 enrollment. Funds could be allocated at the beginning of the new school year and adjustments will be made after enrollments are verified later in the year. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE and the Desegregation Plan have been combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two grant proposals are maintained.) (Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curriculum. The regular operating budget in twenty-three (23) area elementary schools will be supplemented with an allocation of $20 per student.) Recommendations: Continue to give Area Schools the opportunity to enrich their programs with the twenty dollar per student allocation in their budget. The process has only been in place for one year. 2 II I I I I I I I I ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY PROGRAM NAME: Academic Support Program PROGRAM DESCRIPI'ION: The purpose of the Academic Support Program is to provide support for participating students in grades one through twelve in the areas of reading, language arts, and mathematics. The program reinforces and enhances the academic achievement of these targeted students. The support is provided by certified reading specialists and English and mathematics teachers in the regular classroom, in additional classes, and in labs. All of the District's remediation programs are part of the Academic Support Program. All such programs are located at the individual school sites, except the Metropolitan VocationalTechnical Education Center. The Academic support Program offers a variety of options to individual schools for providing accelerated reading/language arts and mathematics learning experiences for students identified through a process using multiple criteria. The program is characterized by providing either direct or indirect services to identified students through additional classes, smaller class sizes, or in-class assistance at the secondary level and in-class assistance or limited pull out at the elementary level. The Language Arts Plus and Math Plus Programs are intended to reinforce regular instruction exclusively and to focus on specific student deficits. The Plus Programs add an enrichment class to schedules of targeted students. This concept utilizes . the services of regular English and mathematics teachers in whose classes the targeted students are enrolled. The Language Arts Plus and Math Plus teachers teach up to four regular periods and during the remaining periods provide tutorial and accelerated learning experiences for all academic support students enrolled in each of their regular classes. Average class size is not to exceed 15 students per period in the teachers' plus class periods. The Language Arts Plus Program approach reduces the number of separate reading classes and the number of language arts students per teacher. The Math Plus Program approach also provides a reduced number of math students per teacher. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendation 1 It is recommended that all schools be directed to follow the model as it is written. Administrative entities should work together to insure adequate inservicing of principals and registrars so that program design is clearly understood. Administrative Summary Page 2 Recommendation 2 It is recommended that the instructional supervisors have a greater role in program design, program implementation, and related staff development and technical assistance. The academic Support Program is designed to complement the instructional efforts of the district's language arts and mathematics departments. To maintain the integrity of these efforts makes it imperative that program supervisors exercise increased involvement in the Academic Support Program. Recommendation 3 It is recommended that the district investigate more cost efficient alternatives to the current Academic Support Program at the secondary level. On a short term basis, Math Plus at the tenth grade level can be eliminated. These students are a rather homogeneous group since all failed Algebra I in junior high school. Senior high school Algebra I teachers should utilize instructional strategies appropriate for strengthening algebra concepts. Similar alternatives should be explored for reading/language arts. The district should explore consolidating resources at lower grade levels by eliminating services at the secondary level.  I I  I ACADEMIC SUPPORT MODIFIED PROGRAM EVALUATION Evaluation Focus What follows is a modified program evaluation of the Little Rock School District Academic Support Program intended to address specific concerns at the secondary level. The current Academic Support Program was designed and implemented following a 1992 court order, in which the district was directed to redesign its support system for students with learning needs in the areas of reading/language arts and mathematics. The current concerns about the Academic Support Program have to do with perceived departures, Jrticularly at the secondary level, from the program design. Such departures may endanger the integrity of the Academic Support Program, by violating the goals of the desegregation plan with regards to student achievement and by failing to fully serve students who should be targeted in appropriate ways. Specifically, this program evaluation has been conducted to address questions about implementation of the program, administration of the program, and future funding of the program at the secondary level. In this context it has been necessary to modify the District's evaluation format in order to limit the focus of the analysis process to these three specific concerns. Therefore, the evaluation does not attempt to address the full scope of the current Academic Support Program. Secondary Program Description Purpose The purpose of the Academic Support Program is to provide support for participating students in the areas of reading, language arts, and mathematics. The program reinforces and enhances the ,icademic achievement of these targeted students. The support is provided by English, reading, and mathematics teachers in additional classes. Scope and Content All of the District's remediation programs are part of the Academic Support Program. All such programs are located at the individual school sites, except the Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center. The Academic Support Program offers a variety of options to the individual schools for providing accelerated reading/language arts and mathematics learning experiences for students identified through a process using multiple criteria. The program is characterized by providing services to identified students through additional classes at the secondary level. Secondary Academic Support Pro~arn Secondary schools implement the Academic Support Program according to one of the following possible approaches: APPROACH ONE For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class is available in five of the junior high schools to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. APPROACH TWO NIA APPROACH THREE The Language Arts Plus and Math Plus Programs are intended to reinforce regular instruction exclusively and to focus on specific student deficits. The Plus Programs add an enrichment class to schedules of targeted students. This concept utilizes the services of regular English and mathematics teachers in whose classes the targeted students are enrolled. The Language Arts Plus and Math Plus teachers teach up to four regular periods and during the remaining periods provide tutorial and accelerated learning experiences for all academic support students enrolled in each of their regular classes. Average class size is not to exceed 15 students per period in the teachers' plus class periods. The Language Arts Plus Program approach reduces the number of ~ eparate reading classes and the number of language arts students per teacher. The Math Plus Program approach also provides a reduced number of math students per teacher. EXTENDED SERVICES-SECONDARY To support and extend learning opportunities for targeted students, the academic team concept is supplemented by making available to these students before-school, at lunch, and after-school instructional services. Additionally, some sites may schedule periodic extended weeks in order to provide a practice and review session on Saturdays. Principals may use flexible scheduling of staff to provide some of their extended day services. The implementation of academic support programs may vary from school to school in design. However, the following common critical elements are evident in every program: instructional strategies including higher order thinking skills, close observance of time on task, use of the District's approved curriculum with appropriate materials and resources, a positive school climate that includes conveying high expectations for all students, parent involvement designed to assure a collaborative partnership between parents and school, problem analysis consisting of collecting, analyzing and disaggregating student data, and monitoring/evaluation. Yew staff members participate in development activities that assist them in use of curriculum guides as well as appropriate staff development activities for targeted students. 2     I I I Participants/Beneficiaries Target students are initially identified from the student population scoring in the lower quartile on the annual student assessment. Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records are used to select students from the eligible population to participate in the Academic Support Program. Program Goal The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstream setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Specific objectives have been developed in order to accomplish the program goal. One of the objectives is to identify and serve students who are at-risk in language arts and mathematics. In '.):-der to meet this objective at the secondary level, several assumptions are made: 1) funding will be available for program activities 2) schools will implement the approved reading and language arts/math plus model 3) students will be identified and selected in a timely manner for the program using multiple criteria 4) staff development will be provided for teachers participating in the program 5) appropriate records will be kept on students to measure progress and meet federal and/or state regulations 6) instruction, evidence of learning, and record keeping will be monitored on a regular basis Evaluation The limited evaluation will address three aspects of the Academic Support Program: l) degree of implementation at the secondary school level during the 1995-96 school year 2) administrative coordination 3) external funding 3 Evaluation Criteria The evaluation criteria for the modified program evaluation for the Academic Support Program consists of: I) the extent to which the secondary schools are implementing the reading and language arts/math plus model. Data about the number of students served at each school compared to those eligible, the number of students in each reading language arts plus and math plus class, and the number of students who aren't in their regular language arts or mathematics teacher's plus class. 2) a listing of major program activities with a time line and the person(s) who initiated/implemented the activity. This listing will illustrate current administrative control of the Academic Support Program. 3) a description of program components and the cost of each component for the 1995-96 school year. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect data gathered from several sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and yield the following results, presented in correspondence with the previously stated aspects. Aspect I Degree of Implementation at the Secondary School Level During the 1995-96 School Year Each secondary school (all junior and senior high schools) was surveyed to determine the total number of Language Arts Plus and Math Plus classes, the total number of students enrolled in each class, and the total number of students enrolled in the classes who are not being served by their regular English and/or math teachers. The surveys produced the following results: Among the eight junior high schools, there are 37 Language Arts Plus classes and 42 Math Plus classes. The total number of students enrolled in the Language Arts Plus classes is 352. Of these students, 27 are not served by their own English teacher. The total number of students enrolled in the Math Plus classes is 437. Of these students, 80 are not served by their own math teacher. Table A and Table B Among the five senior high schools, there are 36 Language Arts Plus classes and 9 Math Plus classes. The total number of students enrolled in the Language Arts Plus classes is 343. Of these students, 95 are not served by their own English teacher. The total number of students enrolled in the Math Plus classes is 72. Of these students, 2 are not being served by their own math teacher. 4 I I I TABLE A LANGUAGE ARTS PLUS ENROLLMENT SCHOOL TEACHER PERIOD ENROLLMENT # MISPLACED STUDENTS Fair High Hall 6th 12 3 Fair High Gray 6th 7 Fair High Peters 5th 15 2 Fair High Pickering 1st 8 8 Fair High Earleywine 4th 7 Fair High Thompson 6th 11 8 McClellan High B. Gray 6th 11 McClellan High McDonald 1st 8 McClellan High Tatum 1st 6 McClellan High Jones 2nd 8 4 McClellan High Hawkins 4th 6 McClellan High Paul 4th 9 UcClellan High D. Gray 3rd 8 Parkview High Henry 3rd 7 2 Parkview High Kready 3rd 12 3 Parkview High Bailey 6th 7 Parkview High Rague 3rd 16 Cloverdale Jr. Burnette 6th 9 Cloverdale Jr. VanPelt 1st 11 Mabelvale Jr. Credit-Banston 3rd 8 Mabelvale Jr. Lee 5th 6 Mabelvale Jr. Hastings 4th 5 Mabelvale Jr. Price 6th 2 Mabelvale Jr. Toledo 7th 9 Mabelvale Jr. Wolfe 1st 7 Mann Jr. Bell 7th 12 Mann Jr. Gamer 1st 11 Mann Jr. Davis 4th 7 Mann Jr. Davis 5th 9 Southwest Jr. Smithson 7th 14 Southwest Jr. McCuien 2nd 14 l-:r,ntral High Paxton 5th 8 Central High Hammons 3rd 14 Central High Nash 5th 14 Central High Sain 1st 13 Central High Prewit 1st 9 9 Central High Prewit 2nd 8 8 Central High Prewit 3rd 13 13 Central High Prewit 4th 12 12 Central High Prewit 6th 10 10 5 SCHOOL TEACHER Dunbar Jr. Rizzardi Dunbar Jr. McLeroy Dunbar Jr. Richardson Dunbar Jr. Richardson Dunbar Jr. Richardson Dunbar Jr. Mundy I\n1mbar Jr. Mundy Dunbar Jr. M. Smith Dunbar Jr. M. Smith Dunbar Jr. Flynn Pulaski Hts. Jr. Bodenhamer Pulaski Hts. Jr. Sparling Pulaski Hts. Jr. Ross Hall High Milloway Hall High Easter Hall High Hawkins Hall High Carter Hall High Runshang Hall High Gage Hall High Norman Hall High Walton Hall High McKinnon Hall High Maddison Henderson Jr. Williams Henderson Jr. Williams Henderson Jr. Olsen Henderson Jr. Olsen Henderson Jr. Palmer Henderson Jr. Williamson Henderson Jr. Key Henderson Jr. Key Forest Hts. Jr. McCree Forest Hts. Jr. McCree Total Jr. High Classes 37 Total Sr. High Classes 36 *Estimated from average PERIOD ENROLLMENT # MISPLACED STUDENTS 1st 9 2nd 11 2nd 7 4th 7 5th 9 1st 9 6th 9 I st 12 5th 8 6th 11 2nd 8 6th 11 4th 12 1st 7 3rd 9 2nd 14 5th 10 6th 5 3rd 5 2nd 5 4th 11 1st 5 1st 13 13 5th 10 6th 9 5th 10 6th 11 3rd 15 2nd 8 1st 7 7th 8 3rd 14 +14 5th 13 +13 Total Jr. High Enrollment 352 Total Sr High Enrollment 343 Average Enrollment 9.5 + 11 of McCree's 27 students have her periodically as a team teacher\n16 don't have her at all. 6 I I I I II I I TABLEB MATH PLUS ENROLLMENT SCHOOL TEACHER PERIOD ENROLLMENT #MISPLACED STUDENTS Central High Carr 1st 4 Central High Schlesinger 1st 8 Central High Schlesinger 3rd 8 1 Fair High Eskola 2nd 8 Fair High Feldman 3rd 13 1 Hall High Daniell 4th 4 Hall High Thompson 5th 9 McClellan High Larkin 2nd 10 McClellan High Larkin 6th 8 Dunbar Jr. Robinson (8th) 6th 9 Dunbar Jr. Flanigan (7th) 7th 8 Dunbar Jr. Newton (7th) 5th 8 Dunbar Jr. Cowell (8th) 2nd 8 Forest Hts. Jr. Gray (7th) 6th 7 7* Forest Hts. Jr. Gray (7th) 7th 7 7* Forest Hts. Jr. Nichols (8th) 1st 10 10* Forest Hts. Jr. Nichols (8th) 2nd 8 8* Henderson Jr. Burkepile (7th) 4th 7 Henderson Jr. Burkepile (8th) 5th 10 Henderson Jr. Grant (7th) 3rd 11 Henderson Jr. Grant (7th) 6th 6 H~nderson Jr. Thompson (8th) 7th 14 Henderson Jr. Ellington (7th) 1st 14 Henderson Jr. Slater (8th) 2nd 15 Mabelvale Jr. Lindberg (7th) 3rd 8 Mabelvale Jr. Dunbar (7th) 7th 11 Mabelvale Jr. Clark (8th) 7th 15 Mabelvale Jr. Webb (8th) 1st 10 Pulaski Hts. Jr. Allmon (7th) 1st 13 1 Pulaski Hts. Jr. Allmon (7th) 5th 11 ~ Pulaski Hts. Jr. Drake (8th) 2nd 11 Pulaski Hts. Jr. Drake (8th) 3rd 13 Southwest Jr. Ezell (7th) 2nd 9 Southwest Jr. Ezell (7th) 3rd 11 Southwest Jr. Kline (8th) 4th 10 Southwest Jr. Morgan (8th) 4th 12 7 SCHOOL Southwest Jr. Mann Jr. Mann Jr. Mann Jr. Cloverdale Jr. Cloverdale Jr. Cloverdale Jr. Cloverdale Jr. ....C. loverdale Jr. Cloverdale Jr. Cloverdale Jr. Cloverdale Jr. Cloverdale Jr. Cloverdale Jr. Cloverdale Jr. Total Jr. High 73 Total Sr. High 51 TEACHER Tidmore (7th) Moore (8th) McSwain (7th) Levin (8th) Benson (7th) Skidgel (8th) Skidgel (8th) Gately (7th) Gately (8th) Gately (7th) Reedy (7th) Reedy (7th) Klais (8th) Klais (8th) Klais (8th) Parkview- No Math Plus Classes PERIOD ENROLLMENT #MISPLACED STUDENTS 3rd 16 5th 15 6th 8 4th 15 7th 9 2nd 4 I 4th 14 2 4th 6 3 5th 10 10 6th 12 9 1st 11 2 4th 7 3rd 12 7 6th 10 4 7th 12 9 Total Jr. High 383 Total Sr. High 493 Average Enrollment 9.8  All Forest Heights Math Plus students are scheduled with a part-time \"team teacher.\" 8 At the secondary level, there are a total of 73 Language Arts Plus classes with a total enrollment of 695 students. The average class size is 9 .5 students. TABLEC \"ELIGIBLE\" versus \"SERVED\" LANGUAGE ARTS PLUS STUDENTS *POPULATION POPULATION PERCENTAGE SCHOOL ELIGIBLE SERVED SERVED CLOVERDALE 159 20 12.5% DUNBAR 144 92 63.9% FOREST HEIGHTS 140 27 19.0% HENDERSON 165 78 47.3% MABELVALE 122 37 30.3% MANN 98 39 39.8% PULASKI HEIGHTS 142 31 21.8% SOUTHWEST 146 28 19.2% CENTRAL 446 101 22.6% FAIR 304 60 19.7% HALL 317 84 26.5% McCLELLAN 296 56 18.9% PARKVIEW 134 42 31.3% TOTAL 2613 69S 27.0% *Includes grades 7-12. There are a total of 51 Math Plus classes with a total enrollment of 509 students. The average Math Plus class size is 9.8 students. TABLED \"ELIGIBLE\" versus \"SERVED\" MATH PLUS STUDENTS  *POPULATION SCHOOL ELIGIBLE CLOVERDALE 164 DUNBAR 124 FOREST HEIGHTS 136 HENDERSON 146 MABELVALE 104 MANN 82 PULASKI HEIGHTS 143 SOUTHWEST 136 CENTRAL 279 FAIR 161 HALL 137 M.::CLELLAN 154 PARKVIEW 63 TOTAL 1824 *Includes grades 7, 8 and 10. POPULATION SERVED 107 33 32 77 44 38 48 58 20 21 13 18 0 S09 9 PERCENTAGE SERVED 62.2% 26.6% 23.5% 52.7% 42.3% 46.3% 32.4% 42.6% . 7.2% 13 .0% 9.5% 11.7% 0.0% 28.0% {, The total number of students at the secondary level being served during the 1995-96 school year is 1,204. Of that total secondary student population tested, using the SAT-8, during the spring of 1995 4,299 fell below the 36th NCE, which is the cut-off for Academic Support Program service eligibility. 3,095 more students are eligible for service than are actually being served. Aspect 2 Administrative Coordination A review of the Academic Support Program activities reveals that there are 32 specific events which must be compiled for full implementation to occur. There are a number of specific events that may be categorized into 7 specific function categories. These ?function categories correspond to duties assigned to the following district entities: Federal Programs, R.~ading/Language Arts Department, Mathematics Department, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, and building-level principals. A number of the events require coordination of functions by two or more district entities in order to ensure that the events are fully completed. Table E, Table F and Table G. Academic Support language arts plus and math plus administration is presented in detail in Table G. Primary tasks are listed in five major categories: application preparation, student selection process, monitoring, personnel and evaluation. Each tasks shows a start and finish date and the name of the person or persons responsible for its completion. There are remaining coordinating functions that must be reconciled between Table F and Table G. 10 TABLEE TITLE I EVENTS - CROSS REFERENCED BY FUNCTION PROGRAM EVENT -J)e\nvelop program proposal Submit proposal for approval/funding Disseminate recommendation forms Share program information Conduct pre-identification process Draft student schedules Review SA T-8 results Identify pool of students Select students to be served Develop master schedule Schedule students in classes Notify parents Develop schedules for teachers Keep program records Monitor program implementation Deliver program Evaluate program / assess needs Reconcile funding and program proposal Provide technical assistance to teachers Provide technical assistance to supervisors Provide technical assistance to principals ui\u0026gt;velop model choices/curriculum/materials Select program staff Determine staff roles Provide staff development Keep abreast of state/federal regulations Serve as a liaison with state and federal officials Advise LRSD Program Supervisors on changes, etc. Monitor program to ensure funding integrity Document funding integrity Manage program budget Coordinate audits MO - Monitoring (Regulatory/Compliance) BM - Budget Management SD - Staff Development PD - Program Design MO X X X X X X X X X 11 BM SD PD EV TA 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 EV - Evaluation TA - Technical Assistance IM - Implementation X X X X X X X X X X X X X IM X X X X X X X X X X X ? .A 1.-- La_ TABLEF CRITICAL EVENTS RECOMMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION EVENT -l)c,velop program proposal Submit proposal for approval/funding Disseminate recommendation forms Share program information Conduct pre-identification process Draft student schedules Review SAT-8 results Identify pool of students Select students to be served Develop master schedule Schedule students in classes Notify parents Develop schedules for teachers Keep program records Monitor program implementation Deliver program Evaluate program/assess needs Reconcile funding and program proposal Provide technical assistance to teachers Provide technical ~sistance to supervisors Provide technical assistance to principals uc\u0026gt;velop model choices/curriculum/materials \u0026gt;- ~elect program staff Determine staff roles Provide staff development Keep abreast of state/federal regulations Serve as a liaison with state and federal officials Advise LRSD Program Supervisors on changes, etc. Monitor program to ensure funding integrity Document funding integrity Coordinate audits FP LA/MA - Federal Programs - Language Arts and Mathematics Departments - Principals COORDINATION PROVIDED BY LA/MA,FP FP LA/MA LA/MA,FP LA/MA PR LA/MA,PR PR PR PR,AS PR PR PR, LA/MA FP, PR, LA/MA LA/MA, PR, FP, AS PR LA/MA, FP, PR, AS FP LA/MA FP LA/MA,FP LA/MA PR, LA/MA, AS LA/MA LA/MA FP, LA/MA, AS FP FP FP FP FP PR AS - Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools 12 TABLE G LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACADEMIC SUPPORT - LANGUAGE ARTS PLUS/MA TH PLUS FY95-96 ID N1m ,i\n.-hedu\"\"' \"fun Sc.,.,.uled Finish Resource Names 1 ~~PUc,t,.T{Qtt ~l~BAIIQN 2/1/96 5/24/96 Adams/Promm Manager ' 2 Procram Description 4/24/95 5/l/95 Adams/Prlnclpal/Glascow/Parker l Budcet Summary 6/17/96 6/28/96 Adams/Hllhollen 4 Submit Project to Board 7/5/96 7/11/96 Superintendent/ Adams 5 Submit to ADE 7/25/96 8/15/96 ADAMS 6 STUDENT SELECTION PROCESS 11/1/94 7/5/95 ADAMS 7 Modify Dau lnstnimenu 11/15/94 1/l/95 Adams/Glascow/Parker 8 lnservlce Counselon 2/7/95 2/7/95 Adams/Glascow/Parker 9 Selection Deslcn l/1/95 l/10/95 Adams/Pro,ram Hanacer 10 Adoption Process l/10/95 l/ll/95 Adams/Glascow/Parker 11 Distribute Student Analysis 4/l/95 4/7/95 Adams/Suff FY95-96 13 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACADEMIC SUPPORT - LANGUAGE ARTS PLUS/MA TH PLUS FY95-96 ilme esource ilmes t2 Administer Student Anillysls Tuchen 1] Collect DilUI 4/17/95 4/18/95 PrfnclPill 14 Score Student Anillysls 4/20/95 4/28/95 Adilms/Surf 15 Develop Milster List 5/8/95 5/15/95 Adilms/Glils1ow/Pi1r1ter 16 Collect Sunford-Elsht Scores 5/5/95 6/5/95 Adilms/)ilclcson/Buson/Rumns 17 Collect Tucher Recommendiltlon Forms 5/5/95 6/5/95 Glils1ow/Pi1r1ter 18 Submit Forms To Office of Federal Prosrams 6/6/95 6/9/95 Gli111ow/Pi1r1ter 19 Composite Scores 6/1/95 6/16/95 Adilms/Pro,rilm Hilnil\u0026amp;er 20 Select Needy Studenu 6/19/95 6/21/95 Adilms/Pro,rilm Hilniller 21 Aademlc Performance level 6/26/95 7/5/95 Chapter 1 ll Rei. Tuchen/Glils1ow/Pi1r1ter MONITORING 7/1/94 8/JQ/95 AlMMS FY95-96 14 TARI I-\" G LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACADEMIC SUPPORT LANGUAGE ARTS PLUS/MA TH PLUS FY95-96 ID Name llidllNIUl\"41 :uart icneau1ea finish ltesource Names 2J COMPLIANCE: student selectlon, student PEP, parent 7/1/94 8/J0/95 Adams/Prosram Hana1er/Spedallsts authoriutlon, staff collabontlon, parent Involvement, student sndes, student attendance, student behavior, pupil/teacher ratio 24 PROGRAM PROGRESS: prosress or lack of prosress, stares 9/1/94 6/4/95 Adams/Glas1ow/Parker/Prosram of Improvement, recommendatlon(s), follow-up Hana1er/Spedallsts 25 Honltorin1 Reports To Office of Federal Prosrams-BlHonthly 10/12/94 6/1/95 Glas1ow/Parker/Prosram Hana1er/Speclallsts 26 STAFF DEVELOPMENT: pre-school or orientation workshops, 8/22/95 5/12/96 ADAMS/GLASGOW/PARKER/SPECIALISTS contlnulnr and periodic lnservlce, specialized technlcal assistance, new personnel lnservlce, review of evalmtlon with school staff 27 Rudln1 8/15/95 6/4/96 Parker/Speclallsts 28 Rudln1/unrua1e Arts Plus 8/15/95 11/14/95 Adams/Speclallsts/ Adams 29 Classroom Teachers Instructional Practices 8/22/95 11/13/95 Parker/Spedallsu JO Mathematics 8/22/95 6/J/96 Glasrow/Speclallsts JI Classroom Tuchen Instructional Practices 8/22/95 11/13/95 Glasrow/Speclallsts J2 Hath Plus 8/15/95 11/14/95 Glas1ow/Speclallsts ll PERSONNEL: CHAPTER I /TITLE 7/3/95 6/28/96 ADAMS I/COMPENSATORY EDUCATION FY95-96 14 JS 16 17 ]8 19 40 41 41 44 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACADEMIC SUPPORT - LANGUAGE ARTS PLUS/MATH PLUS FY95-96 ame Job Vaancy Announcement Appllatlon on FIie Interview Vaancy Document Vaancy Document Copy to Office of Federal Proarams Personnel Roster: Chainres, Replacemenu, Corrections Reconcile Compensaitory Eduatlon Personnel Vaancy List to Personnel Office COMPENSATORY EDUCATION EVALUATION Compensaitory Eduatlon/Chaipter 1 Information Management Program Summatlve Data FY95-96 16 7/l/95 7/3/95 7/l/95 7/3/95 7/l/95 4/l/95 4/l/95 5/JL25 8/22/94 10/20/94 6/l/96 Robinson/ Adams 6/l/96 Prlnclpal/Glasrow/Parker 6/l/96 Prlnclpal/ Adams/Hurley 6/l/96 Hurley 6/l/96 Adams/Mllhollen/Hurley 4/3/95 Adams/Hurley 5/1/95 ADAMS 6/30/25 ADAMS 6/15/95 Adams/Bates 6/15/95 Prorram Manager/Adams TABLE G LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACADEMIC SUPPORT LANGUAGE ARTS PLUS/MA TH PLUS FY95-96 IP Name :l(nl!\u0026lt;IUI .... :uart :1cneau1ea t1nun llesource Names 45 StanfordElcht Reports 5/16/95 6/1/95 Jackson/Beason/Conley 46 Impact Summary 6/1/95 6/15/95 Proaram Mauser/Adams 47 Sustained Gains 6/1/95 6/15/95 Pro,rahl Mana,er/Adams 48 Sustained Growth 6/1/95 6/15/95 Pro,nm Mauser/Adams 49 Two Year Student Study 6/1/95 6/15/95 Proaram Mana1er/Adams FY95-96 Aspect 3 External Funding Students may receive supplemental assistance in a reading class or language arts plus class as is shown in Table H. In 1995 $665,200 was the expenditure in reading only from Title I funds. In addition, $247,816 was the expenditure for language arts plus classes funded by Compensatory Education. Math plus expenditures were $290,221. Combined costs from both funding sources was $1,203,257. In 1996, reading and language arts is funded only by Title I and math is funded only by Compensatory Education. The difference in expenditure levels between 1995 and 1996 is j\n~72,860. The decrease in funding resulted in a decrease in FTEs, as well, between FY95 and FY96. For the Language Arts Plus and reading the net decrease was 16 FTEs over the 2-year period, while for Math Plus the decrease in FTEs between FY95 and FY96 totaled 4.8 FTE's. If continuing to serve 30 per cent of the identified students in a plus class environment remains the norm, funding levels for these classes must remain at $700,000. (State Compensatory funding of $250,00 will not be awarded in FY97. In addition, Title I funding could be reduced by 10 percent in FY97.) Also, provisions must be made for salary increases and benefits. TABLEH ACADEMIC SUPPORT SECONDARY SCHOOL FUNDING SOURCE BUDGET FUNDING SOURCE FY9S FrEs FY96 FrEs TITLE I READING/LANGUAGE ARTS $665,220 19.2 $510,128 11.0 READ-ONLY READ/LAP MATH -0- -0- -0- -0- COMPED. 32 TEACHERS READ/LAP $247,816 7.8 (2 READ TEACH.) 44 MA TH TEACHERS $290,221 10.4 $185,989 5.6 TOTAL SI,203,2S7 37.4 $696,117 16.6 NOTE: Sr. High schools/Pulaski Heights Jr. High not eligible FY96. 18 Obstacles to Goal Attainment 0:: .\nacles to goal attainment are indicated by relationship to the three aspects which are the focus o: : 1is evaluation. The obstacles are as follows: i. .. Degree to implementation at the secondary level during the 1995-96 school year  Lack of staff development component for inservicing principals and registrars on bow to schedule students and classes.  Inconsistency in use of placement forms and multiple criteria to determine eligible student population.  Inconsistency in adherence to written Academic Support Program description.  Lack of involvement in program design and management at instructional supervisor level. ')) Administrative coordination  Lack of consistent communication among administrative entities: Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, Director ofF~deral Programs, Director of Reading/Language Arts, Director of Mathematics/Science, and Building . Principals.  Lack of clear delineation of roles and duties among all administrative entities.  Inconsistency in interpretation of Academic Support Program design.  Inconsistency in program implementation from site to site. 3) External funding  Decrease in federal and state controlled funding.  Lack of clear communication of how different program components are funded: which teachers are paid with what funds?  Lack of clear understanding of what funds are available for materials, supplies, staff development, and technical assistance.  Lack of clear communication on state and federal regulations, laws, and guidelines. 19 II Recommendations Recommendation 1 It is recommended that all schools be directed to follow the model as it is written. The administrative entities should work together to insure adequate inservicing of principals and registrars so that program design is clearly understood by everyone. The current Academic Support Program was written to comply with a 1992 court order. The program description is very specific with regard to school implementation possibilities. Recommendation 2 It is recommended that the instructional supervisors have a greater role in program design, program implementation, and related staff development and technical assistance. The Academic Support Program is designed to complement the instructional efforts of the district's language arts and mathematics departments. To maintain the integrity of these efforts makes it imperative that the program supervisors exercise increased involvement in the Academic Support Program . .Recommendation 3 It is recommended that the district investigate more cost efficient alternatives to the current Academic Support Program at the secondary level. On a short -term basis, Math Plus at the tenth grade level can be eliminated. These students are a rather homogeneous group since all failed Algebra I in junior high school. Senior high school Algebra I teachers can utilize instructional strategies appropriate for strengthening algebra concepts. Similar alternatives should be explored for reading and language arts. The District should explore consolidating resources at lower grade levels by reducing or eliminating services at the secondary level. 20 Addendum To The Extended Evaluation For Alternative Leamini Center Program being evaluated: In-School Suspension, Alternative Learning Center: Curriculum Offering, Attendance Patterns/Rates, and Behavior Modification Procedures. Data collection: Area Classification Objective 1: Number of repons from office file. Support Objective 2: Evaluation of daily sign-in logs and attendance Jog held in office attendance file. Support Objective 3: Evaluation of the information made available for review by visiting monitors. Filed in office bookcase. Desegregation Objective 4: Evaluation of the Alternati'.'e learning Center Mission Package, intake conferences, counseling, orientation program, individualized lesson plans, In-School Detention, In-School Suspension, activity clubs, and field trips. Curriculum Objective 5: Evaluation of disaggegated enrollment data immediately after each enrollment change. Filed as \"ALC- ROLL\". Desegregation Objective 6: Evaluation of behavior modification sanction log book filed in principal's office.  Desegregation Objectin 2.: Evaluation of curriculum offerings filed with the Arkansas Department of Education through Forest Heights Junior High School. Evaluation of grades filed for each student by the alternative school faculty. Information maintained in the office files. Curriculum Alternative Learning Center Extended Program Evaluation Revised: l l /10/95 Primary Leader: Dr. Anderson, Assistant Superintendent Secondary Leader: Dr. Marshaleck, Principal Chair: Dr. Anderson, Assistant Superintendent Program Name: In-School Suspension Partial Specific Areas of Study: (Operation of Alternative Education Center) 1.) Curriculum Offered 2.) Attendance Patterns/Rates 3.) Behavior Modification Procedures J I.RSD - J\\I.C - EXf-l'ROI WPS Purpose Alternative Learning Center Extended Program Evaluation Program Description School Operations includes the total integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all LRSD students in a desegregated educational setting. Central office staff and principals of the schools collaborate to ensure quality educational program planning for all students with the support of staff, parents, and the larger community. Scope and Content The Alternative Leaming Center provides learning experiences for students of the district's junior high schools who have demonstrated continued lack of success in the regular classroom setting after educational and behavior modification strategies have been applied. Students are offered a full academic load with smaller classroom settings and individualized lessons. Assessment and testing during orientation offer each teacher tools to modify classroom strategies to include the learning styles of each student. Attendance is stressed by providing door-to-door bus service for each student. Behavior modification programs are included to motivate students to become successful. Participants/Beneficiaries All students of the district's junior high school are eligible to be considered for placement into the alternative school setting. The Hearing Officer, principals, counselors, parents, or students may make application through the District Alternative Screening Committee. Students, who continue to be unsuccessful at the regular school setting in spite of modifications made by each junior high school's staff, may be assigned to the alternative school for another chance. Causes for lack of success at the regular school setting may include: lack of attendance, inattention, misbehavior, social stresses, personality conflicts, or other academic needs. One classroom of special education self-contained services is also provided. The remaining students of each junior high school benefit by having disruptions and distractions, caused by unsuccessful students, reduced. Principals and teachers may concentrate on academic strategies in the classroom instead of interruptions from misbehaving unsuccess students. When alternative school students, who become successful, are returned to the regular school setting classroom disruptions should be reduced. LRSD  ALC  EXT-PRO I. WPS Pase. 2 Program Goal The intent of the school operations goal is to provide equitable educational opportunities for all students in the LRSD. Specific objectives have been developed in order to specify what is to be accomplished to implement the program goal. 1. Provide communications with recommending junior high schools, advisory board, alternative faculty, and C'entral office supervisors at least once each month. 2. Maintain student attendance rates above seventy-five percent. 3. Maintain availability of information for desegregation monitoring. 4. Develop school-based objectives, discipline policy, and behavior modification program. 5. Provide statistical information on race, gender, grades, awards, discipline, and schedules at least once each month.  6. Maintain records of counseling interventions, parent involvement, and due-process procedures for behavior modification. 7. Provide curriculum offerings to assist alternative students to become successful and continue progress toward passing to the next grade level. Evaluation Criteria 1. Evaluate the number of reports submitted to the district's junior high schools, central office supervisors, alternative school advisory board members, and alternative school faculty. 2. Review of attendance rosters. 3. Maintain alternative school pro-file handbook. 4. Review of school-based objectives, discipline policies, and behavior modification procedures. 5. Review statistical information on race and gender for roll, grades, awards, discipline, and other areas. 6. Evaluate the number of reports of counseling interventions, parent involvement, and due-process procedures. LRSD - ALC - EXr-PROI.WPS 7. Evaluate curriculum offerings. Evaluation Results Objective 1: Reports to the district's junior high schools, central office supervisors, alternative school advisory board members, and alternative school faculty have been completed and submitted nine times in the first twelve weeks. Reports have been submitted an average of three per month well in excess of once each month. Discussion: Objective has been met. The Student Assignment Office, Communication Office, and Special Education Office has been added to the distribution list. Objective 2: Attendance rates for the first twelve weeks are as follows:  Attendance days= Number of days in attendance for all students during a week. Attendance Average Days in Days* Attendance Roll .. Percent Week 60 12 12 Week 1: 100% 5 65 13 13 Week 2: 100% 5 57 14 16 Week 3: 87.5% 4 71 14 19 Week 4: 73.6% .. 5 79 16 19 Week 5: 84.2% 5 80 20 26 Week 6: 76.9% 4 151 30 33 Week 7: 90.9% 5 175 35 39 Week 8: 89.7% 5 139 35 42 Week 9: 83.3% 4 224 45 50 Week 10: 90% 5 139 46 50 Week 11: 92% 3 226 45 50 Week 12: 90% 5 ** All weeks except week four were well above the seventy-five percent goal. Last year the average at the alternative school was fifty to sixty percent. Discussion: Several student were assigned to the alternative setting due to poor attendance at the regular school. School buses pick up each student at his/her home. Buses are returned for students when necessary. Parents are called each day when a student is absent. We have one student who presently has 100% attendance since the first day of this school year. Object has been met. I.RSI) - 1\\1.C - l:XT-J\u0026gt;ROI WJ\u0026gt;S Objective 3: Three ring binder library was established to maintain all information available for desegration monitors or other evaluators. The binders include: 1. Alternative Leaming Center Advisory Board 2. Court Referrals Book 3. Discipline Log Book 4. Evaluation Reports Book 5. Extended Evaluation Book 6. Federal Programs Book 7. Funding Information Book 8. Serious Incident Reports Book 9. Leave/Absentee Book 10. Office ofDesegration Monitoring Book 11 . Office File Book 12. PROFILE 13. Program Budget Document 14. Safety and Security Book 15. Special Education Book 16. Substitute Book 17. Vacancy Lists Book 18. Visitor's Sign-in Book 19. V.I.P. Sign-in Book Discussion: All information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative program is maintained in an immediate access system. Objective met. Objective 4: School~based mission, objectives, discipline policies, and behavior modification are published in the Alternative Learning Center Mission Package. Other behavior modification procedures include: 1. Extensive one-on-one parent-student-principal intake conferences are required prior to enrollment. Each intake conference includes development of academic and behavior modification plans, completing a contract, and establishing requirements for success at the alternative school. 2. Parent-student-counselor intake conferences are held with each entering student to refine modification plans, assess individual needs, and provide guidance for success while at the alternative school. 3. A three day orientation (transition) program is required prior to attending regular classes at the alternative school. During orientation students are evaluated, assessed, and tested to determine placement in each class and underlying factors such as learning styles and needs. In addition, classes on motivation, ALC rules and regulations, and Students' Rights and Re,\\ponsibilities Handbook are included. 4. Each teacher is prepared to provide individualized lesson plans. Students are given opportunity for success during each class period. Progress is measured in small increments which allows our children-at-risk to develop patterns of l.RSD - i\\LC - EXT-PRO! WPS Page: 5 success. These patterns should allow each returned student to become successful at the regular school setting. 5. Level Zero (In-school detention) is provided to prevent classroom disruptions at the alternative school and the regular school setting when they return. During Level Zero self-control and disciplined behavior is stressed. This self-contained classroom environment is modified to provide more individual structure and order. 6. Level One (In-school suspension) is provided as an alternative to outof- school suspension. During this self-contained classroom students are required to complete normal academic lessons under strict supervision. 7. The ALC Student Handbook Mission Package teaches responsibility for individual actions. Knowledge of and adherence to rules and regulations will enable each student to become successful when returned to the regular school setting or when given the opportunity for future employment. 8. Academic related field trips to Central Flying Service and Aerospace Education Center provide an opportunity to demonstrate social skills when dealing with the public and to be exposed to high-tech career fields. 9. Activity Clubs are included to develop hands-on skills and to motivate students to attend school. Activity clubs change from time to time depending on the specific needs at the time. The clubs presently available are 1) Electronics Club, 2) Weight-lifting Club, 3) Scrabble Club, 4) Game Board Club, 5) Basketball Club, 6) Science Club, and 7) Current Events Club.  Discussion: Behavior modification is integrated into every aspect of the alternative school system. The ultimate goal is to return successful students to the regular setting and to'have them remain successful throughout the future years. When students are not successful, in spite of behavior modifications or disciplinary sanctions, other alternative strategies are addressed through the district's Hearnig Officer or the district's alternative screening committee. Over all, students disrupt the classroom much less then years past. Time-on-task has improved. Student grades have improved. Signs of student success, such as, excitement, motivation, grades, and getting along have improved. However, some students still bring disruption to the campus through gang-related behaviors and belligerent attitudes. These behaviors have the most serious disruptive impact on the alternative program. Students who engage in gang-related disruptive behaviors must be separated to prevent serious fighting. In years past we had the support of the \"Delta Service Project\" of Americorps. This year \"Delta Service Project\" did not provide service. The alternative school needs another supervisor to maintain Level Zero and Level One in separate rooms. Recommend the immediate approval of one extra instructional aide for the alternative school to supervise Level One students. Objective met, except supervision of Level One. fl, I.RSI) - /\\l.C - EXT-PRO I.WPS Page. 6 Objective 5: Student enrollment changes weekly. During the following dates the percentage of black enrollment started at eighty-five percent and is presently seventyseven percent. p E R C E N T 100 - 90 85 r-- 80- 701- ,-,- 60 8/28 . . 75 ~ 9/5 % of Black Students Each Enrollment - --- - - - - - 81 84 81 r-- 79 - 79 - r-- ~ r---~ ,-- I I ~- r- ....... -- -- -,- -- ,-- 9/19 9/25 10/3 10/9 10/16 10/30 11/6 As Of Dates D %Black - Discussion: Last year the percentage of blacks was well above 85% most of the year. This year the percentage remains around 80% so far. Objective met. Objective 6: Counseling reports are maintained and show an average of four students coun!'ielled each day since the beginning of the 1995-96 school year. Counseling included both group (Heal, Behavior Modification, and Health) and individual. Parent . involvement includes every intake conference and return conference after a sent-home or suspension. Discipline records are maintained in the principal's office and show each disciplinary conference held by the principal. One hundred seventy-five disciplinary conferences were held since the beginning of this school year. Of the conferences fortynine (28%) resulted in disciplinary sanctions. Race/Gender BM BF WM WF Disciplinary Sanctions By Race and Gender Number of Sanctions 30 4 15 none Percent of Sanctions Percent of roll 61% 56% 8% 10% 31% 19% 00% 4% I.RSIJ - ALC - 1:XT-l'ROI.Wl'S Page: 7 Discussion: The number of sanctions remain high, although somewhat less than the past years. The percentage of sanctions for the groups of students by race and gender remain similar Jo the percentage of students on roll. Objective met. Objective 7: Curriculum offerings include the four main subjects plus Health and Keyboarding/Computers. Subject Offering Number Sections Grade Level English English (Reg) 4031 5 7-8-9 Science Earth Science 6535 2 7 Life Science 6550 2 8 Physical Science 6545 1 9 Math Mathematics 4510 2 7 Pre-Algebra 4515 3 8-9 Social Study Geography 7065 2 7 American History 7030 2 8 Civics 7040 1 9 Computers Typing/Keyboard 5550 2 7 Business Education 5510 2 8 Computer Science 5010 1 9 Health Health/P.E/ 3020 5 7-8-9 Spec. Educ. Non-categorical 7580 6 7-8-9 During the first quarter one student received a 3.5 GPA, one student received a 3.0 GPA, and one student received a 2.8 GPA. Ten students (21%) received a 2.0 GPA or above. The following GPA's were compared by race and gender: Average GP A's including every student Average GPA's excluding students with 0.0 GPA BM 1.46 BM 2.04 BF 1.83 BF 1.83 WM 1.27 WM 1.78 WF 2.20 WF 2.20 Discussion: The curriculum offerings at the alternative school are sufficient to provide progress toward graduation. Students grades are approximately average in all subcategories (close to 2.0 GPA). Students are prepared to reenter their regular school setting after successful completion of the alternative school courses. However, improvement in attendance and motivation may result in a hands-on creative class. Studies indicate that students with motivational problems show improvement when offered lessons according to their learning styles. Hands-on style of teaching has produced gains in alternative pro!,\u0026gt;Tams nation-wide. We have a room set aside for woodworking: yet, it is not being used because no qualified instructor is available. Including \"Wood-Working\" or \"Arts and Crafts\" into our curriculum would provide experience in J? II I ,.. 0~. , \nJ LRSD - /\\LC - EXT-PRO I. WPS P\u0026amp;[lC 8 job-related skills. Recommend an additional instructional aide, who enjoys woodworking and crafts, be added to the faculty and a hands-on creative class be added to the curriculum. Objective met, except hands-on creative classes. Obstacles to Goal Attainment The obstacles encountered are indicated below by specific objective: Objective 4: (Behavior _Modification) The additional cost of an extra instructional aide to supervise Level One would cost the district about 10,000.00 per year. Objective 7: (Curriculum) The district is in financial distress. The inclusion of one teacher to provide a hands-on creative class would cost approx. $25,000.00 per year. This increase, at this time, would be difficult to justify. However, an instructional aide, who could supervise wood-working as an activity, instead of a class, would provide the training in job-related skills for about 10,000.00 per year. Recommendations Increase the number of instructional aides at the Alternative Leaming Center by two. One instructional aide is needed to supervise the Level One program. One instructional aide is needed to provide a hands-on creative class such as wood-working or arts and crafts. Revised 11/30/95 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATION ~E!!l Description School Operations includes the total integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all Little Rock School District students in a desegregated educational setting. Central Office staff and principals of the schools collaborate to ensure quality educational program planning for all students with the support of staff, parents, and the larger community. Purpose Booker Arts Magnet School introduces students to and strengthens students' experiences in the arts. By utilizing the arts to complement the regular academic program, students develop an understanding of the interrelationships among  the disciplines and their place in students' lives as a whole. - Scope and Content Booker Arts Magnet School provides an infusion of visual art, music, creative movement, and drama into the Little Rock School District K - 6 curriculum. Classroom teachers facilitate this integration on a daily basis. Arts specialists assist classroom teachers with this integration and teach classes in their specialty areas such as visual art, creative movement, music, recorder, and orchestra. The goals of Booker Arts Magnet School are to nurture students' learning\nto encourage personal expression\nto use the arts to motivate achievement\nto foster self-discipline inherent in artistic achievement\nto provide opportunities for students to achieve in artistic disciplines such as visual art, music, creative movement, and drama\nto relate all fields of learning to academic achievement\nto encourage the development of poise and self-confidence\nand to involve parents in students' educational programs. Participants/Beneficiaries Students in grades K - 6 in the Pulaski County area who attend Booker Arts Magnet School. Program Goal The intent of the School Operations goal is to provide equitable educational opportunities for all students in the Little Rock School District. Evaluation Criteria Objective L 1. Meet the guidelines related to the extracurricular and cocurricular activities. 1.2 Comparative review of data regarding numbers of applicants and participants by race. 2. Develop and implement the school recruitment plan. 2.2. Increase in the number of students participating in nontypical programs. 4. The school profile will reflect equitable representation of the school population. 4.2. Track the utilization of the program in order to determi~e the number and cost. Eval~ation Results Objective L 1. All students and patrons were informed about cocurricular/ extracurricular activities available for students. 1.2. Printed information concerning extracurricular/cocurricular activities was made available to parents. 2. The School Recruitment Plan was developed and implemented. 2.2. A steady increase in the number of students, particularly minority students, in the orchestra and recorder programs has occurred. 4. All barriers to equitable participation of students were identified and addressed. The barriers were removed with the exception of a lack of orchestra instruments to accommodate the increased interest in the program. 4.2. All costumes and instruments are available to students at no cost. However, an adequate number of instruments was not available. Objective L: To provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. Monthly Calendar of Events, the Parent/Student Handbook, Orchestra Program and Recorder Program applications, daily announcements, and memos to parents fully informed all students and parents of co-curricular and extracurricular fine and performing arts activities for students. Enrollment in orchestra and recorder classes has dramatically increased (133% and 135% respectively) over the past two years. This increased interest has created a shortage of instruments. Booker Arts Magnet School has always provided the use of instruments to students free of charge. Currently, 215 students are enrolled in the orchestra program with only 60 instruments available for usage. A shortage of 45 violins, 26 violas, 28 cellos, and 14 basses exists. More interest is anticipated as students are provided with additional performance opportunities. An inadequate and insecure storage system for instruments is in use. Parents and staff have also expressed  great interest in reinstating piano labs as a part of regular music instruction. Booker Arts Magnet School's enrollment is well below its capacity of 656. The enrollment was 595 during 1993-94 school year. It dropped to 574 on October 1, 1994 and then fell to 555 on June 5, 1995. Utilizing the school recruitment plan, staff and parents have made great efforts to increase enrollment. However, the October 1, 1995 enrollment is sti~l far below capacity. The fine arts program at Booker Arts Magnet School is virtually the same as when the program was initially implemented in 1982. The student population and patrons' vision for the program have altered greatly since its inception. Thus, a change in the program is necessary. Discussion Objective 7 was partially achieved. Because parents and students were fully informed of available co-curricular and extracurricular activities, an increase in enrollment in orchestra and recorder classes occurred. This increase further accentuated an existing problem shortage of orchestra instruments. A lack of sufficient instruments is a barrier to equitable participation. Reinstating the use of piano labs is also perceived as a need by staff and patrons. The arts program ls a critical component in the recruitment of students to Booker Arts Magnet. Enrollment has dropped over the last few years. Changes in the school program and extensive use of recruitment stra~egles are necessary to bring the student population back to capacity. Evaluation Criteria Objective ll 1. Assessment of individual school improvement plan will show an increase in student achievement and a reduction in disparity by race and gender. 1.1. Formulation of guidelines, plans, and interventions. 1.2. Disaggregated outcome-based data. 1.3. Outcomes evaluations conducted on a comparative basis. 1.4. (Report will be used to make and implement recommendations of corrected actions) 1.7. Assessment process and remediation plans for areas in need of improvement. Objective ll 1. A five-year Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation Plan  was developed and is revised periodically. 1.1. Guidelines and strategies were developed to lead to specific achievements increases and interventions for students. 1.2. Student achievement and discipline data disaggregated. 1.3. Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation plan ~as updated monthly. 1 . 4. Students' progress was monitored through the use of interim reports, report cards, classroom assessments, and classroom monitoring reports. 1.7. Annual report listed assessment process and remediation plans tor areas in need of improvement. Objective.!]_: To ensure school-wide planning and individual academic achievement\nto address disparities, individual needs and student success, and to provide staff development on an ongoing basis. After an extensive review of test data, data indicated that over the last two years students scoring at or below the 25th percentile increased by 4.58 per cent and students scoring above the 50th percentile increased by 5.05 percent. Further analysis of the Stanford 8 achievement data indicated that minority students scored significantly lower on standardized tests than non-minority students. Booker Arts Magnet School's Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation plan includes actions to further i nfuse the arts into the curriculum to increase student achievement and reduce disparity by race and gender. Discussion Objective 13 was partially achieved. Research data indicates that infusing the arts into the curriculum gives teachers more teaching skills and resources, increases positive feelings among students toward learning, enhances and reinforces concepts in other subject, and gives variety and breadth to instructional activities in the classroom. Integration of the arts into the curriculum of students experiencing difficulty in school enabled them to become relaxed and allowed them to discover and appreciate their strengths. Annual extended pre-school inservice strongly influenced student achievement as evidenced by increased standardized test scores during the early years of the arts magnet program when such inservices were held. Computer technology has increased since the first computer lab was established using Comm.adores. The Academic Support Program Tandy Lab reinforces reading and math while the other lab provides enrichment and reinforcement for all areas of the curriculum. The current computer lab functions _with many different and outdated computers and software. New hardware and software is essential to compliment the existing fine arts program and the future of the performing arts program. Obstacles to Goal Attai!!.ment Objective L: The objective was partially achie-ved due to lack of funds. Objective!~: The objective was partially achieved due to lack of funds. Recommendations Recommendation~ Drama should be incorporated in the curriculum at Booker Arts Magnet School. Objective 1: To provide opportunities for all students to develop poise and self-confidence and to creatively ~xpress themselves through the inclusion of drama into the curriculum. Evaluation Criteria: comparative profiles. Yearly analysis of participation data and Expected Benefits: The student population at Booker ~rts Magnet School will increase. Booker Arts Magnet School will receive positive feedback from patrons and community. Impact Analysis: The inclusion of drama into the curriculum at Booker Arts Magnet will positively impact student enrollment. The inclusion of drama into the curriculum will positively impact the Desegregation Plan and Court Orders by recruiting students to the school program, thus increasing enrollment and attracting ,2./ additional non-black students. Patrons have long been favorable to the inclusion of drama into the program. The inclusion of drama is not anticipated to pose any risk to the current school program. However, not including drama in the program will serve as a deterrent in the recruitment process. As patrons now have an opportunity to consider many and varied magnet school programs for their elementary children, it is critical to make each program as attractive as possible. The inclusion of drama will strengthen the entire school program at a time when enrollment is below capacity. Resources Analysis An additional full-time teacher certified in drama will be necessary to implement the change from fine to performing arts. Inservice for current staff members will also be necessary. (See Recommendation 2, Objective 1 for further explanation). In addition, copies of plays/programs, materials for costumes, and materials for sets will also be needed. The cost to implement this objective will be approximately $35,000.00 annually. Force Field Analysis Staff, students, patrons, community members, and the Little Rock School District will be in support of the recommendation due to the anticipated benefits of the program. The inclusion of drama will assist Booker Arts Magnet School in becoming the only performing arts magnet elementary school in the central Arkansas area. Detractors of the recommendation will be those individuals who oppose any additional funding to magnet schools. General Implementation Plan If this recommendation is approved, implementation will begin in July, 1996. The principal will make a recommendation for staffing and order necessary materials. A program design will be developed for the inclusion of drama in the arts program. Objective 2: To expand the instrumental music program at Booker Arts Magnet, thus increasing the number of students having an opportunity to participate. Evaluation Criteria: comparative profiles. Yearly analysis of participation data and Expected Benefits: The student population at Booker Arts Magnet School will increase. Booker Arts Magnet School will receive positive feedback from patrons and community. Impact Analysis: Expansion of the instrumental music program and reinstatment of piario instruction at Booker Arts Magnet will positively impact student enrollment. The Desegregation Plan and Court Orders will be positively impacted by the expansion of this program. Patrons have long been favorable to the expansion of the existing program and also to the reinstatment of piano instruction. The changes in this program are not anticipated to pose any risk to the current school program. In fact, the failure to implement these changes will serve as a deterrent in the recruitment process. Due to the wide range of parental choices among magnet school programs today, it is necessary to offer as attractive a program as possible to patrons. The timing of this expansion will aid in increasing student enrollment to near capacity. Resources Analysis Additional orchestra instruments are necessary for implementation of this objective. Also a secure storage system and yearly maintenance are necessary. Multi-station piano labs are also needed to accommodate a full class. The cost for the additional instruments is approximately $18,481.50. Yearly repair and maintenance costs are $2,5000.00. Cost for the storage system is approximately $29,384.00. Cost for a piano lab to accommodate a full class is -~46,000. The total cost for implementation of this objective in 1996-97 is approximately $41,921.00\nfor 1997-98, $53,031.50\nfor 1998-99, $5,333.00, and for 1999-2000, $3490.00. Force Fi eld Analysis Staff, students, patrons, community members and the Little Rock School District will be in support of the recommendation due to the anticipated benefits of the program. Detractors of the recommendation will be those individuals who oppose any additional funding to magnet schools. General Implementation Plan If this recommendation is approved, implementation will begin in July, 1996. Instruments will be purchased over the next four years. Storage will be purchased in 1996-97. Piano labs will be purchased in 1997-98. The principal will order the necessary equipment and services. Objective~: To expand the use of artists-in-residence to enrich the arts curriculum Evaluation Criteria: Classroom visitation Expected Benefits: The students will be exposed to many and varied mediums of expression in the arts. Booker Arts Magnet School will receive positive feedback from patrons and community, and enrollment will increase. /I 1-... ,., o ,...,,./\nJ---------~~-------------------------------~ Impact Analysis: The utilization of artists-in-residence at Booker Arts Magnet will positively impact achievement in the arts and student enrollment. The utilization of artists-in-residence will positively impact the Desegregation Plan and Court Orders by recruiting students to Booker Arts Magnet, increasing enrollment (specifically, non-black students). Patrons have provided positive feedback about the utilization of artists-in-residence since the opening of Booker Arts Magnet. The expansion of the use of artists-in-residence is not anticipated to pose any risk to the current program. However, failure to implement the use of artists-in-residence will serve as a deterrent in the recruitment process. As patrons now have an opportunity to select among a plethora of magnet school programs, it is essential that Booker Arts Magnet School offer the most attractive program possible in order to increase student enrollment to capacity. Resources Analysis Stipends for various artists-in-residence are needed to implement this objective. The anticipated cost will be $10,000.00 annually. Force Field Analysis: Staff, students, patrons, community members, and the Little Rock Sc h.c ol district will be in support of the recommendation due to the anticipated benefits of the program. Detractors of this recommendation will be those individuals who oppose any additional funding for magnet schools. General Implementation Plan: If this recommendation is approved, implementation will begin in July, 1996. The principal will locate artists-inresidence, contract with them, and monitor utilization. Objective~: To utilize up-dated brochures, flyers, and community workshops to recruit students to Booker Arts Magnet. Evaluation Criteria: Increased enrollment Expected Benefits: Student enrollment will increase. Non-black patrons will be attracted to Booker Arts Magnet. Waiting lists will increase in size. Impact Analysis: The utilization of updated brochures, flyers, and community workshops will positively impact student enrollment at Booker Arts Magnet. The Desegregation Plan and Court Orde.rs will also be positively impacted by the increase in enrollment. Patrons will respond positively to recruitment efforts and assist in these efforts. No risks are anticipated for the current program. Failure to make recruitment efforts will result in a D loss or no growth in enrollment. As all schools are participating in recruitment efforts to attract students, it is in the best interest of Booker Arts Magnet School to publicize program offerings. Resources Analysis Funds to print new brochures, flyers, postage, and materials for community workshops are needed to implement this objective. The anticipated costs will be $5000.00 annually. Force Field Analysis: Staff, students, patrons, community members and the Little Rock School District will be in support of the recommendation due to the anticipated benefits of the program. Detractors of this recommendation will be those individuals who oppose any additional funding for magnet schools. General Implementation Plan: If this recommendation is approved, implem-entation will begin in July, 1996. The principal will oversee updating of the brochure, procure printing services, mail flyers, and purchase materials for workshops. Recommendation~ Inservice will be provided to staff on program design and mission of school to ensure commitment to program. Objective~: To ensure school-wide commitment to program by staff to increase student achievement. Evaluation Criteria: implementation Formulation of revised program design and Expected Benefits: The staff will have a clear understanding of the program design and provide complete support to the arts program. The students will be the major recipients of an infusion of the arts in the basic curriculum. Complete infusion of the arts will give teachers more teaching skills and resources, increase positive feelings among students toward learning, enhance and reinforce concepts in other subjects, and give variety and breadth to instructional activities in the classroom. Impact Analysis: This recommendation impacts the total program of Booker Arts Magnet School. Without total support of the staff, the program will not be successful and students will not reach their total capacity for learning. This recommendation would have a positive impact on the Desegregation Plan and the Courts by providing a totally committed staff that utilizes the arts to provide students with successful experiences.  Resource Analysis: Stipends for 3-day workshop@ $50.19 per teacher (48) per day= $7,227.36. Force Field Analysis: Staff, patrons, community members, and the Little Rock School District will be in support of the recommendation due to the anticipated benefits of the program. Detractors of the recommendation will be those individuals who oppose any additional funding to magnet schools. General Implementation Plan: If the recommendation is approved, implementation will begin in July, 1996. Inservice will be scheduled by the principal. Objective: To ensure more integration of the arts into the curriculum\nto address disparities, individual needs and student success, and to provide staff development on an ongoing basis. Evaluation Criteria: Core group of teachers selected Expected Benefits: Integration of the arts into the curriculum will be beneficial to student performance. Impact Analysis: Without a core groups of arts infusion enthusiasts would  be virtually impossible to implement a change in the schedule and arrangement of classes to ensure more integration of the arts into the curriculum. Resources Analysis: Stipends for three-day planning session@ $50.19 per teacher (10) per day= $1,505.70. Force Field Analysis: Staff, students, patrons, community members and the Little Rock School District will be in support of the recommendation due to the anticipated benefits of the program. Detractors of the recommendation will be those individual who oppose any additional funding to magnet schools. General Implementation Plan: If this recommendation is approved, implementation will begin in July, 1996. Planning workshop will be scheduled by the principal. Recommendation~ The computer lab at Booker Arts Magnet should be updated. Objective 1: To provide a computer lab with hardware and software that will enable Booker Arts Magnet School students to reinforce and enrich the basic curriculum. Evaluation Criteria: Data will reflect an increase in student performance, positive discipline and attendance. Expected Benefits: Students will be able to utilize the computers and software to enrich and reinforce the basic curriculum as well as the arts curriculum. ~mpact Analysis: With the addition of the new computer technology, students at Booker Arts Magnet School will be able to take the arts infusion to newer heights. Students will be able to use computers to illustrate reports, to create art, to compose music, and to extend their knowledge of artists and their compositions. Without the new technology, students will not be able to develop technology skills needed for success in the 21st Century. Resources Analysis: There would be no personnel changes. The approximate cost would be $130,000 for the computer lab. Force Field Analysis: Students, staff, patrons, community members, and the Little Rock School District will be in support of the recommendation due to the anticipated benefits of the program. General Implementation Plan: If this recommendation is approved, implementation will begin in July, 199~ with completion of the project in 2000-01. Business Case is recommended yes no Plan modification is recommended yes no Overall recommendations are likely to have what type of budgetary impact: No budgetary impact Increased costs Decreased costs I 1TTLI\" R C\u0026gt;CI\u0026lt; S CHOOi DISTRICT CARVER MAGNET SCHOOL Addendum/Needs Assessment Report Carver's program being evaluated is the educational technology component. The data collected is derived from the quarterly report of Carver's Program Budget Document for 1994-95, staff needs assessment surveys and the Technology Team composed of the Principal, Media Specialist, Science Specialist, Math Specialist, Computer Specialist, Curriculum Specialist, Primary teacher and Intermediate teacher. Extended Evaluation Section VI Recommendations Carver will have a state of the art educational technology program designed and implemented which will include: 1. Selection/installation of new hardware/software 2. Staff development training Area Classifications Objectives 1. All carver students will Curriculum improve achievement, self and esteem and accomplishment Desegregatio:i through computer-assisted individualized learning. 2. Teachers will improve understanding and the use Curriculum of technology as a tool to and enrich the curriculum as Desegregation they link technology usage to the school improvement goals. I. Program Description School operations include the total integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all Little Rock School District students in a desegregated educational setting. Central office and staff Principals of the schools collaborate to ensure quality educational program planning for all students with the support of staff, parents, and the larger community. Purpose: To increase student educational achievement by improved use of educational technology through staff development and computer system up-grades. Scope and Content: The program will encompass the following components: Technology Inventory - a complete listing of current educational technology available at the school will be created. The inventory will identify: * Types and capacities of individual computers and internai computer networks * Software programs installed on school computers * Placement of the computers across the building . * Levels of student utilization of school technology * Building capacity (wiring) for additional network installation Core Team Selection - Staff from Carver will be selected to as a core team of trainers to the entire educational staff. team selection will include teachers, administrators, and specialists. serve Core topic Consultant - An independent computer consultant with expertise in educational technology will be contracted to assist in the development of the core Team training curriculum and other program activities. The consultant will be selected based on referrals from other school districts where similar programs have achieved cost-effective success. The consultant will work in conjunction with the Instructional Technology /Library Program at the LRSD Instruction Resource Center (IRC). The IRC is the district's inhouse resource for staff development, topic area supervision, and other staff/curriculum enhancements. Based on a review of the school technology inventory, interviews with teachers and other assessments, the consultant will provide the following services: * Development of a training curriculum for the core team * Development of a training curriculum for the entire educational staff * Recommendations on additional school-based networks - what they could do and how they could be used * Recommendations on implementing a central administration network that would allow teachers greater efficiency in accessing and maintaining student files * Identify program with proven effectiveness for minority and/or low scoring students * Recommend programs on interactive and literature based instruction, student portfolio assessment, and other areas. * Recommend an effective process for use of existing and new technological resources to meet program goals, particularly individualized instruction and classroom scheduling . . Core Team Training - The core team will receive intensive training in computer systems, effective usage of educational technology, selection of appropriate hardware systems and software programs to meet school needs, and techniques for sharing this information with others. The training of the core team will be guided by the program consultant and IRC specialists from the LRSD. Core Team members will attend off-site seminars and workshops, as well as follow a self directed course of study at the school. Training of the core team will establish them as effective trainers for the full school staff. School Staff Training - Training of the entire school staff will progress in relation to the capacity building of the core team. Under direction of the District's IRC specialists and the program consultant, a training curriculum will be developed utilizing oneon- one contacts, as well as small group and full staff presentations by the core team. A secondary team will also be established, creating an umbrella effect to facilitate the training process and clarify the learning for the teachers. Particular assistance will be provided by the IRC contract with Jostens, a company with established computer programs and networks at Carver. Through the IRC-Jostens linkage, specific assistance can be developed to increase teacher understanding and utilization of the installed programs. Both the core team and full staff training I\\,..._ ,.. o_,  ... ,\nJ process is designed to overcome the common school tendency to buy new hardware/software but inadequately train people to use it. Selection/Installation of New Hardware/Software Based on recommendation from the IRC staff and the program consultant. New equipment will be purchased and installed. Then, the Carver staff will be appropriately trained in its usage. Specialized software will be chosen for distinct administrative and educational needs. The programs will be selected based on the educational research and recommendation of the IRC staff, the program consultant and Carver's faculty and administration. Participants/Beneficiaries: All students will improve achievement through computer-assisted individualized learning. All students will improve self esteem and accomplishment but particular emphasis will be on students with low test scores on standardized tests. Teachers will improve understanding and use of technology as a tool to enrich the curriculum. II. Program Goal The intent of the school operations goal is to provide equitable educational opportunities for all students in the Little Rock School District. III. Evaluation Criteria 2. To provide a climate in each school which is based on the belief and expectation that all children can learn and to provide resources necessary to support that belief. 1. Utilization of the school climate survey 1.1 Agendas of meetings 2.1 Reports of Supervisors, Assistant Superintendents 2.3 Staff Development rosters 2.3 Quality of education survey results 3.1 Completion of program design 3.2 School profiles and monitored building plans 4.1 Development of and sharing of school-based objectives, discipline policies, etc. 4.2 Statistical improvement in student behavior and achievement  3. To develop and implement policies which influence school climate and improve discipline and student attendance while meeting individual student needs and learning styles. 1. Comparative data annual school report for student attendance and student management quarterly reports 1. Quarterly discipline management reports that will reflect a decrease in behavior referrals and suspensions 2.1 Quarterly reports should include positive as well as negative reports which show an increase in the citizenship honor roll in elementary schools. 7. To provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. 1. Meet the guidelines related to the extracurricular and co-curricular activities 1.1 Log of announcements, media usage, other community contacts 2. Develop and implement the school recruitment plan 3.1 Yearly (annual) analysis of participation data and comparative profiles 10. To give school principals sufficient authority to improve schools and to advocate for students, and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all students. 1. Principal Evaluation Process 1.1 Conduct of staff development 1.2 Principal Feedback 1. 3 Assistant Superintendent evaluations of school climate and programs and principal management of these 14. Provide staff development on an on going basis to staff and information to parents relative to student success. 1.1 Provision of staff development Evidence of enhanced classroom instruction with improved student performances IV. Evaluation Results Objective 2: To provide a climate in each school which is based on the belief and expectation that all children can learn and to provide resources necessary to support that belief. Result: Active, well attended PTA meetings, school improvement teams, use of closed circuit T.V., news programs featuring \"at risk\" students, partnership utilization of AETN, weekly grade level/Specialists planning meetings attendance at professional conferences, and the development of the Student/Parent handbook were evidence of this belief. Every room in the facility is utilized to its maximum capacity. The GT Specialist shares a room with the two Curriculum Specialist. The Special Education specialist shares a room in the afternoon with the Speech Specialist. Carver could use an expanded wing of rooms to accommodate our 600 plus students and teachers. Objective 3: To develop and implement policies which influence school climate and improve discipline and student attendance while also meeting individual student needs and learning styles. Result: Positive discipline practices and training through in-service, student handbook presentations, committee reviews, Pupil Service Team interactions, Good Citizens Teas, home visits and the Caught Being Good program reinforced this objective. Funds from our Rockefeller Grant for School Improvement were used to provide inservice training in the Discipline with Dignity approach.  Objective 7: To provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. Result: All children and parents were provided knowledge of all extra and co-curricular activities through the monthly Carver Courier, mailed to all households. Each family received a magnet proclaiming our years theme \"Healthy Lifestyles\" with monthly mail-outs and student work to stick to their refrigerator and learn along with their children. Carver's success stories were published throughout the year in the local paper and on television. Sixth grade students, teachers and parents attended Space Camp in Huntsville, Alabama for the first time as an added opportunity for learning more about the Young Astronaut Program. I Objective 10: To give school principals sufficient authority to improve schools and to advocate for students, and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all students. Result: This was accomplished through attendance at local and national conventions and transference of the latest educational strategies to staff and revitalization of Carver's curriculum. The institution of our monitoring program for all children scoring in the 25th percentile and it's cooperative/collaborative staff approach moved children's scores upward and bolstered their self esteem. Objective 14: Provide staff development on an on going basis to staff and information to parents relative to student success. Result: All parents are scheduled for parent conferences two days of each school year. Additional parent conferences are scheduled whenever a child's grades drop below a C average or when behavior problems begin to effect classroom climate. v. Obstacles To Goal Attainment Objective 2: Objective achieved. Necessary resources were provided to support a climate based on the belief and expectation that all children can and do learn.  This achievement would be greater with physical expansion of our building and improved educational technology. Our Desegregation Settlement capacity is 613 students. October 10, 1995 we had 626 students. {see Attachment) Individualized computer instruction would supplement teacher instruction and improve learning opportunities for all students. Objective 3: Objective achieved. Carver developed and implemented policies which improved school climate and discipline and attendance while meeting individual student needs and learning styles. This achievement would be greater with improved . educational technology. Attendance and discipline would be improved as we would increase student performance by low achievers. Computer programs offer immediate results and positive feedback which raise a child's self esteem and increase motivation for class  participation. Objective 7: Objective achieved. The school program provided and ensured opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extra curricular and co-curricular activities and assessed the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. This achievement would be greater with improved educational technology. The hands-on approach and individualized learning process available through computers is especially effective in increasing student performance of low achievers. Objective 10: Objective achieved. The Principal had sufficient authority to improve the school and advocate for students and showed accountability for results and opportunities for all students. This achievement would be greater with improved educational technology. Gains projected for students will be equally evidenced by teachers. Their confidence in use of technology will motivate an increased commitment to student learning. Computers would become another tool for both instruction and learning. Objective 14: Objective achieved. Staff development was provided on an on going basis as was information to parents relative to student success. These achievements would be greater with improved technology. Staff surveys the last two years show educational technology to be a high priority with this staff and parents. Computers would become another tool for both instruction and learning. VI. Recommendation Carver will have a state of the art technology program designed and implemented which will include: 1. Selection/installation of new hardware/software 2. Staff development training Objective 1: All Carver students will improve achievement, self esteem, and accomplishment through computer-assisted individualized learning. Evaluation Criteria: Standardized tests, portfolio assessment, logs.  (Stanford, ABACUS)' improved attendance, teacher evaluation, grade and discipline  Expected Benefits: 1. Hands-on approach and individualized learning process available through computers is especially effective in increasing student performance by low achievers. 2. Computer programs off er immediate results and positive feedback which raise a child's self esteem and increase motivation for class participation. 3. Children are generally more willing to take a chance with a computer as opposed to raising their hands in class. 4. Keyboarding and the neatness of computer printers offer a sense of accomplishment to students as they struggle to develop penmanship skills. 5. Computers can offer 3-D imagining concrete conceptualization for pre operational and concrete operational students. (Especially important to under achievers and helpful in bridging the disparity gap.) 6. Students can gain a community and global awareness using computers for communication with E-mail. 7. More self-directed learning after knowledge of how to access different systems. Objective 2: Teachers will improve understanding and use of technology as a tool to enrich the curriculum as they link technology usage to the school improvement plan goals. Evaluation Criteria: Teacher/student usage log, computer evaluation reports for parent contact of student progress, improved student performance on all test. Expected Benefits: 1. Teacher training in classroom management skills for adequate student time - on task at classroom computers, particularly for students with low test scores. 2. Computer assisted administration such as programs for grade book management or student portfolio compilation and assessment. 3. Teacher confidence in use of technology and sense of accomplishment in assisting student development will motivate and increased commitment to student learning. 4. Computers will become another tool for both instruction and learning. 5. Teachers access to latest information at a moments notice will allow for immediate monitoring and adjustment. 6. Lends itself beautifully to enrichment as well as remediation. 7. Teachers are no longer isolated in the classroom or building. Internet will allow for global communication and perspective. Objective 3: Advanced Carver students and students with special academic requirements will have their needs met through the audiographic teleconferencing form of distance learning. Evaluation Criteria: Standardized tests, teacher evaluation, improved attendance, and discipline logs. Expected Benefits: 1. Students with special needs will participate in here-to-fore particularly in the areas of science. have the opportunity to unavailable coursework, foreign languages, math and 2. Classroom teachers will be able to provide a broadened range of individualized instruction in a high-quality, cost-effective way. Impact analysis: Carver Basic Skills/Math Science Magnet School, offers a K -  6 process-focused curriculum with special enhancements to the core curriculum that attract students from Little Rock, Pulaski County and North Little Rock. An upgraded state of the are computer technology program can only serve as an added attraction to white students who often choose to attend private schools. The recruitment of white students to the District is one of the goals of the Desegregation Plan. The District is under court order. During the 1994-95 school year Carver was one of three schools to raise out overall score average and to decrease our number of student in the lowest quartile. Disparities still exist. School staff have identified the reduction of these disparities as a priority objective in the school improvement plan. It is also a goal of the Desegregation Plan. The improved knowledge and use of computer technology by staff and students will allow us to do this more successfully. ~ 'JI, - a White - 1994 Stanford Achievement Test Mean Percentile Rank Total Math Total Reading Complete Battery Black White 0 - . White - Black White Other Brade K 57 52.6 43.8 3.5 Grade 1 67 52.2 38.8 8.9 56 93 95 67 92 93 60 93 93 Grade 2 84 48.8 51.1 63 92 44 80 52 89 Grade 3 90 50.0 45.5 4.4 51 85 89 44 75 82 45 82 89 Grade 4 92 50.0 47.8 2.1 59 82 71 :51 78 71 59 84 73 Grade 5 96 51.0 48.9 47 89 31 80 43 88 C3rade 6 87 58.6 39.0 2.2 69 92 99 39 88 98 54 91 98 Total 573 51.8 45_4 2.7 This educational technology program recommendation addresses five areas listed in the National Education Goals: 1. School Completion - The program outcome of greater educational success and appreciation of the school environment by elementary school students will carry over to the high school level and contribute to the goal of a 90 percent graduation rate. Increased familiarity with educational technology will facilitate student learning in their high school years when such technology takes on a predictably larger role in the overall learning environment. 2. Student Achievement and Citizenship - Program outcomes of increased educational attainment in reading and math support the goals of students leaving grade 4 with demonstrated competency over challenging subjects.  3. Science and Math - Program outcomes of student improvement in mathematics will contribute toward the national goal of becoming first in the world in this area. 4. Disciplined Schools - Program outcomes of establishing a structured classroom environment where students have scheduled time for individualized computer assisted learning will contribute to an overall environment that promotes self discipline and goal setting and is conducive to learning. 5. Teacher Education and Professional Development Program outcomes of increasing teacher capacity in use of educational technology offer teachers direct access to the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century. This educational technology program recommendation addresses the state of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District Learner Outcomes. In 1991 the Arkansas Board of Education published a set of Learner Outcomes that are directly supported by program goals. These include: 1. Students will acquire core concepts and abilities from the sciences, the arts, humanities, mathematics, social studies, language arts, foreign languages, physical/health education, practical living studies and existing/emerging technologies. 2. Students will apply various thinking/problem solving strategies to issues related to all subject matter fields and to real life situations. 3. Students will exhibit/demonstrate attitudes and attributes that will promote mental, physical and emotional health. 4. Students will demonstrate good citizenship and function as positive members of the local, national, and world community. Also in 1991, the LRSD published a set of eight Student Learning Outcomes, four of which are directly supported by the program. These outcomes state that all students who graduate from the 12th grade will: The 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 .  9. 10. 11. 1. Adequately master reading, writing, speaking, listening, communicating, critical and creative thinking, and mathematical skills sufficient for effective, efficient functioning. 2. Locate and use needed information from printed materials and/or other resources. 3. Identify problems and needs, apply problem solving strategies, and analyze information for meaning and/or action. 4. Use tools of technology at an effective, efficient, flexible, and adaptable level. risks of not implementing the program are: Increased white flight Increased disparity on standardized tests Stagnant math/science program Teacher frustration with technology Inadequate computer skills of teachers and students Lower test scores Falling further behind students from other states and countries in computer technology Inability to use the encyclopedia in the computer lab because the present system needs more memory space than we have Loss of instructional time in lab due to inadequate and inconsistent operation of all the aged computers Limiting the opportunities for addressing research based learning styles of African Americans. (Kinesthetic and visual) Limiting the opportunities for teaching Lazar's intelligences: Analylitical, Inter/Intra Personal, Auditory, Artistic, Muscle Memory \u0026amp; Spatial With Arkansas leading the nation in the area of Computer technology and many other districts in the state already connected to world wide networks, we at Carver in a Math/Science magnet are falling farther behind by the minute. The time is right for us to offer our students the opportunity to not only compete with others in the state, but to lead as is expected in a Math/Science Magnet school. We needed this technology program yesterday. Resources Analysis: Personnel: A core team of 8 - 10 present staff members with keen computer technology interest will be selected. The core team will receive training in computer systems, effective usage of educational technology, selection of appropriate hardware systems and software programs to meet school needs, and techniques for sharing this information with others. The training of the core team will be guided by the program consultant and IRC specialists from the LRSD. core Team members will attend off-site seminars and workshops, as well as follow a self directed course of study at the school Training of the core team will establish them as effective trainers for the full school staff. Training of the full school staff will progress in relation to the capacity of the core team. Under direction of the District's IRC specialists and the program consultant, a training curriculum will be developed utilizing one-on-one contacts, as well as small group and full staff presentations by the core team. A secondary team will also be established, creating an umbrella effect to facilitate the training process and clarify the learning for the teachers. Particular assistance will be provided by the IRC contract with Jostens, a company with established computer programs and networks at Carver. Through the IRC-Josten's linkage, specific assistance can be developed to increase teacher understanding and utilization of the installed programs. Both the core team and full staff training process is designed to overcome the common school tendency to buy new hardware/software but inadequately train people to use it. The Media Specialist, Math Specialist, Science Specialist and Computer Specialists will be the leaders of the core team and the five year implementation. Financial Analvsis: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 96 - 97 97 - 98 98 - 99 2000-2001 2001-2002 28,130.00 28,130.00 28,130.00 28,130.00 28,130.00 Total for 5 years of $140,650.00 Sources of revenue funding are the North Little Rock, Pulaski County, and Little Rock School Districts and the State of Arkansas and other possible grants. Carver's Science and Math Specialists are working on two grant proposals at this time. Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this recommendation are the present parents of carver Students and perspective parents. All students and staff of Carver will support this endeavor. The East Enc Community Development Corporation will also be a supporter. Perhaps community night classes could be offered at Carver in computer technology to increase the knowledge and skills of those parents, students and other community members of this area. The courts and the ODM should support this recommendation as it will only serve to enhance the Desegregation Plan. General Implementation Plan: Year One . RESPONSIBLE/ PARTICIPATING ACTIVITY COMPLETION DATE PERSON{S) 1. Select core team November 1996 Principals 2. Select consultant February 1997 Core team IRC Specialist 3. Perform inventory March 1997 Consultant Computer \u0026amp; Media Specialist 4. Determine May 1997 Consultant software needs IRC Specialist 5. Design network to June 1997 Consultant support software IRC Specialist needs ,.._ . ,. :J Year Two . RESPONSIBLE/ PARTICIPATING ACTIVITY COMPLETION DATE PERSON(S) 1. Upgrade cable August 1997 Consultant and electrical IRC Specialist needs 2. Purchase saver September 1997 Consultant and components IRC Specialist Principal Procurement 3. Purchase October 1997 Consultant software IRC Specialist Core Team 4. Purchase October 1997 Principal computers for Consultant library IRC Specialist Procurement 5. Train core team January 1998 IRC Specialist Independent in-service groups Core team Year Three: RESPONSIBLE/ PARTICIPATING ACTIVITY COMPLETION DATE PERSON(S) 1. Purchase August 1998 Principal computers for Consultant lab IRC Specialist Core team Procurement 2. Train classroom May 1999 Core team teachers Year Four. RESPONSIBLE/ PARTICIPATING ACTIVITY COMPLETION DATE PERSON{S) 1. Purchase August 1999 Principal remaining Consultant computers for IRC Specialist classrooms Core team Procurement 2. Train remaining May 2000 Core team faculty members Year Five: RESPONSIBLE/ PARTICIPATING ACTIVITY COMPLETION DATE PERSON{S) 1. Purchase August 2000 Principal remaining Consultant computers for IRC Specialist classrooms Core team Procurement 2. Train new staff October 2000 Core team members 3. Evaluate the December 2000 Consultant project Core team IRC Specialist Principal \"The Most Beautiful High School in Am~rica\" Central High School 14th and Park Streets Phone 376-4751 INTERNATIONAL STUDIES MAGNET PROGRAM In-depth Program Evaluation Program Description Little Rock, Arkansas 7220: The International Studies Magnet program at Central High is designed to prepare students to function effectively in the global comrnuni ty. Through this program, students develop awareness and knowledge so that they can relate to people of other cultures and countries, learn to communicate proficiently in at least one foreign language, develop skills for analyzing complex global issues, and have a solid working knowledge of history and geography. Purpose For more than three decades, the Little ~ock School District has experienced many social problems which resulted from racial and ethnic imbalances in the district. To complicate matters, the demographic, economic, and sociological features have been in constant change. Seemingly, many of the middle class and the upper-middle class parents are unwilling to support and are ready to abandon the public education system of Little Rock. A condition 2 of blight and desertion has been created by this behavior. In an effort to counteract this systematic cycle of neglect and abandonment, the International Studies Magnet program was established, beginning the fall semester of the 1990-91 school year. Scope and Content The International Studies Magnet program at Central High School serves as a culmination for international studies, representing those students who have developed through the programs at Gibbs and Dunbar and those who enter the IS Program at the high school level. The Central High School IS program and students will focus on interdisciplinary and multiperspective strategies that will increase the students' awareness and acceptance of all aspects 0 world cultures--from economics and global issues to humanities and geography. Students will recognize and accept their relevance in today's world and will develop the ability to function in and contribute to an interdependent global community of trade and cooperation. Participants/Beneficiaries Primarily, the students enrolled in IS courses are the participants and beneficiaries of the IS program. However, the Central student body at large will benefit and participate from the program and will be able to take IS courses where space is available. 3 Moreover, the entire Central family, the Board of Directors, the district, the Pulaski County School District, and Pulaski county at large will benefit from the positive impact that the International Studies Magnet program will have. Program Goal The intent of the International Studies Magnet program is to provide equitable global educational opportunities for all students enrolled in the program as well as other Central students whenever space is available. It is further intended to facilitate the achievement of racial balance by encouraging, recruiting, and retaining white students from the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts. Also, the program will be further balanced by recruiting black students who are already in the Central zoning area. Evaluation Criteria The evaluation criteria to be used as set forth by the district is as follows: 1. The magnet component of the program will result in the further desegregation of the school by attracting M-to -Mand out-of-zone students to the program. 2. The identification of the magnet program costs for personnel, supplies, equipment, materials, staff development, etc. will be determined. The cost per 4 None Attendance Zone and M-to-M Students Black White Other Total 237 118 23 378 International Studies Magnet Students Black White Other Total 27 87 9 123 As the above data shows, Central has attracted -377 out-of-zone and M-to-M students. This number comprises 24% of the school's entire enrollment, which is 1,588 students. There are 528 white students enrolled this school year. Out of that number, 118 are M-to Mor out-of-zone, which comprises 22% of the entire white student enrollment. This information is based upon the data provided by the Student Assignment Office. Additionally, the IS Magnet was assigned 175 seats. Of that number, 123 seats are filled, which is 70% of the allotted space. Objective 2: [Identify the magnet program cost for personnel, supplies, equipment, materials,staffsf development, etc. Determine the cost per student based on magnet participation levels.] Thecostst incurred in the delivery of the magnet program are outweighed by the benefits of participation rates in the magnet program, and the achievement of the participants. Discussion 1. The cost of the Magnet program a. Personnel - No additional cost was incurred for personnel. The teachers and the specialist were already a part of the I 5 equipment, materials, staff development, etc. Determine the cost per student based on magnet participation levels.] The cost incurred in the delivery of the magnet program are outweighed by the benefits of participation rates in the magnet program, and the achievement of the participants. Discussion 1. The cost of the Magnet program a. Personnel - No additional cost was incurred for personnel. The teachers and the specialist were already a part of the faculty. The specialist was not compensated monetarily for the duties she performs. She was merely given one period off per day to perform magnet school duties. b. Supplies - Teachers will be able to purchase all of the supplies needed to effectively facilitate the teaching of their students. The cost for supplies has not been determined. c. Equipment - Some foreign language teachers have requested VCR's to facilitate the teaching of their classes, which would be shared with other IS teachers in their proximity. No equipment has been purchased at tn\nc ~\n~0 d. Materials - The amount of $1,990.00 teaching materials. e. Staff development - Monies have not development. 2. The cost incurred in delivery of the mag minimal, and the benefit to students was 5 equipment, materials, staff development, etc. Determine the cost per student based on magnet participation levels.] The cost incurred in the delivery of the magnet program are outweighed by the benefits of participation rates in the magnet program, and the achievement of the participants. Discussion 1. The cost of the Magnet program a. Personnel No additional cost was incurred for personnel. The teachers and the specialist were already a part of the faculty. The specialist was not compensated monetarily for the duties she performs. She was merely given one period off per day to perform magnet school duties. b. Supplies  Teachers will be able to purchase all of the supplies needed to effectively facilitate the teaching of their students. The cost for supplies has not been determined. c. Equipment Some foreign language teachers have requested VCR's to facilitate the teaching of their classes, which would be shared with other IS teachers in their proximity. No equipment has been purchased at this time. d. Materials - The amount of $1,990.00 has been spent on teaching materials. e. Staff development Monies have not been spent for staff development. 2. The cost incurred in delivery of the magnet program was minimal, and the benefit to students was outstanding. 6 a. There are 123 students enrolled in the IS Magnet program for the 1995-96 school year. The budget allocated for the operation of the program was $7,435.00. The cost for each student enrolled is $60.45. b. Many of the students enrolled at Central are the highest in not only the Magnet program but in the state, also. Without the IS Magnet program, Central would not have the number of Merit Scholars, etc., and many of our most gifted students would have to attend elsewhere. obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective 1: The objective stated in item number one was not completely fulfilled. The IS program attracted 123 white students out of the 175 seats allotted. The program needs to be expanded and more resources provided for staff development, equipment, etc. Objective 2: In terms of the goals of the IS Magnet program as stated in objective number two, the rewards far outweighed the investment in the program. Recommendations It is recommended that the International Studies Magnet program be augmented as stated below in reference to objective one (1) and two (2) . I I I Recommendations It is recommended that the International Studies Magnet program be augmented as stated below. It is recommended that the IS program be established as a node on the Internet. The Internet was initially created for use by the Department of Defense in 1969. Since then, it has grown to include educational institutions and corporations, as well as any other type of establishment one could think of. It is the largest collection of computer networks in the world, connecting well over 17 million people worldwide. As we are quickly moving out of a manufacturing economy and into an information economy, it is important that we give students the tools to compete in the real world. It is nigh impossible to do so without giving them access to adequate equipment and services. In 15 years, one will not be able to survive in this society without the aid of a computer. An unlimited amount of information is contained within the Internet. It is said that man's knowledge doubles every four to five years. More than likely, in some form or another, this rapid influx of information will be archived electronically along with the vast amounts of information that man has accumulated over the centuries. Any information on any subject may be found on the Internet. From important research data from leading colleges and universities to over 75% of all government documents that can be viewed (and some that can not) by the public are all archived electronically and available on the net. One could, with only a few keystrokes, be able to look up everything on a given Congressman, President, or 7 J1 --- , ... ::,------------------~~~~-------------- 8 any other government official. One could even correspond to the official via E-mail. If not for the Internet, finding vast amounts II of this type of information and this level of involvement in government, just short of actually voting, would be a daunting task, to say the least. The Internet is also about people. Through the Internet, students are able to experience the ambiance of distant cultures with the touch of a button. Students would be able to log onto the databases of top universities, accessing all kinds of information on just about anything one could think of. The net could be integrated into all aspects of student life. School based organizations could (i.e. clubs, the Wellness Clinic, etc.) communicate with similar organizations of other schools, trading ideas and suggestions. More importantly, a bond would be established between our school and other schools worldwide. The . departing seniors would no longer have to fear going somewhere distant for, more than likely, they will already have been reassured by a welcoming face from a friend at the intended destination. A working relationship could be established between Central and other schools. The community could also be involved. Information on government programs, entitlements, revitalization grants, etc. can easily be found electronically. The benefits of installing a networked, school-wide system that would be able to access the Internet would greatly outweigh the costs . Many schools, the Arkansas School for Math and Science and Clinton Elementary, for example, have already been networked 9 and are established as nodes on the Internet. The Internet is for everyone to use, and the district would be doing its students, as well as the community and future generations to come, a great disservice by not investing now in such a rich commodity. The International Studies Magnet program consists of 18 teachers. There are 119 students enrolled in the program. Of these students, only one percent is black. A balance at the school could be achieved by having the black students who meet the requirements of the IS program declare themselves as IS students. In that the program was designed to achieve racial harmony, the ration between black and white students should be balanced. Even though the IS program impacts approximately 50% of the schools' population through the enrollment of students in the IS English, IS Drama, foreign language and social studies courses, the program itself needs to be balanced. The IS program at Central should be continuation of Gibbs and Dunbar International Magnet Schools. Thus, more leadership is needed to make the bond a reality. In addition, the IS program needs leadership to strengthen the curriculum coordinate the program with the staff and students, provide resources and training the international studies to the staff, and increase the visibility of the program for the Pulaski County community at large. In order to be successful in these endeavors, the coordinator needs to be given a ten month contract and a one-half day teaching load. The coordinator should teach two classes in the morning and have a one hour preparation time. The afternoons will be devoted 10 to the IS activities and related business in the area designated at office space for the coordinator. Expected Benefits Not only will meeting the objectives set forth benefit the IS Magnet population, but it will also benefit the student body at large. Also, of the paramount importance, if will increase the white student enrollment. Further, the quality of the program and the effective teaching methods used will improve student achievement and will enable students to be more agreeable to attending Central High School. Impact Analysis The International Studies Magnet program will be supported by technology that will motivate and stimulate students as they progress in understanding the global village concept while developing academic skills. Resource Analysis Provided is a listing of .hardware and software that must be purchased to join the Internet. Included is the projected budget for staff development of teachers, etc. (see attachment). Force Field Analysis The primary supports of these recorranendations will be the Central High family, the district, the Board of Directors and the Pulaski County community at large. Those who oppose will be persons who do not promote the global village concept or integration. Also, since the IS program will I I 11 attract students who might have enrolled in the Pulaski County School District and the North Little Rock School District, they should be considered detractors. Since the IS program will bring positive publicity to Central High, a noted school worldwide, it is expected that the city of Little Rock will have a positive response. Date 11/95 4/96 4/96 5/96 5/96 8/96 6/97 Negative reactions can be reduced by all .those involved. General Implementation Plan Timeline Activity Plan presented to Board of Directors for Approval Bid for Hardware/Software Opened Hardware/Software Ordered Hardware/Software Installed Additional Materials/Supplies Ordered Staff Development Begins On-going Monitoring/Assistance Provided Evaluation of Current Theme Implementation Person(s) Responsible Superintendent Purchasing Purchasing vendor Theme Specialist Theme Specialist Vendor Coordinator Principal Coordinator CurriculumSupervisors Central High School International Studies Magnet In-depth Program Evaluation Recommendation and check-off of the budgetary impact statement Business Case is recommended yes --~no Plan modification is recommended yes __ _,no 12 Overall recommendations are likely to have what type of budgetary impact: No budgetary impact Increased costs Decreased costs Central High School International Studies Maqnet In-depth Program Evaluation ADDENDUM Program Description . The International Studies Maqnet proqram at Central  Hiqh School,. is designed to prepare students to function effeot'-ively in the qlobal community. Through this program, students de~elop awareneas :and knowledge so that they can relate to people of '. other cultures .and countries, learn to communicate proficiantly. in at leat .,one foraiqn language, develop akills for analyzing complex global issues, and have a 1olid working knowledge of history and geography. How the Data Was Gathered  The data in this evaluation is .based upon the 1-m.formation obtained .. from the Student Assignment Office, centralsAttendance Offtce, International Studies files, and a questionnaire given to students in International studies courses. Recommendations It is recommended that the International Studie Magnet proqram be augmented as stated below. Curriculum The curriculum of the International Studies  Magnet needs to: be expanded to attract more student\u0026amp; by adding D\\ore di1ciplina1 - to _-- t he Magnet program, establishing a continuum between Dunbar and ... central, and. :by makinq the IS program a node on the Internet. Additionally, the coordinator needs to be provided with time to strengthen the curriculum, coordinate the program with staff :and student , provide resources and training for the members of th IS staff, and increase the visibility of the program for the Pulaski eounty community at large. Desegregation Becomin9 a node on the Internet, expanding the oour1e offering  , and providing more time for the coordinator' position w.111 facilitate the desegregation of central High Sobool. Havinq acca to the Internet will virtually ensure an increase in enrollment. The best schools, teachers and coursea without regard . to 9eography, distance, resources, etc. will be. available to tha atudents. Installing the Internet, expanding the\nproqram to include other disciplines, and provid1nq ample time for the coordinator will serve as the \"magnet\" . -needed to attr.ct the  necaaaa.ry enrollment. Addendum Central High School International Studies Magnet Paga 2 Support Area 'l'he Guidance Department needs to be added to the IS Mac,nat ataff. In that they are the staff members responsible for enrollin9 atudents in the program and helping to recruit them for it, -tima need to be provided for in-service so that they can be fully aware of what the program involves . . Also, the vice-principala need to ba cognizant of the requirements for enrollinc\nin tha IS proqram and to be abreast with the concepts of the proqram ao that they can, also, assist in the recruitment of students~ fl'harefore, traininq needs to be provided for the vice-principals a well. ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY PROGRAM NAME: Communications PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The Communications Department of the Uttle Rock School District is responsible for both internal and external communications for the largest school district in Arkansas. These responsibilities include communications among students, employees, the Board of Directors, parents, the news media. the business community, and all city residents. A major responsibility of this program is to fulfill the public relations function as outlined in the desegregation plan. With limited personnel and equipment resources, the Communications Department successfully fulfills its publication responsibilities, including newsletters, school calendars, brochures, and news releases. However, community outreach, recruitment, and dissemination of information via broadcast methods are not successful due to underutilization of Cable Channel 4 and lack of video production capabilities. RECOMMENDATIONS: . It is recommended that additional resources be committed to video production to improve recruitment efforts and community outreach through better utilization of Cable Channel 4. This will result\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1199","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1199"],"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":["206 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n ' rjalfa.l!lllili It-Ii i!!i\nl/i:illlli1i1ii':: ==: 11:1111:1: 1 I ii : \u0026gt;Jlli.il~ ii I \": I11::~\n!ft, CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $375,279 6.0 $340,086 6.0 $346,907 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $433,972 10.0 $473,907 10.0 $477,647 03 Specialists 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,211,895 39.2 $1,224,208 39.2 $1,266,529 04 Counselors 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $405,435 12.4 $452,360 12.4 $456,579 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $224,104 6.5 $230,137 6.5 $233,047 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 o.o $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $483,977 12.6 $404,921 12.6 $409,206 10 Special Education 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $282,681 7.7 $263,527 8.2 $283,351 11 Gifted 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $158,016 5.4 $189,153 5.4 $1 90,921 12 Classroom 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,377,867 175.9 $5,582,275 175.9 55,642,152 13 Substitutes 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $182,975 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,990 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,552 14.0 $459,595 14.0 $463,885 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,584,753 289.7 $9,775,094 290.2 $9,925,214 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $360,333 19.0 $323,508 20.0 $337,934 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $156,152 5.4 $155,272 5.4 $160,236 17 Custodians 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $360,957 28.5 $355,219 29.0 $372,933 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $122,210 6.0 $132,853 6.0 $142,764 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $237,662 37.0 $270,749 37.0 $278,875 21 FringeBenefits(20) ~  $1,366,607 ~ $1,213,301 ~  $1,282,054 ~ $1,297,521 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,450,615 95.9 $2,519,655 97.4 $2,590,263 TOTAL(10-20) ~ $11,883,532 - $12,035,368 ~  $12,294,749 ~ $12,515,477 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ $507,373 ~ $598,876 ~ $619,066 #.i6.P\u0026lt;lC $626,335 SERVICES 23 Travel ffi. $33,980 ~ $20,580 ~ $33,907 ~ $38,500 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ ~ ,~xli\": ~ 25 Other ~: $92,772 ~ : $119,669 ):).c~ $74,250 ~ . $69,500 TOTAL (30) 1##..:. $634,125 ~:.: $739,125 ~Ki:if $727,223 ~: $734,335 MATERIALS, ~2::..:6+..P'-'-rin-'c-'ip:....a....',ls.:......:..O_ffi-'--ce,\n__ _- -it,\n,~,,.'.':'\"..\",.:: '.* ---::-::-::-::--:-::-::,-max:~.~:!o'o:i - --=-=-=-=--=-=:-fl\"-lb~)~:l~: --=-=-=-=-=:-fl\"--:!~\u0026lt;~'-'-'~:!\u0026gt;:.- -=-::-:-::-\"77\":~ SUPPLIES 27 RegularClassroom ~: $309,128 ~ $328,856 ~l(@: $302,337 ~ $313,418 (40) 28 Media ~: $53,842 ~ $34,277 ffl#i $57,242 ~ $57,100 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) 29 Other ~ $11,647 ~ $18,873 ~ $19,510 ~ $16,800 TOTAL(40) ~ $374,617 ~ $382,006 ~ $379,089 ~ $387,318 30 Equipment ~ $106,283 ~ $67,029 itXiooicX $93,646 ~ $86,598 31 Building Repair, etc. ~ - ~ ~ ~ TOTAL (50) ~- $106,283 ~- $67,029 ~ $93,646 ~: $86,598 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~ $12 416 ri.ii iiiitii $13,017 ~ $15,655 ~ (60) 34 Other b:laooc s12, 0 416 ..xji(.!.K..:o.~.~.\n...a. c. ~ ~ TOTAL (60) ~ $13,017 ~ $15,655 ~ $14,500 $14,500 TOTAL(30-60) ~ $1,127,441 4 $1,201,177 ~ $1,215,613 ~ $1,222,751 TOTAL (10-60) 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 $13,236,545 385.6 $13,510,362 387.6 $13,738,228 TOTAL LINE ITEl~S- (SECOND PAGE) ixlixxx. $537,465 ~ $413,629 ~ $796,728 ~  $876,136 'f'#YG.~Nt:f./\nJ.:OT:\nMMfW%, ~ -\\-~'l'.~~W~ : . : ilJ3'$.$.0~1t~1 ~ tl.t4~i~:\n~ ~41J:$~J~O 11~~!m::rr:~11:1::11:!i:~i:t1:::::: ~::~:~~x\n::m \n::~~~:\nt\n::~~\n:~~~~~ Stipends $19,871 $16,269 $29,125 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $458,905 $348,726 $685,103 $764,511 Vocation al $29,864 $17,222 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $27,741 $28,627 $29,000 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $500 $500 Science English ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $2,082 $2,785 $4,000 $4,000 XXlOOO( XXlOOO( XXlOOO( Total Line Items $537,465 $413,629 $796,728 $876,136 (r\u0026amp;Pul:\u0026gt;llCosC t !i!~~Wfft tfflHff.lifM i~S~tH? l~f~HlF 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3679.6 3570.5 3530.0 3530.0 Total Costs $13,548,434 $13,650,174 $14,307,090 $14,614,360 e,te.up11c9\u0026amp;ttr:uwm1t\nrnni:\n:m$$.\nm\nwrnm:\n1::$$.l32a:!: wmrnJMi~:!i mrn:nt,in~.:. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 1.0 $55,764 1.0 $56,095 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,028 1.0 $52,028 1.0 $52,334 03 Specialists 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $253,810 7.0 $247,392 7.0 $245,325 04 Counselors 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $79,221 2.0 $66,806 2.0 $67,430 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 1.0 $37,836 1.0 $38,190 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $907,324 30.2 $937,495 30.2 $985,475 10 Special Education 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 1.3 $51 ,389 1.3 $51,869 11 Gifted 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 1.0 $37,222 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $17,757 $24,191 $20,000 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 4.0 $125,362 4.0 $126,532 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,615,405 48.5 $1,630,948 48.5 $1,680,472 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $46,344 2.0 $31,932 2.0 $31 ,932 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,301 1.0 $28,104 1.0 $28,104 17 Custodians 4.0 $42,176 4.0 $44,290 4.0 $51,384 4.0 $51,384 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $64,657 7.0 $37,000 7.0. $63,323 7.0 $63,624 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) I~ $225,867 ~ $198,345 ~ $209,385 ~ $21 4,360 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.0 $388,766 14.0 $353,280 14.0 $384,128 14.0 $389,405 TOTAL(10-20) ~ $1,942,422 ~ $1,968,685 ~ $2,015,076 ~ $2,069,877 TOTAL(30) ~ $81,041 ~ - $94,163 ~: $98,615 ~ - r:M-:-SUA-:-:T:::PE==PR:-:-LIAl:-:EL--:SS:-,~ 2\ns~:P....,.r'---in=c~ip=a:1cs\n-=o,\n._-cc1_1i=ce~=~==-i!~'=iii.m=#/~e\n..r:n~.*/.is: it===~s- 3\n-\n7\n,- 77 =:. -\n-\n4~~:1.~#!~II $44 36 ~: $ 34 900 ~ : 27 Regular lassroom      , .... ...... .. ,4 ~ -- , ~: (40) .,_2_8_M~ed~ia_______ $4,743 ~: $5,380 ~: $4,800 ~ 29 Other #.d.i\u0026lt;l( $1,255 m. $2,624 ~ $1,255 ~ $99,750 $35,155 $4,800 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) $1,000 TOTAL(40) ~ $43,772 ~ $52,440 ~ $40,955 ~ $40,955 30 Equipment ~ $10,090 ~ $12,832 ~ $6,000 ~ $6,000 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL(S0) ~ $10,090 ~: $12,832 !L~.. $6,000 ~ $6,000 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ $0 i $0 ~ $0 ~ $0 TOTAL (30-60) ~ $134,903 ~ $159,435 ~ $145,570 ~ $146,705 TOTAL(10-60) -62.9 $2,077,325 62.5 $2,128,120 62.5 $2,160,646 62.5 $2,216,582 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) ~ 75446.0 ~ $59,394 ~ $113,512 ~ $126,220 fitt tt~~~PrrP-tltWlMMH ~ m\nlZ~~/rnN . :t11tmm,,1.\\ ~ f:) j2'~Jfa$j: ~ ,:):):$.?~a4~)~M Stipends $1,500 Other Objects Indirect Costs $75,260 $57,435 $109,849 $122,557 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 $155 Plant Services $166 $2,505 $2,505 Reading $84 $84 Science English ($337) $251 $251 Special Education $341 $459 $668 $668 xxxxxx XX)()()()( xxxxxx Total Line Items $75,446 $59,394 $113,512 $126,220 ,~eum.1.,#wrr\nrn\n,1\nnn 1.m~mm:rm: :im\n:~nmmm\ntqf$.$1timn 1.~~=\n.J 3rd Qtr. ADM or Pro]. 604.4 588.0 566.0 566.0 Total Costs $2,152,TT1 $2,187,514 $2,274,158 $2,342,801 PetPU\u0026amp;lCo.itfN%l@Mt@ MWM$3'~ !:Mt:'.@iliJ$3'~  :tttffM'O.tS.I ttJM~l39.: R\u0026amp;~~~~~:s~~,~::::::::t::::~:: =t::: :\n:~\n::,:~~:1\n::: ~ :: '::\n:::::::\n~:::':\n: :.~::\n:::::::::~:::::\n:=:: ti~\n::\n~a CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $57,676 1.0 $67,263 1.0 $49,235 1.0 $52,141 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $32,092 1.0 $41,640 1.0 $39,569 1.0 $40,782 03 Specialists 7.0 $212,014 8.0 $245,103 8.0 $259,133 8.0 $263,095 04 Coun:.elors 1.6 $50,547 2.0 $45,473 2.0 $62,791 2.0 $63,378 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $43,532 1.5 $47,207 1.5 $48,443 1.5 S48,896 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 23.0 $572,789 24.3 $581,394 24.3 $690,567 24.3 $698,233 1 O Special Education 1.0 $30,734 1.0 $33,001 1.0 $26,869 1.5 $44,484 11 Gifted 1.0 $32,46!\n1.4 $47,830 1.4 $45,303 1.4 $45,726 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $16,814 $12,271 $17,150 $17,150 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $116,101 4.0 $117,112 4.0 $120,344 4.0 $121,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 41.1 $1,164,768 44.2 $1,238,294 44.2 $1,359,404 44.7 $1,395,351 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $65,657 3.0 $60,742 3.0 $50,964 3.0 $49,502 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $29,857 1.0 $31,556 1.0 $32,359 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 4.0 $34,361 4.0 $43,531 4.0 $41 ,956 4.0 $44,188 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $71,921 11.0 $75,921 11.-0 $78,184 11 .0 $88,772 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) ~ $190,533 ~ $171,444 ~ $191,607 . $198,572 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $392,329 19.0 $383,194 19.0 $395,070 19.0 $413,392 TOTAL(10-20) ~ $1,557,097 ~ : $1,621,488 - $1,754,474 , ~ $1,808,743 PSUERRCVHIACSEESD 22 23 TUrtailvit 8 ie 1 s ~ $53,586 ~.P\u0026lt;if $6$6 8 , 0 9 4 7 64 31---$-'-75....:,_965-i,\n,~:mx\"\"x:,:,,:\n:\n.m.\n--$-'-7-'7,_41-3-! ~ $12,253 ~  $9,000 \"ffl./ $9,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ ~  :'.~ 25 Other ~ $9,911 ~ $13,840  $10,700 ~ $10,700 L...----...L.::c:.+:..:,__:___T_O _T _A_L_(3_0_) _- +lniai~o,i .~i.o..i.:i.' li\u0026gt; l : f------:$--75--',---75\"\"\"0..i\u0026lt;..i #~l..(.\" .m\no~\n.:::\n+-:- -$8-c--::-:-9-'--=,2~n::-+j~!:!jf~: $95,665 .:..=:.:.\".~...,..\n\n..\n+-:: _$ :..:9:..:.7~,1:..:.13=--! MATERIALS, 1-=2:.::6+P:,.\nr.:.\n.ln.:.=c:!:.lp-=-al:.,,:'s:....O::\nl.:.\n.flc:..:e:___ __~ ~\n:1X.l4!iilii.lt,\nJ~i--:-=--::-:::c-=-ittim:li0\n~,.\n\"Xj\n:r--:----:-:-::-=-itili\"..l !1 ii!il~J\u0026amp;m:'.:'.i--:-=--=-::-=-it~~i--::-=--=-::-:-1 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ~ $52,759 ~  $54,466 ~~.~ $63,330 ~: $63,330 (40) 28 Media ix'imi. $13,271 ~: $5,356 ~:*-l!: $11,500 ~: $11,500 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) 29 Other TOTAL(40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL(50) imb. $2,593 ~ $3,498 ~  $3,500 ~ $3,500 ~ $68,623 ~ $63,320 ~ . $78,330 ~ $78,330 ~ - $27,894 ~: $19,490 ~: $19,000 ~ $19,000 ~ $27,894 ~ $19,490 ~ $19,000 ~ $19,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees  $3,908 ~ $5,643 ~ $3,000 ~ (60) i-:34:.:.+0.::..t.::..h:...:.er--'-'-----'-----f.o'-. ixiood ~ ~ : L-~-::::L.-----1..:::.:_+.::.::.:.:::\n....----=T:-:O::-::T:-:A-,-L-:-(6:-:0\"\"\")-----ffl~ $3,908 ~ - $5,643 ~~ $3,000 ~l $3,000 $3,000 TOTAL(30-60) ~ $176,174 ~ $177,730 ~ $195,995 ~ $197,443 TOTAL(10-60) 60.1 $1,733,271 63.2 $1,799,218 63.2 $1,950,469 63.7 $2, 006,186 TOTAL LINE ITEM$-(SECOND PAGE) ~ $86,058 ~ $64,923 ~ $129,543 j(~ $128,244\n:::\n::::,\n:'::,~o,ror#c:,:\n:x,:::: ~\n:\n:,::ttJU$~: ~ :rtt~a~at ~ :::it~mm~~m~: ~ -t s2.m3M~ ,,.,.,,  tlthr  ti~, .......... ttS.mttiat?t ta.wrifbtt 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Stipends $12,453 $6,044 $13,100 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $73,425 $58,412 $112,956 $111,657 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 $145 Plant Services $162 $2,385 $2,385 Reading $82 $82 Science English ($329) $239 $239 Special Education $333 $467 $636 $636 xxxxxx )00()()()( )00()()()( Total Line Items $86,058 $64,923 $129,543 $128,244 $.iriffilm.l\nQ.QJOMMW)UHJ i~lit:W Jm.fSMJtt tB~tmn 1~~t 3rd atr. ADM or ProJ. 588.3 597.9 582.0 582.0 Total Costs $1,819,329 $1,864,141 $2,080,012 $2,134,430 HWlPU~l'.CoitMWHrnxww tlMK13i~ i ttM{IJ.'1.i\u0026amp;.i UttffJ.3tnG MttM'.$3.)~J CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,233 1.0 $44,496 1.0 $46,919 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 1.0 $55,922 1.0 1.0 $43,068 1.0 $43,328 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,752 5.8 $127,098 5.8 $154,817 5.8 $164,21 9 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $41,050 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,684 1.0 $39,257 1.0 $39,624 06 Art-Perl./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $462,587 15.0 $433,026 15.0 $435,154 10 Special Education 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $70,319 1.5 $52,851 1.5 $53,344 11 Gifted 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 1.0 $34,246 1.0 $34,566 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $13,666 $11,733 $14,000 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,912 2.0 $59,580 2.0 $60,136 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31 .3 $985,841 29.3 $901,679 29.3 $916,011 29.3 $932,340 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $15,692 1.4 $18,779 1.4 $1--8,779 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $11,304 0.8 $11,856 0.0 $12,446 0.8 $12,446 17 Custodians 3.0 $33,776 3.0 $39,012 3.0 $39,803 3.0 $39,003 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $33,307 5.6 - $32,907 5.6 $33,445 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) ~ $141,032 ~ $114,688 ~ $123,740 ~ $124,892 TOTALSUPPORTSALARY 11.8 $240,594 10.8 $214,555 10.8 $227,675 10.8 $229,365 TOTAL(10-20) 'fflhli $1,226,435 ~ $1,116,234 ~ - $1,143,686 ~ $1,161,705 $4,000 TOTAL(30) ~ $36,254 ~- $42,173 ~ $48,792 ~ $49,763 MATERIALS, 26 Prlnclpal's Office I-__:~~~~\n::':\n.\n:: t.:iii !---=-=~~4!~i:!li:~t.l-~l\ng,\n.\ni+-_.:.\n~~~'.llif\u0026gt;iii:l::t~.:l::::t t-_ _.:.\n~:-=-:--1 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $23,541 ~ $20,882 ~: $25,068 ~ - $25,000 (40) 28 Media $6,489 ~ $3,934 ~ $6,600 -~ $8,000 29 Other if~:~: $1,016 ~ $1,397 -'.'.:':',!\n.\n, j_ '\"7:$:.::2.:..,:,4755~~~J\n1,,,l9\u0026gt;ff~:~:l---:=::c-::-:-::-l .--,,-----=---,-,---+:,---,,---T:...::O:....:T..:..A=L...l.(4.:..:0:t..)- --E~\n:\n:~:~\ni,:)1.' !!--....\n$\n_.\n3'-::1\"-:,04c=-6~~il'.4\ni'.i.li:$.ltii:+ -~$2~6~,2~1-=3'-\" ':.it...i.~ .-:1.i.'.i:r -___:.$~$34 2 ::-.!.',S4:::'12:'=--3 6 ........ ....::~.:::::::*:_: :_ ___:.$~33\n:-',,0::-:0::-:::0~ CAPITAL 30 Equipment @.IQC) $2,594 ~ $1,312 ~ $3,700 OLITLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. ~ ~ -- (50) 32 Other ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHER (60) TOTAL (50) ~ $2,594 ~ $1,312 ~ $2,646 ~ $3,700 33 Dues and Fees ~ $1,132 ~ $215 ~ $1,155 ~ $1,000 34 Other ~ ~ ~ ~ TOTAL(60) ~ - $1,132 ~ $215 ~ $1,155 ~ $1,000 TOTAL(30-60) ~ - $71,025 ~ $69,913 ~ $86,716 ~ $87,463 TOTAL(10-60) 43.1 $1,297,460 40.1 $1,186,147 40.1 $1,230,402 40.1 $1,249, 168 TOTAL LINE 1TB $-(SECOND PAGE) ~ $41,553 ~ $29,105 ~ $57,993 ~ $70,963  : \u0026lt;\u0026lt;'14~1M-Mt\u0026lt;ttt ~ '\n.J,:~\n~\n~: : : ::::\u0026lt; :\\l1~1$~ii #P~ tj:~\n~$$? ~ ::tl t~ ~13.1:ffi Other Objects Indirect Costs $41,301 $28,874 $56,089 $69,059 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 $80 Plant Services $91 $1,305 $1,305 Reading $42 $42 Science English ($185) $129 $129 Special Education $187 $231 $348 $348 xxxxxx lOClOOO( lOClOOO( t{et P:OpllC.offMPP@@mrn ,~~rnm 1fflf.tft@Wii j\n~f~Wtt ,~~Ht% 3rd Qtr. ADM or Pro]. 329.0 295.7 289.0 289.0 Total Costs $1,339,013 $1,215,252 $1,288,395 $1,320,131 Jffit:E'-u.P.!lCoSf:rmtt:wwrn\niM@l$.,f'.Q.~l: t%i%$4?$.10:i iWWilif~:: tHltt$.J.iS.Gai CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 1.0 $60,588 1.0 $60,956 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 1.0 $40,047 1.0 $40,205 03 Specialists 04 Counselors 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $173,230 5.0 $182,894 5.0 $184,602 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $45,279 1.4 $41,011 1.4 $41,394 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $25,446 1.0 $28,846 1.0 $29,874 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $631,616 20.0 $630,446 20.0 $660,714 20.0 10 Special Education 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $25,764 1.1 $28,877 1.1 11 Gifted 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $40,670 2.0 $72,728 2.0 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $15,588 $17,314 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 3.0 $113,639 3.0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,174,997 35.5 $1,245,344 35.5 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $27,786 2.6 $41,377 2.6 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,664 1.0 $35,551 1.0 17 Custodians 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $44,866 3.5 $46,660 4.0 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $32,748 9.0 $37,175 9.0 $44,618 9.0 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ $171,101 ~ - $147,956 ~ $166,961 ~ - TOTALSUPPORTSALARY 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $291,447 16.1 $335,167 16.6 TOTAL(10-20) ildo\u0026amp;iii- $1,465,402 ~ $1,466,444 ~ $1,580,511 ~ PURCHASE 22 Utilities ~ $38,623 ~ $44,468 ~ $57,280 ~ SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $3,793 ~ $4,601 ~ $5,000 ~ (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ ~ ~ ~ 25 Other ~ - $16,400 ~ - $9,938 ~ $8,000 ~ TOTAL (30) ~ - $58,816 ~ - $59,007 ~- $70,280 ~ MATERIALS, 26 Prlncipal's Office ~ ~ ~ ~- SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ~ $38,631 ~: $55,228 ~ $31,698 ~ (40) 28 Media ~ $6,234 ~ $4 645 ~ $11,000 ~ 29 Other ~ $1,475 ~ $2095 ~ $2,200 ~ CAPITAL OUTL-\\Y (50) TOTAL(40) ~ $46,341 ~ $61:968 Pffi $44,898 ~ 30 Equipment ~ $25,034 ~ $6,799 ~ $22,700 ~ 31 Building Repair, etc. iiooooci ~ ~- ~ 32 Other ~ imn: ~ ~ TOTAL (50) ~ $25,034 ~ $6,799 ~ $22,700 ~ OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~ $190 ~ $720 ~ $2,000 ~ (60) 34 Other ~ ~ ~ ~ $691,929 $29,146 $73,407 $16,000 $114,700 $1 ,282,212 $39,684 $35,551 $51,012 $41,317 $170,901 $338,466 $1,620,677 $59,353 $5,000 $8,000 $72,353 $39,700 $10,000 $2,300 $52,000 $15,598 $15,598 $2,000 TOTAL (60) ~ $190 ~ $720 ~ $2,000 ~ $2,000 TOTAL(30-60) ~ $130,381 ~ $128,494 ~ $139,878 ~ $141,951 TOTAL(10-60) 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,594,938 51.6 $1,720,389 52.1 $1,762,628 TOTAL LINE ITEI $-(SECOND PAGE) ~ $60,881 ~ $49,480 ~ - $103,657 ~ $110,833 !:J'\\GIViNO:r.qr.Mi/WWl@ ~ :nM~~E\\ ::  MJ:1~il.1~f ~ %4:t~\n()Mi ~ @!J.t\nst:l\n~u Mn!J~,~]%1.@/iil!Itfrn::: t~uattt :Ctt~t  ttfmfgattlt tt8ud0it :,:::::::,,:::::::::::::::::::::: ...... 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Stipends $1,537 $1,676 $10,000 $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $59,199 $47,427 $90,829 $98,005 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 $120 Plant Services $130 $1,935 $1,935 Reading $63 $63 Science English ($265) $194 ~194 Special Education $269 $377 $516 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx )()(JOO()( Total Line Items $60,881 $49,480 $103,657 $110,833 e~PQWl:t.0$\nt#illrnrnww 1.~'S~WMi 1'-~%Ni 1.B4-$.$iii'\u0026amp;i' l~@tkii1 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 473.3 485.8 468.0 468.0 Total Costs $1,656,664 $1,644,418 $1,824,046 $1,873,461 ~ -P-Oi:\u0026gt;lf-WlMM@f.mt iUNMl3$.00 mHMllJ~  tJ%$'3=D.1 )it:WN$4~003 CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,520 1.0 $64,256 1.0 $64,647 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $143,289 3.0 $148,979 3.0 $145,767 3.0 $146,644 03 Specialists 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $111,283 3.6 $113,157 3.6 $107,924 04 Counselors 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $69,852 3.0 $111,241 3.0 $112,280 05 MediaSpec. 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41,729 1.0 $41,729 1.0 $42,11 9 06 Art-Perl./Prod. - 07 Music r:08:-::-tF=-o-re-:-i-gn-L=-a-n_g _ ------t----t------ir----+-----+----i----+---+---- 09 Vocational 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $207,954 5.6 $190,845 5.6 $192,581 10 Special Education 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 1.3 $50,084 1.3 $50,552 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,424,850 46.8 $1,443,934 46.8 $1,458,375 13 Substitutes $34,413 $71,832 $36,135 $36,200 14 Other TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,190,015 65.3 $2,197,148 65.3 $2,211,323 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 4.0 $65,214 4.0 $66,063 4.0 $68,494 5.0 $85,094 $32,360 $70,181 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,359 1.0 $32,359 1.0 17 Custodians 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $68,890 6.0 $60,373 6.0 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $24,845 1.0 $23,937 1.0 $33,356 1-2-0+0t-h-'er---A-id_es ______3_ _ 5_ +--$4-6-',6-9-3-+--2.-4-+--$4-2,'-95-1-+--2.4- -+--$-2-8'-1, -0-1+--2-.4-+---$28,101 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) ~ $292,062 #.l\u0026lt; $266,922 ~ $275,254 ~ $277,471 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $525,462 14.4 $502,030 14.4 $488,518 15.4 $526,564 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $2,584,578 ~ $2,692,045 ~ $2,685,666 ~ $2,737,886 TOTAL(30)  $183,959 ~ $198,959 ~ $214,521 iai $215,603 ,M:u1\n~~\n- 1--::c::~+:=-~-i~..:.~i-f'-l~a..:./c=': 0 ~-'a~'- 11 ....:~~..:.e_m __ __, ______ ...,..__._. ...... --$6,--3-,9-84--.~j:\n\n, ~,~,. ~., .,.,. ,.,-~1---$-:-:7--9--,,3--3-1=.i...: ,,,,::::\"\"::::,,.::::: +---c$-4-9-,1-:6-8.,..=: ...,:.:.,,,\n,,::::\n:+:- --c-$4- 9-,1-6-8-- 1 (40) 28 Media ~ $9,352 -~ $9,547 ~ $15,700 ~ $15 ,700 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) 29 Other ~ $2,172 -~ - $2,923 - $4,000 ~ $4,000 TOTAL(40) m. $75,508 ~ $91,801 ~ $68,868 ~ $68,868 30 Equipment ~ $17,579 ~ $15,510 ~ $27,300 ~ $27,300 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL(S0) ~ $17,579 ~ $15,510 ~ $27,300 fflffi $27,300 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~ $1,377 ~ $1,764 ~ $4,500 ~ $4,500 (60) 34 Other T~~\nt~6-~o) = $2~~:!~ = ~:~:. $3~:~~~ = $3~:~~~ TOTAL (10-60) 79.8 $2,863,000 79.7 $3,000,079 79.7 $3,000,855 80.7 $3,054,157 TOTAL LINE ITEM -(SECOND PAGE) ~ $137,573 ~ $109,678 ~ $201,987 ~ $210,72-i @WMi4.~iffit'MttMiWW ~ \\U~Q.$'.1$.( ~ t~1lterv ~ - :~mJf4ti ~ #}.$$J~\naa1\\ l~li~~llllll\n:il!11llllllll!l!lli!li::!JII!: \n\n~:,:c:m :~:\n~~r \n\n~~i:trn ~!1!~!et:tt Stipends $4,378 $4,530 $4,600 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $104,172 $80,835 $162,057 $170,794 Vocational $14,932 $8,890 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $13,857 $14,777 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $229 $3,450 $3,450 Reading $115 $115 Science English ($467) $345 $345 Special Education $473 $646 $920 $920 )0()()()()( )0()()()()( )0()()()()( Rtf P.ObJt\nCostt't'.'Y':''?'?\\\n' i.~~===t\u0026lt; 1'~Q4t}''=''.' t~S$.\\P::= 1fflfmt==t='t 3rd Ctr. ADM or Proj. 836.3 827.8 835.0 835.0 Total Costs $3,000,573 $3,109,757 $3,202,842 $3,264,881 eereup11coatrv\\:::zr:~:1 ::\n:,=:.:+a :ssa:= \n\n::wss:mr ::p=-rctS:t:836== ==,-:==yr\n:fl\nm:o=: M:!1:J!~~~~~:\u0026lt;:t:=i1::12i:~:i\n~ :\n::=\n:\n~:~:=:::::1:~1:~: =~\n! :1:=~r~'\n'.:,::i\n:1 ~~r :\n::\n:::::~:::\n::::\n~~:: :r:,: ~\n: / CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,517 1.0 $64,582 1.0 $65,747 1.0 $66,149 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 3.0 $119,256 3.0 $152,394 3.0 $153,428 3.0 $154,354 03 Specialists 9.8 $221 ,882 9.8 $301,371 9.8 $266,815 9.8 $301 ,364 04 Counselors 3.0 $118,446 3.0 $124,940 3.0 $129,841 3.0 $131,047 05 MediaSpec. 1.0 $33,013 1.0 $34,026 1.0 $34,026 1.0 $34,344 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 7.0 $302,605 7.0 $276,023 7.0 $214,076 7.0 $216,625 1 o Special Education 1.2 $51,899 1.5 $53,457 1.5 $53,457 1.5 $53,956 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 39.6 $1,370,962 39.6 $1,371,266 39.6 $1,416,539 39.6 $1 ,372,986 13 Substitutes $49,179 $45,634 $51,640 $51,640 14 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $41,050 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.6 $2,369,244 66.9 $2,464,363 66.9 $2,426,239 66.9 $2,423,513 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 $123,490 6.0 $143,706 6.0 $111 ,962 6.0 $1 12,943 $19,416 $116,365 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $18,790 0.6 $19,416 0.6 $14,453 0.6 17 Custodians 8.0 $113,791 8.0 $120,368 8.0 $115,043 8.0 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $122,263 5.0 $97,365 5.0 $108,916 5.0 $109,408 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $14,005 2.0 $11,308 2.-0 $23,616 2.0 $23,616 21 Fringe Benetits(20) ~ $346,012 ~ $313,946 ~ $315,107 ~ $311,325 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $738,351 21.6 $706,109 21 .6 $689,097 21.6 $693,072 TOTAL(10-20) ~ $3,107,595 ~ $3,170,472 ~ $3,115,336 ~  $3,116,586 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ $179,513 ~ $213,303 ~ $183,100 ~ $183,753 SERVICES t-2-3+T-r-av_e_l --------t\n~,\n,,\nC.~\n,\nJl.\"'\"$,... ----\n@:l,.\n,\nS~\n,i+\n ...---$.,...1-,3-1...,.0.\nQ:j,\n,\n'~\"'Jl\n' ..t---$.,...1-,5-0_0,J\"\"\"o\n,~\n-\n~\n\"\n':,i+: --$,-6-,0-0-,---iO (30) 24 MalntenanceAgreements ~ ~ ~ ~iiiiiiiii:ii 25 Other l~~ $18,792 ~ -- $40,933 ~ $14 750   $10,000 TOTAL(30) ).~~ $198,305 ~ $255,546 -~ - $199:350 ~--- ---'$1:...9:~9,~75:...:3~ , MATERIALS, i-:2::6t-Pr:..:.:in.:.:c:.:!:lp:.::a::.,:l's:..0:::.f:..:.:fi=-ce=-------iilft\n~\n/:,\n:\n:\n:J\nJ.i ---:--:-:----:-c.i.\niJ\u0026amp;:l\n.\nm'.\n:\n\n:\n,~---=-=--=--::--l\n~~:\n\u0026gt;\n,:::\nJ.:- --=--=-=-~--F.,\ni~~::\n:\n:\n\n:\n4: - - -----1 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ~  $92,439 ~ $74,513 ~  $98,173 ~  $101,065 (40) 28 Media ~ $13,753 ~ $5,415 :~ $7,642 ~  $7,100 CAPITAL OUTlAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ $3,136 ~ $6,336 ffl $6,100 ~ $6,000 TOTAL(40) ~ $109,327 ~ $86,264 ~ $111,915 ~ $114,165 30 Equipment ~ $23,092 ~  $11,086 - $16,000 - $15,000 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~ $23,092 ~ - $11,086 - $16,000 ~  $15,000 33 Dues and Fees ~  $5,809 ~ $4,675 ~ $5,000 ~  $4,000 34 Other ~ ~ ~  TOTAL (60) ~ $5,809 ~ $4,675 ~ $5,000 ~ $4,000 TOTAL (30-60) mm $336,534 ~ $357,571 ~ $332,265 ~ $332,918 TOTAL (10-60) 88.2 $3,444,128 88.5 $3,528,043 88.5 $3,447,601 88.5 $3,449,504 TOTAL LINE ITEM S-(SECOND PAGE) ~ - $135,955 ~ - $101,049 ~ - $190,036 ~ $229,152 (Jt iM\u0026lt;!QBMIJlffP rAVt@Wt   ..   : ''\".' .J~m~ -\n:n~ :~ :~ =1::~uinm~ :: -$3,6!.tt~ Stipends $1,353 $2,519 $1,425 $1,425 Other Objects Indirect Costs $105,548 $75,743 $153,323 $192,439 Vocational $14,932 $8,332 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $13,884 $13,850 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant SeNices $232 $3,420 $3,420 Reading $114 $114 Science English ($473) $342 $342 Special Education $479 $605 $912 $912 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $135,955 $101,049 $190,036 $229,152 e~eow1\n Kr:::\n:\nx7\n:g: iffl\n\n:\n:\n::\n:~m~\n:\ns\n18M+.SS::\n:v\n18.ffi::x\n:\n3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 848.3 775.3 790.0 790.0 Total Costs $3,580,083 $3,629,092 $3,637,637 $3,678,656 fffltiPlili:\u0026gt;.lt:C.o.it%!W%MWW JMJ.MM~zao.t W#Wf.4.i~tf M%%M'$0$.i tWM\nt1J.Jas=1.t ADDITIONAL CLERICAL POSITION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The district is committed to safe, secure school environments, accurate attendance reporting, sound financial accounting, and to the educational, social and emotional growth of all its students. We at Mann are involved daily with our expected responsibility and obligation to our school community. Our goal continues to focus on and to carry out district mandates effectively and efficiently. We eagerly accept our charge, remaining one of the district's successful schools. Due to the complex nature of being a magnet, this business case proposes an additional clerical position, making it possible for us to continue our goals at an optimal level. A Background Mann Magnet serves a consistent enrollment of 850 students from all three school districts: Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County. There is an urgent need to establish and maintain a sense of community for our diverse population. Our clientele of parents have high expectations because, for the most part, we represent for them an opportunity to explore an attractive curriculum in a public school setting. Our students are transported to us on different buses, and since they must perform, attend mandated field trips, participate in activities relating to science and the arts--our two specialty areas, we must provide nurturing, after school duty, and support for them. Through the years, there have also been increased demands on administrative staff to take care of extra clerical needs, related to attendance, possible litigating concerns, and other reporting. These demands lessen the effectiveness of the Assistant Principals, taking away from their expected job responsibilities. There are three secretaries in our office--principal's secretary, registrar and bookkeeper/attendance secretary, a slot of which either area--attendance or bookkeeping--constitutes a full-time job. B. Problem Given the recent increase of paperwork and all requirements connected with it, assistant principals are devoting an inordinate amount of time to clerical minutiae. Normally, these certified personnel staff members should be Clerical Position assisting with improvement of instruction and implementing disciplinary interventions for our students. There are a number of factors contributing to this problem:  Mann serves a diverse population from the three schools districts, making it necessary to establish a sense of community which is county wide versus that which is typically found  in an area neighborhood school.  There are increased demands on administrators due to attendance accounting accuracy.  Existing clerical personnel are overextended with a myriad of daily responsibilities connected with the effective, efficient running of a junior high school. C. Analysis of Alternatives The administrative team and clerical staff generated and analyzed alternatives: 1. Train and maintain a strong volunteer pool of parents to give clerical assistance. a. Breach of confidentiality is possible. b. Consistent pattern of service and times needed is lacking. 2. Seek clerical assistance from the district's pool of secretaries. a. Not available at this point 3. Seek additional monetary resources for existing clerical staff, that is for one who has a night/evening job. An advantage is that one person could do both jobs, using time away from the regular job hours\nthis is more economical for the district. A disadvantage is possible burn-out plus the possibility of being misunderstood as preferential treatment for staff member involved. Clerical Position Page 3 4. \"Do Nothing.\" The bookkeeper/ attendance slot is unattractive to employees, causing dissatisfaction with oneself because of daily overload. Assistant principals will not receive relief from menial tasks at hand. 5. Hire an additional clerical person, who would serve as attendance secretary and as an aide for the assistant principals. This will best accomplish Mann's needs. 6. Half-time Person. While this may look attractive and cost effective, the job is not such that it can be accomplished effectively in one half day. The job's responsibility continues throughout the school day hours. D. Recommendation It is recommended that a clerical position be added to Mann's clerical staff, giving relief to the bookkeeper/ attendance slot and to the assistant principal's paperwork burden. This addition would give the assistant principals more time to share their expertise in professional ways, such as disciplinary intervening and instructional improvement. E. Objectives The objective of this recommendation is to preserve and maintain an effective school which keeps a positive image for our district. F. Impact Analysis The addition of a clerical position will allow assistant principals to give attention to their expected job responsibility, rather than to clerical duties. Furthermore, the position of bookkeeper/attendance secretary will be divided into a more workable and manageable job responsibility, making for sound financial accounting and accurate attendance reporting. This addition of a clerical staff member will have a positive impact on the Desegregation Plan because of the added effectiveness and efficiency that are certain to occur. Assistant principals will be able to assist more with the Clerical Position Page 4 academic, and social environment of Mann, helping to maintain a sense of community for the parents, students, and staff. G. Resource Analysis It is estimated that $15,000 would be more than enough for this position and minimal training would be required. H. Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this proposal will be the principal, all assistant principals and office staff. Also, parents, teachers and students will benefit. The primary detractors will be those who dislike the magnet school concept. I. General Implementation Plan The principal, working with the Human Resources Director, will have the responsibility of implementing this increase in staff. August 1995 is the desired beginning time. J ' Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Oirector June 26 , 1995 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge , U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: JUN 2 1995 'i~CO .-, ..,., Oltice of Deseg~s\n2:\ncn :1,cr.,io\n:ng ... . ... At its June 13, 1995 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1995-96 school year (Draft 2). The total amount budgeted, $14,614,360, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $4,140 per student and a projected thirdquarter enrollment of 3,530 students. This budget shows an increase of $87.00 per student over the 1994-95 budget. As you know, the Little Rock School District and the CTA are currently in salary negotiations. At the same time, Little Rock School District is requesting a reduction of (501 ) 758-0156 two days in the school year which, in turn, will also impact the salary negotiations. Consequently, at the conclusion of the salary negotiations, the salary figures in the enclosed budget submitted for approval may have to be re-calculated. When the information from the salary negotiations is received, the budget may have to be revised for your approval. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1995-96 interdistrict magnet schools budget attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 26, 1995 stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, !fi~m, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment: 1995-96 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budget (Approved Draft 2) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF 01 Principal 6.0 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 03 Specialists 37.2 04 Counselors 10.4 05 Media Spec. 6.5 06 Art-Perl./Prod. 0.0 07 Music 0.0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 09 Vocational 12.6 10 Special Education 7.8 11 Gifted 5.0 12 Classroom 177.6 13 Substitutes 0.0 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 287.1 15 Secretaries 19.0 16 Nurses 5.4 17 Custodians 28.5 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 20 Other-Aides 39.5 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ - TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 98.4 TOTAL(10-20) ~ PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ SERVICES 23 Travel ~ (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements bxio.\u0026amp; 25 Other ooixloo TOTAL (30) @.ijif MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom (40) 28 Media CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) 29 Other TOTAL (40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other $m!riS #.l:~ ~ ~ $357,193 $438,462 $1 ,078,799 $356,314 $222.455 $0 $0 $0 $489,335 $245,166 $159,822 $5,354,901 $147,417 $426,571 $9,276,435 $355,081 $148,996 $335,694 $0 $143,913 $256,806 $1,366,607 $2,607,097 $11,883,532 $507,373 $33,980 6.0 10.0 39.2 12.4 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 7.7 5.4 175.9 0.0 14.0 289.7 19.0 5.4 28.5 0.0 6.0 37.0 ~ 95.9 ~ ~ ~ ~ $92,772 ~ - $634,125 ~: ~: $309,128 ~ $53,842 ~ $11,647 ~ $374,617 ~ $106,283 ~ $375,279 6.0 $433,972 10.0 $1,211 ,895 39.2 $405,435 12.4 $224,104 6.5 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $483,977 12.6 $282,681 7.7 $158,016 5.4 $5,377,867 175.9 $182,975 0.0 $448,552 14.0 $9,584,753 289.7 $360,333 19.0 $156,152 5.4 $360,957 28.5 $0 0.0 $122,210 6.0 $237,662 37.0 $1,213,301 ~ $2,450,615 95.9 $12,035,368 ~: $598,876 $20,580 ~ ~  $119,669 ~: $739,125 ~ - ~ $ 328,856 ~ $ 34 ,277 ~ $18,873 ~ $382,006 ~ $67,029 ~ TOTAL (50) ~ $106,283 ~ - $67,029 ~ OTHER (60) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other ~ - $12,416 ~ - $13,017 ~ $340,086 6.0 $473,907 10.0 $1 ,224,208 39.2 $452,360 12.4 $230,137 6.5 $0 a.a $0 0.0 $0 a.a $404,921 12.6 $263,527 8.2 $189,153 5.4 $5,582,275 175.9 $154,925 0.0 $459,595 14.0 $9,775,094 290.2 $323,508 20.0 $155,272 . 5.4 $355,219 29.0 so a.a $132,853 6.0 $270,749 37.0 $1,282,054 ~ $2,519,655 97.4 $12,294,749 ~ $619,066 ~ $33,907 ~ ~ $74,250 ~ . $727,223 ~: $302,337 ~ $57,242 ~ $19,510 ~ $379,089 ~ $93,646 ~ $93,646 ~ - $15,655 ~ ~ $346,907 $477,647 $1 ,266,529 $456,579 $233,047 $0 $0 $0 $409,206 $283,351 $190,921 $5 ,642,152 $154,990 $463,885 $9,925,214 $337,934 $160,236 $372,933 $0 $142,764 $278,875 $1 ,297,521 $2,590,263 $12,515,477 $626,335 $38,500 $69,500 $734,335 $313,418 $57,100 $16,800 $387,318 $86,598 $86,598 $14,500 TOTAL (60) #.~~ $12,416 ~ $13,017 ~ $15,655 ~ $14,500 TOTAL(30-60) ~ $1,127,441 ~ - $1,201,177 ~ $1,215,613 ~ $1,222,751 TOTAL (10-60) 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 $13,236,545 385.6 $13,510,362 387.6 $13,738,228 TOTAL LINE ITEl~S- (SECOND PAGE) ~ $537,465 ~ $413,629 ~ $796,728 ~ $876,136 w\nrn\nma~~~n@m ~ \\\\t.t$8~~ : --.- \u0026lt; ~)il.14$50~1x.~m ~ mit4tt'~490i ~ J$14,614t.\u0026lt;r ~ ......---.. -~ - ... , ,~~ i: ~--- - \n/,iii j 1)t_/1.\" 'j II i 1 i} 1r,o~ \\..,\\,..\n\n.... , ::J '. CC \"1 1\u0026gt; Mg!}~f,fil:,S~. ......:.r.,._...: '. .. :. : .!..: _i.:.:.:.:.::r,':.:.l:\n.:..r . .::\n:,.:,:.\n.:  :.i\n.. ~:::~::ai.tr ::t=Aciuw.:  t:::(Jud~ \u0026lt; nrnBvd.t:tt \n: \n':.::rx:: 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Stipends $19,871 $16,269 $29,125 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $458,905 $348,726 $685,103 $764,511 Vocational $29,864 $17,222 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $27,741 $28,627 $29,000 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $500 $500 Science English ($2,058) $1 ,500 $1,500 Special Education $2,082 $2,785 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $537,465 $413,629 $796,728 $876,136 fflitiPcltitl:P.~lrnnmm:mrn ,~~%MM ,~$.!W1%W W$J.4f$.6(@@t:! ,~ ~(\\%Pl 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 3679.6 3570.5 3530.0 3530.0 Total Costs $13,548,434 $13,650,174 $14,307,090 $14,614,360 Pwf Pti$1'Cost,:,\n:t\n#N%Wl %M/%$3.iffllz.\n%f\\i\ni%$3:HZJili W@lW\\$4:fOS.$?: U@i@l$4MM\u0026gt;0 CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 1.0 $55,764 1.0 $56.095 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 1.0 $51,060 1.0  $52,028 1.0 $52,028 1.0 $52,334 03 Specialists 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $253,810 7.0 $247,392 7.0 $245,325 04 Counselors 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $79,221 2.0 $66,806 2.0 $67.430 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 1.0 $37,836 1.0 $38,190 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $907,324 30.2 $937,495 30.2 $985,475 10 Special Education 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 1.3 $51,389 1.3 $51,869 11 Gifted 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 1.0 $37,222 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $17,757 $24,191 $20,000 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 4.0 $125,362 4.0 $12f 532 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,615,405 48.5 $1,630,948 48.5 $1,f 80,472 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $46,344 2.0 $31,932 2.0 $31 ,932 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,301 1.0 $28,104 1.0 $28,104 17 Custodians 4.0 $42,176 4.0 $44,290 4.0 $51,384 4.0 $51,384 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $64,657 7.0 $37,000 7.0, $63,323 7.0 $63,624 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ $225,867 ~ $198,345 ~  $209,385 ~ $214,360 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.0 $388,766 14.0 $353,280 14.0 $384,128 14.0 $389,405 TOTAL(10-20) ~ $1,942,422 ~ $1,968,685 ~ $2,015,076 ~ $2,069,877 PURCHASEDi,.:2:::2+::-U'-'-til_itl_es _____- -1.\na\n,\n,\n1).\na\n,\n:+~+ _$7., ...1..:..,4,-9_2-+,,,ilo\n,\u0026gt;o,\n,\n*+.\n~+:_ __\n_$7...\n5..:..,6_7~6-+jc,,\n)i:l~,\n,.\n.,,'i\u0026gt;\n,+--$-:84,-'-::,1..,.15.,.....,~,,,,)\\:l,\n,\n{\u0026gt;.,\n,~,\n\n..--$-:8--:c5~,2-=-50-:--i SERVICES i,.:2:::34 T.\n_r..,\na_ve_l _____- -1.,,Xl-\n,\n~~,,..~.~. . . . . _$ 4__\n_,654_...,,.,o,,,,\u0026amp;).,,:c\u0026lt;}.,., +__$ 4__\n_,9_3_9-+jc.,,\u0026lt;i~,O~*.,,~t---$-5'-,0_00--i':.,~ ~'  $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ ~ ~ ~ 25 Other ~ $4,895 ~  $13,548 l~f $9,500 ~  $9,500 TOTAL(30) ~  $81,041 ~  $94,163 l~f $98,615 ~ $99,750 MATERIALS, ~26==4:..Pr\n,\nln.:.::c~ip:.::a:,,:l's\n..O::::..f\n,\nfic::::..e:___ _- -!._~..,\n.. \n\n.'.\n..\n.. .,\n\n.\n i.--7::-::-::,::~li~\n,oo..,.\nt\ni?.'.41i.i.,ij +---::-,-,-c-=-=-!i~~~J.\u0026gt;~.o.i~t\u0026gt;'.t--=-:---=-::-c:-+.~~,:~:-~~\u0026lt;+--=-=-==- SUPPLIES 'Zl Regular Classroom ~ $37,774 ~ . $44,436 ~ $34,900 ~ . $35,155 (40) 28 Media iiJc:m. $4,743 ~  $5,380 ~ $4,800 ~ $4,800 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ $1,255 ~ $2,624 ~ $1,255 i#ffi $1,000 TOTAL(40) tii. $43,772 ~ $52,440 ~ $40,955 ffl_ffi $40,955 30 Equipment ~ $10,090 ~ $12,832 ~ $6,000 ~ $6,000 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL(S0) ~ $10,090 ~ $12,832 ~ $6,000 ~  $6,000 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other ~ TOTAL (60) ~ $0 ~ $0 ~ $0 ~ $0 TOTAL (30-60) ~ $134,903 ~ $159,435 ~ $145,570 ~ $146,705 TOTAL(10-60) 62.9 $2,077,325 62.5 $2,128,120 62.5 $2,160,646 62.5 $2,216,582 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) ~  75446.0 ~ $59,394 ~ $113,512 ~ $126,220 :: 1992-93 Other Objects Indirect Costs $75,260 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 Plant Services $166 Reading Science English ($337) Special Education $341 XXXlOO( )()()()()()( XXXJOO( Total Line Items $75,446 1993-94 $1,500 $57,435 $459 $59,394 1994-95 1995-96 $109,849 $122,557 $155 $155 $2,505 $2,505 $84 $84 $251 $251 $668 $668 $113,512 $126,220 e.~tetimi::e.~wmrw:irmrr i~tmnt i~~mr:rni 1~mi:rn1 i~wrt 3rd Ctr. ADM or Pro]. 604.4 588.0 566.0 566.0 Total Costs $2,152,n1 $2,187,514 $2,274,158 $2,342,801 Per-,PUoll'.Cosl'f\\,w\u0026gt;,-,.,,.,\n.\n,t,h ,c}.,6dEJ!56Z:S :,,,,,,:,.,,dt.:JU20c .,,-,,fa.,,,v,ota, :,,.,i,,,,.,,., . .. 139!' CERTIFIED STAFF 01 Principal 1.0 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 03 Specialists 7.0 04 Coun:\nelors 1.6 05 Media Spec. 1.5 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 23.0 1 O Special Education 1.0 11 Gifted 1.0 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 41 .1 $57,676 1.0 $32,092 1.0 $212,014 8.0 $50,547 2.0 $43,532 1.5 $572,789 24.3 $30,734 1.0 $32,46f:I 1.4 $16,814 $116,101 4.0 $1,164,768 44.2 $67,263 1.0 $49,235 1.0 $52,141 $41,640 1.0 $39,569 1.0 $40,782 $245,103 8.0 $259,133 8.0 $263,095 $45,473 2.0 $62,791 2.0 $63,378 $47,207 1.5 $48,443 1 .5 $48,896 $581 ,394 24.3 $690,567 24.3 $698,233 $33,001 1.0 $26,869 1.5 $44,484 $47,830 1.4 $45,303 1.4 $45,726 $12,271 $17,150 $1 7,1 50 $117,112 4.0 $120,344 4.0 $1 21 ,467 $1 ,238,294 44.2 $1 ,359,404 44.7 $1,395 ,351 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $65,657 3.0 $60,742 3.0 $50,964 3.0 $49,502 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $29,857 1.0 $31,556 1.0 $32,359 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 4.0 $34,361 4.0 $43,531 4.0 $41 ,956 4.0 $44,188 18 Paraprotessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $71,921 11.0 $75,921 11.-0 $78,184 11.0 $88,772 21 Fringe Benellts(20) ~ $190,533 ~ $171,444 ~ $191 ,607 ~ $198,572 TOTALSUPPORTSALARY 19.0 $392,329 19.0 $383,194 19.0 $395,070 19.0 $413,392 TOTAL(10-20) ~  $1,557,097 t~f $1,621 ,488 ~ -- $1 ,754,474 ~ $1,808,743 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ - $53,586 ~ - $66,973 ~: $75,965 ~ - ~77,413 SERVICES ~2\n,\n,3~T=r'-a--'-ve-:-l.\n__ _____- !..i. e~s__. ___ t--s=-=1-:::2\"'=,25:=-3:::-+!.ef\nc~i.\u0026amp;\n\u0026gt;*\u0026lt;t--'--::$78'-\"..4-::-64:--f.!~mi)#i/jiceooJ - t----:::s-='9,'-=oo-::-:o:-+-~~e~:~-,A. t---- S9,ooo (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ ~ - ~ : 25 Other iXlQODQ $9,911 ~ $13,840 ~ - $10,700 ~  $10,700 TOTAL(30) ~ $75,750 ~ $89,277 ~ $95,665 ~ $97,113 MATERIALS, L:2:.=::6+.::-P_rin.....:c-!'lp_a-:::l's':--0.\n_l_flc.:...e\n,.._ __+ ~!iii)i\n~~~~~~t-----:=-===-+~~lti~~+*~t-----:~-:-:::::-til!~~m ~~tii!::t-----:==::-t!l~','!':i'i''!\u0026lt;'!'l~mi------:==:- SUPPUES r27 Regular Classroom ~ $52,759 !~ $54,466 ~ ~ $63,330 t~f $63,330 (40) 28 Media ~ - $13,271 ~: $5,356 m\niji: $11,500 ~  $11,500 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ - $2,593 ~: $3,498 ~ $3,500 ~ - $3,500 TOTAL(40) ~ - $68,623 ~:: $63,320 #.a'' $78,330 ~ - $78,330 30 EQulpment !\u0026amp;'laoo': $27,894 ~ - $19,490 ~ - $19,000 ~  $19,000 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~ $27,894 ~ $19,490 ~ $19,000 ~ $19,000 33 Dues and Fees ~ $3,908 ~ $5,643 ~ $3,000 a# $3,000 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ - $3,908 ~ - $5,643 ~ - $3,000 ~ $3,000 TOTAL(30-60) ~i $176,174 ~ - $177,730 ~ - $195,995 ~ $197,443 TOTAL(10-60) 60.1 $1,733,271 63.2 $1,799,218 63.2 $1,950,469 63.7 $2,006,186 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) ~ $86,058 ~ $64,923 ~ $129,543 ~ $128,244 ~::~:~!:E:~::!!::!~~:!::l:!::!'.'.::!!~ ~~\n~~:\u0026lt;I\n~\n~~\u0026lt; ~~!~~~~nt ~\n~~~eltm Stipends $12,453 $6,044 $13,100 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $73,425 $58,412 $112,956 $111,657 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 $145 Plant Services $162 $2,385 $2,385 Reading $82 $82 Science English ($329) $239 $239 Special Education $333 $467 $636 $636 XXXJOO( XXXJOO( XXXJOO( Total line Items $86,058 $64,923 $129,543 $128,244 Mimlffl.1,:09~\\:iiWWlliiNW '-~tWM 1-UW/WNP 1~iM@ t~~i:lP 3rd Ctr. ADM or Pro]. 588.3 597.9 582.0 582.0 Total Costs $1,819,329 $1,864,141 $2,080,012 $2,134,430 Ri.t~O:WC.oa.t#\\WM%%@ :@Mti~ !~ i MRW($$ff.18'.i %%%$3.!$.1.-iG \\%Kl$$1~ i: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,233 1.0 $44,496 1.0 $46,919 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 03 Specialists 1.0 5.8 $55,922 $160,752 1.0 1.0 $43,068 1.0 $43,328 5.8 $127,098 5.8 ' $154,817 5.8 $164,219 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $41,050 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,684 1.0 $39,257 1.0 $39,624 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $462,587 15.0 $433,026 15.0 $435,1 54 1 O Special Education 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $70,319 1.5 $52,851 1.5 $53,344 11 Gifted 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 1.0 $34,246 1.0 $34,566 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $13,666 $11,733 $14,000 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,912 2.0 $59,580 2.0 $60,136 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31 .3 $985,841 29.3 $901 ,679 29.3 $916,011 29.3 $932,340 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $15,692 1.4 $18,779 1.4 $18,779 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 3.0 $11,304 0.8 $11 ,856 0.8 $12,446 0,8 $12,446 17 Custodians $33,776 3.0 $39,012 3.0 $39,803 3.0 $39,803 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $33,307 5.6 - $32,907 5.6 $33,445 21 FringeBenefltS(20) ~ $141,032 ~ $114,688 ~ $123,740 ~ $124,1392 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 11.8 $240,594 10.8 $214,555 10.8 $227,675 10.8 $2'.'9,365 TOTAL(10-20) ~ - $1,226,435 ~ $1,116,234 ~ $1,143,686 ~ $1,161,705 TOTAL(30) ~ $36,254 ~ - $42,173 Qiiie $48,792 ~ - $49,763 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ~ ~ ~ ~ xxlooa: $23,541 ~ $20,882 ~ $25,068 ~ $25,000 (40) 28 Media ~ $6,489 ~ $3,934 m.iP. $6,600 ~ $8,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ - $1,016 ~ $1,397 ~ $2,455 ~ TOTAL(40) ~ $31,046 ~ $26,213 -~.- $34,123 fiti': $33,000 30 EQuipment ~ - $2,594 ~ $1 ,312 ~ $2,646 ~ $3,700 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL(SO) ~ $2,594 ~ $1,312 ~ $2,646 ~ $3,700 33 Dues and Fees ~ $1,132 ~ - $215 ~ $1,155 ~ $1,000 34 Other TOTAL(60) ~ - $1,132 ~ $215 ~ $1,155 ~ $1,000 -TOTAL(30-60) ~ $71,025 ~ $69,913 ~ $86,716 ~ $87,463 TOTAL (10-60) 43.1 $1,297,460 40.1 $1,186,147 40.1 $1,230,402 40.1 $1,249,168 TOTAL LINE ITEI AS-(SECOND PAGE) ~ $41,553 ~ $29,105 ~ $57,993 ~ $70,963 W\u0026lt;? G~~OilOl~A@w: -~ r~-~,~~EM~13i\n~ il1~t$.~2:: ~ :1'\u0026amp;88~39\u0026amp;    :ffi .. ,~~1$.V ~f~~~'~\n~\n!::\nl!li:i:\n::/1::::::!\n:: \n~~=\n::~:~\n=::::::::\n::::~::\n\n::!~::::\n:: Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $41,301 $28,874 $56,089 $69,059 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 $80 Plant Services $91 $1,305 $1,305 Reading $42 $42 Science English ($185) $129 $129 Special Education $187 $231 $348 $348 XXXXlO( xxxxxx XXXXlO( P.iteQ~i~ tNWMMMW ,~~wrnt 1~~ff{l 1~twx )~Qe:bt} 3rd Otr. ADM or ProJ. 329.0 295.7 289.0 289.0 Total Costs $1,339,013 $1,215,252 $1,288,395 $1,320,131 Pitlmi10QatffWUlrnmrn 1:Mi%~Q1([ W1%%Mftf.O.\\: Wfmi$1.J5tU WM\u0026amp;$ifSG\u0026amp;  1~:=l\nIUOGEll~0P-OSA~DRAFT?}..  .. $2 .. \u0026amp;3. j2-93- = 93--9f.I.@ ~-~ .,.,. ~95 ,( .94-9$,.,. .as~-8\u0026amp; wm~MagnetSchool\"'\n   :.   F .. T.E. Actual F.T.E Aetuaf. \\. F,T.E. Budget .F.1:E. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 1.0 $60,588 1.0 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 1.0 $40,047 1.0 l-:0:-:3-+.:::Sp:....ec_ia-.lis_ts ____- 1-----,-4.\n..o.:-+--'-::--:-~,...,--f--..::.:..:.+__\n$:..:1..:..73=..:,.=.23:.:0+-5.0 $182,894 5.0 04 Counselors 1.4 $45,279 1.4 $41,011 1.4 $141,471 5.0 $40,611 1.4 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $25,446 1.0 $28,846 1.0 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $631 ,616 20.0 $630,446 20.0 10 Special Education 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $25,764 1.1 11 Gifted 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $40,670 2.0 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $15,588 $17,314 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 3.0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,174,997 35.5 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $27,786 2.6 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,664 1.0 17 Custodians 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $44,866 3.5 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $32,748 9.0 $37,175 9.0 21 Fringe Benefils(20) ~ $171,101 ~ . $147,956 XiOxl\u0026lt; TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $291,447 16. 1 TOTAL(10-20) ~ $1,465,402 ~. $1,466,444 ~ . PURCHASEC 22 Utilities ~ $38,623 ~ $44,468 -~ SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $3,793 ~ $4,601 ~ (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ ~ ~ 25 Other iiiicboor $16,400 ~ $9,938 ~- TOTAL(30) ~i'.)!~ $58,816 ~  $59,007 ~ MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office ~ ' ~ ~  SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom -it $38,631 ~t $55,228 ~ (40) 28 Media ~ $6,234 ~ $4,645 ~ ' CAPITAL OUTLW (50) 29 Other . $1,475 ~ $2,095 ~ TOTAL(40) ~ $46,341 ~ $61,968 ~ 30 Equipment ~ $25,034 ~ $6,799 ~ 31 Building Repair, etc. ~  imxf ~  32 Other ximSl ~ ~ TOTAL (50) ~ $25,034 ~ $6,799 ~  OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~ $190 ~ $720 ~ (60) 34 Other ~ ~ ~ $660,714 20.0 $28,877 1. 1 $72,728 2.0 $16,000 $113,639 3.0 $1,245,344 35.5 $41,377 2.6 $35,551 .1.0 $46,660 4.0 $44,618 9.0 $166,961 ~ $335,167 16.6 $1,580,511 ~ $57,280 ~ $5,000 \u0026amp;.ffl ~ $8,000 ~ $70,280 ~ ~ - $31,698 ~ $11,000 ~ $2,200 ~ $44,898 ~ $22,700 ~ $22,700 ~ $2,000 ~ -gs:.\n~ /c audgat\\: $60,956 $40,205 $184,602 $41,394 $29,874 $691,929 $29,146 $73,407 $16,000 $114,700 $1,282,212 $39,684 $35,551 S5 i,012 $41,317 $170,901 $338,466 $1,620,677 $59,353 $5,000 $8,000 $72,353 $39,700 $10,000 $2,300 $52,000 $15,598 $15,598 $2,000 TOTAL(60) ~ $190 ~ $720 ~ $2,000 ~ $2,000 TOTAL(30-60) ~ $130,381 ~ $128,494 ~ $139,878 ~ $141,951 TOTAL(10-60) 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,594,938 51.6 $1,720,389 52.1 $1,762,628 TOTALUNEITEHS-(SECONDPAGE) ~  $60,881 ~ $49,480 ~ $103,657 ~ $11 0,833 M::k:i 8.NO:lJ'QT.4k,:::f\\t~ :#l:l~~~+   .   Wlf$.0~j.1U:i~ Hlti82Al~:,   :tt.t\nt.73,46.:g 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Stipends $1,537 $1,676 $10,000 $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $59,199 $47,427 $90,829 $98,005 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 $120 Plant Services $130 $1,935 $1,935 Reading $63 $63 Science English ($265) $194 $194 Special Education $269 $377 $516 $516 lOOOOO( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $60,881 $49,480 $103,657 $110,833 Per:Poptl,Co$t\\MM#MUtJ ,~~\nmw i:fffli\niM:'@d tBti%i# 1~$.6.MM 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 473.3 485.8 468.0 468.0 Total Costs $1,656,664 $1,644,418 $1,824,046 $1,873,461 PetptJ,,CostWW:%@%f@, \u0026amp;HW\nl:t$00/ @@\u0026amp;!138$.f WiM/$3''- it.JfaKMtoo.31. 1~~8.UOOET PAOPOSAL(DRAFT\n?)- . . 92-93  S2-93 ~ t 93-$4 94-95 $4-9$ ~:-~ -95-96\" MANN:'Maai atSc\nhoo.l .  ' :.,~. i=:i:e r .Actual t F.tEt\n=:~, \\,, F-T.E %Boog.~ ) \"F:lSE ) 'Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 3.0 3.6 $63,612 1.0 $64,520 1.0 $64,256 1.0 $64 ,647 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 03 Specialists $143,289 $102,810 3.0 $148,979 3.6 $111,283 3.0 3.6 $145,767 $113,157 3.0 3.6 $1 46,644 $107,924 04 Counselors 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $69,852 3.0 $111,241 3.0 $112,280 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41 ,729 1.0 $41,729 1.0 $42,119 06 Art-Pert./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $207,954 5.6 $190,845 5.6 $192,581 10 Special Education 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 1.3 $50,084 1.3 $50,552 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,424,850 46.8 $1,443,934 46.8 $1 ,458,375 13 Substitutes $34,413 $71,832 $36,135 $36,200 14 Other TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,190,015 65.3 $2,197,148 65.3 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 4.0 $65,214 4.0 $66,063 4.0 $68,494 5.0 $85,094 $32,360 $70,181 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,359 1.0 $32,359 1..0 17 Custodians 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $68,890 6.0 $60,373 6.0 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $24,845 1.0 $23,937 1.0 $33,356 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $46,693 2.4 $42,951 2.4 $28,101 2.4 $28,101 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ $292,062 ~ $266,922 ~ $275,254 ~ $277,471 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $525,462 14.4 $502,030 14.4 $488,518 15.4 $526,564 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $2,584,578 ~ $2,692,045 ~ $2,685,666 ~ $2,737,886 PURCHASEDL22--1~U_til_it'~1e_s _____ -+\n,:~~*~i~'.~:'._$~1~37~, 7 28~0,--+.\n,~~!C}~~~--:x~:_s_1~6_2,~8 7 74:-t'~~'.'.m' :m~~-$~1~77 7 ,~2 7 21:-tit~im~.rn--$~1~78~, 7 30=:3:-1 SERVICES t-.:r2::.:3+T:..::rac...ve.:c.l _- :----~fi\n!~\u0026gt;.\u0026lt;~i..,.i.:.\n+_....:$-'-1 ....:1'. ::.21_4-iiii~.,..\u0026amp;~\u0026amp;Xl.-:iS,\nf, _ ___\n,$_\n_\n1' c::2.:c66,.:.~i'is{\u0026gt;~m~ _...\n$\n....1..:..0,:..:.0.:c00:c..+,~\n,\n~H _ __\n$_1 0.....:_Oo_o..., (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~  ~ ~  ~ 25 Other ~ $35,464 icxP..i: $34,819 ~ : $27,300 ~ $27,300 $215,603 TOTAL (30) =.:. :: .:::.: $183,959 ii=.l $198,959 ~.:..::.. .: :. :..:.::.:.:: $214,521 ~ .-MA-TERI------AL---:S-, .... 26~--P-rln_c.,..ip-a..,\n.l's..::O~lfl=-ce=!.--~~.,._,\n,\n~-~.:..:.:c=-f i ,_. ,_ ~ SUPPLIES i-.:2::.:7:.+:,,R~eg....:u~la:..::r~c~1ass=r=-oo~m---....i~\n~'.-~~~:-. -~$~637 , 7984~~.c~)om::o.~..o:..:: *c-~s~179,~3731~~:,-~g~~H:-~$4:-=9,~1~68:--#~~.J3~i~.H\n---=$~49~,716~8:-1 (40) 28 Media ~ $9,352 ~ : $9,547 ~ $15,700 ~: $15,700 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ $2,172 :ioo\"i:ioo $2,923 ~ $4,000 ~ $4,000 TOTAL (40) ffi $75,508 ~ . $91,801 ~ $68,868 ~: $68,868 30 Equipment ~ $17,579 ~: $15,510 ~ $27,300 ~ $27,300 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~ $17,579 ~ $15,510 ~ $27,300 ~ $27,301) 33 Dues and Fees ~ $1,377 ~ $1,764 ~  $4,500 ~ 34 Other TOTAL(60) ~ $1,377 iloo(xf $1,764 ~ $4,500 ~ 4,500 -TOTAL(30-60) ~ $278,422 ~  $308,034 ~ $315,189 ~ $316,271 TOTAL(l0-60) 79.8 $2,863,000 79.7 $3,000,079 79.7 $3,000,855 80.7 $3,054,157 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) ~ $137,573 ~ $109,678 ~ $201,987 ~ $210,724 :~(l~mt\u0026amp;.Nrnmw ~\n:p~ooo\ns1s.\ni m#x 1:Clti(i8\n1s1w ~ ris12~m ~ @$~\n264~t l~!1~1~l!!ll~f1!!i:!!:!:ii!:ji:~~~\\! ~1:~:\nt ~:::~={) ~:~~attrn !~::~~~!et') Stipends $4,378 $4,530 $4,600 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $104,172 $80,835 $162,057 $170,794 Vocational $14,932 $8,890 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $13,857 $14,777 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $229 $3,450 $3,450 Reading $115 $115 Science English ($467) $345 $345 Special Education $473 $646 $920 $920 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx f'erfupJ{ .. .C~.::::'.::::::,:::'':27%.'' i~9~fY':'.'.'.1~$4:t\nt\\ i~t:'4 1E'.~'.''i'S'). 3rd Ctr. ADM or Pro\n. 836.3 827.8 835.0 835.0 Total Cos1s $3,000,573 $3,109,757 $3,202,842 $3,264,881 ffiii,J?up/1 (AAdf\\\u0026lt; :i h\u0026lt;\\ Y ':.\\$3NIB::: '', 4 ~ 1$1, \u0026gt;t,$3,~ i \"'\u0026lt;~JhOi CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,517 1.0 $64,582 1.0 $65,747 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 3.0 $119,256 3.0 $152,394 3.0 $153,428 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 9.8 $221,882 9.8 $301 ,371 9.8 $266,815 04 Counselors 3.0 $118,446 3.0 $124,940 3.0 $129,841 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,013 1.0 $34,026 1.0 $34,026 06 Art-Perl./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 7.0 $302,605 7.0 $276,023 7.0 $214,076 10 Special Education 1.2 $51 ,899 1.5 $53,457 1.5 $53,457 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 39.6 $1,370,962 39.6 $1 ,371,266 39.6 $1,416,539 13 Substitutes $49,179 $45,634 $51,640 14 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.6 $2,369,244 66.9 $2,464,363 66.9 $2,426,239 15 Secretaries 6.0 $123,490 6.0 $143,706 6.0 $111 ,962 16 Nurses 0.6 $18,790 0.6 $19,416 0.6 $14,453 . 17 Custodians 8.0 $113,791 8.0 $120,368 8.0 $115,043 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $122,263 5.0 $97,365 5.0 $108,916 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $14,005 2.0 $11,308 2.-0 $23,616 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) b\u0026amp;loo6i $346,012 ~ $313,946 xxx,cn $315,107 TOTALSUPPORTSALARY 21 .6 $738,351 21.6 $706,109 21 .6 $689,097 TOTAL(10-20) .l $3,107,595 ~ $3,170,472  :: $3,115,336 9$,-96  Ffr::E f 1.0 3.0 9.8 3.0 1.0 7.0 1.5 39.6 1.0 66.9 6.0 0.6 8.0 5.0 2.0 XXlOOO( 21.6 ~ 95-96 Budget $66,149 $154,354 $301,364 $131 ,047 $34,344 $216,625 $53,956 $1,372,986 $5 1,640 $41,050 $2,423,513 $112,943 $19,416 $116,365 $109,408 $23,616 $311 ,325 $693,072 $3,11 6,586 $179,513 ~ ~ PURCHASED~22~~Ut~il~ltl~es,\n__ ____ ~~~~\"~~~:#4:_-'--'----i'-'~+.+--~$-21_3~,3~0~3~00!*-\u0026lt;~~#\u0026lt;*-~~--:--'--:--++F'+----:-:--'--:--I SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $1,310 ~ $183,100 ~ $1 83,753 $1,500 ~ $6,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ ~ ~ ~ 25 Other ~ . $18,792 ~ $40,933 ~~: $14,750 ~  TOTAL(30) MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom (40) 28 Media CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other TOTAL(40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL(50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other ~ .: $198,305 ~ $255,546 ~  $199,350 ~ ~'. ~ ~ . ~: ~  $92,439 ~: $74,513 ~ - $98,173 ~ -. ~ $13,753 ~ $5,415 ~ $7,642 ~ ~ $3,136 ~ $6,336 ~ $6,100 ~ ~ $109,327 ~ $86,264 ~ $111 ,915 ~ ~ $23,092 ~ $11,086 ~ $16,000 ~ ~ $23,092 i~ $11,086 ~ $16,000 ~  ~ - $5,809 ~ $4,675 ~ $5,000 ~ $10,000 $199,753 $101,065 $7,100 $6,000 $114,165 $15,000 $15,000 $4,000 TOTAL (60) ~ $5,809 ~ $4,675 ~ $5,000 ~ $4,000 TOTAL(30-60) ~ $336,534 ~ $357,571 ~ $332,265 ~ $332,918 TOTAL(10-60) 88.2 $3,444,128 88.5 $3,528,043 88.5 $3,447,601 88.5 $3,449,504 TOTALLINEITEM$-(SECONDPAGE) ~ $135,955 ~ - $101,049 ~ $190,036 ~ $229,152 ''' ., Qr\nANtt.J:Qt~MiMW :. . :. %1t$.80~0\u0026amp;.3 -~ \u0026amp;{~\n~  : :: tt~i6$V ~ ~ {l3~~8t(j5:S !!\n:~!!\n!!!!:::!::!:!!i!:::~!!\n:::! ~'\n!~:tn ~\n~~t' ~~~:arnm ~::~~e.Fl+ Stipends $1,353 $2,519 $1,425 $1,425 Other Objects Indirect Costs $105,548 $75,743 $153,323 $192,439 Vocational $14,932 $8,332 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $13,884 $13,850 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $232 $3,420 $3,420 Reading $114 $114 Science English ($473) $342 $342 Special Education $479 $605 $912 $912 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $135,955 $101,049 $190,036 $229,152 gjt,pm(C.i#.tMWAMMM# ,~~HJW 1-.\n~t{W': j9Q4fflt%W 1-=-.wmn 3rd Otr. ADM or ProJ. 848.3 ns.3 790.0 790.0 Total Costs $3,580,083 $3,629,092 $3,637,637 $3,678,656 iiijJWD(t~MJ?:i!tifil~ f.W!@W~zao.tl ~1l%%~1J.i84tf Wt@tM~SOJ.1 ~llftfil~ i-)..t ADDITIONAL CLERICAL POSITION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The district is committed to safe, secure school environments, accurate attendance reporting, sound financial accounting, and to the educational, social and emotional growth of all its students. We at Mann are involved daily with our expected responsibility and obligation to our school community. Our goal continues to focus on and to carry out district mandates effectively and efficiently. We eagerly accept our charge, remaining one of the district's successful schools. Due to the complex nature of being a magnet, this business case proposes an additional clerical position, making it possible for us to continue our goals at an optimal level. A Background Mann Magnet serves a consistent enrollment of 850 students from all three school districts: Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County. There is an urgent need to establish and maintain a sense of community for our diverse population. Our clientele of parents have high expectations because, for the most part, we represent for them an opportunity to explore an attractive curriculum in a public school setting. Our students are transported to us on different buses, and since they must perform, attend mandated field trips, participate in activities relating to science and the arts-our two specialty areas, we must provide nurturing, after school duty, and support for them. Through the years, there have also been increased demands on administrative staff to take care of extra clerical needs, related to attendance, possible litigating concerns, and other reporting. These demands lessen the effectiveness of the Assistant Principals, taking away from their expected job responsibilities. There are three secretaries in our office--principal's secretary, registrar and bookkeeper/attendance secretary, a slot of which either area-attendance or bookkeeping--constitutes a full-time job. B. Problem Given the recent increase of paperwork and all requirements connected with it, assistant principals are devoting an inordinate amount of time to clerical minutiae. Normally, these certified personnel staff members should be Clerical Position Page 2 C. assisting with improvement of instruction and implementing disciplinary interventions for our students. There are a number of factors contributing to this problem:  Mann serves a diverse population from the three schools districts, making it necessary to establish a sense of community which is county wide versus that which is typically found in an area neighborhood school.  There are increased demands on administrators due to attendance accounting accuracy.  Existing clerical personnel are overextended with a myriad of daily responsibilities connected with the effective, efficient running of a junior high school. Analysis of Alternatives The administrative team and clerical staff generated and analyzed alternatives: 1. Train and maintain a strong volunteer pool of parents to give clerical assistance. a. Breach of confidentiality is possible. b. Consistent pattern of service and times needed is lacking. 2. Seek clerical assistance from the district's pool of secretaries. a. Not available at this point 3. Seek additional monetary resources for existing clerical staff, that is for one who bas a night/evening job. An advantage is that one person could do both jobs, using time away from the regular job hours\nthis is more economical for the district. A disadvantage is possible burn-out plus the possibility of being misunderstood as preferential treatment for staff member involved. Clerical Position Page 3 4. \"Do Nothing.\" The bookkeeper/attendance slot is unattractive to employees, causing dissatisfaction with oneself because of daily overload. Assistant principals will not receive relief from menial tasks at hand. 5. Hire an additional clerical person, who would serve as attendance secretary and as an aide for the assistant principals. This will best accomplish Mann's needs. 6. Half-time Person. While this may look attractive and cost effective, the job is not such that it can be accomplished effectively in one half day. The job's responsibility continues throughout the school day hours. D. Recommendation It is recommended that a clerical position be added to Mann's clerical staff, giving relief to the book.keeper/ attendance slot and to the assistant principal's paperwork burden. This addition would give the assistant principals more time to share their expertise in professional ways, such as disciplinary intervening and instructional improvement. E. Objectives The objective of this recommendation is to preserve and maintain an effective . school which keeps a positive image for our district. F. Impact Analysis The addition of a clerical position will allow assistant principals to give attention to their expected job responsibility, rather than to clerical duties. Furthermore, the position of book.keeper/ attendance secretary will be divided into a more workable and manageable job responsibility, making for sound financial accounting and accurate attendance reporting. This addition of a clerical staff member will have a positive impact on the Desegregation Plan because of the added effectiveness and efficiency that are certain to occur. Assistant principals will be able to assist more with the Clerical Position Page 4 academic, and social environment of Mann, helping to maintain a sense of community for the parents, students, and staff. G. Resource Analysis It is estimated that $15,000 would be more than enough for this position and minimal training would be required. H. Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this proposal will be the principal, all assistant principals and office staff. Also, parents, teachers and students will benefit. The primary detractors will be those who dislike the magnet school concept. I. General Implementation Plan The principal, working with the Human Resources Director, will have the responsibility of implementing this increase in staff. August 1995 is the desired beginning time. , Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501 ) 758-0156 June 26, 1995 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: II' t\nqg S DISl\"R!CT JUDGE At its June 13, 1995 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1995-96 school year (Draft 2). The total amount budgeted, $14,614,360, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $4,140 per student and a projected thirdquarter enrollment of 3,530 students. This budget shows an increase of $87.00 per student over the 1994-95 budget. As you know, the Little Rock School District and the CTA are currently in salary negotiations. At the same time, Little Rock School District is requesting a reduction of two days in the school year which, in turn, will also impact the salary negotiations. Consequently, at the conclusion of the salary negotiations, the salary figures in the enclosed budget submitted for approval may have to be re-calculated. When the information from the salary negotiations is received, the budget may have to be revised for your approval. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1995-96 interdistrict magnet schools budget attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 26, 1995 stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, {!i~m, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment: 1995-96 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budget (Approved Draft 2) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring -- - - - -- ::::,,,- - 1'1agnet Review Co1nmittce Donna Grady Creer Executive Director March 13, 1996 1900 cirth Main Street Suite 1()1 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 - - =--.=---, --:,'\"'!!.'\\ - .. 1 t -  -  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: ...: In a letter dated June 26, 1995, the Magnet Review Committee submitted the l 995-96 interdistrict magnet schools budget (labeled Draft 2) in the amount of 514,614,360 sc , - sa-01s.\nfor your approval. The total amount budgeted was based on a per-pupil expenditure of $4,140 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,530 students. This budget showed an increase of 587.00 per student over the 1994-95 budget. However, since that time, the LRSD and the MRC have revised the budget\no better reflect the current status of the six original magnet schools, taking actual personnel salaries into account which reflect the results of finalized contract negotiations. Additionally, the actual number of students enrolled in the six original magnet schools has increased. These factors have resulted in a downward adjustment for the l 995-96 budget from $4,140 per-pupil expenditure to $4,063 per pupil, a decrease of 577.00 per student from the projected budget (Draft 2) submitted to you on June 26, 1995, with a resulting overall increase of S l 0.00 per student over the 1994-95 budget. The total revised budget amount for the 1995-96 magnet schools budget is now $14,788,255. The Magnet Review Committee approved this revised budget (Draft 3) during its regular meeting on February 27, 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. Thank you for your consideration and response to this important matter. Sincerely, ~~/,J.. Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee Attachment: 1995-96 lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Budget (Approved Draft 3) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM Magnet Review Co1nmittt!e Donna Grady Creer Executive Director March 13, 1996 1900 North Main Street Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas  7'.?.114 -. ... ,._ - -,,..,-_~-\"'\\ ----,'. ~ . t ... -- . - - - The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: ..... . ,  .... In a letter dated June 26, 1995, the Magnet Review Committee submitted the 1995-96 interdistrict magnet schools budget (labeled Draft 2) in the amount of S 14,614,360 ,so, l ~sa-01 s.:\nfor your approval. The total amount budgeted was based on a per-pupil expenditure of 54,140 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,530 students. This budget showed an increase of 587.00 per student over the 1994-95 budget. However, since that time, the LRSD and the MRC have revised the budget to better reflect the current status of the six original magnet schools, taking actual personnel salaries into account which reflect the results of finalized contract negotiations. Additionally, the actual number of students enrolled in the six original magnet schools has increased. These factors have resulted in a downward adjustment for the 1995-96 budget from 54,140 per-pupil expenditure to 54,063 per pupil, a decrease of $77.00 per student from the projected budget (Draft 2) submitted to you on June 26, 1995, with a resulting overall increase of S 10.00 per student over the 1994-95 budget. The total revised budget amount for the 1995-96 magnet schools budget is now $14,788,255. The Magnet Review Committee approved this revised budget (Draft 3) during its regular meeting on February 27, l 996. The MRC now respectfully requests your approval. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the ex,sting 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. Thank you for your consideration and response to this important matter. Sincerely, ~ ~/,\"- Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee Attachment: 1995-96 lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Budget (Approved Draft 3) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM Donna Grady Creer Executive Director March 13, 1996 Magnet Review Ccnnmittee 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: In a letter dated June 26, 1995, the Magnet Review Committee submitted the 1995-96 interdistrict magnet schools budget (labeled Draft 2) in the amount of $14,614,360 (501 ) 758-0150 for your approval. The total amount budgeted was based on a per-pupil expenditure of $4,140 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,530 students. This budget showed an increase of $87.00 per student over the 1994-95 budget. However, since that time, the LRSO and the MRC have revised the budget to better reflect the current status of the six original magnet schools, taking actual personnel salaries into account which reflect the results of finalized contract negotiations. Additionally, the actual number of students enrolled in the six original magnet schools has increased. These factors have resulted in a downward adjustment for the 1995-96 budget from $4,140 per-pupil expenditure to $4,063 per pupil, a decrease of $77 .00 per student from the projected budget (Draft 2) submitted to you on June 26, 1995, with a resulting overall increase of $10.00 per student over the 1994-95 budget. The total revised budget amount for the 1995-96 magnet schools budget is now $14,788,255. The Magnet Review Committee approved this revised budget (Draft 3) during its regular meeting on February 27, 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. Thank you for your consideration and response to this important matter. Sincerely, /3,--uy ~/ ,d Or. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee Attachment: 1995-96 lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Budget (Approved Draft 3) C Se./t' !!J /\" .. ! ,,,,nt!'1I cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - OOM F.Y.I. To:-,.......:c..:.:~'---- ,a, I ,I From: ......_......:\n. __ _ Return D Keep or Recycle IS  Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suit~ 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director March 6, 1996 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: (501) 758-0156 R CE L=\nf,,,,J.- Ot. f,'vt n ./ I -\n:,\n2.,, ...... 4J!ic.e-. of ()est~,rc-~atlo:1 Mor:,,.\nr\n,11) In a letter dated June 26, 1995, the Magnet Review Committee submitted the 1995-96 interdistrict magnet schools budget (labeled Draft 2) in the amount of $14,614,360 for your approval. The total amount budgeted was based on a per-pupil expenditure of $4,140 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,530 students. This budget showed an increase of $87 .00 per student over the 1994-95 budget. Since that time, the budget has been revised to better reflect the current status of magnets, taking salaries into account which reflect the results of finalized contract negotiations and an increased number of students. These factors have resulted in an adjustment from $4,140 per-pupil expenditure to $4,063 per pupil, a decrease of $77 .00 per student from the budget (Draft 2) submitted to you on June 26, 1995, or an increase of $10.00 per student over the 1994-95 budget. The total revised budget amount for the 1995-96 magnet schools budget is now $14,788,255. The Magnet Review Committee approved this revised budget (Draft 3) during its regular meeting on February 27, 1996. To date, a response has not been received from the Court with regard to the budget previously submitted. Since we are now well into the 1995-96 school year, and the State of Arkansas cannot release additional fu'nds for per-pupil expenditure without Court-ordered approval (in this case, it is $10.00 per student over the 1994-95 budget), the Magnet Review Committee is respe~tf ully requesting your approval of the revised 199 5-96 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet\nReview 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 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- March 6, 1996 programs. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise prudent oversight of the magnet schools' budget . Thank you for your consideration and response to this important matter. Sincerely, 13~~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee Attachment: 1995-96 lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Budget !Approved Draft 3) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM 1995-96 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT 3) 93-~ 93.94 SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS (.w : .. :- ..=:~ ET.E.  'Actual CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $375,279 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 10.0 $433,972 03 Specialists 39.2 $1 ,211,895 04 Counselors 12.4 $405,435 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $224,104 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 12.6 $483,977 10 Special Education 7.7 $282,681 11 Gifted 5.4 $158,016 12 Classroom 175.9 $5,377,867 13 Substitutes 0.0 $182,975 14 Other-KinderQarten 14.0 $448,552 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 289.7 $9,584,753 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 19.0 $360,333 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $156,152 17 Custodians 28.5 $360,957 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $122,210 20 Other-Aides 37.0 $237,662 21 Fringe Benefits(20 x:'IOOr:xXX' $1,213,301 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 95.9 $2,450,615 TOTAL (10-20) XXXXXlO( $12,035,368 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ $598,876 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $20,580 (30) 24 Maintenance Ai:ireements ~ 25 Other i:ii!i:iix $119,669 TOTAL(30) xmxxx $739,125 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office ~ SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ii$3\u0026amp;xic $328,856 (40) 28 Media xrim:x $34,277 29 Other ~ $18,873 TOTAL (40) xxxxli:xx $382,006 CAPITAL 30 Equipment ~ $67,029 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. XXXXX)O( (50) 32 Other rixri:xx TOTAL(S0) 'iJ:iiiii_ $67,029 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxiix $13,017 (60) 34 Other ioixxli:ioc TOTAL(60) lO:Xioo\u0026amp; $13,017 TOTAL (30-60) lxxxxxicx $1,201,177 TOTAL (10-60) 385.6 $13,236,545 TOTAL LINE ITE:MS  (SECOND PAGE) i\u0026amp;oo\u0026amp; $413,629 :tr (\nRANO\nJOTAthM/=t: xrim:' @:$13\n650~17,f 94-95 94-95 94-95 ' 95-96 F.T.E.  Bud~I Actual, . F.T.E. 6.0 $340,086 $337,925 6.0 10.0 $473,907 $498,372 10.0 39.2 $1,224,208 $1,262,967 39.2 12.4 $452,360 $418,344 12.4 6.5 $230,137 $232,294 6.5 0.0 $0 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0 12.6 $404,921 $408,793 12.6 7.7 $263,527 $303,215 8.2 5.4 $189,153 $197,313 5.4 175.9 $5,582,275 $5,544,709 176.9 0.0 $154,925 $141,654 0.0 14.0 $459,595 $430,419 14.0 289.7 $9,775,094 $9,776 ,005 291.2 19.0 $323,508 $331 ,216 20.0 5.4 $155,272 $153,060 5.4 28.5 $355,219 $351,307 29.0 0.0 $0 0.0 6.0 $132,853 $130,786 6.0 37.0 $270,749 $269,245 37.0 XlOClOOix $1,282,054 $1 ,221 ,134 JOOOO\u0026lt;XX 95.9 $2,519,655 $2,456,748 97.4 lOOOOOO( $12,294,7 ,i9 S 12,232,753 lOOO(XXX xxxio6oc $619,066 $529,201 )000000( l(XlOOOOC $33,907 $28,648 XXXlOOC( 00()0000( :xioo\u0026amp;xJi xioooooi $74,250 $125,316 lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx $727,223 $683,165 xxxxxxx xxxxxxx )000000( .i\u0026amp;o6ci\u0026amp; $302,337 $353,700 XlOOO(XX xiooiiixic $57,242 $38,223 fxiooo6ix i00006o: $19,510 $17,581 iooo\u0026amp;xx ~ $379,089 $409,504 i6ooo\u0026lt;xx JOOOOCXi( $93,646 $122,540 lOOOOOO( ilOOOOOO( xioooocx iiioo6ooc xxxxxxx iooo\u0026amp;xx $93,646 $122,540 xx:xiiXXX xx.iooooi $15,655 $13,975 xxxxfu riiiooiiooc iioooocx i006oooc $15,655 $13,975 iOOoo\u0026amp;x :iooooixx $1,215,613 $1,229,184 i\u0026amp;xxxxx 385.6 $13,510,362 $13,461,937 388.6 ri'xlixxx $796,728 $816,097 xxx:ioo6i rirox'\n$.'.i$14\n'30l\ntl90-:=  t?S14\n218\n030' xroxx Mt.., ..'.,. -.\u0026lt; , i_.,. 1990' ! Office of DeseQregat1cn Monitoring i. ..... ~ . .., 95-96 Budget $352,057 $464,082 $1 ,266,519 $465,882 $238,456 $425,646 $290,265 $195,300 $5,692,303 $154,990 $473,402 $10,018,902 $333,302 $160,858 $365,905 $142,191 $288,560 $1 ,320,650 $2,611,466 $12 ,630,368 $626,335 $38,500 $103,500 $768,335 $335,418 $57,100 $16,800 $409,318 $86,598 $86,598 $14,500 $14,500 $1,278,751 $13,909,119 $879,136 ()S1:4\n1B8\n'25S Unt.ftem:Costikt.lW@m WWAetuaHb \\\\Budget}+ Jt:Aettial}}} \\%Budget%/ L\u0026lt;~Fff/,L,~:s::\n:::~\u0026lt;a::\n:\n. 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 1995-96 Stipends $16,269 $29,125 $18,594 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $348,726 $685,103 $735,687 $764,511 Vocational $17,222 $32,000 $15,065 $32,000 Athletics $28,627 $29 ,000 $25,586 $32,000 Gifted Programs $500 $498 $500 Plant Services $15 ,000 $17,460 $15,000 ReadinQ $500 $188 $500 Science English $1 ,500 $500 $1 ,500 Special Education $2,785 $4,000 $2,518 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $413,629 $796,728 $816,097 $879,136 Paff\u0026gt;iipl(:t:on%%M@MM Ml't99:t:94dt +iJ99~@t }di~~-S i%f1995.\n96\\}t 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3570.5 3530.0 3522.8 3639.7 Total Costs $13,650,174 $14,307,090 $14,278,030 $14,788,255 l:P,lf Pllpil'Coitl.WW::NMW HJP(T:$3\n8231 ,::rtttl4,{f53\\ :\ng:,\nJp,:$4\n053 ,r:t#{l,4\n-063': 1996 ~Ince- or D eser\nrt::gdl:\n,., 1,. Jr ~vr r:g 1995-96 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT3} '  Book ff Mai:inet scii'bcifWiwt \u0026lt;\n\\ .,.. ' CERTIFIED 01 Principal STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 03 Specialists SUPPORT STAFF 04 Counselors 05 Media Spec. 06 Art-Pen ./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 10 Special Education 11 Gifted 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes 14 Other-Kindergarten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 17 Custodians 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofess:onals-Other 93-94 93-94 9+-95 . 94-95 .,. F .T:.E: ,,_, Actual \\ -.,. F.T.Ea ,  .. Budoet ': .. 1.0 $54,600 1.0 $55.764 1.0 $52,028 1.0 $52,028 7.0 $253,810 7.0 $247,392 2.0 $79,221 2.0 $66,806 1.0 $37 ,012 1.0 $37,836 30.2 $907,324 30.2 $937,495 1.3 $51 ,124 1.3 $51,389 1.0 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 $24,191 $20,000 4.0 $120,022 4.0 $125,362 48.5 $1,615,405 48.5 $1,630,948 2.0 $46,344 2.0 $31,932 1.0 $27,301 1.0 $28,104 4.0 $44,290 4.0 $51 ,384 '9+-95  $56,095 $52,333 $217.496 $67,432 $38,190 95-96 F-T.E. 1.0 1.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 $965,196 30.2 $51,870 1.3 $37,221 1.0 $25,235 $126,536 4.0 $1,637,605 48.5 $31,932 2.0 $28,104 1.0 $50.716 4.0 1995-96 $57,267 $37,008 $252,138 $70,167 $39,021 $992,776 $52,948 $38,031 $20,000 $127,935 $1 ,687,291 $32.424 $29,177 S52,596 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $37,000 7.0 $63,323 $55,860 7.0 $64,050 21 Fringe Benefits(20) JOOOOOO( $198,345 XlOOOOO( $209,385 $199.799 XXXlOOOC $216,151 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.0 $353,280 14.0 $384,128 $366,411 14.0 $394,398 TOTAL (10-20) XXlOOOO( $1,968,685 XlOOOOO( $2,015,076 $2,004,016 xxxxxxx $2,081,688 PURCHASEDi-:2:.:\n.24-U,\n....\nti...:\nliti.\n.,\nes\n__ ___- --,--,t~,,~\n.\n.~\n.~ , . -_\n_$7...:\n5.:..\n,,6,\n....\n76\n..ib o\ni.x\nx\ni\nii\nx.\n.\n.\n,\n.\n.\n1--........\n$,\n_84\n,.:..\n,1~15\n.+--~$~66..:..:,3.\n.\n93~'xicioocxx\n.\n.\n+--...:\n$.\n.,\n85:.:.:,2:..:.50=-I SERVICES 23 Travel riolioooo $4,939 IXlOOOOOC $5,000 $3,817 i6oooool $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements i00006\u0026amp; XlOOOOOi JOOOOOix 25 Other xiocxxxx $13,548 lOOiio:xx $9,500 $10,475 i\u0026amp;'io\u0026amp;xx TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom (40) 28 Media CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other TOTAL (40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other iooooci\u0026amp; $94,163 .)000000(\" $98 .615 $80,686 xiooo:xx mii:ii. ~ XlOOOOO( ~ $44,436 ~ $34,900 $48,677 iOOOOO\u0026amp; .. ioooOOoc $5,380 ~ $4,800 iooooooc txiooiio\u0026amp; $2,624 xi\u0026amp;xio\u0026amp; $1,255 $3,218 )000000( xxxxxxx $52,440 ixxiocixx $40,955 $51,895 llOOOOOOI $12,832 ioooo\u0026amp;x $6,000 $15,651 xxxxxxx :\u0026amp;xi\u0026amp;xx ~ XlOOOOOi 1iioooo\u0026amp; iixiooooc ioooooci lOOOCiooi $12,832 lOOOOOO( $6,000 $15,651 1000000: lOOOOOOi ioo6oooi )000000( xiooixxx lociioo6i\" xxioooo( $9,500 $99.750 $42,155 $4,800 $1,000 $47,955 $6,000 $6,000 TOT AL (60) ioo66\u0026amp;x $0 ~ $0 $0 100\u0026amp;icix $0 TOTAL (3Q-Q0) ~ $159.435 xxiiioo\u0026amp; $145,570 $148,232 1io6:xioci $153,705 TOTAL(10-60) 62.5 $2,128,120 62.5 $2,160,646 $2,152,248 62.5 $2,235,393 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) ioo6oo\u0026amp; $59,394 ~ $113,512 $130,151 ~ $126,220 ~f~\n:~\n.ffe~tu\n.,:~i '.'.:\n:\n 1~::~~y\ny-~9~~: =~-: A~1~=:~ : , \\''~9~~~~ ~  Stipends $1 ,500 $2,550 Other Objects Indirect Costs $57,435 $109,849 $117,710 $122,557 Vocational $2,410 Athletics $4,094 Gifted Programs $155 $80 $155 Plant Services $2,505 $2,794 $2,505 Reading $84 $30 $84 Science English $251 $80 $251 Special Education $459 $668 $403 $668 XXXlOO( XXXlOO( XXXlOO( Total Line Items $59,394 $11 2,512 $130,151 $126,220 Per'Pupll:Cost'{Wtt =\\:W \\,\\1993-94/) ~:.,\n\u0026gt;1994-95:,,\n.:: ?i\\'.199~95f? ( h1995\n96 j:: 3rd Otr. ADM or Proi. 588.0 566.0 559.6 582.2 Total Costs $2,187,514 $2,274,158 $2,282,399 $2,361 ,614 PerPui,ilCostiMKHtWn. y:p\n#$3\n720.f Wli#W$'.4Jtts\n fWM+t\u0026lt;t'079( t/: '$4,056 ' 1995-96 BUDGET PROPO~ORAFJ.3) ..c: A\\ if 9l-94 .. 93-9\" 94-95 ... :_\n,: 94-95 .:.{ 94-95 .. , \" 95-96 95-96 Carve/Ma Qnet s~ ,~J\\~tlt~t@~?i\u0026amp;itrttttt/:: ::/.\n. ,.f..T.E. :,::,\n: .. Actual .\"' F.T.E. t\\ Budget #: ... ,\u0026gt;'Actual t\u0026gt; . F.T.E. '' B\\ldqet ... CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $67,263 1.0 $49,235 $49,673 1.0 $53,423 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $41,640 1.0 $39,569 $39,816 1.0 $41 ,827 03 Specialists 8.0 $245,103 8.0 $259,133 $287,352 8.0 $258,643 04 Counselors 2.0 $45,473 2.0 $62,791 $63,337 2.0 $65,001 05 Media Soec. 1.5 $47,207 1.5 $48,443 $48,897 1.5 $50,145 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreion Lano. 09 Classroom 24 .3 $581 ,394 24.3 $690,567 $630,244 24.3 $685,053 10 Soecial Education 1.0 $33,001 1.0 $26,869 $45,076 1.5 $46,512 11 Gifted 1.4 $47,830 1.4 $45,303 $52,136 1.4 $46,862 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $12,271 $17,150 $23,223 $17,150 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $117.112 4.0 $120.344 $88,097 4.0 $124.713 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.2 $1 ,238,294 44.2 $1 ,359.404 S1.327,849 44.7 $1,389,329 I SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $60.742 3.0 S50.964 $47,887 3.0 $47,603 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31 ,556 1.0 S32,359 $31 ,806 1.0 $33.472 17 Custodians 4.0 $43,531 4.0 $41,956 $41,564 4.0 $37,592 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $75,921 11.0 S78,184 $89,247 11.0 $91 ,224 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxmxx $171 ,444 xxxxxxx $191 ,607 $177,960 icxxxxxx $197,214 TOT Al SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $383,194 19.0 $395,070 $388,465 19.0 $407,106 TOTAL (10-20) xmxxx $1 ,621,488 'lCXXXXXX $1 ,754,474 $1,716,314 xmxxx $1 ,796,435 PURCHASED 22 Utilities minx $66,973 filmx S75,965 $67,508 m:xxxx STT,413 SERVICES 23 Travel liicmxit $8,464 lmxxn $9.000 S7,524 xmxxx $9,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements rimh ~ xxnxxx 25 Other wxix~ $13,840 fuilix $10.700 $14,292 xx:xxxxx $10,700 TOTAL (30) xfum $89,277 fuxxxx $95,665 $89,323 xxxxxxx S97,113 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $54,466 xxxxxxx $63,330 $66,365 xmxxx $63,330 (40) 28 Media xxxxnx $5,356 xxmoo: S11,500 $1,039 mxxxx $11,500 29 Other mxxxx $3,498 nmxx $3,500 $3,113 mxxx $3,500 TOTAL (40) i\u0026amp;mxx $63,320 xxfuri $78,330 $70,518 xmxxic $78,330 CAPITAL 30 Equipment i\u0026lt;xxilix $19,490 xhXlixx S19,000 S14,917 xroxxx S19,000 OUTLAY 31 BuildinQ Repair, etc. ~ J(XXXXXX xmxxx (50) 32 Other ~ ~ xxooxx TOTAL(50) xxxxxxx $19,490 fumx $19.000 $14,917 xmxxx $19,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees mxxxx $5,643 xxmxx $3.000 $6,495 xxxxxxx $3,000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx rxiium: xmxxx TOTAL (60) xxm:xx $5,643 .xmxxx $3,000 $6,495 xxxxxxx $3,000 TOT Al (30-60) ~ $177,730 ~ilixioc $195,995 $181,252 xxm.xx S197,443 TOTAL (10-60) 63.2 $1,799,218 63.2 $1 ,950,469 S1,897,567 63.7 $1,993,878 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) l6\u0026amp;xxxx $64,923 xxxxro S129,543 $145,549 ~ $128,244 nttMtGRAN0:J'..0TAtnn::::::t@ xxxxxx MMS1t864M1': xxxm :::: :\n$2\noao\n012 ttt2\n04:ims xxxxxx: f { $2\n122t122:: ~L@.t1~1Jj~:'.\n~:'.i1:~r ./i\\~:3u:kt /:}\n~9::n }:!''.~~~:~\u0026amp;@ w~=~g~~=~\u0026gt; Stipends $6,044 $13,100 $9,973 S13.100 OtherObiects Indirect Costs $58.412 $112,956 $125,067 $111 ,657 Vocational $2,561 Athletics $4,350 Gifted Proorams $145 $85 $145 Plant Services $2,385 $2,968 $2,385 Reading $82 $32 $82 Science English $239 $85 $239 Soecial Education $467 $636 $428 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $64,923 $129,543 $145,549 $128,244 P.er:P..upltCosfJMWH%%) Sk1.993.94.M WJ9:94-9S\\W \\%1994-95@? i k199S,.9th? 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 597.9 582.0 582.5 607.3 Total Costs $1,864,141 $2,080,012 $2,043,116 $2,122,122 Pif:P..ubilCostW#@l:@MH\\ @W@!$3}118 M'iMlS!,5741 HHtt$3\n501'. /f%=:tS3I494' 93.94 ,:: 93.94 .,,\\ :.94-95\n~95 ..   9'-95 :~5-96  .. 95-96 F.T.E.. \\t Actual ::'.X: -F..T.E.. :.. Budget.  ActuaF t\nF.T.E . ., .. Budget . CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $59,233 1.0 $44,496 $40,467 1.0 $46,100 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 03 Specialists 1.0 1.0 $43,068 $65,021 1.0 $42,313 5.8 $127,098 5.8 $154,817 $164,180 5.8 $164,921 04 Counselors 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 $41,051 1.0 $41,861 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,684 1.0 $39,257 $39,625 1.0 $40,457 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 ForoiQn Lang. 09 Classroom 15.0 $462,587 15.0 $433,026 $423,335 15.0 $437 ,493 10 Special Education 1.5 $70,319 1.5 $52,851 $71.708 1.5 $54,480 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,443 1.0 $34,246 $34,567 1.0 $35,377 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $11,733 $14,000 $14,238 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $57,912 2.0 $59,580 $60,096 2.0 $61 ,759 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 29 .3 $901 ,679 29.3 $916,011 $954,287 29.3 $938,761 1.4 $15,692 1.4 $18,779 $12,127 1.4 $18,906 0.8 $11 ,856 0.8 $12,446 $10,787 0.8 $12,968 I SUPPORT t--15-+-Se_cr_e_tan_ e_s _____ --+----------+------\"--+----+---.\n...._~ STAFF 16 Nurses PURCHASE SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 17 Custodians 3.0 $39,012 3.0 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 5.6 $33,307 5.6 21 FrinQe Benefits(20) !lOOOOOO( $114,688 lOC000CX TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $214,555 10.8 TOTAL (10-20) xioooo\u0026amp; $1,116,234 fuxxxx 22 Utilities :\u0026amp;icxicii $35,582 lioocxxxic 23 Travel XXlOOOO( IXlOOOOO( 24 Maintenance Agreements lxioooocx 25 Other lxiaxioa $6,591 lxioooooi TOTAL (30) $42,173 .XX)()(X)() 26 Principal's Office llOOOOOCX :oooccci 27 Regular Classroom liilOoo\u0026amp;x $20,882 xioix:ioo( 28 Media $3,934 OOlOOO 29 Other . xiooooii $1,397 x:coocxx TOTAL (40) ')()0000()' $26,213 xiooooo\u0026lt; 30 Equipment XlOOCXXX $1,312 xixxxxx 31 Building Repair, etc. fu:iixicx 32 Other )000000( l)O()OOO(X TOTAL (50) IJOOCcixlC $1,312 lx:coixxx 33 Dues and Fees I XlOOOOO( $215 llOOOOOO( 34 Other IXlOOOOOC lxxri:xloi TOTAL (60) lxxxxxxx $215 1xx:ccixic TOTAL (30-60) 1)00000()( $69,913 ~ TOTAL (10-60) 40.1 $1,186,147 40.1 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) lxioooooi $29,105 mxxxx j?/ : GRANOffOTAt:f) xxxxxx %$1\n215\n252 xxxxxx $39,803 $40,155 3.0 $41 ,024 $32,907 $26,814 5.6 $35,152 $123,740 $11Q ,391 IXXXXX)O( S127, 199 $227,675 $209,273 10.8 $235 ,248 $1,143,686 $1,163,560 xioooro $1 ,174,009 $41,385 $31,890 lOOOOOO( $42,263 $3,407 $1,479 lOC000CX $3,500 XlOOOOO( $4,000 $7,117 I~ $4,000 $48,792 $40,487 llOOOOCXX $49,763 1)000000( $25,068 $25,601 l'ii:iiiix $25,000 $6,600 $2,305 I ioiioooix $8,000 $2,455 $1,542 lioooooo $34,123 $29/1.9 !lOCCXXicx $33,000 $2,646 $12,842 .ii:iiiixxx,c $3,700 .~ ioo\u0026amp;xxx $2,646 $12,842 )00000()( $3,700 $1 ,155 $1,321 xxxxxxx $1 ,000 ~ $1,155 $1,321 15oo\u0026amp;x $1,000 $86,716 $84,098 li\u0026amp;iooiiix $87,463 $1,230,402 $1,247,658 40.1 $1,261,472 $57,993 $55,825 I~ $70,963 { $1\n288\n395:  '$.1\n'303\n433 xxxxxx ) $1\n332\n435 . =~~\n:t\n1:iEllt!~!:\n!\nl1~ mt~~~:!~mr t\u0026lt;~9~~:h~ Mi\n~~::\n~~F ~x\n~9~~~= t Stipends $0 Other Objects Indirect Costs $28,874 $56,089 $51,498 $69,059 Vocational $1,055 Athletics $1,791 Gifted PrOQrams $80 $35 $80 Plant Services $1,305 $1,222 $1,305 Reading $42 $13 $42 Science English $129 $35 $129 Special Education $231 $348 $176 $348 x:xxx:xx x:xxx:xx x:xxx:xx . Total Line Items $29,105 $57,993 $55,825 $70,963 Pit'ipjJpili(:ostJ@:@{Hf:m JM1993~/J %499~% #M9~9S}:l':: :ib'$99S:.9\u0026amp;\\( 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 295.7 289.0 289.1 296.3 Total Costs $1 ,215,252 $1 ,288,395 $1 ,303,483 $1 ,332,435 Pei.PUmlCosh)%%W%9 +rnrr\" ~110: MCH$4\n'458' Mt#S-4\n509{ 5Yh $4\n497 ' 1995-96 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT.3) , 93-94 93-94   94-95 ., .. 9,4-95 .. : . 94-95 .. 95-96 . .'\\ 95-96 ., .. ,  Wlllla'ms Mai\nnet School }fr ' wt \\:.. '' , .f.T.E. ... ,, . . ,Actual F.T.E. ..: Budget .. Actual\\\\, F.T.E. \" Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $65,081 1.0 $60,588 $60,896 1.0 $62,128 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $38,931 1.0 $40,047 $40,205 1.0 $41 ,246 03 Specialists 5.0 $173,230 5.0 $182,894 $184,522 5.0 $188,658 04 Counselors 1.4 $45,279 1.4 $41 ,011 $41 ,395 1.4 $40,195 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $25,446 1.0 $28,846 $29,117 1.0 $30,706 06 Art-Pert JP rod. 07 Music 08 Foreiqn Lanq. 09 Classroom 20.0 $630,446 20.0 $660,714 $666,653 20.0 $685,214 10 Special Education 1.1 $25,764 1.1 $28,877 $29,147 1.1 $29,957 11 Gifted 2.0 $40,670 2.0 $72,728 $73,389 2.0 $75,030 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $17,314 $16,000 $11,467 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $112,836 3.0 $113,639 $114,639 3.0 $117,134 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 $1 ,174,997 35.5 $1 ,245,344 $1 ,251 ,430 35.5 $1,286,269 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.6 $27 ,786 2.6 $41,377 $37,966 2.6 $40,728 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $33,664 1.0 $35,551 $35,551 1.0 $36,694 17 Custodians 3.5 $44,866 3.5 $46,660 $46,384 4.0 $47 ,837 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 OlherAides 9.0 $37,175 9.0 $44,618 $38,036 9.0 $44,948 21 Fringe Benefits(20) iooo(xxx $147,956 ~ $166,961 $156,998 ~ $172,638 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.1 $291,447 16.1 $335,167 $314,935 16.6 $342,845 TOTAL (1020) xxxxxxx $1,466,444 ~ $1,580,511 $1 ,566,365 )OO(XXXX $1 ,629,113 PURCHASE 22 Utilities ~ $44,468 ii:ii:i:I. $57,280 $39,636 1xioooocx $59,353 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $4,601 XXXlOOQ( $5,000 $558 'xxt:t:t:XX $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx ~ 'wim 25 Other ~ $9,938 I~ $8,000 $13,763 ioo\u0026amp;xxx $8,000 TOTAL (30) lx:i\u0026amp;looo: $59,007 ~ $70,280 $53,957 x:i066ooc $72,353 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office ioiiooiio( xi:iixit. i!i:iixix SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom ~ $55 ,228 ~ $31 ,698 $54,558 XlOOOOO( $39,700 (40) 28 Media i\u0026amp;mi:x $4,645 I~ $11,000 $4,034 )OCJOOO(X $10,000 29 Other ~ $2,095 xx:xxxxx $2,200 $1,713 itxd:fu. $2,300 TOTAL (40) ioixio:xx $61 ,968 ~ $44,898 $60,306 'Xiiim. S52,000 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $6,799 ~ $22,700 $15,921 l'mYYY:) $15,598 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. ~ i\u0026amp;:\u0026amp;iooi :i:x:\u0026amp;xxx (50) 32 Other m:i:i:ri 'Xiii:l:t::t. ~ TOTAL (50) liiooaxx $6,799 ~ $22,700 $15,921 x:ioo'.:oo'. $15,598 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )0()(')000( $720 xxri:xxx $2,000 $1,544 ~ $2,000 (60) 34 Other x:cixxxx IXJ0006o: ~ TOTAL(60) lOOOOOO( $720 xxxxxxx $2,000 $1,544 Xl'6o6o\u0026amp; $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) I~ $128,494 I lOOClOOOC $139,878 $131,729 xxnix:x $141,951 TOTAL (10-60) 51.6 $1,594,938 51.6 $1,720,389 $1 ,698,093 52.1 $1 ,771 ,064 TOTAL LINE ITEMS(SECOND PAGE) ldooooo( $49,480 lxmxioi: $103,657 $106,906 i\u0026amp;xxxxx $110,833 tt#3RANDTOIALJ/J{: xxxxxx )}$1\n'644\n418: xxxxxx Ft$1'\n824i-046\\ tts.1\nMs\nooo::: xxxxxx .m: su111\ncsrrr :)Actual)} f?BudQet+ \u0026gt;J.. ctual\\W \\YBudgel'\"'\"\"- 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 1995-96 Stipends $1 ,676 $10,000 $3,232 $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $47,427 $90,829 $95 ,639 $98,005 Vocational $1 ,958 Athletics $3,326 Gifted Programs $120 $65 $120 Plant Services $1 ,935 $2,270 $1 ,935 Reading $63 $24 $63 Science English $194 $65 $194 Special Education $377 $516 $327 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $49,480 $103,657 $106,906 $110,833 fl\"ef'.Plipii:eostmrnnwmw1 tM$93\n.94:mf tWf9$'4\n_95M WM!l9+.:95iW lJAoo5\n96lt 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 485.8 468.0 449.8 484.7 Total Costs $1 ,644,418 $1 ,824,046 $1,SD5,000 $1 ,881 ,897 P.er'Piilil-OostNWWW%t)\nwm$3\n385t %t@1$3\n-S91!i V@,- S4\n01a =A6l$3)88:r 93-94 . 94-95 .. }/:.94-95 , .. ,:, 94-95 .,. 95-96 95-96 .:. Acttral , f.T.E.  .Budget , 'Actual =:.  f.T.E. ,,:= Budger:-,t CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,520 1.0 $64,256 $64,646 1.0 $65,818 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $148,979 3.0 $145,767 $146,643 3.0 $144,212 03 Specialists 3.6 $111 ,283 3.6 $113 ,157 $102,932 3.6 $104,130 04 Counselors 3.0 $69,852 3.0 $111 ,241 $74 ,142 3.0 $114 ,903 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $41.729 1.0 $41 ,729 $42,120 1.0 $42,951 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 5.6 $207,954 5.6 $190,845 $192,183 5.6 $213,657 10 Special Education 1.3 $49,016 1.3 $50,084 $50,553 1.3 $51 ,631 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 46.8 $1 ,424,850 46.8 $1 ,443,934 $1,464,542 46.8 $1 ,481 ,399 13 Substitutes $71 ,832 $36,135 $36,319 $36,200 14 Other TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65.3 $2,190,015 65.3 $2,197,148 $2,174,079 65.3 $2,254 ,901 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 4.0 $66,063 4.0 $68,494 $68,815 5.0 $80,258 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $32,359 1.0 $32,359 $32,359 1.0 $33,472 17 Custodians 6.0 $68,890 6.0 $60,373 $66,778 6.0 $71 ,548 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $24,845 1.0 $23,937 $33,357 1.0 $31,293 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $42,951 2.4 $28,101 $33,285 2.4 $28,900 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $266,922 XlOOOOO( $275,254 $263 ,037 lOOOOOO( $286 ,1 01 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.4 $502,030 14.4 $488,518 $497,631 15.4 $531 ,573 TOTAL (10-20) 1)000000( $2,692,045 ~ $2,685,666 $2,671.710 mxm. $2,786,474 P~:~~!\nD~~:\n~~::1:~::is~===========\n:~-~~:~::~=~~::=~~~~~~=~~~=~~==~:~~~:~~::==~~1 $162,874 xxio:io\u0026amp; $177,221 $155,343 iXXlOOO(X $178 ,303 $1 ,266 xxxxxxx $10,000 $10,011 )(XXXXXX $10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements :xxxioooi 25 Other )OOO(X)OC TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom (40) 28 Media CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) 29 Other TOTAL (40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees ioooixloc tii\nim. i\u0026amp;:ttccx 1)()00000( liiix:nx liooociciix liooooocx mxxl6I xioooocii )000000( lOOCCXXl( $34,819 $198,959 $79,331 $9,547 $2,923 $91,801 $15,510 $15,510 $1,764 ioociooo( )000()00( XXXlOOO( $27,300 $45,210 lOOOOOO( ~ $214,521 $210,564 )000()00( XlOOCioi:x ~ xxmo:x $49,168 $81,026 lO:XXXXX JOO( $15,700 $9,486 )000000( i\u0026amp;mxx $4,000 $2,421 xxxxxxx mo\u0026amp;xx $68,868 ~92,933 ~ )000000( $27,300 $37,285 ioooiioo( xxiii6o\u0026amp; oooo\u0026amp;xx xi06oo6c ~ xiooo6cx' $27,300 $37,285 ocioooooc OTHER xxioooot $4,500 $1,104 xxxxxxx (60) 34 Other XlOOOOO( JOOOOOO( JOOOOOO( $44,300 $232 ,603 $64,168 $15,700 $4,000 $83 ,868 $27,300 $27,300 $4,500 TOTAL (60) 'iiii:m. $1 ,764 xxi\u0026amp;iooi $4,500 $1,104 ~ $4,500 TOTAL (30-60) ioooooix $308,034 rixxloQc $315,189 $341,886 ~ $348 ,271 TOTAL (10-60) 79.7 $3,000,079 79.7 $3,000,855 $3,013,596 80.7 $3,134.745 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) llOOOOCXX $109,678 ~ $201,987 $191,880 XiOO:i\u0026amp;x $210,724 l/t i\\GRANDT.OTAldltt} rixrix \\ $3~109,757 iixxxi \\ $3\n202\n842, ,t:$3\n205,476 mrix D S3!345\n469 ~11i.\n1lil f1l~!l!iil~[\n~1li\ni!i M~:~~\n th ~s~it t~1~::::rn \u0026gt;~9~~~ Stipends $4,530 $4,600 $480 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,835 $162,057 $176,565 $170,794 Vocational $8,890 $16,000 $3,616 $16,000 Athletics $14,777 $14,500 $6,140 $14,500 Gifted Programs $118 Plant Services $3,450 $4,190 $3,450 Reading $115 $46 $115 Science En!llish $345 $120 $345 Special Education $646 $920 $605 $920 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $109,678 $201 ,987 $191 ,880 $210,724 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 827.8 835.0 842.8 836.7 Total Costs $3,109,757 $3,202,842 $3,205,476 $3,345,469 1995-96 BUDGHPROPOSAL(DRAfT3)   93-94 93.9,4 94-95 94-95 :, , .. 94-95 ,: . 95-96 95-96 Paric~w M~gn~ts~hool  \nih,%Mg, ,., ) F.T.E Actual .. : f.T.E. . .. Blldgett\n .//Actualt\\ .f.T.E. Bud,iet CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,582 1.0 $65.747 $66,148 1.0 $67 ,321 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 3.0 $152,394 3.0 $153,428 $154 354 3.0 $157 ,476 03 Specialists 9.8 $301 ,371 9.8 $266,815 $306,485 9.8 $298,029 04 Counselors 3.0 $124,940 3.0 $129 ,841 $130,987 3.0 $133 ,755 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,026 1.0 $34,026 $34,345 1.0 $35,176 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Forei,in Lang. 09 Vocational 7.0 $276,023 7.0 $214,076 $216,610 7.0 $211,989 10 Special Education 1.5 $53,457 1.5 $53,457 $54,861 1.5 $54,737 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 39.6 $1,371,266 39.6 $1 ,416,539 $1 ,394,739 40.6 $1,410,368 13 Substitutes $45,634 $51,640 $31 ,172 $51,640 14 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 $41,051 1.0 $41 ,861 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.9 $2,464,363 66.9 $2,426,239 $2,430,752 67.9 $2,462,351 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 $143 ,706 6.0 $111 ,962 $132,489 6.0 $113,383 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $19,416 0.6 $14,453 $14,453 0.6 $15,075 17 Custodians 8.0 $120,368 8.0 $115,043 $105,710 8.0 $115,308 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $97,365 5.0 $108,916 $97,429 5.0 $110,898 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $11,308 2.0 $23,616 $26,003 2.0 $24,286 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ix:io:iooi $313 ,946 )00()000( $315,107 $303,948 ~ $321,347 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $706,109 21.6 $689,097 $680,032 21 .6 $700,297 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxiboi $3,170,472 ~ $3 ,115,336 $3,110,784 'iiiim. $3 ,162,648 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxioOoc $213,303 XlOOOOO( $183,100 $168,431 ~ $183,753 SERVICES 23 Travel 1000000( $1,310 xri:x:iooc $1 ,500 $5.259 riioooo: $6,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ )0,00()()0( .......... )0000()()( 25 Other !000000( $40,933 xxxxxxx $14,750 $34,459 XXXXXlO: $27,000 TOTAL (30) ixxio:xx $255,546 xxxim. $199,350 $208,148 'XXXXXXY- $216,753 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxixxx1. )()()00()()( )()()()()00( SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ioooo\u0026amp;x $74,513 )'.X)QOOO( $98,173 $77,470 xmxxx $101 ,065 (40) 28 Media ~ $5,415 )000000( $7,642 $21,359 )000000( $7,100 29 Other XX)QOO(X $6,336 XlOOOOO( $6 ,100 $5,574 xxioo:xx $6,000 TOTAL (40) l005oooc $86,264 XlOOOOO( $111,915 $104,403 IXlOO:XXX $114,165 CAPITAL 30 Equipment mxxxx $11,086 ~ $16,000 $25,924 )00000()( $15,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. iOO()OOO( ~ \u0026gt;::xXXXXX (50) 32 Other xxxxioi:x XXXXXX'X ~ TOTAL (50) xmiooc $11,086 xxioocxx $16,000 $25,924 rii\u0026amp;iooc $15,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xioooocx $4,675 ro:xxfu: $5,000 $3,511 ~ $4,000 (60) 34 Other io655\u0026amp;ii: iii::iixx. JOOO()()(X TOTAL (60) xxxioooc $4,675 xxxxxxx $5,000 $3,511 XXXlOOO( $4,000 TOTAL (30-60) xioooooc $357,571 iiixi:iY. $332,265 $341,987 ~ $349,918 TOTAL (10-60) 88.5 $3,528,043 88.5 $3,447,601 $3,452,m 89.5 $3,512,566 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) JOOOOOO( $101,049 m:xio:x $190,036 $185,785 lxxxili\u0026amp; $232,152 t ?GRANDTOTAIJ/ lit:: rifux t?S3\n629,'IHIV mm: M\\$3\n637{637:' tt$3)638\n55!t miix\n)$3\n744\n718 I Unelteni CostsWt,Ytt :/@Actuil ::'ik ?}Budget\u0026lt;? :\n:_\nActual .. ) ti Budget// ''''''\"'='':s:,,\n,,,,,,,,c:\n:c,,,:c., .. , 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 1995-96 Stipends $2,519 $1,425 $2,359 $1 ,425 Other Objects Indirect Costs $75,743 $153,323 $169,208 $192,439 Vocational $8,332 $16,000 $3,465 $16,000 Athletics $13,850 $14,500 $5,885 $17,500 Gifted Programs $115 Plant Services $3,420 $4,016 $3,420 Reading $114 $43 $114 Science English $342 $115 $342 Special Educafion $605 $912 $579 $912 )00000( )00000( )00000( Total Line Items $101,049 $190,036 $185,785 $232,152 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 775.3 790.0 799.0 832.3 Total Costs $3,629,092 $3,637,637 $3,638,556 $3,744,718 .... )I, - Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director March 6, 1996 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: (501 ) 758-0156 --  In a letter dated June 26, 1995, the Magnet Review Committee submitted the 1995-96 interdistrict magnet schools budget (labeled Draft 2) in the amount of $14,614,360 for your approval. The total amount budgeted was based on a per-pupil expenditure of $4, 140 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,530 students. This budget showed an increase of $87 .00 per student over the 1994-95 budget. Since that time, the budget has been revised to better reflect the current status of magnets, taking salaries into account which reflect the results of finalized contract negotiations and an increased number of students. These factors have resulted in an adjustment from $4,140 per-pupil expenditure to $4,063 per pupil, a decrease of $77 .00 per student from the budget (Draft 2) submitted to you on June 26, 1995, or an increase of $10.00 per student over the 1994-95 budget. The total revised budget amount for the 1995-96 magnet schools budget is now $14,788,255. The Magnet Review Committee approved this revised budget (Draft 3) during its regular meeting on February 27, 1996. To date, a response has not been received from the Court with regard to the budget previously submitted. Since we are now well into the 1995-96 school year, and the State of Arkansas cannot release additional funds for per-pupil expenditure without Court-ordered approval !in this case, it is $10.00 per student over the 1994-95 budget), the Magnet Review Committee is respectfully requesting your approval of the revised 1995-96 interdistrict magnet schools budget. 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 .. -' . - The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- March 6, 1996 programs. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise prudent oversight of the magnet schools' budget. Thank you for your consideration and response to this important matter. Sincerely, 61~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee Attachment: 1995-96 lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Budget !Approved Draft 3) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM ' 1995-96 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT 3) 93-!M 93-94 94-95 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS :: F.T.E. Actual . F.T.E. Budget .t,ctual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $375,279 6.0 $340,086 $337,925 6.0 $352,057 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $433,972 10.0 $473,907 $498,372 10.0 $464,082 03 Specialists 39.2 $1 ,211,895 39.2 $1 ,224,208 $1 ,262,967 39.2 $1 ,266,519 04 Counselors 12.4 $405,435 12.4 $452,360 $418,344 12.4 $465 ,882 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $224,104 6.5 $230,137 $232,294 6.5 $238,456 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 so 0.0 $0 0.0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 08 ForeiQn LanQ. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 09 Vocational 12.6 $483,977 12.6 $404,921 $408.793 12.6 $425,646 10 Special Education 7.7 $282,681 7.7 $263,527 $303.215 8.2 $290,265 11 Gifted 5.4 $158 ,016 5.4 $189,153 $197 ,313 54 $195,300 12 Classroom 175.9 $5,377,867 175.9 S5,582,r5 ~5.544,709 176.9 $5,692,303 13 Substitutes 0.0 $182,975 0.0 $154,925 $141 ,654 0.0 $154 ,990 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $448,552 14.0 $459,595 $430,419 14.0 $473,402 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 289.7 $9,584,753 289.7 $9,775,094 $9 ,776,005 291 .2 $10,018,902 ! SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 19.0 $360,333 19.0 $323,508 $331 ,216 20.0 5333,302 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $156,152 5.4 $155,272 $153,060 5.4 $160,858 17 Custodians 28.5 $360,957 28.5 $355,219 $351 ,307 29 .0 $365,905 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $122,210 6.0 $132,853 $130,786 6.0 $142,191 20 Other-Aides 37.0 $237,662 37.0 $270.749 $269,245 37.0 $288,560 21 Fringe Benefits(20) 'm:mi, $1 ,213,301 XXXlOOO( $1 ,282,054 $1,221 ,134 )0()()()00( $1 ,320,650 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 95.9 $2,450,615 95.9 $2,519,655 $?,456.748 97.4 $2.611 ,466 TOTAL (10-20) XlOOCOO( $12,035,368 lOOOOOOC $12,294,, ,i9 ~ i 2,232.753 XlOOOOC( $12,630,368 PURCHASED 22 Utilities  )()()()000( $598,876 xxiooo\u0026lt;x $619,066 $529 ,201 )0()()()00( $626,335 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxx $20,580 xxxxxxi\u0026lt; $33 ,907 $28,648 XlOOOOO( $38,500 (30) 24 Maintenance AQreements xi\u0026lt;XXXl6( oooooiio: xx:xxxxx 25 Other x:iii:iix $119,669 XlOOOOO( $74,250 $125,316 lOOOOOO( $103 ,500 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $739,125 iccixxxx $727,223 $683,165 xxxxxxx $768,335 MATERIALS, 26 Principafs Office ~ xxxxm xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxiolxxx $328,856 'lxi:txi:J. $302,337 $353,700 IJOO\u0026lt;XXXX $335,418 (40) 28 Media XlOOCOO( $34,277 rxiiioixxic $57,242 $38 ,223 fJOOOOOC( $57,100 29 Other xi\u0026amp;\ni\u0026amp;io\" $18,873 XlOOOOOt $19,510 $17,581 ioOoooo( $16,800 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $382,006 ioooocxx $379,089 $409,504 xxxxxxx $409,318 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXIOOOO( $67,029 lOOOOOO( $93,646 $122,540 xxxioOOt: $86,598 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. ~ iX)OOOOO( XlOOOOO( (50) 32 Other ri::iim. i\u0026amp;xiixxx XXXXlO(X TOTAL (50) ~ $67,029 lOOOO(XX $93,646 $122,540 xiooooix $86,598 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )000000( $13,017 xiciicioo\u0026lt; $15,655 $13,975 lOOOOCXX $14,500 (60) 34 Other XXXXXlO( iiloooooc iiiiiiioocic TOTAL (60) I~ $13,017 xxxxxxx $15,655 $13,975 xioooooc $14,500 TOTAL (30-60) i6ooo6:x $1,201,177 wxxxx $1 ,215,613 $1,229,184 lOOOOO(X $1,278,751 TOTAL (10-60) 385.6 $13,236,545 385.6 $13,510,362 $13,461 ,937 388.6 $13,909,119 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) i66ooo\u0026amp; $413,629 XlOOOOO( $796,728 $816,097 xxiixxlci $879,136 \n:::\\lGRANOJOTAt/t:i/f xxxxxx t/'$:13\n650\n17 4 rirox i\nji'.$14,307\n!90 :}J~4\n278\nD30  xxxxxx t 414,7B8,255 ) un.tterrtcosts:@ttititt 416\\etual/( )/Budget(}, \u0026gt;lAettiat%M= :,ttBildget.4? .. :a::: S:\n::'NMH 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 1995-96 Stipends $16,269 $29,125 $18,594 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $348,726 $685,103 $735,687 $764,511 Vocational $17,222 $32,000 $15,065 $32,000 Athletics $28,627 $29,000 $25,586 $32,000 Gifted Programs $500 $498 $500 Plant Services $15,000 $17,460 $15,000 ReedinQ $500 $168 $500 Science English $1 ,500 $500 $1,500 Special Education $2,785 $4,000 $2,518 $4,000 lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( Total Line Items $413 ,629 $796,728 $816,097 $879,136 PeiP.upllCocttW@Mllfrfa KH199U4tt /i\\\n1994,:95\n:1. :\n\\,IJ99US.-/\\ M?t995-9o\\i'/ 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3570.5 3530.0 3522.8 3639.7 Total Costs $13,650,174 $14,307 ,090 $14,278,030 $14,788,255 P.'1i'PtfoifCostMJftii@M: tNFit=l3\n823 ?/')''{:$4\n-053' ':)tH:%'$4\n053': ::t:$4\n003:' --- 1995-96 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 3} 93-94 93-94 94-95 , 94-95 94-95 95-96 1995-96 Booker Magnet School ,C. . F.T.E.  Actual F.T.E:, Budoet Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $54,600 1.0 $55.764 $56,095 1.0 S57,267 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $52,028 1.0 $52,028 $52,333 1.0 $37,008 03 Specialists 7.0 $253,810 7.0 $247,392 $217,496 7.0 $252,138 04 Counselors 2.0 $79,221 2.0 $66,806 $67,432 2.0 $70,167 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $37 ,012 1.0 $37,836 $38.190 1.0 $39,021 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 30.2 $907 ,324 30.2 $937,495 $965,196 30.2 $992,776 10 Special Education 1.3 $51 ,124 1.3 $51 ,389 $51 ,870 1.3 S52.948 11 Gifted 1.0 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 $37,221 1.0 S38,031 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $24,191 $20,000 $25,235 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $120,022 4.0 $125,362 $126,536 4.0 $127 ,935 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,615,405 48.5 $1 ,630,948 $1 ,637 ,605 48.5 $1 ,687,291 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $46,344 2.0 $31 ,932 $31,932 2.0 $32,424 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $27 ,301 1.0 $28 .104 $28 ,104 1.0 $29,177 17 Custodians 4.0 $44,290 4.0 $51,384 $50,716 4.0 S52,596 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofess:onals-Other 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $37,000 7.0 $63,323 $55 ,860 7.0 $64,050 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XXlOOOOC $198,345 IXloooixx $209,385 $199,799 lOOOOOCX $216,151 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.0 $353,280 14.0 $384 ,128 $366,411 14.0 $394,398 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,968,685 xxxxxxx $2,015,076 $2,004,016 xxxxxxx $2,081,688 PURCHASED 22 Utilities .lOOOOOO( $75,676 JOOCXXXl( $84,115 $66,393 :JOOOOOOi $85,250 SERVICES 23 Travel lOOOOOO( $4,939 [XXlOOOO( $5,000 $3,817 lOOOOOOI $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements iooooOOc XlOOCi\u0026amp;x xxxiixxx 25 Other ioo6oc\u0026amp; $13,548 )000:)00( $9,500 $10,475 XlOO\u0026lt;XXX $9,500 TOTAL (30) 'XXXXlOO( $94,163 I )()00000( $98 615 $80,686 XlOO\u0026lt;XXX $99 ,750 MATERIALS, 26 Prindpal's Office riiiJ::ix ~ lOOOOOCX SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ioooooo( $44,436 lOOOOO\u0026amp; $34,900 $48,677 )0()0000( $42,155 (40) 28 Media ~ $5,380 I~ $4,800 xxxxxxx $4,800 29 Other iooooixx $2,624 iJOOOi:iol:x $1 ,255 $3,218 :JOOOOOOi $1,000 TOTAL (40) XJOOOOO( $52,440 xxicioooc $40,955 $51,895 ~ $47,955 CAPITAL 30 Equipment ~ $12,832 xiiioooo\u0026lt; $6,000 $15 ,651 xxxxxxx $6,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. XXXlOOO( xxxx:i XlOOOO()( (50) 32 Other ixxxxio\nlxxio6ooc XlOO\u0026lt;XXX TOTAL (50) XXlOOOO( $12,832 Xl()()OO(X $6,000 $15 ,651 '1000000I $6,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees lOOOOOO( ioooooot xxxiooo: (60) 34 Other i5\u0026amp;xxioi lxioooooc XXlOOOOI TOTAL(60) ~ $0 b6iiiJciooc $0 $0 'XXXXioix $0 TOTAL (30-60) ,ooooiiix $159,435 xxiooooc $145,570 $148 ,232 lOO(XXXX $153,705 TOTAL (10-60) 62.5 $2,128,120 62.5 $2,160,646 $2,152,248 62.5 $2,235,393 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $59,394 boooooo\u0026lt; $113,512 $130,151 xxxxxxx $126,220 : ?'ltGRANDTOTALY J?= rixxxi )/$2\n1 B7\n5u:. xxxxxi \\LSU74J58' C\\ $2\n282\n399, u:ri:i:i.- \\ $2,361\n614 Lint lttmCosls'' .. ,,,,,,,.,r,. :,:\\}Actual :f\\ )t/Bildgat\\i/, '}Actual ?''\\  :?Budget'\u0026gt;\n,:Lt:::::x\nJ~\n:\n1::\n,t\n:j:::f't~ 1993.94 1994-95 1994-95 1995-96 Stipends $1,500 $2,550 Other Obiecis Indirect Costs $57,435 $109 ,849 $117,710 $122,557 Vocational $2,410 Athletics $4,094 Gifted Programs $155 $80 $155 Plant Services $2,505 $2,794 $2,505 Reading $84 $30 $84 Science English $251 $80 $251 Special Education $459 $668 $403 $668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total line Items $59,394 $112 512 $130,151 $126,220 PerPupilCost'tl!A',+ (: .f/'199~94 % WPt994:-95'i:U :\"::1994-9.5\\k :): 1995..96 . 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 588.0 566.0 559.6 582.2 Total Costs $2,187,514 $2,274,158 $2,282,399 $2,361 ,614 Per'Pup1(Ci:m%lAMMM :YWWt'$3mo. tt!:d:::$4Jtts ':':HitM$.4\nwg,: i:,:\n::s4,056 1995-96 BUDGET PROPOSAL{0RAFT.3)   CarverMaqnetSc:hool .:,c\n:\n:.:\n::, . -\u0026lt; ,,,)fa\u0026lt;\n/ }{ CERTIFIED 01 Principal STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 03 Specialists 04 Counselors 05 Media Spec. 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lanq. 09 Classroom 10 Soecial Education 11 Gifted 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes 14 Other-Kindergarten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 17 Custodians 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 93-94 F..T.E. 1.0 1.0 8.0 2.0 1.5 24.3 1.0 1.4 4.0 44.2 3.0 1.0 4.0 93-94 Actual\u0026gt; $67,263 $41,640 $245.103 $45.473 $47,207 94-95 F.T.E. 1.0 1.0 8.0 2.0 1.5 $581,394 24.3 $33,001 1.0 $47,830 1.4 $12,271 $117.112 4.0 $1 ,238,294 44.2 S60,742 3.0 S31 ,556 1.0 $43,531 4.0 Budget   $49,235 $39 .569 S259.133 S62.791 $48,443 $690,567 $26,869 $45,303 S17, 150 S12C:-i.44 S1,359.404 SS0,964 S32,359 $41,956 94-95 .Actual ''' $49,673 $39,816 $287,352 $63,337 $48,897 95-% F.T.E. 1.0 1.0 8.0 2.0 1.5 $630,244 24.3 $45,076 1.5 $52,136 1.4 $23,223 $88,097 4.0 S1,327,849 44.7 $47,887 3.0 $31 ,806 1.0 $41,564 4.0 95-% Budoet $53.423 $41,827 $258,643 S65,001 $50.145 $685,053 $46,512 $46,862 $17,150 S124.713 S1,389.329 $47,603 S33.472 S37,592 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $75,921 11.0 $78,184 S89,247 11.0 $91 ,224 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $171,444 xxxxxxx $191,607 $177,960 xxxxxxx S197,214 TOT AL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 S383, 194 19.0 $395,070 S388.465 19.0 S407, 105 TOTAL (10.20) xxxxxxx $1,621.488 xxxxxxx $1.754.474 $1.716,314 xxxxxxx $1,796.435 PURCHASED~2_2-Uti_.li_tie_s ______x xxxx__x_x __S6_ 6.\n...,9_73-+-nxxn:1._-.-+ __S_ 75_,9_6_5+-__S6 _7~,5_08-t-xxxx_x xx __S TT~.4_1_3 SERVICES f-2_3-+-Tr_av_e_l -------+-xxxxx-x.. .,.,_x+--__S _B.\n....4_64-+-IXXXXJOO__-+-__S9 .0_0_0+ --__S _7~,5_24-+-)00()(l(--Xx-+-__S9. ..\n.,0_0---i0 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxnxxx ifrt:m. xxxxxxx 25 Other l\u0026amp;i\u0026amp;xxx S13,840 nJOOooC S10.700 S14,292 xxxxxxx TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx S89,277 xxxxxxx S95,665 $89,323 xxxxxxx MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $54,466 xxxxxxx S63.330 S66,365 xxxxxxx (40) 28 Media riixfoc $5,356 J()(XlOOO( S11,500 $1,039 xxxx'xicx CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ilifuic $3,498 rilOOOOI S3.500 $3,113 iirixicicx TOTAL (40) ~xx S53,320 xxxxm: S78.330 s10.s1a xxxxxxx 30 Equipment xilixxic $19,490 XXXXXXX $19,000 $14,917 )OO()(l(XX 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx X'J.'i:i:\na\nJ. xxxxxxx 32 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL(50) xxxxxxx $19.490 xxxxxxx $19.000 $14,917 xxxxxxx 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx ss.643 xxxmic S3.ooo ss.495 xxxxxxx 34 Other xrixrix \"JCxxxxn xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxicx $5.643 xxxxrix $3,000 $6,495 xxxxxxx TOTAL (30-60) xicrixxx $177.730 \"JCXXXXXX S195,995 $181,252 xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-60) 63.2 S1.799,218 63.2 S1,950,469 S1,897,567 63.7 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- SECOND PAGE) XicXXXXX S64,923 xxxxro $129,543 $145,549 'iY:i:iii:J. S10.700 S97.113 $63,330 $11,500 $3,500 $78.330 $19,000 $19,000 S3,000 $3,000 $197,443 $1,993,878 $128,244 ~t:~!\n~\n~\n::l,~:\n!::::'.l:::!r: \\}i~~~=lt li~9:: +F~::5ni ~9~i:x Stipends $6,044 $13,100 $9,973 S13, 100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $58,412 $112,956 $125,067 $111 ,657 Vocational $2,561 Athletics $4,350 Gifted Proarams $145 $85 $145 Plant Services S2,385 $2,968 $2,385 Readino $82 $32 $82 Science Encilish $239 $85 $239 Soecial Education $467 $636 $428 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $64,923 S129,543 $145,549 $128,244 Per.PupltCosFMW\\f#W fW1.99J::94/f Xf1994,:.9SJ\\ Vfr199~9S\\/ :\\?1995'9\u0026amp; \\ 3rd Otr. ADM or Proi. 597.9 582.0 582.5 607.3 Total Costs $1 ,864,141 $2.080,012 $2,043,116 $2,122,122 PefP.UbiU:ostf#\n%''0,WW WM?$3~t18 mnms3\n574, nn+t$3\n507(\n:.)1s3\n494 19-9~~6.BUDGET PROPOSAL{DRAf.T 3} Gibbs'.'.Magnet School \u0026gt;(': \\ {': .. } 93-94 93-94 . 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 F.T.E.. ::.?,, Actual ./ F.T.E. \\. Budget Actual F.T.E. Budqel CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $59 ,233 1.0 $44,496 $43,068 $154,817 $40,467 $65 ,021 $164,180 1.0 1.0 5.8 $46,100 $42,313 $164 ,921 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 03 Specialists 1.0 5.8 1.0 $127,098 5.8 04 Counselors 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 $41,051 1.0 $41 ,861 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,684 1.0 $39,257 $39,625 1.0 $40,457 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 ForniQn LanQ. 09 Classroom 15.0 $462,587 15.0 $433,026 $423,335 15.0 $437.493 10 Special Education 1.5 $70,319 1.5 $52,851 $71 708 1.5 $54.480 11 Gifted 1.0 $33 ,443 1.0 $34 ,246 $34 ,557 1.0 $35,377 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $11,733 $14,000 $14,238 $14 ,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $57,912 2.0 $59,580 $60,096 2.0 $61,759 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 29.3 $901 ,679 29.3 $916,011 $954 ,287 29.3 $938,761 I SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.4 $15 ,692 1.4 $18,779 $12,127 1.4 $18,906 STAFF t-1-6-+N-u-rs-es---------i--0.-8+---$-11-'-,8-5-6+--0.8- -+---$1-2,'4-4-6-+---S1-0'-.7-87-+--0.-8+---S-12-'-,9-6-.8 t---+-----------i--+---'--'--+---+---''---+---'---+---+--'-\"'---1 17 Custodians 3.0 $39,012 3.0 $39,803 $40,155 3.0 $41 ,024 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 5.6 $33 ,307 5.6 $32,907 $26,814 5.6 $35,152 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $114,688 xxxxxxx $123,740 $11~ 191 IXlOOOOOI $127,199 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $214,555 10.8 $227,675 $209 ,273 10.8 $235,248 TOTAL (10-20) lOOOOOO( $1 ,116,234 ~ $1 ,143,686 $1,163,560 iXXlOOOO: $1 ,174,009 PURCHASE ~2::.:2+\n-Ut...\n.iliti...\ne._.\n_s ____~ xioooocx=\n.\n.+--'$...\n.35.:.:,.5\n_8.\n.2+1xxxxxxx=\n.\n.\n.\ni-_..\n._$4-'1.,:.3\n..\n.\n85-+-_...\n..$3...\n.1.:.\n.,8...\n.90~XlOOOOOl.\n.\n.\n.\n.\n..+---$:...4\n:\n.:.2,2::.:6-\"-l3 SERVICES ~2::.:34 T..\n._ra::.:v..:\nel ____ __,i\n,\nl000000(.\n.\n.\n,\n.\n.. __ ---i\n.lxxxxxxx=\n.\n.\n.\ni--$::.:3.\n_.4\n_07-+-__ S\n_1.\n_.4.\n.\n79~xxxxxxx=\n.\n.\ni..---=-S.:.:.3,5::.:0-\"-l0 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements llOOOOOO( IXlOOOOO( XXlOOOOi 25 Other IXlOOOO()( $6 ,591 lxioooocx $4,000 $7 ,117 ~ $4,000 TOTAL (30) IXlOOOO\u0026lt;X $42,173 IXlOOOOO( $48,792 $40,487 lOOCC(X)( $49,763 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom booooooc IXlOOOOC( xxioo\u0026lt;xx 1)0()()000( $20,882 lx:ioooixx $25,068 $25,601 w:i\noo. $25,000 (40) 28 Media IXlOOOClOi $3,934 llOOOOOOi $6,600 $2,305 .xii,ooixx $8,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other iXlOOOO()( $1 ,39 7 lxxioocxx $2,455 $1 , 542 lOOOOOO( TOTAL (40) IXlOOOOOI $26,213 IXJOOOOO\u0026lt; $34,123 $29, '. ~9 xxxxxxx $33,000 30 Equipment IXXlOOOOC $1,312 llOOOCXXX $2,646 $12,e42 lOOOOOOC $3 ,700 31 Building Repair, etc. lxxxxioo lxiooocxx xioooocx 32 Other il()()OO(X)( iXlOOOOOC iooo\u0026amp;xx TOTAL (50) !xx:\u0026lt;:()()()( $1 ,312 1Xlixxiixx $2,646 $12,842 )000()00( $3,700 33 Dues and Fees ilOOOOO()( $215 ilOOOOOCX $1 ,155 $1,321 ~ $1,000 34 Other IXXlOOOOC !XlOOOOOI iooixxxx TOTAL(60) lxxxxxicic $215 fu:cixi( $1,155 $1,321 lOOOOOO\u0026lt; $1,000 TOTAL (30-60) 1)()()0000( $69,913 )000000( $86,716 $84,098 ioocfux $87.463 TOTAL (10-60) 40.1 $1,186,147 40.1 $1,230,402 $1,247 ,658 40.1 $1,261,472 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) !XXXXXXX $29,105 lOOOOOOC $57,993 $55,825 lOOciiooi: $70,963 I ':\u0026lt;':GRANOJOTAt )} t xxxxxx :::tl1'\n215\n252' xxxxxx /\\$1,288\n395 .:? $1\n303,483: xrixxx '\"' $1.332\n.435 t\ni\nt\n:~~~!,\nJ\n~t\n!:::\n\nl' ,\n:n:~~~:~w\n\nn~ 9 ~~~til .\ne~::!~t n\u0026gt;~9 ~~~=f\nStipends $0 Other Objects Indirect Costs $28,874 $56,089 $51,498 $69,059 Vocational $1,055 Athletics $1 ,,91 Gifted Programs $80 $35 $80 Plant Services $1,305 $1,222 $1,305 Readino $42 $13 $42 Science English $129 $35 $129 Special Education $231 $348 $176 $348 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $29,105 $57,993 $55,825 $70,963 P.Mlfupi( CosfMk@ff\nk / 'lM993\n,94${ @(199~% lh'19~95J) %J99S:.96K 3rd atr. ADM or Proi. 295.7 289.0 289.1 296.3 Total Costs $1,215,252 $1,288,395 $1,303,483 $1,332,435 P.ef Ptli\u0026gt;il CostW\u0026amp;!MhfH WH?$41t10 W\u0026lt;P$4\n45a-\nw:MS4\n509i :}F S(\n-497 1995--96 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAfl'.3) . Wllfl~nuiMa~nirt Sehoot ' .. ...  CERTIFIED 01 Principal STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 03 Specialists 04 Counselors 05 Media Spec. 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreic:in Lanc:i. 09 Classroom 10 Special Education 11 Gifted 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes 93-94  93-94 S4-9li F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. 1.0 $65,081 1.0 1.0 $38,931 1.0 5.0 $173 ,230 5.0 1.4 $45,279 1.4 1.0 $25,446 1.0 20.0 $630,446 20.0 1.1 $25,764 1.1 2.0 $40,670 2.0 Budget $60,588 $40,047 $182,894 $41 ,011 $28,846 $660,714 $28,877 $72,728 S4-95 95-96 Actual F .T.E. $60,896 1.0 $40,205 1.0 $184,522 5.0 $41 ,395 1.4 $29,117 1.0 $666,653 20.0 $29 ,147 1.1 $73,389 2.0 Bud11et $62,128 $41 ,246 $188,658 $40 ,195 $30,706 $685,214 S29,957 $75,030 $17 ,314 $16 ,000 $11 ,467 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $112,836 3.0 $113,639 $114,639 3.0 $1 17,134 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 $1 ,174,997 35.5 $1 ,245,344 $1 ,251 ,430 35.5 $1 ,286,269 SUPPORT t-1_5-1-S_ecr_et_ane__s _____2._ 6 _S _2_ 7_, 78_6-+-_2_.6-+-__S_ 41_ ,3 _77-+-__S_ 37,_9_66-+-_2._6_ __$4_ 0'\"'\",7_28-l STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $33 ,664 1.0 $35 ,551 $35 ,551 1.0 $36 ,694 17 Custodians 3.5 $44,866 3.5 $46 ,660 $46 ,384 4.0 $47 ,837 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $37 ,175 9.0 $44,618 $38,036 9.0 $44,948 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ $147 ,956 ~ $166,961 . $156,998 xxxt::1Xt. $172,638 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.1 $291 ,447 16.1 $335,167 $314,935 16.6 $342,845 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $1 ,466,444 )0()()000( $1 ,580,511 $1 ,566,365 )0()()000( $1 ,629,113 PURCHASE 12-2= U~til=itie.s: ..,_-----~=+-l)(-)().(X:X.)Q.(.\n.\n~$4-4F,46=8 .\n~\n+-. .:.:.:$.5:7,.2=80. .:.+-$.3.9:,6.3:6. :l~xxx4t::=IXt.= ,---$=59-,3=53~ SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO( $4,601 ~ $5 ,000 $558 ~ S5 ,000 t---+--------+---+-----------------1----t-------1 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements rixxxri: ~ ~ 25 Other ~ $9,938 ,XXX)(XXX $8,000 $13,763 X'T:IXl:XX TOTAL{30) MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) 30 Equipment 31 Buildinc:i Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL(50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other Ixxi\u0026amp;xxx $59,007 ~ $70,280 $53,957 x:txxm:. xxri:xxx xxxt::/Xt. xxxt::IXt. ~ $55,228 xxxxxxx $31,698 $54,558 xxxxxxx i\u0026amp;mxx $4,645 i~ $11,000 $4,034 lCOOOOO( ~ $2,095 xx:t::1XXX $2,200 $1,713 ~ ioo:ioooc $61,968 '1X1X1:XX. $44,898 $60,306 '1X1X1:XX. xxxxri:x $6,799 ~ $22,700 $15,921 ~ )()()0()00( lCXXXX:O( ~ x:,\ni:i\niix w:ixxY.. xx:m:xx. xxioooo: $6,799 ~ $22,700 $15,921 ~ ~ $720 ~ $2,000 $1,544 :x:co:xxx $8,000 $72,353 $39,700 $10,000 $2,300 $52,000 $15,598 $15,598 $2,000 TOTAL (60) lOOOOOO( $720 ~ $2,000 $1,544 ~ $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) XlOOOOO( $128,494 w:ixxY.. $139,878 $131,729 '1X1Xf:XX. $141 ,951 TOTAL (10-60) 51.6 $1,594,938 51 .6 $1,720,389 $1,698,093 52.1 $1,771,064 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) ~ $49,480 ~ $103,657 $106,906 ~ $110,833 : ::ttGRANDTOTAL? i xxxxxx \\/$1\\'644:418 xxxxxx : I S1\nB24\n046: /?$.t805.000 xxxxxx: ' $1J8t89T Urie ttem Co,t5.-\n\n.:, W_c:_._,_..:.:.'_:, . :(/Actual ft .:/ Budoet ,. \" ., Act ual)/i \\\\Budget \nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_567","title":"North Central Association (NCA)","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":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation","School enrollment","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["North Central Association (NCA)"],"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/567"],"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":["32 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} LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERVISORY STAFF 1995-96 ? Nancy L. Acre Rene T. Carson Susan L. Chapman Vanessa E. Cleaver Sue J. Corker Mablfc Donaldson Ann B. Freeman Dennis R. Glasgow Barbara A. Graves Paula E. Grier Elna R. Hasberry Selma P. Hobby Kristine B. Hoffman Sterling Ingram Pat Killingsworth Donald N. Looper Lucy M. Lyon Marie A. McNeal Judith L. Milam Kathy Penn-Norman Yoriko U. Perritt Patricia A. Price Paula D. Rynders Eunice D, Smith Gary S. Smith Paul J, Smith Mary L. Steelman Judy S. Teeter Colleen S. Walls Marion E. Woods10/2/1995 Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) -[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association] School: Badgett Elementary School School Year: 95-96 Principal: 6900 Pecan Little Rock Pulaski 501 324-2475 AR 72206 Ms. Mary Golston District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock 501 324-2000 AR 72201 Superintendent: Dr. Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 22 20 K Half Day: 2: 6: 0 23 19 OTHER: Self-Contained = 8 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7: 34 17 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 37 28 0 Total Enrollment: 208 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 76-77 84-85 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 95-96 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: Central Office Personnel TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 2 2 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 1 88 0 0 0 107 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...11.67 2.00 2.00 6.00 3.30 1.00 0.00 0.70 1.00 0.00 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.82 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 1.00rlO/2/1995 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Page\n1 of 5 '___compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, Elementary Level (FORM ESA) North Central Association]==== School: Bale Elementary School 6501 West 32nd School Year: 95-96 Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)570-4050 AR 72204 Ms. Barbara Anderson District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: 2) Enrollment by grade - PK-6 Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 49 40 K Half Day: 2: 6: 0 52 42 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7: 36 52 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 41 37 0 Total Enrollment: 349 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team 5) School year in which the next NCA team  1 visit............. visit is planned.. 81-82 94-95 00-00 6) Do all teachers have at least planning time? [24.06]....... 200 minutes per week of Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers...... Kindergarten Teachers......... Grade Level Teachers........... Special Subject Area Teachers. Principal [24.08].............. Asst Principal/Admin Assistant Guidance Counselor........... [24.12].... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02] PupilPersonnel Specialists....... Superintendent [2.02]... OTHER: ..... .......... OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF Student/Certificated Staff Ratio 2 2 12 3 1 0 1 1 5 1 88 0 0 0 116 [24.02]...12.37 to one 2.00 2.00 12.00 2.60 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 4.80 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.22 8) 9) Number of Number of media aides [26.02]: cf secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency\n0.40 1.001 I 10/2/1995 Paqe: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ====[A compilation of terms, Copyriqht 1990, '' ~  North Central Association]=- School: Brady Elementary School 7915 West Markham School Year: 95-96 Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)228-3065 AR 72205 Ms. Ada Keown District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: Dr. 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Governance: P Henry Williams (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by qrade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 62 50 K Half Day: 2: 6: OTHER: Special Educ.7 = 7 0 65 44 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7: 18 51 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 60 38 0 Total Enrollment: 395 3) School year in which the school was first accredited..... 4) School, year of the most recent NCA team visit........... 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 94-95 99-00 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planninq time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffinq: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekinderqarten Teachers.................... Kinderqarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: Central Office Personnel TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 1 3 15 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 88 0 0 0 116 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...13.78 1.00 3.00 15.00 2.95 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.90 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.67 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.60 1.00\n9/23/1995 Page: 1 of 5 Inca commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ===[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]= School Year: 95-96 School: Baseline Elementary School 3623 Baseline Road Little Rock Pulaski AR 72209 Principal: (501)570-4150 Mrs. Lonnie Dean District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 50 37 K Half Day: 2 : 6 : 0 30 37 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7 : 34 39 0 K Full Day: 4 : 8 : 59 31 0 OTHER: Special Ed 6 Total Enrollment: 323 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 77-78 90-91 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 96-97 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................. Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................. Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: Other Central Office Staff ..... OTHER: ....'. OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 2 3 12 3 1 0 1 1 3 1 88 0 0 0 115 2.00 3.00 12.00 3.50 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.34 Student/Certificated staff Ratio [ 24.02 ]...12.26 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 1.001 10/2/1995 NCA Commission c- ==:\n===:LA compilation of terms, .-.L,. -x .. Page: 1 of- p on ochools Annual Report Form -For Elementary Level (FORM ESA) Copyr ight 1790^ North Centr\u0026lt;al Associat i on 11 School\nS c h o a 1 Y e .a r\nBooker Arts Magnet Elementary School 95-96 r i nc i o s. 1: 2 016 B a r b e r S t r e e t Little Rock Pu1 ask i (501) 324-243:2 Aft /.'it206 Dr. Cheryl A. Simmons Di st r i ct: Little Rock School District 310 W e 51 M a r k h a m Superintendent: Dr. Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry Willi ams I Savernance\nF (P~F'uta 1 i c , N=Non-F'ub lie) 1) Grades included in the school\n2) Enrollment by grade - K-6 Pre-K HalF Day: 1\n0 39 92 i\u0026lt; Hair Day: OTHER\n6: 0 0 79 94 Pre-K Full Day\n3: 0 92 0 K-Fu11 Day: 4: 3\n77 0 Tot cl 1 Enr o 11 ment\n600 3) School year in which the school w a s F i r s t a c c r e d i t e d 4) School year uF the most recent MCA team visit 5) School ---   - year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 75-76 94-95 99-00 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes planning time? F24.06.1 , per week o-F Y 7) ProFessional StaFFina: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EOUIVALENCY Prekinderqarten Teachers...... Kindergarten Teachers. ............ Grade Level Teachers. ....................... . Special Subject Area Teachers............. Pri nc ipa! C24.031 Asst Pr1ncipal/Admin Assistant C24.121.... Guidance Counselor............. Media Specialist/Librarian C26.021..... . .\" Pupil Personnel Specialists............ Super i ntendent C2.021 0 4 24 12 1 1 1 OTHER\nOTHER:: OTHER\nOTHER: C u r r i c u 1 lu m Special! s t s G i F t e d / T a 1 e n t e d Central OFFice Personnel 1 TOTAL Certificated staff Student/Certi-Ficated StaFT Ratio E24.021.. 1 83 0 139 .11.32 to one B) 9) Number o-F Number o-f media aides C26.02.]\nsecretcir ies/'c lerks L'24.143: 1 0. 00 4,00 24.00 11.60 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.33 0. 02 2. 00 1.00 :L. SO 0.00 50.75 Full-lime Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 1.00 2. 00.I I ,9/29/1995 Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, N ---- North Central Association]==== School: School Year: 95-96 Carver Magnet Elementary School 2100 East 6th Street Little Rock Pulaski AR 72202 Principal: (501)324-2460 Mrs. Diane Barksdale District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: DR. Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Governance: HENRY WILLIAMS (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in -the school: K-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 66 105 OTHER: K Half Day: 2: 6: = 0 0 90 100 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7: 0 99 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 60 108 0 Total Enrollment: 628 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4). School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 75-76 89-90 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.'. 95-96 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................. Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................. Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: Central Office ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 0 3 23 9 1 1 2 2 6 1 88 0 0 0 136 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...13.00 0.00 3.00 23.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50 6.00 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.32 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 2 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 1.00 2.0010/4/1995 . Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ====[compilation of terms. Copyright North Central Association]==== ~[A terms, 1990, School: Chicot Elementary School School Year: 95-96 Principal: 11100 Chicot Road Mabelvale Pulaski (501)570-4062 AR 72103 Mr. Otis Preslar District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72202 Dr. Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 72 61 OTHER: K Half Day: 2: 6: = 21 0 56 58 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7: 18 46 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 59 60 0 Total Enrollment: 451 3) School year in which the school was first accredited.'.... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit............. 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned..  77-78 92-93 97-98 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: Central Office Personnel ..... OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02].. 1 3 18 10 1 1 2 1 3 1 88 0 0 0 129 .11.10 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 2 1.00 3.00 18.00 10.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.80 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.62 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 1.00 2.00J 10/3/1995 Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ====[A compilation of terms. Copyright North Central Association]==== -[A terms, 1990, School: Cloverdale Elementary School 6500 Hinkson Road School Year: 95-96 Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)570-4055 AR 72209 Mr. Frederick Fields District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 68 52 OTHER: K Half Day: 2: 6: 0 56 45 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7: 53 51 0 0 K Full Day: 4: 8 : 79 50 0 Total Enrollment: 454 3) School year in which the school was first accredited..... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit............. 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 89-90 89-90 94-95 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers............ Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................. Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................. Superintendent [2.02]...................... OTHER: CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 3 4 14 3 1 0 2 1 3 1 88 0 0 0 120 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...14.31 3.00 4.00 14.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 1.50 1.00 2.40 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.72 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 1.00110/3/1995 Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== North Central Association]== School: School Year: 95-96 David O. Dodd Elementary School 6423 Stagecoach Road Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)455-7430 AR 72204 Ms. Faith Donovan District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72202 Dr. Henry- Williams Governance : P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: K-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 32 44 K Half Day: 2: 6: OTHER: Ungr. Sp.Ed.l6 = 0 0 39 50 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7: 0 45 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 39 29 0 Total Enrollment: 278 . 3) School year in -which the school -was first accredited..... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit......... 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned'\" 76-77 90-91 95-96 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: G/T Sp.Ed CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 0 2 12 5 1 0 1 1 4 1 1 3 88 0 119 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...10.85 0.00 2.00 12.00 2.60 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.02 0.60 3.00 1.80 0.00 25.62 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 1.0010/1/1995 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementa Page: 1 of 5 ===[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, ry Level (FORM ESA) North Central Association]= School : Fair Park Elementary School 616 North Harrison Street School Year: 95-96 Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)671-6260 AR 72205 Dr. Samuel Branch District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Little Rock 324-2000 AR 72202 Dr. Henry Wil 1iams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 43 24 OTHER: K Half Day: 2 : 6: 0 32 28 0 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7 : 36 26 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 39 42 0 Total Enrollment: 270 3) School year in which the school was first accredited. . . . .' 76-77 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit...'.......90-91 95-96 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned^^ 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers Kindergarten Teachers Grade Level Teachers Special Subject Area Teachers Principal [24.08] Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02] Pupil Personnel Specialists Superintendent [2.02] OTHER: Central office personnel ..... OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02].. 2 2 11 4 1 0 1 1 2 1 88 0 0 0 113 .11.53 to one 2.00 2.00 11.00 3.10 1.00 0.00 0.70 1.00 0.80 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.42 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 1.00A-f? X A rtoramission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level\"'(FORirESA) = = ''\"trai Aaaociltlonl^lt- l' n o o 1 : Forest Park Elementciry Scljool  c 11 o o 1 Year\n9 5 - A -1- n c i p a 1\n1600 North Tyler Little Rock Pulaski ( 501)671-6267 treet AR 72207 Ms. Virginia Ashley a t r i c t\nf Little Rock School District 810 West Markham 5erintendent: Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 ernance: Dr. Henry Williams P {P=Public, N=Non-Public) Grades included in the Enrollment by grade - school\nK- 6 re-K Half Day: 1: 5 : 0 64 74 OTHER\nK Half Day: 2 : 6 : 0 69 52 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7 : 0 6 4 A K Full Day: 4\n : 6 0 5 0 0 tai Enrollment: 433 School year in which the School year of the most school w s first accredited School year in which the next NCA recent NCA team visit team visit is planned.. 90-91 95-96 Do -K T a X 1 planning time? i 1 a V  a t [24.06] least 200 minutes per week of Y Prof ssional Staffing: NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL EQUIV r. inter gar t . dergarten de Level T : lial SubjS n Teachers ichers... ipal eachers......... It Area Teacliers [24.OS] Q 3 16 6 Principal Admin -cance Counselor Assistant [24.12]... la Specialrst/Litrarian il Personnel  ER :er  ER  SR intendent [2 : Central Of Specialists 6.02] 02 ]........ ice Perscnn AL CERTIFICATED STAFF 0 1 1 0 1 88 0 0 0 dent/Certificated Staff Ratio r 2 4 - 02]... is: c 6 to one 0 . 0 0 3.0 0 16.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1 . C V 0.00 0 . -0 2 1.80 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 27.82 /. Number of Number of media aides [26.02]: secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 ,0^ Full-Time Equivalency\nFull-Time Equivalency\n0.60 1.0010/6/1995 _ Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, -  -  - North Central Association] School: Franklin Elementary School School Year: 95-96 Principal: District: 1701 South Harrison Little Rock Pulaski (501)671-6380 Mrs. Ethel AR 72204 Dunbar Little Rock School District Superintendent: Dr. 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 J Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: Pk-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 73 39 K Half Day: 2: 6: 0 50 34 OTHER: Self-contained = 13 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7: 69 37 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 62 41 0 Total Enrollment: 418 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 77-78 90-91 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. $5-96 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers Kindergarten Teachers Grade Level Teachers Special Subject Area Teachers Principal [24.08] Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02] Pupil Personnel Specialists Superintendent [2.02] OTHER: CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: OTHER: . . . * TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 4 4 16 8  1 1 1 1 4 1 88 0 0 0 129 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...10.12 4.00 4.00 16.00 8.00 1.00  * 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.50 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.32 to one S) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 2 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 2.0010/3/1995 p aye: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementarv Level (FORH ESA) =[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990 , North Central Association]-- S c h o o1 Year: 9 5 - 9 6 School: Fulbright Elementary School 300 Pleasant Valley Drive Little Rock Pulaski (501\u0026gt;228-3080 AR 72212 Principal: Hr. Mac Huffman District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: Dr. 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Governance P Henry Williams (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: K-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5 : 0 76 75 K Half Day\nOTHER\nUngraded 2\n6 : 6 0 72 83 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7 : 0 64 0 K Full Bay: 4 : 8\n7 9 65 0 Total Enrollment: 520 3) School year in which the school was first accredited..... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit............. 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 81-82 88-89 99-00 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [ 24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [ 24.08 ]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [ 26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]........................ 0 4 19 7 1 1 OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: Central Office TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 1 4 1 88 0 0 0 128 0.00 4.00 19.00 6.40 1.00 1.00 1 . 50 1 . 00 2 . 90 0.02 1.80 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 38.62 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02 ] . ..13.46 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]\n9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 2 Full-Time Eguivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.60 2.00 I J 10/2/1995 Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ===[A compilation of tteerrmmss,. CCooppyyrriigghhtt 11999900,, North Central Association]==== School: Garland Elementary School School Year: 95-96 Principal: 3615 West 25th Little Rock Pulaski 501)671-6275 AR 72204 Mr. Lionel Ward District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. HENRY WILLIAMS Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5 : 0 37 32 K Half Day: 2: 6 : OTHER: SP:07 0 30 38 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7 : 7 18 35 0 K Full Day: 4 : 8: 29 29 0 Total Enrollment: 255 3) School year in which the school was -first accredited..... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit............. 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 78-79 92-93 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06 ]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................. Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................. Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02].. 1 2 12 10 1 0 1 1 2 1 88 0 0 0 119 .8.49 1.00 2.00 12.00 8.20 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.02 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 0 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.00 1.40 9/29/1995 , Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, \" '  North Central Association]=== School: School Year: 95-96 Geyer Springs Elementary School 5240 Mabelvale Pike Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)570-4160 Mrs. Julie AR 72209 Davenport District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: Dr, 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5 : OTHER: 0 0 42 26 K Half Day: 2 : 6: = 0 0 45 43 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7 : 36 35 0 K Full Day: 4 : 8 : 40 42 0 Total Enrollment: 309 3) School year in which the school was first accredited..... 4) School year'of the most recent NCA team visit............. 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.' ' 80-81 89-90 95-96 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]............................. Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................. Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12] Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02] ........................ OTHER: Central Office Personnel OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 2 2 11 4 1 0 1 1 2 1 88 0 0 0 113 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...13.42 2.00 2.00 11.00 2.30 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.02 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 1.009/28/1995 Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== School: School Year: 95-96 Gibbs Magnet Elementary School 1115 West 16th Street Little Rock AR 72206. Pulaski Principal: (501)324-2490 Mrs. Betty Raper District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. Henry Williams Governance: P {P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: K-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5 : 0 48 46 OTHER: K Half Day: 2 : 6 : = 0 0. 43 45 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7 : 0 43 0 K Full Day: 4: 8 : 40 40 0 Total Enrollment: 305 3) School year in which the school was first accredited..... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit............. 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 75-76 89-90 95-96 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: Central Office Personnel TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 0 2 12 12 1 1 1 1 0 1 88 0 0 0 119 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [ 24.02]...9.53 0.00 2.00 12.00 11.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 1 Full-Time Equivalency: 0.409/29/1995 Page- 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM -[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, ESA) North Central Association]==== School: Jefferson Elementary School School Year: 95-96 Principal: District: Superintendent: Governance: 2600 North McKinley Little Rock Pulaski (501)671-6281 Mrs. Frances AR 72207 Cawthon Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. Henry Williams P (P-Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: K-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5 : 0 62 'll OTHER: Ungraded K Half Day: 2 : 6: = 9 0 74 74 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7 : 0 73 0 K Full Day: 4 : 8: 60 72 0 Total Enrollment: 501 3) School year in which the school was first accredited..... 75-76 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit............. 90-91 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned... 95-96 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06 ]............................... Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02].. 0 3 18 4 1 1 2 1 5 1 88 0 0 0 124 .14.56 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 0.00 3.00 18.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 3.10 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.42 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.60 1.00I ^9/28/1995 Page: 1 of/ NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, - - - - - North Central Association^' School: Mabelvale Elementary School 9401 Mabelvale Cut-off Road School Year: 95-96 Principal: Mabelvale Pulaski 501)455-7420 Mrs. Tab AR 72103 Phillips District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: Dr. 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry- Williams Governance : P (P=Put)lic, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5 : 0 68 72 OTHER: DevSE 10 K Half Day: 2 : 6: = 10 0 60 54 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7 : 18 53 0 K Full Day: 4 : 8 : 57 60 0 Total Enrollment: 452 3) School year in which the school was first accredited. ... . . 81-82 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit 89-90 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 96-97 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06] ................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08] ............................. Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12] .. . . Guidance Counselor............................ Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................. Superintendent [2.02] ........................ OTHER: Central Office Personnel ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 1 3 17 8 1 1 1 1 3 1 88 0 0 0 125 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...12.41 1.00 3.00 17.00 7.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.90 0.02 1.80 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 36.42 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 2 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.60 2.009/29/1995 Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) =[A compilation of terms. Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== ==[terms, School: School Year: 95-96 Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary 907 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)324-2135 AR 72201 Mr. Tyrone Harris District: (501)324-2012 Superintendent: Mr. Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock AR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2] Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: OTHER: 0 86 51 K Half Day: 2: 6: = 0 0 56 48 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7: 71 68 0 K Full Day: 103 4: 8: 46 0 Total Enrollment: 529 3) School year in which the school was first accredited..... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit............. 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 93-94 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................. Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................. Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONEL TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 4 6 18 8 1 1 2 1 3 1 88 0 0 0 133 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...11.67 to one 4.00 6.00 18.00 7.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.32 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 2 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 1.00 2.00 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) J =F==[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== School: Meadowcliff Elementary School School Year: 95-96 Principal: 25 Sheraton Drive Little Rock Pulaski 501)570-4165 AR 72209 Mr. Jerry Worm District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: Dr. 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: K-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 62 54 OTHER: K Half Day: 2: 6: = 0 0 62 49 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7: 0 50 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 58 66 0 Total Enrollment: 401 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 74-75 89-90 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 95-96 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: Central Office Personnel TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF . 0 3 16 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 88 0 0 0 116 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...14.36 0.00 3.00 16.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.92 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.60 1.001 I / pr.) / 995 NCA Comillission on Schoo 13 Annual Reoorb Form f Of 11emen bar el jae: 1 of (. FORM .J ESA) = [A comp i. 1 at i on of terms C o p y r :i. g h t IRS 0 North Central AssociationS School Year\nS5 96 School 5 M c D AS r (n o 11 11 e m e n t a r chool Pr inc ip al : Di trict: Sup er i n t end ent: Governance: 1 '\u0026gt; Grad 1200 R e s e r v o i r Little Rock Pli 1 as k i 501)228-3072 Road AR 722a Mr , M i chae1  1i ver Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock C 501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr . P' included Enro 11ment Pr e- L\nHalf Das OTHER: Henry W i11i ams (F-Public in the by grade - 1 \" 0 69 I- N=Non-Publie) school: k Half Day: 0 Pr G-1 Full Days 3 : 0 71 0 Full Da y B A- n 8: 6(? 0 Total Enrollment: 491 School 4 ! c? 'lOO 1 Schoo 1 year year year in which of i n the mo wh ich the s t ' ' school recent w f i r s t NCA ts the next NCA S c im vi? team 6) Do a ]. 1 teachers have at leas planning time? CEA.063.. ly Pro POS ess i ona1 TION Statfinq: cred i ted visit t. . i s /b  t 200 minutes p\np1anned.. 97-93 week of F' r e k i n d e r g a r t e n hers u K i nd er g ar ten Teachers Grade Level Teachers Spec ial Sub j ec t Area Teachers.. Principal C 2A.08 3 ..... Asst Principal/Admin A istant C2A.123 Gu i dance Counselor.. Media Specialist/Librarian C26.0E3.... Pupil Personnel Specialists........... Superintendent C2.023 NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EGUIVALENCY 0 OTHER\nOTHER: OTHER: Central Office OTHER: TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 18 A .1 1 2 1 3 1 no 0 0 0 122 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio CEA.023...1A.78 to one 3) 9) Mumber Number of media aides C26.023: of secretaries/clerks C2A.1A3: 1 8 Ful1-Time Ful1-T ime 0. C)0 3.00 18.00 3.40 1 .00 1.00 1 .50 1.00 0.02 1 .80 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.22 Equivalency: Equivalency\n0.60 2.0010/2/1995 on Schools Annual Report Form for [A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, Page: 1 of 5 Elementary Level (FORM ESA) North Central Association]==== School: Mitchell Elementary School 2410 South Bc'ttery Little Rock School Year: 95-96 Principal: Pulaski (501)324-2415 Dr. Marjorie Bassa AR 72206 District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: school: PK-6 1: 5: OTHER: 10 0 38 38 K Half Day : 2: 6: 10 0 39 35 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7: 16 25 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 40 24 0 Total Enrollment: 265 3) School year in which the 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit school was first accredited c \\  ----------* ueaill Visit............................................ 5)_School_year_xn_which the next NCA team visit is planned. 81-82 94-95 00-01 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes planning time? [24.06]........... per week of Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers....... Kindergarten Teachers........ Grade Level Teachers............. Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]...................'   Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.121... Guidance Counselor........ Media Specialist/Librarian Pupil Personnel Specialists Superintendent [2.02].. OTHER: --- [26.02] OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: ASST. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNELL TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF Student/Certificated Staff 1 2 12 7 1 0 1 1 4 1 1 88 0 0 119 Ratio [24.02] ...9.27 to one 1.00 2.00 12.00 5.60 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.10 0.02 0.08 1.80 0.00 0.00 28.60 3) 9) Number Number of media aides [26.02]: of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 1.001 . NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ===[A compilation of terms. Copyright 1990, North Central Association]= School Year: 95-96 School\nOtter Creek Elementary School 16000 Otter Creek Parkway Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)455-7440 Mrs. Carolyn AR 72209 Teeter District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Dr. Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: K-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 48 61 OTHER: K Half Day: 2 : 6 : = 0 0 45 56 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7 : 0 48 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 40 41 0 Total Enrollment: 339 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 80-81 94-95 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 99-00 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02 ]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 0 2 13 5 1 0 1 1 2 1 88 0 0 0 114 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...13.34 0.00 2.00 13.00 4.40 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.42 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 1.00'0/2/1995 NCA Commission on = = = = [A compZZa.t-ion o^ , \u0026lt;36 5 Schools Annual Repozt Fozm [foz Elementazy Level (FORM ESA( \"L -^2-..-:, Copyzlght 1 990,    - No^th. Co-nt^a^ Association J = = = = Zch-ool : 'tlnclpal: School 7eaz: 95-96 Pulasizl Heights Elementazy School 319 Nozth Pine Stzeet Little Roch AR 72205 Pulasizl ( 50 1 ( 67 1 -6290 Ms. Lllllc Ca.zte.Jt yistzlct: Little Rocb. ScHool Dlstzlct S10 IjJest Mazizizam '. ape-zlntendent: Little Rociz (501(324-2000 AR 72201 . ove.znance: Dz. He.nzy LJlttlams P (P^Pttbllc, N = Non-Pabtlc j I Gzades Included In the scHool: I Enzollment by yzade - K-6 Pze-K Hal/i Day: 1 : 5: 0 60 49 OTHER: K Hal/^ Day: 2: 6: 0 67 5 1 0 Pze-K Full Day: 3: 7 : 0 69 0 K Full Day: 4: S: 57 54 0 otal EnzoHmen.t: 407 j School yeaz In uhlch the school mas [flzst acczedlted  j School yeaz o/, the most zecent NCA team visit....... .) School yeaz In mhlch the next NCA team S2-S3 SS-S9 flslt Is planned... 9 5-9 6 1 Do all teacHezs Have at least 200 minutes planning time? [24.06]................... pez ujeek. o-6 I Pzo/^esslonal Sta/,[lng: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQ,UIOALENCV zelzlndezgazten TeacHezs.................... Indezgazten TeacHezs....................... zade Level Teachezs........................  pedal Subject Azea Teachezs.............. zlnclpal [24.OS]............................ sst Pzlnclpal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... uldance Counseloz.................... iedla Specialist/Llbzazlan [26.02] upll Pezsonnel Specialists upezlntendent [2.02]...... THER: THER: THER: THER: Centzal O/y/jlce Pezsonnel OTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF tudent/Ceztl[,lcated Sta^^, Ratio [24.02].. 0 3 1 5 3 1 0 1 1 3 1 SS 0 0 0 1 1 6 .14.63 to one ) Numbez o[) media aides [26.02]: ] Numbez o/) seczetazles/clezk.s [24.14]: 1 1 0.00 3.00 15.00 3.00 1 . 00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.02 1 . SO 0.00 0.00 0.00 27 . S2 Fttll-Tlme Eqaloalency: Ttill-Tlme Equ.lvalency : 0.60 1 . 00i^6s^6ommission on c chools Annual Report Form for Elementary LeveT^t^oAM'^isX) ==[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]= = = School Year\n95-96 c chool: Rockefeller Elementary School 700 East 17th Little Rock Pulaski (501)324-2385 AR 72206 Principal: Ms o . Anne Mangan District: Little Rock School District o 10 West Markham Superintendent: Dr. Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry Wil 1iams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1 : 5: 0 54 39 K Half Day: 2: 6: 0 42 36 Pre-K Full Day: 7: 92 47 0 K Full Day: 8: 59 40 0 OTHER: 0 Total Enrollment: 409 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NC team visit 81-82 89-90 5) School year in which the next NGA team visit is planned.. 95-96 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]............................... 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PERSON e EQUI LENCY Prekindergarten Teachers Kindergarten Teachers... Grade Level Teachers.... Special Subject Area Teachers Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]....................... 5 3 15 g 1 1 1 1 2 OTHER\nOTHER: CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL OTHER\nOTHER: TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 88 0 0 0 126 5.00 3.00 15.00 7.00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .80 0.02 1 .80 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.62 Student/Certificated taff Ratio [24.02]...10.87 to one p ) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 2 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 2.0010/2/1995 Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ====[A compilation of terms. Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== ===[A terms, School: Romine Elementary School 3400 Romine Road School Year: 95-96 Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)228-3086 AR 72204 Ms. Sharon Davis District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Dr. Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 45 20 OTHER: 11 K Half Day: 2: 6: = 11 0 46 32 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7: 32 37 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 52 26 0 Total Enrollment: 301 3) School year in which the school was first accredited..... 4) School year, of the most recent-NCA team visit............ 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 76-77 92-93 98-99 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................. Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................. Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: Central Office Personnel TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02].. 2 3 11 8 1 1 1 1 0 1 88 0 0 0 117 .10.27 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 2.00 3.00 11.00 7.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.32 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 1.0010/2/1995 Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ===[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]== School Year: 95-96 School: Rightsell Elementary School 911 West 19th Street Little Rock Pulaski (501)324-2430 AR 72206 Principal: Ms . Sharon Brooks District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: Dr. 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 TkR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1 : 5 : 0 30 39 OTHER: K Half Day: 2 : 6 : = 0 0 20 20 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7 : 18 37 0 . K Full Day: 4 : 8 : 29 26 0 Total Enrollment: 219 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 76-77 92-93 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 98-99 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: Central Office Personnel ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 1 2 10 10 1 0 1 1 0 1 88 0 0 0 115 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02] . . . 8.68 1.00 2.00 10.00 7.40 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.22 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02] : 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 1.001/1/1980 Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]== School: Terry Elementary School 10800 Mara Lynn Drive School Year: 95-96 Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)228-3093 Mrs. Gwendolyn AR 72211 Zeigler District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Superintendent: Dr. Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: K-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 71 73 OTHER: K Half Day: 2: 6: = 0 0 69 82 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7: 0 98 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 75 68 0 Total Enrollment: 536 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit...J... 75-76 90-91 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 95-96 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 0 4 19 8 1 1 2 1 0 1 88 0 0 0 125 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...15.22 0.00 4.00 19.00 5.90 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.22 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.141: 1 2 to one Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.60 2.00I i 9/29/1995 n = iTrtT.  Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ---[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]=== School: V/akefield Elementary School School Year: 95-96 Principal: District: 75 Westminister Drive Little Rock Pulaski (501)570-4190 Mrs. Levanna AR 72209 Wilson Little Rock School District Superintendent: Dr. 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: P (P-Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: K-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5 : 0 74 63 OTHER: K Half Day: 2 : 6 : = 0 0 61 61 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7 : 0 48 0 K Full Day: 4 : 8 : 57 65 0 Total Enrollment: 429 3) School year in vzhich the school was first accredited.... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit............. 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 77-78 92-93 98-99 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06 ]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................. Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [ 26.02 ]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................. Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: Central Office Personnel ..... OTHER: OTHER: TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 0 3 17 6 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 88 0 0 118 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [ 24.02 ]. ..14.63 0 . 00 3.00 17.00 4.50 1.00 0 . 00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 29.32 to one R ) Number of modis aide r 26.0? 1  1 V u 1 1 - T i m e P '711 1 A 1 \u0026lt;= n nI .-a.. .  NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM I ====[A compilation of terms. Copyright 1990, North Central Association I ESA) North Central Association]==== School: School Year: 95-96 Booker T. Washington Elementary 115 West 27th Street Principal\nLittle Rock Pulaski (501)324-2470 AR 72206 Ms, Karen Buchanan District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Dr. Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: (P-Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 0 95 5: 106 OTHER: K Half Day: 2: 6 : 0 84 85 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7 : 53 79 0 K Full Day: 4 : 8 : 79 70 0 P 0 Total Enrollment: 651 3) School year in which the school was first accredited... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit............. 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned..' 74-75 93-94 97-98 6) Do-all teachers have at least 200 minutesper week of planning time? [24.06 ]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................. Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02 ]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................. Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER Central Office Staff TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 3 4 25 18 1 1 2 2 3 1 88 0 0 0 148 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02].,.10.96 3.00 4.00 25.00 17.10 1 . 00 1 . 00 2.00 1 . 50 3.00 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.0 0_ 0 .' 0 0 59.42 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 2 to one Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 1.00 2.001 J 10/2/1995 NCA Commission on schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level^!FORMESA) = = = =rA comm at nn -=-[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== School: School Year: 95-96 J. L. Watson Elementary School Principal: 7000 Valley Drive Little Rock Pulaski (501)570-4195 AR 72209 MS. THERESA COURTNEY District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. HENRY P WILLIAMS Governance: (P=Puhlic, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PRE-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 69 58 OTHER: K Half Day: 2: 6: 0 63 46 0 Pre-K Full Day: 3: 7 : 36 55 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 60 66 0 Total Enrollment: 453 3) School year in which the school was first accredited.... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit............. 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned^ 75-76 92-93 98-99 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers....................... Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]....................... OTHER: Central Office Personnel ..... OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02].. 2 3 17 6 1 1 1 1 0 1 88 0 0 0 121 .14.24 to one 3) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 1.00 3.00 17.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.82 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.06 1.00777271995 Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ==[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]== School: School Year: 95-96 Western Hills Elementary School 4901 Western Hills Avenue Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)570-4175 AR 72204 Mr. Scott Morgan District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Dr. Little Rock (501)324-2100 AR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: K-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 47 49 OTHER: K Half Day: 2 : 6 : = 0 0 44 39 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7 : 0 49 0 K Full Day: 4 : 8: 40 48 0 Total Enrollment: 316 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 74-75 94-95 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 99-00 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]....................... OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: Central Office Personnel TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 0 2 12 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 88 0 0 0 111 0.00 2.00 12.00 2.50 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.72 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...13.91 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02] : 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 1.00j 10/2/1995 NCA Commission r, 1, Page: 1 of 5 ____. Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, (FORM ESA) North Central Association]==== School: Williams Magnet School 7301 Evergreen School Year: 95-96 Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)671-6363 Mrs. Mary AR 72207 Menking District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: 2) Enrollment by grade - K-6 Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 73 74 OTHER: K Half Day: 2 : 6: 0 75 72 0 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7: 0 72 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 60 81 0 Total Enrollment: 507 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team 5) School year in which the next visit 75-76 92-93 NCA team visit is planned.. 97-98 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06] Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers..............\\   Grade Level Teachers................... Special Subject Area Teachers........ Principal p4.08]...................  '* Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].. Guidance Counselor........................ '  Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists........... Superintendent [2.02]....................... OTHER: CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL.'.\" OTHER: OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF Student/Certificated Staff Ratio 0 3 18 8 1 1 2 1 4 1 88 0 0 0 127 [24.02]...13.32 to one 0.00 3.00 18.00 7.50 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 3.50 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.07 S) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 2 Full-Time Eguivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.50 2.00i 9/30/1995 wra p   . Page: 1 of 5 \"5 Ummiss\nan Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) compilation of terms. Copyright 1990, North Central A s s o c i a ti o n] ==== on 1990 chool : Wilson Elementary School School Year: 95-96 Principal: 4015 Stannus Little Rock Pulaski (501)570-4180 AR 72204 Mr . Franklin Davis District: Little Rock Superintendent: 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 chool District AR 72201 Dr . Henry Wiliams Gove rnance: P (P=Public, N=N0n-Pub1ic) 1) Grades included in the school: 2) Enrollment by grade - PK-6 Pre-K Half Day: 1 : 5 : OTHER: 25 0 62 28 K Half Day: 2 : 6 : = 25 0 60 44 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7 : 18 45 0 K Full Day: 4 : 8 : 55 48 0 Total Enrollment: 385 3) A) 5) chool year in which the school was first accredited chool year of the most recent NCA team visit chool year in which the next NCA team visit is planned'.' 74-75 90-91 95-96 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................. Y 7) Professional POSITION taffing: NUMBER OF PERSON FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teache Kindergarten Teachers. Grade Level Teachers.. r s Special Subject Area Teachers.................. Principal [24.08].................................... Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor......................... Media pecia 1ist/Librarian [26.02] Pupil Personnel Specialists Superintendent [2.02]....... OTHER: OTHER : OTHER: OTHER : Central Office Personnel TOTAL CERTIFICATED S Student/Certificated TAFF 1 3 13 8 1 0 1 1 3 1 88 0 0 0 120 taff Ratio [24.02]. . .13.18 1.00 3.00 13.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.40 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.22 to one 8) \u0026lt;5 \u0026gt; N 11 m h  r Number of media aides [26.02]: 1 ' r' 1 I* I * r -\u0026gt; /! Full-Time Equivalency: 0.5010/3/1995 Page: 1 of 5 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Elementary Level (FORM ESA) ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, - -    North Central Association]=== School: Woodruff Elementary School 3010 West Seventh Street School Year: 95-96 Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)671-6270 Mrs. Pat AR 72205 Higginbotham District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: PrK-6 2) Enrollment by grade - Pre-K Half Day: 1: 5: 0 30 22 OTHER: K Half Day: 2: 6: = 0 0 38 22 Pre-K Full Day: 3 : 7: 34 39 0 K Full Day: 4: 8: 39 23 0 Total Enrollment: 247 3) School year in which the school was first accredited..... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit............. 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.. 76-77 92-93 97-98 6) Do all teachers have at least 200 minutes per week of planning time? [24.06]................................ Y 7) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Prekindergarten Teachers.................... Kindergarten Teachers........................ Grade Level Teachers......................... Special Subject Area Teachers.............. Principal [24.08]............................ Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [24.12].... Guidance Counselor........................... Media Specialist/Librarian [26.02]........ Pupil Personnel Specialists................ Superintendent [2.02]........................ OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 2 2 9 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 88 0 0 0 109 Student/Certificated Staff Ratio [24.02]...12.59 2.00 2.00 9.00 1.10 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.02 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.62 to one 8) Number of media aides [26.02]: 9) Number of secretaries/clerks [24.14]: 1 1 Full-Time Equivalency: Full-Time Equivalency: 0.40 1.0010/6/1995 Page: 1 of 7 ==NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Middle School (FORM J)== ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== School Year: 95-96 School: Cloverdale Junior High School Principal: 6300 Hinkson Road Little Rock (501)570-4085 AR 72209 Ms. Cassandra Mason District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Governance: Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. Henry Williams (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: 7-9 2) Enrollment by grade - 0 199 OTHER: 0 190 6: 9: 0 213 Ung.SpEd 4: 7: P 5: 8: 4 Total Enrollment: 606 3) School year in which the school was first accredited... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit........... 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned 77-78 92-93 97-98 6) 7) 8) Number of days classes were in session last school year [32.04].... 178 Full-time equivalency of secretarial help assigned to school [34.10] 3.60 Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Superintendent [2.02]....................... Assistant Superintendent.................... Supervisor..................................... Principal [34.08a]........................... Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [34.08b-c]. Guidance Counselor [35.02]................. Media Specialist/Librarian [36.02] Classroom Teachers OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 1 4 30 1 2 2 1 49 0 0 0 0 0 90 Full-time equivalency of media aides [36.02]....... Student/professional staff ratio [34.02]............ Student/counselor ratio [35.02]...................... Teacher-counselor full-time equivalency [35.02].... 0.02 0.08 0.60 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 47.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.30 0.60 11.16 303.00 0.00 to one to one10/2/1995  Page: 1 of 7 ==NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Middle School (FORM J)== ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== School: Dunbar Junior High School School Year: 95-96 Principal: 1100 Wright Avenue Little Rock 324 2440 Ms. Linda Brown AR 72206 District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: Governance: 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. Henry Williams (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: 7-9 2) Enrollment by grade - 4: 7: 0 251 OTHER: 5: 8: 0 239 6: 9: 0 247 Total Enrollment: 737 3) School year in which the school was first accredited... 4) School year of the- most recent NCA team visit........... 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned 70-71 89-90 95-96 6) 7) 8) Number of days classes were in session last school year [32.04].... Full-time equivalency of secretarial help assigned to school [34.10] 3.00 Professional Staffing: 178 POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY P 0 Superintendent [2.02]....................... Assistant Superintendent.................... Supervisor..................................... Principal [34.08a]........................... Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [34.08b-c]. Guidance Counselor [35.02]................. Media Specialist/Librarian [36.02]........ Classroom Teachers........................... OTHER: GT SPECIALIST ..... OTHER: SPEECH THERAPIST(7520) ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 1 4 30 1 2 2 1 47 1 1 0 0 0 90 Full-time equivalency of media aides [36.02]....... Student/professional staff ratio [34.02]............ Student/counselor ratio [35.02]...................... Teacher-counselor full-time equivalency [35.02].... 0.02 0.08 0.60 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 46.20 1.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.30 0.60 13.57 368.50 0.00 to one to one10/5/1995 Page: 1 of 7 ==NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Middle School (FORM J)== ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== ( i } School: School Year: 95-96 Forest Heights Junior High School 5901 Evergreen Street Principal: Little Rock (501)671-6390 AR 72205 Mr. Duane Benage District: Little Rock School District Superintendent: 810 West Markham Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. Henry Williams Governance: (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: 7-9 2) Enrollment by grade - 4: 7: 0 239 OTHER: 5: 8: 0 221 special ed. 6: 9: 0 269 24 P Total Enrollment: 753 3) School year in which the school was first accredited... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit.......... 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned 72-73 92-93 97-98 8) 6) Number of days classes were in session last school year [32.04].... 178 7) Full-time equivalency of secretarial help assigned to school [34.101 3 00 ) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Superintendent [2.02]........................ Assistant Superintendent.................... Supervisor..................................... Principal [34.08a]........................... Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [34.08b-c]. Guidance Counselor [35.02].................. Media Specialist/Librarian [36.02]........ Classroom Teachers.......................... OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 1 4 30 1 2 2 1 57 0 0 0 0 0 98 Full-txme equivalency of media aides [36.02]....... Student/professional staff ratio [34.02]............ Student/counselor ratio [35.02].................. Teacher-counselor full-time equivalency [35.02].... 0.02 0.08 0.60 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 54.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.30 0.60 12.28 376.50 0.00 to one to one10/6/1995 Page: 1 of 7 ==NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Middle School (FORM J)== ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== School Year: 95-96 School: Henderson Junior High School Principal: 401 John Barrow Road Little Rock (501)228-3050 AR 72205 James Washington Mr. District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Dr. Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: (P=Puhlic, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: 7-9 2) Enrollment by grade - 4: 7 : 0 236 0 259 OTHER: special ed 6 : 9 : = 27 0 282 P 5 : 8 : Total Enrollment: 804 3) School year in which the school was first accredited... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....'...... 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned 69-70 89-90 95-96 6) Number of days classes were in session last school year [32.04].... 178 7) Full-time equivalency of secretarial help assigned to school [34.10] 4.00 8) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Superintendent [2.02]....................... Assistant Superintendent.................... Supervisor.................................... Principal [34.08a]........................... Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [34.08b-c]. Guidance Counselor [35.02].................. Media Specialist/Librarian [36.02]........ Classroom Teachers........................... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER\n..... OTHER: ..... TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 1 4 30 1 3 3 1 64 0 0 0 0 0 107 0.02 0.08 0.60 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.70 Full-time equivalency of media aides [36.02] Student/professional staff ratio [34.02].... Student/counselor ratio [35.02].............. 1.00 11.06 268.00 Teacher-counselor full-time equivalency [35.02].. . . 268.10 to one to one10/3/lyyb ==NCA Commi -TA Schools Annual Report Form for Middle School (FORM = = [A compilation of terms, Coovrieht 19QC1 n______ of terms. Copyright 1990, North Central Associationj- School: ,, School Year: 95-96 Horace Mann Magnet Junior High School 1000 East Roosevelt Principal\nLittle Rock (501)324-2450 Mrs. M. G. AR 72206 Lacey District\nLittle Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintend ent: Dr. Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=NQn-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: 2) Enrollment by grade - 7-9 4 : 7: 0 292 OTHER: 5: 8\n0 277 6\n9: = 0 0 273 Total Enrollment: 842 4? firsr^ccredited recent NCA team visit ) School year in which the ....... next NCA team visit is planned..... .. 71-72 . . 92-93 . . 97-98 6) Number of days classes were in session last equivalency of secretarial help 7) Full-time 8) Professional Staffing: school year [32.04].... 178 assigned to school [34.10] 4.00 POSITION .NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME equivalency Superintendent [2.02]... Assistant Superintendent Supervisor.............. Principal [34,08a]...' Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [34.08b-cl Guidance Counselor [35 02]  Media Specialist/Librarian [36.02] Classroom Teachers........ OTHER\nOTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER\nTOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 1 4 30 1 3 . 3 1 57 0 0 0 0 0 100 0.02 0.08 0.60 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 55.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.10 Full-time equivalency of media Student/professional staff ratio [34 02] Student/counselor ratio [35.02] Teacher-counselor full-time staf f aides [36.02] equivalency [35.02].... 1.00 13.14 280.67 0.00 to one to oneI 10/2/1995 ==NCA Commission Page: 1 of 7 Schools Annual Report Form for Middle School (FORM J)== [A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, - North Central Association]==== School: Mabelvale Junior High School School Year: 95-96 Principal: P.O. Box 187 Mabelvale (501)455-7400 AR 72103 MR. JAMES FULLERTON District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Superintendent: Dr. Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry P. Williams Governance: P (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: 2) Enrollment by grade - 7-9 4: 7: 0 152 5: 8: 0 157 OTHER: Special 6: 9: 0 169 13 Total Enrollment: 491 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned. .. 77-78 . .. 92-93 . . 97-98 6) Number of days classes -f-r were in session last school year [32.04].... 178 8 secretarial help assigned to school [34.10] 3.00 8) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Superintendent [2.02]........................ Assistant Superintendent................. Supervisor...........................  ' ...... Principal [34.08a]...........   Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [34.08b-c]. Guidance Counselor [35.02].................. Media Specialist/Librarian [36.02]........ Classroom Teachers................ OTHER: TRAVELING TEACHERS OTHER: SPEECH PATHOLOGIST OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 1 1 30 1 2 2 1 43 3 1 0 0 0 85 0.02 0.08 0.60 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 43.00 0.80 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 Full-time equivalency of media aides Student/professional staff ratio Student/counselor ratio [35.02]. Teacher-counselor full-time [34.02] [36.02] equivalency [35.02].... 0.60 9.63 245.50 0.00 to one to oneI i I Page: 1 of 7 10/2/1995 ==NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Middle School (FORM J)== ==[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== School: School Year: 95-96 Pulaski Heights Junior High School 401 North Pine Principal: Little Rock (501)671-6250 MRS. MONA AR 72205 BRIGGS District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Governance: 1 2 Dr. P Henry Williams (P=Public, N=Non-Public) Grades included in the school: 7-9 Enrollment by grade - 4: 7: 0 272 5: 8: 0 268 OTHER: Special Ed. 6: 9: 10 0 232 Total Enrollment: 782 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4 5 School year of the most recent NCA team visit.......... School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned 72-73 89-90 95-96 6 7 8 Number of days classes were in session last school Full-time equivalency of secretarial help assigned Professional Staffing: year [32.04].... to school [34.10] 1.00 178 POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Superintendent [2.02]........................ Assistant Superintendent.................... Supervisor..................................... Principal [34.08a]........................... Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [34.08b-c]. Guidance Counselor [35.02].................. Media Specialist/Librarian [36.02]........ Classroom Teachers........................... OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION TEACHER SPEECH THERAPIST COMPUTER LAB NURSE TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 1 1 30 1 2 2 1 56 1 1 1 1 0 98 0.02 0.08 0.60 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 54.00 1.00 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 63.10 Full-time equivalency of media aides [36.02] Student/professional staff ratio [34.02].... 36.02].......... 1.00 34.02]...............12.39 Student/counselor ratio [35.02].........................391.00 Teacher-counselor full-time equivalency [35.02]....385.00 to one to one10/4/1995 Page: 1 of 7 -=NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Middle School (FORM J)== ====[A compilation of terms. Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== School: Southwest Junior High School School Year: 95-96 Principal: 3301 South Bryant Little Rock (501)570-4070 AR 72204 MR. JOHNNY NEELEY District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Superintendent: Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Dr. Henry Williams Governance: (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: 7-9 2) Enrollment by grade - 0 200 5 : 8: 0 188 6 : 9: OTHER: CBI/SSLF-CONT. 0 212 14 4 : 7 : P Total Enrollment: 614 3) School year in which the school was first accredited... 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit.......... 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned 6) 7) 8) 69-70 88-89 95-96 Number of days classes were in session last school year [32.04].... 178 Full-time equivalency of secretarial help assigned to school [34.10] 3.00 Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Superintendent [2.02]........................ Assistant Superintendent.................... Supervisor..................................... Principal [34.08a]........................... Asst Principal/Admin Assistant [34.08b-c]. Guidance Counselor [35.02].................. Media Specialist/Librarian [36.02]........ Classroom Teachers........................... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... OTHER: ..... TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 1 4 30 1 2 2 1 47 0 0 0 0 0 88 0.02 0.08 0.60 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 44.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51. 50 4 Full-time equivalency of media aides [36.02] J Student/professional staff ratio [34.02] Student/counselor ratio [35.02] jTeacher-counselor full-time equivalency [35.02].... 0.60 11.92 307.00 0.60 to one to one9/29/1995^ Page: 1 of 7 ission on Schools Annual Report Form for Secondary Schools (FORM A) NCA C ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]--- School Year: 95-96 School: Central High School 1500 Park Street Little Rock Pulaski (501)324-2300 AR 72202 Principal: Mr. Rudolph Howard District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Superintendent: Dr. Little Rock (501)324-2000 Henry P. AR 72201 Williams Governance: (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: 2) Enrollment by grade - 10-12 7 : 10: 0 622 8: 11: 0 527 9 : 12: 0 389 P OTHER: Kindergart/SP = 49 Total Enrollment: 1587 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 23-24 94-95 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned... 99-00 6) Written statement of school philosophy and objectives? [1.02E]. 7) Year the statement was last reviewed [1.16]...................... 8) Number of days classes were in session last school year [42.04] 9) Total number of student clock hours last year [42.04 ]........... 10) Number of units credit required for graduation [42.06]......... Y 94-95 178 1068 20 11) Number of units of credit taught in grades 9-12 [42.02 - 43.18] Language Arts: Science: Math: Social Studies: Foreign Languages: 17.00 12.00 14.00 8.00 23.00 Art: Music: Humanities: Practical Arts: Health and PE: 4.00 8.00 2.00 31.00 1.00 OTHER: Metropolitan Vo Tech OTHER: OTHER: ROTC OTHER: Special Needs CREDITS: CREDITS: CREDITS: CREDITS: 39.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 Total units of credit offered and taught this school year [43.02] 167.00I on Page: 2 of 7 /I3) Annual Report Form for Secondary Schools (FORM A) of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== schools illation acts offered in alternate years [43.02] Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Superintendent [2.02].............. Assistant Superintendent........... Supervisor........................... Principal [44.02]................... Assistant Principal [44.04]....... Administrative Assistant........... Guidance Counselor [45.02]........ Media Specialist/Librarian [46.02] Classroom Teachers.................. OTHER: Metro Classroom Teachers OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: 1 4 30 1 4 0 5 2 92 18 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.08 0.60 1.00 4.00 0.00 5.00 2.00 86.60 3.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 157 102.90 r*  * * ~ ~ Full-time equivalency of media aides [46.02] Student/professional staff ratio [44.06].... Student/counselor ratio [45.02].............. 1.00 15.42 317.40 to one to one INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA PROGRAM [46.02 - 46.30] 14) Total number of volumes in the media center/library................. 15) Number of students that can be seated in the media center/library. Percent of students that can be seated in the media center/library 16) Total instructional media program/library expenditure last year... 17) School enrollment last year............................................. Per Pupil instuctional media program/library expenditure last year 19915 140 0.09 23516 1637 14.379/29/1995 Page: 1 of 7 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Secondary Schools (FORM A) ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== School Year\n95-96 School: J. A. Fair High School 13420 David O. Dodd Road Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)228-3100 AR 72210 Mr. William Broadnax District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Superintendent: Dr. Henry Williams Governance: (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: 10-12 2) Enrollment by grade - 7 : 10 : 0 338 8 : 11 : 0 243 0 279 OTHER: Kindergarten 15 P 9 : 12\nTotal Enrollment: 875 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 83-84 90-91 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned... 96-97 6) Written statement of school philosophy and objectives? [1.02E]. 7) Year the statement was last reviewed [1.16] ...................... 8) Number of days classes were in session last school year [42.04] 9) Total number of student clock hours last year [42.04].......... 10) Number of units credit required for graduation [42.06]......... Y 95-96 178 1068 20 11) Number of units of credit taught in grades 9-12 [42.02 Language Arts\nScience: Math: Social Studies: Foreign Languages: 43.18] 10.00 9.00 10.00 6.00 8.00 Art: Music: Humanities: Practical Arts: Health and PE: 4.00 5.00 0.00 22.50 1.50 OTHER: Metropolitan OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: CREDITS: CREDITS: CREDITS: CREDITS: 39.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total units of credit offered and taught this school year [43.02] 115.00\u0026gt;5 Page: 2 of 7 4 .imission on Schools Annual Report Form for Secondary Schools (FORM A) compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== / Subjects offered in alternate years [43.02] 13) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Superintendent [2.02] .............. Assistant Superintendent.......... Supervisor........................... Principal [44.02] ................... Assistant Principal [44.04]....... Administrative Assistant........... Guidance Counselor [45.02] ........ Media Specialist/Librarian [46.02] Classroom Teachers.................. OTHER: METROPOLITAN OTHER: PARAPROFESSIONALS OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: , 1 4 30 1 3 0 3 1 58 18 3 0 0 0 0.02 0.08 0.06 1.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 57.00 3.60 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 122 71.76 Full-time equivalency of media aides [46.02] Student/professional staff ratio [44.06].... Student/counselor ratio [45.02].............. 1.00 12.19 291.67 to one to one INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA PROGRAM [46.02 46.30] 14) Total number of volumes in the media center/library................... 15) Number of students that can be seated in the media center/library... Percent of students that can be seated in the media center/library.. 16) Total instructional media program/library expenditure last year.... 17) School enrollment last year............................................... Per Pupil instuctional media program/library expenditure last year.. 10325 125 0.14 12764 917 13.9210/10/1995 Page: 1 of 7 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Secondary Schools (FORM A) ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association] ===== School: Hall High School 6700 \"H\" Street Little Rock Pulaski AR 72205 School Year: 95-96 Principal: 501-671-6200 Ms. Gayle B. Bradford District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Superintendent: Dr. Little Rock 324-2000 AR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: (P=Public, N=Non-Public) 1) Grades included in the school: 10-12 2) Enrollment by grade - 7: 10 : 0 340 8: 11\n0 294 9: 12 : 0 277 OTHER: KINDERGARTEN 16 P Total Enrollment: 927 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 57-58 89-90 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned... 95-96 6) Written statement of school philosophy and objectives? [1.02E]. 7) Year the statement was last reviewed [1.16]...................... 8) Number of days classes were in session last school year [42.04] 9) Total number of student clock hours last year [42.04]........... 10) Number of units credit required for graduation [42.06]......... Y 94-95 178 1068 20 11) Number of units of credit taught in grades 9-12 [42.02 Language Arts: Science: Math: Social Studies: Foreign Languages: OTHER: RESOURCE OTHER: METRO OTHER: OTHER: 14.00 10.50 12,00 7.00 15.00 Art: Music: Humanities: Practical Arts: Health and PE: 3.50 10.00 0.00 19.50 1.00 43.18] CREDITS: CREDITS: CREDITS: CREDITS: 8.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 Total units of credit offered and taught this school year [43.02] 139.5010/10/1995 Page: 2 of 7 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Secondary Schools (FORM A) ===== [A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association] ==== 12) Subjects offered in alternate years [43.02] NONE 13) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Superintendent [2.02].............. Assistant Superintendent.......... Supervisor........................... Principal [44.02]................... Assistant Principal [44.04]....... Administrative Assistant.......... Guidance Counselor [45.02]........ Media Specialist/Librarian [46.02] Classroom Teachers.................. OTHER: HEARING SPECIALIST OTHER: SPEECH THERAPIST OTHER: METRO OTHER: OTHER: 1 4 30 1 3 0 3 1 62 1 1 18 0 0 0.02 0.08 0.60 1.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 58.80 0.08 0.50 3.60 0.00 0.00 TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 125 71.68 Full-time equivalency of media aides [46.02] Student/professional staff ratio [44.06].... Student/counselor ratio [45.02].............. 1.00 12.93 309.00 to one to one 14) 15) INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA PROGRAM [46.02 46.30] 16) 17) Total number of volumes in the media center/library................ Number of students that can be seated in the media center/library. Percent of students that can be seated in the media center/library Total instmctional media program/library expenditure last year. . . School enrollment last year............................................. Per Pupil instuctional media program/library expenditure last year 17983 223 0.24 10882 1013 10.74, Page: 1 of 7 .-^^^nimission on Schools Annual Report Form for Secondary Schools (FORM A) compilation of terms. Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== hool: John L. McClellan High School 9417 Geyer Springs' Road School Year: 95-96 incipal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)570-4100 AR 72209 Mr. Jodie Carter strict: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street perintendent: Dr. Little Rock 501-324-2000 AR 72201 '/ernance: Henry Williams {P=Public, N=Non-Public) Grades included in the school: 10-12 Enrollment by grade - 7 : 10: 0 353 8: 11: 0 285 9: 12 : OTHER: Kindergarten 0 245 20 P tai Enrollment: 903 School year in which the school was first accredited...... 66-67 School year of the most recent NCA team visit.............. 92-93 School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned.'97-98 I Written statement of school philosophy and objectives? [1.02B]. I Year the statement was last reviewed [1.16]..................... I Number of days classes were in session last school year '[42^4] Total number of student clock hours last year [42.04] Number of units credit required for graduation [42.06 ] . Y 09-95 178 1068 20 Number of units of credit taught in grades 9-12 [42.02 - 43.18] Language Arts: Science: Math: Social Studies: oreign Languages: 17.00 7.50 12.00 6.50 15.00 OTHER: COMPUTER SCIENCE Art: Music: Humanities: Practical Arts: Health and PE: 6.00 6.00 0.00 45.00 4.00 OTHER: OTHER: Metro VoTech Reading: OTHER: Spec. Ed. and CBI: CREDITS: CREDITS: CREDITS: CREDITS: 0.00 39,00 0.00 18.00 al units of credit offered and taught this school year [43.02] 176.00/2/1995 Page: 2 of 7 A Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Secondaryschools (FORM A) =-[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== ) Subjects offered in alternate years [43.02] ) Professional Staffing: POSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY perintendent [2.02].............. sistant Superintendent.......... pervisor........................... incipal [44.02]................... sistant Principal [44.04]....... ministrative Assistant........... idance counselor [45.02]........ dia Specialist/Librarian [46.02] assroora Teachers.................. 4ER: lER: 3ER: 4ER: lER: SPEECH THERAPIST METROPOLITAN SCHOOL NURSE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR CURRICULUM COORDINATOR 1 4 30 1 3 0 3 1 67 1 18 1 1 1 0.02 0.08 0.06 1.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 67.00 0.05 3.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 132 81,81 Ll-time equivalency of media aides [46.02] ident/professional staff ratio [44.06].... ident/counselor ratio [45.02]............. 1.00 11.04 301.00 to one to one INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA PROGRAM [46.02 - 46.30] ! Total number of volumes in the media center/library................... I Number of students that can be seated in the media center/library. Percent of students that can be seated in the media center/library. ' Total instructional media program/library expenditure last year. School enrollment last year..................................... Per Pupil instuctional media program/library expenditure last year.. 14580 120 0.13 13500 891 15.15 i9^27/1995 Page: 1 of 7 NCA Commission on Schools Annual Report Form for Secondary Schools (FORM A) ====[A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central Association]==== School: School Year: 95-96 Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School 2501 Barrow Road Principal: Little Rock Pulaski (501)228-3000 AR 72204 Mr. Junious Babbs District: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Superintendent: Dr. Little Rock (501)324-2000 AR 72201 Henry Williams Governance: (^pspublic, N=Non-Public) P 1) Grades included in the school: 10-12 2) Enrollment by grade - 7: 10: 0 302 8: 11: 0 268 OTHER: kindergarten 9: 12: 0 261 19 Total Enrollment: 850 3) School year in which the school was first accredited 4) School year of the most recent NCA team visit....... 71-72 90-91 5) School year in which the next NCA team visit is planned... 96-97 6) Written statement of school philosophy and objectives? [1.02E]. 7) Year the statement was last reviewed [1.16]...................... 8) Number of days classes were in session last school year [42.04] 9) Total number of student clock hours last year [42.04]........... 10) Number of units credit required for graduation [42.06]......... Y 19-95 178 1068 20 11) Number of units of credit taught in grades 9-12 [42.02 - 43.18] Language Arts: \" * * Science: Math: Social Studies: Foreign Languages: OTHER: metro OTHER: OTHER: Dance OTHER: NJROTC 17.00 11.00 12.00 7.00 11.00 Art: Music: Humanities: Practical Arts: Health and PE: 7.00 10.00 0.00 45.50 2.00 CREDITS: CREDITS: CREDITS: CREDITS: 24.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 Total units of credit offered and taught this school year [43.02] 152.50Page: 2 of 7 NCA Commission on Schools]Annual Report Form for Secondary Schools (FORM A) = = = = [A compilation of terms, Copyright 1990, North Central ___ 12) Subjects offered in alternate years [43.02] 13) Professional Staffing\nPOSITION NUMBER OF PERSONS FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY Superintendent [2.02].............. Assistant Superintendent.......... Supervisor........................... Principal [44.02]................... Assistant Principal [44.04]....... Administrative Assistant.......... Guidance Counselor [45.02]........ Media Specialist/Librarian [46.02] Classroom Teachers.................. OTHER: Speech Therapist OTHER: Metro OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: 1 4 30 1 3 0 3 1 61 1 18 0 0 0 0.02 0.08 0.60 1.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 60.20 0.50 3.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL CERTIFICATED STAFF 123 73.00 Full-time equivalency of media aides [46.02] Student/professional staff ratio [44.06].... Student/counselor ratio [45.02].............. 1.60 11.64 283.33 to one to one INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA PROGRAM [46.02- 46.30] 14) Total number of volumes in the media center/library....... . .......... 15) Number of students that can be seated in the media center/library... Percent of students that can be seated in the media center/library.. 16) Total instructional media program/library expenditure last year..... 17) School enrollment last year.......... . . .............\n        Per Pupil instuctional media program/library expenditure last year.. 17313 143 0.17 22139 794 27.88 juituliotw jU'cllioeiut __I THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1996 I IMIr\u0026gt; Dr.z-U Mn.a State educators will cut no slack for Dunbar teacher whos uncertified BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazetla Educalion Writer State education officials say they wont extend the deadline for Little Rock teacher Jerry Cook to get needed college hours to continue teaching gifted English at Dunbar Magnet Junior High We have no alternative but to address the issue with the school board, Superintendent Henry Williams said about the School. . As a result, school district offi- denial, cials must choose between re- turning Cook to Dunbar and ac- lx- x cepting a probationary rating this leery of taking a probationary ratyear from the state or denying ing from the state this year be- pleas from students and parents cause a second probationary rat- who want the popular teacher ing next year - even for an unre- hack at Dunbar lated violation  could result in back at Dunbar. .............. Dunbars loss of state accredita- We have no alternative but to address the issue with the school tion. board, Little Rock Superinten- dent Henry Williams said to losing accreditation, Ander- Wednesday about the state denial. Williams said he would be We dont want to get too close Williams reluctant to recommend returning Cook to Dunbar. Dr. 'Victor Anderson, assistant superintendent for secondary ed- \"cation. said distri-'t officials are son said. Cook is a former Texas superintendent who taught English to Dunbars gifted education students until Jan. 16. That is when district administrators trans- f.rred Cook to a Forest Heights I ,Iunior High, where he teaches a titled learning founda- course tions. Cook holds a state certificate in social studies but lacks nine college credit hours for an English certificate. Cook had two years to get the college hours but didn't, at least partly because he believed the district had laid him off and he would not need them after the district sent some teachers warnings of possible layoffs. But he was rehired. Parents and students protested Cooks transfer from Dunbar last month by holding a rally at the state Education Department and bv explaining the problem to the Little Rock School Board at a spe- cial meeting. The board voted to ask the state Education Department to give Cook an extension to complete the course work and to reinstate him at Dunbar. In a letter to Williams on Fri- See TEACHER, Page 8B Teacher Dunbar holds NCA accreditation but, for the second straight year, got an NCA warning belt had more than four not certified cause  Continued from Page 1B   day, Gene Wilhoit, director of the teachere^ who w^^ general education division oi the state Department of Education, r^ S to the waiver. WilhoU -i\u0026lt;i SSd3K:Xle__,, in the classes they teach. There is no third warning, said Bob Maddox, coordinator of ,.urd the desired certificate^ wei returned to Dunbar. But if deMSSKSS! by - Dunbar has addftional viol^ions placing teachers who lacked certification or accepting a probationary rating from the state lor the rest of the school year. niinhor ic next year, the school will lose its NCA accreditation. Dunbar is not the only Little Rock school that has warnings from the NCA. Hall High, Medel D^b^ is accredited by the ^nithe state but has been issued citations Ian H g gjitej with state because five teachers there ack n orft^^^J^^Xccredited certification for the courses th y  Y warnings teach. Unlike Cook, those teacher by the NCA but nave still have time to acquire the ho^. each Jom the nla .  dericiencle. Besides state accreditation, Little Rock schools seek accredi- tea^he^r^cem tation each year by the North j^agnet High each have Central Association, a' regional Parmew accreditation association oper f excessive teacher violations, j ing in 19 states.\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_767","title":"Quarterly update reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Quarterly update reports"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/767"],"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":["12 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\nSubmitted to the Office of Desegregation and Joshua Intervenors\nMEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Ann Linda LRSD Quarterly Status Reports August 2, 2002 Attached is the LRSD Unitary Status 2002 hearing exhibit list of Quarterly Status Reports. We did not receive the reports prior to receiving them as exhibits. The only quarterly reports logged are M-to-M Quarterly Attendance Reports.Lpjo 3. Sample pages from the 2001-02 Middle School (Grades 6-8) Curriculum Catalog published for principals, counselors, registrars, and department chairs or team leaders (includes District mission statement, middle school mission statement, directive to principals about the construction of the master schedule including an emphasis on enrollment in Pre-AP courses, and the Placement Criteria for v Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses. ) \" / AfjEopy of the 2000-01 High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection '' and Graduation Requirements (the first such publication in LRSD). y72- 5. Sample pages from the 2001 -02 High School Student and Parent Guide .to Graduation Requirements and Course Selections (includes letter to all LRSD high school students with advice about taking challenging courses, making no excuses for not learning, choosing a Career Focus of interest, taking all the tests seriously. and getting involved in co/extra-curricular activities and a copy of the Districts graduation policy and regulations). 773 6- Sample pages from the 2001-02 High School (Grades 9-12) Curriculum Catalog published for principals, counselors, registrars, and department chairs (includes Instructional Division mission, directive to principals relating to the construction of the master schedulewith emphasis on student enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses, copies of the policy and regulations relating to Pre-AP and AP courses, and Placement Criteria for Pre-AP and AP courses). / Exhibit No/^ Summary of Assessment/Evaluation Activities by LRSD. Exhibit No.(^ Quarterly Status Report to LRSD Cabinet, April 2000. Exhibit No. Quarterly Status Report to LRSD Cabinet, June 2000. Exhibit No. Quarterly Status Report to LRSD Cabinet, November 2000. Exhibit No.^ Exhibit No. yyy Exhibit No.^^ Quarterly Status Report to LRSD Cabinet, February 2000. Quarterly Status Report to LRSD Cabinet, April 2001. Quarterly Status Report to LRSD Cabinet, June 2001. y77 y 7? Exhibit No.^: y?/ Exhibit No. VFZ. Exhibit No.^ LRSD .Assessment Notebook, August 2000. ECOE/ACSIP Feedback Report 1999. ECOE/ACSIP Feedback Report 2000. yO Exhibit No.(pp ECOE/ACSIP Feedback Report 2001. 38nvY . OU. JUMH w whlklh h m - TTrT XIT* 'f rT^f\\ T\u0026gt; A TTTT JUUiN VV. VVAAjCJX9 X ax'-!.* Attorney At Law 1723 Bko-adwat Little Sock, Aix-utSAS 72206 TL?nOw (uClj o7437uo PAY /ems \u0026lt;3*74.41 fi7 NO.382 P.2 JOHNW. WALKEK 5HAW.N UHiUXi 01' OU'u'NbtiL 052?'' VaXtpvov d a DOmV/.McHmY 32x0 nXMUt-fidUN Ku.w Lwlp Boor. .\u0026lt;uiKANSA8 72210 Via Fatsiiniie-447-7flG5 November 30, 2004 PsONt: (501) 372-3426  Rcc (50^ 372-3429 I i Dr. Karen. DeJamette Director, PRE 3Gol Suuihrulaski Littie Rock, AK 72206 Dear Dr. DeJamette\nTz^cU? I am in receipt of the LRSD Quarterly Update dated December 1,2004 to ODM and , Enclosed therein, is a letter to vni, rvr. Pos? dtitcd November 11 2004 indicatinff ULUXk XXV X' V k.t_t r* iiifk.iii I t._iL\u0026gt;^..^_ . . . . .. provide a copy ui ini.s ducuiucju to uxc as 'well. TJpdst?? you ViwHHr Finally, I further note that I have not received a response to my letter to you of November 16.2004. To date, I have not been involved in any initial/preliminary discussions nor have I been provided any Tninutes, notes, documents, etc. reaarding any preliminary meetinas, preliminary conversations qt oonvercations regardinj the Comnliance Remedy ordered bv the I look forward to meeting with you. As I review my calendar for next week, I am available on luesday and Wednesday. Sincerely, Tl-i/*#wkoz) M Wl  f T-uT__Tir TT7.,nr.M^ I IV JUUU ** . JWW:js cc\nMr. Gene Jones, ODMI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ETAL RECEiVED DEC 2 - 2004 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING QUARTERLY UPDATE TO OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AND JOSHUA Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Quarterly Update to Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua dated December 1, 2004 states\n1. The attached document is the first quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. It has been provided to the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004). 2. LRSD is filing this Quarterly Update so that the Court may be aware of the compliance work done by LRSD to comply with the Courts Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update to Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua as required by the Court.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 Christopher Hell^ BTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 1 day of December, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher JJ^ler 2 Attachment furnished November 30, 2004 separately^n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge April 21,2005 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 received may 27 2005 desegregSmonuorihg Dear Mr. Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Powell: This accompanies a copy of the third quarterly update, in compliance with the June 30, 2004 memorandum opinion of the U.S. District Court, due June 1, 2005. Tucked inside the front is a copy of Dr. DeJamettes letter to Mr. Walker indicating our interest in evaluating the 2U Century Learning Communities as the Joshua intervenors recommended in his letter of May 24 (previously sent to you by Mr. Walker). Please let us know if you would like more information. Thank you for your advice and support in carrying out our responsibilities. Sincerely yo' Director, PRE xc: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032Ct 'h t LUSD  Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua 'W' - .'\n! /'(. FES 2 8 2005 a-e. March 1, 2005 C\nT?\n:T2R!?!3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETTL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 RECEIVED AUG 29 2005 ft OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 6^ August 23, 2005 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: We are delivering this fourth quarterly written update to you, counsel for Joshua, Mr. Walker, and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. It is due September 1. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Marjorie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua September 1, 2005 received AUS 2 9 2005 OFHCEiX' DESEGREG ATSQM UOMTORUIC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 C-. \u0026amp;ene. ha-, RECEIVED AUG 2 9 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONUOflJNG August 23, 2005 Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Marjorie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Gene and Marjorie: We are pleased to deliver this fourth quarterly written update, due September 1, 2005. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, Director, PRE Department xc: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua September 1, 2005 received AUG 2 9 2005 OFFICE Of desegregation aQMcrafiMic LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINEKNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Introduction This is the fourth quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment B. process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. \u0026gt;5 C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants ... and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support. . .' E. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who must D. 99 F. contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-Am erican students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a programs effectiveness. . . . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval ... by December 31, 2004.\" 99 G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1... H. [ODMs responsibilities.] I. [Joshuas responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1, 2006. K. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2Status as of September 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported this action in its first quarterly written update of December 1, 2004. This team continues its activities, as stated in this fourth quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. The comprehensive program assessment process, devised by the PRE Department and approved by LRSD Board of Directors December 16, 2004, includes school portfolios among a spectrum of evaluative efforts. (The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update.) School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into databases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders. By aiding identification and description of student groups who achieve less than expected, portfolios are especially useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and the educational programs, schools, and districts that implement them. LRSD is implementing portfolios during 2005-2006. To learn and to implement this model in the LRSD, four PRE Department members attended the first summer institute for data analysis by Education for the Future, conducted by the director. Dr. Victoria Bernhardt, July 25-29. Members of PREYvette Dillingham, Maurecia Robinson, Dr. Ed Williams, and Jim Wohllebwrote portfolios for schools and the district along side employees of other school districts. Appendix A has the press release about the institute. In preparation for their training, Mr. Brad Geise, one of Dr. Bernhardts staff, visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources. From August 28 through September 2, Dr. Bernhardt, the pre-eminent leader of school portfolios, is participating in implementation of her model with PRE staff and school principals. Dr. Bernhardts abbreviated resume is found in Appendix B. C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare eight formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of external evaluators Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix of the first quarterly written update. They undertook step 2 evaluations of four LRSD programs during 2004-2005 whose progress D below describes. For step 2 evaluations in the 2005-2006 school year. Dr. Ross identified four 2.7 programs, named in the June 1 quarterly written update. Joshua subsequently requested that PRE consider evaluating the 21 Century Community Learning Centers. PRE complied with Joshua's request and substituted this evaluation for one of PLATO Learning. (Please see Appendix C for communications about this.) The programs now to be evaluated in 2005-2006 are listed below\nPage 3Arkansas A-(- Schools Network, at Woodruff Elementary School, incorporates the arts in teaching language and mathematics. KnowledgePoints is a Supplemental Educational Service (SES)one of several locally availablewhich Bale, Brady, Chicot, Wakefield, and Watson Elementary Schools offer as an after-school learning program. (No Child Left Behind legislation provides for SES programs.) Pre-K literacy development is a comprehensive program implemented in 31 elementary schools with classes for 4-year-old children. 21* Century Community Learning Centers were implemented by Hall and McClellan High, Mabelvale and Henderson Middle, and Woodruff Elementary Schools with funding by the Arkansas Department of Education. Offering various extra educational activities and services, the program continues through 2009 at Mabelvale Middle School\nbut its funding ends in 2006 at the other schools. D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued working closely with Dr. Steven Ross and his team at the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP), University of Memphis, and with Dr. James Catterall of UCLA. Dr. Ross team is conducting three step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs, reported March 1, 2004 Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/T)\nwhile Dr. Catterall completed data collection instruments and instructions for his step 2 evaluation of Year-Round Education (YRE). In this fourth quarterly written update, PRE reports further progress for all four step 2 evaluations. Progress on the three evaluations conducted by Dr Ross: CompassLeaming (CL) Data collection for the CL evaluation ended this quarter. It includes the following (as of July 5):  Compass Learning Teacher Technology Questionnaires were sent to all 20 Compass Elementary schools of LRSD. Evaluators asked teachers of children who participated to complete a survey. Approximately 425 teachers from all 20 schools returned it.  Compass Learning Survey of Computer Use was completed during two-hour lab observations at 7 randomly selected elementary schools.  Student Focus Group Interviews were conducted by Dr. Ross staff at four randomly selected elementary schools, where 23 randomly selected 5* grade students participated.  Compass Learning Parent Surveys were distributed at five randomly selected elementary schools. One class from each grade at each school was selected, and all parents of children in that class were asked to complete a survey. All five schools returned surveys, and approximately 450 parents participated. Page 4Principal Telephone Interviews were conducted with one elementary school principal. two middle school principals, and their schools had used Compass but one high school principal. They were selected because were no longer implementing the program.  Lab Attendant Interviews were conducted via telephone with the lab attendants at six elementary schools where observations took place. This number represents attendants who were active at their respective elementary schools. One schools lab attendant was on sick leave, and the position was covered by substitutes.  Technology Specialist Phone Interviews at selected elementary schools. were conducted with five technology specialists  District-Level Interviews were conducted over telephone with two LRSD staff members who were directly involved with facilitating Compass.  Compass Learning Representative Phone Interview was conducted with the Little Rockarea representative/contact person for Compass Learning. Reading Recovery (RR) The table below summarizes the data available for statistical analysis. Instrument Evaluation of Reading Recovery RR Teacher Questionnaire Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (non-Reading Recovery teachers) Parent Survey Principal Interview (Phone) Teacher in Training Interview (Phone)_________ Implementation Assessment Instrument Actually Collected 22 July 2005 Total Possible 23 Per cent Collected 96% Comments 156 95 10 4 14 95 10 4 14 100% 100% 100% 100% Responses from K-3 teachers in all schools 86 in English 9 in Spanish______________ 2 external observers went to 8 schools. Dr. Anna Grehan completed RR data collection in nine schools from 22 RR teachers 156 (nonRR) teachers in classes to which former RR students proceeded, 95 parents of RR children, 10 principals whose schools coach RR students, and four teachers in training. In addition, Drs. Cliff Johnson of Georgia State University and Melissa Schultz of Ohio State University, both of them experienced and trained observers of the RR program, observed 14 teachers in their classrooms. Page 5SMART/THRIVE (Sm As of July 5, data collected by S/T evaluators, coordinated by Dr. Lyle Davis for Dr. Ross group, included the following:  5 one-hour observations of Saturday tutoring sessions using the School Observation Measure, with Math Instruction addendum, and the Rubric for Student-Centered Activities  144 Student Questionnaires (estimated 76 per cent return rate)  3 student focus groups (5 to 7 students in each focus group)  18 S/T Instructor Questionnaires (estimated 75% return rate)  32 Algebra 1 Teacher Questionnaires (estimated 71% return rate)  34 Parent Questionnaires (estimated 19% return rate) Evaluators used mail-outs and followup data collection at the end of Thrive Carnival to increase the return rate.  Smart Program Mentor focus group (group interview with mentors from the Summer 2004 Smart program)  Student attendance data at Smart/Thrive sessions Progress on the evaluation conducted by Dr. Catteralh Year-Round Education fYRE') YRE evaluation includes the following:  Review of all existing LRSD reports on YRE  Detailed review of the longitudinal YRE student test-score database, provided by the PRE Department of LRSD, and construction of trial models for analysis of longitudinal scores accommodating 2005 scores  Alternative data cells and alternative data formats have been specified for 2005 student longitudinal achievement assessment  Review of 2003 and 2004 student survey data and presentations from participating YRE schools  Planning for 2005 student surveys  Development of the 2005 parent interview protocol and discussion and exploration of work agreements with professional personnel to conduct parent interviews PRE sent Dr. Catterall a list of all 4*- and 5*-grade teachers at YRE schools and a list of parents and students in both YRE and traditional year schools. Page 6'E. Evaluation will have (1)-numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit idata for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective programs effectiveness. The evaluations will address these requirements when prepared for PREs review later this year. F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the LRSD comprehensive program assessment process were delivered before they were due last year and reported in the first written quarterly update. This fourth written quarterly update names the four LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations during 2005-2006. (Please see C above.) PRE has now notified both ODM and Joshua of all eight LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations and furnished both parties with the comprehensive program assessment process per F of the June 30,2004 remedy by the US District Court (page 65). G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. Per F of the June 30, 2004 remedy by the US District Court (page 65), PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004, its second on March 1, 2005, its third by June 1, 2005, and now this fourth written quarterly update prior to September 1, 2005. To date, PRE has met all due dates of this remedy. Page 7Appendices A. Data Analysis Institute: Portfolios B. External Consultant for Portfolio Development C. Correspondence with Joshua Page 8A. Data Analysis Institute: Portfolios FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE School District Personnel Continue Learning Education for the Future, Chico, California - July 29, 2005 While many of their colleagues and students were enjoying a vacation, members of the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department of the Little Rock School District spent a week improving their own knowledge about collecting, analyzing, and using data to improve learning for all students. Yvette Dillingham, Maurecia Robinson, Dr. Ed Williams, and Jim Wohlleb joined more than 40 school personnel from across the United States in a week-long Data Analysis Institute in Chico, California. Conducted by Dr. Victoria Bernhardt, renowned data expert and Executive Director of Education for the Future, the Institute focused on developing data profiles of each learning organization to improve processes and operations to increase student learning and to build its capacity to make decisions based on actual data. Information Contact: Joy Rose mjroseJ 14@aol.com Education for the Future 400 West First Street Chico, CA 95929-0230 530-898-4482 http://eff.csuchico.edu Page 9B. Victoria L. Bernhardt, Ph. D. Director, Education for the Future Page 10Victoria L. Bernhardt 400 W. First Street, Chico, CA 95929-0230 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Ph.D. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Major area in Educational Psychology Research and Measurement and minor area in Mathematics. M.S. Iowa State University, Ames, lA. Degree in General Graduate Studies\nmajor areas in Statistics, Psychology, and Education. B.S. Iowa State University, Ames, lA. Major in Psychology and Minor in Mathematics. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE_________________________________ Education for the Future Initiative, Department of Professional Studies in Education, California State University, Chico, California 1991 - Tenure, College of Communication and Education, Department Professional Studies in Education, California State University, 1997. of Director, Institute for Advanced Studies in Education, University, Chico, 1986-91. California State California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Sacramento, 1981-1986. California, Office of Program Evaluation and Research, California State Department of Education, Sacramento, California, 1980-1981. Research, Development and Evaluation Division, Eugene Public School District, Eugene, Oregon, 1979-1980. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, Oregon, 1976-1979. PUBLICATIONS (2000 - PRESENT) Published Books Bernhardt, V.L. (2005). Using data to improve student learning in school districts. Larchmont, NY\nEye on Education, Inc. Bernhardt, V.L. (2005). Using data to improve student learning in high schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc. (2005) . Bernhardt, V.L. (2004). Using data to improve student learning in middle schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc. (2004). Page 11Bernhardt, (2nd V.L. (2004). Data analysis for continuous school ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc. improvement. Bernhardt, V.L. (2003) . Using data to improve student elementary schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc. learning in Bernhardt, V.L. (2002) . The implementation, school portfolio toolkit: A planning, and evaluation guide for continuous school improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc. Bernhardt, V.L. (2000). Designing and using improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc. databases for school Bernhardt, V.L. \u0026amp; Others (2000). The example school portfolio, A companion to the school portfolio: A comprehensive improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc. framework for school Published Refereed Journal Articles , chapters , Monographs , and Newsletters . Bernhardt, V.L. (2005, February). Data tools for school improvement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Educational Leadership Volume 62, Number 5. Herman, J. \u0026amp; Winters, L. (2005). Tracking your school's success]. Corwin Press, Inc. School Success [Review of manuscript Mausbach, A. (2004). Assessment [Review of manuscript Six steps to help you and your principals use assessment data Superintendents insider]. Brownstone Publishers, Inc. effectively: School Murnane, R. J., instruction Boudett, K, Journal of [Review \u0026lt; Research \u0026amp; City, E. (2004) . of manuscript Using data Using data to improve and Development Council. Professional to improve instruction: Development]. National Staff Bernhardt, V.L. (2004, November/December). Continuous improvement: It takes more than test scores. Association for California School Administrators\nLeadership, 16 - 18. Bernhardt, V.L. (2004). Data Analysis. In L. Easton (Ed.), Powerful Designs for Professional Development. Council (NSDC). Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Bernhardt, V.L. (2003, Fall). Requirements to district. The Leadership Academy Newsletter. (2) become a data-driven Bernhardt, V.L. (2003, achievement. No February). schools left behind. Using data to improve student Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Educational Leadership Volume 60, Number 5. Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, development of a Fall). Building leadership capacity through the school portfolio. The Leadership Academy Developer, published by Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Jefferson City, MO. Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, Winter). Intersections: How crossing data can help you piece together a clearer picture of your school. Development. Journal of Staff Page 12FEATURED PRESENTATIONS (2000 - PRESENT) Keynote Addresses and Featured Presentations Bernhardt, V.L. (2005, Florida Association School Administrators July). Using Data to Improve Student Learning, of School Administrators and Dade Association First Administrators. Statewide of Summer Leadership Academy of Bernhardt, V.L. (2005, April). Using Data to Improve Student Learning in Middle Schools, Using Data to Improve Student Learning in School District, and The School Portfolio Toolkit. to Improve Education. Conference sessions. Wichita, KS. Kansas State Department of (2005, Bernhardt, V.L. (ZUU5, April). Data Driven School Improvement. National School Board Association (NSBA). General session. San Diego, CA. Bernhardt, V.L. (2005, March). Doing the Most With Groiifing It. TetraData User's Conference. Greenville, Your Marehouse and SC. Bernhardt, V.L. (2005, February). Using Data to Improve Student Learning. American Association of School Administrators TIASA). Conference sessions. San Antonio, TX. (hASA). Bernhardt, V.L. (2004, December). Using data to improve student learning in middle schools. National Staff Development Conference. Vancouver, BC. Easton, L., Bernhardt, V.L., \u0026amp; Lewis, C. (2004, December). Planning, designing, and implementation of effective professional development. session. National Staff Development Conference. Vancouver, BC. L. , V.L. , C. December). PreBernhardt, V.L. Keynote (2004, November). Using Data to Improve Student Learning. address. Assessment and Data Analysis. Administrators' Assessment Conference. Myrtle Beach, SC. Analysis. Bernhardt, V.L., framework for \u0026amp; Geise, Continuous B. (2004, November). School Improvement. The school portfolio: Schools Fall Forum. San Francisco, CA. Coalition of Essential Bernhardt, V.L. data. (2004, November). Engaging staffs in conversations about Texas Elementary Principals Conference. Arlington, TX. and Supervisors Association. Fall A Bernhardt, V.L. (2004, August). Using Data to Inform Instruction. address. Santa Clara County Office of Education. San Jose, CA. Keynote Bernhardt, V.L. (2004, June). Pulling it all together. Keynote address. 13'\" Annual Standards and Assessments Conference. Denver, CO. Bernhardt, V.L. Continuous School (2004, April). Decisions. Denver, CO. Improvement. Data Analysis Colorado and Consortium its Importance for for Data Driven Bernhardt, affects V.L. student (2004, April). performance. Data driven decision making and how it Development Council. Hershey, PA. Keynote address. Pennsylvania Staff Bernhardt, V.L. (2004, March). Big Things Come in Small Packages. User's Conference. Greenville, SC. Page 13 TetraDataBernhardt, V.L. (2004, March). The School Professional Development Center. Exeter, NH. Portfolio Toolkit. Seacoast Bernhardt, V.L. (2004, March). Working Smarter, Not Harder, ivith Effective Association Use of Data. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Conference sessions. New Orleans, LA. Bernhardt, V.L. (2004, March). Engaging Staffs in Conversations about Data. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Conference sessions. New Orleans, LA. V.L. Bernhardt, (2004, February). Using data to improve student learning across school districts. American Association of School Administrators (AASA). Conference sessions. San Francisco, CA. Bernhardt, V.L. must invest in (2004, February). Data ivarehousing: to close the achievement What every district gap. School Administrators (AASA). Conference sessions. American Association of San Francisco, CA. Bernhardt, V.L. (2004, January). Using data to improve student performance. New Hampshire Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Full day Conference session. Concord, NH. Bernhardt, V.L. (2003, December). Using data to improve student learning in elementary schools. National Staff Development Council (NSCD). Full day Pre-conference session. New Orleans, LA. Bernhardt, address. (2003, October). V.L. Analyzing student achievement. Keynote Minnesota Association of Administrators and Federal Education Programs. Brooklyn Park, MN. Bernhardt, V.L. (2003, October). Data analysis for comprehensive school^ide improvement. Connecticut Association Development (ASCD). Rocky Hill, CT. for Supervision and Curriculum Bernhardt, V.L. (2003, September). Data and school improvement. North Dakota Conference on Educational Improvement. Bismarck, ND. Keynote. Bernhardt, V.L. (2003, August). Planning and using data to improve student learning. Montana Superintendents' Conference. Lewiston, MT. Bernhardt, V.L. (2003, July). Using your data for continuous schoolhride improvement. TetraData User's Conference. San Jose, CA. Bernhardt, V.L. (2003, July) . Getting Started hrith data driven decision making. Pennsylvania Governor's Conference, Selinsgrove, PA. Bernhardt, V.L. (2003, April). Learning Community. Orlando, FL. Facilitate Leadership Hetreat. South Bernhardt, V.L. (2003, March). Needs assessment South Carolina State Department of Education. Columbia, SC. and student achievement. Bernhardt, V.L. (2003, February). Using your data for continuous schoolwide improvement. Keynote. TetraData User's Conference. Greenville, SC. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, December). The school portfolio toolkit: A planning, implementation and evaluation guide for continuous school improvement. National Staff Development Council (NSCD). Pre-conference 2-day session. Boston, MA. Page 14Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, December). Using your data to improve student learning. WestEd Board Meeting. San Francisco, CA. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, December). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. New England Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Boston, MA. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, September). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. Idaho Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Couer d'Alene and Boise, ID. (2002, July). Leading the Culture of Change with Data-Driven Bernhardt, V.L. Decision Making. National Academy for Superintendents. Columbus, OH Bernhardt, V.L. improvement. (2002, July). Data analysis for comprehensive schooiwide New York Comprehensive Facilitator's Academy. Cooperstown, NY. District Education Planning Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, July). The school portfolio toolkit: A planning. implementation and evaluation guide for continuous school improvement. New York Comprehensive District Education Planning Facilitator's Academy. Cooperstown, NY. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, June). Using data to make instructional decisions. Montana Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) Summer Institute. Helena, MT. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, June). The school portfolio toolkit: A planning, implementation and evaluation guide for continuous school improvement. Gwinnet County School District. Athens, GA. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, May). Keynote speaker for graduation ceremony. Point Loma Nazarene University. San Diego, CA. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, May). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. Monroe County Intermediate School District. Monroe, MI. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, April). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. Los Lunas School District. Los Lunas, NM. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, April). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. New Jersey State Department of Education. New Brunswick, NJ. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, April). Data driven decision making. University of Minnesota. St. Cloud, MN. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, March). The school portfolio toolkit: A planning. implementation and evaluation guide for continuous school improvement. National Staff Development Council (NSDC). Greenville, SC. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, March). The school portfolio toolkit: A planning. implementation and evaluation guide for continuous school improvement. Tan-Tar-A Show-Me Conference. Osage Beach, MO. Bernhardt, schoolwide V.L. (2002, Bloomington, IN. improvement. February). Indiana Data State analysis for Department of comprehensive Education. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, February). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. Kansas City School District. Kansas City, MO. Page 15Bernhardt, V.L. {2002, February). The school portfolio: A comprehensive framework for school improvement. Wentzville School District. Wentzville, MO. Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, schoolwide improvement. Bismarck, ND. February). North Data Dakota analysis for State Department comprehensive of Education. Bernhardt, V.L. (2001, December). The school portfolio toolkit: A planning, implementation and evaluation guide for continuous school improvement. Westerville School District. Westerville, OH. Bernhardt, V.L. (2001, October). The school portfolio toolkit: A planning, implementation and evaluation guide for continuous school improvement. The Leadership Academy. Springfield, MO. Bernhardt, V.L. (2001, October). The school portfolio toolkit: A planning, implementation and evaluation guide for continuous school improvement. The Leadership Academy. Columbia, MO. Bernhardt, V.L. (2001, October). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement and The school portfolio: A comprehensive framework school improvement. The Leadership Academy. Springfield, MO. for Bernhardt, V.L. (2001, October). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. South Carolina Staff Development Council. Charleston, SC. Bernhardt, V.L. (2001, October). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. North Central Educational Service District. Wenatchee, WA. Bernhardt, V.L. (2001, August). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement and The school portfolio: school improvement. Conference. Seattle, WA. Washington Education A comprehensive framework for Association (WEA) State Bernhardt, V.L. (2001, July). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. Keynote address. The Learning Network 7^ Portland, OR. Annual Conference\nBernhardt, V.L. for comprehensive (2001, June). Data driven decision making\nData analysis schoolwide improvemen t\nThe school portfolio: comprehensive framework for school improvement\nand Designing and using databases for school improvement. Connecting Classrooms, Communities, and Careers 2001. Beaver Creek, CO. Bernhardt, V.L. improvement and (2001, June). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide The school portfolio: A comprehensive framework for school improvement. Administrators' Conference. Pioneer RESA Atlanta, GA. Bernhardt, V.L. improvement and (2001, June) . The school portfolio: Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide A comprehensive framework for school improvement. The Advanced Satellite Academy Graduation. Leadership Academy. Lake Ozark, MO. Bernhardt, V.L. improvement. (2001, April). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide Utah School Education. Sandy, UT. Improvement Conference. Utah Office of Bernhardt, V.L. improvement , and (2001, April). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide The school portfolio: A comprehensive framework for A Page 16school improvement. South East Kansas Educational Service Center. KS. Girard, Bernhardt, V.L. (2001, April). Education Decision Systems Meeting. United States Department of Education's Information Officer. Portland, OR. Invitational Office of the Chief Bernhardt, support V.L. , presented by Lauck, M. the understanding of student (2001, March). achievement. Technology can Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Boston, MA. Association for Bernhardt, V.L. (2001, February). The school portfolio and data driven systems. Kansas City area administrators. University of Missouri. Kansas City, MO. Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, December). Developing school portfolios: collecting and using data at the school level. Washington Educational Research Association (WERA) State Assessment Conference. Seattle, WA. Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, December). continuous schooli^ide improvement. Tools and strategies for assessing (NSDC) Annual conference. Atlanta, GA. National Staff Development Council Bernhardt,  schoolwide V. L (2000, improvement. September). North Data Dakota Improvement. General Session. Fargo, ND. analysis Conference for comprehensive on Educational Bernhardt, V. L (2000, September). The school portfolio: A comprehensive framework for school improvement. North Dakota Conference on Educational Improvement. General Session. Fargo, ND. Bernhardt, V.L. measures of data. (2000, September). Gathering and analyzing multiple Conference. Nashville, North Central Association Commission on Schools Fall IN. Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, framework for school July). The improvement. school portfolio: A comprehensive Program, Disney Learning Institute. Orlando, FL. Creative Learning Communities Grant Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, July). Perspectives from assessment experts, panelist. National Coalition for Technology in Education and Training (NCTET). Incline Village, NV. Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, June) . Data use in schools. Education Research. Madison, WI. Wisconsin Center Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, May). Data analysis for comprehensive schoc^ improvement. Maine Association for Supervision and Curriculum Deveicc (ASCD). Portland, ME. Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, March) . Da ta SchoolNet State Technology Conference. Columbus, OH. analysis and systemic change. Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, March). Technology planning panel discussion. C SchoolNet State Technology Conference. Columbus, OH. Bernhardt, V.L., Lauck, M. , \u0026amp; Geise, B. (2000, February) . Data gathering and use. Ten presentations. UCAN Rural Systemic Initiative. Albuquerque, NM. Page 17Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, schoolwide improvement. Angeles, CA. February). Data analysis for comprehensive Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project. for Los Bernhardt, V.L. expectations, (2000, local January). action. Making successful standards results. real: Leadership Academy, Convocation 2-000. Burlingame, CA. California Statewide School Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, January) . Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement and The school portfolio: school improvement. Galef Institute. A comprehensive framework for Los Angeles, CA. MEDIA PRESENTATIONS (2000 - PRESENT) Bernhardt, V.L. (2004, Improvement. Cyberchat, South Australia. May) . Data Analysis for Continuous School Department of Education and Children's Services. Bernhardt, V.L. (2004, January). Educational Impact. Warminster, PA. The school portfolio. Cyberchat, Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, February). Data analysis schoolwide improvement and The school portfolio: framework for school improvement. Video Training. Ringold, PA. (2002, school for A comprehensive comprehensive Education On-Line. New Bernhardt, V.L. (2002, January). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. Instruction. Statewide videoconference, Montana Office of Public Bernhardt, V.L. (2001, December). Analyzing data for school improvement. Video conference. Northview School District. Grand Rapids. MI Bernhardt, V.L. (2001, January). Designing and using databases for school improvement. Statewide videoconference. Montana Office of Public improvement. Instruction. videoconference. Bernhardt, V. L (2000, October). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. Statewide videoconference, Montana Office of Public Instruction. Montana of Bernhardt, V.L. improvement. Helena, MT. (2000, June). Videoconference, Designing and using databases for school Montana Office of Public Instruction. Bernhardt, V.L. (2000, January). framework for school Office of Public Instruction. improvement. The school portfolio: Statewide videoconference. A comprehensive Montana Bernhardt, V.L. (2000). Databases. A Multimedia Presentation Education for the Future Initiative and its work on databases. (2000). of the Page 18C. Correspondence with Joshua regarding 2r^ Century Community Learning Centers Request to evaluate 2P^ Century Community Learning Centers Letter of John W. Walker May 24, 2005 Approval of requested evaluation Letter of Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. July 20,2005 Page 19MAY. 24.2005 12= 15PM JOUS U WALKER P A NO.778 P.2 JOHN W. WALKER, PA. ATTOBHrrAiUw 17M BsoADm Liriss Boost aikansas -72206 TYn.CTB-nira (501) 374-37EB FAX (601) 574-4137 JOHlf W. TOtLKBK SBJ0M OSILIIS OF COttHSEL ROBSaTMiHBNEPX DONNAJ. McKSMSY 8210 HeMDBBSOHHXUD Lrmz Sficz, aicamas 72310 JHOMK (Ml) 372^  pjj (501) 373*3428 B^anj wAjtmydflig'aalLajt May 24,2005 Karen DeJamette, PitD. Little Rock School District 3001 Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Dr. DeJamette-. Thank you for providing the list of programs, interventions, and models in the Little Rock School District -which you indicate was prepared by the District last year. I am also in receipt of the list of programs that you intend to submit to the Board for approval in ydth the courts order. Joshua notes that the 21 Century Comm unity T j^Tning Centers are in at least 10 schools (Hall High, McClellan, and J. A. Fair\nAlternative Learning Center, Henderson. Mabelvale, Southwest, and Cloverdale\nand Meadoweliff and Woodruff) in the district In addition, the program description indicates that there are si^ort programs being utilise to student achievement. We, therefore, propose the 21 Century Community Learning adoption by the Board for evaluaaon. ( sincerely, ! xj (ohn W. Walker JWWjs co: Mr. Gene Jones, ODM Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Bob Pressman Page 20 MEMPHIS. A Tennessee Center of Hxceiieni 325 Browning Hal! Memphi: inessee S152-334C Office: 901.67S.231C I oil-Free\n866.670.6147 July 20. 2005 Fax: 901.678.4257 www.memphis.edu/cre? Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206 Dear Dr. DeJamette: I have reviewed ihe 21 Century Community Learning Centers proposed for one of the Step 2 evaluations in the 2005-2006 school year. They serve large numbers of African- American students and continue for another one to four years. I believe that this prosram is another appropriate choice for a Step 2 evaluation. I look forward to working with you and PRE personally on the first three studies (a-c). Please feel free to contact me if any additional information is needed. Sincerely. Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy A I emessee soars o/ Reoencs InsUlutlor An teuM Osortwt-.  tf- revivve A\u0026amp;on tn\u0026gt;vr-_r,Si S RECEIVED SEP - 1 2005 August 29, 2005 OFFICE OF desegregation MONITORING JohnW. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker\nAs indicated in the fourth quarterly written update of September 1, the PRE Department is introducing a district portfolio to the Little Rock School District. This effort responds in part to the US District Courts requirement to embed evaluation in the District. Our primary resource for this is Dr. Vickie Bernhardt, described in the fourth update. Dr. Bernhardt is visiting with us this week and presenting a workshop for directors of the Education Services Group, whose agenda accompanies this letter. We invite you to attend should this interest you. Please contact us for more information. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, Ph.D, Director, PRE Department xc\nMt. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 AGENDA AGENDA DATA ANALYSIS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31,2005 Outcomes Everyone understands -  What data are important for Continuous School Improvement 9.00 With Education Services Group - Welcome / Introductions/Agenda/Logistics  What Data Are Important for Continuous School Improvement - Demographics - Perceptions - Student Learning - School Processes How data are important for Continuous School Improvement planning 10:30 Data Analysis Case Study How to work through a \"problem\" with data 11:30 Lunch 12:30 Continue with Case Study Group Work: Solving a Problem with Data - Share your problem-solving situation Pulling it altogether Questions and Answers 3:00 Closing Eiiuattion /or the Future Victariu L RemhardlRECEIVED SEP -6 2005 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSDS NOTICE OF FILING QUARTERLY UPDATE Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Quarterly Update dated September 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the fourth quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. It has been provided to the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30,2004). 2. LRSD is filing this Quarterly Update so that the Court may be aware of the compliance work done by LRSD to comply with the Courts Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update as required by the Court.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 31 day of August, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller 2 RECEIVED NOV 2 8 2005 OmCEOF desegregation MONITORING November 21, 2005 Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Ms. Marjorie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201-3714 Dear Mr. Jones and Ms. Powell: We are pleased to deliver this fifth quarterly written update, due December 1, required by the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Sincerely yours, Caren DeJamette, Pn.D. Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Mr. John Walker Mr. Robert Pressman -J up ' RECEIVED Little Rock School District NOV 2 8 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and JOSHUA December 1,2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206February 28,2006 RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OFRCEOF desegregation MONITORING Dear Mr. Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Powell: This accompanies a copy of the quarterly written update of March 1, 2006, in compliance with the June 30, 2004 memorandum opinion of the U.S. District Court. Please let us know if you would like more information. Thank you for your advice and support in carrying out our responsibilities. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamett^Ph.D. Director, PRE xc: Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 February 28, 2006 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: This accompanies the quarterly written update of March 1, 2006 in compliance with the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Sincerely yours, Director, PRE Department xc\nMr. Chris Heller Mr. Gene Jones Ms. Marjorie Powell Mr. Robert Pressman Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 February 28, 2006 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421-5817 Dear Mr. Pressman: This accompanies the quarterly written update of March 1, 2006 in compliance with the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Mr. Walker has asked that we furnish you with copies of reports. Sincerely yours, Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Gene Jones Ms. Marjorie Powell Mr. John Walker I arl-Cir/y Up do ft I Little Rock School District (LRSD) I I QUARTERLY UPDATE I to the I Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua Intervenors I March 1, 2006 I I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS I I I I I Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 May 31, 2006 recede Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Maijorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 MAX 311006 wbJSS8* Dear Mr. Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Powell: Accompanying this is a copy of the Quarterly Update of June 1, 2006 to the U. S. District Court. FiJjuA. Please let us know if you require more information. Sincerely yours. Karen D Director xc: Mr. Heller Mr. Hattabaugh Mr. Walker 1 Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua Intervenors / w\n.4 - 'Tk . \\ ** II I T I IlC  i j LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF J - ,deeendA June 1, 2006 .. ..h  A it PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS r KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS J- :^NTS Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rocky AR 72206 (Margie Page 1 of 1 From\nTo\nSent\nSubject\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, August 09, 2006 5:27 PM FW: quarterly From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 5:23 PM To: Griffin, Beverly Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: RE: quarterly Beverly, I posted the agenda item and draft report on yesterday, the 8. However, it's okay with PRE if the Board does not consider the report tomorrow as long as the Board approves it by the end of the month so Chris can file PREs report with the Court by September 1 (which the U.S. District Court Remedy requires). Karen From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 5\n05 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: RE: quarterly Karen\nThe cover sheet for the Quarterly Update is posted at the Novus site. That gives it a place on the action agenda for August. Per my phone discussion with Dr. Roberts, I will wait and post the actual report sometime prior to the meeting on the 24^. That gives everyone another week for reading, reviewing, revising. If any of the board members ask why its not posted, I will have to say that it was not complete prior to the agenda deadline of August 8^. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:52 PM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: quarterly Quarterly update enclosed 8/10/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"DeJamette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:45 PM updateSep06d.doc FW: Quarterly Report fyi From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:37 PM To: Griffin, Beverly\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nDeJamette, Karen\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller Subject: Quarterly Report The attached Quarterly Report contains my most recent suggested changes. I am still in court though, and have not had a chance to make a final review. Chris Heller/bk Beverly: Please forward to Board Members. 8/24/2006(* Little Rock School Distric^^^g^gQ QUARTERLY UPDAW  1 'J to the OFFICE OF DESEGREGATIOM MOMITORUW Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua Intervenors September 1, 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF K PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.l ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction This is the eighth quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: 99 A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. D. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support  E. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by Afiican-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a programs effectiveness. F. . . . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval ... by December 31,2004. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . dining the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year... to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1... H. [ODMs responsibilities.] L [Joshuas responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations are due to the U. S. District Courts October 1,2005 and four more not later than October 1,2006. K. The Compliance Report is due October 15,2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] FINAL DRAFT Quaiteriy Written Update September 1,2006 Page 2 of 11Status as of September 1,2006 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, the highly trained professionals hired to carry out the Compliance Remedys requirements (first quarterly written update of December 1, 2000), sustains its duties diligently and now submits this eighth quarterly written update. Until the District hires a new test coordinator. Dr. Ed Williams of the PRE Department has filled that responsibihty in addition to his other duties. In June, the District posted a description of the position and invited applications. Interviews were arranged for August 14. The Department has continued to fimetion without a secretary or administrative assistant Services of additional persons for data collection, test administration, and other tasks have been arranged through contracts. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. The PRE Department will continue assessments of the programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations dining the past two years. Additional program assessments will commence up to the limits of PREs capacity. One of its limits is access to multiple types of data, which PRE has diligently worked to improve. C. Hire outside consuitant(s) to prepare eight formai step 2 evaluations. Step 2 evaluations of the last (2004-2005) school year PRE is endeavoring to carry on modified assessments of the four programs evaluated during the 2004-2005 school year, which will place the District in a very small number of districts in the nation which assess their programs with multiple measures. However, limited resources will prevent designs and conclusions as robust as in those evaluations. Step 2 evaluations during the current (2005-2006) school year Following are progress reports of the four evaluationsA+ (by Dr. James Catterall, UCLA) and 21 Century Community Learning Centers, Pre-K Literacy, and Read 180 (by Dr. Steve Ross, the University of Memphis Center for Research on Educational Policy (CREP)): A+ Dr. Catterall is completing his first assessment of the in-depth teacher surveys (ten pages of open response questions) and processing of classroom observations (90 pages of notes). Administering family interviews, he found 61 percent errors in verifying families telephone numbers. Dr. Catterall needs 2005-06 average attendance rates by school, average attendance rates by school and ethnicity, discipline referrals by school or by school and grade level, student short-term suspensions by school or by school and grade level, student long-term suspensions by school and grade level, and student expulsions by school and grade level. PRE is processing this data during August and sending it to Dr. Catterall. 27 Century Community Leamine Centers (2f CCLC) FINAL DRAFT Quarterly Written Update September 1,2006 Page 3 of 11CREP received completed instruments for teachers, parents, and students from all six 21** CCLC schools, and evaluators have interviewed all 21 CCLC site coordinators and principals. Three site observations at the case study school, Mabelvale Middle School, were conduct^ as well as the student focus group. Enrollment and attendance records have also been received from PRE. Scanning and analysis are underway of the following data which have been collected: o o o o o 187 teacher surveys, 82 parent surveys and 270 student surveys (50 elementary school, 140 middle school, and 80 high school), 12 staff interviews (6 site coordinators and 6 principals), 3 site observations, and one student focus group at the case study school, Mabelvale. Pre-K Literacy CREP mailed questionnaires to the 28 schools in the study and has collected the following:  Parent Questionnaires (1,316):  Pre-K Teacher Questiormaires (69):  Pre-K Paraprofessional Questionnaires (69):  K \u0026amp; 1 Grade Teacher Questionnaires: 686 64 58 144 In addition to the questionnaires, CREP also conducted:  10 phone interviews with randomly-selected principals  17 pre-k classroom observations using the E-LOT and the ELLCO Quantitative screening and achievement data forwarded by PRE to CREP included:  DIBELS data arrived last quarter.  TTBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) results were received last quarter and confirmed on July 3.  ESI (Early Screening Inventory) data was received in June and revised in July.  WSS (Work Sampling System) received in June  Benchmark data: received in August The last quarterly written update, of June 2006, described PREs extraordinary efforts required for obtaining and editing data for the pre-K literacy evaluation. Pre-K teachers sent sheets from their students Early Screening Inventory (ESI) to PRE, which created an ESI data file. Since the ESI sheets had only students names but not their unique identification numbers, PRE sent its data file to the CISD for students numbers by matching student names and birth dates. Correcting errors in this data continued through most of July. PRE sent ESI data to CREP near the end of July. PRE supplied to CREP results of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (TTBS) for students in kindergarten, first and second grades (obtained from NORMES) and later sent results from DIBELS (supplied by MGT) and Work Sampling (from Pearson Early Learning). While Riverside Publishing, the vendor, shipped printed individual students results of the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI) to LRSD in fall 2005, neither Riverside nor NORMES could supply the data in electronic format NORMES had only data \u0026amp;om the previous year (2004), and Riverside did not maintain its data in a readily accessible fbnnat Officials there did not know if FINAL DRAFT Quarterly Written Update September 1,2006 Page 4 of 11D. PRE (1) oversees preparations of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued close collaboration with the CREP team and Dr. Catterall in executing 2005-06 school years four step 2 evaluations. PRE convened teams for all four evaluations on May 31, and on July 11 the Pre-K literacy evaluation team met once again. Summaries of the sessions are in Appendix A. E. Evaluations will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective programs effectiveness. As it did during the first year of step 2 evaluations, PRE will remind the external evaluators of this requirement and assure their inclusion in evaluation reports. PRE will also include this information in reports of ongoing assessments. F. PRE will deliver names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Earlier quarterly written updates have reported that PRE notified both ODM and Joshua of all eight LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations and furnished both parties with the LRSD comprehensive program assessment process per F of the U. S. District Courts June 30, 2004 remedy (page 65). In addition, as has been previously reported, our comprehensive program assessment process has been approved. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. Per G of the June 30,2004 remedy by the U. S. District Court (page 65), PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004, its second on March 1, 2005, its third by Jime 1, 2005, the fourth prior to September 1, 2005, the fifth by December 1, 2005, the sixth written quarterly update of March 1, 2006, and the seventh of June 1, 2006. PRE now submits this eighth written quarterly update prior to its due date of September 1,2006. Thus, to date, PRE has met all due dates of the remedy including the first annual report which the Court postponed from its original date of October 1,2005. FINAL DRAFT Quarterly Written Update September 1,2006 Page 6 of 11they could retrieve the required data at all. Negotiations over two months resulted in agreement by Riverside to process LRSD QELI data again and produce a computer-compatible data file. The estimated cost is $21,000 for the data from 2005 and a repetition of the process with the 2006 data. Riverside forecasted delivery in early September. READ 180 AU questionnaires were sent to the 10 participating schools, with receipt acknowledged (READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire, Non-READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire, READ 180 Student Questionnaire, and Parent Questionnaire).  10 schools have returned Non-READ 180 Teacher Questionnaires  Total retumed= 265  8 schools have returned READ 180 Teacher Questionnaires  Totalretumed=15  8 schools have returned Student Questionnaires  Total retumed=754  8 schools have returned Parent Questionnaires  Total retumed=165  AU 10 school observations have been completed  Total observations=17 (each observation for one fuU 90 minute class)  AU student focus groups have been completed  Total student focus groups conducted=8  AU teacher focus groups have been completed  Total teacher focus groups conducted=7  AU principal interviews have been completed  Total principal interviews=10 Note: Parent surveys, student surveys, and Read 180 teacher surveys have not been received from Henderson and Parkview.  AU scanning of instruments has been completed  Quantitative and qualitative analyses are underway FINAL DRAFT Quarterly Written Update September 1, 2006 Page 5 of 11Appendix A Summaries of Evaluation Team Meetings PRE Department Little Rock School District May 31 and July 11,2006 A+ 21* Century Community Learning Centers Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Read180 FINAL DRAFT Quarterly Written Update September 1,2006 Page? of 11A+ Attending May 31 were Drs. DeJamette and Ed Williams (PRE)\nexternal evaluator Dr. James Catterall (via mobile telephone from Kentucky)\nMs. Joy Springer (Joshua)\nMr. Gene Jones (ODM)\nMs. Maurecia Robinson and Jim Wohlleb (PRE) Dr. Catterall described progress as in the middle of the evaluationstudent (collected) \u0026amp; parent (nearly aU returned) surveys were administered. Next step, after these short-answer surveys, was a set of teacher surveys on line which his team was collecting at the time. Several that he reviewed indicated considerable depth. An interview with the art coordinator was also scheduled. Dr. Catterall arranged for specialists at UCLA to interview parents, and he scheduled classroom observations of A+ lessons for which Principal Janice Wilson was furnishing six to eight teachers on two days in the next week. She also commented on a protocol for these observations which he developed. Ms. Wilsons severe injuries in an automobile collision during the next month set back the evaluators if not the evaluation itself. The fear of late-arriving achievement test results, based on past experience, led to acceptance if necessary to use of earlier years data without the most recent test results. However, results of the current will allow comparison with earlier years and result in firmer conclusions. Dr. Catterall asked for more recent LRSD data from its portfolio. 21** Century Community Leamine Centers Attending May 31 were Drs. DeJamette and Ed Williams (PRE)\nDrs. Heidi Kenaga, Jerry Bates, and Mr. Aaron McDonald (CREP, by phone)\nMs. Joy Springer \u0026amp; Mr. John Walker (Joshua)\nMr. Gene Jones (ODM)\nand Jim Wohlleb (PRE). CREP evaluators reported Southwest Middle School completed data collection, i.e., teacher and parent surveys. Attendance at CCLC activities, like sign-in sheets, had not been received yet Students who participated in CCLC on a regular basis were surveyed. CREP stiU needed students unique identifying numbers to match records positively. PRE waited for access to school roster data from ADE. CREP observed classrooms at Mabelvale and held a focus group, in accordance with its evaluation plan. Focusing on one school will limit a foil description of the great variety among schools with respect to implementing CCLC. However, other available data will partially point out differences and account for inter-school differences. Pre-Kindemarten (pre-Ki Literacy Attending May 31 were 11 team members, who mcluded LRSD pre-K teachers and the District director, PRE Department members, evaluators fiom CREP, and representatives of Joshua Intervenors, and Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM): FINAL DRAFT Quarterly Written Update September 1, 2006 Page 8 of 11In the historical or longitudinal data, already furnished to CREP, CREP external evaluators asked during this team conference for dates of students entry into LRSD. CISD agreed to find this and in the next few days added it to the data file both the date and level of entry to the data file, which PRE then sent to CREP. In the Work Sampling results, CREP wanted dates of the teachers observations of their students. The publisher, Pearson, later in July explained the coding of dates in the data file, and PRE sent this documentation to CREP. Since QELI data was available only as printed student reports, rather than easily usable digitally formatted, discussion ensued about options. Because CREP considers it essential in the design, either discarding or replacing it with other data is not an option. The publisher. Riverside, had not responded about possibly supplying the data in a computer file. NORMES, the data warehouse for educational data at the University of Arkansas, from where PRE had assumed the data would conveniently come, announced inaccuracies involving 15,000 records but no date when corrected data would be available. Thus, the only option seemed to be creating a data file from the printed reports of individual students. Thus, there was agreement that requesting an extension of the due date for the report due to the U.S. District Court would be appropriate. In a letter to Dr DeJamette following this session, CREP director Dr. Steve Ross recommended such an extension and based the new date on a period of six to eight weeks for analyzing the data and writing the first draft Later in July, PRE downloaded QELI data from NORMES. This included only the categories delayed, developing, and developed for the six broad skill sets and no assessments for the many items within the six broad sets. For finer differences among students, CREP desired scores of the several items within each broad skill set. During June and July, PRE discussed with Riverside Publishing, the vendor for Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI or Qualls), the possibility of generating a computer-compatible data file from last falls QELI screening results. With the expectation of assessing literacy during die next school year, PRE introduced the notion for repeating the procedure then. At the end of July, PRE received an estimated cost of $21,110 for Riverside to create an application allowing a custom extract datafile from both 2005 and again this coming fall (2006). In a conference call on August 1 involving PRE, external evaluation team leader Dr. Grehan, and Riverside officials, they explored how much detail Riverside could retrieve. Further discussion the following day led to conversation between Riverside technical experts and Dr. Grehan. Whether PRE might obtain the same level of detailed information fiom NORMES was asked the next day by Dr. Williams. Read 180 Attending were Drs. DeJamette \u0026amp; Ed Williams (PRE)\nMs. Nona Whittaker and Ms. Karen Shofrier (teachers)\nDrs. Dan Strahl and Molly Crocket and Mr. Aaron McDonald (CREP)\nMs. Joy Springer (Joshua)\nMr. Gene Jones (ODM)\nand Jim Wohlleb (PRE). CREP reported virtual completion with its data collection-all surveys returned and 16 classrooms observed (per evaluation design). CREP calculated return rates of 68 percent for students, 19 percent for parents surveys, and 95 percent for teachers, respectively. Only time-on-task by ethnic group and school were missing. Whether this was available was not certain. FINAL DRAFT Quarterly Written Update September 1,2006 Page 10 of 11Mr. Jim Wohlleb, Team Leader Ms. Krista Underwood, Early Childhood Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, Statistician Dr. Anna Grehan, External Evaluator (CREP) Dr. Freddie Peyton, External Evaluator (CREP) Dr. Karen DeJamette, PRE Reviewer Ms. Maurecia Robinson, PRE Reviewer Ms. Sheneka Alexander, Teacher (Baseline) Ms. Angela Doyne, Teacher (Geyer Spring) Mr. Gene Jones, ODM Ms. Joy Springer, Joshua Intervenors CREP reported completion of surveys among kindergarten and first-grade teachers (64 percent response rate) and among parents (greater than 50 percent returned). Promotion of the evduation by the Early Childhood Department may have improved teachers responsiveness: The director had distributed copies of the evaluation plan to teachers and explained the evaluation to them. On the other hand, perhaps the several requests for information dampened parents responsiveness to CREPs questionnaires: Parents responded to requests by the state Division of Child Care, and in many schools from the State ABC Evaluation, in addition to their completion of lengthy forms for their childrens enrollment. CREP also reported interviews often principals as planned. The two teachers attending this meeting were not observed, and other teachers did not report then- experiences with CREP observers. Administrators described some contusion by teachers, whom evaluators from ADE visited during the same period, about who observed them. CREP reported pleasant, uneventful observations in the classrooms. In light of the delays in obtaining data for this evaluation, PRE convened another session of the pre-K literacy evaluation team on July 11. Participants included LRSD senior administrators, CISD, and LRSD preschool education experts in addition to PRE and CREP. The new director of early childhood education for LRSD, Ms. Glenda Nugent, assumed the role of specialist on the team, succeeding Ms. Krista Underwood who retired this year. Those attending were: Mr. Jim Wohlleb (PRE), Team Leader Ms. Glenda Nugent, (LRSD Early Childhood Director), Specialist Ms. Pat Busbea (LRSD Reading First consultant) Dr. Ed Williams (PRE), Statistician Dr. Debbi Slawson (CREP), External Evaluator Dr. Lynn Harrison (CREP), External Evaluator Dr. John Nunnery (consultant to CREP), Statistician Dr. Karen DeJamette, PRE Reviewer Ms. Maurecia Robinson, PRE Reviewer Ms. Nancy Morgan, Mr. Kevin Crawford, and Mr. Chris Cole (CIS) Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh (LRSD Deputy Superintendent) Dr. Olivine Roberts (LRSD Associate Superintendent) Mr. Gene Jones and Ms. Marjorie Powell, ODM Mr. John Walker and Ms. Joy Springer, Joshua Intervenors FINAL DRAFT Quarterly Written Update September 1, 2006 Page 9 of 11IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSDS NOTICE OF FILING QUARTERLY UPDATE The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Quarterly Update dated September 1,2006 states: 1. The attached document is the eighth quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. It has been provided to the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30,2004). 2. LRSD is filing this Quarterly Update so that the Court may be aware of the compliance work done by LRSD to comply with the Courts Memorandum Opinion of June 30,2004. 1Another task then was to identify ReadlSO students for comparison of achievement scores. An issue of student mobility arose which would mean some students moved into and out of ReadlSO. PRE would query teachers about this. Missing surveys from Southwest, which PRE mailed to PRE, have not been found. Parkviews and Hendersons surveys were in the mail to PRE at the time. One observer followed a schedule devised by a teacher to see several classes and to meet with teachers. The observer sent questions in advance. The other observer arrived unannounced, observed students on computers, but communicated little with the teacher in the classroom. Discussion included some drawbacks of the program: Teachers dont select students. Rather, eighth-grade ACTAAP scores are supposed to determine students participation\nbut there are errors, and teachers do not have access to scores. Teachers at other schools selected some students. FINAL DRAFT Quarterty Written Update September 1, 2006 Page 11 of 11WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update as required by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Zs/ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 1,2006,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us si ones@mwsgw.com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2Mr, Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Zs/ Christopher Heller 3C. D. E, G. H. Linle Rock District FORM NO. FAPO-38 77-01 LEA Number 10.'17/95 Quarter Ending Date 11/10/95 Date Sobtnitted M to M TRANSFERS 1 Quarter Number SUPERINTENDENTS QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM Thic rqtnrt Ia dug within fifteen (15) days after tfoe cod of the quarter( Ark. Code Aon. 6-18-213, Sapp. 1991). Said one copy to tbe office of ijyal Fiscal Servy=. M Capito] MaU, Room 202-A, Little Rode, Arkansas 72201 and one copy to tbe County Board of Education. Each quarter is to be no less dian fony (40) and no more than fifty (50) days. I 2 3 I 4 5  KINDERGARTEN DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM Figures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole number Resident pupils sent to other (fist(s) under *M to M transfers List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County Pulaski County P4 North Little Rock Total C of columns 12, 13, 14. These will be used for MFP/Transp. Aid purposes Non-resident pupils received from other district(s) under 'M to M' transfers. List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County North Little Rock Pulaski County - P4 Total E I 8 I 9 GRADES 1-12 DAYS IN ATTENDANCE 10 DAYS !\\rriSnJeJ SuperilUeildeitf'S ^ignafnm 1995-96 Year Phone si 124-2272 11 12 13 COMBINED TOTAL C3\u0026lt;ADESK-12 14 DAYS IN QTR. NT* TOTAL COL. 2+3 ABSENT* TOTAL + NT T TOTAL COL 4+5 /COL 1 TOTAL ABSENT TOTAL TOTAL T+NI COL. 9+10 /ax. ADT COL. 2 + 7 /COL ADA COL 4 + 9 /COL T NT COLUMNS 7+8 1 AlXf COL 4+5+ 9*10OL1 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Number of kindergarten pupils enrolled this quarter: 4451 2425 1327 78 1609 1405 50 Full-time\n4451 2425 1327 78 1609 1405 192 113 20 2 61 22 Half-time: 116 64 34 2 42 36 39220 7422 11534 2420 13954 Additional instructions on back. 39220 7422 11534 2420 13954 2124 393 426 104- 530 FIN-09-00-005 5/91 1034 195 299 63 362 W/P4 1092 186 1,277 1092 186 1,277 322 62 40 424 1150 195 1,345 333 65 42 440B. A1. c. Pulaski County FOR.y NO. FAPD-3 BI3I32 Read carefully irtstjuctkxts on Page 2 Little Rock Distria 60-01 LEA Number 10/17/95 Qaaner Ending Date 11/10/95 Date Sabmitted SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENTJANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM This report is ihie (IS) dajs afisibeead oftbe qaarterf Ark. Code Aim. ^lg-213. Snpp. 1991). Send one c^ry to the office of Local Fiscal Services, 44 Ca|^ Mn, Koom 202-.A, Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201 and one copy to the County Board of Ednearion, Each quarter is to be no less dan forty (40) and no more dan fifty (50) davs. I I I 5 I 6 I g I 10 KINDERGARTEN DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM GRADES 1 -12 DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS Figures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole number Resident pupis atterxfing schools in this distnct Resident pupMs sent to PreK Sp. Ed. (non-puMc) schools urxler a tuition agreement Alternative Learning Envirorvnent List So. Ed.Schoote bv naoM EBzabeth Mitchell Day Treatment Florence Crittenton Home Service Arkansas State Hospital Resident pupils sent to other dist\u0026lt;s) under tuition agreement Cl. Alternative Learning Environmem List Distrlets I LEA NO. D. E. El. G. H. T Total A. 6, C of columns 12. 13, 14. These wiD be used for MFPZTransp. Aid purposes Norwesident pupils received from other distnctfsl under a tuition agreement list Districts LEA NO. Alternative Learning Envirorvnent Non-resident pupils received under *Pnv. Tuit.* \u0026amp;/or No Tuit. being paid* Total (A, B. E and F) 1 Quarter Nanba 1995-96 Year II 12 DAYS IN QTR. 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Number of kirxtergarten students erwolled this quarter\nNP TOTAL COL 2 + 3 ABSENT* TOTAL + NT T TOTAL COL.4 + 5 /COL. 1 TOTAL TOTAL ABSENT T+NT \u0026lt; TOTAL CCM~9+10 AXIL. NT COLUMNS 7+g 10,901 57,745 68,646 2784 1786 318,505 370,131 .. 688,636 42,083 18,268 IMPORTANT: See oou on Reverse Side. FaU-Qme 20g4 Half-dme: 889 746 660 889 746 660 *See Psge 2 Kindergancn Instnictioas 117 12 20 25 19 17 Supenflieodents Sigoarore Phone# 224^22 I 13 I 14 COMBINED TOTAL ADT COL. 2 + 7 /COL 8,235 22 19 17 8,293 8,293 GRADES K-12 COL 4 + 9 /COL ADM COL. 4+5+9+10 /\u0026lt;X)L 1 18,932 20,054 22 19 17 18,990 18,990 25 19 17 20,115 20,115 (O*r) Link Rock District 77-01 LEA Number 10/17/95 Quarter Ending Date 11/10/95 Date Submitted 1 Quarter Nomber FORM NO. FAPO-3B M to M TRANSFERS SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 1995-96 Year Phone# 2242222 ADT - ADA - ADM This report is (fate mtfain fifteen (15) days after dte end of die quarter (Ark. Code Ano. 6-18-213, Supp. 1991). Send one copy to the office of Local Fiscal Services, Capitol Mall. Room 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and one copy to the County Board of Educafion. Each quarter is to be no less (han forty (40) and no mote than fifty (50) days. I 2 I 3 I 5 I 6 I 8 I 9 10 11 12 I 13 I 14 KINDERGARTEN DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM C. D. E. G. H. GRADES 1-12 DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS COMBINED TOTAL QlADESK-12 Rgures in columns 2 thru 14 shotdd be to tfie r\u0026gt;earest whole rwmber Resident pt^xls sent to other cfistls) under \"M to M* transfers List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County Pulaski County P4 North Little Rock Total C of columns 12. 13, 14. These will be used for MFP/Transp. Aid purposes Non-resident pupils received from other districtCs) under *M to M' transfers. List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County North Little Rock Pulaski County - P4 Total E DAYS IN QTR. NT* TOTAL COL. 2+3 ABSENT* TOTAL + NT T TOTAL COL. 4+5 /COL. 1 TOTAL ABSENT TOTAL T+NT TOTAL COL. 9 +10 /COL. ADT COL. 2 + 7 /COL. ADA COL. 4 + 9 /COL, T NT COLUMNS 7+8 1 1 1 ADM COL. 4+5+ 9+lO/COL. 1 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Number of kindergarten pupils enrolled this quarter: 50 1327 78 1609 1405 Full-time\n7422 7422 393 195 186 186 195 1327 78 1609 1405 20 2 61 22 Half-time\n34 2 42 36 11534 2420 13954 Additional instnictions on back. 11534 2420 13954 426 104' 530 FIN-09-00-005 5/91 299 63 362 W/P4 322 62 40 424 333 65 42 440 Little Rock District 76-01 LEANumber 10/17/95 Quarter Ending Date 11/10/95 Date Submitted 1 Quarter Nnmbff FORM NO. FAPD-3A MAGNET SCHOOL REPORT SUPERINTENDENTS QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM This report is due witfun fifteen (15)da\u0026gt;'s after the end of the quarter ( Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-213, Supp. 1991). Send one copy to the office of Local Fiscal Services, #4 Capitol Mall, Room 202-A Littfe Rock, Arkansas 72201 and one copy to the Ounty Board of Education. Each quarter is 1995-96 School Year Phone# 224:2222 to be 00 less than forty (40) and no more than fifty (50) da^'S- 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 I 9 to 11 12 13 14 This is to report information on the students attending magnet schools. DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM COMBINED TOTAL GRADES K - 12 C. Little Rock (76-01) sent to Little Rock (76-01) Total K-12 C. N. Little Rock 176-02) sent to Little Rock (76-01) Total K-12 C. Pulaski County Special (76-03) sent to Little Rock (76-01) Total K-12 Total to be used in Funding Magnet School ___________________ DAYS IN QTR. NT* [TOTAL COL 2+3 KINDERGARTEN 40 40 40 40 Number of kindergarten pupils enrolled this quarter: 1,258 5,051 6,309 KINDERGARTEN 0 0 1,258 1,026 1,026 KINDERGARTEN 2,128 2,128 8,205 9,463 Full-time\n2S2 ABSENT* TOTAL + NT T TOTAL COL. 4+5 /COL. 1 ABSENT TOTAL T NT Total Cd.7^8 TOTAL T+NI COL. 9+10 /COL. ADT COL. 2 + 7 /COL. ADA COL. 4+9 /COL. 1 1 1 ADM COL. 4+5+ 9+lO/COL. 1 GRADES 1-6 206 163 14 32 252 Half-time: 26 54 243 31,230 25,734 56,964 0 0 0 0 0 56,964 8,504 39,734 1,044 GRADES 7-12 14,951 40,685 1,643 23,455 80,419 2,687 2,078 1456 2168 2241 GRADES 1-6 11,095 11,095 362 GRADES 7-12 6,482 6,482 286 17,577 17,577 648 456 0 465 482 GRADES 1-6 18,412 18,412 433 GRADES 7-12 16,777 16.777 668 35,189 35,189 1,101 907 0 933 961 76,221 133,185 4.436 3,441 1,456 3,566 3,684 Additional instructions are on the back Little Rock District 26:01 LEANwnbo' 12/19/95 Quarter Eodiog Date 1/16/96 Dae Submitted 1 Quarter Number FORM NO. FAPD-3A MAGNET SCHOOL REPORT SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM This report is (fae within fifteen (IS) days afUr tbe end of die quarter (Art Code Ann. 6-18-213, Supp. 1991). Send one copy to die office \u0026lt;rf Loci Fised Services. #4 C^xtol Mali, Room 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and one copy to tbe Cooaly Board of Ethjcatioo. EacbquartCTis \\9i5-9(, School Year Fbcoe# sl^UTl to be no less than forT\u0026gt;' (40) and no more fifty (50) days. 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 This is to report information on the students attending magnet schoots. DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM COMBINED TOTAL OADES K. -12 C. Little Rock (76-01) sent to Little Rock (76-01) Total K-12 C. N. Little Rock (76-02) sent to Little Rock (76-01) Total K-12 C. Pulaski County Special (76-03) sent to Little Rock (76-01) Total K-12 Total to be used in Funding Magnet School ______________________ DAYS IN QIR. NT* I TOTAL COL 2+3 KINDERGARTEN 40 1,281 4,866 6,147 KINDERGARTEN 40 40 40 Number of kindergarten pupils enrolled this quarter\n0 0 1,281 944 944 KINDERGARTEN 1,958 7,768 Full-time: 1,958 9,049 252 ABSENT* TOTAL + NT T TOTAL C\u0026lt;M\u0026gt;.4+5 /CM-.I ABSENT T NT Total Col.7+8 TOTAL T+NT TOTAL COL. 9+10 lOOL. ADT COL 2 + 7 /COL ADA COL 4 + 9 ZCOL GRADES 1-6 1 1 ADM COL. 4+5+ ^KVCOL-I 381 163 46 25 130 557 Half-time: 52 240 30,785 25,288 56,073 0 0 0 0 0 56,073 8,291 39,076 1,810 GRADES 7-12 14,609 22,900 GRADES 1-S 10,909 GRADES 7-12 6,253 17,162 GRADES 1-6 17,734 GRADES 7-12 16,359 34,093 74,155 39,897 78,973 10,909 6,253 17,162 17,734 16,359 34,093 130,228 Additional instructiOQS are on the back. 2,420 4,230 2,080 I 1434 2128 2243 549 394 943 886 1,099 1,985 7,158 453 902 3,435 I 0 0 1,434 453 477 901 3,482 954 3,674B. Al. c. Pulaski County FORM NO. FAPO-3 \u0026amp;I3I32 Read carefuOy instructions on Page 2 Little Rock District 6(M)1 LEA Number 12/19/95 Qoatter Eoding Date 1/16/96 Date Submitted SUPERINTENDE.NTS QUARTERLY ATTENDAiNCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM Tti rfpirticA^wiihm fifteen (15) dsyssfter die end \u0026lt;rfthe qBaittr( Alt. Code Ana. 6-18-213. Snpp. 1991). Send one copy to the office of Local Fiscal Services. #4 Capiul MaO, Room 202-A. Lode Rock, .Arkansas 72201 ad aoe copy to the County Board of Education Eadi quarttr is to be no less than faty (40) and no more tian (50) \u0026lt;fa\u0026gt;-5. I I 5 I 7 I I 9 I 10 KINDERGARTEN DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM GRADES 1-12 DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS 2 Qaner Nanber I 1995-96 Year 11 12 Supermteadcpfs Signature pbce# 13 I 14 COMBINED TOTAL GRADES K-12 Figures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole rumber Resident pupils atterxfing schools in this district Resident pupib sent to PreK Sp. Ed. (nor\u0026gt; pubBcl schools imder a tuition agreement Aftemative Learning Environment List So. Ed, Schools bv name Elizabeth Mitchell Day Treatment FlorerKe Crittenton Home Service Arkansas State Hospital/OHS Resident pupils sent to other dist{s) under tuition agreement C1. Alternative Learning Environment Ust Districts I LEA NO. 0. Total A, B. C of columns 12, 13, 14, These win be used for MFPZTransp. Aid purposes 6. Non-resident pupds received from other districKs) under a tuition agreement List Districts LEA NO. EL Alternative Learning Environment Non-resident pupils received urxler 'Pnv. Turt.* \u0026amp;/or No Tuit. being paid\" G. Total |A, B,  and F) H. DAYS IN QTR. 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Number of kindergarten students enrolled this quarter\nNT* TOTAL COL 2 + 3 ABSENT TOT.AL + NT T TOTAL COL.4 + 5 /COL. 1 TOTAL TOTAL ABSENT T+NT i TOTAL (XX-9+10 /Ctt-. ADT CCX- 2 + 7 /COL ADA (XL 4 + 9 /(XL NT COLUMNS 7+8 ADM COL 4+5+9+10 /COL 1 13,120 54,131 67351 4761 1800 320,581 342,751 663332 62,239 18,139 8,343 18,265 19.940 IMPORTANT: See nou on Revene Sde. Full-time: 1869 Half-time. 885 863 640 885 863 640 *See Page 2 Kinderganeo Instnictiotu 17 12 11 15 16 11 22 16 8,403 8,403 22 16 18,325 18,325 23 22 16 20,001 20,001 (Over) C. D. E. e. H. LitlleRock District FORM NO. FAPO-3B 77-01 LEA Num ba 12/19/95 Quota EtMfing Date 1/16/96 Dmc Submitted M to M TRANSFERS 2 Quarter Nomber SUPERIOTENDENTS QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM This report is \u0026lt;be UTthin fifteeo (15) days after the aid of (be quarter ( Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-213, Supp. 1991). Send one copy to die office of Local Fiscal Ser^-ices, #4 Capitol Mall, Room 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and ooe copy to the County Board of Eibcatioa. Each quarter is to be no less that fbrTv (40) and no more than fifty (SO) days. I 2 I 3 5 6 KINDERGARTEN DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM 1995-96 Year SnperiDteodents Signature Phone# 224:2222 Figures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole nomber Resident pupils sent to other distlsl unrjer 'M to M' transfers List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County Pulaski County P4 North Little Rock Total C of columns 12, 13, 14, These will be used for MFP/Transp. Aid purposes Non-resident pupils received from other distrtctls) under \"M to M' transfers. List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County North Lttle Rock Pulaski County - P4 Total E I 8 I 9 10 I 11 12 13 GRADES 1-12 DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS I COMBINED TOTAL C31ADESK-I2 14 DAYS IN QTR. NT* TOTAL COL 2+3 ABSENT* TOTAL + NT T TOTAL COL. 4+5 /COL. I TOTAL ABSENT TOTAL TOTAL T+NT COL. 9+10 .\"COL. ADT COL 2 + 7 /COL ADA COL 4 + 9 /COL NT COLUMNS 7+8 1 1 1 ADM COL. 4+5+ 9+IO/COL. 1 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Number of kindergarten pupils enrolled this quarter\n1276 76 1461 1352 Ftillaiitic: 7278 7278 441 193 182 182 182 182 193 193 1276 76 1461 1352 2i 31 4 110 35 llalf-ttme 33 2 39 35 11044 2437 13481 Additional instnictions on back 11044 2437 13481 530 289 308 322 181' 711 FINTBTKWXIS 5(91 65 63 37 354 408 W/P4 67 39 428C. D. E. G. H. Lillie Rock District FORM NO. FAPO-3B Agures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole number Resident pupils sent to other tfistls) under \"M to M' transfers List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County Pulaski County P4 North Litde Rock Total C of columns 12, 13, 14, These will be used for MFPZTransp. Aid purposes Non-resident pupils received from other districtlsl under 'M to M' transfers. List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County North Little Rock Pulaski County - P4 Total E 77-01 LEA Number 12/19/95 Quaner Eodii^ Date 1,'16,'96 Date Submitted M to -M TRANSFERS Quarter Number SUPERINTENDErfTS QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM This report is due nilliin fifteen (15) dass after tbe end of the epiarter (Art. Code .Ann. 6-18-213, Supp. 1991L Send one copy to the ofScc of Local Fiscal Services, fr4 Capitol MalL Room 202-A, Little Rock. ,Artansas 72201 am] one copy to the County Board of Education. Each quarter is to be DO less than forty (40) and oo more than fifty (50) days. I 2 I 3 I 5 6 1 KINDERGARTEN DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM I S GRADES 1-12 DAYS IN ATTENDANCE 10 DAYS DAYS IN QTR. NT* TOTAL COL 2+3 ABSENT* TOTAL ' + NT T TOTAL COL. 4-t5 fCOL. 1 TOTAL ABSENT TOTAL COLUMNS 7-^8 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Number of kindergarten pupils enrolled this quarter: 4036 2468 1276 76 1461 1352 Full-time: 4036 2468 1276 76 1461 1352 S5 304 212 31 4 110 35 Half-time: 109 67 33 2 39 35 38956 7278 11044 2437 13481 Additiofial instruction, on back 38956 7278 11044 2437 13481 1995-96 Year 11 12 TOTAL T+NT COL 9 *10 /COL 1 Siqjcriiitendeois Siznatm I 2995 441 530 181 711 FTN4I4OO00S 5/01 1049 193 289 65 354 i A-zy-n Phrme# 324-2272 13 I 14 COMBINED TOTAL ADT COL 2 + 7 COL, 1 1075 182 1,257 GRADES K-12 AD.A COL. 4 + 9 ZCOL ADM COL 4+5+ 9*10iCOL. I W/P4 1075 182 1,257 308 63 37 408 1157 193 1,350 322 67 39 428B. Al. c. Pulaski________ County FORM NG. FAPO-3 \u0026amp;13I32 Read carehilly instructions on Page 2 Little Rock District 60-01 LEA Number 3/13/96 Quarter Ending Date 4/8/96 Dale Subotined 2 Quarter Number Sapeniead^s S^oaUBe SUPERINTENDENTS QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM This report is due w-ithin fifteen (15) days alter the end of the quarter (Ark. Code Arm. 6-18-213, Supp. 1991). Send one copy to the office of L.ocal Fiscal Services. #4 Capitol MalL Room 202-A Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 and one copy to (fae County Board of Education. Esch quarter is to be no less than forty (40) and no more (han fifty (50) days. I I 3 I I 5 I 6 I 8 I 9 I 10 I KINDERGARTEN DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM 1995-96 Year Pbooeo 324-2272 II 12 13 14 GRADES 1-12 DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS COSffiPs'ED TOTAL GR.ADES K -12 Figures in columrrs 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole number Resident pupils attending schools in this district Resident pupils sent to PreK Sp. Ed. (non- pubiic) schools under a tuition agreement Alternative Learning Environment List So, Ed. Sctwwb bv name Elizabeth MrtcneU Day Treatment Florence Crittemon Home Service Arkansas State Hosprtal/DHS Resident pupils sent to other dist(s) urrder tuition agreement C1. Attematjve Leaning Environment List Districts LEA NO. D. Total A. 8. C of columns 12. 13. 14. These win be used for MFP/Transp. Aid purposes E. Non-resident pupils received from other districttsl UTKter a tuition agreement List Districts LEA NO. I El. Alternative Leammg Environment F. Non-resident pupils received imder \"Priv. Tuit.\" \u0026amp;/or No Tuit. being paid* G. Total (A, 8.  arxJ F) H. IN QTR. 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 Number of kindergarten students enrolled ttus quarter: T* 17,012 NT* 66,021 TOTAL COL. 2 + 3 ABSENT* TOTAL  NT TOTAL COL. 4+ 5 /COL. 1 TOTAL TOTAL ABSENT TOTAL T+NT COL. 9 +10 /COL. ADT COL. 2 + 7 KXL. COL. 4 + 9 KOL. NT COLUMNS 7+8 ADM COL. 4+5+9t10 /CXX. I 83,033 5596 1809 388,646 414,398 803,044 82,827 18,079 8,279 18,083 19,888 IMPORTANT: Sec note on Reverse Side. FBU.time: 1896 Half-time: 1,421 1,862 392 1,421 1,862 392 'See Page 2 Kiodergarten Instructions 361 747 36 53 8 29 38 8 8,354 8,354 29 38 8 18,158 18,158 36 53 8 19,985 19,985 \u0026lt;Owr)C. D. E. G. H. Lillie Rock District FORM FJO. FAP0-3B Figures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole number Resident pupds sent to other dist(s) under \"M to M* transfers Lbt Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County Pulaski County P4 North Little Rock Total C of cotumns 12,13. 14. These will be used for MFP/Transp. Aid purposes Non-resident pupte received from other district(s) under 'M to M transfers. List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County North Little Rock Pulaski County - P4 Total E 77-01 LEA Number 3/13/96 Quarter Ending Dale 4/8/96 Date Submitted M to M TRANSFERS 2 Quarter Number SUPERINTENDENTS QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM This report is due within fifteen (15) days after the end of the quarter ( Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-213. Supp. 1991). Send one copy to ihc office of Local Fiscal Services, Hi Capitol Mall. Room 202-A. Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 and one copy Io the County Board of Education. Each quarter is to be no less than forty (40) and no more than fifty (50) days I 3 KINDERGARTEN DAYS IN ATTENDANCE I 5 I 6 I 8 GRADES 1-12 10 I DAYS ADM DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS DAYS IN QTR. NT* TOTAL COL. 2+3 ABSENT* TOTAL + NT T TOTAL COL. 4+5 /COL. I TOTAL ABSENT TOTAL T NT COLUMNS 7+8 49 49 48 49 48 49 49 Number of kindergarten pupfts enrolled this quarter: 4896 3060 1516 93 1739 1609 FuU-timr 4896 3060 1516 93 1739 1609 325 224 52 5 112 57 Half-tiioe: 107 67 32 2 38 34 46295 46295 8430 8430 13080 2863 15943 AdditMoal instracoaos on back. 13080 2863 15943 Superimeniieni's Signature 1995-96 Year TOTAL T+NT COL, 9+10 /COL. 1 12 I Phone  324-2272 13 I COMBINED TOTAL ADT COL. 2 + 7 /COL. 1 14 GR.ADESK-12 ADA COL. 4 + 9 /COL. ADM COL. 4+5+ 9+lO/COL. 1 3928 1025 1045 1045 1132 599 797 204 1001 FIN-09-)-005 5/91 188 176 1,220 176 1,220 188 1,320 283 64 347 W/P4 298 62 35 395 315 66 38 419Little Rock District 76-01 LEA Number 3/13/96 Quarter Ending Date 4/8/96 Date Submitted i Quarter Number Supennlendents Signature FORM NO. FAPD-3A MAGNET SCHOOL REPORT SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 1995-96 School Year i Phones 324-22?\nThis is to report information on the students attending magnet schools. C. Little Rock (76-01) sent to Little Rock (76-01) Total K-12 C. N. Uttle Rock (76-02) sent to Uttle Rock (76-01) Total K-12 C. Pulaski County Special (76-03) sent to Uttle Rock (76-01) Total K-12 Total to be used in Funding Magnet School ADT - ADA - ADM This report is due within fifteen (15) days after the end of the quarter ( Ark. Code Atm. 6-18-213, Supp. 1991). Send one copy to the office of Local Fiscal Services, M Capitol Mall, Room 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and one copy to the County Board of Education. Each quarter is to be no less than forty (40) and no more than fifty (50) days. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 I 9 10 II 12 13 14 DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM COMBINED TOTAL GRADES K -12 DAYS IN QTR. NT* Itotal col. 2+3 KINDERGARTEN Number of kindergarten pupils enrolled this quarter\n49 49 49 49 1,736 6,096 KINDERGARTEN 0 0 1,736 1,239 KINDERGARTEN 2,358 9,693 Full-time\n7,832 1,239 2,358 11,429 250 ABSENT* TOTAL + NT T TOTAL COL. 4+5 /COL. I ABSENT T NT Total Col.7+8 TOTAL T+NT TOTAL COL. 9+10 /COL. ADT ADA COL. 2 + 7 ZCOL. COL. 4 9 /COL. I 1 ADM COL. 4*5- 9+lO/COL. 1 GRADES 1-6 443 169 35 26 116 594 Half-time: 50 245 38,721 10,081 48,802 1,854 GRADES 7-12 25,423 64,144 0 0 0 0 0 64,144 17,157 27,238 GRADES 1-6 13,353 GRADES 7-12 7,392 20,745 GRADES 1-6 21,962 GRADES 7-12 19,363 41,325 89,308 42,580 91,382 13,353 7,392 20,745 21,962 19,363 41,325 153,452 .Additional instructions arc on the badL 3,142 4,996 1,967 1344 2025 2136 631 630 1,261 449 0 449 475 815 1,510 2,325 8,582 891 0 891 941 3,307 1,344 3,365 3,552B. A1. c. Pulaski County FORM NO. FAPO-3 SI3I32 Read carefully instructions on Page 2 Little Rock Distrkt 60-01 LEA Number 6/3/96 Qusner Fading Dale 6/17/96 Daw Siibnined SVPERINTENDENTS QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM This report is due w ilbin fiflecedS) davs after the end of the quarter f Ark Code Am. 6\u0026gt;lt-2l3. Supp 1991). Send one copy to ihe ofTiceof LecaJ Fiscal Services. M Capitol MaU. Rooa 3O2-.K. Litde Rock. Arkansas 72201 and one copy to ihe County Board of Education. Each quarter is to be no less than forts-140) tai tta move than fifh 150) das-s I 2 I I I 5 i 6 I I 10 I KINDERGARTEN DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM GRADES 1-12 DAYS ATTENDANCE DAYS Figures in cokanns 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole number Resident pupils anerxiing schools in this district Resident pupils sem to PreK Sp. Ed. (rxxv pubticl schools under a tuition sgreement Anemative Learning Environment List So. Ed, Schoois bv name Elizabeth MitcheU Day Treatment Florence Cnttenton Home Service Arkansas State Hospital/OHS Resident pupils sent to other distlsl under tuition agreement Cl. ARematrve LeamneEflwonoient List DiMricts LEA NO. D. Total A. B, C of columns 12, 13, 14. These wifl be used for MFP/Transp. Aid purposes Norvrestdent pupds received from other \u0026lt;fethct{s) under a tuition agreement List Districts : LEA NO. I El. Attemative Learrang Enwonment Non-resident pupils received urvler Priv. Tuit. \u0026amp;?or *No Tuit. being paid* G. Total (A, B. E and F) H. 4 Quarter Nianber 1222:SS Yew 12 I Supmntendent s 'j/yC nature Phone* J24:i222 13 I 14 COMBINED TOTAL GRADES K\u0026gt; 12 DAYS IN QTR. 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 7T 49 49 49 49 Nurrtber of kindergarten students ervoAed this Quarter TOTAL COL 2*3 ABSENT TOTAL  NT T TOTAL COL.4 + 5 /COL I TOTAL TOTAL ABSENT TOTAL T-NT COL 9 *10 ZCOL ADT COL. 2*7 /COL. KQK COL 4*9 /COL. NT COLLMNS T-t ADM COL. 4+5+9*10 /COL. t 18,094 64,703 82,797 5952 1811 386,713 404,661 791,374 87,351 17,933 8,261 17,840 19,744 IMPORTANT: See att en Rcvcnc Side. FaB-tmr 1126 Half*\u0026lt;iiae: 1,255 1372 392 1,255 1372 392 *See Page 2 Kindogata tasnetiaos 194 879 30 46 8 26 28 8 8323 8323 26 28 8 17,902 17,902 30 46 8 19,828 19,828 (Over)C. D. E. G. H. Little Rock District FORM NO. FAPO-3B Figures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole number Resident pupils sent to other dist(s) under *M to M* transfers List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County Pulaski County P4 North Little Rock Total C of columns 12, 13, 14. These win be used for MFP/Transp. Aid purposes Non-resident pupils received from other district(s) under \"M to M* transfers. List Disuicts LEA NO. Pulaski County North Little Rock Pulaski County - P4 Total E 77-01 LEA Number 6/3/96 Quarter Ending Dale 6/17/96 Dale Submined M to M TRANSFERS Quarter Number SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM This report is due within fifteen (15) da\u0026gt;-s after the end of the quarter (Ait Code Aim. 6-18-213. Suj^. 1991). Send one cop\u0026gt;-to the office of Local Fiscal Services, #4 Capitol MalL Room 202-A, Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 and one copy to the County Board of Education. Each quarter is to be no less than forty (40) and no more than fifty (50) da^v. I 2 I 5 KINDERGARTEN DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS 1995-96 Year Siqierintendent's Signature Phone# azum I 7 I 8 9 I 10 I 12 ADM GRADES 1-12 DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS I 13 COMBINED TOTAL GRADES K- 12 DAYS IN QTR. NT* TOTAL COL 2+3 ABSENT* TOTAL + NT T TOTAL COL. 4+5 /COL. 1 TOTAL ABSENT TOTAL T NT COLUMNS 7+8 TOTAL T+NT COL 9 +10 /COL ADT COL 2 + 7 /COL. ADA COL. 4+9 /COL. ADM COL. 4+5+ 9+lO/COL 1 49 49 48 49 49 49 Number of kindergarten pupils enrolled this quarter 4908 3004 47 1672 93 1500 1765 Foil-time: 4908 3004 47 1672 93 1500 1765 25 286 279 1 114 5 19 119 Half-time: 106 67 36 2 31 38 44447 44447 3734 983 1007 1007 1089 8370 8370 746 190 175 1,183 175 1,183 191 1,280 13713 13713 764 295 314 332 3004 3004 181 66 65 68 31 31 16717 16717 945 361 410 431 Addidoaal instrucdoos oo back. FIN-09-00-005 5/91 W/P4C. D. E. G. H. Lillie Rock District FORM NO. FAPD-3B Figures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the (dearest whole rHjrr^ber Residerrt pupds sent to other ^st(s) under *M to M\" trartsfers List Districu LEA NO. Pulaski County Pulaski County P4 North Little Rock Total C \u0026lt;ri eokanrts 12, 13,14. These wfl be used for MFPZTrarsp. Aid purposes Non-residem pupis received from other (festrictts) under 'M M* transfas. List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County North Little Rock Pulaski County - P4 Total E 77-01 LEA Number 6.3/96 Qturter Ending Due 6/17/96 Dale Submioed M to M TRA.NSFERS 4 OuMtCT Number SUPERINTENDENTS QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM Thii report dtie wilhirt rincen(I5)d\u0026lt;yt after (he end ofthe quanerC Ark Code Arm 6-18-213,Supp 1991) Send one copy to the ofTice of Local Fiscal Services. *4 Capitol Mall, Roon 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and ooe copy to the County Bard of Educaboo, Each quarter is to be no less than forty (40) and no more (han fifty150) days 7^71 KINDERGARTEN DAYS IN ATTENDANCE I 5 8 9 I GRADES 1-12 10 I DAYS ADM DAYS LN ATTENDANCE DAYS DAYS fN QTK- NT* TOTAL COL. 2*3 ABSENT* TOTAL + ST TOTAL COL. 4+5 /COL, I TOTAL NT COLUMNS 7+8 TOTAL ABSENT 49 49 48 49 48 49 49 Number of kindergarten pupds enrolled this quarter: 1672 93 1500 1765 FuU*Qme: 1672 93 1500 1765 114 5 19 119 Hilf-time: 36 2 31 38 13713 3004 16717 AdiStiaos] iosbvsiaBS cB bsck. 13713 3004 16717 /mw L?9S^ Ye TOTAL T+NT COL. 9+10 /COL. 764 181 945 nfIM\u0026lt;MO5 5l Si 3 Signann Rwoe * 324-2273 12 I 13 CO.MBISED TOTAL GRADES K-12 14 295 66 361 ADT COL- 2-^1 /COL ADA COL 4*9 /COL I 314 65 31 410 W/P4 ADM COL 4+5* 9+lOCOL. I 332 68 31 431C. 0. G. H. Little Rock District FORfZ NO. FAPD 3B Figures in columrts 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole number Resident pupils sent to other distls, under \"M to M* transfers List Dtttncu LEA NO. Pulaski County Pulaski County P4 North Utde Rock Total C of coturms 12, 13, 14, These wiH be used for MFP/Transp. Aid purposes Norwesideflt pupis received from other (fistrictfsi under *M to M transfers. List Oistricts LEA NO. Pulaski County North Little Rock Pulaski County - P4 Total E 77-01 LEA Number 6/3/96 Quarter Ending Date 6/17/96 De Submined 4 Quarter Number M to M TRANSFERS SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM Thu report ii due within fifteen (15, d*\\- after the end of the quarter! Ark Code Ana 6.18.213, Supp. 1991,. Send one copy to the office of Local Fucal Services. M Capitol Mall. Room 202-A, Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 and orte copy to the County Board of Education. Each quarter is to be DO less than forty (40) arvd no more than fiftv{50)davs I I 5 1995-% Year KINDERGARTEN DA'l'S IN ATTENDANCE DAYS I 7 I I I 10 12 ADM GRADES 1-12 DAYS IN OTTL 49 49 48 49 48 49 49 Number of kindergarten pupfls enrolled this quarter: DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS 4908 3004 47 1672 93 1500 1765 Foil-time: TOTAL COL. 2+3 ABSENT* TOTAL + NT T TOTAL COL. 4+5 XOL 1 TOTAL NT COLUMNS 7+8 TOTAL ABSENT T+NT TOTAL COL. 9 *10 /COL. 4908 3004 47 1672 93 1500 1765 22 286 279 1 114 5 19 119 106 67 36 2 38 44447 8370 13713 3004 16717 Addioocal issmictioas oo back 44447 3734 983 8370 13713 3004 16717 746 764 181 945 nN-09-00-005 5/91 190 295 66 361 W/P4 /\\iY\\ le Supenntendent's Signature I U I u COMBINED TOTAL ADT COL. 2*7 rOL 1007 175 1,183 GRADES K \u0026gt; 12 ADA COL 4-9 /COL ADM COL 4-5- 9-lO-COL 1 1007 1089 175 1,183 314 65 31 410 191 1,280 332 68 31 431Little Rock EXstnct 76-01 LEA Number 6/3/96 Quarter Ending Date 6/17/96 Dale Submined 4 Ouaftn Number FORM NO. FAPO-3A MAGNET SCHOOL REPORT SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - AD.M Bus rcpon IS due Within fifteen! 15) days after the end of the quarter (Art Code Ann 6-18-213. Supp IWI), Send one copy to the olTice of Local Fiscal Semees. M Capitol Mall, Room 202-A bole Rock, Arkansas 72201 and one (x\u0026gt;p\u0026gt; Io the County Board of Education. Each qumo ts to be no less than forty (40) and no more than fifty (50) days 1995.9 Schrxil Ve 1 3 5 6 7 Sape^niendeni \u0026amp; Signature This is to report information on the students atterxjirtg magnet schools. . DAYS IN ATTENDANCE DAYS ADM C. Little Rock (76-01) sent to Lttle Rock (76-01) Total K-12 C. N. Little Rock (76-02) sent to Little Rock (76-01) Total K-12 C. Pulaski County Special (76-03) sent to Little Rock (76-01) Total K-12 Total to be used in Funding Magnet School I 9 10 12 DAYS IN ATTENDANCE I 13 DAYS IN QTR. DAYS ADM I 14 COMBINED TOTAL GRADES K  12 NT* TOTAL COL. 2*3 KINDERGARTEN Number of kir\u0026gt;def9arten pupils enrolled this quarter\n49 49 49 49 1,744 6,168 7,912 KINDERGARTEN 0 0 1,744 1,210 1,210 KINDERGARTEN 2,378 2,378 9,756 11,500 Fuil-tinie: ABSENT* TOTAL  NT T TOTAL COL. 4-5 /COL. I ABSENT T NT Total Col.7-8 TOTAL T-KT TOTAL COL. 9 *10 /COL. ADT COL. 2*7 /CW- ADA COL- 4*9 /COL GRADES 1-6 1 1 1 ADM COL. 4-5* ^-lOiCOL. I 365 169 64 26 121 550 HaJf-Gme: 51 246 38,836 10,030 48,866 1,846 GRADES 7-12 17,027 47,524 3,293 69,333 27,057 96,390 5,139 2,072 1451 2129 2241 GRADES 1-e 0 0 0 0 0 69,333 13,353 13,353 612 GRADES 7-12 7,294 7,294 611 20,647 20,647 1,223 446 0 446 472 GRADES 1-S 21,860 21,860 837 GRADES 7-12 19,189 19,189 1,415 41,049 88,753 41,049 158,086 Additionai instructioos are oo tbe bacL 2,252 8,614 884 3,402 0 886 935 1,451 3,461 3,648A1. a. C. Pulaski County Liaie Rod 60-01 10 I? 96 Ooarter Lnirj Date 1 24 9 Date FORM NO, FAPO-3 6.3.32 Read carefully nstrjctions on Paje 2 Agures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole ntmber SUPERLSTENDENTS QUARTERLY ATTEa\\DANCE REPORT. GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM Tie repcr. a x eCK ea. 15. dny acr cad cfstc quarter . Ark. Cede Au. ^16-213. Supp SJ .5J\u0026gt; lo lJ. toed Facal So-nces. *4 Mat. Rom 2O2-.A, LsAe Rock. Arianas ?220l sbl ooe copy- to the Cf^aty Beard of Edocatxn Each esner a vbe adless han fiyy ftimdensnryr fch-f1O\u0026gt;4sys I s 1 i i 11 u u KtMCERGARTEN DAYS IS ATTSOAS ZS DAYS ADM GRADES 1-12 DAYS r.- ATTBOAS'Cl DA^'5 TOTAL GRADES k-12 Residem pupils attending schools r, this district Alternative ueamtns Envtfonment Liet Sp. Ed. Sehoota by name Elaabeth Mrtchel Day Treatment Florence Crrttenton Home SerMce LRSD Evening High School Arkansas State hosprtaVDHS Residem pupds sent to PreK Sp. Ed. (non-pubBc) schools tnder a tixtion agreemerrt Restdent pupds sent to cUer ^stisj under tuition agreement Cl. Alternative Leamng Ertwonmertt List Dbtitcts LEA NO. 0- Total A, , C sf sounns 12, 13, *4. These vifli be used for MFP/Transp-Aid purposes E, Non-readent pupds received from other ^strictfs} mder a tuition a^eement list DisUicts LEA NO. I I El. Aftemative Learning eriysonment Non-resident pupds recerwed tatder Prtv. Tuit.* \u0026amp;?or *No Tiat. being patd* Total (A, D, E and r] H. DAYS DC QTR. 42 42 42 42 42 40 40 Number of kindergarten students enroCed tns 9je.~:( ASSENT- TOTAL 8,142 63,002 TOTAL OOL 2*3 71,144 DCrOKTAXT: Sec aeCc 18SS TOTAL TXT 3905 CCH. 4*5 .'COL 1 1787 299,138 422,030 I I t i R1.IUU. SUe. I T I {URtzoe: 616 569 1.440 I 494 i I I T T I I t I COLUMNS 7- 721,168 616 569 TOTAL T-ST COL 9-IC .\u0026lt;ca. 1 .ADT COL 2-7 JCOL 1 ADA COL 4-9 fCCX. I AD.M COL 4*5*9-K /COL 1 I 36,860 I 18,048 7316 j 18,865 19,835 ! i 7 I 15 15 i 15 25 14 14 14 i T T 15 14 1.440 I 494 1 I ( T I I 1 ) J i } 54 34 I 34 12 12 I I 1^ 12 7391 7391 T I I 18,940 19,910 18,940 19,910 \u0026lt;Owr)Little Rock Dntnct 01 LEA SsBnixT fAurter Endinf* Dale 1 \u0026gt;?4.'9T hate Submitted -JoarUr ''VtJkt SupcnntcrdcnJj Simaturc FORM NO. FAPO-3A MAGNET SCHOOL REPORT StPERlME.SDEM'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT^ GRADES K-12 1996-97 School car Phnrw = .ADT - AD.A - AD.M Thu repc?t 15 due wiihm fifteen (15\ndap after the end of the quarter (.Ark. Code Ann. 6-1S-2I5. Sapp. !991\u0026gt;. Se:\u0026gt;3 \u0026lt;itK u- ths c-Sce oJ Local Fiscal Semesa. s4 Capitol .Mali, Rxwm 202-Little Rxxk, Arkansas 7220 ] and ooe cop\u0026gt; to the Count) Board of Edocitioo. Each quarter is to be no less than fsrtv 1401 and oo mor: than fifh'/SO) dat's I 6 7 S 9 10 II i: 13 14 This is to report informatior. or. students attending magnet schools. SI .AYTE'D.AVCE DAYS ADM 'S DAYS .ADM COMBL'.TD lOT.AL Or ADES E - 12 C. Little Rock (76-01) sent to Uttle Rock (7601) Total K-12 C. N. Littie Rock (76-02) sent to Little Rock (76-01) Total K-12 C. Pulaski County Special (76-03) sent to Little Rock (7601) Total K-12 Total to be used in Punaing Magnet School DAYS IS QTR. TOTAL COL. 2-? KINDERGARTEN .ABSENT- TOTAL T-NT TOTAL COL. 4-5 -'COL. 1 T Total C44.7-8 .^SEST TOT.AL T-XT TOTAL COL. 9 -rlO /COL. 1 ADT COL. 2-7 /COL. 1 .ADA COL. 4-9 /COL. 1 .ADM COL. 4-5- %-lOCOL. 1 GRADES I.B 42 42 42 42 Number of krxjergarten pupis enroBed tbcs quarter: 575 6,484 7,059 246 KINDERGARTEN 0 575 25,352 24,265 49,617 0 0 16.133 41,485 1,513 GRADES 7-12 18,707 34,840 GRADES 1-6 11,205 GRADES 7-12 6,614 42.972 84,457 11,205 6,614 2,263 3,776 2,101 1195 2179 2275 406 360 1,345 1,345 41 33 0 17,819 17,819 766 443 0 456 476 KINDERGARTEN GRADES 1-6 19,497 19,497 368 GRADES 7-12 0 l7,7l0 17,710 915 1,791 1,791 70 44 0 37,716 37,716 1,641 937 0 941 981 9,620 10,195 357 77 49,617 90,: 139.992 6,183 3,481 1,195 3,576 3.732 FoB-tnae: Hatf-Uzoe\n.^4\u0026lt;iiti\u0026lt;xud iastma^aiB sr cs the back.h C. D. E. G. H. Little Rock Disinct 22ii C*sxrui EnJmc Dale 1/22/97 DaU Submitud \\-xrha .SupenntnwieDts SierJlure PQAM NO PAPD-3e M tM TRANSFERS SVPERI\u0026gt;TE.\\DENTS QVzKRTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, CR-ADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM Thu rep'*  wiftc fif.xcs(15) daj-j after the cod of the quarter ( Aric Code Ann. 6-18-213, Supp 1991). Send coe cop\u0026gt; to the oSkc of * hr fK* lew ftar fryfr and on rw\nthan fifh' \u0026lt;5^* da)'s Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 and otk cop\u0026gt;' to the Count) Board of EdncaXaoc. \u0026gt;eh quarter u I 3 4 I 5 6 7 8 I 9 10 I li 12 Phone o D I 14 KINDERGARTEN D.AT3 p\n.ATnyP.ANCE DAYS AD.M GRADES 1-12 DAYS IN AlTEND.ANCE DAYS COMBINED TOTAL GRADES K -12 Figures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole number Resident pupis sent to other distls) under \"M to M' transfers List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County Pulaski County P4 North Little Rock Total C of columns 12, 13, 14. These w3 be used for MFP/Transp. Aid purposes Non-resident pupis received from other district(s| urxler *M to M' transfers. List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County North Little Rock Pulsski County P4 Total E DAT'S IN QTR. 43 43 43 42 42 42 42 Number of kindergarten pupSs enroled this quarter: ABSENT* TOT.AL TOTAL 42 42 3878 1958 1974 1869 1974 EuD-tisaE: TOTAL COL 2-3 TOTAL T*NT COL 4-5 /COL. 1 T COLL'MNS .ABSENT TOT.AL T-NT TOTAL COL 9-10 .COL I ADT COL 2*7 .-COL. 1 .ADA COL 4-9 COL 1 ADM COL 4-5- 9-lOCCH- 1 387X 1958 1974 42 1869 2016 60 410 192 70 84 70 100 50 49 1 47 50 6030 1576 1576 42236 42236 3524 1064 1072 1958 1164 50 6030 14767 14767 .Additional iostrceticas on hack. 536 13J 140 1,212 153 1,317 14767 1576 16343 854 44 898 FIN-0W5 591 372 39 39 399 39 421 40 411 39 438 461 W/P4 39\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_917","title":"''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-01/1995-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Educational law and legislation","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Gifted \u0026 talented"],"dcterms_title":["''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/917"],"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":["228 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   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_780","title":"Substitute teachers","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":["1995/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School employees","Educational statistics","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Substitute teachers"],"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/780"],"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":["138 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! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 23, 1995 To: Board of Directors From: Subject: Henry p. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Substitute Usage Report by School Attached for discussion is a report on substitutes by school. ! I i iLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUBSTITUTE USAGE REPORT JULY 1. 1994 THRU JANUARY 27. 1995 Totals reflect number of times a substitute was used during the month SITE ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENT BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CENTRAL CHICOT\nCLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY CLOVERDALE JR HIGH DODD DUNBAR FAIR FAIR PARK____________________ FOREST HEIGHTS FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLjAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS HALL ~ HENDERSON JEFFERSON M.L. KING MABELVALE ELEMENTARY MABELVALE JR HIGH MANN MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF METROPOLITAN MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PARKVIEW PULASKI HEIGHTS INT PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE SOUTHWEST TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF Grand Total MONTH I AUGUST I I SEPTEMBER OCTOBER INOVEMBER Qi 19i 1 1 14 18 21 34 12 3 51 7 12 34 14 25 5 5 7 I T T T T T T T I T T T 2 12) 14| 7^ 831 7! 21 1! 241 2^ 7| 2| 01 21 371 11 71 II 361 431 72 14 25 5 25 6 11 6 __ 17| 291 8201 4! 42! ___ ___W 67! 35! 75! 119' 49 i ___3^ 1121 48! ___1^ 1201 27! 1081 20! 291 191 46! 211 37! 781 2881 23! 171 35! 70! 651 711 201 20! 13! 621 81 86! 151 120! 761 123! 58! 1091 201 44| 501 46! 21! 301 431 581 2795 5i 53 26! 43 85 18 7^ 1321 62 56 127 60 126 176 40 106 19 I ! T T I 51 33 74 25 40 77 278 24 47 43 1361 131 90 33 15 19 541 15| 96| 491 157! ~6^ 911 661 95 30 44 71 511 ' 291 391 461 811 34091 DECEMBER .JANUARY 4i 521 381 46 I 941 31 I 36 i 1261 891 60 36 1541 1201 441 1341 241 651 321 411 16! 301 721 2^ 26 j 331 961 931 1171 ___ 481 21 i 451 971 281 ~FT 901 861 441 1291 251 1191 881 291 1271 261 341 271 151 201 611 2^ 101 63 75 67 108 80 101 241 771 311 851 44| 1121 551 97! 611 an 51 141 71 23 53 171 109? 461 601 42 118 25 Al 63 30 25 35 41 47 78 42 32 80 30 431 32041 221 16! 371 351 2737. ____8 ___ ___1 ___38 ___ ___13 53 103 ___57 41 129 ____9 125 105 ___ 128 ___ 46 47 ___ ___ 25 60 221 ___19 41 66 70 97 103 13 ___15 24 99 17 62 18 123 __M 98 __57 60 52 59 __ __ ___16 __ __ ___37 2835 Grand Total _________M ________ ________1^ ________1^ _______ ________W ________ ________ 355 240 675 185 606 643 175 628 ________132 230 165 229 113 166 358 1374 109 ________ 316 460 _______547 412 124 65 96 400 _________95 ________389 144 657 338 541 ________ ________ ________174 251 ________3A1_ 211 ________119 ________1^ ________ ________ 15800 ILittle Rock School District August 26, 1996 2 9 TO: All Principals \u0026amp; Dept. Managers Office of ^esesregaion ^onnofiiig FROM: Dick Hurley, Director-Human Resources SUBJECT: Substitute System With the start-up of school, there appears to be the usual problems with following the procedures for substitutes. Please be reminded that the automated system must be used when calling substitutes and/or reporting absences. If you or another member of your staff make arrangements for a sub without using the system, the sub will not be paid properly! The S.O.S. office needs to know what subs are currently being used by name, location, subject, and date started. Also, school secretaries are supposed to call-in their afternoon S.O.S. report. The correct number is 324-2094. Please be certain they do this. You support is important and appreciated. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000LRSD Substitute Teacher Budget vs Actual Comparisons 9.000.DD0 ]b,567.000 8,000,000 7,000,000 je,837,000 6,606,000 6,000,000 5,226,000 5,401,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 4,032,000 4,290,000 3,226,000 3,000,000 2,628,000 2,000,000 ^26,000 |l,364 000 1,000,01 0 T T 1 1993-94 1995-96 1997-98 1992-93 1994-95 1996-97 Accumulated Budget Accumulated Actual Charted by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on LRSD published budgets.1,500,000 1,300,000 1,100,000 900,000 700,000 500,000 1.7D0.D0D Charted by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on LRSD published budgets. SKEM Little Rock School District received January 13,1999 JAN 2 0 1999 To: Listed participants Off ICE GF OESCGRESAHON MONfTORllK From: Dr. Richard Hurley, Director - Human Resources Subject: Study - Substitute teachers Dr. Gamine, Superintendent of Schools, has recommended a multi-faceted approach to addressing several issues that affect the learning environment for our students. He has recommended that committees be formed to address each of those issues. One committee, for which you have been recommended, is that of Substitute Teachers. Initially, I will be chairing this committee. There are no set guidelines on how we proceed as a committee, so we have a great deal of latitude in determining a recommendation to the Superintendent regarding substitute teachers. Your name has been provided to me as an individual that could assist us in this endeavor. I am recommending that our initial meeting be on Wednesday, January 27, at 4:00 p. m. If you cannot attend or wish to not be a member of the committee, please let me know. Ms. Thelma Shorter, Teacher - Mitchell Elementary Ms. Debbie Desjardin, Teacher - Mann Magnet Junior High Ms. Eileen Hammond, Teacher-Fulbright Elementary Ms. Buenah Combs, Teacher - Forest Park Elementary Ms. Marci Eckolls, Coordinator - Human Resources Mr. Gene Parker, Director - English Dr. Linda Brown, Principal - Parkview Magnet High School Ms. Sharon Brooks, Principal - Rightsell Academy Ms. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Jan Van Ness, Parent Ms. Robin Carson, Gibbs PTA 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000EECrai 4BenMr RECEIVED Little Rock School District JUN 1 8 1989 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING June 11, 1999 To: Substitute Committee From: Dick Hurley, Director - Human Resources Subject: Stuff we have discussed I have tried to capture all of the ideas we have agreed upon throughout our meetings. As agreed at the last meeting, I would finalize\" our information and if we agree that this is the summary, we will present the information to the Superintendent as the Committees recommendation. I think we agreed to the following in three areas: 1) How to keep teachers at work - Reduce the amount of professional leave granted - Allow teachers to cash-in sick days (over a set limit) at sub pay cost - Allow them to buy the days back at the same rate upon catastrophic illness - Allow sick leave bank - Maintain cleaner buildings (less health problems) - Provide stress management workshops 2) How to get substitutes when needed - Increase the pay rate for degreed/certified people (start at long-term rate - Work with UALR to develop a program where education students can work one day per week and receive credit from UALR and pay from us - Have school PTAs and Campus Leadership Teams get involved to have a cadre of subs for that specific school - Hire Instructional Aides for each school to act as permanent subs and to be used as Aides when staffing is full - Make substitutes applications available at all sites 810 West MarRham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-20007 May 11, 1999 To: From: Little Rock School District Listed participants Dr. Richa^fed^I Director - Human Resources RECEIVED MAY 1 21999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Subject\nStudy - Substitute teachers As you may recall, we originally met a couple of times in January to address this issue. For various reasons, we have not met for a couple of months. We need to get back on track with our meetings. I recommend that we resume our meetings on Wednesday, May W*, at 4:00 p.m. in the Conference Room in the Administration building. Please come prepared to discuss how we will proceed in addressing this issue as well as to select a chairperson who is willing to lead our group to a conclusion. This issue is too important to discontinue our efforts. If you cannot attend or wish to not be a member of the committee, please let me know. Ms. Thelma Shorter. Teacher - Mitchell Elementary Ms. Debbie Desjardin, Teacher - Mann Magnet Junior High Ms. Eileen Hammond, Teacher - Fulbright Elementary Ms. Buenah Combs, Teacher - Forest Park Elementary Ms. Marci Eckolls, Coordinator - Human Resources Mr. Gene Parker, Director - English Dr. Linda Brown, Principal - Parkview Magnet High School Ms. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Robin Carson, Gibbs PTA Mr. Danny Fuller, Teacher - Parkview Magnet High School Ms. Barbara Levy, Principals Secretary - Pulaski Hgts. Jr. High 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20003) How to improve the quality of substitutes - Have orientation session developed and conducted by teachers/other substitutes - Have a mentor program for teachers to buddy subs in building - Assure that the Principal meets and greets every substitute - Provide a packet of information for each new sub (include trivia, exercises, writing topics, and mental \u0026amp; physical energizers) - Have an emergency kit on each teachers desk - Create a matrix for paying longevity raises (i.e.: After 100 days = S3 more/day) Please review the above and determine if you concur with what is here as well as to add anything you think we have missed. When I receive back your feedback, I will present our recommendations to the Superintendent.A.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge RECEIVED Date: September 16, 2004 SEP 1 7 2004 To\nDepartment Directore and Affected Staff From: Beverly William^Director of Human Resources OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION InONITORING RE: Back to the Classroom Update As you are aware the Board approved the Back to the Classroom (BTTC) program for all LRSD staff at the August Board meeting. The purpose of this program is to allow District staff the opportunity to experience the roles of our staff members in the schools. This will hopefully occur by becoming a substitute in a school for one day each semester. Everyone is invited to be a substitute teacher, but some support staff may wish to substitute in a clerical or paraprofessional position instead. This option will be welcomed as we want all participants to be comfortable in this program. The Human Resources Department has planned an in-service training, developed a guideline for the BTTC participants, and created a participation form to be completed by members of your department. Sue Rodgers, SOS Coordinator, will be coordinating this program as she does all substitutes for the District. Attached is a list of staff within your department who we have identified as participants in the program. (If we inadvertently omitted a name, we apologize, and please encourage them to participate as well.) Copies of the participation forms are included with this memo. Please complete those and return to Sue or bring to one of the in-service trainings next week. The in-service training is scheduled at three (3) times in the Boardroom on: a) b) c) Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. Friday, September 24, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. All participants in the BTTC program are invited to attend one of the in-service sessions and those participants who do not hold a teaching license are required to attend the training. Due to the size of the boardroom, we are requesting that all participants email Sue indicating which in-service session they will be attending. It is suggested that individual departments disperse their staff members across the three various dates and times. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Sue by phone or email. 810 W. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  wwvtlrsd.org 501-447-1000 fax\n501-447-1001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION REPORT SCHOOL YEAR 2004/2005 LOCATION TOTAL DESEG MONITORING/ PROG ADMINISTRATOR AN CLERICAL TOTAL 3 4 2 Friday, August 06, 2004 ADMINISTRATORS BABBS JR, JUNIOUS C RATHER, REBECCA J WIEDOWER, JULIANNE S AN CLICK, TONYA W EGGLESTON, DEANA M MIDDLETON, ESSIE H MILLER, BRENDA A CLERICAL LONG, ALISHA PAIGE TEACH, PATRICIA A Page 37 of 154Back to the Classroom Program NAME WORK# DEPARTMENT HOME# LOCATIONS: DAYS AVAILABLE: ELEMENTARY MONDAY MIDDLE TUESDAY SECONDARY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ANY AREA AGRICULTURE ALGEBRA ALTERNATIVE ED ART AUTOMECHANICS BAND DIRECTOR BIOLOGY BUSINESS EDUCATION C.C.E. MARKETING CALCULUS CARPENTRY CHAPTER 1 CHEMISTRY CHILDCARE CIVICS COMPUTER ED COSMETOLOGY COUNSELOR DANCE DRAFTING DRAMA ECONOMICS ELECTRONICS ENGLISH DEV. ENGLISH REGULAR ESL - ELEMENTARY ESL - SECONDARY EXCEPT CHILDREN FRENCH GEOMETRY GERMAN GLOBAL STUDIES GOVERNMENT 4 YR. OLD KINDERGARTEN GRADE 1 GRADE 2 GRADES GRADE 4 GRADES GIFTED/TALENTED HEALTH OCCUPATIONS HISTORY - AMERICAN HISTORY - WORLD HOME ECONOMICS INSCHOOL SUSPENCION INDUSTRIAL TECH. INTERNATL STUDIES JOURNALISM KEYBOARDING LANGUAGE ARTS LATIN LEARNING FOUND LIBRARIAN MATH-BASIC MUSIC-GENERAL MUSIC-INSTR MUSIC-VOCAL ORAL COMMUN P.E.- P.E.- P.E. - BOYS SECON ELEMENTARY GIRLS SECON PHYSICS PYSCHOLOGY R.O.T.C. NAVY R.O.T.C. AIRFORCE READING RESOURCE TEACHER SCIENCE-EARTH SCIENCE-LIFE SCIENCE-PHYSICAL SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIOLOGY SPANISH SPANISH SPEC ED M/RET SPEC ED MDLY HNDCP SPEC ED NON-CATEG SPECIAL ED DEAF SPEECH TITLE 1 TRIGONOMETRY VISUALLY HNDCP VOC. CAREER ORINTN VOCATIONAL ED AIDE-SPEC ED AIDE-LAB ATTEND AIDE - INST AIDE-PARAPRO AIDE - DESEG AIDE-TITLE 1 AIDE-4 YR OLD AIDE-P. E. AIDE - REGULAR MEDIA CLERK NURSE SCHOOL - BOOKEEPER SCHOOL - SECRETARY SCHOOL-ATTEND SCHOOL- GUIDANCE SCHOOL - REGISTRAR PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALBack to the Classroom Program NAME WORK# DEPARTMENT HOME# LOCATIONS: DAYS AVAILABLE: ELEMENTARY MONDAY MIDDLE TUESDAY SECONDARY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ANY AREA AGRICULTURE ALGEBRA ALTERNATIVE ED ART AUTOMECHANICS BAND DIRECTOR BIOLOGY BUSINESS EDUCATION C.C.E. MARKETING CALCULUS CARPENTRY CHAPTER 1 CHEMISTRY CHILDCARE CIVICS COMPUTER ED COSMETOLOGY COUNSELOR DANCE DRAFTING DRAMA ECONOMICS ELECTRONICS ENGLISH DEV. ENGLISH REGULAR ESL - ELEMENTARY ESL - SECONDARY EXCEPT CHILDREN FRENCH GEOMETRY GERMAN GLOBAL STUDIES GOVERNMENT 4 YR. OLD KINDERGARTEN GRADE 1 GRADE 2 GRADES GRADE 4 GRADES GIFTED/TALENTED HEALTH OCCUPATIONS HISTORY - AMERICAN HISTORY - WORLD HOME ECONOMICS INSCHOOL SUSPENCION INDUSTRIAL TECH. INTERNATL STUDIES JOURNALISM KEYBOARDING LANGUAGE ARTS LATIN LEARNING FOUND LIBRARIAN MATH-BASIC MUSIC-GENERAL MUSIC-INSTR MUSIC-VOCAL ORAL COMM UN P.E.- P.E.- P.E.- BOYS SECON ELEMENTARY GIRLS SECON PHYSICS PYSCHOLOGY R.O.T.C. NAVY R.O.T.C. AIRFORCE READING RESOURCE TEACHER SCIENCE-EARTH SCIENCE - LIFE SCIENCE - PHYSICAL SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIOLOGY SPANISH 'SPANISH SPEC ED M/RET SPEC ED MDLY HNDCP SPEC ED NON-CATEG SPECIAL ED DEAF SPEECH TITLE 1 TRIGONOMETRY VISUALLY HNDCP 'VOC. CAREER ORINTN VOCATIONAL ED AIDE-SPEC ED AIDE-LAB ATTEND AIDE - INST AIDE-PARAPRO AIDE - DESEG AIDE-TITLE 1 AIDE-4 YR OLD AIDE-P. E. AIDE - REGULAR MEDIA CLERK NURSE SCHOOL - BOOKEEPER SCHOOL - SECRETARY SCHOOL-ATTEND SCHOOL-GUIDANCE SCHOOL - REGISTRAR PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALBack to the Classroom Program NAME WORK# DEPARTMENT HOME# LOCATIONS: DAYS AVAILABLE: ELEMENTARY MONDAY MIDDLE TUESDAY SECONDARY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ANY AREA AGRICULTURE ALGEBRA ALTERNATIVE ED ART AUTOMECHANICS BAND DIRECTOR BIOLOGY BUSINESS EDUCATION C.C.E. MARKETING CALCULUS CARPENTRY CHAPTER 1 CHEMISTRY CHILDCARE CIVICS COMPUTER ED COSMETOLOGY COUNSELOR DANCE DRAFTING DRAMA ECONOMICS ELECTRONICS ENGLISH DEV. ENGLISH REGULAR ESL - ELEMENTARY ESL- SECONDARY EXCEPT CHILDREN FRENCH GEOMETRY GERMAN GLOBAL STUDIES GOVERNMENT 4 YR. OLD KINDERGARTEN GRADE I GRADE 2 GRADE 3 GRADE 4 GRADE 5 GIFTED/TALENTED HEALTH OCCUPATIONS HISTORY - AMERICAN HISTORY-WORLD HOME ECONOMICS INSCHOOL SUSPENCION INDUSTRIAL TECH. INTERNATL STUDIES JOURNALISM KEYBOARDING LANGUAGE ARTS LATIN LEARNING FOUND LIBRARIAN MATH-BASIC MUSIC-GENERAL MUSIC-INSTR MUSIC-VOCAL ORAL COMM UN P.E. - BOYSSECON P.E. - ELEMENTARY P.E. - GIRLS SECON PHYSICS PYSCHOLOGY R.O.T.C. NAVY R.O.T.C. AIRFORCE READING RESOURCE TEACHER SCIENCE-EARTH SCIENCE - LIFE SCIENCE - PHYSICAL SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIOLOGY SPANISH SPANISH SPEC ED M/RET SPEC ED MDLY HNDCP SPEC ED NON-CATEG SPECIAL ED DEAF SPEECH TITLE 1 TRIGONOMETRY VISUALLY HNDCP VOC. CAREER ORINTN VOCATIONAL ED AIDE - SPEC ED AIDE-LAB ATTEND AIDE - INST AIDE - PARAPRO AIDE - DESEG AIDE-TITLE I AIDE - 4 YR OLD AIDE-P. E. AIDE - REGULAR MEDIA CLERK NURSE SCHOOL - BOOKEEPER SCHOOL - SECRETARY SCHOOL-ATTEND SCHOOL-GUIDANCE SCHOOL-REGISTRAR PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALBack to the Classroom Program NAME WORK# DEPARTMENT HOME # LOCATIONS: DAYS AVAILABLE: ELEMENTARY MONDAY MIDDLE TUESDAY SECONDARY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ANY AREA AGRICULTURE ALGEBRA ALTERNATIVE ED ART AUTOMECHANICS BAND DIRECTOR BIOLOGY BUSINESS EDUCATION C.C.E. MARKETING CALCULUS CARPENTRY CHAPTER 1 CHEMISTRY CHILDCARE CIVICS COMPUTER ED COSMETOLOGY COUNSELOR DANCE DRAFTING DRAMA ECONOMICS ELECTRONICS ENGLISH DEV. ENGLISH REGULAR ESL - ELEMENTARY ESL - SECONDARY EXCEPT CHILDREN FRENCH GEOMETRY GERMAN GLOBAL STUDIES GOVERNMENT 4 YR. OLD KINDERGARTEN GRADE 1 GRADE 2 GRADE 3 GRADE 4 GRADES GIFTED/TALENTED HEALTH OCCUPATIONS HISTORY - AMERICAN HISTORY - WORLD HOME ECONOMICS INSCHOOL SUSPENCION INDUSTRIAL TECH. INTERNATL STUDIES JOURNALISM KEYBOARDING LANGUAGE ARTS LATIN LEARNING FOUND LIBRARIAN MATH-BASIC MUSIC-GENERAL MUSIC-INSTR MUSIC-VOCAL ORAL COMMUN P.E - P.E.- P.E.- BOYS SECON ELEMENTARY GIRLS SECON PHYSICS PYSCHOLOGY R.O.T.C. NAVY R.O.T.C. AIRFORCE READING RESOURCE TEACHER SCIENCE-EARTH SCIENCE-LIFE SCIENCE-PHYSICAL SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIOLOGY SPANISH SPANISH SPEC ED M/RET SPEC ED MDLY HNDCP SPEC ED NON-CATEG SPECIAL ED DEAF SPEECH TITLE 1 TRIGONOMETRY VISUALLY HNDCP VOC. CAREER ORINTN VOCATIONAL ED AIDE - SPEC ED AIDE - LAB ATTEND AIDE - INST AIDE-PARAPRO AIDE-DESEG AIDE-TITLE 1 AIDE-4 YR OLD AIDE-P. E. AIDE - REGULAR MEDIA CLERK NURSE SCHOOL - BOOKEEPER SCHOOL - SECRETARY SCHOOL-ATTEND SCHOOL-GUIDANCE SCHOOL - REGISTRAR PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALBack to the Classroom Program NAME WORK# DEPARTMENT HOME# LOCATIONS: DAYS AVAILABLE: ELEMENTARY MONDAY MIDDLE TUESDAY SECONDARY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ANY AREA AGRICULTURE ALGEBRA ALTERNATIVE ED ART AUTOMECHANICS BAND DIRECTOR BIOLOGY BUSINESS EDUCATION C.C.E. MARKETING CALCULUS CARPENTRY CHAPTER I CHEMISTRY CHILDCARE CIVICS COMPUTER ED COSMETOLOGY COUNSELOR DANCE DRAFTING DRAMA ECONOMICS ELECTRONICS ENGLISH DEV. ENGLISH REGULAR ESL - ELEMENTARY ESL- SECONDARY EXCEPT CHILDREN FRENCH GEOMETRY GERMAN GLOBAL STUDIES GOVERNMENT 4 YR. OLD KINDERGARTEN GRADE I GRADE 2 GRADE 3 GRADE 4 GRADE 5 GIFTED/TALENTED HEALTH OCCUPATIONS HISTORY - AMERICAN HISTORY-WORLD HOME ECONOMICS INSCHOOL SUSPENCION INDUSTRIAL TECH. INTERNATL STUDIES JOURNALISM KEYBOARDING LANGUAGE ARTS LATIN LEARNING FOUND LIBRARIAN MATH-BASIC MUSIC-GENERAL MUSIC-INSTR MUSIC-VOCAL ORAL COMM UN P.E.- P.E.- P.E.- BOYS SECON ELEMENTARY GIRLS SECON PHYSICS PYSCHOLOGY R.O.T.C. NAVY R.O.T.C. AIRFORCE READING RESOURCE TEACHER SCIENCE-EARTH SCIENCE - LIFE SCIENCE - PHYSICAL SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIOLOGY SPANISH SPANISH SPEC ED M/RET SPEC ED MDLY HNDCP SPEC ED NON-CATEG SPECIAL ED DEAF SPEECH TITLE 1 TRIGONOMETRY VISUALLY HNDCP VOC. CAREER ORINTN VOCATIONAL ED AIDE-SPEC ED AIDE-LAB ATTEND AIDE - INST AIDE-PARAPRO AIDE - DESEG AIDE - TITLE I AIDE-4 YR OLD AIDE-P. E. AIDE - REGULAR MEDIA CLERK NURSE SCHOOL - BOOKEEPER SCHOOL - SECRETARY SCHOOL-ATTEND SCHOOL-GUIDANCE SCHOOL - REGISTRAR PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALBack to the Classroom Program NAME WORK# DEPARTMENT HOME# LOCATIONS: DAYS AVAILABLE: ELEMENTARY MONDAY MIDDLE TUESDAY SECONDARY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ANY AREA AGRICULTURE ALGEBRA ALTERNATIVE ED ART AUTOMECHANICS BAND DIRECTOR BIOLOGY BUSINESS EDUCATION C.C.E. MARKETING CALCULUS CARPENTRY CHAPTER 1 CHEMISTRY CHILDCARE CIVICS COMPUTER ED COSMETOLOGY COUNSELOR DANCE DRAFTING DRAMA ECONOMICS ELECTRONICS ENGLISH DEV. ENGLISH REGULAR ESL - ELEMENTARY ESL - SECONDARY EXCEPT CHILDREN FRENCH GEOMETRY GERMAN GLOBAL STUDIES GOVERNMENT 4 YR. OLD KINDERGARTEN GRADE 1 GRADE 2 GRADES GRADE 4 GRADE 5 GIFTED/TALENTED HEALTH OCCUPATIONS HISTORY - AMERICAN HISTORY - WORLD HOME ECONOMICS INSCHOOL SUSPENCION INDUSTRIAL TECH. INTERNATL STUDIES JOURNALISM KEYBOARDING LANGUAGE ARTS LATIN LEARNING FOUND LIBRARIAN MATH-BASIC MUSIC-GENERAL MUSIC-INSTR MUSIC-VOCAL ORAL COMMON P.E.- P.E.- P.E.- BOYS SECON ELEMENTARY GIRLS SECON PHYSICS PYSCHOLOGY R.O.T.C. NAVY R.O.T.C. AIRFORCE READING RESOURCE TEACHER SCIENCE-EARTH SCIENCE-LIFE SCIENCE-PHYSICAL SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIOLOGY SPANISH SPANISH SPEC ED M/RET SPEC ED MDLY HNDCP SPEC ED NON-CATEG SPECIAL ED DEAF SPEECH TITLE 1 TRIGONOMETRY VISUALLY HNDCP VOC. CAREER ORINTN VOCATIONAL ED AIDE-SPEC ED AIDE-LAB ATTEND AIDE - INST AIDE-PARAPRO AIDE-DESEG AIDE-TITLE I AIDE-4 YR OLD AIDE-P. E. AIDE-REGULAR MEDIA CLERK NURSE SCHOOL - BOOKEEPER SCHOOL - SECRETARY SCHOOL-ATTEND SCHOOL-GUIDANCE SCHOOL-REGISTRAR PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALBack to the Classroom Program NAME WORK# DEPARTMENT HOME# LOCATIONS: DAYS AVAILABLE: ELEMENTARY MONDAY MIDDLE TUESDAY SECONDARY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ANY AREA AGRICULTURE ALGEBRA ALTERNATIVE ED ART AUTOMECHANICS BAND DIRECTOR BIOLOGY BUSINESS EDUCATION C.C.E. MARKETING CALCULUS CARPENTRY CHAPTER I CHEMISTRY CHILDCARE CIVICS COMPUTER ED COSMETOLOGY COUNSELOR DANCE DRAFTING DRAMA ECONOMICS ELECTRONICS ENGLISH DEV. ENGLISH REGULAR ESL - ELEMENTARY ESL - SECONDARY EXCEPT CHILDREN FRENCH GEOMETRY GERMAN GLOBAL STUDIES GOVERNMENT 4 YR. OLD KINDERGARTEN GRADE I GRADE 2 GRADE 3 GRADE 4 GRADES GIFTED/TALENTED HEALTH OCCUPATIONS HISTORY - AMERICAN HISTORY - WORLD HOME ECONOMICS INSCHOOL SUSPENCION INDUSTRIAL TECH. INTERNATL STUDIES JOURNALISM KEYBOARDING LANGUAGE ARTS LATIN LEARNING FOUND LIBRARIAN MATH-BASIC MUSIC-GENERAL MUSIC - INSTR MUSIC-VOCAL ORAL COMMON P.E.- P.E.- P.E.- BOYS SECON ELEMENTARY GIRLS SECON PHYSICS PYSCHOLOGY R.O.T.C. NAVY R.O.T.C. AIRFORCE READING RESOURCE TEACHER SCIENCE-EARTH SCIENCE-LIFE SCIENCE-PHYSICAL SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIOLOGY SPANISH SPANISH SPEC ED M/RET SPEC ED MDLY HNDCP SPEC ED NON-CATEG SPECIAL ED DEAF SPEECH TITLE I TRIGONOMETRY VISUALLY HNDCP VOC. CAREER ORINTN VOCATIONAL ED AIDE-SPEC ED AIDE-LAB ATTEND AIDE - INST AIDE-PARAPRO AIDE - DESEG AIDE-TITLE I AIDE-4 YR OLD AIDE-P. E. AIDE-REGULAR MEDIA CLERK NURSE SCHOOL - BOOKEEPER SCHOOL - SECRETARY SCHOOL-ATTEND SCHOOL-GUIDANCE SCHOOL - REGISTRAR PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALBack to the Classroom Program NAME WORK# DEPARTMENT HOME# LOCATIONS: DAYS AVAILABLE: ELEMENTARY MONDAY MIDDLE TUESDAY SECONDARY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ANY AREA AGRICULTURE ALGEBRA ALTERNATIVE ED ART AUTOMECHANICS BAND DIRECTOR BIOLOGY BUSINESS EDUCATION C.C.E. MARKETING CALCULUS CARPENTRY CHAPTER 1 CHEMISTRY CHILDCARE CIVICS COMPUTER ED COSMETOLOGY COUNSELOR DANCE DRAFTING DRAMA ECONOMICS ELECTRONICS ENGLISH DEV. ENGLISH REGULAR ESL - ELEMENTARY ESL- SECONDARY EXCEPT CHILDREN FRENCH GEOMETRY GERMAN GLOBAL STUDIES GOVERNMENT 4 YR. OLD KINDERGARTEN GRADE 1 GRADE 2 GRADE 3 GRADE 4 GRADES GIFTED/TALENTED HEALTH OCCUPATIONS HISTORY - AMERICAN HISTORY - WORLD HOME ECONOMICS INSCHOOL SUSPENCION INDUSTRIAL TECH. INTERNATL STUDIES 'journalism KEYBOARDING LANGUAGE ARTS LATIN LEARNING FOUND LIBRARIAN MATH-BASIC MUSIC - GENERAL MUSIC-INSTR MUSIC-VOCAL ORAL COMMUN P.E. - BOYS SECON P.E.- ELEMENTARY P.E. - GIRLS SECON PHYSICS 'PYSCHOLOGY R.O.T.C. NAVY R.O.T.C. AIRFORCE READING RESOURCE TEACHER 'science-EARTH SCIENCE-LIFE SCIENCE - PHYSICAL SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIOLOGY SPANISH 'SPANISH SPEC ED M/RET SPEC ED MDLY HNDCP SPEC ED NON-CATEG SPECIAL ED DEAF SPEECH TITLE 1 TRIGONOMETRY VISUALLY HNDCP VOC. CAREER ORINTN VOCATIONAL ED AIDE - SPEC ED AIDE - LAB ATTEND AIDE - INST AIDE-PARAPRO AIDE - DESEG AIDE-TITLE 1 AIDE-4 YR OLD AIDE-P. E. AIDE-REGULAR MEDIA CLERK NURSE SCHOOL - BOOKEEPER SCHOOL - SECRETARY SCHOOL-ATTEND SCHOOL-GUIDANCE SCHOOL - REGISTRAR 'principal ASSISTANT PRINCIPALBack to the Classroom Program NAME WORK# DEPARTMENT HOME# LOCATIONS: DAYS AVAILABLE: ELEMENTARY MONDAY MIDDLE TUESDAY SECONDARY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ANY AREA AGRICULTURE ALGEBRA ALTERNATIVE ED ART AUTOMECHANICS BAND DIRECTOR BIOLOGY BUSINESS EDUCATION C.C.E. MARKETING CALCULUS CARPENTRY CHAPTER I CHEMISTRY CHILDCARE CIVICS COMPUTER ED COSMETOLOGY COUNSELOR DANCE DRAFTING DRAMA ECONOMICS ELECTRONICS ENGLISH DEV. ENGLISH REGULAR ESL - ELEMENTARY ESL - SECONDARY EXCEPT CHILDREN FRENCH GEOMETRY GERMAN GLOBAL STUDIES GOVERNMENT 4 YR. OLD KINDERGARTEN GRADE I GRADE 2 GRADES GRADE 4 GRADES GIFTED/TALENTED HEALTH OCCUPATIONS HISTORY - AMERICAN HISTORY - WORLD HOME ECONOMICS INSCHOOL SUSPENCION INDUSTRIAL TECH. INTERNATL STUDIES JOURNALISM KEYBOARDING LANGUAGE ARTS LATIN LEARNING FOUND LIBRARIAN MATH-BASIC MUSIC-GENERAL MUSIC-INSTR MUSIC-VOCAL ORAL COMM UN P.E.- P.E. - P.E. - BOYS SECON ELEMENTARY GIRLS SECON PHYSICS PYSCHOLOGY R.O.T.C. NAVY R.O.T.C. AIRFORCE READING RESOURCE TEACHER SCIENCE-EARTH SCIENCE - LIFE SCIENCE-PHYSICAL SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIOLOGY SPANISH SPANISH SPEC ED M/RET SPEC ED MDLY HNDCP SPEC ED NON-CATEG SPECIAL ED DEAF SPEECH TITLE 1 TRIGONOMETRY VISUALLY HNDCP VOC. CAREER ORINTN VOCATIONAL ED AIDE - SPEC ED AIDE-LAB ATTEND AIDE - INST AIDE - PARAPRO AIDE - DESEG AIDE-TITLE I AIDE-4 YR OLD AIDE-P. E. AIDE - REGULAR MEDIA CLERK NURSE SCHOOL - BOOKEEPER SCHOOL - SECRETARY 'school-ATTEND SCHOOL-GUIDANCE SCHOOL - REGISTRAR PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALDemocrat * TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1998 azcUc I Districts up pay, cut requirements to get substitutes Substitute  Continued from Page 1B sets its own requirements and develops its own system  which in- elude school employees makinj 12 frantic telephone calls at 5:30 a.m reshuffling students or asking Shortages nationwide have left schools frantic for teacher fill-ins BY DANNY SHAMEER .ARKANSAS DE\\(OCR.AT-G.A2ETTE levels or in certain areas. So its always difficult to find stitute teachers that theyre takin\u0026lt;^ extraordinaiy steps to fill classroom vacancies. Districts are advertising, raising pay and lowering requirements as they try to increase their substitute teacher pools. In the Little Rock School District administrators dropped the requirement for a years worth of diploma'' college credits to substitute teach ' in the citys 50 schools. The job market is excellent, and people can make more money do- mg something else. To entice more substitutes, some states with higher minimum requirements are following Little Rocks example. Now, anyone with a high school diploma and three years of work experience in any field is eligible Richard Hurley, the school systems director of human resources, said that step increased the substitute teaching pools average size to about 500. average day, schools need 275 fill-ins. Many of the avail- . -'v nio. luaiiy UI able substitutes, though, I ing to teach only at cert , are willing to teach only at certain grade I principals to teach. School emplovees attribute the acute shortage to several factors, including:  A booming economy that has made other work more attractive, especially since substitutes daily pay is far below regular salaries. and includes no benefits.  Higher academic standards, which require teachers to leave the. classroom during the school j-ear for more training. :   Changes in the federal family leave act, which allows employee's to take more time off for a sick child, spouse, relative or parents. .  Longer leave policies in teacher\" contracts. To beef up its substitute teaching pool. North Little Rock increased, substitute teacher pay last year. Reg-.  In Kentucky, a new state law is ' lars^tutescaneamS42perdaj ................. up $3 from the year before. allowing five school districts to use SVosttiutes with only a high school\nr 7_=. The cutoff had been about two years of college. Michigan is considering a law !SeSE*t\u0026amp;t proiSl-c2il^ ? sub^tut^\"^ day -Its difficult work and the job carries no benefits. he said. 'The Jim Morris. North Little Rocks assistant superintendent of admin-  istration and personnel, said the paj' increase made an insignificant difference in the school systems students training to be teachers could be substitutes if they have at least 60 semester hours of college Two years ago, the cutoff was lowered to 90 hours  the equivalent of a college junior. Arkansas sets no minimum requirements. Each Arkansas school district See SUBS 111 u 11, Page 5B schedule is erratic, and there's no guarantee of steady work One week you might work one day. The next week you might work five days. ' Some Northwest Arkansas princi pals said the substitute-teacher shortage is more acute in their area because fast-growing schools mean ex-' tra classes. And extra classes mean  more teachers. The more teachers, the more substitutes needed. Rogers Hi^ School Principal Bill Stringer discussed the situation with some of his staff Monday. They suggested recruiting quarterly, not just at the start of each school year Springdale High School Principal Don Love said the substitute shortage has a good side effect He tries out substitutes with teaching certificates for future teaching posts. This year, he said, he hired two teachers who used to be regular substitutes.\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_1513","title":"Testing: Stanford Achievement Test, comparative data, 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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School integration","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Stanford Achievement Test, comparative data, 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/1513"],"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":["94 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_735","title":"Title 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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs","Educational statistics","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Title 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/735"],"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":["121 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\nDate: June 12, 1995 To: From: John Walker , Brown 6 Subject: LRSDs New Title I Grant Per your request, heres some information on the LRSDs new Title 1 proposal. Unfortunately, its not very much. The memo from Leon Adams to Hank Williams was distributed at the Board Agenda Meeting on June 8, 1995. Item 2 on the second page refers to eight pilot schools. We understand those schools to be Bale, Brady, Cloverdale, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Watson, Wilson, and Western Hills. Chicot may be added after it is rebuilt. Item 3 refers to four elementary schools. I have no idea which ones they are. Item 4 refers to three private schools, which are Catholic Schools. The district has to do this and its pretty routine. Apparently, two companies have gotten the districts business for the new computers and software that are to be purchased under this grant: CCC and New Century. 1 know very little about either one of these businesses. We have not been able to determine whether the district followed its customary bid process in awarding contracts to these vendors. As you may know, Lucy Lyon is the employee who supervises the districts school-based computers. 1 have no idea whether she or either Dennis Glascow (math supervisor) or Gene Parker (reading) were involved in selecting this new equipment and software, or how its supposed to fit with the LRSD curriculum or other remediation programs. Apparently, this grant represents changes in the districts Academic Support Program, at least as far as the pilot schools go. Leon insists that the pilot schools eagerly volunteered to participate, but we understand that at least two principals (one of whom is at Western Hills) knew nothing until they were notified they were among the lucky participants. Its possible that none of the principals in the pilot schools saw this \"opportunity\" coming, and they may not all be entirely enthusiastic. We know of no particular criteria that was used to identify the schools, other than they \"volunteered.\" It seems that the program will target 4th, Sth, and Sth graders, but many principals would usually rather target the earlier grades in a prevention vein. Supposedly, the vendors have cited \"research\" that points to the older children being better able to use computers as a remediation tool. If thats true, it could be partially because computers werent introduced to that pool of students in their earlier grades. Younger children can certainly use computers very successfully, as has been demonstrated at Rockefeller School, where computers are used in the early childhood program. In my opinion, a lot of questions about this Title 1 Budget justification are unanswered. Although some of my staff have talked with Leon and Hank about this since you and I talked, we still have little solid information. Supposedly, Hank is upset that test scores are not good this year, and he wants to take drastic steps. My fear is that this may be PAL Revisited, just more of the same old stuff at great new expense. Enc.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 22, 1995 TO: 1 FROM: Board of Directors Leon A( Federal Programs THROUGH: Henry .ent SUBJECT: ESEA TITLE I 1995-^6 DISTRICT PLAN The ESEA, Title I Plan is prepared for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education by July 1, 1995. the Program Abstract. Attached is a copy of The 1995-96 Title I funding will be determined by the District's last year's allocation of $4,299,095. The final allocation will be based the total number of eligible students in the Little Rock School District. Title I funds are used to improve educational opportunities for children to meet challenging content and performance standards. It is recommended that you authorize the administration to submit the 1995-96 Title I Plan to the Arkansas Department of Education.BUDGET JUSTEFICATION - ESEA, TITLE I, 1995-96 The District will emphasize early intervention and remediation strategies in reading and mathematics during the 1995-96 school year. More attention is focused on intervention strategies with children in grades one and two. In addition, a variety of school-based and district-wide workshops for teachers will be conducted. 1. Neglected and delinquent students in two institutional centers will receive tutoring services funded by this Plan. 2. Reading and mathematics instruction is a combination of pull-out, in-class, and computer assisted instruction. Students will receive primary instruction from the regular classroom teacher with assistance provided by specialists. Eight schools will initiate a pilot program consisting of computer assisted instx-uction in math and reading, grades 4-6. Students in grades 1-3 will receive instruction by the regular classroom teacher and the instructional specialist. Four elementary schools are designated as Title I Schoolwide Programs, serving all students. To meet student needs, the schools will focus on identified strategies by teachers and parents. These programs support four para-professional aides in one school, and one certified teacher in each of the three remaining schools. Provisions are made to serve educationally deprived children attending three private, nOn-profit, elementary schools within the District that have elected to participate in this year's Title I Plan. 5. Support and community services focus on improvement of instruction through workshops, program monitoring, and parent activities. Parent Involvement is school based and designed to assist parents in becoming partners in their child's education. The Title I allocation for 1995-96 will be based on last year's amount of $4,299,095. These funds will be used to cover costs of employees' salaries, benefits, computer hardware/software, supplies, and administrative support. 3 . 4 .LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM To\nBoard of Directors Through: From: Date: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent June 22, 1995 Subject: Desegregation Update June. The attached information represents the desegregation update for the month of ^YI (JU UZSii OCMU k .1 (jV( J QosjVoCcc' .Little Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting June 22,1995 LRSD Biracial Committee The Bi-racial committee began monitoring on May 2,1995. The monitoring visits to all Incentive Schools were completed by May 31, 1995. Each Incentive School was monitored one (1) time during the second semester. A final report will be prepared. /V it+rt iTION Registration immer months at the Student Assignment Office. August registration will be held on August 8 - 9, 1995 in the schools. The registration hours will be 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m..gm i- 0*9/07/95 16:54 50) 324 2023 E1002/003 5\n. r f I 'X I.RSn COMMVNICATI -^^-4 ODM iueaOi^EEj'' Little Rock School District News Release '--ii TITLE 1 PARENT INVOLVEMENT KICK-OFF CELEBRATION September 1,1995 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) will host a Title 1 Parent Involvement Kick-Off Celebration on Saturday, September 16, from 9\n00 to 10:30 a.m. in the Instructionai Resource Center at the comer of Sixth and Ringo Streets. The event is held to encourage parents to become more actively involved in the education of their children. More than $100 in door prizes will be awarded and refreshments will be served. Title 1 parent activities are coordinated through the federal Programs Office of the LRSD. Title 1 is a federally funded program that provides financial assistance to District schools to meet the special needs of educationally disadvantaged children at the preschool, elementary, and secondary school levels. The purpose of Tide 1 is to enable schools to provide opportunitie^for children served to acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the state's challenging content staiidards and to meet the challenging state performance standards, which standards are those developed for all children. (more) .F 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 73201  \u0026lt;501)324-3000 \u0026gt;1 . '. -i ' it- 5  '\u0026gt;1 7! $  * I 09' 0^ O.j 16:55 501 .i?4 2O-.\n.\u0026lt; niiM 003/003 1\nL\u0026lt;  i o \u0026lt;Come Celebrate With Us ! \u0026amp; K illl t/ 3 .^5 LRSD Title! Parent Involvement Kick-Off Date: September 14, 1996 Balloon Release Time: 9:00 A.M.- 9:30 A.M. Meeting received Time: 9:30 A.M. - 10:30 A.M. Place: LRSD Resource Center 30th St. and King Dr. Agenda SEP 1 3 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitonr McClellan High School Band William R. Stiles, Band Director Geyer Springs Twirlers LaAngela Brewster, Sponsor Baseline Bears Drill Team Donna Fudail, Sponsor Balloon Release ey o 9  Guest Speaker: Judge Marion Humphr. Circuit Court-First Division Annual Title I Parent Summit LRSD Title I Parent Involvement fVe invite you to come and make a difference! Date: Location: Time: November 11,1995 Washington Magnet -115 W 27th St 8:30 A.M. 9:00 A.M. Pre-Summit activities and continental breakfast Parent Summit - General Session Theme: Connecting Families and Schools Key Note Speaker: Mr. Bradley Scott - San Antonio, TX. - Parents as the critical key: Opening the door to your childs success (Mr. Scott is the Director of the Desegregation Assistance Center - South Central Collaborative. He has 25 years experience in Education, Race and Human Relations, Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Communication.) Mini - Sessions Counselors, Parents, Scout Directors, Ministers, HIPPY Director, and DARE will speak on the following topics: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The home, school, and community connection Motivation What parents can do to help improve academic achievement. What parents can do to change negative behavior. Prepare students for future challenges, world class citizenship Goals 2,000, an America 2,000 community There will be activities and a story teller for Title I children. I. Ji j?*!   \"L I  tow, * 3- ffl A? t M ro i ffw\n#\nf  to Fii M\n,-* :7 Tips for Parents and Families 1. Take a time inventory , find the extra time you need so the family can learn together. Commit yourself to learning something with your children. 2. Commit yourself to high standards and set high expectations for your children. Challenge them in every possible way to reach for their full potential. 3. Limit television viewing, especially on school nights. 4. Read together. It is the starting point of all learning. 5. Make sure your children take the tough courses at school and schedule daily time to check homework. 6. Make sure your child goes to school every day and support community efforts to keep children safe and off the street late at night. 1. Set a good example and talk directly to your children, especially your teenagers, about the dangers of drugs and alcohol and the values you want your children to have. Such personal talks, however, uncomfortable they may make you feel, may save their lives. Title I Parent Involvement LRSD Title I Parent Center Instructional Resource Center (formerly Ish School Bldg.) 3001 S. Pulaski St. Little Rock, AR 72204 (501) 324-0525 Catherine J. Gill, Parent Involvement Coordinator LRSD Title 1 Parent Center We will make every effort to:  Train parents to be advocates for students in their schools (Le.) team building, group processes, and ultimately trainers of other parents.  Connect home, school and community.  Train parents to share responsibility for their childs education.  Involve more parents in the decision-making process.  Train parents to be pro-active rather than re-active.  Make available all kinds of materials imaginable to help our children succeed in school.The Parent Express August 27, 1996 Vol. I No. 1 Greetings from the Little Rock School District Title I Parent Involvement office, located at 3001 S. Pulaski St. (formerly Ish School) , now the IRC building. We are so excited this year to have a separate Parent Center that will house basic books, brochures, cassette tapes, educational games, magazines, puzzles, take home books, and videos. We extend a personal invitation to you to come and see what we are doing for parents and students. The Book Mark is a brief description of our goals for the Parent Center. The Student Prescription will enable the Parent Center staff to fill the student's prescription tailored to the needs of the student. The 1996-97 Calendar of activities will enable you to be informed and involved in all our activities for the school year. The TV Diet sheet is a reminder to encourage students to cut back on TV viewing. Parents should monitor the quality as well as the quantity of television programs for their children. LRSD Title I Parent Involvement sa 9fficQ Sep 4 ^996 r|H| Your Famjjy It is time to put your child on a Television Dief^ During the summer, your kids may have developed the habit of watching more television. Now that school has started, its time to put them on a \"TV diet.  The National PTA notes that children who spend four or more hours watching television every day:  Don work as hard in school.  Dont read as well. AUG 2 9 1996  Don H have as many hobbies. OtfiCQ of Monitoring ^^^Qgation  Don H play as well with friends.  Are more likely to have high cholesterol.  Are more likely to gain weight. As the school year begins, set up a schedule to limit the time your child spends watching TV. Some families give each child a certain number of tickets, each good for 30 minutes of TV. Others have a strict rule - no television after dinner on school nights. Think about the plan that will work best for your family. And don't forget that the more TV you watch, the more your kids will. Source: National PTA LRSD Title J Parent InvolvementDate August 21 August 28 September 7 September 14 September 24 October 26 November 12 November 23 December 3 December 7 January 11 January 18 January 25 January February 8 February 15 February 22 March 9 April 5 April 12 May 3 May 18 1996-97 Title I Parent Involvement Dates Day Wednesday Wednesday Saturday Saturday Tuesday Saturday Tuesday Saturday Tuesday Saturday Saturday Saturday Saturday Saturday Saturday Saturday Sunday Saturday Saturday Saturday Saturday Meeting PAC Executive Board PAC Executive Board Key Facilitators Meeting Parent Involvement Kick-Off Key Facilitators Meeting Title I Parent Involvement Mandated Meeting Task Force Facilitators Training Super Saturday Parent Training Title I Parent Involvement Parent Training Super Saturday Parent Training Super Saturday Parent Training Super Saturday Parent Training Super Saturday Parent Training Mid-Winter Conference-Hot Springs Super Saturday Parent Training Super Saturday Parent Training Super Saturday Parent Training Parent Involvement Day Super Saturday Parent Training Super Saturday Parent Training Super Saturday Parent Training Title 1/VI Awards Picnic Time 4:00 P.M. 4:00 P.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 4:00 P.M. 9:00 A.M. 5:30 P.M. 9:00 A.M. 5:30 P.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 2:00 P.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 11:00 A.M.Date Little Rock School District Title I Parent Resource Center Prescription Parents Do Make A Difference! Teacher Students Name Phone# Grade School Subject Skill(s) Needed Dear Parents, Your childs teacher has noted that he/she needs home assistance with the above skill(s). You can help! Bring this prescription to the LRSD Title I Parent Resource Center, 3001 S. Pulaski St. (formerly Ish School).  The Title I Parent Coordinator will provide you with free activities for you to use at home with your child. The Parent Center will be open daily to lend assistance to parents and students in the areas of Reading and Math. Very shortly you will receive a list of all materials housed in the Parent Center, available on a check-out basis. For more information, please call 324-0525. Sincerely, Catherine J. Gill, Parent Involvement Coordinator ,07/2741999 15:26 3240567 JQD PAGE 02 Individual A.pproacb to a World of Knowledge\" July 27. 1999 Mr. John Walker, Esq. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr, Walker: I am fonwarding your requests regarding information about the District's Title I program to Mr. Leon Adams, the Director of Federal Programs. The final draft of the District plan is not, I know, complete. He will finish it in time to submit it to ADE on or before August 15. Mr. Adams has received the school plans, and I do not have copies of them. Also, Mr. Adams conducted the parent involvement meetings, so his office will need to provide you with that information. The multiple administrative meetings that Mr. Adams referred to in his J. presentation to the Board of Education last week were for the following purposes\n' To review the impact on the elementary schools of continuing to provide some level of services to grade 6 at the following middle schools: Mablevale, Forest Heights, Henderson, Pulaski Heights, and Dunbar. Both Southwest and Cloverdale Middle Schools must be 2. 3. served since they are over 75 percent poor. Mann receives no Title I funds since it is a magnet. We decided to continue serving grade 6. To consider the options of schools whose prior commitments for technology purchases exceeded the 1999-2000 allocation. There is no real option except for the schools to pay their debts. To identify schools where Title I staffing costs would have to occur in order for the schools to stay within their budgets and to review processes to achieve those cuts. Mr. Adams and Dr. Hurley worked on this plan. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  ww5lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 . 07/27./1999 15: 26 3240567 JQD PAGE 03 Mr. John Walker July 26, 1999 Page Two In summary, schools made decisions to cut staff for one or more of the following reasons: 1. What they were doing was not working to improve student achievement, so their plan took a different approach. 2. Escalating costs of teacher salaries and benefits caused staffing costs to exceed allocations for 1999-2000. 3. Costs associated with lease-purchase agreements for technology labs exceeded the allocation. 4. Any school that does not make adequate yearly progress must, by federal mandate, commit at least 10 percent of its allocation to professional development. There may be other reasons that I am not aware of since I haven't seen the plans, but the ones listed above are the ones we discussed. I trust you will follow up with Mr. Adams for answers to your other questions. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg cc: Dr. Les Gamine Chris Heller Brady Gadberry Junious Babbs Leon Adams Dr. Richard Hurley Ann Brown ,07/27/.1999 15:26 3240567 JQD PAGE 04 JOHN W walker R.4LPH WASHINGTON M.ARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney AT Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 SUPEfllNTENI f^KTDl fPTinM JUL 2 6 jggg lEMT Via Facsimile324-0504 July 23, 1999 Dr. Bonnie Lesley Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Lesley: Would you please provide a copy of the Districts ESEA Title I Plan includine the current implementation plan for each of the school. In other words, we would also like to know how each respective school intends to implement the program. In addition, I would also like to have a copy of the recommendations and/or findings of the administrative review team that monitored the program for approximately six weeks. Finally, would you please provide a Hsting of all members of the Title I teams at each of the schools by position, race and gender along with the team members at the District level with the same information. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, , John W. Walker JWW\njs 07/27/1999 15\n2b 3240567 JQD PAGE 05 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH Washington MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR John w. walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1'23 Broadway LnrtE Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-2146 July 23, 1999 Dr. Leslie Gamine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: It is good to see Drs, Roberts and Ross involved with the District in staff development. Each of them is highly competent and communicative. Their work will be useful. I am writing to remind you that this use of their services was not what we contemplated in our settlement agreement. The effectiveness of their presentations rather demonstrates the loss the District has sustained by their relative non-use in the contemplated planning process. Because the matter may still be fixed, though the time schedule may have to be modified, I request a meeting with Mr. Heller, Dr. Roberts, Dr. Ross, a school board designee and you so that we may address the obvious fundamental failing of the plan. On another matter, in observing the presentation of Dr. Lesley, I am left to querty whether some other assignment may not be appropriate for her than as the instructional leader for the District. A fair review of her interactions with the principals can be made if you devise a review instrument at once for all of the participants in the principals meetings and them rate the presenters in content, delivery and effectiveness. Furthermore, because of Dr. Lesleys intent to use past discriminators in imponant positions and because of the quarry I raise herein, I would be remiss in meeting my responsibility of monitoring efforts of Dr. Lesleys department were not materially increased. I believe that she would profit, if you choose not to reassign her, from by extensive association with and assistance from Drs. Roberts and Ross. Without it, the grandiose goals which you announced at the Board meeting last night for student achievement are in peril, if not doomed.K8 07/27/1999 15:26 3240567 JQD PAGE 06 I Sincerely, rwwjs cc\nDr. Bonnie Lesley LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 RECEIVED TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 17, 1999 Dr. Steve Ross Dr. Terrence Roberts Ann Brown John Walker Clementine Kelly, CTA NOV 3 0 1993 OFFiCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORINS r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Proposed New Policy and Regulations for Title I I am attaching for your review and feedback copies of early drafts of a proposed new policy and regulations to govern our Title I programs. We already have similar documents in place for special education, gifted/talented education, and ESL. If you have questions or suggestions for improvement, please get those to me by Tuesday, December?. BAL/rcm Cc: Les Carnine Junious Babbs Sadie Mitchell Brady Gadberry Victor Anderson LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHAR TITLE I PROGRAMS The Little Rock School District is committed to the effective use of Title I funds to assist in ensuring that all students meet the rigorous curriculum standards and benchmarks established by the state and the District. Title I programs are to be administered in accordance Avith all federal, state, and local regulations, and they are to be tightly aligned with the LRSD Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, both state and District accountability systems, and the Campus Leadership Plan. Regular education, special education, and English-as-a-Second Language program staff at both the District and school levels share collective responsibility for design, planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluating results of the program interventions funded through Title 1. Representative parents of Title I students must also be included. Interventions funded through Title I are to be included in the School Improvement Plans that Campus Leadership Teams submit annually so that planning processes are integrated and coherent. The Districts Title I Plan must be approved by the Board of Education annually prior to its submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. The Director of Federal Programs shall include for the Boards approval the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Amount of the Districts allocation\nAmount of carry-over from previous year\nMandated amount to be allocated to private and parochial schools located within District boundaries\nTotal amount reserved for administrative costs and program support at the District level\nAmount available for allocations to schools\nAmount of per student allocation to individual schools\nDescription of interventions to be funded at each school\nEvidence of mandated parent participation in the design of the District plan\nEvidence of use of research and results of Title I program evaluation findings in the design of the District and school-level plans. MOV 0 1999 OmCEOh DESEGREGATION MONlTORiNLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHAR-R TITLE I PROGRAMS Purpose The Little Rock School District is committed to the effective implementation of federal and state regulations regarding the design and administration of the Districts Title I program. The purpose of these regulations is to establish, within federal and state parameters, the procedures for the design and implementation of the LRSD Title I (district- and school-level) plan so that it is aligned and coherent with the regular education program and so that it supports all students achievement of the rigorous curriculum standards established by Arkansas and the LRSD. Title I programs must also be carefully aligned with the LRSD Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Smart Start, Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Planning (ACSIP), Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), the National Science Foundation (NSF) project, and the Campus Leadership Plan. Collective Responsibility for the Success of Title I Programs Central office staff share with school-level staff the responsibility for the success of the Title I programs. All members of the Division of Instruction, regardless of fundin: source, are expected to be knowledgeable about Title I federal, state, and local g regulations\nabout the LRSD schools improvement plans (which include Title I funded interventions)\nand about their role in supporting the success of those schools in ensuring that all students achieve the Arkansas and LRSD curriculum standards/benchmarks. The School Improvement Team and the Teaching and Learning Team are charged with special responsibility to provide professional development, technical assistance, research, data analysis, monitoring, and other support to principals and Campus Leadership Teams. The Planning Process The District shall observe the following steps in the design of the District Title I Plan. 1. Assemble analysis of current expenditures, current student achievement data, list of schools identified for sanctions or corrective actions, free/reduced lunch data, and other critical information to determine priority needs for the following year. Who: Director of Federal Programs Manager of Financial Services Testing and Program Evaluation Staff Associate Superintendent for Instruction When\nFebruary 1 annually2. 3. 4. 5. Notify schools when cuts will have to be made in staffing. Inform principals that such decisions must be communicated to the Director of Human Resources by March 1. Who: Director of Federal Programs Director of Human Resources When: February 15 annually. Convene a series of meetings of Cabinet members and representative members of the District Title I Parent Advisory Committee to review available data, as well as possible scenarios for allocating funds to schools during the following year. Make decisions regarding school levels to be served and per-student allocations. Who: Director of Federal Programs Associate Superintendent for Instruction When: February 1^February 15 annually Assemble Title I Plan Review Committee: Director of Federal Programs  his/her designee\nDirector of Mathematics/Science or his/her designee\nDirector of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy or his/her designee\nmiddle school specialist\nDirector of Planning and Development or his/her designee\none or more members of the School Improvement Team\nand a or a representative from School Operations. Meet to construct/review agreed-upon criteria for approval of school plans. Who: Director of Federal Programs Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for Instruction When: February 15 annually Conduct meetings with principals of eligible Title I schools. Provide them with the following information: (a) status of school in accountability system\n(b) copies of any changes in federal, state, or local regulations relating to governance of Title I\n(c) projected budget allocations for the following year\n(d) forms (supplemental to those required for the School Improvement Plan) for their Title I plans and budgets\n(e) instructions for completing the forms\n(f) information on how to become a school-wide project or, if not eligible, how to apply for a waiver\n(g) menus of recommended interventions (reading, writing, mathematics, school change models, etc.) appropriate for Title I funding\n(h) reminders of mandates for parental involvement in the design of the school-level plan\n(i) criteria that will be used to evaluate and approve school-level Title I plans\nO) other information to facilitate the completion of the Title I plan and budget. Who: Director of Federal Programs Associate Superintendent for Instruction When: February 15-28 annually6. 7. 8. 9. Notify Director of Human Resources of any proposed involuntary transfers of Title I funded staff for the following year. Who: Principals with support of Campus Leadership Teams When: March 1 annually Design the schools Title I Plan and Budget, in collaboration with representative Title I parents. Who: Principals and Campus Leadership Teams When: FebruaryMarch 15 annually Collect school-level Title I plans and budgets. Who: Assistant/Associate Superintendent for School Services When: March 15 annually Conduct series of meetings of Title I Plan Review Committee to review and approve plans. If a plan is not approved by this committee, then the committee shall provide immediate technical assistance to the principal and the Campus Leadership Team for the revision of the plan in a manner that will lead to its approval. Who: Title I Plan Review Committee When: March 15^April 1 annually 10. Submit approved Title I Plans to Associate Superintendent for School Services and Associate Superintendent for Instruction for their review and final approval. If improvements are required before final approval, the principal and the Campus Leadership Team must be provided with immediate technical assistance. Who: Director of Federal Programs When: April 115 aimually 11. Complete the design of the District Title I Plan and budgets for submission to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Associate Superintendent for School Services, and the Manager of Financial Services for their approval. Who: Director of Federal Programs When: May 1 12. Make necessary revisions to the budgets when the District receives official notification of its allocation from the Department of Education. Who: Director of Federal Programs, with the approval of the Associate Superintendent of Instruction, the Associate Superintendent for School Services, and the Manager of Financial Services When: June 1 13. Provide Title I principals with information about their final allocations for the year, about how to do a budget amendment, the deadline for budget amendments, forms for budget amendments, and expenditure cut-off deadlines. I Who: Director of Federal Programs When: August 15 annually 14. Submit the final draft of the District Title I Plan and Budget to the Board of Education for their approval. Who: Director of Federal ProgramsAssociate Superintendent of Instruction When: July 15. Submit the completed and approved District Title I Plan and Budget to the Arkansas Department of Education for their approval. Who: Director of Federal Programs When: August 1 annually 16. Provide a summary of each schools plan to members of the Division of School Services and the Division of Instruction so that appropriate monitoring and technical assistance can be provided schools. Who: Director of Federal Programs When: August 15 annually 17. Communicate the School Improvement Plan, including its Title I components, to the school community so that everyone understands. Who: Principals and Campus Leadership Teams When: MarchSeptember annually Appeal of the Decisions of the Title I Plan Review Committee If a schools Title I plan is not approved by the Review Committee, the Campus Leadership Team may appeal that decision immediately to the Associate Superintendent for School Services and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. The appeal must be made within five school days of the notification that the plan is not approved\nit must include a summary of research, with citations, that supports the plans implementation\nand it must be sent to both the Associate Superintendents in writing, signed by the principal and the members of the Campus Leadership Team. The two Associate Superintendents shall review the school plan and the appeal within five school days and issue one of the following decisions: 1. Uphold the appeal and approve the plan as written for implementation. 2. Uphold the appeal with conditions that are delineated for the Campus Leadership Team. 3. Deny the appeal and refer the CLT back to the Review Committee for technical assistance. Parameters for School-Level Plans The following parameters shall be observed in the development and implementation of school-level Title I plans. These parameters ensure alignment with the implementation of the Districts Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Smart Start, the Campus Leadership Plan, ACSIP, ACTAAP, the NSF project, and the School Improvement Plan. 1. The design of the schools Title I plan must be approved by the schools Campus Leadership Team (CLT). The schools Title I Parent Advisory Committee shall advise the Campus Leadership Team in the design of the plan, and at least two representatives of Title I parents must participate in the approval of the Title I plan in targeted assistance schools. (All parents are Title I parents in schoolwide projects.)2. Accountability for Title I is focused on reading/language arts and mathematics, with an emphasis on grades K-3 at the elementary level. Title I plans, therefore, to be approved, must reflect these areas of focus and emphasis. A priority relating to parental involvement is also recommended. The Districts PreK-3 Literacy Plan, Effective Literacy for grades 4-5, and the NSF Plan for K-5 mathematics are the basic, regular education programs for elementary schools. The grades 6-8 Reading and Writing Workshop and the new grades 6-8 mathematics curriculum are the regular program at the middle school level. The schools Title I plan must be designed to improve the percentage of children attaining the Proficient level or above on the Arkansas criterion-referenced examinations in the areas tested. 3. Schools may choose to implement Reading Recovery or Success for All to supplement the districts PreK-3 Literacy Program. The district also recommends at the elementary and middle school levels an extended-day Reading Clinic strategy to support students at the Basic and Below Basic levels of performance. Proposals to implement other supplemental language arts programs must be approved through the waiver process, and the school must show their alignment with the District curriculum, as well as the research base that would predict childrens success on state examinations if the program is implemented. 4. Schools are encouraged to invest in the staff through an emphasis on professional development that is carefully aligned with the school improvement plan and district priorities. Schools that are on school improvement status must, at a minimum, invest at least ten (10) percent of their allocation in professional development. Little Rock School District elementary and middle school language arts teachers are strongly encouraged to pursue advanced courses in the teaching of reading and rhetoric/composition, and/or to participate in the National Writing Project that is conducted at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Kindergarten teachers must participate in training to implement Animated Literacy. Elementary teachers are also strongly encouraged to participate in ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) and/or Effective Literacy training. The Reading/Writing Workshop teachers in grades 6-8 are expected to participate in the districts training for that course. Middle school content-area and related arts teachers are strongly encouraged to participate in training on reading in the content areas and/or in writing across the curriculum. Training for elementary and middle school mathematics teachers may be provided through the NSF grant, but schools wishing to supplement what the district provides are encouraged to do so. Additionally, all staff must receive extensive training in the adaptation of instruction, pacing, materials, and assessment for special education, 504, and limited-English proficient students. These populations are increasing in every school, and it is imperative that all schools become skilled in ensuring that special populations also achieve the curriculum standards/benchmarks established by the state and LRSD. 5. 6. 1. 8. Schools wishing to eliminate current Title I staff and ask that they be reassigned in regular education may do so, but the plan must be approved by the Campus Leadership Team and the Director of Human Resources. Generally speaking, such decisions must be communicated to Human Resources no later than March 1 of each year. The focus for the mandated parent involvement component for Title I is the school. The district, therefore, will begin to phase out some of its district-level activities and will, instead, concentrate on developing the capacity of Campus Leadership Teams to involve parents at the school level. Schools should ensure that parent involvement costs are included in their Title I plans and budgets. Schools with students of limited-English-proficiency should include funds to translate critical school documents and invitations to parents whose home language is other than English. Family Math and Family Reading programs are encouraged, as well as any activities necessary to embed the Parent-School Compact in the culture of the school (see the PreK-3 Literacy Plan). The District will continue its District-level Parent Advisory Committee, as well as the individual school Parent Advisory Committees. Within certain federal and state parameters schools may purchase technology to support their Title I instructional programs. Campus Leadership Teams must carefully consider how the proposed software (and hardware) will contribute to the improved performance of students relating to Arkansas and LRSD curriculum standards/benchmarks. Also, instructional technology programs are considered to be supplemental to the district program, not a replacement for it. Schools are cautioned not to over-commit their future Title I allocations in purchasing technology. If lease/purchase contracts exceed the schools allocation, then the school may lose its Title I staff or other programs for the duration of the lease/purchase contract. The district discourages the use of Title I funds for travel to most conferences. Exceptions include visiting exemplary schools that use a program under consideration or implementation by the school or for in-depth training (as opposed to awareness level only) in a priority area for school improvement or the improvement of student outcomes. Rather than spend Title I funds on out-ofdistrict trips, the school is encouraged to bring top-notch consultants to Little Rock to work with all teachers, not just the one or two who might go to the conference.9. Schools are encouraged to collaborate with each other and to leverage their Title I funds to every extent possible. Cabinet-level and curriculum staff, including the federal programs staff, should facilitate such collaboration and networking, particularly in the areas of professional development, parent involvement, summer programs, and extended-day programs. Both principals and teachers are encouraged to visit other schools in the Little Rock School District and in the immediate area that are meeting their improvement goals for information on school improvement and on specific teaching/leaming strategies. 10. Title I schools, especially those on school improvement status, may budget funds for planning retreats of the Campus Leadership Team. Title I Expenditures Once a schools plan and budget are finally approved, then the expenditures are assumed to be approved, as long as they conform to the plan. The Office of Federal Programs is to expedite and facilitate as quickly as possible the approval of all purchase requisitions. Principals should expect that purchase requests will be approved by the Director of Federal Programs within 48 hours of receipt and forwarded to Procurement. Title 1 Program Start-Up The Director of Federal Programs is expected to submit all required information to the Arkansas Department of Education on a timely basis and to secure approval of the District Title I plan at the earliest possible date. The schools Title 1 programs should be fully operational no later than October 1 of each year for maximum impact on student achievement. District Title I Parent Advisory Committee The Director of Federal Programs, the Parent/Community Team, and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall ensure that the District Title I Parent Advisory Committee is organized annually and that federal regulations are observed regarding the rights of parents to participate in Title I planning. Regular meetings shall be conducted to keep the members of the Parent Advisory Committee well informed about District programs and services and to listen to their feedback and input.Arkansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, SEPlEMBER 15, 1995 Copyngbt O UtO* Roek_NewsoaoefS. Inc. LR district to push parent involvement The Little Rock School Dis- state education goals for academic achievement. trict will host a Title I Parent Involvement Kick-Off Celebration from 9 to 10:30 a.m. Satur- * day at the districts Instructional Resource Center at Sixth and Ringo streets. The event is designed to encourage parents to become more actively involved in the education of their children. More than SlOO in door prizes will be awarded and refreshments will be served as parents are given tips on how to volunteer in their schools, how to help plan Title 1 j activities and how to work with  their children at home. Title 1 is a federally funded program designed to give children extra help in meeting IArkansas Democrat (gazette . THURSDAY, APRIL 24,1997 State to lose $2 million for schools New poverty count shaves Title I funds BY CHRIS REINOLDS 1 ARK.\\NSAS DEMOCRATXJAZETTS Arkansas public schools will lose about $2 million this fall in federal aid for poor children for extra reading and math programs. Arkansas is one of 14 states that will lose federal aid known as Title I funds. The federal government will send Arkansas $713 million for the program next year. Education officials said the change was needed because the number of Arkansas students eligible for the program has decreas^. In most other states, the number Of poor students increased. Title I money pays for teachere, summer programs, curriculum changes and other efforts aimed at helping help poor children improve their math and reading The U.S. Department of Education said Tuesday that spending in Title I will rise from $6.7 billion to $7.1 bilhon. Although thats a 6 percent overall increase, 16 states will get increases of 10 percent or more in their Title I funds. Connecticut where the gap between rich and poor school districts is among the greatest in the country, will get nearly 30 percent more fundi^ For 14 states and Puerto Rico, the amount of aid will drop. The biggest decline will be for Iowa, which will get 622 percent less. Theres good news that were moving the money, said Maiy Jean LeTendre, head of Title I at the Education Department The not so good news is that theres a lot more poor kids out there than there were before. The national distribution formula is based on a mixture of outdated 1990 census data and some 1994 updates, which have not been approved by a scientific advisory panel. In 1994, Congress called for the use of updated census estimates to See TRIE I, Page 8B Title I  Continued from Page 1B distribute Title I money. Without that requirement, money would be sent out for next year on the basis of poverty estimates taken in 1989. Clearence Lovell, associate director for Title I at the Arkansas Department of Education, said the amount of money distributed is based on the number of students in each state who receive free lunches at school. It could mean as much as a 10 percent loss for some districts. Lovell said. While Title I money is intended to help poor children, any child with reading or math problems can be eligible for the classes, Lovell said. I Congress, meanwhile, concerned i tliat the money was being spread ! too thinly, raised the amount allot- j ted toward targeted aid. That amount will increase 46 percent in 1997-1998, compared widi a 2.5 percent increase for \"basic aid, which goes to nearly eveiy school district Critics have said too much of that money goes to undeserving schools. The $7.1 billion does not include aid under some smaller Title I programs. Because of special protections in the law, the districts cannot lose all their aid in one year even if the numbers of poor children fall. But as their aid decreases over tlie years, a greater share could become available to the newly poor districts. Information for this aiticfe was contributed by The Associated Press.Arkansas Democrat (Gazelle  THURSDAY. APRIL 15. 1999 Education experts urge Title 1 revision Illi: ASSIX lAII.O IRLS.S WASHINGTON  Arguing that federal money spent on poor schoolchildren has done little to improve their progress, education officials asked Congress on Wednesday to rethink the way it spends that money. The money should go to the student, who would be free to take it to schools that work, said Diane Ravitch, a New York-based education analyst who worked for the Education Department during the Bush administration. The current system breeds bureaucracy, she said. Schools would get money depending on how many poor kids are enrolled  period. Schools that fail to educate stu- unions, want to leave the program dents shouldnt benefit from the untouched, there isnt enough re- $8 billion program commonly search to prove thats a good idea. known as Title 1, Ravitch told the House Education and Workforce Committee. The program, along an organization of large city with other federal education aid, is up for renewal by Congress this year. The money is distributed to stales and districts based on the percentage of poor students they have. Other experts testified that the program for poor students  nearly half the $13 billion in education aid the federal government sends to stales and school districts  has little to show for itself after 34 years. They cite consistent gaps in the test scores of poor and wealthy children. Lets be creative, said Maris Vinovskis, a University of Michigan researcher. Like welfare reform, lets see what works and what doesnt Although many large education groups, including teachers Vinovskis told the panel. Michael Casserly, who heads school districts, said Title 1 hasnt been all bad. As of last year, it served 71 percent more urban students than in 1994. The House and Senate arc de- $ltX) billion spent, achievement bating how to spend federal edu cation money overall. Although it and disadvantaged. Even Alan Ginsburg, an Educa- supplies on average 7 percent of a states total education budget, some cash-strapped states like Mississippi and Alabama get 15 percent to 20 percent of their school dollars from the program. Conservative lawmakers want to convert the money to grants for states to use more freely. But some Democratic members are resisting that idea, saying money not tied to a school district could follow a poor child to a school that doesnt need the money or might not spend it on the child who brought it. Its a foot in the door for vouchers, Rep. Matthew G. Martinez, D-Calif., said of the suggestion that public money be given to poor students to spend on the schools of their choice, even if money on all students, rather theyre private or religious than providing extra help to a schools. limited number. But critics complain that after more than 30 years and more than lags for students who are poor lion Department researcher, acknowledged that it was hard to measure whether the program has helped poor and disadvantaged students. He cited some gains in national test scores, but added that large gaps still remain between rich and poor students. The Title I program, the largest federal kindergarten through 12th grade program, was created in 1965 to help poor children by paying for items like reading instruction and staff hiring. The law, originally focused on remedial education, was changed in 1994 to focus on high standards. It now allows schools with 50 percent poor students to use the I IRECEiVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 SEP 2. 1999 Office Of DESEGREGAUON MONITORING September 1, 1999 TO: FROM\nJohn Walker Dr. Terrence Roberts Dr. Steve Ross Ann Brown Frank Martin, CTA Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: 1999-2000 Title I Plan Many changes were made this past spring and summer in our Districts Title I program so that it is more coherent with, supportive of, and supplemental to the Districts regular education program. In addition, we cut significantly the Districtlevel budget so that more funds were available to allocate directly to the schools. The new state accountability system, ACTAAP, and our LRSD Collective Responsibility Plan and Quality Index require more attention to improvement at the school level and, therefore, more resources there. I am attaching a copy of the District Plan that Leon Adams filed with the Arkansas Department of Education on August 31. We can, of course, amend our plan through a process, and we are already thinking about next year. If you have questions or suggestions for improvement, we would be happy to hear from you. BAL/adg Attachment cc: Dr. Les Carnine Junious Babbs Brady Gadberry Sadie Mitchell Dr. Victor Anderson Chris Heller Clay Fendley 8- A LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY PLAN UNDER TITLE I OF THE IMPROVING AMERICAS SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994 PUBLIC LAW 103-382 Applicant District Little Rock LEA Code 60-01 Address 810 West Markham FAX No. 501-324-2287 Little Rock, Arkansas Zip Code 722W Phone No. 501-324-2110 E-Mail Address LLADAMS@LRSDADM.LRSD.K12.AR.US PART 1: ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS A. ASSURANCES I ,the undersigned superintendent for the above named local educational agency (LEA), assures the Arkansas Department of Education (SEA) that the LEA will\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Administer the Title I program in compliance with all statutory, regulatory provisions and in accord with plans/appiications\nHave funds/property control with public agency/private nonprofit agency\nUse proper methods of administering and correction deficiencies in programs\nCooperate in program evaluations conducted by or for the SEA or the U. S. Department of Education\nComply with fiscal control and funds accounting\nMake reports to the SEA and the Department of Education needed to carry out its duties\nAssure that opportunity for public comment on the application/plan and consideration of such comment was afforded/provided\nInform eligible schools and parents of schoolwide program authority\nProvide technical assistance and support to schoolwide programs\nWork in consultation with schools as the schools implement such plans or undertake activities pursuant to Section 1115 (targeted assistance schools) so that each school makes adequate yearly progress toward meeting State content standards and State student performance standards\nFulfill LEA school improvement responsibilities under Section 1116, including taking corrective actions specified under Section 1116(c)(4)\nCoordinate and collaborate, to the extent feasible and necessary as determined by the LEA, with other agencies providing services to children, youth, and families, including health and social services\nProvide services to eligible children attending private elementary and secondary schools in accordance with Section 1120, and provide timely and meaningful consultation with private school officials regarding such services\nTake into account experience of model programs for the educationally disadvantaged and the findings of relevant research indicating that services may be most effective if focused on students in the earliest grades at schools that receive funds under this part\nBeginning in fiscal year 1997 and in the case that an LEA chooses to use federal funds under this part to provide early childhood development services to low-income children below the age of compulsory school attendance, ensure that such services comply with the performance standards established under Section Performance standards shall be disseminated to LEAs. Develop a parent involvement plan for the district and each school. RECEIVED SEP 2 WS9 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATXN MONITORS2 B. CERTIFICATIONS I, the undersigned superintendent for the applicant school district, certify that\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The information provided in this application to support the above assurances is correct, so far as I am able to determine. The LEA will abide by the provisions of the approved plan/application. As the prospective lower tier participant neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. (Executive Order 12549, 34 CFR Part 85, Section 85.510) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress in connection with the making of any Federal grant, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal grant or cooperative agreement\nIf any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person of influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of congress in connection with this Federal grant or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, \"Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying, in accordance with its instructions\nThe undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, contracts under grants and cooperative agreements, and subcontracts) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Following plan/application approval, the contract person named below is authorized to act for me in all matters concerning this program. Name of Contact Person Leon Adams Title Dir. Federal Programs Phone No. 501-324-211Q School Address 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72201 Fax No. 501-324-2287 E-Mail Address LLADAMS@LRSDADM.LRSD.K12.AR.US Signature of Superintendent (Submit Original Signature. Please sign in BLUE ink.) Typed Name and Title LESLIE V. CARNINE, SUPERINTENDENT FOR STATE USE ONLY Maintenance of Effort Verified Accountant Date Local Program Number 96-5 Total Amount Approved $ State Program Number Approved by. Program Advisor, Title I, lASA Date Reviewed by. Reviewed by Coordinator, Title I, lASA Date Associate Director for Federal Programs Date3 PART II: PURPOSE OF TITLE I, IMPROVING AMERICAS SCHOOLS ACT (lASA) The Congress has declared it to be the policy of the United States that a high-quality education for all individuals and a fair and equal opportunity to obtain that education are a societal good, are a moral imperative, and improve the life of every individual, because the quality of our individual lives ultimately depends on the quality of the lives of others. PART III: APPLICATION {Section 1112(a)(1) A. THE GOALS FOR YEAR 2000 By the year 2000, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. All children in America will start school ready to learn. The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent. American students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency in challenging subject rhatter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography, and ever^ school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds will so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. The Nation's teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century. U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement. Every American adult will be literate and will possess the skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children. Describe the efforts that will be made in the district to meet each of the Goals 2000 in general, and in Title I in particular. ('See Attachment 3a-3f) 3a Program Linkage to State and National Education Goals In each of the efforts delineated below, the Little Rock School District has not only committed its local funds to improvements, but has also aligned its Title I and other federal and state funds with its Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan approved by the federal court in April 1998. There are in the District determined and ongoing efforts to align and make coherent and seamless-to the extent possible-the various national, state, and local programs, including grant-funded initiatives, so that schools are tightly focused on the four components of Smart Start: standards, assessments, professional development, and accountability. 1. School Readiness National Goals 2000: All children in America will start school ready to learn. Arkansas Act 236 of 1991: By the year 2000, all children entering first grade will be capable of beginning first- grade work. The Little Rock School District is committed not only to preparing the children of our community for school readiness, but also for preparing our schools to be ready for the children. Multi-programs are in operation for ages 0-5: A. B. C. D. E. Infant and Toddler Program at Rockefeller Elementary HIPPY program for children ages 4-5 in 1998-99\nages 3-4 in 1999-2000 Early Childhood Education program for children with disabilities More than 720 four-year-olds received one-half day Pre-Kindergarten services in 1998-99\nup to ten additional classrooms will be open in fall 1999 in collaboration with Head Start and in the use of the Poverty Index funds newly allocated by the state. Pre-Kindergarten children will be served in the LRSDs new elementary English-as-a-Second Language program in fall 1999. LRSD has put into place for fall 1999 several curriculum changes at the kindergarten level to improve childrens readiness for first-grade: A. All kindergarten students will participate in a new phonemic awareness program in 1999-2000 called Animated Literacy. The program is research-based and reflects findings that the single best predictor of childrens ability to learn to read in grade 1 is phonemic awareness. B. LRSD has adopted two language arts programs from which schools can choose, beginning at the kindergarten level: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) or Success for All (SFA). All kindergarten teachers will receive training in the ELLA or SFA implementation prior to the beginning of school. The schedule in every elementary school day will include a two and one-half hour sacred block of time for English language artsreading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking. C. Kindergarten teachers will also begin in fall 1999 the implementation of the new mathematics and science curricula funded through the National Science Foundation grant received by the District. At least one hour daily will be spent in teaching mathematics. D. The District will administer in 1999-2000 new criterion-referenced pre- and post-tests to measure progress toward the District goal of every child reading independently by grade 3. Performance on this test will be one of the elementary school Quality Indicators (local accountability system), effective fall 1999. 2, School Completion National Goals 2000: The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent. Arkansas Act 236 of 1991: By the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent and the dropout rate will be reduced to accomplish this goal. ACTAAP performance goal: At least 95 percent of students will complete grade 12.3b The Little Rock School District decreased its dropout rate by 15 percent in 1998-99 through several coordinated efforts. These will continue in 1999-2000, plus other new initiatives will be implemented.. A. Expansion of the Alternative Learning Centerthe alternative school for students who, in the past, would have been suspended or expelled. Keeping as many students as possible in school and on track with their academic program helps to decrease the dropout rate. Only one student in LRSD was expelled in 1998-99, in contrast to 109 in 1997-98. B. Creation of and then expansion of the Accelerated Learning Center (ACC) for fall 1999. The ACC is an alternative program for high school students who are over-age and credit-deficient. These are students who just do not achieve well in the traditional school program, but, nevertheless, are motivated to earn a high school diploma. The competency-based curriculum enables participating students to accelerate their completion of credits. C. There is a high, positive correlation of students who participate in co- and extra-curricular activities completing the high school diploma. LRSD, therefore, worked hard in 1998-99 to increase participation in these activities. These efforts will continue in 1999-2000. D. Students who learn to read proficiently by grade 3 are less likely to drop out of school since they are less likely to experience failure and retention. The Districts new PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan has as its major goal that all students learn to read independently by grade 3. E. The District runs a massive summer school program each year to provide additional opportunities for students to make up failed courses or to earn promotion at the elementary and middle school levels. The K-3 summer school is a part of that comprehensive program. F. In fall 1999 the District will implement a new credit-by-examination policy which will enable students to make up failed courses through examination, instead of having to retake them. G. The District will make a major investment of new money into its ESL programs in fall 1999. Ten additional teachers have been added to the elementary Newcomer Centers so that class-size can be reduced and a more comprehensive, effective ESL program can be provided. The tutors who had in the past served this population will be assigned to serve students in schools without Newcomer Centers. New ESL courses in the content areas have been added at the middle and high school levels for fall 1999. A newly employed ESL coordinator will ensure ongoing professional development for all teachers serving ESL students and will coordinate a tuitionreimbursement program as incentives for teachers to earn their ESL endorsement for their teacher certificate. In addition, a tracking/monitoring system will'be established to ensure that ESL students not making academic progress will receive appropriate interventions. A full-time ESL coordinator will be employed from Title VI funds to ensure compliance with the new Resolution Agreement with OCR. H. K-12 curriculum standards will be implemented in fall 1999 in the core areas. Enhanced expectations will expose all students to the curriculum that is tested and will in itself result in higher achievement. I. The District has adopted a policy instituting collective responsibility\" for results. Collective Responsibility is one of the four variables identified by Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage as having positive impacts on student achievement in Successful School Restructuring. 3. Student Achievement and Citizenship National Goals 2000\nAll students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, and every school will ensure that all students are prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment.3c Arkansas Education Goals, Act 236 of 1991: By the year 2000, Arkansas students will leave grades 3, 6, and 8 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, and every school in Arkansas will ensure that all students are prepared, upon graduation, for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment. ACTAAP established criterion-referenced tests to measure student progress in literacy and mathematics at grades 4, 6, 8, and end-of-level tests in high school. LRSD has also aligned its efforts behind the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the National Science Foundation project. A. B. C. D. E. F. K-12 curriculum standards and grade-level or course benchmarks have been established for fall 1999 implementation, enhancing and clarifying the academic expectations for all students. Academic achievement is the major emphasis of the Districts Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. New K-8 language arts curricula will be implemented in fall 1999. I. ii. Grades PreK-2: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas Grades 3-5: Effective Literacy Grades 6-8: Reading and Writing Workshop New mathematics and science curricula will be implemented in fall 1999, grades K-9. The project funded through the National Science Foundation puts a major emphasis on the enrollment of students, especially minorities, in upper-level and advanced mathematics and science courses. Effective for the Class of 2002, students must earn 24 credits for graduation, including grade-level courses in English, mathematics (Algebra l-ll and Geometry), science (Physics I, Biology I, and Chemistry I), and social studies (Civics, World History, and United States History). Effective for the Class of 2003, in order for students to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas, they must earn 27 specified credits, take eight Pre-AP or AP courses, and earn a grade-point-average (gpa) of at least 3.5. The LRSD graduation policy requires all students to earn at least three units in an area of Career Focus. Students earning the Honors Seal must complete four units. G. The District will formalize behavior standards for all students in fall 1999. We have applied for funding to begin implementation of the Child Development Project (CDP) in eight elementary schools. CDP is a climate-building, community-building,' parent involvement, instructional enhancement, and character education program for elementary students. It is one of six nationally validated programs that show a reduction in violence and drug use among children. In addition, we have applied for a Safe Schools/Healthy Children grant to fund the training of all secondary teachers in Fred Jones Positive Discipline program. H. I. J. The District will implement in 1999-2000 its own criterion-referenced tests at grades 2-11 to measure student progress each semester in achieving the rigorous curriculum standards/benchmarks established by the District. The District will implement in 1999-2000 its own accountability system that incorporates ACTAPP but goes beyond it in establishing a local Quality Index and in providing coordinated technical assistance, support, and professional development for goals identified for improvement. The Districts Title 1 program was restructured in 1998-99 for implementation in fall 1999 of programs more carefully correlated with the new District reading and mathematics curricula. For instance, the middle schools will employ two teacher leaders to ensure the success of at-risk students in the new grades 6-8 Reading and Writing Workshop.3d K. The District will implement new PreK-12 ESL courses in 1999-2000. L. New District-adopted criterion-referenced tests in grades K-11 will be administered three times annually so that frequent checks can be made on student progress toward meeting curriculum standards/benchmarks. 4. Mathematics and Science National Goals 2000: U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement. Arkansas Education Goals Act 236 of 1991: By the year 2000, Arkansas students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement. LRSD has also aligned its efforts behind its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the National Science Foundation project that was funded in fall 1998. The LRSD applied for and received a $3.4 million dollar grant from the National Science Foundation in fall 1998 to fund, over five years, curricula enhancements in mathematics and science, professional development for teachers, new teaching materials, and tutoring and summer school support for students. NSF also has a clearly defined accountability system for the continuance of the funding. 5. Safe, Disciplined, and Alcohol- and Drug-Free Schools National Goals 2000: Every school in the U. S. will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. Arkansas Education Goals Act 236 of 1991: By the year 2000 every school in Arkansas will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. The ACTAAP system has as a goal that all schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. The District will formalize behavior standards for all students in fall 1999. We have applied for funding to begin implementation of the Child Development Project (CDP) in eight elementary schools. CDP is a climatebuilding, community-building, parent involvement, instructional enhancement, and character education program for elementary students. It is one of six nationally validated programs that show a reduction in violence and drug use among children. In addition, we have applied for a Safe Schools/Healthy Children grant to fund the training of all secondary teachers in Fred Jones' Positive Discipline program. Effective fall 1999, the LRSD is moving grade 6 into the middle schools and grade 9 into the high school, thereby moving hundreds of older students into the higher levels of school and making the elementary and middle schools safer. In addition, students will behavior problems are served first at the school-level through in-school suspension, then in alternative settings, at elementary,'middle, and high school levels. These alternative settings not only enable students to receive targeted help in learning how to behave while continuing to make progress academically, but also enable the students in the regular program to have an improved learning environment with the removal of troubled students. Only one student was expelled from LRSD in 1998-99. More than 97% of LRSD students had no reportable discipline infraction. We believe that the steps that we are taking ensure that LRSD schools are safe, disciplined, and alcohol- and drug-free. 6. Teacher Education and Professional Development National Goals 2000: The nations teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century. Arkansas Education Goals Act of 1999: Staff Salaries: Salaries for professional educators will be competitive in the marketplace and linked with performance standards and measures. LRSD has also aligned its professional development efforts behind the Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and its-partnership with ASCD in the Urban Professional Development Initiative (UPDI).3e Several major initiatives in 1998-99 were undertaken to improve the quality of LRSD teachers. Linda Darling- Hammond has found in her studies that 40 percent of the variance between black and white student achievement is due to the difference in teacher quality. A. We are committed through our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan to the equitable allocation of resources.\" One of the variables that we will monitor and ensure its equity from school to school is related to teacher quality: teachers with at least eight years of experience and a masters degree. B. C. D. E. F. LRSD entered into a partnership in fall 1998 with the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) called the Urban Professional Development Initiative. This Initiative enables District staff to receive professional development on how to enhance its programs to benefit all students and provides us with a network with educators in similar schools and districts with whom to share. ASCD provides rich video and print resources, as well as access to the web pages to support the work in our District. The District has established threb areas as priorities for professional development\nInstructional Strategies (especially for language arts, mathematics, and science)\nCampus Leadership (leadership skills, data analysis, action research, school improvement planning, etc.)\nand Climate (multiculturalism, prejudice reduction and diversity, classroom management, character education, etc.) The National Science Foundation has provided major funding for professional development in mathematics and science. The District used 18% of its Class-size Reduction funds for professional development leadership in elementary mathematics and for tuition-reimbursement for ESL teachers to earn ESL endorsements to their certificates. Additional Title VI funds are committed in 1999-2000 for enhancement of professional development resources and to fund training for elementary mathematics teachers. G. The District has committed more than $700,000 local dollars to fund the implementation of the Prek- 3 Literacy Program Plan and the middle school Reading and Writing Workshop, as well as the new ESL curriculum. These dollars will be spent chiefly on professional development. H. I. J. K. The District has aligned its elementary professional development programs with Smart Start and has made every effort to leverage state-provided trainin'g in every way possible. The District applied for and received a grant of approximately $170,000 from the state to fund ELLA and Effective Literacy training for teachers. The 1999-2000 Title 1 budget includes some funds for ESL training. The restructured Title I program committed more money to professional development. 7. Parental Participation National Goals 2000: Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children. The LRSD is strongly committed to improved levels of parent involvement in both its Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. To that end, the parent involvement programs, including those involving Title I, have been restructured for 1999-2000\n3f A. B. C. D. E. F. G. The Parent-School Compact required in Title I regulations is a part of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, including a commitment to embed its use in the culture of every Title I school. The school-level Title I Parent Advisory Committees (PACs) will continue, as in the past, but will now serve as Advisory to the Campus Leadership Team, especially in issues related to the schools Title I plans. The district-level PAC will also continue to advise the District on issues relating to the District plan. The Title I parent involvement staff will join a larger work team of staff working on parent and community involvement to ensure compliance with federal Title I regulations, to ensure a tight alignment of parent/community programs with District initiatives for improved student achievement, to leverage all possible resources, to eliminate gaps and reduce redundancies, and to craft a coherent District plan, focussed on the school level, rather than on District events. The Districts new Campus Leadership Plan requires parent involvement on the Campus Leadership Teams. Title I schools have been instructed specifically to ensure that Title I parents are involved in these teams. The District has entered into a partnership with the Southwest Education Development Lab in Austin to establish a Collaborative Action Team. The single focus of this new effort will be to develop and implement a plan for increasing participation of parents in meaningful involvement in their childrens schools. The District will publish in fall 1999 a series of booklets/brochures outlining the new curriculum standards/benchmarks in parent-friendly language. These publications will be sent home with every student and also placed in strategic locations throughout the community. Funds have been budgeted in both Title I and in local budgets to ensure that critical documents for parents are translated into the language of the home. (B. 4 STUDENT ASSESSMENT {Section 1116(a)(2)} 1. 2. 3. The district is in compiiance with the state plan in assessing student progress. Yes X No How is the criteria for success in teaming being established by the LEA on the stategiven norm-referenced test (NRT) and the criterion-referenced test (CRT), and how is it being determined if students are making adequate yearly progress? Criteria for success in learning has been established in the states new ACTAAP as performing at or above the proficient level\" on the states benchmark examinations at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations administered to secondary students. To triangulate this measure, the District will employ two other methods, both outlined in the LRSD Quality Indicators (the local accountability system). The definitions of school success are defined in the Strategic Plan objectives: A.  Nine often students will meet the Districts curriculum standards/benchmarks. The measurement for this objective will be newly adopted criterion-referenced tests for kindergarten and grade 1 literacy and the grades 2-11 tests in literacy and mathematics. Tests will be administered in the fall for diagnostic purposes, at the end of the first semester to check progress and design second-semester interventions, and at the end of the year for summative evaluation. Locally made tests will also be administered at the end of the first and third nine-weeks grading periods to give teachers further information on student performance. Definitions of student performance on the CRTs will be established to align with state definitions (advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic). B. The SAT9 reports include the percent of students performing by quartile. LRSD has established the following performance objectives: that 65 percent of the students in every schools sub-group of race and gender will perform at or above the 50* percentile\nthat 30 percent of the students will perform in the highest quartile\nand that no more than 10 percent will perform in the lowest quartile. C. On both the District-adopted CRTs and the SAT9, the District will examine whether LRSD students grow at or above the growth level of students nationally. Because our students on average perform below the national average, we will be working to accelerate growth so that LRSD students catch up with their national peers. The District will at the end of the first year of a schools not achieving its ACTAAP goals institute a system of information/data gathering and follow-up technical assistance, support, and professional development to assist the school in its improvement efforts. Our plan is one of collective responsibility. That is, the District-level staff will form a partnership with each school to support its improvement and will share in the accountability for results. Describe the multiple assessment strategies used in the LEA Title I schools. If assessments change from school to school, group the schools with the same assessment strategies and describe. (May include NRT, curriculum frameworks, CRT, portfolios, or other.) See #2 above for a description of the Districts assessment strategies and definitions of success.4a Through use of the states benchmark examinations and end-of level tests, the new District CRTs administered quarterly, and the use of the SAT9 scores, the District will be able to triangulate our student achievement instead of using only one snapshot. Multiple measures will provide teachers with sufficient data to make decisions regarding instructional modifications and appropriate interventions and will provide parents and students with information that will help them pinpoint areas of required improvement. In addition to these formal assessment strategies, individual teachers and schools will continue to make use of daily observations, grades, checklists, portfolios (especially in writing), and various performances to determine student progress toward achievement of the curriculum standards and benchmarks. A new grading system and regulations will be designed in 1999-2000 to bring the grading system in alignment with the new standards and instructional programs. 4. Benchmarks set for student performance (advanced, proficient, basic, or below basic) meet the criteria set in the Arkansas State Plan for Improving Americas Schools Act. X Yes No 5. OPTIONAL Other than the assessments described in the state plan that must be complied with, what other assessments are being used? See #2 and #3 above. 6. In the regular classroom, what does the teacher do to insure that children not making adequate progress in meeting State Standards are given assistance that is in addition to the Title I instructional program? A practice that the District endeavors to institutionalize in every classroom is frequent assessment of student progress and then re-teaching as necessary to ensure that every child achieves the standards. This practice is carefully embedded in the new ELLA program, for instance, in that teachers are trained to take running records as individual students read so that frequent assessment and diagnosis can occur. In the upper grades and through high school, teachers are being trained to take students through multiple drafts of their compositions, to use cooperative iearriing strategies to conduct peer editing and then to provide teacher feedback before students turn in the final papers for evaluations. This process approach to all kinds of student vv'ork is designed to provide students with guided practice and formative evaluations so that summative evaluations can be more positive. Another practice that the District supports is collaborative planning involving all the teachers of a group of students. Title I, ESL, special education, and other special program teachers meet regularly with each other and the regular classroom teacher to ensure coordinated instruction and assessment and to provide individual children with necessary support. This practice is not yet institutionalized, but we have restructured in ways that will facilitate it better in 1999-2000, and training continues. A third practice that we have on the drawing board for development in 1999-2000 is the Personalized Education Plan for every student, including those achieving at the top levels, so that every child, with his/her parents involvement, will have his/her own improvement plan.4b The District provides the K-3 summer school for students most in need, tuition-funded summer school for older students, evening high school, and other alternatives to earning promotion/credits. In addition, some schools provide extended-day programs, tutoring, and summer programs. 7. How and how often will teachers inform parents and students about the students progress in meeting State Performance Standards? Teachers inform parents and students about the students progress on State Performance Standards by sending to the parents or guardians four mid-term written student progress reports and four nine-week grade reports and by conducting parent/teacher conferences.5 8. List the procedures that are in use to diagnose teaching and learning to assist students in making progress in meeting the State Performance Standards? Effective fall 1999, the District will implement its new K-12 curriculum standards and grade- level/course benchmarks. These benchmarks replace the old curriculum objectives that were used to set academic goals for each course. Teachers will monitor student progress toward meeting these standards/benchmarks through the assessment strategies outlined in numbers 2 and 3 above. The District will adopt in fall 1999 an instructional framework (such as Dimensions of Learning) to guide curriculum development and professional development. A priority will be to provide opportunities for teachers to acquire a wide range of research-based strategies to ensure much higher levels of student success in achieving the standards/benchmarks. The framework will include creating classrooms conducive to learning, acquiring knowledge, applying knowledge, acquiring and using higher-order thinking skills, and acquiring desired habits.of mindsuch as persistence, metacognition, and self-assessment for quality performance. Schools will be assisted in these efforts through newly established work teams in the Division of Instruction: A. B. C. Teaching and Learningcomposed of the curriculum directors for Early Childhood, English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and Career/Technical Education, plus the directors of special programs: Federal Programs, ESL, Gifted/Talented Education, and Exceptional Children. Parent and Community Involvementcomposed of the Title I parent involvement staff, plus the staff now assigned to Volunteers in Public Schools, Partnerships in Education, Adult Education, and Community Education. Planning and Developmentcomposed of staff to ensure alignment of school plans with the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and to ensure grant proposals are similarly aligned. D. Professional Developmentcomposed of staff in professional development, but also others as appropriate to deliver appropriatfe programs. E. Technical Assistancecomposed of staff to support the ACSIP, Title 1, and Campus Leadership processes for planning school improvement. F. Testing and Program Evaluationcomposed of staff in charge of the assessment programs and program evaluation. Programs targeted for evaluation in 1999-2000 include Title I, ESL, NSF, and middle school implementation. Several new/ teacher leaders w/ere added in summer 1999 to the staff to provide ongoing professional development and in-classroom coaching and technical assistance in A. implementing the new literacy and mathematics/science curricula: One person was funded locally to provide Reading Recovery and ELLA training. B. c. One person funded from Eisenhower funds was reassigned from general Smart Start coordination duties to reading specialist. The Title I specialist overseeing the Success for All program will be on the same work team with other reading specialists.5a D. Two mathematics teacher leaders were funded from the Class-size Reduction funds to assist elementary teachers in curriculum implementation. E. One mathematics teacher leader was funded from Title VI. F. An ESL Coordinator was funded from Title VI to coordinate several administrative duties, but chiefly to train staff in effective implementation of the new ESL programs and services. G. The Districts middle schools used parts of their Title I allocations to employ two teacher leaders to oversee the implementation of the Reading/Writing Workshop and to ensure the success of at-risk students in this new program. Again, we are making a major effort to interweave the Districts improvement efforts with those of Title I and other state/national programs so that they are, to every extent possible, seamless. To achieve that, both the programs and all staff members, regardless of the funding source for their salaries, must assume collective responsibility for the success of all students in the Title I schools. It will take everyone involved to ensure that all students learn to read independently by grade 3, and we are committed to that end. 9. Describe the revisions made in the LEAs program to assure that students will make continuous progress. The following major changes occurred in 1998-99, to be implemented in fall 1999, to ensure more academic success of all students: A. Redistrictingso that all students, except those choosing magnet schools, will attend neighborhood schools instead of being bused across town for desegregation purposes. B. Addition of up to ten more classrooms of Prekindergarten students to improve school readiness. C. Restructuring the HIPPY program to serve children ages 3-4 instead of ages 4-5 since ail five-year olds have access to a full-day kindergarten program. D. Design of K-12 curriculum standards/benchmarks in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.  E. Design of new K-12 ESL programs and services. F. Design of new PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, including professional development for teachers, purchase of new materials, restructuring of the school day, interventions, and the addition of a new phonemic awareness program at the kindergarten level. Animated Literacy. G. Design of new grades 4-5 Literacy Plan, emphasizing Effective Literacy. H. Design of new grades 6-8 Reading and Writing Workshop, using Nanci Atwells model, modified by Linda Rief. I. Restructuring of the Title I program to align it with the new District literacy and mathematics programs. J. Design of new grades K-12 mathematics and science curricula, purchase of new materials, and professional development for teachers in implementation.C. 5b K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. Design of new District Assessment Plan to include district-adopted CRTs for grades K-11. Design of new Program Evaluation Plan to target key programs for evaluation: Title I, ESL, NSF, and middle school implementation. Reorganization of Division of Instruction into work teams in support of the work of the schools. Creation of a local accountability system and Quality Indicators that incorporate the components of ACTAAP, but go beyond in creating a system in support of collective responsibility. n Implementation of the new Campus Leadership Plan with an emphasis on creating research-based school improvement plans. Restructuring of parent/community programs to align them with District initiatives\ncreating partnership with SEDL to form a Collaborative Action Team with a focus on Parent Involvement. Joining a partnership with ASCD, the Urban Professional Development Initiative, to develop an improved plan for delivering professional development to support implementation of new initiatives. RESEARCH {Section 1114 \u0026amp; 1115} List the research and provide a summary of the research on which the program is based. Research should include some or all of the following: a review of the literature on the outcomes of various academic approaches, visitations to successful sites and/or a presentation by experts in the field. The Office of Federal Programs and the Departments of Reading, Mathematics, and Professional Development review current available material and literature that may be added to school programs to help assure continuous student progress. Supervisors, specialists, and teachers provide training and workshops on the proper use of new and innovative strategies. Site visits to exemplary programs are made and written information obtained on successful programs\nschool personnel and parents, directly involved, attend state meetings. READING RECOVERY Reading Recovery was developed in New Zealand and came to the United States via Ohio State University in 1984. In the 1996-97 school year a total of 9,815 U. S. schools were using Reading Recovery in 48 states. Reading Recovery is an extensive early intervention literacy program. First-grade children who score in the lowest 20 percent of their class (based on individual measures assessment and teacher judgment) are eligible to participate. Regular classroom instruction is supplemented with daily one-to-one, 30-minute lessons for 12-20 weeks with a specially trained teacher. Reading Recovery lessons provide children with individualized instruction that focuses on their strengths, experience with books and stories, accelerated learning expectations, and strategies that help them become independent learners. Reading Recovery teachers record the details of5c every lesson they provide. Instruction continues until participants can read at or above the class average, and demonstrate the use of independent reading and writing strategies. Reading Recovery teachers record the details of every lesson they provide. Instruction continues until participants can read at or above the class average, and demonstrate the use of independent reading and writing strategies. Primary features are:  One-to-one tutoring program,  Individualized instruction, and  Specially trained teachers Results Of all students nationwide who entered Reading Recovery in 1996-97, 60 percent achieved the average of their class. Of students who received a full program with an opportunity to participate for 20 weeks, 83 percent achieved the average reading level of their class. DIRECT INSTRUCTION Direct instruction has evolved from a theory of instruction developed by Siegfried Engelmann of the University of Oregon. His theory of instruction is that learning can be greatly accelerated if instructional presentations are clear, rule out likely misinterpretations, and facilitate generalizations. Over 50 instructional programs have been developed based on this theory. Each program is shaped through field tryouts\nstudent errors are carefully evaluated and lessons revised prior to publication. The lessons are carefully scripted and tightly sequenced. The comprehensive Direct Instruction Model incorporates teacher development and organizational components needed to optimize program use. Through substantial training and in-class coaching, teachers in the lower grades learn to present highly interactive lessons to small groups. Students make frequent oral responses, and teachers monitor and correct errors immediately. Students are placed at appropriate instructional levels based on performance, so those who learn rapidly are not held back and those who need additional assistance receive it. The model calls for inclusion of students with special needs except in the most extreme cases. Primary features include:  Field-tested reading, language arts, and rhathematics curricula  highly scripted instructional strategies  extensive training Results Over the past 30 years numerous research studies on Direct Instruction have been conducted. Beginning with Project Follow Through, a large-scale federal research project that funded and examined a variety of approaches to educating disadvantaged students. The Project Follow Through evaluation found that Direct Instruction was the most effective model in all three areas studied: basic skills (reading, language, math, spelling), cognitive skills, and affective behavior. Many other evaluations conducted since then also have significant positive effects on student achievement in reading, language arts, or mathematics, as measured by a variety of standardized tests. Many of the program benefits appear to endure well past elementary school. Several studies have found that students who received Direct Instruction in grade school have higher high school test scores, graduation rates, and college acceptance rates.5d SUCCESS FOR ALL Success for All was founded by Robert Slavin, Nancy Madden, and a team of developers from John Hopkins University and was first implemented in six school in 1987. By January 1998 Success for All was in 747 schools in 40 states. Success for All restructures elementary schools to ensure that every child learns to read in the early grades. The idea is to prevent reading problems from appearing in the first place and to intervene swiftly and intensively if problems do appear. Success for All prescribes specific curricula and instructional strategies forteaching reading, including shared story reading, listening, comprehension, vocabulary building, sound blending and writing activities. Program features include:  schoolwide reading curriculum  cooperative learning  grouping by reading level (reviewed by assessment every 8 weeks)  tutoring for students in need of extra assistance  family support team Results Students in Success For All schools have outperformed students in control schools on reading tests\neffects have been even more pronounced for students in the bottom quartile. Numerous studies have compared scores on standardized reading tests (specifically, the Durrell Oral Reading Scale and several scales from the Woodcock Reading mastery Test) for students in Success for All schools and control schools. Results indicate that Success for All significantly improves reading performance, especially for students in the lowest 25% of their class. Compared to control groups. Success for All students score about three months higher in the first grade and 1.1 years higher in fifth grade on reading measures. A schools reading performance tends to increase with each successive year of program implementation. Evaluations also indicate positive impacts on the achievement of limited-English proficient students and students who have been assigned to special education. Retentions and special education placements decline significantly in Success for All schools. D. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT {Section 1119} 1. What kind of staff development has been and will be conducted for teachers, paraprofessionals, support staff members, parents and administrators to insure instruction is provided by highly qualified professional staff, that will enhance the chances of the students in meeting the State Performance Standards? List all professional development that is being done and what is planned? The District has established three areas as priorities for professional development:  Instructional Strategies (especially for language arts, mathematics, and science)  Campus Leadership (leadership skills, data analysis, action research, school improvement planning, etc.)  Climate (multiculturalism, prejudice reduction and diversity, classroom management, character education, etc.)5e Professional development is designed to serve teachers, administrators, paraprofessionals, and support staff by providing opportunities that promote District goals attainment, improve student achievement, employee development, and job effectiveness. Professional development is a continuous grovTth process encompassing district-wide training courses and other courses that have been designed to assist personnel with the best possible training for the improvement of student achievement. The FY 2000 school year begins with extensive pre-school professional development opportunities for all personnel. Continuous personal program development may be scheduled through the Districts Staff Development Department. Program support is provided for personnel in schools with selected models and/or strategies, such as, Great Expectations, Reading Recovery, Direct instruction. Success for All, Onward Toward Excellence II, and others. Listed are selected professional development offerings-workshops: i Teachers Classroom Management Diversity in the Classroom Basic Computer Tools Cooperative Team Learning Multiple Intelligence/Learning Styles Positive Discipline and Instruction Thematic Units Clarity with Instruction Building Study Skills and Test Taking Skills Middle Schools Literature Circles Reading Investigations in Numbers, Data, and Space Training K-4 Crusade Pre-K Teacher Insen/ice Early Childhood Technology in the Classroom - (Word, Internet, Powerpoint) Connected Math Getting Along Early Learning\nRoots and Wings Family Support Roots Training, Level Four Tutor Training Implementation Checks Refresher Training Para-professionals Updating Your Skills Classroom Tips Fred Jones Discipline Character Education Strategies Test Taking Tips5f Support Staff Customer Care Ready for the Information Age Updating Your Skills Parents Making The Parent-School Connection How To Help Your Child Improve In Reading Bridging The Gap: Elementary To Middle School Campus Leadership Smart Start Active Parenting Effective Black Parenting Common Sense Parenting Systematic Training For Effective Parenting Home School Connections The Goals of Team Misbehavior The Development of Responsibility Improving Family Atmosphere Administrators The Change Process Systems Change Model Resolving Conflicts in Teams Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site-Based Decision Making Goal Setting and Planning New offerings for FY 2000 include\nPrejudice Reduction Standards and Benchmarks Curriculum Alignment Reading Recovery Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas Effective Literacy 2. How are staff development and parent training needs identified? To achieve the mission and objectives of the District, effective staff development and parent training are identified as paramount in support of continuous student achievement. As an on-going part of each staff development and parent training activity, participants return an evaluation. In part, evaluations help to determine the quality of the current activity as well as determining its continuing need. Second, in conjunction with local school initiated programs, campus leadership teams, including parents, determine special training needs. Generally, their concerns are about additional assistance with District program directions and individual group needs. Third, staff development initiatives are coordinated through the Districts Staff Development Department. Their continuing responsibilities are: 1. Conduct annual needs assessment to identify professional needs.5g 2. 3. Support programs to facilitate the LRSD Desegregation Plan/Strategic Plan, COE, work teams/clusters, and the culturally diverse population. Support programs to facilitate school improvement, current technology, and diversity. An outgrowth of this broad representation for developing needs, produced a pre-school initiative of more than 150 inservice sessions organized by the Division of Instruction. Reference: pages 5e and 5f (FY 2000 programs for staff and parents).6 E. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS 1. TARGETED ASSISTED (SECTION 1115) (a) Student Selection What methods are in use by teachers in consultation with parents, administrators, and counselors to identify students in need of Title I services? Arkansas Student Selection Model X Other - Explain The District uses a modified version of the Arkansas Department of Educations Student Selection Model. Objective criteria (Student learning Profiles) in reading and mathematics are designed to determine the extent to which students have mastered skill's (content standards) by the end of the third quarter in kindergarten through grade'7. Indicators used to determine placement are: Marie Clay's Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, ACTAAP, State benchmarks, District criterion reference tests, classroom grades, teachers recommendations, program assessments (unit test, Success for All, Reading Recovery, Direct Instruction). 2. (b) Description of the instructional program by using the following\n(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) School Name Highly Qualified Staff Number of Students Served Instructional Area Type of Academic Program(s) Grade Levels SEE ATTACHMENT SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAMS (Section 1114) (a) Describe the planning that has takfen place for schoolwide programs in the LEA. Each of the 23 schools participating in the Schoolwide Program has formed a committee consisting of the Campus Leadership Team, principal, classroom teachers, support staff, parents and community representatives. These committees met during the school year to study and discuss data identifying: 1) test information, 2) exemplary programs, 3) professional development needs, and 4) other information impacting school environment. Each school has been a part of the Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation Process, and some of the schools have reviewed the following: Selected Computer Learning Programs, Reading Recovery, Writing to Read, Direct Instruction, Success for All, Voyager, Helping One Student to Succeed (HOSTS), Accelerated Reader, and McRat.6a (b) Description of the instructionai program by using the foiiowing: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) School Name Highly Qualified Professional Staff Number of Students Served Instructional Area Type of Academic Program(s) Grade Levels SEE ATTACHMENT (c) Has a comprehensive needs assessment been done in each schoolwide school? Yes X No 6b E. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS 1. 2. * ATTACHMENT (b) *T/\\ReETED ASSISTANCE SCHOOLS (Section 1115) (b) SCHOOLWIDE SCHOOLS (Section 1114) SCHOOL _________NAME Badgett Elem Bale Elem__________ Baseline Elem______ Brady Elem________ Chicot Elem________ Cloverdale Elem *Cloverdale Middle Dodd Elem________ *Dunbar Middle Fair Park Elem *Forest Hgt. Middle * Forest Park Elem Franklin Elem * Fulbright Elem Garland Elem______ Geyer Springs Elem *Henderson Middle * Jefferson Elem STA FF 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 .20 1.00 .20 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .20 1.00 NO. STUDENTS SERVED 155 249 248 293 379 349 493 182 , 277 151 338 125 365 169 185 219 349 153 INSTRUCTIONAL AREA Read/Math________ Read/Math________ Read/Math Read/Math Read/Math________ Read/Math________ Read/Math________ Read/Math________ Read/Math________ Read/Math Read/Math________ Read/Math________ Read/Math________ Read/Math________ Read/Math_______ Read/Math Read/Math________ Read/Math King Elem 2.00 468 Read/Math TYPE OF _______________PROGRAM_____________ Intervention Remediation______________ ComputersNew Century______________ SFA, ComputersJostens (BLS) SFA, ComputersNew Century_________ ComputersJostens ________________ SFA, ComputersNew Century ComputersJ ostens McRAT, Read Recovery Intervention Remediation ___ Read Recovery________________________ Intervention Remediation______________ HOSTS_______________________________ Read Recovery, ComputersNew Century Read Recovery ___________________ ELITE, Accelerated Reader____________ Read Recovery, ComputersJostens Computers Technology Support_________ Read Recovery, ComputersTechnology Support, Accelerated Reader, STAR___ Extended Day, Intervention Remediation GRADE LEVEL PreK-5 PreK-5 PreK-5 PreK-5 PreK-5 PreK-5 6-8 PreK-5 6-8 PreK-5 6-8 PreK-5 PreK-5 PreK-5 PreK-5 PreK-5 6-8 PreK-5 PrcK-5, 6c E. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS (cont.) Mabelvale Elem *Mabelvale Middle *McDermott Elem Meadowcliff Elem Mitchell Elem 2.00 1.00 1.60 1.00 308 343 170 221 182 Read/Math Read/Math Read/Math Read/Math Read/Math *1 Otter Creek Elem Pulaski Heights Elem .80 1.00 97 135 Read/Math Read/Math Pulaski Heights Middle Rightsell Elem Rockefeller Elem .20 1.00 1.00 454 184 272 Read/Math Read/Math Read/Math Romine Elem______ *5outhwest Middle *Terry Elem______ Wakefield Elem Washington Elem 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 243 388 140 291 425 Read/Math Read/Math Read/Math Read/Math Read/Math Watson Elem_____ Western Hills Elem Wilson Elem 1.6 1.00 1.00 346 224 270 Read/Math Read/Math Read/Math Woodruff Elem 1.00 184 Read/Math ComputersJ ostens_______________ Intervention Remediation, Accel. Read HOSTS________________________________ SFA________________________________ SFA, Voyager, ComputersTechnology Support______________________ Read Recovery, Accelerated Reader______ Accelerated Reader, Computers Technical Support_______________________ Intervention Remediation________________ Computers Curriculum Corporation________ Read Recovery, Accelerated Reader, ComputersTechnology Support_________ SFA, ComputersTechnology Support Intervention Remediation________________ Intervention Remediation_______________ SFA___________________________________ Direct Instruct, ComputersTechnology Support____________________ Onward To Excellence II, ComputersCCC ComputersCCC_____________________ Extended Day, ComputersNew Century, Accelerated Reader, Read Recovery______ SFA PreK-5 6-8 PreK-5 PreK-5 PreK-5 PreK-5 PrcK-5 6-8 PreK-5 PrcK-5 PreK-5 6-8 PreK-5 PreK-5 PrcK-5 PreK-5 PreK-5 PrcK-5 PreK-5 Definitions: Accelerated Reader Corporate Curriculum Corporation Direct Instruction (Accel. Read) (CCC) (bl) Jostens Basic Learning System Reading Recovery (BLS) (RR) Students Targeted to Achieve Reading Success (STAR) Effective Learning In Technical Environment (ELITE) Success For All (SFA) Helping One Student to Achieve (HOSTS)7 (d) (e) Have school support teams or other appropriate technical assistance providers been involved in the development of the schoolwide plans? X Yes__No Every school used the state checklist to develop time lines for school support and technical assistance. Each school developed distinctive Title I programs, beginning with category nine (writing the implementation plan) - thru step 12 (facilitating implementation of plan). External School Support teams will be formed for team visits to new and continuing Title I Schoolwide schools-FY2000. What reform efforts have been made in implementing the schoolwide program? Twenty-three (23) schools are identified as schoolwide. Changing school practices include extensive professional development in proven strategies for parent/family involvement, one-on-one tutoring, instruction, assessment, and classroom management. Listed are selected programs and/or strategies\nDirect Instruction, Reading Recovery, Success For All, Onward Toward Excellence II. Other District initiatives are\n2-1/2 hours Language Arts, campus leadership teams, lead-teacher coaching (elementary, middle, secondary). 3. Describe all other programs being implemented with Title I funds. (Such as extended day, preschool, summer school) F. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT (Section 1117) (SEE ATTACHMENTS 7b, 7c) 1. How will the LEA identify a school in need of school improvement? School improvement planning will be based on student achievement, assisting identified schools where performance does not meet expectations. The district will develop a school performance report containing analyzed data from multiple criteria assessments, including:  Stanford 9 in grades 5, 7, and 10. Trend goals will be established using the annual rate of reduction in numbers of students below proficient divided by the total percentage of students below proficient by ten (10). Students at or above the fiftieth percentile will be sixty-five percent (65%). No more than ten percent (10%) of the students will fall in the lowest quartile and thirty percent (30%) will be in the highest quartile.  Student performance on the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) expectations are one hundred percent (100%) at or above proficient level. ACT/\\AP is administered in grades 4, 6, 8. End of course tests are given for Algebra I, Geometry, and Literacy at the 11* grade level.  Expectations of student achievement as measured by the LEA Criterion Reference Test (CRT) are one hundred percent of students at or above proficient level. District level Criterion Reference Tests are given in grades 2-5 each quarter in Mathematics and Language Arts.I 7a 2. What corrective action will be taken for a school in school improvement? The District will ensure the following levels of technical assistance and or corrective actions for schools identified for school improvement by ADE.  LEA will form a partnership with each school in need of improvement and will assist and support that school in its improvement efforts.  Another level of support is the assignment of a Central Office person broker to each school in need of school improvement.  Extended day and summer school provisions will be made for students performing below grade level.  Campus Leadership Teams will play a central role in school improvement. Corrective actions will stem from data analysis on key elements of school profiles. These profiles will reflect the extent to which initiated programs are reaching desired goals. Among initiated changes will be program modification, professional development and personnel effectiveness.  Core training will consist of inservice on student assessment data (meeting needs based on data), curriculum, school evaluation procedures, parent involvement, and securing technical assistance.  The school will devote to professional developmentover two consecutive years an amount equal to at least ten percent of Title I, Part A Funds received during the fiscal year\nor otherwise demonstrate that the school is effectively carrying out professional development activities. G. COORDINATION {Section 1112(b)(4)} 1. Give specific examples of how the following Title I services are coordinated with Head Start, Even Start, local preschool programs, early childhood transition programs, HIPPY, Goals 2000, School-to-Work, ESL programs, adult education, etc.? The services of the above groups are coordinated through the District administrative staff that meets bi-monthly. Coordination of efforts among supervisors, department directors and school staff is tied together by a weekly publication-Learning Links. This composite document provides all district personnel with timely information about on-going program implementation. The Director of Federal Programs works closely with the Director of Early Childhood and the Supervisor of HIPPY. If necessary, other groups of local daycare providers are contacted to interact with the Districts early childhood personnel to provide training and transition opportunities for our district. Bi-lingual students are assessed and programs defined to meet student needs\nten ESL teachers have been hired to reduce class-size at the elementary level. Title I serves students who have academic needs and provides special services as identified. Identified District personnel coordinate program activities, The Adult Education program is located in the Adult Education Building, and cooperation will continue in the area of parent information for further literacy training.7b LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHBDA REMEDIAL INSTRUCTION The Board of Education is committed to the philosophy that all children can achieve the State and LRSD standards and grade- or course-level benchmarks in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The District and each school will utilize available .resources- federal, state, and local-to provide expanded learning opportunities for all students. This priority will be accomplished through comprehensive and aggressive early intervention efforts, especially in PreK-3 reading and * mathematics, with continuing support through complementary remediation efforts on an as-needed basis to promote and sustain the standard levels of achievement. Intervention/remediation efforts of the Little Rock School District will be comprised of a ' broad range of alternatives to ensure that all. students are afforded equitable opportunities to perform at or above the Proficient level as defined by the standards of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. 4 Adopted: Legal Reference: Arkansas Standards7c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IGA CURRICULUM PROGRAM ALIGNMENT AND COHERENCE The Board of Education directs the superintendent to ensure that ail special curriculum/ instruction programs at the District and school levels be carefully aligned and coherent with the Districts Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and the regular education program that has been established. The staff responsible for the design and/or delivery of all special programs, including but not limited to, special education,JTitle I, English-as-a-Second Language, migrant education, gifted and talented education, 504 programs, alternative education programs, etc., are to ensure that their programs reflect the district-adopted grade- level/course standards and benchmarks and are coordinated with the overall curriculum' plan. Special programs shall adapt instruction, pacing, materials and assessments, as appropriate, to meet the unique needs of the students served. Special program staff shall be represented in the establishment of course standards/ benchmarks and in the development of curriculum guides. Adopted:7d The following technical assistance and support services schools requiring-improyements: are estab-li-shed for Technical Assistance and Support for Schools Identified for Improvement iSf s! YEAR ONE: WARNED The first year that an LRSD school fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or. Improvement goals. The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: 1. Inform the principal, the central office broker, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Boafd pf Education of the designation of the . school arid Its Implications. 2. Provide appropriate levels of technical assistance to the school as It develops and Implements Its School Improvement-Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance  problems and iricludes waivers of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to education its students. 3. Conduct a School Improvement Audit to determine the extent to which the Campus Leadership Plan is being Implemented at the school. 4. Require the recommendations from the School Improvement Audit to be addressed in the following years School Improvement Plan, if not possible to do so immediately. 5,  Monitor regularly and conduct formative evaluations of the implementation of the School Improvement Plan, reviewing with the principal  and the Campus Leadership Team formative data and making suggestions for rfiedifications and adjustments to the implementation plan, 6. Provide the principal, the broker, members of the Campus Leadership Team, and other appropnate staff opportunities to participate in professional development activities that should lead to school Improvement Testing and Program , Evaluation Team Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Technical Assistance Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services Professional Development Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team\nAssociate Superintendent for School Services / I7e s'ls-ta n cszo-upp ?4{ YEAR TWO: HIGH PRIORITY STATUS The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to\nA school identified by ADE that for two consecutive years falls to meet the performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 1, Inform the principal, the central office broker, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation of the school and its implications. 2, Provide appropriate levels of technical assistance to the,,school as it develops and Implements its Schoo) Irhprovement Plan so that it addresses specific elefnents of student performance problems and Includes waives of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to educate its students, , 3. Conduct a comprehensive Curriculum Audit to determine the extent to which the school is implementing the District curriculum and the quality of its interventions for students not meeting the standards. 4. Require that the recommendations from the Curriculum Audit be addressed in the following year's School Improvement Plan, if impossible to do so Immediately, Possibly mandate the implementation of specific actions, professional development, or programs to address needs identified In the Curriculum Audit and/or the analysis of disaggtegated student performance data. 5. The District shall take correctiye action during the High Priority Status Year through one or more of the following\n(b) (c) (d) Decrease the decision-making authority of the Campus Leadership Team, (b) Require participation in remedial training or professional development, and then implementating the necessary changes, Reflect the school's 10?/ performance In the evaluation of the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. Replace ths school principal,. Testing and Program Evaluation Team Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Curriculum/ Instruction Team\nPlanning and Development Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services 1'^1 II rel 7f Year Three: Alert Status A school Identified by ADE that for three consecutive years fails to meet the performance, trend, and/or Improvement goals. The Superintendent will ensure that staff are , designated to: 1.- 2. 3. 4. Inform the principal, ths Campus Leadership  . . ... w. _____t 1 C Jl,/^OTI/ Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation and its Implications. Conduct follow-up or monitoring of Implementation of School Improvement and Curriculum Audit recompiendations. Mandate appropriate specific actions, proiesslonai jVlaH\\JCii.c ay^jji vjji IOV5S ^wwuw ----------------  i J development, and/or programs to address student needs. Continue to provide appropriate technical 'assistance as the school develops and implements Its School Improvement Plan. Testing and Program Evaluation Team Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ instruction Team yai^^fia^\n' I J 5. The District shall take corrective action during the Alert Status Year through one or more of the following: .. (a) Decrease the decision-making authority or me Carnpus Leadership Team\n(b) Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes\n_ (c) (Reflect the school's low performance in tne evaluation of the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school.    (d) Reconstitute the school sfeff-by replacing the principal and up to 50 perde'nt of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Associate Superintendent for School Sen/ices L Jf X*7g Year Four: Low Performing Status A school identified by ADE that for four consecutive years falls to meet Its performance, trend, and/or Improvement goals. The Superintendent will ensure that staff are , designated to apply one or more of the following sanctions: 1. 2. 3. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes.  Refle'pt the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff,  Including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance. 4, Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively Implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. 5 Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers ana other staff, as appropriate. __________ ( Associate Superintendent for School Services Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Sen/ices I (7h YEAR FIVE: ACADEMIC DISTRESS PHASE f STATUS A school identified by ADE that for five consecutive years fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or Improvement goals. L The Superintendent will ensure that staff are _ designated to apply one or more of the following sanctions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement\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_1460","title":"Report: \"Monitoring Report: Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants in the Little Rock School District,\" 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":["1994-12-22"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Education--Finance","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: \"Monitoring Report: Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants in the Little Rock School District,\" 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/1460"],"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":["5 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1430","title":"Report: ''Status Report: Little Rock School District Incentive School Staffing 1994-95,'' 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":["1994-12-22"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School employees","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Status Report: Little Rock School District Incentive School Staffing 1994-95,'' 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/1430"],"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":["32 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_216","title":"Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1994-1995 First Quarter Status Report, Program Planning and Budget Document for Non-Desegregation Programs","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994-11-18"],"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--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1994-1995 First Quarter Status Report, Program Planning and Budget Document for Non-Desegregation Programs"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/216"],"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":["262 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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT reCEIVED 1994-95 FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT Office NOV 1 8 1994 of Desegregation Monitoring PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET DOCUMENT FOR NON-DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT November 18, 1994 EXHIBIT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SEQUENCE H PAGE # SEQUENCE # PAGE # Preface 1 SCHOOL OPERATIONS CLUSTER (BUFF) Mission Statement 2 Goals 3 209 210 211 212 Elementary Junior High School High School Athletics 56 58 60 62 District Financial Summary 4 SCHOOL SUPPORT CLUSTER (BLUE) Definitions 5 Organization of the Report 7 Cluster Budget Documents 8 CURRICULUM CLUSTER (PINK) 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 4 Year Qld Program/City Wide Early Childhood Education Program Kindergarten Special Education Vocational Educational Adult Education Compensatory Education Gifted and Talented Curriculum Services 10 16 18 23 27 30 35 38 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 Guidance Services Drug Abuse Prevention Health Services Curriculum Services/VIPS Educational Media Services Board of Education Services Executive Administrative Services Support Service Management Fiscal Services Plant Services Pupil Transport Services Purchasing Services Safety \u0026amp; Security Services Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Services Communication Services Human Resource Services Labor Relations Data Processing Services Family Life/New Futures Indebtedness Contingencies 69 78 84 92 97 100 102 104 107 109 111 115 119 121 130 137 141 146 151 155 157PREFACE The mission statement and goals of the Little Rock School District serve as guides for all decision-making. The information gained from the First Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Non-Desegregation Programs will provide direction for quality, interim decision-making as well as summative decision-making. The report enhances the districts ability to monitor and report achievements and expenditures relative to programs which are not a part of the districts Court-Approved Desegregation Plan obligations. Among other things, specific quarterly expenditure information will be provided in addition to the YTD (Year-to- Date) Expenditure information. The First Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Non-Desegregation Programs contains the following: (1) The Mission Statement of the Little Rock School District\n(2) The Goals of Little Rock School District\n(3) LRSD YTD (Year-to-Date) Non-Desegregation Expenses Summary\n(4) Definitions and Data Elements\n(5) Organization of the Report\n(6) Non-Desegregation Program Budget Documents, Grouped by Clusters\nand, (7) The LRSD Organizational Chart. 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for ethnic and cultural diversity, develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the Districts curriculum. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education. 21. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GOALS The LRSD will implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. The LRSD will develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. The LRSD will solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. The LRSD will provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. The LRSD will ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. 3Little Rock School District Non-Desegregation Expenses Program Seq. No. 201 202 209 210 211 212 203 204 205 206 207 213 215 208 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 232 233 231 Program Name ' FOUR YEAR OLD/HIPPY KINDERGARTEN ELEMENTARY JUNIOR HIGH HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS SPECIAL EDUCATION VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ADULT EDUCATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION GIFTED AND TALENTED_________ GUIDANCE SERVICES HEALTH SERVICES CURRICULUM SERVICES EDUCATIONAL MEDIA SERVICES BOARD OF EDUCATION SERVICES EXECUTIVE ADMIN SERVICES SUPPORT SERVICE MGMT FISCAL SERVICES PLANT SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORT SERVICES PURCHASING SERVICES SAFETY \u0026amp; SECURITY SERVICES PLANNING \u0026amp; EVAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES LABOR RELATIONS DATA PROCESSING SERVICES INDEBTEDNESS CONTINGENCIES FAMILY UFE/NEW FUTURES TOTAL Budget 94-95 233,992.00 3,160,053.09 16,985,179.56 9,273,594.63 8,395,188.73 166,457.85 6,558,677.51 4,930,172.15 790,194.57 591,353.64 1,230,868.19 3,090,710.95 841,095.06 1,910,391.39 2,273,321.76 1,009,265.44 334,675.03 1,405,884.22 1,801,273.31 9,787,229.05 7,354,396.24 1,540,494.68 830,592.70 343,221.38 156,392.33 2,954,841.75 103,384.29 875,875.49 8,304,475.00 0.00 430,400.00 99,663,651.99 FTEs 0.00 89.00 653.14 287.20 244.20 0.00 151.50 106.20 23.00 13.80 32.80 67.60 27.10 55.00 70.50 0.00 5.00 3.00 12.00 245.63 346.80 16.00 0.00 7.00 4.00 10.00 2.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,482.47 YTD Expense 374.09 372,250.21 3,111,344.22 1,391,997.19 1,334,045.62 85,811.76 642,886.96 942,972.54 122,829.00 97,832.95 143,592.75 458,418.49 89,253.85 366,222.44 386,959.34 675,518.41 148,421.91 73,043.84 95,110.97 2,019,809.40 873,991.89 762,486.70 445,064.23 71,634.05 36,393.18 480,013.09 28,288.97 179,033.47 1,419,610.48 0.00 3,464.67 16,858,676.67 1 st Quarter 374.09 372,250.21 3,111,344.22 1,391,997.19 1,334,045.62 85,811.76 642,886.96 942,972.54 122,829.00 97,832.95 143,592.75 458,418.49 89,253.85 366,222.44 386,959.34 675,518.41 148,421.91 73,043.84 95,110.97 2,019,809.40 873,991.89 762,486.70 445,064.23 71,634.05 36,393.18 480,013.09 28,288.97 179,033.47 1,419,610.48 0.00 3,464.67 16,858,676.67 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter % Budget Spent 0.16% 11.78% 16.39% 15.01% 15.89% 51.55% 9.80% 19.13% 15.54% 16.54% __ 11.67% ' 14.83% 10.61% 19.17% 17.02% 66.93% 44.35% 5.20% 5.28% 20.64% 11.88% 49.50% 53.58% 20.87% 23.27% 16.24% 27.36% 20.44% 17.09% 0.00% 0.80% 16.92% 4DEFINITIONS AND DATA ELEMENTS The following are definitions of terms and data elements used in the First Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for NonDesegregation Programs. Program: A program is an established plan of operation, composed of a group or series of related activities which are earned out to serve a specific area of identified need. Program Description: A program description includes a purpose, scope and content, and participants/beneficiaries related to the respective program. Program Goal: A program goal is a broad guiding statement and should describe the overall aim(s), purpose(s), or ambition(s) of the specific program. Objectives: Program objectives present explicitly the desired impact the program should have on a problem. They should provide detail to the goals. Strategies: Strategies are the jobs, tasks, efforts, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the objective. Achievements: Achievements are efforts, tasks, evidence, performance, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the strategy. Achievements are placed in alpha order underneath the relative strategy. Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation criteria are statements which specify the end product of an objective or strategy, and evaluation criteria establish measurable and observable levels of performance of the product. Page: Each Program Budget Document uses one or two formatted pages. Program Sequence # (Seq.#): The purpose of this sequence number is to establish a reference for placing programs in order within the planning document. Revision Date: This date is the actual date the program document was first documented or last changed. Program Name: To eliminate confusion, an established name for each program has been assigned by the district planner. 5DEFINITIONS AND DATA ELEMENTS Page 2 Primary Leader: The Primary Leader is the cabinet-level associate responsible for the management and operation of the respective program. Secondary Leader: The Secondary Leader is the associate who is back-up to the Primary and will function in that capacity in the absence of the Primary (i.e., the Program Manager, the Principal, and/or the Assistant Superintendent). District Goal Support: Each program directly supports at least one district goal. If more than one district goal is relative, then the appropriate district goals have been listed in descending priority order. Beginning Date: This is the actual date a particular strategy began. For consistency, all dates should be printed in the following format: MM/DD/YY, (03/31/04). Completion Date: This is the actual date a particular objective or strategy was completed. For consistency, all dates should be entered in the following format: MM/DD/YY, (04/01/94). If an activity toward a strategy has been started but not completed, a percent of completion (for example, 50%) should be entered in the Completion Date column. Responsibility: This is the name of the individual tasked with ensuring an activity has been accomplished. 6ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT This section provides guiding information about the text of the First Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for NonDesegregation Programs. Pagination: Every page in the text is numbered using Arabic numerals. Pages are consecutively numbered (i.e., 1,2,3,...) throughout the report at the bottom of the page beginning with the \"Preface.\" The \"Table of Contents\" is on page i. Clusters. Programs have been sorted into broad categories called clusters. Clusters include programs or schools grouped together because of similar and related operational functions. For convenience and management of this report, similar programs have been grouped into three color-coded clusters: Curriculum, School Operations, School Support. To locate a program, determine the relative cluster of the program by using the \"Table of Contents\" and then refer to the program sequence number (Seq If} or page number for facilitating program reference in the report. Organizational Level. The School Operations Cluster employs only four programs. In addition to Athletics, the School Operations Cluster classifies the fifty schools according to three school organizational leveled programs: Elementary, Junior High, and Senior High. Organizational Chart. An organizational chart has been included to provide reference information matching designated responsible persons with desegregation and non-desegregation programs. 7CLUSTER BUDGET DOCUMENTS 8Curriculum Cluster * 4 Year Old Program/City Wide * * * Early Childhood Education Program Kindergarten Special Education Vocational Education Adult Education Compensatory Education Gifteil and Talented Curriculum Services 9Program Seq 201 Program Name: Four-Year-Old Pnigram/HIPPY Program Code: Primary Leader: Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: I Plan References: FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: I.RSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT  Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Page: I Revision Dale: November 14, 1994 The punwse of te progn,m is io mee. the growing needs of disadvaniaged sindendi and io improve dre racial balance a. schools dra, are d.fficnli io desegregaie by i\"cor^ralingildbo^d^Mneadon programs inepurpo Pg_ a. , ---------children which meet their needs and stimulate learning in all developmental areas - physical, social, emotional, and intellectual. Pnonly lor the Elementary schools. The program provides experiences for young UIC CIClllCllulI/ a^livuii. IIIV piugiaiii (/lu'iuwj  ------------ -------- .-zz- j identification of program sites will be given to areas that have a very high concentration of low income students and in schools that are difficult to desegregate. into resources that are in all phases of school activities and operations. To establish and maintain developmentally appropriate Early Childhood programs for pre-school children. $233,992.00 1st Qtr Expend: $374.09 3rd Qtr Expend: FTE $374.09 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: [ Related Function Codes: in I 1Program Saq 201 Program Name: Four-Year-Oid Program Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis To establish arxJ maintain developmentally appropriate Early Childhood programs for pre-school children. Objectives Strategies Page: 2 Revision Date: October 14, 1994 Secondary Leader: Beginning Date Completion Date Pat Price Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Implement early childhood education programs that provide experiences for young children which meet their needs artd stimulate learning in all developmental levels. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Dep. Supt., Asst. Supt., Supervisor, Principals, Teachers, instructional Aides 1. (Annual review of assessment data beginning at the erxl of the kindergarten year of each child participating in the program. EPSF Post Assessments)  (Comparisons of the progress of children who did and did not participate in the program.)  (Standardize achievement tests will be given to each child at the ertd of the third grade level. These tests will provide data indicating the success of the Early Childhood Program as an intervention strategy.) 1.1 Identify sites for program implementations. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Dep. Supt.. Asst. Supt.. Supervisor. Plant Services, Principals 1.1 Sites established for program implementations. A. Sites for program implementation have been identified. 07/01/94 08/01/94 1.2 Assisted in recruiting teachers arxf aides as needed. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Human Resource Dept., Principals, Asst. Supt., Supervisor 1.2 Employment of teachers arxi aides for new and open positions. A. Assisted in recruiting teachers ar\u0026gt;d aides as needed. 07/0194 08/22/94 11Page: 3 Program 8eq 201 Revision Date: October 14, 1994 Program Name: Four-Year-Old Progranrt Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To establish arxl maintain developmentally appropriate Early Childhood programs for pre-school children. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.3 Obtain materials, supplies erxi equipment for all new programs. A. Obtained materials, supplies, and equipment for all new programs. 1.4 Provide inservice and technical assistance for principals, teachers, artd Instructional assistants. A. Inservices provided July 18, 1994\nAugust 16, 1994\nAugust 18, 1994 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/18/94 06/30/95 08/22/94 06/30/95 35% Supervisor, Purchasing Dept. Supervisor, Staff Development 2. At the end of each year in HIPPY, 80% of the cNkfren served will exhibit readiness skills for kirKfergarten. 1. To promote the HIPPY program (To compose arxl mail public service announcements to local radio arxl television stations channel 14 \u0026amp; 16 and flyers) 2. To select HIPPY aides (Interview and select aides\ninitial training of aides arxf staff\nto enroll families into the program) 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 Supervisor Staff 1.3 Materials, supplies. ar\u0026gt;d equipment will be in place to meet LRSD curriculum artd licensing requirements. 1.4 Agendas and documentation of inservice evaluations. The Early Prevention of School Failure screening instrument will be used for pre \u0026amp; post assessment for the children upon entering kindergarten to provide data that shows readiness. If students are not proficient in two or more areas, they are identified as \"not ready\". Teacher surveys will be conducted annually to provide information relating to readiness skills.Page: 4 Program Seq *: 201 Revision Date: October 14. 1994 Program Name: Four-Year-Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader\nEstelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To establish arxl maintain developmentally appropriate Early Childhood programs for pre-school children. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 3. Arrange logistics with state for the initial training Comment: This Is done through HIPPY State Regional Office (initial training of aides and staff) 4. Conduct home interview arxi enroll families into program (To enroll families Into the program) 5. To recruit families (Compose and mail correspondence to recruit families \u0026amp; instructional aide trainees) 6. Identify families to be served by each coordinator (To determine service of coordinators) 7. Identify families to ba served by each aide (To assign families to be served by each aide) 8. To organize instructional material 9. Conduct three (3) day workshop (To familiarize aides of the HIPPY implementation of LRSD) 10. Obtain material for program (Order material) 11. To orientate enrolled families to the HIPPY program (Conduct orientation meeting) 13 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Supervisor/Coordi nator Staff Supervisor Coordinator Secretary Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor/Coord- inator A standarized achievement test will be given to each child at the erd of the third grade as a comparison between the HIPPY students and a control group. Assignment of families to CoordinatorsPage: 5 Program Seq f: 201 Ravislor) Date: October 14. 1994 Program Name: Four-Year-Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Qoal: To establish snd maintain developmentally appropriate Early Childhood programs for pre-school children. plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 12. Identify meeting sites of group meetings (Secure meeting sites for group meetings\nmail out notification of meeting sites! 13. To schedule implementation of HIPPY curriculum (Schedule aides weekly home visits: schedule area group meetings, print flyers, schedule weekly service for aides\nschedule aides first teaching with own child. 14. To provide parents with information that will assist them with their own children (Schedule workshop for parents \u0026amp; aides, mail out \u0026amp; print materiatsl 15. To evaluate aide trainees mid-point 15th week. (To evaluate each aide trainee) 16. Conduct survey of parents-print materials (To determine program success) 17. Implement secortd part of HIPPY curriculum. 18.'Evaluation of aides 19. Obtain a site and speaker and schedule a lecture for parents (provide parents with information to be successful with their children) 20. Build the aides artd children's self esteem (Activities) 21. Graduation of HIPPY children and aides reception (Staff will organize) 22. Evaluate aides (Schedule final evaluation of trainees in program) 23. To begin implementation of HIPPY program (Staff in place) 11 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Coordinator Supervisor/Coord- inator Supervisor/Coordi nator Coordinators Supervisor Supervisor/Coord- inator Coordinator Supervisor Staff Staff Coordinator Supervisor Page: 6 Program Seq f: 201 Revision Date: October 14, 1994 Program Name: Four-Year-Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Estella Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To establish and maintain developmentally appropriate Early Childhood programs for pre-school children. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 24. Maintain regular staff (Secretary) 07/01/94 06/30/95 Supervisor 25. Aides made home visit (To assist in traveling expense) 07/01/94 06/30/95 Staff 15Program Seq 202 Program Name: Kindergarten Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: I Plan References: LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Page: 1 Revision Date: November 14, 1994 In accordance with state standards the Little Rock School District maintains a full day kindergarten program that renders an environment which provides a variety of experiences appropriate to the child's developmental stage. Services are provided to these students by certified teachers. Goal #1 - Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal #2 - Develop and maintain a staff that is welHrained and motivated. Goal #3 - The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor Io society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21 st Century Goal #4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan Goal #6 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students Goal #6 - Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations To provide appropriate instructional services to all kindergarten students. ] [ FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: Related Function Codes: $3,160,053.09 $372,250.21 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: $372,250.21 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: 16 FTE 09.00Program Seq 202 Program Name: KirnJergarten Program Program Coda: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Esteiie Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: October 14, 1994 Pat Price To provide appropriate instructional services to all kirxlergarten students. Objectives Strategiea Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Implement kirxlergarten programs in accordance with state starxlards arvJ district guidelirws. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Asst. Supt., Supervisors, Principals, Teachers 1. Programs will be In place to meet state standards arxl district guidelines. 1.1 Assist in recruiting certified teachers as needed. A. Assisted In recruiting certified teachers as needed. 1.2 Obtain materials, supplies, arxl equipment for all new programs. A. Obtained materials, supplies, and equipment for all new programs. 1.3 Provide inservice and technical assistance for teachers. A. Provided inservice and technical assistant for teachers. 1.4 Ensure proper documentation arxi evaluation of student progress. A. Pre*EPSF completed. 1.5 Provide inservice and technical assistance for principals, teachers, arxl instructional assistants. A. Inservices provided July 18, 1994\nAugust 16, 1994\nAugust 18, 1994 17 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 07/01/94 07/18/94 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 35% 06/30/95 09/02/94 06/30/95 35% Human Resource Dept., Principals, Asst. Supt., Supervisor Supervisor, Purchasing Dept. Supervisors, Staff Development, Principals Asst. Supt., Supervisor, Principals Supervisor, Staff Development 1.1 Employment of teachers for new and open positions. 1.2 Materials, supplies, and equipment will be in place to meet L.R.S.D. curriculum arxl state starxlards. 1.3 Agendasand documentation of inservice evaluations. Annual reviews of data pre and post EPSF assessments. 1.5 Agendas arxl documentation of inservice evaluationsProgram Seq f: 203 Program Name: Special Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: Plan Rererences: LRSD FY 94 95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Secondary Leader: Patty Kohler Page: 1 Revision Date: November 16. 1994 Purpose Special education is specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities. This includes instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions and in other settings\nand instruction In physical education. Scope and Content Special education services are provided in accordance with each childs Individual Education Program (lEP). A student is determined'eligible for special education services when a disability is present as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that results in an adverse effect on educational performance and the corresponding need for special education services. A full continuum of services is provided which includes multiple options for placement. Participants/beneficiaries Students served through special education services have been identified as having disabilities defined by the IDEA. During the 1992-93 school year. 8.13% of the districts population or 2.026 students received special education services (Dec. 1. 1992 count). Goal fl - Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal #2 - Develop and maintain a suff that is well-trained and motivated. Goal #3 - The Little Rock school Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, suff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21sl Century. Goal *4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools. Including our desegregation plan. Goal #5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to Goal #1 learning for all students. Goal #6 - Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. The goal of the special education program is to provide all eligible students with disabilities appropriate special education and related services in each childs least restrictive environment. I 1 FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: Related Function Codes: $6,558,677.51 $642,886.96 1st Qtr Expend\n2nd Qtr Expend: 1210. 1220. 1230. 1240. 1290. 1292, 2142 $642,886.96 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: 18 FTE 151.50Program Seq #: 203 Program Name: Special Education Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number NA LRSP FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: Patty Kohler November 16, 1994 The goal of ihe special education progiam is to provide all eligible students with disabilities appropriate special education and related services in each child's least restrictive environment. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Provide itinerant instruction to eligible students in accordance with each childs lEP, to be reviewed on an annual basis through federally mandated review process. 2. Provide Resource instruction to eligible students in accordance with each child's lEP, to be reviewed on an annual basis through federally mandated review process 1.1 Identify and employ certified, qualified teachers to deliver services to students A. All Consulting Teachers hired 1.2 Identify equipment, material and supplies needed in order to deliver services to students A. Materials needs identified 1.3 Ensure completion of appropriate evaluations and documentation for each student in accordance with State and Federal Mandates A. Test materials ordered B. Monitoring schedule initiated 1.4 Provide inservice training for teachers as needed to ensure that students are served appropriately A. Preschool inservice 2.1 Identify and employ certified, qualified teachers to deliver services to students A. Resource, teachers hired 2.2 Identify equipment, material and supplies needed in order to deliver services to students A. Material needs identified in 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 09/01/94 07/01/94 09/01/94 09/15/94 07/01/94 08/16/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 09/01/94 06/30/95 09/15/94 06/30/95 09/15/94 06/30/95 09/15/94 09/30/94 06/30/95 08/16/94 06/30/95 09/15/94 06/30/95 09/30/94 Director, Human Resources, Supervisors Director. Teachers. Supervisors Supervisors. Examiners, Principals, Teachers Director. Supervisors Director. Human Resources. Supervisors Director, Teachers, Supervisors 1.1 A list of certified teachers will be provided 1.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be listed. Pilot projects where new materials are used will lie identified 1.3 Monitoring reports will indicate increased levels of compliance with applicable law and mandates 1.4 Inservice participants, dates, and topics will be provided 2.1 A list of cenilled teachers will be provided 2.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be listed. Pilot projects where new materials are used will be identifiedPage: 3 Program Seq #: 203 Revision Date: November 16, 1994 Program Name: Special Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Patty Kohler Program Goal: The goal of the special education program is to provide all eligible students with disabilities appropriate special education and related services in each childs least restrictive environment. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2.3 Ensure completion of appropriate evaluations and documentation for each student in accordance with State and Federal Mandates 07/01/94 06/30/95 Supervisors, Examiners, Principals, Teachers 2.3 Monitoring reports will indicate increased levels of compliance with applicable law and mandates A. Test materials ordered 09/01/94 09/15/94 B. Monitoring schedule initiated 09/01/94 09/15/94 2.4 Provide inservice training for teachers as needed to ensure that students are served appropriately 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director, Supervisors 2.4 Inservice participants, dates, and topics will be provided A. Preschool inservice 08/16/94 08/16/94 3. Provide special class instruction to eligible students in accordance with each childs lEP, to be reviewed on an annual basis through federally mandated review process 3.1 Identify and employ certified, qualified teachers to deliver services to students 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director, Human Resources, Supervisors 3.1 A list of certified teachers will be provided A. Special class teachers hired 07/01/94 09/15/94 3.2 Identify equipment, material and supplies needed in order to deliver services to students 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director, Teachers. Supervisors 3.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be listed. Pilot projects where new materials are used will be identified A. Material needs identified 09/01/94 09/30/94 3,3 Ensure completion of appropriate evaluations and documenution for each student in accordance with State and Federal Mandates 07/01/94 06/30/95 Supervisors. Examiners. Principals. Teachers 3.3 Monitoring repons will indicate increased levels of compliance with applicable law and mandates A. Test materials ordered 09/01/94 09/15/94 B. Monitoring schedule initiated 09/15/94 09/30/94 3.4 Provide inservice training for teachers as needed to ensure that students are served appropriately 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director. Supervisors 3.4 Inservice participants, dates, and topics will be provided A. Preschool inservice 08/16/94 08/16/94 20Page: 4 Program Seq #: 203 Revision Date: Novemlx\nr 16, 1994 Program Name: Special Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Patty Kohler Program Goal: The goal of the special education program is to provide all eligible students with disabilities appropriate special education and related services in each childs least restrictive environment. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 4. Provide homebound and hospital instruction to eligible students in accordance with each childs lEP. to be reviewed on an annual basis through federally mandated review process 4.1 Identify and employ certified, qualified teachers to deliver services to students 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director, Human Resources. Supervisors 4.1 A list of certified teachers will be provided A. Homebound teachers employed 08/16/94 09/15/94 5. Provide extended year services to eligible students in accordance with State and Federal Mandates 4.2 Identify equipment, material and supplies needed in order to deliver services to students A. Material needs identified 4.3 Ensure completion of appropriate evaluations and documentation for each student in accordance with State and Federal Mandates A. Test materials ordered B. Monitoring schedule initiated 4.4 Provide inservice training for teachers as needed to ensure that students are served appropriately A. Preschool inservice 5.1 Identify and employ certified, qualified teachers to deliver services to students 5.2 Identify equipment, material and supplies needed in order to deliver services to students 5.3 Ensure completion of appropriate evaluations and documentation for each student in accordance with State and Federal Mandates 21 07/01/94 09/01/94 07/01/94 09/01/94 09/15/94 07/01/94 08/16/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 09/30/94 09/30/94 06/30/95 08/16/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Director. Teachers. Supervisors Supervisors, Examiners, Principals, Teachers Director, Supervisors Director, Human Resources. Supervisors Director, Teachers, Supervisors Supervisors, Examiners, Principals. Teachers 4.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be listed. Pilot projects where new materials are used will be identified 4.3 Monitoring reports will indicate increased levels of compliance with applicable law and mandates 4.4 Inservice participants, dales, and topics will be provided 5.1 A list of certified teachers will be provided 5.2 Equipment, materialsand supplies will be listed. Pilot projects where new materials are used will be identified 5.3 Monitoring reports will indicate increased levels of compliance with applicable law and mandatesPage: 5 Program Seq #: 203 Revision Date: November 16, 1994 Program Name: Special Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Patty Kohler Program Goal: The goal of the special education program is to provide all eligible students with disabilities appropriate special education and related services in each childs least restrictive environment. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5.4 Provide inservice training for teachers as needed to ensure that students are served appropriately 07/01/94 06/30/95 Directors, Supervisors 5.4 Inservice participants, dates, and topics will be provided 22LRSP FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq 9'. 204 Page: Revision Date: November 16, 1994 Program Name : Vocational Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Carol Green I Program Description: Vocational education is designed to provide a program of learning experiences to develop skilled and adaptable workers who are.prepared to pursue additional learning opportunities that will result in more productivity. Vocational education also develops abilities, attitudes, and appreciatioru that contribute to a satisfying life enhancing family, civic, and personal responsibilities. Education is vocational when it provides instruction in the \"why* and *how' to students, rather than instruction about* things. It is concerned with the development of the individual student in five areas: (1) personal skills and attitudes, (2) communication, (3) employability skills, (4) broad and specific occupational skills and knowledge, and (5) a foundation for career planning and lifelong learning. The content of the vocational curriculum includes any and every source which will add specifically to the students proficieiKy in a chosen occupation. Such a course of study may include related physics, English (applied communications), applied math, applied biology and chemistry, or other subject matter or information needed to nuke the learner a more efficient worker. Course offerings in vocational education are available in all secondary schools and include Ihe following programs: (1) Business and Marketing, (2) Home Economics, and (3) Trade and Industrial Technology. On the junior high level, vocational courses iiKlude: Career Orientation, Keyboarding, Computer Technology and Exploring Industrial Technology Education I and II. Specialized courses are offered at Metropolitan Area Vocational Center. Vocational education instruction is offered to all students who need, desire and can profit from it. All youth, regardless of race, gender, economic or social background, or handicapping conditions are included within the scope of vocational education. IKstrict Goal Support: (1) Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. (2) Develop and maintain a sUff that is well trained and motivated. (3) The Lillie Rock School Board adminisiralion staff and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contribution Io society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st century. (4) Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan (5) Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operation. Program Goal: To provide the opportunity for all students (o develop workplace skills, problem solving abilities and interpersonal skills necessary for success in an everchanging society and technological workplace. Plan References: FY Program Budget: $4,930,172.15 1st Qtr Expend: $942,972.54 3rd Qtr Ehtpend: FTE 106.20 YTD Expenditures: $942,972.54 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: I Related Function Codes: 1321, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1341, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 1362, 1371, 1392, 1360, 1362, 2410 2.3 ]Program Seq /: 204 Program Name: Vocational Education Program Code: LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUIXjET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: Rerision Date: Carol Green November 16, 1994 2 Program Goal: To provide the opportunity for all students to develop workplace skills, problem solving abilities and interpersonal skills necessary for success in an everchanging society and technological workplace. Plan Refereme Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Provide quality instruction to all students enrolled in vocational courses. 1.1 Identify and employed certified teachers to deliver quality learning experietKes and skilled training to students. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director, Assistant Director, Principals, Human Resources Director and Teacher Recruiter l.I A list of certified teachers or applicants will be provided. A. Identified teachers interviewed for potential job openings in vocational education. 07/01/94 09/30/94 1.2 Identify equipment, materials and supplies needed. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director, Assistant Director, Teachers 1.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be listed and prioritized A. Task Force meeting planned to review Task Force recommendations prior to rewrite. 09/25/94 25 % 1.3 Provide inservice training for teachers as needed to deliver quality instruction to students. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director, Assistant Director, Staff Development Director 1.3 A listing of inservice dates, topics, and participants will be provided. A. Pre school inservice planned and held August 10 and August 17. B. Meeting with vocational coordinators to discuss program changes.B. C. Six vocational teachers received Applied Math Training along with district math teachers. D. Five vocational teachers attended Workplace Readiness Training (Halt, Parkview, and Central). 1.4 Provide an opportunity for teachers to keep abreast of changing techtKilogical needs and training in the workplace. 07/01/94 07/19/94 08/02/94 07/21/94 07/01/94 08/17/94 07/19/94 08/05/94 07/22/94 06/30/95 Director, AssisUnt Director 1.4 A list of professional meetings and conferences teachers have attended will be provided. A. Three additional teachers (l-Parkview, l-Central, 1-Fair) sent to Authorized Training Associate for WordPerfect Corporation in preparation for implementing the Desktop Publishing course. 24 08/02/94 08/12/943 Page: Program Seq 9i 204 Revision Date: November 16, 1994 Program Name: Vocational Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Carol Green Program Goal: To provide the opportunity for all students to develop woriq\u0026gt;lace skills, problem solving abilities and interpersonal skills necessary for success in an everchanging society and technological workplace. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Begiiuung Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2. Review, update, or revise course offerings to reflect the needs and trends of the 21 at century. 2.1 A vocational task force will be organized to address issues of the course offerings. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director, Assistant Director 2.1 Recommendations made by the task force wilt be identified and completed. A. Three vocational programs recommended for elimination due to consistent low enrollment figures. 07/01/94 100% 3. Maintain all equipment used in skilled training labs. 3.1 Identify equipment in need of repair or replacement in the vocational skilled training labs. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director, Assistant Director, Principals, vocational teachers. 3.1 All skilled lab equipment will be identified for needed repair and maintenance. 4. Awareness activities to promote vocational education will be made available to all students. A. Equipment repaired, cleaned and maintained in preparation for opening of schools. B. Purchase equipment to replace destroyed, stolen, or irreparable equipment in E.I.T.E. Lab at Forest Heights. C. Requests for new equipment, supplies, and materials submitted by teachers. 4.1 Recruitment activities through advertisement, flyers, videos, and student presentation will be made available Io all students. A. Vocational teachers asked to supply names of former students for \"Success Stories* recruitment video. B. Ad in Arkansas Democrat/Gazette to publicize classes at Metropolitan Vo-Tech. 4.2 Tech Prep committee awareness campaign Io inform parents about Tech Prep and its benefits. 07/01/94 08/10/94 08/01/94 07/01/94 09/15/94 08/30/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 09/30/94 40% 06/30/95 09/30/94 09/30/94 06/30/95 Vocational teachers, Director, Task Force, and Advisory Committees. 4.1 a) Surveys will be conducted to determine how students became aware of vocational education (b) Monitoring of student enrollment will determine the success of the awareness sessions. Director, Assistant Director, Tech Prep Coordinator 4.2 List of all awareness sessions and Public Relations Activities will be compiled. A. Vocational Director explained/discussed Tech Prep to new LRSD priiKipals. 25 08/09/94 08/11/94Page: Program Seq #: 204 Revision Dale: November 16, 1994 Program Name: Vocational Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Carol Green 4 Program Goal: To provide the opportunity for all students to develop workplace skills, problem solving abilities and interpersonal skills necessary for success in an everchanging society and technological workplace. Plan Reference Page Nisnber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria B. Vocational Director explained Tech Prep as it relates to Applied Biology/Chemistry at Science Teachers Pre-school Inservice. 08/17/94 09/30/94 2G Program Seq f-. 205 Program Name: Adult Education Program Code: Primary Leader: LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Paulette H. Martin Page: I Revision Date: November 16. 1994 Program Description: Adult Education is specially designed instruction at no cost to students to upgrade their educational level and or to help them obtain a high school equivalency (GED) diploma. This includes instruction at the Adult Education Center and its satellite programs in businesses, industries, various community and state agencies and churches. Scope and content Adult Education services arc provided in accordance witli each student's needs and goals. A student is eligible for Adult Education services if he/shc is at least sixteen years of age or older and has been released from regular public school by the superintendent or his/her designee or is eighteen years of age and has withdrawn or dropped out of public school. Participants/benericiaries Students served in Adult Education arc identified as having withdrawn or dropped out of public school. During the 1992-93 school year. 3078 students received Adult Education services. District Goal Support: Goal #1 - Implement integrated educational programs that willl ensure that all students grow academically, socially, and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment whille closing dispanies in achievement. Goal #2 - Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Goal #3 - The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21 sc Century. Goal #4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to full support our schools. Goal if 5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. Goal ff 6 - Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. Program Goal: The goal of the Adult Education Program is to upgrade the basic literacy skills of adults, to assist adults in obuining their high school equivalency (GED) diploma, and to provide computer literacy training. Plan Refereitces: 1 FY Program Budget: $790,194.57 1st Qtr Expend: $122,829.00 3rd Qtr Expend: FTE 23.0 YTD Expenditures: $122,829.00 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: Related FuiKtion Codcs:1430 1410. 1420. 1445, 1490 27 HI 3LfiSD J-Y 94-95 PRtXiRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Page: 2 Program Seq 205 Revision Date: November 16, 1994 Program Name: Aduft Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Paulette H. Martin Program Goal: The goal of the Adult Education program is to upgrade the basic literacy skills of aduft and/or Io assist adults in obtaining their high school equivalency (GED) diploma. Plan Reference Page Number NA Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. 1.1 Identify and employ qualified teachers to deliver services to students 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director, Human Resources\nDirector, Adult Education 1.1 A list of certified teachers will be provided A. All teachers hired 08/01/94 08/15/94 2. Inform the Community of the services offered by the Adult Education Program 3. Solicit funding to fully support the Aduft Education Center 1.2 Identify equipment, materials, and supplies needed in order to deliver services to students A. Materials and supplies disseminated 1.3 Provide Inservice training for teachers as needed to ensure that students are served appropriately A. Preschool Inservice B. Central Arkansas Adult Education Inservice 2.1 Promote the Aduft Education Program A. Recruiter distributes posters/brochures to grocery stores, barbar/beauty shops, medical clinics, public health units, churches 6. Tapes made and running on local TV and radio stations C. Businesses and Industries Contacted 3.1 Submit Proposals and secure financial resources for operation of the Adult Education Program A. Family Literacy (Special Project) 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 08/15/94 09/29/94 07/01/94 08/01/94 08/15/94 08/01/94 07/01/94 08/03/94 28 06/30/95 08/19/94 06/30/95 08/16/94 09/30/94 06/30/95 25% 25% 25% 06/30/95 08/10/94 Director, Ass t Director, Teachers, examiners Director Director. Ass t Director. Recruiter, teacher Director 1.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be listed 1.3 Inservice participants, dates and topics will be provided 2.1 Copies of tapes, brochures, and posters wilt be provided as well as a schedule of places visited by the recruiter. 3.1 Copies of proposal will be providedPage: 3 Program Seq *: 205 Revision Date: November 16, 1994 Program Name: Aduft Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Paulette H. Martin Program Goat: The goal of the Adult Education program is to upgrade the basic literacy skills of adult and/or to assist adults in obtaining their high school equivalency (GED) diploma. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria B. Workplace 09/06/94 09/16/94 4. Provide Adult Basic Education and General Adult Education to agencies which have a minimum often (10) students 4.1 Set up Adult Education satelite classes upon request A. AGC Math Class B. Community Punishment Center C. Raytheon Jets satellite Adult Education classes when requested D. Oaks Residential Center E. Union Rescue Mission F. Lion's World Services for the Blind G. Metropolitan Vo-Tech H. Instructional Resource Center (IRC) I. Pulaski County Jail J. Our House II K. Pinnacle House L. Forensic Unit, State Hospital M Unit 4. State Hospital N. United Cerebral Palsy Skill Center O. Watershed II P. Crystal Hill Baptist Church Q. Tomberlin Church of Christ 29 07/01/94 09/01/94 08/22/94 07/25/94 08/25/94 09/06/94 08/22/94 08/22/94 08/23/94 08/22/94 08/22/94 08/23/94 09/29/94 08/22/94 08/22/94 08/22/94 09/12/94 09/08/94 06/30/95 66% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Director 4.1 List of satellite classes will be providedLRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq #: 206 Page: 1 Revision Date: November 17. 1994 Program Name: Compensatory Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Adams/Glasgow/Parker Program Description: Compensatory Education funded programs are designed to improve the quality of LRSDs academic programs Activities include supplemental instruction for students, resource materials, inservice education for teachers, and support for parental involvement. District Goal Support: (1) Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. (2) Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Program Goal: Disparity reduction - to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning for all students in the mainstream setting. [ Plan References: [ FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: $591,353.64 $97,832.95 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend\n$97,832.95 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: FTE 13.80 I Related Function Codes: 1560, 1570, 1595 ] 30Program Seq 206 Program Name: Compensatory Education Program Code\nProgram Goal\nPlan Reference Page Number LRSP FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader\nEstelle Matthis Secondary Leader\nPage: 2 Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Adams/GlasgowZParker To assist low achieving students to make accelerated progress and catch up. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. To use an integrated shared reading/writing approach of instruction to promote student independence as readers, writers, and learners, (fourteen schools, K-3) 2. To improve students' abilities to analyze, explain, and summarize materials from books and tapes utilizing the reading styles approach, (two schools) 07/01/94 06/30/95 Principals and Teachers 1. Student profiles on LRSD Language Arts Curriculum will be used to assess student achievement. 1.1 Purchase and distribute materials and supplies to schools. 1.2 Provide additional time for instruction using the Shared Reading/Writing Approach through thematic units utilizing these materials. 1.3 Provide whole group instruction for all K-1 students and additional small group and individual instruction as needed. 1.4 Provide second and third grade students with instruction using the Shared Reading/Writing Approach. 1.5 Provide participating teachers and administrators with a minimum of nine hours staff development. 1.6 Provide summer scholarships to train the trainers. 31 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Director of Reading and IRC Reading Specialists Principals, First Grade Teachers, and Reading Specialists Principals and Classroom Teachers Principals, Classroom Teachers, and Reading Specialists Director of Reading and Rigby Consultants Director of Reading and Rigby Consultants 1.1 Documentation of purchase orders. 1.2 The number of developed thematic units will comprise the evaluation. 1.3 Record of classroom observation and schedules. 1.4 Schedules and list of students. 1.5 List of participants with evaluations. 1 6 List of trainers. 2. The evaluation criteria includes the recognition of the sound of letters in isolation and in words, and in how to blend sounds togetherPage: 3 Program Seq 206 Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Program Name: Compensatory Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Adams/Glasgow/Parker Program Goal: To assist low achieving students to make accelerated progress and catch up. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2.1 Diagnose students' reading styles in four areas\ntactic, visual, kinesthetic, auditory. 2.2 Structure students' work around identified reading styles. 2.3 Actively involve students in learning activities. 2.4 Send home appropriate books and corresponding tape recordings for the reading styles of targeted students. 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/03/95 06/30/95 Principals and Classroom Teachers Principals and Classroom Teachers Principals and Classroom Teachers Principals and Classroom Teachers 2.1 The number of Reading Styles Inventories completed. 2.2 Students' Individual Learning Plan. 2.3 Students' Individual Learning Plan. 2.4 The number of purchases and record of usage. 3. To improve students' vocabulary and comprehension skills through phonics related reading, (one school) 4 To promote communications between home and school. 3.1 Use the Direct Instruction Program in phonics to teach students. 3.2 Provide target students with presentation books, story books, homework, and materials. 4.1 Inform parents regarding instructional approaches. 4.2 Conduct conferences with parents on student progress 32 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Principals and Classroom Teachers Principals and Classroom Teachers Principals and Teachers Principals and Teachers 3. The criteria consists of: a) reference data in reading\nb) amount of peer tutoring\nc) number of discipline problems\nd) parental communication\ne) number of identified reading styles. 3.1 Activities contained in the daily lesson plan will comprise the evaluation. 3.2 Record of books students read annually. 4. Record of take-home materials. 4.1 Documentation of communications. 4.2 Documentation of conferences.Page: 4 Program Seq Hf: 206 Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Program Name\nCompensatory Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Adams/Glasgow/Parker Program Goal\nTo assist low achieving students to make accelerated progress and catch up. IB Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 4.3 Provide take-home books and materials for parents. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Principals and Teachers 4.3 Record of send-home materials. 5. To reduce education deficit in reading of target students in grades nine through twelve by reinforcing the regular education program with Language Arts Plus. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Language Arts Supervisor 5. Criteria consists of Pre and Post Norm Referenced data in Reading/Language Arts for participating students. 5.1 Reduce language arts class size and add an enrichment class to the schedule. A. Student class schedules refined. B. Math Plus classes - regular. Pre-Algebra, Algebra at 7 junior high schools and 3 senior high schools 5.2 Provide tutorial and remedial learning experience in the enrichment class. A. Classroom instruction. 5.3 Employ a variety of instructional strategies which permit teachers to clarify, enhance or remediate in the academic setting. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Principal 5.1 Class size at each school site and schedules will comprise the evaluation. 07/01/94 09/30/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 06/30/95 15% 06/30/95 Principal/ Classroom Teacher Principals and Language Arts Teachers 5.2 The number of students, tutor and schedule of session will comprise the evaluation. 5.3 Daily lesson plans will comprise the evaluation. 6. To prevent school failure and dropout with additional assistance from tutors in reading and mathematics A. Inservice -Pre-School Secondary English and Language Arts Plus -Pre-School Secondary Math Plus -Record Keeping - Secondary Academic Support 33 07/01/94 08/16/94 08/16/94 09/01/94 06/30/95 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94Page: 5 Program Seq #: 206 Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Program Name: Compensatory Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Adams/Glasgow/Parker Program Goat: To assist low achieving students to make accelerated progress and catch up. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria -Math Teachers Math Plus 09/27/94 09/29/94 6.1 The Little Rock School District will purchase the following tutoring services from the Cornerstone Project: A) Ten certified tutors who has special training in working with remedial students\nB) Tutors will work with students through one-on-one situation or in groups not to exceed four students\nC) Students will receive one hour of instruction in reading and one hour in mathematics\nD) Review individual student performance with parents\nE) Cornerstone Projects Parent Action Committee will provide a forum for communication among parents, tutors and staff: F) Parent education seminars will be offered for parents awareness\nG) The service will be Monday through Thursday for nine months or 180 days. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director of Federal Programs 6.1 Students' progress will be monitored by receiving school report, quarterly grade reports, contact with school counselors, and progress with tutoring materials. 31LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq if: 207 Page: 1 Revision Date: November 16, 1994 Program Name: Gifted Programs Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader\nMable Donaldson Program Description: The Little Rock School Distrtet's Gifted Program offers to its students through a design that consists of observation and enrichment for all students in grades K-2 Resource rooms and indirect services are provided for grades 3-6 and special classes for students in grades 7-12 . The program operates in compliance with the Arkansas Depart of Educations Gifted and Talented Approval Standards. The Standards provide the framework for establishing equitable criteria for the identification of gifted and talented students. Services are provided to these students by teachers (specialists and facilitators) who have completed or who are pursuing graduate credit in gifted education. District Goal Support: Goal #1 - Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal * 2 - Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Goal # 3 - The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. Goal # 4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. Goal * 5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conductive to learning for all students. Goal # 6 - Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. Program Goal: To provide appropriate instructional services to all identifted students. I Plan References\n1 FY Program Budget: $1,230,868.19 1st Qtr Expend: $143,592.75 3rd Qtr Expend: FTE 32,80 YTD Expenditures: $143,592.75 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend\nRelated Function Codes\n] 35Program Seq #: 207 Program Name: Gifted Programs LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Page: 2 Revision Date: November 16, 1994 Program Code\nPrimary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader\nMable Donaldson Program Goal\nTo provide appropriate instructional services to all identified gifted students. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Provide resource room and indirect instructional services to identified students according to district and state curriculum guidelines 07/01/94 06/30/95 G/T Supervisor, Coordinator, Teachers 1.1 Identify certified teacher(s) (specialists) to provide needed senzices at each school. A. Specialist positions filled at all schools. 1.2 Aid schools in providing materials, supplies, external laboratory experiences and participation in local, state and national'activities. A. Invoices and requests received from schools. 1.3 Ensure proper documentation and evaluation of student records (placement) according to district and state guidelines. A. Monitoring of school records scheduled. 1.4 Provide inservice training for teachers (specialists) to ensure that students are receiving appropriate instructional services. A. Pre-school inservices held for facilitators and specialists. 36 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/16/94 07/01/94 08/16/94 06/30/95 94% 06/30/95 10% 06/30/95 20% 06/30/95 08/16/94 Supervisor, Coordinator, Human Resources Dept. Supervisor, Coordinator, Principals Supervisor. Coordinator, Principals, Specialists Supervisor, Coordinator. Staff Development, Curriculum Supervisors List of certified teachers serving each school. Invoices, copies of requests and memberships and/or participation in various activities. Copies of monitoring report and school visitation logs Agendas, participation roster, inservice evaluationsPage: 3 Program Seq 207 Revision Date: November 16, 1994 Program Name: Gifted Programs Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Mable Donaldson Program Goal: To provide appropriate instructional services to all identified gifted students. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria B. Monthly G/T Council meetings held for G/T facilitators. C. Tri-District Curriculum Inservice held for G/T specialists. 37 09/27/94 09/16/94 13% 09/16/94Program Seq 206 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: Plan References\nFY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: Related Function Codes: LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Page: 1 Revision Date: November 17, 1994 ............... _ . ____________niviinn nf r.irriculum Services seeks to improve curriculum design and delivery K-12 that is consistent with state guidelines and national recommendations. This division The Little Rock School Districts teaching principles and grounded in assistance to the schools. Goal #1 'TS-'TSKSKS.-. S5  CS disparities in achievement. Goal #2 - Develop and maintain a The purpose of ournculum services is Io plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure $1,910,391.39 $366,222 44 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: 1190, 1193, 2211, 2212. 2490. 3800. 4900, 2219 $366,222.44 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: 38 made to ensure that instructional delivery is based on sound curricular articulation and coordination K-12. I FTE 55Program Seq #: 206 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: The purpose o( curriculum services is to plan, drrect, anti coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as Objectives Strategies Page: 2 Revision Date: Sterling Ingram November 17, 1994 to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Develop a coordinated and articulated curriculum that is comprehensive and demonstrates congruence between what is written, taught, and tested. 1.1 Development of curriculum guides through the assistance of district-wide committees A. Mathematics curriculum guide was revised by a district committee to reflect the State Mathematics Framework. B. Revised language arts curriculum was completed, edited, and printed. C. Revised foreign language curriculum was completed, edited, and printed. 1.2 Provide inservice training for teachers to assist in effective delivery of the curriculum A. All teachers K-12 were given training in the use of the revised mathematics curriculum guide. B. Eisenhower staff development specialists in science provided training for individual teachers and groups of teachers at greatest need schools regarding strategies and techniques for delivery of the science curriculum. 39 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 08/15/94 08/01/94 08/01/94 06/30/95 09/01/94 25% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators. Principals Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Certified Teachers, Principals Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Principals 1.0 Revised curriculum is in place that responds to the recommendations of the curriculum audit. Comprehensive review process is in place 1.1 Curriculum guides are in place and are aligned with District objectives 1.2 Documentation of inservice activities are available 1.2 Test scores will demonstrate improvementPage: 3 Program Seq 208 Revision Date: November 17. 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader\nEstelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies C. Elementary Chapter 1 mathematics specialists participated in an inservice on the Chapter 1 Program. D. Secondary Compensatory Education mathematics teacher participated in an inservice on teaching strategies and documentation required for Comp. Ed. E. Preschool inservice was held for all special education staff. F. Preschool inservice was held for library media specialists. G. Inservice was provided in Social Studies, teaching strategies to all secondary social studies teachers at preschool conference. H. Inservice training was provided for Kindergarten and E.C.E. teachers. I. Harcourt Brace inservice was provided for elementary principals in order that they may assist teachers with the new basal series J, Elementary language arts curriculum training was provided during preschool inservice week. K. Secondary English/Reading/Learning Foundations new teacher training was provided. L Elementary reading teacher inservice providing information for new basal was held. M. Elementary language arts/reading training was provided. N. Pre-school inservice provided to G/T specialist and facilitators O. Tri-District Inservice held for G/T specialists - North Little Rock west campus. 4 fl Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/16/94 08/12/94 08/16/94 08/15/94 08/03/94 08/15/94 08/16/94 08/31/94 09/19/94 08/16/94 09/16/94 09/01/94 09/29/94 08/16/94 08/16/94 25% 25% 08/03/94 08/16/94 08/16/94 08/31/94 09/20/94 08/16/94 09/16/94r Page\n4 Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader\nEstelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, rJirect, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.3 Provide technical assistance as needed for individual school sites and/or individual teachers 07/01/94 06/30/95 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators. Staff Development 1.3 Weekly visitation logs reflect visits for technical assistance 1.3 Test scores will demonstrate improvement A. Technical assistance was provided as needed or requested in all curricular areas by curriculum directors and supervisors. 07/01/94 25% B- Eisenhower staff development specialists in math and science provided technical assistance as requested to schools. 07/01/94 25% C. Chapter 1 mathematics specialists provided technical assistance related to the Chapter 1 Program to assigned schools. D. Visits were made to every school by special education staff to provide assistance. 07/01/94 08/22/94 25% 09/30/94 E. Great Expectation training was held for staffs of Rightsell and Mitchell Incentive Schools. 08/30/94 09/01/94 F- EPSF Workshop was held G. Phonics Workshop was held. H. Technical assistance was provided in Social Studies to all new social studies teachers and new/reassigned principals. I. Technical assistance was provided for individual school sites and/or individual teachers. J. Language Arts Plus technical assistance was provided for Henderson Jr. High and Hall High. K. English teacher technical assistance was provided for Hall High. L Spanish teacher technical assistance was provided for Franklin Incentive School. 08/16/94 08/16/94 08/21/94 08/04/94 07/01/94 08/30/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 08/21/94 90% 25% 09/13/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 4 1Page: 5 Program Seq #: 206 Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose o( curriculum services Is Io plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria M. Approximately thirty-one (31) Individual schools and/or teachers were provided assistance through visitations, conferences, or technical assistance by the Reading Department specialists including special demonstrations. N. Technical assistance was provided to new librarians. O. Technical assistance was provided by computer specialists and technicians in using Abacus Instructional Management System and in using the Computer Labs. p. Technical assistance provided by G/T supervisor and coordinator as needed. Q. Early Childhood Education on-site visits: 29 R. Instructional Technology/Media and Computer Central on-site visits: 428 S. Math/Science on-site visits. 52 T. Reading on-site visits: 86 1.4 Assist schools in the selection of appropriate materials and resources for delivering the curriculum effectively to students A. Schools requesting replacement supplies for science kits were furnished the supplies by the Science Office. B Equipment and supplies were ordered for K-4 and Math Crusade participants. C. Visits were made by special ed staff to every school to provide assistance. 42 08/17/94 08/12/94 08/15/94 08/15/94 08/08/94 08/08/94 08/08/94 08/06/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 09/30/94 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 06/30/95 25% 25% 09/30/94 Curriculum Directors. Supervisors and Coordinators, Staff Development 1.4 Materials and resources are in place 1.4 Requisitions for materials are on filePage: 6 Program Seq 206 Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Program Name\nCurriculum Services Program Code\nPrimary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2.0 Identify and secure resources, both material and human, to support the program of studies offered by the District D. Assistance was provided to elementary and secondary teachers and principals in the types of supplemental social studies materials to purchase. E. Materials and resources were ordered and in place for Kindergarten and E.C.E. F. A committee was selected and convened to choose materials and resources for junior high school reading program. G. Materials and resources were identified for Franklin Spanish program. 1.5 Analyze standardized test results together with Abacus and/or other appropriate data to revise and/or modify curriculum as needed A. Results of standardized tests were used to identify target schools for service by the Eisenhower science specialists. B. Mathematics curriculum revision used test data and anecdotal data from teachers to suggest modifications to the curriculum. C. Planning retreat was conducted for reading specialists to identify and target weak skills areas. 08/04/94 07/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/24/94 07/01/94 25% 09/30/94 10/14/94 10/03/94 06/30/95 09/01/94 08/15/94 08/25/94 06/30/95 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Principals, Teachers 1.5 School improvement plans reflect emphasis on identified areas of need Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Director of Procurement, Principals 2 0 The courses in the program of studies have resources available for full implementation 4 3 EPage: 7 Program Seq : 208 Revision Date: November 17. 1994 Program Name\nCurriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Esteiie Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12- Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies 2.1 Identify and order equipment and supplies needed by schools to implement their instructional program A. All subject area supervisors and coordinators ordered equipment and supplies as needed by schools. B. Replacement science supplies were provided to schools that made a request. C. K-4 and Math Crusade equipment and supplies were ordered for Crusade participants. D. Equipment and supplies were identified and ordered for schools to implement their Kindergarten and E.C.E. progress. E. Materials identified and ordered for G/T program 2.2 Provide direct services to schools through the deployment of curriculum and technical specialists to help implement the schools' instructional program A. Eisenhower staff development specialists in math and science served target schools. B. Supervisory staff made on-site visits for technical assistance to schools. C. Technical assistance provided to schools upon request by G/T supervisor and coordinator. Beginning Date 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/15/94 Completion Date 06/30/95 25% 25% 09/30/94 09/30/94 15% 06/30/95 25% 25% 25% Responsibility Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Teachers, Principals, Director of Procurement Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Curriculum and Technical Specialists, Principals Evaluation Criteria 2.1 Requisrtions/purchase orders reflect the equipment and supplies ordered by/for the schools to implement their instructional program 2.2 Weekly visitation logs document the direct services to schools provided by curriculum and technical specialists 41Page: e Program Seq Program Name\nProgram Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number 208 Revision Date\nNovember 17, 1994 Curriculum Services Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Ot^ectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2.3 Maintain a library of audio-visual materials, staff development materials, and other specialized materials for loan to schools A. Math office loaned materials to schools on request. B. Science office loaned microscopes to elementary schools on request. C. Videotapes were circulated from the Instructional Materials Center as requested by schools. D. Professional Library Catalog was issued to all employees. E. Materials checked out to schools upon request from G/T office library. 2.4 Interview prospective candidates for teaching positions as well as other certified and noncertified positions to assure the best qualified applicants are selected for employment A. Candidates were interviewed and a math secretary was empbyed. B. Curriculum staff members interviewed prospective teacher candidates in the respective subject areas. C. Family Life Education teacher position was filled with an experienced and qualified individual. 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/12/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 25% 25% 25% 08/12/94 25% 06/30/95 09/01/94 25% 09/01/94 Director of Staff Development, Coordinator of Library Services, Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Director of Human Resources. Principals 2.3 An audio-visual catalog and staff development library catalog will document the materials available for loan to schools\ncheck-out logs will document the loan of other specialized materials to the schools 2.4 Appointment books and feedback information will record the applicants who were interviewed by the curriculum supervisors 45 Page: 9 Program Seq 206 Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Program Name\nCurriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12- Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria D. Candidates were interviewed for secretary to the Social Studies Department. Candidate was recommended and approved. E. Prospective G/T specialist interviewed and hired to fill vacancies. 2.5 Print District documents for dissemination to teachers, principals, students, and/or parents A. Parent Home Study Guides were revised, printed and disseminated to the schools. B. Revised mathematics curriculum guides were printed and distributed to teachers. C. Elementary library media resource guide was printed and disseminated to elementary librarians. D. Curriculum and resource guides provided for newly assigned teachers and specialist. 2.6 Prepare instructional activities and materials for teachers and explain/demonstrate their use 08/24/94 07/25/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/29/94 94% 06/30/95 09/30/94 09/01/94 08/12/94 09/12/94 06/30/95 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Administrative Assistant to the Manager of Support Services, Printer at printshop 2.5 Teachers and principals have copies of applicable curriculum guides\nsign-off lists document the distribution of parent home study guides to parents\nstudent/parent records document that students and parents received \"Rights and Responsibilities Handbook\" Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, and Specialists at IRC 2.6 Monthly IRC Thursday Night Workshops are held to share instructional activities and materials with teachers: copies of other activities and materials prepared for teachers are on file at the IRC A. Eisenhower math and science specialists prepared activities for demonstrations lessons and team teaching experiences at target schools. 07/01/94 25% Page: 10 Program Seq 208 Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 3.0 Provide technical assistance to principals, teachers, and other personnel to facilitate the effective implementation of District programs B. Bi-monthly IRC inservice \"Open Houses\" were planned and information was mailed to the schools. C. Instructional materials for Kindergarten and E.C.E. teachers were prepared and demonstrated. 3.1 Assist the schools through the services of roving computer technicians to keep computer labs and equipment up and running A. Computer Technicians served every computer lab to ensure equipment was up and running. 3.2 Assist teachers with self-identiTted or principal- identified needs to improve the teaching/learning process through content specific training as well as training in using various instructional strategies A. Supervisory staff made on-site visits for technical assistance to schools. B. Assistance provided by coordinator, peer specialist, and supervisor. 47 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 25% 25% 06/30/95 06/30/95 25% 06/30/95 25% 25% Curriculum Directors. Supervisors and Coordinators Coordinator of Technology, Computer Technicians, Principals Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Director of Staff Development, Principals 3.0 District programs in the area of curriculum operate smoothly, without undue breakdown of equipment, lack of training of personnel, or lack of information by district personnel 3.1 Computer labs provide good service and have little \"down\" time 3.2 Weekly visitation logs and visitation reports document technical assistance provided to teachersPage\n11 Program Seq #\n208 Revision Date: November 17. 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 3.3 Help schools identify staff development needs and plan insenrice to address those needs A. \"Rights of Passage\" inservice scheduled and planned for Franklin Incentive School. B. Portfolio planning assistance was provided for King Magnet. 3.4 Monitor program implementation through classroom visitations A. On-site visits were made to schools by supervisory staff to monitor classrooms for program implementation. B Monitoring of G/T program ongoing by supervisor and coordinator. 3.5 Provide information to appropriate school personnel concerning academic events, training opportunities, funding sources, content-related questions, and special programs to enhance the instructional program A. Supervisory staff provided information to teachers and other staff through council meetings and mail-outs about special events and opportunities. 07/01/94 07/01/94 09/13/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 09/30/94 09/13/94 06/30/95 25% 25% 06/30/95 25% B. Information on academic events opportunities, etc. provided to schools by G/T supervision and coordinator 08/11/94 25% 48 Director of Staff Development. Principals, Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators Curriculum Directors, Supervisor and Coordinators Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators 3.3 The Staff Development Catalog contains training that meets the needs identified in the schools School Improvement Plan 3.4 Weekly visitation logs document program monitoring 3.5 Memos, council agendas, and other written correspondence containing pertinent information is on file in each curriculum areaProgram Seq if: Program Name: Program Code\nProgram Goal: Plan Reference Page Number 208 Curriculum Services Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Page: Revision Date: Sterling Ingram 12 November 17. 1994 curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 4 Provide staff development experiences for the effective implementation of the curriculum 3.6 Assist schools with special needs students to address the identified needs to improve the learning process A. Chapter 1 and Compensatory Education mathematics programs were set up and implemented to serve identified students with deficits in mathematics. B. Social Studies assessment was conducted for students at Gibbs, Booker, and Dunbar to assist schools with appropriate placement. C. Assistance was provided for special needs students in Kindergarten and E.C.E. programs to assist the learning process. D. G/T supervisor and coordinator provide assistance to schools in providing needed services to identified gifted students. 4.1 Provide inservice training through district-wide minicourses, training courses as well as schoolbased workshops to maximize the delivery of the curriculum A. Mini-courses were planned and included in the staff development catalog. B. School-based inservice programs with emphasis on content and methodology were presented 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 08/22/94 07/25/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 25% 25% 25% 25% 06/30/95 06/30/95 25% 25% Curriculum Directors, Supenrisors and Coordinators, Principals Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators. Staff Development Curriculum Directors, Supenrisors and Coordinators. Staff Development 3.6 Programs to address special needs students are in place 4.0 Inservice programs offered are in response to identified needs district-wide as well as local school sites 4.1 Catalogue reflects inservice opportunities 4.1 Computer generated record reflects all inservice topics, dates, participants 4.1 Evaluations are on file 49 Page: 13 Program Seq If: 208 Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose o( curriculum services Is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria C. Three school-based inservices provided by Early Childhood Education. D. Eight school-based inservices provided by Math/Science. 4.2 Maintain professional materials and supplies that can be accessed by local school sites for identified needs and/or professional development 08/08/94 08/08/94 07/01/94 25% 25% 06/30/95 Curriculum Directors. Supervisors and Coordinators, Staff Development Specialists 4.2 Record of available materials is on file as well as documentation of materials that have been checked out for local schools A. All curricular areas maintain professional materials and supplies that can be accessed by local school sites. 07/01/94 25% B. Professional materials incorporated into G/T office library. Materials available for check-out. 4.3 Provide technical assistance to individual schools/teachers through demonstration lessons, team-teaching as well as individual/group planning at the local school 07/01/94 07/01/94 25% 06/30/95 Curriculum Directors. Supervisors and Coordinators, Staff Development Specialists 4 3 Copies of weekly visitation logs as well as staff development plans are available A. Eisenhower Staff Development Specialists in science and math conducted demonstration lessons, team teaching, and small group inservice sessions at the local school level. 4 4 Provide opportunities for teachers to work at the IRC to design and create their own activities 07/01/94 07/01/94 25% 06/30/95 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Staff Development 4.4 List of available dates and participants is available A. Bi-monthly IRC inservice \"Open Houses\" were planned and a schedule of the \"Open Houses\" was provided to the schools. 07/01/94 25% 50 LProgram Seq if: Program Name: Program Code\nProgram Goal: Plan Reference Page Number 208 Curriculum Services Primary Leader\nEstelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: Revision Date: Sterling Ingram 14 November 17, 1994 The purpose of curricLilum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5.0 Develop and evaluate programs to meet needs established by the district in the curriculum area 4.5 Provide specialists and technicians to assist local schools in the implementation of the Abacus Instructional Management Program 5.1 Plan programs for magnet, interdistrict, incentive, and other schools established by the District to incorporate selected themes A. Assistance was provided staff at Henderson Health Sciences Magnet School to develop two new courses\nTechnical Writing and Scientific Illustration B. \"Rights of Passage\" inservice scheduled and planned for Franklin Incentive School. 5.2 Develop District-wide programs to meet the special needs of identified populations of students 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 09/06/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 08/15/94 09/30/94 06/30/95 51 Staff Development, Computer Central Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Director of Planning Research and Evaluation Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Assistant Superintendents, Principals, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Principals, Director of Federal Programs 4.5 Weekly visitation logs document direct services to the schools 4.5 Increased use of the Abacus system 5.0 Programs are developed to meet needs established by the District: the program budgeting process and Fast-track\" evaluations are used to evaluate new and existing programs 5.1 Schools with special themes have programs in place that infuse the theme throughout the curriculum 5.2 Student populations with special needs identified by the District in the curriculum area have programs in place to address their needs Page: 15 Program Seq /f : Program Name\nProgram Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number 208 Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Curriculum Services Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria A. Academic Support Program students were identified for mathematics support and the program has begun. B. ESL program was discussed during principals' meeting. C. ESL tutors were hired for 1994-95 school year to serve 101 students in 35 schools. D ESL tutor inservice was held. E. ESL conference was held. F Programming for identified gifted students available at all schools. 5.3 Assess the effectiveness of District programs in the curriculum area 5 4 Seek funding for District programs that qualify for grants from external funding sources A. A $2500.00 grant for classroom management was received to offer two classroom management training sessions. B. External funding in the amount of $233,992.00 was sought and received for E.C.E. programs. 07/01/94 08/11/94 08/22/94 06/23/94 09/26/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 25% 08/11/94 08/22/94 08/23/94 09/28/94 25% 06/30/95 06/30/95 09/01/94 09/16/94 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Director of Planning Research and Evaluation Director of Federal Programs. Curriculum Directors. Supervisors and Coordinators 5.3 Utilization of manpower and resources in the curriculum area will reflect the use of program assessment results 5 4 Grant applications are on file in the Office of Federal Programs Page: 16 Program Seq K: Program Name\nProgram Code\nProgram Goal: Plan Reference Page Number 208 Revision Date: November 17. 1994 Curriculum Services Primary Leader\nEstelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5.5 Plan programs of study for students that meet local, state, and national standards 07/01/94 06/30/95 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Assistant Superintendents, Principals 5.5 Curriculum and program of studies reflect state curriculum frameworks, and program of studies meets local and state requirements and reflects national recommendations and trends A. Math and Language Arts Curricula were revised according to national and state standards. 07/01/94 08/15/94 B Program of study for Kindergarten and E.C.E. programs met local, state, and national standards. 07/01/94 09/30/94 6.0 Develop and expand a cooperative relationship between home and school that will encourage positive home learning 5 6 identify or develop alterative means of assessing student achievement of curricular objectives A. Portfolio assessment inservices were presented. B Portfolio assessment plan for seventh grade was outlined. 6.1 Develop and print parent home study guides for distribution that can be used throughout the year to reinforce positive learning 53 07/01/94 09/21/94 09/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 09/21/94 09/30/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Assistant Superintendents, Principals Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Principals, Teachers Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators 5.6 Criterion referenced test items will be cleaned-up/revised in Abacus test item bank for use by pilot schools\nkindergarten and elementary report cards will be revised\nportfolio assessment workshops will be held for groups of teachers 6 0 Home and school cooperation and parental involvement will increase as reported on survey of parents and VIPs records 6.1 Guides are available Page: 17 Program Seq /f : Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number 20B Revision Date: November 17. 1994 Curriculum Services Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12- Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria A. Parent Home Study Guides were reprinted and distributed to parents at the school site level. 6.2 Prepare information for dissemination to public regarding curriculum and parent home study guides A. Schools used parent home study video to orient parents to the guides. 6.3 Provide inservice training for local school personnel and identified parents in the appropriate use of the study guide A. Schools presented parent home study guide inservice for new parents. 6 4 Participate in recruitment activities for parents and students, particularly for newly developed programs 6.5 Share information with parents about trends in the area of curriculum and about features of LRSD instructional programs A. A curriculum staff member is scheduled to present information about District programs at monthly PTA Council Meetings 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 09/01/94 06/30/95 09/01/94 06/30/95 09/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 25% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators Curriculum Directors. Supervisors and Coordinators, Staff Development, Principals, Teachers. Parents Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators Curriculum Directors. Supervisors and Coordinators. Principals. PTA Council 6.2 Results of surveys from parents reflect their use 6.3 Record of inservices and attendees is available 6.4 Record of activities 6.4 Increase in number of students recruited for new programs 6.5 Agendas or records of information that is shared with parents I B. Parent meetings are held in the fall and spring to inform parents of G/T programs and opportunities available in the district. 09/05/94 25% 51 School Operations Cluster * * * Elementary Junior High School High School Athletics 57' Program Seq /\u0026gt;: 209 Program Name: Elementary Schools Program Code\nPrimary Leader: Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: [ Plan References: FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Sadie Mitchell, Margaret Gremillion Secondary Leader\nPage: 1 Revision Date: November 14. 1994 Elementary School Principals The elementary school program seeks to provide Integrator) learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all LRSD students in a desegregated setting. Central Office staff and principals collaborate to ensure quality educational planning for all students with the support of local school staff, parents, and patrons. To provide a quality integrated education for elementary school students 1 $18,985,176.56 $3,111,344 22 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: $3,111,344.22 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: FTE 653.14 [ Related Function Codes\n1120.2410.2590.1120 5(\nr PrograM Seq 4^: Program Maiae: ProgrsHi Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Nimber 209 Elementary Schools LRSD EY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET EXJCUMENT Priaary Leader: Sadie Mitchell, Margaret Gremillion To provide a quality integrated education for elementary school students. Objectives Strategies Page: 2 Revision Date: November 2, 1994 1.0 Provide sufficient support to achieve a quality integrated education for all students. 1.1 Develop annual school budgets A. Each area school was assigned a given amount of money for their yearly expenditures. Adjustments were to be made on October 1, 1994. 1.2 Recommend appropriate personnel to deliver the educational program. A. A principal worked with the Recruitment Office and Hunan Resource Director to acquire names of personnel to interview that would balance their staff racially. 1.3 Requisition materials, supplies, and equipment necessary to deliver the educational program. A. A Principal and staff worked together in identifying the materials, supplies, and equipment needed to start school. This process is on-going as need arise. 57 Secondary Leader: Beginning Date 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/10/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 Elementary School Principals Coapletion Date 06/30/95 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 09/30/94 Responsibility Principals, Assistant Superintendents Principals, Assistant Superintendents Principals, Assistant Super i ntendents Principals, Assistant Superintendents 1.1 1.2 1.3 Evaluation Criteria Completed and approved budget document detailing how funds will be expended. Annual staff report Educational Equity Monitoring reports, regular site visits by the Assistant SuperintendentsProgram Seq #\nProgram Name: Program Code\nProgram Description\nDistrict Goal Support: Program Goal\nIPlan References: FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures\nRelated Function Codes: 210 Junior High Schools Primary Leader\nLRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader\nPage: 1 Revision Date: Junior High School Principals November 16, 1994 The junior high school program seeks to provide integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all LRSD students in a desegregated setting. Central Office staff and principals collaborate to ensure quality educational planning for all students with the support of local school staff, parents, and patrons. To provide a quality integrated education for junior high school students. ] $9,273,594.63 $1,391,997.19 1130,1132,2410,2590 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: $1,391,997.19 3rd Qtr Expend\n4th Qtr Expend: FTE 287.20 ] Program Seq Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number 210 Junior High Schools LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: November 16, 1994 Jr. High School Principals To provide a quality Integrated education for junior high school students. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Provide sufficient support to achieve a quality integrated education for all students. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Principals, Assistant Superintendent 1.1 Develop annual school budgets A. Assist principals in monitoring local school budgets B. Monitor expenditures through purchase requests 1.2 Recommend appropriate personnel to deliver the educational program. A. Assist principals in identifying appropriate staff 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 25% 2% 06/30/95 25% 1 13 Requisition materials, supplies, and equipment necessary to deliver the educational program. A Approve requisitions based on appropriate identified needs 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 25% Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals. Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals. Assistant Superintendent Principals. Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals. Assistant Superintendent 1.1 1.2 1.3 Completed and approved budget document detailing how funds will be expended. Annual staff report Educational Equity Monitoring reports, regular site visits by the Assistant Superintendent Program Sag if: Program Name: Program Code: Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: [ Plan References: FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: Related Function Codes: 211 Senior High Schools Primary Leader: LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: Revision Date: Senior High School Principals November 16, 1994 The senior high school program seeks to provide integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all LRSD students in a desegregated setting. Central Office staff and principals collaborate to ensure quality educational planning for all students with the support of local school staff, parents, and patrons. To provide a quality integrated education for senior high school students. $8,395,188.73 $1,391,997.19 1140,2410, 2590,1140 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: $1,334,045.62 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: FTE 244.20 iO Program Seq Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal\nPlan Reference Page Number 211 Senior High Schools LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelie Matthis Secondary Leader: Page\n2 Revision Date: November 16, 1994 Senior High School Principals To provide a quality integrated education for senior high school students. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Provide sufficient support to achieve a quality integrated education for all students. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Principals, Assistant Superintendent 1.1 Develop annual school budgets A. Assisi principals in monitoring local school budgets B Monitor expenditures through purchase request 1.2 Recommend appropriate personnel to deliver the educational program. 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 25% 25% 06/30/95 Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals. Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent 1.1 Completed and approved budget document detailing how funds will be expended. Principals. Assistant Superintendent 12 Annual staff report 1.3 A. Assist principals in identifying appropriate staff Requisition materials, supplies, and equipment necessary to deliver the educational program. A Approve requisitions based on appropriate identified needs 61 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 25% 06/30/95 25% Principals. Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals. Assistant Superintendent 1.3 Educational Equity Monitoring reports, regular site visits by the Assistant Superintendent Program Saq Program Name: Program Code: Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: I Plan References: FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: Related Function Codes: 212 Athletics Primary Leader: LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: The Athletics program provides the opportunity for students to develop skills in competitive team and individual sports activities. To ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operation. To provide a quality athletics program. $166,457.85 $85,811.76 Page: Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, Ouida Carter 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: 1151. 1152, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158 $85,811.76 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: 62 FTE Program Sag if: Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal\nPlan Reference Page Number 212 Athletics To provide a quality athletics program Objectives 1.0 To conduct junior high athletics program for boys and girls. (Football, basketball, track, soccer, golf volleyball, and tennis) LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Strategies 1.1 Conduct general office tasks. A. Order tickets for all sports for the school year. B. Provide Parent consent and Health forms for all athletes. C. Prepare athletic game schedules. D Distribute passes to all full time employees of the District E. Assign and contract game officials Page: 2 Revision Date: November 17. 1994 Secondary Leader: Beginning Date 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/01/94 07/01/94 F Payment of membership fees to AAA for all secondary schools. 08/31/94 Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, Ouida Carter Completion Date 06/30/95 06/30/95 08/01/94 44% 33% 33% 44% 08/31/94 Responsibility Assistant Supt., Secondary, Carter O. Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary. O Carter 1.0 Evaluation Criteria An athletics program for junior high girls and boys is implemented as designed and approved by the LRSD Board of Directors, 1.1 Office duties are conducted within specified timeframes. Program Sag it: Program Namo: Program Coda: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number Page\n3 212 Athtetics Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Revision Date: November 17. 1994 Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, Ouida Carter To provide a quality athletics program. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria G. Payment of Catastrophic insurance coverage for junior high schools. 1.2 Order uniforms and supplies A. Receive and distribute uniforms and supplies for all sports as received. B. Order fill-in uniforms for Pulaski Heights. Mabelvale, Cloverdale and Mann football teams C. Order football supplies for all schools D. Oder basketball uniforms for Forest Heights, Mabelvale, Mann, Dunbar and Cloverdale. E. Order second set of jerseys to complete uniforms (volleyball). F. Order volleyball supplies for all schools 13 Conduct game operations tasks. A. Arrange for medical personnel to attend junior high school football games 08/31/94 07/01/94 08/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/01/94 07/01/94 Q7/01f94 08/31/94 06/30/95 33% 08/31/94 08/31/94 33% 09/01/94 09/01/94 Q6/3QI35 08/31/94 Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter 1.2 Uniformsand supplies are available for use for each designated sports activity. 1 3 All game operations (officials, security, ticket takers and sellers, and ambulance service) are conducted in specified time frame Program Saq If: Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number 212 Athletics Primary Leader\nEstelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: 4 Revision Date: November 17. 1994 Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools. Ouida Carter To provide a quality athletics program. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 20 To conduct senior high athletics program for boys and girls. (Football, basketball, track, soccer, tennis, golf, swimming, volleyball, and baseball) B. Requisition and set-up game payrolls for all sports and deliver to schools. C. Check all game reports and make deposits after each game. 2.1 Conduct general office duties. A. Order tickets for all sports for the school year. B Provide Parent Consent and Health forms for all athletes. C. Prepare athletic game schedules 0. Prepare contracts for school and game officials. 07/01/94 09/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 44% 20% 06/30/95 06/30/95 08/01/94 44% 33% 44% E. Distribute passes to full time employees of the district 08/01/94 33% 65 Assistant Supt. Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary. Carter O Assistant Supt., Secondary O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt Secondary, O. Carter 2.0 An athletics program for senior high girls and boys is implemented as designed and approved by the LRSD Board of Directors 2.1 Office duties are conducted within specified time frames. Program Seq It: Program Name: Program Code\nProgram Goal\nPlan Reference Page Number 212 Athletics To provide a quality athletics program. Objectives Page\n5 Revision Date\nNovember 17. 1994 Primary Leader\nEstelle Matthis Strategies F. Distribute passes to visiting schools for football and basketball. G. Payment of membership fees to AAA for all secondary schools. 2.2 Order uniforms and supplies. A. Order fill-in football uniforms for Central. Hall. McClellan. Fair and Parkview B. Order football supplies for alt schools C. Order basketball uniforms for Central. Hall, McClellan and Fair D. Order set of basketball jerseys for McClellan and filNn shorts and tops for Hall E. Order basketball supplies for all schools F. Order volleyball uniforms for Central, McClellan and Fair Rfi Secondary Leader\nBeginning Date 08/01/94 08/31/94 07/01/94 08/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, Ouida Carter Completion Date 75% 08/31/94 Q6/3QI35 33% 08/31/94 33% 33% 57% 09/01/94 Responsibility Assistant Supt. Secondary. O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary. O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary. 0. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary. O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary. O Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Evaluation Criteria 2.2 Uniforms and supplies are available for use for each designated sports activity. r Program Saq \u0026gt;: Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number 212 Athletica Primary Leader\nEstelle Matthis Secondary Leader\nPage: 6 Revision Date: November 17. 1994 Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, Ouida Carter To provide a quality athletics program Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria G. Order volleyball supplies for all schools 23 Conduct game operations tasks. A. Requisition and set up game payrolls for all sports and deliver to schools. B. Arrange for stand-by ambulance service at football games. C. Check all game reports and make deposits after each game. 2.4 Arrange for transportation with outside vendors for all sports. R7 08/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 09/01/94 07/01/94 09/01/94 06/30/95 44% 08/15/94 20% 06/30/95 Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary, O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary. O. Carter Assistant Supt. Secondary. 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary O. Carter 2.3 All game operations (officials, security, ticket takers and sellers, and ambulance service) are conducted in specified time frame. 2.4 Transportation for events occurring outside the 50 mile radius of Little Rock is completed as scheduled.School Support Cluster * Guidance Services * * * * * * * * Drug Abuse Prevention Health Services Curriculum Services/VIPS Educational Media Services Board of Education Services Executive Administration Services Support Service Management Fiscal Services * Plant Services * * * * * * * Pupil Transport Services Purchasing Services Safety \u0026amp; Security Services Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Services Communication Services Human Resource Services Labor Relations * Data Processing Services Family Life/New Futures * Indebtedness * Contingencies 60 Program Saq #\n213 Program Name: Guidance Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: [ Plan RefererKes: FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: LRSD FY 94\u0026gt;95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Jo Eveiyn Eiston Page: Revision Date: November 17. 1994 The Guidance and Counseling Program provides services to support academic, social and emotional success for students in the Little Rock School District. 1. Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. 2. Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. 3. The LRSD Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century.- 4. Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. 5. Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. To promote the personai/social, academic and career development needs of all LRSD students. 1 $3,090,710.95 $458,418 49 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: $458,418.49 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: FTE 67.60 [ Related Function Codes: 2111, 2114. 2120, 2121. 2129 ] 69 Program Seq Program Name\nProgram Code\nProgram Goal: Plan Reference Page Number N/A 213 Guidance Services LRSO FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis To maintain a well-qualified and racially diverse guidance staff in the Little Rock School District. Objectives Strategies Page: 2 Revision Date\nNovember 17. 1994 Secondary Leader: Jo Evelyn Elston Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. To assist in the recruitment and selection of a qualified and racially diverse pool of counselor applicants for each school. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Director of Pupil Services. Director of Human Resources Minority Recruiter. Building Principals 1. The number of minority counselors in the District will increase as evidenced by a racially balanced staff at each building. 1.1 Aggressive recruitment of minority counselor applicants for employment pool. A. Visits to college/university campuses conducted by minority recruiter to identify potential minority applicants. 1.2 Conduct interviews to screen counsebr applicants prior to referral to building principals. A. Fifteen counselor applicants screened to fill nine counselor vacancies. B. Prospective applicants recruited from minority teaching pool. 1.3 Conduct annual minority recruitment seminar for identifying qualified minority/non minority counselor applicants. 7f) 07/01/94 06/30/95 7/01/94 07/01/94 07/20/94 07/20/94 07/01/94 25% 06/30/95 08/12/94 08/12/94 6/30/95 TrLDistrict Guidance Directors Minority Recruiter, Building administrators Director of Pupil Services, Minority Recruiter, Building Principals Tri-District Guidance Directors. Director. Pupil Services. Associate Supt. Desegregation. Minority Recruiter 1.1 Comparison of ratio of nonminority to minority counselors in each building. 1.2 Comparison of number of minority counselors to nonminority counselors prior to 1993-94 school year. 1.3 Participation rosters, seminar agenda, record of counselor recruits identified from attendance roster. Program Saq if: Program Name: Program Code: Program Goat: Plan Reference Page Number 213 Page: Revision Date: 3 November 17. 1994 Guidance Services Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Jo Evelyn Elston To maintain a well-qualified and racially diverse guidance staff in the Little Rock School District. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2. Develop, implement and maintain an effective staff development inservice program for District Counselors. 2.1 Organize and maintain staff development planning committee to identify counselor training needs and assist in developing inservice calendar. A. Elementary and secondary staff development committees formed and 1994*95 inservice calendars developed and approved. 2,2 Conduct monthly inservice workshops A. 1. 2 07/01/94 07/01/94 09/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 09/16/94 Monthly inservice workshop held: Elementary Counselors Secondary Counselors 2.3 Assess effectiveness of staff development training. 71 08/16/94 08/16/94 07/01/94 08/16/94 08/16/94 06/30/95 Deputy Supt., Director Pupil Services, District Guidance Counselors. Building Principals Deputy Supt, Pupil Services Director, Staff Development Training Committee Deputy Supt., Pupil Services Director. Staff Development Training Committee Director-Pupil Services, Staff Development Training Committee IRSC 2. District Counselors will receive inservice training annually to enhance professional knowledge and understanding to meet the guidance needs of ail LRSD students. 2.1 Roster of planning committee members and copy of annual insenrice schedules. 2.2 Monthly training calendars, Meeting agendas, participant post workshop evaluations. 2.3 Written post workshop evaluations Program Saq ! Program Nama: Program Code\nProgram Goal: Plan Reference Page Number 213 GuUanoa Sarvtcqa Primary Leader\nEstelle Matthis To maintain a well-qualtfied and racially diverse guidance staff in the Lrttte Rock School District. Ot^ectives Strategies A. Ninety percent of counselors rated the workshop content good to excellent. Page: Revision Date: November 17, 1994 Secondary Leader: Jo Evelyn Elston Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 08/16/94 08/16/94 3. Annually review written school-based guidance program plans Io ensure that they address the personal/social, academic and career development needs of students. 3.1 Develop and implement school visitation schedule to review building guidance plans and to provide technical assistance and support as needed. A. School visHation schedules developed. 3.2 Provide assistance to counseling staff in refining all guidance program components. 3.3 Develop/refine program monitoring and evaluation instruments. 3.4 Develop and distribute program monitoring and evaluation timeline to program deliverers. 3.5 Conduct and analyze program evaluation data. 72 07/01/94 07/01/94 09/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 09/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Assistant Superintendent. Director-Pupil Services, Building Principals, schoolbased guidance staff Deputy Supt., Director-Pupil Services, Building Principals Deputy Supt, Director-Pupil Services, Building Principals Deputy Supt., Director-Pupil Services, Building Principals Deputy Supt.Director- Pupil Services, Building Principals Deputy Supt., Director-Pupil Services, Building Principals 3. A districtwide comprehensive guidance and counseling program that meets the social, personal, academic and career development needs of all students will be implemented in grades K through 12. 3.1 Copy of approved school visitation schedule, copy of school-based guidance plans. 3.2 Copy of school visitation follow-up reports. 3.3 Completed program evaluation instruments. 3.4 Copy of monitoring and evaluation timelines. 3.5 Written program evaluation reports. Program Saq f: Program Name: Program Code\nProgram Goal\nPlan Reference Page Number 5 213 Revision Date: November 17. 1994 Guidance Servtces Primary Leader\nEstelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Jo Evelyn Eiston To maintain a well-qualified and racially diverse guidance staff in the Little Rock School District. Ot^ectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 4. Inform students of all opportunities available to them and encourage them to take advantage of these opportunities. 5. Make parents partners in education of their children by making information accessible to them and keeping them informed. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Counselors, Principals, (Pupil Services Teachers, parents. Teachers) 4. Guidance services. Annual Report, and Report Comparison Reports will show all students needing services will receive them 4.1 Publish a document annually which lists financial aid\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":28,"next_page":29,"prev_page":27,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":324,"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}}]}}