{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_879","title":"Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget,'' condensed version","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":["1994/1995"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School buildings","School employees","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget,'' condensed version"],"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/879"],"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  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET 1994-95 REVENUE 'f ~ cl~,u,J /1 cn1 ccwf O t1-/r\nu\n~--i.... NORTHL ITILE ROCKS CHOOLD ISTRICT REVENUSEU MMARY UNRESTRICTEFDU NDS LOCAL REVENUE Current Truces Pullback Accrued Pullback Delinquent Taxes Land Redemption County Interest Excess Commissions County General Severance Tax Interest Tuition-PCSSD Rent Miscellaneous Fund Transfers TOTALS STATE REVENUE , Minimum Foundation Special Education M - to - M Program TOTALS FEDERALR EVENUEUNRESTRICTED 1993-94 BUDGET AMOUNT 8,465,000.00 2,660,000.00 1,585,000.00 1,000,000.00 75,000.00 50,000.00 30,000.00 28,450.00 4,250.00 60,000.00 100,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 40,000.00 14,142,700.00 16,353,053.00 67,150.00 1,070,000.00 17,490,203.00 PL 874 22,500.00 ROTC/TROOPS-TO-TEACHERS TOTALU NRESTRICTEFDE DERA_L__ __ _ REVENUE SUB-TOTAL 31,655,403.00 OTHER STATE Transpottation Magnet/M-to-M Transport Worker' t Comp TOTALO THERS TATE TOTAL LOCAL, STATE \u0026amp; FEDERALU NRESTRICTED REVENUE 494,317.00 300,000.00 .00 794,317.00 32,449,720.00- 1993-94 YEAR TO DATE AMOUNT 8,514,794.30 3,289,950.09 869,400.91 1,203,584.16 102,947.89 50,510.51 30,561.43 28,468.40 6,901.54 68,740.10 117,254.41 19,260.69 13,669.09 33,909.31 14,349,952.83 16,725,472.00 67,150.00 1,034,620.00 17,827,242.00 25,665.00 32,202,859.83 537,899.00 271,430.00 .00 809,329.00 33,012,188.83 1994-95 BUDGET AMOUNT 8,320,000.00 3,250,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,150,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 30,000.00 27,939.00 4,280.00 60,000.00 110,000.00 20,000.00 15,000.00 35,000.00 14,172,219.00 )(+/:\nff)/\u0026lt; 17,693,840.00 67,150.00 1,030,000.00 18,790,990.00 25,000.00 50,700.00 75,700.00 33,038,909.00 582,575.00 275,000.00 141,500.00 999,075.00 34,037,984.00 1 NOR'DLI ITTLER OCKS CHOODL ISTRICT REVENUSEU MMARY RESTRICTEFDU ND 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 LOCALR EVENUE BUDGET YEART O DATE BUDGET AIDUNI AMOUNI AM'.)lJNT Tuition-Sumner School 60,000 78,465.52 70,000 G/T Sumner Quest 16,500 12,610.50 15,000 School Activity Sales 50,000 55,259.04 50,000 Custodial Services 24,000 24,000.00 24,000 Rockefeller Restructuring 15,000 12,000.00 3,000 Levi Strauss 25,000 25,000.00 -0- Toyota Family Literacy 15,690 15,690.00 -0- Miscellaneous 42,700 64,349.10 61,300 TOTALL OCALR ESTRICTED REVENUE 248,890 287,374.16 223,300 STATER EVENUE Vocational Equinent 22,002 22,002.34 19,202 Vocational Start-Up 2,600 2,600.00 9,360 Kindergarten Materials 8,460 8,460.00 8,148 Desegregation Aid 780,000 824,590.51 849,025 Compensatory Aid 234,439 234,439.01 222,000 Curriculum Assessment 100,000 100,000.00 -0- CPEP/ACT 18,538 28,668.95 25,000 K-3 SUIIUlleSrc hool 147,618 147,618.00 145,000 ABC Preschool 234,116 234,116.00 234,116 Special Ed Preschool 314,325 321,255.00 287,638 Special Ed Residential 25,000 41,246.75 35,000 Alternative Education 40,460 40,460.00 -0- Carnegie Restructuring 12,500 12,500.00 12,500 Restructuring Grant 7,800 7,800.00 -0- Miscellaneous Grants 2,000 6,828.67 -0- TOTALS TATER ESTRICTED REVENUE 1,949,858 2,032,585.23 1,846,989 TOTALL OCAL\u0026amp; STATE RESTRICTERDE VENUE 2,198,748 2,319,959.39 2,070,289 FOODS ERVICER EVENUE Meal Collections 636,000 678,216.55 655,500 Federal Reimbursement 1,300,000 1,327,785.55 1,325,000 State Reimbursement 25,000 25,126.57 25,000 Interest 5,000 4,557.75 5,000 Other 3,000 2,756.17 2,500 TOTALF OODS ERVICE 1,969,000 2,038,442.59 2,013,000 2 IDTHL I111.Elil D Em. DISlRICT REDEUINY 1993-94 1\"3-94 1994-95 FEIEIWIIE. 't'EIIE~ICTD IIUDCTY EMT OD ATE 1UD\u0026amp;T AIOlfT AIOlfT NDMT DW'IERI 1,861,105 1,5'3,471.00 1,860,625 DW'mtII ~.593 ~.5'3.00 5',7'?1 11'.ATIIIWrJ.,A . PEIICilli 148,411 148,411.00 147,209 Tm VI-I 320,286 319.~.oo 345,912 fl 19-313 18,410 18,410.00 15,168 IDIDID 29,000 47,344.61 30,000 IE\u0026gt;IDID, PRESDm. 12,000 21,4~.28 15,000 !FEWl ED. PRES0lll. 420,000 359,601.00 434,530 HCIM. EJU:ATIImII : 36,704 36,704.00 36,704 fAD STMT 72,646 71,32:5.00 48,180 MNSTMT 122,396 122,396.00 116,100 JTPA EJU:ATIOI/LITERACY 83,750 77,887.66 0 JTPA POER (HIPPY) 17,500 16,821.87 0 JTPAT RMSm11n1 umu 15,150 12,S78.27 0 Jt'PA11 .TERNATPMRm Wt 37,208 37,208.00 0 JIN I.EMtH-UVI~ 30,000 29,998.17 23,197 J1Pft-aPIIlD. 1f1H+UVK 27,300 2:51, 66.69 85,295 mmt SERVNEU ICA J,000 3,000.00 0 HIV/ADIEBIU :ATillt 500 '500.00 0 JJIU EJU:ATillt 92,900 85,230.00 54,494 M1Hl!CEJl:EI, SEJIDU 42,000 22,000.00 42,000 IOfll9B 16SISTNl:E 21,ffl 21.e~.oo 21,000 Qt I PIBIWt DmJYElNT 6,822 6,822.00 0 eor\ny, EXxtlt 50,000 82,6Z7.00 0 TOTNr.n. EM..R EYEtlE 3,534,556 3,225,999.55 3,251,205 C14PITNllJ..T l.AY1' \\181: WRNT TAXES 200,100 191,251.61 186,900 PW.JIU TAXES 100,000 126,005.60 125,000 PW.JIU - ACCRtD 72,'SOO ~.209.40 37,300 1nI11UHr TAXES 25,000 33,992.35 33,000 EXIDS mtUSSillt 1,000 845.79 800 DflEREBT 1,400 2,199.00 2,000 TOTNr.N. ITN..W Tl.AY 400,000 389,503.75 385,000 IUDJ)l\u0026amp; F\\11) REVEJE: M.EB ~.600 43,279.25 0 IHmlEST 92,000 90,457.74 S0,000 lfAIIVIllSEE T1lBJfT 7,400 .oo 0 ASIIESTlm.O AN/WiNT 40,000 34,6~.oo 0 F1IID1 RMSFER 60,000 .00 0 TUTftI.U D.DKF 1NI 235,000 168,411.99 S0,000 TOTft.RE\\IEJIE 40,787,024.00 41,154,506.10 41,797,478.00 == 3 BUDGET SUMMARY REPORTS IIR1ll Lim.E 11D SlDL. lmmtr llllliETII IIWff 1994 - 999:5 IIIU\"IRJC'IEFJI NIS 19'3-M 1993-M 1994-95 um M:1IJIL llDiET NIUf1' Mlllfl' IIIIU(1' I !BEIi 32,449,720 l1,012,118.II 34,037,914 II EXPENDITIIIES li8EM. 1, l96,o:50 l,18',810.35 l,IS,010 INSTIU:TIIII 25,904,174 26,269,526.41 2.61, 25,S W IIADOBWl:lE O'ERATllll 3,IIB,65\u0026gt; 4, IJ0,447.,0 3,90l,515 k~, i'   f-1...l.)V TIWIF(RTATillt 1,199,780 1,041.,219\"'7 1,041,194 p,1 - -- - t1L1H 90,920 90,400.J.\u0026gt; 94,:IOO DIDIDT 1,176,700 l,188,769.M 1,105,'70 1H TDTM. 33,56,274 l1, 910,174.20 34,16',781 III !UM'( 07/01/93 YEIIRT OD l\\lE f1Nl8 YEM1 0 IIAlE QIIEfT M.NII lf.'a .iuaI mEll'Il\\llES M.NIE lffl-1994 1,02.6,916.18 + :U.012,188.83  34,038,115.01 - 33,flO,i'M.20  128,600.81 07/01/94 lllR1D f1lll8 lllllED PIii.ETD IM.Nl:E REEi A1Mil\u0026amp;E EffJIDI111Ei M.AO: 199+-iffl 128,600.81 + 34,Gn,964  34,W,94.81 - 31,1647, 8B 1,796.11 4 ant UTilE 111:1m m. .JJSIRICT 11ml 9lllllR'f 1994 - 99P.5 STATEIUDILE IIRICIDP IIDMS lff.J-94 lffl-AN 1994-95 llllliET ~ aa\n[T MIUT MIUI' M1IIT I IDEJI 2,191,748 2,319,959.JP 2,060,289 II EXPSeI11JES IESEJilBATllll 1,149,730 1,039,454.11 1,004,990 IDfflliATIIITE JU'.ATlllt 240,134 240,052.61 222,CB\u0026gt; RADD1i 31,890 .12,874.76 0 All: CMRIDWER 23,767 Zi,Ul.:13 0 AIIC BIJIPIEHT/Slffl.JES U,407 11,407.00 0 AIESIIIERPl\u0026amp;Mt 31,576 25,346.04 16,468 ABC PIIESDlll. 234,116 217,647.34 233,S!O SPECWE. D. PRESCIDl. 314,JZ5 321,2:15.00 '2111,638 IP. a. leDEfml. 25,000 41,357. 35,000 \\UATDJW.E. IIUIFIENT 2'l,002 21,916.38 19,202 VIDTIOWS. TMTIP 2,600 2,~.28 9,360 mOL ICTMTY SALES 60,892 45,NB.12 86,791 aJSTmIIL !IEIVICES 24,000 1',5113.40 24,000 1-3 SIIIER SCIID. 147,620 6,656.SZ l40,9'0 rJlfP/tcr 31,046 2'l,:JIM.81 0 fJ'fP/M:T SIIIER 94-95 30,641 1~--~ 29,3:12 IUIERS\u0026gt;Dl. lll,:500 79,\"98.llt 87,745 \"'!UIERaDT 18,250 16,200.SZ 23,400 ftLTEJNUME JU:ATilll 40,460 Zi,769.12 14,690 1.EYSI 1MliS 33,390 33,390.80 0 TOYOFTMAD .L.Ym RICY 15,690 13,102.79 2,517 RIDFB1EJRI ESTIU:TIIUtli 15,000 9,257.IM 5,742 REST1JIC'11.PRIDO\" .IWf 1,800 ~.771.47 2,028 rtlll6IE RESfRll:11.Rm 12,,00 :560.00 11,940 UIC JOMTilllB 3,000 3,290.79 0 l\\1SCEl.UIElSli RttNTS :56,515 77,564.40 136,11' ... TaTM. 2,671,911 2,314,182.45 2,393,Slta III EUMY Vl!011'13 YEART DD ATE RNIIS YEMT DD ATE 1lRDT JIAI.Nl:E REEi fWAIUlll EXPENDITIIEi MI..Na 1993-1994 689,414.17 + 2,319,959.:W 3,009,373..56- 2,314,182.45 695,191.11 Vl/01/94 JUIIEB F1lll6 am\nm PIIJ.E1ED M.Nl:E REEi #MD.All DPENDITIIB M.Nl:E 1994-iffl 69:5,191.U  2,060,289  2,7:15,480.11- 2,393,576  361,VM.U 5 11111U11T 1U 11D IDIIL DlS111tT ll.lmUIIMT 1994 - 9995 ..\n- FEJIEMP.U IWl!i 1993-94 199'3-M 199+-95 UliET M:TIIIL llmT MlllfT NIUfl' NIUIT I EQE 3,SM,556 J,2ZS,999.!5 3,33:5,2115 n EJF811I1\\IEB DW'l'ERI 1,697,117 l,4'7,ffl.10 1,860,625 0W'1EIRI 70,437 64,ta'l.90 65,JZ5. VIDTDIIIL 148,411 1C5,:500.1.5 147,209 TITLEV I-I m,ooo m,m.,s m,s Pl. IP-313 19,09 19,ll.ll 1,,ua IEDD:AD 30,000 48,346.37 30,000 IEDDDPIEDIIL 12,000 13,618.~ ~.ooo fP.O.PIEDIIL 444,949 298,510.IZ 444,949 . o. ~ 43,0!5 42,915.7' 36,704 taD srm 76,667 76,571.90 4,000 E\\191S TMT 122,396 122,396.00 116,100 0W'1ERI SIIERP IUMt 254,400 247,317.JM 114,000 1'llffll !EM AIERICA 3,000 J,000.00 0 JIPA EDl',ATitll/ll1DCT 15,1.50 77,1B7.66 0 J1N POER 17,:500 16,821.17 0 JIN 1U11ll ~.150 12,518.27 0 JIN LTEIIMmt 37,208 37,2G8.00 0 JIN I..EMIH-llVDlr 30,000 29,998.17 23,197 JIPtt-allD ~ 27,300 25,166.69 85,ffl HIV/AIDSE JIDTillf 500 ,oo.oo 0 11K El. CIIRRYIMR 2.6,145 18,$10.90 54,367 JIIKEI. 92,900 71,851.42 ZS,677 EI9EJIIIEMRn tr.l:IEla9 3 30,864 ,,111.10 42,000 mEHIERM nvs:IEIEE94 42,000 32,110.51 30,000 IIIElE!B 21,ffl 3,149.47 0 IIIElE!B Cl1IR'flMJt 18,207 18,217.22 39,12!5 0W'TEI II-IICCEERAlED 1,914 1,914.21 0 Dt II aRWll.1II flWFllR 4,B:111 4,B:111.16 0 atIPIIUMDAIMJENT 6,822 6,822.00 0 EJD.T 50,941 21,015.86 0 1H TOTM. J,m,404 3,290,419.511 3,~.891 III SIMf 07/01/93 YEM 10 DATE F\\NIS YEM 10 DATE QREIT BM.Na l8EII A'lADJllI DFEJIDillJe IIUIEE 1993-1994 .no,170.43  3,2ZS,9'9.,S. 3,5116,169.11-J,2'0,419.511\nm,150.40 V,/01/94 lllXiETEI F\\1116 llllr.E1D PIII.E10 IIUIEE 1091 MA1l.ltllE DFEIIDITIIIS MM:[ 1994-1995 305,150.40  3,335,205  l,640,9'5.40 - 3,524,891  116,064.40 6 1m DD5 IIE!iEIMru e I E\\81 II E\u0026gt;FEJIDITIIES III SJMn' 07,01193 llflUKE lllffll UT1l 11D mm. IISllltT UESIMW 1994 - 9.11!115 . lm-94 19.D-94 aDiET fC1\\IL 1111.Nr miff' 235,000 Uit.U.99 21DO,OOO 93,330.18 YEM1 0 DAlE RIIS '!'EM1 0 DAlE RE\\0 MMJUR EfEJfJl1IIES 1994-95 UliET MUn' 50,000 500,000 QIIDT IIIUIEE l!l!B-1994 l,246,747.IM+ UiB,411.'3a 1,415,159.83- 93,330.18a l,321,829.\u0026amp;5 1994-19!5 07i'Ol/M JUI[[ 1,321,829.65  IDiETED ED 50,000  NE . IUlliE1'ED ~ EfEJIDJ111ES 1,311,829 - 500,000                    CAPITMll.J MY I RE\\81 II \u0026gt;fENDITIIIES III !Ulwrt 01i'01193 wua 19.D-19.H 34,82B.03+ 07/01194 wua 1994-19!5 1,182.64  19.lH4 UGET 400,000 420,095 YEM 10 MlE RED 3119,SB.1a5 amm, RE\\81 3115,00a0 422,449.t RIIS '9110 DATE MMD EIPEleil\\lES 424,331.11- 422,+e.14 a FINIS UliE1EJ) MMD.a E\u0026gt;IPBIII11J\u0026amp; 3116,1112- 384,!IZDa PIID.EC1D IIIUIEE 871,829    199HS UGET 3115,000 384.,920 aJIEIT lfUl:E l,\u0026amp;.64 fllE.EIEJ) IM.MU 1,962 7 - STATE/LOCAL FUNDED PROGRAMS , EXPENDITURE REPORTS ant UT1lE 11D !DUL IISIIJLI 5nlTEAIDIRLa EfBllfflllE .-r l!!M - 9!1115 19.D-94 ..... 19.M-!15 DIE cna ILllliET MUil ... lftllff I.BM. fllltDIIS11WISTilI.MIIII ES 315,550.00 m,cm.a, 332,?.!0.00 lDI if1011ED9t Ml5 47,600.00 47,734.CII 49,200.00 0.\u0026amp;IFJED AIIIDSt fURJE 89,150.00 92,671.3Z 95,500.00 D.EIFJED SMJRIES 244,470.00 256,a\u0026gt;.l 220,100.00 ST1PEJlli .oo .GO .00 IENEFilS 91,610.00 9,51!5.!9 105,640.00 PlllDWD SERVltES 155,190.00 Hl,!87.M 143,890.00 CIIBUIIATIISICJI T 80,000.00 15,ca).9' 15,000.00 LEliM.SEIVICES \u0026gt;,000.00 32,551.71  35,000.00 JFCEilBATJitlltl lITIR 60,000.00 ,0,322.00 60.000.00 IIAlilEITIE VlEUIIm li It 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 SfPUES \u0026amp; MlEmlS 36,180.00 32.546.12 ,330.00 OPI1JL 11111.AY .oo  .oo onER 4,300.00 2.'3'1.30 3,600.00 TOTll l, 196,050 1, 189,810.35 1,145,010 2. INSTIUmlf ltll1DGSTllfllM9 URIES  2,252,575.00 2,407,839.25 i.e,200.00 CSl11F1CilT9ElMDI ES : 17,691,000.00 18,028,81.7.. .. 18,333,400.00 OJISSIFlE9DU RJES 1,208,900.00 1,234,5.IS 1,399,200.00 usrt1UTE 1EIOEIIS 342,000.00 378,002.30 381,000.00 USTI1U1Ea .MSIFJED 22,500.00 24,835.JD 24,800.00 SIJW 3,000.00 4,'33.50 2,SOCl.00 l:Jl:fllS 2,160,335.00 2,285,318.\" 2,a,300.00 fllllHIJ5ESDE RVltES 257,108.00 711,236.92 273,0M.OO TUITJOH'CSSD 130,000.00 110,453.11 115,000.00 1UTIT1lJHWilE' 950,000.00 '84,594.54 950,000.00 !U1PUE'lS M lmllS 823,061.00 461,222.49 411,528.00 Df'ITlt. 11111.AY 47,802.00 49,441.45 34,252.00 UTIER 15,293.00 28,274.11 31,325.00 TOTlt. 25,904,174 216,21\u0026amp;1,52'.44 2', 825,539 8 1111T1HJT 1I.EID !DIil. IJSlllCf SJAlEIUDlF IIIEDf lBIIIlllEI IAm 1994- 9'J5 t!!D-94 lm-tt 19HS DIGET #:TIIL DIE MIUlf Mllll1' MUn 3. MDnEMl:E6 lfBATJII( fdlDISIIIAllllSl M.MIES 58,000.00 '9,442.00 61,250.00 a.\u0026amp;IFID fllllDI ~  l,250,00 42,5'2.216 43,iOO.OO QJISSlFlED 9lMJES 1,723,000.00 l,1!Z,Oll.t2 1,657,800.00 IEEF11S 23\u0026amp;,950.00 2311,233.99 325,800.00 IUDWD SEllVIm 219,800.00 318,061.30 247,015.00 UTILITIES 1,084,100.00 1,CIBZ,2161.9 l, 087,? .IO0.0 9JIPLlES6 MTEJWlS 349,950.00 \u0026amp;,290.18 S,000.00 ttflTM. CIJ1\\JIY .00 7,SIS.80 .oo O'TIER .00 34,281.G:R .00 naw:E ns,000.00 1\u0026amp;6,213.28 193,000.00 TOTM. 3,\u0026amp;,\u0026amp;50 4,130,447.9 3,901,515 4. 11JU\u0026amp;'IRTATml QJISSlFlED fllllDI 9URlE 43,100.00 45,45:uo 45,000.00 toHEmflCATED 745,000.00 743,085.44 695,000.00 EifllS 915,000.00 97,513.23 99,000.00 PllDWD SERVICES 54,730.00 71,818.\u0026amp;2 15,730.00 !IFPUES' tMlERJllS l3',000.00 222.819-'7 75,000.00 am \u0026amp;0,000.00 315.00 .00 O'TIER .00 1937, 44.l!CR 2,I0.00 new:E 15,350.00 53,B.00 '9,064.00 TOTM. 1,199,180 1,041,219-'7 1,041,194 9   5. IEIL1H QJISSIFJD 9URlES  EEFIIS IUDWD SERYICES S\\JIPUEIS MTEJWU 0PITM. IIJIUW TDTfl. 6. IDID JOT DISTRICDTIS PRIICPfL lNTEJIEST FEES TDTM. PCS5DDI IS \u0026lt;INIEXATDII\u0026gt; PRDCDW. oomsr FEES TDTfl. LR BIIS (\"\"8E' SHIL) PRIICPfL nnmsr FEES TOTfl. TDTM11. 11IDD T STATEILll:Wll-litSIRICID Ale TOTM. 8111 um.! 11D IIHIL IISIIJCI SfAlEII.IDI. fllll EfEIIDml1lEIE Plllf 19.M- !B!l5 tm-94 l!ID-94 19HIS IIIICET M:TIII. UliET MUIT MIIIIT Mlll1' 80,000.00 7',620.73 82,500.00 9,200.00 ,.,,uo 10,330.00 720.00 700.00 720.00 1,000.00 915.91 950.00 .oo .00 .00 90,920 90,400.30 94,500 412,150.00 446,840.00 G,000.00 704,515.00 679,315.20 618,525.00 l,SJ\u0026gt;.00 4,101.lD 4,000.00 l,118,2515 1, 130,B.\u0026gt; 1,047,525 16,3'20.00 l\u0026amp;,318.71 li,320.00 7,0J\u0026gt;.00 7,032.19 7,030.00 .oo .oo .oo 23,B 23,351.90 23,B U,\u0026amp;85.00 ll,filS.00 11,'85.00 23,380.00 23,3112,04 23,380.00 30.00 25.00 30.00 35,0!IIS 35,092.04 35,0!IIS 1,116,700 1, t, 159.'4 1,105,970 33,456,27-4 33, '10, 1.14.20 34,164,118 10 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET 1994-95 tlWMc NCOil)l TIHII LI I'Ir'IrIJLE IffCi.O C)Ci ll : JPTIJII8L3I IC C CCIE I@~ . ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET Steve Jones Jack, Lyon, \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Attorneys At Law June 20, 19 94 3400 TCBY Tower, 425 W Capitol Little Rock AR 72201-3472 Dear Steve: JUN 2 0 1994 Oifice oi Desegrega\\ioMn on\ntori:ig As directed by the June 10, 1994 court order, this document represents the 1994-95 tentative budget for North Little Rock School District. The document contains six sections--Revenue and Expenditures\nExpenditures by Function, Object, and Function/Object for Salary, Operating, and Debt Service Funds\nFive Year Revenue and Expenditure Projection\nBudget Notes\nSalary Schedules\nand Program Analysis. The Revenue and Expenditure section provides graphs for 1994-95 projected revenue and expenditures. The revenue graph shows the amount of local, state, and federal revenue projected for the operating, debt service, capital outlay, and federal funds. The expenditure graph shows the combined expenditures projected for the funds included on the revenue graph and the salary fund. This section also provides detailed revenue for the operating budget and the federal programs. The beginning balance, ending balance, and a summary of expenditures for the operating, capital outlay, building/bond, and federal budgets are also included in this section. The second section provides expenditures by function, object, and function/object for the salary, operating, and debt service funds. The third section of this document provides a five year projection of revenues and expenditures for operating, capitol outlay, buildings, and federal programs. The Budget Notes section provides information regarding local tax revenue reduction, state funding, workers compensation, the need for millage increases, and the loss of desegregation settlement funds. The fifth section of the document contains the end-of-the-year (FY94) salary schedules for administrators, teachers, and classified employees. The program analysis for one new program and one expanded program is included in the =inal section of the document. AJ.~ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 A final 1994-95 budget document will be produced for board approval and submission to the Arkansas Department of Education and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring once the District's books have been closed for the 1993-94 fiscal year and additional .revenue information has been received from the state. Sincerely, Donald Watkins Assistant Superintendent Business Services VS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET .. 1994-95 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-95ANNUALBUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Board of Directors, Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents ..................................... l REVENUEA ND EXPENID T URES Revenue Graph ........................................................ 2 Expenditure Graph .................................................... 3 Revenue and Expenditures -- Operating, Capital Outlay, Building/Bond, and Federal Programs ................................ 4 Revenue -- Operating Budget .......................................... 5 Expenditures -- Operating Budget ..................................... 6 Revenue and Expenditures -- Federal Programs ......................... 7 EXPENDITUREFSO R SALARY,O PERATIONASN D DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Expenditures by Function ............................................ .8 Expenditures by Object .............................................. 15 Expenditures by Function/Object ..................................... 21 FIVE-YEARR EVENUEA ND EXPENDITURPER OJECTIONS Revenue Projections -- 1994-1999 .................................... 77 Expenditure Projections -- 1994-1999 ................................ 78 BUDGETN OTES Budget Notes ........................................................ 79 SALARYS CHEDULES Admin is tra tors ...................................................... 80 Teachers ............................................................ 81 Classified Employees ................................................ 83 PROGRAAMN ALYSIS Army JROTC ?rogram ...........................\n...................... 86 Reading RecoveryProgram Addition ................................... 91 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION Pat Blackstone, President Prentice Dupins, Vice President Marty Moore, Secretary Lynn Hamilton J. W. Johnson Mable Mitchell Larry Shadid James R Smith. Superintendent Assistant Superintendents Bobby Acklin - Student Affairs Mable Bynum - Desegregation Bobby New - Instruction Donald Watkins - Business Services 1 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE STATE REVENUE $20,567,680 53% 1994-95 LOCAL REVENUE $15,505,500 40% FEDERAL REVENUE $3,025,000 8% TOTAL REVENUE = $39,098,175.00 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES Salar lea 1994-95 Benefits $3,465,000.00 Debt Service $1,200,000.00 Insurance/Other $221,000.00 Equipment $855,000.00 Supp Ilea $1,565,000.00 Services $2,440,000.00 $1,120,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES = $39,310,000.00 3 OPERA TING BUDGET l'UNDS Ot. 02. ._ 04 TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE EXPENDITURES Salaries Benefits Tui1ion Services NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 1990-1995 - - 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 --ACTUAL - ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED - -- $32,294,537.77 $34,645,116.10 $34,680,190.72 $35,888,462.00 $~89,901.75 $24 704 357.88 $24 654 619.76 $26 527,859.00 $2,539,762.48 .:.!~.687,g51 .oo $2,624 924.22 $2 774,990.00 _$1,115,205.60 $1,089,105.75 $1,067,374.16 $1,100,00Q_.~ --- -- --- $2,102,210.72 -$2,240,998.57 $2, 15 9,022.38 $2,463,635.00 --- ~~pp..!!!!_ - - --$1,246,073.84 $1,449,719.28 ~1,244,849,46 $1,263,387.00 Equip'!!_ent __ -- -~- $770,454.71 J41!(!,095.~ ~g11!,g~-I!~ _g~,!!l!-00 - lnsurance/O1her - - - _ $3~3,8~~-4! __ $25!',8~!}-!I! ~25!},~0~.Q! __ $2IZ,49~.oo Debt Service - - - $1,169,554.97 $1,194,864.61 $789,641.15 $1,166,700 00 TOTAL EXPENDiTURES $3 i ,526,988.48 $34,111,219.28 $33,015,228.07 $35,813,183.00 ENDiNG BALANCE -- $767,551.29 -$533,696.82 $1,664,962.65 - $75.279.00 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (06) TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $2,036,196.59 $2,794,03-4.45 $3,560,377.92 $3,663,986.00 EXPENDITURES Salaries $778,814.49 $1,181,949.19 $1,644,091.99 $2,020,744.00 Benefits -- $245,764.17 $334,065.01 $441,367.07 $575,744.00 --- Services --$138,083.28 $332,746.29 $472,493:90 $509,001.00 Sup11lies - ---- - --- __ $295,90!.9~ =!g82,309_99 $371 965.64 $323,069.00 t-- Equipment $243,540.22 $233,377.76 $206,103.77 $121,116.00 t-- Other c----$27,446.05 $37,279.48 $42,609.42 $64,278.02._ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,729,552.16 $2,401,747.72 $3,178,631.79 $3,613,952.00 ENDING BALANCE $306,644.43 $392,286.73 $361,546.13 $50,034.00 CAPITAL OUTLAY (05) BEGINNING BALANCE $161,616.30 $2,014.05 $165,463.62 $34,826.00 REVENUE $385,514.64 $494,814.65 $391,650.75 $400,000.00 EXPENDITURES $545,118.69 $311,365.08 $542,288.34 $420,000.00 ENDING BALANCE $2,014.05 $185,463.62 $34,828.03 $14,828.00 BUILDING (03)/BOND (10) FUNDS BEGINNiNG BALANCES ----- --$4,174,273.93 $1,396,597.95 $1,027,0i3.50 $3,277,801.00 REVENUE $38,792.52 $414,325.63 $4,012,465.94 $235,000.00 EXPENDITURES $2,816,468.50 $783,910.28 $1,761,676.00 $2,231,025.00 ENDING BALANCE $1,396 597.95 $1 027 013.50 $3,277 801.44 $1 261 ,776.0Q_ 4 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 PROJECTED BUDGETED CHANGE $36,900,753.87 $35,663,828.00 ($1,236,925.87 $26 905 600.00 $26 650 000.00 ($255 600.00 $3,010,900.00 $2,950,000.00 ($60,900.00 $1,116,220.00 $1,120,000.00 $3,780.00 ~.437,250.00 $2,110,000.00 -($327~50.00 ~!~~:::~~:~~ _ $1,g75,000.00 ($299,250.00 _!!35,000.QQ -=-(~09,~(!Q_.QQ _ $187,850.00 __ $__!~.Q\u0026lt;J:Q.00 _$2,150.00 $1,168,770.00 $1,200,000.00 $11,230.00 $36,665,100.00 $35,630,000.00 _{$.!,~~.!._02-~ $235,653.87 --$33,828.00 ($201,825.87 $3,663 986.23 $3,251,525.00 ($412 461.23 $2,019,900.00 $1,794,000.00 ($225,900.00 $583,650.00 $515,000.00 ($68,650.00 $463,650.00 $330,000.00 ($_!~~~50.QQ $206 250.00 $270,000.00 -~!l..!..750.QQ $106,100.00 $60,000.00 _($46, 100.00 $30,900.00 $31,000.00 $100.00 $3,412,450.00 $3,000,000.00 {$412,~so.oo, $251,536.23 $251,525.00 -/$11.23 $34 828.23 $1,028.00 ($33,800.23 $392,000.00 $670,000.00 $278,000.00 $425,800.00 $680,000.00 $234,200.00 $1,028.23 $11,028.00 $9,999.77 $3,277,601.44 -si:01ii.116.oo _J$2J6i ,025.44 --i 170,000.00 --$50,000.00 /i 120,000.00 $2,431,025.44 $200,000.00 ($2,231,025.44 $1 016 776.00 _ !86!J, 7'._7_6.,__Q_ _0($ J 50 Q_00..:.0-9 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE 1990-1995 ~ OPERATING BUDGET 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 SAi.ARY (01), 0l'l!RAllNG (02), \u0026amp; IJl!ITTSl!RVlCI! (04) ~TUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED BEGINNING BALANCE $576,482.48 $767,551.29 $533,896.92 $1,664,962.00 REVENUE LOCAL Pro~Taxes $8 318,915.54 $!!_,254 539.36 $8 463 731.24 $8 465,000.00 40% Pullback $3,273,349.66 $3,151,431.23 $2,659,432.57 $2,660,000.00 - 40% Pullback (Accrued) $928,368.16 ~1.039,428.11 $1,584,228.23 $1,585,000.00 - Delin uent Taxes ~693,558.60 $1,236,053.69 $960,646.26 $1,000,000.00 Excess Commissions -$30,328.77 $30,189.65 $31,612.84 $30,000.00 Land Redemption $117,506.10 $84,695.83 $92,073.43 $75,000.00 -- Tuition - Summer School $79,~3.42 $59 645.00 $66,435.00 ~-500:00 - Interest ---- ----- $224,913.67 $58,425.29 $144,538.58 $110,000.00 Pupil Activity Sales --$58,356.00 - $53,040.00 --$56,616.18 -,so,000.00 Rent and Miscellaneous $120,970.79 $130,096.65 $131,122.06 $95,500.00 Desell.!!9!!!on - Sec. VI!!..=_ LR $250,425.00 Desegregation - Sec. VIII.C - PCSSD $83,475.00 - Tuition - PCSSD $71,675.46 $120,489.78 __ $96,04I:~~ $100 000.00 County General and Severance Tax - -- $35,236.96 --,34,981.02 $35,830.83 ~,ii'1oojio - TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE $13,953,123.13 $14,253,015.61 $14,322,314.76 $14,613,600.00 REVENUE, STATE MFPA $13847 114.00 $16 296 020.00 $16 096 402.01 $16 361 513.00 State A ortionment/Workers' Comoensation $28 896.00 $28 934.54 $26 479.49 - Transportation Aid - $368,946.00 $588, I 97 .00 $513,002.00 $494,317.00 - M-to-M lncen1ive $532,463.00 $816,988.00 $1,131,696.00 $1,070,000.00 Com ensatory Education ----- --$337,951A7 - $219,725.48 $251,557.04 $234,439.00 Special Education Supervisor -- $65,734.00 $67,150.00 $67,150.00 ~67,150.00 Act 591 Residential ---,,, 480.20 ~.867.80 $26,957.82 $25,000.00 Seecial Education Preschool $93 695.00 $156202.00 $314 325.00 Vocational Education $54,959.00 $48,934.00 $80,435.98 $24,602.00 ABC Preschool $161,500.00 $274,585.00 $234,116.00 Deseg.!!9alion - Sec. VIII.B $778,050.00 $389,025.00 $389,025.00 $389,025.00 Desegre11ation - Sec. VIII.C $293,239.74 $471,134.13 $455,368.81 $57,075.00 Ma11net/M -to-M Transoortation $285 798.36 $327 148.98 $260 337.00 $300,000.00 Other State $46,450.56 $61,616.22 $36,039.95 $28,338.00 - Public Law 874 and Olher $55,126.00 $33,240.00 -~.762.00 $22,500.00 TOTAL STATE AND UNRESTRICTED FEDERAL REVENUE -m,706,208.33 s1ii.iiii. 176. i's $19,790,000.08 $19,622,40!).~ TOTAL7.~AL~OUNTY\nSTATEANo 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 PROJECTED BUDGETED CHANGE $1,664,962.55 $235 653.00 {$1,429,309.55 $8,514 794.30 $8,320 000.00 ($194 794.30 $3,295,781.35 $3,250,000.00 ___!~45,781.35 $863,568.65 $1,000,000.00 $136,431.35 $1,203,713.06 $1,150,000.00 1$53,713.06 $30,561.43 $30,000.00 1$561.43 $102,961.29 $100,000.00 ($2,961.29 ~ $76,50\u0026lt;:1.00 ~6 500. 00 $0.00 $119,291.03 $110,000.00 ($9,291.03 --,ss,ooo.iiii - $50,000.00 ---($5,000.iiii $129,565.00 $100,000.00 ($29,565.00 $283,862.40 $345,000.00 $61,137.60 $94,620.79 $115,000.00 $20,379.21 __ $ !~54.~! ~!~,000.00 __ _J~,254.4 ! $35,369.94 $34,000.00 {$1,369.94 $14,922,843.65 $14,795,500.00 ($127,343.65 $16 733 932.00 $17 050 000.00 $316 068.00 $141 500.00 $14!~ $541,600.00 $500,000.00 ~~.600.00 $1,034,620.00 - $ 1,~~~:~~~:~~ ($34,620.00 ~82,057.00 --------- $97,943.00 --$67,150.00 ~7.150.00 $0.00 $41,250.00 $40,000.00 -_i!~Q.QQ $321 255.00 $325 000.00 $3 745.00 $24,602.34 $20,000.00 -($4,602.34 $234,439.01 $240,000.00 $5,560.99 $389,025.00 $389,025.00 $(!~ $57,082.32 $0.00 ___ (~~I,082,~ $271,430.00 - $275,000.00 g510.oo $140,000.00 $40,000.00 - ($100,000.00 ~5,665.00 $25,000.00 ___ l$665.oo -$20~64, 107.~7 s20.~~.e'75j\u0026gt;o _ $328,567.3~ - -- - UNRESIBICTED F_EDERAL REVENUE . -- S30 f!59,331.46Il33,885, 191.761$34 !_g,~14.841 S34.236 ooo.QQ.][135,186,951 .film~~ 175.~I _ J~o~~~-~ NON-REVl:NUEliECEIPTS (Sales, Insurance, Retund, M~ ___ !l00,134.01 I J55,135.561 $55,264.44 l7,500.00 ___ $18,840,~l ..J!Q,000.00, __ (~.,_8~Q-QQ TRANSFERS TQl!:ROM OTHER FUNDS $958,589.82 ($62,762.51 ($21,285.48 ($20,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 GRAND TOTAL REVENUE, Nor-f.=REVENUE, - -- ~ -- -- - --- -- ------ ------ - --- - - - -  BALANCES ANO ( + OR -l TRANSFERS ( $32,294 537 .77 U34 TIS, 1 I 6. l O I $34,680\nl9o:12)fl~888,\"4-~2.:!1fi H_ ~ !_6\n11.QQ\nl.!!3,811! .~,66:J:,628_.Lo o( $ j ,2.?._6,93s.sr 5 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES 1990-1995 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 1004-95 ~lU~L=--f------'A~C~T~U~A~L,.__1--_:..:AC.::..:..TU=-A~L=---1--~B=-U=-D=-G=E~TE=-D=---+-----=-P:..:AO=JE=-C=-T~E~D,._+-~B:..:U~D:..:G~E:..:T~E~Dc..--1---\"C~H~IIN=GE~-----l TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCES SALAnY FUND EXPENDITU\"n'\"E'\"\"s=c.._--_________ _ $32,294,537. 77 _ $34,645, 11_.c6:..:.1_.c0+-~S~34,.1cO. O:C.7.:~-6-26-+.0 -~_,S :..:3:..:5~,68:..::..:8~,4_62~-:..:oo7-5+3-_~.'8-367~-+,o-$o~o3-~5,~_, 003-~,8_2_8_.oo,-2+__3S6__1,~ 92_5_._8-17 1----r.A\"'D,,,Mc,,l,,,N\"\"IS\n:c,T\n..:RA,,::..:.l:..:O:..:R~S=--------------- _S2,27 ,595.9 ~S2,  34,  17.93 __ S2,389,~63=0~.0=~~S=2,520,025.00 $2,176,450.00 TEACHERS $15,069,059.05 $17,222,527.5 $16,642,870.66 S17,11 4,700.00 S16,0 6,960.00 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS _ $302,765.34 __ S3J26.529.~,_. $341,415.27 $340,000.00 $378,860.00 1----r.T=iOccl~A-=L'=C=,\nE::\nAc,:,T\n,.:l,:..,F\n,:IE='D\n,..S=-A..::LA=R'-\"IE=-S=-----------+--'s'-'1-'.,7\n4.4,606.363~ , $19,963,474.69 $ 19,57, 116. 17 S20, 70, 725.00 S21,202,310.00 ,____ __.-'-F~A\"-'INGBEE NEFIIS i- $5~,099.~-=- S533,289.66 $524,031.13 $525,775.00 _$~_?8,050.00 TUITION $1,115,205.60 $1,089,105.75 S1,067,374.16 $1,100,000.00 __!.!., 116,220.00 TOTAL SAU\\flY FUND EXPENDITURES'----- _ S!._9,:175,745.17 $21,60_!!,670.10 __ $21, 165,521.~ $22,330,500.00 $22,646,560.00 $2,725,450.00 ($51,000.00 $18,124,550.00 S77,570,QQ. $375,000.00 ($3,680.0~ $21,225,000.00 $22,690.00 $525,000.00 ~ (!,!,050.QQ, $1,120,000.00 $3,760,~ $22,870,000.00 $23,420.~ - - O~11NG FUND EXPENDllUnES _ ~ nEGULAA PHOG111\\MS _i_,,., i~53,,,.,.7,=s,9oc=5l-_-.-,i ...,l,=5=19,,.,,=00=5~.2=, ....-.- '~1,.,,62=7\"\"',82=5.=4=5,__s2,.,,.,_05=5c\",863=~0.0.4.= ,.-,6-'7-27,:,=-_c0.c 0, c:-=_o_oS 2, 11155, 50.00 ,_{$3 i02, 150.00 SPECIAL EDUCATION $232,079.61 $269,601.63 $327,404.66 $466,009.00 $4e7,960.00 $394,450.00 $93,510.00 1---+.\nIIO=C~A.i,T\n:IO,c\n.\nN~A.L~E~D\nU~CA:,\n,,,,T~IO\n,,N,\n.,,=----------+---\n',,:3'=,1\n,2,,\n2:,c.\n53=8\n'11- --=:cS2\n.4\n.\n5:.:,3\n,49,\n.:\n.38\n+---,$.\n3,:C19=''=065~.36'==1f---'~26=1:'-:,0\n23~.oo,=l----\nS,~258,ao.oo $234,960.00 ($23,500.00 l---!.\nCO~M~P':-E\nN~SA~TO~R~Y,\nE~D\n,\nUc\n,CA\n,.'='T~IO~N~=~--------+--'S'-\n:58~8,813. 72 S 1,313 139. 75 $782,927.75 $766,024.00 S7i 7,030.00 $815,020.00 $97 ,ll90.00 ___ OTHER INSTRUCTIONALPAOGnAMS $78,334.88 $63,1127.27 _ $82,727.23 $152,082.00 $159,170.00 $144,260.00I ($14,800_.QQ PUPIL SUPPORT $495,775.16 $480,144.36 ~,-~=.,,=00=. 0 7=3..,. ..- ~,~52=3', 05=7~1.=o1o-- --,,.$648, 130.00 $525,110.0011$123,020.QQ STI\\FF SUPPORT ~6,318.68 $758,657.78 $795,427.64 $1,024,808.00 ~091,500.00 ___!960, 110.00 .__{!1_!!_,390.00 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT $406,405.63 $431,209.00 $449,835.91 $467,100.00 $492,830.00 $439,550.00 {$53,280.00 1-~---+P='R:'cl:ccN\n.\ncC\nIP,.\nA.::L~__,..,s_,..O='F,,:,F,:.:IC:\n:E~-------------+~,.,cSc.:115==-=8'-', 1.,::00==.37 $635,281.00 $629,564.22 $666,821.00 $006,560.00 $545,450.00 '---IB!!~I 10.00 BUSINESS SUPPORT $5,006,876.04 $5,132,953.00 $5,100,194.84 $5,302,290.00 $5,241,300.00 $4,000,750.00 .__(!,!~ 0 550.00 f---+.C\"'E\n:N\n.\n.T:'FIAL:c\n.\n~S~U:'.,,P_',,P_O__~_A_c_,_T_ __ --+---:$265, 134.66 $205,117.23 $186,702.32 $206,330.00 $194,300.00 $175,700.00 ($18,660.00 OTHER SUPPORT $135,915.49 $220,466.79 $225,795.6 $239,010.00 $252.~-.QQ...__..!~,050.QQ __ (!28,430.00 1----+NO=='N~-\nBO=N.::D:c,i.:.:NO:\n::,:.N=,,-:P:no::G\n:RA:\n:M:1\n:\nc\no\nM\nM\nu:N:1rv::::=========--J.~~~S-9-,-8-85.00 $14,1167.~~ $5,604.29 $15,000.00 $12,250.00 $15,000.00 $2,750.00 f---+Tc.:O=.T:..:A..:.:L=.0:::.:...P.:::E.:..,RA:..:..:_Tl::.:N:.::G:..:F:...:U_,::N__ ::D::...,:EX::+.:-:'.$_'-P'1.:C::EC.0:..,:N,,o9:6::D.:.::..::.I1T,\n::.,:6:U6$6:1:=.1R-,:..3:::31E40:_.,:\n:4_S6l: ....._5 7 S 11,059,865.46 $12,246,991.00 $12,629,750.00 $11,560,000.00 1$1,069, 750.00 DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES I PRINCIPAL $557,646.62 I INTEREST $610,948.45 l--~l,.:,F.::IS::,:C::::\nIIL.~F~E\"-'E\"-'S\"------------------\u0026lt;-~--- 1 TOTAL DEBT SEHVICE EXPENDITURES $959.00 $1,180,554.97 TOTAL SALl\\nY, OPERATING I\\ND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS EXPENDITURES ENDING BA.LANCES $31,526,986.48 $767,551.29 $637,259.78 $556,636.89 $007.94 ~1. 194,664.61 $34,111,219.28 $533,800.82 6 $224,285.46 $440,155.00 $474,845.00 $485,500.00 $10,655.00 $564,799.49 $724,985.00 $709,800.00 $710,000.00 $200.00 $756.20 $1,560.00 1-----,,c $4, 125. 00 $4,500.00 $375.00 $789,8  i.15 $1,166 700.00 $1,168,770.00 $1,200,000.00 --,ti,230.00 ----- $33,015 228.07 $35,744,191.00 $36,005,100.00 $35,630,000.00 (!!,Q35, 100. OQ $1,664,962.65 $144,271.00 $235,653.87 $33,828.00 ($201,825.1!! FEDERAL GRANTS BEGINNING BALANCES REVENUE -- EVEN START CHAPTER1- - - ,__ ciiAPTEii 2 MEDICAID NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 1990-1995 11190-111 111111-112 111112-113 111113-114 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED $1111,1127 .811 $21111,1144.43 $3112 2111.73 $311,545.00 -- - -------- $134,430.00 $125,571.00 $122,31111.00 $1,1811,!!'!-~ __!!,!52,3111.00 --,reiii.112.00 $1 6111,000.00 $711,1104.00 $102,634.66 $73,515.00 $115,5113.00 $36 771.00 $44:657.76 ~~,.'!!11.78 SP ED PRESCIIOOL !SECTION 8111 AND ec9 __ $298,701.44 $354,585.00 ._!41,000.00 $3116 140.00 --- HEAD START $0.00 $22,061.00 $48,6411.00 $71,325.00 TIT\\.E VI-B .... -,300 32\"i:oo $300, 1115.00 $309,238.00 $3111,554.00 --- Pl.. 111----313 $31 751.00 ~27 4011.00 $21,704.00 $11 351.00 --- HOMELESS ASSISTANCE $21,000.00 $21,175.00 JTPA $41 11111.51f1- -----------!~ 12 4. 111 $114,151.311 $221,587.00 CARL PERKINS VOCATIONAL AID $117,172.14 $104 21111.00 $134 571.12 $141411.00 EISENHOWER MATH/SCIENCE $20 777.00 $30 1711.00 $42,740.00 $42,000.00 f------- DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION $!3,207.00 __ $_110,0111.~ $112 111.00 $112 900.00 --- ASBESTOS HAZARD EMERGENCY --~!,1110.00 --- EOXTXHOENR _E_N_E RGY $53 020.00 __ !~!,_:!05.00 ._!~!!,~~-00 $0.00 $511,040.00 $10 322.00 TOTAL REVENUE $1 ,841 ,5111. 70 $2 4114,3110.02 $3, 1111 0110.29 $3,212,44i:OO TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $2 031 11111.511 $2 7114 034.45 $3 580 377.02 $31111311111.00 EXPENDITURES --- REGULAR PROGRAMS ~45!_~ $311,173.72 $32,270.110 $31,875.00 SPECIAL EDU~~!ION $~'!,~~\n!! ~3 7 ,531.oi !~H.2111.111 $358,0511.00 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION $73 001.04 -. --$134.124.118 $1113,807.13 ~222,780.00 - COMPENSATORY EDUCATION $1152 250.1111 $1,182,323.20 $1,355 723.611 $1 704,518.00 --- OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS $12 1104.52 .~~~ :!~!:~~ $14,731.70 $11,1112.00 - PUPIL SUPPORT --~!~711~Q $441,017.06 $1121,01111.00 STAFF SUPPORT $145,3117.44 $2114 ,3112.34 ~~!!,312.43 $508,807.00 BUSINESS SUPPORT $102 11111.51 $1111,101.73 $121 ,7211.51 $114,041.00 OTHER/CENTRAL SUPPORT $5,7113.20 $10 1111.110 $21 71111.11 $15,500.00 NON-PROGRAMMED $27 441.05 $38,144.41 $41,1154.42 $51111111.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES $13,170.54 $11,117.711 $101,258.13 $20, 1711.00 TOTAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS EXPENDITURES $1,731,55!-.!.! $2,401,747.72 -\n\"i 71,131.711 $3,1114,052.00 ENDING BALANCE $211111144.43 $3112 2111.73 $311 545.23 $4111134.00 I 7 111113-114 111114-115 111114-115 PROJECTED BUDGETED CHANGE $311 2111.00 $251,5311.00 1$1211 750.00 $122 31111.00 $107,000,~ -1!!~.=!1111.00 $1,5113,471.00 $1 800,000.00 __ !!,5211.00 $85,5113.00 $113,700.00 $28,107.00 $47 188.00 $47,000.00 ,---------,J!! 118 .00 $3116 140.00 $400,000.D!! $3,860.00 $71,325.00 $72,000.00 $675.00 $3111 554.00 $320,000.00 $4411.00 $11,410.00 $111 500.00 1$1 1110.00 $21,175.00 $21,000.00 ($175.00 $210 000.00 $75,000.00 1$135 000.00 $141 411.00 $147,200.00 ($1,211.(!~ $42,000.00 $40,000.00 ($2 000.00 $85,230.00 $110 000.00 1$25 230.00 $0.00 $14,131.00 __(~~.~!.:00 --$10,322.00 $800.00 __ j!!,722.(!!! \u0026gt;---2311 7211.00 $3 000,000.00 ($238 7211.00 $31111012.00 $3 251 5311.00 1$31111.4711.00 $211175.00 $30,000.00 $1.325.00 $375,815.00 $350~.00 ~~?~,!!.!-00 ------$1118,250.00 $170,000.00 _ _j!~!.-~50.~ ___!!,.'!!_5, 770.00 *' 310,000.00 __j_~_?5,770.00 $15,030.00 $5,000.00 __!!10,03~,~ --$543,1130.00 $500,000.00 ...........J!~3,1130.00 .... $425,790.00 ssoo:000.00 ,,._210:00 $43,380.00 $80,000.00 $18,840.00 $23,5110.00 $15,000.00 --iii 5110.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $22,470.00 $10,000.00 =3i ~70.00 $3 412 450.00 $3 000,000.00 41!,450~ . $205 5112.00 $251 5311.00 $45 1174.00 EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION\nOBJECT\nAND FUNCTION/OBJECT FOR SALARY (01) OPERATING (02) AND DEBT SERVICE (04) FIVE YEAR REVENUEA ND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION 1994-1999 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS 1994-1999 OPERATING BUDGET 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-96 1996-:--99 SAi.ARY (01), Ol'l!RATING (01), \u0026amp; l)l!IIT Sl!RVICI.! (04) - PROJECTION PROJECTION - PROJECllON PROJECTION PROJECTION BEGiNNING BALANCE llEVENUE, LocAL - --- -~ -~= ~iop~jty\n- ~~e~ --=- - - - -~~-:------=~:._ __ -_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-- $6,320,000.00 To\n4o6,400.oo - $9,002,5oiioo $9,264,100.00 -$9,449,400.00 40% Pullback $4,250,000.00 $4,615,000.00 $4,707,300.00 $4,601,400.00 $4,697,500.00 - __ 0ei1nquentTaxes - _____ =- - - ----~ =----==- -- $1,150,000.00 -s, .1r~.ooo,oo s1. 115,000.00 s1. 100,000.00 s1.200,ooo.oo Excess Commissions $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 umd Redemption _ _ ~- _ - - --=:__-_-~_- $100,000.00 -$102,000.00 $104,000.00 $106,000.00 $106,000.00 Tuition - Summer School $76,500.00 -- $76,000.00 $76,000.00  $76,000.00 $60,000.00 -- - iriierest - ------- ------- $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 --- PujiiAcilvfiy_s_a,_le_s ___ ---- --------- $50,000.00 --$50,000.00 $50,000.00 --$50,000.00 $50,000.00 Rent and Miscellaneous _______ -$100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 =--..-=_- Desegregation - Sec. VIII.C_- LR___ --$345,000.00 __ $171~560.00 1~~~~-- ,~---------, _____ Desegregation - Sec. VIII.C - PCSSD $115,000.00 $57,190.00 ==T uition - PCSSO $115,000.00 --$115,000.00 $115,000.00 g~~'!!Y.en~~! and Severance Tax_ --$34,000.00 $34,000.00 $34,000.00 T~TAL !-_9CA_L_n~_E_N_U____ _____ -_-_-__ ----- =$14,795,500:00 $1 ~! 24,150.00 $15,565,600.00 REVENUEs, tATE ------ $115,000.00 --$115,000.00 $34,000.00 __ $34\n000:00 $15,676,500.00 $16, 1_73,900.00 --- MFPA--------~~~-~~~--~~-----i s11,05o,ooo.oo $17,400,000.00 -s11,15o,ooo.oo $16,100,000.00 sie\n~ao.000.00 ___ State ~~rtionment/Workers' Compensation $141,500.00 $145,000.00 $150,000.00 $160,000.00 $175,000.00 ,____ _ T!ans~!\"lation Aid - -$500,000.00 $510,000.00 $520,000.00 $530,000.00 $540,000.00 ==M -to-M Incentive __________ --$1,000,000.00 -$1,000,000.00 $1,000,000 00 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 Compensatory Education ~~-- --$480,000.00 $460,000.00 $480,000.00 $460,000.00 $480,000.00 ___ ~pe~ial Education Supervisor $67,150.00 - $67,150.00 $67,150.00 $67,150.00 $67,150.00 ==A ct 591 Residential __________ $40:000.00 1_ _ $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 ~peci~I Education Preschool $325,000.00 $331,500.00 $340,000.00 $344,750.00 $351,750.00 Vocational Education $20:000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 ==A BC Preschool --$20:000:00 $244,600.00 $249,700.00 $254,700.00 $259,600.00 De~~egation - Sec. Viii.B $369,025.00 -$309:025.00 $0.00 - $0.00 ---- - - so:oo ,__ __ , Mag~eVM-to-M Trans~rtalion $275,000.00 -$260,500.00 $266,100.00 $291,600.00 $297,700.00 ,__ __ 101her Stale $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 ___ Public Law 674 and Other $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 _ __ TOTAL STA TE AND UNRESTRICTED. FEDERAL Rf:'!'.ENUE ~0,592:675.00 $20,972,975.00 $20,967,950.00 $21,353,400.00 _ $21,776,400.00 77 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS 1994-1999 OPERATING BUDGET l'IJNl\u0026gt;S 01, 02, .t. 04 TOTAL llEVENUE AND BALANCE.----EXPENDiTi. JnEs --------- --- saiai,es oeiier.1s Tuilioi, -- - ------- ----- -------- ------- Services ~~PR~~~ - -- -- ----- - ---- --- Equif)lllent Insurance/Other Debt Service TOTAL EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE ---C--'--'---'-.c._--- - ---- FEDERAL PROGRAMS (06) NDBALANCE -- -- -- --- - -------- - - TOTAL REVENUE A EXPENDITURES -- Saliines - ---- -- -- ------- ---------- Benefits --- Services - == Supelie~ __ ___ Equi~nt ---- ---- ----- - - --- ----- ---- ., __ ---- 01her TOTAL EXP ENDING BALANCE ENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY (05) BEGiNN ING BALANCE REVENU EXPEND ENDiNG E iruRES BALANCE. ------ --- BUILDING (03) BEGINNING REVENUE EXPENDiru BALANCES AES . - --- - - ---------- - - - 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-96  PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION ------- $35,~63,625.00 _!35J IQ..9 50. oo $36,603:26~~00 $37,341,040.00 - ------- $26,650,000.00 $27,019,700.00 $27,300,995.00 $27,639,410.00 $2,950,000.00 $3,003,100.00 $3,033,100.00 -$3,oaD36o.oo $1,120,000.00 $1,140,160.00 $1,151,560.00 -$1, 169,505.00 $2,110,000.00 $2,147,980.00 $2,169,460.00 $2,204,170.00 - $1,275,000.00 $1,297,950.00 $1,310,930.00 -$1,331 :900.00 $135,000.00 $137,530.00 --siao:oos.oo --$141,130.00 - $190,000.00 $193,420.00 $195,355.00 $198,480.00 -$(200,000.00 $1,221,600.00 $1,233,815.00 $1,253,555.00 $35,630,000.00 $36,161,440.00 $36\ns34~0.00 la1,219:8oo.oo $33,825.00 --$9,510.00 $69,140.00 ----,121 : 150. 00 _ $3,251,536.~ $3,264,000.00 $3,330,000.00 $3,395,000.00 -$1,794,000.00 e-$1$~~=: ~!~:: $1,617, 120.-00 $1,854, 160.00 $515,000.00 $522,200:00 $533:260.00 --$330,000.00 $365,910.00 $369,570.00 $376,595.00 - --$270,000.00 -$270:ti75.00 -$273,300.00 -$278, 575: 00 ---$60,000.00 ---$60:iso.oo $60,750.00 $61,905.00 $31,000.00 $31,075.00 $31,390.00 --$31,985.00 $3,000,000.00 ~.042:985.00 $3,075,01 o:oo $3,136,480.00 ---$251,536.00 --s22i:015.oo --$25(990.00 ~58,520.00 --- $1,026.00 $11,028.00 $2,500.00 $10, $670,000.00 $1, 1 rn:soo.oo $1.137,aoo:oo $1,160, $660,000.00 $1~125:526.00 -Si\nl 30,ooo:oo -,D10, --m:02e.oo -- s,\nooo. oo ---$10,300.00 - $ $1,016,776.00 $866,776.00 $781,000.00 ~741,000.00 $50,000.00 $35,000.00 --$ 0:000.00 $45,000.00 $200,000.00 $120,776.00 $80,000.00 $0.00 __ !666: ??60. 0 -$781,000.00 $741,000.00 ~186,000:00 78 - 1996-99 PROJECTION $36,111,450.00 -$20.312,680.00 $3,134,050.00 $1, 189,875.00 $2,241,640.00 $1,354,545.00 ~-$143,530.00 $201,855.00 $1,274,865.00 ~I,~53,040.00 $258,410.00 $3,464,000.00 $1,693,240.00 $545,!~-00 $365,125.00 $264,150.00 $63,145.00 ~$32,625.00 --$3,203,415.00 ---$260:585.00 BUDGET NOTES BUDGET NOTES 1. Local tax collection in 1994-95 is projected to be less than 1993-94 due to the removal of household property from personal tax collections and the Omega decision. 2. The MFPA revenue projection is based on the state's addition of $27,000,000 to the public school fund for 1994-95. This projection is based on conversations with ADE personnel approximately two weeks ago. This projected MFPA does not equal the amount indicated by the state prior to the special legislative session earlier this year, but our weighted average daily membership has decreased by approximately 160 and the state was projecting the addition of $50,000,000 at that time. If the state does not add the $27,000,000 to the fund, the District will have to consider budget adjustments. 3. Due to Act 862 of 1993, it has been necessary to increase the costs for the fringe benefits. Workers' compensation costs are projected to increase to $360,000 for 1994-95, but additional state revenue for workers' comp will help offset approximately $140,000 of this cost. 4. The increase in capital outlay revenue for 1994-95 is based on the passage of two mills for capital outlay in September, 1994. The major part of these funds will be used for roof replacement, asbestos abatement, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, other facility and grounds improvements, and the purchase of equipmenc. The amount of increase for 1994-95 represents the 40 percent pullback amount. The bulk of the increase would be received in 1995-96 and is reflected on the five year projection. 5. The 1993-94 expenditures shown on pages 8-76 are year-todate expenditures through June 10, 1994. When the District books are closed at the end of the 1993-94 fiscal year, these reports will be updated. 6. The final desegregation payment from the state, L~SD, and PCSSD will be in 1995-96. Passage of a two mill tax increase in September, 1995, will be necessary to replace these funds. Our five year projection is based on the approval of this additional millage. 79 SALARY SCHEDULES NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATIVE SALARY SCHEDULE 1993-1994 I II III IV V VI Steps MA MA+lS MA+30 MA+45 SPEC DOCT 00 26060 28138 30216 31255 32294 34372 01 27137 29215 31293 32332 33371 35449 02 28215 30293 32371 33410 3 4449 36527 03 29292 31370 33449 3448 8 35526 37605 04 30370 32448 34526 35565 36604 38682 05 31448 33526 35604 36643 37682 39760 06 32525 34603 36681 37720 38759 40837 07 35681 37759 38798 39837 41915 08 38837 39876 40914 42993 09 41992 44070 10 45148 POSITION INCREMENTS (% of Base Salary) OTHER INCREMENTS Administrative Asst. Asst. Prin (MS \u0026amp; Elem) Asst. Sr. High Prin. Elementary Principal Jr. High Principal Coordinator Supervisor Sr. High Principal Director Asst. Superintendent 8.0 10.0 12.0 15.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 23.0 23.0 35.0 Elementary principals are to receive an additional increment based on school enrollment ($1 per student in ADM based on previous year's third 9 weeks report.) Asst. Prin. and Adm. Asst. are to receive an additional increment based on school enrollment (.SO per student based on previous year's third 9 weeks report. ) All amounts are for 207 days of scheduled employment. FRINGE BENEFITS include $129.98 per month ($99.00 paid by state\n$30.98 paid by District) for an individual hospitalization plan, $3.11 per month for $21,000 life insurance coverage, and $16.72 per month for an individual dental/visual plan, $4.69 per month for hospital indemnity, and $15.83 per month to be applied toward other approved coverage. The Superintendent may withhold an increment for poor or unsatisfactory service. An effective evaluation with processes of communication and documentation must support the withholding of an increment for poor or unsatisfactory service. Procedures conforming to the North Little Rock School District evaluation program must be utilized. Steps are based on previous experience. 06/94 80 Steps 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS CLASSROOM TEACHERS' SALARY SCHEDULE 1993-1994 I II III IV V VI VII BA BA+12 BA+24 MA MA+l5 MA+30 MA+45 18200 19028 19856 20684 21512 22340 23168 23996 24825 25653 26481 27309 28137 28965 29793 19110 20020 19938 20849 20766 21677 21594 22505 22422 23333 23250 24161 24079 24989 24907 25817 25735 26645 26563 27473 27391 28302 28219 29130 29047 29958 29875 30786 30703 31614 20931 21759 22587 23415 24243 25071 25899 26728 27556 28384 29212 30040 30868 31696 32524 21841 22669 23497 24325 25154 25982 26810 27638 28466 29294 30122 30950 31778 32607 33435 34263 22752 23580 24408 25236 26064 26892 27720 28548 29376 30204 31033 31861 32689 33517 34345 35173 36001 23662 24490 25318 26146 26974 27803 28631 29459 30287 31115 31943 32771 33599 34427 35256 36084 36912 37740 VIII SPEC 24572 25400 26228 27057 27885 28713 2 9541 30369 31197 32025 32853 33681 34510 35338 36166 3699 4 37822 38650 IX DOCT 26393 27221 28049 28877 29706 30534 31362 32190 33018 33846 34674 35502 36330 37158 37986 3 8815 39643 40471 All amounts are for 187 days of scheduled employment. Steps are based on previous experience. FRINGE BENEFITS include $129.98 per month (99.00 paid by State\n30.98 paid by District) for an individual hospitalization plan, $3.11 per month for $21,000 life insurance coverage, and $16.72 per month for an individual dental/visual plan, $4.69 per month for hospital indemnity, and $15.83 per month to be applied toward other approved coverage. Assigned substitutes will be paid at an annual rate of $11,425. Regular substitutes will be paid $39.80 per day. To qualify for education increments beyond BA, a teacher must have been admitted as a candidate for a MA degree. To ensure salary credit for hours above the MA, prior approval by the Director of Personnel is required. 06 /94 31 II SENIOR HIGH SUPPLEMENTAL PAY SCHEDULE 1993-1994 (PERCENT OF BASE SALARY) Head Football Coach ....................... 30.0 Head Basketball Coach ..................... 27.0 Head Track Coach .......................... 23.0 Head Baseball Coach ....................... 23.0 Head Volleyball Coach ..................... 23.0 Head Soccer Coach ......................... 23.0 Assistant Coach ........................... 20.0 Golf Coach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 0 Tennis Coach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 0 Swimming Coach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. O Band Director ............................. 15. 0 Choral Music. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 0 Drill Team Sponsor. . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 0 Cheerleader Sponsor ....................... 7.0 Yearbook Advisor .......................... 4. 0 Newspaper Advisor ......................... 4. 0 Literary Magazine Advisor ................. 4.0 Drama, Debate ............................. 4.0 Senior Class Chairperson .................. 4. 0 Senior Class Committee Member ............. 3.0 Student Council Advisor ................... 3. 0 Department Chairperson .................... 3.0 MIDDLE SCHOOL Al 1 Coaches ............................... 15 . 0 Band Director ............................. 10.0 Chor al Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 0 Cheerleader Sponsor ....................... 3.0 Pep Club Sponsor .......................... 2.0 Student Council Advisor. .................. 3.0 Department Chairperson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 0 School Newspaper .......................... 2.0 Literary Anthology ........................ 2.0 ALL AMOUNTS ARE FOR 187 DAYS OF SCHEDULED EMPLOYMENT. 82 Ref: CLSOOlS NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Date: 6/06/94 CLASSIFIED HOURLY SCHEDULE Time: 10:11:35 SCHOOL YE.AR 93-94 REVISION AS OF: 6/15/94 Step Amount Step Amount Step Amount 001 4.51 051 7.42 101 12.20 002 4.55 052 7.49 102 12.32 003 4.59 053 7.56 103 12.44 004 4.64 054 7.63 104 12.56 005 4.69 055 7. 72 105 12.68 006 4.75 056 7.80 106 12.82 007 4.80 057 7.88 107 12.95 008 4.85 058 7.96 108 13.08 009 4.90 059 8.04 109 13 .21 010 4.95 060 8.12 110 13 .34 011 5.00 061 8.20 111 13. 4 7 012 5.05 062 8.28 112 13. 61 013 5.10 063 8.36 113 13. 74 014 5.15 064 8.45 114 13. 88 015 5.20 065 8.53 115 14.02 016 5.25 066 B.61 116 14.16 017 5.30 067 B.69 117 14.31 01B 5.35 068 B.78 11B 14.45 I 019 5.40 069 B.87 119 14.59 020 5.45 070 8.96 120 14.73 021 5.51 071 9.05 121 14.B8 022 5.56 072 9.15 122 15.04 023 5.61 073 9.24 123 15.19 024 5.67 074 9.33 124 15.34 025 5.73 075 9.42 125 15.49 026 5.79 076 9.51 126 15.64 027 5.85 077 9.60 127 15.80 02B 5.91 07B 9. 69 128 15. 96 029 5.97 079 9.79 129 16.12 030 6.03 080 9.90 130 16.28 031 6.09 0B1 10.00 131 16.45 032 6.15 082 10.10 132 16.61 033 6.22 083 10.20 133 16.77 034 6.28 084 10.30 134 16. 94 035 6.34 085 10.40 135 17 .11 036 6.40 086 10.50 136 17.29 037 6.46 087 10.61 137 17.46 038 6.52 088 10. 71 138 17.63 039 6.58 089 10.82 139 17.80 040 6.64 090 10.93 140 17.99 041 6.71 091 11.04 141 18.17 042 6.78 092 11.15 142 18.35 043 6.85 093 11.26 143 18.53 044 6.92 094 11. 38 144 18. 72 045 7.00 095 11.49 145 18.90 046 7.07 096 11.60 146 19.09 047 7.14 097 11. 71 147 19.28 048 7.21 098 11. 83 148 19.48 049 7.28 099 11. 95 149 19.67 050 7.35 100 12.08 150 19.86 83 Ref: CLS004 Date: 6/06/94 Time: 10:09:43 CLASSIFIED CATEGORIES School Year 1993-1994 From Thru Catno Description Step Step Catno Description 200, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT (35\\) 80 104 711 MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN 205 SECRETARY (12\\) ASST.SUPT 63 90 712 ELECTRICAL HELPER 209 SUPERVISOR-BOOKKEEPING 115 127 715 ENERGY SPECIALIST 210 BOOKKEEPER (10\\) 61 89 716 MAINTENANCE ENERGY MNGT 2.15 SECR DIR/PRIN ( 9\\) 50 80 717 EMS HELPER 220 SECR ELEM PRIN (6\\) 47 78 718 MAINTENANCE HELPER 225 OFFICE SECRETARY (St) 47 78 720 LEAD HVAC 227 ELEM SECRETARY (3\\) 45 76 721 HVAC MECHANIC 230 SECRETARY 41 74 722 HVAC HELPER 231 MEDIA CLERK 41 74 725 LABOR FOREMAN 232 GUIDANCE CLERK 41 74 726 GENERAL LABOR LEADER 235 GENERAL OFFICE CLERK 41 74 727 GENERAL LABOR 240 241 245 246 250 251 252 260 265 275 280 400 401 402 403 404 501 503 505 507 509 511 600 601 602 603 SPECIAL ED ASSISTANTS ALC/SAC ASSISTANT COMPUTER LAB ASSISTANT CHAPTER I ASSISTANT HIPPY HOME VISITOR PARENT CENTER AIDE EVENSTART LUNCH AIDES CROSSING GUARDS ELECTRONIC TECH ELECTRONIC TECH LEAD NURSE (LPN) NURSE (ASSOCIATE) NURSE (DIPLOMA) NURSE (BS) NURSE (MS) HEAD MECHANIC MECHANIC MECHANIC'S HELPER BUS DRIVER BUS AIDE DISPATCHER CUSTODIAN LEAD CUSTODIAN LEAD CUSTODIAN W T/C HEAD CUSTODIAN 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 15 15 62 92 66 75 84 99 112 85 75 43 39 15 43 15 24 28 34 74 728 74 729 74 735 74 736 74 737 74 740 74 741 so 742 50 745 97 746 145 747 97 765 108 901 117 902 131 903 142 904 116 905 111 906 78 907 69 908 50 909 87 910 ,so 911 61 912 64 72 604 HEAD CUSTODIAN W T/C 38 75 605 MAINTENANCE CUSTODIAN 43 78 606 MAINTENANCE CUSTODIAN WTC 47 81 607 WAREHOUSEMAN 43 78 608 CUSTODIAL TEMPORARIES 1 14 610 CUSTODIAL SUPERVISOR 62 97 700 SUPVR OF PLANT SERVICES 92 149 701 SAFETY COORDINATOR 62 97 705 LEAD CARPENTER 85 136 706 MAINTENANCE CARPENTER 62 97 707 CARPENTER'S HELPER 36 78 710 LEAD ELECTRICIAN 92 136 710 LEAD ELECTRICIAN 92 136 84 GEN LABOR-STADIUM ATTND MAINTENANCE TEMPORARIES LEAD PAINTER PAINTER PAINTER HELPER LEAD PLUMBER MAINTENANCE PLUMBER PLUMBER HELPER LEAD ROOFER ROOFER ROOFER HELPER SECURITY MONITOR FOOD SERV ASST. (WORKER) FOOD SERV MGR/ELM/NON-CER FOOD SERV MGR/ELEM/CERT FOOD SERV MGR/SEC/NON-CER FOOD SERV MGR/SEC/CERT FOOD SERV ASST, MGR HS/NC FOOD SERV ASST MGR/HS/C FOOD SRV WREHSE MGR/NC FOOD SERV WREHSE MGR/CER FOOD SERV WREHSE ASST. FOOD SERV MGR/SUB/NC FOOD SERV MGR/SUB/CERT From Thru Step Step 85 116 36 78 92 138 62 97 36 78 36 78 92 136 85 116 36 78 62 97 21 78 21 74 21 19 85 62 36 92 85 36 85 55 36 21 15 24 28 34 38 24 28 42 46 36 24 28 74 30 136 97 78 136 116 78 97 82 78 97 so 61 64 72 75 61 64 78 80 78 61 64 I  I I  I CLASSIFIED SALARY SCHEDULE LONGEVITY PAY Employees that have reached the top of their salary range and are not eligible for another step will be awarded one percent (1%) longevity pay. Longevity pay is one percent of the base rate of the entry level for an employee's range. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS INCREMENTS FOR SECRETARIES Basic.................................................. 3.0 Associate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. O Advanced I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . O Advanced II............................................ 8. o Advanced III............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 0 Professional. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 0 Certified .............................................. 10. 0 Associate Degree ....................................... 8.0 Secretarial Diploma .................................... 8.0 (The above increments for secretaries are based on step 43.) 85 PROGRAMA NALYSIS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM ANALYSIS FOR ARMY ]ROTC PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North little Rock School district is in the process of implementing an Army ]ROTC program for the 1994-95 school year. After reviewing the objectives of the JROTC program and matching those objectives with the goals of the school district, JROTC was considered to be an excellent curricular vehicle to help achieve some of the district's goals. The positive image and reputation of Army ]ROTC programs will enhance the school climate at both campuses of North little Rock High School. Because the U.S. Army bears the major financial burden in implementing ]ROTC and provides annual on-going financial support, the benefits of the program can be realized with a small annual financial obligation incurred by the school district. BACKGROUND The Congressional Record of October i, 1992, contains the following statement in regard to the nationwide expansion of the JROTC program. \"It is a purpose of the Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps to instill in students in United States secondary educational institutions the values of citizenship, service to the United States, and personal responsibility and a sense of accomplishment.\" By expanding the number of ]ROTC programs, the Department of Defense is assisting schools who are working to meet the President's America 2000 Education goals. The North little Rock School District's goals, approved in the \\lay. 1994, Board of Education meeting, are consistent with the America 2000 goals. Specifically. ]ROTC programs can assist schools in meeting the following America 2000 goals and North little Rock School District goals: GOAL #2- high school completion GOAL #3- student achievement GOAL #5- citizenship GOAL #6- safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools After information about the expansion of ]ROTC programs was brought to our attention. it was decided to study the program. A study cornrninee was formed in late October, 1993. The cornrninee was convened on November 9, 1993, and completed its work on December 6, 1993. Committee composition included students, parents, teachers, administrators. and military representatives from Camp Robinson and Fisher Armory. lieutenant Colonel Teny Riddle of the U.S. Fourth Army's Warlord Brigade met with the committee on November 9 and offered technical assistance throughout the process. At the December 6 meeting, the committee recommended that an application for an Army JROTC program be submitted and. if approved. the program would be implemented in the 1994-95 school year. The Implementation Plan Section of this program analysis will detail additional steps taken by the North Little Rock School District in implementing JROTC. 86 PROBLEM DEFINITION The Army JROTC Program will provide students and staff with a vehicle to improve the school climate. develop student leaders. stress citizenship anc team work. and provide opportunities for \"unconnected\" students to find \"connections\" to school through enhanced self-esteem and participation in extra-curricular activities. After analyzing the JROTC program and considering its purpose in relation to school district goals. the following options appeared evident to us. 1. An application for an Anny ]ROTC program would not be submitted. This option was rejected. :?.. The application process could be delayed until the 1994-95 school year with implementation in 1995-96. Originally, the Department of Defense planned for an orderly growth of 200 programs annually over a five-year expansion plan. A combination of too rapid grov.th in programs and Congressional cutbacks in defense budgets suggests that the opportunity to apply may not exist in the 1994-95 school year. This option was rejected, also. 3. An application for a ]ROTC Program will be submitted for implementation in 1994-95. High schools in urban areas with significant minority populations and with children living in poverty were targeted in the expansion program. The district's JROTC study committee became convinced that North Little Rock High School met the criteria for JROTC expansion. In January, 1994, when Lt. Col. Riddle submitted applications from a four state area, North Little Rock High School's application was given the highest priority by Colonel Riddle. Ours was the first application approved in the four state area and one of only twenty-five ( 25) apprqved nationwide. RECO~TIATIONS The JROTC Study Cornmitte recommended at its December 6 meeting that the North Little Rock School District should apply for an Army JROTC Program. Superintendent James Smith accepted the committee's recommendation and presented the proposal to the North Little Rock Board of Education at their December 21 meeting where it was approved. An application for an Army JROTC program was immediately filed with Lt. Col. Riddle. OBJECTIVES Program objectives are: 1. teach decision making/problem solving skills 2. provide positive role models 3. develop leadership potential 4. strengthen self-esteem 5. promote disciplined environment G. develop responsibility - develop self-confidence 8. teach goal-setting 9. prevent alcohol and drug abuse 10. present career opportunities 87  11. enhance communication skills . 12. recognize student success/accomplishments 13. conduct citizenship training 14. build successful teams 15. promote physical fitness IMPACT ANALYSIS The impact of an Army ]ROTC program should be evident at both high school campuses in the following ways: 1. new and emerging student leaders 2. enhanced self-esteem 3. elevated levels of citizenship 4. improved levels of physical fitness 5. over time, increasing numbers of high school graduates 6. positive alternatives to drug abuse behavior and gangs , . strengthened links to the community through highly visible extracurricular activities RESOURCES ANALYSIS Expenses for an Anny JROTC Program are borne in large part by the U.S. Army. School districts are responsible for personnel costs, providing appropriate classroom and storage space, and providing instructors with teaching supplies. Personnel costs are dependent on the rank and length of service for an officer and a NCO. The U.S. Anny reimburses the school district 50% of the difference in the active duty and retired pay of the officer and non-commissioned officer. Annual personnel costs for two instructors are estimated to be $25,000 to $30,000 for both. One time costs for preparing classrooms to meet JROTC specifications are estimated to be approximately $5,000. Approximately 190 students in grades nine through twelve have enrolled in JROTC for 1994-95. Shifts in student course selections brought about by the introduction of JROTC into the high school curriculum should result in reduced staffing needs in other areas. In summary, ]ROTC can be implemented in 1994-95 at a cost of approximately $35,000 and can be funded through reduced personnel costs in the secondary program. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS FOR: Surveys we!\"e conducted with students and parents to determine interest in enrolling in the JROTC Program. Students in grades eight through twelve were surveyed with 310 students indicating that they would enroll in JROTC. The following table details student interest by race and gender. BM # students f:B percentage 22% BF 88 28% WM % 31% WF 53 17% CM CF 1 3 0.3% 1% TOTAL 310 99.3% One hundred parents were selected by computer for the survey. Even though only thirteen ( 13) parents returned the survey with ten (10) indicating their support of the program, parents in the community have expressed their support of the program . 8.8 AGAINST: Some secondary students indicated on their survevs that they did not support a ]ROTC program and saw no reason for it to be included in the high 'school curriculum. Because of the overall positive image of ]ROTC programs across the country and in the schools in Pulaski County. no negati\\E'. telephone calls or letters have been received. IMPLEMEJ\\TATIOK PLAJ\\ enroll students for 1994-95 interview applicants for the position of Senior Army Instructor employed Lt. Col. Artis Lofton for the position of Senior Army Instructor interview applicants for the position of non-commissioned officer prepare classrooms for ]ROTC implement ]ROTC program RESPONSIBILITY WHE~ principal/counselors Feb - April 1994 Director of Personnel April. 1994 Director of Sec Education high school principals Director of Personnel May 26, 1994 Director of Sec Education high school principals Director of Personnel May - June Director of Sec Education 1994 high school principals Director of School Plant June - July Services 1994 high school principals ]ROTC instructors August, 1994 high school principals 89 EXEClJITVES UMMARY NORTII UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DIS1RICT PRCXiRAMA NALYSIS FOR READINGR ECOVERY The North Little Rock School District has an extraordinaryl egacy of servicet o children. Since 1989. this tradition has expanded to include extensive efforts on behalf of very young children. The nern.ork of preschool programs is being supplemented in kinderganen and first grade with compensatory programs and the Early Prevention of School Failure. In 1991, the District began the Reading Recovery Program for first graders in mo elementary schools. The program has expanded each year until, presently, eight teachers are v.orking in eight schools implementing Reading Recovery. Believing thar Reading Recovery helps at-risk first graders deYelop strategies that will enable them to become independent readers, the North Little Rock School District proposes to expand the program by employing and training three additional teachers to teach in at least three additional schools at an approximate cost of $110,000. BACKGROUND The North Little Rock School District serves large numbers of disadvantaged children. Knowing that disadvantaged children come to school already functioning below peer level, District planners have emphasized early learning opportunities such as the Reading Recovery Program, 'Mlich was initiated in 1991 and has expanded each year until eight teachers now v.ork in eight of the fifteen elementary schools. Results of the Reading Recovery emanating from Ohio State University indicate that 85 percent of the children exiting the program stay on or above grade level through their elementary education years. Pretest/posttestr esults and student observationsi n the District indicates ubstantialr eading improvement for the students participating in the program. PROBLEM DEFINTTION Additional Reading Recovery teachers will help selected children move closer to grade level in their academic ability. Because larger numbers of minority children reach first grade without necessary readinesss kills. the selection processw ill automaticallyt arget disproportionaten umbers of minority children. The outcome should be improvement in the learning disparity gap bern,een black and 'Mlite children. RECOrvtMENDATIONS That three additional Reading Recovery teachers be employed. This will bring the total number of Reading Recovery teachers to eleven serving at least eleven elementary schools, with the goal being to serve all 15 regular elementary schools. 90 OBJECTIVF.S Program objectives are: ... to teach selected first graders in at least three schools using the Reading Recovery method ...t o reinforcet he District's objectiveo f reducingt he disparityg ap in student perfonnance Ilv1PACTA NALYSIS The Reading Recovery Program will impact the North Little Rock School District in multiple \\vays including: ... compliance with the Desegregation Plan v,hich requires itinerant reading and/or math specialists, as needed, to deliver supplementary instruction to students scoring below the 20 percentile. See North Littie Rock Plan at page 36.  ... improved reading instruction for selected students ... improved general reading instruction by teachers as Reading Recovery techniques are disseminated to classroom teachers ... improved learning opportunities for the children v.ho avoid remediation through their school careers. RESOURCES The three Reading Recovery teachersw ill be funded from desegregations ettlementm oney at an estimated cost of $110,000. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Forces for Principals of the elementary schools are unanimously supportive of Reading Recovery. Both classroom teachers and existing Reading Recovery teachers are unequivocal in their support of expanding Reading Recovery to all elementary schools. North Little Rock's limited experience with Reading Recovery also suggests substantial reading improvement by participants. Fore es against: The only negative consideration is the cost of Reading Recovery on a per student basis which would be approximately $1,800. IMPLBvlENTA TIONP LAN Announce 3 Reading Recovery positions Interview applicants for Reading Recovery Positions Identify schools to be included Hire Reading Recovery Teachers Arrange training at UALR Implement in at least three scliools Person Responsible Director of Personnel Director of Personnel Director of Elementary Education Director of Personnel Director of Elementary Education Principals and Staff 91 May, 1994 June, 1994 July, 1994 July, 1994 July, 1994 August, 1994\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_962","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/962"],"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":["49 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS D/5TRICTL EVEL 1994-95 FRANCICALJ , JACKSON Director Of Student Affairs Ref_:. Date: Time: DIS032 6/29/9'5 7:29: 15 Ana l ys is of Disc Ip l I nary Act Ions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through JUNE ==--=====---=--==-==-==-----====------=--==----==-=---r--====-=-:\n:z:iz::--=--=--=---------- 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ========~==================s====c==============m=========c===~========2=~=~~==~= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM---- -----NBF----- ,.::. R EF f'CT/TOT ......R EF f'CT/TOT .....R EF PCT/TOT .....R EF PCT/TOT ...S TU ,:: STU ,:: STU ,..... STU ======m=========~======================================~=======:~=========~==~= 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION 977 46.3X '529 25.1X 441 266 231 59.4% 60 15.4X 170 54 119 57.8% 39 18.9 87 34 168 61.1% 54 19.6 124 44 6 46.2% 4 30.8X 6 4 i 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT 41: STU 872 46.5% 431 235 so.ax 164 133 61.3 95 181 57.1 123 7 77.8 7 -----BF------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT 41= STU 464 24.7 253 107 23.1 73 44 20.3Y. 36 68 21.5 55 1 1L1X 1 449 21.3% 240 76 19.5% 64 39 18.9 34 45 16.4\" 38 3 23.1% 3 -----NBM----,:: REF PCT/TOT =I= STU 412 22.0% 232 101 21.BX 76 32 14.7 29 62 19.6 44 1 11.iX 1 156 7.4% 82 22 5.7 20 9 4.4X 7 8 2.9X 6 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT 41: STU 127 6,8 77 20 4.3 17 B 3.7X 8 6 1.9% 6 0 .ox 0 2111 1029 389 308 206 162 275 212 13 13 1875 993 463 330 217 168 317 228 9 9 ===!============================-=====~==\n::=============::.::.========:========~=:========= COMF'ARISION -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF---- REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-) .. REF PCT(+/-) ... ..... ... ... ... REF PCT(+/-) STU ... STU ... ... ... ...S TU ..\u0026amp; .. STU ----~-----=--=:---=--=-----=--=-------------==-s=-==-==-=~-====-=--=--==c-~--=:-= 09 S.A.C. 105- 10.7-X 65- 12.3-Y. 37- 8.2-X 29- 18.6-X 236- 10- 13- 8- 5- 36- 10 HOME SUSP. 4 1.7 \" 47 78.3  25 32.9 \" 2- 9.1- 74 6- 19 12 3- 22 11 BOYS CLUB 14 11.8  5 12.8 \" 7- 17.9-X 1- 11 .1-X 11 8 2 5- 1 6 12 E.A.C. 13 7.7 X 14 25.9 \" 17 37.8 \" 2- 25.0-X 42 1- 11 6 0 16 17 EXF'ULSION 1 16.7 \" 3- 75.0- 2- 66.7- 0 .o \" 4- 1 3- 2- 0 4- Ref: DIS032 Date: 6/29/95 Time: 7:29:35 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Ana l ys is of Disc Ip l I nary Act ions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT + STU 435 46.5% 228 35 43.2% 29 55 S6.7 44 0 .ox 0 5 50.0% 5 ,:: REF PCT/TOT t: STU 230 24.6% 119 15 18.5 15 22 22.7% 20 0 .ox 0 3 30.0X 3 ,:: REF PCT/TOT ~ REF F'CT/TOT t: STU ~ STU 202 21.6% 68 7.3% 112 35 23 28.4% a 9.9 23 8 14 14.4 6 6.2% 13 4 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 2 20.0Y. 0 .O 2 0 935 494 81 75 97 81 0 0 10 10 ========================================~==~--=============================:=1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT ,:, REF PCT/TOT ,:: REF PCT/TOT y. .. REF PCT/TOT ,:, STU ,:: STU ... y STU y. ..S TU ====c===========:===============:==~==========================================~= 09 S.A.C. S11 53.8X 209 22.ox 180 19.0% 49 5.2\" 949 243 128 109 31 511 10 HOME SUSP. 80 59.7% 14 10.4 36 26.9X 4 3.0X 134 57 12 32 4 10:S ii BOYS CLUB 89 71.8Y. 21 16.9 9 7.3X s 4.0% 124 57 19 8 s 89 12 E.A.C. 0 .O 0 .OY. 1 100.ox 0 .ox 1 0 0 1 0 1 17 EXPULSION 5 71.4 1 14.3 1 14.3Y. 0 .ox 7 5 1 1 0 7 COMF'ARISION -- .. --:::------:-\u0026lt;::=--=-----====--===-=-::c:.-::.:--::---==-m\n------c:.c::-==--=--=:a.::--=:-==----==r-c::= -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- y REF PCT(+/-) ~ REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) t: REF PCT(+/-) y. .. REF PCT(+/-) ,:: STU y. ..S TU ,:: STU ~ STU =------=-===-------==-------=--=-==t\n...----==---==-====----==s::-==-==-=-==-=--==---c: ...a. 09 S.A.C. 76 17.5 \" 21- 9.1- 22- 10.9-Y. 19- 27.9-X 14 15 9 3- 4- 17 10 HOME SUSP. 45 128.6 \" 1- 6.7-X 13 56.5 \" 4- 50. o--x 53 28 3- 9 4- 30 11 BOYS CLUB 34 61.8 \" 1- 4.5-X 5-- 35.7-X 1.- 16.7-X 27 13 1- s- 1 8 12 E.A.C. 0 .o X 0 .o \" 1 100.0 \" 0 .o \" 1 0 0 1 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .o \" 2- 66.7-X 1- 50.0-Y. 0 .o \" 3- 0 2- 1- 0 3- Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 6/29/95 7:29:27 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -.--.-- BM------ ----BF------ -----NBM----- REF PCT/TOT  REF F'CT/TOT .. ... ... REF PCT/TOT  STU ... ...S TU  STU -.-.-.- -NBF----- ...... REF PCT/TOT ...S TU ==-=--=--=--==-==-==------=--===-=-=-i:::::---==-m=---=-==----:c::-=---\ni:,----=-=--=-----=------ 09 S.A.C. 542 46.1% 299 25.4\" 247 21.0X 88 7.5X 1176 213 147 128 47 535 10 HOME SUSP. 97 S3.3Y. 33 18.1 42 23.1 10 5.5 182 61 29 32 8 130 ii BOYS CLUB 64 S8.7X 17 15.6 25 22.9X 3 2.8 109 43 14 21 3 81 12 E.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 33.3% 1 33.3X 1 33.3% 0 .ox 3 1 1 1 0 3 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =================:===========.:.-=:=:-\n:========--==================~============================ -----BM------ -----BF------ * REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT  STU t: STU 09 S.A.C. 359 38.9% 255 27.7% 186 125 10 HOME SUSP. 107 43.5% 75 30.5 69 49 11 BOYS CLUB 44 47.3% 23 24.7 38 17 12 E.A.C. 0 .O 0 .OY. 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 100.0 0 .O 2 0 ----NBM---- REF f'CT/TOT * STU 231 25.1% 122 49 19.9 30 23 24.7 21 1 100.0Y. 1 0 .O 0 -----NBF----- ,:c REF PCT/TOT t: STU 77 8.4% 45 15 6.1 12 3 3.2\" 3 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 922 478 246 160 93 79 1 1 2 2 =======================--=====-===-===:===============-====-======-=====::::::=====:-::======= COMPARISION ----=-=-----=-----=----------=-==------- ..-.= --===-=--=-----=---=-----=-------:::--==-==--- ----'BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF------ * REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) t: REF F'CT(+/-) t: REF F'CT(+/-)  REF PCT(+/-) ,:, STU t STU ,:, STU t STU -----------===-=-----==-==--- -==---=--=--=------=-==------=s==-=--=-===--=-------==-= 09 S.A.C. 183- 33.8-% 44- 14.7-X 16- 6.5- 11- 12.5-X 254- 27- 22- 6- 2- 57- 10 HOME SUSP. 10 10.3 \" 42 127.3 \" 7 16.7  s 50.0 % 64 8 20 2- 4 30 11 BOYS CLUB 20- 31.3-Y. 6 35.3  2- 8.0- 0 .o % 16- 5- 3 0 0 2- 12 E.A.C. 0 .0 X 0 .o  1 100.0 X 0 .o X 1 0 0 1 0 1 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0  1- 100.0-x 1- 100.0-X 0 .o  i- 1 1- 1- 0 1- Ref: D.ate: Time: DIS032 6/29/95 7:29:18 Analysis of Discipli1,ary Actions ELEMENTARY K-6 From AUGUST Throu~h JUNE 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ + REF PCT/TOT + STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- + REF PCT/TOT t: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU t: STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT ~ STU =~===================a=======================s============:=======09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .01' 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 99 78.6 12 9.5X 11 8.7,C 4 3.:::!Y. 126 80 10 9 4 103 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 168 61. 1% 54 19.6X 45 16.4% 8 2.9.% 275 124 44 38 6 212 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .01' 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ======-==-=-=-==----==-=-----=-==-==-=-=-==----=--==----=--=------- ..- ==--==---=--=--= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- .... REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT ... REF PCT/TOT ... ... ... ...R EF PCT/TOT ,:: STU  STU .... STU ... ... ... STU ==============:==========================================:===:=~======~========== 09 S.A.C. 2 50.0X 0 .O 1 25.0X 1 25.0X 4 2 0 1 1 4 10 HOME SUSP. 48 57.SX 18 21.7X 16 19.3% 1 1.2% 83 39 12 14 1 66 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 181 57.6\" 68 21.7 60 19.1 5 1.6% 314 1.24 55 42 5 226 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMF'ARISION =---=-=---=--:-- ---===-=----==----=-------=c----==--=------=---=---c.----:-c\n.--=-r=----=-= -.-.-.- --BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCTC+/-) ... REF PCTC+/-\u0026gt; ... REF F'CTC+/-) ... ...... ... ... ...R EF PCT(+/-) ...S TU ....... S TU ,:: STU ...... STU -=----=s:-=c.-------==----=-=-----=--=---=-----=-===--=--==-----==.::------=i:--=---=--==--=-= 09 S.A.C. 2 200.0 X 0 .o \" 1 100.0 \" 1 100.0 \" 4 2 0 1 1 4 10 HOME SUSP. 51- 51.5-X 6 50.0 \" 5 45.5 \" 3- 75.0- 43- 41- 2 5 3- 37- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o  0 .o % 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 13 7.7 \" 14 25.9 \" 15 33.3 X 3- 37.5-X 39 0 11 4 1- 14 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o ,. 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/29/9'5 Time: 7:29:41 School: 012 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ ------NBM----- t: REF PCT/TOT t: STU 111 S5.2X 74 9 47.4 9 29 72.SX 24 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 t: REF PCT/TOT it STU 35 17.4\" 32 0 .O 0 5 12.sx 5 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0  REF PCT/TOT t: STU 51 25.4X 38 9 47.4X 9 5 12.SX 5 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT + STU 4 2.ox 4 1 S.3X 1 1 2.SX 1 0 .o\" 0 0 .ox 0 201 148 19 19 40 3'5 0 0 0 0 ====--=--=--=-----=-------------==------===---m-------------=--==------==---- .. -=-- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSF'. 11 BOYS CLUB i2 E.A.C 17 EXPULSION 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------  REF PCT/TOT  STU 164 SB.OX 87 21 70.0X 19 41 9i.1X 21 0 .ox 0 4 100.0% 4 -----BF------ + REF PCT/TOT  STU 55 19.4\" 42 1 3.3% 1 2 4.4X 2 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 -----NBM----- t: REF PCT/TOT + STU 54 19.1 36 7 23.3% 7 2 4.4% 2 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- + REF PCT/TOT + STU 10 3.SX 7 1 3.3 1 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 283 172 30 28 45 25 0 0 4 4 =======,====================-=~====================!===:-==================-============== COMF'ARISION =============================================:===~=============c====~~==-.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF----- -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT(+/-) ... ... ... REF PCTC+/-) ...... REF F'CT(+/-) ...... R EF PCTC+I-\u0026gt;  STU ... .... STU  STU ...... STU =============~========~====~==~================:==:====-=r.======~==~==09 S.A.C. 53 47.7 \" 20 57.1 \" 3 5.9 \" 6 150.0 \" 82 13 10 2- 3 24 10 HOME SUSP. 12 133.3 \" 1 100.0  2- 22.2-\" 0 .o \" 11 10 1 2- 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 12 41.4 \" 3- 60.0-X 3-- 60.0-X 1- 100.0-\" 5 3- 3- 3- 1- 10- 12 E.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 4 400.0  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 4 4 0 0 0 4 Raf: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:29:53 013 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION NORTH Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Throu9h JUNE LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- 4: REF PCT/TOT :t: STU 324 44.1X 156 24 40.0% 19 26 45.6% 20 0 .ox 0 5 50.0X 5 1 9 9 4 :\n: REF PCT/TOT t STU 195 26.6X 87 15 25.0X 15 17 29.8 15 0 .ox 0 3 30.0\" 3 - 9 5 :1: REF PCT/TOT :t: STU 151 20.6% 74 14 23.3\" 14 9 1S.8X 8 2 .ox 0 2 20.0X 2 -----NBF----- :\n: REF PCT/TOT :\n: STU 64 B.7X 31 7 11.7 7 5 a.ax 3 0 .ox 0 0 .o\" 0 734 348 60 55 57 46 0 0 10 10 ========================================================~============~====~==== -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF---- -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ,.. REF FCT/TOT C: REF F'CT/TOT ,,..._ REF PCT/TOT C: REF F'CT/TOT  STU ,c: STU  STU ... ...S TU ===================~================================~===a======================m 09 S.A.C. 347 51.9 156 23.4\" 126 18.9 39 s.0x 668 158 88 73 24 343 10 HOME SUSP. 58 57.4 11 10.9 29 28.7% 3 3.0% 101 37 10 25 3 75 11 BOYS CLUB 48 60.8 19 24.1 7 8.9 5 6.3 79 36 17 6 5 64 12 E.A.C 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 33.3X 1 33.3 1 33.3 0 .o\" 3 1 1 1 0 3 COMF'ARISION ~=----i=--zzi::--=--==--==-~=----=i:===--:a--=---=-=--=--=----=--======-=-----=--=---==--==-= -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEIF----- REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-) ... ...... ... ...R EF PCT(+/-) ...... R EF F'CT\u0026lt;+/-) STU ... STU ... ... ... ,.. STU ...... S TU ===========~==================~===~=========n===========cc===============a==a== 09 S.A.C. 23 7.1 \" 39- 20.0-\" 25- 16.6-\" 25- 39 .1-X 66- 2 1 1- 7- 5- 10 HOME SUSP. 34 141.7 \" 4- 26.7-X 15 107.1 \" 4- 57 .1-X 41 18 5- 11 4- 20 11 BOYS CLUB 22 84.6 \" 2 11.8 \" 2- 22.2-x 0 .o \" 22 16 2 2- 2 18 12 E.A.C. 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 4- 80.0- 2- 66.7-X 1- S0.0-Y. 0 .o \" 7- 4- 2- 1- 0 7- Ref:. Date: DIS032S 6/29/95 Time: 7:30:03 Schoel: 024 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis cf Disciplinary Actions by Schoel From AUGUST Through JUNE RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- C: REF PCT/TOT C: STU 276 46.8X 96 68 53.5% 44 19 51.4% 13 0 .ox 0 1 33.3X 1 1 9 9 4 C: REF PCT/TOT  STU 135 22.9 65 22 17.3 21 4 10.8\" 3 0 .ox 0 1 33.3 1 - 9 5 C: REF PCT/TOT C: REF PCT/TOT C: STU C: STU uo 23.7): 39 6.6)( 68 24 29 22.sx 8 6.3% 21 6 12 32.4% 2 S.4\" 10 2 1 .ox 0 .o\" 0 0 1 33.3X 0 .ox 1 0 590 253 127 92 37 28 0 0 3 3 ==============================================================.--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ......R EF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT STU ... ... ...S TU  STU ...... S TU =========~======:============================================================== 09 S.A.C. 1.31 30.0X 128 29.4X 122 28.0X ss 12.6X 436 73 57 53 32 215 10 HOME SUSF'. 72 39.8% 61 33.7% 34 18.8X 14 7.7X 181 41 38 19 11 109 11 BOYS CLUB 18 54.S 4 12.1\" 8 24.2X 3 9.1X 33 16 4 7 3 30 12 E.A.C 0  OY. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 COMPARISION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM---- -----NBF----- .. .RS TEUF PCT\u0026lt;+/-)  RSTEUF PCTC+/-) .........SR TEUF PCTC+/-)  REF F'CTC+/-) ... T STU ... ... ========================================~=======================~===09 S.A.C. 145- 52.5-X 7- s.2-\" 18- 12.9-X 16 41.0 \" 154- 23- 8- 15- 8 38- 10 HOME SUSP. 4 5.9 \" 39 177.3 \" 5 17.2 \" 6 75.0 \" 54 3- 17 2- 5 17 11 BOYS CLUB 1- 5.3-X 0 .o \" 4- 33.3-X 1 50.0 \" 4- 3 1 3- 1 2 12 E.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .o  1- 100.0-x 1- 100.0-x 0 .o \" 2- 0 1- 1- 0 2- Rl!f: DIS032S Date: 6/29/95 Time: 7:30:06 School: 025 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. i1 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. i7 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AU~UST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM---- 0: REF PCT/TOT + STU 108 55.4\" 54 1 100.0X 1 28 84.8\" 19 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 1 9 9 4 -----BF-----  REF PCT/TOT C: STU 49 25.iX 29 0 .ox 0 3 9.1X 3 0 .o\" 0 0 .ox 0 - 9 5 -----NBM----- ,c, REF PCT/TOT  STU 33 16.9X 25 0 .ox 0 2 6.iX 2 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 -----NBF------ ::, REF PCT/TOT t STU 5 2.6 4 0 .O 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .o\" 0 195 112 1 1 33 24 0 0 0 0 ====~~=~====:1m=============================s==s======~=~====s=====~======~==~==~= .--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT ... ...... ... REF PCT/TOT ......R EF PCT/TOT STU  STU ... ... ...S TU  STU ==================================:=================~=========================== 09 S.A.C. 97 51.9X 47 25.U 41 21.9X 2 1.1% 187 56 31 29 2 1.18 10 HOME SUSP. 8 40.0X 5 25.0X 6 30.0X 1 5.0X 20 8 4 6 1 19 11 BOYS CLUB 8 27.6% 14 48.3% 7 24.iX 0 .ox 29 5 8 6 0 19 12 E.A.C 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ====~================================================================~====COMPARISION ==----=--==-=-----==--a::::----=-===--=--=--=--=-------=--=--=--==--=----=---==--==-= -----BH------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-\u0026gt; ... REF PCT(+/-) ... ... ... ... ... REF PCT(+/-) STU ... STU ... STU ... ... ... ,. ... STU =~=================================:===========c=========================09 S.A.C. 11- 10.2-x 2- 4.1-X 8 24.2 \" 3- 60.0-X B- 2 2 4 2- 6 10 HOME SUSP. 7 700.0 % 5 500.0 ,: 6 600.0 \" 1 100.0 X 19 7 4 6 1 iB 11 BOYS CLUB 20- 71.4-% ii 366.7 \" 5 250.0 \" 0 .o \" 4- 14- 5 4 0 5- 12 E.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .o % 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30: 13 School: 026 ROSE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ==================================c=====~==========c~c==c=~==========:====c= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- t: REF PCT/TOT ... REF PCT/TOT t: REF PCT/TOT ... ... ,.. REF PCT/TOT ... STU  STU t: STU  STU .. ====c========c========a=====a===========a=acn:============a=============== 09 S.A.C. 158 40.4X 11:5 29.4\" 74 18.9X 44 11.3\" 391 67 56 36 20 179 10 HOME SUSP. 28 52.8\" 10 18.9X 13 24.:5X 2 3.BX 53 17 7 11 2 37 11 BOYS CLUB 17 44.7\" 9 23.7% 11 28.9X 1 2.6X 38 13 7 9 1 30 12 E.A.C. 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==-========-==-------=-=---=--=--=-=--=---=-----==-=- ...=. --=---=------=--=-=---==-= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ==================mi======-===============================:=m:=====-================== -.-.-.- -BM------- -----BF------ ----NBM----- -----NBF----- ...R EF PCT/TOT t: REF PCT/TOT ......R EF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT  STU ... STU ... STU ... ... ... ... STU =========c==::~=~======\"======m==========================c====================== 09 S.A.C. 132 44.0% 78 26.0 69 23.0X 21 7.0X 300 61 37 43 12 153 10 HOME SUSP. 26 59.1% 9 20.5 9 20.5X 0 .ox 44 20 8 6 0 34 ii BOYS CLUB 18 58.1 5 16.1% 8 25.SX 0 .ox 31 17 5 8 0 30 12 E.A.C 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0X 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 1 1 0 0 0 1 ====:::.:==================:....===============:=====::.:=====:=====-===:=====:..:=========:.:=-============== COMF\"ARISION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- :I= REF PCTC+/-) ......R EF PCT(+/-) :I= REF PCTC+/-) ,..... R EF PCTC+/-) ......S TU  STU ......S TU ...... STU ~======================~=========~~================~===============-============ 09 S.A.C. 26- i.6.5-X 37- 32.2-X 5- 6.8-X 23- 52.3-X 91- 6- 19- 7 8- 26- 10 HOME SUSP. 2- 7 .1-X 1- 10.0-x 4- 30.8-X 2- 100.0-x 9- 3 1 5- 2- 3- 11 BOYS CLUB 1 5.9 X 4- 44.4- 3- 27.3-% 1- 100.0-x 7- 4 2- 1- 1- 0 E.A.C. 0 .o % 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100.0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 .0 \" 1 1 0 0 0 1 Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7 :30: 14 School: 031 AMBOY Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Throu9h JUNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ====c=\u0026amp;============c=\"==n======-a======\u0026amp;====~===========c===== -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ......R EF PCT/TOT t: REF' PCT/TOT t: REF PCT/TOT \u0026amp;. .. REF PCT/TOT ...S TU t: STU t: STU 0 STU ==================c======ssmsc====================Ec================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 so.ox 1 so.ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 7 58.3% 4 33.3% 0 8.3% 0 .0% 12 s 4 1 0 10 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.=. --====-=-=----=-=-------=--=--=-==::-------=--=--=-------------------=------=--=-- 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ...R EF PCT/TOT t: REF PCT/TOT ......R EF PCT/TOT ...... REF PCT/TOT 0 STU 0 STU ...... S TU ...... S TU ---===--====--- ..- ---=--====---=-====-------=--=--==--=---------=------- .....: --:::=-==--=-- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 75.0% 0 .O 1 25.0X 0 .ox 4 2 0 1 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 9 34.6% 9 34.6 8 30.8 0 .ox 26 9 6 6 0 21 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=====a:=================================\"\"======================:::=.::.:====:=...:...:::::========== COMPARISION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT(+/-\u0026gt; \u0026amp; REF F'CT(+/-)  REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-) T T ... T STU  STU ...S TU  STU ... ==~========================~==~=~=========s=~=\"=a====~========~====c\ncnc======= 09 S.A.C. 0 .o Y. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 200.0 % 1- 100.0-Y. 1 100.0 \" 0 .o X 2 1 1- 1 0 i 1.1 BOYS CLUB 0 .o X 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 2 .o  s .o \" 7 .o X 0 .o \" 14 0 1 7 0 11 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 \" 0 .o X 0 .0 X 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Ti\"'9: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:20 Schoo L: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ ----NBM----- C..:. R EF PCT/TOT ,:: REF PCT/TOT t: REF PCT/TOT ...S TU ,c: STU :t STU -.-.-.- -NBF----- ...... REF PCT/TOT ... STU =======~======c=a========c=========n=========================~===09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 83.3X 2 16.7 0 .o\" 0 .ox 12 8 1 0 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 17 73.9% 4 17.4\" 0 8.7X 0 .ox 23 13 3 2 0 18 17 EXPULSION 0 .01' 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- C: REF PCT/TOT ...... R EF PCT/TOT ,:: REF PCT/TOT ...... REF PCT/TOT ,c: STU ,c: STU ... STU ... ... ...S TU =============~=========\"====a====~============s============g==~=========09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .OY. 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 so.ox 3 37.SX 1 12.5X 0 .ox 8 4 2 1 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 4 23.SX 9 52.9Y. 4 23.5 0 .ox 17 4 5 3 0 12 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .0Y. 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISION .--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBH----- -----NBF----- ...... R EF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ,:: REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ...... REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) C: REF PCT(+/-) STU ... ... ... STU ,.A ..S TU ...... STU ==~=:-c==================================================='.:z:=====:z::========::===-===========:::-:za 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6- 60.0-X 1 50.0  1 100.0  0 .o X 4- 4- i 1 0 2- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 X 0 .o  0 .0 X 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 13- .o X :s .o Y. 2 .o \" 0 .o \" 6- 1- i 2 0 6- 17 EXPULSION 0 .o X 0 .o  0 .0 X 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rf: Date: DIS032S 6/29/95 Tiffie: 7:30:15 School: 033 Ana l ys i s of DI sc i p L i nary Act ions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ============a======~=======c======-====c===m=a====~===ac==========z========== --- -R-BEMF --P-C--T- /TOT ..--..-..-R -BEFF- --P-C--T/TOT --- -R-NEBFH P--C--T-/TOT ..--..-..-R -NEBF F-P-C-T--/TOT  STU  STU  STU * STU ============================================================================ 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 .o\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 77.8% i 11.u, 1 11.1% 0 .ox 9 7 1 1 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 12 75.0% 0 .ox 0 25.0% 0 .ox 16 12 0 \"' 0 16 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==---~=-=------=--=---------==-=---------=-=--=-----------=-----=---------=---= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =~=================~==============~=============~n================~======~===== .--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBH----- -----NBF----- REF PCT/TOT .... REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT ... ...... ... ... REF F'CT/TOT STU ... STU ... STU ... ... ... ... ...S TU =~==============================~==========~================-=======~======:aEc 09 S.A.C. 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 85.7% 0 .ox 1 14.3\" 0 .ox 7 5 0 1 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 14 66.7% 2 9.5X 5 23.8% 0 .ox 21 9 1 4 0 14 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMF'ARISION .--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-)  REF PCT(+/-) ... ...... ... ...R EF PCT(+/-) STU ,:: STU ... STU ... ... ... ... STU ~~=========\n.===================~=====\n=====~============================:===-==== 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOHE SUSP. 1- 14.3-X 1- 100.0-X 0 .o \" 0 .o  2- 2- 1- 0 0 3- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o % 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 2 .o \" 2 .o X 1 .o \" 0 .o \" 5 0 2 1 0 2- 17 EXPULSION 0 .o  0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref_:. Date: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:17 038 Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ t: REF PCT/TOT t: STU 0 .ox 0 6 66.7X 6 0 .o\" 0 12 S4.5X 11 0 .ox 0 -----BF------ t: REF PCT/TOT + STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 4 1B.2X 3 0 .ox 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 S ----NBM----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT f\nSTU 0 .ox 0 2 22.2x 1 0 .ox 0 0 18.2% 3 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .ox 0 1 11.1\" 1 0 .ox 0 0 9.1\" 2 0 .ox 0 0 0 9 8 0 0 22 19 0 0 ==----=--===-=-=-=====-==---==-=---=------=-=====----------911:---=-=-----=--=-==-==-= 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C 17 EXPULSION -----BM------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT =Ii STU 1 100.ox 1 2 66.7X 2 0 .ox 0 46 73.0% 29 0 .ox 0 -----BF------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .O 0 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 4 6.3 4 0 .O 0 -----NBM----- f\nREF PCT/TOT 0 STU 0 .ox 0 1 33.3% 1 0 .ox 0 12 19.0X 6 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- f\nREF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .o\" 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 1 1.6 1 0 .ox 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 63 40 0 0 =~-======---=========================-==:...::===================================:========== COMPARISION ==-----==----==-------=-----------=-=-----=--=---Z::-------------==-=--=-=-==-::'\" .. ==== .--.-.- -BM----- -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ,:: REF PCT(+/-) ... ... ... ...R EF PCT(+/-)  STU ~ STU ......S TU  STU ==~=:=============~==a===~~:s=======~=====a=====~================~============\"= 09 S.A.C. 1 100.0 \" 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 HOME SUSF'. 4- 66.7-X 0 .o \" 1- S0.0-Y. 1- 100.0-x 6- 4- 0 0 1- 5- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 34 .o % 0 .o \" 8 .o \" 1- .o \" 41 3 0 8 1- 21 17 EXPULSION 0 .o X 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:19 School: 042 Ana Lys is of Disc: i p Li nary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ + REF PCT/TOT + STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- :t REF PCT/TOT :t REF PCT/TOT  REF F'CT/TOT :t STU :t STU ~ STU ================================================================================ 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 75.0% 1 8.3 2 16.7 0 .O 12 8 1 2 0 11 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 13 61.9 6 28.6X 0 9.5% 0 .O 21 7 6 2 0 15 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 =====-==--=-----===-=--==--=-==--===-----===--=--==-=-.---=--=-= ..- ----=--=====------=- 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ===================i:::====================::J\n=========================::::==c.:===:=:::,::===i=:=:::::=:= -----BM------ -----BF----- -----NBM----- -----NBF----- T. . .RS TEUF PCT/TOT T. . .. SRTEUF PCT/TOT ....... SR TEUF F'CT/TOT ..a.. . SRTEUF PCT/TOT ==----=-----==-------=--=-----==--= ..- --------=- ...=..= ==--=---------=--------------=a::---==== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .OY. 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 55.6 4 44.4 0 .O 0 .ox 9 4 3 0 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 26 83.9 3 9.7 2 6.5 0 .O 31 17 2 2 0 21 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 -===--------:=-==:=-=--==-------=====-==------ .-. -==--==--------=--=---=-----------------= COMPARISION ==--=----=----=--=--===-=--==-=-----==---:::-i=-=---=-==--=---:,:\n---=---- ..= n:.-==-==--=-===- -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF F'CT \u0026lt; -/-) ... ......R EF PCT(+/-) ......R EF F'CTC+/-) ...... REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) t: STU ... T STU t: STU ... STU ... =======================~=====:=================================~==~===========09 S.A.C. 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 () 10 HOME SUSP. 4- 44.4-% 3 300.0 \" 2- 100.0-% 0 .o \" 3- 4- 2 2- 0 4- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o Y. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 13 .0  3- .o  0 .o  0 .o \" 10 1 1- 0 0 6 17 EXPULSION 0 .o  0 .o  0 .o X 0 .o  0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:21 046 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEWE LEMENTARYS CHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ + REF PCT/TOT + STU 0 .ox 0 2 100.ox 2 0 .0% 0 6 60.0X s 0 .ox 0 -----BF------ + REF f'CT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 0 .O 0 1 10.0% 1 0 .ox 0 -----NBM----- ,:: REF F'CT/TOT + STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 0 20.0X 2 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 0 .ox 0 0 10.0 1 0 .ox 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 10 9 0 0 ----------==--=----=--=-=--==------=--= .-. -=--=-==--=------------=-----==--------===-- i 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT + STU ------Dr----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT + STU -----NBM----- + REF PCT/TOT + STU -----NBF------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU ==-=-~==-=--=---=---------=--=--==---====-=--==-=-----=--=-====-==i::c:-==---=-==--=--=...::= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 7i.4X 1 7.iY. 2 14.3 i 7.1% 14 6 i 2 1 10 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 7 77.8 2 22.2 0 .ox 0 .ox 9 6 2 0 0 8 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .OY. 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISION ==============================c~==:.=c:==c================:==~=====~=:==-.-.-. -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ......R EF F'CT(+/-) ...... R EF PCT(+/-) ......R EF PCT(+/-) ....... REF PCT(+/-) ... STU ...... S TU ......S TU ...... STU =====-========-=:\n.i===-===========:===\n===::i:==:================~\"===::-===================-:==c:=:tr.=:::==-== 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 () 10 HOME SUSP. 8 400.0 X 1 100.0 \" 2 200.0 \" 1 100.0 \" 12 4 1 2 1 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o X 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 1 .o  1 .o \" 2- .o \" i- .o \" 1- 0 i 2- 1- 1- 17 EXPULSION 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,, Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:21 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ==========:r:======================--=======iau:::\nz=m:=======m:11:111::===nc:=========c::======r===:== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT ... REF PCT/TOT ... REF F'CT/TOT ... ... ... REF PCT/TOT T  STU  STU ......S TU ::, STU =========~=================c=======c=======as============~======m=D=m===c== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 100.0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 2 2 0 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 3 so.ox 3 so.ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 6 3 3 0 0 6 17 EXF'ULSION 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==-=--==--=---=----=--=-=--=-----=-=---=-=--==-=-------------------------------=-- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C 17 EXPULSION 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ 0 REF PCT/TOT ::, STU 0 .ox 0 1 so.ox 1 0 .ox 0 4 44.4% 4 0 .ox 0 -----BF------ 0 REF PCT/TOT 0 STU 0 .O 0 i 50.0 1 0 .O 0 3 33.3 3 0 .O 0 ----NBM----- 0 REF PCT/TOT 0 STU 0 .ox 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 2 22 .. .2 2 0 .O 0 -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT 0 STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 9 9 0 0 =================================-===================================-======-:=====:::====== COMPARISION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- 0 REF PCT(+/-),:, REF PCT(+/-),:, REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) 0 REF PCT(+/-) ,:, STU O STU t STU\nSTU =--------=----------------------==--=-------=---~------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .OX 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 50.O- 1 100.0 \" 0 .0 \" 0 .o X 0 1- i 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o X 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 1 .o \" 0 .o \" 2 .o : 0 .o \" 3 0 0 2 0 3 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/9S 7:30: 14 Schoo L: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ===============:====s===a==============================s=================== -----BM------ ----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- it REF PCT/TOT ,:, REF PCT/TOT ......R EF PCT/TOT ...... REF PCT/TOT C: STU ,:, STU .. ...S TU ...... S TU ========s===========-=a=n===c========B==s========~====n=========~==== 09 S.A.C. 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 20 76.9,C 4 15.4X 2 7.7X 0 .ox 26 13 3 1 0 17 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 13 81.3X 3 18.B\" 0 .ox 0 .ox 16 9 3 0 0 12 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ============================================================~==================:-----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM---- -----NBF----- it REF PCT/TOT ......R EF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT ...... REF PCT/TOT C: STU ... STU .. ... ...S TU ...... S TU =============c=================\n=====~========================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 75.0X 2 16.7 1 8.3X 0 .ox 12 6 2 1 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 3 37.5Y. 4 50.0 1 12.sx 0 .o\" B 3 4 1 0 B 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .O 0  O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 =--==-----=--=-------=--=---==-=--==-----=-==-==----------=--=--=--=---==--=-=--=-- COMPARISION ---BM------ -----BF----- -----NBM----- -----NBF----- . .R EF PCT(+/-) ~ REF PCTC+/-) ......R EF F'CT(+/-) ...... R EF PCTC+/-) STU ... STU ... ... ... ...S TU ...... S TU ==-------=--------==-==--====-==-==---=\"\"==-=-==--=-=----=-=-==--=--=::::-=-=-:=:::==-=---= 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o % 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 11- ss.o-x 2- so.o-x 1- so.o-x 0 .o  14- 7- 1- 0 0 a- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 10- .o X 1 .o \" 1 .o \" 0 .o \" 8- 1- 0 1 0 4- 17 EXPULSION 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30: 16 037 Date: Tlcne: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. ii BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analy~is of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ + REF PCT/TOT it STU 0 .o\" 0 5 100.0X 3 0 .o,.\n0 6 66.7X 6 0 .o\" 0 -----BF----- + REF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 1 11.1X 1 0 .ox 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ ..a.. .R EF PCT/TOT ......R EF PCT/TOT  STU ... ...S TU -----NBM----t REF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0  o\" 0 0 22.2,c 2 0 .ox 0 -.-.-.- -NBM----- ...R EF PCT/TOT it STU -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 -.--.-- NBF----- ......R EF F'CT/TOT ...S TU 0 0 5 3 0 0 9 9 0 0 =--==---- ..-.= -==-=--=--==---=---------------=-===--=-:=-----=-==-=-========----==-==-==-= 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 . ox 0 .ox 0 .o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 25.0\" c:\nJ 4L7X 4 33.3% 0 .ox 12 3 2 4 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 8 44.4% 7 38.9 3 16.7% 0 .ox 18 6 7 2 0 1.5 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISION ============================:====================:=========~=:====c==~=====~===~ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF F'CT(+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-) ... ... ...R EF PCT(+/-) ...... REF PCT(+/-) .a. STU ... STU ... ... ... ...S TU ...... STU ===~=z~==~=========~========m======~===========r===~a================c====a== 09 S.A.C. 0 .o r. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2- 40.0-Y. 5 500.0 \" 4 400.0 \" 0 .o \" 7 0 2 4 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 2 .o  6 .o \" 1 .o \" 0 .o \" 9 0 6 1 0 6 17 EXPULSION 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o :\u0026lt; 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref.:. Date: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30: 18 040 Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Ana L ys i  of Di sc i p l i nary Act i ans by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADOWPA RK ELEMENTARYS CHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ * REF PCT/TOT * STU 0 .ox 0 2 50.0X 2 0 .ox 0 12 75.0X 7 0 .ox 0 ----BF------ * REF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .o\" 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .0% 0 3 20.ox 3 0 .ox 0 ----BF------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 7 46.7% 6 0 .O 0 COMF'ARISION -----NBM----- * REF PCT/TOT it STU 0 .ox 0 1 25.0 1 0 .ox 0 0 18.BX 3 0 .ox 0 -----NBM----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT t: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 5 33.3 4 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .ox 0 1 25.0 1 0 .ox 0 0 6.3% 1 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ,t REF PCT(+/-),:: REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) t: REF PCT(+/-),:: REF PCT(+/-) C: STU ,:: STU C: STU ~ STU 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o\" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 2- 100.0-x 0 .o \" 1- 100.0-X 1- 100.0-x 2- 0 1- 1- 0 .o \" 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 9- .o \" 7 .o  2 .o \" 1- .o \" 1- 7 2 1- 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 13 0 0 0 0 4- 4- 0 0 1- 2 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30: 18 School: 041 NORTH Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- ......R EF F'CT/TOT ..a.. .R EF PCT/TOT C: REF F'CT/TOT ...S TU ..a.. .S TU ..a.. .S TU -----NBF----- ~ REF fCT/TOT ,:, STU c===c==================~====================~~============================ 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 81.8 0 .ox 1 9.1 1 9.1 11 8 0 1 1 10 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 22 39.3 13 23.2X 0 30.4 0 7.1% 56 17 10 14 2 43 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT/TOT ... REF F'CT/TOT ... ...... ... ...R EF PCT/TOT ...... REF PCT/TOT STU ... STU ... STU ... ... ... ... ... STU =c=======================~====~=========================================c===== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSF'. 1 100.0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0  OY. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 26 61.9 8 19.0,C 5 11.9 3 7.1X 42 15 7 5 3 30 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ====================~=================================================:~=======~= COMF'ARISION =-----=---=-==-=--=---=-=-==--=-=-=----=---=-------=-----=-=--==-==-=-==-------=-== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ,:. REF F'CT(+/-)  REF PCT(+/-) :C= REF F'CT\u0026lt;+/-) :C= REF F'CT\u0026lt;+/-) :C= STU :C= STU :C= STU :C= STU 09 S.A.C. 0 .o\" 0 .o 1' 0 .o \" 0  0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8- 88.9-X 0 .o \" 1- 100.0-X 1- 100.0-x 10- 7- 0 i- 1- 9- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o \" 0 .0 X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 4 .o  5- .o \" 12- .o \" 1- .o \" 14- 0 0 12- 1- 13- 17 EXPULSION 0 .o % 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:19 043 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARYS CHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ to REF PCT/TOT to REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU O STU 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 0 9 90.0% 1 10.0 9 1 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 5 100.0% 0 .O 3 0 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ to REF PCT/TOT fr STU 0 .0% 0 1 100.0% 1 0 .O 0 2 22.2% 2 0 .O 0 -----BF------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT to STU 0 .O 0 0 .O 0 0 .O 0 1 11.1 1 0 .O 0 -----NBM----- * REF PCT/TOT to STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .on 0 -----NBM----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT to STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 6 66.7 3 0 .O 0 -----NBF----- ,:: REF F'CT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .O 0 0 .ox 0 0 .0% 0 0 .O 0 0 .O 0 -----NBF----- ~ REF F'CT/TOT 4' STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .0% 0 0 .O 0 0 0 10 tO 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 9 6 0 0 ==--:::c=z=-=--==-=-----==-=--=----=--=---=--=---e::---=----==--==-=--=-=--- ..c :---:.::--= COMPARISION -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ...... R EF PCT(+/-) ......R EF PCT(+/-) ...... R EF PCT(+/-) ...... REF PCT(+/-) ...S TU ..a.. . STU ,:: STU .:, STU -- .-. ---------=-----------=-------=-----=--==-== .-.=. ==----=-=--=--:.=:i:i::=-:=:=---=--=---==--=-:::- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSF'. 8- 88.9-X 1- i00.0- 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 9- 8- 1- 0 0 9- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 3- .o \" 1 .o \" 6 .o \" 0 .o \" 4 1- 1 6 0 3 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:20 044 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----B11------ 4: REF PCT/TOT + STU 0 . ox 0 11 91.7 7 0 .ox 0 6 85.7% 6 0 .O 0 -----BF------  REF PCT/TOT  STU 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 -----NBM----- C: REF F'CT/TOT t STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 14.3% 1 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- ::, REF PCT/TOT  STU 0 .ox 0 i B.3X 1 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 0 .O 0 0 0 12 a 0 0 7 7 0 0 =========================================='~===========:=====-::===============:==:::======= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----r-111------ -----BF------ -----NBH----- -----NBF------ .\u0026amp; ..R EF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT .....R EF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT  STU  STU ... STU ... ... ... STU ==--=-=:==--=--=--=--==---------=-==::.i---==-==-==-==-------=--=--=--=-=---=------== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 .ox 0 .ox 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 15 83.3 3 16.7 0 .ox 0 .ox 18 10 3 0 0 13 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0  O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ================-=========::.z:===::.:::====================================-====:==~=====:===== COMPARISIDN =----==----=-=-----=--=----------=-----=---=-=---==-=-----------=-==-=r-=---==-===- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- * REF PCT(+/-\u0026gt;* REF PCT(+/-)* REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-)~ REF F'CT(+/-) ~ STU ~ STU ~ STU ~ STU 09 S.A.C. 0  0 \" 0 .o  0 .o  0  0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSF'. 10- 90.9-X 1 100.0 X 0 .o X 1- 100.0-x 10- 6- 1 0 1- 6- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o \" 0 .0 % 0 .o \" 0 .o :\u0026lt; 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 9 .o X 3 .o Y. 1- .o \" 0 .o \" 11 2 3 1- 0 6 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 Schoo L: 7:30:22 049 Ana L ys is of Disc i p Li nary Act I ens by School From AUGUST Through JUNE REDWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ====--=--=--==-====-==----=-=---===-=-=--==----===---=--=-----=----------- ..- --==-- 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ================================n================~=================-=r-=========== -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ...R EF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT ...... R EF PCT/TOT ...... REF PCT/TOT  STU ......S TU  STU ...... STU ==========:::n======~=ac=======c======================================m=~==:~= 09 S.A.C. 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5% 2 25.0X 1 12.5% 0 .ox 8 5 2 1 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .or. 0 .O 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 22 51.2% 14 32.6X 0 16.3% 0 .ox 43 12 9 4 0 25 17 EXPULSION 0 .OY. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 =====-==-=------==-------==-----=-===-=---====--=-==--=--=--=--=----------=-=-::-::---:--::r- ..= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =-----==-=--=-----==:r.= ...-.= ----=---=::car.--==--=~-=---=--=----=--------==----==-r-==::: ...:.: ==r:.::c -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT ... REF PCT/TOT .... REF PCT/TOT ... ... ... REF PCT/TOT  STU ... ...S TU ......S TU ...... S TU ==========c::====-======================:==========:=========================:===-:====c=u=== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 9 39.1 6 26.1 6 26.1 2 8.7X 23 3 4 5 2 14 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .OY. 0 .O 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 COHPARISION -=-------=-----=-----=-----------------=--------=----~=-----=-------------------- -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT(+/-) ... ...... ...R EF PCT(+/-) ......R EF PCT(+/-) ...... R EF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) STU  STU ... STU ... ... ... ... STU ==~=============:~==x==========~========~===========~==========~==~=====~a======= 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5- 100.0-x 2- 100.0- 1- 100.0- 0 .o \" 8- 5- 2- 1- 0 8- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 13- .o \" 8- .0  1- .o \" 2 .o \" 20- 1- 1- 1- 2 11- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30: 16 School: 035 Ana L ys is of Disc Ip L I nary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF----- -----NBM----- ,.\u0026amp; ..R EF PCT/TOT ,\u0026amp; REF PCT/TOT ~ REF PCT/TOT 'r ,\u0026amp; STU t: STU ... ... ...S TU -----NBF----- ...a... .. R EF PCT/TOT ... STU ===============================~============s==s===================c=====~==== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSF'. 1 so.ox 0 .o\" 1 so.ox 0 .ox 2 1 0 i. 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 12 92.3 1 7.7X 0 .o\" 0 .o\" 13 10 1 0 0 11 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=-=---=-----==-------=-----=-=---=--=-- .-. -=-==-==---=-=::::--=-==--------==-----=-=--= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 --------=-=-=------------==-=-----------==--==-=--=--- ...:i ::-----=====--=-----=-----==- -----BM------- -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ,\u0026amp; REF PCT/TOT ,\u0026amp; REF PCT/TOT ... ... ... ... REF PCT/TOT  REF F'CT/TOT .... STU ... STU ... STU ... ... ... ... ... STU =======================================================================-====- 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 37.S\" 0 .ox 5 62.SX 0 .o\" 8 3 0 3 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 5 62.5% 0 .ox 3 37.SX 0 .ox 8 5 0 1 0 6 17 EXPULSION 0 .or. 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISION ============================:============~====================================\"= -----BM----- -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- * REF PCT(+/-) ... ...R EF PCT(+/-) .......R EF PCT(+/-\u0026gt; ~ REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) * STU ... STU .\u0026amp; STU ... ... ... ... STU ======================================~==============================~========== 09 S.A.C. 0 .o % 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 200.0 % 0 .o \" 4 400.0 \" 0 .o \" 6 2 0 2 0 4 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 7- .0 X 1- .o \" 3 .o \" 0 .o X 5- 1- 1- 3 0 5- 17 EXPULSION 0 .o  0 .o X 0 .o % 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref.:. Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30: 13 School: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BARING CROSS CENTER 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ===========c=========================s=====s================~~====~========~= .--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT/TOT ... ...... ...R EF PCT/TOT .\u0026amp; ..R EF PCT/TOT \u0026amp;. .. REF PCT/TOT ,. STU t STU t STU \u0026amp;. .. STU ============m===================================~============================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 0 .O 0 .0% 3 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ==--=-=--=-===-==-=--=---===----==-===-=--=--==-==--------=-==--=-=-=------==-==--= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ....... R EF PCT/TOT ....... R EF PCT/TOT t REF PCT/TOT ..... R EF PCT/TOT ... STU ,t STU ... STU ... ... ... ... STU ==c================================:=====================~====================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 so.ox 1 50.0X 0 .ox 0 .O 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .o,: 0 .ox 0  o,: 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 0 .O 0 .o:\u0026lt; 0 .o,: 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXF'ULSION 0 .ox 0 .OY. 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==========================================================================~~==== COMPARISION -.-.-.- -BM------- -----BF------ -----NBH----- -----NBF----- REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ... ...... ... ...R EF PCT(+/-)  REF F'CT(+/-) STU ... T STU  STU ... STU ... ... ===-====================================================:::=========-===:::===============::= 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 50.0-% 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 .o \" 1- 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 \" 1- 100.0-Y. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 1- 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .o  0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:22 Date: Time: School: 120 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disc i pl i nary Act ions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE DROPPED ALTERNATIVE CENTER 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ * REF PCT/TOT it STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .0% 0 0 .ox 0 -----BF------ * REF PCT/TOT ~ STU 0 .O 0 0 .ox 0 0 .0 .,,. 0 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 -----NBM----- t REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 -----NBF----- ~ REF PCT/TOT ~ STU 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 .ox 0 0 0 =====================================================================~~======~== 1 9 9 4 -----BM------ * REF PCT/TOT * STU - 9 5 -----BF------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT t STU -----NBM----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT C: STU -=----===-=--==--=---==--=--=---=-=----=--=--=-==- ...-.- -=-----=--=====----=--==---:r:::::::ac 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .ox 1 100.0 0 .ox 0 .ox 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 =====-==:==~===========================================::::=================:-:===:==========::= COMPARISION ==-=---=--==----=--------=-==------------~=-- .. =--=------=--=----=--=-:=s==--==--=-----=-- -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ ----NBM----- ----NBF----- REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-) .. ... ... ...R EF PCTC+/-) ...... REF PCT(+/-) * STU .. STU .. ... ... STU ...... STU =m:======i=====-===:.======:==========-:=======::=c==c======:..-::==:!=:===========r.a:===c.:c:==::==a1:=r:s=::-.1cci=:.::= 09 S.A.C. 0 .o  0 .o X 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .o \" 1 100.0  0 .0 \" 0 .0 \" 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 X 0 .o Y. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 () 12 E.A.C. 0 .o  0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .o  0 .0  0 .o X 0 .o  0 0 0 0 0 0 ... Ref: Dte: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:29:53 School: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ALTERNATIVE CENTER - ELEMENTARY 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ====c=m:=========s=====u===========sn~=:===~=====~===~====~=~=========a== -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBH----- -----NBF----- ......R EF F'CT/TOT * REF PCT/TOT  REF f'CT/TOT ...... R EF PCT/TOT STU * STU ... STU ... ... ... ... STU ==========================c=====r.=========================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 =====----==-=-----=-=-=---=====---=--===-----=-=--==----==-===-=-==----=-----==-=--= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =============-========================================================.--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NEtM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT/TOT ... REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT ... ...... ... ...R EF PCT/TOT STU ... ... ...S TU C: STU ...... STU =---==------------=-------=------=--------=- .-.= ---=--=------=--===--=-=----_.\n.--==--=--- 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .0% 1 100.0 0 .ox 0 .ox 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .OY. 0 .ox 0 .on 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ======================:=============================================================== COMPARISION ==---===--=--=--------=-------a:-:::-L.=-----------==----::t::=::aC----=---=---- -----==--::ate-= -.-.-.- -BM----- -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- .....R EF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ......R EF PCT\u0026lt;+/-)  REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ...... REF PCT(+/-) ...S TU  STU ......S TU ...... STU ====~======~================~======:=c============c~=*===========~====~==n===n= 09 S.A.C. 0 .o X 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .o \" 1 100.0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_414","title":"Discipline, annual report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"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","School discipline","School management and organization","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, annual report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/414"],"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":["162 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRecidivism Report - Black/White Year: 95 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF Senior High /CENTRAL /^AIR 100 35 V' 16-' 4 75 33 7 6 t HALL 108--t 17 24-1 5 MCCLELLA 94- METRO 26-' '\"8 4 8 1 Junior High Elementary J PARKVIEW CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR 27-( 105-*/ 119- ' 109 123 / 82- 5 14 26 48- 27 70 63 86\n42 26'' 21 24 18\" :\u0026gt;-l h'l 3 15 11 10 10 RECEIVED AUG 8 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OM OF Total /I 0 ,2 2 0 0 Senl nIorHi ligh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 156 121 156 /O 134 23 74 1-? 664 183 11 r 231 1.? 204 243 153 itr J 4 MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST BALE BASELINE I/6OOKER /brady CARVER 7 CHICOT 'DODD FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKLIN y FULBRIGH ''^GARLAND Vgeyer SP Wednesday, July 28,1999 53 48 9 2 0 135 90 35 30 \" 8 4- I 1 1 165 124 83 26 15 *' 2 1 251 5 3 0 0 3 8 14 7 20 7 21 8 33' 4 11 2 1 1 5 0 4 1 3 1 6' 2 2 1 0 0 4 2 3 2 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 3- 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 CiQi^) Junior High 1565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 14 24 9 309.^ 10 28 10 40 S L 8 13 3 Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 95 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Elementary Z * GIBBS '/jEFFRSN 7 3 2 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 - M L KING 8 1 2 0 0 0 11 /MABEL EL / MCDERMOT 26 3 6 5 2 3 0 40 1 0 0 0 0 4 / MEADCLIF 10 3 2^ 2 CP 0 18 J MITCHELL 26 8 1 1 0 0 36 OTTER CR 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 PUL HT E 15 3 1 0 0 0 19 RIGHTSEL 17 3 1 0 0 0 21 vROCKFELR Bromine /terry 16 5 2 0 1 0 24 5 1 0 oV^ 0 7 12 0 1 0 1 0 14 yWAKEFIEL 7 2 2 1 0 0 12 /WASHNGTN \\/WATSON JwESTHIL ^WILSON 13 14 12 4 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 16 3 3 0 1 1 0 20 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 4 WOODRUFF 2 0 1 1 0 0 4 Elementary 485 Wednesday, July 28,1999 Grand Total 2714 Page 2 of 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 60 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTALS FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OUT OF SCHOOL BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM DISTRICT TOTALS IIIIIIII IIII II II 3494 509 157 bhb SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED BF n BLK TOT 311 UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT 2b 6 32 25 1 32 3 2 5 3837 703 4540SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 1 TOT Ref Ruts CLASS 04 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan ^Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Gambling Dis Cond Paging D Sale Drg V As Sf Pos Weap In Riot Weapon CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 062 090 110 131 132 133 010 020 030 050 110 123 030 072 090 120 121 6 3 2 2 8 15 1 1 1 1 7 1 10 3 2 1 1 5 5 16 6 2 3 2 9 20 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 49 29 78 2 3 2 8 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 10 4 4 1 1 1 8 1 4 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 18 6 2 3 3 9 20 1 2 1 1 16 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 90 3 11 19 6 3 3-^ 11 23 1 2 1 1 17 1 3 2 3 1 1 101 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan l,Drug/A 1 jDrugs 1 Tardies Assault Theft Mischief Dis Cond 4 Drugs 2 V As Sf In Riot CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 062 110 131 132 133 010 030 080 110 040 072 120 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 4 1 2 SUBTOTAL 6 9 2 2 1 7 2 32 1 1 1 2 9 6 10 2 3 2 9 2 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 1 1 7 6 10 2 3 2 11 1 3 1 48 1 1 1 5 4 6 1 11 2 3 2 11 1v^^ 3 1 53 Fighting Foul Lan -'Drug/A 1 U5rugs 1 Tardies Battery Dis Cond 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 030 110 131 132 133 020 110 4 1 1 7 5 2 1 1 5 2 1 7 5 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 7 5 1 3 2 2 1 2 8 4 7 1 3SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 2 TOT Paging D T/llrugs 2 Pos Ueap CLASS 12 2 3 3 123 040 090 1 1 SUBTOTAL 20 2 4 2 24 6 1 7 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 102 42 144 18 4 22 4 4 1 1 1 2 28 1 8 1 2 36 17 6 23 1 1 1 1 167 24 191SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 3 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 Theft CLASS 02 2 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Theft CLASS 07 2 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det yfoul Lan /Drugs 1 Assault Battery Dis Cond Smoke 2 Paging D Sale Drg /Drugs 2 V As Sf CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 010 030 040 050 062 090 110 132 010 020 110 121 123 030 040 072 1 12 1 6 17 3 5 6 2 7 20 1 5 4 1 3 1 1 16 1 7 20 3 5 6 2 7 21 1 5 3 3 SUBTOTAL 1 2 89 9 1 2 98 1 1 2 2 8 1 1 2 3 3 10 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 16 1 7 20 3 5 6 4 8 24 1 5 3 1 3 4 8 2 4 10 2 2 1 8 110 3 1 11 1 19 1 7 21 3 5. 91/ 4 8 24 1 8 1^ 8 121 Dishon. Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan -w'Drugs 1 Assault Battery False Al Mischief Dis Cond Paging D Arson V As Sf Poss Exp CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 010 030 050 062 090 110 132 010 020 060 080 110 123 060 072 100 1 11 3 14 1 4 2 1 1 1 11 3 16 2 1 4 3 1 3 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 6 5 1 1 1 13 6 1 1 1 1 1 11 3 16 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 52 9 1 61 9 2 11 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 13 6 1 2 1 64 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 13 1 12 3 19 3 2 1 2 1 2 14 6 1 2 1 77LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 4 SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan ^Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Loiter Mischief Dis Cond Paging D Poss Gun CLASS 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 062 090 100 110 132 133 010 020 070 080 110 123 080 5 4 3 3 1 2 1 3 5 SUBTOTAL 27 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 171 1 1 2 20 5 4 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 3 6 29 191 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 11 28 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 12 33 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 14 2 2 3 3 1 1 5 4 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 31 208 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 12 36 1 6 1 1 k 1 1 1 2 2 6 7 1 244SCHOOL: 004 METROPOLITAN VO-TECH ED CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 6 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond Paging D CLASS 10 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 010 110 123 2 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 1 4 3 6 4 1 1 3 1 10 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 1 10 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 11 LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault CLASS 11 1 1 1 2 050 062 110 010 3 SUBTOTAL 1 4 6 1 7 9 1 1 11 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 11 2 1 1 4 2 10 1 2 15 Paging D CLASS 12 2 123 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 15 23 3 1 4 1 1 23 5 28SCHOOL: 014 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 23 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Bus Regs Ref Det Foul Lan t/brugs 1 Assault Battery Loiter Mischief Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf In Riot CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 062 070 090 110 132 010 020 070 080 110 071 072 120 5 8 1 6 9 1 1 2 2 6 3 10 2 1 7 14 1 9 19 1 3 3 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 40 27 67 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 9 1 10 12 1 4 1 1 5 1 16 1 1 7 14 1 9 19 1 5 8 1 1 3 4 9 1 83 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 11 7 16 1 10 23 6 9 1 1 4 4 9 1 94 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Mischief Ind Exp Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap In Riot Ueapon CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 062 090 110 010 020 080 100 110 071 072 090 120 121 5 3 6 1 12 3 2 2 2 5 1 2 7 3 11 2 14 3 2 2 7 7 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 6 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 39 10 49 11 11 1 15 7 1 22 1 1 2 7 3 11 2 14 12 3 2 1 3 1 9 1 1 1 71 7 2 1 2 1 13 7 3 18 2 16 12 4 2 1 5 2 9 1 1 1 84 Fighting Ref Ruts Ref Det Foul Lan *^rugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Loiter Ind Exp Dis Cond Ass Staf 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 062 090 110 132 010 020 030 070 100 110 071 5 2 2 6 4 1 8 5 6 3 14 3 1 1 3 2 5 1 2 1 2 5 1 2 1 1 1 6 6 3 14 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 1 2 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 8 11 4 16 1 5 3 1 1 1 2 6SCHOOL: 014 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 24 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT V As Sf Ueapon CLASS 09 3 3 072 121 3 3 6 SUBTOTAL 18 16 34 13 13 9 6 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 51 15 6 1 66 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 97 53 150 33 1 34 36 17 53 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 205 39 244LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 11 SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 08 1 2 062 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Battery CLASS 09 1 2 062 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Dis Cond Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 050 062 110 132 010 020 030 110 123 071 072 090 13 2 24 3 4 1 2 2 4 3 2 9 5 2 3 1 16 4 33 8 4 1 2 4 7 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 55 1 26 1 81 2 2 2 2 1 4 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 12 5 2 1 7 2 2 1 2 17 16 4 35 9 It 4 It 9 1 1 2 1 98 1 2 1 4 16 It -ib 9 6 8 It It 10 1 1 2 1 102 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan KDrug/A 1 ^Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Mischief Dis Cond CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 050 062 110 131 132 010 020 030 080 110 7 1 3 (\u0026gt; 2 3 1 1 5 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 24 1 9 8 1 It 11 3 3 1 1 1 33 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 4 8 4 4 8 1 4 11 3 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan x^Drugs 1 Assault 1 1 1 1 2 030 062 110 132 010 2 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 b 3 2 1 1 37 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 8 1 1 11 1 4 13 1 1 1 6 3 2 1 1 ti 2 1 3SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL 12 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond V As Sf CLASS 12 2 3 110 072 SUBTOTAL 3 1 9 3 3 1 12 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 13 2 3 1 15 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 91 40 131 7 7 14 17 5 22 153 14 167LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 19 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE SCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan p'Drug/A 1 \u0026gt;-T)rugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Gambling Loiter Ind Exp Dis Cond Forgery Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf In Riot CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 062 090 110 131 132 010 020 030* 050 070 100 110 122 123 071 072 120 20 4 1 2 7 9 1 8 1 14 1 3 SUBTOTAL 71 7 1 1 3 3 1 1 17 27 5 1 1 2 7 12 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 2 4 88 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 3 8 1 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 3 2 5 2 2 5 2 7 28 5 1 1 2 7 13 1 1 8 1 2 2 1 28 5 1 1 17 2 k 1 b 5 103 1 1 1 1 9 15 1 2 8 1 1 18 2 5 2 6 5 112 Dishon. Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan '^Drug/A 1 i^Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Gambling Dis Cond Paging D Poss Gun In Riot CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 010 030 062 090 110 131 132 010 020 030 050 110 123 080 120 1 7 5 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 SUBTOTAL 29 2 1 2 2 1 9 5 1 b 1 2 k 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 7 36 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 9 5 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 38 2 1 3 1 11 5 1 6 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 41 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan '-Orug/A 1 Assault Ind Exp Dis Cond 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 030 050 062 110 131 010 100 110 7 It 1 3 1 2 1 2 7 1 b 1 1 5 1 1 7 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 2 7 1 7 1 1 1 8SCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL 20 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Paging D Poss Gun CLASS 12 2 3 123 080 2 2 SUBTOTAL 17 6 23 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 26 4 2 1 30 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 117 30 147 11 3 14 11 1 12 1 1 2 \"6 8 167 16 183LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 7 SCHOOL: 005 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 09 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl Ref Ruis Dis Cond Poss Gun CLASS 10 1 1 2 3 050 062 110 080 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 i, 2 SUBTOTAL 1 3 4 4 3 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 4 2 7 3 5 3 1 12 Dishon. Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Smoking Foul Lan ^Drug/A 1 l/Drugs 1 Assault Theft Dis Cond Smoke 2 Paging D CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 010 030 050 062 100 110 131 132 010 030 110 121 123 7 1 1 4 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 1 18 5 1 6 12 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 7 2 1 3 2 1 24 1 2 1 1 21 2 3 2 7 1 1 3 10 2 3 12 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 28 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 3 10 2 3 1 13 b, 11 2 7 2 3 1 1 3 2 4 1 24 3 1 1 5 1 1 32 5 1 1 7 1 2 56 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan --/Drug/A 1 k/Drugs 1 Battery Theft Loiter Dis Cond Paging D CLASS 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 062 110 131 132 020 030 070 110 123 1 4 2 1 2 1 5 4 2 2 SUBTOTAL 2 9 1 1 5 1 3 14 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 30 14 44 1 1 1 1 6 31 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 41 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 5 4 2 1 1 2 3 17 1 1 1 1 1 . 7 1 7 4 1- 1- 2 2 1 2 3 24 48 46 94LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 25 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan vDrugs 1 Assault Theft Gambling Ind Exp Dis Cond Paging D Extort CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 062 110 132 010 030 050 100 110 123 110 9 24 1 1 1 2 12 5 11 36 6 1 1 2 9 1 2 10 SUBTOTAL 2 1 5 1 2 1 2 2 7 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 6 44 23 67 13 1 14 1 9 2 1 11 11 36 6 1 3 1 2 3 13 1 1 78 2 10 1 1 14 13 46 6 V 3 2 2 3 14 1 1 92 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Mischief Dis Cond Forgery Paging 0 Ass Staf V As Sf CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 040 062 110 010 020 080 110 122 123 071 072 3 2 5 1 1 13 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 52 4 7 2 3 16 7 2 31 5 2 1 1 16 1 1 1 68 1 1 8 8 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 12 12 5 5 1 1 1 1 7 2 31 5 k 1 1 18 1 1 1 2 74 1 8 1 2 12 8 2 39 5 It 1 2 20 1 1 1 2 86 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 iZDrugs 1 Assault Battery Mischief Dis Cond Paging D Ass Staf Poss Gun Pos Weap Extort Weapon CLASS 09 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 062 110 131 132 010 020 080 110 123 071 080 090 110 121 6 2 23 4 4 3 1 10 2 26 5 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 10 2 28 5 1 2 2 1 17 2 10 1 1 27 3 2 2 2 3 3 60 20 80 2 1 2 4 1 4 4 9 5 14 1 1 1 11 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 13 2 3 1 2 1 4 2 1 31 3 3 1 3 1 2 97 4 1 1 2 4 1 14 11 2 32 6 6 2 1 35 4 3 1 3 1 2 111LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 26 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 156 59 215 34 6 40 25 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF 4 BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 29 5 249 40 289KWH Mi LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 9 SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BT REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UH WF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dishon. Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan Tardies Assault Battery Theft False Al Mischief Dis Cond Har Conn Forgery Paging 0 V As Sf CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 030 040 062 110 133 010 020 030 060 080 110 120 122 123 072 1 28 2 kk 4 k 13 12 1 2 1 41 2 56 5 6 8 2 10 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 89 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 33 2 1 1 1 1 2 122 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 19 2 7 1 3 3 10 2 2 4 1 1 1 41 2 56 5 6 4 3 3 1 10 3 1 3 1 4 1 1 5 133 1 1 1 1 1 23 1 51 2 59 5 7 7 4 3 1 1 5 1 1 2 6 156 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan ^rugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft False Al Mischief Dis Cond Har Conn Forgery Sale Drg Ass Staf V As Sf Poss Exp CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 062 110 132 133 010 020 030 060 080 110 120 122 030 071 072 100 19 38 1 8 19 1 27 57 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 66 1 3 3 1 2 38 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 3 2 6 4 1 4 1 1 27 58 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 3 6 4 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 104 9 11 20 3 1 3 1 2 6 1 5 2 110 2 20 33 62 3 4* 1 k 1 4 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 5 2 130 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan -^Drug/A 1 'Drugs 1 Tardies Assault 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 030 040 062 110 131 132 133 010 5 2 15 1 2 1 ma 5 9 2 1 10 2 2k 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 frt nAiflMiHflgB 10 2 Ik 3 2 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 10 2 26 k l'-- 2*wx 2 5LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 10 SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Battery Gambling Mischief Dis Cond V As Sf Poss Gun Poss Exp CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 020 050 080 110 072 080 100 1 3 1 4 2 2 3 1 5 3 7 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 37 24 1 61 4 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 1 1 1 1 5 4 8 1 1 67 1 7 1 1 5 4 9 1 1 74 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 10 1 1 030 062 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 193 95 288 26 20 46 16 6 22 3 2 5 1 1 311 51 362SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 13 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan i/Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft False Al Ind Exp Dis Cond Forgery Arson V As Sf Pos Ueap Poss Exp Ueapon CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 062 110 132 133 010 020 030 060 100 110 122 060 072 090 100 121 18 1 50 8 1 4 2 3 1 1 1 9 1 3 SUBTOTAL 103 4 2 15 2 8 1 1 6 1 1 41 22 1 2 65 10 1 12 2 4 2 1 1 15 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 144 11 1 12 3 1 3 1 1 6 1 1 24 1 2 65 10 1 12 2 4 2 1 1 16 2 1 3 1 1 1 150 4 3 1 4 1 13 28 1 2 68 11 16 3 4 2 1 1 16 2 1 3 1 1 1 163 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan i/brug/A 1 ^rugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Gambling False Al Ind Exp Dis Cond V As Sf Pos Ueap In Riot CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 040 050 062 110 131 132 133 010 020 050 060 100 110 072 090 120 11 1 11 22 1 1 2 3 SUBTOTAL 22 1 10 3 32 4 1 5 2 1 1 2 2 6 4 22 1 3 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 1 1 1 1 030 040 050 062 110 3 2 3 6 2 1 1 4 3 2 8 1 3 4 3 6 2 1 1 12 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 60 35 95 10 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 8 18 6 1 3 1 9 32 4 1 3 4 3 10 2 1 1 14 4 1 1 104 2 6 4 1 1 1 18 7 2 9 16 2 1 1 1 1 15 8 6 3 21 11 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 17 2 22 11 1 2 2 1 25 1 2 38 8 3 5 3 10 2 1 1 15 5 1 1 122 18 2 2 24 12SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 06/20/95 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 14 TOT v'l Drug/A 1 (/Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Gambling Loiter Mischief Dis Cond Har Comm Forgery Paging D Sale Drg (/Drugs 2 V As Sf Pos Weap CLASS 09 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 131 132 133 010 020 030 050 070 080 110 120 122 123 030 040 072 090 7 1 1 4 3 7 1 1 7 1 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 7 1 2 9 10 6 16 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 63 1 1 30 2 1 93 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 5 14 6 3 9 226 106 332 30 14 44 15 9 24 1 1 2 3 1 2 17 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 102 356 1 1 14 45 It^ 1 2 10 2 2 3 1 18 1 1 2 1 4 1 116 401SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 21 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan\nZ0rugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Robbery Mischief Dis Cond Har Comm Forgery Ass Staf V As Sf Poss Gun 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 010 030 040 050 062 110 132 133 010 020 030 032 080 110 120 122 071 072 080 15 1 13 4 1 10 8 2 2 1 10 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 69 1 8 1 13 3 3 3 2 1 4 1 1 41 1 23 1 1 26 7 1 13 11 2 4 2 14 1 2 1 110 2 2 3 3 3 4 1 2 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 4 5 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 20 1 1 1 2 1 1 10 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 26 1 1 28 7 1 13 13 3 4 1 2 14 1 2 3 It 2 4 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 12 3 3 125 1 20 1 28 1 5 33 8 2 16 14 3 5 1 3 14 1 2 3 k 1 145 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan t-'Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Mischief Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Weap In Riot Gang Mem 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 050 062 090 100 110 132 133 010 020 030 080 110 071 072 090 120 123 12 22 3 3 1 1 2 2 17 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL 64 5 19 6 1 1 2 1 1 10 2 48 17 41 3 9 2 2 4 1 2 1 27 2 1 112 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 17 1 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 22 41 3 3 3 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 20 3 13 4 3 17 2 2 1 1 9 2 2 5 2 2 1 32 1 4 1 1 3 131 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 22 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 1 1 1 030 050 062 110 6 2 7 3 12 5 3 18 2 12 6 1 1 5 5 4 23 2 12 6 1 4 25 3 46 3 1 11 2 6 3 3 1 36 1 5 1 1 3 153 24 2 16 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 22 SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCT IONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT -41 Drug/A 1 Mlrugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Mischief Ind Exp Dis Cond Har Conn Smoke 2 Paging D (/Drugs 2 Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap Ueapon CLASS 09 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 131 132 133 010 020 080 100 110 120 121 123 040 071 072 090 121 1 1 1 2 2 7 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 1 37 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 170 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 18 1 41 130 2 25 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 78 300 5 5 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 14 45 1 15 14 3 17 4 28 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 95 1 5 1 15 10 55 37 9 46 2 2 4 1 5 351 57 1' 3 2 5 1 1 4 33 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 110 408LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 27 SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 02 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan iZDrugs 1 Battery Loiter Ind Exp Dis Cond Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf Other of CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 030 062 110 132 020 070 100 110 123 071 072 000 10 24 2 3 13 6 23 30 2 3 3 6 1 3 1 6 7 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 1 4 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 3 1 4 2 47 25 72 1 1 2 1 1 14 5 19 1 1 4 1 1 1 5 23 30 2 3 1 1 1 11 1 1 2 1 77 6 7 1 4 1 19 29 37 3 3 1 1 1 15 1 1 3 1 96 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan .XT) rugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Gambling Dis Cond Paging D iXOrugs 2 V As Sf Pos Ueap Other of CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 030 062 110 132 010 020 030 050 110 123 040 072 090 000 6 30 3 3 4 1 2 1 12 1 8 5 3 1 10 14 35 6 It It 1 2 1 22 1 1 3 4 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 65 1 2 30 2 1 2 95 10 3 3 2 8 4 6 4 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 18 4 4 8 3 3 1 1 15 35 6 4 4 1 2 1 27 2 4 1 2 104 4 6 4 1 3 3 21 19 41 6 8 4 1 2 2 30 2 3 It 1 2 125 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan ^Drugs 1 Battery Theft Gambling Dis Cond Paging D Arson V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 050 062 110 132 020 030 050 110 123 060 072 3 1 18 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 RBB 2 1 3 5 1 19 3 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 19 3 1 2 5 1 3 10 2 22 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 9 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 11 1 2 1 iTtirBiMTn iTSCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL 28 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Pos Ueap In Riot Ueapon Other of CLASS 09 3 3 3 4 090 120 121 000 SUBTOTAL 1 36 6 1 42 9 3 12 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 149 61 210 33 16 49 10 7 17 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 2 50 12 1 1 1 2 62 CD 5 232 52 284SCHOOL: 003 MANN MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 5 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting CLASS 02 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Dis Cond CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 062 090 110 010 020 030 110 17 1 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 2 25 16 2 1 1 1 1 22 33 3 1 1 4 1 1 3 9 3 12 1 1 9 3 12 1 1 33 3 1 1 5 1 1 3 48 12 12 45 3 1 1 5 1 1 3 60 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Bus Regs ^oul Lan Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Loi ter Mischief Dis Cond Paging D Sale Drg Drugs 2 Ass Staf CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 030 050 062 070 110 132 010 020 030 070 080 110 123 030 040 071 15 3 1 1 5 1 4 1 20 1 7 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 6 1 1 20 1 7 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 4 1 1 6 1 1 22 2 8 2 1 6 1 7 2 13 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 31 23 54 9 5 14 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 13 3 1 1 57 2 1 1 15 6 3 k 1 2 14 3 1 / 1 1 72 Fighting Ref Ruis Bus Regs Foul Lan vDrugs 1 Assault Dis Cond Paging D CLASS 09 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 070 110 132 010 110 123 7 2 1 1 3 4 2 6 10 6 3 7 SUBTOTAL 3 2 1 17 4 19 3 6 1 36 4 4 1 2 2 3 16 2 1 3 Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 75 64 139 34 11 6 4 1 2 3 3 19 45 3 1 4 1 1 10 6 3 7 3 6 1 36 6 4 1 2 3 3 19 1 1 143 46 16 10 4 9 3 9 1 55 1 1 189SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 06/20/95 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 15 TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 02 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Bus Regs Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Dis Cond Forgery Paging D V As Sf Other of CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 030 040 062 070 110 010 020 030 110 122 123 072 000 11 2 13 2 3 3 22 1 SUBTOTAL 57 4 1 2 1 8 1 17 15 2 14 2 5 1 3 30 1 1 74 8 8 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 15 1 1 16 2 14 2 5 1 1 3 31 1 1 1 8 5 1 2 2 4 78 1 15 24 2 19 2 5 1 1 4 31 1 1 1 1 93 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis . Foul Lan 7 Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Ind Exp Dis Cond Forgery Sale Ale V As Sf Pos Weap CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 050 062 110 131 132 010 020 030 100 110 122 010 072 090 9 24 1 1 1 1 3 1 16 1 SUBTOTAL 58 1 4 1 10 16 9 1 28 2 1 1 1 3 1 26 1 74 6 6 5 1 2 2 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 4 9 1 1 1 1 1 22 8 1 30 1 1 3 3 9 1 28 2 1 1 2 3 1 27 1 1 77 6 7 1 1 2 1 9 1 1 1 30 15 1 35 3 1\u0026gt;-- 2 2 3 1 36 2 1 1 1 107 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Drug/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 030 040 050 062 090 110 131 4 1 1 10 1 2 3 1 5 2 5 1 1 15 1 4 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 5 1 1 15 1 4 3 2 1 4 7 1 1 16 1 8 3SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 16 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT yOrugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Mischief Ind Exp Dis Cond Har Comm Ass Staf In Riot Ueapon CLASS 09 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 132 010 020 030 080 100 110 120 071 120 121 1 2 1 32 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 59 Gambling CLASS 10 2 050 SUBTOTAL 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 175 1 1 10 23 56 3 1 1 42 1 7 7 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 82 12 3 15 4 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 46 1 1 1 88 1 7 1 16 2 1 3 1 1 53 1 1 1 1 104 1 1 1 1 1 1 231 50 12 62 9 4 13 1 1 244 63 307SCHOOL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 06/20/95 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 17 TOT Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Tardies Assault Battery Theft False Al Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 040 050 062 110 133 010 020 030 060 110 123 072 26 3 1 17 5 15 9 11 2 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan '/Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Ind Exp Dis Cond Paging D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 050 062 090 100 110 132 133 010 020 100 110 123 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Dishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Bus Regs Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 I/O rugs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 010 030 040 050 062 070 090 100 110 131 132 2 2 1 11 1 69 12 2 I, 25 It 8 2 1 19 2 79 12 2 30 1 9 12 1 6 43 6 10 2 6 1 1 7 33 1 12 5 15 1 5 11 41 3 1 26 16 2 2 2 1 17 1 112 18 2 4 35 6 14 1 1 2 1 26 2 112 1 24 2 5 45 2 14 23 1 3 1 3 3 4 14 4 1 5 1 7 4 22 5 1 1 3 2 7 1 1 1 4 6 1 1 1 3 6 1 2 3 2 1 1 4 1 I, 5 8 20 5 1 6 1 1 7 7 28 6 1 3 (\u0026gt; 4 1 8 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 5 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 7 1 1 1 1 1 41 3 1 26 16 2 2 k 1 17 1 1 115 18 2 4 35 6 14 1 1 5 1 1 29 2 119 1 24 2 5 46 2 14 23 1 4 1 I, 3 1 8 21 5 1 6 1 1 7 8 29 6 1 3 6 4 1 8 1 45 3 2 30 19 2 2 4 1 1 25 1 1 136 23 2 5 41 7 21 1 1 5 1 1 37 2 148 1 30 3 8 52 2 18 1 31 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 18 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE SCHOOL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Tardies Assault Battery Theft False Al Mischief Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Pos Ueap CLASS 09 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 133 010 020 030 060 080 110 123 072 090 1 1 2 2 11 1 SUBTOTAL 85 1 1 Fighting CLASS 10 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Fighting CLASS 11 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 12 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 236 4 1 1 1 2 2 15 2 1 6 1 2 6 2 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 7 1 2 2 18 2 4 1 1 56 141 23 11 34 1 10 3 1 13 1 1 1 1 2 1 154 2 36 1 2 7 1 2 2 22 2 2 1 190 134 1 1 1 1 1 1 370 59 23 82 18 5 23 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 393 86 479LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 29 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 03 1 030 SUBTOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Battery CLASS 04 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 05 1 030 SUBTOTAL 4 4 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 Fighting CLASS 06 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 6 4 10 10 10SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL UF UHT TOT BLK UHT 33 TOT Fighting CLASS 02 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 1 4 4 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 8 SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis Battery Dis Cond CLASS 02 1 2 2 062 020 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 4 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 1 2 1 1 4 6 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 03 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 5 Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Mischief Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 010 080 110 SUBTOTAL 3 1 2 1 1 8 3 1 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 8 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 9 Battery CLASS 06 2 020 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis CLASS 08 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 15 2 17 6 1 7 17 7 24LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 30 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCT IONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Battery CLASS 01 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ass Staf CLASS 02 3 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Battery Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 2 020 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Fighting Ref Ruis Battery Ind Exp Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 020 100 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 8 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 9 Assault Battery Dis Cond Gang Hem CLASS 06 2 2 2 3 010 020 110 123 2 2 4 SUBTOTAL 8 2 1 3 2 2 6 1 11 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 1 11 2 2 2 2 8 1 13 Ref Ruis CLASS 08 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 22 6 28 2 2 4 28 4 32SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL UF UHT TOT BLK WHT 32 TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 V As Sf CLASS 05 3 072 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Battery CLASS 06 1 2 062 020 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl CLASS 11 1 050 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 7 2 2 7 2 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 39 SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault Dis Cond CLASS K 2 2 010 110 SUBTOTAL 1 12 1 1 2 1 12 1 12 Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting Assault Mischief Arson Pos Ueap CLASS 02 1 2 2 3 3 030 010 080 060 090 1 1 11 1 2 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 11 3 1 2 2 11 7 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 03 1 1 2 2 030 062 010 110 622 1 SUBTOTAL 10 1 1 3 7 23 1 13 1 1 1 1 7 23 1 13 1 1 8 23 1 14 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 16 7 16 7 1 6 7 1 6 7 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 2 7 9 1 1 3 7 10 1 1 1 1 3 7 10 1 1 3 8 11 Fighting Ref Ruis Theft Ind Exp Dis Cond Arson CLASS 06 1 12 2 2 3 030 062 030 100 110 060 1 1 1 1 1 111 11 SUBTOTAL 3 2 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 35 8 43 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 11 111 5 1 1 1 11 11 1 6 43 6 49 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 42 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE SCHOOL: 032 DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault CLASS 02 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 -/Drugs 1 Assault CLASS 03 1 2 132 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1' 1 2 Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl Assault Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 2 2 050 010 110 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 Ref Ruis Assault Theft CLASS 06 1 2 2 062 010 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 1 9 2 2 9 2 11SCHOOL: 023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 34 TOT Ref Ruis Foul Lan CLASS 01 1 1 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 1 1 2 030 062 110 110 SUBTOTAL 2 4 1 1 8 1 1 3 4 1 1 9 3 4 1 1 9 3 4 1 1 9 Fighting Ref Ruis Battery Dis Cond Paging D CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 020 110 123 1 7 1 1 8 SUBTOTAL 3 1 12 1 3 1 13 1 6 1 8 1 6 1 1 8 8 3 1 13 1 6 1 8 2 14 1 3 1 21 Fighting Ref Ruis Dis Cond Paging D CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 030 062 110 123 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 1 6 2 2 1 5 1 1 8 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 30 4 34 8 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 8 1 1 1 6 1 1 9 9 34 9 43LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 35 SCHOOL: 024 FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruts CLASS 03 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Pos Ueap CLASS 04 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 05 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruts Foul Lan Theft Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 1 2 2 030 062 110 030 110 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 9 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 6 10 2 2 10 2 12LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 36 SCHOOL: 025 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault CLASS K 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Battery Dis Cond CLASS 01 1 12 2 2 030 062 010 020 110 SUBTOTAL 5 4218 20 1 1 2 6 5 21 8 22 1 1 1 1 6 5 21 8 22 1 1 6 621 8 23 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 02 1 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 41 5 1 1 5 16 5 1 6 5 16 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Dis Cond Pos Ueap CLASS 03 1 11 2 3 030 062 110 110 090 2 1 2 1 2 11 2 SUBTOTAL 5 1 6 1 1 11 2 1 1 21 7 2 11 21 7 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 1 1 22 030 062 110 010 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 11 2 1 6 1 1 1 2 1 6 Ref Ruis Assault Pos Ueap CLASS 05 1 2 3 062 010 090 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 12 1 12 4 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 030 062 010 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 3 8 2 2 21 3 10 4 21 3 10 4 21 3 10 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 47 6 53 1 1 1 1 56 1 57 SCHOOL: 048 FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 56 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Bus Regs Battery Pos Ueap CLASS 06 1 1 2 3 062 070 020 090 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 4 2 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 8LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 37 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE SCHOOL: 026 GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 1 2 2 030 062 010 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 6 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Battery Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 010 020 110 SUBTOTAL 4 5 1 2 1 13 1 1 4 5 1 3 1 14 4 5 1 3 1 14 4 5 1 3 1 14 Fighting Assault CLASS 06 1 2 030 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 20 2 22 22 22SCHOOL: 037 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM Ass Staf 3 071 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL UF UHT TOT BLK UHT 47 TOT 1 1 1 1 Theft CLASS 04 2 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pos Ueap CLASS 06 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 3 3LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 38 SCHOOL: 027 GIBBS MAGNET SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis Theft CLASS 03 1 2 062 030 2 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting Ref Ruts CLASS 05 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 5 2 3 5 2 3 5 Ref Ruts CLASS 06 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 / 3 11 3 3 11 3 14SCHOOL: 030 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 06/20/95 UF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 41 TOT Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1SCHOOL: 035 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. ELEMENTARY OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL UF UHT TOT BLK UHT 45 TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Arson CLASS 04 1 1 1 3 030 062 110 060 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Ref Ruis Foul Lan Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 2 062 110 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 1 8 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 5 8 3 11SCHOOL: 046 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCT IONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 54 TOT Fighting Harass Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 1 1 030 040 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 It 1 1 2 4 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 01 1 1 2 2 030 062 010 110 SUBTOTAL 3 7 1 4 15 1 1 3 7 1 5 16 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 5 16 2 2 3 9 1 5 18 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault CLASS 02 1 1 1 2 030 062 110 010 SUBTOTAL 6 1 1 8 6 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 2 2 6 1 1 8 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 10 Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan Theft CLASS 03 1 1 1 2 040 062 110 030 SUBTOTAL 1 4 1 1 7 2 2 1 6 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 9 1 1 1 7 1 1 10 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan CLASS 04 1 1 1 030 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 2 2 062 010 110 1 SUBTOTAL 3 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 4 7 2 1 4 7 2 1 4 7 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 2 062 010 110 2 1 3 2 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 3 3 2 1 1 4 5 1 1 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 45 7 52 7 2 9 52 9 61LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 31 SCHOOL: 020 MCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Battery CLASS 03 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault CLASS 04 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Assault CLASS 06 1 2 030 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 4 1 5 5 5SCHOOL: 033 MEADOUCLIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL 43 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Assault Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 2 010 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 5 6 1 1 1 6 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 6 7 1 2 3 2 8 10 Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis CLASS 06 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 2 14 3 2 5 14 5 19SCHOOL: 034 MITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 44 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 02 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Battery CLASS 03 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault Dis Cond Pos Ueap CLASS 04 2 2 3 010 110 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Dis Cond Paging D CLASS 05 1 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 110 010 110 123 SUBTOTAL 2 12 7 1 9 1 32 2 12 7 1 9 1 32 1 1 1 1 2 12 7 1 9 1 32 1 1 2 12 8 1 9 1 33 Fighting Ref Ruis Bus Regs Foul Lan Dis Cond V As Sf CLASS 06 1 1 1 1 2 3 030 062 070 110 110 072 5 3 1 3 4 4 SUBTOTAL 16 1 5 5 7 1 3 4 1 21 5 7 1 3 4 1 21 5 7 1 3 4 1 21 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 51 7 58 1 1 58 1 59LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 57 SCHOOL: 050 OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 03 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pos Ueap CLASS 04 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 4 4 4 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 48 SCHOOL: 038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis Assault CLASS 01 1 2 062 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Fighting Foul Lan CLASS 02 1 1 030 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Assault Theft CLASS 04 1 2 2 030 010 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 1 2 2 030 050 062 010 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 3 4 12 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 5 14 2 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 4 5 14 2 1 3 1 1 5 4 6 17 Ref Ruis Assault Theft Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 2 2 062 010 030 110 SUBTOTAL 2 3 1 1 7 2 3 1 1 7 2 3 1 1 7 2 3 1 1 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 26 3 29 3 3 29 3 32SCHOOL: 039 RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 49 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 3 4 Fighting CLASS 04 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting LeftSchl CLASS 05 1 1 030 050 5 SUBTOTAL 5 1 1 2 6 1 7 6 1 7 6 1 7 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Ind Exp Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 1 2 2 030 062 110 100 110 SUBTOTAL 5 6 1 1 2 15 5 6 1 1 2 15 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 23 5 28 1 1 5 6 1 1 2 15 1 1 6 6 1 1 2 16 1 1 28 1 29LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 46 SCHOOL: 036 ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT fighting Ref Ruis Bus Regs Assault Battery CLASS 01 1 1 1 2 2 030 062 070 010 020 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 7 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Ass Staf CLASS 02 1 1 2 3 030 062 010 071 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Ref Ruts Bus Regs CLASS 03 1 1 062 070 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 3 3 1 4 2 2 2 2 3 1 4 2 2 5 1 6 Fighting Ref Ruis Bus Regs Theft CLASS 05 1 1 1 2 030 062 070 030 3 SUBTOTAL 1 2 6 2 2 3 2 1 2 8 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 8 1 1 3 3 1 2 9 Fighting Ref Ruis Bus Regs Assault CLASS 06 1 1 1 2 030 062 070 010 1 3 SUBTOTAL 3 7 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 9 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 24 7 31 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 4 9 1 1 1 4 1 4 10 32 4 36SCHOOL: 040 ROMINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL UF UHT TOT BLK UHT 50 TOT Assault CLASS 01 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 2 3 5 2 3 5 2 3 5 2 3 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 3 11 11 11SCHOOL: 047 TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 55 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault CLASS 02 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Ass Staf CLASS 03 1 3 062 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting CLASS 04 1 030 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond Poss Exp CLASS 05 1 2 2 3 062 010 110 100 SUBTOTAL 3 2 2 1 8 3 2 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 8 1 1 2 4 3 2 1 10 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 1 2 2 030 062 110 010 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 2 4 10 2 1 1 2 k 10 2 1 1 2 I, 10 2 1 1 2 4 10 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 23 23 2 2 23 2 25LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 58 SCHOOL: 051 WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Foul Lan CLASS 01 1 1 030 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Foul Lan Assault Dis Cond CLASS 02 1 2 2 110 010 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 Fighting CLASS 03 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 04 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Foul Lan Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 2 030 110 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 5 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 9 2 11 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 1 1 2 3 1 3 7 3 1 4 11 4 15SCHOOL: 042 WASHINGTON MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL WF WHT TOT BLK WHT 51 TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 03 1 030 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting CLASS 04 1 030 SUBTOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Fighting Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 030 062 110 SUBTOTAL 4 2 2 8 1 1 5 2 2 9 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 13 1 14 1 1 1 1 5 3 2 10 1 1 6 3 2 11 2 2 1 1 15 2 17SCHOOL: 052 WATSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL UF UHT TOT BLK UHT 59 TOT Battery CLASS 01 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Theft Ind Exp CLASS 02 2 2 030 100 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Battery CLASS 03 1 1 2 030 062 020 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Theft CLASS 06 1 1 2 030 062 030 4 1 5 SUBTOTAL 1 5 1 1 6 1 2 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 14 1 15 5 1 1 1 2 2 5 4 6 1 6 2 2 4 7 2 1 10 15 6 21SCHOOL: 029 WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 40 TOT Ref Ruis Poss Gun Pos Ueap CLASS 01 1 3 3 062 080 090 SUBTOTAL 2 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 6 Ref Ruis CLASS 02 1 062 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan CLASS 06 1 1 1 030 062 110 2 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 13 2 15 3 3 15 3 18LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 52 SCHOOL: 044 WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting Battery CLASS 05 1 2 030 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting CLASS 07 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 4 4SCHOOL: 045 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL 53 WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ueapon CLASS 02 3 121 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault CLASS 04 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Assault CLASS 06 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 4\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_395","title":"Downtown Schools","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"],"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 management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Downtown Schools"],"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/395"],"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":["111 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\nOffice 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 February 18, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Enclosed are a number of charts containing information which the Court asked ODM to provide the district. This information should be helpful as you consider a number of issues, particularly those relevant to the future of Stephens and a new LRSD interdistrict school. As the Court requested, the charts show the number of empty seats in the incentive schools, the number of empty seats at King, and the number of children who are enrolled in these schools. To show where LRSD children might most likely be targeted for recruitment to PCSSDs new Clinton Interdistrict School, we have prepared racial balance data on schools in various areas of town and also a chart on the Washington Attendance Zones illustrating the dispersement of children who live in that schools zones but attend elsewhere. We have also used the LRSDs data base and 1993-94 budget to generate additional information which is categorized according to the titles and subtitles of each document. For example, one chart contains information on per-pupil expenditures by elementary school. Earlier this month. Bob Morgan and 1 met with Russ Mayo and Chris Heller to review the charts in draft form and to stress that our calculations were all based on data given us by the LRSD. We also gave Russ a computer disc containing the student data base from which we developed our charts. We have attempted to make each chart self-explanatory through headings, footnotes, or a brief introduction. However, some of the data may not be as self-evident as we intended it to be. So, please dont hesitate to contact me if we need to be clearer about any aspect of the information. Sincerely yours, 'J Ann S. Brown co: Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All CounselSchool Acceptable Balance Otter Creek Jefferson Terry Forest Park Fulbright Pulaski Hts. McDermott Out of Balance Woodruff Mablevale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield Bale Fair Park Baseline Watson Cloverdale Incentive Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller Interdistrict Washington King Romine Magnet LRSD Enrollment Showing Available Seats and Excess Capacity Principal Capacity Black White Total 93-94 Black Available Percent of 93-94 93-94 93-94 Percent Seats Capacity Booker Williams Carver Gibbs Carolyn Teeter Francis Cawthon La Dell Looper Virginia Ashley Mac Huffman Lillie Carter Mike Oliver Pat Higgenbotham Julie Davenport Patricia Howse Scott Morgan Mary Menking Jerry Worm Otis Presler Mary Golston Eleanor Cox Gwen Ziegler Willie Morris Levanna Wilson Barbara Means Mary Jane Cheatham Teresa Courtney Frederick Fields Franklin Davis Robert Brown Samuel Branch Lonnie Dean Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Karen Buchanan Sadie Mitchell Lionel Ward Dr. Cheryl Simmons Dr. Ed Jackson Mary Guinn Donna Davis Incentive school capacities reflected in the 1992 Desegregation Plan Totals for Elementary Schools________________ Below Capacity Seats \u0026amp; Percent of Capacity 351 492 515 399 540 374 517 3188 324 515 328 328 467 465 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 6582 544 346 346 298 346 425 141 213 243 200 233 190 262 200 291 318 258 287 208 247 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 1482 1809 3291 41.35% 42.26% 43.32% 43.67% 44.81% 47.74% 51.47% 45.03% 10 -12 -46 -59 20 -24 8 -103 97% 102% 109% 115% 96% 106% 98% 103% 147 311 189 215 263 306 356 132 208 263 337 225 200 265 353 304 89 177 103 117 134 128 153 57 80 91 110 78 63 78 89 82 236 488 292 332 397 434 509 189 288 354 447 303 263 343 442 386 4074 1629 5703 62.29% 63.73% 64.73% 64.76% 66.25% 70.51% 69.94% 69.84% 72.22% 74.29% 75.39% 74.26% 76.05% 77.26% 79.86% 78.76% 71.44% 88 27 36 -4 70 31 49 68 40 40 45 98 88 47 50 106 879 73% 95% 89% 101% 85% 93% 91% 74% 88% 90% 91% 76% 75% 88% 90% 78% 87% 300 181 215 141 184 240 45 24 15 4 5 100 345 205 230 145 189 340 2305 * 1261 193 1454 86.96% 88.29% 93.48% 97.24% 97.35% 70.59% 86.73% 199 141 116 153 157 85 851 63% 59% 66% 49% 55% 80% 63% 939 692 487 2118 656 517 613 353 2139 16332 2456 451 357 247 1055 321 257 325 170 1073 270 196 87 721 553 334 553 1608 62.55% 64.56% 73.95% 65.61% 218 139 153 510 77% 80% 69% 76% 274 215 270 129 595 472 595 299 888 1961 53.95% 54.45% 54.62% 56.86% 54.72% 61 45 18 54 178 91% 91% 97% 85% 92% 8945 5072 14017 86% 63.82% Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedENROLLMENT IN DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Prepared by ODM February 1994 For the purpose of this document, ODM has identified a downtown elementary school as any elementary school located within these boundaries\neast of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham. These boundaries create a rectangular area encompassing the six incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens), three magnet schools (Booker, Carver, and Gibbs), two interdistrict schools (King and Washington), one area school (Woodruff), and the kindergarten classes at Central High School. By using the defined boundaries, some schools outside the downtown area have a few contiguous attendance zones that fall within the downtown area: Bale Elementary has four zones east of University, Fair Park has four zones and a partial zone south of Markham, and Pulaski Heights has one zone south of Markham. Woodruff, which is identified as a downtown school, has one zone north of Markham. However, for the purpose of this document, all zones within the defined boundaries are identified in the downtown area. A list of the zones defined for the purpose of this document as downtown attendance zones is provided. The information used to complete the last nine columns of this document is from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) student enrollment data base as of December 8, 1993. The second column is the October 1, 1993 enrollment reported to Arkansas Department of Education. The capacity figures in the third column are reported from LRSD as the current capacities. The fourth and fifth columns are results of calculations based on enrollment and capacity.Corrected 2-22-94 School Enrollment Oct 1 Capacity Franklin Incentive 345 544 Garland Incentive 205 346 Mitchell Incentive 230 346 LRSD DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS % Filled Available Seats Live downtown but attend outside downtown Live downtown and attend downtown Live outside downtown but attend downtown Total Black White Total Black White Total Black White 63 59 66 199 270 260 10 281 263 18 55 28 27 141 118 117 1 190 172 18 14 6 8 116 131 127 4 192 177 15 29 21 8 Rightsell Incentive 189 346 55 157 90 87 3 165 163 2 22 17 5 Rockefeller Incentive 340 425 80 85 74 72 2 238 192 46 142 62 80 Stephens Incentive Sub Total Incentive Schools 145 298 49 153 86 86 0 136 135 1 9 6 3 Booker Magnet Carver Magnet Gibbs Magnet Sub Total Magnet Schools . King Interdistrict Washington Interdistrict Magnet Sub Total Interdistrict Schools Woodruff (Area) Central Kindergarten Satellite Zones Contiguous Zones Grand Total 1,454 5^305 63 851 769 749 20 1,202 1.102 100 271 140 131 595 595 299 ? 1.489 553 721 1,274 236 50 N/A N/A 4,503 656 613 353 692 939 1,631 324 50 N/A N/A 5,932 91 61 N/A N/A N/A 130 116 14 461 202 259 97 85 02 80 77 78 73 100 N/A N/A 76 18 54 433 139 218 357 88 0 N/A N/A 1329 N/A N/A 90 262 352 17 N/A 747 313 2,198 N/A N/A 130 124 6 465 206 259 N/A N/A 102 88 14 198 83 115 0 0 362 328 34 1,124 491 633 89 253 342 15 N/A 722 253 2\u0026gt;081 1 9 10 2 N/A 25 60 117 331 406 737 156 46 N/A N/A 2,503 317 383 700 113 46 N/A N/A 2,289 14 23 37 43 0 N/A N/A 214 217 314 531 75 4 N/A 2,005 17 65 82 33 4 N/A 750 200 249 449 42 0 N/AThere are seven satellite zones in the downtown area wherein students are assigned and transported to schools outside the downtown area\nBrady, Forest Park Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Terry. However, all students in those satellite zones do not attend the targeted schools. For example, Terry has 138 students identified within the downtown satellite zone (all black) of which 25 attend Terry. The remaining 113 students are assigned to 29 different schools. There are no satellite zones for the downtown area that would result in students being assigned and transported to a school downtown. Targeted School Brady McDermott Forest Park Jefferson Meadow -cliff Terry Otter Creek Students in satellite zone 66 180 162 273 191 138 124 Students attending targeted school Students outside targeted school Number of schools students attending outside the targeted school 33 33 16 66 60 71 72 25 39 114 102 202 119 113 85 23 29 29 32 29 22Incentive School Attendance Zones and Schools Attended Incentive Zone School Attending School Franklin_________________ Garland_________________ Mitchell_________________ Rightsell________________ Rockefeller_____________ Booker_________________ Carver_________________ Gibbs _______________ Williams________________ Badgett________________ Bale___________________ Baseline________________ Brady__________________ Chicot__________________ Cloverdale Elem Dodd__________________ Fair Park_______________ Forest Park____________ Fullbright_______________ Geyer Springs__________ Jefferson______________ M L. King_______________ Mablevale Elem_________ McDermott Meadovi/cliff____________ Otter Creek_____________ Pulaski Heights Elem ___ Romine________________ Stephens_______________ Terry__________________ Wakefield______________ Washington____________ Watson Western Hills___________ Wilson_________________ Woodruff_____________ Central Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten_______ Parkview Kindergarten Total of Incentive School Zone Blocks .c c 2 u. 194\" 10' 5' 4' 4' ' 10' 4 1 12 2 26 3 15 5 0 \" 0 14 18 16 _8  20 1 2 35 30 1 18 7 10 12 1 3 0 TT 1\u0026lt; 1 1 2 a \u0026lt;D O 1' 136' 6' 1 ' 2^  0 2 4 3 0 4 3 4 3 0 4 6 1 1  '14 5 0 8 18 4 1 2 19 14 1 1 1 14 4 5 1 1 0 fa 5 1 109' 6 7' 1' 6 9' 2 3 6 4 8 9 3 5 3 10 5 ' 6 12 5 15 14 7 1 0 3 3 2 4 0 0 9' 7 11 0 1  eg o' 1' 8' 129' 7' 8 6 31 1 0 3 2 3 6 1 3 1 5 2 6 13 4 2 3 11 3 9 __0 0 6 6 1 2 1 Z _i 3 0 0 \u0026amp; 4 4 3 4 '118' 8 3 7 __ 4 4 2 _4 6 3 6 0 7 0 6 1 2 2 4 3\" 1 3  2 ' 0 3 20 0 1 3 __ 4 6 2 1' 0 c -c Q. CO 3' 9 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 9 2 1 1 8 5 2 0 15 5 0 11 7 0 1 0 82 12 2 3 0 5 1  5 3 0 0 539 3121 318 320 257 200 o o w O) X.5 Q 'S 213 161 132 144 138 33 21 60 22 9 44 14 43 31 8 19 32 52 26 25 69 35 11 76 83 16 39 10 114 53 15 66 2 33 29 35 25 4 4 1946 5 a S Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedSchools Sending Students to Incentive Schools Incentive School Sending Zone School Franklin___________________ Garland___________________ Mitchell___________________ Rightsell__________________ Rockefeller________________ Stephens_________________ Badgett___________________ Bale______________________ Baseline________________ Brady_____________________ Chicot_______ Cloverdale Elem__________ Dodd_____________________ Fair Park_________________ Forest Park_______________ Fullbright Geyer Springs Jefferson_________________ M L King_________________ Mablevale Elem___________ McDermott________________ Meadovycliff_______________ Otter Creek_______________ Pulaski Heights Elem_____ Romine Terry_____________________ Wakefield_________________ Washington_______________ Watson___________________ Western Hills_____________ Wilson____________________ Woodruff North Little Rock__________ Pulaski County____________ Legal Transfer____________ No zone .c c jL 194 7 5 0 4 3 0 14 5 6 3 T 1 9 2 5 3 1 3 0 7 20 6 4 3 9 2 9 3 2 3 0 0 1 0 1 Q C C (D O io' 136 1 1 4 9 0 6 0 74 i 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 6 2 0 0  3 0 4 a 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026lt;b c  5 6 109 8 3 * 1 0 7 q  \"3 J ^0 4 2  3 2 1 6 1 1 3 3 20 1 2 1 0 11 3 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 (b c .O) s 4' 1 6 129 4 0 0 0 _ 0 0 \"0 2 0 1 0 4 3 1 0 8 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 o o q\n4' 1 1 7 118 1 8 14 9 1 '12 J  3 2 8 12 6 39 2 2 6 1 6 6 3 8 4 \"TT 5 1 4 10 1 13 7 0 w (1\u0026gt; -c Q, CO io *19 3 0 0 82 1 0 0 2i 29 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 4 0 5 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 o o X O) u 45 C V\u0026gt; 2 C C o a\u0026gt; o F- W N 227 170 131 145 133 96 ______9 41 _ Z Z15 Z. Lli 11  13 ______15 14 22 15 51 19 3 38 39 35 11 12 25 6 63 12 4 14 16 8 17 8 2 Total of Students Attending Incentive Schools 336 204 221 187 380 145 1473 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedWashington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 12 12 17 17 17 17 Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central McClellan McClellan McClellan 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Bale Bale Bale Bale Brady Brady Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Name Class K K K K K K K K K K K 03 04 05 P4 01 05 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Student ID Zone Block 939926 940177 958755 959096 959252 959506 959807 959812 950081 960545 960805 929207 950598 918916 959373 952488 916865 936007 937049 927595 928747 930971 933965 934913 935342 936452 929232 931103 937535 919341 922211 925877 961005 908367 910318 913061 916045 918958 918964 918967 919347 920475 932327 895059 896341 896527 897157 905235 910119 910347 910385 913270 913968 925876 926004 937531 482 482 481 481 484 481 240 483 124 301 484 481 123 481 220 474 478 240 483 220 240 220 123 240 220 220 240 126 483 220 126 126 123 220 240 220 240 482 123 483 220 220 240 220 124 123 482 240 220 124 126 220 474 126 483 483 Page 1Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 19 I 19 I 19 I 19 1 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett McDermott McDermott McDermott McDermott Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park  Franklin I Franklin I Franklin I Franklin Name Class 06 K K K K K K P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 01 02 06 06 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 05 05 06 K K 01 03 K P4 01 01 01 02 02 03 03 03 03 06 06 06 K K K 01 01 03 03 Student ID [ Zone Block 961311 939897 939944 939946 952423 959551 961273 956706 956789 956798 957014 957442 958430 959481 959478 909989 959477 936945 951189 930498 936457 936467 930382 930884 917043 924017 911525 915454 918878 932095 932096 951930 959515 934286 929357 960765 958854 938480 950814 960294 929108 960292 929935 935767 935783 960649 918997 935784 950740 951261 956384 959345 934018 935131 925116 930446 220 240 220 220 220 125 220 481 240 125 126 483 220 483 483 481 483 240 124 126 124 124 124 478 126 124 124 478 240 481 481 126 478 240 240 126 483 126 124 483 125 483 240 220 126 123 126 126 123 124 220 125 483 482 482 481 Page 2Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 25 I 25 I 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 Name ][ Class Student ID Zone Block Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Garland Garland Garland Garland Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Western Hills Western Hills Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson I Jefferson I Jefferson I Jefferson Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem 03 05 06 K P4 02 K K P4 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 04 05 05 06 06 K K 04 06 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 06 06 06 K 01 01 951919 930447 896347 938615 957032 952489 952490 960770 957595 935182 951670 951917 961153 961239 961470 928428 929776 933656 934065 934387 935564 935766 961152 930745 951869 923996 913547 951872 896357 951672 959482 961295 923304 896342 950885 961465 930524 930525 930865 932094 936961 924292 929835 930397 937012 937277 930572 932018 937851 957844 910115 911236 957846 956673 934242 951957 481 481 124 482 482 474 474 127 220 124 478 123 482 478 240 481 126 484 482 123 240 220 482 126 478 483 123 483 126 478 124 220 220 220 124 483 125 125 125 481 125 124 482 126 220 481 123 220 482 123 127 126 123 220 126 125 Page 3Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Name Class Student ID Zone Block Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller 02 04 05 K 01 01 02 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 06 K 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 06 K 01 02 03 03 03 04 05 05 05 06 K 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 04 04 04 05 935085 916339 918115 951336 931558 933883 937378 916712 916958 960998 910860 914224 912606 914018 960997 960360 951496 951497 926800 931798 935969 928641 936600 918895 936601 917160 896351 940141 961203 930135 922914 929087 932037 917590 910227 919152 920191 912910 959352 934077 934479 934849 935715 926278 928123 928183 928187 928301 928360 928510 930459 930461 918346 921616 922162 913922 125 483 484 125 126 127 126 482 127 484 484 127 126 124 484 127 124 124 127 483 124 124 481 124 481 127 124 482 240 220 240 482 481 220 220 126 484 125 240 482 482 220 483 220 220 478 220 301 483 301 220 220 124 220 220 220 Page 4Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 44 44 44 44 44 44 Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rightsell Rightsell Romine Stephens Stephens Stephens Stephens Stephens Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 K K P2 P3 P4 P4 P4 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 04 06 K K 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 06 06 06 06 06 K K 01 03 05 05 01 04 04 04 06 02 03 04 04 05 06 916520 917227 896368 905240 910579 910629 930206 939636 939895 939176 952196 956808 956973 958660 950305 953072 928204 929152 935764 935765 937347 937348 931438 932294 935781 961082 961083 959811 928486 933344 923617 959509 917620 957969 893243 894270 896417 910527 959005 959100 960511 934154 927548 910809 930496 935180 917504 923334 925326 895902 932736 930750 915829 924742 924360 896432 220 301 220 220 483 220 240 220 478 482 220 220 220 220 478 474 483 474 482 482 482 482 478 482 482 484 484 484 125 124 482 481 124 474 220 220 220 482 478 482 124 474 474 220 126 124 124 483 124 240 474 126 220 220 474 240 Page 5Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 44 44 44 44 44 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 Name Class Student ID Zone Block Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Woodruff Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Terry Terry Terry Terry Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson 06 06 K K K 01 01 01 01 01 04 05 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 K 01 06 06 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 05 05 06 K K 01 02 03 04 06 06 907223 912946 957974 959908 960923 951862 934208 935650 950854 952103 930414 911752 950976 928038 959669 959670 951921 928039 936097 936420 925592 931927 919839 961394 951013 955199 955201 933364 952129 961258 925000 926057 928808 932135 908112 923295 931269 907724 910429 913208 910438 957988 961259 938481 930250 922739 927950 894474 914000 126 220 125 123 220 484 220 124 125 124 478 124 240 481 478 478 220 474 481 481 220 220 220 220 483 481 481 483 125 126 125 125 483 125 125 124 482 240 124 478 478 125 126 220 220 125 127 127 240 Total Students: 329 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District Unaudited Page 6Dept. Name Western\" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ^1 24 20 38 48 30 18 40 Terry Forest Park McDermott Pulaski Heights Fullbright Jefferson Brady Romine * Excluding Williams Totals / Averages LRSD Per Pupil Expenditure by Elementary School 1993-1994 Budget Budget 93-94 $1,145,178.91 $988,864.02 $1,248,156.17 $978,390.22 $1,324,665.59 $1,299,887.52 $1,046,436.40 $1,267,911.36 $9,299,490.19 \"Southwestern\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 46 33 51 50 29 52 37 31 22 32 28 44 Mablevale Meadowcliff Wakefield Otter Creek Western Hills Watson Geyer Springs Cloverdale Baseline Dodd Chicot Wilson $1,127,741.07 $1,008,936.95 $1,062,990.19 $844,592.87 $846,932.77 $1,131,673.02 $748,975.30 $1,011,782.28 $974,301.85 $834,015.87 $1,550,045.51 $1,144,796.51 Totals / Averages $12,286,784.19 FTE Enrollment Black Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget Spent on Black Children \"Fringe\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 23 17 19 Fair Park Bale Badgett $867,162.06 $1,117,713.33 $708,951.85 Totals / Averages $2,693,827.24 \"Inner Citv\" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 45 35 42 25 36 34 39 26 41 49 Woodruff M L. King Washington Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell Garland Stephens Ish $644,242.24 $1,588,019.16 $2,278,100.33 $1,567,895.14 $1,764,565.19 $1,311,925.10 $1,238,154.99 $1,408,766.58 $1,273,272.88 $70,411.25 \"Inner City\" Schools as a Group Incentive Schools Only Woodruff, King \u0026amp; Washington $13,074,941.61 $8,564,579.88 $4,510,361.73 Excluding Carver,Gibbs and Booker Magnets Total Black Enrollment Black Enrollment in Non-Incentive Schools Black Enrollment in Incentive Schools 45 37 42 40 47 45 43 45 46 33 41 30 34 43 34 42 41 35 64 40 32 43 28 27 77 90 62 72 50 44 50 46 561 458 509 398 520 504 397 334 243 200 262 190 233 213 263 247 43 44 51 48 45 42 66 74 $2,041.32 $2,159.09 $2,452.17 $2,458.27 $2,547.43 $2,579.14 $2,635.86 $3,796.14 $496,040.06 $431,818.35 $642,469.38 $467,070.71 $593,552.08 $549,357.23 $693,231.17 $937,647.02 3681 1851 50% $2,526.35 $4,676,271.76 488 434 447 341 332 442 288 386 343 292 509 354 311 306 337 141 215 353 208 304 265 189 356 263 64 71 75 41 65 80 72 79 77 65 70 74 $2,310.94 $2,324.74 $2,378.05 $2,476.81 $2,551.00 $2,560.35 $2,600.61 $2,621.20 $2,840.53 $2,856.22 $3,045.28 $3,233.89 $718,703.84 $711,370.29 $801,404.24 $349,230.48 $548,465.50 $903,802.21 $540,926.61 $796,844.08 $752,740.50 $539,825.34 $1,084,118.27 $850,512.66 4656 3248 70% $2,638.91 $8,597,944.01 263 303 189 755 236 553 721 345 340 230 189 205 145 2964 1454 1510 200 225 132 557 147 357 451 300 240 215 184 181 141 2216 1261 955 7872 6611 1261 76 74 70 74% 62 65 63 87 71 93 97 88 97 75% 87% 63% 100% 84% 16% $3,297.19 $3,688.82 $3,751.07 $3,567.98 $2,729.84 $2,871.64 $3,159.64 $4,544.62 $5,189.90 $5,704.02 $6,551.08 $6,872.03 $8,781.19 $4,411.25 $5,890.36 $2,986.99 $3,256.57 $2,739.83 $5,965.67 $659,438.83 $829,985.15 $495,140.97 $1,987,366.59 $401,286.48 $1,025,176.93 $1,424,997.57 $1,363,387.08 $1,245,575.43 $1,226,364.77 $1,205,399.57 $1,243,837.81 $1,238,148.11 $10,374,173.74 $7,522,712.76 $2,851,460.98 $25,635,756.09 $18,113,043.33 $7,522,712.76 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District Based upon Octi, 1993 enrollment data and LRSD 1993-94 Budget Unauditedstudent Counts of Sending and Receiving Schools - LRSD Elementary Grades - Summary Sending Zone School T T I Attending School Badgett____________ Bale Baseline Booker Brady_____________ Carver Chicot Qoverddle Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fultonght Garland Geyer Spnngs Gibbs Jefferson M L. King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowdiff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Bem Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten Hall Kindergarten McClellan Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Grand Total Sending School S 106 1 o' 6' o' 1 ' o' 1 ' o' 2 o' o' o' o' o' 1' o' 0 o' 0 o' 0 0 1 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 135 2 158 ' o' 14 ' 15' 7' 4 ' o' 9' 5' 5' 14 ' 3' 6' 3' 12 4 5 0 7 4 7 2 6 0 14 14 0 5 1 11 0 10 12 7 2 1 0 0 1 cS 0 0 196 15 1 3 8 19 6 2 2 5 0 0 11 2 0 3 15 0 S' CD a 0 3 1 11 173 9 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 9 2 0 0 8 4 10 2 6 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 5 12' 6' 1 ' 4 2 7 14 ' 1 0 13 0 3 1 2 0 1 13 1 15 2 25 0 1 21 2 5 0 0 2 0 1 I o 1 1' 20 12 4 10 269 28 3 0 0 3 1 1 11 4 0 5 41 2 8 3 7 1 0 12 I LU o  g g 1 0 9 17 4 9 27 190 Q 2 2 2 11 1 5 2 1 e CD 2 s \u0026amp; CO O) s 369 336 361 1 0 1 1 0 1 10 5 1 7 20 0 4 0 6 1 3 6 1 0 4 12 12 35 6 4 9 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 14 18 12 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 146 2 1 ' 1 ' 3' 3' 2' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 4 1 1 4 8 0 2 3 23 0 3 0 4 0 12 9 11 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 3 0 13 8 8 1 1 0 141 9 9 3 1 2 11 ' 10 2 o' 5 6 2 0 13 0 2 6 1 3 2 20 0 8 41 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5' o' 5' 4' 2 o' 1 ' 2' 12' 265' 2' 22 o' o' 7' 9' 11 3 16 3 3 2 9 1 8 0 0 2 4 8 0 2 11 1 19 1 0 0 0 0 2 26' 3' 10 ' 15' 4' 5' o' o' 14' 18' 194 ' 16' 10  8' 7 20 7 2 35 30 5 1 18 4 4 7 10 12 1 3 0 11 12 11 10 1 1 0 0 2 0 9' o' 19' 44' 20' 4  o' 2' 5' 7' 5' 336' o' 2' 9' 8' 2 o' 26' 3' 2 ' 1 ' 10' 0 12 21 3 19 0 23 0 2 13 17 5 0 2 2 0 4 1 0 4 3 0 4 2 3 0 4 6 7 7 1 136 1 4 ' 14 ' 5 0 s' 18 6 4 1 1 1 2 19 14 1 7 1 14 3 4 5 1 1 0 0 0 V) oo s 1 0 o' 20 6 0 4 5' 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 152 5 1 0 2 0 12 1 1 2 4 6 c! OJ s! 5 \"3 0 0 19 6 38 2 0 3 8 30 1 9 1 2 11 314 10 533 375 276, 343 441 539 637 312 1 1 2 17 4 4 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 6 2 17 3 39 2 1 1 3 29 3 2 10 3 3 2 0 1 1 0 S o' 1' o' 14' 5' 6' 10' 2' o' 7' 5' 3' 1' 0 7 16 6 253 7 0 3 7 18 6 7 2 1 0 2 2 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 I LU  CO s s 0 2' 7' 6' 1 ' s' 28' 26' 1  o' o' o' o' o' 3 0 0 0 264 2 2 1 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 9 23 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 2 J s 11 Q CD 1 6 4 5 13 10 1 o' 7 ' 12' 9' 7' 20' 8' 7' 2 6 4' 0 295 0 3 0 10 8 6 8 6 12 0 19 0 5 18 5 9 0 0 1 0 0 X 0 19' o' 12' 6' 9' 2 1 ' 7 4 7' 20 5 6 18 4 ' 7 2 5 5 247 3 2 6 2 7 0 1 5 7 7 2 2 6 3 8 1 1 1 0 0 13 o I \u0026amp; SI s 3 6' 4  7 ' s' 6' 9' 3' 5' 3 10 5 s' 1 4 ' 9 6' 12' 5 15 14 109 7 1 6 7 0 3 3 2 4 0 0 2 9 7 11 0 0 0 1 1 3' 3' 8' 2' 2 16' 50 9' 6' 3' 6 1 2 6' 3 1 ' 15 54 0 16 20 260 1 1 6 3 0 4 4 11 16 0 6 2 1 3 3 0 2 1 271 594 407 397 527 450 318 551 I LU w ex X CD 0 2 o' 3' 3' 4 0 o' 3 2 6 4 5 0 0 19 10 5 0 6 0 1 0 205 0 6 3 0 3 0 7 0 0 8 1 19 1 0 1 0 0 327 1 ix 0 3 2 8 3 eg 4 4 2 8 4 6]3 6 1 3 1 5 0 2 1 6 31 13 4 2 3 11 8 3 9 129 7 0 0 6 6 29 1 2 1 1 4 3 0 0 0 0 320 I i gi c C I  g t eg 6 3' 6' o' 7' 4 ' 0 4 ' 6 7 1 2 2 4 3 3 1 3 4 118 1 0 6 3 20 0 1 1 3 4 6 2 0 0 1 0 5' 2 7' 17' 11 ' 2 o' 24' 3 2 3 15 0 0 2 4 1 1 9 0 2 0 3 3 3 177 1 41 0 4 1 19 30 11 1 0 3 0 0 4 CO o' 1  o' o' 9' o' 2' 1 ' 1 ' 8' 5' 3 2 9 0 2 15 5 0 11 7 1 0 1 0 1 0 82 12 2 3 0 5 3 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 4 16 16 26 2 4 1 2 8 9 31 3 0 3 8 2 1 13 3 1 1 15 0 8 2 346 1 14 0 0 20 1 5 2 0 2 0 1 1 5 2 7' 9' 15' o' 6' 10' 7 4 1 4 2 0 0 17 7 0 0 4 2 4 0 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 323 7 6 1 4 2 1 0 0 1 4 0 c p O) (/) CD 5 52 4 16 32 2 42' 23 6 12' 4 15 9 8 4 13 4 20 10 6 4 12 11 3 14 3 31 1 5 4 16 268 6 2 5 11 1 8 0 0 3 0 I \"cd 5 0 2 8 10 0 12 32 20 5 0 1 3 4 0 3 2 2 3 31 0 2 3 8 0 1 5 6 0 0 11 8 295 1 55 5 0 6 1 6 2 3 257 411 200 582 4571 690 6 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 491 11 2 1 1 3 2' 3 1 ' 0 5 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 3 0 1 8 0 7 1 2 1 190 7 24 2 0 1 0 0 1 290 I 5 0 12 0 14 10 13 1 1 15 2 4 3 14 2 0 11 3 1 0 11 1 4 0 3 1 4 25 0 17 2 30 2 20 19 216 = I s 0 o' 2' 4 ' 2' 1 ' 1 ' o' o' 1 ' 3' 0 o' 0 4 4 2 o' 2 1 1 2 0 12 0 10 C5 c CD CD S cc g I z if 5 CD 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 1' 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 88 o' 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 1 0 0 35 0 0 59 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 164 3 191 0 0 3 0 0 1 7 0 0 45 0 151 1 0 0 0 0 10 2 13 4 1 2 0 62 0 1 117 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 467 153 28 357 785 o 8 z 0 0 0 4 1 2 2 _0' 1 ' 1  1 ' 2' 0 _0' 0 12 _2 1 ' _2 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 45 TO  \"S a\u0026gt; ? c CD  a g 184 304 319 591 386 595 487 380 284 261 455 336 520 204 303 300 500 548 478 508 420 221 345 392 __W 380 335 __1^ 553 448 720 421 324 473 366 231 50 ___19 ___19 20 20 14032 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitwing based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedO LRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools Attending Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fullbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson M.L. king Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell otter Creek Pulaski Hts. Elem Race BL__ WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL O) D ra CO 67 39 1 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2  to (p 1 __1_ 111 47 1 0 0 0, X X X 0 y 0 0 y + 1 I 0 T 0 0 1, 0 X 0 0\" 0 T ol It + \u0026lt;0 m \"y 0 0 0 0! 153 0 43 8! 11 6 13 2 5 2 3 4  2 1 D 2 m 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 9 99 74 2 7 o u U 1 0 1 0, 12, 8 4 8 3 E UJ to o \u0026gt; o O 1 0 0 0 Q 1 i 1, 4 y IS 1 4] 1 ] 12 2 3] 0 2 1 T 6 T 2 3 2 (O cn 1 7, 3 3| 2il73 5 2 1 0 96 1 7 ly HI 11 3, 6, 24 \"y 17 147' 1 5  2! 0\ny  0 0, 0 0 y y r 0 li 0 2 2 3 2 2 + li 1 y 4 0 11 0 2 5 2 0 12 2 1 0 1 11 0 Hi 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 y 5 6 3, 1 ] 0 6 3 2 1 0, _li -Qi D S Q 0 2 1 1 2 0 8 3 1 0 5 0 1 1 1 0 80 66 2 to (0 0 0 3 y Hi 0 y y y y 3 5 1, 0 1 0 0, y 96 0 45 0 12i 0 y 2 0 6 i 0 Zi 2, to 0. IS  o 1 0 0 0 S 3, 2. c c (0 3 3 5 0 o' 1 0 0 3 0 0 oj 26, o| 15 1 0] 0 X 0 X 0 X X 1 5 X 1 0 4 3 19 0| X 3 y S 3 1 1 0 5 8 2 0|___5 0 y 0' 1' 0 ot 3 3 0 4 3 1 1 y 11 2 li 0 y 2 0 22 4 3 0 1 3 4! 13 0, 2^ 0 S 0 1 0 I 0 0 6 3 0 _0 11 8 29 to (0 O 0 0 4 0 3 Q. \u0026lt;/)  0 0 0 2^ 15 41 13  5 4 y 0 0 0 9\n13, 3 1^ 9 205 60] 18 0 X 7 3, 1, li 0 2 _0 4 1 + c   3 0 CT 5 s 0 0 1 3, 6 2 1 1 0 A 0 1 1,190 1 + 4+ 4 A 3, 2 0] 10 o' _4  i $ 2 6 0 2 JL 0 7 4 18 0 0 0, 0, 3 1 8 4^ 7 5 0 1' 10I 6 fj 0* v' 4! ol o' 4I \" 6 1 15, 126 1,210 \"Z 0 6, t 4 3| + 20 0^ s 2 0 6, 33 t 3! 30 y 0 0 1 y 2 f 1 1 3 6 3 5 1 0, 0! ol Jl 2- 0 3! 0 0 0, zy 0, 6 0 6: 1 -Hi 0 1 y 123 13 17 3 i 0| oj pl 4! 14 2\\ lx 5 3 0__2. 3 36 ll 2 0 14 0 5\n0 6, 0 E  UI (0  (0 2 0 0 0 2 6 1 2 4 1 0 5 0 o E Q o S 0 1 6 o I a \u0026lt;0 V 5 0 0 14 0^ 3 5 li 1___ ol 10] E q, in ~y Ol 14' 2) 12 0 3 y 3 y '2^ 0 y 0, 18| 6^ y 9, 0, 0 0 0 0 1 y 0 3 0 3 5 0, 14 0 3 0\" 0 0 0 0 1 103 0 49 4] 0 14 o' 4] 1 ] 0] X 8 X X 0] 6 -A 4  0 1 3] Xl 16 0 X X 8 1 ' 0 2 O' 5 X 0 75 1 239 0 y 2 0. 0^ 8, y 1 J o' io 17 y 2 0 0 0 1, 0 4 1 3 y 11 20 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1] 0 \"y X 1 0 16 0 6 ' 0 I 9 245 1 2 0 0 'T 1 0 6 0 2 0 8 Ol 0~ o' 2~ 1 ' y y 0 0 ? 7 139 0 125 5 I 4\n-K 1 0] X 4, 3 12 ' 0] 8 1. 4 3 8 12 6 2 6 X 0, 2 2 4 2| 2 0, 0 2' 15 0 0, 3 0 5 2 18 r 109 0,186, 2 0 1 0 2 I + 0 7X' 6  0 I Ji 1' X 1 2j 5, 4' 0 6, 1 16, X 5 0 6 0 9] 9 3' 1, 1 0 11 1 X 0 5 0,  s 3 0 6 0 4 0 6 1 8 0 6 0 8 1 3 0 0 I 2 2 3  2 2 8 2 2 0 I 3 t  = V) (0 0 0 y H li 0 y  CT  0 0 3 0 1 1   1 or 4 0 4 0 2 0  c I a 5 2 + 0 134 0 113 3 0 0 ol 10' Page 1 \"y rr _5 ly 7 _5^' 4 8 3 6 y Y 0, y 2 y 0: 0 0 \"F y 0 0 pi 0 2 10 3^ 1' 0 0^ 5 5 0 5 0 y li 4 0 HI 0, 6 0~ 111 1 ' -X -X- iy  0 14 0 5  0 2' 0 6 0 3 ~y 1 iX 33 cT J Q! 2 104 1 2 2 5 + 5 7 i 18' 0, 189 6 X 0 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 2^ 17] 5 5 0 5 0 0 4 2 0 Z7 1 0 0 1, 46 -y -i- 2 X 0, 1! oi .11. 0 4 1 0, 0] 2 0 y ~y 6 -X 3y 1 Pl 6] 4] 0^ 2| 0 z? o7 11, -y y _A 3 0, 8 2 j4 ' o' 3' o' 4 ' 2' 3\" 2 6 A 0: X 7\n0 X Ol y 0 y Q 6 O' 3' 4] 1 0* i 2 I 01 y 11  2, 1 lx 5 14 3 X 1, 2 0] Qj 0. 19 5 2 1 1 3 0 14 1 C   Q.  0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0. ZS 0| 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 3 4 0 61 10 + if ~y Hi 0, 4 + I. a\u0026gt; to g 2 0 2 8 1 c tn X c 5 tn c \u0026lt;0 Vi 5 A7 5 3 o 43 (0 5 0 0 2  (Z\u0026gt; o (/\u0026gt; V gl g 0 6 ii o.i0 161 0 el 3oi y 2. 2 0 8  2 4- 4 42 2 0 y Hi -Qi 9 22 28j ij f 4 2 0 8 4 1 g \"y 0 0 0 to CT O 1 a 1 0 1 or   2r c 3 o O 42 8 u 5 w H lx 8 y y 0! 3 y y 0 2 0 t 1 2 1, y y 6 21 17 Ol 14, 0 y 0 0] 2, '0^ 0, 0 y 4 15 0 O' y 1 y 0 0 3j 0] 0, 0 11 2. 8 0 5 1 9 11 0, y  7 0 1' 0, 6 y 0 i 0 2 0 Oj___- 3| 3' 3 0, 1 4 0 1 X 0, 0] \"y 0 4, 13 S' 2 0 4 0. 15 0. 9 0 8, 0 3 x Hi 1 4 0 0 20 2 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 9, 1 6' 0 A 0 4] 12' 0 0^ 0 1| i^hL-H 0\nn 0 0 1 + 0 0, 1 tllL y 0, 2. 2 31 0 HI 15, y 4. 0 0 ~y- 0, 3 0, 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 2^ 1 26 5 y 3 3^ oi ZX 1 2 2 0 y 0 0 1 0 2 oj 2! 0 o z 0 0 0 0 (A \u0026lt;0 3 0. 0 0 0 3 0 c o 8 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 _0_ 0 T _o^ A _o, 0 A 0 0 3 It- X 4 X 9, 4 1 . 0 0 1 12 3 1 X 1, 3 X 2 5 9 1 1 0 0 2' 9 1 2 0 4' o' 2~ o' 0, 1' 1' y 0| 0 0, O' y 1 ] A 0 0, 0, 0] 0 1 li 42 oj 0] 0 64 1' 461100 0\n0 0 0 1 3 7 0\n51\n65] 0! 64 126 3, 0 0 1 X 0 y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 o' 0 4\n0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0, 0 0 -y 0 0] 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Or. 0. 22 0 0, 0 y 3 2 0 2 0 2 0 \"o' 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 16 27, 0 1 0 0] A 7^ 4' y 1, 2 2 0 0, 3, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 2^ 0 0 1 oj 0 0! o' 1 2 0 0: 8 0 151 11 0, T 4 0 0^ T 0~ 0 0 y 0 2 1 0 0\n0 0 0^ y 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 O CT E 5 S O \u0026lt; 135 49 228 76 256 63 318 273 253 133 330 265 348 139 295 85 179 105 195 66 194 261 291 45 233 287 178 26 214 89 171 129 211 289 334 214 300 178 259 249 295 125 198 23 146 199 189Attending Schools Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Hail Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten McClellan Kindergarten Race WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL_ WH BL WH BL WH BL_ WH BL BL WH BL WH BL WH Parkview Kindergarten BL Grand Total Zone Schools____________ T LRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E q\u0026gt; ' LU !  ai ro m 0] 01 0] 3 5 0 0 1 0, 01 0 0 11 0 y 0 2 0 1 0 0 01 1] Ol ~y 01 O' 0] 0 _u 0] 0] 41 14 m 4 Ol 0 5 9 4 10 0 0 y 2'. 1 0\n31 8] 0 0 xy 01 9 3 6] 1! Ol 2 11 0] 0] 0 0] zs Oi y T to c t/t to m ' 01 0 0 2 T 2 0 0 0] O' 0 3 5 0 IP 2 0 0 0 1 9 4 1! 0 1 8 21 0 9 4' 16 5 51 2 0 6  o 1 _o 6\no \u0026gt; D 00. 01 oj 0 2 11 (0 1 - ' Q I I/) D) .2* c O) E di tu (0 0, 10 o (0 (9 1 IP 1 o 1 ,E ' ?,! I or , H re V (S O  Ol 8 4 y 0 0 y 3 1 1 4 2 2_ 0  T 1 8 1 15] 0 2] 0\n91 14 3 0 + st 101 81 01 28] 10] 0 1 0 11 01 10' 01 0 0 0 01 0] 01 u 0] 2 s 0 1' 1 1 4 0] O' U 6, 01 4 0] 5 4] 01 11 0 1 2 4 0! p 0 y 1] 0 1 0 1 1 6 0 1 Jt 0 3\n5 0 QI 4 0 0 4 1 0 4 -0. 0 T 16 5, X 0 1 01 2] 01 4 0 0 4 32 0 0 y y y 0 2 2 0 0 O| 10 01 3 Ol 0] + 2 0 0 0 01 0] y 01 y y y I 2 y '\"o 01 ^T 17' 0' 0 8 0 10 31 19 X X 4 0 X 3 0 0 2 .OJ 0 61 1] 35 9 y y 0 0 0] y ZI 1 i y 1 X 2 6 1 1 ' 2 0' 0' 2 0 2 9 1 0 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 11 0 3 y 0 01 11 0 121 0 11 \"y 10 o y 0, Oi 0 9 14 10 0 ~y 9| 14 0 \"y Ul 0 7] 6 15] 'y 4 11 0 IT y T 2, 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1: 11 0 1 01 11 0 14 01 3' 01 4\\ 01 5] 0 y y \"y 11 0 y oi oi 0 6 y 2 0] O' It 1 y y y 3 25 1 4 0! 1 ] 0 6 41 3] 0] 2\\ 0 OT 0] 10] Ol 0 2 0 O' 0' y 0] 0 0 y y 2\\ Ji 2 0 11 + 0 1 0 0 I 135, 3691 336] 361 i 533| 375] 2761 343I 441 539] 637 i + + + 4- V) 8 _ o J3 w o or H- c i E a\u0026gt; i I  S' il ,i 11 i u \u0026lt;0 \u0026gt; o . \n, 10 0 4) 5 5 , S S 0: 7j 0^ 0!q[ p. s, s o 1 12 I I ! q\u0026gt; I 1 C ' O 2 0 1, 01 0] 0 2 Ol 2 O' 6 01 1 0] 2 01 2 0 1, y 1 0 2 01 0 01 y 1 01 y 0 0 r 0 0 0, 0 0 11 01 2 8l 0 Ol 6 3] y 6 Ol 3 9 0 Ol 3 1 2 0 4 31 Ol y 1 1 16 21 2 0 0, 2'\\ 2 y 21 01 ~y 0 \"y ~y 01 0, 01 51 0 9 9 5\nO' 4 51 0] + IT i 0, 4'^ y 5 y 4 y 11 11 y 0 7. y 0 0 3 01 3' 0 0 2 4 0 : 0. O! 159 I .5? or .S\u0026gt; o T| 0 \"iT 1' 4i 2! 3 y 61 2 1 ' 1 0 qI I 0 0! 0! 0] 01 I '  : ' I I I 312| 2711 594i 407\n397j 527| 450 + + i Page 2 n 0 5 1 3 01 0 y 2 2 4 y T\\ 4 It I  I C ' E o o: : 0 12 0 0 2 0 9 0 5 y 111 0 0 ~y y 01 0, 1 41 0 0 6 0 0 \"IT 1 0 3 y 31 y 2\\ Ol 1 0, 128 0, 2 2l 1 0 01 3' 0 01 0 1 4+ 5 101 2 17 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 4 26 31 O' y 0 y 2 y 01 \"y 8' 11 1 11 y y 0] 0 01 01 31 1 0 y 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 3 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 2 1, y y V) g .c , Q.   (n 1 UT 0 y y 1, 155 oi 22' 1 0 1 y 82\ny 6 39 01 3 ut 18 2\u0026lt; ~y 0 2 \"oT 0 21 2 1 O' 11 16 ot 3 11 30i 0 0 y y 6, 01 0' 2 $ 01 y 0 y 1 y y 0 2_ JL lot 4. a: i I 1  I I w 1 i ?i I c  o ., _ I 1 1. \"^i^'tc S  O T5 iC y iS 1 iS , S 1 r? .  ' a  ,  Z1 5! 51 51 5' 51 5y 31 Ql O' O 01 0] 4! 01 O' oj 3] 1 O 1j 0, 0 0 01 O 0 \" ''  6 1, 26 51 2 31 5\noi 1 1! li 6 1, 0, 0 0, 1! i .S I \u0026gt;5 I  ! ot 01 v\u0026gt; ra 0 1, 26 o IS oT 01 X 0, o 0 2 1 c o  ,  N O : , O z. \\ Q- 1 Z 1 y 3 1, 12 85 01 261 3! J 01 2| 112371 Oi IT 0 86\n51 1] 0 Ui 0 4 16 01 4 oi 10 3 263 0 y n 01 0 01 0 0 y 11 y ZT 4\n2 jI 0 4 5 O' 0, 0 71 4 51 3 1 \"y y 0 0 6 1 1. 18 0 0, 2 8\n6 1 0 1l 10] 1 1 2 0\n3 01 0 41 0] 0 0 1' 0 0 0] ol 1 0] 0] 0 4 0 r 4 0 0 0^ IT 0 0, 0 01 01 9I 0 OU 21 0 4__0 9, 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 01 0 0 2 0 0] 1 01 0 11 1 Il 27 6 235 0 60 Ji 0 r Qi 35 61! 0 2i 0 4 1j 87, 0] 103 IT  0 0 0 9 y 0 5^ 0 y 1] 11 01 0 y o' 1 oi r 2 2 y X 2 X 2 0 IT' 01 6^ 0 131 7' 51 16 0 0 0! 0, 0! 01 01 0 0 0 ot 0 0 2 Oi 0 0 0 11 0 jH 0 1] 0 8 3 01 + y 0! 01 2 3\n1] 171144 11 O' 26' 441 1 0] 0 33 73, 1 IT + 0 J. 0 1 r 1 0 21 0 2 o X 0 0 0 1! 72 01 01 ol 0 0] 57] 0: 11 36 01 1 y 31 y 01 y 1 oi 0 01 01 0'1 o 01 0\no' 0 o' 01 01 0 01 0 u u 01 I 0 y 01 y y 0 U- 0.  0 0 01 0 3\n1 0] 0 ol 0 ii 0 Ol 0 0\n0 o' 0 o' 0 01 0 2 S O 5 203 180 7 254 126 243 ___ 141 ____4 238 315 340 108 448 272 338 ___83 207 117 258 215 267 99 146\n___85 50 7 12 ____16 3 ____18 2 20 i ' ' I 1 I i ' ' I '  : I 318j 551 i 327. 320' 257^ 411 j 200i 582^ 457: 690] 491 j 290, 467' 153i 28 357\n785i 45 14032 T T 1 ,1111 I Printed February 1^4 Preoared bv the Office Of Desegregation Monitoring 1 1 1 based upon infomration supped by the UtBe Rock School District I I Unaudited iOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United Stales District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 February 22, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank\nI have discovered an error in a footnote that appears on one of the charts I sent you last Friday. In the section entitled Enrollment in Downtown Elementary Schools, a note under the chart on the second page states that incentive school capacities are based on a 20-to-l or less student-teacher ratio. That statement is incorrect. The capacities we actually used in our calculations are those that appear in the April 1992 LRSD Desegregation Plan, which are higher than a 20-to-l ratio. A corrected chart is enclosed. I regret any inconvenience ODM's error may have caused. Sincerely yours, -K ~Arm S. Brown cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All CounselENROLLMENT IN DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Prepared by ODM February 1994 For the purpose of this document, ODM has identified a downtown elementary school as any elementary school located within these boundaries: east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham. These boundaries create a rectangular area encompassing the six incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens), three magnet schools (Booker, Carver, and Gibbs), two interdistrict schools (King and Washington), one area school (Woodruff), and the kindergarten classes at Central High School. By using the defined boundaries, some schools outside the downtown area have a few contiguous attendance zones that fall within the downtown area: Bale Elementary has four zones east of University, Fair Park has four zones and a partial zone south of Markham, and Pulaski Heights has one zone south of Markham. Woodruff, which is identified as a downtown school, has one zone north of Markham. However, for the purpose of this document, all zones within the defined boundaries are identified in the downtown area. A list of the zones defined for the purpose of this document as downtown attendance zones is provided. The information used to complete the last nine columns of this document is from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) student enrollment data base as of December 8, 1993. The second column is the October 1, 1993 enrollment reported to Arkansas Department of Education. The capacity figures in the third column are reported from LRSD as the current capacities. The fourth and fifth columns are results of calculations based on enrollment and capacity.LRSD DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS School Enrollment Octi Capacity % Filled Available Seats Live downtown but attend outside downtown Live downtown and attend downtown Live outside downtown but attend downtown Total Black White Total Black White Total Black White Franklin Incentive Garland Incentive Mitchell Incentive Rightsell Incentive Rockefeller Incentive Stephens Incentive vb Total Ince nt' Booker Magnet Carver Magnet Gibbs Magnet Sub Totnt Magnet Schools King Interdistrict Washington Interdistrict Magnet Sub Total Iniui Jis ici Schools  345 205 230 189 340 145 1,454 595 595 299 1.489 553 721 1.274 544 346 346 346 425 298 2.3ft5 656 613 353 1,622 692 939 1.631 63 59 66 55 80 49 63 91 97 85 52 80 77 78 199 270 260 10 281 263 18 55 28 27 141 118 117 1 190 172 18 14 6 8 116 157 85 153 61 18 54 133 139 218 357 131 127 4 192 177 15 29 21 8 90 87 3 165 163 2 22 17 5 74 72 2 238 192 46 142 62 80 86 86 0 136 135 1 9 6 3 7^ 749 29 1,2c? 1,102 fAn 271 140 131 N/A N/A N/A 130 116 14 461 202 259 N/A N/A U 90 262 352 N/A N/A 5 89 253 342 N/A N/A 0 1 9 10 130 124 6 465 206 259 102 3S2 331 406 737 88 14 198 83 115 Woodruff (Area) 236 324 73 88 17 15 2 156 Central Kindergarten 50 50 100 0 N/A N/A N/A 46 Satellite Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A IM 102 25 32a 317 383 700 113 46 N/A 34 14 23 37 43 0 N/A 1,\u0026lt;24: 491 33 217 314 531 75 4 17 65 82 33 4 200 249 419 42 0 Contiguous Zones Grand Total N/A N/A N/A N/A 313 253 60 N/A N/A N/A 4,^ 5,932 76 1,429 2,198 2,0-31 117 2,503 2.29 750 NotQ: Incentive^hoolpapacMes are based on a20t0'1 ratio in kindergarten through sixth grade, 18to 1 in prograrrtsforfbur-year-olds, 18to 1-in programs for three-year- olds, \\|7 tO l in programs forlwo-year-olds. and 10 to 1 in the programs for infants.There are seven satellite zones in the downtown area wherein students are assigned and transported to schools outside the downtown area\nBrady, Forest Park Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Terry. However, all students in those satellite zones do not attend the targeted schools. For example, Terry has 138 students identified within the downtown satellite zone (all black) of which 25 attend Terry. The remaining 113 students are assigned to 29 different schools. There are no satellite zones for the downtown area that would result in students being assigned and transported to a school downtown. Targeted School Brady McDermott Forest Park Jefferson Meadow -cliff Terry Otter Creek Students in satellite zone Students attending targeted school Students outside targeted school Number of schools students attending outside the targed school 66 33 33 16 180 66 114 23 162 60 102 29 273 71 202 29 191 72 119 32 138 25 113 29 124 39 85 22Count of Studio 3 O O O) s c 3 o O a\u0026gt; 3 O c o O 1 c 3 O o m c o O o g a 3 O o 1 a 3 O O 5 0 i c 0) I LU ? s o c 3 O O Q \"E 3 O O 3 O O a Crosstab of Downtown Name_1 Bale Map Grid 521 531 532 534 Bale Count Brady 540 591 592 593 Brady Count FairPailr 511 512 513 554 Fair Park Count Forest Par 412 413 420 553 556 Forest Park Count Franklin 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 538 539 571 575 3 O O s Z3 o o 3 c e c o O o\u0026gt; c  \"3 c o O o c (0 s  3 o o (A O) c as 3 3 o O w 0 o O X c o O c o I c o O cn c 5 i c \u0026lt;D E LU o ffl \u0026lt;D 8 'X' 3 E  o  o s c o O o i Q o 2 3 O O I 8 o 2 c 3 o o o 1 o o 1 o I o O I I 3 O O E Ol as X tn co 3 O O 42 o\u0026gt;  3 O O o a: c o o 0) I Cd c 3 o O (A C o 3 O O r O O c o O \u0026lt;0 s g CO 5 3 O O c o 5 c o O 42 X tS s c o O (A E .S s c 3 o O I  c 3 O O 3 I c  0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 20 23 13 0 1 7 0 0 7 T 2 0 0 0 2 J 6 1 0 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 7 0 2 0 o 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 T 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 T 0 2 0 0 2 4 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 '7 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 T o' 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 3 0 0 0 2 T 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 0  0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 \"o 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 1  0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 5 8 45 27 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 T 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 1 0 7 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 2 3 0 0 2 \"o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 7 _0i 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 o' 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 o' 0 0 2 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 1 7 38 12 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 2 0 0 0 1 o 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 o' 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 o' 0 16 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 16 29 22 29 8 19 9 0 16 IT 11 13 11 0 0 4 3 0 1 7 7 1 2 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2| 2, 0 0 3 2 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 0 0 2 0 5 0 1 7 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 5 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 0 4 2 2 2 9 0 0 2 4 3 1 2 0 1 4 1 0 2 2 7 7 7 7 7 0 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 4 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 43 53 38 24 158 17 44 4 1 66 14 12 64 56 146 8 1 20 93 40 162 55 54 86 59 28 40 33 11 38 33 15 46 41 PagetCrosstab of Downtown Franklin Count Garland 581 582 584 585 586 587 Garland Count Jefferson 111 112 121 122 210 431 434 435 Jefferson Count M.L King 432 433 438 439 473 476 477 479 480 485 M L. King Count McDermot 552 561 562 McDermott Count Meadowcli 533 535 536 537 o o s CD 1 3 o O 49 3 o o c 1 o O 1 c 3 o o t 3 O O g o o o 0) o c o O I o I o I LLI 4) * o a c 3 O O XJ g a o O B c 3 O O B c o O K \u0026lt;D is 3 O O c C o o c o O e 05 C 3 to  c 3 O O to 3} c co c 3 O O co Ji a c o O \"a X c o O o 1 c 3 o O) s c o LU 4\u0026gt; \u0026gt; O -8 2 T c 3 E E o O c CD C_\u0026gt; o S c 3 o o s i Q o 2 c o o 4) 2 3 o Q u s c 3 o o 1 o s C 3 o o .1 (D 3 o O O) to (0 c o o 1 a: 3 o o Q or o O 4} C i oc c o o (O c a  $5 3 o o \u0026amp; 0) 3 O O   s c 3 O O c o \u0026amp; to (0 5 c 3 o O I CD 3 O O to E I to 4) s c o O to I 3 c 3 o o I g c o O 5 s 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 o' 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 1 0 7 7 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 2 7 7 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 11 26 19 47 8 25 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 2 3 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 1 0 5 0 5 4 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 7 5 0 6 2 6 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 6 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 2 7 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 12 1 12 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 o' o' 0 7 4 2 10 18 16 8 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 25 0 4 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 4 4 4 2 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 2 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 4 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 22 22 23 30 24 29 28 23 22 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 T 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 9 2 1 1 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2  1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 5 2 3 1 3 _3 2* 2 0 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 21 19 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 o' 9 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 4 0 3 4 3 5 7 0 0 7 0 0 1 7 2 0 0 0 5 1 0 7 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 6 T 2 0 6 0 1 1 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 o' 0 1 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 12 19 18 23 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 7 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 7 2 2 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 s 539 44 57 64 77 27 43 312 22 37 11 31 89 34 34 15 273 34 42 34 47 45 51 37 34 31 52 407 68 51 61 180 35 40 54 62 Page 2Meadowcliff Count Mitchell 442 443 444 445 446 451 452 453 457 458 459 Mitchell Count Otter Cree 471 472 475 Otter Creek Count Pulaski He|660 ~ Crosstab of Downtown c o O  co 1 3 O O  2 3 O O  .E  c o o CD 3 O O 3 O O  c 3 O O 8 (D o o O  o S' I E q) LU O O c 3 o o Q c o O 9 3 O O a 3 O o 1S  c 3 O O 2 s 3 o o ,o\u0026gt; 3 O O \"c c 3 o o M 03 C c 3  5 3 O O (A .o Xi o c o O X c: 3 o O c o I 3! to 3 o o o\u0026gt; c s S' c E  LU   8 s T 3 E E o o c to a O o s c 3 o o o o o 2 c o O u I   2 o o \"5 5 c o O 1 9 s c o o 3 2 I 3 O O c ' X  o o  U) be\nc 3 O Q o a\u0026gt; o o a: o o tv c I O' 3 o u M (D a 05 c o O S' o o tv iS 5 c o O o O) V) (0 5 Z3 o o c: o  o o w 5 E (D IS (U s c 3 O O w E .2  3 O O c s g c: 3 o Q 3 5 p \"c 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pulaski Heights Int Count Rightsell 448 449 450 454 455 464 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rightsell Count Rockerfell 232 440 456 460 461 462 463 0 0 0 1 7 0 3 Rockerfeller Count Stephens |441 572  0 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 7 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 7 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 4 0 1 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 4 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 3 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 1 7 9 3 4 1 5 5 18 20 12 21 11 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1_ 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 _0 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 4 10 3 11 13 15 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 54 0 1 1 0 3 0 4 0 0 2 1 9 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 2 0 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0  7 0 0 1 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 K 0 19 0 3 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 6 1 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 7 33 29 29 5 14 19 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 4 1 5 0 17 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 T 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 T 7 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 2 7 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 o' 7 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 18 11 14 10 39 24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 6 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 3| 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 o| 0, 0 0 0 K 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 0  T 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ? 0 0 6 20 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 35 34 10 19 10 25 44 35 30 38 38 318 27 52 45 124 99 99 93 43 64 20 54 46 320 6 37 34 46 29 64 41 257 24 38 Page 3Crosstab of Downtown 573 574 583 Stephens Count Teny 437 438 563 Terry Count Washingto 123 124 125 126 127 220 240 301 474 478 481 482 483 484 Washington Count Woodruff |670 Woodruff Count Grand total c 3 o o  O) 1 0 3 O O O) 0 0 3 O O I 0 0 c o o 1 0 0 3 O O I 0 2 3 O O o s o 0 0 3 O 2 c g 0 1 3 8 0 o' 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 I o E Q\u0026gt; UI  S 0 0 1 0 0 4 o o Q 0 1 c o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 3 o o Io o 2 3 0 0 0 1 c 3 O O i 0 0 5 1 1 3 c 3 O O 3 e 0 1 0 4 c 3 O O .O) c 3 o a o c 0 1 0 3 0 4 (0 I 0 5 4 E 3 O o u\u0026gt; at c C \u0026lt;8\" is 1 0 0 0 S' 0 0 0 0 0 0 E o o ta g 1 0 1 E o U TB X 0 0 0 c 3 o o I 3 0 3 c 3 O O O) g 0 0 4 c a\u0026gt; I LU \u0026gt; 8 s 0 0 o' T c 3 E g o c (0 5 o 2 0 0 0 3 O O s i o 2 0 1 o o I s 0 4 0 o \"5 s 0 0 1 c 3 O O 1 d I 0 0 0 c 3 O O I I o O I 3 1 4 0 1_ 'o 4 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 1 0  0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 3 o o 1 0 0 0 3 O O 1^ 'o 0 0 3 o o o c I tr 0 0 0 3 O O (A 0} \u0026amp; ii 28 17 c 3 o o r 2  5 c o o  s 0 0 2 c 3 O O I c 8 s 0 2 1 c 3 o Q I s 0 0 0 c 3 O O J2 if c s 0 5 0 c o O (/\u0026gt; i g 1 0 1 o o 1 S 0 o 1 c 3 o O 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 3  0 1 0 0 1 12 0 13 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 4 2 2 6 0 18 10 0 1 0 1 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 8 4 2 1 3 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 12 8 5 6 4 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 3 2 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 4 1 3 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 o' 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 4 0 2 1 0 0 J 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 2 0 6 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 4 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 T 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 18 1 3 0 2 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 jL 'o 0 0  0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 12 11 1 8 7 41 4 1 5 16 42 49 44 27 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 0 9 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 71 67 153 37 130 116 130 45 71 22 55 8 160 172 281 57 187 59 106 4 189 354 32 5 169 192 191 83 5 166 166 238 22 133 102 50 405 12 54 55 53 156 3 p o 5 23 56 59 200 45 34 59 138 40 56 29 52 21 123 37 9 21 38 68 79 76 41 690 112 112 4692 Page 4Live Downtown and Attend Downtown Sending Schools Count of Studio Ethnic 01 Name_1 I Bale Brady I Fair Park Forest Par Franklin Garland Jefferson M.L. King McDermot Meadowcli Mitchell Otter Cree Pulaski He Rightsell Rockerfell Teny Washingto Woodniff Name Booker Carver Central Attending Schools Franklin Gariand Gibbs 01 Count 02 Bale Brady Fair Park Forest Par Franklin Garland Jefferson M.L. King McDemnot Meadowcli Mitchell Otter Cree Pulaski He Rightsell 2 o' 1' o' 3' o' 2' o' o' o' 1' o' 0 0 2 0 2 0 13 6 2 3 2 7 0 14 14 0 6 6 2 1 \"8 1 o' o' o' o' o' 2 o' o' o' o' o' 0 2 0 0 0 1 6 1 1 3 2 4 2 35 6 4 3 6 2 2 4 0 o' o' o' o' o' o' o' 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 11 3 o^ 3 2 3' 2' o' 2 o' o' o' 3' 2 o' o' 2 0 0 0 0 0 16 10 1 3 1 190 7 0 3 4 13 5 5 0 3 0 0 o' 0 o' 1' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 1 0 6 123 1 0 4 6 1 2 0 1 1 o' o' 0 3' 0 1 o' 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 3 14 1 0 1 1 4 4 5 16 0 2 9 2 2 30 M L. King o' 0 o' _______1_' o' 1 o' 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 3 0 0 4 6 4 9 245 1 1 11 13 0 4 Mitchell 0 0 o' 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 10 3 3 2 1 3 6 6 5 3 2 104 1 8 Rightsell o' 0 _______o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 1 3 7 5 1 6 1 0 128 Rockerfell 0 o' 0 3 3 _______o' 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15 0 5 6 39 3 0 1 3 0 1 32 2 0 1 _______7 4 1 5 Stephens 0 0 _______0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 10 19 0 0 6 1 3 0 0 0 Washingto 3 0 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 4 1 20 2 6 0 4 3 7 25 6 3 4 4 3 4 26 Woodruff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 31 39 0 1 0 18 10 5 2 1 4 6 5 0 5 4 Grand total 9 3 8 5 ________13 2 11 10 6 2 6 1 5 9 25 1 14 43 173 34 19 16 38 248 180 134 307 34 47 178 54 16 221 Page 1Ethnic Name_1 Rockerfell Stephens Terry Washingto Woodruff Booker Carver Central Live Downtown and Attend Downtown Franklin Garland Gibbs 02 Count 03 Franklin Garland Mitchell Rockerfell Washingto Woodruff 03 Count 04 Brady Franklin Pulaski He Rockerfell Terry 04 Count 06 Forest Par Franklin Jefferson Mitchell Stephens Woodnjff 06 Count Grand total 6 0 5 30 4 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 3 0 4' 42 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 6 3 1' 8 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 45 4 3 5 9 0 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 9 0 3 0 169 4 12 0 0 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187 3 2 1 4 1 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 M L. King 2 5 0 9 0 _____ 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Mitchell w 2 1 0 9 0 176 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 r 0 0 3 191 Rightsell 3 0 0 3 0 _____1^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' o' o' o' o' 0 165 Rockerfell I 101  o 4' 26 1  192 _______o _______o o 2 o 2 4 o 1' o' o' o' 1 ' 0 0 1' 0 1' o' 2 238 Stephens 0 82 0 5 4 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 Washingto 18 3 1 263 0 382 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 405 Woodnjff 3 5 4 1 38 112 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 155 Grand total 155 113 ________25 412 48 2279 5 12 1 2 2 3 25 1 1 2 1 2 7 2 2 1 2 1 1 9 2493 Page 2Couit of Studio Name I Live Downtown but Attend Outside Downtown T Ethnic 01 Name_1 Bde Brady Fair Park Forest Par Franklin Gadand Jefferson M L. King McDermott Meadowdi Mitchell PiJaski He Riflhtsell Rockerfell Washi ngto WooOuff 01 Count 02 as I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 02 Count 03 03 Cant 04 04 Cant Bale Brady Fair Park Forest Par Franklin Garland Jefferson M L King McOennofl Meadowcli Mitchelt Otter Cree Pulaski He RockerM Stephens Terry Washnglo Woortuff Bale Fair Park MikheM PUaskiHe Bale McOermott 06FairPar 06 Count Grand total Meedowcfi Weshingto 1 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 1 26 o' o' o' 4' o' o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ' 0 31 41 1 3 5 22 4 0 1 6 12 6 3 1 3 4 1 2 I 0 o' o' o' o' o' o' o' o' o' o' o' 1' 0 0 0 1' 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 1 2 0 2 I 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 30 2 3 13 4 3 5 4 ' 5' 8 0 3 3 4 9' 5 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 1 0 5 3 1 10 0 1 A A o' 6' 4 2 5 I Cu TB 1 o o' o' o' o' o' 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 o 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 2 0 4 A 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0| 0 4 2 5 3 IS s n 1 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 2 1  0 0 0 5 0 1 0 i I X c 5 3j 1 4 3* 3 6 1 0 47 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 3 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 153 16 2 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 2 1 22. 1 1091 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 71 6 o 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 12 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 1 o' 3 o' 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 75 8  13 6 2 7 12 4 3 0 0 1 0 8 1 4 0 147 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 160 1 o' 0 o' o' 1' o' o' o' s' 2' 3' o' 55' 18  6  14' 4 8 3 10 3' 0 4 7 5 4 15 2 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171 0 o' 0 0 1  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 15 1 1 1 4 4 5 0 1 2 o' 2 7 8 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 s 0 0 0 0 0 o' o' o' o' 1' o' o' o' o' 1' o' 2' o' o' 1' o' s' 1  2' 7' 6' 1 4 2 0 6 6 0 0 12 1 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 TB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 g {H o 5 a\u0026gt; 0 0 2 o' o' o' 2' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 20 14 69 6 2 2 s 3 $3 S X3 I 3 S s 1 as 7 6 0 3: 13 1  15' 4' 20 2 185 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 0 0 ' 0\" o' 0 ' o' o' o' o' 0 0 0 o' o' 0 ' o' 0 o' o' o' 3' 2 o' 1  7' o' 2 5 2 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 o' o' o' o' 0 0 0 o' 0 0 o' o' o' o' 0 0 0 o' 0 o' o' 0 1  1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 o' 0 o' 2' o' o' o' 2 o' o' o' o' o' o' o' 4 4 o' 1 ' 6 33 8 o' 0 62 4 15 0 1 3 4 11 3 4 1 160 3 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 169 0 0 o' o' 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 5 3 30 18 1 3 o' 70 14 7 0 11 3 7 3 12 1 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 I 0 0 o' o' 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 IS 0 0 7 39 0 3 1 0 1 3 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 I o' o' o' o' 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 (0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 2 14 2 0 2 7 18 1 12 6 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 5 0 7 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 12 1*. 10' 4 s' 1 ' 43' s' 3' 1 ' 9' 14 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 5 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 3 0 3 6 6 12 25 4 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 166 3aag I 102 o I 0 o' o' o' o' o' o' 0' o' o' 2' o' o' o' o' o' 2 o' 1  2' 4' 1  1' 3' 2 o' 5 0 2 0 6 3 2 0 16 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 so I il 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 2 11 14 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 5 0 2 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 I s 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 o' o' 1 o' s' 6' o' 2 2 12 3 0 2 3' 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 4 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 11 4 0 1 5 2 9 0 0 1 3 1 1 11 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 a s 1 28 3 10 8 10 1 __2 1 4 3 3 13 3 2 8 2 101 82 40 109 109 260 117 125 89 134 136 127 69 62 87 72 86 76 253 15 2048 3 2 1 1 7 2 2 4 1 3 1 5 2165Count of Studio Ethnic 01 Name_1 Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Name Booker Carver Central Live Outside Downtown but Attend Downtown Franklin Gatland Gibbs 01 Count 02 Dodd Fair Park Forest Par Fullbright Geyer Spri Jefferson Legal Tran Mablevale McDermot Meadowci i North LittI Otter Cree Pulaski Co Pulaski He Romine Terry Wakefield Watson Western H Wilson Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd 2 4' 4' 8' 8' 9' 3' 8' 2 8 2 2 1 4 5 2 43 0 99 2 1 9 8 2 2 8 246 4 2 11 0 4 1 8 0 1' 1' ?' 3' 6' o' 3 o' 7' 1' o' o' o' 4' 4 63 0 123 2 1 20 1 0 0 4 251 1 4 2 1 1 5 0 o' o' o' 0 o' 0 o' o' o' o' o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' o' 1' 2 1' o' 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 0 1 1 23 0 2 5 1 1 0 1 0 0 o' 0 o' o' 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 '? 0 1 0 0 0 s' o' 4' 1 o' 0 8 3 6 2 5 0 0 2 0 15 0 26 14 0 2 2 1 1 9 106 1 5 2 2 3 5 1 M.L. King o' 1' _______ 1 2 3 0 2 6 1 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 1 150 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 183 0 0 2 0  J 4 1 Mitchell 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 3 0 0 3 0 2 Rightsell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Rockerfell 5' 9 7 1' 4' 2 1' 1 2 3 2 1 6 0 6 3 4 1 9 4 0 2 3 0 1 1 1% 3 2 2 0 8 4 2 Stephens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washingto 0 5 4 12 8 8 2 12 2 11 1 3 0 6 15 3 35 4 61 3 0 7 4 3 1 27 237 1 ? 0 3 4 10 2 Woodruff 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 6 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 6 0 3 7 0 0 1 0 0 1 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand total 7 28 17 38 29 29 11 43 17 39 8 14 15 10 33 18 167 7 475 38 4 43 20 7 6 53 1176 13 20 24 7 34 35 24 Page 1Count of Studio Ethnic Name_1 I Fair Park Forest Par Fullbright Geyer Spri Jefferson Legal Tran Mablevale McDennot Meadowcli North LittI Otter Cree Pulaski Co Pulaski He Romine Teny Wakefield Watson Western H Wilson Name Booker Carver Central Live Outside Downtown but Attend Downtown Franklin Garland Gibbs 02 Count 03 Bale Brady Cloverdale Fair Park Fullbright McDermot Pulaski Co Wakefield Wilson 03 Count 04 Bale Brady Fair Park Fullbri^t 1 1  11' 4' o' 1 2 o' 4 42 6 64' 0 6 1' 6 8 4 4 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 o' 13' 3' 1' o' 5' 2 2' 51' o' 65' 0 10 1' 4 12 3 9 204 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 o' o' o' o' o' 0 o' o' o' 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 3' 3' o' o' 0 o' 3' 0 o' 0 0 3 1 1 3 0 1 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 o' o' o' o' o' 0 2' o' o' 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 a 0 3' 3' 3 o' o' 0 0 1 22 1' 18 0 2 0 5 0 4 2 83 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 M.L. King o' o' l' _______o' 0 0 o' 1' 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0  0 ' 0 Mitchell 0 o' 2 1' 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 2 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rightsell 0 0 _______0 4 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 16 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rockerfell 0 0 7 4 0 1 2 0 3 3 1 4 1 3 2 1 5 0 3 61 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Stephens 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 _______0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washingto _______3 1 9 3 0 4 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 2 2 3 5 1 3 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Woodruff 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand total 4 5 56 28 ________1 6 12 8 14 118 14 152 5 32 8 20 40 15 28 723 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 14 1 1 1 2 Page 2Count of Studio Ethnic Name_1 Jefferson Mablevale McDermot North LittI Pulaski Co Pulaski He Romine Terry Western H Wilson Name Booker Carver Central Live Outside Downtown but Attend Downtown Franklin Gariand Gibbs 04 Count 05 Cloverdale McDermot 05 Count 06 Brady Cloverdale Fair Park Fullbright Meadowcli North LittI Otter Cree Pulaski Co Pulaski He Romine Terry Watson 06 Count Grand total 1 0 o' 1' 1' o' 0 1' 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 457 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 463 0 o' o' 0 o' 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"o 0 4 0 o' o' o' 0 0 o' 0 1' 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 54 0 o' o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"o' 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 198 M.L. King 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 1 0 1 205 Mitchell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 28 Rightsell 0 0 0 0 _______0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Rockerfell 0 0 0 0 _______0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 Stephens 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Washingto 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ? 6 313 Woodruff 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 Grand total 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 23 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 21 1959 Pages\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eOffice of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)\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_398","title":"Drop-out rate","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":["1994/2002"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Dropouts"],"dcterms_title":["Drop-out rate"],"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/398"],"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":["23 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\nThis shows the number of students that were counted as being enroiled on October 1st of the years indicated. Highschool ! Pupil Enrollment Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview [identification :i0/1/1996- Af-Am Males Af-Am Males Af-Am Males Af-Am Males j Af-Am Males Enrollment ! Nbr Lost '% Lost 10th Gr 10/1/1998-12th Gr 227 104 135 155 82 114 72 75 108i 83' 113 32 60 47 -1 49.8% 30.8% 44.4% 30.3% -1.2% Pupil_________ Identification All Other Males All Other Males All Other Males All Other Males All Other Males Enroliment 'Enroilment 'l 0/1 ly 996-1 oth Gr 16/1/1998-12th Gr! Nbr Lost'% Lost Total t Af-Am Males 1 ---------------- 4- 452 25r357%'^il T I 133 28 23 301 75 109 35 14 15 68 24 -7 \\ 9 15 7 18.0% -25.0% 39.1% 50.0% 9.3% \"1289 t-.d 541'  '49 \" im Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview Af-Am Males Af-Am Males Af-Am Males ! Af-Am Males j Af-Am Males 110/1/1997-10th Gri1W/1999-12th^^ 213 104 131 1471 70 99 64 90 86 65 114 40 41 61 5 53,5% 38.5% 31.3% 41.5% 7.1% All Other Males All Other Males All Other Males All Other Males, All Other Males [ 10/1/1997-1 Oth Gr |10/1/1999-i2fh Gr 124 96 32 38 29 16 27 15 \" 56 46 28 22.6% -6i -18.8% 13 44.8% 12, 44.4% 10 17.9% 1 Total Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview 4 At-Am Males Af-Am Males [Af-Am Males  Af-Am Males , Af-Am Males | Af-Am Males Total Af-Am Males -^ges' 404 ... 261'35.2% [10/1/1998-10th Gr|10/1/2000-12th Gr I 181 1311 118 156| 6'9 99 103 71 89 63 82 28 47 j. -I-  6? 21.3% ------------------------ 425^ 4- ________________________L 10/1/1999-10th Gr 10/1/2001-12th Gr| i 45.3% 21.4% 39.8% 67, 42.9% 6 8.7% All Other Males All Other Males All Other Males All Other Males All Other Males 10/1/1998-10th Gr,10/1/2000-12th Gr) t ' \"\"..... \"  16 130 50 31 15 56 114 451 17 9i 50 5 ' 14 6[ 6 12.3% 10.0% 45.2% 40.0% 10.7% X jl^iroiRSf Maids' 235***^716.7% w + I Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview Af-Am Males Af-Am Males Af-Am Males Af-Am Males Af-Am Males I 152 152i 118 170 68 92 81 i 64 78 58 60 39.5% All Other Males 110/1 /1999-10th Gr\n10/1 /2001 -12th Gr ...... ' 93 Total Af-Am Males t  geo t 71 54 92 10 t 46.7% 45.8% 54.1% 14.7% All Other Males All Other Males All Other Males All Other Males 59 36 15 61 45 18  7\\ 54 12 14\n18 8! 7 11.4% 23.7% 50.0% 53.3% 11.5% 4- -g-fg ' 287^43.5% All Other Maids W' t 5ir 59 21.4% Data taken from Arkansas Schools Information Site 05/07/2002 Please Note: the enrollment for the senior year indicates that the number lost didn't even show up for the 12th Grade, let alone graduateThis shows the number of students that were counted as being enrolled on October 1 st of the years indicated. High School Pupil Enrollment Enrollment Nbr Lost'% Lost Central Hall Fair i Identification\n10/1/1996-10th Gr| 10/1/1998-12th Gr Af-Am Males I Af-Am Males | Af-Am Males McClellan |Af-Am Males ! Parkview Af-Am Males 227 135 155| 82 Total J________ Af-Am Males t T 703 I I Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview Af-Am Males ]Af-Am Males Af-Am Males I Af-Am Males Af-Am Males I Total Af-Am Males Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview Af-Am Males ! Af-Am Males Af-Am Males Af-Am Males Af-Am Males Total Af-Am Males Central Hall Fair Af-Am Males j Af-Am Males Af-Am Males 114 75 83 -4 452 I 110/1 ly 997-10th Gr j 10/1 lA 999-12th Gr 213 104 131 147 70 665 99 90 86: 65 404 10/1/1998-10th Gr J0/1/2000-12th Gr\n181 131\n118 156 69 99 103' 71 89, 63 655 425 10/1/1999-10th Gr 10/1/2001-12th Gr' McClellan |Af-Am Males j Parkview Af-Am Males 152 152 118 170} 68 92 81 64 7^ 58 Total Af-Am Males 660 373 113 49.8% 321 30.8% I 60 44.4% 471 30.3% I -1 -1.2% Pupil_________ Identification All Other Males I All Other Males I All Other Males i All Other Males } All Other Males Enrollment iEnrollment }Nbr Lost|% Lost 10/1 /1996-10th Gr 110/1 /1998-12th Gr I i 251 35.7% All Other Males + J. 133 281 23 75 109 ~3^ 14 68 T f 24 18.0% y|~25.0% 9 39.1% 15! 50.0% 7 T 9.3% 289 241 48 16.6% I 114 53.5% 40 i 38.5% I 41 31.3% 61! 41.5% 1 5 7.1% 261 39.2% 82 45.3% 28, 21.4% I 47 39.8% 67} 42.9% I 6 8.7% 230 35.1% 60 39.5% 71: 46.7% I 54 45.8% 92] 54.1%! 10 14.7% 287 43.5% All Other Males I All Other Males ! All Other Males I All Other Males [ All Other Males \u0026gt;10/1/1997-10th Grj 10/1/1999-12th Gr' 124 32 29 zS 56 96 38i 16 15i 46 1 28 22.6% -6j -18.8% 13 44.8% 12 44.4% 10 17.9% + I + All Other Males All Other Males I All Other Males All Other Males Ian OtherMai^J All other Males 268 211 57 21.3% '10/1/1998-10th Gr 10/1/2000-12th Gr\nI All Other Males + All Other Males I All Other Males All Other Males i All Other Males All Other Males All Other Males 130 50 31 15 56 114 451 17 9 50 16 12.3% 5 10.0% 14 45.2% 6 40.0% 6 10.7% 282 235 47 16.7% 10/1/1999-10th Gr :10/1/2001-12th Gr 105 59 36 15 61 276 93 45 18 7' 54 217 12 11.4% 14 23.7% 18 50.0% 8 53.3% 7 11.5% 59 21.4% Data taken from Arkansas Schools Information Site 05/07/2002 Please Note: the enrollment for the senior year indicates that the number lost didn't even show up for the 12th Grade, let alone graduateGeneral Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 1 Count results for 2001-2002 for Schools: General Information Arkansas School Information Site PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL (6001005) How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 72 African American Female 78 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female 5 3 5 8 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male White Female Total 53 79 303 Contact AS-IS 10 72 71 5 5 1 6 0 0 47 80 287 11 61 84 3 3 0 2 0 0 67 64 284 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total TERMS: 58 70 0 5 3 1 1 0 50 82 270 263 303 13 16 9 17 1 0 217 305 1144 Arkansas Website AS-IS Home  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_em.cgi?year=2001\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001005\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out ... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General information i Count results for 2000-2001 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL (6001005) How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 81 African American Female 72 Asian Male 6 Asian Female 4 Hispanic Male 0 Hispanic Female 4 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 1 White Male 51 White Female 86 Total 305 Contact AS-IS 10 61 87 3 3 1 3 0 0 69 67 294 11 66 76 0 6 2 2 1 0 53 81 287 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total 63 82 3 6 0 2 0 0 47 73 276 271 317 12 19 3 11 1 1 220 307 1162 TERMS: Arkansas Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=2000\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001005\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 i Count results for 1999-2000 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL (6001005) General Information How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 61 African American Female 81 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male 68 White Female 67 Total 287 Contact AS-IS 10 11 68 66 76 83 57 82 293 49 85 295 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total 65 260 82 322 18 42 87 282 216 321 1157 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 8 5 2 1 1 0 8 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 6 5 1 0 TERMS: Arkansas Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1999\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001005\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out ... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 I Count results for 1998-1999 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL (6001005) General Information How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male 69 African American Female 92 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male 52 White Female 88 Total 313 Contact AS-IS 11 66 88 52 97 309 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total 83 78 65 71 304 218 258 11 169 256 926 TERMS: 3 7 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 6 3 0 0 Arkansas Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/searchysearch_enr.cgi?year=1998\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001005\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 1 Count results for 1996-1997 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL (6001005) General Information How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male 82 African American Female 80 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male White Female Total 72 70 311 Contact AS-IS 11 12 56 57 102 68 56 50 82 55 308 247 AR Dept, of Education KF Total 202 256 10 178 207 13 879 7 6 2 3 1 1 2 2 0 6 1 5 0 9 4 5 0 0 3 0 8 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 TERMS: Arkansas Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http\n//www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1996\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001005\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out ... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 1 B L Count results for 1997-1998 for Schools: General Information ft Arkansas School Information Site PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL (6001005) How To Use This Site Grade African American Male African American Female Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female 10 70 84 1 4 3 1 Native American Male i Native American Female White Male White Female Total 0 51 87 302 Contact AS-IS 11 83 80 1 3 2 1 0 0 68 75 313 AR Dept, of Education Arkansas Website B AS-IS Home 12 Total 51 96 3 1 3 5 0 0 54 83 296 204 260 5 8 8 7 1 0 173 245 911 TERMS:  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www,as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year= 1997\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001005\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information 1 Count results for 2000-2001 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site MCCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL (6001064) How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 161 African American Female 172 Asian Male 0 Asian Female 0 Hispanic Male 0 Hispanic Female 4 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male 13 White Female 11 Total 361 Contact AS-IS 10 11 146 123 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 6 292 117 133 0 0 3 2 0 0 11 15 281 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total 89 91 1 0 4 4 0 0 4 12 205 513 519 2 0 7 10 0 0 44 44 1139 TERMS: Arkansas Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http\n//www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=2000\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001064\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information 1 Count results for 2001-2002 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site MCCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL (6001064) How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 159 African American Female 130 Asian Male 0 Asian Female 0 Hispanic Male 5 Hispanic Female 2 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male 15 White Female 5 Total 316 Contact AS-IS 10 11 12 129 126 78 148 102 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 5 9 295 0 0 0 18 8 255 2 0 0 5 10 201 AR Dept, of Education SS Total 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 501 490 0 0 9 7 0 0 43 33 16 1083 Arkansas TERMS: Website  EE: Elementary - Efngraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=2001\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001064\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out,.. 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information I Count results for 1999-2000 for Schools\nArkansas School Information Site MCCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL (6001064) How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 159 African American Female 149 Asian Male 0 Asian Female 0 Hispanic Male 1 Hispanic Female 0 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male 14 White Female 9 Total 332 Contact AS-IS 10 11 170 175 0 0 3 3 0 0 12 21 384 98 125 0 0 4 4 0 0 5 13 249 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total 86 104 1 0 0 2 0 0 14 20 227 513 553 1 0 8 9 0 0 45 63 1192 TERMS: Arkansas Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1999\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001064\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 I Count results for 1998-1999 for Schools: General Information Arkansas School Information Site MCCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL (6001064) How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male 156 African American Female 137 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female 0 0 3 2 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male White Female Total 12 21 331 Contact AS-IS 11 12 109 108 122 100 1 0 0 3 0 0 18 18 271 2 1 0 2 0 0 13 19 245 AR Dept, of Education SS Total TERMS: 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 24 388 362 3 1 3 7 0 0 46 61 871 Arkansas Website B AS-IS Home  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1998\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001064\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out ... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information 1 Count results for 1997-1998 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site MCCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL (6001064) How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male 147 African American Female 152 Asian Male 1 Asian Female 0 Hispanic Male 1 Hispanic Female 1 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male 26 White Female 23 Total 351 Contact AS-IS 11 12 128 103 125 109 1 0 0 3 0 0 21 22 300 2 0 3 1 0 0 18 19 255 AR Dept, of Education S Total 17 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 29 395 395 4 0 4 5 0 0 66 66 935 TERMS: Arkansas Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www,as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1997\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001064\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out ... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information I Count results for 1996-1997 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site MCCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL (6001064) How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male 155 African American Female 150 Asian Male 1 Asian Female 0 Hispanic Male 0 Hispanic Female 2 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male 29 White Female 21 Total 358 Contact AS-IS 11 12 KF 109 126 1 0 3 1 0 0 19 20 279 88 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 31 251 9 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 AR Dept, of Education S Total 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 22 375 391 2 0 3 3 1 0 77 74 926 Arkansas TERMS: Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/searchysearch_enr.cgi?year=1996\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001064\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information 1 Count results for 2001-2002 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site J.A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL (6001063) How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 120 African American Female ioi Asian Male 0 Asian Female 0 Hispanic Male 7 Hispanic Female 1 Native American Male i Native American Female 1 White Male White Female Total 24 27 282 Contact AS-IS 10 11 12 105 89 64 87 94 70 0 0 2 1 2 0 30 19 246 0 0 0 3 0 0 19 20 225 0 1 1 4 1 0 16 10 167 ,4 AR Dept, of Education SS Total 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 24 386 364 0 1 10 9 4 1 93 76 944 Arkansas Website TERMS: B AS-IS Home  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return tp.Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=2001 \u0026amp;datalevel=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001063\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information 1 Count results for 2000-2001 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site J.A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL (6001063) How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 116 African American Female 99 Asian Male 0 Asian Female 0 Hispanic Male 4 Hispanic Female 2 Native American Male 2 Native American Female 0 White Male 37 White Female 14 Total 274 Contact AS-iS 10 85 86 0 0 0 1 0 0 21 19 212 11 98 79 1 1 1 6 1 0 25 12 224 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total 71 81 0 1 1 2 0 0 16 12 184 11 370 345 1 2 6 11 3 0 99 57 894 TERMS: Arkansas Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search7search_enr.cgi?year=2000\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001063\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 1 Count results for 1998-1999 for Schools: General Information6 Arkansas School Information Site J.A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL (6001063) How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male 118 African American Female 114 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female 0 1 4 2 Native American Male 0 Native American Female i White Male White Female Total 27 22 289 Contact AS-IS 11 12 105 75 76 86 0 0 0 1 0 0 18 12 212 1 0 2 1 0 0 11 17 193 AR Dept, of Education SS Total 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 26 310 283 1 1 6 4 0 1 59 55 720 Arkansas Website TERMS: SIS ome  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1998\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001063\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out ... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information 1 Count results for 1999-2000 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site J.A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL (6001063) How To Use This Site Grade 08 African American Male 0 African American Female 0 Asian Male 0 Asian Female 0 Hispanic Male 0 Hispanic Female 0 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male 1 White Female 0 Total 1 Contact AS-IS 09 10 11 101 118 88 102 92 100 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 24 31 264 1 1 5 1 0 34 18 270 1 1 1 0 0 23 19 233 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total 90 69 0 0 1 0 0 0 15 12 187 it 397 363 0 2 6 8 2 0 97 80 955 Arkansas TERMS: Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1999\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001063\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 I Count results for 1997-1998 for Schools: General Information Arkansas School Information Site J.A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL (6001063) How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male 131 African American Female 94 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female 0 0 0 1 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male White Female Total 29 23 278 Contact AS-IS 11 12 84 83 100 102 1 0 3 0 0 0 14 23 225 0 1 1 0 0 0 16 25 228 AR Dept, of Education S Total 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 26 309 303 1 1 4 1 0 0 63 75 757 Arkansas Website TERMS: Q AS-IS Home  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year= 1997\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001063\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of2 General Information I Count results for 1996-1997 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site J.A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL (6001063) How To Use This Site Grade African American Male African American Female Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female 08 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male White Female Total Contact AS-IS 10 11 12 135 103 71 126 109 74 21 32 316 24 27 31 27 270 200 AR Dept, of Education KF 15 14 27 Total 330 323 78 92 829 S 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 Arkansas Website TERMS:  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1996\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001063\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information ft 1 a L Count results for 2001-2002 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site HALL HIGH SCHOOL (6001002) How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 161 African American Female 143 Asian Male 2 Asian Female 0 Hispanic Male 16 Hispanic Female 17 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male 41 White Female 37 Total 417 Contact AS-IS 10 11 12 138 129 81 140 125 94 2 0 3 1 3 0 17 10 8 8 7 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 24 53 384 33 34 34 35 341 259 ! AR Dept, of Education SS Total 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 18 518 503 7 4 51 36 0 1 137 162 1419 Arkansas Website TERMS: 5 AS-IS Home  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http\n//www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=2001\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001002\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information J Count results for 1999-2000 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site HALL HIGH SCHOOL (6001002) How To Use This Site Grade 08 African American Male 0 African American Female i Asian Male 0 Asian Female 0 Hispanic Male 0 Hispanic Female 0 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male 0 White Female 1 Total 2 Contact AS-IS 09 10 11 181 152 112 154 134 96 1 3 9 11 0 2 39 39 439 6 8 1 5 8 7 0 0 45 45 398 12 7 0 0 37 38 315 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total 64 87 4 7 8 7 0 0 26 34 509 472 19 16 37 32 0 2 147 157 237 1391 Arkansas TERMS: Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1999\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001002\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 1 Count results for 2000-2001 for Schools: General Information ft Arkansas School Information Site HALL HIGH SCHOOL (6001002) How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 171 African American Female 152 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female Native American Male 4 2 15 13 0 Native American Female 0 White Male White Female Total 34 47 438 Contact AS-IS 10 11 168 142 1 2 17 14 0 1 35 33 413 98 116 5 1 10 5 0 0 42 42 319 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total TERMS: 103 540 90 5 3 8 8 0 0 32 29 278 500 15 8 50 40 0 1 143 151 1448 Arkansas Website 5  AS-IS Home  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU\nMiddle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=2000\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001002\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information I Count results for 1998-1999 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site HALL HIGH SCHOOL (6001002) How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male ili African American Female 81 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male 10 Hispanic Female Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male 36 White Female 27 Total 300 Contact AS-IS 11 12 75 72 92 21 28 237 71 27 32 217 17 AR Dept, of Education SS Total 293 255 14 11 18 17 87 89 14 785 Arkansas TERMS: Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1998\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001002\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 K 8 9 7 2 4 4 6 0 0 2 9 6 6 5 0 0 3 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General InformationA 1 Count results for 1997-1998 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site HAU. HIGH SCHOOL (6001002) How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male 104 African American Female 99 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female Native American Male Native American Female 0 White Male White Female Total 24 33 276 Contact AS-IS 11 12 KF 92 89 21 31 248 85 76 31 42 246 AR Dept, of Education S Total 289 272 15 12 11 80 107 14 791 Arkansas TERMS: Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1997\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001002\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out ... 5/6/2002 4 7 4 1 0 5 3 4 2 0 1 2 5 6 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 0 1 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information I Count results for 1996-1997 for Schools: Arktinsas School Information Site HALL HIGH SCHOOL (6001002) How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male 104 African American Female 96 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male 22 White Female 26 Total 258 Contact AS-IS 11 12 KF 103 93 35 39 279 77 95 24 43 249 16 AR Dept, of Education S Total 12 21 303 294 11 86 111 Arkansas Website TERMS: 2 3 4 1 4 2 2 1 0 0 5 1 2 2 0 0 7 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 6 8 4 0 0 B AS-IS Home  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr .cgi?year=1996\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001002\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5l6l2Wi2 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 I Count results for 2001-2002 for Schools: General information Arkansas School Information Site CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL (6001001) How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 195 African American Female Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female Native American Male 184 7 5 3 2 1 Native American Female 0 White Male White Female Total 123 110 630 Contact AS-IS 10 11 138 141 3 6 2 2 1 1 97 94 485 91 121 4 4 2 0 0 1 102 105 430 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total TERMS: 92 120 1 6 1 1 0 0 91 89 401 516 566 15 21 8 5 2 2 413 398 1946 Arkansas Website s AS-IS Home  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=2001 \u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001001 \u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information 1 Count results for 2000-2001 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL (6001001) How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 198 African American Female 176 Asian Male 3 Asian Female 5 Hispanic Male 2 Hispanic Female 3 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 1 White Male 107 White Female 103 Total 598 Contact AS-IS 10 11 138 154 7 4 2 0 0 0 115 116 536 100 117 1 6 0 2 0 0 99 101 426 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total 99 535 160 607 6 2 1 3 0 1 107 130 17 17 5 8 0 2 428 450 509 2069 TERMS: Arkansas Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www,as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=2000\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001001\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out .,. 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 General Information6 1 Count results for 1996-1997 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL (6001001) How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male 227 African American Female ^9 Asian Male 5 Asian Female 5 Hispanic Male 3 Hispanic Female 2 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male White Female Total 125 128 744 Contact AS-IS 11 12 KF 146 170 5 4 0 1 0 1 106 94 527 112 155 4 6 0 2 0 0 73 108 460 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 32 AR Dept, of Education S Total 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 511 593 14 15 3 5 0 1 304 331 1777 Arkansas Website TERMS: SIS ome  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU\nMiddle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K\nKindergarten  KA\nKindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year= 1996\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001001 \u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 Arkansas School Information Site General Information Count results for 1997-1998 for Schools: CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL (6001001) How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male 213 African American Female 244 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female 2 1 4 2 Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male White Female Total 118 132 716 Contact AS-IS 11 12 168 104 201 138 4 4 2 0 1 0 126 147 653 3 4 0 1 0 1 97 104 452 AR Dept, of Education KF Total 20 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 34 505 596 9 9 6 3 1 1 341 384 1855 TERMS: Arkansas Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1997\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001001\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out ... 5/6/2002 General Information - Enrollment Data I Count results for 1998-1999 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL (6001001) L Page 1 of 1 General Information How To Use This Site Grade 10 African American Male 181 African American Female 220 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female Native American Male 0 Native American Female i White Male White Female Total 123 133 670 Contact AS-IS 11 12 156 114 236 117 129 645 157 103 139 523 AR Dept, of Education K Total 12 21 34 TERMS: 463 634 12 343 402 1872 Arkansas Website  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1998\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001001\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 6 2 4 0 1 1 4 ,-70 0 4 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 7 5 0 1 General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 1 1 Count results for 1999-2000 for Schools: Arkansas School Information Site CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL (6001001) General Information How To Use This Site Grade 09 African American Male 156 African American Female 143 Asian Male Asian Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female Native American Male 0 Native American Female 0 White Male White Female Total 100 103 517 Contact AS-IS 10 11 152 112 160 104 96 518 172 114 127 536 AR Dept, of Education 12 Total 99 173 93 105 474 519 648 15 11 411 431 2045 8 5 2 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 10^ 5 1 1 1 3 0 1 0 2 5 1 0 0 4 0 1 TERMS: Arkansas Website  EE\nElementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA: Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_enr.cgi?year=1999\u0026amp;data_level=school\u0026amp;schoolname=6001001\u0026amp;race=ON\u0026amp;gender=ON\u0026amp;out... 5/6/2002 School Central J.A. Fair SczGwfs - Year 10th Gr 1996-97 11th Gr 1997-98 12th Gr 1998-99 Grads June 1999 Gain or Loss % Gain or Loss 10th Gr 1996-97 11th Gr 1997-98 12th Gr 1998-99 Grads June 1999 Gain or Loss % Gain or Loss White Males 125 126 103 White Females 109 -16 87.20% 21 14 11 25 4 119.05% 128 147 139 134 6 104.69% 32 23 17 37 5 115.62% Black Males 227 168 114 101 -126 44.49% 135 84 75 54 -81 40.00% Black Females 249 201 157 152 -97 61.04% 126 100 86 63 -63 50.00% Other-Males 8 7 6 2 -6 25.00% 2 4 3 1 -1 50.00% Other Females 7 4 4 5 -2 71.43% 0 0 1 3 3 300.00% Totals 744 653 523 503 -241 67.61% 316 225 193 183 -133 57.91%Hall 10th Gr 1996-97 11th Gr 1997-98 12th Gr 1998-99 22 21 27 26 31 32 104 92 72 96 89 71 6 9 8 4 6 7 McClellan Parkview 258 248 217 Grads June 1999 Gain or Loss % Gain or Loss 10th Gr 1996-97 11th Gr 1997-98 12th Gr 1998-99 Grads June 1999 Gain or Loss % Gain or Loss 10th Gr 1996-97 11th Gr 1997-98 29 27 78 74 7 6 221 7 1 -26 -22 1 2 -37 131.82% 103.85% 75.00% 77.08% 116.67% 150.00% 85.66% 29 21 155 150 1 2 358 21 13 11 -18 37.93% 72 68 22 19 21 0 100.00% 70 75 128 125 1 3 300 108 100 2 3 245 99 92 2 3 228 -56 -58 1 1 -130 63.87% 61.33% 200.00% 150.00% 63.69% 82 83 80 80 3 3 4 4 311 313Total 12th Gr 1998-99 Grads June 1999 Gain or Loss % Gain or Loss 10th Gr 1996-97 Grads June 1999 Gain or Loss % Gain or Loss 65 58 -14 80.56% 269 232 -37 86.25% 71 64 -6 91.43% 277 283 6 102.17% 83 81 -1 98.78% 703 413 -290 58.75% 78 3 4 304 79 8 7 297 -1 5 3 -14 98.75% 266.67% 175.00% 95.50% 701 460 -241 65.62% 20 20 0 100.00% 17 24 7 141.18% 1987 1432 -555 72.07%Total Nbr White White Males Females r/fetf Sc6^ Black Males Black Females Females-othe Males-Other r 9th Grade 94-95 1821 257 308 612 621 13 10 Grads-June 1998 1389 231 293 336 472 29 28 Loss/Gain -432 -26 -15 -276 -149 16 18 % Completion 76.28% 89.88% 95.13% 54.90% 76.01% 223.08% 280.00% 9th Grade 95-96 1899 274 245 681 664 23 12 Grads-June 1999 1432 281 330 364 413 20 24 Loss/Gain -467 7 85 -317 -251 -3 12 % Completion 75.41% 102.55% 134.69% 53.45% 62.20% 86.96% 200.00% ScWl - School Year White Males White Females Black Males Black Females Other-Males Other Females Totals Central 10th Gr 1995-96 11th Gr 1996-97 12th Gr 1997-98 110 106 97 J.A. Fair 106 197 203 4 5 625 94 146 170 5 6 527 104 104 138 3 6 452 Grads June 1998 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 10th Gr 1995-96 11th Gr 1996-97 12th Gr 1997-98 Grads June 1998 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 86 -24 78.18% 33 24 16 32 -1 96.97% 106 95 136 7 13 443 0 -102 -67 3 8 -182 100.00% 48.22% 67.00% 175.00% 260.00% 70.88% 45 31 25 41 -4 91.11% 136 119 2 2 337 103 109 2 1 270 83 73 -63 53.68% 102 1 1 228 91 4 2 243 -28 2 0 -94 76.47% 200.00% 100.00% 72.11% Hall 10th Gr 1995-96 11th Gr 1996-97 12th Gr 1997-98 37 35 31 44 39 42 124 103 85 117 93 76 4 6 9 4 3 3 330 279 246 McClellan Grads June 1998 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 10th Gr 1995-96 11th Gr 1996-97 12th Gr 1997-98 Grads June 1998 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 35 48 49 58 7 4 201 -2 4 -75 -59 3 0 -129 94.59% 109.09% 39.52% 49.57% 175.00% 100.00% 60.91% 21 19 18 17 -4 80.95% 25 20 19 22 -3 88.00% 153 109 103 85 -68 55.56% 141 126 109 93 -48 65.96% 4 4 5 4 0 100.00% 0 1 1 3 3 300.00% 344 279 255 224 -120 65.12%Parkview 10th Gr 1995-96 11th Gr 1996-97 12th Gr 1997-98 52 56 54 86 82 83 60 56 51 101 102 96 6 6 6 5 6 6 310 308 296 Total Grads June 1998 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 10th Gr 1995-96 Grads June 1998 Gain or Loss % Gain or Loss 47 76 48 94 7 6 278 -5 -10 -12 -7 1 1 -32 90.38% 88.37% 80.00% 93.07% 116.67% 120.00% 89.68% 253 217 -36 85.77% 306 293 -13 95.75% 670 350 -320 52.24% 681 472 -209 69.31% 20 29 9 145.00% 16 28 12 175.00% 1946 1389 -557 71.38%School State of Ark State of Ark State of Ark ^-tnd aidJZ (^'i4-i54U, (S'Jv-M Year White Males White Females Black Males Black Females Other-Males Other Females Totals 10th Gr 1994-95 11th Gr 1995-96 12th Gr 1996-97 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 10th Gr 1995-96 11th Gr 1996-97 12th Gr 1997-98 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 10th Gr 1996-97 11th Gr 1997-98 12th Gr 1998-99 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 12,938 12,348 4,145 4,085 388 326 34,230 11,532 10,362 (2,576) -19.91% 13501 12288 11192 (2,309) -17.10% 13704 12252 11189 (2,515) -18.35% 11,310 10,374 (1,974) -15.99% 12604 11543 10751 (1,853) -14.70% 12541 11559 10684 (1,857) -14.81% 3,381 2,879 (1,266) -30.54% 4080 3509 2987 (1,093) -26.79% 4098 3511 3070 (1,028) -25.09% 3,593 3,273 (812) -19.88% 4178 3729 3487 1691) -16.54% 4119 3691 3314 (805) -19.54% 401 366 1221 -5.67% 442 415 383 1591 -13.35% 441 429 410 (31) -7.03% 349 359 33 10.12% 404 405 404 0 0.00% 432 432 436 4 0.93% 30,566 27,613 (6,617) -19.33% 35209 31889 29204 (6,005) -17.06% 35335 31874 29103 (6,232) -17.64%state of Ark 10th Gr 1997-98 11th Gr 1998-99 12th Gr 1999-00 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 13384 12084 10845 (2,539) -18.97% 12657 11661 10835 (1,822) -14.40% 4108 3327 2942 (1,166) -28.38% 4069 3635 3422 {647} -15.90% 574 507 496 (78) -13.59% 541 501 506 135} -6.47% Little Rock 10th Gr 1994-95 11th Gr 1995-96 12th Gr 1996-97 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 253 320 658 666 18 18 221 201 -20.55% 284 476 574 18 25 264 405 497 18 22 35333 31715 29046 (6,287) -17.79% 1933 1598 1407 Little Rock 10th Gr 1995-96 11th Gr 1996-97 12th Gr 1997-98 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 253 240 216 1371 -14.62% 1561 12^ 116?1 0 4 15261 -17.50% -38.45% -25.38% 0.00% 22.22% -27.21% 306 266 273 1331 -10.78% 670 517 427 12^ -36.27% 681 600 521 11601 -23.49% 20 23 24 4 20.00% 16 17 17 1 6.25% 1946 1663 1478 (468) -24.05%Little Rock 10th Gr 1996-97 11th Gr 1997-98 12th Gr 1998-99 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 269 250 219 1501 -18.59% 277 298 278 1 0.36% Little Rock 10th Gr 1997-98 11th Gr 1998-99 12th Gr 1999-00 Gain/Loss-IOt h % Gain or Loss 249 226 217 1321 -12.85% 298 284 267 -10.40% 703 556 452 12511 -35.70% 665 511 475 (190) -28.57% 701 595 492 (209) -29.81% 673 614 580 (93) -13.82% 20 24 22 2 10.00% 21 21 22 1 4.76% 17 17 19 2 11.76% 18 18 21 3 16.67% 1987 1740 1482 (505) -25.42% 1924 1674 1582 13421 -17.78%04/27/1999 13:53 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/01 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 sevann@Irsdadm.Irsdkl2.ar.us For Immediate Release April 27,1999 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Fewer Students Drop Out of Little Rock Schools Alternative programs have reduced the districts dropout rate this year, based on statistics for the first semester. During the first two quarters of the 1998-99 school year, the number of dropouts declined 8.2 4. Last year, 919 students dropped out by mid-year, compared to 844 this year. Superintendent Les Gamine said the implementation of new programs, such as the Accelerated Learning Center, have offered students an alternative to terminating their education. We found that many students were discouraged with their academic progress in the regular classroom, and we were able to institute technology-driven, self-paced learning programs to keep these young people in school, Gamine said. The Accelerated Learning Center currently serves lllhigh school students\n13 studentshave graduated fi-om deprogram this year. Ofthe 13 graduates, five are enrolled in post-secondary schools, two entered the military, and the others work in full-time positions. Camme said district staffmembers are improving the tracking of identified dropouts since many students dont return to class foUowing the summer break. A dropout is defined as any student in grades 7 through 12 who leaves school prior to graduation. Excqitions to this include students who transfer to another school or who require extended medical leave due to serious personal illness. Gamine expects that more students will consider the alternative programs, including the Accelerated Learning Center and the junior high Alternative Learning Center, as magnet programs which can help them find their personal learning style and help them remain m an academic setting.Arkansas Democrat i^d^azelle (  WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1999 LRs school dropouts fewer Superintendent credits reduction to alternative programs '  BY eVNTHL^ HOWELL .ARK.\\NS.\\S DEMOCR.AT-O.AZETTE Using a class in the Little Rock School District's new Accelerated Learning Center as a backdrop. Superintendent Les Camine announced Tuesday some earl) success in reducing the districts student dropout rate. In the first semester in 1997-98, 919 Little Rock students left school for destinations unknown as compared with 844 the first se- their diplomas or prepare for the General Educational Development test through the program, \"It is becoming more and more important for young people to finish degrees in terms of their em- mester this school year, a drop of ___ v,. j 8.2 percent, the superintendent theVountrt' said. He added that he e.xpects the  rate to improve as much as 15 percent by the end of this year. ploj-ment and their future.\" Car- nine said. \"But traditional schools don't fit everybody. This is an effort to more personalize education. Camine said the Little Rock learning center, formed last fall, is program. Smitli has been going'to classes at the center since Febm- ary, and he hopes to complete his courses this summer. He would like to enlist in the Navy, \"I won't say it is better here than going to McClellan,\" Smith said, \"I just needed a different atmosphere, I was just distracted. There was too much conversation going on,\" Tuition is not charged at the , , .3 . -------------- center, but students must apply to a^hybrid of programs used around the program and undergo an inter- rtew. as well as sign a contract The open-entry\nopen-exit learning center is sendng 111 students. Camine attributed the downward trend to new or expanded alternative programs. He specifically highlighted the Accelerated Learning Center, a program within the Metropolitan Vocational Tech- agreeing to the program's mles. Students who have been removed from their traditional nical Center for high school ju- _________ Jtiors and seniors who have fallen advantage of vocational courses of- behind in accumulating gradua-  ' \" tion credits. and has served about 160 this year. Fourteen have graduated, and an- schools because of discipline other 20 are expected to do so by problems do not qualify- for the the end ofthe school year. The pro-  '  gram will be expanded ne.xt vear to accept as many as 300 students, including lOth-graders, Plans also center. Most of the students in the program are older than 18. Those who complete their stud-   - --------------------- ies at the center receive diplomas call for allowing students to take from their home high schools in ------------, Camine said he ex- fered at Metropolitan. Learning Center student Jar- peers the center to attain state accreditation soon so students can The Accelerated Learning Center offers a computerized instmc- sent and easily distracted as a stu-  .A rmical inrtmctional dav for tional program that allows stu- dent at McClellan High School. Smith begins ^bSSt 8 or 8-30 a m durS? V McClellan Assistant Principal and lasts throush early afternoon.' that Butsometimeshe-Hstayaslate-as marr Smith said he was often ab- graduate from there sent and easily distracted as a Stu- ' ' dent at McClellan High School. .....................  McClellan .Assistant Principal and lasts through early afternoon. evening sessions. Students can get Smith consider the accelerated 9 p.m. to get ahead.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1162","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case","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":["1994/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case"],"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/1162"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["149 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\nExhibit numbers 458-466\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1066","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County Special School District, evaluation and monitoring 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":["1994/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County Special School District, evaluation and monitoring 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/1066"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["46 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\nExhibit numbers 447-453\nThis transcript 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_520","title":"Incentive Schools: Summer school program","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":["1994/1995"],"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","Summer schools","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Summer school program"],"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/520"],"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":["105 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\nLittle Rock School District October 25, 1994 OCT 2 8 1994 Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Otiico of Cesegre-gaiicn r*.: ikCIju^ Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Extended Year Program at Incentive Schools I Attached you will find administration reports for the Extended Year Program for the incentive schools, sending these reports to you. I am sorry for the delay in If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. sincerely, Sterling Ingram Associate to the Deputy Superintendent Sl/adg- Attachments 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUMMER SCHOOL/SUMMARY REPORT 1994 GRADES 1 - 6 AND EXTENDED YEAR PROGRAM ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY 700 EAST 17TH STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 SUMMER SCHOCL/SUMMARY REPORT (EXTENDED YEAR PROGRAM) The 1994 elementary summer school was held at Rockefeller Incentive/Early Childhood Magnet School, 700 East 17th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The summer school program was held to reinforce, strengthen, and enrich learning skills for students in grades 1 through 6. The academic focus of the summer school program was placed on reading/language arts and mathematics. Instructional strategies (small groups, cooperative learning, manipulatives, oral/written presentations, enrichment activities. reports, daily assignments, and homework) were used to meet students' needs in reading vocabulary. reading comprehension, math computations, and math applications. Students received instruction in the classroom and in the computer lab. Students were given assistance with their learning from the classroom teacher, instructional aide, and/or the computer lab attendant. The summer school program was conducted for five weeks '(June 20th-July 25th). Students attended school for 3 hours and 15 minutes (8:15 - 11:30 a.m.) each day. Students received two hours of reading instruction and one hour of math instruction. including computer assisted instruction. Skills in language arts were an integral part of the reading program. In some cases, more time was devoted to math instruction. based on a student's individual needs.STUDENT ENROLLMENT A total of 151 students were enrolled in the program. Types of Schools Total Incentive Schools (LRSD) 78 Area and Magnet Schools (LRSD) 53 Pulaski County School District 1 North Little Rock School District 0 ( Private Schools 11 Schools Out-of-State 8 Grades Total Grade 1 23 Grade 2 22 Grade 3 18 Grade 4 37 Grade 5 22  Grade 6 29 Students,enrolled for grades 1, 2, and 3,were not identified for the K-3 Summer School Program (based on criteria given by the Arkansas Department of Education). Students who were identified attended at other school sites.STUDENT ENROLLMENT School Rockefeller STAFFING School Rockefeller Total number of staff members 19 Certified Total Total Black M P ! AHmi ni ghratnrg Teachers 2- 10  1 1 3 Total White N 0 1 Total Other P 1 5 M 0 0 P 0 0 eat Non-Certif ied Total Total Black M P  Total White Total other M P H P I Secretary 'Computer/Instr. Aides 1 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0. 2 . 0 0 Security Guard Custodian 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i GRAND TOTAL 19 3 6 1 9 0 0PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Parents were actively involved in the summer school program. Each parent received a copy of the Parent/Student Handbook which gave information about the summer school schedule, supplies, rules, homework, and grading policy. Parents came to the school for pre-registration, for parent/ teacher conferences, and to visit students in the classroom. Teachers communicated regularly with parents through telephone calls, notes, letters. interim reports, conferences, and report cards. ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION Informal reading and math inventories were administered to all students. The inventories were administered during the first week (pre-test) and the last week (post-test) of the summer session. The results of the inventories helped teachers to identify students' strengths and weaknesses.  In addition to the informal inventories, the following were used: Tests (chapter, unit, teacher-made) Observations Student Projects/Presentations Written/Oral ResponsesRECOMMENDATIONS Although each teacher checked out one class set of library books, it would be beneficial if a media clerk was on staff during the summer school program. Students would be able to select and check-out library books on a regular basis. Learning activities and instructional strategies would be enhanced by the use of media materials (computer. books for research, card catalog, educational filmstrips,etc.)EXTENDED YEAR SUMMER PROGRAM NARRATIVE The Extended Year program for students attending the incentive schools includes academic and enrichment experiences. Students requiring additional academic support are recommended by their teachers to attend the extended year academic program. Students who are not required to attend the extended year academic program may choose to attend the extended year enrichment program. Students attending the academic program may attend the enrichment program during the afternoon hours. Students not attending the academic program attend the enrichment program all day for the designated number of weeks. The Extended Year Program operated from June 20, 1994, until July 25, 1994. The 1994 Summer Enrichment Program was provided at selected sites throughout the city, utilizing existing summer programs, of sites and number of participants follows: A summary Carver Branch YMCA 27 Little Rock City Summer Playground Program 31 Penick Boys Club 19 Thrasher Boys Club 24 Rockefeller-Arts Program 20Activities included field trips, swimming, softball, fishing, skating, basketball, bowling and visual arts. Lunch and transportation were provided. Students were transported from their home school to the program site each morning or from a summer academic site to the program site at noon each day. All students were returned to the home school at the end of each day. supervised the loading and unloading of the buses. Aides Students and parents will be surveyed during the first semester of the 1994-95 school year to determine strengths and weaknesses of the program.SUMMER ENRICHMENT PROGRAM SURVEY SURVEY FOR STUDENTS/PARENTS WHO DID NOT ATTEND THE SUMMER ENRICHMENT PROGRAM Please complete this survey to help us plan and facilitate this program next year. STUDENT NAME\nGRADE STUDENT WAS IN DURING 1993-94 SCHOOL YEAR 1. Why did you not participate in the summer enrichment program? 2. What would most likely encourage you to attend the summer enrichment program? 3. What activities/programs would you like to see offered? COMMENTS: * Student's Name is optional. JAN 17 1995 Office of Desegregation MoniionngINCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMER ENRICHMENT PROGRAM MAY I 1995 JUNE 14 - JULY 19,1995 Office of Desegregation Monifa,..a Andrew Brown SCHOOL:RQCKEFEII F.W PRESENT GRADE: 2 ED.#: 934304 During this past winter a survey related to the Summer Enrichment Program was conducted. Based on the results of the survey we have developed our program for the upcoming summer. Extended Year Enrichment Programs are provided for students who attend the incentive schools. There is no cost for these programs and transportation will be provided. Following is a list of programs. Select in order of preference (1st, 2nd, 3rd) your childs choices by placing a number (1 2 3) in the blank spaces. An alternate assignment may be given if sufficient space is not available at your first choice. Place only one number per space. Students required to attend summer school in the morning may attend enrichment activities at the conclusion of the summer school session each day. A. Little Rock Parks and Recreation Summer Playground Program (8:00-4:00) (Your child will be assigned to one of the following sites.) Bale Baseline Fair Park Romine B. William Thrasher Boys and Girls Club (8:00-4:00) 3301 State Street C. John Penick Boys Club [Girls may not enroll at this site] 8:00-4:00 1201 Leisure Place D. Integrated Arts Program - Rockefeller - Hours 12:00-3:00 (Art and Music interaction with a Arts presentation at the conclusion of the summer session.) My Child will need transportation. YES NO Please return this form to your school no later than May 19, 1995,City of tittle Kock Parks and Recreation Department Staff Supervision Projram Supervisor Tele. No.: 371-4442 1995 SUMMER PLAYGROUND .PRO GRAM length of Program Begioaing Date\nEnding Date: Eight (8) Weeks Monday, June 12, 1995 Thursday, August 4, 1995 Chddren between the ages of 6 and 15 years Is conducted at the site where the child will attend. There is no pre-reglstrallon for this program. A child may register anytime during the summer providing that location has not exceeded licensing requirements. Playground Locations (Tentative) Most of the summer playground staffis comprised of Individuals'who have been employed by the Parks and Recreation Department for several years, and who have received a 'good* or ezcellcot evaluation. These individuals are part-time, seasonal employees who may be employed full-time as teachers, coaches or recreation majors in college. We seek Individuals who have had experience in working with children. There are at least (wo (2) staff members assigned to each site. Guidelines require one (1) staff per twenty-five (25) registered participanu. Adequate suff will accompany the children to the \"away-siic\" activity while the remaining staff will supervise children who elect not to participate in that activity. Restroom and Water Facilities Restroom facilities and drinking fountains are available at all sites.  For sites which do not have adequate accommodations, based on licensing requirements, porta-toilets and waler coolers are provided. Inclement Weather la the eveot lacierocot weather develops during the day which prohibits 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. Bale Elementary School Baseline Elementary School Duobar Community Center East Little Rock Community Center Fair Park Elementary School Granite Mountain Community Center McDermott Elementary School Meadowcliff Elementary School Mitchell Elementary School Ottcuhelmer Community Center Romine Elementary School South Little Rock Community Center 6501 West 32nd Street 3623 Baseline Road 1001 West 16th Street 2500 East 6th Street 626 North Harrison 1 Granite Mountain Circle 1200 Reservoir Road 25 Sheraton Drive 2410 Battery Street 7201 Dahlia Road 3400 Romine Road 2701 South Main Street Scheduled Anay-SIle Activities Bocce Skating Movies Muu Derby Fishing Dowling Everything Goes Basketball Swimming Wild River Country L. R. Zoo Softball Tournament J. 2. 3. TruspoiUlion will be provided by ihe LllUe Rock School District Buses, traruporblloo Is prohibited. There is a separate admission fee for each activity. Other 4. A daily schedule will be given lo Ihe parent when the child registers. This schedule will reflect the day, dale, lime and fee schedule for each activity. .Activity limes are normally 9:15 - 11:15 for the morning and 2:15 - 4:15 for Ihe afternoon sessions. Scheduled on-site activities Include various playground games and Arts and Humanities classes which relate to Music, Drama, Dance and Creative Writbg. Lunch Each playground site is supervised by a staff member from ^ 7:30 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Lunches and snacks will be provided to all participanu according to licensing requirements. programming, outdoor oQ-she* and 'away-she* activities may be All sites have access Io an Indoor facility (classroom, gymnasiuhi, activity room etc.) where activities can be moved lemporarily. canceled. Please call Frank J. Boyle at 371-6858 for additional Information prior to June 12. 1995.  LITTLE ROCK BOYS CLUB WILLIAM . THRASHER BOYS CLUB 3301 Slate Street JAMES II. PENICK BOYS CLUB 1201 Leisure Place Activities offered are swimming, swimming lessons, table games, softball, tutoring, reading, basketball, baseball, field trips, gym activities and lots of outdoor fun. Breakfast, lunch, and snack are free each day. Little Rock School District received Jill 1 1995 July 11, 1995 Office of Desegregafc\nring Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Extended Year Program at Incentive Schools - 1994 Elementary Summer School - 1994 Dear Ms. Powell: Attached please find a copy of the above referenced infoinnation that I was certain I had sent to you last fall. If you need additional information please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Sterling Ingram, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent Sr/adg Attachment 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 ri CKCBB0S a Little Rock School District October 25, 1994 Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 5io Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: i 1 RECESVFD Jill 1 2 1995 Offic0 of Dosegregatiof) Monitoring Extended Year Program at Incentive Schools Attached you will find administration Program for the incentive schools, sending these reports to you. reports for the Extended Year I am sorry for the delay in If I can ba of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Sterling Ingram Associate to the Deputy Superintendent Sl/adg Attachments bcc: Jerry Malone, Esquire 810 West MarKham Street  Little Kock, Arkansas 72201  (501)334-2000RECEIVED Jill 12 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Desegregation Monitoring SUMMER SCHOOL/SUMMARY REPORT 1994 GRADES 1 - 6 AND EXTENDED YEAR PROGRAM ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY 700 EAST 17TH STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 SUMMER SCHOCL/SUMMARY REPORT (EXTENDED YEAR PROGRAM) The 1994 elementary summer school was held at Rockefeller Incentive/Early Childhood Magnet School, 700 East 17th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The summer school program was held to reinforce, strengthen, and enrich learning skills for students in grades 1 through 6. The academic focus of the summer school program was placed on reading/language arts and mathematics. Instructional strategies (small groups, cooperative learning, manipulatives, oral/written presentations, enrichment activities, reports. daily assignments, and homework) were used to meet students' needs in reading vocabulary, reading comprehension,, math . computations, and math applications. Students received instruction in the classroom and in the computer lab. Students were given assistance with their learning from the classroom teacher, instructional aide, and/or the computer lab attendant. The summer school program was conducted for five weeks (June 20th-July 25th). Students attended school for 3 hours and 15 minutes (8:15 - 11:30 a.m.) each day. Students received two hours of reading instruction and one hour of math instruction, including computer assisted instruction. Skills in language arts were an integral part of the reading program. In some cases., more time was devoted to math instruction. based on a student's individual needs.STUDENT ENROLLMENT A total of 151 students were enrolled in the program. Types of Schools Total Incentive Schools (LRSD) Area and Magnet Schools (LRSD) Pulaski County School District North Little Rock School District Private Schools 78 53 1 0 11 Schools Out-of-state 8 Grades Total Grade 1 23 Grade 2 22 Grade 3 18 Grade 4 37 Grade 5 22 Grade 6 29 Students,enrolled for grades 1, identified for the 2, and 3, were not K-3 Summer School Program (based criteria on Students who given by the Arkansas Department of Educat ion). were identified attended at other school sites. Ir STAFFING School Rockefeller Total number of staff members Total Black Total White 19 Total other Certified Total K P K P K P AHrni ra.trLT-S. Teachers . 2 10  1 1 3 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 B Non-Certified Total Total Black M F'  Total White Total Other Secretary 1 0 0 'Computer/Instr. Aides 4 0  2 ! H 0 0. F 1 2 . H 3SS9BS 0 0 F 0 0 Security Guard Custodian GSXZn) TOTAL 1 1 BB 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 3  6 1 9 '0 0PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Parents were actively involved in the summer school program. Each parent received a copy of the Parent/Student Handbook which gave information about the summer school schedule, supplies, rules, homework, and grading policy. Parents came to the school for pre-registration, for parent/ teacher conferences, and to visit students in the classroom. Teachers communicated regularly with parents through telephone calls, notes, letters, interim reports, conferences, and report cards. ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION Informal reading and math inventories were administered to all students. The inventories were administered during the first week (pre-test) and the last week (post-test) of the summer session. The results of the inventories helped teachers to identify students' strengths and weaknesses. - In addition to the informal inventories, the following were used: Tests (chapter, unit, teacher-made) Observations Student Projects/Presentations Written/Oral Responses.RECOMMENDATIONS Although each teacher checked out one class set of library books, it would be beneficial if a media clerk was on Staff during the summer school program. Students would be able to select and check-out library books on a regular basis. Learning activities and instructional strategies would be enhanced by the use of media materials (computer, books for research, card catalog, educational filmstrips,etc.)EXTENDED YEAR SUMMER PROGRAM NARRATIVE The Extended Year program for students attending the incentive schools includes academic and enrichment experiences. Students reguiring additional academic support are recommended by their teachers to attend the extended year academic program. Students who are not required to attend the may choose to attend the extended extended year academic program year enrichment program. Students attending the academic program may attend the enrichment program during the afternoon hours. Students not attending the academic program attend the designated number of weeks. enrichment program all day for the The Extended Year Program operated from June 20, 1994, until July 25, 1994. The199-4 Summer Enrichment Program was provided at selected sites throughout the city, utilizing existing summer programs. A sximmary of sites and number of participants follows: Carver Branch YMCA Little Rock City Summer Playground Program  Penick Boys Club 27 31 19 Thrasher Boys Club Rockefeller-Arts Program 24 20Activities included field trips, swimming, softball, fishing. skating, basketball, bowling and visual arts. Lunch and transportation were provided. Students were transported from their home school to the progreim site each morning or from a summer academic site to the program site at noon each day. All students were returned to the home school at the end of each day. supervised the loading and unloading of the buses. Aides Students and parents will be surveyed during the first semester of the 1994-95 school year to determine strengths and weaknesses of the program.\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_1113","title":"Little Rock School District Fast Tract 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":["1994-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Educational statistics","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Fast Tract 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/1113"],"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":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nn I t n r i. R LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT n. ' n m I r 'i. ' r 1 l FAST TRACK EVALUATIONS ., I I t 1. . ., I I i. I - i' ~i _ .. il  j  .,. i 2 i il P' I ,1 '- .. January 1994 . ... .,. .. .. APR 5 1994 OfficG cl Desegregation iJ1on,.onng LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAST TRACK EVALUATIONS January 1994 SECTION NUMBER One Two Three Four Five Six Seven ADDENDUM TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME ONE FAST TRACK EVALUATIONS Academic Progress Incentive Grant Library/Media Recruitment (Student) Stephens Special Education Substitute Teachers / 't Vocational Education Memorandum of September 7, 1993 (Revised 09-13-93) Procedures to be Used for Fast Track Evaluation of Desegregation Plan FAST TRACK EVALUATION SECTION ONE ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT January 1994 Purpose ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT (APIG) PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description The purpose of the APIG was to provide funding beyond the regular budget to all area schools in assisting them to increase academic achievement and to reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. Principals and their committees were to submit a proposal and budget sheet in requesting the grant. Scope and Content The APIG described in the Desegregation Plan was first made available to each area school principal in the 1990-91 school year in the sum of $25,000. In the following two years, additional sums were made available - $25,000 in 1991-92 and $10,000 in 1992-93. The process to be followed was for each school principal and school committee to write a proposal. A budget sheet identifying items and cost as related to the proposal being submitted was to be attached. The plan utilizing the grant money was to be directly connected to and supportive of the school's annual school plan. The school plan was developed cooperatively by the principal and staff with parent committee input yearly. The parents signed the annual school plan document when completed indicating their approval and support for the school's program. Each grant proposal was forwarded to the APIG Committee for review. Upon approval, the budget sheet from the proposal was forwarded to the Financial Services Department and budget codes were then set up for the individual school to use for the purchasing of items requested in the proposal. Items requested by the school were typed on requisitions and forwarded to the assistant superintendent who supervised the particular area school. The APIG was then checked to make sure that the requisitions supported the goals of the APIG program: to improve the education of all students and to reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. Participants/Beneficiaries The APIG was offered to all principals in the area schools. Upon receiving the approval of their proposals, the principals, staffs, and parent committees could plan enrichment activities designed to provide concrete experiences that would reinforce and enrich the students' concepts and total academic development. After-school tutoring programs and Saturday School were scheduled for students 2 who were functioning significantly below the 50th percentile on standardized tests and who required additional time to learn the core curriculum. These activities were designed to address the low self-esteem of many students in the strong belief that improvement in this area increases children's confidence in their own abilities to learn and therefore increase their motivation and persistence to learn. Program Goal The purpose of the APIG was to provide additional funds to the principals of the LRSD area schools who submitted proposals indicating plans: 1. To increase academic achievement for all students. 2. To reduce disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. The APIG was to be offered to the principals of the area schools each year for a period of three years ( 1990-93) . At the conclusion of that time period, a three-year summary would be submitted (Desegregation Plan, page 82) in order to evaluate its continuance. The two goals of the APIG along with specific objectives to have been accomplished to assist in the implementation of these goals are as follows: Objective One: To increase the academic achievement for identified students in the core curricula areas by providing teachers with a broad base of resources and equipment. Objective Two: To provide varied enrichment activities that would broaden identified students' experience base. Objective Three: To involve parents as full partners in planning at schools for identified students' growth and success. Objective Four: To provide staff development activities which meet the specific needs of identified students. I I I I I I I I I l I Evaluation Criteria The summary report of the APIG has been evaluated by test data analysis from the years 1990-93, specifically the evaluation will consist of: 1. A broad base of resources and equipment was provided for teachers to increase the academic achievement for all identified students in the core curriculum areas. 2. Enrichment activities were provided to identified students to broaden their experience base. 3. Parents were involved as full partners with school staff in working together to increase academic achievement and in reducing the disparity of identified students. 4. Staff development was provided to raise staff awareness/expectations of identified students. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect information received from the area schools. This information has been compiled and yields the following results, presented in correspondence with each previously stated objective. Objective One: Enhance classroom teachers teaching by providing supplies in order to ensure a broad base of resources in area schools for all identified students in the core curricula areas. Discussion During the APIG period, many resources and supplies were purchased in an effort to increase student achievement and to reduce disparities. Academic achievement as reflected on standardized and minimum performance tests indicates that during the 1990-91 school year, of 3 4 Objective One (cont.): the 22 schools reporting, 14 had increased MPT and MAT6 scores in grades 3 and 6. Eight schools showed increased student achievement on the MAT6. During the 1991-92 school year, of the 24 schools reporting, 19 had increases in 3rd grade MPT scores and 15 reported an increase in 6th grade MPT scores. Eleven schools reported increased achievement on Stanford 8. During the 1992-93 school year, of the 25 schools reporting, 17 had an increase on the 3rd grade MPT and 15 reported an increase in 6th grade achievement on the MPT. Thirteen schools reported increased achievement on Stanford 8. Academic Achievement as Reflected on Standardized Tests 1990 - 1993 Year i of Elementa\ni\n:y Area i of Schools ReRorting an Schools ReRorting Increase in Achievement of Taraeted students MPT MPT Gr. 3 Gr.6 MAT6 Stanf.8 1990-91 22 14 14 8 N/A 1991-92 24 19 15 N/A 11 1992-93 25 17 15 N/A 13 I I 5 Objective One (cont.): An inventory list of resources and purchases acquired by the schools to supplement teachers' supplies in order to ensure a broad base of resources in area schools is as follows: Musical materials and records Physical and earth science charts Multiethnic materials Dictionaries of cultural literacy Storytelling: literature puppets Write-to-Read materials Science lab materials Math manipulatives Class sets of literature Materials for Saturday School (targeted students) Materials for Extended Day Program - reading, math, phonics Scholastic Listening Skills Kits Test Best materials Art materials and supplies Duplicating paper for writing centers Self-esteem incentives Tape recorders Multiple headphone listening center Computers and software Cassette stereo systems 35mm camera for students to record and write Overhead projectors Microscopes Write-to-Read computers Automated Media Center Walkie Talkies (for safety) Science and social studies weekly magazines Scoring High materials Reading Centers for comprehensive learning Laminating paper for completed projects and contests 6 Objective Two: To provide varied enrichment activities that w0uld broaden identified students' experience base. Enrichment activities which supported and extended the LRSD area schools core curriculum are: Field trips relating to curriculum objectives, bus transportation for the trips Water Works Building Incentives for good citizenship, achievement, improvement Storytelling festivals Arkansas Museum of Science and History boxes Multicultural festivals Test Buster Program Jr. Great Books Quiz Bowls (required purchases of trophies, transparencies, and a contestant bell) Science Fair Geo Safari Centers for classrooms Children's Theater Ballet Arkansas Arkansas State Fair Robinson Auditorium Quarterly awards assemblies with community speakers Wildwood Park for Performing Arts Math Olympiad Mentors from the business community Old State House Campaign Headquarters Arkansas Arts Center - children's plays UALR Planetarium Arkansas Museum of Science and History Pumpkin Patch (all Pre-Kand Grade 1) - Hidden Valley Berry Farm Birthday recognitions Discussion  Arkansas Tol tee Mounds  career awareness School picnics  Municipal Court and Police Station Pinnacle Mountain State Park National Reading Incentive Program Spelling Bee Contest DEEP (Development Economic Educational Program - State Department) Little Rock Zoo Little Rock Airport State Capitol Birthday recognitions Christmas tree farm The above purchases that were funded through the APIG provided a broad experience base for all identified students in the area schools. Thirty-eight different kinds of enrichment activities were made available to broaden the identified students experience base. Objective Three: To involve parents as full partners in planning at schools for identified students' growth and success. 7 The area schools reported parent participation as a result of the APIG. A list of the programs that were made available to the parents in order to involve them as full partner in the planning for the growth and success of their children are as follows: Parents attended workshops. - Counselors presented inservice programs, \"Helping Parents Help Their Kids\" - Wellness Clinic inservice - STEP Program (parenting classes) - Make and Take Workshops Parents used materials which were provided through APIG funding at home with their children. - Video kits for parents to check out showing teachers reading books to students. The teacher on the video read the story while modeling appropriate comprehension questions. Kits were packaged in \"Spend the night bags\" to enable students and parents to use them overnight. - Parent Resource Banks - materials available for parents to check out to help their children - Holiday Homework Packages - made by parents for their children - Parents actively participated in after-school tutorial programs and were offered weekly incentives and culminating awards. Discussion Throughout the 1990-1993 grant period, parents have been involved in developing the area schools' annual school plans. The APIG applications resulted from those cooperatively developed school Objective Three (cont.): plans. In some schools, parental involvement, biracial committees, and Chapter 1 PACs were enhanced by discussions to pl-an and monitor the APIG. In addition to the obvious educational benefits, field trips involved significant numbers of parents in the area schools. Parents made arrangements to leave work in order to ac~ompany their children on field trips. Staffs were delighted to have so many parents participating in the education of their children. Fathers as well as mothers made arrangements to be with their children. Increased parental involvement was a direct result of taking educational trips. Objective Four: 8 To provide staff development activities which meet specific needs of identified students. Targeted staff development activities which were provided by the schools in order to assist in the increase of academic achievement and the reduction of disparity are as follows: TESA - Teacher Expectations-Student Achievement Math Manipulatives w.s. Cooperative Learning Centers to enhance the multiethnic curriculum in math, science, social studies, and language arts Master Teacher Gang Awareness Drug Awareness Whole Group Instruction and Classroom Management Discussion The elementary area schools funded a variety of workshops and purchased published staff development materials for their staff, which were designed to improve student achievement, growth, and the reduction of disparity in identified students. Obstacles to Goal Attainment The obstacles encountered are indicated below by specific objectives: Objective One: To increase and enhance academic achievement for all students. 9 Progress was made toward meeting this objective. The assessment of summation data gathered from the AMPT and standardized test scores revealed that some of the students who were targeted for special instruction did pass the MPT and made test gains on the standardized tests. While funds were expended for materials, equipment, staff development, tutoring programs, Saturday School, and parent support inservices in the three years of the grant program, there is still a need for more detailed and specific planning if resources are to support student achievement and progress. Objective TWo: To reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. Even though schools reported positive observations emphasizing strong team planning, fewer student referrals to the principal, and better student attendance as it relates to reducing disparities, a more appropriate assessment of data and record keeping is recommended if schools are to track the reduction of disparity among students of racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. Other Obstacles Impeding the APIG  Delays in approval of 1990-91 and 1991-92 grants limited the planning and implementation of many programs.  The reduction of 1992-93 grant to $10,000.  Statistical reports identifying special groups of children and their programs were not identified or tracked. 10 Obstacles Impeding the APIG (cont.)  Data was not collected on tutoring groups to track progress.  Mobility of the schools' populations throughout the school year.  The change in standardized tests during the grant period affected continuity.  Long-term planning was affected by the short period of the grants. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the APIG be continued in those area schools whose application content contains the following information:  A need for the project and identification of statistical data that will be used to document success.  A detailed program description including program goals, organizational management, curriculum, personnel, and staff training, if needed.  A plan of operation including project management operation, such as goals, strategies, timelines, etc.  An evaluation plan describing the methods to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of each component/strategy outlined in this program.  A budget sheet containing an itemized list of requests and costs to support the grant. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to provide to the area schools additional funds through the APIG for the purpose of increasing academic achievement for all students and to reduce disparity. Evaluation Criteria Documentation of continued improvement as evidenced on norm and criterion reference tests. Recommendation (cont.) Expected Benefits 11 The LRSD will meet its commitment to increasing academic achievement for all students and reduce disparity. Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the district in complying with its current desegregation plan. It will afford the area schools the resources, materials, and staff development needed to meet the needs of students. Resource Analysis The area schools that applied for funds during the three-year grant period spent a combined total of approximately $1,099,803 in the following categories: 1. Core Curriculum 2. Enrichment Activities that Broaden Student Experiences 3. Parental Involvement 4. Equipment, Supplies, etc. 5. staff Development Force Field Analysis Percentage of Funds Soent in the Cateaories 45.8% 7.2% 2.5% 35.9% 8.6% Supporters of this recommendation will include area school principals, staff, community and Central Office who see the need for the area schools to be provided additional funds to assist all students in achieving success as well as reducing disparity. There should be no primary detractors to this recommendation. Kesource Analysis \\Cont.) ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANT EXPENDITURES School FY 90-91 FY 91-92 FY 92-93 I Bale 23,021 22,083 9,201 Brady 13,205 23,716 9,797 Badgett 5,440 19,700 4,625 McDermott 4,335 23,744 o- Baseline 0 14,457 10,513 Fair Park 18,666 15,655 10,089 Forest Park 11,488 21,839 8,771 Franklin 22,195 (7) 0 Chicot 3,994 9,397 7,204 Western Hills 15,083 18,062 7,434 Jefferson 22,609 25,492 26,009 Cloverdale 21,164 28,705 9,918 Dodd 17,548 24,523 8,870 Meadowcliff 22,531 27,426 11,592 Geyer Springs 16,464 31,522 6,729 Pulaski Heights 24,063 20,455 6,376 Romine 0 6,275 8,910 Washington 0 0 3,789 Wilson 21,102 6,625 6,826 Woodruff 14,615 31,267 7,154 Mabelvale 23,707 24,631 9,893 Terry 18,917 21,861 4,399 Fulbright 13,729 9,245 2,924 Otter Creek 20,351 21,168 9,551 Wakefield 15,228 27,080 5,069 Watson 19,088 31,805 8,891 Total Elementary 388,543 506,726 204,534 - - 12 123/GRANTS 7-15-93 TOTAL 54,305 46,718 29,765 28,079 24,970 44,410 42,098 22,188 20,595 40,579 74,110 59,787 50,941 61,549 54,715 50,894 15,185 3,789 34,553 53,036 58,231 45,177 25,898 51,070 47,377 59,784 1,099,803 General Implementation Plan 10-18-93 10-18-93 10-27-93 11-17-93 11-19-93 11-24-93 12-8-93 12-10-93 Activity Request for Academic Progress Incentive Grant Proposals Application instructions for the writing of the APIG proposals Grant writing inservice for all area school principals Follow-up session for grant writing process Grant Review Panel Grant Review Panel Grant Review Panel Grant deadline for the 1993-94 APIG to be received 13 Person(s) Responsible Estelle Matthis Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis Deputy Superintendent Donita Hudspeth Director of staff Development Donita Hudspeth Director of staff Development Estelle Matthis Sterling Ingram Russ Mayo Victor Anderson Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion APJG St.mnary Report - School -~B~a~dg~e,.,t..,_t_,E'-'l..,_emen=~t~arc,y._ ______________ _ Year Goals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990- 1. To establish and l\"\"lement procedures to decrease  Hininun Performance Test results for 3rd grade in  Monitored test data of MAT-6 and MPT results. 1991 disparity and increase educational achievements among math was 92X, an increase of SX. The disparity in 3rd students in grades 2-6 f....-w:tioning one or more years grade was 31X in reading between black males/white  An academic skills development plan was written for each below grade level in reading and math. males, and 17X between black females and white females . child who fell below 85X in reeding and math. 2. Develop and raise set festeem.  Student actfvftfes were provided to develop and  Peer Tutoring enhance set festeem and personal growth. 3. To enrich parental involvement.  Monthly parental (Systematic Teaching Effective  Test scores were flll)roved. Parenting Skills (STEP Program) meetings.  STEP Program 8 to 9 parents attended. 1991- 1. To es Ubl ish and lrrplement procedJres to decrease  Mfnfn.m Performance Test results showed black females  Data was collected from MPT, Stanford 8, Grade 1992 dhpedty end increase edxatfonal achievements among end males had an increase of 20% in math. Black Distribution Reports, Interim Reports. students fn grades 26 ft.nctfontng one or more years females on the average had an increase of 60X fn below grade level fn reading an math. language arts and social studies.  An academic skills \u0026amp;!velopne!flt plan was written for each child who fell below 85X in reading and math. 2. Develop and rafse set f-esteem.  Student actfvfttes were provided to develop and emance self-esteem and personal growth.  Peer Tutoring 3. To enrfch parental involvement. * STEP Program  8 to 12 parents attended.  Monthly parental (STEP Program) meetings 1992- 1. To establ fsh ard fq,lement proced.Jres to decrease  Student date (grades, MPT, Stanford 8), with the use * 3rd grade MPT test scores were 85X plus mastery in 1993 disparity and increase ed.Jcatfonal achievements among of the Abecus was closely monitored to assess students reacting and math. The 6th grade had 85X mastery in students in grades 26 hr,ctfonfng one or more years inastery of curriculun objectives. reading. below grade level in reading an .. th. * Peer Tutoring  Student activities were provided to develop and enhance 2. Develop end raise set f-estffffl. self -esteem ard personal growth.  Monthly parental meetings (STEP Program). 3. To enrich parental involvement.  More parental involvement - 12 to 15 parents attended . Badgett Elementary School Page Z Sumtary SUtMW!nt The Academic Progress Incentive Grant was used to meet the needs of the stl.dents by providing activities to develop ard raise self esteem, personal growth,\nnprove test scores ard academics. The third grade HPT scores were 85X plus mastery In reading and math fn 199293. The r~tion In disparity and increased achievement fs directly related to fU'lds from the Academic Progress Jncentfve Grant. Obstacles to Goal Attaf~nt In 199092 we had a serious need for enrichment, supplies, and N:Jfpnent that we felt would help fnprove standardized test scores, provide self motivatfon and qoal setting, and materials for more hards on activities and afternoon tutoring. *1992-93 - Orders for 1992-93 were denied ci.te to Purchasing Reyisftfon not turned in on tfrne, However, we were wafting for Stanford 8 test results end asked for allotted time, which was granted. APJG Slmnery Report  School __B _a_le_E_l....,, ta_ r_y_ ________________ YHr Goals RHults 1990 Evaluation Criteria/Process 1. To increase reading and math achievement levels of 1. 79% of targeted 6th graders passed the reading test 1. Assessment of MPT Scores fn Reading and Math 1991 atrlsk 5th and 6th grade students. SOX of the targeted students passed the math on the 2. Assessment of MAT-6 scores in Reading and Math HPT. 55X of students thought the reading coq:,onent was 3. Assessment of Student Evaluation Survey 2. To reduce the disparities fn test scores. helpful and nx thought the math was helpful. 4. Assessment of Learning Centers and lnservice Surveys 2. 5. Assessment of Parent Coq:\u0026gt;onent. On the MAT-6 the targeted students showed  .5 year 3. To increase Parental Involvement gafn In reeding end 1.3 year gain fn math. 3. On the Evaluatfon Survey 55X of the study center participants thought additional time on the c\"\"\"ter lab was helpful. 36% thought ft was somewhat helpful. 91% of the teachers reported st~t response was excellent. 4. Learning Center Jnservfce - 83% partfcfpant1 - very helpful. 100l used centers fn classroom. !13X of atudenta In classroont used the center. 5. Parent C~t - 85 perfflta attended a workshop and lnservfcea. 43 perenta voluiteered to speak to classrOClffil. *Three newsletter were mafled to 385 students. *Handouts were b9de av f table to perenta of participating students. APIG SUW1ary Report - Bale Page 2 1991 1992 1992 1993 Surmary Statement 1. To increase the achievement level fn reading, math, science and social su.dfes of targeted atrisk students In grades K-6. 2. To reduce the disparities in test scores 3. To increase Parental tnvolvement 1. To Increase the achievement level of atrlak students fn reeding, math, acfence end social studies of targeted atriak atudentl in 9rades K6. 2. To red.Jee the disparities fn test scores 3. To Increase Parental Involvement 1. Two parent workshops were held. Materials and stipend were given. one workshop for 3rd end 6th grade students was held (HPT) The Parent Resource Room was in operation as a support. Newsletters were sent five times d.iring the year. There were ten participatory activities including class speakers - 159 parents were involved in 1991- 92 2. Invoices were evidenced for Science, Social Studies, Math and language Arts materials\nthat included trade books, Big Book, Classroan Sets, States Books, Science Nterhls, and the purchase of a contract from the Science Husl!llft. Math manipulations base ten blocks, pattern blocks, play money and other materials for the Learning Center coq:,onent. 3. Two tnservlces were held that fncluded stipends. 4. Cafns fn NCE Scores\nReeding: Basic Skill gains  4.57 Math: Advenced skills gains  5.07 Basic Skill gains 2.44 Advenced skills gains 10.99 1. Ten parent Involvement activities were held. Eighty-eight parents participated Newsletters were Sl!nt Parent Resource Room continued 2. lnvofcea for purchase of inaterfels are evidenced for Science, Social Studies, Hath and Language Arts 3. Stcdent achievement evidenced an Increase In NCE scores at each grade level In math and reading. The Stanford 8 Test Scores evidenced an overall Increase In 1992-93 at Ba\\e Elementary School. 1. Assessment of Parent Carponent 2. Assessment of Materials Purchased 3. Assessment of Steff Oevelopnent Activities 4. Assessment of Student Scores 1. Assessment of Parent Involvement Co,rponent 2. Assessment of Materials Purchased 3. Assessment os Student Scores NCE scores were avafleble for 223 students at Bale Elementary School. 195 students scor@d at grade level on the NCE Total Basic Battery. The 1993 tl!-st scores fell within the low average to high average percentile rank on the Nonna\\ Distribution of stanfne9, 64 students scored 50% and above, APIG Surmary R~rt  Bale School Page 3 88X of the students tested at B8le evidenced at grade level scores as evidenced by low average to above average scores on the normative curse. In the third year of the tncentfve Crant Program 18 students were exited from the Chapter One Reading Program as a result of in::proved scores It is the opinion of the Bale School Incentive Grant conmittee that the strategies and ft.n:fing of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant has been helpful. However it is believed that there has beM dupl feat ion of efforts . Consequently the fi..nding could be used to assist the inplementatfon of strategies yet not require that separate plans be written, approved and inpl~nted. Host of the strategies were placed in: Chapter One School tnprovement Plan and School trrprovement Plan Reconmendation: Allow additional fll'\"ldfng for area schools by budgeting for the School lnprovement Plans. Obstacles to Coal Attairment Full SfflOlrlt of grant was not recefved durfng 1992-93. APIG Sunnary Report  School _ _,,B,,as.,ee.,lw.i'-'ne\"-'E-'l_,,,emen='-'t,,_ary...._ _______________ _ Year Goals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990 1. 1991 2. 3. 1991 1. To increase student achievement ard reduce Teachers reported establ f shing positive relations wf th Analysis and disaggregation of Stanford Achievement Test 1992 disparities by providing a ffve week surmer l fteracy the students who participated in the sunner program. date fn COfll)rehension and thinking skfl ls program for Identified at-risk students In grades 1-6. Teachers reported that students' attitude toward reading lnproved. However,  revf ew of the records fndfcated the average growth In reeding coq:,rehensfon 2. on the SAT of the students who participated did not meet the objective goal. 3. 1992 1. 1993 2. 3. SU'Tffll'lry Statement Les!lt than half of the grant money available to Baselfne School was spent. A need stfll exists at thff school, The black enroll~nt of n.2'l black currently exceeds the guidelines established by the des~regatfon plan for an area school. The test scores at the prf,nery level frdtcate a need for eddltfonal fnterventfons. The S35,053 not spent at Basel fne could be put to good use to fnprove the language development and 1Mthematfc1 ski l la of Basel lne students, Obstacles to Coal Attefrment A.PIG SUTmary Report - School __ .,.B,._,ro,,dy\"-'E\"-'l'-'\"\"'\"\"=\"-'t\"'o\"-r:,..._ ______________ _ Year Goals Results Evaluation Crfteda/Process 1990  1. lo increase academic achievement and to reduce  EPSF results demonstrated an average of sixteen  Analysis of Early Prevention of School Failure for 1991 disparity in language arts and math for grades K-6. months growth. k. indergarten students. 2. To increase student motivation and self -esteem.  Grade 1 achieved grade level norm of 1. 7 and  Assessment and analysfs of HAT-6 and HPT test results. disparity was redJced by 1X. 3. To Increase parental involvement.  Provided TESA fnservfce for teachers.  MPT scores Increased fn reading, math, and science.  Provided math and science work.shops for teachers.  Dfsparfty decreased in math achievement at all grade levels except at Grade 6.  Provided Kindergarten, Primary, and Intermediate \\lorkshops for parents. * Increased classroom achievement (report cards) In Grades 2, 3, 5, and 6.  Reduced tardf es by 2X and absences to 1. 7X per student. 1991 1. To Increase academic achievement and to red.Jee * 96X of all teachers were trained fn TESA.  Anolysls of Erly Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) 1992 disparity In language arts and math for grades K-6. for kindergarten students. * 95X of the parents attending the workshop were k-3 2. To Increase test taking skill  In grades 16. parents. Only 5X were Intermediate parents.  Assessment and analyah of Stanford 8 and MPT test results. 3. To Increase aelfesteeni and motivation. *EPSF demonstrated an average of fifteen ,nonths growth. * Academic and behavior awards each nine weeks. * Grade 2 Increased the c~sfte score on standardized testing by 6X. * Math ach f evement on the Stanford S increased  t all grade level except Grade 6. APIG SIM'!ARY REPORT -Brady Page 2 1992 1993 S1.111Mr\ny Statement 1. To\nncrease academic achievement and to reduce disparity in language arts using an interdisciplinary approach for grades K-6. 2. To increase student writing process ski l ls and irrprove self-esteem. 3. To irrprove parent recruitment.  Disparity significantly decreased between black  Analysis of Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) females and other sub-groups. Black females achieved a kindergarten students. 16X higher passage rate from SOX to 88X.  66X of all awards were earned by minority students.  SOX fewer suspensions occurred during the second and third quarter.  Kindergarten students having considerable needs on the EPSF were rKfuced by 19X in receptive language end 23X in expressive language.  Grade 3 increased passage in reading (by 19%) and math (3X) on HPT (both areas over 85X rate). * Crede 6 passed the reading end math areas of the HPT\u0026gt; * C0ff1)0S f te scores on the Stanford 8 f ncreased at Grades 3, 5, and 6.  Students suspension decreased by 70X from the previous year.  Nonblack population Increased by 12% over two periods.  Assessment and analysis of Stanford 8 and MPT test results.  Student A\\.lards and recognition for writing.  Recruitment of parents to improve racial balance. lf'Yl\u0026lt;\u0026gt;vatfve currlculun resources which increased achfev~nt among students with varying learning modalities were provided through the area school incentive grants. Selfeste~ has been enhanced and di sci pl inery referrals have ~reased by 70X. Bredy students are achieving greater success, pertlcularly fn reading cooprehension and math and the disparity bet~en groups has been reduced. Obstacles to Coal Attairment Approximately 25X  26X of the student population h new to Bredy Elementary School each year, APIG SUTm8ry Report  School __ __,C,:.hc.i_,.co,ct'-=E-\"lomen==ta\"-ry.._ _____________ _ Year Coals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990 1. To increase educational achievement and decrease 1. Targeted students were not monitored this year. 1. Analysis and disaggregation of HPT and HAT-6 results. 1991 disparities by providing enriched activities for students in grades 3. 4, and 6. 2. 600 (parents, students and teachers) attended the 2. A school-wide Zoo Picnic was provided. school-wide Zoo Picnic. 2. Increase Parental Involvement 3. Reward parties, badges, stickers, ribbons and pencils 3. 500 students received academic and/or incentives were awarded to students for i~roved academf cs/behavior. 3. Provide student awards and incentives for behavior. 1991 1. To increase educational achievement and decrease 1. MPT in 3rd grade showed growth fn all areas. Math ,. Analysis and di saggregat f on of MPT and Stanford 8 1992 disparities in targeted 3rd, 4th, and 6th grade students dfsperfty decreased froni 28X to 6X. Total reading from results. by providing extended day ectlvltles. 65X poss Ing to 84X. Heth from 56X pessing to 84X. 2. A school-wide Zoo Picnic was provided. 2. Provide stu::tent enrichment actfvttfes 2. Many field trips that broadened students experience base were made avaf table to students. 3. Reward parties, badges, stickers, ribbons and pencils 3. Increase Parental Involvement were awarded to students for fq::,roved academic/behavior. 3. 600 (parents, students and teachers) attended the 4. Provide student awards and incentives school-wide Zoo Picnic. 4. 500 students received academic and/or incentives for behavior. 1992 1. To increase educational achievement and decrease 1. HPT 3rd grade dropped in reeding end moth. 6th 1. Analysis and disaggregation of MPT and Stanford 8 1993 disperltles In tergeted 3rd, 4th, end 6th grade students grede had gains in al,nost all areas with both slb- results. by providing extended day ctfvltles. groups 2. A school-wide Zoo Picnic was provided. 2. Provide student enrichment activities 2. Many field trips that broadened students experience base were made aval table to students. 3. Reward parties, badges, stickers, ribbons and penct ls 3. Increase Parental tnvolv~t were awarded to students for fq:,roved academic/behavior. 3. 600 (Parenti, students ard teachers) attended the 4. Provide student awards and Incentives school-wide Zoo Picnic. 4. 500 students received ecadenlic and/or Incentives for behavf or. Chicot Eltm0ntery School Page 2 St..mnary Statement In surmary Chicot effectiveness in year three conpared to the prior years was disappointing. Gains ~re not as strong in year three. Third grade dropped in reading and math. Sixth grade had gains in alt areas with both sub-groups. Black males showed growth in alt areas except math. However, Chicot has bt!en consistent fn lowering sixth grade mates disparities. Obstacles to Goal Attef....-nent Approval of 90-91 grant came so late that many facets of the grant were not approved. A reduction in the amount of the 9293 grant r~ed the amount of student incentives/awards. APIG SU11118ry Report  School ~ Year Goals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990 1. Staff Development  to increase awareness of  After school tutoring was replaced with the homework Analysts end disaggregation of test scores (HPT, HAT-6) 1991 effective teaching techniques center, forty students participate\u0026lt;! in grade 16 *MPT at 3rd and 6th grades evidenced growth Decrease fn student referrals to the office 2. Increase student achievement by providing an after  MAT-6 evidenced growth in every grade and subject school tutor f ng program target f ng spec if f c students in  SOX decrease In office referrals Hore stable student population grades 1-6 who scored below the national average on MAT-  Good Times Club Incentive Program established for 6. students displaying appropriate behavior 3. Honthly incentive programs offered to all students who dfspl eyed approprf ate behavf or ard academf c awards 4. Increased parent f nvol vement 1991 1. Staff Devel~t  to increase awarenHs of *Acadenilc awards assetrbly (each 9 weeks) Analysis and disaggregation of test scores (HPT, Stanford 1992 effective teaching techniques (200 plus students) 8)  Spaghett I Supper 2. Homework Center  provide\u0026lt;! irdlviduelhe\u0026lt;I  Seven fnservfces held during this year Decrease fn student referrals to the office instruction to studfflt1 needing extra help tn reading  All 3rd ord 6th grade atudents gained in achievement ard math In gredes 1 6.  97 students participate\u0026lt;! in the Amual Science Fair More stable student poflUlatlon 3. Monthly incentive programs offered to oil students who displayed appropriate behavior and ocodeftlic awards 4. Jncreased parent fnvolVefRflt (TAP) 1992 1. Staff Oevelopnent  to Increase awareness of  HOffll!WOrk Center  pertfcfpanta test scores Increased Analysis and disaggregation of test  cores (HPT, Stanford 1993 effective teaching techniques by 10X 8)  Science Fair  cause lndepth research/Increased 2. Homework Center  provide\u0026lt;! lrdivlduel he\u0026lt;! ach f evement f n the area of 1c fence Decrease In student referrals to the office fnstructfon to student\u0026amp; needing extra help fn reading  Good Tines ChA\u0026gt;/owards oueot\u0026gt;l let \u0026lt;II otudents) ard Nth in gredes 1 6.  Speghett I Supper More stable student poflUlation  Continued decreaee In office referrals 3. Monthly incentive progrems offered to all students  Stobll ity of student poflUlation was not neuured who displayed appropriate behavior ard acodeoiic awards 4. Increase\u0026lt;! parent lnvolveoent (TAP) SI.IT'fflllry Statement The APIG helped enable Cloverdale students to evidence tremendous growth on the Mini- perforNnCe tut In 3rd and 6th grades. Students evidence\u0026lt;! growth in all grades ard slA\u0026gt;ject areas on the \"\"\" reference te-st. In slfflNlry to APIG has proven to be a very valueble asset to Cloverdale Elementary, Cloverdale was one of two schools to Nfter the MPT at the 851 level at 3rd and 6th grade-a fn all areas, Cloverdale Elementary Pege 2 Obstacles to Goel Attafrment Oele i in rant e rovel in 90-91 9192 end the reduction in rent M'IOU\"ltS to S10 000 in 92  93 were the reetest obstacles. APIG SU111111ry Report School --~D~odd=----------------- Year Goals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990 ,. To increase academic achievement for all students. Data reflected no growth In the 1991 MPT scores as  Staff development fn ffve areas was provided for the 1991 carpared to the 1990 scores In the 6th grade. staff along with stipends for training. 2. To reduce the dispar-fttes fn ecademfc achievement among gr\u0026lt;\u0026gt;l4)S formed on the bas fa of race, gender, and  Saturday School was scheduled for 6th graders. Six economk status . teachers wf l l provide remedfatfon. 1991  1. To increase academic achievement for oil atudenta . MPT data reflected an increase fn 3rd grade scores fn  Staff developnent for staff to emance teaching. 1992 reading and SSl Nstery In Nth. Sfgntffcant fnc:rease 2. To redJce the disparities In academic achievement In scores fn the 6th grade MPT In ell areas with 96% or  Extended day for 3rd graders 2 times per week. among groups formed on the bests of race, gender, and above mastery fn s-eadfng and 85X mastery fn Nth and economic statue. language arts.  Extended day for 6th graders 3 tf11es per week. 1992 1. To Increase academic achievement for all 1tudenta . MPT data reflected o decrease In 3rd grade reading and  Video storybooks to address c~rehensfon were developed 1993 91l Nltery In th. Sixth grade MPT Increased to 100l to share with the parents to be reenforce reeding. 2. To redJce the dispar i ties In ocadetolc ochle\"\"\"\"'\"t Nltery In reedfng for all groups and 86X mastery In among gr0l4)S fonned on the basis of race, gender, end th for oil groupo .  Parent resource banks were developed to provide economic atatus . materials for home. S1.J11N11ry Stet~t Test data reflects fflOre of an increase fn academic achfevemtt1t fn the 199193 9chool years, The flprovement fn test scores hes be-en attributed to the team plamfnq of the staff . Enphasfs was placed on staff devel9P!!!mt tutoring programs erd parent-school Involvement, The strong focus on these three strategies erovlded to be successful for studt-nts . Obstacles to Goel Attairment pate reflects a steady fl,provenent Jn achievement\nhowever, no dat  was recorded on the targeted students who attfflded Saturday School and extended day. APIG Sllffllllry Report School ___ f:..,a._,i.,_r-'P\"'a:.:.r_,.k _____________ _ Year Goals Results Eve l uat ion Crf terf a/Process 1990 1. To increase acadeniic achievement for all students. Test scores did not reflect a sfgnfffcant gafn. Four teachers were selected to tutor targeted students 1991 after school three t\nmes a week for nfne weeks. Bus 2. To reduce the disparities In academic achievement transportation and snacks were provided. Parents were among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and fnservfced. economic status. 1991  1. To Increase academic achievement for all students. Nine weeks of tutoring for 23 students did result In Stiff development for plamfng strategies to iffl)rove 1992 higher achievement on the MPT scores, One night per academl c achievement. l111\u0026gt;lementation of the STEP program 2. To reduce the disparities In academic achievement week for 9 weeks lasting 2 hours per session proved to for parents to assist their children to achieve. among gr~ formed on the bes ls of race, gender, end economic  tatus. be successful by the l\"Ultler of parents participating. 1992 1. To increase academic achievement for all students, Nine weeks of tutoring for 32 students did result In Materials to Increase student achievement and test 1993 higher stanford 8 scores fn language arts. HPT 1cores practices were p..irchesed. Multicultural sets of books, 2. To reduce th disparities In acadffllc achievement reflect a higher percentage of students mastering the ffeld tr fps, end fncentfves were ffl8de aval table to staff among groups formed on the best  of race, gender, and MPT In both 3rd and 6th\nrade. and students. econorafc status. Sl.fflNlry Statement An assessment tndfcatts that an fncreese fn ecademfc echtevfffll!nt was made fn Somf! content area and a d@crease fn others on the Stanford 8 test, The MPT scores reflect a posftfve gafn. The after school tutoring program was a success fn that all students attended the sessions and parents contact among the minority Increased. Obstacles to Goal Attef~t Erl fer plamfng to support longer periods of tutoring for different groups according to the ne-eds fn the content area would have provided services to ,nore st~ts, APIG SU111111ry Rport - School __ ....:.,:Fo.,_r.:a._st'--'-P\"a\"rk'--------------- Year Goals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990- 1. To increase 1cademlc achievement for all students. Grad 3 MPT data roflctl!d NStory of roading--93X 1. Staff developnent sessions were scheduled for teacher 1991 (92), math- -99X. No disparity in math. on th 6th training to motivate staff. 2. To rodJ\u0026lt;: th dispariti in academic achlov..,..,t grade MPT, s-eac:Hng, 98X (total), black male, 100%\nblack fomals, 92X. Math, 100X for all groups. 2. Science enr i chrnent mater fa ls and mot f vat f ona l among groups formed on the bash of race, gender, end Language Arts mastery  91X total, 75X for black males Incentive were purchased for the ttK:ouragement of acedemi c ecOOOfllc status. and feules. ach i evemmt. 1991- 1. To Increase academic achievement for all students. MPT data reflected high mastery for all groups, total 1. Staff devlopmont was continued throughout the year on 1992 98X, black mals 100%, black fomals 90%. Sixth grad the Master Teacher Program. 2. To reduce the df1perftfes in academic achfevfffil!f'lt mestery in 3 our of 5 areas. Lfttl disparity between among groups fonned on the basla of race, gender, and races. Stanford 8 data reflected all class totals 2. Educational progrems plus the Homework Center were K:OflOnlic status. abov 50 NCE. Black students below 50 NCE fn al I grade ft.nded including sl4Jl)l fes, materials, and stipends. totals. 3. The parent STEP Program was made avaf table to parents of th high risk. 1992- 1. To fncre  se academic achievement for all students. MPT data reflected 100X for all gr\"'-\"\" In grade 3. 1. Materials, ed.Jcatfonal equfpnent, and suppl fes were 1993 Sixth grade mastery fn 3 our of 5 areas. Black. females purchased for staff to enhance teaching. 2. To red.Jee the df1perftles fn acadetftic achfevetnent Nde 1teady progress. Stanford 8 data reflected an emong groups fonned on the basis of race, gender, and fnc:re  se above 50 NCE fn all class totals. The totals 2. Extended day for tutoring 6th grade atrisk students econon.fc status. of black students Increased fn  range of 2 NCE tn the fncludfng snacks and trans,x.rtatfon was scheduled. 5th grade to +14 NCEs fn grades 1 and 2. SUT1N1ry Statement Forest Park has strong parent support groups across the grades. Since teachers have full support in getting voh.l'\\tttrs to assist them fn their classes, students benefit in having many projK:ts and actfvi fes to enrich their ltves (lbstacl .. to Goal Attafrmont Targeted students were not tracked fn the ext~ day tutoring 5Hsfons to record Stanford 8 test data to inonitor progress. AP I G Sl.fflllllry Rport  School Year Goals Results Evaluation Crfterh/Process 1990 1. Increase the suc:cess rate of minority students as 1. A gain of 7.1X of students achieving at or above 1. To see an increase fn tests cores of 80 students 1991 well as all students - a reduction in disparity. th 50 percnt fl on th MAT-6. Th AHPT showed a reading below grade level and needing assistance. reduction In disparity. 2. To provide workshops for parents (13) to increase 2. Enhance parent involvement in the school process. 2. SevM workshops were plamed for parents  parent participation with their children. valuations all posltlv. 3. To increase sel festeem through COlXlStlor services. J. Increase self-esteem of the children involved. J. Kits were purchased for the cou,selor to teach studc!nts on sel festeem. 1991 1. 1 ncrease the success rate of minority students es 1. Test scores Increase In reading and math on the 1. Research centers used fn classrooms to increase 1992 well as all studentl  a reduction In disparity. AMPT. academic achievement ard red.Jee dfsparfty. 2. Parnts of atrlsk students In grades 14 had two 2. Parent workshops In grade 4 continued with posltlv 2. Enhanc parent lnvolv......,t In th school procss. lnsrvlc In March and April. feedback. J. Students had birthday acknowledgomonts, field 3. Counselor continued selfesteet1 classes. J. Iner sel fostoffl of the children Involved. tripe, etc. that Inspired aelfosteffl. 1992 1. Increase the success rate of 11fnorfty students  1. Targeted studentl - progrss In radlng with 1. Blow grade lvl students wll l be targeted for 1993 well as all students   reduction In disparity. Htl of trade books thlt contained high lntrst, low f~rovement fnterventfon. vocabulary. 2. Iner ..  sel fest..,. of the children Involved. 2. Contlrue the coo..nsllng and lncontlvu for the 2. THchers obsrved atudentl exhilarating high self Increase of selfesteea as measured by staff observations. eltfffl and an Increase fn thefr l fvea for reeding through different tachlng strategies. SUT1Mry Statement To 1upplement the re,qular reading progr for all atl.dentl, ft,.nds were used to p..,rchase a varfety of enrichment tnaterfals to be used by all teachers f.e. trade books, high interest/low vocababulary l htenlng centers, fllJltfcultural u,fta and speehl materfals to enhance language develq,nrot for kindergarten and first graders. Research centers were purchased and located In modJles throughout all grade levels. Parent workshop material, field trlo[s for enrichment selfestff!! kits for teaching, fncenttves for learning and transportation were all provided through thf APJG, Obstaclu to Goal Attalrmont The school report that classrOOffl teachers conducted their own evaluation of their 1tudents thrOUffh classwork performance, test scores, and standardized test results, Records are available of all materials p.,rchased and fLnds scw\nnt, Hawver  1tathtlcal report fdentffytng 9pec1ffc groups of targeted children and thefr progrant was not provided by the school thus preventing a future tracking of the gry to Mteraf nerd progress, A.PIG Surmery Report - School -~G~x~~r_S~p~r~l~ns~E~l~omon=~t~r~y\"----------------- Year Goals Results Eve luat ion Crf terf a/Process 1990- 1. To increase academic achievement end reduce *Targeted students showed seven months or more increase *Assessment and analysis of MAT-6 ard MPT test results. 1991 disparities for targeted students operating one or more in achievement on MAT-6. *Provided additional CoopJter time for identified years below grade level in grades 2-6 in reading and *3rd ard 6th grade students who participated In this students. math. program pass MPT with 85% mastery. *Provided two parent Malce and Take \\Jorlcshops. students self-esteem was measured by office referrals *Provided a Parental Workshop. z. To Increase self-esteem of students which was reduced by 75X. 55x of all parents participated In Hake end Tako Workshops 3. To increase parental f nvo l vement 4ox of parents partkfpeted in the after school tutoring program. 1991 1. To increase academic achievement end reduce *Targeted students showed a 10X or more NCE gain on *Assessment and analysis of Stanford 8 and MPT test 1992 disparities for targeted students operating one or more Stanford a. results. yeers below grade level in grades 2-6 fn readfng and *Targeted 3rd grade students mastered reading on HPT. *Provided additional co,rputer time for identified math. *Targeted 6th grade students mastered all areas of MPT students. except Science and Social Studies. *Provided two parent Make and Take Workshops. z. To increase self-esteem of students st~U self-esteem was measured by office referrals *Provided two Parental \"orkshops. which was rOQJCed by 85%. 60X of all parents pert i cl pated In Make and Take 3. To Increase parental f nvol vement llorkshops. 3ox of parent  participated in the after school tutoring program. 1992- ,. To Increase academic achievement and reoJCe Targeted student  showed a 2% or more NCE gain on *Assessment and analysfs of Stanford 8 and MPT test 1993 dfsperftles for targeted stt..dents operating one or inore Stanford a. results. years below grade level fn grades 2-6 in reading  nd *Targeted 3rd grade students mastered  ll  reas on the *Provided two parent Make end Take Workshops. Nth. HPT. *Provided Two Parental \\lorkshopsa *Targeted 6th grade students mastered reading and Nth z. To increase self-esteent of 1tudenta on MPT. *Student 1elf-estem was measured by off fee referrals which oocreosed by 5X frono lest year. 3. To Increase parental Involvement *Parent pertfcfpetfon in Make and Take workshops Increased 2l from l  t year. *40X of parent  participated In the after school tutorial program. SllTffll!lry Statement The Incentive grant has contributed f~ely to the ed.Jcatfonal excellN\"ICe of students at Geyer Springs School, Obviously the more ft.rds afforded the school, the more plamed activities we could have .,,fth obfective data to 1t,.pport the academic progress of students, Goals wel\"e met fn the areas of flrprovfnq 9el f-esteem, ftrprovfng the over11l l population ecedefflfc achievement, and finally lessening Geyer Springs Elementary  APtG Page 2 Obstacles to Goal Attairrnent APIG St.mnery Report  School ___ J~e~f~f~er~~on~E~l~emen=-\"t\"a,._ry.__ _____________ _ Year Goals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990- 1. lo improve reading and writing skills of * E\"l)irical data reported an increase in language and * Teacher observation of students' early motivation and 1991 kindergarten and first grade students. writing skills. success in reading and writing skills. 2. To inc rease enthusiasm/rr.otivation toward reading and + Errpirical data also showed favorable improvements in * Comparison of whole class HAT-6 scores from 1989-90 and writing. writing sa~les from begiming to end of year. 1990-91. 3. To decrease the disparity between black and white  Ho objective data was avai table this first year. students . 1991 - 1. To i rrprove reading and writing sk fl ls of  See 1990-91 first two resut ts. *Teacher observation of students' early motivation and 1992 kindergarten, first and second grade students. success in reading and writing skills.  Corrparison of MAT-6 and Stanford scores showed an 2. To increase enthusiasm/motivation toward reading and Increase of 6 percentile points in language arts  COOl)8rison of whole class HAT-6 scores from 1990-91 and writing. related areas. Three points in total reading NCE. 1991-92 Stanford. 3. To decrease the black/white disparity.  Coq:,arison of individual test scores for growth of children in the program for 2 years. 1992- 1. To f~rove reading and writing skflls of * See 1991-92 first two results.  Teacher observation of students' early motivation and 1993 le fndergarten, first and second grade students. success in reading and writing skills.  Objective data showed an fncrease of 10 percentile 2. To increase enthusiasm/motivation toward reeding and points In total reading  51st to 61st percent I le.  C~rison of whole class Stanford scores from 1991-92 writing. and 1992-93. * 37 out of 75 2nd grade students showed growth of 7 3. To decrease the bleck/\"11te disparity. months or more - 19 were black students.  COOl)arison of individual test scores for growth of children fn the program for 2 years. Surmary Statement Teachers and parents feel that the \\lrftfng to Reed and \\lrftfng to Urfte Programs are beneficial for children from all backqrOUlds and with various learning styles. Errpfrlcal data Indicates a growth In self-esteem, early school successes, confid4!nce in creative writing and an Increase fn expressive language skills, Obstacles to Goel Attairment oue to the grade levels being targeted, obfectlve data has bttn more dffffcult to docunent, Changing frOffl MAT-6 to Stanford 8 made whole group conperlsons difficult for one year. Also, our attendance zone changed whe-n tcing School was ffled which again has made co,rparfson end following stt.dents more dffffcult, The secord grade lilrftfng to Urfte progrl!!lffl has been easier to objectively docunent due to having test evidence from preceding year  that evf~e was very positive, APIG Sutmary Report  School ---\"~=be=lv~=l=e_E~l=emen=~t=~ry~---------- Year Goals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990 1. To Increase academic achievement for all students. Date from the MPT end MAT-6 did not reflect en Increase Cooperative learnfng and Learning Styles workshops were 1991 In achievement or e redJctfon In disparity. scheduled for staff to eMance teaching. An intense 2. To reduce the dfsperttfes In  cadefflfc achievement conm.mfcatfon process and lnservfces were set ~ to keep among gr~ formed on the basts of race, gender, and parents involved with their school. economic status. 1991 1. To increase academic achievement for all students. MPT dote reflected 85X 11estery (en Increase) In Writing to Reed Program es f\"\"lemented. Peer tutoring was 1992 reading. Sheth grade Stanford 8 data reflected all fff1)lemented at noon. Saturday School for 6th graders. 2. To redJce the disparities In academic achievement class totals below the 50 NCE. IEP'a were developed Class sheets were reviewed each 9 weeks. emong gr\"'-\"5 formed on the basis of race, gender, end for each etrfsk student. econcni c status. 1992 ,. To Increase academic achievement for all students. MPT dote reflected 85X (an Increase) In reeding ard Teachers taught their specialty In the intermec:Hate grades 1993 scfence. Stanford 8 data reflected all class totals to focus on academic frrprovement. Peer tutoring was 2. To redJce the dfsperftfes tn academic echfev_,,t below 50 NCE wtth en Increase in achievement in grades cont trued. among grC\u0026gt;l.4)5 fanned on the basfa of race, gender, and 1, 2, 3, 4 end 6. economf c status. SLIIINlfY Statement Test scores dfd not reflect slbstantial academic achievement, Enrichment programs lfk:e Math Olynplad, Geography Bowl Gffted(Talented OUh Bowl, Spelling Be-e 1 and Friday Clubs did provide og,or-tuiltfes for students to explore thefr Interests and to be Involved fn working together, Parents have openly expressed thefr Interests and their satfsfactfon with the experiences provided to thefr students as well as the programs provided for them. Obstacles to Goel Attainment The student population at Mabelvale h very t.nStable, Twenty-five percent (25X) of the total school pop.,latfon are inobfle each year. Fifty percent (SOX) of the 3rd graders who fafled math were new to Mabel vale. Sixth percent (60%) of the ahth graders who failed reading were new to the school, An early identification of a targeted gray, of students fn addftfon to plans and monftorfng process rrust be estebl !shed ff accurate data Is to be recorded. APlG SLmT18ry R~rt - School ---'H-\"c\"'0-\"e'-'rmo=t.,_t _____________ _ Year Goals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990 1. To Increase academic ach I evement for all students. Teachers observed kindergarten stl.dents motivated and The first stage of the Writing to Read coq:,uter program 1991 Interested In the \\lritfng to Read program. Grode J HPT was purchased and iff'f)lemented for kindergarten students. 2. To reduce the disperftfes in acadffl!ic achievement data reflected 85% or above mastery fn reading and math Twenty- two teachers were i nservi ced on cooperative emong groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and for all groups. Grade 6 HPT reflected 85X mastery or learning and were furnished materials and supplies. economic status. above fn 3 out of 5 content areas. 1991 1. To increase academic achievement for all students. Grade 3 MPT data reflected mastery fn reading and math. The APIG f\\Mlds were all targeted to the updating of 1992 Sixth graders had mastery in 2 out of 5 content areas. carp.,ter equipnent and materials for the Mritfng to Read 2. To red.Jee the disparities in academic achievement on the Stanford 8, all class totals were below 50 NCE program. First grade students were included this year. emong groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and with little disparity. ecOOOftlf c status. 1992 ,. To Increase academic achievement for all students. Grade 3 MPT data reflected mastery in reading and math. No APIG fl.nds were requested. Teachers tutored individual 1993 Grade 6 MPT data reflected mastery in 4 out of 5 students fn their own classrooms. 2. To reci.Jce the disparities In acedefflic achievement contfflt areas. The one area was 83X cc:,q:\u0026gt;ared to 1992 among gr0l4)5 fonned on the basis of race, gender, and at 64X. on the Stanford S, two classes totaled 50 NCE ecOOOftlic status. or above. S1.mNtry Statement McDermott has a strong parent support and cOffll'U\"lfty involvement. There Is a total of five PartMrs fn EOJCatfon groups assfstfng in tutoring progrems, mentodng, career trafnfng, safety pol ice cadets and recruitfng. One partner has been responsible for the recruitment of 50 famflfes:. The PTA h always first In the district to attafn 100% menbershfp. Obstacles to Goal Attatnnent The school fs not tar9etfng spectffc atrfsk students for tutoring and recordfng statfstfcal date to reflect the academic progress. APIG Sum,ary Report - School -~\"~~ad~o~w~c~l~lf~f ___________ _ Year Goals Results Evaluation Crfteda/Process 1990- 1. To increase academic achievement for all students. Absenteeism of students dropped as corrpared to 1988- 1. Teachers will receive training fn TESA and Team 1991 89 . Learning to increase academic achievement and reduce Standardized test scores were raised. disparity. Student behavior inproved. 2. To reduce the dfsparltfes in acadeniic achievement Posftfve responses by students and parents in the 2_ Equipnent and materials wfl l be upgraded and purchased among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and school cl fmate surveys. to increase students' test understanding. economic status. 1991 - ,. To increase academf c ach f ev~nt for all students. Staff participation in training for \"network\" COf11)tJters Focus was on 11networking11 the building with a system of 1992 was c~leted. Stanford test data reflected class classroom C0fl1)Uters controlled by a file server located in 2. To reduce the dfsperf t f es In acadernf c ach I evement totals. Grades 2, 3, 4, and 6 were above the 50 NCE. the Med\na Center. among groups formed on the basi  of race, gender, and economic status. 1992- 1. To increase academic achievement for all students. Stanford Test data reflected that class totals fn all The APIG focus was to continue the purchase of classroom 1993 grade were above the 50 NCE. Disparity between 1992 Coq\u0026gt;Uters to Increase the academic progress of all 2. To reciJce the disparities In academic achlev.....,t and 1993 did not deer stl.dents ard to reciJce disparity_ among gr0l4)5 formed on the bash of race, gender, end economic status. Slfflftlllry StetemMt examination of each year's rrport reveals that the first year (1990-91) AIPG Instructional materials and egufpnent were purchased, staff developnent activities were conducted, and parent workshops were held. the following two years (1991-92, 199293) all expenditures were used fn networking the building with COffP:!ter egufpnent to conplete the program. Test data reflected an increase fn achievement fn class totals but the dhparfty has not yet been reduced. Obstacles to Goal Attafrrnent Not targeting spe\ncfffc 9r9':P! in need ard rnalntafnfng stathtfcal data prevent  determination of the success of the teachers' staff developnent on the students' learning. APIG SUffllary Report  School _ _,,o.,_tt..,e.cr_c,.,rc,ec,,e.,,k_,E,_,l\"'emen\"\"\"\"'t\"'a'-ry'----------------- Year Goals Results Evatuatfon Criteria/Process 1990 ,. Enhance educational achievement and reduce  3rd grade students mastered reading and math on HPT.  Assessment and analysis of MAT-6 and HPT test results. 1991 disparities for targeted at-risk students In grades )C\u0026gt;6.  6th grade students mastered all areas of MPT but  Provided academic and gold behavior incentives. 2. Increase sel festeem of students. science and language arts.  Provided fnservices to teachers in TESA, Classroom 3. Increase parents l involvement.  Majority of students scored above 50th percentile on Management and Learning Styles. MAT-6.  Extended Encourager Program.  Growth In r'IUtt\u0026gt;er of black males passing MPT in reading and math at 3rd grade.  Provided transportation to parents for PTA meetings and conferences. 1991 1. Enhance educational achievement and reduce  3rd grade students mastered reading and math on MPT.  Assessment and analysis of Stanford 8 and MPT test 1992 disparities for targeted at-risk students In grades K-6. results.  6th grade students inastered all areas of MPT but 2. Increase sel festeem of students. language arts.  Provided coq:,uter, software, and printers for IC-3. 3. Increase parental f nvo l vement.  Majority of sh.dents scored above 50th percentf le on  Provided manipulative and instructional materials. Stanford 8.  Provided academic and good behavior incentives.  Growth on MPT in science, language arts end social studies for black females In 6th grade.  Enhanced Encourager Program.  Growth fn science and social studies on HPT for black  Provided transportation to parents for conferences. Nle In 6th grade.  Provided parental workshops. APIG Surmary Report - Otter Creek Page 2 1992 1. Enhance educational achievement and reduce 1993 disparities for targeted at - risk students in grades K-6. 2. Increase self - esteem of students. 3. Increase parental involvement. Sl.lT1'Mry Statement  3rd grede students mastered reading and math on HPT. * 6th grade students mastered all areas of HPT but science and language arts. . Increase in nut'Der of students scoring above 50th percentile on Stanford 8.  Growth in nurber of black females passing social studies on HPT in grade 6. * Assessment and analysis of Stanford 8 and MPT test results. * Provided co,rputer software, manipulative and instructional materials for reading, math, science, and social studies .  Provided transportation end field trips .  Prov ided academic and good behavior incentives.  Provided transportation conferences. Third grade ~tudents mastered reading end math on the HPT. At the sixth grade level in all areas but science and language arts were mastered on the HPT. A growth in the nurber of black males passing MPT was shown at the third grade level. At the sixth grade level a growth fn science, language arts, and social studies for black males was shown. An increase fn the nurt\u0026gt;er of students scodng et the 50th percentile or above on Stanford 8 was shown, and there hes been a ~rease fn the nurt\u0026gt;er of s suspensions and students. Obstacl~s to Goal Attafrmont APIG Summry Report - School ___P :.,:u._,l.,o\"'sk::.l'--\"He,._i\"'g\"'h-\"ts....,_E.,_1-=\"'n\"'ta\"'r-'y_ ________ Year Goals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990- 1. To f ncrease academf c ach f evement for oil students. Grode 3 HPT doto reflected mostery (88X) In reading, Consul tents, materials, and stipends were provided to all 1991 90X (91) moth. Grade 6 data reflected mastery In 2 of staff members to motivate and train in the areas of whole 2. To reduce the disparities fn academic achfevement the 5 subject arees. language and \\lrftfng Across the Curriculun. tnstructlonal am:::,ng groups formed on the bas is of race, gender. and equipment, camcorder, projectors, l fstening centers, etc. economic status. were purchased to support areas of learning. 1991- 1. To increase academic achievement for all studc!nts. Grode 3 HPT doto reflected 95X In reading, 90X math. Staff developnent continued fn the areas of reading and 1992 Grade 6 data reflected mastery in 1 of the 5 content. whole languege. Twenty-five black females, 45 bleck 2. To reduce the disparities fn acadenlfc achievement Stanford 8 data reflected grades 2 and 3 above the 50 males, 9 white males, and 8 white females participate fn a among groups formed on the basts of race, gender, and NCE. tutoring gr~. Niinerous trade books and magazines fn the economic status. content areas were purchased to support the goals. 1992- 1. To increase acadenlic achievement for all students. Grode 3 HPT data reflected 56X mastery In reading and Three teachers, one aide, snacks, transportation, and 1993 88X In .. th. Grade 6 data reflected mastery f n 2 of materials were ft.rded to the after-school tutoring program 2. To reduce the disparities fn academic achievement the 5 content areas. Stanford 8 data reflected grades for 60 days, 1 1/2 hours. among groups fonned on the basis of race, gerder, end 1, 3, and 4 above the 50 NCE. economl c status . SlfflMry Statement The Pulaski Heights ElfflNffitary staff successfully used the APIG to lrrplement strong staff devel9ffl!fflt programs ard to purchase materfal1 1 egufpnent, program guides, ard other essffltfal elements needed for the fnplementatfon of the program. Progress was made fn sane areas of achfevefflent. Obstacles to Goal Att  frment Dete was not reported on the tutoring 9rou,s to track progress of frdfvfciJals. A change in prfncfpels occurred d.Jrlng thfs tfme perfod. A.PIG S1.mnery R~rt - School __ .:,.Rom=i\"'ne\"-------------- Year Goals Rosul ts EvalU8tion Criteria/Process 1990 1. NA 1991 2. Plan written but not l,plemented. Delayed to 1991   -  -- ----- 92 school year . 1991  1. To raise the academic success of all students. It ls noted that the Stanford and AMPT results 1. Uni ts of stl.Kfy targeted to reach areas rated low on 1992 reflected acedemfc progress fn all areas . the MAT-6 and MPT. 2. To redlce th disparity among all Identified groups. 2. Provide specific program models for targeted atdsk. students. 1992- 1. To raise the academic success of all students. Stanford 8 test results as well as AMPT scores 1. Unites of stl.Kfy targeted to reach areas rated low on 1993 reflected increased academic success among studfflts the MAT -6 and MPT . along with the redlctlon of disparity emong all 2. To redlce the disparity emong all Identified groups . ldentlfhble groups. 2. Provide specific program models for targeted at-risk students. Surmery Stat~t The fl.l'lds acquired through the APJG em1bled the staff to develop ll\"lits write program guides oorchase materials ard egufpnent, ard to provide ffeld trfps for enrichment. Thfs resulted fn the students having the opoortl.llfty to vlsualfze, interpret and process lnfonnetlon that would raise thef.- achievement level . Obstacles to Goal Attairment The delay fn fnplemented the gr-ant on an earl fer tfmel lne fn the 199091 school year- was an obstacle. Test scor-es sf nee 1991 tndfcate that academic pr-ogress was achieved. APIG SI.ITIMry Report School --'T\"e\"-r'-r._ ____________ _ Year Coals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990- 1. To increase ecademic achievement for all students. HPT test results in 3rd and 6th grades reflected en Thematic 1.#lits were prepared to target all students' 1991 fncrease in achievement for black and white students. needs. Staff developnent schedule for all staff to 2. To reduce the disparities in academic achievement ilfl)rove teaching strategies. among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and economic status . 1991 - 1. To increase academic achievement for all students . Test results reflect a sfgni ff cant increase fn all test Staff developnent and fnservfces continued to be 1992 scores. one huidred percent C 100X) of black students conducted. Sevm professional training sessions were 2. To reduce the disparities fn academic achfevetl'N!nt in 6th grade passed the MPT in reading, math, language irrplemented: Wright Group, HCRAT, Reading and Writing among groups formed on the bas f s of race, gender, and arts, and social stt.dfes. Across the Curriculun, learning Styles, and science economic status . training. 1992- 1. To Increase academic achievement for all stl.dents. HPT test data reflects a contfr.Jed increase in Staff developnent ard fnservfce training contlrued fn 1993 achievement ard a reduction In disparity. Mastery in addition to the frrplementatfon of a strong fncmtfve 2. To reduce the dfsparitfes fn academic achievement all areas of the HPT occurred. program to inotfvate students and a perental involvement among groups formed on the bes la of race, gerder, and conmi tment. economic status. Sunnary Stattfflil!nt The APJC fl.rids provided professional training to the staff resulting in the Terry teachers being better prepared to reach a diverse student pop.,lation. The focus of the teaching methods and stratNJ\nes resulting from the ongoing staff developnMt produced teachers who were more confident and conpetent to ,nake decfsfons regardfng thefr students' teeming. Obstacles to Goel Atta\nrrnent No obstacles . Goals were ettefned at Terry. Terry was one of two area schools who pessl!'d all sections of the HPT test. APIG Sunnary Report - School ___ u\"\"a\"k\"\"e-'-f\"'ie\"l\"d ______________ _ Year Goals Results Evaluation Crf ter i a/Process 1990- 1_ To increase academic achievement for all students. MPT data reflected 8711: mastery In reading and 88X ,. Equfpnent and suppl fes were purchased for all 1991 mastery in math on the 3rd grade level for all grC\u0026gt;t.4\u0026gt;s cl ass rooms. 2- To reduce the disparities in academic achievement except black females (76%). among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and 2. Staff developnent in science ard social studies economic status. were scheduled to enhance teaching in grade 3. 1991 1. To increase academic achievement for all students. Data reflects all grades total below the 50 NCE on the ,. Additional instructional materials in science and 1992 Stanford 8. MPT reflects all students passing in grade social studies were purchased for classrooms. 2. To reduce the disparities In academic achievement 3 at 85X or above except black males (76X). Reading among groups formed on the basts of race. gender, end and math was passed In grade 6 by all studfflts. 2. F\nve-week tutoring sessions for et-risk students in economic status. grades 36. 1992 ,. To increase academic achievement for all students. Data reflects all grade totals on the Stanford 8 below Science materials, staff development, professional 1993 the 50 NCE with lrrprovement In grades 1, 3, and 5. meetings, at-risk strategies to enhance teaching, parent 2. To reduce the disparities In ecadenfc achievement All students passed the 3rd grade MPT except black workshops and tutorial programs for selected Lnder among groups fonned on the bash of race, gender, and males (76%). Reading and 118th was passed In grade 6 by achievers. economic status. white males and females only. Black students passed by 2X. Surmary Stat8'1eflt The APIC ft.nds ~bled the school to: have staff developne:nt sessions by providing teacher stfJ)!ndsj purchase materials and eq.Jipnent\nprovide inc:Mtives for stud~ts\nand, f\u0026amp;.nd snacks and transportation for the students Involved fn the tutoring sessions. The school acquired exceptional Mrlchment materials and egul~t that enhanced both the nusfc program and library collection. Obstacles to Goal Attefrrnent No measurable data wu malntaf~ as to the success ff the selected U'lder achievers who attended the tutorial program. Year 1992- 1993 Sunnary Statement APJG SUIINlry Rport  School Uash\nngton Magnet Goals 1. To provide a weekly reader subscription to each student in the 1st through 6th grades 2. To in-.,rove the disparity in achievement in the HPT of sub-population a related by CRTH and NORM Referenced Tests. J . To hire five certified staff metrbers to assist Twin City Bank e,rployees, to staff the After School Homework Center. Results Evaluation Criteda/Process  Since we began the program In March, we do not have 1. CRTH Tests coq\u0026gt;arison data from standardized testing. However, students look forward to getting their Ueekly Readers 2. Stanford 8 and parent and teacher conments were positive. Eightr ftve percent of the teachers requested Ueekly Readers 3. Increased reading fn the content area for th 1993 94 school Yr.  Since we were I.Xl8ble to get certified people to assist volunteers I.Xltil Harch, the results  re yet to be known. 4. The program was designed to assist students, who would not receive help at home, with their homework. In March, the PTA matched fl.n'.fs to hire certified staff. 5. AHPT Test Results 4. Eighty-five percent of  tl 3rd graders will pass  3rd Grade: Reading  90X the reading sections of the Arkansas Hinfnun Performence Hath  93X Test. * 6th Grode: Reed Ing  84X Moth  98X language Arts  82% set enc  90X Sociol Studt  83X  Ont y one student df d not show progress according to the EPSF post test. Several students  re now working on grode levl.  Second grade had posftfve growth fn all areas tested xcept one (concept N..-rs).  Fffth grade had posftfve growth fn ell areas tested cept one (Math C\"\"\"tat ton). 6. Interim Reports 7. EPSF Post tests 8. Stanford 8 was given to select second and fffth grede in Aprfl and then agotn in July. the Weekly Reeder Pr29ran1 fs a way of gettfng all of our st~ts to read about current events, They reed in the classroom and took their weekly readers home, hopefully, to reread. Thfa wfll Increase reeding skills and fflllke st~t more aware of current events fn the world and event  close to home. The Homework Center has the posstbflfty to be viable force fn test scores fn our low abflfty chfldren. \\lfth more tfme, and voh.r,teers who are becoming better trafned this program wfll show results fn the spring 9tandardfted testing, AHPT THt Results: Classes were well attended and parents co-operated with the teachera. Teacher  worked on skfl ls not iriestered based on assessments given by the ctassrom teachers, APIG S\u0026lt;mMry Report School _ _,:11,,_at,.,sc,,on,_,_ _______________ _ Year Goals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990 ,. To increase academic achievement for all stu::::tents . Test scores reflected increased achievement of all ,. To provide staff developed in whole language, 1991 students and decrease dfsparftfes in the 6th grade. cooperative learning, classroom management and learning centers. 2. To reduce the disparities fn academic achievetrent 2. Ten faculty meetings devoted to the training of among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and management of an integrated curriculun. economic status. 1991 1. To increase academic achievement for ell students . Teachers used checkl lsts to monf tor student 1. To target m. of the 1st graders below grade 1992 participation and to evaluate students' work. Test instructional level. The \\Jrite-to-Read corrp.,ter program 2. To rtuce the disperftfes fn academic achievement scores reflect an increase in academic achievement. will be partially purchased. among gr0l4)5 formed on the basis of race, gender, and economic status. 1992 1. To Increase academic achievement for ill students. Test scores reflect an increase in academic ,. The final purchase of the materials for the \\lriteto 1993 achievement. Read labs was made. 2. To reduce the disparities fn acedemfc achievement arrong groups formed on the basts of race, gender, and economic status. SLITl'Nlry Statement The fuids received from the APIG were used to support the focus of the school's plan .. the p.,rchese of the WrftetoRead conputers and materials. In conjl.XlCtion to this major purchase the other experdl tures were targeted to staff ~velopnt!nt science materials, end st.g\u0026gt;lementel readers. Obstacles to Coal Att  irmMt None Washington Magnet Page 2 CRTH and NORM Referenced Test: The kindergarten class was very successful. Host students irrproved on EPSF skills and are currently functioning on grade level. Two students ere being monitored for possible interventions. j. '\u0026gt;~lcrt n.nibi:-r of c\nwdentc, frl'.lfn c\nec.:iM\ninrl fifth or.:ides attended a sUTmCr program at Uashington. Classes focus~ on reading and math skills. At the conclusion of the class, all students were administered thl! Stanford 8 for l\"eading 11nd math. Scores wi?re canpared with the students' April Stanford 8 scores and growth was charted. As was noted each grade had only one negative growth area . 1n second grade, the high~st growth area was in reading vocabulal\"y with a 17.5 NCE gain. The fifth grade greatest gain came in reading conprehension with an 8.1 NCE gain. Obstacles to Goal Attairrnent The Ueekly Reader Program: our biggest obstacle was getting the readers on tin.! and fn getting the correct rM..mber we needed for each grade level. The Homework Center: The loss of voll.11teers from the bank and/or loss of PTA matching funds will cause a drop fn projected scores. AHPT Test Results: Ineffective sfx grade teachers  one class had four teachers the ffrst nfne weeks due to the little Rock School District's decision to put the classroom teachers back into the G/T programs. Thfs class never got back on track. The teacher resigned durfng the fourth nine weeks. CRTH and NORM Reference Tests: One student missed the first weelc of school. APIG S\"\"\"8ry Report School ---'ll\"'e\"'s'-'t.,_e'-'rn~H-'-1'-'ll..,,s,__ ___________ _ Year Goals Results Evaluation Cdterh/ Process 1990 ,. To increase academic achievement for all students. The HPT scores In 3rd grade reflect that 86% black ,. Materials were purchased to enhance teaching In all 1991 moles end 100% black females passed. One hLndred areas. percent (100%) white moles end females passed. The 2. To reduce the dfsparlties in academic achievement disparity showed a reduction. 2. Homework centers were established and peer tutoring among groups formed on the bas Is of race, gender, and groups were identified. economic status. 1991 ,. To increase academic achievement for all students. Test data reflected that grades 1, 2, 3, and 6 scored ,. Materials for 171.Jlticultural lessons, microscopes, 1992 above the 50 NCE on the Stanford 8. Ninety-three encyclopedias, research materials for all classes, and percent (93%) black males end 100% black females math coq:,uter software contirued to be purchased for all passed. One hLndred percent (100%) white moles end classes. females passed on the 3rd grade HPT. 2. To reduc: th dfsparftlu In academic echlvemont 2. School-wide incentives for academic and behavior among gr~ fonned on the bash of race, gender, and achievement were pur-chased. economf c  tat us. 1992 ,. To fncr-ease academic achievement for all students. Test data reflected that grades 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 scor-ed ,. Materials for- social studies providing 11Geo-Safer-i 11 1993 above th 50 NCE on th Stanford a. One hLndred centers for each classr-oom will be provided to teachers in per-cent (100%) black 3r-d grade males passed the MPT. need of social studies riaterfals. Also, teacher-a observed better behavior and fewer sent 2. To reduce the disparities fn academic achievement homes. 2. Thirty (30) etrfsk stu:lents wero targeted to monitor among grOt..pS formed on the be1t1 of race, gender, and the self-esteem COffl)()llfflt. econonifc status. SU'TINlry Statement The grant was focussed on building students' self esteeffl fn order- to inprove academical Ly and to fflhance teaching through the purchase of materials in all the areas of learning. Exmples: The 0lsabflfty Awareness Series for Spfal Education, Souids of Language by Bfll Martin for K-3 grades, overhead projectors, math manfpulatlves vid~ tapes science kits and nunerous manipulatives. Obstecls to Goel AttalrfflMt Additional data consfsting of students' names and observable m:ogress fn the areas of pttr tutoring, homework center attendance, and the set f-esteem conponents was not reported. APIG Sum,ary Report - School ___ W:.i,_,l\"'s\"'on\"'----------------- Year Goals Results Evaluation Criteria/Process 1990- 1. To increase academic achievement for all students. Test data reflected a decl fne in the 3rd grade HPT  Afternoon COl1l)Uter and phonics programs for students 1991 scores over the 1989-90 scores. Grade 6 HPT scores 2 times per week. 2. To reduce the disparities in academic achievement reflKt~ mastery In reading and math. among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, economic status. and  Incentive program for set f  esteem. . Increased parent involvement to support at - risk students. 1991- 1. To increase academk achievement for all students. Significant i rrprovement in 3rd grade HPT scores in  Materials to support the academics were purchased: 1992 1992: reading, 95X with all groups achieving 85X or science charts, heart models, solar systffl'IS, etc. 2. To rKfuce the disparities fn academic achievement above\nmath, 87X with all groups except black males. among groups formed on the basfs of race, gender, and Sfxth grade mastery fn reading and math for ill groups.  Parents were provided packets throughout the year to economic status. No fq::,rovement f n other areas. help their children.  Nfne teachers provided after-school tutoring to students. 1992- 1. To increase academic achievement for all students. HPT In Jrd grade reading reflects mastery (88%) and a Equfpnent purchases to enhance teaching were made: 1993 decl fne in math- MPT f n 6th grade - no mastery f n any recorders, listening centers, overhead projectors, and 2_ To reduce the disparftfes in academic achievement areas. eddftfonal science lab pieces. emong groups formed on the bash of race, gender, and economic status. Sl.lffMry Stat~t Test data does not reflect a steedy growth of fnprov~nt fn the u\n,per grades. The ffll!lterfals and eguipnent purchased were a nttdt asset to the school's program. Staff developnent appeared to be a Q!Slected area that needs to be addressed ff student achievement h to be acconplished. Obstacles to Goal Attai~nt The lack of plamed staff developnent sessions is a deffnfte obstacle to student achievement. Data not reported on the targeted students prevents success Interpretation. APIG Sunnary Report School ___ll ~ood=~ru~f~f_ _______________ Year Goals Evaluation Results 1990 ,. To f ncrease acedemf c ach f evement for all students. Staff developni!nt with IN!lterfals was provided for all Data fran the HAT6 tests reflected that disperfty end 1991 staff. El even teachers tutored 104 students f n grades achievement increased. The percent of black students 2. To reduce the disperitfes fn academic achievement 26 who were targeted as hfgh risk for future failure. at/above grade level increased from 31X to 39X. The among groups fanned on the basis of race, gender, and percent of white students at/above grade level increased economic status. from 49% to 67%. The dfsperity widened by 10X. 1991 ,. To increase academic achievement for all students. Six sessions of staff developnent end stipends provided Data from Stanford 8 reflected that fn all grade levels 1992 to all staff members. Enrichment experiences were NCE scores f ncreased. On the 3rd grade MPT, 100X of the 2. To reduce the dfsparitfes fn academic achievement provided to all students. Targeted groups of students black. males passed reading (an increase of 33X over 1991). among groups fonned on the bas ts of race, gerder, and were scheduled for after school tutoring with snacks Twelve percent (12X) fewer black females pessed reeding. economic status. and transportation provided. 1992 ,. To increase academic achievement for  l l students. Teachers end aides atterded 5 sessions In staff Stanford thinking skfl ls scores Increase fn grades 36 by 1993 deve l opnent. The c01.nSelor worked with targeted high over 10 NCE points. Disparity of scores on the 6th grade 2. To reduce the disparities In acedenic achievement risk students In grades 16 for 1 1/2 hours dally after MPT were el imfnated. Only one black female end one white among gr0l4)5 formed on the bash of race, gender, and school fn addftfon to the ongoing tutoring sessions. male failed to pass ell five sections of the test. economic status. S1.mn11ry Statement The Uoodruff staff developnent progrern5 were well planned that the tutoring classes were well orgenhed fn that they targeted the students In need. The total staff was Involved fn the excellent teBftl delivery of the programs. Even though fl.ndfng was late fn coming, the success of \\locxfruff'  total teant approach In workfng wfth students hes been exenplery. Obstacles to Goal Attalrment ate fend! ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT (APIG} PROGRAM EVALUATION SECONDARY SCHOOLS Program Description Purpose The purpose of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant was to provide funding beyond the regular budget to all area schools in assisting them to increase academic achievement and to reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. Principals and their committees were to submit a proposal and budget sheet in requesting the grant. Scope and Content The Academic Progress Incentive Grant described in the Desegregation Plan was first made available to each area school principal in 1990-91 in the sum of $25,000. In the following two years, additional sums were made available - $25,000 in 1991-92 and $10,000 in 1992-93. The process to be followed was for each school principal and school committee to write a proposal. A budget sheet identifying items and cost as related to the proposal being submitted was to be attached. The plan utilizing the grant money was to be directly connected to and supportive of the school's annual school plan. The school plan was developed cooperatively by the principal and staff with parent committee input yearly. Each grant proposal was forwarded to the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Committee for review. Upon approval, the budget sheet from the proposal was forwarded to the Financial Services Department and budget codes were then set up for the individual school to use for the purchasing of items requested in the proposal. Items requested by the school were typed on requisitions and forwarded to the assistant superintendent who supervised the particular area school The Academic Progress Incentive Grant was then checked to make sure that the requisitions supported the goals of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant program: to improve the education of all students and to reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. Participants/Beneficiaries The Academic Progress Incentive Grants in the secondary area schools served both entire student bodies in some cases and identified groups in others. In the four restructured junior high schools, Cloverdale, Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest, one joint proposal was submitted, serving the entire student body. APIG Program Evaluation for Secondary Schools page 2 Mabe/vale also submitted a proposal that served the entire student body. At the high school level, J.A. Fair presented a proposal that served all students, while both Hall and Central proposed to serve an identified group of students. At Central the focus was on remediating core area skills among at-risk students. At Hall average to above average stud en ts were served, developing their leadership and academic skills to serve as models for their peers. Program Goal The purpose of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant was to provide additional funds to the principals of the little Rock School District area schools who submitted proposals indicating plans: 1. To increase academic achievement for all students. 2. To reduce disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. The Academic Progress Incentive Grant was to be offered to the principals of the areas schools each year for a period of three years (1990-93). At the conclusion of that time period, a three-year summary would be submitted (Desegregation Plan, page 82) in order to evaluate its continuance. The two goals of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant along with specific objectives to have been accomplished to assist in the implementation of these goals are as follows: Obiective One: To increase the academic achievement for identified students in the core curricular areas by providing teachers with a broad base of resources and equipment. Obiective Two: To provide varied enrichment activities that would broaden identified students' experience base. Obiective Three: To involve parents as full partners in planning at schools for identified students' growth and success. APIG Program Evaluation for Secondary Schools page 3 Obiective Four: To provide staff development activities which meet the specific needs of identified students. Evaluation Criteria The summary report of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant has been evaluated by data analysis from the years 1990-93, specifically the evaluation will consist of: 1. Sufficient resources and materials were provided for teachers to increase the academic achievement for identified students in the core curriculum areas. 2. Enrichment activities were provided to identified students to broaden their experience base. 3. Parents were involved with school staff in working together to increase academic achievement and in reducing the disparity of identified students. 4. Staff development was provided to raise staff awareness/expectations of identified students. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect information submitted by area school principals at the end of the three years initial funding cycle for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants. Obiective One: To increase academic achievement for identified students in the core curricula areas by providing teachers with a broad base of awareness and equipment. Discussion During the Academic Progress Incentive Grant period, 1990-1993, sufficient resources and materials were provided to the area secondary schools who participated to increase student achievement and reduce disparities in numerous schools. APIG Program Evaluation for Secondary Schools page 4 For the 1990-91 Academic Progress Incentive Grant period, six schools reported increases in achievement, and five schools reported reduction in disparity. Seven of the eligible schools participated in the 1990-91 grant period. For the 1991-92 Academic Progress Incentive Grant period, six schools reported increases in achievement, and six schools reported reduction in disparity. Eight of the eligible schools participated in the 1991-92 grant period. For the 1992-93 Academic Progress Incentive Grant period, six schools reported increases in achievement, and four schools reported reduction in disparity. Six of the eligible schools participated in the 1992-93 grant period. Obiective Two: To provide varied enrichment activities that would broaden identified students' experience base. Discussion The four restructured junior high schools participated in a joint proposal that involved common program components The enrichment activities included a seventh grade orientation program, easing the transition from grade six to seven\nand an after school program which included tutorial opportunities, extended learning opportunities, nutritional snacks, high interest cultural enrichment activities, a homework center, and transportation. In the other participating junior high, tutoring and field trips enriched the core curriculum each quarter. Additional study carrels, tape players and head phones were provided in classrooms. An intramural sports program and an academic and behavioral incentive program also added to the enrichment of the students' experiences. The three participating high schools also provided varied enrichment experiences during the Academic Progress Incentive Grant period to broaden the student's experiences. Enrichment experiences in the high schools included tutorial programs after school and on Saturdays, leadership development sessions, sessions designed to teach behaviors consistently displayed by high achieving students, activities to enhance self esteem of program participants, academic coaching sessions, exposure to community resource speakers, and sessions designed to establish successful relations with teachers of the participants. APIG Program Evaluation for Secondary Schools page 5 Additional enrichment experiences at the high school levels were provided through the additions of computer hardware and software, multi cultural reading materials, audio visual equipment, scientific equipment, and musical equipment. Obiective Three: To involve parents as full partners in planning at schools for identified students' growth and success. Discussion The degree of attainment of objective three is not reported in some of the reports submitted at the end of the initial three year funding cycle for Academic Progress Incentive Grants. The restructured schools report the participation by parents in the orientation program each year was quite high, with most of the 65-75% of the students participating being accompanied by a parent. The report also mentions that parents were invited to attend other programs and academic sessions. One of the high school proposals involved a parental component. This program was designed to inform parents about the program their students were participating in, to seek their comments about changes in behavior and attitudes evident among program participants, to seek suggestions for program modifications, and to provide program evaluations for future planning. These parental involvement sessions were held each year of the three year funding cycle in the participating high school. Obiective four: To provide staff development activities which meet the specific needs of identified students. Discussion The degree of attainment of objective four is not identified in many of the reports submitted by the areas schools at the end of the initial three year funding cycle for the Academic Progress Incentive Grant. Those reporting staff development activities included sessions to enhance classroom discipline, self esteem, critical thinking, and sessions explaining the expectations for the grant proposal. Other experiences included sessions on the roles of program mentors, how to provide academic and behavioral coaching, the development of testtaking strategies, and future planning sessions. APIG Program Evaluation for Secondary Schools page 6 Obstacles to Goal Attainment The goals of increasing academic achievement for all students and the reduction of disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups were only partially attained during the initial funding cycle for the Academic Progress Incentive Grant. Obstacles to goal attainment included the following: 1. Funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grant was approved near December of each of the funding years, allowing for implementation during only the second semester of each funding year. 2. Funding levels were reduced from $25,000 to $10,000 for the 1992-93 Academic Progress Incentive Grant. 3. At the secondary level the majority of the impact of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant has been in directed assistance to the development of identified students in programs after the regular school day ends. Such an arrangement limits availability of students for program participation due to extra curricular activities, family responsibilities, and employment of students. 4. Three to five hours weekly for eighteen weeks is not sufficient time to bring about the necessary academic improvement to offset the disparity in achievement levels. 5. The lack of consistency in the collection of formative and summative data, and in the analysis of said data, hamper the ability of researchers to draw uniform conclusions about the effectiveness of programming under the Academic Progress Incentive Grant. 6. There is a need in some instances to show a more direct relationship between the strategies employed in a proposal and the attainment of the proposal goals under the Academic Progress Incentive Grant. 7. Availability of parents for the planning and evaluations of Academic Progress Incentive Grants is limited at the secondary level. Recommendations 1. Continue funding the Academic Progress Incentive Grant in those area schools meeting stringent approval criteria. APIG Program Evaluation for Secondary Schools page 7 2. Make funds available in September of funding years so to extend the impact time. 3. Increase the funding level to original levels. 4. Require documentation of impact on goals by proposed strategies. 5. Require consistency in the collection of formative and summative data, and the analysis of said data, to enable uniform conclusions to be drawn about program effectiveness. APIG Summary Report School -Central YEAR GOALS RESULTS EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS 1990-91 1. To provide remediation to students 1. Failure rate was reduced from 834 to 322 1. Changes in failure rates were who are performing at or below grade after the grant was received. The A and 8 calculated. Changes in honor roll level. honor roll increased by 259. Teachers participation were calculated. Changes involved as tutors reported program in grades of program participants were participants improved performance in deficit calculated. areas by at least one grade in most cases. 2. To provide reinforcement to students who desire assistance with emphasis on time on task. 3. To provide enrichment for students who desire advanced instructional assistance. I YEAR 1991-92 1992-93 GOALS 1. To provide remediation to students who are performing at or below grade level. 1. To provide remediation to students who are performaing at or below grade level. APIG Summary Report RESULTS 1. 100 students came in one or more days for help in English. 69 students came in one or more days for help in math. 53 students came in one or more days for science. 56 students came in one or more days for social studies. No data are available on results. 1. One hundred twenty-five students participated. No data are available on the results. School - Central -page 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS 1. The number of students seeking assistance in the core areas was recorded. 1. The number of students seeking assistance was recorded. YEAR 1991-92 GOALS 1. Purchase computer to improve reading comprehension, improve vocabulary, develop independent learning skills, remediate learning, improve problem solving and critical thinking skills of students in the four core areas. 2. Reduce achievement disparity in standardized test scores. APIG Summary Report RESULTS 1. Stanford Eight scores comparison of 92 Spring scores with 93 Spring scores showed an increase in the areas of total reading and math. Total reading in 92 was 37 and was 39 in Spring 93 for the same students. Total math was 29 in Spring 92 and was 35 in Spring 93 for the same students. 2. Achievement disparity was reduced from Spring 92 levels in Spring 93. In Spring 92 the total battery scores for 10th grade was Black-28, White-58. (30) In Spring 93 the total battery scores for 11th grade was Black-31, White-56. (25) School - Fair EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS 1. The Spring 92 scores on the standardized tests were compared with the same student's scores one year later, 1993. 2. The Spring 92 scores on the standardized tests were compared with the same student's scores one year later. YEAR 1990- 1991 GOALS 1. Reduction of achievement disparity among sub groups in the student population. 2. Increase the enrollment of African American students in academic clubs and honor societies\nestablish mini grants for innovative instructional strategies\nestablish Project Promotion, a mentoring experience. 3. Improve academic performance in the core curricular areas. APIG SUMMARY REPORT RESULTS 1. Achievement test disparity was not positively impacted during the 1990-91 school year. 2. There was an increase in participation among African American students in the academic clubs and honor societies due to recruitment efforts. Mini grants were offered but none were funded during the 1990-91 school year. Project Promotion, a mentoring experience, was begun. 3. There was not an evident increase in academic performance among program participants sufficient to declare the program a success. Thirty-nine percent of the program participants increased their academic performance by maintaining or increasing their grade point average during program participation. SCHOOL - HALL EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS 1. A comparison was made in the standardized test results of African American students and others for the 1990-91 school year. These results were compared with results of the same students from the previous year. The disparity in results was not reduced. 2. Membership levels of African American students in selected academic clubs and honor societies were compared to the membership level of previous years. Project Promotion was planned and implemented. 3. Grade point averages of program participants were compared to averages prior to program participation to determine if improvement was made. YEAR 1991-1992 GOALS 1. Reduction in achievement disparity among sub groups in the student population. 2. Increased academic performance of program participants. 3. Leadership sk,1ls and enhanced self esteem will emerge among program participants. APIG Summary Report RESULTS 1. Achievement test disparity was not positively impacted during the 1991-92 school year. 2. Forty- one percent of the program participants increased or maintained their grade point averages during program participation. Twenty-four percent improved or maintained their standardized test scores on the complete battery from 90-91 levels. 3. Enhanced leadership skills and self esteem were evident among progam participants. School - Hall- page 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS 1. A comparison was made in the standardized test results of African American students and others for the 1991-92 school year. These results were compared with results of the same students from the previous year. The disparity in results was not reduced. 2. Grade point averages of program participants were compared to averages prior to program participation to determine if improvemnt was made. A comparison of 91-92 standardized test scores of program participants was made to the complete battery from the previous year. 3. Enhanced leadership and self esteem was documented through self reports, reports of parents, and observations of mentors. YEAR 1992-93 GOALS 1. Reduction of achievement disparity among sub groups in the student population. 2. Increased academic performance of program participants. 3. leadership skills and enhanced self esteem will emerge among program participants. I APIG Summary Report RESULTS 1. Achievement test disparity was not positively impacted during the 1992-93 school year. 2. Forty-nine percent of the program participants increased or maintained their grade point average during program participation. 3. Enhanced leadership skills and self esteem were evident among program participants. School - Hall-page 3 EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS 1. A comparision was made in the standardized test results of African American students and others for the 1992-93 school year. These results were compared with results of the same students from the previous year. 2. Grade point averages of program participants were compared to averages prior to program participation to determine if improvement was made. A comparison of 92-93 standardized test scores of program participants was made to their complete battery and/or basic battery scores. 3. Enhanced leadership and self esteem was documented throught self report, reports of parents, and observations of mentors. APIG Summary Report School - Cloverdale YEAR GOALS RESULTS EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS 1990-91 1. Enhance student achievement and 1. The percentage of identified at-risk 1. Documented MPT pass rates reduce disparity in academic students who participated in the After School achievement. Program funded by the APIG scored significantly higher on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test when compared with those students in the total population. 1991-92 1. Enhance student achievement and 1. The percentage of identified at-risk 1. Documented MPT pass rates reduce disparity in academic students who participated in the After School achievement. Program funded by the APIG scored significantly higher on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test when compared with those students in the total population. 1992-93 1. Enhance student achievement and 1. The percentage of identified at-risk 1. Documented MPT pass rates reduce disparity in academic students who participated in the After school achievement. Program funded by the APIG scored significantly higher on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test when compared with those students in the total population. - YEAR GOALS RESULTS 1990-91 EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS 1. Enhance student achievement and 1. The percentage of identified at-risk 1. Documented MPT pass rates reduce disparity in academic achievement. students who participated in the After School Program funded by the APIG scored APIG Summary Report School - Forest Heights significantly higher on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test when compared with those students in the total population. 1991-92 1. Enhance student achievement and 1. The percentage of identified at-risk 1. Documented MPT pass rates reduce disparity in academic achievement. students who participated in the After School Program funded by the APIG scored significantly higher on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test when compared with those students in the total population. 1992-93 1. Enhance student achievement and 1. The percentage of identified at-risk 1. Documented MPT pass rates reduce disparity in academic students who participated in the After school achievement. Program funded by the APIG scored significantly higher on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test when compared with those students in the total population. APIG Summary Report School - Mabe/vale YEAR GOALS RESULTS EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS 1990-91 1. Conduct an orientation session for 1. An orientations session was held. 1. Documented event. seventh grade students and their parents. 2. Provide an assignment notebook to 2. An assignment notebook was provided to 2. Documented receipt of materials. each student. each student. 3. Develop an incentive program to 3. An incentive progrma was instituted. No decrease disparity in disciplinary results on program impact were provided. sanctions and to promote academic excellence. 4. Institute an Alternative Classroom. 4. An Alternative Classroom was instituted. 4. Documentated operation of program. YEAR GOALS RESULTS 1991 -92 (cont.} 7. EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS Provide an assignment notebook to 7. An assignment notebook was provided 7. Documented receipt of materials all students. for each student. APIG Summary Report School - Mabe/vale-page 3 8. Provide a noon time recreational 8. An intramural program was developed 8. Documented operation of program program. and operated before school and at lunch period. 9. Add a laser printer to the computer 9. No results were recorded lab. APIG Summary Report School - Mabe/vale - page 2 YEAR GOALS RESULTS EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS 1991-92 1. Implement a Student Health 1. No results were recorded. Assistance Program. 2. Provide staff development in 2. Staff develoment was provided for all 2. Documented results classroom management, classroom teachers in the areas of classroom discipline, discipline, self esteem, and thinking self esteem and critical thinking. skills. 3. Provide an outdoor classroom. 3. No results were recorded. 4. Provide a cassette tape player and 4. Study carrels and a tape player were 4. Documented receipt of equipment study carrel for each classroom. provided for each classroom. 5. Provide a large screen television for 5. No results were recorded. the media center. 6. Provide a computer printer and 6. No results were recorded. software to the In -School-Suspension Program. APIG Summary Report School - Pulaski Heights YEAR GOALS RESULTS EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS 1990-91 1. Enhance studenr achievement and 1. The percentage of identified at-risk 1. Documented MPT pass rates reduce disparity in academic students who participated in the After School achievement. Program funded by the APIG scored significantly higher on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test when compared with those students in the total population. 1991-92 1. Enhance student achievement and 1. The percentage of identified at-risk 1. Documented MPT pass rates reduce disparity in academic students who participated in the After School achievement. Program funded by the APIG scored significantly higher on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test when compared with those students in the total population. 1992-93 1. Enhance student achievement and 1. The percentage of identified at-risk 1. Documented MPT pass rates reduce disparity in academic students who participated in the After school achievement. Program funded by the APIG scored significantly higher on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test when compared with those students in the total population. APIG Summary Report School - Southwest YEAR GOALS RESULTS EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCESS 1990-91 1. Enhance student achievement and 1. An extended health education program 1. Not stated in report reduce achievement disparity. was provided. An increase in achievement is reported. 1991-92 1. Enhance student achievement and 1. Television equipment and computers were 1. Documentation of MPT pass rates reduce achievement disparity. purchased. A tutorial program was provided in core areas. Eighth grade students who remained in the program passed the MPT. 1992-93 1. Enhance student achievement and 1. learning strategies were taught to 1. Documentation of MPT pass rates reduce achievement disparity. students. Ninety percent of students enrolled in the after school program passed the MPT. A computer with software was purchased for each department. FAST TRACK EVALUATION SECTION TWO LIBRARY /MEDIA PROGRAM January 1994 To: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY - IRC 600 SOUTH RINGO LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 January 4, 1994 Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent RECEIVED 'JAN O 3 1994 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT From: ,St-Lucy Lyon, Coordinator of Instructional Technology Subject: Fast Track Evaluation for Library Media Program Attached is the revised fast track evaluation of the library media program that includes the addition of a conclusion as the committee requested. Please let me know of any other requested changes. Purpose LIBRARY MEDIA PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description The Library Media Program supports the instructional program of the District by providing a full measure of varied instructional resources and by extending and enriching basic skills that are taught in the classroom. A variety of teaching/learning strategies are presented to students through library media center activities designed to meet a wide range of student needs. Scope and Content All elementary schools implemented the new library/media program for the District in the 1989- 90 school year. Known as REACH (Reading Extension Activities for Children), the program was based on a study done in 1988 by Retta Patrick, library n\niedia consultant, and was modeled on the Pulaski County Special School District's nationally-recognized library media program. The 1988 study showed that there were several barriers limiting the effectiveness of the District's library media program. The new program was designed to address those barriers while presenting a plan for library media services that would meet the needs of students and teachers. Additionally, the new program was to following state and national guidelines for high quality library media programs. One of the barriers limiting the effectiveness of the library media program in 1988 was the lack of reference material, books, and other resources that support the curriculum. Another resource deemed inadequate was the availability of properly working audiovisual equipment. To address these barriers a system was established for adding instructional resources to each elementary school and for efficiently repairing audiovisual equipment. Another barrier identified in 1988 was the lack of a structured, uniform, curriculum-integrated library media program. In the spring of 1989 a library media curriculum correlated to the District's reading series was developed by a team of elementary library media specialists (and one principal). The REACH curriculum sequentially presents skills for locating, using, synthesizing, and communicating information. from kindergarten through sixth level. Literary skills, introduced by the classroom teacher, are extended. Children are encouraged to read a variety of literature types, improving reading proficiency through practice. A small group approach is used and planned instruction by the library media specialist is directly related to previous classroom learning by students. The REACH curriculum was implemented in the fall of 1989 and continued to be the basic library/media curriculum until the District's revised curriculum was implemented in 1992-93. The District's revised curriculum allows teachers to use many other resources to teach reading Library Media Page 2 besides the basal text and emphasizes a thematic, integrated approach. Each library/media specialist, working with teachers in the building, has developed library/media instruction that correlates to various subject areas of the curriculum, including science, social studies, and mathematics. Library and information skills are now reinforced and extended through all subject areas. Guidelines of the American Association of School Librarians strongly recommend the concept of flexible scheduling in school library media programs. Scheduling classes flexibly allows for individuals, groups and classes to use the library at the point of need, not on a rigid schedule. In t~e first two years of the library media program, library media instruction was scheduled according to stories read in the basal reader. With the adoption of the revised curriculum library media instruction is now scheduled by half-classes in most schools to provide for hands-on experience with the many and varied library resources available. Time is available for flexible scheduling of classes in addition to a regular library time as teachers and library media specialists plan for additional reinforcing activities. Another component of the library media program is access to the library media center at the point of need. That is, students are not limited in library visits only to a scheduled class time. The library media center is available for individuals or small groups of students who need resources and information at any time in the school day. In order for the library media program to function successfully, appropriate staffing must be in place. Each elementary library media center is staffed by a full-time certified library media specialist. Each elementary library has at least part-time clerical support in the form of a library media clerk. Larger schools have a full-time clerk. Having a library clerk enables the library media specialjst to have more time for planning with teachers, instructing students, and determining needs for instructional materials for teachers and students. The many clerical tasks that must be done to maintain and promote library collections are best handled by a library media clerk, freeing the library media specialist to perform instructional duties. Program Goal The goal of the library media program is to provide each student with library/media services in accordance with the essential role outlined in the District's Desegregation Plan. Specific objectives have been developed to implement that goal: l. To provide equitable access to library resources, including multicultural and audiovisual resources for all students 2. To extend and enrich basic skills in ways that meet students varied learning styles Library Media Page 3 Evaluation Criteria The library/media program will be evaluated by comparing data from the beginning of the program through the fall of 1993. Specifically the evaluation will consist of: 1. A comparison of results of surveys administered to classroom teachers in 1988 and again in 1993 that will show: 1.1 Three-fifths instead of one-fourth of the teachers will consider themselves frequent users of the school library. 1.2 Students will have access at the point of need. 1.3 Only 1 of 10 students instead of 4 out of 10 will indicate that they seldom or never go to the library to use the library/media center materials for a class assignment. 1.4 Only 1/5 instead of 1/2 of the teachers will report that they rarely or never planned learning activities involving library media activities or skill instruction. 1.5 Major barriers or constraints noted in the spring 1988 survey will not repeat as major stumbling blocks to the program. 2. A comparison of data collected monthly that will show: 2.1 Student visits will increase. 2.2 Volume of books checked out will increase. 2.3 Indep~ndent research by students will increase. 2.4 Number of classes/groups of students scheduled in the library by teachers will increase. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect data collected from administration of the two library media surveys and from an analysis of monthly report data collected from each elementary school from the 1989-90 school year to the 1992-93 school year. Results are presented by objective of the program. Library Media Page 4 Objective 1: To provide equitable access to library resources, including multicultural and audiovisual resources for all students The library media survey was administered to elementary teachers in 1988 with 715 teachers responding and again in 1993 with 680 teachers responding. The results are presented for each of the evaluation criteria. A full comparison of the two surveys is presented in Appendix A. 1.1 Three-fifths instead of one-fourth of the teachers will consider themselves frequent users of lhe school library. (Survey Item #1) I Teachers use the library .... I 1988 I 1993 I Several times a week 26% 42% Once a week/ several times month 54% 47% Once month I once a semester 19% 9% Never use it 2% 0% Discussion In 1993 approximately two-fifths (42 % ) of the teachers surveyed considered themselves frequent users of the library instead of approximately one-fourth (26%) in 1988. There was a sixteen point increase in the number of teachers who are frequent users, and there was a decrease in the number of teachers who rarely or never use the library from 21 % down to 9 % . There was an increase in the number of teachers who use the library, but that increase did not reach the criteria of three-fifths. 1.2 Students will have access at the point of need. (Survey Item #6) Rating scale: A=Regularly B=Occasionally C=Rarely/Never D=Don't Know A B C D Students have access 88 93 88 93 88 93 88 93 throughout day, as needed 23% 47% 43% 33% 28% 14% 6% 8% Library Media Page 5 Discussion The number of students who do not have access to the school library throughout the school day decreased from 28 % to only 14 % , and the number of students who have regular access to the school library throughout the day as needed doubled (from 23 % to 47% ). Approximately one-half (47%) of elementary students do not have regular access to the school library throughout the day. 1. 3 Only 1 of 10 students instead of 4 out of 10 will indicate that they seldom o never go to the library to use the library/m~dia center materials for a classassignment. (Survey Item #7, #8) Rating scale: A=Regularly B=Occasionally C=Rarely/Never D=Don't Know A B C D Students go to library ... 88 93 88 93 88 93 88 93 full class 23% 27% 26% 36% 43% 31 % 8% 7% in small groups/ 16% 37% 36% 40% 41 % 18% 8% 6% as individuals Discussion As a full class three out of ten (31 % ) students seldom or never visit the library for a class assignment according to the 1993 survey, a decrease from four out of ten in 1988. Approximately two out of ten students (18%) seldom or never visit the library in small groups or as individuals for a class assignment in 1993. This was a decrease from four out of ten in 1988. While neither category reached the goal of one of ten, progress was made toward the goal of more library use by students. 1.4 Only 1/5 instead of 1/2 of the teachers will report that they rarely or never planned learning activities involving library media activities or skill instruction. (Survey Item #15) Library Media Page 6 Rating scale: A=Regularly B=Occasionally C=Rarely/Never D=Don't Know A B C 88 93 88 93 88 93 Teachers planning learning activities 14% 27% 44% 48% 40% 23% involving LM activities or LMC skills Discussion D 88 93 3% 2% In 1993 approximately 1/5 (23%) of the teachers reported that they rarely or never planned learning activities involving library media activities as opposed to almost 1/2 (40%) of the teachers in 1988. This criteria was met. 1.5 Major barriers or constraints noted in the spring 1988 survey will not repeat as major stumbling blocks to the program. Barrier or Constraint (# Responses) 1988 1993 Limited Resources - Books 101 33 Limited Resources - Audiovisual Equipment 67 25 Rigid Scheduling 51 2 Lack of Time 46 29 Limited space/lack of clerical staff 47 115 Absence of curriculum-integrated LM program 30 3 Discussion Only the barrier of limited space/lack of clerical staff increased in responses from 1988 to 1993. All other barriers decreased. While the barriers noted in 1988 were mentioned again in 1993, a dramatic drop in the number of teachers who listed them was apparent. Library Media Page 7 The lack of clerical staff was noted by the largest number of teachers responding to this question. Progress was made from 198E to 1993 in meeting the five criteria specified for this objective. One criteria (1.4) was fully met and the other four showed improvement. Objective 2: To extend and enrich basic skills in ways that meet students varied learning styles Data has been collected monthly from each elementary library since the 1989-90 school year. The four criteria of objective twq are evaluated on the results of that data. 2.1 Student visits will increase. Students visit the library for instruction, for research, fo\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_1193","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":["1994/1995"],"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","Educational innovations","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/1193"],"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":["490 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\nExhibit 310A\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 1 of 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION : EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 1 of 2 SEQ# 14 03 227 23 233 24 230 33 231 07 02 207 213 215 01 228 15 13 226 222 223 224 79 78 25/225 05 203 21 204 08 EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS (Alphabetical Order) Program Name Academic Progress Incentive Grant Academic Support Program Communication Services Computerized Transportation Contingencies Data Processing(deseg) Data Processing Services (non-deseg) Facilities Family Life Education/New Futures Federal Programs Four-Year-Old Program Gifted and Talented Guidance Services Health Services/Nursing Services HIPPY Human Resources Services McClellan Community School New Futures Planning and Evaluation Plant Services Pupil Transportation Purchasing Services Rockefeller Early Childhood Romine Interdistrict Safety and Security School Closings Special Education/Learning Center (deseg) Special Education (non-deseg) Staff Development Student Assessment Substitute Teacher Vocational Education (non-deseg) Vocational Education (deseg) EXTENDED EVALUATION ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT (APIG) Program Description 1990 - 1991 The Academic Progress Incentive Grant (APIG) was first made available to each area school principal in the 1990-91 school year in the sum of $25,000. The process to be followed was for each school principal to write a proposal attached to a budget sheet identifying items and cost as related to the proposal being submitted. The use of the money was to be directly connected to and support of the school's yearly annual school plan. The school plan was developed cooperatively by the principal and staff with parent committee input. All participants were in agreement that the annual school plan supported the goals of the Little Rock School District as well as the following goal objectives. LRSD Goals 1. To increase educational achievement of all students with specific emphasis on closing disparities in achievement. 2. To establish climates of educational excellence in all schools through: a) providing equitable educational opportunities for all students m a desegregated learning environment\nb) enabling all students to develop a lifelong capacity and love for learning\nc) leading all students to be productive contributors in the school, the community and the workplace d) providing a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students. 3. To enhance human relations skills for principals, teachers, and central office administrators. 1. APIG Objectives To increase the academic achievement for identified students in the core curricular areas by providing teachers with a broad base of resources and equipment. To provide varied enrichment activities that would broaden identified students' experience base. 1 3. To involve parents as full partners in planning at schools for identified students' growth and success. 4. To provide staff development activities which meet the specific needs of identified students. The grant proposals were then to be forwarded to the Academic Progress Grant Committee for review and approval. Upon approval, the budget sheet was forwarded to the Financial Services Department, and budget codes were set up for the individual schools to use in purchasing the items requested. The respective assistant superintendent over the area schools who monitored the school's annual plan would review incoming requisitions to see if the purchases requested related to the school's plan. The schools' grant proposals were slow in corning in that year in addition to many of the grants being returned to principals for revisions. Several schools were successful in receiving early approval in the first semester for the full amount. The majority of schools, however, did not receive grant approval until late January and early February of 1991 and not for the full amount. Even though the money was received on a late timeline, it did enable the schools to purchase needed equipment, materials, supplementary reading materials, enrichment trips, etc. for all students as well as providing funds for some tutoring assistance to their at-risk groups before the MPT (Minimum Performance Test) and MAT-6 (Metropolitan Achievement Test Edition 6) test dates. Considering the timeline with a week out for Spring Break and two to three weeks scheduled for MPT and MAT-6 testing, the principals were asked only to write a narrative for the grant evaluations that would be no longer than three typed pages describing the status of their grant. The report was to include: 1. Identification of local school grant goals. 2. A description of the results. 3. Identification of any proposed change for the 1991-92 school year, if possible. These narratives were attached to the school's annual report and forwarded to their assistant superintendents. 1991 - 1992 In the second year of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant, the funds were frozen the first semester of the school year. Once the funds were released, the procedures set forward for application were the same as outlined in the 1990-91 school year except for one change. 2 The school grant proposals were now to come to the assistant superintendent over the school and then forwarded to the associate's office for his signature. Principals, teachers, and parents worked together to develop tutoring schedules for their atrisk students. After-school programs and Saturday programs were implemented to assist their various targeted groups. All of this was possible because of the funds received. During this year a new standardized test, Stanford 8, was given in the place of the MAT-6 test. Principals were asked to use the same reporting format in describing the status of their grant. The narrative was to be attached to their annual school report and forwarded to their assistant superintendent. 1992-93 In the third year of the APIG, the funds were reduced to $10,000 for which the area schools could apply. Again, many of these grants were not funded until November due to the busy schedules at the beginning of the school year. The principals were to use the same format for applying and reporting as was used in the 1991-92 school year. Focused Activities - Each area school shall have a fundamentally sound and strong basic educational program. Each area school shall 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. SUMMARY: Focused Activities - The purpose of the focused activities shall be 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 will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the . school's environment and day-to-day activities. The academic performance of area school students will indicate achievement gained partially as a result of enrichment experiences provided by the core program and enrichment activities. Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extended the core curricular activities. All are:i. schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. A steering committee was appointed to chair the inservice for the principals in order to implement Focus Activities in their schools. The principals were then to establish a school based committee who would develop an activities action plan for the school year. From this action plan a checklist would be developed by the school's 3 i. ,- I' activities coordinator. The principal and school committee were to use the checklist to monitor the program. The activities coordinator would prepare a report each semester to be submitted to the assistant superintendent for review. The grant was to be reviewed by a district committee and the proposal, if approved would be granted. Program Goals The program goals listed below will ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations: 1) The grant opportunity would enrich each district's elementary curriculum to achieve greater racial balance through voluntary interdistrict and intradistrict transfers. 2) The Little Rock School District will establish an Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program, the goals of which will be to (a) improve the education of all students and (b) reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. 3) Each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will provide focused activities for the total school population including attention to gender, race and socio-economic issues. 4) Each school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members and parents are totally involved and supportive. 5) The focused activities of each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the school's environment and day-to-day activities. 6) All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. 7) All elementary area schools will be viewed by the Community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. Evaluation Criteria Academic Incentive Grant Program - The number of low achievers will decrease as evidenced by upward quartile movement on the norm referenced test. 4 Focused Activities - At the end of each school year, the activities coordinator will include focused activities in a district-wide report. This report will focus on the following items: 1) the degree to which each focused activities have been interrelated with the core curriculum\n2) the number of enrichment activities that broadened the students' experience based\n3) the amount of parental involvement\n4) academic achievement as reflected on standardized tests and yearly grade reports\n5) the racial and socio-economic composition of the student population in each elementary area school\n6) the number of voluntary majority to minority transfers\n7) the type and amount of enrichment materials/supplies/purchased by each elementary area school through the focused activities budget\n8) the type and number of staff-development activities at each elementary school. Evaluation Results Evidence from the principals' narrative reports and surveys indicate that funds received from the APIG proposal over the three-year period were used to support the school plan as \"it related to the goals of the district.\" The programs and projects were numerous and were targeted to assist groups of students as well as the total school population. The selection of targeted groups are as follows: Principals and staff disaggregate test data by grade levels. Students that are 39 NCE and below go to the Reading Academic Support Program for assistance and those students below 30 NCE go to the Math Academic Support Program. The students whose NCE scores are between 40 and 49.9 NCE have not been eligible for the Academic Support Program. With the AIPG funds, plans can be made to assist these groups of students in the area of need in addition to any of the other who are in the Academic Support Program. At the conclusion of each school year, the principals would then submit in the narrative the names of the projects that were implemented, the list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. All of the reporting schools used their funds to provide activities interrelated to the core curriculum. It is also noted that school climate surveys 5 were used to target areas needing improvement. As a result of this data, principals, staff, and parents tried hard to provide a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students. An intense incentive progr:im was implemented to encourage good behavior. There were reports made by principals, staff, and parents, and program participants of the overall positive results that they could identify as happening for the benefit of the students. However, with all of the favorable behavior changes that were confirmed, achievement data did not reflect that the grants led to the disparity reduction that had been desired. Focus Activities - The Focus Activities of each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will be integra~ed into the core curriculum or reflected in the school's environment and day-to-day activities. All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extended the core curricular activities. Evidence - Academic Incentive Grant - The percentage of elementary principals reporting that their Academic Incentive Grant funds aided in the reduction of disparity on targeted groups are on file. Focused Activities - Steering committees have been identified in the area schools. To date, four proposals have been submitted for approval. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Obj. 1.0 To implement focused activities in elementary area schools.  Not Achieved The Focused Activities grant was provided to the schools in the spring of 1994. No data has been collected. Obj. 1 To provide means of local area schools to (A) improve the education of fill students, and (B) reduce the disparitv in achievement among students of different racial, socio-economic, and gender.  Not Achieved The quality of education was improved but not for ALL children. The lateness of funding did not provide for opportunities to organize and implement model programs. Eighteen weeks (second semester minus two weeks for testing and one for spring break) was not sufficient time to bring about the necessary academic improvement to offset the disparity in achievement levels. The $25,000 to Sl0,000 for the 1992-93 APIG. 6 Time prohibited the collection and analysis of data in order to provide uniform conclusions about the effectiveness of programming under the APIG. Parental support was limited in the planning and evaluation process. At the secondary level the majority of the impact of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant has been in directed assistance to the development of identified students in programs after the regular school day ends. Such an arrangement limits availability of students for program participation due w extra curricular activities, family responsibilities, and employment of students. Also, there is a need in some instances to show a more direct relationship between the strategies employed in a proposal and the attainment of the proposal goals under the Academic Progress Incentive Grant. Focused Activities - Proposals are presently being submitted and approved for the first time during the 1994-95 school year. Recommendation: Objective: Evaluation Criteria: Expected Benefits: Impact Analysis: Resource Analysis: Recommendations It is recommended that the Little Rock School District concentrate on the implementation of its new curriculum and standards. It is also recommended that any extra remediation be supported by the Chapter I funding and the Special Summer School for K-3. Discontinue the Academic Progress Incentive Grant and the Focused Activities Grant for the 1994-95 school year. The K-3 summer School and Chapter I evaluation will be utilized for documentation. The deletion of the APIG will provide the district in assisting with budget cuts and will enable schools to concentrate and implement a more uniform curriculum across the district. This is the fifth year for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants to be offered to area schools. Obligations implemented at this time will support the desegregation plan and address court orders favorally. Some principals, parents and board members may want to assure that extra funding is provided to the area schools :or equity reasons. The district will save a total of $445,000 by discontinuing both grants. (See graph below) 7 Elementary Junior High Senior High Total Schools Area Schools Area Schools Schools (3) (25) (4) APJG $10,000 $250,000 $40,000 $30,000 $320,000 Focused 5,000 125,000 125,000 - TOTAL $375,000 $40,000 $30,000 $445,000 Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the parties involved in planning the budget for the 95-96 school year. Comments from previously principals in evaluations suggest that they will also support this recommendation. General Implementation Plans: The grant proposals will not be submitted in the 1995-96 school year budget. The Board will have to agree on this recommendation and the ultimate decision may be made by the federal courts. The programs will be evaluated at the end of this school year by the principals and the selection committee. Business Case is recommended: ___ Yes  No Plan modification is recommended:  Yes ___ No No budgetary impact. ___ _ Increased costs Decreased costs  8 Purpose ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM IN-DEPTH PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description 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 achievem~nt 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. 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 VocationalTechnical Education Center. The Academic support Program offers a variety of options to the individual schools for providing accelerated reading/language arts and mathematics learning experiences for students identified through a process using multiple criteria. The program is characterized by providing either direct or indirect services to identified students through additional classes, smaller class sizes, or in-class assistance at the secondary level and in-class assistance or limited pullout at the elementary level. Elementary Academic Suppor~ Program At the elementary level, the primary delivery method in the area of mathematics is in-class assistance for grade level 2, and limited pull-out as a possible second strategy for grade levels 3-6. Grade 1 teachers attend special inservice sessions to better prepare them to meet the needs of their students. In the area of reading/language arts, minimal pull-out is used to provide for the learning needs of students ~ith identified reading deficits for grade levels 1-6. Indirect Services Reading and math specialists are paired with classroom teachers to assist in implementing accelerated learning experiences for students with identified reading and mathematics skills deficits. An instructional program and duration of services are established for each student in order to address individualized needs. The Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 2 revised curriculum is used by the regular teacher and the reading/mathematics specialists to provide a uniform and integrated approach to learning . Schedules are developed in cooperation with the regular teacher to determine appropriate time for specialists to provide services in the regular classroom. Time is allocated for the specialists to plan and consult with the regular teacher in order to ensure consistency in student learning. This cooperative planning allows for a team effort to best meet needs of students and to prevent fragmentation in teaching and learning. In addition, this approach improves and enhances educational opportunities for these students to experience academic success in the regular classroom. Through the alternative methods for delivery of instruction, students increase their time on task, make greater gains, and maintain progress. Direct Services For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class is available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. Reading teachers focus on mastery learning and use of listening labs and computer labs to diagnose, remediate, and assess specific learning problems, using a variety of curricular approaches including computer technology. This arrangement promotes program continuity, connected learning, student/teacher bonding, and shared accountability. Data secured through individual assessment and other relevant records are used to develop the student's program and establish the duration of services. Secondary Academic Support Program Secondary schools implement the Academic Support Program according to one or a combination of the following possible approaches: APPROACH ONE Indirect Services The academic team approach pairs English, reading, learning foundations, and mathematics teachers. These paired teams of teachers jointly plan appropriate whole group instruction, small group instruction, and individual instruction for learning experiences. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation page 3 Direct Services For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class is available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. APPROACH TWO Direct Services Regular classroom teachers work to meet the needs of their own targeted students. Smaller class sizes are scheduled for regular language arts and/or mathematics teachers to allow them to provide more individual assistance for targeted students during each class period. APPROACH THREE Direct Services 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. EXTENDED SERVICES - ELEMENTARY AND 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 afterschool 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. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 4 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\nclose observance of time on task\nuse of the District's approved curriculum with appropriate materials and resources\na positive school climate that includes conveying high expectations for all students\nparent involvement designed to assure a collaborative partnership between parents and school\nproblem analysis consisting of collecting, analyzing, and disaggregating student data\nand monitoring, assessment, and evaluation. New staff members participate in development activities that assist them in use of curriculum guides as well as appropriate staff development activities for targeted students. Participants/Beneficiaries Target students are initially identified from the student population scoring in the lower 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 designate what is to be accomplished to implement the adopted goals. The Academic Support Program includes the following objectives: 1. To identify and serve students who are at-risk in reading/language arts and mathematics. 2. To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation page 5 3. To reduce or eliminate pull-out academic support programs. 4. To provide parents with the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Evaluation Criteria The Academic Support Program has been evaluated by analyzing data from Spring 1992 through Fall 1994. Specifically the evaluation consists of: 1. Print-out of eligible students is provided to local school teams. Uniform District criteria are used (Stanford 8 cutoff score and multiple criteria) to identify targeted students. 2. Personal education plans of targeted students reflect implementation of the selected school option(s). 3. Individual student folders that include a systematic collection of student work, pre and post standardized test scores, grades, and recommendations to provide individual/group/school progress are maintained for continuous student and program progress. 4. Parental involvement reflects an increase in the numbers of parents attending parent conferences and parent training sessions and visiting schools. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect data gathered from several sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and yield the following results, presented in correspondence with each previously stated objective. Objective 1 To identify and serve students who are at-risk in reading/language arts and mathematics. Each year the Academic Support Program options are explained to local school administrators and they are provided with an overview of how all of the individual Academic Support Programs are to be coordinated for continuity of services to children and efficient use of resources. Local school administrators select appropriate Academic Support Program components. I 11 I I II I I Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 6 Students eligible for participation in the Academic Support Program are identified from the District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results. Identified students are those with total reading and/or mathematics scores falling within the lowest quartile on the Stanford 8 (total NCE of 35.8 or below). Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records, are used to select targeted students from the identified population to participate in the Academic Support Program. Staff assignments are determined at the building-level and schedules are completed to ensure implementation of the selected school options. Discussion For the 1992-93 school year, thirteen secondary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while one secondary school chose the Language Arts Plus Approach and three secondary schools chose the Direct Mathematics Approach. All elementary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-1) For the 1993-94 school year, fourteen secondary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while seven secondary schools chose the Language Arts Plus Approach and six secondary schools chose the Direct Mathematics Approach. All elementary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-1) For the 1994-95 school year, fourteen secondary schools have chosen the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Direct/Indirect Approach. Seven secondary schools have chosen the Language Arts Plus Approach. All secondary schools have the Math Plus Approach with some degree of indirect services through pairing of regular math teachers with Math Plus teachers. (Appendix A-1) The District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results for the 1992-93 school year revealed that 11,955 students were eligible for participation. For the 1993-94 school year, 11,044 students were eligible . For the 1994-95 school year, 12,033 students were eligible. (Appendix A-2) For the 1992-93 school year, uniform multiple criteria were used to identify 8,173 targeted students from the eligible population to be served by the Academic Support Program. For the 1993-94 school year, 7,466 students were selected. For the 1994-95 school year, 6,296 students have been selected, using the uniform multiple criteria. (Appendix A-2) Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation page 7 During the 1992-93 school year, 2,525 students at the secondary 1evel were served by the Indirect/Direct Approach, 26 students were served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 287 students were served by the Direct Mathematics Approach. At the elementary level, 5,385 students were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) During the 1993-94 school year, 2,212 students at the secondary level were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. 466 students were served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 622 students were served by the Direct Mathematics Approach. At the elementary level, 4,655 students were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) During the 1994-95 school year, 3,230 students at the secondary level are being served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. 420 students are being served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 760 students are being served by the Math Plus Approach. At the elementary level, 4,787 students are being served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) For the 1992-93 school year, a total of 52 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while .6 teachers staffed the Language Arts Plus Approach and 6.1 teachers staffed the Mathematics Direct Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 82.4 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4)  For the 1993-94 school year, a total of 40.6 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while 8.2 teachers staffed the Language Arts Plus Approach and 15.3 teachers staffed the Mathematics Direct Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 71.6 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) For the 1994-95 school year, a total of 24.6 teachers staff the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while 46 teachers staff the Language Arts Plus Approach and 11.6 teachers staff the Mathematics Direct Approach and 14.2 teachers staff the Math Plus Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 73.05 teachers staff the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) --------------~- ----------- Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 8 Objective 2 To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. The Stanford 8 Individual Record Sheet serves as the basis for developing a personal education plan for each targeted student. The Little Rock School District Curriculum, which is correlated to the Stanford 8 objectives, is used as the curriculum in each program option at each school site. Schools are clustered for delivery of staff development and a schedule is developed to provide training to the staff responsible for delivering each Academic Support Program. Workshops are provided on the topics of specialized content area strategies, team planning, learning styles/cultural diversity, interactive teaching/learning, mastery learning, and cooperative team learning. Workshops are monitored to ensure that all topics have been addressed. Instruction and learning in the Academic Support Program settings are monitored regularly to determine student involvement, appropriateness of learning strategies and cultural diversity, creativity and resourcefulness, use of tutors, small group instruction, and extended day/week programs, teacher-student interaction, and increased student achievement and social skills. Technical assistance is provided on an as-needed basis in each of the areas monitored. TABLE B MONITORING CATEGORIES I SCHOOL TECHNICAL SCHOOL I YEAR \u0026amp; CLASSIFICATION I VISITS ASSISTANCE BASED I XEETINGS I ' i 1992-93 ELEMENTARY 413 40 24 I Totals SECONDARY 97 6 13 I i 1993-94 ELEMENTARY 241 175 4 SECONDARY 125 78 8 ! 1994-95 ELEMENTARY 175 12 47 to 12/6/94) SECONDARY 53 2 3 'Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 9 Discussion A comparison of the total number of training sessions conducted during the 1992-93 school year to the total number of sessions conducted during the 1993-94 school year reveals that there was an increase in the amount of technical provided by the reading/language and Mathematics Departments. During the 1992-93 school year, staff members made 593 monitoring visits. For the 1993-94 school _year, staff members made 631 monitoring visits. for the 1994-95 school year, 287 monitoring visits have been made to date by staff members. (Appendix B-1) Objective 3 To reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Programs. The collection of appropriate data, including pre and post standardized test scores, student grades and records, samples of student work, and parent/teacher/student recommendations, serves as the basis for targeting students to be served by the Academic support Program. These data are analyzed for each student targeted to evaluate program effectiveness in remediating student achievement and contributing to the reduction or elimination of pull-out Academic Support Program components. Discussion A three year comparison of the students served by the Academic support Program shows that the number of students decreased in four out of nine grade levels in reading and mathematics from 1992 to 1993. The number of students served decreased at all grade levels in reading and mathematics from 1993 to 1994. (Appendix C-1) For the 1993-94 school year, the Language Arts Plus Approach increased to seven schools from only one during the 1992-93 school year. Six secondary schools also chose the Mathematics Direct Approach, representing an increase of three schools over the 1992-93 school year. These changes represent a trend at the secondary level away from an exclusive Rea.ding/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach toward more Direct Approaches. The trend continues in 1994-95 as all thirteen secondary schools use the Direct Math Plus Approach and maintain the same level of Language Arts Plus that was established in 1993-94. (Appendix A-1) ' Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 10 Objective 4 To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Parents were assisted in obtaining the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school through provision of information about students' achievement and behavior, conferences about their children, and the establishment of parent/school partnerships. Discussion A comparison of 1992-93 parent activity documentation to the 1993-94 parent activity documentation reveals there has been an increase in the number of participating parents. The number of parents involved during 1993-94 increased two and a third times the rate of parental participation during the 1992-93 school year. Twenty-eight of the twenty-nine schools where data were collected showed positive gains in parent participation. (Appendix D) Data have not yet been compiled showing participation during the 1994-95 school year. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Obstacles to goal attainment are indicated by specific objectives: 1. To identify and serve students who are at-risk in reading/language arts and mathematics. Although this objective is achieved, it has not been achieved in a timely manner. Students identified for Academic Support Program service need to be identified prior to the beginning of the school year during which they are to be served. The identification process should begin in the spring of the preceding year with teacher recommendations based on multiple criteria followed by a review of each recommended student's test score results in early summer. By matching teacher recommendations and test score results, the population in need of service can be determined in time to ensure that appropriate Academic Support Program components are in place at each school site when the new school year begins. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 11 2. To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. This objective is largely achieved\nhowever, some folders are not complete because teachers do not have sufficient information to develop the plans. Individual Test Records (Stanford 8) for all Academic Support students are needed in order for teachers to develop the personal education plans. 3. To reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Programs. Although progress toward reducing pull-out components of the Academic Support Program has been made in mathematics, more work needs to be done in reading/language arts at the elementary and junior high levels. While the data reveal a three year decrease in the total number of students needing services, too many students continue to need service from year-to-year after they enter the Academic Support Program. This fact requires a re-examination of the kinds of services available to students in reading/language arts at grades K-3 and grades 7-9. Several components of the current Academic Support Program are proving successful, most notably the language arts/mathematics plus classes (Approach Three) at the secondary level. Unfortunately, only two of the eight junior high schools are currently using the language arts plus model, while the other six continue to rely exclusively on Approach One, where traditional reading classes dominate without the direct support of the English teachers. More language arts plus classes are needed. At the elementary level, too much emphasis continues to be placed on traditional reading classes as a remediation strategy at all grade levels. The data do not indicate any concentrated effort on intervention/prevention at grades K- 3, where reading skills are developed. The current Academic Support Program lacks sufficient options at these grade levels necessary for developing the skills of the immature reader. The options for the primary grade levels need to be overhauled and expanded to ensure adequate support for students who are at-risk of becoming permanently trapped by the remediation cycle. Expansion of services must include concentrated approaches such as Reading Recovery, complemented by a greater degree of cooperation and interaction between the classroom teacher and the reading teacher. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 12 4. To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Although this objective is largely achieved at the elementary level, there is a need for strengthening efforts at the secondary level. Recommendation 1 Teacher recommendations based on analysis of multiple criteria should be made in the spring of the school year prior to the school year during which Academic Support Program service is to be provided. These recommendations should be forwarded to Central Office to be matched with test results as soon as they are available in order to determine the population to be served. This population should be identified on a customized printout, designed to reconcile teacher recommendations with test cut-off scores. The customized printout would be used to determine service needs so that appropriate Academic support Program components are in place at each school site before the new school year begins. Additionally, multiple copies of the customized printouts need to be in each school. at the beginning of the school year to facilitate timely service to all targeted students. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to ensure timely identification and selection of students to participate in the Academic Support Program and to serve targeted students by developing personal education plans based on their Stanford 8 Individual Test Recordf. Evaluation Criteria Documentation will indicate that the selection and identification processes occur in a timely and efficient manner and that program teacher record keeping is complete. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 13 Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts and in mathematics. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Resource Analysis The Language Arts Office, Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, and the Data Processing Department will generate the necessary forms. The Office of Federal Programs will gather and report data so that analysis can be made. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office supervisors, director of federal programs, building principals, IRC reading and mathematics specialists, program teachers, students, and parents. There are no known detractors. General Implementation Plan 4/1/95 5/1/95 6/1/95 7/1/95 Activity Teacher recommendation based on multiple criteria. Teacher recommendation forms forwarded to Central Office Teacher recommendations matched with test results Customized printout forwarded to schools Person(s) Responsible Elementary classroom teachers, Secondary Language Arts/Math teachers Building Principals Director of Data Processing Director of Data Processing Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 14 Recommendation 2 Language Arts Plus classes should be included as an Academic Support Program option in all junior high schools. Utilization of this component would restructure the junior high school English departments, enabling regular English teachers to serve targeted students in additional enrichment classes. These teachers would teach up to four regular English classes and during the remaining periods would provide tutorial and accelerated learning experiences for all academic support students enrolled in each of their regular classes. The Language Arts Plus Program would reduce the current number of reading classes taught by additional teachers. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Program approaches by providing additional instructional time to targeted students with their regular English teachers. Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria will include personal education plans for targeted students, annual district printouts of standardized test scores, and annual reports on numbers of students eligible for service through the Academic Support Program and numbers of students actually served. Review of these criteria will indicate increased student mastery of District learning objectives, increased standardized test scores, decreased numbers of students eligible for Academic Support Program services, and decreased numbers of students actually served. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Academic Support Program In Depth Evaluation page 15 Resource Analysis This recommendation will utilize existing junior high school English department staff, while reducing the total number of reading specialists needed at the junior high level. Teachers and students will use the existing curriculum and textbooks. No additional classroom materials will be needed. force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office personnel, including supervisors and directors, building principals, teachers, students, and parents. Anticipated detractors will include reading teachers whose positions will be eliminated. General Implementation Plan Activity Person(s) Responsible 4/1/95 5/1/95 6/1/95 7/ 1 / 95 7/1/95 Teacher recommendations based on multiple criteria Teacher recommendation forms forwarded to Central Office Teacher recommendations matched with test results customized printout forwarded to schools Students and teachers assigned to Language Arts Plus classes Sixth grade teachers and secondary English teachers Building Principals Director of Data Processing Director of Data Processing Building Principals Academic Support Program In Depth Evaluation Page 16 Recommendation 3 The current Academic Support Program needs to be restructured at the elementary school level to ensure adequate support for students who are at-risk of becoming permanently trapped by the remediation cycle. This restructuring should focus on providing appropriate program components at grades K-3, where reading skills are developed. An aggressive intervention/prevention program targeting these grade levels would reduce the overall size of the Academic Support Program by mainstreaming before the fourth grade students who would otherwise continue to need the support of the current program. Expansion of services must include concentrated approaches such as Reading Recovery, supplemented by a greater degree of cooperation and interaction between the classroom teacher and the reading teacher. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support and academic disparity. Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria will include personal education plans for targeted students, annual district printouts of standardized test scores, and annual reports on numbers of students eligible for service through the Academic Support Program and numbers of students actually served. Review of these criteria will indicate increased student mastery of District learning objectives, increased standardized test scores, decreased numbers of students eligible for Academic Support Program services, and decreased numbers of students actually served. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Academic Support Program In Depth Evaluation Page 17 Resource Analysis This recommendation will require reallocating available Chapter One funds to provide for staffing needs, materials and supplies, and staff development. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office personnel, including supervisors and directors, building principals, teachers, students, and parents. Anticipated detractors will include reading teachers whose position will be eliminated. General Implementation Plan Activity Person{s) Responsible 4/1/95 5/1/95 6/1/95 7/1/95 8/1/95 Teacher recommendations based on multiple criteria Teacher recommendation forms forwarded to Central Office Teacher recommendations matched with test results Customized printout forwarded to schools Students and teachers assigned to Academic Support Program Classroom teachers Building principals Director of Data Processing Director of Data Processing Building principals I I .i :I\ni ' ' ! INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Magnet JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Henderson Magnet Mabel vale Mann Pulas}~i Heights Southwest l-.l t. Learning Ctr. ~I.,EMENTARY SCHOOLS l-.11 APPENDIX A-1 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE 1992-93 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS ONE TWO THREE Indirect/ Language Direct Direct Arts Plus X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .ppendix A-1 (page 1 of 3) MATHEMATICS ONE TWO Indirect/ Direct Direct X I X X X X I I X I X X X X X I X I X I X --- ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE I 1993-94 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO 1, Indirect/ Language Indirect/ I Direct Direct Arts Plus Direct Direct ,,, SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central X X X 1,11 J. A. Fair X X X I Hall X X 11 McClellan X X X Parkview Magnet X X X JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale X X Dunbar Magnet X X Forest Heights X X Ii Henderson Magnet X X II Mabel vale X X X II Mann X X X X Pulaski Heights X X X Southwest X X Alt. Learning Ctr. X ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS All X X I ~ I I I I ~pendix A-1 (page 2 of 3) II II - ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE 1994-95 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO THREE APPROACH Indirect Language Indirect Math /Direct Direct Arts Plus /Direct Direct Plus SENIOR HIGHS Central X X X X I J. A. Fair X X X Hall X X X McClellan X X X X Parkview X X X X JUNIOR HIGHS Cloverdale X X X Dunbar X X X Forest Hts. X X X Henderson X X X Mabel vale X X X X Mann X X X X X I Pulaski Hts. X X X ii Southwest X X X I :1, Alt. Ln. Ctr. X I II 1: ELEMENTARY All X X f.ppendix A-1 (page 3 of 3) . l READING/LANGUAGE TOTAL TESTED # ELIGIBLE Spring 1992 1992-93 Gr. 1 2,094 Gr. 2 804 Gr. 2 1,881 Gr. 3 707 Gr. 3 1,783 Gr. 4 649 Gr. 4 1,904 Gr. 5 524 Gr. 5 1,922 Gr. 6 685 Gr. 6 1,843 Gr. 7 473 Gr. 7 1,795 Gr. 8 668 Gr. 8 1,573 Gr. 9 599 Gr. 9 1,554 Gr. 10 494 Gr. 10 1,602 Gr. 11 495 Gr. 11 1,472 Gr. 12 357 Appendix A-2 (page 1 of 3) APPENDIX A-2 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1992-93 ARTS # SERVED TOTAL TESTED 1992-93 Spring 1992 700 Gr. 1 2,094 599 Gr. 2 1,881 560 Gr. 3 1,783 505 Gr. 4 1,904 570 Gr. 5 1,922 428 Gr. 6 1,843 432 Gr. 7 1,795 282 Gr. 8 1,573 142 Gr. 9 1,554 137 Gr. 10 1,602 69 Gr. 11 1,472 MATHEMATICS # ELIGIBLE # SERVED 1992-93 1992-93 Gr. 2 625 531 Gr. 3 418 455 Gr. 4 358 491 Gr. 5 324 467 Gr. 6 406 507 Gr. 7 332 284 Gr. 8 544 276 Gr. 9 621 254 Gr. 10 728 360 Gr. 11 672 95 Gr. 12 472 29 --- -- --- ------------------------ READING/LANGUAGE TOTAL TESTED I ELIGIBLE Spring 1993 1993-94 Gr. 1 1,941 Gr. 2 686 Gr. 2 1,912 Gr. 3 714 Gr. 3 1,770 Gr. 4 575 Gr. 4 1,715 Gr. 5 486 Gr. 5 1,821 Gr. 6 623 Gr. 6 1,855 Gr. 7 466 Gr. 7 1,716 Gr. 8 603 Gr. 8 1,571 Gr. 9 548 Gr. 9 1,506 Gr. 10 471 Gr. 10 1,587 Gr. 11 403 Gr. 11 1,383 Gr. 12 392 Appendix A-2 (page 2 of 3) READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1993-94 ARTS # SERVED TOTAL TESTED 1993-94 Spring 1993 514 Gr. 1 1,941 584 Gr. 2 1,912 499 Gr. 3 1,770 435 Gr. 4 1,715 475 Gr. 5 1,821 457 Gr. 6 1,855 503 Gr. 7 1,716 407 Gr. 8 1,571 195 Gr. 9 1,506 190 Gr. 10 1,587 110 Gr. 11 1,383 MATHEMATICS I ELIGIBLE 1993-94 Gr . 2 584 Gr. 3 405 Gr. 4 411 Gr. 5 197 Gr. 6 329 Gr. 7 303 Gr. 8 555 Gr. 9 539 Gr. 10 691 Gr. 11 547 Gr. 12 516 # SERVED 1993-94 366 334 360 218 324 305 354 422 335 72 7 READING/LANGUAGE TOTAL TESTED I ELIGIBLE Spring 1994 1994-95 Gr. 1 1,957 Gr. 2 625 Gr. 2 1,771 Gr. 3 663 Gr. 3 1,788 Gr. 4 666 Gr. 4 1,720 Gr. 5 493 Gr. 5 1,694 Gr. 6 584 Gr. 6 1,763 Gr. 7 561 Gr. 7 1,810 Gr. 8 627 Gr. 8 1,718 Gr. 9 608 Gr. 9 1,568 Gr. 10 569 Gr. 10 1,509 Gr. 11 414 Gr. 11 1,448 Gr. 12 416 Appendix A-2 {page 3 of 3) READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1994-95 ARTS I SERVED TOTAL TESTED 1994-95 Spring 1994 580 Gr. 1 1,952 571 Gr. 2 1,775 487 Gr. 3 1,783 382 Gr. 4 1,717 439 Gr. 5 1,687 403 Gr. 6 1,760 445 Gr. 7 1,792 410 Gr. 8 1,688 182 Gr. 9 1,564 146 Gr. 10 1,503 110 Gr. 11 1,439 MATHEMATICS I ELIGIBLE I SERVED 1994-95 1994-95 Gr. 2 548 476 Gr. 3 455 388 Gr. 4 528 445 Gr. 5 306 244 Gr. 6 356 291 Gr. 7 462 274 Gr. 8 691 378 Gr. 9 644 501 Gr. 10 770 358 Gr. 11 514 22 Gr. 12 533 1 Extended Program Evaluation Communication Services Completed by: Dina Teague Communications Specialist December 14, 1994 Program Name Communication Services Program Description: Program Purpose: To keep all publics informed of the actions of the LRSD and its programs. Scope and Content: The Communication Services program is in place to facilitate the transferrance of information between district employees, board members and administrators. and the District itself with the public. All conventional means of communications are used from telephone and written correspondence. to television production and programming. In addition to being the primary source of infonnation for community members and the news media. the communications office also provides assistance to other district offices and school building personnel. The communication services program encompasses all functions of the communications office that are not specifically mentioned in the desegregation programmatic areas. Panicipants: Participants in the communication services program are primarily the employees of the communications department: Director of Communications, Communications Specialist, Secretary, part-time COE Student Worker, and District Receptionist. All functions of the department are under the direction of the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation. Beneficiaries: District students, patrons, board members, and employees benefit from good internal communication as well as external communication with tax payers. community members, opinion leaders. and media representatives. Program Goal To suppon the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness. understanding and confidence. Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Documents available 2.0 Employee Directory 3.0 Media requests answered 4.0 Public requests answered 5.0 Internal requests completed 6.0 Clipping file 7 .0 Events completed 8.0 Bulk mailings completed 9.0 NIA I 0.0 Copy of Annual Report 11.0 Copy of videos 12.0 Board information prepared 13.0 LRSD representative on KLRE Board 14.0 Required reports available I 5.0 Documents available 16.0 Cable 4 operational, equipment up and running, Cable 4 updated, videos produced 17.0 Budget maintained 18.0 Correspondence completed 19.0 Projects in place, visits scheduled 20.0 Office maintained 2 Evaluation Results O~iective 1.0 Assist the Superintendent's office with technical writing and computer support, and other special projects, as requested. The communications staff produces various written documents such as scripts, resolutions. and letters for the Superintendent as needed. ( 1.1 J Various computer generated documents such as the district organizational chart, citations. etc. are produced on a regular basis. ( 1.2) From time to time assistance with special projects such as board photos. assembly of needed information, and meeting scheduling is provided. (1.3) Objective 2.0 Produce a district employee directory. The Communications Secretary annually gathers information with the assistance of Human Resources. She then organizes copy, secures advertising. and schedules printing of the employee directory. (2.1 ) Objective 3.0 Respond to all media requests. The Communications Director and Communications Specialist record all requests and obtain clearance from the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation to respond. (3.1, 3.lAJ When clearance is given, they gather infonnation or arrange interviews as appropriate and contact the media representative with a response. (3.3. 3.4) If necessary, requests are forwarded to the Superintendent. (3.1) All other request fonns are sent to the Superintendent upon completion. Objective 4.0 Respond to public requests for information The same procedure described above is followed unless a patron is requesting a district publication. Calendar and brochure requests are honored immediately upon receipt. Objective 5.0 Respond to all internal requests for information The same procedure described above is used to respond to internal requests. Objective 6.0 Maintain a clipping file of all education-related articles The communications office subscribes to all local newspapers and news magazines. The publications are reviewed each day and all articles related to education or to the Little Rock School District are clipped. copied and filed by date. (6.1, 6.3) A log is kept to facilitate research on a given subject. 16.2) Objective 7.0 Schedule. plan, and execute special events The communications staff plans and executes many special events at the request of the Superintendent or other administrators. Staff members often work closely with other departments such as Human Resources or the Superintendent's Office staff on these events. 3 Objective 7.0 (continued, Examples are the annual retirement pany \u0026lt;7.11 and the newly implemented winter holiday parties. Objective 8.0 Assist in district /schools bulk mailings The Communications Secretary coordinates bulk mailings of many district publications such as the calendars. recruitment surveys. and brochures. She also instructs school level employees and PTA members on bulk mailing procedures. (8.1 l Objective 9.0 Di-stribution of mail, faxes. and all internal communications The District Receptionist. with the help of the part-time COE Student Worker. operates the district switchboard and fax machine as well as distributes all district office external and internal mail. and fax transmissions. (9.1. 9.3. 9.4 \u0026amp; 9.5) They also stamp all mail and register district cenified mail. 19.2J Objective 10.0 Prepare district's Annual Repon Each fall, the Director of Communications gathers information for, generates graphics for and writes the District's Annual Report. (10.1, 10. 2 \u0026amp; 10.3) She then distri.butesthe report at board meetings and advertises the report in the newspaper. (10.4) Objective 11.0 Write scripts. edit and produce district videos The office of communications responds to all requests for video production and must rely on the teaching staff of Metropolitan Vo-Tech and the availability of their equipment to be able to create videos. Objective 12.0 Produce news releases and support documents for the Board of Directors The Communications Specialist prepares media advisories to notify the media of all board functions and advises them of agenda items or discussion topics as appropriate. ( 12. l ) Each member of the communications staff works to provide any information or materials requested by board members for their presentations. 02.2) Generally this refers to special citations presented by board members. Objective 13.0 Represent the district on the KLRE Board The director of communications attends all KLRE Board meetings, serves on the Personnel Committee. and attends special events. (13.1. 13.2 \u0026amp; 13.3 )* O~iective 14.0 Prepare required reports The communications department has prepared reports such as Coopers and Lybrand Outsourcing Report. Financial Reports. coun preparations. etc. as requested. ( 14.1 J* 4 Objective 15.U Provide technical writing support for other district departments The communications department has prepared documents. fliers. letters for other LRSD departments. such as ADA Campaign. and EPA notifications for Plant Services as requested.* Objecrive 16.0 Maintain. operate and produce Cable Channel 4 programming. The Communications Secretary coordinates all maintenance calls for equipment. (16. l l She also updates the district calendar and airs district videos.(16.2J O~iective 17.0 Preparation and maintenance of department budget and budget-related documents The Director of Communications maintains the budget and monitors department spending. 117. l l* Ol\u0026gt;jective 18.0 Correspondence to schools and community All members of the communications staff write thank you notes and letters as appropriate. (18.l l Objective 19.0 Develop and execute special projects with community group\\ No evaluation results.* Objective 20.0 General Non-Desegregation related office administration The communications staff orders supplies. maintains equipment. etc. as needed. (20.l l ,:, Please see attached memo from Dina Teague regarding these items. 5 Recommendations: No recommendations are made at this time. I feel it would be inappropriate for me as the Communications Specialist to suggest changes. Although many staff members have expressed an understanding that I am the Acting Director of Communications. an official change in title has not been made and I do not want to overstep my authority. It is my understanding that a Director of Communications will be in place in approximately one month. I feel that it would be more appropriate for the new director to suggest changes under the advisement of the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation (primary leader). 6 Addendum Program description: The purpose of the communication services program is to keep all publics infonned of the actions of the LRSD and its programs. The Communication Services program is in place to facilitate the transferrance of information between district employees. board members and administrators. as well as the District itself and the public. The communication services program encompasses all functions of the communications office that are not specifically mentioned in the desegregation programmatic areas. Participants in the communication services program are primarily the employees of the communications depanment: Director of Communications, Communications Specialist, Secretary. part-time COE Student Worker, and District Receptionist. All functions of the department are under the direction of the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation. District students, patrons, board members, and employees benefit from good internal communication as well as external communication with tax payers, community members. opinion leaders, and media representatives. Recommendations: No recommendations are made. 7 I I I I 11 I 11 I ' Human Resources Services The Human Resources Department serves the District as the focal point for all staffing functions including recrui tin9, hiring, staffing, transfers, promotions, salary schedules, benefits coordination and compliance with state and federal regulations as they apply to public schools. The Human Resources Department also serves as the unit responsible for the coverage of classes as needed with substitutes. Recommendations are listed as follows: 1. A more complete and comprehensive salary study be conducted. Preferably, the study would be done by an outside consulting firm to assure impartial, unbiased results as well as a timely study. To do the study internally would require vast amounts of man-hours from the Human Resources staff. Communications Services The Communications Services program is in place to facilitate the transference of information between district employees, board members and administrators, and the District itself with the public. In addition to being the primary source of information for community members and the news media, the communications office also provides assistance to other district offices and school building personnel. The communication services program encompasses all functions of the communications office that are not specifically mentioned in the desegregation programmatic areas. Recommendations are listed as follows: * No recommendation are made at this time 1, I II Ii I Ii I' I' Ii Ii I I I II I I I I I Evaluation criteria Specific evaluation criteria include: 1.0 Adequate service provided in support of programs. Determined by dividing numbers of requests by number provided. 1.1 All buses assigned only two routes. 1.2 Students effectively and efficiently routed to facilitate a smooth school opening 1988-89. 1. 3 Significant reduction in street address errors introduced by poor/inadequate data entry. 1. 4 No student required to exceed four blocks/six blocks walk. 1. 5 Published policies on student behavior /safety on LRSD buses. Published policies for drivers/driver aides to assist in communicating the districts' position on transportation safety procedures. Frequent meetings to address safety issues and concerns. Attendance verified through sign-in sheets. Review of supervisor's monitoring report. 1. 6 Routes generated based upon current assignment information. 1.7 Two mile list published and distributed to school staff . Add transportation policies and procedures. 1.8 Written request for student data forwarded. incremental initiated by routing supervisor. Research error listing to within 5%. Completion of first day prior to registration. Evaluation Results Census system routes Evaluation results were gathered from data available within the historical records in the Transportation Department. Objective 1. o The Transportation Department will request additional resources to help provide transportation support for evening and extended day programs. All request for extended day and evening support were honored in 1993-94. 2 ' Discussion The district has consistently requested additional resources from the state to support the M to Mand magnet programs. Extended day activities are provided based on requests submitted to the Transportation Department and the assets available to support these requests. Miles are added to the fleet each time a bus is used to support evening and extended day programs. These programs are charged a fee to cover the basic cost of the driver plus $1.31 a mile which has been established as the cost to run the bus one mile. Currently, all requests for support are being honored. In the future, consideration must be given to the impact such programs have on the life of the fleet and its primary purpose of transporting students to and from school. Objective 1.1 In 1990-91 the District reduced its number of runs from three to two. The district returned to a two run system - one elementary and one secondary - in the 1990-91 school year. Discussion The limit of a two run system determines the maximum number of routes that can be scheduled based on the number of available buses. With the expansion of the majority to minority (M to M) transfer program, resources have been redirected to support these students. For M to M students a route may be as much as 90 minutes long and the bus may stop at two or m~re schools. Therefore, these buses have only one route. Regular LRSD Buses generally have two routes. One route for elementary school is 45 minutes and the second route for secondary school is 45 minutes. Each bus, generally goes to only one school per run. Special Education buses have two runs of 45 minutes and may go to two or more schools on each run. Elementary students are usually on the first run and secondary students are on the second run. Currently, the number of students on each run varies from one to eight students, with four students as an average. This is a very expensive way to transport students. 3 I, I I I II II ,' I Some buses serve as few as four students while other buses serve 65 students. If regular route buses were to go to more than one school, some buses could be combined to free up additional assets for the regular program. Objective 1.2 LRSD has made progress in the utilization of the ECOTRAN MAPNET System. 1988-89 school opening. This item completed 06/90, and is not recurring. Objective 1.3 There is extensive work to be done in updating the geographic files, tables with the LRSD database. The number of errors found in 1993-94 were 6000 when data base was initially loaded. Discussion All new streets are added to the ECOTRAN MAPNET System based on the information provided by the LR City Engineers. When an error list is run, the street names/numbers are compared to the post office street names/numbers upon which the district data base is built. The ECOTRAN Database is changed to match the district data base. At the beginning of 1994-95 only 500 errors were initially fo~nd. An update is currently under way using November data. Objective 1.4 School attendance areas and upda~ed walk zones need to be encoded into map files. Based on the information in the data base, no student was required to walk more than four blocks to the bus if an elementary student or more than six blocks as a secondary student. Students who are within the walk zone are required to walk if no courtesy stop is provided. Discussion The Transportation Department continuously receives requests for closer bus stops than the four/six blocks criteria due to safety and supervision issues. Many parents state that four/ 4 six blocks is too far for the student to walk. Accommodating these requests can increase the routing time and require buses to go into areas that are difficult to maneuver within on large buses. Objective 1.5 (Transportation Safety Policies need to be reviewed and updated properly. Changes will be incorporated from Applicable Board Policies and Administrative Directives). Discussion The policies of the Transportation Department were governed by a negotiated agreement with the Classroom Teachers Association for the 1993-94 school year. The association lost its recognition for the 1994-95 school year. The practices and procedures were reviewed and published in the fall of 1994. Safety meetings are scheduled and conducted on a regular basis by the safety supervisors. Objective 1.6 (Assignment promotion population region tables need to be created to ensure proper student assignment). Discussion The data processing department provides tapes that are used to generate routes based on current assignment information. Objective 1.7 All school attendance areas will be encoded into the geographic tables. Corresponding walk zones will be generated for schools, all transportation policies will be reviewed and updated. The two mile lists were established after the attendance zone boundaries were encoded. The policies and procedures for the Transportation Department are shared annually with principals and assistant principals. 5 1 I II I ' Objective 1.8 An entire new stop network will be generated to improve efficiency and most economically utilize District resources. Census information provided by data processing was used to establish first day routes prior to registration. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective 1.0 Objective achieved 1.1 \" 1.2 \" 1.3 \" 1.4 \" 1.5 \" 1.6 \" 1.7 \" 1.8 \" \" Recommendations The failure of the Transportation Department to reach its stated program goal was not related to the program entitled Computerized Transportation Routing System. The factors involved manpower shortage, equipment failure, and the proposal to outsource. However, the district could profit from upgrading the system to the current edition of the software. Recommendation 1: Upgrade the ECOTRAN software and hardware to utilize the Mapnet Plus system similar to the Pulaski County School District system. Evaluation criteria: The routes prepared for the opening of school reflect the information available in the district's data base on August 1, 1995. 6 Expected Benefits: The amount of time required to route all buses for the district will be reduced. By training the staff, effective utilization of the special features in the system will enhance the routing procedures. To the degree the system is used in strategic planning, the system will allow the district to try several different attendance patterns and levels of organization based on the capacity of various schools. Impact Analysis: 1. Program. The computerized routing system will improve the efficiency of the routing process. Negatives a. The system will be down during the upgrade process and during training. Positives a. The routing process will be faster. b. The data base can be directly downloaded from the mainframe. c. The system will be compatible with the Pulaski County Special School District routing system. d. Reports can be generated concerning transported students to include race ~nd grade. e. The system can projecting attendance boundaries. 2. Desegregation Plan be used for strategic zone enrollments based planning by on varying The upgrade supports the Desegregation Plan to provide computerized routing system to optimize travel times. 3. court Orders There should be no impact on court orders. 7 I I I 4. Political factors The collaboration between the Pulaski County Special School District and the LRSD Transportation Department concerning student transportation and staff training would occur. 5. Risks There appears to be no risks to upgrading the system. The risk to not upgrading the system is not being able to use the system for strategic planning. 6. Timing Some cost savings could be realized by deciding to upgrade immediately. Also, training needs to be conducted for those individuals who will be operating the system before its full potential can be realized. Resource Analysis 1. Personnel Analysis No additional positions are needed to support this project. The number of individuals to be trained will depend upon how the system will be used. At least three individuals will receive training to support the routing of buses . 2. Financial Analysis a. The upgrade software will cost $16, 900. The cost of computer equipment to support upgrade is $5,104. If both stations are upgraded, an additional $200 will be required for the software and another $5,104 for the hardware. The total cost will be $27,308. The annual Maintenance/License fee will $1,635. b . The source of revenue would be from the current Transportation Department budget. Force Field Analysis 1. Forces For The supervisors directly responsible for routing will support the project because the time to route would be reduced. 8 Administrators involved in strategic planning should support the upgrade because it will allow them to experiment with several senecios and see the impact on student assignments when changing boundaries. The other parties who have an interest in assignment plans should support the upgrade because the software could be used to respond to their \"what if\" questions. 2. Forces Against The issue related to spending this money for the upgrade rather than saving for next year's budget would be a detractor. However, the value of being able to interface with Pulaski County School District and the increased accuracy of the routes because the information will come directly from the data base should overcome objections. I. General Implementation Plan Milestones Timeline Tasking 1. Proposal sent to Associate Superintendent 01/07/95 Cheatham 2. Approval of Proposal 02/01/95 Mayo 3. Order Upgrade of software/hardware 02/15/95 Neal 4. Installation of upgrade 03/15/95 Contractors 5. Staff Training 04/01/95 ECOTRAN 9 I I II I I\nI I I I I I ADDENDUM Program Evaluation Computerized Transportation A brief description of program being evaluated: The primary component is the Transportation Planning and Management System which is the routing and scheduling software. In addition, there is the Map Build and Maintenance System which updates the map, Census Processing which allows for matching the student file to the map file, and the Geographic Enrollment Analysis System which is redistricting software that can be used to propose modifying boundaries and test alternatives. RECOMMENDATION 1 - does not have a matching number. The area classification is Desegregation. The data used for the evaluation was located in the historical records in the Transportation Department. 10 Program Description: Purpose: Scope and Content: Panicipants/Beneficiaries: Program Goals: Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation Results: Objective 1.0 IN-DEPTI-l PROGRAM EVALUATION Non-Desegregation Contingencies Those activities concerned with maintaining a funding reserve for future operations as well as unforeseen events. The contingency fund is a reserve of funds established to provide for emergencies and expenditures that cannot be foreseen at the time of budget preparation. The contingency fund process entails the solicitation and securement of financial and other resources that may be necessary during the fiscal year to provide complete and adequate support for the District's schools and administrative sites. The contingency fund is established during the budget process based upon input from the Board, staff, and community. The allocation to fund or not fund the contingency is approved by the Board of Directors. All students and employees in the District benefit, either directly or indirectly, should the reserve become necessary to fund emergency situations or unforeseen expenditures. To provide a pool of reserve funding. 1.1 Fund balance at any point in time. 1.2 Transfer of funds. 1.1 Monthly financial reports and corresponding historical revenue and expenditure data. 1.2 Internally generated forms supporting any transfers required. To maintain a source to fund future and/or unforecasted events. I I I I I I I I I I In-Depth Program Evaluation Non-Desegregation Contingencies Page 2 Discussion 1.0 The District's monthly internal reporting format is structured to predict, based on certain historical data, the projected ending fund balance. Even though the past is being used to predict the future, a certain degree of continuity does exist. Current political events, as well as day-to-day operational happenings, must also be factored into this future projection equation. Although it is impossible to obtain the actual fund balance until all year end activities have been completed, a projection system such as we use certainly goes a long way in helping to spot trends and make sound decisions. Obstacles to Goal Obtainment: Objective I. 0: Recommendation I: Objective 1: Evaluation Criteria: Expected Benefits: This objective was not achieved due to the elimination of a budget allocation by the Board of Directors. However, the strategies to obtain the goal are an on-going process in order to maintain historical data on which to base future budgeting decisions. Continue to expand the historical data base used to summarize the past so the future can better be predicted. To maintain a reliable reporting structure for the District's fund balance (reserve pool). The objective will be evaluated mathematically based on the accuracy of the monthly projections to the actual ending balance. The District will have a more complete and broader data base on which to make future projections and decisions regarding the budget and contingency planning. Program Description DATA PROCESSING SERVICES PROGRAM EVALUATION 1 ::\nr To provide the resources (Hardware, Software, Training, Programming, Computer Operations, Hardware and Software Support) necessary to collect, store and report information on LRSD students. Information Services will provide the computer resources necessary to collect, store, and report student information in a timely and accurate manner. School and central officebased staff, parents, and students will benefit from accurate up-to-date information on students. Information Services also supports all LRSD corporate business functions and classroom technology infrastructure needs. Purpose Provide effective, efficient information service support to LRSD. Scope and Content Plan, develop, implement and maintain the telecommunications, computing and miscellaneous information services for: 1. LRSD corporate business functions\n2. LRSD student administrative functions\n3. LRSD desegregation reporting functions\n4. Classroom technology infrastructure needs. Participants/Beneficiaries 1. Each student, LRSD. 2. Each employee, LRSD. 3. Each school, LRSD. 4. Each staff agency, LRSD 5. Board of Directors, LRSD. 6. Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Program Goals To provide the programs and data bases necessary to collect and store all pertinent student information. To provide all necessary reports required to support school and central office based functions. To provide all necessary information required by outside interests. To provide timely response to all requests for information. Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Information is available in a timely manner for planning and decision making. 1.1 Appropriate hardware is available and functiona, as designed. 1.2 Appropriate software is available and functional to meet the needs of the district. 1.3 Appropriate telecommunications systems are functioning to meet the needs of the District. Evaluation Results 1.0 No, information is not available in a timely manner. 1.1 No, appropriate hardware is not available. 1.2 No, appropriate software is not available. 1.3 No evaluation results. I ,, I I I I I I I I I I I . I ' I I I I I ' I I I I I I Objective 1 To provide the necessary informational services that ensure appropriate planning and decisionmaking processes. Discussion Objectives have not been achieved. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. This lack of a comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan has significant negative input on LRSD's ability to meet goals/objectives. To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired\ninstead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria, and each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom. The probable result would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, none connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers, no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical new, expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary. Currently, each school and staff agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization, maintenance, etc. has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple formats. There are no \"hallways\" connecting these diverse automation islands. LRSD will probably survive without one elementary school, however, an information infrastructure connects/encompasses all LRSD schools, staff agencies and activities. Obstacles to Goal Attainment 1. LRSD Information Services staff is not trained or staffed for current technology. 2. LRSD lacks an inadequate information services infrastructure. 3. LRSD lacks a comprehensive Information Services budgeting and procurement strategy/plan. 4. LRSD has not correctly implemented current technology. 5. LRSD has no global corporate data model. 6. LRSD has not acquired the correct tools for efficient ad-hoc reporting. 7. LRSD employees are not trained on current technical tools. 8. LRSD Instructional Resource Center is not staffed or trained for current technology. 9. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. Recommendations Develop a comprehensive Information Services plan for LRSD. -Business cases to address obstacles to goal attainment will be prepared as a part of LRSD budget-planning process. Program Description DATA PROCESSING PROGRAM EVALUATION To provide the resources (Hardware, Software, Training, Programming, Computer Operations, Hardware and Software Support) necessary to collect, store and report information on LRSD students. Information Services will provide the computer resources necessary to collect, store, and report student information in a timely and accurate manner. School and central officebased staff, parents, and students will benefit from accurate up-to-date information on students. Information SeNices also supports all LRSD corporate business functions and classroom technology infrastructure needs. Purpose Provide effective, efficient information service support to LRSD. Scope and Content Plan, develop, implement and maintain the telecommunications, computing and miscellaneous information services for: 1. LRSD corporate business functions\n2. LRSD student administrative functions\n3. LRSD desegregation reporting functions\n4. Classroom technology infrastructure needs. Participants/Beneficiaries 1. Each student, LRSD. 2. Each employee, LRSD. 3. Each school, LRSD. 4. Each staff agency, LRSD 5. Board of Directors, LRSD. 6. Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Program Goals To provide the programs and data bases necessary to collect and store all pertinent student information. To provide all necessary reports required to support school and central office based functions. To provide all necessary information required by outside interests. To provide timely response to all requests for information. Evaluation Criteria 1.A ( Administration has received all required reports for the school year). 1.8 ( All data is accurately stored and is retrievable). 1.C (Quality reports are being delivered on time). 1.0 (Complaints are no longer being received about information not available). 1.1 (Reports are available which accurately report dropout). 1.2 (All test results are stored in the computer and are reflected in pertinent reports). 1.3 (All available student achievement data is stored and reported as requested). 1.4 (Attendance data is accurately stored and reported to the state with minimum manual compilation). 1.5 (Discipline data is accurately entered and reported as required). 1.6 (Student assignment data is stored and all reporting requirements are met). 2. (The District requirements for computer resources are being met). 2.1 (All employees requiring access to student records have access to terminals) . 2.1.A (The computer system has the capacity-disk, memory, print, speed, and processor speed meet peak demands). 2.1.B (At present time, the performance and monitoring tools that were implemented are being evaluated). 2.2 (All necessary software is installed and functioning properly to collect, store and report information in a timely and accurate manner). Evaluation Results 1.A No, report backlog frequently exists. 1.B No, data is not easily retrievable cannot ascertain if it is accurately stored. 1.C No, reports are of poor quality and not timely. 1.D No, complaints reference information availability are still received. 1.1 No evaluation results. 1.2 No evaluation results. 1.3 No evaluation results. 1.4 No, manual intervention is excessive. 1.5 No, reporting is cumbersome. 1.6 No, reporting is cumbersome. 2.0 No, LRSD computing resources are not adequately addressed. 2.1 No evaluation results. 2.1.A No, computing resources are not adequate. 2.1.B 2.2 No, software does not properly collect, store and report information in a timely and accurate manner. Objective 1 Data Processing (Information Services Department) will provide the necessary support for all school and central office based functions. Objective 2 Data Processing Department (Information Services Department Staff) will have the capacity to respond to District needs as required by District goals and state and federal laws such as grade distribution and the ability to identify students and cohorts of students. Discussion Objectives have not been achieved. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. This lack of a comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan has significant negative input on LRSD's ability to meet goals/objectives. To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired\ninstead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria, and each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom.  The probable result would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, none connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers, no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical new, expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary. Currently, each school and staff agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization, maintenance, etc. has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple formats. There are no \"hallways\" connecting these diverse automation islands. LRSD will probably survive without one elementary school, however, an information infrastructure connects/encompasses all LRSD schools, staff agencies and activities. Obstacles to Goal Attainment 1. LRSD Information Services staff is not trained or staffed for current technology. 2. LRSD lacks an inadequate information services infrastructure. 3. LRSD lacks a comprehensive Information Services budgeting and procurement strategy/plan. 4. LRSD has not correctly implemented current technology. 5. LRSD has no global corporate data model. 6. LRSD has not acquired the correct tools for efficient ad-hoc reporting. 7. LRSD employees are not trained on current technical tools. 8. LRSD Instructional Resource Center is not staffed or trained for current technology. 9. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. Recommendations Develop a comprehensive Information Services plan for LRSD. Business cases to address obstacles to goal attainment will be prepared as a part of LRSD budget planning process. IN-DEPTH PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description: Facilities service includes resources to identify, plan and execute maintenance/repair programs equitably so that Little Rock School District students can receive efficient, functional and effective education. Specifically, facilities includes maintenance programs to maintain/repair all District facilities in an equitable condition commensurate with financial resources and District priorities. Purpose: The purpose operation's necessary to critical as management. Scope and Content: of the Facilities Program is part of the base costs to maintain the buildings and grounds support the educational mission. This program is it encompasses all aspects of real property The Facilities Program encompasses the repair of all existing facilities, grounds and other real property, the maintenance thereof, new construction to support academic initiatives, all real estate actions to include leases, purchasing of property, selling of property, easements, grants, rights-of-way and licenses. It is extended to include the base operation costs of utility payments covering electric, water, gas, refuse, entomology and any other miscellaneous services. It includes long-range planning, responsibilities with regard to new construction, maintenance, acquisition and closing of facilities. Participants/Beneficiaries: The Facilities Program is a base operations program that supports all persons that work for the Little Rock School District, are educated by its programs, or visit its facilities. Program Goals: To equitably maintain and repair facilities to support academic programs, student enrollment and administrative support, the Little Rock School District is comrni tted to insure for all students equitable educational facilities and schools which are located in lower socio-economic areas shall receive attention and resources at least equal to those in more affluent areas in the District. l Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria for the objectives listed in the Facilities Program consists principally of historical records indicating requests and completions of maintenance and repair work. The evaluation criteria is geared.specifically to the objectives as outlined in the Desegregation Plan, Court Orders and ODM Reports. They do not require a relative measure of success, but merely to report numbers of requests made and completions and the percent thereof. Evaluation Results: There is no measurable scale of success against which the evaluation can be made. The objectives reported in the Facilities Program Budget Document, as stated previously, merely report the percent of completion of requests made of the Facilities Program. There is no set goal that can be equated to measure this quantity. The amount of work completed has too many variables to establish a set percent to be achieved in any given reporting period. This is due to the complexity of the requests, the nature of the requests, the total number and the resources allocated to complete that goal, coupled with the priority. Objective U: To maintain all school facilities such that they are in a safe, operational condition, and to repair, as necessary, commensurate with resources. Discussion #1: The overall level of success indicates that we have met our objective on all reporting periods. It is to be reasonably expected that the percent completed of the items listed under \"Strategies\" will vary commensurate with the amount of work and the resources allocated these initiatives. Since there is no measure of success or pre-determined percent which must be completed, one can only assume that all work that could reasonably be accomplished during the reporting period was done so, and all uncompleted work will carry forth to the next reporting period. Objective t2: The capacities of junior high schools will be reviewed in light of needed programs. Such capacities will then be revised as necessary. Discussion #2: This objective was met in 1993 and later evaluated in 1994. It will be recommended that this objective be deleted from the Program Budget Document. Objective #3: Concrete walks and macadam drives will be in good repair. Discussion #3: This is a subjective evaluation. The numbers of requests made, and the numbers completed, are what is reported. It is not possible to establish a desired level of completion because the work is received at various times during the reporting period such that the complexities of scheduling and allocated resources will vary the completion rate. Objective #4: New public address systems and bell systems will be placed in buildings where such items are not repairable. Discussion #4: Almost eighty percent (80%) of the requests made during the last reporting period have been completed. This is a program, like others, which is ongoing and which will be funded commensurate with approved funding levels. Objective #5: Any school which has portable buildings will have these buildings replaced with new units or repaired so that they will be in a condition suitable for use. Discussion #5: Sixty-two percent ( 62%) of the work requested of the Directorate was completed during the last reporting period. Objective #6: All school construction shall be subject to the Court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation. New construction must be approved by the Court. l Discussion #6: This is an ongoing strategy. There are no requirements pending at this time. There is no need for further evaluation of this objective. Objective #7: Modify building space to increase library capacities at Mitchell and Garland, purge the shelves of outdated, well-worn materials at Mitchell. Books most frequently used by the Four-Year Old Program, Kindergarten, and First Grades could be permanently placed in the individual classrooms since those grades are all housed in structures that are detached from the main building. Discussion #7: The portion of this objective allocated to the Facilities Program was completed in 1992. Objective #8: Franklin: Repair or replace the roof on each level of the building. Replace all ceiling tiles damaged by water leaks. Repaint interior walls as needed. Discussion #8: Most of these repairs have been completed. The ones that have been requested have been attended to. This building is scheduled for painting during School Year '94 - '95. Objective #9: Garland: Determine the feasibility of adding bathrooms on the second floor of the building. Increase the size of the Media Center and relocating the building's main entrance. Discussion #9: This assessment and report was completed and filed in 1992. No further evaluation is needed. Objective UO: Ish: Professionally evaluate the structural condition of the building and correct the many problems caused by the leaking roof. May be necessary to add a new slope roof. Unsightly classroom bathrooms would be repaired at once by those qualified to deal with asbestos. Exterior lighting should be repaired or replaced and the building's trim painted. Once the roof no longer leaks, the entire interior should be repainted. Discussion #10: This objective was completed and reported in October of 1992. Objective Ul: Mitchell: Correct the drainage problems and then replace the water-damaged carpeting in the GT room. Address the shortage of Media Center space, possibly by adding bookshelves to the second floor hallway near the Librarian's Office which is located in a kiosk area. Also consider adding more shelves to create storage space within existing Media Center. Discussion f 11: This requirement requires no further evaluation. It was completed in 1992. Objective #12: Rightsell: Eliminate the moisture problem at the school. Professionals with restoration experience involved to help solve problems of the final Playground should receive major improvements additional age appropriate equipment. Discussion -#12: should be building. including This objective does not require further evaluation since it has not been completed. Objective #13: Rockefeller: Install a new heating and cooling system if the effectiveness of the present system is not corrected by the recently-replaced room thermostats. Discussion #13: This assessment was made and the correction was completed in 1992. Objective -#14: Stephens: Stephens' objective is to be deleted since the school has been demolished. l Discussion #14: NIA Objective #15: All seven (7) incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, the custodial staff should be trained in proper plant care. Many Little Rock School District schools have lost mature plantings to improper and over-zealous pruning by District workers, or from under-watering in times of summer heat and drought. Discussion #15: This is an ongoing problem. Guidance has been given the facilities. It will continue to be monitored. There is no level of success against which this objective can be measured. Objective #16: Give the incentive schools priority in the District sequencing of capital improvement projects since doublefunding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. Buildings must be sound, attractive and well-maintained. Discussion #16: This objective was met when the capital improvements project was prioritized in 1990. Objective #17: The District has stated it would make adjustments to the Omaha Formula to meet the needs of buildings like McClellan that have special needs. Discussion #17: The custodial program is accountable by the Omaha Formula which is used by this District to proportion its custodial resources to its many facilities. This program is evaluated on a periodic basis. Every time there is an addition or  change to a major facility structure the custodial structure is re-examined. It was last reexamined in December of 1993. It was submitted to the District and approved. Adjustments were made. The custodial program, at the present time, has sufficient manpower resources to meet its permanent needs. Temporary custodial needs, however, must be addressed by a separate correspondence. Obstacles to Goal Attainment: There is one principal obstacle to the desired goal attainment of an equitable Facilities Program, and that is resources. The Plant Services Directorate is far below the national and regional averages, and as such, falls further behind as its backlog of maintenance and repair increases on a yearly basis. The amount of work identified district-wide to keep our buildings in a good state of repair, and at an educational standard to support our programs, is mounting every year. With level or decreased funding each year, the backlog continues to increase. It is only through a higher funding level that we will be able to maintain our facilities to meet our operational needs. Recommendations: The Facilities Program, as reported under the Program Budget document, provides no guidance nor equitable measure to the Superintendent or Board of Directors on the success of the Facilities Program. This is something that is not measurable. The bulk of the Facilities Program is reacting to requests made by Facility Managers. As those requests are made, they are prioritized and they are funded. The addition of funds and resources would most assuredly allow more work to be accomplished by having it first identified, scheduled, and then completed. Without the resources to further identify additional work, it is not possible to identify how much work could be scheduled, and hence completed, thereby determining additional resources. Many of the items in the Facility Program Budget Document have been completed, and it has been recommended that they be deleted from this program. Recommendation #1: My recommendation would be to restructure the way the School District assesses its facilities. The bottom-line effort of the Little Rock School District is two-fold: 1) To maintain all of its facilities in a safe and orderly fashion to meet the goals of its educational program. 1 l DCE/rlh/pe 2) To insure that the resources allocated the Plant Services Director are equitably spent such that no schools are given favoritism for resources over others. The establishment of the priority system, which is in place at the Plant Services Directorate, insures that this happens. It is only through outside pressures and perception of conditions in the past that the Facilities Program of equitable spending is sometimes off-balance. I would recommend that additional resources be given the Plant Services Directorate, such that they approximate at least the regional or national average of the CWE per school district to allow it to maintain its facilities to meet the goals as stated above. A business case recommendation is budgetary impact. is recommended. The overall likely to have an increase in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1) The program being evaluated as outlined in the desegregation portion of the Program Budget Document specifically identifies i terns in the Desegregation Plan and Court Orders and ODM Reports that do not give an overall view of the Facilities Program. The Program Budget Document merely responds to specific areas of concern and does not adequately see nor measure the Facilities Program. The Facilities Program is general engineering support to the entire district. As stated on page one of this document, it encompasses all aspects of the engineering program to support the many facilities. It goes far beyond seventeen (17) specific items as outlined in the Budget Document. 2) The data that has been used to analyze this program is simply a tally of work order requests as made by the Facilities' Managers and as recorded by the Plant Services Directorate. All recommendations listed here are considered in the support area. 3) There are no desegregation funds allotted the program under the Little Rock School District budget. This is not a prudent area to be reported, nor commented on for the purposes of monetary programming. DCE/rlh/pe Program Name: Family Life Education (New Futures) EXTENDED EVALUATION DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis 2 Secondary Leader(s): Linda Young Rene' Carson PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The Family Life Education Program was implemented eight years ago to address the teen pregnancy problem in the Little Rock School District. An educational program was written and begun in the seventh grade eight years ago. Two specialists were hired to teach the junior high program. A module for grades 4-6 was written and begun in five schools. A K-3 program was later written and begun. The staff had increased to four elementary specialists and two junior high specialists at that time. currently, all of the Incentive Schools participate in the program along with the seven area schools and two magnet schools. The staff now consists of two elementary specialists, two junior high specialists, and a half-time coordinator. Purpose: The Family Life Education Program was designed to give the students of our District the correct information regarding their reproductive health, strategi~s to raise self-esteem, help formulate decision-making skills, and develop a feeling of individual importance. Scope and Content: The Family Life Education Program in the District (grades 4-7) has a spiraling curriculum. Each year the program has the following outline: I. Self-esteem II. Decision-making skills III. Communication skills IV. Reproductive Health V. Pregnancy and Birth (7th grade only) Participants/Beneficiaries: All seventh grade students in the District participate in the Family Life Education program through the seventh grade science class. The material is offered in a three week block of instructional time and is taught by two specialists who have received training. There are approximately 2500 seventh grade students served by this program. All incentive schools (five) are involved with the program, along with two magnet schools and eight area schools. Two thousand fourth and fifth grade students are served by the elementary program. PROGRAM GOALS: Family Life Education focuses on the developmental needs of children by addressing the areas of decision making skills, communication skills, self-esteem, and reproductive 3 heal th. The goal of the program is to help children make good decisions which will affect their future well-being. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The program's overall goal is long term. A reduction of or no increase in the number of pregnancies occurring in the district is an ideal goal. Overall good decision making skills shown by the students at school reflects on whether the program has had an impact on students. EVALUATION RESULTS: Evaluation results are based on results reported from Health Services. Objective l.: To provide Family Life Education for the Incentive Schools in grades l.-6 as a part of their Health and Physical Education Program. Discussion l.: Family Life Education is currently being taught in fifth and sixth grades in all of the Incentive Schools. Due to a reduction in staff only fifth and sixth grades could continue to receive instruction. Last year there were no elementary pregnancies in the Incentive Schools. Prior to 1991.-92 there were 15 elementary pregnancies reported by the school nurses. During the 92-93, 93-94 school years, only 2 elementary pregnancies have been reported. Objective 2: To provide Family Life Education for other targeted schools in the Little Rock School District. (7 area schools and two magnet schools) Discussion 2: Nine other schools are involved in the Family Life Program. Carver and King are the two magnet schools that are involved. King was added at semester last year. The area schools are Baseline, Watson, Geyer Springs, Cloverdale, Wilson, Terry, and Fulbright. Two specialists teach the program in all of these schools. Last year there was one elementary pregnancy in the nine school which this program serves. There were three pregnancies reported among students in these schools during the 90-93 school years. One of these students was raped and later reported this incident to the school nurse as a result of activities in Family Life class.The other students came to our District from other schools outside the District. Two of these students had not fully participated in our program. The nurses worked with these students and helped the each one receive necessary medical attention. 4 Objective 3: To provide Family Life Education in all of the Junior High Schools in the District through the seventh grade science classes. Discussion 3: All seventh grade students in the District receive instruction in the Family Life Education program through a three week module taught during their life science class. The classes are taught by two trained specialists. Pre-tests and post-tests have been given to students by the specialists each year since the program has been in operation. With very few exceptions, the students have scored higher on the post-test than the pre-test . Students have also written a verbal assessment of the program. Representative colllll\\ents from the students are as follows: \"Thanks for helping me understand some things about myself.\" \"I never knew about some of things we talked about, and I was embarrassed to talk to my parents about these things.\" \"I appreciate being taught about how to think about making good decisions.\" \"I am glad we had special teachers, I think it would have been hard to ask my regular teacher about sex and stuff. They might think I was bad or something.\" Comments from teachers: \"I don't think I could have taught this material to my students. I am not up-to-date on the information needed for this class. The students ask so many questions that are really specific. I would hate to give them the wrong information. It was probably best that a specialist came and taught my classes. I was able to observe my students and help with the class. I also learned a great deal about the human body.\" \"Thank goodness for special teachers. I am not comfortable teaching this topic. I probably would not have done a very good job because this topic is very difficult to teach.\" \"Our students need this program. I am glad that the District has made a commitment to have special teachers, nurses, and counselors work with our students with issues such as l 5 decision-making, and emotional and physical changes.\" Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective l: This objective was met for three years, however, due to a budget deficit the staff was reduced. Currently, only the fifth and sixth grades classes continue to be served by specialists. These specialists do not have the time to serve the remaining fifty (50) K- 4 cl~sses along with the classes in the other nine schools. The counselors and nurses have received some training in the area of Family Life Education and were supposed to help teach the curriculum in the lower grades. Many of the counselors and nurses have not set aside the amount of time to teach the program as the specialists did when they were assigned to teach in the lower grades. The continuity of the program is not as evident as it was in the past when the same specialist saw the students over a period of time. The specialists worked closely with counselors and nurses in identifying younger children in possible child abuse situations. The Heal th Advisory Committee of New Futures has proposed an after school program to address postponing sexual involvement or those students targeted as \"at risk\" students. \"At risk\" students have low grades/self-esteem or have mothers who became pregnant as teens or have teenage siblings with babies. The program has not been initiated, but members of the committee have attended a training session. The program will hinge on volunteer efforts and students choosing to participate in the after school program. Objective 2: This objective was reached for three years. Two magnet schools and seven area schools continue to be served by the Family Life Education program. However, due to budget cuts and staff reduction, the services in these schools have also been reduced to just the fifth and sixth grade students. King Magnet School was added to the program last year because many of the students who were attending Ish Elementary enrolled at King. The counselor and nurse participate on a limited basis with the Family Life teacher. Due to the limited availability of the nurse, the problems encountered by the counselors, a complete and thorough program is not always taught in the lower grades. The nurses and counselors have both been involved in staff development 6 regarding family life education, but they often become involved in other school programs which take priority. Objective 3: The program in the junior high schools continues to be taught by two trained specialists. The program continues to be part of the LRSD science curriculum. Every student is held responsible for the program's objectives and is tested on all of the material. Teachers have continually praised our teachers for the excellent program and the professional way the classes are taught. Many have expressed appreciation for the program. Recommendations Recommendation 1: Reinstating the program to grades K-4 would be the most desirable recommendation for the Incentive Schools, but under the current budget constraints this is not a feasible suggestion. Since many of the students in these schools could benefit from attending classes where decision making skills, problem-solving skills, and discussions regarding reproductive health are discussed, implementing the program being studied by the Adolescent Health Advisory Committee and continuing the staff development program offered for the nurses and counselors would be the best recommendation .. Objective 1: Adding personnel to the Family Life Education staff would allow all classes in the Incentive Schools to receive the entire Family Life Education program. Since increasing the staff would cause an increase in the budget for the total program, adding personnel is not an option. Implementing the after school program and expanding staff development opportunities for the nurses and counselors is the best solution for this objective. Evaluation Criteria 1: Continuing to see an extremely low pregnancy rate among the students in these schools would be one effective criteria to use to evaluate the students exposed to our program. Having the students and teachers evaluate our program at the end of the year would give us some input about what the students and teachers think about and want from the program~ Expected Benefits 1: Preventing any child from an early pregnancy would benefit the child, family, District, and State. The AFDC benefits per child per year in the State is $2,290. From birth to 18 years the state spends $41,423 per child. Long term savings would be much greater. ------------------------ 7 Impact Analysis: Desegregation (Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p.156) This recommendation will assist the district in continuing to meet its obligation under the Desegregation Plan. Resource Analysis: The combined salary of the two specialists who teach the program in the Incentive Schools (but also teach in area/magnet schools) totals $58,561 plus travel expenses. Approximately another $2000 is spent on office supplies and copy expenses. The salary of the half-time coordinator is $22, 982. The total salary of the elementary specialists represent approximately 42% of the total salary budget of $137,690 for the Family Life Program. Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this program are the parents, teachers, administrators, nurses, and counselors in the school. General Implementation Plan: Ideally, returning this program to the full level of implementation would be an asset for the students in the Incentive Schools. Realistically, budget constraints prohibits this option. Retaining the program at its present level in all of the Incentive Schools is better than elimination of the program. More training needs to done with the counselors and nurses in the area of Family Life Education. This will be done during the spring semester. Recommendation 2: The program in the two magnet schools and the nine area schools should be maintained at the current level of service. Continuing service at the current schools would keep some consistency for the students currently enrolled. Objective 2: Program at the two magnet schools and the nine area schools should at least be maintained at the current level of service. Counselors and nurses need further training in the Family Life Education program and should document the time spent teaching the objectives of the program. This training will be done during the spring semester. Evaluation Criteria 2: Maintaining an extremely low to zero pregnancy rate in the elementary schools would be the ideal criteria. Teachers 8 and students could evaluate the program using a very specific questionnaire. Expected Benefits: Preventing any child from an early pregnancy would benefit the child, family, District, and State. The AFDC benefits per child per year in the State is $2,290. From birth to 18 years the state spends $41,423 per child. Long term savings would be much greater. Impact Analysis: The program in the magnet and area schools is not part of the Desegregation Plan. However, many of the schools have listed the program as part of their school improvement plans. Resources Analysis: The two specialists who teach the program in the Incentive Schools also teach the program in the magnet and area schools. The combined salary of these two specialists total $58,561 plus travel. This is approximately 42% of the total Family Life budget of $137,690. The junior high specialists also teach in three of the area schools. One week each month, the junior high specialists teach in the elementary schools. One-fourth of the salaries of the junior high specialists is $14,036. The total salaries for the complete elementary program is $72,597 or 52% of the total Family Life salary budget of $137,690. Office supplies and copy cost still fall within the $2000 amount listed in objective 1. Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this program are the parents, teachers, administrators, nurses, and counselors in the school. Recommendation 3: The Family Life Education program has been a strong component of the seventh grade science program and should continue to be taught by specialists. The two specialists have been able to maintain a strong and upto- date program. Continuation of this program with the current delivery system is very important. The program/content would be eliminated or possible taught incorrectly/improperly if the program is turned over to the regular classroom teacher. Objective 3: This program should be maintained at the current level of support. Two specialists I 9 are employed to teach the classes in all the seventh grade science classes in the District. The two specialists teach approximately 2500 students. Evaluation Criteria 3: Keeping the teen pregnancy rate at a low level would help support the idea that Family Life Education has had an impact on the decision-making processes for the junior high teen. The program will continue using the survey form for both the students and teachers. Expected Benefits: Preventing any student from dropping out of school due to an unexpected pregnancy would be a cost effective benefit. Arkansas ranks very high among states in teen pregnancy statistics. The overall goal for this portion of the New Futures Program is to reduce the pregnancy rate among our students. The chart of statistics for pregnancies in our district shows that the number of pregnancies last year was the lowest in seven years. Our program is now seven years old. Impact Analysis: Postponing sexual activity or preventing an early pregnancy would have an impact on the district as well as the State. Reducing the number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancies, or the number of low birth weight babies which later becomes a burden on State welfare roles could be an ~conomic factor which needs to be considered. The AFDC benefits per child per year in the State is $2,290. From birth to 18 years the state spends $41,423 per child. Long term savings would be much greater. Resources Analysis: The salary of the two specialists who teach the program in all of our junior high schools plus four other elementary schools totals $56,147 plus travel. Seventy-five (75%) percent of this salary or $42, 110 can be designated as salary expense for the time spent in the junior high schools. The salary for the half-time coordinator is \\$22,982. Office expenses for media, copy cost, and printing of classroom materials is approximately $4,000. 10 Force Field Analysis: The parents, teachers, administrators, nurses, and counselors in the schools are very supportive of the program. To place this program in the hands of the regular classroom teacher could be disastrous. There would not be sufficient control over what is said by the instructor, what videos are shown, or what is allowed to be discussed in the class. This could cause the program to be destroyed. Many of our students would never receive the correct information about their reproductive health, and the myths about sexual behavior will continue to be perpetuated among our teens. I Grade/Race 5th grade African-American 5th grade/White 6th grade African-American 6th grade/White - 7th grade African-American 7th grade/White 8th grade African-American 8th grade/White 9th grade African-American 9th grade/White 10th grade African-American 10th grade/White 11th grade African-American 11th grade/White 12th grade African-American 12th/White Total LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PREGNANCY STATISTICS 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 3 2 3 2 * * 0 0 * * 7 8 * * 0 l 56 82 25 20 * * l l * * 31 40 * * 2 5 * * 60 56 * * 6 7 133 146 54 38 * * 7 4 * * 39 42 * * 13 8 186 230 248 232 91-92 92-93 93-94 l 0 0 0 5 0 l 0 0 0 3 8 5 0 0 l 18 20 17 0 0 l 32 35 29 3 3 2 38 51 27 4 5 5 38 48 30 5 7 6 27 44 38 8 8 12 181 230 174 * For the 87-88, 88-89 years - pregnancy statistics not recorded by grade and ethnic groups. 11 12 General Implementation Plan: Beginning in January, 1995, the following activities will occur: Date January, 1995 May, 1995 June, 1995 August, 1995 Sept., 1995 Activity Staff development for Nurses and Counselors Survey teachers, nurses, counselor, and students about issues in the FLE program staff development for specialists, UAMS (no cost) Begin program in schools Staff development for nurses and counselors Persons Responsible Family Life Ed. Staff Family Life Ed. Staff Coordinator of FLE Family Life Ed. Staff Family Life Ed. Staff I 13  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 Purpose FEDERAL PROGRAMS PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description The Office of Federal Programs is a department of the Division of Curriculum and Learning Improvement. Compensatory and support services are provided to students by funds secured through federal, state and other agencies. Scope and Content Program operations are categorized in two broad areas. First, the department develops, implements, monitors and evaluates programs: Chapter 1, ESEA, 1965 - Amended 1994 Chapter 2, ESEA, 1965 - Amended 1994 State Compensatory Education Programs Act, 1990 Eisenhower Math/Science Education Act, 1982 - Amended 1994 Chapter 1, ESEA is the centerpiece of programs in the department. All program services are designed to provide a range of needs and contribute specifically to that effort in areas of early intervention, supplementary reading/language arts and mathematics, and parental involvement. For some students, funding programs contribute to opportun\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_1216","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":["1994/1995"],"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","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School employees","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/1216"],"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":["50 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\nExhibit 310B\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 2 of 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 2 of 2 NEW FUTURES EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description Purpose New Futures Pagel In addition to the enrichment programs, Dunbar is a full participant in the New Futures for Little Rock Initiative. (The purpose of the New Futures junior high school restructuring initiative is to establish a school climate, culture and curriculum that is responsive to the developmental needs of early adolescent youth and the particular needs of at-risk students. ( Dunbar is not a participant of the program. This information was filed with the court in a motion to substitute language and provide updated information on May 13, 1993 and approved in a court order dated September 13, 1993. Scope and Content The program focuses on the development and implementation of (1) school restructuring which engages teachers and administrators in the long-term process of expanding their thinking and engage in basic and fundamental changes around issues that affect how they teach and support all students utilizing site-based management, (2) developing and implementing middle school practices and programs, (3) developing and implementing specific intervention programs and practices for at-risk youth through school improvement which may be based on the Effective Schools research. Participants/Bene~iciaries This program impacts the total school community including teachers, students, staff administrators, and parents at each New Futures school. The schools participating in this program are Cloverdale Junior High, Forest Heights Junior High, Pulaski Heights Junior High, and Southwest Junior High School. Program Goa.l I The first goal of the New Futures program is to assist local schools in the process of fundamental change and school reform to redesign schools that can provide success for all students. Specific objectives have been developed in order to specify what is to be accomplished to implement this goal. New Futures Page 2 1. Two heterogenous, interdisciplinary student teams that share a common group of teachers, common space, and common blocks of instructional time for 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students will be established. 2. Incentive programs and partnerships with community businesses to encourage and reward achievement, attendance, and good citizenship will be developed and implemented. 3. Homework Centers will be operational through the After School Program. 4. Tutoring opportunities will be available to students needing assistance through the After School Program. 5. In-school suspension programs will be developed and implemented as an alternative disciplinary response to suspendable actions. Evaluation Criteria The evaluation for the New Futures program will consist of: 1. Student team rosters, identifying team names, agendas, and participant evaluations. 2. Team documentation will reflect program implementation and numbers of students involved. 3. Student participation rosters, implementation of hotline program. 4. Student participation rosters. 5. Alternative disciplinary response to suspendable actions. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect data gathered from various sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and provide the following results, presented in correspondence with each previously stated objective. Objective 1 Two heterogenous, interdisciplinary student teams that share a common group of teachers, common space, and common blocks of instructional time for 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students will be established. New Futures Page 3 At each participating school, the master schedule was developed to provide for two heterogeneous student teams at each grade level. Registrars provided a team roster to each team leader at the beginning of the academic year. No team is 100\\ pure referring to the fact that there are approximately 10-30 students out of a total of 120-150 students on each team that one or more classes on both teams. Each school is designated into team geographic areas either by floor, ramp, or wing. These teams have all the core team classes within a small geographic area. Student team lockers are assigned within this team geographic area. Students move out of the team area for related arts classes and lunch. Team areas are decorated with the team name, bulletin boards, calendar, logo, or theme. All teams have team names, logos, Tshirts, and other identifying strategies. Examples of team names are the WOW team (7th grade:PHJli)\nSkyriders team (7th grade:PHJli)\nPirates team (7th grade:SWJli)\nRed Hots (6th grade:FHJli). See attachment l. Teams have a common planning period each day in which to meet together to discuss student problems, hold joint parent conferences, meet with individual students, develop interdisciplinary units of instruction, and to develop incentive programs for students. All teams maintain team agendas/minutes to serve as a record of their activity. See attachment 2. Steering Committees were established as a way to enhance the teacher leadership being developed through teaming and as a way to begin the practice of effective shared decision making at the local level. Comprehensive training was provided to steering committee members, assistant principals, and principals. Models and decision making models and flow charts were provided as guides in the process. Steering committees maintained minutes and established a self-assessment process to guide the work and process. See attachment 3. During the 1993-1994 school year, staff development activities were conducted to assist local schools in the process of fundamental change and school reform to redesign schools that can provide success for all students. Evaluations of each activity were completed and compiled for review. Participant feedback was positive with 99\\ of the evaluations expressing complete satisfactions with the activity. See attachment 4. Date 7/23/93 Topic Strategic Imperatives _of Restructuring (5 days) Personnel Selected Staff 9/23/93 8/9/93 8/10/93 8/12/93 9/14/93 8/3/93 8/12/93 8/12/93 8/12/93 10/8/93 10/13/93- 12/01/93 10/14/93 10/19/93 10/20/93 10/27/93 11/9/93- 11/10/93 12/14/93- 12/15/93 School-Based Decision Making (3 days) Leadership Training Designing Knowledge Work for Student Success (2 days) Writing Process (2 days) Integration of Skills Understanding At-Risk Youth (2 days) Cooperative Discipline ((2 days) Developing and Implementing Peer Mediation Programs (2 days) Developing and Implementing Advisor/Advisee Programs (2 days) Making Language Meaningful (2 days) On-site technical assistance ( 4 days) Reading Process and Semantic Webbing School Based Decision Making School Based Decision Making Process Communications ( 2 days) Designing Knowledge Work Designing Knowledge Work New Futures Page 4 s t e e r i n g Committees Team Leaders All Staff L e a r n i n g Foundations staff L e a r n i n g Foundations staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff L e a r n i n g Foundations staff Selected Staff Principals Assistant Principals Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff 11/10/93 11/7/93 1/18/94 1/19/94- 2/23/94 2/15/94 1-/27/94 3/10/94- 3/11/94 4/5/94- 4/8/94 4/15/93- 4/16/93 School Based Decision Making Collaborative Teaching on-site technical assistance ( 4 days) Designing Knowledge Work ( 6 days) Process Communications Making Language Meaningful Peer Coaching Implementing Peer Coaching Network Leadership Retreat New Futures Page 5 S t e e r i n g Committees Selected Staff Learning Foundations Staff Selected Staff Selected staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Principals, Ass't Principals Team Leaders Conference participation was provided for local school staff primarily through funding from New Futures for Little Rock Youth as follows: 8/14/93- 8/18/93 8/20/93 7/18/93- 7/24/93 11/4/93- 11/7 /93 3/10/94 4/27/94- 4/29/94 12/5/93 National Conference Selected Staff on Peer Mediation UALR Conference of Peer Selected Staff Mediation Middle Level Summer Selected Staff Institute Conference participation selected Staff and presentation at National Middle School Conf. Conference:Drugs,Gangs Selected Staff Violence and Guns Arkansas Middle Level Selected Staff Conference National Restructuring Board/Staff Conference Discussion 1 New Futures Page 6 The results indicate a 100\\ successful implementation of the objectives. A review of the data reveals that interdisciplinary teams functioned effectively. outcomes of teaming include an increase in parent conferences with several teams reporting more than 150 documented team/parent conferences\ndevelopment and implementation of interdisciplinary uni ts across teams and schools\nsite visits by school districts from across the state\npresentations and training provided to other school districts on interdisciplinary teaming\ngrant received by the Carnegie Foundation for one school through the middle grade school state policy initiative for schools who had successfully implemented most of the recommendations of Turning Points\norganizational structure well developed and initial capacity for replication developed\nknowledge gained through training and conference participation resulted in implementation of innovative programming and academic development in which student outcomes were improved\ncollegial support for organizational structure articulated by teachers, local school administrators, parents, and students. A climate that supports innovation, collaboration, and change has been established and reflects the developmental growth experienced i-n these schools. Objective 2 Incentive programs and partnerships with community businesses to encourage and reward achievement, attendance, and good citizenship will be developed and implemented. A Young Professionals Club at Southwest Junior High School was established in cooperation with AP\u0026amp;L Redfield Power Plant to achieve the following objectives: help each child develop a worthwhile self-image by helping he/she find their identity, help all students understand the concept of pride, reduce the number of suspensions, strengthen academic achievement in underachievers, and improve communication skills. The club is open to 7th grade Pirate team students and meets during lunch under the guidance of the Pirate teaching team. A total of 65 students (35 boys and 30 girls) participated. During the first nine weeks, there were zero suspensions for participating students. The third nine weeks there were a total of 3 suspensions for participating students. This program has received national and state recognition as a model program. The Breakfast Club was established by the Wings Team, an 8th grade team at Pulaski Heights Junior High. The club serves all 8th grade black male students. The club meets on a monthly basis during first period. The focus of the group was to raise self-esteem, serve as a mentoring program, and provide motivation to increase academic achievement. Community speakers were invited to present New Futures Page 7 to the group during each meeting. Students were involved in follow up discussion. Assistant principals reported that there was a noticeable decline in the number of disciplinary sanctions against black males since the beginning of the breakfast club. The number of failures was reduced from 7 black males in 1993 to l black male in 1994. This improvement reflects the goals of the Breakfast Club. A Peer Mediation Program was begun by the Wings Teams after receiving training in developing and implementing such a program. Twenty-seven students were trained as Peer Mediators. The students successfully mediated with approximately 110 students. The targeted groups of the program are the student mediators and the students involved in a dispute who participate in the mediation. The student mediators completed two full days of intensive training. In addition, they met with the project coordinators on a weekly basis to further define their skills and help promote the program in the school. These weekly sessions provided an avenue to process the mediations that had taken place so that concerns and weaknesses in the program could be addressed. This portion of the program was integrated into the After School Program. This type of program is nationally recognized as an effective way to reduce conflict and focus on violence prevention. Discussion 2 The interdisciplinary teams across the schools developed and implemented various unique incentive programs to encourage and reward achievement, attendance, and good citizenship. Generally, most teams designed the incentive programs for a nine week period. Teams involved parents by invi~ing them to special ceremonies and assemblies. Teams recognized improvement as well as achievement. Teams also developed extended incentive prograI!lllling and partnerships as the examples above describe. Teams worked with the Parent and Comm~~ity Involvement staff to identify students in need of special services and include their parents in the Family Support Net Progra~, TOUCH Program, GED Program, and HEAL Program. Over 180 students and their families have bee~ involved in these various programs. Teams identified students to participate in an innovative summer program for high risk youth. This program served a dual purpose: practicum experience for teachers on working with high risk adolescents and summer programming for identi~ied s~udents. These students are woven back into support programming such as the after school program, HEAL groups, and case management during the academic year. Objective 3 Homework Centers will be operational through the After School Program. New Futures Page 8 Student participation rosters were maintained for the after school program. Students participated in academic programming, high interest club activities, and the homework center. Transportation and a nutritional snack were provided. The program was operational three days weekly. See attachment 5. Implementation of a hotline program was not implemented as a city wide program is available to students each evening. Discussion 3 The after school program provided students with opportunities to receive additional academic instruction, access to research and reference materials, special enrichment experiences and participation in high interest club activities such Video News clubs, chess clubs, community service clubs, music and theatrical clubs. Transportation was provided for students in this program as well as a nutritional snack. Cloverdale participated with UCA in a teacher preparation program that was included into the after school program. Objective 4 Tutoring opportunities will be available to students needing assistance through the After School Program. Through the after school program, tutoring opportunities were developed and implemented for students. The primary areas of focus were math, reading, and writing skills. Before testing, students participated in test preparation sessions. Some peer tutoring was also included in the program. Discussion 4 The opportunity to receive additional instruction is needed and beneficial for many students. Many of the students in these schools do not have conducive study environments at home nor the support reference materials to complete certain assignments. This program provides at-risk students with an additional opportunity to achieve academic success. Objective 5 An in-school suspension program will be developed and implemented as an alternative disciplinary response to suspendable actions. As an intervention strategy to assist in keeping students in school and continuing their academic work, the in-school suspension program was developed and implemented for category one offenses. Processes have been established to facilitate the communication of student assignments between the teaching staff and the in-school suspension teacher. Quarterly records were maintained noting the New Futures Page 9 number of students assigned to the program, parent contacts and counselor conferences. Quarterly participation ranged from 66 - 143 students each nine weeks. See attachment 6. Discussion 5 The objectives of the in-school suspension program include helping students accept the consequences for their actions, evaluate his/her behavior, and to modify social performance. The program has been successful in keeping large numbers of students in school and continuing their academic work. Teachers and counselors have supported the program by sending assignments in a timely manner and by participating in conferences with students and parents when necessary. The number of repeaters is low compared to the number of students participating ( less than l0t). Ob~tacles to Goal Attainment Objective l The objective of establishing interdisciplinary student teams that share a common group of teacher, common space, and common blocks of instructional time was attained. The computer process used to schedule students onto teams does not provide adequate support for achieving a minimum of students assigned to both teams. Cross teaming of students presents certain programmatic difficulties. More flexibility in the scheduling process would assist in decreasing the problem. Objective 2 The objective of developing incentive programs and partnerships with community businesses to encourage and rewa:::-d achievement, attendance, and good citizenship was attained. Objective 3 The objective of operating homework centers through the After School Program was attained. Objective 4 The objective of providing tutoring opportunities to students needing assistance through the After School Program was attained. Objective 5 The objective of providing in-school suspension programs as an alternative disciplinary response to suspendable actions was attained. Program Goal 2 New Futures Page 10 The second goal of the program is to promote collaboration/ coordination between local school and other youth serving agencies in the community. The following objective was developed in order to specify what is to be accomplished to implement this goal. 1. A school-based case management system will be operational. Evaluation criteria 1. There will be an increased number of students receiving needed services reflected in case management data reports. Evaluation Results Objective 1 There will be an increased number of students -receiving needed services reflected in case management data reports. Since January 1991, New Futures for Little Rock Youth, in partnership with five youth-serving agencies and the Little Rock School District, has sponsored a pilot program that has offered Case Management services to high-risk youth attending targeted junior high schools in the Little Rock School District: Cloverdale, Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest junior highs. Discussion 1 A team of four Case Managers was formed at each school comprised of youth worker employed by community agencies with expertise in addressing problem areas faced by young people, including adolescent pregnancy and parenting, substance abuse, adolescent mental health, youth employment, and poverty. Executive directors of participating agencies and principals of participating schools meet monthly as an advisory, \"roundtable\" to oversee implementation strategies, monitor program activities, identify program strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations for improvements in service to youth and their families. A New futures staff person, the CMST Coordinator, is assigned to each school to organize the functioning of the CMST. See attachment 7. As of August 1~94, 75% (547 out of 734) of the youth who had received on-going case management services showed improved circumstances at case termination. During the 1993-1994 school year, almost 500 youth participated in 27 various school-based support groups, led or co-facilitated by Case Managers. Case New Futures Page 11 Managers organized 26 typed of special events involving 600 at-risk youth participating in the program during the 1993-94 school year. A report of New Futures goals and objectives for the program and results are included. See attachment 8. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective 1 The objective of providing more services to students through the case management system was attained. Recommendation 1 It is recommended that the efforts of the New Futures program be focused on maintaining and supporting the current programming at Cloverdale, Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest junior highs and expanding the focus of the program to include supporting and assisting in the development of the district wide middle school planning/implementation process. This recommendation would capitalize on the developed capacity at four junior high schools within the district to support a middle school transition and serve as a planned method of capturing and utilizing the existing resources that exist within the district to support future program efforts for adolescent age students and students at-risk. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to maximize existing capacity within the district at the four junior highs to support institutional change in the area of middle school organization. Evaluation Criteria Existing practices of maintaining team roster, team names, agendas, team documentation, and participant evaluations will be followed. Expected Benefits The District will maintain its collaborative efforts with New Futures while utilizing the benefits of the relationship and the resulting capacity development within the district to support a district wide program which supports school reform and benefits atrisk students. Impact Analysis New Futures Page 12 This recommendation will provide a plan for the district to sustain established capacity while developing a middle school organization across the district. It provides a framework for the district to continue to base planning program development on research and best practice. Resource Analysis The current resource allocation to the existing program will be sufficient to implement this recommendation. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters for this recommendations will be the local school staffs and New Futures Board of Directors. General Implementation Plan 1/95 4/95 4/95 5/95 9/95 - 6/96 Activity Utilize existing capacity to assist middle level planning Meet with principals to examine scheduling needs to maintain teaming Continue staff development efforts Work with data processing to provide support Continue existing programming and support middle school planning Person Responsible New Futures Liaison Selected teachers and principals New Futures Liaison New Futures Liaison New Futures Liaison Principals New Futures Liaison Local school staff ' 1993 Interdisciplinary Teams Cloverdale Jr. High ~ 7 Wonders Untouchables P.A.w.s. Superstars Navigators AirFrosh Forest Heights ~ Red Hots Super 7's Wave News2 Gold Royals Green Royals Pulas~:i Heights ~ Skyriders w.o.w. Firecrackers Wings Superstars A Team Southwest Jr. High Team 7 S.A.I.L.S. Pirates Motionaires Terminators Super Novas Spurs nachaent 1 teau93 Team Leader Trish Poore Tammy Gullett Sue Smith Charles McFadden Nancy Hawking Bill Estes Team Leader Glenn Holloway Nancy Cross Ginger Tuck Leigh Cole Dan Drew Melinda Beggs Team Leader Sammy Grandy Ann Blaylock George Coleman Carol Kaffka Sam Steuart Wayne Knight Team Leader Sherry Lack Bettie Williford Chris Kline Jake Tidmore Charles Moore Jackie Falls Grade 7th 7th 8th 8th 9th 9th Grade 7th 7th 8th 8th 9th 9th Grade 7th 7th 8th 8th 9th 9th Grade 7th 7th 8th 8th 9th 9th I H!NUTES CF TE~H HEETI~G Ti:AM\n, .., Y,A~ (, ~J \\, ..... L . ~( : -1\\--i' ./ ,I IL.., '.  \\ -- , .. ' I ,f  \\ I )\n(,-fj TIHE rm, -~ef2-4-1T-i:-. _-) -,- ------- TEAM LEADER 1-i.....f, 1rj,. -_~c_ _ F RES ENT: L\\,~ I t(,-,,..~ ..\\. - r:,\\ 1 7  :{,-..,-1,-J t.-.C: .{ A c_ __ - -:(. , ...... \u0026gt; t,_, ... , y \\ -    J{..f 11,  1 ., lv _____ OTHERS PRSENT: ----------- -=.j.. -J_ ,)r_:...C_f I_?_/ _  ________ .J\\),z-,i-.,_~_j,{_ -,,_\u0026lt;JJ\"/\\. J.__,rr-c(!h. ( Ot,u'\\ ~~ (':-',,'\\.\n{{,cf.! ( -C L--::. -.__:,t_( ~ ... .,,e 1c .\"\\ \u0026amp; (,, ~('c, , ~A.,t c\\ G .,-., .. ~.4{\u0026amp;.  tcfF.. ,.., ~-i .c. ~.'lt?t ] ---------------------------------- - ------------------------------ --------------------------------- ---- - t\", ,.ll,J i :_.::, ,f L: r J C. .:.,1 1-1~:.i ihG ftff . .JJ ) #:9!/rf4 C/ ) Jo \u0026lt;{S-DATE TIME -.L..~'-\"-+'~\"--:--------- ~ l p / ------------------ OTHERS PRESE:HT: 11~ s (. v~ ~ ~~ c~ '. - ~r~~ ,: cO _t.fj::. cl, i.k Vr, ~\\, ho. .... , ~ry- -~~~.,\n::\n...\n...-....\n...-.\n._______,.,....~~--~-_,_ _. .\n_\\.-\"\"_~ (_ _\n_~-,,-\u0026lt;'\u0026gt;_ _\n...,~f~-1 ~-y,f- f#f.~\"', e,(:L))A..f- 6.. e-M 1ft cOl,R/r u L 1 lf --------------------------- --- ) SKYRIDER5 TEAM MEETING JANUARY 26, 1994 1 1 :00 A.M. / ROOM 307 AGENDA 1. MINUTES FROM HIE LAST MEETING c'.iJ...1,,\u0026lt;t lo..te. ~?cv\n.,-, c. aJ 2. STEERING C,OMMITTEE ME~TING ( TODAY )~ Ge~ C,.c,~t-J tr.a!:~ --~ :- St-\u0026gt;c~-=- c..1.o,-a.1cs it..1J'(:'u.Yi1T?,-s GFIY\\.(..~i r vs Cof'y\"-'\\_, O\"'o.-.J\u0026gt;rA- -,r,. :~ -~--.l,-,-L.:.~ - n,\n,, r~1c~. - Sc:c.: 1=, -Mf- . 3. ABOUT FACE ASSEMBLY - 4. DETENTION CENTER ASSEMBLY 5. BLACK HISTORY COMMITTEE 6. TARDY COMMITTEE 7. FUNDRA I SER pv-k . 8. ASSIGNMENT NOTEBOOKS 9. USE OF TEAM MONEY 10. INTERDISCIPLINARY TEACHING -Ceq~ tf 1~ 1 1. HOMEWORK BASH 111\n).Q OC\u0026gt; .ef-\n-{ ..,, , , 12. STUDENT CONFERENCES 13. OTHER ) MINUTES OF TEAM MEETING J/l d --z /,'rl) DATE ~,-,.- 'J. \n.I/ _j_ / TIME TEAM LEADER~ ___ .. MEMBERS PRESENT:~LO\"\"\"...,n'.\n.f ____ _ u ',0'33 ( \"T\nQQ\u0026lt;-Yj QI f.Q' ._-, ::_ __________ . .j A5enda 0 Mi md cs -t,ofY) } as1 we e.k.- ------. AZ .. SOtmiWEST JUNIOR HIGH SOiCOL STEERIJ\\IG C'CM-!ITI'EE MEETING N\u0026lt;NE11BER 11, 1993 AGENDA I. OLD BUSINESS - REPORTS FRCM CCMMITTEES A. PURPOSE/VISION - KLINE/MOORE B. ROLES/EXPECTATIONS - BARNES/COLEMAN/MUNNS C. PRcx::ESS - TICMORE ( (!.::,,-1~,.._.5.,.s) /Ut.3 D. INTERRELATIONALSHIP 0-!ARTS/GRAPHS - FALLS/WILLIFORD/BOLDEN ('IO BE PRESENTED NEXT 'IHURSDAY) II. NEW BUSINESS A. EQUITY MONI'IORIJ\\IG - DECD1BER 9 , 19 9 3 - SMI'.IH ..,. 8 /!JNC, {:,1~ B. ASSIQ.MENI'S FOR STUDEI.TS IN ISSP - BARNES.- I STEL/!-1L, ,v/\nc:.,.,.._n-.H'T\"i.E /f. R~fo5E- 1/2:. SJ~ ,v - ,Ct Po 1\u0026lt;.-r _,,,..,,, 14:, / j/JvC' ~IC -:t. r )fervu2. fc.~'-l A-r,.JI) ~C,\nU',1-.t -\n, /V F, ~ - -- 5\n-ak.,.r-f ~ CtJ#f PK/ TTE /II vu ~672--S: . ... Ms, . n/,-.1,. 1 5:. . r . . ft(~. g ,f-lT.,,./c-~ ./t(Jz. /\u0026lt;L1r-le Ak5, .)1LL1,Fr:llzb ft{Jz5. Ct:JLEM~ /ti t , r-,,,, L-L. S'.-~ - 7,:-\"\"J~-'7kc ,M/zL /soi...JE\"~ ,\nJ\u0026amp;.u~f/ ~1-~r/i37'l...S t,vli-l- ,t3E ,::Jv'T 7?.)/\n,\n'!Af -\nSLE-vfSc /11-5_\n/1/2.\u0026gt; \u0026amp;r-J 7L:J \"/~ fit~~\nZ c /J ok rs ,F}a\n,,v-- (!.LJ//'. vt.,, 77Ee...5 .A, )\u0026gt;u,z?~s./Vi'S1t\nr,.i - Mk.f-::.L1,-.J 5af7\"~'\u0026gt; L.\\.uE TD r1-/-6 Ms5,-,0eE ~F ,\n,1-.JE- J'r 7?/5,..k:. n-t ~/-\u0026amp;E::,h _ A / Fv. I.-'-- /z:.Yo.kT b-_,) 1 /....I..- AG\" Ou ...,. c3,,J ,.If 7 /'/1 t.. ~n=A= M?c.,, 1/4\"' l::\u0026gt;16 67/VC M-~ ovt:?k.1,r11:,Je 6., /z.aL-17~ /~ /\u0026gt;e~r,,-1 ~u,,...,5 - // t:o/'Y .o\n=- ,7?\n/c /z,\n-/\u0026gt;l'hZ.7 t,,vd:S 6, t v'c-7' 7o ,M.,/?1--//BGks rkE5t:.-=-7T ~ ~ ) /U) c..~ ., pt.(~, ...i 5. )L.e-4. b / r r 0 ~c.5 7\n, ,-...1 5 (/.J/37'z. ,!:3-1'.J 7-k.7/1/rJ\u0026amp;-_L) c /t/)c.s~ b'-.J11... .\n,/r~k\u0026lt;l ~ C,\u0026amp;,,..\nc.E-,t,...J wA-\u0026gt; 4-hl::}il::\"ss\u0026amp;~ ~r /ll\u0026gt;-61-~6- 7o '7/\n ,G.\u0026gt;c/'c~,~~l:5 1,,1.\n..\nh5k.... 7~ l-C,+h1t,--=h.s - 1~. ,4--s.s,,s.r v\u0026lt;J/r,,y\nr,,y,e ()\u0026amp;,/5Lc?E\nr\u0026lt;JT er- T~ d-~~A,, ,d/k, Jl--ct?J~.k-G\" 5/,,f-7236 b'Jlr~ ,,1 /\u0026gt;\"'1kE?\u0026lt;.)7 ,,,.~\u0026amp;. /S.. ?kcse/..J r -Wcr ~ 11c ~ L...D 2.E c:\n, ~v b-1 ,4 t.v/\u0026gt; y -r,::\n1:,/V,\"1-/ / N: vU tft7rdGt.. 7 tY ?7 //ff1/8 /'f7\u0026lt;J Y ~ uz\n=s 7\nc .,....:,~ ,::\n1:-_ -5\n,,t\u0026amp;.6:=E,/ o,,us\n~ t,,, ? lc.OC,ES5- 11,,(k, r f\u0026gt;pz,tc\n,,~c :Sr~?'E-.1::i M- l-.et\u0026gt;okT ~OvlL-~ AE 4v\".\n111.-ML AT /I L,,?l'\"E/C 6/1-TE: //411~. }!-L-1/J~ /JU\nbS'~~_s /\n-/J\u0026gt;I-T /i1/r bF.crS:ro...J . i l 1 II MA--/L,rJ6c. Fok~A-T ~/~,?\n1-1../.-/) BG 8- /~T r,tJk\n,:.r..ef L/ D //0,5uk. r#?fr C-,o~b'z,,._J~~~ut:...S /IA-.c 41\u0026gt;Jkc~~z=d ./  A-, tJk.bElc.L '( /t,,(~,tA.J,1--)f\n-k_ b \"\n:\n:\n.\nr\u0026amp;kkLA-v\u0026amp;?/'-'Sh\"o\u0026amp;l c' ,y/l-k:r5/\u0026amp;kA/-)//~ - //4.Ji L (... ~ t3 ~ lz ES\u0026amp;-:.\" c:-..2::. .4T A- L.\"'17 z::-.k 2.) A-TE f.\nJ GvJ lg t.\u0026lt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt;-,-/,,.J~\u0026lt;,. _!\n. .,4. Gf,u1 ry fllo~,r~k,,~k - DE-f\"'J. '7 ~w~, Svtt/n:,/ 5 / ,/-7'c32) //1/d T 7 ~ :=\u0026gt;ij-,:JU L ~ //~ -cv'\u0026amp;e,yT/// Al::\"t_ /,,.) /\u0026gt; L/lt-~ rkri.)1t. /Z' mdr br1 Ti=.., .:Srr-5 /4!3 Ln 7c-~ -r?rE / ~,,,.( /,!?k~c.E ,t)r LJc\n~ ~ ,gJ v\u0026amp;-~ 7\"tf /Z.E?Ob/~.T ~ ~b .5ukc //'4-f-T Ji= /1-,+vf. --U-JL~ (!_Ake t)F bcr/C:re,\u0026lt;-Jc=,-E-_s ,..._Jo~d\n~~~ v1511~/z.5 ~.1/-y A,E ?lcl3-5G\u0026lt;JT ,,,f-r ~\ny 7/~c ,? /l rt\u0026gt; k I c 771-c ,/4.,{ c ,\n-,, Tc:: k,, ,\n.-\u0026gt;6__. fs. /4'5\u0026gt; S r~,J/Mr\n~T.:S Ft:Jlr- 57ub~T.S. 1,,J -L-~ S ,r- /1,( ~. ~4-)~E-S. f/-A5 ,,f,s/t::E~ 7\"/r'~ r ~.-,/.//- /.'.'.'.G,/~,,b /ZhU//04 7\u0026amp;4-e..tVE..r~.5 TZ ,P,~v,6,e ,,-15S/~~G\"'C5 p,-J If kc6~ L,4k ~,1-s /\n. .l,,P/7'c~ /WJ?/AC:Avc,,J -~ /\n--~ Gi:\u0026gt; / .,.J Yi?~ .8.o.x.. t'/4\"',..z. 4{\"c))it Su.?_.-A.?7.k ,,. c=...6 -m,,. s A Y 1s,k-,,,,cJt5-r.,,~/4_ 1,A) /,1/E :5~c ~~,,,VL\u0026amp;t,..,._J /=-kb,L,J- /x'k.. C#EW?7~ .fJff .d/k\u0026gt; - ?~/?\n./ #-~ ,,f- /z:E~.Rw.~.Jbr??.tJ..-J 77#-r 7fi n-1 /T #FcA, \u0026lt;,w:f\nt\nPb,\n,? ~ }z~~.Gl\u0026gt;,,,,-v.a,...J /:\u0026gt;d-e,,.e.13-~ t/4-J /5i3 ~~t:\n=-_l) -0 /,'G~r ::5 7.w.b~zs '?/4,,+e77e SIL t-L~ A-~JJ ~/rE-~,,T C\nf-rJ ,g c G, ,//5?\"-J: -\n~- yU ~ E\ne..r\nFak._ ,4-/',PkoyA -L , _JJ7:- .!Uh. 1- u,.J~ ,P,1s5~ tf/L,t_ 'T $1,JFo~7r~_,,..j t9\n-) A-/=!Ek!\u0026gt;t::/.,t.oaL- r Jz o 6-,.k l}-y-v-- ,4--,,J ~ /3\n\u0026lt;.~ 5 c ff Eb K L. ~ s . ,, Ii I 1. Knowledge Work Project Total Evaluations 1993-94 /-Irr. '1 This group has facilitated my teaching techniques and ideas to another positive level. I believe only in the workshop atmosphere with other teams, could we have learned, been motivated, and expected to achieve the success we so desired. Meeting once a month was a constant and motivating factor in addressing new and innovative ways for kids to achieve emotional, social, as well as educational success. 2. The entire workshop on the whole was informative and creatively delivered. Sharing with teachers from other schools and our own gives a dynamic twist to it. The workshop presented a lot of thought and interaction. I really recommend that it be offered again. Since a few teachers dropped out due to the time consumed, perhaps a statement of their involvement when recruiting would help reduce dropouts. 3. 4. For the workshop as a whole, I've learned some new strategies to teach the work, and that I was already doing some of the strategies in my classroom. It's good to learn something new, but it also feels good to know you're doing something right. What a confidence builder. When planning units and activities I try to build in some of the qualities we have learned about. I think this has been very good for me personally. I believe the information gained is very useful and am excited about sharing it with others in my building. Personally, I would come to this training after school but I don't think many teachers would. 5. The fact that we have planned to present to our school shows we understand and will use the information we have studied this year. I've learned to focus on the work not the kids when preparing lessons. I needed this! 6. The knowledge work workshops have been extremely beneficial for me. I look at my lessons in an entirely different way, knowing what to build into a lesson to make it more interesting and relevant for students is very important. Not only does it make the student enjoy and value my class more, but it also helps with discipline! If a child is interested in the learning, he is less likely to get in trouble. Thank you! 7. With continued innovative training and sharing, we continue to be successful classroom teachers. The team concept and approach has created a new dimension to student learning and successes. l ! ~owledg Work Project Total Evaluation  by Participant 1993-94 /f#.4 8. Pluses: outstanding facilitator. I felt that I learned something about \"how\" I teach, not \"what\" I teach. Though good teachers use these qualities all the time, it has been an important tool in assessing my teaching. This course has served as an invaluable tool for me. I'm sure other teachers have and will gain from this experience. All objectives were met. Wishes: I realize that monthly meetings help generate new. concepts or reassess the qualities throughout the year, however I wish that we could do this in a shorter time span. 9. I have learned a lot from sharing with other teachers in the district what they have tried that works and what does not work. 10. This workshop has provided a resource so that I can design classroom activities to help engage students in the learning process. The work has also made me aware of qualities needed in order to create true classroom knowledge work. 11. During the process of these meetings, I was able to recognize the qualities that are needed to help make a more-effective lesson. Methods to get the students involved in learning are needed daily to meet expectations of today's society. I really enjoyed being able to share information and ideas with others who have had success in the teaching field. I gained valuable information that I can use daily in my classroom. 12. I feel I can articulate the objectives and qualities of knowledge work to others. I have enjoyed affiliating with others and learning strategies which have helped me in planning dynamic activities. I feel you would get more for your money if homework were given to the teachers. Assess teachers and make them accountable for actually using -che ideas in their schools  and classrooms. If we have these opportunities we should use them for what they are and not just as a day away from the students. 13. Fully understood the concepts of knowledge work. I will be able to identify design work for students. As facilitator can share and assess the degree of engagement of work of students. Share the success of design of knowledge work. The collaboration of planning was wonderful. 2 Xnowledge Work Project Total Evaluation by Participant 1993-94 ff{{.'1 14. The workshop has enabled me to feel confident in sharing and modelling actual knowledge work. Helped me to engage students in knowledge work and also design work for students to use. Given me time to associate and share with fellow teachers, as well as, involve resource people from the community. Can identify and assess the degree to which my students are engaged int he work and share examples. 15. I think the time was well spent. I learned many new techniques that I have and will implement in my classes. This has taught me to take the work load off of myself and put more responsibility on the students. I especially like the fact that students will be given choices: This will give the students more ownership in their work and more students will do it and be proud of it! 16. I believe we fully met the first three outcomes that are listed as well as the last two outcomes. I'm still having trouble with modifying variables. I believe that this workshop will cause me to strive for better prepared iessons and assignments. 17. We shared our successes which is always helpful. Practical discussion always counts more than theory. Most importantly, the knowledge work that we design will echo the activities of the other teachers involved. Hopefully kids will end up getting a majority of tasks designed with these qualities. We are now able to take this school wide. I think this is a project with a great potential for continuing, because of its's great practicability. 18. I think to be able to identify in work designed for students there can be some qualities that result in student's being engaged with the work. After working on this workshop I have been able to assess the degree to which students have been engaged. Thank you. 19. This workshop has enabled me to: to articulate and produce knowledge work. Engage students in knowledge work. I am able to design work for students use. We are able to identify and engage outside agencies in .community ~s facilitator. Assess knowledge work. Plan and solve problems individually and collaboratively.  20. The workshop has enabled me to articulate and produce J Jtnovledge Work Project Total Evaluation  by Participant  1993-94 /fff. T knowledge work. Engage students in knowledge work. I am able to design work for students to use. We are able to involve and identify outside agencies and community as facilitator. Assess knowledge work. Collaborative planning and problem solving. 4 rt: t:: The following is a compilation of pluses and wishes from the Leadership Retreat April 15-16, 1994. The leadership consisted of Principals, Assistant Principals, Team leaders or their designee, and the Steering Committee Chairpersons of the four restructuring schools. PLUSES~ ANYTHING YOU LIKED. 1. 2. 3. The ability of this group to be a open and honest about what is best for kids. What changes need to take place with staff to reach students. These are great dedicated people. I will miss this. Quality time to work on goals and action plans for our school. This meeting met our needs as well as or better than .!!.DY we have attended. Thanks to Linda Young! The entire day we had to work with our school team and focus on our plan for 94-95 was very beneficial. We were able to discuss some issues that we had previously swept aside, and we discussed some \"small\" things we could do this year to help with the 11big11 things next year. As usual, the food at the Red Apple was great. Thanks Linda and Gail for arranging a great retreat! 1. 2. 3. More discussion on strategies of delivery of instruction for students with low ability. The  assurance that these opportunities will continue for staff. None!! Excellent opportunity for work. We 1eed to continue these opportunit es. I really do not have any wishes for this retreat. I will just look forward to the next planning session! PLUSES - ANYTHING 4. 5. 6. 7. I like having the time to discuss school improvement and steps that can be followed to reach specific goals set out in our school COE plan. The communication was great! Sharing ideas with other schools. Emphasis on school planning of obtainable programs. Cooperation between administrator and staff. Uninterrupted time together to work through ideas. Sharing of ideas with other schools. Great! Looking intensely at the COE plan to evaluate and reinstated goals. When we shared with the different schools on what we are each doing positive. Dividing into our individual schools and talking about what we are going to do to improve staff morale. Things we planned to get parental involvement. 4. 5. 6. 7. I would like to have met more with teachers from other schools to share ideas and successes, but the day with our own school was great! These workshops help define goals, reestablish team and faculty successes. overall, I feel this workshop was very successful in meeting many needs. Hore time together. Hore resources to provide incentives for performance and behavior. Continued availability of team planning time. Nothing - I thought the time was refreshing, profitable and laid back all at the same time. Continued support in our endeavors to reach kids who have high needs. Nothing, really!! I was pleased with all we did. 8. The agendas of the meeting were excellent. I liked the format of the meetings as it allowed for group sharing and ample time for our school to work together independently. An excellent retreat. 9. Great opportunity to address an area we have skirted around for too long. Good progress made, an opportunity to get our thoughts in order. 10. Support system for new teachers and other staff. Students given an opportunity to have success in what every stage of development they are currently in. 11. Excellent accommodations - good food, great rooms. Well-planned agenda\neverything flowed very smoothly. Forest Heights group had a really productive and enlightening session. 12. I really enjoyed the school time. We were able to accomplish a lot of good work. Work that could not have been done in Little Rock with all our other distractions. (family, home, kids, etc ... ) 13. Our own agenda. B. My room was too warm last night/my fault/too lazy to adjust the temperature. 9. None. 10. Follow through on very welldeveloped plans. More inter team coordination. 11. I wish the cross-school sharing time had been a little more structured. We seemed to have been a little confused about our end goal coming out of the starting gate. 12. N/A. 13. We really need more time -- as usual. PLUSES - ANYTH:J:t~G 14. We got to work together with our colleagues in our school. We accomplished so many positive ideas for our school and our students. We were united for one idea - our goal. 15. It was great to be afforded the opportunity to get .2!!.t, of LR for our retreat. A lot of progress came out of this meeting. It's a fact, I believe this was the best meeting I've attended all year. 16. Time to share with our faculty members as a group. We were able to accomplish a great deal. 17. + Working with my fellow co-workers in a relaxed productive manner. + Accommodations. + Swap Session 14. Nothing. 15. This meeting was everything I wanted it to be. 16. We could have more retreats or workshops strictly for planning school acthrities and strategies. 17. More time. PLUSES - ANYTHING YOU 18. This retreat enabled me to have a better understanding of the other faculty members' attitudes toward certain issues. I had a wonderful time. 19. Sharing ideas as a group. I believe we accomplished what we set out to do. 20. Sharing. 21. I preferred this retreat to others because of the fact that we were allowed to work within our own school issues. 18. I liked the individual schools having the all-day session. We were able to relax~ discuss, and key in some key issues affecting our schools. We were able to accomplish a great deal of concerns. It was good for the fellowship (camaraderie) among the administrators and staff. (Thanks). The sharing of interdisciplinary ideas and units was very helpful. These and other ideas are valuable resources in making our approach to educating our children to be successful. These can provide exciting classroom experiences. 19. None. 20. Longer time. 21. None. PLUSES - ANYTHiNG YOU LIKED. 22. I preferred leaving here with some very distinct and workable solutions for the remainder of this school year to address a problem of tremendous concern for central office at present(# of discipline sanctions). Finally, we have a motto intact and a VISION!! I feel as if we are really moving forward. Enjoyed freedom to develop our own agenda - One of the best ones we've had. 23. We formed a vision statement. We had time to make some workable plans for alternative discipline. 24. I really enjoyed the commitment and excitement generated by the Southwest Jr. High Staff. We dealt with critical issues (1) absenteeism, (2) student/ teacher conflict, (3) discipline with dignity. our staff participation was excellent. We have developed a plan that can truly work. We enjoyed the team effort. 26. I enjoyed meeting with members of my school and trying to come up with solutions for problems, concerns of our school. 22. Too little time - passed too auicklyl! Didn't get up and run this am! (but felt good to sleep in.) 23. None. 25. None. 26. I wish we could have shared our ideas with the other schools. PLUSES 27. Everything - it was one of the best, productive retreats I've been too. 28. Today was super! I only wish that we could do this more often. This weekend was so beneficial to all of us. Working together to help our building to be better is what we're all about ... Making kids feel good about themselves and the school is very important! 29. I liked our goal: To suggest action steps to coordinate and unify the work of the steering committee and school staff members. (T-shirts - love it). 30. The valuable insight of the team leaders. The ability to plan for the future. The opportunity to have research available to offer a strong knowledge base for effective planning. 31. Atmosphere was great for sharing. 27. That the District would listen to us as well as just look at numbers!! We're now just statistics. What if Columbus had turned around and quit? 28. Wish we could do this morel Great Weekend! {Smile face.) 29. None. 30. \"I loved it\" {Smile face.) 31. Wish we could have met with the other schools after we met. It was great. PLUSES - 32. I enjoyed the time with staff - It would 32. None. be nice if we could meet twice per year. I think the steering committee has taken shape and is functioning well. We were able to put together some ideas that will, I am sure help our kids be more successful in school. Thanks for the opportunity. 33. I feel that I got more out of this 33. None. year's retreat than any other. The time spent Saturday was most productive and the Friday session helps us get an opportunity to applaud, assist and encourage each other. 34. I liked the time to plan with individual 34. None. schools. The time was well spent. Enjoyed the day. 35. Teachers sharing successful strategies 35. This was a great meeting! on how to reduce discipline problems and Thanks. improving academic performance is a very good concept. I really liked the ideas of letting teachers who are not team leaders attend the retreat. PLUSES - ANYTHING YOU LIKED. 36. Being able to come together as a team, working together, for a common goal, I feel, increased productivity on the part of teachers and students. students know that we caret We have less behavior problems because many minor problems are dealt with within the team. I see next year as a real opportunity, as we try to go full-force into the advisor-advisee program. 37. As a new team leader and a teacher new to the teaming approach, I am again very impressed with the support and time dedicated to making the re-structured approach work! I find this time with other staff and administrators to be extremely valuable and encouraging. The \"swap\" time last night gave me~ good ideas and the all day planning session today helped our staff design and begin to implement and wonderful new advisoradvisee program. Pulaski Heights is truly on the \"cutting edge\" of the restructuring movement. 38. Having time to develop a plan that we WILL use. Without the planning time, to develop programs (s) for increasing successful strategies for ALL students would be impossible and more students would fall through the educational cracks. 36. None. 37. None. 38. Hore planning time for schools to develop more successful strategies for all students! PLUSES - ANYTHING YOU LIKED. _, . -::::-\n~:l . . . . 39. I really liked the format this year. it is so helpful to get together with other teachers for idea exchanges. 40. Share sessions to find out about successful team activities that other schools are using to keep students in school and provide motivation for learning. Example: Discussed\nA. Interdisciplinary units. B. Conflict resolution - peer mediation. c. Block Scheduling. 2. Time for school planning - plans for small group setting - Advisor-Advisee. 41. The format was extremely beneficial. It was such that individual schools had 42. time to plan for the upcoming year after hearing on the previous night the successful interventions and programs being implemented in other schools. It was an excellent time to be creative, to dream, to take risks with brainstorming for better schools next year. Lots of definite plans with deadlines were established. Ended up with a product! Had an opportunity to plan a program that designed to reach~ of our kids. relaxed atmosphere promotes ideas. is The 39. Chances for more swap sessions during the school year. 40. All was valuable - need this time more often. 41. I think that the goals established were met, and an appreciation for our teams was renewed. Thanks for the opportunity. 42. Didn't have enough time to get everything done that needs to be done. PLUSES - ANYTHING YOU LIKED. 43. Great atmosphere - Extremely conducive to brainstorming and getting things done. Our group was close and on task in planning for the future and working for an even more effective learning environment. Hass meeting of sharing with other schools gave some great ideas that might be used at our own learning center. The New Futures Restructured schools seem to go all the way for the benefit of the whole child. 44. The accommodations and format for the weekend was great! The initiatives promoted by the restructuring schools are paramount to ensure the students' needs for tomorrow. The environment created allows teachers and students to work towards addressing the complex issues and challenges that today's society presents to our kids. Not only can we provide academic instructions, but we can assist the students with their growth a,~ maturation in becoming contributing citizens of our community. 45. Having the opportunity to work and plan strategies to help students achieve their potential - restructuring has allowed us to spend the time before implementation thinking about and planning our activities. 43. Longer sessions - possibly the use of audio visual material next time i.e. examples ' on tape of what was used at other schools or slides. 45. Time for a round of golf! 46. That we had more opportunities to plan like this during the school year - away from the day to day hassle. rr n . :.\u0026gt; CLOVERDALE JR HIGH AFTER 50-iOOL PROGRAM 1JiAME f1!AMf 1.t2t ~IEAM GPA 1 '1W GPA 2 ffi AII. ADKINS JERMAlNE 897813 9 NAV 2.57 2.87 EX ALLEN CEDRIC 913929 9 NAY 1.14 0.857 GOOD ALLEN SHONEY 167292 8 STARS 2.0 2.714 EX AWSON SHARONDA 166990 8 PAWS 2.83 3.167 EX ASHFORD JOHNNY 919538 8 PAWS 1.71 2.167 EX AYERS TIFFIN! 894198 7 UNTOUC 3.14 3.5 EX BAKER DEUNDRA 878038 7 7WOND 3.714 3.714 EX BEVERLEY TANESHIA 898261 9 NAV 3.14 2.571 GOOD BIDDLE ELIZABETH 914141 7 UNTOUC 4.0 4.0 EX BIWNGS JAVIA 931601 9 AFROSH 0.857 1.0 AV BIVENS RONNIESHA 164323 9 AFROSH 3.428 3.0 GOOD BLACK AL 937715 8 STARS 2.428 1.714 GOOD BLACKMON ARLESHIA 898297 8 STARS 2.5 3.333 EX BRENT LAVAR 914272 9 NAV 2.0 1.857 GOOD BROWN ROY 914404 9 NAV 2.0 2.0 AV BROWN SHAMEKA 898608 8 STARS 3.5 3.333 GOOD BUCKLEY RASHAWN 896737 9 NAV 2.857 3.286 EX BUFORD TINIKA 951774 8 PAWS 2.142 1.857 GOOD BURGESS SHELENA 892140 8 STARS 2.857 3.0 GOOD CALAHAN CHERRY 899103 9 NAV 3.571 3.571 EX CARTER ERICA 896872 7 7WOND 3.571 3.429 EX COGSHELL LAKISHA 899047 8 STARS 2.714 3.286 EX COMBS BEVERLY 899099 7 7WOND 3.285 3.0 GOOD COOPER SHANDTELL 168677 7 7WOND 0.428 1.5 EX COTTRELL LAKENYA 935376 9 NAV 3.167 3.167 EX COVINGTON HENRY 905510 9 AFROSH 2.714 1.571 GOOD CRAFT BRANDON 907074 7 7WOND 4.0 4.0 PERFECT CUNNINGHAM CASEY 165867 7 UNTOUC 1.857 1.714 GOOD DANIEL ROBERT 959568 9 AFROSH 2.285 1.571 GOOD DAVIS DEERICA 924963 7 7WOND 2.857 3.143 GOOD DEDNER TAMEKIA 899412 8 STARS 3.428 3.286 EX DEPRIEST GILLAN 909808 7 7WOND 3.428 3.286 EX DINWIDDLE CARLA 894060 7 UNTOUC 1.571 1.143 GOOD DIXON NIHISSA 890167 7 UNTOUC 3.0 3.667 PERFECT DRAKE DEDE 894505 7 UNTOUC 1.571 0.286 GOOD DUNCAN SHAWN 912593 7 7WOND 3.428 3.714 EX FLOWERS ANGELA 164265 9 NAV 0.143 0.143 POOR FLOWERS DIONDRA 896585 7 UNTOUC 3.714 3.286 EX FLOWERS KELANI 899888 7 UNTOUC 3.571 3.429 EX FRANKS SHARONDA 155075 9 NAV 3.5 3.5 GOOD FURGUERSON BILLY 900054 9 NAV 2.43 2.143 AV GARMON SHAMARRA 920200 8 PAWS 3.0 3.0 EX GIBSON ANDREW 163180 9 NAV 1.571 1.571 POOR GIBSON SIOBHAN 926399 8 STARS 3.0 2.714 EX GILL DARYL 900156 7 7WOND 3.428 2.0 EX GRIST RATHA 953000 9 NAV 3.571 3.571 GOOD HALL ALVIS 900405 9 AFROSH 3.285 3.429 EX HALL KIM 900424 7 UNTOUC 2.857 2.0 GOOD HAMMOND DAQUAN 908896 7 UNTOUC 2.0 1.286 EX CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM ~ FNAME .IQI. SIB IEAM GPA 1 9W GPA 2 9W ATT. HAMPTON BRANDON 900455 7 7WOND 4.0 3.333 EX HARRIS DEMARIUS 908916 9 NAV 1.857 1.429 EX HARRIS KIM 900539 8 STARS 2.857 3.0 GOOD HOLLEY TERRENCE 900820 8 PAWS 1.857 2.0 GOOD HOWARD April 164'150 7 7WOND 2.0 0.857 AV HURD CEDRIC 166967 9 NAV 3.285 2.429 GOOD HYMES KAREN 929676 7 7WOND 3.428 3.0 EX IRELAND CHERONDA 900980 8 PAWS 3.857 3.857 EX JACKSON LAFANTA 951955 7 UNTOUC 2.285 3.143 EX JACKSON TARSALON 901039 8 PAWS 2.428 2.571 PERFECT JOHNSON CAMEL.A 164'195 8 PAWS 2.857 3.0 EX JOHNSON MISTI 914\"147 7 UNTOUC 2.714 3.429 EX JOLLY LISA 907959 7 7WOND 3.714 3.714 EX JORDAN JAMES 892787 8 STARS 2.857 2.857 GOOD JORDAN YULANDA 166700 9 NAV 3.333 2.5 GOOD KING DEON 930003 7 7WOND 3.71\"1 3.429 GOOD LANIGAN ANTONIO 166701 9 AFROSH 3.0 3.714 EX LEE DWAYNE 901634 7 7WOND 3.429 2.286 PERFECT LONGLEY YOLANDA 901796 7 UNTOUC 3.429 3.429 EX LOVE JANA 901802 7 UNTOUC 2.587 2.833 EX LOVE NASHA 896558 8 STARS 2.285 3.143 GOOD LOVE TASHANA 155183 7 UNTOUC 2.285 1.714 EX  i MADISON LATRESHA 895011 7 7WOND 1.428 0.571 POOR MARBLEY NINA 891703 7 7WOND 3.571 3.571 GOOD t.4ARTIN ELONDA 914314 7 UNTOUC 2.285 2.143 GOOD MCCUNTON GREGORY 952953 8 PAWS 2.142 2.0 GOOD MCCUNTON KENYU 952952 9 NAV 3.142 2.0 GOOD MCCRARY SHAWNECE 902107 8 PAWS 3.142 3.286 GOOD MCGILL CHASTITY 926191 8 STARS 2.142 2.857 EX MCMILLAN JACQUELYN 902190 7 UNTOUC 3.5 3.0 EX MILLER ROBIN 959747 7 UNTOUC 4.0 4 EX NORFLEET ROSALYN 162033 9 NAV 1.285 1.857 EX PARKER CHINNAILL 951421 7 7WOND 2.0 2.286 GOOD PARKER TERRELL 902833 8 STARS 1.857 1.286 GOOD PATRICK BRODERICK 937179 9 AFROSH 2.428 1.571 GOOD PATRICK TOYRAN 896311 7 7WOND 3.714 4.0 EX PORTER ALBERT 153682 9 NAV 2 0.741 AV PORTER DERICKO 153892 9 NAV 0.857 0.857 AV PRIVETT JOHNA THAN 952864 9 NAV 3.714 3.429 EX RAFTER MARCUS 903156 9 NAV 1.285 1.571 EX RAY STEVE 903211 7 UNTOUC 3.0 2.857 EX REED LATIA 890134 8 STARS 2.714 3.143 EX ROBINSON LAWANDA 896142 7 UNTOUC 1.571 1.714 GOOD ROBINSON SHERELL 951097 7 7WOND 3.571 3.714 GOOD ROGERS STANLEY 911352 8 STARS 2.714 2.429 EX SASU ELIZABETH 960732 8 PAWS 2.428 3.667 EX SEBOURN AMANDA 916190 9 NAV 3.714 4.0 EX SHAVERS MAURICE 892971 8 PAWS 3.714 3.5 EX SHERRER MATOSHA 903709 8 STARS 2.142 3.286 EX SHERRER MONICA 903710 9 AFROSH 1.857 1.857 EX I - ~ II CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH AFTER 50-IOOL PROGRAM 111 ~ FNAME ll2! ~IEAM GPA 1 9W GPA 2 !1W AIL SIDERS DANIEL 931301 7 UNTOUC 2.142 1.857 EX Sil.AS CARL 937573 7 UNTOUC 3.0 2.143 GOOD SIMMONS I WILMON 903748 7 7WOND 2.714 1.571 GOOD SIMS SHARRA 903n1 8 STARS 3.0 3.60 EX SMITH CANDICE 959569 7 7WONO 3.857 3.714 EX SMITH DENISHA 925214 7 7WOND 3.428 4.0 EX SPEARMON CEDRIC 95233.tl 9 AFROSH 1.857 1.429 EX I SPEARMON Cl.EDIUS 932336 8 STARS 2.714 3.0 EX SPROUSE TIFFANY 903968 7 7WOND 2.857 3.571 EX 11 STOVER NATALEA 894752 7 7WONO 3.428 3.143 EX 11 STRONG CRYSTAL 926'179 7 UNTOUC 2.142 2.0 EX SUWVAN KIM 1679'12 8 STARS 3.0 2.571 EX SUMMERS MARQUIS 904148 9 NAV 2.428 2.0 EX TATUM STEPHANIE 9onos 7 UNTOUC 2.571 1.857 GOOD I! TERRELL LAKUA 914268 9 NAV 1.429 1.429 GOOD Ii THOMAS ERICKA 9096.tlS 7 7WOND 4.0 4 GOOD II THOMAS TINA 935n2 7 UNTOUC 2.587 3.286 EX I TURNER TARA 904454 7 7WOND 2.0 1.429 EX ,, TWITTY LENARD 951283 9 NAV 2.833 2.833 EX lYLER EARNEST , 908876 8 PAWS 0.714 0 .0 POOR WAL.KER SHELLEY 904573 11 8 PAWS 3.142 3286 EX II WATERS SCHEKISA 901319 9 NAV 2.428 2.0 GOOD WEBB LAKIESHA 913292 9 NAV 1.428 2286 GOOD WHALEY FRANK 891875 8 PAWS 2.0 0.714 GOOD J!I WHITE NAMONA 931658 7 7WOND 3.142 3.1 '13 EX fl WILDER VICTORIA 904841 7 7WONO  .O -1.0 EX I WIWAMS AMANDA 897438 7 7WONO 2.429 2.429 GOOD J! WIWAMS ANTOINETTE 8922'13 7 UNTOUC 1.714 2.1'13 EX WIWAMS BRIAN 16'1240 9 NAV 1.714 1.857 GOOD WIWAMS OOREY 892078 9 AFROSH 3.5 2.429 GOOD II WIWAMS JAMIE 890520 8 PAWS 2.571 2.571 EX ii WIWAMS PATRICE 951273 8 STARS 3.285 2.71.tl GOOD WIWAMS SHEVONNE 917345 8 STARS 2.571 3.1'13 EX 11 WIWAMS TAMIKA 892186 7 UNTOUC 0.857 1.143 GOOD \\,I WIWAMS TERRENCE 904956 9 NAV 3.857 3.1 '13 GOOD WITT SHAOONDRIA 905025 7 7WOND 3.428 3.0 EX ,\nI WOODLEY TAMEKA 905061 8 PAWS 3.33 3.5 EX WOODS ANTONIETTE 905064 7 7WOND 1.428 1.714 GOOD WOODS CLAUDIA 896273 7 7WONO 3.428 3286 EX WOODS KEISHA 896646 9 AFROSH 3.428 3.1 '13 EX 11 WOODS MY1A 905069 8 STARS 2285 3.143 EX WRIGHT KEVIN 162553 8 PAWS 1.571 0.857 POOR I , . , 11 .   J ~:~liOlli. SQ[JTHWEST._..lllNIQR._filGH ?Rr:JC::,111_ CHARITY SMITH TE ACHi: R_ _,. .A...,N\"\"N._.E~T._..T.. E ..._. B... .,Au:Ru.N,...E-S_.,__ l. Please in::!i::ate the r.t:.'7::)e::- of .stu:ients referred for ~nch grndc level by se:-:, \n~:'!::e 3nd:classification. -------,,,.......,..-,-~~----------:-::-:-:-:-:..:=-~\n-:,-\n,,..,,-\n,...,..-:...,.....,,-------r-----:---------- Totu I Cirau2 :!tl:i8Efl l\u0026lt;i:Fffr.\n.:._:, Enrollment t~ i i't::!: I l!hl te i ut:-:2r -:-ota 1 C'. :s:::i\n\".-:'i I i-------- '.:r2cie 5 l aci'. \\Jtli t8 j D ~r12r : :-1,:\n1 2 I :=:0.~10 I e Jhale Ferna1,s !\n-!a , f: r2ma le ri2fe:-red ! R::::1. I .,~I J\nI I ! ! I I ! I I I I i I ! i 7 183 32 7 1 9 7 4 0 I 3 I 0 I 33 I 32 ' 1 I I ---  I I I i I I I I .3 178 52 i 4 ! 18 i 15 6 0 i 0 I 0 39 I 36 I 3 I I\n' ----- I I i I i I I ! :\n169 44 8 26 8 2 1 0 0 37 29 8\nI : I I i i i ' i I I 7C.~.L 530 128 I 1 9 I 63 ' 30 12 1 ! 3 0 109 97 ! 12 I ,, Tctal students re-12r::cd: 109 ~. :otal recoraed ab.sei'lc-es: 63 Total da.ys assigned: 358 i~umber of studen:s not ::~:, ~ting ~ssignmen: t: :ssP: 9 RECEIVE,... i~urn~er :f r2pe5t2~3: 2~?te - 4 JUN 1 4. 1994 ------ NEW FUTUf .. Grcde 9 4 ?h:::me 5 School SOUTHWEST JR. Number of :e2cher sonfe~~~ses: Srade 7 4 Grad2 8 Gr\":2 9 -------- Grade 7 I 122 G:-ade 8 96 G:-ade 9 71 l~tervention and Follow-up Activities: Please describe in nar:--ative formthevarious interven:.ion strategies and fol1ow-up plans and/or contacts that have occurred with students as~igned to the ln-Schc~l Suspension Program. ISSP OBJECTIVES: 1. To help students evaluate his/her behavior by completing suspension learning packets. 2. To use self-discipline to improve academic and social performance. ~v\u0026amp;luation: Please describe in narrative form the aeneral reaction of the following\n~cups to the In-School Suspension Program: stuaents who have been referred, teache~s 2nd administrative staff, parents, and the In-School Suspension teacher. The overall acceptance of the program has been excellent. Students have responded very positively to the learning packets with intent to avoid return visits. Teachers, administrators, counselors, parents, case managers, and significant others have complimented the program with exceptional reviews . . Support is evidenced by written comments, physical presence, and student work and reactions. -, ~ota1 visits to ISSP by: School cd~inistrators --=2=3 _______ _ J . School counselors ____ .....:.7 ______ _ Teachers 140 .., J. O the: ( pi ease spec i f y ) _p=a.::r-=e\n.\nn\n:_\nt::\n.\ns::\n..__---'1 _ _ Attiti onal Comments: This year we are attempting to work closer with case management and the counseling staff by making contact for individual students and requesting personal visits. We have provided teachers with suggested strategies to help support students who have been assigned with personal invitations to stop in and visit with students during their period of assignment. Our aim is to remove students from the mainstream in order to work on unacceptable behavioral characteristics, keep them on schedule, provide them with positive alternatives, and return them equipped for academic success in the classroom. I School dist-rict pcrrticipation Provides experts in non-academic fields to assist in planning preventive programs, providing in-service training, and designing after care support systems in the school. Immediate accessibility for referral when youth are identified who need social or health services. Provides assistance from the broader community in addressing crisis situations that occur during the school day. Creates a more direct link between the school and the home. Enhances the parent's, youth's and community's perception of schools as caring places. Allows teachers to focus more clearly on the academic needs of the students. Creates a healthier, happier student body. Provides a caring supportive adult to assist with non-academic problems Provides a coordinated plan for delivering needed educational, social and health services to the youth or their family Ensures someone is responsible for following up on referrals to outside agencies to be sure they are provided. Establishes a more direct link between the school and the home. Increases the opportunities for youth to obtain the social and academic skills needed for later succcess. Youth-cente-red fr family-o-riented flt(. ? Coo-rdinated se-rv1ces Provides direct linkage between youth-serving agencies and the public schools. Facilitates coordinated service among numerous agencies serving the same youth or family. Increases the opportunities for agencies to assist in developing preventive programs for youth. Allows for earlier identification of problems and more appropriate referrals to needed services. Provides a person to assist with removing barriers to effective use of services and to provide follow up after services are completed. Provdies more accurate information about the nature and extent of problems confronted by youth for use in future planning and program development. Young Professionals Clubs Support Groups School visits from convicts Field trips Participation in Little Rock Civitan Club's \"Rainbow of Love\" bowling tournament Worthen Bank sponsors day at Wild River Country A.A. and Alanon Community connection 1/ /tff.'l\u0026gt; GOA.LS A'-\"D OBJECTIVES REPORT In the Spring of 1992, the Director of Case Management met with participating CMST Agency Supervisors and Case Managers to develop Goals and Objectives for the CMST Project. The major Goal identified is:  ENHANCE ACADE~IC PERFORMANCE OF CMST STUDENTS Four objectives are established as a way to realize the Goal: Objective 1  50% of students on CMST caseloads will increase GPA by at ]e?.st .2 per semester during involvement with CMST. Objective 2  50% of students on CMST caseloads will not be absent more than 12 days per semester. Objective 3  A positive success plan for beh\niviori\\l improvement will be developed by Case Manager, Teache: Team, Vice Principal. Parent(s) and student for all students on CMST caseloads with a history of suspension and/or expulsion. Plan development will begin October 1, 1992 anc will continue at the rate of one each week until !)Ian has been developed for all students on the Case Manager's caseioad with histo1\n of suspension and/or expulsion. Objective 4  All students identified as parents will be considered automatically referred to CMST for services, and no repeat pregnancies will occur within this population during the year. Outcome data were collected at the end of each school semester du ring the 1992-1993 school year and 1993-1994 school vear. The outcomes for some students were excluded from consideration in the following circumstances:  Never received signed consent for services.   Referred c?.ses where no need for Case Mana2ement services existe d.  Cases in which services were terminated prior -to November l during the Fall semester, and prior to April l during the Spring semester of each school year.  Cases where data were unavailable due to missing school records. The results for all other students follow. . . - CL FH PH SW / Ttls .~alysis: . . FALL 9.2 I SPRI:--\nG 93 I FALL 93 I SPRl!'.G 94 Tot Tot % Tot % Tot Tot % Cases \u0026gt;.2 I Tot Cases \u0026gt;.2 Cases \u0026gt;.2 l Tot Cases 58 82 64 44 248 19 33% 94 27 29% 53 17 32% 63 33 40% 100 31 31% 58 17 29% 71% 25 39% 117 30 26% 79 34 43% 98 16 36% 99 26 26% 58 13 22% 59 93 38% ~10 114 28% 248 81 33% 291 The objective of 50% of CMST students increasing GPA by at least .2 per semester was not achieved. In the Fall 93 semester, Pulaski Heights reached 43%, the highest percentage achieved in any semester. Significant increases in number of cases considered occurred each spring semester. This occurs as the number of cases referred increases caseload sizes as the school year progresses. It is also noted that there is a significant decrease in the percentage of students meeting the GPA outcome objective. This may be due to increased caseload sizes during the spring sei,1ester. Staff also cite a tendency for students to work only hard enough during the spring semester to assure passing to the next grade level. Tot % \u0026gt;.2 17 27% 17 24% 23 23% 19 32% 76 26% r. - - T - . l FALL 92 SPRI!'iG 93 . FALL 93 SPRING 94 Tot + % Tot + % Tot + % Tot + % Cases Att Cases Att Cases Att Cases Att CL 70 34 49% 96 62 65% 75 43 57% 73 29 40% FH 93 31 33% 104 40 38% 66 18 27% 75 16 21% PH 74 33 45% 120 65 54% 108 66 61% 100 45 45% 11 ' SW 72 28 39% 101 28 28% 69 23 33% 74 27 36% ,!: Ttls 309 126 41% 421 195 46% 318 150 47% 322 117 36%\n' Analysis: There is a wide range in these figures, from 65% at Cloverdale in Spring i 93 to 21 % at Forest Heights in Spring 94. Also the totals for Springs 94 i were 36%, a decrease from both the Spring 93 figure of 46% and the Fall I 93 figure of 47%. It is noted that staff resignations during the Spring 94 Iii semester left 2 of 4 positions vacant for several months at Forest Heights. !:,I !I ! Iii I II I ' . II II II i - -- .. I ! - - - . -. FALL 92 SPRl~G 93 I FALL 93 SPRING 94 ~ Tot + % Tot + % Tot + % Tot + % Cases Pia Cases Pia Cases Pia Cases Pia ' - CL 26 FH 51 PH 35 SW 34 Ttl 146 s .nalysis: n n n n 17 65% 47 28 60% 40 35 88% 53 46 14 27% 68 _., ..,. 34% 39 10 26% 40 3 18 51% 54 33 61% 45 43 96% 60 55 2 6% 59 2 3% 36 36 100 42 41 % 51 35% 2~S 86 38% 160 124 78% 195 145 Overall very good improvement from one school year to the next, especially for Southwest. Forest Heights is the notable exception, and this primarily due to staff vacancies. 87% 8% 92% 98% 74% L School Year 1992-93 School Year 1993-1994 Total Total w/ Tot.al Total w/ Parents 2nd Preg Parents 2nd Preg 11 1 15 1 bts 10 2 12 1 ights 10 3 12 5 est 11 1 4 0 ~ Totals 42 7(17%) 43 7(16%) Analysis: Outcomes are essentially the same for each year. Planning, Research and Evaluation Program Evaluation Primary Leader: Dr. Henry P. Williams Secondary Leader: Dr. Robert L. Clowers Program Name: Plannio\u0026amp; and Evaluation Services Program Description: Purpose: Scope and Content: Participants/Beneficiaries: Program Goals: Evaluation Criteria: The Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (PRE) operates as a quasi-independent unit which provides information and technical assistance to the Superintendent and Board for strategic planning. To provide overall planning activities for the District and to provide information required for District and building level decision making. The scope of activities included in Planning and Evaluation services include: semi-annual Educational Equity Monitoring visits\nCoordination of the Planning and Budgeting process\nCoordination of the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (AMPT was discontinued following the spring 1994 administration)\nCoordination of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition\nCoordination of the School Climate/Human Relation Survey\nCoordination of the Arkansas Direct Writing Assessment\nCoordination of Home Schooling tasks\nconducts studies and prepares reports as identified by the Board\nMaintains archival records\nMaintains records of elementary students withdrawn from the district. Participants and beneficiaries includes students, building level principals and staff, administrators, the Board of Directors, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and other parties involved in the court approved desegregation case. To provide appropriate data and technical assistance for planning and implementing equitable learning experiences for all students. 1.0 Completed semi-annual report of findings in the thirteen (13) monitoring categories. 1.1 Copies of completed documents. 2 1.2 List of local team members. 1.3 Agenda of completed training sessions and list of team members who received training. 1.4 Individual School Profiles are available through the AS/400 at the central office. 1.5 Completed monitoring schedule for all schools. 1.6 Completed composite report for each visit. 1. 7 Semi-annual reports are prepared and distributed as scheduled. 2.1 Planning and budgeting process is conducted as outlined in the Management Tool. 2.2 AMPT is administered as scheduled. 2.3 Stanford Achievement test is administered as scheduled. 2.4 Surveys are administered as scheduled. 2.5 All Arkansas Writing Assessment tasks are completed as designed and scheduled. 2.6 Home School tasks are completed according to Act 42 of 1985. 3. 0 Studies are conducted as designed and reports are published and distributed as required. 3.1 Assessment reports are published and distributed to appropriate persons. 3.2 Reports are published and distributed to appropriate persons. 3.3 The archival records are maintained and available for inspection. 3.4 The records are stored on microfilm for immediate Evaluation Results Objective 1: 3 retrieval. 4.0 Administration of School Climate/Human Relations Survey. To conduct semi-annual E.ducational Equity Monitoring visits with the assistance of the local school biracial committees. E.ducational Equity Monitoring teams comprised of an Evaluation Specialist along with local school biracial committee members conduct monitoring visits each semester of each school year. The outcome of each monitoring visit is a consensus report of the findings of the monitoring visit. These reports are on file in the PRE Department. Each school in the district was visited each semester during the 1993-94 school year. Principals are required to form the local school biracial committee for their building and then send a copy to PRE. At the beginning of each school year, PRE conducts an inservice/training for local school biracial committee participants. The inservice is typically conducted in October prior to the monitoring visits. School principals are also given instructions at the start of the school year to input information into the AS/400 which is used as part of the school profile. Monitoring schedules are established between the Evaluation Specialist assigned to monitor the school and the school principal. The monitoring visits are then conducted. The consensus reports are later summarized and compiled for a semester report. The individual consensus reports are copied and distributed to selected administrators and the building principals for feedback, as needed. The semester reports are distributed to selected administrators, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and Joshua Intervenors. Discussion: The objective of conducting semi-annual E.ducational Equity Monitoring visits with the assistance of the local school biracial committee members was met. The monitoring visits serve as a cardinal form of feedback to the building principal and other LRSD administrators regarding the educational equity concept at the building level. Objective 2: To provide assistance that promotes the planning process of the LRSD. Please note that strategies listed under this objective include the planning and budgeting process along with the administration of various districtwide tests, a school climate survey, and home school tasks. 'IT II [I II I -I - ------ --- 4 A planning and budgeting process manual (the \"Gray Book\") is prepared by the summer of each newly started fiscal year and serves as an overall guide to the planning and budgeting process for the upcoming fiscal year. A \"Management Tool\" is similarly prepared for guidance in preparation of the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The Superintendent's Council meets regularly to review the management tool, which is filed at the end of each month with the court. In addition to the management tool, the office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation also coordinates the compilation of a Program Budget Document (PBD), which is filed quarterly with the court. The PBD includes achievement information for the District's desegregation and nondesegregation programs. Training sessions regarding the PBD process are coordinated through PRE. The Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (AMPT) was coordinated through PRE as scheduled {spring 1994 was the last administration of the AMPT, however). The Stanford Achievement test, Eighth Edition, was administered during spring 1994 as scheduled. The Arkansas Direct Writing Assessment was also administered as scheduled. The School Climate survey was conducted in Spring 1994 among students, certified staff, and a random sampling of parents. Home schooling tasks, which principally relate to the distribution of requested home school application and forwarding of an enrollment list to the Arkansas Department of Education, was conducted through PRE. Discussion: The objective of providing assistance to promote the planning process of LRSD was met. The District is now in its second year of following a Planning and Budgeting process as directed by the court. The staff time required for the production of the Management Tool and the PBD has taken staff resources away from other projects or studies as described in this evaluation. In the 1993-94 school year, only one Evaluation Specialist was utilized to inservice District staff with respect to the planning process. As the planning and budgeting process becomes more institutionalized, it is anticipated that the number of professional staff in PRE that provide inservice training will increase. The program planning and budgeting process continues to be refined, and mid-stream adjustments in process may necessarily occur to respond appropriately to the needs of the District. Objective 3: To conduct educational research improving the teaching and learning process. PRE provides the results of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) and other reports as identified above to appropriate building principals and various LRSD administrators. Administrative summaries, group skills analysis, and historical information with respect to the Stanford Achievement test are provided to building level and other LRSD administrators. The majority of special requests for information have centered around the SAT because of the role it plays in the assessment of LRSD students. PRE also compiled an analysis of the 1994 SAT test results, the 1994 AMPT test results, and the School Climate/Human Relations survey. 7 5 Discussion: PRE met the objective of conducting educational research to improve the teaching and learning process. The test and survey results that are shared with principals, LRSD administrators, and other LRSD staff should assist with improvements in the teaching and learning process if the findings from the reports are used. Requests for data and special reports related to the SAT test results appear to be on the increase and sometimes strain staff resources. Additional staff could be used to increase the extent of educational research that is conducted for the LRSD\nhowever, no recommendations will be forthcoming at this time to request additional staff. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective 1: The attainment of this goal is sometimes hampered by members of the local school biracial committee who cancel their monitoring visit. In such instances, PRE Evaluation Specialists have had to reschedule the site visit(s). Objective 2: Providing assistance that promotes the planning process will be refined over time as the process is institutionalized. This objective, with specific respect to the planning process, is at times hampered because of the time constraints and reliance on various administrators to submit information on a timely basis. For example, the PBD diskettes sometimes come in after a specified due date. It should be noted that Planning, Research, and Evaluation lost a secreterial position in the 1993-94 school year. It is expected, however, that further understanding of the planning process would help alleviate some of time crunch. District staff also need additional training in WordPerfect as it relates to the entry of data for the PBD. Objective 3: The extent to which educational research may be conducted by PRE is limited by current staff size. PRE does, however, provide technical assistance to other LRSD units as needed to help promote the District's overall educational research effort. Only one of PRE's six specialists is on a 12 month contract (4 are on a 10.5 and one is on an 11 month contract)\nas a result, educational research and/or the preparation of varying studies may be delayed until the fall semester begins. Recommendation(s) Recommendation 1: The Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department needs to conduct and/or coordinate continuous training with respect to the planning and budgeting process. Objective 1: To provide program managers and other District staff with the necessary understanding to further institutionalize the District's planning and budgeting process. Evaluation Criteria: PRE will plan and offer/coordinate program planning and budgeting workshops for appropriate staff. Required PBD information will be submitted in a timely L 6 manner consistent with information due dates. Expected Benefits: Program managers and District staff will have a greater understanding of the program planning and budgeting process. Information related to the overall cycle of the planning and budgeting process will be provided in a timely manner. Impact Analysis: Additional time will need to be scheduled for program managers or appropriate staff to attend the workshops where such information will be presented. This recommendation will have a positive effect on the Desegregation Plan as the concept of following a planning and budgeting process becomes more institutionalized. This recommendation is consistent with a court order requiring the District to conduct training sessions so that the planning and budgeting process may be more readily understood. Resources Analysis: No additional hiring of personnel is anticipated. Support staff from the Instructional Resource Center\nPlanning, Research and Evaluation\nand selected principals and administrators are the personnel of choice to assist with facilitation, training and presentations. Force Field Analysis: The primary supports of the recommendation will be those administrators most closely linked to the program planning and budgeting process. Likely detractors of the recommendation will be those in the District who view the planning process as cumbersome and time consuming (the Program Budget Document as one example). General Implementation Plan: Note: the following topics, time lines, and facilitator coordination represent a general implementation plan, as no specific dates are set. The Planning and Budgeting Process Program Evaluation Program Budget Document Business Cases Financial and Manpower Reports Word Perfect Training for Staff Spring \u0026amp; Fall Spring \u0026amp; Fall Fall Fall Fall Each semester Coordinate through PRE Coordinate through PRE Coordinate through PRE Coordinate through PRE Coordinate through PRE PRE Staff Note: Where possible, specific times and dates will be scheduled to coincide with times in the school year that are of specific or timely interest to the particular topic. Additional workshops may be added as needed. Recommendation 2: Increase utiliz.ation of the Planning, Research, and Evaluation professional 7 staff to conduct inservices or individualized training with respect to the planning and budgeting process. Objective 2: To increase utilization of PRE's professional staff with respect to providing inservice workshops or individualized assistance in relation to the District's planning and budgeting process. Evaluation Criteria: The number of professional PRE staff providing or ass1sung with inservice training on various aspects of the planning and budgeting process will increase over the 1993-94 level. Expected Benefits: Program managers and District staff will have a greater understanding of the program planning and budgeting process. Information related to the overall cycle of the planning and budgeting process will be provided in a timely manner. Impact Analysis: Additional time will need to be scheduled for program managers or appropriate staff to attend the workshops where such information will be presented. This recommendation will have a positive effect on the Desegregation Plan as the concept of following a planning and budgeting process becomes more institutionalized. This recommendation is consistent with a court order requiring the District to conduct training sessions so that the planning and budgeting process may be more readily understood. Resources Analysis: No additional hiring of personnel is anticipated. Force Field Analysis: The primary supports of the recommendation will be those administrators most closely linked to the program planning and budgeting process. Likely detractors of the recommendation will be those in the District who view the planning process as cumbersome and time consuming. General Implementation Plan: PRE Evaluation Specialists will be trained throughout the school year in varying aspects of the program planning and budgeting process. The Director of PRE will provide initial guidance in training personnel in the utilization of the process\nthe current Evaluation Specialist who is involved with the Program Budget Document and the Management Tool will serve as a peer tutor within the department. IN-DEPTH PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description: Plant Services includes resources to identify, plan and execute maintenance/repair programs equitably so that Little Rock School District students can receive efficient, functional and effective education. Specifically, facilities includes maintenance programs to maintain/repair all District facilities in an equitable condition commensurate with financial resources and District priorities. Purpose: The purpose operation's necessary to critical as management. of the Plant Services is part of the base costs to maintain the buildings and grounds support the educational mission. This program is it encompasses all aspects of real property Scope and Content: The Plant Services Program encompasses the repair of all existing facilities, grounds and other real property, the maintenance thereof, new construction to support academic initiatives, all real estate actions to include leases, purchasing of property, selling of property, easements, grants, rights-of-way and licenses. It is extended to include the base operation costs of utility payments covering electric, water, gas, refuse, entomology and any other miscellaneous services. It includes long-range planning, responsibilities with regard to new construction, maintenance, acquisition and closing of facilities. Participants/Beneficiaries: The Plant Services Program is a base operations program that supports all persons that work for the Little Rock School District, are educated by its programs, or visits its facilities. Program Goals: To equitably maintain and academic programs, student support. Evaluation Criteria: repair facilities to support enrollment and administrative The evaluation criteria for the objectives listed in the Plant Ser~ices Program consists principally of historical records 1 indicating requests and completions of maintenance and repair work. They do not require a relative measure of success, but merely to report numbers of requests made and completions and the percent thereof. Evaluation Results: There is no measurable scale of success against which the evaluation can be made. The objectives reported in the Plant Services Program Budget Document, as stated previously, merely report the percent of completion of requests made of the program. There is no set goal that can be equated to measure this quantity. The amount of work completed has too many variables to establish a set percent to be achieved in any given reporting period. This is due to the complexity of the requests, the nature of the requests, the total number and the resources allocated to complete that goal, coupled with the priority. Objective U: To maintain all school facilities such that they are in a safe, operational condition to meet the academic needs of the various programs and to repair as necessary commensurate with resources. Discussion fl: This objective will never be met based on the level of funding that this Directorate presently received. The evaluation criteria is simply a tracking of the number of requests received against the number of requests completed. As more and more deficiencies are identified and more and more new work is identified to support academic programs, the disparity in funding will cause the percentage to decrease tremendously. Since the percentage reported on the program budget document only accounts for completion versus requests, and does not show the backlog and the subsequent monetary impact of that backlog, the way the Plant Services Report is established, it is of no useful value in the reporting procedure. Obstacles to Goal Attainment: There is one principal obstacle to the desired goal attainment of an equitable Facilities Program, and that is resources. The Plant Services Directorate is far below the national and regional averages, and as such, falls further behind as its backlog of maintenance and repair increases on a yearly basis. The amount of work identified district-wide to keep our buildings in a good 2 state of repair, and at an educational standard to support our programs, is mounting every year. With level or decreased funding each year, the backlog continues to increase. It is only through a higher funding level that we will be able to maintain our facilities to meet our operational needs. Recommendation: A careful evaluation of both the facilities and Plant Services' program would result in a recommendation that the Facilities Program be funded at a prescribed percent of the total district budget, this percent to be determined based on the regional and national average and a pre-determined decrease of the existing backlog of maintenance and repair. Only by clearly identifying how this backlog will be decreased, will we be able to establish a rate of success and a comparable measure thereof. A business case is recommended with this study, and the overall recommendation will likely result in an increase in the budget. DCE/rlh/pe2 3 Ii L. 1) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The program being evaluated as outlined in the nondesegregation portion of the Program Budget Document does not give an overall view of the Plant Services Program. The Program Budget Document merely responds to specific areas of concern and does not adequately see nor measure the program. The program is general engineering support to the entire district. As stated on page one (1) of this document, it encompasses all aspects of the engineering program to support the many facilities. It goes far beyond the specific item outlined in the Budget Document. - 2) The data that has been used to analyze this program is simply a tally of work order requests as made by the Facilities' Managers and as recorded by the Plant Services Directorate. All recommendations listed here are considered in the support area. DCE/rlh/pe2 4 Pupil Transportation Services Program Description: This program includes (1) the management, maintenance, and supervision of over 300 buses valued at more than eleven million dollars\n(2) the personnel management, training, and supervision of 334 employees\n(3) supervision of over 3,500 bus stops and 14,000 students while being transported daily to and from school\n(4) management of an annual budget of $7,354,396.24\n(5) providing transportation for field trips, athletic transportation and after school programs as requested by others. Historical data available at the Transportation Departmeflt were reviewed tor this report. Recommendation l: The Program Budget Document (PBD) for Pupil Transportation Services should be rewritten to utilize evaluation criteria that are reflective of performance standards. Area Classification: support Area Recommendation 2: outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Area Classification: Support Area l Extended Evaluation Pupil Transportation Services Prog~am Description: Department provides transportation services to support basic academic programs, Special Ed Programs/Activities, and Athletics. Purpose: The purpose of Pupil Transportation Services is to provide transportation to and from school for students living in the LRSD who reside two miles or more from the school of assignment, to provide transportation for students with Individual Education Plans (IEP) identifying need for specialized transportation, and to support, extracurricular and co-curricular activities to the degree that resources will allow. Scope and Content: This program includes (1) the management, maintenance, and supervision of over 300 buses valued at more than eleven million dollars\n(2) the personnel management, training, and supervision of 334 employees\n(3) supervision of over 3,500 bus stops and 14,000 students while being transported daily to and from school\n(4) management of an annual budget of $7,354,396.24\n(5) providing transportation for field trips, athletic transportation and after school programs as requested by others. Participants/Beneficiaries: The primary beneficiaries are students who live more than two miles from their school of assignment. Other beneficiaries are students with courtesy stops, students who need transportation for field trips, athletic practices, and/or extended day programs. Program Goals: To provide safe, efficient and reliable transportation for the students of the Little Rock School District. Evaluation criteria: 1.0 Procurement request 1.1 Procurement request 1.2 Requisition signed 1.3 Buildings polled on materials recei ed 2.0 Report fleet requirements 2.1 Report fleet requirements 2.2 Report fleet requirements 2.3 First day routes printed 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 Report-Staffing (no evaluation criteria) (no evaluation criteria) Report year-end mileage Summer check sheets completed Summer check sheets completed Summer check sheets completed Summer check sheets completed Summer check sheets completed Checks entered in State Police Log Summer check sheets completed All buses identified by route transported All buses identified for auction memo to procurement State Board Log sheets submitted Evaluation Results: The overall transportation system failed but that will not be reflected in evaluation results because the evaluation criteria do not establish performance expectations. Performance criteria should include as a minimum, on-time to school, number of bus breakdowns, number of chargeable accidents, attendance rate for drivers, and number buses available daily. ODjective 1.0: To conduct routine office functions. Discussion 1. o: All forms such as bus cards, discipline reports, and time sheets were obtained and distributed to the school by supervisors. These were received later than normal due to the lateness of the decision on outsourcing. ODjective 2.0: To maintain an appropriate operational fleet. Discussion 2.0: The fleet requirements are determined by the number of routes to be run at the same time. This requirement must be adjusted based upon the number of drivers funded by the budget. If only 260 drivers are available, then 260 buses will be required even if 275 buses are required by the number of established routes. The balancing depends on the number of buses available in the fleet and the number of drivers authorized. Last year, 281 buses were in the fleet. No new buses were added. The personnel count of drivers and aides was fixed at 311. The number of drivers in the ?econd semester never reached the allocated 273 drivers. As a result, routes were late due to not enough drivers. To be a Bus Driver, a person must hold a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) with a school endorsement. Even though potential drivers completed training, they had to wait up to one month to be tested by the State Police. This is a continuing problem in maintaining the appropriate number of drivers. Objective 3.0: To maintain appropriate vehicle servicing. Discussion 3. o: The fleet is aging. No replacement plan exists. New buses are bought when money is available. Although all buses passed inspection, buses continue to breakdown and require extensive maintenance that is not covered by warranties. This increases the cost in operating the fleet. In order to keep a fleet in good operational order, a replacement plan should be implemented to insure that all buses will be available most of the time. The district puts more than four million miles on buses annually. If the standard of replacing a bus every 150,000 miles is maintained, then the district should plan to replace 27 buses each year or markedly reduce the number of miles put on the buses annually. In order to reduce the number of miles _placed on buses means that services need to reduced in serving field trips, athletics and extended day or charge these programs for replacement of the buses. The length of routes and the number of routes must be reduced and/or money set aside for replacement buses in relation to the number of miles used annually. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Ol:\u0026gt;jective 1: To conduct routine office functions. Based upon the evaluation criteria in the Program Budget Document, this objective was achieved. Objective 2: To maintain an appropriate operational fleet. Based on the evaluation criteria, this objective was achieved. However, strategy 2.5 hire and train new drivers did not have evaluation criteria which should have been as a minimum maintaining a driver count of at least 273 drivers. This strategy failed in the spring of 1994 due to a shortage of at least 40 drivers. Therefore, the Objective 2 failed to maintain an appropriate operational fleet. Objective 3: To maintain appropriate vehicle servicing. Based on the evaluation criteria this objective was achieved. However, due to the age of the fleet, the current maintenance staff was unable to keep up with repairs needed to keep a sufficient number of buses available to support the routing system. Therefore, the appropriate vehicle servicing was not maintained during the school year and this objective was not achieved. Recommendations: The Pupil Transportation Services Program Budget Document (PBD) Evaluation Criteria are not appropriate evaluation criteria. Manpower shortages and equipment failure due to age caused the Pupil Transportation Services to fail to meet the stated program goal. Recommendation 1: The Program Budget Document (PBD) for Pupil Transportation Services should be rewritten to utilize evaluation criteria that are reflective of performance standards. Evaluation criteria: The new criteria will include, but not limited to, attendance rate for drivers, rate of vacancies, rate of employees on long term leave, rate of drivers on light duty, number of buses available daily, number of wrecker pulls, number of buses over 100,ooo/1so,ooo number of miles to support extracurricular and co-curricular activities, number of miles to support regular transportation by route, number of chargeable accidents per million miles, number of workman compensation claims, per-cent of not-on-time buses, and number of patron/parent complaints by category. Expected Benefits: These kinds of evaluation criteria will allow the district to establish realistic improvement goals for the Transportation Department. Impact Analysis: Negatives: 1. The change from the current PBD to the new one would be obvious. 2. Some individuals may not want to deal with data that shows whether or not the Department is doing a good job. Positives: 1. Facts will be available to evaluate the department. 2. Decisions can be made on facts rather than on what we feel is true. 3. The actual costs to support various activities will be easy to calculate. 4. Action plans for improvement can be developed and evaluated objectively. I l I ', ,1 ,1 !\n, 11 I' !! I' I' I' 11 I'  II I ' 111 Risks: The risk of not implementing this solution is to ignore the Dneeepda rttmo ehnat.v e clear planning guidance for the Transportation Timing: The rewrite should take place before the January report, so administrators have the information available to assist in decision making in the Spring of 1995. Resource Analysis: Personnel: No additional personnel will be required. Time of the administrators to gather the base data will be required but could be accomplished by reporting time. Financial: No additional cost will be required. Force Field Analysis: The Director of Transportation will welcome the opportunity to mdeavkeinlogp. a PBD that is based on data needed for decisionThose most opposed to the solution are those who want to keep the actual costs of extra curricular, co-curricular and athletic transportation hidden in the Transportation Department budget. General Zmplementation Plan: Milestone Direct Transportation to rewrite PBD Write PBD Review PBD Submit PBD with appropriate report Date 12/21/94 01/6/94 01/09/94 01/13/94 Recommendation 2: Outsource the system to a private concern. Person Clowers Cheatham Mayo Cheatham student transportation Expected Benefits: The district could save one million dollars or more. I Impact Analysis: The district is aware of the concern that exists among the bus drivers. The concern expressed has focused on job security. Those who have appeared in protest are those who will remain with the district anyway. The district will maintain special education routes and therefore about 80 drivers and aides. The proposal for outsourcing requires that those currently employed by the LRSD be employed by the contractor. Negatives: 1. The transition to a private contractor will require extra time for district administrators to turn over the operation which will no doubt have unpredictable inconveniences\n2. Bus driver reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the loss of their jobs\nPositives: 1. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\n2. Currently employed drivers will maintain their jobs and benefits\n3. Buses will be on-time more often than they are now\n4. Accidents will decrease\n5. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease\n6. The cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less than that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed providing students with badly needed new buses. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing costs to the district, increasing complaints by patrons, and a generally poor image of the district's transportation system. The risks of implementation of this solution are the unfounded presumptions that the costs will be greater than calculated and people will lose their jobs. Transition will strain our current management capability considering increased activities associated with the start up of the school year. ' I I I ' I ', I' II I 11.: ' ' I ' ,I I I I Timing It is critical that the decision be made before February 1, 1995 so it may be implemented by the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know when the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be identified of the change, and a number of other task as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. Resource Analysis: Personnel No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. No one will lose his or her job, however. Financial A savings of 1 million dollars is the estimated benefit over the next three years under this plan. The District will maintain the special education routes and a smaller maintenance facility already available. Even with these costs, outsourcing will reduce overall costs. Revenue Source The money normally allocated will be used to pay for outsourcing. Implementation of this proposal creates a yearto- year cost-reducing strategy for the 1995-96 budget. Force Field Analysis: Primary supporters of this proposal will be those directly affected by the solution - patrons and administrators within the District. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student service. Those more opposed to the solution will be the bus drivers who fear losing their jobs and those who fear private sector managing public sector services. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. The strongest statement in favor of oursourcing is that service will improve while reducing costs. - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROCUREMENT AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT EXTENDED PROGRAM BUDGET EVALUATION PROGRAM NAME: PURCHASING SERVICES, NON-DESEGREGATION FOR YEAR 9394 Program Description: The Procurement Department is organized to administer a centralized procurement function in the accomplishment of the acquisition of materials, services, and equipment in support of District operations in the most efficient, effective, and economical manner possible. The Centralized Procurement and Materials Management function interacts with all segments of the District. Purpose: The purpose of this program is to aid the Procurement Department in implementing, revising, and evaluating purchasing, property accounting, central warehouse operations, and property disposal procedures in order to best serve the District. Scope and Content: The program encompasses several functions that are the responsibility of the Procurement Department. These general functions include: Coordinating all District purchases of equipment, supplies, and services in such a manner that the maximum value will be obtained for the money expended\nEstablishing, administering, and coordinating central materials management encompassing property accounting and property disposal and\nOperating the Central Warehouse in an efficient and effective manner to assure prompt delivery and availability of frequently used supplies and materials utilized by schools/departments within the District. Participants/Beneficiaries: The beneficiaries of this program are all schools and departments within the District, vendors in the business community, district patrons and taxpayers. Program Goals: Support schools and administrative offices through cost effective procurement and efficient handling of all materials.  Evaluation Criteria: 1.1 Document recommendations and approved changes to the organizational structure of the department. 2.1 Copies of certification certificates are to be included in an employees personnel file. 3.1 Maintain a log of all vendor office visits. 1 I 17 l Ii 'I I I I 1' II ! I I : I I 1, I l I t I I I !: 1, I I l lW Evaluation Criteria (continued): 3.2 Document in bid files all specification changes and recommendations for change. (Requested to be removed per instructions in Dr. Mayo's memo dated 10/24/94) 4.1 Document attempts to identify shortcomings and defects with the current automated system in continued efforts to obtain a modern, professional purchasing management system. 5.1 Procurement Director to provide written recommendation. 5.2 Document verification of completed inventories. 6.1 Monitor user suggestions on order and delivery of supplies. 6.2 Suggestion from available to all schools/departments. 6.3 Monitor historical levels of inventory and correct as needed. 7.1 Monitor user suggestions on order and delivery of forms. 7.2 Request to the Procurement Director for the addition 4o the inventory of new standardized forrn(s). Evaluation Results: OBJECTIVE 1: REFINE THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE TO EFFECTIVELY ACCOMPLISH ALL FUNCTIONS REQUIRED OF A CENTRALIZED PROCUREMENT AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT OPERATION. DISCUSSION: Procurement filled a custodial position in November of 1993. custodian works 1/2 day at Procurement five days a week. The selection process for this position is documented and on file in the Department. No other changes were made in 93-94. OBJECTIVE MET. OBJECTIVE 2: HAVE ALL BUYER POSITIONS BECOME FAMILIAR WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED PURCHASING PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES. DISCUSSION: Two employees, Darral Paradis and Gretchen Spinelli, successfully completed the course work and examination to receive certification from NIGP (National Institute of Governmental Purchasing) as CPPB's (Certified Professional Public Buyers) in July of 1994. All buyers in the Department now have this national certification. 2 Evaluation Results (continued): In addition, Charles Neal, Procurement Director, served on the Board of Directors, and Gail Hester was chairperson of the membership committee for the Arkansas Chapter of NIGP. OBJECTIVE MET. OBJECTIVE 3 : EVALUATE NEW PRODUCTS AND SEEK TO OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM ULTIMATE VALUE FOR EACH PURCHASING DOLLAR EXPENDED. DISCUSSION: No evaluation results\nvendor log project is continuing into 1995. This cannot be fully implemented until the Department completes a planned mass mailing of vendor applications to businesses on our current vendor list. The purpose of this mailing would be to allow potential vendors an opportunity to identify comrnodi ty i terns they have available for sale. This information would then be put in the Automated Procurement Management System so that when the District is in need of a particular commodity, a listing of potential vendors could be made imrnediately available. Shortfalls in the current system have not allowed for this mailing to be accomplished. In addition, Procurement requested that strategy 3.2 be removed per instructions provided in Dr. Mayo's letter dated 10/24/94. This strategy is a routine operating function within the Department. OBJECTIVE NOT MET. OBJECTIVE 4: ENHANCE DEPARTMENT PRODUCTIVITY AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CAPABILITY BY UTILIZING A FULLY AUTOMATED PROCUREMENT, INVENTORY, AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. DISCUSSION: A complete analysis of shortcomings in the current purchasing system has been completed by the Procurement Department. An outside consultant is currently working on enhancements which we have as a goal to be on line by the end of the 94-95 fiscal year. The current system does not provide purchasing management with performance information necessary to effectively aid the Department in decision making. When needed, this information is gathered manually. Some examples of needed system information are: 1) Cost savings as a result of competitive bidding\n2) average dollar amount of purchase orders\n3) number of purchase orders processed per month by commodity and by dollar amount\n4) number of active vendors and\n5) average time from requisition receipt to delivery, etc. OBJECTIVE NOT COMPLETELY MET, WORK IS IN PROGRESS. 3 l Evaluation Results (continued): OBJECTIVE 5: PROVIDE TOTAL PROPERTY ACCOUNTING AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT FOR THE DISTRICT FROM INITIAL ACQUISITION TO FINAL SALVAGE DISPOSITION. DISCUSSION: Procurement has developed a list of deficiencies in the current CIMS software relating to fixed assets programs. An outside consultant is currently performing a review of this list and will be working with us to develop enhancements to meet our needs. This work is about 70% completed. For instance, summary management reports are not available at this time that give the total number and types of assets and associated dollar amounts for specific sites in the District. currently to determine this information, an entire site inventory is run and the desired data is manually sorted. The fixed asset property accounting section performed physical inventories at Stephens and Ish Elementary schools because of anticipated closings. NO other schools were inventoried due mainly to computer software problems encountered with the fixed assets module of CIMS, plus shortage of staff to validate physical inventories at each site in a timely and effective manner. It's imperative that the District, at any given time, have accurate information available detailing assets on-hand at all sites. The Chicot Elementary fire illustrates this point as the asset information maintained by the Procurement Department was provided to the insurance companies to aid in loss evaluation. The Department currently relies on school/department personnel to verify the assets recorded in the property system. NO validations of these inventories are made by Procurement due to lack of personnel as mentioned above. This objective is not being met due mainly to computer system deficiencies and shortage of staff. In order to fully accomplish this objective, these two areas must be addressed. A prograrraning consultant is being used to address the system problems and the personnel issue may develop into a business case. The computer system deficiencies have been identified and corrective measures approved and are presently in progress. The personnel position is that of a property accounting secretary and has previously been approved but hiring has not been initiated. 4 Evaluation Results (continued): OBJECTIVE 6: MAINTAIN A CENTRAL WAREHOUSE OF COMMONLY USED OFFICE AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES UTILIZED BY THE DISTRICT. In maintaining the warehouse, emphasis is placed on attaining maximum efficiency while maintaining effectiveness. In this regard, the Procurement Department has a goal to deliver requested school/office supplies within 48 hours of receipt of electronic requisitions from schools/departments\nhowever, the current system does not provide the capability to accumulate the information to measure this goal. This problem will be corrected with program enhancements planned for installment by the end of the 94-95 fiscal year. Since Procurement initiated electronic requisitioning in 1992-93, the number of requisitions received has been dramatically reduced due primarily to the schools/departments on-line requisitioning capability. Prior to 1992-93, all schools/departments typed their supply center requisitions. Requisitions were forwarded when created to Procurement via inter-office mail. This usually resulted in several a day depending on staff requests received by the school/department bookkeeper. Electronic requisitioning allows schools/departments to accumulate their request on one system requisition throughout the day. This electronic request is then processed by Procurement on-line the next work day. The chart below reflects this trend: Number of warehouse Requisitions Processed School Year 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 # of Requisitions 11,372 11,221 4,568 5,000 5 ,, ,.....,.. Ii I l i, I ' 1, l I i I l I 1, ,1 II Ii I 1, i 11 Evaluation Results (continued): The Procurement Department received five (5) requests/suggestions from schools/departments for new product additions to the warehouse during 93/94. All five were added to the supply center inventory as new catalogue items. The chart below reflects the total number of products carried in the supply center over the last four years and our progress in reducing uneconomical inventory: School Year 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 Total Number of Stock Items Carried 896 852 843 819 The Procurement Department has reduced supply center inventory costs to more economical levels each year. The chart below reflects ending inventory values over the last four years:  School Year 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 Ending Inventory Amount $ 345,879 362,531 319,030 308,997 DISCUSSION: Overall, this objective is being met with varying degrees of efficiency and economy. However, there are computer system deficiencies that restrict the retrieval of management information to enhance the achievement of this objective. In order to fully accomplish this objective, these data gathering deficiencies must be corrected. A prograrmning consultant is currently being used to review the system problem. Solutions are planned to be installed by the end of the 94-95 fiscal year. 6 I II I ,I . .... Evaluation Results (continued): OBJECTIVE 7: MAINTAIN A CENTRAL WAREHOUSE OF FREE-PRINTED FORMS UTILIZED BY THE DISTRICT. The Procurement Department received requests from schools/departments for six new printed forms to be added to inventory during 93/94. All six were added to the inventory. DISCUSSION: Objective met. Obstacles to Goal Attainment: 1. Objective Achieved. 2. Objective Achieved. 3. Objective Not Achieved. Project is ongoing into 94-95. 4. Objective Not Achieved. Project is ongoing into 94-95. 5. Objective Not Achieved. The Department is currently 70% complete in evaluating the current system for improvements required to fully accomplish this goal. This evaluation is expected to be completed by fiscal year end 1995. Also, shortage of staff has not allowed Procurement to validate physical inventories at schools/departments. Procurement has one (1) employee to accomplish all property accounting for the District including validation of school/department inventories. Procurement currently relies on school/department personnel to verify assets for their locations. Work backlog is a problem in several other key Property Accounting responsibility areas due to the shortage of staff. These areas include: a) Inputing asset data into the Fixed Asset System\nb) tagging new assets\nc) preparing for surplus property sales\nd) coordinating and accounting for excess property inter-district movements and\ne) accounting for donated property to the District. 6. Objective Not Achieved. Procurement is currently 70% complete in evaluating the current computerized inventory system for improvements needed in order to fully accomplish this goal. This evaluation is expected to be completed by fiscal year end 1995. 7. Objective Achieved. 7 Ii I I I 1, I II I ,I I I II I I! 11, I I II ' I I Recommendations: Recommendation 1: There are several areas under the Procurement Department's responsibility where procedural changes should be addressed. A new objective regarding these procedural changes should be added to our program budget document. These changes are required to improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of purchasing within the District. Objective 1: Define, develop, and implement relevant purchasing procedures and measures to enhance those functions required of an effective and efficient centralized procurement and materials management operation. This objective is needed in order to introduce cost containment and savings measures, improve relations with vendors, and lessen the potential for fiscal abuse. Several strategies would need to be added to this objective: 1. Delegate approval for local purchases under a predetermined dollar amount and guidelines to the school/department level (This constitutes spending approval only and does not eliminate the requirement for a written purchase order). 2. Incorporate activity fund purchases with vendors into the District's Centralized Automated Procurement system. 3. Develop procedures and dollar limits by which employees may be reimbursed for certain incidental expenditures. 4. Incorporate an invoice pre-audit function within the Department to verify contractual terms, conditions, and prices plus reduce the time required for payment of vendor invoices. Evaluation Criteria: The following would be the corresponding evaluation criteria for each new strategy previously listed. 1. Compare the number of purchase orders prepared by Centralized Procurement with the number of local small purchase orders prepared by school/departments. (If effective, the number of purchase orders prepared by Procurement should decrease and reduce the time required for schools/departments to make local small dollar purchases). 2. Purchasing transactions with vendors are documented with a standard District purchase order. 3. Monitor the number of reimbursement requisitions received by Procurement with previous years. This number should be reduced as a result of implementing this procedure. 8 Evaluation Criteria (continued): 4. Monitor contractual terms, conditions, and pricing plus measure time elapsed between receipt of goods and payment. (Also, verify that vendor invoices are mailed to Procurement). Expected Benefits: There are several benefits that would result if these changes were implemented: 1) More purchasing flexibility for schools/departments for local small dollar purchases. 2) Reduced paperwork, i.e., schools/departments would prepare on-site a local purchase order for small dollar purchases directly to vendor. 3) Vendors will receive one uniform purchase order from the district regardless of the fund being utilized. 4) Reimbursement to employees would be streamlined. 5) Reduced handling of invoices by mailing to one central location. 6) Days elapsed between receipt of goods and payment would be reduced. 7) Take advantage of vendor early payment discounts. 8) Improve relations with business community. 9) Greater utilization of Centralized Procurement System 10) Establishes more positive control over spending discipline. 11) Reduces the potential for improper spending practices. IMPACT ANALYSIS: These proposed changes would have no effect on the desegregation plan or court orders. There are political factors to overcome in that areas of responsibi1ity would be shifted from one department to another in some cases. Some risks associated with not implementing these procedures would be 1) continuing danger of deteriorating relations with the business community and 2) continuing danger of fiscal improprieties or improper expenditure of public funds. In order to successfully implement in a timely manner, some detailed coordination with user groups will be required. RESOURCES ANALYSIS: These proposed changes would require no changes in staffing to the Procurement Department. Training would be minimal and conducted in-house. FOR.CE FIELD ANALYSIS: The majority of Schools/Departments are in favor of these changes. A few principals may perceive the changes in activity fund procedures as an attempt by Procurement to control these funds. some personnel in the Business Office may also be reluctant to make changes. Procurement plans to overcome these obstacles by having group sessions involving affected users to discuss shortcomings, potential pitfalls, and benefits. The goal Will be to stress the changes as improving efficiency and Productivity for the entire District. 9 GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: Following are the proposed timelines for implementation: 1/95 - 2/95 3/95 3/95 - 4/95 3/95 - 4/95 4/95 - 5/95 6/95 7/95 7/95 Activity Meet with Business Office personnel to discuss proposed changes Pre-audit function implemented Meet with principal advisory council to review procedural changes Update procedure manual Train LRSD personnel on local purchase order Implement local purchase order process Incorporate activity fund purchases with District's centralized automated procurement system Implement revised employee reimbursement procedure Business Case is recommended ___yes _x_no Person(s) Responsible Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Controller Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Controller Director of Procurement Director of Procurement Purchasing Supervisors Director of Procurement Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Controller Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Controller Plan Modification is recommended _x_yes __ no Overall recommendations are likely to have what type of budgetary impact: No budgetary impact _x_ Increased costs Decreased costs 10 ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION MAGNET PROGRAM Program Description: Purpose: Scope and Content: The purpose of the program is to meet the growing needs of disadvantaged students and to improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate by incorporating Early Childhood Education programs into the elementary schools. The program provides experiences for young children which meet their needs and stimulate learning in all developmental areas- physical, social, emotional, and intellectual. Priority for 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. The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program will be available to children from ages six weeks to four years old. The program will serve as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting students to comply with desegregation reguirements. To provide a unique opportunity to explore and develop excellent early childhood education services to children and parents by providing complete continuity of education and childcare from early infancy through grade six. The program serves as a demonstration center for training college students as well as for inservice observation. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program operates 12 months of the year, Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., with the exception of holidays. A fee of $60.00 per week is charged for students between the ages of six weeks and three years old. There is no charge for the four-year-old program during regular school hours (7:55 a.m. - 2:35 p.m.). The developmental program revolves around an active learning philosophy with a full spectrum of activities designed to stimulate children at different levels of development. The program is licensed by the Department of Human Services. It is staffed with certified early childhood teachers and has the following teacher/child ratio: 6 weeks to 24 months - 1 adult to every 2 children A total of 5.50 adults for 10 children. 24 months to 36 months - 1 adult to every 4 children A total of 4.50 adults for 17 children. 36 months - 1 adult to every 6 children A total of 3 adults for 18 children. Snacks are served in the mornings and in the afternoons and well-balanced hot meals are available through food services. l I I ii I j I I II II I It I I I I  I 11 I I I Rockefeller Early Childhoood Education Magnet Program Page 2 Participants/ Beneficiaries: Program Goals: Evaluation Criteria: The participants served Childhood Magnet program identified as being between through the Rockefeller Early are students who have been the ages of six weeks and four years old. October 1 is the date used for student placements. To meet the needs of disadvantaged students and to improve racial balance in schools that are difficult to desegregate. The early childhood education program at Rockefeller School will capitalize upon the school's high quality early childhood education as a desegregation tool. The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program evaluation will consist of the following evaluation criteria: 1. Documentation of academic achievement and enrollment. 2. Partnership agreements developed between Rockefeller, U.A.L.R., and area colleges. 3. Documentation showing the use of Rockefeller for: 4. Training, lnservices, and Observations. Documentation showing the program receives the same attention as K-6 in: supervision, support, staff development, resource allotments, accountability, monitoring, and evaluation. 5. Number of children staying in the program. 6. The number of siblings attending Rockefeller K-6. 7. 8. 9. Documentation of meetings to review policies and recommendations made. Classroom observations, monitoring reports and documentation of work sessions. Documentation of inservice and orientation for parents. 10. Documentation of inservice evaluations. 11. Documentation of Task Force meetings. I Rockefeller Early Childhoood Education Magnet Program Page 3 Evaluation Results: Objective 1 : Discussion 1: E.P.S.F. Evaluation results reflect data gathered from several sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and yield the following results. To establish Rockefeller as academic achievement of attracting students to requirements. a model for disadvantaged comply with improving the students and desegregation 1 . Documentation of academic achievement and enrollment. An analysis of students who participated in compared to students who did not participate in using Post E.P.S.F. results, eligibility, and in the K-3 Summer School program. the program the program participation According to the E.P.S.F. 1993-94 Post Assessment findings of 40 kindergarten children at Rockefeller School the following is a analysis of 32 students who participated in the program compared to eight students who did not participate i\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information 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_1212","title":"Little Rock School District School Staffing Detail, Little Rock School District Information Services,","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":["1994/1995"],"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--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School employees","School administrators","School principals"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District School Staffing Detail, Little Rock School District Information Services,"],"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/1212"],"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":["459 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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nJU 1 4 1996 Office of Desegreg.,tion Mon:toring Little Rock School District SCHOOL STAFFING DETAIL LRSD Information Services DISTRICT SCHOOL STAFFING DETAIL REPORT l 7-Apr-96 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE 94 BADGETT 186.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 MOORE, Sf-IlRLEY J 02 NELSON, WILBURLENE R CATEGORY TOTALS: ELEM.CLSRM.TCH. 01 ALBERT, REJEANA J 01 CAMPBELL, ETIIEL J 01 CHILDS, SANDRA D 01 MCGOWAN, DORIS J 01 MCLENNAN, ANNE 01 SINGER, PATRICIA B 01 TRAYLOR, KA Tl-ILEEN A 01 TRIMBLE, BETTY J 01 WOOD, CRYSTAL A CATEGORY TOTALS: GUIDANCE 01 GREGORY, PATRICIA A CATEGORY TOTALS: LIB/AV. 01 WATSON, MERLYN F CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHER PROF. 02 MAHAN, MARSHAL CATEGORY TOTALS: PRIN 01 GOLSTON, MARY R CATEGORY TOTALS: SEC.CLSRM. TCH. 06 ADAMS, JANET L 06 KOVACH, LILLIAN R Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 0.40 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.10 JOB CODE SEC PRIN MEDIA CL ELEMV ELEM III ELEMVI ELEM! ELEM II ELEM IV 4 YR OLD ELEM VI KINDER-REG CNSLR-ELEM LIBRN-ELEM NURSE ELE PRIN MATH-CI-IP I MATH SPEC SALARY $15,229.39 $5 ,372.40 $20,601.79 $36,876.00 $25,695 .00 $30,733.00 $36,876.00 $30,512.00 $34,467.00 $195,159.00 $30,733.00 $30,733.00 $34,540.67 $34,540.67 $4,978.4Q $4,978.40 $57,067.14 $57,067.14 $16,268.00 $3,125.50 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 PACK, JANET E 0.60 G\u0026amp;T $16,344.00 01 PEARSON, BOYCE 0.50 MUSIC $17,233.50 01 PRUITT, GAYLA R 1.00 SPE-M-HAND $24,892.00 06 ROWE,MARYM 0.80 READING $26,513.60 01 VALUE, TERRIL 0.50 SPEECH $15,627.50 01 WY A TT, JANICE K 0.50 SPE-N/CATG $12,817.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.40 $132,821.60 SERV.WKRS. 02 MCCRUEL, LESLIE L 1.00 CUST-HEAD $14,342.00 02 WILLIAMS, LARRY L 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,229.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $23,571.00 TCHR.AIDES 02 GRAY, KATHRYN M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,837.04 02 MERRILL, ANNETTE M 0.40 LAB ATTEND $4,164.40 02 PHILLIPS, THELMA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,837.04 02 SCRUB BS JR, WALTER 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 WATSON, MURIEL C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.40 $36,660.48 YEARLY TOTALS: 24.40 $536,133.08 95 BADGETT 180.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 MOORE, SHIRLEY J 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,719.88 02 NELSON, WILBURLENE R 0.40 MEDIA CL $5,721.62 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $21,441.50 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 ALBERT, REJEANA J 1.00 ELEMV $28,043 .0Q 01 CAMPBELL,ETHELJ 1.00 ELEM III $37,221 .00 01 DANIEL, SUSAN J 1.00 KINDER-REG $23,443.00 01 MCGOWAN, DORIS J 1.00 ELEM I $31,832.00 01 MCLENNAN, ANNE 1.00 ELEM IT $37,221.00 01 PARR,LISA Y 1.00 4 YR OLD $21,883.00 01 SINGER, PATRICIA B 1.00 ELEM IV $31,609.00 01 TRAYLOR, KATHLEEN A 1.00 4 YR OLD $35,600.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This re11ort does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSl) 1-NVORMA\"l'\\ON S\\l.RV\\C\\l. l)\\l.P\"l'. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 2 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 01 TRIMBLE, BETTY J 1.00 ELEM VI $35,600.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 9.00 $282,452.00 GUIDANCE 01 GREGORY, PATRICIA A 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $31,832.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $31,832.00 LIB/AV. 01 POSITION,VACANT 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 OTHER PROF. 02 JANSSEN, MARY JANE 0.20 NURSE $3,009.92 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.20 $3,009.92 PRIN 01 GOLSTON, MARY R 1.00 ELEPRlN $58,502.38 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $58,502.38 SEC.CLSRM.TCH. 06 ADAMS, JANET L 0.40 MATH-CHPI $16,420.40 06 CRAWFORD, CARMELIA A 0.10 MATH SPEC $3,290.50 01 GUNDERMAN, JANICE G 1.00 SPE-N/CATG 01 JOHNSON, BONITA ANN 0.40 G\u0026amp;T 01 PEARSON, BOYCE 0.60 MUSIC $21,360.00 01 PRUITT, GAYLA R 1.00 SPE-M-HAND $17,290.00 06 ROWE,MARYM 0.60 READING $20,557.80 01 VALUE, TERRI L 0.50 SPEECH $16,179.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.60 $95,097.70 SERV.WKRS. 02 MCCRUEL, LESLIE L 1.00 CUST-HEAD $14,784.00 02 WILLIAMS, LARRY L 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,539.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $24,323.00 TCHR.AIDES 02 BARNES, KENNETH 1.00 AIDE-4YR $11,255.14 02 GRAY, KATHRYN M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,903.37 02 MERRILL, ANNETTE M 0.40 LAB ATTEND $3,511.60 02 PHILLIPS, THELMA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,903.37 02 SCRUBBS JR, WALTER 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 06 SNOWDEN, KIMBERLY A 1.00 AIDE-SP ED $2,296.32 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 3 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 WATSON, MURIEL C 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.40 $49,691.80 YEARLY TOTALS: 26.60 $566,350.31 96 BADGETT 215.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 NELSON, WILBURLENE R 0.40 MEDIA CL $5,823.32 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 SEC PRIN CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $5,823.32 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. OJ ALBERT, REJEANA J 1.00 ELEMV $28,853.00 01 CAMPBELL, ETI-IEL J 1.00 ELEM ID $38,031.00 OJ DANIEL, SUSAN J 1.00 KINDER-REG $24,254.00 OJ MCGOWAN, DORIS J 1.00 ELEM I $32,642.00 OJ MCLENNAN,ANN E 1.00 ELEM II $38,031.00 OJ PARKER, TAMMY L 1.00 KINDER-REG $10,764.19 OJ PARR, LISA Y 1.00 4 YR OLD $22,693.00 OJ SINGER, PATRICIA B 1.00 ELEM JV $32,419.00 OJ TRAYLOR, KA TIILEEN A 1.00 4YROLD $36,411.00 OJ TRIMBLE, BETTY J 1.00 ELEM VI $36,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 10.00 $300,509.19 GUIDANCE OJ GREGORY, PATRICIA A 0.80 CNS LR-ELEM $26,113.60 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.80 $26,113.60 LIB/AV. OJ WAKELYN, JOAN 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $28,773.29 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $28,773.29 OTHER PROF. 02 JANSSEN, MARY JANE 0.20 NURSE $3,501.28 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.20 $3,501.28 PRIN OJ GOLSTON, MARY R 1.00 ELE PRIN $59,592.95 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $59,592.95 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. OJ GUNDERMAN, JANICE G 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $22,693.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. '-,R.S-0 ,NVOR.l'J\\\"-,:,oN S\\l.RV,c\\l. l\u0026gt;\\l.\\\u0026gt;'T. Sa.\\a.1 .. y = 'Base Sa.\\ary + Sti1lc.nds(docs not include \\1cncfits) 4 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 JOHNSON, BONITA ANN 0.40 G\u0026amp;T $10,050.00 01 NORMAN, ANN C 0.40 MUSIC $14,134.80 01 PRUITT, GAYLA R 1.00 SPE-M-HAND $26,746.00 01 VALUE, TERRI L 0.50 SPEECH $16,584.50 06 WROTEN, MYRTHENE R 0.50 MATH-CJ-IP! $16,858.00 06 WROTEN, MYRTHENE R 0.50 MATH-CHP I $16,858.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.30 $123,924.30 SERV.WKRS. 02 MCCRUEL, LESLIE L 1.00 CUST-HEAD $15,264.00 02 WILLIAMS, LARRY L 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,907.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $25,171.00 TCHR.AIDES 02 BARNES, KENNETH 1.00 AIDE-4YR $11 ,527.57 02 GRAY, KATHRYN M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,040.43 02 HARPER, KA TINA ERICA 0.40 LAB ATTEND $3,849.26 02 PHILLIPS, THELMA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,040.43 02 SCRUBBS JR, WALTER 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663 .00 06 SNOWDEN, KIMBERLY A 1.00 AIDE-SP ED $10,407.00 02 UWADINEKE, NNANTA C 1.00 AIDE-SP ED $10,411.00 02 WATSON, MURIEL C 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,663.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 7.40 $69,601.69 YEARLY TOTALS: 28.10 $643,010.62 94 BALE 297.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 HENDRICKS, LUCY M 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 02 NELSON, WILBURLENE R 0.40 MEDIA CL $5 ,372.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $22,567.05 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BRANCH, MARTHA A 1.00 ELEM! 01 BROWN, CLARA J 1.00 ELEM I $28,104.00 01 CONLEY, FRANCES J 1.00 ELEM II $24,892.00 01 DOCKERY, MAE K 1.00 ELEMV $31 ,255.00 01 GADDY, ELLISTINE 1.00 ELEM IV $36,876.00 Note: EmJJloyees with no salary are not currently active on JJayroll. This reJJort does not include, MetrOJJOlitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all emJJloyees currently active on JJayroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ StiJJends(does not include benefits) 5 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 01 GEURIN, RAMONA 0 1.00 KINDER-REG $34,467.00 01 HUTTO, MARYE 1.00 KINDER-REG $33,945.00 01 JACKSON JR, JOSEPH 1.00 ELEM VI $37,157.00 01 JOHNSON, CARTHORIA 1.00 4 YR OLD $35,009.00 01 JOHNSON, DELMA J 1.00 ELEM III $34,246.00 01 POSITION, OPEN 1.00 ELEMV 01 ROGERS, CHARLENE I 1.00 KINDER-REG $38,763.00 01 SINGH, DONNA F 1.00 ELEM VI 01 TALLEY, HELEN J 1.00 ELEM II $32,359.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 14.00 $367,073.00 GUIDANCE 01 ROUSE, WARREN J 0.80 CNS LR-ELEM $29,500.80 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.80 $29,500.80 LIB/AV. 01 SCHOFIELD, SANDRA 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $37,836.31 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,836.31 OTHER PROF. 02 GIBSON, JOCELYN M 0.40 NURSE $4,219.09 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $4,219.09 PRlN 01 WILSON, LEVANNA M 1.00 ELE PRIN $49,985.43 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 1.00 $49,985.43 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 COLLINS, PEGGY S 1.00 MUSIC $26,437.00 06 CRAWFORD, CARMELIA A 0.10 MATH SPEC $3,179.70 01 GENTRY-HEARD, RENEE' 1.00 SPE-M/RET $32,861 .00 01 MCBRIDE, BARBARA L 1.00 SPEECH $28,846.00 01 PADILLA, PAULA A 0.60 G\u0026amp;T $21 ,511.20 01 PLEDGER, OSHIE L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $36,876.00 01 RICKETTS, MELISSA K 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $22,724.00 01 SHENEP, CYNTHIA K 0.60 SPEECH $18,271.20 06 STILES, DONNA M 0.60 MATH-CHPI $21 ,005.40 06 YEAGER, JUDITH A 1.00 READING $35,270.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 7.90 $246,981.50 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. '-,l\\S-0 \\NVO\"R.MA.T\\ON S.RV\\C DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 6 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY SERV.WKRS. 02 BLEDSOE, STANLEY 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,199.00 02 FLOWERS, MARTIIA L 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,203.00 02 POSITION,VACANT 0.50 CUS-PmME CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $25,402.00 TCHR.AIDES 02 ClilLDS, FRANCES C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 EASTERLY, SHEILA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 lilLL, CAROLYN 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 HORNER, BOBBIE RAY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,136.00 02 HUDSON, MARY B 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 MILLER, VANESSA C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,051.20 02 OWENS, ROMUNDA L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,159.00 02 SCARBROUGH, VALARIE 0.60 LAB ATTEND $6,246.60 02 SESSION, MARCIA J 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,338.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.60 $71,575.20 YEARLY TOTALS: 37.60 $855, 140.38 95 BALE 308.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 HENDRICKS, LUCY M 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 02 SITLINGTON, CAROL W 0.40 MEDIA CL $6,005.43 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $23,200.08 ELEM.CLSRM.TCH. 01 BROWN, CLARA J 1.00 ELEM! $29,177.00 01 CONLEY, FRANCES J 1.00 ELEM II $25,935.00 01 DOCKERY, MAE K 1.00 ELEMV $32,358.00 01 FUNK, PA ULA R 1.00 ELEM VI $20,262.00 01 GADDY, ELLISTINE 1.00 ELEM lV $37,221.00 01 GEURIN, RAMONA 0 1.00 4YROLD $35,600.00 01 HUTTO, MARYE 1.00 KINDER-REG $35,074.00 01 JACKSON JR, JOSEPH 1.00 ELEM VI $38,315.00 01 JOHNSON, CARTIIORIA 1.00 4YROLD $35,337.00 01 JOHNSON, DELMA J 1.00 ELEM III $35,377.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 7 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 MORRIS, CHRISTY S 1.00 ELEM I 01 NELSON, JOANNE 1.00 ELEMV $37,221.00 01 ROGERS, CHARLENE I 1.00 KINDER-REG $39,126.00 01 TALLEY, HELEN J 1.00 ELEM II $33,473.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 14.00 $434,476.00 GUIDANCE 01 ROUSE, WARREN J 1.00 CNS LR-ELEM $37,221.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,221.00 LIB/AV. 01 SCHOFIELD, SANDRA 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $35,863.98 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $35,863.98 OTHER PROF. 02 POSITION, VACANT 0.40 NURSE CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 PRlN 01 ANDERSON, BARBARA A 1.00 ELE PRJN $44,427.13 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $44,427.13 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 COLLINS, PEGGY S 1.00 MUSIC $27,496.00 06 CRAWFORD, CARMELIA A 0.10 MATH SPEC $3 ,290.50 01 GENTRY-HEARD, RENEE' 1.00 SPE-M/RET $33,979.00 01 MCBRIDE, BARBARA L 1.00 SPEECH $29,927.00 01 PADILLA, PAULA A 0.60 G\u0026amp;T $22,198.80 01 PLEDGER, OSIIlE L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $37,221.00 01 RICKETTS, MELISSA K 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $23,747.00 01 SHENEP, CYNTIIlA K 0.60 SPEECH $18,928.80 06 STILES, DONNA M 0.60 MATH-CHP I $21,202.20 06 YEAGER, JUDITII A 1.00 READING $36,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 7.90 $254,401.30 SERV.WKRS. 02 CHARLES JR, EARL 1.00 CUSTODAN $3,698.46 02 THOMAS, JOHNNY 1.00 CUST-IIEAD $14,529.74 02 WILLIAMS, GARY DEAN 0.50 CUS-PffiME $924.62 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $19,152.82 TCHR.AIDES Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all em1lloyees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 BRADFORD, OLLIE M 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 CHILDS, FRANCES C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 EASTERLY, SHEILA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 HILL, CAROLYN 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,911.00 02 HORNER, BOBBIE RAY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,387.70 02 I-illDSON, MARY B 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 MILLER, VANESSA C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,242.10 02 OWENS, ROMUNDA L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 AIDE-SVA 02 SCARBROUGH, VALARIE 0.60 LAB ATTEND $6,246.60 CATEGORY TOTALS: 9.60 $78,842.40 YEARLY TOTALS: 38.80 $927,584.71 96 BALE 338.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 HENDRICKS, LUCY M 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 02 SilUNGTON, CAROL W 0.40 MEDIA CL $6,005.43 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $23,200.08 ELEMCLSRM. TCH. 01 BALENKO, MARYE 1.00 ELEM! $36,411 .00 01 BROWN, CLARA J 1.00 ELEM! $29,988.00 OJ CONLEY, FRANCESJ 1.00 ELEM II $26,746.00 OJ CUNNINGHAM, LISA D 1.00 ELEM Ill $31,548.00 OJ DOCKERY, MAE K 1.00 ELEMV $33,169.00 01 FRANCIS, LYNDA S 1.00 ELEM IV $25,935.00 01 FUNK, PA ULA R 1.00 ELEM Ill $21 ,072.00 OJ GEURIN, RAMONA 0 1.00 4 YR OLD $36,411.00 01 HUlTO, MARYE 1.00 KINDER-REG $35,884.00 01 JACKSON JR, JOSEPH 1.00 ELEM VI $39,126.00 01 JOHNSON, CARTIIORIA 1.00 4 YR OLD $36,147.00 01 LITTELL, TERRI S 1.00 KINDER-REG $31,609.00 01 NELSON, JOANN E 1.00 ELEMV $38,031.00 01 TALLEY, HELEN J 1.00 ELEM II $34,283.00 01 TARKINGTON, RONALDSTEVE 1.00 ELEM IV $28,367.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 9 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 UNDERWOOD-MORAVEC, LEIGH A 1.00 ELEM VI $29,927.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 16.00 $514,654.00 GUIDANCE 01 ROUSE, WARREN J 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $38,031.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $38,031.00 LIB/AV. 01 SCHOFIELD, SANDRA 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $39,021.39 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $39,021.39 OTHER PROF. 02 FLEMING, JIMMIE M 0.40 NURSE $7,469.78 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $7,469.78 PRIN 01 ANDERSON, BARBARA A 1.00 ELE PRIN $48,307.81 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $48,307.81 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 COLLINS, PEGGY S 1.00 MUSIC $28,306.00 01 GENTRY-HEARD, RENEE' 1.00 SPE-M/RET $34,790.00 01 MCBRIDE, BARBARA L 1.00 SPEECH $30,737.00 01 PADILLA, PAULA A 0.60 G\u0026amp;T $22,685.40 01 PLEDGER, OSHIE L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $38,031.00 01 RICKETTS, MELISSA K 1.00 SPE-DEAF $24,558.00 01 SHENEP, CYNTHIA K 0.60 SPEECH $19,414.80 06 STILES, DONNA M 0.50 MA TI-1-CHP I $18,073.50 06 STILES, DONNA M 0.50 MATH-CIIP I $18,073.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 7.20 $234,669.20 SERV.WKRS. 02 PHILLIPS, RAYMOND E 1.00 CUST-IlEAD $9,245.69 02 POSITION, VACANT 0.50 CUS-PfTTME 02 POSITION,VACANT 1.00 CUSTODAN CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $9,245.60 TCHR.AIDES 02 BRADFORD, OLLIE M 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,663.00 02 CHILDS, FRANCES C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663 .00 02 EASTERLY, SIIEILA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663 .00 02 HILL, CAROLYN 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $11,163.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) JO YEAR SlTE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 HORNER, BOBBIE RAY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,583.50 02 HUDSON, MARY B 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 02 MJCKLES, BRUCE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,183.00 02 MJLLER, VANESSA C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,366.70 02 OWENS, ROMUNDA L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,663.00 02 RUTH, PAULA L 1.00 AIDE-SP ED $10,663.00 02 SCARBROUGH, VALARIE 0.60 LABATfEND $6,397.80 CATEGORY TOTALS: 10.60 $95,672.00 YEARLY TOTALS: 41.10 $1,010,270.86 94 BASELINE 322.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 JAMES, TERRIE J 0.40 l'v1EDIA CL $4,656.00 02 JONES, ANNETfE L 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,719.88 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $20,375.88 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BROOKS, LETITIA R 1.00 ELEM IV $25,695.00 01 BULLINGTON, STACEY L 1.00 ELEM I $23,286.00 01 BURCHFIELD, VICKI 1.00 4 YR OLD $31,255.00 01 CARTER, CHARLES R 1.00 ELEM IV $26,739.00 01 DEATON, BETTY K 1.00 ELEMV $30,512.00 01 GLASON, DIANNE M 1.00 ELEM III $25,695.00 01 HARDESTY, PATTY J 1.00 ELEMil $32,600.00 01 HARRIS, LORETTA M 1.00 ELEMV $36,655.00 01 1-flJFFMAN, CAROLYN A 1.00 ELEM III $24,892.00 01 JAMES, MARILYN K 1.00 KINDER-REG $31 ,255.00 01 LAMB, ANITA J 1.00 ELEM II $33,162.00 01 MJTCHELL, MARIA A 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,710.00 01 SELF, ELAINE M 1.00 4 YR OLD $29,649.00 01 SMJTH, DELWIN H 1.00 ELEM VI $22,483.00 01 TAPPAN, DONNA M 1.00 ELEM I $24,089.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 15.00 $427,677.00 GUIDANCE 01 AKERS, SHARRA D 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $32,861.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) II YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $32,861.00 LIB/AV. 01 NALLEY, MARGARET R 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $32,892.84 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $32,892.84 OTHER PROF. 02 MCKENZIE, MILLY 0.40 NURSE $12,180.80 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $12,180.80 OTHR CLSRM.TCH. 01 FOWLER, MILLICENT K 0.50 SPE-LD $18,036.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.50 $18,036.50 PRIN 01 CI-IEATIIAM, MARY J 1.00 ELE PRIN $58,650.38 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $58,650.38 SEC.CLSRM TCH. 06 BURCHETT, CARLETTA D 0.40 READING $10,896.00 06 DANESHMANDI, KA TIIRYN D 0.10 MATH SPEC $2,964.90 06 MCDONALD, MARY J 0.60 MA TH-Cl-IP I $23,257.80 01 NORMAN, ANN C 1.00 MUSIC $33,162.00 01 POTEET, LISA B 0.50 SPEECH $14,824.50 01 SMITI-1, EUNICE D 1.00 SPE-M/RET $39,867.00 06 SMITH, WILLIAM 0 1.00 READING 01 WHITTAKER, NONA M 0.50 G\u0026amp;T $20,335.00 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 5.10 $145,307.20 SERV.WKRS. 02 FOSTER, BARRON J 1.00 CUSTODAN $11,202.00 02 HARRIS, BEYERL Y 1.00 CUSTODAN $11,202.00 02 RENDEL, RAYL 1.00 CUST-1-IEAD $15,360.0? CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $37,764.00 TCHR.A.IDES 02 BRANCH, PAULA E 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,159.00 02 CALDWELL, JOSEPHINE B 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,306.40 06 CANNON, SHIRLEY L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,159.00 02 CASEY, DOROTIIY A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,306.40 02 CONLEY, TINA A 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 HUSSEY, PAULINE K 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,306.40 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. l...RSO \\N\"FORMA..\"f\\ON S.RV\\C\\,, l)\\,,\\\u0026gt;\"f. Sa\\ar)' = Base Sa\\ar)' + Stipends(does not include benefits) 12 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 JACKSON, CONNIE M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,306.40 02 MOORE-FUDAIL, DONNA K 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,159.00 02 RUNYAN, JUDITH A 0.60 LABATfEND $6,246.60 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.60 $68,360.20 YEARLY TOTALS: 37.00 $854,105.80 95 BASELINE 300.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 AKBAR, FATIMAH K 0.40 MEDIA CL $4,017.38 02 DELONEY, GLORIA M 1.00 SEC PRIN $9,168.23 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 1.40 $13,185.61 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BOWMAN, ROSE H 1.00 ELEM VI $21,072.00 01 BROOKS, LETITIA R 1.00 ELEM IV $26,746.00 01 BURCHFIELD, VICKI 1.00 4YROLD $32,358.00 01 COLLINS, KELI JO 1.00 KINDER-REG $23,443.00 01 DEATON, BETTY K 1.00 ELEMV $31,609.00 01 GLASON, DIANNE M 1.00 ELEM III $26,746.00 01 HARDESTY, PATTY J 1.00 ELEM II $33,716.00 01 HARRIS, LORETTA M 1.00 ELEMV $37,809.00 01 HUFFMAN, CAROLYN A 1.00 ELEM Ill $23,908.83 01 JAMES, MARILYN K 1.00 KINDER-REG $32,358.00 01 LAMB, ANITA J 1.00 ELEM! $33,473.00 01 MITCHELL, MARIA A 1.00 KINDER-REG $30,798.00 01 SELF, ELAINE M 1.00 4YROLD 01 SMITH, DELWIN H 1.00 ELEM VI $23,504.00 01 WEA VER, SHERRY ELLEN 1.00 ELEM I $20,262.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 15.00 $397,802.83 GUIDANCE 01 AKERS, SHARRA D 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $33,979.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $33,979.00 LIB/AV. 01 KOEHLER, CA THERINE E. 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $24,116.08 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $24,116.08 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 13 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FIE JOB CODE SALARY OTHER PROF. 02 ANSLEY, MARTIIA A 0.20 NURSE $1,728.38 02 JACKSON, PAMELA 0.10 NURSE $2,489.20 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.30 $4,217.58 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 FOWLER, MILLICENT K 0.50 SPE-LD $18,610.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.50 $18,610.50 PRIN 01 DEAN, LONNIE S 1.00 ELE PRIN $62,294.15 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $62,294.15 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 06 BURCHETT, CARLETTA D 1.00 READING $28,306.00 06 DANESHMANDI, KA TIIRYN D 0.10 MATIISPEC $3,073.70 01 HUDSON, LINDA S 1.00 SPE-M/RET $33,169.00 01 KEARNEY, MAPLE J 0.50 G\u0026amp;T $17,283.50 06 MCDONALD, MARY J 0.60 MATII-CHP I $23,475.60 01 NORMAN, ANN C 1.00 MUSIC $34,526.00 01 POSITION,VACANT 0.50 SPEECH CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.70 $139,833.80 SERV.WKRS. 02 GUYTON, WAVERLY A 1.00 CUSTODAN $2,138.87 02 HARRIS, BEYERL Y 1.00 CUSTODAN $11,202.00 02 RENDEL, RAY L 1.00 CUST-HEAD $15,782.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $29,122.87 TCHR.AIDES 02 BRANCH, PAULA E 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 CALDWELL, JOSEPHINE B 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,366.79 06 CANNON, SHIRLEY L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 CASEY, DOROTIN A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,366.70 02 CONLEY, TINA A 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 HUSSEY, PAULINE K 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,366.70 02 JACKSON, CONNIE M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,366.70 02 MOORE-FUDAIL, DONNA K 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $9,229.21 02 PINKERTON, ANGELIA R 0.60 LAB ATTEND $272.30 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. \\...l\\.SD U-1.l'Ol\\.MA\"HON S'El\\.VlC'E D'EVl:. Sa\\ary = Base Sa\\ary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 14 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.60 $62,201.31 YEARLY TOTALS: 36.50 $785,363.73 96 BASELINE 313.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 AKBAR, FATIMAH K 0.40 MEDIA CL $4,731.50 02 DELONEY, GLORIA M 1.00 SEC PRIN $13,818.70 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $18,550.20 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BOWMAN, ROSE H 1.00 ELEM VI $21 ,883.00 01 BURCHETT, CARLETTA D 1.00 ELEM I $29,117.00 01 BURCHFIELD, VICKI 1.00 4 YR OLD $33,169.00 01 CLEVENGER, SARA J 1.00 KINDER-REG $24,314.00 01 COX,SUSANM 1.00 ELEM IV 01 DEA TON, BETTY K 1.00 ELEMV $32,419.00 01 GLASON, DIANNE M 1.00 ELEM III $27,556.00 01 HUFFMAN, CAROLYN A 1.00 ELEM III $26,746.00 01 JAMES, MARILYN K 1.00 KINDER-REG $33,169.00 01 LAMB, ANITA J 1.00 ELEM I $34,283.00 01 PEARSON, MARVA D 1.00 ELEM VI $34,790.00 01 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 ELEM II 01 SELF, ELAINE M 1.00 4 YR OLD $31 ,548.00 01 TATIJM, VALERIE L 1.00 ELEM IV $12,136.09 01 THOMAS, BRENDA SUE 1.00 KINDER-REG $20,262.00 01 WHITLOW, ALECIA A 1.00 ELEM II $20,515.31 CATEGORY TOTALS: 16.00 $381,907.40 GUIDANCE 01 AKERS, SHARRA D 1.00 CNS LR-ELEM $34,790.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $34,790.00 LIB/AV. 01 KOEHLER, CA THERINE E. 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $27,110.07 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $27,110.07 OTHER PROF. 02 WALKER, TERRI LYNN 0.20 NURSE $4,538.60 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 15 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 CRISWELL, DONICA M CATEGORY TOTALS: PRIN 01 COX, ELEANOR V CATEGORY TOTALS: SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 COLE, BETTY J 01 GOACHER, TINA D. OJ KEARNEY, MAPLE J 06 MCDONALD, MARY J 06 MCDONALD, MARY J 01 NORMAN, ANN C CATEGORY TOTALS: SERV.WKRS. 02 HARRIS, BEYERL Y 02 POSITION, VACANT 02 RENDEL, RAY L CATEGORY TOTALS: TCHR.AIDES 02 BAKER, ROBIN 02 BRANCH, PAULA E 06 CANNON, SHIRLEY L 02 CASEY, DOROTHY A 02 CONLEY, TINA A 02 COOPER, JUANITA 02 HUSSEY, PAULINE K 02 MOORE-FUDAIL, DONNA K 02 PINKERTON, ANGELIA R 02 REAMS, BERNARD 02 WOODLEY, CLIFTON D CATEGORY TOTALS: YEARLY TOTALS: Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FIE 0.20 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.60 3.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 10.60 38.30 JOB CODE SPE-LD ELE PRIN SPEECH SPE-M/RET G\u0026amp;T MATII-CHP I MA TI-1-CHP I MUSIC CUSTODAN CUSTODAN CUST-IIEAD AIDE-REGLR AIDE-4YR AIDE-REGLR AIDE-SVA AIDE-4YR AIDE-REGLR AlDE-SVA AIDE-REGLR LABAlTEND AIDE-REGLR AIDE-SVA SALARY $4,538.60 $12,157.00 $12,157.00 $56,824.29 $56,824.29 $17, 141.50 $22,693.00 $17,688.50 $19,968.00 $19,968.00 $21 ,202.20 S 118,661.20 $11,541.00 $16,224.00 $27,765.00 $9,341.76 $10,663.00 $5,491.30 $10,663.00 $9,172.94 $5,491.30 $10,663 .00 $5,289.60 $8,816.00 $5,704.01 $81,295.91 $763,599.67 This re\\}ort does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 94 BOOKER 602.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 12 LACEY JR, JESSE I 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $52,028.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $52,028.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 12 DA VIS, VELLA D 1.00 MEDIA CL $14,903.50 12 JOYNER, TISA S 1.00 SEC PRIN $14,246.21 12 POWELL, MARYE M 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $46,344.36 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 12 ABBOTT, JO ANN 1.00 ELEM Ill $29,950.00 12 ARMSTRONG, MARTIIA A 1.00 ELEM PE $38,763.00 12 AUSTIN, CLARA D 1.00 ELEM IV $40,670.00 12 BAKER, MICHELE LYNN 1.00 ELEM IV 12 BONDS, WILMA B 1.00 KINDER-REG $30,191.00 12 BURRUSS, MERILYN P 1.00 ELEM III $31 ,556.00 12 CLARK, DENISE W 1.00 ELEMV $24,892.00 12 COLFORD, SUSAN 1.00 ELEM VI $34,206.00 12 DORER, ROBERT A 1.00 ELEM PE $33,162.00 12 ELLINGTON, LORETTA 1.00 ELEM Ill $28,104.00 12 FARLEY, JENNIFER D 1.00 ELEM I $22,073.19 12 GIPSON, DEBRA ELISE 1.00 ELEM II 12 HARDING, CASSANDRA D 1.00 ELEM IV $25,635.00 12 HARRIS, PAULA R 1.00 ELEM VI $22,483.00 12 HESTIR, JOANN 1.00 ELEM! $36,073.00 12 HIGDON, TAMMY 1.00 ELEM II $30,452.00 12 JEFFRIES, VEARLON L 1.00 KINDER-REG $37,458.00 12 JOHNSON, MAYREAN S 1.00 ELEMV $40,670.00 12 JONES, ALICIA R 1.00 ELEM! $28,846.00 12 KELLEY, CLEMENTINE 1.00 ELEMV $40,670.00 12 KELLEY, LOIS W 1.00 ELEMil 12 KELLY, EVELYN 1.00 ELEM II 12 LEHNHOFF, DENNA N 1.00 ELEMV $36,876.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on llayroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 17 II' YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 LOTTON, MARY R 1.00 ELEM MUS $40,670.00 12 NEWCOMB, DARYL D 1.00 ELEMVI $29,930.00 12 SARLO, THOMAS C 1.00 ELEM ART $34,467.00 12 TAYLOR, CAROLYN W 1.00 ELEM IV $32,359.00 12 WALKER, BERTIIENA C 1.00 ELEM I $34,246.00 12 WALLS, BOBBIE J 1.00 KINDER-REG $28,846.00 12 WEIR, NANCY L 1.00 ELEMVI $35,009.00 12 WHITE, DISHOUNGII 1.00 ELEM III $25,695.00 12 YOUNG, MICHELLE L 1.00 KINDER-REG $23,527.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 32.00 $897,479.19 GUIDANCE 12 BISHOP, NANCY L 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $31 ,536.00 12 DOOLEY, VIVIAN K 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $32,058.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $63,594.00 LIB/AV. 12 BURNS, PATRICIA M 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $37,012.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,012.40 OTHER PROF. 12 ALLEY, MARYL 1.00 SPEC INS $40,670.00 12 SCOTT-JOHNSON, UVITA L 1.00 NURSE $27,301.00 12 SMITH, MARY A 1.00 SPEC INS $37,458.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $105,429.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 12 PLEASANT, CARWIN J 1.00 ORCHESTR CA TE GORY TOTALS: 1.00 PRIN 12 SIMMONS, CHERYL A 1.00 ELE PRIN $54,600.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $54,600.00 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 12 BLEDSOE, RITA L 1.00 MUSIC $40,670.00 12 BROWN, MARTHA C 1.00 MA Tll-COMPT $16,380.60 12 DICKERSON, KAYE H 1.00 READING $31 ,255.00 12 HUIE, CAROLYN K 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $36,073.00 12 KARP, ROSE MARIE 1.00 READING $32,861.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropo\\itan Schoo\\, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. L.. ,- ' ~'Q.~~ ,N\"l--o'Q.\"N'\\\"\"'-~'oN -s:v.R.v,c-v nv.~ ~a\\ay,~ - Bn,\"4.e ~ .. ,,\\.u-...., + ~,,,,~n,\\\"4.(,lne\"4. not. \\nc\\ud~ 1-\u0026lt;ten'-f\"U ..... ') YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 KINDER, JAMES B l.00 ART $24,892.00 12 MCGUIRE, STEPHEN K 0.33 SPE-N/CATG $12,361.14 12 MCMORRAN, MARYE 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $38,763.00 12 MEYERDIRK, CAROL A 1.00 IN CP SP $38,763.00 12 WI-IlTE, GLORIA A 1.00 MATII-COMPT $40,670.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 9.33 $312,688.74 SERV.WKRS. 12 BROWN, LAWRENCE 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 12 HAYES, OMAH 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,907.00 12 MARSHALL, JAMES A 1.00 CUST-HEAD $16,895.80 12 TROTTER, DANIEL L 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,907.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $51,243.80 TCHR.AIDES 12 CHARLESTON, SANTONIA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,428.96 12 CURRY, VIRGINIA E 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,428.96 12 HARRELL, ALICE L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,428.96 12 MIDDLETON, PATSY A 1.00 LAB ATTEND $10,411.00 12 OLIVER, ORA D 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,428.96 12 WOODS, BRENDA L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,256.48 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.00 $47,383.32 YEARLY TOTALS: 63.33 S 1,667,802.81 95 BOOKER 554.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 12 LACEY JR, JESSE J 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $52,333.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $52,333.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 12 DA VIS, VELLA D 1.00 MEDIA CL $15,145.18 12 JOYNER, TISA S 1.00 SEC PRIN $14,737.80 12 POWELL, MARYE M 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 CATEGORY TOT AL.S: 3.00 $47,077.63 ELEM.CLSRM.TCH. 12 ARMSTRONG, MARTHA A 1.00 ELEM PE $39,126.00 12 AUSTIN, CLARA D 1.00 ELEM IV $41 ,051.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 19 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 BAKER, MICHELE LYNN 1.00 ELEM IV $21,072.00 12 BONDS, WILMA B 1.00 KINDER-REG $31,285.00 12 BURRUSS, MERILYN P 1.00 ELEM III $32,662.00 12 COLFORD, SUSAN 1.00 ELEM VI $35,337.00 12 DORER, ROBERT A 1.00 ELEM PE $33,473.00 12 ELLINGTON, LORETTA 1.00 ELEM III $29,177.00 12 FAIR, DIXIE W 1.00 ELEM II $32,358.00 12 FARLEY, JENNIFER D 1.00 ELEM I $24,314.00 12 HARDING, CASSANDRA D 1.00 ELEM IV $26,685.00 12 HARRIS, PAULA R 1.00 ELEM VI $23,504.00 12 HESTIR, JOANN 1.00 ELEM I $37,221.00 12 IDGDON, TAMMY 1.00 ELEM II $31,548.00 12 JEFFRIES, VEARLON L 1.00 KINDER-REG $38,619.00 12 JOHNSON, MA YREAN S 1.00 ELEMV $41,051.00 12 JONES, ALICIA R 1.00 ELEM! $29,927.00 12 KELLEY, CLEMENTINE 1.00 ELEMV $41,051.00 12 KELLY,EVELYN 1.00 ELEM II $21,072.00 12 LEHNHOFF, DENNA N 1.00 ELEMV $37,221.00 12 LOFTON, MARY R 1.00 ELEM MUS $41 ,051.00 12 NEWCOMB, DARYL D 1.00 ELEMVI $31,021.00 12 POSITION,VACANT 1.00 ELEMV 12 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 ELEM II 12 SARLO, TIIOMAS C 1.00 ELEM ART $35,600.00 12 TAGGART, MICO RENEE 1.00 ELEM III 12 TAYLOR, CAROLYN W 1.00 ELEM IV $33,473.00 12 WALKER, BERTHENA C 1.00 ELEM I $35,377.0Q 12 WALLS, BOBBIE J 1.00 KINDER-REG $31,021.00 12 WEIR, NANCY L 1.00 ELEM VI $35,337.00 12 WIDTE, DISI IOUNGH 1.00 ELEM III $26,746.00 12 YOUNG, MICHELLE L 1.00 KINDER-REG $25,611 .00 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 32.00 $942,991.00 GUIDANCE 12 DOOLEY, VIVIAN K 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $34,263.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternathe Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 20 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 WOODHAM, MICHELE E 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $33,169.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $67,432.00 LIB/AV. 12 BURNS, PATRICIA M 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $38,190.30 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $38,190.30 OTHER PROF. 12 ALLEY, MARYL 1.00 SPEC INS $41,051.00 12 MOOREHEAD, KENNITI-1 D 1.00 SPEC INS $32,419.00 12 SCOTT-JOHNSON, UVITA L 1.00 NURSE $28,104.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $101,574.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 12 TENISON, MARY JOB 1.00 ORCHESTR CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 PRIN 12 SIMMONS, CHERYL A 1.00 ELE PRIN $56,095.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $56,095.00 SEC.CLSRM. TCH. 12 BLEDSOE, RITA L 1.00 MUSIC $41 ,051.00 12 BROWN, MARTHA C 0.60 MA 11-l-COMPT $10,212.12 12 DICKERSON, KAYE H 1.00 READING $32,358.00 12 HUIE, CAROLYN K 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $37,221.00 12 KARP, ROSE MARIE 1.00 READING $33,979.00 12 KINDER, JAMES B 1.00 ART $26,989.00 12 MCGUIRE, STEPHEN K 0.33 SPE-N/CATG $12,744.27 12 MCMORRAN, MARYE 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $39, 126.00 12 MEYERDlRK, CAROL A 1.00 IN CP SP $39,126.00 12 WlllTE, GLORIA A 1.00 MA Tl 1-COMPT $41,051.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.93 $313,857.39 SERV.WKRS. 12 BROWN, GEORGE 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,229.00 12 BROWN, LAWRENCE 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 12 HAYES,OMAH 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,245 .00 12 MARSHALL, JAMES A 1.00 CUST-IIEAD $17,375.80 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $51,383.80 TCHR.AIDES Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 21 J YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 CHARLESTON, SANTON1A \\ _()() AlUE-S'\\JA $1,'.i1'.~-'.W, I 12 CURRY, VIRGrNIA E 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,513.38 12 MIDDLETON, PATSY A 1.00 LAB ATTEND $10,911.00 12 OLIVER, ORA D 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,513 .38 12 POSITION,VACANT 1.00 AIDE-SVA 12 WOODS, BRENDA L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,513.38 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.00 $40,964.52 YEARLY TOTALS: 62.93 $1,711,898.64 96 BOOKER 618.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 12 HALL, DONNA R 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $37,230.52 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,230.52 CLERC/SEC'Y. 12 DA VIS, VELLA D 1.00 MEDIA CL $15,145.18 12 JOYNER, TISA S 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,229.39 12 POWELL, MARYE M 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $47,569.22 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 12 ARMSTRONG, MARTI IA A 1.00 AUXTEACIIR $39,936.00 12 AUSTIN, CLARA D 1.00 ELEM rv $41 ,86 1.00 12 BAKER, MICHELE LYNN 1.00 ELEM IV $22,937.00 I 12 BROWN, MARTI IA C 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,177.00 12 COLFORD, SUSAN 1.00 ELEM VI $36,147.00 12 DORER, ROBERT A 1.00 ELEM PE $34 ,283.00 12 ELLINGTON,LORETTA 1.00 ELEMIH $29,988.00 12 FAIR, DIXIE W 1.00 ELEM II $33,169.00 12 FARLEY, JENNIFER D 1.00 ELEM I $25,125.00  12 1-IALLUM, AMY LEIGI I 1.00 ELEM III $20,262.00 12 HARDING, CASSANDRA D 1.00 ELEM IV $25,165.16 12 IIARRrS, PAULA R 1.00 ELEM VI $25,368.00 12 HESTIR, JOANN 1.00 ELEM! $38,031.00 12 HIGDON, TAMMY 1.00 ELEM II $32,358.00 12 HIPPS, DEBORAH S. 1.00 ELEMV $23 ,443.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all em1lloyees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVlCE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Sti1lends(does not include benefits) 22 ~ = _.._.. ~-- --- YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 12 JEFFRIES, VEARLON L 1.00 KINDER-REG $39,430.00 12 JOHNSON, MAYREAN S 1.00 ELEMV $41 ,861.00 12 JONES, ALICIA R 1.00 ELEM I $30,737.00 12 KELLEY, CLEMENTINE 1.00 ELEMV $41 ,861.00 12 KELLY, EVELYN 1.00 ELEM II $21 ,883.00 12 LEHNHOFF, DENNA N 1.00 ELEMV $38,031.00 12 NEWCOMB, DARYL D 1.00 ELEM VI $31,832.00 12 SARLO, THOMAS C 1.00 ELEM ART $36,411.00 12 TAGGART, MICO RENEE 1.00 ELEM II $21 ,072.00 12 TAYLOR, CAROLYN W 1.00 ELEM IV $34,283.00 12 TUCKER, TRACYSELBY 1.00 ELEM III $25,064.00 12 WALKER, BERTHENA C 1.00 ELEM I $36,188.00 12 WALLS, BOBBIE J 1.00 KINDER-REG $31 ,832.00 12 WEIR, NANCY L 1.00 ELEM VI $36,147.00 12 WlllTE, DISHOUNGH 1.00 ELEM III $27,556.00 12 YOUNG, MICHELLE L 1.00 KINDER-REG $27,496.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 31.00 $978,934.16 GUIDANCE 12 DOOLEY, VIVIAN K 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $36,188.00 12 WOODHAM, MICHELE E 1.00 CNS LR-ELEM $33,979.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $70,167.00 LIB/AV. 12 BURNS, PATRICIA M 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $39,021 .39 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $39,021.39 OTHER PROF. 12 ALLEY, MARYL 1.00 SPEC CNS $41 ,861 .00 12 MOOREHEAD, KENNITH D 1.00 SPEC CNS $33 ,229.00 12 SCOTT-JOHNSON, UVITA L 1.00 NURSE $29,177.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $104,267.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 12 BLEDSOE, RITA L 0.50 ORCHESTR $20,930.50 12 CRIPPS, JOSEPH D 1.00 ORCHESTR $29,177.00 12 MEYERDIRK, CAROL A 1.00 lN CP SPEC $39,936.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $90,043.50 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 23 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FIE JOB CODE SALARY PRIN 12 SIMMONS, CHERYL A 1.00 ELEPRIN $57,267.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $57,267.00 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 12 ARMSlRONG, ERMA L 1.00 READING $37,221.00 12 BLEDSOE, RITA L 0.50 MUSIC $20,930.50 12 BURRUSS, MERILYN P 0.60 MATH-COMPT $12,259.08 12 HUIE, CAROLYN K 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $38,031 .00 12 KARP, ROSE MARIE 1.00 READING $34,790.00 12 KINDER, JAMES B 1.00 ART $27,799.00 12 LOFTON, MARY R 1.00 MUSIC $41 ,861 .00 12 MCGUIRE, STEPHEN K 0.33 SPEECH $13,011.90 12 MCMORRAN, MARYE 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $39,936.00 12 WHITE, GLORIA A 1.00 MATH-COMPT $41,861 .00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.43 $307,700.48 SERV.WKRS. 12 BROWN, LA WREN CE 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,956.00 12 HAYES,OMAH 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,554.00 12 MARSHALL, JAMES A 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,855.80 12 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 CUSTODAN CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $43,365.80 TCHRAIDES 12 CHARLESTON, SANTONIA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,687.82 12 CURRY, VIRGINIA E 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,687.82 12 MAYWEATHER, LOUISE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,990.06 12 MIDDLETON, PATSY A 1.00 LABATI\"END $11 ,163.00 12 OLIVER, ORA D 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,687.81. 12 WOODS, BRENDA L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,687.82 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.00 $48,904.34 YEARLY TOTALS: 62.93 $1,824,470.41 94 BRADY 387.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 SITLINGTON, CAROL W 0.40 MEDIA CL $5,909.60 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 24 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 WHERRY, JACQUELINE L 1.00 SEC PRIN $16,845.06 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $22,754.66 ELEM.CLSRM.TCH. 01 CROMEDY, GERALDINE 1.00 ELEM II $33,162.00 01 DUGAN, FRANCES R 1.00 KINDER-REG $36,876.00 01 ELAM, MARSHAL 1.00 ELEM III $26,739.00 01 HANNAHS, BARBARA I 1.00 ELEM VJ $35,049.00 01 HARKEY, JANE A 1.00 ELEM IV $30,733.00 01 lllMSTEDT, KIMBERLY H 1.00 ELEM III $26,498.00 01 KOON, BETTY R 1.00 ELEM II $31 ,797.00 01 LESTER, SANDRA L 1.00 ELEMV $25,936.00 01 MCCLURKAN, EDWINA Y 1.00 4YROLD $40,670.00 01 OLIVER, SHELLY R 1.00 ELEM III $32,600.00 01 ROSE, SHERRY L 1.00 ELEM I $35,852.00 01 SUMNER, FRANK.IE B 1.00 ELEM II $35,009.00 01 TEETER, KATHRYN A 1.00 KINDER-REG $25,635.00 01 TOLBERT, IRMA J 1.00 KINDER-REG $27,301.00 01 VARDAMAN, TAMIL 1.00 ELEM VJ $24,892.00 01 WAMBLE, FAUSTINE 1.00 ELEMV $28,846.00 01 WASHINGTON, MARY A 1.00 ELEM I $36,876.00 01 WELLS-SAFFOLD, MISlYE ELIZABETII 1.00 ELEM I $20,074.00 01 YOUNG, EVA M 1.00 ELEM IV CATEGORY TOTALS: 19.00 $554,545.00 GUIDANCE 01 GAMBLE, SUSANNE 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $33,140.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $33,140.00 LIB/AV. 01 NUNLEY, GLORIA A 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $30,709.43 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $30,709.43 PRIN 01 MENKING, MARY A 1.00 ELE PRIN $55,402.67 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 SSS,402.67 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 BRADLEY, ROZALYN M 0.50 SPEECH $18,438.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 25 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 06 CHARLES, KA TI-ILEEN M 0.60 READING $20,848.80 01 CROSBY, SUSAN M 1.00 MUSIC $27,240.00 01 GORDON, JANICE L 0.50 SPE-N/CATG $18,438.00 01 HODGES, BARBARA L 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $35 ,551.00 06 KOVACH, LILLIAN R 0.40 MATH SPEC $12,502.00 06 MCGEE, SUZANNE B 0.60 MATH-CHPI $22,125.60 01 MCINTYRE, GORDON L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $32,339.00 06 SHELLS, GENEVA S 1.00 READING $40,670.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.60 $228, I 52.40 SERV.WKRS. 02 ATKINSON, ARISTAL 1.00 CUSTODAN $11,078.00 02 FOSTER, DONALD 1.00 CUST-IIEAD $14,495.60 02 WILLIAMS, WILLIE F 0.50 CUS-PffiME $2,476.75 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $28,050.35 TCHR.AIDES 02 HARDY, KATHRYN C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $9,210.83 02 JONES JR, EARNEST L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,549.60 02 MOORE, PATSY A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,701.52 02 NICHOLS, VALARIE R 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,837.04 02 O'NEAL, EARNEST L 0.80 LAB ATTEND $7,724.00 02 TAYLOR, WON D 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 WIGHT, LINDA M 1.00 AID-TITL 6 $10,411.00 02 WILLIAMS, SARAH M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5 ,837.04 02 WOFFORD, HELEN L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.80 $70,093.03 YEARLY TOTALS: 41.30 $1,022,847.54 95 BRADY 389.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 NELSON, WILBURLENE R 0.60 MEDIA CL $8,582.44 02 WHERRY, JACQUELINE L 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,336.65 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.60 $25,919.09 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 AV ANT, MELISSA ANNE 1.00 ELEM TV $20,262.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LR.SD lNVORMA.TlON Sll.RVlCE DEPT. Sa\\arv = Base Sa\\ar-v + Stipends(does not include benefits) 2,\n-~.._,_ .... ~~ .. _.. _ . ............. -- . ~-----. - - -- - -- YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 CHARLES, KA TI-Il.,EEN M 1.00 KINDER-REG $35,884.00 01 CROMEDY, GERALDINE 1.00 ELEM II $33,473.00 01 DUGAN, FRANCES R 1.00 KINDER-REG $37,221.00 01 ELAM, MARSHA L 1.00 ELEM Ill $27,799.00 01 HANNAHS, BARBARA I 1.00 ELEM VI $36,188.00 01 I-llGHT, REBECCA R 1.00 ELEMV $27,556.00 01 JOHNSON, JENNIFER L 1.00 ELEMV $29,117.00 01 JONES, PAMELA K 1.00 KINDER-REG $37,221.00 01 KOON, BETTY R 1.00 ELEM II $32,905.00 01 MCCLURKAN, EDWINA Y 1.00 4 YR OLD $41,051.00 01 MILLER, ERMA D 1.00 ELEM! 01 OLIVER, SHELLY R 1.00 ELEM III $33,716.00 01 ROSE, SHERRY L 1.00 ELEM! $36,998.00 01 TIIOMAS, RICHELLE L 1.00 ELEM II $21,072.00 01 TOLBERT, IRMA J 1.00 KINDER-REG $28,367.00 01 VARDAMAN, TAMIL 1.00 ELEM VI $26,989.00 01 WASHINGTON, MARY A 1.00 ELEM I $37,221.00 01 YOUNG,EVAM 1.00 ELEM IV $17,779.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 19.00 $560,819.50 GUIDANCE 01 GAMBLE, SUSANNE 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $34,257.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $34,257.00 LIB/AV.- 01 NUNLEY, GLORIA A 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $31,828.84 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $31,828.84 PRIN 01 RAPER, BETTY G 1.00 ELE PRIN $42,555.17 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $42,555.17 SEC.CLSRM TCH. 01 CROSBY, SUSAN M 1.00 MUSIC $28,306.00 06 DANESHMANDI, KATHRYN D 0.10 MATIISPEC $3,073.70 01 GORDON, JANICE L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $37,221.00 01 HODGES, BARBARA L 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $36,694.00 06 MCGEE, SUZANNE B 0.60 MATII-CIIP I Note: Em1\u0026gt;loyees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 27 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 MCINlYRE, GORDON L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $33,453.00 01 PEEK, PEGGY R 0.50 SPEECH $16,179.00 06 POSITION, VACANT 0.40 READING 06 SHELLS, GENEVA S 1.00 READING $41,051.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.60 $195,977.70 SERV.WKRS. 02 ATKINSON, ARISTAL 1.00 CUSTODAN $11 ,539.00 02 HOWARD JR, WILL H 1.00 CUST-IIEAD $13,660.09 02 WILLIAMS, TRACEY N 0.50 CUS-PffiME CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $25,199.09 TCHRAIDES 02 BRANCH, ERIC 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,826.47 06 HARDY, KATHRYN C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,159.00 02 MOORE, PATSY A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,903.37 02 NICHOLS, VALARIE R 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,903.37 02 O'NEAL, EARNEST L 0.80 LAB ATTEND $7,925.60 02 PALMER, TARLISA 0.50 AIDE-REGLR $5,205.50 02 TAYLOR, WONE D 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 WILLIAMS, SARAH M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,903 .37 02 WOFFORD, HELEN L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.30 $66,648.68 YEARLY TOTALS: 41.00 $983,205.07 96 BRADY 388.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 NELSON, WILBURLENE R 0.60 MEDIA CL $8,734.99 02 WHERRY, JACQUELINE L 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,336.65 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.60 $26,071.64 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 CROMEDY, GERALDINE 1.00 ELEM II $34,283.00 01 DUGAN, FRANCES R 1.00 KINDER-REG $38,315.00 01 EVANS, REBECHA M 1.00 ELEM I $26,746.00 01 GALYEAN, NANETTE R 1.00 ELEM III $18,467.97 01 HANNAHS, BARBARA I 1.00 ELEM VI $36,998.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. \\ ,llSl'\\ \\Nl'OllMA'HON SV:llV\\C'll. Dll,\\\u0026gt;'T ~~,~ .. v = l\\~q,e Sa\\arv + Sth,en,l\u0026lt;il.(tloe~ not include benefit\"') , .. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 01 IDGHT, REBECCA R 1.00 ELEMV $28,367.00 01 JOHNSON, DELMA J 1.00 ELEM III $36,188.00 01 JONES, PAMELA K 1.00 KINDER-REG $38,031.00 01 KOON, BETTY R 1.00 ELEM II $33,716.00 01 MCCLURKAN, EDWINA Y 1.00 4YROLD $41 ,861.00 01 OLIVER, SHELLY R 1.00 ELEM III $34,526.00 01 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 ELEM IV 01 ROSE, SHERRY L 1.00 ELEM I $37,809.00 01 STEVENS, SHANNA M 1.00 ELEMV $21,316.00 01 11-IOMAS, RICHELLE L 1.00 ELEMII $21 ,883.00 01 TOLBERT, IRMA J 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,177.00 01 VARDAMAN, TAMIL 1.00 ELEM VI $28,853.00 01 WASHINGTON, MARY A 1.00 ELEM I $38,031.00 01 YOUNG, EVAM 1.00 ELEM IV $21 ,883 .00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 19.00 $566,450.97 GUIDANCE 01 GAMBLE, SUSANNE 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $35,067.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $35,067.00 LIB/AV. 01 NUNLEY, GLORIA A 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $32,660.96 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $32,660.96 PRIN 01 KEOWN, ADAL 1.00 ELEPRIN $45,268.37 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $45,268.37 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 CROSBY, SUSAN M 1.00 MUSIC $29,117.00 01 GORDON, JANICE L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $38,03] .0() 01 HODGES, BARBARA L 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $37,505.00 01 MCINTYRE, GORDON L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $34,263.00 01 PEEK, PEGGY R 0.50 SPEECH $16,584.50 06 SHELLS, GENEVA S 0.50 READING $20,930.50 06 SHELLS, GENEVA S 0.50 READING $20,930.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 5.50 $197,361.50 SERV.WKRS. Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 29 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 ABERNATIN, RAYMOND 1.00 CUST-HEAD $8,803.48 02 ATKINSON, ARISTAL 1.00 CUSTODAN $ I 1,981.00 02 COTTON, PARIS JOSEPH 0.50 CUS-PffiME $2,005.19 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $22,789.67 TCHR.AIDES 02 BRANCH, ERIC 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,041.85 06 HARDY, KATIIRYN C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 MOORE, PATSY A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,040.43 02 NICHOLS, VALARIE R 0.80 LAB ATTEND $4,006.83 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 AIDE-SVA 02 TAYLOR, WONE D 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 02 WILLIAMS, SARAH M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,040.43 02 WOFFORD, HELEN L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,663.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 7.80 $52,866.54 YEARLY TOTALS: 39.40 $978,536.65 94 CARVER 602.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 12 BARKSDALE, MARY D 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $42,421.93 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $42,421.93 CLERC/SEC'Y. 12 FRANKLIN, PHYLLIS P 1.00 SEC PRIN $14,737.80 12 MORRIS, NELDA J 1.00 MEDIA CL $14,326.00 12 SIMPSON, BElTI R 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $46,258.45 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 12 BENNETT,A 1.00 ELEMVl $33,443.00 12 BUCK, VIRGINIA S 1.00 ELEM IV $28,344.00 12 BURNEY, MARY C 1.00 ELEM! $26,437.00 12 BYRD, DEBORAH H 1.00 ELEM VJ $25,635.00 12 CURTIS, JULIE B 1.00 ELEM II $29,147.00 12 DOYNE, ANGELA K 1.00 KINDER-REG $34,748.00 12 FLEMING, LINDA K 1.00 ELEM VJ $31 ,255.00 12 GLENN, BETTY 1.00 ELEMV $38,763.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. u~su \\NFORMA'l'\\ON Sl!.RVlCI!. Dl!.l\"'l'. Sa\\an, = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 30 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 12 GLENN, LINDA F 1.00 ELEM I $29,649.00 12 HAMILTON, CLAUDIA J 1.00 ELEM II $36,876.00 12 HARRIS, RHONDA F 1.00 ELEM IV $22,483.00 12 HARRISON, KATHLEEN A 1.00 KINDER-REG $26,498.00 12 HOOKER, MELBA J 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,388.00 12 JESTER, JULIE D 1.00 ELEM IV $23,286.00 12 JOSEPH, JUNE D 1.00 ELEM II $20,877.00 12 KELLEY, BRYANA D 1.00 ELEM Ill $25,695.00 12 LANGLEY, DIANNE W 1.00 ELEM III $29,950.00 12 MACK,LISAK 1.00 ELEM II $30,994.00 12 MANNING, DEBRA A 1.00 ELEM ART 12 MUNNS, PATRICIA A 1.00 ELEM VI $25,695.00 12 PACE, TEATA D 1.00 ELEMV $25,133.00 12 PENN, PRISCILLA J 1.00 ELEMIII $22,483.00 12 ROBERTS, M MARTHA 1.00 KINDER-REG $26,498.00 12 SKUBAL, EUNICE L 1.00 ELEM I $22,483.00 12 WASHINGTON, KIMBERLY V 1.00 ELEM IV $22,483.00 12 WA ITS, RONDA M 1.00 ELEMV $22,483 .00 12 WILLIAMS, MARY ANNE K 1.00 ELEMV $27,782.00 12 WILSON, CYNTHIA L 1.00 ELEMIII $24,892.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 28.00 $743,400.00 GUIDANCE 12 AMMEL, LINDA G 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $29,930.00 12 TA TIJM, KA THY R 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $31,255.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $61,185.00 LIB/AV. 12 BELOTTI, VIRGINIA M 0.50 LIBRN-ELEM $16,188.89 12 THOMPSON, CAROLE 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $31,018.27 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.50 $47,207.16 OTHER PROF. 12 CRUM, JANES 1.00 INT/SPEC $34,748.00 12 CURTIS, MARY J 1.00 NURSE $31,556.00 12 MANNON, ROBERTA A 1.00 SPEC INS $28,846.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $95,150.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 31 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY OTHR Cl.BRM. TCH. 12 GREENLEE, KAREN ESTELLE 1.00 CUR SPEC $33,443.00 12 POSITION, VACANT 0.40 SPE MATII 12 SCOTT, Y ANA II 1.00 CUR SPEC $36,354.00 12 TIIOMAS, VANNETIA J 1.00 SPE MATII $25,936.00 12 UNDERWOOD-MORAVEC, LEIGH A 1.00 S/SPEC $28,043.00 CATEGORY TOT AI.B: 4.40 $123,776.00 PRIN 12 GUINN, MARYE 1.00 ELE PRIN CATEGORY TOTAI.B: 1.00 SEC. CI.BRM. TCH. 12 ANDREWS, SHARON F 0.40 G\u0026amp;T $8,149.92 12 ROBERTSON, LEETA D 1.00 MUSIC $20,074.00 12 SPANN, MEREDITII J 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $34,246.00 12 SWEAT, JESCENA 1.00 PE SPEC $30,452.00 12 VALUE, TERRIL 0.50 SPEECH $15,627.50 12 WALKER, SHIRLEY D 0.50 SPE-N/CATG $17,374.00 CATEGORY TOT AI.B: 4.40 $125,923.42 SERV.WKRS. 12 HASAN, ABDULLAH H 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,263.05 12 JONES, BETTY L 0.50 CUS-P/TIME $2,049.75 12 MACK, ROBERT 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,375.80 12 ROLAND, MIL TON 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,523.00 12 WOODS III, ROBERT L 0.50 CUS-PmME $2,476 .75 CATEGORY TOTAI.B: 4.00 $39,688.35 TCHR.AIDES 12 BAKER, PATRICIA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 12 BOYD, DARRELL L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,206.08 12 EFIRD, WENDY L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR 12 GIBSON, SUSANY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,061.44 12 GRIMMITI, BONNIE S 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,159.00 12 HARSHAW, HERRIN F 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,367.68 12 JOHNSON, IRENE B 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,245.12 12 MAYWEATHER, ELNORA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,367.68 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Leaming Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. 'UC::.\" ,NVO~l't.1\\1'..\"T,oN ~v.uv,c-v. '\\\"\\V.t\u0026gt;'T ~'A\\!.uv = 'I\\!,,~'-\" ~a\\arv + S.ti.t1iend!-1.(does not include henefits) 32 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 POSITION, VACANT I.DO LABATfEND 12 SANDERS, PATRICIA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 12 WINFREY,VEARLEAN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,367.68 CATEGORY TOTALS: 11.00 $65,596.68 YEARLY TOTALS: 63.30 $1,390,606.99 95 CARVER 593.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 12 SCOTT, Y ANA H 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $39,815.88 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $39,815.88 CLERC/SEC'Y. 12 HILL, JERRI L 1.00 SEC PRIN $11,020.57 12 MORRIS, NELDA J 1.00 SEC PRIN $13,637.14 12 SCHILLING, PAULA B 1.00 MEDIA CL $7,775.71 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $32,433.42 ELEM. CLSRM. TCH. 12 BENNETI,A 1.00 ELEM VI $34,567.00 12 BUCK, VIRGINIA S 1.00 ELEM IV $29,420.00 12 BURNEY, MARY C 1.00 ELEM I $27,496.00 12 BYRD, DEBORAH H 1.00 ELEM VI $26,685.00 12 CURTIS, JULIE B 1.00 ELEMII $30,231.00 12 DOYNE, ANGELA K 1.00 KINDER-REG $35,884.00 12 FLEMING, LINDA K 1.00 ELEM VI $32,358.00 12 GLENN, BETTY I.DO ELEMV $39,126.00 12 GLENN, LINDA F 1.00 ELEM I $30,737.00 12 HAMILTON, CLAUDIA J I.DO ELEM II $37,221.00 12 HARRIS, RHONDA F 1.00 ELEM IV $23,504.00 12 HARRISON, KATHLEEN A 1.00 KINDER-REG $22,102.21 12 HOOKER, MELBA J 1.00 KINDER-REG $30,474.00 12 JESTER, JULIE D 1.00 ELEM IV $25,368.00 12 JOSEPH, JUNE D 1.00 ELEM II $22,937.00 12 LANGLEY, DIANNE W 1.00 ELEM III $31,041.00 12 MANNING, DEBRA A I.DO ELEM ART $28,367.00 12 MUNNS, PATRICIA A I.DO ELEM III $26,746.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 33 Ill YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FIE JOB CODE SALARY 12 PACE, TEATA D 1.00 ELEMV $27,232.00 12 PENN, PRISCILLA J 1.00 ELEM III $23 ,504.00 12 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 ELEMil 12 ROBERTS, M MARTI-IA 1.00 KINDER-REG $27,556.00 12 SKUBAL, EUNICE L 1.00 ELEM I $23,504.00 12 TI-IOMAS, VANNETIA J 1.00 ELEM VI $28,043.00 12 WASHINGTON, KIMBERLY V 1.00 ELEM IV $23,504.00 12 WA TIS, RONDA M 1.00 ELEMV $23,504.00 12 WILLIAMS, MARY ANNE K 1.00 ELEMV $28,853.00 12 WILSON, CYNTIIIA L 1.00 ELEM III $24,719.30 CATEGORY TOTALS: 28.00 $764,683.51 GUIDANCE 12 AMMEL, LINDA G 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $31,021.00 12 TATIJM, KATI-IY R 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $32,358.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $63,379.00 i LIB/AV. 12 BELOTTI, VIRGINIA M 0.50 LIBRN-ELEM $16,756.29 12 THOMPSON, CAROL E 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $32,140.76 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.50 $48,897.05 OTHER PROF. 12 CRUM,JANES 1.00 INT/SPEC $35,884.00 12 CURTIS, MARY J 1.00 NURSE 12 MACK, LISAK 1.00 SPEC INS $32,095.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $67,979.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 12 DIMASSIMO, SUELLEN I-I 1.00 SPEMATII $28,853.00\n12 RUNION, DIANNE C 1.00 CUR SPEC $37,809.0Q ! 12 SMITH, MARY A 1.00 CUR SPEC $38,6 I 9.00 12 STEWART, EDIE GARNER 0.60 SPE MATH $15,525.00 12 UNDERWOOD-MORAVEC, LEIGH A 1.00 S/SPEC $29,117.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.60 $149,923.00 PRIN 12 BARKSDALE, MARY D 1.00 ELE PRIN $49,533.95 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $49,533.95 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. ,~su ,NVOR.'M.-..\",ON S11.Rv,c11. 011.l'\"\\' . Sa\\arv = Base Sa\\ar-y + Stipcnds(docs not include benefits) 34 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 12 HARRIS,KARENR 1.00 MUSIC $29,459.39 12 SPANN, MEREDITH J 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $35,377.00 12 STEWART, EDIE GARNER 0.40 G\u0026amp;T $10,350.00 12 SWEAT, JESCENA 1.00 PE SPEC $31,548.00 12 TARPLEY, GLYNDA C 1.00 SPE-N/CATG 12 VALUE, TERRIL 0.50 SPEECH $16,179.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.90 $122,913.39 SERV.WKRS. 12 FOSTER, DONALD 1.00 CUST-HEAD $14,997.60 12 HASAN,ABDULLAIIH 1.00 CUSTODAN $11,078.00 12 JONES, BETTY L 0.50 CUS-PffiME $2,049.75 12 ROLAND,MILTON 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,891.00 12 WOODS ID, ROBERT L 0.50 CUS-PffiME $2,561.25 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $39,577.60 TCHR.AIDES 12 BAKER, PATRIClA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,911.00 12 BURCH, CLAIRE E 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,440.04 12 EFIRD, WENDY L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 12 GIBSON, SUSANY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,290.52 12 GRIMMITT, BONNIE S 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 12 HARRIS, TYRONE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,019.60 12 JOHNSON, IRENE B 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,440.04 12 JOHNSON, JOE A 1.00 LAB ATTEND $21,008.00 12 MAYWEATHER, ELNORA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,440.04 12 SANDERS, PATRIClA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 12 WINFREY,VEARLEAN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,440.0l! CATEGORY TOTALS: 11.00 $100,222.28 YEARLY TOTALS: 64.00 $1,479,358.08 96 CARVER 631.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 12 SCOTT, YANA H 1.00  A/PRINELE $41,827.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $41,827.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 35 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY CLERC/SEC'Y. 12 CLARK, ALICE KAY 1.00 SEC PRIN $14,246.21 12 HILL, JERRI L 1.00 SEC PRIN $11,790.46 12 SCHILLfNG, PAULA B 1.00 MEDIA CL $10,008.71 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $36,045.38 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 12 BUCK, VIRGfNlA S 1.00 ELEM IV $30,231.00 12 BURNEY, MARYC 1.00 ELEM! $28,306.00 12 BYRD, DEBORAH H 1.00 ELEM VI $27,496.00 12 CRUM,JANES 1.00 ELEM-DEV $36,694.00 12 CURTIS, JULIE B 1.00 ELEM II $31,041.00 12 DOYNE, ANGELA K 1.00 KfNDER-REG $36,694.00 12 FLEMING, LINDA K 1.00 ELEM VI $34,263.00 12 GLENN, BETTY 1.00 ELEMV $39,936.00 12 GLENN, LINDA F 1.00 ELEM! $31,548.00 12 HAMILTON, CLAUDIA J 1.00 ELEM II $38,031.00 12 HARRIS, RHONDA F 1.00 ELEM IV $24,314.00 12 HARRISON, KATHLEEN A 1.00 KfNDER-REG $28,367.00 12 HOOKER, MELBA J 1.00 KfNDER-REG $31,285.00 12 JESTER, JULCE D 1.00 ELEM IV $26,179.00 12 JOSEPH, JUNE D 1.00 ELEM II $23,747.00 12 MACK,LISAK 1.00 ELEM-DEV $16,281.12 12 MCKENDRY, SARAH A 1.00 ELEM II $21,072.00 12 MORGAN, HOLLY ELIZABETII 1.00 ELEM VI $21,072.00 12 MUNNS, PATRICIA A 1.00 ELEMirl $27,556.00 12 PACE, TEATA D 1.00 ELEMV $29,117.00 12 PENN, PRISCILLA J 1.00 ELEM Ill $24,314.00 12 ROBERTS, M MARTHA 1.00 KfNDER-REG $28,367.00 12 SKUBAL, EUNICE L 1.00 ELEM! $24,314.00 12 STEW ART, EDIE GARNER 0.40 ELEM-DEV $10,674.00 12 STEWART, EDCE GARNER 0.60 ELEM-DEV $16,011.00 12 SUNDERMAN, ANGIE D 1.00 ELEM ART $23,443.00 12 THOMAS, VANNETIA J 1.00 ELEM VI $28,853.00 12 WASHINGTON, KIMBERLY V 1.00 ELEM IV $22,593.38 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. '-.l\\.SO Uol.VOl\\.MA.\"l:'\\ON S~l\\.V\\C~ O~l\u0026gt;'l'. Ra\\arv = lla~e Sa\\arv + Stinend~(does not include henefits) :Jr. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 WATT'S, RONDA M 1.00 ELEMV $24,314.00 12 WIBTE, LETICIA MILLER 1.00 ELEM-DEV $31,825.00 12 WILLIAMS JR, ORVEN E 1.00 ELEM III $21,883.00 12 WILLIAMS, MARY ANNE K 1.00 ELEMV $29,664.00 12 WILSON, CYNTIIlA L 1.00 ELEM III $26,746.00 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 32.00 $896,23 I. 50 GUIDANCE 12 AMMEL, LINDA G 1.00 CNS LR-ELEM $31,832.00 12 TATIJM, KATIIY R 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $33,169.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $65,001.00 LIB/AV. 12 BELOIB, VIRGINIA M 0.50 LIBRN-ELEM $17,172.35 12 IBOMPSON, CAROLE 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $32,972.88 CATEGORY TOTALS: I.SO $50,145.23 OTHER PROF. 12 CURTIS, MARY J 1.00 NURSE $33,472.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $33,472.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 12 DIMASSIMO, SUELLEN II 1.00 MATI-l SPEC $29,664.00 12 RUNION, DIANNE C 1.00 LANG SPEC $38,619.00 12 SMIIB, MARY A 1.00 CUR SPEC $39,430.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $107,713.00 PRIN 12 BARKSDALE, MARY D 1.00 ELE PRIN $53,423.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $53,423.00 SEC.CLSRM. TCH. 12 MURRAY, flMMY A 1.00 MUSIC $25,529.77 12 SPANN, MEREDIIB J 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $36,188.00 12 SWEAT, JESCENA 1.00 PE SPEC $32,358.00 12 TARPLEY, GLYNDA C 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $29,927.00 12 VALUE, TERRIL 0.50 SPEECII $16,584.50 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 4.50 $140,587.27 SERV.WKRS. 12 FOSTER, DONALD 1.00 CUST-HEAD $15,477.60 12 JONES, BETTY L 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,291.40 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 37 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 POSITION, VACANT 0.50 CUS-PffiME 12 ROLAND, MIL TON 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,065.94 12 WOODS Ill, ROBERT L 0.50 CUS-PmME $2,638.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $36,473.44 TCHR.AIDES 12 BAKER, PATRICIA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $11,163.00 12 BURCH, CLAIRE E 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,589.56 12 EFIRD, WENDY L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 12 GIBSON, SUSAN Y 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,440.04 12 GRIMMITT, BONNIE S 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 12 HARRIS, TYRONE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,265.24 12 JOHNSON, IRENE B 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,589.56 12 JOHNSON, JOE A 1.00 LAB ATTEND $21,566.00 12 MA YWEA TIIER, ELNORA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,589.56 12 SANDERS, PA TRJCIA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 12 WINFREY,VEARLEAN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,589.56 CATEGORY TOTALS: 11.00 $102,781.52 YEARLY TOTALS: 64.00 $1,563,700.34 94 CENTRAL 1,650.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 01 JAMES, BRENDA F 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $40,247.00 01 PETERSON, MICHAEL W 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $42,403.00 01 ROUSSEAU, NANCY L 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $39,300.50 01 WA TIS, DARRELL J 1.00 AIPRIN SEC $32,745.67 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $154,696.17 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 ADAIR, GLADYS M 1.00 SECATT $16,703.06 02 BRIGGS, DEMETRIA G 1.00 SEC PRIN $14,737.80 02 HEGGS, URSELLA W 1.00 SECATT $15,719.88 02 O'NEAL, JANE 1.00 REG $20,804.00 02 POSillON, VACANT 1.00 PBX 02 RODGERS,FRANCESE 1.00 SEC PRIN 02 ROSENBERGER, BETTY C 1.00 MEDIA CL $14,774.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. '~~\"\"' ''NVO~'M \"'-\"'t',ON 'S\\t.,'Q.V\"\"\\CV. \"0'.V\"T ~a\\a.-v - T\\a~(.'\u0026gt; ~a\\a..--v + Sti.'(le.ndN.(dae.!ol not. i.nc\\ude benefits) -.A YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 SIEGEL, TERESA T 1.00 B/KEEPER $13,755.72 02 STELL,LINDAM 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,229.39 02 TINKLE,BETIY 1.00 SECATT $16,211.47 02 WILLIAMS, CAROLYN J 1.00 SEC GUID $14,182.05 02 WILLIAMS, KELLY D 1.00 SEC PRIN $13,264.13 CATEGORY TOTALS: 12.00 $155,381.50 ELEM.CI..SRM. TCH. 01 CLAY, SHERRI L 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,950.00 01 POST, JULIA A 1.00 KINDER-REG $24,330.00 01 THOMPSON, FLORA DEAN 1.00 KINDER-REG $40,670.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $94,950.00 GUIDANCE 01 BLAIR,SAMK 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $47,775.69 01 CALLAWAY, ELIZABETII W 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $37,159.73 01 GRAVES, JESSICA A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $41,791.36 01 IVEY, DELORES S 1.00 CNSLR-SECD 01 JOHNSON, LYNDA P 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $37,787.20 01 WATSON, PATRICIA A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $39,756.94 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.00 $204,270.92 LIB/AV. 01 ALVERSON JR, RAYMOND A 1.00 ASTLIBR $37,836.31 01 DUMAS, ELAINE K 1.00 LIBRN-SECD $37,836.31 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $75,672.62 OTHER PROF. 02 FELLS, JACKIE 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,794.00 02 JOHNSON, BENNY D 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,794.00 02 MOBLEY, KA TIILEEN H 1.00 NURSE $25,695.00 02 SIMS, JEROME E 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,794.00 02 SMITH, FLOYD 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,794.00 02 SMITH, JERRY 1.00 SIB SOFR $11 ,794.00 CATEGORY TOT AI..S: 6.00 $84,665.00 OTHR CI..SRM. TCH. 02 FIELDS, WILLIE J 1.00. AIRFRCE $28,887.30 01 JARMON, MYRA M 0.50 SPE-LD $17,233.50 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 39 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 MCDONALD, TIIOMAS A 0.20 ORCHESTR $8, 128.00 01 ROBERTSON JR, TI-IOMAS A 1.00 AIRFRCE $33,765.41 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 2.70 $88,014.21 PRIN 01 HOWARD, RUDOLPH 1.00 SEC PRTN $62,986.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $62,986.40 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 ALLMON, TERRY L 1.00 GEOMTRY-IN 01 ARJCK, JOYCE A 1.00 COORDED $48,744.80 01 BAXLEY, MARY A 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $29,477.00 01 BECKER, MARY C 0.80 ENGLSH-DEV 06 BECKER, MARY C 0.20 READING 01 BENNETT, TIMOTI-IY P 1.00 SPANISH $21 ,680.00 01 BLACKMAN, TONY 1.00 ORAL COM $27,387.00 01 BLESSING, DONALD K 1.00 SPE-M/RET 01 BOONE, EDDIE L 1.00 BOYS PE 01 BOYETT, EDWARD B 1.00 SOC STU $24,892.00 01 BRACK, ROBERT L 1.00 MUSIC $40,670.00 01 BROADNAX-TI IRASHER, BEYERL Y 0.80 ENGLSH-REG $32,536.00 06 BROADNAX-TIIRASHER, BEVERLY 0.20 READING $8, 134.00 01 BROWN, JAMES 0.80 BLDTRAD $35 ,077.87 01 BROWN, JAMES A 1.00 SOC STU $35,759.00 01 BYRNE, ROISIN 1.00 SPANISH $10,278.00 01 CALDWELL, CHERYL D 1.00 ALGEBRA-I 01 CALDWELL, SUZANNE 0 1.00 SPANISH $35,799.00 01 CALLAWAY, NORMAN M 1.00 ISSP $44,524.90 01 CARUTH, PHYLLIS V 1.00 TRJG $40,670.06 01 CHAMBLISS, PATRJCIA A 1.00 FRENCH $35,852.00 01 CLOUD, GAYLE H 1.00 LATIN $35,270.00 01 COBB, JEANT 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $32,005.00 01 COLBURN, MELISSA A 1.00 GLOBAL $34,467.00 01 COLE, JENNIE B 1.00 FRENCH $33,403.00 01 COLLINS, ROBIN R 1.00 HOME ECO $29,433.89 01 COON, SUEL 1.00 ART $37,960.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"fn,s re\\)ort does not ,ndude, Metro\\lo\\itan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY OJ CORTINEZ, KATIIERINE 1.00 SOC STU $35,009.00 01 COX, BERNIE L 1.00 SOC STU $50,046.30 01 CREWS, MARY M 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $32,058.00 01 DANIEL, BRANTON P 1.00 SCI TECH $36,876.00 06 DA VIS, ROBIN L 0.20 READING $5,769.20 01 DA VIS, ROBIN L 0.80 ENGLSH-REG $23,076.80 OJ DEITZ, SANDY G 1.00 CALCULUS $33,403.00 OJ DENNlS,AUDRA T 1.00 SOC STU OJ DONHAM, MELISSA C 1.00 BIOLOGY $35,759.00 01 DYER, JACQUELIN W 1.00 CHEMSTRY OJ EASTER, MARION 0 1.00 ENGLSI I-REG $40,670.00 OJ EVANS, KATIIRYN S 1.00 VOCBUS ED $25,365.05 OJ FITZPATRICK JR, OLIVER 1.00 SOC STU $36,078.00 OJ FUTRELL, BRENDA J 1.00 MARKETCOR $48,744.37 OJ GADBERRY, SARAH E 1.00 AM 1--llST $38,763.00 OJ GADDY, HELEN B 1.00 SPE-MIRET $40,670.00 OJ GATES, KATHY 1.00 GEOMTY-REG OJ GRAHAM, HARRYETTE 1.00 HOME ECO $43,847.34 OJ GRAY,JOEA 1.00 SOC STU $25,989.00 OJ HAMMONS, KAREN A 0.80 ENGLSH-REG $24,361.60 06 HAMMONS, KAREN A 0.20 READING $6,090.40 01 HARDIN, GWENDOLYN E 1.00 GEOMTY-REG $34,467.00 01 HARGIS, ALISON C 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $27,782.00 OJ HENDERSON, SHERRY LOU 1.00 SVFART $23,653.55 01 HESSELSCIIWERDT, RONALD F 1.00 EX IND 01 1--llLL, SHEKETA G 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $29,388.0Q 01 HOFFMAN-MCDERMOTT, MICHELLE G 0.80 ENGLSII-REG 06 HOFFMAN-MCDERMOTT, MICHELLE G 0.20 READING OJ HOGAN, SUSAN P 1.00 ART $19,940.39 OJ HOLLADAY, KATHLEEN T 1.00 ORAL COM $35,347.50 06 HOOPER, BEVERLY R 0.20 READING $5,620.80 01 HOOPER, BEVERLY R 0.80 ENGLSH-REG $22,483.20 01 HUFFORD, GARY W 1.00 CHEMSTRY $27,542.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(docs not include benefits) 41 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 KEARNEY, LESLIE A 1.00 GERMAN $35,270.00 01 LANCE, CHARLES H 1.00 JOURNALI 01 LOYA, SAMUEL T 1.00 SPANISH-AD $23,957.00 06 LUCY, PHYLLIS R 0.20 READlNG $5,829.40 OJ LUCY, PHYLLIS R 0.80 ENGLSH-REG $23,317.60 01 MARSH, EDWARD W 1.00 COMP ST 01 MAYS, GRACIE C 1.00 BIOLOGY $35,270.00 01 MCDONALD, DOROTIIY L 1.00 ENGLSH-REG 01 MCFADDEN, ELIZABETII K 0.20 FRENCH $5,781.40 OJ MCGUIRE, STEPHEN K 0.34 SPEECH $12,735.72 01 MCLENDON, JOANNE B 1.00 HEALTH $40,670.00 01 MCLENNAN, FREDIE D 1.00 IND err $44,259.19 OJ MCMURRAY, VICTOR C 1.00 AMIIIST $28,846.00 01 MEADOWS, MARKE 1.00 OTHRSCI $30,23 I .00 OJ MOGSTAD, BONNIE L 1.00 ARTD 06 MONCRIEF, GWEN V 0.20 READlNG 01 MONCRIEF, GWEN V 0.80 ENGLSH-DEV 01 MOORE, KENT L 1.00 PRE-ALGR $29,649.00 01 NASH, DORIS L 1.00 ORAL COM $35,466.00 01 NASH, L ANGEL 0.80 ENGLSH-DEV $24,361.60 06 NASH, LANGEL 0.20 READlNG $6,090.40 01 PAXTON, VERONICA J 0.80 ENGLSII-DEV $22,033.60 06 PAXTON, VERONICA J 0.20 READlNG $5,508.40 01 PEDIGO, MARY J 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $40,670.00 01 PETERS, DIANE E 1.00 AMERGOV $36,876.00 01 PIERCE, MAUREEN 1.00 HOME ECO $35,752.78 01 POSITION, VACANT 0.60 OFRLAN 01 POSillON, VACANT 1.00 BIOLOGY 06 PREWIT, MARY J 1.00 READlNG $40,670.00 OJ RAMSEY, KA TIILEEN E 1.00 BIOLOGY $30,994.00 01 ROBlNSON, CONSTANCE F 1.00 voe BUSED $43,847.34 01 RUTLEDGE, MARILYN F 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $27,301.00 06 SAIN, LLOYD 0.20 READING Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. 'Th\\s .-e\\\\ort does not ,ndude, Met.-o\\)oUtan Sc.boo\\, and A\\te.-native Lea.-ning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll.  - ' ., - .._ \"'- ._,.  ., .... ..,.,_, 'n-  ...,. '' ,,.  ...., . ..-,, .. - YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY = 01 SAIN, LLOYD 0.80 ENGLSH-DEV 01 SCHLESINGER, DEBRA S 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $29,562.50 01 SHOFNER, KIRBY E 1.00 BIOLOGY $26,498.00 01 SIEGEL, LARRY B 1.00 AM HIST $39,758.55 01 SMITH, DA YID M 1.00 ENGLSII-REG $28,043.00 01 SNODGRASS, AMY L 1.00 BIOLOGY $26,498.00 01 TAYLOR, ROBERTM 1.00 OTHRSCI $28,043.00 01 TAYLOR, TRAVIS F 1.00 BAND $22,367.00 06 THOMPSON, LOIS B 0.20 READING $7,001.80 01 THOMPSON, LOIS B 0.80 ENGLSH-DEV $28,007.20 01 THOMPSON, NANCY K 1.00 voe BUS ED $44,347.34 01 VENABLE, GLORIA 0 1.00 voe BUSED $43,847.34 01 WATSON, BILLYN 1.00 MATH $41,421.00 01 WEBB JR, CECIL H 1.00 COORDED 01 WHITE, DIANE B 1.00 SPANISH $31,255.00 01 WILDER, BARBARA A 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $32,118.00 01 WILLIAMS, BETTYE F 1.00 ISSP $39,456.00 01 WILLIAMSON, MARGARET A 1.00 SPE-M/RET $37,627.00 01 WILLIS, EULA M 1.00 voe BUS ED $42,541.36 01 WILSON, NANCY L 1.00 ART $38,763.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 98.94 $2,735,363.48 SERV.WKRS. 02 BOWMAN, RUTIIIE M 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 02 BRIGGS, BOBBY C 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 02 CLOUD JR, WILLIAM L 1.00 BLDG ENG $22,598.00 02 DOBBINS JR, ALBERT L 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,907.00 02 DUNHOO, KERVIS R 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,229.00 02 FAGAN, ROSIE L 1.00 A-HEADCUS $13,728.00 02 GIVENS, WILLIE T 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,875.00 02 HUDSON,HAROLD 1.00 CUSTODAN $6,843.20 02 JACKSON, KENNETI-1 RAY 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,199.00 02 JOHNSON, GRACE E 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,684.92 02 MCKISICK, DERRICK 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,523.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 43 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 POSITION, VACANf 1.00 CUSTODAN 02 ROBERTS, JOIIN A 1.00 BLDG ENG $15,033.20 02 TIMMONS, CAL VIN 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 14.00 $166,222.32 TCHR.AIDES 02 HILL, DARLENE 0.20 LAB ATTEND $1,763.20 02 LLOYD, OTTIMJS C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,367.68 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.20 $8,130.88 YEARLY TOTALS: 150.84 $3,830,353.50 95 CENTRAL 1,565.00 ASST. PRIN-NT 01 JAMES, BRENDA F 1.00 A/PRINSEC $43,606.00 01 PETERSON, MJCIIAEL W 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $43,707.00 01 ROUSSEAU, NANCY L 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $41,625.50 01 WA TIS, DARRELL J 1.00 A/PRIN SEC CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $128,938.50 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 ADAIR, GLADYS M 1.00 SECATI $17,194.65 02 BRIGGS, DEMETRIA G 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,229.39 02 BROOKS, RUBYE V 1.00 PBX $11,199.57 02 HEGGS, URSELLA W 1.00 SECATI $16,211.47 02 O'NEAL, JANE 1.00 REG $21,382.00 02 ROSENBERGER, BETTY C 1.00 MEDIA CL $15,013.58 02 SIEGEL, TERESA T 1.00 B/KEEPER $14,737.80 02 STELL, LINDA M 1.00 SEC PRIN $16,211.47 02 STONE, MARY J 1.00 SEC PRIN $19,562.26 02 TINKLE, BETTY 1.00 SECATI $17,194.65 02 WILLIAMS, CAROLYN J 1.00 SEC GUID $14,312.45 02 WILLIAMS, KELLY D 1.00 SEC PRIN $12,264.95 CATEGORY TOTALS: 12.00 $190,514.24 ELEM.CLSRM.TCH. 01 CLAY, SHERRIL 1.00 KINDER-REG $31,041.00 01 POST, JULIA A 1.00 KINDER-REG $25,368.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This re\\\\Ort does not include, Metro\\lo\\itan Schoo\\, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 THOMPSON, FLORA DEAN 1.00 KINDER-REG $41 ,05 1.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $97,460.00 GUIDANCE OJ BLAIR, SAMK 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $48,216.22 OJ CALLA WAY, ELIZABETII W 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $38,381.25 01 GRAVES, JESSICA A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $44,258.11 OJ JOHNSON, LYNDA P 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $39,515.19 01 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 CNSLR-SECD 01 WATSON, PATRICIA A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $40,128.89 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.00 $210,499.66 LIB/AV. 01 ALVERSON JR, RAYMOND A 1.00 ASTLIBR $38,190.30 01 DUMAS, ELAINE K 1.00 LIBRN-SECD $38,190.30 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $76,380.60 OTHER PROF. 02 ADAMS, DONALD D. 1.00 SIB SOFR $9,047.34 02 FELLS, JACKIE 1.00 SIB SOFR $12,143.00 02 MOBLEY, KATIILEEN II 1.00 NURSE $26,498.00 02 SIMS, JEROME E 1.00 SIB SOFR $12,143.00 02 SMITII, FLOYD 1.00 SIB SOFR $12,143.00 02 SMITII, JERRY 1.00 SIB SOFR $12,859.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.00 $84,833.34 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 02 FIELDS, WILLIE J 1.00 AIR FRCE $30,439.46 01 JARMON, MYRA M 0.60 SPE-LD $21 ,360.00 OJ MCDONALD, IBOMAS A 0.20 ORCHESTR $8,363.20 01 ROBERTSON JR, TIIOMAS A 1.00 AIR FRCE $34,368.6S CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.80 $94,531.31 PRlN 01 HOW ARD, RUDOLPH 1.00 SEC PRJN $68,493.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $68,493.00 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. OJ ARICK, JOYCE A 1.00 COORDED $49,195.26 01 BAXLEY, MARY A 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $30,551.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 45 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 01 BECKER, MARY C 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $28,853.00 01 BENNETT, TIMOTIIY P 1.00 SPANISH $22,693.00 01 BLACKMAN, TONY 1.00 ORAL COM $29,396.00 01 BLEVINS, PAULETTE 1.00 BIOLOGY $23,443.00 01 BOYETT, EDWARD B 1.00 SOC STU $25,935.00 OJ BRACK, ROBERT L 1.00 MUSIC $41,051.00 OJ BROADNAX-TIIRASHER, BEVERLY 1.00 ENGLSI I-REG $41,051.00 OJ BROWN, JAMES A 1.00 SOC STU $36,087.00 OJ CALDWELL, SUZANNE 0 1.00 SPANISH $36,938.00 01 CALLAWAY, NORMAN M 1.00 BOYS PE $44,869.90 01 CARR, PA TIERSON W 0.60 ALGEBRA-I OJ CARUlll, PHYLLIS V 1.00 TRIG $41,051.00 01 CHAMBLISS, PA TRICIA A 1.00 FRENCII $36,998.00 01 CHERRY, KARLA KIM 1.00 JOURNAL! $28,878.89 OJ CLOUD, GAYLE H 1.00 LATIN OJ COBB,JEANT 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $33,108.00 OJ COLBURN, MELISSA A 1.00 GLOBAL $35,600.00 OJ COLE, JENNIE B 1.00 FRENCH $35,600.00 OJ COLLINS, ROBIN R 1.00 HOME ECO $30,583.17 OJ COON, SUEL 1.00 ART $40,240.00 OJ COOPER, VIRGINIA R 0.40 ARTD $13,487.12 01 CORTINEZ, KA THERINE 1.00 SOC STU $35,337.00 OJ COX, BERNIE L 1.00 SOC STU $50,427.30 OJ DANIEL, BRANTON P 1.00 SCI TECH $38,190.30 OJ DEITZ, SANDY G 1.00 CALCULUS $35,600.00 OJ DONHAM, MELISSA C 1.00 BIOLOGY $36,087.00 OJ DYER, JACQUELIN W 1.00 CHEMSTRY $39,126.00 01 EASTER, MARlON 0 1.00 ENGLSil-REG $41,051.00 01 EVANS, KAlllRYN S 1.00 voe BUS ED $26,476.59 OJ FITZPATRICK JR, OLIVER 1.00 SOC STU $38,248.60 OJ FUTRELL, BRENDA J 1.00 MARKETCOR $49,194.83 OJ GADBERRY, SARAH E 1.00 AM HIST $39,126.00 OJ GADDY, HELEN B 1.00 SPE-M/RET $41,051.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. 'Yn,,.. 'l'C.\\\\Ort doe\" no\\ ,ndude, Me\\'l'O\\\\o\\i\\an Sc.boo\\, and A\\\\e'l'native l...ea .. ninl!, Center and is based on all funds and all em11loyees currently active on payroll. SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 GATES, KATIIY 1.00 GEOM1Y-REG $30,211 .00 01 GRAHAM, HARRYETfE 1.00 HOME ECO $44,258. 11 01 GRAY, JOEA 1.00 SOC STU $27,025.00 01 HALL-JONES, BETSY 1.00 SPE-M/RET $30,211 .00 01 HAMMONS, KAREN A 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $31,548.00 01 HARDIN, GWENDOLYN E 1.00 GEOMTY-REG $35,600.00 01 HARGIS, ALISON C 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $28,853.00 01 HARVEY, CA TI IERINE ANITA 1.00 BIOLOGY $20,427.83 01 HOFFMAN-MCDERMOTT, MICHELLE G 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $24 ,254.00 01 HOGAN, SUSAN P 1.00 ART $26,746.00 01 HOLLADAY, KATI-ILEEN T 1.00 ORAL COM $35,658.50 01 HOOPER, BEYERL Y R 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $29,177.00 OJ HUFFORD, GARY W 1.00 CHEMSTRY $28,610.00 01 KEARNEY, LESLIE A 1.00 GERMAN $36,411 .00 OJ KRATZKE, ROBIN R 0.80 SPANISH 01 LOYA, SAMUEL T 1.00 SPANISII-AD $26,041 .00 01 LUCY, PHYLLIS R 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $30,231.00 01 MARSH, EDWARD W 1.00 COMP ST $21 ,072.00 OJ MAYS, GRACIE C 1.00 BIOLOGY $36,411 .00 01 MCDONALD, DOROTI-IY L 1.00 ENGLSII-REG $40,240.00 OJ MCGUIRE, STEPHEN K 0.34 SPEECH $13,130.46 01 MCLENDON, JOANNE B 1.00 HEALTII $41 ,051 .00 01 MCLENNAN, FREDIE D 1.00 IND err $44,667.08 01 MCMURRAY, VICTOR C 1.00 AMI-DST $29,927.00 01 MEADOWS, MARKE 1.00 OTIIR SCI $31,325.00 01 MOORE, KENT L 1.00 PRE-ALGR $30,737.09 01 NASH, DORIS L 1.00 ORAL COM $36,602.00 01 NASH, L ANGEL 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $32,264.50 OJ PAIGE JR, WILLIE 0.60 EX IND $26,554.87 01 PAXTON, VERONICA J 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $28,610.00 01 PEDIGO, MARY J 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $41 ,051 .00 01 PETERS, DlANE E 1.00 AMER GOV $37,221 .00 01 PEYTON, EMMA J 1.00 COORDED $44,859.24 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD 1.NFORMA TION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Sti1Jends(docs not include benefits) 47 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY OJ PIERCE, MAUREEN 1.00 HOME ECO $36,088.08 OJ PREWIT, MARY J 1.00 READING $41,051.00 01 ROBINSON, CONSTANCE F 1.00 voe BUS ED $44,258.11 OJ RUlLEDGE, MARILYN F 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $28,367.00 OJ SAIN,LLOYD 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $29,927.00 OJ SCHLESlNGER, DEBRA S 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $29,927.00 01 SHOFNER, KIRBY E 1.00 BIOLOGY $27,556.00 01 SIEGEL, LARRY B 1.00 AM HIST $40,932.26 01 SMITH, DA YID M 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $29,117.00 01 SNODGRASS, AMY L 1.00 BIOLOGY $27,556.00 OJ TAYLOR, ROBERTM 1.00 OTHRSCI $29,117.00 OJ THOMAS, AARON BRADY 1.00 BAND $26,851.00 01 THOMPSON, LOIS B 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $35,337.00 01 THOMPSON, NANCY K 1.00 voe BUS ED $44,758.11 01 THREATT, CHRISTO Pl IER ERROL 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $22,784.80 OJ VENABLE, GLORIA 0 1.00 voe BUS ED $44,258.11 01 WATSON, BILLYN 1.00 MATH $41,802.00 OJ WILDER, BARBARA A 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $32,419.00 01 WILLIAMS, BETTYE F 1.00 JSSP $37,221.00 01 WILLIAMSON, MARGARET A 1.00 SPE-M/RET $37,972.00 01 WILLIS, EULA M 1.00 voe BUS ED $42,932.72 01 WILSON, NANCY L 1.00 ART $39,126.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 87.74 $2,965,868.74 SERV.WKRS. 02 BARNEY, NORMAN L 1.00 CUSTODAN $5,525.41 02 BOWMAN, RUTIIIE M 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.09 02 BRIGGS, BOBBY C 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 02 CLOUD JR, WILLIAM L 1.00 BLDG ENG $23 ,270.00 02 DUNHOO, KERVIS R 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,539.00 02 FAGAN, ROSIE L 1.00 A-HEADCUS $14,112.00 02 GIVENS, WILLIE T 1.00 CUST-IIEAD $17,875.00 02 HARRIS, DEBORAH A 1.00 CUSTODAN $1,515.03 02 HUDSON,HAROLD 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,907.00 Note: Em\\lloyees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"fh,s re\\\\ort does not ,ndude, Metro\\\\olitan Schoo\\, and A\\ternati.ve Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. . . - .. \u0026lt;.\n,... ..... .. ... ~ ...... .-..u, .. \"\"\"''I.ow\".-...-~-\" YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE 02 JACKSON, KENNETT I RAY 02 JOHNSON, GRACE E 02 POSITION, VACANT 02 ROBERTS, JOHN A 02 TIMMONS, CALVIN CATEGORY TOTALS: TCHR.AIDES 02 HILL, DARLENE 02 LLOYD, OTTIMIS C CATEGORY TOTALS: YEARLY TOTALS: 96 CENTRAL 1,528.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 01 JAMES, BRENDA F 0 I MORRIS, WILLIE C 01 ROUSSEAU, NANCY L 0 I WHITEHORN, DANIEL W CATEGORY TOTALS: CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 ADAIR, GLADYS M 02 ALLMON, CHARLOTTE 02 BRIGGS, DEMETRIA G 02 HEGGS, URSELLA W 02 O'NEAL, JANE 02 POSITION, OPEN 02 ROSENBERGER, BETTY C 02 SIEGEL, TERESA T 02 STELL, LINDA M 02 STONE, MARY J 02 TINKLE, BETTY 02 WILLIAMS, CAROLYN J CATEGORY TOTALS: ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 0.20 1.00 1.20 139.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.00 JOB CODE CUSTODAN CUSTODAN CUSTODAN BLDG ENG CUSTODAN LAB ATTEND AIDE-SVA A/PRINSEC A/PRIN SEC A/PRIN SEC A/PRIN SEC SECJ\\TT SEC PRIN SEC PRIN SECATT REG PBX MEDIA CL B/KEEPER SEC PRIN SEC PRIN SECATT SECGUID SALARY $8, 199.00 $15,475.20 $14,534.00 $149,019.64 $1 ,847.20 $6,440.04 $8,287.24 $4,074,826.27 $45,647.00 $45,010.29 $42,666.50 $41 ,212.40 $174,536.19 $17, 194.65 $12,807.05 $15,719.88 $15 ,057.44 $21 ,382.00 $15,013 .58 $15,229.39 $16,703.06 $21 ,382.00 $17,194.65 $14,804.04 $182,487.74 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 49 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE 01 LEFLER, LYNN C 01 POST, JULIA A 01 TIIOMPSON, FLORA DEAN CATEGORY TOTALS: GUIDANCE 01 BLAIR,SAMK 01 CALLAWAY, ELIZABETII W 01 GRAYES, JESSICA A 01 HA WTIIORNE, PEGGY CARNAHAN Ol JOHNSON, LYNDA P CATEGORY TOTALS: LIB/AV. 01 ALVERSON JR, RAYMOND A 01 DUMAS, ELAINE K CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHER PROF. 02 FELLS, JACKIE 02 GUY,KIMT 02 LOVE, HOWARD LOUIS 02 SIMS, JEROME E 02 SMITII, ANDREA 02 SMITII, FLOYD CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 02 FIELDS, WILLIE J 01 MCDONALD, TIIOMAS A 01 ROBERTSON JR, TIIOMAS A 01 WILLIAMS, GARY D CATEGORY TOTALS: PRIN 01 HOWARD, RUDOLPH CATEGORY TOTALS: SEC.CLSRM. TCH. 01 ARICK, JOYCE A Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.60 2.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 JOB CODE KINDER-REG KINDER-REG KINDER-REG CNSLR-SECD CNSLR-SECD CNSLR-SECD CNSLR-SECD CNSLR-SECD ASTLIBR LIBRN-SECD SIB SOFR NURSE SIB SOFR SIB SOFR SIB SOFR SIB SOFR AIRFRCE ORCHESTR AIRFRCE SPE-LD SEC PRIN COORDED SALARY $24,314.00 $26,179.00 $41,861.00 $92,354.00 $49,151.78 $39,255.61 $45,131.39 $32,265.05 $40,388.47 $206,192.30 $39,021.39 $40,144.91 $79,166.30 $13,248.00 $22,693.00 $12,143.00 $12,492.00 $10,833.00 $12,492.00 $83,901.00 $31,042.70 $8,525.40 $34,970.81 $21,587.40 $96,126.31 $69,665.00 $69,665.00 $50,152.92 'l'bh ..-e\\)ort does not ,ndude, Met..-o\\)o\\\\t.an Schoo\\, and A\\te..-native Learning Center and is based on al\\ funds and al\\ employees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE OJ BAXLEY, MARYA 0 J BECKER, MARY C 0 I BENNETT, TIMOTIN P 01 BLEVINS, PAULETTE 0 I BOYETT, EDWARD B 0 I BRACK, ROBERT L 01 BROADNAX-TIIRASHER, BEVERLY 0 I BROWN, JAMES A 01 CALDWELL, SUZANNE 0 01 CALLAWAY, NORMAN M 0 I CARR, PA TIERSON W 01 CARUTII, PHYLLIS V 01 CHAMBLISS, PATRICIA A 01 CHERRY, KARLA KIM 0 I COBB, JEAN T 01 COLBURN, MELISSA A 0 I COLE, JENNIE B 0 I COLLINS, ROBIN R 01 COON, SUE L 0 I COOPER, VIRGINIA R 0 I CORTINEZ, KA TIIERINE 0 I COX, BERNIE L 01 DANIEL, BRANTON P 01 DEITZ, SANDY G 01 DONHAM, MELISSA C 01 DYER, JACQUELIN W 01 EASTER, MARION 0 01 EVANS, KA TI-IRYN S 01 FAKOURI, CATIN H 01 FITZPATRICKJR,OLIVER 0 I FUTRELL, BRENDA J 01 GADBERRY, SARAH E 01 GADDY, HELEN B Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 JOB CODE ALGEBRA-I ENGLSH-DEV SPANISH BIOLOGY WORLDH MUSIC ENGLSH-REG SOC STU SPANISH BOYS PE ALGEBRA-I TRIG FRENCH JOURNAL! ENGLSH-REG GLOBAL FRENCH HOME ECO ART ARTD SOC STU SOC STU SCI TECH CALCULUS BIOLOGY PHYSICS ENGLSII-REG voe BUSED ORAL COM SOC STU MARKETCOR AM IIlST SPE-M/RET SALARY $31 ,36 1.00 $29,664 .00 $23,504.00 $24,254.00 $26,746.00 $41 ,861.00 $41,861.00 $36,897.00 $37,748.00 $45,706.90 $29,117.00 $41,861 .00 $37,809.00 $29,752.17 $33,919.00 $14,564.40 $36,411.00 $31 ,456.45 $41 ,051 .00 $12,581.20 $36,147.00 $51 ,267.15 $39,021.39 $36,411 .00 $36,897.00 $39,936.09 $41,861.00 $20,642 .19 $10,095.48 $40,869.55 $50, I 52.49 $39,126.00 $41,861.00 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) st YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 GATES, KATIIY 1.00 GEOMlY-REG $32,136.00 01 GILLIAME, JOHN W 0.60 CHEMSTRY $7,770.30 01 GRAHAM, 1-IARRYEITE 1.00 HOME ECO $45,131.39 01 GRI\\Y,JOEA 1.00 SOC STU $26,885.00 01 HALL-JONES, BETSY 1.00 SPE-M/RET $31,021.00 01 HAMMONS, KAREN A 1.00 ENGLSII-REG $32,358.00 01 HARDIN, GWENDOLYN E 1.00 GEOMlY-REG $36,411.00 01 HARGIS, ALISON C 1.00 ENGLSII-REG $30,737.00 01 HARVEY, CATHERINE ANITA 1.00 BIOLOGY $22,126.00 01 HOFFMAN-MCDERMOTT, MICHELLE G 1.00 ENGLSI-1-REG $25,064.00 01 HOGAN, SUSAN P 1.00 ART $27,556.00 01 HOLLADAY, KATHLEEN T 1.00 ORAL COM $35,033.00 01 HUFFORD, GARY W 1.00 CHEMSTRY $29,420.00 01 KALB, MARTI IA MELINDA 1.00 ORAL COM $22,693.00 01 KEARNEY, LESLIE A 1.00 GERMAN $37,221.00 01 LIGON, MARIANNE WYNNE 1.00 LATIN $25,935.00 01 LOY A, SAMUEL T 1.00 SPANJSII-AD $27,926.00 01 MARSH, EDWARD W 1.00 COMP ST $22,937.00 01 MAYS, GRACrE C 1.00 BIOLOGY $37,221.00 01 MCDONALD, DOROTHY L 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $41,051.00 01 MCGUIRE, STEPIIEN K 0.34 SPEECH $13,406.20 01 MCLENDON, JOANNE B 1.00 HEALTH $41,861.00 01 MCLENNAN, FREDIE D 1.00 IND err $45,624.74 01 MCMURRAY, VICTORC 1.00 AMHIST $30,737.00 01 MEADOWS, MARKE 1.00 OTHRSCJ $32,136.00 01 MONZON, VICTORIA 1.00 SPANISH $21,622.90 01 MOORE, KENT L 1.00 PRE-ALGR $31,548.00 01 NASH, DORIS L 1.00 ORAL COM $37,412.00 01 NASH, L ANGEL 1.00 ENGLSI I-DEV $33,791.00 01 PAIGE JR, WILLIE 1.00 EX IND $45,131.39 01 PAXTON, VERONICA J 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $29,420.00 01 PEDIGO, MARY J 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $41,861.00 01 PETERS, DIANE E 1.00 AMERGOV $38,031.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. 'l'h,s re\\)ort does not ,nc\\ude, Metro\\)o\\\\tan Schoo\\, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all em11loyees currently active on 11ayroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY OJ PEYTON, EMMA J 1.00 COORD ED $47,941 .82 OJ PIERCE, MAUREEN 1.00 HOME ECO $36,961.36 OJ POSITION, VACANT 1.00 ENGLSH-REG 01 PREWJT, MARY J 1.00 READING $41,861.00 01 ROBINSON, CONSTANCE F 1.00 voe BUS ED $45,131.39 OJ RUTLEDGE, MARILYN F 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $29,177.00 OJ SAIN, LLOYD 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $30,737.00 01 SCHLESINGER, DEBRA S 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $30,737.00 01 SHOFNER, KIRBY E 1.00 BIOLOGY $28,367.00 OJ SIEGEL, LARRY B 1.00 AM HlST $41 ,829.55 01 SNODGRASS, AMY L 1.00 BIOLOGY $28,367.00 01 THOMAS, AARON BRADY 1.00 BAND $28,715.00 01 THOMPSON, LOIS B 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $36,147.00 01 THOMPSON, NANCY K 1.00 voe BUS ED $45,631.39 01 THREATT, CHRISTOPHER ERROL 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $24,087.20 01 VENABLE, GLORIA 0 1.00 voe BUS ED $45,131.39 01 WATSON, BILLYN 1.00 MATH $42,612.00 01 WILDER, BARBARA A 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $33 ,229.00 01 WILLIAMS, BETTYE F 1.00 ISSP $38,031 .00 01 WILLIAMSON, MARGARET A 1.00 SPE-M/RET $38,781.00 OJ WILLIS, EULA M 1.00 voe BUS ED $43,806.00 01 WILSON, NANCY L 1.00 ART $39,936.00 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 86.34 $2,998,997.31 SERV.WKRS. 02 BARNEY, NORMAN L 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,523.00 02 BRIGGS, BOBBY C 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,956.09 02 DUNHOO, KERVIS R 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,907.00 02 FAGAN, ROSIE L 1.00 A-IIEADCUS $14,303.80 02 GIVENS, WILLIE T 1.00 CUST-HEAD $18,355.00 02 HUDSON, HAROLD 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,245.00 02 JACKSON, KENNETH RAY 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,523.00 02 POSITION, OPEN 1.00 CUSTODAN 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 CUSTODAN Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on llayroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 53 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 POSITION.VACANT 1.00 CUSTODAN 02 TIMMONS, CAL VIN 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,956.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 11.00 $99,768.80 TCHR.AIDES 02 LLOYD, OTilMIS C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,589.56 02 l'vlERRILL, ANNETTE M 0.20 LAB ATTEND $1 ,867.47 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.20 $8,457.03 YEARLY TOTALS: 134.34 $4,091,651.98 94 CHICOT 519.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 01 CLEVELAND, ELLEAN D 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $44,102.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $44,102.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 LUCY, BRENDA F 0.60 l'vlEDIA CL $8,595 .60 02 TUCKER, LOUISE 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 02 WALKER, CONNIE S 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,719.88 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.60 $41,510.13 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 DIMASSIMO, SUELLEN H 1.00 ELEMV $27,782.00 01 EANS, SYL VERENE G 1.00 ELEM II $31 ,797.00 01 HARRIS, BRENDA G 1.00 ELEM! $20,074.00 01 HOLLINGSWORlH, JUDY A 1.00 ELEMlll $30,512.00 01 ISBELL, PAl'vlELON J 1.00 ELEM IV $33,403.00 01 JOHNSON, DEBRA J 1.00 ELEM II $26,739.00 01 JOHNSON, JORGE A 1.00 ELEMV $23 ,286.00 01 KERR, PAULA D 1.00 KINDER-REG $24,892.00 01 LAMBERT, BRENDA L 1.00 ELEM III $28,104.00 01 MALLETT, ORA D 1.00 ELEM VI $23,286.00 01 MILLER, ELIZABETH W 1.00 ELEM IV $35,049.00 01 MIMS, RICHARD L 1.00 ELEM VI $36,655.00 01 MIMS, SANDRA J 1.00 4 YR OLD $39,064.00 01 MORGAN, SHIRLEY A 1.00 ELEM II 01 MURPII, KATIE F 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,388.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"I:\\\\,., Te\\)ort doe., no\\ ,ndude, Me\\TO\\)o\\i\\an Sc\\\\oo\\, and A\\\\ernative Lcarnin\\!, Center and is based on all funds and all em1lloyees currently active on llayroll . .. ~ ... .. - -- YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE 0 I NEAL, LINDA K 0 I PETilJS, IDA M 01 POSITION, VACANT 01 POSITION, VACANT 0 I ROSE, SARA G 0 l SABO, DEBBIE L 0 l SHANKS, BETI-1 L 01 SIMPSON, KIMBERLY D 0 l WELLS, JEANNIE L 0 l WILLIAMS, ERMA J CATEGORY TOTALS: GUIDANCE 0 l BALMAZ, BETIYE M 01 SMITI-1, ALMA F CATEGORY TOTALS: LIB/AV. 0 l CRAVEN, ERNESTINE C CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHER PROF. 02 HAYMAN, KIMBERLY B CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 BROWN, KATI-ILEEN M l-ilCKS, KA TI-ILEEN F JOHNSON, BRENDA F PRIN 01 01 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0 l PRESLAR, OTIS M CATEGORY TOTALS: SEC.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BAILEY, JACK H 01 BEDOW, LAURA M 06 GERSHNER, VICKI M 06 HARPER, Sl-ilRLEY B Note: Em1lloyees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 25.00 1.00 0.80 1.80 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.20 1.00 1.00 2.20 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.20 JOB CODE ELEM! ELEMVI ELEM III ELEM I ELEM Ill KINDER-REG ELEMV ELEM I ELEM II ELEM IV CNSLR-ELEM CNSLR-ELEM LIBRN-ELEM NURSE SPE-VISUAL SPE-LD SPE-LD ELE PRIN PE SPEC SPE-M/RET READING MATI-1 SPEC SALARY $21,680.00 $35,270.00 $26,498.00 $31,255.00 $31,556.00 $20,074.00 $29,255.04 $27,542.00 $633,161.04 $32,339.00 $24,795.20 $57,134.20 $35,961.73 $35,961.73 $10,840.00 $10,840.00 $6,949.60 $38,763.00 $30,512.00 $76,224.60 $59,233.62 $59,233.62 $16,825.80 $33,664.00 $36,876.00 $8,134.00 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 55 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 06 1-llCKS, BARBARA A 1.00 MA TH-Cl-IP I $30,753.00 OJ IGWE, CARRIE MOORE 0.50 SPE-N/CATG $13,369.50 01 LOVE, VICKI L 1.00 SPE-M/RET 06 MADDOX, CYNTIIIA I 1.00 READING $32,861.00 01 MATLOCK, NANCY S 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $32,600.00 01 MCILROY, nLL M 1.00 SPEC ED $29,147.00 01 TORAN, STEVE A 1.00 MUSIC $28,104.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 9.30 $262,334.30 SERV.WKRS. 02 MORGAN, LULA 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,245.00 02 SMlTH, RUFUS 1.00 CU ST-HEAD $1 6,838.20 02 STORAY, JAMES 0.50 CUS-PmME $2,130.75 02 SUMMONS, ELOISE W 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.50 $43,747.95 TCHR.AIDES 02 BOYD, KA TI-ILEEN 1.00 AIDE-REGLR 02 CUNNINGS, GEORGIA L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 DALE, SUSAN M 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 HOOD, KAYE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,438.40 02 MCDOWELL, PATSY L 1.00 LAB ATTEND $10,411.00 02 MlTCHELL, DIONNE E 1.00 AIDE-SVA $2,719.20 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 AIDE-REGLR 02 THOMAS, MATTIE M 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 TIDWELL, CATHY V 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 WATKINS, RENEE L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,051.20 02 WILLIAMS, KIMBERLY D 1.00 LAB ATTEND $10,411.00 02 WILLIAMS, SHERRY A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,734.40 02 WILLIAMS, SHERRY A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $2,840.64 CATEGORY TOTALS: 13.00 $83,249.84 YEARLY TOTALS: 60.90 $1,347,499.41 95 CHICOT 480.00 ASST.PR IN-NT 01 CLEVELAND, ELLEAN D 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $45,408.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"fh,s '\"\"-\\\\Ort does not inc\\ude, Me\\l\"O\\\\o\\i\\an Schoo\\, and A\\\\ernative Lea.-ning Center and is based on al\\ funds and al\\ employees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE CATEGORY TOTALS: CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 LUCY, BRENDA F 02 TUCKER, LOUISE 02 WALKER, CONNIE S CATEGORY TOTALS: ELEM.CLSRM.TCH. 0 l BRYANT, GEORGIE H 0 l BUTLER, TERRI L 0 l EANS, SYL VERENE G 0 l HARRIS, BRENDA G 0 l HOLLlNGSWORIB, JUDY A 01 ISBELL, PAMELON J 01 JOHNSON, JORGE A 01 KERR, PAULA D 0 l MALLETT, ORA D 0 l MILLER, ELIZABETH W 01 MIMS, RICHARD L 01 MIMS, SANDRA J 0 l MURPH, KA TIE F 0 l NEAL, LINDA K 0 l PETTUS, IDA M 0 l ROSE, SARA G 01 SABO, DEBBIE L 0 l SHANKS, BEIB L 0 l SIMPSON, KIMBERLY D 01 WELLS, JEANNIE L 0 l WILLIAMS, ERMA J 01 WILLIAMS, FLORA V CATEGORY TOTALS: GUIDANCE 0 l BALMAZ, BETTYE M 0 l SMIIB, ALMA F CATEGORY TOTALS: Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 I.DO I.DO I.DO 3.00 1.00 1.00 I.DO 1.00 I.DO I.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.OD I.DO 1.00 I.OD 1.00 I.DO 1.00 I.DO 1.00 22.00 I.DO I.OD 2.00 JOB CODE MEDIA CL SEC PRIN SEC PRIN ELEMV ELEM II ELEM II ELEM I ELEM III ELEM IV ELEMV KINDER-REG ELEM VI ELEM IV ELEM VI 4 YR OLD KINDER-REG ELEM I ELEM VI ELEM III KINDER-REG ELEMV ELEM I ELEM II ELEM IV ELEM III CNSLR-ELEM CNSLR-ELEM SALARY $45,408.00 $15,013.58 $17,194.65 $17,203.07 $49,411.30 $25,125.00 $32,905.00 $21,072.00 $31,609.00 $34,526.00 $24,314.00 $25,935.00 $24,314.00 $36,188.00 $37,809.00 $40,240.00 $30,474.00 $22,693.00 $36,411.00 $27,556.00 $32,358.00 $32,662.00 $21,072.00 $32,662.00 $28,610.00 $29,988.00 $628,523.00 $33,453.00 $33,169.00 $66,622.00 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 57 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY LIB/AV. 01 CRAVEN, ERNESTINE C 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $37, 130.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,130.40 OTHER PROF. 02 HAYMAN, KJMBERL YB 0.80 NURSE $ I 7,986.40 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 0.80 $17,986.40 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 BROWN, KATHLEEN M 0.20 SPE-VISUAL $7,176.80 01 HICKS, KATill.,EEN F 1.00 SPE-LD $39,126.00 01 JOHNSON, BRENDA F 1.00 SPE-LD $31,609.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.20 $77,911.80 PRIN 01 PRESLAR, OTIS M 1.00 ELE PRIN $59,592.95 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $59,592.95 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 BAILEY, JACK H 0.60 PE SPEC $17,470.20 01 BEDOW, LAURA M 1.00 SPE-M/RET $34,790.00 06 GERSHNER, VICKJ M 1.00 READING $37,221.00 06 HARPER, SHIRLEY B 0.50 MATIISPEC $20,525.50 06 HICKS, BARBARA A 1.00 MATI-I-CllP I $31,852.00 01 JOHNSON, MARILYN F 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $28,367.00 01 LOVE, VICKJ L 1.00 SPE-M/RET $28,991.67 06 MADDOX, CYNTI-IIA I 1.00 READING 01 MATLOCK, NANCY S 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $33,716.00 01 MCll.,ROY, ITLL M 1.00 SPEC ED $30,231.00 01 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 MUSIC 01 POTEET, LISA B 0.50 SPEECH $15,916.0D CATEGORY TOTALS: 10.60 $279,080.37 SERV.WKRS. 02 MORGAN, LULA 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,554.00 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 CUSTODAN 02 POSITION, VACANT 0.50 CUS-PffiME 02 SMITH, RUFUS 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,318.20 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.50 $27,872.20 TCHR.AIDES Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"\"f\\1.,s re\\\\ort does no\\ ,ndude, Me\\ro\\)o\\\u0026gt;\\an Sc\\1.oo\\, and /11.\\ternaHve uarninl!, Center and is based on all funds and all em11loyees currently active on 11ayroll. CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 CHRISTIANSON, ALICE 1.00 ATDE-REGLR $7,533.71 02 CUNNINGS, GEORGIA L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 DALE, SUSAN M 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 ESTRADA, EL VIA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,183.00 02 ORA Y, ALICE REDDEN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $2,995 .74 02 HARDIN, ELLAN M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $2,995 .74 JO IIOOD, KAYE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,745.84 02 MARTS, GLENDA RAE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,183 .00 02 MCDOWELL, PATSY L 1.00 LAB ATTEND $10,4 I 1.00 10 MITCHELL, CLEO EDNA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,788.20 02 RENFRO, SHARON 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 SCALES, KECIS D 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,183.00 02 THOMAS, MATTIE M 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 TIDWELL, CA THY V 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $I0,4 I 1.00 02 WATKINS, RENEE L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $6,753.08 02 WILLIAMS, KIMBERLY D 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 16.00 $116,238.31 YEARLY TOTALS: 63.10 $1,405,776.73 96 CHICOT 455.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 01 CLEVELAND, ELLEAN D 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $46,449.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $46,449.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 LUCY, BRENDA F 1.00 MEDIA CL $15,013.58 02 TUCKER, LOUlSE 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 02 WALKER, CONNIE S 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,694.66 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $49,902.89 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BRYANT, GEORGIE H 1.00 ELEMV $29,117.00 01 DA VIS, LANITA J 1.00 ELEM I $23,504.00 01 EANS, SYL VERENE G 1.00 ELEM II $33,716.00 01 HARRIS, BRENDA G 1.00 ELEMI $2 I ,883.00 01 HOLLINGSWORTII, JUDY A 1.00 ELEM III $32,419.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 59 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 01 ISBELL, PAMELON J 1.00 ELEM IV $30,911.42 01 JOHNSON, JORGE A 1.00 ELEMV $25, 125.00 01 KERR, PA ULA D 1.00 KINDER-REG $26,746.00 01 MALLETT, ORA D 1.00 ELEM VI $25,125.00 01 MILLER, ELIZABETH W 1.00 ELEM IV $36,998.00 01 MIMS, RICHARD L 1.00 ELEM VI $38,619.00 01 MIMS, SANDRA J 1.00 4YROLD $41 ,051.00 01 MURPI I, KA TIE F 1.00 KINDER-REG $31 ,285.00 01 NEAL, LINDA K 1.00 ELEM  $24,558.00 01 PETilJS, IDA M 1.00 ELEMVI $37,221.00 01 ROSE, SARA G 1.00 ELEMIII $28,367.00 01 SABO, DEBBIE L 1.00 KINDER-REG $33 ,169.00 01 SHANKS, BETH L 1.00 ELEMV $33,473.00 01 SIMPSON, KIMBERLY D 1.00 ELEM! $21 ,883.00 01 WELLS, JEANNIE L 1.00 ELEM II $33,473.00 01 WILLIAMS, ERMA J 1.00 ELEM IV $29,420.00 01 WILLIAMS, FLORA V 1.00 ELEM III $30,798.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 22.00 $668,861.42 GUIDANCE 01 BALMAZ, BETTYE M 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $34,263.00 01 SMITI-I, ALMA F 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $33,979.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $68,242.00 LIB/AV. 01 CRAVEN, ERNESTINE C 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $37,961.49 CATEC.ORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,961.49 OTHER PROF. 02 APPLEWI IITE, ELIZABETH H 0.80 NURSE $14,523.52 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.80 $14,523.52 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 BROWN, KATHLEEN M 0.20 SPE-VISUAL $7,561.80 01 HICKS, KATHLEEN F 1.00 SPE-LD $39,936.00 01 JOHNSON, BRENDA F 1.00 SPE-LD $32,4 I 9.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.20 $79,916.80 PRIN Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"l:'\\\\'- T'!.\\'Ort doc not ,nc\\ude, Met.-o{'ol\u0026gt;tan Schoo\\, and A.\\te.-nati.ve Lea.-ninv, Cente.- and is based on a\\\\ funds and a\\\\ em1lloyees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE 01 PRESLAR, OTIS M CATEGORY TOTALS: SEC.CLSRM. TCH. SERV.WKRS. TCHR.AIDES OJ OJ 01 06 06 06 06 06 06 01 01 01 01 01 BAILEY, JACK H BANKS, RICKEY D BEDOW, LAURA M BURGIN, JOHNS BURGIN, JOHN S GERSHNER, VICKI M GERSHNER, VICKI M HICKS, BARBARA A HICKS, BARBARA A JOHNSON, MARILYN F LOVE, VICKI L MA lLOCK, NANCY S MCILROY, JILL M POTEET, LISA B CATEGORY TOTALS: 02 DRANE, WALTER II 02 MORGAN, LULA 02 POSITION, VACANT 02 SMITH, RUFUS JO SWIFf, ETHEL LEE CATEGORY TOTALS: 02 CHRISTIANSON, ALICE 02 CUNNINGS, GEORGIA L 02 DALE, SUSAN M 02 ESTRADA,ELVIA 02 FIELDS, LEOLA H JO GRAY, ALICE REDDEN 02 HARDIN, ELLAN M 10 HOOD, KA YE Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 10.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 4.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 JOB CODE ELE PRIN PE SPEC MUSIC SPE-M/RET READING READING READING READING MATH-CHP I MATH-Cf-IP I SPE-N/CATG SPE-M/RET G\u0026amp;T SPEC ED SPEECH CUSTODAN CUSTODAN CUS-PffiME CUST-HEAD CUSTODAN AIDE-REGLR AIDE-4YR AIDE-REGLR AIDE-SVA LAB ATTEND AIDE-SVA AIDE-SVA AIDE-SVA SALARY $60,683.52 $60,683.52 $17,956.20 $27,556.00 $35,600.00 $10,127.10 $10,127.10 $19,015.50 $19,015.50 $16,331.00 $16,331.00 $29,177.00 $34,526.00 $31,041.00 $26,113.60 $292,917.00 $14,096.50 $10,863.00 $17,798.20 $8,523.00 $51,280.70 $8,816.00 $10,663.00 $10,663.00 $4,387.70 $10,663.00 $5,108.60 $3,065.16 $5,991.48 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends{does not include benefits) 61 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 MARTS, GLENDA RAE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,387.70 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 AIDE-SVA 02 RENFRO, SHARON 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 02 SCALES, K.ECIS D 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,387.70 02 THOMAS, MA l11E M 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 02 TIDWELL, CATIIY V 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 02 WATKINS, RENEE L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 02 WILLIAMS, KIMBERLY D 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 16.00 S 121,448.34 YEARLY TOTALS: 63.50 $1,492,186.68 94 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY 376.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 HIGGINS, NETTIE 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 02 PHILLIPS, PENNY D 0.40 MEDIA CL $5,372.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $22,567.05 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BETTON, SHERRI L 1.00 KINDER-REG $20,074.00 01 BUETTNER, SALLY G 1.00 KINDER-REG $24,892.00 01 ELLIS, EDDIE M 1.00 ELEMV $36,876.00 01 EPPERSON, BECKY J 1.00 KINDER-REG $30,753.00 01 HALL, DONNA R 1.00 ELEM VI $33,664.00 01 KLING, ALISA D 1.00 ELEMil $20,074.00 01 MCCARTHER,GERALDINE 1.00 ELEMV $33,142.00 01 MCCLAIN, MARION K 1.00 ELEM! $24,029.00 01 MCCULLOUGH, JOYCE M 1.00 ELEM II $32,339.00 01 MILLER, GLORIA K 1.00 4 YR OLD $30,452.00 01 PENNY, JACQUELINE F 1.00 ELEMVI $25,695.00 01 ROLAX, SHIRLEY A 1.00 4 YR OLD $40,670.00 01 SIMPSON, ANGIE M 1.00 4 YR OLD $30,753.00 01 SMJTH, ARBRADELLA B 1.00 ELEM III $29,930.00 01 SNOWDEN, SALLIE R 1.00 ELEMI $28,043.00 01 STUART, DOROTI-IY J 1.00 ELEM! $28,344.00 01 TRIPCONY, WALDA D 1.00 ELEM IV $28,344.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. 'l:h, ..-e,,ort does no\\ ,ndude, Met..-o\\\\o\\i\\an Sehoo\\, and A\\terna\\ive Learninv. Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on llayroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CA TECORY FUND EMPLOYEE 0 I VANECKO, ALICE F 0 I WILSON, SANDRA D CATEGORY TOTALS: GUIDANCE 0 I MOSBY, LORRAINE L CATEGORY TOTALS: LIB/AV. 0 I NORMAN, CHERRY G CA TE GORY TOTALS: OTHER PROF. 02 CURRY, JOANN CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHR CLSRM. TCR 0 I WATERS, DORIS Z CATEGORY TOTALS: PRIN 01 FIELDS, FREDERICK L CATEGORY TOTALS: SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 06 CRAWFORD, CARMELIA A CUNNINGHAM, ELLEN S FLANAGAN, VETA SERV.WKRS. TCHR.AIDES 01 06 01 06 01 LEIGH, MARGARET A NAGEL, DlANA K SIMS, SIIlRLEY C CATEGORY TOTALS: 02 DEDMON, NANCY A 02 HOBBS, BARBARA A 02 WILLIAMS, JEFFERY CATEGORY TOTALS: 02 CRISS, PAULINE W 02 DRIVER, OCIE A 02 GREGORY, NEA C Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 1.00 19.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.50 0.60 1.00 0.40 1.00 3.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 JOB CODE ELEM Ill ELEM rv CNS LR-ELEM LIBRN-ELEM NURSE SPE-LD ELE PRIN MATH SPEC SPEECH READING G\u0026amp;TSPCLST MA TI-1-CHP I MUSIC CUSTODAN CUST-HEAD CUSTODAN AIDE-4YR AIDE-4YR AIDE-SVA SALARY $32, 118.00 $530,192.00 $36,876.00 $36,876.00 $30,729.95 $30,729.95 $9,635.60 $9,635.60 $29,649.00 $29,649.00 $40,815.43 $40,815.43 $3, 179.70 $17,635.00 $17,864.47 $25,9 16.00 $26,498.00 $91,093.17 $8,891.00 $17,260.60 $7,976.20 $34,127.80 $10,411.00 $10,411.00 $6,507.60 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 63 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 lllLL, DARLENE 0.40 LAB ATTEND $3,526.40 02 JACKSON, BENNIE 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $8,396.00 02 LANGSTON, CALVIN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,790.40 02 MCCLINA, MARY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,101.60 02 RAND, ALICE C 0.20 LAB ATTEND $2,082.20 02 SANDERS, NORMA J 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 SO LEE, DEBORAH L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,959.60 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.60 $72,596.80 YEARLY TOTALS: 40.00 $898,282.80 95 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY 405.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 PlllLLIPS, PENNY D 1.00 SEC PRIN $1,125.32 02 POSITION,VACANT 0.40 MEDIA CL CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $1,125.32 ELEM. CLSRM. TCH. 01 BETTON, SHERRI L 1.00 KINDER-REG $21,072.00 01 BUETTNER, SALLY G 1.00 KINDER-REG $25,935 .00 01 CARTER, CHARLES R 1.00 ELEM III $27,799.00 01 ELLIS, EDDIE M 1.00 ELEMV $37,221.00 01 EPPERSON, BECKY J 1.00 KINDER-REG $31,852.00 01 HALL, DONNA R 1.00 ELEMVI $34,790.00 01 JOHNSON, DEBRA J 1.00 ELEM II $27,799.00 01 LA YER, MARSHA A 1.00 4 YR OLD $21,072.00 01 MCCARTHER,GERALDlNE 1.00 ELEMV $34,263.00 01 MCCLAIN, MARION K 1.00 ELEM I $25,064.00 01 MCCULLOUGH, JOYCE M 1.00 ELEM II $33,453 .00 01 MILLER, GLORIA K 1.00 4 YR OLD $31,548.00 01 PENNY, JACQUELINE F 1.00 ELEMVI $26,746.00 01 ROLAX, SHIRLEY A 1.00 4YROLD $41,051.00 01 SNOWDEN, SALLIE R 1.00 ELEM I $29,117.00 01 STUART, DOROTHY J 1.00 ELEM I $29,420.00 01 TRIPCONY, W ALDA D 1.00 ELEM IV $14,403.54 01 VANECKO, ALICE F 1.00 ELEMIII $32,419.00 Note: Emp\\oyees with no sa\\ary are not currently active on payro\\l. '\"'\" Te\\\\Ort does. not ,n\u0026lt;:.\\u\u0026lt;le, Me\\TO\\)O\\itan Sc\"oo\\, an\u0026lt;l A\\ternative \\...earning Center and is based on al\\ funds and al\\ employees currently active on payroll. FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 WILSON, SANDRA D 1.00 ELEM IV $21,883.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 19.00 $546,907.54 GUIDANCE 01 MOSBY, LORRAINE L 1.00 CNS LR-ELEM $37,221.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,221.00 LIB/AV. 01 NORMAN, CHERRY G 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $31,849.36 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $31,849.36 OTHER PROF. 02 CURRY, JOANN 0.40 NURSE $9,956.80 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $9,956.80 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 PACE, KATIE L 1.00 SPE-LD $39,126.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $39,126.00 PRIN 01 FIELDS, FREDERICK L 1.00 ELE PRIN $42,149.05 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $42,149.05 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 CUNNINGHAM, ELLEN S 0.60 SPEECH $21,846.60 06 FLANAGAN, VETA 0.60 READING $18,515.66 06 KOVACH, LILLIAN R 0.10 MATH SPEC $3,345.30 01 LEIGH, MARGARET A 1.00 G\u0026amp;TSPCLST $26,969.00 01 SIMS, SlllRLEY C 1.00 MUSIC $27,556.00 06 WROTEN, MYRTHENE R 0.50 MATII-CHP I $16,452.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.80 $114,685.06 SERV.WKRS. 02 ABERNATIIY, RAYMOND 1.00 CUSTODAN $6,948.10 02 DEDMON, NANCY A 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,229.00 02 HOBBS, BARBARA A 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,260.60 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $33,437.70 TCHR.AIDES 02 CRISS, PAULINE W 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 GRAYES, CURTIS G 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $8,835.97 02 GREGORY, NEA C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,875.25 02 HILL, DARLENE 0.40 LAB ATTEND $3,694.40 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 65 ,. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 JACKSON, BENNIE 1.00 AIDE-4YR $8,816.00 02 LANGSTON, CAL VIN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,142.78 02 MCCUNA, MARY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,489.35 02 RAND, ALICE C 0.20 LAB ATTEND $2,082.20 02 SANDERS, NORMA J 1.00 AIDE-4YR $9,285.49 02 SOLEE, DEBORAH L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $8,050.05 02 WILSON, RHONDA RUTI-1 0.50 AIDE-SVA $1,673.20 CATEGORY TOTALS: 9.10 $73,355.69 YEARLY TOTALS: 40.70 $929,813.52 96 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY 453.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 PHILLIPS, PENNY D 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,719.88 02 SMITH, CLAUDIA 0.40 MEDIA CL $4,185.59 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $19,905.47 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BETTON, SHERRI L 1.00 ELEM II $21,883.00 01 BUETTNER, SALLY G 1.00 4 YR OLD $26,746.00 01 COKELEY, GWENDOLYN D 1.00 ELEM VI $33,453.00 01 DUDECK, DJUNA C. 1.00 ELEM I $23,504.00 01 ELLIS, EDDIE M 1.00 ELEMV $38,031.00 01 EPPERSON, BECKY J 1.00 KINDER-REG $32,662.00 01 JOHNSON, DEBRA J 1.00 ELEM II $28,610.00 01 MCCARlHER, GERALDINE 1.00 ELEMV $35,074.00 01 MCCLAIN, MARION K 1.00 4 YR OLD $26,969.00 01 MCCULLOUGH, JOYCE M 1.00 ELEM VI $34,263.00 01 MILLER, GLORIA K 1.00 KINDER-REG $32,358.00 01 PENNY, JACQUELINE F 1.00 ELEM II $27,556.00 01 ROGERS, CHARLENE I 1.00 ELEM I $39,936.00 01 ROLAX, SHIRLEY A 1.00 4 YR OLD $41,861.00 01 SHUFFIELD, KELLY L 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,117.00 01 SNOWDEN, SALLIE R 1.00 ELEM I $29,927.00 01 STUART, DOROTIIY J 1.00 ELEM III $30,231.00 01 TRIPCONY, WALDA D 1.00 ELEM IV $30,231.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan .. School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll . , ~ ~ ,~ c-..a.._ 1'\"\"'C,c-..~ ~ '1t.v,c-v. ~ 'P\"'(' ~._, __ - - n-..,c- c:..-,-- -+ C:..'t\\vu.,.,,,,..,(,\\n,, ... ,,nt. \\..,.c-,,,,,,. ,.,,, . .,,,.nt ...\" \\ YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 VANECKO, ALICE F 1.00 ELEM IIl $33,229.00 01 WILSON, SANDRA D 1.00 ELEM IV $22,693.00 OJ WINE, KIMBERLY ANN 1.00 KINDER-REG $20,262.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 21.00 $638,596.00 GUIDANCE 01 JAMES, SANDRA S 0.50 CNSLR-ELEM $13,748.00 01 MOSBY, LORRAINE L 1.00 CNS LR-ELEM $38,031.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: I.SO $51,779.00 LIB/AV. OJ NORMAN, CHERRY G 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $32,681.48 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 1.00 $32,681.48 OTHER PROF. 02 CURRY, JOANN 0.40 NURSE $10,374.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $10,374.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 PACE, KATIE L 1.00 SPE-LD $39,936.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $39,936.00 PRlN 01 FIELDS, FREDERICK L 1.00 ELE PRIN $43,239.62 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $43,239.62 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 BROWN: ADRIENNE 0.30 SPEECH $10,437.00 06 DANESHMANDI, KATHRYN D 0.50 READING $15,774.00 06 DANESHMANDI, KATIIRYN D 0.50 READING $15,774.00 06 DANESHMANDI, KATHRYN D 0.50 MATI-1-CIIP I $15,774.00 01 DOCKETT-WILSON, TAMMI Y 1.00 MUSIC $26,746.00 01 LEIGH, MARGARET A 1.00 G\u0026amp;TSPCLST $27,779.0~ 06 SEBOURN, KAREN L 0.60 MATH SPEC $16,679.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.40 $128,963.40 SERV.WKRS. 02 DEDMON, NANCY A 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,539.00 02 HOBBS, BARBARA A 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,740.60 02 JOHNSON,SYLVESTER 1.00 CUSTODAN $7,129.57 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 3.00 $34,409.17 TCHR.AIDES Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD lNFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 67 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 CRISS, PAULINE W 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,663.00 02 DOSS, TIMMY F 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $9,907.00 02 FEE, STEPHANIE A 0.50 AIDE-SVA $1 ,673.20 02 GREGORY, NEA C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,182.30 02 1-IlLL, DARLENE 0.60 LAB ATTEND $5,793.00 02 JONES, TIFFANI R 1.00 AIDE-4YR $5,271.11 02 LANGSTON, CALVIN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,416.90 02 MCCLINA, MARY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,662 .90 02 SANDERS, NORMA J 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,663.00 02 SO LEE, DEBO RAJ I L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $8,236.95 CATEGORY TOTALS: 9.10 $73,469.36 YEARLY TOTALS: 43.80 $1,073,353.50 94 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 647.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 01 DUERR, DONNA P 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $37,540.00 01 PATTERSON, DAVID H 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $42,711.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $80,251.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 ENOCH, LYDIA L 1.00 REG $19,481.62 02 MARTINEK, DARLENE B 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,719.88 02 RELFORD, YOLANDA L 0.60 MEDIA CL $8,058.60 02 WASHINGTON, ESTHER M 1.00 SECATT $17,194.65 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.60 $60,454.75 GUIDANCE 01 GOLDSBY, LA VERNE G 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $41,791.36 01 JONES, JACK A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $41 ,250.121 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $83,041.50 LIB/AV. 01 ABLES, FRANCES M 1.00 LIBRN-JR $41,729.11 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $41,729.11 OTHER PROF. 02 BAILEY, JOHNNY 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,473.00 02 COGSHELL, CARL L 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,794.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. -Y\\\u0026gt;\\ Tc\"'art \\.\\t,e.\" na\\ \\nc\\ude., Me\\ro{',,\\itan Sc.boo\\., and A.\\tel\"native \\....earnin1!. Center and is based on all funds and all em11loyees currently active on 11ayroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE 02 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 PRIN CURRY, JOANN CATEGORY TOTALS: BULLOCK, PATRICIA A CATEGORY TOTALS: 0 I BRADFORD, GAYLE B SEC.CLSRM. TCH. 01 01 01 01 01 01 06 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 06 01 01 01 01 01 01 CATEGORY TOTALS: ANDRESS, WILLIAM S ANDRUS, GEORGE C BENSON, JESSIE J BEST, CHARLOTTE V BRAGG, ALLEN R BURNETTE, DENNIS R CAPOOT, MICHAEL G CAPOOT, MICHAEL G CHAMBERS, ANIBONY D CRIPPS, JOSEPH D CRISWELL, DONICA M DAVIDSON, KATHY L DA VIS, MARCUS D DA VIS, PHYLESIA DOSS, GAILP EARLEYWINE, SONY A G ESTES, WILLIAM E GAINES, SARA E GILBERT-WISE, M BARBARA GULLETT-SHELNUTT, TAMARA J HAMILTON, ORALYN S HARRIS, ANNlTilA J HARRIS, SHARON D HAWKING, NANCY G HUNT, SAMUEL Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. ITE 0.60 2.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 JOB CODE NURSE SPE-LD SEC PRIN SOC STU ART MATII MATII LIFE SCI ENGLSII-REG MA TI-I-Cl-IP I MATI-I EXPITE BAND SPE-N/CATG LNGFNDS B/GPE MATII SPE-N/CATG ENGLSH-REG CIVICS MATII READlNG ENGLSH-REG LNGFNDS HOME ECO ISSP PHY SCI MATH SALARY $14,453.40 $37,720.40 $31,255.00 $31,255.00 $60,762.00 $60,762.00 $28,043.00 $29,649.00 $23,527.00 $24,832.00 $21 ,680.00 $4,336 .00 $29,260.40 $] 1,550.80 $22,483.00 $24,286.00 $28,943.00 $28,398.00 $33,913.00 $27,441.00 $23,233.00 $34,748.00 $27,622.00 $25,695.00 $39,527.09 $29,201.00 $27,823.00 $30,660.00 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 69 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 0l JOHNSON, JOHN C 1.00 B/GPE $32,842.00 0l JONES, GWENDOLYN DIANN 1.00 PHY SCI 06 KINSEY, TERRY D 1.00 READING $28,043.00 0l KIRCHNER, LESSIE A 1.00 LIFE SCI $21,680.00 0l LAMB, CAROLYN F 1.00 B/GPE 01 LOVELACE, DOROTIN J 0.40 VOCCOR 0l MAYBERRY, BONNIE B 1.00 VOCCOR $40,384.41 0l MCFADDEN, CHARLES 1.00 LNGFNDS $22,483.00 01 MCKENNA, JULIANN E 1.00 ART 01 MILLIGAN, JENNIFER H 1.00 ERTHSCI $28,585.00 01 MITCHELL, SANDRA A 0.20 SPEECH $6,307.20 01 MOHUNDRO, THOMAS S 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $26,437.00 01 MOSELEY, FRAN N 1.00 SOC STIJ 01 NIEDERBRACH, JAY A 1.00 VOC/MUSIC $25,695.00 01 OSHIRO, NIDIA 1.00 SPANISH $20,074.00 01 PARKER, PA TT! J 1.00 voe BUS ED 06 PIKE, PERRY R 1.00 MATH-CHP I $25,133.00 0l POORE', PATRICIA A 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $24,089.00 06 POSITION,OPEN 1.00 COMP ST 01 RALEY, BEVERLY A 1.00 SPE-M/RET $40,670.00 01 RUSH, LA WREN CE R 1.00 CIVICS 0l SAMONS, KATHRYN M 1.00 LNGFNDS $21,680.00 01 SEAWOOD, GREGORY E 1.00 AM HIST 01 SIMON, THERESA L 0.60 FRENCH $16,862.40 01 SMITH, SUSAN M 1.00 ERTHSCI 01 STARLING, LILLIAN L 1.00 HEALTH $38,763 .00 01 TOMLINSON, E. LIANNE 1.00 COMP LIT $25,540.23 06 VAN PELT, SHARON E 1.00 READING $28,846.00 0l WARREN, JUDITH L 1.00 AMHIST $28,292.00 01 WEBB, THOMAS C 1.00 MAUI 06 WICKLIFFE, ALICE E 1.00 READING $33,664.00 01 WOLFE, CAROLYN S 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $31,255 .00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 53.80 $1,144,176.53 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"\\\"h,s Te.\\'ort doe.snot inc\\ude., Me.tro\\'o\\itan Schoo\\, and Ac\\ternative Learnin1?, Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll . .. -  - SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY SERV.WKRS. 02 FISHER, KENNETT-I L 1.00 BLDG ENG $22,598.00 02 GREENE,GREGORY 1.00 CUSTODAN $2,446.39 02 LEAKS, AL VESTER 1.00 A-HEADCUS $13,360.00 02 POSITION, VACANT 0.50 CUS-PffiME 02 SIMPSON, MJTCIIELL 0.50 CUS-PffiME $2,307.25 02 WASHINGTON, DWIGHT B 1.00 CUST-IIEAD $16,934.20 02 WILLIAMS, HENRY L 0.50 CUSTODAN $3,633.50 02 WILLIAMS, SYLVIA 1.00 CUSTODAN CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.50 $61,279.34 TCHR.AIDES 02 WILLIAMS, BRUCE B 0.40 LAB ATTEND $4,164.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $4,164.40 YEARLY TOTALS: 73.90 $1,604,834.03 95 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 635.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 01 DUERR, DONNA P 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $38,814.00 01 PATTERSON, DAVID H 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $44,017.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $82,831.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 AKBAR, FATIMAH K 0.60 MEDIA CL $6,026.07 02 ENOCH, LYDIA L 1.00 REG $20,037.35 02 JACKSON, ERMA JEAN 1.00 SEC PRIN $13,687.96 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 SECATT CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.60 $39,751.38 GUIDANCE 01 GOLDSBY, LA VERNE G 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $42,182.72 01 JONES, JACK A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $42,510.47 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $84,693.19 LIB/AV. 01 ABLES, FRANCES M 1.00 LIBRN-JR $42,120.04 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $42,120.04 OTHER PROF. 02 CURRY, JOANN 0.60 NURSE $14,935.20 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD lNFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Sti1\u0026gt;ends(does not include benefits) 71 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 02 MARTIN,DUNCANERAC 1.00 S/8 SOFR $10,833.00 02 MCTIER, JR., DONALD 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,794.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.60 $37,562.20 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 BULLOCK, PATRICIA A 1.00 SPE-LD $32,358.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $32,358.00 PRIN 01 MASON, CASSANDRA N 1.00 SEC PRIN $52,526.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $52,526.00 SEC.CLSRM TCH. 01 ALLEN,CLARENCE 1.00 AM HIST $26,746.00 01 ANDRESS, WILLIAM S 1.00 SOC STU $26,685.00 01 ANDRUS, GEORGE C 1.00 ART 01 BENSON, JESSIE J 1.00 MATI-1 $30,737.00 01 BOSTIC, KELVIN 1.00 MATI-1 $25,296.80 01 BRIDGFORTI-1, MARY CATI-IERINE 1.00 SOC STU $23,199.00 01 BURNETTE, DENNIS R 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $26,305.00 01 CRISWELL, DONICA M 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $23,504.00 01 DAVIDSON, KATI-TYL 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $25,314.00 01 DA VIS, MARCUS D 1.00 B/GPE $31,133.00 01 DOSS, GAILP 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $29,456.00 01 GAINES, SARA E 1.00 MATTI 01 GARDNER, ANN BEENE 1.00 LNGFNDS 01 GULLE1T-SHELNUTT, TAMARA J 1.00 ENGLSII-REG $25,935.00 01 HAMIL TON, ORAL YN S 1.00 LNGFNDS $26,746.00 01 HARRIS, ANNITI-IA J 1.00 HOME ECO $36,968.88 01 HARRIS, SHARON D 1.00 ISSP $30,840.00 01 HUNT, SAMUEL 1.00 MATTI $30,798.00 01 JEFFERS, MICHAEL A 1.00 PHY SCI $21,072.00 01 JONES, XERLO1T A L 1.00 VOCCOR $22,675.04 06 KINSEY, TERRY D 1.00 READING $29,117.00 01 KIRCHNER, LESSIE A 1.00 LIFE SCI $22,693.00 01 LAMB, CAROLYN F 1.00 B/GPE $36,030.00 01 MCFADDEN, CHARLES 1.00 LNGFNDS $23,504.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. 'l:h,, '\u0026lt;C.\\\"Ort doe\" no\\ \\nc\\ude, Me\\To\\,o\\i\\an Sc.boo\\, and A\\\\e'\u0026lt;native \\..,c.arnin\\?, Center and is based on a\\\\ funds and a\\\\ employees currently active on payroll. CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY --------- 01 MJTCIIELL, SANDRA A 0.20 SPEECH $6,528.40 01 MOGSTAD, BONNIE L 1.00 ART $25,875.00 01 NESMIIB, ESTELLA 1.00 MAIB-CIIP I $21,883.00 01 NIEDERBRACH, IA YA 1.00 VOC/MUSIC $26,746.00 01 OSHIRO, NIDIA 1.00 SPANISH $21,072.00 01 POORE', PATRJCIA A 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $25,125.00 01 POSillON,VACANT 1.00 MATI-I 01 POSillON, VACANT 1.00 EXPITE 01 RALEY, BEVERLY A 1.00 SPE-M/RET $41,051.00 01 REEDY, JAMIE LYNN 1.00 MATII $20,262.00 01 RHODES, BERNESTINE 1.00 voe BUS ED $26,476.59 01 RUSH, LA WREN CE R 1.00 CIVICS $24,278.95 01 RUSSELL, ANIBONY D 1.00 ERIBSCI $20,835.00 01 SAMONS, KA 11-IRYN M 1.00 ENGLSII-REG $22,693.00 01 SIMON, 11-IERESA L 0.40 FRENCH $9,604.10 01 SKIDGEL, RONNY L 1.00 MAIB $31,017.00 01 SMITH, SUSAN M 1.00 ERTHSCI $29,928.00 01 STARLING, LILLIAN L 1.00 HEALTH $39,126.00 01 TAYLOR, TRAVIS F 0.60 BAND $14,019.00 01 TOMLINSON, E. LIANNE 1.00 COMP LIT $26,610.39 06 VAN PELT, SHARON E 1.00 READING $29,927.00 01 WARREN, JUDIIB L 1.00 CIVICS $29,360.00 06 WICKLIFFE, ALICE E 1.00 READING $35,540.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4S.20 $1,102,712. IS SERV.WKRS. 02 FELLS, CORINTI-IIS 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,595.9! 02 FISHER, KENNETI I L 1.00 BLDG ENG $23,270.00 02 GREENE, GREGORY 1.00 CUSTODAN $11,078.00 02 JONES, Cl IRIS L 0.50 CUS-PffiME $935.76 02 JONES, JAMES L 0.50 CUS-PffiME $946.90 02 LEAKS, AL VESTER 1.00 A-HEADCUS $13,919.80 02 WASHINGTON, DWIGHT 8 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,375.80 02 WILLIAMS, HENRY L 0.50 CUSTODAN $3,633.50 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 73 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.50 $80,755.68 TCHR.AIDES 02 WILLIAMS, BRUCE B 0.40 LAB ATTEND $4,164.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $4,164.40 YEARLY TOTALS: 65.30 $1,559,474.04 96 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 637.00 ASST. PRIN-NT 01 PATTERSON, DAVID H 1.00 A/PRTN SEC $45,058.00 01 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 A/PRTN SEC CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $45,058.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 AKBAR, FATIMAH K 0.60 MEDIA CL $7,097.26 02 CROWDER, CLEDA C 1.00 BK/SEC $17,194.65 02 ENOCH, LYDIA L 1.00 REG $20,594.32 02 HERVEY, SCHARLOTIE A 1.00 SECATI $13,755.72 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.60 $58,641.95 GUIDANCE 01 GOLDSBY, LAVERNE G 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $43,056.00 01 JONES, JACK A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $43,383.75 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $86,439.75 LIB/AV. 01 ABLES, FRANCES M 1.00 LIBRN-JR $42,951.13 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $42,951.13 OTHER PROF. 02 CURRY, JOANN 0.60 NURSE $ I 5,561.00 02 MARTIN, DUNCAN ERAC 1.00 SIB SOFR $11 ,153.00 02 MClYER, JR., DONALD 1.00 SIB SOFR $12,143.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.60 $38,857.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 BULLOCK, PATRICIA A 1.00 SPE-LD $33,169.00 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 1.00 $33,169.00 PRIN 01 MASON, CASSANDRA N 1.00 SEC PRTN $53,698.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $53,698.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. '\"l:'- '\"\"-\\'\u0026lt;\u0026gt;rt\"\"'\"' not \\ndude, Met.-o\\'o\\itan Schoo\\, and A\\te.-naUve \\..earnin\\?. Center and i,i based on a\\\\ funds and a\\\\ employees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY SEC.CLSRM. TCH. OJ ALLEN, CLARENCE 1.00 AM HIST $27,556.00 01 ANDRESS, WILLIAM S 1.00 SOC STU $27,496.00 OJ BENNETT,A 1.00 LIFE SCI $36,127.00 01 BENSON, JESSIE J 1.00 MATH $26,947.25 01 BOSTIC, KELVIN 1.00 VOCCOR $27,409.67 01 BURNETTE, DENNIS R 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $26,685.00 01 CAMPANALI, JON M 1.00 LIFE SCI $21 ,316.00 01 CHAMBERS, ANTHONY D 1.00 EXPITE $31 ,943.78 01 COVERT, MARY JO 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $23,443.00 01 CRISWELL, DONICA M 0.50 SPE-N/CATG $12,157.00 01 DA VIS, MARCUS D 1.00 B/GPE $31 ,370.00 01 DOSS, GAILP 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $30,267.00 01 EURE, ANNAC 1.00 ART $20,262.00 01 GATELY, LAURA S. 1.00 MATH $25,064.00 01 GULL\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":32,"next_page":33,"prev_page":31,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":372,"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}}]}}