{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1185","title":"Little Rock School District Studies and 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":["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--Standards","Education--Curricula","Educational statistics","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Studies and 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/1185"],"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":["146 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n~~W\u0026amp;JQJ wooru~u LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDIES AND REPORTS January 1994 REPORTS AND STUDIES RESPONSE SHEET RANK EACH ITEM RESPONSE USING THE FOLLOWING SCALE: Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent 5 Superior DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM GOALS STUDY OR REPORT MISSION STATEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND OBJECTIVES QUALITY OF FUNDING TOTAL AND GOALS SUPPORT SUPPORT ATTAINMENT RECOMMENDATIONS SOURCE RESPONSE --- Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit - Recommendations Educational Equity Monitoring Recommendations --- School Climate/Human Relations Survey Stanford Achievement Test, - - Eighth Edition COMMENTS MAY BE RECORDED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 February 2, 1994 Superintendent's Cabinet Sterling lngraritsociate to the Deputy Superintendent Reports and Recommendations Enclosed are brief summary reports and recommendations for the following: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit of 1990 Educational Equity Monitoring School Climate/Human Relations Survey Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Additional supporting information is on file in the Planning, Research and Evaluation office. These reports will be discussed at the cabinet meeting on Friday, February 4, 1994, at 8:00 a.m. bjg REPORTS AND STUDIES RESPONSE SHEET RANK EACH ITEM RESPONSE USING THE FOLLOWING SCALE: 1 = Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 = Excellent 5 Superior DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM GOALS STUDY OR REPORT MISSION STATEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND OBJECTIVES QUALITY OF FUNDING TOTAL AND GOALS SUPPORT SUPPORT ATTAINMENT RECOMMENDATIONS SOURCE RESPONSE Arkansas Minimum - Performance Test I - Curriculum Audit Recommendations -- Educational Equity Monitoring Recommendations - School Climate/Human Relations Survey - Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition COMMENTS MAY BE RECORDED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. SECTION NUMBER One Two Three Four Five TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME TWO STUDIES AND REPORTS Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit Recommendations Educational Equity Monitoring Recommendations School Climate/Human Relations Survey Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION ONE ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST Spring 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Review of Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Data Findings and Recommendations Since its inception in 1988, the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT) has been administered each spring to all third, sixth, and eighth grade students. The MPT was initiated by an act of the Arkansas Legislature through the \"Education Assessment Act of 1979,\" and later expanded by the \"Competency Based Education Act of 1983. 11 Until 1993, the State of Arkansas required eighth grade students to pass the MPT before they could be promoted to the ninth grade. Eighth grade students were given three opportunities to pass the test. Beginning in 1993, failure of the MPT could no longer serve as the sole basis for retaining a student in the eighth grade. In 1994, the MPT will not be administered in Grade 3, and only one administration will occur for Grades 6 and 8, respectively. This report reviews the test data and other materials the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has on file relative to the MPT, provides a general outline of the information available, and discusses findings and recommendations concerning the test data and related materials vis-a-vis the needs of the district. The following reports are provided by the State of Arkansas via Data Recognition Corporation and are on file in the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department for the years 1988-93 and/or appropriate school buildings. MPT Data Review Page 2 1. Individual student Report. Individual student reports are available for each student tested. In Grade 3, these reports provide information about student performance in reading and mathematics. In Grades 6 and 8, these reports provide information about student performance in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. The primary purpose of this report is to determine whether or not the student has mastered a subject area and to identify those specific objectives which the student did or did not master. Therefore, the report lists for each objective tested, the number of questions correctly answered and a notation indicating mastery or non-mastery of the objectives. These reports are on file in the appropriate school buildings. 2. Classroom Roster Report. The Classroom Roster Report is available for each class tested. Each roster lists mastery results by objective for each student. Students are listed in alphabetical order. The purpose of the roster is to aid educators in identifying problem objective areas for groups of students. At the eighth grade level, the roster is an alphabetical list of all eighth grade students who were tested. 3. Grade a Pass/Not Pass Roster. The Pass/Not Pass Roster lists all eighth-grade students within each school. It provides each student's scale score and pass/not pass status for each subject area and the total test. (Note: A Grade 8 Not Pass Roster is also available. It is similar to the Pass/Not Pass Roster except that it lists only students who did not pass.) 4. School Summary Report. For Grade 3, the School Summary Report lists the number and percent of all students who mastered each objective. For Grades 6 and 8, the School Summary Report lists the number and percent of students by each socioeconomic status (SES} group within the school who mastered each objective. For Grades 3, 6, 8 the School Summary Report lists the number and percent of students by sex, race, and race by sex within the school who passed the [subject area) test. The Grades 6 and 8 School Summary Report also lists the number and percent of students by each socioeconomic status (SES} group who passed the test. No report is available which lists the number and percent of Grade 8 students by sex, race, and race by sex within the school who passed the total test. 5. District Summary Report. The District Summary Reports are similar to the School Summary Reports except the results have been aggregated to the district level. No report is available which lists the number and percent of Grade 8 students by sex, race, and race by sex within the school who passed the total test. MPT Data Review Page 3 The above descriptions of the reports are taken from the Arkansas Minimum Performance Testing Program Test Results Interpretation Manual 1993 (Interpretation Manual) published by the Arkansas Department of Education. Additional reports prepared by the Planning, Research, and Evaluation staff include the following: 1. Five Year Summary Reports (1989-1993). These reports provide the number of students tested, the number who passed, and the percent passed by race by gender for each school. At Grade 3, the reports are available for reading and mathematics. At Grades 6 and 8, for reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. 2. Five Year summary Reports (1989-1993) by Categories of Schools. This report is the same as described in Number 1 above, except it is available for the following grades and categories of schools: Incentive Schools (Grades 3 and 6)\nMagnet Schools (Grades 3, 6, and 8), and Area Schools (Grades 3 and 6). 3. Grade 8 Summary Reports after the Third Administration. These reports are available for individual years 1989 through 1993, respectively. No five year summaries are available. These summaries provide race and gender information for students who failed the test, but not for those who passed. 4. District summary of Objectives Not Mastered, 1989-1993 for Grades 3, 6, and a. This report provides a summary of the objectives not mastered over a five year period. It does not provide an analysis by race and gender of objectives not mastered. In addition to the above referred to reports, the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department has on file MPT manuals, copies of various Arkansas statutes which concern the testing program mandated by the State, and other miscellaneous MPT related materials. In the \"Foreword\" of the Interpretation Manual, the purposes of the \"Competency Based Education Act of 1983 11 are MPT Data Review Page 4 delineated\none of the purposes is to \"give students, parents, and teachers a general idea of how well students are doing in basic skill areas.\" The following findings and suggested recommendations are the result of a review of the available MPT test data and related materials described previously in this report. FINDING ONE A review of the passing percentages for the 1992-93 MPT administration shows that at all three grade levels, in all subject areas tested, at least 85% of the white students who were tested displayed mastery. Eighty-five percent of the tested black students showed mastery in only sixth grade reading. The average disparity between the passing percentages of black students and white students is as follows: Grade 3: -14% Grade 6: -17% Grade 8: -21% Since one of the primary goals of the LRSD is to close the disparity between the academic achievement of black students and white students, this finding should be of particular interest to those who are involved in instruction or instructional planning. RECOMMENDATIONS for FINDING ONE 1. Provide remediation for those students in need of said. Do not require students who have mastered specific objectives to mark time while providing additional instruction to those in need. MPT Data Review Page 5 2. Structure a close working relationship among instructional supervisors, the Staff Development Department, classroom teachers and the PRE Department so that test data can be adequately reviewed and interpreted, effective strategies to alleviate the disparity can be pinpointed, and demonstrations of \"what works\" can be shared with teachers. FINDING TWO Thirty-nine percent of the MPT objectives on tests of the three grade levels have never been mastered by at least 85% of the students at the respective grade level in at least one year from 1989 through 1993. -~~~f~ERCENT OF NON-MASTERED KPT OBJECTIVES t_ ~o 1 ~~f{ ,\nJ'' COMBINED TOTALS for 1989-1993 ,~~~?~:/-\".' tpp l~: 1 GRADES 3, 6, and 8 JI\"' Number of Non-mastered Percent of Objectives/Number of Non-mastered =O=b. i..~ ~c~t=i~v~~s~---------O=b. i.~. ~c~t~i~v~~s '1j\nJ1 READING 15/70 21% MATHEMATICS ~ -J?it:LANGUAGB ARTS V~~/' SCIENCE ~p SOCIAL STUDIES ,)' 16/64 GRADES 6 and 8 16/30 ( 33/36) 30/45 RECOMMENDATIONS for FINDING TWO 22% 53% 92% 67% 1. The PRE report entitled District summary of Objectives Not Mastered, 1989-1993 for Grades 3, 6, and 8 should1be distributed to instructional supervisors and MPT Data Review Page 6 principals to guide decisions which will have an impact on instruction. 2. Each principal should also analyze the percentages of students in his/her particular school and identify areas of strengths and weaknesses. 3. Instructional supervisors should work closely with teachers and other appropriate personnel to develop instructional strategies for identified objectives. 4. Consideration should be given to systematically assessing students at the beginning of the school year to determine if they have mastered specific objectives. 5. Provide instruction to students who have not mastered objectives. 6. Provide appropriate instruction to those students who have mastered objectives, including enriching activities. FINDING THREE Finding Three concerns available data. No data are available by race and gender or by race by gender for those students who passed the total Grade 8 MPT in any given year. This report is not provided by the state, but is available from Data Recognition for a fee. RECOMMENDATION for FINDING THREE since there is a great deal of emphasis on the achievement of black students as compared to that of white students, it is recommended that this report be made available to the district, at state expense, if possible. MPT Data Review Page 7 However, if the state chooses not to order the report, then the district should consider bearing the expense. FINDING FOUR When a five year period of MPT results is analyzed, the \"Classroom Rosters\" for Grades 3 and 6 and the \"Roster of Grade 8 Students\" could possibly indicate problem areas for particular groups. RECOMMENDATION for FINDING FOUR 1. Principals, instructional supervisors, and other appropriate central office administrators should review the available data and develop effective strategies to address areas of concern. According to the Interpretation Manual, perhaps \"modification of the instructional program may be warranted in a skill area in which a substantial number of students did not master the objective or the set of objectives matched to the Goal Area.\" It is important that MPT test results be disseminated to the school board of directors, to parents, students, school district personnel, and the general public in a ~mel manner. STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION TWO CURRICULUM AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS December 1990 v0rr\nii?~' ., * 1-,w\n,r ?If ,r CURRICULUM AUDIT/REVIEW ,'lf'1b1\" ~,\\ A review of selected curriculum programs was conducted during the first semester of the ) 1993-94 school year. The Deputy Superintendent and appropriate curriculum directors,/ supervisors, and coordinators facilitated the review. The following plan of action was developed and implemented so that appropriate program changes, deletions, and/ or new programs could be recommended to the Superintendent. Plan of Action 1. Scheduled and held meetings with appropriate staff to develop a plan of?ctifoor n~  established goal\n,fo\nt, fi~  2. Established goal for project\nand f, .?.?~ ~ 3. Identified items needed for the project: .1,..Ji/' ~ i)), /-r~,, ,  \"No More Excuses: A Plan to Increase Learning for All Students in the LRSD\"  Recommendations from the Curriculum Audit (December 21, 1990) conducted by the National Academy of School Executives (NASE). A status report related to the Audit recommendations is attached.  Revised curriculum and curriculum-related policies  Supervisors' assessment of implementation of the revised policies and curriculum\ninservices held\nschool/office visitation  Curriculum debriefing session\nfeedback end-of-year with selected supervisors  Achievement test results  Annual staff development report  Feedback - implementation of Abacus  Customer Satisfaction Survey results  Results - on-site visits of Deputy Superintendent with building principals\nimplementation and utilization of revised curriculum Curriculum Audit/Review - Page 2  Areas impacted/budget reduction  Monitoring reports  Academic Support (Compensatory Education, Chapter 1)  Student placement (G/T, AP, Special Education, Regular, race, gender)  Promotion/retention policy 4. Developed Review and Assessment Process: Procedures were established to review and analyze data in order to make recommendations for Fast Track Evaluations. These evaluations would assist staff in determining programs that needed to be modified or deleted, as well as the development of new programs. / ,, . .v1 D ' ~ iJJr 7fP ~ a. Organize and label fmdings, reports, etc. ot:?:: r\"' b. Review and analyze findings, reports, objectives of programs and achievement tests. c. Relate the data back to the findings in order to determine:  Did we meet our objectives?  How effective were we in meeting our objectives?  What evidence is available to support our conclusions?  Identify factors that facilitated attainment of goal(s).  Identify obstacles that prevented goal(s) attainment.  Make recommendations for 1994-95.  Report recommendations, expected benefits, and outcomes to the Superintendent. Attachment A RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTED FROM NASE Recommendation No. 1 The Little Rock School District Board of Directors created and adopted the following policies:  A policy which establishes the purpose for the curriculum and programs of the district\n A policy which sets minimum goals and objectives for all student learning outcomes\n A policy which requires congruence and harmony among the curriculum goals and objectives, teacher delivery techniques and strategies, and district-wide testing programs and assessment\n A policy which requires textbooks ( content and activities) to be aligned with the adopted curriculum outcomes established by the LRSD Board of Directors\n A policy which outlines a clear procedure for the development of curriculum and that includes Board adoption\n A policy which requires equity and coordination across schools in curriculum outcomes, offerings, and activities, including policy guidelines for determining school-based modifications\n A policy which requires test results information to be disaggregated to help improve individual and group instruction and achievement\n A policy which requires at least one goal in each school's annual improvement plan to be directly related to assessment data and student achievement\n A policy which requires the Board to use the achievement data in their goal-setting process\nand  A policy which establishes a sequential linkage among data gathering, planning, goal development, curriculum development, and budgeting. Recommendation No. 2  Reorganize the administrative structure for effective instructional . management . . ~ ~ ~ Recommendation No. 3 -~ ~ r:iil  Separate and consolidate key curriculum and instruction operations from School Operations The curriculum functions separated from School Operations are: curriculum design, program implementation, staff development training, and school curriculum delivery. The Board approved the reorganization of the central office administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development and appropriate supervision of schools. To that end, the Associate Superintendent devoted her time primarily to curriculum design and development and staff development. The job roles of the curriculum supervisors were redefined to include more programmatic responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum (1991). \"No More Excuses\" was approved by the Boa{ci\"' of Directors in 1991. \"No More Excuses\" became the vehicle for implementing Board policies that were recommended by NASE . . - ~~ ,,. f}..,~r J ,I~ h M,, t~ ~ ~TV r1 Recommendation No. 4 ~- An acknowledgement was made by the Board that the proper way for the schools to address disparities in academic achievement is first to have a written curriculum that is comprehensive, relevant, challenging, and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12 and then to teach the curriculum effectively to all students, setting forth clear expectations and using strategies that have been proven successful for student learning. Recommendation No. 5 Authorization by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for LRSD students which incorporates the characteristics in Recommendation No. 4. q _A f!Jt ~ fJ#'f Jfe Attachment B NASE RECOMMEND A TIO NS NOT IMPLEMENTED # / 1. The development of a policy which establishes a sequential linkage among data gathering, planning, goal development, curriculum development, and budgeting. 2. A policy which establishes criteria for decisions on school facility remodeling, replacement, and closure. / Further curriculum revision has been delayed, as the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) is in the process of writing curriculum frameworks based on adopted Arkansas Learner Outcomes. Each accredited school shall use these curriculum frameworks to plan instruction leading to the Learner Outcomes. The LRSD consulted with the ADE in order to revise our curriculum in harmony with state Learner Outcomes and the national goals. The revision process will now proceed in accordance with the curriculum development of the ADE. The ADE, with advice from public schools and institutions of higher education, will devise an assessment system that will measure progress toward meeting Learner Outcomes. We are in the process of revising our language arts and foreign language curriculum, using the newly-adopted curriculum frameworks. The Board adoption of the Program Planning and Budgeting process addresses the issues raised in these recommendations. STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION THREE EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS 1992-93 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING - 1992-93 RECOMMENDATIONS The task of monitoring is only the initial phase toward attaining the desegregation goals. A review of previous monitoring reports reveals several recurring areas of concern. The following recommendations are provided to help the district improve the recurring areas of concern. 1. Conduct inservice for all staff on the requirements of the court approved desegregation plan. Periodic follow-up 2. sessions should be conducted. All new staff members should lfl vr\nreceive inservice relative to plan requirements. ~? Special attention should be given to: op?f' *' * central office administration /f * Building principals * Counselors * Extracurricular activities sponsors Specific training activities should include: * Equitable placement of students by race and gender in school programs - roles and responsibilities of school personnel * Discipline management and alternatives to suspension procedures Link expectations for implementing the LRSD Desegregation-7 I Plan and for achieving desired Plan outcomes to the performance evaluation process. I J EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1992-93, RECOMMENDATIONS Page 2 All district personnel must receive clear directions relative to their responsibilities for implementing the desegregation plan and for achieving the desired plan outcomes. 3. Implement and maintain consistent expectations for the maintenance of school records across the district. 4. Implement at each building specific methods for communicating to students information relative to honors and awards requirements, extracurricular requirements and discipline expectations. 5. Develop and implement a plan for equitable staffing in schools that do not meet the staffing goal for black staff members. The plan should include inservice to assist personnel in developing strategies for improvement. 6. Develop and implement a plan for utilizing all groups of parents in the school program. Principals who have effective methods of achieving parental involvement with continued worthwhile committee productivity, should be encouraged to share these strategies with other principals. 7. Review facilities where special education and gifted and talented education classes are located to ensure that the locations are comparable to other programs. Special attention should be given to: * Condition of portable buildings * covered walkways to portable buildings EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1992-93, RECOMMENDATIONS Page 3 * Restroom facilities for students housed in portable buildings * Size of instructional space * Science facilities at Mabelvale, Southwest and Central * Air conditioning and roof at Parkview STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION FOUR SCHOOL CLIMATE/ HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT SCHOOL CLIMATE/HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT The annual survey of attitudes toward school climate/human relations was conducted during the second semester of the 1993 school year. Students and teachers at each organizational level were surveyed concerning their perceptions of school climate/human relations in the Little Rock School District schools. The first ten ranked items (areas of greatest priority) for each responding group indicated that three of the items ranked were identical for students and teachers with a slight difference in relative standing. The items were: * Students treat other students with respect. * Students treat teachers with respect. * Students in our school are excited about learning. Students at all three organizational levels also identified these items among the ten items of greatest priority. * Teachers treat students with respect. * Slow learners receive as much praise as more advanced learners. * The school rules are fair. Teachers at all three organizational levels identified these items among the ten items of greatest priority. * Parents voluntarily visit the school. * Parents promote the school's instructional program. SCHOOL CLIMATE/HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT - Page 2 * Students in our school are satisfied with their progress. The items can be grouped to focus on the following issues: * Lack of demonstrated respect between students and teachers. * Lack of fairness and consistency relative to school rules and discipline. * Lack of satisfaction by students and teachers relative to student progress . . * Lack of student interest in learning. * Lack of positive recognition and high expectations for slow learners by teachers. * Lack of parent participation in the schools. RECOMMENDATIONS: To improve the areas of greatest priority for students and teachers the following suggestions are offered. * Continue staff development for certified and support staff in the areas of: Educational Equity Multicultural curriculum Delivery Discipline and Classroom Management * Provide parent-teacher training in non-violence and socialization skills. * Provide conflict resolution training for students, certified staff, support staff, and parents, where appropriate. * Infuse social skills in the regular elementary curriculum. * Initiate more positive teacher and principal contact with parents (home visits and phone contacts). * Promote interactive learning, with the teacher serving as facilitator. STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION FIVE STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST Eighth Edition Spring 1993 ~ ~~ .d ~i 1/~\n~ 1 , ,1 ?! ~\u0026amp;?t1/ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION Spring 1993 The Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition was administered to approximately 18,781 students in grades one through eleven. Scores were reported for total reading, total mathematics, language/English, science, and social science. The following is a compilation of administrative summary test results analyzed by schools and organizational levels. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS When achievement results were reported as individual school summary totals, students scored at or above the 50th percentile in the following grades and areas reporting: Badgett in grade 3 language\nBale in grade 4 mathematics, and in grade 6 social science\nBaseline in grade 2 mathematics, and in grade 6 mathematics, language, science and social science\nBooker in grade 2 mathematics and language, in grade 4 mathematics, language, science and social science\nin grades 5 and 6 in all domains\nBrady in grade 6 mathematics\nCarver in all subject areas 1 through 6\nChicot in grade 4 mathematics, language and social science, and in grade 6 language, science, and social science\nCloverdale in grade 1 mathematics, in grade 2 all reporting subject areas, in grade 3 all subject areas except reading, in grade 4 all areas except language, in grade 5 mathematics and social science, and in grade 6 all reporting areas\nDodd in grade 5 mathematics, in grade 6 all reporting areas\nStanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 2 Fair Park in grades 2 and 3 mathematics, in grade 5 mathematics, in grade 6 all reporting subject areas except reading\nForest Park in all subject areas grades 1 through 6\nFranklin in grades 1 and 2 mathematics and grade 1 science\nFulbright in grades 3 through 6 in all reporting subject areas, in grades 1 and 2 reading and language, and in grade 2 mathematics\nGarland in grade 6 mathematics and social science\nGeyer Springs in grade 3 mathematics and science, in grade 4 mathematics and language, in grade 6 all reporting subject areas\nGibbs in grades 2 through 6 in all reporting areas\nIsh in grades 2 through 6 mathematics, in grades 2 and 5 science, in grades 4 and 5 social science\nJefferson in grades 2 through 6 in all subject areas, in grade 1 mathematics\nMabelvale Elementary in grade 1 science, in grade 4 mathematics, in grade 6 science and social science\nMcDermott in grades 1 through 6 all reporting areas except grade 5 reading\nMeadowcliff in grades 2, 3, 5 and 6 mathematics, and grade 5 language\nMitchell in grades 4 and 6 mathematics\nOtter Creek in grades 2 through 6 in all reporting subject areas\nPulaski Heights Elementary in grade 1 mathematics, language, and science, in grade 2 mathematics and science, in grades 3 and 4 all subject areas, in grade 5 mathematics and social science, in grade 6 language, science and social science\nRightsell in grade 1 reading and language, in grade 2 all subject areas, in grade 4 mathematics, and in grade 6 mathematics\nStanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 3 Rockefeller in grade 2 mathematics, in grade 3 mathematics and social science, in grades 5 and 6 science\nRomine in grade 1 all reporting areas except reading, in grade 4 all areas except reading, in grade 5 mathematics and language, and in grade 6 all reporting subject areas\nStephens in grade 1 mathematics and language, and in grade 6 mathematics\nTerry in grade 1 all reporting areas, in grade 2 mathematics and language, in grade 3 all areas except reading, in grade 4 all reporting subject areas, in grade 5 mathematics, in grade 6 all reporting subject areas\nWatson in grades 4 and 6 mathematics,  in grade 5 science and social science, in grade 6 mathematics and social science\nWestern Hills in grade 1 reading, in grades 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mathematics, in grades 2, 3, and 4 language, in grade 5 science and social science\nWilliams Magnet in all grades reporting 1 through 6\nWilson in grade 1 all reporting areas, in grade 4 language and social science\nWoodruff in grades 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mathematics, in grade 3 language, in grades 3 and 4 science and grades 3, 4, 5, and 6 social science. When scores were examined by race, white students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subject areas at the following schools: Badgett, grade 3 Bale, grade 3 Baseline, grade 2 Booker, Grades 1 through 6 Brady, Grades 1, 2 and 3 Carver, all grade levels Chicot, grade 4 Cloverdale, grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 Dodd, grade 6 Fair Park, grades 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 Forest Park, all grade levels Franklin, grade 5 Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 4 Fulbright, all grade levels Geyer Springs, grade 3 and 6 Gibbs, all grade levels Jefferson, all grade levels Mabelvale, grades 1, 3, and 4 McDermott, all grade levels Meadowcliff, grades 4, 5, and 6 Otter Creek, all grade levels Pulaski Heights, all grade levels Rockefeller, grades 1, 3, 4, and 6 Romine, grades 1, 2, 4, and 5 Stephens, grade 4 Terry, all grade levels Washington, all grade levels Watson, grades 4 and 5 Western Hills, all grade levels Williams, all grade levels Wilson, grades 1, 2, 3, and 5 Woodruff, grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Black students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subject areas at: Carver, grades 1 and 2 Cloverdale, grades 2 and 6 Dodd, grade 6 Rightsell, grade 2 Romine, grade 6 Williams, grades 1, 2, 4, and 6 Wilson, grade 1 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The individual school summary totals showed that students scored at or above the 50th percentile in the following grade levels and subject areas reported. Dunbar in all areas reported except grade 7 reading and grade 9 mathematics\nForest Heights in grade 8 language\nMann in all areas reported except grades 8 and 9 in mathematics\nPulaski Heights in all areas reporting with the exception of grade 9 in reading and mathematics. When scores were examined at the junior high level, white students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 5 areas reported. The schools that indicated white students not scoring at the 50th percentile were: Cloverdale in grades 7, 8, and 9 reading and mathematics, grade 7 language, grade 9 science\nMabelvale in grade 9 mathematics\nSouthwest in grades 7 and 9 mathematics Black students scored below the 50th percentile in all reporting areas. The exception was: -- Mann grade 9 language SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The individual school summary totals showed that students scored at or above the 50th percentile at the following grade levels and subject areas reported. Central in all areas except grade 10 and 11 mathematics\nParkview in all areas except grade 11 mathematics\nWhen scores were analyzed by race at the senior high schools: White students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subject areas and at all grade levels except at Central grades 10 and 11 mathematics\nat Fair grade 11 mathematics, and at McClellan grades 10 and 11 mathematics. Black students scored below the 50th percentile in all areas except language, grade 10 at Parkview. The administrative summary reports that presented quartile groupings revealed that 3,550 students were grouped in quartile one in total reading grades one through six and 1,975 of those students were at the primary level. For total mathematics, 2,032 students were grouped in quartile one with 1,400 of those students representing grades one through three. At the secondary level, for total reading, 2,417 students were in quartile one, and for total mathematics 2,848 were grouped in quartile one. Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 6 A comparative analysis of 1991-92 and 1992-93 districtwide basic and complete battery data indicated that percentile ranks for white students at the elementary level were above the 50th percentile. Percentile ranks for black students were below the 50th percentile for both years. Total percentile scores were above the 50th percentile for grade 6 basic and complete battery, and in grade 4 for 1993. At the secondary level, the 1993 basic and complete battery percentile scores were fairly consistent with those of 1992. Percentile scores for white students remained above the 50th percentile. Scores for black students at this level were below the 50th percentile. The attached graphs (Exhibits A-U) were derived from the administrative summary data and will provide a visual display of the data. RECOMMENDATIONS: After reviewing administrative summary data, it is recommended that consideration be given to: * Placing greater emphasis on effective reading and mathematics instruction at the primary level and reading and mathematics instruction and assistance at the secondary level. * Establishing a systematic procedure for the teaching of listening skills at the primary level and grades 7 and 8. * Teaching organizational techniques and study skills. * Integrating the teaching of language (mechanics, usage, writing skills) in all subject areas and organizational levels. * Integrating scientific experiments and manipulatives as a part of daily science lessons to peak student interest . * Using a variety of enriching materials and resources to expand science and social science instruction. * Providing extra class activities in all subject areas to enable students to assume responsibilities through selfdirected learning. * Stimulating student interest with homework that is meaningfully directed through assignments that enhance school achievement. Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 7 Providing in-depth workshops and inservices related to mathematics and science during the summer to provide teachers with effective strategies for enriching the curriculums. Implementing a districtwide well-organized year-long inservice program with continuous supervisory assistance to beginning teachers in curriculum planning, classroom management and discipline management. Planning staff development and inservice programs to meet the developing needs of teachers and staff. Encouraging principals and teachers to share workable ideas and techniques at the building level and districtwide. Standardized test results being used for diagnostic purposes, not for determining student grades or segregating students in different classes. Constructing teacher-made tests to focus on student growth in higher order thinking through comprehension, analysis, application, and problem solving. Understanding that student achievement should not be solely assessed on Stanford test results.  Specific to test data 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 L:.A.1\\1LHl A. READING PERCENTILE RANK READING PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 a: 140 C: ~\" l 20 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK 0 34 29 29 33 27 39 WHITE Q 67 63 67 68 64 75 OTHER Q 61 64 61 60 51 74 160 Cl a: 140 .C,: 0 j 20 BLACK 0 WHITE~ OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 35 29 27 33 26 37 63 62 63 67 63 74 66 63 57 60 58 67 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 READING PERCENTILE RANK READING PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 a:: 140 C Cl 0 if 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER Q GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 29 30 33 67 71 65 58 73 72 ~., 60 a::  '\n: 40 .C. 0 if20 BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER [J GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 31 29 30 70 67 68 72 73 63 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 READING PERCENTILE RANK READING PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 tC .. '\n40 .C. ~ ~ 20 BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER D GRADE 10 GRADE 11 35 32 75 68 74 66 ~.. 60 tC i4o C.. u ~ 20 BLACK D WHITE E) OTHER [J GRADE 10 GRADE 11 35 34 72 69 64 66 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK -\"\" 80 .C. a: 60 J\n40 ~ l\"l. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE [2l OTHER CJ GA. 1 GR. 2 GA. 3 GA.4 GR. 5 GA. 6 35 49 42 52 46 49 70 79 73 76 74 74 65 84 84 79 71 81 100 .,. 80 .C. a: 60 1 C Cl 40 ~ Cl ll. 20 0 GA. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR.4 GA. 5 GA. 6 BLACK 0 40 46 46 49 43 48 WHITE (d 70 77 76 73 71 74 OTHER Cl 74 87 80 76 83 75 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK .,, 80 .C,: a.,: 60 ~ 40 .~, \"- 20 BLACK 0 WHITE 12) OTHER CJ GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 35 32 25 63 65 54 63 72 89 .,, 80 .C,: a.,: 60 ~ 40 0 .~, \"- 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OHIER Q GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 36 30 23 64 59 57 75 87 68 LITTLE , ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 a: 140 .C, u BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER Q GRADE 10 GRADE 11 31 28 61 58 73 65 10~----------r---------, 60 -- .,, ~ 50 a: ., 40 - ~ 30 - u i 20 10 - GRADE 10 GRADE 11 BLACK 0 26 32 WHITE [) 56 . 59 OTHER 0 58 62 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 EXH\\B\\T G LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK ~ 60 a\": ~\" 40 C \"0 ~ 20 - ,,,,- GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK D 3? 38 35 41 39 44 WHITE Ld 68 70 68 73 68 71 OTHER CJ 61 67 63 68 60 67 80-.----,----.--.------.------,----, 70 ~ 60 a\": 50 140 C ~ 30 i20 10 - 0 --L..J_-4\"-_L..J.._jl-Lf'L-..-L..l--1-J\u0026lt;f--i--'-'---'-'--'4-'-'-J.....LJ.-'+'-.....LJ_--'--'--f__.__..__, GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK D 32 39 38 35 38 41 WHITE E) 63  70 70 65 67 68 OTHER CJ 68 64 68 64 66 64 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK .,, 80 .C. a: 60  ~ 40 ~  11. 20 - BLACK D WHITE l2J OTHER 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 34 38 40 68 71 70 63 78 88 .,, 80 .C, a: 60 ~ ~ 40 .0. ll. 20 BLACK D WHITE (J OTHER 0 GRADE 7 33 64 70 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 38 42 69 73 81 69 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 EXH\\B\\T \\ LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK so~-----~-----~ ~., 60 - - rr 140 C 0 ~ ~ 20 - BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER[] GRADE 10 GRADE 11 37 32 71 66 73 66 70--,---------.---------, 60 .,, ~ 50 rr ~40 - ~ 30 u i 20 10 BLACK 0 WHITE E'.) OTHER Cl GRADE 10 GRADE 11 34 35 68 66 59 61 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 LA.l\\ltH l J SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK .,, 80 .C. a: 60 ~ ~ 40 ~ a\".. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE 12) OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR.4 GR. 5 GR. 6 31 35 32 40 35 44 66 70 70 74 73 75 55 61 66 74 59 78 .. a: .. ~40 .C. 0 BLACK 0 WHITE E:) OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 27 32 30 34 33 43 59 65 67 68 70 74 49 67 63 66 74 75 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SCiENCE PERCENTILE RANK .,,, 80 .C, a: 60 Cl ~ 40 u !. 20 BLACK D WHITE [21 OTHER [J GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 31 34 38 74 72 66 70 74 79 .,,, 80 C., a: 60 Cl ~ 40 .~. 0.. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE [J OTHER Q GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 31 34 38 65 68 72 75 77 69 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 LA.I IIL.H I L. SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK ~,. 60 - re 140 C., ~ ~ 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER 0 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 31 31 74 67 75 59 60 .,, ~ 50 re ~ 40 - ~ 30 u ~ 20 10 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 BLACK 0 32 32 WHITE E) 67 68 OTHER 0 64 58 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 LAI \\IUl 1 1111 SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK 100 .,. 80 C Cl a: 60 .! \n: C ., 40 .~, 0.. 20 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR.4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK 0 33 46 42 48 WHITE 12] * * 68 78 72 77 OTHER CJ 68 73 60 77 80.----.-----.---.---,-----,-----, .,. 60 - .C. a: BLACK D WHITE EJ OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 35 38 37 48 * * 67 68 65 76 61 69 70 72 * At grades 1 and 2 Science and Social Science objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT. 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 EXHIBIT N SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK 100 100 80 80 -\" -\" .C, .C. a: 60 a: 60 .! .! C ., 40 0 C 0\" 40 ., ~ 0.. 0.. 20 20 0 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 BLACK D 39 34 36 BLACK D 35 34 36 WHITE 0 70 74 68 WHITE Q 72 72 73 OTHER Q 64 85 87 OTHER [ill 80 83 71 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 L-1..a aaUl l V SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK 80~-----~------~ 70 -\" 60 - c ~ 50 140 C .~, 30 a. 20 - 10 I BLACK 1 WHITE CJ OTHER 0 GRADE 10 34 67 69 GRADE 11 34 68 67 -\" 60 .C. IC .. 0 .~. a. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE E'J OTHER 0 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 30 36 66 69 57 72 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK -\" 60 .C, a: .C. u \u0026amp;'. 20 - BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER Q GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 35 34 34 41 35 46 70 70 69 73 68 75 62 72 71 71 61 75 .,, 60 .C, a: .C. u if 20 - BLACK 0 WHITE El OTHER CJ GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 36 34 36 38 34 43 67 69 70 68 65 73 74 73 69 67 71 72 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 100 80 80 -\"' -\"' .C, .C, a: 60 a: 60 ..! ~ C  40 u C 40 . u .~, 0.. ., a. 20 20 0 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 BLACK D 32 33 35 BLACK 0 35 32 34 WHITE l2J 67 72 66 WHITE Q 69 66 70 OTHER CJ 65 75 88 OTHER (J 75 84 71 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 L.1\\.1111:51 I 1-1 BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 80 -\"' .C, a: 60 - ..!! \nC .. 40 u  0.. 20 0 GRADE 10 BLACK D 36 WHITE [2l 73 OTHER CJ 79 GRADE 11 33 68 71 00~------~-----~ 70 - -\"' 60 C\n. . 50 '\n: 40 C ~ 30 - ., a.. 20 10 - 0 __,____.__\"\"--1\"--'-=~'---'---L----L--\"+-=..=~___, GRADE 10 34 68 64 GRADE 11 36 70 69 1993 LITTLE ROCI( SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 .,. 80 .C, a: 1 C u\" 40 0\".. 20 0 GR. 1 GR.2 GR. 3 GR.4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK 0 28 33 32 40 34 45 WHITE 12) 67 72 69 75 70 76 OTHER [J 58 73 70 72 61 77 .,, 60- c a\": '\n\"\n40 C u\" BLACK 0 WHITE tJ OTHER CJ GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 31 33 34 36 32 43 64 70 70 68 67 75 67 74 68 67 72 73 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 .,,_ 80 .C,: a: 60 .! \n, C: ., 40 u ~., a.. 20 - 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 BLACK 0 31 32 WHITE l2J 69 74 OTHER [J 66 78 GRADE 9 35 68 89 .,,_ .C,: 80 a: 60 .! ~ 40 .. a.. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER 0 GRADE 7 GRADE B GRADE 9 33 30 34 71 68 73 78 86 73 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 tXHIBIT U COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK .,, .C, 80 a: 60 .! C ~ 40 0\".. 20 BLACK D WHITE EJ OTHER D GRADE 10 GRADE 11 34 32 74 70 80 69 .,, 60 .C, a: C C) ~ ~ 20 BLACK D WHITE El OTHER 0 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 32 34 70 72 65 70\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_681","title":"Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary","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"],"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","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary"],"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/681"],"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":["66 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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL EXHIBIT LIST DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The following Exhibits, copies of which have been delivered to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, are submitted in support of LRSD's \"Motion to Close Stephens Incentive School\" which will be heard on June 7, 1994: 1, Letter from Ann S. Brown to Dr. Henry P. Williams dated February 18, 1994 with attachments\n2. Stephens School Relocation Timeline\n3 . Fast Track Evaluation Program: School\nStephens Elementary 4. Facilities Study Recommendation Concerning Stephens and Garland schools\n5. Computer printout showing cost per occupant to operate various LRSD schools and other facilities\n6. Excerpt from facilities study showing estimates for renovation and repair of Stephens school\n7. February 24, 1993 letter to Dr. Mac Bernd from Mayor Jim Daily\n8, March 9, 1993 letter to Dr. Mac Bernd from Foster Strong, President, The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation\n9. March 25, 1993 Memorandum to LRSD Board of Directors regarding Stephens site selection. 10. July 28, 1993 Memorandum from John Riggs to Stephens School Site Selection Committee. 11. August 11, 1993 Memorandum from John Riggs to Stephens School Site Selection Committee. 12. Petition of Stephens community residents. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By^ Christopher Hell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Exhibit List has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of June, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Hei Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 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 docmnent. For example, one chart contains information on per-pupil expenditures by elementary school. Earlier this month. Bob Morgan and I 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. t Cid-- \"Ann S. Brown cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All Counsel EXHIBIT 1School 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: 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 Oct 1 Capacity % Filled Available Seats Live downtown but attend outside downtown Total Black White Franklin Incentive 345 544 63 199 270 260 10 Garland Incentive 205 346 59 141 118 117 1 Mitchell Incentive 230 346 66 116 131 127 4 Rightsell Incentive 189 346 55 157 90 87 3 Rockefeller Incentive 340 425 80 85 74 72 2 Stephens Incentive 145 298 49 153 86 86 0 Sub Total Incentive Schools 1,454 2,305 63 851 769 749 20 Booker Magnet 595 656 91 61 N/A N/A N/A Carver Magnet 595 613 97 18 N/A N/A N/A Gibbs Magnet 299 353 85 54 N/A N/A N/A Sub Total Magnet Schools 1,489 1,622 92 133 0 0 0 King Interdistrict 553 692 80 139 90 89 1 Washington Interdistrict Magnet 721 939 77 218 262 253 9 Sub Total Interdistrict Schools 1,274 1,631 78 357 352 342 10 Woodruff (Area) 236 324 73 88 17 15 2 Central Kindergarten 50 50 100 0 N/A N/A N/A Satellite Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A 747 722 25 Contiguous Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A 313 253 60 Grand Total 4,503 5,932 76 1,429 2,198 2,081 117 Live downtown and attend downtown Total Black White 281 190 192 165 238 136 1,202 130 130 102 362 331 406 737 156 46 N/A N/A s 2,503 263 172 177 163 192 135 1,102 116 124 88 328 317 383 700 113 46 N/A N/A 2,289 18 18 15 2 46 1 100 14 6 14 34 14 23 37 43 0 N/A N/A 214 Live outside downtown but attend downtown Total Black White 55 28 27 14 29 22 142 9 271 461 465 198 1,124 217 314 531 75 4 N/A 2,005 6 8 21 17 62 6 140 202 206 83 491 17 65 82 33 4 N/A 750 8 5 80 3 131 259 259 115 633 200 249 449 42 0 N/A 1,255 Note: Incentive school capacities are based on a 20 to 1 ratio in kindergarten through sixth grade, 18 to 1 in programs for four-year-olds, 18 to 1 in programs for three-year- olds, 17 to 1 in programs for trwo-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: Brady, 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 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 Meadowcliff 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 i I ! T T T I T ! I - i I cc c s u, o t IO O  I S! q\u0026gt; i W ! ib 194\n101 51 41 41 101 41 _IL 12! 21 261 31 151 51 01 141 181 161 81 201 7! 2! 351 30! ___r 18! 71 10 12' 1 3i ___0. 11 111 10! 1! 1 21 7i 136i 6i 211 II 0| 2i 3! 01 __4^ 3! 4 3 0 4 6 7 1 1 5 1 109 6' 71 2 6 9' 2\\ 31 4 8 539! 14 5 0 81 181 41 1| 21 191 141 11 7 11 141 41 -51 11 01 9 _3L 5j 31 lOi 51 4! 6 12i 5! 15\n14! 7' 7\\ 01 3! 3! 2! 41 01 9? 1\\ 11 0 II 312 318 Ol 11 8! 1291 71 8! 6 31 1| 01 31 21 31 ~6r~ 1! 31 1i 5, 61 131 4! 2'. 31 111 3! 9 0 01 61 6i 291 IT 2. 11 . 41 31 01 01 O I It ' 41 41 31 4 118 8 3 7 1 4 4 2 4 6 3 6 0 1 0 6 1 2 2 4 IO c v -c Q. o W 3 9! 11 Ol 1 0 o o c u tn -0 -o 320 01 2! 31 0! 1 0 9 31 11 3! 1 0 6 3 20 0 1' 3 4 6 2 1 257 2! II i\n8! 51 2! 01 151 O' Ih 1. 01 1 0 821 121 2 3 0 51 _L1 51 3! 01 01 200 a c J? S) 25 213 161 132 144 138 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 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__________________ Meadowcliff_________________ Otter Creek_________________ Pulaski Heights Elem_______ Romine_____________________ Terry Wakefield___________________ Washington_________________ Watson_____________________ Western Hills_______________ Wilson Woodruff___________________ North Little Rock____________ Pulaski County Legal Transfer______________ No zone I I I I i I I I I I Total of Students Attending Incentive Schools .c c 194 1 5 01 41 3 0 14 5 6 3 1 1 9 2 - 31 Ti 01 71 201 61 4 31 91 21 9i 3l 21 3i 0! Oi 11 II I 1 336' O c \u0026lt;D c (0 O \"O) c: 4a  Qi  .O) S \u0026lt;b u o K 101 1361 11 11 4l 91 01 61 01 4' 1\n1! 31 1 0\n0 01 1' 01 0\n81 61 2\nO' 01 3, O' 4 01 1 2' 0! 0 01 O' 0 51 109 8 3' 1 0 1' 0 3 4l 11 6j 1291 4 0 0 4I II 21 71 4. 204\n01 11 2i 31 21 11 61 71 Ti 31 31 20 1i 21 1 0i 11\n3\n0! 4\n2^ Oi 01 Oi 0! I 221! 01 o' o' 3 2 o' 1 ' 0 4' 3! tT 01 81 2! 11 Qi 31 01 0: 31 11 0 1' 0! 01 4- 2 11 1 187' 1181 ZT 81 TT 91 T 61 31 21 81 121 ___ 391 __ 21 ___ 7! 6 61 31 8' 41 311 5i 1! 41 10 1 131 1. O' 380' c (1) c Q. .jU W 10 19 3 0 0 82 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 01 6 1  0 0 1 4 0 5i 0 0 4 1 1 0 01 145 o o _ c X a o Q C co 42 c c O QI o l~ W N 227 170 131 145 133 96 9 41 14 15 19 11 13 15 14 22 15 51 19 3 38 39 35 11 12 25 6 63 12 7 14 16 8 17 8 2 1473 Pnnted 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 I Badgett Name Class K K K K IK 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 913270I 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 19 19 19 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 Franklin Franklin Franklin Name Class Student ID Zone Block 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 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 I 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 Jefferson 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 Name Class Student ID Zone Block 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 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 i03 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 Name Class Student ID Zone Block 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 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 47 24 20 38 48 30 18 40 Terry Forest Park McDermott Pulaski Heights Fullbright Jefferson Brady Romine * Excluding Williams T otals / 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 Spnngs 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 PTE 45 37 42 40 47 45 43 45 46 33 41 30 34 43 34 42 41 35 64 40 Enrollment Black Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget Spent on Black Children T otals! Averages $12,286,784.19 \"Fringe\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 23 17 19 Fair Park Bale Badgett $867,162.06 $1,117,713.33 $708,951.85 32 43 28 T otals / 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 27 77 90 62 72 50 44 50 46 \"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-lncentive Schools Black Enrollment in Incentive Schools 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 7372 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 Pnnted February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitonng based upon inforrnation supplied by the Little Rock School Distnct 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  Attending School Badgett ______ Bale __________ _ _____ Booker _ _____ Carvw___________ Chicot 1 Cloverdale Elem D odd  _____________ Fair ___________ _ Fran^ FdIxyM____________ _ ____ __ \u0026lt;^er Spongy____ JeflerMn _ __ ML King _ ______ McOermqn ___ Meadowdifl _________ __________ __________ Pulastd Heights Bem Righlsei____________ RockefeKer___________ Ronine_____________ Stephere____________ ____________ W^ehetd WasNngIqn _ We^n HiMs _____ Woodufi Central Kindergarten Fair kmdagarten Hal Kindergarten_____ McClelan Kindergarten Partvrew Kindergarten 106 _ 1 b i Ip 1 11 1 q 2 0 0 0 0' 0 1 b q q q q 0 0 1 0 8 Zq 1 b q 1 Ji 2 ZI q 1 i J 2 158 _q 14 7  _ 4 0 ' 9 _5  5 14 3 _6 3 12 4 5 '0 _7 .1 2 6 0 14 14 Z_ 1 _5 21i _ b 11 12 7 '2 i S 1 _q 0 ' 196 Z's \"1 3 8 J2 6 2 2 5  o' _q 11 ' _2 3 'is _q _i 0 3 0 0 _2 _ q 0 _8 Z 111 2 __6 q 0 0 I _ q 3 n izi J _i _i -12 6 _l _4 _2 _7 11 _ 1 b J3  b 3 1 2 0 1 13 2 is 2 ^b J pi 2 5 ' b Grand Total Sendng Schod I 1 li 20  112 _ 4 ^io 269 28 J 3 i _q' _3 1 1 li' _4 0 5 _ii 2 __8 __3 __7 1 0 J2 __1 0 4 'i2 J2 35 Z_1 4 9 i 0 _i^ _q 9 ' 17 1^ _9 190 _1 11 _1 Z i _b 1 to 5 1 7 20 _1 4 0 6 1 -3 6 \"j Jq 2 14 ie 12 '0 3 0 b ' 0 1 2 _2 2 li ' J 11 1 146 2 1 1 3 3 1 i 1 .... 4 8 0 2 3 23 0 3 0 _4 b J12 9 it 0 0 1 I I c ? c i q 0 1 b 0 0 0 0 1 b 2 0 0 2 0 1 q 1 b 'i 1 q 0 0 1 b 1 2 135 369 336 361 533 375 276 0 _3\" q '13 6 _8 1 i o' 141 9 9 3 1 2 11 lb 2 q 25 6 __2 0 13 0 6 1 li 2 q 8 _41 2 6  i 0 3 0 0 343 1 5 11 5 1^ 0 _2 J2' 265  2 22 b 0 Z 9 11 3 11 __3 3 2 9 1 8 _o __q _2 4 8 0 '2 ii 1 19 1 q b 0 0 2 26 3 lb 15 4 5 0 _0 1] 10 194 16  10\" _0 2 '20 7  2 35 _3q 5 1 18 4 4 7 lb  12 3 lo _J1 12 ii io i 1 b 0 2 0 9 0 ' 19 \" 44 Zzi 4 _q' _2 5 7 5 336 0 2 _P __0 2 0 26 _3 2 1 10 0 12 21 3 19 q 23 Zl 2 13 JZ 5 b 2 '2 0 4 I 0 4 3 _0 4 2 3 4 6 _ I 7 i 136 1 4 J4 5 0 8 10 6 (rt o I is 1 0 0 2q Z 6 b 4 5 '9 0 _q 0 3 0 q 122 5 I 3 0 0 JO 6 38 2 0 3 8 30 1 9 1 ti o\u0026gt; c 2 1 314 441 539 637 _4 I 1 1 2 14 1 2 J 14 3 4 5 1 J b 0 0 q 2 '0 J2 1 2 4 6 _ 1 J 2 17 J4 4 1 6 q 2 0 b ' 0 0 0 10 1 7 JI 6 2 17 3 39 2 i J 2? 3 2 11 3 3 ' 2 Jo i 1 0 2 0 1 _1 _5 _6 10 2 '0 __7 __5 __3 1 _P _ 1 io 11 253 1 o I 0 2 6 i 5 28 26 i 0 q 0 0 0 3 'q q 0 7 264 0 Zq 7 18 6 7 2 -1 0 2 2 Zl 1 2 2 i ' i 2 b J  1 0 2 2 J 3 _q 0 ~2 J b 0 _i 9 23 q ^4 3 0 0 I b 2 b 312 271 5941 407 397 ! s 1 o \u0026amp; I _6 -I 5 \"13 ' ' lb' 1 ' 0 ' 7 _!? _1 7^' Z21 8 1 2 Ji 4 _b 295 q 3 ~~ b 10 8 _ 6 8 6 I12 q ZO b li .JI 5 9 0 1 1 b 0 0 11 _ 0 _i2 6 _P 2 _] 7 ' _4 Jl _ 5 '6 is Ji _7 2 5 5 247 _3 2 6 2 7 0 __1 5 '_7 7 2 2 _6 _ 3 8 0 0 527 450 .1.. J 3 6 '4 ' 7 8 6 9 3 Jl 3 11 J5 5 _ 1 4 9 6 12 J 5 _i5 II 109 _ 7 7 6 7 0 3 3 ' 2 2 JZl _q 2 9 7 II b b 0 1 318 J 3 3 0 2 2 16 sb _9 6 Z1 6 Jl 2 6 3 i 15 Z 1 J0 20 260 1 1 6 3 q 4 4 V1 16 0 6 '2 i 3 3 b  2 1 551 g m w  ra 3 0 2 0 3 3 4 1 2* g q '3 2 2 11 6 I 4 S g IX 0 4 2 8 4 3 5 2 7 17 ii I \u0026amp; 55 q ' 1 0 q 9 '0 g- q 0 12 2 _ 6 4 ' 5 q 0 19 10 5 b 6 1 i ~ b 205 2 _ 6 3 \" q 3 6 1 ' 3 1 ' i lo 2 1 6 31 ?3 4 2  3 II 0 3 __1 129 7 _ 0 q 6 6 3 q  7 0 4 Z2 7 1 2 2 4 3 '3 3 4 118 II b 6 2 b 24 3 ' 2 3 '2 '0 b 2 4 i i 9 ' b 2 _o 3 _3  3 2 \"i  i 8 5 3 2 9 q 2 15 5 b ii 7 I 0 1 b I 2 5 4 '16 12 '26 2 '4 \" i 2 8 9 3 3 \" 0 3 2 2 i 13 3 i i 1 g 2 \"7 9 15 12 6 ^2 I 4 1 4 2 _2 \" 0 17 7 15 0 8 177 0 2 1 41 0 7 0 q 8 I 19 i 0 I 0 0 327 6 29 i 3 'b 2 i i 4 3 b 0 q 0 1 i 3 4 6 2 b 0 1 0 4 1 19 3b II ' I 0 3 b q \"4 12 2 3 0 4 116 1 I4 0 0 b 4 2 _ 4 q 0 q _4 i \"b b 323 7 o R) s _52 4 Ii 32 2 23 ' 6 '2 4 9 ' 6 4 13 '4 20 ib 6 4 12 I 3 14 3 31  i 5 4 ' 16 '6 c   1 g I S S 5 q '2 8 PO b 1? 132 5 0 1 4 q 3 \" 2 2 3 31 b 2 J 8 q  1 5 _ 0 _q q \"it 'q 295 0 6 _1 2 3 I 2 1 i 3 2 J 1 b 5 b b 2 2 J q 0 J 0 Zi 8 q 7 1 2 i _q 12 q Z^'* ^1 _'3 Z 1 1 15  4 3 14 ' 2 \"q ' It 3 1 0 _i __4 0 __3 1 4  25 0 17 2 30 2 1 3 0 0 2 4 _2 i 0 ' 0 \" i 3 q P q 4 \" 4 2 b 2 _ 1 'i J2 0 12 0 10 R c e co a _l ex I b c z o s s OJ s I 1 s 320 257 411 S 1 c 5 3 i 5 3 q q q 0 J 20 t 5 2 q 2 '~o ' 1 1 4 2 i 0 0 1 4 b 2 5 ii i 6 b b 3 '0 1_ 2 0 1 1 b 3 0 190 _7 24 \"2 0 i b _q 1 JO 10 216 1 i b  3 _q 1 t 4 1 q 1 b 0 1 b 93 0 q 0 0 0 200 582 457 690 491 290 467 153 1 2 I 2 q 0 J 0 2 t _q q q q q q q 7 b q J J 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 P 0 0 J 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 00 11 111 q _1 _1 0 _ q q 0 0 b 30 q 0 i b Z_q 0 _i b 7 0 1 b 0 35 ZJo 0 59 _2 6 6 ' b Z P 0 b 0 _3 q _3 101 \" 0 0 3 _0 _b _ 1 7_ 0 \"0 _45 b 151 'i __b _ q _'q 0 10 2 J3 _4 _1 ~2 q 02 ' 0 1^ 117 Ip  3 0 Zb i q 0 0 q q 4 1 2 2 2 0 2 q 3 b q 12 2 1 2 q 0 0 1 0 b b Zq 1 \" 1 2 b 2 i  i 0 b b q 0 184 304 319 Ml 386 595 107 284 261 336 520 204 ^3 500 548 4^ 420 '221 ~345 392 187 335 'M3 448 7M 421 324 473 366 231 50 19 120 2Q 357 785 451 14032 Pnnled February 1994 Prepved by tw Office o\u0026lt; Oesege^aton Montoring based i\u0026lt;ion nfonnakon s^iphed by l\u0026gt;e LiMe Rock School Dtsticl UnaudtedLRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E Attending Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elem Bodd 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 Whi BL WH BL WH  BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL wh' BL WH BL wh BL_ wh BL WH BL Whi BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL 9 ot i 67 39 1 0 4 2 0 b 1 2 q 0 1 2 P 0 2 2 2 2 p 2 2 2 q 0 p 0 1 b 0 0 p 2 0 0 p 0 p 0 0 b p 0 1 n m 1 i 111 '47 0 8 6 13 __2 5 2 3 1 0 0 9 0 _4 __ __4 __1 12 '2 3 __q _5 1 i 6 6 1 3 3 2 P 0 4 3 4 0 6 0 2 2 9 C LU o  ta 0 b _P 0 153 43 11 4 1 ' 6 2 1 __3 5 14 5 1 5 __q 2 __q 5 __q q __q 0 0 __6 __5 __2 0 0 0 2 i 12 3 0 b 0 1 _P __q __3 0 __q e \u0026lt;a p 0 3 0 2 1 2 9 66 74 2 1 2 0 1 b 1 b 2 3 3 '9 2 4 1 0 4 0 2 0 2 '5 2 12 0 i 0 0 5 6 0 0 3 0 1 b 0 o u O 1 0 1 0 J? 6 4 8 3 1 _1 __3 173 96 M  ii _ P 3 P 0 P ' 0 o O 1 b _0 b 8 1 1 W 3 i _ 3 e 24 3 147 43 _ 1 ' b _0 b 1 p ' 2 1 ' i g n K n  6 5 c e o 3 1 2 1 ' 0 _1 b 5 6 3 1 0 0 3 '2 26 is 2 b 5 * 3 3 0 4 3 1 J 2 0 1 0 b 0 1 9 1 5 0 1 0 4 3 19 1 P 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 1 2 ' 0 8 '3 1 b 5 0 1 1 1 0 80 66 2 b 0 i 1  b 3 b 0 ' 3 _i i 1 0 0 1 1 b 2 2 0 i 1 b 2 2 4 4 0 0 3 0 b 4 9 3 5 3 5 1 0 1 '0 q  0 66 45 P 9 3 6 2 1 __l 0 2 b 1 \"ib 4 6 q 2 p  0 _ 4 i 6 0 2 \"o 0 0 3 1 b _5 0 0 b 3 2 4 b 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 9 __3 60 205 1 i _4 18 0 0 q 0 4 3 1 8 4 7 3 0 6 10 3 0 1 2 T 0 7 2 0 22 4 _ 3 0 7 3 13 ~2 _ 4 0 5 0 q 0 q 0 13 'i 18 0 190 4 15 'i 6  4 6 0 4 3 20 0 6  1 2 b 33 2 30 b _ 3 2 1 0 18 p 0 6 3 q 0 11 6 26 15 13 2 3 1 _ P 0 2 0 4 1 _4 3 3 2 126 210 _ 9 0 D C n c ra O 0 b _4 0 _p 0 0 b 4 0 0 3 0 P 0 4 0 6 0 _6 1 7 b 1 0 123 '13 1 1 3 6 3 5 1 i q 0 14 12 3 0 2 0 _1 0 6 1 b 4 0 14 0 4  i p 0 8 0 18 0 6 0 _4 0 1 0 D) C c   O 0 b --P 0 17 '3 4 2 P 0 3 i 3 2 9 0 0 b p 0 0 0 3 0 p 0 _P 0 ip3 49 _3 2 0 1 q 0 p 2 0 b 8 4 1 b 1 b 2 o It a\u0026gt; o\u0026gt; c E iu 5 3 b q '0 p o 1^ \"5 3  3 36 2 _ 1 1 P 0 3 0 5 14 16 _ 0 1 1 8 1 0 __b 5 6 75 239 9 i 1 b 0 1 1 0 _ 6 0 2 ' 0 15 2 q 0 _i b 0 b 14 0 5  0 6 b 10 0 2 b 0 0 1 b 4 i 3 b 1 b 0 b 7 b _16 Q 6 0 245 8 7 0 0 b 3 0 _5 2 IP 0 6 \u0026lt;Q 2 0 b _p 2 6 1 2 4 1 b 5 b J7 11 2p 6 _q i 0 b _ 0 b q 0 p 0 p 0 2 i _P 0 0 b 0 b 139 125 2 b 2 ' 0  o 2 0 1 6 0 3 1' 1 0 I' 1 Q p 5 6 1 6 4 p 1 _p 0 4 3 12 0 8 1 4 3 8 12 6 2 6 1 P 2 2 4 2 2 p 0 109 186 0 0 3 0 q 0  1 x (Q  2 0 b _14 5 _0 0 Ip \"2 6 0 _5 4 1 i o u 2 3 0 6 0 4 b 6 1 S o e s 1 b 3 0 Page 1 E LU (/\u0026gt; w 3 0 6 o c P 1 2 5 4 0 6 i 16 '4 5 0 6 b 9 9 i 1 0 \u0026amp; b 6 0 _8 1 3 0 5 0 3 0 1p 0 5 0 5 b 1 i 1 b 4 0 9 ' 0 6 0 1? 1 5 b 5 0 134 113 2 i 2 0 5 5 b 15 0 14 0 104 5 tt \"o 6 _ 1 2 8 0 2 0 2 0 11 5 43 7 5 4 6 0 3 b 5 i 1 b 2 b 6 ' 0 3 0 0 1 13 2 33 2i 0 b 16 '0 18 2 71 189 1 i 0 0 1 2 3 0 2 2 q 0 P 0 3 b 0 2 1 5 q 4 1 4 0 b 0 b 2 IZ 5 5 P 5 p 0 4 2 p \" 0  P 0 3 0 1 i 8 0 3 0 4 2 6 ' b 1 b 3 b 1 b 4 i 0 b 2 b 1 b 6 0 3^ 1 1 0 p 0 46 13 0 4 b 2 b 3 b 11 b 8 b 3 b 8 0) 1 or 4 ' 0 4 ' ' 0 2 _q. 6 2 4 0 3 0 4 ' 2 3 0 6 b 0 0 1 Q 4 0 0 0 4 b 6 0 3 4 1 0 2 b 2 b 4 0 3 0 2 1 0 3 e c E o or 0 0 5 ' 0 _2 b 6 i 14 '3 10 i o 0 0 1 i 2 b 0 0 19 '5 2 1 1 i 3 0 14 i P 0 0 0 2 b 4 2 0 1 1 2 9 0 p 0 2 0 q 0 3 1 b 0 2 0 2 9 2 0 2 0 1 b 1 b 8 0 5 0 3 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 2 0 15 0 5 b 0 b 11 b 1 0 2 3 4 b 6 10 5 11 5 21 2 0 4 0 9 c u ra g 2 ' b 5 2 8 1 o c 1 b 1 i 6 2 6 3 17 1'4 3 0 0 b 6 9 q 2 4 2 9 3 4 1 2 0 i 4 2 1 i V) (0 g 5 3 1 16 0 30 2 2 0 42 b 22 1 J 0, 0 0 1 2 6 0 1 2 1 PL 6 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 13 2 0 b 0 0 4  0 6 0 12 0 4 0 15 b 9 b 8 0 3 1 J2 'i 4 0 20 0 9 i c o 13 n g 0 b _2 0 8 2q 8 2 p 0 12 b 28 4 15 5 1 4 0 b 1 b 3 0 4 b 0 b 3 0 q 2 0 2 2 i i E  g 0 0 6 0 1 2 4 2 2 0 3 0 2 1 q 2 1 b 1 6 3 -Pj 0 g 0 b 8 4 0 0 4 ib 4 6 9 4 1 0 0 12 3 1 0 1 0 12 1 1 4 2 q 2 0 0 2 6 0 4 0 12 ~b 9 2 3 0 14 26 5 0 0 2 0 3 0 8 0 4- 1 1 1 3 2i ?! 0 1 b 2 0 4 ' 1 0 0 2 2 q 2 2 0 1 b q 0 0 0 3 _9 C e 5 o   c 3 o O jn 8 u jj W 1 2 5 9 1 1 0 b 2 9 1 2 1 b 0 b 7 4 q 'i 2 2 0 0 3 g p ' 0 p 0 2  0 0 2 0 p 1 1 0 0 n O) 0) 1 0 1 0 q '1 1 1 q 0 q 0 p 1 0  o z p 0 0 0 p 0 42 46 0 0 51 64 p 0 0 n w  O. _ 0 0 0 3 0 0 64 ioo _q 3 65 126 0 0 b^ 01 g Z P 0 0 0 0 0 _1 3 1 0 2 b 2 0 2 o 0 e e o \u0026lt; 135 49 '1^ 63 318 213 253 133 330 265 J48 139 295 0 0 b 0 j 0 0 0 3 b 0 0 p 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 b 0 0 Oi 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 b 0 b 0 0 0 0 1 b 0 i 0 1 3 2 b 0 0 2 0 1 b J 0 J 1 0 0 6 p 0 q 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 q 7 0 b p 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 4. 9t 14-1 0 0 1 Q 6 0 0 0i _Pi -4 18 16! 27 o' 0 0 b 0 1 0 4 q 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 '1 p 0 _0 b 0  0 0 o' 2 0 0 3 6 0 b 0 0 1 1 ii 2 0 0 i 1 i 0 0 0 0 0 85 179 ibs 195 '66 164 261 291 '45 233 2ii 178 26 214 89 1?1 129 211 289 334 214 300 178 259 249 2^ 125 J 68 23 1^ 199 189Attending Schools Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Hall Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten McClellan Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Grand Total Zone Schools [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 WH BL WH BL t) e o 1 0 _ p 0 3  5 0 b 1  b p 0 _0 b 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 _b 0 0 1 b 1 p 0 0 0 1 b 0 9 4 0  0 5 * 9 4  jo 0 0 3 2 1 b 3 8 0 0 JO 0 9 3 6 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 _ P 0 0 135 369  c S 0 p\" 0 2 ' 1 A 0 o' 0 0 b 3 5 0 4 ^5 5 2 ' 0 6 b p  0 p 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 E 2  p ' 0 _P 1 9 \"4 _J 0 7 8 2 0 9 16 P 0 1 b 11 ib 1 i 1 4 0 0 2 _0 0 p ' 0 1 o o \"o -P 0 8 4 1 b _g 0 3 ' 1 9 3 4 8 26 7 _6 0 4 b 5 4 0 1 0 1 b p 0 p 0 1 336 361 533 LRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E e ui 1 o O b 2 1 _ J '2 0 1 0 \"o 2 0 14 ' 0 JO 8 JO '2 0 0 _ 3 b 0 0 P 0 0 _ p 0 _1 b p ~ 0 0 375 o  0 2 0 2 1 6 15 0 0 _ 1 2 0 0 2 2 _0 0 JO 2 i 9 P P P p 0 P g J 2 276 K (S 10 p ~ 0 1 1 6 0 1 Zp p 3 2 0 3 17 0 0 8 0 6 35 1 i p 6 1 1 2 0 0 P 0 0 343 e  1 5 c e oi -c 3 2 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 i 4 0 5 3 p 0 2 Q 2 9 1 b 16 1 1 p 0 p 0 p 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 7 6 JO 0 12 0 1 'b 3 b 0 0 JI b 12 b 11 b 10 0 p p 0 2 4 _P 0 7  _5 16 '5 3 0 9 io _P 0 9 14 0 0 2 0 _7  6 15 2 4 1 0 1 i 2 0 P 0 4 o c 5 (0 O 0 1 0 vt O) c 'C (d c o c 2 441 539 637 J 'o 2 0 10 0 1J \"o 1 0 _7 b J ' 0 JJ 0 3  0 _ J 0 5 ' 0 1 P \" 0 1 _o 0 0 \"b 9 o 0 4 0 2 1 b 1 0 2 0 11 6 3 i 0 1 ~ 0 6 b P 0 2 ' 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 2 3 0 32 1 2 6 0 1 _1 b 3 0 25 4 3 \"o _ 2 0 p io 2 b 1 Q 2 '0 1 b 0 0 2 0 2 0 6 b E o UJ e 5 9  (0 2 b _o 0 A 0 1 0 0 0 p 0 312 271 1 2 2 1 2 0 P 0 _1 0 0 1 b 2 p 2 p 1 b 1 p 2 p 0 0 0 1 b 2 1 21 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 P 0 0 p 0 p 1 594 1 0 0 2 0 0 o \u0026lt;5 u 2 0 8 0 p' 6 3 _5 6  0 -3 9 p ' 0 3 16 0 0 5 \" 0 9 _9 5 0 4 5 0 _ p 1 0 0 g 0 0 1 s 2 1 2  2 1 6 407 397 527 Page 2 S d I 0 E e ui 1 4 3 0 1 b 4 i 5 2 4 2 1 i 1 i 4 2 3 6 2 1 1 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 '3 6 3 0 p 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 9 'o 5 2 11 p 0 P 0 0 0 5 i 3 0 0 2 n  Q. 159 0 \"0 2 ' 4 2 1 0 \"b 3 2 4 0 1 4 12 4 0 0 6 0 P 2 1 0 J 0 0 J 0 2 0 1 1 450 318 551  O)  1 126 1  e 1 c 0 1 E a 0 2  1 5 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 26 3 -J. OI 101 '17 1 b _o 0 6 b 3 b 18 2 J 0 3 0 22 J 0 39 2 p 0 J 2 n' 0 1 b 11 o: 1 0 6 o: 0 gi t, o! 0 ft aI 0 0 8 4 3 11 1 1 0 P ~0 g p. 0 327 oL-l-: 3i 0 0 0 jO 0 6 0 2 0 ol 6 + 0. 1 1 b 16 '~3 30 0 11 \"b 1 ' 6 0 p 0 2 ~ 1 g ' 0 4 Vi   a q\u0026gt; W b p _o _g 1 0 b 62 0 12 b 2 0 3 b p 0 _5 0 3 0  3 0 0 6 2 1 1 3 1 85 261 1 b 4 id 0 b 0 0 11 \u0026lt;  b _g 0 1  3 1 0 0 0 0 0 237 66 3 4 J 2 1 .. 11- 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' - 0 2 j_ p 0 p 0 1 1 _b 4 Q 2 b 0 i 0 1 p 4 0 320 257 411 200 582 c  (A n $ b 3   0  26 5 1 ' b _5 0 4 0 16  ~ 0 263' 5 6 0 2 0 4 __i 11 b 1 0 __8 P 0  P 0 3 ' 0 0 457 5 0 1 b 5 0 6 0 P ' 0 0 0 7 4 5 3 235 60 1 \" b _6 b w i E i 5 0 0 0 0 1 i c E 8 I c 3 o o 690 1 1 p p p 0 1 p 2 J 0 491 2 '6 0 0 _6 1 1 0 _ 1 i _1 0 87 103 _5 __2 M i 2 0 __p P 0 J P 0 p S 5 0 _ 1\" b 3 1 ' 1 ~ is 0 b 7  lb 2' ' b 3 27 2 ~0 _13 '7 16 3 1JJ '72 0 1 __1 _ p 3 P 0 0 5 4 0 0 6 1 '0 4 ' 0 1 b _g 0 0 1 0 0 _ 0 b n S 290 1 1 b p 0 57 36 0 p 0 0 0 _0 0 0 P, p 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 p 0 1 b 4 b p 0 p ~o 0 b p 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Z i 0 b 3 4 0 b 0 1 0 6 p  0 p 35 0 0 0 ' 6 26 33 _ 1 i ) n  9 0 4 9 0 4 0 ' 1 0 g 8 z 0 J 0 p 0 0 0 0 b 0 2 0 467 153 0 8  o fl \u0026lt;/) o cn H c c c o' 0 0 0 26 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 61 0 0 0  1 44 73 0 0 p 3 0 _0 1 0  0 P ' 0 0 1 0 1 b 2 b p 0 1 i 1 b 0 1 0 p 0 0 0 0 b 0 \u0026amp; s 203 _i6g  7 254 '126 243 '92 141 4 238 315 OJO ' 108 _JJ8 212 63 _2O7 117 258 215 267 99 _JJ5 85 50 ___1 ____12 _16 3 _18 2 20 357 7851 45 14032 Printed February 1994 _ led UM Rock based tyon Morrallon s\u0026lt;43^^ by Vw Ufa Rod   I 1 \"lurwuiiled [ ~ I t r t School DIstid I \"11TEL: Jun 02.94 10:35 No.002 P.03 LilUe Rock Scliool Di*tricl Stephens ^r^^Relocation Timely Task Date 1. 2. 3- 4_ Fs. Fiia motion with Court to relocate File revisions to current filings gb Hants from Stephenx Schoc^ miatinq to Stephens which_are------- ~ ~ LRSD Board of Directors \u0026amp; approved 5/18/94 before the courts 5/18/94 5/26/94 Business Case presejtedjothgj^Sg^ggEB^^ Contact the wh-^j-hould be contacted Incl .',?i!*!^?^.^'budget reduction strategy TTotify finance person to include this as a pu ---------------- '5/27/94 Person Williams Williams ~ ~~Willlam5 Ingram 5/27/94 Modeste Williams Neal \"Wagner Wagner 5/27/94 5/30/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 building ..\u0026gt;h the Stephens community , community informolion meeting tor. 7. Inventory puiiaing --------- 8 Plan and schedule public meeting 9. 1) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches, media (press release) a: b) c) 10. (neai dnor-to-door delivery ........................................ asking\" ^velop letter to Parents and community meeting. 'LlTXo^commJntt^ information meeting at S'r.phcav A'chno/ to answer for a Include invite to community---------- q uest\ngns^tch^^^-----------------------------sf^bTE^i^ti55d |..\u0026gt;-i. .He PTA president and ministers.-------------- ----------- Students who do not choose a school ------- with the principal, faculty, and staff , of all students living in the Stephen School meetings.__________ 12. De^gn follow-up plan for 13 Conduct Informational meeting attendance zone and those schedule d ,.naanco zone a) those who attend Stephens School but live outside of the attendance zone mrse Who Xd stephens School but live in the attendance zone\nand^ c) tltose Who do not attend Schon/ but live m the attendance zone b) 15.Obtairt' Gciy fir 'ii\n?.' iT send notice of relocation and d^e of community information meeting to: community groups and churches. a) b) press release students with announcement and choices asking for 17 Mail letter to parents and --------- -aunn a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at 57ep/7en.r \u0026amp;/ioo/ to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 1H noiivpr fliers door-to-door, announcing relocation and information meeting, l^implement follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their Choice of school______________________________________________ 20. Send assignment notices_____________________________ 21 Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) with announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline.-- 22. Remove materials and equipment from school 23. Reroute transportation of students__________________ 24. Secure building______________________________________________ 25. Reassign staff____________________ 26, Send assignment notices__________ * Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. EXHIBIT 2 6I\u0026amp;IQA 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/8/94. 6/15/94 6/20/94 7/6/94 7/29/94 7/29/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Wiedower Modeste Wiedower Williams Lee Williams Wagner Lee Wagner Ingram Lee Lee Eaton Montgomery ~ Eaton Hurley LeeFAST TRACK EVALUATION PROGRAM\nSTEPHENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I PROGRAM DESCRIPTION\nThis specific program is the construction of the Inter-District Elementary School. new Stephens It is an aspect of the tridistrict desegregation plan and the section pertaining to inter- -------- The program is to outline all steps necessary to locate and construct the second of two (2) schools in the Little Rock School District. district schools. new inter-district II GOALS\nThe goal of this program is the successful and timely construction of a new Little Rock School District inter-district elementary school. III - EVALUATION CRITERIA\nSchool The evaluation criteria is the successful completion of the school at the date agreed upon established by the Little Rock District. IV - EVALUATION RESULTS\non time, and The most accurate and successful evaluation result of this program would be the opening and operation of the school, on time, and within the desegregation racial composition as established in the Desegregation Plan. V - OBSTACLES TO GOAL OBTAINMENT\nThere appears to be numerous obstacles to obtaining the goal of completing this new inter-district school: 1. School location 2. School necessity 3. the Time to design and construct - (The obstacles laid out under this program description deal purely with the physical requirements of locating and constructing the school and not with such administrative matters as theme, program, nor recruitment.) VI RECOMMENDATIONS\nThis recommendation does not constitute a change to the inter- concept of the Desegregation Plan, but rather requests the addition of a criteria to be considered in the construction new Stephens Elementary School, of the 1. Background\nSection III of the Tri-Dlstrict District Desegregation Plan entitled II Inter- Student Choices and EXHIBIT 3Options It district outlines the concept of construction of interschools. Within that concept is the construction of the Stephens Elementary School to be located within the Little Rock School District boundaries, and is to be one of two schools constructed by the District to support this concept. The plan further states that the existing Stephens School would then be closed. The plan does not go into the background nor the rationale nor specifically mentioned any other considerations for the location and construction of the Stephens School other than to support the desegregation effort. Historically, there are two principal considerations that lead a School District to construct a new school: 1) or The student population is such that the present number size of schools in various locations is not capable of supporting the student population\ntherefore, a new school should be constructed\nand, 2) Periodic evaluations dealing with the age and condition of the existing facilities will warrant the construction of new schools to replace facilities that are too costly to repair or expand, or have outlived their usefulness to meet the current educational needs. I am addressing in this recommendation the criteria dealing with plant replacement. By separate study, as submitted to the Board in November of 1993, it has been shown that preliminary figures do not indicate sufficient student population in certain portions of the inner city to warrant adding additional seats through new construction. This is extremely important and is a critical factor in analyzing the total area to be impacted by the construction of a new school. It would lead consolidations, student population. one because to of believe that the overall possible decrease in 2) might require new schools to be constructed convenient to students, and subsequent closure of older, smaller facilities. Objective\nmore the The objective of this recommendation is to add to the criteria for the construction of the Stephens School, a consideration that reaches beyond desegregation and attempts to encompass the District's financial state with regard to the operation of schools, its need to possibly look at rezoning attendance zones in the inner city to support new construction and the need to look at its need to the age and condition of inner city schools with a view toward replacement where renovation and expansion is ^o^~prhibitive and will not meet the educational goals of the District. 23) 4) In evaluating this objective, we will need to review a general criteria of existing facilities in light of educational programs and present needs, and compare this to anticipated costs to meet current needs and future demands. It is expected that the constiruction and operation of newer, more modern, up-to-date facilities with possible consolidation and staff and the closure of older, more antiquated schools will lead to a more efficiently run financial operation and a program that better meets the students' needs. ImpactAnalysis\nThe overall program is that of integration. Larger, more modern, up-to-date schools with more innovative programs have a record of better modern attraction of a varied student body than do older, smaller schools who have had to have been haphazardly renovated to meet educational needs. This is generally true throughout the country. It is expected that a new, modern, up-to-date school in the inner city would better attract Pulaski County Students than our present existing facilities. It is expected that a new This impact is predicated on the fact that the end result would be the closure of at least two or more smaller schools with all students attending the new Stephens The risk of considering this concept of school closure of outdated schools to support new plants are two-fold: 1) If we are successful, we could conceivably be too successful, in which case the new school may not be of sufficient size to meet our needs. Careful analysis of census projections must be made and careful rezoning must be considered during the planning stage of this school. 2) The second risk is one of not considering plant within the normal course of action of School. new construction. The continued operation of schools that are becoming outdated and outmoded most definitely causes a rise in operational costs. It is imperative that we consider normal plant replacement of an entire school as well as we consider plant replacemejit of individual items such as heating ventilation units, intercoms, windows, etc., in order to insure that we are operating in a most efficient manner. Resource Analysis\n----------------------With the decrease in student numbers in the inner city and the consolidation into larger, more efficiently run schools, they'll most certainly lessen the duplication of instructional efforts as is presently found in teaching in multiple locations. Cutting back on administrative staff is obvious, and maximizing class size will allow -- \"----- Cutting back on us to decrease teacher populations. It is expected that operating costs for newer, more modern energy efficient schools will be less than that presently 35) 6) incurred for operating multiple sites of schools as old as 1906. Although a detailed analysis has not been done, the average elementary school cost per occupant for the Little Rock School District is $173.75. There are twelve schools above the average\nof these, twelve schools, six are Incentive schools (Franklin, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens). Ish, Mitchell, The District has an average energy cost per elementary occupant of $113, There are fifteen schools that exceed this average\nof those, six are incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens). average Little Rock School District maintenance cost is The $21,601 per elementary school, eooupent. Eight schools exceeded that average\nof those, three were incentive schools (Franklin, Rightsell and Rockefeller), maintenance figure is skewed by the large amount of dollars spent in the past couple of years through bond projects to increase the general maintenance of the schools. The District has no historical data with regard to the operational costs of newer schools\nhowever, theoretical, operational costs can be calculated The once a specified school size Is determined based on the norm. Force Field Analysis\nSupport of a new elementary school appear to be generally positive within the community\nhowever, this support is over-shadowed by the facters of location and schools possibly identified for closing. is difficult at this time to predict the strength for the new Stephens School without a careful study and much community interface regarding possible closures, identify schools at this time for possible closure, without coupling that identification to the final selected premature. site for the Identification Stephens School, would It To be Data exists showing recommendations based on perceived maintenance costs and age of facilities. C______11^ speaking, the incentive schools date back to 1906 with the last ones being constructed in the late 1950' schools constructed in the 1950's years old. General Implementation Plan\nimplemented as follows: picked primarily to Generally s. Even are forty-some odd My recommendation would be If the Stephens School site is support the needs of the Desegregation Plan, that will mandate what schools immediately adjacent to that site are considered for plant replacement. on consideration If the Stephens site is picked based of implementation would be: plant 1) replacement. then the Of after having considered 4census block projections and cost analysis of ^chool operations a community effort would begin to gather support for the closing of certain schools. It Is perceived that both goals can be reached, i.e., the one stated in the desegregation plan that the Stephens School would be closed upon construction of the new Stephens School and an analysis of existing plants which could meet both criteria. I make my recommendation so as to offer a consideration for building a new inter-city elementary school based purely on the need to decrease the schools' operational expenditures and to enhance education through modern, and to close outdated up-to-date facilities, new, facilities that are too crowded or too old to meet our current needs. DCE/rlh/ftep 5-10- RECOMMENDATIONS The cost of epb'an'cen.s:hasVeeSes^X^^^^^ - -a.lor or n.u.cc Of specialized rooms that have been prodded and that . necessaiy to bouse the K alternative proposals have been assigned to these schools. buUdi^sseach of abou/eS s?ud clpa'cT^'S \"o bnng Its capacity to 600 students. rcqulniM founeen^k^ms'^-??'?^ Garland Schools ,V?nX' capacity of about 600 students. in one new bulldlniVihYSipb^^ :ire'tf,l to Franklin Elementary School a-Kasa a^aeoiiuin tiementaiy to Accommodate King Elementary School Ss\" ^S^ddiOoSaUlassmlms.\"Se.S mSns^f 780 sX?'yf based on the new Carver Magnet _size of rooms under space. Adding the necessaiy circulation mUeSsquare feet of m about 16.000 square fcetifXss aS At S5O S-r /\"T 'uld resuk Career Magnet School, the addlTor^X7id^oS SsS OOo?eSS\"' \"\"8 fo upgrading Franklin School, first through the minnru be added the costs for 622.350 and. secondly. the^tobKeS f fSrthe^lm\n?'\"\" *\" aiObPt S Frankhn School. These costs can be detSned rno^^ Jee necessary to upgrade parted on the project. The amount of $100 000 ha Jheeirately when architectural studies The total cost is estimated to be $922,350 ' tentatively allocated for the p students is based on the are project. Major enhancement of King Elementanr capacity of 136 students. unLngedX the erJianc^^^ cost $1,187,815. With a The new Carver Magnet School W1 have a co^fmPer student and the like, of about $4,000 per student. construction, equipment, grounds, fees,. Replace Stephens and Garland Schools With a New School The new Carver School has measures of crpaciZs\"P?\" and using the same classrooms by using the staffe as a muci analysis, of about 568 students Addin? twn would result a oapaXX\nXXstl^^^^^^ for spe^al^^d'^K capacity of approximately 600 students. ^Ing the cost of the Carver School The combined budgets for enhancerr^n^ school would cost about $2 500 000 bearmg walls and wood frame. Garland School is constructed with brick It Is suggested that ^^^c^edordyPaSt^e^e^^^^ rt f Garland and Stephens e.xpand the site.  abandoned houses that could be secured to EXHIBIT 4-59- Name of School: Stenhens El. (30.954 SF) Update of Estimates of Cost for Renovation of Little Rock Public School Buildings Comments: This school is to be replaced. No further expenditures are recommended at this time.EXHIBIT 5 EXECUTIVE SUWWRY 17/11/92 thru 16/31/93 SYSTEM SITE ID SITE WANE TOTAL COST TO DATE ENERGY COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST TO DATE GROSS NUnBER OF OCCUPANTS GROSS I OF SQUARE FEET COST GROSS COST PER OCCUPANT PER SB. FOOT A A A 8 A A A A A A C . A A A A A C A A A C c A A A A A A A A A A A C C A A A A A A A C A A A A A A A A A 154 ADMINISTRATION 861 ADMINISTRATION ANNEl 114 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING TI4 BACKHOE 119 BADGETT 117 BALE 122 BA5ELIIE 116 BOOKER 118 BRADY 858 CAFETERIA DEPT NI4 CARP. SUPPLIES 121 CARVER 881 CENTRAL HIGH 128 CHICOT 831 CLOVERDALE ELEM 115 CLOVERDALE JR HIS CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 132 DODD 817 DUNBAR 853 EAST SIDE 1982 ELECT. SUPPLIES HU ELECTRONICS SUPPLIES 818 FAIR 123 FAIR PARK S83 FAIR STADIUM 189 FOREST HEIGHTS 824 FOREST PARK 825 FRANKLIN 848 FULBRIGHT 826 GARLAND 837 GEYER SPRINGS 127 GIBBS 111 GILLIAM H86 GROUNDS SUPPLIES H81 H/AC SUPPLIES 812 HALL HIGH 813 HENDERSON 149 ISH 831 JEFFERSON 135 KING 174 KLRE/UALR 162 LEE HI9 LOCKSMITH SUPPLIES 846 HABELVALE ELEN 116 HABELVALE JR 813 HANN 812 HCCLELLAN SI4 HcCLELLAN STADIUM 128 HCDERHOTT 133 HEADOWCLIFF 884 HETRO 834 MITCHELL 68,232.48 23,265.53 45,894.86 192.64 44,579.81 51,624.89 58,161.38 139,843.77 47,137.49 36,575.74 9,662.58 81,743.26 264,448.68 83,662.49 49,191.58 118,345.22 1,878.42 51,461.97 123,298.77 39,167.46 5,815.18 2,316.85 155,882.88 62,524.87 16,315.77 119,645.86 68,965.83 88,258.89 75,738.88 39,122.83 39,974.39 41,796.14 6,159.23 7,468.73 2,835.43 188,429.78 191,217.13 37,478.52 68,674.65 8.88 8.88 38,293.69 2,685.42 62,836.12 71,933.53 222,797.22 ,221,649.65 21,877.83 74,788.62 54,912.12 146,531.77 6G,539.66 51,784.48 13,971.92 33,783.38 1.81 27,248.82 33,437.83 49,929.82 67,681.11 34,689.61 29,686.13 8.88 68,185.41 212,583.58 57,893.11 28,481.81 89,645.79 8.88 33,898.55 183,868.42 31,949.71 8.88 8.88 129,977.19 41,887.79 6,474.94 86,764.87 48,327.83 53,178.83 55,188.82 29,134.18 33,318.38 29,618.86 3,148.87 8.88 8.88 158,165.98 125,813.52 17,254.94 49,116.88 8.88 8.88 25,876.75 8.88 44,763.87 54,588.61 152,139.24 173,851.48 2,187.23 53,327.86 31,864.45 138,614.43 58,957.17 16,517.19 9,238.68 11,386.28 192.64 16,891.85 17,711.27 7,987.69 71,188.11 12,411.71 6,841.46 9,662.51 28,464.16 51,758.16 25,563.78 28,732.49 28,315.67 1,878.42 17,218.23 19,673.22 7,217.75 5,815.18 2,316.85 25,641.61 28,589.42 9,848.83 32,621.88 28,491.82 26,935.46 28,111.21 9,838.64 6,516.93 12,814.47 3,811.16 7,468.73 2,835.43 21,785.83 64,188.55 28,883.96 19,432.88 8.88 8.88 13,188.66 2,685.42 16,848.63 17,346.22 78,538.68 47,613.88 17,889.88 28,843.58 23,788.46 15.836.38 17,459.88 11.89 62.93 4.48 I. II 439.94 475.79 242.79 274.65 26.17 48.15 l.ll 173.71 178.86 215.61 58.11 383.76 l.ll 161.19 549.13 l.ll l.ll 8.81 184.88 287.66 1.18 258.39 146.98 135.88 518.85 157.21 147.88 171.61 8.88 8.88 8.88 478.85 212.96 211.62 124.89 1.88 1.18 36.28 l.ll 424.42 78.71 127.38 984.45 1.18 537.26 147.21 88.96 122.61 I I 446 I 212 321 339 615 398 8 I 589 1,999 535 366 775 I 314 715 I 8 8 915 243 8 787 441 411 538 256 282 333 8 8 8 994 914 187 463 8 8 I 8 518 667 858 985 8 519 448 1,818 264 26,791 26,273 37,361 I 23,414 33,626 51,455 74,531 36,259 38,456 I 61,695 266,823 59,687 33,263 81,894 I 46,712^ 99,397 89,133 I I 131,628 28,867 I 71,137 31,914 68,588 66,892 38,632 41,788 37,237 23,727 I I 152,348 113,212 31,812 43,546 I I 47,951 I 55,568 59,981 113,131 118,425 8 48,121 36,931 129,546 39,283 l.ll l.ll 111.11 l.ll 221.69*- 161.63 171.56 226.19 - 116.1B l.ll l.ll 137.19 132.29 156.38 134.41 152.71 l.ll 165.99 174.86 l.ll\n:3 172.1^ 257.31  l.ll 152.13 138.24 195.26 - 142.98 152.82 141.75 125.51 8.81 8.88 8.88 181.52 288.11 288.38 - 142.18 1.18 1.88 8.11 1.18 124.17 117.85 262.11 225.13 1.18 146.78 .124.81 146.53 259.62 - 2.55 1.89 1.21 l.ll 1.91 1.54 1.15 1.87 1.31 1.95 l.ll 1.31 1.99 1.41 1.48 1.45 l.ll 1.18 1.24 1.44 1.18 8.88 1.18 2.17 1.18 1.71 1.91 1.17 1.13 1.81 8.96 1.12 8.26 8.88 1.18 1.18 1.84 1.18 1.58 1.18 8.18 1.81 8.11 1.12 1.21 1.97 1.87 1.18 1.56 1.49 1.13 1.75SYSTEM SITE ID SITE NAME TOTAL COST TO DATE EXECUTIVE SUHHARY 87/81/92 thru 86/38/93 ENER6Y COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST TO DATE GROSS GROSS I COST GROSS COST NUHKR OF OF SOUARE OCCtffANTS FEET PER PER SO. OCCUPAMT FOOT C A A C C A A A C A A A . A A A A A A C A C A A A 8 B 8 B A B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 - 8 8 8 HB7 ROTOR POOL SUPPLIES 135 OAKHURST 858 OTTER CREEK R28 P.H.SUPPLIES R85 PAIMT SUPPLIES 136 PARKIN/IRC 885 PARKVIEW 888 PLANT SERVICES n83 PLUHB. SUPPLIES 838 PULASKI H6TS ELEM 818 PtRJISKI HSTS JR 885 PtffiCHASINE SBl OUIELEY STADIUM 839 RI6HTSELL 836 ROCKEFELLER 848 ROMINE 119 SAFETY AND SECURITY SB2 scon FIELD H77 SMALL ENGINE REPAIR 811 SOUTHNEST H8B STADIUM SUPPLIES 841 STEPHEMS 864 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 847 TERRY TB2 TRACTOR 82 TBl TRACTOR 1 TB3 TRACTOR 3 TBS TRACTOR 5 883 TRANSPORTATION V48 VEHICL 48 V81 VEHICLE 1 VIB VEHICLE IB Vll VEHICLE 11 V12 VEHICLE 12 V13 VEHICLE 13 V14 VEHICLE 14 V15 VEHICLE 15 V16 VEHICLE 16 V17 VEHICLE 17 V18 VEHICLE 18 V19 VEHICLE 19 VB2 VEHICLE 2 V2B VEHICLE 28 V21 VEHICLE 21 V22 VEHICLE 22 V23 VEHICLE 23 V24 VEHICLE 24 V25 VEHICLE 25 V26 VEHICLE 26 V27 VEHICLE 27 V28 VEHICLE 28 V29 VEHICLE 29 VB3 VEHICLE 3 2,453.37 7,698.62 62,433.67 127.49 1,772.9B 14,588.65 187,132.64 88,797.85 1,173.48 68,349.37 138,129.83 27,736.84 36,288.33 83,727.71 121,393.38 96,964.85 7,858.78 21,599.81 2,248.62 133,867.83 145.94 54,253.21 11,218.42 62,922.68 5,115.36 2,689.87 2,881.87 2,386.77 68,865.68 39B.73 1,593.95 1,719.44 426.41 447.58 993.55 1,483.97 817.16 511.89 1,828.39 876.28 933.28 473.47 3,449.82 138.24 1,878.78 142.88  2,897.82  692.59 988.82 1,582.28 269.98 492.23 1,839.99 B.BB 4,873.28 47,889.31 8.88 B.BB 18,988.66 159,766.18 29,264.35 B.BB 43,795.84 67,856.48 19,911.82 4,838.21 35,284.16 88,841.13 49,738.47 5,213.89 3,255.74 B.BB 88,843.86 B.BB 37,188.82 8,977.61 43,266.35 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 44,348.32 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.08 2,453.37 3,579.99 15,296.87 127.49 1,772.98 3,591.99 26,815.39 59,269.33 1,173.48 16,279.47 61,792.91 7,773.81 32,258.12 48,257.49 32,369.49 47,191.84 1,844.81 18,343.27 2,248.62 45,586.87 145.94 16,958.29 9 212.41 19,587.53 5,115.36 2,689.87 2,BB1.B7 2,386.77 15,437.76 398.73 1,593.95 1,719.44 426.41 447.58 993.55 1,483.97 817.16 511.89 1,828.39 876.28 933.2B 473.47 3,449.82 138.24 1,878.78 142.88 2,897.82 692.59 988.82 1,582.28 269.98 492.23 1.839.99 8.11 37.43 127.49 8.88 8.88 8.88 551.87 263.37 8.18 274.86 488.52 58.41 8.88 186.86 182.76 42.54 8.88 8.88 8,88 318.78 8.88 186.18 28.48 148.72 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 287.52 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 B 252 353 8 B B 888 B B 379 774 B B 249 361 361 8 B B 67B B 2B9 B 541 8 B B B 8 8 B B B 8 B B B 8 8 B B B B B B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 33,788 36,551 8 8 8 166,477 28,914 I 58,252 73,216 28,914 I 37,638 64,561 42,314 6,881 B.BB 3B.S2 176.87- B.BB B.BB B.BB 218.73 B.BB B.BB 159.23  168.13 b.b| B.BI 336.2i- 1.88 8.23 1.71 1.88 8.88 8.88 1.12 4.25 8.88 1.84 1.78 r.33 8.88 2.23 336.27*^ 1.88 B 8' 82,968 I 268.61 1.88 8.88 8.81 199.88 8.18 2.29 I.IB 8.88 8.88 1.61 8.88 34,384 6,418 45,312 8 8 8 8 259.58*^ 1.58 19,558 8 8 8 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B 8 B B B B 8 B.BB 116.31 B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB -B.BB B.BB 8.88 1.75 1.39 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 3.87 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 e.BI 1.18 l.ll 8.88 1.18 8.88 8.81 8.18 8.88 8.88 8.88 1.81 1.81 8.88 8.81 8.88 i ISYSTEM SITE ID SITE NAME TOTAL COST TO DATE EXECUTIVE SUNNARY 87/11/92 thru 86/38/93 ENERGY COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST SRDSS GROSS  COST GROSS COST NUHBER OF OF SQUARE TO DATE OCCUPANTS FEET PER PER sa. XCUPAHT FOOT B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B C A ti A h fl A V36 VEHICLE 36 V31 VEHICLE 31 V32 VEHICLE 32 V33 VEHICLE 33 V34 VEHICLE 34 V35 VEHICLE 35 V36 VEHICLE 36 V37 VEHICLE 37 V38 VEHICLE 38 V39 VEHICLE 39 V84 VEHICLE 4 V95 VEHICLE 5 V66 VEHICLE 6 V67 VEHICLE 7 V88 VEHICLE 8 V69 VEHICLE 9 651 WAKEFIELD HU HAREHOUSE SUPPLIES 642 HASHINGTON 852 WATSON 629 HESTERN HILLS 643 WILLIAMS 644 HILSON 845 HOODRUFF 1,763.74 844.38 776.64 349.72 195.21 345.78 248.63 689.12 2,822.59 1,611.39 527.86 165.29 1,866.28 2,249.25 414.41 1,653.45 45,516.23 3,743.72 86,597.63 73,398.25 48,527.55 54,161.86 57,679.73 43,825.84 6.68 6.86 6.88 8.88 8.88 6.88 6.88 8.86 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.68 6.68 8.68 32,592.84 8.68 65,115.52 48,583.42 35,425.18 46,131.21 42,543.48 38,836.61 1,763.74 844.38 776.64 349.72 195.21 345.78 248.63 689.12 2,822.59 1,611.39 527.86 165.29 1,866.28 2,249.25 414.41 1,653.45 12,837.66 3,743.72 21,849.77 24,456.28 12,938.92 13,896.79 15,868.48 12,182.87 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.88 8.68 8.68 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 08.53 6.88 432.34 358.55 163.53 133.86 67.85 6.36 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 588 8 822 451 335 499 355 234 e 37,395 8_ 89,688 53,646 41,991 47,266 37,875 38,688 8.88 8.66 8.68 8.66 8.88 8.88 6.68 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 8.66 8.68 6.66 8.68 6.86 91.82 6.66 165.35 162.75 1*4.86 166.5j 162.48 183.87*^ 6.88 6.68 6.88 6.68 6.68 8.68 8.68 8.68 8.68 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 1.22 6.68 6.96 1.36 1.16 1.15 1.56 1.13 5,251,694.87 3,621,656.78 1,616,918.98 13,118.39 27,888 3,699,811 188.8555 1.4198 sssssu (-71- Beriod: 1949-1960 Table 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES FDR RENCVATICN AND REPAIR, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, LITHE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Note: All unit costs, except as noted, are correlated to total square feet of finished building based on estimated ratio of amount of each item in average single story structure of 1949-60 period. All cost figures and quantities are approximate and unit costs are based on early 1981 data. All cost A. BASIC IffiCOMXENDATIONS Category and Task Estinated Lhit Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ I. II. Sanitary Replace plunbing fixtures (kitchen not included\nserving only) Exterior Replace non-functioning window operators .32-.40 50/lkiit III. Interior Replace asphalt tile remni ning Replace suspended ceilings-1950 Install insulation-1950 bldg Refinish doors, paint walls, i Install new toilet enclosures bldg etc. 1.12 .57 .30 .65-.75/SF 275-300 ea. IV. Electro-Mechanical Replace lighting-1950 \u0026amp; '58 bldgs Replace boiler/air handling units Mise, V. 80% 20-25 40% 12-13,000 SF 18 Stalls 1.49-1.50/SF 12-13,000 SF 1.30-1.55/SF 31,000 Subtotal Building Special Conditions, A/E Fees, Contingency - 30% Ibtal Building Cost per Sq. Ft. 8,000-10,000 1,000-1,250 14,000-15,000 7,500-8,000 3,600-3,900 7,800-10,000 5,000-5,500 16,800-19,500 40,000-48,000 103,700-121,150 31,100-36,350 134,800-157,500 4.35-5.08 Site Work Develop plan for utili2a,tion and landscaping Paving-play areas -basketball area -walks 2.20-2.50/SY EXHIBIT 6 5-6 Acres 2000 SF 12,000 SF 15-1800 SF 1,500-3,000 500 - 600 3,000-3,500 400 - 500-72- Table 26 ALTERNAIE ESTIMATES, STEHIENS INTERMEDIATE SCHDOL (cont'd) V. Category and Task Estimated Ifait Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ Site Work (cont'd) Grass Area-seeding -sprinkling Planting trees/shrubs Equipment Lifting Fencing 5500/A 1500/A 7-8,000 3000-3500 1100-1200 10,50-11/LF 2 Acres 3 Acres Basic 1 Set 2 Boles 800 LF @ 6' Subtotal, Site Work Mise and Contingency - 10% Ibtal Site Work 10,000-11,000 4,500-5,000 7,000-8,000 3,000-3,500 2,200-2,500 8,400-8,800 40,500-46,400 4,000-4,600 44,500-51,000 B. LPCRADING \"Pie extent of work under (A) is essentially that required to bring the facility ip to reasonable \"as is\" standards. ~ ' ----- n S, reasonable \"as is\" standards. In the building the quality of lighting would be the cmly ipgrading resulting but the extent of site inprove- rants reconmended, while basic to a full utilization of an inteimediate level school with comnunity participation, would from the present lack of development. prove an autcmatic upgrading Looking forward to extending the proper role of this school VO extenoing me proper role of this school another 20 years, considerable ipgrading and major replacements would be in view. , present building upgrading to systenwide standards probably would involve converting to fully air conditioned environment which in turn would inply optimal insulation policies. Thus in addition to ceiling ' insulation as in (A), the balance of the buildings' roofs and all window areas should be considered. Ihns in addition to ceiling In any event, it is likely the standard steel sash of the 1950 structure would be replaced with lower maintenance aluminum insulated glazing perhaps and possibly reduced glass area. Consideration of providing a larger sized recreational unit than the limited sized (1800 SF) cafeteria, but for educational and grams, should be part of the ipgrading estimate. coranunity pro- storm drainage or diverting its location could vide grass playfield on the northwest corner of the overall site. pro--73- Table 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SOEOL (cont'd) B. imiADING (cont'd) Category and Task Estimated Ifait Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ I. Sanitary Replace drinking fountains Food service (preparation) II. Exterior Replace all windows, 1950 unit Paint all trim 350-400 ea, Lunp Sum .75-.80/SF III. Interior Carpet all classrooms Refinish interior New toilet partitions IV. Electro-Mechani cal Replace present HV system, except for work under A. 1300-1500/Room As in (A) 3.50-4.30/SF 6 75% 18 25,000 SF Building Subtotal: Mise, Spec Conditions, A/E Fees, Contingency - Add 30% Building TOTAL: Cost per Sq Ft incl A., BASIC REC'S V. New Construction hiulti-purpose gym/stage A/E Fees, Contingency, Equipment 30-35/SF 20% 4-5000 SF Subtotal: VI. Site Work As in (A) Develop play field w/ baseball backstop, etc. - allow for 12\" fill Additional lighting Additional equipment Additional planting 7000/Acre 7-8/Cy 1100-1200 ea. Net 3 A 20,000 CF 4 Subtotal, Add'l work Mise, Fees, Contingency, + 15% Total Site Work 2,100-2,400 10,000-35,000 18,000-19,000 1,000-1,200 23,400-27,000 7,800-10,000 5,000-5,500 87,500-107,500 154,800-217,600 46,400-65,280 201,200-282,900 10.80-14.21 120,000-175,000 24,000-35,000 144,000-210,000 40,500-46,400 20,000-22,000 30,000-36,000 4,400-4,800 3,000-3,500 3,500-4,000 32,400-36,000 + 102,900-118,400 15,100-17,600 $118,000-136,000-1^- Ihble 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SCHDQL (cont'd) SUMMARY OF COSTS Action Required Oode Range of Est Cost in 1981 Dollars A. BASIC RECCWENnATICNS R 134,800-157,500 B. UPGRADING, excluding air conditioning and energy conservation measures R 201,200-282,900 SCBTOTAL-R 336,000-440,400 Equipment E Site Development S 118,000-136,000 Construction C 144,000-210,000 C. TOTAL RENOVATION TOTAL, excluding air conditioning $598,000-786,406 The configuration of Stephens School and its siting are among the poorest of the entire system, Ihere is little or no flexibility to the plan or structure to adapt to substantial alteration such as grouping of classroOTs or expansion. The rooms, however, are good sized squares which can be equipped in numerous ways for varying assignnent. Once rehabilitated this school should serve at its present capacity for another 20-25 years at which point it will be over 50 years and, because of the above constraints, may well prove to be expendable as _ part of the total system. It is very doubtful that such a building would lend itself to the major renovation concept followed at Mitchell, for exanple. Thus it is suggested that in the 2000-2010 period the ^rd will face either demolition or another igjgrading effort to maintain the status quo. aCity of Little Rock Jim Diiley C Mayor City Hill. Room 203 SOO W. Mark him Litll* Rock, AR 72201-142T (SOt) 371-4516 FAX (301)371-4496 I February 24, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 cws\n.nioN_ Re: Stephens Intmdistrict School Site Selection Dear Dr. Bernd: ADMKSEC. I have been informed by City staff from the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, that the current Stephens Elementary School located at 3700 W. 18th St. has been selected as the site for the new Stephens Interdisttict School that will open in 1994-95. . .... . , ..................................... We applaud the efforts of the LMD Board and the diligence of the Site Selection Committee in the selection of this site that will provide an innovative and exeiting alternative to not only the Stephens School neighborhood students, but also to other students located in Pulaski County who wish to attend. The City of Little Rock has made a long-term commitment to revitalize and stabilize our older and traditional neighborhoods and by the selection of this new school in the Stephens School area, makes our continued commitment even more important I have taken the liberty to outline some of these programs and housing initiatives that has and will have a tremendous impact on the St^hens School neighborhoods quality of life in the current, as well as, its future realm.  Community Development Block Grant/Public Works Projects and Expenditures in the Stephens School Area The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program defines iu Stephens School CDBG area as bordered on the north by 1-630, on the south by Roosevelt Road, on the east by the Union Pacific railroad traclu and the west by Elm Street. In that area the program has completed reconstruction of 16,939 linear feet of streeu (more than three miles) and 21,700 linear feet of drainage facilities (more than 4 miles) at a total cost of approximately $3,875,805. In addition, the program will reconstruct Maple Street from 25th to Asher Avenue and 26th Street from Pine to Maple within the next year at an estimated cost of $152,000. In the immediate vicinity of Stephens School itself, the improvements include underground drainage along Oak Street and reconstruction of Oak Street from 16th to 19th. The program also reconstructed Valentine from 14th to 18th and placed underground a drainage system that paralleled Valentine. EXHIBIT 7A map depicting these improvements in the first 16 years of the CDBG program is atuched. Housing Revitalization Efforts The City of Little Rock is actively involved in numerous programs to promote the revitalization of neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area along with its housing stocL We have actively been involved in fostering neighbortiood partnerships and giving long-range planning to these neighborhoods. We have seve:^ programs, jeach design^ to meet the special ne^ in the Stephens School community - these programs include: Save-A-Home The City acquires a house and repairs it to code standards using C.D.B.G. funds, then sells it to a low or moderate income family at cost or below cost. The buyer must be able to secure bank financing to purchase one of these homes. Affordable Housing The City is allowed to build new homes on vacant lots in existing - neighborhoods. These homes are designed and constructed in a manner to keep the sale price low enough to obtain financing by low and moderate income families. (We are currently building (3) homes in the Central High Area.) ReaAal Rehab Funds Funds are made available to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of rental property to meet local code standards located within the neighborhood revitalization program area. Homebuyers Group The City assists 40-60 citizens by providing counseling on home purchasing and credit managing skills. Each person will participate in a 12 month consumer education program designed to train them on how to effectively use credit to improve their quality of life through the purchase of a home and/or other retail items that require a good credit history. Homebuyer Assistance Program The City provides financial assistance, paying one-half of the minimal downpayment cost, including insurance and taxes\nto assist low and moderate income families in purchasing a home anywhere within the city limits of Little Rock for a house not to exceed $55,000. Community Development Corporations CDC The City along with the banking and business community have developed a public/private partnership to provide assistance to developers and community- based organizations for building/renovating low to moderate income housing and improving commercial services in older neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area. 2We have garnered the services of the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LlSC) which is a nationally recognized nonprofit organization with a proven track record in community development. With the 1.5 million loan pwl in place, they will provide support in three principal ways: Building neighborhood CDC's capacity through administrative support grants\nprovide project funding\nand working with others to estoblish reliable systems for volume production of housing and other CDC development projccu. The Greater Little Rock CDC has selected the Stephens School neighborhood for their initial project focus that will encompass (12) blocks of housing and vacant lots near the current Stephens School location. The major thrust of their program will be to provide affordable housing opportunities through both rehabilitation and new construction. Leverage Loon Program The City has developed a joint loan program with First Commercial Bank to provide help to low and nnoderate income homeowners to fix up their older Little Rock homes and meet City code standards. Through this joint venture arrangement an applicant, if approved, will receive a below-market interest rate loon. This is a city-wide program. .......Neighbariiood Alert Center -3924 W. 12th aad Cedar - The Neighborhood Alert System/Center is a neighborhood-based center designed for available resources and various City services to be more accessible to the residents of Little Rock. The system/ocatcr serves as a collaborative and concentrated effort between residents, religious groups, businesses, schools, neighborhood and civic organizations, youth groups, and City Hall to improve the conditions and quality of life for its citizens. Even though this Alert Center is located on the northern boundary of the Stq)hens School neighborhood, it serves as the nucleus for existing and pro^xed programs in this area. This center currently has integrated (3) city departments along with their delivery efforts to create positive image of change in this neighborhood. service Department of Neighborhoods and Planning - Offers code enforcement officers, and premise inspectors that are responsible for enforcement of environmental codes, deteriorating homes, abandoned cars and weed lots. Fighting Back InKbtive - Offers Neighborhood Alert Center Facilitators to help coordinate neighborhood-based efforts to alcohol and other drug abuse abatement and alternatives. Little Rock Police Department - Offers community policing to develop a working relationship with neighbors for overall safety and crime reduction. (Currently has 3 foot patrol officers.) Volunteers - The most important element toward the effectiveness and success of the Alert Centers is the neighborhood volunteers. There is a role for all citizens to be a part of the solution in unifying to take back our neighborhoods. 3Intensified/Sy sterna tic Inspection Program This is a program that is just getting started. It requires the code enforcement officer to regularly inspect all properties in this neighborhood for obvious code violations such as improper garbage disposal, abandoned autos, high grass, weeds, litter, and vacant we^ lots. The code officer assigned to this area is responsible for taking the necessary enforcement action to ensure conection of the violations. This program currently includes vacant and abandoned structures. Hopefully, in the future we will have the resources to expand the program to include occupied structures^ Drug House Elimination Program On February 27, 1993 this program will kick-off. It is a comprehensive effort to unite all avail^le resources, including the citizens in this naghborhood, to eliminate drug houses and drug activity in the area. This program includes participation by the Code Enforcement staff, Little Rock Police Department, Fighting Back personnel and citizens. Paiirt Your Heart Out '93 The Stefdiens School neighborhood was selected for this years program. On May 1, forty homes within a 2-3 block radius of Stephens Elementary School will be painted by volunteer citizens from throughout the City. Preceding this event on AprU 17, a neighborhood clean-up effort is being planned. This effort involves all citizens in this neighborhood having City resources available, i.e. dumpsters, knuckle boom trucks, chipper/shredder to assist them in removing discarded furniture and appliances, rutile, trash, etc. from their premises. Again, we applaud your efforts in retaining die school on the current site and we are in full support of the Stephens Interdisthet School Site Selection Committee's recommendation to the LRSD Board. Respectively Submitted, Sun Dailey Mayor JD/TP:sc Attachment DIRECTOR PAC. COOR. cc: Charles Nickerson, Interim City Manager Billy J. Bowles, Assist. Superintendent for Desegregation Doug Eaton, Little Rock School District Lou Caudell Jim Lawson Wendy Salaam Tim Polk MAJNTCNWCE _ CUSTODIAL CONSTRUCTION^ AOMIN. SEC. 4Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation P. O. Box 192864 Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 Voice Mail (501) 664^3334 March 09, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd, Let the record show that The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation requests that Stephens Elementary School be redesigned and rebuilt on the same ground that it now occupies. Enclosed is a copy of the revitalization plan for the Stephens School area that was adopted by The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation (GLRCDC) last year. (See pages 7, 8, 17 and 18). Maybe it was presumptuous, but we considered it a given that Stephens School would remain as an integral part of this community. The GLRCDC is presently compiling and quantifying remodeling and new construction costs for homes in the neighborhood just north of the school. The presence of Stephens School will be one of our main marketing tools used to encourage families to repopulate this community. Thank you and the Site Selection Committee for allowing us to participate in the selection process and for the sensitivity with which you conducted yourselves at the public meetings. We also appreciate your positive consideration of our request. We are convinced that in years to come history will record that the Little Rock School District did the right thing by rebuilding Stephens School at its present site. Sincerely, --4 Foster Strong, President The GLRCDC cc: Site Selection Committee EXHIBIT 8I THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. I I COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN 1 CHARLES A. JOHNSON, JR. November, 1992 Copyright PendingTHE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUINITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. IGLRCDC) COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I 1 Introduction......................................................... Building Community Capacity........................ The GLRCDC............................................ Management Structure................................... Staffing ................................................................. Financial Resources ............................................ Geographical Area Served............................... Housing ................................................................. Initial Target Area .............................................. Community Obstacles to Overcome............ Actions to Overcome Obstacles ................... Coalition Building ............................................. Network Members ........................................... Network Objectives ........................................ Actions to Accomplish Network Objectives Summary ............................................................. APPENDIX Census Tract Map .............................. Midtown Service Area Map ............. Service Area Housing Analysis Map The GLRCDC Board Profile ............... 1 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 13 18 A B C DI I I I INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each community network member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I I IBUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! 1 Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network Is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community in revitalizing inner city neighborhoods. I I The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a kriowledfleable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and individuals about the networking concept. The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts arxJ brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks:  Gt the prospective network members to talk Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. \"Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2* Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I I I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. I * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wHiing and able to allocate to the network. I Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford except through network participation. [ For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners In revitalizing Greater Little Rock's Inner city communities. I To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved In planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. I. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources will be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. 3THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. INC. (GLRCDC) I I i I The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: To purchase deteriorating residential/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. I i To sell renovated structures to low-income Individuals arxJ small disadvantaged entrepreneurs. I To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residential facilities in the area. To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. To contract with and/or sponsor the services'of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4I I I INTRODUCTION i The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. I I The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each communitynetwork member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I 1 I* Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wMing and able to aNocate to the network. I I I i Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford excepi through network participation. f I i For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners in revitalizing Greater Little Rocks inner city communities. 1 To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved in planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. I. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. will 3THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (GLRCDC) I I J The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Reverrue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC Is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: To purchase deteriorating residenfial/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. I To sell renovated structures to low-income individuals and smaM disadvantaged entrepreneurs. I To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residentlal facilities in the area. 1 To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. To contract with and/or sponsor the services of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! i Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community In revitalizing Inner city neighborhoods. The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a knowledgeable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and irtdividuals about the networking concept, The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts and brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: * Get the prospective network members to talk Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. \"Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains\" (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2To plan, promote and conduct youth activities for area youths. To plan, promote and conduct senior citizen activities for area senior citizens. Management Structure To implement the goals of the GLRCDC, a board of directors which reflects the composition of residents within the service area is in place. The board members also bring a wealth of diverse experiences and skills needed to reach the goals of the organization. The GLRCDC is governed by a board of directors, comprised of nine (9) area residents. Each director serves a term of three (3) years. The manner of selection and qualifications of directors is defined arxl controlled by the Bylaws of the Corporation. The directors are nine longtime residents of greater Little Rock who provide knowledge and experience in the areas of consumer credit counseling, real estate, social services and community activities (see Board Profiles, p. D.) They are: I i Foster Strong, President 3514 West 14th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Pam Abrams, Secretary 5109 W. 11th Little Rock, AR 72204 Felix Thompson, Vice President 5902 Timberview Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Charles A. Johnson, Jr., Treasurer 3907 American Manor Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Elissa Gross P. 0. Box 500 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Merle Smith 2810 Arch Little Rock, AR 72206 Frank Baugh 4110 W. 21st Little Rock, AR 72204 Robert Aycock 2405 West 13th, Apt. B Little Rock, AR 72202 James Lawson 41 5 Willow North Little Rock, AR 72114 5Under the leadership of this board, the GLRCDC will implement the goals listed in its Articles of Incorporation. Staffing I The GLRCDC is presently without a paid staff. During 1992, the work activities of the GLRCDC has been conducted by the President, Treasurer, other board members and consultants (architects, engineers, market and financial specialists). I During 1993, the GLRCDC expects to receive grant funding that will enable it to employ an Executive Director, Community Developer, and an Administrative Assistant. Technical services will be contracted to architects, engineers and other specialists when needed. Financial Resources I i- During the second quarter of 1992, the GLRCDC received a Community Incentive Grant from the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in the amount of $7,500. The grant provides board training and organizational development funds for the GLRCDC. A grant application to the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to provide not less than $50,000 for economic development will be prepared during the fourth quarter of 1992. The grant award will enable the CDC to support staff and professional costs in 1993. In August 1992, the organization received a City of Little Rock HOME Program Grant Application and is in the process of completing the grant application. The GLRCDC expects to be designated a CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) by the city and state governments and qualify to access the 15% set-a-side of city and state HOME Program funds. The GLRCDC will seek to obtain not less than $75,000 from Little Rock's allocation of the HOME Program Grant Funds during the fourth quarter of 1 992. The city grant funds will provide the initial target area with housing development funds. In the first or second quarter of 1993, a State HOME Program Application will be submitted to the Arkansas Finance and Development Authority (AFDA) to obtain up to $500,000 of HOME Grant Funds. The 6I state HOME Grant Funds are projected to provide new construction and rehabilitation financing of housing in civil jurisdictions and unincorporated areas outside the city limits of Little Rock and North Little Rock in Pulaski County. GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF SERVICE   The Midtown neighborhood is located in north central Little Rock and is bounded by 1-630 to the north, Elm Street to the west, Roosevelt Road to the south and Missouri Pacific Railroad tracks to the east. Like other older residential neighborhoods, the Midtown area Is experiencing a general decline and a deterioration of existing Infrastructure and private property. This trend toward a general decline is moving westward from the core city and is the most significant overall issue in the entire area. It is influencing both the physical appearance of the neighborhood and the housing stock. The problem of marginal residential has a strong Impact on the entire area, encouraging encroachment from nonresidential uses (see Service Area Map, p. B, Appendix). - The primary goal of the neighborhood and Its residents should be to preserve and strengthen the residential character of the Midtown neighborhood. A stronger effort must be made by both the city and the residents to help make this goal a reality and reverse the existing decline. ( i ! i The quality of life, including social aspects, is also negatively impacted by the physical deterioration of the neighborhood. The basic neighborhood structure could be greatly improved by the addition of amenities such as sidewalks, community spaces and recreational facilities. Preserving the existing housing stock and constructing new quality housing is critical to the existence of the Midtown area. Three sub-areas within the Midtown region are experiencing unique housing problems will require location specific strategies to achieve the network's housing goals. Housing One of the more serious problems affecting the Midtown area is the rapid deterioration of the existing housing stock. The substandard conditions are having an effect on the physical appearance of the area, and in some instances, the livability of certain neighborhoods within the 7Midtown area. This problem is rapidly increasing and must be abated. Reversing the trend of deteriorating housing is critical to the future of the neighborhood. Programs, such as Code Enforcement and Housing Rehabilitation, are needed to begin the process of improving the neighborhood's housing. Strong housing strategies and programs are needed to ensure a high percentage of home ownership. Home ownership is vital to maintaining stable residential neighborhoods, as a shift to a great number of rental units will continue to add to the deterioration of the housing. Owner occupied units will help strengthen the single family residences as the neighborhood's primary land use. I i f I I. I 1 There are three pockets of substandard housing\ntwo are small subareas but one is of significant size (see Area Analysis Map, p. C, Appendix). These areas should-be identified as priorities for any home Improvement programs that ard initiated in the neighborhood. Some type of visible upgrading in these areas should have a positive effect on surrounding areas and, in turn, the entire neighborhood. The residents of the Midtown area must be made aware that it is possible to upgrade a neighborhood through improved housing conditions. The core of the area offers a good starting point. INITIAL TARGET AREA The GLRCDC plans to initiate revitalization activities in a four square block area beginning on the north boundary of Stephens Elementary School. This enclave is experiencing security problems and physical deterioration. Some of the problems are\ngang violence, a disfunctional street system, substandard housing, poor drainage, and vacant lots. Immediate attention given to this area should be an incentive to residents of surrounding neighborhoods to believe that Midtown is of value and should be saved. 8COMMUNITY OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME I I Recognizing the need for \"bottom up planning\" (community involvement) and implementation of community development activities, the Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation conducted a community needs assessments workshop in August, 1992. The results were used to formulate a development plan for the initial target area. The needs assessment categorized the problems of the area as follows: Critical Problems: Important Problems: Significant Problems: Crime, (especially illegal drugs). Senior Citizens fear of criminals, lack of effective Police Protection, Community Apathy\nI Code Enforcement for Housing and Vacant Lots, Absentee Landlords, Infrastructure Improvements (Streets,curbs,sidewalks, drainage systems)\n) Lack of safe and convenient recreational facilities, possible lack of adequate fire protection\nOrganization Obstacles The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation is without a proven track record, therefore it must obtain resourceful and dynamic leadership that can embark on a mission of addressing basic community needs in the service area. The GLRCDC must prove that things can be done and build pride and commitment among area residents. The initial objective of the Greater Little Rock CDC is to successfully undertake the physical revitalization of the Stephen's School neighborhood and reclaim the streets from crime and economic rot. The GLRCDC has identified the following barriers to organization goal attainment: Limited Financial Resources Lack of Professional Staff 9Limited Board Training Lack of Housing Development Experience ACTIONS TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES I Organization Actions A successful Community Development Corporation must build a cooperative partnership among the for-profit sector (financial institutions are of special importance), the public sector (local as well as state government), and the non-profit sector (foundations and other 501 (3)(c) corporations). The GLRCDC will play a catalytic role to build and strengthen its working relationship among these cooperative partners. I Network Actions The identification and recruitment of a respected and trusted network coordinator is crucial to the successful formation of the Community Cooperative Network. The individual or organization must be willing and capable of dispelling mistrust, and apathy among the prospective network members and the area residents. Although Little Rock does not elect its city board of directors by wards. City Board Member John Lewellen has been very active and concerned about inner city issues. He has the political status to bridge the gaps that separate organizations and individuals in their common quest. The GLRCDC will seek to secure the services of Mr. Lewellen as network coordinator. Coalition Building Despite a vast array of government and private programs designed to find solutions and deliver services to low income residents, no single entity has been able to revitalize low income neighborhoods. To overcome the barriers to revitalization of low income neighborhoods, a cooperative effort between the private and public sectors is needed to implement effective projects. 10Community Cooperative Network Members 1 The key participants in the revitalization process are the residents of the targeted areas. A practical approach to empowering low income residents is to give them the opportunity to determine what their communities need, and enable them to share in the task required to successfully implement the project. I i I The development plan for the targeted area requires a cooperative effort among the following entities\nCommunity Residents Area Churches City of Little Rock (Police Deptartment, Fire Department, Housing Authority, Code Enforcement, and Neighborhoods and Planning) Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Worthen National Bank Community Organization for Poverity Elimination (COPE) Senior Citizens Activities Today (SCAT) New Futures for Little Rock Youth Watershed Cornerstone Project Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) GYST House Urban League of Arkansas Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light Company Arkla Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Community Cooperative Network Objectives The implementation process for the target area has been developed by defining the project's objectives, including those related to the project's financial costs to the GLRCDC. The objectives were identified as follows: Objective 1 Objective 2 Implement crime prevention activities\nProvide safe recreational activities and social services for youth\n11Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Provide social services and activities for senior citizens\nIncrease code enforcement\nDevelop safe, decent and affordable housing. Next, the objectives were distributed among the network members and a narrative describing how each would be obtained. I In addition to the list of objectives and network members' areas of responsibility, the implementation process has been developed according to the implementation time frames of the objectives and events planned to overcome barriers to development. I A Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) (Syyed T. Mahmood and Amit K. Ghosh, 1979, part IV, p. 3) has been developed to provide the network members with objectives, task responsibilities, and time frames for the start and completion of each objective. I OBJECTIVE FRAME NETWORK PARTICIPANTS TIME #1 Community Residents City Churches Little Rock Police Department GYST House The Other Way 1993-1994 #4 #5 Community Residents New Futures Watershed Cornerstone (Summer) 1993-1994 COPE, SCAT Central Arkansas Agency on Aging Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning GLRCDC 12 1993-1994 1993-1994 1993-1995 #2 ^2Urban League (Home Owner Training) Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning HUD COPE (Weatherization Program) Local Banks Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light (Entergy) ARKLA Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Actions To Accomplish Network Objectives ( . |. ... I The cooperative network will conduct a marketing campaign to gain attention and arouse interest in the revitalization of the service area. Brochures and letters explaining social service availability, housing opportunities and information about the purpose and services of the network will be mailed to residents of the service area. The network will attract and motivate area residents to care about and work to address the neighborhood's problems and inform them about the market advantages of the Midtown area (proximity to the interstate, shopping malls, ' downtown and affordable homes). Objective I: Crime Prevention The Stephens School area has recently experienced gang related activities. The primary gang in the area is the \"Oak Street Posse\". A cooperative effort between the Little Rock Police, the GLRCDC and neighborhood activists will help to rid the area of drug activity. Other non-profit organizations are necessary to address the drug education and rehabilitation needs of area residents. Initial program activities for this area will be to request that the city provide street lights on high crime streets, increase police presence and assist neighborhood residents in forming crime watch and reporting groups. To decrease crime and gang activity, the network will implement a crime prevention program. The Little Rock Police Department is the designated network crime coordinator. A youth task force will be formed 13 to develop youth programs for the area. The goal of the task force is to work through the city's young people to check the tide of crime and gang activities and to channel this energy to useful purposes. I The networks' Drug Intervention Program will implement drug education training activities targeted to adults and youth in the service area. EducationaJ activities will focus on providing literature and referrals i for drug counseling and treatment. The network will maintain a list of rehabilitation or treatment organizations which provide counseling and rehabilitative programs. The list will contain the following information: 1 Name, address, and phone number of the organization. Types of services provided. Hours of operation, including emergency hours. The contact person's name and phone rximbers. I Fee structure, including insurance coverage. I The drug intervention youth activities will include providing drug free social activities, and community work activities. Weekend social functions will be provided that are properly supervised by adults and security personnel for youths up to 18 years of age. Community work activities such as the Self-Help Paint Program, vacant lot cleaning, and yard maintenance activities will provide minimum wage earning opportunities for service area youth. Adult drug education and training activities will focus on training them to recognize symptoms of drug use and provide intervention training to combat the use and sale of drugs in their neighborhoods. In cooperation with the Little Rock Police Department, GYST House, the Arkansas Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Division and other drug and crime prevention programs in the community, training materials, training facilitators and training activities such as a Drug Awareness Week will be implemented. Priority drug intervention activities will be implemented in the Oak Street area and education and training activities will be conducted at Stephens school. 14Objective 11: Safe Youth Recreation and Social Activities During the summer months, there is little for the youth to do. The lack of excitement, zest, thrills, fun, and challenges have created a dull routine life that has fostered the increased involvement of youth in criminal and other socially undesirable activities. I The cooperative network will begin planning youth activities in the first quarter of 1993. New Futures will be asked to serve as youth activities coordinator. The network will implement educational, recreational and work activities for service area youth. I I I Educational activities will include career exploration and tutorial assistance for summer school youth. Recreational activities will include supervised and organized sports activities such as bowling, skating, swimming, softball and other sports-in which male and female youth can jointly participate. The disadvantaged youth in the service area win be provided work opportunities through the city's Job Partnership Training Program. Some work activities will take place in the service area with youth supporting the network's vacant lot enforcement activities. Emphasis will be placed on recruiting parents and other adults in the service area to participate as mentors, supervisors and other program support roles. Objective III: Senior Citizen Social Service Activities The explosive growth in the older population deserves our special attention. For older residents to maintain independent lifestyles, the network will have to develop a variety of housing alternatives and support systems that address the social needs and health limitations of this group. Many older residents live alone and may suffer from chronic and disabling diseases. The housing and support system needs of these mostly widowed, largely female, often frail elderly are of major concern for the network. Many of their homes are large enough to house a four or five member family, making shared housing a viable alternative that helps residents share expenses while providing them with companionship. Unused space can be converted to accessory apartments which permit the sharing of a house without requiring the merger of two nuclear families. 15For our older residents to retain their independent living status, however, a mix of transportation, social, nutrition, and health services to accompany housing programs is necessary. t Central Arkansas Agency on Aging will be asked to serve as senior citizens activity coordinator. The senior citizens network will plan and implement transportation services to aid older residents with access to supportive services and nutrition programs that provide them with at least one hot meal, frozen, or supplemental meal (with a satisfactory storage life) at least five days during the week. I i The network will provide health education, recreation, and referral services for health and recreational activities. The network will encourage and assist older residents to use the services available to them. ( Objective IV: Code Enforcement Fair Hoosing and Code Enforcement Many of the vacant lots, abandoned and boarded houses are owned by absentee landlords. Priority code enforcement will be directed toward the cleaning of vacant lots and the abandoned and boarded houses in the service area. I The GLRCDC is the designated code enforcement network coordinator and will identify vacant lots that need trash removal and grass cutting. A list of these properties will be compiled, their code deficiencies specified and the list will be presented to the Code Enforcement Department of the city. The city will provide the owners with a formal notice of the code violations and a deadline to make the needed corrections. If the corrections are not made within the specified time, the city or its designated agent will make the corrections and invoice the owner for the services. The network coordinator will also identify abandoned or boarded property in the service area. The network coordinator will request that the city inspect the properties for code violations and provide owners with a formal notification of the code deficiencies. If the owner is low income, elderly, handicapped or disabled, the program counselor will seek assistance from the city to bring the property within code. Other code violators who are unable or unwilling to make needed repairs will be asked to donate the property to the program for removal or repairs. 16Objective V: Safe, Decent, Affordable Housing A Homeowner Training Program is projected to begin during the second quarter of 1993. The Urban League of Arkansas is the designated network homeowner training coordinator for the activity. The training is projected to provide not less than 1 5 participants during the first year. I k ( f I The program will provide participants with credit counseling similar to the loan origination by a rnortgage company. The counseling will analyze a participant's sources of income and liabilities to establish whether the client's financial status is adequate to support the desired loan. A credit report on each participant will be obtained at a cost of five dollars per person. If the participant has credit problems, the program workers will assist the participant toward establishing good credit, writing letters of explanations and/or structuring payment plans. If the income of the participant is inadequate, the program workers will assist the participant in locating a more affordable house. The program will also provide pre-qualification services for people who have not selected a house, but want to know how much they can afford and if they will have problems at the bank. The program will assist participants with completing finance application documents, provide each participant with a bank referral letter and educate clients on the merits of using checking accounts. Housing Development The network will initially concentrate its rehabilitation and housing development efforts in the area bordering Stephens School. The GLRCDC is the designated network housing development coordinator. The area is experiencing a high percentage of deteriorating housing units. The structural conditions are deteriorating faster than other parts of the service area. The network will identify a four square block area adjoining the north boundary of Stephens School within the area, and seek to obtain the cooperation of block home owners. The network will seek to h\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_1172","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["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--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1172"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["121 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nMagnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director June 1, 1994 1900 North Main Street Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: (501) 758-0156 JUN 2 9 1994 The Magnet Review Committee has revised its letter transmitting the 1994-95 interdistrict magnet schools budget, due to the inclusion of additonal information which is necessary to explain changes in the budget. At its May 24, 1994 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1994-95 school year (Draft 2). The total amount budgeted, $14,952,534, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,901 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,833 students. In addition, a basic step or incremental increase in staff salaries and associated fringe benefits, as well as the effects of early retirement incentives, were factored in. On May 17, 1994, Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District, came before the Magnet Review Committee with a presentation of Draft 1 of the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1994-95 school year. He explained the cost calculations to the Magnet Review Committee, and made any corrections that were deemed necessary. At this same meeting, each of the interdistrict magnet school principals (with the exception of the Gibbs principal) provided information with regard to their school's proposed budget and answered questions from the Magnet Review Committee members. After this meeting, the Magnet Review Committee representatives presented the proposed budget information to their parties in order to be prepared to vote on it at the May 24, 1994 Magnet Review Committee meeting. As noted above, the Magnet Review Committee did approve the budget at the meeting of May 24, 1994 (Draft 2 which contained any The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 1, 1994 corrections from Draft 1). This approved budget represents an increase of 2.04%, or $78.00 per student. Factors which may require a further adjustment in the interdistrict magnet school program budget for the 1994-95 school year include the following: 1) The Professional Negotiated Agreement (PNA) between Little Rock School District CTA and the Little Rock School District Board is in the renegotiation process, which may impact projected salary figures\n2) The State's contribution to employees' health insurance funding is not yet determined. When this information is forthcoming, revisionsmay be necessary to the figures represented in this budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. A comparison of the approved magnet school budget for the 1993-94 school year, and the 1994-95 budget, indicates revised FTE numbers for personnel in the 1993-94 school year. LRSD's Support Services Office counted bodies for the 1993-94 school year, rather than actual FTE's. Careful study was given to the 1994-95 budget submission to accurately delineate the FTE's for each staff area, which include Media Specialists, Special Education, Gifted, Classroom, Secretaries, Nurses, Custodians and Other-Aides. Also, a line item cost for Stipends at Williams Magnet merits further explanation. An addendum to explain this change is attached. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1994-95 interdistrict magnet schools budget attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools .. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget in an The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -3- June 1, 1994 effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, fr~4b\nf~, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachments: 1994-95 Interdistrict Magnet School Budget (Approved Draft 2) Staff In-Service Plan, Williams Magnet cc: Attorneys of Record Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Gene Wilhoit, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Henry Williams, Little Rock School District Magnet Review Committee STAFF IN-Sl-:H.V!Cl!: PLAN WILLIAJ\\1S MAGNET SCHOOL 1994-95 Five in-service sessions have been planned for the William's Magnet School StafT for the 1994-95 school year. Two of these sessions center around the effective and efficient use of the computers that have been purchased for use within the school\ntwo sessions emphasize the propcr use of the newly adoplcd rc:iding se1ics\nand one session focuses on the analysis of Slanfor\u0026lt;l-8 lc.\nsl\nand the formulation of proper goals addressing areas of concern. A tentative plan for the in-service hours and the objectives to be reached is summarized bdow: FIRST SEMESTER IN-SERVICE: 1. Basic Computer Literacy: Objective: This in-service will be a practical work session to train a.II certilied staff on the proper use of the lBM Computers. (Six IBM Computers have been purchased ,for the 1994-9 5 school year, three were purchased for the 1993-94 school year, and three were purchased for the 1992-93 school year.) Staff members will !cam the basic DOS commands, how to format and copy disks, basic troubleshooting techniques, appropriate use of the printers,and will preview appropriate software for their particular grade level. Fall of 1994 In-service hours required: 3-6 40 participants@ $54.03/person Total cost: $2,161.20 2. Reading Te::\\.i.book In-Service: Objective: The staff will become familiar with the Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich Reading Series that has been adopted for the 1994-95 school year. Sample lessons will be demonstrated featuring whole group and small group techniques. Teachers will be presented a model lesson plan designed specifically for the new reading series and will be given the opportunity to construct model pl.ans for each grade level (This was done for the previous reading series and was a specific request for any new adoption.) Fall of 1994 In-service hours required: 3-6 40 participants@ $54.03/pcrson Total cost: $2,161.20 3 . .Standardized Testing: Objective: Staff will review standardized test results for 1993-94. Results will be analyzed and graphed outlining areas of concern. Individual plans will be developed to address any weak areas. Goal sheets will be developed during this session. Fall of 1994 SECOND SEMESTER I -SERVICE: In-service hours required: 3-6 25 persons@ $54.03/pcrson Total Cost: S 1,350.75 4. Additional Computer Training A. An Introduction to Computer Networking: Objective: Cuniculum specialists will present to staff members the research regarding computer networking within the classroom. An overview of the networking will be presented along with effective nel\\-vorking techniques within the classroom. A long-range plan for networking will also be d.iscus!\ned. -. In-service hours required: 1.5-3.0 B. Introduction to the Computerized Card Catalogue System: Objective: Staff will become proficient in using the newly purchased computer and card catalogue system for the media center. The media director will explain the correct and proper use of the system so that classroom teachers may use the system to assist in procuring teaching materials and will explain ways to assist students in the use of the new equipment. In-service hours required: 1.5-3.0 Total hours required: 3-G 40 participants@ $54.03,person Total Cost: $2,161.20 5. Reading Basal In-Service II: Objective: Particip:mts will review the appropriate use of using the basal reader. In addition, strategies for teaching remedial and enriched classes will be discussed. Teachers ,vill also be asked to identify important Stanford-8 skills taught in the basal reading program. Total Cost: $9,995.55 In-service hours rcq uircd: 3-6 40 participants@ $54.03/pcrson Total Cost: $2,161.20 TO: FROM: THROUGH: RE: _Little Rock School District E May 23, 1994 MAY 2 5 1994 Office of Deseg,ogat1or. o,utor:ng Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee ~ark D. Milhollen, Manager, Sup_port Services ~s, .~ Proposed 1994-95 Attached for your review is draft 2 of the proposed budget for the 1994-95 school year for the six origi~al magnet schools. This document incorporates information known through May 23, 1994, including adjustments for fourteen (14) teachers who have applied for the early retirement incentive. The Draft 2 Budget is based on a projected three-quarter average ADM of 3,833 and a new contribution rate of $3,901.00 per ADM. The new rate represents a per pupil increase of $78.00 or 2.04%. I will be available for discussion at the May 24, 1994, regular meeting. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501)3743361 1~94-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9: 1992-9' 1993-9~ 1994-9 SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS F.T,E, Actual F.T.E . . Actual F.T.E. Budget F.T.E Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 6.0 $370,669 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 10.0 $478,891 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 39.2 $1,290,162 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 12.4 $457,554 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $218,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 6.5 $238.592 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 0.0 $0 I 07 Music 0.0 _ _.::.::...J $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so . 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 12.6 $483,414 10 Special Education 7.8 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 7.7 $285,726 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 5.4 $191,740 12 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 175.9 S5,816,001 13 Substitutes 0.0 $153.813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 14.0 $457,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 294.5 $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,955,822 289.7\n$10,225, 141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $353,310 19.0 S335,238  STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 5.4 S159,150 17 Custocians 28.5 $346,330 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $372,625 28.5 S375,432 --- 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.0  $157,639 6.0 S139,163 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0' $311,683 37.0 $292.027 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxx:x. $1,254,324 xxxxxx:x. $1,366,607 .lOOOOOO( $1,342,873 XXXlOOO( S1 ,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 95.9 S2,684 ,040 TOTAL (10-20) XlOOOOOC $12,004,096 XlOOOOOC $11,883,532 XlOOOOOC $12,648,376 XXlOOOOC S12,9Q9,181 1 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx: $601,780 XXlOOOO{ $507,373 XXJOOOO{ $598,926 xxxxxxx S619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx XXlOOOO{ $33,980 XlOOOOO( $36,215 xx:xxxxx $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOOC lOOOOOOC lOOOOOOC xxxxxxx 25 Other lOOOOOOC $166,508 JOOOOOO: $92,772 lOOOOOO( $94,428 xxxxxxx $74,250 TOTAL (30) )000000( $768,288 )000000( $634,125 lOOOOOO( $729,569 xxxxxxx S727,223 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office XJOOOCXX XXlOOOOC XJOOOCXX .xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXlOOOOC $343,433 XlOOOOOC $309,128 XJOOOCXX $315,284 XlOOOOO( s202,337 I (40) 28 Media XXlOOOOC $56,509 XlOOOOOC $53,842 XlOOOOO( $54,884 XXlOOOO{ $57,242 I 29 Other XXlOOOO( xxxxxxx: $11,647 XXJOOOO{ $11,856 XXXXlOO( $19,510 TOTAL (40) XXlOOOO{ $399,942 XXJOOOO{ $374,617 XXJOOOO{ $382,024 XXXXlOO( $379,089 I CAPITAL 30 Equipment lOOOOOOC $111,824 lOOOOOOC $106,283 lOOOOOOC $104,215 lOOOOO()( $93,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair. etc. JOOOOOO: JOOOOOO: :ooooocx xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other )000000( XXXlOOO(. lOOOOOO( XXXXJOO( TOTAL (50) .lOOOOOO( $111,824 XlOOOOOC $106,283 XlOOOOO( $104,215 XXXXJOO( $93,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XlOOOOO( $8,358 XlOOOOOC $12,416 )000000( $12,665 xxxxxxx $15,655 (60) 34 Other XlOOOOOC )()00000( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxxx $8,358 XXlOOOO{ $12,416 xxxxxxx $12,665 xx:xxxxx $15,655 TOTAL (30-60) XXlOOOO{ $1,288,412 XlOOOOO( $1,127,441 XXJOOOO{ $1,228,473 xxxxx:xx S1,215,613 TOTAL (10-60) 390.9 $13,292,508 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 $13,876,849 385.6 lS14,124,794 I TOTAL LINE ITE\nMS - (SECOND PAGE) JOOOOOO: $595,333 JOOOOOO: $537,465 lOOOOOO( $677,821 xxxxxxx ~927,741 GRANDTOTAL lOOOOOOC $13,887,841 lOOOOOOC $13,548,434 x:x:xxxxx $14,554,670 lOOOOOOC $14,952,534 Line ltem _Costs ::= .,. . ., . /  ., ... ./\" ''\"'\"\"'\"' 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $19,871 $20,739 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $716,116 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx )()()()0()( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $677,821 $827,741 Per PupH.Cast 1991-92 1992-93 '1993-94 '1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3679.6 3807.0 3833.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $14,952,534 Per Pupil Cost $3,662 ,,,,, \\, .t. $3,662 $3,826 $3,901 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draf\\ 2) 1991-9 Actual 1992-9~ Actual 1993-9 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted BOOker Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T,E. Salaries f.T.E. Salarles F.T.E. Salades CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 1.0 $55,764 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 1.0 $52,103 03 Specialists 6.0 $350,341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 7.0 $254,900 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 2.0 S:35,200 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 1.0 $37,836 061 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31.2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 30.2 jJ,879 1 O Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 1.3 $64,015 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 121 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 4.0 $123,234 I TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 48.5 $1,673,807 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 2.0 U1,932 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 1.0 $28,104 17 Custodians 4.0 $44,176 4.0 $42,176 4.0 $47,081 4.0 $52,400 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $64,657 7.0 $75,718 7.0 : j2,731 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $201,247 xxxxxxx $225,867 xxxxxxx $215,438 )0()0()00( $222,697 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.0 $373,998 15.0 $388,766 14.0 $396,712 14.0 $397,864 TOTAL (10-20) :ooooocx $1,890,430 :ooooocx $1,942,422 :ooooocx $2,006,780 :ooooocx $2,071,671 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XJOOOOC( $81,637 .lOOOOOO( $71,492 .lOOOOOO( $87,854 xxxxxxx $84,115 SERVICES 23 Travel XJOOOOOC XJOOOOOC $4,654 JOOOOOCX $5,000 xxxxxxx. $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XXlOOOOC XXlOOOOC XXlOOOOC :x:xxxxxx 25 Other lOOOOOOC $27,963 XXlOOOO{ $4,895 lOOOOOOC $4,800 lOOOOOOC ~ TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $109,600 JOOOOOOC $81,041 xxxxxxx $97,654 xx:xxxxx: S.il8,615 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx )OOQ()(X){ xxxxxxx xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom lOOOO()()( $53,613 lOOOO()()( $37,774 lOOOO()()( $38,500 :ooooocx $34,900 (40) 28 Media :ooooocx $4,698 :ooooocx $4,743 lOOOOuO( $4,800 lOOOOOO( $4,800 29 Other .lOOOOOCX JOOOOOCX $1,255 .lOOOOOCX $1,255 lOOOOOO( $1,255 TOTAL (40) .lOOOOOO( $58,311 XlOOOOOC $43,772 xx:xxxxx $44,555 JOOOOOCX .Z40,955 CAPITAL 30, Equipment XXlOOOO( $6,377 XXlOOOO( $10,090 XXlOOOO( $6,100 XlOOOOOC $6,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. XlOOOOO( XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx lOOOOOOC (50) 32 Other )OOQ()(X){ JOOOOOOC xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $6,377 xxxxxxx $10,090 )000000( $6,100 xxxxxxx $6,000 OTHER 331 Dues and Fees :ooooocx lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx (60) 341Other lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) lOOOOOO( JOOOOOCX JOOOOOCX lOOOOOO( - TOTAL (30-60) lOOOOOO( $174,288 JOOOOOCX $134,903 lOOOOOO( $148,309 XlOOOCXX $145,570 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,064,717 62.9 $2,077,325 62.5 $2,155,089 , 62.5  $2,217,241 TOTAL LINE lllEMS- (SECOND PAGE) lOOOOOOC $88,028 xxxxxxx $75,446 xxxxxxx $99,518\nXXXXXXX $122,300 GRAND TOTAL XlOOOOO( $2,152,746 XlOOOOO( $2,152,771 xxxxxxx $2,254,707 XXlClOOOC $2,339,540 Una Item Costs ..' (/ .,,.. -,... \"' !!: 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 $118,637 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 $668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $88,028 $75,446 $99,618 $122,300 Par Pupil Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,771 $2,254,707 $2,339,540 Per Pupil Cost $3,422 . $3,562  $3,55'1 $3,684 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9, Actual 1992-92 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted Carver Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 1.0 $59,423 1.0 $60,587 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 1.0 S42,422 I 1.0 $43,417 03 Specialisls 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 8.0 $236,265 8.0 $251,547 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 2.0 $60,101 2.0 $62.791 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $42,474 1.5 $43,532 1.5 $46,074 1.5 S4J,443 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 24.3 $690,189 24.3 S674,007 10 Special Education 1.0 $27,907 1.0 $30,734 1.0 I $32,460 , 1.0 2 ::\n, 305 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 1.4 S34,246 I 1.4 $48,954 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 S17,150 S17,150 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 4.0 $117,132 4.0 $120,344 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.5 S1 ,183,059 41.1 $1,164,768 44.2 S1 ,335,462 44.2, S1 ,361,045 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 3.0 $67,824 3.0 $54,572 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 1.0 $31,250 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 4.0 $42,645 4.0 $42,467 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other I 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $71,921 11.0  $76,016 I 11.0 $91,426 - 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOOO( $167,825 xxxxx:xx $190,533 'JOOOOOO(' $192,561 xxxxxxx S.:.~J, 173 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 19.0 $410,297 I 19.0 i $423,997 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,553,693 xxxxxxx S1 ,557,097 xxxx:xxx $1,745,758 xxxxxxx S1 .785,042 PURCHASEC 22! Utilities xxxxxxx $68,924 'xxxxxxx $53,586 .xxxxxxx $69,730 1xxxxxxx S75,965 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxx: XlOOOOO( $12,253 .lOOOOOO( $12,500 )OOO(JQ(){ S9,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements .xxxxxxx XXXXlCXX xxxxxxxl xxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxx $22,843 xxxxxxx $9,911 xxxxxxx $10,100 xxxxxxx $10,700 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $91,767 )0000()0( $75,750 xxxxxxx $92,330 :xxxxxxx S95,665 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx XlOOOOO( 'XXXXXXX :xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 271 Regular Classroom :000000: SSS,638 XXXlOOO( $52,759 xxxxxxx S53,814 1XXXXXXX $63,330 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $11,410 lOOOOOO( $13,271 xxxxx:xx $13,536 xxxxxxx S11,500 29 Other lOOOOOC( lOOOOOC( $2,593 xxxxxxx $2,645 lxxxxxxx $3,500 TOTAL (40) .lOOOOOO( $67,048 .lOOOOOO( $68,623 ,.xxxxxxx $69,995 .xxxxxxx S7c.l. 330 -- CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXXXlCXX $22,128 IXXXXXXX $27,894 xxxxxxx $28,450 xxxxx:xx ~ .:l,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx lxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (50) 32IOther xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 'JOOOOOO( IXXXXXXX TOTAL (SO) 'JOOOOOO( $22,128 'JOOOOOO( $27,894 'JOOOOOO( $28,450 xxxxxxx S19,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ' lOOOOOO( $2,857 XXXlOOO( $3,908 lOOOOOO( $3,985 lOOOOOOC $3,000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx lOOOOOO( xx:xxxxx 'XXXXXXX TOTAL (60) 'xxxxxxx $2,857 xx.xxxxx. $3,908 1XX:XXXXX $3,985 :xxxxxxx $3,000 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $183,800 XXXlOOO( S176,174 lxxxxxxx S194,760 xxxxxxx $195,995 TOTAL (10-60) 61.5 $1,737,493 60.1 $1,733,271 63.2 $1,940,518 63.2 $1,981~ TOTAL LINE lliEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxxx $84,978 xxxxxxx: $86,058 xxxxxxx $107,945 iXXXXXXX S131,114 I GRAND TOTAL XlOOOOCX $1,822,471 XlOOOOCX $1,819,329 XlOOOOCX $2,048,463 xxxxxxx $2,112,151 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 $114,527 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 $82 Science English $380 (S329) $239 $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $84,978 $86,058 $107,945 $131,114 Per PupiLCost  :::: 199-1-92  1992-93  1993~94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.0 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 $2,112,151 Per Pupil Cost ~- .\n,. !.. .,  $3,036 $3,092 $3,386- $3\n446'. 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Dralt 2) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-!r.: Actual 11993-94 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted Gibbs Magnet School / :\n:\n: F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E . . Salaries IF.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. .,. Salaries ,., CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 ss6,s1s I 1.0 $59,234 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 I 1.0 $45,000 1.0 $39,965 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 s160,752 I 5.8 $158,107 5.8 $162,699 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 I 1.0 $40,670 . 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 I 1.0 $38,433 1.0 $:i9,257 06 Art-Perf./Prod. I 07 Music I I 08 Foreign Lang. I 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 I 15.0 $507,851 I 15.0 $466,921 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 I 1.5 - ::5,896 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 1.0 $34,246 12 Chapter 1 I 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 2.0 $59,580 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $961,411 31.3 $985,841 29.3 $1,007,242 29.3 $972,468 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 1.4 $2~ STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 s11,304 I 0.8 $11,530 , 0.8 $\n2,446 171 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $33.776 I 3.0 $39,012 I 3.0, $39,803 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 I I 19 Paraprofessionals-Other I 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 5.6 $33,799 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOO(X $129,439 xxxxxxx $141,032 xxxxxxx $136,618 XlOCOOO( s ..:4,836 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11.8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 10.8 $243,497 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,204,513 IXXXXXX:X $1,226,435 XlOOOOOC $1,254,041 xxxxxxx $1,215,965 PURCHASE[ 22 Utilities .lOOOOOO( $35,102 XlOOOOOC $26,879 i.lOOOOOO( $38,531 'XXXXXXX $41,385 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx $2,066 'XXXXXXX $3,407 xxxxxxx $3,407 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx xxxxxxx XXXXXXX !xxxxxxx 25 Other XXlOOOO( $11,464 xxxxxxx $7,309 xxxxxxx $7,455 xxxxxxx $4,000 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $46,566 xxxxxxx $36,254 ixxxxxxx $49,393 xxxxxxx $48,792 1 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc,pal's Office xxxxxxx xxxxxxx IXXXXXXX ' JOOOOOO( SUPPLIES 27 1 Regular Classroom )0000()()( $25,426 XlOOOOO\u0026lt; S23,54  l:ooooooc $24,012 xxxxxxx $25,068\" (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $6,241 xxxxxx:x $6,489 i)CX:XXXXX $6,620 xxxxxxx $6,600 29/Other xxxxxxx: xxxxxx:x $1,0' 6 'XXXXXXX. $1,036 lxxxxxx:x S2,455 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx: $31,667 IXXXXXXX $31,046 xxxxxxx $31,668 :xxx:xxxx $31\\ 123 -- CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxx:xx $3,968 xxxxxxx $2,594 . xxxxxxx $2,646 )OOOOCXX -2,646 OUTLAY 31 i Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx x:xxxxxx . xxxxxxx IXXXXXXX (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx XlOOOOO( ,XXXXXXX xx:xxxxx TOTAL (SO) xxxxxxx $3,968 xxxxxxx $2,594 XXXXXXX $2,646 ixxxxxxx S2,646 OTHER i331 Dues and Fees )0000()()( XlOOOOO\u0026lt; $1,132 ,xxxxxxx $1 , 155 lOOOOOCX s1,15s I (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx txxxxxx:x IXXXXXXX TOTAL (60) xxxxxx:x $0 xxxxxx:x $1,132 !xxxxxxx $1,155 xxxxxx:x $1,155 TOTAL (30-60) XJOOOOO( $82,202 x:xxxxxx $71,025 lxxxxxxx $84,862 XXXXXXX $\"6-,716 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 43.1 $1,297,460 I 40.1 $1,338,903 40.1 $1,302,681 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $48,935 xxxxxx:x $41 ,553 xx:xxxxx 551,892 lxx:xxxxx $63,184 GRAND TOTAL XlOOOOO( $1,335,649 XlOOOOO( $1,339,013 IXXXXXXX $1,390,795 xxxxxxx $1,365,865 iHf\nl! r~~~ ,. ... ,,,: .. }\\.\\L.  \"'''' lo-\u0026lt; \u0026gt; ., , .. \\.,. ..... \u0026lt; (} 1991-92 1992-93 I 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 $61,280 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1,305 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 $129 Special Education $360 $187 $348 $348 )0()()()()( )0()()()()( )0()()()()( xxxxxx Total Line Items $48,935 $41,553 $51,892 $63,184 Per Pupil Cost 199i,-92 1992-93- 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 328.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 $1,365,865 PerPupH Cost _::,. $3,933 $4,070 $4,21 .4 $4,164 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2)\" 1991-9 Actual 1992-9' Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted MANN Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 1.0 $64,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $143,289 3.0 $148,979 3.0 $150,013 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 3.6 $129,650 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 s109,509 I 3.0 $111,241 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41,729 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Pert./Prod. 07 Music I 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.o I $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 I S208,475 I 5.6 $214,772 10 Special Education 1.3 I $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 1.3 I $49,958 I 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 46.8 $1,514,011 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 $36,135 14 Other - TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 : 65.3 $2,311,765 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 4.0 $65,214 4.0\n$67,206 4.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 , 6.0 $71,195 6.0 S69,490 I 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 I I 19, Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 S21,650 1.0 S22,947 1.0 i $25,656 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $46,693 2.4 $37,142 2.4: $35,982 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $275,853 xxxxxxx $292,062 .lOOOOO(X S296,293 xxxxxxx $298,108 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 15.5 $525,462 14.4 $526,829 14.4 $528,801 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $2,697,653 xxxxxxx $2,584,578 XlOOOOO( S2,805,067 xxxxx:xx $2,840,566 PURCHASED 22: Utilities xxxxxxx $164,666 XlOOCOOC $137,280 XlOOOCJO( $168,667 XXlOOOOC $177,221 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx: $11,214 xxxxxx:x $11,438 JOOOOOO( S10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOCX lOOOOOO( lOOOOOCX xxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxx $48,887 x:xxxxxx $35,464 xxxxxxx $36,175 xxxxxxx $27,300 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxxx $213,554 xx:xxxxx $183,959 .lOOOOOCX. S216,280 xx:xxxxx $214,521 MATERIALS, 261Principal's Office xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx lxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXlOOCXX $76,512 xxxxxxx $63,984 XXlOOOO( $65,265 XXlOOOOC $49,168 (40) 28 Media XXXXlOOC $10,301 xxxxxxx $9,352 xxxxxxx $9,540 lxxxxxxx .$15,700 291Other XXlOOOOC xxxxxxx: $2,172 XJOOOOO( $2,215 XXlOOOOC $4,000 TOTAL (40) XlOOOOO( $86,813 )000000( $75,508 XlOOOOO( $77,020 IXlOOCXXX $68,868 CAPITAL 30 Equipment I lOOOOOCX $26,417 lOOCOOO( $17,579 lOOCOOO( $17,930 IXXXXXXX $27,300 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. lxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx lOOOOCXX (50) 321Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx. xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) l.xxxxxxx $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 xxxxxxx $27,300 OTHER 331 Dues and Fees JOOOOOO( $1,470 XXXXlOO( $1,377 XXXXlOO( $1,405 xxxxxxx $4,500 (60) 34 Other :xxxxxxx xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) :xxxxxxx $1,470 XlOOOOO( $1,377 XlOOOOCX $1,405 XXXXlOO( $4,500 TOTAL (30-60) XlOOOOCX $328,253 XlOOOOO( $278,422 xxxxxxx $312,635 xxxxxxx $315,189 TOTAL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 79.8 $2,863,000 79.7 $3,117,702 79.7 $3,155,755 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) lOOOOCXX $143,218 x:xxxxxx $137,573 lOOOOCXX S172,083 xxxxxxx $205,272 GRANDTOTAL xxxxxxx. $3,169,124 xxxxxxx $3,000,573 xxxxxxx $3,289,785 xx:xxxx:x. $3,361,027 Una ltem ,Costs  . ?t ){\\:\n::-:-:-\n-\n-::::: .. :_.::::\n:: .. ::-:.:   ... .\n:\n....... [ \\,:. ....... ii.  ~:-\n://\\[ \\:\n? . ))\\:\n::: i??:::- .  1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 $165,342 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 $3,450 Reading $1,209 $115 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 $920 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $143,218 $137,573 $172,083 $205,272 Per Pupil Cost 1991-92 :- 1992:-S{L 1993-94/ 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 885.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 $3,361,027 Per PupH Cost  $3,694 .. $3,588 $3~760 $3,798 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9, Actual 1992-9c Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9: Budgeted Parl\u0026lt;Vlew Magnet School F.T.E, Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F,T,E. Salaries F.T,E. Salartes CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 S61,371 1.0 $62,517 1.0 $64,582 1.0 SSS,747 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $119,256 3.0 $152,394 3.0 S153,428 03 Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $221,882 9.8 $283,232 9.8 $311,985 04 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $118.446 3.0 I S123,123 3.0. S129,966 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $33,013 1.0 $34,026 1.0 $34,026 06 Art-Pert./Prod. 07 Music I 08 Foreign Lang. I 09 Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $302,605 7.0 S283,945 7.0 $268,642 10 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $51,899 1.5 $63,868 ! 1.5 S53,457 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,370,962 39.6 $1,393,800 39.6 $1,529,341 13 Substitutes $42,409 $49,179 $51,640 $51,640 14 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 ~40,670 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,490,483 66.6 $2,369,244 66.9 $2,491,279 66.9 $2,638,902 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $123,490 6.0 s126,650 I 6.0 S128,807 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $18,790 0.6 $19,227 0.6 $19,415 17 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $113.791 8.0 $119,039 8.0 $~ '9,819 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $122,263 5.0 $134,692 5.0 $113,507 20 Other-Aides I 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $14,005 2.0 S30,125 2.0 $22,493 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XJOOOOO( $321,375 IXXXXXXX $346,012 lOOOOOCX $335,564 xxxxxxx: $347,835 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $670,853 21.6 S738,351 I 21.6 $765,297 ' 21.6 $751,876 TOTAL (10-20) :xxxxxxx $3,161,336 XXXXlOOC $3,107,595 xxxxxxx $3,256,576 XXXJOOOC $3,390,778 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $208,483 )000000( $179,513 xxxxxx:x: $185,462 xxxxxxx $183,100 SERVICES 231Travel xxxxxxx XXXXlOO( xxxxxx:x: xxxxxxx $1,500 (30) 24 Ma:ntenance Agreements lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x 25 Other lOOOOOO( $39,092 xxxxxxx $18,792 lOOOOOO( $19,170 xxxxxxx $14,750 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $247,575 xxxxxxx $198,305 lOOOOOCX $204,632 xxxxxxx S199,350 MATERIALS, 261 Principal's Office lOOOOOCX IXXXXXXX lxxxxxxx lxx:xxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $87,767 xxxxxxx $92,439 jXlOOOOOC $94,288 xxxxxxx 0 33, 173 (40) 28 Media !xxxxxxx $16,883 xxxxxxx $13,753 XlOOOCXX $14,028 xxxxxxx $7,642 29 Other xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx $3,136 xxxxxxx $3,200 xxxxxxx S6,100 I TOTAL (40) XXlOOCXX $104,650 xxxxxxx $109,327 xxxxxxx $111,516 xxxxxxx $111,915 CAPITAL 301 Equipment xxxxxxx $37,950 lQOOOOO( $23,092 lQOOOOO( $23,554 lOOOOOOC $16,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx llOOOOOCX (50) 321Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx lOCXXXXX lxxxxxxx I TOTAL (50) XJOOOOO( $37,950 xxxxxxx $23,092 !XlOOOOCX $23,554 xx:xxxxx. $16,000 OTHER 331 Dues and Fees :xxxxxxx $3,496 XXJOOOO( S5.809 booooooc $5,925 xxxxxxx S5,000 (60) 34 Other XXXXlOOC xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxxx $3,496 xxxxxxx SS,809 xxxxxxx $5,925 xxxxxxx $5,000 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $393,671 xxxxxxx $336,534 xxxxxxx $345,627 xxxxxxx $332,265 TOTAL (10-60) 90.8 53,555,007 88.2 $3,444,128 88.5 53,602,203 I 88.5 $3,723,043 TOTAL LINE lliEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $158,509 xxxxxxx $135.955 lOOOOOO( $167,720 lxxxxxxx s::J1 ,123 I GRANDTOTAL lOOOOOO( $3,713.516 xx:xx:xxx $3,580,083 lOOOOOO( $3,769,923 x:xxxxxx $3,924,166 Line ltle?}y~tt_,ff [i/}\n\u0026gt;    ct\"'\"'\"' -- --- C\u0026lt; t 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,353 $1,425 $1,425 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $105,548 $131,007 $164,410 Vocational $17,696 $14,932 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $22,029 $13,884 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant SeNices $4,071 $232 $3,420 $3,420 Reading $1,182 $114 $114 Science English $520 ($473) $342 $342 Special Education $876 $479 $912 $912 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $158,509 $135,955 $167,720 $201,123 PerPupH Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 848.3 870.0 880.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,580,083 $3,769,923 $3,924,166 Per Pupil Cost   ... :--:e $4,434 $4,220 $4,333 $4,459 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9, Actual 1992-9: Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted Willfams Magnet School ,,,. F.T.E. Salaries F,T,E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 1.0 $65,081 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 1.0 $39,965 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 5.0 $179,381 04 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 1.4 $47,686 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 1.0 $37,301 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 , 21.0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 20.0 $667,841 10 Spacial Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $27,792 I 1.1 $28,595 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 2.0 $71,664 12 Chapter 1 I 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 3.0 $113,639 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 36.9 $1,183,042 I 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,233,533 i 35.5 $1,267,153 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 2.6 $30,108 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 1.0 $34,467 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 3.5 $51,453 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 I 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $32,748 9.0 $54,985 9.0 $45,596 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxxx $158,584 xx:xxxxx: $171,101 XlOOOOO( $166,399 XlOOOOO( $176,381 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 16.1 I $338,005 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,496,470 xxxxxxx $1,465,402 xxxxxxx $1,580,155 xxxxxxx $1,605,158 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XlOOOOO{ $42,968 xxxxxxx $38,623 XlOOOOOC S48. 682 ,xxxxxxx $57,280 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxx:x )000000( $3,793 JOOOOOO( $3,870 XlOOOOCX $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOCOOO( j)O()()QOO( lOOCOOO( lOOOOOO\u0026lt; 25 Other lOOOOO()C $16,259 XX:XXXXX $16,400 xxxxxx:x $16,728 xxxxxxx $8,000 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx ss9,227 !xxxxxxx $58,816 lOOOOOO( $69,280 lxxxxxxx S70,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx: !XXXXXXX xx:xxxxx I xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXlOOOOC $44, 4 77 I XXXXJ00C $38,631 lxxxxxxx S39,405 lxxxxxxx $31,698 (40) 281Media )000000( $6,976\nXXXXXXX $6,234 IXXXXXXX $6,360 xxxxxxx $11,000 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $1,475 xxxxxxx s1 ,505 lxxxxxxx $2,200 TOTAL (40) . xxxxxxx $51,454 XlOOOOCX $46,341 JOOOOOO( $47,270 lxxxxxxx $44,898 CAPITAL 30 Equipment lOOOOOO( $14,984 lxxxxxxx $25,034 lOOOOOO( $25,535 xxxxx:xx $22,700 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. lOOCOOO( lxx:xxxxx lOOCOOO( xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other lOOOOOO( fJOOOOOO( lxxxxxxx lxxxxxxx I TOTAL (50) lOOOOOO( $14,984 lxxxxxxx $25,034 XlOOOOO( $25,535 xxxxxxx $22.700 OTHER 331Dues and Fees lxxxxxxx $535 xxxxxxx $190 XXlOOCXX $195 XlOOOOO( $2.000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxx:xx $535 xxxxxxx $190 xxxxx:xx s 195 lxxxxxx:x $2,000 -- TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxx:x $126,200 xxxxxxx $130,381 xxxxxx:x $142,280 XX)(J()OO( $139,878 TOTAL (10-60) 52.4 s1 ,622,669 I 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 s1 ,722,435 I 51.6 $1,745,036 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxx:xx $ 71 , 665 I )0()00()0( $60,881 xxxxxxx $78,563 lxxxxxxx $104,748 GRAND TOTAL lOOOOOO( $1,694,335 x:x:x:xxxx $1,656,664 lOOOOCXX $1,800,998 xxxxxxx $1,849,784  .. ..:,,:,_,:.\n-:-.-:-::-:,:-:-:-:-::::- 1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i,i ...   ,, )(}{(}\\ 1,?:,:xrt :tt ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,i,,,,,,,,,,,,,:-,,,,:,:,:,,, ri@rnrn At ,t t\ni:-:.. .. ..., -:-:-:.\n.:\n:\n:,\n:\n:\n: -:-:-::\n1991-92 1992-93 1993 94 1994-95 Stipends $1,537 $1 ,614 $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 $91,920 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $71,665 $60,881 $78,563 $104,748 P~d B@ff .~tt tr %$.$:1S~ittI : J $$.~A/$ll \\ %$.$$..${  1$$.{@~m 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 473.3 492.0 492.0 Total Costs $1 ,694,335 $1,656,664 $1 ,800,998 $1,849,784 iii.$#P0Pff\\:zj :9 t,rn.:nt lHlt {~M  $.:$\n$0.PH : :}J$.M$'t $$)1Pi' .  Received from Mc::rk J LRSD 10/4/94 t 1,~1,1\n!di u- ... '\"'\"'\"'\" m@1ijg1~.z\nr:: J],:(992~)] HW1e9$,494I:rn t1I:1~$~ifb' :m:@1194fe$% W) ~MA'.GNSt::$.18P.Ot\n$@lNff:m\n: JtA-mW::r:::: IJJ:AWfflIIt lMW$tU'~t:n1r :::t@!Atfflftt 1ttiii.Wie-t@it CERTIFIED 01 Principal $346,537 $357,193 $367,176 $375,279 $370,669 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. $456,057 $438,462 $479,729 $433,972 $478,891 03 Specialists $1,274,519 $1,078,799 $1,207,341 $1,211,895 $1,290,162 04 Counselors $444,641 $356,314 $431,093 $405,435 $457,554 05 Media Spec. $218,210 $222,455 $233,751 $224,104 $238,592 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational $507,273 $489,335 $492,420 $483,977 $483,414 10 Special Education $248,275 $245,166 $276,790 $282,681 $285,726 11 Gifted $163,550 $159,822 $174,623 $158,016 $191,740 12 Classroom $5,308,868 $5,354,901 $5,689,340 $5,377,867 $5,816,001 13 Substitutes $153,813 $147,417 $154,925 $182,975 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten $407,561 $426,571 $448,634 $448,552 $457,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY $9,529,304 $9,276,435 $9,955,822 $9,584,753 $10,225,141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries $301,141 $355,081 $353,310 $360,333 $335,238 STAFF 16 Nurses $148,859 $148,996 $154,424 $156,152 $159,150 17 Custodians $346,330 $335,694 $372,625 $360,957 $375,432 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $108,103 $143,913 $157,639 $122,210 $139,163 20 Other-Aides $316,035 $256,806 $311,683 $237,662 $292,027 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $1,254,324 $1,366,607 $1,342,873 $1,213,301 $1,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY $2,474,792 $2,607,097 $2,692,554 $2,450,615 $2,684,040 TOT AL (10-20) $12,004,096 $11,883,532 $12,648,376 $12,035,368 $12,909,181 PURCHASE 22 Utilities $601,780 $507,373 $598,926 $598,876 $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel $33,980 $31,215 $20,580 $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $166,508 $92,n2 $99,428 $119,669 $74,250 TOTAL (30) $768,288 $634,125 $729,569 $739,125 $727,223 MATERIALS 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $343,433 $309,128 $315,284 $328,856 $302,337 (40) 28 Media $56,509 $53,842 $54,884 $34,2n $57,242 29 Other $11,647 $11,856 $18,873 $19,510 TOTAL(40) $399,942 $374,617 $382,024 $382,006 $379,0~9 CAPITAL ~o Equipment $111,824 $106,283 $104,215 $67,029 $93,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. (50) ~2 Other TOTAL (50) $111,824 $106,283 $104,215 $67,029 $93,646 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees $8,358 $12,416 $12,665 $13,017 $15,655 (60) 134 Other TOTAL (60) $8,358 $12,416 $12,665 $13,017 $15,655 TOT AL (30-60) $1,288,412 $1,127,441 $1,228,473 $1,201,1n $1,215,613 TOT AL (10-60) $13,292,508 $13,010,969 $13,876,849 $13,236,545 $14,124,794 TOTAL LINE I rEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $595,333 $537,465 $677,821 $413,629 $827,741 GRAND TOTAL $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $13,650,174 $14,952,535 \"' 1881+92  1992,.,,93'J \". 1$3~  :::: :/ 1~+\u0026lt;  1(X\u0026gt;4\"'95 ' Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Stipends $19,871 $20,739 $16,269 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $348,726 $716,116 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $17,222 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $28,627 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science English $2,368 {$2,058) $1,500 $1 ,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 $2,785 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $6TT,821 $413,629 $827,741 Per PuOil cost , ., 1991~ ./1992~ I\u0026lt; 1993-94 ., 19$3--94 1$94\n.95 3rd Otr. ADM or ProJ. 3TT1 .8 3679.6 3807.0 3570.5 3833 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $13,650,174 $14,952,535 P Puon Cost  $3,682. $3,882 \u0026gt; $3,823 .....\n$3,823 $3,901 lOOt495.IBu ldl tifQtitt iirnmn\nm\n:wmn:rnnrnm:J@t: ::trn:1~nf~r:t tikil~4.8.$:\n\n @t:1~$4~\\?I\nw1\n~1 JMl~448'\u0026amp;\u0026lt; !UIIIR!f ~P. a::MA.G.NSW:!$.CBP.PCSmrtrnm- tWWWMttti ttfrAWffl.ilJFI ltWS.Ua?.ffi.tIJ t rn:@Aijrointrn rmtatr CERTIFIED C Principal $346,537 $357,193 $367,176 $375,279 $370,669  STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. $456,057 $438,462 $479,729 $433,972 $478,891 03 Specialists $1,274,519 $1,078,799 $1,207,341 $1,211,895 $1,290,162 04 Counselors $444,641 $356,314 $431,093 $405,435 $457,554 05 Media Spec. $218,210 $222,455 $233,751 $224,104 $238,592 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational $507,273 $489,335 $492,420 $483,977 $483,414 10 Special Education $248,275 $245,166 $276,790 $282,681 $285,726 11 Gifted $163,550 $159,822 $174,623 $158,016 $191,740 12 Classroom $5,308,868 $5,354,901 $5,689,340 $5,377,867 $5,816,001 13 Substitutes $153,813 $147,417 $154,925 $182,975 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten $407,561 $426,571 $448,634 $448,552 $457,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY $9,529,304 $9,276,435 $9,955,822 $9,584,753 $10,225,141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries $301,141 $355,081 $353,310 $360,333 $335,238 STAFF 16 Nurses $148,859 $148,996 $154,424 $156,152 $159,150 17 Custodians $346,330 $335,694 $372,625 $360,957 $375,432 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $108,103 $143,913 $157,639 $122,210 $139,163 20 Other-Aides $316,035 $256,806 $311,683 $237,662 $292,027 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $1,254,324 $1,366,607 $1,342,873 $1,213,301 $1,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY $2,474,792 $2,607,097 $2,692,554 $2,450,615 $2,684,040 TOT AL (10-20) $12,004,096 $11,883,532 $12,648,376 $12,035,368 $12,909,181 ~URCHASE 22 Utilities $601,780 $507,373 $598,926 $598,876 $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel $33,980 $31,215 $20,580 $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $166,508 $92,772 $99,428 $119,669 $74,250 TOTAL (30) $768,288 $634,125 $729,569 $739,125 $727,223 MATERIALS 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom $343,433 $309,128 $315,284 $328,856 $302,337 (40) 28 Media $56,509 $53,842 $54,884 $34,277 $57,242 29 Other $11,647 $11 ,856 $18,873 $19,510 TOTAL(40) $399,942 $374,617 $382,024 $382,006 $379,089 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $111,824 $106,283 $104,215 $67,029 $93,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL(SO) $111,824 $106,283 $104,215 $67,029 $93,646 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees $8,358 $12,416 $12,665 $13,017 $15,655 (60) 34 Other TOTAL(60) $8,358 $12,416 $12,665 $13,017 $15,655 TOT AL (30-60) $1,288,412 $1,127,441 $1,228,473 $1,201,177 $1,215,613 TOT AL (10-60) $13,292,508 $13,010,969 $13,876,849 $13,236,545 $14,124,794 TOTAL LINE I .. EMS - (SECOND PAGE) $595,333 $537,465 $677,821 $413,629 $827,741 GRAND TOTAL $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $13,650,174 $14,952,535 MfMllt!ill1iiil:l:1 :1111\n!i:11::!:1:i:::Wrt ih~ \u0026lt; .\nAqt~at., ... $.2-:~ ,.?. Actu~n:. ~~ ::Bwg~t~\\ \u0026lt;,AcN\nnp\n:: .$4 .. ~ J3\\tdg~t$\u0026lt;i . fl\n1\\E . Sa.tart\" F,:f.E. $a.larles  tt\nt.E t$alarles.   \u0026gt; .sa11rtest f/f,E  sa1arles CERTIFIED 01 Prlnclpal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 $54,600 1.0 $55,764 STAFF 2 Asst. Prln. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 $52,028 1.0 $52,103 03 Speclallsts 6.0 $350,341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 $253,810 7.0 $254,900 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 $79,221 2.0 $65,200 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 $37,012 1.0 $37,836 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 7 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31.2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 $907,324 30.2 $963,879 10 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 $51,124 1.3 $64,015 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 $24,191 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 $120,022 4.0 $123,234 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 $1,615,405 48.5 $1,673,807 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 $46,344 2.0 $31,932 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 $27,301 1.0 $28,104 17 Custodians 4.0 $44,176 4.0 $42,176 4.0 $47,081 $44,290 4.0 $52,400 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $64,657 7.0 $75,718 $37,000 7.0 $62,731 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOI $201,247 )()O()(i $225,867 x:xxxx $215,438 $198,345 lOOOOt $222,697 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.0 $373,998 15.0 $388,766 14.0 $396,712 $353,280 14.0 $397,864 TOTAL (10-20) )(X)()(X $1,890,430 'XXXlOI $1,942,422 lOOOOI $2,006,780 $1,968,685 XXXlOI $2,071,671 PURCHASEC 22 Utilities lOOOa $81,637 XXXXll $71,492 xxxxx $87,854 $75,676 xxxxx $84,115 SERVICES 23 Travel lOOOOC lOOOOI $4,654 ~ $5,000 $4,939 )0000( $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XXX\u0026gt;O\u0026lt; XXlOO( X)OO()( \u0026gt;OOOOC 25 Other ~ $27,963 .XXX)O( $4,895 XXlOOI $4,800 $13,548 )0000( $9,500 TOTAL(30) X,000 $109,600 )OOO()C $81,041 ,)O(JO(X $97,654 $94,163 xioooc $98,615 MATERIALS, l2tl Prlnclpal's Office lOO(l0I XlOOOi )()Q00C llOOQ()I SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ll(X)(I()( $53,613 XXlOO( $37,774 xxxxx $38,500 $44,436 XXlOO( $34,900 (40) 28 Media XXXIOi $4,698 ~ $4,743 ~ $4,800 $5,380 )000()( $4,800 2S Other JOOCO( XXXlOI $1,255 XlOQ0 $1,255 $2,624 ~ $1,255 TOTAL(40) l)'.)Q()OC $58,311 ilOOl'.X)( $43,772 )CQ(X)I $44,555 $52,440 .X)O(l,() $40,955 CAPITAL 30 Equipment l\u0026gt;OOOOC $6,377 iiOOOO( $10,090 llOOOQI $6,100 $12,832 !XXlOO\u0026lt; $6,000 OlJTI.AY 31 Building Repair, etc. )l)(l(IO( iXXiOO\u0026lt; ~ llOOOOC (Su) 32 Other xxxoc llOOOOC ~ !xxiooc TOTAL(50) llOOC cc $6,377 IX:XXXX $10,090 XXXl(X $6,100 $12,832 Xl000( $6,000 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees XX\u0026gt;00C XXXXll XXXICX )0()0()( (60) 134 Other lOOOOI booooc )OOO(X )(X)QOi TOTAL(60) IXXXlCC XlOOOC !XlOO(ii )0000( TOTAL (30-60) llOOOOC $174,288 i)QOOO( $134,903 lOOOO( $148,309 $159,435 llOOOOC $145,570 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,064,717 62.9 $2,077,325 62.5 $2,155,089 $2,i28,120 62.5 $2,217,241 TOTAL LINEn EMS- (SECOND PAGE) XlOOOC $88,028 XXlOOC $75,446 IXXlOOI $99,618 $59,394 llOOOOC $122,300 GRANDTOTAL Xl000C '2,152,746 lxxm $2.152.771 XXl00( ~.707 $2.187.$14 Xl000C 42,339,54() . ,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. ,.,.,., . .,., .:\n:r:,m:1~\\irl?=hi f:::,\n,,,,,,i'i:C,:\u0026lt;\u0026lt;.\n::::c?'''' 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,500 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 $57,435 $118,637 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 $459 $668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $88,028 $75,446 $99,618 $59,394 $122,300 3rd atr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 588.0 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,TT1 $2,254,707 $2,187,514 $2,339,540 ~!~~r~,-~:1\n1~:!~\niiilll!l::::::::::\ntc::i .n:::.gi :t!,ct:ua1 :::t i.a\n.~ ,r tictuaJ-'\u0026lt;l: 93:-~ .. J,wQoetedJ . \" AWa.l Ji $4~ f Pg~.  fi'r,E $alal't:G$' f/~1\\E Saladtw'=' fl't'.E $alal't8$ .Satlftes. F.T.e }Salarres. CERTIFIED 01 Prlnclpal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 1.0 $59,423 $67,263 1.0 $60,587 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 1.0 $42,422 $41,640 1.0 $43,417 03 Speclallsts 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 8.0 $236,265 $245,103 8.0 $251,547 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 2.0 $60,101 $45,473 2.0 $62,791 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $42,474 1.5 $43,532 1.5 $46,074 $47,207 1.5 $48,443 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 24.3 $690,189 $581,394 24.3 $674,007 10 Special Education 1.0 $27,907 1.0 $30,734 1.0 $32,460 $33,001 1.0 $33,805 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 1.4 $34,246 $47,830 1.4 $48,954 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 $17,150 $12,271 $17,150 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 4.0 $117,132 $117,112 4.0 $120,344 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.5 $1,183,059 41.1 $1,164,768 44.2 $1,335,462 $1,238,294 44.2 $1,361,045 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 3.0 $67,824 $60,742 3.0 $54,572 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 1.0 $31,250 $31,556 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 4.0 $42,645 $43,531 4.0 $42,467 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $71,921 11.0 $76,016 $75,921 11.0 $91,426 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxri $167,825 iXXXlOC $190,533 IXXXXll $192,561 $171,444 XlOOOC $203,173 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 19.0 $410,297 $383,194 19.0 $423,997 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxx $1,553,693 xxxxx $1,557,097 xxxxx $1,745,758 $1,621,488 xxxxx $1,785,042 r\u0026gt;URCHASED 22 Utllltles iooocx $68,924 i'ICXJO(X $53,586 lOOOOC $69,730 $66,973 XXiooc $75,965 SERVICES 23 Travel i)OOOO( l\u0026gt;OOOOC $12,253 lOOQOj $12,500 $8,464 xxxri $9,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements !XiOOoc XXlOO( IXXl00C )(X)()O( 25 Other I~ $22,843 ~ nx $9,911 lxxiooc $10,100 $13,840 )(XXl()( $10,700 TOTAL(30) llOOcol $91,767 IXlC iOO( $75,750 IXXlOOC $92,330 $89,2n xxxxx $95,665 MATERIALS, 26 Prlnclpal's Office XXlOOC IXX)O()( lOOOO IXXXlOC SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classl'oom XXXIO! $55,638 IXXX\u0026gt;O! $52,759 )(X)()(X $53,814 $54,466 i)O(l()()C $63,330 (40) 28 Media XXXl0( $11,410 XXXiCX $13,271 xxxn $13,536 $5,356 lxxxxic $11,500 29 Other IXXXlD IOOOOC $2,593 xxm $2,645 $3,498 IXXlOOC $3,500 TOTAL(40) lioc:iooc $67,048 l0000 $68,623 ~xxxx $69,995 t63,320 xxxxx $78,330 CAPITAL 30 Equipment llOOOO $22,128 0000 $27,894 ~~ $28,450 $19,490 XXXl0I $19,000 OlJnAY 31 Building Repair, etc. IXXx\u0026gt;Oi ooo6c x\u0026gt;006c )(XXl0I (50) 32 Other llOOOOC 0000 XXlCCII xiOOO( TOTAL(50) IXlOOOC $22,128 XlOOOI $27,894 IOOOOI $28,450 $19,490 xioooi $19,000 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees XXXl0I $2,857 :m:iol $3,908 )(XXl0 $3,985 $5,643 l0000( $3,000 (60) 134 Other \u0026gt;CXXla. iOOoo iooo6 lOOOOC TOTAL(60) XlOOOC $2,857 l0000 $3,908 iXXXxX $3,985 $5,643 ~ $3,000 TOTAL (30-60) l0000C $183,800 Xl000C $176,174 00000( $194,760 s1n,130 moo $195,995 TOT AL (10-60) 61.5 $1,737,493 60.1 $1,733,271 63.2 $1,940,518 $1,799,218 63.2 $1,981,037 TOTAL LINEn EMS - (SECOND PAGE) :xxxx,c $84,978 ~ $86,058 IXXX)QI $107,945 $64,923 xxm $131,114 GAANOTOTAL XXlOCX $1,822.71 XXlOCX $1 819.329 xxxxx S2.. 048.\"6.1 $1,864,1 1 lQXXX $2.112.151 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, =\\.=}\\,,.{ .. ,.,.,. '''\"-\"',,,,,,,,,,,, 1992-93 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 $6,044 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 $58,412 $114,527 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 $82 Science English $380 ($329) $239 $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 $467 $636 xxxxxx lOOOOO( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $84,978 $86,058 $107,945 $64,923 $131,114 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.0 597.9 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 $1 ,864,141 $2,112,151 ~l~~t~lliiili!111i!lllllr'Ii tJ1~ A.ct:uar \u0026lt; t,~\n.~ /.Actt1~Ui tJ3 .. 9\u0026lt;1 8uqg~t$(j) :~a1::\u0026lt; $t-i! 8udgei\nI  -rl't.E Satarres fl'\n,t,E Satarfes . .fl'/f,E \\'Salaffiw., Satarteis: t .r:.r.a :aa1artes: CERTIFIED 1 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,234 $59,233 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 1.0 $45,000 1.0 $39,965 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $160,752 5.8 $158,107 $127,098 5.8 $162,699 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,433 $38,684 1.0 $39,257 06 Art-Perl./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $507,851 $462,587 15.0 $466,921 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 $70,319 1.5 $55,896 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 $33,443 1.0 $34,246 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 $11,733 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 $57,912 2.0 $59,580 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $961,411 31.3 $985,841 29.3 $1,007,242 $901,679 29.3 $972,468 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 $15,692 1.4 $22,613 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $11,304 0.8 $11,530 $11,856 0.8 $12,446 17 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $33,776 3.0 $39,012 $39,012 3.0 $39,803 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 $33,307 5.6 $33,799 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) xxxicx $129,439 \u0026gt;000CX $141,032 XXXlCX $136,618 $114,688 lOOOOI $134,836 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11.8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 $21-4,555 10.8 $243,497 TOTAL (10-20) i'xx)6(l $1,204,513 )(x,()O( $1,226,435 )OOO(X $1,254,041 $1,116,234 XXlOOI $1,215,965 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XioOc' $35,102 xx,ooc $26,879 XlOOO $38,531 $35,582 xxiooi $41,385 SERVICES 23 Travel X)OOO \u0026gt;0000( $2,066 )0000 $3,-407 XXXlOC $3,407 (30) 124 Maintenance Agreements X)(X)O( XXX)0( )O(l()Q XXX\u0026gt;CX 125 Other )CXlClOC $11,-464 XXxiOc $7,309 )ll(l(:)()I $7,455 $6,591 xxxxx $4,000 TOTAL(30) )OOOOc $46,566 XXXX)I $36,254 XJCl\u0026amp;)i $49,393 $42,173 )(XiOo( $48,792 MATERIALS, 26 Prlnclpal's Ofllce 'xioool XXlOO( )000()( .)0000! SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom m:ri: $25,426 l0000( $23,5-41 )(X)O(X $24,012 $20,882 .XXlOO( $25,068 (40) 28 Media )(X)00 $6,2-41 ~ $6,-489 )(X)OQ $6,620 $3,934 .X)OOO( $6,600 29 Other l0000I )0000( $1,016 lOOOO( $1,036 $1,397 X).:xx)( $2,455 TOTAL(-40) xxxx,c $31,667 1,POOOI $31,046 oooooc $31,668 $26,213 lOOOOI $34,123 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXlQO( $3,968 l,oooQC $2,594 )!)()()I) $2,646 $1,312 ~ $2,646 Olffi.AY 31 Building Repair, etc. )()000 IXXlOQI cI C))( XXXiOi (50) 32 Other lOOcc iOOOOI )OC )OOI XlOOOI TOTAL(50) l(l0(lC $3,968 )OO(l0I $2,594 xxxxx $2,646 $1,312 XlOOOC $2,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )(X)(l()( )(X)(l()( $1,132 iXXXl()I $1,155 $215 .X)(l()QC $1,155 (60) 134 Other :i(XXl(X )(X)()(l( )al()(): iooo( TOTAL(60) XXlOOc $0 l0000( $1,132 ilOcXioi $1,155 $215 i)()OOO\n$1,155 TOTAL (30-60) !lOOOOC $82,202 l)(l000( $71,025 ilOOOOC $84,862 $69,913 !)Q000C $86,716 TOTAL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 -43.1 $1,297,-460 40.1 $1,338,903 $1,186,147 40.1 $1,302,681 TOTAL LINE r rEMS - (SECOND PAGE) XXXlOI $48,935 I~ $41,553 l0000C $51,892 $29,105 XXXl0I $63,184 ,,., GRANDTOTAL .Xl6ooc $1,335,649 l0000C $1,339,013 X)OO(X $1,390,795 11,215,252 l0000( $1,365,865 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 $28,874 $61 ,280 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1 ,305 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 $129 Speclal Education $360 $187 $348 $231 $348 lOOOOCX lOOOOCX lOOOOCX lOOOOCX Total Line Items $48,935 $41,553 $51 ,892 $29,105 $63,184 P.tf ~IU1.t1MM!ht@lM J$i1'{$.Z@lf@ J~~t::mt J~ttif Jfflil@ifaf@. J~,t?ti 3rd atr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 295.7 328.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 $1,215,252 $1,365,865 fi(fflffilt.~tiiM@WlMf M%Wt:D.mmr mmwMtJt()(: ,\n@Mtlliliit: iMM~ iMI\\' t#i@tlU1t9.f f fflij!fff ~~ t JM1.tlft!i@ t $.i!/Ul~tl f\\T~i : f@~l.it:l~ J CERTIFIED 01 Principal $65,081 1.0 $65,081 STAFF ~0-::12--:--Ass-t.--::P-,ri_n_------+---,--+-----,--,-+---+--:-:--:--:-+--,-+-----+---$3_8_,9_3_1-+---1.-0+--$-39~,9-65------1 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 $173,230 5.0 $179,381 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 $45,279 1.4 $47,686 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 $25,446 1.0 $37,301 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21 .0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 $630,446 20.0 $667,841 1 O Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $27,792 $25,764 1. 1 $28,595 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 $40,670 2.0 $71,664 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 $17,314 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 $112,836 3.0 $113,639 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 36.9 $1,183,042 35.9 $1 ,143,808 35.5 $1 ,233,533 $1 ,174,997 35.5 $1 ,267,153 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 $27,786 2.6 $30,108 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 $33,664 1.0 $34,467 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 $44,866 3.5 $51,453 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $32,748 9.0 $54,985 $37,175 9.0 $45,596 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOC $158,584 ~ $171,101 ~ $166,399 $147,956 ~  $176,381 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 $291 ,447 16.1 $338,005 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $1,496,470 \u0026lt;: :li)( $1,465,402 kX ~ $1,580,155 $1,M\u0026gt;6,4 ~ $1,605,158 bURCHASEC 22 Utllltles X,000 $42,968 )00 :,di $38,623 )IX iCo( $48,682 $44,468 :XlQQ $57,280 SERVICES 23 Travel x,o\u0026amp; xxj # $3,793 IOt IOOI $3,870 $4,601 0000 $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements i~ ~ )OOOOt' :xi\u0026amp; ~ Other ~ $16,259 )OOOOI $16,400 )aiO $16,728 $9,938 ~ $8,000 TOTAL(30) xlOo6c $59,227 ~ $58,816 IO(XU $69,280 $59,007 10000 $70,280 MATERIALS,~ Prlnclpal's Office i\u0026gt;OCXl!) ,ooooc lOOO ~ XX)QO SUPPLIES ~7 Regular Classroom ii l(X) $44,477 XXM $38,631 ~ $39,405 $55,228 moOI $31,698 (40) 28 Media )C I()() $6,976 X)( 00( $6,234 ~ $6,360 $4,645 n)6Q $11,000 29 Other ic IOO ~ 00 $1,475 i6ooo $1,505 $2,095 !0000. $2,200 TOTAL(40) lOCXla $51 ,454 )(lj 00 $46,341 lOOOO $47,270 $61,968 lOOOO $44,898 CAPITAL l30 Equipment am $14,984 d 00 $25,034 )(X)O() $25,535 $6,799 ('co $22,700 OUTLAY 31 Bulldlng Repair, etc. XX)O(li ici\u0026gt;ooi ~ iiXn) (50) 132 Other lOOOO( XXXlO( \u0026gt;0000 X,000 TOTAL(50) ICl(l0C) $14,984 lO(l0t) $25,034 XXlOO $25,535 $6,799 XXXl() $22,700 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees IIXX $535 IIXX $190 ioooo $195 $720 ~ $2,000 (60) 34 Other io\u0026lt;l\u0026lt; XXXlO )l)(X)O )(XX)() TOTAL(60) [\u0026gt;0000 $535 IO(lOO $190 .XXJQCii $195 $720 )0000 $2,000 TOTAL (30-60)\nJ(lOQO $126,200 IOOOO( $130,381 XXXXll $142,280 $128,494 ~ $139,878 TOTAL (10-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,722,435 $1,594,938 51.6 $1,745,036 TOTAL LINE r \"EMS - (SECOND PAGE) )OOOOI $71,665 )00()( $60,881 ~ $78,563 $49,480 )O(l00( $104,748 c'H J GRAND'TOTAL\\.\"' )QOO(X $1~.335 xxxxx $1.~6.664 XXXiO\u0026lt;. ti.800.998' U,644,418 Xl(lOOj .$1,B\"S,784 =:@:,:ti(Jt@,f t=::it,\nt 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,537 $1 ,614 $1,676 $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 $47,427 $91,920 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 $3TT $516 lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( Total Line Items $71 ,665 $60,881 $78,563 $49,480 $104,748 f?i(fM)IP- \", .,.,  ,,., }'? tWH~ / 'J$.2~ U\\ J993\n.$4  \u0026lt; 19932$4 / \u0026lt; 1~:.\n.915 \u0026gt; 3rd Qtr. ADM or Pro]. 506.8 473.3 492.0 485.8 492.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,656,664 $1,800,998 $1.~.418 $1,849,784 1994~~ 8uqget( P(QP()~{Qf~ ~  :~ , , \" $'t .. f~ Actual  . 9,2 .. ~  AcWal 9a .. 94 ewgQtao . Actual 94~ , aw0et~F MMlN Marmtt~Q01 . . . -\n:::~:: ::::-: ::\"!~ . F.t.E Salaries F.t.E Salartes r:.t.e Satartes Sll.larl8$ f,'t.E sa1arl8$ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 $64,520 1.0 $64,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $143,289 3.0 $148,979 $148,979 3.0 $150,013 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 $111,283 3.6 $129,650 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $109,509 $69,852 3.0 $111,241 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41,729 $41,729 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $208,475 $207,954 5.6 $214,772 10 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 $49,016 1.3 $49,958 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 $1,424,850 46.8 $1,514,011 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 $71,832 $36,135 14 Other TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 $2,190,015 65.3 $2,311,765 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 4.0 $65,214 4.0 $67,206 $66,063 4.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 $32,359 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $71,195 $68,890 6.0 $69,490 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $22,947 $24,845 1.0 $25,656 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $46,693 2.4 $37,142 $42,951 2.4 $35,982 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) xx,ooc $275,853 iXXXXJC $292,062 XXJOOC $296,293 $266,922 lOOOOC $298,108 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 15.5 $525,462 14.4 $526,829 $502,030 14.4 $528,801 TOTAL (10-20) [XXXit.\"! $2,697,653 )()000( $2,584,578 [~ $2,805,067 $2,692,045 )OO(l()c $2,840,566 PURCHASED ~ Utilities XXJOOi $164,666 !lOOC\u0026gt;O! $137,280 XXiOOI $168,6e7 $162,874 lOOOOC $177,221 SERVICES 23 Travel )(X)OQC iOOoo $11,214 xxxxx $11,438 $1,266 lOOCXX $10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XXXla )(X)()(X XX)Q(X XXlOOC ~ Other ~ $48,887 lC:ioocx $35,-464 l(X)0(X $36,175 $34,819 )l)CX)OC $27,300 TOTAL(30) IXXlOOC $213,554 booooc $183,959 l0000c $216,280 $198,959 XXlOOI $214,521 MATERIALS, ~ Prlnclpal's Office )0000 Xl000C IX)(lOO( lOOOOI SUPPLIES 127 Regular Classroom IXXlOOC $76,512 IX\u0026gt;OOOC $63,984 !)0000( $65,265 $79,331 loooo $49,168 (40) 128 Media l0000I $10,301 )0000( $9,352 XXX)() $9,540 $9,547 )(XXlOI $15,700 ~ Other XXlOoc lxxxxx $2,172 XXiOO $2,215 $2,923 iOOOO( $4,000 TOTAL(40) IXiOocc $86,813 IXXlOOC $75,508 \u0026gt;000CC $77,020 $91,801 ,ooooc $68,868 CAPITAL 00 Equipment 1)()()()0 $26,417 i)(X)OOI $17,579 XXXl0I $17,930 $15,510 ~ $27,300 OlJTt.AY ~1 Building Repair, etc. )0000( XX)OQ )(XlO(X )l)000( (50) 32 Other llOOOOc )00,cJoc !XXlOOC IOOOOC TOTAL(50) IXXXXll $26,417 )Q000C $17,579 !XXJCOC $17,930 $15,510 .)000()( $27,300 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees X)(X)OI $1,'70 KXlC)0C $1,377 llOOCOC $1,405 $1,764 ,ooc\n,o: $4,500 (60) 134 Olh81' lllXX\u0026gt;OC XXlOO IXXlOOC l0tXlOt TOTAL(60) IXXXlOC $1,470 XXXlOI $1,377 IXXXXX $1,405 $1,764 lOOOOC $4,500 TOTAL (30-60) IXlOOOC $328,253 lCDOO( $278,422 xxxxx $312,635 $308,034 lOOOOC $315,189 TOTAL(10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 79.8 $2,863,000 79.7 $3,117,702 $3,000,079 79.7 $3,155,755 TOTAL LINE IT :MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxx $143,218 xxxxx $137,573 lOOOOC $172,083 $109,678 liooooc $205,272 GRA\"NOTOTAL xxxxx 13169.124 XDDDI $3,000.,573 lOOOOC SS.289/185 .:J.109.757 xxxxx $3,361,027 1994-95 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 $4,530 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 $80,835 $165,342 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 $8,890 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 $14,777 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 $3,450 Reading $1,209 $115 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 $646 $920 lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( Total Line Items $143,218 $137,573 $172,083 $109,678 $205,272 3rd Qtr. ADM or Prcj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 827.8 885.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 $3,109,757 $3,361,027 re-t-IM\u0026gt;U ,,VW V  AiJ8.Jm.C. .  $:,,$If '\"'\"\"l~,'7 .,  , $3,?Sr  iJ~.~ i~~~U:~~,tgtfiflli!Ili!!~1IiFt::\" $'btJ1 /Ac.wal. 92 .... ~  Ai.Wal: $$~~  f3tJQg~tad ' \u0026lt; Aal./ (M.,,\nm ::r3woet1K1 F.T.e Salaries F.T.e Salaries r.T.E  Salaries\"'  satarl8$ ~it.ft? $alar1es: CERTIFIED 01 Prlnclpal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $62,517 1.0 $64,582 $64,582 1.0 $65,747 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $119,256 3.0 $152,394 $152,394 3.0 $153,428 03 Speclallsts 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $221,882 9.8 $283,232 $301,371 9.8 $311,985 04 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $118,446 3.0 $123,123 $124,940 3.0 $129,966 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $33,013 1.0 $34,026 $34,026 1.0 $34,026 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $302,605 7.0 $283,945 $276,023 7.0 $268,642 10 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $51,899 1.5 $63,868 $53,457 1.5 $53,457 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,370,962 39.6 $1,393,800 $1,371,266 39.6 $1,529,341 13 Substitutes $42,409 $49,179 $51,640 $45,634 $51,640 14 Other-Klndergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,490,483 66.6 $2,369,244 66.9 $2,491,279 $2,464,363 66.9 $2,638,902 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $123,490 6.0 $126,650 $143,706 6.0 $128,807 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $18,790 0.6 $19,227 $19,416 0.6 $19,415 17 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $113,791 8.0 $119,039 $120,368 8.0 $119,819 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofesslonals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $122,263 5.0 $134,692 $97,365 5.0 $113,507 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $14,005 2.0 $30,125 $11,308 2.0 $22,493 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) 1)0()00( $321,375 llOOOCX $346,012 )0000( $335,564 $313,946 l\u0026gt;OOOCX $347,835 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $670,853 21.6 $738,351 21.6 $765,297 $706,109 21.6 $751,876 TOTAL (10-20) :ooooc $3,161,336 XXlOO( $3,107,595 XXlOOC $3,256,576 $3,170,472 ,cx)()OI $3,390,778 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ,ooooc $208,483 XXlOOI $179,513 xxiooc $185,462 $213,303 xiOci\u0026lt;X $183,100 SERVICES 23 Travel l0000I X)OOO(' i)(l()(l()C $1,310 )OOOOC $1,500 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XXXJOc IOOOOI :,ooocx XXXX)j 25 Other XX)Q0 $39,092 l)(lOOCX $18,792 0000 $19,170 $40,933 XXioo( $14,750 TOTAL(30) xxxxx $247,575 i6oooi $198,305 ccm $204,632 $255,546 XXiooi $199,350 MATERIALS, 26 Prlnclpal's Office )()()00( .lOCXlOi [)IIOO( XlOOOI SUPPLIES ~ Regular Classroom )000()( $87,767 \u0026gt;0000( $92,439 ocooc $94,288 $74,513 !0000 $98,173 (40) ~8 Media )0000( $16,883 .)()()00( $13,753 lOOOO( $14,028 $5,415 IOOOOI $7,642 129 Other :0000 !XXJOOI $3,136 ooocxx $3,200 $6,336 )OO(lQ $6,100 TOTAL(40) XlOOOI $104,650 ixiooo: $109,327 lioooo $111,516 $86,264 l0000C $111,915 CAPITAL l30 E.Quipment )(X)00I $37,950 il000CI $23,092 IOOOC $23,554 $11,086 )(Xl00C $16,000 OUTLAY ~1 Building Repair, etc. )(l()(iQ l(X)O()( ioooc )0000( (50) ~ Other lOOOCX iXlOOOC oooooc ~ TOTAL(50) l000CI $37,950 iXlOOOC $23,092 llOOOOC $23,554 $11,086 lOOOO( $16,000 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees )OOOQI $3,496 ilOOOOC $5,809 IXXXX- $5,925 $4,675 ~ $5,000 (60) 134 Other 1)0000( :ax'iOc XXlOO( ilcx\u0026gt;ooi TOTAL(60) !)C)QC)Q $3,496 lxxx'loc $5,809 llOOC()( $5,925 S-.,675 XXXXlC $5,000 TOTAL (30-60) i\u0026gt;OQCOC $393,671 l)(X)QOC $336,534 ix\nxxxx $345,627 $357,571 llOOOO( $332,265 TOTAL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,444,128 88.5 $3,602,203 $3,528,043 88.5 $3,723,043 TOTALLINEn EMS - (SECOND PAGE) XX\u0026gt;OO( $158,509 )00()()( $135,955 XX\u0026gt;OO( $167,720 $101,049 .XXX\u0026gt;O( $201,123 GRANO TOTAL  XXXlO( 13,713,516 l0000( 13.580.083 l0000( 13,769,923 43.629,092 Xl00cX ~924,166 l1il1ru1~1ll::~ill!l::\n~ll!lll:llli!II! ~==\n~=~\n=,,,, ,,,,,,\n~=\n::\n=== ~=:\n::=,,.,,,,.,,  ~=\n:~  ~=\n::=: Stipends $1,353 $1,425 $2,519 $1,425 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $105,548 $131,007 $75,743 $164,410 Vocational $17,696 $14,932 $16,000 $8,332 $16,000 Athletics $22,029 $13,884 $14,500 $13,850 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,071 $232 $3,420 $3,420 Reading $1,182 $114 $114 Science English $520 ($473) $342 $342 Special Education $876 $479 $912 $605 $912 xxxxxx lOOOOO( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $158,509 $135,955 $167,720 $101,049 $201 ,123 3rd atr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 848.3 870.0 ns.3 880.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,580,083 $3,769,923 $3,629,092 $3,924,166 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director October 24, 1994 Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: (501) 758-0156 or.r 2 t1 1994 As a part of the agenda for its October 11, 1994 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee {MRC) re-examined the 1994-95 budget submitted to the Court on June 1, 1994. This budget issue was placed on the agenda in light of recent enrollment developments in the interdistrict magnet schools program. A calculation of the number of students enrolled as of October 1, 1994, and the number of students projected for 1994-95, shows a discrepancy of approximately 300 students. This fact may determine changes in the 1994-95 budget submission. At the MRC' s October 11, 1994 meeting, Mark Milhollen, LRSD Controller, told the MRC that he is requesting a printout of all 1994-95 FTE positions in each interdistrict magnet school. He will plug this information into the budget and present this updated information to the MRC at a special-called meeting to be announced. (The MRC intended to address this at their October 25, 1994 meeting. Due to the recent fire at Chicot and attendant insurance and school plant-related activities, Mr. Milhollen has been unable to complete this information.) This presentation by Mr. Milhollen may underscore the need for additional Per Pupil Expenditure due to a lower enrollment than was projected in the initial budget. We will apprise you. of the information we receive and the outcome of our discussion as soon as possible. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please contact our office. BA/DGC:sl . . . Magnet Review Committee 1900 orth Main Street Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (50 1) 756 0156 June 1, 1994 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: JUN 6 1994 Ollice of De greg \\ion Morntoi 1ng At its May 24, 1994 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1994-95 school year (Draft 2). The total amount budgeted, $14,952,534, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,901 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,833 students. In addition, a basic step or incremental increase in staff salaries and associated fringe benefits, as well as the effects of early retirement incentives, were factored in. On May 17, 1994, Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District, came before the Magnet Review Committee with a presentation of Draft 1 of the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1994-95 school year. He explained the cost calculations to the Magnet Review Committee, and made any corrections that were deemed necessary. At this same meeting, each of the interdistrict magnet school principals (with the exception of the Gibbs principal) provided information with regard to their school's proposed budget and answered questions from the Magnet Review Committee members. After this meeting, the Magnet Review Committee representatives presented the proposed budget information to their parties in order to be prepared to vote on it at the May 24, 1994 Magnet Review Committee meeting. As noted above, the Magnet Review Committee did approve the budget at the meeting of May 24, 1994 (Draft 2 which contained any corrections from Draft 1). This approved budget represents an increase of 2.04%, or $78.00 per student. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 1, 1994 Factors which may require a further adjustment in the interdistrict magnet school program budget for the 1994-95 school year include the following: 1) The Professional Negotiated Agreement (PNA) between Little Rock School District CTA and the Little Rock School District Board is in the renegotiation process, which may impact projected salary figures\n2) The State's contribution to employees' health insurance funding is not yet determined. When this information is forthcoming, revisions may be necessary to the figures represented in this budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1994-95 interdistrict magnet schools budget attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, ~J/:t~f:m, ~hairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attnchment: 1994-95 Interdistrict Magnet School Budget (Approved Draft 2) The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -3- June 1, 1994 cc: Attorneys of Record Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Gene Wilhoit, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Henry Williams, Little Rock School District Magnet Review Committee 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9 1992-9: 1993-94 1994-9: SUMMARY FOR MAGNE:T SCHOOLS F.T.S. Actual F.T,S, Actual F.T.S. Budget F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 6.0 $370,669 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 10.0 $478,891 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 39.2 $1,290,162 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 12.4 \"'is7,554 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $218,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 6.5 $238,592 06 Art-Perl.IP rod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 12.6 $483,414 10 Special Education 7.8 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 7.7 $285,726 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 5.4 $191,740 12 Classroom 181 .4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 175.9 $5 316,001 13 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 14.0 $457,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 294.5 $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,955,822 289.7 $10,225,141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $353,310 19.0  335,238 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154 ,424 5.4 $159,150 17 Custodians 28.5 $346,330 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $372,625 28.5 $375,432 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,1 03 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 6.0 $139,163 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 37.0 $292,027 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXXlCXX $1,254,324 xxxxxxx $1,366,607 )()Q()()()()\u0026lt;. $1,342,873 xxxxxxx $1,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 95.9 $2,684,040 TOTAL (10-20) )OOC)(JOO( $12,004,096 XlOOOOO( $11,883,532 XlOOOOO( $12,648,376 xxxxxxx $12 909,181 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $601,780 xxxxxxx $507,373 xxxxxxx $598,926 XXXXlOO(' $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO( XXXJOOO(' $33,980 XXXJOOO(' $36,215 xxxxxxx $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOCX lOOOOOO( lOOOOOCX lOOOOOCX 25 Other X)()OO()(X $166,508 X)()OO()(X $92,772 lOOOOOO( $94,428 xxxxxxx -$74,-250 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $768,288 .lOOOOOO( $634,125 lOOOOOO( $729,569 lOOOOOO( : 727,223 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office XXlOOCXX XXlOOCXX lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XlOOOOO( $343,433 xxxxxxx $309,128 XlOOOOO( $315 ,284 xxxxxxx $302,337 (40) 28 Media  XlOOOOO( $56,509 XlOOOOO( $53,842 XlOOOOO( $54,884 xxxxxxx $57,242 29 Other XXXXlOOC XXXXlOO( $11,647 XXXXlOO( $11 ,856 XXXXlOO(' $19,510 TOTAL (40) XXXXlOOC $399,942 X\u0026gt;0000CX $374,617 XXXXlOO( $382,024 XlOOOOO( $379,089 CAPITAL 30 Equipment lOOOOOCX $111,824 lOOOOOCX $106,283 lOOOOOCX $104 ,215 lOOOOO(X $93,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other .lOOOOOO( .lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( TOTAL(50) xxxxxxx $111,824 XXlOOCXX $106,283 XXlOOCXX $104,215 lOOOOCXX $93,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )O()()(X)()( $8,358 XlOOOOO( $12,416 XXXXlOO( $12,665 xxxxxxx $15,655 (60) 34.Other XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx )()0()000( TOTAL(60) xxxxxxx $8,358 xxxxxxx $12,416 xxxxxxx $12,665 xxxxxxx $15,655 - TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $1 ,288,412 X\u0026gt;0000CX $1,127,441 XlOOOOO( $1,228,473 XlOOOOO(' Sl ,215,613 TOTAL (10-60) 390.9 $13,292,508 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 S 13,876,849 385.6 $14,124,794 TOTAL LINE ITE\nMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $595,333 xxxxxxx $537,465 lOOOOOO( $677,821 xxxxxxx $827,741 GRANDTOTAL lOOOOCXX $13,887,841 lOOOOCXX $13,548,434 lOOOOCXX $14,554 ,670 lOOOOCXX $14,952,534 Line ltemCosts - /' \u0026lt; \"'' 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $19,871 $20,739 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $716,116 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $677,821 $827,741 Per Pupil Cost 1991-92 1992-93 '1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3679.6 3807.0 3833.0 Tota l Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $14,952,534 Par Pupil Cost $3,682 $3,682 $3,823 $3,901 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9 Actual 1992-9~ Actual 1993-9~ Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted Booker Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salarles F.T.E. Salarles F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 1.0 $55,764 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 1.0 $52,103 03 Specialists 6.0 $350,341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 7.0 $254,900 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 2.0 $65,200 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 1.0 $'17,836 - 06 Art-Pert ./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31 .2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 30.2 $963,879 1 O Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 1.3 $64,015 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 [20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 4.0 $1~ TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47,9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 48.5 $1,673,807 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 2.0 $31,932 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 1.0 $211,104 - 17 Custodians 4.0 $44,176 4.0 $42,176 4.0 $47,081 4.0 S52,400 18 Paraprolessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $64,657 7.0 $75,718 7.0 $62,731 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOOCX $201,247 )000000( $225,867 XlOOOOCX $215,438 JOOOOOO( $222,697 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.0 $373,998 15.0 $388,766 14.0 $396,712 14.0 $397,864 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,890,430 )()()0000( $1,942,422 lOOOOOO( $2,006,780 )()()OO(XX $2,071,671 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $81,637 JOOOOCXX $71,492 JOOOOCXX $87,854 JOOOOCXX ~34.115 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO( .lOOOOOO( $4,654 JOOOOCXX $5,000 xxxxx:x:x. $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XlOOOOO( )0()0000( )0()0000( xxxxxxx 25 Other )0000()()( $27,963 XXlOOOO( $4,895 xxxxxxx $4,800 xxxxxxx $9,500 TOTAL (30) JOOOOOO(' $109,600 JOOOOOO(' $81,041 JOOOOOO(' $97,654 xxxxxxx $98,615 ' MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office JOOOOOO(' JOOOOOO(' xxxxxxx )00()()()()( SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom lOOCOOO( $53,613 lOOCOOO( $37,774 lOOCOOO( $38,500 lOOOOOQ( S34,900 I (40) 28 Media lOOOOOO( $4,698 lOOOOOO( $4,743 lOOOOOO( $4,800 xxx:x:xxx $4,800 29 Other .lOOOOOO( JOOOOCXX $1,255 JOOOOCXX $1,255 xxx:x:xxx $1,255 TOTAL (40) XXXlOOO( $58,311 XXXlOOO( $43,772 XXXlOOO( $44,555 xxxxxxx $40,955 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXXXlOOC $6,377 xxxxxxx $10,090 XXXXlOOC $6,100 lOOOOOO( $6,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. XXlOOOO( XXlOOOO( XlOOOOO( XXlOOOO( (50) 32 Other XlOOOOOC JOOOOOO(' JOOOOOO(' lOOOOOO( TOTAL (50) JOOOOOO(' $6,377 JOOOOOO(' $10,090 JOOOOOO(' $6,100 lOOOOOO( $6,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees lOOOOOO( lOOOOOCX lOOOOOCX lOOOOOO( (60) 34 Other lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( TOTAL(60) JOOOOCXX JOOOOCXX JOOOOCXX xxxxxxx TOTAL (30-60) .lOOOOOO( $174,288 XXXlOOO( $134,903 .lOOOOOO( $148,309 .lOOOOOO( $145,570 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,064,717 62.9 $2,077,325 62.5 $2,155,089 62.5 $2 2-, ',241 TOTAL LINE ltEMS- (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $88,028 xxxxxxx $75,446 xxxxxxx $99,618 xxxxxxx $122,300 GRAND TOTAL JOOOOOO(' $2,152,746 XlOOOOCX $2,152.771 xxxxxxx $2,254,707 xxxxxxx $2,339,540 Une Item Costs - .. 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 $118,637 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 $668 xxxxxx )()()0()()( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $88,028 $75,446 $99,618 $122,300 Par Pupll Cost 1991-92 i992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,771 $2,254,707 $2,339,540 Per Pupil Cost $3,422 $3,562 $3.,551 $3,684 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9: Actual 1992-0C Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9:: Budgeted Carver Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 1.0 $59,423 1.0 $60,587 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 1.0 $42,422 1.0 $43,417 03 Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 8.0 $236,265 8.0 $251,547 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 2.0 $60,101 2.0 SL2,i91 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $42,474 1.5 $43,532 1.5 $46,074 1.5 $48,443 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 24.3 $690,189 24.3 $674,007 1 O Special Education 1.0 $27,907 1.0 $30,734 1.0 $32,460 1.0 $33,805 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 1.4 $34,246 1.4 $48-,954 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 $17,150 $17,150 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 4.0 $117,132 4.0 $120,344 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.5 $1,183,059 41.1 $1,164,768 44.2 $1,335,462 44.2 $1,161,045 -- SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 3.0 $67,824 3.0 S:,4,572 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 1.0 $31,250 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 4.0 $42,645 4.0 $42,467 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $71,921 11.0  $76,016 11.0 $91,426 21 Fringe Benefits(20) JOOOOOO( $167,825 xx:xxx:xx $190,533 XlOOOOO( $192,561 XlOOOOO( $203,173 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 19.0 $410,297 19.0 $421-,997 TOTAL (10-20) lOOOOOO( $1,553,693 XJOOOO()( $1,557,097 lOOOOOO( $1,745,758 xxxxxxx $1,785,042 PURCHASEC 22 Utilities xxxxxx:x $68,924 xxxxxxx $53,586 xxxxxxx $69,730 XJOOOCXX $75,965 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO(. XlOOOCXX $12,253 XlOOOOO( $12,500 XXXXJO()( $9,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements .lOOOOOO( .lOOOOOO( xxxxx:xx xxxxxxx 25 Other :xxxxxxx $22,843 :xxxxxxx $9,911 xxxxxxx $10,100 xxxxxxx  1 1\\ 700 -- TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $91,767 xxxxxxx $75,750 )000000( $92,330 xxxxxxx S95,665 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office JOOOOOO( JOOOOOCX xxxxxxx xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $55,638 x:xxxxxx $52,759 lOOOOOCX $53,814 lOOOOOO( $63,330 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $11,410 lOOOOOO( $13,271 xxxxxxx $13,536 xx.xxxxx $11,500 29 Other xxxxxxx lOOOOCXX $2,593 lOOOOCXX $2,645 xx:xxxxx $3,500 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $67,048 xxxxxxx $68,623 lOOOOCXX $69,995 XXXXJO()( $78,330 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 XXXXlOO( $28,450 lOOOOOO( $19,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx - (50) 32 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx XJOOOOO( XJOOOOO( TOTAL (50) 1000000( $22,128 1000000( $27,894 1000000( $28,450 xxxxxxx $19,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees lOOOOOO( $2,857 lOOOOOO( $3,908 xxxxxxx $3,985 lOOOOOO( $3,000 (60) 34 Other XlOOOO()( xxxxxxx lOOOOQO( xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxxx $2,857 lOOOCXXX $3,908 lOOOOOO( $3,985 xxxxxxx ~1-.)0-0 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $183,800 lOOOOCXX $176,174 xxxxxxx $194,760 xxxxxxx $195,995 TOTAL (10-60) 61 .5 $1,737,493 60.1 $1 ,733,271 63.2 $1,940,518 63.2 $1,981,037 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $84,978 xxxxxxx $86,058 xxxxxxx $107,945 xxxxxxx $131,114 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,822,471 xxxxxxx $1,819,329 XlOOOOO( $2,048,463 XlOOOOO( $2,112,151 Upe lte~n Costs-. )  ...........   ......................... \u0026gt; )  1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 $114,527 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 $82 Science English $380 ($329) $239 $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx )0()()()()( xxxxxx Total Line Items $84,978 $86,058 $107,945 $131,114 Per PupH Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.0 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 $2,112,151 Per Pupil cost $3,036 $3,092 $3,386 $3,446 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9 Actual 1992-9'. Actual 1993-~ Budgeted 1994-9~ Budgeted Gibbs Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,234 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 1.0 $45,000 1.0 $39.9-65 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $160,752 5.8 $158,107 5.8 $ 2,699 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,433 1.0 $39,257 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $507,851 15.0 $466,921 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 1.5 $'\u0026gt;~ 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35 ,493 1.0 $33,443 1.0 $J4,246 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 2.0 $59,580 -- TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31 .3 $961,411 31 .3 $985,841 29.3 $1 ,007,242 29.3 $, 2,468 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 1.4 $22,613 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $11,304 0.8 $11,530 0.8 $12,446 17 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $33,776 3.0 $39,012 3.0 $39,803 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 5.6 $33,799 21 Fringe Benetits(20) XX)()(lOO( $129,439 XlOOOOO( $141,032 XXXXlOO( $136,618 xxxxxxx $1'l4-,836 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11 .8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 10.8 $243,497 TOTAL {10-20) xxxxxxx $1,204,513 lOOOOOO( $1,226,435 lOOOOOO( $1,254,041 xxxxxxx $1,215,965 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XJOOOOO( $35,102 xxxxxxx $26,879 xxxxxxx $38,531 )()()(XX)()( $41,385 SERVICES 23 Travel XJOOOOO( XJOOOOO( $2,066 xxxxxxx $3,407 )()()(XX)()( $3,407 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx XXlOOOO( xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxx $11,464 xxxxxxx $7,309 xxxxxxx: $7,455 xxxxxxx '-14,000 TOTAL (30) XlOOOOO( $46,566 XlOOOOO( $36,254 XlOOOOO( $49,393 XXXXlOO( $48,792 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Oflice JOOOOOO( XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $25,426 lOOOOOO( $23,541 )00()(}()0( $24,012 xxxxxxx $25,068 {40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $6,241 lOQOOOO( $6,489 xxxxxxx $6,620 iXXXXXXX $6,600 29 Other lOO(XX)()( xxxxxxx $1,016 xxxxxxx $1,036 xxxxxxx $2,455 TOTAL(40) lOOOOOO( $31,667 XJOOOOO( $31,046 XJOOOOO( $31,668 XJOOOOO( $34,123 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $3,968 xxxxx:xx $2,594 .xxxxxxx $2,646 xxxxxxx 2-,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other XlOOOOO( XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xx:xxxxx $3,968 XlOOOOO( $2,594 xxxxxxx $2,646 XlOOOOO( $2,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees JOOOOO()( lOOOOOO( $1,132 xxxxxxx $1,155 )O(X)()O()( $1 ,155 (60) 34 Other lOOOOOO( lOQOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx - TOTAL (60) lOOOOOO( $0 XXXlOOCX $1,132 XJOOOOO( $1,155 'xxxxxxx S1, 155 TOTAL (30-60) XJOOOOO( $82,202 XJOOOOC( $71 ,025 XJOOOOO( $84,862 XJOOOOO( $86,716 TOTAL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 43.1 $1 ,297,460 40.1 $1,338,903 40.1 $1,302,681 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $48,935 xxxxxxx $41 ,553 xxxxxxx $51,892 XXlOOOO( $63,184 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 xxxxxxx $1,339,013 xxxxxxx $1,390,795 xx:xxxxx $1,365,865 Line Item .Costs .. - \"' . ,,.,:}::/\\ .-\n-:-:-:-.. .-:\n-\n, ,\n:\n-_._. .?\\}\\ '\"\"' / \"'\"'? ., 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 $61,280 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1,305 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 $129 Special Education $360 $187 $348 $348 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $48,935 $41,553 $51,892 $63,184 Per Pupif Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 328.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 $1 ,365,865 Per Pupil Cost  ,. $3,933 $4,070 $4,214 $4,164 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-9' Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-95 Budgeted MANN Magnet Schoel F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 1.0 $6t,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 - $143,289 3.0 $148,979 3.0 S 150,013 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 3.6 $129,650 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $109,509 3.0 $111,241 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41 ,729 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $208,475 5.6 $:'1 4,772 10 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 1.3 $49,958 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 46.8 $1,514,011 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 $36,135 14 Other -- TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 65.3 $2,311,765 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 4.0 $65,214 4.0 $67,206 4.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $71,195 6.0 $69,490 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $22,947 1.0 $25,656 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $46,693 2.4- $37,142 2.4 , 35,982 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOOO{ $275,853 lOOOOOCX $292,062 xx:x:xxxx $296,293 XlOOOOO{ $298,108 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 15.5 $525,462 14.4 $526,829 14.4 $528,801 TOTAL (10-20) )000000( $2,697,653 )()00000( $2,584,578 xxxxxxx $2,805,067 xxxxxxx S2,840,566 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XlOOQOO( $164,666 XlOOQOO( $137,280 xxxxxx:x: $168,667 xxxxxxx $177,221 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx XlOOQOO( $11,214 xx:xxxxx $11,438 xx:xxxxx  1 J,000 - (30) 24 Ma,ntenance Agreements lOOOOOOC lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( 25 Other xxxxxxx $48,887 xxxxxxx $35,464 xxxxxxx S36,175 xx:xxxxx $27,300 TOTAL (30) x:xxxxxx $213,554 lOOOOOCX $183,959 XXXlOOO( $216,280 lOOOOOCX $214,521 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxx:x:x lOOOOOCX xxxxx:x:x XJOOOOO( SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom x:xxxxxx $76,512 )000000( $63,984 XXXXJOO( S65,265 xxxxxxx $49,168 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $10,301 xxxxxxx $9,352 xxxxx:xx $9,540 xxxxxxx $15,700 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $2,172 xxxxxx:x: $2,215 XlOOQOO( $4,000 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $86,813 xxxxxxx $75,508 xxxxxxx $77,020 xx:xx:x:xx :C68,868 CAPITAL 30 Equipment lCXXXXXX $26,417 lOOOOOO( $17,579 xxxxxxx S.17,930 lOOOOOO( $27,300 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. lOOOOOCX xxxxxxx lOOOOOCX x:xxxxxx (50) 32 Other lOOOOOCX lOOOOOCX lOOOOOCX xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 XlOOOOO( $17,579 XJOOOOO( $17,930 XlOOOOO( $27,300 -- OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )()()()000( $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxx:xx $1,405 XXlOOOO( -i,soo (60) 34 Other XXlOOOO( XXlOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxxx $1,470 XlOOQOO( $1,377 XXX)()O()( $1,405 xx:xxxxx $4,500 TOTAL (30-60) XlOOQOO( $328,253 XlOOQOO( $278,422 xx:xxxxx $312,635 JOOOOO()( $315,189 TOTAL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 79.8 $2,863,000 79.7 $3,117,702 79.7 $3,155,755 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $143,218 xxxxxxx $137,573 xxxxxxx $172,083 xxxxxxx $205,272 GRAND TOTAL lOOOOOCX $3,169,124 lOOOOOCX $3,000,573 lOOOOOCX $3,289,785 x:xxxxxx $3,361,027 Une Item Cost,i :c ..)\\.-:-: .  . ) . -:-: .,. :- ,. \u0026gt; ::.:)\"':_. -\"' :,/\" :\n:\n.:,:/:\\:\n./ ... i':,::::\n:\n::/,\\/ :::: }':\\ \\)' 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 $165,342 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 $3,450 Reading $1,209 $115 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 $920 )()()()()0( )()()()()0( xxxxxx )()()()()0( Total Line Items $143,218 $137,573 $172,083 $205,272 Per Pupil Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 885.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 $3,361 ,027 Per Pupil Cost  $3,694 $3,588 $3,760 $3,798 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-9j Actual 1993-9~ Budgeted 1994-95 B \" J,ted Parkvlew Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E:. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F.T.E:. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $62,517 1.0 $64,582 1.0 $65,747 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $119,256 3.0 S152,394 3.0 $153.428 03 Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $221,882 9.8 $283,232 9.8 $311,985 04 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $118,446 3.0 $123,123 3.0 $129,966 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $33,013 1.0 $34,026 1.0 $34,026 06 Art- Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocation al 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $302,605 7.0 $283,945 7.0 $268,642 10 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $51,899 1.5 $63,868 1.5 $53,457 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,370,962 39.6 $1,393,800 39.6 $ 2J,341 - 13 Substitutes $42,409 $49,179 $51,640 $51,640 14 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,490,483 66.6 $2,369,244 66.9 $2,491,279 66.9 $2,638,902 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $123,490 6.0 $126,650 6.0 $128,807 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $18,790 0.6 $19,227 0.6 $19,415 17 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $113,791 8.0 $119,039 8.0 $1-19,819 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $122,263 5.0 $134,692 5.0 $113,507 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $14,005 2.0 $30,125 2.0 $22,493 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOOO( $321,375 xxxxxxx $346,012 XlOOOOO( $335,564 lOOOOOO( $347,835 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $670,853 21.6 $738,351 21.6 $765,297 21.6 $751-,876 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $3,161,336 xxxxxxx $3,107,595 xxxxxxx $3,256,576 xxxxxxx S~ J),778 - PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $208,483 XlOOOOO( $179,513 xxxxxxx $185,462 xxxxxxx $183,100 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOCX XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx )()()()()(JO( $1,500 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XlOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( )()()()()()0( 25 Other xxxxxxx $39,092 xxxxxxx $18,792 xxxxxxx $19,170 xxxxxxx $14,750 TOTAL (30) xxxx.xxx. $247,575 lOOOOOCX $198,305 xxxx.xxx. $204,632 xxxxxxx. $199,350 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office lOOOCXXX XlOOOOO( lOOOCXXX xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XlOOOCXX $87,767 xxxxxxx $92,439 )000000( $94,288 xxxxxxx $98,173 (40) 128 Media xxxxxxx $16,883 xxxxxxx $13,753 XXXXXlOC $14,028 xxxxxxx $7,642 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $3,136 xxxxxxx $3,200 xxxxxxx $6,100 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $104,650 XlOOOOO( $109,327 XlOOOOO( $111,516 xxxxxxx $111,915 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $37,950 lOOOOO()( $23,092 lOOOOO()( $23,554 xxxxxxx $16,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx xxx:xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx - (50) 32 Other lOOOOOCX XJOOOO(X lOOOOOCX xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) XlOOOOO( $37,950 XJOOOO(X $23,092 lOOOOOCX $23,554 lOOOOOCX $16,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx $3,496 XXXXJOOC $5,809 xxxxxxx $5,925 XXXXlCXX $5,000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx XXXXJOO( xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) XlOOOOO( $3,496 XlOOOOO( $5,809 XXXJOOCX $5,925 XlOOOOO( $5,000 TOTAL (30-60) XlOOOOO( $393,671 xxxxxxx $336,534 lOOOOO(X $345,627 lOOOOO(X $332,265 TOTAL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,444,128 88.5 $3,602,203 88.5 $3,723,043 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $158,509 lOOOOOO( $135,955 xxxxxxx $167,720 xxxxxxx $2~1,123 GRANO TOTAL lOOOOOCX $3,713,516 xx:xxxxx $3,580,083 lOOOOOCX $3,769,923 lOOOOOCX $3,~24,166 L)ri:ifh_efu\\C\u0026amp;\n,.,,:,,ii:ii,it:::::::::\ni\n::::: Ii,,-- ,:,:,,,,,,,,,,':'\\i'''''''''\"''''' 1:::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::,,-:,,:,:-:::::::::: \"''''''\"  .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, \"'''''\"' \"''\"''''''\"''\"'\"\n:\n::::,:.:.:,,:,::-:,\n,:,:-:,\n,,:.:,:,:,:   1991-92 1992 93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,353 $1,425 $1,425 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $105,548 $131,007 $164,410 Vocational $17,696 $14,932 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $22,029 $13,884 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,071 $232 $3,420 $3,420 Reading $1,182 $114 $114 Science English $520 ($473) $342 $342 Special Education $876 $479 $912 $912 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $158,509 $135,955 $167,720 $201,123 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 848.3 870.0 880.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,580,083 $3,769,923 $3,924,166 \"Raf PUpiLC6sG:\\ : \u0026gt; :$4~49\np : l $4/420{ t :,~ ~ ~a~at : : $4A59} 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9 Actual 1992-9~ Actual 1993-9 Budgeted 1994-9~ Budg\u0026lt;:ted Willlams Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F,T,E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 1.0 $65,081 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 1.0 $39,965 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 5.0 $179,381 04 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 1.4 $47,686 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 1.0 $37,301 06 Art-Perf./Prod. - 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 20.0 $667,841 1 O Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1. 1 $27,792 1.1 $28,595 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 2.0 s-'1 C64 -- 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 3.0 $113,639 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 36.9 $1,183,042 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,233,533 35.5 $1,267,153 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 2.6 $30,108 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 1.0 $34,467 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 3.5 s5 453 - 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $32,748 9.0 $54,985 9.0 $45,596 21 Fringe Benefits(20) .lOOOOOO( $158,584 xxxxxxx $171,101 .lOOOOOO( $166,399 XJOOOOO( $176,381 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 16.1 $31 n.co5 - TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,496,470 xxxxxxx $1,465,402 xxxxxxx $1,580,155 xxxxxxx $1,605,158 PURCHASEC 22 Utilities XXlOOOCX $42,968 xxxxxxx $38,623 xxxx:xxx $48,682 xxxxxxx $57,280 SERVICES 23 Travel XXXXlOO( XlOOOOO( $3,793 JOOOOOO( $3,870 JOOOCXXX $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOCX )00()()00( )00()()00( lOOOOOCX 25 Other lOOOOOCX $16,259 lOOOOOO( $16,400 xxxxxxx $16,728 xxxxxxx $8,000 TOTAL(30) XlOOOOCX $59,227 XlOOOOCX $58,816 xxxxxxx $69,280 XlOOOOO( $70,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx XlOOOOO( XlOOOOO( i lOOOOOO( - SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $44,477 XXlOOOO( $38,631 lOOOOOO( $39,405 XXXXlOO( $3\" ,698 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $6,976 xxxxxxx $6,234 XXlOOOO( $6,360 xxxxxxx $11,000 29 Other xxxx:xxx XXlOOOCX $1,475 xxxx:xxx $1,505 xxxxxxx $2,200 TOTAL (40) xxxx:xxx $51,454 JOOOOOO( $46,341 JOOOOOO( $47,270 XXXXXlO( $44,898 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $14,984 )00()()00( $25,034 )00()()00( $25,535 xxxxxxx $22,7-00 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. :000000: :000000: :000000: xxxxxxx - (50) 32 Other XlOOOOCX lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx TOTAL (50) xxx:xx:xx $14,984 lOOOOOO( $25,034 xxxxxxx S25,535 lxxxxxxx $22,700 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx $535 XXXXlOO( $190 xxxxxxx $195 xxxxxxx $2,000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxx:xxx $535 XXlOOOCX $190 xxxx:xxx $195 lOOOOOCX' $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) XXlOOOCX $126,200 XXlOOOCX $130,381 xxxx:xxx $142,280 lOOOOOO( $139,878 TOTAL (10-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,722,435 51.6 $1,745,036 TOTAL LINE I EMS - (SECOND PAGE) :000000: $71,665 :000000: $60,881 :000000: $78,563 xxxxxxx $10,:.,748 GRAND TOTAL lOOOOOCX $1,694,335 lOOOOOCX $1,656,664 XlOOOOCX $1,800,998 XXXlOOO( $1,849,784 Line Item Costs - Ji .,. .:c .:::::::-::::::: I ,.,ec.,.,.,., ... ,.ce,, /,:, ..  1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,537 $1,614 $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 $91,920 Vocation al Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx )()()(JOO( xxxxxx Total Line Items $71,665 $60,881 $78,563 $104,748 Per PupH Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 473.3 492.0 492.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,656,664 $1,800,998 $1,849,784 Per Pupil Cost $3,343 $3,500 $3,661 $3,760 TAKE ONE TEL No .1-501-37 4- 37 12 Jun 2 ,94 16 : 07 No. 008 P. 03 STAFF lN-St~RVICE PLAN WILLIAMS MAGNET SCHOOL 1994-95 Five in-service sessions have been planned for the William's Magnet School Staff for the 1994-9.5 school year. Two of these sessions center around the effective and efficient use of the computers that have been purchased for use within the school\ntwo sessions emphasize the proper use of the newly adopted reading series\nand one session focuses on the analysis of Stanford-8 tests and the formulation of proper goals addressing areas of concern. A tentative plan for the in-service hours and the objectives to be reached i'\u0026gt; summarized below: ElRST SEMESTER IN-SERVICE: 1. Basic Computer Literacy: Objective: This in-service will be a practical work session to tram all certified staff on the proper use of the IBM Computers. (Six IBM Computers have been purchased for the 1994-95 school year, three were purchased for the 1993-94 school year, and three were purchased for the 1992-93 school year.) Staff members will learn the basfo DOS commands, how to format and copy disks, basic troubleshooting techniques, appropriate use of the printers.and will preview appropriate software for their particular grade level. Fall of 1994 In-service hours required: 3-6 40 participants@ $54.03/person Total cost: $2,161.20 2. Reading Tertbook In-Service: OJ:tj5\u0026lt;ctive: The staff will become familiar with the Harcourt-Drace-Jovanovich Reading Series that has been adopted for the 1994-95 school year. Sample lessons will be demonstrated featuring whole group and small group techniques. Teachers will be presented a model lesson pl.an designed specifically for the new reading seri~ and will be givm the opportunity to construct model plans for each grade l~l (This was done for the previous reading series and was a specific r~uest for any new adoption.) Fall of 1994 In-service hours required: 3-6 40 participants $54.03/person Total cost: $2,161.20 TAKE ONE fi TEL No.1-501-374-3712 Jun 2,94 16:07 No.00B P.02 Magnet Review Comm.ittee 1900 North Main Stl'C'ct  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Cre6r Ex .. cutlve Director TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJ: DATE: Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Donna Grady Cree~ Magnet Review Committee Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee Response to Questions Regarding the 1994-95 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budget June 1, 1994 (501) 758-0156 By this memo, I am forwarding the responses to your questions regarding the interdistrict magnet schools 1994-95 budget as per our recent telephone conversation. 1. What is the indirect cost rate for each school? The indirect cost rate is calculated by the Arkansas Department of Education, Administrative Services Federal Finance Division, L. J. Wesley, Coordinator. According to Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, LRSD, the indirect cost rate is the same for each school in the district. As indicated on the budget, the indirect cost rate for the 1994-95 school year is 5.03%, 2, Why the change in the FTB's from 1993-94 to 1994-95? LRSD's Support Services Office counted bodies for the 1993-94 school year, rather than actual FTE's. Careful study was given to this year's submission to accurately delineate the FTE's for each staff area. 3. Explain the change in Williams Magnet stipend line item. See attached. DGC:sl Attachment I i I 1989-1990 Projected ADM 4123 Actual ADM 3757 Difference ADM -366 Budgeted Per Pupil $ 3,100.00 Actual Per Pupil $ 3,099.68 Total Budget $12,781 ,300.00 Total Reimbursement $11 ,645,491 .00 Difference $ (1 ,135,809.00) Actual Expenditure ITrue Per Pupil??? $ 3,402.00 Magnet School Budgets and Per Pupil Expenditure 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 3741 .29 3878 3807 3771.8 3679.6 3570.54 30.51 -198.4 -236.46 $3,682.00 $3,682.00 $3,823.00 $ 3,682.02 $ 3,682.04 $ 3,823 .00 $13,775,416.00 $14,278,796.00 $14,554,670.00 $13,887,841 .00 $13,548,434.00 $13,650,174.00 $ 112,425.00 $ (730,362.00) $ (904,496.00) $ 3,652.21 $ 3,880.53 $ 4,076.32 MAG9495.XLS 1994-1995 3833 3529 -304 $3,901.00 $14,952,534.00 $13,766,629.00 $ (1,185,905.00) $ 4,237.05 I ~equested -- Asof9/6 u, ... :.u: :n.tn*:u  ttt , * * * n,*::tt. ** * ***** *n:u:.:\n,::i *-** * U]n:i:t:~ :u:. *** nu :u .. ru::t ******* * * P.01 *  TRANSACTION REPORT DATE START c::\n~,r 'R ..., ..... IL r_ RX TIME PAGES OCT-28-94 FRI 15:03 TfPt NOTE * * * .t ---------------------------------------- * '( n(T-?8 14:58 so. -~ I 24cG J' tp\" 6 RE ~EI',~ ,._,.., L. I I J. . - 'JK t +. i~ i ' 0 . .n.tp:fHh\"! 1Hd t' '.f- 10 28 : 9-! 15:02 '5'501 iil 2420 .U!ERIC HO)!E LIFE CI\\Y. i 5Ul/771-2 '1 J.0 @001 $71- 0/CJO COMPANY Nl\\..'lli: ___ 0 ..,2) /Y7 _ _ FROM: DATE: -~ ~ d_Lr~r-~ .C~~ d~ .\n2..,\n/9'9 _~ -------------- / ------------- --- --- - ~------------------ ---- ----- ---- ---- -- 10 : 28 , 9-1 15:03 '5'501 iil 2-120 AMER IC HO)!E LI FE Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 f4]002 Donna Crady Creer Execulive Director 1.so1 l 1se-01 se. October 2B, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown, Feceral Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. ~arkham. Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. B:rown: This letter comes to apprise you of information received from Mr. Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District, at an October 28, 1994 special-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee. The meeting was held for the specific purpose of receiving this information from Little Rock School District (reference my letter to you dated October 24, 1994). A copy of the revised budget infor.mation (draft 3) is attached, as well as a copy of the budget which has been submitted to the Court for approval (draft 2). At this time, each representative will discuss the information received at this meeting with their party and the impact of the proposed changes to the budget. The Magnet Review Committee plans to vote on this issue at its ne~t meeting scheduled for November 14, 1994. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please contact our office. Sincerely, ffi#-\n~/~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachments 10 .' 28 ,, 9\"1 15 : 03 '6'501 i71 2-!20 A)!ERIC H0)IE LIFE 141003 ll~1.~JWi,1glifM~E\u0026amp;~if.f'.g}i~ ~ t~:imii'iat-t~:l,,, ~-M$~WiJN.% ~~~,:~ ~i. ~~~\u0026amp;~ ~.Tif$i ffSiifa~(is~t-: FitJ\n\\ ~2~~r1M:\u0026lt;0 -=F sEiaiiiiifilL CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 $375,279 6.0 $34-0,086 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 $433,972 10.0 $473,907 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 $1,211,895 39.2 $1,224,208 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 $405,435 12.4 $452,360 OS Media Spec. 6.5 $218,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 $224,104 6.5 S230,137 06 Art-Per1./Prod. 0.0 SO 0.0 $0 0,0 $0 $0 0.0 SO 07 MUSIC 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. o.o so o.o so o.o $0 so o.o so 09 Vocational 14.0 SS07,273 12.6 $489,335 , 12.6 $492,420 $483,977 12.6 $404,921 10 Special Education 7.B $248,275 7.B $245,166 7.7 $276,790 $282,681 7.7 $263,527 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 $158,016 5.4 $189,153 12 Classroom 1B1 .4 SS,308,868 1n.s SS,354,901 175.9 SS,689,340 $5,377,867 175.9 $5,582,275 13 Substitutes 0.0 S153,B13 o.o S147.417 o.o $154,925 $182,975 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Klndargarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 S44a,634 $448,552 14.0 $459,595 TOTAL CERTIFIED $Al.AR 294.S $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289. 7 $9,955,822 $9,584,753 289.7 $9,775,094 SUPPORT 15 Sacretarias 18.0 $301,141 19.0 f,355,081 19.0 $353,310 $360,333 19.0 $323,508 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,659 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 $156,152 5 . .( $155,272 17 Custodians 28.5 $346,330 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $372,625 $360,957 28.5 $355,219 18 Paraproles.slonals-Chptr 1 0.0 SO 0.0 $0 0.0 SO 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofesslonals- Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 $122,210 6.0 $13.2,853 20 Other-Aldas 39.S $316,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 $237,662 37.0 $270,749 .21 Fringe Benerits(20) ~ $1,254,324 ~ $1,366,607 hiocd $1,342,873 $1,213,301 ~ $1,282,054 TOTAL SUPPORT SALAA'I' 96.4 '2,474,792 98 . .( $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 $2,450,615 95.9 $2,519,655 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $12,004,096 ~ S11,883,53.2 ~$12,648,376 $12,035,368 ~ $12,294,749 PURCHASE22 Utilities ~ $601 ,780 umi S.507,373 ~ $598,926 $598,876 ~- $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ - ~ , $33,980 ~ $31,215 $20,580 ~ $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements f~ !(Odcl' ~ ~ 25 Other ~ $166,508 ~ $92,772 ~ $99,428 $119,669 ~ - $74,250 ----.L..-.jr-~=\n-\n---\n:.-=:-- -...,.,.,.-+:,,.\n..\n.,--:::=~:-:--f....,.,.\n,\nr-~~-=-~~T\"-==='==:+~=~::--F~~--\"'.==\"=-~ TOTAL(30) mcioc( $768,288 ~ - $634,125 ~ $729,569 $739,125 XlClOboc $727,223 MATERIALS 26 Prlnclpal's Olllce i~ ~ ~ Xliooabc' SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom mime $343,433 ~ $309,128 ,oocido $315,284 $328,856 ~ (40) 28 Media )ClOObb( $56.509 ~ $53,842 mM $54,884 S34,2n ~ - 29 Other ~ iXXlOOdi $11,6\"7 lCixm $11,656 $18,873 l0Ctibi:li TOTAL (40) ~ $399,942 XlCDOOI $374,617 ~ $382,024 \u0026amp;382,006 ~ CAPITAL 30 Equipment ~ $111,624 ~ $106,263 -~ $104,215 $67,029 xxXl!Xi OUTLAY 31BulldlngRepalr, etc. ~ i~ ~ ~ (50) 32 Other ~ xnicoc ~ !~ $302,337 $57,242 $19,510 $379,089 TOTAL(S0) ~ $111,824 l00000I. $106,283 Xl0i:fu $104,215 $67,029 ~ S93,64S OTHER 33 Dues and Fees diem $8,358 ~ - $12,416 !xicn $12,665 $13,017 ~ $15,655 (60) 34 Other I~ ~ ~ ~ TOTAL (60) ~ $8,358 i~ $12,416 -ICliOOCOC $12,665 $13,017 ~ $15,655 TOTAL(30-60) iOOOOat $1 ,288,412 ~ $1 ,127,441 ~ $1,228,473 $1,201,177 l00000t: $1,215,613 TOT!.L(10-60) 390.9 $13,292,508 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 $13,876,849 $13,236,545 385.6 $13,510,362 TOTAL LINE_ TEMS - (SECOND PAGE) llbCXa: S595,333 Xl0r.l00\u0026lt; $537,465 l0000CX $677,821 $413,629 ~ $796,728 E~n\\fGRAN01'0'.fAC~f=i~\u0026gt; :mm iJUST~S.11 113..548~' ~ $'iA~,610~ Stl!,$0/114t ,oooocx ~1~.W.09Qi 10 128 19-1 15 : 05 '5'501 771 2-120 1\\JIERIC HOME LIFE @00-1 '. . 1\n11:2110 :mt,1'8!'~~:~i J@~~-'s:\nl ~@. ~.\" :~~~( ~tit!JHNf.ff,~i!t - Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Stipends $19,671 $20,739 S16,269 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $348,726 $685,103 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $17,222 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $28,627 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Sel'\\licas $18,271 $1.009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science Engllsh $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Educallon $3,9V $2,082 $4,000 $2,785 $4,000 l00000( XXl000( xxxxxx. J00000( Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $877,821 $413,629 $796,728 10! 28 19-1 15:05 'fi'501 iil 2-120 A~!ERIC H(l)!E LIFE 1 si~~~~~!to~:,\n!~~~::$Qt{OOis\ne{'\ntif:T::\n:~~ ,/:~~1\n6 ~~~/ ~T::~\u0026lt;t \u0026lt;,i:~~~:93 SF, 6_0 $\n~r~~ f~'l\\!'.6' ,, -!=~:.~~~-,:1 ' S1AFF 102-Asst. Prin. I ,o.o $456 057 10.D $438,462 10.0 1 $479,729 10.0 $478,891 l03 Specialists I 37.4 1 $1,274.519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 39.2 $1,290,162 1041Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431 ,093 12.4 , $457,554 1 05 Media Spec. 6.5 s2,a,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 S233,751 6.5 $238,592 l06 Art-Perf./Prod. , o.o i so 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 \\ $0 ' '071Music I o.o so 1 0.0 SO 0.0 so o.o $0 I I08'Foreign Lar.g. 1 o.O / $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0  o.o $0 09,Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 . $492,420\n12.6 $483,414 I 10 Special Edvcat:on I 7.8 1 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 I 7.7 $285,726 i 111 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 s.o $159,822 5.4 $174,623 5.4 $191,740 I 112 Classroom 181 .4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 175.9 $5,616,001 1 13 Substit,.,tas ' o.o $153,813 o o $147,417 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,925 114 Other-Kin1ergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 14.0 $457,467 I I I I TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 294.S $9,529,304 267.1 I $9,276,435 289. 7 $9,955,822 289.7 $10,225,141 I SUPPORT 115 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $353,310 19.0 $335,238 STAFF i1 51Nvrses 5.4 $148,659 5,4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 5.4 $159,150 , , 117 Custodians 28.S $346.330 i 28.5 $335,694 28 5 $372.625 28.S $375,432 I 118 Paraprofessiorals-Chptr 1 0.0 SO 0.0 SO 0.0 $0 I 0.0 $0 I 119 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.D $157,639 6.0 $139,163 1 120 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 37.0 S292,027 :21 Fringe Benetlts(20) ~ $1,254,324 ~I $1,366,607 ~- $1,342,873 ~ $1,383,030 I TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 95.9 $2,664,040 I TOTAL (10-20) __ $12,004,096 '   $11,883,532 ~ S12,648,376 ~ $12,909,181 I PURCHASEDl221Utilities ~I $60~ .780 ~ $507,373 ~ $538,926 -~ $619,066 ! SERVICES 123 Travel :JOOOOOQ( ~ $33,980 ~ $36,215 'lOOOOCXX' $33,907 (30) 124 Maintenance Agreements ,~ :lOOCXXl()( ~. ~ I ,25 Other ~ $166,508 .~ $92,n2 ~ - S94,426 .ix\u0026gt;boool: $74,250 r----:-----c--,------TOTA\\_ (30) :lCX'OOOCX, $768 .268 -~ $634,125 JQDOOOb( $729,569 lOOOOOCX. $727,223 ! MATERIAL$, 126 Principal s Otlice OOOOOOO{j ~ ~ f}(X)OOOO(: I I I SUPPLIES l2?1 RegularCl\n,s.sroorr xx:xxxxxl 5343.433 $309,128 ~I $315,284 $302,337 j $57,242 $19,510 (40) 28 M6d:a ~ $56,509 $53,842 XlOO(lO(X $54,664 ~ CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ ~ $11,647 :ipooocix $11,856 ~- TOTAL (40) ~menc j31 Building Aepalr, etc: ~ $399,942 XlOaXlOI' $374,617 ~ $382,024 XlOOOOCX -1-------'--'----f..XXXlOOCX..._.- ,\n-.--.-~. ,-.\n..c$1:.:1..:.1. :..:,8....c24 ' $~ 06,283 )ooaxx'x $104,215 'XXXX)()O! XlOOOOCX. l00CXXlOI ~ ~ 132 Other lQOOOPa' JOOQ000(. XlOOQOOC :ixxxxxx T01AL (SO) ~-- $111,824  $106,283 ' $104,215 133 Dues ancl Fees X)(X)CQQ( $8,358 ~ S 12.416 ~ $12,665 XXXXXlC( '34 Otrier xxxxxx,c xixxmc ~ XXXXXXX $379,089 $93,646 $93,646 $15,655 I t----c-T_O_T_A_L~(_60~) __lO O_!c _ o_CQC__,\nf-- $8,358 xxJixxxx S12,4'6 :JQOOOOO(: $12,665 $15,655 , ___T O_T_A_L_,_(3_0_-_60'-'-) __ ._,oo o-o-=o'-'o.,c_:~:...$1_2.:..:8:..::a.:..:.4..\n.1~ 2lO OQQOO $1,127,441 ~ $1,228,473 ')(XX)ClXX $1 ,215,613 TOTAL (1 0-60) 390.9 1S13,292.508 I. 3B5 5 $13,010,969 385.6 1$13,876,849 365.6 jS14,124,794 I TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) J000()()0( $595,333 X)OOOOO(' $537,465 )()0()0()0( / $677,821 .lOOOOQQCI $627,741 I_ G__ R _AN_D_T_O_'r_A_l _l, _lOOOOOOC___:\n.c...=C'-$-'-,1..:\n.3-'-',,~7.84, X'.X:IOCXXX $13,548,.:34 l000000( ~14~55 ,670 J)OcXlO(l(l( $14,952.534 I 15: 06 '5'501 7il 2-120 ,\\JIERIC HO)!E LIFE 141006 Line Hem Costs - I iSU~e~d$ .... , .. :11991-92 1992-93 11993-94 1994-95 I $19,871 $20,739 $29,125 ---  I0 tner Ob,ects I l l~d irsct Costs $503,365 ' $458,905 $574,582 $716,116 Voc.:atio11aI : $30.837 $29.a64 $32,000 $32,000 ~cs I $31 ,231 $27,741 $29,000 $29,000 IGi'ted Programs I ~5 1 $500 $500 Plant Servcos $18,271 $1,G09 i $15,000 $15,000 ~f::~\nn_g _ _ I $5,334 $500 $500 . !En\\,, Si\"\\ I $2,3681 ($2,058)1 $1,500 s, ,500 I Special Ecucat,ol' I s2,oe2 I $4,000 $4,000 I )0()000( - .,_,,, I I r XXlOCXX I I I - ---- XlCXXXX I I ~ta Lire Items ' I I I l ss9s 333 I ss37,t.55 I $677,821 t $827,741 I Pe( Pupiteost \n, '  . -l199l-92- :/  1992~.93 .jJ99.:-:SE /,:. }:S~8S, ,'.,\n-?! 3rd O:r. ADM or Pro1. I 3TT1 .8 3679 6 I 3807.0 3833.0 I Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548.434 I $14,554,670 $14,952,534 I 1.Par Pupi l Cost '\" / l i . \" $3:\n682 ,.,:\n:\n::., . $S\n682J,~- .,. ,,\n:~ 1823 .\n\"''~:filSS,SQ~'l Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 October 28, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: This letter comes to apprise you of information received from Mr. Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District, at an October 28, 1994 special-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee. The meeting was held for the specific purpose of receiving this information from Little Rock School District (reference my letter to you dated October 24, 1994). A copy of the revised budget information (draft 3) is attached, as well as a copy of the budget which has been submitted to the Court for approval (draft 2). At this time, each representative will discuss the information received at this meeting with their party and the impact of the proposed changes to the budget. The Magnet Review Committee plans to vote on this issue at its next meeting scheduled for November 14, 1994. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please contact our office. Sincerely, ~ ~/,ot Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC: sl Attachments - r, 'I CERTIFIED 01 Principal STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 03 Specialists 04 Counselors 05 Media Spec. 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 10 Special Education 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 13 Substitutes 14 Other-Kindergarten 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 $375,279 6.0 $340,086 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 $433,972 10.0 $473,907 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 $1,211,895 39.2 $1,224,208 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 $405,435 12.4 $452,360 6.5 $218,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 $224,104 6.5 $230,137 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 $483,977 12.6 $404,921 7.8 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 $282,681 7.7 $263,527 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 $158,016 5.4 $189,153 181.4 $5,308,868 1TT.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 $5,377,867 175.9 , $5,582,275 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 $182,975 0.0 $154,925 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 $448,552 14.0 $459,595 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 294.5 $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,955,822 $9,584,753 289.7 $9,TT5,094 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 17 Custodians 28.5 $346,330 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 o.o SO 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 21 Fringe Benelits(20) ,xioclai $1,254,324 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $12,004,096 PURCHASE 22 Utilities :~ $601,780 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ - (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ 19.0 5.4 28.5 0.0 $355,081 $148,996 $335,694 $0 19.0 $353,310 5.4 $154,424 28.5 $372,625 0.0 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 lOOOOCX $1,366,607 lOOOOO(' $1,342,873 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 ~ -$11,883,532 ~ -$12,648,376 ~ $507,373 ~- $598,926 ~ $33,980 ~ $31,215 ~ - )t)(X)O(X 250ther ~ - $166,508 ~ $92,772 ~ - $99,428 TOTAL (30) xxiooa $768,288 xxioc:loc' $634,125 liXlCOOC $729,569 $360,333 $156,152 $360,957 $0 $122,210 $237,662 $1,213,301 $2,450,615 $12,035,368 $598,876 $20,580 19.0 $323,508 5.4 $155,272 28.5 $355,219 0.0 $0 6.0 $132,853 37.0 $270,749 )()()000(. $1,282,054 95.9 $2,519,655 ~ $12,294,749 ~ - $619,066 ~ $33,907 ~ - $119,669 ~ - $74,250 $739,125 xxiooa. $727,223 MATERIALS 26 Principal' s Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom -~ ~ i~ ~ ~ - $343,433 ~ . $309,128 !xxiX) $315,284 $328,856 ~ $302,337 (40) 28 Media ~ - $56,509 ~ - $53,842 i(x)()Oc)( $54,884 $34,277 ~ $57,242 29 Other ~ l(Xl00CX $11,647 XlOC00C $11,856 $18,873 :XX\u0026gt;OOOC $19,510 TOTAL (40) lOOOOa' $399,942 xiooooc $374,617 llOOOOCX $382,024 $382,006 l0000CX $379,089 CAPITAL 30 Equipment ~ $111,824 ~ $106,283 X)(X)O(X $104,215 $67,029 X)Cl0Q(X $93,646 OUTLAY c3~1~B~ui~ld~in-g~R~e-p-ai~r.-e~tc-.--r~0~~1~~,~r----T-!(X)OCO\u0026lt;--.,.......t----~~~~-oo-9~~t---'---t----'---t-a\u0026lt;x.~----,------'----, (50) 32 Other TOTAL(50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other TOTAL(60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE rrEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ........ ,.  GRANO. TOTAL.'\\/? XlOClCD $111,824 XXiCOa $106,283 liOOOOOC $104,215 $67,029 Xl!tXlOO{ $93,646 ~ $8,358 ~ $12,416 l(XlOOO( $12,665 $13,017 i)(X)OOO( $15,655 )a)OOO( ~ XX)00C)C iWOOcX, lOOOOOC $8,358 ,ooooa $12,416 lOOOCOC $12,665 $13,017 lOOOOOC $15,655 ~ - $1,288,412 Xl0000C $1,127,441 ~ $1,228,473 $1,201,177 lOOCCCX $1,215,613 390.9 $13,292,508 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 $13,876,849 $13,236,545 385.6 $13,510,362 X)OOQ(X. $595,333 !XXX\u0026gt;.OO\u0026lt; $537,465 XXX)Oa $677,821 $413,629 )OO()O(X $796,728 \u0026gt;OOOOOC $1 UB7~Mf xxxxxx S13$.4B,434 XXlOOO( $14,554,670 S13,650, 174 lOOOOCX $14\n307,090 t!ntJJijrtf~~smmrnmrn :it:1~\naitt. mm+asnn Mfflf \u0026amp;Jttf rntiifflflltt rtiifflf 9$'Wi :fa:t\n:\nj\n\nt'.t:\n?ff}{ft:ff\n\\F Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Stipends $19,871 $20,739 $16,269 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $348,726 $685,103 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $17,222 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $28,627 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 $2,785 $4,000 )0()()()()( )0()()()()( )0()()()()( )0()()()()( Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $6TT,821 $413,629 $796,728 t~em1tC($trtmmtti. t19Qlf ~ar mm +$$itt rt1~+~ m::: 1m1~~+ mr1~ 9'-Mt 3rd Ctr. ADM or Proj. 3TT1 .8 3679.6 3807.0 3570.5 3530 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $13,650,174 $14,307,090 ~ ~M~tJtMifMtm. itMlIJ\ntt$2/ lltit@f$3t  IltltW i~ m %MlN/$3t~ { rmrnrn~t~ i 19947 95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) __ 1991-9, 1992-9~ 1993-9~ 1994-9~ SUMr,1AAY FOR MAGNETSCHOOLS )? F.T.E?/ . Actual - FaT:E\n/ \\?\u0026gt;Actual \"\"''-''' - F.TE . .. ,:: \\\n:\n,. Budget F,T.E. . ,,_ Budget I CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 6.0 $370,669 I I STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 10.0 $478,891 I 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274 ,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 39.2 $1,290,162 I 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,G41 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 12.4 $457,554 I I 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $21 8,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 6.5 $238,592 I 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0  $0 I I 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0,0 $0  0.0 $0 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 _ $492,420 12.6 $483,414 I 1 O Special Education 7.8 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 7.7 $285,726 I 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 5.4 $191,740 I 12 Classroom 181 .4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 175.9 $5,816,001\n13 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,925 I 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 14.0 $457,467 I TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 294.5 $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,955,822 289.7 $10,225,141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $30 1, 141 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $353,310 19,0 $335,238 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 5.4 $159,150 ' 17 Custodians 28.5 $346, 330 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $372,625 28.5 $375,432 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 I 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,1 03 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 6.0 $139,163 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $31 6,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 37.0 $292,027 I 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXXlOQ(: $1,254 ,324 XlOOOOO{ $1,366,607 .xx:xxxxx $1,342,873 xxxxxxx $1,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 95.9 $2,684,040 I TOTAL (10-20) XXXXXl\u0026lt;X $12,004,096 xxxxxxx $11,883,532 xxxxxxx $12,648,376 XXlOOOCX $12,909,181 I PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $601,780 XlCXXXXX $507,373 xxxxxxx $598,926 xxxxxxx $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx xxx:x:xxx $33,980 ')()00000( $36,215 ')0()0000(' $33,907 I (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( l()OOOOO( xxxxxxx I 25 Other l0000\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_1120","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["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","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1120"],"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":["66 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n7- 9-92 THU 10 14 Magnet Revieiv Committee 1900\n\\\north 1\\fain Street Suite 101 North Littk Rock, Arbnsn:\n72114 Donna Grady Crear E~8Clltivq oir~f::'jr Dec~mber 18, 1990 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, United States Distric~ Court F.astern District of Arkansas C. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. o. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: In September of 1990, the Little Rock School District presented the Magnet Review Committee with the proposed budget for the interdistrict magnet schools for the 1990-91 school year. This budgeted amount of $12,735,230 represents a $270.00 per student increase which results in bringing the per pupil expenditure from $3,100 to $3,370. During its December 4, 1990 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee adopted the 1990-91 budget proposed for the interdistrict magnet school program and changed the per pupil operational charge to $3,370 by a vote of 3 to 2, with one representative being absent. (This vote reflects a reversal of an earlier vote in which four votes were cast against the budget increase and two votes were cast for it.) In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Magnet Review Committee is now submitting this proposed budget to the Court for its review. The programs are operating currently under the budget . adopted by the MRC, Your review and response regarding this action will be appreciated. We will await notification of your response regarding this action. Please contact our office should you need additional information. Sincerely,\n:t7:att\n=. ' Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Pulaski County Special School District [) . . /} \u0026lt;.l('~ ~., r(_ Dana Chadwick North Little Rock School District ~ J/4/24~rr- Marcia Harding L-Arkansas Department of Education P.02 7- 9-92 THU 10 15 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Page 2 4.-. -d._-\n,J Q. '~ I') Evelyn Ja son Joshua Intervenors !~/iL~ 1 Estelle Matthis Little Rock School District MRC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Magnet Review Committee C,\u0026amp;-4,,'to-t,\u0026lt;\u0026amp;!, c(~ Clearence Lovell Arkansas Department of Education ~yf~M~ ---------- 2,281,009 2,755,142 1,687,077 3,333 2,450 4,275 !:- ,,,. lSu 56,000 29,000 27,000 r.,,~ ~\nrpur 186,028 233,039 88,821 ~ ..... ,..,. tt~ate 81,972 106,455 60,889 ~  ,t.---f--\nCapita 29,195 31,436 24,071 t ~\n,),, ... ~\n.s.- 1,100 5,500 1.0112~(' trndire' ~~,i.~.\n:~~. lV !\n.:-n~M .. ,f,~. .t ,.h.,,l,,_\nGifte ( '\u0026lt;!\u0026lt;. ,Plan }~\u0026gt;,A\n~~ iRea 1~-X'Yo'.,)\u0026lt;,, tSde i'f~g-1 .. .~ .-- --------- 357,628 407,880 :ws,oss ----------- ----------- 2,638,637 3,163,022 1,892,133  :  . ' ~ 1,~ . ' ~l~:r\nr,1,,--fu'J! : :}t\ni\nf ----------- 1,427,244 12,509 15,000 85,873 75,042 12,675 700 201,799 ----------- 1,629,044 1,060,744 5,170 30:soo 42,025 34,718 21,306 ----------- 133,719 _______ \\ __ 1,194,463 1,075,181 172,389 137,433 ------- 1,385,003 2,000 27,500 61,210 48,500 19,753 --------- 158,963 --------- 1,543,966 8,441,022 1,160,699 994,497 --------- 10,596,219 29,737 185,000 696,998 407,576 138,436 7,300 369,322 47,300 38,487 2,000 40,000 6,880 972 2,558 26,957 --------- 1,999,522 ----------- 12,595,741 --=======:. ==========-= --------- 235,789 107,518 11,218 -J -j I C f--' rn 1) MAY-29-91 WED 17:46 U, S, DI ST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO, 7406096 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, vs. LR C 82 866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., MRS. KATHERINE KNIGH'l', ET AL,, ORDER P. 04 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT ARKANSAS MAY 2 9 1991 ~~R~.,~ y DEP, CLERK PLAINTIFF, DEFD-.\"DANTS I INTERVENORS, INTERVENOR$, Without opposition, the proposed budget submitted by the Magnet Review Committee increasing -che per pupil operational charge to $3,370.00 is approved. DATED this 29th day of May, 1991, (JS/US\nAN~ WEBhBER ~IHT4 ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE '-.. .... Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 2, 1991 Ms. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: This letter is in response to your correspondence regarding the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet school budgets for the six stipulation magnets. As you may recall, the Magnet Review Committee, in its annual Report to the Court (Section IX, Interdistrict Magnet School Budgets, page 99, attached, dated May 27, 1991), called attention to the Magnet Review Committee's difficulty of cost containment due to the lack of input on hiring and personnel contract negotiations. The $312.00 per pupil increase requested on September 24, 1991, for this school year's proposed budget is largely due to increases in teacher salaries and Act 10 requirements. In some instances, expenditures other than teacher salaries were actually lower than the 1990-91 school year. The legend on the lower portion of the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet schools budget presented to the Court via your office on September 24, 1991 clearly delineates the areas of increase. The cover letter accompanying the budget also notes the reasons for the proposed increases. An item by. item review is best comprehended in a dialogue/reporting session. Such a session will be arranged upon request if needed. As usual, the Magnet Review Committee worked closely with the host district and the principals to assure the accurate and efficient expenditure of tax dollars. We are confident that every effort was, and is, being made to keep costs within reason. Ms. Ann Brown -2- December 2, 1991 The programs are operating and dollars are being expended. Therefore, a careful review and timely response to this request is appreciated. Sincerely yours, Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl I ' I : I I I i SECTION IX INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETS The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) adopted budget for operation of the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for the 1989-90 school year was $12,781,300.00. This figure was computed on a per pupil cost of $3,100 times a total seating capacity figure of 4,123 for the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for that school year. The fiscal year for expenditure of this budget was July 1, 1989, through June 30, 1990. Initially, each of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools was allotted a proportional share of funds to budget based upon its seating capacity. However, following close budgetary review, monies were shifted among the programs where necessary to accommodate program and services needs. The adopted budget was submitted by the MRC to the Court for approval. The Interdistrict Magnet School Program operated in accordance with the adopted budget during the 1989-90 school year. Final expenditures for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools during the 1989-90 school year were as follows: Mann Parkview Booker Carver Gibbs Williams TOTAL * Average Interdistrict Magnet Schools Cost Per Pupil 1989-90 (provided by Little Rock School District) 89-90 EXP ADM* PER PUPIL $2,598,149.00 880 2,952.44 $3,044,434.00 798 3,815.08 $1,849,132.00 633 2,921.22 $1,599,842.00 600 2,666.40 $1,130,522.00 337 3,354.66 $1,423,412.00 509 2,796.49 $11,645,491.00 3,757 3,099.68 Daily Membership The operating expenditures and per pupil cost rates varied across the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools. This variance is the same experienced within any school district, reflecting the general differences found in operating elementary versus secondary schools (junior and senior high schools) and special programs. In the magnet schools, the variance was also attributable to ongoing start-up costs of programs involving unique program design and the associated personnel, equipment and staff development needs. In summary, the total expenditure for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools for the 1989-90 school year was $11,645,491.00 at an average per pupil expenditure of $3,100. The allocated budget ($12,781,300.00) was based on magnet school seating capacity (4,123) while the expended budget was based on the ADM of 3,757.00 (actual adjusted enrollment). The total expenditure is in keeping with the guidelines set forth by the Court for operation of the interdistrict magnet schools. While the Magnet Review Committee does not hire or evaluate interdistrict magnet school personnel, the effect of personnel contract negotiations on salary directly impacts the budget. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work with the host district in configuring the budget for the next year. However, it should be noted that cost  containment is difficult when teacher contract negotiations cause budget fluctuations beyond the Magnet Review Committee's control. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. 0 R D E R FILED US. DISTRICT COUA'T EASTERN OISTRl9f ARKANSAS MAR 161992 cARL / el:s, ~ By: Ir (l II 1 OEP. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) for approval of the 1991-92 magnet school budget proposal. The proposal was communicated to the Court in a letter dated September 24, 1991 and forwarded by the MRC to the court on October 9, 1991. submitted. The court has reviewed the budget and approves it as The Court notes that the 1991-92 budget for the six original magnet schools is $13,775,416.00, bringing the magnet school per pupil expenditure for the current school year to $3,682.00, This amount represents an increase of approximately $312.00 per pupil above the amount spent for each magnet school student in 1990-91. An increase in the magnet school budget has been requested by the MRC and granted by the Court for at least the past three budget cycles. The Court expects the MRC to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet school budget that will ensure efficient management of resources and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. The MRC has also asked the Court to approve a modification in the M-to-M transfer policy adopted by the school districts' Student Assignment Officers Committee in February, 1991. The M-to-M transfer policy had been included in a lengthy status report on interdistrict magnet school development and progress which was published in May 1991 and forwarded by the MRC to the court on June 19, 1991. There was no indication that the transfer policy contained in the report was a departure from previous policy or that the MRC was seeking Court approval of a policy modification. The change in M-to-M transfer policy is approved. In the future, the Court will consider Magnet Review Committee requests for approval of budget adjustments or changes regarding any other matter only if such requests {1) are made in a timely fashion, well in advance of the anticipated need for the change\n( 2) are presented in a communication written for the express purpose of presenting such proposal to the Court\n{3) are set in context, including a clear rationale for the request that contains an explanation of the circumstances or events which have prompted the request, the expected impact of the requested change, identification of those individuals, groups, programs or operations which will be affected by the change, and the anticipated date by which the change is needed. Any change requested by the MRC should not be implemented by that Committee nor the parties represented on that Committee prior to the court's approval. DATED this /~-1:--day of March, 1992. Tl-llS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN )MPLIANCE Wfn~LE 58 ANDtm~!?:a) FRCP J JN ,3- t1-'+). BY ___ J/5\n----~ ~2r~2r~ TED STATES DISTRICT UDGE I I I j LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR June 1, 1992 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge and Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Littl~ Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: 72201 ECEIVED JUN 1 1992 omce ot Desegregation Monitoring Attached are budget projections for the Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as specified in the January 21, 1992 Court Order. The Order's requirement for a revised 1991-92 budget is met by Exhibit A showing the projected cost of certain desegregation programs in this year through agreement with Mr. Bob Morgan of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. A list of notes and assumptions is included and is an integral part of the document. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. Also attached is a procedure that the LRSD will use in future desegregation budgeting so that these costs can be more accurately known. The formats and procedures shown have been reviewed with Mr. Morgan, and we believe he understands and approves. We have stated to Mr. Morgan, however, that we view this as only a step in the process of working with his office on the definition and tracking of desegregation costs, and we will continue to work with him to perfect this process to our mutual benefit. Sincerely, ~~~r( -.Manager of SuppoJt Services JI/ch Attachment cc: R. R. Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring w/attachment c:\\project.wpd LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). Al though the LRSD implemented the TriDistrict Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. 2. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. 3. The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be done with accuracy, and for the District administration to do so precludes good faith negotiation. The ODM understands this problem but feels that projecting no increases presents an unrealistic picture. Consequently, they have asked us to use a 3% annual increase in these costs. We agree to do that but wish to publicly state that this represents no commitment or intent on the part of the LRSD. If the Court desires, we can present updated projections when these figures are known. We have also used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. 4. The LRSD is currently working to produce a balanced budget for 1992-93. Al though this cannot be completed until union negotiations are settled, programs must be reviewed and some must be cut in order to meet the legal requirement of a balanced budget. The projections herein assume that sufficient reductions will be made to balance the 1992-93 budget. These reductions will not result in violation of the Desegregation Plan nor of State law. These reductions are shown as a line item entitled 11 1992-93 Budget Reductions\". If the Court desires, we will define these reductions for the Court when they are known. 5. As stated in the previous paragraph, it is assumed that $7.7 million in expense reductions will be implemented in 1992-93 and carried forward. Additional shortfalls will occur if further reductions or increased revenues are not found. We are assuming a millage increase of five mills in September, 1993. This will not be required if sufficient reduction can be found. Note that the projections do not show use of the Desegregation loan in the revenues. It is our intent to use that as a reserve in the event that we cannot get millage rates increased at the time desired. The $1. 5 million available in 1992-93 may, however, have to be used to balance the budget. LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 6. Program #51-75, Incentive School Programs, requires discussion. In the years through the 1991-92 school year, the cost of programs in the Incentive Schools exceeded the mandatory level of two times the area school instructional cost per student. Since the programs are now functioning and the mandatory level is increasing, the mandatory funding level will exceed program costs in 1992-93 and beyond. Therefore, we have shown the cost of Incentive School programs in 1991-92 and have shown the mandatory funding level differential in 1992-93 and beyond. 7. The projections show the cost of programs that are funded by the revenue sources shown. Federal funds are utilized in some programs but are not shown in the expense. We don't show federal funds in our operating budgets and to do so here, we believe, would create confusion for the Court and for the public. We can provide information on federal funds if the Court desires. 8. Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. 9. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. We believe most of this is planned for. Any additional will be covered with second-lien issues. 10. The 1993-94 reduction in program #10, Academic Support Programs, reflects the completion of payments for PAL equipment. Some funding is added for replacement of this equipment. 11. The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not included in the projections because they are funded by federal grants or because their cost is small and the cost of tracking them exceeds the value of the information. The costs are not omitted\nthey are just not broken out. 12. The operating costs of the new King and Stephens Schools are shown as opening at the times requested in motions before the Court. If these motions are not granted, we can submit revised budgets if the Court desires. Operating costs in other schools are reduced somewhat upon the opening of these schools because 400 students will move to each of the new schools from others in the LRSD. 13. The fifth and sixth positions ( from the left) of the LRSD standard account code will be used for coding desegregation expenses. The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. 14. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified. Since most of this has been expended in previous years, the only significant one remaining is the PAL cost discussed above. Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number, so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. After the normal budget planning process is complete, a memo will be sent to each budget manager telling them what costs or types of cost may be charged to Desegregation and how they are to be coded. This will be agreed to by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager of Support Services. D. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will review Desegregation expenses monthly to assure proper charging. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,196,979 39,088,120 40,093,227 45,616,117 47,086,512 48,506,276 40% PULLBACK 21,081,833 21,736,595 25,253,744 25,996,645 26,766,307 27,518,335 DELINQUENT TAXES 3,900,000 3,500,000 3,805,000 3,819,150 3,933,725 4,051,736 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 141,400 142,814 144,242 145,685 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 400,000 365,000 368,650 372,337 376,060 379,820 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 225,000 227,250 229,523 231,818 234,136 MISC. AND RENTS 420,850 461,000 484,050 508,253 533,665 560,348 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 300,000 300,000 309,000 318,270 327,818 337,653 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 85,000 85,000 86,700 88,434 90,203 92,007 TOTAL 64,749,329 65,900,715 70,769,021 77,091,542 79,490,349 81,825,996 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 28,118,907 28,118,907 28,759,387 29,419,081 30,102,462 30,862,449 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 SETTLEMENT LOAN 4,500,000 APPORTIONMENT 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 VOCATIONAL 1,474,485 1,500,000 1,545,000 1,591,350 1,639,091 1,688,263 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 629,752 675,000 742,500 816,750 898,425 988,268 EARLY CHILDHOOD 147,050 147,050 154,403 162,123 170,229 178,740 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 TRANSPORTATION 2,983,190 3,100,000 3,348,000 3,615,840 3,905,107 4,217,516 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 874,311 875,000 918,750 964,688 1,012,922 1,063,568 M TO M TRANSFERS 1,798,665 2,490,900 3,248,910 3,760,540 4,140,580 4,491,150 ADULT EDUCATION 624,119 653,094 672,687 692,867 713,653 735,063 TOTAL 49,864,380 46,562,976 47,560,167 47,142,248 46,488,830 44,984,560 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 44,625 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANT 111,453 112,000 116,480 121,139 125,985 131,024 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 800,000 600,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 TOTAL 956,078 752,000 551,480 451,139 350,985 251,024 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 115,654,206 113,300,110 118,965,087 124,769,348 126,414,583 127,146,000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 3,370,820 4,474,288 4,563,774 4,655,049 4,748,150 4,843,113 CHAPTER II 224,423 215,020 219,320 223,707 228,181 232,745 TITLE VI B 558,810 569,986 581,386 593,014 604,874 616,971 OTHER 1,735,885 1,770,603 1,806,015 1,842,135 1,878,978 1,916,557 TOTAL 5,889,938 7,029,897 7,170,495 7,313,905 7,460,183 7,609,386 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 15,332,277 TOTAL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 15,332,277 TOTAL REVENUE 135,431,985 134,494,661 140,583,529 146,820,159 148,906,410 150,087,663 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES \u0026amp; MATERIALS OTHER OBJECTS CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY BUDGET REDUCTION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 67,748,508 71,437,088 73,765,037 75,316,854 76,822,807 7,808,935 9,022,067 9,202,509 9,386,558 9,574,290 16,910,424 19,141,451 18,887,119 22,144,629 24,940,080 6,791,207 6,992,544 7,202,320 7,418,390 7,640,942 3,817,539 3,927,703 4,045,534 4,166,900 4,291,907 887,696 755,079 777,731 801,063 825,095 1,606,543 1,621,715 1,670,366 1,720,477 1,772,092 8,718,196 9,597,115 9,090,123 8,845,248 8,258,921 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 (7,700,000) (7,931,000) (8,168,930) (8,413,998) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 114,289,048 115,294,762 117,309,739 122,331,189 126,512,136 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANT 5,889,938 7,029,897 7,170,495 7,313,905 7,460,183 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 TOTAL EXPENSES 134,066,827 136,489,313 138,928,181 144,382,000 149,003,963 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN 1,365,158 (1,994,652) 1,655,348 2,438,159 (97,553) FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 1996-97 79,373,940 9,765,775 25,864,401 7,870,170 4,420,664 849,848 1,825,255 8,041,468 900,000 (8,666,418) 130,245,103 7,609,386 15,332,277 153,186,767 (3,099,103) 4,001,302 902,199 Exhibit A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRiCT EXPENDITURE PROJECTION BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER OPERATING DESEG FEDERAL MAGNET TOTAL SALARY FUND GRANTS SCHOOLS 1105 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA 52,349.84 44,337.94 204,356.00 301,043.78 1110 KINDERGARTEN 2,795,060.64 325,000.00 425,733.12 3,545,793.76 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 28,811,085.64 7,562,955.21 6,686,389.30 9,069,517.95 52,129,948.10 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 4,037,827.87 1,224,081.75 11,626.28 362,373.04 273,945.79 5,909,854.73 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 4,071,829.27 1,238,599.52 118,050.36 351,162.00 601,212.16 6,380,853.31 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 698,543.12 35,608.75 130,509.54 864,661.41 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 756,490.90 537,715.75 1,649,581.34 3,522,602.96 6,880.00 6,473,27u.95 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 1,156,944.86 214,094.16 67,162.00 187,848.98 1,626,050.00 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2,598,700.99 1,102,812.86 317,475.66 428,580.73 651,786.63 5,099,356.87 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2,684,664.92 2.on,880.91 1,653,162.72 444,781.18 423,530.00 7,284,019.73 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 183,975.48 734,945.29 4,265,335.80 115,554.79 5,299,811.36 2410 PRINCIPAL'$ OFFICE 3,939,101.54 1,861,405.13 107,044.21 1,195,556.85 7,103,107.73 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 16,625,075.77 710,699.21 3,000.00 1,051,829.76 18,390,604.74 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 290,883.38 2,194,315.26 510,528.09 2,995,726.73 3000'S COMMUNITY SERVICES 839,750.00 640,566.28 464,212.24 1,944,528.52 5100 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 8,718,196.00 8,718,196.00 TOTAL 51,378,915.33 45,999,708.67 16,910,424.00 5,889,938.48 13,887,841.24 134,066,827.72 July 8, 1992 OFRCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee do Pulaski County Special School District P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Dear Bobby: The court needs additional information so that it may consider the Magnet Review Committee's proposed 1992-93 budget for the six original magnet schools. This information is necessary to comply with the court's March 16, 1992 order requiring that MRC requests be set in context and include a clear rationale. Furthermore, because of the acute financial difficulties currently experienced by all three school districts, it will be necessary to justify the requested budget in some detail. As you know, the court is mandated to scrutinize the parties' fiscal responsibility and accountability in relationship to the desegregation plans which, of course, include the magnet schools. To assist the court, please provide the following information: 1. Explain why the total 1992-93 magnet school budget is projected to be greater than the 1991-92 budget.  The requested 1992-93 budget of $14,164,654 is an increase of $389,238 over the 1991-92 budget of $13,775,416. The MRC proposal states that per-pupil expenditures will remain at the 1991-92 level of $3,682, yet it is not clear how the per-pupil amount can remain constant while the total budget rises, especially since the amount of the increase is not equal to the perpupil expenditure multiplied by the projected increase in student enrollment. 2. Explain step by step the process the MRC used in reaching the proposed 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal, including the method and results of independent MRC fact finding. 3. The committee's May 26, 1992 letter to Judge Wright states that the budget was approved on May 12, 1992 by a unanimous vote of those in attendance. Which MRC members attended the May 12 meeting? July 8, 1992 Page Two 4. What budget cost-cutting measures were considered by the MRC? 5. How will the MRC ensure that the 1992-93 magnet budget recommendation is aligned with the cost-containing budgets of the three school districts, especially that of the LRSD where a new superintendent must construct a significantly reduced 1992-93 district operating budget? 6. Section IX of the May 27, 1991 MRC annual report refers to some cost variations that are attributable to the \"ongoing start-up costs\" of certain magnet programs. Do these \"start-up\" costs remain \"ongoing\" in the 1992~93 budget? If so, provide details of what is considered start-up, the cost of each start-up factor, why the start-up phase has been prolonged, and when the start-up phase will be concluded. 7. Explain why indirect costs, vocational, athletics, gifted programs, plant services, reading, science, English, and special education are listed as separate line items. Even though these items have appeared separately on the magnet school budget for some years, it is not clear why they are separate. Also explain specifically how each of these items is related and apportioned to the operation of each magnet school. 8. What accounts for the increase in the amounts for purchases services and indirect costs? 9. When may the court expect to receive the MRC's 1991-92 annual report so the court can consider the proposed budget in conjunction with the MRC's evaluation of the magnet schools and any changes in their operation the committee may suggest? My associates and I will be glad to discuss any aspect of the magnet schools' budget if you'd like for us to get together. However, a formal response to this letter will be necessary so the court has the benefit of a written record. Thank you very much for your help. Very truly yours, Ck-- Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Donna Grady Greer OCT 6 19~2 Office of oesegr.zgation t\\ionitormg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRI CT NO:\"~1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT ~ASTEflN DISTPIW ARKANSAS OCT O 2 1992 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has received and filed of record a letter from the Magnet Review Committee concerning recent budget cuts by the Little Rock School District and the impact of those cuts on the six original magnet schools. The Committee sent a copy of the letter to the attorneys of record in this case. The parties are directed to file any response they might have to the Magnet Review Committee letter of September 28, 1992, within ten (10) days from the date of entry of this Order. ~ DATED this / day of October, 1992. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wl}H RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP 0N I[  2 -C!ce BY ____r_. _ ___ (  Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 28, 1992 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 DEC 2 8 19j2 (50 1) 758-01 56 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Offtee of Desegregation l,fonrto1 9 U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 1, 1992 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the , 1992-93 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,278,796, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,682.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,878 students. Of this amount, $86,469 is designated as contingency. While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. For the 1991-92 school year, the same per pupil expenditure figure was used for budgeting interdistrict magnet school monies. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: 1) In keeping with the Court's March 16, 1992 Order, which required the Magnet Review Committee to submit budgets to the Court for review and approval well in advance of the need for funds, the Magnet Revi ew Committee forwarded a preliminary budget to the Court on May 26, 1992. In that May 26, 1992 budget transmittal letter, the Magnet Review Committee made the Court aware of factors that could impact the budget. Included in that letter was a statement expressing the MRC's reluctance \"to endorse any blanket reduction of costs that would possibly have a deleterious effect on programs.\" Judge Susan Webber Wright -2- December 28, 1992 2) The Court, via the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, asked the MRC to provide a budget which would better reflect the total figure needed to operate the magnets for the 1992-93 school year. 3) The MRC received information on proposed LRSD budget cuts, which would have eliminated 14.9 FTE positions in the interdistrict magnet schools. In a special meeting held in the MRC Office on July 23, 1992, LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE positions rather than 14.9 FTE. As a normal part of the budgeting process, the MRC met with each interdistrict magnet school principal to review their budgets and get input as to how budget cuts would impact their program. As a result of this meeting, the MRC approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE positions, with LRSD being requested to reinstate the same individual staff members who had been impacted by those cuts. The LRSD agreed to reinstate cuts but declined to reinstate the same personnel. 4) The MRC forwarded a letter to the Court on September 28, 1992 seeking the reinstatement of the affected personnel. The Court ordered reinstatement in a November 5, 1992 Order. 5) The MRC reviewed the revised LRSD budget figures at the MRC meeting on December 1, 1992 and, upon determining that the figures had been adjusted t9 reflect the reinstatement of the 3.9 FTE positions, approved the budget which is attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1992-93 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Judge Susan Webber Wright -3- December 28, 1992 The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, ~Jlralk- Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Dr. Mac Bernd, Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Burton Elliott, Arkansas Department of Education Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO) OTHER (60) Cc  1991.:+9.:i -.ic\\ /' ,,:,._.,,,.,,. c/ci:CC:,c 1992':\"9:3 /- b  F.T:E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $356,933 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $481 ,040 Specialists 37.4 $1 ,274,519 36.2 $1,267,906 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $385,806 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $224,756 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,528 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $255,724 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $168,457 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 178.6 $5,243,059 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $158,428 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $419,788 Fringe Benefits(20) X)Q(XX* $1 ,068,359 xx:xxxxx $1,185,445 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $10,597,663 288.6 $10,636,870 Secretaries 18.0 $301 ,141 17.0 $310,176 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $153,326 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $356,721 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $111,191 Other-Aides 39.S $316,035 39.S $325,514 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $185,965 xxxxxx:l( - $227,463 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $1,406,433 97.4 $1,484,391 Utilities xxxxxxxi $601,780 mxx,\u0026amp; $627,700 Travel xxxxxx:ic Maintenance Agreements xxxxx?6( xx:xxxxx $166,508 xxxxxxx. $195,093 TOT AL (30) ~#XX $768,288 xAA~#. $822,793 Principal's Office xi1006qc Regular Classroom xx:xxxl{XI $379,717 $59,072 Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (40) $399,942 5dix.~~ $438,789 Equipment $120,394 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $120,394 Dues and Fees $5,895 Other TOTAL (60) $8,358 $5,895 TOT AL (30-60) $1,288,412 $1,387,871 TOT AL (1 0-60) 393.4 $13,292,508 386.0 $13,509,132 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $595,333 $769,664 GRAND TOTAL $13,887,841 $14,278,796 Stipends $0 $46,609 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education Contingency xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx $503,365 $521,176 $30,837 $35,000 $31,231 $35,000 $0 $2,000 $18,271 $25,000 $5,334 $6,880 $0 $972 $2,368 $2,558 $3,927 $8,000 $0 $86,469 * 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3878.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $14,278,796 * While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated.  ~2-93 Budget Proposal' ::nrn\u0026gt;tc :  . '  \". 1991-92   '   1992-93 BookecMagnet School  ..... : I] !\n:..\nf\ni::i:) ...... t F.T.E, ? Salaries yi  F,T.E, Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $48,442 STAFF r.A-s~st-.~P~rin-.--------t---:1~.o::-+-~$5~4~.~52~6=-+--1-.0::-+-----'-$-5~2,~5~93=---l Specialists 6.0 $350,341 6.0 $356,951 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $45 ,325 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,366 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 31.2 $751,321 31.2 $758,861 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,878 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,467 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,649 $23,328 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $112,766 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxx'.*- $172,697 ~~~: $181,564 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,689,129 47.9 $1,699,540 SUPPORT Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $31,661 STAFF rN-u-rs_e_s----------t---:-1-.0t ----:-$-2'4-,9-7-6+ ---+----,--,-- 1.0 $25,725 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Custodians 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $45,502 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $75,045 Fringe Benefits(20) xpc~iac $28,550 xx:xxxxx $34,827 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $201,301 16.0 $212,760 Utilities $81,637 xflb\u0026amp;x:xt $83,ooo Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $27,963 xltj(*-x5( $27,552 TOTAL (30) $109,600 xx:#xxx $110,552 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $54,789 Media $5,672 Other TOTAL (40) $60,461 Equipment $14 ,00Q Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $14,000 Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,718 63.9 $2,097,313 TOTAL LINE m MS- (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL *fxf6Hof $2,152,746 x#6obat $2,19a,8o5 !ii@~~~~1~:\n~\n~iji1~ : ~~\n~:\n1ii::\n  Stipends $8,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $85,830 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $3,016 $4,127 Reading $883 $1,137 Science $159 English $394 $419 Special Education $648 $1,321 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx e.~J106iiP.6$tJ%!:t\nt:Jltd% 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,198,805 ?ef'Ptlpil'Cost'tIIttr: h , t%@$~}4ZZ\\\" {lt\nt$~M~S{ Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1~92-~3 Budget proB9~aC: ... . t 1991-9~  1992-9 Ci!rv~(M~~~e(crh=oo-t\"\u0026lt;: --:----:-~~-~~~\"-t+ F. ......1.. ~\\E-:- \", -St-a~la--r'i-e-s'- A-+- -i-f- -F-.'T--.E+.- \"-=S-a=l-acri.e.=s,- =----j CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,981 STAFF r.A-s~st-.~P~rin-.---------t---:1~.o::-+---'-$~3~1.~3~28.c..+--1~.0.::...+----=$~3~2~.2~6~8 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $224,912 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $46,311 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,748 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $596,866 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $28,744 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,640 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,695 $23,376 Other-Kindergarten' 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $99,303 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $137,204 xxxxxxx $155,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,320,263 42.6 $1,341,783 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $52,743 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,795 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $42,578 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11 .0 $83,777 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxX $30,621 ~xxx $41 , 156 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $233,430 19.0 $250,049 Utilities Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL {10-60) ~~6{ $68,924 i9\u0026lt;,gxxx $79, 1 oo $22,843 ~  $91,767 ~  $22,128 ~~ $22,128 ~lq{ $2,857 ~  63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 $26,900 $106,000 $64,100 $12,000 $78,100 $16,290 $16,290 $1,020 $1,020 $1,791,242 TOTAL LINE IT! MS - (SECOND PAGE) $100,269 GRAND TOTAL $1,891,510 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $82,855 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,912 $3,984 Reading $852 $1,097 Science $153 English $380 $405 Special Education $625 $1,275 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,891,510 PerRut:\u0026gt;JJ ... cosf f,J@: mwt :trnrt~a\no35@tt tm~s:ns~r Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1@2-93 Budget ProposaF : :\n:{ \n:t: '., ,,,, 't '\n, ,, ...  1991 ... 92/\u0026lt; !Pfa~.Migm~!:#r0:0:1: \"\"\":\"\"\"\"'-:\"\"--'-:~=~r= F'-.T'-.E\".= =S=al'a\"r\"ieis- ---+-----+---+--- C ER TI FIE D Principal 1.0 F.T.E. Salaries $55,462 STAFF ~A-s~st-.~P~rin-.--------+-----=-1~.o:-+---:-=-::-'--:-':-::-+----:--::-+----'-~ 1.0 $57,126 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $164,307 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,766 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $490,762 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $49,414 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,081 $10,384 Other-Kindergarten ' 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $58,274 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx: $109,125 xxxxxxx $122,647 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $1,070,536 31 .3 $1,126,941 SUPPORT Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 1.0 $12,873 f-------------+---+------'--+- S TAFF Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $15,023 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) t--------------+---+-----+- C us to di ans 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $42,275 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $46,903 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXJQl:XX $20,314 XXX)()(X.X $23,254 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $133,977 10.8 $140,327 Utilities x~~xx $35,102 x\u0026gt;QClodat $38,300 Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $13,000 TOTAL (30) $51,300 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $29,668 Media $6,400 Other TOTAL (40) $36,068 Equipment $12,920 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $12,920 Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) $0 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 42.1 $1,367,556 TOTAL LINE IT:MS - (SECOND PAGE) $59,203 GRAND TOTAL $1,426,759 Stipends $7,009 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $47,713 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $1,676 $2,294 Reading $491 $632 Science $88 English $219 $233 Special Education $360 $734 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 353.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,426,759 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - g~~~~:.~~~~~e\n.\n~~~1~:::.:\nJ\n::1\n~:Ji'.::::\nI::\n lji:\n111~: i[j :.: ! ~~~9~ ::\naries  . ~~!~gs Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $64,070 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 .$144,375 3.0 $148,706 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $103,259 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $75,935 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $40,083 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $194,384 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,846 Gifted Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,344,079 Substitutes $45,577 $46,944 Other Fringe Benefits(20) xx\nx)O(xx $245,140 xx:xxxx:x  $275,053 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,440,016 64.3 $2,339,360 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $51,267 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,608 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $69,062 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $31,556 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $50,084 Fringe Benefits(20) XX:X~?CX $30,713 *~\u0026gt;tx( $37,395 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $257,637 14.5 $270,972 Utilities #xxxxx' $164,666 x5.cxxx5t $168,300 Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $60,941 TOTAL (30) $213,554 x~~xx $229,241 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $85,000 Media $11,000 Other TOTAL (40) $96,000 Equipment $28,Q00 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $28,000 Dues and Fees $1,375 Other TOTAL (60) $1,470 $1,375 TOT AL (30-60) $328,253 $354,616 TOT AL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 $2,964,948 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) $143,218 $162,358 GRAND TOTAL $3,169,124 $3,127,306 Stipends $8,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $117,877 Vocational $13,141 $15,600 Athletics $9,202 $10,440 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $5,668 Reading $1,209 $1,559 Science $220 English $537 $580 Special Education $890 $1,814 xxxxxx xxxxxx \\ xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 890.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,127,306 ae:r@mraost:t:::1,r::1: ::::Jr trnrrn::$$.ip~J :rn:m%J$.ii'$1\\ft Date Submitted - Principal 's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - J99:i\n~j Budget Proposal '' .,, . ..- , .. .,,. ''   1991-92 ...... 1992.:.93  =,=, E~f\u0026amp;'.!iW,=:Mi9D~JSchoot)@  ,,. },'.'',/{ d= ,.....F-T. -_-E-. -s-a~la-ri-es_ ..........- +-F-.T -.-E. --+-S-a-la-ri_e_s ---1 ~:---:-':--\"-=~.c...:.:\n..==\"-'~\"'----'=t---=t-::...:.:...:__:_..:..__-+...:...:...:..::..:...-+=-===-----1 CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $63,212 t----'--------------+----+------'---'...:....:....-+-----'-:..+----=-.::..=.c..::....:..:::...j STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $1.50,132 3.0 $154,636 t-=--:---:---,,-----------+----+------'--+----+-...:____:...:....:....~ Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $283,515 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $136,735 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $34,028 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $295,144 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $47,994 Gifted Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,394,697 Substitutes $42,409 $43,682 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxxx $271,685 XX:XXXXX . $302,475 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,762,168 66.6 $2,796,790 SUPPORT Secretaries t--------------+-----+------'---+-----+---- 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $129,665 S TAFF Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $19,117 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $107,724 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $79,635 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $23,821 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx' $49,690 xx:xxxxx $57,550 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $399,168 21.6 $417,512 +% , : 'ff 0tAC.ti\u0026lt;\u0026gt;t2on1 tr mt. xxxxxxx tl$s\n1s1\nau: x~~xi( @t-$s:214.\nao1 PURCHASED Utilities xxxxx~: $208,483 xxxx:ib\u0026amp;: $210,000 SERVICES Travel (30) Maintenance Agreements Other $48,700 TOTAL (30) $247,575 xx'.x\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;ldf $258,700 MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom $100,850 (40) Media $17,000 Other TOTAL (40) $117,850 CAPITAL Equipment $37,000 OUTLAY Building Repair, etc. (50) Other TOTAL (50) $37,000 OTHER Dues and Fees $3,496 m~ $3,500 (60) Other TOTAL (60) $3,496 $3,500 TOTAL (30-60) $393,671 $417,050 TOT AL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,631,351 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) $158,509 $172,976 GRAND TOTAL $3,713,516 $3,804,327 UiieltetnCosts~ r  ..... ::::\n: ..  : t  !ttiSli:Filpiii~atii\nHJ 1 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. Total Costs Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - I 1991-92 1992-93 $3,000 $112,135 $116,341 $17,696 $19,400 $22,029 $24,560 $4,071 $5,566 $1,182 $1,530 $221 $520 $577 $876 $1,781 1991-92 1992-93 837.6 870.0 $3,713,516 $3,804,327 LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $66,102 STAFF r.A-s-st~. ~P~ri-n.--------+-~1~.0-+---'-$~35~,~8~40-+--1-.0-+--=$~3~6~,9~15=--l Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $134,962 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,830 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,765 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21 .0 $657,794 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $32,848 Gifted 2.0 $58 ,913 2.0 $60,680 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,402 $10,714 Other-Kindergarten ' 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $108,775 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXXXXX. $132,508 xx.xxxxx $148,072 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,315,549 35.9 $1,332,458 SUPPORT Secretaries f-------------+---+----'--+----+---- S TAFF Nurses f---------- ---+---+-----+-----+---- C us to di ans 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $31,967 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $32,058 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $49,580 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $45,884 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxx:x $26,076 xx.xxxx:x $33,281 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $180,920 15.5 $192,771 PURCHASED Utilities xxlbo6\u0026amp; $42,968 xxxxxxx $49,ooo SERVICES Travel xxxxx* xxxxxxx (30) Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x Other $18,000 TOTAL (30) $59,227 xx:xxxxx: $67,000 MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom $44 ,4 n mxxx.t $45,310 (40) Media $7,000 Other TOTAL (40) $51,454 xxx~ $52,310 CAPITAL Equipment $12,184 OUTLAY Building Repair, etc. (50) Other TOTAL (50) $12,184 OTHER Dues and Fees (60) Other TOTAL (60) $535 $0 TOT AL (30-60) $126,200 $131,494 TOT AL (10-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51 .4 $1,656,723 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) $71,665 xxxxxx:i( $86,895 GRAND TOTAL $1,694,335 $1,743,618 t..ihti\"ifuitfcosts'#i:\\ViC  ---.,  .::::: ::\n: :',~0\"::: r \u0026gt;  ..   Arti'p6'~11'hatib(l I I ~~\n:\n~r ' 1992-93 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $70,560 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,455 $3,361 Reading $717 $925 Science $131 English $318 $344 Special Education $528 $1,075 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx RE!tiBilbifcbst%i@@:@%ViMI: 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 517.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,743,618 P~rtf{iJptlC6~f% ,,,/%/ :FL, :$$'\n3~fS{ n:]}$3)Sta Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suit~ 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 JUL 1 7 iS92 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director Oifice of Desegrcga::cn 1.,vnit0ring (501 ) 758-0156 TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Bob Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Altom${t't1ir, Magnet Review Committee Response to Letter from Ann Brown July 17, 1992 Attached herewith is a copy of the MRC response to the subject letter. Per our discussion, this is for your perusal prior to our meeting at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 1992. At this meeting, we can respond to any questions that might arise. If you need additional information prior to our meeting, you may contact me or contact the Magnet Review Committee Office at 758-0156. I look forward to our meeting on Tuesday. BA/DGC:sl Attachment RESPONSE TO ODM REGARDING INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS  BUDGET INFORMATION 1) Explain why the total 1992-93 magnet school budget is projected to be greater than the 1991-92 budget. The interdistrict magnet school per pupil expense of $3,682.00 is the amount for both the 1991-92 and the 1992-93 fiscal years. The ADM used to compute the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet schools budget is 3,741.29. The 1992-93 ADM figure of 3,847 results in a difference of 105.71. 105.71 times 3,682 is exactly $389,238. 2) Explain step by step the process the MRC used in reaching the proposed 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal, including the method and results of independent MRC fact finding. The MRC made every effort to comply with the Court's Order dated March 16, 1992. In this Court Order, we were told to present requests well in advance of the need for approval. A discussion of the interdistrict magnet schools' 1992-93 budget was on the April 21, 1992 MRC agenda. Minutes from that meeting indicate that the MRC directed Estelle Matthis to work with LRSD to bring a draft budget to the MRC on or before May 1, 1992. In our opinion, independent fact finding would mean that an outside individual would be employed or contracted to investigate the interdistrict magnet schools budget-making process. We have not found it necessary to go this route. Jim Ivey, Support Services Manager at LRSD, and Mark Milhollen, Controller for LRSD, presented the rationale for budget changes to the MRC. In the past, the MRC has invited the principals of each interdistrict magnet school to an MRC meeting to explain costs, especially where a significant increase was requested or a substantial decrease was recommended. No substantial changes of any type were predicted at this time. Changes in administrative costs were due to extraneous Central Office/State/ Court-ordered mandates, and not due to changes made by principals. 3) The Committee's May 26, 1992 letter to Judge Wright states that the budget was approved on May 12, 1992 by a unanimous vote of those in attendance. Which MRC members attended the May 12th meeting? Members attending the May 12, 1992 MRC meeting were as follows: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD Marcia Harding, ADE Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Estelle Matthis, LRSD Members absent were: Clearence Lovell, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors A proxy vote for Clearence Lovell was cast by Marcia Harding. 4) What budget cost-cutting measures were considered by the MRC? The MRC talked with the LRSD representative prior to placing a review of a draft budget on the agenda. The district was asked to be conservative since the MRC did not want to raise the per pupil expenditure. Several conversations were held with the host district for the purpose of cost containment. Cost-cutting carries a connotation of cutting services. Our objective was (and is) to retain quality, integrity and attractiveness of programs. The Court has repeatedly stated that the desegregation plan is to be implemented without regard to economic factors. The MRC has always viewed its role as one of maintaining the quality of the interdistrict magnet school program while exercising fiscal restraint. Each MRC party agreed to maintain the current level of per pupil expenditure. The MRC has always been fiscally responsible and empathetic to the financial status of all its parties. 5) How will the MRC ensure that the 1992-93 magnet budget recommendation is aligned with the cost-containing budgets of the three school districts, especially  that of the LRSD where a new superintendent must construct a significantly reduced 1992-93 district operating budget? By design, the MRC is a body that is to \"oversee the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program.\" The funding of the interdistrict magnet schools, by design, comes from the three districts and.the State. 1/2 of the operating costs for the interdistrict magnet schools is borne by the State, with the remaining 1/2 of the costs shared by the three school districts. The MRC also recognizes that personnel costs typically account for about 80% of a school's budget. The MRC will be receptive to any fiscal options that do not hinder program effectiveness. The districts are least likely to make significant reductions in interdistrict magnet schools - key components of the desegregation plan. Even though the districts may be reducing in areas of the overall budget, the districts have to be cautious not to take cuts in any area that will adversely affect desegregation. 6) Section IX of the May 27, 1992 MRC annual report refers to some cost variations that are attributable to the \"ongoing start-up costs\" of certain magnet programs. Do these \"start-up\" costs remain \"ongoing\" in the 1992-93 budget? If so, provide details of what is considered start-up, the cost of each start-up factor, why the start-up phase has been prolonged, and when the start-up phase will be concluded. Not all components of the magnet school theme areas were initiated at the opening of the programs, but were phased in over a period of years. The curriculum guides for each school determine when and if additions or updates of programs initially implemented at that school are needed. At this time, the preliminary budget most likely has few, if any, new start-up costs. The MRC will continue to closely examine each school's needs to determine if, in fact, the variance from school to school is due to ongoing start-up costs or ongoing specialty/magnet program costs. 7) Explain why indirect costs, vocational, athletics, gifted programs, plant services, reading, science, English, and special education are listed as separate line items. Even though these items have appeared separately on the magnet school budget for some years, it is not clear why they are separate. Also, explain specifically how each of these items is related and apportioned to the operation of each magnet school. One of the early Court Orders establishing the interdistrict magnet schools allows indirect costs. A district accounting practice holds each interdistrict magnet school accountable for funds expended from that department. For example, if Parkview spends funds for athletics, it is taken from the athletics line item in the interdistrict magnet school budget. At times, departments buy items in bulk for several schools and give each school its share of that item. The proportional cost of that item is taken from the budget accordingly. 8) What accounts for the increase in the amounts for purchased services and indirect costs? The purchased services increase is due to a projected increase in the costs of utilities. The indirect cost item is an item allowed from the original Court Order which reimburses LRSD for the costs of running the interdistrict magnet school program. This cost is always tied to the indirect cost rate calculated annually by the State. LRSD's rate is 3.65% of the per pupil expenditure. 9) When may the Court expect to receive the MRC's 1991-92 annual report so the Court can consider the proposed budget in conjunction with the MRC's evaluation of the magnet schools and any changes in their operation the Committee may suggest? The MRC is to report to the Court on a yearly basis. The budget is usually forwarded to the Court when the final revisions are made. It has been our practice to deliver the report when the budget for the reporting year can be included. The evaluation report is forwarded upon completion by our independent evaluation team. If it is the Court's desire for these three reports to be presented simultaneously, we can adjust our schedule accordingly. However, the budget cannot be finalized until the LRSD has completed the teacher contract negotiation process.  Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 July 29, 1992 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: 'JUL 3 0 1992 The Magnet Review Committee met yesterday with Dr. Mac Bernd of the Little Rock School District to hear his request for reductions in the original magnet schools' budgets. No formal action was taken, but the following consensual decisions were made: The Little Rock School District has agreed to complete the new budgetary format developed as a resul~ of inquiry into the budgetary process from the Office of besegregation Monitoring as a representative of Judge Wright. Copies of a school budget and the summary budget forms are included with this letter. The Magnet Review Committee will review a preliminary draft of the 1991-92 School Year Evaluation Report during a special meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 26, 1992, at 4:30 p.m. Reviewing the report prior to looking at the budget requests will provide insight for the budgeting process. After the evaluation report review has been conducted, the Little Rock School District will present its budgetary requests. The district will submit, in writing, the impact of the requested budget cuts on its desegregation plan and the interdistrict plan. The principals of the magnet schools will be present to answer questions about their individual budgets. The proposed date of approval for both the magnet school budgets and the evaluation report is September 15, 1992. Ms. Ann Brown -2- July 29, 1992 The Committee accepted the proposed timelines for the budgeting process with one modification. The April and May activities were combined. A copy is included. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling its oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, ,,,-, ~ cI. 4t'ft.  1/1~ Altom~ hairperson Magnet Review Committee BA:sl Enclosures TIMELINE for THE INTERDISTRICT ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETING PROCESS JANUARY FEBRUARY MAY JUNE The LRSD submits previous fiscal year end of year budget information to the Magnet Review Committee on MAC-approved format. The MRC submits next fiscal school year budget forms to LRSD and interdistrict ~agnet schools. Interdistrict magnet school budgets are submitted to the Magnet Review Cammi ttee. The MRC reviews requests with LRSD representatives, including the principals of the magnet schools. The MRC approves the budget and submits it to the court.* *At least two (2) factors, contract negotiations and health insurance rate changes, will cause the budget to be less than a certainty. Date 29-Jul-92 STAFF SUPPORT STAFF Pagel ialists Counselors Media S c. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational S ial Education Gifted Cha ter 1 Substitutes Other 0.0 $0 Nurses Custodians Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 Para rofessionals-Other Other Frin e Benefits(20) ~ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 $0 :mtmmn~~tilit: .. : 1m1v.=  \n:'/t.f.'.I~:s:.. PURCHASED Utilities SERVICES Travel (30) Maintenance A ments Other MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTIIER (60) TOTAL (30) Other TOTAL (40) Equi ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (10-60) $0 $0 $0 0.0 o.o TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL $0    : . .  . filename-booker.wql $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 Page2 er Objects irectCosts ocational x:xxxxx x:xxxxx x:xxxxx xxxxxx filename-booker. wql Date 29-Jul-92 Date Submitted. - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature-filename- booker.wql Page3 Date 29-Jul-92 . Page 4  ,~ ~-'sV::: ::::\n:\n:::::~-:t:::'::: :\n:\n::\n:.}:'.-\n-i~~\n:'.:r-:-::\n:\n:::::::::::: .. . . .. . .. . . . .. .......................... . STAFF Asst. Prin. t------------t-----+-----+---+--------11 Specialists Counselors MediaS ec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational S ial Education Gifted Cha ter 1 Substitutes Other Frin e Benefits(20) :::::.::::::::.%:. TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries 1---------------+-----t----i--------\n1 STAFF Nurses 1---------------+-----t----i--------\n1 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) Custodians Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 Para rofessionals-Other Other Frin e Benefits(20) Travel Maintenance A ments Other TOTAL(30) MATERIALS, Princi al's Office SUPPLIES Re ar Classroom $0 (40) ~M~ed:_!1~a ______ _umlffl __ _J!mL----ll CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTIIER (60) Other TOTAL (40) Equi ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL(60) +tWMPMl'QlWB.\\(Qf~~l)WfaWH:tt TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL filename-booker.wql $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 Pagel NA NA NA NA NA NA Counselors NA NA NA Media S c. NA NA NA Art-Perf./Prod. NA NA NA Music NA NA NA Foreign Lang. NA NA NA Vocational NA NA NA s ial Education NA NA NA Gifted NA NA NA Cha ter 1 NA NA NA Substitutes NA NA NA Other NA NA NA Frin e Benefits(20) _. ...... .::::,,:../ NA :-:-:-::::::::'.y'.\n.  ... TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY NA NA NA SUPPORT Secretaries NA NA NA STAFF Nurses NA NA NA Custodians NA NA NA Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 NA NA NA Para rofessionals-Other NA NA NA Other NA NA NA,, Frin e Benefits(20) .. .... ......... .-. .-:-:---. NA --,--------:-,-- PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OU1LAY (50) (60) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY c:\u0026gt; \u0026gt;:::L .'.WM{t\u0026amp;,,Rl@H1%M\n: Utilities Travel Maintenance A reements Other TOTAL(30) Re lar Classroom Media Other TOTAL(40) ui ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL(S0) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (10-60) OTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL filename-summary.WQl NA NA : SXlU?'/tNAb   NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA AM:3\\:.:mt,:,:NA, ... : NA $0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA . NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Date 29-Jul-92 Page2 NA er Objects NA NA t Costs NA NA ocational NA NA Athletics NA NA Gifted Programs NA NA Plant Services NA NA Reading NA NA Science NA NA English NA NA S ial Education NA NA xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx filename-summary.WQl Date 29-Jul-92 Total Costs Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 NA LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-summary.WQl Page3 NA Magnet Revieiv Comntittee Donna Grady Creer Executive Di,ector February 4, 1993 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansa5 72114 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: (501) 758-0156 When the Magnet Review Committee became aware of the potential of $5.5 million in cuts being made in Little Rock School District's 1993-94 budget, we were concerned as to the impact these proposed cuts might have on interdistrict magnet schools curriculum and personnel. In mid-to-late November, we polled districts across the United States as to their policy(ies) regarding magnet staff during a Reduction in Force (RIF). As a result of the responses we received, we began to act to request a hearing with regard to the development of a policy that, when enforced, would protect magnet staff positions which impact heavily on theme implementation. We have enclosed the guidelines that we plan to follow for your perusal and will keep you apprised of our work. Sincerely, ~~' Chair Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Enclosure , I. THU lE,:10 Rationale The Magnet Review Committee is taking the following steps to support its rationale for the proposal of a staffing policy that protects certain interdistrict magnet positions from the Little Rock School District's Reduction in Force (RIF) policy: A. Solicit letters from those persons already contacted regarding their RIF policy and how it impacts magnet schools staff. B. Review the literature and research on magnet themes and how critical the staffing is to the implementation of themes. c. Review/share/recount related experiences encountered when visiting other school districts as to their comments on how critical staffing is in establishing curriculum, as well as attracting and maintaining students. D. Include local experiences in cause/effect relationships that would encompass course development and staff development. E. Plan for input from other groups. II. Procedures A. Donna Creer will again contact the school districts mentioned in I.A. She will provide background information to the districts as to why we are asking for this information. Questions to be answered are: 1) Do they have a policy? If so, please include a copy. 2) Has the policy/lack of policy in this particular area encountered any difficulties? If so, what are they? 3) Please provide the pros and cons of the current practice. THU 16 :~11 B. The regular meeting of the MRC scheduled for February 16, 1993, will be devoted to developing a document for the Court regarding Little Rock School District's RIF policy. Invitees to this meeting are as follows: 3 Leadership members of the LRCTA 7 Magnet Review Committee representatives 4 LRSD Central Office members (minimum number - possibly more will be in attendance) 6 Magnet school principals ? Special invitees - ODM, other C. A survey will be provided to parents of magnet school children. Parents will be asked to give their perception of which people should be retained in their positions if the district is forced to use its RIF policy. The positions would be those that are deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of the magnet therne(s). The results of the survey will help to determine which positions the MRC may request to be protected from the Little Rock School District RIF policy. P.03 / THU 15:59 P  0 1 .371- 0/00 DATE: TO: FIRH: RE: FROM: PAGES: FAX COVER SHEET FAX MACHINE# (501) 771-2420 d1F~,__~-~ Lv. ~ ~--- .!/ (INCLUDING 'l'HXS COVER SR!::ET) PL:SASE CALL BACK IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN TRA'.'lS:-~rss:::m,s OR IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED. NOTES: FEB 1 8 \\993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Ofnigng'ition Mon,iori\nig LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER F~LED . ' .C. DISTRICT COURT .::.:Ei\u0026lt;:, DISTRICT ARKANSAS ~B 1 2 1993 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for approval of the 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal. The proposed budget was forwarded to the Court on December 28, 1992. (See attached letter and document.) The Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring have carefully reviewed the budget and the Court finds that it should be approved as submitted. -r.l, SO ORDERED this /J-__ day of February, 1993. Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 28, 1992 1900 North Main Street  suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. s. Post Office and Courthouse P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 1, 1992 meeting, the Magnet Review (501) 758-0156 Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1992-93 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,278,796, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,682.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,878 students. Of this amount, $86,469 is designated as contingency. While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. For the 1991-92 school year, the same per pupil expenditure figure was used for budgeting interdistrict magnet school monies. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: 1) In keeping with the Court's March 16, 1992 Order, which required the Magnet Review Committee to submit budgets to the Court for review and approval well in advance of the need for funds, the Magnet Review Committee forwarded a preliminary budget to the Court on May 26, 1992. In that May 26, 1992 budget transmittal letter, the Magnet Review Committee made the Court aware of factors that could impact the budget. Included in that letter was a statement expressing the MRC's reluctance \"to endorse any blanket reduction of costs that would possibly have a deleterious effect on programs.\" Judge Susan Webber Wright -2- December 28, 1992 2) The Court, via the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, asked the MRC to provide a budget which would better reflect the total figure needed to operate the magnets for the 1992-93 school year. 3) The MRC received information on proposed LRSD budget cuts, which would have eliminated 14.9 FTE positions in the interdistrict magnet schools. In a special meeting held in the MRC Office on July 23, 1992, LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE positions rather than 14.9 FTE. As a normal part of the budgeting process, the MRC met with each interdistrict magnet schooi principal to review their budgets and get input as to how budget cuts would impact their program. As a result of this meeting, the MRC approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE positions, with LRSD being requested to reinstate the same individual staff members who had been impacted by those cuts. The LRSD agreed to reinstate cuts but declined to reinstate the same personnel. 4) The MRC forwarded a letter to the Court on September 28, 1992 seeking the reinstatement of the affected personnel. The Court ordered reinstatement in a November 5, 1992 Order. 5) The MRC reviewed the revised LRSD budget figures at the MRC meeting on December 1, 1992 and, upon determining that the figures had been adjusted to reflect the reinstatement of the 3.9 FTE positions, approved the budget which is attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1992-93 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Judge Susan Webber Wright -3- December 28, 1992 The Magnet Review Connnittee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, \u0026amp;~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Dr. Mac Bernd, Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Burton Elliott, Arkansas Department of Education Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District lifillllrdlll~~jjJJJliiiii~j:Jlii:ljiJ:l!llil ~~~:-9 Salaries :~~:fl !anes '  CERTIFIED Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $356,933 STAFF Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $481,040 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 36.2 $1,267,906 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $385,806 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $224,756 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,528 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $255,724 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $168,457 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 178.6 $5,243,059 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $158,428 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $419,788 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $1,068,359 ~  $1,185,445 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $10,597,663 288.6 $10,636,870 SUPPORT Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 17.0 $310,176 STAFF Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $153,326 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $356,721 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $111,191 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $325,514 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $185,965 ~  $227,463 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $1 .406,433 97.4 $1.484,391 nm@t}tlJY:OTAb.\\((1042.0, ....................... ,\n............. xx:xxxxi ($1.2\n00'4J~ t ~  #$Ji2~1'21{261@ PURCHASED Utilities ~  $601,780 ~  $627,700 SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL LINE IT Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal' s Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) MS-(SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL XXXlOOCX ~ ~ \n:::~::::-:~-::--\n-:-:-:-: )0.l:lQ()OIX XXXXXXJC $166,508 ~ . $195,093 ~ $768,288 ~ . $822,793 XXX\u0026gt;OOOC imxx'x:, XXXJOOO(. $343.433 ~  $379,717 xxxxxx:x $56,509 mxxxx' $59,072 \u0026gt;000000( xmcxxx xx:xxxxx. $399,942 xxxxxxx $438,789 \u0026gt;000000(' $111,824 ~ - $120,394 xxxxxxx ~  XXXX\u0026gt;OOC xxxxxxx. XX:XXXX:X $111 ,824 xx:xxxxx $120,394 xxxxxx:x $8,358 XXX)OO(X. $5,895 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $8,358 XXlOOOO( $5,895 xxxxxxx $1,288,412 xxxxxxx $1 ,387,871 393.4 $13,292,508 386.0 $13,509,132 xxxxxxx  $595,333 xxxxxx:x $769,664 xxxxxxx $13,887,841 xxxxxx:x $14,278,796 Stipends $0 $46,609 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $503,365 $521,176 Vocational $30,837 $35,000 Athletics $31,231 $35,000 Gifted Programs $0 $2,000 Plant Services $18,271 $25,000 Reading $5,334 $6,880 Science $0 $972 English $2,368 $2,558 Special Education $3,927 $8,000 Contingency $0 $86,469 * xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3878.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $14,278,796 * While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $48,442 STAFF Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $52,593 Specialists 6.0 $350,341 6.0 $356,951 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $45,325 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,366 Art-Pert ./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 31.2 $751,321 31.2 $758,861 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,878 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,467 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,649 $23,328 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $112,766 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ r $172,697 ~ : $181,564 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,689,129 47.9 $1,699,540 SUPPORT Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $31,661 1------------+----+--------1-----t--- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 1.0 1------------+----+----..\n...._---1------ $24,976 $25,725 C us to di ans 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $45,502 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $75,045 Fringe Benefits(20) ~~r $28,550 ~  $34,827 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $201,301 16.0 $212,760 ItMIJ@lt@tarAU:J1042.0'1:  , ,   ~  i?f$1t890!43Qi! ~  #$.tU~1aJPt PURCHASED Utilities ~  $81,637 ~ : $83,000 SERVICES Travel ~  ~ : (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ i. ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) Other \u0026gt;a:XlOCXX. $27,963 xuioax. TOTAL(30) ~ . $109,600 ~  Principal's Office \u0026gt;OOOCXXX xxii\u0026amp;xx: Regular Classroom XXJOCXXX $53,613 ~  Media \u0026gt;dxxxxx $4,698 xxiiixx Other xmcxxx ,oo\u0026amp;xxx TOTAL (40) xx:xxxxx: $58,311 XJXli()QIX Equipment m,oocx\n$6,3TT ~  Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $6,3TT xxxxxxx. OTHER Dues and Fees XXXX:XXX. XXJOOCXX (60) Other xxxxxxx )000000(. TOT AL (60) xx:xxxxx $0 XX:lOOOOf TOTAL {30-60) \"  xxxxxx:x . $174,288 xxxxxxx: TOTAL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,718 63.9 TOTAL LINE IT MS- (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxx:x $88,028 xxxxxxx GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $2,152,746 xxxxxx:x: $27,552 $110,552 $54,789 $5,672 $60,461 $14,000 $14,000 $0 .. $185,0ts.: $2,097,313 $101,493 $2,198,805 1992-93 Stipends $8,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $85,830 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $3,016 $4,127 Reading $883 $1 ,137 Science $159 English $394 $419 Special Education $648 $1,321 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,198,805 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,981 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,268 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $224,912 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $46,311 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,748 Art-Perf ./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $596,866 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $28,744 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,640 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,695 $23,376 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $99,303 Fringe Benefits(20) XXlCXlOQf $137,204 ~  $155,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,320,263 42.6 $1,341,783 SUPPORT Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $52,743 1--------------t---1-------1------1-- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,795 1------------+----+-----'---l------+-- C us to di ans 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $42,578 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $83,777 Fringe Benefits(20) x\u0026gt;\u0026amp;ib( $30,621 ~\u0026gt;ob $41,156 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $233,430 19.0 $250,049 Mi@W:J{)fJ'OT.At.rtto\"c\"20}\\.. ., ti l()OOOO(X @i$1\\$$9\n69:3t jppooo\u0026amp; .. ::t$.l\n$9\nt\nssa\nPURCHASED Utilities ~ : $68,924 ~\n$79,100 SERVICES Travel ~ : ~ : (30) Maintenance Agreements lOOl'XX)(X ~\nMATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other lOCXXXXX $22,843 ~ - TOTAL (30) :iobooO\u0026lt;X: $91,767 X\u0026gt;OOOOOl. Principal'sOffice ~  X)(XXX)O( Regular Classroom xxxx:100, $55,638 xxxx:xxx Media xxxx:xxx $11,410 XX)OO()(X Other lOOOOCXX lOOCXXl(X TOTAL (40) XXXXJOOr $67,048 xxxxxxx Equipment $22,128 ~ Building Repair, etc. lOOOOOCX p0000(X Other XXXXJO(X. xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $22, 128 xxxxxxx Dues and Fees lOOOOOO{ $2,857 lOOOOOO( Other XXXXlOOr xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxx:xxx: $2,857 lOOOOCXX XXXXJCXX .:. ..  $1sa,aoo xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-60) 63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 TOTAL LINE ITI MS - (SECOND PAGE) lCXXXXXX $84,978 lOOOOCXX GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,822,471 XXXXXXX $26,900 $106,000 $64,100 $12,000 $76,100 $16,290 $16,290 $1,020 $1,020 $199,410 $1,791,242 $100,269 $1,891,510 ~~~~liilili\\~l~~~:~::~:::\n::~~,,\u0026gt;\u0026lt;= ,\n~92-93 ::::: Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $82,855 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,912 $3,984 Reading $852 $1,097 Science $153 English $380 $405 Special Education $625 $1,275 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ee.r e.upij c.\u0026amp;stI@t@rnrnnwcn 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,891,510 m.m:e.uoo,tst:rn,:wrmmmmm rnmmmis~o.aeJ tmwnis\noser Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $57,126 STAFF Asst.Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $164,307 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,766 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $490,762 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $49,414 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,081 $10,384 Other-Kindergarten \\ 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $58,274 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $109,125 ~ r $122,647 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $1,070,536 31.3 $1,126,941 SUPPORT Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 1.0 $12,873 STAFF Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $15,023 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $42,275 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $46,903 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $20,314 ~ : $23,254 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $133,977 10.8 $140,327 MMMWt@[QT.Allti0420lHMmrnwm ~  I@$1t20#\n$.1$] ~ : l@$1~2$.'tl26'ai PURCHASED Utilities ~ $35,102 ~ $38,300 SERVICES Travel ~  ~  (30) Maintenance Agreements xiioocii\n. ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other ~  $11,464 ~ . $13,000 TOTAL(30) ~  $46,566 ~  $51,300 Principal's Office ~ . ~  Regular Classroom xxixm: $25,426 ~  $29,668 Media ~  $6,241 )000000( $6,400 Other x:xxxxxx xiii\u0026amp;xx: TOTAL (40) xxixxxx $31,667 ~  $36,068 Equipment ~  $3,968 )000000( $12,920 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx\n$3,968 ~ . $12,920 Dues and Fees Other xxxxxxx TOT AL (60) XlOOOCXX $0 XXlOCXXX $0 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 42.1 $1,367,556 TOTAL LINE IT:MS -(SECOND PAGE) xxxxxx:x $48,935 xxxxxxx. $59,203 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 XXlOO\u0026lt;XX $1,426,759 l1~~~~,[j1i!~lll[lllt\ntt\n~':!\n\\(@% '~~\n~~\n:' .c.= Stipends $7,009 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $47,713 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $1,676 $2,294 Reading $491 $632 Science $88 English $219 $233 Special Education $360 $734 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ' xxxxxx Rif POtm\nsdstwmmrmwnrn@ 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 353.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,426,759 ~ fofffimftl.bitdjfak:ihi+1 ffhiii$3i933.i 6@faiM1H-2.i Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - ~lill!r\u0026amp;:l!:,::r::\n~::~\n.:::::~:::::::i:1~!:::\n.:::!\n::\n:::::::\n:i:::::::i::::::~:::~~: ~~~~~ Salarie:  ~~~:-il\n:\n:\n:~=!MW@f CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $64,070 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $148,706 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $103,259 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $75,935 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $40,083 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $194,384 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,846 Gifted Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,344,079 Substitutes $45,577 $46,944 Other Fringe Benefits(20) ~OOb.j\\t $245,140 ~  $275,053 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,440,016 64.3 $2,339,360 SUPPORT Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $51,267 1-----------+---+-----'----+--- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,608 -----------+---+---------- Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $69,062 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $31,556 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $50,084 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxiaxx $30,713 ~  $37,395 TOTALSUPPORTSALARY 14.5 $257,637 14.5 $270,972 nm:rn@iMfa1t.OTA.ii tt@1m:m::\ntm\nrnw ~ \n@:$za.az~2\ni ~ t 1m:12.~ec1:t11.a.!1 PURCHASED Utilities ~ i $164,666 ~  $168,300 SERVICES Travel ~  ~  (30) Maintenance Agreements ~  ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other ~ : $48,887 ~  TOTAL(30) ~\n$213,554 ~ : Principal's Office Regular Classroom $76,512 xixxxx'x. Media $10,301 mxxxx Other TOTAL (40) $86,813 xxxxxxx Equipment $26,417 xxxxxxx Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx Other )OO(XX)(X mxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 xx:xxxxx Dues and Fees $1,470 xxixxxx Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) $1,470 mxxxx TOTAL (30-60) $328,253 xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx. $143,218 mxxxx GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx. $3,169,124 xxxxxxx $60,941 $229,241 $85,000 $11,000 $96,000 $28,000 $28,000 $1,375 $1,375 $354,616 $2,964,948 $162,358 $3,127,306 - ::!:~~t~:\n~i\\~llil~1i:iii\n:\n~\n:::~~::~:  ~99\n~9\n Stipends $8,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $117,8n Vocational $13,141 $15,600 Athletics $9,202 $10,440 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $5,668 Reading $1,209 $1,559 Science $220 English $537 $580 Special Education $890 $1,814 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ee.teu.riBtb.sttm1tninw1rnrn 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 890.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,127,306 a::eu.mt@b.it:tlMi@%NtdJ{ liMi@ff$1lWi mntrn@$$\n$1Ji1 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - _ ll!i-{t~ll~ll\nli:\n:\n!::li\n!i\n1!~::\nil~!~1:!:!l!ii!l~[\n:i!i!\n!!~:~!!:!!Jill~~ ~~~  Jtift#t~- .. ,.,.,, ... ., ..., .. , .. , .,,. .. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $63,212 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $154,636 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $283,515 Counselors 3.0 $132,5TT 3.0 $136,735 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $34,028 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $295,144 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $47,994 Gifted Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,394,697 Substitutes $42,409 $43,682 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Fringe Benefits(20) ul\u0026amp;xr $271,685 .fix\n$302,475 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,762,168 66.6 $2,796,790 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $129,665 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $19,117 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $107,724 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $TT,316 5.0 $79,635 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $23,821 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ , $49,690 ~  $57,550 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $399,168 21.6 $417,512  1\nmnw:rnr\nr.o.1tAt41p\n:201wrnrrn1mw ~ - m1a~~1e1::aasrn ~ : wm:s.s~214~an1@ Utilities ~ : $208,483 ~ : $210,000 Travel ~  ~  Maintenance Agreements ~ t ~\nOther ~ : $39,092 ~  $48,700 TOTAL(30) ~ $247,575 ~ ' $258,700 Principal's Office xixxixx: ~  Regular Classroom mxxxx $87,767 ~  $100,850 Media ~ $16,883 xxii6a:x $17,000 Other ~  mooooc: TOTAL (40) xuxxxx' $104,650 XXlOOdx\n$117,850 Equipment A ' $37,950 \u0026gt;OOQOOIX' $37,000 Building Repair, etc. XlOOOiCXi ~  Other XXX\u0026gt;CXXX )OOO()i(XX TOTAL (50) $37,950 lOOClOOOC $37,000 Dues and Fees XXXJCXXX $3,496 XXJQCXXX'\n$3,500 Other TOTAL (60) $3,496 XX\u0026gt;OOOOC $3,500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxx:ir $393,671 lOOOCXXX $417,050 TOT AL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,631,351 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx: $158,509 XX:XXXX:JC\" $172,976 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx:x $3,713,516 xx:xxxx:x $3,804,327 -~\u0026amp;~2rtr 1991-92 1992-93 Stipends $3,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $116,341 Vocational $17,696 $19,400 Athletics $22,029 $24,560 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,071 $5,566 Reading $1,182 $1,530 Science $221 English $520 $577 Special Education $876 $1,781 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx \\ xxxxxx ffli\\\\Pii\u0026amp;tea1ttrnmirn:@tt@ 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 870.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,804,327 R iPOb.itCostMNfaiJf@@m+@ MWE%$4i4i.iU tMM@Ulat.at Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - lBi+ ,,:::::::::::::::@::::::::::::: Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $66,102 STAFF Asst. Prin. 1. 0 $35,840 1.0 $36,915 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $134,962 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,830 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,765 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $657,794 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $32,848 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $60,680 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,402 $10,714 Other-Kindergarten ' 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $108,775 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $132,508 ~ : $148,072 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,315,549 35.9 $1,332,458 SUPPORT Secretaries ------------t-----1'------t- ST AF F Nurses ------------t----\"1'------1- Custodians 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $31,967 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $32,058 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $49,580 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $45,884 Fringe Benefits(20) mxxxx= $26,076 xxixxxxf $33,281 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $180,920 15.5 $192,771 PURCHASED Utilities ~ : $42,968 ~ - $49,000 SERVICES Travel XXXXXXX' iil\u0026amp;xixI (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ ~ : Other ~X\u0026gt;bix $16,259 xxxxxxx= MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60) TOT AL (10-60) TOTAL LINE IT:MS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL ~ xxxxxxx XXlQOOOO XX:lOOOOC\" $59,227 )OOQC)OO(. umxx\n$44,477 ~ : $6,976 xxxxxxx: $51 ,454 ~ $14,984 xxxxxxx.. $14,984 XXXXXXX' $535 xxxxxx:ic: xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x: $535 xxxxxxx xx:xxxx:x $126,200 xxxxxxx 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 XX:XXXXX $71 t 665 XXXlOOO( XXXXXXX $1,694,335 XXXXXXlC $18,000 $67,000 $45,310 $7,000 $52,310 $12,184 $12,184 $0 $131,494 $1,656,723 $86,895 $1,743,618 =~~~~\n,\n~1:i:t:i::\n::::i:i\ni::\n~\n=~~:::::::::\n: :~9\n~93 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $70,560 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,455 $3,361 Reading $717 $925 Science $131 English $318 $344 Special Education $528 $1,075 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Pif!tffiffiB)ist:@:fl@JIJllM 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 517.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,743,618 Peifffibiftfost#Wi@ltt :::\n:::~ ltMJ:\n:::U\n313i f:tJI$ala1ai Date Submitted - Prlncipal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director August 19, 1993 Ms. Estelle Matthis Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Matthis: RECEIVED AUG 2 3 W93 Q!tice al oesegreg ation Monitoring (501) 758-0156 In an effort to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the Stipulation magnets, the Magnet Review Committee has within its role and responsibility the approval of funds budgeted for Stipulation magnet programs for each fiscal year. As you may recall, the Magnet Review Committee, at the request of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, worked with the Little Rock School District to establish a timeline for the Magnet Review Committee to review, approve and submit a budget for the interdistrict magnet schools to the Court for final approval. (See enclosure.) While we realize that the unusual events of the year have wreaked havoc with the timelines we mutually agreed upon, we are still in need of information as to: 1) when we can expect information on the previous fiscal year's end-of-year budget information\n2) when the preliminary Fiscal Year 1993-94 budget will be submitted to the Magnet Review Committee\n3) when the principals will be available for review and justification of the budget for their individual building. For your convenience, we have also submitted a sample copy of the form to be used for the submission of budget information. Ms. Estelle Matthis -2- August 19, 1993 Immediate attention to this issue is of vital importance and will be appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, !l!t~rn, Chair Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Enclosures cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent - LRSD / Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring MRC Members TI MELINE for THE INTERDISTRICT ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETING PROCESS JANUARY FEBRUARY The LRSD submits previous fiscal year end of year budget information to the Magnet Review Committee on MRC-approved format. The MRC submits next fiscal school, year budget forms to LRSD and interdistrict magnet schools. Interdistrict magnet school budgets are submitted to the Magnet Review Committee. The MRC reviews requests with LRSD representatives, including the principals of the magnet schools. The MRC approves the budget and submits it to the court.* *At least two (2) factors, contract negotiations and health insurance rate changes, will cause the budget to be less than a certainty. Date 29-Jul-92 Page 1 STAFF Asst. Prin. Specialists Counselors Media Spec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational Special Education Gifted Chapter 1 Substitutes Other Fringe llenefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries t-:-:------------+----+-----+--~1------11 STAFF Nurses r:C::::-u-s-:-to-d=-=-ia_n_s--------+----+-----+--~-----II Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 PURCHASED ~~\n~!\ntcl.P.!.'l~Ji1($l~QXThlC3t:'\nl~f }2:KN~HU ~Xffl: SERVICES 1-Tra--ve-I----------\ni\n~,,\n~.,,\n\n\n.\n\n\n\n:\n. t ------f.im\"\"C:\"\"J~\"\"\"'\"\"?'''.ffi,\n-------ll (30) Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom (40) Media CAPITAL OU1LAY (SO) OTIIER (60) Other TOTAL (40)  uipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL(S0) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL(60) ~ ~ i~ ~\n~ ~ :~ ~ ~ $0 $0 $0 ~:li'i.i ~ $0 $0 $0 $0 =?f+1if/WtifflW$1l~i(~,m~o}.JiWW:PJW xffim .~M%%#W$m\n:,::: ::: wrnrn'\n'':\n''F'.'.l.*-f TOTAL (10-60) 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) d.,,~~ .... ~,u. , $0 $0 11 GRAND TOTAL ~ $0 ' $0 filename-booker. wq 1 Date 29-Jul-92 Page 2 Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx:xxx filename-booker.wql Date 29-Jul-?2 ~ifntillt@1:k\u0026amp;1MttWi\u0026gt;0Jl 1991-92 Qtr. ADM or Proi. tal Costs $0 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-booker.wql Page3 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 1111111::4~~~:m\n,,\n. Page 4 '\" iiiti  .. ,iW'.iV ' CERTIFIED Principal STAFF \"A~s:s~t.~P~r~in~.--------f---t-----l---t----____jl Specialists Counselors Media Spec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational Special Education Gifted Chapter 1 Substitutes Other Fringe Ilenefits(20)  :..,,,\\ ,,, TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries STAFF r-N7u_r_s-es----------t----t-----+---+-----~I PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OU1LAY (SO) OTHER (60) Custodians Paraprofessionals-Cbptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other Frin2e Benefits(20) ~ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 Utilities Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Re2ular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (SO) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) ~ ~ ~ -~ -~ ~ -~ $0 0.0 ~ {ffi $0 ,. $0 $0 ~l~Jf4@~tf\\TmWm(3~Wi9)\\1fui%J~!t :~ :~'l~~\\\\\\Wri$0.t TOTAL (10-60) 0.0 $0 0.0 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~ $0 11 GRAND TOTAL '.fixxm $0  filename-booker. wq 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 . Puge 1 liiM~~t1fi~~c: ey  : :,,,,,,,::::::..  .,.m,,~~,,::,~J\n.fi~=~ii~iii~l~\n.~\n: ~~::::~:,\n:.~:.: ~~~ m ~  m m STAFF Asst Prin. NA NA NA NA Specialists NA NA NA NA Counselors NA NA NA NA Media Spec. NA NA NA NA Art-Perf./Prod. NA NA NA NA Music NA NA NA NA Foreign Lang. NA NA NA NA Vocational NA NA NA NA Special Education NA NA NA NA Gifted NA NA NA NA Chapter 1 NA NA NA NA Substitutes NA NA NA NA Other NA NA NA NA Fringe Benefits(20) .~ NA NA TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY NA NA NA NA SUPPORT Secretaries NA NA NA NA STAFF Nurses NA NA NA NA Custodians NA NA NA NA Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 NA NA NA NA Paraprofessionals-Other NA NA NA NA Other NA NA NA NA Fringe Benefits(20) !~ NA ,}. . _.. .... ~=:::::. NA TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY NA NA NA NA PURCHASED Utilities ~ NA NA SERVICES Travel .~ NA ' ww'' NA (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ NA  .. w\"\"\" NA Other NA :  :.w:,::,....-. NA TOTAL(30) MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom NA NA NA NA NA NA NA (40) Media NA CAPITAL OUTIAY (50) OTHER (60) Other TOTAL(40) Eouipment Building Repair, etc. Other ~ ~ NA NA\u0026amp;\\~ NA NA : ... c::.:::: ::: NA NA NA NA i~ NA~ NA TOTAL (50) m NA m\u0026amp;~~ NA Dues and Fees :~ NA NA Other ~ NA ~:.:\n,:' ' ... \" NA rnmki:n=:wdt~~=~~(}1f%ikt,\n:y ---~::. :::::::~::::::::::~: .\n:\n.\n:\n:\n:\n~\n:\n2~~I TOTAL (10-60) NA NA NA NA TOTALLINEITEMS-(SECONDPAGE) ~ $0\n...... :  NA 11 GRAND TOTAL ~ NA  ..    NA !Jlename-summary. WQl Date 29-Jul-92 Page 2 1991-92 1992-93 ... NA NA Other Objects Indirect Costs NA NA NA NA Vocational NA NA Athletics NA NA Gifted Programs Plant Services NA NA NA NA Readin NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA x:xxxxx x:xxxxx filename-summary.WQl Date 29-Jul-92 3rd Qtr. ADM or Pro.i. Total Costs NA NA Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-summary.WQl Page3 Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director September 22, 1993 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-01 5G RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: SEP 2 4 1993 At its September 14, 1993 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1993-94 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,554,670, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,823.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,807 students. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: On November 17, 1992, the Little Rock School District, via its representative Estelle Matthis, reported to the Magnet Review Committee that, in accordance with the budgeting process outlined by Little Rock School District Superintendent, Dr. Mac Bernd, the Little Rock School District 1993-94 budget meeting with the Board would not be until the end of April, 1993. (The actual budgeting process was not complete until July, 1993.) The Little Rock School District, represented by Dr. Henry Williams, new Superintendent\nEstelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent\nLeon Adams, Alternate Magnet Review Committee Representative\nand Mark Milhollan, Controller, presented Draft 1 of the 1993-94 interdistrict magnet schools budget to the Magnet Review Committee on September 9, 1993. Each of the six interdistrict magnet school principals made a presentation on their school's budget. The Magnet Review Committee members presented budget information to their parties. The Magnet Review Committee met on September 14, 1993, and approved the budget. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright September 22, 1993 Page 2 The approved budget represents an increase of 3.82%, or $141.00 per student. The increase is largely due to Little Rock School District's negotiated salary agreements and indirect cost factors. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1993-94 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, !J4aJ:t= Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment: 1993-94 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budget (Approved Draft 3) cc: Attorneys of Record Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Gene Wilhoit, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Henry Williams, Little Rock School District Magnet Review Committee PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET (DRAFT 3) ORIGINAL SIX MAGNET SCHOOLS RECE~VEO SEP 2 4 1993 Ot:ica Qf Desegraqaticn ~,1onitorin3 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 September 14, 1993 Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Mark D. Milhollen, Controlle~ THROUGH: Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Proposed 1993-94 Budget (Draft 3) Attached for your files is Draft 3 of the proposed 1993-94 magnet budgets which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee on September 14, 1993. I appreciate the cooperation of the Magnet Review Committee and look forward to working with them in the future. cc: Jerry Malone 1 g~3.,..94 Budget Proposal (CJ raft 3) .. --:... .,--:-:-:-\n.:.:..\n::\n:-:\n.,., ' 1991-92 1992-93 .., ../ 1993-94 l,,::C, ...... / . SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS .? \u0026gt;. F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.5 $431,093 05 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $222,455 7.0 $233,751 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 10 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $245,166 9.7 $276,790 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.0 $174,623 12 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.2 $5,689,340 13 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $9,529,304 288.6 $9,276,435 291.2 $9,955,822 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 18.0 $355,081 18.0 $353,310 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 17 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $335,694 29.0 $372,625 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 38.0 $311,683 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx::xxxx::x $1,254,324 xx::xxxx::x $1,366,607 xx::xxxx::x $1,342,873 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 96.4 $2,692,554 ) . . TOTAL (10\n:.:20)\u0026lt; f/}\n{t) xx::xxxx::x $12,004\n096 xx::xxxx::x  $11\\883,532 xx::xx:xx::x $12,648\n376 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx::xxxx::x $601,780 xx::xxxx::x $507,373 xx::xxxx::x $598,926 SERVICES 23 Travel xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x $29,326 xx::xxxx::x. $31,215 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x 25 Other xx::xxxx::x $166,508 xx::xx:xx::x $97,426 xx::x xxx::x $99,428 TOTAL (30) xx::xx:xx::x $768,288 xx::xxxx::x $634,125 xx::xxxx::x $729,569 MATERIALS, 26 Principal' s Office xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx::xxxx::x $343,433 xx::xxxx::x. $309,128 xx::xxxx::x. $315 .284 (40) 28 Media xx::xxxx::x $56,509 xx::xxxx::x $53,842 xx::xxxx::x $54,884 29 Other xx::xxxx::x. xx::xxxx::x $11,647 xx::xxxx::x $11,856 TOTAL (40) xx::xxxx::x $399,942 xx::xxxx::x: $374,617 xx::xxxx::x $382,024 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx::xxxx::x $111,824 xx::xxxx::x $106,283 xx::xxxx::x $104,215 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x (50) 32 Other xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x TOTAL (50) xx::xxxx::x $111,824 xx::xxxx::x $106,283 xx:xxxx::x $104,215 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xx:xxxx::x $8,358 xx:xxxx::x $12,416 xx::xxxx::x $12,665 (60) 34 Other xx::xxxx::x xx:xxxx::x xx:xxxx:x TOTAL (60) xx::xxxx:x $8,358 xx:xxxx::x $12,416 xx:xxxx:x $12,665 TOTAL (30-60) xx::xxxx::x $1,288,412 xx::xx:xx::x $1,127,441 xx::xxxx:x $1,228 473 TOT AL (1 0-60) 393.4 $13,292,508 387.0 $13,010,969 387.6 $13,876,849 TOTAL LINE ITE MS - (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxx:x $595,333 xx:xxxx:x $537,465 xx::xxxx::x $677,821 GRAND TOTAL xx::xxxx::x $13,887,841 xx::xxxx::x $13,548,434 xx::xx:xx::x $14 ,554,670 Line item Costs - . Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $19,871 $20,739 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total'Line Items    $595,333 1 $537,465, . I// $677 ,821.:\u0026gt; 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3679.6 3807.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 Per Pupil Cost $3\n823\\ 1 ~~~~ Budget Prop?sal (Draft 3) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 36oker Magnet School   y F.T.E Salaries ... F.T.E:. Salaries F.T.E:? Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 03 Specialists 6.0 $350.341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31.2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 10 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 17 Custodians 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $42,176 5.0 $47,081 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 ,$64,657 8.0 $75,718 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xx:xx:x $201,247 xx:xx:xxx $225,867 xxxx:xX::i. $215,438 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $373,998 16.0 $388,766 16.0 $396,712 / \\t ... TOTAL(10-20)i \u0026amp;+ xx:xx:xx:x I $1\n890 ,.430 xx:xx:xx:x.:  $1\n942,422 xx:xx:xx:x $2,006,780 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx:xx:xx:x $81,637 xx:xx:xx:x $71,492 xx:xx:xx:x $87,854 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xx:xx:x xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxxx (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x. xx:xx:xx:x. 25 Other xx:xx:xx:x $27,963 xx:xx:xx:x $9,549 xx:xxxx:x $9,800 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $109,600 xx:xxxx:x $81,041 xx:xxxxx $97,654 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xx:xx:x xx:xx:xx:x. xx:xxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx:xx:xxx $53,613 xx:xxxxx $37,774 xxxxxx:x  $38,500 (40) 28 Media xx:xxxx:x $4,698 xx:xxxxx $4,743 xxxxxxx $4 ,800 29 Other xxxx:xxx xxxxxx:x $1,255 xx:xxxx:x $1,255 TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $58,311 xx:xxxx:x $43,772 xx:xxxx:x $44,555 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $6,377 xx:xxxx:x $10,090 xx:xxxx:x $6,100 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxx:x XX:XXXX:X- xx:xxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxxx xx:xx:xx:x TOTAL (50) xx:xxxx:x $6,377 xx:xx:xxx $10,090 xx:xx:xx:x $6,100  OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxx:xx:x xx:xxxxx xxxx:xxx (60) 34 Other xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxx:x $0 xx:xxxx:x xxxxxxx TOTAL (30-60) .,::-:. xxxxxx:x  $174,288 xxxxxx:x $134,903 xxxxxx:x $148,309 TOT AL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,717 63.9 $2,077,325 64.5 $2,155,089 TOTAL LINE ITE MS- (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxx:x $88,028 xxxxxx:x $75,446 xxxxxxx $99,618 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $2,152,746 xxxxxx:x $2,152,771 xxxxxxx $2,254,707 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 ' 1993-94 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx   Total. Line ltems.tft ) )Cf $88,028:- $75,446 \u0026lt;)$99,618. Per Pupi'I Cost) .\n\\\n, 1991-92 1992-93: . 1993-'-94 . (f 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,771 $2,254,707 199~94 Budget Proposal (Draft 3)    \u0026gt; : \u0026gt; 1991-921 Actual 1992-93 t Actual C.if.Y~fMagn~tSchool \u0026lt; ) :\n: t F.T\nE. / lt Salaries F.T.E3 .  Salaries  CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 05 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,532 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 1 0 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $30,734 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,183,059 42.6 $1,164,768 1 5 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 F1,921 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xx:xxx $167,825 xx:xxxx:x $190,533 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 1993-94 F.T.E. 1.0 1.0 8.0 2.1 2.0 23.6 2.0 1.0 4.0 44.7 3.0 1.0 3.5 11.0 xxxx:xxx 18.5 Budgeted ..:. Salaries : $59,423 $42,422 $236,265 $60,101 $46,074 $690,189 $32,460 $34,246 $17,150 $117,132 $1,335,462 $67,824 $31,250 $42,645 $76,016 $192,561 $410,297 TOTAL(10-20} xx:xxxx:x . $1,553\n693 xxxxxxx : $1\n557\n097 xxxx:xxx I $1,745.758 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxx:xxx $68,924 xxxxxxx $53,586 xxxxxxx $69,730 ~+-------------!----i~----'----+----+------,----,---.,----,,-+---+------,-----,-'------j SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx xxxx:xxx $12,253 xx:xxxxx $12,500 ~+-------------1----1~----+----+------+----+----'------j (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx. xx:xxxx:x 25 Other xx:xx:xxx $22,843 xxxxxx:x $9,911 xxxxxx:x $10,100 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $91,767 xxxx:xxx $75,750 xxxx:xxx $92,330 MATERIALS, 1-2--6+-P_r_in--c-'-ip_a_ls' _O_ff_ic_e ___~ x_ xx_xx_xx-1------+x_xx_xx_xx--+-----+-x_x:x_xx_x:x-+--------j SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxx:xxx $55,638 xxxxxxx $52,759 xxxx:xxx (40) 28 Media xx:xxxx:x $11,41 O xxxxxxx $13,271 xxxxxxx 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x $2,593 xxxxxx:x CAPITAL I OUTLAY (50) I OTHER I (60) TOTAL (40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60} TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL xx:xxxxx $67,048 xxxxxx:x $68,623 xx:xxxxx . xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 xx:xxxx:x xxxx:xxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx $2,857 xxxxxxx $3,908 xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx $2,857 xxxxxxx $3,908 xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $183,800 xxxxxxx $176,174 xxxxxxx 63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 $1,733,271 63.2 xxxxxxx $84,978 xxxxxxx $86,058 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx $1,822,471 xxxxxxx $1,819,329 xxxxxxx $53,814 $13,536 $2,645 $69,995 $28,450 $28,450 $3,985 $3,985 $194,760 $1,940,518 $107,945 $2,048,463 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 Science English $380 ($329) $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Llne Items.:, ..  { $84,978 I: ..... $86\nosa .  $107\n945 Per Pupil Cost -:,:  1991~92 ./ 1992-93? 1993-94 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.00 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 PerPupil. Cost ..... .-.. .-. : ..., .. .... , .. $3,036? /\\ .:: $3,092: $3,386 1~~~94 Budget Proposal (Draft 3) , .. 1991-92 Actual 1992-92 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted G.ibbs Magnet school       F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 1.0 $45,000 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $160 ,752 5.8 $158,107 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,433 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $507,851 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $961,411 31.3 $985 ,841 29.3 $1,007,242 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $11,304 0.8 $11,530 17 Custodians 3.0 $41 ,043 3.0 $33,776 3.0 $39 ,012 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxx:x,: $129,439 XX:XXXX:X' $141 ,032 xx:xxxx:x $136,618 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11 .8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 TOTAL (10-20}:\\ : t xx:xxxx:x:: \u0026lt; $h204i513 , XXXXXXJCc. 1-\u0026lt; $1\\ 226\n435 xxxxxx:x \\ $1,254,041 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxx:x: $35,102 xxxxxx:x $26,879 xx:xxxx:x $38,531 SERVICES 23 Travel XX'X)O(X:X xxxx:xx:x, $2,066 XXJOO(X:X- $3,407 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxx:xce XX:XXXX:X' xxxx:xxx.. 25 Other xri:xxx:x: $11,464 xx:xxxx:x $7,309 xx:xxxx'x $7,455 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x,. $46,566 XX:XXXX:X, $36,254 xx:xxxx:x $49 ,393 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx:: $25,426 xxxxxx:x: $23,541 xx:xxxx:x $24,012 (40) 28 Media xxxxxx:x. $6,241 xx:xxxx:x $6,489 xx:xxxx:x $6,620 29 Other xx:xxxx:x xx:xxxx:x $1,016 xx:xxxx:x $1 ,036 TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $31 ,667 xxxxxx:x $31 ,046 xx:xxxx:x $31 ,668 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $3,968 xx:xxxx:x $2,594 xxxxxx:x $2,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxx:x TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx  $3,968 xx:xxxxx $2,594 xxxxxxx $2,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $1,132 xxxxxxx $1,155 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxx $0 xxxxxxx $1 ,132 xxxxxxx $1 ,155 TOT AL (30-60} XX:X)O(X:X $82,202 xx:xx.xxx $71 ,025 xxxxxxx . $84,862 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 43.1 $1 ,297,460 40.1 $1 ,338,903 TOTAL LINE m MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $48,935 xxxx.xxx $41,553 xxxxxxx $51,892 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 xx:xxxxx $1,339 ,013 xxxxxxx $1,390,795 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 Special Education $360 $187 $348 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx :\\::::,. . TotaLLine Items : ..... \u0026lt;} $48,935  ft:. $41,553 .-.-\n-\n,:_ $51,892 Per Pupil Cost '\u0026gt; . ,:: ::,\u0026gt; 1991,-92\\ / 1992-93}/\n\\ ... 199S-::94 /.' 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 PerPupil Gosr,,:.-\\,:,,,:\n:::t/ :\\ft } $3,933. tt : $4,070  )) $4\n214? ~~\n~1~~~~:~ :~~~~~:: . \u0026lt;~(\nft 3 ) ... ::::: ii :: 1991,-92 Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted   F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 04 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 10 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $27,792 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,183,042 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,233,533 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 _$32,748 9.0 $54,985 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx::xx:xx::x $158,584 xx::xx:xx::x $171,101 xx::xx:xx::x $166,399 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 TOTAL (10-20)/   XX::XX:XX::X $1,496,470 xx::xx:xx::x  $1,465,402 xx::xx:xx::x $1,580,155 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx::xx:xx::x. $42,968 xx::xx:xx:x $38,623 xx:xx:xx::x $48,682 SERVICES 23 Travel xx::xx:xx:x  xx::xx:xx::x $3,793 xx::xx:xx::x $3,870 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx::xx:xx:x xx:xxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x 25 Other xx:xxxx:x $16,259 xx:xx:xx::x $16,400 xx::xx:xx::x $16,728 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $59,227 xx:xxxx:x $58,816 xx::xx:xx:x $69,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx::xx:xx:x xx::xxxxx xx::xx:xx::x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx.: $44,477 xxxxxxx: $38,631 xxxxxxx $39,405 (40) 28 Media xx::xxxxx $6,976 xx:xxxx:x $6,234 xxxxxx:x $6,360 ' 29 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x. $1,475 xxxx:xx:x $1,505 ! TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $51,454 xx:xxxx:x $46,341 xx:xxxxx $47,270 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $14,984 xx:xxxx:x $25,034 xxxxxx:x $25,535 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx:xxxxx xx:xxxxx xx::xxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx::xxxxx xx:xx:xxx xx::xxxx:x TOTAL (50) xx:xxxxx $14,984 xx:xxxx:x $25,034 xx::xxxx::x $25,535 I  OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xx::xxxxx $535 xx:xx:xx::x $190 xx:xxxx:x S195 (60) 34 Other xx::xxxxx xx:xxxx::x xx:xx:xxx TOTAL (60) xx::xxxxx $535 xx::xx:xx:x $190 xx::xxxx::x $195 .. ,, TOTAL (30-60) xx::xx:xx::x $126,200 xx::xx:xx::x $130,381 xx::xx:xx::x $142,280 TOT AL (1 0-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,722,435 I TOTAL LINE IT! MS - (SECOND PAGE) xx::xxxx:x $71,665 xxxx:xxx $60,881 xx:xxxx:x $78,563 GRAND TOTAL xx::xxxx::x $1,694,335 xxxx:xx::x $1,656,664 xx::xx:xxx $1,800,998 Line Item Costs - ... Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 199\n3-94 Stipends $1,537 $1,614 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx / Total Line ltems/\u0026gt;c \u0026lt; {$71,665\\ t ~60,aa1  ................. .$78\n563 Per Pupil Cost\u0026gt; 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 473.3 492.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,656,664 $1,800,998 11 ~g3'\"\"91: Budget Proposal (Draft 3) )!j:Jill 1 tI\u0026lt; . . 1991-92 1. Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 . Budgeted iA,NN Magnet School  F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $143,289 3.0 $148,979 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $109,509 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $208,475 10 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 14 Other TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $65,214 3.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $71,195 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $22,947 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 , $46,693 2.4 $37,142 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxx:x: $275,853 xx:xxxx:x $292,062 xx:xxxx:x: $296,293 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 14.5 $525,462 13.4 $526,829 .:\u0026gt; .. -:- TOTAL(l0-20)) :\n:- xx:xxxx:x: i $2,697,653 xx:xxxx:x ' $2,584\n578 xx:xxxx:x $2,805,067 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx:xxxx:x: $164,666 xx:xxxx:x: $137,280 xx:xxxx:x S168,667 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxx:x xx:xxxx:x $11,214 xx:xxxx:x $11,438 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx xx:xxxx:x 25 Other xxxxxxx $48,887 xxxxxxx $35,464 xx:xxxxx. $36,175 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxxx .. $213,554 xx:xxxx:x $183,959 xxxxxxx $216,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xxxxx xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx:xxxxx $76,512 xx:xxxx:x $63,984 xxxxxx:x $65,265 (40) 28 Media xx:xxxxx. $10,301 xx:xxxx:x $9,352 xxxxxx:x: $9,540 29 Other xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx $2,172 xxxxxxx $2,215 TOTAL (40) xxxxxx:x $86,813 xx:xxxxx $75,508 xxxxxx:x $77,020 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx. $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxxxx $1,405 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxx $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxxxx $1,405 TOTAL (30-60) . xx:xxxxx $328,253 xxxxxxx $278,422 xxxxxxx $312,635 TOT AL (1 0-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 $2,863,000 78.7 $3,117,702 TOTAL LINE IT$MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $143,218 xxxxxxx $137,573 xxxxxxx $172,083 GRAND TOTAL xx:xxxxx $3,169,124 xx:xxxx:x $3,000,573 xxxxxx:x $3,289,785 Une Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 \" 1993-94 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 Reading $1 ,209 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items,:\\ . .: \\1 $143,218? t $137,573 \\/ $172\n083.- . 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 1 ~394\n!udget.proposal. (Draft 3) ) .  ::..-, ::::::\n::::::'.::::::\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_610","title":"Nurses","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":["1994/2002"],"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","Educational planning","School employees","Educational statistics","Nurses","Medical care"],"dcterms_title":["Nurses"],"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/610"],"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":["45 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\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 Date: November 16, 1994 From: Melissa Guldin 1, Ass Isociate Monitor To: Gwen Efrid, Little Rock School District Health Services Coordinator Subject: LRSD Nursing Staff Our office recently received some information from the Little Rock School District regarding possible budget cutting strategies. The list of budget reduction possibilities included the substitution of Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) for the Registered Nurses (RNs) currently working in the schools. I understand that there are important differences in training, experience, and qualifications between LPNs and RNs. Since the issue of RN versus LPN is sure to be debated in the months ahead, I would like some information on the current status of the LRSD nursing staff. This data should help me be better informed regarding the districts nursing program. Please send me a list of all LRSD schools that currently receive nursing services, the number of days (or hours) per week that each site is served by a nurse, whether that nurse is an RN or LPN, and each nurses race and gender. If you have any additional information that you think would be helpful or informative, I would welcome receiving that also. I would like to become more familiar with the scope of the nursing program, before the district makes budgetary decisions. When the monitors visited the incentive schools, we were impressed with the wellness clinics serving the students, staff, and patrons of the incentive schools. The clinics myriad of health services and eligibility for Medicaid reimbursement help ensure that area residents and LRSD staff have increased access to quality health care. In addition to the staffing information requested, would you please send me a list of all the schools with wellness clinics that have been approved for medicaid reimbursement. Thank you for your help in providing this information. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.To: From: Subject: Little Rock School District November 28, 1994 Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor 0 RECr 5.- a V \u0026gt; DEC 61994 Office of Desegregation Monitori. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Gwen Efird, Little Rock School District Health Service Coordinator LRSD Nursing Staff In response to your recent request for information on the nursing program in the Little Rock School District I am inclosing some material. School. 1 . All schools are served by an RN except Metropolitan High We have an LPN assigned there primarily because all of the students attend a home base school and their health care is the primary responsibility of the nurse in the home school. As you can see, enrollment in all cases. the coverage is not determined by the student Incentive schools have full time coverage. Most of the Magnet schools and all of the After those factors are considered, student enrollment. the remaining nurses are assigned on the basis of We do not have enough African American nurses but continue to try to recruit them. American. Last year we hired four nurses: two were African LPNs this year. Because the Administration had requested that we hire we pursued that route but were unable to get qualified LPNs who would work for the salary offered. We were then told that we couldn't hire anyone. That freeze was just lifted two weeks ago and last week we hired one full time nurse and two part time nurses to cover the five schools substitutes during this semester. which have only had All three nurses are African American. Much to my disappointment, the fulltime nurse called me Friday, and stated she had an offer of a job with better salary and would not be working for us. I am also inclosing a document that was written almost four years ago when the issue first came up. illustrations, and will be glad to do We could easily add many other so if it would be of assistance to you\nbut the issues will remain the same. If it would be helpful to have an updated statement on the curriculum offered by the nursing schools. provide it. without the 1994 material. In the interest of time. I will be more than willing to I am sending this to you The Position Statement on pg. 3 succinctly states our thoughts. The remainder of position. the paper provides justification for that Because the paper is long, I have highlighted the areas that may be most helpful. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000We share your appreciation for what is going on in the Incentive Schools. The nurses involvement in these schools with expanded Health Services, EPSDT Screening and the Health Education Component has been my dream for school nursing. We need this kind of a program in all of our schools, and it can only be provided by an RN staff. All of our nurses are billing for Medicaid Reimbursement on hearing and vision Last year, we earned $12,500. through this exams. program. Only the nurses who are trained to provide EPSDT and whose health rooms have been certified, can bill for the physical examinations. Part of the money earned has been spent on equipping more health rooms for EPSDT. EPSDT trained. Currently, eighteen of our nurses are Only RNs can provide this service. We have Wellness Clinics at McClellan, Central and Forest Heights. McClellan is staffed by our full time nurse who has dug hard into the community to obtain additional resources. The Health Dept, is providing two afternoons a month of family planning and Arkansas Childrens Hospital is sending their residents over on a weekly basis. The clinic at Central is a five day a week comprehensive clinic that provides for adolescent health needs\nwith a big emphasis on mental health concerns. Reimbursement from that program goes to the Health Department because they fully fund the five full time people plus additional services that they bring in. their services at Central, students daily. our full time nurse In addition to sees 40 to 50 Forest Heights has a part time Wellness clinic which is also funded by the Health Department. They also fund 40% of our nurses salary. Initially, program came about with special funding from Johnson and Johnson but that grant is no longer available. this Additional schools which are equipped for EPSDT screening and have been bv the Health Department include: Romine certified by Interdistrict, Elem., Cloverdale Elem, King Interdistrict and Washington Magnet. The Cloverdale and Pulaski Pulaski Heights Heights schools are involved because of a New Futures Initiative. If you need for me to provide any additional information or if it would be helpful for me to come by and visit with you, I will be --- ii--_ '  J consider this a very serious issue and feel very strongly that the children in our district need the most willing to do so. services provide. of the best qualified health care staff that we can c.c. Jo Evelyn ElstonLRSD School Checklist Senior High Schools (5) Grades 10-12 RN Davs 01 Central  John Hickman  1500 Park, 72202  324-2300 08 J.A. Fair  Al Niven  5201 David O. Dodd, 72210  228-3100 02 Hall  Dr. Victor Anderson  6700 H', 72205  671 -6200________ 12 McClellan  Jodie Carter  9417 Geyer Springs, 72209  570-4100 05 Parkview  Junious Babbs  2501 Barrow, 72204  228-3000 5 3 31 5 3 White Black White White White LPN Davs Vocational-Technical Center (1) Grades 10-12___________________________________ 04 Metropolitan  Dr. Doyle Dillahunty  7701 Scott Hamilton, 72209  565-8465 Junior High Schools (8) Grades 7-9 15 07 09 13 16 03 10 11 Cloverdale  Gayle Bradford  6300 Hinkson Rd., 72209  570-4085 Dunbar  Nancy Volsen  1100 Wright Ave., 72206  324-2440__________ Forest Heights  Richard Maple  5901 Evergreen, 72205  671 -6390 Henderson  Everett Hawks  401 Barrow Rd., 72205  228-3050_______ Mabelvale  Clell Watts  10811 Mabelvale W., 72103  455-7400 Mann Magnet  Marian Lacey  1000 E. Roosevelt Rd., 72206  324-2450 Pulaski Heights  Ralph Hoffman  401 N. Pine, 72205  671-6250______ Southwest  Charity Smith  3301 S. Bryant, 72204  570-4070 3 3 T i 3 5 3 3 Black White Black White White White White White ^2 day Bla\nk 1 day Elementary Schools [361 Grades K-6______________________________ 19 Badgett  Mary Golston  6900 Pecan Rd., 72206  324-2475 17 22 Bale  Levanna Wilson  6501 W. 32nd, 72204-570-4050 Baseline  William Finn  3623 Baseline Rd., 72209  570-4150 06 Booker Magnet  Dr. Cheryl Simmons  2016 Barber, 72206  324-2482 18 Brady  Mary Menking  7915 W. Markham, 72205  228-3065 21 28 31 32 23 24 25 Carver Magnet  Mary Guinn  2100 E. 6th Street, 72202  324-2460 Chicot Otis Preslar11100 Chicot Rd., 72103-570-4062___________ Cloverdale  Sadie Mitchell  6500 Hinkson Rd., 72209  570-4055 Dodd  Mary Jane Cheatham  6423 Stagecoach Rd., 72204  455-7430 Fair Park  Barbara Means  616 N. Harrison, 72205  671 -6260_______ Forest Park  Virginia Ashley  1600 N. Tyler, 72207  671 -6267_______ Franklin  Franklin Davis  1701 S. Harrison, 72204  671-6380 48 Fulbright  Mac Huffman  300 Pleasant Valley Dr.,  228-3080 26 Garland  Robert Brown  3615 W, 25th, 72204  671 -6275 37 Geyer Springs  Eleanor Cox  5240 Mabelvale Pike, 72209  570-4160 27 49 30 46 20 33 34 50 38 Gibbs Magnet  Donna Davis  1115 W. 16th, 72202  324-2490 Jefferson  Francis Cawthon  2600 N. McKinley, 72207  671-6281_______ Mabelvale  Julie Davenport  9401 Mabelvale Cut-off, 72103  455-7420 McDermott  Michael Oliver 1200 Reservoir Rd., 72207  228-3072______ Meadowcliff  Jerry Worm  25 Sheraton Dr., 72209  570-4165__________ Mitchell  Donita Hudspeth  2410 Battery, 72206  324-2415____________ Otter Creek  Carolyn Teeter  16000 Otter Creek Pkwy., 72209  455-7440 Pulaski Heights  Kay Loss  319 N. Pine, 72205  671 -6290 39 RIghlsell  Bobble Goodwin  911 W. 19th, 72206  324-2430 36 40 Rockefeller  Anne Mangan  700 E. 17th, 72206  324-2385 Romine  Lionel Ward  3400 Romine Rd., 72204  228-3086 41 Stephens  Lonnie Dean  3700 W. 1 Sth, 72204  671 -6350 47 Terry  Ladell Looper  10800 Mara Lynn Dr., 72211  228-3093 51 Wakefield  Lloyd Black  75 Westminister Dr., 72209  570-4190 42 Washington  Karen Buchanan  115 West 27th, 72206  324-2470 52 29 43 44 45 Watson  Dr. Diana Glaze  7000 Valley Dr., 72209  570-4195_______ Western Hills  Margie Puckett  4901 Western Hills, 72204  570-4175 Williams Magnet  Dr. Ed Jackson  7301 Evergreen, 72207  671 -6363 Wilson  Gwen Zeigler  4015 Stannus Rd., 72204  570-4180________ Woodruff  Pat Higginbotham  3010 W. 7th, 72205  671 -6270 Trl-Dlstrlcl Alternative Learning Center  Othello Faison  800 Apperson, 72202  324-2370 1 2_ IL 5 1-L 5 4 2 J_ Ik 2 5_ 3 5 T IT 5 3 2 ? 5 4^ 5 5 3r 2 2. 5. 2 IT 2^ 2 1 Black White Black Black White White Black Black White White White White White White Black White Black Biack White White Black White White White White White White Black White White White White Black White Each Junior High School nurse is taking a month for the ALC. She goes on the 2nd \u0026amp; 4th Wed. afternoon. FORM # 425 The Coordinator goes on the 1st \u0026amp; 3rd Wednesday.RECEIVED DEC 6 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring POSITION PAPER REGISTERED NURSES FOR SCHOOL NURSING IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTQRICT Presented by: Gwendolyn L. Efird, R.N., C.S.N., M.S.Ns. * January 31, 1991laole of Contents Introduction 1 Positive Statement 3 Rationale for This Position 4 Comparison of Nurses Education Program Little Rock School Nurses' Responses Illustration of School Nurse Practice 8 12 14 Summary and Recommendation 17 References 19IJ.TRCDUCT 1G:\nSince the onset of modern nursing in the mid eighteen hundreds, frequently been called on to clarify its status as a profession. the medical profession nursing has \"ei ther nor vhe community at large has found it easy to recoc- nize nursing as an independent profession whose practice whose efforts are committed to the prom.otion, is theory based, and health. maintenance and restoration of Because of economics and the availability of less qualified individ- uals, physicians and hospitals have been tempted to employ people with less preparation than recommended by the nursing profession. It is interesting to note that school nursing has experienced a similar sequence of events. Early in this century, it became apparent to school districts in London, New York and Boston that placing public health nurses in the school setting could have a favorable impact on student attendance and performance. The prevalen.e of communicable disease was so extensive that plans were developed to assess children at the beginning of the day to determine if they had any contagious illnesses. With the early success of this effort, it was recognized that nurses could make positive contributions to other health needs of students. children were cared for and then in the 1920's. Screening .programs were developed, sick nurses became involved in classroom instruction. Contacts with families such as home visits proved very beneficial as the school nurse attempted to improve the health status of students. (Rice, Miller \u0026amp; Rini, 1988). As school districts in many states began to employ school tion again arose concerning qualifications for the nurses. nurses, the ques- Why not hire less qualified people to do the job? The nurse's role was seen as the \"good Mom, someone who could soothe a hurt, put on a band aid, take a' temperature and tl make a phone cal 1. These obvious responsibilities continue to be important in the school setting, but too often the casual observer is unaware of the indepth work that is performed by a competent professional registered nurse. The persistent question asked in our local school district is. can an RN do that an LPN cannot do?\" It is as if the only issue to be \"What addressed is the action itself. will the data obtained be interpreted? What about the reason for the action? How What essential information, though not obvious, yet present, is important to the assessment and diagnosis of the problem? How can this child's health needs best be met? What is going onin other arenas of this cm id's life? Because nence complex health issues that can adversel' the Little Sock School child's life? fessional Di strict should ! students in our sc^ y affect the learn-- registered nurses to continue to employ well ':ools expe- g process, provide school health qu-Uified proservices. ..f a V 2 POSITION STATEMENT The position of this paper is that Registered Nurses are prepared not only to provide the action in school nursing stand the reasons behind the action, desired results and but are well prepared to underto accomplish the goal of optimum health for each student- alternate approaches Practical Nurses, because of a more limited academi Licensed prepared for some of the action. c preparation, are only tion for nurses i Therefore, the minimum level of preparan the school setting should be that of a Registered Nurse.  - 3Because nurses who tance of professional RA I ICRALE FOR THIS POSIT practiced in the school standards and setting recognized the impor- of School Nurses (NASN) criteria for school was established. preparation, the National Association This organization has developed a nursing practice including a definition and description It has also established the minimum level of needed for nurses who will practice in the school setti the NASN statement of definition, description of functi of functions. ti ng. preparation The following is for work. on and preparation Definition: The school nurse strengthens and facilitates the educa- tion.1 process by modifying or remo.ing health-related barriersto learning in individual wellness for students and students and by promoting an optimal level of staff. appropriate assessment, planning. The nurse assumes and/or referral activities\nintervention, evaluati responsibility 'for on, management. serves as the direct link between physi- Clans families, and community agencies to assure access and continuity Of health care for students\nprovides relevant instruction, counseling, guidance to students, parents, staff, and others concerning health- related issues\nupholds professional provides relevant instruction. parents, staff, and others Act, and other state school nursing practi trative guidelines. Description of FunctiI and local standards, the state Nurse Practice statues and regulations applicable to ce\nand adheres to district policies and adminis- ons Based on Standards of Schoo1 1. Nursing Practice: 2. 3. 4. 5. Applies appropriate theory practice. Establishes and as basis for decision-making in nursing maintains a comprehensive School Health Collects information about the health the student in a systematic and continuous manner. Uses data collected about the health student to determine program. and developmental status of a nursing diagnosis. and developmental status of the Develops a nursing care plan with delineating school specific goals and interventions nursing actions unique to students' needs. 46. Intervenes as guided by the nursing care plan to implement nursing actions that promote, maintain, or restore health, prevent illness, and effect rehabilitation. 7. Assesses student responses to nursing actions in order to revise the data base, nursing diagnosis, and nursing care plan and to determine progress made toward goal achievement. 8. Collaborates with other professionals in planning to assure quality of health care provided to students. 9. 10. 11. Assist student, families, and school personnel to achieve optimal levels of wellness through health education. Assumes responsibility for continuing education and professional development and contributes to the professional growth of others. Participates with others in assessing, planning, implementing, and evaluating school health and community services that include primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. 12. Contributes to nursing and school health through innovations in theory and practice and participation in research. Preparation for Work: 1. A baccalaureate degree from an accredited institution of higher learning. 2. Valid state registered nurse license. 3. Current state and/or national school nurse certification. 4. Two years nursing experience in child health. (American School Health Association, 1987) In 1988, school nurses in Ohio addressed a similar questioTi to the one that we are addressing. The issue for Ohio was the recognition that school nurses needed a baccalaureate degree and certification in school nursing.. They recognized that \"unless a child is alert, healthy, well-fed and fit, you cannot teach that child those subjects traditionally called basics (Rice, et al, 1988). The role of the school nurse was not only one of routine inspections and screenings, but the nurse had the expanded role for guidance, consultation and coordination of the school health program in her 5school. An ahequatL' school area of the health nurses' need to be health program ezpa.nes room. It involves the entire cli.- that may have prepared to identify and remedi one the geographical te of the school and is not the absence of a negative impact on the 1 ate these health concerns i11ness earning environment. a state of well being inclusive of phys and physical defects. Optimum health sociological and spiritual components. iological, Optimum health involves psychological, educational. It became important for nurses to re-think their role as one who orders and did not think or question the School nurses decisions \"took   practice nursing in an independent setti of thinking and judgement and suggestions of others. sound theoretical background. required in an ng. able to think and Ohio independent practice, To provide the kind reason through situations recognized that a well one must have a prepared nurse was , . -  more precisely and resulting in better decisions being made for the accurately, student (Rice, et al, 1988). Today's children have a broader behavioral issues, all of which have t range of physical, social. emotional and process. We see an increase in acute and chroni he potential to impede the educational deficit disorders, child abuse and pregnancy, emotional disorders. neglect, drug abuse. c health problems, attention Law 94-142, students with depression and suicide. streamed into the regular school more serious handicapping conditions teen and pre-tee.n Because of Public setting. are now main- nurses be available, not only to do the It is essential that, well educated supervise the aids. procedures. secretaries and other nursing procedures, but to teach and LPN's are not qualified support people who perform these for this teaching role*. School nursing involves the health practice. prevention of illness which is also part of public This may be accomplished tion or early diagnosis and treatment. through practices of health nurses make is to teach and needs. Nurses will frequently encourage children to A major contribution that school promo- care for their own health condition, how to teach a child how to adapt.'to a specific health quences of the illness and how basis. Both the informati practice appropriate behaviors to minimize negative conseT to practice good health habits are best done by on taught and the method of on a regular a nurse with adequate academi conveying the message c preparation (Wold, 1981). Basic to this author's Phi'losophy of Nursi ing is the concept that \"to nurse is 6to teach\" (Ritter, 1951). If our own learning base is mininal, we are less able to convey health knowledge to our children. k 7CCMPARISO.'J OF NURSING EDUCAiION PROGRAMS When comparing the various nursing programs, the striking difference that confronts the observer is the length of time program. a student nurse spends in the A. The College of Nursing at the University of Arkansas Medi requires two full years of undergraduate cal Science Campus sciences and then two full courses in the liberal arts and years of nursing courses that teach Foundations of Professional Nursing. Concepts of Nursing Practice, Nursing Management, Pharmacology, Nutrition, Nursing Leadership, and Nursing Concepts and Practicums in Medicine, Surgery, Pediatrics, Obstetrics, Mental Health- Psychiatry and Community Health. On the successful completion of these eight semesters and passing of the state board examination for registered professional nurses, the nurse, now with a bachelors of (BSN), is prepared to: science in nursing 1. 2. Use.the nursing process to assist the client in attaining, maintaining and restoring maximum wellness potential. Utilize nursing knowledge, skills and attitudes in managing clients who lack the ability, will or knowledge to meet health related needs and accomplish developmental tasks. 3. Collaborate with health care professionals and consumers in identifying and meeting current and emerging health related needs of clients in a 4. variety of settings. Utilize the research process to: a) Evaluate and apply research findings to nursing practice b) Improve nursing practice and client health through the identification and referral of researchable clinical nursing problems. 5. Apply the knowledge and values synthesized from the humanities. physical and behavioral sciences in the practice of professional social, nuring. 6. Participate in the formulation of professional 7. patient care in nursing practice settings. Participate in seeking solutions to selected standards for quality moral, ethical, legal. 8. economic and social issues affecting nursing practice. Utilize leadership and management principals to foster professional 89. C. D. B. nursing practice and inprove care deliver delivery systom. Demonstrate ability to y within the health engage in critical thinki and independent judgement. (University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 1989). care ng, decision making The Baptist Hospital School of Nursing for Registered Nurses utilizes seven semesters which include 18 hours of liberal and 74 hours of courses similar to the (JAMS ing Theory, Practicums, Concepts arts and science courses program. These include Murs- ns,. . . Practice in Medicine, Surgery etrics. Pediatrics, Community Health and Mental completion of this graduate of the diploma program the nurse may take for those subjects offered Baptist School of Nursing. program. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Operationalize the Health-Psychiatry. On She will have earned state boards and is a through Henderson State Teachers academic credits Their stated objectives are as follows: the needs' of individuals. nursing process when College at the providing nursing care to groups and families. meet Promote maximum adaptation of individuals or crisis. Promote wellness through health resources. Demonstrate continuing personal experiencing .illness, stress care teaching and using available professional growth by participating in professional and educational Practice professional activities. nursing as a generalist in health care faciliti or other settings where nursing care is provided.. (Baptist Medical Systems, 1991). The University of Arkansas at Little Rock offers gram with results in an associate degree (AD) in nursing, required to take 31 hours in liberal arts and an intense two year proStudents are es nursing courses. On completion of thi sciences and 39 hours in nursing and is eligible to take the s program thenurse has an AD in professional nurses. state board examination for registered The School of Practical . . . . Nursing at Baptist Hospital requires 12 months of study which at best cduld be on a semester basis. Because the considered 3 semesters although they are not entire course is completed in 12 months 9there is very limited time for the physical and social theory and nursing practice. sciences, nursinq The stated objective for this program is: it is the responsibility of the School to prepare a graduate practical nurse who is qualified to use observational skills while providing nursing care to patients in situations that are relatively free of complexity and to assist the professional nurse and/or physician in caring for patients in complex situations, are expected to: Graduates 1. Participate as a member of the health care team by contributing to the Nursing Process within the established guidelines for LPN practice. 2. Demonstrate respect for the individual by providing nursing care based upon nondiscriminatory practices. 3. Demonstrate professional accountability by practicing within the , defined legal standards and LPN code of Ethics. 4. Demonstrate professional growth through self-directed participa- . 5. tion in educational and professional activities. Demonstrate stewardship in the utilization of resources and facilities. (Baptist Medical System School of Practical Nurses, 1991). The key words here are providing nursing skills to patients in situations that are free of complexity and to assist the professional nurse in caring for patients in complex situations. is It is to be recognized that school nursing ifrequently challenged by complex physical concerns, but one cannot deny that the student population of today is overloaded with complex psycho-social concerns that can be most effectively addressed by well prepared staff. including nurses who are educated to assess and remediate these concerns. The legal definition of practical nursing is set forth in the Nurse Practice  Act of the State of Arkansas, Act. No. 432, Regular Session, 1971, amended. Statute 72-746f.: as The practice of practical nursing means the performance for compensa- tion in the care of the ill, injured or inform under the direction of registered professional nurse or a licensed physician or a licensed a dentist, and not requiring substantial specialized skill, judgement, and knowledge required in professional nursing. II I 101 I I i The employing nurse and/or supervising nurse shall not allow or encourage or authorize the Licensed Practical Nurse to exercise judgement and beyond the scope of practice of the Licensed Practical Nurse. skills When the question gets asked again, What can an RN do that an LPN cannot do?\" one should respond with the question, Which nurse has a sufficient level of knowledge and theoretical base to understand what needs to be done. why it needs to be done and what are the expecXed outcomes? be capable of assimilating her theoretical knowledge and they may be applied to any situation at hand. II The nurse should concepts so that She should use the nursing process to assist in attaining, maintaining and restoring wellness (LIAMS, 1989). IIr LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NURSES RESPONSES On January 16. 1991. after work hours. their concerns about the the school possibility of using LPN's in the Several insightful thoughts were presented and 1. Two of our Their position the school 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. nurses met to discuss are included here. nurses became RN's after practicing for was that LPN training is not sufficient school setting. some years as LPN's. nurse job. They felt that the knowledge program prepared them to students. meet the challenging health Uvita Scott explained it well when she RN requires you to change his ability to just foil reason for the desired a preparation for gained in the RN care needs of our said. II Becoming an your type of thinking.\" One must replace her/ ov/ orders and become one who thinks through the outcome of the nursing intervention. nurses must demonstrate initiative in the practice of The school nurse is the only medical Professional their profession. person at the school. independent,, ..ere .edica, or nrs,g must have a broad understanding of individual health health needs of the community. She needs as well as the Families increasing,, are depending on the schoo, \"U e to determ,ne what needs to be done for their chi,d. Recognizing that man, of our famiiies have iimited resources and cannot access health care - Frequently parents seek nurse to be the primary needs to be done for their child. our families have limited resources and responsive school as frequently as they may wish, the no cost, well K T .. * * -prepared, nurse can be a candle in the dark for these families. Although many of our daily responsibi1iti es seem routine and even minor. ** I\" conditions of enormous 1 L Foutine activities may end up in the complexities of abuse, trauma, depression. and other significant physical and mental health Because of their knowledge base and academi prepared to participate in health education cl uable assets to the cl involvement i More and sei zures concerns. c preparation, RN's are asses. They are valassroom teacher who frequently requests nurses' n the health education classes. more school personnel procedures for children are beiag called on to perform with handicapping conditions. nursing Nurses provide 12the leadership and direction for those procedures, trained to provide nursing leadership. LPh's are net 7. Several school nurses expressed enable black LPN's to become school concern about lov/ering standards to nurses. RN's have become excellent school They felt that our black nurses and that there is no need to lower the standards. Blacks are just as capable as whites and shouldn't indicate any possibility that they us is to do a better job of recruitment. are not. we The task before 8. It is to be noted that the current trend is to require a Baccaleaureate degree in nursing as minimum preparation for school nurse practice. When our job description was rewritten in 1987, it would have been prudent to put the-BSN requirement in, however, it was recognized that the Little Rock School District needed to hire more black nurses and the probability of raising the requirement to a BSN would have reduced our chances of hiring black nurses. There is a significant number of black nurses, who successfully completed an AD or Diploma program and we do not want to exclude them from eligibility. 13ILLUSTRATIONS OF SCHOOL HORSE PRACTICE To illustrate fully the various opportunities for nursing care that confront our nurses v/ould require a book in itself. The follov/ing stories will demon- strate the needs of some of our students that can be remediated by a well prepared nurse. 1. John had been in a drug rehabilitation program prior to his return to school. His school had established a good support program for kids like John and he was involved in a group let by a teacher and the school nurse. Because the nurse had a sensitivity for John's program, had established good communication and trust with him \"and was perceptive of his needs, she was able to assist John in dealing with his problem. At various times , his behavior could have been interpreted as disruptive, but the nurse was able to see beyond the superficial actions and recognize John's appeal for assistance, sional nurse with RN preparation. This is the work of a profes- 2. In November, the school nurse screened the Community Based Instruction CCBI) students for scoliosis. Some deformity was observable in the chest area on a student named Mike. The curve noted on the examination did not measure to the degree that normally would require referral to a physician, but the student's back did not look normal so the nurse phoned the mother and suggested that an orthopaedic evaluation be arranged. The student was subsequently seen at Children's Hospital where the doctor noted minimal scoliosis. Syndrome, further evaluation was indicated. Because the*student had Downs It was recognized that the child had insufficient strength in the cervical spine and was very vulnerable to cervical injury. Surgery was recommended and provided. 3. Without this nursing service, Mike's unstable cervical spine may have gone undetected until he became seriously injured. On a weekly basis, one nurse meets with the pregnant girls to monitor their weight, blood pressure, energy levels, and to discuss any problems or concerns that they may have. This same nurse meets with a group of students after school to talk about teen issues and any pro- blems that the students may have. The functions of measuring vital signs and weight cap be done by an LPN, but the comprehensive understanding of the many issues that may impinge on these students' health is the responsibility of an RN. 144. One school nurse has a child with diabetes who is new to our school system this year. Because this child s diabetes v/as out of control, she nad not been able to play outdoors with the other children and also had very frequent absences. full time nurse, the Since being in our school, v/here v/e have a nurse has been working with her to get her regulated and into normal childhood activities. Her diabetes is better con- Her diabetes is better trolled and there has been a marked improvement in her self image and feeling of independence. The daily support and teaching from the school nurse has contributed to this student's health and well being. Again, we need people who not only do things, but understand the issues, the disease processes and can assist with any necessary adaptations so that 5. optimum health may be obtained. Pregnancy can complicate any teenager's life and thi situation for Mary. her to live with him and his new wife. Her mother had died and her father s was especially the was not allowing Severe asthma further compli-' Gated the pregnancy because of limitations on the medication she could take, uepression was becoming apparent, so her school nurse arranged to see her very frequently, observing for high risk symptoms. Depression Because parental support was not available, the school nurse assisted in getting . this student on the nutrition suppliment program for expecting mothers. Mary is still in school and scheduled to graduate in June. tant to provide comprehensive health we expect them to remain in school. It is impor- services for students like Mary if 6. High school student. Jim. was being misunderstood by his mother, his teachers and his friends. A persistent twitching and nervous feeling had been with him since junior high and no one tried to find out what was behind it. performance in school. It v/as affecting both how he felt about himself and his His school nurse assessed the symptoms and nized that a possible neurological disorder known recog- 7. may be present. as Tourettes syndrome With much persuasion from the nurse Jim's mother finally agreed to take him to Children's Hospital where the neurologist diagnosed his disorder and placed him on medication. sistent follow-up by the school adequate health care This type of pernurse is necessary if we are to provide  The nurse's ability to utilize her knowledge base and assessment skills paved the way for Jim to get treatment. Roger is being well ijared for at his school. Because he has spina bifida 158. he needs to be catherized at school every day. sterile procedure that can be done by moth The proper technique This is a clc' n non- ers, aids, teachers or nurses. must be taught and Roger's school nurse had not only instructed the aide in this procedure. port and encouragement. Staff and students in this school more about spina bifida because this nurse much teaching. but is following up with supunderstand is involved and provides The last story that will be presented is important because it could have been a repeat of the well publicized story of a small bo, in Little Rock who lost his leg story unfolded. as a result of abuse and neglect. As the following It was apparent to several of us that if our school nurse had not pursued this situation to a point of satisfactory tion, another child complemay have been severely impaired. Joe had an infection on his foot which the nurse had been concerned about. referral, sending home the She had made a written form and following up with a phone call. -She was treating the infection at school with the protoco.l established by our school physician. parents were not cooperating\nThe foot was getting worse and the For several days, the no medical attention had been obtained. nurse continued to encourage the parents. response was to tell Joe that he was not to allow the Their toe any more. Joe came to give the nurse that nurse to see his conversation, the infection odor message and during this made to involve the Department of Human was very apparent. The decision was responded to the concern that day. Services (DHS) and they However, they made contact with the parents who apparently agreed to take Joe in for treatment, but did viot follow through. and further contact by the Two days later, treatment still had not been initiated evidence of follow-up by DHS was apparent. nurse with DHS proved stressful in that no a supervisor in DHS and A phone call was placed to Services took Joe to the hospital where response did occur. The Department of Human eral days. We need nurses who he became an inpatient for sevbeing of our students. will be advocates for 'the health and well 16SUMMARY It is fully recognized within the educational comnunity that adequate academic preparation is essential. Teachers, counselors, psychological examiners and administrators all meet certain criteria prior to employment. The days are gone when a person can be placed in a classroom and told to teach. Ho one would consider that one year of college could prepare a person for teaching. Our children's minds are too valuable to entrust to an underprepared teacher. Standards of education must be upheld and certainly our children have benefited from these standards. Therefore, we should not consider entrusting the health care of the same child to someone with only one year of preparation in nursing. sional registered nurse program is essential. The knowledge base gained in a profesWe talk of world class schools for our children. These children deserve world class nurses who are well prepared to meet their health care needs. RECOMMENDATIONS It has been clearly stated in this paper that the registered nurse level of nursing should be the minimum standard for school nursing, but there is another issue at hand that is important to address. The reason that the question of using licensed practical nurses has surfaced relates to the fact that out of a staff of twenty-nine nurses only five ai'e black. In a district with a majority of black students it is important that we provide good role models for all of our students. It has been the practice and will continue to be the practice, for the coordinator of health services to always recommend for hiring any qualified I i black RN who applies for a nursing position, facilitate hiring more blacks include: Additional,practices that may I 1. 2. active recruitment of graduating nurses from the RN programs\nseeking assistance from leadership in the black community to be aware of our need for black RNs. 3. Encouraging our'minority recruiter to become more involved in helping us recruit black nurses\n174. 5. having our school nurse program presented in nurse recruitment fairs\ndeveloping brochures on school nursing for distribution to schools 6. of nursing\nmaking annual contact with the black nurses association\nand 7. wording the advertisements, \"Minority Recruitment.\" 18references American School Health Association (1987). Practice: II A Guide for Administrators\" Evaluating School Nursing p.34. Baptist Medical System (1991). School of Nursing Catalog P. 2. Baptist Medical System (1991) . School of Practical Nursing Catelog P.5 Rice, G., Miller, L., 4 Rini. N. Nurses 2000 A\nD. (1988) Why Board Hired P- 1. 11. 13, 19. 20. and Beyond Ohio Association of School Certified School Nurses Ritter, B. (1951) Classroom Instruct! Washington, D.C. on Capitol City School of Nursing University of Arkansas sation). at Little Rock College of Nursing (per phone conver- University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (1989) Catelog p. 13. College of Nursing White, D.H., (1985) A Study of Current School pournal of School Hea1 th 5 (2) p. 52. Nurse Practice Activities\nWold, S. (1981). C. V. Mosby Company. School Nursing: A Framework of practi ce. St. Louis 1'9I SENT BY: 1-31-95\n8:14AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 501 371 01 00:# 5/ 6 i I EDS rcornAt ::ORP  P HOM l\u0026gt;34 HOCK AH 72203 iPSOT Coordinator County Social Services Section 1 - Patient Identificailon ORIGINAL EPSDT Provider County Office I I ! I I I I I I I I I I (ifif.NT ^LAS'aTwL 01 I I\nin f-.AS{neiO5 H/t/Jelt,!' TvOJ*4 0^ AcSI0.NC\u0026amp; 71 I MO oToiftiH (91 OAY YEAR IF HXtIENT IS A AtniMHAL ilu ENttA NAME Of BCtCAHINU PM-BICIAN OTH^A health insurance CS^BMACiE (14\u0026gt; pnOtriOFfl KUIUSFR ! I I I I ^uEoicAL ft?coHo \u0026gt;\u0026lt;vMeen ( qi leNTSHNAME OF RiXN ANO ROliCV NUMRER)\nRRlMAR* OiACNOtiK? 0^ NATUAC Of lN*ua* {4 DiAGnO^.S cooe ! I I  iir I SECTION H - Social Worker Identification .i9i Signature Telephone No. Section III  Examination Report Type of Test or Examination THOM iMl A. Basic Screening  1- Growth and NutritiorF 2. Oevolopmcn: Assessment ___3 unclothca Physical a. Neurological Eam________ b Cardiac Status____________ 4. Vision 5 Hearing____________________ g Teeth (Children under 3 yearsi 7. Let) Tests (Appropriate tor age and population group) a. Hematologic 6. Urinalysis _____C, Other (Specify) ____ B. immunization Status___________ C Other (Specify) date Of SCRviCf TO I u  *uAce i I ttRwrW I : V20.2 3 c s a o z A S 2 z o z r Ml'31 j ijEX M'l' I 'mOH\n*TiENTi Mtuc/MC loxo (\u0026amp;i \u0026gt;74feEAdcRi\u0026lt;5 (9) City (W I pnovioen PMONC NUMBER i 324-2161 i^AS CONDITION AClAKO To MS\u0026gt; A. PATlENrS eMPLOvMENT  *3 Q AN ACC106NT  ves  no  no APFOiNTMENTOATEdn MO ,OA\u0026lt; vn time. PM TO: PROVIDER NAMS ANO ADQRSSS (13| Little Rock School District PAY TO PROVIDER NUMBER 121047761 TYPE OF SCREEN (181 INITIAI. 4. PERIODIC X EPSDT Request Date or Certification Date Date SS-694 Sent to Provia er UJ t4. 2 O o u a LU H LU C o e c LM COMMENTS .J1I (A) (9 fC) (D) 7e) (F) (G) (HI (0 (J) (K) (L) (M) (2) T I JL X 4. Lu I + X I I -J- 1 C r'UL.L' Ofc\u0026amp;i.Hfae ^M'OCblkjRCS MfUicAL MiMViULi OR Su*aL.*CS  7V^'SwC0 40R t*CN 04'^1 GIVN ^^duMCooe liCiNTIFv I 0 Z1636 0 Z1637 I (fiFiA/ar (/wvttMi. stv^es 0^ ci^cwstmcisi Periodic vision Screeninq D LAMlNOfilS cooe V20.2 Periodic Hearing Screeninc V20.2 Thia 11 Io CBH'^r '\"( -niofinaitoA pua. acourata aa/] compiefs. I ueoaniane ihai payment and sat stactfon o( tnis ciaim w.l ba hc/e Mbwai Siaia and rhai any taiM ^ima siatntA\u0026lt;a pf bocumantt or concaaii*^Ai ot a matanal lad may oa proiaeiiied unaar appi\u0026gt;cabia Ftdc'A\u0026gt; or 5iaia .'a*a No (?9\u0026gt; TOTAL CHAflGES ' ! doiitonai ePwgo* tot coAionsaD- mty-cm w\u0026gt;ii be mecie jrtyAAe payment wWi oe Aee\u0026gt;otd i D\u0026lt;y\u0026gt;TkeM ' Il ^a II I that tee aauvaa claimAn mr r.awA nar\\ cAfFr^MHii ann inai ina aaaw* M ^ULL. that ire aouve claims lO' (^yownl r\u0026gt;a*e ocn cofrpManao artn in int ab\u0026lt;0T t\u0026lt;en turiMshod n lun cOrtifGance d*scrm-nattOrtl w\u0026gt;th'n mo ptOT%i\u0026gt;nt o( 1\u0026gt;tie 'Ji ot in* Proa'a* Civ\u0026gt;i Rfgrita Ac* ana iect-op Wn .y* Monao..nr. nd qi 19x3 IZMI COVSR6O 9Y INSURANCE !\n?R Silling tzs\nE CHARGES F 0**0 0^ UNIT5 G PROviDCR kduaea 105 NUUBSR 16 la 29 0 00 6. 66 1 1 1 6 4 -i ttl e Rock School District Little Rock School Dis trier 1 TOR qteice use (^iiSENT BY: 1-31-95 : 8:12AM :JA RIGGS LlTTLf ROCK- 5013710100:# 2/ 6 Little Rock School District Health Services January 24, 1995 To: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent I From: Gwen Efir^^ Co dinator of Health Services Through: Jo Evelyn Elsti , Director of Pupil services Re: Medicaid Reimbursement for Health Services Currently, the Little Rock School District is being reimbursed by the Medicaid program for selected services provided by our school nurses. Listed below are the amounts we have received since the onset of this program. Year Applications Filed S Received Medicaid Applications Fiigd S Received Private Insur. ! 91-92 Approximately 200 $1,387.26 None None 92-93 Approx iraately 1000 $11,471.37 Approx imately 1500 $59.00 93-94 Approximately 1100 $12,365.44 Approximately 1600 $29.50 We receive a total of $23.73 for the hearing and vision tests, and $50.50 for the EPSDT screening. If the screening is the child's initial screen, which is unusual because most children have been examined prior to age 4 o 5, the fee goes up to $80.00. Application Process I Applications were filed with the Medicaid office requesting the provider numbers that would allow us to bill Medicaid. Separate numbers are required for the hearing and vision screening and the Early Periodic Screening for Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT). I Nurse and Health Room Certifications Our nurses have been certified by the Arkansas Department of Health to provide hearing and vision screening\nwhich is a requirement to receive a provider number. Eighteen nurses are now certified to do EPSDT, however only 9 health rooms have received the additional certification from the Health Department required for provision of the EPSDT. The additional equipment to meet the requirements costs approximately $500.00 per health room.SEyr .BY: . 1-31-95 : 8:14AM :JA RIGGS LIHLE ROCK- 5013710100:# 4/ 6 Pulaski County School District has used an electronic system which assists them with the billing and assures them of a more accurate ! medicaid number. I I I A staff person, who works half days does their It is uncertain how they handle the private insurance billing. The medicaid office has provided some information on the availability of using the electronic billing. However, it is to be recognized that even the electronic billing will take an individual's time and will only do the medicaid portion, which is the least time consuming. billing. take hiring someone individual was $640.00. to work after hours. we have accomplished both parts with The amount paid this I I I I As has been noted, some medicaid money comes from providing EPSDT physical examinations. Many more physical examinations have been provided than we have been reimbursed for. This relates to the I fact that EPSDT screens are provided according to a periodicity Several of our younger children have had a physical within the limited time frame and payment for the physical given by the school nurse was rejected. schedule. As parents become more aware of I this service, they may rely on the schools to provide it. Nurses, particularly in the Incentive Schools have been encouraging non participants who are eligible to apply for medicaid. also contribute to a greater amount of revenue. School nurses This could ! provided several clinics this past school year to give Kindergarten children their required physical examination. 1 t Increasing the number of certified health rooms will assist us in increasing revenue, year. We intend to increase this niimber by four thisI SENT BY: 1-31-95 : 8:15AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 5013710100:# 6/ 6 HS 36 9-93 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Teacher's Name I I i i I Dear Parent: The Little Rock School District can be reimbursed for certain health services provided by our school nurses. hearing/vision screening and a modified health assessment. These include Medicaid is the main source'of reimbursement, but other insurance plans are also involved. We are asking every parent to complete the information below and return it to school tomorrow. Thank you, School Nurse (PLEASE PRINT) Child's Name Birth Date (Be sure that you use the name known by Medicaid or your insurance provider.) Insured Parent's Name Parent's SSN Is your child on Medicaid: Yes No If your child is on Medicaid, please indicate the number or send a copy of your Medicaid card. Do you have other health insurance? Yes No If yes, please provide the following information: Name of Plan Policy Number Name of Insurance company Address of Insurance Company **AAA***A*A*********************************1lr**W********w*** (TO BE FILLED IN BY SCHOOL NURSE) School Nurse Hearing Screening Date Results Vision Screening EPSDT EvaluationSENT BY: 1-31-95 : 8:13AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 5013710100:# 3/ 6 } i Student Medicaid Numbers Starting in the 1992-93 school year and continuing to the present we have requested medicaid numbers and private insurance numbers from students who were scheduled for hearing and vision screening. This includes Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, first, third, fifth. I i seventh and tenth grades. insurance companies if we bill medicaid. We are required to bill private I Billing Process I When the forms with medicaid numbers are returned to the nurse, she uses the information to complete the HICFA form. A.) (see attachment This information is sent to the Health Services office where 4 copies are made and then sent to the Medicaid office. Forms that I indicate the child is on private insurance are completed with the results of the hearing and vision tests placed in the appropriate spaces, (see attachment B) . The bill is then sent to the insurance company. Concerns One would hope that the Medicaid reimbursement money could provide more financial benefit to the district. that it would fund positions. Initially, we had hoped Because of budget cuts in recent I years, the reimbursement money has provided funds to replace the budget reductions. The money has been used to pay part of the school physicians salary, purchase health room supplies, provide money to purchase more equipment for the health rooms and the cost of the person who does the billing. It should also be noted that 25% of the money received is to be returned to the state. Because of the time involved in the billing process, especially the private insurance, we have paid someone to work after hours to do the billing. This year, we hopefully will equip four additional health rooms so they can be certified for EPSDT. For consideration: Although we do not know exactly how many Little Rock School District students are medicaid eligible. it should be more that the 1000 that we are billing. It has been estimated that 10 to 15 % of our children may be medicaid eligible. We screen approximately 12,000 students which would result in 1800 being eligible. If we could get accurate medicaid numbers from more students and in some cases assist children who are eligible to get on the program, reimbursement. we could receive a greater amount of Sending requests home to parents for medicaid numbers has had limited response. Consideration should be given to obtaining this information when the child registers. The parent at that time could fill out the form providing the medicaid and insurance information, or a copy of the medicaid card could be made.Ooci IFTA Comcnl D 2 4 1995 r February 20, 1995 :0 Dear Dr. Williams and Little Rock School District Board of Directors: The Little Rock PTA Council is gravely concerned about the administrations proposed budget cuts pertaining to the school nurses. The decision to eliminate 19 registered nurses is quite shocking in view of the 1994-95 Little Rock School Board Priorities compiled just last September, 1994, in which Quality Nursing Services ranked third highest in priority. The PTA Council feels that the level and quality of nursing health care and services received by all students would be greatly diminished under this proposal and in the area schools would be virtually non-existent. Although it appears that most magnet and incentive schools would retain their school nurse positions, in reality these nurses probably would frequently be pulled to work at other schools that have no nurses. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that, ultimately, all our schools are at risk of losing the professional health care and services currently rendered to our children by the school registered nurses. The PTA Council is also extremely concerned about possible future plans to consider replacing the RNs (registered nurses) with LPNs (licensed practical nurses) and/or health aides. The knowledge and skills base of a registered nurse is significantly more appropriate in the school based setting in comparison to a licensed practical nurse. Neither an LPN nor a health aide possesses the specialized skills, judgment or knowledge necessary in providing the types of nursing care and services needed in our schools for our children. No parent wants his child to suffer the consequences or risks of mismanaged care given by inadequately trained personnel. During the process of identifying student health needs and intervening however necessary to meet those needs, school nurses provide innumerable types of professional services. In many cases, registered nurses are the only persons legally authorized under state public health regulations to complete the myriad of referral and evaluation forms for students needing special services. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that replacing RNs with LPNs and/or health aides would be comparable, theoretically, to replacing our classroom teachers with instructional aides. Many parents are greatly concerned about the continued assurance of basic nursing services received daily by their children such as administering medications and making pertinent observations, giving specific medical treatments, providing mental health observation and intervention, and providing observation and care for acute and chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, and head or other traumatic injuries. Every student has the right to a physically safe and emotionally secure environment in our schools, but will this right be severely compromised or, at worst, denied under this proposal? It must be noted that children in the lower socio-economic strata of our student population will undoubtedly stand to suffer greatly under this plan, because the school nurse is their only source of medical care for their health needs. The number of children in this category ranges from 100 to 150 ger d^. Currently, there are 1260 students in the LRSD served each day for acute illnesses and injuries, and over 1200 individual doses of medication are given daily. School nurses serve an extremely important function as health educators and advocates. As positive role models in developing permanent healthy lifestyles, they promote good health habits and illness prevention, carry out many health education programs, and work closely with students, parents and teachers regarding special health needs. Oftentimes the school nurse is the first and foremost person in whom a student will confide concerning personal problems and needs. Therefore, the nurses play a key role in providing support and intervention and handling the daily crises that arise. Therefore, the PTA Council strongly holds that in order for students to function at their highest learning ability and to have a successful educational experience, they must have access to the health services and education necessary to promote optimal levels of wellness. The PTA Council firmly takes the stand for maintaining health services as they are presently delivered and preserving the school nurse positions that we currently have. Thirty schools are covered daily with nurses while twenty schools are not covered\ntherefore, it would appear that the LRSD should consider adding school nurse positions rather than eliminating them. We also feel strongly that budget cuts should be made further away from the children, because school nurses directly serve 100% of the students in our district. At the last PTA Council meeting the members voted to make known to the LRSD Administration and the School Board of Directors our position on the proposed budget cuts affecting school nurses. Attached is a list of those members in attendance and the schools they represent. These individuals represent more than 13,000 PTA members in the LRSD. At a time when we are striving for safe schools, this situation certainly acquires a chilling perspective if we are to lose our school nurses and, as parents, suddenly feel that our children are truly in an unsafe environment. The Little Rock PTA Council sincerely hopes that you will give strong consideration to our viewpoints regarding this issue and will not make any changes in the current school nurse program in the proposed budget cuts. Sincerely, 'T  Ata UJ Deobie Glas^w, President Barbara Mills and Debbie Velez, Council Representatives Little Rock PTA Council cc: Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Ann Brown, ODM LRSD Administrators Gwen Efird and School Nurses PTA PresidentsName T, ^\u0026amp;'AfwS Little Rock PTA Council School/PTA Office J lx ^\u0026lt;1^3 TV Xi (.j./U Home Address/Phone 013Z..O 6n , '^^Sggvj-fV?\u0026gt;M.vo  \u0026amp;a}n L.rZ V\\a2) 7/aJii VJ\u0026lt;A L (so/^S-. d OJlCPiM. Ci-yS'- vi, 6^' ^\u0026gt;'1, CL^r^ I Q ' Oe c\u0026lt; f^\nk .. -^, - t \u0026lt; '4-- u h.-t .\u0026lt; / a I a-. 1 Name 9ro-K L Little Rock PTA Council DATE: School/PTA Office /-^C\\r lUy Ph Home Address/Phone [^39 '\"^teckirMr/ 177.2 ? C R i^f 1311 ?. ksTi rl A-f} I ./ / / 7L/1U/ n 6^ Q'Tu^ax^ . \u0026lt;E levtubv' t^e Bl' s. 7U\u0026lt;oor^ i r\\ (A ?'t \u0026gt; KjAdd/K^-. C^bCn'a'i} I CA -'t' V, a 1 - t L^l{4Ay 1- 'i^lr.-:. ^16 '^^X: /i'-'i I I / O I :k t cb Id -^' ' - \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt; 1-^' di:  4'' K003 005 :rf  41  '\u0026gt;11'1 a 1'04 OG.- '? 1' \u0026gt; I J m i . 1 A t f T\nJ nc J i' : - ur -c V.o:\ni Cl ? _ J .  Vli  )05 -  :.e t 1 . r J-,' rl' Ph' P i .J- ! h\nk M'-p tk'' r\n,[r!- f ^5 * Ktrfij? T^v bt*/hr K'ct'. a . 'vaKv Pl!, a \u0026lt;,-fv pter i  -paii'' !1P\nt , .pr, 'tl'P-'P 'r* ). -.'-(ri'Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (SOI) 371-0100 July 25, 1995 Ms. Gwen Efird 207 Barton Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Gwen: Congratulations on being named Arkansas School Nurse of the Year! Its an honor you so richly merit. Those of us who are privileged to work with you and be inspired by you know what a deserving recipient you are. Im just glad that so many people outside Pulaski County know it too. You make a very important difference for the children and parents of this community and state, Gwen. Tlianks for your brave leadership, your caring stewardship, and your steadfast, loving service. You have my abundant respect and gratitude, not only as a monitor, but as a very grateful Mom. Lots of love,  ?\\nn S. Brownp \u0026lt;30 py c-ta Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 To: Franklin Parent Involvement Team From\n^Frances Cawthon, Assistant Superintendent Date\nOctober 13. 1999 OCT i 3 I3S9 O?RCOF CSESOnCKMONlTORlfiQ Thank you for the concern you expressed regarding the nursing services at Franklin Academy. I, like you, would like to see a full time registered nurse in all of our schools. However, the way Franklins budget is currently allocated will not allow for that service. The Campus Leadership Team may consider shifting resources to allow for a full-time nurse. This would be a campus-based decision including all members of the Campus Leadership Team. Many of our elementary schools that do not receive the extra benefits of double funding also have high percentages of students in the categories that you enumerated in your letter. While your students at Franklin do not receive as many services as we would like to provide, there is certainly no discriminatory treatment in the budget allocation. Although Franklin is still a double-funded school, they are currently over their double funding by approximately 580,000. I'm sorry I couldn't give you a more satisfying answer. I do appreciate the interest, energy, and concern that the staff and parents have given expressing their ideas and making the inquiry. Please continue working through the Franklin Campus Leadership Team. Your combined efforts can assure the school's priorities are best met within the budgets capabilities. co: Ann Brown John Walker Junious Babbs Ethel DunbarOctober 6, 1999 r Am -s' .ij i d isa Mrs. Frances Cawthon Assistant Superitendent OCT I 3 1933 RE: Nurse Rollins - Reduction of days at Franklin Elementary CFiCEOF OESESREGAnONMOarrORiNG Dear Mrs. Cawthon: We the parents and staff of Franklin Elementary wish to express our concerns relative to the reduction of our schools nursing service. During the Incentive School inception, it was decided at the time (by the Courts) that each Incentive School would have additional staff that the area elementaries did not have. Those persons were identified as being a full-time nurse, social service worker, art specialist, music specialist, counselor, physical education, and a theme specialist. Double funding was c-------- support this extra staff and to aid with the desegregation efforts of identified schools. established to Over the past few years, from 1989 to the present, our students have had access to said persons to assist with their many educational, physical, social, and emotional needs. With the re-writing and Court approval of the new Desegregation Plan, changes have been made that has and continues to negatively impact Incentive Schools. First, class sizes increased, second, programs were eliminated, and now services are being denied. were Our children at Franklin School, for the most part, are in a high risk category. Many of these students come from homes where drugs are used, siblings are gang members, parents are incarcerated, education is not valued, little or no medical care is provided, and domestic violence is a way of life. The school nurse along with the counselor and social service worker functions as a team in securing and/or providing services for our students. According to recent research from At Risk to Excellence, Three decades of research on school reform has led to the identification of four basic elements that students need from their schools\nrelevant schoolwork, a nurturing and supportive environment, opportunities for academic success, and help with personal problems. Unfortunately, studies of schooling for students at risk of academic failure demonstrate that schools often fail to address the special circumstances including economic, family, community, ethnic, and racial statusthat characterize students placed at risk (Natriello, McDill, \u0026amp; Pallas 1990). We cannot afford to fail our students. Removing Nurse Rollins from our building two days per week is taking away, to a strong degree, the basic / element to provide assistance with personal problems. To reduce the day services of the school nurse at Franklin Elementary School means taking away a service that our students, parents, and staff need so desperately. Please know that Franklin is the largest Incentive School with the greatest need and should be given priority consideration when it comes to meeting the needs of the students and proposedOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Frances Jones From: Melissa Guldin /A Subject: Franklin Nurse Date: October 28, 1999 As we discussed this morning, I have been reviewing the correspondence regarding the reduction of the Franklin nurse from a full-time position to one that is .6 FTE. I have copies of the petition signed by Franklin parents and staff and your memo responding to their concerns. Elements of your memo have raised questions about the budget that neither I nor Skip Marshall could find answers to in the September 1, 1999 LRSD Budget. In the second paragraph of your memo, you note that Franklin (or possibly the incentive schools as a whole') are 'over their double funding by approximately 580,000. No matter how we compared budget projections and actual budgets or expenditures, we never arrived at any difference of 580,000. Could you please send further explanation for how that figure was determined? I would also appreciate receiving a copy of the formula that the district used to allocate the nursing staff among the elementary schools. When we talked, you mentioned state requirements for nursing services, but I do not have a copy of that allocation formula. Thank you for taking time to look into this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. CC: Ethel Dunbar01/10/2000 16:39 501-324-0543 LR SCH DIST PUPIL SV PAGE 01 Little Rock School District Health Services To\nMargie Powell Deseg Monitoring Dept. From: Margo Swanson, RN Coordinator of Health Services Jan. 10, 2000 Re: Number of School Nurses in LRSD LRSD currently employees 33 school Each school has nurses for their 49 schools one nurse assigned to it. FTE, soon to be 1.4 FTE ---- Tu:\n.: ThuJ^.o^iy 1 Central High has 1,2 Call me if 2161. you need more information. pager 569-0244, office 324-TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1995  ** t ! O/\u0026gt;1/ Nau\u0026lt;n*n*r Martha Rossi Engelberger Students remember nurses compassion BY SANDRA COX Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer dren, her husband said. Working as a school nurse would Wherever Martha Rossi En- make that possible. gelberger went, whether it was When she got a job with the a fast-food restaurant or the Little Rock School District, mall, she would likely hear a former student call out, Hey, Nurse Rossi. she fell in love with her role. She worked for several years at different schools, in- Engelberger. a nurse with eluding Pulaski Heights Junior the Little Rock School District High. Pulaski Heights Elemen- for 26 years, often saw as many tary and Forest Park Elemen- as 75 children a day. Her tary schools, said Gwen Efird, motherly compassion helped coordinator of health services heal the numerous broken for the Little Rock School Dis- arms. legs, upset stomachs and other ailments the districts pupils experienced. trict. I would get requests during the summer to make sure she All of the kids just loved would be reassigned to those her and admired her, said her schools, Efird said, There husband. Bob Engelberger. Before retiring in 1991. she earned numerous achieve- ments for her nursing, including the 1986 School Nurse of the Year award and the 1981 and 1986 Superintendents Citation for Outstanding Service. Martha Engelberger are probably a lot of grown-ups in this town who remember her as their school nurse. Bob Engelberger said that was often the case. We hardly ever went anywhere, whether it be the mall or out to lunch, she didnt run North Little Rock died Sunday from cancer. She was 66. Her choice of nursing as a of into one of her kids some- where, he said. Though she remarried, she was still called Nurse Rossi profession made sense. Her by many students. grandfather. Dr. W.M. Bums, wasnt only a well-known Not only was she a caring nurse, she also was quite North Little Rock physician skilled. For example, she had but also was the citys mayor the knack of correctly diag- and the man for whom the citys largest park was named. Her view of her grandfather likely played a role in her decision to be a nurse, her husband said. She also had experience nosing ailments, her husband said. Several doctors said. Well, you dont need us,  he recalled. Shortly after her first husband died, she was reunited with children. As a girl, she with her high school flame. helped watch over her younger While the relationship hadnt siblings and did chores from worked out when they were in cooking to washing. their teens, sparks flew in A graduate of North Little adulthood, Bob Engelberger Rock High School, where she was a cheerleader, she resaid. In 1977, the two married. In her spare time, Martha ceived nursing training in a Engelberger gardened, visited school at St. Vincent Infir- with her grandchildren and mary. read novels, including best- .About the same time, she sellers by John Grisham and also married Bill Rossi. They Danielle Steele. were married for 30 years. He died in 1975, Bob Engelberger the children. And her thoughts were with said. As a young woman, she Anything she could do for the kids, she would do, her worked for local doctors and at husband said. She was devot- Arkansas Children's Hospital. ed to that. She was a really But when she became the compassionate person. She mother of two. she wanted a worried about everybody else job that would allow her to spend summers with her chil- and never worried about herselfAugust 1 2. 2 0 0 2 School nurses tout noble profession Promote successes of keeping students healthy, workers advised BY CHRIS BRANAM ARKANSAS democrat-gazette SPRINGDALE  The little girl was always sick. A Springdale school nurse looked mside the childs mouth and found rotten teeth. She missed so much time. One disease after another, recalls Barbara Ludwig, who coordinates nursing lor die Spring- dale School District. The girl had been absent so many days during her kindergarten year she had to repeat the grade. Over the summer, Ludwig coordinated with the family  who had dental in- surarice  to get the girl to a dentist to have her teeth cleaned. The next year she was like a new child, Ludwig said. Smiling and happy. She did exi tremely well. Nurses serve a function in schools that is often overlooked by administrators, principals and parents, said Darlene Cheatham, a former school School nurses salaries  The National Association of School Nurses mailed a school nurse survey to 4,000 randomly selected school nurses throughout the United States in the spring of 2001. The association said 2,700 nurses responded to several questions, including how much they made. Only 67 percent reported they were on the same district pay scale as a teacher. $60,000 or more: 11.9% $12,999 or less: 2.7% $40,000 to $59,999: - 34.4% SOURCE: National Association of School Nurses nurse in Lincoln. They keep children healthy, she said. We need to promote ourselves, Cheatham said. We need to communicate our successes. $13,000 to $27,999: 17.8% r 1,000 to 1,999: ?^33.2% Artensas Democrat-Gazetta/GREG MOODY School nurses from Northwest Arkansas gathered at the Jones Center for Families in Springdale last week to do just that. The second School Nurse Summer Institute, last held in 2000, was sponsored by area hospitals and organized by nursing professors at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. The conference was two days after UA announced the results of a survey that revealed aspects of statewide school nursing, including low salaries and administrative headaches. We dont have a really good nurse-friendly environment in this state for school nurses, said Marianne Neighbors, interim director of UAs Eleanor Mann School of Nursing. Schools ask nurses to maintain records, manage immunizations, administer first aid and perform health screenings for students and staff, according to the survey. These tasks could be delegated to support persoimel, UA nursing professors said. Most of the school nurses spend a lot of time hi data management, Neighbors said. They See NURSING, Page SBNursing  Continued from Page 1B spend so much time doing reports. The school nurses do get tied down with minutiae. Neighbors and her colleagues determined that nurses should be spending more time on policy de- velopment, health education, school health fairs and professional development. Karen Kerr, nursing coordinator for Gravette schools and past president of the Northwest Arkansas School Nurses Association, said the public sees her job as simply treating head lice and attaching Band-Aids. We are so trying to let [parents] know what we are doing, Kerr said. Theres so many people who dont realize what we do. We want to be recognized professionally because we have a college education. Cheatham spent 21 years in Lincoln before moving on to the UA Health Center in 2001. Our role as a nurse is a social worker, a teacher and a nurse, Cheatham said. IMMEDIATE NEEDS The person hired to be an advocate for the states school nurses in February said most school districts are meeting the bare minimum in providing nursing services. State health and education regulations only mandate school nurses to be licensed. The guidelines recommend a 1-nurse-per- 1,000 students ratio, which isn't enforced. The National Association of School Nurses, the nations largest nurses group, recommends a ratio of one nurse to 750 students. We have some immediate needs that need to be addressed, said Susanne Tullos, the state school nurse consultant for the state departments of education and health. Tullos was hired with funds from the voter-approved Coalition for a Healthy Arkansas Today, commonly known as CHART, a plan that organized the spending of Arkansas share of the master settlement with major tobacco companies. The Tobacco Settlement Proceed.s Act provides $60 million to the state each year. Tullos said she wants to be a voice in government for school nurses. My vision is to position Arkansas as the national leader in the delivery of school health services, Tullos told the group at the nurses institute. Arkansas is one of only 13 states to mandate school nursing services, according to the national nurses association. Most of Arkansas school nurses are licensed nurse practitioners, Tullos said. These types of nurses, who cant perform the same tasks as registered nurses, make less tlian their counterparts. According to Occupational Employment Statistics in 2000, a report of the U.S. Department of Labor, Arkansas 17,610 registered nurses earned an average of $38,770 a year. The states 11,850 licensed practical nurses averaged $24,340 annually. Tullos improvement plan starts with raising salaries, she said. Kerr, who has directed Gravettes school nursing services for 18 years, figures the average school nurses salary in Northwest Arkansas is $25,000 a year. The school nurse profession is under the jurisdiction of the Arkansas State Medical Board. The state Board of Education doesnt require certification for school nurses, only licensure, so districts pay their nurses like the rest of their noncertified employees. Noncertified jobs include custodians, bus drivers and maintenance workers. Kerr, a registered nurse, said her pay used to be the same as a beginning custodian. She successfully lobbied for a better salary. I want to see [children] get good health care, Kerr said. If it means making less... until we can get the school boards to recognize that certification. Ludwig is paid as a noncertified employee in Springdale even though she earned her National Board for Certification of School Nurses. Tullos said shes seen a salary as low as $8,000 a year, but she doesnt know if that was for a part- time or full-time position. 1 could never live on what 1 make as a school nurse, said Lydia Bush, who is the only school nurse for the Eureka Springs School District. \"Its not that [school officials] are mean, Bush said. Theres only so much money. So often you run up against that brick wall of money. PAPERWORK, PAPERWORK Still, more registered nurses are joining the school ranks, according to the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses, conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 2000, 3,8 percent of registered nurses in the country worked in schools. The percentage was 2.7 percent in 1W2. New school nurses are finding they are responsible for an array of school health needs, especially in Arkansas. Arkansas Childrens Hospital in Little Rock has seen an 800 percent increase in child cases of obesity-related type 2 diabetes, known as adult-onset diabetes, accordr ing to the state Department of Health. On July 18, an associate professor at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock told a legislative panel that 1999 data showed 10.9 percent of students in Arkansas were obese, compared with a national average of 9.9 percent. The kids, sometimes, are not getting health knowledge at home, Neighbors said. Thats why school nurses need to step up their efibrts in teaching children proper nutrition and basic hygiene. Neighbors said. School nurses dont have the time to deal with overall health education because they are bogged down in paperwork, according to the UA survey. School nurse Linda Wilkins, who oversees 950 students at Shiloh Christian School in Springdale, said working with people is at the heart of nursiilg, not administrative vvdfR. Wilkins referred to a woman who rose to fame during her work during the Crimean War in Europe in the 1850s. Florence Nightingale is the mother of nursing, Wilkins said. I guarantee you she didnt go into that battlefield with a notepad. The Education of All Handicapped Children Act, passed in 1975 and later known as the Individuals with Disabilities Act, has meant a broader role for school nurses in dealing with children who have medical problems, Tullos said. School nurses usually are the ones who fill out the numerous forms for these children, she said. They are almost always the only qualified person to give constant attention to medically fragile students. Even with their responsibilities. some nurses attending the conference in Springdale said they dont have much equipment. Teresa Ben, who started at Bentonvilles Lincoln Junior High last year, said she was surprised when she found she didnt have a wheelchair or even crutches for students. Our goal is to keep [students] in school, Kerr said. Healthy children learn.\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_576","title":"Program evaluation","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":["1994/2003-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation"],"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/576"],"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":["51 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\nCorrespondence, evaluations. Program evaluations determined the effectiveness of programs to improve the academic achievement of African American students.\nC0RR18 Date: August 19, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis Sterling Ingram From: Bill Mooney Subj: Fast-Track Evaluations In reviewing the Program Planning and Budget Process, activities related to the fast- track evaluations are to begin this month with completion in early January. The results will be input into the budget decision-making process. Items should be identified as candidates for fast-track evaluations if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the district and involve a significant amount of money. In reviewing the Desegregation Plan and my notes from this past budget development effort, I have identified some candidates for your consideration. I am sure many of these targets are already on your list. - Incentive school operations\ntwo reports, things not working well. - Possible school closings. - Criteria for closing incentive schools. - All employment contracts. - Student assignment process. - Construction of Stephens. - Outsourcing support services. - Substitutes. - Special education. - Vocational education. - Incentive school scholarship program. - Academic progress incentive grants. - Library media services resurvey requirement. - Early retirement incentive program. Many of the above items could yield significant savings, and several could result in cost avoidance and be removed from the plan requirements. The curriculum audit would be another good source of ideas for improvement and possible savings. As we begin the fast-track evaluation process, I believe it important to set out some written guidelines and directions to helpf^h^ program people in developing their material.We should develop a standard program evaluation format, and require well-written business cases on every major decision option within each evaluation project. This would help ensure the consistency of our work, and would provide us with the business cases we will need for the coming budgeting process. If I can be of any assistance, just give me a call. Thanks.13 SO* 9J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SIO WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 7, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Program Managers, Directors, and Supervisors FROM\nEstelle MatthnhrrSsw,, IInnterim Superintendent SUBJECT: Procedures to be Used for Fast Track Evaluation of Desegregation Plan The districts Program Planning and Budgeting document identified a number of activities that are to be implemented during the 1993-94 school year. An activity for August 1993 is for the Superintendent and the Cabinet to begin to identify programs for \"fast track\" evaluation. A fast track evaluation will not have as many dimensions or details as a regular evaluation, since the evaluative process is conducted in a reduced time frame. Evaluation of the districts program will provide the information that is needed for us to determine if programs are effective and that such implementation will assist us in meeting our commitment to our Court-approved Desegregation Plan. The following guidelines are to be used to conduct fast track evaluations of targeted programs. 1. Prepare a comprehensive program description for each area or component that is targeted for evaluation. 2. Identify program goals for each area or component of the program that is being evaluated. 3. Identify the evaluation criteria that is to be used to fast track evaluate each goal. Include all evaluative measures and instruments that will be used in this process. 4. Identify any obstacles or problems that were encountered that hindered or impacted the obtainment of program goals. 5. Given the results of your fast track evaluation, recommendations for program additions, deletions, and/or changes are deemed appropriate. This data can be extremely helpful as you develop a strong business case for making a major decision(s) regarding continued implementation of various programs in the Desegregation Plan. The format for a business 2 case is enclosed for your review as well as copies of the standard format that is to be used to fast track evaluate targeted programs. The following programs have been targeted for fast track evaluation: Targeted Program Person(s) Responsible 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. All Employment Contracts Student Assignment Audit Construction of Stephens Special Education Vocational Education Academic Progress Incentive Grant Academic Support Program Library Media Services Resurvey Requirement Lucy Lyon Early Retirement Incentive Program Substitute Teachers Recruitment Brady Gadberry Estelle Matthis Doug Eaton/John Riggs Patty Kohler Carol Green Margaret Gremillion/Larry Robertson Leon Adams/Alice Stovall/Gene Parker Mark Milhollen/Brady Gadberry Brady Gadberry/Human Resources Director Jeanette Wagner/Becky Rather We need each program manager to submit your preliminary evaluation report to my office by November 15, 1993. The final report is due by December 15, 1993. All evaluation reports will be submitted to the Board of Directors during January, 1994. /Iks t i iFORMAT FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRAM DESCRIPTION GOALS / EVALUATION CRITERIA / EVALUATION RESULTS OBSTACLES TO GOAL ATTAINMENT RECOMMENDATION I Objective - (Evaluation Criteria, Expected Benefits) Impact Analysis Resources Analysis Force Field Analysis General Implementation Plan RECOMMENDATION II RECOMMENDATION III Recommendation(s) will be made if changes to the program are needed. Each recommendation should be supported by the information included in the business case. I IC0RR18 Date: August 19, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis Sterling Ingram From: Bill Mooney Subj: Fast-Track Evaluations In reviewing the Program Planning and Budget Process, activities related to the fast-track evaluations are to begin this month with completion in early January. The results will be input into the budget decision-making process. Items should be identified as candidates for fast-track evaluations if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the district and involve a significant amount of money. In reviewing the Desegregation Plan and my notes from this past budget development effort, I have identified some candidates for your consideration. I am sure many of these targets are already on your list. - Incentive school operations\ntwo reports, things not working well. - Possible school closings. - Criteria for closing incentive schools. Q All employment contracts. ^Student assignment process. ^Construction of Stephens. - Outsourcing support services. Q Substitutes. ^Special education. ^Vocational education. - Incentive school scholarship program. f Academic progress incentive grants. Library media services resurvey requirement. Early retirement incentive program. I Many of the above items could yield significant savings, and several could result in cost avoidance and be removed from the plan requirements. The curriculum audit would be another good source of ideas for improvement and possible savings. As we begin the fast-track evaluation process, I believe it important to set out some written guidelines and directions to help The program people in developing their material. We should develop a standard program evaluation format, and require well-written business cases on every major decision option within each evaluation project. This would help ensure the consistency of our work, and would provide us with the business cases we will need for the coming budgeting process.DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS Program Name: School Operations Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader(s): (Margaret Gremillion) Program Evaluation Format Fall 1994 Your program evaluation should include the elements listed below. Please be succinct. The length of your program evaluation document will be dependent to some degree based on the extensiveness of the program. In general, however, each program evaluation should not exceed two pages. Program Description: Please describe your program. This description comes from the program description in the Program Budget Document (PBD). Evaluation Criteria: The program goal(s) taken from the PBD should be used as the evaluation criteria. In other words, the program goal(s) should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of your program. Summary: Provide a summary of the overall effectiveness of implementation of your section of the desegregation plan as per the goals. A similar summary of overall effectiveness should be provided as per the goals for the nondesegregation programs. Goal Attainment: Please identify and describe the factors that facilitated goal attainment. Evidence: Please provide or describe evidence (i.e., data, documentation, etc.) for which goals were or were not achieved. I \u0026lt;ggfraBHii 1 Little Rock School District December 11, 1995 RECESVEO DEC J 2 J995 MEMORANDUM Olfice of Desegregation Moruionny TO: Mrs. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation RE: Enclosed Reports u2i.O'. Ase!.S.m(n+'^ Please find enclosed a draft of the 1995-96 Needs Assessment document and a copy of the Extended Evaluations for the Little Rock School District. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. drg Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20009 /CX/  i ODM Review of LRSD Extended Program Evaluations 1995-96 Program Name - Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet Junior High School Program Summary Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet School houses grades seven, eight, and nine in the only junior high to be included as one of the original six magnet schools. Established in 1987 with the interdistrict format, the school offers the arts and sciences specialties as two separate programs. Science magnet students are required to take the traditional and required core courses along with at least one science laboratory course each year. Arts students must select an area of concentration from visual arts, drama, dance, or music m addition to the traditional and required core courses. Eight hundred fifty students attend. Fifty-three percent are black. Evaluation Criteria 1. Sufficient program personnel are in place as measured by the monitoring instrument. 2. School climate survey will be used to measure parent, student and teacher perceptions. (The author of the extended evaluation appears to have mixed a process and an outcome.) Evaluation Processes Evaluators cite the LRSD Equity Monitoring Assessment and the school climate survey as the source of data used to draw inferences supporting the recommendations. Evaluation Results 1. There is a need for renovations of and additions to the building. 2. There is a need for new equipment, updated materials and computers, and program additions. 3.There is a need for additional personnel to staff 1 and 2 above. Recommendations 1. Modernize and expand science classrooms and laboratories, add one science classroom, enlarge dance and drama rooms, and provide additional storage space. A. Would not require plan modification. B. Major budget increases required for construction, remodeling, and equipment purchase.2. Extend the 7th grade science laboratory course from one semester to a full year and add courses in ceramics, crafts, and cartooning to the arts magnet program. A. Would not require plan modification. B. Would require one additional teacher - $31,000. 3. Establish teacher computer demonstration stations in all science classrooms, including equipment to go on line with Internet and install computer system in the piano lab. A. Would not require plan modification. B. Substantial budget increases for equipment and wiring in science classrooms. Piano lab costs - $4,000 plus. 4. Limit enrollment in science classes to 25. Create ensembles in music and dance. A. Would not require plan modification. B. Budget impact - one teacher for science recommendation, $31,000. For ensemble recommendation - $15,000 for materials (costumes and music). Total costs, all recommendations - $81,000 plus major construction and renovation. Evaluation Critique The evaluation consists primarily of perceptions and wishes of the staff. Little data support the recommendations, but they are comprehensive and probably reasonable if continued improvement in the magnet program is a viable option. The district will probably have to prioritize the requests and spend whatever it can afford.Program Name - Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Program Program Summary The Henderson Health Sciences Program was developed in 1992 to serve students rising from Carver, Romine and Washington Elementary Schools, which have science specialties, and to serve as a feeder school to Parkview Science Magnet. Because of the declining white enrollment at Mann, the districts planners believed the science program was needed because of the potential for desegregative effect. Evaluation Criteria A. Comparisons of enrollment data from 1992 - 1995 to determine desegregative effects. B. Costs of supplies, equipment, materials, and staff development related to benefits. Evaluation Processes The evaluator attempted to show that white students who transferred from out of the attendance zone to the magnet program had a desegregative effect and that the districf s failure to fally fund the program had impeded the potential effects. The evaluation builds a case for fall funding of the magnet program as originally conceived. Evaluation Results The results indicate that students who transferred to Henderson for the magnet program had a desegregative effect since the percentage white was greater in the transferring population than in the resident population. The data reflect 1995 expenditures of $244 ($58,958 budgeted) per magnet student for magnet programs including the purchase of an 18-station computer lab. It also includes a list of equipment and materials valued at $14,000 which had been included in the original plan but have never been purchased. The conclusion is that if the plan were fally implemented, the program could be more successful. Recommendations Though not stated as a recommendation, the clear intent is that the equipment and materials described in the original plan should be bought immediately. A. Would not require a plan modification. B. The budget impact is $14,000.Evaluation Critique The evaluation format leaves much to be desired, but the message that more money is needed comes through. The other conclusions are not clear\nnor is the recommendation.Program Name - Central High International Studies Magnet Program Summary The Central High International Studies Magnet complements the international studies programs at Dunbar Junior and Gibbs Elementary in that it offers a logical culmination of studies started at lower grades. The program uses the highly academic atmosphere of the foreign language, social studies, and English classes to provide the core of international studies. The strong Advanced Placement programs match well with IS. Evaluation Criteria I. The magnet component will result in the further desegregation of the school by attracting M-to-M and out-of-zone students. 2, The costs of the magnet program are justified by the benefits. Evaluation Processes Evaluators identified the numbers of M-to-M and out-of-zone students by race who attend the magnet program and the school at large. The minimal costs of the magnet program were itemized. Benefits to students were subjectively described. Evaluation Results One hundred twenty-three students transferred from other attendance zones or districts to attend the International Studies Magnet in 1995-96. Seventy-eight per cent (96) are nonblack. The total school population is 37 per cent non-black. The magnet program clearly contributes to desegregating the school. One period release time for the magnet coordinator plus $1,990 for materials are the only costs identified for the program. Benefits were described as outstanding. Recommendations 1. That the IS program be established as a node on the Internet. 2. That the IS coordinator be given a ten month contract and three periods release time. A. Neither recommendation will require a plan modification. B. Costs are not described in detail but $9,000 for equipment and software plus $200 per month line costs is a fair estimate. Personnel costs will be an additional two periods per day release time, $12,000. Total - $23,400 (ODM estimate)Evaluation Critique The evaluation is not well done in format or content, and conclusions have little support. However, it does make the case for program improvement. Curiously, International Baccalaureate is not mentioned in the recommendations even though a business case has been presented recommending its implementation.Program Name - Dunbar Junior High School International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet Program Summary The Dunbar program offers the dual themes international studies and gifted and talented. All students are identified as magnet either in gifted or international studies because all students are required to take some foreign language. Other than languages, the only international studies course being taught in 1995-96 is African studies. Gifted students are enrolled in the gifted sections of the core courses. Evaluation Criteria The magnet program was evaluated by determining whether the out-of-zone and M-to-M students contributed to the desegregation of the school, and whether the benefits of the program outweighed the costs. Evaluation Processes Evaluators compared white and black enrollment differences before and after seven years of the magnet programs existence, and summarized magnet costs when considered in the context of student accomplishments. Evaluation Results Evaluators compared enrollment data that indicate the school has moved from 79% black in 1989-90 to 59% black in 1995-96. The change is attributed to the majority white enrollment of M-to-M and out-of-zone students which number 266 students, 28% of the total student body. Expenditures for the magnet program for 1995-96 total $76,809 or $289 per participant. The cost estimates are followed by a litany 17 different honors, contest winners, and awards bestowed on Dunbar students. Recommendations That the criteria for application to the magnet program be expanded to include black out- of-zone and M-to-M students who have been identified as gifted. A. Implementation of the recommendation would require a change in the M-to-M stipulation agreement as well as the LRSD student assignment regulations. The desegregation plans would require changes in areas that refer to the stipulation agreement. B. Budget increases would occur only as a result of an increase in student population.Evaluation Critique The evaluation is more clearly written than any of the other extended evaluations I have read, but the recommendation is probably a bad one. The magnet program was developed to attract white students. It is working as intended but has the down side of creating majority white classes in the gifted program. Opening the program to black students from outside the attendance zone would diminish success and, in the case of black students from outside LRSD, violate state law.APIG/Focused Activities Summary: Eval. Criteria: Eval. Process: This administrative summary provides a short history ot APIG/Focused Activities from their inception to the submission of the April 1995 business case that changed the basis of program funding. The history quotes program goals from the desegregation plan but doesnt provide insight as to the nature of the programs individual schools have implemented. The summary lacked evaluation criteria since no attempt was made to evaluate the program. The summary did not show evidence of an evaluation process. Results: N/A Recomm: Continue to give area schools the opportunity to enrich their programs with the twenty dollar per student allocation in their budget. The process has only been in place for one year. Opinion: Im not sure of the point here. This document is called an Administrative Summary and bears no resemblance to an evaluation. The recommendation is groundless in that it isnt based on ant type of evaluation of the program for the 1994-95 school year. Parkview Arts/Science Magnet Summary: The extended evaluation focuses on both the Parkview science and art components. Particular emphasis is placed on the facilities and equipment believed to be necessary for maintenance and expansion of the programs. Eval. Criteria: The two criteria were the school climate survey and monitoring reports competed by supervisors and assistant superintendents. The evaluation writer noted that the yearly Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Evaluation was used as a reference. Eval. Process: Uncertain. The evaluation process was not described as part of the document. The narrative skipped from criteria to results without an explanation of process. Results: 1. Yearly departmental summaries revealed a need for repairs, equipment and/or renovations. 2. Information was collected through the Magnet Review Committee which was instrumental establishing a curriculum update and the enrichment of curriculum offerings.Recomm: Budget: Opinion: 1. Installation of hardware and equipment for establishment of Parkview being functional and on-line with APSCN. 2. Renovate Rm. 1-101 into a mini-theatre to greater accommodate small performances/presentations. 3. Purchase additional lab equipment to greater accommodate increased enrollment of science/art magnet students. 4. Purchase major instrument pieces to better equip the band/orchestra magnet program areas. Some equipment is in poor condition or outdated. $164,842 over a three year period The recommendations are justifiable\nhowever, as I mentioned to you, the evaluation doesnt provide the type of substantial data needed to make the case. For example, the addition of equipment is justified by increased program enrollment, but the only year for which an enrollment figure is given is 1995-96. The evaluation does not describe the disadvantage the school suffers from not being on-line with APSCN. A simple chart of the current number of musical instruments and the ages of those instruments in addition to increased music program enrollment would have been ample documentation of the need for replacements and additional new instruments. McClellan Business/Communications Magnet Program Summary: Eval. Criteria: Eval. Process: Results: The evaluation is based on two program goals. 1. The magnet component of the program will result in the further desegregation of the school by attracting M-to-M and out-of-zone students to the program. 2. The costs incurred in the delivery of the magnet program are outweighed by the benefits of participation rates in the magnet program and the achievement of the participants. Criteria was whether each of the program goals could be affirmatively demonstrated. Use of enrollment data on M-to-M and out-of-zone students in addition to standardized achievement scores for McClellan students 1993-95. Related to the first goal, the data indicates that 22% of the 177 non-black students at McClellan are from other high school zones. Curiously, 98 out-of-zone black students are also attending McClellan. The evaluation claims that without the out-of-zone black students the McClellan black enrollment would be 78% instead of the current 80%. Related to the second goal, participation in the magnet program has increased from 57 in 1992 to 203 in 1995. The overall McClellan enrollment has been mixed, but has grown since the inception of the magnet program. McClellans overall SAT scores have improved since the 1992-93 school year. The evaluation attributes the improvement to the increased funding, class offerings, and equipment resulting from the magnet program. The magnet program teachers and students have been the recipients of numerous honors and awards at both the state and national levels. Obstacles: Recomm: Plan Mod: Budget: Opinion: The evaluation identifies the demographics of the McClellan attendance zone as an impediment to continued efforts to desegregate. The satellite zone is 100% black. Magnet courses such as Desktop Publishing I and II are now being offered at other LRSD high schools. These used to set the McClellan business program apart from others. The duplication lessens the magnetic appeal of the McClellan program. It is recommended that McClellans attendance zone be adjusted in such a way as to bring its black component into line with the attendance zones of the other LRSD area high schools. The LRSD should adopt a policy by which a new magnet course will be added to a schools magnet curriculum when one of their existing magnet courses is put into the general course offerings of the LRSD. The evaluation indicates that there is a need for a plan modification. Rather, I see the case being made for alteration of current attendance boundaries. No budget impact is indicated by the evaluation. I do wonder if the school will move to add new, more unique courses to the magnet program while retaining the ones now being duplicated at other area high schools. If so, the addition would seem to affect the budget - possibly through new equipment and additional staff. Overall, I believe the recommendations to be sound. Altering the attendance boundaries would further desegregative efforts and reward the community and school. It is also logical that the district adopt a policy on course offerings which will safeguard the uniqueness of the magnet programs. Once again, the evaluation itself had weaknesses. For example, no documentation was provided as to the increase in out-of-zone and M-to-M students resulting from the magnet program to address the first goal. In reference to the second goal, the achievement data didnt reveal a significant, sustained growth on the part of McClellan students. In addition, the goal regarding achievement was related to the program specifically. Yet, the evaluation did not separate out the achievement of magnet program participants.McClellan Community School Summary: Eval. Criteria: Eval. Results: The evaluation sought to measure the effectiveness of the McClellan Community School on a wide range of involvement from community involvement to affecting McClellan student academic achievement. The evaluator(s) used 1991-95 data to evaluate the program based on the following objectives: Enhancing the McClellan educational format and eradicating test score disparities. Expanding the participation on the Advisory Board Expanding use of the well-child clinic Enhance the Advisory Boards knowledge of school district policies Re-integrate older adults into community activities Inform the school population and community of school goals/objectives Expand the use of the school facilities Results regarding educational enhancements for McClellan students were sketchy. The evaluation only provided data on the number of students participating in the current Healthy Family Center After-School Tutorial and the ACT Lock-In of 1993-94. To expand the Advisory Board, new members were elected to fill vacancies on September 25, 1995. In addition, the evaluation mentions that the community school director has been involved in developing a strategy to survey the community. The evaluation notes that the well-child clinic serves an average of 20 students per day, but no comparative data is provided. The McClellan principal reports monthly to the Advisory board concerning issues pertaining specifically to the school and the district as a whole. In addition, other school district officials visit Advisory Board meetings and Advisory Board members also attend the LRSD school board meetings. Classes are offered to older citizens to help reintegrate them into the workforce. In addition, older citizens are encouraged to join the Community School Advisory Board. Community Education brochures are the most frequently distributed pieces of literature disseminated to the community. Other documentation offered as sources of information for the community: Advisory Board meetings, community school staff, McClellan faculty and staff, LRSD Communication, and the patrons of McClellan High School.McClellan is open to the community year-round. In addition to the courses oflfered the community school sponsors a summer camp, tutoring, and the ACT Lock-In. Additionally, local businesses and organizations use the facility for various activities. Recomm: Plan Mod: Budget: Opinion: It is recommended that a survey of the community be conducted to recapture community interest in the program. It is recommended that needed enhancements to the schools facility be made in order to better serve the educational needs of the school and community. The evaluation indicates a plan modification, but I dont see where any of the recommendations necessitate modification. The evaluation indicates that the recommendations will require a budget increase. The cost of enhancements is set at $25,000. The evaluation contains no information regarding the regular courses offered by the Community School (e.g. course offerings, enrollment trends, etc.). While the cost of enhancements is estimated to be $25,000, the evaluation lacks information about how this total was reached. Although a budget increase and plan modification were indicated, the writer also claimed that a business case was unnecessary - that doesnt make sense. In my opinion, the evaluation is very weak. Past program evaluations of the Community School, while at times fluffy, have made a better use of data than this attempt. The first recommendation is not founded in the findings of the evaluation. Otherwise, there would be more information regarding a lack of community enthusiasm, support, and participation in programs, documentation is provided to that effect. No Special Education Transportation Summary: Eval. Criteria: The evaluation attempts to ascertain whether the Special Education Transportation Program provides safe, efficient, and reliable transportation for students in the LRSD. A series of tasks listed in the PBD ranging from the signing of requisitions to the completion of summer check sheets. The writer of the evaluation acknowledges that the relationship of the tasks to an operational evaluation is weak since completion of the tasks is no indication of the quality of service provided. The writer indicates that in the future criteria such as percent of on-time arrivals, driver attendance, and the amount of training received by individual drivers should be developed and used. Eval. Results: Obstacles: Recomm: Budget: The number of buses is limited. For Special Education, no buses have been purchased since 1993. Manpower shortages taxed the resources of the Transportation Dept. Including the Special Education section. The fleet continues to age and no replacement plan exists. Buses continue to breakdown and require extensive maintenance not covered by warranties. Ideally, an organization should replace 5-8 buses per year for a fleet of 53 buses. The district meets state and federal regulations for Special Education transportation, but falls short of voluntary guidelines suggested by various agencies that exceed the state and federal minimums. Beginning in 1996-97, there will be no specific funding from state or federal government sources for transportation of special needs children. All costs will be paid from the districts general fund. Due to the age of the fleet and lack of a replacement plan, maintenance workers cant keep up with the repairs needed to keep a sufficient number of buses available to support the overall need. It is recommended that the district outsource the Special Education transportation to a private company. Make the Special Education Transportation Department a model system meeting all recommended (voluntary) guidelines for providing transportation to special needs children. Although no specific figures are given, the evaluation indicates that recommendation #1 would possibly save the district money over a three year period. In essence, the writer claims that outsourcing Special Education transportation would not cost the district any more than it would if a decision was made to continue the present service with the purchase of new equipment. The evaluation states that recommendation #2, the model program, is would cost in excess of $1.6 million with the purchase of all new equipment. If a replacement schedule is used, $250,000 per year should be budgeted for replacement of equipment. Additional personnel would cost at least $12,000 per person including all pay, and benefits. No preference for either recommendation is noted. The evaluator did not indicate the need for a business case.Opinion: The strongest aspect of the evaluation was that having to do with the age and condition of the fleet. The evaluation and recommendations have less to do with the eflflciency of service and patron satisfaction as they do with the cost of upgrading a fleet that the district has lacked the resources to upgrade or simply benignly neglected. Once again, as with facilities, a lack of foresight seems to have placed the district in yet another deep hole. On the other hand, it could be argued that if the current outsourcing of non-Special Education transportation works to the district s advantage, it would only make sense to outsource Special Education transportation in light of the lack of state and federal subsidies for the transportation of special needs children. 1.A Program\nBooker Arts Magnet Focus: Support for and Expansion of Bookers Theme Evaluation Criteria: School Improvement assessment School-wide planning and addressing achievement disparity Ongoing staff development Evaluation Process: As part of their assessment for general school improvement the Booker team examined student achievement data, enrollment figures over the last three years, evidence of home/ school communication, student participation in extracurricular and co-curricular activities, recruitment efforts, inventories of band instruments, as well as other documents. After looking at all the information listed above, the evaluation team composed as \"discussion\" of the schools efforts toward school wide improvement and their recommendations for further improvements. Evaluation Results: The evaluation team found that enrollment at Booker was far below the schools capacity and attributed this to the failure of the school to grow and change since its establishment. The Booker proposal seeks to create additional support for the schools arts theme and expand their fine arts emphasis to also incorporate more performing arts. An ongoing goal of school improvement has been to increase participation, especially among minorities, in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. The evaluation documents that participation has increased over 100% in both orchestra and recorder, but it also shows that the school faces a severe shortage of band instruments. The orchestra has 215 enrolled, but only 60 instruments. In order to support the theme and guarantee equal access to all students, the school wants to purchase instruments, secure regular maintenance for them, and ensure secure storage for all instruments. Reconunendations: Incorporate drama in the Booker curriculum Purchase additional orchestra instruments Establish fund for yearly repair and maintenance Add a piano lab Expand the artists-in-residence program Develop new brochures and flyers to facilitate recruitment of new students Reinstate the 3-day preschool inservice to promote the integrated curriculum and sound instructional practices Update the computer labThese recommendations do not require plan modification. They do result in a budget increase. The total cost, which is spread over five years, is $292,05356 Evaluation Quality: This is not the best evaluation Ive ever read, but it is far from the worst. I did find it a little difficult to follow and some areas lacked sufficient detail (the section seeking $130,00 for computer updates is very vague). I think the authors of this evaluation did a good job identifying some of the problems the school faces. They concentrated a great deal of their resources on issues that address the low enrollment. I think the case they made for the added orchestra instruments and the piano lab is strong. The a school with and arts program should provide instruments for all the students. The free instruments coupled with the staffs outreach efforts ensure equal opportunities for all students to participate. I also had a favorable reaction to the proposal to add drama to the school. I think that a drama component is an integral part of any arts program. The addition of such a program would compete with the theme offered at Mitchell, but Booker might be able to recruit students whose parents would not consider the incentive school option. The $35,000 estimated to fund the position of drama instructor seems a little low, if it is to include salary and benefits. Also, the evaluation records this expenditure as if it occurs once, when it will be a recurring cost. The total costs for staff development are under $10,000. Little detail is provided about the training except to say that all teachers would receive training aimed at instructional effectiveness and a core group of 10 teachers would have an additional planning session devoted to the integration of arts into the curriculum. As I mentioned above, the final section on the computer lab updates is sparse. I can not determine whether they plan to buy new hardware, software, or both.Program: Carver Math and Science Magnet Focus: Developing a \"state of the art\" technology program Evaluation Criteria: School climate based on the belief that all children can learn. And provide the resources to support that belief. Develop policies that foster a positive school climate while addressing individual student needs and learning styles. To provide opportunities for all students to participate in extracurricular and co- curricular activities. Give principals authority and accountability for school improvement, making sure all students have the opportunity to succeed. Provide staff development. Evaluation Process: The evaluation team examined a variety of documents, data, and school procedures: student achievement records, enrollment records, discipline practices, recognition programs for good behavior, evidence of home/ school communications, current levels of technology usage, and Evaluation Results: After study of the various documents and school procedures outlined above, the Carver evaluation team came to the conclusion that the school needs to upgrade its technology to improve student performance and to continue to be able to attract white students to the school. The computer labs found at Carver are those established when the school opened eight years ago. The study mentions that, as a math and science school, they should be leaders in technology. The evaluation states that this technology \"was needed yesterday.\" The current system does not have the memory necessary to allow students to use a computerized encyclopedia. The aged computers do not contribute to efficient, effective instruction. Reconuneudations: Select and install new hardware and software Conduct staff development training related to the new system These recommendation do not require a plan change but they will require and expenditure of $28,130 in each of the next five school years (the LRSD portion would be about $8400 per year). The total cost is estimated at $140,650. Evaluation Quality: This evaluation is very well done. It outlines the need for the technology upgrades and gives a detailed implementation schedule with a yearly budget. When reviewing this document, you can see what they plan to do, when tasks should be complete, and how much it will cost.Program: Gibbs International Studies Magnet Focus: Additional Support for the Magnet Theme Evaluation Criteria: The team preparing the Gibbs evaluation based their evaluation criteria around the school operation goal to provide equitable educational opportunities for all students in the LRSD. Evaluation Process: A variety of documents were examined including the School Improvement Plan, the School Climate Surveys, achievement data, enrollment data, magnet seat allotments by district, documentation of waiting lists from 1989 to the present, and the like. Evaluation Results: In analyzing the schools progress towards meeting a wide variety of educational objectives, the authors of the evaluation determined that the school had a long way to go before fulfilling the terms of those objectives. The report indicated that much of the schools operations had become static (and perhaps stagnate) since its founding. The report mentions that materials such as maps an globes have not been updated. The school does not offer modern technology, and the disparity in achievement between black and white students persists. When making same grade comparisons of test scores over time, you find a decline at every grade level. The decline ranges from 2.6 percentile points at the sixth grade level to 35.7 percentile points at the second grade level. The good news here is that childrens scores appear to improve as they remain in the school. Recouuiiendations: Recruit an International Studies Technology Specialist Update existing computer lab and include program designed for at-risk first graders Incorporate closed circuit TV Technology training for staff Replace out-of-date or worn globes, maps, and research materials Develop International Studies Staff Development Plan Purchase new materials to enhance the media center Install portable classroom to house the foreign language teachers Automate the media center and enhance materials, equipment, and resources in the media center The improvements to the Gibbs educational program would be instituted in five phases: Phases I, II Phase III Phase IV Technology International Studies (update resource, materials, and equipment) Foreign Languages (secure portable classroom for instruction of French, Spanish, and German)Phase V Enhance the Media Center Gibbs Extended Evaluation, continued No plan change is required. The total cost for each of the phases is as follows: Phase I, II Phase III Phase IV Phase V $68, 835. 10 ($38,805.10 of this would be a recurring expense, since it represents the cost of adding a technology specialist to the Gibbs staff.) While the proposal includes this recurring expense, the evaluation only mentions the first year cost. $17,341.86 No cost listed. The evaluation recommends relocation of an already-owned portable to the Gibbs campus. The authors of the evaluation must not have been aware that the relocation of a portable will cost several thousand dollars. $11,827 GRAND TOTAL $98,009.86 Evaluation Quality: The evaluation presents a great deal of good information, and it honestly examines the strengths and needs of Gibbs. As noted above, some of the figures require further examination. My biggest question regarding the evaluation is why werent some of these items purchased over the years with instructional money? I know the school has not had the funds for a technology update, but it seems that the standard instructional budget could have allowed for the update of globes and maps.Program: Williams Magnet School Focus: Educational quality and school climate Evaluation Criteria:  To provide a climate based on the belief that all students can learn and to provide the resources necessary to support that belief  To design a program that meet the needs of all children  Monitor school climate and resource allocation  To design a program which meets the specific need of the students Evaluation Process: The evaluation examined the successes of the Williams program and its current needs. The background information gives a good overview of investments made in the instructional program and physical plant over the last few years. This narrative makes reference to data gleaned from the School Climate Survey, student achievement data, the school profile, the mission statement, and the like. Evaluation Results: While the evaluation mentions the many successes and accomplishments of the Williams program, it also outlines the need for updated technology at the school. PTA contributions have begun to automate the media center, but could not be completed \"because of LRSD systems requirements.\" Evaluators found that the Williams computer lab consist entirely of Tandy computers purchased about eight years ago. Other computers have been added to classrooms over the years, as funds allowed. The computers are not part of a network. Reconunendations: Purchase the hardware and software needed to update the lab and classroom computers. Automate the library system Connect with the Internet and network the computers within the building Purchase new printers Conduct staff development related to new technology None of these proposals would require a change in the desegregation plan. The total cost for the technology upgrade is $167,900. The cost would be spread over the period from August 1998 to August 2000. Evaluation Quality: This evaluation did not have the excruciating level of detail that some of the others presented, but I felt it gave a very good picture of the school and its needs. The evaluation also pointed out the efforts the school has made to upgrade technology within the annual budgets of the last several years. It also pointed out parental contributions to technology purchases. I found the evaluation to be quite adequate.Program: Four-Year-Old Focus: The programs progress towards meeting the commitments outlined in the desegregation plan. Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation examined the extent to which each of the provisions regarding the four-year-old program has been met. Evaluation Process: The provisions regarding areas such as curriculum, establishments of sites, racial balance, and the like were examined and discussed individually. Evaluation Results: The evaluation found that all objectives had been attained. This is not to say that no work remains in this area. Many of the early childhood plan obligations are ongoing. Only two problem areas were noted\nthe districtwide shortage of substitutes sometimes makes teacher release for staff development a problem, and the lack of any support staff for the Director of Early Childhood Education. The evaluation states that the effectiveness of the department is reduced because as a one-person operation a great deal of time is spent on clerical tasks. The IRC secretaries are available to help with early childhood chores, but they can do this only after they have fulfilled all the tasks assigned by their immediate supervisor. Recomiiieiidatious: Add one new position to the early childhood education department. This position could be either a secretary or an early childhood specialist. This would not require a plan modification, but it would increase the budget. No dollar figure is attached. The amount spent would depend on whether the district hired a secretarial or professional support person. Evaluation Quality: This is a very through evaluation of the early childhood program. The program objectives are tied directly to the desegregation plan.LRSD EXTENDED EVALUATIONS ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER (ALC) Focus The evaluation covers five (5) areas: In-school suspension. Alternative Learning Center, Curriculum Offering, Attendance Pattems/Rates, and Behavior Modification procedures. Supposedly, the writer evaluated the program by examining seven (7) objectives. The document is poorly written and somewhat difficult to follow. I believe the writer wants the reader to believe that the alternative school is meeting all of its objectives, but with a little help (2 additional staff members), the staff could do a better job. Criteria The A-School evaluation relies on data that was written and interpreted by the director. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Number of reports submitted from ALCs office. Review of attendance rosters. The ALC Profile Book. Review of school-based objectives, policies, and procedures. Review of statistical information on race and gender for roll, grades, awards, discipline, and other areas. , , Evaluation of the number of reports of counseling interventions, parent involvement, and due-process procedures. Evaluation of curriculum offerings. Note: Evaluation is a very misleading term in this report. Nothing is evaluated. Process The only discernable process seems to be to say something is true, which then makes it true. The writer outlines or summarizes some general descriptions of the ALC program, regurgitates some highly suspicious data, and proclaims the program a success. Results According to the evaluation, the ALC is meeting all of its objectives. The ALC now submits reports to^all the junior highs, central office, and advisory board. Added to the recipients are the SAO Communication Office, and Special Education. The report shows an average attendance rate of 88% for the first 12 weeks of school (the goal was 75%). The director developed a nng binder library which covers 19 areas. The evaluation concludes that the ALC has proven effective because they publish the Alternative Learning Center Mission Package. The staff holds an intake conference on every enteringstudent, students participate in a three day orientation, teachers are prepared to provide individualized lesson plans, however, they provide no evidence that they do. Further, they have in-school detention and suspension for those who commit violations outlined in the Mission Package. Other students may take academically related field trips to Central Flying Service and Aerospace Education Center. The evaluation also claims that students can participate in several clubs, such as electronics, weight lifting, science, or Scrabble Club, among others. Finally, the evaluation claims a reduction in black enrollment from 85% to 77% and that at least four students a day receive counseling. Disciplinary sanctions remain high, but are less than past years. Students receive a basic curriculum, but the report states that they cannot provide much needed hand-on instruction because they do not have a qualified wood working instructor. Recommendations 1. 2. Hire an additional instructional aide to supervise the in-school suspension class. Hire an additional instructional aide to supervise wood working as an activity instead of a class (because the cost of a real teacher would add to the district s financial stress). Requires budget change, approximately $20,000 for both positions @ $10,000 each. Review Crap! Crap! Crap! O.K., I feel better now. This so-called extended evaluation neither extends information, nor evaluates any program. Although it has been a year since ODM monitored the alternative school, 1 sincerely doubt that the program is any better than what we found, and what we found stunk. In essence, the evaluation tries to substantiate a need for two additional instructional aides. One to supervise the in-school suspension class and the other to supervise a wood working activity or arts and crafts class. The justification for the in-school suspension aide is that evaluation of the behavior modification procedures indicates that by having two behavior level groups in one room (level zero and level one) too many disruptions occur and it is difficult to maintain order. Apparently, the loss of support from the Delta Service Project (a service provided by Americorps) has exacerbated the problem, but the evaluation does not make clear how. The evaluation claims an attendance rate over 80%. What the report fails to mention is the number of students attending compared to the number of students referred. Its easy to have good attendance rates when you drop students on a regular basis, make no attempts to locate noshows, and fail to account for all of your students. The staff has no clue as to what behavior modification means. Their idea of behavior modificationis to ask or tell a student to do something, and if he or she does it, then the behavior is modified. The school does not have a behavior modification program, and provides no competent group or individual counseling services. Parent involvement translates into a requirement that parents attend an in-take session or a re-entry hearing. Teachers receive no training in dealing with this population, all of the referrals are disciplinary in nature, and students do not have individualized contracts or plans for improvement. Unless things changed, the principal had stopped accepting ninth graders altogether. The evaluation lists 6 sections of a non-categorical special education class, but the principal informed me last year that he did not accept special education students. The little group counseling provided for these students came from a counselor-social worker assigned to the four restructuring schools. Students assigned to non-restructuring schools did not get even that little bit of additional help. Nursing services were almost non-existent. One part-time reading specialist visits the school. No speech therapist, social worker, music, art, or foreign language teacher is on staff. The school does not have a librarian or media specialist. The directors idea of hands-on teaching involves wood working or arts and crafts. This man does not have a clue! The school lacks a science lab and a computer specialist, yet the director wants to add an instructional aide to supervise a wood working activity! His idea of educational field trips is to visit the Central Flying Service to visit his buddy over there. Never mind that the students may have other interests. This proposal is a big waste of money!LRSD EXTENDED EVALUATION TEAMING IN NEW FUTURES RESTRUCTURING SCHOOLS Focus The evaluation focuses on how school restructuring, through teaming, affects achievement, school climate, and the development of appropriate educational environments for adolescents. Criteria Assessment of possible added personnel costs Assessment of student achievement Assessment of school climate in areas such as: discipline, parent involvement, faculty absentee rates, curriculum enrichment, incentives, and recognition of success as evidenced by participation in a Carnegie Grant. ProcessZResuIts The evaluators compared staffing levels at a teamed and a non-teamed school, with similar student populations, to determine the difference in FTEs. They found a difference of .8 FTE. When comparing the staffing ratios in all of the junior highs, they found no significant differences between them. The evaluation notes that the staff ratios of magnet schools to teaming schools is 15.4 to 14.5. Most important, the evaluation found no increased costs due to teaming. A three-year assessment of student achievement on reading and math tests in the participating schools using cohort student files from 1992-3-4 reveals a slight increase in reading scores for two of the restructuring schools, no change for one, and a decline of 2 NCEs at another. All of the districts JHs saw declining math scores over the three year period assessed, however, on average, math scores in the restructuring schools declined somewhat less than the others. An examination of discipline data for the districts junior highs indicate that magnet schools, which do not practice teaming, averaged 50 fewer suspensions and expulsions in the 1994-95 school year than the teaming schools. Therefore, the writers concluded that the use of sanctions in the schools did not significantly affect school climate. According to the extended evaluation, parent involvement increased in all of the restructuring schools. In some cases PTA membership increased, in other cases monthly volunteer hours increased. For instance. Southwest reported a 76.3% increase in volunteer hours for the 94-95 school year. With the exception of Cloverdale, the teaming schools had significant increases in PTA membership from SY 90 through SY 95. Absenteeism was lower at the restructuring schools than at the magnet schools. The authors concluded that job satisfaction, as manifested in attendance, is greater at the restructuring schools. The document does not evaluate enrichment/extension experiences in the restructuring schools, rather it lists some of the components of teaming and some of the programs and services provided at the schools. Key to the teaming concept is the development and implementation of interdisciplinary units. Other major features in the restructuring schools are requiring students to participate in two major educational activities, service learning projects, and advisory programming, to name a few. An evaluation of incentives for student achievement consists of a list of strategies and activities that have shown to have a positive impact on student achievement. Team leaders reward students with special activities such as homework bash, field trips, or team recognition assemblies. Students can earn additional percentage points for classroom participation\nthey can receive tutorial assistance at lunch and after school\nor students can join special clubs such as the Young Professionals Club, Breakfast Club, and the Ladies or Gentlemens Club. The report concludes that middle level restructuring has been a success because Pulaski Heights JH has been designated as a Carnegie Foundation Systemic Change School by the ADE Carnegie Middle Grade School State Policy Initiative. The school accepted a grant from the ADECMGSSPI, and became one of only six schools in Arkansas chosen and one of only 90 in the U. S. To work on the advancement of middle level practices. Recommendations Implement middle school programming to provide a developmentally-appropriate educational environment for the academic success of adolescents. The evaluation makes no recommendation on plan modifications, asserting that district personnel are still making decisions based on the facilities study. Implementing the middle school concept will require some monetary investment for staff development needs. However, teachers and equipment are already available\nmost likely, some assignments and allocations would change. The evaluation indicates that more detailed information is included in a business case. This evaluation is more of an outline, than an evaluation. Unless one was very familiar with the middle school concept, this evaluation does not yield enough information to make an informed decision which would result in a radical change in the districts educational system. The business case is more comprehensive. I believe that approval of the recommendation would require some sort of plan modification, because grade configurations would change. Instead of junior highs, the district would have middle schools with a grade configuration of 6-7-8. All of the elementary schools would lose their sixth grade and all of the high schools would gain the ninth grade. Implementing the middle school concept will have the greatest impact on magnet schools. While the magnet schools will keep their themes, the district would have to make some accommodations for students already in their system when the change occurs. Some teachers would have to get additional certification, however, it is my understanding that ADE has already studied this matter and has a plan in place to ease certification requirements. As a member of the districts middle school task force, I endorse the recommendation.LRSD EXTENDED EVALUATIONS ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM (ASP) Focus The evaluation focuses on the ASP at the secondary level. Specifically, the following areas are addressed: degree of implementation at the secondary level administrative coordination external funding Criteria The extent to which the secondary schools are implementing the reading and language arts plus (LAP) and the math plus (MP) models. A listing of major program activities with a timeline and the person(s) who initiated or implemented the activity. A description of program components and the cost of each component for the 1995-96 SY. Process/Results Evaluators surveyed all of the LRSDs secondary schools to determine the total number of Language Arts Plus and Math Plus classes and the total number of students enrolled in each class. At the junior high level, they found that of the 352 LAP students, 27 were not being served by their own English Teacher. Of the 437 MP students, 80 were not being served by their own math teacher. Similarly, at the senior high level, 95 of 343 MAP students were not being served by their English teacher, and 2 of 72 MP students were not being served by their own math teacher. According to the tables on page 9 of the evaluation, much of the eligible population is not being served. Class enrollment in both programs is not to exceed 15 students, however, the average Lap Class has 9.5 students, and the average MP class has 9.8 students. Enrollment of eligible LAP students ranged from a high of 63.9% at Dunbar to a low of 12.5% at Cloverdale. In MP classes, enrollment of eligible students ranged from a high of 62.2% at Cloverdale to a low of 0% at Parkview. The evaluators examined the coordination of services and events that are required for full implementation of the two programs. They found 32 separate entries which they reduced to 7 function categories. They then took the categories and matched them with their corresponding departments in the district. Departments responsible for implementing the programs are: Federal Programs, Reading/Language Arts Department, Mathematics Department, AssistantSuperintendent of Secondary Schools, and building-level principals. Some events required coordination between two or more entities. Next, evaluators examined program administration. They looked at application preparation, student selection, monitoring, personnel and evaluation. Additionally, they looked at time lines for completion and persons responsible for task completion. The report indicates that in several cases the process broke down because of lack of coordination between program or resource managers. The system lacked continuity and as a result, students who should have been receiving services were often overlooked, not recommended but should have been, or their cases were mishandled because of a lack of follow through. Finally, after comparing the difference in funding levels between SY 95 and SY 96 for both programs, the evaluators found that funding levels had decreased a combined total of $572, 860. (Note: My calculations show a decrease of $507,140. I dont understand how they got their total.) The report also indicates that the senior high schools, along with Pulaski Heights JH were not eligible in SY 96. I assume they mean not eligible for Title I funds. The evaluation further states that Comp-ed funding would drop by $250,000 in 1997 and Title I funds could be decreased by 10% in that same year. With the decrease in funding came a drop in FTEs. The secondary programs lost a total of 20.8 FTEs between 1995 and 1996. LAP and reading lost 16 FTEs, and .MP lost 4.8 FTEs. Naturally, such a decrease in staff had a negative impact on services. Recommendations 1. 2. 3. All schools follow the model as it is written. Apparently, the secondary schools have pieced together LAP and readins programs as well as Math Plus Programs. In particular, one of the main features of the programs is that students would retain their regular subject area teachers. In that way, the teachers could reinforce earlier lessons, provide continuity with current curricula, and they would be familiar with the problems that initiated a students referral to a program. Instructional supervisors have a greater role in program design, implementation, staff development and related technical assistance. It seems that the right hand doesnt always know what the left hand is doing. According to the extended evaluation, even overlapping services arent coordinated very well. As a result many students who should be referred to the LAP and MP programs are not, thereby creating a service gap. Also, the people who actually deliver program services are left out of the design and decision making steps and program supervisors do not seemed to be adequately involved with building-level people. Investigate more cost efficient alternatives to the current ASP at the secondary level.Included in the recommendation is the suggestion that Math Plus at the 10th grade level be eliminated. The reasoning is that students in the MP population have the common denominator of having failed Algebra I in junior high. As a result, this homogenous group would just as easily benefit from extra attention and individualized instructional strategies from the senior high Algebra I teachers. The recommendation also suggests that similar alternatives could be explored for reading and language arts. 3-a. Explore consolidating resources at lower grade levels. This could be done by eliminating or reducing some services at the secondary level. This is by far the best e?rtended evaluation I have read of late. Although the evaluation doesnt go into great detail, it is succinct and to the point. Technically the recommendations do not require any plan changes or budget changes. The first two recommendations merely ask the district to implement the Language Arts/Reading Plus program and the Math Plus program according to their filing and in an efficient manner. The major change occurs in the third recommendation, eliminating Math Plus at the 10th grade level. The ASP submission of March 24, 1993 (which in itself was a plan change) does not identify individual grade levels, it only specifies elementary or secondary. More importantly, the document does not mention Math Plus. The submission identifies Language Arts Plus as a separate program. Other approaches to remediation mentioned include pairing language arts teachers with reading specialists (math teachers were already paired for instruction), so that teams could jointly plan appropriate whole group and small group instruction, as well as individual instruction, and utilizing math assistants to tutor math students. The evaluation clearly identifies the problems and offers reasonable solutionsSAMPLE DESEGREGATION PROGRAM EVALUATION of (Fill in name.) SCHOOL Date: Program Name: School Operations Name of School Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader(s): (Margaret Gremillion) Principal's Name PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: School Operations includes the total integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all LRSD students in a desegregated educational setting. Central Office staff [and] principals of the schools collaborate to ensure quality educational program planning for all students with the support of staff, parents, and the larger community. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The intent of the School Operations goal is to provide equitable educational opportunities for all students in the LRSD\nevaluation of the stated intent serves as the evaluation the case of this particular desegregation program evaluation, the foregoing statement applies specificallv to Pill in In the foregoing statement applies specifically to Fill in name of school. SUMMARY: (Using the objectives outlined in the Program Budget Document (PBD), write a summary of the overall effectiveness of goal results, as they relate to your school.) 1. Example of a summary beginning - Equitable educational opportunities were (or were not) provided for all students at (Name the school.) during the 1993-94 academic year. An organizational structure was in place which provided equal opportunity and access for parents, students, and staff. (Following these introductory sentences, either write how these opportunities were provided or explain why they were not. In the paragraphs that follow the summary of the overall effectiveness of the first objective, do the same for each objective listed. As you continue writing your summary, combine objectives, if you wish. year. (Following BODY OF SUMMARY Example of a concluding sentence - By implementing the strategies summarized above, or (because of the factors explained above which prevented the successful implementation of planned strategies,) equitable educational opportunities were (were not) provided to all students at (Fill of school.) It is possible that you may have a combination of strategies which were successfully implemented and ones which were not. If so, this combination should be reflected in your summary. in were not. 2 .Sample PBD Eval. Report Page 2 GOAL ATTAINMENT: The following list provides examples of factors that facilitated (or prevented) goal attainment\nincluded in this list is the identification of the factor, along with its description. Factors and Descriptions PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT  A cross-section of parents were actively involved in a variety of projects and in attendance at all functions and Beetinos. all functions and meetings. STAFF DEVELOPMENT Courses and/or workshops were provided for teacher development, to improve student achievement, etc. (Continue listing the factors and descriptions which cite as examples.) you choose to EVIDENCE: Evidence substantiating the summary and explanation o attainment may be found in total in the Program Budget Document, School Profile, and/or the Extended COE. - -- of goal examples of such evidence: Following are several the Factors and Evidence PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT P.T.A., Dad's Club, Biracial Committee, tutors, VIPS Open House, mentors Science Fair (Continue listing the factors and evidence which as examples.) you choose to citeTO: Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Board of Education FROM: THROUGH\nDr. Kathy LeaaefAssistant Superintendent, PRE Dr. Ed Williams, Research and Evaluation Specialist, PRE Gamine, Superintendent ionnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent DATE: August 24, 1999 SUBJECT: Program Evaluation Plan According to Sec. 2.7 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Section 2.7.1. states: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving A\u0026amp;ican-American achievement If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The Superintendent and the Associate Superintendents have established the evaluation agenda for the 1999-2000 school year. Planning, Research, and Evaluation will be responsible for the program evaluation design and the program evaluation for the following programs: Title I/Elementary Literacy ELLA Success for All Direct Instruction Little Rock Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LRPMSANSF Grant) English as a Second Language (ESL programs) Middle School Transition and Program Implementation wdU work in conjunction with Campus Leadership Teams, curriculum specialists, pnncipals, parents, teachers, and other interested parties as appropriate to design and implement these evaluations. Several meetings have already been held with , --O- -  J MV'AV* miil our desegregation consultant, Dr. Steve Ross, from the University of Memphis. He is providing technical assistance to guide the development of our program evaluation components. Upon completion, results of these program evaluations will be presented to the Board,*An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge February 21, 2000 Ms. Aim Brown ODM 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 rECSVBD MAR 10 OFRGEOf Dear Ann\nI am sending to you a bundle of recent LRSD publications that I know youll be interested in. Also, I hope youll share them with your staff. K-8 Refrigerator Curriculum (Grade-Level and Course Benchmarks for Parents) Middle School Curriculum Catalog Middle School Student/Parent Guide High School Curriculum Catalog High School Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements Please call if you have questions or feedback for improvement. Sincerely, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D /rem Cc: Junious Babbs Brady Gadberry 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax:501-324-2032 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 April 13, 2000 Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bonnie: This note is to let you know that we received your February 21, 2000 letter and attachments (various LRSD curriculum guides and catalogs) on March 10, 2000. We thank you very much for sharing the documents and inviting our feedback. Well be glad to look them over. As you know, I was involved in a car accident on March 7. I returned to work for the first time yesterday, so please forgive me for just now acknowledging your correspondence. I havent found the bottom of my desk yet and am slowing working my way through the accumulated piles. Please give me a call when you can and lets schedule some time to spend together catching up. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Date: April 17, 2000 To: Gene, Horace, and Melissa From: Ann Re: Recent LRSD Publications Attached are some LRSD publications that Bonnie Lesley recently sent us, asking for our feedback. Please review each document individually according to the assignments below, answering the seven review questions in writing for each document. Note that these publications are the originals, so please dont mark them up. If youd like to jot notes on them (edits, etc.), work on a copy. Id like to have your reviews by this Thursday. April 20. Thanks. Gene: Horace: Melissa: High Schools:  High School Curriculum Catalog 2000-2001  Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 Middle Schools:  6* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  7* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  8* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  Middle School Curriculum Catalog 2000-2001  Guide to Learning in Middle School Elementary Schools:  Kindergarten Standards, Benchmarks  1' Grade Standards, Benchmarks  2\"'' Grade Standards, Benchmarks  3* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  4*** Grade Standards, Benchmarks  5* Grade Standards, Benchmarks Review Questions 1. For which audience is the publication intended? 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? 6. What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? 7. Additional comments.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates 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 Date: April 25, 2000 To\nBonnie Lesley From: Ann BrOy Re: Feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents I took you at your word when you invited our feedback on the various curriculum documents you kindly sent us last month. I asked my staff to look them over, and their responses are attached. Their comments are unvarnished and strictly FYI, so take them or them, but please accept them in the spirit of collegiality in which we offer them. Listed below are the questions I asked the staff to use as their guide in reviewing the documents. By the way, weve have gotten several calls from frustrated parents wanting to know, Whats a refrigerator curriculum?\" Evidently that undefined phrase appears in a recent district publication on behalf of the millage, and perhaps elsewhere on parent-directed documents. We tell them a refiigerator curriculum enables them to learn how to fix their refrigerator, or in the alternative we say its a curriculum their refrigerator can study in order to become a smart refrigerator. No, we dont! (Just kidding.) Actually, we have to tell them the truth: In-house education-speak is one of lifes continuing mysteries, and none of us at ODM know what a refrigerator curriculum is either. Another point of bewilderment has come to our attention. Many parents and students (and who knows, maybe teachers too) are very confused about the difference between standards and benchmarks. We think we know how to define those words, but maybe the district needs to take care to differentiate between the two terms and to widely broadcast definitions that will enable everyone to work from the same understanding. Review Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. For which audience is the publication intended? What is the stated purpose of the publication? List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why'i What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? Additional comments.Comments regarding LRSDs High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 1. For which audience is the publication intended? The guide is directed at high school students and their parents. Though the document does not explicitly say so, it would be useful also to middle school students as they decide whether or not to take high school courses as 8* graders. For example, students who wish to take calculus in high school must take algebra I in grade 8 as explained in the guide. 2. What is the stated purpose of publication? A convoluted sentence on page 2 in a section captioned Where do I start? says the guide is intended to assist students and parents by providing information that will help them to plan next years courses, meet graduation requirements, and to know college admission requirements. 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. It is complete. Few details regarding student placement have been omitted. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. The guide is not clear enough for its intended audience because the language is garbled and the layout is inconsistent. For example, the table of contents lists Purpose for Guide and indicates it is on page 1. No heading on page 1 says Purpose. Instead there is a two-paragraph section titled Where do I start? in which the first paragraph extols the quality of LRSD. The second paragraph contains three items, not parallel, in what could be called a statement of purpose. Language used in the curriculum discussions is often vague. For example, the Unconditional Admission section on page 2 does not state a requirement and then list the courses by number and title which could fulfill it. Instead, for example, the natural science admission requirement section says, Three units, with laboratories, chosen from Physical Science, Biology, Chemistry, or physics. Only one unit may come from a life science. Few students could complete the course selection sheet accurately from this information, and the guide is full of examples similar to this. Frequently, supplemental information is included with course requirement listings and is introduced by a question. Page five has the question, What may I take to satisfy the technology requirement? The first paragraph following explains that the keyboarding class will not count. The second paragraph explains that students can test out of keyboarding, and the third explains something else. Nowhere, in this section, is the question answered clearly.The document is sprinkled with items enclosed in boxes but the boxes do not signify a single and consistent purpose. Some enclose quotes while others enclose significant information in thumbnail fashion, but the reader cannot tell the difference without close reading. The layout should help the reader focus on the key elements quickly. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? If the guide fails to meet its purpose it will be because of the weaknesses described in section 4 above. As it is rewritten and republished the mistakes will be taken care of. 6. Suggestions! Clean up the language with clear declarative sentences that avoid ambiguity. Courses should be identified by name and number. The layout should help readers find information quickly and easily by using symbols consistently for information types. For example, if bold type indicates a particular meaning in one place, it should do the same in every place. Rhetorical questions used to draw attention to certain types of information should be answered directly and in sensible fashion. 7. Additional comments The guide is a useful publication that meets an important need. LRSD should be commended for the effort.Comments Regarding LRSDs High School Curriculum Catalog 1. For which audience is the publication intended? Apparently, the catalog is intended for staff use in assisting students with course selection. Some directives are clearly intended for staff, but students could use the catalog with little assistance from staff members. 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? The purpose is not explicitly stated, but its title. Curriculum Catalog, probably makes a statement of purpose unnecessary. 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. The catalog is detailed. It includes information for every circumstance imaginable from specialty courses in unique schools to correspondence courses available for dual credit, high school credit, or college credit. The only obsen able omissions are the regulations for administration. These omissions are explained in a foreword. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. Other than the occasional typographical error or missed heading (Board Policy), the catalog appears to be accurate and to offer everything needed for general student assignment. It does not include special education student assignment procedures, but they probably should not be contained in this catalog. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? The Curriculum Catalog fulfills its purpose completely. Except for the omission explained in the foreword, it contains everything the school staffs need for student placement. 6. Suggestions! The format could be spiffed up with illustrations or humor. 7. Comments! LRSDs instructional department is making good progress in formalizing its curriculum. The ill-defined courses and arbitrary student placements seem to be disappearing.LRSD d\"*, 7*, S\"*, Grade Standards, Benchmarks Audience: Parents or Guardians Purpose: To help parents or guardians to monitor student progress in learning and to help reinforce at home what the students are learning at school. Strengths: Various guides are color coded. For parents with more than one child, this makes it easier to differentiate the guides. The general layout of the document makes it easy to use and attractive without being overly simplistic or juvenile. The explanatory cover memo from Bonnie is detailed enough to clearly state the purpose of the document, but also avoids excessive details which might lose the attention of the reader. For the most part, the benchmarks within subject areas are brief and relatively self-explanatory to even the reader with a very basic level of knowledge in various curriculum areas. Weaknesses: I may be confused, but where are the standards? Somewhere, the documents need to differentiate standards and benchmarks. Some benchmarks are not clearly expressed. In some cases, I got the impression that some benchmarks were condensed in order to keep the documents brief. However, condensing seems to have made some statements confusing or tremendously vague. Fulfdls Purpose: Generally, these documents fulfill the purpose of being simple and informative. It is quite a task to write an informative document that will inform a broad spectrum of individuals without being either insultingly simplistic or confusingly pedantic. I feel that the writers avoided the extremes in most cases. Suggestions: Define and give examples of standards. Parenthetical examples would have helped clarify some of the benchmarks. Are the curriculum documents printed in any other language other than English?A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School LRSD 2000-2001 Audience: Purpose: Middle school students and their parents To explain the progression of required and elective middle school courses. Strengths: The guide is less formally formatted than the curriculum catalog. The question and answer arrangement should make the guide more user-friendly. Weaknesses: The pages aren t numbered! It seems that if you were discussing the content with a teacher or counselor, you would have difficulty with references. In reality, the question and answer format is not as effective as it should be. The guide should have followed the format consistently rather than varying off into specific course descriptions. The more specific descriptions might have been more appropriate as a reference to the rear of the document. Also, the questions arent answered directly. Often, the real answer comes only after a lengthy explanation. The document places the notice to non-English speaking parents at the end - and in English! In addition, the notice only offers oral translation as an option rather than a written version. The guide deals less with the middle school concept and environment than I thought it should. Fulfills Purpose: The guide does fulfill the purpose of clearly describing course offerings and requirements. Im not so sure it is user-friendly enough for many parents and students to make practical use of it. Suggestions: Although the guide does not claim to do so, I would still like to see more of an explanation of the benefits of middle school. The guide does give a description of interdisciplinary teaming, but it seems that the district should explain more and place those explanations near the beginning of the guide rather than near the end Additionally, the guide should follow a conversational format fully as if the reader were visiting a school counselor and discussing the school, course requirements, and scheduling options. A minor visual suggestion - on the front cover, separate the title A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School from LRSD with a space.Middle School (Grades 6-8) Curriculum Guide 2000-2001 Audience: LRSD staff I assume. However, I think I did receive a copy of this as a middle school parent. Purpose: A reference guide to the middle school mission, policies, structure, and curriculum. Strengths: One-stop shopping. This document includes all relevant info on middle schools for fairly quick reference. Weaknesses: Minor point, but why are the page number positions alternated? At first, I thought the booklet was only numbered on every other page. Fuirdls Purpose: This is a good resource for staff\"membersand possibly parents who know exactly what type of information they are seeking or choose to use this as a supplement to the Parent and Student Guide to Learning in the Middle School.I Language Arts k READING Practice reading individually and in groups. Recognize and determine main idea and details in reading selections. Identify different purposes of reading and writing. Identify styles of authors. Follow written directions. Recognize difference between fact and opinion. Use word-attack skills to read accurately and to understand information. Determine word meaning from clues in reading material. , zi - Use information from previously learned information to evaluate new information, Use headings, italics, footnotes, and other printed features to sort and organize information. Identify and compare elements of reading such as setting and characterization. Lite . I Select reading materials representing a variety of cultures. Read orally with expression and ease. Increase vocabulary from reading. Use reference aids such as a dictionary, thesaunjs, and computer. Select reading materials appropriate for reading for pleasure, finding information, and for use to help in writing. Use predicting, putting events in order, and skimming to increase understanding of reading material. Use examples to support opinions and conclusions about reading material. Use computers and library skills to find information. Read graphs, tables, maps, and diagrams. WRITING  Write in personal journals for specific periods of time.  Write about real world, personal, and classroom ex^periences.  Write in complete sentences using varied patfem's including simple, complex, and compound,  Use prewriting and beginning activities.  Explain through writing what is learned in all subjects by use of outlines, categorizing, and writing directions.  Create a first draft with paragraphs containing a topic sentence, supporting details, and logical organization.  Use appropriate skills in mechanics, spelling, and usage in writing.  Use a dictionary, thesaurus, and other appropriate resources to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and usage.  Use computer and human resources to collect and organize information for writing.  Edit and correct errors with Spell Check and Grammar Check on computers. r PHYSICAL SCIENCE  Investigate the effects of magnets on each other.  Know that the Earth is a magnet.  Understand the operation of a compass.  Use a coil of wire and an electric current to produce magnetism.  Build a simple motor.  Describe how an electric current can be made from using a coil of wire and a magnet  LLiisstt tthhee mmaatteerriiaallss ffrrnomm whichn paanpoerr i ois made.  Describe properties of paper and how they relate to its use.  Make paper using the steps in papermaking.  Identify paper as a major renewable resource. Pr- p^r noA c_ re \u0026gt;  Describe the steps in designing different types of paper. .  Observe, describe, and record test results on the strength, transparency, and absorption properties of paper.  Vrcei crp P.-^pC 1 I , LIFE SCIENCE  Describe the basic needs of plants.  Identify the things that affect plant growth.  Describe how plants reproduce.  Describe how light and gravity affect the growth of a plant.  Plant and care for plants.  Control the environment and conditions when the seeds are planted and the plants are growing  Obbsseerrvvee,, mmeeaassuurree, rdieessncrriihbAe, aannrdi record changes iinn plant growth.  E EARTH SCIENCE  Understand that time can be measured using the natural cycles of the sun and moon.  Describe how shadows from the sun can be used to measure and predict the passage of time during a day.  Describe how the phases of the moon can be used to predict the passage of time during a month.  Understand that mechanical clocks can be constructed and used to measure specific intervals of time consistently. Social Studies CITIZENSHIP  Describe political patterns in ancient civilizations.  Describe the development of Greek and Roman democracies.  Explain Greek and Roman citizenship and its significance. INTERDEPENDENCE  Explain the interdependence of ancient people with their environment  Locate and describe ancient and early civilizations in Africa and Asia.  Locate and describe life in ancient and early America.  Analyze the impact of trade in ancient/early civilizations.  Locate and describe the way of life in early Europe such as Greece, Rome, and Russia.  Analyze the structure of feudalism.  Explore current event issues in lands of ancient and early civilizations.  Use various methods and processes to explore the interdependence of people of ancient and early civilizations. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE a_- . of- peopic. people  Explain hew the development of agriculture impaated ancient and eariy people.  Use various methods and processes to explore and explain changes in ancient and early civilizations.  Describe the impact of the rise and fall of ancient and early civilizations such as Egypt, Rome, and Meso America.  Evaluate the impact of change overtime.  Investigate how political events have affected the way people live, such as their literature and language.CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Use various sources to explore how ancient and early people transmitted their cultures.  Compare and contrast various and diverse cultures of ancient and early people with respect to location, place, region, and how they interacted with each other and their environment.  Compare and contrast the ways ancient and early people met their basic needs.  Associate ancient and early group leaders with places of origin and beliefs.  Describe contributions of ancient and early groups and individuals(t6s^Iei^ cca-rcM 5ccicU ?  Describe the role ofthe church in early Europe.  Read literature about people/events of ancient and early civilizations. SCARCITY AND CHOICE * Describe and analyze the economic patterns of early people.  Analyze how ancient and early societies dealt with scarcity.  Relate factors associated with economic development, such as technology, population growth, and resources. COOPERATION AND CONFLICT  Describe the conflicts between early people, such as the Romans and Christians, and Christians and Muslims.  Explain conditions and events that led to cooperation and conflict among ancient and early groups of people. A o t 2. Si Oz UIU X J Language Arts READING Practice reading individually and in groups. Gain information from reading. Put material read into own words. Draw conclusions and make inferences in regard to reading material. Identify different purposes of reading and writing. Identify styles of authors. Identify kinds of literature and their purposes (literary, self-expressive, persuasive, and informative). Follow written directions. Use logic to follow directions. Use word-attack skills to read accurately and to understand information. Determine word meaning from clues in the reading material. Use information from previously learned information to evaluate new information. Use headings, italics, footnotes, and other printed features to sort and organize information. Identify and compare elements of reading such as setting and characterization. Select reading materials representing a variety of cultures. Read orally with expression and ease. Increase vocabulary from reading. Use reference aids such as a dictionary, thesaurus, and computer. Select reading materials appropriate for reading for pleasure, finding information, and for use to help in writing. Use compare and contrast skills in reading. Understand metaphor, simile, personification, and other figurative language techniques. Use examples to support opinions and conclusions about reading material. Read graphs, tables, maps, and diagrams. V lV y- [\ngjj dic'tioin-ary T Social Studies CITIZENSHIP  Describe the difference between democracy and other forms of world governments.  Compare and contrast the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizens in diverse political systems.  Analyze the characteristics of citizenship as it relates to different countries.  Identify and describe the qualities of citizenship needed to solve todays global problems and issues. INTERDEPENDENCE 9  Use various geographic and reference materials to acquire, organize, analyze, and interpret geographic information and issues.  Identify, locate, and describe physical regions, l^untries' and major cities of the U^A''Canada, Latin America, Europe, Ru^ia. Southwest and East AsiaTAfrica, and Australia. ~  Identify continents by outlines and compare and contrast physical features of continents.  Describe ways people and nations interact with each other and with the environment.  Read, and analyze current event global issues and problems. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE  Describe and analyze the impact of human changes to the environment  Demonstrate an understanding of technological changes and the impact on how people live.  Relate an event in history with social change.  Use a variety of processes and appropriate methods and tools to explore and understand continuity and change in the global society. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Describe the elements and factors that distinguish cultures.  Compare and contrast cultural features of regions. Qj-cc-5 . of ccoA  Identify and describe the major cultural regions of the U.S.A., Canada, Latin America, Europe, Russia, Southwest and East Asia, Africa, and Australia.  Determine ways that culture influences peoples perceptions of places and regions.  Identify and evaluate different viewpoints regarding the use of resources.  Examine the relationship between historical events and cultural development.  Demonstrate a respect for different cultural perspectives.COOPERATION AND CONFLICT  Examine effects of prejudice and discrimination against racial, cultural, ethnic, and religious groups of the world.  Examine ways people attempt to combat world prejudice and discrimination.  Identify and explain reasons for conflict within and between regions and countries.  Give examples of global conflicts and cooperation.  Relate competition for resources to conflict and cooperation between regions and countries.  Draw conclusions about how regional differences or similarities may lead to cooperation and conflict. SCARCITY AND CHOICE  Explore how factors such as technology, population growth, and resources are related to economic development of nations.  Analyze the distribution of goods and resources among nations of the world.  Describe major industries and businesses in the United States.  Describe and compare the economic systems of the world.  Use various methods, tools, and resources to understand, explain, and analyze scarcity in the world. Arkansas Studies CITIZENSHIP  Identify and explain the purposes of Arkansas government.  Discuss and evaluate the concepts of good citizenship, and practice forms of civic participation.  Explain the historical and current impact of American public policy on Arkansas racial, religious, geographic, ethnic, economic, aTidJinguistic diversity ?  Know and understand the organization, function, and operation of local, county, and state governments, and examine methods of influencing policy in a democratic government.  Analyze the characteristics of effective leadership in Arkansas today and in the past.  Analyze and compare opposing viewpoints in creating and effectively communicating solutions to public issues in Arkansas.  Describe and analyze the use, abuse, and limits of power and authority in Arkansas.  Demonstrate a sound knowledge of the geography of Arkansas as it relates to politics. SCARCITY AND CHOICE  Describe the various Arkansas institutions at local, state, and national levels that make up economic systems, such as households, business firms, banks, government agencies, labor unions, and corporations.  Examine existing data and research from various viewpoints showing how technology, population growth, resource use, and environmental quality are related to economic development within the state.  Describe the role that location, supply and demand, prices, incentives, and profits play in determining what is produced and distributed by Arkansas companies in a competitive market system.  Propose and evaluate alternative uses of environments and resources in Arkansas.  Analyze and explain how choices made with respect to scarcity in the past have profound influences on choices available today.COOPERATION AND CONFLICT o'  Demonstrate areas of inequity and discrimination based on race, sex, age, physical condition, and socioeconomic status in Arkansas.  Examine the contribution ofthe arts, literature, media, technology, and languages in fostering cooperation and in causing conflict in Arkansas.  Analyze how disparities in power and economic status lead to conflict.  Compare and contrast the causes and consequences of conflict within the state, the nation, and the world.  Identify, explore, and analyze conflict among individuals and groups as well as various methods used to resolve conflict.  Evaluate the role of technology in contributing to the creation and resolution of conflict in Arkansas. INTERDEPENDENCE  Analyze how decisions and events in Arkansas and the world affect each other.  Use various methods to illustrate interactions between the people of Arkansas and their environment.  Relate the evidence of historical and cultural languages to the development of the state.  Analyze and evaluate the history, causes, consequences, and possible solutions to present-d^issues and emerging global issues, such as health, security, resource distribution, economic development, and environmental quality.  Understand spatial relationships and locate places on Arkansas, U.S., and world maps.  Describe and evaluate the role of Arkansas in the global arena. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE  Investigate the processes and evaluate the impact of change over time in Arkansas.  Explore and explain the changes in developments such as technology, transportation, agriculture, and communications that affect Arkansas social and economic activity.  Investigate how political events, technological changes, and cultural diffusion have affected literature, languages, and arts over time in Arkansas.  Analyze continuity and change in concepts of individual rights (race, ethnic, and gender issues) and responsibilities overtime in the state.  Explore, interpret, analyze, and evaluate various viewpoints within and across cultures related to events and issues. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Examine information and developments in Arkansas and explain how they may be viewed differently by people from diverse cultures.  Analyze the historical perspectives that contribute to the development and transmission of Arkansas cultures through language, literature, the arts, architecture, traditions, beliefs, and values.  Compare and contrast various cultures in Arkansas.  Describe the ways family, religion, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other group characteristics contribute to developing an appreciation of Arkansas heritage.  Identify and describe the various movements or periods of significant historical change within and across cultures.  Explore ways that Arkansas natural and built environments interact with culture.  Analyze and demonstrate the value of both cultural diversity and cohesion within and across groups.  Examine and explain belief systems underlying Arkansas traditions and laws.LIFE SCIENCE  Describe the major characteristics and activities of 9 of' monerans, protists, and fungi. * J monerans, protists, and fungi affect other living things  DDeessccrriibbee tthhee rchhaarraarctoteHriesltiirces. oailll animals ih__a_v__e in c_ ommon.  Classify animals using their characteristics.  Explain the differences between sexual and asexual reproductions.  Draw and eAxpp,lain,, tuh.ec saticaigyecss iInII tmhee lIilfiee ccyyccllee oorf aanniimmaallss ((ssuucchh as egg-caterpillar-butterflv and eoa tartnnio SS Jr rT examptes). Ple-frog).  List the characteristics of plants.  Describe the structure and function of roots, stems, leaves, and flowers  Describe methods of reproduction in plants.  Know how the ecology of the environment is organized, such as population\u0026gt;community\u0026gt;ecosystem\u0026gt;biosphere Describe how the amount of food, water, or other environmental factors affect  Describe how different plants change in an area over time  cZr, -**(-=\u0026gt; as mutuallsn, organisms. commensalism, parasitism).  Describe the process of color vision. PHYSICAL SCIENCE  Understand time, distance, and displacement form the basis for  Distinguish between velocity and speed.  Distinguish between velocity and acceleration.  Understand acceleration along curves.  Calculate the acceleration of a falling object.  Describe projectile motion.  Describe how a satellite is a projectile in free-fall.  Understand factors related to the motion of a pendulum.  Describe the characteristics of waves.  Identify the different types of waves (transverse and longitudinal). Explain the relationship between frequency, wavelength, and speed in a wave.  Explain constructive and destructive wave interference.  Describe how sound waves are formed, transmitted, and received. motion. * yo^uT'^^*^'^'^ Doppler Effect (such as how the sound changes as it comes towards you or goes away from  Describe the waves caused by earthquakes.  Identify how light travels.  Describe reflection and refraction of light. Compare and contrast opaque, translucent, and transparent materials.  Examine the visible light spectrum.  Explain the differences between substances, elements,  Describe the physical properties of matter. compounds, and mixtures.  Distinguish between physical and chemical changes and properties * IU nderstand solution__s_ _a_n_dI fra. ct. ors t.h.a.t .a.ffe ct sol. ubility. r r  Describe the properties of acid and base.  Explain how a reaction between an acid and a base produces a salt. Language Arts READING  Practice reading individually and in groups.  Gain information from reading.  Summarize, compare, and put into own words while analyzing reading material.  Draw conclusions and make inferences in regard to reading material.  Judge, critique, and defend opinions of reading selections.  Identify different purposes of reading and writing.  Identify styles of authors.  Identify kinds of literature and their purposes.  Follow written directions with increasing difficulty and complexity.  Use logic to follow directions.  Use word-attack skills to read accurately and to understand information.  Determine word meaning from clues in the reading material.  Use information from previously learned information to evaluate new information.  Use headings, italics, footnotes, and other printed features to sort and organize information.  Identify and compare elements of reading such as setting and characterization.  Select reading materials representing a variety of cultures.  Understand metaphor, simile, personification, and other figurative language techniques.  Increase vocabulary from reading.  Use reference aids such as a dictionary, thesaurus, and computer.  Select reading materials appropriate for reading for pleasure, finding information, and for use to help in writing.  Use compare and contrast skills in reading.  Use predicting, sequencing, and skimming to increase understanding of reading.  Read graphs, tables, maps, and diagrams. WRITING  Write in personal journals, logs, and in other assigned ways in both formal and informal assignments.  Write in class for uninterrupted periods of time on topics from personal experiences and topics assigned in class.  Use freewriting, brainstorming, and other methods for prewriting and beginning activities.  Create a first draft with a central idea and with paragraphs containing a topic sentence, supporting details, and a closing sentence.  Produce a longer, detailed paper using organization and details concentrating on a central theme.  Use appropriate outlines and organizing methods to practice thinking and analyzing skills.  Use appropriate skills in mechanics, spelling, and usage in writing.  Vary sentence styles to include simple, complex, and compound.  Proofread writing in peer groups and with teacher for information, organization, and style.  Use a dictionary, thesaurus, and other resources to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and usage.  Use internet, reference books, library materials, and personal interviews to collect information.  Produce polished pieces of writing to be shared or published and collected in a writing portfolio.  Express awareness of varied cultures and universal issues in writing.  Relate elements, atoms, molecules, and compounds.  Explain the behavior of gases in terms of the particle theory of matter.  Find the relationships involving pressure, volume, and temperature of a gas.  Distinguish among metals, nonmetals, and metalloids.  List elements that are classified as metals, nonmetals, and metalloids and give their uses.  Recognize when chemical reactions have taken place.  Write word equations for reactions.  Describe how energy is involved in chemical reactions.  Classify energy resources as either renewable or nonrenewable.  Compare and contrast types of fossil fuels.  Describe the benefits and drawbacks of using different energy resources.  Describe the operation of a steam generator electric power plant. EARTH SCIENCE  Name conditions that define minerals.  List and describe identifying characteristics of minerals (such as hardness, color, streak, cleavage, and fracture).  Test minerals to identify them.  Describe the value of minerals.  Distinguish between a rock and a mineral.  Understand the rock cycle.  Identify rocks based on their characteristics. United States History Exploration to 1914 CITIZENSHIP  Explain the philosophy of government expressed in the Declaration of Independence.  Analyze foundations of the U.S. Constitution andjS^gnificance. '  Explain the major debates, compromises, and resolutions during the development of the Constitution.  Describe the development of the two-party system.  Outline the principles of federalism.  Compare and contrast powers in the U.S. Constitution given Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and the states.  Explain the responsibility of a free press and give examples.  Practice the roles, rights, and responsibilities as participating citizens in a democracy.  Participate in a project designed to serve the community.r INTERDEPENDENCE f  Use diverse map skills and tools to locate places and gain infonriation associated with the growth and development ofthe U.S.  Interpret various timelines related to American/U.S. history.  Read historical documents and narratives of American/U.S. history up to 1914.  Identify, analyze, and interpret primary sources and historical and editorial cartoons.  Summarize the Exploration and Colonization Periods.  Describe the role of early 20*^ century U.S. in world and domestic affairs.  Identify major events in American/U.S. history up to 1914 and evaluate the causes, costs, and benefits.  Read, interpret, and analyze current events. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE  Describe the impact of change on places and the movements of people and goods.  Understand the transformation and response to the Industrial Revolution.  Use various methods and tools to explore and understand changes in the nation over time. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Analyze the historical perspectives of different people and groups in American history, and explain factors that influenced them.  Compare and contrast diverse cultures in American and U.S. history.  Analyze the significance of the issue of slavery to society, politics, and economy.  Outline the development and growth ofthe American education system.  Recognize contributions of diverse individuals and groups such as African Americans and women to American life. COOPERATION AND CONFLICT  Analyze the causes and consequences of wars involving the U.S. to 1914.  Describe the critical developments during the Civil War and their impact.  Outline the causes ofWorld War I. Review of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: K AUDIENCE: parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and further subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand an, educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: Under the geometry subsection, specify which geometric shapes In life science, specify which body parts In the citizenship subsection, define state symbol ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: This document, and all the others designed for grades 1-5, were distributed to parents in November 1999. I cant see what our feedback accomplishes at this late date. There is no mention of these guides being available in languages other than English.Review of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: First AUDIENCE: parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and fiirther subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: In the writing section, substitute a term such as commonly used words for high frequency words ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: noneReview of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: Second AUDIENCE: parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and further subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: Under the section on data, probability and statistics, define Venn diagram or use alternate language In earth and space science, place a list the steps of the water cycle in order, in parentheses Under citizenship, explain whetheridentify leaders means by tite -+\u0026lt;+(* such as president or proper name ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: noneReview of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: Third AUDIENCE: parents PLT\u0026lt;POSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and fiirther subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: In the language arts section, the phrase large core of high frequency words will not have much meaning to parents. It needs to be translated to laymens terms. In the writing section, it is not clear what express cultural diversity in writing means. Does this mean that students are to spontaneously include characters from a variety of cultures in their writing or does it mean that they can respond in writing to an assignment such as, Write five important facts about Kwanza. Under mathematics, two items are confusing. Realize that fractional parts must be equal means? I guess this is in reference to common denominators, but Im not sure. Also, the item that talks about becoming familiar with grouping fractions with numerators of one and the same denominators needs a parenthetical example in order to be understood. In the life science subsection, the five main kingdoms of living organisms should be listed. In the citizenship subsection, list the three branches of the U.S. government. oReview of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: Fourth AUDIENCE: Parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and further subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional lookins. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: Under earth and space science, the rock cycle needs further explanation. The subsection on number sense states that, division notation represents a variety of situations. It is not at all clear what this means. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: noneReview of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: Fifth AUDIENCE: Parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and further subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: The final item under the Social Studies subheading cultural perspective makes reference to demonstrating ways to interact with diverse cultures. Is it demonstrate really the best verb? Wouldnt explain better describe the behavior expected of the child? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: none ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: nonetc received AUG 1 0 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAPONMQIlTORjiijg Program Evaluation For Title I - PreK-3 Literacy Program School Year: 1999-2000 August 24,2000 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-324-2121 Executive Summary Learning to read and write is critical to a childs success in school and later life. One of the best predictors of whether a child will function competently in school and go on to contribute actively in our increasingly literate society is the level to which the child progresses in reading and writing. Although reading and writing abilities continue to develop throughout the life span, the early childhood years - from birth through age eight - are the most important period for literacy development. A lack of pre-school literacy experiences (storybook reading, daily living routines, listening comprehension, vocabulary, language facility) places a child at risk. Section 5.2.1 ofthe Little Rock School Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan relates specifically to reading/language arts at the primary level. Section 2.7 state that, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of 5? this revised plan\nSection 2.7.1 specifies that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. An assessment of programs outlined in Section 2.7.1 that were not successful in improving the academic achievement of African-American children was conducted by the Curriculum and Instruction staff during the 1998-1999 school year. This assessment included an examination of Title I schools. The results determined that many of the Title I schools had not met their improvement goals which were based on the following:  SAT-9 Reading/Language Arts Grades 3 and Grade 5 - 1997\n SAT-9 Grade 5 Reading/Language Arts - 1998\nand  Arkansas State Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy - 1999. Assessment activities also identified the absence of or lack of consistent delivery of literacy content standards established by the District. These findings contributed to restructuring Title I to support implementation of the District literacy plan to address these problems. This restructuring effort impacted all of the elementary schools with the exception of four magnet schools (Booker, Carver, Gibbs and Williams), who do not receive Title I funding. The goal of Title I is to provide support so that all children can achieve the rigorous curriculum content standards established by the State and the District. In response to the Little Rock School Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the Districts Strategic Plan, and the finding of assessment of programs, the Board of Directors adopted the PreK-3 Literacy Program during the 1998-1999 school year. The primary goal of 08/10/00 1 4:52 PMthe PreK-3 Literacy Program is that each child learn to read by 3* grade. To measure this goal, the District administered the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment as pre and post measures in the fall of 1999 and spring of 2000. K-2 students continue to take this assessment until promoted to 3'^'* grade in order to measure their growth in literacy. The Observation Survey is comprised of 6 literacy tasks. The tasks have the qualities of sound assessment instruments with reliabilities and validities and discrimination indices established in research studies. The Survey is based on the notion of controlled, systematic observation, when a teacher sets aside time from teaching to become a neutral observer of children and to objectively record exactly what a child does on a particular task. Training is considered important for teachers who attempt to use and interpret the observation task da\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_921","title":"Report: ''School Monitoring Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["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 enrollment","School facilities","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''School Monitoring Report,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/921"],"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":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_938","title":"Reports: Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M), 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":["1994/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","Magnet schools","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Reports: Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M), 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/938"],"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":["30 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_207","title":"Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["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":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/207"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["5 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   Alo Jq+\u0026lt;,\n#o ?f\n.CJVt-.l 'J)~fc.., THE ARKANSAS DEPART1\\1ENT OF EDUCATION'S SEl\\1IANNUAL DESEGREGATION MONITORING REPORT Arkansas Department of Education This document or any portion of it is not to be reproduced without the express \\\\Titten permission of the Arkansas Department of Education and the State of Arkansas.  I. I\\HY\\ITOH.IJ\\G PROCESS During the 1994-95 school year. the Director of the Arkansas Department of Education selected monitoring teams for the Pulaski County School Districts to monitor these districts in accordance with the Department\" s Implementation Plan. Over 100 of the Department\" s professional staff members participated in the monitoring activities. Additionally, all parties to the suit were invited to participate. The monitoring teams visited school sites according to a schedule of announced and unannounced visits. Announced visits were scheduled from December 12. 1994 through January 2-L 1995: and unannounced visits were scheduled from April 24. 1995, to May 12. 1995. i\\1onitors conducted the monitoring Yisits using monitoring instruments deYeloped to align ,,ith the Extended COE (Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation) Process except that the monitors  Yisited IT.fD'. school site in the three Pulaski County School Districts. Monitors obserYed and reported findings by using computerized instruments tested in the pilot study from October 31. 1994 to oYember 2. 1994. Each school\" s Annual School Improvement Plan was monitored during the monitoring process. By the completion of the 1994-95 school year. eighty per cent (80%) of the schools were to have implemented a school improvement plan.  II. 1\\1O:'\\ITORJ 'G USING MONITORING INSTRUMENTS DEVELOPED TO ALIG~ WITH THE EXTE 'DED COE PROCESS A. IDENTIFICATIO OF DATA The Arkansas Department of Education's Implementation Plan and the Allen Letter describe the process the Department must follow to monitor the Pulaski County School Districts. Specifically. according to pages 3 8-41 of the Implementation Plan. the Department must identify rele\\'ant data and monitor the following: I. E\\'idence that policies. procedures. rules and regulations are developed and implemented to facilitate desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans related to reducing achievement disparity between black and nonblack students are progressively successful. 3. Evidence that student assignments to schools, classes and programs at each organizational level are made without bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement are used to facilitate the desegregation process. 5. Evidence that travel time to and from schools is not disproportionate among black and non-black students and the percentage of black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the percentage of non-black students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 7. E\\'idence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are non-discriminatory. 8. Evidence that curricular content and instructional strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of the student population served. 9. Evidence that personnel are recruited, employed and assigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregated school district. 10. E\\'idence that procedures related to extracurricular and cocurricular activities are de\\'eloped and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is 2     disproportionate to the student population.   11. Evidence of di\\'erse representation on appointed district wide and school based committees. 12. Evidence of efforts to ensure that parent attendance at school functions is not disproportionate to the student population. 13. Evidence of success related to Majority to Minority Transfers. 14. Evidence that magnet schools are an effective inter-district remedy for racial balance. The following questions and figures show the results of the Department's monitoring for the abo,e components . 3 Quality or Education l. Is there e\\idence that plans related to reducini\n: achieHment disparit) hetween I.Jlack and nonblack students are proi\n:ressi\\ely successful? 2. ls there evidence that curricular content and instructional strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of U1e student population served? 3. ls there e\\idence that student assignments lo schools, classes, and programs al each organizational level are made without bias? 4. ls there evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of agreement are used to facilitate U1e desegregation process and school improvement process? Is activity taking place? see figure 1 for questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 Evidence ..... see figure 2 for questions 1, 2, 3, and 4. Figure 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% YES I r,..\nK r,..\n-R i...,---,33'.\"'I'c\n.,..lc----:---' I 29. l 7'icl J.04'7r I l.041it \\ 1 I ' I '8.33% 11 II. c\nc I 8\u0026lt;:c , I . I o.o0\u0026lt;:r I I I ! n 1.040 I r O.OOC:-c I 0.00'7c I 0.00'7c I D Q. 1 l\u0026amp;i Q. 2 B Q. 3 C Q. 4 Figure 2 10% 20% 30% 40% 50'7c 607c 70% OBSER. 8.54% RECORD 7 ,-,1-ra}2.7 l 9o 1-----,----....--------------0_ 4_!7_:-_-_--__-- ._..-.6., 9, .799c i 31.25% CONFER. OTHER NONE NO RESP.  Q.1 BQ.2 f8o.3 DQ.4       Quality of Education 5. ls there evidence that guidance and coW1Seling is designed to meet the needs of a di\\\"erse student population? 6. ls there e,idence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are nondiscriminatory? 7. Are there supportive data as to why learner out.comes were selected in the Extended COE School Improvement Plan? 8. lla\\\"e identified subgroups been determined and acldressecl by characteristics in the Extended COE process? Is activity taking place? see figure 1 for questions 5, 6, 7, and 8 Evidence  , see figure 2 for questions 5, 6, 7, and 8. YES IO'lc r-~ C:C, 8.33\u0026lt;\n'r ~ 6.33\u0026lt;\n\", I 3':i- ~'\n( 8.3:10 1----: 8. 33 c\nO.CXY-,  2 OS\u0026lt;\n, - 5.21\u0026lt;:-c -- 5.21\u0026lt;:i- RECORD CONFER. OTHER l\\O RESP. Figure l 20% 30'7c 40'7c 50% 60'7c I I I I I I I I C Q. s IE Q. 6  Q 7 : Q. s lOlj'c 20'7o Figure 2 30t\nc 33.337c 80'7c r 7b.13',, 8.13'ic 50S-c 90'7c 100\u0026lt;:i- 60'7\"c I 52.0S\u0026lt;:c Quality of Education 9. Is there evidence that specific strategies/activities have been identified and put into operation through the School Improvement plan? 10. Is there evidence that schools provide equitable opportunities for parental involvement? 11. Is there evidence the school provides a curriculum that is reflective of cultural diversity with subject matter relative to ethnic and cultural groups and females? Local and/or state developed course content guides and enhances multicultural content in all subject matter areas. Is activity taking place? see figure 1 for questions 9, 10, and 11. Evidence  figure 2 for questions 9, 1 0, and 1 1. Figure 1 0% 10'7c 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% YES ~ \n.\n~~ ~. , y  \nI 13,541% I NO 12.50\u0026lt;:\n: I l1 I ffl 9JS'7c 1'K 9JS',, / I '  6 25\u0026lt;\nN-R 7 29':c '.i LJQ9 \u0026amp;QtO -Q ll 80% ,o.83\u0026lt;:c l 70 8V7, 79',j- Figure 2 Oc\n:-c I 09c 20'7c 30% 40% 50% 60'7c- 70% 80'7c 90'1c I 00'1c 110'7\"c I I J J0.42'7c OBSER. . 18 ':11% RECORD CONFER. OTHER NONE NO RESP. I I I ,.. \" ,., '. ~ , r~\n, ..  hf-,.'., ~4 7.29'7c I 17% l .04fo '\" \" , Ji 61% I 7.08% 0.UUJ 0.00% O.OOt\nt  l.04fo A 5.21'7c I .08'7c I o.oo?'f I ' I I I I I - l l l.46'7c I 8.33'ic I l U,OU~ I i I I l I DQ,9 lilQ.10 .Q, IJ 6 97.921iI c I I I I I I I I I I I i i ' i I I ' ' I I ' I I I I ! !       School/ Classroom Visits I. Class attendance generally reflects the racial/ethnic composition of the student body . 2. All students are actively engaged in the lesson, discussion, or classroom activities. 3. Copies of students' work are visible throughout the classroom. 4. The school has posted a copy of its vision and mission statement. See figure 1 for answers Figure I 0% 30% 40% 50',t, 60'X-YES NO r7.93'k I I NO RESP. I L:Q.1 a\naQ.2 lliQ.3 LJQ.4 5. llie objectives are posted and/or continuously used throughout the lesson. 6. The classroom seating pattern promotes interaction among students of varying racial/ethnic backgrounds. 7. The attendance in Special Education classes reflects Lhe representative nature of the student population. 8. llie attendance in Gifted and Talented classes reflects the representative nature of Lhe student population. See Figure 2 for Questions 5, 6, 7, and 8. Figure 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% RO% , \"1 71.30' YES NO 4.6'.7'7c ~ 4.6r'r NO RESP. 90'7c 80.lXl','r i' 2.93~, 2 61'} '----------~---.---~, ---,--------.~I s2.2w,c-  o.s IIRQ 6 BQ7  Q.8 7 l(K)')\n100'/r School/ Classroom Y1s1ts t/ Classwu1111mtruCLllllpl roceeds 111w 1 orderly 111a1111er. l 0. ll1e administration, teacher, and support Slaff :ire vis1 blc in lead1 n~. d1rcc1ing. and controllrng the learning environment. ~ I I. ll1c teacher equitably mon11ors or provides assistance Lo all students dunng 1nstruct1onal class 11me. 12. There is evidence that the multicultural material is being implemented. YES NO l\\O RESP. See figure 3 for questions 9, 10, 11, and 12. O'k I i2.28'i'l 2.8:1% 3.37'7r Co.Y Figure 3 40% 50% 60~ 70% Go 10 0.11 Co 12 8 l!O?c-  90% 1007,      SCHOOL'S AND/OR DISTRICT'S GOAL OF DESEGREGATION 1. Does the school have a desegregation plan? 2. Does the school have a School Improvement Plan? Is activity taking place? see figure 1 for questions 1 and 2 Evidence ...... see figure 2 for questions 1 and 2 YES ~ NO ~ 211, I I I 050 I I NK ~ 10~' I I 3 16', I N-R ~ (000', 11101 0% OBSER. RECORD CONFER. 20% ~ 4:!1,o - 526~. ~ . r-,,~16~. -,. Figure 1 I I 40% 60% ma 1 oa.2 Figure 2 I n 68',. I 18 95, OTHER NONE NO RESP. . pos3~. l 13 68~. I 80% 58 95,. 7 93 68 i I I I I 100% I I 68 4: 0 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 70% Ba.1 Oa2 9 PRL~CIPAL'S 11'TERVIE\\V QUESTIOl\\S 1. Does the school have biracial or multiracial committees? 2. Do the biracial or multiracial committees have a process for identifying problems, assessing needs and advising in equity or race related issues? 3. ls the districts' s non-discriminate policy on hiring posted and publicized in your building? 4. Does someone from your school serve on the district's equity committee? 5. Are all school committees reflective of the racial composition? 6. Has your school had a major renovation (room addition, roof replacement, parking lot added) in the last 10 years? Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 see figure 1. Figure I 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% YES NO J\\:O RESP. i--------------___._-=~~2'i~ ____ ...., I 1------------------------.-'' 81.05% I !2.ll\u0026lt;:'.c 2.111,r 2.1117c l.05'n t 2.1 l'r 3.1~'\n(: LJQ. 50.53\u0026lt;\n'c I I I I ! I I I I i 80.00% E Q. 2 B Q. 3 C Q. 4 D Q. s  Q. 6 7. Are your facilities functional and in good repair'l 7 .89o/c 7 .89o/c 8% 8. Does your school provide a curriculum that is reflective of cultural diversity'l 9. Do all teachers receive staff development training in teaching culturally diverse students? I 0. Do pictures, displays, publications, and printed materials reflect cultural diversi ty'l 11. Do you have a process or procedure for ensuring equitable access to all classes or subjects? 12. Do parent committees have memberships representative of cultural diversity? YES Questions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 see figure 2. Figure 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% . 90%  100% I IO'io 17 ,... .\n,..,.\n,)\n\u0026gt;~~,:-,:.,.,u ,,_,._: ,..\n...\n,' .~ ~ ,._,:.,.:,.. '.,-,' ~:,..:, .,,'.,\n,,. '\n.,., ,\n..,.,.\n\u0026gt;~.,_~ ~?,,-,: _.,'~:,\n..,,,'!\n'  i,,\n,._ _.,. ' '' ,. ' ,..,..,..\nJ:' ','\u0026lt;( 7, ~7.R99c ', ~ ' ,- / , \" '  ' '', ''  ' , : ,: -., ' ' ,. ' ,-\")\u0026lt; ' \"  , v'' _ _94174% I 7 :t6.!W7r ::==========================%=.K4=\u0026lt;Jc= ===================~- 94f 74'io I _ ms .. ,\n10.53% .u(J'i\ni NO~ I 3. l 6'lc 1.05',i I i l J\\:O RESP. I I i: .l l~i .11ir . l J ~\u0026lt;' ,-! .11 ~c       I. 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6. Pl{L'\\CIPAL 'S L'\\TER\\\"lE\\_\\' (JuESTIO.'.\\S Does the school have biracial or multiracial committees? Do the biracial or multiracial committees have a process for identifying problems, assessing needs and advising in equity or race related issues? Is the districts's non-discriminate policy on hiring posted and publicized in your building? Does someone from your school serve on the district's equity committee? Are all school committees reflective of the racial composition? Has your school had a major renovation (room addition, roof replacement, parking lot added) in the last 10 years? Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 see figure 1. Figure I 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% IO\u0026lt;l'fc I 10% ,,  ,., ,,,,,,   7.89% 7.89% YES , - . 8% 1-,-------------~1=114~2%=~--~1_...,._.~I I !-------\"\"'--' ~-----,\n.., ___ , ______ .. ..:~:...-----'-...,- -,-,1 st~\u0026amp;)~:o I 0.00%' - 0()()%1 NO LI ?'I o/c 50.53 ~ NO RESP. ., L I  ill~ 2.111c ,,..1, .os'-1 ...L, 2.11/, _! 3.lo'io CJ Q, I - Q, 2 R1 Q, 3 LJ Q, 4 LJ Q, 5  Q, 6 7. Are your fa::ili ties functional and in good repair? 8. Does your school provide a curriculum that is reflective of cultural diversity'l 9. Do all teachers receive staff development training in teaching culturally diverse students? I I 10. Do pictures, displays, publications, and printed materials reflect cultural diversity'l 11. Do you have a process or procedure for ensuring equitable access to all classes or subjects? 12. Do parent committees have memberships representative of cultural diversity? Questions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 see figure 2. Figure 2 O'ic JO% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% YES NO :--:oR ESP. i I I ! I t-(JUAL ACCE~S 1. Is there Hidencc that student assignments to schools, classes. am.I programs at each organizational level arc made without bia~'! 2. Is there Hidence that policies, procedures, rules, and regulations arc dnelopcd and implemented to faciliuite desegregation? 3. Is there evidence that curricular content and instructional strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of the student population? 4. Is there eYidence that procedures related to extracurricular and co-curricular acthities are developed and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the student population? Is activity taking place? see figure 1 for questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 Evidence  , ,    see figure 2 for questions 1, 2, 3, and 4. YES 1'K 0'7r IO'ic I 04\u0026lt;\n1 3.I3 17c 5.2 I 9c 3.13':c c 3.i3r\n-r [ ~000 f-lW!)'~ 1...--..., 6.2 sr,\nC 1.0-Vi 1'-R I 1.04', _0.0O\u0026lt;\nw 2.0S'1 0'7o OBSER. RECORD CONFER. NONE :--.:RoE SP. Figure 1 30'7r 40% 50% 60% 70'k 90'ic- 100\u0026lt;\n- 110\u0026lt;\nCQ.l lliilSQ2 .Q.3 CQ.4 Figure 2 10'7o 30% 40'7c 60\u0026lt;ic 70C:i: I C\"1. I  59.38% I      Equal Access 5. ls th err e,idence of dinrse representation on appointed district-wide and school-based committees? 6. Is there eYidence to ensure that parent attendance at school functions is not disproportionate to the student population? 7. Is there e,idencc that policies and procedures are developed and implemented to ensure that the travel time to and from school functions is not disproportionate among identifiable groups of students? Is activity taking place? see figure 1 for questions 5, 6, and 7. Evidence  see figure 2 for questions 5, 6, and 7. Figure 1 I O'k 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% I OO'k 11 O'k YES .KO 10.42\u0026lt;\n.KK I 0.42',} OBSER. RECORD CONFER. 0.00% OTHER 0.00% 0.00% ii 3 13,\n-'c NONE l .04'ic-l .O-Vic Figure 2 30'7c 40C:-o 50% C Q. s E Q. 6 E Q 1 13 I 84 rs\n-\n-' 7.08'ic 60\u0026lt;7c I : 95.83\u0026lt;\n80':\"\"c 70.83c\nSTlJDEJ\\T ACIIIE\\'Ei\\IE:\\T l. h tlHn 1,idl'ncr thal plam rclatl'lJ to rrducing :1cl1inrm!'nt cli.'.parit~ hl'llll'lll hla,k and 11011l\u0026gt;lack.'. ludcnt.'. arc progrc~-~i,cl) ~ucn:~.\u0026lt;,ful! 2. h there c, idcncc that student assignments to schools, classes, and programs at organizational ICY cl are made\\\\ ithout bias? 3. ls there C\\'idcncr that curricular content and instructional strategics arc utilized to meet the diverse needs of the student population served? 4. Is there evidence that staff denlopment days authorized as a result of the agreement are used to facilitate the desegregation process? Is activity taking place? see figure 1 for questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 Evidence       see figure 2 for questions 1, 2, 3, and 4. Figure 1 0'7r 10'7c 20'7r 309c 40% 50'7c 60'7c 70'7c 80% 90'7c lOO'ic I JO\u0026lt;\n- YES 1\\0 OBSER. RECORD CONFER. OTHER NO:'.'\\E KO RESP. Figure 2 20c\n'c 30% 40'7o 50'7c 60'ic Bf---I\nS4 i~'r\\ 94,s-/ I I C I ] I =,29.17%1 uteem\"' . - ~1~.o~'7c r-1Q_ J ~Q. 2 14       STUDE.'\\T /\\CJIIE\\'E\\IE!\\T 5. J.s there n itkncc that .specilic :.irtions/.stralcgics/lcar11cr uull:0111cs Ii a Ye hl'l'll dnelopl'd to kad tu pru,iuin~ success fur all stuurnb'! 6. Is there evidence research has been utilized to develop the School lmpronment Plan? 7. ls there evidence that disciplinary policies and procedures arc nondiscriminatory? YES 1\\0 NK\n-.\n.R Is activity taking place? see figure 1 for questions 5, 6, 7, and 8 Evidence : . . . . see figure 2 for questions 5, 6, 7, and 8. Figure 1 O'.\"\", 107, 207\u0026lt; 30'7, 40'7r 50'7c 60\u0026lt;\n-~ 70\u0026lt;\n, 80'7c ! i 9.38'.\"c\n4:i?r\n6.~5~i: ' I ~ 13r, ~ 7.29C:, '.\"r\nI.(W\n, ~ 3.13'i\n0.OJ'.r C:o.s BQ.6 IBQ.7 Figure 2 ' 90'.-\u0026lt; JOO\u0026lt;\n-, I I 86.46~ 85 4~\u0026lt;\n. .2_71c\nc\ni I O\u0026lt;\nc 107c 20'7c 30% 407: soc\no 6017c 70C:c S0'7\"c OBSER. RECORD 68.759c I I I CONFER. I 13% StafiingCliaractcristics 1. ls therr rvidcncc that policies. procedures, rules and regulations arc developed and implemented to facilitate desegregation'! 2. ls there nidcncc that staff dc\"elopment days authorized as the result of a~reemcnt arc used to facilitate the desegregation process and school improvement? 3. ls there evidence that personnel are recruited, employed, and assigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregating school? 4. Is there evidence of dherse representation on appointed district-wide and school-based committees with input and participation in planning improvement process? Is activity taking place? see figure 1 for questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 Evidence         figure 2 for questions 1, 2, 3, and 4. Figure 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% I 00% I I Qt\n: YES ~ 4.17% 1\\0 .ON 4.!7t\ni:  3.!3\u0026lt;\n\"c D 1.0-1\u0026lt;:l l\\K 0.00\u0026lt;:c I 2.08~ ~ 1.0..Jc:i- I I ~ 1.0..Jc:t\n\\'-R o.ooc\n. L l.0-1'7r L 2.08~ OBSER. RECORD CONFER. OTHER Figure 2 20% 30'7c\u0026gt; 40\u0026lt;ic 50'7r 60t\n: I I '\"--'..J..J...U~ rf(,  Q.1 BQ.2 .Q.3 CQ.4 16 I 801:c       StaITing Characteristic 5. Is there nidence that plans related to reducing achienment disparity between black and nonblack students are progressively successful? 6. Is there nidence of clear focus as to the direction school is moYing? 7. Is there evidence that a self-ernluation has been clone to determine whether policies or practices discriminate against persons because of race, gender, national origin, age or handicap? Is activity taking place? see figure 1 for questions 5, 6, 7, and 8 Evidence ........ figure 2 for questions 5, 6, 7, and 8. Figure 1 O\u0026lt;\nIO\u0026lt;\n20\u0026lt;:-c 30'ic 40'io 50'ic 60% 707.- 80'ic YES 28.13\u0026lt;\n.1\\0 \u0026gt; 4. I 7'ic I s. 9-' sr ,\u0026lt; l\\K ro r-, r\n2 0 ,\n, :---R ' J.O.:rc 2.0 \u0026lt;\n'c Co.5 ~Q.6 Bo.1 Figure 2 OSc lOC::C 209c 30':c 4090 SO\u0026lt;\no 6017c OBSER. RECORD -54T79~~ CONFER. ,. I OTHER I 2Q',- so RESP. , J4 ~ re :s~ . ~, --0\"' 6Q6 ~(), 17 90\u0026lt;\n,. JOO\u0026lt;\n- ., ~91.6~'.'\"c 'y l.61\u0026lt;\ni 70% 80':c 67.7l'k B. E. 'ROLL 1ENT A TTE 'DA 1CE DAT A The Arkansas Department of Education, according to the Implementation Plan. must collect the following Attendance/Enrollment data from the three Pulaski County School Districts. I. Enrollment by race, gender, school, grade, transported. nontransported and instructional programs. This information was reported by race, gender and school in the July 1994 Interim Monitoring Report and the February 1995 Semiannual Report under the student profile section. The Department has this information on file by grade and instructional program. 2. Enrollment by race. gender, grade, transported. nontransported and instructional program for each magnet school. This information was reported by race. gender and school in the July 1994 Interim Monitoring Report and the February 1995 Semiannual Report under the student profile section. The Department has this information on file by grade and instructional program for each magnet school. 3. Number of non promotes by race, gender, grade, school, teacher. transported and nontransported. The number of non promotes for the 1994-95 school year by race, gender, grade, school and teacher will not be available until the completion of the 1995 summer school sessions. The number of non promotes by school and race were reported in the February 1995 Semiannual Monitoring Report. 18     C. TEST DATA The Arkansas Department of Education, according to the Implementation Plan, must collect the following test data on the Pulaski County School Districts: 1. Arkansas Minimum Perfonnance Test results by race, gender, grade, school and socioeconomic status (SES). 2. Number of eighth graders failing to attain mastery after the first, second and third administration of test by race, gender, SES and school. 3. Number of eighth graders that are non promotes for failing to anain mastery after the third administration of test by race, gender. SES and school. 4. Metropolitan Achie\\'ement Test - 6th Edition or other national nonned test as may be adopted by the ADE. Results should be gi\\'en by race, gender, grade, school. SES and teacher . Since the ADE no longer uses the Minimum Perfonnance Test or the Metropolitan Achie\\'ement Test, the Department reported the results of the Stanford Achievement Test-8 in the July 1994 Interim monitoring report and the February 1995 Semiannual monitoring report. Scores were reported from the 1991 -92 school year through the 1993-94 school year for each school. Additionally. the Department commissioned a disparity report which was filed with the Court in the February 1995 Semiannual Monitoring Report. 5. Number of 11th and 12th graders by race, gender, school and guidance counselor who take the PSAT, SAT or ACT. Infonnation on students taking the 1995 ACT and SAT will not be available until September 1995. The infonnation on the PSAT follows. Guidance counselor information is  aYailable in the Lead Planners Office. 10 Number of Students Taking The PSAT in Pulaski County School Name GradelO Grade 11 Name of LRSD Counselor Hall BF 0 0 Porter BM 49 41 WF 0 0 'WM 54 52 OF 0 0 OM 1 4 l\\1cClella n OF 11 24 Isom BM 5 10 \\\\'F 12 9 \\VM 10 4 OF 0 2 OM 0 0 Central BF 43 12 Blair BM 24 14 WF 57 43 WM 52 23 OF 10 3 OM 0 4 Park-view* F 60 87 Landers M 36 46  Sott:The drvOlllt grade 1s nor broken our by gender 20     B 64 w 63 0 6 J.A. Fair BF 8 14 Phillips BM 6 14 WF 7 24 WM 6 15 OF 0 1 OM 0 0 PCSSD Robinson BF 0 2 Ferguson BM 1 0  \\\\'F 8 12 WM 8 7 OF 0 0 OM 0 0 Oak Grove BF 0 1 Gray BM 1 WF 4 7 WM 4 11 OF 0 0 OM 0 0 North Pulaski BF 1 5 Newkirk BM 3 0 \\\\'F 20 14  WM 9 10 OF 0 0 21 OM 0 0  l\\tills** BF 20 Galbreath BM 7 WF 35 WM 33 OF 0 OM 0 Sylvan Hills*** 36 42 Bush Jacksonville BF 4 7 Watson BM 1 1 ' \\\\'F 17 25 \\\\7lv1 15 14 OF 0 0  OM 0 0 KLRSD 1\" LR - \\\\'est BF 11 Fuller BM 1 ' WF 39 WM 27 OF 3 OM NL R - East BF 40 Bennett BM 96 WF 65 WJ\\.1 0 OF 0    Scores are not broken our by grad.:    S:c11ts arr: not broken out by grade or gender. 22    D. STAIT 1 hL: Implementation Plan requires the Department to collect the following staffing data on the Pulaski County School Districts: 1. Number of full time equivalent (F.T.E.) classroom teachers by race, gender. school, years of experience. 2. Number of F.T.E. school-based administrators by job category, race, gender, school. years of experience. 3. 4. 5. 6 . 7. 1\\ umber of F. T.E. counselors by race, gender. school. years of experience. Number of F.T.E. kindergarten teachers by race, gender. school, years of experience. umber ofF.T.E. librarians by race. gender, school. years of experience. 1umber of F. T.E. department heads by race, gender, school, years of experience. :t\\umber ofF.T.E. secretaries by race. gender. school, years of experience. 8. Number of F.T.E. central office positions by job category. race, gender. school. years of experience. lnformation on staffing was reported in the July 1994 Interim Monitoring Report and the February 1995 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Information on years of experience for staff follows . 23 TL\\CIIU{ L\\P[RIC\\(T TEACHERSB Y YEARS OF EXPERIENCE  Percentages refer to the percent of the total number of teachers in each expenence category per district. For example, White Males make up 8.83% of teachers wrth 0 - 5 years expenence in the Lrttle Rock School District. 8.33% in North Little Rock, 6.22% in Pulaski County. and 7.89% for the three districts overall 0  5 YEARS EXPERIENCE WM WF BM BF OM OF LRSD 34 172 32 111 6 30 % 8.83% 44.68% 8.31% 28.83% 1.56% 7.79% NLRSD 8 64 5 11 0 8 ., lo 8 33~o 66.67% 5.21% 11.46% 0.00% 8.33% PCSSD 15 166 13 34 2 11 % 6.22% 68.88% 5.39% 14.11% 0.83% 4.56% TOTAL 57 402 50 156 8 49 \n, 7.89% 55.68% 6.93% 21.61~0 1.11% 6.79% 6 -10 YEARS EXPERIENCE WM WF BM BF OM OF  LRSD 31 187 26 . 95 5 23 % 8.45% 50.95% 7.08% 25.89% 1.36% 6.27% NLRSD 16 83 4 19 6 % 12 40% 64.34% 3.10% 14.73% 0.78% 4.65% PCSSD 30 188 4 37 14 % 10 95% 68 61% 1.46% 13.50% 0.36% 5 11% TOTAL 77 458 34 151 7 43 % 10.00% 59.48% 4.42% 19.61 % 0.91% 5.58% 11  20 YEARS EXPERIENCE WM WF BM BF OM OF LRSD 46 309 37 176 4 20 % 7.77% 52.20% 6.25% 29.73% 0.68% 3.38% NLRSD 29 153 10 38 0  1 % 12.55% 66.23% 4.33% 16.45% 0.00% 0.43% PCSSD 90 380 20 96 4 12 % 14.95% 63.12% 3.32% 15.95% 0.66% 1.99% TOTAL 165 842 67 310 8 33 % 11.58% 59.09% 4.70%  21.75% 0.56% 2.32% 24  TEACHER EXPERIE'\\CE TEACHERS BY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE (cont'd) MORE THAN 20 YEARS EXPERIENCE WM WF BM BF OM OF LRSD 26 82 17 74 3 3 % 12.68% 40.00% 8.29% 36.10% 1.46% 1.46% NLRSD 9 42 5 15 0 % 12.50% 58.33% 6.94% 20.83% 0.00% 1.39% PCSSD 34 135 8 35 2 % 15.81% 62.79% 3.72% 16.28% 0.93% 0.47% TOTAL 69 259 30 124 5 5 % 14.02% 52.64% 6.10% 25.20% 1.02% 1.02':-c   25 TEACHER EXPERIE:\\C[  TEACHERS BY RACE AND GENDER Percentages refer to the percent of the total number of teachers in each race/gender category that are at each experience level. For example, in the category of Black Female teachers in the Little Rock School District, 24.34% have 0  5 years experience, 20.83% have 6  10 years, 38.60% have 11  20 years, and 16.23% have over 20 years. BLACK FEMALES 0  5 YRS 6  10 YR 11  20 Y 20+ YRS LRSD 111 95 176 74 % 24.34% 20.83% 38.60% 16.  3% NLRSD 11 19 38 15 % 13.25'}c 22.89% 45.78% 18.07% PCSSD 34 37 96 35 % 16.83% 18.32% 47.52% 17.33% TOTAL 156 151 310 124 % 21.05% 20.38% 41.84% 16.73% BLACK MALES 0  5 YRS 6  10 YR 11 - 20 Y 20+ YRS  LRSD 32 26 37 17 % 28 57% 23.21% 33.04% 15.18% NLRSD 5 4 10 5 % 20 83% 16.67% 41.67% 20.83% PCSSD 13 4 20 8 % 28 89% 8 89% 44.44% 17.78% TOTAL 50 34 67 30 % 27.62% 18.78% 37.02% 16.57% WHITE FEMALES 0 - 5 YRS 6 - 10 YR 11 - 20 Y 20+ YRS LRSD 172 187 309 82 % 22.93% 24.93% 41.20% 10.93% NLRSD 64 83 153 42 % 18.71% 24.27% 44.74% 12.28% PCSSD 166 188 380 135 % 19.10% 21.63% 43.73% 15.54% TOTAL 402 458 842 259  % 20.50%. 23.36% 42.94% 13.21% 26  TEACH ER E:XPERIE~CT TEACHERS BY RACE AND GENDER (cont'd) WHITE MALES 0 - 5 YRS 6 - 10 YR 11 - 20 Y 20+ YRS LRSD 34 31 46 26 % 24.82% 22.63% 33.58% 18.98% NLRSD 8 16 29 9 % 12.90% 25.81% 46.77% 14.52% PCSSD 15 30 90 34 % 8.88% 17.75% 53.25% 20.12% TOTAL 57 77 165 69 15 49% 20.92% 44.84% 18.75% OTHER FEMALES 0 - 5 YRS 6 - 10 YR 11 - 20 Y 20+ YRS LRSD 30 23 20 3 % 39 47'-tc 30.26% 26.32% 3.95%  NLRSD 8 6 o,o 50 00% 37 50% 6.25% 6.25,o PCSSD 1 i 14 12 % 28 95% 36.84% 31.58% 2.63% TOTAL 49 43 33 5 o,o 37 69,c 33 08'-to 25 3870 3 85% OTHER MALES 0 - 5 YRS 6 - 10 YR 11 - 20 Y 20+ YRS LRSD 6 5 4 3 % 33.33% 27.78% 22.22% 16.67% NLRSD 0 0 0 % 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PCSSD 2 4 2 % 22.22% 11.11% 44.44% 22.22% TOTAL 8 7 8 5 % 28 57% 25.00% 28.57% 17.86%  27 TL\\ C II l R L\\ PU{ I L: :\\CI.  TEACHERS BY RACE Percentages refer to the percent of the total number of teachers in each race that are at each experience level For example, in the category of Black teachers in the Little Rock School District, 25.18% have 0 - 5 years experience, 21.30% have 6 - 1 O years. 37.50% have 11 - 20 years, and 16.02% have over 20 years. BLACK 0 - 5 YRS 6 -10 YR 11 - 20 Y 20+ YRS LRSD 143 121 213 91 25.18% 21.30% 37.50% 16.02% NLRSD 16 23 48 20 14.95~0 21.50% 44.86% 18.69~0 PCSSD 47 41 116 43 19.0310 16.60% 46.96% 17.41% TOTAL 206 185 377 154 22 34~o 20.07% 40.89% 16.70% WHITE 0 - 5 YRS 6 - 10 YR 11 - 20 Y 20+ YRS  LRSD 206 218 355 108 23 22% 24.58% 40.02% 12.18% NLRSD 72 99 182 51 17.82% 24.50% 45.05% 12.62% PCSSD 181 218 470 169 17.44% 21 .oo:,o 45.28% 16.28% TOTAL 459 535 1007 328 19.71% 22.97% 43.24% 14.08% OTHER 0 - 5 YRS 6 - 10 YR 11 - 20 Y 20+ YRS LRSD 36 28 24 6 38.30% 29.79% 25.53% 6.38% NLRSD 8 7 47.06% 41.18% 5.88% 5.88% PCSSD 13 15 16 3 27.66% 31.91% 34.04% 6.38% TOTAL 57 50 41 10  36.08% 31.65% 25.95% 6.33% 28    TEACIIER L\\P[RIE\\C[ TEACHERS BY GENDER Percentages refer to the percent of the total number of teachers in each gender that are at each experience level. For example, in the category of Female teachers in the Little Rock School District, 24.41% have 0 - 5 years experience. 23.79% have 6 - 10 years, 39.39% have 11 - 20 years, and 12.40% have over 20 years. FEMALES 0 - 5 YRS 6 - 10 YR 11 - 20 Y 20+ YRS LRSD 313 305 505 159 24.41% 23.79% 39.39% 12.40% NLRSD 83 108 192 58 18.82% 24.49% 43.54% 13.15% PCSSD 211 239 488 171 19.03% 21.55% 44.00% 15.42% TOTAL 607 652 1185 388 21.43c,c 23.02% 41.84% 13.70% MALES 0 - 5 YRS 6 - 1 0 YR 11 - 20 Y 20+ YRS LRSD 72 62 87 46 26 97~c 23.22% 32 58% 17.23% NLRSD 13 21 39 14 14 94c,c 24 14% 44.83~c 16.09% PCSSD 30 35 114 44 13 45% 15 70% 51 12% 19.73% TOTAL 115 118 240 104 19 93c,, 20 45% 41.59% 18.02% 29 E. POLJCY AND PROGRAM I 1FORJ\\1ATION The Implementation Plan requires the Department to collect the following program and policy information on the Pulaski County Districts: 1. Administrati\\'e chart indicates titles, names, responsibilities and reporting responsibilities. The Lead Planner has on file the administrative chart indicating duties, responsibilities and reporting responsibilities. ~- Policies and regulations related to student entrance and exit criteria for course offerings and special state funded programs including: a. Magnet Schools b. Compensatory Education c. Majority to Minority Transfers d. Transportation 3. Student assignment policies. rules and regulations. 4. District policies. rules. regulations and written administrative directives go\\'eming: a. Class Assignment b. Testing c. Guidance and Counseling d. Extracurricular activities e. Student Rights and responsibilities f. Library usage g. Studentrecords 5. Copies of current negotiated agreements with all employee groups. 30     The Department has re\\'iewed this data on site at the districts, and the Lead Planner has this infonn::ition on item~ ~-5 a\\'ailable in her office.   F. BUDGET INFORMATION The Implementation Plan requires the Department to collect the following financial reports quarterly or monthly where available: I. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). 2. Transportation cost and funding source. 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. This information from section I through 3 follows . 4. Compensatory Education Program cost. This information was not reported by districts the 1994-95 school year. 5. Magnet school cost This information follows . 31 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET DATA - Page 1 FUNDING FOR REGULAR OPERATING COSTS LEA No. Local/State Federal Desegregation Total  6001001 Central High School 3,495,993 16 TT,54794 27.484 04 3,601,025 14 6001002 Hall High School 2,301,938 70 000 5,648 90 2,307,567 60 6001003 Mann Magnet Junior High School 000 000 000 000 6001 004 Metropojun Vo-T edl 1,062,989 43 37,431.04 000 1,100,420 47 6001005 Pa~ Magnet High School 000 0.00 0.00 000 6001006 Booker Arts Magnet Elem School 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 6001007 Dunbar Magnet Jr. High School 1,392,005 79 2,031.05 179,849 30 1,573,886 14 6001 009 For est Heights Jr. High School 1,661 ,'12.7.76 45,630.13 98,322.76 1,805,180.65 6001010 Pulaslti Heights Jr. High School 1,689,876.52 30,092.14 85.384.22 1,805,352 88 6001011 Sout'-6t Junior High School 1,350,354 37 53,382.92 126,525.48 1,530,263 37 6001013 Hender-.oJnu nior High School 2,010,936.67 20,954.51 118,964 99 2,150,85617 600101'4 AlternativeL Nming Center '49,897.85 0.00 26'4,4 96.26 314,39411 6001017 Bale Elementary School 750,611.'42 51,615.29 Q2,546.45 894,TT3.16 6001 018 Brad'\nElementary School 793,579.82 56,571.48 54.~.25 905,096.55 6001020 McDermottE lementaryS chool 880,866.17 46,120.10 0.00 926,986.27 6001021 Carver Magnet Elem. School 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 6001023 Fair P a1ic Elementary School 575,03546 50,507.33 75,612.99 701,155.78 6001 024 For est Palic Elementary School 769,298.26 43,020 58 20,923 75 833,242 59 6001025 Franklin lncenwe Elem. School 837,256.22 61,244 71 000 898,500 93 6001026 Garland lncentrve Elem. School 618,48065 42,427.89 000 660,908 54 6001 027 Gibbs Magnet Elementary School 0.00 0.00 000 000 6001029 Westem HIiis Elem. School 595,810.37 41,982.19 6,204.24 643,996 80 6001030 Jefferson Elementary School 959,300.61 48,988.99 23,107 45 1,031,397 05 6001033 \"4eadov.diff Elementary School 756,536.69 57,301.42 32,461.14 846,299 25 6001034 Mrtchell lncentrve Elem. School 552,840.50 56,019 41 0.00 608,859 91 6001035 M.L. King Magnet Ek.m School 7(,052 45 14,902 01 1,220,981.57 1,311,936 03 6001038 Pulaski Heights Elem. School 665,223 61 47,207.01 11,599.59 724,030 21  6001039 Rightsell lncenwe Elem. School 497,471.64 22,825 34 0.00 520,29698 6001040 Romine lnterd1st Elem. School 792,197.49 37,238 74 117,49695 946,933 18 6001042 Washington Magnet Elem. School 1,330,010.81 88,086 85 197,612.25 1,615,709 91 6001043 W1lhams Magnet Elem School 000 0.00 0.00 0 00 6001044 Wilson Elementary School 760,39403 53,4TT.12 42,110.50 855,981.65 6001045 Woodruff Elementary School 416,002 84 46,971.68 83,334.57 546,30909 6001 047 Terry Elementary School 907,681.00 39,716 67 19,328 58 966,72625 6001048 Fulbright Elementary School 1,017,617.60 52,324.38 15,191.48 1,085,13346 6001050 Rockefeller Incentive Elem. School 938,987.45 146,902.12 0.00 1,085,889 57 6001051 Badgett Elementary School 399,150.61 34,547.94 75,648.38 509,546.93 6001 052 Basellne Elementary School 578,626.19 47,027.84 71,822.78 697,476 81 6001053 Chicot Elementary School 1,016,994.22 96,768.50 '47,45341 1,161,216.13 6001 05,4 CloYerdalEe lementaryS chool 593,115.66 56,869.29 91,467.26 741,452.21 6001055 David O'Dodd Elementary School 579,642.29 '48,073.65 23,715.26 651,431.20 6001056 Geyer Springs Elem. School 513,063.92 52,187.02 108,483.55 673,734.49 6001057 Mabe/vale Elementary School 648,973.83 131,430.79 '49,167.26 1,029,571.88 6001058 Otter Creek Elementary School 589,294.03 37,512.27 15,144.94 641,951.24 6001059 Wakefield Elementary School TT2,081.48 67,543.99 8,093.38 847,718.85 6001060 Watson Elementary School 788,004.64 56,399.22, 94,295.14 ll38,699.00 6001061 CloverdaleJ unior High School 1,312,462.10 19,063.06 115,914.04 1,447,439.20 6001 062 Mabe/valeJ unior High School 1,418,120.16 25,000.66 32,979.14 1,476,099 96 6001063 J.A. Fair High School 2,104,191.24 0.00 53,384 98 2,157,576.22 6001064 McClellan Magnet High School 2,340,483.62 0.00 100,018.82 2,440,502 44 $44,360,679.93 S2,044,N6.27 $3,807,921.06 $60,213,646.26  32 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET DATA - Page 2 MAGNET INCENTIVE TOTAL  LEA No. 6001001 Central H ,gh School 0 00 000 3,601,025 14 6001002 Hau H,gh School 000 000 2,307,587.60 6001003 Mann Magnet Juna High School 2,047,188 08 000 2,047,188 08 6001004 Metropolrtan Ve\u0026gt;T-ech 000 000 1,100,420 47 6001005 Par11'MwM agnet H,gh School 2,-428,5492 8 0.00 2,428,549 28 6001006 Booker Art\u0026amp; Magnet Elem. School 1,-475,300.70 0.00 1,475,300.70 6001007 Dunbar Magne( Jr. High School 0.00 0.00 1,573,886.14 6001 009 For est Heights Jr. High School 0.00 0.00 1,805,180.65 6001010 Pulaski Heights Jr. High School 0.00 0.00 1,805,352.88 6001 011 Southwest Junior H,gh School 0.00 0.00 1,530,263.37 6001013 Henderlon Junior High School 0.00 0.00 2,150,85617 6001014 AttemativeL eaming Center 0.00 0.00 314,394.11 6001017 Bale Elementary School 0.00 0.00 894,n3.16 6001018 Brady Elementary School 0.00 O.O\"I 905,096 55 6001020 McDermottE lementaryS chool 0.00 0.00 926,986.27 6001 021 CarvefM agne-1E lem. School 1,280,588.71 0.00 1,280,588 71 6001023 Fair Par'KE lementaryS chool 0.00 0.00 701,15578 6001 02 4 For est Par'K Elementary School 000 0.00 833,242.59 6001025 Franklin Incentive Elem. School 000 423,173.08 1,321,674 01 6001026 Garland Incentive Elem School 000 288,446.89 949,355 43 6001027 G1bbli Magnet Elementary School 852,298 64 0.00 852,29864 6001029 Western Hills Elem. School 0.00 0.00 643,996 80 6001030 Jeffer'SOO Elementary School 000 0.00 1,031,397.05 6001033 Meadowcilff Elementary School 0.00 0.00 646,299.25 6001034 MrtcheU lncen!Jve Elem School 000 237,82449 646,684 40  6001035 ML. King Magnet Elem. School 000 0.00 1,311,936 03 6001038 Pulaski Heights Elem. School 000 000 724,03021 6001039 R ,ghtseU Incentive Elem. School 000 244,566.26 764,863.24 6001040 Romine lnterd1st Elem. School 0 OC 0.00 946,93316 6001042 Washington Magnet Elem. School 000 000 1,615,70991 6001043 W1lhams Magnet Elem. School 1,100,54369 0.00 1,100,54369 6001044 Wilson Elementary School 000 0.00 855,981 65 6001045 Woodruff Elementary School 000 0.00 546,309.09 6001 047 Terry Elementary School 000 000 966,726.25 6001 048 F ulboght Elementary School 0.00 0.00 1,085.133 46 6001050 Roci(efeller Incentive Elem School 000 465,48324 1,551,37281 6001051 ~ Elementary School 000 000 509,546 93 6001 052 Baseline Elementary School 0.00 0.00 697,476 81 6001 053 C hlCOCEl ementary School 000 0.00 1,161,21613 6001054 CloverdaleE lementary School 0.00 0.00 741,452.21 6001055 David O'Dodd Elementary School 000 000 651,431.20 6001056 Geyer Spnngs Elem. School 0.00 0.00 673,734 49 6001 05 7 Mabe Iva le Elementary School 000 0.00 1,029,571 88 6001058 Otter Creek Elementary School 000 0.00 641,951.24 6001059 Wakefield Elementary School 0.00 000 847,718.85 6001 060 Wll50n Elementary School 000 0.00  938,699 00 6001061 Cloverdale Juna High School 000 0.00 1,447,439 20 6001062 MabelvaleJ una High School 000 0.00 1,476,099 96 6001063 JA Fair High School 0.00 000 2,157,576 22 6001 064 McClellan Magnet H,gh School 000 000 2,-440,502 44  $9,11-4,-469.10 $1,669,-\"3.96 $61,057,609.31 DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUNDING $6,014,476.12 DISTRICT LEGAL COSTS $121,971.86 GRAND TOTAL $6611931957 .28 33 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET DATA  LEA No. 6002050 6002053 6002054 6002055 6002056 6002057 6002058 6002059 6002060 6002061 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 6002069 6002070 6002072 6002075 6002076 6002077 6002078 6002ALE 6002ALS '6002000 School Amboy Elementary School Belwood Elementary School Boone Par1' Elementary School Crestwood Elementary School Glenview Elementary School Indian Hills Elementary School Lakewood Elementary School Central Elementary School Lynch Drive Elementary School Meadow Par1' Elementary School North Heights Elementary School Par1' Hill Elementary School Pike View Elementary School Redwood Elementary School Seventh Street Elementary School Lakewood Middle School Ridgeroad Middle School NLR High School - East Campus NLR High School - West Campus Rose City Middle School Baring Cross Center Elementary Alternative Center Secondary Alternative Center DISTRICT LEVEL FUNDING FOR REGULAR OPERA TING COSTS Local/State 739,180.58 259,441.93 753,006.62 428,475.46 438,887.51 835,310.11 464,100.85 884,898.63 817,995.37 425,320.73 733,361.64 408,286.40 672,013.18 446,397.02 647,913.69 1,219,537.39 1,179,852.03 3,138,626.62 3,236,228.25 1,009,988.03 267,575.15 261,706.71 169,089.63 8,009,322.12 $27,446,515.65 Federal 41,297.81 5,711.62 106,573.02 5,014.78 22,035.97 51,625.81 50,889.57 76,009.24 61,737.13 29,613.45 68,557.04 43,766.82 56,566.00 89,515.90 61,669.01 31,115.03 24,156.99 52,980.40 67,250.88 45,701.40 93,282.42 9,157.47 106,730.88 1,155,056.79 $2,356,015.43 Desegregation 6,354.58 6,011.80 6,527.12 4,714.96 14,046.37 15,381.48 7,657.23 5,709.58 5,550.50 5,475.56 o,423.68 7,584.50 16,254.98 6,407.28 6,127.12 2,577.39 4,104.24 19,346.48 29,240.36 3,238.80 400.00 85,204.25 97,740.61 245,646.55 $607,725.42 Total 786,832 97 271,165.35 866,106.76 438,205.20 474,969.85 902,317.40 522,647.65 966,617.45 885,283.00 460,409.74 808,342.36 459,637.72 744,834.16 542,320.20 715,709.82 1,253,229.81 1,208,113.26 3,210,953.50 3,332,719.49 1,058,928.23 361,257.57 356,0. 373,5 9,410,025 .. $30,410,256.50 DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Local 267,387.08 State 616,111.36 Magnet 309,129.12 TOTAL $1,192,627.56 DISTRICT LEGAL COSTS Regular 18,356.48 62,462.81 $80,819.29 Desegregation Case TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $31,683,703.35 34 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET DATA - Page 1  SALARY EXPENSE LEA No. SCHOOL TYPE REG. PROG. REG. PROG. RES. FED. DESEG. TOTAL FUND (01) FUND (02) FUND (06) FUND (09) 6003090 SALARY Adkins Elem. School E 835,876 95,781 108,332 29,681 1,069,670 6003137 Arnold Drive Elementary E 771,017 65,331 0.00 0 836,348 6003092 Baker Elementary School E 707,088 73,444 30,116 147,775 958.423 6003146 Bates Elementary School E 1,178,646 173,518 37,506 306,657 1,696,327 6003094 Bayou Metro Elementary E 1,162,615 62,195 73,244 0 1,298,054 6003129 Cato Elementary School E 940,489 77,584 76,636 0 1,094,709 6003129 Clinton Magnet Elementa E 1,063,949 111,463 25 292,330 1,467,767 6003135 College Station Elem. Sc E 458,390 73,852 70,097 454,514 1,056,853 6003093 Crystal Hill Magnet Elem. E 1,311,860 117,489 76,456 301,269 1,807,074 6003099 Dupree Elem. School E 751,114 62,019 55,297 0 868,430 6003100 Fuller Elementary School E 869,993 99,068 110,847 122,745 1,202,653 6003102 Harris Elementary School E 755,396 101,865 115,522 21,855 994,638 6003103 Jacksonville Elementary E 1,337,251 94,165 144,104 0 1,575,520 6003104 Landmark Elementary Sc E 916,548 82,191 112,256 182,072 1,293,067 6003105 Lawson Elementary Scho E 780,539 44,394 38,921 0 863,854 6003108 Oak Grove Elementary S E 873,480 94,914 69,632 158,117 1,196,143 6003139 Oakbrooke Elementary S E 978,554 155,273 29,054 0 1,162,881 6003142 Pine Forest Elementary S E 936,819 63,794 0 25 1,000,638 6003130 Pinewood Elementary Sc E 958,892 82,592 52,276 0 1,093,760 6003110 Joe T. Robinson Elem. S E 840,913 88,887 38,560 475 968,835 6003111 Scott Elementary School E 396,262  77,531 59,865 0 533,658 6003112 Sherwood Elementary Sc E 977,308 88,859 0 0 1,066,167  6003113 Sylvan Hills Elementary E 935,022 86,359 0 (' 1,0\u0026lt;1,381 6003141 Murrell Taylor Elem. Sch E 817,625 147,455 124,972 0 1,090,052 6003106 Tolleson Elementary Sch E 899,935 37,360 0 0 937,295 Elementary Totals $22,455,581 $2,257,383 $1,423,718 $2,017,515 $28,154,197 6003120 Fuller Junior High School J 2,139,251 154,253 25,150 161,175 2,479,829 6003116 Jacksonville N. Jr. High S J 1,385,427 115,217 2,665 0 1,503,309 6003117 Jacksonville S. Jr. High S J 1,331,114 138,228 138,228 0 1,607,570 6003140 Northwood Junior High S J 1,991,445 184,239 29,695 9,446 2,214,825 6003143 Robinson Junior High Sc J 1,256,911 71,539 3,835 0 1,332,285 6003122 Sylvan Hills Jr. High Sch J 1,862,025 147,978 0 4,290 2,014,293 Jr. High Totals $9,966,173 $811,454 $199,573 $174,911 $11,152,111 6003123 Jacksonville High School H 2,341,756 202,935 9,410 1,131 2,555,232 6003125 Wilbur D. Mills High Scho H 1,508,946 139,335 8,694 366,177 2,023,152 6003136 North Pulaski High Schoo H 1,976,575 238,376 23,680 0 2,238,631 6003126 Oak Grove High School H 2,118,549 155,731 0 2,015 2,276,295 6003127 Joe T. Robinson High Sc H 1,063,944 114,084 23,135 22,011 1,223,174 6003128 Sylvan Hills High School H 1,969,998 159,370 0 0 2,129,368 Scott Alternative Leamin H 2,892 7,509 0 388,746 399,147 High School Totals $10,982,660 $1,017,340 $64,919 $780,080 $12,844,999 SCHOOL TOTALS $43,404,414 $4,086,177 $1,688,210 $2,972,506 $52,151,307 District Wide Expenses 1,681,884 10,583,193 875,521 1,260,592 14,401,190  Transportation Costs Attorney Fees GRAND TOTAL EXPENSES $45,086,298 $14,669,370 $2,563,731 $4,233,098 $66,552,497 35 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET CATA - Page 2 NON-SALARY LEA No. SCHOOL TYPE REG. PROG. COM. RES. FED. DESEG. TOTAL GRA . FUND (02) FUND (06) FUND (09) NON-SALARY TOTAL 6003090 Adkins Elem. School E 64,729 2,959 703 68,391 1,138,061 6003137 Arnold Dnve Elementary E 55,078 600 0 55,678 892.026 6003092 Baker Elementary School E 52,513 1,338 46,796 100,647 1,059,070 6003146 Bates Elementary School E 159,350 5,025 4,122 168,497 1,864,824 6003094 Bayou Metro Elementary E 111,373 2,388 1,598 115,359 1,413,413 6003129 Cato Elementary School E 73,030 1,357 820 75,207 1,169,916 6003129 Clinton Magnet Elementa E 111,551 347 5,229 117,127 1,584,894 6003135 College Station Elem. Sc E 51,371 2,458 29,082 82,911 1,139,764 6003093 Crystal Hill Magnet Elem. E 113,471 3,571 11,945 128,987 1,936,061 6003099 Dupree Elem. School E 65,174 1,165 2,783 69,122 937,552 6003100 Fuller Elementary School E 73,067 4,162 1,381 78,610 1,281,263 6003102 Harris Elementary School E 86,323 5,390 33 91,746 1,086,384 6003103 Jacksonville Elementary E 107,852 3,063 2,476 113,391 1,688,911 6003104 Landmar1( Elementary Sc E 86,737 4,764 2,126 93,627 1,386,694 6003105 Lawson Elementary Scho E 58,739 856 1,873 61,468 925,322 6003108 Oak Grove Elementary S E 65,482 1,132 1,763 68,377 1,264,520 6003139 Oakbrooke Elementary S E 84,440 730 0 85,170 1,248,051 6003142 Pine Forest Elementary S E 63,963 241 0 64,204 1,064,842 6003130 Pinewood Elementary Sc E 72,966 1,440 0 74,406 1,168,166 6003110 Joe T. Robinson Elem. S E 67,622 1,291 1,619 70,532 1,039,367 6003111 Scott Elementary School E 99,633 108,512 979 209,124 742,782 6003112 Sherwood Elementary Sc E 67,928 553 0 68,481 1,134,648 6003113 Sylvan Hills Elementary E 67,868 0 12 67,880 1,089. 6003141 Murrell Taylor Elem. Sch E 58,165 4,601 559 63,325 1,153 6003106 Tolleson Elementary Sch E 74,959 300 2,903 78,162 1,015,4, Elementary Totals $1,993,384 $158,243 $118,802 $2,270,429 $30,424,626 6003120 Fuller Junior High School J 145,251 560 46,176 191,987 2,671,816 6003116 Jacksonville N. Jr. High S J 99,106 383 0 99,489 1,602,798 6003117 Jacksonville S. Jr. High S J 109,163 984 0 110,147 1,717,717 6003140 Northwood Junior High S J 125,614 855 0 126,469 2,341,294 6003143 Robinson Junior High Sch J 91,897 257 0 92,154 1,424,439 6003122 Sylvan Hills Jr. High Scho J 119,650 517 0 120,167 2,134,460 Jr. High Totals $690,681 $3,556 $46,176 $740,413 $11,892,524 6003123 Jacksonville High School H 240,154 4,457 790 245,401 2,800,633 6003125 Wilbur D. Mills High Scho H 210,466 7,246 292,316 510,028 2,533,180 6003136 North Pulaski High Schoo H 182,430 13,623 0 196,053 2,434,684 6003126 Oak Grove High School H 212,995 27,983 0 240,978 2,517,273 6003127 Joe T. Robinson High Sc H 112,276 1,080 0 113,356 1,336,530 6003128 Sylvan Hills High School H 263,917 17,645 0 281,562 2,410,930 Scott Alternative Leaming H 43,083 0 13,667 56,750 455,897 High School Totals $1,265,321 $72,03_4 $306,773 $1,644,128 $14,489,127 SCHOOL TOTALS $3,949,386 $233,833 $471,751 $4,654,970 $56,806,277 District Wide Expenses 5,985,481 880,920 1,647,543 8,513,944 22,915,134 Transportation Costs 4,723,976 1,590,172 6,314,148 6,314,. Attorney Fees 142,084 55,554 197,638 197, I GRAND TOTAL EXPENSES $14,800,927 $1,114,753 $3,765,020 $19,680,700 $86,233,197 36  G. STUDEI\\T DISCIPLINE   The Implementation Plan requires the Department to collect the following student discipline data: 1. Number of discipline referrals by school and teacher reported by race, gender, grade. subject and teachers' years of experience. 2. Student suspensions, exclusions and expulsions according to type of infractions, length of punishment by race, gender. school and teacher. This infom1ation follows by race. gender. school and grade along with a special report on recidivism rates . 37  LITTLE ROCK   3R    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLINE ~II Schools Total D1sc1pline Incidents Total Suspension Days By Grade Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total in Grades 7 - 10 Percent in Grades 7 - 1 0 3088 29827 No. 5 35 33 39 59 111 101 692 696 615 351 229 122 Pct. 0.16% 1.13% 1.07% 1.26% 1.91% 3.59% 3.27% 22.41% 22.54% 19 92% 11.37% 7.42% 3.95% 2354 76.23% Little Rock School District Al, Schools - By Grad( (/ 0 2E, 02 C O 15 39 ........ ....\n. I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLINE By Race/Gender No. Black Male 1860 Black Female 730 White Male 369 White Female 105 Other Male 23 Other Female Otne~ t. .1 ait 1C,7 4t/\u0026lt;\n1- V.'ri\n:ec f'enolcc r::: 4ih, \\\\r,.:t f/c.c- 1 \"1 , 95l.ic.J- .. By Race Black White Other By Gender Male Female I I / No. 2590 474 24 No. 2252 836 Pct. 60.23% 2364% 11.95% 3.40% 0.74% 0.03% Pct. 83.87~, 15.35% 0.78% Pct. 72.93% 27.07% By Race \u0026amp; By Gender (),(,\" \\L: =~: . ~ I,:, .. ,. 40    LITTLE ROCh SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLll\\E LE.A P,.,O. SCHOC!~ GRACE RACE SEX INFRACllQ,-. ACTION TAKE', CAYS s.x,~ Fraruo,n E~t.a\")' SchOO' 02 B M 01M\u0026gt;roe~yC onouc1 01.11o f School Suspens.,or, 6001 C:'S Fran,:J,n E~:.a\"Y Scnoc, 02 B M F1ght1ng Ou, or Sc,l'lc)oj S uspenr.-on ~ r 6001C~ Franl\u0026lt;J,nE -nla\")' Sc.hoc, 02 B M F1ghl1\"1, OU! or School Suspenr.-on 3 f ranl(J,n E. -nlary Scnoc, 03 B M Fighting OU! of School S uspenr.,on 3  u:xi,c:~~ 6001~ Franl\u0026lt;J,n E.~la')' Sc.hoo 03 B M F,ght,ng OU! or School Sus~, 3 6001~ Fran,.,,n E~t.ary Scnoo 04 B M F1ght1n9 Out or School Sus~ 3 6001~ Franklin ElemeOt.aryS chOOI 04 6 M 015oOl'OerCtyo nduct 01.11o r School Sus~ 3 60010:\u0026gt;5 F rankJ1n E lement.ary Schoo' 04 B M A\"\"un OU! of Schools~ 3 6001025 FrankJ,n Elementary School 04 B M U11,1nFgO \u0026lt;J0If Abus,w Langua~ Out of School Sus.pen$10\"' 2 6001025 F ranlO ,n E it,ment.a ry School 04 B M Reruseo to Obey Rule/OiredJve Out of School Suspens,or\u0026gt; ~ 60010:\u0026gt;5 F rat\u0026gt;kl,n Eiemeoary School OS B M Auaun Out of School S~ 3 6001025 F rankl,n E lemenlary School 06 B M Refused to obey Rule/Direct/Ye Out of School S~ 3 6001025 F ranldtn Elementary School 06 B M Refused to Obey Rule/D,rec!Ne Out or School suspenu:,n 3 6001025 Franklin Elementary School 06 B M 0110fderty Cond ud Out or School~ 3 6001025 F ranlchn Elementary School 06 B M Oi5orderty Condud Out or Schools~ 3 6001025 F ranld1h Elementary Schoo/ 06 B M O\"''derty Condud Out c,f School S~ 3 6001025 F l'lflklin Elementary School 06 B M Aa.wun Out or Schools~ 10 6001025 F l'lhklon Elementary School K B M Auaun Out of School Suspen$101\"1 3 6001026 Garland lncentM School 04 B M Refused to obey Rule/Direetrw Out or Schools~ 5 6001026 Garland lncenwe School 04 B M RefUMd lo obey Rule/DirectNe ' Out of School S~ 3 6001026 Garland lncen!M School 04 B M A\"\"un Out or School Suspens,ot1 3 6001026 Garland lnoen!JW Sr.J'\u0026gt;ool 04 B M FighlJng Out o School~ 3 6001026 Garland lnoeolMI School OS B M Battery 0\\11 of School~ 10 6001026 Garland lncentM School OS B M Refused to obey Rule/011'9Cttve Out or School Suspen$'00 ' 6001026 Garland lncenwe School 05 B M Refused to ooey Rule/Directive Out of School StApens,oo 3 6001026 Gana nd lncenwe Schoo 05 B M Assau~ Out or School Sus~ ll 600102'6 ~nd lncentM Schoo 05 B M Battery Out or School S uspen\"\"' 10 6CXl102 ~nd lnc:entNe School 05 B F Battery Out or School Su~ 3 600102 Garland lncenwe Schoo 05 B M Refused Lo ooey Rule/Dired!vt Out of School S uspen5t0n 3 6001026 Gana'\u0026gt;d lncentJve Schoo 05 B M F,ght,ng Out of School Suspen5'0\u0026lt;'1 6 6001026 Gana nd I ncentrw School 05 B M Refused lo ooey Rule/Directrve Out of School Suspen5'C\u0026gt;\"\\ 3 6001026 Ga r\\and lncentrw Scrioo 05 B M Ftghlmg Out or School Suspen5'C\u0026gt;\"\\ E 6001026 Gana nd lncenllve Sc rioo, 06 B M Assaur. OU! of School Suspensoon 3 6001026 Gana nd lncenlNe Sc rioo 06 B F F,ght1ng Out of School Suspen5'0\u0026lt;'1 3 6001027 G1boS Magne\u0026lt; Schoo: 03 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directrve Out of School Suspens\"\"1 6001027 G1t\u0026gt;os Magne\u0026lt; Scr\u0026gt;OO' 03 e F Thel't Out of School Suspens,or, 6001077 Gibbs Magne\u0026lt; Schoo 05 B F F,ghl1ns l')ut of School Suspens1ori '1 , 6001tr.7 Gibbs Magne\u0026lt; Schoo, 05 B M Refused to obey Rule/DirectJ~e Out of School Suspens.,on 2  6001027 Gibbs Magne\u0026lt; Schoo 05 B M Fighting Out or Schooi Suspens,or, 1 6001027 G1boS Magnel Schoo 05 6 F Refused to obey Rule/Oirectrve Out of School SuspenS1CX1 1 6001077 G1bbS Magnel Scr-.oc,: OC 6 M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out or School Suspens,ori 2 6001027 G1bOS Magnel SchOO 06 W M Refused to obey R1\nleJD1reciJve Out of School Suspensoon 2 6001029 Western Hills Elementary School 01 B M P05SeU10n or Weapon Out of School Suspen5,10r1 3 600102S Wt'$1em Hills Elementary Schoo 01 B M Pos.se-ssion of Weapon Out of School Suspens,oo 3 6001029 Western Hills Elementary Schoo- 02 B M Refused to obey Rule/Oirectrve Out of School Sus penS1CX1 3 6001029 Weslem Hills Elementary Schoo' 04 B M Refused Lo Obey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspens,or, 2 6001029 Wt'$1em Hills Elementary Schoo-' 06 8 M F,ghhr,g Out of School Suspens,oo 3 6001029 Weslem H,l1s Elementary Schoo 06 B M Fighting Out or School Suspen5,10r1 3 6001030 Jeff\"\"'1 Elementary Scrioo: 03 B M D150l'der1yC onduct Out or School Suspens,o.., 3 6001033 Mu\u0026lt;,,,,ci,tt El eme nta ry Schcx\u0026gt;' 02 B M D150l'der1yC onduct Out of School Suspens'\" 3 6001033 Muoowcliff Elementary SchOc\u0026gt; 03 'W M Assawn Out or School Suspens.,oo 3 6001033 ~,ff Elementary School 04 B M D15oOl'derCtyo nduct Out of School SuspenslOh 3 6001033 Muoowchff Elementary School 04 w M 015oOl'dertCy onduct Out or School SuspenslOh 2 6001033 Muoowchff Elementary School 04 8 M Orsorderty Conduct Out of School S USpet'ISIOO 1 6001033 Mudo,o\nchff Elementary School 04 B F D15oOl'derC1yo nduci Out of School Su59er\"1S,on 2 6001033 Mudowc~ff Elementary School 04 B M D15o0fdertyC onduct Out of School Suspen$10(1 3 6001033 Mudowcl,11 Elementary School 04 B M D15o0fdertyC onduct Out or School Susper\\Soon 3 6001033 Mudowchff Elementary School 04 W F 015o01'der1Cyo ndud Out of School SUSl)tns10n 3 6001033 Mudowchff Elementary School 04 B M 0150rderty Conduct Out of School SuspehSIOO 2 6001033 Muoowc hff Elementary SChOOI 05 B M Dl50rderty Conduct Out of School S~s,or, 3 6001033 Meadowcliff Elementary School 05 B M 015oOl'dertCy onduct Out of School Su5pensoon 600103-4 Mrtcttell lncenlNe Schoo 3 02 B F Fighting Out or School Suspens10n 5 6001034 Mitchell lncentrve Schoo( 04 B M 015oOl'dertCy onduct Out of School Suspens,on 6001034 Mrtchell Incentive School 5 04 B M PossesslOl'l or Weapon Out or School Suspens100 5 6001034 Mrtcttell lncentrw School 05 B M USll'lg Foul 0( AbullolveL angua~ Out of School Suspens100 600103-4 Mitchell Incentive Scnool 3 05 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive OU! or School Suspens'\" 3 6001034 Mrtchell lncentrve School 05 B M U51ng FO\u0026lt;J0If Ab\\nl'.'e Langua~ Out or School Suspens,on 6001034 Mrtcttell Incentive School 5 05 B M Using Foul 0f Abusive Language Out or School Suspens,on 3 6001034 Mrtchell Incentive SchOoi 05 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out or Schooi Suspens,oo 5 60010\u0026gt;4 Mrtcriell lnceo~,e Scl'\u0026gt;Oo 05 B M Using Foul 0\u0026lt; Abusrve unguage OU! of School Suspens'\" 3 60010J.( Mrtct)eh lnc.enlive Sct\\00 05 e M Refused lo obey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspens'\" 3  60010\u0026gt;\u0026lt; Mrtctteil lnc.enwe Schoo 05 B M Fighting Out of Schooi Suspens'\" 3 600103,( M1crie11l nceo:i,e Scr-.x:, 05 6 M Us.e of P191ng Devicn Out or School Suspens'\" 5 6001C\u0026gt;\u0026lt; '-'~crie1. 1nceo1,.-tS cnoo 05 B M D150l'dertyC onduct Out or School Suspen~ 3 6001 O\u0026gt;\u0026lt; Mr.~ lnc.entrve S,c-.x, 05 B M Relu~ lo otiey Rule/D,rectrve Out or SCllOOIS usc:ien~ 3 6001 C3-: '-'1cr,e,,. lnc.M!rv-t S,c..-.oo, 05 6 M Refused to Obey Rule/D,rectM Out of School Suspen~ 3 \u0026amp;X1~ '-'r.crie. l~,t S.C..\"\u0026gt;OOo 05 e M ReluloeO to ooey Ru1e:D~ecw, Out of School Suspe,nr..o,, 3 81 LITTLE ROCh: SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLIJ'\\E Ot.YS LEA NO. SCHOOL GRJ.OE RACE SEX INFRJ.CTIOt 600103-4 Mn~II l~Uve School 05 B M ACTION TAKEI-, 60010J.4 Mn~ lncentNe w,oo, Au.aun Out of Sctl00I Sus.per,s.,o,, ~ 06 B M U$ang Foul 0\u0026lt; Abusr,,e Language Out of School S uspe ns,or.  r 6600001100J.}.4.4 MMnnc~t ,ejl lln~cIMenI tM SScc.rro,oooo, o 06 B M U~ng FouJ 'A 1\u0026gt;u5,vuen i,ua~ Out of School Sus~s.,o,, 6001034 06 B M Fighting Out of School SU$?e\u0026lt;1S\u0026gt;On Mnehell lncentNe Scr,ooo 06 B M Disorderly Condud Out of School SuspenS\u0026gt;Ol'l 3 6001034 Mn~u lncenwe Scroool 06 B M F11,hting Out of School Suspens.on 3 6001034 Mnehell l~IMI Sc.hool 06 B M Usmg Foul 0\u0026lt;A busr,,e ungua~ OUI of School s~ ~ 6001034 Mnct-.11l nc.enlNe Scroool 06 B M D150\u0026lt;derty 6001035 Conouci Out or School s~ 10 Martin Luthe\u0026lt; King Jr Elementary 01 B M Refuwd lo obey Rule/Direetive OUI of Schooj Su~ 3 6001035 Mart111L 1Mer King Jr Elementary 03 B 6001035 Martin Luther King Jr Elementary F Refuwd to obey Rule/D11ective Out of Sci-ooosl ~ 2 04 B MArson 6001035 Martin L1Mer King Jr Elementary 04 B Out of School Suspen$10fl 2 6001035 M Using foul or Abus!Yt Language Out of School SuspenslO\u0026lt;l 3 Martin Luther King Jr Elementary 04 B M Fighting Out of School Suspen$10(1 3 6001035 Martin Luther King Jr Elementary 04 B M Refused lo oti.y Rule/Directtve Out ol School Suspe,..on :l 6001035 Martin L.u!her King Jr Elementary 06 B M Refused lo oti.y Rule/Directive Out of School Susper-.,on 3 6001035 Martin L1lth King Jr Elementary 06 W M U\u0026amp;Ulg Foul 0\u0026lt;A busiveL anguage Out of School S~ 2 6001035 Martin Luther King Jr Elemenwy 06 B M Dcsderty Conduct Out of School Suspen510n 3 6001038 PulaslQ Heights Elementary 01 B M A\u0026amp;wuN Out ol School Suspens,o,, 3 8J01038 Pulaslci Hetgl\"a Elementary 04 B M Aauul OUI of School Suspension 2 6001038 Pula51oH e,ghla Elementary 04 B M Thell Out or School 5uapension s 6001038 PIJl\u0026amp;sjg He,ghta Elementary 05 B M A\u0026amp;wuN Out of School~ 10 6001038 Pul\u0026amp;sloH etghtaE lementary 05 B F Disorderty 6001038 Pulls.laH eights Elementary Conduct. Out or SchoolS iapen$10n 10 05 B M DISOt'dertyC onduci Out of Schools~ s 6001038 PulaslaH etghtaE lementary 05 B M Refu sed lo oti.y R ule/Directr,oe Out of Schools~ 3 6001038 PulaslaH eights Elementary 05 W M Refused to obey Rule/D1recttve OUI of SchoolS uspens,o,1 3 6001038 PulaslaH eights Elementary 05 W M D150\u0026lt;derty 6001038 Pulas.10 Conduct OUI of SchoolS uspensl()('f 2 Heights Elementary 05 B M A5Saun OUI of School Su~ 5 6001038 PulasiaH eights Elementary 05 B M D150\u0026lt;dertyC onduct OUI of SchoolS uspe= 3 6001038 PulaSlaH eights Elementary 05 B M Refuwd to obey Rule/Directive Out or School Suspens,on 5 6001038 PulaSla Heights Elementary 06 B M Ass.tun Out of School SuspenS\u0026gt;Ol'l 3 6001038 Pula$lc:IH eights Elementary 06 B M D1sorderty Conduct Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001038 Pulasia Heights Elementary 06 B M Reruwd to obey Rule/D1rec1Jve Out of School SuspenSIOO 2 6001038 PulaSla Heights Elementary 06 B M A5Sau~ Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001038 Pu\\aSla Heights Elementary 06 B M Refused to obey Rule/Direcwe Out of School Suspen5'0n 3 6001039 RightseU lncenl/\\le Sc.hool 01 B M Refused to obey Rule/D11ectsve OUI of School Suspens.on 2 6001039 R ,ghtsell Incentive School 04 B M F,ght1ng OUI of School Suspen5'0n  f 6001039 R1ghtseUl ncenttve School 04 B F Fighting Out of School Suspensl()('f 6001039 R1ghtsell lncenttve Schooi 05 B M Fightm\n. Out of School Suspen$\u0026gt;0() 6001039 R1ghtsell Incentive Schc,o\nOS B M Fighting Out of School Suspensl()('f 2 6001039 R,ghtseU lncenttve Schoo, OS B M Fighting Out of School Suspen$\u0026gt;0() ~ 6001039 R1ghtsell lncenttve Schoo,' 06 B M Fighting Out or School Suspens1ori 2 6001039 R,ghtsell Incentive Schoo: 06 B M Fighting Out of SchoolS uspens10., 3 6001039 R1ghtsell lncenttve School 06 W M F1ght1ng Out of School Suspens,o., 10 6001039 R1ghtsell Incentive Scl'lcx\u0026gt; 06 B M F1ghling Out of School Suspens,on 1C 6001039 R,ghtsell Incentive School 06 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspens'\" 6 6001039 R,ghtsell Incentive Schc:lc:s 06 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspens'\" 3 6001039 R1ghtsell lncentrve School 06 B M D,sordffiY Condua Out of School Suspens,or, 3 6001039 R ,ghtsell lncentrve School 06 B M Fighlmg Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001039 Righlsell lncentrve Schoo. 06 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspens,or, 3 6001039 R1ghtsell Incentive School 06 B M Indecent Exposure Out of School Suspens'\" 3 6001039 R1ghtsell lncen1,ve School 06 B M D1sorderty Conduci Out of School Suspens,o,, 3 6001039 R1ghlsell Incentive Schoo. 06 B M Refused to obey Rule/D,rective Out of School Suspens1ori 3 6001040 Romine Elementary School 03 B F Refuwd to obey Rule/Directtve Out of School Suspens,oo 5 6001040 Romine Elementary School 04 B M D1sorderty Condua Out of School Suspens10n 10 6001040 Romine Elementary School 04 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspe= 3 6001040 Romine Elementary School OS B F Refused to oti.y Rule/Direet1ve Out of School 6001040 Romine Elementary School OS B SuspenSIOn 3 6001040 Romine Elementary School F Refused to oti.y Rule/Directrve Out of SchoolS usper\\S!On . 3 06 B M Refused to obey Rule/D1rect1ve Out of School SuspenSIOO 3 6001040 Romine Elementary School 06 B M Oisorderty Conduct Out of School Suspen5'0n 3 6001040 Romine Elementary School 06 B M D1s.orderty 6001040 Romine Elementary School Condud Out of School SuspenSIOn 10 06 B M Dis.orderly Conduct Out of School Suspen5'0n 5 6001042 Washington Math/Science Magnet 03 B M Fighting Out of School SuspenSIOn  6001042 Wi1$1'\\1ngtonM ath/Science Magnet 03 B M Fighting Out of School Suspens10n 3 6001042 Washington Math/Science Magnet 04 B M Fighting Out of School Suspens,on 2 60010\u0026lt;2 Wi1$1'\\1ng1oMn ath/Science Magnet 04 B M Fighting Out of Sc:hool Suspension 2 6001042 W1$1'\\1ngton Math/Science Magnet 04 B M Fighting Out of Sc:hool Suspens,on 3 6001042 Wuh1ngton Math/Science Magnet OS B M Refused to obey Rule/Directrve Long Tenn SuspenSIOn 3 60010\u0026lt;2 Wi1$1'\\1ngIonM ath/Science Magnet OS B F Fighting Out of School Suspens10n 3 60010\u0026lt;2 Wa$1'\\1ng1onM arrvscience Magnet OS W M F1ght1ng Out of School Suspens,on  60010\u0026lt;2 Wa$1'\\1ng1onM ath/Science Magnet 60010\u0026lt;2 OS B M F1ghI1ng Out of School Suspens'\" I Wa$1'\\1ngtonM alh/Sc1ence Magnet OS B M D1sorderty Conduct Out of School Suspens,or, 60010\u0026lt;2 W1$1'\\ingtori MatNSc,ence Mag:\u0026gt;el OS B M D1sor0er1yC ond...c1 Out of School Suspens,on 60010-\u0026lt;:2 Wash1n\nr,on Ma:r.'Sc.oenc.eM ag,ie: OS B M Fighting Out of School Suspens'\"  60010,:2 Wash,ng:ori Ma:r.,sc1enc.e Magne: OS B M F1ght1ng Out or ScllOol S uspens,or, 3 ~1 o,::, Wa$1'\\,nglon Ma:r. Science MagC\\t\" OS B M F1ght,ng Out of Sehool S uspens'\" 3 6001~ W1ISO('E\\ lemen:ary Sc.n.:\u0026gt;o. 05 B  M Banery Out of School S uspens,o,,  6X1~ W 115,0() E oe-mena: - y S c.J\\oo, OS 6 M F1ght,ng Long Term Suspenso, 13 82 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLl:\\E Dl.YS LA NO. SCHOOL GRADE RACE SEX INFRACTION 6001044 W ,Ison El emeotary Sc.hoe\u0026gt; 10 B ACTION TAKEN 6001047 M D,soroeny Conduct Out or Scl'loOI Suspension - Terry E iementary Schoo, 04 B M F,ghl,ng Out or School Suspens,or, 3  6001047 Terry Elementary Sc.hoe\u0026gt; 04 B M F,ghlmg 60010,47 Terry EI M'leotary 5ctloo' 05 B M O,sorde\u0026lt;TyC OOdud Out or School Suspens'\" 3 6001047 Te-rryE~rySc.tlCO 05 B Out or School Suspens'\" 3 6001047 M Retuw,o lo ObeyR ule,Oirectlve Out or School Suspens,()(1 5 'Tw ry Eiemenwy SGhoo 05 0 M RefUWd lo ObeyR ule10,rec1r,,e Out or School Suspens,on :l 60010,47 T wry E~ry Schooi 05 B M A5S-lu\" Out or Sc.hool Suspens.,on 3 60010,47 T wry Eiemwury School 06 B M Auaun Out of School Suspen$10n 3 60010,47 T wry E ~ School 06 B M Oisoroerty Conduct Out or Sc.hool 60010,47 T wry E~ School 06 B M FightJng Suspen5000 3 6001047 T wry ElementaryS chool 06 B M Out or Sc.hooSl uspenu:in 3 600104-' Oisoroerty Cond ud Out of SchoolS uspens\non 3 Fulbnghl~ School 01 B F RetYSedl o obey Rule/01rec::tr,,e Out or SchoolS uspen$'OO 3 600104-' FulbogtitE lementaryS chool OS B 600104-' M Refusedt o obey Rule/Oirecttve Out or SchoolS i\u0026amp;penl,IOl'l 3 Fulbngtit Eiemrury School OS W M FightJng Out or School~ 3 600104-' F Uibnghl Elementary School 06 B F Battery 600104-' Fu lbnghl ElemenU!ryS chool 06 B Out or School~ 3 900104-' M RetUMd to obeyR ule/Oirectrve Out or School Suspension 3 F Ulbnghl E lement.ary School 06 W M Rerused to obey Bus Rules.\u0026amp;Regs Out or School Suspens,on 3 6001050 Roeka reii.r lnoentNe Scl'loOI 01 B M FightJng Out of Schools~ ' 6001050 Roekare1w I~ School 01 B M FightJng Out of School S~ ' 6001050 RoekatellerI IIOll'IINe School 02 B M RtrYSed to obeyR ui\u0026amp;I01t1Ctlvt Out of School~ 3 6001050 Roekatellerln c.nwe School 02 B 6001050 M FightJng Out of School SU\u0026amp;pens,on 3 Roekafe ller lncant,w School 02 B M Ptiysu Auau~ of Sbll'f Long Tern, ~ 22 6001050 Roekateller lnoenbw School 03 W M Refused to obey Rule/OirectNe Out of School~ 2 6001050 Roekateller lnc:.ntr,,e School 03 B F RetYSed to obeyR ule/O1recttve Out of School~ 3 6001050 Roc.ure11erl ncenwe School 03 B M Refused to obey Rule/01rectJve Out of School Suspens,on 1 6001050 R ocl(eteller lnc:enwe Sc l'loOI 05 W M Refused to obey Rule/O1rec1Ne Out of School Suspens,on 2 6001050 Rocketeller lncentr,,e School 05 B M Fighting Out of School Suspen5'00 3 6001050 R0 CMr e ller ll'ICltntM School 05 B F Refused to obey Rule/Oirecwe Out or School S~slOl\"I 1 6001050 Rocl(ef e lle\u0026lt; lnoentrve School 05 B 6001050 M Thell Out of School SU5pens10\u0026lt;1 2 Rocqf elier Incentive School 05 B M Thell Out or School Suspension 3 6001050 RocJ\u0026lt;efellerl noentJve Scl'loOI 06 B F Assautt Out of School Suspen~ 3 6001050 Roc.uf eller Incentive School 06 B M Auau\" Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001050 Roeketener lncenwe SchOoo 0 B M Assau\" Out or School Suspens,on 3 6001050 Rockef elier lnoentrve Schoo. 06 B M Refused to obey Rule/01rectr,,e Out or School Suspens10\u0026lt;1 3 6001050 RocJ1ere11eInrc entive Schoo, 06 B M Fighting Out of School Suspe= 3 6001050 Roekere11elrn oenwe Schoo' 06 W M Rerus.eo to obey Rule/Oireetr,,e Out or School Suspens.ori 3 6001050 Rocke re11el\u0026lt;n ceriwe School 06 B M Assautt Out or School SU$pens,oo 3  6001050 Rocl(ere ller lnoenwe Schoo. 06 B M Rerused to obey Rule/Oirecwe Out or School Suspens.on 2 6001052 Baseline Elementary Schoc,: 02 B F FightJng Out or School SuspenslO\"l 3 6001052 Ba.sehn e Elementary Schoo' 6001052 03 B M Rerused to obey Rule/O1rectr,,e Out or School Suspens10\u0026lt;1 3 Bas ehne Elementary SchOoo 05 6 M Rerused lo.obey Rule/0,recwe Out or School Suspens.or- 3 6001053 Chicot ElementaryS chOoo 6001053 02 B F Fighting Out or School Suspens,o.~ 3 Ch1C01E lementary Schoo. 02 B F A$S.aun 6001053 Chico( Elementary School 03 B Out or School Susper\\Slo.~ 3 6001053 M Fighl,ng Out or School Suspens,o,, 3 Ch1C01E lementary Schoo' 03 w 6001053 Ch1C01E lementary School M Fighting Out of School SuspenslO\"l 3 6001053 03 B M F1ghllng Out of School Suspension 3 Ch1C01E lementary SchOo 03 B 6001053 Choco( Elementary Schoo. M F1ghl1ng Out of Sehool Suspension 5 6001053 03 B F Assaun Out or Sehool Suspens100 6 C hlCOIE lementary Schoo. 03 B F Fighting Out or School Suspens,or, 10 6001053 Chico( Elementary Schoo: 03 e M Fighting Out of School SU$pension 3 6001053 Chico( Elementary School 03 B M Fighllng Out of School Suspens,o,, 3 6001053 Chico( Elemeotary Schoo 04 B M FightJng Out of School Suspens.ion 3 6001053 Choco( E leme11tary Sctioo. 05 B M Refused to obey Rule/01rect1ve Out of School Suspension 3 6001053 Chea( Elementary Sel'loOI 05 B M Refused lo obey Rule/OirectJve Out of School Suspens.,on 3 6001053 Chico( Elemen!Jiry School 05 B M Fighting Out or School Suspen$10n 3 6001053 Chlcol Elementary School 05 B M Refused to obey Rule/01recttve Out or School Suspens.ion 3 6001053 Chico( Elementary School 05 B M Fighting Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001053 ChlCOI Elementary Schoo, 05 W F Refused to obey Rule/01reetive Out of School SuspenslOl\"I s 6001053 Chlcol Elementary School 06 B M Fighting Out or School SuspenslOl\"I 3 6001053 Chico( Elementary School 06 B M Thell Out or School SU$pens10n 3 6001055 Dodd Elementary School 03 B M Assautt Out of School Suspens10\u0026lt;1 3 6001055 Dodd Elementary Schoo/ 04 B M Refused to obey Rule/O1reelr,,e Out or School SuspenslOl\"I 3 6001055 Dodd Elementary SehOOi 05 B M Assaun Out or School Suspension 3 6001055 Dodd Elementary Schoo/ 06 B M Ass.autt Out or School Suspens,oo 3 6001055 Dodd Elementary Schoo: 06 8 M Refused to obey Rule/O1recl1ve Out or School Suspen\u0026amp;ion 5 6001055 Dodd Elementary School 06 B M Thell Out or School Suspens10n 3 6001056 Geye\u0026lt; Spnngs Elementary School 06 B F POS$e$5,on of Weapon Out or School SuspenslOf'I 10 6001057 Mabelvale E lemen ta ry School 01 B M Refused lo obey Rule/01rect1ve Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001057 Mab elvlle Elementary S Ctlool 01 8 M Refused to obey Rule/O1reet1ve Out or School Suspens,o,, 5 6001057 Mabetvale Elementary School 01 B M Fighting Out or School Suspension 10  6001057 Ma betva le E iementa ry Scl\\00, 01 B M Ass.aun Out or School Suspens'\" 3 6001057 Ma belva le Elementary S-: ')()() 01 V,' M Rerused lo obey Rule/0,rect,ve Out or School Suspe\u0026lt;1!,,0t'1 3 6001057 Mabelvaie E iemen:.a'Y SchOo, 01 B F O1sorderty Conduct Out or School Suspensoon 10 6001~~ Maber.-.,e Eiementa') Sc~.oo 01 e M Rerused to ooey Rule/01rective Out or Scl'loOI Suspens.o,\n5 6001057 Maberva,e Elementa-y Scr-:x,, 01 E, M Rerused to obey Rule-01rect1ve Out or Scl'loOI Suspens-or 3 60C'1057 Maberva,e Eieme,.,:a1 Scnoo, 01 B M Rerused to ObeyR ule/011ec1,v, Out or School Suspe,,s-or. s 60010C7 Ma::\u0026gt;e\u0026lt;.-a,Eeo eme\u0026lt;1:a')S cr,::o 01 E M F,ght,ng Out or School Suspe\u0026lt;1s,or 3 83 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLl:\\'E D:.rs LE.A NO. SCHOOL GRADE RACE SEX INFRACTIOI. 6001057 Mabe/vale Elementa,y Scl'lool 02 B M ACTION TAKEN Refu~ lo obey Rule/Direct,..,, Out of Sci')()() Susi:,ens= .5 6001057 Mabelvaie Elementary Scnoo 02 B M Refu~ lo obey Rule/Direcuve Out of School Suspens,on .,-- 6001057 Ma betval e Elementary Schooi 02 B M Refu~ to obey Rule/Direct,ve Out of School S uspens,on 6001057 MabeM11e Elementary Schoo, 02 B M Assault Out or School Suspens,or- .\n6001057 Ma beMlle Elementary School 02 B M Usmg Foul' Abusive ungua'1' Out of School Svspens,on 1: 6001057 Mabe/vi le E iementa ry SchOol 02 B M Refused lo obey Rule/Dtrectrve Out or School Suspens,on 3 6001057 Ma be1vale Elementary SchOol 02 B 6001057 M Refused to obey Rule/D1recwe OIA of School Su~ 5 Mabelva le Elementary Schoo, 03 B F Refused to obey Rula/D11ec:tive OIA of School Suspensoon ~ 6001057 Mabe/vale E lemenlary Scnool 03 B M Thell 6001057 Mabe/valeE lementary Schoor 03 B Out of School Sus.pena,on 5 M U14ng Foul 0t Abu5ivLea nguage Out of Schools~ 6001057 Mabe/valeE lementary School 03 B M Refused to obey Rui.it\u0026gt;11ec:trve 3 6001057 Mabe/valeE lementary School 04 B Out of School SUSj)enl,IOn 3 6001057 Maw,,a le Elementary School M Us,ng Foul or Ab!Nv9 Langua~ Out or School Su\u0026amp;pension 3 04 B M Refused to obey Rule/011ectr,,e Out or School Siapension 3 6001057 Mat:ie1va1Eele mentary School 04 B M Fighting 6001057 Maw,,a1e Elemenbl ry School 04 B Out of Schools~ 5 6001057 Mabe!vM Elementary School M RtfUMd to obey Rule/011ectr,,e Out of Schools~ 5 04 B M Refused to obey R ule/01recttve Out or School Suspens.on 3 6001057 Mabelvale Elementary School 05 B 11001057 Mabelvaie Elemenwy School F RtlUMd to obey Rule/011ect,ve Out of School s~ 3 05 B M DIICrderty Conduct Out of Schools~ 2 11001057 MabefvaleE lementary School 05 B M Otlon:ler1y 6001057 Conduct oi.c of Schools~ 8 Mabe/vale Elementary School 05 B M Disderty Conduct Out of School~ 3 6001057 Mabe/valeE lementary School 05 B F Aauuft O.Jt or School~ 5 6001057 Mabe/vale Elemrltary School 05 B F 015ordeny Conduct 01.co f School~ 3 6001057 Mabe/valeE lementary School 06 B M RelUMd to obeyR ule/01rect1ve Out of Schools~ 3 6001057 Mabe/valeE lemenary School 06 B F Refusedl o obey Rule/01r1C1Ne out of Schools~ 3 6001057 Mabe/vale Elementary School 06 W F As.sault 6001057 Mabe/valeE ltmentary School 06 W Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001057 Mabe/valeE lementary School M Refused to obey Rule/D11ectNe Out or School Suspens,on 5 6001057 06 W M Disderty Conouct Out or School SUSpen$10(1 2 Mabelvale ElementaryS chool K B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out or School Suspens,oo 3 6001057 Mabelvale E ltmentary School K B M Hal'TUSment Out or School Suspens1011 5 6001057 Mabe/vale E ltmentary SchOol K B M ReflJ5td to obey Rule/D11ectNt Out or School Suspension 3 6001057 Mabelvale Elementary School K B M Fighting OUI of School Suspension 5 6001058 Otter Creelc Elementary School 06 B M Fighllng 6001059 Wakef1tldE lementary School 01 W M OUI of School Suspens10n 3 Fighting OUI or School Suspens10n 3 6001059 Wakefield Elementary School 01 B F Ui.1ng Foul Of Abusrve unguage OUI of School Suspens10n 3 6001059 WakefoeldE lementary School 02 B M Assault OUI of School Suspens,on 3 6001059 Wakefield Elementary School 02 B M Using Foul' Abusrve unguage OUI or School Suspens,c,,,  /' 60011')59 Wa kt f ltld Eltmentar y Schoo, 02 B M Using Foul Of AbuSNeu nguage OUI or School Suspens10n 6001059 Wake f ltld E ltmentary School 03 W F Fighting OUI or School Suspens,0.1 - 6001059 WakefieldE lementaryS chool 06 W M Fighting OUI or School Suspens10n 3 6001059 Wakef,eld ElementaryS chool 06 B M Using Foul or Abusive~ nguage OUI or School Suspens1CY1 3 6001059 Wakefield Elementary School 06 B M OISOrderty Conduct OUI or School Suspens'\" 5 6001059 Wakefoeld Elementary Schoo/ 06 B M Fighting Out or School Suspens1or. 3 6001060 Wat s.oo Elementary Scnool 02 B M Thell OUI of School Suspension 3 6001060 Walsoo Elementary School 02 B M lnd~E.Jc\nx,$ure OUI or School Suspens,o,, 5 6001060 Wats.oo Elementary School 03 0 M Banery OUI or School Suspens,on 3 6001060 Watson Elementary School 03 W M Refused to obey Rule/01recl1ve Out or School Suspension 4 6001060 Watson Elementary School 03 B M Fighting Out or School Suspension 3 6001060 Wats.oo Elementary School 04 B M Fighting Out or School Suspension 3 6001060 Wats.oo Elementary School 05 B M D1SOf'derty Conduct Out or School Suspens,on 5 6001060 Wats.oo Elementary SchOol 06 B M Then Out of Scl'lool Suspens10, 3 6001060 Watson Elementary School 06 B M Fighting OUI of School SuspenslOl'l 3 6001060 Wats.oo Elementary School 06 B M Fighting Out of School SuspenslOl'l 3 6001060 Wats.oo Elementary School 06 B M Fighllng OUI or School Suspens..on 3 6001061 Clo'ttrdale Jr High School 07 W M Refused to obey Rule/Directive OUI of School Suspens,on 3 6001061 C'\"'9fda le Jr High School 07 W M Fighting Out of School Suspension 7 6001061 CloverdaleJ r High School 07 W M Refusedl o obey Rule/01reetr,,,e Out of School Suspens..on s 6001061 CloverdaleJ r High School 07 B F Refused lo obey Rule/D1rectrve Out of School Suspension 5 6001061 CIOYerdale Jr High School 07 B M Refused lo obey Rule/01rect1ve Out of School Suspens10n 5 6001061 Clo-dale Jr High School 07 B M Refused lo obey Rule/D1rect,..,e OUI of School SuspenslO/'l 3 6001061 Cio-mdale Jr High School 07 B M Refused lo obey Rule/OirtclNe OUI of School Suspens10n 5 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School 07 B M 01S0rderty Conduct long Term Suspens,on S4 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High Schoo! 07 B F Refused to obey Rule/0,rect,..,e Out or School Suspension 5 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School 07 B F Refused to obey Rule/01rect1ve OUI or School Suspension 3 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High Schoo: 07 B M Fighting Out or School SuspenslOl'l 5 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School 07 B M D1sorderty Conduct Long Term Suspens10n 61 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School 07 B M Assautt OUI or School Suspens,on s 6001061 CloverdaleJ r High School 07 B M ReluM!d lo obey Rule/Otrtctrve Out or School Suspens10t'I 5 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School 07 B M D1sorderty Conduel long Term Suspens,Ot'I 75 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School 07 B M D1sorderty Conduct Out or School Suspension  6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School 07 B F Using Foul' Abusiveu nguage OUI or School Suspens10r. 6001061 Cloveroale Jr H,gh SCJ'\u0026gt;oo/ 07 B F Using Foul' Abusiveu nguage Out or Scl'IOol Suspens,or, 6001061 Cloveroa:e Jr H,gh SchOol 07 B M Fighting OUI or School Suspen~ 5 6001051 Cloverda:e Jr H,gh Schoo 07 W M Refused lo obey Rule/01rect1ve Out or School Suspension 3 600101 Cloveroaie Jr H,g'l SchOo 07 B M Assaul! Long Term Suspens10n 6v 6001 IX l Cloverdale Jr H,gh Scnoo 07 B M Reru~ to obey Ruie,'Direcltve Out or School SuspensO\"\\ 5 6001 OE l CIOveroa,e Jr H,9n Scnoo 07 6 M Using Foul' Abusive ungua,1e Out or School Suspen~ 3 60010.:::1 Cloveo.\n,e Jr H1g~ Sc~ 07 B F D1sorderty Conouci Out of School Suspens,on 10 8L. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLINE OAYS LEA NO. SCHOOL GRADE RACE SEX INFRACTION 6001061 Ciove\u0026lt;daoJer H,gh School 07 B M D1sor0eny Conduct ACTION TAKEN 6001061 Clow\u0026lt;oale Jr H,gh Scl\"IOOI 07 B M D1sordenyC onouc:1 Long Term Suspen!,,Qn 11 Out of School Suspens.,on 10 .~ 6001061 C io.e\u0026lt;dale Jr H ,gh School 07 B M Aisaun 6001061 Cio.e\u0026lt;dale Jr H,gh Schoo 07 W M F,gh~ng Long Terms~ 66 6001061 Clow\u0026lt;dale Jr H,gh Schoo' 07 B Out of School Suspens.on 5 6001061 Ciowwoal e Jr H ,gh School M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out of School Susper\\SIOl\"l 5 07 W M 01sor0eny Conduct 6001061 CkMfdale Jr High School 07 W Out of School Suspen5100 5 6001061 M Refused to obey Rule/Directr,oe Out of School Suspens,or, 3 Cla.wdaie Jr H ,gh Sc/loo 07 W M Then 6001061 eo..ro.1e Jr H,gh School 07 B Out of School S~ 3 6001061 F Refused to obeyR ule/Oarec:tr,,e Out of School Suspens.on 5 C~ Jr H,gh School 07 B M Fighting 6001061 eo..ro.1e Jr H,gh School 07 B oi.a of Schools~ 5 6001061 F Refused to obey Rule/Oirectrv-e Out of School~ 5 C~ie Jr H,gh School 07 8 F Refusedt o obey Rule/011-=tr,,e CIA of Sc:hoc)j ~ 3 6001061 C~le Jr H,gh School 07 B F Dtlorderty Conduc:1 longTe,m~ 11 6001061 C~le Jr H,gh School 07 B F U1111g e001061 FOUio r Abustw Languag,e Oi.t or Sc:hoc)j Suspet'al()n 3 C~ Jr H,gh School 07 B M Refused to obey Rule./Oirec:we Out of Sc:hoc)j ~ 3 \u0026amp;001061 Clc7ww-aaJ1rt H,gh School 07 B e001061 M Oasonlerty Conduc:1 Long Term ~ 76 Clc,,,,wisaiJer High School 07 B M Refused to obey Rul\u0026amp;IDirecw, e001061 C~ Jr High School 07 B Out of School~ 3 6001061 Fl~~re Oi.t or Sc:hoc)j Suspensior, 5 ~le Jr H,gh School 07 W M Refused to obey Rule/Oirec:tr,,e Out of School Suspensior, 3 e001061 Clowrdale Jr H,gh School 07 B F Then \u0026amp;001061 Clc,,,,wisa1Jtr H,gh School 07 B Long Tann ~ 31 6001061 Clo.wda._ Jr H,gh School F Uling Fou or Abu\u0026amp;lwL anguape Out or Sc:hoc)j ~ 5 07 B M Fighting \" e001061 CiowrdalJt r H,gh Scoool 07 W of Sc:hoc)j ~, 5 6001061 M Refused to obeyR ule/Oirect,w OIJotSehool~ 10 ~It Jr H,gh School ! 07 B M F,ghtmg Out of Sc:hoc)j S~ 5 6001061 Clo-Ndale Jr H,gh School 07 B M 01sor0eny Conduct Out of SchoolS uspen510n 5 6001061 CioYerdaleJ r High School 07 B F F,ghong Out or School Suspens,on 5 6001061 Clowfda le Jr H ,gh School 07 B M Refused to obey Rule/Oirectr,,e Out of Sc:hoc)j Suspens,on 3 6001061 CloverdaleJ r H ,gh School 07 B M F,ghong Out of Schools~ 5 6001061 CioYerdale Jr High School 07 B M Fighting Out of Sc:hoc)j Suspel\"\\SIOn 5 6001061 C'\"'9rdaleJ r H,gh School 07 B M F,ght1ng Out of School SUSpen$10(1 3 6001061 CioYerdale Jr H,gh School 07 B M Indecent Exposure Long Term Susl)enSIOn 11 6001061 Cicwe\u0026lt;daleJ r High School 07 B F 01sorderty Conduci Out of School Suspen$1011 3 6001061 Cloverdale Jr H Igh School 07 B M Ex!Ottion. Btackma1 1. 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School Coerc,on Long Term Suspens,on 45 07 B M Indecent f.J(posure Out of School Suspen5'0/1 10 6001061 Cloverdale Jr H,gh School 07 B F F,ghhng Out of School Suspen510n 5 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High Schoo 07 B M Refused to obey Rule/Oirecttve Out of School Suspel'!S'\" 3 6001061 CioYerdale Jr Hoph School 07 B F Use or Paging Devices Out of School Susp ~s10n 10  6001061 Cloverdale Jr H,\n,h School 07 B M DISOfdenyC onduct Out of School Suspens'\" 10 6001061 Cloverdale Jr H,gh Schoo 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Oirec1ive Out of School Suspens,on 5 6001061 Cicwe\u0026lt;dale Jr H ,gh School 08 W 6001061 Cloverda, e Jr H ,gh Schoo M Refused to obey Rule/Directtve Out of School Suspens.on 5 6001061 08 W M Refused to obey Rule/Direc:ove Out of School Suspens.on 3 Cicwe\u0026lt;daleJ r High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Ou: of School SuspenS10n 3 6001061 CioYerdale Jr High School 08 B M U51ngF oul or Abus,ve Language Out of School S uspenSIO.., 3 6001061 Cic\u0026gt;Ve\u0026lt;dalJer High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspension 5 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High Schoo, 08 B M Aisaun Long Term Suspens,on 11 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/01rec11Ve Ou! of School Suspens,on 5 6001061 Clove\u0026lt;daleJ r High School 08 W M Refused to obey Rule/D1rect1ve Out or School Suspens,oo s 6001061 C ioo,erdale Jr High School 08 B M DISOl\"denyC onduct Out of School Suspens,on 5 6001061 CioYerdale Jr High Schoo, 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Oirect,ve Out or School Suspens.on 5 6001061 CioYerdaleJ r High Schoo, 08 B M Ref1.1sed to obey Rule/Direc~ve Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001061 Cloverdale Jr H ,gh Schoo: 08 B M Using Foul or Abus,ve Language Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001061 CioYerdale Jr High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/D1rec~ve Out of School Suspens,on 5 6001061 Cic\u0026gt;Ve\u0026lt;dalJer High Schoo 08 B M 01sor0eny Conduci Out of School SusJ)er\\$10(1 5 6001061 CkMl\u0026lt;dale Jr High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Dlrectr\ne 01.t of School~ 3 6001061 CkMl\u0026lt;oale Jr High School 08 B M Diso,derty Conduci Long T em, SUS,pen51on 11 6001061 Clowrdale Jr H ,gh School 08 B M DJSordeny Conduct OIA or Schools~ 5 6001061 Clovt\u0026lt;dille Jr H,gh School 08 W M Milhcious Mischief/ Vandalism Out of School SU$pens100 3 6001061 Cioveroale Jr High Scl'\\oc)j 08 W M Refused to obey Rule/Directive out or School s~IOO 3 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School 08 B F Refused to obey Rule/01reci1ve Out or School SUSpet\\$10(1 3 6001061 Cloveroa le Jr High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/D11ect1ve Out or School Svspen~ 3 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School 08 B M Using Foul' Abusive Language Out of School SU$pens.,o,, 3 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High Scl'\\oc)j 08 B M Harrusment Ou! of School SuspenslOO 3 6001061 ClovNdale Jr High School 08 B M Aisaun Long Term Suspens,on 114 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/DrrectJve Out of School Suspens,on 2 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High Scl'\\oc)j 08 B F Assaun Out of School Suspens,on 10 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspens'\" 3 6001061 Cic\u0026gt;Ve\u0026lt;dalJer High Sct-.oci 08 B M Refus.ed lo obey Rule/Directive Ou! or School Suspen~ 3 6001061 Cio,,erdale Jr High Schoo 08 B M Rerused to obey Rule/Direc11ve Out of School Suspens10r1 5 6001061 Cioveldait Jr High School 08 W M Refused to obey Rule/Direc11ve Out of School Suspens,or, 3 6001061 Cloverdale Jr High Sctioo. 08 B M Refus.ed lo Obey Rule/D1rec:1Ne .Out of School Suspens,or-, 5  6001061 Cloverdale Jr High Scnoo 08 B M Battery Out of School Susperu,on  6001061 C low\u0026lt;oa le Jr H ,g h Schoo, 08 W M Refused to obey Rule/D,rtet,ve Out of School Suspen~ 3 6001061 Clove\u0026lt;oale Jr H,gr, Schoo 08 B M Refus.ed lo obey Rule.iD,rec:t,ve Out of School Su~n~ 3 6001061 Ciove\u0026lt;oaoeJ r H,\n~ Schoo 08 B M Harra~nl Out of School Suspen~ 3 60010C1 ClovNca,e Jr H,gh Su-,oo 08 B M Refused lo obey Rule/D11ectrve Out of School Suspen~ 5 60010CI Ciove\u0026lt;oa,e Jr H.g'1 Sct\\oo 08 B M Relused to obey Rule/Directrve Out or School Susperu,ori 5 6X10C\\ C oov~ oa ,e Jr H ig., Scr.o.:,. 06 B M Refu$8d lo obey Rule..D,rec\\ive QUI of SchOol Su~ns,on 3 85 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLl'.\\E LE.A NO SCH00L GRADE RACE SEX lt\nfRACTION ACTION TAKE'- c.:.vs 60010C1 Clc\u0026gt;Ye\u0026lt;dalJer Ho\u0026lt;JhS .ChoOI 09 B M 0150\u0026lt;0ertyC ond Jd Long Term Suspen!\u0026gt;'OI\"' . C 60010C1 Clc\u0026gt;Ye\u0026lt;daiJer H,gl'l School 09 B M 0150\u0026lt;0enyC onouct OUI of Sc.hoolS uspen$,IOI'\\ ,,... 60010C1 C,0,,Wdale Jr H,gh Schoo 09 B M Maltcoous M1s.choeIf Vanaa,1sm OUI of School S uspens,01'1 6001061 C io--da le Jr H ,g h School 00 B M Fighting OUI of Sc.hool S uspens,on 6001061 C lc\u0026gt;Ye\u0026lt;dalJer H ,gh School 09 B M 01sorderty Conduct OUI of Sc.hool Suspensoon  6001 oc., C ,o,,wcia le Jr H ,g h School 09 B F F1ght1ng OUI of Sc.hool Suspens,on 6001061 Cioo.erdale Jr H,gh SchoOI 09 B M Fighting OUI of School Suspension ~ 6001061 C ioo.ercilae Jr H ,gh Sc.hool 09 B F 0150\u0026lt;dertyC onduct OUI of School Suspen\"'\" IC 6001061 CloY9rciale Jr High School 09 B M Refused to obey Rule/01redlve OUI of School Suspension 1: 6001061 Clc:7,oe(dlea J r High School 09 8 M Disorderly Conduct OUI or School Suspen5IOCI 1C 6:Xl1061 CloYwdale Jr High SGhool 09 8 M Refused to obey Rule/OirectNe Out or School SU$pen5oon \" 6001062 Ma.belvaJJre H igh Schoo, 02 8 M F,gh!Jng Out or School suspens.,on ~ xl1062 Mabe/vale Jr H ,gh SGhool 07 8 F F,ghllng Out or School SulpenS,IOt\\ 3 eoo1052 Ma belvale Jr High SGhool 07 B F F,ghllng Out or School Suspen510l'1 3 eoo1052 Mabe/vale Jr High SGhool 07 W M F,ghhng Out or Schools~ 3 e001062 Mlbelvale Jr High SGhool 07 8 M F.19hllng Out or School suspension 3 e001062 Mibelvale Jr High School 07 8 M Refused lo obey Rule/DHc:tNe Out or Schools~ 3 xl1062 Mibelvale Jr High SGhool 07 8 M DISOl\"dert\nCooduc:t out or Schools~ 10 e001062 Mlbelvale Jr High School 07 8 M Disorderly Cooduc:t Out or School Suspension 10 e001062 Mlbelvale Jr High School 07 8 M Use/Pou. Drvgs (1st) Out of School Suspe!l$1011 3 e001062 M\u0026amp;belvalJer High School 07 W F Fighting Out or School SuspenslOl'l 3 e001062 MibelvaloJer High School 07 8 F Fighllng Out of School Suspen510n 6 e001062 Mlbetvale Jr H,gh School 07 8 F DISOrderty Cooduc:t Out or School Suspetl$10(1 8 e001062 Mabe/vale Jr H ,gh School ! 07 B F UM of P1g1ng Oevioes Out of School Suspen$10(1 10 6001062 MabetvaleJ r H,gh School 07 8 M Use/Pos.s. Drugs (1s!) Out or School SuspenslOl'l 3 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High School 07 B M Using Foul or AbuSNe Language Out of School Suspension 1C 6001062 Ma beM le Jr H 1g h School 07 8 M Refused to obey Rule/01rechve Out or School Suspens,on s 6001062 Ma be/vale Jr H 1gh School 07 8 M Refused to ooey Rule/Oorectrve Out or School Suspens,on s 6001062 Mabe!vlle Jr H,gh School 07 8 M Offense noC Mentioned Long Term Suspensoon 5c 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High School 07 B M Figh!Jng Out or School Suspensoon 3 6001062 Mabe/vale Jr H,gh School 07 8 M Fighting Out or School Suspens,on 3 6001062 Mabe/vale Jr High School 07 B M Fighting Out or School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabe/vale Jr High Sch\u0026lt;:lci 07 8 M Using Foul or AbuSNe Language Out or School Suspensoon 5 5001062 Mabe/vale Jr H,gh Schoo: 07 8 M F,ghllng Out or School Suspens,on 3 6001062 Mabe/valeJ r High School 07 8 M F,ghllng Out of Sch\u0026lt;:lciS uspension 3 6001062 MabetvaleJ r H,gh School 07 8 M Refused to ooey Rule/Doreci1ve Out or School Suspension :\u0026gt; ,,. 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High SchcY\u0026gt;I 07 8 M F1ghl1ng Out of School Suspension 6001062 MabetvaleJ r M1ghS chool 07 8 F D1sorderty Conduct Out or Schoo Suspens10., -~ 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High School 07 8 F Refused to obey Rule/Oorectrve Out or School Suspension 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High School 07 8 F Disorderly Conduct Out of School Suspensoon 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 07 8 F Fighting Out or School Suspension 6 6001062 Mabeh,-ale Jr High Sc:hooi 07 8 M Refused to obey Rule/Oorect,ve Out or School Suspension 3 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High SchOO: 07 8 M Refused to obey Rule/Oorect1ve Out or School Suspens,on 7 600102 MabetvaleJ r H,gh Schoo 07 8 M Verbal Assault on Staff Long Term Suspension e~ 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 07 B M Refused to obey Rule/Oorect1ve Out of School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabe/vale Jr High School 07 8 M Refused lo obey Rule/OorectJve Out or School Suspensioo 3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 07 8 M Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Out or School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High Schoo 07 8 M Refused to obey Rule/Dorectrve Out of School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabe/vale Jr High School 07 8 M Refused lo obey Rule/01rect1ve Out or School Suspensoon ,: 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High SchOo' 07 B M Refused lo obey Rule/Directive Out or School Suspens,o.~ 3 60010C2 Mabetvale Jr High School 07 8 M Refused lo obey Rule/Oorectrve Out or Schoo Suspens10., 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 07 8 M Refused lo obey Rule/Dorect,ve Out or School Suspens10n 3 60010C2 MabetvaleJ r High Schoo' 07 8 F Fighting Out or School Suspension 10 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High School 07 B F Refusedto ooey Rule/Directive Out of 5ehool Suspens10n 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 07 8 F Refused to obey Rule/Dorecllve Out or 5ehool SuspenSIOO 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 07 8 F Fighting Out or School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 07 W M Refused lo ooey Rule/Direclrve Out or School Suspensoon 3 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High School 07 W M Refused to ooey Rule/Direchve Out or School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 07 8 F Fighting Oi,t or 5ehool Suspens10n 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 07 8 F Physical Assautot r Statf Out of School Suspens100 10 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High School 07 8 M Refused lo obey Rule/Oorectrve Out or School Suspens100 3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 07 W M Fighting Out of School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 07 8 M Refused lo rey Rule/Oorect1ve Out or School Suspension s 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 07 8 M Refused lo obey Rule/Dorect1ve Out or School Suspens101'1 3 6001062 MabetvaleJ r H 1ghS chool 07 8 M Refused lo obey Rule/01rect1ve Out or School Suspensoon 7 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 07 8 M Refused lo obey Rule/Dorect1ve Out of School Suspens100 10 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 07 8 M Refused lo obey Rule/Dorect1ve Out of School Suspens101'1 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 07 8 M F1ght1ng Out or School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabelvaie Jr High Schoo' 07 W M F1ght1ng OUI or School Suspension s 600102 Mabelvaie Jr High Schoo' 07 V M Refused lo obey Rule/01rect1ve Out or School Suspensoon ~ 60010C2 Mabelvale Jr H,gh SchOO 07 8 M Refused to obey Rule10orect1ve Out of School Suspens,on : 60010C2 Mabelvaie Jr H,,h SchOd 07 W F Disorderly Conduct OUI of School Suspension -~ 60010:.\"\"2 Mabelva1e Jr H,gh SchOd 07 8 M D1SOtderly Conduct Out of School Suspensoon 60010C2 Mabe1..-aieJ r H,9~ ScMo' 07 8 F Refus.ed to obey Rule/01rect,ve OUI of School Suspension 3 60010C2 Mabel.-ale Jr H,\nh Schoo 07 8 F Refused to obey Rule Directive Out of SchOOi Suspension 3 6001C,~ Mabetva,e Jr H,\n~ Scl'lOO 07 V,' M Disorderly Conduct OUI or School S\nspens,on 3 6X1~\"\"2 Mat\u0026gt;et,-a,eJ r H,01 $_.nx,, 07 V M O,sorderty Conouct OUI of Scl'lOOIS Jspens,o,, 6 86 LITTLE ROCh: SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLil\\E o.:.vs LEA t-.0. SCHOOL GRADE RACE SEX INFRACTION 60010C2 MabetvaleJ r High Schoo 07 B ACTION TAKEN 600102 Mabe!va M Refuse\u0026lt;Jl o Obey Rule/Oirect1ve Ou, of Schoo SusoenslO\".  ,e Jr High Schoo 07 B F Disoroer1y Conauc:1 - 600102 MabetvaleJ r High Schoo 07 B F Fighung Out of Schoo SuspenslO\" ,: Out of Scr1001S uspens10\u0026lt;1 ~ 600102 Mabe/vale Jr High Scl\"lOOI 07 B M lnd=t~re 600102 Mat\u0026gt;e1va1Jer High Scl\"lOOI 07 B OJI of School Suspens10\u0026lt;1 3 F Refused lo Obey Rule/Directive Ou, of School Suspens10\u0026lt;1 ~ 600102 Mat\u0026gt;e!vaieJ r H 1gh School 08 B l500102 Ma be1vale M U5'ng Foul ot AbusiveL anguage Out of School SuspenS\u0026gt;Ol\"I 1C Jr High School 08 B F D1sorderty Condud 600102 Ma be/valeJ r H ,gh Schoo 08 B F Dl$()(derty Condud Out of School Suspen$\u0026gt;00 1C l5001062 MabeMle Jr H,gh School 08 B F Dl$()(derty Condud Out of School S USpetlS\u0026gt;Ol\"I  l5001062 MabelvaleJ r H,gh School 08 B M DISOl\"dertyC ondud Out or School Susperl$10(1 10 l5001062 Mabe/Yale Jr High Schooi 08 B Out or School Suspen$1()n 2 F DISOrderty Condud l5001062 Mabe,'-valJer High School 08 B M Use or Paging Long Term Suspen$10(\\ 6e DeVIOeS l5001062 Ma betvaleJ r H ,gh School 08 B Long Term Suspension 1~ !5001062 M Refused to obey Rule/Directr,,e Out or School SuspenslOl'1 3 Mabe!vale Jr High School 08 B F OISOrderlyC ondud !5001062 Mabe,'-valJer H ,gh School 08 B Out or School SuspenslOl'1 3 F O15CKdertCy ondud Out of School Sus.pen$10(1 !5001062 Mabe/valeJ r High School 08 B F Refused lo obey Rule/01rectr,,e 1C l5001062 Mabe/'valeJ r High School 08 B Out or School SU$pef\\510n 5 F Fighung l5001062 Mabe/vle.a J r High School 08 B Out or School Su~ 6 F U51ng Foul orA busiveL ing~ Out of School Suspens,on l5001062 Mabe/valeJr High School 08 B F Fighting 10 eoo1002 Mlbelva le Jr High School 08 B Out of School Suspension 6 !5001062 Mab elva M Rell/Md lo obey Rule/Oirectr,,e Out of School Suspetl510n 3 le Jr H ,gh School 08 B M DISOrdfof1Cy ond l5001062 Mabe/valeJ r H,gh School l ct Long Term Susl)enMC)n 3 06 B F O1SO(d~-rCtyo nduct !5001062 Mabe!val e Jr High School 08 B Out or School Suspens101'1 5 F ONense not MentJoned eoo1052 Mabe/valeJ r H ,gh School 06 B M Fighting Out or School SU$peOSIC)r1 5 !5001062 Mabe/valeJ r H IQh School 06 B Out or School Sus.penslOl'1 5 !5001062 Mabe/valeJ r High Schoo M Refused to obey Rule/Directrve Out or School Suspen$1()1\"l 3 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out or School Suspens= 3 !5001062 Mabe/valeJ r High School 08 B M UWPO$S. Drugs (1st) Out or School Suspens.on 3 6001062 MabelvaieJ r High Schoo 08 B F OISO(derlyC onduct Out of School Suspension 10 600102 Ma be/vale Jr H,g h School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directrve Out of School Suspension 3 6001062 MabervaleJ r High School 08 B M O1sordertyC onduct Out or School Suspens10-, 2 6001062 Mabe/valeJ r High Scl\"lool 08 B M Disorderly Conduct Out of School Suspens,o., 5 6001062 Mabelva,eJ r High Sehool 08 B M Using Foul or Abusrve Language Out of SctlOOIS uspension 5 600102 MabelvaleJ r High School 08 B F Usmg Foul or AbusrveL anguage Out of School Suspension 5 600102 Ma belva le Jr H,g h Scr.oo, OS B F Using Foul or Abusrve Language Out or School Suspension ~ 600102 Mabe/vale Jr High School 08 B F F,ghung Out of School Suspens10.,  600102 Mabel-nle Jr High SchOO, OS B F Refused to l'lbey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspens10-, 3  600102 MAbe/vaJier High Schoo 08 B M L'sing Foul or Abusive Language Out or School Suspension 5 600102 MabelvilleJ r High Schoo- 08 B M Gambling Out or SchoolS uspens10.., 5 600102 MabetvaleJ r High Schoo 08 B M D1sorder1yC onduct Long Term Suspens10n\n600102 Mabe/valeJ r High Scnro 06 8 M Refused to obey Rule/Directrve Out or School Suspens10, ,o 600102 Mabelville Jr High Scnoo, 0/lW M Use/Po$$ Drugs (1sl) Out or School Suspension 3 600102 Mabelvale Jr High Scrioo\noa B M llerbal Assault on Staff Out or SchoolS us\n\u0026gt;ens1on : 600102 MabetvaleJ r High Schoo: 08 B M Uw of PagingD eVICe-5 Out or School Suspens o-, ,: : 600102 Mabetv.le Jr High Schc,c. 08 B M Fighting Out of School Sus.-ens1on 3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 08 W M Refused to obey Rule/Directrve Out or School Suspension 3 600102 Mabe/vale Jr High School 08 W M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out or School Suspens,on 3 600102 Mabetv.le Jr Htgh School 08 B M O1sorder1y Conduct Out or School Suspens10., 3 600102 Mabelvale Jr High School 08 B M llerbal Assaun on Staff Out or School Suspension 3 600102 Mabel.-ale Jr High Schoo 08 W M Use/PO$$ Drugs (1st) Out or School Suspension 3 600102 Mabervaie Jr High Schoo 08 W F F,ghttng Out of School Suspens10n 3 6001002 Mabelvale Jr High Schro 08 B M Assault Out or School Suspension 3 600102 Mabetv.,e Jr High Sct-.oo: 08 B M D1sorder1y Conduct Out of School Suspension 10 6001062 Mabetv.le Jr High Scl\"lool 08 B M D1sorder1y Conduct Out or School Suspension 3 6001002 MabelvaleJ r High School 08 B F O1sorder1y Conduct Out or School Suspension 8 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 08 B F Fighting Out of School Suspension  6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out Of School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 08 B M Then Out or School Suspension -3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/OirectJve Out or School Suspension 10 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 08 B M Assault Out ot School Suspension s 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out or School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High Schoo, 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Dtrect1vt Out of School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 08 B F Fighting Long Term Suspens,on 11 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspension 3 6001002 Mabelva1e Jr High School 08 B M Disorderly Conduct Long Term Suspension -:' 6001062 Mabeivale Jr High Schoo 08 B M Disorderly Conduci Out of School Suspension 5 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High SChOOi 08 B M Assault Out of School Suspens,on 10 600102 Mabetvale Jr H1g'l Schoo. 08 B M Disorderly Conducl Out ot School Suspens,on s 600102 Mabervaie Jr High Schoo 08 B M D1sorder1t C0nc1.x:1 Out of School Suspens,on 5 6001062 Maoe1,.iie Jr High Scnro  08 B M Fighting Out or School Suspens,o.,, 3 60010C2 Ma:\u0026gt;el,a,e Jr High Schro 08 W M UWPO$S Drugs (1st) OU1 of School Suspens1o-n 3 6001 OC2 Mabetvaie Jr H\n'l Scr,:,o 08 W M Gambling Out of School Suspens,or, 5 60010C2 Ma:ie1.-a e Jr H,g'1 Schoo 08 B M Refuse\u0026lt;J to obey Rule.'DirKtrve Out of School Suspens= ~ 6001 ~--\n, Ma:ie1.-aie Jr H,g'l Scr-.o.:, 08 B M Ba~ery Out of School Suspens,or, 5 6X10C2 1,1.a:,er,a,eJr H-\nh Sc\"KX\u0026gt; 08 B M Refused to o~y Rule,'D1recti.e Out of School Suspenr..or, 3 6,X1~--: Ma:,e,,a,e Jr H,\n'l Sc\"-, 08 B F D1sordelly Cono.x:1 OJI of School Sus\n:,en~IO\" 1C s.x:::.c:, Ma:,ec,aie Jr H,\n, 5cnoc, 06 8 M The~ 01.11 of Schoo Suspens.,or 5 87 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLINE D.t.YS LEA NO. SCHOOL GRADE RACE SEX INFRACTIOI, 60010C:' Mabe/YaleJ r H,gh Schoo 08 B M F1ght1ng ACTION TAKEN Ou, or Schoo, Suspen5\"0\", ., 6001062 Mat\u0026gt;et,aleJ r H,gh Schoo 08 B M Fighting Ou, of Schoo S uspe,, s..ori r 6001062 Mabe/YaleJ r High Schoo 08 W F 01so,derty Conduct 600106:' MatlelvaleJ r H,gh Schoo 08 W OU1o f Sehool S usoens.o,, ' 6001062 Matlelvale Jr H ,gh Sc.noo, F Refused to ObeyR ule/Oirecwe Ou, of School Sus~ 3 08 W F RefLtsed lo Obey Rule/Oirect,ve Ou, or Schools~ 5 6001062 Mabelvale Jr H ,gh School 08 B 6001062 Mabe/valeJ r H,gh Schoo M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out or School Su~ - eoo1052 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/Oirectr.,e Out or Schools~\nMa belvale Jr H ,gh School 08 B M RefuMkS lo obey Rule/01rect,w Out or School Suspet'15,0n 4 eoo1002 Ma belvale Jr H,gh School 08 B M Refused to obey Rule/D,rectr,,e Out or School Sus.penso, 3 eoo1002 Ma~le Jr H,gh Schoo, 08 B M RefUMd to obey Rul\u0026amp;'Oirective Out of School Suspens.on 3 eoo1002 Mabe/valeJ r H,gh School 08 B M Refused to obey RUie/Directive Out of School S1JSpen51on 3 eoo1002 Mabe/vale Jr H ,gh School 09 B M Refused to obey Rule!OirectMi Out of School Suspen5o0n 3 9001062 Mabe/vi le Jr H,gh School 09 B M Arson Out or School~ 6 9001062 Mabe/vale Jr H,gh School 09 B M Refused to obey Rule/Oirecttw Out or Schools~ 3 e001062 MabeNu Jr H,gh School 09 B M U51ng Foul' Abusrte uinguage Out or School Suspens,on 3 eoo1062 Mabe!vale Jr H ,gh School 09 B M U5ing Foul' Abu$,ye uinguage Out of School Suspens.on 3 eoo1062 Mabe/vale Jr H,gh School 09 W M Len School wto Pel'ITlll.5lon Out of School Suspena.,ot1 3 eoo1062 Mabe/valeJ r H ,gh School 09 B M U51ng Foul orA bust,,e uinguage Out or School s~tl$10(1 3 eoo1062 MablwvaleJ r H ,gh School 09 B M Refused to obey Rula!OirectNe Out or School Suspens.on 3 eoo1062 MablwvaleJ r H,gh School 09 W M Fighllng Out or Schools~ 3 eoo1062 Mabe/vale Jr H,gh School 09 W F Fighllng Out or School Suspens..on 3 e001062 MabeMle Jr H,gh School 09 B M 0150rderly Conduct Out or Schools~ 10 eoo1062 Mabe/valeJ r H,gh School 09 B F DISOrderlyC onduct l.ongTennSLIS!)enl.lOn 74 eoo1062 MabeMie Jr H,gh School 09 B M Len School w/o PerTT11$$10n Out or School Suspen$\u0026gt;0(1 3 6001062 Mabe1vlea Jr H,gh School 09 B F F,ghllng Out or Schools~ 3 eoo1062 Mabe/vale Jr H ,gh School 09 B M Refused to obey Rule/OirectJve Out or School Suspens.on 3 6001062 Mabe/vale Jr High Schoo 09 B M Gambllng Out or School Suspens,on 3 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High Schoo 09 B M OHense no1 Menl.ooned 600106:2 MabetvaieJ r H,gh School 09 B Out or Schools~ 10 M Verbal A5Wult oo Staff Out or School Suspens.on 10 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High Schoo 09 B M Refused lo obey Rule/Oirectr.,e Out or School Suspens,on 3 6001062 Ma be/vii le Jr H ,gh School 09 B M Refused to obey Rule/Direaive Out or School Suspens,ori 3 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High School 09 B M Use or Paging Devices Out or School Suspens,on 10 6001062 Mabelvale Jr High Schoo' 09 B F D1so,derty Conduci Out or School Suspens,o, 5 6001062 Mabe/ville Jr H,gh Schoo 09 B M Refused to obey Rule/Dareci1ve Out or School S uspens,on 3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High Schoo 09 B M Banery Out or SchooSl uspensior1  6001062 Mabe/valeJ r High Schoo. 09 B M Rerused to obey Rule/Oireaive Out or School Suspens,on /' 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High Schoo 09 B M F,ghl1ng 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High Schoo 09 W M Out or School Suspens10\u0026lt;1 D1so,der1yC onduct Out or SchooSl uspens10., ~ 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High Schoo 09 B F F1ghl1ng Out or SchooSl uspens10.- 3 6001062 Mabe/vale Jr High Schoo 09 B M F1ghhng Out or School Suspension 3 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High Schoo 09 B F Banerv Long Term Suspen=, ss 6001062 MabetvaleJ r High School 09 B F D1so,derty Conduct Out or School Suspension 10 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High Schoci 09 W M Ftgh~ng Out or School Suspens10:-i ~ 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 09 B F 01so,derty Conduci Out or School Suspension 10 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High Schooj 09 B M Refused to obey Rule/01rect1ve Out of School Suspens10, 3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 09 B M Arson Out of School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High Schoci 09 W M Refused lo obey Rule/Oirecllve Out or School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 09 W M Refused to obey Rule/D1rect1ve Out or School Suspens10'1 3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High Schoo: 09 W M Then Out or School Suspens10\u0026lt;1 3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 09 B M Refused to obey Rule/Oireclr.,e Out or School Suspension 3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High Schoo: 09 B M Refused lo obey Rule/D1reclive Out of School Suspens10'1 3 60010C2 Mabetvale Jr High Schoo: 09 B M Use of Weapon Long Term SuspenSI0/1 45 6001062 Mabe/vale Jr High Schoo: 09 B M Refused to obey Rule/Oireci1ve Out of School Suspension 6 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 09 B M Refused to obey Rule/Oarec:tive Out of School Su$pffl$1on 5 6001062 Mabe/vale Jr H ,gh School 09 B M Disorderly CondUd Out or School Suspension 5 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High School 09 B M Refused lo obey Rule/Olreclr.,e Out of School SuspenS10n 3 6001062 Mabe/vale Jr High School 09 B M Refused lo obey Rule/DirectJve Out or School Suspension .10 6001062 Mabe/vale Jr High Schoo: 09 B M Refused lo obey Rule/Directive Out or School Suspef\\S!On 3 6001062 Mabetvale Jr High SchOO! 09 B M Offense no1 Mentioned Long Term Suspension 71 6001063 f1ir High School 02 B F Disorderly Conduct Out of School Suspension 4 5001053 F1lr High Schoci 08 B F D1soroer1yC onduct Out of School Suspension 8 6001063 f11r High School 09 B M Banery Out or School Sui.pension 10 6001063 F11r High School 09 B M Refused lo obey Rule/01recl1ve Out or School Suspension 3 6001063 Fair High School 10 B M Refused lo obey Rule/D1rect1ve Out or School Suspension 6 6001063 Fair High School 10 B M Refused lo obey Rule/D1rect1ve Out or School Suspension 10 6001063 Fair High School 10 B F Use or Paging Dev= Out or School Suspension 10 6001063 Fair High School 10 B M F,ghling Out or School Suspension 5 6001063 Fair High School 10 B F Assaur. Long Term Suspension  6001063 Fair H1gll SCl',ool 6001063 Fair H,gll Schoo' 10 B M Banery Long Term Suspens,on 10 B M D1so,derty Conduct Out or School Suspension I ( 6001063 Fair High School 6001063 F1 1rH 1gn Schoo 10 B M Refused to obey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspens,ori 10 w M Refused to obey Rule/D1rec~ve Out or School Suspens,o,, 10 60010C3 Fav High Sc.hoo, 10 B F 01so,der1y Conduct Out ol School Suspens,on 3 6001063 F11r H,gri Serio:,. 10 B M Refused lo Obey Rule/D1rectr.,e Out or School Suspens= 3 6001()\",,3 Fa~ H,,~ Sc.hoo, 10 6 F Reluseo lo Obey R ule.'D1rectr.,e Out or SchOol Suspens,on 3 6001063 F11r H,g~ Sc~ 10 6 F Refused to Obey Rule/D1rect1ve OU1 of SchOol Suspens,ori s 6001ue3 F-av h,\n'1 Sc,\"\u0026gt;Oc, 10 E M Ar.saun Long Term Su~. E.3 RH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLI:\\'E LEA NO. SCHOOL GRADE RACE SEX INFRACTION ACTION TAKEI', Ot.Y! 6'.Xl1 OC3 Fu H,gh Sc.hooi 10 6 6001063 Fair H,gh Schoo, M Refused to Obey Rule/D11ecti.e Out or School Suspensior .- 10 B F Refused lo Obey Rule/D1rec~ve ., 6001063 Fair H1g1'S1c hOol 10 B F D1soroeny Conouo Out or School Suspens'\" . 6001063 FI ll H,gh Schoo, 10 B F Fighting LO/'lgT erm Suspen~ s Out of School Suspens,on ~ 6001063 F II' H 1g h School 10 B M F1grit1ng 6001063 Fair H.gh School 10 B Out or School Suspens,on 1: M Refused lo obey Rule/Directrve Out or School Suspens.on 2 6001063  Fu High School 10 B M Refused lo Obey RuleJDlfective Out of School S us.iens= 3 6001063 Fu High School 10 B M Use/Poss Df\\Jgs (151) Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001063 Fair High School 10 B M Fighting 6001063 Fu High School 10 B F A$Yun OU! of SchoolS uspefl$10n 5 6001063 Fu High School 10 B Long Term Suspens.on SE 6001063 FI ll High School  M Refused lo obey Rule/DlfeciNe Out of School Sua,pension 3 10 B F Refused to obey Rule/Diracwe Out or SchoolS uspen$10(1 3 eiOO10 63 : FI ll High School 10 B F DISOroertyC onc:1ue1 eiOO10 63 : FI I High School 10 B F Thell Out of Schcd Suspens,on 10 ei0010 63  FI I High School 10 B Out of School Suspen510r1 3 M U1.1ng FOUi or Abusive LlnguaQe eiOO10 63 . Fu High School 10 B Out of Schools~ ,c eiOO10 63 .' Fu High School \"' S.t1ery Out of School Suspen$10(1 10 10 B M Assault eiOOI0 63 : Fu High School 10 B M Disorderly Conduel Long Term Suspenso, 63 ei0010 63 : Flit High School 10 B Out of School S uspe!'ISIOn ,c 8JO1 0 63  Far High School M Refused lo obey Rull/Oiractr,,e Out of School Suspen$10rl 3 10 B M F,ghbng eiOO10 63 , Fu High School 10 B Out of School Suspension 5 eiOO0I 63 . Fair High School M UwPos.5. 0tvgs (1st) Out of School Suspen$10n 3 10 B M Oisorderty Conduel 9001063 . Fair High School 10 B LongTwm~ E'2 M Relus.ed lo obey Rula/Diractr,,e Out ot School S~ 3 ei001063 . F 11r High Schoo' 10 B M \u0026amp;t1ery ei001063 FIi/' High School 10 B Long Term Suspen\u0026amp;,on 171 ei001063 Fall' High Schoo, M Refused to obey Rule/Dlfecilve Out of School Suspens,on 3 10 B M DISOroertyC onduct Out of School Suspel'\\SIO/'l 5 6001063 - Fair High Schoo 10 B M F,ght1ng Out of School Suspens,on 5 6001063 Fair High Schoo, 10 6 M Fighting 6001063 F\nairH igh School 10 B Out of School Suspens,oo 5 M F,ghbn\ni Out of School SuspenslO/'l 3 ei001063 FairH,gh Sc.hool 10 B F Fighting 600103 Fair H19h SchOol 10 B Out of School Suspens,o,, 5 M Fighting Out of School Suspens10/'l 5 6001063 Fair High School 10 B M F1ght1ng Out of School Suspens,on 5 6001063 Fall H,gh School 10 B M Use/Poss Df\\Jgs (Isl) Out of School SuspenslOl'l 3 6001063 FIil' High School 10 W F Use/Poss Df\\Jgs (1st) Out or School SuspenslOl'l 3 600103 Fair High School 10 B F Ph)'S'Cill A\"-!un or Staff Long Term Suspens,on J\n. 6001063 Fair H.gh Schoo 10 B F Refused to Obey RuleJD1rec1Ne Out of Sehool Suspens1or, 5  6001063 Fair High School 10 B M Refused to obey Rule/D1rec~ve Out of~ :.hooJ SuspenslOI'\\ 3 6001063 Fair High School 10 B M A$Slun Out or School Suspens10/'l 5 6001063 Fair High Schoo 10 B M Using Foul 01' Abus,ve Language Out or School Suspens10:1 10 6001063 Fair High Schoo 10 B M A$Slun Long Term Suspens1C\u0026gt;rl \u0026amp;: 6001063 Fair High School 10 B M Banery Out or School Suspe\"1s10/'l ,~ 6001063 Fair High School 10 B M As.saun LOl'lg Term Suspens'\" 11 6001063 Fllf H,gh School 10 B M Use/Poss Df\\Jgs (1 stj Out of School Suspens101'l w 6001063 Fair High Sc./looi 10 B F Tnell Out of School Suspens,o.\"' 3 6001063 F111H igh School 10 W M Disorderly Conduct Out or School Suspens10~ ,~ 6001063. Fair High Schoo 10 B F Fighting Out or School Suspension 5 6001063 Fair High Schooi 10 B F Refused lo obey Rule/Directive Out or School Suspens,on 3 6001063 _Fair High Schc 10 B M Fighting Out ot School SuspenslOl'l 5 6001063 Fair High Sehoo! 10 B M Disorderly Conduct Out or School Suspens1ori 10 6001063 Fair High Schooi 10 W F Use/Poss Drugs (1 sl) Out or School Suspens10.\"1 3 600103 Fa 11Hr igh Schooi 10 B M Fighting Out or School Suspension 5 6001063. Fair High Schc 10 B M Using Foul 01' Abusrve Languagl' Out or School Suspel'\\S\u0026gt;0/1 3 . - 6001063 Fair High Schoo 10 B F Refused to obey Rule/Direcllvl' Out or School SuspenslOl'l 3 6001063 Fair H IQ h School 10 B F Refused to obey Rule/D1tecl1ve Out or School Suspens10t1 10 6001063 Fair High School 10 B F Disorderly Conduel Out or School Suspens10t1 10 6001063 Fair High School 10 B F Au.autt Long Term SuspenslO/'l 98 6001063 Fair High School 10 B M Refused to obey Rule/Oirectrve Out of School Suspension 3 6001063 F 11r High School 10 B M Refused to obey Rule/Direct1ve Out or School Suspens10/'l 3 6001063 F11t High School 11 B M Refused to obey Rule/Dlfective Out or School Suspens,on 3 6001063 F11r High School 11 B M Ass.aun Long Term Suspel'\\Slon 55 -6001063 f\nair High School 11 B M Fighting Out of School Suspens'\" 10 6001063 Fair High School 11 W M Use/Poss Drugs (1st) Out or School Suspension 3 6001063 F 11r High School 11 B M Fighting Out or School SuspenslOI'\\ 10 6001063 Fair High School 11 B M Thell Long Term Suspension 62 6001063 F11r High School ,, B M MahcJOUSM 1sch1er/ Vandalism Out or School Suspension s 6001063 F11r high School 11 B M Banery Out or School Suspens10t1 10 6001063 Fair High School 11 B M Ass.au\" Long Term Suspens,on 61 6001063 Fair High School 11 B M Banery Out or School SuspenslOl'l 3 6001063 Fair High Schoo 11 B M Fighting Out or School Suspens,on 5 6001063 F 11r High Schoc\u0026gt; 11 B M Assau,  Out or School Suspen~ s 6001063 Fair H,gh Scl'lex) 11 B M Rerused to obey Rule\nD1recti,e Out of School Suspens,or 3 60010C3 F1,r H,9~ Schoo ,, B M Harra5$/nent 0111 of School Suspens= 3 6001063 Fair H1gn Schoc, 11 e F F1gh11ng OL/1 or School Suspens.,o,, 5 60010C3 Fa.r H1oh S,cl'lex) 11 e F Thell Out of School Suspensl0f1 3 6001 OC3 Fair H\nn Schoo ,, w F F irs.1 orrense Use.Poss Alcol)ol Out or School Suspens,or, 3 6,X:X3 Fa., h-\n~ S:l'lex) 11 V. M F1ght1ng Out or SchOol Susr:\u0026gt;ensior 5 6X'X3 Fa,rh\ni~ 11 e M F1g'it1n~ Out or Sc1'oo Suspens,o,, 10 89 LITTLE ROC~ SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLI:\\E U.A NO. SCHOOL GRADE RACE SEX INFRACTION ACTION T AKEi. Dt.YS 6001063 Fair Higl'l Schoo 11 w M Refused lo ooey Rule/D1rect1W OU1o f Scl'\u0026gt;()o(S usoens0'1 '~ 6001063 Fall' H,gn Schoo 11 w M F,gl'l111\u0026gt;9 OU1o f Scl'\u0026gt;()o(S uspen!,,O\"I ,,- 60010CJ F 11r H 1gl'l Schoo 11 B F RtfuWd lo ooey Rule/D1rectNe Out of Sc.t\u0026gt;ool Suspens,cy. 60010CJ Fair H,gl'l 5cJ)ool 11 B M Batle,y Ou, of Schooi Suspem,,o,,  60010C3 Fair High Schoo, 11 w F F,gl'lt1nc, OUI of Schooi Suspens,on 6001063 F 11r H,gl'l Scl'\u0026gt;()o( 11 B M As.saun OUI of Schooi Sus~  6001063 FI\" H,gl'l Schoo, 11 B M As.sau\" Long Term Suspen~ 11 60010C3 FairH,ghSc.hoo 11 B M Left School w/o Pe\u0026lt;m1S$10n OUI of Schooi Su~ 3 6001063 FH H,gh Schooi 11 B F Refused to obey Rule/D1rect1ve Out of School Suspens\u0026gt;on 3 6001063 Fu H,gh School 11 B F Refused Lo obey Rule/Direcl/ve Out or School Suspens,on 3 6001063 Fu H,gh School 11 B F Au.u\" Out or School Sus\n,eN,dl 5 6001063 Fall' H,gh School 11 B M Refused to~ Rule/D1rec1M Out of School Suspension 3 6001063 F 111 High School 11 B M Refused Lo obey Rule/Directive Out of School Suspension 3 6001063 Fair High School 11 B F Rerused to obey Rule/Directrve Out of School Suspen510n 1C 6001063 Fu H,gh School 11 B M Left School w/o Perm1S$101'\\ Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001063 FIii' H,gh School 12 B M UM/Posa. Drugs (1st) Out of Schools~ 3 6001063 Fu High School 12 B M Rtrused to ~ Rule/Oirectrve Out of School Suspen510n 3 6001063 F asr High School 12 B F Fighting Out or School Suspen$10n 5 fl001063 Fair H,gh School 12 B M Auault Long T em, Suspen50l 83 8001063 Fair H,gh School 12 B M Disderty Conduct Out of School Suspens,on 10 fl001063 Fu High School 12 B M it.uaun Out of School Suspen$10(l 3 6001063 Fu H,g,1 School 12 W M Auault Out of Schools~ 5 fl001063 Fw High School 12 B M Disderty Conduct Out or Schools~ 5 fl001063 Fw High School 12 B M Figh~ng Out of Schools~ 5 6001063 Fu H,gh School 12 B M Fightlr.g Out or School Sus.pen~ 5 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Dl$Ol'derly Conduct Out or School SuspenslOl'l 3 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High Sc.hoo 10 B M F,ghhng Out of Sch0ol SuspenslO/'l 5 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High Schooi 10 B F Fighting OU1 of School Suspen5'()(1 5 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High School 10 B M D1sorderty Conduct Out of School Suspens100 3 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High Schoo 10 B M Use/PO\u0026amp;S. Drugs (1st) Out of Sch0ol Suspens100 3 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High School 10 B M Disorderly Conduel Out of School S uspen$,on 10 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High School 10 B M As.sault Out of Sch0ol SuspenslOl'l 3 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High School 10 W M Use.lPO\u0026amp;S. Drugs (1st) Out or Sch0ol Suspensoon 3 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan Hign School 10 B F As.saun Out of Sch0ol Suspension 5 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan H1gl'l Schoo' 10 B M Figh~r\ng Out of School Suspens100 5 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Disorderly Conduct Out or School SuspenslOt'I / 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Banery Long Term Suspen$1011 .,  6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Fighting Out or School Suspens10fl 6001064 McClellan High Schoo 10 B M Refused to Serve Detent,on Out of School Suspens100 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M D1sorderty Conduel Out of School Suspens10fl 6001064 McClellan High Schoo 10 B M Fighhng Out or School Suspens10n 5 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M First Offense Use/PO\u0026amp;S Alcohol Out of School Suspens1or. 3 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Gambling Out of School Suspens10t'\\ e 6001064 McClellan H,gh School 10 B M RefU5ed to obey Rule/D1rect1ve Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001064 McClellan High Schoo. 10 B M As.sault Out or School Suspension IC 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Refused to obey Rule/D1rechve Out of School Suspens10:i 3 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Fight1r\ng Out of School Suspension 10 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M F,ghtmg Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001064 McClellan High Schoo 10 B M Gambl1n,g Out of School Suspens10t'\\ 1 6001064 McClellan High Schoo. 10 B M Auault Out of School Suspens= 10 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Disorderly Conduct Out of School Suspensoon 3 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Disorderly Conduct Out or School Suspens10fl 5 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Use.lPO\u0026amp;S. Drugs (1st) Out of School Suspension 5 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Use of Pag1n,g Oevoces Out of School Suspens,on 10 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High School 10 B M A55aun 0ut of School Suspension ,0 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High School 10 B M Gambhng Out of School Suspens1011 5 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Loitenng / Criminal Tre55pass Out or School Suspens1011 5 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Gamb11n,g Out or School Suspenslon 1 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Assaun Oui of School Suspen510n 3 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Assaun Out of Sehool Suspension 10 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B F Disorderly Conduct Out of School Suspen510n 10 6001064 McClellan High School 10 0 M Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Out of School Suspension 3 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Theft Out of School Suspension 3 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Use of Paging DevteeS Out of School Suspension 5 6001064 McClellan High School 10 W M Use of Paging Devi= Oul of School Suspens100 5 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M Fighting Out of School SU6pens10fl s 6001064 McClellan H1gl'l School 10 B M Refused to obey Rule/Dire\u0026lt;:l1ve Out of School Suspens,on 3 6001064 McClellan High Schoo' 10 B M D1sorder1y Conduct Out of School Suspens10n 3 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B M F1ght1ng Out of School Suspens10fl 3 6001064 McClellan H,gh School 10 B M Fighting Out of SchOOI Suspension 5 ( 6001064 McClellan High Schee,' 10 B M Fighting Out of School Suspens10n ., 6001064 McClellan H,gh Schoo. 10 6 M lncrt1ng to R,ot Long Term Suspens10n 6001064 McClel1a:i H\ng'l School 10 B M Fighting Out of School Suspens100 6001064 McClellan H,\nh SchOo 10 6 M lncrtmg to R,ot Long Term Suspens10n S9 6001()(A McC1e11anh ,\n'l Schco 10 B M Use/Poss Dru\ns ( 1f \u0026gt;!) OL.1o1f School Suspens,on 6001O t,4 McCiellan h\n'l SchOo 3 10 6 M Assaun Out of School Suspens,oi 3 6001064 McC,e,.an h,,\n'l 5ch0o 10 6 F F1ght1ng CL.Ito f Scl'\u0026gt;()o(S uspens,on 5 90 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLl!'\\E LA NO. SCHOOL GRADE RACE SEX INFRACTION 6001 06,,I McClellan H ,gh School 1 0 W M 01so\u0026lt;derty Conduct 600106,,I McClellan H,gh Schoo 10 W M Ass.au~ 600106,,I McClellan High School 10 B M Gambling 600106,,I McClellan High School 10 B M Use/PO\u0026amp;S Orvgs (1st) 600106,,I McClellan High School 10 B M Gambling 6001 06,,I McClellan H ,gh School 1 0 B F 01so\u0026lt;derty Condud 600106,,I McClellan H,gh School 10 B F A\"-!ult 600106-4 McClellan H,gh School 10 B F Auault 6CXl106-4 McClellan High School 10 B M Use/Posa. Drugs (1 sl) 6CXl10 6,4 McClellan High School 10 B M Fi ghling 6CX)106,4 McClellan High School 10 B F Using Foul or Abu5M LMIQUAQe 600106,4 McClellan High School 10 8 F Fighting 800106-4 McClellan High School 10 B M Ol5derty Conduct 6CXl10\u0026amp;4 McClellan High School 10 B M Aauua 800106-4 McCi.llan High School 10 B M Fighting 800106-4 McClellan High School 10 B M Fighting 800106,4 McClellan High School 10 B M Asuult eoo1064 McClellan High School 10 B M Forpery/Failurt to Pnwidt ID 8001064 McClellan High School 10 B M DIIOl'dtrty Conduct 800106-4 Mcei.llan High School 10 B M lncltlrog to RICI 6CX)1064 McClellan High School 10 B F Di5order1y Conduct 8001064 McClellan High Sr.hool 10 B M Asuua 800106-4 McCi.llan High School 10 B M Fighling 6CX)1064 McClellan High School 10 B M F ightlng l50010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High School 10 B M Farsi Ottense Use/Poss Alcohol 6CX1) 0 6,4 McClellan High School 10 B M Dl50rderty Conduct 6CX)1064 McClellan High School 10 B M Gambling 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan H,gh School 10 B M Gambling 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High School 1 0 B M D15orderty Conduct 6001064 McClellan High School 10 B F FightJng 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan H,gh School 11 B M Refused to obey Rule/DirectJw 6001064 McClellan H,gh Schooi 11 B M Us,ng Foul or AbuSNe Language 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High School 11 W F Fighting 600106,4 McClellan High School 11 B M Fighting . 6001064 McClellan High School 11 B M Fighting 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High School 11 B M Ass.aur. 60010\u0026amp;4 McClellan High School 11 B F Assault 6001064 McClellan High School 11 B F Using Foul or Abusive Language 6001064 McClellan High School 11 B M Using Foul or AbuSIVe Language 6001064 McClellan High School 11 B M Us.ng Foul or AbuSIYe Language 6001064 McClellan High School 11 B M Battery 6001 064 McClellan H,gh School 11 B F Ass.a ult 6001064 McClellan High School 11 B M Refused to obey Rule/01rect,ve 6001 064 McClellan High School 11 B M D1so\u0026lt;del1Cy onduct 6001064 McClellan High School 11 B M Fighting 6001064 McClellan H,gh School 11 B M Refused to obey Rule/D1rect1Ve 6001064 McClellan High Sc/loo 11 B M Gamblmg 6001064 McClellan High School 11 B M Fighting 6001064 McClellan High Schoo. 11 B M Gambling 6CX)1064 McClellan High School 11 B M Assault 600106-4 McClellan High School 11 B M F1r$1O ttense Use/PO\u0026amp;SA lcohol 6001064 McClellan High School 11 8 M Use/PO$$ Orvgs (1st) 6001064 McClellan High School 11 B M Academic Dishonesty 6001 06-4 McClellan H 1gh School 11 B M Rel U5ed to obey Rule/OirectiYe 6001064 McClellan High School 11 8 M Fighting 6001064 McClellan High School 11 8 M 01sorderty Conduct 6001064 McClellan High School 11 W F Fighllng 6001064 McClellan High School 11 8 M Fighting 6001064 McClellan High School 11 B M Use or Paging Devices 6001064 McClellan High School 11 B M Use/PO$$. Drvgs (1st) 6CX) 106-4 McClellan High School 11 B M Us,ng Foul or Abusive Language 6001064 McClellan High School 11 B M Inciting to RICI 6001064 McClellan High School 11 W F Auault  600106-4 McClellan High School 12 B M F ighhng 6001064 McClellan High School 12 B M F,ghtmg 6001064 McClellan High School 12 B M O1so\u0026lt;dertyC onduct 6001064 McClellan High School 12 B M Fighting 6001064 McClellan High School 12 0 M 01so\u0026lt;del1yC onducl 6001064 McClellan High Schoo. 12 W M Refused to obey Rula/D1rec11W 600106-4 McClellan H,gh Schoo. 12 B M Us,ng Foul or Abus,ve Language 600106-4 McClellan High School 12 B M Use or Paging DeVICM 6001064 McClellan High School 12 B F Len Schcd w/o Pem11$$00l1 6001064 McClehan H,gh Schoo, 12 B F D1so\u0026lt;dertyC ondud 6001()64 McClellan High Schoo 12 B F Relused to obey Rule/D1redrve 600106,,I McClellan H,gh Schoo 12 B F D1so\u0026lt;dertyC ondud 6001064 McClellan H,gn Schx, 12 B F D1so\u0026lt;dertyC onduct 6001054 McCiel.an H,gl'\\ Schoo, 12 6 M Use or Paging DeVICft 91 ACTION TAKEN Out of Schoo, S uspen$0'1 Out or School SUSpen$0'1 Out or School Su~ OutolSchoolS~ Out or Schools~ Outo!Schoo1Sus.pen50o\u0026lt;1 Out or School Sus.pens,on Out of School S~ Out or School Suspens,on Out or Schools~ Out of School Suapens,on Out or School~ Out of Schools~ ~of School~  Out of School~ Out of School Sus\n,tn110n Out of School~ ~of School~ ~of School~ Long Ttm1 ~ Out of School~ Long Ttm1 ~ Long Ttm1 ~ Out or School 5uspena,cn Out of School Suspenl,IOl'I Out or School s~ Out or School Suspen5\u0026gt;00 Out or School Suspen$10n Out or School Suspen$101'\\ Out or School Suspen$'00 Out or School Suspen\"'\" Out or School Suspe\u0026lt;\\5'0'1 Out or School Suspe!\\$0'1 Out or School Suspen$0'1 Out or School Suspel'l$00n Out or School Suspen$101'l Out or Schcd Suspensl0(1 Out or School Suspension Out or School Suspension Out of School SuspenSIOn Out or School Suspensl0(1 Out of School Suspension Out or School Suspens'\" Out or School suspension Out or School Suspension Out or School Suspensl0(1 Out of School Suspension Out or School SuspenSIOn Out or School Suspe= Out or School Suspens,on Out or Schcd Suspension Out or School SUSpe!\\$0'1 Out or School Suspen$1on Out of School SuspenMOO Out or School Sus.pension Out or School Suspen510n Out or School SuspenMOO Out or School Suspen$10(l Out or School Suspens'\" Out or School Suspens,on Out or School Suspens,on Lorig Tem1 SU$pe0Slon Lorig Term Suspens,on Out or School Sinpension Out or School Suspens'\" Out or Schcd Suspension Out or School Su,pens,or, Out of School Suspens,on Out or School SuspenSJO(l Out or School Suspens,or, Out or School s u,pens,on Out or School SuspenSJO(l Out or School Suspens= Out or School Suspension Long Term Suspens,on Out or School Suspen$10'1 Out or School Sus pen$\u0026gt;0r+ CAYS 3 1,0 3 5 5 ,c 3 3 5 5 s 10 10 10 5 10 3 10 68 ,o 28 n 10 3 3 1 s 3 3 3. . 10 10 s ,o ,4 3 3 3 10 10 s 3 s 3 s 10 s 3 3 3 s 3 10 s 3 s s 3 s 89 10 s s 3 10 10 3 3 ,o 7 7 s 5\" ,: 10 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCJPLI~E LE.A NO. SCHOOL GRADE RACE SEX INFRACTION 6001()6,C McClellan High Schoo, 12 B M 01sorderty Conduct 6001()6,C McClellan H,gn Schoo, 12 B M Rerused lo obey Rule/01reci1ve 6001()6,C McClellan High School 12 B M Fighting 6001()6,C McClellan H,gn Schoo, 12 B M Fignt,ng 6001()6,C McClellan High School 12 B M A5Saun 6001064 McClelian H,gn School 12 B M O,sorcierty Conduct 60010\u0026amp;C McClellan H,gh Schoo, 12 B M Fighting 600106\u0026lt;1 McClellan H,gn School 12 B F Rerused lo obey Rule/01rec:t,v,e 600106\u0026lt;1 McClell\u0026amp;n H,gh Schoo, 12 W M Fnt orrenw Use/P05$ Alcohol 92 ACTION TAKEN Out or Sch001 Susr:,ens.or. Out of SchOol Susr:,ensior Out or School Susr:,ens,or, Out or School Suspens,or, Long Term Susr:,ens,or, Out or School Suspens,or, Out of School Susr:,ensoon Out of School SUsptnl,I0(1 Out of Schools~ 01.YS  3   NORTH LITTLE ROCK   93    NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLINE All Schools Total D1sc1phneIn cidents 1288 By Grade No. Pct. Grade 1 27 2.10% Grade 2 48 3.73% Grade 3 74 5.75% Grade 4 98 7.61% Grade 5 124 9.63% Grade 6 156 12.11% Grade 7 210 16.30% Grade 8 209 16.23% Grade 9 95 7.38% Grade 10 148 11.49% Grade 11 75 5.82% Grade 12 24 1.86% Total in Grades 6 -10 818 Percent in Grades 6 - 10 63.51% North Little Rock School District Al, Schoo:s - By Gra::ie 0.2 --- ----------- 0.15 I t( ,.... c j 'c ::: 0.1 -C - .._ l C -=- 1-- ,- ~ C 0.05 0 [l l l I~ 94 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISCIPLINE B Race/Gender No. Black Male Black Female Whrte Male White Female Other Male Other Female By Race Black White Other By Gender Male Female 734 290 213 38 12 1 Other F ernale l O Oe~:. Othe Ma,e (C\n'3',o:V- v'nrteF em\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_941","title":"\"Status Report,\" North Little Rock School District, , January-March 1994","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":["1994-01/1994-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Gifted \u0026 talented"],"dcterms_title":["\"Status Report,\" North Little Rock School District, , January-March 1994"],"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/941"],"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":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_712","title":"Transportation","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":["1994/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School buses","Transportation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Transportation"],"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/712"],"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":["78 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\nSECTION I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS Request for Proposal (RFP95-014) Student Transportation Services Little Rock School District Issued: March 31, 1995 INCLUDES Appendix A: School Bus Fleet Data (6 PAGES) Appendix B: School Bus Run Data (8 PAGES) LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (LRSD) BACKGROUND INFORMATION In order to facilitate a better understanding of current District operations and help a potential contractor respond to this request for proposal more accmately, the District has included information describing its current operations and budget as well as the major issues/challenges facing the transportation organization within the District. Summary of LRSD Unit Responsibilities The Transportation Department of the Little Rock School District provides the District with transportation services for over 14,000 regular and special education students. From its 16-acre terminal on Murray street it operates a fleet of over 300 buses that make over 11,000 stops daily and travel close to 5 million miles each year'. Specifically this department is responsible for planning how transportation requirements are met, recruiting and training staff to support those plans, managing the day-to-day activities of the departments resources, and maintenance of all vehicles. I LRSD Facilities/Locations The entire operation (storage, maintenance, refueling, and dispatching) is conducted from the 16 acre depot located at: Transportation Department 5400 Murray St. Little Rock, AR 72209 Telephone: (501) 570-4000 This facility has: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 13 phone lines + two (2) pay phones 12,000 gallon diesel fuel tank with pump Two 10,000 gallon gas fuel tanks with pump 2812 sq. ft. of Office/Administrative Space 3000 sq. ft. Auditorium 2239 sq. ft. Drivers Lounge/Dispatch Area 9300 sq. ft. Maintenance Shop having 8 bays + Parts Room + Foreman s Office 2423 sq. ft. in covered storage 11 acres for parking buses Radio base station One (1) acre additional unused land 'Special Ed transportation will not be outsourced. I I LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) If REASON FOR OUTSOURCING The primary motivation for outsourcing is to obtain operational efficiency of our student transportation responsibility\nhowever, other critical factors are also motivating this request for proposal. We Want To Improve Service Service in the Little Rock School District has been the subject of much debate. This school year, according to a recent study, only 74.9 % of the buses are \"on-time\" in picking-up our students. Parent complaints have increased significantly. The District is very much interested in soliciting proposals from firms who believe they can perform the student transportation function better than the District. At this time the District is not sure if they are employing the best state-of-the-art techniques for managing and providing student transportation services. Outsourcing is seen as an opportunity to inject new, cost effective ideas and technologies into this area that in turn may improve service significantly. We Want To Improve the Focus on Educating Students Another reason beyond improved service that motivates outsourcing is the desire to focus District energies more on pupil education as opposed to support services like transportation. The Little Rock School District's transportation operation has been in the paper several times. It was even the lead article on the front page of the November 7, 1993 Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Much of these stories have revolved around labor issues and poor performance. The same issues continue to plague the administration today. Whether or not the stories are accurate is not all that important. What is important is that these \"crises\" are draining management's attention away from the primary goal of educating children. We Want To Save Money The Little Rock School District is facing a greater than 2 million dollar budget deficit for the 95-96 academic year. Management in the LRSD Transportation Department is concerned that the fleet is aging and projected funding for replacement buses must compete for scarce dollars with other essential programs. For the last couple of years, the District has been unable to meet its targeted goal for replacing its buses. As a result replacing the aged fleet now is a sizable expenditure which LRSD cannot hope to take on all at once. The Bottom Line The bottom line is that any firm who hopes to obtain this business will have to contain costs and be able to guarantee a much higher level of performance. I LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 2General Information The Little Rock School District is looking to engage an outside contractor to meet a large proportion of its pupil transportation needs. Specifically, the District is soliciting proposals on two different \"blocks\" of the regular busing operations (The District will retain special education busing). These blocks are titled Little Rock and State Magnet/M- to-M. Together these blocks represent over 500 regular daily runs and involve over 225 concurrently operated buses. The reason for maintaining separation of the Transportation operation in two (2) elements is because the State Magnet/M-to-M fleet is owned by the State, and the State reimburses the District for maintenance and operating expenses. However, the successful contractor will operate both blocks as one, but must keep the costs separated. Proposers should calculate their costs and rates based on the operation as whole. The State has agreed that they will concur or accept outsourcing anangements on the same basis and terms as the LRSD. However, separate agreement documents may a have to be prepared. Block Little Rock State Magnet/ M-to-M # of Runs 264 116 Annual Regular Route Mileage' 1,292,735 910,430 Annual Non-Conflicting Trip Mileage Annual Conflicting Trip Mileage Block #Of Runs 292,945 72,505 Total Block Mileage 1,585,680 982,935 Little Rock State Magnet/ M-to-M 264 116 Total Buses Required For Block 140 65 0 0 * All mileage in the above table is non-deadhead mileage. Of particular note to prospective contractors is the fact that the District: 1) will require that a contractor for the next three (3) years provide resources for fleet maintenance, operations management, hiring and training personnel, routing, dispatching buses, and driving buses required to transport designated students\nhowever, routing will continue to be a District performed function for year one of ______________nii nn Tiilv 1995. School begins on or the contract. Contractor operations will start on July 1 of about August 21. 2) has an option to renew the agreement which may be exercised by the District at the conclusion of the initial term of this agreement. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 33) will require that the contractor hire all qualified existing District drivers and that the contractor pay those drivers the same base -wage rate and comparable benefits that they currently are receiving from the District for as long as a driver remains an employee of the contractor. All other drivers may be paid whatever the contractor feels the market may bear. 4) will provide some of the buses needed to satisfy the requirements of the contract. These buses will be leased to the contractor for $l/bus/academic year. The contractor will have to provide the balance of buses required if additional buses are needed. 5) will require all contractor supplied equipment to meet the following criteria/or the duration of the contract. In other words, if the contractor employs a seven (7) year old gas engine bus at the start of the contract in the second year this bus would have to be replaced with a less elderly bus meeting the criteria in section II, paragraph 2.5.2.3. The District requires a (8) year old or younger gas bus and a ten (10) year old or younger diesel bus. See section II, paragraph 2.5.2.3. for details related to the mileage on the bus. 6) will allow the contractor to deliver and employ its new equipment later in the contract because the implementation time frame is so short. Until these buses are delivered, the contractor will be permitted to operate with the existing fleet. All contractor supplied vehicles must be delivered and in operation no later than March 1,1996. 7) will require that modifications which must be made to either contractor supplied vehicles or District supplied vehicles to enable a vehicle to conform to the requirements specified in this agreement will be paid for by the contractor. This would include installing strobe lights and crossing arms or gates by school year 1997-98 as mandated by Arkansas State Law. 8) will require that a contractor maintain all vehicles that the District and the contractor supplies to meet the requirements of this agreement. 9) will provide facilities from which a contractor may operate at a cost of $l/site/academic year. All facilities, repairs, maintenance, and up-keep will be the responsibility of the contractor. Any modifications to these facilities/properties to conform to the requirements of the contract such as installing fuel tanks, constructing buildings, and so forth would be borne by the contractor. A lease agreement will be executed to cover this arrangement. (Sample lease agreement at Appendix D, Section II) 10) will pay the contractor based on a flat bus/day rate for regular service. A different rate will be used for District versus contractor provided vehicles. This rate will cover regular service only. The Districts will not pay for spares used to supplement daily capacity or to cover buses that have broken down. LRSD RFP95-0t4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.6) 411) will pay the contractor an hourly rate for extra services such as field trips, transporting teams to sporting events, and so forth. A separate rate schedule will be filed for non-conflicting extra service and conflicting extra service. The District will only pay for time from the moment that the first child is picked up to the moment that the last child is dropped off a bus. The District will not pay for deadhead time. 12) will draw up a separate contract for each block, Little Rock and State Magnet M-to- M. That contract will comprise an agreement for service between a contractor and the District (as it stands now, the District will act as the contract administrator for the State portion). \\ 13) asks that the contractor provide transportation for remote students who live in the Little Rock School District currently and are taking cabs to and from school. While the mode of transportation that the contractor uses to carry these students to and from school is up to the contractor, the Little Rock School District suspects that cabs will be the most cost-effective, so the contractor may need to make arrangements with a local firm to subcontract this part of the agreement much like the District currently uses. The only block that has this type of requirement is the State Magnet/M-to-M block since students who take cabs are exclusively enrolled in the M-to-M program. 14) asks that the contractor assume the responsibility for routing vehicles begirming in the second year of the agreement. Any savings in the second year uncovered by the contractor through the elimination of buses in the District supplied routing plan at the start of the second year will be split with the contractor according to the contractor's terms in the proposal forms. This savings will only be split with the contractor for a period of one (1) year. No savings identified afterwards will be rewarded, but considered an inherent part of the efficiencies attained by the professional management of this service contract with accrued savings realized by the District by reduced operating cost charged by the contractor. 15) will require the contractor to reserve appropriate office space in the facility leased from the District for the District Contract Administrator and one clerical person. 16) will assess a penalty for early, late and/or missed runs. See Section II, 2.9.5.1. 17) will require that the successful contractor will take affirmative action in compliance with all federal and state requirements concerning fair employment, employment of the handicapped, and concerning treatment of all employees without regard or discrimination by reason of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, and/or physical handicap. LRSD RFP95-0U FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 5Additional Information Scope of Work LRSD Routes Served The LRSD Transportation Department provides several different types of transportation services. The table below breaks out those services by type of runs. Type of Runs Regular LRSD State Magnet State M-to-M Extended Day' New Futures Alternative School Metro Total Runs 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 296 62 6 0 0 2 5 171 272 83 26 21 10 3 10 425 263 84 27 25 9 4 11 423 251 85 31 41 11 3 11 433 246 91 45 19 17 4 16 438 264 58 58 41 31 4 16 472  For the purposes of the agreement Extended Day, New Futures, Alternative School, and Metro runs are treated as non-conflicting trips. Regular Routes include runs that are operated every day between the homes of students and schools. Regular State Magnet routes are runs that operate between homes and the District's State Magnet schools. The Regular-M-to-M routes are nms used to carry students involved in desegregation who attend school in the North Little Rock School District or the Pulaski County Special School District. Regular-LRSD routes are runs operated every day that are neither M-to-M or State Magnet routes. The District provides runs that support special programs such as Extended Day and New Futures. Most of these runs are operated three or four times a week, and they are only broken out from regular runs in the above table because they are paid from state and federal funds. Those special program runs that are operated regularly have been included in the annual non-conflicting trip estimates. Those runs which are not regular through out the year such as those to support athletics have been included in the annual non-conflicting or conflicting trip estimates made by the District. Other than these runs, only the Regular/LRSD, Regular/State Magnet, and Regular/M-to-M routes are being offered out. I I LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 6The District also provides transportation services to students in the community during the summer. Summer school, commimity outreach programs, and other activities require that the District supply school buses for children. The table below lists the history of summer activity. Most of these runs last the duration of the summer, but some do not. Summer Activity Parks \u0026amp; Recreation JTPA M-to-M Runs New Futures Summer School Incentive School Prog Homeless Programs Philander Smith Field Trips Aerospace Center Total 1991-92 4 6 5 3 5 4 0 1 2 NA 30 1992-93 5 6 6 3 5 4 1 1 2 NA 33 1993-94 5 6 6 3 5 4 1 1 2 NA 33 1994-95 5 5 5 3 30 4 1 2 2 2 59 \\ For the purpose of this proposal, the District considers all the summer activity nonconflicting service. Consequently we have included it in our estimates of armual non- conflicting service required from the contractor. Students Transported By Cabs As mentioned in the introduction, the Little Rock School District has several students within its boundaries that participate in M-to-M programs that are no where near to where they live. Furthermore, these students are not surrounded by enough students traveling to the same school to justify sending a 65 passenger bus out to pick them up. Instead, the District has formd that subcontracting the transportation of these students in cabs is more cost effective. The contractor will assume responsibility for the transportation of these students. I In the 93-94 school year 105 students were transported by the department using local cab companies for $l/mile and $1.00 per pick-up and drop-off. This year $309,000 is budgeted for this activity. While the State of Arkansas pays for this expense, they would prefer that buses be used to transport these children. The District so far has found it more cost effective to use cabs, but the contractor may transport these children in a manner he deems is most cost effective and safe for the duration of the agreement. In January 1995, the number of students transported by cab was reduced to approximately 40 students. Staggered School Openings It's important to point out that LRSD has attempted to better utilize its fleet and thus keep costs down by staggering school openings. Elementary schools start at 7:50, Junior high schools start at 8:45 and Senior high schools start at 8:50. This allows the District to use one bus for two separate runs\ni.e., an elementary and then a Jr/Sr High run. LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 7 1LRSD Fleet LRSD and the State currently have a fleet of over 200 buses with different kinds of equipment being operated. The tables below break out these buses by type: LRSD Transportation Fleet Body Buses Total # of Buses = Capacity 65| Total 197 197 State Magnet/M- to- M Fleet Body Buses Buses Total # of Buses = Capacity 35 65 Total 20 47 67 The fleet is aging. Because the District has been unable to implement an annual fleet replacement program, the average age of Regular Buses is now just under seven (7) years. The State has provided 32 new additional buses (Twelve - 65 and Twenty - 35 passenger buses) since December 1994. The Little Rock School District has ordered twenty-three 65 passenger buses which should be delivered before August 15.1995. LRSD RFP95-OI4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) sLRSD Organization/Activities LRSD Organization Chart The LRSD Transportation Department is described in the following chart: LRSD Transportation Department \\ Transportation Department Director I SecretaQ^ Executive Administrative Assistant Driver Supervisors (3) Routing Supervisors (2) Operations Manager Shop Foreman Regular Drivers Regular Drivers Dispatchers (3) Mechanics (7) Special Ed Drivers Administrative Coordinator Service Technician Driver Aides Custodian (0.8) LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 9I LRSD Employees/Staffing: 1. ------------------Position/Title________ Director of Transportation Department Number 1 2. Special Education Driver Supervisor 1 3. Regular Route Driver Supervisor 2 4. Operations Manager 1 5. Department Secretary 1 6. Maintenance Foreman 1 7. Routing Supervisors 2 8. Dispatchers 3 9. Service Technician 1 10. Mechanic 7 11. Regular Route Drivers 222 12. Special Ed Drivers 33 13. Special Ed Driver's Aides 33 14. Driver Substitutes 23 15. Administrative Coordinator 1 16. Executive Administrative Assistant 1 17. Custodian 1\u0026gt;  These numbers reflect the number of people currently employed doing this jobs, h ..ui rciieci u Full-Time-Equivalents required to accomplish the jobs. For example, the custodian's job is only 0.8. It does not reflect the LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 10LRSD Functional Position Descriptions The specific fiinctions performed by the above employees in addition to their salaries/cost are detailed in the following Functional Position Descriptions: ACTIVITY  Administer the Transportation Department  Monitor the on-time performance of drivers  Develop and participate in the annual budgeting process as it relates to the transportation department  Participate in the development of labor contracts  Authorize department purchases  Serve as Designee of Superintendent in grievances and discipline related matters  Handle outgoing mail and correspondence  Answer phone calls and take messages for the director of the department  Maintain department files  Type department reports and correspondence  Select Drivers \u0026amp; Drivers Aides  Train Drivers  Supervise Drivers  Visit schools  Investigate and document accidents  Investigate student, teacher, \u0026amp; parent complaints  Conduct Driver workshops  Develop initial bus routings  Oversee proper billing of the state for certain programs such as M-to-M  Investigate and document accidents  Investigate complaints  Visit schools  Handle parent and school complaints  Research policy questions  Assist the Director in preparing reports  Assist in resolving payroll problems  Answer calls from patrons  Manages and coordinates payroll  Oversee the department's A/P and A/R  Verifies employment infomiation  Maintains personnel files  Administers employee benefits, workman's compensation, and sick leave  Advise the director on department financial matters  Manage the dispatchers  Develop the daily plan for how all runs will be serviced within the personnel and vehicle constraints associated with a particular shift  Assign bus to runs and routes to drivers daily  Maintain up-to-date route and driver attendance information  Direct drivers in route  Coordinate and schedule vehicles to support special field trips or athletic events with District personnel  Assist in preparation of terminal payroll PROVIDER Director of Transportation Department Secretary Driver Supervisor Routing Supervisor Executive Administrative Assistant Operations Manager Dispatcher LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) RESOURCE One FTE^ 40+ Hrs/Wk One FTE 37.5 Hrs/Wk Three FTE's 37.5 Hrs/Wk each Two FTEs 37.5 Hrs/Wk each One FTE 37.5 Hrs/WK One FTE 37.5 Hrs/Wk (10 months) Three FTE's 37.5 Hrs/Wk II WAGES $65,020^ $20,972 $99,909 $50,149 $29,207 $24,690 $55,561Functional Position Descriptions(Continueil) ________ ACTIVITY_____________  Select mechanics to work in the shop  Supervise mechanics working in the shop  Order and manage the inventory of spare parts within the shop  Schedule the maintenance activity of the shop  Order and manage the inventory of fuel on hand at the terminal  Perform bus maintenance as needed  Supervise the driver's pre-trip checkouts  Prepare RFP's for shop equipment and contracted maintenance services  Maintain all bus service files  Participate in driver training as it relates to proper equipment care and operation  Participate in the budgeting of new equipment  Perform regular and preventive maintenance on buses and other school vehicles  Collect daily work requests from drivers  Assist in the tiling of all maintenance documentation  Performs the daily lubrication of vehicles  Assists the mechanics and shop foreman as needed  Inspect buses before leaving terminal  Operate buses in a safe and efficient manner for school and extra curricular activities  Document problems with vehicles  Participate in driver training and certification  Document discipline problems on buses  Inspect buses before leaving terminal  Operate buses in a safe and efficient manner for school and extra curricular activities  Document problems with vehicles  Participate in driver training and certification  Document discipline problems on buses  Inspect buses before leaving terminal  Operate buses in a safe and efficient manner transporting special ed students to and from their homes  Document problems with vehicles  Participate in driver training and certification  Assist the driver in operating the school bus  Drive the bus when directed to do so  Maintain lists of students \u0026amp; their needs  Responsible for all payroll information  Maintain the cleanliness of the depot and the grounds PROVIDER Shop Foreman Shop Mechanic Senzice Technician Regular Route Bus Driver Regular Route Substitutes Special Ed Drivers Special Ed Driver Aides Administrative Coordinator Custodian RESOURCE One FTE 37.5 Hrs/Wk Seven FTE's 37.5 HrsA/Vk Each 1 FTE 37.5 Hrs/Wk 161 FTE's 30 Hrs/Wk Each 18 FTE's 30 Hrs/Wk Each 31 FTE's 30 HrsA/Vk Each 31 FTE's 30 Hrs/Wk Each 1 FTE 40+ Hrs/Wk 10 months 0.8 FTE's 32 Hrs/Wk Each WAGES $36,666 $198,098 $18,603 See Schedule on the following page See Schedule on the following page See Schedule on the following page See Schedule on the following page $16,211 $14,534 ' An FTE is defined as a person who works 40 hours a week. For example, there are 138,75 FTE's 2 performing the Regular Route Bus Driver function. In actuality 222 drivers are doing this every day but they only work 5 hours/day. This equates to full-time-equivalents working 8 hours a day. Salaries include educational stipends and car allowances, if applicable. LRSD RFP95-0U FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 12 LRSD Driver Compensation Driver base wages are determined by a graded, daily flat-rate scale\nhowever, they can make additional money by carrying students on field trips and performing other extra services. In February 1995 the drivers voted to be represented by the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association. Contract negotiations have not begun at this time. Daily Base Wage Rate Drivers receive a daily wage based on driving two (2) runs in the morning (A.M.) and two (2) runs in the afternoon (P.M.) which equates to any five (5) hours worth of work. This wage is graded based on service to the District. An experienced driver will be promoted to the next pay grade/step at the beginning of the academic year. This promotion will occur even if the driver only drove for more than half the previous year according to the previous labor agreement. \\ LRSD Driver Daily Base Wage Rate Pay Scale Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Grade 1 One-Run Drivers $27.90 29.28 Grade 2 Driver Aides $37.36 39.94 42.54 45.12 47.72 50.16 Grade 3 Bus Drivers $42.54 45.12 47.72 50.37 53.06 55.50 56.61 Grade 4 Full-Time Subs $57.16 The following table breaks out the number of drivers fitting into each pay category. # of LRSD Drivers By Daily Base Wage Rate By Grade Pay Scale Step i 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 Grade 1 One-Run Drivers Grade 2 Driver Aides 1 6 6 3 10 7 Grade 3 Bus Drivers 70 49 26 14 41 26 22 Grade 4 Full-Time Subs 22 1 1 LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 13LRSD Driver Compensation(Continued) LRSD Driver Benefits The drivers receive the following fringe benefits: Dental Insurance Short Term Disability Long Term Disability Life Insurance Health Hospital Indemnity All of the above are provided at no cost to the driver as long as he or she works more than 25 hours per week. To pay for these benefits, LRSD contributes the following amounts annually to each driver's benefits: Health : Dental Plan: Hospital Indemnity: Short Term Disability: Life Insurance: Long Term Disability: $610.56 \u0026gt; $I88.64A^r $ 60.96/Yr $ 58.80/Yr $ 27.60/Yr $.0049/$ of driver income w/ a cap of $ 176.40 a month, if individual pays extra - up to $36,000 yearly based on salary. As mentioned before, the contractor will be required to offer jobs to ALL qualified LRSD drivers and to provide those employees with benefits comparable to what they receive from the District currently for as long they remain employees of the contractor. If the employee leaves in the middle of an academic year and then returns, he or she will not be entitled to the same level of benefits. For all such drivers and any drivers not employed with the District just prior to the new agreement's start, the contractor is free to provide whatever benefits the firm deems proper and the market will bear. ' In addition to the $610.56 contributed by the District, the State contributes an additional $1188 towards the driver's health insurance which brings the total cost to the public up to $1798.56/Yr. 1 LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPOR TA TION (VERSION 7.0) 14 1 ILRSD Transportation Department Budget The Little Rock Block and the State Magnet/M-to-M Block combined budget for the LRSD transportation department for 1994-95 school year is broken out below: Major Category 1994-95 Budget Amount Percent of Budget Upkeep of Facility Service Area Vehicle Operation DriverA^ ehicle Monitoring Vehicle Maintenance Other Support Services Workers Comp Fleet Insurance $48,300 $14,644 $2,556,439 $238,797 $2,869,703 $1,248 $193,126 $483,625 0.8% 0.3% 39.9% 3.8% 44.8% 0.1% 3.1% 7.6% Transportation Budget $6,405,882 \\ The budget chart above does not include $1,839,652 which represents the Special Education Transportation budget. It does include in the Vehicle Maintenance line item $832,000 of the $1,000,000 spent on replacement buses for 1994 - 95. The difference is in the Special Education Budget. LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) ISLRSD Performance Measures/Operating Statistics (Data is current as of March 1995) Safety Total Accidents/100k Driven Miles: $250+ Accidents/100k Driven Miles: Workmens' Compensation Claims: Student Discipline Problems and/or V iolence/Driver/Day: 2.96/100k accidents for current school year n/a 132 claims were paid for a total of $145,210 for 93-94 10/Driver/Day' Violence against buses are reported almost daily. Student disciplinary problems are growing. We do have camera boxes/cameras on some buses to discourage inappropriate behavior. Service % of Runs On-time:^ 74.9% % of Runs Late: 19.6% % of Runs Early: 5.7% 2 This is based on reports from schools taken during 8/22/94 to 2/24/95. This survey covers all regular runs for which data was available/supplied. A late bus was defined as a regular route bus which arrived 10 minutes or more past its scheduled arrival time. Maintenance Average Fleet Age: Equipment Availability: Equipment Breakdowns: % of Fleet Which Are Spares: 6.3 years as of 15 Mar 95 1995 89% of all non-spare buses are available on average n/a 10% = 30 spare buses for a fleet of 301 vehicles Human Resources Driver Absenteeism\nUnfilled Driver Positions: 3 9% was the average in March of 1994 and is the typical percent absent. 4.75% was achieved in Nov/Dec of 1993^ 20 Drivers are needed cunently, but 15 is more like the average The 4.75% was achieved during a month where incentives were to be received by drivers who were absent less often. The 9% figure is more typical. Route Efficiency: Service Radius: Avg Children/Stop: Avg Utilization of Regular Route Buses: All children outside a 2 mile radius of a school 2.35 / Regular Stop 54.9 % for 65 Passenger Bus Runs Average Driver Turnover: Between 30 - 40% annually each of the last two (2) years LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 16ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS: A. Schedule of Events Event Pate  Request for Proposals Issued 3/31/95 \\  Beginning Inspection of Terminal and Vehicles 4/10/95  Pre-RFP Conference, (1:00 P.M.) ....4/14/95  Proposals Due. .(2:00 P.M.) ....5/03/95  Contract Award, (NET), 5/25/95  Contract Start Date .7/01/95 B. Proposal Content and Deadline A complete proposal will consist of the following dociunents: a) Bid Security or bond b) Seven (7) copies of the completed proposal forms c) Seven (7) copies of the completed Qualification Questionnaire d) Any proposed changes to the contract (If no proposed changes are submitted, the District will assume that the Proposer is committed to providing service exactly as described within the contract. Proposed additions should be highlighted, and proposed deletions should be lined out.) e) A workers' compensation certificate f) Evidence of insurability or insurance The above documents should be placed in an envelope completely and properly identified with the name of the proposer, RFP number (RFP95-014), RFP title (LRSD Student Transportation Services), and opening date/time (5/3/95 @2:00 P.M.) identified on the outside of the envelope. These documents should arrive at the office of: Director of Procurement and Materials Management Little Rock School District 1800 East 6th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 BY THE DEADLINE: 2:00 P.M. Central Time on Wednesday, May 3,1995 LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 17THE DEADLINE: 2:00 P.M. Central Time on Wednesday, May 3,1995 The District will not accept proposals after the above-noted time and date. Proposals received after that time and date will be returned to the Proposer unopened without exception. C. Security A Bond shall be included in the sealed envelope and it shall be five percent (5%) of the projected FIRST YEAR contract value. The District service requirement projections may be found on the proposal forms, but they shall not in any way be construed to bind the Distnct A check IS not acceptable for security. Bonds of contending proposers will be returned after initial consideration of the proposals within 30 days after a Proposer is eliminated from consideration. Note that the sample agreement at Section II. also includes a performance bond requirement, renewable aimually. D. Withdrawal or Modification of Proposals Any Proposer may withdraw by written request at any time prior to the deadline time for receipt of proposals or modify his or her proposal either in person (by initialing any ... * * -------------------- UUMOHUK dJly changes m a written proposal or by making written changes to and then resealing the proposal). Any modification to a proposal must be sealed separately from original or mn/lttiAd ________1_______X 1 . ,  modified written proposals and must be marked  ... .  -----as were the original proposals, except for the word modification. No oral or telephonic modifications to any part of a proposal will be accepted at any time. E. Erasures or Corrections to Proposals Any erasures and/or corrections to proposals, whether executed prior to or subsequent to the original proposal submittal, shall be authenticated by affixing in the margin immediately opposite the correction the initials of the proposal. person or persons signing the LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) ISF. Award of Contract The District intends to award the contract on or before 5/25/95. The award shall be made to that proposer judged to be the most responsible and responsive and presenting the proposal most advantageous to the District. The District reserves the right not to award any contracts if they find none of the proposals acceptable. An intent to award notice will be issued. As noted elsewhere in this document, failure or refusal to execute or commit to an agreement within seven (7) days of the award will render the proposal bond forfeited. In such a case the District will enter negotiations with the next most highly rated proposer. This RFP does not commit the District to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal or response to this RFP. \\ G. Examination of Contract Documents Proposers shall thoroughly examine and be familiar with the proposal package documents. The failure or neglect of any Proposer to receive or examine any contract document, form, addendum, or other document shall in no way relieve any Proposer from obligations with respect to his or her proposal. The submission of a proposal shall be taken as prima facie evidence of compliance with this section. H. Proposers Conference and Vehicle, Facility, and Equipment Inspection A MANDATORY proposers' conference has been scheduled for the following time and place: 1:00 P.M. Central Time QN 4/14/95 Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management Department Little Rock School District 1800 East 6th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 324-2230 Additionally, proposers are encouraged to call or write the District to arrange a visit to the District's terminal and to inspect the District's vehicles and terminal facility. Such a visit should be arranged to take place at any time on or before 4/14/95. Be reminded that the mandatory pre-bid meeting is at 1:00 P.M. on 4/14/95. Proposers may submit questions with respect to any part of this proposal package or with respect to the proposal process in writing NO LATER THAN 2:00 P.M., MONDAY, 5/1/95 (48 Hours prior to RFP opening). Written questions and questions asked orally at the conference will be answered in writing by the District, and copies of the questions and answers will be forwarded to all proposers who attend the conference. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 19I. Interpretation of Contract Documents If any Proposer finds discrepancies in, or omissions from, the proposal specifications or contract documents, he or she may submit to the District a written request for clarification or correction thereof. A copy of the request for clarification and the response thereto will be mailed to all proposers. Conections will be made by addendum issued to each Proposer. J. Contract Specification Response Proposers shall submit with their proposals the contract document that they are prepared to execute if awarded the contract. The contract must include all numbered paragraphs portrayed in the included specimen or sample contract, modified by the Proposer only the extent deemed necessary to be acceptable to the Proposer. Failure to submit a modified contract document with a proposal shall be infened to mean that the Proposer IS committed to providing transportation service to the District exactly as specified in the i as to sample contract included in these proposal specifications. In the event the contract document submitted contains terms and conditions different from those set forth in the contract included with these proposal specifications, whether by addition, modification, or omission, the District shall consider changed terms during ns proposal evaluation process. The District reserves the right to reject any proposal that includes changes to the sample agreement (Section II.) which has been included in this proposal package. K. Evidence of Overall Qualifications Proposers responses to questions included in the Qualification Questionnaire will be used to evaluate each Proposer's capability to perform proper and satisfactory transportation services as required pursuant to this Request for Proposal. Upon request of the District, a Proposer whose proposal is under consideration for award of a contract may be required to submit additional information to support information previously provided. Proposers will also be prepared to conduct briefings/presentetions if requested. L. Business Experience Proposers must have at least five (5) years experience in the pupil transportation business in providing regular home-to-school transportation. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 20M. Workers' Compensation Certificate In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, the Proposer shall sign and file with the District the following certificate prior to performing any work under this contract: \\ \"I am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code that requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing any work under a contract with the District.\" The form of said certificate is included in Section IV, Proposal Forms. N. Evidence of Insurance or Insurability The proposal shall include a copy of one or more insurance certificates (currently held by your firm) which include liability coverage, and collision, property, casualty, theft, and fire coverage. An insurance carrier as described in Section II, 1.4.3 of the sample agreement shall certify its willingness to insure the District, the District's Board of Trustees, Superintendent, officers, staff, and employees as described in Section II, 1.4.3 of the sample agreement. (A separate insurance certificate naming the State of Arkansas as an additional insured may be required after execution of the agreement). O. Contractor's Response to the Qualification Questionnaire Each Proposer must submit seven (7) copies of the Qualification Questionnaire with all questions answered. This questionnaire will be used by the District (as described in part K.) during the evaluation and selection process. Organizations cited as references may be contacted by the District to determine if the level of service provided to the organization by the Proposer is satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The District may also contact other organizations cited, such as banks, to verify the Proposer's statements. Proposers are hereby advised that the District maintains the sole and exclusive right to determine whether or not any Proposer is responsible and responsive\nand will exercise the appropriate judgments concerning the proposers capability to provide proper and satisfactory transportation services as defined herein. LRSD RFP9S-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 21P. Forfeiture for Failure to Execute Contract In the event that a Proposer is awarded the contract but fails or refuses to execute the T of notification comrS7'''  to'o .oa, awaro me not efiXted f proposal not eliminated from consideration after the initial evaluation. The Disin Its discretion, may call for new proposals or may decline to award the of award, the District and may award the was The District, alternatively contract. Q. District Contact Personnel f for proposals must be submitted in writing to the  nubfist:d'T d rospecive should be add^d l\"     despondence Charles A. Neal as soon Director, Procurement and Materials Management 1800 East 6th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 (501)324-2230 AU Proposals should be sent to Charles A. Neal at the above address. Telephone questions concerning the technical and/or operational include current transportation matters, should be directed Mary Jane Cheatham Director, Transportation 5400 Murray Little Rock, AR 72209 (501) 570-4000 or 570-4010 LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) aspects of this RFP to to the official indicated below\nI 22APPENDICES START HERE \\ LRSD RFP9S-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 23Appendix A (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Fleet Data I Bus# 73 88 36 55 11 17 14 1 71 54 23 32 3 5 66 26 65 68 67 30 29 164 141 131 27 129 15 146 130 56 125 69 135 61 62 126 64 12 154 140 176 178 137 160 22 Model 83 83 85 85 85 85 85 85 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 Make CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC CHV GMC CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV GMC CHV GMC GMC GMC CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC Body BlueBird Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Engine Gas Gas Gas 92-93 93-94 Mar-95 To Date Reading Reading Reading MIs/Yr Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas 120,741 140,744 100,400 120,070 113,302 112,019 127,416 128,921 97,054 97,083 98,262 110,872 112,149 116,320 119,784 114,763 125,819 128,215 151,259 113,298 124,959 122,434 127,734 136,692 139,857 111,070 110,990 118,449 120,225 123,289 127,018 134,681 133,749 146,082 131,794 7,474 157,516 10,515 122,710 12,898 128,542 129,961 4,889 9,132 141,090 15,715 145,637 9.276 148,655 10,936 121,483 14,016 124,785 13,907 127,069 20,187 130,153 9,353 Page 1 of 6 132,968 144,126 138,785 63,118 75,838 75,148 79,347 78,710 76,949 87,606 91,858 94,606 89,168 91,258 94,510 93,512 90,342 99,673 100,867 92,764 95,119 92,885 94,169 98,181 100,256 96,373 110,811 100,591 109,326 161,580 75,472 85,978 87,669 86,725 90,045 96,119 101,049 103,315 106,096 103,935 105,064 106,265 104,815 105,008 112,791 114,232 109,262 108,764 109,747 109,540 113,163 114,088 107,889 114,732 114,124 114,921 134,092 11,140 137,426 10,698 144,627 14,897 144,853 18,986 149,626 20,263 152,340 11,158 172,281 22,795 83,926 12,354 93,619 10,140 95,712 12,521 97,044 7,378 98,577 11,335 105,444 19,170 109,633 13,443 112,632 11,457 112,690 11.490 114.054 14.767 114.325 13,806 114.853 11,755 115,230 11,303 117,632 14,666 118,974 13,118 119,579 13,365 119,729 16,498 119,781 120,551 13,645 16,862 120,793 15,371 120,815 14,982 122,102 13,832 122,293 11,516 123,041 3,921 123,158 13,533 123,279 5,595Appendix A (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Fleet Data 92-93 Bus # 128 159 63 148 21 7 139 152 147 132 46 143 151 165 161 127 145 155 142 43 49 150 25 91 156 51 134 179 136 2 31 58 52 153 163 158 44 167 6 16 157 60 20 133 177 93-94 Model 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 Make GMC GMC CHV GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC CHV GMC GMC Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Mar-95 To Date Type Engine Reading Reading Reading MIsZYr C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas 98,239 96,601 104,265 103,323 98,154 103,442 99,765 99,268 106,368 104,963 100,884 101,768 100,170 102,425 98,688 99,425 102,115 102,182 99,845 101,784 104,491 105,399 101,999 100,110 102,933 101,439 101,120 101,973 101,107 105,122 110,730 99,427 102,555 109,640 107,575 100,056 105,101 109,534 110,660 110,343 99,655 106,917 106,074 112,893 107,074 112,758 112,798 116,082 121,170 114,669 116,489 114,579 113,560 118,435 119,349 118,586 115,050 118,617 114,631 114,900 113,975 116,278 116,343 116,293 116,198 117,466 117,204 117,874 116,777 119,041 117,830 120,712 118,595 117,724 117,629 120,063 114,693 121,835 119,928 119,766 120,024 118,331 121,624 124,025 123,766 116,022 121,898 122,611 124,247 122,382 123,891 124,001 124,194 124,391 124,631 124,763 124,809 125,069 125,129 125,567 125,663 125,980 126,075 126,205 126,452 126,588 126,591 126,720 126,812 127,208 127,393 128,001 128,056 128,409 128,471 128,852 129,311 129,346 129,511 129,690 129,888 129,902 129,944 130,478 130,513 130,697 130,751 131,293 131,579 131,832 131,860 131,915 132,296 132,914 133,146 14,519 16,197 11,817 17,847 16,515 13,047 14,814 14,292 12,067 14,386 17,702 13,282 18,447 12,206 16,212 14,550 14,163 14,161 16,448 14,414 12,975 11,805 15,875 16,667 16,108 16,391 19,592 16,622 16,617 12,507 9,333 15,266 19,280 10,288 12,191 19,968 13,230 12,090 13,365 13,423 16,367 14,981 16,537 11,354 15,308 Page 2 of 6Appendix A (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Fleet Data Bus # 144 181 149 70 42 48 94 4 33 138 57 41 93 8 180 92 96 166 95 162 182 196 187 203 199 202 194 185 201 186 188 191 183 184 193 200 204 189 205 190 192 198 34M 26M 31M Model 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 ' 87 87 87 87 87 87 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 89 89 89 Make GMC GMC GMC CHV GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC CHV GMC CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward 92-93 93-94 Mar-95 To Date Type Engine Reading Reading Reading MIs/Yr C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas 109,242 108,903 103,555 109,008 102,195 105,710 113,780 106,799 106,351 109,333 121,201 109,319 115,199 114,468 112,930 118,115 121,780 128,300 126,569 53,520 57,262 63,625 82,212 86,719 84,330 90,937 89,582 92,989 96,221 93,936 94,272 96,609 109,874 86,892 98,276 97,274 92,128 102,213 105,869 114,852 106,542 131,952 21,258 44,406 46,945 123,532 122,351 118,058 124,660 122,904 124,187 129,058 121,106 131,044 127,106 129,686 128,529 129,967 133,188 131,328 137,987 141,483 146,190 147,946 167,986 66,881 77,511 90,776 97,332 99,903 104,452 105,730 107,370 108,481 107,371 117,840 113,820 120,151 103,493 113,946 114,891 108,580 117,840 125,877 136,302 127,862 142,028 37,043 61,399 66,643 134,199 14,290 134,403 13,448 135,517 14,503 136,228 15,652 136,697 20,709 138,306 18,477 138,452 15,278 139,401 14,307 140,099 24,693 140,173 17,773 140,371 8,485 141,390 19,210 142,632 14,768 142,726 18,720 146,568 18,398 146,741 19,872 157,056 19,703 159,237 17,890 162,994 21,377 177,534 114,466 76,958 9,619 86,102 13,886 99,207 8,564 105,226 10,613 109,925 15,573 113,726 13,515 114,178 16,148 118,490 14,381 118,885 12,260 120,707 13,435 121,143 23,568 121,713 17,211 122,597 10,277 122,678 16,601 125,110 15,670 125,590 17,617 126,230 16,452 126,533 15,627 135,932 20,008 136,673 21,450 137,280 21,320 149,823 10,076 59,285 15,785 72,588 16,993 75,857 19,698 Page 3 of 6Appendix A (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Fleet Data 92-93 93-94 Mar-95 To Date Bus # 35M 14M 27M 32M 08M 29M 03M 10M 30M 13M 07M 09M 15M 16M 20M 06M 04M 11M 22M 05M 24M 18M 28M 02M 12M 23M 01M 21M 17M 33M 25M 19M 218 212 207 210 239 214 227 206 215 241 208 238 235 Model 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Make GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type Engine Reading Reading Reading MIs/Yr C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas 50,567 30,233 58,937 60,501 63,123 68,500 65,913 60,298 73,495 67,393 67,587 82,684 78,761 68,048 75,997 73,457 77,189 78,915 71,350 77,466 81,680 83,609 80,079 82,394 77,672 82,149 85,302 85,023 75,887 110,656 104,895 124,362 45,428 36,863 47,445 44,205 46,896 44,212 45,639 46,647 46,263 47,425 45,349 46,039 49,904 60,675 40,540 74,014 75,169 82,198 84,845 81,516 78,185 87,034 87,527 86,042 95,373 89,264 81,952 87,159 89,134 92,837 96,235 87,903 93,232 95,651 97,197 98,792 99,332 99,460 99,464 105,031 104,892 92,888 129,994 123,198 142,665 52,808 52,220 58,979 59,411 58,572 58,266 58,998 60,360 61,110 61,848 62,671 60,150 65,600 76,006 81,288 83,403 86,137 93,284 94,071 94,195 94,840 97,325 97,482 98,145 98,502 98,665 99,045 99,145 100,392 100,662 101,288 101,457 104,625 108,688 110,690 111,474 111,557 111,578 113,365 113,926 117,088 128,577 138,034 140,241 152,310 55,702 64,140 65,806 65,830 66,466 68,236 68,725 69,610 71,556 71,789 71,991 72,038 72,904 10,108 10,307 15,077 14,668 19,075 16,345 15,603 17,887 13,539 20,134 18,455 12,689 10,503 13,904 11,162 15,677 15,648 17,320 16,553 15,766 13,971 13,588 18,713 16,938 21,788 17,315 19,729 19,869 17,001 19,338 18,303 18,303 7,380 15,357 11,534 15,206 11,676 14,054 13,359 13,713 14,847 14,423 17,322 14,111 15,696 \\ Page 4 of 6Appendix A (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Fleet Data Bus # 216 242 234 220 221 217 237 236 209 45 229 224 228 231 226 24 223 232 233 240 225 222 230 213 211 90 219 260 261 271 274 273 268 265 277 257 278 269 281 258 264 263 275 259 270 Model 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Make CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward 92-93 93-94 Mar-95 To Date Type Engine Reading Reading Reading MIsZYr C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 45,328 48,183 64,457 57,330 48,005 49,085 51,005 48,713 51,981 49,457 52,092 54,982 57,391 55,476 52,926 52,721 62,737 52,476 47,643 61,876 63,570 58,931 61,818 64,937 48,017 70,442 67,751 10,885 9,798 10,242 8,881 8,178 8,382 11,030 13,121 13,278 13,635 10,059 12,638 16,755 15,785 14,202 16,668 14.197 12.817 61.273 64.452 76.124 68.667 63.449 65.992 65.418 67.424 71.744 68.301 71.844 72.663 72.762 73.794 72.740 71.532 76.619 74.793 69.694 75.100 77.890 77.891 78.631 82.598 66.564 90,939 97,230 26,413 27,180 25,530 22,897 22,548 28,023 29,729 30,891 31,467 32,604 33,592 32,339 37,384 39,114 36,870 35,038 37,220 36,471 73.299 15.945 73.328 16.269 74.780 11.667 76.836 11.337 77.577 15.444 77,761 16,907 79,234 14,413 80,157 18,711 83,018 19,763 83,024 18,844 83,411 19,752 84,580 17,681 85,025 15,371 85,303 18,318 86,679 19,814 86,779 18,811 86,840 13,882 87,927 22,317 88,020 22,051 89,238 13,224 89,630 14,320 90,249 18,960 90,826 16,813 95,371 17,661 103,055 18,547 105,206 20,497 111,827 29,479 37,279 15,528 38,368 17,382 38,805 15,288 40,644 14,016 41,958 14,370 42,579 19.641 42,871 18,699 42,929 17,770 44,409 18,189 45,749 18,969 48,327 23,533 48,984 19,701 49,653 20,629 51,254 23,329 51,822 22,668 52,595 18,370 54,445 23,023 56,411 23,654 Page 5 of 6Appendix A (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Fleet Data 92-93 93-94 Mar-95 To Date b?7 Bus# 280 276 272 266 262 279 267 56M 57M 58M 59M 60M 61M 62M 63M 64M 65M 66M 67M 39M 52M 50M 55M 47M 53M 46M 54M 44M 48M 42M 45M 51M 38M 40M 43M 36M 37M 49M 41M Model 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Make INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type Engine Reading Reading Reading MIs/Yr C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 19,278 10,526 8,693 16,091 23,870 25,254 27,683 42,125 37,749 36,567 44,893 52,261 49,376 60,182 59,088 59,461 60,252 65,557 70,533 71,275 75,850 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1,425 2,022 2,158 2,167 3,201 3,441 3,505 3,676 3,691 3,763 3,953 4,387 4,458 4,753 5,274 5,651 6,126 7,582 7,648 7,798 22,847 27,223 27,874 28,802 28,391 24,122 32,499 \\ I 5 I s K I I el I ! i I s i f 1 Page 6 of 6Appendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Schcx\u0026gt;l Bus Run Data ____ Mar-95 Bus # 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 12 12 14 14 15 15 16 16 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 25 25 26 26 27 27 29 29 30 30 31 31___ 32 32 33 33 36 36 42 42 44 44 45 45 Model 86 86 87 87 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 85 85 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 86 86 87 87 86 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 86 86 87 87 85 85 87 87 87 87 90 90 Make GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV Body Type Engine Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward C C C C C C C C C C C Z Z Z C Z C C C C Z C C C Z Z C z c z c c c c c c c c c z z c z z c c c z z c c Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Reading 134,092 134,092 139,401 139,401 137,426 131,579 131,579 124,763 124,763 142,726 142,726 120,551 120,551 145,637 145,637 112,632 112,632 131,832 131,832 132,296 132,296 124,631 124,631 123,279 123,279 127,069 127,069 \" 128,056  128,056 \" 144,853  144,853 105,444 105,444 93,619 93,619 83,926 83,926 129,888 129,888 130,153 130,153 140,099 140,099 122,710 122,710 136,697 136,697 130,751 130,751 83,024 83,024 Run # 021 46C 07M 44C 32C 02G 46D lie 42F 13H 42J 07B 51B OOH 42H OIK 51C 10M 52A 02A 23B* 15E 25B 15A 28G 07N 37C 01D 30C 16F 35B 10D 35C 13A 24B 10K 33C OU 31C 08K 33B 15C 17C 11D 35D 08J 46A 02F 24G 08M 28E TIME 59.9 34.5 42.2 46.7 46.5 23 43 38.3 49.2 39.3 49.9 37 46.6 41.7 47.5 37.3 25.8 44 38.2 45.4 39.3 28.7 43.1 41.3 29.2 38.2 52 37.2 27.8 40.4 55.4 46.4 40.3 46.2 43.8 50.4 26.8 42.7 47.6 46.8 43.4 45.3 42.1 27 55.1 56.6 54.7 40.9 21.4 28.1 25.9 Miles LR/State 22.4 10.79 13.37 14.18 16.73 6.46 14.68 11.62 19.2 14.88 16.08 12.56 15.44 14.03 15.38 14.55 10.1 17.04 15.17 13.28 14.3 8.94 16.6 14.7 14.33 10.74 18.61 12.39 9.05 15.62 27.66 15.63 14.1 15.41 15.11 17.27 8.58 12.64 17.79 16.31 15.03 26.46 13.78 7.48 21.02 21.48 21.6 14.37 16.23 9.66 13.48 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR Page 1Appendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data Mar-95 Bus # 46 46 48 48 49 49 51 51 54 54 56 56 57 57 58 58 60 60 62 62 63 63 64 64 68 68 69 69 70 70 91 91 93 93 94 94 95 95 96 96 125 125 126 126 127 128 128 129 129 130 130 Model 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 86 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 86 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 Make GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c A A c c c c c c c c c Engine Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Reading Run # 125,663 125,663 138,306 138,306 127,393 127,393 128,852 128,852 124,785 124,785 114,325 114,325 140,371 140,371 129,902 129,902 131,915 131,915 119,579 119,579 124,194 124,194 119,781 119,781 152,340 152,340 115,230 115,230 136,228 136,228 128,409 128,409 142,632 142,632 138,452 138,452 162,994 162,994 157,056 157,056 114,853 114,853 119,729 119,729 126,588 123,891 123,891 109,633 109,633 114,054 114,054 11B 35A* 10F 23C QIS* 28A 13E 44B 10L 48H 01E 32A* 07G 18A 08C 45C 07D 28D 12H 38B 16H 51A 13F 52B* OIF 26A 12A* 31A 071 18B 15D 39B 01N 22A 08G 28C 13D 18E IOC 30F 13L 42D 12C 25A 130* 10J 36D 16D 22B 02C 33D TIME 27.4 26.2 49.3 50 14.5 57.2 37.9 47 48.3 44.3 34 30.4 50.4 47.3 47.5 34.1 46.4 36.1 35.9 42.8 26.3 51 41.8 47.8 44 41.9 26.3 24.7 42.7 45.5 35.5 54.8 15.6 56 40 47.7 49.8 58.2 49.5 49.2 19.2 31 42.3 29.5 11.4 36.2 49.6 26.2 47.3 53.9 22 Miles LR/State 9.09 10.05 15.9 17.52 4.04 17.64 11.7 15.36 15.4 13.29 10.46 10.64 17.83 15.46 19.67 12.78 12.67 11.3 9.77 14.29 7.56 15.83 13.48 18.36 14.49 15.87 8.52 10.13 14.03 15.56 13.85 19.77 5.57 23.54 12.36 20.05 15.26 20.02 17.14 15.37 6.38 10.26 15.54 10.9 3.16 12.28 18.96 7.24 14.97 18.11 6.66 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR \\ Page 2Appendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data ____ Mar-95 Bus # 131 131 133 133 135 135 136 136 137 137 138 138 139 140 140 141 141 142 142 143 143 144 144 145 145 147 147 149 150 150 152 152 153 153 154 154 155 155 156 156 157 157 158 158 159 159 160 160 161 163 163 Model 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 Make GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward - Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c_ c c_ c c c c_ c c__ c__ c c__ c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c___ c c c c c c c c c Engine Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Reading 98,577 98,577 132,914 132,914 117,632 117,632 129,51 1 129,511 123,041 123,041 140,173 140,173 \" 124,809 \" 120,815 \" 120,815 \" 97,044 97,044 126,812 126,812 125,980 125,980 134,199 _ 134,199 _ 126,591 126,591 125,129 125,129 _ 135,517 3 128,001 128,001 125,069 125,069 130,478 130,478 120,793 120,793 126,720 126,720 128,471 128,471 131,860 131,860 130,697 130,697 124,001 124,001 123,158 123,158 126,452 130,513 130,513 Run# 02J 25C 10G 421 11G 45B 07E 47E 11H 45A 09F 32E 30H 07C 17B 10A 47D 15G 28F 11F 34C* 02B 19B 11E 44A 09K 28B II METRO 07A 42E 101 40A* 10H 24F 16E 29C* 161 36A 01H 50A 13G 32D 16K 35E 02H 33A 11A 18D 01 METRO 08D I 31B I Page 3 TIME 26.2 38.9 27.3 31.5 35.7 47.1 50.6 50.2 26.8 38.5 45.4 44.3 26.8 23 29 46.4 37.7 20.7 29.6 43 37.9 51.7 31 33.6 48.9 24.1 34.9 35 46.3 47.2 25.4 32.4 19 39.5 39.9 26.2 53.2 44.4 51.1 39.9 42.9 33.3 53.9 56.3 45.6 38 39.4 30 25.2 Miles LR/State 7.31 12.49 7.72 11.64 11.77 17.61 16.93 16.18 8.61 12.7 16.65 13.4 10.54 6 10.86 13.22 10.05 6.41 13.61 15.34 12.19 17.37 10.03 11.47 15.7 7.65 12.64 13.75 17.2 17.01 14.05 8.81 5.76 11.45 15.43 7.23 17.53 14.49 18.59 13.62 13.9 11.28 19.13 18.39 15.85 12.36 11.63 12.38 7.51 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LRAppendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data Mar-95 Bus # 165 165 167 167 176 176 177 177 178 179 179 180 180 181 181 182 182 184 185 185 186 186 187 189 189 191 191 193 193 196 196 200 201 201 202 202 206 206 207 207 208 208 209 209 210 210 211 211 213 213 214 Modei 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Make GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type Engine C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Reading Run # Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Page 4 126,205 126,205 131,293 131,293 122,102 122,102 133,146 133,146 122,293 129,346 129,346 146,568 146,568 134,403 134,403 76,958 76,958 122,678 118,490 118,490 120,707 120,707 99,207 126,533 126,533 121,713 121,713 125,110 125,110 86,102 86,102 125,590 118,885 118,885 113,726 113,726 69,610 69,610 65,806 65,806 71,991 71,991 83,018 83,018 65,830 65,830 103,055 103,055 95,371 95,371 68,236 12D 36E 10E 40C 081 29A 09A 30A dETROEV 13C 50D 13K 46E 07H 24C 12B 47A VIETROEV 16B 24A 13M 20G 12METRO 13J 39A 02D 18F 10B 30D OIL 29B 46F* 12E 19A OOE 47F 20D Al 07J 18C 08B 23A 07F 33E 12F 37B Oil 32B OSH 30G 30B TiME 41.6 51.6 23.1 29.7 41.4 35.5 39.8 30.3 49.8 39 51.4 49.1 35.2 45.5 47.8 36.9 46.8 40.9 52.2 40 57.1 35 31.7 41.9 29.9 42.6 37.2 21.8 47.3 27.4 12.7 41.5 41.8 56.7 52.7 32 37.4 39.2 31.7 47.3 37.9 27.8 47.6 48.8 34.7 53.5 31.2 Miles LR/State 15.59 17.09 7.11 13.34 12.22 13.13 11.45 7.39 16.35 18.16 14.16 20.02 16.69 11.71 17.32 17.73 14.08 18.53 10.53 17.05 13.59 21.39 11.23 11.32 13.38 11.64 13.81 12.12 6.28 16.81 9.77 3.39 13.84 14.27 19.06 19.02 11.05 14.17 12.11 9.51 17.26 12.48 8.48 17.38 19.34 11.95 16.55 9.83 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR \\Appendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data ________ Mar-95 Bus # 215 215 216 216 218 218 220 220 221 222 222 223 223 224 224 225 225 226 226 227 227 228 228 229 230 230 231 232 232 234 234 236 236 237 238 238 239 239 240 240 241 242 242 257 257 258 258 259 259 260 260 Model 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Make CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT Body Type Engine Reading Run# I Ward I Ward I Ward I Ward I Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward [ Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward  Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward I Ward I Ward I Ward I __C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c I Gas I Gas I Gas I Gas I Gas I Gas I Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 71,5561 71.556 73,299 73,299 55,702 55702 76,836l ' 76,836| 77,577| 90749I 90749I 86,840l 86,840| 84,5801 84,580| 89,630| 89,630j 86,679| 86,679| 68725| 68725| 85,0251 85,025| 83,4111 90,8261 90,826l 85703I 87,927l 87,927| 74,78o! 74780| 80,157l 80,157| 01G 20E 09D 44D 131 37A 09B 20B 20A 09C 48C 091 48B 010 48E 08L 48A 02E 48F 09M 30E 13B 20c 38A 01M 42A 16C 01c 48D 16J 34B 08E 34A 79,234112METW 72,038|01 METRO 72,0381 66,4661 66,4661 48G 16G 42C 89,238|02METRO 89,238l 71,789 73,328 73,328 44,409 44,409 49,653 49,653 54,445! 54,445! 37,279| 37279! 20F 29D 01R 38C 12G 50B 08F 42B 09J 47C 02L 24D Page 5 TIME 52.1 38.9 42.6 52.7 27.5 43.8 48.3 23.9 50 43.1 46.7 29.7 26.3 48.9 26.3 32.6 29.1 46.8 43.7 11.8 42.8 40.8 47.9 49.3 40.7 A5.7 27.5 46.6 27.4 39.2 45.1 48 44.7 54.5 35.6 43 31.9 37.8 20.9 41.8 296 44.6 25.7 34.7 16.6 52.4 21.7 31.7 Miles LR/State 14.4 13.14 14.12 19.79 9.16 15.28 14.52 8.01 16.38 13.51 12.78 13.27 9.4 17.01 9.72 9.35 8.3 13.33 16.44 3.75 13.14 12.81 14.02 16.47 12.32 17.74 12.31 17.33 7.94 14.91 18.26 16.23 19.28 19.04 15.07 15.36 9.23 12.76 6.3 15.79 8.07 14.26 8.5 14.9 3.5 13.1 6.04 10.19 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR__ LR__ LR__ LR__ LR__ LR__ LR__ LR LR__ LR___ LRAppendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data Mar-95 Bus # 261 261 264 264 265 265 269 269 271 271 274 274 275 277 277 278 . 278 280 12M 19M 23M 24M 25M 26M 29M 31M 34M 41M 1 5 17 17 43 65 67 127 148 149 161 162 166 178 184 187 200 204 217 217 229 231 235 Model 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 95 85 86 85 85 87 86 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 88 88 88 88 90 90 90 90 90 Make INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC Ford GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Engine Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Diesel Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Reading Run # 38,368 38,368 51,254 51,254 42,871 42,871 48,327 48,327 38,805 38,805 40,644 40,644 15F I 42G I D8METRO 47B 121 40B 02K 36B 12J 24E 12METRO TIME 21.6 34.8 39 20.8 39.4 36.7 44.2 39.4 39.5 17A I 40.7 52,595 32METRO 42,929 42,929 45,749 45,749 59,088 111,578 152,310 113,365 108,688 140,241 72,588 94,071 75,857 59,285 16A 50C 08A 46B VIETROEV 02M 01Q 01P 09G 09L 15B 07K 13N 07L 53.9 19.97 42.4 40.4 32.6 17 34 46.8 42 31.2 17.9 29.2 44.7 7,798 31 METRO 148,655 137,426 MM30PIVL 03D 123.8 49 141,090 35METRO 141,090 127,208 149,626 172,281 126,588 124,391 135,517 126,452 177,534 159,237 122,293 122,678 99,207 125,590 126,230 77,761 77,761 83,411 85,303 72,904 MM38 MM05 MM21 MM35 MM04 MM07 MM29 MM03 MM58 MM34 MM43 MM44 MM16 03H MM08 MM06 MM46 03B 27F 03A 63.2 43.6 60.4 53 51.1 63.4 78.8 48.1 70 49.2 58.5 40.1 90.4 53.1 72 61 60.1 56.5 34.7 52.9 Miles LR/State 5.55 12.87 10.82 5.35 15.63 10.71 17.13 16.23 11.84 13.49 14.77 38.6 14.16 11.25 10.64 4.48 10.84 14.5 15.44 11.39 7.56 10.97 19.01 61.34 15.43 28.22 15.6 25.42 23.99 21.61 25.12 36.5 28.41 39.3 22.18 15.74 17.57 44.66 19.25 32.04 26.78 25.95 19.1 17.74 20.13 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST Page 6Appendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data _____ Mar-95 Bus # 235 237 241 266 270 272 273 275 279 280 01M 02M 02M 03M 03M 04M 04M 05M 05M 06M 06M 07M 07M 08M 08M 09M 09M 10M 10M 11M 11M 11M 12M 13M 13M 14M 14M 15M 15M 15M 16M 16M 17M 17M 18M 18M 18M 19M 20M 20M 21M Model 90 90 90 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Make CHV CHV CHV INT INT INT INT INT INT INT GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward ' Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward  Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c_ c c c c c c c c__ c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c___ c c c c c c c c Engine Gas Gas Gas Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Reading 72,904 79,234 71,789 65,557 56,411 60,252 41,958 52,595 71,275 59,088 113,926 Run # 43B MM17 MM25 MM22 MM01 MM45 MM42 MM36 MM28 MM41 MM57 111,557 35METRO TIME 53.7 78.1 44.7 66 53 69.8 59 68 74 53.9 51.3 Miles LR/State 16.81 41.15 16.55 24.96 20.98 35.06 22.55 27.65 33.35 20.31 25.55 Page 7 111,557 94,195 94,195 100,662 100,662 104,625 104,625 100,392 100,392 98,145 98,145 93,284 93,284 98,502 98,502 94,840 94,840 101,288 101,288 101,288 111,578 97,482 97,482 81,288 81,288 98,665 98,665 98,665 99,045 99,045 128,577 128,577 110,690 110,690 110,690 152,310 99,145 99,145 117,088 43E 05E 06B 03J* 06A 05A 431 43H MM31 05G 43F 03K 06G 43G MM24 03G 21B 031 43A MM49 21H 05C 27A 051 21F 05J 06K MM48 05B 43D 05D 27D 03F 43C MM47 06F 03E 27G 03C 49.2 42.3 44.7 43.2 50 33.4 50.6 39.2 25.4 43.3 43.2 52.4 43.1 49.1 28.9 35.4 47.9 47.9 41.7 89.5 54.9 48.1 38.6 50.4 40.1 32.8 44.9 68.9 49.9 44.4 38.2 32.9 52.1 44.4 65.5 48.3 47.7 29.6 45.8 16.18 14.29 16.87 15.93 19.71 11.19 18.66 15.7 25.4 13.59 14.2 16.25 16.75 18.61 10.85 13.48 21.33 16.16 15.2 37.87 20.13 12.61 12.13 17.29 15.35 11.77 15.17 31.15 16.85 13.65 13.64 12.66 18.94 14.33 31.26 15.05 14.25 11.18 14.51 ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST STAppendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data Mar-95 Bus # 21M 22M 22M 23M 24M 25M 26M 27M 27M 28M 28M 29M 30M 30M 31M 32M 32M 33M 33M 34M 35M 35M 36M 37M 38M 40M 41M 42M 43M 43M 43M 44M 45M 46M 47M 48M 49M 50M 51M 52M 53M 54M 55M Model 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Make GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type Engine Reading Run # C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Page 8 117,088 101,457 101,457 113,365 108,688 140,241 72,588 83,403 83,403 111,474 111,474 94,071 97,325 97,325 75,857 86,137 86,137 061* 05F 21E 27B 27C 21D 21C 03L 06E 27E MM18 21A 21G MM27 211 06C MM19 138,034 35METRO 138,034 59,285 76,006 76,006 6,126 7,582 4,753 5,274 7,798 3,953 5,651 5,651 5,651 3,691 4,387 3,505 3,201 3,763 7,648 2,158 4,458 2,022 3,441 3,676 2,167 06D 06H OSH 06J MM20 MM02 MM33 MM37 MM23 MM39PM| MM40Pm' MM50 MM51 MM09 MM10 MM11 MM12 MM13 MM14 MM26 MM56 MM52 MM53 MM54 MM55 TIME 33.3 35.6 45.6 45.8 49.6 36.1 56.9 43.7 49.4 49.6 44.4 49 44.6 39.4 51.2 36.4 41.1 35.8 40.7 29.2 50.5 57.3 45.9 60 85.8 63.8 87.3 44.2 20.8 61.6 85 79.9 71.5 87.3 91 85.1 67.1 75.5 75.7 71.1 60.5 49 Miles LR/State 11.94 14.8 17.74 15.82 17.44 17 18.25 18.33 16.53 14.17 21.87 18.45 18.75 14.42 16.53 16.95 19.55 11.34 14.88 11.87 16.69 20.95 17.83 24.88 27.06 24.87 33.03 22.24 11.01 25.37 38.37 33.49 44.14 40.63 44.67 43.88 24.48 36.38 41.44 39.51 36.42 31.95 ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST \\I 1 )* ^55 SECTION II. SAMPLE AGREEMENT/CONTRACT ha Request For Proposal (RFP95-014) Student Transportation Services Little Rock School District I S I Issued: March 31, 1995 * LRSD RFP95-014 FOR mJ DENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7 0)TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Topic Page 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1. CONTRACT DURATION AND CHARACTERISTICS 1.1.1. 1.1.2. 1.1.3. 1.1.4. Term Renewal Provisions Cost Indexing Unusual Cost Increases or Decreases 1 1.2. OWNER - CONTRACTOR COMMUNICATION AND BILLING .3 1.3. 1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.2.3. 1.2.4. 1.2.5. 1.2.6. Owner Contractor Liaison Provision for Notice Bill Format 1.2.3.1 1.2.3.2 1.2.3.3 1.2.3.4 Charges for Regular Route Service Regular Route Flat Bus/Day Rate Charges for Non-Conflicting Trip Service Charges for Conflicting Trip Service Invoice Documentation and Exceptions Billing Frequency / Time For Payment! Discount for Prompt Payment Total Consideration for this Agreement LEGAL INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS .6 1.3.1. 1.3.2. 1.3.3. 1.3.4. 1.3.5. 1.3.6. Incorporation by Reference Failure to Enforce a Default or Other Right Definitions Contract Interpretation Severability Amendments to this Agreement \\ 1.4. CONTRACTOR STATUS...... 1.4.1. Performance Bond 1.4.2. Permits and Licenses 1.4.3. Insurance Requirements 9 1.4.3.1 Public Liability Insurance 1.4.3.2 Workers' Compensation Insurance 1.4.3.3 Property Insurance 1.4.3.4 Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance 1.4.4. Hold Harmless / Indemnification Agreement 1.4.4.1 Injury to the Contractor, or to Direct or Indirect Contractors Employees 1.4.4.2 Injury Caused by the Contractors Employees or by Direct or Indirect Contractors Employees LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 1TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Topic Page 1.4.5. Force Majeure 1.4.5.1 Acts of God 1.4.5.2 Labor Disturbances 1.4.6. Permissibility of Subcontracts 1.4.6.1 Subcontractor Experience 1.4.6.2 Subcontractor Liability Insurance 1.4.6.3 Continued Contractor Responsibility 1.4.7. Assignment of the Contract 1.4.8. Contractor Independence 1.4.9. Covenant Against Contingent Fees 1.4.10. Penalty for Collusion 1.4.11. Conflict of Interest 1.5. ETHICS PROVISIONS....................................................................... 1.5.1. Non-Discrimination 1.5.2. Civil Rights Act Compliance 1.5.3. Hiring District Employees Involved in Proposal Evaluation 1.6. TERMINATION............................................................................ 1.6.1. Criteria 1.6.1.1 Revoked or Suspended Contractor Licenses 1.6.1.2 Incomplete or Inadequate Service by Contractor 1.6.1.3 Contractor Bankruptcy 1.6.1.4 Poor Operational Safety 1.6.1.5 Improperly Maintained Vehicles 1.6.1.6 Improperly Maintained Facilities 1.6.1.7 Failure to Follow Runs \u0026amp; Schedules 1.6.1.8 Failure to Obey Laws and/or Ordinances 1.6.1.9 Failure to Provide Agreed Upon Data 1.6.1.10 Owners Right to Termination 1.6.2. Advance Notice 1.6.3. Damage Provisions 2. CONTRACTOR OBLIGATIONS 2.1. MANAGEMENT......................................................... 2.1.1. Hours of Office Operation 2.1.2. Emergency Situations 2.1.3. Certified School Bus Driver Instructors 2.1.4. Routine Communications with the District 2.2. OPERATIONS, ROUTING, AND DISPATCHING 13 14 16 17 LKSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 11TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Topic Page 2.2.1. General Operating Requirements 2.2.1.1 2.2.1.2 2.2.1.3 2.2.1.4 2.2.1.5 Regular Run Service Non-conflicting Extra Service Conflicting Extra Service Public Communications \u0026amp; Complaint Management Remote Student Transportation \\ 2.2.2. Driver Management Requirements 2.2.2.1. Employing Existing District Drivers 2.2.2.2 Regular Driver Assignments 2.2.2.3 Substitute/Spare Drivers 2.2.3. Routing And Scheduling 2.2.3.1 2.2.3.2 2.2.3.3 2.2.3.4 2.2.3.5 Contractor Published Regular Routes Dry-runs and Driver Orientation Changes in Established Runs or Stops New Regular Service Routes Changes in School Schedules 2.2.4. Dispatching 2.2.4.1 Assigning Appropriate Vehicles to Routes 2.2.4.2 Driver Assignment to Routes 2.2.5 Extra Service Transportation 2.2.5.1 Non-Conflicting Trips 2.2.5.2 Conflicting Trips 2.2.5.3 Option to Cancel Trips 2.2.5.4 Limitation of District Obligations 2.2.5.5 District Right to Contract Separately 2.3. SCHOOL BUS DRIVER REQUIREMENTS 2.3.1. District Philosophy 2.3.2. Pre-Employment Screening 2.3.3. Credentials and Related Requirements I 1 ,23 2.3.3.1. Driver Age 2.3.3.2. Licenses and Permits 2.3.3.3. Driver Health Requirements 2.3.3.4 District Approval 2.3.4. Drug Use Prevention 2.3.4.1 Grounds for Testing 2.3.4.2 Grounds for Removal from Service 2.3.5. Criminal Background Checks for Drivers 2.3.5.1 Action on Criminal Background Results 2.3.5.2 Access to Criminal Background Check Results by the District LttSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 111TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Topic Page 2.4. SCHOOL BUS DRIVER TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 2.4.1. Original Training 2.4.2. In-Service Training 2.4.2.1 T-01 Training Card Training 2.4.2.2 Safety Training 2.4.3. Retraining 2.4.4. Evaluation .27 2.5. OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES............... 2.5.1. Vehicles Leased From the District 30 2.5.1.1 2.5.1.2 2.5.1.3 2.5.1.4 2.5.1.5 Cost to the Contractor Use of Owner Vehicles Maintenance of Owner Vehicles Owner Vehicle Insurance Two-Way Radios 2.5.2. Vehicle Management and Standards 2.5.2.1 2.5.2.2 2.5.2.3 2.5.2.4 Number of Contractor Supplied Vehicles Contractor Supplied Vehicles Age and Condition of Contractor Provided Vehicles Accessories Required for Contractor-Supplied Vehicles 2.5.3. Mandated and Requested Vehicle Modifications 2.5.4. Physical Location and Control of Buses 2.5.5. Purchasing/Leasing Contractor Supplied Vehicles Upon Termination 2.5.5.1 2.5.5.2 2.5.5.3 2.5.5.4 2.5.5.5 2.5.5.6 Purchasing Contractor Vehicles if Termination for Cause Purchasing Contractor Vehicles Upon Contract Expiration Vehicle Purchasing Options Duration of Open to Purchase' Determining a Fair Price of the Vehicles Interest Rate Cap on Purchases/Leases 2.6. MAINTENANCE................................................................... 2.6.1. Maintenance Standards 2.6.2. Removal From Service 2.6.2.1 District Fleet Inspections 2.6.2.2 Grounds for Removal 2.6.3. Responsible Party 2.6.4. Prioritization of Repairs 2.6.4.1 Listing Preventive Maintenance to be Done 2.6.4.2 Listing Repairs to be Done 2.6.4.3 Prioritization of Maintenance Work 2.6.5. Fleet Management Software 36 LSSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7 0) IVTABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Topic Page 2.7. 2.6.6. Purchase of Fuel 2.6.6.1 Using Federal Tax Exempt Fuel 2.6.6.2 Fuel Storage Responsibility 2.6.6.3 Monthly Fuel Usage Reports 2.6.7 Contractor Purchase of Existing District Parts Inventories FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES 2.7.1. Facilities 2.7.1.1. District Supplied Facilities 2.7.1.2. Contractor Furnished Facilities 2.7.2. Required Facility Equipment 2.7.2.1. Maintenance Tools 2.7.2.2. Two Way Radio Base Station(s) 2.7.2.3. Phone System 2.7.2.4 Fuel Storage 2.7.3. Supplies .40 2.8. CONTRACTOR RECORDS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 2.8.1. Records to be Maintained by Contractor 2.8.1.1. Daily Activity Records 2.8.1.2. Personnel Records 2.8.1.3. Electronic Fleet Records 2.8.1.4. Paper Fleet Records 2.8.2. Contractor's Monthly Status Report .42 2.8.2.1 2.8.2.2 2.8.2.3 2.8.2.4 2.8.2.5 2.8.2.6 Daily Vehicle Unavailability for the Month Monthly Vehicle Breakdowns Daily Absenteeism for the Month Staffing Changes for the Month Student Discipline Incidents/Violence for the Month Explanations for Early/Late/Missed Buses During the Week Extra Trips or Missed Stops Per Month 2.8.3. Miscellaneous Required Communications From the Contractor 2.8.3.1 2.8.3.2 2.8.3.3 2.8.3.4 2.8.3.5 Driver Assignment Changes Student Discipline Problems/Violence on Buses Inspection Reports Use of Subcontractor Accident Reports tRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) \\ VTABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Topic Page 2.9. DISTRICT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES .47 2.9.1. Discipline on the School Bus 2.9.2. Bus Availability for Inspection Purposes 2.9.3. Authority to Remove Buses From Service 2.9.4. Authority to Approve, to Reject, and to Require Removal of Drivers From District Service 2.9.5. Liquidated Damages 2.9.5.1. Early, Late, and Missed Runs 2.9.5.2. Operation of a Unfit Bus for Service 2.9.5.3. Due Process 2.9.6. Release of Responsibility 2.9.7. Services Provided by the District APPENDICES START HERE. 50 Appendix A Monthly Status Report Example Appendix B Example of Invoice Detail Spreadsheet Appendix C Records/Data to Be Maintained by Contractor Appendix D Sample lease Agreement iiKSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) viCONTRACT The located at: (Owner), and the successful proposer, located at: .(Contractor), mutually agree as follows: 1.1. CONTRACT DURATION AND CHARACTERISTICS 1.1.1. Term The term of this Agreement shall be for the three year period beginning July 1, 1995 and ending June 30, 1998. This contract is to cover services for Little Rock School District (LRSD) and State Magnet/M-to-M student transportation, except that all special education busing shall be retained and operated by LRSD. 1.1.2. Renewal Provisions This agreement may be renewed at the completion of the initial term by one (1) year increments for an additional two (2) years upon mutual agreement of the Owner and Contractor as authorized by law. 1.1.3. Cost Indexing Each component of the successful vendor's proposal on the proposal forms may be adjusted annually by the change in the \"Consumer Price Index(CPI) for Urban Earners and Clerical Workers for the United States for the preceding aimual period and by mutual consent of both parties. Local business conditions and other contractual considerations that may need addressing will also determine the agenda for this annual adjustment negotiations. Such annual adjustment shall be effective on July 1 of each year. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 11.1.4. Unusual Cost Increases or Decreases In the event of any unusual circumstances, such as an unforeseen change in local, state, or federal taxes, laws, regulations, or policy, then the parties to this agreement shall negotiate a reasonable and just amount to cover such increase or to create savings for the owner from any decrease, and the rates set in the successful proposal and contract agreement shall be accordingly adjusted. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 21.2. OWNER - CONTRACTOR COMMUNICATION AND BILLING 1.2.1. Owner Contractor Liaison A Contract Manager or Administrator shall be appointed by the District Superintendent and shall be the Districts primary liaison with the Contractor. 1.2.2. Provision for Notice All notices to be given by the parties hereto shall be in writing and served by depositing same in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid and registered. Notices to the Owner shall be sent to: Little Rock School District 1800 East 6th Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Attn: The Procurement Director Notices to the Contractor shall be addressed to: (Provide proper legal address) 1.2.3. Bill Format 1.2.3.1 - Charges for Regular Route Service Charges for regular home-to-school transportation service(Regular Routes) shall be based upon the proposed price schedules submitted by the Contractor for Owner supplied vehicles and Contractor supplied vehicles. Charges shall be made based on the number of non-spare buses employed each day to service the regular routes. The District agrees that none of the routes will require more than 8 non-dead head hours to complete\nthis includes both morning and afternoon service. Charges shall only be made for service on school days or other days specifically authorized by the District. LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 31.2.3.2 - Regular Route Flat Bus/Day Rate The District reserves the right not to pay more than the fiat bus/day rate for performing a given regular route. Standards for each route will be determined and maintained by the owner and/or Contractor using a computer routing software package. It is likely that the District will ask the Contractor to provide service for additional extra routes during the life of this contract. New regular routes will be communicated to the Contractor at least 1 month in advance by the District, and the Contractor will provide service to the District for these new routes at the same flat bus/day rate as it does for existing regular routes. 1.2.3.3 - Charges for Non-Conflicting Trip Service Charges for Non-Conflicting Extra transportation service shall be based upon the proposed price schedules submitted by the Contractor. Charges for each NonConflicting trip shall be based on an hourly charge. The hourly charge associated with the trip will be based upon the time when the driver picks up the first student on his or her trip and the time that the last student is dropped off on that trip. 1.2.3.4 - Charges for Conflicting Trip Service Charges for Conflicting Extra transportation service shall be based upon the proposed price schedules submitted by the Contractor. Charges for each Conflicting trip shall be based on an hourly charge. The hourly charge associated with the trip will be based upon the time the driver picks up the first student on his or her trip and the time the last student is dropped off on that trip. Furthermore, the District reserves the right to refuse any invoices for Conflicting Trips if the Contractor cannot show written permission from both District principal and the Districts Contract Administrator or his/her designee. a 1.2.4. Invoice Documentation and Exceptions A properly documented invoice must be supported by summaries of regular routes operated, by run number, and by day. The invoice will also detail any charges for Extra Service trips as well. The Contractor will list the time required for those trips in hours and minutes. This information should be submitted on diskette in addition to on paper. LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 41.2.5. Billing Frequency / Time For Payment! Discount for Prompt Payment The District shall pay the Contractor for services provided hereunder on a monthly basis. Payment shall be made within 30 calendar days of receipt of a properly documented invoice. Payment shall be adjusted by any incentives, liquidated damage assessments, and discounts for prompt payment as provided for elsewhere within this Agreement or within the Contractor's Proposal. \\ 1.2.6. Total Consideration for this Agreement Total consideration for this Agreement includes payment at rates contained on the Contractor's proposal forms, the lease to the Contractor at a cost $1/academic year/bus of Owner buses, and the lease to the Contractor at a cost of $l/year/site of the Little Rock School District-owned facilities as described in the Facility Lease Agreement. I LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 51.3. LEGAL INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS 1.3.1 Incorporation by Reference The entirety of this Agreement shall be made up of a number of documents. The following documents are therefore hereby incorporated into this Agreement:  Text of this Agreement\n Proposal submitted by the Contractor, Section I of this RFP, the completed proposal forms (Section IV) and the complete qualification questionnaire (Section III.)\n Terms, conditions and instructions contained in this RFP document\nand  Worker's Compensation, Insurability Certificates, and associated property lease agreements (see sample at Appendix D). 1.3.2. Failure to Enforce a Default or Other Right The omission by either party at any time to enforce any default or right reserved to it, or to require performance of any of the terms, covenants or provisions hereof by the other party at the time designated shall not be a waiver of any such default or right to which the party is entitled, nor shall it in any way affect the right of the party to enforce such provisions thereafter. 1.3.3. Definitions Conflicting\" Trip: A trip shall be defined to \"conflict\" with Regular Home-to-School service if: The trip requires travel at times during which all suitable Owner buses are performing home-to-school routes\nand/or The trip lasts so late at night that a driver could not perform regular home-to-school service and the trip without exceeding the legal maximum of 16 hours on duty\nand/or The trip lasts so late at night that a driver could not spend the legally required minimum 8 hour uninterrupted period off duty before starting a home-to-school route the next day. Non-Conflicting Trio: All trips that do not fall within the above definition. District: As used in this Agreement, \"District\" shall be construed to be the Little Rock School District Governing Board, the Superintendent of Schools, and all officers, agents and employees of the Board and Superintendent. LRSD RFP95-0N FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 6Owner\nAs used in this Agreement, \"Owner II Driver: Route: Run\nshall be construed to be the District or the Department of Education of the State of Arkansas. A \"regular\" driver is one who is assigned to a daily route. A \"standby' driver is one who is paid to report to work daily, but who is not assigned to a route, e.g.: one who regularly covers runs for absent drivers. An \"on-call\" driver is one who does not report to work each day, but who may be called to drive on short notice. \"Substitute drivers\" refer to all non-regularly assigned drivers, e.g.\nboth standby and on-call drivers. The complete daily assignment of a single bus, made up of one or several runs. The picking up of pupils at their designated home bus stops and delivering them to the school, or the picking up of pupils at their schools and returning them to their home bus stops. For example, a single bus may make several runs in conveying students to and from school during the course of a day. These several runs comprise a single route. NOTE: Federal Court mandates that in Little Rock Block, no student should be subject to a bus ride that exceeds forty- five (45) minutes. 1.3.4. Contract Interpretation Should any questions arise as to the meaning and intent of this Agreement which cannot be settled within 30 calendar days, the matter shall be submitted for resolution to a committee made up of one person selected by the District and one person selected by the Contractor. If the persons so selected are unable to agree upon a resolution within 15 calendar days following such selection and appointment, said persons shall agree upon a third person whose decision will be final and binding on all parties to the dispute. The decision of the impartial arbitrator shall be rendered within 20 calendar days from the date of submission. The costs of arbitration shall be borne by both parties equally. 1.3,5. Severability \\ a third person Should any part of this Agreement be struck down or found illegal or impermissible for any reason, that part alone shall be severed, and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain m force. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 7T 1.3.6. Amendments to this Agreement This Agreement may be amended by mutual Agreement of both parties. Amendments may be proposed in writing by either party, delivered to the address provided for notices elsewhere in this Agreement. Such amendments shall take effect upon signature by the original signatories to this Agreement or their designees. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 81.4. CONTRACTOR STATUS 1.4.1. Performance Bond The successful Proposer shall furnish within five (5) work days from receipt of notification of intent to award, a standing Surety Bond from a bonding agent acceptable to the District in the amount of 100 percent of the expected annual billing under this Agreement forecast by the District. This performance bond shall be renewable annually. as \\ 1.4.2. Permits and Licenses The Contractor shall secure and maintain in force such licenses and permits as are required by law for furnishing the service herein specified and shall comply with and observe -J lavv ivi luiuibiiiiig inc service nerem specitied and shall comply with and observe all provisions of state law, including but not limited to provisions of: the Arkansas Department of Education Code and Standard 17 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard\nand directives and regulations of the State Board of Education, the Office of the County Superintendent of Schools, and any other governmental agency, relative to the transportation of pupils. 1.4.3. Insurance Requirements The Contractor shall maintain insurance satisfactory to the Little Rock School District and as set forth below during the term of the Agreement. Contractor shall furnish evidence thereof to the District not less than thirty (30) calendar days before new or renewed coverage is required. Such evidence shall be in the form of a certificate of insurance issued to the District, shall include a minimum sixty (60) day notification to certificate holders of cancellation or change in the policy, and shall be extended to include as additional insureds the Little Rock School District, and the Little Rock School District Governing Board, Superintendent and all officers and employees of the District, Board, or Superintendent (The State of Arkansas may also require being named as an additional insured for State M- to-M buses). 1.4.3.1 - Public Liability Insurance The Contractor shall maintain such public liability insurance as will protect the Contractor from any claims for damages for personal injury, including death, and damage to property, which may arise from operations under Agreement. Such liability insurance shall: or about this  Be maintained in the amount of $5,000,000 combined single limit\n Specify that its coverage is primary\nand  Be underwritten by a carrier acceptable to the District. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 91.4.3.2 - Worker's Compensation Insurance The Contractor shall maintain such Workers' Compensation insurance as will protect the Contractor from claims which may arise from operations under the Agreement with the School District. 1.4.3.3 - Property Insurance The Contractor shall maintain such property insurance covering vehicles, the terminal and shop buildings and land and related personal and real property. Such insurance shall be sufficient at minimum to repair or pay the depreciated value of the damaged property. 1.4.3.4 - Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance The Contractor shall maintain comprehensive automobile insurance including owned. Owner-leased, and hired vehicles(including buses). This coverage shall cover $ 1,000,000 per occurrence, no annual aggregate, single limit, covering bodily injuries and property damage. 1.4.4. Hold Harmless / Indemnification Agreement The Contractor shall hold harmless and indemnify the Owner, the District, the Governing Board, the Superintendent, and their officers and employees from every claim or demand, including the costs of legal defense, by reason of: 1.4.4.1 Injury to the Contractors Employees, or to Direct or Indirect Contractors Employees. Any injury to person or property sustained by the Contractor or by any person, firm, or corporation employed directly or indirectly by the Contractor upon or in connection with the Contractor's performance under this Agreement, however caused. 1.4.4.2 Injury Caused by the Contractors Employees or by Direct or Indirect Contractors Employees Any injury to person or property sustained by any person, firm or corporation, caused by any act, neglect, default, or omission of the Contractor, or by any person, firm or corporation directly or indirectly employed by the Contractor upon or in connection with the Contractor's performance under this Agreement. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 101.4.5. Force Majeure 1.4.5.1 - Acts of God The Contractor shall be excused from performance hereunder during the time and . Mimi uc CACUSCU irom penormance nereunder during the time and to the extent that he is prevented from performing in the customary manner by acts of God, loss of transportation facilities, commandeering of materials, products, plants, or facilities by the government, when satisfactory evidence thereof is presented to  the District. 1.4.5.2 - Labor Disturbances In the event of a strike, lockout, or other labor disturbance which interrupts service, the Contractor shall be excused from performance hereunder only if the Contractor reasonably utilizes its management and other personnel to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement and demonstrates to the District that the Contractor exercised reasonable and good faith efforts to avert the labor action and settle the dispute(s) as to prevent any service interruption. so 1.4.6. Permissibility of Subcontracts Contractor may subcontract with other qualified transportation firms to provide a portion of the transportation service required hereunder only with prior written approval from the District. 1.4.6.1 - Subcontractor Experience The Contractor will provide evidence to the District for any subcontractor employed which documents the experience of the subcontractor(s). No subcontractor will ' have less than 3 years experience providing services as described in this document to public school districts with budgetary operations and requirements comparable those of the Little Rock School District. to 1.4.6.2 - Subcontractor Liability Insurance If a Contractor proposes to subcontract, a certificate of insurance evidencing the required liability coverage shall be provided for each subcontractor. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 11 1.4.6.3 - Continued Contractor Responsibility The Contractor shall be responsible for all activities related to this Agreement. whether the Contractor or a subcontractor performs them, including but not limited to, monitoring of adherence to routing and scheduling requirements, safety programs, driver education, reporting requirements, insurance requirements, invoice preparation, and payments to subcontractors. The Contractor is expressly responsible for all facets of the operations and performance by any subcontractors. 1.4.7. Assignment of the Contract Contractor shall not assign or transfer its rights, burdens, duties, or obligations under this Agreement without the prior express written permission of the District. 1.4.8. Contractor Independence While performing services hereunder. Contractor is an independent Contractor and not officer, agent, or employee of the District. Further, Contractor employees, expressly an including but not limited to drivers, are employees of the Contractor, and are not employees of the District. 1.4.9. Covenant Against Contingent Fees The Contractor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Agreement upon an agreement or understanding for a commission. percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, excepting bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Contractor for the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Owner shall have the right to terminate any Agreement that may be entered into with the Contractor and, in its sole discretion, to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full ^ount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or commission fee. 1,4.10. Penalty for Collusion If at any time it shall be found that the person, firm or corporation to whom a contract has been awarded has, in presenting any proposal, colluded with any other party or parties then the contract so awarded shall be null and void and the Contractor shall be liable to the District for any and all loss and damage of whatever nature, which the District may suffer and the District shall seek a new Contractor. LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 121.4.11 Conflict of Interest 1.5. By submitting a proposal, the company represents and warrants that no director or employee of the District is in any manner interested directly or indirectly in the proposal or contract which may result from the proposal or in any of the expected profits which might arise therefrom\nand, that no attempt has been made to influence or gain favorable advantage by communicating directly or indirectly with any official of the LRSD. It is understood, that any action taken which might tend to degrade the integrity of the competitive proposal process, will be considered as grounds for disqualification. ETHICS PROVISIONS \\ 1.5.1. Non-Discrimination The Contractor shall not discriminate against any prospective or active employee because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, creed, sex, age, or marital status. The Contractor thereby agrees to comply with applicable Federal and Arkansas Laws including, but not limited to. Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 2000 e through 2000 e (17) and AR. Code Ann. Section 16-123-101 et. seq. 1.5.2. Civil Rights Act Compliance The Contractor agrees that he will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulations of the Department of Education (34 C.F.R. Part 100) issued [pursuant to that title, to the end that, in accordance with Title VI of that Act and Regulation, no person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color or national origin, be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Applicant receives federal financial assistance from the Department, and hereby gives assurance that he will immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement. The Contractor further agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of state and local laws, ordinances, and regulations regarding nondiscrimination in employment. 1.5.3. Hiring District Employees Involved in Proposal Evaluation The Contractor agrees not to hire any District employees involved in the evaluation and selection of the Contractor's Proposal for the duration of the contract without permission of the Superintendent and School Board. Such employees include but are not limited to the Director of Transportation or Maintenance Shop Foreman. LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 13 I1.6. TERMINATION 1.6.1. Criteria This Agreement is subject to termination at the Owner's discretion if any of the following occur:  1.6.1.1 - Revoked or Suspended Contractor Licenses The Contractor s licenses or permits legally required to perform transportation service called for by this Agreement have been suspended or revoked\n1.6.1.2 - Incomplete or Inadequate Service By Contractor The Contractor fails to provide services specified by this Agreement, or is guilty of a substantial violation of this Agreement\n1.6.1.3 - Contractor Bankruptcy The Contractor is adjudged bankrupt or makes a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors\n1.6.1.4 - Poor Operational Safety The Contractor maintains a poor safety record\n1.6.1.5 - Improperly Maintained Vehicles The Contractor fails to maintain school buses according to legal vehicle standards O 1 Z*V 1 I  I* _J_____1 1 1 a  or according to the District vehicle standards described elsewhere in this Agreement\n1.6.1.6 - Improperly Maintained Facilities The Contractor fails to maintain office and vehicle repair facilities in a reasonable and acceptable state of repair and appearance, to include specifically those areas and property items that impact on safety\n1.6.1.7 - Failure to Follow Runs \u0026amp; Schedules The Contractor fails to adhere to the runs and schedules provided by the District\nLRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 14 J1.6.1.8 - Failure to Obey Laws and/or Ordinances The Contractor persistently disregards laws, ordinances, or directions of the District\n1.6.1.9 - Failure to Provide Agreed Upon Data \\ The Contractor fails or refuses to provide required or agreed upon data or information to the appropriate school personnel or to the Owner Transportation Coordinator\n1.6.1.10 - Owner's Right to Termination The Owner's right to terminate is in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the Owner. 1.6.2. Advance Notice The Owner may terminate this Agreement for any of the above reasons by giving the Contractor thirty calendar days advance written notice delivered to the address provided for Contractor notice elsewhere in this Agreement. 1.6.3. Damage Provisions a cause enumerated in Section 1.6, the Owner may In the event of termination for a cause enumerated in Section 1.6, the Owner may secure replacement services described in this Agreement from another firm or provide service itself for the remainder of the Agreement's duration. If the cost of the replacement service exceeds the cost of services under the rates in this agreement, the excess cost shall be charged to and collected from the Contractor and/or his sureties, except that charge shall not exceed 150 percent of the cost of services under the rates in this Agreement. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 15 b2. CONTRACTOR OBLIGATIONS Contractor shall perform all of the services described below, and make any arrangements which may not be described, but which are necessary to perform these services. 2.1. MANAGEMENT Contractor will provide management staff to coordinate all Contractor functions described in this agreement. These staff shall ensure that Owner transportation needs are smoothly and efficiently met. In addition to such other personnel  ....................... as may be required to administer this Agreement, the Contractor shall employ and assign a full time transportation manager to act as the Contractor's primary designee in all matters relating to this Agreement and to the work to be done. 2.1.1. Hours of Office Operation The Contractor's operations office shall be adequately staffed from 5:30 A.M to 6'30 P M during all days that school is in session\nhowever, the Contractor will ensure that at least one manager will be designated at all times as \"on call.\" This person will be equipped with a beeper supplied by the Contractor ^will be responsible for answering emergencies during hours when the Contractor's II Operations Office is not open. 2.1.2. Emergency Situations Management personnel such as dispatchers shall not drive school buses except in an emergency. 2.1.3. Certified School Bus Driver Instructors The Contractor must employ or subcontract with a State-certified School Bus Driver Instructor who will be available to meet the training needs of drivers transporting District pupils. 2.1.4. Routine Communications With the District Contractor agrees to advise the District on routine organization and operations matters concerning transportation services, provided that such consultation does not disrupt the Contractor's ability to perform the services described in this agreement LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 162.2. OPERATIONS, ROUTING, AND DISPATCHING 2.2.1. General Operating Requirements The Contractor will provide both regular route service and extra service as described in the paragraphs below: 2.2.1.1 - Regular Run Service \\ Contractor shall provide all pupil transportation necessary to meet the District's Regular Home-to-School transportation needs for the specific runs detailed in Section I. Appendix B. Service shall be provided on school days, and on other days designated by the District. A subset of regular service will be provided during the summer months by the Contractor as required by the District. 2.2.1.2 - Non-conflicting Extra Service Contractor shall, as requested by the District, provide other pupil transportation for school-sponsored activities when such other transportation does not conflict with Regular Home-to-SchooI transportation service. Such school-sponsored activities may include field trips, work experience programs, athletic events, and the like. The Contractor will provide regular non-conflicting service during the months as well as required by the District. summer 2.2.1.3 - Conflicting Extra Service The District may request that the Contractor provide other transportation which may conflict with Regular Home-to-School transportation service. If these requests require the Contractor to utilize more vehicles than the District has requested be dedicated to other transportation service in section 2.5.2.1 of this Agreement, these trips will be declared as Conflicting\" and subject to the respective costs for conflicting service provided by the Contractor in the proposal forms associated with this Agreement. 2.2.1.4 - Public Communications \u0026amp; Complaint Management The Contractor will be responsible for assigning personnel who will answer status inquiries related to daily operations as well as complaints made by parents or other community members, principals, teachers, and other District personnel. Contractor will ensure that all such inquiries will be answered promptly in a friendly, courteous and understanding manner. All complaints will be logged and reported to the District. The LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 17The following will only appear in the Agreement for the State Magnet/M-to-M Block: 2.2.1.5 - Remote Student Transportation The Contractor agrees to be responsible for transporting remote students participating in M-to-M or State Magnet programs to and from school and other activities. The District will provide a list of all such students and their addresses at the beginning of the year. The Contractor may at any time during the Agreement subcontract the transportation of these students out, but the subcontractor must be approved by the District. 2.2.2. Driver Management Requirements 2.2.2.1. - Employing Existing District Drivers 1) Following its acceptance of this contract, the Contractor agrees to offer jobs to all existing qualified drivers currently employed by the District. All such drivers must still meet the requirements outlined in Arkansas law AR An. 16-19-101 Sections 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110 et. seq. 2) Furthermore, the Contractor agrees to provide these drivers comparable benefits as they currently enjoy while employees of the District for the duration of this contract providing that an employee works more than 25 hours/week on average during the academic year for the Contractor. If an employee leaves the service of the District after either resigning or being terminated, the employee is not entitled to these benefits if he or she is rehired. 3) The Contractor further agrees to provide these drivers the same base wage rate _ they are currently getting from the District. If an employee leaves the service of as the District after either resigning or being terminated, the employee is not entitled to this base wage rate if he or she is rehired. 4) The Contractor is not obligated to pay these Drivers the same wages for duties such as extra runs or field trips. The Contractor may establish a completely different wage scale for these activities. LRSD RFP9S-0N FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 18 J2.2.2.2. - Regular Driver Assignments Regular Route drivers shall be permanently assigned to the same bus route whenever possible. If a change is made to a permanent route assignment during the course of the academic year, the Contractor shall notify the District within 5 days of the change. I I 2.2.23. - Substitute/Spare Drivers \\ The Contractor shall employ and assign to the District a sufficient number of school bus drivers and driver substitutes. The sufficient number shall be at least 10 percent larger than the established number of daily regular routes covered by this contract for the first year of the contract and then no more than the annual average rate of regular route driver absenteeism for all subsequent years of the contract. 2.2.3. Routing and Scheduling The Contractor will operate buses along routes determined and scheduled by the District during the first year of the contract. In the second and third year of the contract, the Contractor will assume responsibility for routing the vehicles. 2.23.1. - Contractor Published Regular Routes (1) On August 1st of the second year of this Agreement, the Contractor agrees to provide the District all of the regular service routes that will be served by the Contractor at the start of the next academic year. (2) The District must approve all routes and changes before the Contractor implement them. may (3) All runs must conform to applicable Arkansas state laws and the Districts Desegregation Plan particularly as to the time that a student may travel to and from school (REMINDER: forty-five (45) minutes for Little Rock Block regular run). (4) At thg Start of the second year, any contract savings to the District which is generated by the Contractor eliminating a bus from the previous year's. District supplied, routing plan will be split with the Contractor according to the terms supplied by the Contractor in the Proposal Forms/or a period of one year. This only applies to buses that are eliminated by consolidating students onto another bus operated by the Contractor. All such savings must be identified by the first day of classes of the 96-97 school year. No additional monies will be offered to the Contractor for any savings uncovered during subsequent years of the Agreement. Nor will the Contractor receive any proportion of savings uncovered as a result of refining its own runs once it assumes responsibility for routing from the District. (5) The Contractor is expected to design the most cost effective, timely, and safe runs possible within constraints dictated by the District. LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 19 h(6) The Contractor must use a computer routing package to support its routing function. In the event that the Contractor is not interested in using the District's existing Echo Tran software, the Contractor is expected to pay for all hardware, software and implementation expenses associated with assuming the routing function in the second year of the Agreement. (7) At the conclusion of this Agreement, the Contractor agrees to sell its software, hardware, and routing data used to perform the routing function to the District for $1 2 to pay for conversion of the routing data used by the Contractor's software to a format useable by the District. The Contractor agrees to let the District decide which course is more proper at the conclusion of the Agreement. 2.2.3.2. - Dry-runs and Driver Orientation Dry-runs will be conducted on all runs prior to the beginning of a new school year or extended session, and prior to the implementation of a new run during the school year. All dry runs must take place at the time of day during which the run would ordinarily be operated. A driver orientation will be conducted for all drivers who will be assigned to perform services for the District. The two-day dry run and driver orientation program shall include, but will not be limited to: pupil management, relationships with parents, relationships with the school and the general public, discipline on the school bus, handicapped sensitivity. and other pertinent information. The cost of said dry-runs and driver orientation will not be charged to the District. 2.2.3.3. - Changes in Established Runs or Stops Changes to established/existing regular runs, stops, or schedules shall be implemented by the Contractor as soon as possible, but in no case more than five(5) calendar days later than notification of the change is received by the Contractor manager responsible for service to the District. Such changes may include: deletion of service for an individual pupil\naddition of service to individual pupils at an established stop\naddition of service to pupils at a new stop. The Contractor agrees to provide these changes at established flat bus/day rate without any additional charges. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 202.2.3.4. - New Regular Service Runs The District realizes that additional regular service runs may be added to this contract during the term of this agreement. The District agrees to provide the Contractor advanced notice 30 days prior to requiring that new such runs be serviced by the Contractor. The Contractor agrees to provide this service at the established flat bus/day rate. 2.2.3.5. - Changes in School Schedules The District shall not be obligated to pay for any services hereunder on those days when the schools and classes of the District are closed to ensure the health and safety of pupils, for reason of inclement weather, or for any other lawful reason, provided that the District has notified Contractor by 5:45 A.M. of the day schools are to be closed. Likewise the District will not be obligated to pay anything above the flat bus/day regular home-to-school rates outlined in the proposal forms associated with this Agreement if the District is forced to close one or more schools early due to inclement weather or some emergency, and the Contractor is asked to transport children away from school earlier than usual. I I 2.2.4. Dispatching The Contractor will be responsible for dispatching all regular and extra service buses according to District supplied runs and schedules. 2.2.4.1 - Assigning Appropriate Vehicles to Routes The Contractor will ensure that an appropriate size and type of bus is assigned to each run each day, and that each bus assigned to each route is in compliance with legal and contractually described maintenance requirements. 2.2.4.2 - Driver Assignment to Routes The Contractor will assign all regular routes to the appropriate designated driver (if available) before choosing any other driver to cover a route. The dispatcher will also ensure that all routes are assigned to a driver who possesses all/any relevant endorsements or credentials needed to drive the type of bus assigned to that route (e.g.\nmanual transmission, or dual air brake), or to transport children on that route . LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 212.2.5 Extra Service Transportation In addition to providing daily service along pre-established and planned runs(Regular Routes), the Contractor will be called on from time to time to provide Extra Service for co- cunicular and extra-curricular activities. These trips will fall into one of two categories conflicting and non-conflicting. 2.2.5.I. - Non-Conflicting Trips Contractor shall provide service for all non-conflicting trips requested by the District. Charges for such trips shall be made using the hourly rate specified in the proposal forms (Section IV.) by the Contractor for Non-Conflicting Extra Service. 2.2.5.2. - Conflicting Trips The Contractor shall ensure enough capacity exists to provide transportation service for all conflicting trips requested by the District without jeopardizing regular run service. Furthermore, the Contractor agrees that all charges for such trips shall be made using the hourly rates specified in the proposal forms (Section IV.) by the Contractor for Conflicting Extra Service. 2.2.5.3. - Option To Cancel Trips The District shall have the option to cancel any scheduled trip upon the District's notification to the Contractor at least two hours prior to the time of the first scheduled pupil pickup. The District agrees to pay a S20 penalty charge for trip cancellations in which a two hou\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_786","title":"Transportation","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":["1994/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Transportation","School buses","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Transportation"],"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/786"],"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":["170 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\nI received JUL 1 4 1994 Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation Monitoring Outsourcing Student Transportation June, 1994 A Business CaseLittle Rock School District Outsourcing of Student Transportation Business Case Executive Summary One of the key issues facing the LRSD today is how to best handle the ever increasing demand for educational dollars while at the same time controlling and/or reducing the District's transportation costs and improving transportation operations and safety. It is often difficult to determine precisely the source of most of the problems within the current transportation system, but it suffices that an extraordinary amount of time has been spent by the Administration in recent months to achieve this end. In fact, a study was requested by the Board for the specific purpose of determining the processes whereby work is accomplished, and making any recommendations to the District for handling any shortcomings uncovered by this research. In their assessment. Coopers and Lybrand, the national accounting firm selected for the work, noted that although several areas were looked at in terms of whether or not they contributed to the successful accomplishment of the District's mission, pupil transportation stood out prominently as a liability. Parent complaints with our student transportation system have become voluminous as a result of poor on-time performance which has occurred because of an aging fleet, increasing accidents, and increasing absenteeism. The current fleet of buses numbers 281. The expected useful life of a gas engine bus is 100,000 miles. The fleet has 128 gas engine buses with over 100,000 miles on them. In the last 3 years, no money has been budgeted for replacement of buses. This circumstance alone has increased the cost and time devoted to maintenance. At times, as many as 51 buses have been out of service for repairs. As major repairs become increasingly more frequent, both labor and parts/materials costs are expected to rise proportionately higher in each succeeding year. In 1993, the District spent $480,804, in 1994 it spent $745,245, and in 1995 it is predicted to reach over $1 million. This escalation in vehicle maintenance costs is consistent with the out-of-service rate, and relates back to the level of performance. With the exception of periods immediately succeeding holidays or extended times of non-service, the District averages approximately 40 out-of-service buses per day. This represents 14% of the entire fleet of 281 vehicles. Since the District has a 10% spare bus ratio, the net result is an insufficient number of vehicles available for service. A reasonable expectation is for no more than 5% of the vehicles to be out-of-service for corrective or preventative maintenance during peak operational periods. Another common performance indicator associated with vehicle maintenance is \"wrecker experience\". In 1993, the District spent $14,390 for 160 wrecker calls. By comparison $25,945 has been spent for 291 wrecker calls to date in 1994. It is predicted that $37,800 will be spent for over 400 calls in the coming year. A more acceptable number for a fleet of this size would be an average wrecker experience of about five per month or 60 per year.Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 2 The District has a daily driver absentee rate of 23% . This translates to 48 drivers who are unavailable for service daily. The result of this high level of absenteeism is poor route performance, increased student discipline concerns, and inordinately high costs for drivers re-routed to pick up missed students. The bottom line is that the current operation is, more often than not, besieged with problems stemming from extreme driver absenteeism and the seemingly liberal use of employee sick leave provisions. (Note: the PCSSD currently has no employer sponsored sick leave provision for Bus Drivers and subsequently has many fewer problems in this regard) 1. 2. 3. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will cause costs to grow annually\nFollaio industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. This will have a dramatic impact on the current and future budgets. The first year increase to the budget is approximately $800,000. This solution does not maintain reasonable costs. The reasonableness of this alternative is questionable since a $7 million dollar gap exists in the current budget. Outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Research requested by the Board of Directors indicates that this alternative addresses all aspects of the problem. It includes a budget savings of approximately $1 million dollars over the next three years. Several strategies have been discussed in recent months, but perhaps none is as practicable an idea as that of outsourcing. It is believed that through outsourcing, the District will realize a considerable cost savings and significantly improve the level of service provided to its students and patrons. Though a primary motivation for considering outsourcing is to capture cost savings, it is worth mentioning that other tangible benefits such as reasonable and predictable fleet replacement, lowered driver absenteeism, improved vehicle maintenance, and reduced vehicle accident rate will also be realized. An appreciable improvement in these areas will lead to significantly fewer problems and complaints, as well as establish a more stable and reliable transportation system for future LRSD needs. Alternative 3 is recommended. By the opening of school for 1994-95, on-time performance will increase and parent complaints will decrease while reducing the cost of the student transportation system. This transportation proposal supports the school district goals relating to reducing costs and improving service. The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved when this solution is implemented: 1. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\n07/14/94 0C_OUTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 3 2. Currently employed drivers will maintain their jobs and benefits\n3. 4. 5. 6. Buses will be on-time more often than they are now\nAccidents decrease\nThe number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease\nThe cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less that that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed. It is critical that the decision be made before July 15th so it may be implemented by the opening of school for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know as soon as the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. No one will lose his or her job, however. 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. The money currently allocated will be used to pay for outsourcing. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the 1994-95 budget The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. ______________________Milestone______________________ 1. Proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval___________________________________________ 2. Notice to employees Date 7/14/94 Person Williams 3. Include this as a budget reduction strategy 4. Recruitment of current employees 5. Recruitment of new employees 6. Inventory property 7. Finalize contract 8. Relocate Safety and Security Department 9. Property transfer and occupancy________ 10. Complete bus routes__________________ 11. Retrain current employees_____________ 12. Train new employees__________________ 13. Notify patrons________________________ 14. Begin delivery of replacement equipment 15. Complete driver orientation and dry runs 7/15/94 7/15/94 7/18/94 7/18/94 7/21/94 7/21/94 7/2^1/94 7/22/94 7/29/94 8/1/94 8/1/94 8/1/94 8/10/94 8/15/94 Hurley Milhollen Contractor Contractor Neal Williams Neal, Eaton Neal, Milhollen Montgomery Contractor Contractor Wagner Contractor Contractor 07/14/94 BC_OU1Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 4 Background One of the key issues facing the LRSD today is how to best handle the ever increasing demand for educational dollars while at the same time controlling and/or reducing the District's transportation costs and improving transportation operations and safety. It is often difficult to determine precisely the source of most of the problems within the current transportation system, but it suffices that an extraordinary amount of time has been spent by the Administration in recent months to achieve this end. In fact, a study was requested by the Board for the specific purpose of determining the processes whereby work is accomplished, and making any recommendations to the District for handling any shortcomings uncovered by this research. In their assessment. Coopers and Lybrand, the national accounting firm selected for the work, noted that although several areas were looked at in terms of whether or not they contributed to the successful accomplishment of the District's mission, pupil transportation stood out prominently as a liability. The District expends an inordinate amount of time and energy focusing on Support Services such as transportation. Educational issues often take a back seat to transportation operations because of the time required to respond to these concerns. Often these issues are the focus of media attention which results in poor public relations. The District's transportation operations have frequently been in the media this year. In fact, it was the lead article on the front page of the November 7, 1993 Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Many of these stories have revolved around labor and safety issues and poor operational performance. The accuracy and voracity of the stories is not as important as the resulting poor public perception of the operations, and the fact that these \"crises\" are draining management's attention away from the primary goal of educating children. Service in the Little Rock School District has been the subject of much debate. According to a recent study only 69% of the buses are \"on-time.\" At present the district is not employing the best \"state-of-the-market techniques\" for managing and providing student transportation services. The Little Rock School District is facing a $7.2 million budget deficit for the 94-95 academic year. Management in the Transportation Department is concerned that the fleet is aging and a large proportion of it must be replaced. For the last several years, the District has been unable to meet its targeted goal of replacing 10% of its buses per year. As a result replacing the aged fleet now represents a prodigious capital expense which the District virtually cannot incur in a single budget year. To return to an acceptable fleet replacement cycle, the District would have to expend approximately $1 million per year over the next six years. or/iv^ 0c_ouTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 5 Problem Definition Parent complaints with our student transportation system have become voluminous as a result of poor on-time performance which has occurred because of an aging fleet, increasing accidents, and increasing absenteeism. The current fleet of buses numbers 281. The expected useful life of a gas engine bus is 100,000 miles. The fleet has 128 gas engine buses with over 100,000 miles on them. In the last 3 years, no money has been budgeted for replacement of buses. This circumstance alone has increased the cost and time devoted to maintenance. At times, as many as 51 buses have been out of service for repairs. To bring the fleet up-to-date requires a replacement schedule that meets certain criteria. The standards we have used are based on type of engine and miles of use. Those parameters require that buses used to service the District be replaced as follows: Gasoline powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds seven years of age or 100,000 miles at the start of any school year. Diesel powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds 10 years of age or 150,000 miles at the beginning of any school year. Using these parameters, along with the fleet's current mileage as of the close of school in June, 1994, a replacement schedule for the District's current vehicles School Year 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2003-2004 Buses 128 29 22 18 10 1 25 was established. Listed here is the number of buses that will need to be replaced prior to the start of each Replacement Schedule of Buses Based on 1994 Fleet \u0026amp; RFP Standard corresponding school year. Fundamental to the success of District 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 128 +$900,000 in 1994-95 to meet standard transportation operation is improving the level of service in the ^rea of vehicle 94-95 29 22 18 10 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 1 0 99- 2000 School Year 0 2000- 2001 2001- 2002 0 2002- 25 a 2003- 2003 . 2004 a fleet of 281 buses with only eight mechanics. maintenance. Because of the age and condition for the existing fleet it has become necessary to add additional maintenance staff and to service the older high mileage buses much more frequently. The District currently services The workload has increased dramatically over previous years because heavy maintenance previously covered under 07/14/94 BC.OUT Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 6 warranty must now be performed in-house. In fact, a recent study of the operation conducted by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. yielded this finding: The high ratio of one maintenance person to 44 vehicles is unsatisfactory. With many of these vehicles having over 100,000 miles on them, the need for quality preventative maintenance is crucial. ThLs is not presently possible and Mr. Viner and his staff are doing an excellent job of keeping the fleet running. Add to this the fact that no new buses are being bought this year, the situation is going to become more difficult to manage. Mr. Viner recently had one mechanic resign citing stress and the heavy maintenance workload as the reason. A replacement has not yet been hired, but even with this individual replaced, the bus vs. mechanic ratio is not consistent with national standards. As major repairs become increasingly more frequent, both labor and parts/materials costs are expected to rise proportionately higher in each succeeding year. In 1993, the District spent $480,804, in 1994 it spent $745,245, and in 1995 it is predicted to reach over $1 million. This escalation in vehicle maintenance costs is consistent with the out-of-service rate, and relates back to the level of performance. With the exception of periods immediately succeeding holidays or extended times of non-service, the District averages approximately 40 out-of-service buses per day. This represents 14% of the entire fleet of 281 vehicles. Since the District has a 10% spare bus ratio, the net result is an insufficient number of vehicles available for service. A reasonable expectation is for no more than 5% of the vehicles to be out-of-service for corrective or preventative maintenance during peak operational periods. Parts/Materials/Supplies $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Another common performance indicator associated with vehicle maintenance is \"wrecker experience\". In 1993, the District spent $14,390 for 160 wrecker calls. By comparison $25,945 has been spent for 291 wrecker calls to date in 1994. It is predicted that $37,800 will be spent for over 400 calls in the coming year. A more acceptable number for a fleet of this size would be an average wrecker experience of about five per month or 60 per year. 07/14/94 BC_OVr Outsourcing Student t ransportation Business Case 7 Wrecker Experienc $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 299 400 160 60 I 60 1992-93 1994-95 M LRSD Wrecker Calls 1993-94 Normal Wrecker Calls Several factors are used in determining performance levels for transportation services. One of the leading indicators of poor performance is driver absenteeism. Because unwarranted absenteeism harms the program for children, wastes the District's scarce resources, and works an undue hardship on employees who maintain good attendance records, it is considered to be a causal factor, and a fairly accurate indicator of the unsatisfactory performance level of the current operation. The District has a daily driver absentee rate of 23% . This translates to 48 drivers who are unavailable for service daily. The result of this high level of absenteeism is poor route performance, increased student discipline concerns, and inordinately high costs for drivers re-routed to pick up missed students. The bottom line is that the current operation is, more often than not, besieged with problems stemming from extreme driver absenteeism and the seemingly liberal use of employee sick leave provisions. (Note: the PCSSD currently has no employer sponsored sick leave provision for Bus Drivers and subsequently has many fewer problems in this regard) Vehicle accident rate is commonly used as the indicator when assessing the level of safe operation of the driver, the conditions in which operations are performed, and Quality of Perftmiance Accidents per Million Miles the condition of the vehicles operated. Preventable accidents harm students and others, waste financial resources, and lead to unnecessary down-time for equipment In 1993, tite District had 68 such accidents while logging over 3.9 million miles\nin 1994, there were 54 preventable accidents with the fleet traveling just over 4.3 million miles. That translates into 17.4 accidents per million miles and 12.5 accidents million miles respectively. per By contrast, the prospective contractor has an record established, documented safety of only 8.8 preventable 07/14/M BC_OUr Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 8 accidents per million miles. Typically, a high vehicle accident rate manifests in increases for both Workers Compensation and Property and Casualty insurance costs. Analysis of three previous years claims for Workers Compensation indicates an extreme upward trend in the frequency of claims and the cost per claim to the District. In 1992 there were 31 Workers Compensation claims processed for the Transportation Department at a cost of $66,439. In 1993 there were 42 claims processed at a cost of $169,587, and by March of 1994, there had been some 45 claims totaling $57,662. Bus driver claims account for 65% of all claims by district employees. The composite data indicates an urgent need for improved driver training and the initiation of a vigorous and sustained safety awareness program. That has not been possible in LRSD because of the elimination of supervisory/training position by budget cuts. Regarding these same issues, the Gallagher study referred to previously provided the following recommendations: 93-12-22. The Director of Transportation should develop, implement and manage an aggressive Loss Prevention Program. Supervisors and employees must be held accountable for their actions. Fair, Swift and appropriate discipline or corrective measures must be taken to handle unsatisfactory conditions prior to them becoming uncontrollable. 93-12-23. No driver should be allowed to operate a vehicle without first, having been trained in defensive driving. AU drivers should after initial training, attend annual defensive driving training including, hands-on evaluations. While the foregoing factors taken individually do not threaten the collapse of transportation, taken together, these signs reveal a dysfunctional system. Consider the comments of the Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand staff in their findings at the transportation terminal: Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand spent two days talking with customers and employees of the Little Rock School District's Transportation Department. While almost aU of the people we talked to spoke favorably of the department's operation relative to the constraints placed upon it, aU indicated a concern that something needed to be done to ensure that things didn't get worse. All interviewees, customers and employees alike, expressed a concern that the department was beginning to show signs of stress, like cracks in a dam, and many were fearful of the department's future. It is C\u0026amp;L's opinion that these concerns and signs are real. We also feel that these symptoms reflect the fact that the current mode of operation was conceived long ago without any vision of the desegregated , inner city environment in which the department now operates. What is frightening is that the interwoven complexities of this environment combined with the bankrupt methods of the past have created a semi-self defeating situation that cannot be escaped without vigorous redesign of the process. Analysis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a committee representing parents, principals, support staff, and administrators in the LRSD. Upon careful consideration, several 07/14/94 K.OUTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 9 aspects of the problem emerged. These must be addressed to have a viable solution to the problem. They are parent complaints, on-time performance, aging fleet. increasing accidents, increasing absenteeism, and costs. 1. 2. 3. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will cause costs to grow annually\nFollow industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. This will have a dramatic impact on the current and future budgets. The first year increase to the budget is approximately $800,000. This solution does not maintain reasonable costs. The reasonableness of this alternative is questionable since a $7 million dollar gap exists in the current budget. Outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Research requested by the Board of Directors indicates that this alternative addresses all aspects of the problem. It includes a budget savings of approximately $1 million dollars over the next three years. Several strategies have been discussed in recent months, but perhaps none is as practicable an idea as that of outsourcing. It is believed that through outsourcing, the District will realize a considerable cost savings and significantly improve the level of service provided to its students and patrons. Though a primary motivation for considering outsourcing is to capture cost savings, it is worth mentioning that other tangible benefits such as reasonable and predictable fleet replacement, lowered driver absenteeism, improved vehicle maintenance, and reduced vehicle accident rate will also be realized. An appreciable improvement in these areas will lead to significantly fewer problems and complaints, as well as establish a more stable and reliable transportation system for future LRSD needs. Recotnmendation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Research requested by the Board of Directors indicates that this alternative addresses all aspects of the problem. It includes a budget savings of approximately $1 million dollars over the next three years. Proposals have been requested from private sector transportation companies on this alternative. Of the responses received, only Mayflower Contract Services, Inc. proposed to contract the LRSD student transportation system as specified. Details appear in the proposal submitted by the contractor. 07/14/94 BC_OUrOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 10 Objective By the opening of school for 1994-95, on-time performance will increase and parent complaints will decrease while reducing the cost of the student transportation system. This transportation proposal supports the school district goals relating to reducing costs and improving service. The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved when this solution is implemented: 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 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 that that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed. 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. 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\n07/14/94 BC.OUrOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 11 3. Buses will be on-time more often than they are now\n4. Accidents will decrease\n5. The number of buses out-of-service decrease\nfor repairs will 6. The cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less that that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed providing students with badly needed new buses. Quality of Performance Bus Availability, Driver Absenteeism, Not-on-Time Buses 30% 2S% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 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 given the delays in implementation of outsourcing when considering increased activities associated with the start up of the school year. Timing It is critical that the decision be made before July 15th so it may be implemented by the opening of school for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know as soon as the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. Resources Anu lysis Personnel No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. No one will lose his or her job, however. 07/14/94 8C_OUT Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 12 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 V Three Year Bottom Line Cost Comparison LRSD V. Contractor   LRSD  Contractor -$1,018,614 savings over 3 years $10,000,000 T $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,562,449 $6,463,981 $7,327,775 $6,997,680 $7,760,438 \u0026gt;7,170,387 F $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 94-95 95-96 96-97 School Year maintenance facility already available. Even with these costs, outsourcing will reduce overall costs (See Attachment 1). Revenue Source The money currently, allocated will be used to pay for outsourcing. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the 1994-95 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 well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student service and cost savings. KJXJTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 13 Those most opposed to the solution will be 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 outsourcing is that costs will be reduced while improving service. General Implementation Plan The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. Milestone 1. Proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval 2. Notice to employees 3. Include this as a budget reduction strategy 4. Recruitment of current employees 5. Recruitment of new employees 6. Inventory property 7. Finalize contract 8. Relocate Safety and Security Department 9. Property transfer and occupancy 10. Complete bus routes 11. Retrain current employees 12. Train new employees 13. Notify patrons 14. Begin delivery of replacement equipment 15. Complete driver orientation and dry runs Date 7/14/94 7/15/94 7/15/94 7/18/94 7/18/94 7/21/94 7/21/94 7/21/94 7/22/94 7/29/94 8/1/94 8/1/94 8/1/94 8/10/94 8/15/94 Person Williams Hurley Milhollen Contractor Contractor Neal Williams Neal, Eaton Neal, Milhollen Montgomery Contractor Contractor Wagner Contractor Contractor Jz/IVM SC_OUTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 14 Attachmetit 1 Comparison of LRSD costs to Mayflower Contract Services, Inc. Costs EXPENSE CATEGORY Salaries Fringe Benefits Purchased Services Materials /Supplies Capital Outlay Other Objects SUBTOTAL Budget Yr 1994-95 3,679,789 800,604 676,500 964,664 11,000 1,000 6,133,557 Budget Yr 1995-96 3,790,183 809,049 686,648 984,041 11,000 1,000 6,281,921 Budget Yr 1996-97 3,985,519 852,142 700,381 1,003,722 11,000 1,000 6,553,764 TOTAL 11,455,491 2,461,795 2,063,529 2,952,427 33,000 3,000 18,969,242 Fleet Insurance Workers Compensation Fleet Disposal Bus Payment SUBTOTAL 512,680 236,473 537,000 522,933 243,565 533,392 251,357 1,286,153 1,155,391 1,921,889 1,317,297 2,102,046 1,569,005 731,395 537,000 2,472,688 5,310,088 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 7,419,710 8,203,810 8,655,810 24,279,330 Mayflower Proposal Special Education TOTAL 6,463,981 857,261 7,321,242 6,997,680 876,035 7,873,715 7,170,387 895,372 8,065,759 20,632,048 2,628,668 23,260,716 SAVINGS 98,468 330,095 590,051 1,018,614 Regular/M-to-M Special Ed______ TOTAL 6,562,449 857,261 7,419,710 7,327,775 876,035 8,203,810 7,760,438 895,372 8,655,810 21,650,662 2,628,668 24,279,330 0C.OUTDate: December 2, 1994 To: Judge Wright Promt m Brown Subject Informal Review of the LRSD November 16, 1994 Filing: Transportation Business Case, Incentive School Spanish Program, and Incentive School Theme Implementation. My staff and 1 have reviewed the submissions which the LRSD made last month to satisfy requirements of your October 24, 1994 Order. Our brief, very informal, and private assessment of each document follows below in three separate sections. If you should want us to write up a formal review, we will be happy to do so. 1. Transportation Business Case This case satisfies the mandate that the district provide a business case to explain how it will spend the $1.3 million which it appropriated for transportation in the 1994-95 budget. Both Bill and Melissa spent some time reviewing rough drafts of this business case with Russ Mayo (its author), posing questions and suggesting changes. Russ took some of those suggestions, but not all. For example, we suggested that the district think long-range and expand the business case to encompass transportation needs beyond the current school year. Other than the chart showing an extended bus replacement schedule, the proposal doesnt include such long-term planning. The business case only covers a solution and expenditures for the current budget year, 1994-95. Overall, the business case is acceptable. While several areas could be improved, it is better than most cases prepared by the LRSD. The case is weak in its alternative analysis, because it doesnt really address the pros and cons of each alternative identified, much less determine the cost and impact. It is obvious that this case was prepared after the failure of the outsourcing move, and as a justification of the only remaining option available at the time. \\2. Incentive School Spanish Program. Overall, the information in this report is poorly presented and appears to have been slapped together hastily. The shoddy report would matter little, if the Spanish program itself had any merit. This filing is just the latest installment in the districts attempt to shirk the commitments in its desegregation plan. The comments below are organized by the report page number and section. Page 1: (II) Rightsell did not begin any type of program until after the October 24, 1994 order. The report asserts that the principals believe the existing program, included in this document, is a way to provide meaningful foreign language experiences to their students.\" Unfortunately the report in sum does not convince us that children are receiving quality, meaningful foreign language instruction. Pages 1-2: (III) The days and times Spanish is offered varies among the schools, as does the total amount of instruction the students receive. At Franklin and Rockefeller, the amount of instructional time is \"at the discretion of the teacher\" and unspecified, although Rockefeller also adds 45 minutes once a week during extended day for both primary and intermediate students. Mitchell and Rightsell students get a 1.5 hour block once a week, and Garland students get 1/2 hour three times a week. Page 2: (IV) The report appears to be cobbled together from several sources (perhaps separate reports from each incentive school principal?). The summaries of the types of instruction offered at each school vary widely, from a comprehensive description of the satellite program in use at Garland to a terse sentence regarding the extended day program at Mitchell. Page 3: (V) Whoever wrote this report has no concept of the meaning of FTE. The district reports that at least one FTE is assigned to Spanish instruction at each incentive school. The report indicates that sixteen FTEs teach Spanish at Rockefeller. The author is quite confused. He or she has listed the number of persons involved in delivering instruction as an FTE when it is clear from the other documentation that no teacher in the incentive schools spends the equivalent of full-time employment teaching Spanish. Even at Franklin, the teacher assigned to the immersion class spends only a portion of the school day instructing in Spanish. (Vll) The descriptions of the language labs are inadequate and unenlightening. After reading the vague mumbo jumbo offered as a description of how the labs are used to reinforce instruction, you can almost hear the LRSD administration sing, \"How I Love to Dance the Little Sidestep.\" 2The district has offered no information to give the reader a picture of how the language labs enhance instruction. Could this be because the labs and the instruction continue to be virtually non-existent? The submission also uses the term \"FLES approach\". The acronym FLES is never spelled out, nor is the approach defined, so we have no idea what it means. (Vlll) All of the incentive schools restrict Spanish instruction to selected grade levels. Franklin and Mitchell are the worst offenders, offering Spanish only at the first grade. None of e schools provide Spanish instruction for children in Idndergarten or the program for four-year- olds. Page 4: (IX) (X) (XI) At 176 participants. Garland claims the highest number of students taking Spanish. The totals drop markedly for the other schools, down to only 14 students at Rightsell. While only first graders at Franklin and Mitchell receive Spanish instruction, no first graders are involved in the program at Garland and Rockefeller. This section dealing with the learning objectives is unrealistic. Given the limited amount of time devoted to instruction in Spanish, it is unlikely that students will develop \"skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing the Spanish language.\" The second objective listed is so esoteric that we wonder if it was included only to show off an obscure vocabulaiy word. According to item two, students will \"become familiar with Spanish syllabaries.\" It is incomprehensible that the anonymous author of this report would be aware of the word \"syllabaries\" and be unaware that the plural of medium is media (listed as mediums on page 3). This entire section is pretty weak also. A couple of the schools (Mitchell and Franklin) worked Total Physical Response into their blurb, but most of the information offered does not begin to address the requirements from e court order. None of the schools mention any interaction with native speakers, and any ties to the LRSD curriculum are very tenuous. Page 5: The final page of the report includes quite a bit of information on the Spanish immersion program offered in one first grade class at Franklin. The report claims that the immersion program has been fully implemented. We were going to make an unannounced site visit there on Wednesday, November 30, 1994, but tragically, the principals teenage son committed suicide, so we have postponed our visit until after the first of the year. 'We will withhold comment on the immersion program for now, and furnish a written surrimary of our findings within a few days of the visit. Our preliminary information on the program is that it is very poor and far from being fully implemented. 33. Incentive School Theme Implementation This submission is sadly inadequate in addressing the questions posed by the Court in the October order. The descriptions of programs are vague and dont provide any new information beyond what we had gained through our 1993-94 incentive school monitoring visits. If their \"update\" is accurate, our report is still timely. Franklin 1. The Communications Technology theme is poorly defined. The reader is told that the theme is \"the science of utilizing tools, machines, materials, and processes for the purpose of communicating.\" (p. 1). That definition has no meaning as it relates to what actually students do. No examples were provided. 2. There is no specific description of how the theme concepts have been integrated into the curriculum. 3. On page 2, the Franklin theme is described as \"operable\" (like a cancer!), but there is an indication that full implementation is not complete. No implementation timeline is provided, as requested by the Court. The excuse given for slowed implementation is that this is the first full year of employment for the theme specialist\nhowever, this is not the first theme specialist to hold the position since implementation began two years ago. Garland 1. The Garland summary describes computer-based instruction. The report does not specify how Garlands approach differs significantly from other schools which use computers as learning tools. 2. The full Garland theme is \"Multimedia Technology and Educational Research,\" but the theme description provides no mention of educational research. 3. Garlands theme is described as needing to be phased in due to high costs. A specific timeline isnt provided as requested by the Court, nor are the anticipated costs which make a phase-in necessaiy. 4. Full implementation of the theme is to occur in phases \"pending the outcome of initial phase' (p. 4). The submission does not explain what this means. 11 Mitchell 1. If the description is accurate, the Creative Dramatics theme is not an integrated part of e curriculum. The specialty teachers (art, music, physical education) are the vehicles for delivering the theme. Based on this description, full theme integration is not occurring at Mitchell. 42. The theme is described as \"operable\" (new favorite word at LRSD?), but needing refinement. No indication is given as to the type of refinement that will be necessary and the timeline is missing. Rightsell 1. Rightsells theme description is the only one which highlights the role of the classroom teacher in infusing the curriculum. By the way. Rightsell was the only incentive school to supply an infused curriculum guide during our 1993-94 monitoring visit. 2. The explanation of the mass media component of the theme is quite weak. 3. With the recent installation of closed-circuit wiring for closed-circuit television, it appears that theme implementation is complete. Rockefeller 1. It is our conviction that computers are a tool, not a legitimate theme. We see very little in the Rockefeller description to convince us that the school is actually emphasizing computer science.\" While Rockefeller may have more classroom-based computers than the average, we havent observed any new skills or uses that set the school apart from other schools which are effectively using computers as an instructional tool. 2. Rockefeller is the only incentive school at which, the report states, theme implementation is complete. 507/18/94 09:17 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ES 002/002 i' ODM CJ^ hy\nr/. Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE July 18,1994 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 SPECIAL BOARD VW 4Ji Sai :DULED The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District wiU hold a special meeting this evening at 5:00 p, Markham. 'm. in the administration building at 810 W. Board members will receive a business case on transportation outsourcing. The Board will also meet with parents from Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School. ### 810 West Markham .B4081701 1030/08/24 TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT VISIT INTRODUCTION * Thanks for the time. * I have put some questions together. I know you are new and many not have all the answers. That's ok I don't know much about school bus transportation, so foi^ive dumb questions GENERAL What have you done to get ready for school opening Monday? Routing has been completed, and the last minute changes are being added. Should be completed in time. Courtesy stops are already in the system. Drivers have been hired, and have completed in-service. 96% bus availability as of Friday morning. * What is your overall assessment? * Wliat are the weak areas? Getting enough bus drivers onboard. Getting enough buses running. Position control match to the budget was a joke. Had to spend a lot of time correcting the position control to find out who was in a slot and who had gone. Monthly Manpower report stopped in January, so no adjustments until at least that far back. Cheatam wants to look at how the extra runs are allocated to drivers\na few of them get all the good stuff. She wants to look at the \"distribution of the Wealth.\" She would also like to change from piece work pay to hourly pay. \\ - What major problems do you anticipate? 1Breakdowns. The buses are getting old, and will breakdown. * Wliat are the strong areas? Cheatham has feedback that says this was the best in-service the drivers have ever had. Everyone seem to think she is reasonable. - What areas do you have greatest confidence? ************************************************************************* ROUTING * Take me through the process of setting up new routes for the year. Jayne Agnes is the main routing person. She is really excited about her job and being able to expand the use of the system. One of the main benefits of having Mayo there was his being able to walk through things with us. There were several technology issues where passing a tape vice hardcopy would speed things up. He initiated action on them right there. Step 1. Transportation gets a tape from data processing of certain data elements of the student database. The first tape is generated in the early spring (F/M/A). The second tape is generated in May/June, and this is the tape which is actually used for routing. Step 2. Once the routing tape is loaded at Transportation, they run the Batch Census Edit. This is just a student name and address match routine which verifies the student file, and generates an exception report. This report is worked through most of the summer on constant clean-up. Step 3. From the report the student records are actually corrected. Step 4. Once the record is clean and entered into the system, the student shows up on the map as a \"white' square. Step 5. The operator then looks for the white squares and assigns a stop. If there is not an existing stop within the range, then the operator creates a new stop. From this stop generation, the operator then ties into routes. This process takes about a month since it involves numerous human decisions. Step 6. Once the regular Little Rock students have been worked from the tape, then M- to-M's are worked\nthen changes to assigned stops\nthen wants. New registrations are also worked in here. New registrations are written up on a form and then keyed into the student file at student assignment. The form is then sent to Transportation where the data is re-keyed into the Ecotran system. NOTE: we are working on data transfer here this exchange. Step 7. Once all the routing is done, the routes are printed and distributed. This has to take place before driver training can be completed. A major problem appears to be that Transportation does not have online access to the student database. Therefore, they do not have the capability to look up students in the system for researching problems. This really limits them. Cheatham is trying to get that fixed. 2* Wlien was this routing completed? The major part of the routing was completed over a week ago and before the driver training. Changes and some new registrations are still being worked. They really cannot complete the routing until the August registration results are loaded into the system and transferred.  How are registration changes cranked into the routing? All changes, registration and otherwise, are keyed into the system manually from forms mailed over from student assignment. Prior to school starting, Jane was getting about 50-1- forms a day. It was obvious to Mayo and Mooney that this student update data was being entered into the student file by student assignment and then re-keyed by Transportation. Data Processing could cut a tape of the file after updating by Student Assignment, pass the new copy to Transportation, which could upload the new file into the Ecotrans system. This would save time, re-keying, and errors. - Wlten is that done? As soon after registration as possible. The August registration holds up the processing.  What is the status of the student address base? Special education student information comes from that unit, and is still passed across manually on forms. - When was it last updated? The Transportation file was updated with the student file information by a June tape containing May data. There has been no updated data added during the June/Present timeframe. The best data they have on Little Rock kids is spring data. - What is the accuracy? Not very good. There has been no updated data added during the June/Present timeframe. The best data they have on Little Rock kids is spring data. * Last update from Ecotran MapNet. - When was the last update? (30 days) It was in the spring, and that was a software upgrade. They are at a deadend due to hardware constraints. They expressed a need for a hardware upgrade. - Did you just add stops, or did Ecotrans re-route? 3LRSD actually can do the routing from their terminal. LRSD personnel have learned a lot of new functions from the system. * Are the routing reports generated here, or at Ecotran? The routing reports are generated at the LRSD. Ecotran does not do much for them anymore, except the training. - When did you get them? (2 weeks) About a week ago. - Wliat are in the reports? Not using many of the features of Ecotran. It can do a lot more than they have used it for in the past. Jane has learned some new things just this week. Cheatam wants to send her to school on the system after things settle down.  When were the stop locations identified? See steps above.  When were students assigned to stop locations? See steps above.  How do you tell the drivers about their routes? They start getting routing sheets at the in-service the week before school. All drivers are required to make at least one practice run prior to school starting on Monday. * How do you get the word to parents about their kids' stop? Mail out. * How do you handle special stop requests? They are worked into the routing after the regular stops/routing is set up. Courtesy stops are set up, if possible. There is one bus that is all courtesy stops due to the neighborhood and traffic patterns. Athletic events are arranged separately by the coaches. Field trips are arranged separately by the teachers. The special runs are parcelled out to the regular drivers, if possible. * Wliat percent of drivers have completed practice runs? Almost all had completed at least one practice run by Friday morning. Some were still going to make the run on Saturday and Sunday. Transportation was going to be open for them. 4All drivers are required to make at least one practice run prior to Monday school start. Many drivers have made more than one practice run. They can make as many as they want. All will complete the practice by Monday. They have to make the run forward and backwards. The routing sheets only print in the forward direction\nthe drivers have to read the routing sheet backwards for the afternoon trip. Routes were bid on Tuesday before the opening of school. Will now be bid each nine weeks in order to add some stability. - What was your target? 100% - Why the difference? * Are their any major route blockages? Six or seven\nnothing major. They have identified a few problems, but they are fixing them now. Some drivers have come back from practice and made some suggestions on swapping stops between routes for better function. - Where? Asher and Cantrell. No mention made of the 3rd street overpass being out. Mooney uses it as an example.  How many routes will you service? 314 regular, 45 M-to-M, and some special ed.\n359+ * How many runs will you make? Runs and routes are the same to them.  Wliat is your longest run? 26+ miles\nM-to-M across the county. * When is your first pickup in the morning? 0614 - Wlien is your last arrival in morning? 0900 - When is your last regular drop in the afternoon? 1900, not counting some specials and late events. 5Last year they had one student that was an M-to-M from the county that was playing football on a road trip. They had to have a single bus for this one kid, and the bus did not get back to the barn until 0400. ***************************************************************** BUSES * Buses Mainly gas. Some getting changed out to diesel. They have 128 buses that are over the 120k mile cycle for replacement. The outsourcing contractor was going to replace these with newer buses, but now they are stuck with them. - How many total in your fleet? 281 - How many required for the day? 260, not counting special requests. - What will you have available Monday? Will have sufficient buses. 12 are in the shop now, meaning 96% availability for the fleet. That is pretty good.  What is the status of your communications equipment? Ok for Monday, but needs some long term work. Cheatham is looking into tying into the new city system (a $4M system). If they can do that, there will be some hardware changes required, but have many other valuable features...911, MEMS both direct. Replacement buses - How many did you replace this year? Only replacements were the state buses for M-to-M. No regular buses were replaced. - Do you have any on order? - What impact will the Ward fire have on you? 6DRIVERS * How many drivers on your allowance? The allowance is 331. About 300 is a good average to have onboard. They currently have 290 hired. Need to add about 30 more to the pool. Rock bottom minimum is 260\nsame as the buses required for the day. - How many required for the day? 260-1- - How many do you have onboard? 290  What kind of training have the drivers had this summer? They had a two day in-service last week. The in-service covers the following: personnel work changes, policies and procedures, updating license, new drivers get defensive driving workshop, first aid, special ed students, emergencies. All drivers are required to take the defensive driving course sometime during the year\nnew hires must take it at the orientation inservice. All drivers must attend this session. - How many have been trained? All will get it. - What kind of follow-up training do you have for those that have not been trained? They have supervisors for OJT, and there are some follow-up in-service during the year. Defensive driving is a good example. - What kind of training has been provided on discipline on the buses? Covered in the in-service during small group workshops. - Did the drivers provide any input into the training? Yes they have done some. They asked for and will get more information on the radios, and will get more of the \"How to Win\" seminar.  Have the drivers provided any input into problem solution? Yes. Remember the routing problems. They have also turned in several additional suggestions to Cheatham on how to improve operations and attendance. She has told them at orientation that she will look at them. She may or may not implement the suggestions. She has told them the items selected for implementation would have to be no cost. Some of the suggestions: re-bidding every 9 weeks for stability\nlooking at about 75 route \\ 7substitutes\nattendance\nusing vending machine money for \"pride\" efforts\nhandling special runs. - Have they had the opportunity? They have the opportunity, but there is no formal system for suggestions or a suggestion review process. They simply write them up and turn them in.  What is the morale of the drivers? Cheatham and Jane think the morale is pretty good. ******************************************************************* MECHANICS * How many mechanics on your allowance? 8 on allowance. They are going to run a split shift for the first time. This way they will have a mechanic in the shop as long as they have a regular run on the road. - How many are onboard? 8 onboard - What about the chieP New guy in the job\npromoted. Retired Army master sergeant. - When will you be full staffed? Current - What is the morale? Seems good right now. 96% availability of fleet. * $300K for mechanics - Wlten do you anticipate getting help from that money? Waiting on approval from the Court. Will gets some parts, 2 mechanics, and some helpers. * What kind of Preventive Maintenance System do you have? They have maintenance log sheets which are all manual. The mechanic makes an entry on the bus, what was done, and what parts were used. This log sheet may have several bus jobs on the same sheet. There is no form, just notes by the mechanic. Maybe 20 words max. 8They kind of keep a running parts inventory in the mind off of these log sheets\nyou know about how many you used and how many you had so the rest should be there\nnothing formal. Each bus has something of a manual maintenance history file in the file cabinet. Based on the log sheets. No formal PMS system. They kind of know when they need to be done. The state requires two general maintenance cycles each year for each bus. They just kind of do them. Maintenance notes are given to the shop by the drivers if they think something needs to be done on the bus. - Is it automated? Nothing is automated. This is a major problem. Montgomery and Cheatham have identified the software needed, but will have to find the money and time to make it happen. - What kind of reports are generated? No reports are generated. The raw data is on the log sheets, and is not extracted. Strictly in a react mode, and based totally on the recall of the mechanics. - What is your greatest maintenance problem? Springs\nfixed during the summer. Brakes\non the road breakdowns. - Are you up to date? 96 % availability posted on sheet of paper each day at the window in the maintenance shop. The first sign of tracking objectives in the district. Just started that this month.  What is your anticipated percent of on-road breakdowns for Monday? Don't think they will have many on Monday. Should have about 15% by Thursday.  What is your plan for handling on-road breakdowns? Mainly anticipate brake problems. Will send out a replacement bus, and the mechanic/helper will try to nurse the wounded bus back to the barn. What kind of wrecker service do you operate? Contracted. Very big expense. About $90 a pop. * Wliat kind of breakdown data do you maintain? None. Only in their minds. - What do you do with it? 9 \\MANAGEMENT * What kind of service do you provide for extracurricular activities? Athletics, field trips, extended day, etc. These are set up outside of the regular schedule. They are requested from various parties, and are worked into the load. They try to give the extra runs to those drivers that want the money. Extra runs require the driver as well as a dispatcher in the office in case of trouble. Very expensive. Remember the example of the single football player at 0400. M-to-M rule of thumb\n5 or more get a bus, less than 5 ride in cabs. - How is that worked into your regular schedule? - How do you plan for that? - What kind of volume do you have? There are about 150 bus loads a day covering all of the special runs, including all of the above and extended day. - Have you been given information indicating more or less load than last year? - Wliat measurements do you keep? None  What is the impact of extended day? No decision has been made by the administration regarding the extended day cuts. Transportation is still waiting to hear. The extended day program will not start until next month, so there is still some time. - How is that worked into your regular schedule? - How do you plan for that? - What kind of volume do you have? - Have you been given information indicating more or less load than last year? - What measurements do you keep? * How are you planning to handle the 9 days of early release this year? 10No decision has been made by the administration. NOTE: I did not sense there was any affirmative action on this. - When did you get a heads-up on this?  What kind of ridership data do you keep? Very little. Only assignments. No real ridership data is kept or worked up. Ecotran has a reporting capability, but the district has never used it. They can not measure the impact on black/white. NOTE\nthey could copy the race code from the student database, read it into Ecotran files, and prepare reports like \"average miles for black students and average miles per white student\" etc. - How do you measure impact on black/white kids?  What security issues are facing you on Monday? At the shop, the main security problem is tracking and accounting for parts. Pilferage, not wholesale theft. On the buses, the main security problems are security around the bus stops and fights on the bus. - What measures will you take?  How do you handle checkers/spotter? These are the supervisors, not additional staff. There are five driver supervisors, and they all have other duties. While the buses are on the road, anywhere from 3-5 supervisors will go out and monitor their schools, if they don't have anything else that is critical to work on (Jayne Agnes also does Ecotran routing). They have been grouped by school since last January. - How many do you have? - What sample do you hit? What does the Transportation Department need most in order to be successful this year? Technology upgrades and some people help. 11Little Rock School District September 30, 1994 RECEIVED SEP 3 0 1994 Office of Desegregation bion.ioring Mrs. Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Enclosed are the answers to the questions you asked and the materials you requested in your letter to me dated September 13, 1994. If you have any questions concerning these responses, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours. Mary Cheatham 'J 'ftr4 _ T^rvt.c-'/'/c. ( i -4 e efurel, \u0026lt; / - - Cl/nrr\u0026gt; erci'e/ - \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\u0026lt;\u0026lt;.  /\"'c- . ^ii'hLr 5J Jo I, 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 Questions From Ann Brown September 30, 1994 1. Describe the LRSD's bus driver training program objectives, content, and schedule which the district routinely follows, or at least followed in preparation for this school year. A. Obj ective: 1. To provide certified drivers that meet the requirements to drive school bus in Arkansas. a To provide defensive driving training for every school bus driver in the Little Rock School District at least once a year. B. Content: Classroom preparation that teaches the nation's and state's laws 2 . 1. pertaining to a Commercial Driver's License (CDL). 2 . Classroom preparation that teaches Defensive Driving and skills needed to drive safely and defensively. 3 . On the road driver training driving an obstacle course. and C. Schedule: 1. CDL classes are held weekly for new hires. filled, Once classes the positions will be held are as needed to fill vacant positions. 2 . Defensive driving classes are taught on days school is not in session for drivers. New drivers are scheduled for the first class after they get their CDL's. 2 . Attach a copy of the curriculum and handouts w^iich accompany the training. 2The curricula materials for the CDL course and the Defensive Driving course are in Binders 1 and 2. 3 . List the names of the trainers and their training background or other relative training qualifications. Currently two individuals are primarily responsible for  the training of drivers as extra duty. Their main duties are as drivers. A business case is currently being prepared to add 3.3 positions dedicated training. to driver A. Roy G. Burnley 1. Arkansas Department of Education certificate as an Instructor for the Beginning School Bus Driver Training Program Defensive Driver Course from A-1 2 . Thompson Driving School 3 . Served as Drivers Trainer for 1991- 92 school year and the position was eliminated the following year due to budget cuts. B. Virgil \"Smokey\" Jones 1. Over 10 years experience as a school bus driver 2 . Defensive Driver Course Thompson Driving School from A-1 3 . Served as Drivers Trainer for 1991- 92 school year and the position was eliminated the following year due to budget cuts. 4 . Indicate the number of drivers who received training and the date that they completed the training program. A roster of employees with a Commercial Driver License (CDL) are listed on the rosters in Binder 3. Since August of 1994 approximately 100 individuals have received CDL training. Not all individuals who were trained were- hired for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to. accepted another job, decided to 35 . 6 . 7. move, or stated the job was too stressful. Approximately 40 individuals have received Defensive Driving training. Additional Defensive Driving training and CDL classes will be conducted during the year as time and resources permit. List the number of drivers who have not received training and the date by which these drivers will have been trained\nexplain why any drivers have not completed training. All drivers have Commercial Driver's Licenses (CDL). Since the Driver Trainer positions were eliminated, all training has been on a part time basis. no Defensive Driving classes have Until this year, been offered. Approximately 250 drivers will need Defensive Driving during the school year. students do not attend school. Training is offered on days that When the additional positions for training are approved, a formal schedule for Defensive Driving will be established and followed. Describe the kind of follow-up training you provide for those who miss initial pre-service training sessions. An individual can not drive a bus until he/she has a CDL. If he/she misses any classes, he/she must attend the next class that is held to qualify to take the CDL test. The training that was conducted August 10 and August 11, 1994 included a brief first aid introduction. dealing with student discipline. sessions bus evacuations from smoke filled buses, and discussions concerning department practices and procedures. Classes on bus evacuations are included in the Defensive Driving training. Additional classes dealing with student discipline will be offered by the district Staff Development Department during the school year, time. A schedule has not been developed at this Explain the district's rationale for not participating in ADE'S summer activities. training program and subsequent training The LRSD administration recommended that student transportation services be out sourced for the 1994-95 school year. All resources of the Transportation Department were focused on this project in June 1994. Since the administration did not anticipate operating the major portion of transportation system for the following year, no one was sent to participate in the ADE's summer training program or the training activities completed at the conference. \\ 48 . Describe any plans for future participation in ADE's training programs. The administration plans for the Transportation Department to be represented in all future ADE's training programs related to student transportation. 9. Name who IS presently responsible for overseeing safety training and supervision\ninclude the job description(s) for the individual(s). Mary Jane Cheatham IS currently responsible for 10. overseeing safety training and supervision. description for the Director included in Binder 4. of Transportation The j ob IS Describe the consequences (sanctions and remedial instruction) given drivers who commit safety violations. The Transportation Practices and Procedures (Pink book) contains the consequences for safety violations. Pages 9 16 and page 10, paragraph D, address many of the safety violations and the consequences. If a driver is involved in an accident or is reported by the public as driving unsafely he/she will be counseled by his/her supervisor and/or the Director of Transportation. The driver may be required to attend the next Defensive Driving training. discipline that Drivers are subject to progressive can include a recommendation for immediate termination based upon the severity of the safety violation and/or number of safety violations. 5Date: October 4, 1994 To: Melissa and Bill From: Subject: Information from LRSD Transportation Dept. Attached are Mary jane Cheathamss responses to my September letter to her. Bill, please look over the materials while Melissa is in Oklahoma and then pass them on to her. Then the two of you put your heads together to see if you find that this information brings up additional questions or indicates problem areas. If so, let me know and then plan to discuss those points with Mary jane and/or Spence Holder as appropriate or necessaiy. Frankly, the primary purpose of my letter to Maiy jane (other than tattling on the wrong-way driver) was to obliquely exert some pressure on the district to participate in the State training. Mary Jane has told me that she plans to do just that. Melissa, please follow up to see that her plans become reality. Thanks.Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Bill Mooney, Assistant Monitor, ODM From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: October 28,1994 Subject: Transportation Business Case Attached you will find the Transportation Business Case promised. Please call me at 324-2408 if you have any questions. ij V\n-aw OCT 2 8 1994 Ciiica Ct Desegregation Monitoring C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Mary Jane Cheatham, Director of Transportation Mark MUlhollen, Acting Manager of Support ServicesLittle Rock School District Improving Student Transportation October, 1994 A Business Case 'S 1 i- :\\STOP' ZE Addition Modification Deletion Y-------------------- J I (X4\u0026lt; Little Rock School District Improving Student Transportation Business Case Executive Summary The intent of this business case is to explain the current transportation problems which resulted from an aging fleet and reduced personnel. Unfortunately, the cost of remedies proposed here is only a beginning. It will not fix the problem for the long term. For example, the new buses proposed will not arrive until the spring of 1995. Then too few will arrive to impact the long-term need. The personnel proposed can be hired immediately but will have continuous impact on the budgets from year to year, if this solution continues to be used. Additionally, large sums of money will have to be included in each succeeding budget to replace buses. A detailed explanation of the transportation problem follows with a temporary solution for this budget year. The cost to the district will be $1.3 million. Replacement buses will cost $1 million and additional personnel will cost approximately $0.3 million. Below is an itemized list of costs: Quan. Position 3.3 Trainers Cost^ Quan.^ Item Cost 4 Mechanics 4 Helpers 1.5 Clerks $87,100 $115,200 $62,400 $21,600 33 Buses $990,000 Total $286,300 Total $990,000 The money will come from the state desegregation loan fund. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors and approved 2. Advertise for mechanics and trainers Date 7/14/94 9/1/94 Person Williams Hurley Includes benefits 2 Depends on whether or not we lease-purchase or purchase outrightimproving Student Transportation Business Cuse 2 4. 5. Review specifications with Assoc. Supt. Place order for new buses 6, Employ mechanics and trainers 7. Begin training for current employees 8. Begin receiving replacement equipment 9. Evaluate solution based on outcomes anticipated 10/3/94 10/14/94 10/3/94 10/24/94 5/1/95 6/30/95 Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Background Introduction One of the most expensive enterprises undertaken by the district is the student transportation system. Its problems and costs continue to grow. Recognition of this came this past school year when a number of incidents attracted public attention. Budget cuts in recent years resulted in reduced money for personnel and for the purchase of new buses. The lack of a bus replacement program coupled with reduced spending has had a compounding affect. The intent of this business case is to explain the current transportation problems which resulted from an aging fleet and reduced personnel. Unfortunately, the cost of remedies proposed here is only a beginning. It will not fix the problem for the long term. For example, the new buses proposed will not arrive until the spring of 1995. Then too few will arrive to impact the long-term need. The personnel proposed can be hired immediately but will have continuous impact on the budgets from year to year, if this solution continues to be used. Additionally, large sums of money will have to be included in each succeeding budget to replace buses. A detailed explanation of the transportation problem follows with a temporary solution for this budget year. History Determining the source of the problem and generating solutions has taken an extraordinary amount of time for the Administration in recent months, j^dditionally, the Board requested a study of support services in the district to determine the level of efficiency within each area. Coopers and Lybrand, a national accounting firm, conducted the study and returned recommendations to the Board. In their report, they identified the pupil transportation system as the area in greatest need of much attention. So concerned were they that they recommended that the district look seriously at permitting a private contractor to operate the transportation system if it proved economically beneficial.Improving Student Transportation Business Case 3 The District expends an inordinate amount of time and energy focusing on transportation. The urgent concerns of transportation limit attention on educational issues. Often transportation problems draw media attention which results in poor public relations. The District's transportation operations have frequently been in the media. In fact, it was the lead article on the front page of the November 7, 1993 Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Many of these stories have revolved around labor and safety issues and poor service. The accuracy of the stories is not as important as the resulting poor public perception of the system, and the fact that these \"crises\" are draining management's attention away from the primary goal of educating children. Problem Definition Parent complaints with our student transportation system have become voluminous as a result of poor on-time performance which has occurred because of an aging fleet and driver performance. In this proposal, the notion of an aging fleet is supported by statistics of the number of buses with excessive miles, the increasing costs of repairs, the increasing need for mechanics, and the increasing calls for wrecker service. Concern about poor driver performance is supported by statistics on driver absenteeism, the preventable accident rate, and high workmen compensation claims. All comparisons are made between standards acceptable to contractors in the industry and standards of LRSD. Aging Fleet To bring the aging fleet up-to-date requires a replacement schedule that meets certain criteria. The standards we have used are based on engine type and miles of use. Those parameters require that buses be replaced as follows: Gasoline powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds seven years of age or 100,000 miles at the start of any school year. Diesel powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds 10 years of age or 150,000 miles at the beginning of any school year. Based on equipment inventoried at the close of school in June, 1994, the replacement schedule should look like Figure 2. The shaded area gives a historical perspective on buses purchased prior to this school year. The replacement schedule begins at the line marked 1994-95. However, new buses for 1994-95 will not be received until School Year 1990-1991 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2003-2004 Figure 1 Buses 48 6 27 0 128 29 22 18 10 1 25 oC.ouLImproving Student Transportation Business Case 4 the spring of that school year and this quantity cannot be ordered with the current money. Only approximately 33 buses may be purchased with this proposal. The chart shows the number of buses that must be replaced prior to the start of each corresponding school year. Because of the age and condition of the existing fleet maintenance costs have increased. This has created a need for additional mechanics. In fact, a recent study of the operation conducted by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. yielded this finding: The high ratio of one maintenance person to 44 vehicles is unsatisfactory. With many of these vehicles having over 100,000 miles on them, the need for quality preventative maintenance is crucial. This is not presently possible and Mr. Viner and his staff are doing an excellent job of keeping the fleet running. Add to this the fact that no new buses are being bought this year, the situation is going to become more difficult to manage. Mr. Viner recently had one mechanic resign citing stress and the heavy maintenance workload as the reason. A replacement has not yet been hired, but even with this individual replaced, the bus vs.( mechanic ratio is not consistent with national standards. As major repairs become more frequent, the cost of labor and parts is expected to rise in each succeeding year. In 1992-93, the District spent $480,804, in 1993-94 it spent Wrecker Experience $745,245, and in 1994-95 it is predicted to reach over $1 million. This escalation in vehicle maintenance costs correlates with the out-of-service rate and impacts the 600 460 - 400 - 360 - 300 260 - 200 -- 160 -- 100 -- 60 - ri LRSD  industry 400 0 160 1992-93 299 ^9 II + 1993-94 1994-96 quality of performance. With the exception of periods immediately succeeding holidays or extended times of non-service. the District averages Figure 2 approximately 30 out-of-service buses per day out of a fleet of 281 buses. A reasonable expectation is for no more than 13 of the vehicles to be out-of-service for corrective or preventative maintenance during peak operational periods. \\ , Another common performance indicator associated with vehicle maintenance is \"wrecker experience\". In 1993, the District spent $14,390 for 160 wrecker calls. By comparison $25,945 has been spent for 291 wrecker calls to date in 1994. It is predicted that $37,800 will be spent for over 400 calls in the 1994-95 school year. A more acceptable number for a fleet of this size is 60 calls per year. Driver Performance Several factors are used to reflect driver performance. One of the leading indicators of poor performance is driver absenteeism. Because absenteeism 10/25/M 6C_SUS Improving Student Transportation Business Case 5 inconveniences students, wastes the District's scarce resources, and works an undue hardship on employees who maintain good attendance records, it is considered to be a causal factor, and an accurate indicator of the unsatisfactory performance of the current svstem. In the spring of 1994, the District had a daily driver absentee rate of 23% . The result of this high level of absenteeism was poor route performance. increased student discipline concerns, and inordinately high costs for drivers re-routed to pick up missed students. More often than not, the transportation system is besieged by problems stemming from driver absenteeism and the seemingly liberal use of employee sick leave provisions. (Note: the PCSSD currently has no employer Driver Performance Absenteeism 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Absent Figure 3 sponsored sick leave provision for bus drivers and seems to have fewer problems.) Vehicle accident rate is another indicator of driver performance {Figure 4). Accidents harm students and others, waste financial resources, and lead to unnecessary down-time for equipment. Preventable accidents are an even more interesting statistic since they are a result of driver error. In 1992-93, the District had 68 such accidents while logging over 3.9 million miles\nin 1993-94, there were 54 preventable accidents with the fleet traveling just over 4.3 million miles. That translates into 17.4 accidents per million miles and 12.5 accidents per million miles respectively. Though the two year trend is downward, it exceeds the standards of contractors in the industry Figure 4 considerably. By contrast, private contractors average a record of only 8.8 preventable accidents per million miles. Contractors have a better accident rate because of a continuous training program. Typically, a high vehicle accident rate causes increases in both Workers Compensation and Property and Casualty insurance costs. Analysis of claims for three previous years for Workers Compensation indicates an upward trend in claims and cost per claim. In 1991-92 there were 31 Workers Compensation Improving Student Transportation Business Case 6 claims processed for the Transportation Department In 1992-93 there were 42 claims processed, and by March of 1994, there had been some 45 claims. Bus driver claims account for 65% of all claims by district employees for the past five vears. These data indicate an urgent need for improved driver training and the initiation of a vigorous safety awareness program. That has not been possible in LRSD because of the elimination of supervisory and training positions by budget cuts. Regarding these same issues, the Gallagher study provided the following recommendations: 93-12-22. The Director of Transportation should develop, implement and manage an aggressive Loss Prevention Program. Supervisors and employees must be held accountable for their actions. Fair, swift and appropriate discipline or corrective measures must be taken to handle unsatisfactory conditions prior to them becoming uncontrollable. 93-12-23. No driver should be allowed to operate a vehicle without first, having been trained in defensive driving. All drivers should after initial training, attend annual defensive driving training including, hands-on evaluations. While the foregoing factors taken individually do not threaten the collapse of transportation, taken together, these signs reveal a dysfunctional system. Consider the comments of the Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand staff in their findings at the transportation terminal: Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand spent two days talking with customers and employees of the Little Rock School District's Transportation Department. While almost all of the people we talked to spoke favorably of the department's operation relative to the constraints placed upon it, aU indicated a concern that something needed to be done to ensure that things did not get worse. All interviewees, customers and employees alike, expressed a concern that the department was beginning to show signs of stress, like cracks in a dam, and many were fearful of the department's future. It is C\u0026amp;L's opinion that these concerns and signs are real. We also feel that these symptoms reflect the fact that the current mode of operation was conceived long ago without any vision of the desegregated , inner city environment in which the department now operates. What is frightening is that the interwoven complexities of this environment combined with the bankrupt methods of the past have created a semi-self defeating situation that cannot be escaped without vigorous redesign of the process. Atialysis of Altentatives ] Solutions were discussed with a committee representing parents, principals, support staff, and administrators in the LRSD last summer. Upon careful consideration, several aspects of the problem emerged. These must be addressed to have a viable solution to the problem. They are parent complaints, on-time performance, aging fleet, increasing accidents, increasing absenteeism, and costs. Though the committee favored outsourcing as the alternative of choice, that idea failed when placed before the Board of Directors for lack of a vote. iO/28/J4 BC.SUSImproving Student Transportation Business Case / The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will cause costs to grow annually as the fleet ages and driver training is not maintained because of 2. turnover.\nFollow industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. The district would continue to operate the system. Ordered buses will not arrive until the spring of Figure 5 1995. This will have a dramatic impact on the current and future budgets. The first year increase to the budget is approximately million. $1.3 Figure 5 illustrates the comparison between existing positions in the district and the number needed. The intent is to match the industry in training positions, mechanics, and preventive maintenance positions. The need for buses was illustrated earlier. One million of this money will be used to purchase new buses and $.3 million will be used to increase personnel. 3. Turn over the M-M portion of the system to the Arkansas Department of Education. This would reduce costs for LRSD but increase coordination problems. 4. Consolidate transportation in all Pulaski County Districts. Getting agreement on this would be a major challenge. 5.  Outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Research requested by the Board of Directors indicates that this alternative addresses all aspects of the problem. It includes a budget savings of approximately $1 million dollars over the next three years. The Board of Directors did not approve this alternative when brought before them in July of 1994. Several strategies have been discussed in recent months, but perhaps none is as practicable an idea as that of outsourcing. It is believed that through outsourcing, the District will realize a considerable cost savings and significantly improve the level of service provided to its students and patrons. iu/:S/M K.SUS Improving Student Transportation Business Case 8 Though a primary motivation for considering outsourcing is to save costs, it is worth mentioning that other tangible benefits such as reasonable and predictable fleet replacement, lowered driver absenteeism, improved vehicle maintenance, and reduced vehicle accident rate will also be realized. An appreciable improvement in these areas will lead to significantly fewer problems and complaints, as well as establish a more stable and reliable transportation system for future LRSD needs. Recmtimetidation Alternative 2 is recommended to temporarily address the immediate problem. 2. Follow industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. This will have a dramatic impact on the current and future budgets. The first year increase to the budget is approximately $1.3 million. Objective By the second semester of school for 1994-95, on-time performance will increase and parent complaints will decrease. This transportation proposal supports the school district goals relating to improving service to students. The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is reduced when this solution is implemented: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\nBuses will be on-time more often than they are now\nAccidents will decrease\nThe number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease\nA schedule for replacement of equipment will be followed for this y^ar. Impact Analysis The primary impact will be on a budget that is austere. Negatives 1. Seven to eight months will be necessary before new buses can be delivered\nand, 2. Time will be required in hiring and training new personnel, thus delaying the solution.Improving Student Transportation Business Case 9 3. The budget must increase in future years to accommodate these needs. Positives 1. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated bv a reduction in the number of 2. 3. 4. 5. complaints\nBuses will be on-time more often than they are now\nAccidents will decrease\nThe number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease\nA schedule for replacement of equipment will be followed for this year. Risks The risks of not implementing this temporary fix is increasing costs to the district, increasing complaints by patrons, and a generally poor image of the district's transportation system. The desegregation plan will be impacted negatively. The risks of implementation of this temporary fix is that it may appear to be too little too late. The problem is greater than can be addressed by this particular solution. Timing It is critical that the decision be made before the budget is final for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, buses must be ordered and personnel recruited as soon as possible. Resources Analysis Personnel Several trainers and additional mechanics are necessary to implement this proposal. Financial The cost to the district will be $1.3 million. Replacement buses will cost $1 million and additional personnel will cost approximately $0.3 million. Below is an itemized list of costs: .U/2S/M gC.3U5Improving Student Transportation Business Case 10 Timing It is critical that the decision be made before the budget is final for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, buses must be ordered and personnel recruited as soon as possible. Resources Analysis Personnel Several trainers and additional mechanics are necessary to implement this proposal. Financial The cost to the district will be $1.3 million. Replacement buses will cost $1 million and additional personnel will cost approximately $0.3 million. Below is an itemized list of costs: Quan. Position 3.3 Trainers Cost^ Item Cost 4 Mechanics 4 Helpers 1.5 Clerks $87,100 $115,200 $62,400 $21,600 33 Buses $990,000 Total $286,300 Total $990,000 Revenue Source The money will come from the state desegregation loan fund. 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 3 Includes benefits 4 Depends on whether or not we lease-purchase or purchase outright lO/MZ* K.KBImproving Student I ransportation Business Case 11 General Implementation Plan The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone Date Person 1. Proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors and approved 7/14/94 Williams 2. Advertise for mechanics and trainers 3. Determine specifications for new buses 4. Review specifications with Assoc. Supt. 5. Place order for new buses 6. Employ mechanics and trainers 7. Begin training for current employees 8, Begin receiving replacement equipment 9. Evaluate solution based on outcomes anticipated 9/1/94 9/1/94 10/3/94 10/14/94 10/3/94 10/24/94 5/1/95 6/30/95 Hurley Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham .m/S/94 K.BUSI 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72202 / - October 31, 1994 Mr. Bill Mooney ODM Little Rock Arkansas 72202 Dear Bill: Due to an error there were two pages in the LRSD Transportation Business Case with wrong calculations. Please replace pages 1 and 10 with the enclosed copies. Thank you for your help! Sincerely, Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation RM:dk Enclosure: (2) \\ f s ooa h  o - g *. x, (' i '. .'-\nl.\n. /i \u0026lt; I /  V I f iiSPu I I. n i\n.. J s J O -I o  U} ns I G aIoI 00 'n, J2'.-i..t IVbM DZX.\u0026lt;L.\u0026lt;^ ^01 i- CC\\,KhcL^-l-y~y Cl ~l j^t^O I BaSi BBa IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV 1 6 1994 Oifice or Dosegreg\nn.! ng LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the following documents which are related to the district court order dated October 24, 1994: 1. Incentive School Spanish Program. 2. Incentive School Theme Implementation. 3 . Improving Student Transportation - A Business Case. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT \\ FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By* Christopher Hei Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 16th day of November, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Hand Delivered Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher 2 Little Rock School District Improving Student Transportation Business Case Executive Summary The intent of this business case is to explain the current transportation problems which resulted from an aging fleet and reduced personnel. Unfortunately, the cost of remedies proposed here is only a beginning. It will not fix the problem for the long term. For example, the new buses proposed will not arrive until the spring of 1995. Then too few will arrive to impact the long-term need. The personnel proposed can be hired immediately but will have continuous impact on the budgets from year to year, if this solution continues to be used. Additionally, large sums of money wiU have to be included in each succeeding budget to replace buses. A detailed explanation of the transportation problem follows with a temporary solution for this budget year. The cost to the district will be $1.3 million. Replacement buses will cost $1 million and additional personnel will cost approximately $0.3 million. Below is an itemized list of costs: Quan. Position Cost^ Qtian.^ Item 3.3 1.5 Trainers Mechanics Helpers Qerks $87,100 $115,200 $62,400 $21,600 33 Buses Cost ''$990,000 4 4 Total $286,300 Total $990,000 The money wiU come from the state desegregation Ioan fund. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. T Milestone 1. Proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors and approved 2. Advertise for mechanics and trainers Date 7/14/94 9/1/94 Person Williams Hurley 1 2 Includes benefits Depends on whether or not we lease-purchase or purchase outright.Improving Student Transportation Business Case 2 4. 5. Review specifications with Assoc. Supt. Place order for new buses 6. Employ mechanics and trainers 7. Begin training for current employees 8. Begin receiving replacement equipment 9. Evaluate solution based on outcomes anticipated 10/3/94 10/14/94 10/3/94 10/24/94 5/1/95 6/30/95 Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Background Introduction One of the most expensive enterprises undertaken by the district is the student transportation system. Its problems and costs continue to grow. Recognition of this came this past school year when a number of incidents attracted public attention. Budget cuts in recent years resulted in reduced money for personnel and for the purchase of new buses. The lack of a bus replacement program coupled with reduced spending has had a compounding affect The intent of this business case is to explain the current transportation problems which resulted from an aging fleet and reduced personnel. Unfortunately, the cost of remedies proposed here is only a beginning. It will not fix the problem for the long term. For example, the new buses proposed will not arrive until the spring of 1995. Then too few will arrive to impact the long-term need. The personnel proposed can be hired immediately but will have continuous impact on the budgets from year to year, if this solution continues to be used. Additionally, large sums of money will have to be included in each succeeding budget to replace buses. A detailed explanation of the transportation problem follows with a temporary solution for this budget year. History Determining the source of the problem and generating solutions has taken an extraordinary amount of time for the Administration in recent months. Additionally, the Board requested a study of support services in the district to determine the level of efficiency within each area. Coopers and Lybrand, a national accounting firm, conducted the study and returned recommendations to the Board. In their report, they identified the pupil transportation system as the area in greatest need of much attention. So concerned were they that they recommended that the district look seriously at permitting a private contractor to operate the transportation svstem if it proved economically beneficial. -tJfItuprovitig Student Transportation Business Case  The District expends an inordinate amount of time and energy focusing on transportation. The urgent concerns of transportation limit attention on educational issues. Often transportation problems draw media attention which results in poor public relations. The District's transportation operations have frequently been in the media. In fact, it was the lead article on the front page of the November 7, 1993 Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Many of these stories have revolved around labor and safety issues and poor service. The accuracy of the stories is not as important as the resulting poor public perception of the system, and the fact that these \"crises\" draining management's attention away from the primary goal of educating children. I Problem Definition are Parent complaints with our student transportation system have become voluminous as a result of poor on-time performance which has occurred because of an aging fleet and driver performance. In this proposal, the notion of an aging fleet is supported by statistics of the number of buses with excessive miles, the increasing costs of repairs, the increasing need for mechanics, and the increasing calls for wrecker service. Concern about poor driver performance is supported by statistics on driver absenteeism, the preventable accident rate, and high workmen compensation claims. All comparisons are made between standards acceptable to contractors in the industry and standards of LRSD. Aging Rest To bring the aging fleet up-to-date requires a replacement schedule that meets certain criteria. The standards we have used are based on engine type and miles of use. Those parameters require that buses be replaced as follows: Gasoline powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds seven years of age or 100,000 miles at the start of any school year. Diesel powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds 10 years of age or 150,000 miles at the beginning of any school year. Based on equipment inventoried at the close of school in June, 1994, the replacement schedule should look like Figure 1. The shaded area gives a historical perspective \\ Schooi Year Buses on buses purchased prior to this school year. The replacement schedule begins at the line marked 1994-95. However, new buses for 1994-95 will not be received until 1990-1991 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2003-2004 48 6 27 0 128 29 22 18 10 1 25 Figure 1hnproving Student Transportation Business Case 4 the spring of that school year and this quantity cannot be ordered with the current money. Only approximately 33 buses may be purchased with this proposal. The chart shows the number of buses that must be replaced prior to the start of each corresponding school year. Because of the age and condition of the existing fleet maintenance costs have increased. This has created a need for additional mechanics. In fact, a recent studv of the operation conducted by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. yielded this finding: The high ratio of one maintenance person to -W vehicles is unsatisfactorv. With many of these vehicles having over 100,000 miles on them, the need for quality preventative maintenance is crudai. This is not presently possible and Mr. Viner and his staff are doing an excellent job of keeping the fleet running. Add to this the fact that no new buses are being bought this year, the situation is going to become more difficult to manage. Ivlr. Viner recently had one mechanic resign citing stress and the heavy maintenance workload as the reason. A replacement has not yet been hired, but even with this individual replaced, the bus vs. mechanic ratio is not consistent with national standards. As major repairs become more frequent, the cost of labor and parts is expected to rise in each succeeding year. In 1992-93, the District spent $480,804, in 1993-94 it spent Wrecker Experience $745,245, and in 1994-95 it is predicted to reach over $1 million. This escalation in vehicle maintenance costs correlates with the out-of-service rate and impacts the 500 460 -- 400 -- 360 -- 300 - 260 - 200 - 160 1 100 I 60 1 9 0 I  LRSD  Industry 400 quality of performance, exception of periods With the immediately succeeding holidays or extended times of 160 60 + 299 1993-94 non-service, the District averages 60 1992-93 1994-96 Figure 2 approximately 30 out-of-service buses per day out of a fleet of 281 buses. A reasonable expectation is for no more than 13 of the vehicles to be out-of-service for corrective or preventative maintenance during peak operational periods. Another common performance indicator associated with vehicle maintenance is \"wrecker experience\". In 1993, the District spent $14,390 for 160 wrecker calls. By comparison $25,945 has been spent for 291 wrecker calls to date in 1994. It is predicted that $37,800 will be spent for over 400 calls in the 1994-95 school year, acceptable number for a fleet of this size is 60 calls per year. A more Driver Performance Several factors are used to reflect driver performance. One of the leading indicators of poor performance is driver absenteeism. Because absenteeism Improving Student Transportation Business Case 5 inconveniences students, wastes the District's scarce resources, and works an undue hardship on employees who maintain good attendance records, it is considered to be a causal factor, and an accurate indicator of the unsatisfactorv performance of the current system. In the spring of 1994, the District had a daily driver absentee rate of 23% . The result of this high level of absenteeism was poor route performance, increased student discipline concerns, and inordinately high costs for drivers re-routed to pick up missed students. More often than not, the transportation system is besieged by problems stemming from driver absenteeism and the seemingly liberal use of employee sick leave provisions. (Note: the PCSSD currently has no employer Driver Performance Absenteeism 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Absent Figure 3 sponsored sick leave provision for bus drivers and seems to have fewer problems.) Vehicle accident rate is another indicator of driver performance (Figure 4). Accidents harm students and others, waste financial resources, and lead to down-time for equipment Preventable accidents unnecessary are an even more interesting statistic since they are a result of driver error. In 1992-93, the District had 68 such accidents while logging over 3.9 million miles\nin 1993-94, there were 54 preventable accidents with the fleet traveling just over 4.3 million miles. That translates into 17.4 accidents per million miles and 12.5 accidents per million miles respectively. Though the two year trend is downward, it exceeds the standards of contractors in the industry Figure 4 considerablv. By contrast, private contractors average a record of only 8.8 preventable accidents per million miles. Contractors have a better accident rate because of a continuous training program. Typically, a high vehicle accident rate causes increases in both Workers Compensation and Property and C^sualtv insurance costs. Analysis of claims for three previous years for Workers Compensation indicates an upward trend in claims and cost per claim. In 1991-92 there were 31 Workers Compensation Improving Student Transportation Business Case b claims processed for the Transportation Department. In 1992-93 there were 42 claims processed, and by March of 1^4, there had been some 45 claims. Bus driver claims account for 65% of all claims by district employees for the past five years. These data indicate an urgent need for improved driver training and the initiation of a vigorous safety awareness program. That has not been possible in LRSD because of the elimination of supervisory and training positions by budget cuts. Regarding these recommendations: same issues, the Gallagher study provided the following 93-12-22. The Director of Transportation should develop, implement and manage an aggressive Loss Prevention Program. Supervisors and employees must be held accountable for their actions. Fair, swift and appropriate discipline or corrective measures must be taken to handle unsatisfactory conditions prior to them becoming uncontrollable. 93-12-23. No driver should be allowed to operate a vehicle without first, having been trained in defensive driving. All drivers should after initial training, attend annual defensive driving training including, hands-on evaluations. While the foregoing factors taken individually do not threaten the collapse of transportation, taken together, these signs reveal a dysfunctional system. Consider the comments of the Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand staff in their findings at the transportation terminal: Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand spent two days talking with customers and employees of the Little Rock School District's Transportation Department. While almost all of the people we talked to spoke favorably of the department's operation relative to the constraints placed upon it, aU indicated a concern that something needed to be done to ensure that things did not get worse. AH interviewees, customers and employees alike, expressed a concern that the department was beginning to show signs of stress, hke cracks in a dam, and many were fearful of the department's future. It is C\u0026amp;L's opinion that these concerns and signs are real. We also feel that these symptoms reflect the fact that the current mode of operation was conceived long ago without any vision of the desegregated , inner city environment in which the department now operates. What is frightening is that the interwoven complexities of this environment combined with the bankrupt methods of the past have created a semi-self defeating situation that cannot be escaped without vigorous redesign of the process. Analysis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a committee representing parents, principals. support staff, and administrators in the LRSD last summer. Upon careful consideration, several aspects of the problem emerged. These must be addressed to have a viable solution to the problem. They are parent complaints, on-time performance, aging fleet, increasing accidents, increasing absenteeism, and costs. Though the committee favored outsourcing as the alternative of choice, that idea failed when placed before the Board of Directors for lack of a vote.Improving Student Transportation Business Case / The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will cause costs to grow annually as the fleet ages and driver training is not maintained because of turnover.\n2. Follow industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. The district would continue to operate the system. Ordered buses will not arrive until the spring of Figure 5 1995. This will have a dramatic- impact on the current and future budgets. The first vear increase to the budget is approximately million. Figure S1.3 5 illustrates the comparison between existing positions in the district and the number needed. The intent is to match the industry in training positions, mechanics, and preventive maintenance positions. The need for buses was illustrated 3. 4. 5. earlier. One million of this money will be used to purchase new buses and $.3 million will be used to increase personnel. Turn over the M-M portion of the system to the Arkansas Department of Education. This would reduce costs for LRSD but increase coordination problems. Consolidate transportation in all Pulaski County Districts. Getting agreement on this would be a major challenge. Outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Research requested by the Board of Directors indicates that this alternative addresses all aspects of the problem. It includes a budget savings of approximately 51 million dollars over the next three years. The Board of Directors did not approve this alternative when brought before them in July of 1994. \\ Several strategies have been discussed in recent months, but perhaps none is as practicable an idea as that of outsourcing. It is believed that through outsourcing, the District will realize a considerable cost savings and significantly improve the level of service provided to its students and patrons. improving Student Transportation Business Case 8 Though a primary motivation for considering outsourcing is to save costs, it is wordi mentioning that other tangible benefits such as reasonable and predictable fleet replacement, lowered driver absenteeism, improved vehicle maintenance, and reduced vehicle accident rate will also be realized. An appreciable improvement in these areas will lead to significantly fewer problems and complaints, as well as establish a more stable and reliable transportation system for future LRSD needs. Recomnietida tion Alternative 2 is recommended to temporarily address the immediate problem. 2. Follmv industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict scliedule for replacing the fleet. This will have a dramatic impact on the current and future budgets. The first year increase to the budget is approximately $1.3 million. Objective By the second semester of school for 1994-95, on-time performance uhll increase and parent complaints will decrease. This transportation proposal supports the school district goals relating to improving service to students. The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is reduced when this solution is implemented: 1. 2. 3. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\nBuses will be on-time more often than they are now\nAccidents will decrease\n4. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease\n5. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be followed for this year. Impact Analysis The primary impact will be on a budget that is austere. Negatives 1. Seven to eight months w'ill be necessary before new buses can be delivered\nand, 2. Time will be required in hiring and training new personnel, thus delaying the solution. V.i'.H'i SC.Vm.Improving Student Transportation Business Case y 3, The budget must increase in future years to accommodate these needs. Positives 1. 2. 3. 4. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\nBuses will be on-time more often than they are now\nAccidents will decrease\nThe number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease\n5. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be followed for this year. Risks The risks of not implementing this temporary fix is increasing costs to the district, increasing complaints by patrons, and a generally poor image of the distncf s transportation system. The desegregation plan will be impacted negatively. The risks of implementation of this temporary fix is that it may appear to be too little too late. The problem is greater than can be addressed by this particular solution. Timing It is critical that the decision be made before the budget is final for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, buses must be ordered and personnel recruited as soon as possible. Resources Analysis Personnel Several trainers and additional mechanics are necessary to implement this proposal. Financial The cost to the district will be S1.3 million. Replacement buses will cost SI million and additional personnel will cost approximately $0.3 million^ Below is an itemized list of costs:Improving Student Transportation Business Case 10 Timing It is'critical that the decision be made before the budget is final for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, buses must be ordered and personnel recruited as soon as possible. Resources Analysis 1 Personnel Several trainers and additional mechanics are necessary to implement this proposal. Financial The cost to the district will be $1.3 million. Replacement buses will cost $1 million and additional personnel will cost approximately $0.3 million. Below is an itemized list of costs: Quan. Position 3.3 Trainers Cost^ Quan.* Item Cost 4 Mechanics 4 Helpers 1.5 Clerks $87,100 $115,200 $62,400 $21,600 33 Buses $990,000 Total $286,300 Total $990,000 Revenue Source The money will come from the state desegregation loan fund. Force Field Analysis 1 Primary supporters of this proposal will be those directly affected by the solution  patrons and administrators within the District. The Board of Directors and 3 Includes benefits 4 Depends on whether or not we lease-purchase or purchase outright. a*Improving Student Transportation Business Case 11 I General Impletiientation Plan The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. 1. Milestone Proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors and approved 2. Advertise for mechanics and trainers 3. Determine specifications for new buses 4, Review specifications with Assoc. Supt. 5. Place order for new buses 6. Employ mechanics and trainers 7. Begin training for current employees 8. Begin receiving replacement equipment 9. Evaluate solution based on outcomes anticipated Date 7/14/94 9/1/94 9/1/94 10/3/94 10/14/94 10/3/94 10/24/94 5/1/95 6/30/95 Person Williams Hurley Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham Cheatham \\FI Little Rock School District Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Manag ementDepartment 1800 East Sixth Street March 31, 1995 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 RECHr-.F^ APR . 7 1995 Office of Desegregation Moniioi TO: Prospective Contractors Please find attached a Request for Proposal (RFP 95-014), inviting interested contractors to submit proposals to the Little Rock School District for the outsourcing of a portion of the student transportation service. The RFP consist of four (4) sections: !F:le. Section covers background information instructions, terms and conditions. I and the followed Section II is a sample contract or agreement that will be in developing the actual contract with the successful proposer. * Section III lists the factors used in detennining contractor qualification and a questionnaire soliciting various information upon which qualification judgements can be made.  Section IV contains the forms to be filled in with the cost information that you project for performing the various busing activities. Sections I and II are bound separately. Sections III and IV are bound together in a loose-leaf facilitate removal and photo-copying, return portions of the RFP. manner to Sections III and IV are the 1800 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 324-2230 Fax: (501) 324-2233 Page 2 All proposals should be complete and carefully worded, Uxxd convey all of the information requested by the District, significant errors are found in the contractor's proposal, xj. the proposal fails to conform to the essential requirements of the RFP, the District, and the District alone, will judge whether the and must If or if variance is significant enough to reject or accept a proposal. Proposals are to be prepared simply and in a manner designed to provide the Districtwith a straight-forward presentation of the  capability to satisfy the requirements of the RFP. Elaborate brochures and other promotional materials are not desired. promotional materials The District reserves the.right to reject any or all proposals and irregularities or formalities in the solicitation or . - * Award will be based upon those considerations which are in the best interest of the District and will be made to the responsible offerer whose proposal is judged to be the effective and economical for the purpose intended, according to the requirements and specifications stated in the Request for Proposal. any responses. responsive, to the according April 14, 1995. Please^note_that there will be a pre-proposal conference on Friday, We realize this is very short notice, but we are working under a very condensed schedule. Please direct your calls and correspondence to the undersigned at (501) 324-2230. Sincerely, Charles A. Neal Director of ProcurementVERIFICATION OF RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM #1 LRSD RFP 95-014, STUDENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Date: 4/27/95 RSCn r7i! * TO: Vendor Addressed From: Charles A. Neal, Director, Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management 2 d 1995 Subject: Addendum #1, RFP95-014, Student Transportation Services Offii oi Di\\): Si-eg, lai Dnoneinformation is provided to you in response to questions received on P95-014. If more information is needed, please contact us promptly a timely response. in order to receive Document ID# Date Received 1. Fourteen (14) Questions \u0026amp; Answers dated April 25, 1995 (4 pages) 2. Current Routes Listed by Bus Number (9 pages) 3. Seniority List by Hire date (7 pages) NOTE: CLARIFICATION OF LRSD PROCEDURES FOR THE OPENING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO AN RFP: Pi^oposals will not be publicly opened. You may contact the Procurement office aim wc wll Identify those transportation firms submitting proposals. Other information will not be revealed until after the evaluation process is completed. Proposals will be taken under advisement upon opening, and apparent acceptable proposers will be contacted for further negotiations as needed. Please do not contact the evaluation team after submission of your proposals. They will contact you when and if necessary. I certify that the above ADDENDUM #1 OF and we to LRSD RFP95-014, Student Transportation O li LJVWKXVAIU XlCUlOUVlUl Services, which opens at 2\n00 p,m, Central Time. Tuesday. May 9.199S has been received. Signature of Official Signing Proposal Date A Proposal may not be considered if this addendum is not signed and returned to the Procurement Department, either with opening time. your proposal or prior to proposalRFP 95-014, ADDENDUM #1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Page 2 of 4 DOCUMENT ID #1, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (continued) DATE: APRIL 25,1995 5. The number of students being served by taxicabs has dropped substantially from last year. What is the reason for this change and will it continue to reduce at this rate in ensuing years? Two events occurred that made possible the reduction of students in taxicabs. First, the state provided additional buses in 1994-95. Second, additional students were assigned to the more remote schools which made it cost effective to transport the students by bus. 6. Please explain the difference between the number of buses required for total service (205) on page 3, Section 1 and the number of drivers required (222 + 23 subs) on page 11, Section 1. Currently, not all authorized positions are filled. The difference between 222 and 205 is 17. This represents the number of vacancies, drivers on extended leave, and suspended drivers. Not all substitute positions are filled. Three substitute drivers have duties that are not related to the regular routes and seven (7) substitute positions are vacant. 7. Please list the number of staff and position/title of the staff that will be retained by the District for Special Education, contract monitoring, and scheduling. The following positions are expected to be maintained by the District: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. J. 1 Director of Transportation 1 Shop Foreman 1 Executive Administrative Assistant 1 Operations Manager 1 Router/Supervisor 1 Special Education Supervisor/Dispatcher 1 Supervisor/Dispatcher 1 Payroll Clerk/Secretary 2 Mechanics 80 Drivers (Most Senior)RFP 95-014, ADDENDUM #1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Page 1 of 4 1. 2. 3. 4. DOCUMENT ID #1, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DATE: APRIL 25,1995 Is it correct to assume that the taxicab portion of the service will be part of the State Magnet/M-to-M block? Yes, the taxicab portion of the service is part of the State Magnet/M-to-M block. What are the current rates charged by taxicab providers? The current rate charged by the taxicab company are $1.00 per mile and $1.00 per pick-up and drop-off. Who are the current providers for taxicab service? Black and White Cab Company is the current vendor. What mandates in regard to liability insurance and driver training are required by the District for taxicab operators? The contract paragraphs are as follows: 4. The Black and White Cab Company will comply with all city, state, and federal ordinances and regulations applicable to the operation of a commercial cab system. 5. All drivers for the Black and White Cab Company will be safe, well- trained drivers and participate in regular safety meetings. All vehicles in the Black and White Cab Company system are safe and well maintained and conform to all applicable city, state or federal regulations pertaining to the transportation of the general public. 6. The Black and White Cab Company is responsible for appropriately insuring the vehicles, drivers, and student passengers that are subjects of this agreement.RFP 95-014, ADDENDUM #1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Page 3 of 4 DOCUMENT ID #1, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (continued) DATE: APRIL 25,1995 8. 9. 10. Is it correct to assume that the District will retain or offer employment to the most senior drivers, and all aides? How many full time subs will be retained by the District? Employment will be offered to the most senior employees regardless of whether or not they are classified as aides or drivers. All aides are required to have the same credentials as drivers and are qualified drivers. Therefore some individuals classified as aides will be part of the driver pool available for employment by the contractors. Eleven (11) full time substitutes are among the 80 most senior employees and will be retained by the District. Does the District pay Social Security for all employees? yes, the District pays 7.65% for Social Security for all drivers. How many video cameras boxes and video cameras does the District currently maintain? Are these utilized on all three blocks? If not, which blocks require the use of video cameras? Does the District have policies in regard to the application of video cameras? Will you share those policies? The District has 102 boxes currently installed. There are fourteen (14) 8mm cameras currently being used by the District. The boxes are installed in buses assigned to all three blocks and in Special Education buses. Since the use of cameras is a fairly new procedure for the District, no formal policy is currently in place to govern their use. The boxes are in the following buses: 3 4 5 8 11 12 16 17 21 26 27 29 30 36 46 49 51 54 56 60 61 63 64 65 70 71 91 95 121 124 125 127 128 129 133 135 136 137 138 139 140 143 144 145 147 148 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 160 161 163 167 177 178 179 180 181 185 186 189 191 200 201 202 206 207 209 210 211 213 216 217 219 220 222 223 228 229 230 231 233 234 239 240 258 261 ^63 267 268 276 277 281 2M 29M 34M 35M 63MRFP 95-014, ADDENDUM #1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Page 4 of 4 DOCUMENT ID #1, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (continued) DATE: APRIL 25,1995 11. Will the contractor be permitted to utilize District owned radios? If so, what is the frequency and general condition of District owned radios? Are the radios under a maintenance agreement at this time? If so, who does the maintenance and what are the terms and costs? The contractor can use the District radios. The radios are in good condition. All new buses have new radios and the District replaced 75 radios this year. The frequencies used by the base station are 463.87500 and 468.87500. There is no maintenance agreement. 12. Will the District warrant Regulatory Compliance in regard to the facility, including underground storage tanks? Yes, the District will warrant its current facility to be in Regulatory Compliance. 13. What are the number of days of student transportation required annually for service? The state requires 178 days of student attendance. 14. What are the licensing costs for school bus driver certification? Please itemize. A. B. C. Arkansas CDL Application Arkansas CDL $20.00 $14.00 D. Defensive Driving - This is currently done within the Transportation Department at no cost to the driver. School Bus Driver Orientation required by the State is also done internally. 15. What are the unemployment rights of school bus drivers in Arkansas? Bus drivers will be entitled to unemployment during the period they are laid off by the District imtil their first day of work with the new contractor. The contractor is a private company and will be required to pay unemployment tax a per cent of payroll. The school bus drivers will be entitled to draw unemployment during the\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":33,"next_page":34,"prev_page":32,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":384,"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}}]}}