{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1047","title":"\"Little Rock New Futures Initiative: The First Four Years, Selected Findings,\" Metis Associates, Incorporation","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":["Metis Associates, Incorporation"],"dc_date":["1993-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","School improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock New Futures Initiative: The First Four Years, Selected Findings,\" Metis Associates, Incorporation"],"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/1047"],"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":["97 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLittle Rock New Futures Initiative: The First Four Years Selected Findings  Little Rock Prepared by: Metis Associates, Inc. 80 Broad Street, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10004 (212) 425-8833 June 1993 St!f- 18, 9J /~DO t.K o This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of a contract between Metis Associates, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, D.C. I. Introduction Little Rock ew Futures Initiative: The First Four Years Selected Findings The ew Futures Initiative. sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. is a fourcity (Dayton. Ohio\nLittle Rock, Arkansas\nPittsburgh, Pennsylvania\nand Savannah, Georgia), five-year project designed to respond to disadvantaged populations through comprehensive community partnerships. The project aims to increase academic achievement, reduce dropout and teen pregnancy rates, and increase the employability of at-risk middle and high school tudents. One of the unique features of the initiative is the creation of a rich data base containing student characteristics and outcomes. The information included in this data base will be a valuable tool, not only for the collaboratives and individuals who are directly involved with the ew Futures initiatives, but for all those in the community who have an interest in our children. Beginning with the 1988-1989 school year, each ew Futures city was asked to prepare and transmit a computer file containing, for each student enrolled in grades six (or seven) through twelve at any time during the school year', basic demographic information (school, grade, gender, ethnicitv, date of birth and free lunch eligibility2). and outcomes (reading and mathematics achievement test data, annual attendance rates, course failure information, suspensions and/or expulsions, grade retention and dropout data). Additionally, samples of students were surveyed annually on such non-school topics as home structure, parents' education, academic aspirations, work experiences, and sexual and parenting experiences. Each of these data sources can be used to:  describe the status of children during a given year (what we refer to as \"within-year analyses\")\n compare the status of children in a given year to the status of children in other years (what we refer to as \"over-years analyses\")\nand  follow the status of identified groups of children who remain in the school system over time (what we refer to as \"longitudinal analyses\"). Each city maintains a confidential student identification numbering system which protects students' privacy, permits us to track students over time, and enables us to merge information from the school computer files with information from the student surveys. While many school departments around the country maintain student information systems for such 1 Also available, but not generally referenced in this report are Year 3 and Year 4 data for kindergarten through sixth-graders. 2 Free lunch data were available in two cities beginning with the 1989-1990 school year. 1 discrete applications as class scheduling, transportation routes, grade reporting, attendance/enrollments and academic achievement, the New Futures data base is unique for its comprehensive and continuous collection of data. Further, the application of common definitions over several years and across everal different middle-sized cities creates an information base that is unparalleled in the field for its potential as a research and management tool. We have now created four reasonably complete files of reliable data for each participating city - a file for the 1988-1989 school year, a file for the 1989-1990 school year, a file for the 1990-1991 school year, and a file for the 1991-1992 school year. 3 After the 1992-1993 school year there will be five such files. Given the high quality, comprehensiveness and continuity of the data collections, the ew Futures data base offers enormous potential for assessing needs, evaluating outcomes and developing sound educational policy . In this condensed report we strive to meet two goals: to share selected findings from our first four years of data collection and analysis and to demonstrate the scope and breadth of the data. Our hope is to encourage others to explore and utilize this valuable resource. Report Organization In this summary report we present findings regarding:  enrollment trends\n within-year and over-years outcomes for students on several key measures\n the changing status of those students who have remained in the school system for the four years of our study\n longitudinal enrollments and graduation rates for Year l's 9th graders\nand  the results of the most recent student survey. Taken together, these findings constitute a fairly succinct overview of the results of our statistical analyses to date. Additional details may be found in the appendices to this report4 and in the full four-year Cohorts and Comparative Data Report. 3 Throughout this report we refer to the 1988-1989 school year as Year l, the 1989-1990 school year as Year 2, the 1990-1991 school year as Year 3 , and the 1991-92 school year as Year 4. 4 Appendi\nTable A-1 shows longitudinal enrollment, Table A-2 shows the status change on key variables for all New Futures cities, and Table A-3 examines the relationship between two survey responses and school outcomes. 2 II. Findings A. Enrollment Trends Enrollment data provide a valuable overview of the students in the Little Rock schools. Table 1 shows, over years, enrollment data for junior high school (grades 7-9) and high school (grades 10-12) students in the Little Rock school system during each of the past four school years. Shown are enrollments in each year, the percentage change in enrollments over the four-year period, and the percentage of students in each year who were black or white. Total enrollments decreased by 6.9 percent, from 13,203 students in Year 1 to 12,294 students in Year 4, with decreases in both the junior high and high schools. In Year 1, 57. 7 percent of all enrollees were black, with 62.4 percent black students in the junior high school grades and 53.0 percent black students in the high school grades. By Year 4, 62.7 percent of the students were black, with 66.8 percent black students in the junior high schools, and 58 .2 percent black students in the high schools. Little Rock Table l Over Years Enrollment Data I I Junior High High School Total School Totals Year l 6,590 6,613 13,203 Totals Year 2 6,344 6,156 12,500 Totals Year 3 6,421 5,790 12,211 Totals Year 4 6,507 5,787 12,294 Change Yrs 1-4 -l.3% -12.5% -6.9% RACE Black Year l 62 .4% 53.0% 57 .7% Black Year 2 64.9% 55.7% 60.3% Black Year 3 66.l % 57.7% 62.l % Black Year 4 66.8% 58.2% 62.7% White Year l 36.0% 45.6% 40.8% White Year 2 33.5% 42.9% 38.l % White Year 3 32.5% 40.6% 36.4% White Year 4 32.0% 39.4% 35.5% 3 Table 2 summarizes, by race and school level, the post-Year 4 enrollment status of all of the students who were enrolled in Year 1. How many are still in the Little Rock schools? How many have transferred to another school system? How many have graduated? How many have dropped out of school or been expelled from school? The table shows cumulative enrollments for junior high and high school students. Little Rock Table 2 Cumulative Enrollment Summary Status Year 1 Status Year 4 Level in Race N Still In Transferred Graduated Presumed Unaccounted Expelled Year 1 Year 1 System Out of High Dropout5 For6 Schools System School Jr. High All 6,590 42 .9% 18 .5% 18 .3% 5.0% 13 .3% 2.0% School Black 4,110 46.5% 14.4% 18 .0% 5.3% 13 .0% 2.8% White 2,374 36.l % 25 .4% 19.2% 4.7% 13 .9% 0.7% High All 6,613 0.9% 6.1 % 72 .3% 11.6% 8.3% 0.8% School Black 3,506 1.2% 5.5% 69 .7% 12.7% 9.8% 1.1 % White 3,018 0.6% 6.7% 75 .3% 10.5% 6.5% 0.4% Of the 6,590 students who were in the junior high schools during Year 1 (grades 7 through 9) , 42.9 percent were still in the Little Rock schools by the end of Year 4, 18.5 percent had transferred out of the Little Rock schools, 18.3 percent graduated high school , and a total of 20.3 percent were either presumed dropouts , unaccounted for or expelled . Of the 6,613 students who were in the high schools during Year 1 (grades 10 through 12), by the end of Year 4, less than 1 percent (0 .9%) were still in the Little Rock schools, 6.1 percent had transferred out of the Little Rock schools, 72.3 percent graduated, and a total of 20.7 percent were either presumed dropouts, unaccounted for or expelled. 5 Presumed dropouts are those students who were enrolled in school and then quit, or who had more than 15 days of consecutive unexcused absences. d did nor n turn c. 11 , I u 6 Unaccounted for students were those students who were enrolled in school one year , but unexpectedly did not return to school by October of the following year. Some of these students may have moved from the district without officially transferring. 4 B. Within-Years and Over-Years Analyses Figures 1 through 7 graphically depict, by grade, Year 4 outcomes on key variables. The graphs clearly illustrate differences across grades and between school levels.  Figure 1 shows enrollment across grades for kindergarten through 12th grade students. Between 2,000 and 2,500 students were enrolled in each elementary school grade. Junior high school enrollments were between 2,000 and 2,300 at each grade level. High school enrollments were about 2,100 at the 10th grade, but between 1,700 and 1,900 at the other grades. The graph depicts the inflated enrollments at each transitional grade (1st [primary], 7th [junior high school], and 10th [high school]) . Inflated enrollments result from students being retained in grade and from transfers into the system.  Figure 2 depicts attendance across grades for junior high school and high school students. It can be seen in the figure that attendance decreases across junior high school grades and increases across high school grades. Students in all grades attended between 85 and about 91 percent of the possible days in Year 4. Tenth grade attendance (86.7%) was the lowest and 7th grade attendance (90.8%) was the highest.  Figure 3 shows, for each grade, the percentage of students suspended out of school at least once in Year 4. Suspension rates were considerably higher in the junior high schools than at any other school level. High school rates were much lower than junior high school rates, but were largely consistent across grade levels (about as many seniors as sophomores were suspended out of school.) Less than five percent of elementary school students were suspended from grades kindergarten through five . The 6th grade rate was 6.2 percent.  Figure 4 shows the percentage of students retained in each grade. Overall, retention rates are fairly low, but there are important grade level differences within each school level. Retention rates are the highest at the elementary school level in kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grades (almost no students are retained in 3rd through 6th grades). In junior high school the rates are highest at the 8th grade, and in high school rates are highest at the 10th grade.  Figure 5 shows the percentage of students over age in each grade. The percentage of students over age is higher in each successive grade from kindergarten to 8th. There is a slight decline at 9th grade, an increase at 10th grade, and lower percentages in 11th and 12th grades than for any other secondary grades . 5  Figure 6 shows the percentage of courses failed in each grade. Junior high school course failure rates were within 2 percentage points of each other, across grades. In the high schools, a course failure rate of 38 percent in the 10th grade, is substantially higher than either the 11th or 12th grade rates (27.9% and 25.0%).  Figure 7 shows the percentage of students dropping out in grades 7 to 12. The data are presented in the form of a stacked bar. Each bar combines the percent of students unaccounted for with the percent of presumed dropouts to show the total dropout rate. It can be seen that the dropout rate was fairly similar for 7th and 8th grades, but higher for 9th graders. The dropout rate was at its highest in the 10th grade, and was lower in each successive high school grade. The dropout rate was lowest in the 12th grade. Interestingly, at the high schools, about half of the dropout rate can be accounted for by the percentage of students who are presumed dropouts (3.4 % presumed, 4.1 % unaccounted for, 7.5 % total), at the junior high school level, most of the dropouts are unaccounted for students (0.3% presumed, 4.5% unaccounted for, 4.8% total). The figures graphically depict important patterns in student outcomes. For instance, it can be seen that high school and junior high school rates are different and 10th grade (Little Rock's high school transition grade) is where many problems appear to accumulate. Tenth graders have the highest course failure rates and are the most likely to drop out of school. Negative outcomes in the transition grade to high school are a phenomenon that we have seen in other New Futures cities. 2500 2000 \"C Q) 0... . C LU en 1500 c Q) \"C -::J Cl) - 0 1000 .... Q) .0 E ::J z 500 Figure 1: Little Rock Enrollment Comparisons, Year 4 K 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Grade 6 100% Q) 95% () C Ctl -c, C 2 =i \u0026gt;, 90% ro 0 Q) Ol .C..t.l Q) \u0026gt; \u0026lt;( 85% -c, Q) -c, 20% C Q) Q. en :::, Cl) -en 15% C Q) -c, :::, u5 0 10% Q) Ol Ctl c Q) (...). Q) 5% a.. 7 Figure 2: Little Rock Attendance Comparisons, Year 4 JHS HS 8 9 10 11 Grade Figure 3: Little Rock 12 Percentage of Students Suspended Out-of-School, Year 4 K 23456 789 10 11 12 Grade 7 -0 QJ 8% 7% '-Ciii 6% QJ a: -fJ) 5% C QJ -0 ::, 4% ii5 0 ~ 3% (13 c QJ ~ 2% QJ Cl.. 0%-!=== K Figure 4: Little Rock Percentage of Students Retained 1n Grade. Year 4 K-6 JHS HS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Grade Figure 5: Little Rock Percentage of Students Over Age, Year 4 20%......r-------------,-------..----------, QJ Cl 15% \u0026lt;( ai \u0026gt; 0 Cl) c QJ -0 10% -::J Cl) -0 c QJ .(...). QJ 5% Cl.. K K-6 JHS HS 23456 789 10 11 12 Grade 8 \"O (1) 30% ro u.. VI (1) VI '-- :J 0 () 20% 0 (1) Ol -l1l C (1) (.) '-- (1) 10% a.. 0% 7 12% -VI 10% :J 0 a. 2 0 8% a 0 .c (.) (/) 6% 0 (1) Ol l1l 4% c (1) (.) '-- (1) a.. 2% 0% 7 Figure 6: Little Rock Percentage of Courses Failed, Year 4 8 9 10 11 Grade Figure 7: Little Rock Dropout Comparisons, Year 4 JHS HS 8 9 10 11 Grade I  Unaccounted ~ Presumed 9 12 12 Table 3 and Table 4 examine the quartile distributions of junior high and high school reading and mathematics achievement scores for all of the tested students who were enrolled in the Little Rock school system during Year 4. By comparing the scores of Little Rock's students to national norms, we can compute the percentages of Little Rock's students whose scores fall in each quartile . In general, Little Rock's scores were somewhat lower than national norms. In both reading and mathematics, less than 25 percent of the tested students scored in the highest quartile (16 % reading and 17 % mathematics for junior high students\n21 % reading and 22% mathematics for high school students) . However, fewer than 25 percent scored in the lowest quartile in junior high school reading (21 % ) , and high school reading and mathematics (17% and 18%). For junior high school mathematics, 34 percent of the tested population scored in the lowest quartile . Additionally, when we analyze the data by race, we find wide discrepancies. Less than 10 percent of the tested white junior high and high school students scored in the lowest reading quartile, versus 28 percent of the black junior high school students and 25 percent of the black high school students. Similarly, only 15 percent of the tested white junior high school students and 7 percent of the tested white high school students scored in the lowest mathematics quartile, compared to 43 percent of the black junior high school students and 26 percent of the black high school students . The racial discrepancies in these data are illustrated in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Also shown in Tables 3 and 4 are the median percentile scores for each racial group. By definition, 50 percent of the tested population receive a score equal to or less than the median. It can be seen that, for junior high school students, while the median score in reading was equivalent to the 44th national percentile, the median score for black students was at the 37th national percentile and the median score for white students was at the 67th national percentile. For high school students, the median score in reading was equivalent to the 48th national percentile\nfor black high school students the score was equivalent to the 38th percentile and for white students it was at the 67th. Similarly, the median score in mathematics for junior high school students was equivalent to the 38th national percentile, while black students scored at the 31st percentile and white students scored at the 59th percentile. For high school mathematics, the overall median was at the 46th national percentile, while the score for black high school students was at the 36th national percentile and the score for white high school students was at the 66th national percentile. Little Rock Table 3 Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons -- Year 4 Junior High School I Reading I Quartile I (Lowest) 21 % 34% Black 28% White 7% Quartile TI 37% 30% Black 45% White 22% Quartile III 26% 20% Black 21 % White 34% Quartile IV (Highest) 16% 17% Black 6% White 37% Median (Expressed as a Percentile) 44th 38th Black 37th White 67th Junior High School Students Scoring in the Lowest and Highest Quartiles Reading Mathematics 100% \"O -Q) 75% en Q) f-- en C Q) \"O :::, 50% u-5 0 -C Q) .(...J. Q) a.. 25% All Black White All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 11 Math I 43% 15% 33% 24% 17% 26% 7% 34% 31st 59th Little Rock Table 4 Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons -- Year 4 High School I Reading I Quartile I (Lowest) 17% 18% Black 25%  White 6% Quartile II 35% 33% Black 45% White 20% Quartile III 28% 27% Black 23% White 34% Quartile IV (Highest) 21 % 22% Black 7% White 40% Median (Expressed as a Percentile) 48th 46th Black 38th White 67th High School Students Scoring in the Lowest and Highest Quartiles Reading Mathematics 100% \"C Q) 75% in Q) I- -(/) C (I) \"C ::::, en 50% 0 c Q) .C..) aQ..) 25% All Black White All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 12 Math I 26% 7% 40% 23% 24% 30% 9% 41 % 36th 66th In this section we examine the status of children on several key outcome measures in Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. This analysis not only provides us with information about how students are doing within each of these years, but also allows us to compare how the student body has performed over the years. It is important to note that these comparisons are not of matched groups of students. The junior high school students in Year 1 are, for the most part, different students than the junior high school students in Year 4. Thus, while over-years comparisons can help to point out status changes over time, it is difficult to ascertain which of these changes to attribute to the system and which to differing populations. Table 5 examines eight school measures for the Little Rock student body. Shown for each year are: average daily attendance rates, the percent of students whose Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) total reading or mathematics scores7 placed them into the lowest quartile (i.e., at or below the 25th national percentile), the percent of students who were at least one-and-one-half years over age for their grades, the percent of students who were suspended out-of-school at least once during the year shown, the percent of students who were retained in grade during the year shown, the percent of courses failed in each year, and the percent of students who were counted as having dropped out. The last column in the table shows, for each factor, the percentage point change from Year 1 to Year 4 (Little Rock suspension data shown are for Years 2 through 4 and the change shown is between Year 2 and Year 4). We have included the words \"better\" or \"worse\" to indicate whether the change constitutes an improvement or a decline. It can be seen in Table 5 that:  Little Rock's junior high school students show some improvements in dropout rates, but worsening or no change in all other variables.  Little Rock's high school students show declining status on attendance and suspension, and improvements on all other indicators. Table 5 also serves as a useful orientation to student performance in the Little Rock school system. 8 Overall, Little Rock's attendance and retention rates and reading and mathematics achievement were relatively good, but there was no improvement over the four year period. Some other measures show comparatively high rates of school problems. Suspension rates were particularly high in the junior high schools, where 18 percent or more of the students were suspended in each of the last three years. Almost one-third of all junior high and high school courses were failed. Total annual dropout rates in Little Rock's junior high schools and high schools improved over the four-year period. 7 Year 4 achievement data are Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) scores which have been converted to Metropolitan Achievement Test scores. 8 Included in the appendix (Table A-2) is a similar table for all New Futures cities combined (Dayton, Savannah, Little Rock and Pittsburgh) . 13 I Little Rock Table 5 Change in Status on Key Variables Percentage Year 1 Versus Percentage Year 4 Variable II Year t I Year 21 Year 31 Year 4 I Change Yr. 1 to Yr. 4 I Attendance (ADA) Junior high school 90.2% 90.7% 90.3% 89.5% -0 .7 worse High School 90.8% 87 .9% 89.3% 87 .9% - 2.9 worse Low Reading Quartile9 Junior high school 21.0% 23.0% 24 .0% 21.0% no change High School 22.0% 22.0% 19.0% 17.0% -5.0 better Low Mathematics Quartile Junior high school 21.0% 21.0% 24.0% 34.0% + 13 .0 worse High School 24.0% 21.0% 19.0% 18.0% -6.0 better Over Age Junior high school 13.4% 13 .6% 15 .9% 15 .0% + 1.6 worse High School 13.4% 13.6% 13.3% 13.2% -0.2 better Out-of-School Suspension Junior high school. NIA 18.6% 21.6% 21.4% +2.8 worse High School NIA 8.1 % 11.3% 9.1 % -ft.0 worse Retention Junior high school 4.1% 4.8% 4.9% 4.6% +0.5 worse High School 4.9% 6.4% 3.6% 4.7% -0.2 better Percent of Courses Failed Junior high school 31.3% 30.7% 31.1% 31.4% +0.1 worse High School 31.8% 31.4% 29.6% 31.4% -0.4 better Dropout Junior high school 9.5% 4.3% 6.9% 4.8% -4.7 better High School 13.8% 10.2% 10.4% 7.5% -6.3 better N for all srudents: Year l = 13,203, Year 2 = 12,500, Year 3 = 12,211, Year 4 = 12,294 N for Junior high school Srudents: Year I = 6,590, Year 2 = 6,344, Year 3 = 6,421, Year 4 = 6,507 N for High School Students: Year I = 6,613, Year 2 = 6,156, Year 3 = 5,790, Year 4 = 5,787 9 Not all high school grades were tested. 14 C. Changing Status Among Children Who Have Remained in the School System (Longitudinal Comparisons) As indicated earlier, the New Futures data base permits us to observe changes in student outcomes over time. Has the academic achievement of students who have remained in the system improved, declined, or remained the same? Table 6 and Table 7 and the accompanying figures illustrate the changes in average reading and math achievement scores for Year 1 's 7th grade (Table 6) and 8th grade (Table 7) students who were tested in Years 1 through 4 and who were not retained in grade. 10 Table 6 shows an overall reading achievement loss of two percentile ranks from Year 1 to 4, and a decline of four percentile ranks in mathematics achievement scores. 11 For both reading and math, the changes are very similar for black and white students. Little Rock Table 6 Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons12 For 7th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Srudents N Yr I Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yrs 1 to 4 (7th) (8th) (9th) (10th) Reading: All Srudents 1,011 56th 59th 65th 54th -2 Black 677 44th 48th 54th 42nd -2 White 316 78th 80th 85th 75th -3 Math: All Srudents 1.014 58th 56th 63rd 54th -4 Black 679 48th 44th 52nd 44th -4 White 317 75th 75th 80th 72nd -3 99 90- Reading Math 80- t .. .::J! 70- C a\u0026lt;':II 60- . ~ Q) rl :\n: 50- C Q) .u... 40- Q) a.. 30 20 10 1 I All Black White All Black White I Year 1 0 Year2 a Year3 Effl Year4 I IO Si ne~ retained srudents are generally at an advantage when their data are compared with grade level norms, the longirudinal achievement analyses shown only include srudents who have made normal grade progress. 11 Some of the decline in test scores may be attributable to implementation of a new testing package (from the MAT-6 to the SAT) and the score conversion process. (All Year 4 data were converted from SAT scores to the MAT-6 equivalent.) 12 The table shows the percentile ranks associated with srudents' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores on the Merropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). For comparability, Year 4 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores were convened to MAT-6 scores. 15 Table 7 shows an overall reading achievement loss of nine percentile ranks for Year 1 's 8th graders from Year 1 to 4, and a decline of three percentile ranks in mathematics achievement scores. Reading losses were greater for white students, but mathematics declines are very similar for both black (-4) and white students (-5) . Little Rock Table 7 Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons13 For 8th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank Yr 1 Rank Yr 2 Rank Yr 3 Rank Yr 4 Yrs 1 to 4 (8th) (9th) (10th) (11th) Reading: All Students 1,011 63rd 70th 58th 56th -9 Black 633 50th 58th 44th 44th -6 White 355 83rd 86th 76th 73rd -10 Math: All Students 1,01 I 61st 70th 56th 58th -3 Black 635 50th 59th 44th 46th -4 White 353 78th 85th 75th 73rd -5 99 90 Reading ,. Math 80 ~ 70- . .. C: ac:a 60 Cl) .. 50 C: Q) u... 40 Q) a.. 30- 20 10 1 All Black White ' All Black White I Year1 D Year2 - Year3 -Year4 13 The Table shows the percentile ranks associated with students ' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) . For comparability , Year 4 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores were converted to MAT-6 scores. 16 I ...... I A longitudinal group of particular interest consists of those 4,370 students who have been in the school system for all four years. By definition, none of these students graduated, transferred out of the school system, dropped out, or were expelled before the end of Year 4. How have these students been progressing since the initiative began? Tables 8, 9 and 10 show retention, course failure and suspension histories, respectively, for the 4-YEAR COHORT students. Table 8 shows that approximately 12 percent of these students were retained in at least one of the four years. Table 9 shows that the majority (56.7%) of the 4-YEAR COHORT students failed at least one course over the four year period. About 8 percent of the 4-YEAR COHORT students failed one or more courses each year over the four year period. Table 10 shows that over one-fourth (27. 3 % ) of the 4-YEAR COHORT students were suspended out of school in at least one of the three years for which there are data, (Years 2 through 4), and just over 10 percent were suspended in more than one of the three years. Each of the tables shows disparities between outcomes for black students and white students. For example, 14.6 percent of the black students were retained in grade at least once, compared to 6.0 percent of the white students. Similarly, over the four years, 66.1 percent of the black students experienced course failure, compared to 39.4 percent of the white students, and about a third (33 .5 % ) of the black students experienced suspension, compared to just 16.1 percent of the white students. Little Rock Table 8 Retention Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT Students Status Retentions at the end of All Black White Year 4 N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N = 1,386 Never Retained N 3,860 2,495 1,303 % 88.3% 85.4% 94.0% Retained 1 out N 472 390 80 of 4 Years % 10.8% 13.4% 5.8% Retained 2 out N 38 35 3 of 4 Years % 0.9% 1.2% 0.2% Ever Retained in N 510 425 83 4 Years % 11.7% 14.6% 6.0% 17 I I II Table 9: Course Failure Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT Students Status at the end of I Course Failures Year 4 Never Failed a Course Failed a Course in 1 of 4 Years Failed a Course in 2 of 4 Years Failed a Course in 3 of 4 Years Failed a Course in 4 of 4 Years Ever Failed a Course in 4 Years All Black N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N 1,894 990 % 43.3% 33.9% N 865 637 % 19.8% 21.8% N 704 542 % 16.1 % 18.6% N 565 453 % 12.9% 15.5% N 342 298 % 7.8% 10.2% N 2,476 1,930 % 56.7% 66.1 % Table 10: Suspension Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT Students White N = 1,386 854 61.6% 222 16.0% 158 11.4% 112 8.1% 40 2.9% 532 39.4% Status Out-of-School Suspensions at the end of All Black. i . White Year 4 N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N = 1,386 Never N 3,162 1,941 1,163 Suspended % 72.7% 66.5% 83.9% Suspended in 1 N 763 600 159 out of 3 Years % 17.5% 20.5% 11.5% Suspended in 2 N 322 273 48 out of 3 Years % 7.4% 9.3% 3.5% Suspended in 3 N 123 106 16 out of 3 Years % 2.8% 3.6% 1.2% Ever Suspended N 1,208 979 223 in 3 Years % 27.3% 33.5% 16.1 % 18 I D. The Class of '92 Of special interest are the 2,047 students who were enrolled in the ninth grade in Year 1 and therefore were expected to graduate at the end of Year 4. Through the data base we have been able to follow these students, the High School Class of 1992, throughout their high school careers, from their ninth grade experiences in Year 1 to their expected graduation in June of 1992. How did the Class of '92 do? I I Race I N I Year 1 All 2,047 Black 1,198 White 820 Little Rock Table 11 Cumulative Enrollment 9th Grade -- The Class of '92 Status at the End of Year 4 Still In Transferred Graduated Presumed System Out of High Dropout Schools System School 5.5% 14 .5% 58 .7% 7.4% 6.2% 10 .9% 61.2% 8.1 % 4.4% 19.5% 55.4% 6.7% Unaccounted Expelled For 12.9% 1.0% 12 .3% 1.3% 13 .5% 0.5% It can be seen above that: 5.5 percent of the Year 1 ninth graders (including 6.2 percent of the black students and 4.4 percent of the white students) were still active in the Little Rock schools after Year 4\n14.5 percent had transferred out of the Little Rock schools (10.9 percent of the black students and 19.5 percent of the white students)\n58.7 percent graduated (including 61.2 percent of the black students and 55.4 percent of the white students)\nand a total of 21.3 percent had either dropped out of or been expelled from school ( dropouts and expulsions for black students totaled 21. 7 percent, dropouts and expulsions for white students totaled 20. 7 percent). 19 I E. The Student Survey Table 12 presents selected findings for the 2,462 students who completed student surveys in Year 4. 14 The surveys provide additional data about the students in the cohort file, including information about the status of their families, their own attitudes and behaviors regarding schooling, their employment experiences, and their sexual behavior. Table 12 shows, for all students and by race, the number of students responding to each question and the percent of students exhibiting the characteristic. For example, of the 1,971 surveyed students who responded to the question about their home structures, 3 7. 3 percent reported living in a single parent home (including 44.4 % of the black respondents and 23.5% of the white respondents). Of the respondents, 32.9 percent are free-lunch eligible (including 44.1 % of black respondents and only 10.1 % of white respondents). A total of 36 percent of the respondents indicated that they regularly cut classes, and 4. 7 percent expected not to go on to post-secondary schooling. Close to half of the surveyed students (43.3%) reported that they were working at the time the survey was administered, and 64.1 percent of those who were working reported that they were working 15 or more hours per week (during the school year). More than half of the respondents (58.2%) reported that they have had sex at least once and 32.3 percent of this group did not use birth control the last time they had sex. About 19 percent of the girls who have had sex reported that they have gotten pregnant. More than half (52.4%) of those who were pregnant have had a child. Because the survey responses contain the same identification numbers as are used with the school department's data system, we are able to investigate relationships between student characteristics and school outcomes. For instance, students eligible for free or reduced fee lunch generally perform less well on reading achievement tests than their peers who are not eligible. This association was seen among black students as well as among white students. Further, more poor than non-poor students are low attenders, fail courses, receive out-ofschool suspensions, are not promoted, and are over age for grade. Similarly, students with low academic aspirations performed less well on all of the student outcomes than their peers who do not have low academic aspirations. Once again, these associations were seen among black students as well as among white students. 15 14 The student surveys were administered to a sample of 7th - 12th grade students in each of the Little Rock junior and senior high schools. A total of 2,462 students responded to the Year 4 survey. 15 Appendix Table A-3 examines the relationships between two survey responses (low academic aspirations and freelunch eligibility) and several school outcomes. 20 Table 12 Little Rock Selected Surveyed Characteristics for All Secondary Students16 N = 2,462 Characteristic Students Exhibiting % of White Respondents, Characteristic Students By Item N % Exhibiting Characteristic N=829 N % Single Parent Home 1,971 734 37.3% 150 23.5% Free Lunch Eligibility 1,971 649 32.9% 63 10.1% % of Black Students Exhibiting Characteristic N= 1,596 N % 578 44 .4% 580 44.1% Cut Classes 2,421 871 36 .0% 454 44.4% 1,073 31.5% Low Academic 2,263 106 4.7% 32 Aspirations Working 1,731 749 43.3% 307 Working Full Time 674 432 64.1 % 117 Had Sex 2,253 1,312 58.2% 363 No Birth Control 1,268 409 32.3% 234 Last Time Fathered a Child 724 66 9.1% 15 Pregnant 558 57 10.2% 12 Ever Pregnant 557 105 18.9% 26 Have Child 105 55 52.4% 10 Single Parent Home indicates that the child is living with one parent. step parent. or foster parent. Free Lunch Eligibility includes students who are eligible for free and reduced fee lunch. 4.2% 46.0% 58.2% 47 .6% 34.1 % 7.6% 7.6% 16.4% 38.5% Cut Classes includes srudents who reported that they cut class \"often\" or \"sometimes\" (as opposed to never). 73 428 116 937 619 50 44 79 45 Low Academic Aspirations is defined as expecting not 10 pursue post-secondary schooling (i. e. , completing high school or less). Working is defined as employed at the time of survey administration. Working Full Time is defined as working 15 or more hours per week during the school year. Had sex includes both male and female srudents. 5.0% 41.2% 69.2% 64.4% 30.3% 9.6% 11.1 % 20.2% 57.0 % No Birth Control includes both male and female srudents who have had sexual intercourse and indicated that neither they nor their partner had used birth control the last time they had intercourse. Pregnant and Ever Pregnant items were tabulated for sexually active females and indicate, respectively whether they are currently pregnant or ever have been pregnant. Have Child includes female srudents who have given birth to a child. Fathered a Child was tabulated for sexually active males who indicated that they had fathered a child. 16 Only a few survey variables are considered in these analyses. Complete reports of survey data are available in separate publications. 21 III. Conclusion This report sketches an overview of the status of children attending the Little Rock public schools. It contains broad, over-years and longitudinal analyses which reflect the conditions (inside and outside of the school system) which New Futures is intended to address. W1'jle the analyses presented in this report show some of the trends and outcomes that have taken place during the first four years of the initiative, they do not constitute an evaluation of the initiative, nor of the Little Rock school system. We have presented only a small sample of the analyses that have been performed on the New Futures data base. 17 We hope that the thoughtful presentation of such analyses can engage broad constituencies in valuable discourse leading ultimately to the formulation of improved service-delivery policies and inter-agency collaboration. It is in this spirit that we offer these findings. One of the unique features of the New Futures Initiative is that the powerful data base used to generate the analyses is available to an interagency body. We strongly encourage the interagency group to put this powerful tool to use - to raise community awareness, to set priorities, and to help inform and shape policy. 17 The full four-year Cohorts and Comparative Data Report (Metis Associates, Inc., New York, NY), annual qualitative evaluation reports (Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, DC}, separate statistical reports of the survey results (Institute for Survey Research, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA), and other publications may be obtained from New Futures for Little Rock Youth. 22 Appendices Entering Junior High School \"Class of '92\" Entering High School Table A-1: Little Rock Cumulative Enrollment Status After Year 4 for all Students Enrolled in Year I Status Year I Status Year 4 Grade N In System Transferred Graduated Presumed Unaccounted Schools Dropout For 7th 2,226 62.1 % 20.9% 0.0% 1.8% 12.5% Black 1,444 66. l % 16.4% 0.0% 1.7% 11.9% White 741 54 .4% 29 .1% 0.0% 2.0% 13.8% 8th 2,317 57.2% 19.8% 0.3% 6.0% 14.5% Black 1,468 60.1% 15.2% 0.3% 6.7% 14.6% White 813 51.6% 27.8% 0.2% 5.0% 14.5% 9th 2,047 5.5% 14.5% 58.7% 7.4% 12.9% Black 1,198 6.2% 10.9% 61.2% 8.1 % 12.3% White 820 4.4% 19.5% 55.4% 6.7% 13.5% Junior High 6,589 42.9% 18.5% 18.3% 5.0% 13.3% Black 4, 110 46.5% 14.4% 18.0% 5.3% 13.0% White 2,374 36.1% 25.4% 19.2% 4.7% 13 .9% 10th 2,432 1.7% 9.8% 59.9% 15.3% 12.0% Black 1,448 2.1% 8.1 % 59.0% 15.8% 13.3% White 950 1.3% 12.3% 61.0% 14.8% 9.9% 11th 2,210 0.8% 7.2% 68 .0% 12.7% 10.7% Black 1,131 I.I% 6.5% 65.4% 13 .5% 12.4% White 1,055 0.6% 7.9% 70,3% 11.9% 9.1% 12th 1,971 0.0% 0.2% 92 .9% 5.7% 0.1% Black 927 0.0% 0.2% 91.5% 6.8% 1.3% White 1,013 0.0% 0.1 % 94 .2% 4.9% 0.6% High School 6,613 0.9% 6.1% 72.3% 11.6% 8.3% Black 3,506 1.2% 5.5% 69.7% 12.7% 9.8% White 3,018 0.6% 6.7% 75 .3% 10.5% 6.5% Total 13,203 21.8% 12.3% 45.4% 8.3% 10.8% Black 7,616 25.7% 10.3% 41.8% 8.7% 11.5% White 5,392 16.2% 14.9% 50 .7% 7.9% 9.8% Expelled 2.7% 3.9% 0.7% 2.2% 3.1% 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% 0.5% 2.0% 2.8% 0.7% 1.3% 1.7% 0.7% 0.6% 1.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.8% 1.1% 0.4% 1.4% 2.0% 0.5% Table A-2: All New Futures Cities (Dayton, Little Rock, Pittsburgh and Savannah Combined) Change in Status on Six Key Variables Percentage Year 1 Versus Percentage Year 4 Variable Year 1 Year 4 Change Attendance (ADA) Middle School 89.5% 89.3% -0.2 worse High School 86.1% 84.2% -1.9 worse Low Q Membership Middle School 28.4% 25.4% -3.0 better High School 24.7% 24.2% -0.5 better Retention Middle School 8.8% 7.0% -1.8 better High School 13.7% 18.7% 5.0 worse Over Age Middle School 19.3% 15.5% -3.8 better High School 22.3% 22.7% 0.4 worse % of Courses Failed Middle School 11.4% 14.4% 3.0 worse High School 20.7% 22.8% 2.1 worse Total Dropout Middle School 9.5% 7.3% -2.2 better High School 18.1 % 13.1 % -5.0 better N for All Students: Year 1 = 61,977, Year 4 = 60,067 N for Mtcidle School Students: Year l = 26,644, Year 4 = 27,415 N for High School Students: Year l = 35,334, Year 4 = 32,652 I I Table A3-Little Rock Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For All Surveyed Students (In Percents) Factor = Free Lunch Eligibility Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No I N=649 N=l ,321 N=580 N=735 N=63 N=563 Low Achievement 30.0% 12.5% 30.6% 18.5% 25.5% 5.1 % Low Attendance 20.3% 14.8% 20.9% 13.5% 17.5% 16.9% Course Failures 30.2% 24.6% 30.7% 30.5% 28.6% 17.2% Suspension 20.5% 11.l % 21.5% 14.0% 12.7% 7.8% Over Age 17.4% 8.1 % 17.8% 11.3% 14.3% 3.9% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed Junior High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Free Lunch Eligibility I Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N= 479 N=626 N=429 N=360 N=45 N=260 Low Achievement 28.9% 11 .5% 28.8% 16.0% 29.5% 5.5% Low Attendance 18.8% IO.I% 19.6% 8.4% 13.3% 12.3% Course Failures 26.9% 17.9% 28.2% 21.9% 17.8% 12.3% Suspension 24.6% 14.4% 26.1 % 18 .3% 13.3% 9.2% Over Age 17.3% 7.7% 17.9% 10.3% 13 .3% 4.2% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Free Lunch Eligibility Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N=l42 N=567 N=125 N=306 N=l6 N=245 Low Achievement 31.8% 13 .9% 35 .7% 21.7% 10.0% 4.7% Low Attendance 23.9% 19.2% 24.0% 18.0% 25.0% 21.6% Course Failures 36.6% 30.7% 34.4% 38.2% 56.3% 22.0% Suspension 7.7% 8.3% 8.0% 9.8% 6.3% 6.9% 0Over Age 16.9% 8.5% 16.0% 12.1 % 18 .8% 3.7% I I Table A3-Little Rock Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For All Surveyed Students (In Percents) Factor = Low Aspirations Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes 1 No Yes No I N=336 N=l,927 N=229 I N= 1,228 N=l02 N=668 Low Achievement 55.l % 17.l % 60.9% 22.9% 43.5% 6.3% Low Attendance 39.6% 15.8% 39.7% 16.2% 40.6% 15.4% Course Failures 52 .8% 25.0% 56.2% 30.2% 46.9% 15.7% Suspension 33.0% 12.2% 41.l % 15.4% 15.6% 6.8% Over Age 34.9% 9.7% 39.7% 12.6% 21.9% 4.2% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed Junior High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Low Aspirations I Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N=70 N=l,153 N=51 N=797 N=l9 N=344 Low Achievement 51.8% 17.5% 55.3% 22.4% 44.4% 6.7% Low Attendance 35.7% 12.8% 41.2% 13.2% 21.l % 11.9% Course Failures 50.0% 19.0% 52.9% 23.0% 42.l % 10.2% Suspension 37.l % 16.3% 45 . l % 19.9% 15.8% 8.1 % Over Age 35.7% 10.3% 39.2% 12.9% 26.3% 4.4% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Low Aspirations Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N=32 N=813 N=l9 N=476 N=l2 N=310 Low Achievement 72.7% 15.8% 85.7% 23.6% 50.0% 5.0% Low Attendance 46.9% 19.8% 31.6% 20.2% 75.0% 19.9% Course Failures 56.3% 32.0% 57.9% 39.3% 58.3% 21.8% Suspension 25.0% 7.1 % 31.6% 8.4% 16.7% 5.7% Over Age 31.3% 9.0% 36.8% 12.2% 16.7% 4.1 %\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eMetis Associates, Incorporation\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_1168","title":"New Futures Initiative Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Metis Associates, Incorporation, New York, New York, , June 1993","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":["1993-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School attendance","School enrollment","School discipline","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Student suspension"],"dcterms_title":["New Futures Initiative Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Metis Associates, Incorporation, New York, New York, , June 1993"],"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/1168"],"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":["58 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNew Futures Initiative Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4)  Little Rock Prepared by: Metis Associates, Inc. 80 Broad Street, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10004 (212) 425-8833 June 1993 This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of a contract between Metis Associates, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, D.C. Foreword In this report we present a series of city-wide analyses covering a number of the core impact variables specified by the New Futures Initiative (e .g., achievement, dropout, suspension). While the analyses show some of the trends and outcomes that have taken place during the first four years of the initiative, they do not constitute an evaluation of the initiative, nor of the school system. Such evaluations would involve far richer and more comprehensive information. Instead, this report contains broad, over-years and longitudinal analyses which reflect the city-wide conditions (inside and outside of the school system) that New Futures is intended to address. We believe that thoughtful presentation of such analyses can engage broad constituencies in valuable discourse leading ultimately to the formulation of improved service-delivery policies and inter-agency collaboration. It is in this spirit that we offer these findings. Acknowledgements We are indebted to the Little Rock School District for providing us with the data for these analyses. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Anita M. Baker and her staff at the Academy for Educational Development toward the writing and production of this report. Little Rock: Cohorts and Comparative Data Report 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Table of Contents Foreword ....... . Acknowledgements I. Introduction 1 A. Structure and Content of the Cohort Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 3 II. B. Types of Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Analyses ...................................... . A. Over-Years and Longitudinal Analyses of Cohort Variables .... 1. 2. Enrollment ..... .. ... ... . .. .. ....... . a. Grades 7 through 12 ..... . i. Over-years comparisons ii. Characteristics of the Year 4 Cohort iii. Longitudinal comparisons . . . . . . . . b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . . . . . i. Over-years comparisons ..... ii. Origins of the Year 4 Students Attendance . . . . . . . . . . a. Over-years comparisons b. Longitudinal comparisons ii 10 10 10 10 10 13 17 19 19 21 25 25 25 3. Academic Achievement (Reading and Mathematics) 28 a. Grades 7 through 12 . . ... . 28 i. Over-years comparisons 28 11. Longitudinal comparisons 42 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . 47 i. Over-years comparisons 47 ii. Longitudinal comparisons 53 4. Graduation . ... . .... . 58 a. Over-years comparisons 58 b. Longitudinal comparisons 58 i. Two-year Graduation Rates 58 ii. Four-year Graduation Rates 58 5. Retention . ..... ... 61 a. Grades 7 through 12 61 1. Over-years comparisons 61 ii. Longitudinal comparisons 61 m. Over age students . ... 61 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . 65 i. Over-years comparisons 65 ii. Longitudinal comparisons 66 iii . Over age students .... 67 iii III. 6. Course Failure ......... . a. Over-years comparisons b. Longitudinal comparisons 7. Out-of-School Suspensions . 8. a. Grades 7 through 12 i. Over-years comparisons ii. Longitudinal comparisons b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . i. Over-years comparisons . ii . Longitudinal comparisons Dropouts a. Over-years comparisons b. Longitudinal analyses - returning dropouts B. Special Survey Analyses .. . . ... .. .. . . 1. 2. Survey data for secondary students Relationships between survey factors and cohort variables Summary and Conclusion A. B. C. Cross-Grade Comparisons of Year 4 Data . Change in Status (Over-Years Comparisons) Longitudinal Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . IV 68 68 71 72 72 72 72 75 75 76 77 77 81 83 83 83 87 88 97 101 D. Cumulative Enrollment Statuses 1. The 4-Year Cohort . . . . . 2. Two Consecutive Three-Year Cohorts 3. Three Consecutive Two-Year Cohorts E. Cooc~~on .. .. . . . . . . ........ . Appendices Appendix A: Over Cities, Over-Years Comparisons Appendix B: Four Cities Change in Status Appendix C: Over Cities 4-YEAR COHORT FILE Analyses V 104 104 108 108 115 Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Little Rock I. Introduction The New Futures Initiative, sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, is a fourcity (Dayton, Ohio\nLittle Rock, Arkansas\nPittsburgh, Pennsylvania\nand Savannah, Georgia), five-year project designed to respond to disadvantaged populations through comprehensive community partnerships. The project aims to increase academic achievement, reduce dropout and teen pregnancy rates, and increase the employability of at-risk middle and high school students. Collaboratives governing the New Futures initiatives agreed to have the impact of their efforts assessed through a common set of indicators. The requirement for consistently defined, standardized, reliable data necessitated the establishment or enhancement of local district capacity for maintaining individualized student information - i.e., a management information system (MIS). Annual unit-record cohort files emanating from each city's MIS have become the centerpiece for the New Futures data collection. Beginning with the 1988-1989 school year, each New Futures city was asked to prepare and transmit an annual cohort file containing, for each student enrolled in grades six (or seven) through twelve at any time during the school year, unique student identification numbers, basic demographic information (school, grade, gender, race/ethnicity, date of birth, free lunch eligibility [available in two cities beginning with the 1989-1990 school year]), and outcomes - standardized, norm-referenced reading and mathematics data, annual attendance rates, course failure information, suspensions and/or expulsions, grade retention, and dropout data. At this point there are four complete cohort files for each participating city - a file for the 1988-1989 school year, a file for the 1989-1990 school year, a file for the 1990-1991 school year, and a file for the 1991-1992 school year. 1 In addition, for the 1991-1992 school years there are complete data for all students in the school systems (kindergarten through twelfth grades)2. 1 Throughout this report we refer to the 1988-1989 school year as Year 1, the 1989-1990 school year as Year 2. the 1990-1991 school year as Year 3, and the 1991-1992 school year as Year 4 . These files are being used for w11hinyt! ar, over-years and matched longitudinal analyses. z Kindergarten through 6th grade data include all basic demographics and available outcome data: norm-referenced achievement test scores, suspension and retention data. In Linle Rock, kindergarten through 6th grade data are also available for the 1990-1991 school year. 1 After the end of the 1992-1993 school year, there will be five consecutive years of reliable data on student demographics and outcomes. Given the high quality, comprehensiveness and continuity of the data collections, the resultant data base offers enormous potential for assessing needs, evaluating outcomes and developing sound educational policy. While many school departments around the country maintain student information systems for a number of discrete applications (e .g., class scheduling, transportation routes , grade reporting, attendance/enrollments, academic achievement) , we know of no other environments in which comprehensive, complete, reliable and continuous files such as the New Futures cities ' files are being maintained, and where common definitions are being consistently applied across several disparate middle-sized cities. When we add to these files the systematic data derived from annually administered individual  student surveys (assessing such non-school indicators as home structure, parents' education, academic aspirations, work experiences and sexual and parenting experiences), we have an information base whose potential as a research tool is unparalleled in the field. In addition, in each city, this rich data base is available to an interagency body. We strongly encourage the interagency groups to continue putting this powerful tool to use: to raise community awareness, to set priorities, and to inform and shape policy. For this report, we have analyzed information contained in Little Rock's four annual data files , in combined cohort files that we have created (e.g. , the 4-YEAR COHORT FILES which contain students who have been in the system for all four years) and in Little Rock's survey files from the past three years. In the next section of this report we describe the structure and content of the Little Rock cohort files . 2 A. Structure and Content of the Cohort Files Little Rock School District's unit-record cohort files each contain, among other variables, each of the core indicators required by the Annie E. Casey Foundation - enrollments (including the last grade level and school attended during the school year and such demographic information as gender, race/ethnicity, date of birth and free or reduced fee lunch eligibility), attendance, achievement (standardized, norm-referenced reading and mathematics scores), graduation, retention, course failures, suspensions (out-of-school suspensions for Years 2 through 4 only) and dropouts. Unless otherwise indicated, all variables can be assumed to match the New Futures definitions being consistently applied in all four cities. In the following paragraphs we describe each of these core indicators. The files for Years 1 and 2 contain data only for students enrolled in grades seven through twelve. As of Year 3, data are also available for children in grades kindergarten through six. l. Enrollments Students who have been physically present for at least one day, regardless of age or type of program, are counted as enrolled. The district includes in its enrollment count all students in special or ungraded programs, students beyond the compulsory school age who have not graduated, and students who are temporarily out of school because of extended illness or suspension. The district does not include in its enrollment count students enrolled in non-public schools and students in public institutions other than elementary and secondary schools. The cohort files contain identifying information for each student which includes the student's last school and grade, as well as his/her gender, race/ethnicity and free or reduced fee lunch eligibility. In this report enrollment is reported by grade, by race (black or white)3 , and by race within gender. 2. Attendance Schools transmit daily attendance reports to the central district office's mainframe computer on an exceptions basis\nthat is, students are assumed present unless otherwise indicated. Students who have been absent three or more periods during the day are counted as absent. Students who have received out-of-school suspensions are reported as \"suspended\" and therefore not counted as present. Religious holidays are counted as absences, unless they are system-wide. 3 Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than black or white are not reported independently . but their numbers can be determined by calculating the difference between the sum of black and white students and the total number of students. 3 To calculate average daily attendance (ADA), the district counts the number of days that each student is present in school, and divides that number by the total number of days of possible attendance for that student (i.e., the number of school days from each student's enrollment date). Annual ADA rates from the cohort files were calculated by dividing the sum of all students' days present by the sum of all students' days of possible attendance. The rates for Year 1, however, were under-reported and possibly slightly inflated due to a minor inconsistency in record-keeping which resulted in the duplicate counting of some students' attendance. Those students with obvious duplications (those whose total number of days exceeded the maximum number of days in the school year) were eliminated from attendance estimates, however, students with duplicate counts which did not exceed the maximum number of school days were unidentifiable and therefore contributed to and probably inflated the estimates by a small margin. The record-keeping inconsistency was corrected and no duplicate counts were included in subsequent cohort files4 . 3. Achievement During the spring of Years 1 through 3, the district administered the complete battery of the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6), a national, standardized norm-referenced achievement test, to students in grades one through eleven. The district scored their achievement tests in-house for all grades except four, seven and ten. The tests for those grades were scored by the State Education Department and data tapes were returned to the district for integration into the student data base and cohort files. Each year the school district merged the achievement results into the cohort files using the student identification numbers. During the spring of Year 4, the district administered the Stanford Achievement Test (SA T-8) . Test scores were merged into the student data base and cohort files. Year 4 test data are reported as converted Stanford Achievement Test scores so as to be comparable to the Metropolitan Achievement Test data reported in Years 1 through 3. For each tested student the cohort files contain percentile ranks and normal curve equivalents (NCEs) associated with raw scores (i.e., the number of correct answers) for Total Reading and/or for Total Math. Percentile ranks indicate the percentage of raw scores in a normative group that fall below a particular student's raw score. For example, if a student's raw score converts to a percentile rank of 43, then that student scored higher than approximately forty-three percent of the students in the normative group. Percentile ranks range from 1 to 99. Students scoring at or below the 25th percentile are said to be in the first (lowest) quartile. Similarly, students scoring between the 26th percentile and the median (i.e., 50th percentile) are in the second quartile, students scoring between the 51st and 75th percentiles are in the third quartile, and students scoring above the 75th percentile are in the fourth (highest) quartile. Therefore, in a statistically \"normal\" distribution, approximately twenty-five percent of the population would be included within each of the 4 The Year I errors also impact the differences reported on Tables 2.1. 2 .2 and 2.3. Declines in attendance may be at least partly due 10 the slightly inflated rates reported in Year I. 4 four quartiles. It is important to note that the percentile scale is not composed of equal units. For example, a raw score difference between percentile ranks 5 and 10 is far greater than a raw score difference between percentile ranks 45 and 50. Because these measurement units are unequal, it is not appropriate to use them for statistical analyses, and percentile rank differences ought not be compared. By contrast, normal curve equivalents (NCEs) are based on equal intervals. NCEs are similar to percentiles in that their range is from 1 to 99, and their midpoint also is 50. However, because NCEs are composed of equal intervals, they may be used in statistical analyses, and NCE differences (within and between test instruments) may be directly compared. Since percentile ranks are more familiar (and intuitively more  appealing), we have converted NCE statistics to percentile rank equivalents. 4. Graduation The district counts as graduates all students who receive a certificate of completion or other designation conferred by a district-affiliated public educational institution indicating that the student has completed a program of study. This includes special education students who successfully complete Individual Education Plans (IEPs), and students who complete their graduation requirements after summer school. There are no vocational education diplomas: in order to graduate, all Little Rock students who take courses at the Metropolitan Vocational-Tech Center must be enrolled in Little Rock high schools, and must complete their required Little Rock School District credits. Students who leave the Little Rock School District and complete a GED or other high school equivalency certificate are not counted as graduates. In Years 1 and 4 (after installation of a new computer system), the district was only able to estimate the number of graduates by counting all 12th grade students who had not transferred, dropped out or been retained. In Years 2 and 3, completion of graduation requirements was indicated in the cohort file by addition of a graduation code. Only those students whose records contained that code were counted as graduates during Years 2 and 3. Therefore, data for Years 1 and 4 represent estimates (over counts) of the number of graduates, while data for Years 2 an 3 represent actual counts of students who completed all graduation requirements. 5. Retention In Year l and Year 4, retention counts were determined by comparing student grade level status based on fall enrollment with projected grade level status based on the prior June's enrollment. Students whose actual fall enrollments differed from their projected enrollments were counted as retained. For Years 2 and 3 retention counts were derived by tallying the number of students who had not successfully completed their course requirements at the end of the school year. Students who attend summer school and achieve promotion are excluded from retention counts. Data for Years 1 and 4 also represent estimates of the number of students who were retained. (Retention status could only be determined for students who remained in the system across the two year periods, [Years l to 2, and Years 3 5 to 41 . Some students may have been retained and subsequently transferred out or dropped out of school and therefore not included in Year 1 or Year 4 estimates). Policies regarding grade retention differ according to school level. Grade retention policy for grades seven and eight is that students who fail two or more courses are retained unless they attend summer school and successfully complete the failed courses. For grades nine through twelve, the district's policy is that students ' grade levels are advanced each year unless there is a serious credit deficiency or credit deficiency in core academic subjects. Closely related to retention is the variable over age . (Retention at any time during students ' academic careers generally make them older than their non-retained classmates.) The cohort files contain each student's birth date. Each student's age can be calculated from the birth date contained in the cohort file. Students are considered over age if, by June 30th, they are at least one year and six months above the appropriate grade-level age for students who finished 1st grade at age seven. The over age thresholds for grades kindergarten through twelve are, respectively, 7.5, 8.5 , 9.5, 10.5, 11.5 , 12.5, 13.5 , 14.5 , 15.5 , 16.5, 17 .5, 18.5 and 19.5. 6 6. Course Failures District practices for collecting and reporting course failure data are consistent with the New Futures definition for course failure. Any student who receives one or more course grades of \"F\" for regular or summer school courses is included in cohort counts. In accordance with the New Futures definition, Little Rock keeps separate course failure information for summer school. Courses and, therefore, course failures are defined differently for junior high school and high school students. For junior high school grades seven and eight, courses are graded on an annual basis. For junior high school ninth grade and high school grades ten through twelve, all course grades are for semesters. A grade of \"F\" in either a semester or an annual course is counted as a course failure in the cohort files. Because of variations between high school and junior high school accounting of course failure, we also calculated the percentage of courses failed. Any comparison of junior high school and high school course failure is based on the percentage of courses failed. 7. Suspensions For Years 2 through 4, the numbers of short-term (3 to 10 days), out-of-school suspensions were recorded in a newly activated field in each student's record. (Until Year 2, the only available suspension data were counts of incidents of suspension.) Other types of suspensions (i.e., long-term, in-school) are counted in Little rock, however they are not included in the cohort file. 8. Dropouts Students who enter the military, leave to get married or work, leave school and enter non-state approved school programs, leave school between terms and do not re-enroll elsewhere (\"summer-leavers\"), or leave school between terms but are not identified as transfers (\"no shows\"), are counted as dropouts in the cohort file. Students who leave school to get their GEDs are also counted as dropouts. Students who are deceased, incarcerated. or enroll in another approved school (public or private) after attending Little Rock's schools for at least one day are counted as withdrawals and transfers. Two kinds of dropouts are reported from the cohort file: presumed dropouts, and students who are unaccounted for. \"Presumed dropouts\" are those students who are known to have dropped out of school or who have accumulated more than 15 days of consecutive unexcused absences. Students who are \"unaccounted for\" were enrolled in the previous school year but unexpectedly did not return to school by October of the following school year (\"no shows\" and summer-leavers). It is important to note that the cohort file may slightly overstate the dropout rate because the \"unaccounted for\" category could include some number of students who are actually attending schools outside of the Little Rock public school system but whose records were not updated to reflect such out-of-district transfers. 7 B. Types of Analyses This report contains a series of analyses for each of the main cohort file variables - enrollments, attendance, achievement, graduation, promotion/retention, course failure, suspension and dropout. For each variable we include over-years comparisons (i .e., crosssectional comparisons of the 7th-12th grade students reported in the Year 1 file [1988-89] with the 7th-12th grade students reported in subsequent files) and longitudinal comparisons (e.g., Year 1 to Year 2 comparisons for students appearing in both cohort files). For some variables, we have conducted special longitudinal analyses comparing consecutive cohorts (e.g. , Years 1 - 2 versus Years 2 - 3 and Years 3 - 4), and special analyses for students who appear in each of the four years (i.e., the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE). Over-years comparisons show side-by-side statistics for each of the four years for which we have files. Also noted in the over-years comparisons are changes from Year 1 to Year 4. These changes are computed in one of two ways - as percentage changes or as differences in percentage points.  The following is an example of a percentage change. In Year 1, there were 13,203 students included in Little Rock's 7th-12th grade file. In Year 4, there were 12,294 students in the 7th-12th grade files. This constitutes a 6.9 percent decrease in enrollments at these grades (Year 4 minus Year 1, quantity divided by Year 1).   The following is an example of a difference in percentage points. In Little Rock's junior high schools in Year 1, the average daily attendance (ADA) was 90.2 percent. In Year 4, the ADA was 89.5 percent. This constitutes a 0.7 percentage point decline in ADA (Year 4 minus Year 1). Over-years comparisons can be used to show trends from Year 1 through Year 4. However, since over-years comparisons always involve substantially different groups of children (e.g. , the seventh-graders in Year 1 are different students than the seventh graders in Year 4), we advise caution when interpreting these results. By contrast, longitudinal analyses enable us to follow the performance of specific students and groups of students over time. Longitudinal comparisons show data for those students who appear in files for more than one school year. For example, of the 13,203 7th-12th graders appearing in Little Rock's Year 1 file , 9,274 students, or 70.2 percent of the Year 1 group, also appear in Year 2, 6,512 students, or 49.3 percent appear in Year 3, and, 4,370 students, or 33 .1 percent were enrolled all four years. The students no longer appearing in Years 2, 3 and 4 have either graduated, transferred out of the school district, been expelled, or dropped out of school. Longitudinal analyses of enrollments, attendance, achievement, or any of the other variables, study the changing status or performance of those students who attended school 8 during two or more school years. Longitudinal analyses are made possible through the use of the unique student identification numbers. Inter-relationships are demonstrated by combining variables from the cohort files with variables from the survey files. For example, analyses have been conducted to show inter-relationships between dwelling in a single-parent household and low achievement (low achievement is more common among surveyed students from single-parent homes than it is among surveyed students who aren't from single-parent homes). C. Report Organization Sections II and III of this report present results of the cohort file analyses. In Section IIA we report over-years and longitudinal analyses for each of the cohort file variables. In Section IIB we report: survey data for secondary students and relationships between school outcome variables and selected survey variables. Section III summarizes the data presented in the report in graphic and tabular form. Additionally, the cumulative enrollment status for each cohort is examined, by grade level. This report contains a small sample of the analyses which have been conducted to date on the cohort files. Selected statistics focus on differences between grade levels and between . races. The Appendix to this report presents selected over-years and longitudinal analyses for all New Futures cities including combined cities totals. 9 II. Analyses A. Over-Years and Longitudinal Analyses of Cohort Variables The following section presents over-years and longitudinal analyses for students enrolled in grades 7 through 12 for Year 1 through 4, and for students enrolled in grades K through 12 for Years 3 through 4. Because outcomes and trends in the elementary school grades tend to be different from outcomes in the secondary school grades, and because the elementary school data are not available for the first two years of the initiative, elementary school data are presented in separate tables. Since elementary school data are only available for the 1990-91 and 1991-92 school years, over-years and longitudinal analyses can only be conducted for Year 3 and Year 4. 1. Enrollment a. Grades 7 Through 12 i. Over-years comparisons Table 1.1 shows, across grades, by race and by gender, the Little Rock cohort enrollments in each year and the percentage change in enrollments over the four-year period. It can be seen for example, that, overall, 7th to 12th grade enrollments decreased by 6. 9 percent, from 13,203 students in Year 1 to 12,294 students in Year 4. This decrease can be attributed almost entirely to the changes in the numbers of white students enrolled in the system (enrollments for white students decreased by 19.0%, from 5,392 in Year 1 to 4,365 in Year 4). Enrollments for black students, while fluctuating over the four years, increased slightly by 1.2 percent between Year 1 and Year 4 (from 7,616 to 7,714). Grade level data show enrollment decreases between Years 1 and 4 at each grade except 7 and 9. There were substantial decreases in all high school grades between Years and 4 (13.1 % at the 10th grade level, 14.9% at the 11th grade level, and 9.0% at the 12th grade level). At the junior high school level, there were slight increases overall at the 7th and 9th grade levels, and decreases in 8th grade. Between Years 3 and 4, however, the trends were somewhat different. Junior high enrollments increased slightly overall, and high school enrollments decreased by only 0.1 percent. Table 1.2 shows changes in enrollment distributions for each year. It can be seen in the table that the percentage of black students in 7th through 12th grades has been increasing , while the percentage of white students has declined (black students comprised 57. 7 % of the 7th-12th grade population in Year 1 and 62.7% in Year 4, while the percentage of white students declined from 40.8% to 35.5%) . The gender composition has remained fairly constant and racial trends within gender are consistent with racial trends overall (i.e., the percentages of black males and black females are changing relative to the percentages of white males and white females). LITTLE ROCK Table 1.1 ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS Distribution in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level =========================================zz=========m===============~--sa: 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-9 10-12 Total ===============================================================================2 Totals Year 1 2,226 2,317 2,047 2,432 2,210 1,971 6,590 6,613 13,203 Totals Year 2 2,193 2,173 1,978 2,213 2,055 1,888 6,344 6,156 12,500 Totals Year 3 2,161 2,242 2,018 2,047 1,899 1,844 6,421 5,790 12,211 Totals Year 4 2,234 2,189 2,084 2,113 1,881 1,793 6,507 5,787 12,294 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change in Enrollment Change Yrs 1-2 -1.5X -6.2X -3.4X -9.0X -7.0X 4.2X -3.7X -6.9X -5.3X Change Yrs 2-3 -1.5X 3.2% 2.01 -7.5X -7.6X 2.3X 1.2X -5.9X 2.3X Change Yrs 3-4 3.4% -2.4X 3.3% 3.2% -0.9X -2.8\" 1.31 0.1X 0.7% Change Yrs 1-4 0.4% 5.5X 1.8% -13.1% -14.9% -9.0X -1 .31 12.5X -6.9\" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 1,444 1,468 1,198 1,448 1, 131 927 4,110 3,506 7,616 Black Year 2 1,442 1,453 1,221 1,318 1,160 949 4,116 3,427 7,543 Black Year 3 1,458 1,499 1,289 1,221 1,074 1,046 4,246 3,341 7,587 Black Year 4 1,488 1,499 1,361 1,292 1,073 1,001 4,348 3,366 7,714 1./hi te Year 1 741 813 820 950 1,055 1,013 2,374 3,018 5,392 White Year 2 n2 680 n1 863 869 909 2,123 2,641 4,764 1./hite Year 3 683 717 689 787 794 771 2,089 2,352 4,441 1./hite Year 4 718 666 699 765 763 754 2,083 2,282 4,365 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 1,151 1,179 997 1,218 1,065 955 3,327 3,238 6,565 Males Year 2 1,121 1,115 990 1,078 1,006 867 3,226 2,951 6,177 Males Year 3 1,115 1,110 1,003 971 893 874 3,228 2,738 5,966 Males Year 4 1,137 1,100 1,034 1,007 882 831 3,271 2,no 5,991 Black Year 1 n2 737 603 730 547 467 2,062 1,744 3,806 Black Year 2 740 n6 605 669 573 419 2,071 1,661 3,732 Black Year 3 764 742 629 588 530 493 2,135 1,611 3,746 Black Year 4 761 769 669 625 506 471 2,199 1,602 3,801 White Year 1 411 425 379 473 507 477 1,215 1,457 2,6n White Year 2 361 370 368 389 422 432 1,099 1,243 2,342 White Year 3 343 353 355 367 342 369 1,051 1,078 2,129 White Year 4 361 324 350 361 363 335 1,035 1,059 2,094 Females Year 1 1,075 1,138 1,050 1,214 1,145 1,016 3,263 3,375 6,638 Females Year 2 1,on 1,058 988 1,135 1,049 1,021 3,118 3,205 6,323 Females Year 3 1,046 1,132 1,015 1,076 1,006 970 3,193 3,052 6,245 Females Year 4 1,097 1,089 1,050 1,106 999 962 3,236 3,067 6,303 Black Year 1 n2 731 595 718 584 460 2,048 1,762 3,810 Black Year 2 702 n1 616 649 587 530 2,045 1,766 3,811 Black Year 3 694 757 660 633 544 553 2,111 1,730 3,841 Black Year 4 n1 730 692 667 567 530 2,149 1,764 3,913 1,/h i te Year 1 330 388 441 477 548 536 1,159 1,561 2,no 1,/h i te Year 2 361 310 353 474 447 477 1,024 1,398 2,422 White Year 3 340 364 334 420 452 402 1,038 1,274 2,312 White Year 4 357 342 349 404 400 419 1,048 1,223 2,271 Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrO\\rlds other than 'Black' or '1./hite' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurcers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sun of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 11 LITTLE ROCK Table 1.2 ENROLLMENT CCl4PARISONS Percentage Distribution of Change in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level ==========zm=============m===rms=~=== ~rmmm::sz:-------=---= 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-9 10-12 Total ==============================================--============================== Totals Year 1 2,226 2,317 2,047 2,432 2,210 1,971 6,590 6,613 13,203 Totals Year 2 2,193 2,173 1,978 2,213 2,055 1,888 6,344 6,156 12,500 Totals Year 3 2,161 2,242 2,018 2,047 1,899 1,844 6,421 5,790 12,211 Totals Year 4 2,234 2,189 2,084 2,113 1,881 1,793 6,507 5,787 12,294 RACE Black Year 1 64.9\" 63.4X 58.SX 59.5X 51.2X 47.0% 62.4X 53.0X 57.7\" Black Year 2 65.8X 66.9\" 61. 7X 59.6X 56.4X 50.3X 64.9\" 55.7\" 60.3X Black Year 3 67.5X 66.9\" 63.9% 59.6X 56.6X 56. 7\" 66.1X 57.7% 62.1X Black Year 4 66.6X 68.5X 65.3X 61.1X 57.0X 55.8% 66.8% 58.2X 62.7% White Year 1 33.3X 35.1X 40.1X 39.1X 47.7% 51.4X 36.0X 45.6X 40.8X White Year 2 32.9\" 31.3X 36.51 39.0X 42.3X 48.1X 33.5X 42.9\" 38.1X White Year 3 31.6X 32.0X 34.11 38.4X 41.8% 41.8% 32.5X 40.6X 36.4X White Year 4 32.1X 30.4X 33.SX 36.2X 40.6X 42.1X 32.0X 39.4X 35.SX GENDER BY RACE Hales Year 1 51.7% so. 9\" 48.7\" 50.1X 48.2\" 48.5X 50.5X 49.0X 49. 7\" Hales Year 2 51. 1X 51.3X 50.1X 48. 7\" 49.0X 45.9\" 50.9\" 47.9\" 49.4% Hales Year 3 51.6% 49.SX 49.7% 47.4% 47.0% 47.4X 50.3% 47.3% 48.9\" Hales Year 4 50.9\" 50.3% 49.61 47.7\" 46.9\" 46.3X 50.3X 47.01 48.7% Black Year 1 32.41 31.8\" 29.51 30.01 24.8% 23. 7\" 31.3X 26.41 28.8% Black Year 2 33. 7\" 33.4% 30.61 30.2\" 27.9\" 22.2\" 32.6% 27.01 29.9\" Black Year 3 35.4X 33.1X 31.2\" 28.7\" 27 .9\" 26. 7\" 33.3X 27.8% 30. 7\" Black Year 4 34.1X 35.1X 32.1X 29.6X 26.9\" 26.3X 33.8% 27.7% 30.9\" White Year 1 18.SX 18.3X 18.51 19.4X 22. 9\" 24.2\" 18.4X 22.0X 20.2% White Year 2 16.SX 17.0X 18.61 17.6% 20.5X 22.9\" 17.3% 20.2% 18. 7\" White Year 3 15.9\" 15. 7\" 17.61 17.9\" 18.0% 20.0% 16.4% 18.6X 17.4X White Year 4 16.2X 14.8% 16.8\" 17.1X 19.3X 18. 7\" 15.9\" 18.3X 17.0X Females Year 1 48.3X 49.1X 51.3X 49.9\" 51.8% 51.5X 49.5% 51.0X 50.3X Females Year 2 48. 9\" 48. 7\" 49.9\" 51.3% 51.0% 54.1X 49.1X 52.1% 50.6X Females Year 3 48.4X 50.SX 50.3X 52.6% 53.0X 52.6% 49.7% 52. 7\" 51.1% Females Year 4 49.1% 49. 7\" 50.41 52.3X 53.1% 53. 7\" 49.7\" 53.0X 51.3% Black Year 1 32.4X 31.5% 29.1X 29.5% 26.4% 23.3% 31.1X 26.6X 28. 9\" Black Year 2 32.0X 33.5% 31.1X 29.3% 28.6% 28.1% 32.2\" 28.7\" 30.5% Black Year 3 32.1X 33.8\" 32.7% 30.9\" 28.6X 30.0% 32.9\" 29.9\" 31.5X Black Year 4 32.SX 33.3% 33.2\" 31.6X 30.1% 29.6X 33.0X 30.5X 31.8% White Year 1 14.8% 16.7\" 21.51 19.6% 24.8% 27.2\" 17.6% 23.61 20.6X White Year 2 16.5% 14.3% 17.8\" 21.41 21.8% 25.3X 16.1% 22. 7\" 19.4X White Year 3 15. 7\" 16.2% 16.61 20.5% 23.8% 21.8% 16.2X 22.0X 18.9\" White Year 4 16.0X 15.6X 16.7% 19.1% 21.3% 23.4% 16.1X 21.1x 18.SX Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrOl.llds other than 'Black' or 'White' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nuicers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sun of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 198889, 198990, 199091, 199192. 12 ii. Characteristics of the Year 4 Cohort Table 1. 3 and the accompanying figure present, for high school students who appear in the Year 4 cohort, the years of enrollment, by grade in Year 4. It can be seen, for example, that 69.0 percent of Year 4's 10th grade students were enrolled in the Little Rock School District in each of the past four years, 4.4 percent were enrolled in each of the past three years, 7.9 percent were enrolled in Years 3 and 4, and 18.6 percent were enrolled in Year 4 only. Overall, in each succeeding grade, relatively more students were enrolled in all four years, and relatively fewer students were enrolled in Year 4 only. Thus, in Year 4, 7 5. 9 percent of the 12th graders and 69. 0 percent of the 10th graders were enrolled in all four years, and 7.8 percent of the 12th graders and 18.6 percent of the 10th graders were enrolled in Year 4 only. Tables 1.3a and 1.3b show the same data by race . By comparing the two tables it can be seen that greater proportions of black Year 4 students than white Year 4 students were enrolled in all four years. Overall, 80.9 percent of black Year 4 students were enrolled in all four years, compared to 59.6 percent of white Year 4 students. One group of particular interest in Table 1.3 is the 4,147 students were enrolled in all four years. Students in this longitudinal cohort are especially important to us because they are the ones who have been students in Little Rock School District throughout the New Futures Initiative, and for whom we have four years of complete data. We are able to compare their outcomes over time with the assurance that many of their basic experiences are the same (e.g ., the same suspension and retention policies governed their discipline and progress) . Overall, there have been 4,370 students who have been with us for each of the four years of the initiative. 5 5 This includes 223 students who, due to retentions, were still in 7th , 8th or 9th grade in Year 4. 13 Little Rock Table 1.3 Year 4 Students, Years of Enrollment Grade in Year 4 10th 11th 12th Total All 4 Years 1,459 1,3_27 1,361 4,147 69.0% 70.5% 75 .9% 71.8% Years 2 - 4 93 87 162 342 4.4% 4.6% 9.0% 5.9% Years 3 - 4 167 223 130 520 7.9% 11.9% 7.3% 9.0% Year 4 Only 394 244 140 778 18.6% 13.0% 7.8% 13 .3% I Total I 2,113 1,881 1,793 5,779 Figure 1.3: Years of Enrollment For Year 4 Students -- All Students 100% 'U Q) 75% 0 '- C UJ -en C (1) 'U 50% -:::::, Cl) -0 -C Q) () '- 25% Q) a.. 1 0th 11th 1 2th Total \\ ~ All 4 Yrs CJ Yrs 2-4 CJ Yrs 3-4 ~ Yr 4 Only 14 'U Q) .0.. . C: w (/) +-' C: Q) 'U ::::J +-' Cl) -0 +-' C: Q) .C..J. Q) a.. Little Rock Table 1.3a Year 4 Students, Years of Enrollment Black Students D Grade in Year 4 10th 11th 12th Total All 4 Years 1,021 863 840 2,724 79.0% 80.4% 83 .9% 80.9% Years 2 - 4 54 33 47 134 4.2% 3.1 % 4.7% 4.0% Years 3 - 4 68 77 50 195 5.3% 7.2% 5.0% 5.8% Year 4 Only 149 100 64 313 11.5% 9.3% 6.4% 9.3% I Total I 1,292 1,073 1,001 3,366 Figure 1.3a: Years of Enrollment For Year 4 Students -- Black Students 100% 75% 50% 25% 1 0th 11th 1 2th Total I III All 4 Yrs [=:J Yrs 2-4 [=:J Yrs 3-4 L] Yr 4 Only 15 \"C Q) .0.. . C w ..(./.). C Q) \"C ..~... Cl) -0 ..... C Q) .u... Q) a.. Little Rock Table 1.3b Year 4 Students, Years of Enrollment White Students D Grade in Year 4 10th 11th 12th Total All 4 Years 416 439 505 1,360 54.4% 57 .5% 67 .0% 59.6% Years 2 - 4 36 52 109 197 4.7% 6.8% 14.5% 8.6% Years 3 - 4 93 139 78 310 12.2% 18.2% 10.3% 13 .5% Year 4 Only 220 133 62 415 28.8% 17.4% 8.2% 18.1 % I Total I 765 763 754 2,282 Figure 1.3b: Years of Enrollment For Year 4 Students -- White Students 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 1 0th 11th 1 2th Total I 1111 All 4 Yrs CJ Yrs 2-4 CJ Yrs 3-4 ~ Yr 4 Only 16 iii. Longitudinal comparisons The 4-YEAR COHORT FILE. Table 1.4 shows the number and percentage of students by race and grade in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE. It can be seen in the table that 4,370 students have been in the cohort files for all four years . Of these students, 2,920 (66 .8%) were black (compared with 57.7% of the Year 1 students) and 1,386 (31.7%) were white ( compared with 40. 8 % in Year 1). This suggests that more black students than white students are staying through the 4-year period. As anticipated, most of the students (94. 9%) in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE were in grades 10 through 12 in Year 4. I Little Rock Table 1.4 Number and Percentage of Students in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE By Race/Ethnicity, Grade and Gender Race [:] Grade in Year 4 White Black Other 7 N 0 0 0 0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8 N I 19 0 20 % 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 9 N 25 177 I 203 % 1.8% 6.1% 1.6% 4.6% 10 N 416 1,021 22 1,456 % 30.0% 35 .0% 34.4% 33 .4% II N 439 863 25 1,327 % 31.7% 29.6% 39 . l % 30.4% 12 N 505 840 16 1,361 % 36 .4% 28.8% 25 .0% 31.1 % Total I N I 1,386 2,920 64 4,370 % 31.7% 66.8% 1.5 100.0% 17 Three consecutive two-year cohorts. Table 1.5 shows the percent of 7th-11th grade students in each year who also appear in the successive year's cohort files (see footnote six below). Overall, 82.6 percent of the 11,232 Year 1 7th-11th grade students appeared in the Year 2 cohort file. From Year 2 to Year 3, 84.0 percent of the 10,612 7th-11th grade students remained in the cohort file. Similarly, 84.3 percent of Year 3's students remained in the cohort file. Between Years 1 and 2 and Years 2 and 3, a greater proportion of black students than white students remained in the cohort files. Between Years 3 and 4, the proportions of black and white students remaining in the cohort file were nearly equal. Most importantly, Table 1. 5 suggests that enrollment trends over the three two twoyear time segments were fairly constant. Total enrollment, subgroup enrollment and inf.out migration of students appear relatively stable. The two-year period between Years 3 and 4 shows an increase in the proportion of white students remaining in the cohort file, and a slight decline in the proportion of black students remaining. Table 1.5 Percent of 7th to 11th Grade Students in Subsequent Cohort Files, By Race6 I I Total I Black I White Enrollment Grades 7-11, Year l 11,232 6,689 4,379 Percent Enrolled in Year 2 82.6% 85.2% 78.6% Enrollment Grades 7-11, Year 2 10,612 6,594 3,855 Percent Enrolled in Year 3 84.0% 86.5% 79.9% Enrollment Grades 7-11, Year 3 10,367 6,541 3,670 Percent Enrolled in Year 4 84.3% 84.8% 84.l % I 6 Students in the 12th grade are expected to graduate and are not expected to appear in the succeeding year's cohort tile. 18 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 i. Over-years comparisons Tables 1.6 and 1.6a show the frequency and percentage distribution of enrollment for students enrolled in grades kindergarten through six in Years 3 and 4. Year 4's total enrollment was slightly lower than Year 3's enrollment. Declines were experienced at all elementary grades except the second and sixth. The racial composition at the elementary level was fairly constant. About 65 percent of the students are black and about 35 percent are white. Table 1.6 ENROLLMENT Percent Change in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level K 2 3 4 5 6 Total Totals Year 3 2,178 2,451 2,167 2,183 2,352 2,255 2,090 15,676 Totals Year 4 2,144 2,389 2,207 2,061 2,213 2,236 2,178 15,428 Change Yrs 34 1.6X 2.5X 1.8X 5.6X 5.9X 0.8X 4.2X 1.6X RACE Black Year 3 1,381 1,573 1,387 1,380 1,521 1,459 1,387 10,088 Black Year 4 1,344 1,529 1,367 1,307 1,415 1,485 1,406 9,853 White Year 3 771 844 756 m 799 m 673 5,393 \\Jhite Year 4 772 826 803 728 768 726 743 5,366 GENDER BY RACE Hales Year 3 1,130 1,257 1,113 1,106 1,206 1,140 1,059 8,011 Hales Year 4 1,105 1,253 1,130 1,045 1,120 1,138 1,097 7,888 Black Year 3 696 799 703 683 778 739 697 5,095 Black Year 4 689 788 690 646 706 749 716 4,984 \\Jhite Year 3 424 441 401 408 411 390 345 2,820 \\Jhite Year 4 405 451 420 385 399 376 365 2,801 Females Year 3 1,048 1,194 1,054 1,077 1,146 1, 115 1,031 7,665 Females Year 4 1,039 1,136 1,077 1,016 1,093 1,098 1,081 7,540 Black Year 3 685 774 684 697 743 720 690 4,993 Blaclc Year 4 655 741 677 661 709 736 690 4,869 \\Jhite Year 3 347 403 355 369 388 383 328 2,573 \\Jhite Year 4 367 375 383 343 369 350 378 2,565 Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black or '\\Jhite were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nunbers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sun of racial categories. Source: Li ttle Rocle Cohort Fi les 1990-91, 1991  92. 19 Totals Year 3 Totals Year 4 RACE Black Year 3 Black Year 4 White Year 3 White Year 4 GENOER BY RACE Males Year 3 Males Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 White Year 3 White Year 4 Females Year 3 Females Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 White Year 3 White Year 4 LITTLE ROCK Table 1.6a ENROLLMENT Percentage of Change in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race, 1990-91 (Yr. 3) and 1991-92 (Yr. 4). I( 2,178 2,144 63.4X 62.?X 35.4X 36. 0X 51.9X 51 . SX 32.0X 32.1X 19.SX 18.9X 48.1X 48.SX 31.SX 30 . 6X 15.9X 17.1X 2,451 2,389 64.2X 64.0X 34.4X 34.6X 51.3X 52.4X 32.6X 33.0X 18.0X 18.9X 48.?X 47.6X 31.6X 31.0X 16.4X 15.?X 2 2, 167 2,207 64.0X 61.9X 34.9X 36.4X 51.4X 51.2X 32.4X 31.3X 18 .SX 19.0X 48.6X 48.8X 31 .6X 30.?X 16.4X 17.4X Grade Level 3 2,183 2,061 63.2X 63.4X 35.6X 35.3X 50.?X 50.?X 31.3X 31.3X 18.?X 18.?X 49.3X 49.3X 31.9X 32.1X 16.9X 16.6X 4 2,352 2,213 64.?X 63.9X 34.0X 34.?X 51.3X 50.6X 33.1X 31.9X 17.SX 18.0X 48.?X 49.4X 31.6X 32.0X 16.SX 16.?X 2,255 2,236 64.?X 66.4X 34.3X 32.SX 50.6X 50.9X 32.8X 33.SX 17.3X 16.8X 49.4X 49.1X 31.9X 32.9X 17.0X 15.?X 6 2,090 2,178 66.4X 64.6X 32.2X 34.1X 50.?X 50.4X 33.3X 32.9X 16.SX 16.8X 49.3X 49.6X 33.0X 31.?X 15. 7X 17.4X Total 15,676 15,428 64.4X 63.9X 34.4X 34.8X 51.1X 51.1X 32.SX 32.3% 18.0X 18.2% 48.9X 48.9X 31.9% 31.6% 16 .4% 16.6% Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black' or 'White' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurbers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sum of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 20 ii. Origins of the Year 4 Students The origins of all Year 4 elementary school students, by race are described in Tables 1. 7 through 1. 7b. Specifically, the tables show, by grade, the number and percent of Year 4 students who were new to the system, and for those who were also enrolled in Year 3, the number and percent who had advanced one grade, remained in the same grade, or advanced more than one grade in Year 4. It can be seen in the tables that (excluding kindergarten students, all of whom were new), about 14 percent of all elementary school students were new to the system in Year 4 (including 9.4% of black students and 21.1 % of white students). Most of the students (82.4%) in the 1st through 6th grades had been in the system during Year 3 and had advanced one grade level (including 85.6% of black students, and 76.9.% of white students). The table also shows that first grade has the greatest proportion of new arrivals, (17.3 percent of the students are new to the system, compared to 14% or less for other grades), and the highest grade retention rate (11. 9 percent had been Little Rock 1st graders the previous year). 21 Table 1. 7: Origins of All Year 4 Elementary School Students7 I I Grade in Year 4 [\nJ Status I 2 3 4 5 6 New to System in Year N 413 315 276 323 271 226 1,824 4 % 17.3% 14.3% 13.4% 14.6% 12.l % 10.4% 13.7% Advanced One Grade N 1,692 1,783 1,742 1,850 1,942 1,931 10,940 From Year 3 % 70.8% 80.8% 84.5% 83.6% 86.9% 88.7% 82.4% Retained In Same N 284 103 34 37 18 8 484 Grade As Year 3 % 11.9% 4.7% 1.6% 1.7% 0.8% 0.4% 3.6% Multi-promoted From N NIA 6 9 3 5 13 36 Year 3 % NIA 0.3% 0.4% 0.1 % 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% I Total I N I 2,389 2,207 2,061 2,213 2,236 2,178 I 13,284 I % Multi-promoted (0.3%) Figure 1.7: Origins of Year 4 Students For All Year 4 Students in Grades 1 Through 6 Based on Year 3 Enrollment 7 Kindergarten students are not included in this analysis because most of the kindergarten students were new to the system in Year 4. 22 I I Table 1. 7a: Origins of Black Year 4 Elementary School Students Status New to System in Year 4 Advanced One Grade From Year 3 Retained In Same Grade As Year 3 Multi-promoted From Year 3 Total I I 1 2 3 4 5 N 182 134 113 143 136 % 11.9% 9.8% 8.6% 10.1 % 9.2% N 1,103 1,152 1,160 1,241 1,332 % 72.1 % 84.3% 88.8% 87.7% 89.7% N 244 79 28 29 13 % 16.0% 5.8% 2.1 % 2.0% 0.9% N NIA 2 6 2 4 % NIA 0.1 % 0.5% 0.1 % 0.3% N I 1,529 1,367 1,307 1,415 1,485 Figure 1.7a: Origins of Year 4 Students For Black Year 4 Students in Grades 1 Through 6 Based on Year 3 Enrollment % Retained (4.7%) % New to System (9.4%) % Multi-promoted (0.3%) 23 6 92 6.5% 1,296 92.2% 8 0.6% 10 0.7% 1,406 GJ 800 9.4% 7,284 85.6% 401 4.7% 24 0.3% 8,509 11 I I Table 1.7b: Origins of White Year 4 Elementary School Students Status New to System in Year 4 Advanced One Grade From Year 3 Retained In Same Grade As Year 3 Multi-promoted From Year 3 Total I .. I I 2. l IC 4 ,... S \\ 6 N 217 172 153 172 131 % 26.3% 21.4% 21.0% 22.4% 18.0% N 569 606 566 588 589 % 68.9% 75.5% 77.7% 76.6% 81.1% N 40 22 6 7 5 % 4.8% 2.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% N NIA 3 3 1 1 % NIA 0.4% 0.4% 0.1 % 0.1 % N I 826 803 728 768 726 Figure 1. 7b: Origins of Year 4 Students For White Year 4 Students in Grades 1 Through 6 Based on Year 3 Enrollment 124 16.7% 616 82.9% 0 0.0% 3 0.4% 743 % New to System (21 .1 %)  1\\ '[otat/ ' 969 21.1% 3,534 77.0% 80 1.7% 11 0.2% I 4,594 I % Normal Progress (77.0%) 24 2. Attendance a. Over-years comparisons Table 2.1 shows, across grades, by race and by gender, each cohort's average daily attendance rate (ADA) in Years 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the percentage point difference in ADA over the four year period. It can be seen that attendance rates are generally quite high but have been declining over the four year period (by 1. 8 percentage points overall) . Attendance patterns are generally consistent over race/ethnicity and gender. b. Longitudinal comparisons Table 2.2 contains longitudinal attendance data for those students who appear in the 4- YEAR COHORT FILE. For each of the four study years, participants have been classified according to the quartile in which their ADA fell in the first year of New Futures. Year 1 students with an ADA less than 79.7 percent were in the lowest quartile (i.e ., their ADA was equal to or less than the ADA of twenty-five percent of the population), students with ADAs between 79 .7 and 91.7 percent fell in the second quartile, students with ADAs between 91.8 percent and 97 .1 percent fell in the third quartile, and students with AD As greater than 97 .1 percent fell in the fourth quartile. The table shows the Year 1 through Year 4 average daily attendance rates, by attendance quartile, for all students and by race. On average, attendance rates are declining for the 4-YEAR COHORT students. This is true across attendance quartiles and across races. For example, for Black 4-YEAR COHORT FILE students whose Year 1 attendance placed them. in the second attendance quartile we see a decline in ADA in each year (from 91.0% in Year 1, to 90.0% in Year 2, to 87.4% in Year 3 and 83 .4% in Year 4). 25 LITTLE ROCK Table 2.' ATTENDANCE COMPARISONS Percentage Point Change in Average Daily Attendance (ADA) Rates, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 1988-89(Yr. 1) to 1991-92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ======================================================================== Total Total Total 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-9 10-12 7-12 ======================================================================== Totals Year 1 91.1X 88.?X 90.8X 90.3X 90.?X 91.4X 90.2X 90.8X 90.5X Totals Year 2 91.8X 89.3X 90.9X 87.0X 88.3X 88.5X 90.?X 87.9X 89.3X Totals Year 3 91.5X 90.0X 89.3X 89.2X 89.4X 89 . 2X 90.3X 89.3X 89.8X Totals Year 4 90.8X 89.1X 88.4X 86.?X 88.2X 89.1X 89.SX 87.9X 88.?X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change in ADA Change Yrs 1-2 0.7 0.6 0.1 -3.3 -2.4 -2.9 0.5 -2.9 -1.2 Change Yrs 2-3 -0.3 0.7 -1.6 2.2 1.1 0.7 -0.4 1.4 0.5 Change Yrs 3-4 -0.7 -0.9 -0.9 -2.5 -1.2 -0.1 -0.8 -1.4 -1.1 Change Yrs 1-4 -0.3 0.4 -2.4 -3.6 -2.5 -2.3 -0.7 -2.9 -1.8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 90.?X 88.0X 91.0X 90.0X 90.2X 91.?X 89.8X 90.SX 90.2X Black Year 2 91.SX 88.4X 90.6X 85 .6X 88.0X 88.5X 90.1X 87.3X 88.8X Black Year 3 91.1X 89.0X 88.6X 88.4X 88.8X 89.1X 89.6X 88.?X 89.2X Black Year 4 90.5X 88.6X 87.4X 85.?X 87.9X 88.9X 88.9X 87.4X 88.2X White Year 1 91.8X 89.8X 90.3X 90.?X 91.2X 91.1X 90.6X 91.0X 90.8X White Year 2 92.4X 91.2X 91.2X 88.9X 88.6X 88.3X 91.6X 88.5X 89.9X White Year 3 92.3X 91.8X 90.?X 90.2X 90.2X 89.2X 91.6X 89.9X 90.?X White Year 4 91.4X 90.1X 90.0X 88.1X 88.5X 89.1X 90.SX 88.6X 89.5X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 90.5X 88.2X 90.2X 89.6X 90.0X 91.3X 89.6X 90.3X 89.9X Males Year 2 90.SX 88.9X 90.2X 85.9X 87.?X 88.6X 89.8X 87.3X 88.?X Males Year 3 90.5X 88.9X 88.8X 88.5X 88.SX 89.2X 89.4X 88.?X 89.1X Males Year 4 89.8X 88.1X 87.6X 85.4X 87.5X 88.?X 88.6X 87.1X 87.9X Black Year 90.1X 87.SX 90.4X 89.3X 89.2X 91.6X 89.3X 89.9X 89.6X Black Year 2 90.0X 87.?X 89.?X 84.?X 87.3X 88.6X 89.1X 86.?X 88 .0X Black Year 3 89.9X 89.6X 88.0X 87.5X 87.?X 88.5X 88.6X 87.9X 88.3X Black Year 4 89.5X 87.4X 86.3X 84.3X 88.0X 88.3X 87.8X 86.?X 87.3X White Year 1 91.2X 89.SX 89.?X 89.9X 90.?X 91.0X 90.1X 90.5X 90.4X White Year 2 91.4X 90.9X 90.?X 87.6X 88.0X 88.4X 91.0X 88.0X 89.4X White Year 3 91.8X 91.4X 90.0X 89 .9X 89.SX 90.0X 91.1X 89.8X 90.4X White Year 4 90.2X 89.?X 89.8X 87.0X 86.8X 89.0X 89.9X 87.6X 88.?X Females Year 1 91.?X 89.2X 91.3X 91.0X 91.4X 91.6X 90.?X 91.3X 91.1X Females Year 2 93.2X 89.8X 91.6X 88.0X 88.9X 88.4X 91.5X 88.4X 90.0X Females Year 3 92.6X 91.0X 89.8X 89.8X 90.2X 89.2X 91.2X 89.?X 90.5X Females Year 4 91.9X 90.1X 89.1X 87.8X 88.8X 89.5X 90.4X 88.6X 89.5X Black Year 1 91.3X 88.5X 91.6X 90.?X 91.1X 91.8X 90.4X 91.1X 90.?X Black Year 2 93.0X 89.0X 91.4X 86.5X 88.6X 88.4X 91 . 1X 87.8X 89.6X Black Year 3 92.5X 90.4X 89.1X 89.1X 89.8X 89.6X 90.?X 89.5X 90.2X Black Year 4 91.5X 89.9X 88.5X 86.9X 87.8X 89.4X 89.9X 88.0X 89.1X White Year 1 92.6X 90.2X 90.8X 91.5X 91.6X 91.3X 91.1X 91.5X 91.3X White Year 2 93.5X 91.5X 91.6X 89.9X 89.2X 88.2X 92.2X 89.0X 90.4X White Year 3 92.?X 92.2X 91.5X 90 .5X 90.?X 88.5X 92.2X 89.9X 90.9\" White Year 4 92.6X 90.5X 90.3X 89.0X 90.0X 89.3X 91.1X 89. 4X 90.2X Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 26 Little Rock Table 2.2 Longitudinal ADA Comparisons, By Quartile In Year 1 and Race/Ethnicity, For 4-YEAR COHORT FILE Students Year 1 (1988-89) Through Year 4 (1991 -92) Average Daily Attendance Rates Percentage Average Daily Attendance ADA N Point Difference: Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Years l and 4 All Students 4,240 92 .9% 92.3% 90 .8% 87 .8% -5. l All Quartiles Black 2,831 92 .9% 92.2% in Year I 90.3% 87.1 % -5.8 White 1,347 92 .8% 92.6% 91.5% 89 .2% -3.6 All Students 651 79.0% 81.3% 79.0% 73.3 % -5.7 Lowest Quartile in Year 1 Black 448 78.4% 80 .5% 77.5% 70 .9% -7.5 ( \u0026lt; 79.7 %) White 198 80.4% 82 .8% 82. 1% 79 .0 % -1.4 All Students 1,026 91 .1 % 90.6% 88.4% 84.8% -6 .3 Second Quartile in Year 1 Black 621 91.0% 90 .0% 87 .4% 83.4% -7 .6 (79.7% 2_ 91.7 %) White 392 91.1 % 91.3% 89 .8% 86.9% -4 .2 All Students 1,2 10 95 .4% 94.4% 93 .0% 90 .7% -4.7 Third Quartile in Black 793 95.4% 94 .3% 92 .7% 90 .2% -5.2 Year 1 (91. 8 % 2_ 97 . 1 % ) White 399 95 .3% 94 .6% 93 .5% 91.5% -3.8 All Students 1,353 98 .5% 96 .9% 95 .8% 93 .8% -4 .7 Highest Quartile in Black 969 98 .5% 96.9% 95 .7% 93.7% -4.8 Year 1 (\u0026gt; 97 . l %) White 358 98 .4% 96.7% 96 .1% 94 .1 % -4.3 27 3. Academic Achievement (Reading and Mathematics) a. Grades 7 through 12 i. Over-years comparisons Tables 3.1 and 3.2 compare, across grades, by race and gender, average Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4 achievement test scores for 7th through 11th grade students. (Since Year 4 data are converted from SAT-8 test scores, Table 3.la and 3.2a, which show unconverted SA T-8 scores, are also included as a reference.) Data are presented as percentile ranks8 associated with the mean normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores. 9 A verage reading performance among tested seventh graders (Table 3.1) in Year 1 was equivalent to the 48th percentile, the seventh grade average in Year 4 was equivalent to the 54th percentile. Thus, relative to national norms, the seventh grade reading average improved by six percentile ranks from Year 1 to Year 4. In contrast, seventh grade math achievement (Table 3.2) dropped two percentile ranks, from the 50th percentile in Year 1 to the 48th percentile in Year 4. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 also show:  improvement in reading scores at the 7th and 10th grade levels, but declining at the 8th, 9th and 11th grade levels\n10  declines in math scores at all junior high levels, and improvements in 10th and 11th grade scores\nand  rather large disparities between black students and white students. Tables 3.3 through 3.6 and the accompanying figures show, across grades, by race and gender, the achievement quartile distributions for junior high school students, Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. Students scoring at or below the 25th percentile are said to be in the first (lowest) quartile . Similarly, students scoring between the 26th and the 50th percentile (i.e., the median) are in the second quartile, students scoring between the 51st and 75th percentiles are in the third quartile, and students scoring above the 75th percentile are in the fourth (highest) quartile. In a statistically \"normal\" distribution, approximately 25 percent of the 8 Percentile ranks indicate the percentage of raw scores in a normative group that fall below a particular student's raw score. For example, if a student's raw score converts to a percentile rank of 43 then that student scored higher than approximately 43 percent of the students in the normative group. 9 See also the discussion of achievement measures in the Introduction. 10 Year 1. 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Some of the decline in test scores may be attributable tu implementauon of a new testing package (from the MAT-6 to the SAT-8) and the score conversion process. (All Year 4 data were converted from SAT-8 scores to the MAT-6 equivalent.) 28 population would be included within each of the four quartiles. By comparing the scores of Little Rock's students to those norms, we can compute the percentages of Little Rock's students who score in each range. Information contained in Tables 3.3 through 3.6 may be used to observe differences in the percentages of students in the lowest or highest quartiles that may not be obvious when looking at overall averages . Reductions in the percentages of students in the first quartile, or increases in the percentages of students in the fourth quartile, constitute improvements. Conversely, increases in the percentages of students in the first quartile, or decreases in the percentages of students in the fourth quartile, constitute declines. For example, it can be seen in Table 3.3 that, in Year 1 and in Year 4, 21 percent of Little Rock's tested junior high school students scored in the first quartile in reading (4 percentage points better than what would be expected in a statistically \"normal\" distribution). Table 3.5 shows that in Year 1, 22 percent of Little Rock's testedhigh school students (10th and 11th graders only) scored in the first quartile in reading, while 17 percent of tested high school students were in the first quartile in Year 4. The figures show most clearly the disparities in achievement results. The comparisons shown in Tables 3.1 through 3.6, like all other over-years comparisons, are not of matched groups of students. For example, the seventh graders in Year 1 are different students than the seventh graders in Years 2, 3 or 4. In addition, some of the students tested in each year may have been retained in their grades while others may have been promoted. This does not mean that comparisons of over-years data cannot be made, or are not useful, but only that those undertaking the assessment be aware which groups of students make up the groups they are reviewing . 29 Table 3.1 ACHIEVEMENT C04PARISONS Distribution in Reading Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr.4). asa:.aa.--a ~mrmma:arm 7 8 9 10 11 ms:.as.:s-.-\u0026amp;.a :.::.::aaa:asrmaaarm.a Totals Year 1 48 54 64 50 55 Totals Year 2 50 52 65 54 52 Totals Year 3 48 52 61 54 58 Totals Year 4 54 42 48 54 54 -C--h-a-n-ge- --in- -R--e-a-d-in-g- -A--c-h-ie-v-e-m--e-n-t ------------------------------------- Change Yrs 12 2 -2 1 4 -3 Change Yrs 2-3 -2 0 -4 0 6 Change Yrs 3-4 6 -10 -13 -o -4 Change Yrs 1-4 6 -12 -16 4 -1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 36 40 51 36 38 Black Year 2 37 39 50 39 39 Black Year 3 35 37 48 39 42 Black Year 4 44 35 37 41 41 White Year 1 n 76 80 68 71 White Year 2 73 76 83 n n \"11ite Year 3 n 78 82 n 73 White Year 4 75 61 67 n 70 GENDER BY RACE MalH Year 1 48 53 64 48 56 Males Year 2 46 50 65 50 52 Males Year 3 44 50 59 54 56 Males Year 4 48 41 46 50 54 Black Year 1 34 38 51 35 38 Black Year 2 33 35 50 37 37 Black Year 3 33 35 46 39 41 Black Year 4 39 33 37 37 41 Whit  Year 1 70 76 80 68 70 White Year 2 n 73 82 73 70 White Year 3 70 75 80 n 73 White Year 4 68 59 65 68 70 Feaaln Year 1 50 55 66 51 55 F-lH Year 2 52 54 65 56 54 F-lH Year 3 50 54 63 54 58 Feaales Year 4 59 46 50 56 54 Black Year 1 38 42 51 38 39 Black Year 2 39 42 52 41 39 Black Year 3 39 39 50 41 42 Black Year 4 48 37 39 42 41 11h I te Year 1 74 77 81 70 71 White Year 2 76 79 84 n n White Year 3 73 79 84 n 73 White Year 4 79 65 70 76 70 Note: Twelfth grade students ere not tested. Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are baaed on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are baaed on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile rank associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Note: Students fr0111 racial/ethnic backgrOW1da other then 'Black' or 'WhiteM were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their rurbers were minimal. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 30 Totals RACE Black llhite GENDER BY Males Black llhi te Females Black \\lhi te Table 3.1a READING ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) Reading Scores (Perce~tile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 1991-92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ================================================ 7 8 9 10 11 ================================================ 39 39 41 48 48 25 27 28 32 33 67 65 67 71 68 RACE 30 33 39 42 48 20 24 27 27 33 58 59 63 67 68 46 42 42 52 48 32 30 30 35 33 75 68 70 76 68 Note: Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 1991-92. 31 Table 3.2 ACHIEVEMENT C!Jl'ARISONS Distribution in Math Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Gender and Race: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr.4). Grade Level =-==========---~=--===aa==s---===:z===a 7 8 9 10 11 ------------z-:s=rz=m--=---==-.srm--=-----===== Totals Year 1 50 51 64 50 55 Totals Year 2 52 48 65 54 54 Totals Year 3 48 48 59 52 59 Totals Year 4 48 37 42 54 56 -C--h-a-n-g-e --in-- M--a-th- -A--c-h-ie-v-t!-l-ll-el-'l-t ---------------------------------------- Change Yrs 1-2 2 -3 1 4 -1 Change Yrs 2-3 4 -o -6 -2 5 Change Yrs 3-4 0 -11 17 2 -3 Change Yrs 1-4 2 -14 -22 4 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 38 39 51 38 40 Black Year 2 41 37 52 41 41 Black Year 3 39 35 48 41 46 Black Year 4 39 28 30 41 42 White Year 1 70 71 79 67 70 White Year 2 73 n 80 n 70 White Year 3 67 70 76 68 75 White Year 4 68 58 65 n 68 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 48 49 64 51 59 Males Year 2 48 48 63 54 58 Males Year 3 46 46 58 52 61 Males Year 4 44 35 42 52 56 Black Year 1 35 35 51 38 42 Black Year 2 37 33 50 41 42 Black Year 3 35 35 46 39 48 Black Year 4 33 27 30 39 44 White Year 1 69 71 80 71 73 White Year 2 70 70 79 73 73 White Year 3 65 68 73 68 78 White Year 4 65 54 63 70 70 Femalu Year 1 51 53 63 48 53 Femalu Year 2 54 48 65 54 52 Females Year 3 50 48 59 54 58 F .. lu Year 4 52 41 42 56 54 Black Year 1 42 44 51 36 39 Black Year 2 42 39 54 41 39 Black Year 3 41 35 50 41 44 Black Year 4 42 32 32 42 42 White Year 1 71 71 77 63 66 White Year 2 75 73 80 70 68 White Year 3 68 n 79 68 73 White Year 4 n 59 67 n 68 Note: Tlielfth grade students are not tested. Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported s percentile ranks associated with 11111an Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrOUlds other than 'Black' or 'White\" were not Included in the 'RACE' categories because their nua\u0026gt;era were 111inimel. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 198990, 1990-91, 199192. 32 Totals RACE Black llhite GENDER BY Males Black Table 3.2a READING ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) Reading Scores (Percentile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level ==-=====-======-=====--====-==================== 7 8 9 10 11 ==-==================-=====-==================== 39 39 41 48 48 25 27 28 32 33 67 65 67 71 68 RACE 30 33 39 42 48 20 24 27 27 33 llhite 58 59 63 67 68 Females 46 42 42 52 48 Black 32 30 30 35 33 llhite 75 68 70 76 68 Note: Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 1991-92. 33 Table 3.3 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Ji.nior High School Students Scoring in Each Achievement Quartile, for Reading, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). ======================================================================================================= Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Total JHS YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 ------------=-=-===----=-----=----=--=---=--------=====--=z=======----=------=---------------------- Total Quartile I 28X 27X 29X 16X 23X 25X 25X 26X 13X 14X 17X 20X 21X 23% 24X 21% Quartile II 29X 28% 2ax 36% 2ax 29X 28X 39X 25X 23% 25X 37X 2ax 27X 27X 37X Quartile 111 20% 22X 21% 26% 21% 20% 20X 24X 29X 29X 25X 27X 23% 23% 22% 26% Quartile IV 23% 23% 22X 22X 28X 26% 27X 12X 33% 34X 33X 16% 2ax 27X 27X 16% Black Quartile I 37X 37X 38X 21X 31% 33% 35X 34% 18X 20% 24X 28X 30X 31% 33% 2ax Quartile II 35% 33X 34X 45X 35% 34% 34% 44X 32X 31X 32X 46% 34X 33% 33X 4SX Quartile Ill 18X 19X 19X 24% 19X 19X 19X 17X 31% 30X 26X 22% 22% 22% 21X 21% Quartile IV 11X ,ox 9X 10X 14% 14% 12% 4% 18X 20X 19X 4% 14% 14% 13% 6% Black Males Quartile I 40% 41X 41X 29X 34% 36% 39X 39X 20X 21X 26% 30% 32X 34% 36% 33% Quartile II 35X 32% 34X 45X 34% 37X 34% 41X 29X 30% 32% 45X 33X 33% 34% 44% Quartile Ill 16% 17X 17X 20X 1ax 16% 15% 16X 32X 29X 25% 21% 21X 20% 18% 19% Quartile IV 9X 10% BX 7X 14% 11% 12X 4X 19X 20% 17X 4% 14% 14X 12% sx Black Females Quartile I 34% 34X 35% 14% 28% 30% 31% 30X 17X 19X 22X 26% 27X 2ax 30X 23% Quartile II 35X 35X 33% 45% 38X 32X 34X 47X 34X 31% 31% 46% 36X 33% 33% 46X Quartile Ill 19X 21X 22X 28X 20% 22% 23% 19X 31X 31% 27X 23% 23X 24% 24% 24X Quartile IV 12X 10X ,ox 13% 14X 16% 12% 4% ,ax 19X 20% sx 14% 1SX 14% 7X 11h i te Quartile I 9X 8X 9X 7X 7X 8X 6% 9X sx 3X 6% sx 7X 7X 7X 7X Quartile II 18X 17X 18% 18% 19X 20% 17X 27X 14X 12% 12% 22X 17X 16X 16X 22% Quartile 111 25X 28X 23% 30% 23% 20% 22% 37X 26% 27X 23% 37X 2SX 25% 23% 34% Quartile IV 48% 47X SOX 46% S2X 52% S4X 27X ssx sax sax 36% S2X S3X S4X 37X llhite Males Quartile I ,ox ,ox 12% ,ox 8% 11% 8% 12X 6% 4% 7X 8X 8% 8X 9X 10% Quartile 11 18X 16% 16% 22% 19X 21X 19X 29X 16% 12% 13% 23X 18% 16X 16% 2SX Quartile Ill 2SX 29X 26% 29X 21X 19X 21X 3SX 22% 27X 24X 36% 23X 25% 24% 33% Quartile IV 47X 4SX 46% 38X 52% 49X 52X 24% 56X 57X 56X 33% S2X 51X S1X 32% llhite Females Quartile I 9X 6X 7X 4X 7X sx 4% 7X 4X 3% sx 3X 6X SX sx 4% Quartile II 18X 17X 19X 13% 17X 19% 16% 25X 12X 12X 12X 20X 1SX 16X 16% 19X Quartile Ill 24X 28X 21% 30% 2SX 20% 23% 39X 29X 26% 23% 3ax 26X 25% 22X 3SX Quartile IV 49X 49X S3X 53% 51% 56% S?X 30% ssx 59X 60X 39X 52% ssx 57X 4-1% Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test CMAt-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-a) scores which are coq,arable to the MAT-6. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 34 \"'C -(1) 75% (/) (1) ~ -(/) C (1) \"'C -::J 50% e-n 0 -C (1) u '- (1) 25% a. Figure 3.3: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Reading Achievement Quartiles For Junior High School Students Enrolled in Years 1 and 4, By Race Year 1 Year4 Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 35 Table 3.4 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Achievement Mathematics Quartile Across Grades and by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 199192 (Yr. 4). ==-=-========================================================-=~======================================= Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Total JHS YR1 YR-2 YR-3 YR4 YR-1 YR2 YR-3 YR-4 YR1 YR-2 YR-3 YR4 YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 ==========================================================rn~======================================== Total Quartile I 25X 22X 25X 29% 24X 27% 29% 39% 13% 12X 17% 33% 21% 21X 24% 34X Quartile II 29% 32X 33% 29% 30X 30% 31X 30% 27% 30% 29% 31X 30% 31X 31% 30% Quartile 111 26X 25X 24X 23X 21% 22X 20% 1BX 2BX 25X 2BX 19% 25X 24% 24X 20X Quartile IV 20X 21X 1BX 20X 25X 21% 20% 12X 32% 33X 26% 17% 25X 24X 21X 17% Blacl:: Quartile 32X 29% 32X 36X 32% 35X 38% 49% 1BX 16% 22X 44X 2BX 2BX 31X 43X Quartile II 35X 39% 39% 32% 36X 36% 36X 32% 36% 38X 35% 35% 36X 37% 37% 33X Quartile 111 25X 23X 21% 22X 20% 20% 17% 14X 2BX 27% 30% 14% 24% 22X 22% 17% Quartile IV 8X ,ox BX 10X 13X 9X 9X sx 1BX 20% 13X 7X 13X 12X 10X 7X Blacl:: Males Quartile I 37% 32X 35X 45X 37% 39% 41X 53% 1BX 19% 24% 46% 31X 31% 33X 48X Quartile II 34X 40X 39% 2BX 33% 33% 35% 30% 32% 37% 37% 33% 33% 37% 37% 30X Quartile 111 23X 19% 19% 20X 19% 20% 14X 12X 31X 26X 26% 14% 24X 21X 20X 15X Quartile IV 6X 9X 7X BX 11X BX 10X 5% 19% 1BX 13% 7X 12X 11% 10% 6X Blacl:: Females Quartile I 29% 26X 30X 27% 27% 31% 37% 46% 17% 13X 20X 42X 25X 24X 29X .38X Quartile II 35X 38X 39% 36X 38% 39% 36X 33X 40% 38X 34X 37% 3BX 38% 37% 36X Quartile Ill 27% 26X 22X 24X 21X 21X 19% 16% 26% 27% 33% 14% 25X 25X 24X 1BX Quartile IV 9X 10X 9X 13X 14% 9X BX sx 17% 22% 13X 6X 13X 13X ,ox BX White Quartile 9X 7X 10% 15% 10% 10% 11X 1BX 6% 6% 7X 14% BX 8% 9X 15% Quartile II 21X 19% 22X 22X 21X 19% 21% 28% 15X 16X 19X 23% 19X 20% 21X 24X Quartile Ill 2BX 31X 32X 24% 24% 27% 26% 2BX 2BX 23% 25X 27% 26% 26% 28X 26X Quartile IV 42% 43X 36X 39% 46X 44X 42% 26X 51X 55% 49% 36X 47% 45X 43X 34X White Males Quartile I 13X 10X 13X 20X ,ox 13X 11X 20X 6X 7X 10X 17% ,ox ,ox ,,x 19% Quartile II 18X 18% 21X 24X 19% 18X 22X 30X 18% 15X 21X 23X 18X 17% 21X 26X Quartile 111 26X 30X 31% 20X 27% 29% 28% 25% 23X 22X 24X 25X 26X 27% 28X 23X Quartile IV 43X 42% 35X 37% 44% 40% 39% 25% 53X 56% 45X 35X 47% 46% 40X 33X White Females Quartile I sx sx BX 11% 11% 7X 10% 16% 5% 6% 4X 10% 7X 6X BX 12X Quartile II 24X 20X 22% 19% 22% 21% 21% 25X 15X 16X 16X 23X 20X 19% 20X 22X Quartile 111 29% 31% 32% 28% 20% 23X 24X 31% 31% 24X 26% 30% 27% 26X 27% 29% Quartile IV 42X 44X 3BX 42% 47% 49% 45% 2BX 49% 54% 54% 37% 47% 49% 45X 36X Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores which are c~rable to MAT6 scores. Source: little Roel:: Cohort Files 198889, 1989-90, 199091, 1991-92. 36 \"'C -Q) 75% (/J Q) r- -(/J C Q) \"'C -::::, 50% e-n 0 -C Q) u '- Q) 25% a.. Figure 3.4: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Mathematics Achievement Quartiles For Year 1 and 4 Junior High School Students By Race Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 37 Table 3.5 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS - QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of High School Students Scoring in Each Reading Achievement Quartile Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 1988-89CYr. 1) to 1991-92(Yr. 4). ---------------------------------------------------------------------============================= Grade 10 Grade 11 Total HS YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 =======================---=------------===========-===========-=================================== Total Quart le I rn: 21 19X 18 19% 23 18 16 22 22 19X 17 Quart le II 35 31 32 35 26 27 27 35 28 29X 30 35 Quart le Ill 22 23 23 25 28 25 27 30 26 24 25 28 Quart le IV 20 25 26 22 27 25 28 19 24 25 27 21 Black Quartile I 35 31 29X 26 32 36 27 24 34 33 28 25 Quartile II 37 39X 40 44 34 31 35 46 35 35 38 45 Quartile Ill 19X 20 21 21 25 21 26 24 22 21 23 23 Quartile IV 9X 10 10 8 10 12 12 6 10 11 11 7 Black Males Quartile I 37 35 31 32 35 37 29 23 36 36 30 28 Quartile II 36 36 38 43 30 32 32 45 33 34 35 44 Quartile Ill 19X 19X 20 17 24 20 25 26 21 20 22 21 Quartile IV 8 10 11 8 11 11 14 6 10 11 12 7 Black Females Quartile I 33 27 27 20 30 35 25 25 32 31 26 22 Quartile II 37 43 42 45 36 31 37 46 37 37 40 46 Quartile Ill 19% 21 21 25 25 22 27 23 22 22 24 24 Quartile IV 11 9X 10 9X 9 12 11 6 10 10 10 8 llhite Quartile I 9 8 6 6 7 7 6 5 8 7 6 6 Quartile II 23 20 21 20 17 19X 18 21 20 20 20 20 Quartile Ill 30 27 27 30 32 31 28 38 31 29X 27 34 Quartile IV 38 45 46 44 44 43 48 36 41 44 47 40 llhite Males Quartile I 9X 9X 5 10 8 9X 9X 7 9X 9X 7 8 Quartile II 23 19X 22 23 18 16 18 19X 20 18 20 21 Quartile Ill 30 26 29X 32 32 33 22 36 31 29X 26 34 Quartile IV 38 46 44 35 42 42 51 38 40 44 47 37 llhite Females Quartile I 8 7 7 4 5 5 4 4 7 6 5 4 Quartile II 23 20 21 17 18 22 18 22 20 21 19\" 19 Quartile Ill 30 28 24 29X 32 29X 31 40 31 28 28 35 Quartile IV 39X 45 48 50 45 44 47 35 42 45 47 42 Note: Twelfth grade students were not tested. Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores which are c~rable to MAT-6 scores. Source: Little Rocle Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 38 100% \"C -Q) 75% Cl) Q) ~ -Cl) C Q) \"C -::, 50% (/) -0 -C Q) u ~ aQ..) 25% Figure 3.5: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Reading Achievement Quartiles For Year 1 and 4, High School Students By Race Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year4 All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 39 Table 3.6 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS - QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Mathematics Achievement Quartile Across Grades and by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). ====================--============================================================================= Grade 1D Grade 11 Total HS YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 ============================================================:=================================== Total Quartile I 25X 21X 21X 20X 21X 22X 16X 16X 24X 21X 19X ,ax Quartile II 32X 31X 34X 33X 30X 30X 31X 33X 31X 31X 33X 33X Quartile Ill 21X 24X 23X 25X 21X 22X 24X 29X 21X 23X 24X 27'X Quartile IV 22X 24X 22X 22X 28X 26X 29X 22X 25X 24X 25X 22X Black Quartile I 36X 29X 29X 28X 33X 32X 23X 24X 35X 31X 26X 26X Quartile II 36X 38X 41X 40X 36X 36X 40X 40X 36X 37'X 40X 40X Quartile 111 17'X 23X 21X 22X 17X 19X 23X 27X 17'X 21X 22X 24X Quartile IV 10X 10X 9X 9X 14X 13X 14X 9X 12X 11X ,,x 9X Black Malas Quartile I 35X 30X 30X 32X 32X 30X 19X 23X 34X 30X 25X 28X Quartile 11 36X 38X 40X 40X 36X 36X 40X 40X 36X 36X 40X 40X Quartile Ill 18X 22X 21X 19X 16X 21X 26X 28X 17'X 22X 23X 23X Quartile IV 11X 10X 9X 9X 16X 13X 15X 9X 13X 12X 12X 9X Black Females Quartile I 37X 29X 27X 25X 34X 33X 27X 24X 36X 31X 27X 25X Quartile II 36X 39X 42% 40X 37X 37'X 39X 41X 36X 38X 41X 40X Quartile 111 17X 23X 22X 25X 17X 18X 21X 26X 17X 21X 22X 25X Quartile IV 10X 9X 9X 9X 12X 12X 13X 9X 11X 10X 11X 9X llhite Quartile I ,ox 9X 10X 7X ,ox 9X 7X 7X 10X 9X 8X 7'X Quartile II 26X 23X 25X 22X 24X 23X 20X 23X 25X 23X 22X 23X Quartile Ill 26X 27'X 26X 29X 25X 25X 25X 31X 25X 26X 26X 30X Quartile IV 38X 42X 40X 42X 42X 43X 48X 39X 40X 42X 44X 41X llhite Males Quartile I 9X 7X 9X 7X 7X 8X 7X 6X 8X BX BX 7X Quartile II 23X 24X 26X 24X 23X 22X 16X 24X 23X 23X 22X 24X Quartile 111 25X 25X 24X 30X 24X 24X 27X 30X 24X 24X 25X 30X Quartile IV 43X 44X 41X 39X 46X 46X SOX 40X 4SX 45X 46X 39X White Females Quartile I 11X 10X 10X 8X 12X 10X 8X 7X 12X 10X 9X 7X Quartile 11 29X 22X 23X 20X 24X 24X 22X 22X 26X 23X 23X 21X Quartile 111 26X 28X 28X 27X 26X 25X 24X 32X 26X 27X 26X 30X Quartile IV 34X 40X 39X 45X 38X 41X 46X 38X 36X 40X 43X 42X Note: Twelfth grade students were not tested. Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test score are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores which are c~rable to MAT-6 scores. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 40 100% \"O -Cl) 75% (/) Cl) I- -(/) C Cl) \"O -::::, 50% C/J -0 -C Cl) CJ ~ Cl) 25% a. Figure 3.6: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Mathematics Achievement Quartiles For Year 1 and 4, High School Students By Race Y .. 1 Year4 Year 1 Year4 Year 1 Year4 All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 41 ii. Longitudinal comparisons Longitudinal analyses of MAT reading and mathematics achievement were conducted for Year l's 7th graders and 8th graders who were enrolled in Years 1 through 4, and made normal grade level progresstt _ Analyses were prepared for all tested students and separately for those whose spring 1989 test score placed them in the lowest (first) achievement quartile. In the longitudinal design, the performance of student groups is monitored over sequential test administrations, and differences between mean scores are compared. In looking at these data. we expect. unless there is some systematic intervention. that groups of students whose average score is at a particular percentile in Year 1 will have an average score at approximately the same percentile in Year 4. An important exception to this principle is that students in the lowest quartile in Year 1 are likely to increase their scores by Year 4. Table 3.7 ~hows the number of seventh grade students tested in Years 1 through 4, and the percentile rank associated with the average NCE in each year for all students and by race. Table 3. 8 shows the same data for students whose Year 1 test scores placed them in the lowest reading quartile. The tables contain separate information for reading and mathematics tests . The accompanying figures serve to illustrate the change in test scores over time. For seventh grade students tested in Years 1 through 4, we see an overall reading achievement loss of two percentile ranks from Year 1 to Year 4, and a decline of four percentile ranks in mathematics achievement scores. t2 Both black and white students experienced these declines in test scores. For lowest quartile students we see increases in both reading and mathematics achievement scores. The changes are greater for white students. Tables 3.9 and 3.10 show similar data for Year l's 8th graders. It can be seen in the tables that there were losses in both reading and math for Year l's 8th graders (9 percentile ranks for reading and 3 percentile ranks for mathematics). For lowest quartile students there were increases in both reading and math. ll Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). t2 Once again. some of the decline in test scores may be attributable to implementation of a new testing package (from the MAT-6 to the SAT-8) and the score conversion process . (All Year 4 data were converted from SAT-8 scores to the MAT-6 t:4u1valent.) 42 ~ C: \u0026lt;tS a: Q) .. C: Q) .(.J.. Q) a.. Little Rock Table 3.7: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons12 For 7th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year 1 to Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (7th) (8th) (9th) (10th) Reading : All Students 1,011 56th 59th 65th 54th -2 Black 677 44th 48th 54th 42nd -2 White 316 78th 80th 85th 75th -3 Math: All Students 1,014 58th 56th 63rd 54th -4 Black 679 48th 44th 52nd 44th -4 White 317 75th 75th 80th 72nd -3 99 90 - Reading Math 80 - .. 70 - 60 - .. L 50 - . l 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 - 1 I I I I I I I All Black White All Black White , .. Year 1 D Year2 ~ Year3 mffl9 Year4 11 Y car I. 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 43 .:-:: C Little Rock Table 3. 8: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons13 For 7th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Lowest Quartile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year l to Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (7th) (8th) (9th) (10th) Reading :All Students 194 16th 24th 25th 25th +9 Black 172 15th 22nd 25th 24th +9 White 21 17th 28th 35th 32nd + 15 Math: All Students 141 17th 21st 25th 27th + 10 Black 124 17th 21st 25th 25th +8 White 17 17th 25th 28th 30th +13 50 - Reading Math 40 - (i 30 - Q) .. C ,,. ,. ,. ~ 20 ~ ,. - ,. \"\" Q) a. I 10 - f :: . :: 1 . I I I I I ' I All Black White All Black White I 1111 Year 2 c=J Year 3 ~ Year 4 13 Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT~). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 44 Little Rock Table 3.9: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons14 For 8th Grade Students Tested Years l through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Students Reading :All Students Math: All 99 90 80 ,_ ,- ~ 70 ,- C ~ 60 ,- Q) .:: so - C B 40 ~ - Q) a. 30 20 10 1 - - - Black White Students Black White ,. I N 1,01 I 633 355 1,011 635 353 Reading - Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year l Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 (8th) (9th) (10th) (11th) 63rd 70th 58th 56th 50th 58th 44th 44th 83rd 86th 76th 73rd 61st 70th 56th 58th 50th 59th 44th 46th 78th 85th 75th 73rd ,. Math ,. ,. ~ ~ . I I I I I All Black White All Black White /Year 1 D Year2 - Year3 - Year4 Change Year 2 to Year 4 -9 -6 :10 -3 -4 -5 I 14 Year I, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 45 ~ C ca cc: Q) -~ C Q) (.J ~ Q) a.. Little Rock Table 3.10: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons15 For 8th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Lowest Quartile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year l to Year l Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (8th) (9th) (10th) (11th) Reading : All Students 132 16th 25th 22nd 25th +9 Black 120 16th 25th 21st 24th +8 White 12 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Math: All Students 134 17th 30th 22nd 22nd +5 Black 118 17th 30th 22nd 22nd +5 White 15 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA so--------------r----------------. Reading Math 40 30 20 10 1 All Black All Black , .. Year 1 c=] Year 2 m Year 3 Imm! Year 4 15 Year I. 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students ' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 46 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 i. Over-years comparisons Tables 3.11 and 3.12 show percentile ranks associated with the mean reading and math NCE scores for students in grades one through six (tables 3. lla and 3.12a show un-converted SAT-8 scores for the 1st through 6th grades). Table 3.11 shows that with the exception of fourth and fifth grades, little or no change was evident in mean achievement scores. At the fourth grade there was a six percentile rank decline, and at the 5th grade there was a six percentile rank improvement. Table 3.12 shows that there were declines in mathematics achievement scores at every grade except 2nd where scores remained the same. Large declines were reported for 6th grade students. For reading, the percentile ranks associated with the mean NCE score for each grade are close to the national average, while for mathematics they are higher than the national average. Large gaps are evident at all grades between the reading and mathematics scores of white and black students. Table 3.11 ACHIEVEMENT Percentage of Change in Reading Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 1990-91(Yr. 3) and 1991-92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ==================z======================s============ 2 3 4 5 6 ====================================================== Totals Year 3 48 48 42 50 50 54 Totals Year 4 48 50 44 44 56 54 Change Yrs 3-4 0 2 2 -6 6 0 RACE Black Year 3 39 39 30 39 41 44 Black Year 4 37 37 32 35 44 42 llhite Year 3 68 68 63 72 72 73 llhite Year 4 68 70 67 65 75 72 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 44 46 37 46 48 50 Males Year 4 44 46 42 42 52 50 Black Year 3 33 33 25 35 39 39 Black Year 4 32 33 28 32 42 39 llhite Year 3 63 68 61 67 68 72 11h i te Year 4 68 67 65 61 72 70 Femaln Year 3 54 52 46 54 52 58 Females Year 4 52 52 46 48 58 56 Black Year 3 42 42 35 44 41 48 Black Year 4 42 41 35 39 48 46 llhite Year 3 76 70 68 75 73 75 llhite Year 4 70 72 68 67 78 75 Mote: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (MCEs). Mote: Students from racial/ethnic backgrol.nds other than 'Black' or 'llhi te\" were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurt\u0026gt;ers were minimal. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 47 Totals RACE Black llhi te GENDER BY RACE Males Black llhite Females Black llhite Table 3.11a READING ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT8\u0026gt; Reading Scores (Percentile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level =========================================================== 2 3 4 5 6 =========================================================== 42 37 37 42 35 46 32 25 25 30 24 33 61 61 61 65 59 72 39 33 33 39 32 42 27 22 21 25 21 30 61 58 61 61 56 67 44 42 41 46 39 so 35 30 30 35 27 37 63 63 63 67 65 75 Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test CMAT-6), Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 1991-92. 48 Table 3.12 MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT Change in Mathe11111tics Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level =======================================z============== 2 3 4 5 6 -===-===--============================================ Totals Year 3 63 67 61 65 61 67 Totals Year 4 59 67 59 59 58 54 Change Yrs 34 4 0 2 6 3 13 RACE Black Year 3 54 58 50 54 52 59 Black Year 4 48 54 46 48 48 42 White Year 3 80 82 78 82 76 82 llhi te Year 4 79 84 82 76 76 70 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 61 67 59 63 59 65 Males Year 4 61 67 58 56 56 50 Black Year 3 50 56 48 52 50 54 Black Year 4 46 50 42 44 44 39 White Year 3 79 82 78 80 76 82 White Year 4 80 86 80 73 73 67 Females Year 3 65 67 61 65 63 68 Females Year 4 59 67 63 61 61 58 Black Year 3 56 59 52 56 54 61 Black Year 4 48 56 50 52 50 48 llhite Year 3 82 80 76 82 78 llhite 80 Year 4 76 83 84 79 79 73 Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrO\\llds other than 'Black or 11/hite\" were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nuri\u0026gt;ers were minimal. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 199091, 199192. 49 Table 3.12a MATH ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT8) Math Scores (Percentile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 1991 92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ========================================================== 2 3 4 5 6 =============-============================================= Totals 48 56 56 56 50 54 RACE Blaclc 35 41 44 46 41 44 llhite 73 83 78 72 85 73 GENDER BY RACE Males 48 54 54 52 48 50 Blaclc 35 39 41 42 39 41 llhi te 72 78 75 68 67 67 Females 46 56 58 58 52 58 Blaclc 37 44 46 50 42 48 llhite 67 73 78 73 72 73 Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT8). Scores are reported as percentile ranlcs associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Roclc Cohort Files for 199192. 50 Reading and mathematics quartile distributions for Little Rock students in grades one through six are presented in Tables 3.13 and 3.14. Reading quartile distributions in first, second and third grades are skewed, with many more students than expected in the first (lowest) quartile. In grades 4 through 6. the reading achievement distributions for the total population are better than the national nonn for the first (lowest) quartile (less than 25 % of the 4th-6th grade students are in Quartile I, except in grade 4 during Year 4) . Mathematics data at each grade level (except grade 6. Year 4) have distributions that are better than national nonns . Racial disparities are evident at all grade levels for both reading and mathematics. Table 3.13 ACHIEVEMENT QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Achievement Quartile, for Reading, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). -===============-============-==-==--================================================================= Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 YR-3 YR-4 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 ---=-==-==--=--=--==--=-==--=------------=-==-==--=--=-==================-=--=-----------=---=--==-=== Total Quartile I 36X 36X 27X 27X 36X 33X 24X 29X Quartile II 25X 23X 28X 30X 26X 28X 30X 31X Quartile Ill 14X 15X 22X 21X 19X 20X 26X 24X Quartile IV 25X 26X 22X 22X 18X 18X 20X 16X Black. Males Quartile I 49X 48X 42X 42X 54X SOX 38X 44X Quartile II 27X 25X 31X 34X 28X 31X 34X 36X Quartile III 11X 14X 17X 16X 13X 14X 19X 17X Quartile IV 13X 13X 10X 8X 6X SX 9X 3X llhite Males Quartile I 26X 23X 16X 16X 20X 13X 12X 16X Quartile II 23X 20X 18X 20X 24X 23X 20X 21X Quartile 11 I 15X 15X 23X 23X 24X 26X 32X 31X Quartile IV 36X 42X 43X 41X 33X 38X 35X 33X Black. Females Quartile I 40X 41X 26X 30X 41X 39X 26X 32X Quartile II 25X 25X 36X 38:X 30X 34X 37X 37X Quartile III 16X 15:X 25:X 22:X 19X 20X 26:X 23:X Quartile IV 19X 19X 13:X 10:X 11:X 7X 11X 8:X llhite Females Quartile I 15X 18X 12:X 9X 12:X 12:X 4:X 9X Quartile II 21:X 20% 20:X 19X 21:X 20:X 18X 21X Quartile III 15X 16X 26X 25:X 26:X 26:X 33X 32:X Quartile JV SOX 45:X 43:X 48:X 41X 43X 45X 37X Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scpres are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scpres CSAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents CNCEs). Source: Little Rock. Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 51 23X 17X 19X 19X 31X 31X 32X 34X 26X 30X 28X 27X 21X 22X 21X 20X 33X 28X 31X 29X 35X 37X 40X 42X 22X 25X 23X 21X ,ox ,ox 7X 7X 12X 8X 8X 11X 19X 18X 24X 19X 29X 31X 27X 32X 39X 43X 42X 39X 28X 18X 19X 20X 39X 38:X 37X 43:X 23:X 33:X 31X 27X 10:X 11X 13X 11:X 4X 2X 7X SX 19X 15:X 14X 17X 32:X 31X 33X 35X 4SX 51X 46X 44X Table 3. 14 ACHIEVEMENT  QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Achievement Quartile, for Mathematics, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 1990-91(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). ---======================================================================--------==--------------------= Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 -----------------------------------======--------------------------===================================== Total Quartile 19% 23% 13,: 16% 18% 24 16% 21,: 14% 20,: 10,: 25X Quartile II 22,: 21X 23X 21X 25X 22X 21X 24X 27'X 25X 23X 27'X Quartile Ill 21X 21X 27'X 23 24X 20,: 27'X 24X 28% 26X 33,: 23% Quartile IV 38X 35,: 37'X 40% 33,: 35,: 37'X 31X 31% 29% _ 34,: 25% Black Males Quartile I 29% 32% 19% 26X 28X 38X 23% 30% 21,: 30X 15,: 37'X Quartile II 24% 23X 27'X 26% 28% 23X 25% 29% 31X 28X 33,: 30X Quartile Ill 22,: 23% 27'X 21,: 23% 20,: 27'X 23 30% 23X 32X 20,: Quartile IV 26X 22,: 28X 27'X 22X 20X 25% 18% 18% 19% 20,: 13,: llhite Males Quartile I 9X 10,: 3X S 9,: 12,: 10,: 16% 7'X 13 4X 16X Quartile II 19X 14X 16X 11X 15% 16X 1 o,: 14X 18X 19% 13,: 21X Quartile Ill 16X 16% 2SX 20,: 21X 16X 21X 23% 24% 24X 27'X 24X Quartile IV 57'X 60X 56X 64X 54,: 56% 59% 47'X 51X 4SX 57'X 39% Black Females Quartile I 20,: 28 17'X 18% 20X 25% 1 ?'X 22,: 1SX 21X 10X 27'X Quartile II 2SX 26% 27'X 29% 32X 30X 27'X 28% 33,: 30% 24X 31X Quartile Ill 24% 23% 26% 26X 26X 21X 29% 27'X 30X 29% 38X 23% Quartile IV 30% ' 23% 29% 27'X 22,: 23% 27'X 23% 22,: 20X 28X 19% llhite Females Quartile I 7'X 10,: 6 7'X a,: a,: s,: a,: 4X 6X sx 7'X Quartile II 1SX 17X 12X 11,: 14% 10X 11,: 17'X 18X 14X 11X 20,: Quartile Ill 19,: 20X 29% 22,: 2SX 22,: 26% 23% 27X 28X 32% 26% Quartile IV 59% 54X 53,: 59,: 53X 60% 58% 52 SOX 52% 52X 47'X Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scpres are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scpres (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 52 ii. Longitudinal comparisons Longitudinal achievement analyses are included in this assessment because such analyses focus on the perfonnance of specific groups (cohorts) of students over time. Longitudinal analyses of MA T-6 reading and mathematics achievement have been prepared for all Year 3 2nd through 5th grade students who were tested in Year 3 and Year 4. and who made nonnal grade progress. Since retained students are generally at an advantage over promoted students when their data are compared with grade level nonns, we have conducted longitudinal achievement analyses which include only students who have made nonnal grade level progress (i.e., advanced one grade between Years 3 and 4). In the longitudinal design, the perfonnance of student groups is monitored over sequential test administrations, and differences between mean scores are compared. Unless there is some systematic intervention, we expect that groups of students whose average scores are at a particular percentile in Year 3 will have an average score at approximately the same percentile in Year 4. Tables 3.15 through 3.18 show, for each grade group. the number of students who were tested in Year 3 and Year 4, and the percentile rank associated with the average NCE in each year for all students. The tables contain separate infonnation for reading and mathematics tests. The data in Tables 3 .15 through 3. 18 are illustrated in the accompanying figures. It can be seen in the tables that there were systematic improvements in reading for  all grades except second. Year 3's 3rd, 4th and 5th graders improved their reading scores between 4 and 8 percentiles. For mathematics. there were declines at most grade levels (e.g .. 2nd graders declined by 7 percentiles [Table 3.15]). Third graders showed no change in their math scores (Table 3 .16 ). These patterns were similar among black students and white students although there were very disparate starting scores. For example, black and white Year 3 4th graders show average improvements in their reading scores of 7 and 6 percentile ranks, respectively, however, black students' average Year 3 scores were at the 41st percentile, while white students' Year 3 scores were at the 72nd percentile. 53 Table 3.15: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 2nd Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Nonnal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (2nd) (3rd) Year 4 Reading : All Students 1,526 52nd 44th -8 Black 1,024 41st 33rd -8 White 493 72nd 68th -4 Math: All Students 1,522 68th 61st -7 Black 1,019 61st 48th -13 White 494 83rd 84th +l 99 90 Reading Math 80 ~ 70 C: n, a: 60 Q) :\n::::\n50 C: Q) (J 40 ~ Q) a.. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I [=1 Year3 .. Year4 54 Table 3.16: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 3rd Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (3rd) (4th) Year 4 Reading : All Students 1,596 42nd 46th +4 Black 1,076 32nd 37th +5 White 504 65th 67th +2 Math: All Students 1,592 61st 61st 0 Black 1,074 52nd 52nd 0 White 502 79th 79th 0 99 90 Reading Math 80 ..x: 70 C: ca a: 60 Cl) :,.:\n50 C: Cl) () 40 ~ Q,) c.. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I c=J Year 3 .. Year 4 55 Table 3.17: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 4th Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (4th) (5th) Year 4 Reading: All Students 1,671 50th 58th +8 Black 1,152 41st 48th +7 White 502 72nd 78th +6 Math: All Students 1,668 65th 61st -4 Black I, 148 56th 52nd -4 White 503 82nd 80th -2 99 90 Reading Math 80 ~ 70 C a\u0026lt;t:l 60 Q) += 50 C Q) ,(.._) 40 Q) a. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I~ Year 31111 Year 4 56 Table 3.18: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 5th Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (5th) (6th) Year 4 Reading : All Students 1,657 52nd 56th +4 Black l, 118 41st 46th +5 White 524 72nd 75th +3 Math: All Students 1,654 63rd 58th -5 Black 1,116 54th 48th -6 White 523 78th 75th -3 99 90 Reading Math 80 ::it:. 70 C: n, a: 60 Q) .:. 50 C: Q) .u... 40 Q) Q. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I CJ Year3 ~ Year4 57 4. Graduation a. Over-years comparisons Table 4.1 shows the percentage of 12th graders graduating each year, by school and by race. Graduation rates for 12th graders were at about 92 percent in Year 1 (91. 7 % ) , but declined in Year 2 to less than 83 percent (82 . 9 % ) . Twelfth grade graduation rates increased in Year 3 (88.8%) , and by Year 4 (91.4%) were back above 90 percent and near the Year 1 level (91.7%). 17 Graduation rates varied across schools (two high schools had rates at 94% while the other three were around 90%). In every year but Year 4, 12th grade graduation rates for black students were lower than the rates for white students. Across gender, a. higher percentage of females graduated than males in all four years. b. Longitudinal comparisons i. Two-year graduation rates Table 4.2 shows, by race, graduation rates for three consecutive two-year cohorts of 11th grade students. The table shows that 70.6 percent of the Year 1 11th graders graduated in Year 2, 79. 3 percent of the Year 2 11th graders graduated in Year 3, and 82. 8 percent of the Year 3 11th graders graduated in Year 4. 18 The two-year graduation rate for black 11th grade students has increased: from 66.9 percent (Years 1 to 2), to 76.9 percent (Years 2 to 3), to 81.8 percent (Years 3 to 4) . The two-year graduation rate for white 11th grade students has also increased in each successive year: from 74.4 percent (Years 1 to 2), to 82 .0 percent (Years 2 to 3), reaching 84.3 percent (Years 3 to 4) . ii. Four-year graduation rates Table 4.3 shows four-year graduation rates for Year 1 's 9th graders . Of the 2,047 9th grade students in Year 1, 58.7 percent graduated in four years. A total of 26.8 percent of Year l ninth graders did not graduate because they dropped out or were retained in grade, expelled, or demoted. The graduation status of 14.5 percent of Year l's ninth graders is not known because they transferred out of the Little Rock public school system. Table 4.3 also illustrates differences in the four-year graduation rates of black students and white students. 17 Only those students whose records contained a graduation code were counted as graduates during Years 2 and 3. Therefore, data for Years I and 4 represent estimates (over counts) of the number of graduates. while data for Years 2 and 3 represent actual counts of students who completed all graduation requirements. 18 The Year I. 2 and 3 11th graders who did not graduate either transferred out of school, dropped out of school or were retained in the I Ith grade (29 .4% of the Year I 11th graders did not graduate in Year 2. 20.7 % of the Year 2 11th graders did not graduate in Year 3, and 17 .2 % of the Year 3 11th graders did not graduate in Year 4). See also the foo rnoce above regarding differences in identifying graduates in the cohort file . 58 LITTLE ROCIC Table 4.1 GRADUATION Numer and Percentage of Twelfth Grade Graduates by Race and Gender: 198889 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------=================---=======---===========- Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview TOTAL -----------------------------------------------------------------------------=================---================----=== TOTALS Year 1 570 92.4X 246 89.5X 373 92.1X 362 91.0X 257 92.8X 1808 91.7X Year 2 471 79.3X 251 88.0X 360 86.7X 274 80.3X 212 82.8X 1568 82.9X Year 3 548 91.3X 255 97.0X 358 84.6X 252 82.1X 224 89.2X 1637 88.8X Year 4 440 90.7X 274 90.4X 363 90.1X 311 92.8X 251 94.0X 1639 91.4X RACE Black Year 1 278 91.4X 99 83.2X 153 88.9X 156 88.1X 143 91.7X 829 89.3X Black Year 2 244 75.5X 129 90.1X 143 81.7X 132 77.6X 117 84.2X 765 80.5X Black Year 3 292 87.2X 137 95.8X 205 81.0X 143 79.4X 122 90.4X 899 85.9X Black Year 4 267 89.9% 149 92.5X 175 89.3X 199 93.0X 128 96.2X 918 91.7X White Year 1 281 93.0X 142 94.0X 215 94.3X 203 93.5X 108 93.9X 949 93.7X White Year 2 215 83.3X 120 86.2X 209 90.1X 138 82.5X 93 80.9X 775 85.0X White Year 3 243 96.4X 115 98.3X 149 89.8X 107 85.6X 97 87.4X 711 92.2X White Year 4 162 92.0X 122 87.8X 180 90.5X 110 92.4X 111 91.7X 685 90.8X GENDER Females Year 1 317 94.6X 112 93.3X 203 95.7X 197 92.1X 128 94.1X 957 94.1X Females Year 2 262 78.9% 130 88.4X 203 90.2X 142 83.0X 125 85.0X 862 84.3X Females Year 3 309 95.1X 129 98.5X 183 87.6X 132 83.5X 136 92.5X 889 91.6X Females Year 4 236 93.7X 137 93.8X 208 93.7X 167 93.3X 157 96.3X 905 94.1X Hales Year 1 253 89.7X 134 86.5X 170 88.1X 165 89.7X 129 91.5X 851 89.1X Hales Year 2 209 79.8X 121 87.6X 157 82.6X 132 77.5X 87 79.8X 706 81.2X Hales Year 3 239 86.9X 126 95.5X 175 81.8X 120 80.5X 88 84.6X 748 85.6X Hales Year 4 204 87.6X 137 87.3X 155 85.6X 144 92.3X 94 90.4X 734 88.3X Note: These figures include surmer graduates. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 59 I I I All Students Black Students White Students Little Rock Table 4.2 Comparison of 12th Grade Graduation Rates For Students in 11th Grade Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 II Year 1 to 2 I Year 2 to 3 I Year 3 to 4 Total N 2,044 1,880 1,747 % Graduated 70.6% 79 .3% 82.8% N Graduated 1,443 1,490 1,447 Total~ 1,054 1,081 995 % Graduated 66.9% 76.9% 81.8% N Graduated 705 831 814 Total N 968 777 724 % Graduated 74.4% 82 .0% 84.3% N Graduated 720 637 610 Little Rock I Difference -297 12.2% 4 -59 14.9% 109 -244 9.9% -110 Table 4.3 4~Year Graduation Rates For Year 1 's Ninth Graders (N = 2,047) II Graduated I Transferred I Did Not Graduate19 All 58.7% 14.5% 26.8% Black 61.3% 10.9% 27 .8% White 55.4% 19.5% 25 . 1 % 19 These srudents dropped out of school or were retained , expelled or demoted. 60 I I 5. Retention a. Grades 7 Through 12 i. Over-years comparisons Table 5.1 shows, across grades, by race and by gender, the percentage of students who were designated to be retained in their grades at the end of each school year, and the percentage point difference between years. 20 As shown in the table, retention rates are relatively low in Little Rock at all grade levels. Between Years 3 and 4, retention rates decreased slightly at the junior high school grades and increased at the 10th and 11th grades. Overall, since Year 1, junior high school retention rates have increased by 0.5 percentage points (4.1 % to 4.6%). High school retention rates fluctuated throughout the period but have improved by 0.2 percentage points (4 .9% to 4.7%). Racial discrepancies in retention rates exist at each grade level and in each year. ii. Longitudinal comparisons Retention histories for students who appear in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE are contained in Table 5.2. The table shows, by race, 4-YEAR COHORT students distributed by the number of years in which they were retained. Only 11. 7 percent of the 4-YEAR COHORT students were retained over the four year period. Of those ever retained 7.4 percent were retained more than once (0. 9 % of the total 4-YEAR COHORT). There are notable racial disparities (14.6% of the black 4-YEAR COHORT students were retained over the four-year period versus only 6.0% of the white 4-YEAR COHORT students\n35 black and 3 white 4-YEAR COHORT students were retained more than once over the four year period). Double retention within a small grade range over a short period of time, inevitably increases the number of students who are over age for grade. In Little Rock, being over age for grade is associated with dropping out of school. iii. Over age students Table 5.3 shows, across grades, by race and gender the percentage of students who were at least one-and-one-half years over age for their grade during Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. The table shows that about 14 percent of all students were over age during each year. Rates for 8th and 10th grade students were somewhat higher (about 17%). The percentage of over age students increased between Year 1 and Year 4 at each grade level except for 10th and 11th, where there were decreases of 1. 2 and 1. 8 percentage points respectively. 20 Students who attend summer school and achieve promotion are excluded from retention counts. 61 Totals Year 1 Totals Year 2 Totals Year 3 Totals Year 4 Jchange in Student Change Yrs 12 Change Yrs 23 Change Yrs 3-4 Change Yrs 1-4 RACE Black Year Black Year 2 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 1 llhi te Year 2 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 Males Year 2 Males Year 3 Males Year 4 Black Year 1 Black Year 2 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 1 llhite Year 2 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 Fe111ales Year 1 F-les Year 2 F-ln Year 3 F-lH Year 4 Black Year 1 Black Year 2 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 1 llhite Year 2 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 LITTLE ROCK Table 5.1 RETENTION COMPARISONS Distribution in Student Retentions, Across Grades by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). Grade Level ----------------------------------------------====================================== 7 8 9 10 11 12 79 1012 Total --------------===-=-======----====-===========-======-=-------===--========--------- 4.3 3.4 4.6 3.8 Retention 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.5 5 .5 4.4 5.6 4.7 2.0X 1.4 2.8 2.2 6.4X 5.5X 6.8X 4.6X 8.6 7.0 8.0 5.4 2.7 2.7 4.4X 3.0X 2.0X 1.1X 2.3X 3.1X 2.4X 1.7 2.9 4.0 1.2X 0.0 1.2X 1.4 6.0X 7.5X 6.1X 6.5X 1.5  1.4 0.4 0.5 8.2X 9.BX 8.0X 8.2X 2.2X 2.6X 2.1X 2.7\" 7.5X 8.6X 6.8X 7.4X 10.6X 11.5X 9.3X 9.2X 2.6X 3.7\" 1.4X 3.1X 4.5X 6.2X 5.4X 5.6X 5.9\" 8.3X 6.7\" 7.1X 1.8X 1.6X 2.7\" 2.3X 1.8X 3.4 3.8 3.4X 1.6 0.4 -0.4 1.6 1.9 4.0 5.3X 3.6X 1.6X 2.6 1.3X 2.7 2.2 4.3 4.9X 5 .1X 2.3 5.2 6.5X 5.7 2.1 2.9 2.3 4.0X 1.3X 2.5X 2.8X 1.6X 1.5X 2.7 4.1X 1.6X 1.1X 2.2X o.ox 1.4X 7.9X 7.3X 2.4X 6.5 0.6 4.9 4. 1 1.4 10.2X 9.5 2.9X a.ox 4.5X 4.3X 1.8X 4.1X 10.7 8.4X 3.3X 8.6X 13.0X 10.0X 3.9X 9.9\" 7.2X 5.9\" 2.5X 6.1X 5.1X 6.2X 1.6X 4.6X 7.2X 1.9\" 1.9X 6.1X 1.9\" 2.9X 1.2X 2.2X 4.2X 5.SX 1.9X 4.1X 1.3 3.6 2.2 0.1 5.2X 6.9X 2.4X 5.6X 3.2X 3.7\" 1.4X 2.2X 6.5X 7.4X 2.5X 6.0X 8.0X 8.7 2.8X 7.5X 4.9\" 5.4X 2.0X 3.9\" 2.1X 3.7 1.5X 2.5X 2.6X 2.0X 2.0X 3.9\" 1.6X 2.0X 0.9\" 0.7 2.1X 6.3X 6.6X 3.1X 4.2 0.3 3.5 1.0 3.1 8.2X 8.3X 3.2X 1.2X 4.5X 4.4X 3.2X 3.0X 8.3X 7.8X 4.8X 4.3X 10.2X 9.SX 4.2X 1.9\" 6.7 5.7 6.0X 1.2X 4.6X 5.5X 1.7 2.0X 7.2X 7.2X 2.3X 0.6X 2.5X 3.2X 1.0X 4.1X 4.8X 4.9\" 4.6X 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 5.4X 6.2X 6.4X 5.6X 1.9\" 2.2X 2.1X 2.5X 5.5X 6.2X 6.2X 5.7 7.5X 8.1X 8.0X 6.8X 2.5X 3.1X 2.7 3.4X 2.6X 3.3X 3.6X 3.5X 3.4X 4.3X 4.6X 4.3X 1.4X 1.2X 1.3X 1. 7X 4.9X 6.4X 3.6X 4. 7X 1 .5 -2.8 1. 1 0.2 6.7 8.3X 4.4X 5.8X 2.9\" 4.2X 2.5X 3.2 7.0X a.ox 4.SX 6.6X 9.1 9.6X 5.3X 7.5 4.7 6.0X 3.4X 5.3X 2.9\" 4.9\" 2.8X 3.0X 4.3X 3.5 3.6X 4.3X 1.3 2.5X 1.7 1.3X 4.5 5.6 4.3 4.6 1. 1 1 .3 0.3 0.1 6.0X 7.1 5 .5X 5.7 2.5 3.3 2.3 2.9 6.3 7.1 5.4 6.1X 8.2X 8.7 6.8 7.1 3.7 4.6 3.1 4.3 2.8 4.1 3.2 3.2 3.8X 5.5 4.2 4.3X 1.4 2.0X 1.6 1.5 Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 198889, 1989-90, 199091, 199192. 62 Little Rock Table 5 .2 Retention Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT students21 Status Out-of-School Retentions at the end of Year 4 All Black White N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N = 1,386 Never Retained N 3,860 2,495 1,303 % 88 .3% 85.4% 94.0% Retained 1 out N 472 390 80 of 4 Years % 10.8% 13.4% 5.8% Retained 2 out N 38 35 3 of 4 Years % 0.9% 1.2% 0.2% Ever Retained N 510 425 83 in 4 Years % 11.7% 14.6% 6.0% 11 Because of low retention rate in little Rock. No students are recained in 3 out of 4 and 4 out of 4 years 63 Table 5.3 OVER AGE aJIPARISONS Distribution of over Age Studlnta, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889CYr. 1) to 199192CYr. 4). Grade Level maa ....... aaaaaa:2z:mam----m~=sa.zaa2z- 7 8 9 10 11 12 79 1012 Total -=rmsa-aaa:azaaa2aaaaaa2aasarmaasaaaaa -=mc=== Totals Year 1 12.1X 16.5X 11.3X 17.9X 12.ax 8.6X 13.4X 13.4X 13.4X Totals Year 2 , , . 7X 16.ax 12.4X 17.4X 14.1X 9.3X 13.6X 13.6X 13.6X Totals Year 3 13.ZX 17.ax 16.7X 15.4X 12.7X ,, .5X 15.9X 13.3X 14.7X Totals Year 4 12.2X 17.4X 15.6X 16.7X 11.0X 11 .3X 15,0X 13.2X 14.1X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change in over Age Change Yrs 1 2 0.4 0.3 , .1 0.5 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 Change Yrs 23 1.5 1.0 4.3 2.0  1 .4 2.2 2.3 0.3 1.1 Chan\n Yrs 34 1 .0 0.4 . , .1 1.3 1.7 0.2 0.9 O. 1 0.6 Chan\n Yrs 14 o., 0.9 4.3 1 .2 1 .8 2.7 , .6 0.2 0.7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 14.7X 20.4X 13.3X 21.SX 18.1X 15.1X 16.4X 18.1X 17.2X Black Year 2 14.9X 21.0X 15.8X 22.2X 18.2X 13.1X 17.4X 18.1X 17.7X Black Year 3 16.5X 22.3X 20.3X 20.3X 17.1X 14.7X 19.7X 17.5X 18.7X Black Year 4 14.SX 21.9X 19.9X 21.7X 15.2X 15.2X 18.7X 17.7X 18.3X White Year 1 6.2X 9.2X 8.4X 11.8X 7. ,x 5.1X 8.0X 7.9X 8.0X White Year 2 S.2X 7.4X 6.4X 9.ax 8.7X s.sx 6.3X 7.8X 7.1X White Year 3 6.6X 8.2X 9.4X 8.0X 6.7X 7.1X 8.1X 7.3X 7.7X White Year 4 7.SX 7.7X 7.3X 8.SX S.2X 6.1X 7.5X 6.6X 7.0X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 15.3X 19.ax ,s.ox 23.0X 17.6X 11.3X 16.ax 17.9X 17.3X Males Year 2 13.7X 21.SX 15.4X 23.0X 18.6X 13.2X 16.9X 18.3X 17.6X Males Year 3 16.3X 20.SX 22.0X 19.9X 17.9X 15.1X 19.5X 17.7X 18.7X Males Year 4 16.1X 21.0X 17.9X 22.2X 14.7X 15.4X 18.3X 17.7X ,a.ox Black Year 1 19.5X 24.6X 16.3X 27.7X 24.9X 15.SX 20.4X 23.6X 21 .9X Black Year 2 17.SX 27.3X 18.SX 27.4X 24.0X 19.0X 21.3X 23.SX 22.4X Black Year 3 20.0X 25.SX 26.7X 24.8X 21.9X 19.31 23.9X 22.ZX 23.11 Black Year 4 18.9X 26.0X 22.7X 28.5X 19.2X 19.1X 22.6X 22.ax 22.7X White Year 1 8.3X 10.ax 12.7X 15.7X 9.9X 7.ax 10.SX 11. ,x 10.ax White Year 2 5.7X 10.2X 9.9X 15.31 11.2X . 8.0X 8.5X ,, .1X 9.9X White Year 3 8.2X ,o.sx 13.51 11 .7X ,, .7X 9.SX ,a.ax 10.9X 10.9X White Year 4 10.2X 9.3X 8.9X 12.2X 8.5X 10. ,x 9.SX 10.31 9.9X Females Year 1 8.6X 13.1X 7.9X 12.9X 8.3X 5.6X 9.9X 9.1X 9.6X Females Year 2 9.SX ,1 .ax 9.3X 12.1x 9.ax 6.0X 10.3X 9.3X 9.ax Females Year 3 9.9X 15.0X 11 .3X 11.4X 8.2X 8.2X 12.ZX 9.3X 10.8X Females Year 4 8.1X 13.7X 13.3X 11 .6X 7.7X 7.8X 11. 7X 9.1X 10.41 Black Year 1 10.SX 16.3X 10.3X 15.9X ,, .7X 8.SX 12.SX 12.SX 12.SX Black Year 2 ,,.ax 14.ax 13.ZX 16.8X 12.SX 8.SX 13.31 12.8X 13.1X Black Year 3 12.SX 19.2X 14.ZX 16.1X 12.SX 10.7X 15.4X 13.2X 14.4X Black Year 4 9.9X 17.SX 17.2% 15.4X 11.6X 11. 7X 14.8X 13.11 14.1X White Year 1 3.6X 7.5X 5.0X 8.0X 4.6X 2.ax 5.4X 5.0X 5.2X White Year 2 4.7X 4.1X 2.8X 5.4X 6.2X 3.1X 3.9X 4.8X 4.4X White Year 3 5.0X 6.0X 5.1X 4.8X 2.9X 5.0X 5.4X 4.2X 4.7X White Year 4 4.8X 6.1X 5.7X 5.2X 2.3X 2.9X 5.SX 3.4X 4.4X Note: Students froa racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black' or 'White' were not included in the 'RACE' categories bee- their nuabers 11ere 111iniml. Therefore, grade l..,.l totals are greater than the SUI of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 198889, 198990, 199091, 199192. 64 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 i. Over-years comparisons The percentage of elementary school students being retained in their grades is shown in Table 5. 4 by race and gender. The percentage of students being retained decreased slightly at all elementary grade levels except 6th grade. Racial disparities are evident at all primary grades (kindergarten through 2nd grade) but rates for 3rd through 6th grades are much less disparate. Overall, the percentage of black students being retained in each year is twice as large as the percentage of white students. LITTLE ROCK Table 5.4 RETENTION Change in Student Retentions, by Race and Gender for Across Grades, 199091(Yr. 3) and 1991 92 (Yr. 4). Grade Level ------------------------------=------=--=--================================ I( 2 3 4 5 6 Total ----------------------=---=---=--=--==-==-================================= Totals Year 3 5.6X 11.SX 4.8X 1.6X 1.9X 1.1X 0.4X 4.0X Totals Year 4 4.3X 7.4X 3.0X 1.0X 0.8X 0.6X 0.6X 2.6X Change Yrs 34 1.3 4.4 1.8 0.6  1. 1 0.5 0.2  1.4 RACE Black Year 3 7.0X 15.SX 5.7X 2.1X 2.4X 1.2X 0.7X 5 .1X Black Year 4 5.4X 9.2X 4.0X 1. 1X 1.1X 0.7X 0.6X 3.2X White Year 3 3.3X 4.8X 3.1X 0.7X 0.9X 0.8X o.ox ,2.0X White Year 4 2.6X 4.4X 1.4X 0.5X 0.4X 0.4X 0.5X 1.5X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 6.8X 14.4X 5.5X 1.6X 2.3X 1.1X o.sx 4.8X Males Year 4 5.4X 8.2X 2.6X 1.3X 0.9X 0.4X 1.1X 2.9X Black Year 3 8.SX 18.6X 6.8X 1.9X 3.1X 1.1X 0.7X 6.0X Black Year 4 6.SX 10.4X 3.2X 1. 7X 1. 1X 0.5X 1.1X 3.6X White Year 3 4.1X 7.2X 3.3X 1.0X 0.5X 1.0X o.ox 2.6X White Year 4 3.7X 4.?X 1.4X 0.5X 0.5X o.ox 0.8X 1. 7X Females Ye r 3 4.3X 9.1X 4.0X 1.6X 1.SX 1.1X 0.4X 3.2X Females Ye r 4 3.1X 6.5X 3.4X 0.6X 0.7X 0.9X 0.1X 2.2X Black Ye r 3 5.5X 12.9X 4.6X 2.3X 1.6X 1.4X 0.6X 4.2X Black Year 4 4.1X 8.0X 4.7X 0.5X 1.0X 1.0X o.ox 2.8X White Year 3 2.3X 2.3X 2.9X 0.3X 1.3X o.sx a.ox 1.4X White Year 4 1.4X 4.0X 1.3X 0.6X 0.3X 0.9X 0.3X 1.2X Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 199091, 199192. 65 ii. Longitudinal comparisons Longitudinal retention data for kindergarten through 6th grade students who were retained in Year 3 are contained in Table 5.5. The table shows, by grade, the number and percentage of Year 3's retained students who were retained again in Year 4. Most of the kindergarten through 6th grade students who were retained in Year 3 were not retained twice over the two years. Overall, of the 585 elementary school students who were retained in grade in Year 3, only 6 (1.0%) were retained again in Year 4. I Little Rock Table 5.5 RETENTION Year 4 Retention Status of Elementary Students Who Were Retained in Year 3 (N=585) Status in Grade in Year 4 Total (K-Year 4 K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 6th) Not 112 275 95 32 39 19 7 579 Retained 97.4% 99.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95 .0% 87 .5% 99.0% Retained 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 2.6% 0.4% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 12.5% 1.0% Total I 115 276 95 32 39 20 8 585 *Note: All srudents reported in this table were retained in Year 3. The table then shows the retention starus of these students in Year 4. 66 iii. Over age students Table 5.6 shows, across grades, by race and gender the percentage of elementary school students who were at least one-and-one-half years over age for their grades during Years 3 and 4. The percentage of elementary students over age for grade decreased from 6.8 percent in Year 3 to 5.5 percent in Year 4. Disparities are evident between black students and white students. Ten percent or more of Year 4's black male 2nd through 6th graders were over age for grade. Table 5.6 OVER AGE Percentage of Change in over Age Students, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192 (Yr. 4). Grade Level ======================================================================== IC 2 3 4 5 6 Total ======================================================================== Totals Year 3 Totals Year 4 Change Yrs 34 RACE Blaclc Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 Males Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 Females Year 3 Females Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 1.1% 0.2% 0.9 1.3% 0.3% 0.9X o.ox 1.2% 0.3% 1.6% 0.4% 0.7X o.ox 1.1% 0.1% 1.0X o.zx 1.ZX o.ox 4.8% 0.4% 4.4 5.7X 0.3% 3.2% 0.5% 5.4% 0.5% 6.6% 0.5% 3.2% 0.4% 4.8% 0.3% 4.8% 0.1% 3.2% 0.5% 6.0X 6.6% 0.6 7.6% 8.4% 3.4% 3.5% 8.0X 7.6% 10.0X 10.1% 4.7X 3.3% 6.0X 5.5% 5.1% 6.6% 2.0X 3.7X 7.7X 6.3%  1.4 9.8% 8.0X 4.2% 3.2% 9.0X 8.3% 11.6% 10.4% 4.7X 4.9% 7.7X 4.1% 8.0X 5.7X 3.8% 1.2% 8.9X 8.0X 0.9 10.9X 10.0X 5.4X 4.7X 10.9X 9.4X 12.SX 11.6X 8.3% 5.8% 8.9X 6.6% 9.3% 8.3% 2.3% 3.5% 9.4% 8.6% 0.8 11.1% 10.7X 6.1% 4.5% 11.2% 10.1% 12.4% 12.4% 9.2% 5.9% 9.4% 7.0X 9.7X 9.0X 2.9X 3.1% 9.4% 9.2% 0.2 10.7X 11.1% 6.8% 5.7X 11.SX 11.1% 13.2% 13.0X 8.1% 7.9X 9.4% 7.2% 8.1% 9.1% 5.5% 3.4% Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black' or 1 llhite' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurbers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the Slffl of racial categories. Source: Little Rocle Cohort Files 199091, 199192. 67 6.8% 5.5% 1 .3 8.2% 7.0X 4.2% 3.1% 8.1% 6.6% 9.7X 8.3% 5.4% 3.9X 6.8% 4.4% 6.6% 5.6% 3.0X 2.2% 6. Course Failure a. Over-years comparisons Table 6.1 shows the percent of courses failed out of all courses taken. It can be seen that students fail about one third of their courses. The percent of courses failed has stayed fairly constant at the junior high school level across the four years. At the high school level, it has fluctuated and declined slightly overall. There were substantial differences between grade levels. Table 6.2 shows, across grades, by school level and by race, the percent of students failing one or more courses. The table shows increases at the junior high school level (2.0 percentage points between Years 1 and 4 for the junior high school grades combined), and decreases at the high school level (a decline of 6.1 percentage points for the high school grades combined) . About one-quarter of all junior high school students and more than one third of all high school students fail courses. 68 Table 6. 1 COURSE FAILURE COMPARISONS Percent of Courses Failed Across Grades by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level s:amm.aaaasz:zza:a--=--==----=-====-z--z-:-:-z:z:--=---z---z=-=--------=----= 7 8 9 10 11 12 79 1012 Total --===am~-================================================================== Totals Year 1 31.9% 38.41 26.7% 35.9% 31.21 24.21 31.31 31.81 31.7% Totals Year 2 34.51 37.11 25.21 36.0l 29.1% 26.8% 30.7% 31.41 31.21 Totals Year 3 33.0X 32.7% 29.21 33.21 31.61 23.3% 31.11 29.6% 30.21 Totals Year 4 31.31 32.21 31.0X 38.0X 27.9% 25.0l 31.4% 31.4% 31.4% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Change in Percent of Courses Failed Change Yrs 1 2 2.7 1 .3 1.5 0. 1 2. 1 2.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 Change Yrs 23  1.5 4.3 4.0 2.8 2.5 3.4 0.4 1 .7 1.0 Change Yrs 34 1 .7 0.5 1.8 4.7 3.7 1.7 0.3 1.8 1.2 Change Yrs 1 4 0.6 6.2 4.3 2.0 3.2 0.8 o. 1 0.4 0.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 31.8% 39.41 25.51 36.41 31.21 24.31 31.11 32.31 31.9% Black Year 2 34.7% 37.3% 25.61 37.11 29.0l 25.8% 31.2% 31.8% 31.61 Black Year 3 33.51 33.9% 30.0l 33.81 32.0l 23.11 32.0l 30.0l 30.81 Black Year 4 31.7% 33.11 32.1% 38.2% 27.9% 24.7% 32.3% 31.61 31.9% llhite Year 1 32.7% 34.41 30.0l 34.81 31.11 24.31 31.81 30.9% 31.11 llhite Year 2 33.41 36.11 24.21 33.31 29.31 28.51 28.7% 30.61 30.11 llhite Year 3 30.7% 26.7% 27.11 31.81 30.BX 24.0l 27.7% 28.9% 28.51 llhite Year 4 28.BX 28.2% 26.9% 38.11 27.61 26.31 27.61 31.31 30.0X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 33.2% 37.8% 27.7% 39.61 34.61 24.7% 32.0l 34.81 33.9% Malu Year 2 36.ZX 37.41 27.61 37.7% 30.51 28.11 32.51 33.0l 32.8% Males Year 3 35.ZX 33.61 29.7% 35.11 33.41 23.8% 32.2% 31.11 31.51 Males Year 4 31.51 33.41 31.0l 39.7% 30.51 26.8% 31.BX 33.61 32.8% Black Year 1 33.61 38.9% 26.7% 39.21 35.11 24.8% 32.0l 35.0l 33.9% Black Year 2 35.8% 38.11 27.8% 38.31 29.7% 28.0l 32.BX 33.21 33.0l Black Year 3 35.61 34.7% 31.0X 36.31 34.31 24.2% 33.31 31.9% 32.61 Black Year 4 32.41 34.61 32.51 40.3% 29.31 27.0X 33.0X 33.7% 33.4% White Year 1 32.0X 33.8% 30.31 40.7% 33.BX 24.8% 31.7% 34.51 33.BX White Year 2 37.2% 35.0X 26.BX 36.31 32.31 28.2% 31.0X 32.51 32.11 llhite Year 3 33.31 27.51 26.9% 31.9% 32.ZX 23.0X 28.41 29.11 28.BX White Year 4 27.61 28.9% 26.41 38.61 33.11 27.0X 27.31 33.61 31.31 Females Year 1 29.11 39.41 25.0X 30.81 26.61 23.51 30.11 27.8% 28.41 Females Year 2 30.61 36.51 21.41 33.71 27.11 25.2% 27.51 29.31 28.BX Females Year 3 27.SX 31.ZX 28.31 30.BX 29.11 22.7% 29.11 27.BX 28.21 F-lH Year 4 30.8% 30.2% 30.9% 35.41 24.51 22.71 30.7% 28.51 29.31 Black Year 1 28 .51 40.11 23.51 32.8% 26.31 23.61 29.7% 28.BX 29.1% Black Year 2 32.11 36.2% 22.11 35.41 28.0l 23.61 28.51 30.0X 29.51 Black Year 3 28.51 32.51 28.51 30.61 29.11 21. 7X 29.7% 27.51 28.31 Black Year 4 30.51 30.7% 31.61 35.3% 26.0l 22.0X 31.11 28.9% 29.81 White Year 1 35.0l 36.0l 29.61 24.BX 26.BX 23.71 32.01 25.2% 26.51 11h i te Year 2 24.1% 39.9% 19.41 29.2% 25.3% 29.11 23.61 27.7% 26.BX llhi te Year 3 23.9% 25.2% 27.51 31.61 28.9% 25.51 26.2% 28.7% 28.11 White Year 4 33.11 26.61 27.8% 37.41 19.41 25.0X 28.2% 27.51 27.8% Note: These dat\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1169","title":"Little Rock School District Court Submission","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":["1993-05-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School principals"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Court Submission"],"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/1169"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["199 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nTO: LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 18, 1994 MA~ 1 8 1994 Oilice ol Desegregation Mon1:c, icg FROM: SUBJECT: Court Submission - May 18, 1994 Provided for your review is a copy of the District's Mai 18, 19941 Court submission. The following revisions have been made to the appropriate revenue and expenditure line items to reflect the strategies under consideration at this time: 4. $3,000,000 included for proposed draw down on settlement loan. $750,000 deducted from salaries and benefits for projected savings on 100 participants in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. $1,622,363 deducted from salaries and benefits for the proposed reduction in the teaching force. $1,316,771 deducted from salaries, benefits, services, supplies and equipment for the proposed temporary relocation of Stephens. $100,000 deducted from services, supplies and equipment for the proposed contnbution to the New Futures Program. J.-.l 6. $400,000 increase to the beginning fund balance due to the initiated spending freeze. ~~ t '/.~J1H ~ ~:: 17.z. HI( Also included are five-year revenue and expenditure projections and business cases addressing specific changes. J ... ~~ ~. 1 . . .., ,/. J _.JS''U/M ~ ~ ,,_ -1/tf/,T As we move tg_ward institutionalizing the Program Planning and Budgeting Process as outlined in the District's management tool, we are continually reminded of our desegregation obligations as well as the comprehensive long-range planning that must be done to fulfill our commitments. I look forward to the results that we can achieve through our continued utilization of this process. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rocle, Arkansas 72201  (501) 8U2000 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description Page No. Exhibit 1 Revenue and Expenditure Projections (Draft 2) 1-10 Exhibit 2 Previously Identified Budget-Balancing Measures 11-12 Exhibit 3 Status of Negotiations/Reduction In Force 13 Exhibit 4 Additional Budget-Balancing Measure 14 Exhibit 5 1994-00 Revenue and Expenditure Projection (Draft 1) 15-22 Exhibit 6 Business Cases: Safety and Security Department (Revised 4/29/94) 23-31 Teaching Assistants/Substitutes 32 Exhibit 7 Business Case for Stephens School Relocation 33-48 Exhibit 8 Schools Affected By Changes in Principalships 49 Exhibit 9 Settlement Loan Repayment 50 Exhibit 10 Budgeting Management Timeline 51-56 Exhibit 1\n\\  .. , .. ........... ,,.,: ... :tf?:}\\t: ................ , ... ,.i/: .. ,:: .. :/ :,: ........... :,/. ... ,.. ..  iMi.. ..: : .... .. .... .............. ........ ...  :: ..... .............. : .....: : . \\\n.. ,:,: .......... JJJt '-' .. 1 1... ..... ......., .. !:I\\! ,.. ...... ,.. ::,:..: .. ..  ........ -::r .. :... ...: : ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED PROPOSED CHANGE 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 31,899,357 38,196,979 39,701,855 39,625,387 38,600,327 (1,025,060) 40% PULLBACK 20,601,593 21,081,833 22,220,949 22,040,190 21,420,949 (619,241) DELINQUENT TAXES 3,214,974 4,250,186 4,293,380 4,897,429 4,802,692 (94,737) EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 118,998 140,858 145,690 146,379 140,000 (6,379) DEPOSITORY INTEREST 317,646 241,476 360,734 303,000 300,000 (3,000) REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 120,412 224,667 245,162 182,353 180,000 (2,353) MISC. AND RENTS 317,978 406,878 574,918 484,050 475,731 (8,319) INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 141,376 354,446 208,519 319,042 322.232 3,190 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 91,322 100,857 87,005 87,005 87,005 0 \u0026lt;l:1 ::\n:::. 1 } 1vt. \\: .... :si:~si656: !\n.~~~~~~\\ :\nr:a\na\n,.r ~a:ii~jm: s~fs2aiS$: :m\nREVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,971 73,419 73,428 73,419 73,419 0 SEVERANCE TAX :\u0026gt; ..... :.. .......... ,:c..:..:f\\ ..... :\u0026gt; ::::......................... .... .............. REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD 22,037,764 10,356,TT8 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 27 ,264,460 25,275,221 8,637,482 8,926,606 4,500,000 1,500,000 73,426 72,694 1,513,699 1,261,451 824,870 1,139,235 147,050 234,403 ORPHAN CHILDREN 8,820 3,000 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 2,885,960 2,379,879 3,1 98,252 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 609,943 858,743 563,602 MTOMTRANSFERS 1,007,481 1,TT0,486 2,127,216 ADULT EDUCATION 624,119 697,589 799,544 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES 25,569,811 26,778,326 8,094,112 6,042 591 0 [ 3,0,000 0 1,341,887 1,344,499 240,873 3,540 3,536,587 505,260 2,681,262 790,466 0 1,200,000 1,344,499 233,992 3,540 3,700,000 580,435 3,100,000 790,466 PUBLIC LAW 874 28,585 9,385 40,866 40,000 38,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 95,588 613,166 129,428 394,675 171,006 1,250,000 0 500,000 600,000 400,000 ..})\\..:..... ... .......... ,. . TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING. ' 103.123:8-07 114,291:121' t1S,243,307\n::,\n,074,55{ 1:14,232,204 1 1,208,515 3 (2,051,521) .. 3,000,000 \u0026amp;.O\"\"' 0 (141 ,887) 0 (6,881) 0 163,413 S 75,175 418,738 C. 0 (2,000) (650,000) 1 (100,000) I (75\n~ REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS SERVICES.SUPP.EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY RESERVE FOR ENCUMBR TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL PROJECTED PROPOSED CHANGE 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 2,886,618 3,275,099 4,288,755 4,311,404 4,406,404 95,000 ? 227,900 224,423 215,020 122,666 122,666 0 468,964 558,810 589,011 624,024 624,024 0 974,090 1,164,511 1,221,200 1,091,051 1,400,000 308,949 , 12,571,785 13,887,841 13,548,434 14,554,670 14,811,482 256,812 10 65,192,947 73,191,213 71,912,128 75,849,121 75,680,852 (1 68,269) ! 8,032,967 8,992,742 9,908,175 9,290,055 10,650,467 1,3 60,412 ! 22,735,854 22,470,043 20,080,366 21,283,431 22,149,419 8 65,988 ! 6,646,769 7,950,100 9,554,535 8,850,123 8,533,631 (3 16,492) 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 1' 000,000 714,896 4,190,920 5,132,152 5,992,216 7,035,052 6,547,138 (487,914) 12,571,785 13,887,841 13,548,434 14,554,670 14,811,482 256,812 881,922 1,m,714 1,394,9TT (2,084,086) (3,TT6,208) (1,692,122) 185,838 552,490 643,181 964,951 79,044 (885,907) 119,574 634,844 2,321,867 4,985,188 3,787,009 (1,198,179) 552,490 643,181 964,951 79,044 / 85,000 5,956 634,844 2,321,867 3,395,074 3,787,009 4,845 (3,782,164) 2 FUNCTION SALARIES 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0115 CERTIFIED INSTRUCT. ASST. 0117 STIPENDS 0120 REGULAR NON- CERTIFICATED 0121 MAINTENANCE 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME 0130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS- SHORT 0140 SUBST NON-CERTIFIED-SHORT SALARIES TOTAL w BENEFITS 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0220 TEACHER RETIREMENT 0230 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME 0240 INSURANCE 0250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0290 OntER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BENEFITS TOTAL ~ .\n.. PURCHASED SERVICES 0310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL 0311 INSTRUCTION SERVICES 0312 INSIBUCTIONALPROGIMPROV 0313 PUPIL SERVICES 0314 STAFF SERVICES 0318 BOARD OF ED SERVICES 0319 OntER PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual 1992193 $52,899,585.23 $5,386.52 $326,649.66 $15,668,717.99 $1,167,691.67 $69,487.74. $1,363,632.01 $410,9TT.09 $71,912, 127.91 $5,497,924.65 $7,755.35 $166,240.10 $3,985,992.66 $192,426.52 $57,835.84 $9,908,175.12 $295,885.37 $18,610.84 $768,382.37 $279,291.40 $61.60 $595,179.47 $64,266.08 Budget 1993/94 $57,841,367.85 $0.00 $305,885.31 $14,962,781.62 $1,136,945.28 $0.00 $1,226,321.00 $416,844.45 $75,890,145.51 $5,381,489.39 $6,882.48 $147,104.28 $3,467,184.64 $195,000.00 $60,000.00 $9,257,660.78 $626,800.00 $21,015.00 $741,357.00 $53,440.00 $1,000.00 $752,500.00 $75,100.00 Budget 1994/95 $56, 192, 126. 79 $0.00 $291,797.11 $16,247,301.12 $1,089,626.75 $60,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $400,000.00 $75,680,851.77 $5,637,189.03 $0.00 $155,000.00 $3,788,278.00 $200,000.00 $870,000.00 $10,650,467.03 $737,480.00 $11,115.83 $631,371.00 $54,752.00 $0.00 $1,172,000.00 $59,300.00 FTE 1994/95 1542 0 0 1298 50 0 0 1 2891 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +? LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual FUNCTION 1992/93 0321 UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL ssa1.209.n 0322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC $2,232,084.12 0323 UTILITY SER-WATER/SEWAGE/ $149,273.82 0324 CLEANING SERVICES $207,407.65 0325 REPAIRS-BUILDINGS $259,257.67 0326 REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT $531,707.94 0327 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING $135,447.85 0328 RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEH $12,944.93 0329 OTHER PROPERTY SERVICES $18,924.55 0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION $645,404.74 0332 TRAVEL-PAYROLL $1,286.44 0333 TRAVEL $112,709.23 0339 OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERV $1,258.82 0341 TELEPHONE $338,295.60 0342 POSTAGE $91,2TT.58 0350 ADVERllSING $21,046.31 0360 PRINTING \u0026amp; BINDING-INTERN $91,146.74 0361 PRINTING AND BINDING-EXTE $116,235.20 0362 FREE PAINTED ITEMS . $404.24 0365 COPIER LEASE 'i-ltd~ $362,507.86 0370 rumoN $1,292,991.82 0380 FOOD SERVICES $144,413.73 0390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES $165,837.05 PURCHASED SERVICES TOTAL $9,534,750.79 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 0409 SUPPLIES ($64,411.96) 0410 SUPPLIES $1,180,159.22 0411 SUPPLIES - SP TRACKING $870,780.43 Budget 1993/94 $826,700.00 $2,879,165.00 $209,950.00 $400,000.00 $200,300.00 $505,785.09 $135,700.00 $15,050.00 $128,650.00 $628,067.30 $24,160.00 $60,843.63 $0.00 $386,500.00 $104,016.20 $18,006.00 $151,142.39 $153,645.50 $515.00 $503,000.00 $1,195,000.00 $178,062.69 $59,380.00 $11,034,850.80 $0.00 $1,041,625.83 $784,000.00 Budget 1994/95 $725,500.00 $2,824,615.00 $189,200.00 $250,000.46 $330,700.00 $646,911.00 $142,012.00 $21,502.00 $67,000.00 $350,820.00 $0.00 $124,676.18 $0.00 $406,000.00 $88,717.06 $16,300.00 $170,721.02 $126,169.54 $0.00 $530,000.00 $1,440,621.16 $105,027.00 $162,500.00 $11,385,011.25 $0.00 $1,311,499.11 $764,642.13 FTE 1994/95 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 + + Ul LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual FUNCTION 1992/93 0412 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN $17,966.31 0413 SOFTWARE $31,128.18 0414 SUPPLIES $1,098.52 0415 TEST MATERIALS $39,900.00 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER $479,578.46 0417 SUPPLIES-SUPPLY CENTER $1,075.62 0418 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES $0.00 0420 TEXTBOOKS $0.00 0421 TEXTBOOKS-LOCALSOURCES $167,488.65 0430 LIBRARY BOOKS $0.00 0440 PERIODICALS $22,988.87 0450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS $3,898.09 0451 AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS $24,869.01 0481 PLUMBING $18.54 0482 CARPENTRY $486.02 0483 ELECTRIC $708.32 0485 AIR COND/HEAT $172.70 0486 BOILERS/SM ENGINES $15,453.14 0488 PAll'mNG $282.25 0489 ROOFING $0.00 0490 OTHER SUPPLIES $17,943.27 0491 UNIFORMS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES $79,376.33 0492 STADIUM OPERATIONS $82,828.00 0494 GAME RELATED EXPENSES $0.00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES TOTAL $2,973,787.97 CAPTIAL OUTl.A Y Budget 1993/94 $32,157.04 $33,405.00 $2,000.00 $53,000.00 $466,941.10 $2,044.55 $714,896.22 $862,542.00 $362,420.00 $1,120.80 $26,498.35 $2,150.40 $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,300.00 $80,974.40 $71,275.80 $2,224.80 $4,594,576.29 Budget 1994/95 $13,378.00 $100,050.60 $136,660.00 $42,000.00 $455,969.70 $353.00 $0.00 $817,000.00 $407,338.28 $375.00 $23,180.00 $6,515.00 $20,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $15,500.00 $5,000.00 $10,100.00 $200.00 $500.00 $18,000.00 $85,967.85 $64,540.00 $0.00 $4,299,768.67 FTE 1994/95 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 + + 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER $654,966.90 $600,575.24 $671,824.19 0 i- 1------------------------t---------t---------t---------t-----1 0541 EQUIPMENT PER PROP SP TRA $6,461.34 $10,000.00 $10,250.00 0 LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTTIICT Actual Budget Budget fTE FUNCTION 1992193 1993/94 1994/95 1994/95 0542 EQUIPMENT (NOT INVENTORIE $0.00 $0.00 $200.00 0 0543 EQUIPMENT (REAL PROPERTY) $67,025.70 $60,000.00 $69,106.94 0 0545 EQUIPMENT LEASE PURCHASE $1,546,013.55 $926,742.00 $1,253,100.40 0 + 0548 EQUIPMENT - SUPPLY CENTER $61,031.26 $52,093.00 $21,351 .00 0 0551 VEHICLES LEASE PURCHASE $618,895.35 $0.00 $0.00 0 CAPTIAL OUTI.AY TOTAL $2,954,394.10 $1,649,410.24 $2,025,832.53 0 OTHER OBJECTS 0610 REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL $4,951,180.35 $4,074,616.00 $4,063,012.00 0 0620 INTEREST $4,597,390.58 $4,785,507.40 $4,462,619.00 0 0630 DUES\u0026amp;FEES $52,817.64 $58,539.50 $42,806.45 0 0635 DUES \u0026amp; FEES - NCA $15,023.01 $17,000.00 $19,000.00 0 0640 INSURANCE $920,983.15 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 0 0642 LIABILITY INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 0 0649 OTHER INSURANCE $52,791.12 $54,ns.oo $54,000.00 0 0660 IMPROVEMENT TAX $14,769.~ $15,000.00 $15,000.00 0 0690 OTHER EXPENSES $3,567,012.06 $5,148,290.00 $4,914,000.00 0 OTHER OBJECTS TOTAL $14,171,967.76 $14,553,727.90 $13,972,437.45 0 - UTTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL .. .-. $111,SS,203.65  $116,980,371.53 $118,014,368.70 ... ... ... I 2891 Function Description 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 1125 ELEMENTARY MAGNET 1127 SPECIALTY PROGRAMS 1129 SPECIAL TY PROGRAM 1130 MIDDLE\\JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1132 JUNIOR HIGH 1135 JUNIOR HIGH MAGNET 1137 JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURE 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 1145 HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET 1151 BOYS ATI-lLETICS 1152 GIRLS ATI-lLETICS 1154 FOOTBALL/MINOR SPORTS 1155 VOLLEYBALL 1156 BASKETBALL 1157 TRACK.TENNIS.GOLF \u0026amp; SWIMM 1158 BASEBALL 1190 O11-lER REGULAR 1193 TRAVELING TEACHERS 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 1199 SUBSTITIJTES-INSTRUCTION 1210 mNERANT INSTRUCTION 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1240 HOMEBOUND AND HOSPITAL 1290 O11-lER 1292 EXTENDED YEAR HAND. SERVI 1321 MARKETING/DIST ED-COOP 1331 BUSINESS ED COOP LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $1,195,358.65 $1,746,831.33 $3,121,214.45 $3,261,957.67 $19,905,274.36 $20,414,196.37 $0.00 $956,385.00 $146,003.86 $196,675.45 $24,406.82 $0.00 $0.00 $86,475.45 $8,267,275.44 $8,870,100.00 $5,540.42 $26,480.41 $132,143.30 $453,430.57 $535,179.49 $539,265.87 $7,823,764.65 $8,651,142.90 $265,987.68 $104,648.26 $39,661.58 $44,506.65 $25,254.43 $9,798.71 $48,990.82 $49,680.00 $6,393.73 $7,416.00 $42,832.09 $45,880.20 $13,487.01 $11,354.40 $7,440.07 $10,800.00 $20,238.80 $17,936.19 $19,897.81 $15,000.00 $2,121,435.04 $1,300,017.05 $1,438,180.65 $1,434,535.20 $1,004,570.16 $1,123,449.98 $2,088,460.12 $2,229,816.67 $1,321,TT1.13 $1,321,TT0.46 $215,503.17 $319,407.51 $1,308,911.09 $1,246,265.43 $4,123.47 $5,705.28 $228,230.75 $206,250.75 $195,TT8.88 $201,039.34 Budget 1994/95 $2,009,758.23 $3,269,209.33 s20. n2,912.s8 $889,073.86 $212,689.64 $0.00 $0.00 $8,233,002.21 $24,359.35 $106,442.18 $576,992.68 $7,440,185.48 $79,954.07 $39,459.05 $12,580.00 $49,680.00 $5,793.00 $44,545.80 $12,400.00 $9,000.00 $20,790.97 $15,000.00 $1,588,755.78 $1,937,700.00 $1,169,835.49 $2,302,743.57 $1,148,951.07 $583,478.49 $1,192,896.90 $0.00 $209,433.82 $203,839.38 FTE 1994/95 80 93 725 5 4 0 0 210 1 0 19 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 33 62 4 17 5 0 4 4 + +- ... Function Description 1332 BUSINESS ED EXPL 1333 BUSINESS ED-Stoll TR 1341 HEALTli COOP 1351 TRADE \u0026amp; IND-COOP 1352 TRADE \u0026amp; IND-EXPL 1353 TRADE \u0026amp; IND-Stoll TR 1354 YOUTli APPRENTICESHIP 1360 HOME ECONOMICS 1362 CONS/HMKG 1371 CAREER ORIENTATION 1392 COORD CAREER-COOP 1410 ADULT BASIC EDUCATION co 1420 ADULT GENERAL EDUCATION 1430 ADULT VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1440 SPECIAL PROJECTS 1445 WORKPLACE LITERACY 1490 ornER ADULT EDUCATION 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 1560 READING 1570 MATHEMATICS 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1595 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTI:D 2111 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2112 ATTENDANCE SERVICE 2113 SOCIAL WORK SERVICES 2114 PUPIL ACCOUNTING SERVICES 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES 2121 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2122 COUNSELING SERVICES 2134 NURSING SERVICES 2142 PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING SER LITll...E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992193 1993/94 $567,909.51 $647,155.07 $1,029,262.40 $1,001,393.89 $71,936.86 $30,058.48 $195,305.05 $202,903.96 $582,238.42 $552,265.88 $992,355.65 $919,838.00 $23,257.92 $115,764.01 $3,035.70 $0.00 $614,847.68 $727,503.40 $256,111.14 $247,878.64 $205,769.71 $213,754.13 $437,414.74 $424,133.49 $331,299.86 $326,524.45 $0.00 $1,888.48 $0.00 $953.04 $16,895.83 $0.00 $13,933.79 $0.00 $220,694.23 $241,274.50 $27,887.91 $26,670.67 $8,814.04 $9,807.48 $233,266.90 $352,294.55 $869,433.11 $1,096,530.84 $813,857.18 $1,108,379.67 ($16.00) $4,758.48 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $121,287.10 $16,809.66 $119,044.71 $2,542,749.16 $2,798,345.63 $2,684.06 $8,563.51 $66,678.53 $38,551.19 $811,380.61 $765,214.52 $181,256.55 $195,928.86 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $565,530.39 14 $994,887.88 22 $48,226.13 1 $162,269.05 3 $592,290.09 13 .,. $928,161.33 19 $2,600.00 2 $0.00 0 $722,980.79 18 $251,165.13 6 $216,729.09 4 $438,888.00 13 $359,004.99 11 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $272,927.30 23 $29,135.65 0 $116,508.30 5 .... $320,000.00 0 $914,257.86 13 $1,327,240.17 33 $0.00 0 $25,115.41 1 $23,774.09 2 $103,381.36 4 $3,015,075.14 74 $9,159.78 0 $39,459.11 0 $753,670.05 28 $155,925.07 4 .. Function Description 2211 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2212 INSTRUCTION AND CURR DEV 2213 INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF TRAIN 2215 INST STAFF TRAINING - TES 2216 INST STAFF TRAINING - PET 2217 CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT 2219 OIBER IMPROVEMENT OF INST 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 2223 AUDIOVISUAL SERVICES 2229 OIBER EDUCATIONAL MEDIAS 2310 BOARD OF EDUCATION SERVIC 2314 ELECTION SERVICES 2315 LEGAL SERVICES 2317 AUDIT SERVICES 2319 OIBER BOARD OF EDUCATION 2321 OFFICE OF IBE SUPERINTEND 2326 DESEGREGATION 2410 OFFICE OF Tl-tE PRINCIPAL 2490 OTI-tER SUPPORT SERVICES 2510 DIRECTION OF BUSINESS SUP 2521 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2525 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING SERV 2529 OIBER FISCAL ACCOUNTING S 2539 OIBER FACILmES ACQ \u0026amp; CO 2541 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2543 UPKEEP OF GROUNDS 2544 UPKEEP OF EQUIPMENT 2545 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 2546 SECURITY SERVICES 2548 ASBESTOS PROGRAM 2551 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION LITnE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $808,955.03 $830,928.73 $2,579,824.46 $2,044,017.31 $0.1)() $10,713.11 $0.00 $16,070.13 $0.00 $32,139.33 $756.00 $10,713.11 $183,997.25 $117,430.21 $2,615,589.49 $2,348,444.72 $34,043.16 $31,927.05 $76,000.00 $86,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38.25 $20,000.00 $467,398.72 $350,000.00 $38,242.50 $35,000.00 $279,740.50 $305,851.08 $232,171.98 $200,221,49 $429,738. 70 $433,102.41 $6,093,823.40 $6,176,083.63 $21,541.79 $9,120.69 $63,697.30 $87,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $398,488.44 $375,521.82 $3,360.50 $0.00 $208,269.23 $239,986.48 s21s.n6.61 $222,728.53 $8,176,780.17 $9,328,862.83 $11,749.67 $12,831.91 $16,043.09 $17,500.00 $56,031.80 $57,206.94 $2,957.29 $0.00 $79,391.19 $68,903.30 $7,031.70 $19,790.05 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $510,398.58 10 $2,494,955.38 52 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $162,670.14 7 $2,388,611.23 70 $34,408.42 2 $76,000.00 0 $445,000.00 0 $30,000.00 0 $1,560,000.00 0 $42,000.00 0 $48,000.00 0 $507,292.06 8 $506,601.32 14 $6,261,359.45 176 $9,121.00 0 $32,000.00 0 $68,805.16 1 $352,300.26 11 $0.00 0 $285,928.18 6 $239,969.89 9 $9,109,227.13 246 $14,500.00 0 $14,000.00 0 $80,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $70,335.08 2 $17,600.00 0 ...... 0 Function 2552 2553 2554 2572 2573 2574 2585 2587 2589 2590 2610 2623 2632 2642 2649 2664 3100 3500 3800 3900 3909 3911 4900 5100 6000 Description VEHICLE OPERATION MONITORING VEHICLE SERVICING PURCHASING SERVICES WAREHOUSING \u0026amp; DISIBIBUTIN PRINTING, PUB, \u0026amp; DUPLICAT SAFETY-DRUG TESTING SAFETY \u0026amp; SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU DIR OF CENTRAL SUPPORT SE EVALUATION SERVICES INTERNAL INFORMATION SERV RECRUITMENT \u0026amp; PLACEMENTS OTHER STAFF SERVICES OPERATIONS DIRECTION OF COMMUNITY SE CUSTODY \u0026amp; CARE OF CHILD INSIBUCTIONAL PROGRAMS OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICES DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION NF OTHER NON-PROGRAMMED CHAR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PROVISION FOR CONTINGENCI UTT1.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTI..E ROCK SCHOOL DISIBICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $3,443,249.84 $3,445,367.55 $327,629.42 $319,159.16 $2,731,640.87 $1,920,281.72 $897,242.75 $1,041,357.74 $47,038.80 $54,936.16 $106,264.92 $125,403.74 $11,897.80 $14,937.36 $804,094.93 $854,143.84 $1,063,284.28 $450,000.00 $89,803.91 $169,500.00 $149,406.41 $174,848.03 $437,888.51 $562,905.71 $154,437.80 $222,767.29 $305,827.59 $418,997.31 $88,999.58 $0.00 $1,359,339.16 $1,687,419,74 $95,000.00 $170,112.24 $0.00 $87,no.oo $229,653.19 $249,440.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,046.80 $0.00 $0.00 $530,400.00 $3,586,103.53 $3,915,500.00 $9,554,534.76 $8,870,123.40 $0.00 $1,000,000.00 $111,455,203.65 $116,980,371.53 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $3,804,404.87 335 $318,433.25 11 $1,944,818.80 11 $1,541,798.43 15 $15,750.00 1 $102,000.00 0 $14,937.36 0 $819,658.99 40 $450,000.00 0 $144,338.91 0 $285,295.58 3 $426,918.80 12 $170,286.74 4 $341,547.93 13 $104,148.49 2 $1,600,699.76 14 $170,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $331,178.89 10 $100.00 0 $29,512.50 2 $0.00 0 $3,954,000.00 0 $8,533,631.00 0 $1,000,000.00 0 $118.014,368.70 $2,89f.03 Exhibit 2 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BUDGET-BALANCING MEASURES 1. Earlv Retirement Incentive Programs 2. 3 .. Previous Court submissions have included potential savings as high as $1,500,000 for this strategy. As of May 17, 1994, seventy-seven (77) teachers have applied for the program. Expectations are still high regarding this strategy. Therefore, $750,000 has been reduced from certified salaries in anticipation of reaching the goal of onehundred (100). A report will be given on May 25, 1994, as to the count and projected savings after the May 20, 1994, application deadline. Negotiations/RIF Several strategies have been identified in this area, and they are discussed in Exlnbit 3. The Draft 2 Budget does reflect a decrease of $1,622,363 for a potential reduction of 62 teaching positions. Outsourcing of TranSJ)ortation The District is continuing its efforts regarding this budget balancing measure. Bid proposals are now due to be opened on May 31, 1994, with a decision to be made in early June. This strategy is hoped to produce a savings of $500,000 but a reduction is not included in Draft 2. 4. Spending Freeze Results of this strategy which was implemented on March 25, 1994, are still expected to yield a savings of $400,000 which has been added to the 1994-95 beginning fund balance in Draft 2. 5. New Futures Program Contnbution 6. This measure has been incorporated into the Draft 2 Budget document in the amount of $100,000. Historical spending patterns for this program indicate that this reduction can be made without adverse effect. School Closings This strategy is more fully descnbed in Exlnbit 7. The Draft 2 Budget has been reduced $1,316,771 in anticipation of the approval of this measure. 11 Previously Identified Budget-Balancing Measures Page 2 7. Millaee Election 8. The Board of Directors will continue to explore this issue and determine the level of support that the community might provide. Recent discussions concerning a County-wide reappraisal must be monitored to determine the financial impact on this item. Reduction In Materials and Su1mlies (1 %) This continues to be an available option for budget balancing. 12 Exhibit 3 STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS/REDUCTION IN FORCE NEGOTIATIONS: The negotiations teams for the District and the LRCTA have been meeting twice a week since the first week of April to reach agreement on a successor teacher contract for the 1994-95 school year. The next negotiations session is May 18, 1994 at 4 o'clock which occurs almost simultaneously with this court filing. While the parties have reached tentative agreements on several clean up proposals, no agreements have been reached on any substantive issues. Most of the proposals which remain on the table are economic proposals or are proposals on which the parties are reluctant to move until some decisions can be made on economic issues. REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF): The District has mailed RIF letters to eighty teachers notifying them that their contracts would not be renewed for next year because of a reduction in the size of the teaching force. Although it may not be possible to reduce by eighty positions, this level of notice should ensure that the District is not over staffed at the beginning of the 1994-95 school year. It is more realistic to think that as many as 60 to 65 teacher positions probably can be reduced at the start of school next year. However, the additional 15 to 20 positions gives the District a more prudent approach if the District's enrollment is smaller than anticipated next fall. Many of the teachers who have received RIF notices will be recalled if the early retirement .incentive produces the number of voluntary separations as is anticipated. Since the RIF notices had to be sent prior to the application deadline for the early retirement incentive, the District could not run the risk of rehiring the RIF'ed teachers while uncertain of the fate of the early retirement incentive. ~:.... tr1/..,\n.,,/ 1\u0026lt;'IP' ~~ r\n::\nt. ~_\n,~'~ ~,,,,b~ ~~ 1uf ~ 13 Exhibit 4 ADDITIONAL BUDGET-BALANCING MEASURE: Workers' Compensation Insurance Program Act 862 of 1993 requires all school districts in the State to provide Workers' Compensation coverage for their employees effective July 1, 1994. An allocation of $860,000 is included in the 1994-95 projected budget to meet this new requirement Language included in the March 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement r  s some issues concerning the State's obligation in this matter. A favorable outcome on this issue will result in a reduction of budgeted expenditures for 1994-95 and future years. 14 Exhibit 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1} ,, 05-18-94 NO MILLAGE NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 40,159,780 40,962,976 41,782,235 42,617,880 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 22,020,949 22,360,949 22,708,949 23,063,949 23,438,949 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176.400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 475,731 485,246 494,951 504,850 514,947 525,245 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,6TT 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TTO ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,328,936 67,750,310 68,924,641 70,123,237 71,345,420 72,604,516 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91 ,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91 ,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,TT8,326 27,1 84,007 25 ,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 3,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,1 64,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 790,466 798,371 806,354 814,418 822,562 830,788 TOTAL 46,m,849 44,255,798 41,085,153 38,236,332 39,096,446 39,983,563 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 600,000 630,000 661,500 694,575 729,304 765,769 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 1,038,000 965,000 891,500 819,575 849,304 880,769 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,232,204 113,062.527 110,992,712 109,270,563 111,382,589 113,560,268 15 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE ANO EXPENDmJRE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) 05-18-94 ,,,. NO MILLAGE NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOT AL REVENUE 135,596,780 135,046,266 133,545,094 132,406,855 135,118,479 137,910,371 EXPENSES SALARIES 75,680,852 77,799,916 79,978,313 82,217,706 84,519,802 86,886,357 BENEFITS 10,650,467 10,703,719 10,757,238 10,811,024 10,865,079 10,919,405 SERVICES.SUPP ,EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,044,256 23,505,141 23,975,243 24,454,748 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,158,921 7,941,468 7,100,036 7,120,109 6,894,349 CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,014,369 120,254,964 122,721,275 124,633,907 127,480,234 130,154,858 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262.727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL EXPENSES 139,372,989 142,238,703 145,273,656 147,770,199 151,216,124 154,504,962 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,776,209) (7,192,437) (11,728,563) (15,363,344) (16,097,645) (16,594,591) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,787,009 4,844 (7,187,593) (18,916,155) (34,279,499) (50,377,144) ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 4,844 (7,187,593) (18,916,155) (34,279,499) (50,377,144) (66,971,735) TOTAL 89,844 (7,102,593) (18,831,155) (34,194,499) (50,292,144) (66,886,735) 16 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) .. 05-18-94 NO MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 40,159,780 40,962,976 41,782,235 42,617,880 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 22,020,949 22,360,949 22,708,949 23,063,949 23,438,949 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 475,731 485,246 494,951 504,850 514,947 525,245 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,6TT 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TTO ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,328,936 67,750,310 68,924,641 70,123,237 71,345,420 72,604,516 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,778,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 3,000,000 2,000,000 3,000.000 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 790,466 798,371 806,354 814,418 822,562 830,788 TOTAL 46,m,849 44,255,798 41,085,153 38,236,332 39,096,446 39,983,563 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 600,000 630,000 661,500 694,575 729,304 765,769 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 1,038,000 965,000 891,500 819,575 849,304 880,769 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,232,204 113,062,527 110,992,712 109,270,563 111,382,589 113,560,268 17 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ..  . 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) . 05-18-94 .: NO MILLSWITH CUTS  1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742\n724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,3TT TOTAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOT AL REVENUE 135,596,780  135,046,266 133,545,094 132,406,855 135,118,479 137,910,371 EXPENSES SALARIES 75,680,852 77,799,916 79,978,313 82,217,706 84,519,802 86,886,357 BENEFITS 10,650,467 10,703,719 10,757,238 10,811,024 10,865,079 10,919,405 SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,044,256 23,505,141 23,975,243 24,454,748 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,158,921 7,941,468 7,100,036 7,120,109 6,894,349 POSmON/PROGRAM CUTS (7,200,000) (11,800,000) (15,300,000) (16,100,000) (16,600,000) CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000  .,.,.. .. TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,014,369 113,054,964 110,921,275 109,333,907  111,380,234 113,554,858 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,3TT 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL EXPENSES 139,372,989 135,038,703 133,473,656 132,470,199 135,116,124 137,904,962 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,776,209) 7,563 71,437 (63,344) 2,355 5,409 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,787,009 4,844 12,407 83,845 20,501 22,856 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 4,844 12,407 83,845 20,501 22,856 28,265 TOTAL 89,844 97,407 168,845 105,501 107,856 113,265 18 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL.DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) . 05-18-94  5 MILLS NO CUTS .,, 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 43,769,195 44,644,579 45,537,471 46,448,220 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 24,820,949 24,945,054 25,069,TT9 25,195,128 25,321,104 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 475,731 485,246 494,951 504,850 514,947 525,245 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,STT 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TT0 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,328,936 70,550,310 75,118,161 76,165,671 n..231,834 78,317,011 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91 ,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE- STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,TT8,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 3,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193.~33 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 790,466 798,371 806,354 814,418 822,562 830,788 TOTAL 46,773,849 44,255,798 41,085,153 38,236,332 39,096,446 39,983,563 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 600,000 630,000 661,500 694,575 729,304 765,769 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 1,038,000 965,000 891,500 819,575 849,304 880,769 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,232,204 115,862,527 117,186,232 115,312,996 117,269,003 119,272,762 19 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) 05-18-94 '\" 5 MILLS NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL REVENUE 135,596,780 137,846,266 139,738,613 138,449,288 141,004,894 143,622,866 EXPENSES SALARIES 75,680,852 77,799,916 79,978,313 82,217,706 84,519,802 86,886,357 BENEFITS 10,650,467 10,703,719 10,757,238 10.811,024 10,865,079 10,919,405 SERVICES.SUPP ,EQUIP 22,149.419 22,592,407 23,044,256 23,505,141 23,975,243 24,454,748 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,158,921 7,941,468 7,100,036 7,120,109 6,894,349 CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,014,369 120,254,964 122,721,275 124,633,907 127,480,234 130,154,858 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6.742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262.727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL EXPENSES 139,372,989 142,238,703 145,273,656 147,770,199 151,216,124 154,504,962 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,776,209) (4,392,437) (5,535,043) (9,320,911) (10,211,231) (10,882,096) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,787,009 4,844 (4,387,593) (9,922,635) (19,243,546) (29,454,777) ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 4,844 (4,387,593) (9,922,635) (19,243,546) (29,454,777) (40,336,873) TOTAL 89,844 (4,302,593) (9,837,635) (19,158,546) (29,369,777) (40,251,873) 20 .. UTTlE.ROCKSCHOOL DISTRICT . 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1)  .. 05-18-94 5 MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 43,769,195 44,644,579 45,537,471 46,448,220 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 24,820,949 24,945,054 25,069,779 25,195,128 25,321,104 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 475,731 485,246 494,951 504,850 514,947 525,245 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,677 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,770 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,328,936 70,550,310 75,118,161 76,165,671 77,231,834 78,317,011 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,778,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 3,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 790,466 798,371 806,354 814,418 822,562 830,788 TOTAL 46,773,849 44,255,798 41,085,153 38,236,332 39,096,446 39,983,563 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 600,000 630,000 661,500 694,575 729,304 765,769 TRANSFER FROM BONO ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 1,038,000 965,000 891,500 819,575 849,304 880,769 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,232,204 115,862,527 117, 186,232 115,312,996 117,269,003 119,272,762 21 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) 05-18-94 -\u0026gt; 5 MILLS WITH CUTS / 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221 ,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,l30,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683.004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 !TOT AL REVENUE 135,596,780 137,846,266 139,738,613 138,449,288 141,004,894 143,622,866 EXPENSES SALARIES 75,680,852 77,799,916 79,978,313 82,217,706 84,519,802 86,886,357 BENEFITS 10,650,467 10,703,719 10,757,238 10,811,024 10,865,079 10,919,405 SERVICES.SUPP.EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,044,256 23,505,141 23,975,243 24,454,748 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,158,921 7,941,468 7,100,036 7,120,109 6,894,349 POSITION/PROGRAM ClJTS (4,400,000) (5,600,000) (9,300,000) (10,200,000) (10,900,000) CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,014,369 115,854,964 117, 121,275 115,333,907 117,280,234 119,254,858 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,811 ,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL EXPENSES 139,372,989 137,838,703 139,673,656 138,470,199 141,016,124 143,604,962 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,776,209) 7,563 64,957 (20,911) (11,231) 17,904 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,787,009 4,844 12,407 77,365 56,454 45,223 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 4,844 12,407 77,365 56,454 45,223 63,127 TOTAL 89,844 97,407 162,365 141,454 130,223 148,127 22 II REVISED BUSINESS CASE (4-29-94) SAFE'IY AND SECURITY DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Exhibit 6 Based upon feedback from forums, surveys, and statements from various community leaders, safety and security in our schools remains a major concern. The District remains committed to implementing the major recommendations by the former Safety and Security Task Force for building a strong, effective safety and security program. Recommendation No. 18 in the Task Force's report was to establish a District Office of Safety and Security. The District has taken steps toward satisfying that recommendation and now seeks to move even closer to full implementation. A. Background The District currently operates a Safety and Security Department which is comp sed of a Director, two (2) Supervisors, one (1) office staff member, and thirty-six (36) school-based security officers. It was recommended that the District add fourteen (14) School Resource Officers. During the summer of 1994, the District proposed a budget that included funding for these fourteen (14) positions. The budget was later approved by the Board of Directors and the Court. The Little Rock City Board of Directors was unable to provide fourteen (14) officers within the time frame requested by the District. The police department, however, was able to provide five (5) resource officers for the 1993-94 school year. These officers were assigned to the following secondary schools: Central, Hall, McClellan, Southwest, and Cloverdale Junior High. ~1 ~~~  ~ B. Problem Definition The School Resource Officer approach appears to be a successful strategy helping to create a bridge between local law enforcement and LRSD students. Police Resource Officers have been well-accepted in the schools where officers have been assigned. Currently, all LRSD secondary schools do not have a Security Office~~ bJ:f\nEr\n:~~ j,,,,,' p '~23 Revised Business Case Safety and Security Department Page 2 C. Analysis of Alternatives The LRSD prepared and submitted a business case regarding the need for the Resource Officer Program as a part of its 1993-94 budget planning process. The District's alternatives remain the same as indicated in the previous business case. Option C (from that business case) remains the most viable and equitable option for the District. A copy of the previous business case is attached hereto as Attachment 1. D. Recommendation The Little Rock School District recommends that one (1) Police Resource Officer be placed in each of our secondary schools. The Little Rock City Board of Directors supports this recommendation and is preparing to implement this recommendation, pending Court approval of the District's 1994-95 budget  E. Objective . The Objectives and Evaluation Criteria remain unchanged from the previous business case. Information secured from the first year of implementation will be used to improve the delivery of services during the 1994-95 school year. F. Impact Analysis The program has had a positive effect on both the schools and the community. The program has been accepted by the community and LRSD schools. G. Resource Analysis The District budgeted $203,000 for program implementation during the 1993-94 school year. These costs would have been appropriate for the 1993-94 school year, -had the fourteen (14) officers been secured. A 5% cost-of-living-type of increase in overall personnel costs is projected for 1994. Additionally, the second year personnel costs should include an additional $34,079 for approved employee step increases,if any, plus $20,000 to pay for benefit increases such as educational pay and longevity. The proposed cost for placing fourteen (14) Police Resource Officers in all secondary schools during the 1994-95 year is $257,000. These costs are to be shared between the City and the Little Rock School District on a 50/50 basis. 24 Revised Business Case Safety and Security Department Page 3 H. Force Field Analysis 1. Forces For. The primary support of this recommendation will likely be the principals in the affected schools. In addition, parents and teachers in the schools affected will likely form a group that will support this move. 2. Forces Against The only persons to have voiced opposition in the past have expressed the concern that the police officers may use their authority in an abusive manner. The success of the program for one (1) year in five (5) of the District's secondary schools should help to eliminate this concern. I. General Implementation Plan Implementation begins with approval by the governing bodies of both the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock School District Following approval, meetings will be held with Little Rock Police Department officials to determine starting dates for training newly hired officers to supplement the officers that are selected to become School Resource Officers. Additionally, both the LRSD and LRPD will offer training sessions for officers selected to begin the Resource Officer program. The Director of Safety and Security will assume the task of scheduling all events that will ensure a successful program implementation. All status reports for program implementation will be submitted to the Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District 25 Attachment 1 BUSINESS CASE SAFETY AND SECURITY DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1989, after the unfortunate shooting of a student at a Little Rock Junior High School, the Board of Directors authorized the Administration to conduct a safety and security study. This study was to address the security issue on campuses, on buses, and in the neighborhoods surrounding the schools. The Board of Directors made the decision to have a committee from each school study the various safety and security issues in the LRSD. A Task Force was formed that 1. Held public hearings 2. Met with Parent-Teacher groups and/or their designated leaders 3. Interviewed city and community leaders 4. Reviewed secondary school safety and security issues in other urban school districts The Task Force enlisted the expertise of the National School Safety Center who sent its Deputy Director to Little Rock for one week and on later follow-up visits. The Task Force report was dealt with by issuing twenty (20) major recommendations to use as an outline to build a strong, effective safety and security program for the Little Rock School District Recommendation No. 18 in this report was to establish a school district office of Safety and Security. A. Background 1. At present, the Safety and Security Department is composed of a Director of Safety and Security, two supervisors, and one person who answers all alarm calls to the various sights, meets the police that have been dispatched, and secures the buildings upon completion of his report There are thirty-six (36) School Based Security Officers assigned to the secondary schools in the LRSD. A recommended addition is the addition of fourteen (14) School Resource Officers. School Resource Officers (SRO) will be assigned to the current secondary schools. A School Resource Officer is a commissioned law enforcement officer that is assigned to the local school district. 26 Safety and Security Page Two 2. School security is a problem that is currently concerning both school district employees and members of the community throughout the nation. The idea of School Resource Officers and security forces is certainly not a new idea. It is, however, fairly new to the State of Arkansas. The problem of dealing effectively with unruly students and community members has been an ongoing problem through the country for many years. Districts across the country are having to develop plans, policies, and strategies for coping with these issues and the resulting increase of fights, assaults, homicides, drive-by shootings, weapons, and general disruption to previously \"quiet\" schools. B. Problem Definition 1. Various approaches to better safety and security in the schools have been attempted. It must be recognized that there is no one single approach that will solve the multitude of problems. The School Resource Officer approach is, however, one that has been successful throughout the country in dealing with the various acting out behaviors and in helping create a bridge between local law enforcement and troubled youth in the community. C. Analvsis of Alternatives 1. Many alternatives have been approached in solving the problems. The LRSD has not discarded any of our approaches only attempted to bring new answers to the problem. The National School Safety Center, an advocate of School Resource Officers, supplied this office with information on these programs throughout the country. Visits were made to programs in California and Florida. Numerous telephone conferences were held with Resource Officers on duty in different schools. The Little Rock School District looked at these different options: a. Do nothing: A number of school districts do not need a formal security program that involves Resource Officers. With the problems facing the City of Little Rock and the schools in the Little Rock District this option was not chosen. b. Contact with a guard service. Two private guard services were contacted. Neither of these services had any experience in providing a security force that had expertise in dealing with the diverse student population in our community. Few training programs were available through these groups. Additionally, these groups seemed to have a lack of commitment to and understanding of our educational philosophy. 27 Safety and Security Page Three D. c. Employ School Resource Officers. Historically, police have played a significant role in public education. They have been involved in handling truancy, juvenile crime, and major collective disturbances. Personnel are trained. The size of the force can be down-sized when needed. A pre-employment background check is always completed and support personnel is available. A formal agreement is prepared that identifies duties and responsibilities of both the police department and the school district Recommendations 1. The Little Rock School District recommends that alternative number 3 be employed. It is our belief that School Resource Officers will help provide a balance between crime prevention, education, enforcement, and informed positive contacts. A School Resource Officer will help develop relationships with students. The School Resource Officer will lay a foundation for student confidence and trust by demonstrating both a knowledge and an interest in matters of child advocacy. E. Objectives 1. Objectives to the recommendation. Program objectives are: a. To prevent students from becoming involved in behaviors that violate state statutes, city codes, and District policy b.  To establish an improved rapport between law enforcement officers and youth c. To assist the building staff and administration in providing security for students d. To act as a resource to staff and students in legal matters and violence prevention intervention e. To help to provide an educational environment that offers prevention programs in determining youth involvement in gang activities, crime, alcohol, and drug abuse f. To assist in the coordination of community resources in promoting interagency approaches to the solution of community youth problems 28 Safety and Security Page Four 2. Good Support. One of the prerequisites for students to have a chance to learn is to have a safe, secure environment in which to learn. District level goals that would increase educational achievement with emphasis on closing disparities certainly fall within this area. A safe, secure environment is also necessary for students and staff if the following goals are to be reached: a. Providing equitable educational opportunities for all students in a desegregated learning environment b. Enabling all students to develop a lifelong capacity and love for learning c. Teaching all students to be productive contnbutors in the school, the community, and the work place d. Providing a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students 3. Evaluation Criteria. Evaluation criteria for the School Resource Officer Program include: a. Written evaluation by principals, including suggested improvements b. Written evaluation by school resource officer, including suggested improvements c. Survey of all staff members of schools d. Survey 10% of students, including high school and junior high school students e. Survey 10% of parents of high school and junior high school students f. Compare pre and post data for suspension, attendance, and dropout incidents involving unauthorized non-students on campus and juveniles processed into the juvenile justice system 29 Safety and Security Page Five F. G. Impact Analysis 1. Program. It is expected that this program will have a positive effect on both the schools and the community. Additional role models, both male and female, will be visible to all children. These officers will be able to provide assistance to students and staff in legal matters. Various crime prevention, drug and alcohol programs will be presented to students. It is expected that the relationship between students and their respect for the law will be a positive move for our community. Some of the built-in mistrust of \"police types\" will be affected. The added protection of a qualified law enforcement officer that is available at all times will also present a positive impact 2. Desegregation Plan. There will be no negative impact upon the Desegregation Plan. All employees are expected to work together to promote adherence to the Plan. 3. Court Orders. No impact is known. 4. Political Factors. No political factors will have impact upon this program. 5. Risks. Any new program bas risks that accompany the program. Schools face the risk of becoming overly dependant on police personnel to solve problems. Police officers generally have not been schooled in educational philosophy. Police lack the flexibility that school administrators have in dealing with student offenders. A special inservice program will be given to all involved before the program will be implemented. After three years of program planning, the administration believes that the community is ready for this program. 6. Timing. The major issues are the extensive training required to replace officers that join this program. The City of Little Rock must take that into account before accepting the program. The Little Rock School District must plan inservice activities before placing the program in action. These programs will be completed prior to program implementation. Resource Analysis 1. Personnel Analysis. Fourteen School Resource Officers will be added to the district staff. One support person, a LRPD supervisor, will perform support duties to the program. Personnel will be recruited from the ranks of the Little Rock Police Department 30 Safety and Security Page Six 2. Financial Analysis. Operating costs have been prepared and submitted by the City of Little Rock. Under the proposed plan, costs will be shared between the city and the Little Rock School District on a 50/50 basis. The Little Rock School District's expense for the first year of operation will be $203,000. This cost will fund fourteen (14) police resource officer positions. These costs are valid for the 1993 school year. A 5% cost of living type of increase in overall personnel costs should be planned for 1994. Additionally, the second year personnel costs should include an additional $34,079 for employee step increases plus $20,000 to pay for benefit increases such as educational pay and longevity. H. Force Field Analysis 1. Forces For. The primary support of this recommendation will likely be the principals in the affected schools. In addition, teachers in the schools affected will likely form a group that will support this move. It is my opinion that all Board members will support this recommendation. Support will come from these groups because each of the groups has studied this option for approximately three years. They have been presented with both pros and cons of the program. Parents will be a support of this recommendation. All calls to my office have been supportive. 2. Forces Against The only persons to have voiced concerns in the past have seemed to have the feeling that the policeman may use his authority in an abusive manner. The success of the program for a one semester trial at McClellan High School was discussed at a recent meeting. Board members who had voted in a negative manner in the past seemed to have changed their minds and talked in a positive manner. I. Implementation begins with approval by the governing bodies of both the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock School District Following approval, meetings will be held with Little Rock Police Department officials to determine starting dates for training newly hired officers to supplement the officers that are selected to become School Resource Officers. Additionally, both the LRSD and LRPD will offer training sessions for officers selected to begin the Resource Officer program. Bill Barnhouse, Director of Safety and Security, will assume the task of scheduling all events that will ensure a successful program implementation. All status reports for program implementation will be submitted to the Manager of Resources and School Support, Little Rock School District 31 ISSUE: SECURING OF QUALIFIED SUBSTITUTES BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District has been experiencing an ongoing high percentage of absenteeism resulting in a few occasions where classes have been covered by employees who are not in the District's regular substitute pool. A certain amount of absenteeism may be expected or necessary due to in-service educational opportunities, seminars, etc.. Compounding the situation are the required number of personal days and sick days as provided for by state law and the P.N. Agreement. Further, employees tend to group their absences contiguous to the weekend, thus making this situation much worse on Fridays and Mondays. Unfortunately, these are the days on which qualified substitutes choose or prefer not to work. PROPOSED PARTIAL RESOLUTION While it is not a panacea for absenteeism, this proposal encourages utilizing teaching assistant/substitutes for teachers who are absent or excused. TNSUBS are assigned \"Home Schools\" and are obligated to attend that school every day unless assigned to another school by the personnel office or retained from a previous assignment Although TNSUBS are kept in their home schools as much as possible, they are not allowed to decline a substitution call from S.O.S. to cover a different school. Salary for a T NSUB is based on a 10-month contract The first year salary is $11,65 . The second year salary is $13,891. Each day that a TNSUB substitutes in a classroom, he/she will receive an additional $22 per day stipend. If a TNSUB is in a classroom for 16 consecutive days, he/she will be considered a long-term substitute and will be paid teacher salary retroactiY to the day he/she began the assignment If a TNSUB is substituting in a classroom for more than 2 hours but less than 3 1/4 hours, it is considered a half-day assignment and he/she will be paid one-half of the $22 stipend. When a TNSUB is not substituting, he/she may be placed in a classroom to observe, cover a room while a teacher is out temporarily (i.e.: Doctor's appointment), or may assist teachers with errands or special projects. PROPOSAL T NSUBS will be assigned to schools on a basis of one per school. 32 II II -II n Exhibit 7 Little Rock School District Stephens School Relocation A Business Case May, 1994 Submitted to U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Arkansas Judge Susan Webber-Wright May 18, 1994 33 I Executive Summary Little Rock School District Stephens School Relocation Business Case I The condition of the environment in which children learn is an important factor in their success. ,.Stephens has become inefficient as a public school because of an aging facility, declining enrollment, and increasing costs. The problem has occurred because limited funds were available to complete needed repairs and renovations. These needs are confirmed in facility studies completed in 1981 and 1988 by Leggett and Associates. Major repairs and renovations needs still exists. The current estimated costs to bring Stephens School up to today's standards is $1.3 million.1 Over one million dollars will be saved by not using the building as a school next year and each year thereafter. The per pupil cost of delivering the instructional program for 1993-94 was $8,781.19. This was four times the cost per pupil of most schools that year. Since the 1991-92 school year, the number of students attending Stephens School has dropped from 245 to 145 in 1993-94. Declining school-age population within the attendance zone has impacted enrollment at the school and exacerbated the problem of low enrollment. This increases per pupil costs and places undue strain on an already austere budget. The recommended solution is to:  Temporarily relocate students from Stephens immediately to minimize the problem of facility needs. This alternative addresses all areas of the problem. a) A plan to offer students reasonable choices of schools will be devised and used based on available seating by grade and race in other schools.- The new William J. Clinton Interdistrict School will be one of the choices offered to students at Stephens. b) An immediate savings of 1.3 million dollars will be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nc) Staff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract\nd) The curriculum offered at Stephens will be offered at other school under the theme for that particular school\ne) A plan for use of the facility until construction can begin will be designed based on discussions with officials of the city and community agencies. Consideration will be given to housing support departments of the school district as well as other options\nand, f) Temporarily relocate the Four-Year-Old Program to Franklin Incentive School. To implement this solution, the desegregation plan must be modified to reduce the number of Incentive Schools. Current filings before both the U. S. Federal Court and the Eighth Circuit Court must be considered for consistency with this proposal. The district is aware of the concern that exists in the Stephens community about the closing of schools. A number of school buildings have been abandoned m 1 Doug Eaton, Director of Facilities, Little Rock School District 34 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 2 predominantly black neighborhoods. This and the fear that city services such as police and fire will not be as efficient without a school are of paramount concern to many in the community. Whether or not the Stephens name will be preserved if another school is built is another concern of the community. Some want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated to avoid another vacant building. While these concerns are understandable, the intent of the district is to build a new, enhanced school at the current Stephens site by the same name pending court approval.2 Negatives of this solution 1. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\n2. Community reaction will be against the decision as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by other entities\nPositives of this solution 1. Students and parents will have choices equal to the current program\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school to make new students and patrons feel welcomed\n3. New patrons will be included in appropriate school correspondence and activities as are currently enrolled patrons in the newly assigned school\n4. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized\nand, 5. The Stephens School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval.  It is critical that the process be completed before the opening of school for 1994- 95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately. Awareness must be generated in the community, students must be notified of their choices, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. No additional personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. A savings of 1.3 million dollars is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. Because the remaining schools and staffs will absorb students and personnel where vacancies occur, the total budgeted cost of Stephens School for 1994-95 is expected to be saved. This savings is a year-to-year savings. 2 Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent, Little Rock School District 35 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 3 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. Milestone Date Person 1. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors and approved 5/18/94 Williams 2. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students from St,pl~ns Sclrool 5/20/94 Williams 3. File rev1s1ons to current filings relating to Stephens which are before the courts If necessary 5/20/94 Williams 4. Obtamceourt approval\"' ''' c.::,,,,,_,,,,,_..:,}, 5126194. Williams,i-. 5. Contac: the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 5/27/94 Ingram 6. Develoo a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immea1ately 5/27/94 Modeste 7. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy 5/27/94 Williams 8. Inventory ou1lding 5/30/94 Neal 9. Conduct 1nformat1onal meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 6/6/94 Williams 10. Comp1ie list and mailing labels of all students living in the Stq,l~n Sclrool attendance zone and 6/6/94 Mayo those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Stephens Sc/tool but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Stepl~ns Sc/tool but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Stro/~11s Sc/tool but live in the attendance zone. 11 . Plan ano scnedule public meeting with the Stephens community to hear concerns 6/3/94 Mayo 12. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to: 6/3/94 Mayo a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) d) door-to-0oor delivery in the neighborhood 13. Develoo letter to parents and students with announcement and choices asking for a response 6/3/94 Mayo by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at St,p/~11s School to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 14. Make contact with key people 1n the community who should be contacted immediately and 6/3/94 Modeste solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers. 15. Send notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: 6/3/94 Mayo a) community groups and churches\nb) press release 16. Design follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their choice of school 6/3/94 Mayo 17. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and choices asking for a response by 6115/94 Mayo a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at St,pl~11s School to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 18. Deliver fliers. door-to-\u0026lt;:!oor. announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting 6120/94 Mayo 19. Im clement follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their choice of school 7/6/94 Ingram 20. Send assignment notices 7/29/94 Mayo 21 . Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) wrth 7/29/94 Mayo announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline. 22. Remove materials and equipment from school 7/31/94 Eaton 23. Reroute transportation of students 7/31/94 Montgomery 24. Secure building 7/31/94 Eaton 25. Reassign staff 7/31/94 Hurley 26. Send assignment notices 8/1/94 Mayo 3 Remaining hmeline is based on Court approval. 36 Stephens School Relocation Business Case I Background 4 I As early as 1981, suggestions to improve the condition of the building known presently as the Stephens School Incentive School appeared in a study of Little Rock School District facilities. Stanton Leggett and Associates, Educational Consultants, noted the \"gross inadequacy of present cafeteria with stage\". New construction estimated at as much as $210,000 then was suggested.4 Additionally, the report listed a number of repairs and the need for renovation that would bring the building up to standard. The estimated cost was a maximum of $208,500 in 1981 dollars. \"The extent of this work . . . is essentially that require to bring the facility up to reasonable 'as is' standards.\" To keep pace with future needs, an additional $598,000 to $786,406 in upgrades and renovation was needed. This did not include air conditioning.5 Some of these items were completed throughout the mid-eighties. No organized program with the purpose of addressing these repairs and renovations was undertaken. In 1988, Stanton Leggett and Associates again studied the facility needs of the Llttle Rock Schools. In that study, replacement of both Stephens School and Garland Elementary Schools was recommended. \"The cost of remodeling and rehabilitation of the schools did not provide the level of specialized rooms that have been [sic] provided by the school system in its recent construction and that is necessary to house the staff properly that has been assigned to these schools.\"6 Concern about the facility at Stephens School has been documented for over a decade. In recent years, enrollment at Stephens School has declined. This together with the needs of the facility has added to the current concern about the efficiency of maintaining Stephens School as it currently stands. Since 1991-92 school year, the number of students attending Stephens School has dropped from 245 students to 145 for 1993-94. The number is expected to be 130 next year. This enrollment decline is influenced in part by a declining school-age population. Continued decline is expected for Stephens and Garland attendance zones. See Figure 1. Zone Stephens AZ Garland AZ Figure 1 Projected Attendance Zone Numbers from Census Data 1991 1992 1993 1994 225 219 213 207 308 303 298 293 1995 201 288 The social and cultural relevance of Stephens School to alumnae and the community cannot be ignored. The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation 4 Study of the School Buildings of Little Rock, Arkansas, Executive Summary, May, 1981, p. 9. 5 Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 71-74. 6 Long-Range Plan for School Facilities, Little Rock, Arkansas, Section 2 - Report: Meeting the Physical Facilities Needs of Seven Racially Identifiable Schools, September, 1988, p. 10.  37 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 5 noted this in its 1993 study of the Stephens School area. Quoting from a research report on the history of Stephens School completed by Reginald Wright, an African-American student in the Donaghey Project 1993 summer program, the GLRCDC study noted: The original Stephens School was built 80 years ago on the site of the present school. The school first existed as a two story framed building, whereas the current structure is a one story masonry and steel horizontal building occupying two square blocks .... The school has received attention for many reasons. It was the first black school to be built in the Little Rock School District and is one of the oldest schools remaining in operation today. It was the school attended by many successful minorities who grew up in the neighborhood . ... The school got its name from a hard working prestigious woman named Charlotte Andrews Stephens. Born in 1854, she was an educator most of her life until she died on December 17, 1951. She showed her dedication to education and to the community by donating the land that the school presently occupies. Ms. Stephens had many accomplishments throughout her life such as becoming the first African-American teacher and principal in the Little Rock School District, and becoming the first AfricanAmerican woman in Arkansas to attend college? I Problem Definition I Stephens has become inefficient as a public school because of an aging facility, declining enrollment, and increasing costs. Currently, the Stephen's facility has accumulated a host of needed repairs and renovations that make the investment \"cost ineffective\". These needs are documented in two facility studies. One in 1981 and another in 1988. Additionally, the per pupil cost of delivering the instructional program for 1993-94 was $8,781.19. This was four times the cost per pupil at other schools. One intent of desegregation is to bring children of different cultures together for common opportunities. Stephens percentage of black students is 97%. Recruitment of white students to this school has not achieved the desired results. Increasing student enrollment using students living in the attendance zone has not been successful. I Analysis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a committee representing administrators in the LRSD. Facility studies have been reviewed as mentioned above. Upon careful consideration, three aspects had to be considered in resolving the problem. They were aging facility, declining enrollment, and increasing costs. The costs of solution number two below is based on the Leggett Study and 1988 dollars. Cost was reviewed as per pupil costs and as the total cost of keeping the school open for another year. Addressing one or two and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. 7 Stephens School Neighborhood Plan, Donaghey Project for Urban Studies \u0026amp; Design - University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1993, p. 3.  38 I Stephens School Relocation Business Case 6 Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can be addressed adequately if the alternative offers a quality for students and cost efficiency for tax-payers. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\n2. Undertake a major renovation and repair program for the facility. The cost of a recommended program in 1981 was estimated to be a maximum of $208,500 to bring the facility to standard. To prepare it for future use, it would cost an additional $598,000 to $786,406 in upgrades and renovation. This did not include air conditioning. In 1994 dollars, this now costs $1.3 million. This solution does not address the exorbitant per pupil expenses. The reasonableness of this alternative is questionable. The budget is austere and many facilities have needs. 3. Redraw the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Stephens School. This reduces the per-pupil costs but does not address the cost of either maintaining the facility or needed repairs and renovation. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. 4. Temporarily relocate students from Stephens immediately to minimize the problem of facility needs. This alternative addresses all areas of the problem. a) A plan to offer students reasonable choices of schools will be devised and used based on available seating by grade and race in other schools. b) An immediate savings of 1.3 million dollars will be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nc) Staff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract\nd) The curriculum offered at Stephens will be offered at other school under the theme for that particular school\ne) A plan for use of the facility until construction can begin will be designed based on discussions with officials of the city and community agencies. Consideration will be given to housing support departments of the school district as well as other options\nand, f) Temporarily relocate the Four-Year-Old Program to Franklin Incentive School. 5. Intensify recruitment efforts. Recruitment has been increased for the all incentive schools since January. The results have not been significant. If the enrollment of Stephens were increased by this effort, the aging facility is still a problem. I Recommendation Alternative 4 is recommended. 4. Temporarily relocate students at Stephens immediately to minimize the problem of facility needs. This alternative addresses all of the problem areas. After consideration of all other alternatives, this one was the only one to address the total problem. 39 I Stephens School Relocation Business Case I Objective 7 By the opening of school for 1994-95, Stephens students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Using this proposal will require a modification in the LRSD Desegregation Plan regarding the number of Incentive Schools and to the Interdistrict Plan as it relates to a third interdistrict school. The current motion before the U. S. Federal Court to make Washington the third interdistrict school under the plan is consistent with this proposal. The appeal before the Eight Circuit Court concerning the site for the new Stephens School may need to be reviewed for consistency with this proposal. This proposal supports the school district goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to fully support schools and the desegregation program. 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 if: 1. Students and parents choose options other than Stephens School\n2. The community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\n3. Transportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\n4. Special activities are planned and implemented by each school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\n5. Patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities as are currently enrolled patrons in that school\n6. Key members of the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\n7. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand, I 8. The relocation of students and staff at Stephens will be complete before the opening of school for 1994-95. Most of these benefits will occur when the process begins. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered and parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. I Impact Analysis The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal. Current filings before both the U. S. Federal Court and the Eighth Circuit Court must be considered for consistency with this proposal. The district is aware of the concern that exists in the Stephens community about the closing of schools. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in black neighborhoods. The buildings are vandalized and defaced. This and the fear that city services such as police and fire will not be as efficient without a school are of paramount concern to many in the community. Whether or not the Stephens name will be ~..-Ot .......... t'W41_!o. _ 40 tJ\u0026amp;/1., .. E.,nPH I Stephens School Relocation Business Case 8 preserved if another school is built is another concern of the community. Some believe this is an excuse to close another school. Some want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated to avoid another vacant building. While these concerns are understandable, the intent of the district is to build a new, enhanced school at the current Stephens site by the same name pending court approval.8 Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\n2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\nPositives 1. A new school will be built with enhanced educational opportunities for students who choose to enroll\n2. Students and parents will have choices equal to current programs\n3. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school to make new students and patrons feel welcomed\n4. Patrons will be included in appropriate school correspondence and activities as are currently enrolled patrons in that school\n5. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized\nand,  6. The current Stephens School facility will be available to the community for use pending court approval. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs, increasing complaints by staff about facility needs, and a generally poor image of facilities at this site. The risks of implementation of this solution are criticism for abandoning another school building in the black community, inconveniencing to the students who walk to school, , and the possibility that this solution will not realize all of the benefits exactly as anticipated. Timing It is critical that the process be complete before 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, students must be notified of their choices, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline 8 Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent, Little Rock School District 41 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 9 included must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. I Resources Analysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, some positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. Financial A savings of 1.3 million dollars is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. Because the remaining schools and staffs will absorb students and personnel where vacancies occur, the budgeted cost of Stephens School is expected to be saved. See attachment. This savings is a year-to-year savings. Revenue Source A source of revenue is unnecessary. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the 1994-95 budget. I Force Field Analysis I I Primary supporters of this proposal will be those not directly affected by the solution. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunity and cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. Community groups have consistently gone on record as opposed to the \"closing\" of Stephens School. They argue several points. They argue that too many have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities. That schools which are closed are those located in the black community, and that a school is the life of a wholesome community. Some say that removing a school from a community that is already experiencing economic difficulty removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The Joshua Interveners may oppose the relocation of these students for fear of closing an Incentive School. The position of the City of Little Rock is unclear at this time. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key community people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns. The strongest statement about relocating students at Stephens School temporarily is just that. We are 42 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 10 relocating the students temporarily. Consideration is being given to building a new school for students in this area. 43 Stephens School Relocation Business Case I General Implementation Plan 11 I The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. Milestone Date Person 1. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors and approved 5/18/94 Williams 2. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students from Step/rerrs Sc/rool 5/20/94 Williams 3. File rev1s1ons to current filings relating to Stephens which are before the courts if necessary 5/20/94 Williams 4-\u0026gt;- Obtain- court app.rovat:t '/ :,:/',?{\\' .,,.,./:,:,,,:,::-:,:, ,:,:,c,,.,c,., ,  --:-:-.-:--\n-.-.:-:.\n.\n:\n::-:-:-.. :-\n::::::::::::::( :::::::::::\n:::::::::\n:::: ::,C:}:5/,26194 .,'):: .\\/William\u0026amp;/ :-: 5. Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 5/27/94 Ingram 6. Develoo a list of key peoole in the community who should be contacted immediately 5/27/94 Modeste 7. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduc:1on strategy 5/27/94 Williams 8. Inventory building 5/30/94 Neal 9. Conduct informational meeting with the pnncipal. faculty, and staff about the process 6/6/94 Williams 10. Compile list and marling labels of all students living in the Stq,/rerr School attendance zone and 6/6/94 Mayo those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Step/rerrs Sc/roo/ but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Step/rerrs Sc/rool but live in the attendance zone: and. C) those who do not attend Step/rerrs Sc/rool but live in the attendance zone. 11 . Plan and schedule public meeting with the Stephens community to hear concerns 6/3/94 Mavo 12. Develop notice of relocauon and date of communrty information meeting to send to: 6/3/94 Mayo a) parents \u0026amp; students: b) community groups and churches: C) media (press release) d) door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 13. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and chorces asking for a response 6/3/94 Mayo by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at Step/rerrs Sc/rool to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 14. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and 6/3/94 Modeste solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and mrn1sters. 15. Send notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: 6/3/94 Mayo a) community groups and churches: b) press release 16. Design follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their choice of school 6/3/94 Mayo 17. Mall letter to parents and students with announcement and choices asking for a response by 6/15/94 Mayo a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at Ster,/rerrs Sc/rool to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 18. Deliver fliers. door-to-door. announcrng the relocation and date of the information meetinQ 6/20/94 Mayo 19. lmolement follow-up olan for students who do not resoond to reciuest for their choice of school 7/6/94 Ingram 20. Send assignment notices 7/29/94 Mayo 21 . Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) with 7/29/94 Mayo announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline. 22. Remove matenals and equipment from school 7/31/94 Eaton 23. Reroute transportation of students 7/31/94 Montgomery 24. Secure bu1ldrng 7/31/94 Eaton 25. Reassign staff 7/31/94 Hurley 26. Send assignment notices 8/1/94 Mayo 9 Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. 44 ra, ,~,.. ac ST'PH 11 Stephens School Relocatio~ Business Case 12 Attachment 111 Copy of pages from 1994-95 Tentative Budget relating to the cost of Stephens School 45 1111/1.,..,. IC..sn\"H Dole: 0 11-: 1: lhtle lock ldlool Dhtrlct Depertmnt Dudaet  111111 ,aOG: IU\u0026gt;OOZ fi.nctlon Object Depert-,t Code Deecrlptlon Code Deecrlptlon STEPHENS flfllENTAIJ 0041 1105 f\u0026lt;U TEAi OlD PIOClM 0110 lfWLAI aulflCAJfD 0120 lflllAI IIOll-alllflCAJO ULIU SOCIAL lfDallf JAi( 0240 INUAIICI 0410 llffllH 0540 ICIUINIENJNH0IIAL ,aQNI Inn f\u0026lt;U UAI OLD PIOCIM TOULI 1110 IIIIDflWJH UlHI HIU.AI a.uflCAJfD 0210 IOCIAL lfDallf TAIi 0410 041Z lOCAL -...LIii IP JIIADlll 1110 II IIDflc:AI I H Jot All 1 IZD flfllEIIJAIY Achl 1\"''\" H.too.00 U OU.OJ Iii ,464.DO 11.lllU.U I0.00 I0.00 n, ,., ' '4 1Jl.J6 IJ 114D.H I0.00 Ul,UJ.56 ludget 1\")/94 ao,an.00 U,164.45 ,z ,461.00 11 lll\u0026gt;.Z7 nu.JP I0.00 au ,n,.11 a\u0026gt; '.Ul.00 '4 ,ua,.11 IZ .\u0026gt;N.U IHH.ZZ u,._,z 1.6\u0026amp; .,,,.u Actual D1/J1/94 110,,uo.Z, 11 ,14Z.ZO Nln.86 I0.00 I0.00 116.'49.6' w,,,,..,,.zo 11 ,n1.,o Nln.56 I0.00 I0.00 ludget 1994/95 S50 .5\u0026amp;7.00 aLIJ ,lllD.00 u ,4Z4.n S,,,rou.00 ., , 100.00 aJ,600.00 NII 229.ll II UY.77 IZ.600.00 1252.00 I0.00 ~ .YLU.ff t=======================110111t01 1~=H=l~ll1lJll~ lC~ZHl~1I1I0r1~u~1D::~\n:::::::===============~===.~.~,\n,~,._ . u,.n uui.OOll.00 116',4H.U a,rJ.111U. J9 :1~1IJ~.t 11~:===~ii1:fi1.an .DO In ,MM. 74 1105 I YUJ .00 QUU Hllll.AI -tzHltlUIO an,n .16 \"'\" UJ,61Z.U iU,121.TU 0uu -ITIMI JIACllfHIIIOIY 120 ,OJ.,. I0. 00 I0.00 I0 . 00 0ZI0 IOCIAL 11aan, JAJI 140,tJI.JI 14Z,N6.11 ... ,\u0026gt;H.56 140,:w,.,r uuu PUILIC 1,.lOYIH 111111,_ 11.14 I0.00 I0.00 I0.00 flf 1994/95 Z.oo Z.UII z.uu Z.uu 14.17 1.00 0240 INSlaAIICI lz tza.16 aL\u0026gt; ioo.1Ki-.-+---=Uc:Jn'H.'ii-QJ+---=a.,=a-=r...,\"\n.:-ii-OO+----f D]IJ l'\\.Pll 1nv1a1 IHI ,!IN.JI ,o.oo I0.00  I0.00 l - - - ----------,D....-JIZ6\n-..\nl,\nf\n,.PAe-:l':-l,::'l'=1-=C1U'='l:=NIE:=:l:-J-----------t----ia,z,im-.T1I7 ~---Tin1,nrw-..OOrr-1i-----.llm4'Jr.-wr'JD_ ___ ,lrr.1.oa-.-11J,.OOrr-1i-----1 DJJI l'\\.Pll TIAIISNIIJATIGI 14 ,oe.U l'J .oou.00 II , ... II IID.uuu.00 l - - - --------,omin1i:-.:':\n::\nIA\n-\nVE7.l\n.--------------\n----IZ-tt-,'1Z.OO t----x,i\nso,.....oo,rr-t-----...-rr'Tlroo+----..,so,,...,.00~11-----1 O-\"Z POSTAGII! 1dl:Tr 1n7.5D UO.U SO.DO OJ60 PIIIJIICI I IIIIDIICllllfll 14'1.00 ~, .,o 1160.00 I0.00 0161 HIIJIIII AIII IIIIDIHIXTI 11,4JI.N I0.00 15Z7.'J0 I0.00 OJ80 fOOD IIIVlal 19 ,,n.05 111,000.00 IJ ,)87.IO a1uuu.DD 0410 UPLIU II , 195.111 11 ,IJl  .60 IZ ,4ZZ.U i20. ,n.00 IK16 u,uu  llfflY alJH 14 .\u0026gt;.IJ 11 \u0026amp;aZ .SI 14 .244.'JZ Ml.OD 0411 ,11oa (NQ.NIAIICH I0.00 -~,u.O I0.00 Ml.OU J__ ___________\n,\n054\n.\n-D-\nf.\nOU\nl\n.\n,Plll==,l\n'.:f...:H~\n:,\n1011=Al\n..\nH,\nOP=E=-----------~\"1-.Uffl'.,lli-lf----v'\n'''59T\"\"o~_ _. =,ll\u0026lt;c:,n.....C7.\n,\n,,77~1-----'-'.c.LC''\u0026gt;UU~-\n,\n,oo~---~ 05411 fflJIPIIINT  UPU aNTH an,.14 aol:5o I0.00 I0.00 11zu flfHENTAU JOTAU 1661, 151.ZI MYY,LYD.6l o ,4116.)9 -~.11111.06 22.11 1124 llfllEITAU IIJSIC ------ - - - ----,.o.,11oi--...::'-:f:=lll.:7.\"Al--'=Cfc::c::J:-:-l\n,fl:-\"CA~J:-:=E,:..D_ ________- t-___, aorr,.oo.,,-t---u'-iu\nt'Jl~IZ:.c..oo.\n.....----~'~oo~1----.-..~.\" ',-.' !~!:- .~n------f 0Z10 SOCIAL IEDMIJY JAX I0.00 IZJ14.00 I0.00 .. , .. , Ol40 IIISURAIICI I0.00 11, 111,.00 ao.oo I0.00 1124 flfHEIITAIY IIJSIC TOUll I0.00 114,0)1.00 I0.00 an.-.4D Pou I 1J D1te: OJ/2]/94 Tl: IJ:44 little lock ldtoot Dl1trlct Dep rta.lt ludtet - CIOtl PlOG I ll.0002 hroetlon ObJ.c:t Dq,ert_,t Code DHcrlptlon Codi D11crlptlon SIEPHENS flEMENTA-T 0041 11Y\u0026gt; ACCELERATED LEAANING OllO Hill.AA --aUlflCATID UC 10 IOCIAL l(aJIITY TAX uc,u INUAIICI 11n ACCllllATlD LWNINI JOTALI 1itu ITINEIAIIT 1HllUC110N 0110 lfGULAII CllllflCAJfD UC IU IOCIAL RQJIIJY JAJI uc\n,u 1N-....... J~u llllflAlll IHllOCJION fOTALI IUU Actual 1ffl/9J HO,..,..,, Iii ,\u0026gt;VI .If Ml ,111111.11' ludl,et 1991/94 1u.,11.uo 111., ..... 111 Actual Ot/Jl/94 11.ne.24 111 , 11141. 16 IIJ .,,, .JO 11.uu.ll 14n.n IH.14l.l4 t.J.\u0026gt;11.U'I IH,927.6J \u0026gt;lU.UU llZ, 119.117 UllU HIU.M CHJlflCAlff lll,U'4.UU 11l1111.JII U,r.,a.'6 IH '1J.JII UllU IOCl11l ~WIIJY JAJI nee.JU .,,.,,.11.J Hao.DZ 11,114.11 \"' 1994/95 11.,0 Ol411 IN.....ur ~!!~f utz.,u 1161. l-------11,11u~u'l\"'E'\"ICUl:\n.:Cl~l\nOlll\n-.:..=::===--,,.,,o-','in..,1r------------t--,,muF-tPfp:irtr--1_1!_!rTi.ri,.r,:,,r.nllJ--t---,14:r,111r9t ---,11rrr6R7,.,J1.U\u0026gt;a.nU-.O-.. J1rr1t--r11.-.. ,,x10 '\"O IIIMl\u0026lt;UID AIII IIOSPIJAL 1--------------i,0'1nlr-U-::l'tUUUllll\nijn:~~:~1nl1rr.1' 7.t\nAll~V---------+---'-.:'-jiuLj\"m''\"7'm -'f----'-j\"'j'r'ij,_rn.llOn-f---\"='iif tl69Ur.Il\"llT\"'_ _, ilZ4r,riJUYr.OOW-f----'1..\n...w-j ~ 11~111 IOC_!A~~DJllfY fAll l\\,'49.00 I_! 546.01 nu.Tl ,1 ,aJa.ll 0l40 !Na.Ma 11 ,r,.u ll.1.'61.,Z 14JJ.IJ 11,,uu.OO ll4U IICMIIU.III AND IIIUM\"llM. JOHLi H.l..41t,~ IZ4, .. n.JJ 11u.1111.1.JJ Ml, 161.U 111111 11'1ED ,._ JALUTED l-------------iiUl'jl.,.-U-ilOC\n:.'\n1i.'.Al~lf~CUl'--':.\n.clll'-'-Y_l.c...All--'-----------\n---,i'[T~! uc,u llstMAIICI 11 ,\u0026gt;46.!) 1Y1u Clflfll AIIO tALHllD JOTALI Ul .zu.11 l11J SOCIAL lJIIK IEIVICll au na.91 11 ,lOY.JJ wrw.,Y 11,J60.19 ., ..... uu 11'1',nu.n 1.w 0.60 0.60 UllU IElllA.AII IICll-alllflCAUD IO.UU I0.00 H ,.J\u0026gt;.J.UU 110,!\u0026gt;Y.UIJ U.\u0026gt;~ l------------iuc.,1ii-,u-.:-~:111ir'Li,\nn\n_...,..r-T,1111 1yrrn,1111---------,---10u-.mruu1 ---u111-.M\"\"\"oo--\"\"194lmwlr.IT491--n,11,zl'r11. ..\u0026gt;... r-+1-----t P1gt 114 lll40 INSURAIICI IO.UU ID.DO 11116. 16 90\u0026gt;U.00 l11J SOCIAL lJIIK lflVICH JOTALI IO.UU 111.00 H ,NY.24 111 ,9J7.'1 ZlZO GUIOANCf lllVICES 0110 lElllA.AII aaTIFICATED U(IU SOCIAL lfCUIITY TAIi ucc~II INSURAIICI lllll GUIDANCE lflVICU lOHLI l1\" IIUUING SUVICU UllU lfQJI.AII -CIITlflCATID u\"u SOCIAL lfCUIITY TAIi OZ4U IN\u0026gt;UIUUlut Z1J4 PIING IEIVICfS JOlALI wru ,u.....,a H.J6l~ .cc,,, 11').19 HCC ,,,.,, ,)9 IZ4,Yfl.J1 11,YIU.JZ '1.M.\u0026gt;0 zf.620.JJ .a,,zo.01 tl,fY'l'.U nc1.oo 140,67U.OO 5J, 111.ll .,,,.,.,.w SU.11111.lO -,,cc,.,,-,.uu ll6, 1J4.'6 11.~o 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.w Date: 0J/2J/94 J , ... : 1J:44 FU'lCtlon m\u0026gt;Ject Departaent Code D11crlptlon Code D11crlptlon STEPHENS flfHENTAIY 0041 2 2 SCHOOl LIIIAIY SERVICES IECilJI.U 11011-aRTIFICATED SOCIAL lfMITY TAIi INSUUIICf IUPl'LIH Page 115 little lock lchool Dl1trlct Dpertant ludeet  OOfl Actual '\"ll9J ludget 199J/94 Actual 01/]1/94 ludget 1994/95 PIOG: IIU\u0026gt;OOZ fff 1994/95 Exhibit 8 1994-95 LRSD PRINCIPA.I.SHIP CHANGES May 18, 1994 In accordance with the request in the Court's Order dated May 9, 1994 regarding the schools affected by changes in principalships for the 1994-95 school year, the schools which will have principal changes due to assignments/reassignments (per A.C.A.  6-17-303), early retirements, resignations from the District, etc. are as follows: Bale Elementary Baseline Elementary Carver Magnet Central High School Cloverdale Junior High Fair High School Fair Park Elementary Forest Heights Franklin Elem. Gibbs Magnet Henderson Junior Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Junior Mitchell Elem. 49 Rightsell Elem. Romine Interd. Southwest Junior Washington Mag. Williams Mag. Wilson Elem. Exhibit 9 SE'ITLEMENT LOAN REPAYMENT Discussions are currently underway between the District and the Arkansas Department of Education to develop the criteria for measuring student achievement increases as descnbed in the March 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Settlement Agreement Strategies are also being developed to address loan repayments that might arise should the student achievement increases fail to meet the agreed-upon criteria. Due to the uncertainty of the measurement criteria, amounts for any potential repayments have not been included in the five-year projections included elsewhere in this submission. It is arguable that the first year to be impacted by a loan repayment would be 1997-98 where a $300,000 payment could be due. All of this is stated with the proviso that the District may have legal and other remedies available to it to address this matter. All such legal and other remedies are hereby reserved and no waiver or concessions are either being made or intended by supplying this information pursuant to the Court's order. 50 u, ...... IU I 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 II Page 1 of6 1 ask uescnpt1on Prepare initial financial forecasts for coming year. Issue lnslfllclions for budget preparation al all levels. Develop budget preparation training material. Conduct budget preparation training sessions. Budget manager, submit 94-9S budget requests. Begin budget development. Revise financial forecast for coming year Submit proposed budget to Board. Conduct Board work sessions on budget. Revise budgets, as needed. Secure seniority list. DRAFT llttle Rock School District Budgeting Menegement Tlmellne o/e Comp. :start IOOo/ Dec I '93 100% Nov 30 '93 100% Nov 18 '93 100 Dec 6 '93 100% Jan 14 '94 100% Jan 18 '94 100% Marl '94 100% Mar 24 '94 100% Mar28 '94 60% Mar 24 '94 100% Apr I '94 FY 95 ExhlbltlO 1m1sh Resources Feb 11 '94 Milhollen Dec 3 '93 Milhollen Nov 30 '93 Milhollen Dec 17 '93 Milhollen Feb 28 '94 Milhollen Jan 18 '94 Milhollcn Apr IS '94 Milhollen Mar 24 '94 Milhollcn AprlS'94 Milhollen Jul 28 '94 Milhollen Apr 14 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 5/18/94 U1 N little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmellne JLJ 1 asK ucscnpt1on Comp. -Start 12 Identify elementary enrollment (tentative) for 1994-95 and determine teachers 100% Apr I '94 needed. 13 Review master schedules. Note possible cuts based on low classes. 100% Apr I '94 14 Make determinallon by subject area (secondary) of possible reductions and 100% Apr I '94 elementary enrollment. IS Verification of need, based on manpower report and by program (program 100% Apr I '94 managers and principals). 16 Check results oflD#'s 12-15 against known retirement, resignations, and 100% Apr 20 '94 intern positions. 17 Identify teachers for Reduction In Force (RIF), if needed. 100% Apr 20 '94 18 Board approval of RJF, if needed. 100% Apr 28 '94 19 Notify certified personnel of possible staff reduction. 100% Apr 29 '94 . 20 Prepare modified tentative budget. 15% Apr 25 '94 21 Board of Directors work session on budget. 100% May 12 '94 22 Board approval of modified tentative budget. 00/4 May 2 '94 Page 2 ol 6 FY95 l-lnish Kesources Apr 19 '94 Gadberry,Hurley Apr 14 '94 Gadberry,llurley Apr 19 '94 Gadberry,llurley Apr 19 '94 Gadberry,llurley Apr 26 '94 Gadberry.Hurley Apr 29 '94 Gadberry.Hurley Apr 28 '94 Gadberry.Hurley Apr 29 '94 Gadberry.Hurley May 18 '94 Milhollen May 12 '94 Milhollen,Board May 26 '94 Milhollen,Board, Williams 5118194 (.1l w Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmeline IU 1 ask Ucscnpllon 'Yo Comp. Start 23 Evaluate early retirement incentive numbers. 0% May 20 '94 24 Recall from RIF, if needed. 0% May 23 '94 25 Review ofOulsourcing 48% Feb 17 '94 26 Notify classified personnel of staff reduction. 0% May 3 '94 27 Account reconciliation and Purchase Order (PO) cleanup. 0% Jun 15'94 28 Receipt of state-generated revenure numbers {payroll liabilities, adjusted 0% Jun IS '94 supplemental payroll, last payroll, Carl Perl\u0026lt;ins, M to M, JTPA, Voe Ed, Sp Ed, Chapters I and 2, Compensatory Education, MFPA, Transportation, ABC). 29 Prepare proposal to temporarily relocate Stephen's students. 100-/4 Mar 29 '94 30 Evaluate final proposal to temporarily relocate Stephen's students. 20'1. Apr29 '94 31 Submit to court (if approved by Board) proposal to temporarily relocate 0% May 6 '94 Stephen's students. 32 Court hearing on modified tentative budget. 0% May 25 '94 33 Prepare proposal for second school closing. 75% Apr2S '94 Page 3 or 6 FY 95 F,nisn Resources May 22 '94 Gadbcrry,llurley Jun I '94 Gadberry,llurley Jun I '94 Williams,Milhollen,Mayo May 31 '94 Gadberry ,Hurley Jul 15'94 Milhollen Jul IS '94 Milhollen Apr 28 '94 Williams,Council May 18 '94 Williams.Board May 20 '94 Williams.Board May 26 '94 Williams Jun I '94 Williams.Council 5/16/94 Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmeline IU 'I ask 1.Jcscnpt1on %Comp. Start Fm1ili Resources 34 Evaluate final proposal for second school closing. 0% Jun 2 '94 Jun 9 '94 Williams.Board 35 Submit 10 court (if approved by Board) proposal for second school closing. 0% Jun 9 '94 Jun 13 '94 Williams.Board 36 Review philosophy and/or objectives for incentive schools' programs. 100% Apr 25 '94 Apr 28 '94 Mallhis,Curriculum Supervisors 37 Schedule and hold meetings for organizing the project. IOOo/. Apr 28 '94 Apr 28 '94 Mallhis,Currlculum Supervisors 38 Establish framework for: instructional day\ncurriculum offerings\nservices and 100 Apr 28 '94 May 17 '94 Mallhis,Curriculum Supervisors support programs\nmaterials/supplies/equipment\nstaffing needs and staff develoment needs. 39 Relate program recommendallons to program offerings In designated area and 40% May 17 '94 May 31 '94 Mallhls,Currlculum Supervisors magnet schools. 40 Develop business case for Incentive schools' program modifications for 40 Apr 28 '94 May 31 '94 Mallhis,Currlculum Supervisors submilling to Superintendent and Council. 41 Review Incentive schools' program modificallons with Council. 0% May 31 '94 Jun I '94 Mallhis,Curriculum Supervisors 42 Submit business case for incentive schools' program modifications to Board of 0% Jun 2 '94 Jun 9 '94 Willian1s,Board Directors. 43 Submit to Court (If approved by Board) Incentive schools' program 0% Jun 9 '94 Jun 13 '94 Williarns,Board modifications. 44 Request for Proposal (RFP) on outsourcing mailed. 100 May 6 '94 May 6 '94 Mayo,Montgomcry Page 4 of 6 FY 95 5/18/94 u, u, IU I ask ucscnpl1on 45 Pre-proposal conference on Outsourcing. 46 Proposals due on Outsourcing. 47 Board of Directors' decision on Outsourcing. 48 Court hearing-status report on 1994-95 modified lenlalivc budget. 49 Close-out of 1993-94 accounts: adjust physical inventory, (fiscal) federal grants, magnets, stale grants, accruals so Compule ending fund balance. 51 Adminstralive review of budget. 52 Submit to Board 1994-94 Budget. 53 Court hearing on 1994-95 proposed budgets of LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD. S4 Board review and adoption of94-9S Budget. 55 Submil 94-95 Budge! lo Court/Parties. Page 5 of 6 little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmeline o/.Comp. Start 100 May 16 '94 O May 30 '94 O Jun 9 '94 Oo/o Jun 28 '94 0% Jul I '94 O Jul 21 '94 O Jul 22 '94 O Jul 25 '94 0% Jul 27 '94 0% Jul 28 '94 O Aug I '94 FY 95 t 1n1sn Kesources May 16 '94 Mayo,Monlgomery May 30 '94 Mayo.Montgomery Jun 9 '94 Williams.Board Jun 29 '94 Williams Jul 20 '94 Milhollen Jul 21 '94 Milhollen Jul 28 '94 Williams.Council Jul 25 '94 Williams Jul 29 '94 Williams Jul 28 '94 Board Aug 22 '94 Williams 5118/94 u, O'I IU Task Uescnpllon 56 Submit 94-95 Budget to State. Page 6 of 6 Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmalina %Comp. Start ~-m,sh Kesources 0% Aug 22 '94 Aug 26 '94 Board,Milhollen FY 95 5/18/94\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_1575","title":"Court filings concerning school construction, attendance, and finance, district planning, integration, and law","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-04-01/1993-04-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School buildings","School facilities","School management and organization","School employees","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning school construction, attendance, and finance, district planning, integration, and law"],"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/1575"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["42 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_887","title":"''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993-04/1993-06"],"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"],"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/887"],"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":["39 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1519","title":"Court filings: Dictrict Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) academic support program","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-03-26"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Standards","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","School employees","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Dictrict Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) academic support program"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1519"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1542","title":"Court filings concerning North Little Rock School District educational law and integration, and Little Rock School District educational law and planning","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-03"],"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","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning North Little Rock School District educational law and integration, and Little Rock School District educational law and planning"],"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/1542"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1002","title":"Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Magnet schools","Aviation Education Programs (U.S.)","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant"],"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/1002"],"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":["160 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n~ ~ cJ7 kt ... [(1 ~ '--.rc/4-+,/( 4-/1 ~ \u0026amp;iv ~ ~ (.,(2 51) VlA) ~ t ~~ ~7()#1 ~ad, ~ ~~t vT 12\u0026lt;-~ ~~ ~ V\n,,d(: :--\"'\" ~ ,/4_,, ,\u0026amp;,, ~'4 6'-4..d-~al~ -- ~ t2U J ~ :__ (ll_,_ /1 :\u0026gt; ~ ~uL__ ~~ - ~~~ _7 r t11JJT ~ d ,,z /V1t2-J2- /f\nJa,o -\u0026gt; UH 1J /1 ivo U2JtJ ~ 6f/f/6 tv 'I ~ f- ~- ge,t-/4:_ CJ..L [J\n6~ - S'~ j ~ OOM \u0026lt; Ed) (J' - \u0026lt;#$Cl\u0026gt; - ~ ~ ~t.f' ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 cJ3 / S\u0026lt;(Ct -Cl ltd \u0026lt;id~ Jwv 9\n) t/a_ M~~ 61508 Federal Register / Vnl. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 280 RIN: 1810-AA63 Maanet Schools Assistance Program AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Final regulations. SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations governing the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). These amendments are needed to improve administration of the program and to enable the Secretary to select applications for funding .that best demonstrate promise of achieving the purposes of the program. EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations take effect either 45 days after publication in the Federal Register or later if the Congress takes certain adjournments. If you want to know the effective date of these regulations, call or write the Department of Education contact person. A document announcing the effective date will be published in the Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sylvia Wright, Chief, Magnet Schools and Desegregation Branch, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 2059, Washington, DC 20202--6246. Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1- 800-877-8339 (in the Washington, DC 202 area code, telephone 708-9300) between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern time. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These amendments are based on the Department's experience in implementing the program over several years. These final regulations also complement the President's AMERICA 2000 strategy by requiring that, in order to receive MSAP assistance, local educational agencies (LEAs) demonstrate how well their proposed magnet schools will provide highquality educational programs in desegregated learning environments that are designed to improve significantly the academic and vocational skills of America's students. On August 12, 1992, the Secretary published a notice of proposed rulemalcing (NPRM) for this program in the Federal Register (57 FR 36324). As a result of public comments since publication of the NPRM, the Secretary has made the following revisions:  Section 280.20 has been revised to clarify that, in determining the eligibility of an applicant's voluntary desegregation plan, an LEA will be asked to submit ad,iitional information only after the Secretary has reviewed the enrollment data and other materials the LEA has submitted with its application and determined that additional information is necessary to assist the Secretary in determining the eligibility of the LEA's plan.  Section 280.32(d} has been revised to explain further the factors used to evaluate an applicant's need for assistance. Note: These final regulations do not solicit applications. A notice inviting applications under this competition is published in a separate notice in this issue of the Federal Register.  Analysis of Commenlll and Changes regulations in this document do not require transmission of information that is being gathered by or is available from any other agency or authority of the United States. List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 280 Civil rights, Desegregation, Education. Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs-education, Magnet schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.165A Magnet Schools Assistance Program) Dated: December 18, 1992. Lunar Alexander, Secretary of Education. The Secretary amends part 280 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPRM, six parties submitted comments on the proposed regulations. An analysis of the comments and of the changes in the regulations since publication of the NPRM is published as an appendix to these final regulations. - follows: Substantive issues are discussed under the section of the regulations to which they pertain. Technical and other minor changes-and suggested changes to sections of the regulations that were not discussed in the NPRM-are not addressed.  Executive Order 12291 These regulations have been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12291. They are not classified as major because they do not meet the criteria for major regulations established in the order.  Intergovernmental Review This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for this program. Assessment of Educational Impact In the NPRM the Secretary requested comments on whether the proposed regulations would require transmission of information that is being gathered by or is available from any other agency or authority of the United States. Based on the response to the proposed rules and on its own review, the Department has determined that the PART 280-MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for Part 280 continues to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3021-3032, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 280.2 is amended by redesignating the undesignated introductory text as paragraph (a), redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively, and adding a. new paragraph (b) to read as follows:  280.2 Who la ellglble to apply for  grant? (b) The Secretary approves a voluntary plan under paragraph (a)(2) of this section only ifhe determines that for each magnet school for which funding is sought- (1) The magnet school will reduce, eliminate, or prevent minority group isolation within the period of the grant award, either in the magnet school or in a feeder school, as appropriate\nand (2) The establishment of the magnet school will not result in an increase of minority enrollment, at the magnet school or at any feeder school, above the districtwide percentage of minority group students in the LEA's schools at the grade levels served by that magnet school. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3022) 3. Section 280.4 is amended by _. designating \"Minority group isolation\" in paragraph (b) as a separate definition by italicizing the words \"Minority group isolation\" and adding a definition for \"Feeder school\" in alphabetical order to read as follows:   F:\" ont DUAL! TY COt it IEC T IIJl'I SEPV I CES PHONE No. 310 598 6773 Jan. 22 1993 8 :20AM P02 Federal Regfster / Vol. 57, No. Z48 I ThW'lday, Deoemher 24, 1992 / Rulea and Rogulatlont 6150! . l :,.. l I .I i I I l \\ 1 I I 4 t 290 4 wnet de1\\nttton1 1ppty lo thle p,9g1,m? Fe-,rlrr school mun~ 1 school from whic:h 5tudonts ue dr11wn to stl\\lnd 1 mognel $c:liool. 4. Section 280.20 l1 amondnd by adding now puHgr11ph1 (f') (4) and (5), rod\"~iRnAt!ng lhll cum1nt puRgroph lR) as puragroph (i), and adding now paregr~ph~ (g) and (h) to ~d as follows: I 2\u0026amp;c.?0 How doff OM -wiy for I gr1r,t'P (0  (41 For an LEA that tlffka assistance for existing m11gnet 1ehool,- (i) Enrollment number11 and percentegea, for minority and nonminority group students, for oach mego11\\ school for which funding ls IIQUl(\"hl and each ftl8der school- (,._) For the tchool year prior 10 the Cffiltlon of each magn,t 11\u0026lt;\nhool: (8) For the school year In which the applicatlon Is  ubmllled : an,I (C) For each of the two scln\u0026gt;ol years ortha propoaad grant cycl11 (i.e., projl'cied enrollment flgunu)\\ and (I i) Obtrlc:tw!de enrollment number, and porcont1111e for minority iiroup student in the l..E/\\'s schools, for grade l11v1\u0026gt;la Involved In th11 appllcant's mr.net r.hool, {8 .g., K~, 7-0, 10-12}( M for the school year prior lo the CNM1Uon of each magnet school: (ti) For tha school ye.r In which the application le whmltted: and (C) F'or each or lhe two school year of the propo1\u0026amp;d g-rant cycle (I.e., pro)IIC11td enrollment ngui,,11). (r,J For ,n LEA thet 1eeks u,luanc. for new magnet achool,- (1) Enrollment numbor, and percenteges, ror minority and non minority group 1tudent1, for Heh rnei\nnet 11chi\n,ol for which funding I sou~ht and for nac:h (iieder Jr.hool- (t\\) F'1ir tho i\n,\nhool yo~r In which the appllaition ia suhmitted: and (JJ) For each or the two ,\u0026lt;ehi\n,ol year,  of the propo~tld grent cycle (I.e., pro jected enrollment ligures)\nand (ii) Dislrictwide number1 and pereenteRet of minority group students In the l.l:A 'a achoola, for the l!ftld love!, Involved In the appllr..11nt '11 magnet IIChools (e .g., K~. 7-9, 1~12}- (A) For the school year In which th.a eppllcetlon II auhmllled: and (0) F'ot eaeh of Iha two school yea.,. oflhe propo11\u0026amp;d grant cycle (I.e., proloctod enrollment flgures) . (g) An applicant that does no\\ have an p11roveddesogregallon plan, 1111d demonRlrates that it cannot provide some portion of th11 ln!ormallon r\u0026amp;q l111stRd under IlAl'egreph~ (0(4) end (:1) vf tl,is \u0026amp;Ccilon, may pi\"Ovlde olhr inlurmntion (In llou orth,t portion of th'-' lnformetlon not p,ovldl'd In re~pome to par111tfRphi (1)(4) and(~) of thi~ ~1ctio11) to domon~trotu thnl the i\nn\u0026gt;ntk1n or Op(lrallon of its propo,\ned mngnut ~chool would reduce, eliminate, or prev~nt 1nlnorl1y group l,olatiotl In the Applicant's ichool, end would not result In an lncre111Ul or minority '1uilont l~olallon at one of Ule 11ppllcant't schools above the dlstrlctwlde pnrr.rntni!B for minority 11t11d1mts at the 11Bme grade levels as thote served In th m11g11et Jcbool. (h) AIIIIT ~lewlng the lnformetlon providod ln reRpon!MI to pal'lgreph (0(4) or (5) of tnb tectlon, or u provided undor paragnph (g) of this Mctlon, the Secretary rney 1'9qUett o\\hBt lnforrnatlon, If necetl48ry (e.g., d11mographlc det.e con011rning the 11t111nd11nr.o 11re11 In which the m11inat M\".hools are or wtll be located), to dotormine whethor to appl'Ove an t.A' plan.    !Approved by lht Office orM1n1sement and lhrl11nt uodor control 11urnber 181~$16) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3027) 5. Soctlon 280.31 ls 111vlsed to reed H follow1: 1,\u0026amp;0.31 wtiat ~ eritwt  doff the Secretary uN? T1:te Seaetery usu the followlnlJ solectlon criteria In avaluallng eech apl1Hcetlo1\\: . a) Plan of optrotlett. (2S point ) (1) The Secretl\\l')' review, e.ach eppllc1tlon 10 detem,lne lha quality of the plan of operation for the pto)tlc1, (2) The Socnllery detcirmlnM the exlent lo which the applicant dnmon\u0026amp;tratea- (i) The efrect.lv11net1 or Its mn110Ram11nt plan lo ensuN proper and llffl i:l ont Admlnl1tnlion of 1h11 pro)A\u0026lt;:1: (ii) 1'11,. 11Hi\u0026gt;ctlvenc,$~ af IIA pion to atte ln ~por,iflc outcomes thnt- (A) Will eccompllsh the purpose, of 1h11 program\n(DJ Arf! 1ttalnabl, within the project pflrlCld\n(C) An, mett\\1!'1lblo and quantlflsble: ancl (DJ For mulU-)'Mr projectJ, c.an be u,ed lo determine the proJIICt' ptogrM In m1111llng lh lntor,dad outcome : (IUJ The errectlvaneu or It, plan for ullllllns Ila N!\u0026amp;OUl'Cff and pertonnel to eclalnve tho obfectlvu or lha _projtoci, Including how well It utlllzn key porsonnul to complete tos.k and achlove lha ob}ocUvet or the project: (l't') How It will enture c,qual access 11nd l.nlatment for eligible project participants who havo bo(in tradltlonall\n unrl11rr11p~nled In COUl'tff or artivllio~ oIT,mid \u0026amp;ft part of the m11g1111t 11d1uol. e.~ .. wom,\n,n 11nd girl In mutliematics, ~lonco or technology coursc,A, nnrl dhabh+d Al,ud\"nts\nanrl (vi The AIToctlvenou or ii plftn to r11CTUlt 1tudenta from diffeN1nt 11ocial. oconomlc, othnlc, onrl m:iol bacltgrounde Into the mftgnet schook (b) Q1.1nlity of personnel. (10 point~) (1) Th Secr-etary t0vlew1 etr.h application lo detennlne the q11oliflc.Atlone or the pen:nnnel the appllr.ant plan lo URe on the projflct, (2) Tho Secffltary detAnnlnes the 11xtent to whlch- {I) The pmJect director (lf one 111 used) I, ~uallfied to msnage the project: (11) Other key par80nnel fll'II qualified to menage the proled: (Ill) Teechert who will provide Instruction In par1lc:lpating magnet tehool\u0026amp; are qualified to Implement the spBClel curriculum or the megnut 11Choola\nend (iv) Tho epplicant,  part orus nondlscrimlnetory emplo)'11'1frlll pl'tlctlr.es wlll 11nsure thet Its personnel an, selllcied for employm11nt without ~ard to ra~. rell11ion, col01, natlonBI origin, HX, age, ot dlublllty. (J) To detennlne J)flrtonnel quallncatlona the S:ratary con,lden1 experfenClll and training In fleld11 mlated to the ob)octlvet or the proftd, Including the by p!!nionnel'a knowledge of a.nd e~rl11n0t In turTiculum development and d11111gN111otlon ,tniteglH. (c) Quality of prof Pel derlgn. (35 points) (l) Th Sectelary revi- 111th 1pplieetlon to detmnln8 the quality or the proJect de.lgn, (2) The Secretary determinee the extent to whleh each m11gnet llchool for which fundlnK le 110ught will- (il f'oslor lntftl'K'tlon among iltudnnts of diffeMtnt ,()(\"Jal, economic, ethnic, Alld rftclnl background~ In cla~~mom actlv1tt1111, ntrecurrlr.ulu 1ctJvltle1, or other actlvitlo, In the magnet sr.hools (or, if 1ppropri1te, In the achoola In which tho megn11t school programs operate): (ill Addren the educallon1I Meda or th11 Rtudenls who will bo ontol111d In the mo~nol schools\n(Iii) fJ1rry out a high quality educatlonlll ptognm th.i will substanllelly ,treniithen 11tud1n11J' k.nowledgo o! mathemallet, ldenCA, hltto,y, English, fo\"'lgn lanRUt11t111, art, mu1h:, or vocttlon1I kill,: (Iv) f!nco\\1111ge gn,otnr ptirtntll declAlonmnltlng and lnvolvemflnt: and (v) Improve the racla I bol11J101t or 1tudents In the rpllc.nnt' echoob by r11duclng, ellmlnetlng, or preventing r,, inorlty gmup tsolntic,n In II tchool~. i1510 Fedenl llegister I Vol. 57, No.. 2-ta I Tbmsd\u0026amp;.y. December 24, 19~ I Rllles and Jtegvla\u0026amp;na l d) Bud~I aod .resoun:es. ~ points) (i) Applications based on plans er assistnnet, is aooght affords promise of The Secretary re~ each-applicatioe: momfication.s-of plans with achieving the purposes of-this program to determip lhe adequacy 0. the implementation dates not mor\u0026amp; tlia as listed in  280.1. resources. and tle cost-effedivuness. of five, Jll\u0026amp;n bemre the- Ju.fr l that fi:JJJmn (2} h determining the degree to which the budget form. project, including- the de\u0026amp;dliM date fi:ir applicatiofts. (5 the magnet scbool affon:ls- promise of ( H The. adequacy ol lhe facHities lhat pohm} achieving the purposes stated in -280.1, the applicant plans to use\n(ii) Applit\na\u0026amp;ns based on plans ~ the Secretary will evaluate the (2) The adequacy of the equipment. modifications. ol plans with likelihood that the applicant'\u0026amp; plaa t\u0026amp; and supplies that the applicant pl:a:nsto implementation~ moJ8. than- 5 yeus, achien desegmgaticm tlzmuglt the,use, o{ use\nand but uot more. than 10 yeara-before tlw a mapat school prognm will ha (3) The adequacy and reasonabl-eness July 1 that follows the deadlina dat\u0026amp; for successful in nidaciD8, ellininating. or of the budget i\u0026gt;r the project ht relation applications. fl point's) pnventillfJ minarity gmup isolation in to the ob~ of tlHJ ject.  liiH Applications based OD pbma or li\u0026amp;}lt of Its overall strategy. Factota the. (e)E-rtilttatiort plan.~ pcuts} Tl JllOdificati,w,a Qf plans with Secretary wiR consider include, out are- Secretaq determines the extent to implementation dates mo:a than 18 not limited to-which the evaluation plan for the! years bat not mare thane 15 yeanJ,ef\u0026amp;llle (i) The needs assessment conducted pni\nia- the ~J.y 1 lhat iellows the deadline da(8 by !he-~   ( 1) Indndes methods that ant- for applationa.. ,,. pomtJ)  (ii) Toe sm, ,elec6on b eed1, -et approprime for the project\n6i) ~~based m plans-as school\n' --.,.- (2) Will determine-bow aua:essful the modifications= 'Wilk. (iii} n. special CUJ\"Fk:\\H1!1m sel'eded project is ht meet.Ing.Im iDteaded implementation' mom than U for eaca JINl!IMlldiool\namt outco-. inclndmg its goals for years belmr\u0026amp; Ila Jul.r i tfiat follows_ tt. (iv) ll appropriaw, it11upplica:nl's. past  desegrepung ita atudant.s and dead.lme data m .,. ticatioas to points) performam ill ~lsrils ~a\u0026amp;. increasmgahldlllt achievamem\naad. (c) In-roln:ment'f1JIUllOl'ityg,r,up throoRlnse ob map sir:hooL   (3) Includes methods that ara cbiJdre.1t. (5 pmnta). (0 Co//obomtive ti/forts. 15 points) The-objective and that will prodtte6'data that (1) The Secretary gives special Sea:etary detennins the ex11111Uo are quanrifiabut. consideration to tll8 proportion of which the protect tbrwbidi lll8istaJN:\u0026amp; (f} Commibnf?flt alHl capacity. (10 mi.norily ~\"'P children iDYc\u0026gt;l-ved. I\u0026amp; the- is sought mvolvff ti- collabmati~ point\u0026amp;) (1} The-Seaeta,y ~-each approved~ pmt. efforts of institwmi. efbigtieir application '6 determin\u0026amp; whether 1b\u0026amp; (2) Toe Secretuy det.muJllll\u0026amp; ilia education, COIJHllunily-bMed applicant is likely to C\u0026amp;ftlif:we the percentage that represents a comparison o,ganizations, lh\u0026amp;appropriate-Stat'\u0026amp; , - magnet schoohwvities 1tft1tr.usistam:e ofthe-mnnberolminoritygroup educational agenq', or\u0026amp;Jt-, ether under iliia pen.is ROclengeu,wilable. children involved in the applicants organization. {:l.} The. Secretary delermme\u0026amp; the  -.l ,l 4 ~~ft~n~...] L- extent to which lhe applicant- a~ov..., _.._ ..,..m lo u- (Apprmzed by !ha Office ofManaaemenf and (i) Is committed to ilia magnet schools number of minority group dilld- B'udget under control number 18to-ost6J project: 8Dd enrolled in the applicant's schools. (Authorify~ 20 u.s.c. 30281 (ii} Has identified other resou:cea \\.o (3) The-Sec19tary awmv one- point for each 28 pescerlfage points-fhtt applicmt Appendix.-~ ef o.rmaeac. ..t caoctnitviintiuees .sw uhpepno rats fsoirs ttmhecme augnndeetrs iclihfso. o_l receives un d er paragrap h (c l ' }-6'thi Changes {2 111 s  ln~nft \"fable section. (Note:Thlsappendlx will not be codlfted program 1$ no ~t av8l  (d} Need fortn8isttmce-. (15 points} ft) in the Code of l\"edetaf ltegwationa.J (Appmred hy the Offiat of Mu.agemmi.t and Th\u0026amp; Secremy evaluates the applicant's ,. ' Budget under control nundm-Wo--0516} n88d for assistance-under this part, by I 2tlD.2. Vlllo llullgl..._ to apply b  '.: ' (Aulllerifr-20U.S.C. 3021~3032} considering- grant? '  ,,,  6. Section 280.32 is revised to read. as (i) The costs of:fil11y implementing tbe Comment: On COIBffleRter suggested-\". follows: magnet schools project as~ that urban~ be granted men,'.,,-.:. -- (ii) The reSfflln:etf ffl!l'labl\u0026amp; to the than two y~ ID show that a newly\n-   280.3:l How lupaclal. conaideratlon applicant to etm\"1 oot the proiecf if creatacl magnet pmsram hn reduaNI\n, .. t- ~ glvert to appllc:a? funds under the- progR!IR\u0026gt; went not eliminaeed, Ill' prevented minorify group fa) How special consideration is gjven. f.vided\nisolation. The cemmenter indicated rhit In addition to di\u0026amp; poiutaawmted under 'ii) The-9tentto-whidi the costs of . the two-yea,time frame f9 unreelistic:fe '.   280.31 , the-Secretary givesspecia} e pro\nect ~ tll\u0026amp;applicant's light ofthelienier!Jfhese districtsm'tlSt   consideration to the facloa. lisfild i-R resources: and  overcome to fflfflJC\u0026amp; PIICiaf isolation ancf   - paragraphs (b} through (f) of this fiv)' The-dif\u0026amp;ltlty el effedi'l'efy suggested that a three- or funr--year timSc., ,_ section-. 1118 maxiRMHll number of carrying out the approved plan and thtt frame for.reporting progress or 1t ~ .. _- ' poinls aWIHded for each factor is s1ated project forwhicli assistanc\u0026amp; fs sought, grant period would be mont realistic., \n.,__ in parentheses.  including consideration of how the Disc\u0026amp;ssian:Tbe Seaet\u0026amp;rJ belt  -t:.i.\n,\n~ lb) RecentAe:1\u0026amp;:of 1/te implementalion design of the magnet sdlool project- interpre(ed the Magnet Schools  ~\"X:\n.-, of the approved desegregtrtum plan. (5 . e-.g., th\u0026amp; type-el p!Og1111ft pn,posed, the Asslstam::e Act (MSAAJ to require-\u0026amp;~~ G- points} -location of the-magnet adtool within thtt year limit on graBf BWIH\"M under ' -- (1) TheSecretuy nvie.wseach LEA-fmpeds mtfm! applicant's aMlity program. See-20 U.S.C. 30:n. In ,\n: application tndeta,mme.the.nicentneu to-!1Ua:85Sfttlly amyout thnppro-,ed addfflOII, theSecretary\u0026amp;eliffes1tc of the lmplemeat.ati:oa date of the plan.  reasona1-te expecU\u0026amp;at witflin tl approved~ plan or (2) Th.e-appliantrecefves-\\!l)!c\u0026gt;lS two-year grant periodm l.EACll'l't ~-- modificati-. of tile l)lan. poinls, depen\u0026lt;lmg on tk ~ of ifs dmnonstrate a positm, change~~  .:.,. (2) The SeaefaryGetNJRine\u0026amp; che. n88d for assistance\nminority group isolation- in its\n/  recentnsss. of ta plan 'h,- assi8Jlmg ea (e) ~ of acMe,,e,nenf. (t-5- points} as a r8S1!lt of !he implemenfatfon ~IF:? fi. application fo 0118 oftl'le- foltowintf (1) The~ defmnines tlle-eldent magnet school Thtt Secretary .,.~~' . r.ategories:  to which !be ......:-. for wmch at .... _ di\"\"-\" that dJ ~ - rv,vv, apprea e8 URf Hn..-uny _ -~ - . .... Federal R.egister / Vol. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 61511 districts face in implementing voluntary desegregation plans and, accordingly, has not established numerical benchmarks to measure how well an LEA has performed under a MSAP grant. However, the Secretary seeks to award MSAP grants to those LEAs that best demonstrate promise of achieving the purposes of this program. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that the Secretary introduce some flexibility into the requirement that magnet schools not result in increases in minority enrollments in the magnet or feeder schools above the relevant districtwide average. The commenter suggested that a margin of five percent be permitted, because in many urban school districts the non-minority enrollment is very small and therefore districts struggle to enroll and maintain \u0026amp; critical mass of non-minority students in their schools. Thus, the movement of a single non-minority student may have a significant impact on the percentage of minority group students in a particular school. Discussion: Use ofan LEA's districtwide average as the standard for evaluating the effect of a magnet school on other schools in an LEA provides a school district with sufficient flexibility to tailor a desegregation plan to its needs so that the district can maximize its opportunities to promote desegregation. It also provides the Secretary with a standard that can be applied uniformly to all school districts when determining the eligibility of their voluntary desegregation plans, and that can be used as a reasonable gauge to measure if an applicant Is attempting to reduce, eliminate, or prevent minority group Isolation. Clianges: None. t 280.20 How does one apply for a grant? Comment: One commenter explained that neither the old regulations nor these revised regulations address the difficulty that districts with open enrollment plans bave, when see.king approval of a voluntary desegregation plan, in demonstrating the effect of the magnet school on surrounding schools, because the traditional concept of a \"magnet feeder school\" does not apply to these districts. The commenter suggested that districts with open enrollment plans be permitted to demonstrate the effectiveness of a magnet school by providing data on student assignment patterns for neighboring schools, that would have been applicable had the districts not had open emollment. Discussion: The Secretary believes that the regulations address this concern. Under, 280.20(g) of the regulations, an LEA that demonstrates that it cannot provide reliable data on magnet feeder schools may provide other information to the Secretary in support of its desegregation plan. This section provides an applicant flexibility in demonstrating the potential effectiveness of its magnet school if, because of the design of its desegregation plan, an applicant does not have data on feeder schools as required under  280.20(0. Therefore, districts with open enrollment plans may provide other information to demonstrate that creation or operation of their magnet schools complies with the eligibility requirements of this program. Changes: None. . Comment: One commenter suggested that  280.20(0(4)(iii) be clarified to indicate-(1) when the applicant would be required to submit \"other information that the Secretary determines is necessary\n\" (2) whether the information would be required of all or only some applicants\nand (3) whether the example provided is used for illustrative purposes only. If additional information will be required of all applicants, the commenter suggested that the regulations Indicate how applicants will be notified of the additional requirements. Discussion: The Secretary recognizes that there may be limited circumstances when an LEA may not be able to provide the information requested under 280.20(0(4) or (5) in the manner required by the regulations, or may not provide enough Information ~th its application to allow the Secretary to fairly evaluate its desegregation plan. The Secretary does not expect that every applicant will be asked to provide additional information In support of its desegregation plan. However, the Secretary wants to ensure that each applicant is given a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate its eligibility for this program. Therefore, if, after review of enrollment data provided with an application, or other information provided by an LEA to demonstrate its eligibility, the Secretary does not have sufficient information to approve a desegregation plan, the Secretary will request that an LEA provide additional information. Reference to providing the Secretary with demographic data to support a desegregation plan is included in this discussion for illustrative purposes only. Changes: The Secretary has deleted  280.20(0(4)(iii) and (S)(iii) and added a new section (h) to explain that, after reviewing the enrollment information provided with an LEA's application, or other information provided by the LEA under paragraph (g), the Secretary may request additional information necessary to evaluate the LEA's desegregation plan. Comment: One commenter suggested that the regulations indicate where in the application the applicant should provide desegregation plan data (e.g., enrollment numbers and percentages). Discussion: Instructions for submitting enrollment numbers and percentages, and any other information to support an application, will be provided in the application package. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations require applicants to submit in their application the data needed to ascertain their compliance with civil rights laws. The commenter expressed concern that some districts seeking MSAP funds maintain racially identifiable classes as a result of ability grouping and assign faculty and staff in a manner to identify ii$ schools for a particular race of students. Discussion: Under  280.20, an LEA must provide assurances of its compliance with civil rights laws in its application and upon request, must provide the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights with any information the Assistant Secretary finds is necessary to determine whether the assurances will be met. This provision of the regulations was not changed by the NPRM. Changes: None. 280.31 What Mlection criteria does the Secretary UN? Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed reduction of points for the quality of project personnel under  280.31(b), because it believes the success of each project depends on experienced key personnel who are knowledgeable about desegregation and magnet schools. Discussion: The Secretary agrees that a project must have qualified staff if it is to be successful and therefore has assigned significant points for this criterion. However, the Secretary has found that almost all applicants propose to use personnel who are qualified to conduct the project activities. In assigning the relative weights for the selection criteria, the Secretary determined that the criteria for project design and implementation, i.e., \"quality of project design\" and \"plan of operation,\" provide a more meaningful indication of the likelihood of an applicant's success In meeting the purposes of the MSAP. Changes: None. 61512 Fe4eral ltegi,ter / Vol. 51, No. Z48 I n.msd2y, December %4, 1992 / Rules and ReBulations Comment: One commenter feh that the regulations soould address perceived deficienciea in !h progmm. Specifically, the commenter recommended that the regulations be amended to limit funding to only magnet schools that serv\u0026amp; the school's entire student population and that operat\u0026amp; throughout the regular school day, to allow expendituJeS oo}y for the operation of the magnet school, and to disallow expenditures for a yeM of planning. DiSC11ssion:Th.MSAA de6nesa magnet school as \"a school or educational center that offen a special curriculum capable of attracting students of different racial backgrounds.\" The MSM does oot limit eligibility for MSAP funding to a magJ1et school that only involves an entin, student population and that onty opentes throughoot the.regular school day. However, under 280.ll[c), the Secretary evaluates how well an LEA's magnet school will assist an LEA to desegNgat\u0026amp; its schools. In this way, the Secn,taJ')' selects for awards tJiose applicants that best demonstrate promise of echieving the purpos\u0026amp; of the program. In addition, although the  MSAA permits funds to be used for planning and promotional activities, planning activities 819 limited to no more thaR 10 pen:ent of a grant award in any given year. Changes\nNODB. Comment: One com,-111..- felt that assigning paints Wider 280.31(c)(2)(iiil for a project's confonnanoa,with the President's AMERI~ 2000 strategy goes beyond the purpose of the law and therefore the existing regulations should not be changed. .DfSCTJsmm: Poin1t are- not assigned for a project's conformance with the President's AMERICA:2000 strategy. The selection factor evaluating thtt typ\u0026amp; of educational pn,gram that an LEA wm prrmde is based on the requirement in the MSAA that the magnet school pn:mde courses of instmcti{)n ro substmrtnrfty strengthen a student's knowfedge of academic subjects and marlcetabJe vocational sJciHs. The subjects that are identffi\u0026amp;d under-this factor a,e specifically induded in thi, MS.AA In desail\u0026gt;ing fh1I \"Uses of funds.\" Chtmges. None. CommeJJt7-0ne ronH1'1e!JteF fek that the points assigned to \"commitment and capacity\" under 230.31 ff) sooutd be im:reesed, to mah con4hmetioo of projects after Federal fund.1'1g ends a stronger requirement. TM cOlmJl8Jder indicated that ifdl\u0026amp; magJl8t programs are reducing minority 8\"l\"'P' isol\u0026amp;tNJII and are improving academic achievemeat they shoold be cootinuad. The commenter notad that u11der the current point assignment, programs are sometimes decnasecl or eliminated after the Federal funding ends. Discuss:ioA: n. 5ecretary believes that the criterion \"Commitment and capacity\" has t-n assigned significant points relative to the other selection factors, to ensure that applicants Jor, MSAP funds will continutt magnet schools programs. Data from previoosly funded magnet IICOO\u0026lt;\u0026gt;Js granu confinn that mast MSAJ\u0026gt;.funded programs are continued after Fedellll funding ends. In addition, an applicant must demonstrate under other selection fitdors, e.g., \"Collabonitive efforts,\" that U has sought other resources through which funds needed to contintte a project could be acquired. . . Changes: None. 280.32 Howlupacr.t can  llferMlon given to appicanla? Comment:Two cmmmm1ers fall the 10 points awuded for ''-recmtness, of implementation of ~roYed desegregation phm\" be retained. One comme11ts explained that reducing the points for this factor reduces th. advantage b newly desegregating districts that attempt to wiu puhlic acceptaoca of plans throogh th. use of new magnet schools. Another commenter- tel1 that districts that amtimraily revise desegn,geUon plans to adapt to changing cin:umstances and student needs shouM be rewanled. IAscussion:Tbe regulations contlmie to proYide am advantap to school districts that are implementing new or recently nmsed plans, bm reduce the relative Mrigbt of this special considenition factor. The Secrete?)' hM found that this criterion hH not resulted in 1t meeningft!l distinction among applicants since most 1tppliamts have received maximum points for it. For example, in the fiscal yeer 1991 g?Mlt competition, 85 percent of the appJicants received the maximum score-. Thi, alStricf's '1iesire to meet theeducational needs of its student's amf its desire to retain the support ofthecommmrlty mould bit sufficient incentmt fur implementing new plans or for ~ existing pfitM. Chan~: Hone,, Commfflt: Om, commenter said that n,duciug the pmits awarded b \"involv~ of minority 1fOOP students\"' front lrJ to S ,educes Ula competitiw ad1fllllt.age rw districts that are truly striving to meet the purpoS6'S of the-MSAP by tl'fldemking e,assiV9', drstrictwidG c:klsegfflglttion. Discr,SS(Jll: Tha pmnls for th1t proportion of minority group children involved in the applicant's desegregation plan was 111duced because most applicants }lava received the maximum points fm this criterioo and therefore it has not helped to detannine the Nllative lll8rit or applications. Also, the Secretary found that appli.ca:nts who had made progress in desegregating some schoola in their districts wore being penalized for their success. Tb. reduction in poirits for this criteri-On is intended to ensme that the weight given is rea90nably consistent with its value in determining the Ukely ~ of the applicant' plan to achieV\u0026amp; the pUJl)Ose oftheMSAP. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stau,d that the lanS(U8ge oitae regulations under \"need for uai:stance\" is inmiequate to pnm!Dt wealthy diatricts from reaming ftm.ds while poor dismcts are left uniunded. Another mmmenwsoggest. ed that. the factors used to enluata an applicant's need for 8S$ist11Da be eoq,end\u0026amp;d to g,ive applicants further gaidance on what information should be provided to address this criterion fe.g~ how will the Secretary asseS\u0026amp; m applicant's ability to finance the pmjecl). The commenter also noted that dus aiterion now refers ollly to the difficulty of carrying out the project for which assistance is s\u0026gt;ught and not the diffic:ulty of carrying out the applicant's desegn,ptiilln plan and the project for which ~nee is~ Discu.ssion:\"Need for assisuDC\u0026amp;  i.s an iJRportaDl aitarion for fwiding under the MSAP md, ac.coniingly, is a rewitively heavily weighted factor. Th\u0026amp; Secretary agrees laat additional guidance ou the flCUl3 that the Secretary will consider in evaluating this criterion will assist BA app\u0026amp;am in demonstrating its need for MSistaRE:e and will provide the Secretary with information to bettM distinguish lffllong applicants seeking funding. Information provided in an application in respcmse to this criterioa may induda (l) a budget for ti.Illy implementing the magnet schools p,ojed or a nanative discussion of msts for fuUy implementing tbe project that includes a breakdown of aU of the resouices that will be needed to fund the. project\n(2J a descri ptic,n of any special costs that, because of th. desii,, of the project. would be incaJnd in ~de, t~ implemnl the pn,jecl fully\nand (3:) a description of why die appli.caol does not bava lllf\u0026amp;:ienl fun\u0026lt;k without assistanc. under tbis Pfll8RDl to fully implement die~- Changes: Tbi Secretary .-.s nrvisaci this section to explain farthsr the factms used lo-evaluece au appliC811C'~ need fi:\u0026gt;r assistance. n. Seaetuy wilt nalxiate Federal R.egmer / Vol. 57, No. 248 I Thwsday,-December 24, 1992 / Rules and Regulstions 11513 an applicant's-need for assistance based on how much it will cost the applicant to fully implement the magnet schools project proposed in the application and the resources available to the applicant to implement the project if funds under the MSAP were not provioed. The Secretary will also consider how the design of the project impacts on the applicant's ability to successfully implement the desegregation plan as proposed. Commffit: One commenter suggestac1 that if the Secretary wants to reduce the collective weight of the special consideration facton, the points assigned to \"collaborative efforts\" could be reduced because the commenter felt that this factor does not de11Brve equal weight with \"quality of personnel\" and \"commitment and capacity,\" and does not merit more weight than \"budget and resources.\" Discussion: The NPRM did not propose a change in the points uaigned for this criterion. Currently, five points are awarded under S 280.32(f) fur this criterion. Changes: None. (FR Doc. 92-31222 Piled 12-23-92\n8:45 am) aUNGCOO!- II 61514 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [CFDA No.: 84.165A] Magnet Schools Asalatance Program\nNotice Inviting Appllcatlona for New Awards for Aacal Year (FY) 1993 Purpose of Program: Provides grants to eligible local educational agencies to support magnet schools that are part of approved desegregation plans. Eligible Applicants: Local educational agencies. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: February 19, 1993. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: April 20, 1993. Applications Available: January 4, 1993. Available Funds: $107,532,800. Estimated Range of Awards: $200,000-$4,000,000. Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,792,000. Estimated Number of Awards: 60. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Project Period: Up to 24 months. Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 - and 86\nand (b) the regulations in 34 CFR part 280 as amended. (Please note that amendments to 34 CFR parts 75 and 77 of EDGAR were published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, July 8, 1992, (57 FR 30328). Final regulations tt-. MM 19 amending 34 CFR part 280 are published in this issue of the Federal Register. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATlOH! Applicants must submit with their applications one of the following types of desegregation plans (1) a plan required by a court order\n(2) a plan required by a State agency or official of competent jurisdiction\n(3) a plan required by the Office for Qvil Rights (OCR), United States Department of Education (ED), under Title V1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title V1 plan)\nor (4) a voluntary plan adopted by tl!e applicant. An applicant that submits a plan required by a court, State agency or official of competent jurisdiction, must obtain approval for any modification to the plan from the court, agency, or official that originally approved the plan. A previously approved desegregation plan that does not include the magnet school or program for which an applicant is now seeking assistance under this program must be modified to include the magnet school component, and the modification to the plan must be approved by a court, agency or official, as appropriate. An applicant should indicate in its application if it is seeking to modify its previously approved plan. However, all applicants must submit proof to ED to approval of all modifications to their plans by March 26, 1993. If an applicant submits a modification to a previously approved s ~ \\ w J l \u0026amp;.-u..e.. ~@Mi\u0026amp;a~ Title V1 plan, the proposed modification will be reviewed by OCR for approval as part of this magnet schools application process. An applicant submitting a desegregation plan as described in 1, 2, or 3 above, must provide an assurance that the plan is being implemented as approved. An applicant submitting a voluntary plan or a modification to a Title V1 plan for approval by the Secretary must provide a copy of a school board resolution or other evidence of final official action adopting and implementing the plan, or agreeing to adopt and implement it if Magnet Schools Assistance Program funds are made available. FOR APPLICATIONS OR INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven L Brockhouse, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 2059, Washington, DC 20202-6246. Telephone (202) 401- 0358. Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (in the Washington, DC 202 area code, telephone 708-9300) between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern time. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3021-3032. Dat_ed: December 18, 1992. John T. MacDonald, Assistant Secretory, Elementary and Secondary Education. (FR Doc. 92-31223 Piled 12- 23-92\n8:45 am! ~ CODE 40CICH1-II  - .E.=n,- : GILIALI TY CON ECT IIJN '\nERIJ I CES PHDNE No. -r o \\ 'Pl c.K \\-\\-o \\ b-. rT fi1:,1'V\\ ', C-o. \\ \\ Q 1J. I f\\ f\\ \"310 59:::: 6773 Jan. 22 1993 8: 20AM P01 61514 Federal R~ater I Vol. 57, No. 248 I Thursday, Decembor 24, 1Qi\n12 / No!IC1!1 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ICl'OA Mo.: M,16SAJ Mtgr-..t ~hool, AHl t n~ ProgrM\nNqtlce Inviting Appllcatton, for New Award for F1cal v .. r (FY) 1993 l'urposc r,f Prusrom: Prov Id~~ gr11nts to t1llRlhl11 loi:~l educ11llonal \"W\"'d'\" lu ~ \\pport rnogne! r.hool, Iha! ~ttt pai1 of e1lprovlld dosogregotlon plsn~. f.ll8ible llppliconts: Lor.RI Rrh1c-.11tlC1nal 11:endo,, Deadline for Transmittal of Applicntinns: Fnbrunry 19, 1993. ~nd/lne for Jnltrgo\\'P.rnmrntal R!l1ew: J.ptil 20, 1993. Applications Available: January 4, 1!)93. Availab/11 Funds: $107,532.800. Estimated Range of A word,: $ 200 ,OOo-$4 ,000 ,000. Estimated ll~rage Siu of Awarth: si,192,000. Estim11ted Number of ,A.wordi\n: 60. Noe: The Oqpartment l not bound by an)' er.llmalea In lh 11 notice. Project Period: Up to 24 months. Applicah/11 Regulations: (B) The Education Depertment Gonoral Adminlmat!vo Regulations (EDGAR) In 34 CF1t p11ru 75, 71, 79, RO, 8\\, !12, 8!1 and 116\nand (b) the N!lfl.llstlon, In 34 CFR part 280 11 amendod. (PleHe note that amendment to 34 CFR pattA 'r!I and ,, ,,, E'OCAR Wllll'II puhlleh n In the 1.deral Rlgl.ater on WP\u0026lt;!nead1y, July 6, HIM, (51 FR 30328), Final rogulollona amending H Cf'f\u0026lt; part Zf10 ere puhl i~hod In thl8 im1e ol tho Fedrl RP.r.iih,r. SUPPL[MCNTAAY INP:OAMAnotl! Appliconts mu11t gubmll with thftlr ~ppli\u0026lt;:11tions OM of the followlnR typt19 of do~oi,:re?,otlon plans (1 l I plan re9ult\u0026lt;1d by II co\\lrt urdor: (2) a plan ro,,uirud by a ~!RIO eg!lncy ur o(lklftl or r.ompfftRnl jurl..Jir:11,.n: (3) e r,!11n r11quirod by the Offlce lot Civil Rights (OCI\u0026lt;), United States O(,partment of Ecluca1ion (F:D), undor Till11 VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title V1 plan)\nor (4) a voluntary plBn ndupluJ Ly tl,11 nppllcent. An applicant that ubmltt1 a plan requirod by a court, State agency or orficial of c\u0026lt;lmpetent Juriadictlon, must obtain 11ppronl [or any modification tp\nt~i:n from tlui couu agency, or lnat originally approved the ~Ian: A prevlou~ly approved ~fflRAtlon plan that does not Include 1h11 n1n14net school or progr,m for which an ftppllcant 11 now seeking u,lstance ~rnh1r thlLDrogr~: mu~rc=~'::\"to mclude th\u0026amp; . .!Dftil tchoo nt, abrei d the mo~r!!\n:.': ~~ ~ha o\n!t!\"ust agproved..lf I lleri n lficial ro rlete  It 1pproved  Tllio V1 plan, the pmpoM\u0026gt;d mi,tilnr.Allon wil1 l\u0026gt;\u0026lt;l r-ovinw11d hy OCR for approvAI n~ porl of thi~ rtiegnM ~ch0ola application process. An 11ppll(\nllol submitting ft dn~\"8rosntlon plan n, dMc:ribod In 1, 2, or J abuv~, must pmvlJI! an a,sur~nr.n that thu plan ls b.ilng lmploniorilnrl A~ eppr0vod. Au HJ)pll\u0026lt;:,ml 1uhmilllnR ~ volonlary plAn n, 11 modlricMl(')n lo II Tltle Vl plan for approval by the Se('.retary rnuat provldo  copy of a 11\u0026lt;:hool b\u0026lt;u\\J'd re!ll'\u0026gt;lutlon or nlhor evidence of final official action 11doptlng and lmplenuu,tln~ th11 pl11n, or ogl'0(1!r1R to adopt end lmplament It ifM~gnot Schools A~slstance Program funds ere made available. ~ AJ\u0026gt;PUCAn()HS Of' INl'ORltlATION C~ACT: StllVen l... Brodhouse. U.S. Oclp111'1mt1nt ofEduca!lon, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW .. room 2059, We~hlng1on, DC Z0202...{1248. Tal(lphona (202) 40t- 03S8. Denf and hearin~ lmpelre\u0026lt;l tndlvlduals may call the Fllderal Dual Party Reley Service t 1-8()()-877-8339 (in the Wuhlng1on, DC 202 ares coda. telephone 708-9300) 1,etwoen II a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern time. Pr-ovam A111horlty: 20 U.S.C. 3021 - 3032. 0~1.,d: l.'lecetmt- 18, 1002. John 't. MacDo11tld, llss/,t(lnl SIICT'f'fO,Y, BJlmontary 011d St1COt1dary td1.1001/ort , (Flt Doc. 03-31223 ,11..i U-2\u0026gt;--92: 8:0 am! '8LUHQ~~ ... ' ,, 1992 Guide to U.S. Department of Education Programs CONTENTS Introduction ii Glossary iii National Education Goals Offices: 1 Elementary and Secondary Education 14 Postsecondary Education 34 Educational Research and Improvement 44 Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs 48 Vocational and Adult Education 63 Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 75 Regional Representatives 76 Index or Programs INTRODUCTION This annual guide provides, in compact form, information necessary to begin the process of applying for funding from individual federal education programs. How to use this guide In the alphabetical index on page 76 programs are listed by both popular name and by descriptive words. The number after each index entry is the number that appears before each program title, not the page number. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (0MB) assigns most funded programs a number, shown in parentheses after each program title. The 0MB nwnbers are keyed to a more detailed description of each program in 0MB  s current Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (see glossary). The numbers in parentheses following each program narrative description refer to the National Education Goals addressed by the program. The six National Education Goals are listed on page iii. Block grants The Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendents of 1988 reauthorized and amended a number of elementary and secondary education programs, among them Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Chapter 1 gives states and local education agencies primary responsibility for conducting the largest federal program in suppon of education for the disadvantaged. Chapter 1 targets almost $5 billion to meet the special needs of disadvantaged children. Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, is designed to fund promising educational programs that state and local sources can suppon after their effectiveness is demonstrated\nto provide fllllds to purchase library and instructional materials\nto meet the special educational n~ of at-risk and high cost students\nto initiate and expand effective school programs\nand to allow state education agencies and local education agencies to meet their educational needs and priorities for targeted assistance. State education agencies are responsible for administering Chapter 2, while local education agencies design and implement Chapter 1 programs. How to apply for funding . While the federal government administers and distributes most fllllds allocated by Congress, some programs call for both state and federal administration. Under several programs, states administer federal grants under federal guidelines. In these state grant programs, individuals and organizations must apply directly to state agencies, as indicated in the column beaded \"Who May Apply.\" Under other programs, federal funds are distributed through grants or contracts directly to individuals, schools and school districts, libraries, museums, and organizations. Annollllcements of all competitions for federal grants are published in the Federal Register, and requests for proposals (RFPs) for all contract~ appear in the Commerce Business Daily (see glossary). Application information for federal grants or contracts can be obtained by contacting the administering office listed under the cohnnn beaded \"Contact.\" Written inquiries should be addressed to (name of administering office), U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202, unless another address is given. Telephone numbers of all contact offices are in area code 202 llllless otherwise indicated. Participation of private school students Programs that require that eligible private elementary and secondary school students and teachers be provided with services comparable to those afforded public schools have an asterisk () before the program description. Under these programs, the public agency generally is required to consult with appropriate representatives of private schools. The precise requirements for serving these students are contained in the panicular program regulations. In certain cases, further reference to the Department of Education General Administrative Regulations may be necessary. Some programs also authorize the implementation of a bypass (see glossary) to provide services dir~tly to eligible private school students and teachers when a public agency has failed to do so. These programs are indicated by a dagger (t ) before the program description. For more information on the opportunities available for private school students, contact the Office of Private Education (202) 401-1365. --Compiled by Alyce Jackson Office of Public Affairs GLOSSARY Bypass: When a public education agency fails to provide services authorized by federal law, the Secretary of Education may withhold fimds from that agency and may contract with a third pany to provide such scivices directly. This procedure is referred to as \"bypassing\" the public education agency. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA.): Published by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (0MB) and updated with looseleaf additions, this catalog dcscn\"bes all federal programs that distribute funds to states, organizations, and individuals. Toe numbers in parentheses after each program title in this guide correspond to 0MB numbers in the CFDA. For more details about any program listed in this guide, use its 0MB number to locate it in the CFDA. The CFDA is available in most major libraries or by subscription from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington. DC 20402, telephone (202) 783-3238. The domestic subscription price is $38 annually ($47.50 foreign), which includes periodic updated materials. Checks should be made payable to the Superintendent of Documents. VISA, MasterCard, CHOICE, and GPO deposit account orders accepted. Commerce Business Daily: A publication issued every weekday by the U.S. Department of Commerce listing all federal procurement invitations, including the Department of Education's requests for proposals (RFPs) for contracts. This publication is available in most major libraries or by subscription from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, telephone (202) 783-3238. The domestic subscription price is $261 annually, by first-class priority mail or $208 annually by regular second-class mail (six-month subscription $130 by first-class pricxity mail, $104 by regular second-class mail\nsix-month foreign subscription $130 pl!JS airmail postage). Checks should be made payable to the Superintendent of Documents. VISA, MasterCard, CHOICE, and GPO deposit account orders accepted. Contract: An award of money to carry out a specific task for a government agency, as described in a request for proposal (RFP) published in the Commerce Business Daily. Contracts are awarded to bidders submitting proposals that best meet the requirements of the announced work, within a competitive budget range. Currently unfunded programs: Once Congress bas authorized legislation, funds must be appropriated in order for legislation to be carried out However, appropriations are not always forthcoming following .the passage of legislation, and previously authorized or funded prcgrams are sometimes dropped from annual appropriation acts. Some programs authorized by Congress are never funded\nsometimes they are not refunded. In this Guide, the words \"Currently unfunded\" appear in parentheses under such programs. Federal Register: A publication issued every weekday by the National Archives and Records Administration listing all federal agency regulations and legal notices, including details of all federal grants competitions. Available in most major libraries and by subscription from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, telephone (202) 783-3238. The domestic subscription price is $340 annually, by regular second-class mail ($916 for firstclass priority mail)\n$170 for six months by regular second-class mail. Foreign subscriptions are $425 annually, $212.50 for six months. Checks should be made payable to the Superintendent of Documents. VISA, MasterCard, CHOICE, and GPO deposit account orders accepted. Grants: In direct grant or discretionary programs, awards are granted directly to those whose applications best meet the criteria for the work, as set out in the regulations of the federal agency published in the Federal Register. State formula grants or entitlement grants are made to the states in accordance with a formula based on the number of children or students to be served or on the amount of federal or state money available. In state-administered grants, the state itself is the grantee and may award grants to subgrantees on either a discretionary or formula basis. Local education agenc:y (LEA): An agency that exercises control over the public schools in a specific area within a state or territory, usually called a school district. Postsecondary school: Any public or private education institution of higher education beyond the secondary level, including two- and four-year colleges, technical schools, and universities. State education agency (SEA): An agency that oversees all public education within a state or territory, usually called a state department of education. 11 NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS 1. Readiness for School By the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn. 2. High School Completion By the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent 3. Student Achievement and Citizenship By the year 2000, American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography\nand every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning. and productive employment in our modem economy. 4. Science and Mathematics By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. 5. Adult Uuracy and Lifelong Learning By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. 6. Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-free Schools By the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. iii Office of Elementary and Secondary Education COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY t 1. Education for the Disad- Local education agencies (must vantaged-Grants to Local apply to state education agencies). Educational Agencies (84.010). Formula grants. Provides assistance to improve the educational opportunities of educationally deprived elemen-tary and secondary students who reside in low-income areas by helping those children succeed in the regular program, attain grade-level proficiency, and improve achievement in basic and more advanced skills. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 2. Education for the Disadvan- Local education agencies (must taged-Capital Expenses apply to state education agencies). (84.216). Provides payments Formula grants to states\ndiscretionary for capital expenses incurred as grants to local agencies. a result of implementing alternative delivery systems to provide Chapter 1 instructional services to eligible private school children in compliance with the requirements of Aquilar v. Felton.  3 . Even Start Family Literacy Local education agencies applying in Programs-Grants to Local collaboration with community-based Education Agencies, Commu organizations, public agencies, nity-Based Organizations, institutions of higher education, or and Other Nonprofit Organi- other nonprofit organizations\ncommu-zations (84.213). Improves the nity-based organizations or other education opportunities of nonprofit organizations applying in children in low-income areas collaboration with local education by integrating early childhood agencies (must apply to state education education and adult education agencies). Insular areas receive for parents into a unified formula grants. Indian tribes and tribal program. National Education organizations apply to U.S. Depart- Goals: 1, 3 and 5 ment of Education directly. Discre-tionary grants. *Elementary and secondary private school students and/or teachers entitled to services. tBypass available. CONTACT Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1682 Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1682 Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1692 Office or Elementary and Secondary Education COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued t  PROGRAM 4. Neglected and Delinquent Chllclren (84.013). Improves the educatioo of children up to age 21 in state-operated or supported schools for neglected or delinquent children\nadult cmectional facilities and cooununity day programs for neglected or delinquent children by providing supplementary education services to meet the special needs of these children. National Education Goals: 2, 3 and 5 5. Education for the Disadvan-taged- State Administntion (84.012). Provides for the administration of Chapter 1 programs. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3 and 5 6. Education for the Disadvan taged-State Program Im provement Grants (84.218). Provides funds to state eduai-tion agencies for direct education services in schools implementing Chapter 1 pro-gram improvement plans. 7. Follow Through (84.014) . Provides comprehensive services to children from lowincome families, who are in kindergarten and primary grades and who have had Head Stan or a similar quality preschoolexperience,and provides resources to develop effective practices for educating such children. National Education Goals: 2 and 3 WHO MAY APPLY State agencies providing free public education for children in institutioos for neglected or delinquent children, adult oorrectional facilities and for children attending community day programs foc neglected or delinquent children(must apply to state education agencies). Formula grants. State education agencies. Formula grants. State education agencies. Formula grants. Local education agencies (may apply to state education agen-cies). Local education agencies or other public and nonprofit private agencies, organizations, and institutions. Discretionary grants. *Elementary and secondary pivale school students and/or teac:bers entitled to~- 1B~ available CONTACT Compensatory Education Programs, 401-2699 Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1682 Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1682 Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1692 Office or Elementary and Secondary Educadaa SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS PROGRAM 8. Education for Homeless Children and Youth-State Programs (84,196). Provides assistance to establish an office in eacb state to coordinate education for homeless children and youth and to provide services to children in local education agencies. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3,4 and 5  t 9. Federal, State, and Local Partnership for Educational Improvement., (Chapter 2 ) (84.151). Assists state and local education agencies in improving quality and promoting innovation in elementary and secondary education.  10. Law-Related Education Program (83,123). Suppons projects in state and local education agencies and educates the public about the American legal system and the principles on which it is based so that students and adults may become well-informed and effective citizens. National Education Goals: 3 and 6  11. Arts In Education Program (84.084). Stimulates the integration of the arts into the education system by bringing together school and community an resources. National Education Goal: 3 WHO MAY APPLY State education agencies and local education agencies (must apply to state education agencies). State education agencies and local education agencies (must apply to state education agencies). Formula grants. State and local education agencies\ninstitutions of higher education\npublic and nonprofit private agencies, organizations or institutions. Discretionary grants. Very Special Arts, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Washington, D.C. *Elementary and secondary private school students and/or teachers entitled to services. tBypass available CONTACT Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1692 School Effectiveness Division, 401-1333 E.quity and Educational Excellence Division, 401-1342 E.quity and Educational Excellence Division, 401-1342 3 Offlce of Elementary 1111d Secondary EduaUon SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 12. Drug-Free Schools and Com- State education agencies\nGovernor's\nDivision of Drug-Free Schools and munities-State and Local and local or intermediate education Communities, 401-1599 Progra~ (84.186). Provides agencies or consortia (must apply to assistance to states for grants state education agency). Formula to establish, operate, and grants. Local education agencies and improve local pograms of drug other public entities and private abuse prevention, early inter- nonprofit entities (must apply to vention, rehabilitation referral, Governor's office). and education in elementary and secondary schools. Also provides assistance to states for services to high-risk youth and for develop-ment, training, technical assis-tance, and coordination activities. National Education Goal: 6 13. Drug-Free Schools and Com- Public or private organii.ations, Division of Drug-Free Schools and munlties-Regional Centers institutions, agencies, or individuals. Communities, 401-1599 Program (84.188). Establishes five regional centers to provide training and technical assistance to develop and strengthen drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention\nand to evaluate and disseminate information. National Education Goal: 6 14. Drug-Free Schools and Com- Any organi:zation primarily serving Division of Drug-Free Schools and munlties--Hawalian Natives and representing Hawaiian Natives Communities, 401-1599 Program (84.199). Provides that is recognized by the Governor assistance to organi:zations that of Hawaii. primarily serve and represent Hawaiian natives for drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention programs. National Education Goal: 6 4 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 15. Drug-Free Schools and Communities-- Demonstration Grants to Institutions of Higher Education (84.184A). Awards grants for model demonstration programs coordinated with local elementary and secondary schools for the development and implementation of quality drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention projects that demonstrate the practical application of the findings of educational research and evaluation and the integration of that research into drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention programs. National Education Goal: 6 16. Drug-Free Schools and Communities-Federal Activities Grants Program (84.184B). Awards grants to support drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention activities. National Education Goal: 6 17. Drug-Free Schools and Communities-School Personnel Training Program (84.207A). Awards grants to establish, expand, or enhance programs and activities for the training of elementary and secondary school teachers, administrators, and other school personnel concerning drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention. National Education Goal: 6 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education. Discretionary grants. State and local education agencies\ninstitutions of higher education\nand other nonprofit agencies, organizations and institutions. Discretionary grants. State education agencies\nlocal education agencies\ninstitutions of higher education\nor a consortia of those agencies or instutions. Discretionary grants. CONTACT Division of Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 401-1258 Division of Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 401-1258 Division of Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 401-1258 5 Office or Elementary and Secondary Education SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 18. Drug-Free Schools and Communities-Emergency Grants (84.233A). Awards grants to combat drug and alcohol abuse by students. National Education Goal: 6 19. Drug-Free Schools and Communlties--Counselor Training Grants Program (84.l41A). Awards grants to establish, expand, or enhance proi\nrams and activities for the training of counselors, social workers, psychologists, or nurses who are providing or will provide drug abuse prevention, counseling, or referral services in elementary and secondary schools. National Education Goal: 6 20. Training Program for Educators- Innovative Alcohol Abuse Education Programs (84.238). Awards grants to train educators on problems associated with alcoholism in the family. National Education Goal: 6 21. General Assistance for the Virgin Islands. Provides general assistance to improv.:: public education in the Virgin Islands. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6  22. Inexpensive Book Distribution Program. SupportS the  distribution of inexpensive books to students age 3 through high school to provide motivation for learning to read. National Education Goals: 1 and 5 WHO MAY APPLY Local education agencies. Discretionary grants. State education agencies\nlocal education agencies\ninstitutions of higher education\nand consortia of those agencies or institutions. Grants may also be awarded to private nonprofit agencies that have an agreement with a local education agency to provide training in drug abuse counseling for individuals who will provide counseling in the schools of that local education agency. Discretionary grants. State education agencies\nlocal education agencies\ninstitutions of higher education\nand public or private organization agencies, and institutions. Discretionary grants. Note: Only noncompeting continuation grants will be funded in FY 1992. Government of the Virgin Islands. Reading is Fundamental, Inc. *Elementary and secondary private school students and/or teachers entitled to services. 6 CONTACT Division of Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 401-1258 Division of Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 401-1258 Division of Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 401-1258 School Effectiveness Division, 401-1333 F.quity and Educational Excellence Division, 401-1342 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 23. Ellender Fellowships (84.148). Assists the Close-Up Foundation of Washington, D.C., in promoting knowledge and understanding of the federal government to secondary school students and their teachers, and to older Americans and recent immigrants. (Closing dates vary with geographic location.) National Education Goals: 3 and 5 24. Consolidated Grants Applications for Insular Areas. Permits an insular area to consolidate two or more programs under one application to provide simplified reporting procedures and flexibility in allocating the funds to meet educational needs. 25. Desegregation AssistanceCivil Rights Training and Advisory Services (84.004). Provides technical assistance, training, and advisory services to school districts in the preparation, adoption, and implementation of desegregation plans and of effective methods of coping with the special education problems caused by the desegregation of school districts based on race, sex, and national origin. Assistance is provided by state education agencies and regional desegregation assistance centers. National Educastion Goals: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 WHO MAY APPLY Economically disadvantaged secondary school students\nsecondary school teachers\neconomically disadvantaged older Americans\nand recent immigrants. American Samoa\nVirgin Islands\nGuam\nthe Republic of Palau\nand the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. State education agencies\npublic agencies and private nonprofit organizations. Discretionary grants. CONTACT Close-Up Foundation, 1235 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Suite 1500, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 892-5400 School Effectiveness Division, 401-1334 Equity and Educational Excellence Division, 401-0358 7 Office or Elementary and Secondary Education SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 26. Women's Educational Equity Public agencies\nprivate nonprofit Equity and Educational Excellence Act Program (84.083). organizations\nand individuals. Division, 401-1342 Promotes educational equity Discretionary grants. for women and girls through development and dissemination of model educational programs and materials. National Education Goal: 2 27. Dwight D. Eisenhower State education agencies and state School Effectiveness Division, Mathematics and Science agencies for higher education. 401-0841 Education Program (84.164). Improves the skills of teachers and quality of instruction in mathematics and science and increases the access of all students to this instruction. National Education Goals: 3and4 28. Magnet Schools Assistance Local education agencies. Equity and Educational Excellence Program (84.165). Assists Division, 401-0358 eligible local education agencies in planning, establishing, and operating magnet schools that are part of an approved desegregation plan. National Education Goals: l,2,3and4 29. Christa McAuliffe Fellowship Public and private school teachers Equity and Educational Excellence Program (84.190). Provides apply to their state. Division, 401-1342 fellowships for outstanding teachers to engage in activities to improve their knowledge and skills and the education of their students. National Educsation Goals: 1, 2, 3 4, 5 and 6 8 Office or Elementary and Secondary Education SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 30. Native Hawaiian Gined and University of Hawaii at Hilo. Equity and Educational Excellence Talented Demomtration Division, 401-1342 Program (84.210). Provides financial assistance to the University of Hawaii at Hilo (1) to establish a Native Hawaiian Gifted and Talented Center at the University of Hawaii at Hilo\nand (2) to develop a series of demonstration projects for gifted and talented elementary and secondary school students, including identification of special needs, conduct of educational services, research, evaluation, and dissemination. 31. Native Hawaiian Model University of Hawaii\nKamehameha Equity and Educational Excellence Curriculum Implementation Schools\nand Hawaii State Education Division, 401-1342 (84.208). Provides financial Agency. assistance to implement, in public school.$, a curriculum developed by the Kamehameha schools. National Education Goals: 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 32. Native Hawaiian Family- Native Hawaiian organizations. Equity and Educational Excellence Based Education Centers Division, 401-1342 (84.209). Provides financial assistance to operate 11 family-based education centers for native Hawaiian children. National Education Goal: 33. School Dropout Demonstra- Local education agencies\ncommu- Equity and Educational Excellence lion Assistance Program nity-based organizations\nand educa- Division, 401-1342 (84.201). Provides financial tional partnerships. assistance to demonstrate effective programs to reduce the number of children who do not complete their elementary and secondary education. National Education Goal: 2 9 Office or Elementary and Secondary Education PROGRAM 34. Foreign Languages Assistance Program (84.249). Provides financial assistance to states, on a matching basis, to improve the quantity and quality of instruction at the elementary and secondary levels in foreign languages that are identified by the Secretary as critical to the economic and security interests of the United States. IMPACT AID PROGRAMS WHO MAY APPLY State education agencies. 35. School Assistance in Feder- Local education agencies. ally Affected Areas- Comtruction, Impact Aid (84.040). Provides assistance for the construction of urgently needed minimum school facilities in school districts that have bad substantial increases in school membership as a . result of new or increased federal activities\nthat serve children residing on Indian lands\nor that are substantially comprised of federal property. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 36. School Assistance in Federally Local education agencies. Affected Areas-Maintenance and Operatiom, Impact AiJ (84.041). Provides fmancial assistance to local education agencies where the tax base of a school district is reduced through the federal acquisition of real property\nor where a local education agency provides education for children who reside on or whose parents are employed on federal property, including Indian lands, or who are on active duty in the unifonned services. CONTACT School Effectiveness Division, 401-1062 Division of Program Operations, 401..()()43 Division of School Assistance, 401-3637 or 401-2651 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education INDIAN EDUCATION PROGRAMS PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 37. Indian Education-Adult Indian tribes, Indian organizations, Office of Indian Education, 401-1943 Education (84.062). Provides and Indian institutions. financial assistance, on a discretionary basis, for educa-tional services projects to improve educational opportuni-ties for Indian adults. National Education Goal: 5 38. Indian Educatioi-Formula Local education agencies\ntribal Office of Indian Education, 401-1907 Grants to Local Educational schools\nand schools operated by the Agencies and Tribal Schools U.S. Department of the Interior, (84.060). Provides financial Bureau oflndian Affairs. assistance for elementary and secondary school projects meeting the special educational and culturally- related academic needs of Indian children. 39. Indian Education-Fellow- Individuals who are \"Indian\" as Office of Indian Education, 401-1916 ships for Indian Students defined under the authorizing statute (84.087). Provides assistance, and regulation. on a discretionary basis, for Indian students to pursue post-baccalaureate degrees in medicine, clinical psychology, psychology, law, education, and related fields\nor postbaccalaureate or undergradu-ate degrees in engineering, business administration, natural resources, and related fields. 40. Indian Education-Grants Indian tribes\nIndian organizations\nor Office oflndian Education, 401-1943 to Indian-Controlled Schools local education agencies in existence (84.072). Provides assistance, no more than three years, and which on a discretionary basis, to operate a school for Indian children support enrichment projects to that is located on or geographically meet the special educational near one or more reservations. The and culturally- related academic requirement that a school be on or needs of Indian children in local near a reservation does not apply to education agencies estab- any school serving Indian children in lished no more than three years Alaska, California, or Oklahoma. and in Indian-controlled elementary and secondary schools. 11 Office or Elementary and Secondary Education INDIAN EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM  41. Indian Education-Special Programs and Projects (84.061). Provides assistance on a discretionary basis for planning, pilot, and demonstl'a tion projects and educational services for Indian children. This program also supports educational personnel development (EPD) programs preparing persons to serve, improve the qualifications of persons serving or provide in-service training to persons serving Indian students as educational personnel or ancillary educational personnel. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and6 WHO MAY APPLY Planning, Pilot, and Demonstration Projects. SEAs\nLEAs\nand Indian tribes, Indian organizations, Indian institutions, and federally supponed elementary and secondary schools for Indian children. Education Services Projects. SEAs\nLEAs\nand Indian tribes, Indian organizations, Indian institutions, and for certain projects, consortia of Indian organizations, LEAs, and instutiond of higher education. EPD Section S32l(d). Institutions of higher education, and LEAs and SEAs in combination with institutions of higher education. EPD Section S322. Institutions of higher education\nIndian tribes\nand organizations. MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAMS PROGRAM 42. Migrant Education-College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) (84.149). Provides special academic and suppon services to migrant and seasonal farm workers or their chiidren who are enrolled in college or university to enable them to eoo1plete their freshman year. National Education Goals: 2, 3 and 5 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education or  other public or nonprofit private agencies in cooperation with an institution of higher education. . Discretionary grants. *Elementary and secondary private school students and/or teachers entitled to services. 12 CONTACT Office of Indian Education, 401-1943 CONTACT Office of Migrant Education, 401-0740 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 43. Migrant Education-Coordl- State education agencies. Discretion- Office of Migrant E.ducation, nation (84.144). Improves ary grants and contracts. 401-0742 interstate and intrastate coordi-nation of Migrant E.ducation program activities. National Education Goal: 1 44. Migrant Education-High Institutions of higher education or Office of Migrant E.ducation, School Equlvalency Program other public or nonprofit private 401-0740 (HEP) (84.141). Provides agencies in cooperation with an academic and supporting institution of higher education. services to enable migrant and Discretionary grants. seasonal farmworkers or their children age 17 or older who have dropped out of high school to obtain a high school diploma or its equivalent and subsequent employment or further education at a postsecondary school. National Education Goals: 2, 3 and 4  45. Migrant Education-State State education agencies. Formula Office of Migrant E.ducation, Formula Grant Program grants. 401-0740 or 401-0742 (84.011). Establishes and improves programs to meet the special educational needs of children of migratory agricul-tural workers and migratory fishermen. 46. Migrant Education-Even State education agencies. Discretion- Office of Migrant E.ducation, Start Program (84.214). To ary grants. 401-0744 establish and improve programs to meet the special educational needs of migratory preschool children and their parents by integrating early childhood education and adult education into a unified program. National Education Goals: and 5 *Elementary and secondary private school students and/or teachers entitled to services. 13 Office of Postsecondary Education FEDERAL STUDENT AID PROGRAMS For information about loans, grants, and work-study programs to help students attend postsecondary schools, follow this procedure: First, contact the financial aid administrator at a postsecondary school. Second, write to Federal Student Information Center, P.O. Box 84, Washington, DC 20044, and ask for The Student Guide: Financial Aid from the U.S. Depanment of Education, 1992-93. For specific information about bow the Pell Grant eligibility is calculated, write to Federal Student Aid Programs, P.O. Box 84, Washington, DC 20044, and ask for the latest edition of the Pell Grant Formula. For further information call l-800-4FED-AID (433-3243), or contact the administering office of the Department ofF.ducation listed under \"Contact.\" 14 PROGRAM 47. Pell Grant Program (84.063). Provides grants to eligible first-time undergraduate students to help them meet the costs of postsecondary education. National Education Goal: 5 48. Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (84.007). Provides supplemental grants to assist students (who show exceptional financial need) who have not received first undergraduate degree in acquiring a postsecondary education. Priority is given to Pell Grant recipients. National Education Goal: 5 49. State Student Incentive Grants (84.069). Assists states in providing grant programs for postsecondary students and awards to eligible students for campus-based community service workinglearning study. The maximum grant is $2,500 per year. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Undergraduate and vocational students enrolled or accepted for enrollment in participating schools. Students must be enrolled at least half-time. First-time undergraduates and vocational students accepted for enrollment at participating schools. Grants can be awarded to students enrolled less than half-time. The recipient states can give awards to undergraduate and graduate students having substantial financial need. CONTACT Federal Student Aid Programs, 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) Federal Student Aid Programs, 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) Federal Student Aid Programs, 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) Office or Postsemndary Education FEDERAL STUDENT AID PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 50. Robert C. Byrd Honors The recipient states can give scholar- Federal Student Aid Programs, Scholarship Program (84.185). ships to academically meritorious 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) Makes grants to states to enable students who are graduating from them to award scholarships to high school and are accepted for promote student excellence and enrollment at public or private achievement and to recognize nonprofit institutions of higher exceptionally able students who education. show promise of continued excellence. Students may receive $1,500 for their first year of postsecondary education. National Education Goal: 5 51. Stafford Loan Program Undergraduate, vocational, and Federal Student Aid Programs, (84.032). Low-interest graduate students accepted for 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) loans made by a lender such as a enrollment at least half-time in bank, credit union, or savings participating schools. and loan association. Loans are insured by a guarantee agency and reinsured by the federal government. National Educa-tion Goal: 5 52. Supplemental Loans for Graduate, professional, and indepen- Federal Student Aid Programs, Students (84.032). Graduate, dent undergraduate students accepted 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) professional, and independent for enrollment at least half-time in undergraduate students are participating schools. eligible for loans of up to $4,000 per academic year. Interest rates are variable. For the 1991-92 award year, the interest rate was 9.34 percent. National Education Goal: 5 53. PLUS Loan Program Parents of dependent students who are Federal Student Aid Programs, (84.032). Provides loans of up accepted for enrollment at least 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) to $4,000 per academic year for half-time in participating schools. parents of dependent students for student education expenses. National Education Goal: 5 15 Office or POIUKOndary Education FEDERAL STUDENT AID PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 54. College Work-Study Program Students who have not received first Fedc:ral Student Aid Programs. (84.033). Provides part-time undergraduate degree and vocatiooal 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) employment for postseCOndary and graduate students accepted for students who need the money to enrollment in participating scbools. help meet the costs of their education. National Education Goals: 5 55. Perklm Loan Program Students who have not received first Federal Student Aid Programs, (84.038). Provides low-interest undergraduate degree and vocational 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) (5 percent) loans to first-tim.: and graduate students accepted for undergraduates and vocational enrollment in participating schools. and graduate students to help them acquire a postsee0ndary education. The school is the lender. National Education Goal: 5 56. Income Contingent Loan Limited to undergraduate students Federal Student Aid Programs, Program (84.226). Implements enrolled or accepted for enrollment 708-4690 a five-year demonstration at least half-time in one of the ten project starting with the 1987-88 participating institutions. award year. The project is being conducted with ten participating institutions to explore the feasibility of a direct loan program that use$ an income-contingent repay-ment plan as an approach to student debt manageability. National Education Goal: 5 57. Paul Douglas Teacher The recipient states can give scholar Federal Student Aid Programs, Scholarships (84.176). ships to undergraduate students to 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) Awards grants to states for attend an eligible institute of higher scholarships to outstanding high education to pursue courses of study school graduates who demon-  leading to initial teacher certification. strate an interest in teaching, to Students must be full-time students encourage and enable them to and maintain satisfactory progress in pursue teaching careers. order to continue receiving scholar- Students must have graduated ship payments. from high school in the top 10 percent of their class. Students may receive up to $5,000 a year. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 16 Office of Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 58. National Science Scholars Scholars are nominated by state Office of Student Financial Program (84.242). Provides nominating committees. Assistance, 7084607 scholarships to graduating high school students who have excelled in the sciences, mathematics, or engineering. The scholarships recognize the academic achievement of these students and encourage them to continue their education in these academic areas at the post secondary level. National Education Goals: 4 and 5 59. Student Literacy Corps Institutions of higher education. Division of Higher Education, (84.219). Makes available Incentive Programs, 708-8394 two-year grants to institutions of higher education to promote and operate literacy corps programs in public community agencies in communities where such institutions are located. National Education Goal: 5 60. Strengthening Program Postsecondary schools that meet Division of Institutional Develop- (84.031). Provides funds to certain eligibility requirements. ment, 708-8839 eligible institutions to improve their academic quality, institu-tional management, and fiscal stability in order to increase institutional self-sufficiency and strengthen their capacity to make a substantial contribution to the higher education re-sources of the nation. National Education Goal: 5 61. Historically Black Colleges Historically black colleges and Di vision of Institutional Develop-and Universities (RBCUs) universities. ment, 708-9926 Prognm (84.031). Provides support to strengthen various aspects of the schools through a formula grant program to accredited, legally authorized HBCUs. National Education Goal: 5 17 Offlcie of PClltlec:ondary Education  ffiGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued 18 PROGRAM 62. Challenge Grant Program (84.031). Provides funds to eligible institutions on a matching basis as incentive to seek alternative sources of funding to assist the institution to achieve financial indepen-dcnce. National Education Goal: 5 63. Endowment Challenge Grant Program (84.031). Provides matching funds to eligible institutions of higher education in order to establish or increase endowment funds\nprovide additional incentives to promote fund-raising activities\nand foster increased independence and self-sufficiency at such institutions. National Educa-tion Goal: 5 64. Talent Search Program (84.044). Helps identify and counsel eligible persons age 12 to 27 years, usually high school students, to complete high school and pursue and complete postsecondary education. National Education Goals: 2, 3and5 65. Student Support Services (84.042). Provides federal financial assistance to projects designed to assist qualified postsecondary students, at least two-thirds of whom are physically handicapped or lowincome individuals who are first-generation college students. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Postsecondary schools, including certain graduate and medical schools, that meet certain eligibility require-ments. Postsecondary schools, including cena,in graduate and medical schools, meeting certain eligibility require ments. Institutions of higher education\npublic and private agencies and organizations\nand, in exceptional circumstances, secondary schools if there are no other applicants capable of providing this program in the target areas to be served by the proposed projects. Institutions of higher education. CONTACT Division of Institutional Develop-ment, 708-8866 Division of Institutional Develop ment, 708-8866 Division of Student Services, 708-4804 Division of Student Services, 708-4804 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 66. Training Program for Institutions of higher education and Division of Student Services, Special Progra~ Staff and other public and nonprofit private 708-4804 Leadership Personnel agencies and organizations. (84.103). Provides grants for short-term training for leader ship personnel and other staff employed or preparing for employment in programs funded under the Special Programs for Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds. National Education Goals: 2, 3, 4, and 5 67. Veteran's Education Outreach Institutions of higher education that Division of Higher Education Program (84,064). Encour enroll at least 100 veterans with Incentive Programs, 708-7861 ages recruitment, special honarble discharges. education, and counseling of veterans by postsecondary schools. National Education Goal: 5 68. Upward Bound (84.047). Institutions of higher education\nDivision of Student Services, Provides financial assistance to public and private agencies and 708-4804 projects designed to generate in organizations\nand, in exceptional participants skills and motiva- circumstances, secondary schools if tion necessary for success in there are no other applicants capable education beyond high of providing this program in the target school. National Education areas to be served by the proposed Goals: 2, 3, 4 and 5 projects. 69. Educational Opportunity Institutions of higher education\nDivision of Student Services, Centers (84.066). Provides public and private agencies and 708-4804 grants to operate centers to organizations\nand, in exceptional provide financial and academic circumstances, secondary schools, if information about higher there are no other applic~ts capable education opportunities and of providing this program in the target assistance in applying for areas to be served by the proposed admission to residents of the projects. target area who are at least 19 years of age, with exception. National Education Goal: :'i 19 Office or Postsecondary Education IDGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 70. Payments to Institutions or Institutions of higher education. Division of Student Services, Higher Education. Makes 7084900 cost-of-education payments to institutions of higher education. (Currently unfunded) National Education Goal: 5 71. Spedal Child Care Services Institutions of higher education. Division of Student Services, for Di.sadvantaged College 7084804 Students. Provides grants to institutions of higher education to provide special child care services for disadvantaged students. (Currently unfunded) National Education Goal: 5 72. School, College and University Institutions of higher education and Division of Student Services, Partnerships (84.204). Makes local education agencies that enter 7084804 grants to encourage partnerships into a wriuen partnership agreement between institutions of higher which can include businesses, labor education and secondary organizations, professional organiza-schools serving low-income tions, community-based organiza-students to support programs lions, or other private or public that improve the academic skills agencies or associations. of public and private nonprofit secondary school students\nto increase their opportunities to continue education after secondary school\nand to improve their prospects for employment after secondary school. National Education Goals: 2, 3 and 5 73. Ronald E. McNalr Post- Institutions of higher education. Division of Student Services, Baccalaureate Achievement 7084804 Program (84.217). Identifies low-income, first-generation college students, and student~ from a group that is underrepresented in graduate education who are enrolled in a degree program at an eligible institution of higher education, and provides them with neces-sary support services to effec-lively prepare them for graduate programs. National Education Goal: 5 20 Office or Postsecondary Education ffiGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 74. NatJonal Resource Centers Institutions of higher education or Center for International \u0026amp;lucation, (84.015). Promotes instruction combinations of such institutions. Advanced Training and Research in modem foreign languages Branch, 708-7283 and area and international studies critical to national needs by supporting the establishment, strengthening, and operation of such centers at colleges and universities. 75. Language Resource Centers Institutions of higher education or Center for International \u0026amp;lucation, (84.229). Establishes and combinations of such institutions. Advanced Training and Research operates language training Branch, 708-6280 centers which shall serve as resources to improve the Nations capacity to teach and learn foreign languages. 76. Undergraduate International Institutions of higher education\nCenter for International \u0026amp;lucation, Studies and Foreign Lan- combinations of such institutions\nInternational Studies Branch, guage Program (84.016). public and private nonprofit agencies 708-9293 Awards grants to institutions and organizations. to assist in planning and carrying out programs to strengthen and improve undergraduate instruc-lion in international studies and foreign languages\nalso awards grants for model programs\nalso awards grants to nonprofit agencies and organi-zations for irojects that will significantly contribute to the undergradaute instruction. 77. Intensive Summer Language Institutions of higher education or Center for International F.ducation, l.mtitutes. Awards grants to ccmbinations of such institutions. International Studies Branch, institutions to establish and 708-8747 conduct intensive summer language institutes. (Currently unfunded) 21 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued 22 PROGRAM 78. Research Studies Annual Report (84.017). Awards grants to instinuions of higher education for research and studies to determine the need for increased or improved modem foreign languages and to re.search more effective methods of providing instruction, administering proficiency tests, and developing and publishing specialized materials for such instruction. 79. Periodicals Published Outside the U.S. (84.251). Awards grants toinstitutions and libraries to provide assistance for the acquisition of, and provision of access to, periodicals published outside the  United States. 80. Business and International Education Program (84.153). Awards grants and contracts to institutions of higher education to promote linkages between such institutions and the American business community engaged in international economic activity. National Education Goal: 5 81. Centers for International Business Education (84.220). Awards grants to institutions of higher education to pay the federal share of the cost of planning, establishing, and operating centers for international business education which promote linkages between such institutions and the American business community engaged in international economic activity. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Postsecondary schools. Higher education institutions\npublic or nonprofit library institutions\nconsortia of such institutions. Institutions of higher education that have entered into agreements with business enterprises, trade organizations or associations engaged in international economic activity. (Federal assistance cannot exceed 50 percent of the cost. ) Institutions of higher education. CONTACT Center for International F.ducation, International Studies Branch, 708-9297 Center for International F.ducation, 708-9290 Center for International F.ducation, International Studies Branch, 708-7283 Center for International F.ducation, 708-8764 Office or Postsemndary Edacatioll ffiGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 82. Gnnts for the Construction, States and cenain territories that have Di vision of Higher Educalim, Reconstruction, and Renova- an agreement with the Secretary Incentive Programs, 708-9401 tion of Undergraduate pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1143. Academic Facilities (84.001). Provides grants for the con-struction, renovation, and re-construction of imdergraduate academic facilities and com-bined graduate and imdergradu-ate facilities. (Currently unfunded) National Education Goal: 5 83. Gnnts for the Construction, Graduate institutions of higher Division of Higher Education, Reconstruction, and Renova- education. Incentive Programs, 708-9401 tion of Gnduate Academic Faclllties (84.172). Provides grants for the construction, renovation, and reconstruction of graduate academic facilities. Grants not to exceed 50 percent of the development cost 84. Loans for Construction, Institutions of higher education and Division of Higher Educaticm, Reconstruction, and Renova- higher education building agencies. Incentive Programs, 708-9401 tion of Academic Facilities. Provides loans for the construe-tion, reconstruction, or renova-tion of academic facilities. Loans not to exceed 80 percent of the development cost (Currently unfunded). 85. College Construction Loan Institutions of higher education. College Construction Loan Insurance Association. The Insurance Association, 2445 M St.. association provides direct NW, Washington, DC 20037, guarantees insurance and 835-0090 reinsurance on obligations issued for education facilities purposes, including construe-tion, reconstruction, renovation, acquisition, or purchase of education, training, research, facilities or housing (including furniture, fixtures, and equip-ment), and underlying real propeny, and instructional equipment and research instru-mentation. 23 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 86. Grants to Pay Interest on Institutions of higher education and Division of Higher Education, Debts. Awards interest grants higher education building agencies. Inccntive Programs, 708-9401 to assist institutions of higher education and higher education building agencies in reducing the cost of borrowing from other sources. (Funds currently appropriated are used only to pay interest and subsidies on prior grants made under this program.) National Education Goal: 5 87. Housing and Other Educa- Undergraduate postsecondary Division of Higher Education, tional Facilities Loans education institutions. Incentive Programs, 708-9401 (84.142). Makes loans to undergraduate postsecondary education institutions to assist in the construction, reconstruc-lion, or renovation of housing, undergraduate academic facilities, and other educational facilities for students and faculties. National Education Goal: 5 88. Cooperative Education Institutions of higher education and Division of Higher Education, Program (84.055). A wards combinations thereof and other public Incentive Programs, 708-9407 grants to institutions of higher and private nonprofit agencies or education to support planning organizations. and implementing programs integrating periods of academic study with public or private employment\nand for adminis-tration, training, and resource centers, research and demonsua-lion/ innovation projects. National Education Goal: 5 24 Office of Postsecondary Educatloa HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 89. Minority Participation in Graduate Education Programs (84.202). Awards grants to institutions of higher education for identifying talented undergraduate students who demonstrate financial need and are from minority groups underrepresented in graduate education, and for providing those students with opportunities to prepare for graduate study. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education. CONTACT Division of Higher Education, Incentive Programs, 708-9393 25 Office or Postsea\u0026gt;ndary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 90. Patricia Roberts Harris Institutions of higher education. Division of Higher Education, Fellowship Program (84.094). (Graduate students apply to participat- Incentive Programs, 708-8395 Provides grants to graduate and ing schools.) professional students who demonstrate financial need\nalso provides fellowship and instillltional support in academic and pofessional areas to assist minorities and women in undertaking graduate and professional study in academic fields in which they have been historically underrepresented. National Education Goals: 4 and5 91. Jacob K. Javits Fellowship Graduate students at doctoral level. Division of Higher Education, Program (84.170). Provides Incentive Programs, 708-8394 fellowships to doctoral candi-dales pursuing graduate study in the arts, humanities, and social sciences for periods not to exceed 48 months. A board establishes the general policies for the program, selects the fields in which fellowships are to be awarded, and determines the number of fellowships each year for designated fields. National Education Goal: 5 92. Graduate Assistance in Areas Academic departments and programs Division of Higher Education, or National Need (84.200). and other institutions of higher Incentive Programs, 708-9419 Provides fellowships to assist education. graduate students of superior quality who demonstrate fmancial need. Grants are awarded to academic departments and programs of instiwtions of higher education to sustain and enhance the capacity for teaching and research in areas of national need. National Education Goals: 4 and 5 26 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 93. Assistance for Training In the Public and private agencies and Division of Higher Education, Legal Profes.slon (84,136). organizations other than institutions Incentive Programs, 708-9393 Provides opportunities for of higher education. students from disadvantaged backgrounds to undertake training for the legal profession. National Education Goal: 5 94. Law School Clinical Experi- Accredited Jaw schools or a combina- Division of Higher Education, ence Program (84.097). lion or consortiwn of accredited law Incentive Programs, 708-7863 Provides grants and contract~ schools. to accredited law schools to help fund (up to 90 percent of the cost) the establishment and expansion of programs to provide clinical experience for Jaw students. National Educa-tion Goal: 5 95. Minority Science Improve- Public and private, nonprofit minority Division of Higher Education, ment Program (84.120). institutions, nonprofit science-oriented Incentive Programs, 708-4662 Makes grants designed to effect organizations, professional scientific long-range improvement in societies, and all nonprofit accredited science and engineering colleges and universities providing education at predominantly service to a group of eligible minority minority institutions of higher institutions or providing in-service education and to increase the training for project directors, scien-participation of under- lists, engineers from eligible minority represented ethnic minorities institutions. in scientific and technological careers. National Education Goals: 4 and 5 96. Minority Support in Science Institutions of higher education with Division of Higher Education, and Engineering Program significant minority enrollment (at Incentive Programs, 708-4662 (84.120). Makes grants to least 10 percent). provide or improve support programs for minority students enrolled in science and engi-neering programs at institutions of higher education with a significant minority enrollment (at least 10 percent). (Currently unfunded). National Educa-tion Goals: 4 and 5 27 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 97. Special Service Projects Program. Makes grants to institutions of higher education to provide or improve support to accredited colleges and lllliversities and professional scientific societies for activities designed to eliminate and reduce specific barriers to the entry of minorities into careers in science and technology. (Currently unfunded). National Education Goals: 4 and 5 98. Native Hawaiian Higher Education Demonstration Program. Provides scholarships and fellowships to native Hawai ian postsecondary students at both the undergraduate and gradual~ levels of study. National Education Goal: 5 99. Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary EducationComprehensive Program (Preapplication and Applications) (84.116). Awards grants to assist education institutions and agencies in improving postsecondary educational opportunities. National Education Goal: 5 100. Innovative Projects for Student Community Service (84.116F). Makes grants to support innovative projects 28 that encourage srudent participation in community service projects in exchange for educational services or financial assistance, thereby helping to reduce the debt acquired by students in the course of completing postsecondary education programs. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education. Kamehameha schools. Institutions of post.secondary education\na combination of institutions of postsecondary education\nand other public and private nopnprofit education institutions and agencies. Institutions of postsecondary education\ncombinations of such institutions\nand other public and private nonprofit education agencies and organizations. CONTACT Division of Higher Education, Incentive Programs, 708-4662 Division of Higher Education, Incentive Programs, 708-9393 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 708-5750 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 708-5750 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 101. Practitioner Scholars: Lecture Series (84.116G). Awards grants to support efforts by postsecondary education practitioners to contribute to knowledge about postsecondary education by producing a document or other product or by engaging in an activity designed to share the postsecondary educational practitioner's knowledge with others. National Education Goal: 5 102. Special Focus Competition: College-School Partnerships to Improve Learning of Essential Academic Subjects, Kindergarten through College (84.116H). Awards grants for projects addressing a particular problem area or improvement approach in postsecondary education. Invitational priority: the improvement of teaching and sequencing of curricula across grade levels of disciplines, including English, history, foreign languages, geography, mathematics, and natural science. National Education Goals: 3 and 5 103. Special Focus Competition: Projects In Science and the Humanities (84.116K). Awards grants for projects addressing a particular problem area or improvement approach in postsecondary education. Invitational priority: the development of courses or curricula that link science, social science, and the humanities. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of postsecondary education\na combination of institutions of postsecondary education\nand other public and private nonprofit education institutions and agencies. Institutions of postsecondary education\na combination of institutions of postsecondary education\nand other public and private nonprofit education institutions and agencies. Institutions of postsecondary education\na combination of institutions of postsecondary education\nand other public and private nonprofit education institutions and agencies. CONTACT Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 708-5750 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 708-5750 Fund for the Improvement of Postsec ondary Education, 708-5750 29 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 104. Partnerships for Economic Development. Awards grants for more comprehensive efforts to link postsecondary education institutions with state and local governments, labor, business, industry, and community organizations in order to meet local problems and to plan, maintain, and attract lasting economic improvement. (Currently unfunded). National Education Goal: 5 105. Urban Community Service. Awards grants to urban universities to support cooperative projects that provide urban areas with applied research, planning services, specialized training, technical assistance, or other services to address the high priority needs of such areas. National Education Goal: 5 106. Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Program in Foreign Language and Area Studies (84.022). Provides opportunities for graduate students to do full-time dissertation research abroad in modem foreign languages and 30 area studies in order to develop research knowledge and capability in world areas not commonly taught in U.S. institutions. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Postsecondary institutions, or a consortia of such institutions that involve state and local governments, labor, business, industry, labor unions, and community nonprofit organizations. Urban universities or a consortium of such institutions. Institutions of higher education (graduate students must apply through their universities). CONTACT Office of Postsecondary Education, 708-5547 Division of Higher Education Incentive Programs, 708-4662 Center for International Education, Advanced Training and Research Branch, 708-9298 Office or Postsemndary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 107. Fulbright-Hays Faculty Institutions of higher education Center for International Education, Research Abroad Program in (faculty members must apply through Advanced Training and Research Foreign Language and Area their employing schools). Branch, 708-8763 Studies (84.019). Strengthens programs of international studie~ at universities and colleges by providing opportunities for faculty members to conduct research and study abroad in foreign languages and area studies. National Education Goal: 5 108. Group Projects Abroad for State education agencies\npostsecond- Center for International E.ducation, Language and Area Studies ary schools\nprivate nonprofit educa- International Studies Branch, (84.021). Helps education lion organizations\na consortium of 708-8294 institutions to improve their these institutions, agencies and programs in modern foreign organizations. languages and area studies. National Education Goal: 5 109. Fulbright-Hays Seminars Undergraduate faculty members from Center for International E.ducation, Abroad Program (84.018). postsecondary institutions whose International Studies Branch, Increases mutual understanding professional activities primarily 708-7292 between people of the United include teaching introductory courses States and other countries by in the humanities or the social offering qualified American sciences\nsecondary schoolteachers of educators opportunities to social studies subjects\nadministrators participate in shon-term and curriculum specialists of state or seminars abroad. National local education agencies with direct Education Goal: 5 responsibility for curriculum develop-ment in social studies. 31 Office or Posuecondary Education DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAMS PROGRAM 110. Imtitution-Wide Program (84.183A). Provides assistance to institutions of higher cduca tion to develop, implement, operate, and improve drug abu~e education and prevention programs. Projects must be ccmprehensive, institution-wide programs designed to prevent or eliminate student use of illegal drugs and abuse of other drugs and alcohol, including programs whose direct or indirect purpoSt: is to train students, faculty, and staff in drug abuse education and prevention. National Educsation Goal: 6 111. National College Student Organizational Network Program (84.183B). Provides assistance to develop, implement, operate, and improve drug abuse education and prevention programs for students enrolled in institutions of higher education. For fiscal 32 year 1992, the Secretary supports only the development and implementation of projects (a) conducted in conjunction with national student networks or organizations\nand (b) addressing one or more specific approaches or problem areas related to drug abuse education and prevention for students enrolled in institutions of higher education. National Education Goal: 6 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education and coosortia of institutions of higher education. Institutions of higher education and consortia of institutions of higher education. CONTACT Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 708-5750 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 708-5750 Office of Pmtsecondary Education DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 112. Speclrac Approaches to Prevention Projects (84.183D). Provides assistance to develop, implement, operate, and improve drug abuse education and prevention programs for students enrolled in institutions of higher education. Project must include specific approaches to ~e prevention of drug or alcohol abuse. For fiscal year 1992, the Secretary supports only the development, implementation, operation, or improvement of higher education consortia for drug prevention. Consortia may assist in institutions of higher education either (a) drug abuse prevention professionals\nor (b) chief executive officers and other senior administrators. National Education Goal: 6 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education and consortia of institutions of higher education. CONTACT Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary F.ducation, 708-5750 33 Office of Educational Research and Improvement The Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) suppons and conducts research on education, collects and analyzes education statistics, disseminates information, and supports and improves library education and service. OERI may carry out these activities directly, or through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements. Written inquiries should be addressed to the appropriate programs in the .Office of Educational Research and Improvement, . 555 New Jersey Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20208. PROGRAM 113. Educational Research Grant Program: Field-Initiated Competition (84.117). Supports research and development activities designed to advance educational theory and practice. Applicants are invited to select the topics to be addressed in the grants. 114. Research and Development . Centers Program (84.117). Provides grants and cooperative agreements to institutions seeking to advance knowledge about education policy and practice through the planning, institutional operations, and special activities of research and development centers. No new competitions are anticipated in FY 1992. 115. Regional Educational Laborato ries (84.117). Provides contracts 34 to institutions seeking to improve education policy and practice through assistance, applied research and development, dissemination, and special activities of regional educational laboratories. Office of Research WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education\npublic or private institutions, agencies, organizations or individuals. Institutions of higher education\ninstitutions of higher education in consort with public agencies\nor private nonprofit organizations or interstate agencies established to conduct postsecondary education research and development. Public agencies or private nonprofit organizations. CONTACT Office of Research, 219-2223 Office of Research, 219-2079 Educational Networks Division, 219-2116 Office of EducaUonal Research and Improvement OFFICE OF RESEARCH-Continued PROGRAM 116. Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program (84.206R). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented conducts research on methods of identifying and teaching gifted and talented students, and undertakes program evaluations, surveys, and the collection, analysis, and development of information about gifted and talented programs. The program focuses on snidents who may not be identified through traditional assessment methods, including economically disadvantaged individuals, individuals of limited English proficiency and individuals with disabilities. In FY 1992 only the continuation application for the current center will be solicited. (See program 121 on page 37, for infonnation about demonstration grants awarded under this program.) National Education Goals: 3 and 4 117. Star Schools Program (84.203). Provides grants to eligible telecommunication partnerships to encourage improved instruction in mathematics, science, and foreign language, adult literacy, vocational education and training of child care workers through the development, construction, and acquisition of telecommunications facilities, equipment, and instructional programming. National Education Goals: 3, 4 and 5 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education\nstate education agencies\nor a combination or consortium of institutions of higher education or state education agencies or both. Telecommunication partnerships, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 4083, organized on a statewide or multistate basis. CONTACT Office of Research, 219-2223 Educational Networks Division, 219-2200 35 Office or Educational Research and Improvement PROGRAMS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PRACTICE (PIP) PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 118. Leadership in Educational Aclmlnbtration Development Local education agencies\nintermcdi- Educational Netw\u0026lt;Xks Division, (LEAD) Program (84.178). ate school districts\nstate education 219-2116 ~tablishes and operates a techni- agencies\ninstitutions of higher cal assistance center in each state education\nprivate management to promote leadership skills for organizations\nand nonprofit organiza-school administrators. Only tions, or consortia of those entities. continuation applications will be accepted in FY 1992. National Education Goals: 2, 3 and 4 119. National Diffusion Network Slate and local education agencies\nRecognition Division, 219-2134 Program (84.073). Promotes institutions of higher education\nnationwide dissemination and public and nonprofit education adoption of exemplary educational institutions and organizations. programs, products, and practices that have received program effectiveness panel approval by the Department of Education. Awards are made in the form of 1) developer demonstrator grants\n2) state facilitator grants\n3) dissemination process grants\nand 4) private school facilitator grants. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and6 120. Territorial Teacher Training Stale education agencies of each Educational Networks Division, Assistance Program (84.124). territory or a joint application from a 219-2186 Provides assistance for training stale education agency and an school teachers in American institution of higher education. Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam, Palau, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Only continuation applications will be accepted in FY 1992. Na-tional Education Goals: 3 and 4 36 Office of Educational Research and Improvement PROGRAMS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PRACTICE-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 121. Jacob K. Javits Gifted and State and local education agencies\nResearch Applications Division, Talented Students Education institutions of higher education\n219-2187 Program (84.206A). Provides public and private agencies\nIndian demonstration grants for training tribes and tribal organizations as and other activities to build a defined by the Indian Self-Determina-nationwide capacity to meet the tion and Education Assistance Act\nspecial educational needs of gifted and native Hawaiian organizations. and talented students in elementary and secondary schools. (See program 116 on page 35, for information about research conducted under this program.) National Education Goals: 3 and4 122. Educational Partnerships An eligible partnership which must Educational Networks Division, Program (84.228). Provides include a local education agency or an 219-2116 grants to encourage the creation institution of higher education, or of alliances between public both, and one or more organizations elementary and secondary schools from the private sector or appropriate or institutions of higher education state agencies. and the private sector to (1) apply the resources of the private and nonprofit sectors of the community to the needs of elementary and secondary schools or institu-tions of higher education to encourage excellence in education\n(2) encourage businesses to work with educationally disadvantaged students and with gifted students\nand (3) enrich the career awareness of secondary or postsecondary students and provide exposure to the work of the private sector. National Education Goal: 5 123. Mid-Career Teacher Training Institutions of higher education with Research Applications Division, Program (84.232). Provides schools or departments of education. 219-2187 grants to encourage institutions of higher education with schools or departments of education to establish and maintain program). that will provide teacher training to individuals who are moving to a career in education from another occupation. National Education Goal: 5 37 Office or Educational Research and Improvement PROGRAM 124. Public Library Servkes-State Grant Program (84.034). Provides grants designed to plan for, establish, extend or improve public library services ,these projects may include services, to unserved or underserved groups and geographical areas, including state instirutional library services and library services for the physically disabled, the disadvantaged, the illiterate, the elderly, and those of limited English proficiency\ndeveloping public libraries as community centers for information and referral\nstrengthening state library administrative agencies to meet the needs of the people of the states, metropolitan public libraries that serve as national or regional resource centers, and major urban resource libraries\nand assisting libraries to provide intergenerational library programs as well as to display materials and to conduct programs aimed at drug abuse prevention. National Education Goal: 1 125. Interlibrary Cooperation and Resource Sharing-State Grant Program (84.035). Provides grants to assist the states in 38 projects to enable the various types of libraries to share resources and materials mandated activities include cooperative library networks developing the technological cap\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_865","title":"Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993/1994"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School facilities","School buildings","School employees","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Budget: ''North Little Rock School District 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/865"],"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":["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\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nI NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET 1993-94 I I I I I I SEP 1 3 1993 om'0 01 0~ g eg. .r.,  i i Monito: 1g REVENUE tomt Um ROCsKa m. DISTRICT ROEii SUltARY JU, 1993 RESTRitmF\u0026gt;1 IGlS JIUDtET LOOI. REVBIE tfflJfT MTillf-SUKR 50m. 60,000 199'2- l99J '1T StJIER LUST 16,500 sam.A CTMTSYi t.ES 50,000 11:SIRJCfIUOl8 amr 1DR1 DIA1E llJSTtl\u0026gt;ItSt. ERVICES 24,000 UEMl.l WJIE ... IIIStEl.1.AtelJS 9,000 NIDT TOTrLt. lrA. l\u0026amp;lRICm\u0026gt;l eDI 1'9,500 IDm.M:mllTM.D 50,000 S6,6U.18 amma. DUD 31,000 a,000.00 STATERa'EJIE PQ!IEIMERB 25,000 12P,17l.J2 TRANSP(RTATIIII 494,317 1DTMU. DL IUIRICIOm  99,000 213,\"111.S, VOCATIBOlJWIP.I EfT 22,002 STAlEII D9I VOCATIIISWTA. RT-lP 2,600 KINIO\u0026amp;ARMTETMER irt.S 8,460 llhB !llm1mll m,a m,om.oo tw\nfET/IHlHtllW\u0026amp;'On'. 300,000 \\'IDTDllfl. 80,436 80,415.96 IEiE\u0026amp;RE\u0026amp;AATmIDt 780,000 IDIIBUnBI M'IBWU 7,180 6,209.08 CDfEMSATAIJInD' 234,439 11GE111-111HI1M I mu. JD0,000 JD0,000.00 D'EP/ACT 18,:s:38 MCPRES\u0026gt;m. Y.AiaTJIII AD 400,000 IM4,39J.8l 234,116 mFEllii\\TlmA D 248,056 Zli,557.04 MCS lllERE JIUDlHT 0 MCF IEDIII. 229,ffl 229,51:S.OO SPECirEt. D.P RESDm.. 314,325 MCU IIR BlmHIJfr 31,603 D,60.1.00 SPECirtE. D.R ESJEfl'Irt. 25,000 MCP IEDlll. EIIDMJff U,407 U,407.00 SPEClrt.EDP.I ElDDl. 0 fFECIMEl.. PIEDlll. 1G,71J w,202.00 !HCitL Ellll'ATirJmt\n0 \u0026amp;PfCIMEJI..I DTJII(m : 5,000 5,000.00 LEVsIn w\u0026amp;\n25,000 \u0026amp;PfCIME.l.. IIIDEN1'UL 12,000 26,957.82 IEl1ttltRDliGRMT 7,900 IQ!IE I #fllB CillMIB 20,000 Q,392.95 lllml.NEU WMTS 2,000 TOT,tS. TATREE STRICTREEDV E1l 2,468,597 1DTMS.T AlEIU IRICIOIB 9I 2,221,256 2,55.6,7!5-'6 TDTMU.D L \u0026amp; BTAlE TDTrUt. l'lt. \u0026amp; STTAE 11:SIRJCtIEOV EII 2,322,256 2,1JD,m.u IOTRICTEDREVE1l 2,628,097 = meRIGIEWJIE FOOSDE RVIaR: EVEJlE ... RMW 3,714,:IIO 3,710,7 10.' llt. REVEME 636,000.00 llt. aua:TI!Hi .oo F'EDEJIWEt.l U5EJDT 1,300,000.00 STATIEIE itllUmEfT zs,000.00 IHTmST 5,000.00 01llR 3,000.00 TDTrftl.D I SERVIa: 1,969,000.00 1 IOml UTTLRO CsKam . DISTRICT REVEJSI.ElH fARY 1993 - 1994 leTRICTEDFl NlS BUl)f',[f lro1.REVEM AIUM MTIIIHUKR SDm. 60,000 199'i-1993 '1f S\\ltER Ill.EST 16,500 sam.A CTIVI\u0026amp;TUYS 50,000 11:SIRICIFElJl l8 am:r 1DITDM1E llJSllmll(. SERVICES 24,000 UDl.llWIIE MUff MUff IUSCEJ.1.AIElS 9,000 mrrt.L irA. RESTRICTED fDID.M:mITfSM.EI S\u0026gt;,000 56,616.18 ~ 159,500 asrm,w. IDVmS 24,000 21,000.00 STATREE VEllE IO!DWJEIIB 25,000 129,1''1.32 TIMH5PlRTATillf 494,317 TOTMU.D i. 11:SIRICI1O1 .'VB1 99,oao 213,'1 813 VOCATICEIlWlU. IMHT 22,002 Sl'AlEIB BI 1, VOCATICSITWM. T-lP 2,600 KIIIIB\u0026amp;MTEMlfA TERitt.S 8,460 IMll'URllffllll S2,226 513,002.00 WQ1'/K-TO-TftR MiP(RT. 300,000 VIDTllllll. 80,G6 ao,.m.96 llESEQE\nATAIIIDJt 780,000 IDIBUnBIMTBWU 7,180 6,209.08 mFENSATIJArfI D 234,439 D'EP/ACT IKIEf,1t-11H( 'RW\u0026amp;Ulf. 300,000 300,000.00 18,538 lflli'aATllll AD 400,oao 844,393.81 fFRE!Dm. 234,116 CDHJliA'itRAYD 248,5 25S,:J57.04 Alt S\\ltER EJltIOKNT 0 MC FIEIHll. :ra,515 :ra,m.oo SPEtIM.E D.P RE:SODl. 314,325 MC lllllR EllmHEff 33,603 D,60.1.00 SPEtirtE. D.l elllEMTift. 25,000 MCF lllDIII. EIIJD'fEfT 11,407 U,407.00 SPECirEt.D .P RE9lm. 0 \u0026amp;FmM.E J. fllEDIII. 1a,m w,202.00 lffCIM. EDll'ATICElEf t 0 lfB:W.DlDTJIIIECI: s,oao 5,000.00 LEVSI TRAlS 25,000 !fftlll El. llmENi1M. 32,000 26,957.82 IETI9:llRitr\nGRMT 7,900 tmUJl#flllQWOI 20,000 63,112.95 IUlUl.LNE16 ~ 2,000 TDTrSt.T ATREE STRICl9TEE1DlE 2,468,597 TOTMSi.' All1 1:BIRICImEIE 2,223,256 2,:SU,7.15.66 TOTMU.D l. \u0026amp; ITAlE JOTrlt1.r /t. \u0026amp;S TATE N:SIRICIEIEJ D 2,322,256 2,7,523.16 16TRICTElDV EllE 2,628,097 = 2 0TH LITl1.R OCsKa m.D ISTRICT REV9lESUMY 1993 - 1994 1992-1993 rnlM. REV9lE-f61RICTED llJDGET FEDl1. II.WIIE-fElnm:I DIE 1fM 1D MlE NO.NT Mllfr Mllfr SPECIAELD lATilmlf : 36,704 IHPIERJ 1,93,860 l,691,112.00 CJW'TtRI 1,561,000 IHP1ERn 7J,:stS 7J,:stS.OO DWTERII ~.593 tlDilliM., 011. PEIIIDII lZS,672 lZS,67l.OO VOCATillCfAALRP, LE RKINS 148,411 \u0026amp; PEIIIDIIID  a: 5,000 1,906.12 Till VI-B 320,286 TI1l Vl-1 310,000 3119,a.oo Pl 89-313 18,3:58 PL 8'-313 21,050 21,104.00 IEDICAID 29,000 IEID:m JB,000 26,431.95 IIIE.ESS ttSSISTNl:E 21,ffl IDJCAD, PIEIHD.. 1,600 13,187.81 IEDICAIDfl,E iCtm. 12,000 fft'CIII. a. PIEIHD.. n,a 2116,3115.00 SPECIAELD . PIIESOIIL 420,000 fft'CIIIE. L EJ:C 61,200 a,200.00 lM START 12,646 lliD ffllT .,644 .,646.00 .Im HIPPY 17,:SOO EB SfllT DB,154 101,090.44 JTPAlU T(Jt 9,612 EWJSI fllT QllfflMJt 18,564 18,564.00 JIPAA L'TEllNAPTRMO\nRM ~.ooo JIN HDfY 21,000 20,984.05 JTPA Pf!E-JROYIDT 30,000 JIN 1Ul1lt 9,612 14,738.10 JTPA-tlfl)AL EARH+l.lVK 19,000 JIN \u0026amp;.lBIMTMP 111M1 34,810 3D,l3B.84 JTPA EDlAllllf/llmocY 110,455 JIN fllE-8RlfflEIT s,m ...... MU\nEDlATlllf 92,900 IS EJIIDTDII 92,B 92,818.00 ltATW9:IBa, EISE1f00 42,000 MlMEISl:E,EISEIIIIIR G,740 42,740.00 CH II llRUllllll FIWIOIK 0 IIIEl.EIB 21,000 21,000.00 ASJOTilAi BATEJNT 0 at ll CUPID1 MF 1WE1111r 6,250 6,250.00 at I fllBilWDI FIIMJENr 52,790 52,790.00 TUTttm. ew.R EVEJIE 3,062,340 emY, E0IIII l0,159 39,1VS.OO MillESTAIMB tEJENr 1,186 .oo tN'ITtt. WTLARYE VEii: 1UTMfU. BW. IE8tE 3,21115,108 3,1\",1'6.7J llllREHTA llES 200,100 Ptl.l.BACI(T AllES 100,000 DIPITMll.f fl.AYIB EJI.E: Ptl.l.BACI( - ACCRlO 72,500 DEl.DaEHTTA llES 25,000 alllJfr TMEB 250,000 198,118.91 EXIDS CDIIISSillf 1,000 flU.1111 TAXES 120,000 101,497.21 DfTEREST 1,400 PILlJIO - MIIID 40,000 '2,970.05 IEI.DIIEllr TAXES 3D,OOO 26,731.JO TDTttr.l tPITALW TLAY 400,000 DIDI tDiWBilli l,000 1186.CS Df1EIE'BT 3,000 1,446.83 aJllDIN(f\n1Jfl)I BEM.: TOrMD. IPITMC.I IIUY 444,000 J91,!0.7S PflfERTYstt.ES 600 DfTEREST 92,000 JlllllK F1II lf.'t'BIE: IWMll SETTUIENT 7,400 ASll:STIUEW f '40,000 f'IOUrY au:s 95,000 95,767.00 F\\N) l1WISF'ER 60,000 JNIEIUI S,,000 136,014.31 IWIVIU.IEE 1lEIENT , .. 9,431.00 TOTARLll lItt\nFtMD 200,000 MIEi1IBL DMI 40,000 .oo FIJI, lMiftk 40,000 40,543.G.1 TOrMIU. D.DK FIii 254,SIO lDl,7:!15.34 TOTARLE VEN.( 39,914,8-40.00 lUTM.IEVEIIE 40,611,'61.00 41,111,036.32 3 I II II II II I BUDGETSU MMARRYE PORTS N1m1U 11l m IDOi. IISTRICI' um IIIMrf lff.1- l9M INi:BIRll!IO\"1 118 1111:Slkll!IFOU ii um MIUff I lnllE 31,QB,C,I I EDE JI DPmI11IEB II DPBlll11IB aM.. l,199,IO liEIIII. DlmU:mll 25,5'1,m DlfflU:l1III MDl'IEIIIIIiE I H.MTIIII J,\u0026amp;,6'0 MDl19IU ' IFEM11III IElllH 90,920 11L11t INDIDT i,176,700 DIDIEIT lM\u0026amp;IRl'ATIIJt 345,463 llWB'IRTATIIII FUellWIHRS \u0026amp;0,000 F1II) 1MlfERS 1H TDTM. 32,B,318 IN TDTM. Ill IIIIWff 07/0t/9J Projected F1ll8 Projected M.Na IBtll #MILMlE DFmmlES um 1111111T JD,\"6,497 l,Ol2.CIZS 2',ZM,291 J,SZ,240 11,'IZ 1,213,257 164,900 \u0026amp;0,000 J0,414,639 Projected IMAl:E l99'l - lff.1 1911D Im: MIUff 31, .. ,229.74 l,OP.5,911.49 a,454,a.s J,8B\n324.49 86,~.63 71P,841.l5 3D8,654.19 \u0026amp;0,000.00 a,a, 719.40 i,026,S86.18+ 31,655,403 =32,681,989.18-32,358,318 = 323,671.18 4 ..... STATE/UrAR.E STRICTAEmDW tS I IEVEJlE II EXPEJIDll\\HS TIWtSPfRTATIIJt IISEQE\nATIIJt aJf'EH!iAllREf JIIDTIIJt IDl)n\nAa:r.MRYOVER MC EWD'tEfT/Slffl.IES RESTlR:TtJUP~R a\nRM Alt SlMR mliRM AOCP RESOID.. Sf'Et:lrt.E D.m :som. SP. ED. RESIIIHTift. VWITIIIW. som.A CTIVSITfi.YES CUSTOD!IiRllY ICES IIISE.lAEIJS WtHTS SlJIERs om. ~IT SlllD lllST II LEVliI1 WtUSS MIC lllltATIIJtS III5al.1NWSQ Wfl'S ... TOTft. III 9.tlNY r---- tamf UTitE ROCSKC fDl.D ISTRICT llKET !llNRY 1993 - 1994 IMlGET AIOJfT 2,628,097 1,139,79\u0026gt; 1,150,230 243,230 31,890 2J,767 11,407 7,900 31,~6 234,116 314,325 25,000 24,602 44,727 24,000 31,046 88,500 18,~ l3,390 J,000 2,979 3,-183,615 7-1-93 Balance 689,414.17 STAlEIUDILE SIRJCIOF ROaU I II DIE MllfT IBfJI 2,a,m DFBm1UEB lMlflRTA'TIIII ffl,2DO ltii:UIMTIIII 760,065 IDFEIIM11E1JrrI IDTDII 2\",364 EMDE a.au MC CMlfflMR 211,e MCAEDIII. 229,515 9'ECIME..l . PIEDlll. 148,773 IP. El. IUDl:Jlf UL 32,000 VIDTIIIML 81,415 mm.a cTM1YS IUB 51,830 llli111UMf. lRVJCES LVl 81MIIS lmlJ'll#fllBQWffl IN TDTM. Projected Revenue 2,628,097 24,000 25,000 64,766 2,74.1,:!04 Projected Expenditures 3,483,615 Transfer from unrestricted revenue 19'2 -19'1 19RMMTE AIIUfl' 2,6\",9:111.0, l,12t,656.l9 673,463.61 2'4,Ul.15 18,225.90 28,'85.25 21115,807.48 f:56,202.00 26,200.33 B'l,'7.99 J2,SJ8.'4 7,270.48 U,'9.62 ll,'96.22 2,695,102.86 Projected Ending Balance 166,103.83CR 345,463.00 179,359.17 5 1, IQTH LITll.ER OCsKa m DISTRICT IIUl)(\nT SMWn FmM.PRO\nRMS 1993 - 1994 llJlltET AIOMT I ~ 3,214,736 II EXPEJfDIT\\16 DWTERI 1,561,000 CJWTEIRI 70,437 VOCATIIJW. 148,411 TITLEV I-B 323,000 Pl 89-313 19,006 1DICAID 30,000 1DICAIFDm DDl. 12,000 SP. ED. PIISODl. 442,429 5P. ED. Ea: 43,210 lADS TART 16,661 DWTERI 911B PRO\nRM 254,400 EVEMST ART 122,396 JTPAE ru:ATIOfll.ITER/Y 110.~ JTPAP IJER 17,500 JTPA1 UTIR 9,612 JTPtl ft.TERMTIVE ~.ooo JTPtl I.EMN-A-l.IVIIG 30,000 JIPA-CN'l)A I.EMN-A-l.IVK 19,000 le ED. CARRYOVER 26,1~ ED. 92,900 EISEJfOOM TH/s:IEM:E9 'J 30,864 EI!EtOD MTH/SCIEJ9a4 42,000 11111m 21,B'r.i IOll.SSr .ARRYOVER 11,m DW7TEIIR-m E.ERATED 1,914 Of II llllRICWlFt RitlIOK 4,683 BUCY 0 Ill TUTrt. 3,562,841 IUSJNRY 7-1-93 Balance 370,170.43 FElall. FIIIIWcl I EDE II EJIIBIII1IIIES DWTERI OIPIERII \\o1DT1lllll VIDTIIIK. ID EC lI1lE VI-I R.8'-313 IEDIOOI IEDIOOI PIEDDl.   El. PIEDIII. IP. El. Ett fDDSTMT l\\USTMT l\\91 STMT CMlfflMI J1PAP IIER J1PA MtR J1N rt.lEIIMTM Jl'PI\\PfE-fJfl.lfflEI JIU ED 111KE D.S M: El!EIIIER M1Ml9:IEJIE flJE.BB DWTERU -muMlD at II allWlLlll RWEIR at I fllliAMI DfflMJEJf1' ~ fl!llli11BMll\\1DllfT HI TDrft. Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures 3,214,736 3,562,841 199'2- 1993 UCiET 1111D MlE Mlllfr Mlllfr 3,199,B 3,W,91'.7J 1,\"6,e 1,471,500.10 11,198 16,m.85 m,m 124,'80.,0 8,906 a,m.u 364,at 1\",554.32 l2,229 l2,225.5 49,375 ,0,864.08 2,SIO 14,366.03 402,UI 316, 90!5.12 '8,200 61,918.24 51,390 53,047.94 138,154 107,090.44 30,41' 30,41'.18 21,000 20,984.~ 9,612 14,738.70 34,870 30,152.17 50,823 41,289.80 U.,,8\" 129,442.72 S,108 5,108.10 62,370 31,193.69 21,000 2,792.78 23,776 21,361.SJ 12,SIO 4,11511.U SZ,790 SZ,790.00 42,5.12 61,097.32 CS,671 44,ffl.68 3,875,625 3,172,911.79 Projected F.nding Balance 21,565.43 6 II 11 11 II -11 lllt1H LlT1lI m mm. m,ltlC\"I \u0026amp;IIETSIMIY CAPITALO UTLAY I. REVENUE II. EXPENDITURES III. SUMMARY 7-1-93 BALANCE 1993-94 BUDGET AMOUNT 400,000 420,000 PROJECTED REVENUE 34,828.03 + 400,000.00 * * * * * * BUILDING RESERVE I. REVENUE 235,000 II. EXPENDITURES 200,000 III. SUMMARY 1,246,774.84 + 235,000 * * * * * * BONDFU ND I. REVENUE -0- II. EXPENDITURES 2,031,025 III. SUMMARY 2,031,026.60 + 0 * * * * 1992-93 BUDGET AIDUNT 444,000 620,245 PROJECTED EXPENDITURES 420,000.00 * * 254,500 720,000 200,000 * * 3,714,500 3,710,000 2,031,025 * = * = 1992-93 ACTUAL AMOUNT 391,650.75 542,286.34 PROJECTED BALANCE 14,828.03 * * 301,755.34 81,994.00 1,281,774.84 * * 3,710,710.60 1,679,684.00 1.60 * * 7 .... Ii II - STATE/LOCAL FUNDED PROGRAMS EXPENDITURE REPORTS lllfflf UTll 11D IDlll. D1l'IRICT STATEIUDNIe. DPEJelllllEE CRT 1992- 1993 1993 -1994 DEE' 1M1 11M l[ um MIIIT MIIIT Nlllfl' 1. liEIEM. t.mlM. NiiwSIMl'JIISI IURJEB 2'1,000 291,419.12 MIIDIISIRATSUMIJIR IEB 315,'50 wtllf:WllD 8IURlB 44,000 44,964.48 wtnnr.AlEI 8IURlB 47,600 OABIFlDMIIDIMJRJEI 91,SDO lOl,192.S aJ8IJF1EIM IIDSIM .MJB 89,ts\u0026gt; aJIIDF1D \u0026amp;IIURIEI 23,600 Xl,381.07 aJEF1EI 8IUIJEI 244,410 SETI1U1E\u0026amp; IIURIEI 0 .oo STifElll8 0 SIIW 0 .oo IEIIFIT8 98,6l0 Wili .... 67,431.20 flllDWD IElVJID m,1,0 PIIOWESIE RVDD 140,720 10,,718.15 QIRI DATlllfa ar I0,000 mmD ATDIaI m 80,000 TI,1153.IS l.Ea. lBVIID 40,000 UULIEMID 2111,000 42,489.33 laBIKATilll lllmtR \u0026amp;0,000 EGIHATilll lllmtR \u0026amp;0,000 41,211.61 NMilERTE 'VIEiDI iu i IEE 25,000 IKIET illYJBIi Diul IEE 25,000 50,000.00 UR.JES l MlERIM.S 36,180 llfFUES l MTERIM.S 24,315 16,169.60 l'#Illt. IIJMY 3,400 C#Illt. lllllAY 1,800 .00 una 4,JOO IJ1lER 4,840 3,026.50 lUTM. 1,199,50 TDTll. l,CIB2,az5 1,or.5,917.49 2. Dll1iU:rml 2. DBTlll:TIIII AIIIINISJMTMSI URIES 2,25'2,57:5 MflDIJSlMTMS URIES 2,149,010 2,143,B.9\u0026amp; CERflflDIJOM .MJEB 17,691,000 URllfIDltEI 9URJEB u,m,a 16,1 .15,190.46 11.aIFJD 8MJIUEB 1,2118,900 llMIDFlOM IIDMI AmS 0 .oo UBm1nE1 00l1IS KZ,m a.MBIF1D8 'URIEI 1,161,990 1,181,329.24 aamutE l1\u0026amp;lf1EI 22,SOO umnnE 1900B m,'Z!II 341,43:2.73 STIF8ll8 J,000 llllJTI1U1EaM i6IFIEJI 20,000 22,a.10 STIPEJll6 U,671 9,773.00 l\u0026amp;EFITS 2,150,1?5 EEHIS 2,126,576 2,120,145.95 PllDWDBVDD 259,189 11IITlllf-faa 130,000 NDWDSEJMCD JIM,B XJ,614.32 l1ITITmHIGET 950,000 11JITIJJHICIB 140,000 122,087.84 1UmUIHIMilE 950,000 923,298.32 UPl.JEB l Mmwt8 Sll,655 SFfUEB l MlEWILS 573,084 513,'72.lJ \"\"1TM. IIIMY 40,341 r.wITMr.l lMY 76,265 10,449.44 ana 15,263 IJ1lER 18,598 211212,2 9. \u0026amp; 111TM. 25,97,135 TOTM. 24,224,297 24,454,285.45 8 tamf Lim.E 11D IDlll. JJIIRICT STAltll.lDl. Ra DPEIGiltllE IIEPmr 1991-1994 1ffl - 1991 um llllliET YEM1 DM TE IIIIUfT ... ... J. lli\\Dl1DWa, IHJIATIIII 3. MDnEME, IHMTJIII .uJ1611MTIIISI flURIB 9,000 -a.\n1111111 8URJB SJ,111\u0026gt; 51,920.111 aJJISIFJEMDI IINI IURIEB 41,250 aJSBIFlOM IIDIl ill.MJEB 3',000 3P,6C5.J6 a.\u0026amp;IFJEI 9URIEI 1,723,000 l1AISJFIEJIURJEB l,lllS,000 l,610,IDB.7' Ef.FI1S 236,950 EEF1lS 210,Q) 226,862.33 PIIDWDravm 219,800 PIIDIIEI flERVJID 319,940 211,'11L42 Ul1IJTJEI 1,084,100 unLITJEB l,IOl,000 1,0067, 10.12 llfflIB , MTERIU 349,950 UPIJEI ' M1Bml.l m,mo CD,567.0'l one 0 rRITM.IIJtl.AY 5,000 D,040.29 DBIWIE 175,000 0110 0 .oo TOTM. 3,IIB,650 DII.IWa 200,000 160,0:ZS.'8 TDl'M. 3,Zl,240 3,893,324.49 4. IE/UH 0.MBIFIDSIURJES 80,000 4. ID.TH ea:ns 9,200 D.MBIFJ9 SIURIES 77,000 1,,om.~ PIIDWDIBYIID 720 EEHIB 8,99\u0026gt; 8,697.76 llffllEB,MlmliS l,000 fUIIHlfD ElYim 910 1,o5.00 rlf\u0026gt;ITMI.I Jtl.AY 0 SFPUEB, MTERIM.S 1,000 f.1).63 rmo 0 rRITM. llffl.AY 0 .oo TIITM. 90,920 0110 0 .00 lOTM. 87,920 86.~.63 9 IQ1H LITTlER OC6K0 ID.. DISTRICT STA'IE/LCFrIliti. )E XPEHDilR\\lmE RT JLY, 1m 1992-1993 BUIUT um mR 10 JIAlE AIW{f NlllfT 1111111T 5. JOIE) JOT 5. IIIIIEIJDT DISTIUCBTO fD6 DIIIRICT1 11118 PRitcIPf4. 412,150 fRIJCDW. 610,100 185,100.00 INTEREST 704,575 Df1BBT 521.860 m.m.:w FEES 1,530 ffD 1.140 731.20 TOTlt. 1,118,25:S TDTM. 1.m.100 711.5.79 PCSSIDO IDS\u0026lt; MEXATICIO PCB - (MIEIATIIIO PROCIPlt. 16,320 PRill:lM. 13.312 a.185.46 INTEREST 7,030 DIIBUT 1.:su 15,G4.3J FEES 0 ms 0 .oo TOTlt. 23,l\\50 TDTM. 2D.B2B G,619.74 L R BOND(IVSQ T SDm.\u0026gt; L R 11111C6 tw\nlfJ! DID.) PRitcIP'4. 11,~ fRIJCDW. 11,000 11,000.00 INTEREST 23,380 INTEREST .. ,219 24,139.62 ms 30 ms :ID ZS.GO TOTlt. 35,095 TDTIL :,P,329 JS,164.62 TUTlItO. CDID T ...1...17 6,700 TDTMm. e ror 1.213,257 119,841.15 6 ~ATIIJI 6. l\"RlfllBllln'ATUII TiWEParrATIIJI 345,463 11WlflltTATDII 164,900 308,654.19 TUTlt. 345,463 TDTM. 164.900 3118.6:54.19 = 7. F1IID11 Wf5FIR 7. FUii 11WIHR F111DTIW\u0026amp;ER 60,000 F1III 1JWlfER ',000 ',000.00 I lDTAL 60,000 TDTM. '000 ',000.00 :-:::r:::c STATEIUrlJlRt. STRICTED STAlEIUrJtL. IIEIIRICIED fUGl\u0026gt;D Tlt. 32.397,074 FIie TDTM. 30,414.639 J0.\u0026amp;,719.40 -- 10 L REPORTS OF STATE RESTRICTED PROGRAMS tom! Um ROCSKc tm.. DISTRICT STATREE STRICTPEfOD\" .IW6R mm JU, 1993 ~ATillf TIIMfllfrATillf lMltfJ tWll(T I ft'E1.(E2 - 73140) 794,317 ( IEVDI (2-731-40) II EXPEM\u0026gt;Illl6 II EXFEIDilt.lEB SltMIES SIURlE5 AlltfIHISTRATillf 0 MIIDIIll'IMTltll ll.J\\$IFIED AlltfIN 43,700 llJaIF1ED AlllUN NIKERTIFil:ATED 74'5,000 IIIHDl1fll'ATED STIPENDS 0 STIPEJll8 IEEFITS 9:\u0026gt;,000 ElfilS PlRJWiESDE RVICES 54,730 PIIDIMEII EMID SlffUES la HATERIM.S 136,000 SfPlIES I IIATBUU OTIR 65,350 OT1ER --- t11 TOTll. III SllMff 7-1-93 Balance -0- 1,139,790 Projected Revenue 794,317 1H TDTll. Projected Expenditures 1,139,780 u 1992 - 1993 am:r 1MTOM1E NOJfT MIUfT 812,226 813,002.00 0 .oo 41,000 41,998.32 611,000 717,8.17 0 .oo 87,600 9'3,3837.8 :18,100 .,,18'l.27 131,500 1:54,048.65 48,000 65,6:54.00 rn,200 1,121,6:V.19 Projected Ending Balance 345,463 CR Transfer from Unrestricted Revenue345,463 -0- 11 tomt LITTlR OCrKo m_ DISTRICT STATREE STRICPTREtmD1 IS~ JU, 1993 1992 - 19'3 DESEJ\nRB\nATIOf JllDtT NDJfT um YIITRO I IAlE AIIIJfl' Mlllff I fODI (2-73291\u0026gt; 780,000 600,000 844,393.81 rm II EXPEHDITUU Sil.MIES ADttlNISTRATIOf 0 a.ASSIFIEADD ttIN 40,000 39,000 40,203.84 CERTIFir.ATED 107,170 31,910 40,412.18 tOHDTinr.ATED 374,992 31,,00 275,928.71 SUBSUME 52,000 35,000 2,368.10 STIPENDS U,600 48,~ 15,1:B.JB IEEFITS 75,696 :1:5,311 46,482.74 PllOWD SERVICES 288,900 172,710 175,861.17 lffl.IES \u0026amp; IIATERIILS 114,362 51,3\u0026gt;0 36,793.52 CWITft. llJll.AY 49,760 45,710 38,267.34 DT1fR s,~ :S,3\u0026gt;0 2,557.00 1H TOTft. 1,1:10,230 760,06.'5 674,027.98 III SlJIWrf Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $371,797.32 + 780,000.00 1,150,630.00 = $1,167.32 12 IG1llU TTLREO O6t0 ID. DISTRICT STATRE ESTRICTPERlDx\nfWtS REPOO .ILY, 1993 1992 - 1993 aJI\u0026gt; ED UXiET AtWfT um 1EMTDM1E NOIIT MIUn' I IDEM (2- 73293) 240,080. 248,(156 m,SSJ.04 II EXPEHDITUlES sttARIES AlllffNIS'IRATillf 0 aJtSSifIED ADtlIN 0 0 .oo CERTIFICATED 109,000 0 .oo tDHDTIFICATED 82,000 99,0'9 99,928.24 SlllSTinm: 0 111,600 119,ZD.78 STIPOtlS 0 0 .oo IEIFITS 22,600 211,m 24,BSZ.06 PlKHASEDSERVICES 24,330 34,860 30,900.16 SlFPLI\u0026amp;EK S AlERIM.S 5,300 22,100 19,254.61 rRITALC lffi.AY 0 0 .oo D1llR 0 296,364 294,168.115 ... TOTAL 243,230 III SllW4RY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $5,695.68 + 234,479.00 - 240,080.00 = $54.68 13 tOmf Lint ROCsKo m.D ISTRICT STATIEE JRICTEDPt D\nRMS RmRT .ll.Y, 1993 RADKm a\nrwt BUDGET AtOMT 1992 - 1993 I IEVDt (2 - 73221) 0 IODI\u0026amp; PlllilWI um YEIIRTOIATE II EXPEMDITlRS NlllfT NlllfT !W.MIES I REEIE\u0026lt;2-7ml\u0026gt; 0 .oo ADtllNISTRATIOf 0 Q.ASSIFIE]) AlltlIN 0 II DFEJIII111EB CDTIFirATED 0 toHDTIFirATED 0 MJIES SlllSTIME 0 STIPEHDS 0 SfIPENIB 0 .oo BEllFITS 0 19EFITB 0 .oo PtlOWD SERVICES 22,780 PIIDWDIDIID U,860 17,Zf?.!5 Slffl..IES Ii tlATERW.S 7,110 UPUEB l MTERIU ll,151 968.J:S C#ITAL OOTlAY 0 ono 800 .oo l1T1fR 2,000 Ht TIJTM. 23,811 18,225.90 ... TOT,t. 31,890 III !llfNY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $31,893.77 + -0- 31,890.00 = $ 3.77 14 Alt r.tftYOVER I lVElE II EXFENDIT\\HS Sil.ARIES ADNIHISnTmRA. Cl./tSSIFIAElll)t tIN CERTIFir.AlD QHEUIFir.Am\u0026gt; Sl.QISTilUl[ STIPENll6 IEIFITS ftlDtASESEDR VIID SlffUES \u0026amp; MTERilt.S C'ltPITllrltT. LAY one 1H TOTlt. III~ tRTHU TltEO :Xs am.D ISTRICT STATIB l'RICTEPDR CXM6fE \u0026gt;\\RT IIUIIGT NDffl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 S,267 0 3,:500 ZJ,767 7-1-93 Balance $23,767.52 + .U.Y, 1993 Projected Revenue -0- 199'1- 1993 DriET 1FM TO IIAlE 111111' Nlllfl' 0 .oo 1,404 1,404.00 0 J99.00 9,020 9,020.00 0 .oo 792 827.94 2,811 2,u.2., 7,429 7,ffl.9'l J,m 3,511.,P 3,5)() 3,472.21 28,615 28,615.Z Projected Expenditures - 23,767.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ .52 15 IOml UTTLR OOSCO Dl. DISTRICT STATREE STRICPRT(EX\nDRf ft\n~ ,ll.Y, 1993 Aa: ELlUIPIEfT/Slffl.IES BUDr.ET NOMT 0 II EXFEHDITtRS SM.MIES ADttINISTRATI!i. 0 llASSIFIE]A) DltIH 0 CERTIFICATED 0 111+-CERTIFICATED 0 SIIISTITIITE 0 SJIPOl)S 0 IEEFITS 0 lilfPlIES \u0026amp; MlERilt.S 2,587 rN\u0026gt;ITtt. llffi.AY 8,820 OTIR 0 11,407 i III SlJtWrt Projected 07/01/93 YEMT OD ATE FlN)S Projected Ending JW..a REYE1lE AVAD.All. Expenditures Balance I 11,407.00 + .00. 11,407.00 - 11,407.00 = $ -0- II 16 .I tmfH lITTl ROCSKO Dl. DISTRICT STAlER ESTRicmP\u0026gt;l9\nIWtS REPIRT .ll.Y, 1993 Al[ 5lJlR PlmWI urn Nil.NT I REVEllE\u0026lt;2 - 731:51\u0026gt; 0 II EXfEMDITl.1S Sit.MIES AlltlIHISTRATICW 0 ClASSIFIEADD ttIN 1,625 llRTIFICATED 3,606 IOHDTIFICATED 15,450 SUBSTIME 0 STIPEMDS 0 IEEFITS 2,187 PllDWDSERVICES :5,785 stffl.IES\u0026amp; K ATERil'LS 2,923 CAPITfCt. llll.AY 0 DT1fR 0 1H TDTrt. 31,576 I III~ Projected 07/011'13 YEATROD AlE FllfDS Projected Ending BIUtl:E R6t)I AVAILAll Expenditures Balance I I 31,576.19 + .00 .. 31,576.19 - 31,576.00 = $ .19 I I I 17 Nlmf UTTtER OCsKo m.D. ISTRICT STATER ESTRICTPERDO IMISR Ef1JlT ,11.Y, 1993 Alt PRESDm. 1992 - 1993 JIUDGET MC PIEDID. AtDlfT um YEM TO MlE I RE't'EN(.2E - 73150) 234,116 NIUfT NIUfT I IEEI (2-731:11)) m,sr.s m,sr.s.oo II ElffMDITlllES Sit.MIES II DPEJIIITllU ADHINISTRATI\u0026lt;lf 0 SIUm.B ll.ASSinEDA IIIIIN 0 CDTinCATE]) 0 a.MliIFlEJ MIIIN 0 .oo IOHDTIFICATE]) 157,847 IIIHD11Flr.A1ED 146,157 140,228.77 USTITUTE 0 STJfEJll8 700 .oo STIPENDS 0 JIEJEFITS 32,llP 17,998.65 IEffllS 27,C'/57 PlRJWIESI ERVIaB 23,:529 3,365.74 PlRJWiESDE RVICES 24,612 flFPUESl MtmU 20,900 31,297.35 UfUS Ii MTERIALS 20,600 r.N\u0026gt;IT1M11. 11.AY 2,600 12,794.22 r.tf'ITtt. llJTl.AY :500 011ER 3,:500 122.75 IJTlR J,:500 HI TOTM. 'm,5'1S :m,807.41 HI TUTtt. 234,116 I III aJt1My Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 234,116.00 234,116.00 = $ -0- I 18 ,J lffl:IM. ED. fllEiDID. I II lWJl (2- 73235) EXPEM\u0026gt;Il\\JIES SfURIES AllltIHISlRATICII llJISSIFJEAl)J lltIM CDTIFICATED fOHDTIFICATED SUBSTITUTE STIPENDS BEJIFITS PlRJWiESDE RVICES Slffl.IES \u0026amp; MTERIM.S CAPITMllJ.T. l.AY OT1D 1H TUTrt. 07/01/93 MAa IG11f Um. IUlC !DOI.. DISTRICT STATREE STRICTPmED\nR MSR EPIRT .l.l.Y, 1993 IIUIX\n[J AID.NT 314,325 8PCIME.D .P IEilJll1. amr MIUfT I IIE'8I (2 - 73ZIS) - 1411,773 19,000 0 II DF81\u0026gt;ITIIEI 263,810 0 SMJRlEB 0 0 a.MSiflEI MIIDI ,,ooo lJ:RII f IDlrt'.D B\u0026gt;,403 31,515 STIFEJll8 0 0 IEJIFITS 13,310 0 HI lUTM. 1411,773 0 0 314,325 AMIS RED AVAILAlU EXPEMDITt.llEB IW.Ata .00 + 31432~00  314325.00 - 314325 .oo \" .oo 1992 -1993 YEM TO IIAlI MIUfT f.S6,202.00 :s,000.00 136,210.16 .oo 14,931.84 f.S6,202.00 19 ffl:Itt. ED. RESUEHTIAI. I II.VEIi (2-73233) II EXPEHDITIRS !W.ARIES AlltlINISTRATIIJf ll.ASSIFIEADD IIIN CERTIFir.ATED IOHERTinCATED SlSSTITUTE snmms IEFITS NDIASEDSERYICES StffLIE\u0026amp;SK AltRIM.S cwmtI.IJ Jl.AY OT1R ... TOTAL III~ 7-1-93 Balance $757.49 tlRTlfU m ROCsXa m. DISTRICT STA'!1 6TRicm\u0026gt;P R!x\nRNIS~ amw AlfUfT 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 ,..... + .ll.Y, 1993 SFWl El. 11:SIIEIUt#.. I II Projected Revenue 25,000.00 IEEI (2-7m1) ElffNDI111\u0026amp; SM.MIES NDWD tlR'fltU 1H 101M. Projected Expenditures 25,000.00 1992 -1993 um 1EM1 1JD ATE MIUff MIUff 32,000 26,ffl.82 32,000 26,200.33 32,000 26,200.33 Projected Ending Balance = $ 757.49 20 !DOI.. M:TIVITSYtU S I REml (2 - 71730) II EXPENDil\\lS SAl.ARIES ADHIHISTRArim. Q.ASSifIEJ) ADHIH CEITTFICATED tOHIRTIFICATEJI St.llSTITUTE STIPENDS IEEFITS P\\R:HASEDSERYICES SlffUES\u0026amp; lfATERIILS CAPITIrItJ. Tl.AY D1lR ffl TOTM. III SlJl1My 7-1-93 Balance IOITTUf TTlER OCSKD m. DISTRICT STATREE STRICTPER(DUA flS REPCRT JllD(\nT NDM 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U,000 20,202 13,45\u0026lt;1 75 44,727 .ll.Y, 1993 .. Projected Revenue 1992-1993 um YEMTDIIA'IE AIOlfl' AIOlfl' so,ooo 56,616.18 ts,'67 12,2'.11.14 22,983 15,184.83 12,800 4,836.'7 80 249.00 51,830 32,:508.94 Projected Expenditures Projected Ending Balance $33,493.09 + 50,000.00 59,092.00 = $24,401.09 21 IDmf LITTLREO C!ieD OI. DISTRICT STATREE STRicmP\u0026gt;R OilWISR EPm'T .I.LY, 1993 llSTIDIWS.E RVICIS llUDGT NOJfT QB111111St.E RVIID I Rn4EJ( (2-71752) 24,000 II EXPENDil\\RS SIURIES AIJIIINISTMTIIJI ll.ASSIFIEADll ttlN CERTIFir.ATED tO+-aRTIFir.ATED 9.IBSTmm: STIPENDS IEIFITS PllOWBSERYICIS stffl.IES\u0026amp; 111\\TERitt.S rRITrtl. lm.AY llT1U 1H TOTrt. III~ 7-1-93 Balance $20,729.52 0 0 5,000 14,400 0 0 1,675 900 725 0 1,300 24,000 + I II Projected Revenue 24,000.00 IDEJI (2 - 71752) 8PmI1IIU SM.MIES IIIHDTIFB'.ATEI Silri:lilB IEIFI1S fllllWD 1DV11D llfPllES l 111\\lERIU IJPITM1.1 111.AY one 1H TOTM. Projected Expenditures 24,000.00 ,.... 1992 - 1993 UliET YEM TO DATE NIUfT 24,000 16,100 0 1,400 l,SDO l,SDO 2,400 1,100 24,000 Projected Ending Balance NlllfT 211,000.00 5,391.51 .oo 440.66 m.w ffl.'11 .oo .oo 6,706.U = $20,729.52 22 lMSTMIIS I REVEN(2-7 1941) II EXPENDITlllES SALARIES ADttlNISTRATI~ IUSSIFIEDA DNIN CDTIFICATED tDHDrlFICATm SlJBSTITUJ[ STIPEM\u0026gt;S EIFITS PU1JWSaE RVICES Slffl.JE\u0026amp;SI IATERIALS rRITlt.. llJTI.AY l1nQ III~ lJ!THL ITllER OCSKD m. DISTRICT !rrAtr: RFR'JRICTPERDaM ISR mRT .ll.Y, 1993 lllllGET AIOJff LMSTMIIB Z5,000 I REDE (2 - 71941\u0026gt; II EHNDI11JU 0 SIURJES 0 S,900 AIININIS1T'IMIII 15,000 IDIIFIDnED 0 IIIHDTlfir.Am 0 ITlPEJll8 2,715 IEJEFITS 4,750 flRJWD SERYICES 965 IFPlIEB i MlBWU 4,000 twlTM. lllllAY 0 HI TOTM. JJ,390 7-1-93 Balance Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures $8,390.38 + 25,00UOO 33,390.00 1992 - 1993 um 1M TO Ml NlllfT NlllfT 25,000 zs,000.00 0 .oo 4,800 :S,280.00 12,:SOO 6,7J1.:W 0 .oo 2,205 1,191.84 7:50 66.1:S :500 994.34 4,245 2,34:5.70 25,000 16,609.62 Projected Ending Balance = $ .38 23 !UlfR sam. II EXfflfDil\\HS SURIES ADNINISTRATI[J4 IDTIFICATED IOH:ERTlFICATED STIPENDS IEIFilS PlllDfA!E) SERVICES UPllES \u0026amp; NATERIM.S 111 !U1Wrf 7-1-93 Balance $43,763.64 IGTH Um ROC!KD OL DISTRICT STATREE STRICPTRE(lD\nR AflSR EPmT .ll.Y, 1993 ur.o AtllM 60,000 8,460 66,060 2,210 0 6,026 2,320 3,424 88,~ Projected Revenue + 60,000.00 Projected Expenditures 88,500.00 Projected \u0026amp;iding Balance = $15,263.64 24 RESTRUCWRINGGR ANT I REVENUE II EXPEJl)ITI.16 SALARIES ADIUNISTRATIIJt 11/tSSIFIAE1D1 1tIN IDTIFICATED IO+-CERTIFICATED SIIISTIME STIPHDS IEIFITS PtJIOWD!I RVICES Slffl.IES l ttATERIN.S CltPITrtW. TLAY OTIER III !lttWrf  7-1-93 Balance $ -0- tG1Hu m ROCSKO ID.D ISTRICT STATREE STRICPTfflEr.DlW ISR EP11rr .ll.Y, 1993 IIUll\u0026amp;ET Atllffl 7,800 0 0 0 0 0 1,600 125 4,100 1,975 0 0 7,800 + Projected Projected Revenue Expenditures 7,800.00 7,800.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 25 REPORTS OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS tR1HL ITTLR OCSKO ID..D ISTRICT FElEW.F m\".IWtSR EPIRT .11.Y, 199'3 OrfTER I 199'l - 1993 amr atPIBt I AID.HT am:r YM TO DA1 I REVEii(6 - 74411) 1,561,000 MIUf1' MIUf1' l IQ8I (6-74411) 1,93,860 1,691,172.00 II EXPENDIMES SttMIES II DFNDIT\\IU AllttlNISlRATIIJf 70,~ BMMIES AllttlNN, IHDTIFICAl'ED 0 CDTIFICATED 416,195 HIIDIISIRATDII 1u,m 112, 104.89 tOH'ERTIFICATED 418,268 IDIIFIDIIED 517,SIO 3\u0026amp;M46.68 SUBSTITU1TEEfQ ER 0 IIIHDTJFltAlED 436,010 JIM,424.00 STifEHD 4,900 S1lP8lt S,SIO 4,200.00 IEFITS 334,335 IIE\u0026amp;ITS 1111,1:IO 2:58,560.83 ftR\u0026gt;WiED!I RVICES 1'30,422 PIIDIMIJ IIRVI1D 14t,964 49,969.4:5 Slffl.IES\u0026amp; t lATERirt.S 136,495 IIFPllEBI MlERIM.S 216,930 197,!5.61 CttPITlItI.J Tl.AY 2,500 Dl'ITIL1 1111AY 76,190 67,024.12 l1TlR 46,931 011ER '9,526 JB,714.52 --- Hf TOTAL 1,561,000 HI TDflL 1,966,685 1,478,SI0.10 Projected 7-1-93 Projected Balance Projected Ending Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 1,561,000.00 - 1,561,000.00 = $ -0- 26 DWTEIIR I RE\\91 (6- 74413) II EXPENDI11JS stUIUES ADltINISTRIUI(Jt AIIIIIINO, HDTIFICATED CERTIFICATED tOHDTIFICATED 9JISTI1U1[ 100R STifOfD IEIFITS PIJDWiESDE RVICES Slffl.IES \u0026amp; ttATERiltS l:APITAllJLT LAY ono lff TDTAL III !UtWff 7-1-93 Balance lOOHL ITllER OCslo m.D ISTRICT fEIDlt.fR(UMSREPOn' llJDGET MU(T 65,593 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 45,676 20,761 0 70,437 ,llY, 1993 awrER II I u Projected Revenue IDBI (6 - 74413) DFmIT\\IU SM.Mm IEJf.FITB NDWDIEMaB aFPUESI MTEIWlS DIPITMIII. MY Hf TDTM. Projected Expenditures $4,844.47 + 65,593.00 70,437.00 .... - 1992- 1993 um YIM TO DAlI AlllNT MIUfl' 73,'15 73,515.00 l,ISO 4,053.28 20,115 19,782.04 50,443 47,733.03 6,190 4, 78:5.SO Bl,198 1,,m.m Projected Ending Balance = $ .47 27 IG11IU TTl.R OCSXC IDl.D ISTRICT FElEM. PfmWtS REPCRT .ll.Y, 1993 mTIIM. - CIR. PEH\u0026lt;IHS 1992 -1993 BUDGET AIDlfT WEI\\TJDIM- D. R. PAICDII ' I IDEH. (6-744321 148,411 DIE 1fM TO MTE MIUfT NIUfT II EXFEMDll\\R'S I IEEJl(6-74432) 125,672 125,672.00 91.Mil'S II DfEJeI1111.B ADHINISTRIITIIJf 3,564 AllltINI,O HDTIFICATED 0 liM.AtJEB CERTIFICATED 38,210 JOH:ERTIFICATED 26,200 tDIJFDlED 36,364 36,918.00 !USTITU1T00E R 1,000 t11HDTlF1011EI 7.6,200 27,7 90.7.6 STIPEMD 900 samuTE 100B 2,178 .oo SJDIEJI\u0026gt; 0 318.40 BEIEFITS 18,803 EEmS 18,360 17,856.:111 PlRJtASE6DE RVIID 17,231 PIJIJWD ll1MID 10,318 U,774.03 !iffl.IES Ii MTERitt.S 25,689 IIFFUES Ii MTERIU 20,465 24,5.15.10 CAPITMlll.l.l .AY 16,914 DIPITMII.J TUY u,m :s,a.13 01llR 0 one 0 .oo 1H TOTAL 148,411 HI TDTM. 125,672 1246, 80.:IO III SllltARY 7-1-93 Projected Projected Projected Balance Fnding Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 148,411.00 - 148,411.00 = $ -0- 28 IDTHL ITllElo :lt sam.D ISTRICT FEJJEM.PRmW1SREP(RT Jl.Y, 199'3 TITLEV l-B lllllGET NO.NT TITI. VI-I I IDEM (6 - 74416) 320,286 II EXPENDillHS I leEII (6-74416) SIORIES AllftIHISrlIRCAlf 0 II EJHNDilllU AlllmfI, OHDTIFICATED 0 9URIE3 CERTIFir.AlED 0 IOH:ERTIFir.ATEI) 185,000 JIIHDJJFir.AlO SlDISTIT1UJ/0EE R 0 flEfI1UIE 180B STIPEND 0 smm IEEFITS 52,350 l8EFITS PlRH\u0026amp;]) SER'i!CES 42,200 PIRHIIEI IIJlVIID Slffl.IES\u0026amp; M TERIU 43,450 Ufl.lB \u0026amp;M mtIM.B CAPITftw. n.AY 0 CflPI1JIlI IIUY ono 0 RI TDTM. 1H 10Tft. 323,000 III SlJNRY 7-1-93 Projected Projected Balance Revenue Expenditures $2,779.95 + 320,286.00 323,000.00 tffl - tffl um YEMTOMTE Nlllf1' MIUf1' 310,000 309,2311.00 19',000 194,118.80 0 .oo 0 .oo 64,000 63,ffl.99 80,68:S 82,125.73 25,539 19,254.94 60 76.86 364,2114 J!9,:i54.32 Projected Ending Balance = $ 65.95 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I ' tOmt LITTLRE OCsKa m. DISTRICT FEJEW.PR(l\nIW61E'(JO' .ILY, 1993 PIB.ICL /tW1 19-313 llmr.ET AIDJ(f PIil.IC lM a,-313 I l8E1U (6 - 74417) 18,D DICE' MIIIIT II EXPE.Nl\u0026gt;Il\\HS I IE\u0026amp; (6-74417) 21,060 SM.MIES AllttINISTIROAt 0 ll EJFBalltlEB ADtllNto, KERT1f'ICA1ED 0 (D'TIFICAlED 9M.MIES roHDTIFICAlED SlllSTITUI[ TADD STIPEND IE\u0026amp;ITS PlR:HA5EIIDR VICES SlffUES ,. lfATERilt.S CWITArLu n.AY OT1R ... TUTM. III !illltARY 0 12,100 0 0 4,600 0 2,306 0 0 19,006 7-1-93 Balance $648.11 + tOHERTIFDTD 2S,B STIPEND 0 IENEFI1I 6,679 PIRJWDIIRVIID 0 llffllEB t. MTDWill 0 ... lUfM. 3'2,229 Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures 18,358.00 19,006.00 lffl - 1993 YEllOMlE MIUIT 21,104.00 25,'14.23 .oo 6,7ll.22 .oo .00 3'2,22:5.5 Projected Ending Balance $ .11 30 IEIIr.AID I 1VEM(6 -744U\u0026gt; II EXPENDIMES SM.MIES AlUHISTRATillf AIIIIIN,f llHDTIFir.ttm\u0026gt; aRTIFir.ttm\u0026gt; IOHDTIFil:AlED BJBSTIM1E0 0ER STIPEJI) IElfITS P\\RJWiEDSE RVICES SlFflIES\u0026amp; MlERIU r.APITMll.J. Tl.AY 0110 HI lOTM.. III SlllWff 7-1-93 Balance $1,001.76 hUmf LITTlER OCSKC IDl.D ISTRICT FEJEM.PmMtSIE'1RT amT IVIU{J' 29,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,400 600 0 0 30,000 + .ILY, 1993 ' IDIOOI I REWJI(6 -74414) n muDITIIEB Projected Revenue 29,000.00 MJiRIES PIIQWDEM(D SfPlIES Ii MTEJWlS ClfITM. llm.AY 1H lOTM. Projected Expenditures 30,000.00 1992 - 1993 UC\n[J YAR10 DAlE AIIUfT AIIUfT JB,000 2.6,431.95 47,700 47,409.5.l l,615 3,454.:115 0 .oo 4',m :I0,864.08 Projected Ending Balance = $ 1. 76 31 IEIIr.m PIIESDID. I ~ (6 - 74415) II EXPENDll\\lES SM.MIES ADIUNISTRATICW AllltINI,D HDTIFIC'.ATED IDTlFir.ATED IOf-CERTlflr.ATED SlllSTIME1 EltlHR STIPDII IEFITS PIIOWD SERYI(D SlffllES \u0026amp; MlERIALS CAPITltltJ. Tl.AY OTlR 1H TOTIL III !UWtRY 7-1-93 Balance $205.09 IOffll LITil ROCSKO ID. DIS'TRICT FElEW. fR(l\nRMS fEl(RT amT NllM' 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 1,000 0 12,000 + .11.Y, 1993 IEDIWI PIEDIIL I ADEii (6 - 74415) II EXPEJl\u0026gt;IlllD Projected Revenue 12,000.00 M.MIEI PIRJWD SERVIID SFPUEI I M1EIWILS CWITil IIJ'IUY HI TDTM. Projected Expenditures 12,000.00 = 1992 -1993 UliET YEM TO MTE MlllfT NllJfT t,600 13,187.83 0 13,490.40 l,000 ffl.63 l,500 .oo 2,500 14,366.03 Projected Ending Balance $205.09 32 tm1ll UTTLREO CSKD IXLD ISTRICT FEDEJW.Pfi[J\nRMSREP[RT .11.Y, 1993 lfECIALE JU:ATitlPfI EDDL klllGET 9'ECW.E IIIDTDfIlEI DOI. NOJfT \\ I REEU C6 - 74418\u0026gt; 410,620.00 I EDE (6-74418) II EXPENDillm 5't.MIES n EJPENIIt111B ADNINISTRATia. 0 BM.MIEI AIJIIINtD, H:ERTIFICttrn\u0026gt; 0 CDTIFICATED tDH:ERTIFICATED SUBSTIMrEu oR STIPEND IEEFITS P\\R:HA!DS ERVICES Slffl.IES \u0026amp; tlATERilt.S CAPITACLlf TLAY IJTlR tu TaTAL III 5lNtMY 252,000 0 470 0 M,459 90,200 14,000 16,000 4,300 442,429 7-1-93 Balance IDllfluud IIIHDTIFDlEI 9E1l1U1E 1'E/alR S11PfJII IIBEFITS PIRJWD!IRVIID UPUEB ' 111\\lEJWLS CIIPIT1M11. 11.AY one HI fflll. Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures DIE' NIUfT 359,lSO 216,780 7,SO 1,000 0 61,2115 fM,478 10,400 16,?ZS 4,000 402,161 $12,309.40 + 410,620.00 422,929.00 = 1992 - 1993 YEM 10 MTE MlllfT 286,3115.00 186,207.67 10,ffl.20 417.90 .oo 46,892.,1 44,112.90 8,509.67 16,54:1.37 3,239.90 31',905.12 Projected Ending Balance $.40 33 NOmtU rn ROCSKO ID. DISTRICT rnERft.f'R(l\nIWtSREPIRf Jl.Y, 1993 !fftIM. EIU:ATICEl tC C IIUllW AtOJ(T !FECII'-ElllDTllll E C C' I IEENE \u0026lt;6- 74419\u0026gt; 36,704 UCiET illUff II EXPEHDI1\\E [ IBBI (6 - 74419) '8,200 SALARIES w AlltllNISTRl(lA4 19,000 II meerruo A1ltlINt,D HDTIFICAlED 0 CERTIFICATED IOHEUIFICATED !USTilUTET EIOER STIPM\u0026gt; IEEFITS PllDWE) fDVJaS Slffl.IES Ir MTERI\"-5 CN\u0026gt;ITlMlJ.T I.AY one Hf TOTM. III S1JWm 0 6,900 0 0 6,835 8,700 1,600 0 0 43,03'5 7-1-93 Balance $6,281.76 + SIUIRlEB MNDIISTMTJIJI 32,42!5 IIIHDOFDTEI 7,000 BJIPEIID 0 11:.ii:FIIS 9,800 PllOWD IIERVIID 18,67:5 IFPllES Ir M1BUU 300 ... TDTM. '8,200 Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures 36,704.00 43,035.00 1992 - 1993 YEM TO DAlE MIUf1' '8,200.00 33,298.96 7,318.08 .oo 10,:564.63 10,i2l.33 613.24 61,918.24 Projected Ending Balance $49.24CR 34 IOTHL ITTLRO CsKo m.D ISTRICT FEJEW..~~ JLY, 1993 lAD STMT amGET 1992 - 1993 NIUfT \\ lAI STMT I ID9l (6 - 74421) 72,646 um YEM TO MlE NIIJfT AtlUfT II EXFEM\u0026gt;IllRS I IEVEJI (6-74421\u0026gt; 48,644 48,646.00 \u0026amp;rt.MIES ADKINISTRATlllf 0 II DPEIEt\\lD AIJIIIMI,O HDTIFICAlED 0 CDTIFICAlED 30,000 8MMIES tDHEIITTnCAlED 0 gJ!SfllUJE ~ 0 lDllflOllO 17,000 16,677.12 STIPEND 0 STlfND 0 .oo JIEJFITB 1,661 IEIEFl1I 4,760 3,300.65 PllDWD!OVICES 29,000 flRHISEI IER'fflD 28,000 25,357.(7 SlffUES lo IIATERIIU 10,000 SfllUEB I MTERIU 8,630 7,712.70 ctf\u0026gt;IT#.C. IJTlAY 0 CIIPITIIILJ MY 0 .oo IJ1lR 0 1H 11JTIL 91,390 '3,047.94 w Hf TOT#.. 76,667 III SlllWrf Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $5,343.19 + 71,324.00 76,667.00 $ .19 35 ' IIRTMLI Tn.E1 1D sam.D. ISTRICT f'EOl1.PRIJ\nRMSREPIRT JLY, 1993 Ft'EHS TMT 1992 -1993 llllr.ET AIIUfT fl1DIS TMT I l\\fJI (6-74420) 122,396 lllCiET WM 10 IWilE Nlllf1' Nlllf1' II DPBl)ITlJU I EDIE (6-74GO\u0026gt; fll,154 101,090.44 SM.MIES n EHMII11III AIMINISTRI\\TIIM 10,900 AIIIIIN, IDHDTIFICATED 0 MJm9 (DTJfJCATED 0 toHDTJFICAlD 69,5:50 MIWiiBIMfllll 10,000 ,,m.20 SlllSTI1U1TEE fOER 0 IIJHBTJFDlO 67,000 :11,11,. STifEtl) 0 mPEJID 0 .oo IEf.FITS 20,917 Elfli9 21,154 20,748.17 PllDWD SERVICES 12,000 PIIIJWD IEMID 17,800 11,008.14 llfPUB l MTEllltS 8,229 UfUEI l MlDWU 13,SIO s,,rz.a CWITMW. ILAY 0 DIP1Ti1l1l 111.AY 2,SIO .oo IJl1D 800 D1IB 0 855.00 1H TIJTM. 122,396 NI TDTM. llll,154 107,090.44 III !lltlMY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Fnding Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 122,396.00 - 122,396.00 = $ -0- 1, 36 J tRTHL ITllR OCsXo m.D ISTRICT FEJIEM.PR[J\nRMSIE'(RT J T PA EDUCATION/LITERACY lllD\u0026amp;ET Nil.NT I. REVENUE 110,ffi II EXFEM)lllR.S Sit.MIES ADttIMISTRATIIII 42,630 AlltlJNM, JHDTIFICIITED 0 CDTiflr.AlED 35,030 IDHDTIFICATED 0 !UISTITU1J0E0 R 0 SUPEMD 0 DFITS 18,615 PlliOMSESDE RVICES 6,000 !lfPLIES \u0026amp; MTERI/t.S 0 rlnrrt. (lJll.AY 0 OTlR 8,180 UO,ffl III SlltlARY 7-1-93 Balance $ -0- + .U.Y, 1993 Projected Projected Revenue Expenditures 110,455.00 110,455.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 37 I I I IGlll Um ROCsKam .D ISTRICT fDEM.PR(J\nRMSREP(RI' I .ll.Y, 1993 I Jffll HIPPY I UGET AIIUfT 1992 - lffl I IDEJI (6-74429) 17,500 JIPA HIPPY (6 - 74430) llllliT 1M m MlE lltlll(J lltlll(J II EXPEMDITtHS I EWJIE (6-74429) 21,000 20,984.15 SM.ARIES (6 - 744.l\u0026gt;) AllltINISlRATillt 0 AllltlM, toHDTIFICATED 0 II DPDlITIIIB (DflfICATEJ) 0 IOH:ERTIFICAlED 12,250 SM.MIES 911STIMET E.ADD 0 STIPEND 0 IOHDDFitATEI 14,17:5 13,~.62 STIPEIII 0 .oo IEEFITS 3,350 IDEFITB J,BZS 2,ffl.13 ftKIWlED !DVICES 400 PIIIHIIEaIR 'WllD t,Ol:!O 276.37 SlfPLIE\u0026amp;S .t lATERIM.S 1,500 SlffUES I. MlERIU l,'-'O 4,445.93 ctfITrt. lllll.AY 0 ono 0 Ill TDTM. 21,000 20,984.15 - HI TOTft. 17,500 ProJectea Ill SllNRY 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 17,500.00 17,500.00 = $ -0- 38 .... IOmfL IT11R OCsKa m.D ISTRICT ~PR(gWtSIEP(RT .11.Y, 199'3 JTPA~ IlmT AIOlfT lffl - 1993 I REVEii(6 - 74428) 9,612 JIN MIit UCE YEM 10 IIAlt'. II EXml\u0026gt;mHS MOlff MOlff ~IES l EWJI (6 - 744.2B) 9,612 14,738.70 AllttINISTTIRCAlt 0 ADIUNt,o HDTIFir.ATED 0 IDl'IFir.ATED 7,:560 II DP911111JEB toHDTIFir.ATED 0 !lJBSTIT\\JT1[ EADR 0 IIMAIES STIPEND 0 Wilflull'Ell 1.~ il,8:56.00 IEIFITS 1,:512 STIP9ID 0 .oo PllDWD SERVICES 100 WIIB 1,512 2,347.14 SlFPlIESl IIATERIILS 440 PllDWD SERVICEB 0 95.JO C/f\"ITtILIJ TlAY 0 9ffUB  ttATBWl.S 540 440.26 Ol1R 0 1H TDTM. 9,612 14,738.70 HI TUTtL 9,612 Ill 5lltWrf Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ 287.16 + 9,612.00 9,612.00 = $287.16 39 IDmf I.ITTlER OCSICD DJ..D ISTRICT FEDERft.Pm\nRftl6RP(R'I' Jl.Y, 1993 JTPAtt. TERNATIVE IU)(\nET AIDJ(T 1992 - 1993 I REVEJ(6E- 74431\u0026gt; 35,000 JIN M.'IEIIIMTM DIE 1M TO DATE II EXPEMDITllD NlllfT NlllfJ' SALARIES I 1BB1E (6-74431\u0026gt; 34,870 30,138.84 ADttIHISTRATillf 0 ADttINtD, HlRTIFICAlE\u0026gt; 0 II motDillJEB aRTIFICATED 2:5,200 IOHDTIFICATED 0 SeURJES 911STI1U1T0E0 ER 0 STIPEND 0 lJ:RllflO.TED ZS,200 23,831.09 UBJIMETEMJD 0 'YI.BO IE6IT5 7,170 STIPEND 0 .oo PUDtASESDE RVICES 130 ElfI1B 7,170 5,741.40 SlffUES \u0026amp; MTERI/t.S 2,500 11.ffUEBl MlBUU 2,SOO SW.88 ~Iltt. llJTl.AY 0 ... mtt. 34,870 30,152.17 ono 0 1H TOTtt. ?S,000 III stJNRY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 35,000.00 35,000.00 = $ -0- 40 tamf UT11R OCsKa m. DISTRICT FEllEJWfR.( X\nRMS RfflRT .lLY, 1993 JTPAP RE-Jfl..O'flHT JUlGET AIUl(T 1992 -1993 I 10EME C6 - 744Z7) 30,000 J'l'N PE-EJFUmllfr UlliET YEM 10 DATE II EXfEJIDll\\16 AllllfT NlllfT StUIRIES I EWJI (6-74427) :S0,823 48,289.80 ADIIINIS'JRATl(J4 0 ADIIINtl,l HDTIFICATED 0 II EFENDITLID CERTIFICATED 20,531 toHIRTIFICATED 0 SM.MIES SUBSTllU1tE0 0D 0 STIPEND 0 IDTIFID\\1ED 34,098 32,476.20 S1'JPEJII 0 .oo \u0026amp;FITS 5,015 IEEFITS 8,331 7,957.02 PlR:tWE\u0026gt; SERVICES 1,866 fUilH\u0026amp;J IERVIID 2,600 2,793.43 UPl.lES \u0026amp; tlATERI\"-5 2,588 SffUES \u0026amp; MTERIU ,.m 4,962.15 CIIPITrtM. l.AY 0 CWITMIIJ. II.AY 0 101.00 OnER 0 .. TDTM. :so,m 411,289.80 1H TOTll. 30,000 III SlltWff Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 30,000.00 30,000.00 = $ -0- 41 JTPA-CAPDA I REVENUE II EXPEMDITIJU SM.ARIS ADtlINIS'JRATIU. AlltlINI,O KERTIFil:ATED (DTifltATED fOf-CERTIFir.ATED SUBSTmr1rEE ltOR STIPEND EIFITS PU!OWD SERVICES SlfflIES \u0026amp; IIATERlrt.S CAPITltliJ TlAY OTtfR III Slll'MY 07/01/93 MR:E .00 IIIITTt LITl1 RID sam. DISTRICT f'El1ERlPllR. tJ\nRMS ~ I .ll.Y, 1993 JlQ)f\nET AIDJfT 19,000 0 0 1S,470 0 0 0 3,530 0 0 0 0 19,000 == rums RE'VEN.E AVAILAlU EXPEHDITtm M.AN::E + 19,000-00  19 00000 - 19 000 ,00 C ' ' .oo 42 Dill AND1 t1DD.. CARRYOVER I IBEK (6 - 74461\u0026gt; II EXPENDillRS SN.ARIES ADttIHISTTIR04A AllltINI,O HDTIFICATED CIRTIFICATED IOHDTIFICATEJ\u0026gt; SUBSTIM1E0 0R STIPEND JEEFilS PIJDWE) SERVICES Slffl.IES I, HATERI\"-5 rltPITAWI. MY OTlR HI TOTAi. III SUMrr 7-1-93 Balance tGTHL ITTl.ER OCSKCI Ul.D ISTRICT FElEW. PR(x\nrwtS RmRT aJ1)(\nET AID.HT 00 S,900 6,~ 0 0 200 500 3,275 4,270 S,500 0 0 26,145 .11.Y, 1993 Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures $26,145.00 + -0- 26,145.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 43 DIU EllOCATICW I reElE (6- 74460) II EXPEHDIT\\IES kARIES AllHINISTRATIOf ADHINto, H:ERTIF'Ir.ATED Cf.RTIFir.ATED toH:ERTIFICATED SUBSTITU10T0ER STIPEND IEEFITS PlR:HASESDER VICES Slffl.IESIi lfATERiliS CN\u0026gt;ITMru. n.AV OTtER lff TUTlt. III SlltlARY 07/01/93 M.lla: tomf UTTLER OCsKo m..D ISTRICT FEDERfA'RLlJ\nRNtS RP1ET JJ.Y, 1993 lllS MD M.aHL BUDtT AlllJfT um NlllfT 92,900. I IEVBIE (6-74461\u0026gt; 92,9 II ElfflellllEB stUtRIES 17,700 0 MIIDIIS1MTIIII 0 0 AIIIDI, JIIHDTIFIQ\\TED 0 19,500 tDIIF.tblTED 38,?.,0 1,600 IIIHDTifltATEI 0 3,000 UBTl1U1Em a\u0026amp; g STIPEND 7,62D 10,095 lEEF1TS 10,660 26,085 PllDWD IIRVI1D 92,325 14,920 !lffLlES Ii IIATERilt.B 11,821 0 DPITII. IIIILAY 2,200 0 OTID 0 92,900 1H lUTM. 16:5,896 F1MDS AVAILAll.E EXPENDITIHS IWN:E .oo + 92,900.00 = 92, 90000 - 92,900 .oo = .00 1992 - 1993 mRmMTE NlllfT 92,818.00 23,m.14 .oo 13,732.74 .oo 1,615.'1.5 3,940.00 10,100.21 62,108.62 12,631.66 1,936.40 .oo 129,442.72 44 IGTHL I11l ROCSKCf Ol.D ISTRICT FEDERPARLm WtSR EPOrr EISENHOWMERA TH/SCIENCCAER RYOVER BUlltT NO.NT I REVENUE II EXPEMDiltllES SM.ARIES AlltlINISTRICAlf ADtlINto, H:ERTIFICltm\u0026gt; CERTIFICATED IOt-CERTIFICIITED Sl.llSTIMETE IOR snmm IEIFITS P1RlED SERVICES SlffUES a. tlATERitt.s cwmtW. TtAY 011R III SllNRY 7-1-93 Balance 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 7,300 1175 9,486 8,403 800 2,000 30,864 $30,864.00 + .ll.Y, 1993 Projected Revenue -0- Projected Expenditures 30,864.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 45 1BTHU m ROCsKa m.D ISTRICT FEJ\u0026gt;ERft.PR(X\nfWIS~ .U.Y, 1993 EISEtHJERlt ATIVSCIEta 1992- 1993 llJllGET EI1EHIER ltA'1HIIEIEIIE Nil.NT aa\n[T YEMto JIAlE I REVEll.(E6 - 74453) 42,000.00 MIIIIT AIIUfl' = I IED (6 - 74CS3) 42,740 42,740.00 II EXPEM)Illm ~ II DPfJIDilUEI ADHINISTRATIClf 0 BIURJES ADNINID, HIRTIFICAJED 0 CERTifICATED 0 iTED 0 .oo MIHIRTIFICATED 0 UB1l1U1ET l4HR 3,000 1,D\u0026gt;.80 SUBSTilllTE ACHR 4,000 STIPm 1?,000 6,994.23 STIPEND 12,000 JIJlfI1B l,510 67'.li \u0026amp;FITS 1,000 PIIIJWD flRVIID 26,5\u0026gt;0 18,46.1.14 PlmWiED SERVICES 17,000 SffUB Ii MTEJWU 8,710 2,446.42 Slffl.IE\u0026amp;S I IATERIALS 6,000 CWITMII.J IUT 1,600 'llB.99 CWITALll JTlAY 1,000 onD 2,000 .oo OTIIR 1,000 1H TOT#.. 62,370 31,193.69 Hf TOTAL 42,000 III SllNRY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 42,000.00 - 42,000.00 = $ -0- 46 HOMELESS lllffit UTTLREO CsKo m.D. ISTRICT fEDERlPt. RlUNISR EPtRT BUDGET ND.NT .11.Y, 1993 I REVENUE ,,_21.875 II EXPENDilllEi SAL.MIES ADtlINISTRATIIJI ADtlIHID, H:ERTIFICAl'ED CERTIFICATED IOH:ERTIFICA1ED SUBSTilUTTEE IOR STIPEND IEEFITS PlR:tWiESDE RVICES !lFPUES \u0026amp; WITERIM.S r.APITAIILJT I..AY 01lR III SUtWrf 7-1-93 Balance $ -0- 0 0 0 11,980 0 0 1,900 6,454 1,541 0 0 21,875 + I II Projected Revenue RE\\91 (6 - 7442'.l) DPBl)ITUU UIURIES IHI IFlDnD t11HD11FD:11ED STll'Ee IEJlfITS flRlWIEJ llJM(D llffllEB I MlBWU HI TIJTM. Projected Expenditures 21,875.00 - 21,875.00 1992 - 199'3 llmT lDRTOJlt\\TE NIUfT NIUfl' 21,000 21,000.00 6,190 468.00 2,230 l,:iot.:io 0 .oo t,710 390.'7 5,710 280.00 4,:IOO ~.31 21,000 2,792.78 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 47 CHAPTERI SUMMERP ROGRAM I REVENUE II DfEMDIT\\16 SIURIES ADIIIHISTRATIIII AIIIIIN, toHERTIFICATED lDTIFICATED IOHDTIFICAlED STIPEJID IEIFITS MOWD SERVICES SlfPlIS \u0026amp; tlAltRIALS 01lER III SlllWff 07/0t/93 IWlH:[ 254,480.69 + fRTLHI TTlR.EO CSKC IDLD ISTRICT ~PRO\nRNtS~ JlmT NlllfT 0 0 0 136,000 24,060 0 40,920 44,260 500 8,760 254,~ .ll.Y, 1993 FlN)6 REDE AVAilAll.EE XFENDll\\llES .00  254,\"80.69 - 254,400.00 = BAl.Na 80.69 48 tRTHU TTlER OC6KC tlD. DISTRICT FEllEJWP.f.O ifWtSR EP(RT .11.Y, 1993 atAPTEIRI ACCELERASOTEIDD. JIUD\u0026amp;ET NWfT 1992 -19'3 0 awmt lJ CB EMU IIHll I REVE1I(E6 - 7J262) 0 llllliET YM 10111\\lE MIUfT tVIUIT II EXPEHDITIJ6 I E\\91 (6 - 73262) 0 .00 SIURIES AllltINIS'JRATI(lf 0 II ElffJIDI111EB AllttIH, IDKERTIFICMED 0 CERTIFICATED 0 SMMJEI tIHIRTIFICATED 0 SUBSTllU1T00ED 0 fllHD'1JFit11EI 6,SIO 4,981.86 mPEND 100 S11PEID 12,a, 11,783.34 IEEFITS 8 MFliS 2,'?m 2,794.61 PlRJWiE!DD VICES 1,806 PIIOWDfDVICEB 1,621 1,719.72 QfPLIES \u0026amp; ttATERIAI.S 0 llffUEB Ii MlBUM.S 0 82.00 C'IIPITMlll.T LAY 0 HI TOTM. ZJ,276 21,361.SJ ono 0 HI TaTM. 1,914 III SllWtRY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $1,914.47 + -0- 1,914.00 = $ .47 49 OW'1IR II ~Illlllt FlWElR I REDE C6 - 74331\u0026gt; II EXPENDntm !W.ARIES AlUNISTfIRIJAf AmtINI,O HDTIFICATED IDTIFICATED IOHDTIFir.ATED SlJBSTIM[ TE/OD STIPEM\u0026gt; IEEFITS PlRJWD SERVICES Slffl.IES \u0026amp; MTERitU CAPITtlLll Tl.AY 01lR III \u0026amp;INRY 07/0t/93 MRa 4,8:18.16 + tlRTllL im ROCsKo m.D ISTRICT FEllERfFt.t UIWtS IIP(RT . .ll.Y, 1993 aJJX\nET AtDJfT awmt n llllWll.lFlIlW Elm 0 m I IBBI (6 - 74311) .0 II DFENDilllEB 0 0 SMJlEB 3,000 0 BErmnElF/OElt 1,000 STIF8II 533 E\u0026amp;IIS m PIIIH\u0026amp;I IERVDlS 0 llfflUD \u0026amp; MlERilt.S 0 0 JS 4,e:i8 F\\JIDS AVAI1.All EXPENDIT\\HS .oo s 4,e:i8.16 - 4,858.oo. lllRT NlllfT 6,250 4,000 1,400 :m CID 175 6,250 WWW IW.Nl:E .16 1m - 1m YEM TO 111\\lI NlllfT 6,250.00 34.'2 1,258.00 98.'2 .oo .oo 1,Jft.84 50 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET FOR_ . FOOD SERVICES 1993-94 ' rRTLHim  ROCsKo m DISTRICT FOOSDE RVICE 1993 - 1994 1992 - 1993 BUDGET MlM BUDGEVT EMT OD ATE I REYEM(Fl.N D 08 ) I, 959,000.00 AtOMT AtW4T 1,983,110.00 I, 971, 947.4-4 wnn= II E\u0026gt;ffNDITtm AmIN SIURIES 100,000.00 a.ASSIFIE!DW .MIES BIIS,000.00 94,000.00 96,221.82 820,000.00 902,2 '462. 1 IEEFITS 121,825.00 128,560.00 110,232.46 1UCW15SEEDR I/ICES 25,700.00 UTILITIES 9,700.00 4,787.05 8, S0.00 5,250.00 6,381.00 SlFPLIES tlATERirts -M,525.00 FOOD 749,000.00 44,350.00 38,383.07 tlAINTBW: 26,000.00 765,000.00 685,249.75 23,500.00 17,895.02 EWiftNT 25,000.00 22,000.00 11,781.10 OTIR 5,000.00 1,850.00 5,723.19 ... TOTlt. 1,990,500.00 1,914,210.00 1,779,900.67 == 07/01/133 FlNDS III 9JMri BtUKE R\\9U AYAILAILEEX PENDITIJ!ES BtVltil n, 79. a + 1,959,000 = 2,431,479.40 - 1,990,500 = 440,979.40 Student Rates Elementary Lunch 1.20 Elementary Lunch 1.20 Secondary Lunch 1.25 Secondary Lunch 1.25 Breakfast .90 Breakfast .90 Adult Rates 1.60 Lunch 1.60 1.10 Lunch Breakfast 1.10 Breakfast 51\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_379","title":"Data","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":["1993/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Data"],"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/379"],"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":["262 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\ns C H o O Learn a little about vour schools All three districts in Pulaski County have plenty to be proud of.  ARKANSAS TIMES  MARCH 27, I998_ w,hen you choose a neighborhood, you're also choosing a school system. The two are inevitably interlinked, and schools often are the determming factor when families are relocating. There are plenty of good-news stories in all three Pulaski County school districts, inspirational tales that help illuminate what is right about public education today. Here are brief looks at the three districts: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The largest school district in the state, the Little Rock School District includes 35 elementary schools, eight j unior high schools, five senior high schools, one alternative learning center and one vocational-technical school. Many are incentive or magnet schools that specialize in a particular educational theme, and plenty of other are area schools in which students from particular nearby neighborhoods attend them. The Little Rock School District has much to boast about  Thirteen LRSD students were named National Merit Scholarship Semifinalists during the 1997-98 school year. Twelve of those honored students attend Central High School, and the other goes to Parkview.  Six students were selected as National Achievement Scholarship Semifinalists four from Central, one from Parkview and one from J.A. Fair.  The 1996-97graduating class of the Little Rock School District received more than $5.1 million in scholarships.  The district offers more courses than any other district or private school in the state. There are computer labs in every elementary school in the district.  More than 160 businesses in the city participate with schools in the Partners in Education program. . \"The variety of programs offered through the district are attractive to parents because there's something for everyone,\" says Suellen Vann, head of communications for  the District. \"Parents whose children are interested in math, science, health sciences L s award-winning teachers and award-winning students.\" There are approximately 25,000 students in the district, with an average expenditure of $5,822. The average teachersalary in 1997- 98 is $33,8789, excluding fringebenefits. More than 53 percent of the teaching staff holds either master's degrees or doctorates. NORTH Little rock school District Parents who want a small-town school environment for their children but who still want to live smack-dab in the middle of bustling Pulaski County might want to take a long look at the North Little Rock School District. 'The district is approximately one-third the size of the Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts with about 9,000 total Computers have become an educational way of life In public schools. students attending the 14 elementaries, four middle schools and one high school, which issplitintotwocampusesthe Eastcampus for 9lh and 10th graders and the West campus for 11th and 12th graders. There are also three specialty programs and an alternative learning center. \"One of the strongest points for us,\" says Shara Brazear, communications head for the district, \"is that we can be a smaller-town school in a metropolitan area. We're exactly right for many people. Most teachers and employees have worked here for years. Once they work for the North Little Rock district they don't want to leave.\" students and recently lauiwhed several new projects. Poplar Street Middle School is an outrageously successful all sixth-grade school. Adolescents have a chance to mature and learn in an environment with their true peers. All 650 sixth-grade students in the district attend this school and are divided into seven teams. Approximately 90 students are in each team of four core teachers: math, English, science and social studies. Redwood Early Childhood Center is another exciting endeavor the North Little Rock School District undertook last year. This preschool program identifies at-risk students in North Little Rock and offers outstanding instruction as well as an exciting curriculum ' ride the bus long distances to take part in the for ail 135 students including 25 kindergarten students. Pulaski county special school DISTRICT A far-flung district of 729 square miles that covers every area of the county that doesn't fall within the Little Rock or North Little Rock city limits, the Pulaski County Special School District includes a total of 38 schools25 elementaries, one middle school, five juruor high schools, six high schools and an alternative learning center for grades 7-12. The district maintains a down-home, smalltown feel by operating under the neighborhood concept. \"As long as seate are still available in your neighborhood school, then that's where you go,\" says Susie Roberts, a district spokeswoman. All the elementaries feed to a particular junior high, and then to a particular high school so \"a majority of students end up going to school with the same kids their whole lives,\" Roberts notes. With 20,000 students and 2,700 employees, the Pulaski County Special School District is the count/s second largest. And there are plenty of good things happening in its schools, some of which Roberts proudly points out:  There is an average of only 20 students per classroom.  Several elementary schools offer a prekindergarten program for 4-year-olds, and others havean extended-day program, which supplies before- and after-school care for  children to better fit parents' schedules.  Five specialty theme schools offer attendance options for qualifying students. Baker Interdistrict Elementary offers an economics specialty theme, while students at College Station Elementary are offered specialized instruction in talented and gifted education. Students at Fuller Elementarv* ran elect tn program, while students at Landmark E. ementary enjoy the fine arts specialty pre gram. Fuller Junior High and Mills Univer sity Studies High School also feature a tai ented and gifted instruction specialty.  About 1300 students take advantage o the many opportunities presented by thi Talented and Gifted (TAG) program, whicl encourages critical thinking and creativih as well as specific subject skills.  Wilbur D. Mills University Studies High School offers a logical progression for students who have participated in the TAG specialty programs offered at College Station Elementary and Fuller Junior High. Roberts reports that many students elect tc unique program, through which they can get a head start on their college careers. That allows many to . enter college as first- or second-semester sophomores rather than as freshmen. Mills offers a more comprehensive selections of advanced placement (AP) courses and more upper-level electives to facilitate this early jump on college. The first class to graduate from the Mills University Studies program netted almost $3 million in scholarship offere.  All secondary schools offer a standard core curriculum in workforce education, and about 90 percent of students get some sort of this type training.  Pulaski County Special School District students, teachers and administrators are coT^sistently recognized with numerous local, state and national awards for excellence in education. Magnet schools Students who live in any school district in Pulaski County are eligible to apply for admission to magnet schools, which offer themed subject areas. Elementary magnet schools:  Booker Arts  Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science  Clinton Interdistrict (technology/speech)  Crystal Hill Communications  Gibbs International Studies/Foreign Language   King High-Intensity  Rockefeller Early Childhood  Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science  Williams Basic Skills Secondary schools:  Central International Studies  Dunbar International Student/Talenled and Gifted  Henderson Health Science  Horace Mann Arts and Science  McClellan Business/Communications  Pirkvipw .Art'^ and Sciences L. PURSUE fRE PUSSHitiiLmES Uf MAGIMET SCHOOL EIVROLLIUEIMT ir NOT TOO IBT!I \u0026gt; .\u0026gt; %\n. L - * I  .X  ,jr. /\u0026gt; \u0026amp; :t h \u0026gt;' I i\nr\nCheck Us Ootl i [^^^C/ioosefrom !5 II Schools or Programs i Pre-K through t2th Crude High Degree of Parental Involvement Test Scores, Low Student Disciplinary Referrals si^\nUMITCD SeRTING flVRILRBLCll Transportation Provided Call the Magnet Review Committee office at 75B-O1SE far enrollment information I Then I shared my knowledge with others. I Global Education in the Little Rock School District 324-2000 Town Hall Meeting October 11, 1994 7 p.m. .7 Fulbright Elementary School 300 Pleasant Valley Drive OCT V 1 W OUice Ct Oasaursoa^' RC*^ iujolWK Zone 4 AGENDA Introduction and Purpose of Meeting Leon Modeste Special Assistant to the Superintendent Opening Remarks John A. Riggs, IV Board Representative, Zone 4 Dr. Heiuy P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 1. Budget Configurations n. Goals and Mission Statement Questions and Suggestions from Citizens Closing RemarksOur Pride is Showing at the Little Rock School District  The Little Rock School District has more course offerings than any other district or private school in the state.  There are 125 businesses that are Partners in Education with the LRSD.  LRSD leads the state with 84 counselors for its 50 schools.  LRSD offers 21 advanced placement courses in its high schools.  LRSD is an educational partner in the New Futures for Little Rock Youth initiative which is a $15 million grant from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Little Rock is one of only five cities to receive this honor.  LRSD has more that 489,925 books in its school libraries\nthat's twice the state standard.  LRSD offers courses in five foreign languages: Spanish, French, German, Latin and Greek.  In 1994, LRSD seniors were awarded more than $3.3 million in college scholarships.  LRSD traditionally has more National Merit Scholars than any other district in the state.  LRSD offers an educational program for four-year-olds, allowing parents to begin their child's learning very early.  The LRSD has an Instructional Resource Center for teachers and parents with materials and services available to enhance the educational experiences of all LRSD students.  In 1994 LRSD identified 1,856 seventh graders to take the SAT and ACT college entrance exams as part of the Duke University Talent Identification Program.  LRSD offers many educational options such as incentive, area, magnet, and interdistrict schools, each with specialties unique and different.  LRSD has a strong gifted and talented program.  LRSD students have access to the electronic encyclopedia through the library media centers and computer labs.  LRSD offers an extensive program of adult education to meet the needs of people in Central Arkansas with morning, afternoon, evening and siunmer programs.  More than 53% of LRSD teachers hold Master's Degrees or have more than 30 hours towards advanced degrees. Little Rock School District Mission Statement The mission of the Little Rock School District i educational program which encouraoes all childranT v quality, integrated social, and emotional development To that end ,h a academic. '0 iitat end. the students in the Little RncU Oni, apprec.at.on for ethnic and cultural diversity, d vetp - resolut.on. and demonstrate program which District will develop an problem solving and conflict curriculum. mastery of the District', This will be achieved throu s Ji the collaborative efforts of a Board, of a dedicated . purents, and cttizens committed to fairness, racial and competent staff, and of smdems, p-- equity, and adequate support for education. Little Rock School District Goals 1. Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that aU academically sociallv and Pmnf \" ensure that all -  academic enrichment while  students grow 1. disparities in achievement. 3. Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. will valued contributor to and thp cultural diversity and the community as a valued that they accept each individual as a can draw as we resource upon which among students, staff, prepare for the 21st Centuiy. our community and nation Solicit and secure financial and other our schools, including resources that are our desegregation plan. necessary to fuUy support Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to leamin asnre that equity occurs in all phases of school g for all students. activities and operations.1994-95 LRSD Board Priorities Compiled at the Board Work Session on September 14, 1994  Safety \u0026amp; Security  Problem Solving at the Building Level  Quality Nursing Services  Alternative Means of Assessment  Alignment of Curriculum with Assessment  Staff Development  Parent Involvement  Collaboration between LRSD and City of Little Rock  Alternative Schools, including Alternative Learning Center (ALC)  Positive Discipline (Alternative Discipline Procedures)  Improved Relationship with MediaSchool Enroll -ment % BIk Elem Jr. High High Area Gadget Elem Bale Elem Baseline Elem Booker Elem Brady Elem Carver Elem Chicot Elem Cloverdale pddd Elem Fair Park Elem Fdre^ P^ Franklin Elem Fulbright Elem Garland Elem Geyer SprkigE Gibbs Elem Ish Elem Jefferson Elem Kwg Elam Mabelvale McDarmotl Meadowcliff Mitchel! Elem Otter Creek Pdl Heights 202 321 339 621 398 598 535 366 304 243 444 411 530 256 282 336 187 483 500 509 440 264 353 379 76 77 77 56 69 55 65 80 60 79 45:s 86 42 91 63 57 97 42 56 54 66 88 41 52 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-93 Incen tive X X X X Magnet Inter- dist Magne t X X X Inter -dist Mag -net Prog 4-Year- Olds Prog X X X X X X X X Annex -ed X X X X X X X X CommentsSchool Enroll -ment % BIk Elem Jr. High High Area Incen tive Rightsell Elem 249 96 X X Ftoctefelter 361 69 X X Romine Elem 361 77 X Stephens Elem 209 97 X X Terry Elem 541 44 X X Wakefield Elem 500 69 X X Washington 822 59 X Watson Etem 4S1 74 X X Western Hills 335 62 X X Williams Etem 502 55 X Wilson Elem 355 75 X X Woodruff Elem 234 63 X X Cloverdale Jr^ 775 74 X X Dunbar Jr. 705 58 X X Forest Heights Henderson Jr. Mabelvale Jr. Mann Jr. Pulaski Heights Southwest Jr. Central High Fair High Hall High McClellan High Parkview High High Sch Kind 787 914 BV 667^ 849 774 695 1.950 886 976 966 854 122 70 75 166 59 561 75 56 63 57 66 i:57i 89 X X X X X X X X X X X X ......... X 1X\nX 11\u0026gt;1-X::1 X Magnet X X 1B1'X Inter- diSt Magne t X X Inter -dist X Mag -net Prog X X X X 4-Year- Olds Prog X X X X X X X X Annex -ed X X X X X X CommentsNote: 1. Baker Elementary is an interdistrict school in the Pulaski County Special School District. For the 1992-93 school year, the extended care theme has drawn 63 LRSD students on M-to-M transfers. 2. Crystal Hill Elementary is an interdistrict magnet school in the Pulaski County Special School District. For the 1992-93 school year, it has drawn 278 LRSD students on M-to-M transfers. 3. Rockefeller is an incentive school with an early childhood magnet program serving children beginning at 6-weeks old. 4. Henderson Jr., Central High, and McClellan High are area schools with magnet programs. 5. All high schools house one to two kindergarten classes. The enrollment figures reflect high school enrollment. 6. The King Elementary Interdistrict School to open 1993-94 will probably be an interdistrict magnet school, as will the Stephens Elementary Interdistrict School opening in 1994-95.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent: Dr. Ruth Steele Finance Office: Jim Ivey Desegregation Officer: James Jennings Mileage Size of District: Millage Rate: 43.9 Annual Budget Operating Salary Desegregation Cost per Child Number of Employees Certified Support Enrollment 26,254 Elementary Secondary 14,683 11,571 49 Schools 36 Elementary Schools 8 Junior Highs 5 Senior HighsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT COMPARISON SCHOOLS 1988-89 Enrollment % BLK 1989-90 Enrollment % BLK 1990-91 Enrollment % BLK 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK Badgett 279 72% 237 76% 222 75% 220 73% Bale 414 72% 385 76% 375 81% 360 82% Baseline 400 73% 389 72% 370 74% 337 77% Booker 647 55% 610 53% 614 56% 634 55% Brady 447 64% 442 66% 456 72% 420 68% Carver 446 50% 589 46% 603 54% 601 54% Chicot 560 65% 531 64% 544 67% 531 64% Cloverdale 446 63% 419 70% 389 74% 392 78% Dodd 414 66% 394 64% 331 59% 303 55% Fair Park 341 72% 332 72% 345 81% 320 80% Forest Park 423 59% 392 57% 387 53% 402 48% Franklin 442 74% 448 81% 411 83% 507 84% Fulbright 598 55% 576 56% 559 52% 506 46% Garland 299 92% 285 94% 240 88% 279 94% Geyer Springs 239 66% 205 66% 201 72% 254 71% Gibbs 335 51% 338 51% 333 56% 339 56% Ish 197 90% 164 96% 146 97% 200 94% Jefferson 488 56% 479 50% 469 51% 484 43% King 94 94% Mabelvale Elem 586 63% 535 58% 559 57% 505 53% McDermott 506 59% 514 61% 524 62% 511 57% Meadowcliff 456 69% 432 62% 444 65% 427 59% Mitchell 261 84% 239 92% 207 88% 312 91% Otter Creek 361 58% 342 50% 359 50% 356 45% Pul. Heights 326 70% 307 71% 325 65% 342 54% Rightsell 241 81% 211 92% 193 99% 289 98% Rockefeller 300 85% 250 86% 271 72% 403 70% Romine 472 76% 425 80% 392 82% 357 84%SCHOOLS 1988-89 Enrollment % BLK 1989-90 Enrollment % BLK 1990-91 Enrollment % BLK 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK Stephens 233 97% 226 100% 202 94% 245 96% Terry 522 59% 513 61% 522 55% 512 47% Wakefield 501 63% 464 65% 502 65% 479 69% Washington 519 98% 762 57% 841 57% Watson 465 65% 456 64% 518 67% 467 72% Western Hills 332 64% 337 59% 339 60% 323 59% Williams 475 52% 501 51% 505 56% 495 55% Wilson 412 70% 397 66% 418 71% 394 73% Woodruff 221 74% 193 71% 186 65% 225 64% High Sch Kind 119 76% 113 87% 111 84% SUB TOTAL 14,179 66% 14,195 67% 14,336 66% 14,683 65% Cloverdale Jr. 712 60% 731 64% 764 70% 745 71% Dunbar 741 81% 576 79% 663 64% 691 61% Forest Heights 770 64% 808 67% 772 69% 765 71% Henderson 954 64% 956 71% 902 75% 859 83% Mabelvale Jr. 581 56% 609 61% 620 65% 665 65% Mann 882 59% 877 54% 886 58% 872 56% Pul. Heights 694 62% 721 63% 722 63% 761 62% Southwest 734 70% 700 70% 655 75% 704 74% SUBTOTAL 6,068 64% 5,978 66% 5,984 67% 6,062 68% Central High 2,070 57% 1,813 58% 1,580 59% 1,721 60% Fair 920 51% 911 56% 866 58% 882 61% Hall 1,268 50% 1,192 53% 1,212 57% 1,082 54% MeClellan 1,191 52% 1,081 59% 1,003 61% 980 65% Parkview 847 58% 805 54% 804 54% 844 53% SUBTOTAL s GRAND TOTAL 6,296 54% aie 5,802 56% 5,465 58% 5,509 59% 26,543 63% 25,975 64% 25,785 65% 26,254 64%SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pul. Heights Rightsell LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS 220 360 337 634 420 601 531 392 303 320 402 507 506 279 254 339 200 484 505 511 427 312 356 342 289 73% 82% 77% 55% 68% 54% 64% 78% 55% 80% 48% 84% 46% 94% 71% 56% 94% 43% 53% 57% 59% 91% 45% 54% 98% 237 396 390 656 492 613 558 492 328 348 396 510 515 340 328 353 245 486 515 492 442 340 351 351 340 93% 91% 86% 97% 85% 98% 95% 80% 92% 92% 102% 99% 98% 82% 77% 96% 82% 99% 98% 104% 97% 92% 101% 97% 85% 17 36 53 22 72 12 27 100 25 28 0 3 9 61 74 14 45 2 10 0 15 28 0 9 51SCHOOLS 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS Rockefeller 403 70% 385 105% 0 Romine 357 84% 467 76% 110 Stephens 245 96% 315 78% 70 Terry 512 47% 492 104% 0 Wakefield 479 69% 492 97% 13 Washington 841 57% 939 90% 98 Watson 467 72% 492 95% 25 Western Hills 323 59% 328 98% 5 Williams 495 55% 517 96% 22 Wilson 394 73% 394 100% 0 Woodruff 225 64% 304 74% 79 siOB TOTAL 14.683 65% Cloverdale Jr. 745 71% 857 87% 112 Dunbar 691 61% 751 92% 60 Forest Heights 765 71% 733 104% 0 Henderson 859 83% 959 90% 100 Mabelvale Jr. 665 65% 594 112% 0 Mann 872 56% 935 93% 63 Pul. Heights 761 62% 692 110% 0 Southwest 704 74% 702 100% 0 SUBTOTAL 6,062 68% Central High 1,721 60% 1,891 91% 170 Fair 882 61% 904 98% 22 Hall 1,082 54% 1,216 89% 134 McClellan 980 65% 1,085 90% 105 Parkview 844 53% 991 85% 147 SUBTOTAL 5,509 59% GRAND TOTAL 26,254 64%LRSD EMPLOYEE COUNT 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Certified 1,972 2,048 2,043 2,056 Non-certified 1,359 1,465 1,651 1,859 TOTAL 3,331 3,513 3,694 3,915BAKER EXTENDED DAY ENROLLMENT December, 1991 Morning Program Afternoon Program LRSD Students Black Males 8 6 5 Black Females 6 4 1 White Males 7 18 White Females 5 6 Percent Black 54% 29% Total 26 34 6GENERAL INFORMATION Pulaski County Schools 1992-93 LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL Enrollment 26,141 9,251 21,633 57,025 % Black 64% 48% 28% 48% # of Schools 51 25 37 113 # of Employees 4,306 1,292 2,724 .Annual Budget Per Pupil Expenditure Millage Rate Size/Square Miles $120 million $36 million $85 million $241 million $4,400 $3,400 $3,896 43.9 36.3 43.9 100 30 729 859 Incentive Schools (located within the LRSD) Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Ish Elementary Mitchell Elementary Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Magnet Schools - the orginial six (located within LRSD) Booker Arts Magnet (Elementary) Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet (Elementary) Gibbs Foreign Language/Intemational Studies Magnet (Elementary) Williams Basic Skills Magnet (Elementary) Mann Arts and Science Magnet (Junior High) Parkview Arts and Science Magnet (Senior High)Additional Magnet Schools Crystal Hill Communications Magnet (Elementary) (located within PCSSD) Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet (Elementary) Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet (Elementary) Dunbar International Studies/Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Magnet (Junior High) Additional Magnet Programs Henderson Health Science (Junior High) Central International Studies (Senior High) McClellan Business/Communications (Senior High) Interdistrict Schools Romine Elementary (LRSD) Baker Elementary (PCSSD) PCSSD Specialty Programs College Station Elementary TAG Specialty (Talented and Gifted) Bates Elementary Project MAST (Mathematics and Science Together) Fuller Elementary Orchestra Specialty Landmark Elementay Fine Arts Specialty Fuller Junior High TAG SpecialtyLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for racial and cultural diversity. develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of specific skills. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff. and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education.1. 2. 3. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GOALS Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Developing and maintaining staff that is well-trained and motivated. (Communicating with colleges and universities about teacher training will be a strategy for this goal). The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate behavior and human relations skills that value people as human beings and that are consistent with an appreciation and understanding of multicultural diversity. 4. Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. 5. 6. Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations.These were goals that were considered but were not chosen as being the most important. * Help students be productive in the 21st century by developing a capacity for life-long learning, problem solving skills, positive self-concept and a responsibility for learning. * Provide a disciplined environment that promotes citizenship. responsible  By the year 1996: (1) reduce by 50% the number of grades 3 and 6 below the 50th percentile\nstudents at increase by and (2) 50% the students scoring at the 90% percentile (on standardized tests)  strongly promote parental involvement in the education of their children through home and school activities and encourage community involvement through partnerships and volunteerism. * Development and infusion of multicultural education in all areas of the curriculum. * Develop and maintain a system of accountability to the public of the District (achievement and resources).Note - The issues related to each goal which are listed on the following pages are stated subcommittees. problems (e.g., exactly as They are not in parallel form. reported by the Sone are stated as behavior.), Adults not modeling appropriate interpersonal others are stated overcome problems (e.g., as strategies or activities Encourage student participation in to a cross-section of extracurricular activities.), while others are stated as programs). needs All, (e.g., however, parental involvement in all school involve areas which were viewed as impediments to achieving the goals of the District.Issues related to Goal #1 Goal #1 ensure that Implement integrated educational programs that will all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. 1) Program development in areas where needs of all children are not met 2) Accountability (Staff,student, parents, and programs) 3) Objective criteria for determining program effectiveness 4) growth Measurement system to measure academic, social, and emotional 5) Needs assessment (local and District) 6) Adeguate resources (human and financial) 7) Environment conducive to learningIssues related to Goal #2 Goal #2 - Developing and maintaining staff that is well-trained and motivated. (Communication with colleges and universities about teacher training will be a strategy for this goal.) 1) Accountability/change how do we deal with staff, i. e. teachers, principals, etc. who have not been held accountable in past (i.e. principal, etc.) 2) Monitor, evaluate, reinforce, and replicate 3) Recruitment and retention of quality staff and issuance of contracts in a timely manner 4) Quality inservice learning and trainers 5) Needs assessment, i.e., building level and district-wide 6) Adequate resources (financial and human)Issues related to Goal #3 Goal #3 - The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff and students will demonstrate behavior and human relations skills that value people as human beings and that are consistent with an appreciation and understanding of multicultural diversity. 1) Provide financial resources 2) Practices and procedures which will be used strategies relating to positive interpersonal relationships in teaching 3) Training in human relations (job performance related) 4) Lack of understanding of cultural differences 5) promote Communications to parents concerning teaching strategies that enhanced achievement and relationships positive interpersonal 6) Parental involvement in all school programs 7) Provide adequate time for staff development 8) The biases and practices that all of the players bring to the setting (i.e., segregated lounges, cafeteria) 9) Racial sensitivity programs for students, staff, and parents 10) Adults not modeling appropriate interpersonal behavior 11) Encourage student participation in a cross-section of extra curriculum activities 12) Lack of understanding of the desegregation plan 13) Need for a different type of staff development delivery system, other that the current five member staff 14) Employment practices at all levels 15) Effective monitoring of diversity in all programsIssues related to Goal #4 Goal #4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. 1) Lack of knowledge and commitment by public and District personnel to desegregation plan commitments. 2) Need hard data to evaluate programs in District and desegregation plan - - remove those that don't work. 3) More focused effort by all District personnel to promote school District. 4) Change in attitude in marketing (We have a lot to sell) progress in meeting LRSD goals. 5) Lack of knowledge of funding sources private) - such as Wal-Mart, Tyson (federal, state, 6) News coverage of schools needs to be more positive 7) Review and audit of personnel needs 8) Level of confidence of public in system Instability in staff and staff changes promotes confusion. distrust, and lack of support to pass a school millage 10) Securing partners for all schools 11) State funding processes 9) .Issues related to Goal /5 Goal #5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. 1) Promote parent participation that includes parents and students helping to establish and support classroom/school rules 2) Identify community problems/conflicts that spill over into the school setting 3) Lack of commitment of staff for inservice training 4) Cost of purchasing materials/equipment to maintain attraction facilities and grounds 5) Cost of adding custodial staff and security personnel to maintain clean, attractive, and safe buildings 6) Teachers need to be trained to be effective in controlling student behavior 7) Role models (especially male) are needed for students at the elementary and secondary level 8) A planned program for citizenship, personal responsibility, and moral/ethical behavior is needed. 9) Expense and space for In-School Suspension Program Kids don't need to be on the street 10) Difficulty in getting parents to come to school for conferences and training 11) Physical structure of some buildings create safety problems (Too many doors, etc.) 12) Changing staff expectations about student behavior 13) Training of students/staff on the Rights and Responsibility handbooks to ensure consistent enforcement.Issues related to Goal #6 Goal #6 Ensure that equity occurs activities and operations. in all phases of school 1) What is equity? 2) The lack of a definition of site-based management in the LRSD 3) Provide financial resources 4) Practices and procedures which will be used in teaching strategies relating to positive interpersonal relationships 5) setting The biases and practices that all of the players bring to the 6) Racial sensitivity programs for students, staff and parents 7) Encourage student participation in a cross-section of extra curriculum activities 8) 9) Lack of understanding of the desegregation plan Employment practices at all levels 10) Effective monitoring of diversity in all programsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: REVISED ADA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for ethnic and cultural diversity, develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the District's curriculum. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education. Adopted 11-18-93LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Total of 50 schools 36 elementary K-6 8 junior high 7-9 5 senior high 10-12, plus K 1 vocational/technical high school Total enrollment 3rd quarter 25,415 with 64% black 14,137 elementary 67% 5,792 junior high 66% 5,414 senior high 56% 72 special schools Magnet Schools for 1990-91 ELEMENTARY Booker Arts Magnet Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Gibbs Foreign Language/International Studies Rockefeller Cooperative Early Childhood Education Washington Basic Skills/Math and Science Williams Basic Skills JUNIOR HIGH Dunbar International Studies/Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Mann Arts and Math/Sciences SENIOR HIGH Central High International Studies Parkview Arts/Sciences LRSD has six incentive schools which are elementary schools which offer enriched programs as well as standard academic curriculum in order to ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Incentive schools: Millage rate: 43.9 Total Budget 89-90: 104 millionLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Central High School 1500 Park Street LR International Studies Interdistrict Magnet Program beginning 90-91 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 1796 59.74% black enrollment **** Fair High School 5201 David 0. Dodd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in west, southwest LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 876 56.62% black enrollment * *   Hall High School 6700 \"H\" Street LR located in west LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 1203 52.45% black enrollment  * *  McClellan High School 9417 Geyer Springs LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 1045 58.27% black enrollmentParkview Magnet High School 2501 Barrow Road LR located in west LR, south of 1-630 predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 757 54.55% black enrollment  * *  Cloverdale Jr. High 6300 Hinkson LR annexed school from PCSSD adjacent to Cloverdale Elem located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 711 65.96% black enrollment * * * * Dunbar Jr. High School 1100 Wright Avenue LR International Studies/Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Magnet School beginning 90-91 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 555 79.81% black enrollment * *   Forest Heights Jr. High 5901 Evergreen LR located north of Markham St, east of University predominantly white neighborhood enrollment 780 66.53% black enrollmentHenderson Jr. High 401 Barrow Rd LR located west of University, south of Markham, north of 1-630 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 924 70.88% black **** Mabelvale Jr. High 10811 Mabelvale West Mabelvale annexed school from PCSSD predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 572 59.79% black enrollment Mann Magnet Jr. High School 1000 East Roosevelt LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 890 53.16% black enrollment **** Pulaski Heights Jr. High School 401 North Pine LR located north of Markham, east of University predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 709 61.63% black enrollment ****Southwest Jr. High School 3301 Bryant LR University Lab Magnet School in conjunction with Bale Elementary beginning 91-92 located across from UALR, west of University, south of 1-630, property adjoins Bale predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 660 70.75% black enrollment **** * * * * Badgett Elementary 6900 Pecan Rd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in east LR, east of airport, north of 1-440 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 222 75.67% black enrollment **** Bale Elementary 6501 32nd LR University Lab Magnet School in conjunction with Southwest Jr. High beginning 91-92 located across from UALR, west of university, south of 1-630, property adjoins Southwest predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 371 74.12% black enrollment    Baseline Elementary 3623 Baseline Rd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 393 74.55% black enrollment     Booker Magnet Elementary 2016 Barber LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 629 52.46 black enrollment  * *  Brady Elementary 7915 W. Markham LR located west of University on Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 436 65.82% black enrollment  *   Carver Magnet Elementary 800 Apperson LR located in east LR predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 605 48.26% black enrollment ****Chicot Elementary 11100 Chicot Rd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 501 65.26% black enrollment     Cloverdale Elementary 6500 Hinkson Rd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR, adjacent to Cloverdale Jr. High racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 416 70.43% black enrollment  * * * Dodd Elementary 6423 Stagecoach Rd LR located west, southwest LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 389 63.75% black enrollment Fair Park Elementary 616 North Harrison LR located east of University, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 346 71.67% black enrollmentForest Park Elementary 1600 North Tyler LR located in the Heights area, east of University, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 390 55.12% black enrollment  * * * Franklin Elementary 1701 South Harrison LR Early Childhood Environmental Science/Basic Skills Magnet beginning 91-92 located east of university, south of 1-630 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 455 80.87% black enrollment Fulbright Elementary 300 Pleasant Valley LR located in Pleasant Valley, west of 1-430, north of Markham, south of Cantrell predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 563 55.41% black enrollment *    Garland Elementary (Incentive School) 3615 West 25th LR Montessori Magnet beginning 92-93 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 260 95.00% black enrollmentGeyer Springs Elementary 5240 Mabelvale Pike LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR, north of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 205 64.87% black enrollment Gibbs Magnet School 1115 West 16th LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 345 51.01% black enrollment  * * * Ish Elementary (Incentive School) 3001 Pulaski LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 161 96.89% black enrollment    * Jefferson Elementary 2600 North McKinley LR located in Cammack Village, west of university, north of Cantrell predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 465 50.10% black enrollmentMabelvale Elementary 9401 Mabelvale Cutoff Mabelvale annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 533 56.84% black enrollment McDermott Elementary 1299 Reservoir Rd LR located west of University, north of 1-630 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 499 61.12% black enrollment Meadowcliff Elementary 25 Sheraton Dr LR located in southwest LR, north of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 430 62.55% black enrollment *   * Mitchell Elementary (Incentive School) 2410 Battery LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 225 89.77% black enrollment ****Otter Creek Elementary 16000 Otter Creek Parkway LR annexed school from PCSSD located in west, southwest LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 349 49.28% black enrollment     Pulaski Heights Elementary 319 North Pine LR located in Heights, east of University, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 308 70.77% black enrollment  *   Rightsell Elementary (Incentive School) 911 West 19 LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enro1Iment of 211 91.94% black enrollment if ie \"k it Rockefeller Elementary (Incentive School) 700 East 17th LR Early Childhood Magnet Program beginning 90-91 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 257 84.82% black enrollment ****Romine Elementary 3400 Romine Rd LR Gifted/Talented and Basic Skills Magnet beginning 91-92 located west of University, south of 1-630 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 410 80.97% black enrollment  * w * Stephens Elementary (Incentive School) 3700 West 18th LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 206 98.54% black enrollment     Terry Elementary 10800 Mara Lynn Dr LR located west of 1-430, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 510 59.01% black enrollment Wakefield Elementary 75 Westminster LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR, north of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 454 65.19% black enrollment *   Washington Elementary (Incentive School) 115 W. 27th LR Basic Skills/Math \u0026amp; Science Magnet beginning 90-91 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 492 96.74% black enrollment     Watson Elementary 7000 Valley Dr LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 450 63.33% black enrollment **** Western Hills Elementary 4901 Western Hills LR located in west, southwest LR predominately white neighborhood enrollment of 326 58.28% black enrollment *    Williams Magnet Elementary 7301 Evergreen LR located west of University, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 505 51.88% black enrollmentWilson Elementary 4015 Stannus LR located in west, southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 384 66.66% black enrollment     Woodruff Elementary 3010 West 7th LR inter-city school, north of 1-630 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 192 67.18% black enrollmentNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (EXCLUDING KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS) Northeast High School 2400 Lakeview Rd NLR Beginning in 90-91 will house all 9th \u0026amp; 10th grades located in McCain Mall area predominantly white neighborhood enrollment 990 30.7% black enrollment **** Ole Main High School 22nd \u0026amp; Main NLR Beginning in 90-91 will house all 11th \u0026amp; 12th grades Located south of 1-40, west of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 968 45.5% black enrollment Lakewood Jr. High 2300 Lakeview Rd NLR located in McCain Mall area predominantly white neighborhood enrollment 488 34.0% black enrollment *  *  Ridgeroad Jr. High 4601 Ridge Road NLR located north of 1-40, west of JFK predominantly white neighborhood enrollment 626 46.8% black enrollmentRose City Jr. High 5500 Lynch Drive NLR located in southeast NLR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 415 47.5% black enrollment Central Jr. High 23rd \u0026amp; Poplar NLR Beginning in 90-91 this building will be closed for Jr. High. 7th \u0026amp; Sth grades will go to the other three jr highs and 9th grade will go to Northeast High. (Proposed to house elementary students from Argenta \u0026amp; Pine Elem) located south of 1-40, west of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 701 43.5% black enrollment **** **** Amboy Elementary 2400 W. 58th NLR located in west NLR, north of 1-40 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 414 45.9% black enrollment   * * Argenta Elementary 13th \u0026amp; Main NLR (Proposed closing in 90-91 and house students in Central Jr.) located south of 1-40, west of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 220 50.5% black enrollmentBelwood Elementary 3902 Virginia Lane NLR located in east NLR, north of 1-40 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 148 46.6% black enrollment  * *  Boone Park Elementary 14th \u0026amp; Crutcher NLR located south of 1-40, west of 1-30 predominately white neighborhood enrollment of 463 57.5 black enrollment Crestwood Elementary 1901 Crestwood Dr NLR located north of 1-40, east of JFK predominately white neighborhood enrollment of 207 43.5% black enrollment k'k ifie Glenview Elementary 4841 Edmond NLR located in southeast NLR, south of 1-40, east of 1-30 (north of Rose City) predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 233 41.2% black enrollmentIndian Hills Elementary 6800 India Hills Dr NLR located in north NLR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 448 36.4% black enrollment  * *  Lakewood Elementary 1800 Fairway Ave NLR located north of 1-40, between JFK and 1-67 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 240 42.5% black enrollment Lynch Drive Elementary 5800 Alpha Street NLR located in southeast NLR, in Rose City racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 268 49.0% black enrollment     Meadow Park Elementary 2300 Eureka Gardens NLR located in east NLR, south of 1-40, past Protho Junction racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 265 51.3% black enrollmentNorth Heights Elementary 4901 N. Allen NLR located north of 1-40, east of JFK predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 385 50.6% black enrollment *  *  Park Hill Elementary 3801 JFK NLR located north of 1-40 on JFK predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 221 38.9% black enrollment Pike View Elementary 441 McCain Blvd NLR located north of 1-40, west of JFK predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 424 46.7% black enrollment   *  Pine Elementary 19th \u0026amp; Pine NLR (Proposed closing in 90-91 and house students in Central Jr.) located south of 1-40, east of 1-30 predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 194 46.9% black enrollment    Redwood Elementary 4th \u0026amp; Redwood NLR located south of 1-40, east of 1-30 predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 251 53.4% black enrollment Rose City Elementary Early \u0026amp; School Streets NLR located in southeast NLR, in Rose City racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 198 43.4% black enrollment Jr    Seventh Street Elementary 7th \u0026amp; Beech NLR located south of 1-40, east of 1-30 predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 315 41.9% black enrollment k it \"k ie Baring Cross Center 10th \u0026amp; Parker NLR (For Students with Special Needs) located in south NLR, west of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 21 52.4% black enrollment  *  *PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHCX)L DISTRICT Jacksonville High School 2400 Linda Lane Jacksonville located in Jacksonville, east of 1-67 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 1,067 22% black enrollment Mills High 1300 Dixon Rd LR located in southeast LR, south of 1-440, east of 1-65 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 690 43% black enrollment North Pulaski High 718 Harris Rd Jacksonville located northwest of Jacksonville, south of Air Base predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 816 19% black enrollment * w * * Robinson High 21501 Highway 10 LR located west of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 454 20% black enrollment ick-kieSylvan Hills High 403 Forest Ridge Rd Sherwood located north of NLR (inside city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 892 19% black enrollment     Fuller Jr. High 1700 Dixon Rd LR located east, southeast of LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 864 46% black enrollment * * *  Jacksonville North Jr, High 1320 School Drive Jacksonville located in Jacksonville, east of 1-67 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 604 24% black enrollment Jacksonville South Jr. High 1329 School Drive Jacksonville located in Jacksonville, east of 1-67 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 627 27% black enrollmentNorthwood Jr. High 422 Bamboo Ln NLR located east, northeast of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 914 19% black enrollment  *** Oak Grove Jr. High 100 Oakland Dr NLR located east, northeast of NLR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 982 16% black enrollment * * * * Robinson Jr. High 21001 Highway 10 LR located east of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 489 24% black enrollment Sylvan Hills Jr. High 401 Forest Ridge Rd Sherwood located north of NLR (within city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 977 22% black enrollment  *  Adkins Elementary 500 Cloverdale Rd Jacksonville located south of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 381 40% black enrollment * * *  Arnold Drive Elementary 798 Arnold Drive Jacksonville located on Air Force Base predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 392 18% black enrollment Baker Elem 15001 W 12th LR located west of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 290 27% black enrollment \"kir is'k Bates Elementary 7000 Murray LR located in southwest LR (temporary site) racially balanced neighborhood (mostly industrial area) enrollment of 708 48% black enrollment k k k kBayou Meto Elem Rt 2, Box 200 Jacksonville located north of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 598 2% black enrollment Cato Elem 2901 Cato Rd NLR located east, northeast of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 663 21% black enrollment  *  * College Station Elem Box 428 College Station located east, southeast of LR predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 257 46% black enrollment kit it -k Dupree Elem Gregory St Jacksonville located in Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 487 20% black enrollment kkkkFuller Elem 1702 Dixon Rd LR located east, southeast of LR racially balance neighborhood enrollment of 578 58% black enrollment 'k'k'k'ie Harris Elem 4424 Jacksonville Hwy NLR located east of NLR predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 653 31% black enrollment kit-kit Jacksonville Elem 108 South Oak Jacksonville located in Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 795 33% black enrollment Landmark Elem 19824 Arch Street Pike LR located south of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 561 47% black enrollmentLawson Elem 19901 Lawson Rd LR located west, southwest of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 327 20% black enrollment **** Oak Grove Elem Rt 5, Box 158 NLR located west, northwest of NLR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 565 12% black enrollment **** Oakbrooke Elementary 2200 Thornhill Shearwood located north, northeast of NLR (within city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 637 23% black enrollment Pine Forest Elem 400 Pine Forest Dr Maumelle located in Maumelle predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 602 15% black enrollment * *  *Pinewood Elem 1919 Northeastern Ave Jacksonville located north, northeast in Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 594 29% black enrollment Robinson Elem 21600 Highway 10 LR located west of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 451 23% black enrollment Scott Elem Rt 1, Box 300 Scott located east, southeast of LR predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 201 40% black * * *  Sherwood Elem 307 Verona Avenue Sherwood located in northeast NLR (within city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 526 24% black enrollment   * Sylvan Hills Elem 402 Forest Ridge Rd Sherwood located north of NLR (within city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 776 18% black enrollment Taylor Elem Rt 1, Box 43-A Jacksonville located east of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 430 23% black enrollment Tolleson Elem 601 Harris Rd Jacksonville located west, northwest of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 555 15% black enrollmentPULASKI COUNTY 1989-1990 School Year School District LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI CO. SP. Expense oer A.DA STATE RAIIK % Change 5 Years in Last $3,227 23 +15 $3,124 28 -3 $4,409 6 -30 Kills Voted State average 26.8 35.50 36.30 35.90 ADr4 STATE RANK 22,374 1 9,363 4 21,229 2 # Teachers K-12 STATE RAJ4K 1,840.5 1 615.0 4 1,288.0 2 Avg. Teacher Salary K-12 STATS RANK $25,385 $22,955 $26,395 3 36 2 # Certified Personnel STATE sank 1,991.1 668.0 1,407.0 1 4 2 Avg. Salary Cert. Pers. STATE RANK $26,531 $24,083 $27,511 4 34 3 Superintendent Salary $88,000 $69,310 $79,272OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 DATA SHEET LRSD PCSSD NLRSD TOTAL Enrollment Black 16,634 5,755 4,279 26,668 Non-black 9,151 16,005 4,915 30,071 Total Enrollment 25,785 21,760 9,194 56,739 Black 65% 26% 47% 47% Number of Schools Elementary 36 23 19 78 Secondary 14 13 7 34 Total 50 36 26 112 Employees Certified Teachers 3,300 (2,000) 3,000 (1,346) (681) (4,027) Annual Budget (million) +104 +74 30 +208 Square Miles of Districts city limits 729 30 Millage Rate 43.9 35.9 36.3 Magnet Schools: Located within the LRSD: 6 elementary magnet schools 2 junior high magnet schools 2 senior high magnet schools Incentive Schools: Located within the LRSD 6 elementary schools\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_390","title":"Discipline, management report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1993/1994"],"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","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, management report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/390"],"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":["314 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRecidivism Report - Black/White Fea/-\n94 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF Senior High ^CENTRAL FAiR T? 70 80')*' 50 37 23 29 6 9 Junior High .V\" Elementary RECEIVED AUG 8 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOfllNS OM OF Total 0 0 149 V\u0026gt;7 2 0 157 ^HALL MCCLELLA METRO ^PARKVIEW .z6lOVR JR ,DUNBAR /forst HT / HENDERSN ^MABEL JR y MANN M/S J PULHTJ SOUTHWST i/BALE BASELINE / BOOKER -'^RADY ?CHICOT CLOVR EL ^DODD FAIR PRK J FORST PK FRANKLIN FULBRIGH 7,garland GEYER SP Wednesday, July 28,1999 Cleas'I 179' 45 29 16 1 1 185 24 6 3 0 0 112 irr (-V toy -------11 33 ' 39 0 3 4 - 0 0 36_ 13 2J Iff 96- ,io112 - ,nxii3'' I'E 101-1 61 ^0 81 0 1 12 I a 67 ^^1 64 5' 58-') 51 43 \u0026lt; i2o\n} Qi'i'j II 21 28 23 10 18 17 26 0 \"23 It?\"iCV 1 0 \u0026lt;70 1 3 0 0 16 3 7 2 2 17 5 9 0 10 1 51^ 1 2 0 4 0 1 2 2 1 2 4 0 n 1 2 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 2 //12 ~l 10 2 7 11 5 Senior High b 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Junior High 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sets 444-67J /iff 205 213 2^0 189 184 140 iSirC'J 155 \u0026gt;^7 199 ' 1457 IM? r 2 3 21 4 . 13 2 6 22 11 10 2 14 3 iBssa Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 9^ Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM OF Total Elementary JEFFRSN 12 14 VMABEL EL i/mcdermot 13 'f^lEADCLIF 14 / MITCHELL 12 y PULHTE 10 18 RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR 16 d ROMINE 'K STEPHENS yiERRY yX/VAKEFIEL v^VASHNGTN 12 15 WATSON 13 18 / \u0026gt;/m LKING 2 3 5 5 7 9 4 8 0 6 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 2 4 1 0 0 - I 2 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 6 5 WEST HIL 5 3 1 0 0 0 9 - WILLIAMS ^ywlLSON 4 0 1 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Elementary 288 fVednesday, July 2S, 1999 4 Grand Total 2456 + I Page 2 of 2little rock school district ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT SCHOOL district WUAL OISCIFLiNARr KAMJ SCHOOL SHORT TERH SUSPKNSIOH Population and % Blk Central 1879 65% J.A. Fair 918 65% Hall 976 60% McClallan 886 75% BM BP WH HP 68 56 27 5 Metropolitan Farkvlaw Magnet 788 59% ALC Cloverdale Jr. 701 81% Dunbar Magnet Jr. 701 63% Foreata Heights Jr. 788 73% Henderson Jr. 915 74% Mabelvale Jr. 654 69% Mann Magnet Jr. 8S1 set Pulaski Haights Jr. 790 55 Southwest Jr. 790 77% TOTALS 118 163 96 18 45 17 140 179 188 197 167 103 147 213 1,859 41 55 22 10 14 12 106 97 86 79 71 n 58 848 16 43 6 3 34 3 28 32 29 13 24 28 31 33 378 15 3 4 7 1 6 12 12 2 11 17 5 11 127 little rock school district ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT 1993-94 SCHOOL YEAR - TOTAL SANCTIONS SECONDARY LEVEL LONG TERM 8USP1WSlOM EXPULSION TOTXL TOTAL 156 219 276 127 12 100 25 246 329 326 298 281 219 260 315 3,212 BH 12 10 12 16 1 2 6 9 14 29 16 15 0 8 17 167 BP 8 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 7 15 5 9 2 4 3 69 HM 0 3 9 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 1 '3 16 HP 1 1. I 1 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 11 TOTAL 21 19 22 20 2 6 15 22 49 21 26 ' 2 13 23 263 BK 12 2 1 8 n. 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 5 38 BP 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 q 0 1 4 HH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 HP 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL 11 2 1 8 Il 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 0 1 7 45 IBUC 152. 240 299 155 21 104 32 264 353 378 320 309 221 274 345 3,520 51 73 80 93 51 60 87 84 86 87 95 88 79 86 86 85LITTIX ROCK SCHOOL WmUAL DISCIFLIMARI HMJ DISTRICT\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1100","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993/1994"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1100"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["173 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\nLR-C-82-866\nexhibit numbers 203-280\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":35,"next_page":36,"prev_page":34,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":408,"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}}]}}