{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_413","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":["1992/1993"],"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","Education--Evaluation","School discipline","School management and organization","Educational statistics"],"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/413"],"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":["62 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRecidivism Report - Black/White Year: 93 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF Senior High CENTRAL 58 39 14 3 FAIR 98 62 34 17 HALL 96 32 45 12 MCCLELLA 69 22 14 1 METRO 24 3 4 2 PARKVIEW 22 4 10 1 Junior High CLOVR JR 72 44 22 7 DUNBAR 105 69 29 11 FORST HT 116 77 17 11 HENDERSN 131 75 10 2 MABEL JR 72 50 16 7 MANN M/S 52 29 23 3 PUL HT J 113 41 24 4 SOUTHWST 123 47 26 10 Elementary BALE 1 0 2 0 BASELINE 4 0 0 0 BOOKER 18 5 3 1 BRADY 8 0 0 0 CARVER 3 5 1 0 CHICOT 6 1 6 0 CLOVR EL 5 0 3 0 DODD 11 4 8 1 FAIR PRK 8 4 1 0 FORST PK 10 3 1 0 FULBRIGH 2 1 0 1 GARLAND 7 1 0 0 GEYER SP 6 5 0 0 Wednesday, July 28,1999 received AUG 8 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ OM OF Total 2 0 116 0 0 211 3 0 188 0 0 106 0 0 33 0 1 38 Senior High 692 0 0 145 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Junior High 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 221 219 145 108 182 207 1442 3 5 27 8 9 13 8 24 13 14 4 9 11 Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 93 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Elementary GIBBS 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 ISH 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 JEFFRSN 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 MABEL EL 4 4 6 0 0 0 14 MCDERMOT 8 4 3 0 0 0 15 2 MEADCLIF 17 22 2 1 0 0 MITCHELL 4 1 2 0 0 0 7 OTTER CR 6 1 0 0 0 0 7 PUL HT E 19 27 5 3 0 0 0 RIGHTSEL 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ROCKFELR 19 30 8 2 1 0 0 ROMINE 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 STEPHENS 9 2 0 0 0 0 11 TERRY 8 1 0 0 0 0 9 WAKEFIEL 6 1 0 0 0 0 7 WASHNGTN 8 1 0 0 0 0 9 WATSON 18 26 WEST HIL 10 18 4 3 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 WILSON 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 WOODRUFF 3 2 3 0 0 0 8 Elementary 378 Wednesday, July 28,1999 Grand Total noEm 2512 Page 2 of 2LllILt KUtll. M-nUUU UlblKlUI u:\u0026gt;nKU UH/cuz yH rMuc SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM WF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Drug/A 1 CLASS K 1 131 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Foul Lan 1 110 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Snnking Foul Lan Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Gambli ng Dis Cond V As Sf Pos Ueap Poss Exp Gang Hem 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 062 090 100 110 132 133 010 020 050 110 072 090 100 123 b 1 3 5 8 8 1 2 14 1 4 1 8 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Assault Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Poss Exp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 030 050 062 090 100 110 131 010 110 123 072 100 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Drugs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 030 062 090 100 no 132 3 1 2 3 5 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 32 18 1 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 6 8 8 1 1 6 6 2 2 3 1 6 1 8 2 4 1 1 1 2 12 1 1 4 5 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 23 1 4 1 4 2 2 1 1 5 3 1 2 6 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 14 1 4 7 8 5 1 3 5 4 1 5 2 3 1 2 2 1 64 8 2 4 1 5 1 2 2 25 6 3 1 2 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 5 2 1 14 1 4 1 9 2 5 1 5 5 4 1 5 2 3 1 1 70 8 2 4 2 2 5 1 2 1 2 1 30 6 3 1 2 3 1FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault Dis Cond V As Sf Poss Gun Pos Ueap CLASS 12 2 2 3 3 3 010 110 072 OSO 090 2 2 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 11 15 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 22 49 41 90 11 2 13 12 12 2 2 6 6 1 1 108 16 124SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BH BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT LeftSchl CLASS K 1 050 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dishon. fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Gantiling Loiter Mischief Ind Exp Dis CoixJ Paging D Alcohol2 Ass Staf V As Sf Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 010 030 050 062 090 100 no 131 132 133 010 020 030 050 070 080 100 110 123 020 071 072 000 1 10 5 21, 15 1 9 3 3 2 7 4 7 1 13 7 31 19 1 16 3 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL Dishon. Fight i ng LeftSchl Ref Ruts Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Tardies Ganfcling Loiter Dis Cond Smoke 2 Forgery Atcohol2 V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 010 030 050 062 090 100 110 131 132 133 050 070 110 121 122 020 072 1 2 2 1 6 3 1 84 1 3 4 20 2 7 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 26 1 2 11 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 6 4 2 110 1 t, 6 31 4 8 4 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 5 1 7 3 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 8 3 5 It 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 4 1 3 5 It 1 1 1 33 4 1 5 2 2 1 7 6 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 7 31 19 1 16 3 1 4 1 8 3 5 4 4 2 2 1 J 1 6 1 6 1 1 3 120 1 4 6 31 4 8 !, 1 1 2 Z 1 2 2 6 1 2 1 1 1 36 1 7 6 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 14 15 34 24 5 20 5 2 2 4 2 3 1 6 1 1 6 3 1 1 4 1 156 2 4 13 37 4 2 10 6 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 6SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WH WF FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM- BF BLK TOT WM WF 6/30/93 WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT 8LK TOTAL WHT TOT Pos Weap CLASS 11 3 090 SUBTOTAL 54 19 73 17 10 27 2 2 2 3 2 3 75 2 30 2 105 Dishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Snwking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Tardies Assault Theft Loiter Dis Cond Forgery Paging 0 Arson V As Sf Poss Gun Pos Weap 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Z z z 3 3 3 3 010 030 040 050 062 090 100 110 131 133 010 030 070 110 122 123 060 072 080 090 1 1 1 7 10 3 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL 38 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 177 1 1 1 1 1 5 50 1 2 1 7 11 3 1 4 1 1 1 4 3 1 2 43 227 2 1 1 2 Z 1 2 1 1 1 14 60 1 1 1 1 4 18 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 78 1 7 1 '1 2 1 2 9 5 5 1 1 6 6 1 1 1 2 1 7 11 3 1 4 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 2 1 1 46 242 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 18 84 3 4 1 8 13 5 1 I, 5 1 2 1 1 5 3 1 1 3 1 1 64 326LllILt KUL^ scnuuL Uiainibi FRCW DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 003 HANN HATH/SCIENCE MAGNET SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Theft Dis Cond V As Sf 1 1 1 2 2 3 030 062 110 030 110 072 8 10 4 1 B 8 3 16 18 7 1 4 1 1 4 1 4 5 2 1 1 16 18 7 1 1 4 5 2 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 23 19 42 1 7 5 1 12 1 1 43 1 12 20 23 9 1 1 1 55 Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Theft Gambling Dis Cond Arson V As Sf 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 062 090 110 010 030 050 110 060 072 12 17 1 2 3 1 8 1 9 2 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL 45 1 1 14 21 19 2 2 3 1 8 1 1 1 59 5 1 1 1 S 1 1 2 5 2 1 1 1 10 21 19 2 2 3 1 8 1 1 1 59 5 2 1 1 1 10 26 21 3 2 4 2 8 1 1 1 69 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Ref Det Smok i ng Foul Lan Assault Ganibling Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 030 040 062 090 100 110 010 050 110 071 072 8 2 8 1 2 1 1 t, 3 3 2 1 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 27 1 1 11 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 95 44 11 2 11 3 3 1 1 4 1 1 38 139 5 5 3 3 11 2 11 3 5 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 15 IS 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 2 39 3 2 2 15 16 2 14 3 3 5 3 1 4 1 2 54 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 32 7 39 1 1 1 1 141 39 180FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 004 METROPOLITAN VO-TECH ED CENTER SANCT IONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Mischief Dis Cond 1 1 1 2 2 2 030 050 062 010 080 110 1 3 3 1 2 1 5 3 1 1 5 3 1 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL 1 9 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 12 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault 1 1 1 1 2 050 050 062 110 010 5 5 5 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL 2 1 2 10 2 1 2 10 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 10 3 3 5 3 2 1 2 13 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Paging D 1 1 1 2 2 030 050 062 010 123 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL 6 1 7 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 7 1 1 1 1 4 2 3 3 2 1 11 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 25 3 28 6 2 8 28 8 36 I I iLllILC KUVK aunuuL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 005 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Smoking Drug/A 1 Theft Poss Gun 1 1 1 1 2 3 030 062 100 131 030 080 3 8 2 1 5 9 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 3 5 9 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL 12 A 16 7 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 4 3 8 6 13 3 1 1 1 25 Dishon. Fighting In Riot 1 1 3 010 030 120 1 1 2 2 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Mischief Paging D Ass Staf 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 062 110 010 080 123 071 5 2 1 6 2 6 2 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 10 23 5 28 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 2 1 1 14 11 1 12 2 2 2 2 32 12 44UllILt KUL^ bLMUUL U15IK1UI SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL OUT Of SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF U(TT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Dis Cord CLASS 01 1 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 3 1 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 Assault 2 010 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fight ing Assault 1 2 030 010 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Ref Ruis Assault Battery Other of 1 2 2 4 062 010 020 000 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 6 3 1 1 11 1 1 6 4 1 1 12 2 2 2 2 6 4 1 1 12 2 2 8 4 1 1 14 Fighting Ref Ruis 1 1 030 062 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 4 Fighting Ref Ruis Drug/A 1 Assault Battery Pos Ueap 1 1 1 2 2 3 030 062 131 010 020 090 2 7 1 1 6 1 1 2 13 1 2 1 1 1 2 13 1 2 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 11 8 19 1 2 1 2 19 1 2 3 13 1 2 1 1 21 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 33 9 42 4 1 5 42 5 47SCHOOL: 014 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT UM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL WHT TOT fighting Foul Lan Mischief Ind Exp Dis Cond V As Sf 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 110 OSO 100 110 072 2 1 1 2 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 4 4 2 4 1 7 2 2 2 6 1 9 2 1 1 2 6 1 13 2 1 1 2 6 1 13 Mischief Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf 2 2 3 3 080 110 071 072 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 6 Fighting Harass Dis Cond 1 1 2 030 040 110 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 5 7 1 1 5 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 1 9 1 1 10 6 16 25 1 26I I UC RWtN Otnvuu WIJIIMV FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Tardies Mischief Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Pos Weap 1 1 1 1 2 Z z 3 3 030 062 110 133 080 110 123 072 090 12 10 1 5 4 1 17 14 1 1 3 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 23 1 11 1 31. 5 1 1 2 4 2 1 3 3 7 4 1 5 3 4 1 8 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 17 14 1 1 4 2 3 1 4 2 42 2 1 10 21 16 1 1 1 3 2 5 2 52 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drugs 1 Tardies Battery Ind Exp Dis Cond V As Sf Ueapon Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 030 040 062 110 132 133 020 100 110 072 121 000 6 1 28 2 9 8 15 1 36 2 1 7 4 4 15 1 36 Z 7 I, CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Assault Dis Cond V As Sf Pos Weap Other of 1 1 1 1 1 2 Z 3 3 U 030 050 062 110 131 010 110 072 090 000 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 2 3 44 8 9 4 1 1 2 25 93 1 3 1 1 - 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 19 10 1 5 1 1 18 48 4 63 12 12 5 2 2 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 3 11 1 1 2 Z Z 9 4 1 4 76 1 1 14 22 1 40 2 1 3 1 1 10 4 1 4 90 18 1 14 5 2 1 1 2 1 2 43 141 Z 5 1 20 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 4 3 1 1 4 5 3 8 1 1 1 18 1 14 5 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 3 1 2 51 2 1 1 9 20 1 16 6 2 2 6 3 2 2 60 23 18 9 Z7 3 1 2 2 1 2 3 170 33 203LllILt KUCK iUltUUL UlilKlUl ouanive SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE\n6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Orug/A 1 Tardies Ganibling Mischief Dis Cond forgery V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 010 030 040 050 062 110 131 133 050 080 110 122 072 1 17 1 2 22 1 7 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 1 55 9 2 26 2 1 17 1 26 3 2 48 3 1 24 1 1 8 8 2 2 57 1 1 112 12 1 1 3 5 3 1 5 2 2 4 17 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 26 3 2 48 3 1 24 1 1 4 1 2 117 8 3 1 5 17 1 34 3 2 51 4 1 29 1 1 4 1 2 134 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Tardies Assault Battery Mischief Dis Cond Alcohol2 V As Sf Pos Ueap In Riot Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 030 040 050 062 090 110 131 133 010 020 080 110 020 072 090 120 000 24 2 41 1 4 1 15 1 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL 90 13 37 9 2 7 1 1 33 2 50 1 6 1 22 5 1 1 9 3 1 1 I, 2 1 1 1 1 123 18 1 10 8 1 1 10 37 1 I, 1 1 1 28 1 2 6 9 1 1 2 1 3 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 50 1 6 1 22 1 3 2 10 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 10 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 5 139 1 30 45 1 3 60 1 7 1 26 1 4 3 10 1 2 2 1 1 169 Dishon. Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Bus Regs Drug/A 1 Tardies Assault Battery Mischief Ind Exp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 010 030 050 062 070 131 133 010 020 080 100 1 7 8 1 15 2 1 1 20 9 29 6 5 2 5 8 2 1 1 5 2 3 1 2 1 1 5 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 15 29 5 8 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 5 2 1 1 18 1 31 1 6 13 2 1 2 1LlliLt KUUK a^-nuuL upmivi UWOI'IIKt* SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM- EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap In Riot Gang Hcni Other of CLASS 09 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 no 071 072 090 120 123 000 1 1 12 5 17 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 Other of CLASS 11 4 000 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 1 41 24 3 1 65 14 2 16 15 7 22 1 1 1 1 2 18 1 2 2 1 3 1 89 1 17 18 1 3 2 1 3 1 106 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 187 114 301 44 17 61 26 11 37 2 1 3 4 4 8 346 64 410SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT UH UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Tardies Battery Dis Cond Forgery Paging D V As Sf Pos Ueap Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 030 040 050 062 090 110 133 020 110 122 123 072 090 000 6 1 3 38 3 9 3 7 1 4 23 1 3 2 13 2 7 61 4 12 5 1 2 1 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Battery Dis Cond Forgery Paging D Poss Gun In Riot Other of 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 t, 030 040 050 062 110 020 110 122 123 080 120 000 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Orug/A 1 Tardies Battery Dis Cond F-T rtnint Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 b 030 050 062 090 100 110 131 133 020 110 050 000 1 1 2 4 3 6 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 5 1 1 2 b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 70 44 1 114 5 7 12 9 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 13 2 7 61 4 12 5 2 8 3 2 4 2 2 127 1 3 6 1 1 12 14 2 10 67 4 13 5 2 8 3 2 5 2 2 139 3 1 6 9 1 2 2 4 9 1 4 25 1 19 44 1 1 14 2 4 1 18 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 1 1 4 1 1 1 18 2 2 1 34 25 1 59 19 7 26 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 64 1 28 13 1 1 62 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 92 8 1 19 1 3 2 10 1 11 3 29 2 7 2 5 1 1 3 12 2 3 1 1 5 10 3 1 4 2 1 1 3 1 2 8 10 4 1 4 11 3 29 2 2 1 1 1 1 12 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 8 10 4 1 4 2 13 11 39 6 1 16 2 5 1 1 1 1SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT I TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL 40 24 64 26 5 31 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 145 93 238 50 19 69 13 2 15 1 6/30/93 UHT TOT BH 2 BF EXPELLED BLK TOT 2 UM UF UHT TOT BLK 66 TOTAL UHT 31 TOT 97 1 4 1 5 1 1 258 71 329SCHOOL: 012 HC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE\nSANCTIONS LONG TERM- OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smok i ng Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Tardies Battery Theft Ind Exp Dis Cond Forgery V As Sf Poss Gun Pos Ueap Assembly 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 050 062 090 100 110 131 132 133 020 030 100 no 122 072 080 090 122 17 6 12 9 2 1 26 6 14 1 1 4 2 1 1 5 2 26 6 14 1 1 5 2 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Assault Dis Cond Paging D Poss Gun Poss Exp 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 030 062 110 131 010 110 123 080 100 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Hischief Dis Cond V As Sf Pos Ueap 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 030 062 110 131 132 080 110 072 090 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 45 7 2 2 1 12 3 6 2 1 2 14 71 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 3 1 1 19 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 60 7 2 3 1 1 1 15 3 6 3 1 2 15 90 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 7 1 9 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 12 1 1 2 1 10 1 11 1 1 4 7 11 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 Ti 2 U 27 11 16 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 13 1 1 2 1 1 87 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 7 1 8 1 1 1 1 7 2 3 1 2 5 2 1 1 2lt 1 1 1 3 8 3 3 1 2 5 2 2 1 27 1 1 3 6 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 15 12 8 20 2 2 1 1 17 1 3 4 6 3 1 2 1 1 1 , 1 20 4 4 3 3 114 20 134SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE 8H BF BLK TOT UM UF little rock school DISIKICI FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Forgery CLASS 2 122 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Loi ter Dis Cond Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf Other of 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 030 040 050 062 110 010 020 030 070 110 123 071 072 000 32 1 18 10 2 3 21 1 1 10 9 53 2 1 28 19 2 3 4 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 53 2 1 28 19 2 4 4 1 4 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 68 44 1 112 1 8 4 1 12 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 7 1 5 1 1 1 1 119 1 1 1 12 57 2 2 32 19 2 4 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 131 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Gambling Loiter Dis Cond Forgery Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 050 062 110 132 133 010 020 030 050 070 110 122 123 071 072 090 32 4 28 10 1 6 3 3 1 1 7 2 11 9 1 4 39 6 39 19 1 7 3 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 2 39 6 39 19 1 7 5 12 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Oishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Tardies 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 010 030 040 050 062 110 133 2 5 2 5 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 96 34 130 5 8 13 1 1 1 1 2 6 6 12 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 1 3 1 7 6 5 1 1 5 1 149 2 1 1 1 14 41 7 41 19 1 10 5 13 1 1 2 7 6 1 1 6 1 163 9 1 1 10 8 2 1 11 3 7 1 20 1 1 13 15 2 3 6 3 6 1 1 1 20 1 1 14 15 2 3 6 1 . 20 1 1 17 21 2SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERHBF BLK TOT UM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BH BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT Assault Battery Gambling Dis Cond Forgery V As Sf In Riot Gang Hem CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 010 020 050 110 122 072 120 123 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 36 23 59 11 1 Foul Lan CLASS 12 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 200 102 302 24 14 1 1 1 1 2 1 12 38 2 1 3 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 66 1 1 2 13 2 2 2 3 1 4 1 1 79 13 9 22 1 1 10 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 335 40 375SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT UM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK 1 1 TOTAL UHT TOT 1 1 F ighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Battery Dis Cond Forgery V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 040 050 062 090 110 020 110 122 072 29 3 1 1,1, 1 2 15 1 1 19 3 7 44 4 2 63 4 9 2 1 2 1 2 2 6 1 7 1 1 1 1 3 4 3 4 1 1 44 4 2 63 4 9 3 6 2 1 7 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 82 46 128 11 1 12 7 1 1 1 8 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 138 1 13 46 5 2 70 4 10 4 6 1 3 151 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Battery Robbery Dis Co^ V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 040 050 062 090 100 110 020 032 110 072 10 2 1 31 1 13 11 1 23 2 1 42 2 1 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Assault Battery Robbery Loiter Dis CorxJ Ass Staf In Riot Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 t, 030 040 050 062 110 131 132 010 020 032 070 110 071 120 000 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 1 1 23 2 1 1,2 2 1 1 4 4 8 1 1 1 1 2 50 30 80 3 3 1 1 5 1 8 2 7 1 10 3 1 12 2 18 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 8 3 1 15 4 101 1 3 24 2 2 42 2 1 8 3 1 15 4 104 20 2 2 20 2 6 7 1 1 26 2 2 27 3 1 1 1 26 2 2 27 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 5 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 51 1 16 2 67 1 1 2 7 5 12 3 3 11 1 1 2 82 2 26 2 2 28 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 , 11 1 1 2 84FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Poss Gun CLASS 10 3 080 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 183 93 276 15 2 17 23 16 39 1 1 5 3 8 323 18 341FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Theft Dis Cond V As Sf 1 1 1 2 2 3 030 062 110 030 110 072 17 10 3 8 5 5 25 15 8 6 3 2 1 1 2 7 5 2 1 25 15 8 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 30 18 48 12 3 15 4 1 5 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 53 7 5 2 1 1 16 32 20 10 1 5 1 69 Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Battery Theft Gambling Loiter Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf Poss Gm Pos Ueap Poss Exp Other of 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 030 062 090 110 131 020 030 050 070 110 071 072 080 090 100 000 12 16 1 6 15 10 2 3 1 27 26 3 9 1 6 1 1 6 1 7 6 1 1 2 2 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Ind Exp Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Poss Gin Pos Ueap Poss Exp Gang Hem Other of 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 030 062 090 110 010 020 030 100 110 123 072 080 090 100 123 000 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 38 34 72 1 8 8 1 16 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 27 26 3 9 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 4 1 1 1 7 6 1 1 4 4 8 3 2 5 85 1 16 34 32 4 10 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 4 1 1 1 1 101 7 19 2 6 1 8 4 5 15 23 2 11 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 23 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 42 18 1 60 1 1 2 2 110 70 180 21 12 33 11 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 65 1 3 17 23 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 68 16 1 1 2 5 2 7 203 35 238FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dishon. Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Smoking Foul Lan Tardies Mischief Dis Cond Gang Hen Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 010 030 050 062 100 110 133 080 110 123 000 31 3 25 1 11 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Bus Regs Ref Det foul Lan Drug/A 1 Theft Loiter Mischief Dis Cond Pos Ueap Gang Men 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 040 062 070 090 110 131 030 070 080 110 090 123 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Tardies Ganfcling Loiter Dis Cond Poss Gi*i Gang Hen Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 030 040 050 062 110 133 050 070 110 080 123 000 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 12 1 11 1 1 42 3 37 1 12 1 1 1 9 9 6 6 1 1 2 2 62 24 1 38 1 1 4 1 70 22 5 1 36 3 1 1 1 1 71 37 99 16 1 17 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 5 1 42 3 37 1 12 1 1 4 1 1 104 9 6 2 17 1 51 5 43 1 12 3 1 4 1 1 121 6 1 6 3 16 5 1 2 2 10 1 1 30 2 44 1 1 7 1 86 27 6 3 38 3 1 1 1 1 81 1 1 6 1 10 6 1 10 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 30 2 44 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 10 2 1 20 20 5 5 2 3 2 3 2 94 20 36 3 54 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 114 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 9 1 1 7 2 1 1 1 1 3 12 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 6 3 38 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 7 2 2 1 1 1 1 85 1 1 1 13 29 a 3 45 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 98 1 1SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 11 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 203 64 267 46 4 50 9 3 12 4 1 5 1 1 284 51 335SCHOOL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERN BF BLK TOT WM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Assault Battery Theft Mischief Dis Cond Paging D Pos Weap Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 030 040 050 062 110 131 010 020 030 080 110 123 090 000 25 6 4 12 8 1 9 1 9 7 2 1 34 6 5 21 15 1 1 2 7 1 2 2 4 3 1 7 1 5 3 4 1 1 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 60 27 1 87 16 4 20 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 1 1 1 1 2 34 6 5 22 15 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 96 7 1 5 3 4 1 21 41 7 10 25 19 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 117 Dishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Tardies Assault Theft Loiter Dis Cond Forgery Paging D V As Sf Poss Gun Pos Weap Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 010 030 040 050 062 110 131 133 010 030 070 110 122 123 072 080 090 000 1 24 5 2 33 7 1 4 6 8 3 1 30 5 2 41 10 1 4 2 1 4 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Dishon. Fighting Harass 1 1 1 010 030 040 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 80 18 1 1 1 98 1 8 14 3 1 9 1 23 3 7 2 4 7 1 1 6 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 30 5 2 41 10 1 4 2 1 1 3 1 6 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 15 8 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 103 1 23 3 1 18 8 1 33 5 3 47 14 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 121 1 31 3SCHOOL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT UH UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT LeftSchl Ref Ruis Smoking Foul Lan Orug/A 1 Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Gambling Dis Cond Har Comm Forgery Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap Poss Exp 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 050 062 100 110 131 132 010 020 030 050 110 120 122 071 072 090 100 16 6 22 2 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 2 1 1 3 11 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 22 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 11 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 1,7 19 66 12 4 16 1 1 8 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 76 1 1 2 22 2 24 2 12 2 1 2 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 98 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Z 2 189 66 255 36 15 51 18 1 19 6 2 8 4 1 5 2 2 279 61 340SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH ,UF FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Ref Ruts CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruts CLASS 06 1 062 SUBTOTAL 3 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 4%)bllWUL. FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM' EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH ! UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis Arson 1 3 062 060 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 1 062 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Fighting Dis Cond Ass Staf 1 2 3 030 110 071 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 Dis Cond 2 no CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Assault 1 2 062 010 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 12 1 1 13 13LllILt KULK atnuuL uiaiMci FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 020 MCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting 1 030 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Foul Lan Dis Cond Pos Ueap 1 1 2 3 030 110 110 090 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 4 4 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 1 1 6 Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Pos Ueap 1 1 3 030 062 090 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 5 Ref Ruis Assault Battery Gang Mem 1 2 2 3 062 010 020 123 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 9 5 14 4 4 14 4 IS ISCHOOL: 021 CARVER HATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Pos Ueap Other of 1 3 4 062 090 000 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Fighting 1 030 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Pos Ueap 1 3 030 090 5 5 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 1 1 6 1 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 5 5 10 1 1 1 1 11 1 12FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruts CLASS 01 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 2 062 110 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 4 4 4 4s SEsn LHILC KUCN OUntJUL. vidinivi SCHOOL: 023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Pos Ueap 1 3 030 090 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis foul Lan 1 1 1 1 030 040 062 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 6 2 2 1 1 2 4 8 1 1 2 4 8 1 1 2 4 8 Fighting 1 030 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Har Comn Other of 1 1 1 2 4 030 062 110 120 000 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 10 9 19 1 1 19 1 20SCHOOL: 024 FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Harass Ref Ruis Pos Ueap 1 1 3 040 062 090 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Fighting Ref Ruis Other of 1 1 4 030 062 000 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 3 1 6 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 6 6 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 3 15 1 |1 15 1 16SCHOOL: 026 GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Assault CLASS 03 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ind Exp CLASS 04 1 2 030 100 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Assault Battery CLASS 05 2 2 010 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Ref Ruis V As Sf CLASS 06 1 1 3 030 062 072 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 1 9 9 9FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 027 GIBBS MAGNET SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Fighting CLASS 05 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCT IONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Harass Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 1 040 062 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Fighting CLASS 01 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Foul Lan Theft 1 1 2 030 110 030 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 3 1 4 1 1 3 1 4 3 1 1 5 Ref Ruis Dis Cond Pos Weap 1 2 3 062 110 090 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Fighting Pos Weap 1 3 030 090 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 1 8 6 6 8 6 14SCHOOL: 029 WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY OUT OF SCHOOL I FROM DATE\nDISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Bus Regs Theft 1 2 070 030 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Theft 1 1 2 030 062 030 1 2 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 3 4 1 5 1 6 1 8 1 5 1 5 6 6 1 6 1 8 1 5 6 2 11 1 14 Fighting Ref Ruis 1 1 030 062 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 4 5 9 2 1 3 6 6 12 3 3 3 3 6 6 12 3 3 6 9 15 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 14 9 23 11 11 23 11 34LDILC KUUK aunUUL Ui\n\u0026gt;IKILI auopiKU C.V/ T\"* SCHOOL: 030 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOLr FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 04 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Other of CLASS 05 4 000 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 06 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 3 2 2 3 2 5I t uu uutivrwu M FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 02 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Ass Staf Gang Mem CLASS 04 1 1 3 3 030 062 071 123 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 fighting Foul Lan CLASS 05 1 1 030 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 Fighting CLASS 06 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 6 6 3 3 1 1 7 3 10SCHOOL: 032 DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruts 1 1 030 062 1 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Ref Ruis Theft Mischief 1 2 2 062 030 080 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 Fighting Ref Ruts 1 1 030 062 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 3 2 5 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 3 2 5 1 1 4 2 6 Fighting Ref Ruis V As Sf Other of 1 1 3 4 030 062 072 000 2 1 3 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 7 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Theft 1 1 1 2 030 040 062 030 4 1 1 5 1 2 2 5 1 2 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 6 1 1 7 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 14 4 18 3 3 1 7 1 3 7 1 1 1 10 11 1 12 18 12 30SCHOOL: 033 MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BH SANCTIONS LONG TERM- EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK . WHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bus Regs 1 070 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Bus Regs Battery 1 1 2 062 070 020 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 1 1 040 062 110 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 2 5 1 8 2 5 1 8 2 5 1 8 2 5 1 8 Ref Ruis Assault Mischief Dis Cond 1 2 2 2 062 010 080 110 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 4 1 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 3 4 1 1 1 7 Ref Ruis Assault Battery Mischief 1 2 2 2 062 010 020 080 1 1 1 2 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 6 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 20 3 23 2 1 3 23 3 26SCHOOL: 034 MITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT UM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT F ighting Ref Ruis V As Sf CLASS 04 1 1 3 030 062 072 2 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 Orug/A 1 Dis Cond Poss Gun CLASS 05 1 2 3 131 110 080 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 030 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 6 2 8 1 1 1 1 S 2 10SCHOOL: 036 ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF 6/30/93 WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Theft CLASS 01 1 1 2 030 062 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 I, Ref Ruis Mischief Dis Cond 1 2 2 062 080 110 2 1 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 3 2 2 2 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 2 6 Harass Ref Ruis Mischief Ass Staf 1 1 2 3 040 062 080 071 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Z 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Har Conn 1 1 2 2 030 062 010 120 3 5 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 9 1 1 1 3 4 6 1 1 12 4 6 1 1 12 4 6 1 1 12 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Dis Cond Har Cornu Pos Ueap 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 062 110 010 110 120 090 6 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 9 4 13 1 1 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 1 1 14 2 6 2 1 1 1 1 14 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 26 12 38 3 1 4 1 1 39 4 43SCHOOL: 037 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM- EXPELLED ---TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 01 1 030 SUBTOTAL 2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting CLASS 02 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ref Ruts CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis Other of CLASS 04 1 4 062 000 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ass Staf CLASS 05 3 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 06 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 5 12 12 12SCHOOL: 038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM-- EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Fighting Foul Lan Theft Mischief 1 1 2 2 030 110 030 080 3 3 3 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 6 Fighting Ref Ruis 1 1 030 062 1 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 Fighting Ref Ruis Pos Ueap 1 1 3 030 062 090 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 4 1 1 6 2 2 6 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 9 7 1 1 9 Fighting Ref Ruis Drugs 1 Pos Ueap 1 1 1 3 030 062 132 090 6 1 2 8 1 8 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 2 9 2 2 11 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 27 6 33 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 12 1 1 8 1 1 3 13 4 4 2 2 35 4 39FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 039 RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL ! SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 062 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 4 4FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE SCHOOL: 040 ROMINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF. BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 05 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 06 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 2FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE SCHOOL: 041 STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruts CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 02 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 3 4 1 1 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 Fighting Ref Ruis foul Lan CLASS 03 1 1 1 030 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 5 1 7 1 5 1 7 1 5 1 7 1 5 1 7 Bus Regs Pos Ueap CLASS 04 1 3 070 090 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Foul Lan CLASS 05 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruts CLASS 06 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 16 2 18 18 18LllILt KULK SLMUUL UlblKlLI FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 042 WASHINGTON HATH/SCIENCE MAGNET SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BH BF BLK TOI WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis Assault Poss Exp 1 2 3 062 010 100 1 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 V As Sf 3 072 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Other of 1 4 062 000 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Other of 4 000 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 1 8 1 1 9 9UillLC HULK LnUUL UlJIMbI FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 044 WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Fighting CLASS 04 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL UlblKlCI bUbMKU uu/tu/v** ruc FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 045 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCT IONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Pos Ueap CLASS 02 3 090 SUBTOTAL Foul Lan CLASS 04 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOI UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault CLASS 06 1 1 2 030 062 010 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 2 5 3 3 5 3 8FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 046 HABELVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS our OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ueapon CLASS 02 3 121 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Mischief Ind Exp Dis Cond Pos Ueap CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 030 062 bio 080 100 110 090 1 2 2 3 2 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 4 1 3 3 10 10 2 4 12 14 7 11 1 3 3 7 11 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 5 1 14 17 1 3 3 7 11 3 3 3 1 2 8 1 21 28ruc SCHOOL: 047 TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/95 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis False Al Paging D CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 030 062 060 123 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 SUBTOTAL 6 1 7 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 8 3 2 2 1 8 Fighting CLASS 06 1 030 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Foul Lan CLASS 09 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 9 1 10 1 1 11 11 1SCHOOL: 048 FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 05 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Other of CLASS 06 1 1 4 030 062 000 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 4SCHOOL: 049 ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruts CLASS 04 1 062 SUBTOTAL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 7 7 7SCHOOL: 050 OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 Battery 2 020 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Fighting 1 030 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 3 3 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 Fighting Harass Assault Dis Cond 1 1 2 2 030 040 010 110 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 1 8 8 8FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 051 WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 Ref Ruis Foul Lan CLASS 06 1 1 062 no SUBTOTAL 3 1 4 1 1 4 1 5 4 1 5 4 1 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 1 9 9 9FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/95 SCHOOL: 052 WATSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Fighting CLASS 01 1 050 SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Ass Staf Pos Ueap 1 1 1 5 5 030 062 110 071 090 1 7 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 10 2 1 5 1 9 1 1 1 13 1 9 1 1 1 13 1 9 1 1 1 15 Fighting Ref Ruts 1 1 030 062 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 4 5 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Ueapon 1 1 1 2 3 030 050 062 010 121 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 4 1 9 1 1 16 4 1 9 1 1 16 4 1 9 1 1 16 4 1 9 1 1 16 Fighting Ref Ruis 1 1 030 062 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 31 5 36 3 1 4 36 4 40\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_1082","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":["1992/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","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/1082"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["46 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLR-C-82-866\nexhibit numbers 343-389\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1094","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":["1992/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records","Education--Finance"],"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/1094"],"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":["19 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\nLR-C-82-866\nexhibit numbers 281-342\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_433","title":"Four year old program, enrollment","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":["1992/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Childhood development","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Four year old program, enrollment"],"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/433"],"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":["71 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\nTEL: Jul 21,92 16:53 No .002 P.Ol SCHOOL Bald Badgett Franklin Garland Cloverdale Mitchell Rockefeller Goyor Springs Rightsell Romine Stephens Washington Wilson Woodruff Ish Watson 7/21/92 FOUR-YEAR-OLD ASSIGNMENTS 1992-93 BLACK OTHER TOTAL 9 9 27 9 9 9 25 9 11 9 9 18 9 9 9 9 9 7 27 2 9 8 29 9 0 9 1 18 9 9 1 9 IQ 16 54 11 18 17 54 10 11 18 10 36 18 18 10 184: (1^ I ! t I LITTT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSICNMP.MT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 January 18, 1994 1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Polly Ramer, Office of Desegregate on Monitoring Sue Pedersen, Student Assignmnet Office, LRSD 3990-91 Four-Year-Old Enrollment WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL ISH 1 11 12 ROCKEFELLER 19 32 51 WASHINGTON 18 21 39 SCHOOL BADGETT BALE BASELINE BRADY CHICOT CLOVERDALE FAIR PARK FRANKLIN CARLAND GEYER SPRINGS KING MABELVALE MITCHELL RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE WASHINGTON WATSON WILSON WOODRUFF TOTAL based on total capacity *AS OF 8/31/95 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR YEAR OLD ASSIGNMENTS FOR 1995-96* ENROLLED CAPACITY 36 36 36 18 18 54 36 72 18 36 72 18 18 18 54 36 54 36 18 36 BL 20 16 19 8 8 25 17 34 9 16 36 7 9 9 22 18 28 19 10 18 348 NBL TLT VACANCIES % BLACK 7 16 7 7 6 9 19 5 5 16 27 8 2 3 25 8 22 8 7 16 223 SEP 27 32 26 15 14 34 36 39 14 32 63 15 11 12 47 26 50 27 17 34 571 rar- J 1995 0/fice of Oessgregaiicn 9 4 10 3 4 20 0 33 4 4 9 3 7 6 7 10 4 9 1 2 149 56 45 53 45 45 47 48 48 50 45 50 39 50 50 50 50 52 53 56 50 49LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ASSIGNMENTS AT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS FOR 1995-96* ENROLLED SCHOOL CAPACITY BL NBL TLT VACANCIES % BLACK FRANKLIN 100 53 59 41 53 GARLAND 40 25 25 15 63 MITCHELL 40 29 29 11 73 RIGHTSELL 40 19 20 20 48 ROCKEFELLER 60 40 18 58 67 TOTAL 280 166 25 191 89 60 based on total capacity J (1 SEP Office of Desesregauofi Monitoring *AS OF 8/31/95 6 0 0 1 2 7LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD THIRD DAY REPORT BLACK WHITE TOTAL P1 P2 11 P3 13 TOTAL 13 19 32 SEP 1 1995 4 4 3 8/31/95 4 7 5 8 OftiCQ of Desegregation MonitonngLittle Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting February Tl, 1997 REGISTRATION Registration for all new and kindergarten smdents to the LRSD and those smdents opting for transfer options began January 21, 1997, and continued through January 31, 1997. The following information will provide an update concerning kindergarten registration. KINDERGARTNERS Tear 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 Black 890 851 910 Non-Black 600 557 546 Total 1490 1408 1456 Attachment 1 is a Projection by School for the 1997-98 school year as of February 21, 1997. These numbers do not include NLRSD and PCSSD or Four-Year old students. Assignment letters for all kindergarten, new smdents, and smdents requestins options will be mailed to parents on March 5, 1997. The secondary desegregation transfer application period will be March 10, 1997 - March 28, 1997. Assignment notification letters will be mailed to parents on April 9, 1997. Four-Year old applicant numbers will be available for the board meeting in April. Notification letters to parents of Four-Year old applicants will be mailed on April 18, 1997. LRSD BIRACIAL COMMITTEE The LRSD Biracial Committee met on February 4, 1997. The committee unanimously voted to accept the new bylaws proposed by the comminee. Attachment 2 is a copy of the newly adopted bylaws. The next meeting will be held March 4, 1997, at 6:00 p.m.\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_508","title":"Incentive Schools: Needs assessment","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":["1992/1993"],"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","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Needs assessment"],"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/508"],"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":["17 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\nQuestions Related to Relevant Areas of the May 1992 Order Incentive School Staffing Needs Assessment Issues: 1. Although ordered to do the staffing needs assessment in May of 1992, the LRSD had not yet completed the task at the time of the February 1, 1993 hearing. 2. During the February hearing, the district could not produce a copy of the needs assessment for the court. The court requested that the LRSD submit a copy of the needsassessmentwhen it became available. A copy has not been submitted. Questions: 1. What is the status of the incentive schools staffing needs assessment? Why hasnt a copy of this document been submitted to the court as requested during the February 1 hearing? 2. Explain who was involved in the development of this assessment. What was the involvement of the Incentive School Staffing Committee? Of incentive school principals? 3. The plan refers to six factors which must be considered as part of the needs assessment process in the incentive schools: Number of students per grade level, race and gender, academic achievement needs and interests, disciplinary needs, social interaction needs, and health needs. Describe how each of these factors were addressed through the needs assessment administered in the incentive schools. 4. When was the staffing needs assessment administered in the incentive schools? 5. Describe how the staffing needs assessment was administered at the building level. Who was involved in the process? (e.g. administrators, teachers, support staff, parents) 6. What was the percentage of parent questionnaires returned? How many parent questionnaires were sent? 7. Have any staffing decisions already been made on the basis of the assessment results? 8. Describe the process used to analyze the assessment results. Could you supply a copy of that analysis to the court?Program Specialists Issues: 1) Program specialists were ordered to be in place at the beginning of the 1992-93 school year to assist in the incorporation of themes into all areas of the curriculum. Well into 1993 ODM discovered that the specialists were still not in place in all incentive schools. Findings: This information is the result of discussions with all seven incentive school principals on March 16,1993 regarding the program specialists, supervision aides, and staffing committee. Status of Program Specialists Franklin: Garland: Ish: Mitchell: Rightsell: Rockefeller: Stephens: Candidate being recommended for hiring 3-16-93 Candidate about to be recommended for hiring Specialist hired and presently working. The specialist was employed at Ish already and served as the specialist previously. Candidate has been recommended for hiring Recommendation made for hiring. The specialist will begin on April 3, 1993 due to the period of notice needed for her present job. Specialist hired. The specialist emplyed at Rockefeller was employed at the school and previously served as specialist. Not considering filling the position pending decisions regarding the new Stephens interdistrict school. The principal was told that she would not be able to hire a specialist until a new theme has been chosen for the new school. Questions: 1. How many incentive schools have program specialists working in the schools as of today? 2. When were the last specialists hired? 3. Themes were ordered restored in May of 1992 and program specialists were to be in place at the beginning of the 1992-93 school year. ODM has constantly reminded the district of the need to hire program specialists to support theme implementation. At this point, yet another year has passed and another group of incentive school students have been denied the services the district commited to provide for them. Why has it taken so long for the district to respond to the order?4. Describe the Incentive School Staffing Committees involvement in the selection process. Did the committee help determine procedures for staffing? 5. Have all of the specialists presently in place been provided with a comprehensive orientation to the incentive school concept? Describe the content of that orientation. If specialists havent been oriented, when do you plan to do so? Will program specialists be allowed to participate in training opportunities (e.g., trips to speciality schools with similar themes, workshops, conferences) which will enhance their ability to incorporate the themes into the curriculum? 6. Why has there been no attempt to fill the program specialist position at Stephens?S-18-A3 INCENTIVE SCI A7 The Staffing Committee of the Little 1 determine what positions are needed i Classroom Specialist, Social Worker, e \u0026gt; ASSESSMENT ucting a Needs Assessment to help :h as Assistant Principal, Alternative Please complete and return the form to your childs teacher. This information will be used along with other data compiled by teachers and principals in each school to determine if additional staff is needed. Thank you for your help. (2. yr[jjh/0 1. The number of persons living in my home is (check all members with the conect numberj , The number includes the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Mother Aunt Faer Uncle Children Cousins Grandfather I attend Parent-Teacher Conferences at least twice a year. ____Yes I attend PTA meetings regularly. Yes No Grandmother No\" I work with my child on lessons each evening and sign the homework nightly. Yes No I make sure that my child attends school regularly and is only absent when too ill to attend. Yes No My child gets to school in e following way: School Bus Car Walk I get my child to school on time by either making sure he/she is at the bus stop on time, leaves home early enough to walk and be on time, or drive him/her to school in time to arrive before the tardy bell. Always Never Sometimes Number of times I, as a parent, have been responsible for my child being late to school: 8. I pick up my child promptly after school/after extended day. Yes No 9. I discuss/question my child about what he/she has learned at school each day. Yes No 10. When my child is absent, I call the school to notify them of the reason for the absence. Yes No 11. I keep in close contact with my childs teacher to keep abreast of his/her progress.S-lg-A3 INCENTIVE SCHOOL PARENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT The Staffing Committee of the Little Rock School District is conducting a Needs Assessment to help determine what positions are needed in each Incentive School, such as Assistant Principal, Alternative Classroom Specialist, Social Worker, etc. Please complete and return the form to your childs teacher. This information will be used along with other data compiled by teachers and principals in each school to determine if additional staff is needed. Thank you for your help. 1. The number of persons living in my home is (check all members with the correct number) . The number includes the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. Mother Aunt Father Uncle Children Cousins Grandfather I attend Parent-Teacher Conferences at least twice a year. ____Yes I attend PTA meetings regularly. Yes No Grandmother No\" I work with my child on lessons each evening and sign the homework nightly. Yes No I make sure that my child attends school regularly and is only absent when too ill to attend. Yes No 6. My child gets to school in the following way: School Bus Car Walk 7. I get my child to school on time by either making sure he/she is at the bus stop on time, leaves home early enough to walk and be on time, or drive him/her to school in time to arrive before the tardy bell. Always Never Sometimes Number of times I, as a parent, have been responsible for my child being late to school: 8. I pick up my child promptly after school/after extended day. Yes No 9. I discuss/question my child about what he/she has learned at school each day. Yes No 10. When my child is absent, I call the school to notify them of the reason for the absence. Yes No 11. I keep in close contact with my childs teacher to keep abreast of his/her progress.IN THE UNITED STATES-DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN'DIVISION }l LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOO DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LR- - i . I I DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached Incentive School Staffing Needs Assessment and Little Rock School District Organizational Structure-September 1992. The latter document shows the actual organizational structure of the Little Rock School District. It is marked \"draft\" because it has not yet been approved by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Helleir Bar No. 81083 kail^\\No(-Fil.Necd 4 CERTIFICATE OF- SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of April, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 .ristopher Helle: kaihyVNot-Fi!. NeedNAME OF SCHOOL Franklin Incentive School PRINCIPAL Mr. Franklin Davis r 1. How many students are enrolled? 407 os GRADE PRE-K KINDERGARTEN BLACK HALE 18 19 BLACK FEMALE 9 20 WHITE MALE 11 2 WHITE FEMALE 7 I 1ST GRADE 2HD. GRADE JI 25 20 34  1 T I 3 a A 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE 5TH GRADE 29 23 15 19 20 10 1 1 3 1 i 1 0 z I 6TH GRADE Self-contained J. 0 4 1 2L 3 ,1 0 2. Do you have a full time counselor in your building? \u0026lt;substitute) 3. Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? N/A 4. Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in No, the Social Worker comes one day even' two weeks 5. On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions? average 12 6. How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? Expulsions?. 7. Do you have in-school suspension? DC. Vgc 6 0Franklin 1 1 6. If not, explain. We do not have an empty classroom to hold the in-schrol suspension in. We do not have a full-time -certified teacher to hold the in-school suspension. 9. How many out-of-school suspenBions did you have last year? 18 Expulsions? 10. 10- self-contc- How many students are enrolled in special education? -rn towwn 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? 26 -Speech 1 -Visually : 12. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. 75% How many homeless students attend your school. none known. 14. 15. 15. Foster Care none known Residential Care Facilities What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? What is the average number o post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine vzeeks. What percentage of the s f is nontenured? 1, 5 0 2 02 17. How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language? none 13. Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? _No time / (circl  one) full tine / part19. Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above:  -63 _____ 20. What is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 339 Percentage of attendance__96_j_^2XilGSSI'J'IV.SJ SGWOli NAME OF SCHOOL PRINCIPAL l.^royJOj TTr 1. How many students are enrolled? 2^ GRADE PRE-K KINDERGARTEN I 1ST GRADE li 2iro GRADE I 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE li 5TH GRADE 6TH GRADE 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. BLACK HALE C IQ IL 1 ID BLACK PEHALE i5_ 15 JL |g Ito 15 WHITE HALE JL Q_ 0 WHITE FEHALE JL  A 0 0 Q. i\nJ Do you have a full time counselor in your building? Yes Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? Un Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in Mo - ^V\\c is here oncfc every seven Jays, \\Af^ necJ On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions? O  2. How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? I Expulsions?. Dll you have in-school ^u'pcrsion? 'NQ I I ( r I I I I 0 I O I I8. If not, explain. ,XV npV keen ri\u0026amp;cpsSAry scV\u0026gt;oo1 -Ver m  9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? . - Expulsions? *5 rffomrri4-0 Id Aa'/ 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? Ik 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? QD'/, W 12. 13. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. How many homeless students attend your school. Vle've 2 Io erfttrU Foster Care Residential Care Facilities 14. What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? Z. 15. What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. 16. what percentage of the staff is nontenured? 17. How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language?_____ 0.4 (X. 18. Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? time / (circle one) full time / part- 19. Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: 20. Khat is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 4^ 0 8 0:\n^\\5j:sjSLiiw NAME OF SCHOOL Ish Incentive School PRINCIPAL Stan Strauss 1. How many students are enrolled? 174 T GRADE BLACK HALE black female WHITE KALE WHITE FEMALE 3 PRE-K KIHDERGARTEN 1ST GRADE 11 8 5 2 6 1  0 2  0 21ID GRADE 3RD GRADE 4'IH GRADE STH GRADE 6TH GRADE 2. 3. 4. 16 15 _2 7 10 12 9 T_ 15 19 \"1! Do you have a full time counselor in your building? Counselor resigned 1-29-93 Ra Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? N/A Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in no 5. oh a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions?. 6. How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? 9 Expulsions?, 1. Do you have in-school suspension? 0 2 0 \u0026lt; 0 0 1   0  0 0Ish 8. If not, explain. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? 3 Expulsions?0 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? a 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? 154 12. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. 75g 13. How many homeless students attend your school. 0 14. 15. 16. Poster Care 0 Residential Care Facilities 0 What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? 7_____________ What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. 1 What percentage of the staff is nontenured? 8g 17. How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language? 0 No 18. Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? full time / part-  time / (circle one) . _______ . _______ 19. Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: ___________ 20, What is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school yew?Percentage of attendance Qfi ab-?? \u0026gt; II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mitchell Elementary School 24\u0026amp; Battery Streets  Phone 324-2415 * Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 March 3, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: memorandum Hart, Desegregation Facilitator J^ita Hudspeth, Principal, Mitchell  \u0026lt; Principal, Social Worker, and Alternative Classroom Teacher   memorandum is the completed needs committee recommends r - .  --------- r--------- --------- 1 assessment. The  VicePrincipal as well as an increase to indicated^^t Primary justification forth\nVice-Principe is inaicated at the bottom of page two and page three. Jocial^Wo^kJ^^^JT! feels that in order to benefit from the services of cial Worker this position must be elevated to at least .50 FTE. increased emotional and social needs of families due school neighborhood, iucteased needs for lamiiies needing neeLrt ^\"^\"i^y\"based services together with Increased services lor why we believe ap\u0026lt;pa rent n'e glect - and- /or ch-r o- nic absentisra. to the dramatic The a increased needs for families needing social worker. - ----- --------------- , head the list our school population would benefit from a halftime I alternative classroom. time, the Committee does not believe a need exists for an aasaBsatEsce NAME OP SCHOOL Mitchell Elementary School principal Donlta Hudspeth jH n 1. How many students are enrolled? 255 GRADE PRE-K KIMDSRGARTEH 1ST GRADS 2hd grade 3RD GRADS 4TH GRADS STH GRADE STH GRADE  2. 3. 4.  5. 6. 7. BLACK MALE BLACK FEMAT.R 5 WHITE MALE 4 WHITE FSHAT.g 14 18 22 11 Do you have a full time Is there an additional 450? ' 3 9 1 1 25 14 11 1 3 1 1 0 counselor, in your building? ^es counselor, if your enrollment is the building every day? social worker? over If SO, is he/she in We have a social worker every seventh day. On a daily average, how SB pprriinnccitpoaaln cs office, for discipslitnuadreyn tsa catiroen sr?e fer3red Preventive as well as problems already to the Do you have in-school suspension? Expulsions? n yes Mitchell 8. If not, explain. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? Q Expulsions? 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? 27 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? Over 902 's 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes, How many homeless students attend your school. Foster Care 2 Residential Care Facilities 1 2a What is the average number of certified personnel absent each What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. 15 What percentage of the staff is nontenured? 102 How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language? nnno 18. Is a foreign langj^uge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? no full time / part- time / (circle one) 19. 20. no Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: ____ Khat is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? _ Percentage of attendance 982 260 The membership at Mitchell increased by fifty-one percent during the Of that number, approximately two-thirds entered We now have approximately This combined 91-92 school year. reading at least one year below level, Wc nuw 40 percent of our students functinonir|g below grade level. with the number of extra, programs witl}in the incentive school creates a very difficult task. The number of programs include but is nnoott lliimmiitteeda to the following: . School Themes . Extended Day . Saturday Enrichment . Latin . Spanish .. Student Education Plans . Learning Styles . Monthly Reporting to Parents  Instructional Aides . Special Interest Clubs . Rites of Passage . Wellness Program . Writing to Read  Teacher Demonstration/Master Teacher Pregram \\  3CiE!C\u0026gt;01 NAME OP SCHOOL Rightsell PRINCIPAL Sharon Davis 1. How many students are enrolled? 249 GRADE BLACK KALE BLACK FEMALE WHITE KALE WHITE FEKALE PRE-K 6 2 2 KIHOERGARTEH 1ST GRADE 2ND GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE 6TH GRADE 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 12 17 19 15 25 20 17 10 16 15 14 13 14 21 Do you have a full time counselor in your building? Yes Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? N/A Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in The seven Incentive schools share a social worker. approximately two times per month. She is in our building On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principals office for disciplinary actions? How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? 2 Expulsions? 0 Do you have in-school suspension? Yes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0Rightsell 8. If not, explain. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? - 12 Expulsions? 0 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? 7 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? Over 90Z 12. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. Over 852 13. How many homeless students attend your school. None 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Foster Care Residential Care Facilities None What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? 1 to 2 What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. What percentage of the staff is nontenured? 82 How many children in your school sp-ak Spanish as a second language? an Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? time / (circle one) No full time / part- 0 2 1 19. Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent nonn-reference test? student at/above: 77 20. What is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 245 Percentage cf attendance 97.55XifCOf'lIXZS SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL Rockefeller Incentive School PRINCIPAL Anne Mangan 1. How many students are enrolled? MO GRADE PRE-K KINDERGARTEN 1ST GRADE 2ND GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADS 6TH GRADE 2. 3. 4. BLACK KALS 21 li 18 11 14 _1SL 17 135 BLACK FEMALE WHITE HALS WHITE FEMALE 14 20 12 17 ___11 14  140 -12. 11_ 10 5 21 11 15 9 Total 92 58 61 _1 0 61 52 36 38 37 5 Th 36 410 Do you have a full time counselor in your building? Yes Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? N/A Oo you have a full tine social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in No one social worker rotates to the seven incentive schools. 2 5 2 5. On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principals office for disciplinary actions?. 7 I-.-. R I fit-nHonf-g 6. How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? iq Expulsions? 1 npnHinp haar^no 7. AJH Do you have In-school suspension? but generally do not. Wc have hbd in-school suspensionsAJH Rockefeller 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. If not, explain. A How many out-of-school - Expulsions? How aany students suspensions did you have last year?  are enrolled in special education? How aany students receive free/reduced lunch? Bstlaate the percentage of hoaas. 50Z - 60% How many homeless students Foster Care 6 Free-24Q. RadnoH.?? * yr - 6th grade your students from single-parent attend your school. Residential Care Facilities What is the day? 2 0 0 average number of certified personnel absent each  ? What percentage of the staff is How many children in language? 0 nontenured? your school speak Spanish langauge teacher hired during the regular school day? time / (circle one) Identify the number of NCE on the recent 69 -20. What is the as a second in your building to teach No /____ M fall time / part- students scoring at/above the 50th norm-reference test? student at/above: average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 308 Percentage of attendance 96.04 308laCSa'l'TOT SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL Stephens PRINCIPAL Lonnie S. Dean '0/v 1. How many students are enrolled? 192 GRADE BLACK HALE BLACK PEHALE I WHITE HALE WHITE FEMALE ! PRE-K I \u0026gt; 9 . KIHDERGARTEH 12 8 I i I 0 0 1ST GRADE 8 17 i 2 0 2ND GRADS 13 15 1 i 3RD GRADE 16 16 4TH GRADE 11 STH GRADE 6TH GRADE 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 13 18 18 Do you have a full time counselor in your building?. Is there an additional counselor, 450? i'/A ves tl l{ i! if your enrollment is over Do you have a full time social worker?i^oif so, is he/she in the building every day? Ve have one every seventh day. On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office or disciplinary actions?. How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school vear? Expults:-ii onnncs'?? 0 Do you have in-school suspension? No I 0 0 0 i s IT 4 1 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 Stephens 8. If not, explain. We do not have the space. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? 14 Expulsions? 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? 11. How many students receive free/reduced Ixinch? 185 12. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. 13. How many homeless students attend your school. Foster Care^ Residential Care Facilities 14. What is the average niuaber of certified personnel absent each day? 15. What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. 16. Khat percentage of the staff is nontenured? 29 17. How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second 1anguace? 0 18. Is a foreign lang^PS teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? full tine / part- no 19. 20. time / (circle one) Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: 35 What is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 191 Percentage of attendance_2^4 0 0 2 6 0 0 3Introduction I.THEMES/PROGRAM SPECIALISTS In compliance with the Judge's court orders, the District has made an honest effort to assist the schools in developing themes and hiring theme specialists for the Incentive Schools. Due to the transition period of the new superintendent, the hiring process was delayed. The District kept the Monitoring Office apprised of this situation, and the grave illness of the Director of Human Resources, who was responsible for reciniitment and assisting with the hiring procedure. Each principal was provided assistance by the Desegregation Facilitator and the Director of Magnet Schools on ways to involve parents and staff in developing themes. Magnet school theme sumreys, brochures, and other helpful tips were provided by both offices. At this time, surveys have been sent to all the school communities for their input, and themes have been selected. Job descriptions have been written and Human Resources has advertised the positions and they are filled. The Themes for each school are cited below: Mitchell - Creative Dramatics Ish - Environmental Education Garland - Multimedia Technology and Education Research Franklin - Communications Technology Rightsell - Mass Media and Career Awareness Rockefeller - Rockefeller Early Childhood Education Magnet - Computer Science II. Staffing Committee with the assistance of the Desegregation Facilitator, staffing committeecomposed of principals, t__:___, ______, administrators, and members of the Joshua Intervenors--has been a diverse teachers, parents, organized and has developed criteria and steps for hiring all new staff to Incentive Schools. A representative interview team of 5-7 members was selected from each school to interview and make recommendations for the hiring of unfilled staff positions. Program Specialists will be responsible for inservicing staff and writing curriculum for the Incentive Schools. This committee also developed a Needs Assessment and made recommendations regarding whether these unfilled positions cited in the Desegregation Plan should be filled.III. Unfilled Positions 1. 2. 3. 4. Alternative Classroom Specialists Assistant Principals Social Workers Spanish Teachers The recommendations made by the Staffing Committee are: Recommendations SCHOOL ALTERNATIVE CLASSROOM SPECIALIST ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL SOCIAL WORKER SPANISH TEACHER ROCKEFELLER 1.00 Not requested .50 .50 STEPHENS Not requested 1.00 Not requested Not requested GARLAND Not requested 1.00 1.00 Not requested FRANKLIN 1.00 Not requested 1.00 Not requested ISH Not requested 1.00 Not requested Not requested RIGHTSELL Not requested 1.00 1.00 .50 MITCHELL Not requested 1.00 .50 Not requested IV. Science Labs Science Labs have been placed in every Incentive School so that teachers and students will have better access to science materials and be able to adequately do experiments, vill be stored in the science rooms. V. Homework Hotline All science materials The plan specifies that a Homework Hotline is available for students who do not attend the Homework Centers. During the 1991- 92 school year the student's interest declined substantially in the Homework Hotline. During the period of 11/26/91 to 1/9/92. the 92, number of calls de^^xned to a total of twenty- oklve. Due to the continued decrease in the number of calls from Little Rock School District children it was determined that students would be given flyer about the AP\u0026amp;L Hotline for the- 1992-93 school year. VI. Information Hotline An Information Hotline is maintained by the Student Assignment Office for parents who will need additional information about the Incentive Schools. The number (688-3085) has been published in the newspaper by the Communication Department, and will be published again in April for recruitment purposes. VII. Instructional Aides An instructional aide has been added to every classroom in the two schools that have one or more classes that exceed twenty students.Cemmunicai ions I Aisoc Supt Opanizational \u0026amp; Leomrig Equrt/ J Etteciive Schools Student Assignment I Monilorirtg I  lmpternentai\u0026gt;orV Plarvw^ I EvaluMiort Pubc Schools Before-1 L,.^er School CARE Parent Recruit merS Parent Coordinator BOARD OF DIRECTORS I Superintendent Human Hesouroeef MmmSmSm\u0026amp;SL I Assoc. Sup). School OpwaL ACtmato I Assoc. SufC Ctaria4um\u0026amp; I Leaning knpivrrt. I Hearino ONicar IncerShre Schools (7) Heading Hne A^ Su^. ElemerSary 15 Schools Aesl.Supl. ElemerSwy 14 SdhooH 1 Asai. b Secondary I USchoob I Language Aris Soence Prineipala Prirvipab Principals Mathematics Teachers Teachers Teachers New Futures Alhletica ARemitare teaming Social Studws kistnictiorta)' Technology Physical Education Orvglt Health Education Earl^ Childhood Staft OevelopmerS Little Rock School District Organizational Structure September 1992 1 ' Maruger Resotjrces \u0026amp; School St\u0026lt;3poil I Vocational Controller Risk Management _ Foderai Programs/ Grants Faotites Services Procurement Eioeplional Children Adu* Education Library Services Foreign Language Transpo rial tort Food Serviois Security Data Pfocv4s.r\u0026gt;g i 1 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS A A .1 April 19, 1993 received APR 2 ) 1995 MEMORANDUM Office of Dosesrsgation Monitoring TO: Horace R. Smith, Associate Monitor, ODM FROM: Arma J. Hart, Desegregation Facilitator SUBJECT: INCENTIVE SCHOOL STAFFING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Thank you for your observations and input regarding the incentive schools staffing needs assessment content and process. Your comments detailed the sentiment of the district and my comments to you regarding the purpose of the needs assessment, during your brief visit in my office. As I stated to you at that time, the work of the Staffing Committee was not final and they would reconvene to review and analyze the findings before making a final recommendation. Other information that provided the basis for the individual school recommendation that was not privileged to you was certain data in the individual school's profile and School Improvement Plan, during the meeting for members to discuss Time was devoted regarding enrollment. parent attendance. and analyze economic status data of parents, support services already available, and services presently provided by other staff. The parents even discussed the possibility of eliminating some existing positions as we evaluate programs in the future. You mentioned in oouurr conversation that the proposed staffing recommendations made by the schools should be aligned with what their greatest needs are. At our April 3, 1993 meeting, I reiterated the charge of the committee. Given the District's limited resources, it was decided to prioritize all recommendations before resubmitting them. As you know, these positions have not been recommended for hiring at this time. After the staffing committee completes its work. Mrs. Bernard will request appropriate district personnel to review the recommendations carefully and meet with the staffing committee once again before final recommendations are made to the superintendent. Mrs. Estelle Matthis will also be involved in this process since Spanish is a curriculum issue. Mr. Horace Smith April 19, 1993 Page 2 Most of the persons involved on the staffing committee had no previous knowledge on how to develop, conduct and analyze a needs assessment. However, we feel they have shown great commitment to this task and ultimately to total school improvement. Since parents and members of the Joshua Interyenors are represented on this committee. other parents by developing and the committee did not see a need to involve assessment. sending out another needs I am sure the committee chairpersons and members will appreciate any assistance you can provide in the completion of this task. 5:30 p.m. Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 26, 1993 at Horace, Thank you, for your suggestions, guidance and help in reaching the goals of our Desegregation Plan. seeing you at one of our committee meetings. We look forward to AH/sh cc: Janet Bernard AH0415 iDate: April 14, 1993 MEMORANDUM From: To: Subject: Horace R. Smith, Associate Monitor, ODM Arma Hart, Desegregation Facilitator, Little Rock School District Incentive Schools Staffing Needs Assessment Pursuant to our March 30,1993 meeting, I am submitting some observations regarding the incentive schools staffing needs assessment content and process. The staffing needs assessment process should transcend simple plan compliance and actually provide an excellent means of determining how best to serve incentive school students while meeting the districts goal of fiscal responsibility. An effective staffing needs assessment should help the district determine which positions are needed as well as those which dont efficiently meet student needs. Both decisions should be based on a thorough analysis of quantifiable data and standardized objective correlates between need factors and ways (positions, etc.) to deal with those factors (meet the needs). For example, if a school expresses a need for a full-time social worker because \"We have many families with special needs\", it is not unreasonable to request that the need be quantified in terms of the number of families and examples of the types of \"special needs\" they have. Otherwise, there is no tangible basis on which to request a social worker or a specific period of time for which that social worker is needed. Quantifying specific staffing needs helps district planning in the following ways: 1. 2. 3. Brings student needs in individual schools into focus in a data-driven manner Provides measurable criteria on which to make staffing decisions Establishes a baseline against which progress can be measured and program/staffing modifications recommended. The individual school rationales for positions lack substantive data to buttress their staffing requests. They also lack any rationale for why certain positions are not needed. There are at least two obvious reasons why a recommended position in the plan would not be filled: 1) It was already filled prior to this needs assessment (e.g., instructional aides) 2) The responsibilities of that position are being effectively accomplished by others. In the latter case, it is still important to document how those responsibilities are being effectively carried out. The most frequent examples of this were the Spanish teacher and alternative classroom specialist positions. Five schools didnt request these positions and offered no explanations as to why. As I mentioned during our conversation, the assessment and the resulting requests seemed to indicate a perception by the schools that they should request the positions they desired most rather than all of the ones they need. The thinking may have been one of \"putting all of their eggs in one basket\" out of fear that numerous requests would decrease the probability of receiving the position(s) (e.g., assistant principal) they most desire. 1 have outlined observations regarding each schools staffing needs assessment in terms of some of the basic information an effective needs assessment should contain. These observations provide examples of questions to prompt further thought and should not be considered to be all inclusive. I will comment on the rationales for assistant principals separately. Franklin Certified Full-time Alternative Classroom Teacher: The rationale mentions that this teacher would provide \"an immediate, structured consequence for a student who displays inappropriate behavior.\" The rationale contains no reference to specific needs such as the type of \"inappropriate behaviors\" and the frequency of these behaviors as a disruptive element of the school environment. Reference could be made to referrals (12 per day at Franklin according to the needs assessment). However, not all referrals are going to need the use of an alternative classroom as an intervention. Social Worker: Mentions that the social worker would be involved with \"court referrals due to attendance, abuse and neglect\". How many cases is the school currently involved with in the course of a year? Who handles this responsibility now and why cant they continue to do so? What are the fundamental needs of students (e.g. housing, clothing, etc.) that the social worker might be instrumental in providing? How many students have these needs? Why would a full-time social worker be needed rather than a part-time? The answer to this question would involve determining the number of students in need, the degree of individual need and the amount of time considered reasonable to effectively meet those needs. A school social worker could be instrumental in helping the school staffing committee determine the amount of time. Spanish Teacher: Why is there not a need for a Spanish teacher? Are the goals and objectives described in the plan being met effectively without a teacher? What is the criteria for evaluating whether the goals and objectives are being met? Garland Social Worker: The rationale states that the social worker will make \"social investigations in a home when student observations and/ or discussions indicate: chronic absentees\ndeviant behavior, apparent neglect or need\nemotional or mental disturbance.\" A question which is not answered is to what quantifiable degree these problems are present at Garland. There is also some question as to the types of services a social worker would provide in cases of \"deviant behavior\" and \"emotional disturbance\". Will the services envisioned entail referral? Therapy? The type of services will dictate the individual qualifications of the social worker required for this building. The rationale further mentions that 95% of students are from single parent households. This statistic has little meaning on its own. The relevance is in explaining the risk factors associated with living in a single parent family combined with living in poverty. As with Franklin, the determination of the time a social worker is required should be based on a formula which relates identified needs to the amount of time reasonably needed to address them on the average. A school social worker could help determine the amount of time Garland specifically needs a social worker. There are eight homeless students at Garland. What are the special needs of these students that the expertise of a social worker could fulfill? Alternative Classroom Specialist: According to the assessment, the number of out of school suspensions dropped from 65 during the 1991-92 school year to one thus far in the 1992-93 school year. An alternative classroom specialist was not requested. However, one of the factors supporting the need for a social worker was the 65 out of school suspensions for the 1991-92 school year. There seems to be an inconsistency in the use of the numbers as related to the staffing requests. Spanish Teacher: Why is there not a need for a Spanish teacher? Are the goals and objectives described in the plan being met effectively without a teacher? What is the criteria for evaluating whether the goals and objectives are being met? Ish I Social Worker: A social worker was not requested. The assessment reveals that 885% of Ish students are on free or reduced lunch and 75% are from single-parent homes. Although they havent thoroughly documented the need, the schools with similar demographic characteristics have requested either full or part-time social workers. Is there a particular reason why Ish does not need a social worker? Are the needs of Ish students which may have been met by a social worker being met in other ways? If so, how are they being met? (This information may also be helpful to the other schools.). Is there substantive data that reveals that the social and physical problems with which a social worker could help are not as prevalent at Ish? Alternative Classroom Specialist: The assessment data revealed that there were nine out-of- school suspensions thus far this school year, compared to three during the 1991-92 school year. What interventions are present at Ish which preclude the need for an alternative classroom specialist? Spanish Teacher: Why is there not a need for a Spanish teacher? Are the goals and objectives described in the plan being met effectively without a teacher? What is the criteria for evaluating whether the goals and objectives are being met?Mitchell Social Worker: The rationale states \"The increased emotional and social needs of families due to the dramatic change in our school neighborhood, increased needs for families needing more access to community-based services together with increased services needed because of apparent neglect and/ or chronic absenteeism...\". This description is provided as the reason the position of social worker should be elevated to 50 FTE. Is there information which indicates the types and degree of needs specific to the Mitchell population? For example, there must be some basis in fact for the committee to include \"neglect and/or chronic absenteeism\" as part of the rationale. What is that basis? A start might be to tie in the fact that Mitchell has the highest number of homeless students (20) among the incentive schools according to the assessment. Without any type of data it is impossible to determine if a 50 FTE social worker will effectively meet the needs of the Mitchell student population. Once quantified, the identified need will then drive not only the request for a position but also the amount of time a person will be needed to effectively begin to meet the needs of students and their families. Alternative Classroom Specialist: The position was not requested. Mitchells discipline statistics reveal a low number of out-of-school suspensions and a comparatively low number of referrals. This type of information could form the basis of a rationale for why Mitchell doesnt presently need an alternative classroom specialist. Mitchell also has one of the lowest percentages (10%) of nontenured teachers among the incentive schools. Does this statistic combined with the data on suspensions and referrals indicate effective classroom Interventions? If so, these and other schoolwide interventions should be part of the rationale for why this position is not necessary. This information could also be of benefit to other schools where discipline may be a problem. (Again, a situation where the assessment serves several purposes.) Spanish Teacher: Why is there not a need for a Spanish teacher? Are the goals and objectives outlined in the plan being met effectively without a teacher? What is the criteria for evaluating whether the goals and objectives are being met? Rightsell Social Worker: The Rightsell rationale mentions the need for a social worker to \"promote and sustain student attendance\". Yet the average daily percentage of attendance at Rightsell is 975% according to the information provided in the needs assessment. Is there an attendance problem warranting the services of a social worker? If so, does this indicate that the 25% of absent students are basically a recurrent group? In that case, that would represent approximately seven students based on the schools current enrollment. There is a need for more clarity and explanation of the request for a social worker as it relates to attendance. Also \"promptness\" is mentioned. Assuming that this relates to tardy students, what percentage of students are tardy and to what degree does this disrupt not only their education but that of others? The rational also refers to the need for a social worker to make \"social investigations\" when there is some indication of \"chronic absentees, deviant behavior, neglect, emotional disturbance.\" To what degree are absenteeism, deviant behavior, neglect, or emotional disturbance problems at Rightsell? There is some disagreement between the principal and the committee as to the amount of time a social worker is needed. The committee favors a full-time social worker and the principal believes \"that one (1) day per week would help to meet minimum social welfare needs.\" Identification of specific needs at Rightsell and the time necessary to reasonably meet those needs would solve the difference of opinion on a more factual basis. Alternative Classroom Teacher\nRightsell didnt request this position according to the chart of recommendations. However, the rationale provided by the committee states \"Students could still be educated and not on the streets. This could be a shared position with 2 or 3 other schools.\" This indicates that the committee favored some form of alternative classroom teacher. However, the principal noted under the committee rationale that she personally disagreed with the committee recommendation. Apparently the principals position was favored over the committees in the final recommendation. Again, this disagreement could be avoided if the rationale for the position was based on discipline data and knowledge of building-based interventions. The data would either reflect a need for an alternative classroom and teacher or provide evidence that the school is presently dealing effectively with discipline. ( Spanish/Latin Teacher\nRightsells committee recommends one day per week of \"Spanish or Latin\" instruction as a minimum. There is no statement of how instructional goals and objectives arent presently being met. The committee does state that \"Students are not interested in the AETN Spanish program.\" How can the committee determine that one day per week with a teacher should be a minimum if the there has been no effort to determine whether program goals described in the plan are being met? Rockefeller Alternative Classroom Specialist\nThe rationale given is actually a job description rather than a reason the position should be filled. Among reasons that could be given are the high rate of out-of-school suspensions and referrals at Rockefeller. Also, the rationale might include some anecdotal information regarding what happens academically and socially to suspended students in the absence of any type of intervention. Additional Auxiliary Teacher\nThe rationale explains that Rockefeller needs this position due to the fact that it has a large staff with more than one certified teacher absent on any given day. It further states that \"S.O.S. cannot supply enough substitute teachers on many occasions.\" The information which would strengthen the case for this position or lead to the investigation of other options would be the teacher absentee rate, number of times substitutes have not been available during the current school year, and a description of the type of responsibilities this teacher would have when not serving as a substitute. Social Worker\nThe rationale describes \"many\" families with \"special needs\" but fails to quantify the number of families or describe the types of needs. The social worker is described as providing assistance in eliminating \"excessive absences.\" Is the absentee problem one of a high daily percentage of absences or a few students who are habitually absent? The answer to that question begins to reveal the type of assistance a social worker could provide and the amount of time services would be required by the school. As it stands, the rationale provides no insight into why Rockefeller would be better served by a JO FTE rather than a 1.00 FTE social worker. Spanish Teacher: Rockefeller did request a JO FTE Spanish teacher. However, there is no rationale for the amount of time requested. How well are the goals and objectives described in the plan being addressed? What is the criteria for evaluating whether the goals and objectives are being met? Stephens Alternative Classroom Specialist\nNot requested. There is no mention of why Stephens does not need an Alternative Classroom Specialist. What are the schools discipline statistics? What are the interventions in place at the classroom and building level to deal with disciplinary problems and provide alternatives to suspension? According to the assessment data, Stephens has the second highest number of out-of-school suspensions of any of the incentive schools thus far for the 1992-93 school year. Social Worker: A social worker was not requested. The assessment reveals that 963% of Stephens students are on free or reduced lunch and single-parent home data was not provided. Although they havent thoroughly documented the need, the schools with similar demographic characteristics have requested either full or part-time social workers. Is there a particular reason why Stephens does not need a social worker? Are the needs of Stephens students which may have been met by a social worker being met in other ways? If so, how are they being met? (As mentioned with Ish, this type of information may also be helpful to the other schools.). Is there substantive data that reveals that the social and physical problems with which a social worker would deal are not as prevalent at Stephens? Spanish Teacher: Not requested. Why is there not a need for a Spanish teacher? Are the goals and objectives outlined in the plan being met effectively without a teacher? What is the criteria for evaluating whether the goals and objectives are being met? Requests For Assistant Principals Ish, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, and Stephens each requested assistant principals. Rockefeller and Franklin presently have assistant principals based on their population. The May 1992 Court Order stated \"The district must place an assistant principal, or any other staff position which has been recommended in the plan, in accordance with equitably meeting the identified needs of the staff and students in a particular school. For example, an assistant principal may be needed to help with additional documentation, services, and enhancements that are required at the incentive schools.\" It is important to emphasize the phrase \"identified needs of the staff and students in a particular school.\" This indicates that the assessment of need for an assistant principal should reflect the individual needs of each building. The rationales given by the five schools requesting assistant principals dont reflect individual needs. In fact, all five rationales are almost identical. Like the other position requests, they lack any type of specific quantification of needs. An area frequently mentioned as a rationale for an assistant principal was the \"amount of documentation required for desegregation purposes.\" How much documentation is generated? How frequently is information required? To whom is the documentation submitted? Is it necessary in all cases that the principal be responsible for the preparation of the documentation? Not only is it important to make this type of assessment at the building level, but also at the central administrative level. Recently, ODM requested an audit of the type of documents and reports generated by the district, when, and by whom. The purpose of this request was to accurately determine the type of information needed by our office and when it would be most efficient and reasonable to request it. This is an attempt to streamline our process and eliminate unnecessary data and duplication. A similar audit of the types of documentation required of the incentive schools may prove to be valuable as you address staffing issues. Parent/ Community Involvement As I mentioned during our meeting, the low degree of parental input into the needs assessment process is of concern. Both the district and circuits courts have frequently emphasized the importance of substantive parent involvement. Parental input into the needs assessment process included in most cases only the parents on the individual school staffing committees. Broader parental input and information about community involvement would prove valuable in developing a more comprehensive composite of the schools and their needs. The following information might be a starting point. Transportation: have own car\nuse city bus\nuse taxi\nwalk\nother travel arrangements Level of volunteer activity in the building: number of volunteers number of school partners types of services provided by parents, volunteers, and partners average number of volunteer service hours per month Comparison of Services Valuable information can be gained in the assessment process by comparing the types of positions at the incentive schools. What position(s) (full-time and part-time) does one incentive school have that another doesnt and why? (e.g., last year, only Stephens had a full- time social worker.)As I stated during our conversation and earlier in this memo, the staffing needs assessment is more far-reaching than a \"wish list\" for incentive school personnel. It should be the very heart of planning for e success of those schools. As such, it also plays a vital role in the overall scheme of district program and budgetary strategies. The needs assessment should be viewed as a continuing process rather than an isolated event. The following diagram outlines the benefits of the assessment process. It is also readily apparent that the various areas of benefit are also interrelated. SHOULD HELP OeFINE/CLARIFY RELATIONSHB'S AND RESPONSIBILmES WITHIN THE SCHOOL AND BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND CENTRAL OFFICE. SHOUUJ act AS A COMPONENT OP A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EVAUIATION SYSTEM BY WHKH PROGRAM EFFEt. 11VENESS CAN SE liCASUREQ ANO MOODnCATIONS RECOMMENDED. Incentive Schools Staffing Needs Assessment SHOULD AID THE aUDGCTINa PROCESS BY OCTERMNBia SPECIFIC AREAS OP WED ANO WHERE RESOUnCESZRESPOMSiaEJTIES CAN BE REDBnOBUTEDL CTERMMNG STAFFWa CRITERIA SHOULD ENTAIL DOENTVKATnN OK STUDENT NEEDS (STUDENT Body CoiieusiiE). THn \"PICTURE* OF TW STUDENT POPULATION HELPS THE SCHOOL \"FOCUST SERVICES. gMrnnpwrtVinrniin-rw^AMiwAfir OBTERIA FOK YEAKLY STAFFMa OCOSIONS. cc\nJanet BernardSCHOOL R0CK2FSLLER STEPHENS GARLAND FRANKLIN ISH RIGHTSELL MITCHELL Reconunendations ALTERNATIVE CLASSROOM SPECIALIST 1.00 Not requested Not requested 1.00 Not requested Not requested ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL Not requested 1.00 1.00 Not requested 1.00 1.00 SOCIAL WORKER .50 Not requested 1.00 1.00 Not raquesXsd 1.00 SPANISH TEACHER .50 Not requested Not requested Not requested Not requested .50 Not requested 1.00 .50 Not requested !PROGRAM SPECIALISTS HIRED 1992-93 SCHOOL POSITION NAME OF PERSON HIRED RIGHTSELL Mass Media and Career Awareness Specialist Stacy Blacknall ISH Environmental Education Specialist Belinda White ROCKEFELLER Early Childhood Education Magnet/ Computer Science Specialist Mary Kay Roe MITCHELL Creative Dramatic Specialist Mary Trulock FRANKLIN Communications Technology Specialist Berthena Nunn GARLAND Multimedia Technology and Educational Research Specialist David L. JoneslaCWJTSCa SCHOOi St\u0026amp;awias -gryatPjai NAME OF SCHOOL Franklin Incentive School PRINCIPAL Mr. Franklin Davis 1. How many students are enrolled? 407 GRADE BLACK HALE BLACK FEMALE WHITE MALE WHITE FEHALE PRE-K KiroERGARTEN 1ST GRADE 2ND. GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE 6TH GRADE Self-contained 2. 5. 7. 18 19 21 25 29 23 15 21 7 20 2k 20 19 20 10  19 Do you have a full time counselor in your building?. ves fsnbstitute) Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in No, the Social Worker comes one day everx- two weeks On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions?. average 12 How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year?. Expulsions?, Do you have in-school suspension? IKL 4 . 6. 9 2 A 1 T I ) T I I I 1 2L 3 6 1 3 1 A 0 i I 2 3 1 A 1 1 0 A 0 0Franklin J 1 8. If not, explain. We do not have an empty classrocm to hold rhe in-schro3 suspension in. We do not have a full-time-certified teacher to hold the in-school suspension. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? 18 Expulsions? 10. 10- self-contai How many students are enrolled in special education? is -in toinnrpp 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? 3A2 26 -Speech 1 -Visually im 12. Estimate the percentage of your homes. 75% tudents from single-parent How many homeless students attend your school. non? knam, 14. 15. 17 . 13. Foster Care none known Residential Care Facilities What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? 5 What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. What percentage of the s is nontenured? How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language? none Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? tine / (circle one) No full time / part- 15. 0 a 9 60 r 19. Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above:  63 _____ 20. What is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 339 Percentage of attendance._9Li?^SCHOOL LiasEiS iissasawwf NAME OF SCHOOL A ScXrknd PRINCIPAL 1. How many students are enrolled? r r GRADE PRE-K KINDERGARTEN 1ST GRADE 21 GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE 6TH GRADE 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, 7. BLACK MALE jg IQ _ IS 1^ 10 K BLACK FEMALE J5. 15. l\u0026lt;0 15 12 ik 15 WHITE HALE | WHITE FEMALE 1 _L 0 0 o !i 1! I! Do you have a full time counselor in your building?. Yes Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? Ho Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in Mo - ^V\\c is oncfc every stven One -Pull 4~1fne. ___________________________________ On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions? O - 2- How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? Expulsions? Q. Du you have in-schoo'. i^u^pcnsion? KQ. I 1 I I I I \u0026lt;1 0 Q O 0 I I J8. If not, explain. m. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? Expulsions? 'S fckanyd fo It SiASpntJ 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? lU 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? qpy, w 12. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. g5% 13. How many homeless students attend your school. 'Me 14. 16. 17. 18. Foster Care Residential Care Facilities What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? 2. What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. 15 What percentage of the staff is nontenured? How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language? Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? time / (circle one) Un. full time / part- 15. 0 8 O.\u0026amp; (X. 3 Io fli-RenJ 19 . 20. Identify the number orf students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: Khat is the average daily membership for the first quarter ofXaCiiSKI'TSCSi SCHOOL aw5-Tas 'iisiSDS ^issassii-xsLia' NAME OF SCHOOL Ish Incentive School PRINCIPAL Stan Strauss 1. How many students are enrolled? 174 GRADE BLACK KALE BLACK FEMALE WHITE KALE WHITE FEMALE 3 PRE-K KINDERGARTEN 1ST GRADE II 8 5 9 6 1 1 0 2 0 0 2!n3 GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE STH GRADE 2. 3. 4. 16 15 JL 7 10 12 9 JL 15 19 li 0 1! II II Do you have a full time counselor in your building? Counselor resigned 1-29-93 no Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? N/A Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in no 5. oh a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions?. 6. How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? Expulsions?. 7. Do you have in-school suspension? VP?: 0 2 0 I 0 0 4 1 0 0 0Ish 8. If not, explain. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? 3 Expulsions? 0 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? Q 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? 154 12. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. 13. How many homeless students attend your school. Foster Care Residential Care Facilities 14. What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? 15. What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. 16. What percentage of the staff is nontenured? 8% 17. How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language? 0 18. Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? __time / (circle one) No full time / part- 2 0 0 0 i 19. Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above\n__________ 20. What is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 173 Percentage of attendance gfi dS's:TO: FROM: * \u0026gt; / r II k k LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL i h Ik I DISTRICT Mitchell Elementary School 24'* \u0026amp; Battery Streets  Phone 324-2415 March 3, 1993 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Ms. Arma Hart, Desegregation Facilitator b^ita Hudspeth, Principal, Mitchell Needs Assessment for Assistant Principal, Social Worker. Alternative Classroom Teacher and Attached to this memorandum is the completed needs assessment. a .50 Social Worker. unis memoranaum tne The Committee recommends a full time Vice-Principal as well as an increase to primary justification for the Vice-Principal is indicated at the bottom of page two and page three. a The The Committee feels that in order to benefit from the services of Social Worker this position must be elevated to at least .50 FTE. The increased emotional and social needs of families due to the dramatic change in our school neighborhood, increased needs for families needing more access to community-based services together with increased services -needed because of apparent neglect and/or chronic absentism, head the list for why we believe our school population would benefit from a halftime social worker. At this time, the Committee does not believe a need exists for an alternative classroom. SCESOOli n aS3S3aiW p SMS OF SCHOOL Mitchell Elementary Schnnl PRINCIPAL Donita Hudspeth 1. How many students are enrolled? 255 GRADE PRE-K BLACK HALE KINDERGARTEN 1ST GRADE 2ND GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE STH GRADE  2. 3. 4.  5. 6. 7. 14 12 18 la J-5. 22 11 BLACK FEMALE 5_______ 9 kz 25 14. lA 11 Do you have a full time Is there an additional 450?.____ Do you have WHITE MALE 4 1 3 1 .1 3. 1 WHITE FEMALE 3 1 k 1 1 i 0 counselor, in your building? i !\u0026lt; . Yes counselor, if your enrollment is -u  1 J  full time social worker? the building every day? We have a social worker over If so, is he/she in every seventh day. average, how many students principal s office for disciplinary Preventive _ actions? as well as problems already are referred to the tions? J Do you have in-school suspension? yes Mitchell f- A 8. 9. 10. 11. 12, 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. If not, explain. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? Expulsions? none How many students are enrolled in special education? How many students receive free/reduced lunch? Over 902 27 Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. How many homeless students attend your school. Foster Care Residential Care Facilities What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. 15 What percentage of the staff is nontenured? 102 How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language? nnnp Is a foreign langj^uge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? no full time / part- time / (circle one) Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: A A 1 20. Khat is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 260 Percentage of attendance 982 esii-The membership at Mitchell increased by fifty-one percent during the Of that number, approximately two-thirds entered We now have approximately This combined 91-92 school year. reading at least one year below level, Wc iiww 40 nercent of our students functinoniqg below grade level. with the number of extra, programs witbin the incentive school creates a very difficult task. The number of programs include but is not limitea to the following: P . School Themes . Extended Day . Saturday Enrichment . Latin  Spanish .. Student Education Plans Learning Styles  Monthly Reporting to Parents Instructional Aides . Special Interest Clubs . Rites of Passage . Wellness Program . Writing to Read .  Teacher Demonstration/Master Teacher Prcgram 3CE!OOJj saayzcas {rygnai :i\\33'5ig!3t.ryi!f-H NAME OF SCHOOL Rightsell PRINCIPAL Sharon Davis 1. How many students are enrolled? 249 GRADE BLACK HALE BLACK FEMALE WHITE HALE WHITE FEMALE PRE-K KINDERGARTEN _Z. 12 10 1ST GRADE 2ND GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE 6TH GRADE 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 17 19 15 25 20 17 16 15 14 13 14 21 Do you have a full time counselor in your building? Yes Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in The seven incentive schools share a social worker. approximately two times per month. She is in our building On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions? How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? 2 Expulsions? Do you have in-school suspension? Yes 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0Ri ghtsell 8. If not, explain. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? 12 Expulsions? 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? Over 90% 0 7 12. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. Over 85% 13. How many homeless students attend your school. None 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Foster Care Residential Care Facilities None What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? 1 to 2 What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. What percentage of.the staff is nontenured? 8% How many children in your school spi-ak Spanish as a second language? Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? No full time / part- time / (circle one) Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: 77 What is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 245 Percentage of attendance 97.55 0 2 1TiiGSfflW: scaooi 3\u0026lt;K?y?znjs jisaasst^w NAME OF SCHOOL Rockefeller Incentive School PRINCIPAL Anne Mangan 1. How many students are enrolled? 410 GRADE PRE-K KIHOERGARTEN 1ST GRADE 2ND GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE STH GRADE 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. BLACK KALE ?1 15. 18 18 ii 14 -12 17 135 BLACK FEMALE lA 18 20 12 11 ___Li 14  140 WHITE HALE 12 12 10 5 1 _1 0 61 WHITE FEMALE 21 11 15 9 5 JL 5 74 Do you have a full time counselor in your building? Yes Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? N/A Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in No, one social worker rotates to the seven incentive Total 92 58 61 52 36 38 37 36 410 schools. On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions? .? to 8 gtnHpnfg How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? ____r Expulsions?j g^^jj^hearing 7. Do you have in-school suspension? but generally do not. We have hhd in-school suspensions AJHAJH Rockefeller 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. is. If not, explain. A.seruflff1, ,te^Qhfir n needed tn be in charge oF an ak.rn.iH-? who have difficulty in performing in a regular classroom How many out-of-school - Expulsions? suspensions did you have last 2 How many students are enrolled 1 in special education? How many students receive free/reduced Estimate the percentage of homes. 50% - 60% e StnHont-q setting. year? lunch? p^ee-240. 4 yr - 6th grade your students from singleparent How many homeless students attend your school. 0 Foster Care 6 Residential Care Facilities What is the average number of day? 2_______ 0 certified personnel absent each ' 4 What percentage of the staff is How many children in 1 anguage ?0 nontenured? 24% your school speak Spanish Is a foreign langauge teacher hired during the regular school day? time / (circle one) Identify the number of as a second in your building to teach No fun Um,* /___ full time / partstudents scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the recent norm-reference test? 69 -20. What is the 1992-93 school year? student at/above\naverage daily membership for the first 308 quarter of Percentage of attendance 96.04s\n- 315r2SLi'W2' NAME OF SCHOOL Stephens \u0026lt;? PRINCIPAL Lonnie S. Dean 1. How many students are enrolled? 192 GRADE BLACK HALE BLACK FEMALE WHITE MALE WHITE FEMALE ! PRE-K Is 1 1 2 , KINDERGARTEN 12 S I I 0 0 l! |i 1ST GRADE 8 17 2 0 2ND GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE i 6TH GRADE 2. 4 . 5. 6 . 7. 13 16 11 13 18 I 1 15 16 8 4 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I 1 0 0 Do you have a full time counselor in your building?. ves 11 !l 11 ! Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 4 5C?_N2i______ Do you have a full time social worker?NIf so, is he/she in the building every day? We have one every seventh day. On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions? 3 How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? ^0 Expulsions? Do you have in-school suspension? No f Stephens 8. If not, explain. We do not have the space. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? 14 Expulsions? 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? 11. How many students receive free/reduced Itinch? 185 12. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes.______ 13 . How many homeless students attend your school. Foster Care Residential Care Facilities 14. What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? 15. What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. 16. What percentage of the staff is nontenured? 29 0 0 6 0 0 2 3 17. How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language ? 0 18. Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? time / (circle one) no full time / part- 19. Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: 20. What is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 191 Percentage of attendance 96.34SCHOOL ^ssassHaaa' NAME OF SCHOOL Franklin Incentive School PRINCIPAL Mr. Franklin Davis 1. How many students are enrolled? 407 GRADE PRE-K KINDERGARTEN BLACK HALE 18 19 BLACK FEMALE 9 20 WHITE MALE 19 2 I WHITE FEMALE 2 3 1ST GRADE 31 34   2ND. GRADE 3RD GRADE 4'rH GRADE I STH GRADE 6TH GRADE Self-contained I i 25 29 23 15 4 7 I 2. 4 . 5. 6. 7. 20 19 20 10 2^ 3 ) 1 1 3 1 3. 0 I I A 1 1 0 A 0 Do you have a full time counselor in your building? ve.? (substitute) Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over ' 450? Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in No, the Social Worker comes one day every two weeks On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions? average 12 How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year?. 6 Expulsions?. 0 Do you have in-school suspension? noFranklin ! 8. If not, explain. We do not have an empty classrocgn to hold the in-schro] suspension in. We do not have a full-time-certified teacher to hold the in-school suspension. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? 18 Expulsions? 10. 10- self-contai How many students are enrolled in special education? rs -rn Rggnnrre 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? 342 26 -Speech 1 -Visually im 12 . Estimate the percentage of your homes. 75% tudents from single-parent How many homeless students attend your school. none knom 14. 15. 17. 13. 19. Foster Care none known Residential Care Facilities What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. What is the average number o What percentage of the is nontenured? How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language? none Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? No full tine / part- tine / (circle one) Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: 3 _______ 15. 0 2 5 20. What is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 339 Percentage of attendance_9^%\u0026gt;\\j52ilIAWl^ NAME OF SCHOOL PRINCIPAL  L. Ji- 1. How many students are enrolled? Zll GRADE PRE-K KINDERGARTEN 1ST GRADE 2iro GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE 5TH GRADE 6TH GRADE 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. BLACK HALE BLACK FEHALE WHITE MALE WHITE FEMALE 10 Zl 4 11 li 10 15 lb 13 12 Ik 15 JL _L .l 0 0 O b !| Ji Do you have a full time counselor in your building?. Ves Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? Mo Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in Uo - ^V\\c. 15 once, every stven clay^, \\a/\u0026lt; necJ On_ -Pull 4-itne. _________ On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions?. 0-2 How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? Expulsions? Q. Du you have in-schoo'. ^upension? 'NO r II I ( I T i| I n 0 I 1i Q O 0 I 8. If not, explain. 9. 45 How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? -----45------ Expulsions? 5 J CckanyJ fo ID 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? lU 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? 12. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. 25% 13. How many homeless students attend your school. VjeMg Vxsjt Io a-ftenJ Foster Care Residential Care Facilities 14. What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? 2. 15. What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. 16. what percentage of the staff is nontenured? 17. How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language? 5 SjieeJt 18. Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? time / (circle one) full time / part- 19. Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: 20. What is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? Percentage of attendance Qoy, 0 8 15 30% o.i (X. seco\u0026lt;\\ASCHOOL LLLOS Ji\\SS2SCkIWl NAME OF SCHOOL Ish Incentive School PRINCIPAL Stan Strauss 1. How many students are enrolled? 174 c GRADE I PRE-K ! KIHDERGARTEN 1ST GRADE 2!ID GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE 6TH GRADE 2. 3, 4. BLACK KALE 14. 8 16 15 _2 1 10 BLACK FEMALE 12 9 JL 15 19 WHITE KALE a. 0 WHITE FEMALE II II Do you have a full time counselor in your building? Counselor resigned 1-29-93 no Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? N/A Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in no 5. oh a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions? 6. How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? Expulsions?. 7. Do you have in-school suspension? VPS 3 5 9 6 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 I 0 0 4 1  0 0Ish 8. If not, explain. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? 3 Expulsions? 0 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? \u0026amp; 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? 154 12. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. 75^ 13. How many homeless students attend your school. Poster Care Residential Care Facilities 14. What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? 15. What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. 16. What percentage of the staff is nontenured? 8? 17. How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language? 18. Is a foreign leuigauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? __time / (circle one) No full time / part- J 0 0 0 i 0 19. Identify the nximber of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: 4fi 20. Khat is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school vear? 173 Percentage of attendance gfi hmLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL district Mitchell Elementary School 24'* \u0026amp; Battery Streets  Phone 324-2415 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 3, 1993 MEMORANDUM Ms. Arma Hart, Desegregation Facilitator J^ita Hudspeth, Principal, Mitchell Needs Assessment for Assistant Principal, Alternative Classroom Teacher Social Worker, and Attached to this memorandum is the c\nomp--l-e-t--e-d- - -n--e--e--d-s-- --a-s--s-essment. The Vice-Principal as well as an increase to J. J ------- - The primary justification for the VicePrincinal is indicated at the bottom of page two and oaee three. Committee recommends a .50 Social Worker. page two and page three. The Committee feels that in order to benefit from the services of a Social Worker this position must be elevated to at least .50 FTE. increased emotional and social needs of families due to the dramatic change in our school neighborhood, increased needs for families needing more access to community-based services together with increased services -needed because of apparent neglect and/or chronic absentism. for why we believe our school population would benefit from social worker. The head the list a halftime At this time, the Committee does not believe a need exists for an alternative classroom. SCHIOOi  n IH NAME OF SCHOOL Mitchell PRINCIPAL 1. Elementary School Donita Hudspeth How many students are enrolled? 255 GRADE PRE-K KINDERGARTEN 1ST GRADE 2ND GRADE 3rd grade 4TH GRADE STH GRADE STH GRADE ' 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. BLACK HALE _A 14 11 18 12 iS. 22 11 BLACK FEMALE 2 9 12_ 25 14. 14 14 11 WHITE HALE 1 J 1 1. 3. 1 WHITE FEHAT.g ' \" 3 1 k 1 4- i 0 Do you have a full time counselor, in your building? Is there an additional counselor 450? ' Do you have a full time social the building every day? We have a social worker POnr ian edlpaialyJs average, how Preventive Yes if your enrollment is worker? over If so, is he/she in every seventh day. as well as problems already How many students have, x during this school year? Do you have in-school received out-of-school suspensions Expulsions? n suspension? yes Mi tchell } 8. If not, explain. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? Expulsions? none 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? 27 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? Over 902 12, Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. 13. How many homeless students attend your school. Foster Care Residential Care Facilities 14. What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? A. 15. What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. 16. What percentage of the staff is nontenured? 102 17. How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language? 18. Is a foreign langj^uge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? no_____ full time / part- time / (circle one) jia 19. Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: 20. V?hat is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 260 Percentage of attendance 982 A 1The membership at Mitchell increased by fifty-one percent during the Of that number, approximately two-thirds entered We now have approximately This combined 91-92 school year. reading at least one year below level, ..ww AO oercent of our students functinoniqg below grade level. with the number of extra-programs within the .incentive^school creates^a very difficult task. The number of programs include but is not limited to the following: . School Themes . Extended Day Saturday Enrichment . Latin . Spanish Student Education Plans . Learning Styles . Monthly Reporting to Parents . Instructional Aides . Special Interest Clubs . Rites of Passage  Wellness Program . Writing to Read .  Teacher Demonstration/Master Teacher Pregram scwcrii siEmoas istsLSLcts ii3s:sstixsm' NAME OF SCHOOL Rightsell PRINCIPAL Sharon Davis 1. How many students are enrolled? 249 GRADE BLACK HALE BLACK FEMALE WHITE MALE WHITE FEMALE PRE-K KINDERGARTEN _Z. 12 2 6 2 1ST GRADE 2ND GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE 6TH GRADE 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 17 19 15 25 20 17 10 16 15 14 13 14 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Do you have a full time counselor in your building? 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Yes Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? N/A Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If SO, is he/she in The seven incentive schools share a social worker. approximately two times per month. She is in our building On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions? 2 How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? 2 Emulsions? 0 Expulsions? Do you have in-school suspension? Yess, Rightsell 8. If not, explain. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? 12 Expulsions? 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? Over 90% 0 7 12. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. Over 85% 13. How many homeless students attend your school. None 14. 15. 16. Foster Care Residential Care Facilities None What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? 1 to 2 What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. What percentage of .the staff is nontenured? 8% 2 1 17. How many children in your school spt.ak Spanish as a second language?^ 0 18. Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? time / (circle one) No full time / part- 19. Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above: 77 20. What is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 245 Percentage of attendance 97.55rsicss'jws\nscaooi ^r.asirzs :t\\i3:sisaww,-' NAME OF SCHOOL Rockefeller Incentive School PRINCIPAL Anne Mangan 1. How many students are enrolled? 410 GRADE PRE-K KIHDERGARTEM 1ST GRADE 2HD GRADE 3RD GRADE 4IH GRADE STH GRADE 6th grade 2. 3. 4, BLACK KALE 21 11 18 18 1 14 -12 17 135 BLACK FEKALE 11 18 20 12 17 li 14  140 WHITE HALE 11 10 5 _1 0 61 WHITE FEKALE 22. 11 15 9 _2. 5 74 Do you have a full time counselor in your building? Yes Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450? N/A Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in Total 92 58 61 52 36 38 37 36 410 No JL one social worker rotates to the seven incentive schools. 3c: 12 1 2 1 5 5. On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principals office for disciplinary actions? 6. 2_Lo_J5=siiAd e n t s How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school yar?j 2^ Expuls ions hearing 7. Do you have in-school suspension? but generally do not. We have hhd in-school suspensions AJHRockefeller 8. If not, explain. Jl.certififfi teacher i5 needed to be in charge of an akernuHvo 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. AJH who have difficulty in perfa How many out-of-school - Expulsions? e SbnHgnha setting. suspensions did you have last year?  How many students are enrolled in special education? How nany students receive free/reduced lunch? Estimate the percentage of homes. 50% - 60% Eree-24Q. ReHnned-37 yz ~ 6th grade How many homeless students Foster Care 6 your students from single-parent attend your school. Residential Care Facilities What is the average number of 2 0 0 certified personnel absent each What percentage of the staff is How many children in language? 0 nontenured? 24% your school speak Spanish Is a foreign langauge teacher hired the regular school day? time / (circle one) Identify the number of as a second in your building to teach No 1 ,____ full time / part- students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the recent norm-reference test? 69 -20. What is the 1992-93 school year? student at/above\naverage daily membership for the first 308 quarter of Percentage of attendance96.04TilGSsI'JTSCS SCWOi ^grararr)^ is:3saiWJ NAME OF SCHOOL Stephens PRINCIPAL Lonnie S. Dean 1. How many students are enrolled? 192 GRADE BLACK HALE BLACK FEHALE WHITE HALE WHITE FEHALE ! PRE-K 4 4 1 ) 2 KIHDERGARTEN 12 8 S I I 0 0 1ST GRADE 17 2 0 0 i 2ND GRADE 13 15 1 3RD GRADE 16 16 4TH GRADE 11 STH GRADE 13 i 6TH GRADE 2. 5. 7. 18 18 Do you have a full time counselor in your building?. Is there an additional counselor, 450? X/A ves if your enrollment is over Do you have a full time social worker?Noif so, is he/she in the building every day? We have one every seventh day. On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principal's office for disciplinary actions? 3 How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year? ^0 PEvxnpnui lcssi oonnes'?? 0 Do you have in-school suspension? Ko 3. 4. 6 . 1! 8 I tI 4 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 I Stephens 8. If not, explain. We do not have the space. 9. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? 14 Expulsions? 10. How many students are enrolled in special education? 11. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? 185 12. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes.______ 13. How many homeless students attend your school. Foster Care Residential Care Facilities 14. What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? 15. What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. 16. What percentage of the staff is nontenured? 29 0 0 6 2 0 0 3 17. How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second 1anguage ? Q 18. Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? time / (circle one) no full time / part- 19, Identify the number of students scoring at/above the 50th NCE on the most recent norm-reference test? student at/above\n20. What is the average daily membership for the first quarter of 1992-93 school year? 191 Percentage of attendance 96.34PROGRAM SPECIALISTS HIRED 1992-93 SCHOOL POSITION NAME OF PERSON HIRED RIGHTSELL Mass Media and Career Awareness Specialist Stacy Blacknall ISH Environmental Education Specialist Belinda White ROCKEFELLER Early Childhood Education Magnet/ Computer Science Specialist Mary Kay Roe MITCHELL Creative Dramatic Specialist Mary Trulock FRANKLIN Communications Technology Specialist Berthena Nunn GARLAND Multimedia Technology and Educational Research Specialist David L. JonesSCHOOL R0CK27ELLER STEPHENS GARLAND FRANKLIN ISH RIGKTSELL MITCHELL Recommendations ALTERNATIVE CLASSROOM SPECIALIST 1.00 Not requested Not requested 1.00 Not -requested Not requested Not requested ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL Not requested 1.00 1.00 Not requested 1.00 1.00 1.00 SOCIAL WORKER .50 Not requested 1.00 1.00 Not r-eques-ted 1.00 .50 SPANISH TEACHER  50 Not requested Not requested Not requested Not requested .50 Not requestedNAME OF SCHOOL PRINCIPAL_______ * 1. How many students are enrolled? GRADE BLACK MALE BLACK FEMALE WHITE MALE WHITE FEMALE PRE-K KIHDERGARTEH 1ST GRADE 2ND GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE STH GRADE 2. Do you have a full time counselor in your building?. AJH 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Is there an additional counselor, if your enrollment is over 450?__________ Do you have a full time social worker? the building every day? If so, is he/she in On a daily average, how many students are referred to the principals office for disciplinary actions? How many students have received out-of-school suspensions during this school year?. Do you have in-school suspension? Expulsions?.I 8. If not, explain. * WH 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? ________ Expulsions? How many students are enrolled in special education? How many students receive free/reduced lunch? Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes.______ How mciny homeless students attend your school. Foster Care Residential Care Facilities, I I What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks. What percentage of the staff is nontenured? How many children in your school speak Spanish as a second language ? Is a foreign langauge teacher hired in your building to teach during the regular school day? time / (circle one) Vke -Ct-f \u0026lt;U' jco n\u0026gt;- \u0026lt;3 r f IS \"'A i\\u c: full time / part- O A Scti . J ' I 1 I I ^2ra)3 JiSSiaSSLiiSiaq.-' I NAME OF SCHOOL PRINCIPAL. * 1. I visit the school - daily / weekly / monthly / twice a year/ once a year / only when I have to/, (circle one) ! 2. My child(ren) has been.sent to the principal's office this year for breaking the rules. Yes No 3. My child(ren) has been to see the principal as a reward for good behavior. Yes No 4. When I need to speak -to the principal he/she has time to listen. Yes No 5. I live within two miles of the school. Yes No 6. I have 3 or more children at home. Yes No 7. I am employed / full-time / part-time / not employed, (circle one) 8. My child has gotten into trouble at school for fighting. Yes No 9. My child likes his/her school. Yes No 10. My child has been sent home for getting into trouble at school. Yes No f t r I 11. My child has trouble sitting still in the classroom. No_____ Yes 12. My child likes to talk. Yes No 13. My child gets upset when he/she doesn't know the substitute teacher. Yes No 14. The best time of the day for me to come to school to talk to my child teacher is   1 I iDisciplinary actions are very time consuming, and depending on the number and severity of the problems, could have a negative impact on the principals ability to concentrate on other areas of importance in the school. 5. How many students are enrolled in special education? Special education students bring unique problems and situations to a school. Couple that with students from economically and socially deprived backgrounds and the need for specialized intervention grows exponentially. Social workers are of enormous benefit to faculty and parents because they can serve as facilitators in arranging services or providing intervention for this high-risk population. They can train faculty and parents in methods to work with these students in areas that are not directly related to curriculum and instruction, but are important to their educational process. 6. How many students receive free/reduced lunch? The answer to this question helps to determine the number and proportion of economically disadvantaged students in the school. The higher the number, the greater need for specialized social services. 7. Estimate the percentage of your students from single-parent homes. Single parent homes are generally headed by females. This often means smaller incomes and little to no male influence in child-rearing. The lack of proper role models or the presence of an overworked parent can lead to problems that place families at risk of winding up in the social service or criminal justice system. A social worker may be the difference between success or failure for some of these families. 8. How many homeless students attend your school. Foster Care Residential Care Facilities (Dorcas House, Battered Womens Shelter, Elizabeth Mitchell, etc.) These speak for themselves. 9. Do you have in-school suspension? The LRSD desegregation plan commits to placing alternatives to suspension in each school. (LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, page 34) 10. If not, is space available? Schools are required to develop a school-based discipline plan and to have discipline/ attendance intervention teams, (page 34) Incentive schools are required tohave time-out rooms staffed with trained personnel. This person provides training in problem solving techniques, (page 175) 11. How many out-of-school suspensions did you have last year? Expulsions? High numbers strengthen the need for an alternative classroom specialist. 12. What is the average number of certified personnel absent each day? This helps to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of hiring a permanent substitute teacher. 13. What is the average number of post-observation conferences held with teachers each nine weeks? These conferences take the teacher out of the classroom during normal instruction time. If a principal averages three of these conferences a year per teacher, the need for a permanent substitute increases with the size of the teaching staff. 14. What percentage of the staff is nontenured? A large nontenured staff also poses the need for an additional person, preferably a certified teacher. That person could wear more than one hat. Questions 1-4 relate to the need for an assistant principal. Schools with large student populations, high numbers of disciplinary incidents, and significant absentee rates would benefit from an assistant principal. Questions 5-8 would indicate the need for a social worker if a disproportionate number of students fall into those categories. Questions 9-11 address the need for an alternative classroom specialist. Questions 12-14 help to identify the need for a permanent substitute. This person not only substitutes for absent teachers, but also serves as classroom replacements for teachers during post-observation conferences.DEVELOPING A NEEDS ASSESSMENT There are four basic steps in developing a needs assessment and utilizing the information. 1. Assessing needs. The importance of a needs assessment cannot be overemphasized. It allows the planners to address the most important and/ or manageable needs of a target population. It can avoid wasting time, energy, and resources. The results of a needs assessment shapes the contents of a complete list of goals and objectives listed in order of priority. 2. Developing Objectives. Goals should be clearly spelled out in simple statements. The means to reach these goals are the objectives. Objectives should be specific, observable, and measurable, including the who, what where and when of their accomplishment. They also serve as guide posts that help measure progress or as \"reality checks\" on the course of action taken. Objectives also serve as the basis for further planning activities and determine the focus of evaluation. 3. Assessing Resources. In order to achieve success in implementing goals and objectives, consideration must be given to what will be needed to be successful. Resources come in several forms: human, materials, organizational, financial, and facility. Do not be afraid to look outside traditional arenas. Be receptive to unusual ideas and nontraditional approaches\njust because youve never done it that way before, doesnt mean it cant be done. 4. Developing Strategies Start by brainstorming and work towards refinements. Consider all ideas and approaches and then start analyzing and selecting the best for exploration and implementation. At this phase, you already have completed the first three steps. A needs assessment should be short, simple, and easy to return. Captive audiences work best because you dont have to wait for responses, nor trust that they will even be returned. Many people fail to respond to surveys even when free postage is provided. The downside to using the captive audience approach is that your results are tainted. You may get a certain result because the audience consisted of people with the same problems, beliefs, or biases\ntherefore, they would tend to have a strong common link and results might not be truly representative of the population that will be served. A combination of captive audiences, mailouts, and deposits at places frequented by the target population is recommended (neighborhood stores, beauty shops, churches, laundromats, etc.)* Based on Arkansas Scope And Sequence K-12 Guidance and Curriculum Guide, Appendix E, pages 56, 57 (1987) STAFFING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1. How many students are enrolled? Grade Black Male Black Female White Male White Female Total Pre-K Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 2. If your enrollment is over 450, do you have an additional counselor in your building every day? Aside from the fact that a school is technically out of compliance when they have a student population over 450 and only has the part-time counselor in the building on certain days instead of every day, the lack of an additional counselor requires more time on the part of the principal to handle personal, social, and developmental matters usually referred to a school counselor. 3. Do you have a social worker? If so, is he/she in the building every day? Social workers spend a great deal of time working with students and their families. Some of the services they provide include referrals to social service agencies, assisting with applying for public assistance, counseling, and home visits. Without a social worker, the school must depend on the principal to assume some of these duties. 4. How many students are referred to the principals office for disciplinary matters on a daily average?NEEDS ASSESSMENT - PARENTS/STUDENTS 1. I visit the school - daily weekly monthly twice a year once a year only when I have to (circle one) When parents visit the school, they generally see the principal, even if they have a meeting with the childs teacher. This is an important part of a principals job, but it too can take time from other essential duties. 2. My child(ren) has been sent to the principals office this year for breaking the rules. Y This question is self-explanatory. Disciplinary hearings and other discipline related activities are very time consuming. 3. My child(ren) has been to see the principal as a reward for good behavior. Y N While principals should love these types of activities, they too take time, and plenty of time should be given to students who are being \"rewarded\" with a visit to or by the principal. 4. When I need to speak to the principal he/she has time to listen. Self-explanatory. 5. I live within two miles of the school. Students who live in the neighborhoods of the incentive schools tend to come from families of low socio-economic backgrounds and are often headed by single parents. These circumstances sometimes requires the intervention or assistance of a social worker or counselor. The higher the at-risk population, the greater the need for a full-time social worker. 6. I have 3 or more children at home. Poverty can be defeating in itself, add several children and some parents have trouble coping. Sometimes a trained specialist is the only thing standing between neglect and assistance. 7. I am employed full-time part-time not employed N Y N Y Y N N This will help the administrative staff to determine the number of students that are from families of \"the working poor.\" These families are often eligible for assistance and are not aware of the help that is available to them. Social workers are invaluable to these families.8. My child has gotten into trouble at school for fighting. Y N Fighting leads to suspension or expulsion. Trained specialists help students to acquire the skills necessary to handle and express anger. They are also helpful in designing and implementing an equitable disciplinary policy. 9. My child likes his/ her school. Y N If a child does not his/her school, this dislike is often manifested in the form of behavior problems. Alternative classrooms can be designed to accommodate problem students and to help them to learn how to become members of the school community. 10. My child has been sent home for getting into trouble at school. Y N Students cannot learn when they are not in school. An alternative classroom should be a part of the schools structure. 11. My child has trouble sitting still in the classroom. Y N Hyperactive children, kinesthetic learners, and some gifted children have trouble in traditional classrooms. It is like trying to put square pegs into round holes\nthey dont fit. Many of these children wind up in disciplinary trouble and too often out of school. While punishment isnt the answer, a good alternative classroom could be. (See 1991- 1992 Monitoring Report on the Alternative Schools, ODM, December 18, 1992) 12. My child likes to talk. Y N See #11. 13.My child gets upset when he/she doesnt know the substitute teacher. Y N Children like stability. They like familiar surroundings and faculty that is familiar to them. Getting to know a new teacher takes time, and there is a need for a certain amount of bonding to occur before a new person is accepted into the \"academic family.\" 14. The best time of day for me to come to school to talk to my childs teacher is If the only time a parent can visit the school is during the regular school day, then the teacher has to leave the classroom or the visit doesnt take place. This survey should be filled out by the parent and child together. The sequences of questions reveal the need for an assistant principal, social worker, alternative classroom specialist, and a permanent substitute teacher. Some of the other recommended positions in the incentive schools (pp. 190-191) would require similar assessments. The district must also take into consideration space allotment, number and types of special programs in the school and staff positions already in place. Some other areas of exploration are outlined below. PE - Does the school have a gym? If not, does it have a good play area, equipment, safe surroundings? How does PE fit in with the required wellness program? Do the nurse and PE instructor coordinate activities? What is the level of fitness/health in the school? Art - What is available in the neighborhood or community to enhance art instruction (museum, historic buildings, local artists, art gallery, etc.)? How is art infused into the curriculum? Can it help to provide integrative experiences? Media Clerk - How often is the library used?. Are the library and its staff a regular part of instruction? What programs are currently in place for the students in the library? Are students allowed easy access to the library? Is the library well stocked? Does it have the latest equipment? Can parents use the library? Are guest speakers and presenters a regular component of library services? Consideration should be given to the effectiveness of parent and volunteer participation in the school. How strong is the PTA/PTO? Does the school have a functioning parent center? Are parents utilized in the schooLon a regular basis - do they serve as mentors, classroom aides, tutors, chauffeurs, office assistants, or guest lecturers? How can parent participation be strengthened so that the school can become self-sufficient yet economically viable? By looking at each position and analyzing information obtained through the needs assessment, the district can make informed decisions about staffing needs in any of the schools. The publication A Curriculum Audit of the Little Rock School District (1990) points out that the district has a wealth of data but is weak on information. By following the steps outlining how to develop and use a needs assessment at the beginning of this document, the district will have the technical ability to develop plans, guidelines and policies on any subject affecting the LRSD.\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_1204","title":"Little Rock School District Operating Budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1992/1993"],"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","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Operating 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/1204"],"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":["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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET 1992-93 3: rr, 3: 0 TO: FROM: RE: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 July 23, 1992 Board Members Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent L \\.. \\. '~ Budget Proposal I. Introduction Enclosed is a proposed balanced budget for 1992-93 which I am submitting for your approval. Making decisions which might adversely affect the lives of employees and youngsters is not a responsibility I enjoy. However, it is my duty and pledge to you and the community that I will make the decisions which will ensure that the financial future of the District is optimistic rather than pessimistic. II. Process Used In Developing the Budget It is common knowledge that to balance the 1992-93 budget, the District can no longer maintain the status quo. Consequently, we have considered everything. However, the full-range of possible cuts has been limited because all personnel have been reelected for the 1992-93 school year. Therefore, the only possible reduction in personnel costs is the reassignment of personnel to fill currently vacant positions. We have accomplished this in two ways: 1) by reassigning personnel from programs which exceed state standards into classroom vacancies\nand 2) by eliminating small classes and reassigning the teachers who would have been assigned to those classes. Where possible, we have reduced non-personnel costs. Any purchases for the entire year will be monitored so that only purchases to comply with the desegregation plan, to maintain buildings, and to supply classrooms will be allowed. III. Continuing Process Once this budget is adopted, the budgeting process will not end. We must begin to restructure the budgeting process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing so many different programs which ultimately distract the District's focus to other issues. It is my goal to place the entire District in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement. This will be done by concentrating our attention first on the core curricular areas. Next, programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement in these areas will be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, I will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year. Finally, for the District to operate efficiently and effectively, it will be necessary to streamline the administration. Because contracts have been renewed for 1992- 93, this cannot be fully accomplished this year. On the other hand, the District has several cost centers where investment in personnel might produce savings or generate revenues for the District. All of these items will be considered in the coming months. IV. Budget Proposals The following summary of budget proposals is prioritized based on the impact on direct classroom instruction. Next are those items which indirectly impact on classroom instruction. Those items in the final group have no effect on classroom instruction. Should additional revenue become available during the school year, then those items with the direct impact on classroom instruction will be considered for adding back to the budget. Direct Impact on Classroom Instruction Restoring Carryover Teaching Vacancies Music Teachers Proposal No. 4 Proposals No. 6,14 Indirect Impact on Counseling Classroom Instruction Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Material, Supply, ... Seven-Period Day Utility Costs General support Certified Admin. Employee Benefits Misc. Adjustments Non-Cert. Vacancies Plant Services Transportation Proposals No. 5,14 Proposals No. 1,14 Proposal No. 9 Proposal No. 10 Proposal No. 12 Proposal No. 11 Proposal No. 13 Proposal No. 7 Proposal No. 8 Proposal No. 3 Proposal No. 2 $2,321,865 840,000 680,422 3,842,287 429,066 479,130 2,408,574 1,242,227 300,000 4,858,997 360,000 200,000 1,019,444 100,000 225,000 70,000 1,974,444 $10.-675,728 V. Desegregation Budget As part of the desegregation monitoring process, the District must improve its reporting capabilities. This will require rebuilding the desegregation budget by conducting a \"Desegregation Plan Audit.\" The desegregation budget for 1992-93 was developed in cooperation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The individual desegregation programs have been given separate accounting codes to track programs across school and department lines. The dollars listed in this budget represent the dollars charged against Settlement and operating revenue. In addition, special revenue sources, such as Chapter I, are also used to support desegregation programs. VI. Long Range Projections On August 3, 1992, the District must present a revised long range revenue and expense projection to the Court. We are in the process of preparing such a report which will be shared with the Court. This report will be available for you as soon as it is available, but I will not be asking for you to vote on this report because we must use this projection as the basis for continued dialogue about the future of the District. VII. Conclusion Any time a community must suffer through an unexpected budget reduction is traumatic for everyone. However, this is also an opportunity to send a strong message that this District will not evade making tough decisions. Consequently, I am confident in recommending these proposals as the most appropriate alternatives at this time. VIII. Recommendation I recommend that you approve the budget document as submitted. BUDGET SUMMARY - - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1993 Actual (Unaudited) 1991-92 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,196,979 40% PULLBACK 21,081,833 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,250,186 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,858 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 241,476 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 MISC. AND RENTS 406,878 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 354,446 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 100,857 TOTAL 64,998,181 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 15,350 TOTAL 88,769 - EVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 27,264,460 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,637,482 SETTLEMENT LOAN 4,500,000 APPORTIONMENT 73,426 VOCATIONAL 1,513,699 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 824,870 EARLY CHILDHOOD 147,050 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 TRANSPORTATION 2,379,879 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 858,743 M TO M TRANSFERS 1,770,486 ADULT EDUCATION 697,589 TOTAL 48,670,683 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 9,385 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS 129,428 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 394,675 - TOTAL 533,488 TOTAL REVENUE 114,291,121 Budget 1992-93 39,088,120 21,694,578 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 66,559,408 73,419 11,000 84,419 27,042,713 8,926,606 * 1,500,000- 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 46,367,563 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 113,913,390 --------------------------- - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE PROJECTION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1993 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES, SUPPLIES, MATERIALS, EQUIP. DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE Actual (Unaudited) 1991-92 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 112,604,098 1,687,023 634,842 2,321,865 Budget 1992-93 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 115,872,560 (1,959,170) 2,321,865 362,695 ========================--= \"'C ::0 0 \"'C 0 (/') \u0026gt; r (/') Gifted and Talented Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommendations Proposal No. 1 The District currently employs approximately 32 FTE to implement its gifted and talented curriculum. This program costs the operating budget $1. 3 million annually, but the District must spend only $230,000 according to the state. As a result, the gifted program consumes a significant amount of local funds. It is proposed that the number of gifted and talented specialists be reduced to 16. Based upon the revised enriched curriculum that must be authorized by the Arkansas Department of Education, each gifted specialist would meet with each student to assess progress on a weekly basis. The specialist will work cooperatively with the regular teacher by reviewing student management plans, developing activities, and monitoring classroom exercises. The gifted specialist would provide technical assistance to every classroom where gifted and talented students have been identified. cost savings: $479,130 Impact: \"Pull-out time\" for separate instruction will be reduced. Transportation Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommendations Proposal No. 2 The District has operated with the same student assignment plan now for three years. As a result, the effects of previous student assignment plans are minimized as students matriculate from one level to the next. For 1992-93, the District can reduce, based on current knowledge, 7 driver positions because of increased routing efficiency. cost savings: $70,000 Impact: No significant impact is expected. Plant Services Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommendations Proposal No. 3 The Plant Services Department has been in the process of implementing the Omaha Formula in staffing schools with custodians. The formula currently shows that a reduction of ten FTEs can be made without going under the recommended staffing levels. This reduction can be made through adjustment of existing personnel to fill existing vacancies. In addition, one supervisor position is vacant and will not be filled. It is also common practice to charge bond proceeds for the actual costs of specific projects. In the past, the District has not had the capability to charge projects for the District's operating overhead. This practice will begin for 1992-93. Cost Savings: $225,000 Impact: No significant impact is expected. Teaching Vacancies Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recornmendations Proposal No. 4 Currently, the District has over 100 teaching vacancies. It is proposed to eliminate 30 of these positions by attrition. The positions will be eliminated by strictly adhering to a minimum class size of 15 and combining small classes when possible. In addition, all hirings or voluntary transfers will be based on actual assignments rather than enrollment projections. cost savings: $840,ooo Impact: The District will not be able to fill any remaining teaching vacancies until the opening of school is near. Counseling Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommendations Proposal No. 5 The state standards require that \"[t]he ratio for [all grade levels] shall be not less than one (1) counselor for every four hundred fifty (450) students.\" However, \"[i]t is recommended that the district's ratio shall be not less than one (1) counselor for every three hundred (300) students.\" In 1991-92, the District staffed the schools at the 300:1 level, which has resulted in exceeding the standards by approximately 25 positions. For 1992-93, the level cannot be maintained. As a result, it is proposed to reduce the number of counselor FTEs by 19 as follows: Senior High Schools Junior High Schools Area Elementary Schools Cost Savings: FTE 4.0 7.0 ___b_Q ~ $429,066 Impact: Actual enrollment will determine final counselor assignments. Each counselor will be responsible for an increased caseload. Music Teachers Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommendations Proposal No. 6 By contract, teachers are provided 270 minutes of preparation time per week. This commitment is currently met as follows: PE Aides Music Minutes Per 60 60 Before/After School 150 m. Week To substitute 60 minutes per week which music instruction provides, it is proposed that 30 minutes per week be provided through instruction in the computer lab and 30 minutes per week in the library. This change will allow the reduction of 22.8 FTE of music teachers. Cost savings: $680,422 Impact: Classroom teachers will provide the required music instruction to meet state standards. This reduction in instruction is offset by an increase in library time. Miscellaneous Adjustments Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommendations Proposal No. 7 The following budget reductions will be made in the budget presented for approval. These items were included the budget presented last Spring which produced the initial $7.7 million deficit. Personnel to be charged to federal programs Positions which should not be budgeted Positions which should be charged to New Futures Transportation salary overstatement cost savings: Impact: None $415,310 141,491 62,643 400,000 $1,019,444 Non-Certified Vacancies: Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommendations Proposal No. 8 The following vacant positions will either not be filled or filled by reassigning personnel from other areas of the District. The secretarial vacancies will be filled by reassigning the two secretarial positions from the pupil personnel department. The nurse position will not be filled and existing coverage will be realigned to provide services to these schools. Secretary - McDermott Guidance Secretary - Central Nurse - Henderson/Otter Creek Located at the Instructional Resource Center are four instructional aides. It is proposed to reassign these aides to existing vacancies in the schools. These aides may choose from several existing vacancies before any new employees will be considered. In addition, three aides previously funded through federal programs will be reassigned to existing vacancies. Cost savings: $100,000 Impact: No significant impact is expected. Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommendations Proposal No. 9 Material. Supply. Equipment. \u0026amp; Substitute Budgets The following amounts have been reduced from departmental budgets from the budget presented last Spring. Vocational 44,721 Music 5,176 Health 5,280 Gifted and Talented 17,137 Math 6,680 Superintendent 4,807 Planning \u0026amp; Research 14,050 Communications 14,141 VIPS 2,800 Board of Directors 99,866 Support Services 31,570 Human Resources 4,280 Substitutes 150,000 Data Processing 143,470 Financial Services 4,160 Plant Services 293,564 Assoc. Sup't-curriculum 36,016 Reading 3,300 Assoc. Sup't-Climate 2,500 Science 10,646 Art 2,731 Labor Relations 525 English 5,360 Foreign Language 1,427 Exceptional Children New Futures Social Studies Ass't Sup'ts HIPPY Early Childhood Student Hearing Officer Student Assignment Uniforms Teacher Recruitment Learning Foundations Acad. Prog. Grants Learning Center Security Monitoring Transportation Community School Library Parent Recruiting Incentive Schools 130,747 132,600 1,404 6,600 4,000 30,000 4,000 9,560 110,000 3,000 27,456 480,000 2,000 20,000 3,000 200,000 100,000 25,000 25,000 190,000 Total $2.408.574 Impact: The immediate impact of all of these cuts is not known. The spending of all money will be closely monitored and nothing but essential i terns will be authorized. In addition, how these departments spend money will be completely reevaluated so that we are certain these dollars are improving achievement in the schools. Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommendations Proposal No. 10 Elimination of Seven-Period Day at New Magnets The District has proposed to initiate a seven-period day for the new magnet programs at McClellan and Henderson. However, the new programs may still be offered without incurring the salary increases which result from implementing a seven-period day. It is proposed that the District immediately move to make minor modifications to these programs. Cost Savings: $669,000 Impact: The most significant impact will be with public confidence. However, this impact must be balanced with the public's confidence with the District's ability to manage its money. Certified Administrators Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommen.dations Proposal No. 11 It is proposed that the following current vacancies not be filled: Athletic Director Music Supervisor Instructional Technology Supervisor Vocational Supervisor In addition it is proposed to combine labor relations with the human resources department and eliminate the pupil personnel department. cost savings: $360,000 Impact: Principals will be required to supervise the counseling program. The new Director of Personnel and Employee Relations will also act as a hearing officer for grievances. Utility Costs: Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommendations Proposal No. 12 By adjusting the start-up temperatures for activating heating and air conditioning systems, the District will be able to save considerably in utility costs. In addition, providing electricity for lighting at our stadiums is extremely expensive. It is proposed that when possible the District explore the possibility of playing football games on Saturday and early evenings so that electrical expenses will be saved. cost savings: $300,000 Impact: No impact is expected. It is also possible that security risks will be minimized by holding games during the day. Employee Benefits Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommendations Proposal No. 13 The District has had a long practice of providing District-paid benefits immediately after a non-certificated employee comes to work. It is proposed that the District not contribute any money to the employee's benefit package until the employee has served one year's employment. cost savings: $60,000 Impact: No current employees will be affected. Little Rock School District Budget Reduction Recommendations Proposal No. 14 Recommendations to the Magnet Review Committee It is our position that any reductions of personnel in the area schools should also be made in the magnet schools monitored by the Magnet Review Committee. Therefore, it is recommended that you authorize the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions to the Magnet Review Committee as follows: Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - Elementary Counseling - Elementary Counseling - Secondary Music Teachers - Elementary (Except Booker) Teaching Vacancies - Secondary cost Savings: 1.5 1.4 2.0 3.0 _L_Q ~ Unknown Impact: No significant impact is expected. Potential cost savings are unknown because the funding levels for the Magnet Review Committee budget have not been established. c:c c:: 0 en rr, -i 0 rr, -i -\u0026gt; r Page 1 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 e ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: CENTRAL CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-0D-40-1140-0001-0110 66.40 2,118,578.20 267,495.57 2,386,073.n COMP ED 01-00-40-1595-0001-0110 4.00 116,838.00 15,210.22 132,048.22 COUNSELORS 01-00-40-2120-0001-0110 5.00 211,294.00 24,480.44 235,n4.44 INTERNATIONAL STUDIE 01-13-18-1145-0001-0110 2.00 44,885.00 6,470.96 51,355.96 KINDERGARTEN 01-00-40-1110-0001-0110 3.00 86,953.00 11,351.06 98,304.06 LIBRARY 01-00-40-2222-0001-0110 2.00 71,610.00 8,710.52 80,320.52 NURSES 01-00-40-2134-0001-0110 1 .00 31,302.00 3,9n.91 35,279.91 PRINCIPAL 01-00-40-2410-0001-0110 4.00 163,258.00 19,100.22 182,358.22 SPECIAL ED 01-00-40-12XX-0001-0110 3.84 142,038.04 17,105.22 159,143.26 STIPENDS 01-00-40-XXXX-0001-0110 0.00 78,809.22 6,604.21 85,413.43 VOCATIONAL 01-00-40-13XX0001-0110 15.80 631,979.60 74,365.73 706,345.33 107.04 3,697,545.06 454,8n.06 4,152,417.12 CLERICAL 02-00-40-2410-0001-0120 7.00 103,557.50 18,161.72 121,719.22 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0001-0120 1.00 9,960.00 2,189.45 12,149.45 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-40-2542-0001-0120 12.00 146,382.00 28,524.41 174,906.41 LIBRARY CLERICS 02-00-40-2222-0001-0120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 SECURITY 02-13-16-2587-0001-0120 5.00 54,280.00 11,322.66 65,602.66 STIPENDS 02-00-40-XXXX-0001-0120 0.00 2,650.80 222.14 2,872.94 TEACHERS AIDES 02-00-40-1140-0001-0120 3.00 36,839.00 7,151.51 43,990.51 29.00 _368, 153.30 70,140.45 438,293.75 - BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-00-40-1140-0001-0300 0.00 67,952.00 0.00 67,952.00 0.00 67,952.00 0.00 67,952.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-18-1145-0001-0300 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 136.04 4,148,650.36 525,012.51 4,673,662.87 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: HALL ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER 01-13-10-1195-0002-0110 1.00 23,302.00 3,307.51 26,609.51 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-00-40-1140-0002-0110 44.20 1,406,489.60 1n,745.99 1,584,235.59 COMP ED 01-00-40-1595-0002-0110 1 .00 25,865.00 3,522.29 29,387.29 COUNSELORS 01-00-40-2120-0002-0110 3.00 135,933.00 15,455.59 151,388.59 KINDERGARTEN 01-00-40-1110-0002-0110 1 .00 34,389.00 4,236.60 38,625.60 LIBRARY 01-00-40-2222-0002-0110 1 .00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45,105.64 NURSES 01-00-40-2134-0002-0110 0.70 21,367.50 2,738.96 24,106.46 PRINCIPAL 01-00-40-2410-0002-0110 4.00 187,133.00 21,100.95 208,233.95 SPECIAL ED 01-00-40-12XX-0002-0110 6.20 17o,6n.oo 22,702.49 193,379.49 STIPENDS 01-00-40-XXXX-0002-0110 0.00 117,735.60 9,866.24 127,601.84 VOCATIONAL 01-00-40-13XX-0002-0110 9.80 405,291.00 47,240.43 452,531.43 71.90 2,568,550.70 312,654.69 2,881,205.39 Page 2 Little Rock S_chool District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL CLERICAL 0200-40-2410-0002-0120 6.00 89,065.25 15,592.47 104,657.72 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195c0002-0120 1 .00 9,466.00 2,148.05 11,614.05 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-40-2542-0002-0120 7.50 94,831.50 18,107.88 112,939.38 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-00-40-2222-0002-0120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 SECURITY 02-13-16-2587-0002-0120 2.00 21,520.00 4,512.98 26,032.98 STIPENDS 02-0040-XXXX-0002-0120 0.00 5,588.60 468.32 6,056.92 TEACHERS AIDES 02-00-40-1140-00020120 3.00 27,492.00 6,368.23 33,860.23 20.50 262,447.35 49,766.49 312,213.84 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-0040-1140-00020300 0.00 36,764.00 0.00 36,764.00 0.00 36,764.00 0.00 36,764.00 92.40 2,867,762.05 362,421.18 3,230, 183.23 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: METROPOLITAN NURSES 01-0000-2134-00040110 1.00 15,674.00 2,668.28 18,342.28 PRINCIPAL 01-00002410-0004-0110 2.00 95,648.00 10,724.90 106,372.90 STIPENDS 01-oo-oo-xxxx-0004-0110 0.00 107,469.54 9,005.95 116,475.49 VOCATIONAL 01-000013XX-0004-0110 25.50 940,633.50 113,372.49 1,054,005.99 28.50 1,159,425.04 135,771.62 1,295,196.66 CLERICAL 02-00-00-2410-0004-0120 3.00 51,595.00 8,388.06 59,983.06 - USTOOIANS 0200-00-2542-0004-0120 6.00 79,955.00 14,829.03 94,784.03 ECURITY 02-13-16-25870004-0120 2.00 21,520.00 4,512.98 26,032.98 11.00 153,070.00 27,730.07 180,800.07 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00401140-0004-0300 0.00 336,450.00 0.00 336,450.00 0.00 336,450.00 0.00 336,450.00 39.50 1,648,945.04 163,501.69 1,812,446.73 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: DUNBAR ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER 011310-1195-0007-0110 3.00 82,061.00 10,941.11 93,002.11 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-00-301130-0007-0110 33.60 959,219.20 125,903.85 1,085,123.05 COUNSELORS 01-00-302120-0007-0110 1 .80 76,796.20 8,874.16 85,670.36 COUNSELORS 01-13-27-2120-0007-0110 1.00 23,243.00 3,302.56 26,545.56 INTERNATIONAL STUDIE 01-13-18-1135-0007-0110 2.00 52,830.20 7,136.77 59,966.97 LIBRARY 01-00-30-2222-0007-0110 1.00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45,105.64 NURSES 01-00-30-2134-0007-0110 0.60 13,048.80 1,906.37 14,955.17 PRINCIPAL 0100-30-2410-0007-0110 3.00 124,480.00 14,495.82 138,975.82 SPECIAL ED 01-00-30-12XX-00070110 2.50 59,234.00 8,350.81 67,584.81 STIPENDS 01-00-30-XXXX-0007-0110 0.00 147,558.50 12,474.34 160,032.84 VOCATIONAL 01-00-30-13XX-0007-0110 3.00 106,543.00 12,992.70 119,535.70 51.50 1,685,381.90 211,116.13 1,896,498.03 Page 3 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOJNT BENEFITS  TOTAL CLfRICAL 02-00-30-2410-0007-0120 3.00 50,045.00 8,258.17 58,303.17 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0007-0120 1.00 9,960.00 2,189.45 12,149.45 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-30-2542-0007-0120 7.00 91,876.50 17,182.85 109,059.35 LIBRARY CLERICS 02-00-30-2222-0007-0120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 SECURITY 02-13-16-2587-0007-0120 2.00 21,840.00 4,539.79 26,379.79 STIPENDS 02-00-30-XXXX-0007-0120 0.00 537.60 45.05 582.65 TEACHERS AIDES 02-00-30-1130-0007-0120 1.00 9,466.00 2,148.05 11,614.05 15.00 198,209.10 36,931.92 235,141.02 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-30-1130-0007-0300 0.00 28,820.00 0.00 28,820.00 0.00 28,820.00 0.00 28,820.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-18-1135-0007-0300 0.00 36,000.00 0.00 36,000.00 0.00 36,000.00 0.00 36,000.00 66.50 1,948,411.00 248,048.05 2, 196,459.05 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: FAIR ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER 01-13-10-1195-0008-0110 1.00 28,680.00 3,758.18 32,438.18 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-00-40-1140-0008-0110 33.80 1,010,522.20 130,474.00 1,140,996.20 COMP ED 01-00-40-1595-0008-0110 1.00 33,904.00 4,195.96 38,099.96 COUNSELORS 01-00-40-2120-0008-0110 2.20 91,098.80 10,614.64 101,713.44 - INDERGARTEN 01-00-40-1110-0008-0110 1.00 34,681.00 4,261.07 38,942.07 IBRARY 01-00-40-2222-0008-0110 1.00 34,749.00 4,266.TT 39,015.n NURSES 01-00-40-2134-0008-0110 0.60 13,981.20 1,984.50 15,965.70 PRINCIPAL 01-00-40-2410-0008-0110 4.00 175,982.00 20,166.49 196,148.49 SPECIAL ED 01-0040-12XX-0008-0110 7.50 238,695.00 30, 163.64 268,858.64 STIPENDS 01-00-40-XXXX-0008-0110 0.00 64,745.35 5,425.66 70,171.01 VOCATIONAL 01-00-40-13XX-0008-0110 10.00 355,615.00 43,348.54 398,963.54 62.10 2,082,653.55 258,659.45 2,341,313.00 CLERICAL 02-00-40-2410-0008-0120 7.00 102,154.25 18,044.13 120,198.38 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0008-0120 1.00 9,466.00 2, 148.05 11,614.05 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-40-2542-0008-0120 7.00 86,846.00 16,761.29 103,607.29 LIBRARY CLERICS 02-00-40-2222-0008-0120 1.00 11,850.00 2,347.83 14,197.83 SECURITY 02-13-16-2587-0008-0120 2.00 21,520.00 4,512.98 26,032.98 STIPENDS 0200-40-XXXX-0008-0120 0.00 1,152.00 96.54 1,248.54 TEACHERS AIDES 02-00-40-1140-0008-0120 4.00 38,028.00 8,605.95 46,633.95 22.00 271,016.25 52,516.n 323,533.02 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-40-1140-0008-0300 0.00 35,036.00 0.00 35,036.00 0.00 35,036.00 0.00 35,036.00 84.10 2,388,705.80 311, 176.22 2,699,882.02 Page 4 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - DESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOJNT BENEFITS TOTAL SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: FOREST HEIGHTS ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER 01-13-10-1195-0009-0110 1.00 31,069.00 3,958.38 35,027.38 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-00-30-1130-0009-0110 27.80 802,039.20 104,874.32 906,913.52 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 0113-27-1130-0009-0110 1.00 21,981.00 3,196.81 25, 1n.81 COMP ED 01-00-30-1595-00090110 4.00 126,256.00 15,999.45 142,255.45 COJNSELORS 01-00-30-2120-0009-0110 2.00 80,742.00 9,475.78 90,217.78 JR HI RESTRUCTURE 0113-10-1137-0009-0110 4.00 102,915.00 14,043.48 116,958.48 LIBRARY 01-00-30-2222-0009-0110 1.00 36,602.00 4,422.05 41,024.05 NURSES 01-00-302134-0009-0110 1.00 29,748.00 3,847.68 33,595.68 PRINCIPAL 01-00-30-2410-0009-0110 3.00 138,202.00 15,645.73 153,847.73 SPECIAL ED 01-003012XX0009-0110 6.10 196,345.00 24,717.99 221,062.99 STIPENDS 01-00-30-XXXX-0009-0110 0.00 49,475.85 4,255.02 53,730.87 VOCATIONAL 01-00-30-13XX-0009-0110 6.20 213,385.40 26,281.46 239,666.86 57.10 1,828,760.45 230,718.15 2,059,478.60 CLERICAL 02-00-30-2410-00090120 2.00 31,782.00 5,372.93 37,154.93 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 0213-10-1195-00090120 1.00 9,713.00 2,168.75 11,881.75 CUSTOOIANS 020030-2542-0009-0120 5.00 63,705.00 12,112.48 75,817.48 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-00-30-2222-0009-0120 1.00 11,411.00 2,311.04 13,722.04 SECURITY 0213-16-2587-0009-0120 2.00 21,520.00 4,512.98 26,032.98 STIPENDS 02-00-30-XXXX-0009-0120 0.00 1,075.20 90.10 1,165.30 TEACHERS AIDES 02-00-30-1130-0009-0120 2.00 22,964.00 4,633.98 27,597.98 13.00 162,170.20 31,202.26 193,372.46 eiUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-00-30-1130-0009-0300 0.00 29,396.00 0.00 29,396.00 0.00 29,396.00 0.00 29,396.00 70.10 2,020,326.65 261,920.41 2,282,247.06 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: PULASKI HEIGHTS CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-13-27-1130-0010-0110 1.00 20,195.00 3,047.14 23,242.14 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-00-30-1130-0010-0110 31.20 920,513.60 119,408.80 1,039,922.40 COMP ED 01-00-30-1595-0010-0110 4.00 116,800.00 15,207.04 132,007.04 COJNSELORS 01-00-302120-0010-0110 2.00 82,417.00 9,616.14 92,033.14 JR HI RESTRUCTURE 01-13-10-1137-0010-0110 5.00 129,004.00 17,584.54 146,588.54 LIBRARY 01-00-302222-0010-0110 1 .00 36,602.00 4,422.05 41,024.05 NURSES 01-00-30-2134-0010-0110 0.60 14,121.00 1,996.22 16,117.22 PRINCIPAL 01-00-30-2410-0010-0110 3.00 131,914.00 15,118.79 147,032.79 SPECIAL ED 01-003012XX-00100110 6.00 190,639.80 24, 104.42 214,744.22 STIPENDS 0100-30-XXXX-0010-0110 0.00 54,925.16 4,711.67 59,636.83 VOCATIONAL 01-003013XX-00100110 5.00 182,332.00 22,053.42 204,385.42 58.80 1,879,463.56 237,270.23 2,116,733.79 CLERICAL 02-00-30-2410-0010-0120 3.00 48,344.00 8,115.63 56,459.63 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0010-0120 1.00 9,054.00 2,113.53 11,167.53 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-30-2542-0010-0120 5.50 76,923.50 13,897.59 90,821.09 Page 5 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOONT BENEFITS TOTAL SECURITY 02-13-16-2587-0010-0120 2.00 21,200.00 4,486.16 25,686.16 STIPENDS 02-00-30-XXXX-0010-0120 0.00 288.00 24.13 312.13 11.50 155,809.50 28,637.04 184,446.54 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-00-30-1130-0010-0300 0.00 28,496.00 0.00 28,496.00 0.00 28,496.00 0.00 28,496.00 70.30 2,063,769.06 265,907.27 2,329,676.33 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: SOOTHWEST ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER 01-13-10-1195-0011-0110 1.00 22,525.00 3,242.40 25,767.40 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-13-27-1130-0011-0110 1.00 24,078.00 3,372.54 27,450.54 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-00-30-1130-0011-0110 26.40 728,906.80 96,849.11 825,755.91 COMP ED 01-00-30-1595-0011-0110 4.00 116,334.00 15,167.99 131,501.99 COONSELORS 01-00-30-2120-0011-0110 2.00 62,863.00 7,977.52 70,840.52 JR HI RESTRUCTURE 01-13-10-1137-0011-0110 4.00 87,769.00 12,774.24 100,543.24 LIBRARY 01-00-30-2222-0011-0110 1.00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45,105.64 NURSES 01-00-30-2134-0011-0110 0.60 15,344.40 2,098.74 17,443.14 PRINCIPAL 01-00-30-2410-0011-0110 3.00 118,618.00 14,004.59 132,622.59 SPECIAL ED 0100-30-12XX-0011-0110 5.50 172,933.00 21,943.19 194,876.19 STIPENDS 01-00-30-XXXX-0011-0110 0.00 62,491.85 5,345.76 67,837.61 VOCATIONAL 01-0030-13XX-0011-0110 6.00 207,607.00 25,526.27 233,133.27 54.50 1,659,838.05 213,039.99 1,872,878.04 - LERICAL 02-00-30-2410-0011-0120 3.00 47,991.00 8,086.05 56,077.05 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0011-0120 1.00 9,054.00 2,113.53 11,167.53 CUSTODIANS 02-00-30-2542-0011-0120 5.00 67,986.00 12,471.23 80,457.23 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-00-30-2222-0011-0120 1.00 13,167.00 2,458.19 15,625.19 SECURITY 02-13-16-2587-0011-0120 1.00 10,920.00 2,269.90 13,189.90 STIPENDS 02-00-30-XXXX-0011-0120 0.00 998.40 83.67 1,082.07 11.00 150,116.40 27,482.57 177,598.97 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-00-30-1130-0011-0300 0.00 29,072.00 0.00 29,072.00 0.00 29,072.00 0.00 29,072.00 65.50 1,839,026.45 240,522.56 2,079,549.01 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: MCCLELLAN ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER 01-13-10-1195-0012-0110 1.00 21,748.00 3,177.28 24,925.28 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-00-40-1140-0012-0110 38.40 1,110,532.20 145,086.92 1,255,619.12 COMP ED 01-00-40-1595-00120110 0.60 11,650.80 1,789.22 13,440.02 COONSELORS 01-13-27-2120-0012-0110 1.00 31,069.00 3,958.38 35,027.38 COONSELORS 01-00-40-2120-0012-0110 3.00 123,130.00 14,382.69 137,512.69 KINDERGARTEN 01-00-40-1110-0012-0110 1.00 31,535.00 3,997.43 35,532.43 LIBRARY 01-00-40-2222-0012-0110 1.00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45, 105.64 NURSES 01-00-40-2134-0012-0110 1.00 21,748.00 3,177.28 24,925.28 Page 6 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL PRINCIPAL 010040-241000120110 4.00 178,412.00 20,370.13 198,782.13  SPECIAL ED 01004012XX00120110 6.50 182,461.00 24,096.43 206,557.43 STIPENDS 010040XXXX00120110 0.00 75,670.21 6,341.16 82,011.37 VOCATIONAL 01004013XX00120110 13.00 459,553.00 56,122.94 515,675.94 70.50 2,287,8TT.21 287,237.50 2,575,114.71 CLERICAL 020040-241000120120 6.00 70,025.50 13,996.94 84,022.44 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02131011950012-0120 1.00 9,960.00 2,189.45 12,149.45 CUSTOOIANS 020040-254200120120 8.00 98,662.50 19, 106.32 117,768.82 LIBRARY CLERICS 0200402222-00120120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 SECURITY 02131625870012-0120 5.50 58,620.00 12,363.76 70,983.76 STIPENDS 020040XXXX00120120 0.00 3,898.17 326.67 4,224.84 TEACHERS AIDES 0200401140-00120120 4.00 49,775.00 9,590.35 59,365.35 25.50 305,425.17 60,142.05 365,567.22 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02004011400012-0300 0.00 38,603.00 0.00 38,603.00 0.00 38,603.00 0.00 38,603.00 BUDGET CONTROL DESEGREGATION 021318114500120300 0.00 206,240.00 0.00 206,240.00 0.00 206,240.00 0.00 206,240.00 96.00 2,838,145.38 347,379.55 3,185,524.93 SC. DEPARTMENT: HENDERSON ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER 011310119500130110 2.00 60,545.00 7,783.27 68,328.27 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 010030113000130110 37.80 1,175,896.40 149,751.56 1,325,647.96 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 011327113000130110 1.00 28,724.00 3,761.87 32,485.87 COUNSELORS 010030212000130110 2.00 79,900.00 9,405.22 89,305.22 LIBRARY 0100302222-00130110 1.00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45,105.64 NURSES 0100302134-00130110 0.00 0.00 2,647.86 2,647.86 PRINCIPAL 010030241000130110 4.00 159,212.00 18,761.17 1TT,973.17 SPECIAL ED 01003012XX00130110 6.50 204, 161.50 25,914.93 230,076.43 STIPENDS 010030XXXX00130110 0.00 62,175.80 5,319.27 67,495.07 VOCATIONAL 01003013XX00130110 5.00 150,990.00 19,426.96 170,416.96 59.30 1,961,972.70 247,509.75 2,209,482.45 CLERICAL 0200301130-00130120 2.50 41,859.50 6,894.83 48,754.33 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 021310119500130120 1.00 9,960.00 2,189.45 12,149.45 CUSTOOIANS 020030-254200130120 7.00 95,815.00 17,512.90 113,327.90 LIBRARY CLERICS 02003022220013-0120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 SECURITY 0213162587-00130120 3.50 38,060.00 7,931.23 45,991.23 SPECIAL ED AIDE 02003012XX00130120 1.00 9,054.00 2,113.53 11,167.53 STIPENDS 020030XXXX00130120 0.00 576.00 48.27 624.27 TEACHERS AIDES 0200301130-00130120 2.00 22,962.00 4,633.82 27,595.82 18.00 232,TT0.50 43,892.59 276,663.09 Page 7 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUOGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-30-1130-0013-0300 0.00 30,872.00 0.00 30,872.00 0.00 30,872.00 0.00 30,872.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-18-1135-0013-0300 0.00 116,987.00 0. 00 116,987.00 0.00 116,987.00 0.00 116,987.00 n.3o 2,342,602.20 291,402.34 2,634,004.54 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-13-27-1130-0014-0110 5.00 126,489.00 17,373.78 143,862.78 CCUNSELORS 01-13-27-2120-0014-0110 1.00 32,053.00 4,040.84 36,093.84 NURSES 01-13-27-2134-0014-0110 0.10 2,174.80 317.73 2,492.53 PRINCIPAL 01-13-27-2410-0014-0110 1.00 48,600.00 5,427.48 54,027.48 STIPENDS 01-13-27-XXXX-0014-0110 0.00 1,951.50 163.54 2,115.04 VOCATIONAL 01-13-27-13XX -0014-0110 1.00 24,926.00 3,443.60 28,369.60 8.10 236,194.30 30,766.97 266,961.27 CLERICAL 02-13-27-2410-0014-0120 1.00 10,594.00 2,242.58 12,836.58 CUSTODIANS 02-13-27-2542-0014-0120 2.00 20,684.00 4,442.92 25,126.92 SECURITY 02-13-27-2587-0014-0120 1.00 10,920.00 2,269.90 13,189.90 TEACHERS AIDES 02-13-27-1130-0014-0120 2.00 20,412.00 4,420.13 24,832.13 - 6.00 62,610.00 13,375.53 75,985.53 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-27-1130-0014-0300 0.00 13,150.00 0.00 13,150.00 0.00 13,150.00 0.00 13,150.00 14.10 311,954.30 44,142.50 356,096.80 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: CLOVERDALE JR. CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-00-30-1130-0015-0110 30.40 732,775.20 102,592.48 835,367.68 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-13-27-1130-0015-0110 1.00 28,195.00 3,717.54 31,912.54 COMP ED 01 -00-30-1595-0015-0110 5.00 133,578.00 17,967.84 151,545.84 CCUNSELORS 01-00-30-2120-0015-0110 2.00 n,819.oo 9,230.83 87,049.83 JR HI RESTRUCTURE 01-13-10-1137-0015-0110 5.00 111,789.00 16,141.92 127,930:92 LIBRARY 01-00-30-2222-0015-0110 1.00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45,105.64 NURSES 01-00-30-2134-0015-0110 0.60 15,052.80 2,074.30 17,127.10 PRINCIPAL 01-00-30-2410-0015-0110 3.00 127,625.00 14,759.38 142,384.38 SPECIAL ED 01-00-30-12XX-0015-0110 4.20 117,874.80 15,568.07 133,442.87 STIPENDS 01-00-30-XXXX-0015-0110 0.00 46,966.78 4,044.76 51,011.54 VOCATIONAL 01-00-30-13XX-0015-0110 5.80 175,326.60 22,550.21 197,876.81 58.00 1,607,370.18 213,384.97 1,820,755.15 CLERICAL 02-00-30-2410-0015-0120 2.00 32,453.00 5,429.16 37,882.16 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0015-0120 1.00 9,713.00 2,168.75 11,881.75 Page 8 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - ESCRIPTION BLOGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOJNT BENEFITS TOTAL CUSTODIANS 02003025420015-0120 5.50 71,482.00 13,441.59 84,923.59 LI BRA RY CLERKS 02-00-30-222200150120 1.00 12,728.00 2,421.41 15,149.41 SECURITY 02131625870015-0120 2.00 21,520.00 4,512.98 26,032.98 STIPENDS 020030XXXX00150120 0.00 1,075.20 90.10 1,165.30 TEACHERS AIDES 0200301130-00150120 1.00 16,373.00 2,726.86 19,099.86 12.50 165,344.20 30,790.85 196,135.05 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02003011300015-0300 0.00 28,640.00 0.00 28,640.00 0.00 28,640.00 0.00 28,640.00 70.50 1,801,354.38 244,175.82 2,045,530.20 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: MABELVALE JR. CLASSR\u0026lt;XlM TEACHERS 011327-113000160110 1.00 32,079.00 4,043.02 36,122.02 CLASSR\u0026lt;XlM TEACHERS 0100301130-00160110 27.20 759,514.80 100,497.90 860,012.70 COMP ED 010030-159500160110 2.00 62,672.00 7,961.51 70,633.51 COUNSELORS 0100-30-212000160110 2.00 59,940.00 7,732.57 67,672.57 LIBRARY 01-003022220016-0110 1.00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45,105.64 NURSES 0100-30-213400160110 0.60 15,810.00 2,137.76 17,947.76 PRINCIPAL 0100302410-00160110 3.00 141,349.00 15,909.45 157,258.45 SPECIAL ED 01003012XX00160110 6.50 175,267.00 23,493.57 198,760.57 STIPENDS 010030XXXX00160110 0.00 74,163.70 6,323.86 80,487.56 VOCATIONAL 01003013XX00160110 4.20 _138,949.40 17,334.12 156,283.52 - 47.50 1,500,112.90 190, 171.40 1,690,284.30 CLERICAL 02-003024100016-0120 3.00 50,045.00 8,258.17 58,303.17 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 0213101195-00160120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTODIANS 02003025420016-0120 4.00 45,073.00 9,196.32 54,269.32 LIBRARY CLERKS 020030222200160120 1.00 12,289.00 2,384.62 14,673.62 SECURITY 0213162587-00160120 2.00 21,520.00 4,512.98 26,032.98 STIPENDS 020030XXXX00160120 0.00 626.08 52.47 678.55 TEACHERS AIDES 0200301130-00160120 2.50 24,446.00 5,435.57 29,881.57 13.50 164,205.08 32,050.19 196,255.27 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02003011300016-0300 0.00 25,732.00 0.00 25,732.00 0.00 25,732.00 0.00 25,732.00 61.00 1,690,049.98 222,221.59 1,912,271.57 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: BALE 4 YR OLD 011302110500170110 1.00 25,000.00 3,449.80 28,449.80 CLASSR\u0026lt;XlM TEACHERS 01002011200017-0110 12.00 359,757.00 46,405.24 406,162.24 COUNSELORS 0100202120-00170110 0.80 29,494.00 3,555.44 33,049.44 GIFTED 01002019100017-0110 0.25 8,014.75 1,010.34 9,025.09 KINDERGARTEN 010020-111000170110 3.00 97,964.00 12,273.78 110,237.78 LIBRARY 01002022220017-0110 1.00 36,602.00 4,422.05 41,024.05 Page 9 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 _ E_SCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOJNT BENEFITS TOTAL NURSES 010020-213400170110 0.40 10,229.60 1,399.16 11,628.76 PRINCIPAL 010020-241000170110 1.00 43,786.00 5,024.07 48,810.07 SPECIAL ED 01002012XX00170110 4.50 126,402.00 16,689.09 143,091.09 STIPENDS 010020XXXX00170110 0.00 3,393.20 284.35 3,6TT.55 23.95 740,642.55 94,513.32 835,155.87 4 YR OLD AIDES 02130211050017-0120 1.00 9,000.00 2,109.00 11,109.00 CLERICAL 0200202410-00170120 1.00 16,854.00 2,767.17 19,621.17 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02131011950017-0120 1.00 9,000.00 2,109.00 11,109.00 CUSTOOIANS 02002025420017-0120 3.00 33,326.00 6,857.12 40,183.12 LIBRARY CLERKS 021332222200170120 1.00 12,289.00 2,384.62 14,673.62 STIPENDS 020020XXXX00170120 0.00 345.60 28.96 374.56 TEACHERS AIDES 020020-112000170120 8.00 64,560.00 16,248.53 80,808.53 15.00 145,374.60 32,504.40 1TT,879.00 BUDGET CONTROL  OPERATING 020020112000170300 0.00 9,640.00 0.00 9,640.00 0.00 9,640.00 0.00 9,640.00 BUDGET CONTROL DESEGREGATION 0213021105-00170300 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 38.95 902,357.15 127,017.72 1,029,374.87 SW /DEPARTMENT: BRADY CLASSROOM TEACHERS 0100201120-00180110 17.00 457,450.00 61,365.91 518,815.91 COUNSELORS 010020212000180110 1.00 29,457.00 3,823.30 33,280.30 GIFTED 010020191000180110 0.50 17,835.50 2,172.01 20,007.51 KINDERGARTEN 010020111000180110 3.00 85,197.00 11,203.91 96,400.91 LIBRARY 0100202222-00180110 1.00 25,444.00 3,487.01 28,931.01 NURSES 010020213400180110 0.40 9,414.00 1,330.81 10,744.81 PRINCIPAL 0100202410-00180110 1 .00 49,028.00 5,463.35 54,491.35 SPECIAL ED 01002012XX00180110 2.00 65,011.50 8,157.56 73,169.06 STIPENDS 010020XXXX00180110 0.00 2,705.30 226.70 2,932.00 25.90 741,542.30 97,230.56 838,m.86 CLERICAL 02002024100018-0120 1.00 15,410.00 2,646.16 18,056.16 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 0213101195-00180120 1 .00 9,960.00 2,189.45 12,149.45 CUSTOOIANS 02002025420018-0120 3.00 36,421.00 7,116.48 43,537.48 LIBRARY CLERKS 02133222220018-0120 1.00 12,289.00 2,384.62 14,673.62 STIPENDS 020020XXXX00180120 0.00 345.60 28.96 374.56 TEACHERS AIDES 02002011200018-0120 6.00 39,727.00 11,457.92 51,184.92 12.00 114,152.60 25,823.59 139,976.19 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 0200201120-00180300 0.00 12,149.00 0.00 12,149.00 Page 10 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRI~TION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS  TOTAL 0.00 12,149.00 0.00 12,149.00 37.90 867,843.90 123,054.15 990,898.05 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: BADGETT 4 YR OLD 01-13-02-1105-0019-0110 1.00 27,185.00 3,632.90 30,817.90 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0019-0110 8.00 238,900.50 30,858.26 269,758.76 COUNSELORS 01-00-20-2120-0019-0110 0.50 14,676.00 1,907.25 16,583.25 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0019-0110 0.25 8,281.75 1,032.71 9,314.46 KINDERGARTEN 01-00-20-1110-0019-0110 1.00 38,564.00 4,586.46 43,150.46 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0019-0110 1 .00 31,820.00 4,021.32 35,841.32 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0019-0110 0.30 6,524.40 953.18 7,477.58 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0019-0110 1.00 51,124.00 5,638.99 56,762.99 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0019-0110 2.00 54,700.50 7,293.50 61,994.00 STIPENDS 01-00-20-XXXX-0019-0110 0.00 2,063.20 1n.9o 2,236.10 15.05 473,839.35 60,097.47 533,936.82 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0019-0120 1.00 13,965.00 2,525.07 16,490.07 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0019-0120 1.00 9,054.00 2, 113.53 11,167.53 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0019-0120 2.00 21,410.00 4,503.76 25,913.76 E CHILDHOOO AIDE 02-13-02-1105-0019-0120 1 .00 9,713.00 2,168.75 11,881.75 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0019-0120 1.00 9,217.00 2,127.18 11,344.18 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0019-0120 0.00 192.00 16.09 208.09 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0019-0120 3.00 18,913.00 5,649.31 24,562.31 - 9.00 82,464.00 19,103.69 101,567.69 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0019-0300 0.00 5,848.00 0.00 5,848.00 0.00 5,848.00 0.00 5,848.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-02-1105-0019-0300 0.00 556.00 0.00 556.00 0.00 556.00 0.00 556.00 24.05 562,707.35 79,201.16 641,908.51 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: MCOERMOTT CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0020-0110 19.00 588,319.00 75,042.33 663,361.33 COUNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0020-0110 1.10 43,939.50 5,1n.41 49,111.91 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0020-0110 0.75 24,753.25 3,090.42 27,843.67 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0020-0110 3.00 106,255.00 12,968.57 119,223.57 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0020-0110 1.00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45,105.64 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-00200110 0.50 10,874.00 1,588.64 12,462.64 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0020-0110 2.00 87,884.00 10,074.28 97,958.28 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0020-0110 1 .50 45,486.50 5,843.97 51,330.47 STIPENDS 01-oo-20-xxxx-0020-0110 0.00 2,294.20 192.25 2,486.45 28.85 950,173.45 118,710.51 1,068,883.96 Page 11 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0020-0120 1.00 16,854.00 2,767.17 19,621.17 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0020-0120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0020-0120 3.00 40,950.00 7,496.01 48,446.01 LIBRARY CLERKS 0213-32-2222-0020-0120 1.00 12,728.00 2,421.41 15,149.41 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0020-0120 0.00 403.20 33.79 436.99 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0020-0120 5.00 32,847.00 9,526.58 42,373.58 11.00 113,988.20 24,455.02 138,443.22 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0020-0300 0.00 15,230.00 0.00 15,230.00 0.00 15,230.00 0.00 15,230.00 39.85 1,079,391.65 143,165.53 1,222,557.18 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: BASELINE CLASSR004 TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0022-0110 14.00 346,999.00 48,045.72 395,044.72 COUNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0022-0110 0.80 28,717.00 3,490.32 32,207.32 GIFTED 0100-20-1910-0022-0110 0.25 9,835.25 1,162.89 10,998.14 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0022-0110 3.00 80,934.00 10,846.67 91,780.67 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0022-0110 1.00 30,226.00 3,887.74 34,113.74 NURSES 01-00-202134-0022-0110 0.40 11, 161.60 1,477.26 12,638.86 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-24100022-0110 1.00 54,269.00 5,902.54 60,171.54 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0022-0110 1.00 30,234.00 3,888.41 34,122.41 STIPENDS 01-oo-20-xxxx-0022-0110 0.00 2,063.20 172.90 2,236.10 - 21.45 594,439.05 78,874.45 673,313.50 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0022-0120 1.00 14,447.00 2,565.46 17,012.46 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0022-0120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTOOIANS 0200-20-2542-0022-0120 3.00 33,235.00 6,849.49 40,084.49 LIBRARY CLERKS 0213-32-2222-0022-0120 1.00 13,167.00 2,458.19 15,625.19 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0022-0120 0.00 345.60 28.96 374.56 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0022-0120 5. 00 29,858.00 9,276.10 39,134.10 11.00 101,258.60 23,388.26 124,646.86 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0022-0300 0.00 10,488.00 0.00 10,488.00 0.00 10,488.00 0.00 10,488.00 32.45 706,185.65 102,262.71 808,448.36 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: FAIR PARK CLASSR004 TEACHERS 01-00-40-1140-00230110 12.00 364,118.00 46,770.69 410,888.69 COUNSELORS 01-00-40-21200023-0110 0.60 15,045.00 2,073.65 17,118.65 GIFTED 01-00-40-1910-0023-0110 0.50 17,447.00 2,139.46 19,586.46 KINDERGARTEN 01-00-40-1110-00230110 3.00 99,323.00 12,387.67 111,710.67 LIBRARY 01-00402222-0023-0110 1.00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45,105.64 NURSES 01-00-40-21340023-0110 0.40 9,666.40 1,351.96 11,018.36 Page 12 Lfttle Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL PRINCIPAL 0100402410-0023-0110 1.00 40,641.00 4,760.52 45,401.52 SPECIAL ED 0100-4012XX00230110 1.50 50,186.00 6,237.79 56,423.79 STIPENDS 0100-40-XXXX-0023-0110 0.00 2,193.62 183.83 2,377.45 20.00 638,988.02 80,643.21 719,631.23 CLERICAL 02-00-40-2410-00230120 1 .00 16,854.00 2,767.17 19,621.17 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 0213101195-0023-0120 1.00 10,000.00 2,192.80 12,192.80 CUSTODIANS 020040-2542-0023-0120 3.00 38,461.00 7,287.43 45,748.43 LIBRARY CLERICS 0213322222-00230120 1.00 11,850.00 2,347.83 14,197.83 STIPENDS 020040-XXXX-0023-0120 0.00 288.00 24.13 312.13 TEACHERS AIDES 0200401140-0023-0120 5.00 41,988.00 10,292.59 52,280.59 11.00 119,441.00 24,911.95 144,352.95 BUDGET CONTROL  OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0023-0300 0.00 8,744.00 0.00 8,744.00 0.00 8,744.00 0.00 8,744.00 31.00 767,173.02 105,555.16 872,728.18 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: FOREST PARK CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0024-0110 13.00 365,292.00 48,223.87 413,515.87 COUNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0024-0110 1.00 33,865.00 4,192.69 38,057.69 GI FTEO 010020-1910-0024-0110 0.75 23,398.75 2,976.92 26,375.67 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0024-0110 4.00 101,673.00 13,939.40 115,612.40 - IBRARY 01002022220024-0110 1 .00 34,749.00 4,266.77 39,015.77 URSES 01002021340024-0110 0.40 9,414.00 1,330.81 10,744.81 PRINCIPAL 0100202410-0024-0110 1.00 49,028.00 5,463.35 54,491.35 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0024-0110 1.00 31,010.50 3,953.48 34,963.98 STIPENDS 010020-XXXX-00240110 0.00 2,063.20 172.90 2,236.10 22.15 650,493.45 84,520.19 735,013.64 CLERICAL 020020-2410-00240120 1.00 14,150.00 2,540.57 16,690.57 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 0213101195-0024-0120 1.00 9,713.00 2,168.75 11,881.75 CUSTODIANS 02002025420024-0120 3.00 36,235.00 7,100.89 43,335.89 LIBRARY CLERICS 021332-222200240120 1.00 10,973.00 2,274.34 13,247.34 STIPENDS 020020XXXX00240120 0.00 345.60 28.96 374.56 TEACHERS AIDES 02-0020112000240120 .4.00 27,576.80 7,730.14 35,306.94 10.00 98,993.40 21,843.65 120,837.05 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-0020112000240300 0.00 13,200.00 0.00 13,200.00 0.00 13,200.00 0.00 13,200.00 32.15 762,686.85 106,363.84 869,050.69 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: FRANKLIN 4 YR OLD 0113-02-110500250110 3.00 87,187.00 11,370.67 98,557.67 Page 13 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESC~IPTIOH BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMO.INT BENEFITS TOTAL CLASSROCf4 TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0025-0110 19.00 468,537.00 65,004.60 533,541.60 COONSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0025-0110 1.60 41,728.80 5,664.55 47,393.35 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0025-0110 0.50 19,670.50 2,325.79 21,996.29 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 01-13-72-1120-0025-0110 4.00 93,322.00 9,370.78 102,692.78 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0025-0110 3.00 72, 176.00 10,112.75 82,288.75 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0025-0110 1.00 33,414.00 4,154.89 37,568.89 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0025-0110 1.00 21,748.00 3,177.28 24,925.28 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0025-0110 2.00 71,491.00 8,700.55 80,191.55 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0025-0110 3.00 85,100.00 11,195.78 96,295.78 STIPENDS 01-oo-20-xxxx-0025-0110 0.00 5,876.00 492.41 6,368.41 38.10 1,000,250.30 131,570.05 1, 131,820.35 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0025-0120 3.00 28,260.25 6,432.61 34,692.86 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195 -0025-0120 12.00 112,682.00 25,700.35 138,382.35 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0025-0120 4.00 43,000.00 9,022.60 52,022.60 E CHILDHOOO AIDE 02-13-02-1105-0025-0120 3.00 29,139.00 6,506.25 35,645.25 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 02-13-64-1120-0025-0120 3.00 25,516.00 6,202.64 31,718.64 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0025-0120 1.00 13,606.00 2,494.98 16,100.98 STIPENDS 02-00-20-XXXX-0025-0120 0.00 403.20 33.79 436.99 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0025-0120 6.00 43,210.00 11,749.80 54,959.80 32.00 295,816.45 68,143.02 363,959.47 BUDGET COHTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0025-0300 0.00 13,416.00 0.00 13,416.00 - 0.00 13,416.00 0.00 13,416.00 Extended Contracts 02-13-74-1120-0025-0300 0.00 45,000.00 0.00 45,000.00 Extended Day/~eek - Other 02-13-57-1120-0025-0300 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 Extended 0ay/~eek- Stipends 02-13-57-1120-0025-0300 0.00 120,000.00 0.00 120,000.00 Extended Year 02-13-65-1120-0025-0300 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 Incentive Recognition 02-13-66-1120-0025-0300 0.00 3,500.00 0.00 3,500.00 Incentive Schools - Control 02-13-75-1120-0025-0300 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 Staff Development 02-13-73-1120-0025-0300 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 Field Trips 02-13-59-1120-0025-0331 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Extended Day/~eek - Food 02-13-57-1120-0025-0380 0.00 31,000.00 0.00 31,000.00 0.00 292,000.00 0.00 292,000.00 70.10 1,601,482.75 199,713.07 1,801,195.82 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: GARLAND 4 YR OLD 01-13-02-1105-0026-0110 1.00 37,787.00 4,521.35 42,308.35 CLASSROCf4 TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0026-0110 13.00 346,778.00 46,672.40 393,450.40 COONSELORS 01-00-20-2120-0026-0110 1.00 31,787.00 4,018.55 35,805.55 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0026-0110 0.50 12,544.00 1,728.59 14,272.59 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 01-13-72-1120-0026-0110 4.00 103,245.00 10,202.33 113,447.33 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0026-0110 2.00 51,768.00 7,047.76 58,815.76 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0026-0110 1.00 31,820.00 4,021.32 35,841.32 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0026-0110 1.00 24,078.00 3,372.54 27,450.54 Page 14 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0026-0110 1.00 51,200.00 5,645.36 56,845.36 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0026-0110 3.00 93,051.50 11,862.12 104,913.62 STIPENDS 01-oo-20-xxxx-0026-0110 0.00 5,758.00 482.52 6,240.52 27.50 789,816.50 99,574.84 889,391.34 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0026-0120 2.00 13,487.25 3,839.83 17,327.08 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0026-0120 1.00 9,466.00 2,148.05 11,614.05 CUSTODIANS 02-00-20-2542-0026-0120 3.00 42,798.50 7,650.91 50,449.41 E CHILDHOOD AIDES 02-13-02-1105-0026-0120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 02-13-64-1120-0026-0120 11.00 103,879.00 23,607.86 127,486.86 LIBRARY CLERICS 02-13-32-2222-0026-0120 1.00 11,850.00 2,347.83 14,197.83 STIPENDS 02-00-20-XXXX-0026-0120 0.00 192.00 16.09 208.09 19.00 191,878.75 41,820.63 233,699.38 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0026-0300 0.00 7,240.00 0.00 7,240.00 0.00 7,240.00 0.00 7,240.00 Extended Contracts 02-13-74-1120-0026-0300 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 Extended Day/Week - Stipends 02-13-57-1120-0026-0300 0.00 85,000.00 0.00 85,000.00 Extended Day/Week Other 02-13-57-1120-0026-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Extended Year 02-13-65-1120-0026-0300 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 Incentive Recognition 02-13-66-1120-0026-0300 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 Incentive Schools - Control 02-13-75-1120-0026-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 - taff Development 02-13-73-1120-0026-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 ield Trips 02-13-59-1120-0026-0331 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Extended Day/Week Food 02-13-57-1120-0026-0380 0.00 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 0.00 187,500.00 0.00 187,500.00 46.50 1,176,435.25 141,395.47 1,317,830.72 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: CHICOT CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0028-0110 21.00 557,114.00 75,136.95 632,250.95 COUNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0028-0110 1.10 34,327.50 4,366.92 38,694.42 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0028-0110 0.50 14,990.50 1,933.60 16,924.10 KINDERGARTEN 01-00-20-1110-0028-0110 4.00 114,314.00 14,998.71 129,312.71 LIBRARY 01-00-20-2222-0028-0110 1.00 33,195.00 4,136.54 37,331.54 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0028-0110 1.00 24,885.00 3,440.16 28,325.16 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0028-0110 2.00 85,262.00 9,854.56 95,116.56 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-002a-0110 7.00 211,900.00 27,240.82 239,140.82 STIPENDS 01-0020-XXXX-0028-0110 0.00 2,294.20 192.25 2,486.45 37.60 1,078,282.20 141,300.51 1,219,582.71 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0028-0120 2.00 30,338.00 5,251.92 35,589.92 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0028-0120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTODIANS 02-00-20-2542-0028-0120 4.00 40,546.00 8,816.95 49,362.95 LIBRARY CLERICS 02-13-32-2222-0028-0120 1.00 13,167.00 2,458.19 15,625.19 Page 15 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - EStRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOONT BENEFITS TOTAL STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0028-0120 0.00 403.20 33.79 436.99 tEACRERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0028-0120 13.00 82,507.00 24,526.49 107,033.49 21.00 177,167.20 43,297.40 220,464.60 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0028-0300 0.00 15,010.00 0.00 15,010.00 0.00 15,010.00 0.00 15,010.00 58.60 1,270,459.40 184,597.91 1,455,057.31 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: WESTERN HILLS CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0029-0110 11.80 370,787.00 47,058.59 417,845.59 COONSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0029-0110 0.80 24,057.00 3,099.82 27,156.82 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0029-0110 0.50 18,505.50 2,228.16 20,733.66 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0029-0110 2.00 62,798.00 7,9n.o7 70,770.07 LIBRARY 01-00-20-2222-0029-0110 1.00 37,977.00 4,537.27 42,514.27 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0029-0110 0.30 9,157.50 1,173.84 10,331.34 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0029-0110 1.00 55,318.00 5,990.45 61,308.45 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0029-0110 1.50 40,623.00 5,436.41 46,059.41 STIPENDS 01-oo-20-xxxx-0029-0110 0.00 2,063.20 1n.9o 2,236.10 18.90 621,286.20 77,669.51 698,955.71 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0029-0120 1.00 14,928.00 2,605.77 17,533.77 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-101195-0029-0120 1.00 9,960.00 2,189.45 12,149.45 - USTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0029-0120 2.50 34,464.50 6,275.13 40,739.63 IBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0029-0120 1.00 12,n8.oo 2,421.41 15,149.41 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0029-0120 0.00 288.00 24.13 312.13 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0029-0120 3.00 20,882.00 5,814.31 26,696.31 8.50 93,250.50 19,330.20 112,580.70 BUOGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0029-0300 0.00 10,376.00 0.00 10,376.00 0.00 10,376.00 0.00 10,376.00 27.40 n4,912.10 96,999.71 821,912.41 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: JEFFERSON CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0030-0110 18.00 564,346.00 71,678.59 636,024.59 COONSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0030-0110 1 .30 45,824.50 5,601.33 51,425.83 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0030-0110 0.75 27,617.25 3,330.43 30,947.68 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0030-0110 4.00 122,265.00 15,665.01 137,930.01 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0030-0110 1.00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45,105.64 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0030-0110 0.40 12,520.80 1,591.16 14,111.96 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0030-0110 2.00 79,735.00 9,391.39 89,126.39 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-003o-0110 3.00 96,780.00 12,174.56 108,954.56 STIPENDS 01-00-20-XXXX-0030-0110 0.00 3,794.20 317.95 4,112.15 30.45 993,250.75 124,488.06 1,117,738.81 Page 16 Little Rock S~hool District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL CLERICAL 0200202410-00300120 1.00 16,854.00 2,767.17 19,621.17 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02131011950030-0120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTODIANS 02002025420030-0120 3.00 37,481.00 7,205.31 44,686.31 LIBRARY CLERICS 02133222220030-0120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 STIPENDS 020020XXXX00300120 0.00 403.20 33.79 436.99 TEACHERS AIDES 02002011200030-0120 5.00 32,135.00 9,466.91 41,601.91 11.00 111,563.20 24,251.80 135,815.00 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02002011200030-0300 0.00 20,555.00 0.00 20,555.00 0.00 20,555.00 0.00 20,555.00 41.45 1,125,368.95 148,739.86 1,274,108.81 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: CLOVERDALE 4 YR OLD 0113021105-00310110 1.00 25,000.00 3,449.80 28,449.80 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01002011200031-0110 16.00 408,964.00 55,947.98 464,911.98 COUNSELORS 010020-212000310110 0.90 25,204.00 3,331.42 28,535.42 IC I NDERGARTEN 01002011100031-0110 3.00 79,633.00 10,737.65 90,370.65 LIBRARY 01002022220031-0110 1.00 34,211.00 4,221.68 38,432.68 NURSES 01002021340031-0110 0.40 9,631.20 1,349.01 10,980.21 PRINCIPAL 010020241000310110 1.00 41,690.00 4,848.42 46,538.42 SPECIAL ED 01002012XX00310110 1.50 42,380.00 5,583.64 47,963.64 STIPENDS 010020XXXX00310110 0.00 563.20 47.20 610.40 - 24.80 667,276.40 89,516.80 756,793.20 4 YR OLD AIDES 02130211050031-0120 1.00 9,000.00 2,109.00 11,109.00 CLERICAL 02002024100031-0120 1.00 16,854.00 2,767.17 19,621.17 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 021310-119500310120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTODIANS 0200202542-00310120 3.00 32,703.00 6,804.91 39,507.91 LIBRARY CLERICS 02133222220031-0120 1.00 14,045.00 2,531.77 16,576.77 STIPENDS 020020XXXX00310120 0.00 345.60 28.96 374.56 TEACHERS AIDES 02002011200031-0120 5.00 39,036.00 10,045.22 49,081.22 12.00 122,189.60 26,497.09 148,686.69 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 020020-112000310300 0.00 11,160.00 0.00 11,160.00 0.00 11,160.00 0.00 11,160.00 BUDGET CONTROL DESEGREGATION 0213021105-00310300 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 36.80 807,326.00 116,013.89 923,339.89 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: DODD CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01002011200032-0110 12.00 319,446.00 43,027.17 362,473.17 Page 17 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL COUNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0032-0110 0.60 19,220.00 2,423.52 21,643.52 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0032-0110 0.50 11,233.50 1,618.77 12,852.27 KINDERGARTEN 01-00-20-1110-0032-0110 2.00 55,322.00 7,345.58 62,667.58 LIBRARY 01-00-20-2222-0032-0110 1.00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45,105.64 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0032-0110 0.40 9,320.80 1,323.00 10,643.80 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0032-0110 1.00 53,221.00 5,814.72 59,035.72 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0032-0110 2.60 85,715.00 10,705.40 96,420.40 STIPENDS 01-00-20-XXXX0032-0110 0.00 2,563.20 214.80 2,778.00 20.10 596,409.50 77,210.60 673,620.10 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0032-0120 1.00 14,928.00 2,605.77 17,533.77 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0032-0120 1.00 9,466.00 2,148.05 11,614.05 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0032-0120 2.50 31,767.0D 6,049.07 37,816.07 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0032-0120 1.00 10,973.00 2,274.34 13,247.34 STIPENDS 02-00-20-XXXX-0032-0120 0.00 288.00 24.13 312.13 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-112D-0032-0120 1.00 42,692.00 4,932.39 47,624.39 6.50 110,114.00 18,033.75 128,147.75 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 0200-20-11200032-0300 0.00 8,232.00 0.00 8,232.00 0.00 8,232.00 0.00 8,232.00 26.60 714,755.50 95,244.35 809,999.85 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: MEADOIICLI FF - LASSRCXlM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0033-0110 16.00 497,296.00 63,350.20 560,646.20 COUNSELORS 01-00-20-2120-0033-0110 1.00 27,127.00 3,628.04 30,755.04 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0033-0110 0.50 15,505.50 1,976.76 17,482.26 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0033-0110 3.00 96,216.00 12,127.30 108,343.30 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0033-0110 1.00 33,195.00 4, 136.54 37,331.54 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0033-0110 0.40 9,320.80 1,323.00 10,643.80 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0033-0110 1.00 50,076.00 5,551.17 55,627.17 SPECIAL ED 01-00-20-12XX-0033-0110 1.00 31,272.50 3,975.44 35,247.94 STIPENDS 01-oo-20-xxxx-0033-0110 0.00 2,063.20 172.90 2,236.10 23.90 762,072.00 96,241.35 858,313.35 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0033-0120 1.00 16,854.00 2,767.17 19,621.17 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-101195-0033-0120 1 .00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0033-0120 3.00 39,571.00 7,380.45 46,951.45 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0033-0120 1.00 12,289.00 2,384.62 14,673.62 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0033-0120 0.00 345.60 28.96 374.56 TEACHERS AIDES 02-00-20-1120-0033-0120 4.00 28,956.00 7,845.71 36,801.71 10.00 108,221.60 22,616.97 130,838.57 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0033-0300 0.00 13,474.00 0.00 13,474.00 0.00 13,474.00 0.00 13,474.00 Page 18 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL 33.90 883,767.60 118,858.32 1,002,625.92 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: MITCHELL 4 YR OLD 01-13-02-1105-0034-0110 1.00 22,525.00 3,242.40 25,767.40 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0034-0110 13.00 373,369.00 48,900.72 422,269.72 COJNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0034-0110 1.00 35,457.00 4,326.10 39,783.10 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0034-0110 0.50 17,583.00 2,150.86 19,733.86 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 01-13-72-1120-0034-0110 3.40 90,525.80 8,323.58 98,849.38 KINDERGARTEN 01-00-20-1110-0034-0110 2.00 44,506.00 6,439.20 50,945.20 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0034-0110 1.00 30,505.00 3,911.12 34,416.12 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0034-0110 1.00 24,885.00 3,440.16 28,325.16 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0034-0110 1.00 50,076.00 5,551.17 55,627.17 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0034.0110 2.00 62,157.50 7,918.40 70,075.90 STIPENDS 01-00-20-XXXX-0034-0110 0.00 2,825.00 236.74 3,061.74 25.90 754,414.30 94,440.45 848,854.75 4 YR AIDES 02-13-02-1120-0034-0120 1.00 9,466.00 2,148.05 11,614.05 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0034-0120 2.00 13,487.25 3,839.83 17,327.08 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0034-0120 3.00 39,000.00 7,332.60 46,332.60 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 02-13-64-1120-0034-0120 11.00 118,057.00 24,795.98 142,852.98 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0034-0120 1.00 11,850.00 2,347.83 14,197.83 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0034.0120 0.00 288.00 24.13 312.13 18.00 192,148.25 40,488.42 232,636.67 - UDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0034.0300 0.00 8,648.00 0.00 8,648.00 0.00 8,648.00 0.00 8,648.00 Extended Contracts 02-13-74-1120-0034-0300 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 Extended Day/Week - Other 02-13-57-1120-0034-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Extended Day/Week- Stipends 02-13-57-1120-0034-0300 0.00 85,000.00 0.00 85,000.00 Extended Year 02-13-65-1120-0034-0300 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 Incentive Recognition 02-13-66-1120-0034-0300 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 Incentive Schools - Control 02-13-75-1120-0034-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Staff Development 02-13-73-1120-0034-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Field Trips 02-13-59-1120-0034-0331 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Extended Day/Week - Food 02-13-57-1120-0034-0380 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 190,500.00 0.00 190,500.00 43.90 ,. 145,710.55 134,928.87 1,280,639.42 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: M.L. KING CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0035-0120 1.00 16,666.00 2,751.41 19,417.41 1.00 16,666.00 2,751.41 19,417.41 1.00 16,666.00 2,751.41 19,417.41 Page 19 Little RocK School District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOONT BENEFITS TOTAL SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ROCKEFELLER 4 YR OLD 01130211050036-0110 3.00 n,284.oo 10,540.80 87,824.80 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01002011200036-0110 14.00 360,088.00 49,142.57 409,230.57 COONSELORS 01002021200036-0110 1.00 28,680.00 3,758.18 32,438.18 GIFTED 0100201910-00360110 0.50 15,787.00 2,000.35 17,787.35 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 01-13-n-1120-0036-0110 5.00 155,055.00 15,898.81 170,953.81 KINDERGARTEN 01002011100036-0110 3.00 59,808.00 9,076.31 68,884.31 LIBRARY 010020222200360110 1.00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45,105.64 NURSES 01 00202134-00360110 1.00 25,865.00 3,522.29 29,387.29 PRINCIPAL 01002024100036-0110 2.00 80,428.00 9,449.47 89,8TT.47 SPECIAL ED 01002012XX00360110 1.10 33,781.50 4,321.17 38,102.67 STIPENDS 010020XXXX00360110 0.00 5,876.00 492.41 6,368.41 31.60 883,020.50 112,940.00 995,960.50 CLERICAL 020020241000360120 2.00 11,561.25 3,678.43 15,239.68 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 021310119500360120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTOOIANS 020020254200360120 4.50 68,700.50 11,853.70 80,554.20 E CHILDHOOO AIDES 02130211050036-0120 15.50 187,657.00 36,n5.06 224,382.06 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 0213641120-00360120 4.00 35,394.00 8,385.22 43,779.22 LIBRARY CLERKS 02133222220036-0120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 TEACHERS AIDES 02002011200036-0120 10.00 95,645.00 21,563.05 117,208.05 38.00 423,647.75 86,984.08 510,631.83 - BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02002011200036-0300 0.00 10,8n.oo 0.00 10,8n.oo 0.00 10,8n.oo 0.00 10,8n.oo Extended Contracts 0213741120-00360300 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 Extended Day/WeeK  Stipends 021357112000360300 0.00 85,000.00 0.00 85,000.00 Extended Day/WeeK Other 021357112000360300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Extended Year 0213651120-00360300 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 Incentive Recognition 021366112000360300 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 Incentive Schools Control 0213751120-00360300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Staff Development 02137311200036-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Field Trips 021359112000360331 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Extended Day/WeeK Food 02135711200036-0380 o.oo 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 190,500.00 0.00 -190,500.00 69.60 1,508,040.25 199,924.08 1,707,964.33 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: GEYER SPRINGS 4 YR OLD 0113021105-00370110 1.00 25,000.00 3,449.80 28,449.80 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01002011200037-0110 10.00 236, 162.00 33,338.38 269,500.38 COUNSELORS 010020-212000370110 0.60 15,842.00 2,140.44 17,982.44 GIFTED 0100201910-00370110 0.40 5,580.80 1,009.59 6,590.39 KINDERGARTEN 0100201110-00370110 2.00 55,089.00 7,326.06 62,415.06 LIBRARY 010020222200370110 1.00 27,337.00 3,645.64 30,982.64 Page 20 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0037-0110 0.20 4,660.40 661.50 5,321.90 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0037-0110 1.00 47,980.00 5,375.52 53,355.52 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0037.0110 2.00 65,137.50 8,168.12 73,305.62 STIPENDS 01-00-20-XXXX-0037-0110 0.00 2,563.20 214.80 2,778.00 18.20 485,351.90 65,329.85 550,681.75 4 YR OLD All~ES 02-13-02-1105-0037-0120 1.00 9,000.00 2,109.00 11,109.00 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0037-0120 1.00 14,928.00 2,605.77 17,533.77 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0037-0120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTODIANS 02-00-20-2542-0037-0120 2.00 26,630.00 4,941.19 31,571.19 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0037-0120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 SPECIAL ED AIDE 02-oo-20-12xx-0037-0120 1.00 8,231.00 2,044.56 10,275.56 STIPENDS 02-00-20-XXXX-0037-0120 0.00 192.00 16.09 208.09 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0037.0120 6.00 42,691.00 11,706.31 54,397.31 13.00 126,362.00 28,201.54 154,563.54 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0037.0300 0.00 7,400.00 0.00 7,400.00 0.00 7,400.00 0.00 7,400.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-02-1105-0037-0300 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 S- /DEPARTMENT: 31.20 625,813.90 93,531.39 719,345.29 PULASKI HTS. CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0038-0110 13.00 346,058.00 46,612.06 392,670.06 COUNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0038-0110 1.00 27,127.00 3,628.04 30,755.04 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0038-0110 0.50 18,117.00 2,195.60 20,312.60 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0038-0110 3.00 85,545.00 11,233.07 96,778.07 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0038-0110 1.00 30,525.00 3,912.80 34,437.80 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0038-0110 0.40 9,414.00 1,330.81 10,744.81 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0038-0110 1.00 47,980.00 5,375.52 53,355.52 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-003a-0110 2.10 66,015.20 8,377.15 74,392.35 STIPENDS 01-oo-20-xxxx-003a-0110 0.00 2,563.20 214.80 2,778.00 22.00 633,344.40 82,879.85 716,224.25 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0038-0120 1.00 15,410.00 2,646.16 18,056.16 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0038-0120 1.00 9,713.00 2,168.75 11,881.75 CUSTODIANS 02-00-20-2542-0038-0120 3.00 38,825.00 7,317.94 46,142.94 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-oo-20-2222-0038-0120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0038-0120 1.00 12,289.00 2,384.62 14,673.62 STIPENDS 02-00-20-XXXX-0038-0120 0.00 434.72 36.43 471.15 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0038-0120 7.00 37,511.00 12,627.02 50,138.02 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0038-0120 1.00 9,466.00 2,148.05 11,614.05 15.00 138,132.72 31,897.53 170,030.25 Page 21 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOONT BENEFITS TOTAL BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-003s-0300 0.00 16,936.00 0.00 16,936.00 0.00 16,936.00 0.00 16,936.00 37.00 788,413.12 114,m.38 903,190.50 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: RIGHTSELL 4 YR OLD 01-13-02-1105-0039-0110 1.00 26,408.00 3,567.79 29,975.79 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0039-0110 13.00 367,487.00 48,407.81 415,894.81 COONSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0039-0110 1.00 32,564.00 4,083.66 36,647.66 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-00390110 0.50 14,340.00 1,879.09 16,219.09 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 01-13-72-1120-0039-0110 4.00 109, 168.00 10,698.68 119,866.68 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0039-0110 2.00 62,041.00 7,908.64 69,949.64 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0039-0110 1 .00 38,475.00 4,579.01 43,054.01 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0039-0110 1.00 31,302.00 3,977.91 35,279.91 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-00390110 1.00 55,318.00 5,990.45 61,308.45 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0039-0110 0.90 28,375.50 3,597.19 31,972.69 STIPENDS 01-oo-20-xxxx-0039-0110 0.00 6,875.00 576.13 7,451.13 25.40 m,353.50 95,266.36 867,619.86 4 YR AIDES 02-13 -02-1105-0039-0120 1.00 9,054.00 2,113.53 11,167.53 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0039-0120 2.00 16,858.25 4,122.32 20,980.57 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0039-0120 5.00 45,766.00 10,609.19 56,375.19 CUSTODIANS 02-00-20-2542-0039-0120 3.00 33,161.00 6,843.29 40,004.29 - INCENTIVE PROGRAM 02-13-64-1120-0039-0120 5.00 50,045.00 10,967.77 61,012.77 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0039-0120 1.00 11,411.00 2,311.04 13,722.04 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0039-0120 0.00 288.00 24.13 312.13 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0039-0120 1.00 2,888.00 1,596.81 4,484.81 18.00 169,471.25 38,588.08 208,059.33 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0039-0300 0.00 8,456.00 0.00 8,456.00 0.00 8,456.00 0.00 8,456.00 Extended Contracts 02-13-74-1120-0039-0300 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 Extended Day/Week - Other 02-13-57-1120-0039-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Extended Day/Week- Stipends 02-13-57-1120-0039-0300 0.00 85,000.00 0.00 85,000.00 Extended Year 02-13-65-1120-0039-0300 0.00 40,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 Incentive Recognition 02-13-66-1120-0039-0300 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 Incentive Schools - Control 02-13-75-1120-0039-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Staff Development 02-13-73-1120-0039-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Field Trips 02-13-59-1120-0039-0331 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Extended Day/Week - Food 02-13-57-1120-0039-0380 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 200,500.00 0.00 200,500.00 43.40 1,150,780.75 133,854.44 1,284,635.19 Page 22 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: RCl41NE 4 YR OLD 01-13-021105-00400110 1.00 31,069.00 3,958.38 35,027.38 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 0100201120-0040-0110 17.00 474,441.00 62,789.76 537,230.76 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-13-25112000400110 2.00 49,000.00 6,815.80 55,815.80 GIFTED 010020-191000400110 2.00 36,n9.oo 5,787.49 42,516.49 KINDERGARTEN 0100201110-0040-0110 3.00 81,963.00 10,932.90 92,895.90 LIBRARY 0100202222-0040-0110 1.00 31,302.00 3,977.91 35,279.91 NURSES 01002021340040-0110 1.00 22,525.00 3,242.40 25,767.40 PRINCIPAL 0100202410-00400110 2.00 83,023.00 9,666.93 92,689.93 SPECIAL ED 01002012XX00400110 3.10 102,534.50 12,792.27 115,326.77 STIPENDS 010020XXXX00400110 0.00 2,063.20 1n.9o 2,236.10 32.10 914,649.70 120,136.74 1,034,786.44 4 YR AIDES 0213-02-1105-00400120 0.00 9,054.00 758.73 9,812.73 CLERICAL 020020-24100040-0120 1.00 15,410.00 2,646.16 18,056.16 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 0213101195-0040-0120 1.00 9,960.00 2,189.45 12,149.45 CUSTODIANS 0200202542-00400120 4.00 44,398.00 9,139.75 53,537.75 LIBRARY CLERKS 02133222220040-0120 1.00 11,850.00 2,347.83 14,197.83 STIPENDS 020020XXXX00400120 0.00 345.60 28.96 374.56 TEACHERS AIDES 02002011200040-0120 6.00 36,018.00 11,147.11 47,165.11 13.00 127,035.60 28,257.99 155,293.59 BUDGET CONTROL  OPERATING 02002011200040-0300 0.00 10,392.00 0.00 10,392.00 - 0.00 10,392.00 0.00 10,392.00 BUDGET CONTROL  DESEGREGATION 02130211050040-0300 0.00 556.00 0.00 556.00 BUDGET CONTROL  DESEGREGATION 0213251125-0040-0300 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,556.00 0.00 30,556.00 45.10 1,082,633.30 148,394.73 1,231,028.03 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: STEPHENS 4 YR OLD 011302-1105-00410110 1.00 23,302.00 3,307.51 26,609.51 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-00-201120-0041-0110 10.60 265,716.00 36,627.88 302,343.88 COUNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0041-0110 1.00 39,341.00 4,651.58 43,992.58 GIFTED 0100201910-00410110 0.50 15,893.50 2,009.28 17,902.78 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 01-13-n-1120-0041-0110 6.00 168,411.00 18,3n.84 186,783.84 KINDERGARTEN 0100201110-0041-0110 2.00 52,253.00 7,088.40 59,341.40 LIBRARY 01-0020222200410110 1.00 36,602.00 4,422.05 41,024.05 NURSES 0100-20-2134-00410110 1.00 21,748.00 3,177.28 24,925.28 PRINCIPAL 0100202410-00410110 1.00 53,221.00 5,814.n 59,035.n SPECIAL ED 01002012XX00410110 3.00 73,293.00 10,206.35 83,499.35 STIPENDS 010020-XXXX-00410110 0.00 4,825.00 404 .34 5,229.34 27.10 754,605.50 96,082.23 850,687.73 Page 23 Little Rock S~hool District D7/23/92 Budget 1992-93 e E.SCRI PTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMa.lNT BENEFITS TOTAL CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0041-0120 2.00 15,895.25 4,041.62 19,936.87 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0041-0120 4.00 38,686.00 8,661.09 47,347.09 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0041-0120 3.00 41,910.00 7,576.46 49,486.46 E CHILDHOOD AIDES 02-13-02-1105-0041-0120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 02-13-64-1120-0041-0120 5.00 47,822.00 10,781.48 58,603.48 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0041-0120 1.00 12,289.00 2,384.62 14,673.62 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0041-0120 0.00 288.00 24.13 312.13 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0041-0120 1.00 9,466.00 2, 148.05 11,614.05 17.00 176,562.25 37,827.51 214,389.76 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0041-0300 0.00 6,664.00 0.00 6,664.00 0.00 6,664.00 0.00 6,664.00 Extended Contracts 02-13-74-1120-0041-0300 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 Extended Day/~eek - Stipends 02-13-57-1120-0041-0300 0.00 85,000.00 0.00 85,000.00 Extended Day/~eek Other 02-13-57-1120-0041-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Extended Year 02-13-65-1120-0041-0300 0.00 40,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 Incentive Recognition 02-13-66-1120-0041-0300 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 Incentive Schools - Control 02-13-75-1120-0041-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Staff Development 02-13-73-1120-0041-0300 0.00 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 Field Trips 02-13-59-1120-0041-0331 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Extended Day/~eek Food 02-13-57-1120-0041-0380 0.00 13,000.00 0.00 13,000.00 - 0.00 203,000.00 0.00 203,000.00 44.10 1,140,831.75 133,909.74 1,274,741.49 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ~ASHINGTON 4 YR OLD 01-13-02-1105-0042-0110 2.00 53,225.00 7,169.86 60,394.86 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0042-0110 39.00 945,221.00 132,046.72 1,077,267.72 COMPENSATORY EDUCATI 01-13-10-1595-0042-0110 0.50 16,000.00 2,018.20 18,018.20 COUNSELORS 01-00-20-2120-0042-0110 2.00 58,701.00 7,628.74 66,329.74 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0042-0110 0.75 20,345.00 2,721.01 23,066.01 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0042-0110 5.00 142,217.00 18,691.78 160,908.78 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0042-0110 1.50 41,214.00 5,485.93 46,699.93 MAGNET PROGRAM 01-13-18-1125-0042-0110 4.00 115,270.00 15,078.83 130,348.83 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0042-0110 1.00 20,971.00 3,112.17 24,083.17 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0042-0110 3.00 114,758.00 13,681.12 128,439.12 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0042-0110 2.00 82,488.00 9,622.09 92,110.09 SPECIAL ED 01-13-15-12XX-0042-0110 1.00 35,671.00 4,344.03 40,015.03 STIPENDS 01-00-20-XXXX-0042-0110 0.00 5,670.72 475.21 6,145.93 61.75 1,651,751.72 222,075.69 1,873,827.41 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0042-0120 2.00 27,448.00 5,009.74 32,457.74 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0042-0120 2.00 19,920.00 4,378.90 24,298.90 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0042-0120 5.00 52,900.00 11,207.02 64, 107.02 E CHILDHOOD AIDES 02-13-02-1105-0042-0120 2.00 19,673.00 4,358.20 24,031.20 Page 24 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - ESCRJPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOONT BENEFITS  TOTAL LIBRARY CLERICS 02-1332222200420120 2.00 25,456.00 4,842.81 30,298.81 MAGNET PROGRAM 0213181125-00420120 4.00 43,019.00 9,024.19 52,043.19 SPECIAL ED AIDES 02131512XX00420120 1.00 9,054.00 2, 113.53 11,167.53 STIPENDS 020020XXXX00420120 0.00 1,075.20 90.10 1,165.30 TEACHERS AIDES 020020-112000420120 6.40 21,569.50 10,478.24 32,047.74 24.40 220,114.70 51,502.73 271,617.43 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 0200201120-00420300 0.00 23,458.00 0.00 23,458.00 0.00 23,458.00 0.00 23,458.00 BUDGET CONTROL  DESEGREGATION 02131811250042-0300 0.00 53,500.00 0.00 53,500.00 BUDGET CONTROL  DESEGREGATION 02130211050042-0300 0.00 1,111.00 0.00 1,111.00 0.00 54,611.00 0.00 54,611.00 86.15 1,949,935.42 273,578.42 2,223,513.84 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: WILSON 4 YR OLD 0113021105-00440110 1.00 25,000.00 3,449.80 28,449.80 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 0100201120-00440110 14.00 462,907.00 57,758.81 520,665.81 COONSELORS 01002021200044-0110 0.90 31,981.00 3,899.33 35,880.33 GIFTED 01002019100044-0110 0.50 17,n8.50 2,163.05 19,891.55 KINDERGARTEN 0100201110-00440110 3.00 105,012.00 12,864.41 117,876.41 LIBRARY 01002022220044-0110 1.00 27,895.00 3,692.40 31,587.40 - URSES 0100202134-00440110 0.40 9,918.80 1,373.12 11,291.92 RINCIPAL 0100202410-00440110 1.00 46,931.00 5,287.62 52,218.62 SPECIAL ED 01002012XX00440110 4.50 128,314.00 16,849.31 145,163.31 STIPENDS 010020XXXX00440110 0.00 2,423.70 203.11 2,626.81 26.30 858,111.00 107,540.96 965,651.96 4 YR OLD AIDES 02130211050044-0120 1.00 9,000.00 2,109.00 11,109.00 CLERICAL 0200202410-00440120 1.00 11,557.00 2,323.28 13,880.28 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 0213101195-00440120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTOOIANS 0200202542-00440120 3.00 39,325.00 7,359.84 46,684.84 LIBRARY CLERICS 02133222220044-0120 1.00 14,045.00 2,531.77 16,576.77 STIPENDS 020020XXXX00440120 0.00 345.60 28.96 374 .56 TEACHERS AIDES 02002011200044-0120 5.00 36,563.00 9,837.98 46,400.98 12.00 121,041.60 26,400.89 147,442.49 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 0200201120-00440300 0.00 11,304.00 0.00 11,304.00 0.00 11,304.00 0.00 11,304.00 BUDGET CONTROL DESEGREGATION 02130211050044-0300 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 Page 25 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL 38.30 997,156.60 133,941.85 1,131,098.45 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: IIOOORUFF 4 YR OLD 01-13-02-1105-0045-0110 1.00 25,000.00 3,449.80 28,449.80 CLASSRoc4 TEACHERS 01-00-20-1120-0045-0110 9.00 211,133.00 29,886.15 241,019.15 COUNSELORS 01-00-20-2120-0045-0110 0.60 26,987.00 3,074.39 30,061.39 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0045-0110 0.25 9,835.25 1,162.89 10,998.14 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0045-0110 2.00 68,798.00 8,474.87 TT,272.87 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0045.0110 1.00 29,429.00 3,820.95 33,249.95 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0045-0110 0.20 5,580.80 738.63 6,319.43 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0045-0110 1.00 53,221.00 5,814.72 59,035.72 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0045-0110 1 .00 30,379.50 3,900.60 34,280.10 STIPENDS 010020-XXXX-0045-0110 0.00 2,063.20 172.90 2,236.10 16.05 462,426.75 60,495.90 522,922.65 4 YR AIDES 02-13-02-1120-0045-0120 1 .00 9,000.00 2,109.00 11,109.00 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0045-0120 1.00 13,965.00 2,525.07 16,490.07 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0045-0120 1 .00 8,643.00 2,079.08 10,722.08 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0045-0120 2.50 27,392.50 5,682.49 33,074.99 LIBRARY CLERICS 0213-32-2222-0045-0120 1 .00 10,534.00 2,237.55 12, TT1 .55 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0045.0120 0.00 192.00 16.09 208.09 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0045.0120 3.13 20,065.20 5,921.99 25,987.19 9.63 89,791.70 20,571.27 110,362.97 - UDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0045.0300 0.00 5,992.00 0.00 5,992.00 0.00 5,992.00 0.00 5,992.00 BUDGET CONTROL DESEGREGATION 0213021105-0045-03DO 0.00 556.00 0.00 556.00 0.00 556.00 0.00 556.00 25.68 558,766.45 81,067.17 639,833.62 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: MABEL VALE CLASSRoc4 TEACHERS 01-00-20-1120-0046-0110 19.00 517,915.00 69,142.48 587,057.48 COUNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0046-0110 1.60 40,743.20 5,581.96 46,325.16 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0046-0110 0.50 18,893.50 2,260.68 21,154.18 KINDERGARTEN 01-00-20-1110-0046-0110 3.00 84,585.00 11,152.62 95,737.62 LIBRARY 01-00-20-2222-0046-0110 1 .00 31,820.00 4,021.32 35,841.32 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0046-0110 0.40 10,540.00 1,425.17 11,965.17 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0046-0110 2.00 83,834.00 9,734.89 93,568.89 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0046-0110 2.80 69,703.20 9,634.57 79,337.TT STIPENDS 010020-XXXX-0046-0110 0.00 4,078.40 341.TT 4,420.17 30.30 862,112.30 113,295.46 975,407.76 CLERICAL 02-00-202410-0046-0120 2.00 32,264.00 5,413.32 37,6TT.32 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0046-0120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 Page 26 Li'ttle Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMCXJNT BENEFITS TOTAL CUSTODIANS 02-00-20-2542-0046-0120 3.50 36, 158.50 7,TT1.88 43,930.38 LIBRARY CLERICS 02-13-32-2222-0046-0120 1.00 11,411.00 2,311.04 13, n2.04 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0046-0120 0.00 403.20 33.79 436.99 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0046-0120 6.00 38,255.00 11,334.57 49,589.57 13.50 128,697.70 29,074.66 157,m.36 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0046-0300 0.00 14,338.00 0.00 14,338.00 0.00 14,338.00 0.00 14,338.00 43.80 1,005,148.00 142,370.12 1,147,518.12 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: TERRY CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0047-0110 18.00 499,994.00 66,285.90 566,279.90 COUNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0047.0110 1.30 35,320.00 4,n1.06 40,041.06 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0047-0110 0.80 28,041.70 3,433.73 31,475.43 KINDERGARTEN 01-00-20-1110-0047-0110 4.00 115,818.00 15,124.75 130,942.75 LIBRARY 01-00-20-2222-0047-0110 1.00 34,490.00 4,245.06 38,735.06 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0047-0110 0.40 9,320.80 1,323.00 10,643.80 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0047-0110 2.00 91,839.00 10,405.71 102,244.71 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0047.0110 1.50 49,768.50 6,202.80 55,971.30 STIPENDS 01-0020-XXXX-0047-0110 0.00 3,700.80 310.13 4,010.93 29.00 868,292.80 112,052.14 980,344.94 - LERICAL 02-00-202410-0047-0120 2.00 28,411.00 5,090.44 33,501.44 OMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0047-0120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0047-0120 3.50 42,082.00 8,268.27 50,350.27 LIBRARY CLERICS 02-13-32-2222-0047-0120 1.00 13,167.00 2,458.19 15,625.19 STIPENDS 020020-XXXX-00470120 0.00 403.20 33.79 436.99 TEACHERS AIDES 02-00-20-1120-00470120 9.00 32,021.00 14,876.56 46,897.56 16.50 126,290.20 32,937.31 159,227.51 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-20-1120-0047-0300 0.00 20,sn.oo 0.00 20,8n.oo 0.00 20,sn.oo 0.00 20,sn.oo 45.50 1,015,455.00 144,989.45 1,160,444.45 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: FULBRIGHT CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-004s-0110 21.00 621,038.00 80,493.78 701,531.78 COUNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-004s-0110 1.30 42,096.00 5,288.88 47,384.88 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0048-0110 0.75 23,520.25 2,987.10 26,507.35 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0045.0110 3.00 104,993.00 12,862.81 117,855.81 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-004s-0110 1.00 40,368.00 4,737.64 45,105.64 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0048-0110 0.50 10,874.00 1,588.64 12,462.64 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0048-0110 2.00 87,216.00 10,018.30 97,234.30 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0045.0110 3.00 91,323.00 11,717.27 103,040.27 STIPENDS 01-0020-XXXX-0048-0110 0.00 794.20 66.55 860. 75 Page 27 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRfPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOJNT BENEFITS TOTAL 32.55 1,022,222.45 129,760.97 1,151,983.42 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0048-0120 2.00 27,930.00 5,050.13 32,980.13 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0048-0120 1.00 9,960.00 2,189.45 12,149.45 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0048-0120 3.50 40,994.50 8, 1TT.14 49,171.64 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0048-0120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0048-0120 0.00 403.20 33.79 436.99 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0048-0120 5.50 35,276.50 10,407.57 45,684.07 13.00 129,048.20 28,426.64 157,474.84 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0048-0300 0.00 15,346.00 0.00 15,346.00 0.00 15,346.00 0.00 15,346.00 45.55 1, 166,616.65 158,187.61 1,324,804.26 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ISH 4 YR OLD 01-13-02-1105-0049-0110 1.00 27,651.00 3,671.95 31,322.95 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0049.0110 8.40 248,667.00 32,218.61 280,885.61 COJNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0049-0110 1.00 30,020.00 3,870.48 33,890.48 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0049-0110 0.25 6,005.00 841.92 6,846.92 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 01-13-72-1120-0049-0110 4.30 110,972.50 11,256.34 122,228.84 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0049.0110 3.00 87,021.00 11,356.76 98,3TT.76 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0049.0110 1.00 28,134.00 3,712.43 31,846.43 - URSES 01-00-20-2134-0049-0110 1.00 31,302.00 3,9TT.91 35,279.91 RINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0049-0110 1 .00 43,786.00 5,024.07 48,810.07 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0049-0110 1 .90 60,372.90 7,633.37 68,006.27 STIPENDS 01-oo-20-xxxx-0049.0110 0.00 4,325.00 362.44 4,687.44 22.85 678,256.40 83,926.28 762,182.68 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0049-0120 2.00 16,858.25 4,122.32 20,980.57 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0049-0120 1.00 9,466.00 2,148.05 11,614.05 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0049-0120 3.00 37,694.00 7,223.16 44,917.16 E CHILDHOCXl AIDES 02-13-02-1105-0049-0120 2.00 9,000.00 3,463.80 12,463.80 INCENTIVE PROGRAM 02-13-64-1120-0049-0120 7.00 68,9TT.OO 15,263.87 84,240.87 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0049-0120 1.00 12,728.00 2,421.41 15,149.41 STIPENDS 02-00-20-XXXX-0049-0120 0.00 192.00 16.09 208.09 16.00 154,915.25 34,658.70 189,573.95 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-20-1120-0049-0300 0.00 11,096.00 0.00 11,096.00 0.00 11,096.00 0.00 11,096.00 Extended Contracts 02-13-74-1120-0049-0300 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 Extended Day/Week - Other 02-13-57-1120-0049-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Extended Day/Week- Stipends 02-13-57-1120-0049-0300 0.00 85,000.00 0.00 85,000.00 Extended Year 02-13-65-1120-0049-0300 0.00 40,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 Page 28 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL Incentive Recognition 02-13-66-1120-0049-0300 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 Incentive Schools - Control 02-13-75-1120-0049-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Staff Development 02-13-73-1120-0049-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Field Trips 02-13-59-1120-0049-0331 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Extended Day/Week - Food 02-13-57-1120-0049-0380 0.00 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 0.00 197,500.00 0.00 197,500.00 38.85 1,041,767.65 118,584.98 1,160,352.63 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: OTTER CREEK CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0050-0110 13.00 382,011.00 49,624.92 431,635.92 COONSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0050-0110 0.80 30,271.00 3,620.55 33,891.55 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0050-0110 0.50 15,117.00 1,944.20 17,061.20 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0050-0110 2.00 63,846.00 8,059.89 71,905.89 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0050-0110 1.00 36,383.00 4,403.70 40,786.70 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0050-0110 0.00 0.00 1,134.80 1,134.80 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0050-0110 1.00 44,835.00 5,111.97 49,946.97 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0050-0110 1.00 27,340.60 3,645.94 30,986.54 STIPENDS 01-oo-20-xxxx-0050-0110 0.00 2,063.20 172.90 2,236.10 19.30 601,866.80 77,718.87 679,585.67 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0050-0120 1.00 13,483.00 2,484.68 15,967.68 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0050-0120 1 .00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTODIANS 02-00-20-2542-0050-0120 2.50 28,655.50 5,788.33 34,443.83 - IBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0050-0120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 Tl PENDS 02-00-20-XXXX-0050-0120 0.00 345.60 28.96 374.56 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0050-0120 4.00 24,527.00 7,474.56 32,001.56 9.50 91,701.10 20,555.15 112,256.25 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-20-1120-0050-0300 0.00 10,824.00 0.00 10,824.00 0.00 10,824.00 0.00 10,824.00 28.80 704,391.90 98,274.02 802,665.92 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: WAKEFIELD CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0051-0110 18.00 520,714.00 68,022.23 588,736.23 COONSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0051-0110 1.00 26,069.50 3,539.42 29,608.92 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0051-0110 0.50 15,379.00 1,966.16 17,345.16 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0051-0110 3.00 83,226.00 11,038.74 94,264.74 LIBRARY 01-oo-20-2222-0051-0110 1.00 33,992.00 4,203.33 38,195.33 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0051-0110 0.40 11,161.60 1,477.26 12,638.86 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0051-0110 1.00 55,318.00 5,990.45 61,308.45 SPECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0051-0110 1 .00 30,234.00 3,888.41 34,122.41 STIPENDS 01-oo-20-xxxx-0051-0110 0.00 2,205.30 184.80 2,390.10 25.90 778,299.40 100,310.80 878,610.20 Page 29 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BLA\u0026gt;GET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOJNT BENEFITS TOTAL CLERCAL 02-00-20-2410-0051-0120 1.00 13,965.00 2,525.07 16,490.07 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0051-0120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTOOJANS 02-00-20-2542-0051-0120 2.50 28,969.00 5,814.60 34,783.60 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0051-0120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0051-0120 0.00 403.20 33.79 436.99 TEACHERS AIDES 02-oo-20-1120-0051-0120 6.90 34,072.30 12,203.38 46,275.68 12.40 102,099.50 25,355.46 127,454.96 BUOGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-20-1120-0051-0300 0.00 13,589.00 0.00 13,589.00 0.00 13,589.00 0.00 13,589.00 38.30 893,987.90 125,666.26 1,019,654.16 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: WATSON 4 YR OLD 01-13-02-1105-0052-0110 1.00 27,904.00 3,693.16 31,597.16 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 01-oo-20-1120-0052-0110 17.00 443,791.00 60,221.29 504,012.29 COUNSELORS 01-oo-20-2120-0052-0110 1.00 27,904.00 3,693.16 31,597.16 COUNSELORS 01-13-27-2120-0052-0110 1.00 27,904.00 3,693.16 31,597.16 GIFTED 01-00-20-1910-0052-0110 0.50 17,058.50 2,106.90 19,165.40 KINDERGARTEN 01-oo-20-1110-0052-0110 3.00 99,867.00 12,433.25 112,300.25 LIBRARY 01-00-20-2222-0052-0110 1.00 28,632.00 3,754.16 32,386.16 NURSES 01-00-20-2134-0052-0110 0.50 10,874.00 1,588.64 12,462.64 PRINCIPAL 01-00-20-2410-0052-0110 2.00 97,319.00 10,864.93 108,183.93 - PECIAL ED 01-oo-20-12xx-0052-0110 2.00 65,060.00 8,161.63 73,221.63 TIPENDS 01-oo-20-xxxx-0052-0110 0.00 5,294.20 443.65 5,737.85 29.00 851,607.70 110,653.93 962,261.63 4 YR OLD AIDES 02-13-02-1105-0052-0120 1 .00 9,713.00 2,168.75 11,881.75 CLERICAL 02-00-20-2410-0052-0120 1.00 13,965.00 2,525.07 16,490.07 COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT 02-13-10-1195-0052-0120 1.00 10,206.00 2,210.06 12,416.06 CUSTOOIANS 02-00-20-2542-0052-0120 3.00 30,936.00 6,656.84 37,592.84 LIBRARY CLERKS 02-13-32-2222-0052-0120 1.00 14,484.00 2,568.56 17,052.56 STIPENDS 02-oo-20-xxxx-0052-0120 0.00 403.20 33.79 436.99 TEACHERS AIDES 02-00-20-1120-0052-0120 5.00 26,078.50 8,959.38 35,037.88 12.00 105,785.70 25,122.45 130,908.15 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-20-1120-0052-0300 0.00 12,523.00 0.00 12,523.00 0.00 12,523.00 0.00 12,523.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-02-1105-0052-0300 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 0.00 6,700.00 41.00 976,616.40 135,776.38 1,112,392.78 Page 30 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: EAST SIDE CUSTODIANS 02-00-00-2542-.0053-0120 1.50 20,563.50 3,755.42 24,318.92 1.50 20,563.50 3,755.42 24,318.92 1.50 20,563.50 3,755.42 24,318.92 SC: OOL/DEPARTMENT: VOCATIONAL COUNSELORS 01-oo-oo-2120-0055.0110 0.66 30,699.90 3,466.82 34, 166.n STAFF 01-oo-oo-2212-0055-0110 1.00 49,526.00 5,505.08 55,031.08 STIPENDS 01-00-00-XXXX-00550110 0.00 2,900.00 243.02 3, 143.02 1.66 83,125.90 9,214.92 92,340.82 STAFF 02-oo-oo-2212-0055-0120 2.00 42,082.00 6,236.07 48,318.07 2.00 42,082.00 6,236.07 48,318.07 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-oo-oo-2212-0055.0300 0.00 178,884.00 0.00 178,884.00 0.00 178,884.00 0.00 178,884.00 3.66 304,091.90 15,450.99 319,542.89 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: MUSIC - UOGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-00-00-2212-0056-0300 0.00 20,703.84 0.00 20,703.84 0.00 20,703.84 0.00 20,703.84 0.00 20,703.84 0.00 20,703.84 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: STAFF DEVELOPMENT STAFF 01-13092212-0059-0110 6.00 263,596.00 30,218.14 293,814.14 STIPENDS 011309-XXXX-0059-0110 0.00 6,534.81 547.62 7,082.43 6.00 270,130.81 30,765.76 300,896.57 STAFF 0213-09-2212-0059-0120 1.00 21,066.00 3,120.13 24,186.13 1.00 21,066.00 3,120.13 24,186.13 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-09-2212-0059-0300 0.00 122,363.00 0.00 122,363.00 0.00 122,363.00 0.00 122,363.00 7.00 413,559.81 33,885.89 447,445.70 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: HEALTH SERVICES NURSES 02-00-00-2134-0060-0120 1.00 33,634.00 4,173.33 37,807.33 STIPENDS 020000-XXXX-0060-0120 0.00 757.00 63.44 820.44 Page 31 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOJNT BENEFITS TOTAL 1.00 34,391.00 4,236.TT 38,627.n BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02000022120060-0300 0.00 21,118.40 0.00 21,118.40 0.00 21,118.40 0.00 21,118.40 1.00 55,509.40 4,236.n 59,746.17 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ANNEX CUSTOOIANS 020000-254200610120 2.00 30,989.00 5,306.48 36,295.48 2.00 30,989.00 5,306.48 36,295.48 2.00 30,989.00 5,306.48 36,295.48 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: LEE/I RC CUSTOOIANS 02000025420062-0120 2.00 28,704.00 5,115.00 33,819.00 SECURITY 0213162587-00620120 1.00 13,978.00 2,526.16 16,504.16 3.00 42,682.00 7,641.16 50,323.16 3.00 42,682.00 7,641.16 50,323.16 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: BOYS ATHLETICS STIPENDS 010000XXXX00630110 0.00 645.54 54.10 699.64 - 0.00 645.54 54.10 699.64 STAFF 02000022120063-0120 1.00 21,066.00 3, 120.13 24, 186.13 1.00 21,066.00 3,120.13 24,186.13 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02000022120063-0300 0.00 139,830.00 0.00 139,830.00 0.00 139,830.00 0.00 139,830.00 1.00 161,541.54 3,174.23 164,715.TT S~HOOL/DEPARTMENT: ASSOC. SUPT EQU !TY STAFF 011306232600640110 2.00 115,018.80 12,348.18 127,366.98 STIPENDS 011306XXXX00640110 0.00 5,100.00 427.38 5,527.38 2.00 120,118.80 12,m.56 132,894.36 CUSTOOIANS 02130625420064-0120 0.63 6,870.78 1,429.30 8,300.08 STAFF 021306232600640120 9.00 221,932.00 30,791.10 252,n3.10 STIPENDS 021306XXXX00640120 0.00 900.00 75.42 975.42 9.63 229,702.78 32,295.82 261,998.60 Page 32 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - E:SCRIPTION BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL BUDGET CONTROL DESEGREGATION 0213-06-2326-0064-0300 0.00 38,240.00 0.00 38,240.00 0.00 38,240.00 0.00 38,240.00 11.63 388,061.58 45,071.38 433,132.96 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: GIFTED STAFF 01-00-00-2212-0065-0110 2.00 85,146.00 9,844.83 94,990.83 STIPENDS 01-00-00-XXXX-00650110 0.00 4,376.00 366.71 4,742.71 2.00 89,522.00 10,211.54 99,733.54 STAFF 02-oo-oo-2212-0065-0120 1 .00 15,134.00 2,623.03 17,757.03 1.00 15,134.00 2,623.03 17,757.03 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-oo-oo-2212-0065-o3oo 0.00 53,548.00 0.00 53,548.00 0.00 53,548.00 0.00 53,548.00 3.00 158,204.00 12,834.57 171,038.57 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: GIRLS ATHLETICS BUDGET CONTROL  OPERATING 02-00-00-2212-0066-oJoo 0.00 43,250.00 0.00 43,250.00 - 0.00 43,250.00 0.00 43,250.00 0.00 43,250.00 0.00 43,250.00 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: MATH STAFF 01-oo-oo-2212-0061-0110 2.00 92,959.00 10,499.56 103,458.56 STIPENDS 010000-XXXX-00670110 0.00 2,188.00 183.35 2,371.35 2.00 95,147.00 10,682.91 105,829.91 STAFF 02-oo-oo-2212-0061-0120 1.00 18,535.00 2,908.03 21,443.03 1.00 18,535.00 2,908.03 21,443.03 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 02-oo-oo-2212-0061-0300 0.00 26,719.20 0.00 26,719.20 0.00 26,719.20 0.00 26,719.20 BUDGET CONTROL DESEGREGATION 0213-12-2212-0067-0300 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 3.00 170,401.20 13,590.94 183,992.14 Page 33 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - ESCRIPTION BUOGET COOE FTE SALARY/AHOONT BENEFITS TOTAL SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: PUPIL PERSONNEL STAFF (To be reassigned) 02-00-00-2212-00690120 2.00 40,993.00 6,144.81 47,137.81 2.00 40,993.00 6,144.81 47,137.81 BUDGET CONTROL DESEGREGATION 021328-2121-0069-0300 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 2.00 42,493.00 6,144.81 48,637.81 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: SUPERINTENDENT SUPERINTENDENT 010000-2321-0070-0110 1 .00 110,000.00 10,572.80 120,572.80 1.00 110,000.00 10,572.80 120,572.80 STAFF 02-00-00-2321-0070-0120 2.00 59,819.00 7,722.43 67,541.43 2.00 59,819.00 7,722.43 67,541.43 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-00-2321-0070-0300 0.00 19,228.00 0.00 19,228.00 0.00 19,228.00 0.00 19,228.00 3.00 189,047.00 18,295.23 207,342.23 SC- DEPARTMENT: PLAN/RESEARCH/EVAL STAFF 01-1322-2623-0071-0110 4.00 162,000.00 18,994.80 180,994.80 STAFF 01-0000-2623-0071-0110 3.00 149,304.00 16,576.08 165,880.08 STIPENDS 0100-00XXXX-0071-0110 0.00 17,222.40 1,443.24 18,665.64 STAFF 0200-00-2623-00710120 4.00 80,849.00 12,194.35 93,043.35 11.00 409,375.40 49,208.47 458,583.87 BUDGET CONTROL  OPERATING 02-00-00-2623-0071-0300 0.00 56,200.00 0.00 56,200.00 0.00 56,200.00 0.00 56,200.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-222623-0071-0300 0.00 14,500.00 0.00 14,500.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 0213-29-2229-00710300 0.00 11,350.00 0.00 11,350.00 0.00 25,850.00 0.00 25,850.00 11.00 491,425.40 49,208.47 540,633.87 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: COMMUNICATIONS STAFF 02-00-00-26320072-0120 1.00 45,732.00 5,187.14 50,919.14 STAFF 02-00-00-2632-0072-0120 4.00 69,807.25 11,269.05 81,076.30 STIPENDS 02-oo-oo-xxxx-0072-0120 0.00 495.42 41.52 536.94 STIPENDS 02-00-00-xxxx-00?2-0120 0.00 900.00 75.42 975.42 Page 34 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL 5.00 116,934.67 16,573.13 133,507.80 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-00-2632-0072-0300 0.00 56,564.00 0.00 56,564.00 0.00 56,564.00 0.00 56,564.00 BUDGET CQ!ITROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-33-2632-0072-0300 0.00 27,000.00 0.00 27,000.00 0.00 27,000.00 0.00 27,000.00 5.00 200,498.67 16,573.13 217,071.80 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: VIPS STAFF 02-oo-oo-2219-0073-0120 4.00 94,423.00 13,331.85 107,754.85 STAFF 02-13-34-2219-0073-0120 3.00 50,100.00 8,262.78 58,362.78 STIPENDS 02-oo-oo-xxxx-0073-0120 0.00 835.00 69.97 904.97 7.00 145,358.00 21,664.60 167,022.60 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-DO-D0-2219-0073-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-34-2219-0073-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 - 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 7.00 160,358.00 21,664.60 182,022.60 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: KLRE BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-00-2229-0074-0300 0.00 86,000.00 0.00 86,000.00 0.00 86,000.00 0.00 86,000.00 0.00 86,000.00 0.00 86,000.00 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF DIRECTORS BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-00-2319-0075-0300 0.00 399,462.00 0.00 399,462.00 0.00 399,462.00 0.00 399,462.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-35-2319-0075-0300 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-22-3800-0075-0300 0.00 196,000.00 0.00 196,000.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-14-4900-0075-0300 0.00 3,800,000.00 0.00 3,800,000.00 0.00 4,001,000.00 0.00 4,001,000.00 0.00 4,400,462.00 0.00 4,400,462.00 Page 35 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOONT BENEFITS TOTAL SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: HIPPY STAFF 021301155000760120 23.00 191,558.67 47,213.02 238, n1 .69 23.00 191,558.67 47,213.02 238,TT1.69 BUDGET CONTROL DESEGREGATION 021301155000760300 0.00 40,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 23.00 231,558.67 47,213.02 278,TT1.69 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: SUPPORT SERVICES Increments \u0026amp; Final Act 10 020000221200800110 0.00 2,194,330.00 0.00 2,194,330.00 0.00 2,194,330.00 0.00 2,194,330.00 CUSTOOIANS 020000254200800120 3.13 53,533.58 8,726.64 62,260.22 STAFF 020000221200800120 3.00 103,149.00 12,708.29 115,857.29 STIPENDS 020000XXXX00800120 0.00 1,200.00 100.56 1,300.56 6.13 157,882.58 21,535.49 179,418.07 BUDGET CONTROL  OPERATING 020000221200800300 0.00 126,280.00 0.00 126,280.00 Debt Service 020000510000800300 0.00 9,597,115.00 0.00 9,597,115.00 Contingency 020000600000800690 0.00 500,000.00 0.00 500,000.00 - ESERVE SCHOOLS 020000261000800690 0.00 190,713.00 0.00 190,713.00 0.00 10,414,108.00 0.00 10,414,108.00 BUDGET CONTROL  DESEGREGATION 021313158000800300 0.00 320,000.00 0.00 320,000.00 BUDGET CONTROL  DESEGREGATION 021349600000800690 0.00 200,000.00 0.00 200,000.00 0.00 520,000.00 0.00 520,000.00 6.13 13,286,320.58 21,535.49 13,307,856.07 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: HUMAN RESOORCES STAFF 010000264200810110 1.00 64,493.00 6,759.31 71,252.31 STIPENDS 010000XXXX00810110 0.00 2,400.00 201.12 2,601.12 SUBST JTUTES  CERTIFIED 010000264200810110 0.00 900,000.00 96,370.00 996,370.00 1.00 966,893.00 103,330.43 1,070,223.43 STAFF 020000264200810120 9.00 186,976.00 27,861.79 214,837.79 STIPENDS 020000XXXX00810120 0.00 504.00 42.24 546.24 SUBSTITUTE OFFICE 020000264200810120 3.00 68,106.00 9,TT1.68 n,8n.68 SUBSTITUTES NON CERTIFIED 020000264200810120 0.00 100,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 TEACHER RECRUITER 021308264200810120 1.00 28,464.00 3,740.08 32,204.08 13.00 384,050.00 41,415.79 425,465.79 Page 36 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - DE'SCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL 'BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 020000264200810300 0.00 17,120.00 0.00 17,120.00 0.00 17,120.00 0.00 17,120.00 BUDGET CONTROL DESEGREGATION 021308264200810300 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 14.00 1,378,063.00 144,746.22 1,522,809.22 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: DATA PROCESSING STAFF 021317266400820120 4.00 100,n3.oo 13,859.79 114,582.79 STAFF 020000266400820120 9.00 264,065.00 34,321.85 298,386.85 STIPENDS 020000XXXX00820120 0.00 1,811.00 151. 76 1,962.76 13.00 366,599.00 48,333.40 414,932.40 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 020000266400820300 0.00 573,880.00 0.00 573,880.00 0.00 573,880.00 0.00 573,880.00 BUDGET CONTROL  DESEGREGATION 021317266400820300 0.00 297,000.00 0.00 297,000.00 BUDGET CONTROL  DESEGREGATION 021324266400820300 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 307,000.00 0.00 307,000.00 - 13.00 1,247,479.00 48,333.40 1,295,812.40 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: TRANSPORTATION DRIVERS 020000255200830120 284.00 2,875,000.00 625,688.20 3,500,688.20 STAFF 020000255400830120 22.00 585,214.00 78,846.53 664,060.53 STIPENDS 020000XXXX00830120 0.00 10,370.00 1,024.56 11,394.56 306.00 3,470,584.00 705,559.29 4,176,143.29 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 020000255400830300 0.00 2,570,306.00 0.00 2,570,306.00 0.00 2,570,306.00 0.00 2,570,306.00 306.00 6,040,890.00 705,559.29 6,746,449.29 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: FINANCIAL SERVICES STAFF 020000252500840120 13.00 335,510.00 45,n8.14 381,238.14 STIPENDS 020000XXXX00840120 0.00 2,854.00 239.17 3,093.17 13.00 338,364.00 45,967.31 384,331.31 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 020000252500840300 0.00 16,640.00 0.00 16,640.00 0.00 16,640.00 0.00 16,640.00 Page 37 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOONT BENEFITS TOTAL 13.00 355,004.00 45,967.31 400,971.31 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING STAFF 02-00-00-2572-0085-0120 16.00 427,972.00 57,540.85 485,512.85 STIPENDS 02-oo-oo-xxxx-0085-0120 0.00 5,876.50 492.45 6,368.95 16.00 433,848.50 58,033.30 491,881.80 BUDGET CONTROL - COPIER 02-00-00-2572-0085-0300 0.00 441,000.00 0.00 441,000.00 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-00-2572-0085-0300 0.00 101,792.00 0.00 101,792.00 BUDGET CONTROL - PRINTING 02-00-00-2572-0085-0300 0.00 130,000.00 0.00 130,000.00 BUDGET CONTROL - TEXTBOOKS 02-00-00-2572-0085-0300 0.00 1,009,020.00 0.00 1,009,020.00 0.00 1,681,812.00 0.00 1,681,812.00 16.00 2,115,660.50 58,033.30 2,173,693.80 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: SAFETY \u0026amp; SECURITY STAFF 02-13-16-2587-0087-0120 4.00 124,711.00 15,869.98 140,580.98 STIPENDS 02-13-16-XXXX-0087-0120 0.00 5,464.00 457.88 5,921.88 4.00 130,175.00 16,327.86 146,502.86 BUDGET CONTROL - SECURITY 02-00-00-2587-0087-0300 0.00 140,000.00 0.00 140,000.00 - 0.00 140,000.00 0.00 140,000.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-16-2587-0087-0300 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 4.00 320,175.00 16,327.86 336,502.86 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: PLANT SERVICES CUST SUBS 02-00-00-2542-0088-0120 0.00 250,000.00 24,700.00 274,700.00 STAFF 02-00-00-2542-0088-0120 68.50 1,688,906.00 234,334.12 1,923,240.12 STIPENDS 02-00-00-xxxx-oosa-0120 0.00 18,252.00 1,529.52 19,781.52 68.50 1,957,158.00 260,563.64 2,217,721.64 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-00-2542-0088-0300 0.00 1,174,258.00 145,020.81 1,319,278.81 BUDGET CONTROL - UTILITIES 02-00-00-2542-0088-0400 0.00 3,421,500.00 367,684.20 3,789,184.20 0.00 4,595,758.00 512,705.01 5,108,463.01 68.50 6,552,916.00 m,268.65 7,326,184.65 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ASSOC. SUPT-CURR IC. STAFF 01-00-00-2212-0089-0110 1.00 65,000.00 6,801.80 71,801.80 STIPENDS 01-oo-oo-xxxx-0089-0110 0.00 3,600.00 301.68 3,901.68 Page 38 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - DESCRlnlON BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL 1.00 68,600.00 7,103.48 75,703.48 STAFF 02-oo-oo-2212-0089-0120 1.00 28,609.00 3,752.23 32,361.23 1 .oo 28,609.00 3,752.23 32,361.23 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-oo-2211-0089-0300 0.00 144,064.72 0.00 144,064.72 0.00 144,064.72 0.00 144,064.72 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-12-2211-0089-0300 0.00 146,362.00 0.00 146,362.00 0.00 146,362.00 0.00 146,362.00 2.00 387,635.72 10,855.71 398,491.43 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: READING STAFF 01-00-00-1560-0090-0110 2.00 202,028.00 10,510.21 212,538.21 STIPENDS 01-oo-oo-xxxx-0090-0110 0.00 2,900.00 243.02 3,143.02 2.00 204,928.00 10,753.23 215,681.23 STAFF 02-00-00-1560-0090-0120 1.00 22,n4.oo 3,263.26 26,037.26 1.00 22,n4.oo 3,263.26 26,037.26 esUOGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-00-1560-0090-0300 0.00 13,200.00 0.00 13,200.00 0.00 13,200.00 0.00 13,200.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-10-1195-0090-0300 0.00 18,000.00 0.00 18,000.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-12-1560-0090-0300 0.00 25,150.00 0.00 25,150.00 0.00 43,150.00 0.00 43,150.00 3.00 284,052.00 14,016.49 298,068.49 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ASSOC. SUPT-CLIMATE ASSOC. SUPT-CLIMATE 01-oo-oo-2211-0091-0110 1.00 69,000.00 7,137.00 76,137.00 STIPENDS 01-oo-oo-xxxx-0091-0110 0.00 3,300.00 276.54 3,576.54 1.00 72,300.00 7,413.54 79,713.54 STAFF 02-oo-oo-2211-0091-0120 1.00 33,574.00 4,168.30 37,742.30 STIPENDS 02-oo-oo-xxxx-0091-0120 0.00 168.00 14.08 182.08 1.00 33,742.00 4,182.38 37,924.38 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-oo-2211-0091-0300 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 Page 39 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUOGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 2.00 116,042.00 11,595.92 127,637.92 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: SCIENCE STAFF 01-oo-oo-2212-0092-0110 1.00 49,480.00 5,501.22 54,981.22 STIPENDS 01-oo-oo-xxxx-0092-0110 0.00 2,688.00 225.25 2,913.25 1.00 52,168.00 5,726.47 57,894.47 STAFF 02-oo-oo-2212-0092-0120 1.00 19,927.00 3,024.68 22,951.68 1.00 19,927.00 3,024.68 22,951.68 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-00-00-2212-0092-0300 0.00 42,584.00 0.00 42,584.00 0.00 42,584.00 0.00 42,584.00 2.00 114,679.00 8,751.15 123,430.15 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ENGLISH STAFF 01-oo-oo-2212-0095-0110 1.00 39,380.00 4,654.84 44,034.84 STIPENDS 01-00-00-XXXX-0095-0110 o.oo 2,188.00 183.35 2,371.35 1.00 41,568.00 4,838.19 46,406.19 - TAFF 02-00-00-2212-0095-0120 1.00 17,221.00 2,797.92 20,018.92 Tl PENDS 02-oo-oo-xxxx-0095-0120 0.00 154.00 12.91 166.91 1.00 17,375.00 2,810.83 20,185.83 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-oo-2212-0095-0300 0.00 21,440.00 0.00 21,440.00 0.00 21,440.00 0.00 21,440.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-12-2212-0095-0300 0.00 15,731.00 0.00 15,731.00 0.00 15,731.00 0.00 15,731.00 2.00 96,114.00 7,649.02 103,763.02 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN STAFF 01-13-15-2212-0097-0110 1.00 37,284.00 4,479.20 41,763.20 STAFF 01-00-00-2212-0097-0110 15.00 520,682.00 63,955.15 584,637.15 STIPENDS 01-00-00-XXXX-0097-0110 0.00 17,445.20 1,461.91 18,907.11 16.00 575,411.20 69,896.26 645,307.46 STAFF 02-oo-oo-2212-0097-0120 13.00 280,238.00 41,096.34 321,334.34 13.00 280,238.00 41,096.34 321,334.34 Page 40 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-oo-2212-0097-0300 0.00 522, 98_7 .20 0.00 522,987.20 0.00 522,987.20 0.00 522,987.20 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-15-2212-0097-0300 0.00 17,361.00 0.00 17,361.00 o.oo 17,361.00 0.00 17,361.00 29.00 1,395,997.40 110,992.60 1,506,990.00 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: NEIi FUTURES BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-oo-2212-0095.0300 0.00 530,400.00 0.00 530,400.00 0.00 530,400.00 0.00 530,400.00 0.00 530,400.00 0.00 530,400.00 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: INSTRUCTIONAL MATER! STAFF 01-13-10-1195-0099-0110 2.00 88,930.00 10,161.93 99,091.93 STAFF 01-13-32-22120099-0110 1.00 40,348.00 4,735.96 45,083.96 STIPENDS 01-00-00-XXXX-0099-0110 0.00 3,502.00 293.47 3,795.47 3.00 132,780.00 15,191.36 147,971.36 STAFF 02-oo-oo-2212-0099-0120 4.00 94,668.00 13,352.38 108,020.38 - TAFF 02-13-10-1195-0099-0120 1.00 11,034.00 2,279.45 13,313.45 TAFF 02-13-32-2212-0099-0120 1.00 16,937.00 2,774.12 19,711.12 STIPENDS 02-00-00-XXXX-0099-0120 0.00 1,737.00 145.56 1,882.56 6.00 124,376.00 18,551.51 142,927.51 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-oo-2212-0099-0300 0.00 5,616.00 0.00 5,616.00 0.00 5,616.00 0.00 5,616.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DE SEGRE GA Tl ON 02-13-12-2212-0099-0300 0.00 5,625.00 0.00 5,625.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DE SEGRE GA Tl ON 02-13-10-1195-0099-0300 0.00 1,115,714.00 0.00 1,115,714.00 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-32-2212-0099-0300 0.00 152,250.00 0.00 152,250.00 0.00 1,273,589.00 0.00 1,273,589.00 9.00 1,536,361.00 33,742.87 1,570,103.87 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: GILLAM CUSTODIANS 02-00-00-2542-0101-0120 0.50 6,950.50 1,259.85 8,210.35 0.50 6,950.50 1,259.85 8,210.35 0.50 6,950.50 1,259.85 8,210.35 Page 41 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET COOE FTE SALARY/AMOONT BENEFITS TOTAL SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS COORDINATOR 01-13-51-221~-0120-0110 1.00 54,269.00 5,902.54 60,171.54 STIPENDS 011351-XXXX-0120-0110 0.00 900.00 75.42 975.42 1.00 55,169.00 5,9n.96 61,146.96 BUDGET CONTROL  DESEGREGATION 021351-2212-0120-0300 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 C~ter Labs 021354-1120-0120-0300 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 C~ter Loan Program 021356-1120-0120-0300 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Foreign Language 02-1356-1120-0120-0300 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 Science Labs 02-13-53-1120-0120-0300 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 Writing to Read 02-13-52-1120-0120-0300 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 Extended Day/Week - Transport. 02-13-57-1120-0120-0331 0.00 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 Transportation 02-13611120-0120-0331 0.00 20,000.00 0.00 20,000.00 0.00 139,500.00 0.00 139,500.00 1.00 194,669.00 5,9n.96 200,646.96 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: HEARING OFFICER STAFF 0113-05-2212-0121-0110 1.00 50,041.00 5,548.24 55,589.24 STIPENDS 011305-XXXX-0121-0110 0.00 3,639.00 304.95 3,943.95 1.00 53,680.00 5,853.19 59,533.19 - TAFF 02-13-052212-0121-0120 1.00 19,927.00 3,024.68 22,951.68 Tl PENDS 02-13-05-XXXX-01210120 0.00 168.00 14.08 182.08 1.00 20,095.00 3,038.76 23,133.76 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-05-2212-0121-0300 0.00 16,420.00 0.00 16,420.00 0.00 16,420.00 0.00 16,420.00 2.00 90,195.00 8,891.95 99,086.95 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-26-3100-0125-0300 0.00 115,000.00 0.00 115,000.00 0.00 115,000.00 0.00 115,000.00 0.00 115,000.00 0.00 115,000.00 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: RISK MANAGEMENT STAFF 02-oo-oo-2212-0121-0120 1.00 35,424.00 4,323.33 39,747.33 STIPENDS 02-oo-oo-xxxx-0121-0120 0.00 900.00 75.42 975.42 1 .00 36,324.00 4,398.75 40,722.75 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 0200-002589-0127-0300 0.00 1,068,440.00 0.00 1,068,440.00 Page 42 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 199293 - ESCRIPTION BUDGET CODE FTE SALARY/AMOUNT BENEFITS TOTAL 0.00 1,068,440.00 0.00 1,068,440.00 1.00 1,104,764.00 4,398.75 1,109,162.75 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: SOCIAL STUDIES STAFF 020000-258901280120 2.00 60,307.00 7,763.33 68,070.33 STIPENDS 020000XXXX01280120 0.00 688.00 57.65 745.65 2.00 60,995.00 7,820.98 68,815.98 BUDGET CONTROL OPERATING 020000-221201280300 0.00 6,412.00 0.00 6,412.00 0.00 6,412.00 0.00 6,412.00 BUDGET CONTROL  DESEGREGATION 021312-221201280300 0.00 17,447.00 0.00 17,447.00 0.00 17,447.00 0.00 17,447.00 2.00 84,854.00 7,820.98 92,674.98 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ASST SUPT SECONDARY STAFF 0100002212-01290110 1.00 55,120.00 5,973.86 61,093.86 STIPENDS 010000XXXX01290110 0.00 1,200.00 100.56 1,300.56 1.00 56,320.00 6,074.42 62,394.42 - UDGET CONTROL OPERATING 0200002211-01290300 0.00 25,498.00 0.00 25,498.00 0.00 25,498.00 0.00 25,498.00 BUDGET CONTROL DESEGREGATION 02132722110129-0300 0.00 122,600.00 0.00 122,600.00 0.00 122,600.00 0.00 122,600.00 1 .oo 204,418.00 6,074.42 210,492.42 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ASST SUPT GREMILLION STAFF 01000022120130-0110 2.00 74,478.00 8,950.86 83,428.86 STIPENDS 010000XXXX01300110 0.00 1,368.00 114 .64 1,482:64 2.00 75,846.00 9,065.50 84,911.50 BUDGET CONTROL  OPERATING 02000022110130-0300 0.00 8,930.00 0.00 8,930.00 0.00 8,930.00 0.00 8,930.00 2.00 84,TT6.00 9,065.50 93,841.50 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ASST SUPT ROBERTSON STAFF 0100002212-01310110 2.00 70,055.00 8,580.21 78,635.21 Page 43 Little Rock School District 07/23/92 Budget 1992-93 - ESCRIPTION BLX\u0026gt;GET COOE FTE SALARY/AMCXJNT BENEFITS TOTAL STIPENDS 01-oo-oo-xxxx-0131-0110 0.00 1,368.00 114.64 1,482.64 2.00 71,423.00 8,694.85 80,117.85 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-oo-2211-0131-0300 0.00 8,855.00 0.00 8,855.00 0.00 8,855.00 0.00 8,855.00 2.00 80,278.00 8,694.85 88,972.85 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ASSOC. SUPT-CURR IC. 4 YR OLD DIR 01-13-02-1105-0132-0110 1.00 56,919.00 6,124.61 63,043.61 1 .00 56,919.00 6,124.61 63,043.61 BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION 02-13-02-1105-0132-0300 0.00 27,000.00 0.00 27,000.00 0.00 27,000.00 0.00 27,000.00 1.00 83,919.00 6,124.61 90,043.61 SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT: ADULT EDUCA Tl ON STAFF 02-oo-oo-2212-0714-0120 14.50 479,971.14 59,866.18 539,837.32 STAFF 02-oo-oo-2212-0714-0120 7.00 91,929.50 17,187.29 109,116.79 STIPENDS 02-oo-oo-xxxx-0714-0120 0.00 1,500.00 125. 70 1,625.70 - BUDGET CONTROL 21.50 573,400.64 77,179.17 650,579.81 - OPERATING 02-oo-oo-2212-0714-0300 0.00 9,900.37 0.00 9,900.37 BUDGET CONTROL - OPERATING 02-oo-oo-2212-0714-0300 0.00 -2,475.09 0.00 -2,475.09 0.00 7,425.28 0.00 7,425.28 21.50 580,825.92 77,179.17 658,005.09 2,879.69 105,631,127.09 10,241,433.25 115,872,560.34 1992-93 BUDGET -CENTRAL FU-SF-IO-FUNC-UNIT-OBJECT OPERATIONAL UNIT CODE: 0001 ADOPTED BUDGET 02.00.40.1140.0001.0300 __ --- .. _____ 02.oo.40.1140.0001.0326 02.oo.40.1140.0001.0342 02.00.40.1140.0001.0360 -------------- __ 02. o a. 40  .1140. o oo 1. 041 o 02.oo.40.1140.0001.0361 02.00.40.2410.0001.0410 ____ - _ .02.oo.40.1110.000.1.0410 02.oo.40.1110.0001.0412 02.00.40.2410.0001.0416 . ------- 02.00.40.2222.0001.0416--. - ---- -- - --- 02.00.40.1140.000l.0416 02.00.40.1140.0001.0421 02.00.40.1140.0001.0548 02.00.40.2410.0001.0548 02.oo.40.1110.0001.0416 ---- 02.00.40.1140.0001.0540 . -- --- - -- ... - ---- 02. 00.40.2410.0001. 0540 M-TO-M MAGNET SQIOOL 02.13.18.1145.0001.0300 CONTROL ACCOUNT- TOTAL _02.13.18.1145.0001.0416 02.13.18.1145.0001.0410 02.13.18.1145.0001.0421 02.13.18.1145.000l.0540 - 02.13.18.1145.000l.0548 CONTROL ACCOUNT. -TOT AL---- . 67,952.00 ----------------- 67,952.00 15,000.00 1992-93 BUDGET -HALL FU-SF-IO-FUNC-UNIT-OBJECT _o2.ao.40.1140.0002.0300 02.00.40.1140.0002.0326 02.oo.40.1140.0002.0342 -- ------- - - - - _ . 02.00.40.1140.0002.0360 . 02.00.40.2410.0002.0410 02.00.40.1140.0002.0410 02.oo.40.2222.0002.0410 02.oo.40.1110.0002.0410 02.00.40.1140.0002.0361 - ----- _ - - ---  -  02.oo.40.1110.0002.0412 02.oo.40.2222.0002.0416 _  - - ---------- _02.00.40.2410.0002.0416 02.oo.40.1110.0002.0416 02.oo.40.1140.0002.0416 ____ 02.oo.40.1140.0002.0421 ----- - -  g~:gg::~:i\n!~:gg~~:~~:~ OPERATIONAL UNIT CODE: 0002 ADOPTED BUDGET __ __ _ ________ .Q2.. 00.40.1140. 0002.0548 . - - - . - ----- -- - 02.00.40. 2410.0002.054S ------------- ---------- ------------ - - --CONTROL- ACCOUNl\"-+OTAL ------ - - --36~4-.-00- 1992-93 BUDGET Page 1 of 2 -METROPOLITAN FU-SF-IO-FUNC-UNIT-OBJECT OPERATIONAL UNIT CODE: 0004 ADOPTED BUDGET ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 02.oo.oo.1140.0004.0300 02.oo.oo.114o.ooo4.o326 02.oo.oo.1140.0004.0342 02.oo.oo.1140.0004.0360 02.oo.oo.1140.0004.0361 02.oo.oo.1140.0004.0410 02.oo.oo.1140.0004.os40 02.oo.oo.1140.0004.os4B 02.oo.oo.114o.ooo4.o630 02.00.oo.1333.0004.0326 02.oo.oo.1333.0004.0360 02.oo.oo.1333.0004.0361 02.oo.oo.1333.0004.0410 02.oo.oo.1333.0004.0416 02.oo.oo.1333.0004.0421 oz.oo.oo.1333.ooo4.o440 02.oo.oo.1333.0004.0540 02.oo.oo.1333.0004.0548 02.oo.0J.1341.0004.0326 02.10.oo.1341.0004.0360 02.oo.oo.1341.0004.0361 02.oo.oo.1341.0004.0410 02.oo.Jo.1341.0004.0416 02.oo.oo.1341.0004.0421 02.oo.oo .. 1341.0004.0440 . 02.oo.oo.1341.0004.0540 02.oo.oo.1341.0004.0548 02.oo.oo.1353.0004.0311 02.oo.oo.1353.0004.0312 02.oo.oo.13s3.0004.o326 02.00. 00.1353.0004. 0333 -  -- -- - 02. oo .oo.1353.0004.0350 02.oo.oo.1353.ooo4.o360 02.oo.oo.1353.ooo4.o361 02.oo.oo.1353. 0 004.0410 0 2.oo.oo.13s3.0004.0416 02 ... oo.oo.1353.0004.0421 -- - --- - - - 02.oo.oo.13s3.0004.0440 02.oc.oo.1353.0004.0450 02.oo.oo.1353.0004.0540 02.oc .oo.13s3.0004.0548 0 2 .oo.oo.1354.0004.0333 02.00 .. 00.1354.00~4.041~ 336,450.00 - ---- --- 02.oo.oo.13s4.0004.0416 02.oo.oo.2120.0004.0410 02.o~.oo.2120..0004.04l..b------------- -- 02.oo.oo.2s39.0004.032l 02.oo.oo.zs39.0004.0322 02.oo..-00-253.9 ... ..l.004.1l32.3- ------- 1992-93 BUDGET -METROPOLITAN FU-SF-IO-FUNC-UNIT-OBJECT 02.oo.oo.zs39.0004.0326 02.oo.oo.zs39.0004.03z9 02.oo.oo.zs39.0004.o341 02.oo.oo.2s39.0004.0390 02.oo.oo.2s39.0004.0410 02.oo.oo.2s39.0004.0411 02.oo.oo.2s39.0004.0416 02.oo.oo.2s39.0004.o4s1 02.oo.oo.2s39.0004.04s2 02.oo.oo.2s39.0004.o4B3 02. oo.oo_.2539.0004.o4B4 ____ 02.oo.oo.2539.0004.04s5 02.oo.oo.2539.ooo4.o486 02.oo.oo.2s39.0004.04s1 02.oo.oo.2539.0004.04aa 02.oo.oo.2s39.0004.0489 02.oo.oo.2s39.0004.os4o __ 02.oo.oo.2s39.0004.os4s Page 2 of 2 OPERATIONAL UNIT CODE: 0004 ADOPI'ED BUDGET CONTROL ACCuUNT TOTAL 336,450.00 1992-93 BUDGET -DUNBAR FU-SF-IO-FUNC-UNIT-OBJECT OPERATIONAL UNIT CODE: 0007 ADOPTED BUDGET ----- --.02.00.30.ll.30.0007.0300 -- ------ ------ ----- --- 02.00.30.1130.0007.0326 02.oo.30.1130.0001.0342 02.oo.30.1130.0001.0360 . . .. _ . _ 02.0C.30.1130.0007.0361 02.oo.30.2222.0001.0410 -- 02.00.30.1130.0007 . 0410 02.00.30.2410.0007.0410 02.00.30.2410.0007.0416 -02.00.30.1130.0007.0416 02.oo.30.2222.0001.0416 02.00.30.1130.0007.0421 02.oo.30.1130.0001.0540 . 02.00.30~2410.0007.0540 02.oo.30.1130.0001.054g . _ -. 02.oo.30.24.1.o .. 0001 .. os4s --------- CONTROL ACCOUNT TOTAL M-1D-M MAGNET SCHOOL 02.13.18.1135.0007.0300 02.13.18.1135.0007.0421 -- -- .. . CONTROL ACCOUNT .TOTAL ----- - 2a,s20.oo 28,820.00 36,ooo.oo 36~000.00 1992-93 BUDGET -FAIR OPERATIONAL UNIT CODE: 0008 FU-SF-IO-FUNC-UNIT-OBJECT ------------------------------------------------------------- ___ 02.oo  .40.1140  . 00013.0300 . ____ __ __ _ _____ _ ____ . __ 02.00.40.1140.000B.0326 02.00.40.1140.ooos.0342 ------- __________ 02..0.0 . 40.1140.000B.0360 ____ ___ __ ___ ___ ________ _ 02.00.40.1140.0008.0361 02.00.40.2410.0008.0410 02 .. 00.40.2222.oooa.0410 _________ ___ . __ 02.00.40.1110.oooa.0410 02.00.40.1140.0008.0410 ------ ___________ 02.00.40.1110.oooa.0412 .. 02.00.40.1140.0008.0416 02.oo.40.1110.oooa.0416 _02.00.40.2222.ooos.0416 02.00.40.2410.0008.0416 02.00.40.1140.0008.0421 ----- - - -- 02.00.40.2410.0008.0540 ----------- 02. oo.40.1140. oooa.0540 02.00.40.2410.0008.0549 02.00.40.1140.0008.0548 CONTROL ACCOUNT TOTAL ADOPTED BUDGET 35.,036.DC 35,036.00 -FOREST HEIGHTS FU-SF-IO-FUNC-UNIT-OBJECT 1992-93 BUDGET OPERATIONAL UNIT CODE: 0009 ADOPTED BUDGET --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02.00.30.1130.0009.0300 02.oo.30.1130.0009.0326 02.00.30.1130.0009.0342 29,396.00 ________________ 02.oo.30.11.30.0009.0360 _ ______ __________ _ _ 02.00.30.1130.0009.0361 02.oo.30.2222.0009.0410 ---- ----- ----- -- 02.oo.30.1130.0009.0410 ____ -- __ -- --- - -----  --- -- - - - 02.00.30.2410.0009.0410 02.oo.30.2222.0009.0416 ---- - 02.oo.30.1130.0009.0416 -- .. _ ---------- -- ----- -- 02.oo.30.2410.0009.0416 02.00.30.1130.0009.0421 - -------02.oo....:io.1-130 .. 0009.0540 _ __ _ _ ------------ 02.00.30.2410.0009.0540 02.00.30.1130.0009.0548 - - - -  ----- _ 02. 00.30.24.10. 0009 ... 054..a -- CONTROL ACCOUNT TOTAL - --- - - ----- -- ---- ---- - -- - -------------- 1992-93 BUDGET PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR FU-SF-IO-FUNC-UNIT-OBJECT OPERATIONAL UNIT CODE: 0010 ADOPTED BUDGET 02.D0.30.1130.0010.0300 . --- -- ------ _ 02.oo .. 30.1130.0010.0326-- ______ ..... 02.00.30.1130.0010.0342 02.00~30.1130.0010.0360 ------- - ------- 02.00.30.1130.0010.0361-----~--- - -- - -- ------ -- 02. 00.30.2410.0010. 0410 02.oo.30.2222.0010.0410 .. ------ - 02.00.30.1130.0010.0410 . - --. _ 02.00.30.2410.0010.0416 02.00.30.1130.0010.0416 02.00.30 .. 2222.0010. 0416 _____________ 02. oo. 30.1130.0010. 0421 02.oo.30.2410.0010.os40 02.00.30.1130.0010.0540 02.00.30.2410.0010.0548 02.oo.30.1130.0010.0548 28,496.00 - --- -------- ----------------- CONTROL ACCOUNT TOTAL 28,496.00 1992-93 BUDGET -SOUTHWEST FU-SF-IO-FUNC-UNIT-OB.JECT OPERATIONAL UNIT CODE: 0011 ADOPTED BUDGET 02.oo.30.1130.0011.0300 02.oo.30.1130.0011.0326 - 02.oo.30.1130.0011.0342 .---------- ---- 02.oo.30.1130.0011.0360 02.00.30.1130.0011.0361 - - ------- - - _D2.00.30.ll.30.00.l1.0410- -- -- ____ _____ 02.oo.30.2222.0011.0410 02.oo.30.2410.0011.0410 ------- -----. _ 02.oo.30.1130.00-11,.0416 02.oo.30.2222.0011.0416 02.oo.30.2410.0011.0416 ___ _ ______ _ _ 02.oo.30.1130.0011.0421 02.oo.30.2410.0011.0540 _____ __ 02.oo.30.1130.0011.os40 02. 00 :30.1130. 0011. 0548 _ ____ , 02.oo.30.2410.0011.os4s --- CONTROL ACCOUNT TOTAL 29,072.00 1992-93 BUDGET -McCLELLAN FU-SF-IO-FUNC-UNIT-OBJECT OPERATIONAL UNIT CODE: 0012 ADOPTED BUDGET --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02.00.40.1140.0012.0300 ---- -- ------- --- 02.oo.40.1140 . 0012.0326 _ 02.~0.40.1140.0012.0342 02.00.40.1140.0012.0360 38,603.00 _ _________ 02.oo.40.1140.0012.0361----- ---------- - - -- - --------- 02.oo.40.2222.0012.0410 02.oo.40.1110.0012.0410 ------- ---- 02.00..40..ll.40...0012.0410 .. _____ -- _________ ------ - ----- ---- --- --- - - -  - 02.oo.40.2410.0012.0410 02.oo.40.1110.0012.0412  02.oo.40.2222.0012.0416 . 02.oo.40.1140.0012.0416 02.oo.40.1110.0012.0416 ___ . ___ 02 .. oo.40.2410.0.012.0416. ___ _ 02.oo.40.1140.0012.0421 ___ . ___ o.2.oo.40.241\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_542","title":"Little Rock Schools: Chicot Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","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":["1992/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Chicot Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/542"],"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\nreceived Attn. Ann Brown JUL 2 1993 Little Rock School District Desegregation Office o\nCS o' DessgregsGon .Mc-n o.'ir,g 201 E. Markham Heritage West Building Suite 510 Little Rock, AR. 72201 Dear Ms. Brown\n1 am writing this correspondence in behalf of the Chicot Elementary P.T.A. (representing staff and parents) We have monitored capital needs to our school for the past few years. We have tried to the best of our ability to maintain the upkeep of our facility. However it is impossible to prevent the wear and tear on certain items when serving a large number of pupils daily. Our carpet throughout the school is in desperate need of repair. We are requesting your assistance school is in desperate need of repair. We are requesting your assistance on a special project of work toward recarpeting on our entire building. We appreciate the financial commitment you have given us throughout the years. Please let us know at what capacity you can help us. We will be eagerly awaiting your isponse. iTicerely, Tina Gatson Chicot Elementary PTA Chairman d.o.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date\nSeptember 22, 1993 To: From: Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent in Brown, Federal Monitor Subject Construction at Chicot Last April 30,1993, the Court approved LRSDs motion to build a cafetorium at Chicot Elementary School. 1 was pleased to learn of the districts intention to add a cafeteria to Chicot, and the Courts approval, because my staff and 1 had been concerned about conditions we observed at Chicot when we visited the school last spring. You will recall that Associate Monitor Melissa Guldin testified about Chicot during a March 19, 1993 hearing on the impact of LRSD 1992-93 budget cuts. In her testimony, Melissa pointed out that Chicot is the only school in the district without a cafeteria, meaning that the children must eat in their classrooms, thereby creating additional demands on the schools custodians. On September 9, 1993, members of my staff made an informal visit to Chicot to look over e new cafetorium, only to find that construction on the facility had not even begun. Yet, in its motion for approval of construction projects that included the Chicot cafetorium, the LRSD stressed that the project was part of promises made to the public in exchange for approval of a millage increase in April 1990. The motion also states that the district \"plans to have the [Chicot] cafetorium constructed in time for the beginning of the 1993-94 school year.\" The Court has repeatedly admonished the district about the importance of keeping its commitments to the community. If we ever again expect to ask the public to approve a millage increase, we must be able to point to promises kept as evidence that the district can be trusted to keep its word and act quickly on its pledges. 1 would appreciate your answering the following questions so 1 can report to the Court as a follow-up to the April order on Chicot: 1. When is construction of the Chicot cafetorium scheduled to begin? 2. When is the construction scheduled for completion? 3. Why was the Chicot project not completed before the beginning of the 1993-94 school year? 4. How has the district determined the construction schedule for the Chicot cafetorium? 5. If Chicots construction is undertaken during the school year, how does the district plan to minimize the disruption the building project will have on the academic day?Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: September 22, 1993 To: From: Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent in Brown, Federal Monitor Subject- Construction at Chicot Last April 30, 1993, the Court approved LRSDs motion to build a cafetorium at Chicot Elementary School. 1 was pleased to learn of the districts intention to add a cafeteria to Chicot, and the Courts approval, because my staff and 1 had been concerned about conditions we observed at Chicot when we visited the school last spring. You will recall that Associate Monitor Melissa Guldin testified about Chicot during a March 19, 1993 hearing on the impact of LRSD 1992-93 budget cuts. In her testimony, Melissa pointed out that Chicot is the only school in the district without a cafeteria, meaning that the children must eat in their classrooms, thereby creating additional demands on the schools custodians. On September 9,1993, members of my staff made an informal visit to Chicot to look over the new cafetorium, only to find that construction on the facility had not even begun. Yet, in its motion for approval of construction projects that included the Chicot cafetorium, the LRSD stressed that the project was part of promises made to the public in exchange for approval of a millage increase in April 1990. The motion also states that the district \"plans to have the [Chicot] cafetorium constructed in time for the beginning of the 1993-94 school year.\" The Court has repeatedly admonished the district about the importance of keeping its commitments to the community. If we ever again expect to ask the public to approve a millage increase, we must be able to point to promises kept as evidence that the district can be trusted to keep its word and act quickly on its pledges. 1 would appreciate your answering the following questions so 1 can report to the Court as a follow-up to the April order on Chicot: 1. When is construction of the Chicot cafetorium scheduled to begin? 2. When is the construction scheduled for completion? 3. Why was the Chicot project not completed before the beginning of the 1993-94 school year? 4. How has the district determined the construction schedule for the Chicot cafetorium? 5. If Chicots construction is undertaken during the school year, how does the district plan to minimize the disruption the building project will have on the academic day?MEMORANDUM Date: September 16, 1993 From: Melissa To: Ann Subject: Chicot Construction Due to the brevity of our visit to Chicot Elementary School, it was not included in the summary of our September 9,1993 site visits. Upon arriving at Chicot, we asked to see the new cafeteria. The secretary told us that the cafeteria construction had not begun. We also spoke to the principal and he said that Doug Eaton informed him that construction would probably begin in January 1994. Since we travelled to the school only to look at the new construction, we left immediately after talking to the principal. After returning to the office, I checked the court record and noted that the Chicot construction project received court approval on April 30, 1993.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS SEP 2 9 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 28, 1993 Oifics of Oesegfesstion Zoiiwiina Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent 1. Construction at Chicot 2. State Standards - Class Sizes This communication is a follow-up of your letter dated September 22, 1993, in which you requested information regarding the construction of the cafeteria at Chicot Elementary School. I have visited with Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services, and Larry Robertson, Associate Superintendent for Chicot, in order to provide the requested information. Doug Eaton has a previously-scheduled meeting with the architects for this project on September 29, 1993, at 9 a.m. I will have a more accurate schedule for the completion of the project tomorrow. A communication that includes responses to your letter will then be forwarded to you. On September 24, 1993, a meeting was held to re-assess staff needs of our elementary schools as we are aware of several classrooms that exceed state standards. Brady Gadberry is meeting today with Frank Martin, Executive Director of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, to review the process used to move existing teachers to schools where the student enrollment indicates a need for additional staff. All schools will be staffed in compliance with Arkansas State Standards for Accreditation as of October 1, 1993. Your assistance in this matter is deeply appreciated. /Ikse LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVE OCT October 1, 1993 1 1993 Office of Pesegregauor\nTO: FROM: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring ^^Idle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Construction at Chicot This communication is a response to your memorandum dated September 22, 1993, and received in our office on September 24, 1993. 1. When is construction of the Chicot cafetorium scheduled to begin? The actual construction of the cafetorium is scheduled to begin February 1, 1994. The decision was reached with the architect/engineer and our director of plant services. 2. When is construction scheduled for completion? The Chicot cafetorium is scheduled to be completed by July, 1994. 3. Why was the Chicot project not completed before the beginning of the school year? Following the districts March, 1993, filing, the district began to advertise for an architectural/engineering firm to do the bond work for the next school year. This process was completed in April and assignments were initiated in May. On May 14, 1993, the director of Plant Services, Doug Eaton, identified and contracted an architectural/engineering firm to do the Chicot project. The preliminary Scope of Work was completed on or about June 15, 1993. During the summer of 1993, theConstruction at Chicot Page 2 readjustments to the budget, scheduling the completion of ongoing projects, and the preparation for the start of the school year caused certain projects to be delayed. Plant Services accelerated its activities and covered projects necessary for the opening of schools. Delays due to the lengthy budgetary process and other projects caused the Chicot project not to proceed on its originally-intended schedule. 4. 5. How has the district determined the construction schedule for the Chicot cafetorium? The construction schedule for the Chicot cafetorium is done in concert with the architectural/engineering firms by analyzing the size of the project, the anticipated duration to construct a project of this size, and by allowing for design time and contractual advertising. If Chicots cafetorium construction is undertaken during the school year, how does the district plan to minimize the disruption during the academic day? The Chicot cafeteria expansion will be a stand-alone building which will be connected to the new building with a hallway. By working closely with the principal, there should be no disruption to the academic day. During e latter part of July, I instructed Larry Robertson to secure from Otis Preslar, principal of Chicot, and Doug Eaton a status report regarding this project. From this point, we have been closely attuned to getting this project back on schedule. The district is committed to completing this project in a manner that provides for the needs of our students and our community. Please contact me if further information is needed.ODM Visits to LRSD Schools, Opening Days 1994 Chicot Elementary School We -were pleased to note that:  The entire school was very clean, despite the mess created by the ongoing construction of the cafeteria.  The exterior of the new cafeteria harmonizes with the existing building in both design and materials.  Students were triendly and outgoing.  Bathrooms we visited were clean, stocked, and operational.  New floor tiles had replaced the dirty, worn carpet in the main corridor. We also noted some areas needing attention.  The new cafeteria was still unfinished when monitors visited during the second week of classes.  A serious drainage problem on the south side of the building resulted in cascades of water entering the building during rainstorms.  Carpeting throughout the building was stained, worn, and stretched from more than 15 years of use.  Some classrooms and the counselors' offices had serious leaks.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 Date: December 2, 1994 To: Doug Eaton From: Subject: Brown Meeting of Committee on Rebuilding Chicot Elementary Last month I received a November 11,1994 letter from Dr. Williams about serving on a committee for rebuilding Chicot. 1 was pleased to accept the superintendents invitation. His letter read that 1 could expect to hear from you about the work of the committee. As yet, 1 havent learned of a meeting timetable or of who is serving on the committee. Please let me know what dates you have identified for convening this group. My office calendar fills rapidly, and 1 want to be able to attend or send a representative to these meetings since Im very interested in the Chicot community, as well as the entire southwest section of our city. Thank you very much. cc: Hank WilliamsCe.' Little Rock School District RECElVSh DEC 9 1994 December 7, 1994 0ffi6Q of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, ODM Heritage West Building, Room #510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: On November 11th, Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools, requested that you serve on a committee to assist the District in its course of action regarding the rebuilding of Chicot Elementary School. The first meeting of this committee will be December 13th, 1994, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.. in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street. The purpose of this meeting will be to update the committee on the actions that have occurred since the fire on October 13th to discuss the general process that the District must pursue in rebuilding the school. committee in this District's process. and to determine the interplay of the Should you not be able to attend, please contact me at 570-4020. incerely, DCE/rlh/cesc cc: CL Di luglas C. Eaton DIRECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 1 Little Rock School District December 9, 1994 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, ODM Heritage West Building, Room #510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 OWice BiC 1 2 W* ^g5p3^ Dear Ann: This is to advise you that the Chicot Rebuilding Committee meeting originally set for 4:00 pm, tuesday December 13th. has been changed to 5:00 pm. tuesday December 13th. It will still be held in the Little Rock School District Board room at 810 W. Markham st. Sihcerely, Do las' Eaton Director of Plant Services 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 Dec. 12 1994 09:56AM F2 To: Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham #510 Little Rock, AR. 72201 From: John York 7324 Knollwood Little Rock, AR. 72209 December 10,1994 Dear Ms Brown, I am writing to you in regards to the recent actions taken by Dr. WiOiaxns, and others concerning the rebuilding of Chicot School and the closure of Watson. 1 am not completely positive as to who started what and how. What I am positive about, is that the residents of the Fairfield Sub-Drvision were completely left out of the process which has lead to the current recommendations. Those recommendations being to close Watson School and merge it's population into a new and expanded Chicot School. It is also my understanding that Dr. Williams made statements regarding the staff of Watson and the Failfield residents to the affect that this issue was none of our concern, \" This is School Busmess\". It was not until I learned of the actions of the District and fire Chicot PTA, and began to raise a ruckus, that the Fairfield residents were contacted regarding these plans. As of the date of this letter the District has failed to recognize the Fairfield Sub-Division. The Chicot School PTA did contact us regarding this issue and invited us to attend a meeting scheduled for Dec 11, 2 p.m., at McClellan High School. This has been are only contact until board member Gee called me this evening. If my interpretation of the Desegregation Plans are correct Dr. Williams statements and actions are in direct contempt of die court ordered plan. Specifically sections 2.c., 3.c., and 3.d. listed under Parent involvement / Community linkages. And, sections 9.b, and 9.c., listed under Public Relations in the Inter District plait The latter specifically instructs the District to \" immediately inform die public\", and to  refrain from springing surprises*. I would greatly appreciate your opinion on this situation as well as copies of any court orders in support or opposition of my position, including the court order dated 11/4/91. It would probably be in die best interest of the community if Judge Wright was aware of the situation as well. Thank You for your time and interest t i/ * FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. Dec. 12 1994 09:57AM P3 : 562 i I To : Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Maikham # 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 From: John York 7324 Knollwood Little Rock, AR. 72209 December 11, 1994 Dear Ms Brown, After attending the meeting held at McCleOan High School this afternoon, I felt that this supplemental to my letter dated December10, 1994 was necessary in order to validate certain statements in that letter and statements made during the meeting. First of aH I made statements in die letter, and at the meeting regarding the fact that residents of the Fairfield Subdivision were not contacted in regards to planning process nor of the meeting that was scheduled for December 11th, and that it was the Districts responsibility to insure that all affected parties were notified. School Board President Linda Poindexter vehemently denied that die District had anything to do with this committee or today's meeting However, the committee's minutes as presented at the meeting as the \"Committee History\" indicated that District officials became involved as early as November 28th. I have received verbal information from what I believe to be a reliable source that District Officials met to discuss the closure of Watson at a closed meeting at a Board Members home shortly before Thanksgiving A second source has indicated that the meeting did in fret occur but would not confirm the content of this meeting Also noted in the committee's minutes is that on December 6th, Board Member Pat Gee \" requested\" that Dr. Williams approve flyers announcing the meeting be distributed through schools in Southwest Little Rock. Dr. Williams was asked to contact the prmcipals of each school and ok distribution of the flyers to students. Statements made by Chicot PTA President Kevin McGuire to me during a telephone conversation and a fax transmission on December 6th indicated that District personnel were very much involved in the situation and intended to withhold information from the Fairfield residents and Watson parents. A copy of the fax transmission is attached.FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 Dec. 12 1994 09:58AM P4 Although miscommunication could be credited with portions of tins situation, specifically between School Board members, and neigfiboriiood groups. I still believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the theory that School District Administration took an active part in the organizational plan to close Watson as a public school, as well as concealing tins action from the Fairfield Residents and Watson Parents in direct violation of file Desegregation Plan and Federal Court orders. The fact that flyers were sent home from all of the affected schools with die exception of Watson and possibly Mabolvalo would tend to support die theory as well. There is the added consideration that would suggest that \"Administration\" may be playing both ends against the middle by supplying nris-information to Kevin McGuire and the Chicot PTA. During the meeting on December 5th, Doug Eaton conducted a short presentation where in he made numerous references to court approved formulas that were utilized in determining which schools should dose and which should remain open based on attendance and capacities. When pressed by the Chicot parents to present and define the formula, Doug Eaton became evasive, commenting that it was a \"very complex formula\". He later admitted that there was no specific formula to make these determinations. The inaccuracies and half truths perpetuated during the meeting on December 5th are again in direct contempt of the Desegregation Plan. Specifically section 9 of the Interdistrict Plan (Public relations) which deals with credibility and trust And section 3 which requires the District to \" Continue to disseminate public information in ways the districts customarily employ, paying careful attention to qualhv. accuracy, and a positive tone\". I recognize that you are not in a position to adjudicate these complaints but I also recognize your authority in investigating this matter, and in bringing these concerns to the attention Judge Wright should they prove valid. Sincerely, FROM : JOHN 'fORK PHONE NO. Dec. 12 1994 09:59AM P5 QCL,-\u0026gt;13ia - (321____1.7TI1 - SCHOOL COMMITTEE HISTORY FIRE AT CHICOT. CH I COT- PARENTS MEET AT WATSON DISTRICT OFFICIALS OK IMMEDIATE GYMNASIUM CONTINGENCY WITH PLASS ON GETTING STUDENTS BACK TO SCHOOL. QC.T_ - PTA MEETING AT McCLELLAR AUDITORIUM FOR PARENTS TO ADDRESS DR. WILLIAMS AND SCHOOL BOARD. \"COMMITTEE WILL WOULD BE FORMED IN A WEEK\". WILLIAMS QUOTED NOY. o ED. DEMOGRAPHICS OF COST OF REBUILDING, COURT APPROVAL FOR REBUILDING, NEIGHBORHOOD AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WILLIAMS. BOARD DECIDED THEY WOULD NEED ALL THIS INFORMATIDK AND EE ABLE TO VOTE OS DECISION AT DEC. AGENDA MEETING. NgJL . ITll - \"HE ENLARGED. CLOSED. 1 FINANCIAL CHICOT el: INTENDS TO DR. WILLIAMS RECOMMEND THAT QUOTED BY CHICOT BE CYNTHIA HOWELL REBUILT @ GAZETTE AND POSSIBLY IF SCHOOL IS ENLARGED, ANOTHER SCHOOL IN SWLR WOULD BE BOARD MEMBERS AGREED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION THE NECESSARY n'U .EMENTARY BY EARLY DECEMBER.'^ TO MAKE A DECISION ON REPORT 0 SCHOOL ENTER INTO UPDATE BOARD, ON REBUILDING DISCUSSED 1 CHICOT. DOUG EATON GAVE KB HOPES DEC.!SION ON WHETHER TO REBUILD DAMAGE AND FACTORS TO SCHOOL. THAT WILL EATON STATES ADMINISTRATION DECEMBER, 1994. HAVE ENOUGH TO TRY AND VOTE ON INFORMATION FOR THE BOARD AND THE FUTURE OF CHICOT.BY MID ANOTHER ITEM THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED TO COMBINE THIS WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL IK THE AREA, IS WHETHER KCY._Z.Til - PAUL HOWELL, KEVIN McGUIRE WITH CHICOT PTA MEET 1 IN WITH SOUTHWEST UNITED FOK PROGRESS ON RAILROAD OVERPASSES SWLR. IT IS AT THIS MEETING WE SPOKE WITH JOAN ADCOCK, CITY DIRECTOR\nB.J. WYRICK, CITY BOARD ELECT\nCONGRESSMAN RAY THORNTON AND HIS AIDE DEBBIE TABLERIOU\nJOA HUMPHRIES, SOUTHWEST UNITED PROGRESS PRESIDENT. PAUL HOWKT.L ADDRESSED AUDIENCE OF FOK PROGRESS ON MEETING WE SPOKE FOR PRESIDENT. TABLERIOU\nJOA HUMPHRIES, PAUL HOWELL AUDIENCE ARKANSAS DEMOC.RAT GAZETTE TO REI ARKANSAS SCHOOL DEMOCRAT GAZETTE \"CHICOT PARENTS MAP CAMPAIGN 3 r'tr ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE \"DSCISIOh? ON CHICOT DUE IN 1FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 09:59AM P6 BUSINESS 0OE8S, MERCHANTS, ARD SWLR RESIDENTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTS, STATUS OF CHICOT. BEFORE AD.JOUKNED, PTA DISCOVERED THAT SCHOOL MEETING BOARD FAILED TO COMMIT TO REBUILDING CHICOT AGENDA MEETING HELD MINUTES EARLIER. THEN THAT THE IT IS GROUP PLEDGED THEIR THORNTON'S SUPPORT. ASKED ABOUT STATUS OFFICE LOCKING FOR AIDE FROM WASHINGTON. NOTIFIED AS TO WHO IS OF COMMITTEE. PTA RESPONDED WK WE FREEDOM EXPRESSED CONCERN SERVING ON THE COMMITTEE OR WHEN CONGRESSMAN CITY LEADERS HAVE NOT BEEN THAT NO HAS OF INFORMATION ACT HAS BEEN INFORMATION REQUESTED TO MEET. THROUGH LARGER. PROPOSED SWLR SCHOOL CLOSURES OR MERGERS MADE AVAILABLE AND DISTRICT NO INFORMATION IS QUESTIONED HOW THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BEIN: IF CHICOT rebuilt WE HAVEN'T WITHOUT LEADERS. HEARD THS iiQiL_i4.TlL - THEY HAVE 1 ELEMENTARY. AVAILABLE TO BASE THEM ON. MADE IF SCHOOL FROM DISTRICT DISTRICT AND SOON, INVITE WE WOULD WE AGREED THAT IF CITY START AND MEETING COMMUNITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS STARTED RECEIVING NOTICES THAT BEEN SELECTED TO SERVE ON COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT NOriCIs MAILED NOV. 11, 1S94 FROM DOUG EATON. NOY, izxa. - PTA NOTICES. CHICOT ADDRESSED LSSC SCHOOL THANKED COMMITTEE REPRESENTATION CHOOL BOARD. BOARD FOR BOARD MEETING. MR. MEET AS AT SWLR CONFIRMED APPOINTMENTS, McGUIRE, CHICOT RECEIPT OF COMMITTEE SOON AS RECOMMENDATION TO REBUILD CHICOT. CHRISTMAS POSSIBLE MADE PARADE. BOARD WARE TO MAKE ASKED PLANS OF THAT FOR r CHICOT ELEMENTARY PTA ENTERS SOUTHWEST LITTLE ROCK PARADE WITH A FLOAT AND 150 WALKERS, WEARING \"CHICOT FAMILY - UNITED TO REBUILD CHICOT\" T-SHIRTS. \"ALL WE WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS OUR SCHOOL REBUILT\" THIRD PLACE AND WAS WELL RECEIVED BY SUPPORTERS ALONG A FLOAT AND n FOR CHRISTMAS IS OUR SCHOOL PARADE/FLOAT THEME. FLOAT WINS ROUTS. THE PARADE CHICOT ELEMENTARY PTA HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH HORNTOK'S OFFICE\nSTATE REP PHIL WYRICK BOARD ELECT, B.J. WYRICK\nJOAN ADCOCK, CITY DIRECTOR SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BOARD MEMP.ERS. THE PTA CALLS MEETING FUR NOV. 28TH AT SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CENTER. CONGRESSMAN PTA HAS STATE REP THE IN AS A AND CITY WELL AS SPECIAL . SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CENTER. IT WAS FELT THAT IF PUBLIC R.ECORDS INDICATE THAT A DECISION ON CHICOT WOULD BL MADE AT DECEMBER SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA MEETING AND HAS YET TO CONVENE THE COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT PUBLIC RECORDS INDICATE THAT A the COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT. GET ORGANIZED NOW AND NOT WAIT FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT WE BETTER NOV 2 STM PTA ATTENDANCE CHICOT MKT AT SOUTHWEST CITY BOARD PTA\nJOAN ADCOCK, CITY COMMUNITY CENTER. IN ELECT\nJOA HUMPHRIES, PRESIDENT PROGRESS\nKELLY TUCKER, NEIGHBORHOOD DIRECTOR\nB.J. WYRICK. SOUTHWEST UNTIED FOR ALERT CENTER\nPAT GEE, LRSD 4.. FROM : JOHN YORK. PHONE NO. Dec. 12 1934 10:013AM P7 BOARD MEMBER. INVITED BUT NOT PRESENT\nLINDA JOYCE. CITY BOARD\nO.G. JACOVELLI, LRSD BOARD\nWATSON ELEMENTARY PTA. SPECIAL CALL.ED MEETING TO ANNOUNCE FOBMATIOH OF A COMMUNITY BASED GRASS ROOTS COALITION UNITED IN AN EFFORT TO HAVE CHICOT ELEM.ENTARY REBUI LT. TO SET E\u0026gt;RECEDENT FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF CHICOT ELEMENTARY AND THE DIRECT IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON THE COMMUNITY. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS MADE. PLANS FOK DSC. IITH MEETING TO INVOLVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, SWLK SCHOOL PTA'S, PARENTS AND BUSINESS TO BE INVITED. DJiC__aiK - SOUTHWEST CHICOT COMMUNITY CENTER. ELEMENTARY VISION COALITION MET INVITED AND NOT PRESENT, JOYCE, CITY BOARD\nO.G. JACOVELLI SCHOOL BOARD\nWATSON PTA. ' AT LINDA SPECIAL GUESTS INVITED - DR. WILLIAMS, O.F THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. W AT SON ELEMENTARY. THERESA COURTNEY, AN DOUG EATON, LEON MODESTE THE COMMITTEE EXPLAINED WILLIAM KETCHER OF MET SEPARATE FORM DISTRICT'S COMMITTEE. TO DISTRICT WHY WE SCHOOL BOARD DECISION STILL TELLING DUE WITHIN TWO WE EXPRESSED THAT WITH A WITH FELT IT US, THAT IT JUST US THAT THEY HAVE NO WEEKS AND THE DISTRICT IS OWN THAT INVOLVES WAS NOT AVAILABLE. FURTHER INFORMATION TO SHARE THE VISION COMMITTEE NECESSARY TO GET BUSY AND PREPARE A BUSINESS PLAN OF OUR NOT FEEL THE DISTRICT INPUT FROM ALL SOUTHWEST LITTLE ROCK. WE DID TOGETHER IF THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT A STILL DIDN'T COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAVE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT THAT WAS PROMISED. FIGURES AVAILABLE OR THE DR. WILLIAMS DISCUSSED WITH THAT COULD MERGE COMMITTEE: CENSUS IN SWLR WITH CHICOT\nBUDGET PARTNERSHIPS WITH SCHOOL DESEGREGATION NUMBERS. SCHOOLS\nPOTENTIAL DEFICIT OF 7 SCHOOL MILLION\nLOW COURTNEY, COMMITTEE CLOSURES\nAND WATSON ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL, ASKED FOR OPINION FROM THERESA ON CHICOT AND WATSON, AS DR. WILLIAMS PREVIOUSLY HAD A PARTNERSHIP WITH BE CONSIDERED WITH LARGER. MEETING. OF WEEK. OTHER SCHOOL IN COMMITTEES THEN MET TO PREPARE SWLR IF CHICOT PROPOSED COULD WERE REBUILT FOR DEC. IITH COMMUNITY WILLIAMS SAID KE WOULD PROVIDE INFORMATION TO US BY END IXEJL_TBL - PAT GEE ANNOUNCING MEETING REQUESTED DR. WILLIAMS APPROVE WAS ASKED TO BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH SCHOOLS IN SWLR. FLYERS DISTRIBUTION. IITH SOUTHWEST CONTACT FLYERS : VISION PRINCIPALS OF ENCOURAGE COMMUNITY MEETING EACH SCHOOL AND HE OK INVOLVEMENT AUDITORIUM. AT McClellan HIGH IN DEC. SCHOOL. FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 10:QIAN P8 D.EC__S.TMl - BUSINESSES. fLYERS DISTRIBUTED - PRESS RELEASES TO MEDIA AND FOLLOW INFORMATION REQUEST. MADE BOARD, AVAILABLE UNTIL UP ON THE OCTOBER 27TH FREEDOM DR. WILLIAMS NOTIFIED ME THEY WOULD AFTER IT WAS FIRST PRESENTED TO THE LRSD ON OCTOBER OF FIRST PRESENTED NOT BE spoke with jerky MALONE denial of request. DEC. 9TH. , ----- - attorney for LRSD ABOUT RKCEIVx.D CALL FROM MR. MALONE AT 9:30 PK ON MADE AVHimg^msoi? iTERIAL' WOULD BE UESBAY, DSC. 13TH. OMMITTEE MEMBERS RECEIVED NOTICE MEETING- OF THE LKSD COMMITTEE TO 4:00 SPOKE WITH MS. attending conference. PM. WITH FLYER ABOUT DEC, IF OTHER PARENT THAT THE FIRST ,,,,,, rebuild CHICOT IS DEC. 13TH AT ELLIS, MABELVALE 13TII PTA PRESIDENT ABOUT ATED HER CHILDREN DID NOT IITH MEETING. SHE b 1 COME HOME .RECEIVED NOTICES. SHE WAS COING TO CHECK OUT McClellan high school auditorium - P5 VISION :OO PM. 4FROM : JOHN YORK RAMSCC TEL:501-o62 PHONE NO. : 562 7722 589 r, c Dec. 12 1994 10:02RM P9 2:02 No.QOO- P.Ol AAMSCO 9811 INTERSTATE 30 P 0 Box 190065 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72219-0065 (501) 562-3737 FAX (501) 562-5389 (800) 221-S857 (AR WATS) FACSIMILE MESSAGE DATE: TO: 15.- G\u0026gt;\u0026gt;q4 ZgfiiK FAX#: FROM: SG^. - KEVIN McGUIRE COMPANY: NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: notes : (Mp. ________________________________________________________ ^cLeok. X (a\nis\u0026gt;^ ktc /Ua?^ \u0026gt;fU(/gitZi\u0026amp; {teu\u0026gt; MUCH Eftteiveg. ^vrrXtv^jusTNQv^ gvg- ihJ w HAS ^J^ghT^^lAJAS, 'TP 0A6UF VIAucH- WrA-^  t^KznctpATgb * IXauc fcg- C IcSoifcc roAJS/pgtfcAnoA,  ___________ V\n^fA4L UJlL/iCT- tUmiVp^ TtfeT hkJl\u0026gt; rr Geoub ^X^CT- 7~Pr~ i\\fe(\u0026lt;^iADorA\u0026amp;oJl* *1^( bfSTjttCr Lm\u0026gt;P^ ye \u0026amp;ftxxA\u0026gt;,vA7ATxo^ \"rri/yr te ($ (Jk\u0026lt;/ j^vac^ l^yOT. X MfttJ 1 IF YOU DO NOT RECIEVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL 501 562-3737. 5(2\nCL-'5'737 iv\\X- Kev (Sytl^TH'j fOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: December 13, 1994 To: Members of the LRSD Board of Education and Dr. Henry Williams From: n S. Brown Subject: Data on Southwest LRSD Schools Enclosed are some charts which my staff has prepared for me in anticipation of todays meeting of the committee which is to consider rebuilding Chicot School. Dr. Williams has graciously asked me to serve on this committee. Im sharing these charts with that group and you because I think youll find them informative and helpful. The charts contain information about schools in Southwest little Rock. Weve included more detailed information about Chicot and Watson because these two schools have recently been publicly discussed in tandem with rebuilding Chicot. It would probably be helpful to the district to have this level of detailed data analysis on all LRSD schools. Such information would help you assess attendance patterns throughout the district and determine how you may wish to address the burden of bussing and concomitant transportation efficiency. School Black Baseline 245 Chicot 344 Cloverdale 312 Dodd 193 Geyer Springs Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson Western Hills Wilson Total 223 340 279 154 327 340 215 254 3,226 LRSD SOUTHWEST AREA SCHOOLS 1994-95 Enrollment and Capacity October 1,1994 Enrollment White Other Total % BIk 1994 Capacity Percent Filled Number of Vacant Seats 77 151 74 97 66 124 131 196 73 81 95 83 1,248 4 8 6 8 11 10 1 9 13 6 7 8 91 326 503 392 298 300 474 411 359 413 427 317 345 4,565 75% 68% 80% 65% 74% 72% 68% 43% 79% 80% 68% 74% 71% 390 558 492 328 328 515 465 351 492 492 328 394 5,133 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring 12/13/94 Based on information submitted by LRSD 84% 90% 80% 91% 91% 92% 89% 102% 84% 87% 97% 88% 89% 64 55 100 30 28 41 54 0 79 65 11 49 576Chicot Attending and Area Students by Race Attending School Name Chicot Mablevale Elem Cloverdale Elem Watson Baseline Geyer Springs Wakefield Wilson Bale Meadowcliff Badgett Brady Dodd Western Hills Group Total To Incentive Schools Franklin Rightsell_____________ Rockefeller Group Total To Majority White Schools Forest Park Fullbright Jefferson McDermott Otter Creek Terry I Group Total To Interdistrict Schools M L. King Romine Washington Group Total To Magnet Schools Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Group Total To High Sch. Kindergartens Fair McClellan Community High Sch Parkview Group Total Grand Total Students from the Chicot Attendance Zone Students From Other Attendance Zones Attending Chicot BLACK 181 31 24 23 9 6 4 WHITE 116 11 7 3 5 3 2 TOTAL i 2971 421 311 261 141 I ! Sending School Mablevale Elem Cloverdale Elem Watson Baseline 91 ! Geyer Springs BLACK WHITE 51 3| 21 21 01 1 295 66% 2 21 91 13| 72% I I 01 if II 9l 1 17 81%| 1 0 4 5 38% 6 4 5 20 77% 1 2 2 5 100% 355 67% I 1 1 0 0 0 61 61 41 4l 2i Wakefield Wilson Bale Meadowcliff 16 33 22 6 3 11 2 1 1 8 1 6 21 oT o' 2' 1 ' 21 01 1511 34% I 01 01 sT 51 28% i I OI oT II 01 31 41 19%l -4 II 61 ___81 62% 1 3 2 1 0 61 23% 0 0 0 Oi 0%j 174j 33% I 21 Brady 21 11 446i Dodd Western Hills Fair Park Woodruff 21 2\n141 18i Franklin Rightsell Rockefeller Mitchell Stephens 01 Forest Park 21 Fullbright 2! 41  Jefferson 121 'Otter Creek II 21' 2! M.L. King 11 101 Washington 131 SI 8I 5i 5i 26 i 11 Nozone 21 Legal Transfer 21 51 I 5291 Total of Other Zones to Chicot Chicot Chicot Enrollment Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring 12/13/94 Based upon information supplied by the LRSD 11 41 Tl II TT I 41 21 61 21 1 1 1 0 0 TOTAL 0 ______ 34 28 8 8 11 2 3 _______2 0 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 18 0 3 153 82% 181 61%| 3341 69% I 01 TT 01 I 01 1I 1 I T 0 0 0 T 1 0 33 18% 116 39% 149 31% 2 4 3 6 2 1 2 4 0 1 0 10 0 18 1 1 186 297 483Watson Attending and Area Students by Race Attending School Name Students from the Watson Attendance Zone Students from Other Attendance Zones Attending Watson Sending School Watson Mablevale Elem Chicot Cloverdale Elem Wakefield Geyer Springs Dodd Woodruff Bale Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Meadowcliff Western Hills Wilson Badgett Brady Group Total I To Incentive Schools Franklin Rightsell Rockefeller Group Total To Majority White Schools Fullbright Jefferson McDermott Terry Otter Creek Group Total To Interdistrict Schools M.L. King Romine Washington Group Total To Magnet Schools Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Group Total To High Sch. Kindergartens Fair McClellan Community High Sch Parkview Group Total Grand Total T BLACK 2411 301 ______ 17' 9' 8' 5' 3 2' 2 21 2 1 1 1 0 0 346I 80%  4 1| 3| 8| 89% I I oT 0 2 o' 3' 5' 71%' 4 1 10 15 75% 8 9 1 8 26 90% 0 3 0 3 100% 403 81% WHITE 66 1 6 4 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 TOTAL 01 0 o' o' 0 84 20% ZjI ___qi 01 II 11%' 01 2' o' o' 0 2 29%' 1 1 3 5 25% 0 1 0 3 10% 21 0 0 0 0% 95 19% I T T WT 31 ' 28' 21  14' 8' s' 4' 3 2 2 2 1 1 ' BLACK WHITE Mablevale Elem Chicot Cloverdale Elem Geyer Springs Dodd Bale Baseline Meadowcliff 11 0| 4301 5 1 3 Garland 9I + 1 i 15 23 16 6 1 31 6 1 1 8 1 1 11 01 J. 01 6' 1 0 01 Fullbright 2!Jefferson 21 0 3 7 51 2' 13' 20' Washington 10 9 2 IS 291 0 31 0 3 498 Nozone Total of Other Zones to Watson Watson Watson Enrollment Watson Capacity I 4 21 1  1' i i T 01 01 4 0 3 0 81 80% 241 79% 322 79% 20 20% 66 21%l 861 21%| 83% I TOTAL 0 21 26 19 0 7 1 0 1 14 0 0 2 1 1 1 4 3 101 307 408 492 12/13/94 Prepared by ODM based upon information supplied by the LRSDSouthwest Schools by Enrolled Grade School Name Baseline Ethnic BL WH P4 K 01 02 03 04 05 06 Baseline Total Chicot BL WH Chicot Total Cloverdale Elem BL WH Cloverdale Elem Total Dodd BL WH Dodd Total Geyer Springs BL WH Geyer Springs Total Mablevale Elem BL WH Mablevale Elem Total McClellan Community Hig BL McClellan Community High Sch. Tota Meadowcliff BL WH Meadowcliff Total Otter Creek BL WH Otter Creek Total Wakefield BL WH Wakefield Total Watson BL WH Watson Total Western Hills BL WH Western Hills Total Wilson BL WH Wilson Total Grand Total BL WH Optimum Number of Sections 22 13 35 9 9 18 34 12 46 0 0 0 23 13 36 9 9 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 23 6 29 0 0 0 9 9 18 200 129 71 11 42 14 56 35 22 57 45 13 58 29 9 38 29 11 40 49 12 61 20 20 37 18 12 27 39 42 16 58 44 15 59 29 10 39 3S 11 46 626 448 178 31 32 6 38 49 17 66 42 14 56 26 20 46 35 12 47 49 18 67 0 0 50, 14 64 22 27 49 48 11 59 51 10 61 27 15 42 47 14 61 656 478 178 29 31 10 41 31 4 35 28 10 38 25 7 32 29 5 34 Grand Total I 240' 69' 309 78% 22% 45 21 66 38 11 49 25 21 46 27 11 38 16 62 0 0 41 19 60 25 25 50 41 12 53 38 13 51 31 14 45 33 13 46 607 421 186 26 50 20 70 52 15 67 45 23 68 47 24 71 332 151 483 69% 31% 41 9 50 20 9 29 28 5 33 48 15 63 0 0 4^ 22 70 18 24 42 51 11 62 47 11 58 27 19 46 29 14 43 601 438 163 26 28 8 36 35 3 38 46 5 51 309 75 384 80% 20% 33 15| 48 31 19 50 24 10 34 188 103 291 65% 35% 17 9 26 32 9 41 19 3 22 210 73 283 74% 26% 48 23 71 45 16 61 44 25 69 338 134 472 72% 28% 1 1 0 0 0 0 21 21 39 22 61 31 37 68 47 6 53 45 12 57 34 14 48 24 8 32 606 427 179 24 31 19 50 30 13 43 276 127 403 68% 32% 19 37 56 22 30 52 149 207 356 42% I 58% 42 14 56 41 17 58 312 87 399 78% 22% 36 4 40 38 15 53 322 86 408 79% 21% 30 11 41 31 19 50 209 102 311 67% I 33% 37 13 50 39 8 47 253 90 343 74% 26% 583 408 175 584 410 174 4463 3159 1304 71% 29% 23 23 12/13W Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon Information supplied by the LRSDUttie Rocx Scnoot Ostnc: EnroilmsrK Comparison r QctoOf 1 1993 OctoOfI 1994 OMTwvnc* I I I \"5 ' I ! I , 3 u 2 I\nI ' i 3 I a I I RtCSSVs OCT 1 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Mci 1994 Cenral HS^ Paw HS Hail HS UcOeilan HS'^ Pamiaw HS\" J  J 12231 6181 5961 3141 5861 362! 5661 2131 -4631 315i Sutr-ioaill 35391 18221 MO Maoneisij 30761 1507' C.osraa aH Dunoar^H pyasi Haignts :jH henaeraonJH~ MaoeivaieJH Mann JH\" Puiasn Heiqnts JH Souimwst JH I SuB-Toaii :o6i 1301 4391 2511 47141 195! 331 187Si S5.35%l 5 ! S ill I 5i l_  o 2 S' 1 S' s i s :04UI Sai 19I 1637 53\n3%4-588l -701 161-242! ! 32%l 31 281 71 101 9131 34 92%) 5311 2791 \"3 9)71 5331%J 35i -35i -li 9761 50 04%\n 6691 3261 361 10311 54 39% I 886 i 75.17%) 5841 2031 )0i 7881 58 76%li 4351 3281 37' 361 5447' i4.97'\u0026lt;.il 34591 16841 1391 5232' 761 46591 S6.02%li 30241 13561 102 51 111 181 701' 30 74%ll 521! ',191 701: 52.52%l| 4631 227! -51 8781 2101 27! 4531 1971 4941 341 i 4341 3511 5241 1411 41 i^ 7881 72.97*11 9151 74l0%f 5541 59.27%il 5551 561! 197! 2291 8 417! 1611 351' 58.05Ail 4551 3661 31 750 ! 54 94%lf 431! 14i 579  '~i 17%li ^7' 3341 31 81 3971 75 25% 3001 54 33% 331 -36! 81 551 181 -101 31 111 -28! 131 271 121 3.89% 4 85% 1891 -254 9541 -37 12911 -260 4482! 65.49*/.4 -801-1381 631-1651 57.477'.4 -621-151. 2Si -177' 108% 1199! -302 -4 38% 10001 -200 0.52%) 53351-1053 l.-iasi 53351 -353 'Magnei  Magner Program Incentive -InterdBtnct 347' aO533'.li -45! -II! 21 -541 -J22%1 5681 -22? 49.11% 73.67% Area HS Range 7071 .'301 FtV 585\n30 2'21411 291 -241 II '2 44%i| -101 21 01 72.C3%i| -171 191 01 71 23%.  1 357%l 812! -105 -8i -0 53%! -361 -361 31 -691 3451 53 56911 -381 771: 510 JI *5 S4%l 71 202%! -6' -4 08%! 11 -19. 371 -36: 4} -69 0.96%) 2.56*1 41531 191Si lOO\n5079! 58.48%i| 4006! 17381 118: 5862 : 58.\u0026gt;t%^\u0026gt;l571 \u0026lt;781 181-217 woMaqnvaii 36691 1475! 34I 5228! ro.18%11 35501 13721 5017' 70.75*A8-119l-103! 111-211' 358! 3071 -78 10 514! -29 3501 7451 -5 26 -37! .127, .3.14%) 33911 -529 0.58%) 65411 -524 51.25% 76.88% Area JH Range Baogea ' Baie I Baseana i SooKef I Braaa ! Ca/vef I C.5icot I Cloieraaw 1 Cooo ! Pair Pan i PvestPanr 1 PraniOin^ Patmqnt I Ganana' Caver Sonngs Gibbs' Jeiiarson King- 1 Maowvaia MbOermit Meaooitctiff MitbneiH Ctter Green Pulasn Heignis Rigntseil* Rocxemler* Romne- Slebnensl Taipr Wanetieid Wasningiarv- Waison iveslem Hills Williams' Wilson Hrooonrrf Ssaaai Scnools Sut\u0026gt;-Total 2S5i J^1 31: 53! 761 2651 1221 3251 2S3! 3561 1471 3041 891 200! 751 971 501 2001 2531 3001 401 2331 2721 1811 208! 31 101 21 9! 121 71 1 71 18S. 3964%! 1 j3i 303 - 74 26%lt 2141 343 . 77 2S%li 441 37' 771 31 31 177 .'c 4% 4 3091 55 2514 It 01 .12! 19' -2I .95%ll 3051 2451 397 55.25%IL 555 ' 54 62%ll '^1 137! 7: 3091 2671 509 ' 39.94%I| 3441 1511 386' 3.76%ll 312! 51 292 ' 54 73%ll 31 51 51 15! 31 211 781 170! 1211 2131 2871 3571 1891 3111 1741 262! 232! 3061 1271 2151 121 1411 1951 1901 197! 1841 2401 2471 1411 41 931 731 31 2431 2921 3371 1061 451: 2601 3531 391 2151 1141 2571 2071 2631 147! 271 871 341 23! 5.3C%l 257  -60 326' 5 ':%a -201 51 -3.00%l I! 21 -17' -2.11%! 3-%i) -161 -201 14 2 -J.72%i 5561 4011 -92 390! -64 -63 408 -9i 5881 52.55%ii -161 I5i 5t 41 51 2531 76.05*4 204 i 4581 43.57*11 345\n36.96%ir 5201 44 81%f 205 ' 38.29%ll 971 731 1981 2281 3331 411 8l 5! 3! 5i 5! 91 235 ! 2891 131 5031 58.39% 11 -121 392 298 ' 5^ -9 5 j 41 21 -3.99%) \" -2.07*1 11 -155%,' 467' -59 6131 -25 5581 -55 74 4 31 -11 -11  I 252 2 234%) 45 53%t 41 41 31 21 131 21 3 0.84%: 492! -100 3.04%, 3281 -30 191 -3.71%l 351. -69 4431 38 '74 If 931 -21 -25\n1 I -25i 11 41 981 217% 1 76% 542! 43.36%1 21 171 31 22! -145% 399' 4341 5401 33 9 2 2! \"F 41 T| 31 I5t II 31 51 111 7' 141 II 251 41 \"ioT 01 31 31 41 51 II I 9l 7!' 2881 7222%! 299' 56.86*) 2231 661 1601 1211 504\n4Z26%I| 2131 2791 111 \"iF 5i 51 282: 87 23% 4 3001 74 33%! 6Si 5i 51 77' -1 06% 151 -'2! 91 '2: 2931 54S(%I) -iQl 302 ' 43 43%! 01 41 -61 211% -2.25% 2981 -16 3281 -28 3531 -60 51 61 II 5531 54 56%l( 3C9I 227' 4881 53.73%!) 3401 1241 FoT 509I 51 47%\n 2411 233 I 20I -1 if 4341 70.51%l 230 ! 9348%! 341' 41 35*1 279! 1311 2501 31 1541 1961 II 41 T 3981 4774%! 1971 207! 161 )89i 97 35%! 225i 340 70 59*1 41 01 2641 1241 '51 334 . 73 95%! 2341 145. 9724%! 561. 4332%r 2341 447 ' 75 39%l 3271 721' 52.55*1 442\n79.36*1 332! 64 76%l 731 '61 2951 Closed 301 731 131 443' 2111 331 3401 2151 811 951 472! 54 45%! 2501 2141 3541 74 29%! 2541 2361 5229%! 1481 51 52 ^%l 151 831 871 211 51 71 10! 31 81 01 551 474. 56 0874 4 -461 38! 31 21 1.16% 2: -3 48% 291 -501 71 -14. 494\n48 '9794 -211 4111 67 68% if 272 : 95 69%t -271 451 359 42.30%il 131 420 ' 46 9C%y 229 98 25% if 403 , 55 Ol'S II 323' 2 45% J 1 559. 4f 36%![ 4131 9 384 9 587  54 48% 11 3.00% II 51 -151 -259% 41 01 -231 -2.52% 41 11 421 1'1 41 181 211% 1 55% 492! 10 723! -177 5151 41 517! -23 4651 -54 298! -26 71 10l 5I 12' 3511 3741 a 46 411 01 -1! 40, 0.90% 241 31- 31 531 -5.08% -131 -91 Oi 21 -1 Closed 31 41 ' -1 51% 2581 -29 4691 -66 4871 -164 ' -1 46% 5151 44 -101 -331 91 -34, -31 -491 231 -34. 3 79% 193% 427' 7963%ll -131 61 51 -15i -0.24% 317! 67 327'. 01 -191 41 -15' 3 06% 492! -79 8361 -149 4921 -65 3281 -11 474\n52. 74%| 345 . 73 62%j 243' 5OS1%S -71 -91 II 7' 21 : -1 71% 5171 63 41 -91 -067% 3941 69 31 31 \" -138% 3241 61 W72: 48451 251' 14068\n53.787wl 3915 . 4772' -WOI 14087 36. 41 37 ii -12! -21 -II -15' -11 27% 36 MoMionaail 7872 39661 218i 12056 35.30V.il 78751 39041 3431 12123 S3O99l| ST -73 1491 S4.37\u0026lt;.il 41 -62 1251 19\n6.49%1 15717 -1630 Cnana .'obi II'5674 . 8483 437 25594 Kio MaonefS\ni '^6^1 6948 . 178 2'943 55 15% 1116380 , 8194 557 25231 56 51% 1114406 5632 54U 2lb!2 64 92% ij-294i-289-2201-363' 66 oj74 J-167--315 162'-32' -0.33% j 135781-1455 0 23% 128443 -3212 9 22% 124454 .-2832 40 00% 60 00% Area Bem Range 4_5 XLS Office o1 Oetegreigaiion icvsiwLRSD SOUTHWEST AREA SCHOOLS SEVEN YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring 12/13/94 and Based upon LRSDs October 1 Enrollments School 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 Baseline Elem Black 292 282 272 258 262 265 245 While 108 100 91 74 74 76 77 Other 4 7 7 3 2 5 Total 400 389 370 337 339 343 326 Chicot Elem % SIk Black 73 72 74 77 77 77 75 363 339 362 341 350 356 344 White 197 188 180 187 177 147 151 Other 2 3 8 6 8 4 Total 560 531 544 531 535 509 503 % BIk 65 64 67 64 65 70 68 Cloverdale Elem Black White Other 281 165 294 289 304 291 364! 122 98 84 71 75 3 2 4 4 7 74 6 Total: 446 419 389 392 366 386 392 Dodd Elem % BIk Black White 63 70 74 78 80 79 80 270 253 194 166 183 189 193 144 138 134 134 121 97 97 Other 8 3 3 3 0 6 Total 414 394 331 303 304 292 298 % BIk 65 64 59 55 60 65 65 Geyer Springs Elem Black White 457: 136 145 180 177 208 223 82 69 56 74 105 78 66 Other 0 0 2 0 0 11 Mabelvale Elem Total % BIk Black 239 66 373 205 66 311 201 254 282 288 300 72 71 63 72 74 321 266 278 311 340 White 213 222 235 234 219 174 124 Other 10 3 3 3 2 5 Total 586 535 559 505 500 488 474 % BIk 64 58 57 53 56 64 72 Meadowcliff Elem Black 312 268 287 252 292 306 279 Whit 144 162 154 174 147 127 131 Other Total %Blk Otter Creek Elem Black White 456 68 207 154 2 432 62 170 172 3 1 1 1 1 444 427 440 434 411 65 59 66 71 68 180 179 160 143 141 154 191 203 195 196 Other 0 9 0 5 7 5 Total % BIk 361 57 342 50 359 50 356 45 353 41 341 41 359 43LRSD Southwest Area Schools Seven Year Enrollment Comparison Page 2 School 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 Wakefield Elem^ I Watson Elem Black WNle Other Total %Blk Black White Other 316 185 501 63 297 168 301 'IO 294 160 2 326 329 347 169 1 502 url 337 106 327 73 65 69 IB O IH 4 447 75 ,13 413 79 347 338 332 353 340 168 126 117 89 81 3 3 2 0 6 Total 465 456 518 467 451 442 427 % BIk 64 64 67 72 74 80 80 Western Hills Elem Blac^ 213 Wilson Elem While Other Total %Blk Black White Other 119 196 140 204 131 190 130 1 4 3 209 216 124 114 2 215 95 7 332 64 289 123 337 58 339 323 335 332 317 263 134 0 60 59 62 65 68 298 288 265 263 254 118 2 105 1 90 87 83 0 4 8 Total 412 397 418 394 355 354 345 % BIk 70 66 71 73 75 74 74 Total Black White Other Total %Blk 3,370 1,802 5,172 65 3,107 1,767 27 4.901 3,225 1,713 36 4,974 65 3,072 1,664 42 4,768 64 3,129 1,595 36 4,760 66 3,248 1,565 4,656 70 3,228 1,248 91 4,565 71AAM^CO TEL:501-562-5389 Dec 1994 16:33 No .004 P.02 TO: Pl ouglas C. Eaton, Director of Plant Services FROM: Kevin McGuire, Chairman Chicot Rebuilding Committee DATE: December 19, 1994 SUBJECT: Reply to Districts Request for Special called Committee Meeting for Monday. Dec. 13, 1994 regarding decision of rebuilding options for Chicot Elementary Districts for s outlined by District The consensus Committee rendering of meet ing the Committee was that granting a on a decision on Monday, Dec. 19, the Coiiimittee' s for the special called purpose proposed option rebuilding Chicot would be premature and irresponsible. of for The financial crisis Committes decision data and analysis frame. that the District be derived and then from a faces requires that correlated into defined proces ths based on a management time In order def ined District, for the Committee decision to render a we available to comprehensive, well the on. the proposed options submitted by request that the following F.O.I. request the Committee so that the data can be responsibly that the oata can L... ..,.^^^,,1 analysed nd correlated into our recommendation to the Board. be made The sooner the District complies with the Committee's the sooner we will be able to oblige the District's request decision of the options they have made available to render a The Little District complies with be able to oblige request, to us, Rock graciously entrusted School District submit this Committee Board of our Elementary. recommendations with the Director's have In doing on the rebuilding responsibility to so, they approved of Chicot release the of information pertinent to the rebuilding of Chicot in our motion at the School Meeting, Dec, 15, 1994. We therefore 1ejpeoufu1ly request the following information under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act and further decline the District's invitation for a special called meeting for Dec. 19 to render a decision. Board the rebuilding of Chicot 15, 1994 . further decline for a meeting for We further wish to- make clear that the recommendations Committee are to be submitted to the Little Rock ______ District s Board of Directors for their review and consideration, not to the Little Rock School District Administration. to. be Little of this SchoolAAMSCO TEL:501-562-5389 Dec 1994 16:33 No.004 P . 03 Douglas C. Eaton December 13, 1994 Page Two We await compliance to our request for inforroation. Linda Pendexter Cc : President, L.R.S.D. Board Jerry Malone/Chris Hellex'  L.R.S.D. Attorneys Ann Brown - Office of Deseg. \u0026amp; Monitoring Joan Adcock - City Director, City of Little RockRAMSCO TEL :501-562-5389 Dec 1994 16:34 No.004 P.04 Request for Distr.ict in public information from the Little Rock School compliance with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act and the Little Rock School District Board of Directors Requested By: Kevin Committee McGuire, Chairman, Chicot Rebuilding Date Ruquested: December 19, 1994 1. Copy of the Districts correspondenoe to Architects/Engineers requesting drawings and financials for first two options. Option one: \"As is\", option two: \"With enhancements\". and financials for option two: 4 . Copy of Architect/Engineer including scope of work. contract with q chool D istr ict Copy of response from Architeot/Engineers including complete cat nl! ________ _______________________________ .. set of drawings and preliminary specifications incorporating educational specifications. 4 . Copy of Architect/Engineer of work contracted timeline information. and percent correspondence indicating phases completed, as well as any, pAMSCO TEL:50i-562-5389 Dec 1994 16:32 No .004 P.Ol DATE: to: COMPANY: AAMSCO 9811 INTERSTATE 30 P 0 Box 190065 LITTLE ROCK, AR (501) 562-3737 72219-0065 FAX (501) 562-5389 (800) 221-8857 (AR WATS) FACSIMILE MESSAGE FAX#\ntO41\u0026gt; ^~feBLEujN3 FROM NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: NOTES: -K(\u0026lt;A^-rnzv^^ 7 7 IF YOU DO NOT RECI EVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL 501 562-3737.0( 2 1995 Offics of Desegregaiion ?zon\ntorifig THE COMMITTEE TO REBV1LB CHICOT HAS SCHEBVLEB 1TS FIRST MEETING OF 1995^-96 ON THVRSPAV, SEPTEMBER 21, 199^ 6:00 P,M, AT THE SOVTHWEST LITTLE ROCK RECREATION CENTER 6401 BASELINE ROAD f THE COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT RECEJV\"' WILL MEET NOV 2 9 1995 Office of Desegrsgaiion Monitoring ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 4,1995 6:00 P.M. AT THE SOUTHWEST LITTLE ROCK RECREATION CENTER 6401 BASELINE ROAD *** X- * X-*** X- * X- **** X- 5fr * sf-x- * *\u0026gt;{\u0026gt;{ X- **\u0026gt;{ 5E st-*** * * * s(- *\u0026gt;{ Sf- \u0026gt;{ X- ** 5f- * X- PLEASE NOTE: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28,1995 AT 12:00 NOON ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN A WALK-THROUGH OE THE CHICOT BUILDING.,_D 1-^09/97 11:40 @002/002 fi 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMl'XICATI ODM Iit Little Rock Schoo! District Chicot Elementan' Without Power For Immediate Release January 9, For more infonnation' Suelien Tann, 324-2020 J Teachers and students at Chicot Elementary' School are workint\nin small groups R K in the school cafeteria due to a power outage in the building. Entergy crews advised that power should be restored within an hour, so the school will remain open. The Jo* temperature in the cafeteria was 69 degrees at 9\n45 a.m. Parents who decide to take their children home may pick them up al the cafeteria door. Otherwise, school will continue in a warm, positive en\\'ironmcnt as teachers and JlS students work on lessons in the cafeteria. Vi f, ..4'5 810 West Narkham Street  Little Roch. Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 \\ ttli 03/29/96 16:55 501 324 2023 I.RSI) CO'IMUNICATT ODM 0002/002 /LSFECjAl INVITATION FOR YOU YOU ARE CORDIALLY IMTFED TO BE OUR SPECIAL GUEST AT THE GRAND OPENING OF CH1COT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ON SA WRDAY, APRIL 13, 1996, FROM 10:00 .iM TO 3:00 PM. OUR THEME WILL Be\\ EHE NEW CHICOT AND YOU\\ 3 As J OU are awaie, Chicot Elemetitar^' SchwTol was destro^-ed due to lire approximately eighteen (J 8) months ago. How'sver. foanks i the (.ommunity, the city and the school district, we have reopened. X Mayor Jim Dailey, Dr. Henrv Williams, and one of our CBf StuG ents will perform our ribbon cutting ceremony. Folknrirp the ribbon cutting, there will be a short program along wifo Centra* I High Schoo? s Band anidt Chicots very own Macstro' .Rick i BanJis, accompanied by the 5th and 6th graiiers. ji' Thuf- Will be many booths set up, plenty of food to eat, and i souvenirs to purchase for a small fee Chicot PTA has carehihv ,plaruied tins special occasion wth the whole familv in mini? Rie Cit\\ Of Lit Aick Will be heavily visible in iheii support. This is an event you (dont want to missll Lhere will also I. t^e 3 isileiit auction of merchandise donated bv the Southwest Littie Rocit Business Comiounitv, COiVlE, JOIN US AND TAKE THROUGH OUR NEW STATE! U /. personal BUILDING AND iUAI.K IFUT OUR THANK YOU FOR YOo P: CONTlNtTD SI 'ORT! .2B  WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1992   Noble feast FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 26,1993 Aikansas Democrat \"^(gazette About Face tells pupils to turn backs on bad choices BY DENNIS A. BYRD Associated Press Writer . Theres nothing new about military personnel going into the schools to talk to students. But the approach of the group About Face is different. Its not just the Army or Navy or the Marines. Its all of those plus Vietnam veterans and the groups founder, Ruth James. Their message is one of self-esteem and choosing the right options in life. We want to recruit young people back into the positive things of life, James said after an hourlong program Tuesday at Chicot Elementary School in Little Rock The program features patriotic music, skits and student participation. James, a singer-songwriter, said she saw the need for such a program after moving to Little Rock from Houston a year ago. I was seeing actually more violence here than I was in Houston. I think it kind of creeps up on you. What is happening is, the Los Angeles gangs are going through smaller communities, recruiting young people, she said. Some 500 students sat and stood alternately on a paved playground behind the school as they listened to the military speakers and heard songs performed by James, Marine Cpl. Steve Savage and Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Pat Lauderdale. Savage showed the students how to do an about-face maneuver as Lauderdale shouted the command. The about-face was used to illustrate what students should do if they are approached by anyone trying to give or sell them drugs or alcohol or entice them to join a gang. What do you do when a drug dealer comes up to you? Lauderdale asked. Say no, the students shouted. Thats right, then you turn around  do an about-face  and head in the other direction, Lauderdale said. Paul Howell, president of the Arkansas Council of the Vietnam Veterans of America, is an active participant in the group. I have three daughters, and I dont want them to be in a gang or on drugs or alcohol, Howell said in an interview before the program.SUNDAY, AUGUST CoDvright  uttle Boa, Chicot pupils should sign up at Ish, LRSD 6. 1995 ______ N*\u0026gt;w\nnar\\Ari Democrat-GazeWe Staff Pupils who will attend Chicot Elementary School during the 1995- 96 school year should register at Chicots Ish School at 3001S. Pulaski St. or at the Little Rock School Districts student assignment office on Monday and Tuesday. The old Oakhurst School, which also houses Chicot students, will not be open during registration. Chicot Elementary School was damaged by fire in 1994. While the school is being rebuilt, Chicot pupils are divided between the old Ish and Oakhurst campuses. All new and current pupils in the Little Rock School District should register for the 1995-96 school year at their assigned schools on Monday or Tuesday. The registration hours are from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. Parents who are unsure of their childs assigned school should contact the student assignment office by calling 324-2272 or by visiting the office at 501 Sherman St. Parents should take proof of their childs home address, immunization records, birth certificate and Social Security number. Parents do not have to disclose their childs Social Security number.IJi, -14 - 94 10\n13 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002002 MEDIA ADVISORY October 14, 1994 Contact: Jeanette Wagner, 324*2020 The Little Rock Schoo! District will hold a press conference Loday at 3 p.m., in the Administrative Board Room to release details concerning the temporary relocation of Chicot Elementary School students. District officials are currently assessing damage to the school and are evaluating other facilities for student placement. Transportation issues are being addressed. There will be a meeting for parents of Chicot Elementary School students to inform them of the arrangements being made for their children. The meeting will be held Sunday, October 16, at 3 p.m. at Watson Elementary located at 7000 Valley Drive. Chicot, students will not attend school on Monday, October .17, Tuesday, October 18 or Wednesday, October 19 which was previously scheduled teacher workday. a Parents are asked to read their newspaper, stay tuned to local radio and television stations, or watch LRSD Cable 4 for further information. ###10/17 94 11:26 3301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/003 CCtCBSB^ Little Rock School District MEDIA ADVISORY October 17,1994 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 SFEaAL BOARD MEETING The Little Rock School District Board of Directors will hold a special meeting with the Parent Teacher Assodation of Chicot Elementary School at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 19. The meeting will be held in the LRSD administration building at 810 W. Markham. ###10/17.-94 11:27 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003.003 fa Little Rock School District MEDIA ADVISORY October 17,1994 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 Following is a list of events for announcements, news coverage and/or photo opportunities in the Little Rock School District for this week 1:15 - 2:00 p.m, Craig O'Neal visits students in the \"Just Say No ?? prevention book. The event is to kick off Red Ribbon, activities at Bale Tuesday, October 18.9:30 -10:30 a.m. Sixth grade students from Otter Creek the hydro-electrical facility in North Little Rock to answer student's question raised during a classroom study on energy. a Wgt^esday O^^ 19. 7:00 p.m. The LRSD Board of Directors hold a special meefctngr wilb tho n------------t-kt- a  meeting with the Chicot Elementary PTA. ^day, October 21,10:00 a.m. -12:00 nnnn The \"Mountain Man\" of Pinnacle Mountam State Park speaks to students from Martin Luther King, Jr. High Intensity Learning Int^distnct Magnet Elementary School during a field trip to the park and arboretum. He explains how to live in the wild and learn to interact with toe environment to survive. 21, 7:30 p.m.., The UAPB Golden Lion Marching Band performs at halAme during J. A, Fair High Sdiool's homecoming game against El Dorado High ### Slowest Markham10/18/94 13:44 0501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/004 Little Rock School District News Release October 18,1994 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District announces that transportation service has been revised for Chicot Elementary students who were reassigned to Ish Elementary School and Oakhurst Elementary School due to the destruction of Chicot by fire on October 13,1994. Beginning Thursday, October 20, former Chicot Elementary students in the pre-Kindergarten (four-year-olds) through third grade levels will attend Ish Elementary while students in fourth through sixth grades will go to Oakhurst Elementary. Transportation procedures will OQtJnyolye,a_s,tndent-transfer point as previously announced. On Thursday morning, regular route buses 28A (Red), 28B (Blue), 28C (Green), and 28D (Pink) will pick up students according to the current route schedules, and go directly to Ish and Oakhurst Schools. In the afternoon, the route buses will pick up students at Ish at 2:00 p.in. and Oakhurst at 2:20 p.m. and deliver them to their stops at approximately the regular times. (more) A A10/18/94 13:45 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 0003/004 Chicot Elementary Student Transportation - page 2 The school day will be shortened temporarily to accommodate transportation schedules. Additional buses will be used to pick up students who previously walked to Chicot The added buses will begin picking up students at 7:20 a.m. at eight new bus stops. In the afternoon, these buses will pick up students at Ish at 2:00 p.m. and Oakhurst at 2:20 p.m. and will return them to the new stops at approximately 2:45 p.m. The new bus stops are at the following locations: Deer Meadow and Chicot Yorkwood and Chicot DePriest and Chicot Morris and Chicot Woodhaven and Chicot Thompson and Legion Hut Whispering Hills Trailer Park and Chicot An additional stop will be added for students who were transported by private vehicle. This stop will be at Skateworld (6512 Mabelvale Cut-off). Buses will begin picking up these students at 7:20 a.m. In the afternoon, the buses will pick up students at Ish at 2:00 p.m. and Oakhurst at 2:20 p.m. and will return them to Skateworld at approximately 2:45 pjxv (more)10'18-94 15:45 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @004-004 Chicot Elementary Transportation - page 3 Supervision will be provided for students only at Skateworld from 7:00 a.m. until the bus arrives. In the afternoon, supervisors will stay with students from the time the bus drops them off until 3:00 pun. Additional personnel will ride buses to supervise children who are unfamiliar with school bus transportation procedures. Pick up times for students on special (CBI) buses will remain as previously scheduled. Special Education students will be delivered directly to Ish and Oakhurst Schools. Drop off times may be slightly different because of a shorter school day. Parents and other patrons who have questions about transportation may contact the LRSD transportation department at 570-4000. Ish Elementary School is located at 3001 Pulaski Street and may be reached by telephone at 324-2410. Oakhurst Elementary School, the old Martin Luther King Jr. School, is located at 4800 W. 27th Street The telephone number is 671-6397. ###. - to- 18/94 13:44 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002-004 LmxE Rock School District News Release October 18,1994 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 ITie Little Kock School Ehstrict announces that transportation service has been revised for Chicot Elementary students who were reassigned to Ish Elementary School and Oakhurst Elementary School due to the destruction of Chicot by fire on October 13,1994, Beginning Thursday, October 20, former Chicot Elementary students in the pre-Kindergarten (four-year-olds) through third grade levels will attend Ish Elementary while students in fourth through sixth grades will go to Oakhurst Elementary. ri in 1V( Lt lini previously announced. On Thursday morning, regular route buses 28A (Red), 28B (Blue), 28C (Green), and 28D (Pink) will pick up students according to the current route schedules, and go directly to Ish and Oakhurst Schools. In tire afternoon, the route buses will pick up students at Ish at 2:00 p.m. and Oakhurst at 2:20 p.m. and deliver them to their stops at approximately the regular timps (more) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201  \u0026lt;501)324-2000- lD.'18/94 15:45 OSOl 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM  003.- 004 Chicot Elementary Student Transportation - page 2 The sciiool day will be shortened temporarily to accommodate transportation schedules. Additional buses will be used to pick up students who previously walked to Chicot The added buses will begin picking up students at 7:20 a.m. at eight new bus stops. In the afternoon, these buses will pick up students at Ish at 2:00 p.m. and Oakhurst at 2:20 p.iiL and will return them to the new stops at approximately 2:45 p.m. The new bus stops are at the following locations: Deer Meadow and Chicot Yorkwood and Chicot DePriest and Chicot Morris and Chicot Woodhaven and Chicot Thompson and Legion Hut Whispering Hills Trailer Park and Chicot An additional stop will be added for students who were transported by private vehicle. This stop will be at Skateworld (6512 Mabelvale Cut-off). Buses will begin picking up these students at 7:20 a.m. In the afternoon, the buses will pick up students at Ish at 2:00 p.m. and Oakhurst at 2:20 p.m. and will return them to Skateworld at approximately 2:45 p.m (more)* ro/is-94 15:45 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @004-004 Chicot Elementary Transportation - page 3 Supervision will be provided for students only at Skateworld from 7:00 a.m. until the bus arrives. In the afternoon, supervisors will stay with students from the lime the bus drops them off until 3:00 p.m. Additional personnel will ride buses to supervise children who are unfamiliar with school bus transportation procedures. Pick up times for students on special (CBI) buses will remain as previously scheduled Special Education students will be delivered directly to Ish and Oakhurst Schools. Drop off times may be slightly different because of a shorter school day. Parents and other patrons who have questions about transportation may contact the LRSD transportation department at 570-4000. Ish Elementary School is located at 3001 Pulaski Street and may be reached by telephone at 324-2410. Oakhurst Elementary School, the old Martin Luther King Jr. School, is located at 4800 W. 2/th Street The telephone number is 671-6397. ###10 20'94 16:47 SOI 324 2032 L R School Dlst @002'002 -- ODM Little Rock School District News Release October 20,1994 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 Ihe [jttle Rock School District will host an open house for patrons of Chicot Elementary at the new Chicot Primary and Chicot Intermediate Schools on Tuesday, October 25 from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. Transportation wiU be provided to and from the event. Parents and other patrons will have an opportunity to visit the new Chicot schools which are housed in the Ish Elementar)^ and Oakhurst school buildings located at 3001 S. Pulaski and 4800 W. 27th Street, respectively. School staff members will be available to provide tours of the buildings and to answer questions. LRSD buses which provide service for Chicot students will repeat their regular routes beginning at 8:30 a.m. for patrons who wish to attend the open house. Service from the newly added eight stops will be provided as well. As a service for parents who have children at both locations, a shuttle will be available at 9:50 a.m. for patrons to travel between the two Chicot buildings. Transportation service back to the Chicot neighborhoods wnll begin at 11:00 a.m. ### 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  001)324-200011-03-'94 . 10:22 501 324 2032 L R School Dlsr ODM @002-002 men Little Rock School District Media Advisory Spedal Board Meeting November 3,1994 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District Board of Directors will hold a special meeting tonight at 6:00 p.m. after the regularly scheduled agenda meeting. Both meetings wiU be held at Chicot Elementary School housed in the Ish Elementary Building at 3001 S. Pulaski. Items submitted for board action include a federal grant application, a personnel recommendation, and student disciplinary recommendations. The board will discuss a policy on surplused property, identification of extended programs evaluation, stationary scanners, dates for the LRSD Board retreat, financial information, the program budget document, and the project management tool.CECEHH Little Rock School District December 9, 1994 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, ODM Heritage West Building, Room #510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 aS 12 w* OS-'ce \u0026gt; Dear Ann: This is to advise you that the Chicot Rebuilding Committee meeting originally set for 4:00 pm, tuesday December 13th. has been changed to 5:00 pm. tuesday December 13th, It will still be held in the Little Rock School District Board room at 810 W. Markham st. Sihcerely, Do la Eaton 1 Director of Plant Services 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 CKCBBS^ Liitle Rock School District Media Advisory Special Board Meeting December 13,1994 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 The Plant Services Director for the Little Rock School District will meet with Chicot Elementary building committee members at 5\n00 p.m. tonight in the administrative board room to provide updated information on the rebuilding process. Board members representing Zones in southwest Little Rock have been invited to attend. cO/30 d RTO West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (SOI)324-2000 OS: VT 176. 21 33a 2Cc-tz32-T02-l:xej S33Ifid3S idOddflS QSdH10 -ll. '94 10:13 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002'002 MEDIA ADVISORY October 14, 1994 Contact: Jeanette Wagner, 3242020 The Little Rock School District will hold a press conference today at 3 p.m.. in the Administrative Board Room to release details concerning the temporary relocation of Chicot Elementary School students. District officials are currently assessing damage to the school and are evaluating other facilities for student placement. Transportation issues are being addressed. There will be a meeting for parents of Chicot Elementary School students to inform them of the arrangements being made for their children. The meeting will be held S unday, October 16, at 3 p.m. at Watson Elementary located at 7000 Valiev Drive. Chicot students will not attend school on Monday, October 17. Tuesday, October 18 or Wednesday, October 19 which previously scheduled teacher workday. was a Parents are asked to read their newspaper, stay tuned to local radio and television stations, or watch LRSD Cable 4 for.further information. ###\\WS!S8iWSS^ 1 s ?l .jSawssJ^\\w Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED NOV 1 5 1994 November 11, 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation N^nitoring Heritage West Buildings 201 East Markham/^ Little Rock, AP^72201 oom 510 Dear Mrs\nBrown: You have been nominated to serve on the committee for rebuilding of Chicot Elementary School. Im certain that this committee will serve as an effective team to give the district direction in our efforts to serve the Chicot community and the entire City of Little Rock. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services, will be in touch with you in the very near future to schedule a meeting of the committee. Thank you in advance for your assistance and cooperation. Please call my office or Mr. Eaton if you have any questions. Sincerely, Hf nry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools bjg 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: December 2, 1994 To: Doug Eaton From: Subject- Brown Meeting of Committee on Rebuilding Chicot Elementary Last month 1 received a November 11,1994 letter from Dr. Williams about serving on a committee for rebuilding Chicot. I was pleased to accept the superintendents invitation. His letter read that 1 could expect to hear from you about the work of the committee. As yet, I havent learned of a meeting timetable or of who is serving on the committee. Please let me know what dates you have identified for convening this group. My office calendar fills rapidly, and 1 want to be able to attend or send a representative to these meetings since Im very interested in the Chicot community, as well as the entire southwest section of our city. Thank you very much. CC: Hank Williams -\"O-Little Rock School District DK 9 1994 5 n December 1, 1994 Office of Desegrega'Jon Moniiorina Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, ODM Heritage West Building, Room #510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: On November 11th, Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools, requested that you serve on a committee to assist the District in its course of action regarding the rebuilding of Chicot Elementary School. The first meeting of this committee will be December 13th, 1994, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.. in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street. The purpose of this meeting will be to update the committee on the actions that have occurred since the fire on October 13th to discuss the general process that the District must pursue in rebuilding the school. and to determine the committee in this District's process. interplay of the Should you not be able to attend, please contact me at 570-4020. incerely, DCE/rlh/cesc cc: CL lugl as C. Eaton DIRECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 .'FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 I' I Dec. 12 1934 09156AM R2- To: Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham # 510 Little Rock, AR. 72201 From\nJohn York 7324 Knollwood Little Rock, AR. 72209 December 10,1994 Dear Ms Brown, I am writing to you in regards to the recent actions taken by Dr. Wiffiams, and others concerning the rebuilding of Chicot School and the closure of Watson. 1 am not completely positive as to who started what and how. What I am positive about, is that the residents of the Fairfield Sub-Division were completely left out of the process which has lead to the current recommendations. Those recommendations being to close Watson School and merge ifs population into a new and expanded Chicot School. It is also my understanding that Dr. Williams made statements regarding the staff of Watson and the Fairfield residents to the affect that this issue was none of our concern, \" This is School Business. It was not until I learned of the actions of the restrict and the Chicot PTA, and began to raise a ruckus, that the Fairfield residents were contacted regarding these {dans. As of the date of fins letter the District has failed to recognize the Fairfield Sub-Division. The Chicot School PTA did contact us regarding fins issue and invited us to attend a meeting scheduled for Dec 11, 2 p.m., at McClellan High School. This has been are only contact until board member Gee called me this evening. If my interpretation of file Desegregation Plans are correct Dr. Williams statements and actions are in direct contempt of file court ordered plan. Specifically sections 2.C., 3.c., and 3.d. listed under Parent involvement / Community linkages. And, sections 9,b, and 9.c., Hsted under Public Relations tn the Inter District plan. The latter specifically instructs file District to \" immediately inform the public, and to  refrain from springing surprises. I would greatly appreciate your opinion on this situation as well as copies of any court orders in support or opposition of my position, including the court order dated 11/4/91. It would probably be in the best interest of the community if Judge Wright was aware of the situation as well. Thank You for your time and interest I FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 Dec. 12 1994 09 :7AM P3 To\nAnn Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Maikham #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 From\nJohn York 7324 Knollwood Little Rock, AR. 72209 December 11, 1994 Dear Ms Brown, After attending the meeting held at McClellan High School this afternoon, I felt that this supplemental to my letter dated DecembcrlO, 1994 was necessary tn order to validate certain statements in that letter and statements made during the meeting. First of all I made statements in die letter, and at the meeting regarding die fact that residents of the Fairfield Subdivision were not contacted in regards to planning process nor of the meeting that was scheduled for December 11th, and that it was die Districts responsibility to insure That all affected parties were notified. School Board President Linda Poindexter vehemently denied that die District had anything to do with this committee or today's meeting. However, the committee's minutes as presented at the meeting as the \"Committee History\" indicated that District officials became involved as early as November 28th. I have received verbal information from what I believe to be a reliable source that District Officials met to discuss the closure of Watson at a closed meetmg at a Board Members home shortly before Thanksgiving. A second source has indicated that the meeting did in fact occur but would not confirm die content of this meeting. Also noted in the committee's minutes is that on December 6tfa, Board Member Pat Gee \" requested\" that Dr. Williams qjjwove flyers announcing the meetmg be distributed through schools in Southwest little Rock. Dr. Williams was asked to contact the principals of each school and ok distribution of the flyers to students. Statements made by Chicot PTA President Kevin McGuire to me during a telephone conversation and a fax transmission on December 6th indicated that District personnel were very much involved in die situation and intended to withhold information from the Fairfield residents and Watson parents. A copy of the fax transmission is attached.- FROM\nJOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 '22 Dec. 12 1'394 09:53AM P4 Although misconununicalion could be credited with portions of this situation, specifically between School Board members, and neighborhood groups. I still believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the theory that School District .Administration took an active part in the organizational plan to close Watson as a public school, as well as concealing this action from the Fairfield Residents and Watson Parents in direct violation of die Desegregation Plan and Federal Court orders. The fact that flyers were sent home from all of the affected schools with the exception of Watson and possibly Mabolvalo would tend to support tho theory as well. There is the added consideration that would suggest that \"Administralion\" may be playing both ends against the middle by supplying mis-information to Kevin McGuire and the Chicot PTA. During the meeting on December 5th, Doug Eaton conducted a short presentatten where in he made numerous references to court approved formulas that were utilized in determining which schools should close and which should remain open based on attendance and capacities. When pressed by the Chicot parents to present and define the formula, Doug Eaton became evasive, commenting that it was a \"very complex formula\". He later admitted that there was no specific formula to make these determinations. The inaccuracies and half truths perpetuated during the meeting on December 5th are again in direct contempt of the Desegregation Plan. Specifically section 9 of the Interdistrict Plan (PubKe relations) which deals with credibility and trust And section 3 which requires the District to \" Continue to disseminate public information in ways the districts customarily employ, paying careful attention to quality, accuracy, and a positive tone\". I recognize that you are not in a position to adjudicate these complaints but 1 also recognize your authority in investigating this matter, and in bringing these concerns to the attention Judge Wright should they prove vaHd. Sincerely, . FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 09:59AM P5 ____XJZXH - SCHOOL COMMITTEE HISTORY FIiRE AT CHICOT. CHICOT PARENTS MEET AT DISTRICT OFFICIALS On immediate WATSON GYMNASIUM WITH CONTINGENCY FLANS ON GETTING STUDENTS BACK TO SCHOOL.i OCT ADDRESS PTA MEETING AT KcCLELLAN AUDITORIUM FOR PARENTS TO DR. WILLIAMS AND SCHOOL BOARD. -COMMITTEE WILL WOULD BE FORMED IN A WEEK\". WILLIAMS QUOTED NOY. ED. DEMOGRAPHICS OF COST OF REBUILDING. COURT APPROVAL FOE REBUILDING, NEIGHBORHOOD AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WILLIAMS. BOARD DECIDED THEY WOULD NEED ALL THIS INFORMATION AND BE ABLE TO VOTE ON DECISION AT DEC. AGENDA MEETING. aO3L.. ITH - \"HE ENLARGED. CLOSED. 1 FINANCIAL INTENDS TO DS. WILLIAMS RECOMMEND THAT QUOTED BY CHICOT BE CYNTHIA HOWELL @ GAZETTE REBUILT AND POSSIBLY IF SCHOOL IS ENLARGED, ANOTHER SCHOOL IN SWLR WOULD BE BOARD MEMBERS AGREED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION THE NECESSARY CHICOT ELEMENTARY BY EARLY DBCEMBER.s TO MAKE A DECISION ON S02 7TH REPORT 0 SCHOOL UPDATE BOARD, ENTER INTO ON REBUILDING DISCUSSED 1 CHICOT. DOUG EATON GAVE HS HOPES DECISION ON WHETHER TO REBUILD DAMAGE AND FACTORS THAT WILL TO SCHOOL. EATON STATES ADMINISTRATION DECEMBER, 1994. HAVE ENOUGH TO TRY AND VOTE ON INFORMATION FOR THE BOARD AND THE FUTURE OF ANOTHER ITEM THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED CHICOT. BY MID TO COMBINE THIS WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL IK THE AREA. IS WHETHER aOiL-ZTil - PAUL HOWELL, KEVIN McGUIRE WITH CHICOT PTA MEET\nIN WITH SOUTHWEST UNITED FOK PROGRESS ON RAILROAD OVERPASSES SWLR. IT IS AT THIS MEETING WE SPOKE WITH JOAN ADCOCK, CITY DIRECTOR\nB.J. WYRICK, CITY BOARD ELECT\nCONGRESSMAN RAY THORNTON AND HIS AIDE DEBBIE TABLERIOU\nJOA HUMPHRIES, SOUTHWEST UNITED PROGRESS PRESIDENT. PAUL HOWKT.T. ADDRESSED AUDIENCE OF FOK PROGRESS ON MEETING WE SPOKE FOR PRESIDENT. TABLERIOU\nJOA HUMPHRIES, PAUL HOWELL AUDIENCE TO ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS ILD SCHOOL DEMOCRAT GAZETTE 'CHICOT PARENTS MAP CAMPAIGN ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE DECISION ON CHICOT DUE INFROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : \u0026gt;b2 Dec. 12 1994 09:59ftM PE BUSINESS OWNERS. MERCHANTS, ARD SWLR RESIDENTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTS, STATUS OF CHICOT. BEFORE MEETING ADJOURNED, PTA DISCOVERED THAT SCHOOL BOARD FAILED TO COMMIT TO REBUILDING CHICOT AT AGENDA MEETING HELD MINUTES EARLIER. THEN THAT THE GROUP PLEDGED IT IS THORNTON THEIR SUPPORT. ASKED ABOUT STATU OFFICE LOOSING FOR AIDE FROM WASHINGTON. NOTIFIED AS TO WHO IS OF COMMITTEE. PTA RESPONDED WE WE FREEDOM EXPRESSED CONCERN SERVING ON THE COMMITTEE OR WHEN CONGRESSMAN CITY LEADERS HAVE NOT BEEN THAT NO HAS OF INFORMATION ACT HAS BEEN INFORMATION REQUESTED TO MEET. THROUGH LARGER. PROPOSED SWLR SCHOOL CLOSURES OR MERGERS MADS AVAILABLE AND DISTRICT NO INFORMATION IS QUESTIONED HOW THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BEINi IF CHICOT REBUILT WE HAVEN'T HEARD AVAILABLE TO BASE THEM ON. MADE IF WITHOUT LEADERS. THS SCHOOL FROM DISTRICT DISTRICT AND SOON, INVITE WE WOULD WE AGREED THAT IF CITY START AND MEETING COMMUNITY NOV. 14111 - THEY HAVE 1 ELEMENTARY. COMMITTEE MEMBERS BEEN SELECTED TO SERVE ON STARTED RECEIVING NOTICES THAT COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT NOTICE MAILED NOV, 11, 1994 FROM DOUG EATON. PTA NOTICES. CHICOT JJLTil  ADDRESSED LRSC SCHOOL THANKED SCHOOL SOARD. BOARD MEETING. COMMITTEE REPRESENTATION BOARD FOR MEET 6.S AT SWLR CONFIRMED APPOINTMENTS, MR. McGUIRE, CHICOT RECEIPT OF COMMITTEE SOON AS RECOMMENDATION TO REBUILD CHICOT. CHRISTMAS POSSIBLE MADE PARADE. BOARD WARE TO KAKE ASKED PLANS OF THAT FOR\n CHICOT ELEMENTARY PTA ENTERS SOUTHWEST LITTLE ROCK CHki^lMAS PARADE WITH A FLOAT AND ISO WALKERS. WEARING \"CHICOT FAMILY - UNITED TO REBUILD CHICOT\" T-SHIRTS. \"ALL WE WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS OUR SCHOOL THIRD PLACE AND WAS WELL RECEIVED BY SUFIC A FLOAT AND PARADE/FLOAT THEME. ROUTE. xREBUILT\" . RTERS ALONG FLOAT WINS THE PARADE NOV-.__22IiI CONGRESSMAN - CHICOT ELEMENTARY PTA HAS STATE REP BEEN IN THORNTON'S OFFICE\nSTATE REP PHIL WYRICK BOARD ELECT, B.J. WYRICK\nJOAN ADCOCK, CITY DIRECTOR\nSCHOOL DISTRICT ARD BOARD MEMBERS. THE PTA CALLS MEETING FOR NOV, 28TH AT SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CENTER. ARD BOARD MEMBERS. CONTACT WITH AS A AND CITY WELL AS SPECIAL ajiAxxwt, i'UK uv, zaTH AT SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CENTER. IT WAS FELT piAT IF PUBLIC RECORDS INDICATE THAT A DECISION ON CHICOT WOULD BL MADE AT DECEMBER SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA MEETING AND HAS YET TO CONVENE THE COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT. PUBLIC RECORDS THAT A the COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT. GET ORGANIZED NOW AND NOT WAIT FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT WE BETTER NOY. 2STM PTA ATTENDANCE CHICOT MET AT SOUTHWEST CITY BOARD PTA\nJOAN ADCOCK, CITY COMMUNITY CENTER. IN ELECT\nJOA HUMPHRIES, PRESIDENT PROGRESS\nKELLY TUCKER, NEIGHBORHOOD DIRECTOR\nB.J. WYRICK, SOUTHWEST UNTIED FOR ALERT CENTER\nFAT GEE, LRSD 64- 'FROM : JOHN 't'ORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1934 10:00AM P7 BOARD MliMBKR. INVITED BUT NOT PRESENT: LINDA JOYCE, CITY BOARD\nO.G. JACOVELLI, LRSD BOARD\nWATSON ELEMENTARY PTA. SPECIAL CALLED MEETING TO ANNOUNCE FORMATION OF A COMMUNITY BASED GRASS ROOTS COALITION UNITED IN AN EFFORT TO HAVE CHICOT ELEMENTARY REBUILT. TO SET PRECEDENT FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF CHICOT ELEMEiNTARY AND THE DIRECT IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON THE COMMUNITY. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS MADE. PLANS FOK DSC. IITH MEETING TO INVOLVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, SWLR SCHOOL PTA BUSINESS TO BE INVITED. * o , PARENTS AND SOUTHWEST CHICOT COMMUNITY ELEMENTARY CENTER. VISION INVITED AND COALITION MET NOT PRESENT, ' AT LINDA JOYCE, CITY BOARD\nO.G. JACOVELLI SCHOOL BOARD\nWATSON PTA. SPECIAL GUESTS INVITED DR. WILLIAMS. DOUG EATON, LEON MODESTE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THERESA COURTNEY, AND WILLIAM KETCHER OF S AT SON ELEMENTARY. THE COMMITTEE EXPLAINED TO DISTRICT WHY WE MET SEPARATE FORM DISTRICT'S COMMITTEE. '4^ EXPRESSED THAT WITH A SCHOOL BOARD DECISION DUE WITHIN TWO WEEKS AND THE DISTRICT IS STILL TELLING US THAT THEY HAVE KO FURTHER INFORMATION TO SHARK WITH FELT IT US, THAT IT JUST WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE VISION COMMITTEE NECESSARY TO GET BUSY AND PREPARE A BUSINESS PLAN OF OUR OWN THAT INVOLVES INPUT FROM ALL SOUTHWEST LITTLE ROCK. WE DID KOT FEEL THE DISTRICT WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TOGETHER IF I'HEY STILL DIDN'T HAVE FIGURES AVAILABLE OR THE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT THAT WAS PROMISED. DR. WILLIAMS DISCUSSED WITH COMMITTEE: PARTNERSHIPS WITH SCHOOL THAT COULD MERGE CENSUS IN SWLR WITH CHICOT\nBUDGET DEFICIT OF 7 DESEGREGATION NUMBERS. SCHOOLS\nPOTENTIAL COMMITTEE SCHOOL CLOSURES\nMILLION: LOW AND ASKED FOR OPINION FROM THERESA OURTNEY, WATSON ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL, ON A PARTNERSHIP WITH CHICOT AND WATSON, AS DR. WILLIAMS PREVIOUSLY HAD PROPOSED COULD BE CONSIDERED WITH OTHER SCHOOL IN SWLR IF CHICOT WERE REBUILT LARGER. MEETING. OF WEEK. COMMITTEES THEN MET TO PREPARE FOR DEC. ilTH COMMUNITY WILLIAMS SAID KE WOULD PROVIDE INFORMATION TO US BY END PAT GEE ANNOUNCING MEETING REQUESTED DR. WILLIAMS APPROVE FLYERS WAS ASKED TO DISTRIBUTION. IITH SOUTHWEST AUDITORIUM. BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH SCHOOLS IN SWLR. CONTACT FLYERS\nVISION PRINCIPALS OF ENCOURAGE COMMUNITY MEETING AT EACH SCHOOL AND HE OK INVOLVEMENT MnCLELLAN HIGH IN DEC. SCHOOL 3  FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 10:01AM P8 D.EC.^TE - businesses. fLYERS DISTRIBUTED - PRESS RELEASES TO MEDIA AND FOLLOW information REQUEST. UP ON THE OCTOBER 27TH FREEDOM OF MADE BOARD. AVAILABLE UNTIL DR. WILLIAMS NOTIFIED ME THEY WOULD AFTER IT WAS FIRST PRESENTED TO THE LRSD FIRST PRESENTED NOT EE JERRY MALONE DENIAL OF iDSQUEST. PF Anvje:, CALL PROM MR^S hade AVATLABLE^rmsS?. D.SC. 9TH. AT 9-.30 PH ON EC. 13TH. material WOULD BE OMMITTEE MEMBERS RECEIVED NOTICE MEETING OF THE LKSD COMMITTE''^ TO 4:00  ----- PH. SPOKE WITH MS. attending conference. WITH FLYER ABOUT DEC, IF OTHER PARENT THAT THE FIRST REBUILD CHICOT IS DEC. 13TH AT ELLIS, MABELVALE  13TII PTA PRESIDENT ABOUT xAiED HER CHILDREN DID NOT IITH MEETING. SHE COME HOME RECEIVED NOTICES. SHE WAS GOING TO CHECK OUT McClellan high school auditorium - F? 'fisios 2:00 PM. 4AAM3CC TEL 501-o6i 589 use 06  94 12:02 No.006 P.Ol AAMSCO 9811 INTERSTATE 30 P 0 Dox 190065 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72219-0065 (501) 562-3737 FAX (501) 562-5389 (300) 221-8857 (AR WATS) FACSIMILE MESSAGE DATE: TO: COMPANY: tg.- u-q4- jAphh) FAX#: FROM: S(,Z. - KEVIN McGUIRE NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: NOTES: |hR. ____________ _______n? bJpUcb SFttNc Utrti VoO i/u bax-. 11 .INye\u0026gt;{ui^ ^c-Iapp^. r i^AiA2\u0026lt;i r\u0026gt;^ iidypii/iJi much gftfclviat -TSgt^i^re-tezr UAS ^^rg^hTHiAJ^ yo ^de' VIA^CH- WtA^ i^AZnetpATgb  {be.\u0026gt;/2 Uso\u0026lt;tg re\u0026gt;*DS/pgtfcAnoA /AJe[vO//j\u0026amp;, _______________ ^rAPt.TP UJH-Acr N^Seerr ^0 ftkJb rr Ggoub gX^cf- r(\\' LrAooJl^ttog) t bfSTittcr C-tStCAc\n. tS Ct)k\u0026lt;/ vb Ttfej^.,t:ax(\u0026amp;tcA^.  (j9ivv*AaJ i^yoT, X. MAt^ 1 IF YOU DO NOT RECIEVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL 501 562-3737. Woe-4--=b'Ti-) Ho^vW^ 5(0^-131S I^cvisVcathV f P^ADate: December 13, 1994 To: Bob and Polly From: Ann k Subject: Southwest elementaiy school capacities Since both of you are at lunch right now, Im writing this note to get whats on my mind on paper. As you know, a committee is meeting this afternoon to discuss the future of Chicot. In addition to the great chart you showed me this morning. Bob, it will be helpful if I can also take the information listed below with me in some sort of nice, coordinated order, as it a chart. The two of you please work to get this stuff together by committee meeting time, which is now 5:00 p.m. Thanks very much. the capacities of the southwest elementary schools the October 1, 1994 enrollment and racial ratios of the southwest elementaries if possible, a similar breakdown on Watson as you did on Chicot (attending and area students by race) anything else you think will be helpful to the committee P.S. Be sure to date all charts and identify them as from ODM based on data from e LRSD.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: December 13, 1994 To: Members of the LRSD Board of Education and Dr. Henry Williams From: S. Brown Subject: Data on Southwest LRSD Schools Enclosed are some charts which my staff has prepared for me in anticipation of todays meeting of the committee which is to consider rebuilding Chicot School. Dr. Williams has graciously asked me to serve on this committee. Im sharing these charts with that group and you because 1 think youll find them informative and helpful. The charts contain information about schools in Southwest Little Rock. Weve included more detailed information about Chicot and Watson because these two schools have recently been publicly discussed in tandem with rebuilding Chicot. It would probably be helpful to the district to have this level of detailed data analysis on all LRSD schools. Such information would help you assess attendance patterns throughout the district and determine how you may wish to address the burden of bussing and concomitant transportation efficiency. Southwest Schools by Enrolled Grade School Name Baseline Ethnic BL WH P4 K 01 02 03 04 05 06 Baseline Total Chicot BL WH Chicot Total Cloverdale Elem BL WH Cloverdale Elem Total Dodd BL WH Dodd Total Geyer Springs BL WH Geyer Springs Total Mablevale Elem BL WH Mablevale Elem Total McClellan Community Hig BL McClellan Community High Sch. Tota Meadowdiff BL WH Meadowcliff Total Otter Creek BL WH Otter Creek Total Wakefield BL WH Wakefield Total Watson BL WH Watson Total Western Hills BL WH Western Hills Total Wilson BL WH Wilson Total Grand Total BL WH Optimum Number of Sections 22 13 35 42 14 56 32 6 38 31 10 41 31 4 35 28 10 38 25 7 32 29 5 34 Grand Total 240 69 309 78% 22% 9 9 18 35 22 57 49 17 66 45 21 66 50 20 70 52 15 67 45 23 68 47 24 71 332 151 483 69% 31% 34 12 46 45 13 58 42 14 56 38 11 49 41 9 50 28 8 36 35 3 38 46 5 51 309 75 384 80% 20% Oi 0 0 23 13 36 9 9 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 6 29 0 0 0 9 9 18 200 129 71 11 29 9 38 26 20 46 25 21 46 20 9 29 33 48 31 19 50 24 10 34 188 103 291 65% 35% 29 11 40 49 12 61 20 20 37 18 55 12 27 39 42 16 58 44 15 59 29 10 39 35 11 46 626 448 178 31 35 12 47 49 18 67 0 0 50 14 64 22 27 49 48 11 59 51 10 61 27 15 42 47 14 61 656 478 178 29 27 11 38 28 5 33 17 9 26 32 9 4t 19 3 22 210 73 283 74% I 26% 46 16 62 48 15 63 48 23 71 45 16 61 44 25 69 338 134 472 72% 28% 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 21 21 41 19 60 48 22 70 39 22 61 31 19 50 30 13 43 276 127 403 68% 32% 25 25 50 41 12 53 38 13 51 31 14 45 33 13 46 607 421 186 26 18 24 42 31 37 68 19 37 56 22 30 52 149 207 356 42% 58% 51 11 62 47 6 53 42 14 56 41 17 58 312 87 399 78% 22% 47 11 58 45 12 57 36 4 40 38 15 53 322 86 408 79% 21% 27 19 46 34 14 48 30 11 41 31 19 50 209 102 311 67% 33% 29 14 43 24 8 32 37 13 50 39 \"T 47 253 90 343 74% 26% 601 438 163 606 427 179 583 408 175 584 410 174 4463 3159 1304 71% 29% 26 24 23 23 12/13/94 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDOctob^ t 1993 Little Rock Sctiooi Oistnc: Enmilmont Comparison Octobf 1. 19U 0t1t9f9tK RECEIVEP OCT 1 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 19W Central HS\" FairHS HailHS 1 MfcCWIanHS Partmevf HS* Sul\u0026gt;-'otill yeo Magnets Cdveroare jH DunoarJH\" 5 I g  I s \u0026gt; - i  ' \"S I B I 1 I ! I ' I 1 s I * I.LI la ( 2  S -= J! illiiL 12281 8181 331 1878 : 55.35%ll 1040! 5481 491 1637 ' 63 53%ii-18ai 701161-2421 -1 82% 596 i 3141 81 5861 3621 281 9181 54 92% 9761 50.04% 6311 279I 7I * i 5* (J 6661 2131 71 8861 75.17% 6691 3261 361 10311 64 39% I 9171 63 31%i| 35i -35i -li -II 831 -361 81 551 3.89%l 4.85% 1891' -254 9541 -37 'Magnet  Magnet Program 12911 -260 * Incentive 4631 315! 101 7881 58 76% 5841 2031 101 4351 328 ! 37' 397 , 76.25% 8001 54 33% 181 -101 31 111 1.08% -281 131 271 121 -4 38% Forest Heignts JH HenaanonJH\" MaoelvaieJH Mann JH\" Puiasn Heignts JH Saut/nnest JH Sub-Totalll vee Magnetti Baagett I Saw______________l_ Baseline___________ Booker*___________I Breov______________ Carver*_____________ Ctiicot_____________ Cknenjale_________ Pood______________ Far Pant FvesiPant________ FfanKHrT'__________ Ftabngm___________ Gartana' Gayer Sonngs Gibbs'_____________ Jeiiersbn King-_____________ Maoeiraie_________ MbOermt________ Meaooyyailf MiIcneiH GtterCieeK Pulastg Heignts Rigntsait*__________ RocKeleiler* Romine-__________ Sleobens*_________ Terry______________ WaMtield_________ Was/nngton- IVatson____________ IVestem Hilts Williams'__________ Wilson____________ Woodruti Soeaai Schools Sul\u0026gt;-Totat veo Magnatsi Grana Total i ruo Magnets XLS 35391 18221 30761 15071 5661 1301 4391 251! 575! 1951 361 5447! 34.97%\n34591 16841 1391 5282! S5.49%i -301-1381 831-1651 781 46591 66.02^911 3024! 13561 1021 44821 S7.4r/.4 -521-151. 261-1771 0.52% 1.45% 51 111 181 6781 2101 271 4531 197! 4941 3411 4341 351! 5241 1411 41 161 5i 141 7011 30 74%|l 5211 1191 7011 62.62% 4681 227! 7881 7297%! 565! 197! 915! 7410%! 5611 2291 5541 59.27%! 417! 1611 851' 58.05%! 790 ! 54 94%! 679' 7717%! 7' 12! 181 271 71 4561 3661 23! 4311 3341 487! 1051 5! 181 547 ' 30 =3% ij -451 -111 21 -541 -022%! 7071 56 20% Il 291 -241 1| 7801 72 44%lj -101 21 01 9171 72.C8%i( -171 191 01 5851 71 23%l 61 3.57% -31 -0.53% 21 -2.02% 1199! -302 10001 -200 53351-1053 5335! -353 3631 -221 312! -105 - Intefctstricl 49.11% 73.67% Area HS Range -361 -361 31 -691 3451 53 563911 -381 251 7| T!\\ 1 55 SCSI 610, 5 54%l -31 -171 41631 18161 1001 80791 6S.4S%II 40061 17381 1181 58621 38691 14751 132! 225, 2651 571 84! 52281 70.18%U 3550! 1372! 01 581 101 761 321' 2651 2531 122! 325! 2S3I 356I 1471 3041 1391 2001 751 971 501 21 91 121 71 31 71 31 31 1891 69,84%!! 303' 74 26%!) 3431 77.26%!) 595 . 53.95%!! 397 35.25%!) 595 ' 54 62%!) 509 ' 39.94%ll 386 , 78.76%i 292 ' 34 73%) 2531 76.05%!| 1331 214! 2451 441 371 771 3051 2451 2541 137! 2001 2531 3001 401 202% -61 -4.08% 1! -191 0.96% -371 -36 ! 4) -691 2.56% 51 4581 43.67%ll 51 3451 36.96%1 2331 2721 15 ! 5201 4481%! 1811 2081 3I 211 781 1701 1211 2131 2871 357' 1891 3111 174! 262! 232! 3061 1271 2151 121 1411 1951 1901 1971 1841 2401 2471 1411 41 931 731 31 358! 907! 78 10 5141 -29 3501 745, - 26 7371 -127 S8.344i|-157i -781 181-2171 -0.14%) 5391! -529 951 5017 ' 70.7S%J-119l-103l 111-2111 0.58661 2! 81 4! 2051 88.29%ll 2881 72.22%!) 299 ' 56 86%ij 504\n42.26%! 7| 5531 64 56%l 31 151 1! 31 51 111 II 71 141 II 243! 292 I 25! 3371 1061 4511 2601 3531 215? 391 1141 2571 2071 2631 147! 271 871 341 23! 41 101 0! 31 31 41 51 II 4881 53.73%r 5091 51 47%|r 4341 70.51%ir 2301 93 46%ir 341: 41 35%l' 3981 47 74%r 1891 97 35%!' 340 . 70.59%!' 3341 73 95%|' 145' 9724%!' 561, 43 32%|' 447 ' 75 39%r 721' 52.55%  442 ! 79.86% ' 3321 54 76% ' 472! 54 45% ' 3541 74 29% ' 2361 62 29% ' 51 52 94%' 01 81 41 171 177! 76'4% 3091 69 2514 3261 75.15% 53.23%l 4O8i 52.25%! 3091 267! 12! 3441 1511 3121 1931 204! 741 971 731 198! 2281 3931 41! 31 31 3! 51 3! 235! 289I 18I 2461 2231 1! -131 01 -12! 5.30% -111 191 -21 51 -5.00% -201 1! 21 -17' -211% -161 -201 14! -22' -0.72% -91 151 51 5881 52.55%ll -161 5031 58 39%ii -121 392 ' 79.59% I 298\n64'1% I 282 : 7234%! 432 46 63% I 443 , 38 7'% I 542 ! 43.36%l 9i 27I 2821 37 23% 661 111 1601 1211 121 3001 74 33% I 2931 54 6f%l' 41 51 4l 21 11' -7! 31 -11 -11 41 01 21 31 3, 3.99% 2.07% 1 55% 0.84% 0.04% 4| 131 21 191 -3.71% -2! -25\n1| -261 217% 55411 -524 257! -80 4011 -92 3901 -64 5561 -83 467! -59 5131 -25 5581 -55 492! -100 3281 -30 351\n-69 51.25% 76.88% AreaJH Range 931 II 41 98i 1.76% 21 171 31 22! -145% 55i 61 6i 771 -1 06% 151 -12! 9I 121 211% -101 01 4! -61 -225% 2181 279! 3091 2271 5! 151 502' 43 43%l 51 -81 II -21 1.16% 340! 1241 101 2411 2331 201 551' 56 C8% 474 , 71 '3% -481 381 81 -2! -3 48% 291 -50. 7i -141 4941 48 79%! -211 8.00% 279! 1311 2601 81 154! 1961 1971 207! 2251 41 II 41 9! 161 01 2641 1241 151 2341 73I 161 Closed 4111 6738%! 272: 95.59% I' 359 42.30%  420 ' 46 90%' 229 , 98 25%r 403 , 55 51%\n' 3231 7245% ' 27! 451 131 II 51 -151 -269%! 41 01 -231 -2.62% -41 II 421 i\n41 181 211% 1 55% 71 101 51 22! -0.83% 411 01 -1! 40 i 0.90% 241 31' 81 531 -5.08% -131 01 21 111 -151% Closed 234 I 2951 301 3271 731 131 4431 2111 331 5591 JI o6% 4131 79.1674 5871 64 -91 31 41 -2! -1 46%l -101 -33! 91 -34 , 3 79% -81 491 231 -341 1 93% 3401 2151 811 951 61 427 ' 79 63% -13! -81 61 -151 -0.24% 71 2501 2141 101 2541 1481 151 831 871 211 81 81 01 3171 67 32?^ 474\n52 74% 345 , 73 52% 243' 50 91% 01 -191 41 -15i 306% -71 7' 21 21 -1 71% Tgi TTTl -91 -0 57% II 31 31 71 -1 38% 8972 ! 4845 , 2511 14068\n63.78%l| 8915 . 4772 ' 400I 14087 7872 : 39661 218, 12056\n6S.3O%if 36, 41 .9 S33:9%l 78761 39041 3431 12123 - 54.97'.! 16674 1^3 : 437 25594 . 65 f5%Hf63flQi jf94 657 I46I7 59481 J78 66 51%314450  6632 ' 21622 64 92% 66 63^4 Office of Oe^e^fegation -121 -2! -11 -15, -11 27% -57' -73 1491 19' -0.49% 41 -62 125i 57 -0.33%, 399' 4341 5401 33 9 2 2961 -18 3281 -28 3531 -60 492! 10 723! -177 5151 41 517! -23 45i -54 2981 -26 3511 3741 8 46 2581 -29 4691 -66 4871 -164 5151 44 492! -79 3361 -149 4921 -65 3281 -11 5171 -43 3941 -49 3241 -81 I 36 15717 1630 135781-1455 4000% 6000% Area Elem Range -294!-289 2201-3631 -0 23% 2844J -3212 -1671-316 1621-321 0 27% 24454 . -2832 i(ys/O4LRSD SOUTHWEST AREA SCHOOLS SEVEN YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON Prepared by the Office of Deseqreqation Monitorinq 12/13/94 and Based upon LRSD's October 1 Enrollments School 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 Baseline Elem Black 292 282 272 258 282 White 108 100 91 74 74 265 76 245 77 Other 7 7 5 3 2 4 Total %8ik 400 73 389 72 370 74 337 77 338 77 343 77 328 75 Chicot Elem Black 363 339 362 341 350 356 344 White 197 188 180 187 177 147 151 Other 2 3 8 8 4 6 Total 560 531 544 531 535 509 503 % BIk 65 64 67 64 65 70 68 Cloverdale Elem Black 281 294 289 304 291 304 312 White Other 165 122 98 84 71 75 74  3 2 4 4 7 Total 446 419 389 392 366 386 392 Dodd Elem % BIk Black White 63 70 74 78 80 79 80 270 144 253 194 166 183 189 193 138 134 134 121 97 97 Other 3 3 3 0 6 8 Total 414 394 331 303 304 292 298 % BIk 65 64 59 55 60 65 65 Geyer Springs Elem Black 157 136 145 180 177 White 82 69 56 74 105 208 78 223 66 Other 0 0 0 0 2 11 Mabelvale Elem Total % BIk Black 239 66 205 66 201 72 254 71 282 63 288 72 300 74 373 311 321 266 278 311 340 White 213 222 235 234 219 174 124 Other 2 3 3 5 3 10 Total 586 535 559 505 500 488 474 % BIk 64 58 57 53 56 64 72 Meadowcliff Elem Black 312 268 287 252 292 306 279 White 144 162 154 174 147 127 131 Other 2 3 1 1 1 1 Otter Creek Elem Total %Blk Black White 456 432 444 427 440 68 62 65 59 66 434 71 411 207 154 170 172 180 179 160 143 141 154 191 203 195 196 Other 0 0 5 9 7 5 Total 361 342 359 356 353 341 359 % BIk 57 50 50 45 41 41 43LRSD Southwest Area Schools Seven Year Enrollment Comparison Page 2 School 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 Wakefield Elem Black 316 301 329 347 337 327 Watson Elem White Other Total Miis Black White Other 185 160 169 141 147 106 501 63 297 168 3 464 I III I Hi 111  lii  III 4 447 75 73 HI ill 79 294 347 338 332 353 340 160 168 126 117 89 81 2 3 3 2 0 6 Total 465 456 518 467 451 442 427 % BIk 64 64 67 72 74 80 80 Western Hills Elem Black White Other 213 119 196 140 204 131 190 130 1 4 3 209 124 III 215 114 III 215 IM 7 Total 332 337 339 323 335 332 317 Wilson Elem %8ik Black White Other 64 289 123 68 60 59 62 65 68 263 298 288 265 263 254 134 118 105 90 87 83 0 2 1 0 4 8 Total 412 397 418 394 355 354 345 % BIk 70 66 71 73 75 74 74 Total Black White 3,370 1,802 3,107 Illi Illi 3,072 1,654 Other Total %8lk 4,901  4,974 65 4,768 64: i|O 1,595 liil 3,246 1,365 43 4,656 70 3,226 1,248 Bill 4,565 71Chicot Attending and Area Students by Race Attending School Name Students from the Chicot Attendance Zone Students From Other Attendance Zones Attending Chicot Sending School Chicot Mablevale Elem Cloverdale Elem Watson Baseline Geyer Springs Wakefield Wilson Bale Meadowcliff Badgett Brady Dodd Western Hills Group Total To Incentive Schools Franklin Rightsell_____________ Rockefeller__________ Group Total To Majority White Schools Forest Park_______________ Fullbright__________________ Jefferson__________________ McDermott________________ Otter Creek Terry Group Total To Interdistrict Schools M.L. King Romine Washington Group Total To Magnet Schools Booker Carver Gibbs VMIIiams Group Total To High Sch. Kindergartens Fair McClellan Community High Sch Parkview Group Total Grand Total BLACK 181 31 24 23 9 6 4 5 3 4 2 2 0 1 295 66% WHITE 116 11 7 3 5 3 ________2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 151 34% TOTAL 297 42 31 26 14 9 6 6 _______4 4 2 2 2 1 446 BLACK WHITE 2 9 13 72% 0 2 1 4 9 1 17 81% 1 0 4 5 38% 5 6 4 5 20 77% 1 2 2 5 100% 355 67% 0 2 4 19% 1 1 6 8 62% 3 2 1 0 6 23% 0 0 0 0 0% 174 33% 21 2 1 10 13 8 8 5 5 26 1 2 2 5 529 Mablevale Elem Cloverdale Elem Watson Baseline Geyer Springs Wbkefield Wilson Bale Meadowcliff Brady Dodd Western Hills Fair Park Woodruff Franklin M L. King Washington Nozone Legal Transfer Total of Other Zones to Chicot Chicot Chicot Enrollment Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring 12/13/94 Based upon information supplied by the LRSD 16 33 22 6 3 11 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 4 2 6 2 1 1 2  1 10 18 0 1 153 82% 181 61% 334 69% 8 1 6 2 5 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 33 18% 116 39% 149 31% TOTAL 0 24 34 28 8 8 11 2 3 2 0 2 5 2 1 1 2 4 3 6 2 1 2 4 0 1 0 10 0 18 1 1 186 297 483Chicot Attending and Area Students by Race Attending School Name Students from the Chicot Attendance Zone Students From Other Attendance Zones Attending Chicot Sending School Chicot Mablevale Elem Cloverdale Elem Watson Baseline Geyer Springs Wakefield Wilson Bale Meadowcliff Badgett Brady Dodd Western Hills Group Total To Incentive Schools Franklin Rightsell Rockefeller Group Total To Majority White Schools Forest Park Fullbright Jefferson McDermott Otter Creek Terry Group Total To Interdistrict Schools M L. King Romine Washington Group Total To Magnet Schools Booker Can/er Gibbs Williams Group Total To High Sch. Kindergartens Fair McClellan Community High Sch Parkview Group Total Grand Total BLACK 181 31 24 23 9 6 4 5 3 4 2 2 0 1 295 66% WHITE 116 11 7 3 5 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 151 34% TOTAL 297 42 31 26 14 9 6 6 4 4 2 2 2 1 446 Mablevale Elem Cloverdale Elem Watson Baseline Geyer Springs Wakefield Wilson Bale Meadowcliff Brady Dodd Western Hills Fair Park Woodruff BLACK WHITE 2 2 9 13 72% 0 2 1 4 9 1 17 81% 1 0 4 5 38% 5 6 4 5 20 77% ____1 2 2 5 100% 355 67% 0 0 5 5 28% 0 0 1 0 3 0 4 19% 1 1 6 8 62% 3 2 1 0 6 23% 0 0 0 0 0% 174 33% 2 2 14 18 0 2 2 4 12 1 21 2 1 10 13 8 8 5 5 26 1 2 2 5 529 Franklin Rightsell Rockefeller Mitchell Stephens Forest Park Fullbright Jefferson Otter Creek M.L. King Washington Nozone Legal Transfer Total of Other Zones to Chicot Chicot Chicot Enrollment Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring 12/13/94 Based upon information supplied by the LRSD 16 33 22 6 3 11 2 1 1 8 1 6 2 5 0 0 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 4 2 6 2 1 1 2 1 10 18 0 1 153 82% 181 61% 334 69% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 33 18% 116 39% 149 31% TOTAL 0 24 34 28 8 8 11 2 3 2 0 2 5 2 1 1 2 4 3 6 2 1 2 4 0 1 0 10 0 18 1 1 186 297 483Watson Attending and Area Students by Race Attending School Name Watson_________ Mablevale Elem Chicot__________ Cloverdale Elem Wakefield Geyer Springs Dodd Woodruff Bale Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Meadowcliff Western Hills Wilson Badgett Brady Group Total To Incentive Schools Franklin Rightsell Rockefeller Group Total To Majority White Schools Fullbright Jefferson McDermott Terry Otter Creek Group Total to Interdistrict Schools M.L King Romine Washington Group Total To Magnet Schools Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Group Total To High Sch. Kindergartens Fair McClellan Community High Sch Parkview Group Total Grand Total Student: Atte BLACK 241 30 22 17 _______ 8 5 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 346 80% 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 20% 8 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 430 ol n im Geyer Springs Dodd Bale Baseline Meadowcliff Students from Other Attendance Zones Attending Watson BLACK WHITE 15 23 16 6 3 3 6 1 1 8 1 1 0 0 6 1 TOTAL 0 21 26 19 0 7 1 0 1 14 0 0 2 4 1 3 8 89% 0 0 2 0 3 5 71% 4 1 10 15 75% 8 9 1 8 26 90% 0 3 0 3 100% 403 81% 1 0 0 1 11% 0 2 0 0 0 2 29% 1 1 3 5 25% 2 0 1 0 3 10% 0 0 0 0 0% 95 19% 5 1 3 9 0 2 2 0 3 7 5 2 13 20 Garland Fullbright Jefferson Washington 10 9 2 8 29 0 3 0 3 498 1 1 1 4l 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 Nozone 3 0 3 Total of Other Zones to Watson Watson Watson Enrollment 81 80% 241 79% 322 79% [Watson Capacity 20 20% 66 21% 86 21% 83% 101 307 408 492 12/13/94 Prepared by ODM based upon information supplied by the LRSDWatson Attending and Area Students by Race Attending School Name Watson Mablevale Elem Chicot Cloverdale Elem Wakefield Geyer Springs Dodd Woodruff Bale Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Meadowcliff Western Hills Wilson Badgett Brady Group Total To Incentive Schools Franklin Rightsell Rockefeller Group Total To Majority White Schools Fullbright Jefferson McDermott Terry Otter Creek Group Total To Interdistrict Schools M.L. King Romine Washington Group Total To Magnet Schools Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Group Total To High Sch. Kindergartens Fair McClellan Community High Sch Parkview Group Total Grand Total Students from the Watson Attendance Zone Students from Other Attendance Zones Attending Watson Sending School BLACK 241 30 22 17 9 8 5 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 346 80% WHITE 66 1 6 4 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 20% TOTAL 307 31 28 21 14 8 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 430 BLACK WHITE Mablevale Elem Chicot Cloverdale Elem Geyer Springs Dodd Bale Baseline Meadowcliff 15 23 16 6 3 3 6 1 1 0 1 8 0 6 1 1 TOTAL 0 21 26 19 0 7 1 0 1 14 0 0 2 4 1 3 8 89% 0 0 2 0 3 5 71% 4 1 10 15 75% 8 9 1 8 26 90% 0 3 0 3 100% 403 81% 1 0 0 1 11% 0 2 0 0 0 2 29% 1 1 3 5 25% 2 0 1 0 3 10% 0 0 0 0 0% 95 19%' 5 1 3 9 0 2 2 0 3 7 Garland Fullbright Jefferson 5 13 20 Washington 10 9 2 8 29 0 3 0 3 498 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 Nozone 3 0 3 Total of Other Zones to Watson Watson Watson Enrollment 81 80% 241 79% 322 79% Watson Capacity 20 20% 66 21% 86 21% 83% 101 307 408 492 12/13/94 Prepared by ODM based upon information supplied by the LRSDSchool Black Baseline 245 Chicot 344 Cloverdale 312 Dodd 193 Geyer Springs 223 Mabelvale 340 Meadowcliff 279 Otter Creek 154 Wakefield 327 Watson 340 Western Hills 215 Wilson 254 Total 3,226 LRSD SOUTHWEST AREA SCHOOLS 1994-95 Enrollment and Capacity October 1,1994 Enrollment White Other Total % BIk 1994 Capacity Percent Filled Number of Vacant Seats 77 151 74 97 66 124 131 196 73 81 95 83 1,248 4 8 6 8 11 10 1 9 13 6 7 8 91 326 503 392 298 300 474 411 359 413 427 317 345 4,565 75% 68% 80% 65% 74% 72% 68% 43% 79% 80% 68% 74% 71% 390 558 492 328 328 515 465 351 492 492 328 394 5,133 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring 12/13/94 Based on informatioo submitted by LRSD 84% 90% 80% 91% 91% 92% 89% 102% 84% 87% 97% 88% 89% 64 55 100 30 28 41 54 0 79 65 11 49 576OctQbt 1. m3 1 Little Rock Sctxx)! District Enrollment Comparison Qctob^l. 1994 Dlff^nnct 1994 I ~d~ Central HS\"_______ Fair HS HatlHS I UcCleltanHS\" | Parkview HS\" | Sub-Totall wto Magnets! Clpyeroale JH | Dunbar JH\" | A I I I _ I i -S ' \u0026gt; 5 ' a I I a a 128 6181 331 187Si 65,35%l| 1040 5961 314! 586 ! 362! 666I 213! 81 9181 64 92%l 28 7 4631 315! 101 976! 50.04%! 8861 75.17%[ 7881 58 76% I . ! 35391 18221 30761 15071 861 5447 ! 64.97%! 761 46591 66.0274I Forest Heights JH HenaersonJFT UatxNateJH Mann JH\" PulesH Heights JH | SouUniiest JH | Sub-Totali unto Migneai Baogeh { Bate Baseline BooKer' Brad! Car/ef Chicot Ooveroale Dodd Fair Pant Forest Pant FranKlirT FutOnght Ganantf Geyer Spnngs Gibbs Jelfersoh King- Mabelyate McOermotl Meaaoyiclilf Mitcheir' Otter Creeti Pulaste Heights Rightseir Rocitelelten' Romine- Stephens* Terry IVakelieW mashington- Watson iveslern Hilts Williams' Wilson Woodruff Soeaai Schools Sub-Tota! wto Magnets Grand total /o Uagrteis 5661 4391 5751 6781 4531 4941 130! 2511 5i 111 1951 181 210! 271 1971 3411 4341 3511 5241 1411 41 161 5! 141 701! 30.74%!' 7011 62.62%!' 7881 72.97%!' 9151 7410%!' 654 ! 69.27%!' 851! 58.05%!' 7901 54 94%! 6791 77 17%! 41631 18161 1001 S079 I 68.48%! 36691 14751 841 52281 70.18% 4_5XLS 132! 2251 2651 571 01 1891 69.84% 681 ioi 3031 74.26% 761 21 55? 3211 265! 91 5951 2631 122! 121 397! 3251 2631 3561 1471 304! 1891 2001 75! 971 601 7l 5951 61 7! 3861 77.26% 53.95%!' 66.25% ' 54.62% ' 69.94%!' 78.76% ' 61 292 64 73%! 2001 2531 3001 401 31 2631 76.05% 51 4581 43.67% 51 2331 272l 1^ w 208! 31 211 78I 2! 3451 36.96%! 5201 44.81% 2051 88.29% 288 ! 72Z2?h 1701 1211 213! 287! 3571 1891 3111 1741 8! 299 ! 56.86% 41 5041 42.26% 71 5531 64.56% 31 262! 2321 15j 3061 1271 215I 121 1411 1951 1901 197! 1841 2401 \"tT 93! 2471 nF 1411 31 JI 3! 4881 63.73% 5091 51 47% 434! 70.51% 2301 93.48% 51 341! 4135% 111 11 71 141 II 2431 2921 261 337I 1061 4511 2601 353! 89I 2151 1141 2571 2071 2631 1471 27\" 841 23! 41 398 ! 4774% 1891 97.35% 340 ' 70.59% 3341 7395% 1451 9724% 561, 43.32% 4471 75.39% 101 7211 52.55% 01 442 | 79.66% 31 3321 54 76% 8! 4! 4721 54 45% 3541 74 29% 51 2361 62 29% TT 51 52 94% 8972 : 4846 - 2511 14068 : 63.78% *\n I rl1,j a ! a 1^ 491 1637 ! 63 53%! -188I -701 16 1891! -254 Magnet 954! -37 \" Magnet Program 12911 -260 Incemive 548| 2791 7| 9171 6a81%l| 35i -35! -1 669 i 326 ! 36I 10311 64 39%j EZt LCl J 631 -2421 -1 82% -II 3.89% 83l -361 81 551 4.85% 6841 2031 101 8971 76,25% 435! 3281 8001 54 38% 34S9I 16841 1391 52821 65.49%l 30241 13S6I 102I 44821 67.4rAt' 5211 119 4681 227 5651 197 6611 229 417[ 1611 7! 181 547 ' 80 53% 7071 66 20% 7801 72 44% 271 9171 7208% 71 4561 3661 23! 4311 3341 4871 1051 61 181 5651 71.28%! 8451 53 96%r 7711 55 90%!' 610 : 79 84%l' 40061 1738! 1181 5882 ! 68.346t' 3550! 13721 95 ! 5017! 70.76%!' 1331 2141 2451 44! 871 771 01 8! 4! 305! 245! 23! 2541 1371 17! 309 I 267I 12! 177! 75.14% 3091 69 25% 3261 75.(5% 573 ! 53.23* 3441 1511 3121 1931 204! 74! 97! 73! 1981 2281 3931 411 8! 6! 8! 5! 6! 9! 235! 2891 181 2461 2231 9| 271 66! 11! 160! 1211 121 2181 2791 51 309! 227! 151 3401 1241 101 2411 233! 20I 279! 131! 260! 8! 154! 1961 1971 2071 2251 41 1! 181 -lOi 31 Tiy 1 08% -281 131 271 121 -4 38% -301-1381 S3i-165l -521-1511 261-1771 1.45% -451 -111 21 -541 -0 22% 291 -241 1 -10 n 2! 0| 19! 0 -361 -361 3 -36! 251 7 -3l -171 1 61 3.57% -81 -0.53% 21 -2.02% -69! 202% -61 -4.08% -19! 0.96% 1199! -302 10001 -200 S335!-1053 53351 -853 8681 -221 812! -105 858! -78 - Intefdistrict 49.11% 73.67% Area HS Range 9071 10 614I -29 8501 745! -5 26 78721 3966 ! 218i 12056 : 65.30*6! 16674 - 8483 437 25594 , 66 15% | 14617 6948 1 378'21943 66 61%! -37! -36! 4! -691 2.66% -1571 -78! 181-217! -0.14*A -1191-1031 111-211! 0.58% 1| -13I 0! -12! 5.30% -111 191 -21 61 -5.00% 4081 52.25%i' 588 ! 52.55%!' 503 I 58.39% I  392I 79.59% i' 2981 547%!' 262 : 72 34% I' 432 ' 45 83% ' 443 i 88.71% ' 5421 43.36% ' 282 ! 87.23% ' 300 ! 74 33% ' 2931 5461% ' 502  43 43%' 551: 56 08% ' 474 , 71 73!% 494 ! 48.79% 411! 6788% 4| 272 ! 95'^ 91 161 01 359 42.90% 4201 46 90% 2291 98 25% 2641 1241 151 403 i 65 51% 234! 73! 16! Closed 323 ! 7245% -201 11 21 -17! -211* -161 -20: 141 -221 -0.72% -91 15! 51 11! -3.99% -161 41 51 -71 -2.07% d2| 4i 2i -6i -155% 81 -II -11 61 0.84% 41 0! 21 41 131 2 61 0.04% 19! -3.71% 7371 -127 63911 -529 55411 -524 257! -80 4011 -92 3901 -64 5561 -83 4671 -59 6131 -26 5581 -55 4921 -100 328I -30 351! -69 51.25% 76.88% Area JH Range 2341 2951 301 3271 4431 211 3401 2151 81 95 13 33 6 7 559: 4(85% 413I 7918,i 687 ! 64 48% 427! 79 53% 3171 57 8214 2501 214! 254! 148' 15' 83 87 21 -21 -251 1| -261 217% 931 11 4 98l 1.76% 2| 171 31 22! -1,45% 61 6l 771 -1,06% 651 151 -121 91 121 211% -lOI Ol 4| -6I -2.25% 5| -8! 1| -481 38 ! 8 29! -50! 7 -21 27 45 13! 10| 474 i 52 74%! 8! 345i 73 62% st 243 i 60 91% oT 36! 41 37% 8915 - 4772 ' 4001 14087 II 5 41 0 -21 1.16% -21 -8.48% -141 8.00% -151 -269% -231 -2.62% -41 11 421 211% 11 41 181 7| 10! si 221 -0.83% 411 01 -1 24! 31' 8 401 0.90% 631 -5.08% -13| QI 2| -11! -1.51% Closed -9| 3l 4| ~ -21 -146% -101 -331 91 -34! 379% -8| -491 231 -341 193% -13| -8! 6 -151 -0 24% Oi -191 41 -151 3 06% -7! -9! -12! 7! 2| 2| -171% -41 41 -91 -0 67% 31 3l 6329%! -57' -73 149! 7| -138% -2: -li -15i -11 27% 19- -0.49% 7876! 39041 3431 12123 . 64.9774 16380 , 8194 , 657\n2i231 14450 1 6632 1 540 I 21622 - 4! -62 125i S7, 41.33% 64 92% I-2941-289-2201-3631 4121% 66d3%i-167!-31B 1621-321. OIBce ol Doeflregalion 0 22% 3991 4341 5401 33 9 2 298! -16 3281 -28 3531 -60 492! 10 728! -177 5151 -41 517! -23 465i -54 298! -26 351! 374! 8 46 2581 -29 4691 -66 487! -164 515! 492! 44 -79 8361 -149 4921 -65 328! -11 517? -43 394! -49 324! -81 ! 36 15717-1630 135781-1455 28443 - 3212 24454. -2832 40 00% 6000% Area Elem RangeODO Rs FEB 1 -1555 Otiice ot Oesegisss'^i'^n THE COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT WILL MEET ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1995 5:00 P.M. AT ISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (CHICOT PRIMARY) 3001 PULASKI IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT DOUG EATON, DIRECTOR OF PLANT SERVICES, 570-4020 OR BOARD MEMBER PAT GEE 562-0571R FEB 2 3 1995 Otfica ot Desogregaticn THE COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT . WILL MEET ON THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 1995 5:30 P.M. AT THE SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CENTER ON BASELINE ROAD IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT DOUG EATON, DIRECTOR OF PLANT SERVICES, 570-4020 OR BOARD MEMBER PAT GEE 562-05711 MAi^ 1 0 1995 Olfico of Desegregation MCti ug THE COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT WILL MEET MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1995 6:00 P.M. SOUTHWEST LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY CENTER ON BASELINE ROAD QUESTIONS: Pat Gee LRSD Board Member (562-0571) Doug Eaton, Director Plant Services 570-402008/04/95 14:01 301 324 2023 LRSD COMMCNICATI ODM @001/001 FFFBED' \u0026gt;1 Little Rock School District News Release Chicot Elementary Registration August 4, 1995 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 LITTLE ROCK -Students who will attend Chicot Elementary School during the 1995-1996 school year should register at the Chicot Elementary at Ish School building located at 3001 Pulaski Street or at the Student Assignment Office during fall registration. The old Oakhurst School building, which also houses Chicot Elementary School students, will not be open during registration. All students who will attend school in the Little Rock School District this year must register at tlieir school or the Student Assignment office on August 7 or 8 betw'ecn the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Patrons and students who are unsure of the location of their school may inquire about student assignments by calling 324-2272. I'he Student Assignment Office is located at 501 Sherman Street. ### 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000(9 vi AiXZ: -Ziif 1,-531 OCT 1 0 1995 A-7 Offics ot DssesisgauCii Mvii.ioiiuii\" THE COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT WILL MEET ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1995 6:00 P.M. AT THE SOUTHWEST LITTLE ROCK RECREATION CENTER 6401 BASELINE ROADL^SD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Nov 6 95 17:45 P. 02/02 nr\" Av. Little Rock School District Media Advisory November 6, 1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 The Chicot Elementary School Rebuilding Committee will meet tonight at 6:00 p.m. at the Southwest Community Center. The meeting will provide for continuing discussion of the completion of the reconstruction of Chicot Elementary following last year's fire which destroyed the school. Parents and other interested community residents may wish to attend tonight's meeting. ### Media Note: A special meeting situation exists if more than one Little Rock School Board member attends the same meeting. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72801  (501)824-8000GRAND OPENING AND CHICOT FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE MINUTES The Grand Opening for, The New Chicot, will include a major fund-raiser for Chicot PTA. The PTA will be raising funds for computer equipment and software. DATE THEME\nAND TIME\n10:00 AM TO 3:00 PM I) THE NEW CHICOT 2) LOOK AT ME NOW 3) CHECK ME OUT 4) 5) 6) PUBLICITY NEEDED: Invitation Cards Flyers for the community Radio Stations (At least one of them will be asked to broadcast from the school) Arkansas DemocraVGazette Channel 4,7,11, \u0026amp; 14 note\n(will need spokespersons) INVOLVEMENT TO INCLUDE: Mayor City Board of Directors Little Rock School Board Superintendentstaff Govemor/or Rep. Neighborhood Committees Community School Staff \u0026amp; Children PTA REASON FOR FUNDRAISING\nTo purchase computers and software for the school. Each classroom will be able to accommodate six computers. The school will have approx. 16 classrooms and an approx, total of 44 computers. We will began a fundraising campaign to raise $50,000 (total of 55 computers @ approx. 1000 each)  ia-12-1995 12:32PM FROM TO 3710100 P.02 FUNDRAISING IDEAS\n1) Seek educational grants 2) CHICOT-A-THON (SWLR Business Community donate funds) 3) SILENT AUCTION (Example\nsigned razorback football ) 4) Concession ( sell space to businesses for a fee or set up concession ) (items for sale could be, pizza, hot dogs, chili, nachos, drinks, popcorn, candy bars, hamburgers, etc.) 5) POLmCIANS-MAKE-A-MATCH ( current and runners) 6) Souvenirs (T-shirts, pens, pencils, balloons, etc.) 7) Power 92 Vs Southwest Men Basketball Teams (@ comrauniti Center) OTHER IDEAS: Set Up A Voters Booth Invite Southwest Hospital to set up a Booth Police Department Fire Department ( robot ) Mr. McGruff CLOWNS Face Painting Rec. Center Demo. ( swlr) RIBBON CUTTING CEREMONY\nMayor Dailey presents the scissors to DR, Williams and a CBI student Speakers\nsc. Board rep. city board rep. principal and/or staff state rep. and/or Sen. DECOR.\\TIONS\nEach teacher will decorate their classroom and other staff members and PTA decorate office and hallway. The outside entrance will need a banner and balloon. In addition a sign made to put out by the street. Special emphasizes will be placed on our unique computer set up, CBI programs, and the school now having walls EMPHASIZES WILL BE PLACED ON THE SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY AND THE SCHOOL SYSTEM WORKING TOGETHERFROM : CHICOT ELEMENTfiRY PHONE NO. : 501 324 2305 Dec. 12 1995 09:53flM P3 Dr. Henty' Williams S uperintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Dr. Williams\nThe Chicot Rebuilding Committee wishes to thank you for your help the past 14 months. The many hardships our students have faced, because of the fire, have been softened due to you and your staffs dedication and cooperation. We understand the tentative date for Chicots completion is February 5,1996. We also understand the procurement department needs about two weeks after that date to set up the rooms.\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1198","title":"Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services"],"dc_date":["1992/1993"],"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","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","Arkansas State University","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1198"],"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":["82 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nPulashi County In ts:rdis t.riGt Magnst SGhool E11aluation 1992-1993 APR 7 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring AR!v\\NSAS S-00-E UNIVERSITY EDUCAI'IONAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Prepared for The Magnet Review committee conducted by Educational Research \u0026amp; services Arkansas state University November 15, 1993 Project staff Gerald B. Dickinson, Director Consultants Mitch Holifield Dianne Prince Kent Layton Ron Towery J.M. Mason Fredda Carroll Dan Cline Virginia Rhodes, Administrative Assistant Graduate Assistants Michelle Vest Vicky Braman Becky Gibson Sherry Hardin TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction student Achievement A. B. C. Minimum Performance Tests Stanford Achievement Tests American College Tests Desegregation A. B. Sociograms Site Visits student \u0026amp; Staff Movement and Perceptions A. B. c. Student \u0026amp; Staff Movement Patterns ............ . Satisfaction Surveys .................... . Comparison to Typical School Populations Summative Evaluation Appendix 1 3 3 47 91 93 95 124 130 130 147 149 159 162 PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION September 10, 1993 Evaluation Report Format This evaluation report is designed to provide a logical and sequential accounting of the attainment of evaluation project objectives, assessment activities and evaluation reports. A formative evaluation for each of the objectives is provided in separate sections to facilitate a measure of success in achievement or completion of the magnet school's expected outcomes. Section titles correspond to Expected Outcomes (listed below 1-5) as identified in the evaluation proposal. Principle evaluation objectives are retained in each of the project years to provide a continuous measure of magnet school accomplishments. Where appropriate, comparisons and contrasts are provided. Other expected outcomes may vary from one project year to another based on the contribution of each component toward assurances that magnet school objectives are successfully achieved. Some evaluation activities may be eliminated as data provided during subsequent evaluations provided a degree of confidence about the attainment of the specific objectives. Additional evaluation objectives may be added as the Magnet Review Committee seeks new or different data regarding the magnet school programs. 1. Student Achievement -- To obtain and analyze 1992-93 standardized test scores of the following tests for the appropriate grade groups: A. Minimum Performance Tests (MPT) Grades 3-6-8 B. Stanford Achievement Tests, 8th edition (SAT 8) Grades 4-7-10 C. American College Test (ACT) Grade 12 2. Desegregation -- To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the \"desegregation\" goal of the project: A. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregated groups by race and sex. Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? 1 B. Is there evidence of stereotyping, graffiti and name calling? C. What are the interactions of administrators, staff and students, and between teachers and students? 3. Perceptions of the Magnet School -- To develop procedures to determine the reflections of parents, students and teachers on the magnet schools: A. What are the student and staff movement patterns for the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools? B. What are the perceptions of parents, students and staff toward the magnet school as measured by the AASA School Satisfaction Survey? C. How do magnet school parents, students and staff compare to typical school populations? 4. Analysis and Interpretation -- To utilize appropriate evaluation techniques and strategies in the analysis of data and correct interpretation of results. This section pertains to procedures and is relevant to other sections. There is no evaluation component that corresponds to this section since it is relevant to the other evaluation components. s. summative Evaluation -- Each section of the evaluation (sections 1-3) is formative in that it becomes a part of the summative evaluation (section 4). A. The Sununative Evaluation section will draw together data from each of the component sections to generalize conclusions and convey statements about the magnet school programs as a whole. B. When appropriate, comparison and contrasts with previous evaluations will be presented. 2 SECTION I Student Achievement PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: student Achievement BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in Expected Outcomes Number 1, {A, Band C) listed below. To obtain the standardized test scores for the following tests for the appropriate grade groups and to analyze and assess magnet school student performance. A. Minimum Performance Tests {MPT) Grades 3-6-8 B. Stanford Achievement Tests, 8th edition {SAT 8) {The ADE changed from the MAT 6 to the SAT 8 for the 1991-92 school year). C. American College Test {ACT) Grade 12 METHODOLOGY Following the proper communications, data were received from the LRSD and the state Department of Education {ADE). Data were then disaggregated by school, grade, race and sex. Data relative to Minimum Performance Tests {MPT) were available for the past five school years (1989-1993). These are presented to provide insight into trends, changes and continued student achievement. Data from the Stanford 8 {SAT) were not available in equivalent forms for the past five years because of the state mandated change in achievement tests for the 1991-92 school year. Previous test results {MAT 6) were provided as mean scores. The test currently in use {SAT 8) provides results in percentiles. Comparisons of data resulting from conversions of scores on the MAT 6 {means) to SAT 8 scores {percentiles) is not recommended by the evaluator. The evaluator also urges caution in drawing conclusions based on such conversions. FINDINGS Minimum Performance Tests (MPT) Arkansas Minimum Performance Test {MPT) data were received from the Little Rock School District. Test data were disaggregated by school, grade, race and sex. The only scores provided for the MPT, administered in grades three, six and eight, were the percent passing. Percent passing measures do not lend themselves to statistical manipulation and comparisons may not be accurate or useful when using percent passing scores. 3 Percent passing data disaggregated by school, grade, race and sex are presented in both table and graphic form. A section for comparing magnet schools in grades three and six is provided. For grade three, reading and math percent passing rates are presented. For grades six and eight the percent passing rates are provided for reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social science. Arkansas Statute 6-15-412 states, \"It is the policy of this state that at least eighty-five percent (85%) of the students in each school and school district at each grade level at which competency tests are administered should score at or above the level or performance established for mastery of basic skills.\" Throughout this document, this minimum Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) requirement for all Arkansas schools is compared to magnet school percent passing results. Further, the ADE proposes that the MPT results may be used by schools to identify areas of student strengths and weaknesses upon which to base academic and instructional programming decisions. Test data provided by the ADE are for the 1991-92 school year. Data for the LRSD are for the 1991- 92 and 1992-93 school years. Grade Three There were 28,996 third grade students who took the MPT reading subtest. More than ninety-three percent (93.8%) received a passing score or higher on the reading subtest. The percent passing the reading subtest was slightly higher than the percent for students passing for the previous year. State-wide there were 488 schools (88.7% of the total schools) with eighty-five percent (85%) of their third grade students achieving a passing score. There were 28,767 third grade students who took the MPT math subtest. More than ninety percent (90%) received a passing score or higher on the math subtest. The percent passing was higher than the percent passing the previous year (92.2% in 1991 to 93.1% passing in 1992). There were 477 schools (86.7% of the total schools) with eighty-five percent (85%) of their third grade students passing the MPT math subtest. The percent passing for third grade students in each of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools is compared to the percent passing for third grade students state-wide. Tables are presented to show the percent passing for both reading and math subtests. Graphs are also presented for quick visual comparisons of how third graders at each of the magnet schools performed in comparison with third graders state-wide for both the reading and math subtests. A final comparison of percent passing for all third grade magnet school students is compared to the percent passing for all third grade students tested state-wide. 4 Booker Elementary School The passing rate for third grade students at Booker Elementary was above the ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%) passing rate. Ninety-one percent (91%) of the third graders passed the reading subtest while eighty-seven percent (87%) passed the math subtest. The percent passing both the reading and math subtest was slightly below the percent passing for the previous year. Further disaggregation of the results by race and sex are presented in Table 1 below. Table 1 Booker Elementary - Third Grade Reading and Math Percent Passing by Race and sex N=78 Students Reading Mathematics By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass State: All Students 192 94 93 Booker: All Students '93 91 87 Black Males 90 70 Black Females 83 92 White Males 100 100 White Females 100 94 *Others (2) 50 50 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category These scores are not presented by gender The passing rate for all students at Booker was slightly lower than for students state-wide. Black females were only slightly under the ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate at eighty-three percent (83%). Only seventy percent (70%) of the black males passed the math subtest. The objective of eighty-five percent passing for third grade students at Booker Elementary was achieved. Graph 1 presents the percent passing for third-grade students at Booker Elementary compared to the percent passing for third-grade students state-wide on the reading subtest. Graph 2 shows the percent passing the math subtests compared to the state-wide percent passing. State wide data are not disaggregated by race\\sex. See graphs on the following pages. 5 Booker Elementary Third Grade Percent Passing by Race/Sex State All Stdns Bl Male Bl Female W Male W Female Others(2) READING Booker Elementary Third Grade Percent Passing by Race/Sex 80 +-' C .~.. 60 Q) a.. 40 20 0 State All Stdns Bl Male Bl Female W Male W Female Others(2) MATH Carver Elementary School The percent of students passing at Carver Elementary on both the reading and math subtests was well above the ADE mandated eighty-five percent {85%) pass rate. Eighty-eight third grade students were tested at Carver Elementary with eightyfour students {95%) passing the subtest for reading and eighty-six students {98%) passing the subtest for math. All student sub-groups, except for black females on the reading subtest, when disaggregated by race and sex were above the state-wide percent passing for both reading and math subtests. All student sub-groups percent passing rates were well above the ADE mandated eighty-five percent {85%) passing rate. MPT results disaggregated by race and sex are shown in Table 2 below and the graphs on the following pages. Carver students By Race\\Sex Table 2 Elementary - Third Grade Percent Passing by Race N:88 Reading % Pass State: All students '92 Carver: All Students 1 93 Black Males 94 95 96 Black Females 87 White Males White Females *Others {O) 100 100 Reading and Math and sex Mathematics % Pass 93 98 96 96 100 94 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category These scores are not presented by gender The objective for Carver Elementary School third grade students was achieved. The graphs on the following pages present a comparison of the percent passing for Carver Elementary third grade students compared to the state-wide percent passing the MPT for both reading and math subtests. 8 Carver Elementary Third Grade +-' C Percent Passing by Race/Sex 120-----------------------~ 100 80 ~ 60 lo... Q) a.. 40 20 0 0 State All Stdns Bl Male Bl Female W Male W Female Others(0) MATH CaNer Elementary Third Grade -C Percent Passing by Race/Sex 120----.---------------------------~ 100 80 .~... 60 (l) a.. 40 20 0 0 State All Stdns Bl Male Bl Female W Male W Female Others(0) MATH Gibbs Elementary School Forty-one third grade students at Gibbs Elementary School took the MPT. Thirty-nine students (95%) passed both the reading and math subtests. Only black females when disaggregated by race and sex failed to achieve the ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate. Data for the MPT reading and math subtests are presented in Table 3 below. Table 3 Gibbs Elementary - Third Grade Reading and Math Percent Passing by Race and Sex N:88 Students Reading Mathematics By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass State: All Students 192 94 93 Gibbs: All Students 193 95 95 Black Males 100 100 Black Females 83 83 White Males 100 100 White Females 100 100 *Others (0) 0 0 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category These scores are not presented by gender Only black females at eighty-three percent (83%) passing were below the state required eighty-five percent (85%) passing rate. The objective was met for Gibbs Elementary School for all students and for all subgroups except black females. See graphs on the following pages. 11 +-' C Gibbs Elementary Third Grade Percent Passing by Race/Sex 120~---------------------------, 80 ,~_ 60 Q) a.. 40 20 0 0 State All Stdns Bl Male Bl Female W Male W Female Others(0) READING +-' C Gibbs Elementary Third Grade Percent Passing by Race/Sex 120~---------------------------, 80 .~... 60 (1) a.. 40 20 0 0 State All Stdns Bl Male Bl Female W Male W Female Others(0) MATH Williams Elementary School Sixty-four third grade students took the MPT reading and math subtests at Williams Elementary School. Ninety-eight percent (98%, or 63 or 64) passed the reading subtest. Ninety-five percent (95%, or 61 of 64) had passing scores on the math subtest. Table 4 below shows the percent passing for Williams Elementary third graders disaggregated by race and sex and compared with state-wide percent passing results. Table 4 Williams Elementary - Third Grade Reading and Math Percent Passing by Race and Sex N=64 Students Reading Mathematics By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass State: All Students 1 92 94 93 Williams: All Students 193 98 95 Black Males 95 90 Black Females 100 93 White Males 100 100 White Females 100 100 *Others (2) 100 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category These scores are not presented by gender The percent passing rates for all Williams Elementary third grade student groups met or exceeded state passing rates. The graphs on the following pages show the comparisons of percent passing for third-grade students at Williams Elementary School to the percent passing for third-grade students state-wide for both the reading and math subtests. 14 80 +-' C .~... 60 Q) a.. 40 20 0 Williams Elem Third Grade Percent Passing by Race/Sex State All Stdns Bl Male Bl Female W Male W Female Others(2) READING Williams Elem Third Grade Percent Passing by Race/Sex 80 +-' C ~ 60 '- Q) a.. 40 20 0 State All Stdns Bl Male Bl Female W Male W Female Others(2) MATH All Magnets -- Third Grade -- By Race\\ Sex Table 5 below presents the percent passing for all magnet school third grade black males. Magnet Table 5 Third Grade Reading\\ Math Black Males -- Percent Passing N=75 Reading No. No. No. Math No. School Tested Pass % Pass Tested Pass % Pass Booker 20 18 90 % 20 14 70 % Carver 24 23 96 % 24 23 96 % Gibbs 10 10 100 % 10 10 100 % Williams 21 20 95 % 21 19 99 % All: 75 71 95% 75 66 88 % Third-grade black males exceeded the ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%} pass rates on both the reading and math subtests. All subgroups achieved and exceeded the eightyfive percent (85%) pass rate on the reading subtest. Only one sub-group, black males at Booker Elementary failed to attain the mandated eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on the math subtest. Table 6 presents MPT test data for all magnet school third grade black females. Magnet Table 6 Third Grade Reading\\ Math Black Females -- Percent Passing N=73 Reading Math No. No. No. No. School Tested Pass % Pass Tested Pass % Pass Booker 24 20 83 % 24 22 92 % Carver 23 20 87 % 23 22 96 % Gibbs 12 10 83 % 12 10 83 % Williams 14 14 100 % 14 13 93 % All: 73 64 88% 73 67 92 % Eighty-eight percent (88%, or 64 of 73) magnet school black third grade students passed the reading subtest. Ninety-two 17 percent (92%, or 67 of 73) of the magnet school third grade black females passed the math subtest. Black females at Gibbs were slightly below the eighty-five percent ADE mandated pass rate on both the reading and math subtests as were black females at Booker on the reading subtest. Table 7 below presents the MPT data for all third grade white male students. Magnet Table 7 Third Grade Reading\\ Math White Males -- Percent Passing N:57 Reading No. No. No. Math No. School Tested Pass % Pass Tested Pass % Pass Booker 14 14 100 % 14 11 100 Carver 21 21 100 % 21 21 100 Gibbs 11 11 100 % 11 11 100 Williams 11 11 100 % 11 11 100 All: 57 57 100 % 57 57 100 One-hundred percent (100%, or 57 of 57) third grade magnet white males passed the MPT on both the reading and math subtests. Table 8 below shows the percent passing for white female magnet school third grade students. Magnet Table 8 Third Grade Reading\\ Math White Females -- Percent Passing N=61 Reading Math No. No. No. No. % % % % % School Tested Pass % Pass Tested Pass % Pass Booker 18 18 100 % 18 17 94 % Carver 20 20 100 % 20 20 100 % Gibbs 7 7 100 % 7 7 100 % Williams 16 16 100 % 16 16 100 % All: 61 61 100 % 61 60 98 % 18 All third grade white females passed both the MPT reading and math subtests. Only one third grade white female student at Booker Elementary did not pass the math subtest. All Magnets -- Third Grade All students Table 9 below shows the MPT results for all Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School third grade students. Magnet Table 9 Third Grade Reading\\ Math Third Grade -- Percent Passing N:271 Reading No. No. No. Math No. School Tested Pass % Pass Tested Pass % Pass Booker 78 71 91 % 78 68 87 Carver 88 84 95 % 88 86 98 Gibbs 41 39 95 % 41 39 95 Williams 64 63 98 % 64 61 95 All: 271 257 95 % 271 254 94 All Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools met and exceeded the ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate for the Minimum Performance Tests. % % % % % Third grade students in Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools had higher pass rates than third grade students state-wide. 19 Grade Six State-wide there were 29,590 sixth grade students who took the Minimum Performance Tests (MPT) in reading, math, language arts, science and social studies. More than ninetyfive percent (95.1%) passed the MPT subtest for reading. Ninety-two percent (92.3%) passed the math subtest. Almost eighty-eight percent (87.6%) of the students passed the subtest for language arts. Nearly eighty-nine percent (88.7%) passed the science subtest and eighty-four percent (84.1%) passed the subtest for social studies. About ninety-four percent (93.8%), or 455 of the schools state-wide had 85 percent (85%) or higher of their students passing the reading subtest. Only 412, or about eighty-five percent (84.9%), of the state's schools achieved the ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on the math subtest. Only sixty-seven percent (67.0%) of the schools achieved the eighty-five percent (85%) student pass rate for the language arts subtest. Almost seventy-two percent (71.8%) of the state's schools had student pass rates of eighty-five percent (85%) on the science subtest and only about fifty-eight percent (57.9%) of the schools achieved the eighty-five percent (85%) student pass rate for the social studies subtest. The percent passing for sixth grade students in each of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools is compared to the percent passing for sixth grade students state-wide. Minimum Performance Test data are from the 1992 Spring administration. Tables and graphs are presented for visual comparisons. A final comparison of percent passing for all magnet school sixth grade students is compared to the percent passing for all sixth grade students state-wide disaggregated by race and sex. 20 Booker Elementary Magnet School The percent passing of sixth grade students disaggregated by race and sex is compared to the percent passing for all students state-wide on each the MPT subtests. Table 10 below depicts test data for Booker Elementary sixth grade students. Table 10 Booker Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Percent Passing by Race\\ sex N:89 Students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All students 95 % 92 % 87 % 88 % 84 % Booker: All students 96 % 84 % 83 % 90 % 87 % Black Males 89 % 68 % 71 % 82 % 75 % Black Females 95 % 86 % 90 % 86 % 86 % White Males 100 % 88 % 96 % 100 % 94 % White Females 100 % 100 % 95 % 95 % 95 % *Others (2) 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % *Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category These scores are not reported by gender. All sixth grade students at Booker, except for black males, were above the ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%) on all the subtests. Black males fell below the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on all subtests except reading. The graph on the following page presents data for a visual comparison of the percent passing for all groups at Booker Elementary compared to the percent passing for all students state-wide. 21 Booker Elementary Sixth Grade ...... C Percent Passing - All Students 120~---------------------------, 100 -+--------\u0026lt; 80 -I--- ~ 60 -+-- i... (]) a.. 40 -+-- 20 Legend State  Booker Reading Math Language Science Soc Stud carver Elementary Magnet School The percent passing of sixth grade students disaggregated by race and sex is compared to the percent passing for all students state-wide on each the MPT subtests. The ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate was achieved by the sixth grade students on all the MPT subtests except language arts. When disaggregated by race and sex black males did not achieve the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on the language arts and the social studies subtest. Black females did not achieve the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on the language arts and science subtests. Data are presented in Table 11 and the graph on the following page. Table 11 carver Elementary sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social Studies Percent Passing by Race\\ sex N=92 Students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All students 95 % 92 % 87 % 88 % Carver: All Students 99 % 97 % 84 % 90 % Black Males 94 % 88 % 63 % 88 % Black Females 100 % 100 % 75 % 78 % White Males 100 % 97 % 97 % 100 % White Females 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % *Others (4) 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % *Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category These scores are not reported by gender. 23 % Pass 84 % 92 % 81 % 88 % 100 % 100 % 100 % Carver Elementary Sixth Grade Percent Passing by Race/Sex 120-.-------------------------~ 1 0 0 -+---------I 80 -+-- ..... C ~ 60 ---- '-- Q) a.. 40 ---- 20 Legend  State  Carver 0 Reading Math Language Science Soc Stud Gibbs Elementary Magnet School The percent passing of sixth grade students at Gibbs Elementary School disaggregated by race and sex is compared to the percent passing for all students state-wide on each of the MPT subtests. See Table 12 below and the graph on the following page. Table 12 Gibbs Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Percent Passing by Race\\ sex N:65 Students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All Students 95 % 92 % 87 % 88 % Gibbs: All Students 94 % 94 % 80 % 74 % Black Males 100 % 100 % 64 % 64 % Black Females 87 % 87 % 64 % 48 % White Males 100 % 100 % 93 % 100 % White Females 93 % 93 % 87 % 93 % *Others (2) 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % *Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category These scores are not reported by gender. % Pass 84 % 91 % 100 % 78 % 100 % 93 % 100 % Sixth grade students at Gibbs Elementary achieved the eightyfive percent (85%) pass rate on the MPT reading, math and social studies subtests. They were below the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on both the language arts and science subtests. Black males and black females were below the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on the language arts and science subtests. 25 Gibbs Elementary Sixth Grade Percent Passing - All Students 120~-----------------------~ 100 -1---------l 80 -+--- +-' C ~ 60 -t-------\u0026lt; Q) Cl. 40 --+--- 20 Legend  State  Gibbs 0 Reading Math Language Science Soc Stud Williams Elementary Magnet School The percent passing of sixth grade students at Williams Elementary Schools disaggregated by race and sex is compared to the percent passing for all students state-wide on each of the MPT subtests. See Table 13 below and the graph on the following page. Table 13 Williams Elementary sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Percent Passing by Race\\ sex N=89 Students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All students 95 % 92 % 87 % 88 % 84 Williams: All Students 98 % 98 % 90 % 96 % 90 Black Males 90 % 90 % 81 % 86 % 81 Black Females 100 % 100 % 85 % 96 % 89 White Males 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 93 White Females 100 % 100 % 96 % 100 % 96 *Others (1) 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 *Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category These scores are not reported by gender. The percent of sixth grade students at Williams Elementary School was above the ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on all the MPT subtests. All student groups exceeded the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on all subtests except black males. Black males were below the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate only for the language arts and social studies subtests, each with an eighty-one percent (81%) pass rate. 27 % % % % % % % ..... C Williams Elem Sixth Grade Percent Passing - All Students 120~------------------------~ 80 -+--- ~ 60 -+-----, Q) 0.. 40 -+--~ 20 Legend  State  Williams 0 --'---~---\"--___J Reading Math Language Science Soc Stud Grade Six -- Disaggregation by Race\\Sex The tables and graphs that follow present the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School sixth grade pass rates disaggregated by race and sex. State passing rates used for comparison are from 1992 test data. By reviewing the percent passing of students in each of the magnet schools in the district on the individual subtests, it is possible to identify specific areas of strengths and weaknesses. This information may provide insight regarding the instructional strategies and programming which warrant attention. Black Males Table 14 below and the graph on the following page present the MPT percent passing rates for all magnet school sixth grade black males. Black males achieved the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate only on the MPT subtest for reading. Their percent passing rates on the math subtest (83%), science subtest and social studies subtest was near the eighty-five percent (85%) passing rate. Table 14 Grade 6 -- Percent Passing -- Black Males Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies N:76 No. No. Percent State Subtest Tested Pass Pass % Pass Reading 76 70 92 95 Math 76 63 83 92 Language Arts 76 54 71 87 Science 76 62 82 88 Social studies 76 62 82 84 29 Grade Six Percent Passing - Black Males 120~--------------------------- 1 00 ---1-----f 80 --+----, +-' C Q) e 50 _.__Q) 0.. 40 -+-- 20 Legend  State  All Magnets 0 --'----~-------'- Reading Math Language Science Soc Stud Black Females Table 15 below and the graph on the following page present the MPT percent passing rates for all magnet school sixth grade black females. Black females achieved the eighty-five percent {85%) pass rate on the MPT subtests for reading and math. Their percent passing rates on the social studies subtest (84%) and language arts subtest (81%) were near the state mandated eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate. Magnet school black females equaled or achieved higher than the state-wide percent passing on three of the subtests. Table 15 Grade 6 -- Percent Passing -- Black Females Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies N=103 No. No. Percent State Subtest Tested Pass Pass % Pass Reading 103 99 96 95 Math 103 97 94 92 Language Arts 103 83 81 87 Science 103 78 78 88 Social Studies 103 86 84 84 31 Grade Six Percent Passing - Black Females 120~--------------------------~ 1 00 -I-------\u0026lt; 80 -!----- ~ C Q) ~ 60 -!----a\u0026gt; a.. 40 --- 20 Legend  State  All Magnet o~-----~ Reading Math Language Science Soc Stud White Malas Table 16 below and the graph on the following page present the MPT percent passing rates for all of the magnet school sixth grade white males. White males achieved the eightyfive percent (85%) pass rate on all of the MPT subtests. Magnet school white males achieved higher than the state-wide percent passing on all of the MPT subtests. Tabla 16 Grade 6 -- Percent Passing -- White Males Reading\\Math\\Languaga Arts\\Science\\Social studies N:76 No. No. Percent State Subtest Tested Pass Pass % Pass Reading 76 76 100 95 Math 76 73 96 92 Language Arts 76 70 92 87 Science 76 76 100 88 Social Studies 76 74 97 84 33 Grade Six Percent Passing - White Males 120-.------------------------------~ 80 ----~ ~ C .~... 60 --+--- Q) a.. 40 __,_______ 20 Legend  State  All Magnet 0 _,___ _ ~----'-- Reading Math Language Science Soc Stud White Females Table 17 below and the graph on the following page present the MPT percent passing rates for all of the magnet school sixth grade white females. White females achieved the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on all of the MPT subtests. Magnet school white females bettered the statewide percent passing on all of the MPT subtests. Table 17 Grade 6 -- Percent Passing -- White Females Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies N=71 No. No. Percent state Subtest Tested Pass Pass % Pass Reading 71 70 99 95 Math 71 70 99 92 Language Arts 71 67 94 87 Science 71 70 99 88 Social Studies 71 70 99 84 35 +-' C: Grade Six Percent Passing - White Females 120~--------------------------~ 1 00 -1-------f 80 -+--- ~ 60 -+-- w 0.. 40 -+---- 20 Legend  State  All Magnet Reading Math Language Science Soc Stud Grade six -- All Magnets The table and graph that follows depicts the percent passing for all of the sixth grade magnet school students compared to the state-wide percent passing. Table 18 All Magnets -- Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Percent Passing by School N=335 Magnet Read Math Lang Sci SocStd School % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State : All Students 95 % 92 % 87 % 88 % 84 % Magnets : All students 97% 93 % 85 % 88 % 90% Booker : All Students 96 % 84 % 83 % 90 % 87 % Carver : All Students 99 % 97 % 84 % 90 % 92 % Gibbs : All Students 94 % 94 % 80 % 74 % 91 % Williams: All Students 98 % 98 % 90 % 96 % 90 % The sixth grade students met or exceeded the eighty-five Percent (85%) passing rate when all of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School students were compared to all of the students state-wide. When comparing all of the magnet school students with all of the students state-wide, the magnet school students were above the state-wide percentage Passing rates on all subtests except math. Each magnet school met or exceeded the eighty-five percent (85%) passing rate on the reading and math subtests. Only Williams Elementary was above the eighty-five percent (85%) Passing rate for all of the subtests. Magnet school students at Carver Elementary were below the eighty-five percent (85%) Passing rate on the language arts subtest only. Booker Magnet School students were below the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on the math and language arts subtests. Gibbs magnet school students were below the eighty-five Percent (85%) passing rate on the language arts and science subtests. 37 Legend  State  All Magnets  Booker D CaNer  Gibbs  Williams Grade Six Percent Passing - All Magnets 120--------------------------, 80 +-' C Q) ~ 60 Q) a.. 40 20 0 Reading Math Language Science Soc Stud Grade Eight State-wide more than 27,000 eighth grade students took the Minimum Performance Test (MPT). The percent passing for Horace Mann Junior High magnet school students is compared to the percent passing state-wide in the tables and graphs that follow. State-wide data are based on the 1992 administration of the MPT. Table 19 below and graph 18 on the following page show the percent passing for Mann students compared to the percent passing state-wide. state-wide data were not disaggregated by race and sex. Any regular education students who did not pass the total test by receiving a combined score of 4204 was required to retake the tests for those subject areas he\\she did not pass. State-wide more than ninety-five percent (95%) of the eighth grade students achieved a passing score. After three administrations of the MPT, ninety-one percent (91%), or 234 of 256 eighth grade students at Mann Junior High School achieved a passing score of 4202 or higher. Table 19 Mann Junior High --Eight Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social Studies Percent Passing by Race\\ sex N:256 Students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All students 95 % 95 % 93 % 88 % 82 % Mann: All students 91 % 86 % 90 % 68 % 73 % Black Males 87 % 82 % 78 % 52 % 60 % Black Females 87 % 78 % 94 % 46 % 56 % White Males 98 % 96 % 92 % 94 % 92 % White Females 97 % 93 % 97 % 87 % 90 % *Others(?) 88 % 88 % 88 % 88 % 88 % * Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores were not reported by gender. 39 Mann Jr. High - Grade Eight Percent Passing 80 +-' C Q) ,(_.) 60 Q) a.. Legend 40  State  Mann  B Males 20  B Females  W Males  W Females 0  Others(?) Reading Math Language Science Soc Stud All Magnets - Five Year Summary The following sections presents data for magnet school students for the past five years {1989-1993). Grade Three During the past five school years magnet school third grade students have passing rates from a low of 90 percent {1990) to a high of 97 percent {1989) on the reading subtest for the MPT. The five year average percent passing is 93.43 percent. In mathematics the pass rate for magnet school third grade students ranges from a low of 92 percent {1990) to a high of 98 percent {1989). The five year average pass rate is 94.59 percent. The graph that follows reflects the percent passing for third grade magnet school students for the five year period (1989- 1993) for reading and mathematics. 41 Third Grade - All Students MPT Percent Passing ADE Pass Rate = 85% 100 I~ 90 80 70 60 50 1989 ............... ---- Reading ~ ------- 1990 Legend -+-- Math --- - ----- 1991 --- ADE Pass Rate -- .... ,. .. 1992 ::::11 . . 1993 Grade six During the five year period (1989-1993) sixth grade magnet school students had the following average pass rates on the MPT. Reading Mathematics: Lang Arts Science Soc Studies: 98 percent 97 percent 89 percent 86 percent 90 percent 43 Sixth Grade - All Students MPT Percent Passing ADE Pass Rate = 85% 100 -. 11:: - 90 ~~ 80 70 60 50 1989 -a- Reading -a- Lang Arts ----- i----- ~ ~ . .----- .... ~ ~ 1990 Legend -+- Math ---M-- Science -- --  r---.._ ---i--- ,-- .J L - ---- ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ---~ ~ .r 1991 1992 --- ADE Pass Rate -+- Soc Stud ............. -- I  - ~~.. 1993 Grade Eight Grade eight magnet school students had the following average pass rates on the MPT subtests. Reading Mathematics: Lang Arts Science Soc Studies: 94 percent 90 percent 93 percent 75 percent 80 percent 45 Eighth Grade - All Students MPT Percent Passing ADE Pass Rate = 85% 50 +------'----+--------'-----+-----'----+-------'----------1 1989 --- Reading --- Lang Arts 1990 Legend --+- Math --- Science 1991 1992 1993 ---- ADE Pass Rate --- Soc Stud Stanford Achievement Tests (SAT 8) The Arkansas student Assessment Program is mandated for all public schools. Act 89 of the 1st Extraordinary Session of 1983 required that a standardized norm-referenced test be administered to measure the achievement of groups of children. The Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 8) was administered to approximately 89,000 students in Grades 4, 7 and 10 during the 1991-92 school year and approximately 92,000 students in grades 4,7, and 10 during the 1992-93 school year. Test results are presented in national percentiles, which show relationship of the average scores of Arkansas students to scores obtained by the national sample when the test was normed in 1991. Results are presented for grades 4, 7 and 10. State data were provided by the Arkansas Department of Education. Data were provided as state percentile ranks for all (total) students, black students and white students for grades 4, 7 and 10. District and site data for Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools were provided by the Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation Office. Data are Provided for all (total) students, black students, white students and other students by school site. Data were not disaggregated by sex. Data analysis will include: * Magnet school percentiles by grade for all students to state and national percentiles. * Magnet school percentiles by grade for all students to district (Pulaski County, North Little Rock and Little Public Schools). * Magnet school percentiles by site: - by race (black and white) - by magnet school - by grades (4,7,10) This report notes that test result data are presented in the form of percentiles. Percentiles are raw score transformations that are set up so that each score indicates the percentage of scores that fall below it. The national ~ean for the SAT 8 is a percentile of fifty (50), that is the point above which half of the national sample scored. Percentiles that are above fifty(\u0026gt; 50) are above the ~ational average and scores that are below fifty (\u0026lt; 50) are elow the national average. The state percentile rank for all students in Arkansas by grade are presented on the following page. 47 Table 21 state of Arkansas Percentile Ranks (all students) Grades 4, 7 and 10 Grade # of Read Math Lang Sci Soc Basic stud Stud Battery 4 31,348 49 59 54 59 59 54 7 32,644 48 50 49 57 52 49 10 27,840 53 47 53 56 51 52 FINDINGS The SAT 8 was administered to all fourth (4th), seventh (7th) and tenth (10th) grade students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. The tables that follow present ~he test results data by grade and by school for all students in the magnet schools compared to state and national test results data. Test results data are disaggregated by race. State reports did not disaggregate data by sex. Data are disaggregated for all students, black students and White students. All students are compared to the state average and the national average (50) for all students. S~udents are compared by race to the state average for their like-type groups across the state and to the national average Grade 4 Booker Elementary Magnet School Table 2 on the following page presents SAT 8 test data for Booker Elementary Magnet School - grade four. The table is constructed to provide a comparison of the performance of Booker fourth grade students to students across the state and across the nation. All Booker fourth grade students performed better that all students state-wide and only slightly lower than the national average on the reading subtest. Black students performed considerably higher than black students state-wide. White students performed higher than other white students both across the state and across the nation. On the math, language, science and social science subtests a11 Booker students performed above the national average and 0 nly slightly below the state average for all students. Black students performed better than other black students across the state on all the subtests. 48 On the basic battery all Booker students performed above the national average and slightly below the state average for all students. Black students performed better than other black students state-wide. White students performed higher than other white students both state-wide and across the nation. Table 22 Comparison of Booker Magnet School Averages to state and National Averages Test Total Reading Total Math Total Lang Total Sci Total Soc Sci Basic Battery Grade Four -- All students -- By Race(B,W) N = 85 Booker State National Diff Average Average Average State All 49.6 49 50 + Black 42.0 29 50 + White 57.6 56 50 + All 55.0 59 50 - Black 49.9 45 50 + White 59.8 63 50 - All 51.7 54 50 - Black 46.1 37 50 + White 57.2 60 50 - All 51.4 59 50 - Black 42.1 39 50 + White 61.1 65 50 - All 55.6 59 50 - Black 50.1 39 50 + White 61.9 65 50 - All 52.1 54 50 - Black 45.3 36 50 + White 59.5 59 50 + 49 (+,-) Nat -- + + - + + - + + - + + + + + - + Booker Elementary Fourth Grade Reading SAT 8 100 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 - .. National Average = 50% s ... 4  3o . -~ 2 0 0 0 Black Legend -----~ ~ -a- Booker -+- State -+- Nat Avg -----~ ~ .., v- White All Booker Elementary Fourth Grade Math SAT 8 100 90 8 0 7 0 6 0 ----=::::::: -- National Average = 50% s .... ... 4 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend -II- Booker -+--- State ---+-- Nat Avg Booker Elementary Fourth Grade Lang SAT 8 100 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 - National Average= 50% s --------- ----- 4 0 -----  ..--- 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend -a- Booker -+- State -+- Nat Avg Booker Elementary Fourth Grade Science SAT 8 100 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 ~ - - - - National Average = 50% s ~ - - - ... ~ ... ,, 4 :::::----- 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend -a- Booker --+-- State -+- Nat Avg Booker Elementary Fourth Grade Soc Sci SAT 8 00 90 80 70 National Average = 50% 60 i.---- ~- --  ----- .-l,...,,--\"\" .. ..... ~ r 40_ ~ \"\" 30 20 10 0 Black White All Legend -a- Booker -+- State ~ Nat Avg Booker Elementary Fourth Grade Basic Bat SAT 8 100 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 --- ---- National Average= 50% s - ... Ii,. ----------- ...... --- ... ---- 4 0- ----- ~ 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend -If- Booker -+- State -+- Nat Avg carver Elementary Magnet School Carver Elementary School (all) fourth grade students scored higher than the state and national average for all students on each the subtests and the basic battery. Table 23 depicts test data for Carver Elementary fourth grade students. Black students performed better than other black students in the state on every subtest and better than all students nation-wide on all subtests except reading. White students performed better than other white students state-wide and all students nation-wide on all subtests and the complete battery. Table 23 Comparison of carver Magnet School Averages to state and National Averages Test Total Reading Total Math Total Lang Total Sci - Total Soc Sci Basic Battery Grade Four -- All Students -- By Race(B,W) N = 85 Carver State National Diff Average Average Average State All 58.1 49 50 + Black 46.7 29 50 + White 71.1 56 50 + All 63.9 59 50 + Black 56.5 45 50 + White 71. 0 63 50 + All 63.0 54 50 + Black 53.3 37 50 + White 73.7 60 50 + All 66.5 59 50 + Black 55.2 39 50 + White 78.8 65 50 + All 66.6 59 50 + Black 55.5 39 50 + White 79.2 65 50 + All 62.3 54 50 + Black 52.3 36 50 + White 73.0 59 50 + 56 (+I-) Nat + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Carver Elementary Fourth Grade Reading SAT 8 100 90 8 0 7 0 - 6 0 - ... ... National Average= 50% s __.,,,- ... ,. __.,,,- ... ,. .., ... 4 .,,,.- ,,.,..,.-- 0 __.,,,- 3 (l ~  11111 \"\" 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend Carver -+- State -+-- Nat Avg Carver Elementary Fourth Grade Math SAT 8 100 9 0 8 0 7 0 - - - - 6 0 .-,,,,,- ----- - - National Average = 50% s - ---- ... - ----- \"' 4 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend Carver -+- State --+-- Nat Avg Carver Elementary Fourth Grade Lang SAT 8 100 90 80 70 - 60 - ~ National Average = 50% ----- - .... ~ .. ~ ... ------- ... 40 -----  ..-- 30 20 10 0 Black White All Legend Carver -+- State -+- Nat Avg Carver Elementary Fourth Grade Science SAT 8 100 90 80 70 60 ------ ------ ~ ~ National Average = 50% --... --,,.,.,.,,,..- .. ..... ... __,,.,.,.,,,..- ... 4\" ----- \" - - 30 20 10 0 Black White All Legend Carver -+- State --+-- Nat Avg Carver Elementary Fourth Grade Soc Sci SAT 8 100 90 80 70 60 ----- ------ -... National Average = 50% c:.n. ..... _,,., _.,,,,.,.--- ..... ... .. ------ ... ... 4n- ------- 30 20 10 0 Black White All Legend Carver --+- State -+-- Nat Avg Carver Elementary Fourth Grade Basic Bat SAT 8 100 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 ----- ~ National Average = 50% s ----- - ... (\\ ...... ... ... ... - ~.., .,,,,-- 4 0- ----- ---- v-- 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend Carver --+- State -+- Nat Avg Gibbs Elementary Magnet School Table 24 presents tests results data for fourth grade students at Gibbs Elementary Magnet School. Gibbs Elementary School {all) fourth grade students scored higher than the state and national average for all students on each the subtests and the basic battery. Table 4 on the following page depicts test data for Gibbs Elementary fourth grade students. Black students performed better than other black students in the state on every subtest and better than all students nation-wide on all subtests except reading. They performed only slightly lower than the national average on the reading subtest {49.5 Gibbs - to - 50 nation-wide). White students performed better than other white students state-wide and all students nation-wide on all subtests and the complete battery. Table 24 Comparison of Gibbs Magnet School Averages to state and National Averages Test Total Reading Total Math - Total Lang - Total Sci - Total Soc Sci --Basic Battery ,__ Grade Four -- All students -- By Race(B,W) N = 42 Gibbs State National Diff Average Average Average State All 58.9 49 50 + Black 49.5 29 50 + White 71.4 56 50 + All 70.2 59 50 + Black 63.4 45 50 + White 80.1 63 50 + All 59.4 54 50 + Black 53.3 37 50 + White 67.4 60 50 + All 65.6 59 50 + Black 56.0 39 50 + White 78.1 65 50 + All 67.3 59 50 + Black 59.3 39 50 + White 78.1 65 50 + All 64.0 54 50 + Black 55.9 36 50 + White 75.0 59 50 + 63 { +, -) Nat + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gibbs Elementary Fourth Grade Reading SAT 8 10 0 9 0 8 0 7 0 ,___..- 6 0 ---- ~ ... - -------- ----- National Average = 50% s ---- ~ .. ~ ... -... 4 ~ V\" 0 ~ 3 n ~ -- .. 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend ---- Gibbs -+- State -+- Nat Avg Gibbs Elementary Fourth Grade Math SAT 8 10 0 9 0 8 0 ~ -- - 7 --i---- ---- 0 ------ 6 ----- ---- - - - ~ National Average = 50% s (\\ ... ----- ---- 4 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend --- Gibbs -+- State --+-- Nat Avg Gibbs Elementary Fourth Grade Lang SAT 8 100 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 ----- ---------- National Average = 50% s ----- -... ------ ... 4 0 -----  V 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend --- Gibbs -+- State ---+- Nat Avg Gibbs Elementary Fourth Grade Science SAT 8 100 90 8 0 ==-=== 7 ----- ---i--....._ 0 --~ 60 ---- ~ ------ -... National Average= 50% s --i--- ..... . ... ,. ~ 4 o. ~ - 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend -II- Gibbs -+- State ~ Nat Avg Gibbs Elementary Fourth Grade Soc Sci SAT 8 100 9 0 8 0 ==-==== 7 ------- ------- 0 ------- ::::1111 6 ------- ~ ~ ~ ~ National Average = 50% s ('\\ ..... _,.. ~ ... ... \"I,, ~ \"I ,, 4 n ~ -- ... 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend --- Gibbs -+- State ~ Nat Avg Gibbs Elementary Fourth Grade Basic Bat SAT 8 10 0 9 0 8 0 7 ~ 0 ----- ------ 6 0 ----- ---- National Average = 50% s ~ - - ... ..... ... .,,,.--- ... ---- 4 0 ~ -~ 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend -II- Gibbs -+- State --+-- Nat Avg Williams Elementary Magnet School Williams Elementary Magnet School students performed better than students state-wide and nation-wide on all subtests on the basic battery. Test results data are presented in Table 25. Black students performed higher than other black students and white students performed better than other white students on every subtest and the basic battery both in the state and across the nation. Table 25 Comparison of Williams Magnet School Averages to state and National Averages Test Total Reading Total Math Total Lang Total Sci Total Soc Sci - Basic Battery ,__ Grade Four -- All students -- By Race(B,W) N = 68 Williams State National Diff Average Average Average State All 60.4 49 50 + Black 52.0 29 50 + White 71.3 56 50 + All 73.5 59 50 + Black 70.2 45 50 + White 77.6 63 50 + All 67.8 54 50 + Black 62.9 37 50 + White 73.8 60 50 + All 65.3 59 50 + Black 61.1 39 50 + White 70.7 65 50 + All 70.1 59 50 + Black 64.5 39 50 + White 77.2 65 50 + All 67.4 54 50 + Black 61.2 36 50 + White 75.3 59 50 + 70 (+,-) Nat + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Williams Elementary Fourth Grade Reading SAT 8 100 9 8 7 6 National Average = 50% s 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 o ... - 0 0 0 Black ----- ~ ~ Legend _.. __,- -a- Williams -+- State --+-- Nat Avg ----- ----- ~ - - ~ ~ ... V'\" White -.... All Williams Elementary Fourth Grade Math SAT 8 100 9 0 8 0 7  6 0 ------ ---- - ~ National Average = 50% 5 - ---- .. ... ------ 4 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend --- Will iams -+- State ~ NatAvg Williams Elementary Fourth Grade Lang SAT 8 10 0 90 8 0 7 0 ----- =======II 6 ---- National Average = 50% s ------ -... - _____ .... 4 0 ------  ...-- 3 0 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend -II- Williams -+- State ~ Nat Avg Williams Elementary Fourth Grade Science SAT 8 00 90 80 70 6 - ~ ~ - - National Average = 50% ::\n.- ~ .. ~ l.----\"'\"\"\" ~ ___,- ~ 40_ __,- ... 30 20 10 0 Black White All Legend -a- Williams -+- State ----+- Nat Avg Williams Elementary Fourth Grade Soc Sci SAT 8 100 90 80 ~ ~ 70 ---- 60 ------- ------- -, - National Average= 50% \"\" ....... --l,...,--\"\"'\" ,. ' ~ ' 4n ~ -- ... 30 20 10 0 Black White All Legend -II- Williams -+- State -+- Nat Avg Williams Elementary Fourth Grade Basic Bat SAT 8 100 90 80 ------ 70 ----- 6 ----- National Average = 50% ----- - ~ ::..,.- .11111 .. ... .. .., -------- 40 ----- Ill ~ 30 20 10 0 Black White All Legend -a- Williams -+- State -+- Nat Avg Grade seven Mann Junior High School Mann Junior High Students, both black and white, and as a group performed higher than the state averages for like groups. Black students were only slightly lower than the nation-wide average (all students) on each of the subtests and the basic battery. White students were above the nation-wide average (all students) and the state-wide average for white students on all subtests and the basic battery. Test results data for Mann Junior High students are presented in Table 26 below. Table 26 Comparison of Mann Magnet Jr. High Averages to state and National Averages Test Total Reading Total Math - Total Lang - Total Sci - Total Soc Sci -Basic Battery -- Grade seven -- All students -- By Race(B,W) N = 277 Mann State National Diff Average Average Average State All 53.4 48 50 + Black 46.4 27 50 + White 63.1 56 50 + All 52.4 50 50 + Black 46.2 34 50 + White 64.2 55 50 + All 54.5 49 50 + Black 48.6 32 50 + White 62.8 54 50 + All 55.9 57 50 + Black 47.6 31 50 + White 67.0 66 50 + All 54.6 52 50 + Black 48.9 35 50 + White 62.3 58 50 + All 53.5 49 50 + Black 46.7 30 50 + White 62.9 55 50 + 77 (+, -) Nat + - + + - + + - + + - + + - + + - + Mann Junior High Seventh Grade Reading SAT 8 100 9 8 7 6 National Average = 50% 5 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~  ........ 0 0 0 Black Legend ----- ----- ~ ~.,.,,- ~ -a- Mann -+- State --+--- Nat Avg -- ~ ...... ~ White --r---_ All Mann Junior High Seventh Grade Math SAT 8 100 9 8 7 6 National Average = 50% 5 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 ... Black ------ ----- ----- Legend --- Mann -+- State -+--- Nat Avg ------ =====-======== ----- -----... \" White ----- All Mann Junior High Seventh Grade Lang SAT 8 100 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 National Average= 50% 5 0 ----- ----- II ~ ---- - ,... 4 ------- 0 ------- 3 o .-- 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend -a-- Mann --+- State ~ Nat Avg Mann Junior High Seventh Grade Science SAT 8 10 0 9 0 8 0 7 0 60 National Average= 50% s 4 3 2 0 (:J'! 0 0 0 V Black ~ ,/ _/ Legend ~ ,/ --L-- ~ ~ ... /\"\" ' White --- Mann -+- State -+-- Nat Avg All Mann Junior High Seventh Grade Soc Sci SAT 8 100 90 80 70 60 ----- ~ - _,..- National Average= 50% ----- ---- ..... ------ 40 ---- ----- 30 20 10 0 Black White All Legend ----- Mann ---+- State ~ Nat Avg Mann Junior High Seventh Grade Basic Bat SAT 8 100 90 80 70 60 ----- - ---- National Average= 50% ----- ~ ~ ~ i..------ 40 ~ 3n ~ 20 10 0 Black White All Legend -9- Mann -+- State -+- Nat Avg Grade 10 Parkview High School Parkview tenth graders (all students) performed better than other tenth grade students nation-wide on all the subtests and on the basic battery. Black students performed better than other black students across the state while white students performed better than white students across the state. Black students performed higher than the national average on the basic battery and the language subtests and were only slightly below the national average on the reading, math, science and social science subtests. Test results data for Parkview tenth grade students are Presented in Table 27 below. Table 27 Comparison of Parkview High School Averages to state and National Averages Test ~ Total Reading - Total Math -Total Lang -Total Sci .._ Total Soc Sci -Basic Battery \"'\"-- Grade Ten -- All students -- By Race(B,W) N = 270 Parkview State National Diff Average Average Average state All 55.9 53 50 + Black 49.7 30 50 + White 66.3 59 50 + All 51.1 47 50 + Black 47.4 31 50 + White 56.6 52 50 + All 56.7 53 50 + Black 52.1 35 50 + White 64.4 59 50 + All 53.4 56 50 + Black 46.9 30 50 + White 64.3 63 50 + All 52.6 51 50 + Black 47.6 32 50 + White 61.2 56 50 + All 55.8 52 50 + Black 50.8 33 50 + White 64.1 58 50 + 84 (+,-) Nat + - + + - + + + + + - + + - + + + + Parkview High School Tenth Grade Reading SAT 8 100 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 National Average = 50% s 0 ------ ------ ------ ~ ------ ~ ~ ~ ... ... 4 0 ~ ~ 3 - ~ 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend --- Parkview -+- State ~ Nat Avg Parkview High School Tenth Grade Math SAT 8 100 90 80 70 National Average = 50% 60 4 II ----- ... ,.. -,- 40 ~ ~ ----- 3(}'!! v--- 20 10 0 Black White All Legend -a-- Parkview --+-- State -+- Nat Avg Parkview High School Tenth Grade Lang SAT 8 100 90 80 70 60 National Average = 50% 5~ 40 -------- 30 20 10 0 Black Legend ----- ----- - -II- Parkview -+- State -+- Nat Avg - ~ ~ -------- ... ..---- White ::II -:l ~ ... All Parkview High School Tenth Grade Science SAT 8 100 90 8 0 7 0 6 ~ 0 ------ ~ - National Average= 50% s ------ ~ .,.V .., 4 0 ./' ~ 3 (\\ ./' 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend -II- Parkview -+- State ---+-- Nat Avg Parkview High School Tenth Grade Soc Sci SAT 8 100 90 8 0 7 0 6 0 ----- - ~ National Average= 50% s ----- ---- ---- ~ 4 0 ---- --- 3 o V 2 0 0 0 Black White All Legend --- Parkview -+- State ---+-- Nat Avg Parkview High School Tenth Grade Basic Bat SAT 8 100 90 80 70 National Average= 50% ========It:::: 60 ---~ - - ~ ::::II ~ -- ~ ' \"'I 40 ------- -------  ..... 30 20 10 0 Black White All Legend _. Parkview --f-- State --+- Nat Avg American College Test The ACT was administered to the Parkview seniors who registered to take the test. Since the ACT assessment is designed for those students who plan to attend college, the focus is on the students who completed the recommended college preparation courses. Students were disaggregated into two groups: 1. students who were completing the core curriculum and, 2. students who were completing less than the core curriculum. The 1993 student data file is based on all students who graduated in the Spring of 1993, and who took the ACT assessment test during their junior or senior year in high school. State norms are based on all 1993 ACT-tested graduates in the sate of Arkansas. National norms are based on all ACT-tested graduates in 1993. The following scores represent the composite scores of P~rkview students, Arkansas students and students nationwide: ACT Composite Scores Parkview 20.3 Arkansas 20.1 National 20.7 Parkview seniors scored above the state average ACT scores ~nd slightly below the national average ACT scores. Table 25 d7low shows the composite scores for Parkview students lsaggreagted by ethnic group. Table 20 Parkveiw Mean ACT scores --By Ethnic Group N=188 Ethnic Group -- Core Less than Total Core Group Afro-Am\\Black (106) 19.3 16.9 18.3 Am Ind\\Alsk Ntv (1) 17.0 17.0 Cauc Am\\White (76) 23.4 22.1 22.8 Mex Am\\Chicano ( 1) 19.0 19.0 Asian Am\\Pac Is ( 3) 20.3 20.3 P Rican\\Hispan (1) 25.0 25.0 91 Conclusions * All Pulaksi County Interdistrict Schools met or exceeded the ADE mandated eighty-five percent {85%) pass rate for third grade students on the Minimum Performance Test. * Third grade students in Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools has higher pass rates than third grade state-wide on the Minimum Performance Test. * Fourth grade magnet school students (all) performed above state levels for all students on the Stanford Achievement Test. * Black fourth grade magnet school students performed above the state average for black students and generally above the national average for all students on the Stanford Achievement Test. * White fourth grade magnet school students performed higher than other fourth grade students in the state and across the nation on the Stanford Achievement Test. * All Pulaski County Interdistrict Schools sixth grade students met or exceeded the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on the reading and math subtests of the Minimum Performance Test. * Junior High School magnet school students performed higher than their counterparts in the state and as a group above the national average on the Stanford Achievement Test (Grade 7). * Mann Junior High Magnet School students exceeded the eighty-five percent pass rate for the Minimum Performance Test after three administrations of the test. * * Senior High magnet school students performed higher than the state average for like groups across the state and as a group above the national average on the Stanford Achievement Test (Grade 10). Average American College Test scores for Parkview seniors are above the average ACT scores for the state and only Slightly below the national average. 92 SECTION II Desegregation POLASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Desegregation BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of the objectives in Expected Outcomes, #2, (A \u0026amp; B), listed below. To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the \"complete desegregation\" goal of the project. A. What is the social interaction between and within the disaggregated groups by race, sex, and socioeconomic status? Additional variables of solidarity and isolation will be studied for students, staff and parents. B. What are the reflections of the academic and professional interaction between the building administrators and the teaching staff during staff meetings, between teachers and students during class interactions, and between the building administrative staff, teachers and students during school related activities? Are there evidences of stereotyping by students i.e., graffiti and name calling? METHODOLOGY After notification by the MRC of acceptance of the evaluation ~roposal the research team began to develop and review lnstruments and procedures to collect data for objective #3. !0ciometric techniques used for prior evaluation activities ere used for the 1992-93 evaluation project. Previous ~Valuations have provided a research foundation relative to ~e \"~ppropriateness\" and usefulness of sociograms ant1fying students' relationships.\n~e sociogram was developed by the project staff to assess ( ~dent interaction relative to social classroom activities s~ 00sing students to sit by), academic activities (choosing (c~den~s to work with), and socialization on the playground a ~o~1ng students to play with). The sociograms were T~1n1stered in the fall of 1992 and the spring of 1993. act1~ ~eport presents the total results of the fall act~~n~stration of the sociogram. Only data from the spring da~ln1stration of the sociogram which reflect a change in a from the fall administration data are presented. 93 The Chi-Square Test for Independence was chosen to assess and evaluate the significance of student choice patterns. ChiSquare is the most appropriate statistical test for nominal data and is used to compare categorical data, for example, sociometric data. It tests for trends, group differences (independence) and in conjunction with other tests, for correlation. The .05 level of significance was chosen for this report (independence, that is, a statistical difference, was noted for groups with an inter-group probability of .05 or less). Contingency coefficients, which are similar to other correlation coefficients are also provided to provide a measure of the relationship. The PC computer utilizing the software package \"Statistics With Finesse\" was selected to analyze the data yielded by the sociograms. Site visits by an evaluation team were made to gather data relative to evaluation activities. The seven-member team consisted of professionals from Arkansas State University. Team members possessed competencies in specialty areas of elementary and early childhood education, secondary education, educational administration and program evaluation. The purpose of the site visits was to collect data relevant to the project activities. Each magnet school was visited by a team of two professionals. The project director visited all magnet school sites during the two days scheduled for the team visits. Visits lasted from 3 to 4 hours, and included observations of classroom and non-classroom activities. Forms were developed to record and codify data collected during the observation visits. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. A school satisfaction survey was conducted with a selected number of parents and students. The satisfaction survey was developed and validated by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). The report provides information on the degree to which parents, students, and teachers are happy or satisfied with the situation in their schools. National standard scores are given for each category. Data are used to compare individual magnet schools and magnet schools to schools nation-wide. Data for the magnet schools Was provided to the ASU office of Educational Research and Services by the MRC office. 94 FINDINGS Sociograms A total of 916 sociograms were administered in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools during the fall of 1992. There were 881 students completing the sociograms in the spring of 1993. Black students accounted for approximately fifty-four percent (54%) of the students with white students accounting for the remaining forty-six (46%). Each sociogram identified three categories to assess student behaviors. The categories allowed students to express choice or preference in three areas of activity: social (sit with), academic (work with), and play (play with). Individuals were asked to indicate five students in their class they would choose to participate with in each of these activities. A copy of the sociogram is included in the appendix of this report. Variables of sex and race were the results of the sociograms. student choices listed for the three categories. \"Statistics used to denote significance in independence and the .05 level disaggregated for analyzing Data analyses were based on opposite race in each of the with Finesse\" software was determining variable was chosen. Sit With Each pupil chose five students in their classroom they would prefer to sit near. Statistical data for this sociogram category are provided in Tables 28-39 that follow. Disaggregated by Race--Black students compared to White Students There was a significant difference in the choice patterns of black students and white students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit with. For the fall, a Chi-Square of 13.0980 was computed which yielded a contingency coefficient of 0.1187 and a probability of 0.0225. Black students were more likely (19.5 %) to choose to sit by no white students than white students (11.2%) were to choose to sit by no black students. During the spring administration the percent of students choosing no students of the opposite race to sit with (blacks-16.4% and whites 6.5%) was lower, however, the choice Patterns for black and white students were still dependent upon race. Data for the fall administration and statistical analyses for both fall and spring are provided in Table 28 on the following page. 95 TABLE 28 Sociogram -- sit With Opposite Race Black students Compared to White Students N=916 Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black 99 123 124 97 53 11 507 % 19.5 24.3 24.5 19.1 10.5 2.2 100.0 White 46 99 107 96 52 9 409 % 11.2 24.2 26.2 23.5 12.7 2.2 100.0 Total 145 222 231 193 105 20 916 % 15.8 24.2 25.2 21.1 11.5 2.2 100.0 Chi-Square Test of Independence Fall spring Number of Observations 916 881 Chi-Square 13.0980 23.0414 Contingency Coefficient 0.1187 0.1596 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0225 0.0003 Disaggregated by sex -- Males compared to Females Sex of the student is a significant variable in the choice patterns of students choosing members of the opposite race to sit with. In the fall administration a Chi-Square of 15.1029 was computed producing a contingency coefficient of 0.1274 and a probability of 0.0099. Thirty-six percent {36%) of the males chose no more than one student of the opposite race to sit near while forty-four percent {44%) of the females chose not more than one student of the opposite race to sit near. In the spring administration the number of males choosing no more than one student of the opposite race to sit near fell to only twenty-six percent {26%) and the number of females choosing no more than one student of the opposite race to sit with fell to thirty-seven percent. Although still statistically significant after the spring administration, there appeared to be a trend toward the diminution of the gender bias. Data for the fall administration and statistical analyses data for the spring administration are shown in Table 29 on the following page. 96 TABLE 29 Sociogram -- sit With Opposite Race Male students compared to Female students N=916 Number of students of opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 s Total Males 61 96 104 104 64 8 437 % 14.0 22.0 23.8 23.8 14.6 1.8 100.0 Females 84 126 127 89 41 12 479 % 17.5 26.3 26.5 18.6 8.6 2.5 100.0 Total 145 222 231 193 105 20 916 % 15.8 24.2 25.2 21.1 11.5 2.2 100.0 Chi-Square Test of Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 916 881 Chi-Square 15.1023 14.6515 Contingency Coefficient 0.1274 0.1279 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0099 0.0120 Black Males compared to Black Females Analysis of the fall data shows significant differences in the choice patterns of black students based on gender. Only thirty-eight percent {37.6%) of the black males chose one (1) or fewer students of the opposite race while forty-nine percent {48.9%) of the black females named no more than one (1) student of the opposite race. The computed Chi-Square was 12.9480 with a contingency coefficient of 0.1578 and a Probability of 0.0239. However, data analysis after the spring administration of the sociogram revealed that both black males and black females had a greater propensity to choose students of the opposite race to sit with. For the spring administration, choice Patterns were not dependent on sex (gender) when comparing black males and black females. A Chi-Square of 6.5883 was computed yielding a contingency coefficient of 0.1162 and a Probability of 0.2531. Tables 30 and 31 that follow presents the data for both the fall and spring administrations of the sociograms. 97 TABLE 30 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race (Fall) Male Students Compared to Female Students (Black) N:507 Sex/ Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Males 41 46 61 50 31 2 231 % 17.7 19.9 26.4 21.6 13.4 0.9 100.0 Black Females 58 77 63 47 22 9 276 % 21.0 27.9 22.8 17.0 8.0 3.3 100.0 Total 99 123 124 97 53 11 507 % 19.5 24.3 24.5 19.1 10.5 2.2 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Number of Observations 507 Chi-square 12.984 Contingency Coefficient 0.1598 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0239 As can be noted from the tables, both black males and black females chose more students of the opposite race to sit near during the spring administration. In the fall only fifty-six percent (56%) of the students chose at least two (2) students of the opposite race to sit with. In the spring sixty-three percent (63%) of the students chose at least two (2) students of the opposite race to sit with. 98 TABLE 31 Sociogram -- sit With opposite Race (Spring) Male Students Compared to Female Students (Black) N=507 sex/ Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Males 28 41 74 50 21 6 220 % 12.7 18.6 33.6 22.7 9.5 2.7 100.0 Black Females 51 55 80 52 20 3 261 % 19.5 21.1 30.8 19.9 7.7 1.1 100.0 Total 79 96 154 102 41 9 481 % 16.4 20.0 32.0 21.1 8.5 1.9 100.0 Chi-Square Test of Independence Number of Observations 481 Chi-Square 6.5883 Contingency Coefficient 0.1162 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.2531 Black Males Compared to White Males During the fall administration of the sociograms a racial bias existed when comparing black males and white males. Black males, at almost eighteen percent (17.7%), were more likely to choose no students of the opposite race than were white males at nearly ten percent (9.7%). A Chi-Square of 11.3348 was computed yielding a contingency coefficient of 0.1590 and a probability of 0.0451. During the spring administration the difference between the choice patterns of black males and white males was not dependent on race. A Chi-Square of 10.1417 was computed that Produced a contingency coefficient of 0.1530 and a Probability of 0.0713. During the spring administration more than seventy-three Percent (73.3%) of the males chose to sit with at least two (2) students of the opposite race, up from sixty-four percent (64%) of the students naming at least two (2) students of the opposite race to sit with during the fall administration. Tables 32 and 33 that follow depict the data from the fall and spring sociograms comparing black males and white males. 99 TABLE 32 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race (Fall) Black Students compared to White students (Males) N:507 Sex/ Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 s Black Males 41 46 61 50 31 2 % 17.7 19.9 26.4 21.6 13.4 0.9 White Males 20 50 43 54 33 6 % 9.7 24.3 20.9 26.2 16.0 2.9 Total 61 96 104 104 64 8 % 14.0 22.0 23.8 23.8 14.6 1.8 Chi-square Test of Independence Number of Observations 437 Chi-Square 11.3348 Contingency Coefficient 0.1590 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0451 TABLE 33 sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race (Spring) Black Students Compared to White students (Males) N=423 Total 231 100.0 206 100.0 437 100.0 Sex/ Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 s Total Black Males 28 41 74 50 21 6 220 % 12.7 18.6 33.6 22.7 9.5 2.7 100.0 White Males 10 34 68 56 27 8 203 % 4.9 16.7 33.5 27.6 13.3 3.9 100.0 Total 38 75 142 106 48 14 423 % 14.0 22.0 23.8 23.8 14.6 1.8 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Number of Observations 423 Chi-square 10.1417 Contingency Coefficient 0.1530 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0713 100 Black Males Compared to White Females No significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of black males and white females in their propensity to choose students of the opposite race to sit with. More than sixty percent (66.1) of the students chose to sit with 2 or fewer students of the opposite race. A Chi-Square of 5.5171 was computed that yielded a contingency coefficient of 0.1120 and a probability of 0.3561. No significant changes were noted in the choice patterns of students during the spring administration when comparing black males and white females. A Chi-Square of 3.9811, a contingency coefficient of 0.0972 and a probability of 0.5521 were computed. Table 34 below depicts the data for the fall administration of the sociogram and both fall and spring results of the analyses of the data. TABLE 34 Sociogram Sit With Opposite Race Black Male Students Compared to White Female students N:434 Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Males 41 46 61 50 31 2 231 % 17.7 19.9 26.4 21. 6 13.4 0.9 100.0 White Females 26 49 64 42 19 3 203 % 12.8 24.1 31. 5 20.7 9.4 1.5 100.0 Total 67 97 125 92 50 5 434 % 15.4 21.9 28.8 21.2 11. 5 2.2 100.0 Chi-Square Test of Independence Fall spring Number of Observations 434 417 Chi-square 5.5171 3.9811 Contingency Coefficient 0.1120 0.0092 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.3561 0.5521 101 Black Females compared to White Males There is a very distinct difference in choice patterns of choosing students of the opposite race to sit with when comparing black females and white males. Black females (21%) are more than twice as likely to choose not to sit by a student of the opposite race than white males (9.7%). During the spring administration the rate for choosing not to sit with students of the opposite race for black females was about twenty-percent (19.5%) and only about five percent {4.9%) for white males. Table 35 below depicts the data for the fall administration of the sociogram and both fall and spring statistical results of the analyses of the data. TABLE 35 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Female Students compared to White Male students N:482 Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females 58 77 63 47 22 9 276 % 21. 0 27.9 22.8 17.0 8.0 3.3 100.0 White Males 20 50 43 54 33 6 206 % 9.7 24.3 20.9 26.2 16.0 2.9 100.0 Total 78 127 106 101 55 15 482 % 16.2 26.3 22.0 21.0 11.4 3.1 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Fall spring Number of Observations 482 464 Chi-Square 21. 6013 30.1702 Contingency Coefficient 0.2071 0.2471 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0006 0.0001 Black Females compared to White Females During the fall administration of the sociograms there was no statistically significant difference in the choice patterns of black females and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to sit with. Yet it should be noted that the Chi-Square of 11.0527 produced a contingency coefficient of 102 0.1502 and a probability of .0799. The difference between these two groups was not significant at the .05 level. After the spring administration there was a statistical difference when comparing the two groups. The data analysis produced a Chi-Square of 12.4642, a contingency coefficient of 0.1628 and a probability of 0.0290. On the fall administration twenty-one percent (21%) of the black females and thirteen percent (13%) of the white females chose not to sit with any students of the opposite race. On the spring administration of the sociogram twenty percent (20%) of the black females and only eight percent (8%) of the white females chose no students of the opposite race to sit with. Data from the fall administration are presented in Table 36 below and the spring administration data are presented in Table 37 on the following page. TABLE 36 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race (Fall) Black students compared to White Students (Females) N=479 Sex/ Number of Students of opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females 58 77 63 47 22 6 273 % 21.2 28.2 23.1 17.2 8.1 2.2 100.0 White Females 26 49 64 42 19 3 203 % 12.8 24.1 31.5 20.7 9.4 1.5 100.0 Total 84 126 127 89 41 9 476 % 17.6 26.5 26.7 18.7 8.6 1.9 100.0 Chi-Square Test of Independence Number of Observations 476 Chi-square 11. 0527 Contingency Coefficient 0.1502 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0799 103 TABLE 37 Sociogram -- sit With opposite Race (Spring) Black students Compared to White students (Females) N=458 Sex/ Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females 51 55 80 52 20 3 261 % 19.5 21.1 30.7 19.9 7.7 2.0 100.0 White Females 16 47 64 49 17 4 197 % 8.1 23.9 32.5 24.9 8.6 2.0 100.0 Total 67 102 144 101 37 7 458 % 14.6 22.3 31.4 22.1 8.1 1.5 100.0 Chi-Square Test of Independence Number of Observations 458 Chi-Square 12.4642 Contingency Coefficient 0.1628 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0290 White Males and White Females White males and white females were statistically different in student choice patterns during the fall administration. White females were more likely to name no students of the opposite race to sit with than were white males. The statistical analysis of the data produced a Chi-Square of 11.1620 which yielded a contingency coefficient of 0.1630 and a probability of 0.0483. Analysis of data from the spring administration of the sociogram revealed no statistical difference in choice Patterns when comparing white males and white females. Analysis of the data produced a Chi-Square of 7.5767, a contingency coefficient of 0.1363 and a probability of 0.1812. Tables 38 and 39 on the following page depict the analyses of data when comparing white males and white females. 104 TABLE 38 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race (Fall) White Males compared to White to White Females N:409 sex/ Number of Students of opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 White Males 20 50 43 54 33 6 % 9.7 24.3 20.9 16.0 16.0 2.9 White Females 26 49 64 42 19 3 % 12.8 24.1 31.5 20.7 9.4 1.5 Total 46 99 107 96 52 9 % 11.2 24.2 26.2 23.5 12.7 2.2 Chi-Square Test of Independence Number of Observations 409 Chi-Square 11. 1620 Contingency Coefficient 0.1630 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0483 TABLE 39 sociogram -- Sit With opposite Race (Spring) White Males compared to White to White Females N:400 Total 206 100.0 203 100.0 409 100.0 Bex/ Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total White Males 10 34 68 56 27 8 203 % 4.9 16.7 33.5 27.6 13.3 3.9 100.0 White Females 16 47 64 49 17 4 197 % 8.1 23.9 32.5 24.9 8.6 2.0 100.0 Total 26 81 132 105 44 12 400 % 6.5 20.3 33.0 26.3 11.0 3.0 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Number of Observations 400 Chi-square 7.5767 Contingency Coefficient 0.1363 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.1812 105 Work With Each student was asked to choose five students with whom they would like to work. Tables 40-47 illustrate the data analysis for the sociogram section work with. Disaggregated by Race -- Black Race Compared to White Race The fall administration of the sociogram indicates race was a significant variable for students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. More black students (12.8 percent) chose no students of the opposite race than white students (10.3 percent). Statistical analysis of the data produced a Chi-Square of 11.2974, a contingency coefficient of 0.1104 and a probability of 0.0458. Data analysis of the spring administration indicates that race remained a significant variable in student choice patterns when comparing black and white student responses on the work with portion of the sociograms. A Chi-Square of 15.047 was computed that produced a contingency coefficient of 0.1296 and a probability of 0.0102. Data for the fall administration and statistical analysis data for the spring administration are included in Table 40 below. TABLE 40 Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black students compared to White students N:916 Numl:\u0026gt;er of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black 65 97 143 128 56 18 507 % 12.8 19.1 28.2 25.2 11.0 3.6 100.0 White 42 107 120 89 45 6 409 % 10.3 26.2 29.3 21.8 11.0 1.5 100.0 Total 107 204 263 217 101 24 916 % 11.7 22.3 28.7 23.7 11.0 2.6 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Fall spring Number of Observations 916 881 Chi-Square 11.2974 15.0427 Contingency Coefficient 0.1104 0.1296 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0458 0.0102 106 Disaggregated by sex -- Males compared to Females There was no significant difference in the choice of students of the opposite race to work with based on the variable sex. Males (89.3%) were just as likely as females (87.4%) to choose at least one student of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 7.2458 yielded a contingency coefficient of 0.0886 and a probability of 0.2030. No significant difference patterns were noted when comparing the fall and the spring administrations of the sociograms. Gender was not a significant variable in students naming students of the opposite race to work with when comparing males and females. Data comparing males and females are presented in Table 41 below. TABLE 41 sociogram -- work With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female students N=916 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Males 47 97 113 110 57 13 437 % 10.8 22.2 25.9 25.2 13.0 3.0 100.0 Females 60 107 150 107 44 11 479 % 12.5 22.3 31.3 22.3 9.2 2.3 100.0 Total 107 204 263 217 101 24 916 % 11.7 22.3 28.7 23.7 11.0 2.6 100.0 Chi-Square Test of Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 916 881 Chi-square 7.2458 3.3427 Contingency Coefficient 0.0886 0.0615 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.2030 0.6473 Black Males compared to Black Females Black males and females demonstrated no significant difference in choosing students of the opposite race to work With. Statistical analysis of the data produced a Chi-Square of 2.5503, a contingency coefficient of 0.0707 and a Probability of 0.7689. No significant difference in choice patterns were noted during the spring administration of the sociograms when 107 comparing black males and black females. Data analysis resulted in the computation of a Chi-Square of 2.4091, a contingency coefficient of 0.0706 and a probability of o. 7901. Table 42 below presents data from the fall administration of the sociogram and statistical analysis of data from the spring administration. TABLE 42 Sociogram Work With Opposite Race Male Students compared to Female Students (Black) N:507 sex/ Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 s Total Black Males 26 41 64 63 28 9 231 % 11.3 17.7 27.7 27.3 12.1 3.9 100.0 Black Females 39 56 79 65 28 9 276 % 14.1 20.3 28.6 23.6 10.1 3.3 100.0 Total 65 97 143 128 56 18 507 % 12.8 19.1 28.2 25.2 11.0 3.6 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 507 481 Chi-square 2.5503 2.4091 Contingency Coefficient 0.0707 0.0706 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.7689 0.7901 Black Males Compared to White Males Choosing students of the opposite race to work with was independent of race when comparing black males and white males. Although white males (89.9%) were more likely than black males (88.7%) to choose at least one member of the opposite race to work with, the difference is not significant at the .05 level. A computed Chi-Square of 7.7056 produced a contingency coefficient of 0.1316 and a probability of 0.1732. No statistical differences in student choice patterns were noted after the spring administration of the sociogram when comparing black males and white males. Data for the fall administration and fall and spring statistical analyses are Presented in table 43 below. 108 TABLE 43 sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White students (Males) N:437 sex/ Number of students of opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Males 26 41 64 63 28 9 231 % 11.3 17.7 27.7 27.3 12.1 3.9 100.0 White Males 21 56 49 47 29 4 206 % 10.2 27.2 23.8 22.8 14.1 1.9 100.0 Total 47 97 113 110 57 13 437 % 10.8 22.2 25.9 25.2 13.0 3.0 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 437 423 Chi-square 7.7056 7.4270 Contingency Coefficient 0.1316 0.1314 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1732 0.1908 Black Males Compared to White Females A significant difference exists when comparing black males to White females to the number of students of the opposite race chosen to work with. Only 10.3 percent of white females chose no students of the opposite race to work with, while 11.3 percent of black males chose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 12.1532 yielded a contingency coefficient of 0.1650 and a probability of 0.0327. Very little change in student choice patterns were noted from analysis of the spring administration data when comparing black males and white females. A Chi-Square of 16.2812 was computed, yielding a contingency coefficient of 0.1938 and a Probability of 0.0061. Data from the fall administration of the sociograms and analyses of the data from the fall and spring administrations are presented in Table 44 on the following page. 109 TABLE 44 Sociogram -- work With Opposite Race Black Male students Compared to White Female students N=434 Sex/ Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Males 26 41 64 63 28 9 231 % 11.3 17.7 27.7 27.3 12.1 3.9 100.0 White Females 21 51 71 42 16 2 203 % 10.3 25.1 35.0 20.7 7.9 1.0 100.0 Total 47 92 135 105 44 11 434 % 10.8 21.2 31.1 24.2 10.1 2.5 100.0 Chi-Square Test of Independence Fall spring Number of Observations 434 412 Chi-Square 12.1532 16.2812 Contingency Coefficient 0.1650 0.1938 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0327 0.0061 Black Females Compared to White Males Although white males (89.8%) were more likely than black females (85.9%) to chose a classmate of the opposite race to Work with, there was no significant difference. A statistical analysis of the data produced a Chi-Square of 7.2517, a contingency coefficient of 0.1217 and a probability Of 0.2026. Analysis of the data from the spring administration of the sociogram produced similar results as the fall administration. Although white males were more likely to chose students of the opposite race to work with, no statistically significant difference could be noted. The data analysis of the spring administration produced a Chi-Square of 3.3300 which yielded a contingency coefficient of 0.0844 and a probability of 0.6493. Data are presented in Table 45 on the following page. 110 TABLE 45 Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Female students compared to White Male students N=482 sex/ Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females 39 56 79 65 28 9 276 % 14.1 20.3 28.6 23.6 10.1 3.3 100.0 White Males 21 56 49 47 29 4 206 % 10.2 27.2 23.8 22.8 14.1 1.9 100.0 Total 60 112 128 112 57 13 482 % 12.4 23.2 26.6 13.2 11.8 2.7 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 482 464 Chi-square 7.2517 3.3300 Contingency Coefficient 0.1217 0.0844 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.2026 0.6493 Black Females compared to White Females Choice of students of the opposite race to work with was independent of race in comparing black females to white females. A Chi-Square of 7.7871 yielded a contingency coefficient of 0.1265 and a probability of 0.1684. No statistically significant difference was noted from analysis of data from the spring administration of the sociogram. However, the probability for the race variable resulting in a significant measure (0.0666) approached the .05 level of significance resulting from the analysis of the data from the spring administration. Data from the fall administration of the sociogram and data analyses from the fall and spring administrations are Presented in Table 46 on the following page. 111 TABLE 46 Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White students (Females) N=479 Sex/ Number of students of opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females 39 56 79 65 28 9 276 % 14.1 20.3 28.6 23.6 10.1 3.3 100.0 White Females 21 51 71 42 16 2 203 % 10.3 25.1 35.0 20.7 7.9 1.0 100.0 Total 60 107 150 107 44 11 479 % 12.5 22.3 31.3 22.3 9.2 2.3 100.0 Chi-Square Test of Independence Fall spring Number of Observations 479 458 Chi-Square 7.7871 10.3204 Contingency Coefficient 0.1263 0.1484 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1684 0.0666 White Males Compared to White Females At the .05 level no significant differences exist for white males compared to white females. White males (89.8%) are only slightly more likely than white females {89.7%) to choose classmates of the opposite race to work with. Statistical analysis of the data yielded a Chi-Square of 89486, a contingency coefficient of 0.1463 and a probability Of 0, 1111. Nho ~hange in the level of significance was noted for student 7 1ce patterns when comparing white males and white females ln the spring administration of the sociogram. A Chi-Square ~f 3,8517 was computed producing a contingency coefficient of ,0977 and a probability of 0.5710. Data are presented in Table 47 on the following page. 112 TABLE 47 Sociogram -- work With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (White) sex/ Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total White Males 21 56 49 47 29 4 206 % 10.2 27.2 23.8 22.8 14.1 1.9 100.0 White Females 21 51 71 42 16 2 203 % 10.3 25.1 35.0 20.7 7.9 1.0 100.0 Total 42 107 120 89 45 6 409 % 10.3 26.2 29.3 21.8 11. 0 1. 5 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 409 400 Chi-Square 8.9486 3.8517 Contingency Coefficient 0.1463 0. 0977 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1111 0.5710 113 Play With Students were asked to list five students of the opposite race they would choose to play with. Information from the analysis of the data is provided in Tables 48-55. Disaggregated by Race -- Black Race compared to White Race Student choice to play with a classmate of the opposite race was highly dependent on race. Nearly twice as many black students (24.5%) as white students (12.5%) chose not to play with classmates of the opposite race. A Chi-Square of 42.9302 yielded a contingency coefficient of 0.2116 and a probability of 0.0001. No change in student choices were revealed after the spring administration of the sociograms. Data analysis of the spring administration produced a Chi-square of 64.8128 which yielded a contingency coefficient of 0.2618 and a probability of o. 0001. Data for the fall administration and from the data analyses of fall and spring sociograms are presented in Table 48 below. Table 48 sociogram -- Play with opposite Race Black Students compared to White students N:916 Number of students of opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black 124 145 131 60 31 16 507 % 24.5 28.6 25.8 11.8 6.1 3.2 100.0 White 51 109 99 89 52 9 409 % 12.5 26.7 24.2 21.8 12.7 2.2 100.0 Total 175 254 230 149 83 25 916 % 19.1 27.7 25.1 16.3 9.1 2.7 100.0 Chi-square Test of :Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 916 881 Chi-Square 42.9302 64.8128 Contingency Coefficient 0.2116 0.2618 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 114 Disaggregated by sex -- Males Compared to Females In choosing to play with students of the opposite race, gender was a dependent variable when comparing males and females. Males, at nearly eighty-five percent (84.7%), were more likely than females, at seventy-eight percent (77.5%) percent, to play with a student of the opposite race. Analysis of the data from the fall administration of the sociograms produced a Chi-Square of 19.2243 yielding a contingency coefficient of 0.1434 and a probability of o. 0017. The same results can be seen from the spring administration of the sociograms. Female students are more likely to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. Analysis of the spring administration data produced a Chi-Square of 38.3384 yielding a contingency coefficient of 0.2042 and a probability of 0.0001. Data from the fall sociograms and analyses of fall and spring sociograms are presented in Table 49 below. Table 49 Sociogram -- Play with Opposite Race Male students compared to Female students N:916 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Males 67 107 118 86 47 12 437 15.3 24.5 27.0 19.7 10.8 2.7 100.0 Females 108 147 112 63 36 13 479 % 22.5 30.7 23.4 13.2 7.5 2.7 100.0 Total 175 254 230 149 83 25 916 % 19.1 27.7 25.1 16.3 9.1 2.7 100.0 Chi-square Test of :Independence Fall spring Number of Observations 916 881 Chi-Square 19.224. 38.3384 Contingency Coefficient 0.1434 0.2042 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0017 0.0001 115 Black Males Compared to Black Females A significant difference existed for black males and females in choosing to play with students of the opposite race. Black males at eighty-one percent (81%) were more likely than black females at seventy-one percent (71%) to play with at least one (1) student of the opposite race. A statistical analysis of the data for the fall administration produced a Chi-Square of 15.2176, a contingency coefficient of 0.1707 and probability of 0.0095. Data from the spring administration of the sociograms revealed that black males were more likely at eighty-five percent (85%) to choose to play with a classmate of the opposite race than were black females at sixty-eight percent (68.2%). Data analysis of the spring administration of the sociograms produced a Chi-Square of 27.2841 which yielded a contingency coefficient of 0.2317 and a probability of 0. 0001. Data for the fall administration and analyses of data from both the spring and fall administrations are presented in Table 50 below. Table 50 Sociogram -- Play with Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female students (Black) N=507 Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Males 44 59 74 33 13 8 231 % 19.0 25.5 32.0 14.3 5.6 3.5 100.0 Black Females 80 86 57 27 18 8 276 % 29.0 31.2 20.7 9.8 6.5 2.9 100.0 Total 124 145 131 60 31 16 507 % 24.5 28.6 25.8 11.8 6.1 3.2 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 507 481 Chi-Square 15.2176 27.2841 Contingency Coefficient 0.1707 0.2317 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0095 0.0001 116 Black Males Compared to White Males When comparing black males and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to play with, race was a significant variable. Black males at eighty-one percent (81%) were less likely than white males at eighty-nine percent (88.8%) to play with students of the opposite race. Data analysis produced a Chi-Square of 29.3734 yielding a contingency coefficient of 0.2510 and a probability of o. 0001. No significant changes in choice patterns noted in the fall administration were revealed after the spring administration of the sociogram. A Chi-Square of 30.7618 was computed which produced a contingency coefficient of 0.2604 and a probability of 0.0001. Data from the fall administration and analyses of both fall and spring administrations are presented in Table 51 below. Tal\u0026gt;le 51 Sociogram -- Play with Opposite Race Black students Compared to White students (Males) N=437 Numl\u0026gt;er of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Males 44 59 74 33 13 8 231 % 19.0 25.5 32.0 14.3 5.6 3.5 100.0 White Males 23 48 44 53 34 4 206 % 11.2 11.2 21.4 25.7 16.5 1.9 100.0 Total 67 107 118 60 31 16 437 % 15.3 24.5 27.0 19.7 10.8 2.7 100.0 Chi-Square Test of Independence Fall spring Number of Observations 507 481 Chi-Square 29.3734 30.7618 Contingency Coefficient 0.2510 0.2604 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 117 Black Males compared to White Females There was no significant difference in the choice patterns of students when comparing black males and white females. However, white females at eighty-six percent (86.2%) were more likely to choose at least one student of the opposite race to play with than were black males at eighty-one percent (80.0%). A slight change was noted from the administration of the sociograms in the spring. Both groups, white females at ninety-one percent (91.1%) and black males at eighty-five percent (85%) were slightly more inclined to choose students of the opposite race to play with. Data from the fall administration and analyses for both the fall and spring administration of the sociograms are presented in Table 52 that follows. Table 52 Sociogram -- Play with Opposite Race Black Male students compared to White Females students N:434 Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Males 44 59 74 33 13 8 231 % 19.0 25.5 32.0 14.3 5.6 3.5 100.0 White Females 28 61 55 36 18 5 203 % 13.8 30.0 27.1 17.7 8.9 2.5 100.0 Total 72 120 129 69 31 13 434 % 16.6 27.6 29.7 15.9 7.1 3.0 100.0 Chi-square Test of :Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 434 417 Chi-Square 6.2360 4.6025 Contingency Coefficient 0.1190 0.1045 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.2839 0.4663 Black Females compared to White Males There was a significant difference in choice patterns revealed when comparing black females and white males on the fall administration of the sociograms. White males at eighty-nine percent (88.8%) were more likely to choose at least one (1) student of the opposite race to play with than were black females at seventy-one (71%). Data analysis 118 ----------------- - --- produced a Chi-Square of 49.5792 yielding a contingency coefficient of 0.3054 and a probability of 0.0001. Analysis of data from the spring administration of the sociograms produced no significant changes from the fall administration. Data from the fall administration and analyses from the fall and spring administrations are presented in Table 53 below. Table 53 sociogram -- Play with Opposite Race Black Female students compared to White Males students N:482 Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females 80 86 57 27 18 8 276 % 19.0 25.5 32.0 14.3 5.6 3.5 100.0 White Males 23 48 44 53 34 4 206 % 11.2 11.2 21.4 25.7 16.5 1.9 100.0 Total 103 134 101 80 52 12 482 % 21.4 27.8 21. 0 16.6 10.8 2.5 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Fall spring Number of Observations 482 464 Chi-Square 49.5792 81. 6820 Contingency Coefficient 0.3054 0.3869 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 Black Females compared to White Females Student choice patterns for naming students of the opposite race was dependent upon race when black females and white females were compared. White females, at eighty-seven percent (87.2%) were more likely to choose at least one (1) student of the opposite race than were black females at seventy-one percent (71.0%). No significant change was noted in the spring administration of the sociograms. Data for the fall administration of the sociogram and data analyses for both the fall and spring are presented in Table 54 on the following page. 119 Table 54 Sociogram -- Play with Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White students (Females) N:479 Number of students of opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females 80 86 57 27 18 8 276 % 29.0 31.2 20.7 9.8 6.5 2.9 100.0 White Females 28 61 55 36 18 5 203 % 13.8 30.0 27.1 17.7 8.9 2.5 100.0 Total 108 147 112 63 36 13 479 % 22.5 30.7 23.4 13.2 7.5 2.7 100.0 Chi-square Test of :Independence Fall spring Number of Observations 479 458 Chi-Square 20.6570 40.7185 Contingency Coefficient 0.2033 0.2857 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0009 0.0001 White Males compared to White Females A significant difference was noted in student choice patterns when comparing white males and white females. White males were much more likely to choose students of the opposite race to play with than were white females. Data from the spring administration revealed that white males, at ninety-six percent (95.6%), were much more likely to choose classmates of the opposite race to play with than were white females at ninety-two percent (92.1%). Data analysis of the spring administration produced a Chi-Square of 17.702 yielding a contingency coefficient of 0.2060 and a probability of 0.0033. Data from the fall administration of the sociogram and data analyses from the fall and spring administrations are presented in Table 55 on the following page. 120 Ta:ble 55 sociogram -- Play with opposite Race Male students compared to Female students (White) N:409 Num:ber of students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total White Males 23 48 44 53 34 4 206 % 11.2 23.3 21.4 25.7 16.5 1.9 100.0 White Females 28 61 55 36 18 5 203 % 13.8 30.0 27.1 17.7 8.9 2.5 100.0 Total 51 109 99 89 52 9 409 % 12.5 26.7 24.2 21. 8 12.7 2.2 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 409 400 Chi-Square 11. 5229 17.7201 Contingency Coefficient 0.1655 0.2060 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0419 0.0033 121 CONCLUSIONS Sit With * White students were significantly more likely than black students to name classmates of the opposite race to sit with. * Males were significantly more likely than females to choose students of the opposite race to sit with. * A significant difference in black males and black females for naming students of the opposite race to sit with on the fall administration of the sociograms was not documented on the spring administration. * A significant difference in white males and black males in naming students of the opposite race to sit with in the fall administration of the sociograms was not documented in the spring administration. * A significant difference in black females and white females in naming students of the opposite race to sit with during the spring administration of the sociograms was not documented during the fall administration. * White males were more likely than white females to name students of the opposite race to sit with. Work With * Black students were significantly more likely than white students to name classmates of the opposite race to work with. * There were no significant differences in naming students of the opposite race to work with when comparing males and females. * White females were less likely than any other groups to name classmates of the opposite race to work with. Play With * White students were significantly more likely than black students to name students of the opposite race to play with. * Males were significantly more likely than females to name students of the opposite race to play with. 122 - ---~- ------ * Black females were significantly less likely than black males to name students of the opposite race to play with. * When comparing males, white males were significantly more likely than black males to name students of the opposite race to play with. * When comparing females, white females were significantly more likely than black females to name students of the opposite race to play with. * White males were significantly more likely than white females to name students of the opposite race to play with. over-all conclusions * Black student were more likely than white students to name students of the opposite race to work with. * White students were more likely to name students of the opposite race to sit near or play with. 123 Site Visits A team of eight professionals from Arkansas state University visited the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools on May 11 and 12, 1993. The purpose of the visit was to gather data relative to objective \"B\" of the Evaluation Plan. Instruments were developed to gather and codify data from the site visits. A form was developed for collecting data concerning each site and for each classroom visit. Copies of the data collection instruments are included in the appendix of this report. Team members chosen had experience with program evaluation at other magnet schools. Instructions and procedures were provided for all team members prior to the team visit. The purpose for site visits was to collect first-hand data relative to student, staff and other site demographics. Totals presented for students and staff may vary from totals provided by district records because of changes that occur during the school year. The data presented in this report reflects demographics for the day(s) the site visits were made. Certified\\Instructional staff Demographics relative to staffing patterns are presented in this section of the evaluation report. Data was collected by the evaluation team during site visits to the schools and represent data current for the day of the visit, which might account for differences, if any, from other district reports. Almost fifty-three percent (52.5%) of the magnet school certified staff were white females. Black females accounted for twenty-five percent (24.5%). All males accounted for twenty-one percent (21%) and all others, accounted for one percent (1.3%) of the total certified\\instructional staff. Data for certified\\instructional staff are presented in Table 56 on the following page. 124 Ta:ble 56 Magnet School certified\\Instructional Staff By School -- Race -- Sex N:297 Magnet Black White Others All School M - % F - % M - % F - % M\u0026amp;F - % Booker 3 - 6 15 - 30 5 - 10 27 - 53 1 - 2 51 carver 0 - 0 13 - 30 1 - 2 29 - 66 1 - 2 44 Gibbs 1 - 5 8 - 40 2 - 10 9 - 45 0 - 0 20 Williams 1 - 3 8 - 23 0 - 0 26 - 74 0 - 0 34 Mann 13 - 17 13 - 17 19 - 25 30 - 40 0 - 0 76 Parkview 7 - 10 16 - 22 12 - 17 35 - 49 2 - 3 72 Total 25 - 8 73 - 25 39 - 13 156 - 53 4 - 1 297 Classified staff (Custodial -- Food Service -- Aides) Black females at forty-three percent (43.4%) account for the greatest portion of the classified staff. White females accounted for thirty percent (30.3%) with black males accounting for twenty-one percent (20.5). White males accounted for four percent (4%) and others, males and females accounted for two percent (2%). Data relative to classified staff are presented in Table 57 below. Magnet School M - Booker 3 - Carver 4 - Gibbs 2 - Williams 2 - Mann 7 - Parkview 7 - Total 25 - Ta:ble 57 Magnet School Classified Staff By School -- Race -- Sex N=122 Black White % F - % M - % F - % 15 12 - 60 0 - 0 5 - 25 29 7 - 50 0 - 0 3 - 21 14 8 - 57 0 - 0 3 - 21 11 10 - 53 2 - 11 5 - 26 39 6 - 33 2 - 11 2 - 11 19 10 - 27 1 - 3 19 - 51 21 53 - 43 5 - 4 37 - 30 125 Others All M\u0026amp;F - % 0 - 0 20 0 - 0 14 1 - 7 14 0 - 0 19 1 - 6 18 0 - 0 37 2 - 2 122 I Playground Observation The evaluation team recorded the following observations relative to student interaction during the site visit. The purpose of the observation was to assess the incidence, if any, of individual or group isolation based on race and\\or sex. Playground observations were not deemed appropriate for Parkview High School. Free time (lunch time) observations are recorded in the next section. Observations relative to the following questions were recorded. Data for all elementary magnet schools and Mann Junior High School were combined for this report. Each item is listed with the number of responses () that were recorded. * Student play activities were: directed (O)\nnot directed (5) * If play was not directed students tended: to choose playmates without (3)\nwith (2) regard to race\nto choose playmates without (O)\nwith (5) regard to gender. * There was (O)\nwas not (5) evidence of isolation or solidarity during playground activities. * students were (O)\nwere not (5) observed using racial slurs or inappropriate language during play time. Playground activity, although supervised, was not directed. Students tended to choose playmates on the basis of race about half the time and on the basis of gender most of the time. There was little or no evidence of isolation or solidarity during playground activities. No students were observed using racial slurs or inappropriate language. Lunchroom Observations The evaluation team observed students during lunch periods. The purpose of this observation was to assess relationships of students, teachers and staff during non-instructional, directed activity. Seven items were designed to provide consistent data collection procedures for the evaluation team. Each item is listed with the number of responses () for each of the items. * Seating arrangements for eating were based on: choice (4)\nassignment (2) 126 * If seating arrangements were by choice the students tended to: choose seat mates without {3)\nchoose seat mates without (2)\nwith (3) regard to race. with (4) regard to gender. * Teachers remained {2)\ndid not remain (4) with students while the students were eating. * Teachers remained {2)\ndid not remain (4) with students while they (teachers) were eating. * There was (O)\nwas not (6) any visible distinction by race for students who ate free lunch or paid full price. * There was (O)\nwas not (6) any offensive or racial language or behavior observed during the lunch period. * There was (O)\nwas not (6) any racial graffiti observed in the halls, bathrooms or other places in the buildings. Most of the seating arrangements in the lunchrooms appeared to be by student choice. About half of the students' choices appeared to be based on race and about half also on gender. No conclusions could be drawn by the evaluator based on the data collected because of the diversity of the groups by size, grade and age. No distinction was apparent to observers relative to students who ate free lunch or paid full price. No offensive or racial language of behaviors were observed. No graffiti was observed on walls in the halls, bathrooms or other places. Classroom Visits Evaluation team members visited classrooms at each of the magnet schools. The magnet school staff was aware that team members would be present and were asked to proceed with class activities in a normal fashion. Team members were asked to be as unobtrusive as possible. Twenty-eight (28) classrooms were visited. Data gathered from the observations are presented and reflect demographics and the instructional practices in process while the observers were in the classrooms. Items were designed to gather data relative to evaluation objectives and the assessment of the manifestation of a coherent magnet theme in each of the classrooms as evidenced by student activities, instructional activities and physical facilities and equipment. 127 1. Classroom seating Arrangements: Assignment By race: By gender: Assigned Segregated Segregated (16) (5) (7) Unassigned (12) Integrated (22) Integrated (21) Other comments: In some classes, especially activity classes, there was evidence of segregation of students by both race and gender. Most seating arrangements were structured to accommodate particular classroom or instructional activities such as computer instruction, reading and other activities requiring specialized seating arrangements or furnishings. 2. Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, this particular class and class activities: Yes (23) No (5) 3. Class bulletin boards, displays, posters and banners reflect the magnet theme: Yes (23) No (5) 4. Non-text materials and other resources that support the magnet theme are available in the classroom: Yes (19) No (7) s. Presentations observed: Lecture (7) Student Presentation (4) Guided Practice (15) Independent Work (8) Test ( 1) 6. References to the magnet theme during instructional activities: Magnet theme was mentioned or instructional activity was directly related to the magnet theme in 18 of the 28 classes observed. 128 Conclusions * A majority of the certified staff (53%) are white females. Black females account for twenty-five percent (25%) of the certified staff. * Black females account for the largest portion of the classified staff (43%). White females account for thirtypercent (30%) of the classified staff. * Race appears to have an impact on students during about half of the non-directed activities. Gender tends to be the basis for many student choices. No empirical data was available to support this conclusion. * Students did not exhibit any inappropriate behavior nor use any offensive racial language. * Facilities were free of racial and ethnic graffiti. * Classroom space, instructional equipment and supplies, and materials were available to support the particular needs of the magnet theme. * Teachers were engaged in a wide variety of instructional strategies and activities. * Observation of student\\teacher interactions were without regard to race or gender. * Teaching and other instructional activities generally reflect the existence of a coherent magnet theme. 129 SECTION III Student \u0026amp; Staff Movement and Perceptions ' 1 __ PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Student and staff Movement and Perceptions BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in Expected Outcomes, Number 3, (A, B \u0026amp; C), listed below. To develop procedures to determine the reflections of parents, students and teachers on the magnet schools. A. What are the student and staff movement patterns for the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools? B. What are the perceptions of parents, students and staff toward the magnet school as measured by the AASA School Satisfaction Survey? c. How do magnet school parents, students and staff compare to typical school populations? Student \u0026amp; Staff Movement To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding composition by number and race of magnet school students and staff. Since data relative to staff were collected by the evaluation team during site visits they are reported with other data in Section III of this evaluation report. This section will deal primarily with the number of students that are on the waiting list for each magnet school and from each of the separate districts. Magnet school enrollment is allocated among the three participating districts, Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special, by percentage of total enrollment in each district. The enrollment percentage allotments by district are as follows. (1992-93) Little Rock: 43 % (Elementary) 42 % (Secondary) North Little Rock 15 % (a maximum of 100 students may attend Parkview) Pulaski County Special 42 % (Elementary) 43 % (Secondary) Student racial allocations for the total enrollment for all the magnet schools is approximately 50-50 for minority and non-minority students. Additionally, a \"shadow area\" is 130 designated surrounding each magnet school from which twenty percent (20%) of the students must be assigned. METHODOLOGY Data were furnished to the evaluator by the Magnet Review Office. The reports for each district were submitted to the MRC office by appropriate district personnel. FINDINGS Staff Data relative to staffing patterns for both certified and classified staff are presented in Section III of this report. Findings and conclusions are also presented. No data was available on the movement of staff during the school year. The staff of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools are employees of the Little Rock School District. Recommendations for filling vacancies are made by each building principal and site committee. The personnel office of the Little Rock School District is responsible for contracting magnet school staff subject to approval of the Magnet Review Committee. The personnel office staff are aware of and sensitive to major laws affecting hiring practices including Equal Employment Opportunity, Affirmative Action and others. There have been no negative concerns or dissatisfactions expressed to the evaluation team members by magnet school staff. A sample of staff members completed the school satisfaction survey developed by the National Association of Secondary Principals and administered by the MRC staff during the 1992-93 school year. Magnet school staff satisfaction measures were slightly above national norms when compared with data provided by the national sample. A full interpretation of the school satisfaction results are provided in Section III of this evaluation report. Students Data relative to student movement were gathered by investigating student waiting lists for all magnet schools and the three Pulaski County districts. The waiting list data were disaggregated by district, magnet theme desired and race. Data was not disaggregated by sex. The Tables that follow reflect data provided to the evaluator. 131 I I I I Table 58 below and the graph on the following page present student data for Booker Elementary Magnet School. TABLE 58 Student Waiting Assignment Booker Elementary School District # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 36 11 Little Rock 484 66 Pulaski County Special 34 17 Total all districts 554 94 132 # Waiting Total 47 550 51 648 Booker Elementary School Legend  Blacks  Whites  Total Student Waiting Assignment ,._4QQ-1-------Q) .c E ::J Z3QQ-1-------- N. Little Rock Little Rock Pulaski County Total! All Dist Table 59 below and the graph on the following page present student data for Carver Elementary School. TABLE 59 student Waiting Assignment carver Elementary School District # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 53 41 Little Rock 434 310 Pulaski County Special 9 24 Total all districts 496 375 134 # Waiting Total 94 744 33 871 Carver Elementary School Legend  Blacks  Whites  Total ..... Q) ..Q E :::::, z Student Waiting Assignment N. Little Rock Little Rock Pulaski County Totall All Dist Table 60 below and the graph on the following page present student data for Gibbs Elementary School. TABLE 60 Student Waiting Assignment Gibbs Elementary School District # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 6 0 Little Rock 496 158 Pulaski County Special 6 2 Total all districts 508 160 136 # Waiting Total 6 654 8 668 Gibbs Elementary School Legend  Blacks  Whites  Total Student Waiting Assignment .._ 400--+-------a\u0026gt; ..0 E ::J z 300-+-------- N. Little Rock Little Rock Pulaski County Total! All Dist Data in Table 61 below and the graph that follows depicts student data for Williams Elementary Magnet School. TABLE 61 student Waiting Assignment Williams Elementary School District # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 10 3 Little Rock 437 607 Pulaski County Special 5 12 Total all districts 452 612 138 # Waiting Total 13 1044 17 1064 Williams Elementary School Legend  Blacks  Whites  Total Student Waiting Assignment ,.__ Q) ~ 600 -+----------' :::, z N. Little Rock Little Rock Pulaski County Totall All Dist .... Table 62 below and the graph that follows presents student data relative to Mann Junior High School. Data from the North Little rock District were not disaggregated by magnet theme. TABLE 62 student Waiting Assignment Mann Junior School District # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 17 4 Little Rock - Arts 479 220 - Science 480 226 Pulaski County Special - Arts 19 1 - Science 12 31 Total all districts 1007 482 140 # Waiting Total 21 699 706 20 43 1489 l Legend  Blacks  Whites  Total Mann Junior High Student Waiting Assignment ,_ (I) E aoo--------------------- :::s z N.L.R. LR Arts LR Sci Pul Arts Pul Sci Total All D Data in Table 63 below and the graph that follows depicts student data relative to Parkview High School. TABLE 63 student Waiting Assignment Parkview senior School District # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 17 6 Little Rock - Arts 553 165 - Science 340 68 Pulaski County Special - Arts 12 4 - Science 3 9 Total all districts 925 252 142 # Waiting Total 23 718 408 16 12 1177 Parkview High School Student Waiting Assignment 1200---r-------------------------\\ 800-+-------------------- .... Q) E 600 ---------4 ::, z 400 ---+----- Legend 200-+-----  Blacks  Whites  Total N.L.R. LR Arts LR Sci Pul Arts Pul Sci Total All D Table 64 below and the graph on the following page shows the number of students from each district waiting assignment to magnet schools. TABLE 64 Students Waiting Assignment All Magnets District # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 139 65 Little Rock 3703 1860 Pulaski County Special 100 100 Total all districts 3942 2025 # Waiting Total 204 5563 200 5967 Every Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School has a waiting list for both minority and non-minority students. Each of the three school districts has both minority and non-minority students on the waiting list for each of the magnet schools. 144 Legend  Blacks  Whites  Total All Magnets Students Waiting Assignment 5000-+---------- ,_ Q) ~ 3000 -+-------- ::::, z 2000-+-------- 1000-+-------- N. Little Rock Little Rock Pulaski County Totall All Dist CONCLUSIONS * Although specific data were not available, there appears to be very little staff movement in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. * All three school districts in Pulaski County have students on the waiting list for enrollment in magnet schools. * All magnet schools have both minority and non-minority students on enrollment waiting lists from all three districts in the county. 146 CONCLUSIONS * Although specific data were not available, there appears to be very little staff movement in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. * All three school districts in Pulaski County have students on the waiting list for enrollment in magnet schools. * All magnet schools have both minority and non-minority students on enrollment waiting lists from all three districts in the county. 146 I School Satisfaction Surveys The NASSP Satisfaction Surveys were administered to a selected sample of Pulaski County Interdistrict School students, parents and teachers. The administration was conducted by and at the direction of the MRC staff and school administrators. A selected number of students, their parents and teachers from each of the elementary schools, Mann Junior High School and Parkview Senior High School were surveyed. Satisfaction is the personal, effective response of an individual to a specific situation or condition. In the model developed by the NASSP task force, teacher and parent satisfaction are input variables. student satisfaction is both a mediating variable and an outcome measure: it both influences success and corroborates it. Three instruments for measurement of satisfaction were developed by Neal Schmitt and Brian Laher at Michigan state University: (1) the NASSP student satisfaction Survey, (2) the NASSP Teacher Satisfaction Survey, and (3) the NASSP Parent Satisfaction survey. A copy of the surveys are included in the appendix of this report. student satisfaction survey This instrument provides data about student perceptions on eight subscales. * Teachers. Student satisfaction with the professional behavior of teachers. * Fellow Students. Student satisfaction with peer group relationships. * Schoolwork. Student satisfaction with the range of courses and the nature of classwork in the school. * student Activities. student satisfaction with the number and type of school-sponsored activities and with opportunities for student participation. * Student Discipline. student satisfaction with the degree to which the school is an orderly and safe environment. * Decision-Making Opportunities. student satisfaction with opportunities to provide input on decisions about curriculum, school events, etc. * School Buildings, Supplies and Upkeep. Student satisfaction with the quali\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\u003eArkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services\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_44","title":"Rankings of Arkansas School Districts on Selected Items","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1992-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Public schools","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Rankings of Arkansas School Districts on Selected Items"],"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/44"],"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":["337 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\nRANKINGS OF ARKANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICTS ON SELECTED ITEMS DEPARTME T OF EDUCATION LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JANUARY 1992 C IVE At'kansas sEP 1 3 1993 DEPARTMENTOF EDUC~Tf~NMonitoring 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 BURTON L. ELLIOTT, Director, General Education Division January 1992 MEMOT O: The Governor of Arkansas, Members of the General Assembly, and Superintendents of Public Schools FROM: Burton L. Elliott, Director, General Education Division SUBJECT: Rankings of the School Districts on Selected Items Contained herein are the names of the school districts of Arkansas ranked on the basis of twelve (12) selected items contained in the Annual Statistical Report of the Public Schools (Report on the House Concurrent Resolution No. 58 of 1961) dated January, 1992. These figures do not include expenditures of restricted federal funds as ECIA or personnel paid with federal funds. Data for 1990-91 are actual\ndata for 1991-92 are estimates. The school districts are listed in LEA number order beginning on page 3 for easy reference. This should permit the reader to quickly locate an individual district on any table. Definitions of items included are listed below: 1. Expense Per ADA. The current expense, less the amount received from the other districts for tuition, divided by the resident ADA. Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten pupils and expenditures included in this figure. The 1990-91 ADA were used in computing the expense for both years. 2. Average Daily Attendance. The ADA is total days of attendance divided by days taught. This number includes those who attend school outside the district on a tuition agreement between the respective districts. This is the annual average. 3. Average Daily Membership. The total days of attendance and absence divided by the number of days taught. This number includes those who attend outside the district on a tuition agreement between the respective districts. This is the annual average. The average for the first three (3) quarters is used for MFPA and transportation aid purposes. 4. Number of Teachers K-12. Includes all certificated personnel except superintendents, principals, supervisors, assistant superintendents, and those paid with federal funds. 5. Average Salary of Teachers K-12. The average salary of personnel as defined in item 4 above. 6. Number of Certificated Personnel. The number of personnel as defined in item 4 above plus superintendents, principals, supervisors, and assistant superintendents. Personnel paid with federal funds are not included. 7. Average Salary of Certificated Personnel. The average salary of the personnel as defined in item 6 above. The data contained herein should be of interest to persons desiring to compare the statistics of one district with those of another. For additional information call or write the Office of Local Fiscal Services, Division of the Department of Finance and Administration, #4 Capitol Hall, Room 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071. Telephone: (501) 682-4259. Printing of this publication has been made possible by the United States Department of Education in conjunction with the National Center for Education Statistics {NCES), P.L. 100-297. The information represented or reported herein was printed pursuant to a _grant from the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. However, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the United States Office of Education, and no official endorsement by the United States Office of Education should be inferred. In keeping with the guidelines on Title VI, Section 601, Civil Rights Act of 1964\nTitle IX, Section 901, Educational Amendments of 1972\nand Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Arkansas Department of Education assures that no person in the United States shall on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or handicap be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. An Equal Opportunity Employer Page 2 CONSOLIDATIONS AND ANNEXATIONS Effective July 1, 1~91, the following districts were consolidated or annexed: 1. Griffithville, Judsonia and Kensett consolidated to become the Riverview School District (White County). 2. Enola consolidated with Mount Vernon to become the Mount Vernon/Enola School District (Faulkner Countyj. ' LEA t 01-01 01-02 Qi__-04 01-05 02-01 02-02 02-03 02-04 03-02 03-03 03-04 03-06 04-01 04-02 04-03 04-04 04-05 04-06 04-07 05-01 05-02 05-03 o:s-01 05-05 05-06 06-01 06-02 07-01 08-01 08-02 08-03 09-01 09-02 09-03 10-01 10-02 10-03 11-01 11-04 11-06 12-0i 12-02 12-03 12-04 12-05 13-01 13-03 COUNTY ARKANSAS ARKANSAS ARKANSAS ARKANSAS ASHLEY ASHLEY ASHLEY ASHLEY BAXTER BAXTER BAXTER BAXTER BENTON BENTON BENTON BENTON BENTON BENTON BENTON BOONE BOONE BOONE BOONE BOONE BOONE BRADLEY BRADLEY CALHOUN CARROLL CARROLL CARROLL CHICOT CHICOT CHICOT CLARK CLARK CLARK CLAY CLAY CLAY CLEBURNE CLEBURNE CLEBURNE CLEBURNE CLEBURNE CLEVELAND CLEVELAND ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS DISTRICT RANK DEWITT GILLETT STUTTGART HUMPHREY CROSSETT FOUNTAIN HILL HAMBURG PARKDALE COTTER MOUNTAIN HOME NORFORK TRI-COUNTY CON. BENTONVILLE DECATUR GENTRY GRAVETTE ROGERS SILOAM SPRINGS PEA RIDGE ALPENA BERGMAN HARRISON OMAHA VALLEY SPRINGS LEAD HILL HERMITAGE WARREN HAMPTON BERRYVILLE EUREKA SPRINGS GREEN FOREST DERMOTT EUDORA LAKESIDE AMITY ARKADELPHIA GURDON CORNING PIGGOTT CLAY COUNTY CENTR CONCORD HEBER SPRINGS QUITMAN WEST SIDE WILBURN KINGSLAND RISON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 EXPENSE PER ADA 90-91 91-92 1 2 LEA ORDER 1990-91 A/D/A A/D/M 3 4 ~18 ~09 1,317 1,378 3.174 3,705 278 288 2_, 481 2,796 2,304 2,437 ~771 3~287 306 322 2.593 2.916 2.666 2,788 2,965 3,567 244 265 2,729 _,_984 l,_630 ~4 3,169 3,231 145 152 2,906 3,148 502 530 2,643 3,083 3,268 3,451 2,483 2,895 451 472 4,809 4,762 151 159 2,487 2,909 3,987 4,171 2,970 3,405 474 499 2,548 2,977 969 1,018 2,622 2,947 985 1,033 2,634 2,998 6,179 6,511 2,553 2,659 2,686 2,559 2,338 3,168 2,494 3L202 2,568 2,477 2,654 2,231 2,430 2,430 2,502 2,867 2,617 2,B47 2,614 2,574 2,465 2,413 2,697 2,696 2,480 2,608 2,635 3,041 2,708 2,366 2,989 3__1, 53 3. 100 3,029 2,673 3,633 2L892 3,529 2,972 2,809 3,099 2,610 2,756 2,769 2,780 3,012 2,973 3,196 3,022 2,921 2,900 2,896 2,968 3,197 2,944 2,903 3,129 3,911 3,076 2,886 2,149 679 461 665 2,504 282 770 329 589 1,733 879 1,331 595 1,071 1,123 925 1,216 280 2,181 881 1,187 905 748 483 1,300 562 426 164 394 663 2,273 720 482 694 2,618 298 805 347 624 1,818 910 1,393 625 1,126 1,193 966 1,310 293 2,267 921 1 1250 953 782 515 1,382 594 448 177 411 689 NUMBEORF TEACHERS K-12 90-91 91-92 5 6 PAGE N0_~~3~- AVG. SLRY. NO. OF CERT. AVG. SLRY. TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNE=L==-=---C=E=R~T~~P~E=R~S=-=,=------ 90-91 91-9~2~_9~0~-~91 91-92 90-91 91-92 7 8 9 10 --1=--c-1'---\"'---'--c'1=2-'--='------ 92.7 94.7 23,157 26,141 98.9 101.1 24,016 27,140 23.6 24.6 20,081 21,921 26.5 27.5 21,637 23,436 152.2 149.9 22,802 27,051 162.1 ~1~5=9~-~8=--2=3=--'-,7=2~8_=_-_- ~2~7~ ,~9~8~8 23.2 23.2 22 369 27,520 25.2 --,-=2~5~=2=-----'2~3~,~3=2=9=---'2=8=--'-,4~8=7-'------ 185.7 187.2 23,635 27,543 197.7 199.6 24,373 28,510 21.3 21.3 20,106 25,0~00~_~2=3='-~3=--_~2=3=--=-.3=-~2~1~,~7~0~3~2=6~,~86=3'----- 109.5 110.0 21,956 25,346 11~7~-~2'--~1~1~7~-~3=--2~3=',~2='3='4_~_2_= 6\"'--_'- ,6=0-=--=4 14.7 12.8 17,735 20,021 16.7 14.8 17,592 19,567 38.6 38.8 21,655 23,710 41.6 4_~1~~8=-'2=2=',~8~4~4-'--_-2 =5=--_'- -'=10-=--c-1 194.9 199.8 24,400 28,162 210.4 216.4 25,607 29,310 31.3 35.o 20 1 100 22 1 20~4.3 =3=0~.~oc---'2=1~,5=1~7-'--2=3-'c--'--,4=9~4---- 18.3 13.8 20,313 23,402 20.3 ~1=6==3'--=2~1~~3=7=8=--_2_~ 5=_~ 0~5~2::_ 260.3 261.8 22,592 26,723 274.8 282.3 23,719 28,087 44.0 43.3 19,333 21,625 47.0 46.3 20,269 22,654 72.0 72.7 20,387 23,000 76.0 76.7 21,078 23,844 68.0 69.3 22,275 24,946 72.0 75.8 23,037 25,910 358.5 375.3 26,969 30,889 386.6 403.4 28,108 32,060 133.5 137.o 24,071 20,077 144.5 1~4=0~~0~2=s~,2=7~3_2=9_~_,35 -~=o_ 51.1 ~2.5 20,828 24,170 54.2 55.5 21,783 25,149 30.7 31.6 22,765 25,947 33.7 34.6 23,985 27,353 42.2 46.1 23,322 26,319 45.3 49.2 24,596 27,627 152.4 154.3 22,991 26,373 163.3 165.2 23,976 27,642 23.5 24.5 21,440 23,723 26.1 27.1 22,720 25,302 50.5 50.5 23,320 27,812 54.5 54.5 24,117 28,609 27.5 27.8 19,972 23,130 30.3 30.6 21,469 24,467 40.0 41.0 21,319 23,910 43.0 44.0 22,304 24,951 114.6 116.5 23,100 25,869 124.5 126.5 24,570 27,468 58.8 60.2 23,248 27,539 62.3 63.7 24,437 28,466 84.0 88.0 21,773 25,257 88.0 92.0 22,371 25,847 40.8 41.S 21,305 24,147 43.8 44.5 22,463 25,477 71.3 72.5 21,586 24,559 77.0 78.5 22,420 25,469 74.3 73.0 24,145 26,991 79.3 78.0 25,129 28,122 66.5 59.8 21,804 25,099 72.6 64.9 23,193 26,462 B6.3 86.0 20,759 23,497 92.3 92.0 21,660 24,566 21.7 21.2 20,790 24,156 23-.-8--23.3 21,967 25,331 145.9 148.9 22,384 26,027 155.8 159.3 23,404 2~7~~1_-2_~_2 _ 65.5 64.5 20,832 24,557 69.5 68.5 21,680 25,556 82.5 80.9 21,926 26,340 88.0 B6.4 22,844 2~7~,3~4~0---- 65.0 68.2 20,335 23,052 69.0 73.2 21,113 23,894 ---- 54.7 54.7 21,391 23,965 57.7 57.7 22,211 24,796 34.0 33.3 21 1 B24 26,690 37.0 36.3 23,141 27,726 89.5 91.S 22,139 26,271 94.9 97.2 22,990 2_7~~2~1~ 0 _ 39.5 38.2 22,919 26,206 42.5 41.2 23,841 27,049 31.7 32.S 20,652 25,688 34.7 35.5 21,592 26,620 14.2 15.4 18,682 22,473 16.2 17.4 21,181 25,723 26.8 26.6 19,836 23,259 29.8 29.4 20,738 24,406 44.8 44.7 22,378 27,958 47.8 47.7 23,383 29,055 ---- LEA COUNTY 13-04 CLEVELAND 14-01 COLUMBIA 14-02 COLUMBIA 14-03 COLUMBIA 14-04 COLUMBIA 14-06 COLUMBIA 14-07 COLUMBIA 15-03 CONWAY 15-05 CONWAY 15-07 CONWAY 16-01 CRAIGHEAD 16-02 CRAIGHEAD 16-03 CRAIGHEAD 16-05 CRAIGHEAD 16-08 CRAIGHEAD 16-ii CRAIGHEAD 16-12 CRAIGHEAD 16-13 CRAIGHEAD 17-01 CRAWFORD 17-02 CRAWFORD 17-03 CRAWFORD 17-04 CRAWFORD 17-05 CRAWFORD 18-01 CRITTENDEN 18-02 CRITTENDEN 18-03 CRITTENDEN 18-04 CRITTENDEN 18-05 CRITTENDEN 19-01 CROSS 19-03 CROSS 19-05 CROSS 20-01 DALLAS 20-02 DALLAS 20-03 DALLAS 21-01 DESHA 21-02 DESHA 21-03 DESHA 21-04 DESHA 21-05 DESHA 22-02 DREW 22-03 DREW 23-01 FAULKNER 23-02 FAULKNER 23-03 FAULKNER 23-04 FAULKNER 23-05 FAULKNER 23-06 FAULKNER ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS DISTRICT RANK WOODLAWN 48 EMERSON 49 MAGNOLIA 50 MCNEIL 51 TAYLOR 52 WALDO 53 WALKER 54 NEMO VISTA 55 WONDERVIEW 56 SO. CONWAY CO. 57 BAY-BROWN 58 WEST SIDE 59 BROOKLAND 60 BUFFALO ISLAND CE 61 JONESBORO 62 NETTLETON 63 VALLEY VIEW 64 RIVERSIDE 65 ALMA 66 CEDARVILLE 67 MOUNTAINBURG 68 MULBERRY 69 VAN BUREN 70 CRAWFORDSVILLE 71 EARLE 72 WEST MEMPHIS 73 MARION 74 TURRELL 75 CROSS COUNTY 76 PARKIN 77 WYNNE 78 CARTHAGE 79 FORDYCE 80 SPARKMAN 81 ARKANSAS CITY 82 DELTA SPECIAL 83 DESHA-DREW 84 DUMAS 85 MCGEHEE 86 DREW CENTRAL 87 MONTICELLO 88 CONWAY 89 ENOLA 90 GREENBRIER 91 GUY-PERKINS 92 MAYFLOWER 93 MOUNT VERNON/ENOL 94 EXPENSE PER ADA 90-91 91-92 1 2 2~39 2,803 3,554 2J326 2..,834~4 2,912 3,141 2J669 2,948 2,669 2,678 2,610 2,683 2~477 2._438 2,685 2,685 2,572 2,-424 2,873 2,375 2,591 2,676 2,645 2,424 2,805 3,104 2,590 2,493 2,957 2,825 2,736 2,525 3,483 3,087 2,888 6,165 2,974 3. 126 2,439 2,357 2,611 2,478 2,505 3,529 2,344 3,198 2,356 2,844 :L_ii4 3_,_229 3,091 2,980 3,113 3.073 ~839 2_,_847 3.025 3,007 2,909 2.946 3,028 2,764 2,906 3. 105 3,068 2,831 3,195 2,811 2,941 2,950 3,231 3,135 3,509 2,875 3,725 3,474 3,031 6,609 3,165 3,420 2,818 2,619 2,950 2,882 3,019 2,902 3,459 2,883 3,106 LEA ORDER_ __ _ PAGE NO. 4 1990-91 NUMBER Of AVG, SLRY. NO. Of CERT. AVG, SLRY. ---~TEACHERS_K-12____LCHRS. K-12~-~P~E~R=S=ON=N=E=L~_~C=ER~T~~P~ER~S==----A/ D/A A/D/M 90-91 __ 91-92__'!'9-91~~9~1~-~9~2~~9~0-~9~1~-9~1=--92~_~9=0_-~9=1-=9=1_-=9=2~--- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 402 _4~1~7~_ 30._5 __ 29.9 19 931 22 201 33.6 33.0 21 164 23 629 341 354 30,6 27.1 23.895 26.812 33.6 30.1 25.319 28,474 967-\"3\"---\"\"13=0~_175.9 174.5 24,035 28,255 189.0 186.6 25 024 29 245 332 3~ 25.6 __ 26.1 18,335 20 566 28.6 29.1 19 594 21 :573 328 341 26.0 26.0 21.169 23.497 29.0 29.0 22.615 25.088 532 569 39.9 41.1 ~170 24 450 42.8 44.1 22 602 25 712 235 242 21.5 20.7 18.985 21,790 24.0 23.2 20 496 23 078 380 399 29.0 31,020.393 22,671 32.0 34,021,360 22.970 419 437 30.1 __ 30.1 1~889 23,297 33.1 33.1 21 173 24 324 2L451 21_595 153.0 155.0 23,250 28,587 165.8 167.8 24 263 29 621 619 648 42.7 42.7 21,575 25,787 45.7 45.7 22.513 26.912 1,229 1._310 81.8 82.1 ~231 24.726 89.8 90.1 22,227 25,797 842 885 :54.0 54.0 2~833 27,336 57.0 57.0 23 763 28 354 784 814 59.0 59.0 21,348 24,708 63.8 63.8 22.079 25.468 4,523 4..,770 309.4 301.4 25,478 29 486 329.3 320.4 26 346 30 350 1,539 1,638 102.5 110.1 22,004 24.966 __ 1=1=1==.3,,___=1=1=8=9=653_ 22 5 949 960 998 58.5 63.5 24,915 27,971 62.5 67.5 25,660 28,714 786 020 59.0 56.0~364 23,937~.o 60.0 22 383 25 126 2,186 2,288 137.5 140.5 23_,_431 27 669 146.8 149.8 24,749 29,088 708 760 50.7 :50.4 23,371 26,507 53.7 53.4 24.312 27,503 759 013 53.o 54.0 23L099 26,583 __:u.o ~o 23 966 27 267 415 439 33.1 33.2 21._716 2~26 36.4 36.5 22,793 26,146 4,310 4,620 266.5 275.5 24,929 28.772 283.0 292.0 25.926 29,819 532 559 38.9 39.4 19,823 22,402 42.5 43.0 20 999 23 6=9~6_,,__ _ 937 982 69.0 65.0 23,968 26,910 73.2 69.2 24 955 27 781 5,514 5,866 385.5 378.6 24.695 28,220 412.4 405.6 25.597 28,879 2,317 2,469 143.0 145.0 24,102 2!\n!_,037 154.8 156.8 25 111 29,200 496 524 34.8 33.7 21,691 25,393 38.1 36.7 23,150 26 894 820 857 60.7 60.0 20,372 23,814 65.8 65.2 21,367 24,893 554 :591 42.0 42.3 20,121 23,897 45.0 45.3 21 520 25 407 2,728 2,860 183.5 180.8 23,808 27,357 195.1 192.4 24,802 28 442 165 172 17.5 17.5 19,528 21,383 19.5 19.5 20,894 22,722 1,249 1,303 88.7 88.0 22,429 25,216 95.7 94.0 23,368 26 245 345 362 28.5 26.1 19,954 23,089 30.5 28.1 21 392 24 850 145 152 18.2 17.0 22.727 23,780 20.7 19.5 25,110 26.262 324 341 27.1 26.6 19,060 21,556 30.1 29.6 20,755 23L0~4~8\"-- 182 190 11.3 10.8 18,583 21,402 13.3 12.8 21_,094 2.1_,3:.9,_4_._., _ 2,259 2,381 133.0 137.5 25,061 28,513 143.5 148.0 26,197 29,752 1,227 1,276 79.5 81.0 22,334 25,180 84.5 86.0 23,200 26,226 1,023 1,064 70.2 70.2 22,361 25,736 74.7 ~23 487 26,9~ 2,096 2,183 138.1 138.4 22,363 26,295 150.1 150.3 23,590 27,577 5,479 5,734 341.0 353.3 25,116 28,704 366.5 384.5 26,175 29,8~4=1~-- 121 126 13.1 17,962 14.6 -~-~---~- 19,~5=2=0\"--~-~- 1,505 1 1 586 87.S 99.0 24 1 801 27 1 934 93.5 104.5 25,713 28 1 921 272 283 23.0 23.5 20,696 23,355 25.0 25.5 21,847 24.~ 667 701 44.5 47.0 21,680 25,128 47.5 50.0 22,604 26.~0~5~6 232 242 19.6 28.5 19,134 21,461 21.6 31.5 20,027 22,230 ' LEA t COUNTY 23-07 FAULKNER 24-01 24-02 24-03 2'4-04 24-05 25-01 25-02 25-03 26-01 26-02 26-03 26-04 26-0:5 26-06 26-07 27-03 27-04 27-05 28-01 28-03 28-06 28-07 28-08 29-01 29-03 29-05 29-06 30-01 30-02 30-03 30-04 30-05 31-02 31-04 31-05 31-06 32-01 32-02 32-03 32-06 32-09 32-10 32-11 33-01 33-02 33-03 FRANKLIN FRANKLIN FRANKLIN FRANKLIN FRANKLIN FULTON FULTON FULTON GARLAND GARLAND GARLAND GARLAND GARLAND GARLAND GARLAND GRANT GRANT GRANT GREENE GREENE GREENE GREENE GREENE HEMPSTEAD HEMPSTEAD HEMPSTEAD HEMPSTEAD HOT SPRING HOT SPRING HOT SPRING HOT SPRING HOT SPRING HOWARD HOWARD HOWARD HOWARD INDEPENDENCE INDEPENDENCE INDEPENDENCE INDEPENDENCE INDEPENDENCE INDEPENDENCE INDEPENDENCE IZARD IZARD IZARD ARKANSAPSU BLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUAFLI SCAL REPORTA NALYSIS LEA ORDER PAGE NO. 5 DISTRICT RANK VILONIA 95 ALTUS-DENNING 96 CHARLESTON 97 COUNTY LINE 98 OZARK 99 PLEASANT VIEW 100 MAMMOTHS PRING 101 SALEM 102 VIOLA 103 CUTTER-MORNING ST104 FOUNTAIN LAKE 105 HOT SPRINGS 106 JESSIEVILLE 107 LAKE HAMILTON 108 LAKESIDE 109 MOUNTAIN PINE 110 POYEN 111 PRATTSVILLE 112 SHERIDAN 113 DELAPLAINE 114 MARMADUKE 115 STANFORD 116 GREENE COUNTY TECi17 NORTHEAST ARKANSA118 BLEVINS 119 HOPE 120 SARATOGA 121 SPRING HILL 122 BISHARCK 123 GLEN ROSE 124 MAGNET COVE 125 MALVERN 126 OUACHITA 127 DIERKS 128 MINERAL SPRINGS 129 NASHVILLE 130 UMPIRE 131 BATESVILLE 132 CORD-CHARLOTTE 133 CUSHMAN 134 NEWARK 135 SOUTH SIDE 136 SULPHUR ROCK 137 MIDLAND 138 CALICO ROCK 139 MELBOURNE 140 MOUNT PLEASANT 141 EXPENSE PER ADA 90-91 91-92 1 2 2 455 :L_Q29 2.839 2.970 2_,560 2_,969 2_,_fil0~6 2,499 2,874 3_,528 3. 790 2,_888 3,222 2,628 2,937 2L711 3,047 2,801 2,997 3,072 3,309 3,307 3,430 3,454 3,321 2,461 2,863 2,572 2,901 2,678 2,979 3,036 3,753 3,011 3,407 2,523 2,939 3,052 3,501 2,488 2,767 3,357 3,548 2,403 2,834 2,692 2.L888 2.481 2,850 2,651 2,427 2 539 3,014 2,360 2,849 2,492 2,663 2,514 4,781 2,672 2,892 3,235 5.384 2,586 2,925 2.697 2,657 2,513 3,213 3,005 3...J.52 2,811 3 445 3,133 3,006 2 988 3,172 2,728 3,195 2,866 2,955 2,943 5,471 2.932 3,381 3,814 5,823 3,002 3,1-40 3,003 3,291 2,911 3,518 1990-91 A/D/A A/D/M 3 4 1___,_542 304 678 555 1,322 227 428 641 398 483 853 3,116 566 2,901 2,081 583 242 257 3,261 270 629 194 2,123 2,226 449 2,978 340 294 778 824 553 2,578 369 573 476 1,690 123 2,335 249 271 711 1,039 280 582 435 472 265 1__,_614 323 702 588 1,400 240 451 672 415 514 899 3,364 593 3,047 2,188 622 250 268 3,459 285 658 201 2,223 2,369 468 3. 133 354 307 812 864 582 2,690 381 596 496 1,771 127 2,458 259 286 742 1,103 294 618 457 490 274 NUMBER OF TEACHERS K-12 90-91 91-92 5 6 AVG. SLRY. TCHRS. K-12 90-91 91-92 7 8 NO. OF CERT. PERSONNEL 90-91 91-92 9 10 AVG. CERT. 90-91 11 SLRY. PERS. 91-92 12 97.0 101.0 23,538 27,980 104.0 109.0 24,352 28,878 26.6 23.4 19.555 22,617 28.6 25.4 20,752 24,089 47.0 49.0 22,853 25,850 50.0 52.0 23,825 26,923 44.3 40.7 19,945 24,416 47.3 43.7 20,761~9 85.5 87.5 22,725 25,873 91.9 93.8 23,698 26,926 22.0 22.5 18,844 20,650 24.0 24.5 20,113 22,059 33.8 34.S 22,569 25,325 36.3 37.0 23,751 26,288 47.8 48.8 20,407 23,401 50.8 51.8 21,416 24,434 29.5 30.0 21,778 24,765 31.5 32.0 22,917 25,992 36.2 33.7 22,585 26,780 39.2 36.7 23,777 27,874 62.S 62.5 24,393 27 1 180 67.0 67.0 25,672 28,428 239.2 232.8 24,490 27,350 255.2 248.3 25,599 28,802 41.7 41.7 27,093 27,444 44.7 45.7 28,196 27,99~~9 ___ _ 164.5 170.0 25,173 29,156 177.5 183.0 26,269 30,458 126.9 129.0 24,051 27,798 136.9 139.0 24,950 28,866 43.5 43.5 21,482 25,103 46.5 46.5 22,679 26,242 18.0 19.0 22,841 26,009 20.0 21.0 24,385 27,592 17.0 17.0 25,864 28,709 19.0 19.0 27,408~3~0~~3=7~_8_ _ _ 205.8 212.1 23,683 27,554 219.4 225.7 24,622 28,534 21.4 23.2 21,828 24,835 24.1 25.4 22,888 25,892 40.6 40.6 23,344 27,541 43.6 43.6 24,381 28,290 20.1 20.5 19,263 20,816 22.4 22.8 20,131 21,694 131.4 133.3 23,179 27,566 140.1 142.1 24,030 28,558 152.5 151.4 23,495 27,217 162.7 162.6 24,277 28,050 31.5 32.6 23,203 25,593 34.5 35.6 24,180 26,545 178.5 181.5 24,433 28,48!5 190.5 193.5 25,485 29,512 25.6 27.8 17,651 20,728 28.1 30.3 19,005 22,269 22.0 22.0 19,606 24,774 25.0 25.0 20,921 26,217 48.3 52.0 23,170 27,850 51.3 55.0 24,117 28,803 53.6 54.0 23,866 27,882 56.6 58.0 24,795 28,992 43.9 42.0 21,175 23,619 46.9 45.0 22,112 24,778 174.5 174.5 22,021 25,604 183.0 183.0 22,732 26,362 29.4 29.4 19,283 21,985 32.3 32.3 20,678~2=.3.,...,_,,2=1=0~---- 39.2 40.2 21,712 26,08_1 __ 4_2_._2~ 43.2 22,765 26,821 37.2 37.0 20,904 23,595 40.7 40.7 22,250 25,104 109.2 110.2 23,172 26,948 116.5 117.6 24,028 27,762 ___ _ 14.9 15.6 20,349 22,369 17.8 18.5 22,124 24,559 157.0 158.5 25,114 27,967 168.3 169.8 25,851 28,778 19.7 20.6 21,662 24,815 21.7 22.6 23,106~2~6~~2~2~3,-__ _ 22.9 24.8 21,442 24,645 25.4 27.3 22,633 25,939 70.0 70.1 28,616 28,774 75.3--75.4 29,495 29,644 69.7 73.0 22,643 26,433 76.0 80.0 23,544 27,356 24.3 23.4 20,340 23,265 26.3 25.4 21,519 24,554 44~45.2 21,141 24,131 47.4 48.2 22,099 25,254 34.1 36.6 20,404 23,314 37.1 39.6 21,508 24,523~--- 35.0 35.3 20,890 23,838 38.0 38.3 22,093 25,078 24.6 24.5 22,182 24,694 26.6 26.5 21,885 24,298 LEA~ COUNTY 33-06 IZARD 34-02 JACKSON 34-03 JACKSON 34-04 JACKSON 34-05 JACKSON 35-01 JEFFERSON 35-02 JEFFERSON 35-05 JEFFERSON 35-08 JEFFERSON 35-09 JEFFERSON 35-10 JEFFERSON 36-01 JOHNSON 36-04 JOHNSON 36-05 JOHNSON 36-06 JOHNSON 37-01 LAFAYETTE 37-02 LAFAYETTE 37-03 LAFAYETTE 38-01 LAWRENCE 38-04 LAWRENCE 38-05 LAWRENCE 38-06 LAWRENCE 38-07 LAWRENCE 38-08 LAWRENCE 39-04 LEE 40-01 LINCOLN 40-02 LINCOLN 40-03 LINCOLN 41-01 LITTLE RIVER 41-02 LITTLE RIVER 41-03 LITTLE RIVER 42-01 LOGAN 42-02 LOGAN 42-03 LOGAN 42-04 LOGAN 43-01 LONOKE 43-02 LONOKE 43-03 LONOKE 43-04 LONOKE 43-05 LONOKE 44-01 MADISON 44-02 MADISON 44-03 MADISON 45-01 MARION 45-02 MARION 45-03 MARION 46-01 MILLER ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS LEA ORDER PAGE NO. 6_ DISTRICT RANK IZARD CO CONSOL 142 GRUBBS 143 NEWPORT 144 SWIFTON 145 TUCKERMAN 146 ALTHEIMER-SHERRIL147 DOLLARWAY 148 PINE BLUFF 149 WABBASEKA-TUCKER 150 WATSON CHAPEL 151 WHITE HALL 152 CLARKSVILLE 153 LAMAR 154 DARK 155 WEST SIDE 156 BRADLEY 157 LEWISVILLE 158 STAMPS 159 BLACK ROCK 160 HOXIE 161 LYNN 162 SLOAN-HENDRIX 163 STRAWBERRY 164 WALNUT RIDGE 165 MARIANNA 166 GOULD 167 GRADY 168 STAR CITY 169 ASHDOWN 170 FOREMAN 171 WINTHROP 172 BOONEVILLE 173 MAGAZINE 174 PARIS 175 SCRANTON 176 LONOKE 177 ENGLAND 178 CARLISLE 179 CABOT 180 HUMNOKE 181 HUNTSVILLE 182 KINGSTON 183 SAINT PAUL 184 FLIPPIN 185 YELLVILLE-SUMMIT 186 MARION CO 187 BRIGHT STAR 188 EXPENSE PER ADA 90-91 91-92 1 2,~16 3,306 2,532 3,474 2,617 2,847 2,773 2,974 2,931 2,637 2,699 2,363 2,377 4,027 2,615 2,920 2,970 2,611 2,542 2,446 3,281 3,024 3,432 2,473 2,975 2,571 2,687 2,511 2,580 2,988 3,675 2,499 2,835 2,638 2,742 2,390 2,559 2,668 2,235 3,647 2,493 2,950 2,846 2,691 2,736 3,100 2,952 2 3,129 3.673 2,922 3,563 2,951 3,139 3,021 3,233 3,420 3,034 2,865 2,750 2,819 4,242 2,931 3,323 3,184 2,887 2,914 2,899 3,810 3,287 3,885 2,871 3,130 2,980 3,435 2,896 2,901 3,142 3,738 2,901 3,1:52 2,817 2,854 2,814 2,842 2,961 2,759 3,727 2,908 3,353 3,198 3,103 3,017 3,222 3,529 1990-91 A/D/A A/D/M 3 4 :520 188 2,149 181\n518 549 1,892 7,116 265 3,327 2,724 1,490 978 150 622 440 579 847 378 914 228 478 216 852 2,602 323 324 1,450 2,068 569 169 1,256 441 1,192 391 1,661 1,016 669 4,542 169 1,566 286 321 741 791 286 248 :553 200 2,252 191 547 581 1,989 7,518 282 3,479 2,884 1,560 1,028 158 657 469 612 875 395 967 237 500 224 899 2,773 341 335 1,506 2,173 590 176 1,328 467 1,260 403 1,740 1,068 696 4,832 180 1,666 300 337 781 832 303 259 NUMBER OF TEACHERS K-12 90-91 91-92 AYCi, SLRY. TCHRS. K-12 90-91 91-92 NO, OF CERT. PERSONNEL 90-91 91-92 Aye\n. CERT. 90-91 11 SLRY. PERS. 91-92 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 37.6 19.3 134.2 20.1 37.6 39.4 132.0 459.3 21.0 209.6 179.0 97.5 63.7 16.9 44.4 37.5 43.3 58.3 30.5 60.5 20.0 37.9 21.2 62.0 183.5 25.8 21.8 91.9 133.0 43.6 14.6 73.9 33.5 82.0 28.4 104.9 71.5 48.2 264.5 15.8 104.6 21.0 25.3 48.0 55.0 22.7 17.0 41.2 20L88:5 2-'l,402 40.6 44.2 2.!_,812 2~4 19,317.374 20,410 21.3 21.3 18,485 21.324 132.0 25,_114 29__,_489 142. 7 140.5 25-.,935 30~98 19.6 18~578 20--L946 22.1 21.6 20_,J)19 2~23 38.6 19,807 22.708 40,6 41,620.979 23,839 40.4 19,907 22,626 42.4 __ 43.4 20__,_893 2~55 130.0 23,238 2~360 141.5 140.3 24,196 27,241 459.0 26,811 29,916 491,0 491,527,755 30,847 20.0 18J326 22J969 24.0 23.0 19__,_553 2'l,__\nl99 211.6 26,185 29,567 225.6 227.6 27,328 30__,_TI3 177.0 24,662 27,786 191.0 189.0 25,507 28,619 102.0 22,571 25,660 102.:5 107.0 23,479 26 759 65.7 21,607 24,753 67.4 69.5 22,351 25,564 17.9 19,417 21,674 18.9 19.9 20,721 23,160 45.9 22,259 24,808 47.4 48~3,073 25 595 37.5 20,120 22,799 40.5 40.5 21,422 24..,__!32 40.3 22,519 26,079 46.8 43.8 23,713 27,300 58.7 21,915 24,938 61.7 62.2 22L802 25,858 30.0 20,628 23,358 33.5 33.0 21,726 24,607 59.9 22,618 27,508 64.8 64.4 23.505 28.858 20.9 20,890 23,520 22.2 23.4 21,718 24~8 37.9 23,187 25,777 40.9 __ 40.9 24.489 26_,_fil!9 21.0 20,052 21,645 23.2 23,421,372 23,288 61.1 20,867 25L353 66.0 65.1 21,649 2~49 183.5 23,103 25,458 200.0__2QQ.O 24,252 2~867 26.0 18.021 20,888 28.8 29.0 19,044 22,017 22.7 18,717 24,072 24.8 24.7 19L736 25,212 92.3 22,897 26,320 100.6___!Q_2.\u0026lt;l_24 005 27.384 136.3 23.207 25.828 144.5 147.5 24,229 26.814 42.6 21,414 24L109 46.6 __ 45.6 22,450 25,103 14.6 20,966 23,019 16.6 __ 16.6 22,339 24 477 75.6 24,567 29,031 80.4 81.1 25,796 30,124 34.5 21,487 24,342 36.5 37.5 22,379 25,259 82.2 23,725 26,602 87.9 88.1 24,571 27,499 27.4 22,362 25,034 30.7 29.7 23,990 26,709 107.4 22,918 26,479 1u...,_1 114.1 23,782 27,580 71.0 22,834 25,794 76.5 76.0 23,881 26,957 47.7 22,134 25,011 51.1 50.7 23,184 26,163 285.0 24,371 28,136 281.0 302.0 25,307 29,048 17.1 18,729 19,880 17.8 19.1 19,963 21,_Q_24 105.9 22,473 27,092109.6 110.9 23,110 27,761 21.0 21,498 25,643 23.0 23.0 23,025 27,229 26.3 20,710 23,396 27.5 28.5 21,764 24,394 49.0 24,145 28,048 51.0 52.3 25,200 29,180 57.6 21,660 24,347 58.0 61.1 22,574 25,422 __ _ 19.7 21,032 25,791 24.7 21.7 22,218 26.553 18.0 22,656 27,552 19.0--2-0.0 23,707 28,742 ' aBKIUiSaS EIIE!I IC SCl::tlllll llISIBICIS aHMJaL EISCaL BEEOBI a!ffi1.r:m\n1 LEA ORDER PAGE NO. 7 El!:EEHSE 1220-21 HUl:11:!EBO E a:ll!i. SI.BY. NO. OF CERT. AVG. SLRY. - PER ADA TEACHERS K-12 TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. 90-91 91-92 A/D/A A/D/M 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 -- I Ea  COLIHD'. IUSIBICI BaHK 1 2 J 1 :i 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 - -- \"ltcQ2.JULI..ER_ ~l.._ 189 2,872\n1,305 70:5 749 50.0 51.0 22 779 25,926 53.0 :54.0 23,986 27,197 ~6::QJ 1:I1I I EB ElllJKE 120 2,62:Z 2,220 155 121 :a.1 ::i2,1 22,J!:!1 2!f!,i5 54.7 55.7 23,111 26,870 - 4-6-Q5 MILLER_ ____IEXAR.KrullL -1.9-1 2.,.791 3.,121\n! 5__,411 5 7'57 384.3 3B9.5 23,949 27,352 410.6 416.8 24 953 2B,293 47=0.i.-1'1ISSISSIPPI ~ _i_9_2_L850 ~4 218 232 21.4 21.8 22 820 26 179 23.4 23.8 24 056 27,587 11-02 MISSISSIEEI E!LYil::lE:Il l! .LE 1J 2,612 J,Q2Q 1,Q6 1,J2!\n! 271.9 277,6 23,197 27,561 296.0 295.7 24,866 28,693 41=:Q6 111..Sl:!ISSIPPI _SQ MISSISSIPPI 194 2.,_875\nI,_400 1_, 81:5 1\u0026amp;_5 135.8 139.4 21,763 25,354 144.2 147.8 22,764 26,449 - 41-Q8 1:1ISSISSIPPJ ~SNELL 195 ~170 ~617 2,1074 ~ 195 149.6 14B._5 2~95 2~16 159.1 158.0 26,389 30,109 ~:Z-12 l:1ISSISSIEEI MANILA 16 2,6::i2 2,1J 8::iJ 9Q\n'\ni 57.4 56.8 61,794 24,954 62.2 61.6 22,779 25,790 47-13 ...ttl.S_SISSIPPI 0 EOLA 197 2_,_636 ~993 ---..L094 2,213 141.8 142.0 2~~31 28,054 150.2 152.4 24,940 28,895 - 48-01 MONROE BRINKLEY 198 ~99 ~800 1,264 1L338 89.1 87.1 20,413 23,896 95.1 93.1 21,121 24,460 1EI-Q2 MllMBllE CLABEHllllH 1 2.~Q4 ~.Qi3 606 Q37 42.0 42.0 19,908 24,849 45.4 45.4 21,299 26,412 48-03 MONROE HOLLY GROVE 200 2,929 2,863 384 401 29.5 28.8 19,545 22,318 31.5 30.8 20,682 23,452 49-01 MONTGOMERY CADDO HILLS 201 2,661 2,901 522 549 38.0 38.3 21,664 24,400 41.0 41.3 22,848 25,855 12-02 !1!JHI!im!EBY 1:!Q!.!NTI DA 202 2,707 3,098 504 524 37.5 36.8 21,840 25,827 40.5 39.8 23,040 27,137 - 49-04 MONTGOMERY ODEN 203 3,461 3,703 215 227 19.5 19.5 22,264 24,224 21.5 21.5 23,121 25,446 - 50-04 NEVADA EHHET 204 _\n!__,982 3,323 143 151 13.0 12.0 19,106 23,854 15.0 14.0 20,489 25,302 ::iQ-Q6 HE:lllllla E:BESCQII 205 6,567 2,862 1,162 1,210 84.3 83.3 21,144 24,028 91.3 90.2 22,078 25,149 - 50-08 NEVADA - NEVADA COUNTY 206 _b638 ~031 692 731 48.1 49.0 21,590 24,755 51.1 52.0 22,489 25,675 51-01 NEWTON DEER 207 2,843 3,218 335 357 25.8 25.0 20,967 24,243 27.8 27.0 22,098 25,454 ::i1-Q2 HEWIQH JllPER 208 2,778 3,203 555 581 37.6 37.6 23,619 27,283 40.6 40.6 24,533 28,209 51-03 NEWTON MOUNT JUDEA 209 3,277 3,706 236 252 19.6 19.1 20,764 25,272 21.6 21.1 21,943 26,052 51-04 NEWTON WESTERN GROVE 210 2,743 3,273 267 283 21.1 21.4 20,175 23,780 23.2 23.5 21,487 24,766 ::i2-Q1 OUllCl:U Ill E!EARllEN 211 2,474 2,884 855 887 55.5 55.S 22,887 28,382 60.5 60.5 24,258 29,298 52-04 OUACHITA FAIRVIEW 212 ~648 3,045 3,910 4,086 261.3 253.8 24,070 28,414 280.2 273.8 25,136 29,537 52-05 OUACHUA HARMONY GROVE 213 ~563~038 760 788 48.5 49.5 22,977 26,960 51.5 52.5 23,926 27,902 -- ::i2-Q6 lll.ll:ICl:Uill SIEE:l:lEtlS 214\n,?, 7:\ni1 3,Q08 502 519 35.0 35.0 22,436 25,768 38.0 38.0 23,562 26,678 53-01 PERRY EAST END 215 ~781 3 242 490 523 36.5 37.0 20,819 25,861 39.3 39.9 21,980 26,889 53-02 PERRY PERRY CASA 216 4 405 4,182 167 184 19.2 15.7 23,028 24,809 21.2 17.7 24,200 26,192 :iJ-QJ EEBBY E:EBBY:llI!..1.E 217 2,489 3,041 807 848 50.9 53.5 22,719 26,790 53.9 56.5 23,797 27,602 54-01 PHILLIPS BARTON/LEXA 218 2,453 2,905 710 741 45.0 47.0 22,438 26,247 48.0 50.0 23,600 27,440 54-02 PHILLIPS ELAINE 219 2,774 3,144 698 744 53.0 54.0 20,938 23,921 56.6 56.6 21,778 25,043 -- ::i1-QJ E:l:lILLIE:S HEI.EHA-l!!EST HE!..EN220 2,721 2,904 4,075 4,318 289.0 286.0 22,302 24,928 306.0 303.0 23,156 25,860 54-04 PHILLIPS HARVELL 221 2,723 2,966 823 870 57.5 57.0 22,276 25,284 63.4 61.2 23,274 25,953 54-05 PHILLIPS LAKE VIEW 222 3,240 2,778 213 214 19.3 18.1 16,691 19,376 22.3 21.1 18,092 20,945 ::i::i-Qi E:IKE DELIGHT 223 3,090 3,301 375 393 34.0 32.6 19,588 22,701 37.0 35.6 20,784 24,16_1 __ S:5-02 PIKE GLENWOOD 224 2,:528 2,753 399 419 30.5 30.5 18,369 21,333 33.5 33.5 19,708 22,522 55-03 PIKE KIRBY 225 2,710 3,179 424 447 35.2 36.5 19,945 22,027 39.1 40.4 20,873 23,007 - 55-04 PIKE MURFREESBORO 226 2,727 3,144 555 583 44.2 43.3 22,202 25,552 47.2 46.3 23,310 26,761 56-02 POINSETT HARRISBURG 227 2,563 2,811 916 976 65.0 63.8 21,791 24,279 69.0 67.8 22,612 25,086 56-04 POINSETT HARKED TREE 228 2,668 2,942 847 894 64.5 64.0 20,983 24,052 68.0 67.5 21,675 24,759 ::i6-05 POINSETT TRUMANN 229 2,655 2,939 1,568 1,673 115.1 111.9 21,395 25,291 124.8 120.6 22,393 26,245 56-07 POINSETT WEINER 230 2,963 3,482 378 395 30.5 32.6 20,459 23,390 32.5 34.6 21,265 24,150 56-08 POINSETT EAST POINSETT COU231 2,553 2,859 776 817 58.o 56.5 20,599 24,198 62.0 60.5 21,467 25,059 57-01 POLK ACORN 232 3,134 3,304 327 352 26.2 26.0 23,766 25,685 28.2 28.0 25,225 27,131 57-02 POLK - HATFIELD 233 3,083 3,266 282 299 24.0 23.6 20,080 24,073 26.8 26.4 21,186 25,151 57-03 POLI\u0026lt; MENA 234 2,494 2,927 1,697 1,786 111.5 113.5 24,930 28,810 117.9 120.0 25,675 29,642 57-04 POLK VAN COVE 235 2,969 3,248 355 375 30.3 31.3 20,563 22,727 33.3 34.3 21,814 23,885 - - - - - - --- - -- - - - -- - -- - --- - - ------- - - - - - - ' ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS LEA ORDER PAGE NO. 8 EXPENSE 1990-91 NUMBER OF AVG. SLRY, NO. Of CERT. AVG. SLRY. PER ADA TEACHERS K-12 TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL __ CERT. PERS. 90-91 91-92 A/D/A A/D/M 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92_'1'._0-91 91-92 LEA ,t COUNTY DISTRICT RANK 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 57-05 POLK WICKES 236 2,621 3,016 451 475 30.0 30.6 22,692 2~60 32.5 33.1 24_, 108 26,~18 58-01 POPE ATKINS 237 2,561 2,867 1.035 1.097 70.0 70,0 23.930 27,570 75.0 75.0 24,663 28,238 58-02 POPE DOVER 238 2,465 2,857 1,113 1,177 70.0 73.0 23,319 2~826 75.0 78.0 ~022 27~4 58-03 POPE HECTOR 239 2,650 3,051 633 667 46.0 47.0 22,406 25,015 49.0 so.~__,_133 25L924 58-04 POPE POTTSVILLE 240 2,557 2,812 671 707 45.0 48.0 25,001 26,620 48.0 51.0 25,738 27,432 58-05 POPE RUSSELLVILLE 241 2,803 3,330 4,630 4,879 303.6 310.9 25,798 30,231 323.3 331.7 26,963 31,387 59-01 PRAIRIE DES ARC 242 2,329 2,791 642 676 40.7 41.9 21,648 25,241 43.8 45.0 22,547 26,125 59-02 PRAIRIE DEVALLS BLUFF 243 2,693 3,003 458 477 35 .. 5 32.9 19,993 24,202 38.3 35.7 21,060 25,345 59-03 PRAIRIE HAZEN 244 2,459 2,630 538 560 38.6 36.5 19,206 22,792 41.6 39.5 20,339 23,917 60-01 PULASKI LITTLE ROCK 245 4,296 4,765 22,397 24,090 1,822.0 1,839.3 28,205 31,371 1,970.0 1,986.3 29,510 32,960 60-02 PULASKI NORTH LITTLE ROCK246 3,407 3,691 8,976 9,653 609.6 609.5 25,249 28,656 666.1 666.0 26,522 29,976 60-03 PULASKI PULASKI COUNTY SP247 3,319 3,447 20,767 22,149 1,346.7 1,340.7 27,563 27,732 1,44S .. 3 1,454.3 28,667 28,830 61-01 RANDOLPH BIGGERS-REYNO 248 3,205 3,428 197 206 18.6 19.0 19,721 22,032 20.6 21.0 20,653 22,895 61-02 RANDOLPH MAYNARD 249 2,761 3,074 489 517 36.4 37.6 21,024 23,937 41.0 41.7 22,073 25,151 61-03 RANDOLPH POCAHONTAS 250 2,380 2,864 1,707 1,807 109.6 115.6 23,513 27,085 115.6 121.6 24,301 27,662 61-04 RANDOLPH RANDOLPH COUNTY 251 2,975 3,320 290 306 23.4 23.4 19,252 22,588 26.4 26.4 20,303 24,072 62-01 ST FRANCIS FORREST CITY 252 2,649 2,870 4,896 5,177 296.6 299.2 23,470 26,789 330.1 332.7 24,587 27,705 62-02 ST FRANCIS HUGHES 253 2,727 3,119 1,058 1,099 75.5 76.5 22,664 25,381 83.4 84.3 23,741 26,598 62-05 ST FRANCIS PALESTINE/WHEATLE254 2,768 2,916 656 681 48.0 44.0 21,968 24,550 52.0 48.0 22,901 25,470 63-01 SALINE BAUXITE 255 3,039 3,401 621 656 39.5 40.0 25,259 28,632 42.5 43.0 26,561 29,877 63-02 SALINE BENTON 256 2,488 2,907 3,834 4,020 239.8 243.0 23,854 27,888 254.8 258.0 24,780 28,915 63-03 SALINE BRYANT 257 2,276 2,722 4,903 5,216 286.6 292.6 25,815 30,085 301.5 309.5 26,520 30,875 63-04 SALINE HARMONY GROVE 258 2,564 3,033 591 618 38.5 41.5 23,031 25,728 41.5 44.5 24,335 27,102 63-06 SALINE PARON 259 3,994 4,366 215 229 19.4 19.'5 22,320 26,619 21.4 21.5 23,368 27,371 64-01 SCOTT WALDRON 260 2,814 3,235 1,424 1,511 109.1 108.5 21,944 24,952 115.3 115.3 22,658 25,840 65-01 SEARCY LESLIE 261 2,742 3,069 286 302 19.9 19.6 19,000 22,950 22.9 22.5 21.156 24,774 65-02 SEARCY MARSHALL 262 2,646 2,965 697 736 50.5 51.5 21,313 24,246 53.5 54.5 22,120 24_, 725 65-03 SEARCY SAINT JOE 263 3,678 4,116 202 214 19.5 19.5 19,352 23,262 21.5 21.5 20,761 24~9 65-04 SEARCY WITTS SPRINGS 264 5,293 5,726 94 99 14.8 14.8 18,050 20,234 16.8 16.8 19,145 21.278 66-01 SEBASTIAN FORT SMITH 265 3,123 3,639 10,921 11,633 757.1 785.2 27,849 31,070 805.4 834.9 28,883 32J 136 66-02 SEBASTIAN GREENWOOD 266 2,516 2,909 2,290 2,398 142.1 148.6 25,396 28J836 150.1 156.6 26,332 29,770 66-03 SEBASTIAN HACKETT 267 2,504 2,930 525 547 39.0 38.0 21.604 25,605 42.0 41.0 22,544 26,692 66-04 SEBASTIAN HARTFORD 268 2,910 3,344 440 470 36.5 36.5 21,097 23,934 39.7 39.7 22,035 24,920 66-05 SEBASTIAN LAVACA 269 2,497 2,801 721 761 50.5 51.6 20,793 23,3-40 53.5 54 .. 6 21,850 24,201 66-06 SEBASTIAN MANSFIELD 270 2,734 3,061 832 873 58.8 58.8 23.408 25.834 62.8 63.5 24,420 27.038 67-01 SEVIER DEQUEEN 271 2,407 2,788 1,449 1,519 88.8 90.4 23,566 26,561 94.3 96.4 24,568 27,738 67-03 SEVIER HORATIO 272 2,207 2,852 520 544 31.8 35.6 21,758 27,490 34.7 38.6 23,187 28,360 67-04 SEVIER LOCKESBURG 273 2,552 2,806 447 472 32.6 33.4 20,950 23,775 35.6 36.4 22,255 24,967 68-02 SHARP CAVE CITY 274 2,528 2,976 950 998 60.0 64.3 23,340 26,548 64.0 68.3 24,204 27,317 68-03 SHARP EVENING SHADE 275 2,941 3,386 262 273 24.0 24.7 18,271 21,090 26.0 26.7 19,470 22,054 68-04 SHARP HIGHLAND 276 2,418 2,674 1,229 1,290 75.5 79.0 22,162 24,775 80.5 84.0 23,154 25,869 68-05 SHARP WILLIFORD 277 3,197 3,247 258 271 22.0 22.5 19,234 21,649 2-4.5 25.0 20,713 22,744 68-06 SHARP POUGHKEEPSIE 278 3,842 3,'598 115 120 15.1 14.0 18,377 19,044 17.1 16.0 19,478 19,503 69-01 STONE MOUNTAIN VIEW 279 2,352 2,635 1,036 1,084 65.0 65.0 23,596 27,042 ~ 69.0 24,492 27,986 69-02 STONE STONE COUNTY 280 3,162 3,898 223 234 18.5 18.8 20,093 26,395 2~ 20.8 21,104 26,885 69-04 STONE RURAL SPECIAL 281 3,234 3,397 227 236 18.5 17.5 22,961 26,270 20.5 19.5 23,989 26,960 70-01 UNION EL DORADO 282 2,718 3,050 4,824 5,110 339.4 339.3 23,278 26,673 360.2 359.1 24,106 27,512 ' ARKANSAS PllBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS LEA ORDER PAGE NO. 9 EXPENSE 1990 91 NUMBER Of AYv, SLRY. NO. OF CERT. AVG. SLRY. _?ER ADA TEACHERS K-12 TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. 90-91 91-92 A~ A/D/H 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 I EA t COUNTY DISTRICT RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 0-02. UlilQN._ ttUIIICii 283 3...__1_4~39 279 293 21.0 22.0 22,776 25,112 23.0 24.0 23,922 26,451 10-03 llNION ,HJNCTION CITY 284 2.600 2,810 869 910\n58.1 58.1 24,091 27.353 60.3 60.3 25. 116 28,311 - ~ UNION J'1QUN.T.l :IQLLY_ 285 4. 294 -5..,_Qfli 212 224 21.5 24.3 22,745 23.644 23.S 27.0 24 093 25,146 -7.Q-Q6__L/N_I_ JfCIBfltL.EI 286 2 , 60 7 ~ 563 583 41.0 41.0 23,212 26,417 44.0 44.0 24 261 27 219 70-07 llNION PARKERS CHAPEL 287 2,549 3.004 618 643 44.6 45.6 21.989 26,020 47.6 48.6 22,884 26,925 70-08 UNION SMACKOVER_ 288 2,668~0 800 837 so.a 52.4 23 765 27,066 54.8 56.4 24,945 28,160 70-09 UNION STRONG 289 2 938 3_,_155 544 564 43.0 41.0 21 651 25 244 46.3 44.0 22,515 26,101 70-11 UNION UNION 290 3,087 3,399 311 326 25,1 25.0 21,886 24,188 28.0 28.0 23,293 25,651 71-01 VAN BUREN ALREAD 291 4.,___'l_,!OS _,_270 93 99 13.1 13.1 19,780 21.502 15.2 15.3 21.262 23,133 71-02 VAN BUREN CLINTON 292 2,463 2,829 1,073 1,126 70.3 74.0 2~278 25,652 75.0 79.0 23,318 26,568 71-03 YAN BUREN SCOTLAND 293 3,655 4,078 130 135 14.0 14.S 19,973 21,899 16.0 16.S 21,154 23,335 71-04 VAN BUREN SHIRLEY 294 2,721 3_,__055 491 512 34.9 35.0 20,944 24,957 37.9 38.0 22,159 25,968 71-05 VAN BUREN SOUTH SIDE 295 2,877 3,124 412 431 33.0 33.0 21,490 23,696 35.5 36.0 22,060 24,517 12-01 WASHIN(\nTON ELKINS 296 2,691 3,336 683 722 45.4 46.4 22,933 28,969 48.4 49.4 23,955 29,881 72-02 WASHINGTON FARMINGTON 297 2,447 3,001 1.038 1,096 67.8 70.6 21,545 26,400 72.6 75.3 22,619 27,459 72-03 WASHINGTON FAYETTEVILLE 298 2,812 3,117 6,029 6,328 394.1 404.9 27,172 30,441 416.6 426.9 27,882 31,160 72-04 WASHINGTON GREENLAND 299 2,404 3. 172 651 689 43.0 44.3 21. 167 27,310 46.0 47.3 22,285 28,225 72-05 WASHIN(\nTON LINCOLN 300 2,696 2,958 929 987 65.4 65.2 21.499 24,299 69.4 70.2 22,440 25,281 72-06 WASHINGTON PRAIRIE GROVE 301 2,545 2,923 1,013 1,070 63.8 68.4 23,326 26,225 68.8 73.4 24,414 27,141 12-01 WASHINGTON SPRINGDALE 302 2.735 3,145 6,977 7,450 442.0 449.5 26,365 30,062 477.0 485.5 27,504 31,244 72-08 WASHIN(\nTON WEST FORK 303 2,596 2,957 894 932 61.4 59.4 20,860 24,222 66.4 64.4 22,017 25,501 72-09 WASHINGTON WINSLOW 304 3,124 3,551 223 236 20.0 20.4 18,706 21,297 22.0 22.4 19,855 22,564 7.3-01 WHITE BALD KNOB 305 2,701 3,031 1,322 1,397 86.4 84.8 22,921 26,642 91.9 90.9 23,756 27,616 73-02 WHITE BEEBE 306 2,335 2,763 1,575 1,670 103.4 106.7 21,807 26,192 109.6 113.9 22,683 26,867 73-03 WHITE BRADFORD 307 2,627 2,989 547 575 39.7 40.0 21,833 25,472 42.7 43.0 22,926 26,627 7.3-04 WHITE CENTRAL 308 2,468 2,818 503 529 37.3 37.3 20,620 24,579 39.8 39.8 21,704 25,576 73-05 WHITE GRIFFITHVILLE 309 ~024 161 168 17.6 19,502 19.9 21,079 73-06 WHITE JUDSONIA 310 2,626 554 592 38.0 22,494 41.0 23,729 13-01 WHITE KENSETT 311 2,861 3,242 474 504 34.0 89.2 23,050 25,802 37.0 97.2 24,554 27,032 73-08 WHITE MCRAE 312 2,640 3,003 306 323 25.1 25.4 19,335 22,501 27.S 27.S 20,353 23,453 73-09 WHITE PANGBURN 313 2,776 3,195 568 597 42.0 42.7 21,758 24,359 45.5 46.2 22,839 25,689 13-10 WHITE ROSE BUD 314 2,733 3,143 517 547 37.8 39.3 21,773 24,722 40.8 42.3 22,973 25,683 73-11 WHITE. SEARCY 315 2,587 2,937 2,867 3,032 181.2 191.2 24,293 27,138 194.8 205.0 25,359 28,269 74-01 WOODRUFF AUGUSTA 316 2J649 3,108 639 673 46.2 46.2 20,958 23,980 49.2 49.2 22,297 25,414 14-02 WQOPB!.!EE !\nOTTON PLANT 317 2,856 3,055 325 340 28.4 27.4 18,7S5 22,078 30.9 29.9 19,680 23,099 74-03 WOODRUFF MCCRORY 318 2 361 2,656 823 860 53.0 51.7 22,743 2S,741 56.S 55.2 23,534 26,712 75-03 YELL DANVILLE 319 2 581 2,853 526 555 38.6 38.6 21,581 25,063 41.6 41.6 22,664 26,117 15-04 YELL DARDANELLE 320 2,606 2,836 1,335 1,409 91.9 90.5 21,614 24,497 97.2 96.3 22,307 25,274 75-05 YELL FOURCHE VALLEY 3~346 5,125 128 136 16.4 18.2 19. 128 22,348 18.4 20.2 20,494 23,349 75-07 YELL OLA 322 2 483 2,884 470 504 36.3 37.3 19,697 21,984 39.3 40.3 20,802 23,3S5 15-08 YELL PLAINVIEW-ROYER 323 2,928 3,041 320 337 26.8 24.9 18,969 21,888 29.8 26.9 20,212 23. 100 75-09 YELL WESTERN YELL COUN324 3J360 3,390 362 385 35.0 32.7 20. 116 22,233 38.0 35.7 21,124 23,393 --------------------------- - - --- -- ----- ---- ---------- ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS COLUMN 1 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO. 10 EXPENSE 1990-91 NUMBER OF AVG. SLRY. NO. OF CERT. AVG. SLRY. PER ADA TEACHERS K-12 TCHRS . K-1'\u0026gt;- PERSONNEL CERT . PERS . 90-91 91-92 A/D/A A/D/M 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 LEA,:, COUNTY DISTRICT RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 21-01 DESHA ARKANSAS CITY 1 6 165 6,609 145 152 18.2 17.0 22 727 23 780 20.7 19.5 25 110 26 262 32-06 INDEPENDENCE NEWARK 2 5 384 5 823 711 742 70.0 70.1 28 616 28 774 75 3 75.4 29 495 29 644 65-04 SEARCY WITTS SPRINGS 3 5 293 5 726 94 99 14.8 14.8 18 050 20 234 16.8 16.8 19 145 21 278 71-01 VAN BUREN ALREAD 4 4,920 5,270 93 99 13.1 13.1 19 780 21 502 15.2 15.3 21 262 23 133 03-06 BAXTER TRI-COUNTY CON. 5 4 809 4 762 151 159 18.3 13.8 20 313 23 402 20.3 16.3 21 378 25 052 31-06 HOWARD UMPIRE 6 4,781 5,471 123 127 14.9 15.6 20 349 22,369 17.8 18.5 22 124 24 559 53-02 PERRY PERRY CASA 7 4,405 4,182 167 184 19.2 15.7 23,028 24,809 21.2 17.7 24,200 26 192 75-05 YELL FOURCHE VALLEY 8 4 346 5 125 128 136 16.4 18.2 19,128 22 348 18.4 20.2 20 494 23 349 60-01 PULASKI LITTLE ROCK 9 4,296 4,765 22,397 24,090 1,822.0 1,839.3 28,205 31,371 1,970.0 1,986.3 29,510 32,960 70-05 UNION MOUNT HOLLY 10 4,294 5,081 212 224 21.5 24.3 22,745 23,644 23.5 27 .. 0 24,093 25,146 36-05 JOHNSON OARK 11 4 027 4 242 150 158 16.9 17.9 19 417 21 674 18.9 19.9 20 721 23 160 73-05 WHITE GRIFFITHVILLE 12 4,024 161 168 17.6 19,502 19.9 21,079 63-06 SALINE PARON 13 3,994 4,366 215 229 19.4 19.5 22,320 26,619 21.4 21 .. 5 23,368 27,371 47-01 MISSISSIPPI ARMOREL 14 3,850 4,344 218 232 21.4 21.8 22 820 26,179 23.4 23.8 24,056 27,587 68-06 SHARP POUGHKEEPSIE 15 3,842 3,598 115 120 15.1 14.0 18,377 19,044 17.1 16.0 19,478 19,503 65-03 SEARCY SAINT JOE 16 3,678 4,116 202 214 19.5 19.5 19,352 23,262 21.5 21.5 20,761 24,499 41-03 LITTLE RIVER WINTHROP 17 3,675 3,738 169 176 14.6 14.6 20 966 23 019 16.6 16.6 22 339 24 477 71-03 VAN BUREN SCOTLAND 18 3,655 4,078 130 135 14.0 14.5 19,973 21,899 16.0 16.5 21,154 23,335 43-05 LONOKE HUMNOKE 19 3,647 3,727 169 180 15.8 17 .1 18,729 19,880 17.8 19.1 19,963 21,024 ~-01 COLUMBIA EMERSON 20 3 554 3 788 341 354 30.6 27.1 23 895 26 812 33.6 30.1 25 319 28 474 23-02 FAULKNER ENOLA 21 3,529 121 126 13.1 17,962 14.6 19,520 ~-05 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW 22 3,528 3,790 227 240 22.0 22 .. 5 18,844 20,650 24.0 24.5 20,113 22,059 20-01 DALLAS CARTHAGE 23 3,483 3,725 165 172 17.5 17.5 19 528 21 383 19.5 19.5 20 894 22 722 34-04 JACKSON SWIFTON 24 3,474 3,563 181 191 20.1 19.6 18,578 20,946 22.1 21.6 20,019 22,423 49-04 MONTGOMERY ODEN 25 3,461 3,703 215 227 19.5 19.5 22,264 24,224 21 .. 5 21.5 23,121 25,446 26-04 GARLAND JESSI EV ILLE 26 3,454 3,321 566 593 41.7 41.7 27,093 27,444 44.7 45.7 28,196 27 999 38-07 LAWRENCE STRAWBERRY 27 3,432 3,885 216 224 21.2 21.0 20,052 21,645 23.2 23.4 21,372 23,288 60-02 PULASKI NORTH LITTLE ROCK 28 3,407 3,691 8,976 9,653 609.6 609.5 25,249 28,656 666.1 666.0 26,522 29,976 75-09 YELL WESTERN YELL COLIN 29 3 360 3 390 362 385 35.0 32.7 20 116 22 233 38.0 35.7 21 124 23 393 28-06 GREENE STANFORD 30 3,357 J,548 194 201 20.1 20.5 19,263 20,816 22.4 22.8 20,131 21,694 60-03 PULASKI PULASKI COUNTY SP 31 3,319 3,447 20,767 22,149 1,346.7 1,340.7 27,563 27,732 1,445.3 1,454.3 28,667 28,830 26-03 GARLAND HOT SPRINGS 32 3,307 3,430 3,116 3 364 239.2 232.8 24 490 27 350 255.2 248.3 25 599 28 802 34-02 JACKSON GRUBBS 33 3,306 3,673 188 200 19.3 19.3 17,374 20,410 21.3 21.3 18,485 21,324 38-05 LAWRENCE LYNN 34 3,281 3,810 228 237 20.0 20.9 20,890 23,520 22 .. 2 23.4 21,718 24 418 51-03 NEWTON MOUNT JUDEA 35 3,277 3 706 236 252 19.6 19.1 20 764 25 272 21.6 21.1 21 943 26 052 54-05 PHILLIPS LAKE VIEW 36 3,240 2,778 213 214 19.3 18.1 16,691 19,376 22.3 21.1 18,092 20 945 32-03 INDEPENDENCE CUSHMAN 37 3,235 3,814 271 286 22.9 24.8 21,442 24,645 25.4 27.3 22,633 25,939 69-04 STONE RURAL SF'ECIAL 38 3,234 3,397 227 236 18.5 17.5 22 961 26 270 20.5 19.5 23 989 26 960 33-03 IZARD MOUNT F'LEASANT 39 3,213 3,518 265 274 24.6 24.5 22,182 24,694 26.6 26 .. 5 21,885 24,298 61-01 RANDOLPH BIGGERS-REYNO 40 3,205 3,428 197 206 18.6 19.0 19,721 22,032 20.6 21.0 20,653 22,895 05-06 BOONE LEAD HILL 41 3,202 3,529 329 347 27.5 27.8 19 972 23 130 30.3 30.6 21 469 24 467 23-04 FAULKNER GUY-PERKINS 42 3,198 3,459 272 283 23.0 23 .. 5 20,696 23,355 25.0 25 .. 5 21,847 24,396 68-05 SHARP WILLIFORD 43 3,197 3,247 258 271 22.0 22 ..5 19,234 21,649 24 ...5 25.0 20,713 22,744 01-02 ARKANSAS GILLETT 44 3,174 3,705 278 288 23.6 24.6 20 081 21 921 26 .. 5 27.5 21 637 23 436 47-08 MISSISSIPPI GOSNELL 45 3,170 3,617 2,074 2,195 149.6 148.5 25,495 29,216 159.1 158.0 26,389 30,109 02-04 ASHLEY PARKDALE 46 3,169 3,231 145 152 1.4.7 12.8 17,735 20,021 16.7 14.8 17,592 19,567 05-04 BOONE OMAHA 47 3,168 3,633 282 298 23.5 24 .. 5 21,440 23 723 26.1 27 .. 1 22,720 25,302 38-06 LAWRENCE 30-03 HOT SPRING 41.::22 LITTLE RIVER 50-04 NEVADA 37-02 02-02 ASHLEY 56-07 POINSETT 68-03 SHARP 70-09 UNION N 48-03 HONROE 75-08 YELL 03-02 32-02 20-03 LAFAYETTE COLUHBIA BA TIAN BAXTER INDEPENDENCE DALLAS ARKANSAS PIIRI IC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNIIAL FISCAL REPQRT ANALYSTS COLUMN 1 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO. 11 AVG. SLRY. FOUNTAIN HILL WEINER L BRIGHT STAR KINGSTON AL R EVENING SHADE STRONG_ _ WA ASEKA-TUCKER HOLLY GROVE PLAINVIEW-ROVER SU PH ROCK BRADLEY TAYLOR HARTFORD COTTER CORD-CHARLOTTE SPARKHAN 2,906 2,892 2 888 1990-91 NUMBERO F AVG. SLRY. NO. OF CERT, TEACHERS K-12 91-92 A/D/A A/D/M 90-91 91-92 TCHRS. K-12 90-91 91-92 PERSONNEL 90-91 91-92 CERT. PERS. 90-91 91-92 3,323 3,141 3 344 3,148 3,381 3 031 9 10 11 12 20.s 20.0 21,104 26,885 ___ _ 23.0 24.0 23 922 26 451 28.2 28.0 25,225 2--2L_131 ___ _ 13.3 12.8 21 094 24 394 22.0 22.4 19 855 22 564 32.6 19,588 22,701 37.0 35.6 20,784 24,161 ---- 88.0 22,429 25,216 95.7 94.0 23,368 26,245 ___ _ ~ .1 25.0 21 886 24 188 28.0 28.0 23 293 25 651 ----\"\"'-''---L-- 24.0 23.6 20,080 ~.073 26.8 __ 26.4 21,186 25,151 62.S 62.S 24,393 27,180 67.0 67.0 25,672 28,428~--- 285 21.4 23.2 21 828 24 835 24.1 25.4 22,888 25,892 --=1~7~7,__14.2 15.4 18,682 22,473 16.2 17.4 21,181 25,723 ---- 656 39.5 40.0 25,259 28,632 42.S 43.0 26,561 29,877 250 18.0 19.0 22 841 26 009 20.0 21.0 24,385 27,592 500 37.9 __ ~3~7-=-2.93 ,187 25,777 40.9 40.9 24,489 26,889 ---- 582 43.9 42.0 21,175 23,619 46.-9--45.0 22,112:24,778 ___ _ 268 17.0 17.0 25 864 28 709 19~19.0 27 408 30,378 569 590 43.6 42.6 21,414 2_1,_J.Q9 46.6 45.6 22,450 25,103 ___ _ 143 151 13.0 12.0 19,106 23,854 15.-0--14.0 20,489 25,302 ~ 602 2 773 183.5 183.5 23 103 25 458 200.0 200.0 24,252 26,867 290 306 23.4 23.4 19,252 22,588 26.4 26.4 20,303 24,072 324 34_1_ _ 27.1 26.6 19,060 21,556 30.1 29.6 20,755 23,048 7 116 7 518 459.3 459.0 26 811 29,916 491.0 491.5 27,755 30,847 474 _4~9~9,___ 44.0 43.3 19,333 21,625 47.0 46.3 20,269 22,6_5_4 ___ _ 579 --=6~1~2..__43.3 40.3 22,519 26,079 46.8 43.8 23,713 27,300 ___ _ 355 375 30.3 31.3 20 563 22 727 33.3--34.3 21,814 23,885 244 --=2~6~5..__21.3 _ _,2=1...,3 ,20, 106 25,000 23.3 23.3 21,703 26,863 378 _3=9~5~_ 30.5 32.6 20,459 23,390 32.5 34.6 21,265 24,150 496 524 34.8 33.7 21 691 25 393 38.1 36.7 23,150 26,894 248 259 17.0 18.0 22,656 27,552_~1=9_._0 __ ~2_0_._0~2=3~,7_0_7_2_8_~_,7_ 4_2 _ 206 _ _,3=0=0..__---'2=1..,__,__.o=-------=2=-1-=-2-=5,-6o4--3- -=21,4982 3.0 23.0 23,02s 27,229 235 242 21.5 20.7 18 985_2\"'-\".11~L7~9_~_0 =2~4~~0:.__~2~3~~2:....!2~0~,~4~9~6~2~3~,~0~7~8~--- 262 273 24.0 24.7 18,271 21,090 26.0 26.7 19,470 22,054 544 564 43.0 41.0 21,651 25,244 46.3 44.0 22,515 26,101 265 282 21.0 20.0 18 326 22,969 24.0 23.0 19,553 24,399 384 401 29.5 28.8 19,545 22,318 31.5 30.8 20,682 23,452 320 337 26.8 24.9 18,969 21,888 29.8 26.9 20,212 23,100 280 2~ 24.3 23.4 20 340 23,265 26.3 25.4 21,519 24,554 440 469 _ _,3\"--'7\"--'.'--'5'-----=3'---'71--=\"2-=-0=:5c'---7c2-20'c2,- =9,\"_'-,9 =-_--,,\n4_.,: :,0-=-=-4.,:.\n,\n5:5\no ,2..1c,.4 22 24, 132 328 341 26.0 26.0 21,169 23,497 29.0 29.0 22,615 25,088 440 470 36.5 36.5 21,097 23,934 39.7 39.7 22,035 24,920 502 530 38.6 38.8 21,655 23,710 41.6 41.8 22,844 25,101 249 259 19.7 _ ____.c2~0~21.6,6 62 24,815 345 362 28.S 26.1 19,954 23,089 21.7 22.6 23,106 26,223 -=3=0-.=5~-=2=0-.1 21,392 24,050 ---------- -------- 4 1 i 6 7 i 58-05 26-01 46-05 53-01 Si- 73-09 54-02 35-02 01-05 62-05 61-02 52-06 51-04 42-04 65-01 19-03 45-02 72-07 66-06 73-10 02-03 55-04 62-02 CRITTENDEN POPE GARLAND HILLER PERRY NEWTON WHITE PHILLIPS JEFFERSON ARKANSAS ST FRANCIS RANDOLPH OUACHITA NEWTON LOGAN SEARCY CROSS MARION WASHINGTON SEBASTIAN WHITE ASHLEY PIKE ST FRANCIS ARKANSAPSU BLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUAFLI SCAL REPORTA NALYSIS COLUMN 1 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER TEXARK EAST END JA E PANGBURN ELAINE DOLLARWAY HUMPHREY PALESTINE/WHEAT MAYNARD STEPHENS WESTERN GROVE SCRANTON 1 LESLIE 133 PARKIN 134 YELLVILLE-SUMMIT 135 SPRINGDALE 136 MANSFIELD 137 ROSE BUD 138 HAMBURG 139 MURFREESBORO 140 HUGHES 141 EXPENSE PER ADA 90-91 91-92 2,742 2,736 2 736 2,735 2,734 2 733 2,729 2,727 2 727 3,069 3,509 3 017 3,145 3,061 3 143 2,984 3,144 3 119 1990-91 NUMBEORF TEACHERS K-12 A/D/A A/D/H 90-91 91-92 286 19.9 554 42.0 791 55.0 57.6 6,977 7,450 442.0 449.5 832 873 58.8 58.8 517 547 37.8 39.3 1,630 1,714 109.5 110.0 555 583 44.2 43.3 1 058 1 099 75.5 76.5 19,000 22L950 20,121 23,897 21 660 24 347 26,365 30,062 23,408 25,834 21 773 24 722 21,956 25,346 22,202 25,552 22 664 25 381 22.9 45.0 58.0 477.0 62 .. 8 40.8 117.2 47.2 83.4 PAGE NO. 12 23.5 21.,_187 9 23 9 0 22.S 21~6 24,774 45.3__\n!1_,520 25,407 61.1 2? 574 25 422 485.5 27,504 3L__,244 63.5 24,420 27,038 42.3 22 973 25 683 117.3 23,234 26,604 46.3 23,310 26,761 84.3 23 741 26 598 ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS _cm.uMl'L1._RA~D IN,_.D=E~s~c~EtlN~D~r~N~G.,_,O~R~D~E~R-'--------------------~P~A~G~E,_,_N~0~-'--\"1~3:...._ ___ _ EXPENSE 1990-91 NUMBERO F AVG. SLRY. NO. OF CERT. AVG. SLRY. Pr::-R ADA TEACHERS K-12 . ~ TCHRS K-1,., PERSONNEL CERT . PERS . -- 90-91 91-92 A/D/A A/D/M 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 C-A ,I, r-nrNTY n - --- OA\"-'V  ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 W::A -nA DUTI TDC, MARV\"\"' L 142 2 723 2 966 823 870 57.5 57.0 22 276 25,284 63.4 61.2 23,274 25,953 5,4 .i\\-Z OUTO O JPS uc-o C-UA. -Wi:-!!:Tuc -o C-\"-' c A \"7 I? '??\u0026lt; ? 01\\A \"' 075 \"' :-it\u0026lt;8 289.0 286.0 22 302 24 928 306.0 303.0 23 156 25 860 '?f .i\\A \\IAU DOJOC-U SMTRLEY 144 2 721 3 055 491 512 34.9 35.0 20 944 24 957 37.9 38.0 22,159 25,968 nt-01 s DEWITT 145 2 718 3 109 1 317 1 378 92.7 94.7 23 157 26 141 98.9 101.1 24,016 27,140 '?0-0t I UJTM\"-' c-1 nnoAnn t A.L '? '?1 A :-it \"\"\"\" 4 A2A 5 110 339.4 339.3 23 278 26 673 360.2 359.1 24 106 27 512 ,,\"' .n-. !='IIL T ON VIOLA 147 2 711 3 047 398 415 29.5 30.0 21 778 24,765 31.5 32.0 22,917 25,992 a:-:: .o:-i\nPTll'c- KIRBY 148 2 710 3 179 424 447 35.2 36.5 19 945 22 027 39.1 40.4 20,873 23,007 t :-it-Ot r1 ~.,~, A\"'\" llTNr:.- u,- fAO ? '?OA :-it O'?,\u0026lt;., 394 411 26 8 '\u0026gt;6.6 19 836 23 259 29.8 29.4 20 738 24 406 49 02 Mn\u0026gt;JTGOMERY MOUNT IDA 150 2 707 3 098 504 524 37.5 36.8 21 840 25,827 40.5 39.8 23,040 27,137 73-01 WHITE BALD KNOB 151 2 701 3 031 1 322 1 397 86.4 84.8 22,921 26,642 91.9 90.9 23,756 27,616 \"\"\"' -iO  t-  N ~ T TF\" H\"' I 152 2 699 2 865 2 724 2 884 179.0 177.0 24 662 27 786 191.0 189.0 25,507 28,619 H-06 CLAY CLAY COUNTY CENTR153 2,697 2,968 748 782 54.7 54.7 21,391 23,965 57.7 57.7 22,211 24,796 32-11 INDEPENDENCE MIDLAND 154 2 697 3,003 582 618 44.4 45.2 21,141 24,131 47.4 48.2 22,099 25,254 i2-01 N r::-QURNE CONCORD 155 2 696 3 197 483 515 34.0 33.3 21,824 26,690 37.0 36.3 23,141 27,726 72-05 WASHINGTON LINCOLN 156 2 696 2 958 929 987 65.4 65.2 21,499 24,299 69.4 70.2 22,440 25,281 59-02 PRAIRIE DEVALLS BLUFF 157 2 693 3 003 458 477 35.5 32.9 19,993 24,202 38.3 35.7 21,060 25,345 2B-i\\A r:r:,i:-r::-NE NORTHEAST ARKANSA158 2 692 3 005 2 226 2 369 152.5 151.4 23 495 27,217 1.62.7 162.6 24,277 28,050 45-01 MARION FLIPPIN 159 2 691 3 103 741 781 48.0 49.0 24,145 28,048 51.0 52.3 25,200 29,180 72-01 WASHINGTON ELKINS 160 2 691 3 336 683 722 45.4 46.4 22,933 28,969 48.4 49.4 23,955 29,881 Ai\\ .. I\\? I TNrnt N GRADY 161 2 687 3 435 324 335 21.8 22.7 18 717 24,072 24.8 24.7 19,736 25,212 05-01 BOONE ALPENA 162 2 686 3 100 461 482 30.7 31.6 22,765 25,947 33.7 34.6 23,985 27,353 H,-nc\nrDATf':.MEAD BUFFALO ISLAND CE163 2 685 3 025 784 814 59.0 59.0 21,348 24,708 63.8 63.8 22,079 25,468 ii,,\"\"' - - H ,~w~ 164 2 685 3 007 4 523 4 770 309.4 301.4 25 478 29 486 329.3 320.4 26,346 30,350 16-01 CRAIGHEAD BAY-BROWN 165 2 683 3 073 619 648 42.7 42.7 21,575 25,787 45.7 45.7 22,513 26,912 15-05 CONWAY WONDERVIEW 166 2 678 2 980 419 437 30.1 30.1 19,889 23,297 33.1 33.1 21,173 24,324 ,.,L_,07 r-..,....,,, ..a. 1\"\"' Mnr 1NT6TN PTNE 1.\u0026lt;.7 '\u0026gt; 678 2 979 583 622 43.5 43.5 21 482 25,103 46.5 46.5 22,679 26,242 17-03 CRAWFORD MOUNTAINBURG 168 2 676 3 105 759 813 53.0 54.0 23,099 26,583 57.0 58.0 23,966 27,267 32-01 INDEPENDENCE BATESVILLE 169 2 672 2 932 2 335 2,458 157.0 158.5 25,114 27,967 168.3 169.8 25,851 28,778 4'?- ,O? MTq!::J!::!::TPPT '\" YTMr::-VT c - f70 2 672 3 020 4 069 4 328 277.9 277.6 23,797 27,561 296.0 295.7 24,866 28,693 14-06 COLUMBIA WALDO 171 2 669 3 114 532 569 39.9 41.1 21,170 24,450 42.8 44.1 22,602 25,712 15-03 CONWAY NEMO VISTA 172 2 669 3 091 380 399 29.0 31.0 20,393 22,671 32.0 34.0 21,360 22,970 A-Z-i\\\"Z I rn.inllr::- rADI TSLr::- 173 2 668 2 961 669 696 48.2 47.7 22. 134 25,0ii 51.i 50.7 23,184 26,163 56-04 POINSETT MARKED TREE 174 2 668 2 942 847 894 64.5 64.0 20,983 24,052 68.0 67.5 21,675 24,759 70-08 UNION SMACKOVER 175 2 668 2,930 800 837 so.a 52.4 23,765 27,066 54.8 56.4 24,945 28,160 ~ 1. .nA unLIARD MINERAL SPRINGS 176 2 663 2 955 476 496 37.2 37.0 20,904 23,595 40.7 40.7 22,250 25,104 49-01 MONTGOMERY CADDO HILLS 177 2 661 2 901 522 549 38.0 38.3 21,664 24,400 41.0 41.3 22,848 25,855 04-07 BENTON PEA RIDGE 178 2,659 3 153 679 720 51.1 52.5 20,828 24,170 54.2 55 .. 5 21,783 25,149 \"Z\"Z-01. T\"7.0.D1' CALICO ROCK 179 2 657 3 291 435 457 34.1 36.6 20 404 23,314 37.i 39.6 21,508 24,523 56-05 POINSETT TRUMANN 180 2 655 2,939 1,568 1,673 115.1 111.9 21,395 25,291 124.8 120.6 22,393 26,245 07-01 CALHOUN HAMPTON 181 2,654 3,099 879 910 58.8 60.2 23,248 27,539 62.3 63.7 24,437 28,466 47-12 MISSISSIPPI MANILA 182 2 652 2 943 853 905 57.4 56.8 21,794 24,954 62.2 61.6 22,779 25,790 29-06 HEMPSTEAD SPRING HILL 183 2,651 3,133 294 307 22.0 22.0 19,606 24,774 25.0 25.0 20,921 26,217 58-03 POPE HECTOR 184 2,650 3,051 633 667 46.0 47.0 22,406 25,015 49.0 50.0 23,133 25,924 62-01 ST FRANCIS FORREST CITY 185 2 649 2 870 4 896 5 177 296.6 299.2 23,470 26,789 330.1 332.7 24,587 27,705 74-01 WOODRUFF AUGUSTA 186 2 649 3 108 639 673 46.2 46.2 20,958 23,980 49.2 49.2 22,297 25,414 52-04 OUACHITA FAIRVIEW 187 2 648 3,045 3,910 4,086 261.3 253.8 24,070 28,414 280 .. 2 273.8 25,136 29,537 A..C:::-1'\\? ~..oi.g,ry MARSHALL 188 2 646 2 965 697 736 50.5 51.5 21,313 24,246 53.5 54.5 22,120 24,725 17-04 JEFFERSON MISSISSIPPI 1 B NE 0 BENTON 25-02 FULTON 46 H L ER 73-03 WHITE 73-06 WHITE 04-04 BENTON 57-05 POLK 09-03 CHICOT 4- s 36-06 JOHNSON 10-02 CLARK 22-02 DREW 37-03 LAFAYETTE 15-07 CONWAY 12- B RNE 70-06 UNION 75-04 YELL 7 -03 NIN 72-08 WASHINGTON 02-01 ASHLEY 17-02 CRAWFORD 18-03 CRITTENDEN 73-11 WHITE 32-09 INDEPENDENCE 75-03 YELL 41-01 LITTLE RIVER 10-03 CLARK 16-11 CRAIGHEAD 26-06 GARLAND 40-01 LINCOLN 06-01 BRADLEY 50-06 NEVADA 63-04 SALINE 52-05 OUACHITA 56-02 POINSETT 58-01 POPE 24-02 FRANKLIN 05-02 BOONE 43-02 LONOKE ARKANSAPSU BLICS CHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUAFLI SCAL REPORTA NALYSIS MULBERRY ROGERS SALEH 0 KE BRADFORD JUDSONIA GRA TT WICKES LAKESIDE WEST SIDE ARK DRE ST NORPHLET DARDANELLE T WEST FORK CROSSETT CEDARV LL WEST MEMPHIS SEARCY SOUTH SID DANVILLE 221 ASHDOWN 222 GURDON 223 NETTLETON 224 LAKESIDE 225 GOULD 226 HERMITAGE 227 PRESCOTT 228 HARMONY GROVE 229 HARMONY GROVE 230 HARRISBURG 231 ATKINS 232 CHARLESTON 233 BERGMAN 234 ENGLAND 235 COLUMN 1 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER EXPENSE i99O 91 PER ADA 90-91 91-92 A/D/A A/D/H 415 439 2,581 2,853 526 555 2,580 2,901 2,068 2,173 2 574 2 9 1 88 2,572 2,909 1,539 1,638 2,572 2,901 2,081 2L188 2 571 2 980 323 341 2,568 2,972 589 624 2,567 2,862 1,162 1,210 2 564 3 033 591 618 2,563 3,038 760 788 2,563 2,811 916 976 2 561 2 867 1 035 1 097 2,560 2,969 678 702 2,559 3,029 665 694 2 559 2 842 1 016 1 068 NUMBEOR F TEACHERS K-12 90-91 91-92 AVG. SLRY, TCHRS_. K-12 90-91 91-92 33.1 33.2 2L__716 ~6 38.6 38.6 21,581 2!:l,063 133.0 136.3 23,207 ~828 4 102.5 110.1 22,004 24,966 126.9 129.0 24,051 27,798 25.8 26 0 8 021 20 888 40.0 41.0 84.3 83.3 38. 41.5 48.5 49.5 22,977 65.0 63.8 21,791 24,279 70.0 70.0 23 930 27 570 47.0 49.0 22,853 25,850 42.2 46.1 23,322 26,319 71.5 71.0 22 834 25 794 --- NO. OF CERT. PERSONNEL 90-91 91-92 36.4 41.6 41.6 144.5 147.5 111.3 118.5 136.9 139.0 28.8 29.0 43.0 44.0 91.3 90.2 .5 44.5 51.5 52.5 69.0 67.8 75.0 75.0 50.0 52.0 45.3 49.2 76.5 76,0 PAGE_NO. 14 SLBY, PERS. ~~~- 91-92 22_,_664 26,117 24_,229~4 22,963 25,949 24,950 28,866 19 04 22 0 7 22 304 24 951 22 078 25 149 4 335 27 102 23 926 27 902 22,612 25 086 24 663 28 238 23 825 26 923 24 596 27 627 23 881 26 957 aats:atitsasE :IU H IC SCf:::fCDI 12ISIBICIS at!lt!lll9L EISCaL BEE:IJBI0 N0LYl\u0026gt;Ilii _(\nIJLUMN 1 _RANKED IN DESCENDIN!i ORDE PAGE NO. 15 0\\ll.. SI.BY. tlQ. QE CERI. 6\\l!i. SI.Bl, TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. l'll'.JU'.l'I 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 9 10 11 12 001 26 48.0 51.0 25,738 27 432 71 28 144.5 148.0 25 273 29 350 599 24 62.0 60.5 21 467 25,059 950 23 35.6 36.4 22 255 24,967 1 989 26 2 47.6 48.6 22 884 26 925 20,387 23,000 76.0 76.7 21 078 23,844 23~26 26,225 68.8 73.4 24,414 27,141 20 6'-'B 23 358 33.5 33.0 21 726 24 607 1'IL._931 22 201 33.6 33.0 21,164 23,629 23,866 27,882 56.6 58.0 24,795 28,992 5 1 4 29 489 142.7 140.5 25 935 30 398 18,369 21,333 33.5 33.5 19,708 22,522 23,340 26 548 64.0 68.3 24,204 27,317 23 BOB 27 357 195.1 192.4 24,802 28 442 205.8 23,683 27,554 219.4 225.7 24,622 28,534 37.6 20,885 24,402 40.6 44.2 21,812 25,194 142.1 25 396 28 836 150.1 156.6 26 332 29,770 109.2 110.2 23,172 26 948 116.5 117.6 24,028 27,762 35.0 35.3 20,890 ~. 838 38.0 38.3 22,093 25,078 91.9 92.3 22 897 26 320 100.6 102.0 24,005 27,384 341.0 353.3 25,116 28,704 366.5 384.5 26,175 29,841 42.0 42. 0 J.'l, 908 24, 849 45.4 45.4 21,299 26,412 3 .o 38.0 21 604 25 605 42.0 41.0 22 544 26 692 74.3 73.0 24 145 26 991 79.3 78.0 25,129 28,122 85.5 87.5 22,725 25,873 91.9 93.8 23,698 26,926 73.9 75.6 24 567 29 031 80.4 81.1 25,796 30,124 66-05 SEBASTIAN LAVACA 761 50.5 51.6 20,793 23,340 53.5 54.6 21,850 24,201 05-05 BOONE VALLEY SPRINGS 805 50.5 50.5 23,320 27,812 54.5 54.5 24,117 28,609 MENA 4 7 1 1 786 111.5 113.5 24,930 28,810 117.9 120.0 25,675 29,642 18-04 CRITTENDEN MARION 265 4 50 2,317 2,469 143.0 145.0 24,102 28,037 154.8 156.8 25,111 29,200 44-01 MADISON HUNTSVILLE 266 4 08 1,566 1,666 104.6 105.9 22,473 27,092 109.6 110.9 23,110 27,761 AD DIERKS 2 866 573 596 39.2 40.2 21,712 26,081 42.2 43.2 22,765 26,821 53-03 PERRY PERRYVILLE 041 807 848 50.9 53.5 22,719 26,790 53.9 56.5 23,797 27,602 28-03 GREENE MARMADUKE ,767 629 658 40.6 40.6 23,344 27,541 43.6 43.6 24,381 28,290 BENTON 907 3 834 4 020 239.8 243.0 23,854 27,888 254 .. 8 258.0 24,780 28,915 BENTONVILLE ,909 3,987 4,171 260.3 261.8 22,592 26,723 274.8 282.3 23,719 28,087 NORFORK ,895 451 472 31.3 35.0 20,188 22,283 34.3 38.0 21,517 23,494 L 884 470 504 36.3 37.3 19,697 21,984 39.3 40.3 20,802 23,355 STUTTGART ,796 2,304 2,437 152.2 149.9 22,802 27,051 162.1 159.8 23,728 27,988 HOPE ,811 2,978 3,133 178.5 181.5 24,433 28,485 190.5 193.5 25,485 29,512 944 1 300 1 382 89.5 91.5 22 139 26 271 94.9 97.2 22,990 27,210 MONTICELLO ,882 2,096 2,183 138.1 138.4 22,363 26,295 150.1 150.3 23,590 27,577 WARREN ,809 1,733 1,818 114.6 116.5 23,100 25,869 124.5 126.5 24,570 27,468 W ST SIDE 839 1 229 1 310 81.B 82.1 21,231 24,726 89.B 90.1 22,227 25,797 52-01 BEARDEN ,884 855 887 55.5 55 .. 5 22,887 28,382 60.5 60.5 24,258 29,298 38-08 WALNUT RIDGE ,871 852 899 62.0 61.1 20,867 25,353 66.0 65.1 21,649 26,249 - 4 CENTR L 2 818 503 529 37.3 37.3 20,620 24,579 39.B 39.8 21,704 25,576 ---- - --- ---- - --- ------------- ARKANSAPSU BLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUALFI SCAL REPORTA NALYSIS COLUMN1 RANKEDIN DESCENDINGO RDER PAGE NO. 16 CRAIGHEAD I/ALLEY 1/IEW CRAWFORD I/AN BUREN SHARP HIG LAN CLAY ___ PIGGOTT SEI/IER DEQUEEN WASHINGTON GREEN D 28-=-0LGREEl-lE GREENE COUNTY 48-01 MONROE BRINKLEY 43-01 LONOKE LONOKE 61-03 RANDOLPH POCAHONTAS 36-04 JOHNSON LAMAR 17-01 CRAWFORD ALMA 13-03 CL El/ELAND RISON __ 36-01 JOHNSON CLARKS I/ILLE 74-03 WOODRUFF MCCRORY ,,~ 74 30-04 HOT SPRING MALI/ERN 2 690 174.5 22,021 25,604 183.0 183.0 22,732 26,362 21-05 DESHA MCGEHEE 3 2 _619 __L_227 1,276 79.5 22,334 25,180 84.5 86.0 23,200 26,226 23-05 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER 314 2 356 2 883 667 701 44.5 21 680 25 128 47.5 50.0 22 604 26 05 69-01 STONE MOUNTAIN 1/IEW 315 2,635 i,036 i,084 65.0 23,596 27,042 69.0 69.0 24,492 27,986 23-03 FAULKNER GREENBRIE_R_ 316 2_,902 1,505 1,586 87.5 24,801 27,934 93.5 104.5 25,713 28,921 05-03 BOONE HARRISON 317 2 673 2 504 2 618 152.4 154.3 22 991 26 373 163 3 165.2 23 976 27 642 73-02 WHITE BEEBE 318 2,763 1_, 575 i,670 103.4 106.7 21,807 26,192 109.6 113.9 22,683 26,867 59-01 PRAIRIE DES ARC 319 2,791 642 676 40.7 41.9 21,648 25,241 43.8 45.0 22,547 26,125 14-02 COLUMBIA MAGNOLIA 320 2 667 2 967 3 130 175.9 174.5 24 035 28 255 189.0 186.6 25 024 29 245 63-03 SALINE BRYANT 321 2,722 4,903 5~216 286.6 292.6 25,815 30,085 301.5 309.5 26,520 30,875 43-(),4 LONOKE CABOT 322 2,235 2,759 4_, 542 4,832 264.5 285.0 24,371 28,136 281.0 302.0 25,307 29,048 08-01 CARROLL BERRYVILLE 323 2 231 2,610 1,331 1 393 84.0 88.0 21 773 25 257 B8.0 92.0 22 371 25 847 67-03 SEI/IER HORATIO 324 2,207 2,852 520 __ 544 31.8 35.6 21,758 27,490 34.7 38.6 23,187 28,360 -------------~-\"'-'\"===--=-========:-:_::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.~=-::.=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--:..=-=-=--------======------------------------------~  ARKANSASP UBLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUALF ISCAi REPORTA NALYSIS COLUMN 2 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO. 17 EXPENSE 1990-91 NUMBERO E AY!i, SLRY, NO. OE CERT. AY!i, SLRY, PER ~DA TEACHERS K-12 TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. 90-91 91-92 A/D/A A/D/M 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 I C'6 ~ r-nuNTY DISTRICT \"'\"\"'\" 1 ? 3 4 5 6 7 A 9 10 11 1? ~ 2.1..-.0, _1 ,..,D ESHA ARKANSAS CITY 1 6., 165 ~6,609 145 152 18.2 17.0 22,727 23,780 20.7 19.5 25,110 26,262 - \"'\"'w\"\"'\" 2 5 '.'J:A.4 c\nA?:\u0026gt;: 711 742 70.0 70 1 28 616 '.18 774 7c\n-.: 7\"\n4 ?9 AOc\n?9 Lb.A 65-04 SEARCY WITTS SPRINGS 3 5_.i293 5,726 94 99 14.8 14.8 18,050 20,234 16.8 16.8 19,145 21.,278 31-06 HOWARD UMPIRE 4 4_, 781 5,471 123 127 14.9 15.6 20,349 22,369 17.a__ 18.5 22,124 24,559 ..,  .r,. \"A B' ~-~ AO C.~An \"\" A O\"\u0026gt;A c\n?\"?(\\ o-. QQ 13 1 13 1 19 780 ?1 C:f\\'') 1 \"i ? 1 ~ '.'J: ?1 \"\u0026gt;L? ,., ... 1 ...... 75-05 YELL FOURCHE VALLEY 6 4,346 5., 125 128 136 16.4 18.2 19,128 22,348 18.4 20.2 20,494 23,349 70-05 UNION MOUNT HOLLY 7 4_,294 5,081 212 224 21 .. S 24.3 22,745 23,644 23.5 2'7 .. 0 24,093 25_, 146 60-01 PULASKI LITTLE ROCK 8 4 296 4 765 22 397 24 090 1 822.0 1 839.3 28 205 31 371 1 970.0 1 986.3 29 510 32 960 03-06 BAXTER TRI-COUNTY CON. 9 4,809 4,762 151 159 18.3 13.8 20,313 23,402 20.3 16.3 21,378 25,052 63-06 SALINE PARON 10 3,994 4,366 215 229 19.4 19.5 22,320 26,619 21.4 21 .. 5 23,368 27,371 47-01 MISSISSIPPI ARMOREL 11 3 850 4 344 218 232 21.4 21.8 22 820 26 179 23.4 23.8 24 056 27 587 36-05 JOHNSON DARK 12 4,027 4,242 150 158 16.9 17.9 19,417 21,674 18.9 19.9 20,721 23,160 53-02 PERRY PERRY CASA 13 4,405 4,182 167 184 19.2 15.7 23,028 24,809 21 .. 2 17.7 24,200 26,192 65-03 SEARCY SAINT JOE 14 3 678 4 116 202 214 19.5 19.5 19 352 23 262 21.5 21.5 20 761 24 499 71-03 VAN BUREN SCOTLAND 15 3,655 4,078 130 135 14.0 14 .. 5 19,973 21,899 16.0 16.5 21,154 23,335 12-05 CLEBURNE WILBURN 16 3,041 3,911 164 177 14.2 15.4 18,682 22,473 16.2 17.4 21,181 25,723 69-02 STONE STONE COUNTY 17 3 162 3 898 223 234 18.5 18.8 20 093 26 395 20 .. 5 20.8 21 104 26 885 38-07 LAWRENCE STRAWBERRY 18 3,432 3,885 216 224 21.2 21.0 20,052 21,645 23 .. 2 23.4 21,372 23,288 32-03 INDEPENDENCE CUSHMAN 19 3,235 3,814 271 286 22.9 24.8 21,442 24,645 25.4 27 .. 3 22,633 25,939 38 05 LAWRENCE LYNN 20 3 281 3 810 228 237 20.0 20.9 20 890 23 520 22.2 23.4 21 718 24 418 24-05 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW 21 3,528 3,790 227 240 22.0 22.5 18,844 20,650 24.0 24.5 20,113 22,059 14-01 COLUMBIA EMERSON 22 3,554 3,788 341 354 30.6 27.1 23,895 2l\u0026gt;,812 33.6 30.1 25,319 28,474 27-03 GRANT POYEN 23 3 036 3 753 242 250 18.0 19.0 22 841 26 009 20.0 21.0 24,385 27i592 41-03 LITTLE RIVER WINTHROP 24 3,675 3,738 169 176 14.6 14.6 20,966 23,019 16.6 16.6 22,339 24,477 43-05 LONOKE HUMNOKE 25 3,647 3,727 169 180 15.8 17.1 18,729 19,880 17.8 19.1 19,963 21,024 20-01 DALLAS CARTHAGE 26 3 483 3 725 165 172 17.5 17 ...5 19 528 21 383 19.5 19.5 20 894 22 722 51-03 NEWTON MOUNT JUDEA 27 3,277 3,706 236 252 19.6 19.1 20,764 25,272 21.6 21.1 21,943 26,052 01-02 ARKANSAS GILLETT 28 3,174 3,705 278 288 23.6 24.6 20,081 21,921 26.5 27.5 21,637 23,436 49-04 MONTGOMERY ODEN 29 3 461 3 703 215 227 19 .. 5 19.5 22 264 24 224 21.5 21 .. s 23 121 25 446 60-02 PULASKI NORTH LITTLE ROCK 30 3,407 3,691 8,976 9,653 609.6 609.5 25,249 28,656 666.1 666.0 26,522 29,976 34-02 JACKSON GRUBBS 31 3,306 3,673 188 200 19.3 19.3 17,374 20,410 21.3 21.3 18,485 21,324 70-02 UNION HUTTIG 32 3 143 3 659 279 293 21.0 22 .. 0 22 776 25 112 23.0 24 .. 0 23 922 26 451 66-01 SEBASTIAN FORT SMITH 33 3,123 3,639 10,921 11,633 757.1 785.2 27,849 31,070 805.4 834.9 28,883 32,136 05-04 BOONE OMAHA 34 3,168 3,633 282 298 23.5 24.5 21,440 23,723 26.1 27.1 22,720 25,302 47-08 MISSISSIPPI GOSNELL 35 3 170 3 617 2 074 2 195 149.6 148.5 25 495 '\"\u0026gt;9 216 159.1 158.0 26 389 30 109 68-06 SHARP POUGHKEEPSIE 36 3,842 3,598 115 120 15.1 14.0 18,377 19,044 17.1 16.0 19,478 19,503 02-02 ASHLEY FOUNTAIN HILL 37 2,965 3,567 244 265 21.3 21.3 20,106 25,000 23.3 23.3 21,703 26,863 34-04 JACKSON SWIFTON 38 3 474 3 563 181 191 20.1 19.6 18 578 20 946 22.1 21.6 20 019 22 423 72-09 WASHINGTON WINSLOW 39 3,124 3,551 223 236 20.0 20.4 18,706 21,297 22.0 22.4 19,855 22,564 28-06 GREENE STANFORD 40 3,357 3.,548 194 201 20.1 20 .. 5 19,263 20,816 22 .. 4 22.8 20,131 21,694 05-06 BOONE LEAD HILL 41 3 202 3 529 329 347 27.5 27.8 19 972 23 130 30.3 30.6 21 469 24 467 46-01 MILLER BRIGHT STAR 42 2,952 3,529 248 259 17.0 18.0 22,656 27,552 19.0 20.0 23,707 28,742 33-03 IZARD MOUNT PLEASANT 43 3,213 3,518 265 274 24.6 24.5 22,182 24,694 26.6 26.5 21,885 24,298 19-03 CROSS PARKIN 44 2 736 3 509 554 591 42.0 42.3 20 121 23 897 45.0 45.3 21 520 25 407 28-01 GREENE DELAPLAINE 45 3,052 3,501 270 285 21.4 23 .. 2 21,828 24,835 24.1 25.4 22,888 25,892 56-07 POINSETT WEINER 46 2,963 3,482 378 395 30.5 32.6 20,459 23,390 32.5 __ 34.6 21,265 24,150 20-02 DALLAS FORDYCE 47 3 087 3 474 1 249 i 303 88.7 88.0 22 429 25 216 95.7 94.0 23 368 26 245 ARKANSAS PIIBI IC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS COLUMN 2 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER_ _ PAGE NO. 18 1990-91 NUMBER Of AVG, SLRY. NO. OF CERT. AVG. SLRY. TEACHE:RS K 12 TCHRS. K- 2 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. ALDt:t:l 90-91_ 91-92 90-91 91 92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 8 9 10 11 12 -04 25.5 21,847 24,396 1 454.3 28 667 28 830 30.3 19 005 22 269 24.8 24 .. 7 19,736 25,212 255.2 248.3 25 599 28 802 20.6 21.0 20,653 22,895 13.3 12.8 21,094 24 394 20.0 8 326 22 969 24.0 23.0 19 553 24 399 17.0 25 864 28 709 19.0 19.0 27,408 30,378 43.3 19,333 21,625 47.0 46.3 20,269 22,654 39.5 40.0 25 259 28 632 42.5 43.0 26 561 29,877 1,_,Jl95 135.8 139.4 21,763 25l354 144.2 147.8 22,764 26,449 60 326 25.1 25 .. 0 21,886 24,188 28.0 28.0 23,293 25,651 p I L 61 236 18.5 17.5 22 961 26 270 20.5 19 .. 5 23,989 26,960 YELL WESTERN YELL COLIN 62 3,360 385 35.0 32.7 20,116 22,233 38.0 35.7 21,124 23,393 SHARP EVENING SHADE 63 2,941 273 24.0 24.7 18,271 21,090 26.0 26.7 19,470 22,054 COD- HARLOTTE 64 2 892 259 19.7 20 .. 6 21 662 24,815 21.7 22 .. 6 23,106 26,223 44-02 MADISON KINGSTON 65 2,950 300 21.0 21.0 21,498 25,643 23.0 23.0 23,025 27,229 66-04 SEBASTIAN HARTFORD 2,910 470 36.5 36 .. 5 21,097 23,934 39.7 39.7 22,035 24,920 N 2 691 722 45.4 46.4 22 933 28 969 48.4 49.4 23,955 29,881 58-05 POPE RUSSELLVILLE 4,879 303.6 310.9 25,798 30,231 323.3 331.7 26,963 31,387 37-01 LAFAYETTE BRADLEY 469 37.5 37.5 20,120 22,799 40.5 40.5 21,422 24,132 151 13.0 12.0 19 106 23 854 15.0 14.0 20,489 25,302 JESSIEVILLE 593 41.7 41.7 27,093 27,444 44.7 45.7 28,196 27,999 RANDOLPH COUNTY 72 306 23.4 23.4 19,252 22,588 26.4 26.4 20,303 24,072 N N 73 899 62.5 62.5 24 393 27 180 67.0 67.0 25,672 28,428 46-02 HILLER GENOA CENTRAL 74 2 749 50.0 51.0 22,779 25,926 53.0 54.0 23,986 27,197 57-01 POLK ACORN 75~ 352 26.2 26.0 23,766 25,685 28.2 28.0 25,225 27,131 76 3 393 34.0 32.6 19 588 22 701 37.0 35.6 20,784 24,161 33-01 IZARD CALICO ROCK 77 2, 457 34.1 36.6 20,404 23,314 37.1 39.6 21,508 24,523 01-05 ARKANSAS HUMPHREY 78 2, 322 23.2 23.2 22,369 27,520 25 ...2 25 .. 2 23,329 28,487 SLOAN-HENDRIX 79 3 500 37.9 37.9 23,187 25,777 40.9 40.9 24,489 26,889 51-04 NEWTON WESTERN GROVE 80 2, 283 21.1 21.4 20,175 23,780 23.2 23 .. 5 21,487 24,766 POLK HATFIELD 81 3, 299 24.0 23 .. 6 20,080 24,073 26.8 26.4 21,186 25,151 0 VAN COVE 82 2 9 375 30.3 31.3 20,563 22,727 33.3 34.3 21,814 23,885 SHARP WILLIFORD 83 271 22 .. 0 22 .. 5 19,234 21,649 24.5 25 .. 0 20,713 22,744 COLUMBIA ___ MCNEIL 84 349 25 .. 6 26.1 18,335 20,566 28.6 29.1 19,594 21,573 ,y EAST END 85 523 36.5 37.0 20 819 25 861 39.3 39.9 21,980 26,889 73-07 WHITE KENSETT 86 504 34.0 89.2 23,050 25,802 37.0 97 .. 2 24,554 27,032 64-01 SCOTT WALDRON 87 1,511 109.1 108.5 21,944 24,952 115.3 115.3 22,658 25,840 JEF R ON PINE BLUFF 88 2 97 7 518 459.3 459.0 26,811 29,916 491.0 491.5 27,755 30,847 02-04 ASHLEY PARKDALE 89 3 152 14.7 12.8 17,735 20,021 16.7 14.8 17,592 19,567 18-05 CRITTENDEN TURRELL 90 2, 524 34.8 33.7 21,691 25,393 38.1 36.7 23,150 26,894 4- UH A WALKER 91 2 242 21 .. 5 20.7 18 985 21,790 24.0 23 .. 2 20,496 23,078 25-01 FULTON MAMMOTHS PRING 92 451 33.8 34.5 22,569 25,325 36.3 37.0 23,751 26,288 MARION MARION CO 93 286 303 22.7 19.7 21,032 25,791 24.7 21.7 22,218 26,553 NEWTON DEER 94 335 357 25.8 25.0 20,967 24,243 27.8 27.0 22,098 25,454 - - -~~~ ------~----~~---------------------------------------------- 72-07 WASHINGTON 54::02 Pl:iILLIPS 73-10 WHITE 41-02 LITTLE RIVER 33-06 IZARD 46-05 HILLER 62-02 72-03 4-0 15-07 01-01 74- 1 23-06 17-03 ST FRANCIS WASHINGTON CONWAY ARKANSAS F FAULKNER CRAWFORD OS-01 BOONE 07-01 CALHOUN 15-03 CONWAY 24-03 FRANKLIN_ _ ARKANSAS PIIBI IC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS SPRINGDALE ELAINE ROSE BUD FOREMAN IZARD CO CONSOL 124 TEXARKANA 125 SIDE 126 HUGHES 127 FAYETTEVILLE 128 LDO 129 SO. CONWAY CO. 130 DEWITT 131 AUGUSTA 132 MOUNT VERNON/ENOL133 MOUNTAINBURG 134 F PIN 135 ALPENA 136 HAMPTON 137 11 NT IDA 138 NEHO VISTA 139 COUNTY LINE 140 T N HOME 141 ~ IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE N0.1_9 2,451 1,317 639 232 759 741 461 879 504 380 --l--=~~'--l--~555 3 268 2,773 448 553 5,757 431 1,099 6,328 569 2,595 1,378 673 242 813 781 482 910 524 399 588 3 451 442.0 53.0 44.2 37.8 43.6 26.0 26.6 41.0 52.5 32.6 34.5 8 8 449.5 54.0 43.3 39.3 42.6 26.0 19,060 21,556 21,651 25,244 20 828 24 170 23,203 25,593 21,487 24,342 21 655 23 710 26 365 30 062 20,938 23,921 22 202 25 552 21,773 24,722 21,414 24,109 21 169 23 497 NO. Of CERT. AVG. SLRY. 42.5 43.0 20 999 23 696 32.3 32.3 20,678 23,210 45.5 46.2 22,839 25,689 46.8 43.8 23 713 27 300 3~9~~1~_~40.4 20,873 23,007 ~4~6~~_9_ ~45.0 22,112 24,778 46.0 47.3 22 285 28 225 ~3~0~_-__1 29.6 20,755 23,048~--- _46~_3_ __ 4_4.0 22,515 26,101 54.2 55.5 21 783 25,149 34.5 35.6 24,180 26,545 ____ _ 36.5 37.5 22,379 25,25~9 ___ _ 41.6 41.8 22 844 25 101 477.0 485.5 27,504 31~,2~4___4_ _ _ 56.6 56.6 21,778 25,04~3 ___ _ 47.2 46.3 23,310 26 761 40.8 42.3 22,973 25,683 46.6 45.6 22,450 25, 103 ___ _ 29.0 29.0 22,615 25,088 24.3 __ ~2~3~.4 20,340 23,265 26.3 25.4 21,519 24,554 39.4 40.4 19,907 22,626 42.4 43.4 20,893 23,65=5 ___ _ 60.7 60.0 20 372 23 814 65.8 65.2 21,367 24,893 1 20 2 3~ 10 2 ~3- 0 5 2 19 3' 6 103 6 2 2! 7 ~ 4 0 20 25 0. 0 0 2 20 5 0. 0 0 2 24', 92 2 52 1 22 6 6',0 2 -6 1 - 7 ....  . ..,,4., 7---- 31.7 32.5 20 652 25 688 34.7 35.5 21,592 26,620 37.6 41.2 20,885 24,402 40.6 44.2 21,812 25,19~4 ___ _ 384.3 389.5 23,949 27,352 410.6 416.8 24,953 28,2~9~3~--- 33.0 33.0 21 490 23 696 35.5 36.0 22,060 24,517 75.5 76.5 22,664 25,381 83.4 84.3 23,741 26,598 394.1 404.9 27,172 30,441 416.6 426.9 27~1.~1='6~0~--- 39.9 41.1 21 170 24,450 42.8 44.1 22,602 25,712 153. 0 155. 0 23, 250-2=-0-==-5-'=--9, =7--1-6=5\"'.-=0-----c1---c6cc7c-'.-=9-2c-'4c-',-_c-2_=-_--6 _'--c-3_=--_- -,2',-'9c--',~92.7 94.7 23,157 26,141 ~9=8~=9---=--101.1 24,016 27,140 46.2 46.2 20,958 23,980 49.2 49.2 22,297 25,414 19.6 28.5 19,134 21,461 -=2~1c-'.-c6c-_31.5 20,027 22,230 53.0 54.0 23,099 26,583 57.0 58.0 23,966 27,267 48.o 49.o 24,145 20 040 -\"\"'5='1~.\"\"'o--s2.3 2s,200 29,100 30.7 31.6 22,765 25,947 33.7 34.6 23,985 27,353 58.8 60.2 23,248 27,539 -6=2-.=3-- 63.7 24,437 28,4~6~6 ___ _ 37.5 36.8 21,840 25,827 40.5 39.B 23,040 27,137 29.0 31.0 20,393 22,671 32.0 34.0 21,360 22,97_0 ___ _ 44.3 40.7 19,945 24,416 47.3 43.7 20,761 25,269 194.9 199.8 24,400 28,162 210.4 216.4 25,607 29,31~0---- ------------------------- - - - - -- - - --------------------- ARKANSAPSU BLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUAFLI SCAL REPORTA NALYSIS COLUMN 2 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NC. 20 EXPENSE 1990-91 NUMBEORF PER ADA TEACJ::IERS K-12 90-91 91-92 A/D/A A/D/M 90-91 91-92 13-01 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND 16-01 CRAIGHEAD BAY-BROWN 144 65-01 SEARCY LESLIE 145 17-04 CRAWFORD MULBERRY 146 66-06 SEBASTIAN MANSFIELD 147 71-04 \\/AN BUREN SHIRLEY 148 74-02 WOOD UFF COTTON PLANT 49 58-03 POPE HECTOR 150 70-01 UNION EL DORADO 151 4.,_824 5,110 25-03 FULTON \\/IOLA 152 398 4 5 52-04 OUACHITA FAIRVIEW 153 2,648 3,045 3_,910 4,086 253.8 24__,070 28_,_414 280.2 273.8 25, 136 2~ 53]' 53-03 PERRY PERRYVILLE 154 2,489 3,041 807 848 53.5 22,719 2~90 53.9 56.5 23, 797 27_,_6 02 75-08 YELL PLAINVIEW-ROVER 155 2 928 3 041 320 337 26 .. 8 24.9 18 969 21 888 29.8 26.9 20 212 23 100 52-05 OUACHITA HARMONY GROVE 156 2,563 3,038 760 788 48.5 49.5 22,977 26_1_960 51.5 52.5 2~926 27 J 902 35-09 JEFFERSON WATSON CHAPEL 157 .2,637 3,034 3,327 3,479 209.6 211.6 26,185 29A67 225.6 227.6 27 328 30 753_ _ 63-04 SALINE HARMONY GROVE 158 2 564 3 033 591 618 38.5 41.5 23 31 25 728 41.5 44.5 24 335 27 102 20-03 DALLAS SPARKMAN 159 2,888 3,031 345 362 28.5 26.1 19,954 23_.__089 30.5 28.1 2~92 24.,_ 850 50-08 NEVADA NEVADA COUNTY 160 2,638 3,031 692 731 48.1 49.0 21_, 590 24L755 51.1 52.0 22,489 25,675 73-01 WHITE BALD KNOB 161 2 701 3 0 1 3 2 1 397 86.4 84.8 22 921 26 642 91.9 90.9 23 756 27 616 05-02 BOONE BERGMAN 162 2,559 3,029 665 694 42.2 46.1 23,322 26.,_\n319 45.3 49.2 24,596 27,6'2\n1__ 23-07 FAULKNER VILONIA 163 2,455 3,029 1,542 1,614 97.0 101.0 23,538 2I.,_5\u0026gt;80 104.0 109.0 24,352 28L878 16-13 CRAIGHEAD RIVERSIDE 164 2 873 3 028 786 820 59.0 56.0 21 364 23 937 63.0 60.0 22 383 25 126 16-05 CRAIGHEAD BUFFALO ISLAND CE165 2,685 3,025 784 814 59.0 59.0 21,348 24,708 63.8 63.8 22,079 25_, 468 10-02 CLARK ARKADELPHIA 166 2,614 3,022 2,181 2,267 145.9 148.9 22,384 26,027 155.8 159.3 23 d_04~122 35-02 JEFFERSON DOLLARWAY 167 2 773 3 021 1 892 1 989 13 .o 13 .o 23 238 26 60 141.5 40.3 24 196 27 241 47-02 MISSISSIPPI BLYTHEVILLE 168 2,672 3,020 4,069 4,328 277.9 277.6 23,797 27,561 296.0 295.7 24_, 866 28, 693 23-01 FAULKNER CONWAY 169 2,505 3,019 5,479 5,734 341.0 353.3 25,116 28,704 366.5 384.5 26,175 29,841 45-02 MARION YELLVILLE-SUMMIT 170 2 736 3 017 791 832 55.0 57.6 21 660 24 347 58.0 61.1 22 574 25 422 57-05 POLK WICKES 171 2,621 3,016 451 475 30.0 30.6 22,692 25,760 32.5 33.1 24,108 26,918 48-02 MONROE CLARENDON 172 2,504 3,013 606 637 42.0 42.0 19,908 24,849 45.4 45.4 21,299 26,412 09-02 CHICOT EUDORA 173 2 867 3 012 925 966 66.5 59.8 21 804 25 099 72.6 64.9 23 193 26 462 52-06 OUACHITA STEPHENS 174 2,751 3,008 502 519 35.0 35.0 22,436 25,768 38.0 38.0 23,562 26,678 16-08 CRAIGHEAD JONESBORO 175 2,685 3,007 4,523 4,770 309.4 301.4 25,478 29,486 329.3 320.4 26_, 346 30, 350 30-01 HOT SPRING BISMARCK 176 2 427 3 006 778 812 48.3 52.0 23 170 27 850 51.3 55.0 24 117 28 803 28-08 GREENE NORTHEAST ARKANSA177 2,692 3,005 2,226 2,369 152.5 151.4 23,495 27,217 162.7 162.6 24,277 28,050 70-07 UNION PARKERS CHAPEL 178 2,549 3,004 618 643 44.6 45.6 21,989 26,020 47.6 48.6 22,884 26,9~ 32-11 INDEPENDENCE MIDLAND 179 2 697 3 003 582 618 44.4 45.2 21 141 24 131 47.4 48.2 22 099 25 254 59-02 PRAIRIE DE\\IALLS BLUFF 180 2,693 3,003 458 477 35.5 32.9 19,993 24,202 38.3 35.7 21_,060 25_L3~ 73-08 WHITE MCRAE 181 2,640 3,003 306 323 25.1 25.4 19,335 22,501 27.5 27.5 20,353 23,453 32-09 INDEPENDENCE SOUTH SIDE 182 2 586 3 002 1 039 1 103 69.7 73.0 22 643 26 433 76.0 80.0 23 544 27 356 72-02 WASHINGTON FARMINGTON 183 2,447 3,001 1,038 1,096 67.8 70.6 21,545 26 400 72.6 ~3 22,619 ..[,459 04-05 BENTON ROGERS 184 2,634 2,998 6,179 6,511 358.5 375.3 26,969 30,889 386.6 403.4 28 108 32 060 26-01 GARLAND CUTTER-MORNING ST185 2 801 2 997 483 514 36.2 33.7 22 585 26 780 39.2 36.7 23 777 27 874 47-13 MISSISSIPPI OSCEOLA 186 2,636 2,993 2,094 2,213 141.8 142.0 24,131 28,054 150.2 152.4 24,940 28 895 46-03 HILLER FOUKE 187 2,627 2,990 755 797 51.7 52 .. 7 22,384 26,159 54.7 55.7 23,111 26 870 04-06 BENTON SILOAM SPRINGS 188 2 553 2 989 2 149 2 273 133.S 137.0 24 0-71 28 077 144.5 148.0 25 273 29 350 65-02 SEARCY 43-03 LONOKE 72-08 WASHINGTON 31-04 HOWARD 18-04 CRITTENDEN 22-02 DREW 27-05 GRANT 56-05 POINSETT 73-11 72-06 WASHINGTON 34-03 JACKSON 02-01 ASHLEY 62-05 ST FRANCIS 33-02 IZARD 04-01 BENTON ARKANSASP fJRtI C SCHQQl DISTRICTS ANNIJALF ISCAL REPORTA NALYSIS COLUMN2 . RANKEDI N DESCENDINGO RDER PAGE NO. 2 1990-91 NUMBER OF AYG, SLRY, NO, OF CERT, AVG. SLRY. MARSHALL CARLISLE LINCOLN WEST FORK MINERAL SPRINGS MARION DREW CENTRAL 204 205 206 207 2 8 209 210 GROVE 227 228 9 CROSSETT 230 PALESTINE/WHEATLE231 C 232 2 542 MELBOURNE 233~513 BENTONVILLE 234 2,487 ON 235 2 572 43.5 969 _____L___QJ,._782 .0 950 998 60.0 1L216 1 310 86.3 589 624 40.0 304 323 26.6 678 702 47.0 748 ~7~8~2,___54.7 823 870 57.S 697 736 50.5 669 696 48.2 929 987 65.4 894 932 61.4 476 496 37.2 518 547 37.6 2,317 1,023 9 5 960 1,300 1 690 1,013 2,469 143.0 1,064 70.2 1 033 68.0 998 58.5 1,_,382 89.5 1 771 109.2 _,9_,0'--\"S'-5- -7-  4 894 64.5 5 866 385.5 3,459 205.8 1,673 115.1 672 47.8 3,032 181.2 2,458 157.0 657 44.4 547 39.0 837 50.8 1 786 111.5 1,070 63.8 2,252 134.2 921 65.5 2,788 185.7 681 48.0 395 30.5 490 35.0 4,171 260.3 1 638 102.5 25 103 46.5 23 000 76.0 26 548 64.0 23,497 92.3 23,910 43.0 23.4 19 555 22 617 28.6 49.0 22,853 25,850 50.0 54.7 21,391 23,965 57.7 57.0 22 276 25,284 63.4 51.5 21,313 24,246 53.5 47.7 22,134 25,011 51.1 65.2 21 499 24 299 69.4 59.4 20,860 24,222 66.4 37.0 20,904 23,595 40.7 38.6 19 807 22 708 40.6 145.0 24,102 28,037 154.8 70.2 22,361 25,736 74.7 69.3 22 275 24 946 72.0 63.5 24,915 27,971 62.5 91.5 22,139 26,271 94.9 110.2 23 172 26 948 116.5 56.8 21,794 24,954 62.2 64.0 20,983 24,052 68.0 378.6 24 695 28 220 412.4 212.1 23,683 27,554 219.4 111.9 21,395 25,291 124.8 48.8 20 407 23 401 50.8 191.2 24,293 27,138 194.8 158.5 25,114 27,967 168.3 45.9 22 259 24,808 47.4 38.0 21,604 25,605 42.0 52.4 23,765 27,066 54.8 113.5 24 930 28,810 117.9 68.4 23,326 26,225 68.8 132.0 25,114 29,489 142.7 64.5 20 832 24 557 69.5 187.2 23,635 27,543 197.7 44.0 21,968 24,550 52.0 30.0 20 628 23 358 33.5 35.3 20,890 23,838 38.0 261.8 22,592 26,723 274.8 110.1 22 004 24 966 111.3 43.0 22 926 26 627 58.0 24 795 28 992 117.3 23,234 26,604 33.1 21,173 24,324 29.0 19 044 22 017 46.5 22,679 26,242 76.7 21,078 23,844 68.3 24,204 27,317 92.0 21,660 24,566 44.0 22,304 24,951 25.4 20,752 24,089 52.0 23,825 26,923 57.7 22,211 24,796 61.2 23,274 25,953 54.5 22,120 24,725 50.7 23,184 26,163 70.2 22,440 25,281 64.4 22,017 25,501 40.7 22,250 25,104 41.6 20,979 23,839 156.8 25,111 29,200 74.7 23,487 26,948 75.8 23,037 25,910 67.5 25,660 28,714 97.2 22,990 27,210 117.6 24,028 27,762 61.6 22,779 25,790 67.5 21,675 24,759 405.6 25,597 28,879 225.7 24,622 28,534 120.6 22,393 26,245 51.8 21,416 24,434 205.0 25,359 28,269 169.8 25,851 28,778 48.9 23,073 25,595 41.0 22,544 26,692 56.4 24,945 28,160 120.0 25,675 29,642 73.4 24,414 27,141 140.5 25,935 30,398 68.5 21,680 25,556 199.6 24,373 28,510 48.0 22,901 25,470 33.0 21,726 24,607 38.3 22,093 25,078 282.3 23,719 28,087 118.5 22,963 25,949 ARKANSAPSU BLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUAFLI SCAL REPORTA NALYSIS COLUMN 2 ~DIN DESCENDINOGR DER PA!.E NO~ 22 1990-91 NUMBEOR F EACHERS t\u0026lt;-1 A/D/M 90-=-91 91-92 LEA+ COUNT 66-02 SEBASTIAN GREENWOOD 44-01 MAD SON HU TSVI 63-02 SALINE BENTON 238 17-02 CRAWFORD CEDARVILLE 239 54-01 PHILLIPS BARTON/LEXA 240 54-03 PHILLIPS HELENA-WEST HELEN241 25 860 12-03 CLEBURNE QUITMAN 242 38.2 22_L919 27 049 23-03 FAULKNER GREENBRIER 243 9 ? 1 7 4 5 9 1 26-06 GARLAND LAKESIDE 244 2,572 2,901 ~ 081~188 126.9 129.0 24,051 27 798 136.9 139.0 24 950 28 866 41-01 LITTLE RIVER ASHDOWN 245 2,580 2,901 2,068 2J 173 133.0 136.3 23,207 2~28 144.5 147.5 24,229 26,814 42-01 LOGAN BOONEVILLE 246 2 499 2 901 1 256 1 328 73.9 75.6 24 567 29 031 80.4 81.1 25 796 30 124 49-01 MONTGOMERY CADDO HILLS 247 2,661 2,901 522 549 38.0 38.3 21,664 24,400 41.0 41.3 22 848 25 855 11-01 CLAY CORNING 248 2,465 2,900 1,187 1,250 82.5 80.9 21,926 26 340 88.0 86.4 22 844 27,340 38-04 LAWRENCE HOXIE 249 2 446 2 899 914 967 60.5 59.9 22 618 27 508 64.8 64.4 23 505 28 858 11-04 CLAY PIGGOTT 250 2,413 2,896 905 953 65.0 68.2 20,335 23,052 69.0 73.2 21,113 23,894 40-03 LINCOLN STAR CITY 251 2,511 2,896 1,450 1,506 91.9 92.3 22,897 26,320 100.6 102.0 24 005 27 384 03-04 BAXTER NORFORK 252 2 483 2 895 451 472 31.3 35.0 20 188 22 283 34.3 38.0 21 517 23 494 05-05 BOONE VALLEY SPRINGS 253 2,494 2,892 770 805 50.5 50.5 23~20 27,812 54.5 54.5 24,117 28 609 37-03 LAFAYETTE STAMPS 254 2,611 2,887 847 875 58.3 58.7 21,915 2~38 61.7 62.2 22,802 25,858 13-03 CLEVELAND RISON 255 2 366 2 886 663 689 44.8 44.7 22 378 27 958 47. 47.7 23 383 29 055 52-01 OUACHITA BEARDEN 256 2,474 2,884 855 887 55.5 55.5 22,887 28,382 60.5 60.5~258 29 298 75-07 YELL OLA 257 2,483 2,884 470 504 36.3 37.3 19,697 21,984 39.3 40.3 20 802 23 355 23-05 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER 258 2 356 2 883 667 701 44.5 47.0 21 680 25 128 47.5 50.0 22 604 6 056 70-06 UNION NORPHLET 259 2,607 2,883 563 583 41.0 41.0 26_d_17 44.0 44.0 24 261 27,219 22-03 DREW MONTICELLO 260 2,478 2,882 2,096 2,183 138.4 26,295 150.1 19-05 CROSS WYNNE 261 2 525 2 875 2 8 ? 860 7 7 .1 24-04 FRANKLIN OZARK 262 i_,_322 400 85.5 2~873 91.9 __ 93.8 38-08 LAWRENCE WALNUT RIDGE 263 852 899 62.0 25, 353 __ 66 .0 __ 65.1 2-01 ST FRANCIS FOREST y 4 7 9 70-03 UNION JUNCTION CITY 265 2,600 2,870 869 910 58.1 ~53 60.3 __ 60.3 25,116 28,311 58-01 POPE ATKINS 266 2,561 2,867 1,__035 1,097 70.0 21...._70 75.0 75.0 24,663 28,238 31-02 HOWARD DIERKS 267 2 492 2 866 573 9 39.2 26 081 42.2 43.2 22 765 26 821 35-10 JEFFERSON WHITE HALL 268 2,699 2,865 2,724 2,884 179.0 24.,_662 27,786 191.0 j,__89.0 25,507 28 619 61-03 RANDOLPH POCAHONTAS 269 2,380 2,864 1,707 1__,_807 109.6 23L513 27,085 115.6 121.6 24 301 27 662 26-05 GARLAND LAKE HAMILTON 270 2 461 2 863 901 3 047 164.5 2 173 29 156 7 5 183.0 26 269 3 458 48-03 MONROE HOLLY GROVE 271 2,929 2,863 384 401 29.5 19L545 2b_318 31.5 30. 8 20,682 23, 452 __ 50-06 NEVADA PRESCOTT 272 2,567 2,862 1,162 1,210 84.3 21,144 :M,__028 91.3 90.2 22,078 25_,__149 56-08 POINSETT EAST POINSETT COU273 2 553 2 859 776 817 58 56.5 20 599 24 198 62.0 60.5 21 67 05 58-02 POPE DOVER 274 2,465 2,857 1_,_113 1,177 70.0 73.0 23,319 26, 826 ___ 75. 0 78.0 24,022 27,664 42-04 LOGAN SCRANTON 275 2,742 2,854 391 403 28.4 27.4 22,362 25,034 __ 30. 7 29.7 2~990 26 709 75-03 YELL DANI/ILLE 276 2 581 2 853 526 555 38.6 38.6 21 581 25 063 41 6 41.6 22 64 11 67-03 SEVIER HORATIO 277 2,207 2,852 520 544 31.8 35.6 21,758 22,_490 34.7 38.6 23,187 28,360 16-03 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAND 278 2,438 2,847 842 885 54.0 54.0 22_,833 27,336 57.0 57.0 23 763 28 354 43-02 LONOKE ENGLAND 279 2 559 2 842 1 016 1 068 71.5 71.0 2 834 25 794 7 5 76.0 3 1 6 957 16-02 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE 280 2,477 2,839 1,229 1,310 81.8 82.1 21,231 24 726 89.8 90.1 22,227 25 797 75-04 YELL DARDANELLE 281 2,606 2,836 1,335 1,409 91.9 90.5 21,614 24,497 97.2 96.3 22,307 25 274 28-07 GREENE GREENE COUNTY TEC282 2 403 2 834 2 123 2 223 131.4 133.3 23 179 27 566 140.1 142.1 24 030 28 558 y 17-0S CRAWFORD 42-03 LOGAN 43-01 LONOKE 58-04 POPE 18-02 CRITTENDEN 29-03 HEMPSTEAD 56-02 POINSETT 06-02 BRADLEY 67-04 SEVIER 13-04 CLEVELAND 66-05 SEBASTIAN 48-01 MONROE 01-04 ARKANSAS 59-01 PRAIRIE 67-01 SEVIER 09-0 CHICOT 54-05 PHILLIPS 08-03 CARROLL 28-03 GRE NE 17-01 CRAWFORD 73-02 WHITE 43- 4  NOKE 08-02 CARROLL SS-02 PIKE 36-01 JOHNSON 30-04 HOT SPRING 63-03 SALINE 68-04 SHARP 05-03 BOONE 14-02 COLUMBIA 74-03 WOODRUFF 69-01 STONE 59-03 PRAIRIE 21-05 DESHA 08-01 CARROLL 23-02 FAULKNER 73-0S WHITE 73-06 WHITE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS VAN BUREN PARIS LONOKE POTTS I EARLE HOPE 292 HARRISBURG 293 WARREN 294 LOCKESBURG 295 WOODLAWN 296 LAVACA 297 BRINKLEY 298 STUTTGART 299 DES ARC 300 DEQUEEN 301 DER TT 3 LAKE VIEW GREEN FOREST MARMAD KE ALMA 306 BEEBE 307 A OT 3 8 EUREKA SPRINGS 309 GLENWOOD 310 CLARKSVILLE 311 MALVERN 312 BRYANT 313 HIGHLAND 314 HARRISON 315 MAGNOLIA 316 MCCRORY 317 MOUNTAIN VIEW 318 HAZEN 319 MCGEHEE 320 BERRYVILLE 321 ENOLA 322 GRIFFITHVILLE 323 JUDSONIA 324 COLUMN 2 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER EXPENSE 1990 91 PER ADA 90-91 91-92 A/D/A A/D/M 2,978 916 2,809 1,733 2,806 447 2 803 402 2,497 2,801 721 2,399 2,800 1,264 1,338 2 481 2 796 2 304 2 437 ~329 2,791 642 676 2,407 1,449 2L430 2,756 595 625 2,528 2,753 399 419 2 363 2 750 1 490 1 60 2,360 2,728 2,578 2,690 2,276 2,722 4,903 5,216 2 418 2 674 1 229 1 290 2,338 2,673 2,504 2,618 2,326 2,667 2,967 :Lj.30 2 361 2 656 823 860 2,352 2,635 1,036 1,084 2,459 2,630 538 560 2 357 2 619 1 227 1 276 2,231 2,610 1,331 1,393 3,529 121 126 4 024 161 168 2,626 554 592 NI/MBER PE TEACHERS K-12 90-91 91-92 AVG SIRY TCHRS. K-12 90-91 91-92 266.5 275.S 24,929 28~772 25,J:!_69 32.6 23,775 30.5 29.9 22 201 50.5 51.6 20,793 23,340 89.1 87.1 20,413 23_,_896 152.2 149.9 27 05 41.9 2~41 26,561 ?6 9 19 ,...376 24,559 27 541 27,_669 26,i92 40.8 41.S 24,i47 30.5 30.5 21~33 97.5 102.0 22 571 25 66 174.5 174.5 22,021 25,604 286.6 292.6 25,815 30,085 75.S 79.0 22 162 24 775 152.4 154.3 22,991 26,373 175.9 174.5 24,035 28,255 53.0 51.7 22 743 25 74 65.0 65.0 23,596 27,~42 38.6 36.5 19,206 22,792 79.5 81.0 22 334 25 180 84.0 88.0 21,773 25,257 13.1 17,962 17.6 19 502 38.0 22,494 PAGE NO. 23 N . PE CERT AVG SI RY PEB_S_QNl'IEL 90-91 91-92 C.ERL___P__ERS_._ 90-91 91-92 283.0 292.0 25~926 29,819 24L967 23 629 54.6 21,850 24,201 95.1 93,1 21,121 24,460 162.1 159.8 23 7 8 27 988 43.8 ~547 26_L125 94.3 ~568 27...,_738 5 ':\u0026gt;9 \") 12 21.1 18, 092 20_,_945 22 420 2~469 4 1 28 290 24 749 29,_Q_l:!_8 2b683 26_,_867 48 43.8 44.5 22,463 33.5 33.5 19,708 22-1.._522 102.5 107 0 23 479 26 759 183.0 183.0 22,732 26,362 301.5 309.5 26,520 30,875 80.5 84.0 23 154 25 869 163.3 165.2 23,976 27,642 189.0 186.6 25 024 29..t.245 56.5 26 712 69.0 69.0 27,986 41.6 39.S 23,917 84.5 86.0 23 200 26 226 88.0 92.0 22,371 25,847 14.6 19,520 19.9 21 079 41.0 23,729 -- --- ---- ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS COLUMN3 RANKEDI N DESCENDINGO RDER PAGE NO. 24 - - - EXPENSE 1990-91 AVG. SLRY. NO. OF CERT. AVG. SLRY. PER ADA TCHRS. 1(-12 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. 90-91 91-,9,2 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1,970.0 1,986.3 29,510 32,960 1 445.3 1 454.3 28 667 28 830 805.4 834.9 28,883 32,136 666.1 666.0 26,522 29,976 491.0 491.5 27 755 30 847 477.0 485.5 27,504 31,244 386.6 403.4 28,108 32,060 416.6 426.9 27 882 31 160 412.4 405.6 25,597 28,879 353.3 25,1 366.5 384.5 26,175 29,841 389.5 23 949 410.6 416.8 24,953 28,293 BRYANT 286.6 292.6 25,815 301.5 309.5 26,520 30,875 FORREST CITY 2,870 296.6 299 .. 2 23,470 26,789~0.1 332.7 24,587 27,705 A 3 050 s 110 339.4 339.3 23 278 26 673 360.2 359.1 24,106 27,512 58-0S POPE RUSSELLVILLE 3,330 4,879 303.6 310.9 25,798 30,231 323.3 331.7 26,963 31,387 43-04 LONOKE CABOT 4 832 264.S 285.0 24,371 28,136 281.0 302.0 25,307 29,048 4 770 309.4 301.4 25 478 29 486 329.3 320.4 26,346 30,350 17-0S CRAWFORD VAN BUREN 18 266.5 275 .. 5 24,929 28,772 283.0 292.0 25,926 29,819 54-03 PHILLIPS HELENA-WESTH ELEN ,1,9 ,, 289.0 286.0 22,302 24,928 306.0 303.0 23,156 25,860 277.9 277.6 23 797 27 561 296.0 295.7 24 866 28,693 04-01 BENTON BENTONVILLE 21 2,487 260.3 261.8 22,592 26,723 274.8 282.3 23,719 28,087 52-04 OUACHITA FAIRVIEW ,2,2 2,,, 261.3 253.8 24,070 28,414 280.2 273.8 25,136 29,537 239.8 243.0 23 854 27,888 254 .. 8 258 .. 0 24,780 28,915 35-09 JEFFERSON WATSON CHAPEL 24 2 209.6 211.6 26,185 29,567 225 .. 6 227.6 27,328 30,753 03-03 BAXTER MOUNTAIN HOME 25 2, 194.9 199.8 24,400 28,162 210.4 216.4 25,607 29,310 ?6 2 205.8 212.1 23 683 27 554 219.4 225.7 24,622 28,534 26-03 GARLAND HOT SPRINGS 27 3, 239.2 232.8 24,490 27,350 255.2 248.3 25,599 28,802 29-03 HEMPSTEAD HOPE 28 2,481 178.5 181.5 24,433 28,485 190.5 193.5 25,485 29,512 A MAGNOLIA 29 2 326 175.9 174.5 24 035 28,255 189.0 186.6 25,024 29,245 26-05 GARLAND LAKE HAMILTON 30 2,461 2,863 164.5 170.0 25,173 29,156 177.5 183.0 26,269 30,458 73-11 WHITE SEARCY 31 2,587 2,937 181.2 191.2 24,293 27,138 194.8 205.0 25,359 28,269 9- R WYNNE 32 2 525 2 875 183.5 180.8 23 808 27,357 195.1 192.4 24,802 28,442 35-10 JEFFERSON WHITE HALL 33 2,699 179.0 177.0 24,662 27,786 191.0 189.0 25,507 28,619 ASHLEY CROSSETT 34 2,593 185.7 187.2 23,635 27,543 197.7 199.6 24,373 28,510 LE MARIANNA 35 2 975 183.5 183.5 23,103 25,458 200.0 200.0 24,252 26,867 HOT SPRING MALVERN 36 2,360 2,690 174.5 174.5 22,021 25,604 183.0 183.0 22,732 26,362 05-03 BOONE_ HARRISON 37 2,338 2,618 152.4 154.3 22,991 26,373 163.3 165 .. 2 23,976 27,642 5- ONWAY so. CONWAYc o. 38 2 610 153.0 155.0 23,250 28,587 165.8 167.8 24,263 29,621 32_-01 INDEPENDENCE BATE_SVILLE 39 2,672 157.0 158.5 25,114 27,967 168.3 169.8 25,851 28,778 18-04 CR_ITTENDEN MARION 40 2,493 143.0 145.0 24,102 28,037 154.8 156.8 25,111 29,200 STUTTGART 41 2 481 152.2 149.9 22,802 27,051 162.1 159.8 23,728 27,988 66-02 SEBASTIAN GREENWOOD 42 2,516 2,909 2,398 142.1 148.6 25,396 28,836 150.1 156.6 26,332 29,770 DUMAS 43 2,439 2,818 2,259 2,381 133.0 137.5 25,061 28,513 143.5 148.0 26,197 29,752 NORTHEAST ARKANSA 44 2 692 3 005 2 226 2 369 152.5 151.4 23,495 27,217 162.7 162.6 24,277 28,050 ALMA 45 2,375 2 764 2,186 2,288 137.5 140.5 23,431 27,669 146.8 149.8 24,749 29,088 ARKADELPHIA 46 2 614 3,022 2,181 2,267 145.9 148.9 22,384 26,027 155.8 159.3 23,404 27,122 P INGS 47 2 553 2 989 2 149 2 273 133.5 137.0 24 071 28 077 144.5 148.0 25,273 29,350 ARKANSAS Pl IA\u0026amp; IC SCHOOi PISTBICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS COLUMN 3 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO . .z.s_ EXPENSE 1990 91 NUMBER OF AVG, SLRY, NO. OF CERT. AVG. SLRY. PER ADA TEACHERS K-12 TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. 90-91 91-92 A/D/A A/D/M 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 9 10 11 12 489 142.7 140.5 25,935 30,398 140.1 142.1 24 030 28 558 150.1 150.3 23,590 27,577 28 05.L_g,O. 2 152.4 24,940 28,895 136.9 139.0 24 950 28 866 159.1 158.0 26,389 30,109 25,828 144.5 147.5 24 229 26,814 26 360 141.5 140.3 24 196 27 241 21,763 25,354 144.2 147.8 22,764 26,449 23,100 25,869 124.5 126.5 24,570 27,468 23 513 27 085 115.6 121.6 24,301 27,662 --- 57-03 POLK MENA 113.5 24,930 28,810 117.9 120.0 25,675 29,642 31-05 HOWARD NASHVILLE 110.2 23,172 26,948 116.5 117.6 24,028 27,762 107.4 22 918 26 479 111.1 114.1 23,782 27 580 02-03 ASHLEY HAMBURG 110.0 21,956 25,346 117.2 117.3 23,234 26,604 73-02 WHITE BEEBE 103.4 106.7 21,807 26,192 109.6 113.9 22,683 26,867 115.1 111.9 21 395 25 291 124.8 120.6 22,393 26,245 44-01 MADISON HUNTSVILLE 1,666 104.6 105.9 22,473 27,092 109.6 110.9 23,110 27,761 23-07 FAULKNER VILONIA 3,029 1,614 97.0 101.0 23,538 27,980 104.0 109.0 24,352 28,878 2 909 1 638 102.5 110.1 22 004 24 966 111.3 118.5 22,963 25,949 23-03 FAULKNER GREENBRIER 68 2,344 2,902 1,505 1,586 87.5 99.0 24,801 27,934 93.5 104.5 25,713 28,921 36-01 JOHNSON CLARKSVILLE 69 2,363 2_,750 1,490 1,560 97.5 102.0 22,571 25,660 102.5 107.0 23,479 26,759 6 1 450 1 506 91.9 92.3 22 897 26 320 100.6 102.0 24,005 27,384 67-01 SEVIER DEQUEEN 71 2L788 1,449 1~9 88.8 90.4 23,566 26,561 94.3 96.4 24,568 27,738 64-01 SCOTT WALDRON 72 3,235 1,424 1,511 109.1 108.5 21,944 24,952 115.3 115.3 22,658 25,840 2 836 1 335 1 409 91.9 90.5 21 614 24 497 97.2 96.3 22,307 25,274 08-01 CARROLL BERRYVILLE 74 2.,231 1,331 1,393 84.0 88.0 21,773 25,257 88.0 92.0 22,371 25,847 24-04 FRANKLIN OZARK 75 2,499 1,322 1,400 85.5 87.5 22,725 25,873 91.9 93.8 23,698 26,926 1 1 322 1 397 86.4 84.8 22 921 26 642 91.9 90.9 23,756 27,616 01-01 ARKANSAS DEWITT 77 2_,7 18 92.7 94.7 23,157 26,141 98.9 101.1 24,016 27,140 12-02 CLEBURNE HEBER SPRINGS 78 2,480 89.5 91.5 22,139 26,271 94.9 97.2 22,990 27,210 E B I I\u0026lt; EY 79 2 399 89.1 87.1 20 413 23 896 95.1 93.1 21,121 24,460 -42-01 LOGAN BOONEVILLE 80 2,499 73.9 ~6 24,567 29,031 80.4 81.1 25,796 30,124 20-02 DALLAS FORDYCE 81 3,087 88.7 88.0 22,429 2:5,216 95.7 94.0 23,368 26,245 E T ID 82 477 81.8 82.1 21 231 24,726 89.8 90.i 22,227 25,797 68-04 SHARP HIGHLAND 83 Z,418 75.5 79.0 22,162 24,775 80.5 84.0 23,154 25,869 21-05 DESHA MCGEHEE Bi 2,357 79.5 81.0 22,334 25,180 84.5 86.0 23,200 26,226 LA s 85 2 617 86.3 86.0 20 759 23,497 92.3 92.0 21,660 24,566 PARIS 86 2,638 1,260 82.0 82.2 23,725 26,602 87.9 88.1 24,571 27,499 CORNING 87 2,4_65 1,250 82.5 80.9 21,926 26,340 88.0 86.4 22,844 27,340 PRESCOTT 88 2 567 162 1 210 84.3 83.3 21 144 24,028 91.3 90.2 22,078 25,149 DERMOTT 89 2 502 123 1 193 74.3 73.0 24,145 26,991 79.3 78.0 25,129 28,122 DOVER 90 2 465 113 1 177 70.0 73.0 23,319 26,826 75.0 78.0 24,022 27,664 2 463 073 1 126 70.3 74.0 22 278 25 652 75.0 79.0 23,318 26,568 92 2 430 1 071 1 126 71.3 72.5 21,586 24,559 77.0 78.5 22,420 25,469 93 2 727 1 058 1 099 75.5 76.5 22,664 25,381 83.4 84.3 23,741 26,598 94 2 586 1 039 1 103 69.7 73.0 22 643 26 433 76.0 80.0 23,544 27,356 ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS --------------------------'\"-\"\"'LUHN 3 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO. 26 . . P~RSONNEL . CFRT: PERS . -- PER____AM TEACHERS K-12 TCHRS. 1\u0026lt;-12 EXPENSE 1990 91 NUMBER OF AVG SLRY NO OF CERT AVG SLRY 90-91 'l-1~92 A/D/A A/D/M 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 --EA  cnuNTY nT!':TRTr.T ,,,,... .., i ,, 3 4 ~ 6 7 A 0 . (\\  .,, __ 7_2-0~ _W_ ASHIJ'!GTON FARMINGTON 95 2~7 3_,0 01 1 038 1 096 67.8 70 6 21 545 26 400 72.6 75.3 22 619 27 459 69 01 STONE Mnl JNTATN VTC-1.1 O.L ,, ...._ ,, ? .L\"ZC: i ,... .., . i r.OA .Lm':0 LC: 0 ?\"Z C:0.L ?7 AA') ,n f\\ 1,9 0 ?A AO? 27 OA.L __ 58-01 POPE ATKINS 97 ~.561 ~67 1 035 1 097 70.0 70.0 23 930 27 570 75.0 75.0 24 663 28,238 22-02 DREW DREW CENTRAL 98 2 611 2 950 1 023 1 064 70.2 70.2 22 361 25 736 74.7 74.7 23 487 26 948 43 -02 LONOKE ENGi AND 99 ,, c:c:o ? QAC\u0026gt; 1 ,.. .L 1 \"-\"-\"' 7'\\ ~ 71 . 0 C\u0026gt;\")Q \"IA ,_,= ~,-,A '?.\u0026lt;. \"' '?.t. r, ,.,~ n'li C\u0026gt;.\u0026lt;9.,5 7 72-06 WASHINGTON PRAIRIE GROVE 100_2 _,_J~ ~t5 _, 92\n3 1 013 1 070 63.8 68.4 23 326 26 225 68.8 73.4 24 414 27 141 04-04 BENTON GRAVETTE 101 2 622 2 947 985 1 033 68.0 69.3 22 275 24 946 72.0 75.8 23 037 25 910 36 04 IMHNsnLI I i!\u0026gt;MAR ',..,, -, 377 ? Q40 97A 1 r.-:,o .L\"I 7 .L\"' 7 ?1 1,07 ,_,A~~~ .L7 .., In C: ,.,,, ... ,.,. ?C: \"\"\"'\" 04-03 BENTON GENTRY 103 2 548 ~77 969 1 018 72.0 72.7 20,387 23,000 76.0 76.7 21,078 23,844 16-12 CRAIGHEAD VALLEY VIEW 104 2,424 2 946 960 998 58.5 63.5 24 915 27 971 62.5 67.5 25 660 28 714 68-02 SHARP CAVE CITY 105 2 528 2 976 950 998 60.0 64.3 23 340 2.1. 548 6\".0 -\"-A.3 24 204 27 \"14_7 18-02 CRITTENDEN EARLE 106 3,104 2,811 937 982 69.0 65.0 23 968 26 910 73.2 69.2 24 955 27 781 72-05 WASHINGTON LINCOLN 107 2,696 2 958 929 987 65.4 65 .. 2 21 499 24 299 69.4 70.2 22 440 25 281 09 02 CHICOT EUDORA 108 2 867 3 012 925 966 66.5 59 a -:\u0026gt;1 \"\"'4 -,c\n099 7?  .L .t.4.9 -:,-, 40 ... 26 4\"'\"' 56-02 POINSETT HARRISBURG 109 2,563 2 811 916 976 65.0 63.8 21 791 24 279 69.0 67.8 22 612 25 086 38-04 LAWRENCE HOXIE 110 2,446 2,899 914 967 60.5 59.9 22 618 27 508 64.8 64.4 23 505 28 858 11 04 CLAY PIGGOTT 111 2 413 2.896 905 953 65.0 68-, 20 335 23 05? LO(\\ 73 2 ?4 4 4 \"I ?\"I A94 72-08 WASHINGTON WEST FORK 112 2 596 2 957 894 932 61.4 59.4 20,860 24,222 66.4 64.4 22,017 25,501 10-03 CLARI\u0026lt; GURDON 113 2 574 2 921 881 921 65.5 64.5 20 832 24 557 69.5 68.5 21 680 25 556 07 01 CALHOUN HAMPTON 114 2 654 3 099 879 910 58.8 60.2 23 248 27 539 L,_, ... 6\"~ 7 ?4 I :1~1 2~, 4QQ 70-03 UNION JUNCTION CITY 115 2 600 2 870 869 910 58.1 58.1 24 097 27 353 60.3 60.3 25-116 28 311 52-01 OUACHITA BEARDEN 116 2,474 2 884 855 887 55.5 55.5 22 887 28 382 60.5 60.5 24,258 29,298 26-02 GARLAND FOUNTAIN LAKE 117 3 072 3 309 853 899 62.5 6\" 5 \"'.\u0026gt;.4 4Q-::t 27 10n .\u0026lt;.7 \" ,47 (\\ --,c, .L7? --,o A--,0 47-12 MISSISSIPPI MANILA 118 2,652 2,943 853 905 57.4 56.8 21 794 24 954 62.2 61.6 22 779 25 790 38-08 LAWRENCE WALNUT RIDGE 119 2,473 2 871 852 899 62.0 61.1 20 867 25 353 66.0 65.1 21 649 26 249 37-03 LAFAYETTE STAMPS 120 2 611 2 887 847 875 \"\"\"' 3 'SA 7 21 Q4m\n24 O\"TO .\u0026lt;.i '7 A2 . ? \"\u0026gt;\"\") '\"? '\"\u0026gt;C: ocr.o 56-04 POINSETT MARKED TREE 121 2 668 2 942 847 894 64.5 64.0 20,983 24,052 68.0 67.5 21,675 24,759 16-03 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAND 122 2,438 2 847 842 885 54.0 54.0 22 833 27 336 57.0 57.0 23 763 28 354 66-06 SEBASTIAN MANSFIELD 123 2 734 3 061 832 873 58.8 58 8 23 408 25 834 62.8 63.5 24 420 27 038 30-02 HOT SPRING GLEN ROSE 124 2 539 2 988 824 864 53.6 54.0 23 866 27 882 56.6 58.0 24 795 28 992 54-04 PHILLIPS MARVELL 125 2 723 2 966 823 870 57.5 57.0 22 276 25 284 63.4 61.2 23 274 25 953 74-03 WOODRUFF MCCRORY 126 2 361 2 656 823 860 53.0 51.7 22 743 25 741 56.5 55.2 23 534 26 712 19-01 CROSS CROSS COUNTY 127 2 825 3 135 820 857 60.7 60.0 20 372 23 814 65.8 65.2 21 367 24 893 53-03 PERRY PERRYVILLE 128 2 489 3,041 807 848 50.9 53.5 22 719 26 790 53.9 56 .. 5 23 797 27 602 70-08 UNION SMACKOVER 129 2 668 2 930 800 837 50.8 52.4 23,765 27,066 54.8 56.4 24,945 28,160 45-02 MARION YELLVILLE-SUMMIT 130 2,736 3 017 791 832 55.0 57.6 21 660 24 347 58.0 61.1 22 574 25 422 16-13 CRAIGHEAD RIVERSIDE 131 2,873 3,028 786 820 59.0 56.0 21 364 23 937 63.0 60.0 22,383 25 126 16-05 CRAIGHEAD BUFFALO ISLAND CE132 2 685 3 025 784 814 59.0 59.0 21 348 24 708 63.8 63.8 22 079 25 468 30-01 HOT SPRING BISMARCK 133 2,427 3,006 778 812 48.3 52.0 23 170 27 850 51.3 55.0 24,117 28,803 56-08 POINSETT EAST POINSETT COU134 2,553 2,859 776 817 58.0 56.5 20,599 24,198 62.0 60.5 21,467 25,059 05-05 BOONE VALLEY SPRINGS 135 2,494 2,892 770 805 50.5 50.5 23 320 27 812 54.5 54.5 24 117 28 609 52-05 OUACHITA HARMONY GROVE 136 2,563 3,038 760 788 48.5 49.5 22,977 26,960 51.5 52.5 23,926 27,902 17-03 CRAWFORD MOUNTAINBURG 137 2,676 3,105 759 813 53.0 54.0 23,099 26,583 57.0 58.0 23,966 27,267 46-03 MILLER FOUKE 138 2 627 2 990 755 797 51.7 52.7 22 384 26 159 54.7 55.7 23 111 26 870 11-06 CLAY CLAY COUNTY CENTR139 2,697 2,968 748 782 54.7 54.7 21,391 23,965 57.7 57.7 22,211 24,796 45-01 MARION FLIPPIN 140 2,691 3,103 741 781 48.0 49.0 24,145 28,048 51.0 52.3 25,200 29,180 66-05 SEBASTIAN LAVACA 141 2 497 2 801 721 761 50.5 51.6 20 793 23 340 53.5 54.6 21 850 24 201 ARKANSAPSU BLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUALF ISCAL REPORTA NALYSIS COLUMN3 RANKEDI N DESCENDINGO RDER PACE NO. 27 AVG, SLRY. NO, Of CERT, AyC. SLRY. TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 10 11 12 75.3 75.4 29 495 29 644 4 o.o 23 600 27 440 53.7 53.4 24 312 27 503 53.0 54.0 23 986 27 197 56.6 56.6 21 778 25 043 313 53.5 54.5 22 120 24 725 590 755 51.1 52.0 22 489 25 675 933 969 48.4 49.4 23 955 29 881 20 828 170 54.2 55.5 21 783 25 149 47 \u0026amp;___ 49.0 22,853 850 50.0 52.0 23,825 26,923 4:S.0 48.0 2:S 001 620 48.0 51.0 2:S,738 27,432 48.2 47.7 22,134 011 51.1 50.7 23,184 26,163 44~ 47.0 21,680 25,128 47.:S 50.0 22,604 26,056 42.2 46.1 23 322 26 319 45.3 49.2 24,596 27,627 44.8 44.7 22,378 27,958 47.8 47.7 23,383 29,055 1 48.0 44.0 21,968 24,550 52.0 48.0 22,901 25,470 89 43.0 44.3 21 167 27 310 46.0 47.3 22,285 28,225 76 40.7 41.9 21,648 25,241 43.8 45.0 22,547 26,125 72 47.8 48.8 20,407 23,401 50.8 51.8 21,416 24,434 73 46 .. 2 46.2 20 958 23 980 49.2 49.2 22,297 25,414 67 46.0 47.0 22,406 25,015 49.0 50.0 23,133 25,924 40.6 40.6 23,344 27,541 43.6 43.6 24,381 28,290 44.4 45.9 22 259 24 808 47.4 48.9 23 073 25,595 39.5 40.0 25,259 28,632 42.5 43.0 26,561 29,877 42.7 42.7 21,575 25,787 45.7 45.7 22,513 26,912 44.6 45.6 21 989 26 020 47.6 48.6 22,884 26,925 42.0 42.0 19,908 24,849 45.4 45.4 21,299 26,412 40.8 41.5 21,305 24,147 43.8 44.5 22,463 25,477 38.5 41.5 23 031 25 728 41.5 44.5 24,335 27,102 40.0 41.0 21,319 23,910 43.0 44.0 22,304 24,951 43.5 43.5 21,482 25,103 46.5 46.5 22,679 26,242 44 4 45.2 21 141 24 131 47.4 48.2 22 099 25 254 37-02 184 579 61,_2 43~ 40.3 22,519 26,079 46.8 43.8 23,713 27,300 866 573 :596 39.2 40.2 21,712 26,081 42.2 43.2 22,765 26,821 1-42 569 590 43.6 42.6 21 414 24,109 46.6 45.6 22,450 25,103 568 597 42.0 42 .. 7 21,758 24,359 45.5 46.2 22,839 25,689 566 593 41.7 41.7 27,093 27,444 44.7 45.7 28,196 27,999 563 583 41.0 41.0 23 212 26 417 44.0 44.0 24,261 27,219 562 594 39.5 38.2 22,919 26,206 42.5 41.2 23,841 27,049 44.3 40.7 19,945 24,416 47.3 43.7 20,761 25,269 37.6 37.6 23 619 27 283 40.6 40.6 24,533 28,209 44.2 43.3 22,202 25,552 47.2 46.3 23,310 26,761 3,509 42.0 42.3 20,121 23,897 45.0 45.3 21,520 25,407 5 626 38.0 22 494 41.0 23,729 MAGNET COVE 186 014 3,172 43.9 42.0 21,175 23,619 46.9 45.0 22,112 24,778 ALTHEIMER-SHERRIL187 847~139 39.4 40.4 19,907 22,626 42.4 43.4 20,893 23,655 8 627 2 989 :575 39.7 40.0 21 833 25 472 42.7 43.0 22,926 26,627 66-03 SEBASTIAN 49-01 MONTGOMERY 33-06 ARD 67-03 SEVIER 34-05 JACKSON 73-10 WHITE 49-02 MONTGOMERY 73-04 WHITE 03-02 BAXTER 52-06 OUACHITA 18-05 CRITTENDEN 71-04 VAN BUREN 53-01 PERRY 61-02 RANDOLPH 12-01 CLEBURNE 26-01 GARLAND 38-06 LAWRENCE 31-04 HOWARD 04-02 BENTON 73-07 WHITE 33-02 IZARD 75-07 YELL 05-01 BOONE 59-02 PRAIRIE 03-04 BAXTER 57-05 POLK 29-01 HEMPSTEAD 67-04 SEVIER 42-02 LOGAN 37-01 LAFAYETTE 66-04 SEBASTIAN 33-01 IZARD 25-01 FULTON 12-04 CLEBURNE 55-03 PIKE 15-05 CONWAY 17-04 CRAWFORD 71-05 VAN BUREN 13-04 CLEVELAND 55-02 PIKE 25-03 FULTON 13-01 CLEVELAND ARKANSAPSU BLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUAFLI SCAL REPORTA NALYSIS TUCKERMAN UD MOUNT IDA CENTRAL COTTER STEPHENS TURRELL SHIRLEY EAST END MAYNARD CONCORD CUTTER-HORNING SLOAN-HENDRIX MINERAL SPRINGS DECATUR 212 KENSETT 213 MELBOURNE 214 OLA 215 ALPENA 216 DEVALLS BLUFF 217 NORFORK 218 WICKES 219 BLEVINS 220 LOCKESBURG 221 MAGAZINE 222 BRADLEY 223 HARTFORD 224 CALICO ROCK 225 MAMMOTHS PRING 226 WEST SIDE 227 KIRBY 228 WONDERVIEW 229 MULBERRY 230 SOUTH SIDE 231 WOODLAWN 232 GLENWOOD 233 VIOLA 234 KINGSLAND 235 COLUMN 3 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER 1990-91 NUMBERO F ____ TEACHERS K-12 90-91 91-92 3,231 3 055 2,970 3,405 474 499 44.0 43.3 2,861 474 504 34.0 89.2 2 \"'1 2 4 2,483 470 504 36.3 37.3 2,686 461 482 30.7 31.6 2 69 8 4 7 2,483 2,895 451 472 31.3 35.0 2,621 3,016 451 475 30.0 30.6 2 888 152 449 468 5 3 2,552 2,806 447 472 32.6 33.4 2_,835 3,152 441 467 33.5 34.5 2 920 3 323 440 469 37.5 37.5 2,910 3,344 440 470 36.5 36.5 2,657 3,291 435 457 34.1 36.6 2 888 3 222 428 451 33.8 34.5 2,635 3,129 426 448 31.7 32.5 2,710 3,179 424 447 35.2 36.5 2 678 2 980 419 437 30.1 30.1 2,645 3,068 439 33.1 33.2 2,877 3,124 431 33.0 33.0 2 539 2 803 417 30.5 29.9 2,528 2,753 419 30.5 30.5 2,711 3,047 415 29.5 30.0 2 708 3 076 411 26.8 26.6 AVG. SLRY. 1\".CHRS, K-12 90-91 \u0026lt;\n1_1-92 19,333 21,625 23,050_25,802 19_,697 2j_,_5'84 22_, 765 25_, 947 4 20L188 2~83 22,692 2~60 9 20L950 23,775 21,487 24,342 20 120 22 99 21,097 23L934 20,404 23,314 22 :569 25 325 20,652 25,688 19,945 2~027 19 889 23 297 21,716 25,126 21,490 23,696 19 931 22 201 18,369 21,333 21,778 24,765 19 836 23 259 --- 47.0 46.3 20,269 22,654 37.Q_______!l7.2 24,554 27,032 39.3 __ 40.3 2Q_,_802 23,355 33.7 __ 34.6 23_,_9 85 27 ~53 34.3 21,517 23 494 32.5 21,J,_08 26,918 ?4 8 6 4 35.6 36.4 22,255 24,967 36.5 37.5 22,379 25,259 40.5 40.5 21 42 24 132 39.7 39.7 22,035 24,920 37.1 39.6 21,508 24,523 36.3 37.0 23 751 26 288 34 ._7_ _ 35. 5 21_,_592 2~20 39.1 40.4 20___,__87233 ,007 33.1 33.1 21 173 24 324 36.4 36.5 22 793 26,146 35.5 36.0 22,060 24,517 33.6 33.0 21 164 23 629 33.5 33.5 19,708 22,522 31.5 32.0 22,917 25,992 29.8 29.4 20 738 24 406 ARKANSASP IJBI IC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS COLUMN 3 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO. 29 NUMBER Of AY!i, SLRY. NO. OF CERT. AI/G. SLRY. TEACHERS K-12 TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 7 8 9 10 ii 12 25 034 30.7 29.7 23 990 26,709 22 318 31.5 30.8 20 682 23 452 22,671 32.0 34.0 21 360 22,970 23,358 33.5 33.0 21,726 24,607 2 4 9 23 3 0 32.5 34.6 21 265 24 150 __ 32. 6 19 588 22, 70_1_ _ 37. 0 35.6 20,784 24,161 29.4 19,283 21J~ 32.3 32.3 20,678 23,210 32.7 20 116 22 233 38.0 35.7 21 124 23 393 57-04 PQ!.K_ I/AN COVE 375 3 L 3 20, 563 22, 72~3 . 3 3~ 21,814 23,885 20-03 DALLAS SPARKMAN 362 26.1 19,954 23,089 30.5 28.1 21,392 24,850 341 354 27.1 23 895 26 812 33.6 30.1 25,319 28,474 29-05 HEMPSTEAD SARATOGA 340 354 25 .. 6 27.8 17,651 20,728 28.1 30.3 19,005 22,269 51-01 NEWTON DEER 335 357 25.8 25.0 20,967 24,243 27.8 27.0 22,098 25,454 332 349 25.6 26.1 18 335 20 566 28.6 29.1 19,594 21,573 3,529 329 347 27.5 27.8 19,972 23,130 30.3 30.6 21,469 24,467 ,, 3,141 328 341 26.0 26.0 21,169 23,497 29.0 29.0 22,615 25,088 04 327 352 26.2 26.0 23 766 25 685 28.2 28.0 25,225 27,131 74-02 WOODRUFF COTTON PLANT 253 2,856 3,055 325 340 28.4 27.4 18,755 22,078 30.9 29.9 19,680 23,099 21-02 DESHA DELTA SPECIAL 254 2,974 3,165 324 341 27.1 26.6 19,060 21,556 30.1 29.6 20,755 23,048 2 687 3 435 324 335 21.8 22.7 18 717 24 072 24.8 24.7 19,736 25,212 256 2,571 2,980 323 341 25 .. 8 26.0 18,021 20,888 28.8 29.0 19,044 22,017 PAUL 257 2,846 3,198 321 337 2~ .. 3 26.3 20,710 23,396 27.5 28.5 21,764 24,394 58 2 928 3 041 320 337 26.8 24.9 18 969 21 888 29.8 26.9 20,212 23,100 70-11 UNION UNION 259 ~087 326 25.1 25.0 21,886 24,188 28 .. 0 28.0 23,293 25,651 01-05 ARKANSAS HUMPHREY 260 2,771 322 23.2 23.2 22,369 27,520 25.2 25.2 23,329 28,487 2 1 2 640 323 25.1 25 .. 4 19 335 22 501 27.5 27.520,353 23,453 24-01 FRANKLIN ALTUS-DENNING 262 2,__839 323 26.6 23.4 19,555 22,617 28.6 25 .. 4 20,752 24,089 29-06 HEMPSTEAD SPRING HILL 263 2_,651 307 22.0 22.0 19,606 24,774 25.0 25.0 20,921 26,217 264 2 975 306 23.4 23.4 19 252 22 588 26.4 26.4 20,303 24,072 44-02 MADISON KINGSTON 265 2,950 300 21.0 21.0 21,498 25,643 23.0 23.0 23,025 27,229 45-03 MARION MARION CO 266 3,100 303 22.7 19.7 21,032 25,791 24.7 21.7 22,218 26,553 267 2 742 302 19.9 19.6 19,000 22,950 2~ 22.5 21,156 24,774 268 3,168 298 23.5 24.5 21,440 23,723 26.1 27.1 22,720 25,302 269 3,083 299 24.0 23.6 20,080 24, 07-3--26. 8 26.4 21,186 25,151 0 \"847 293 21.7 21 .. 2 20 790 24,156 23.8 23.3 21,967 25,331 INDEPENDENCE SULPHUR ROCK 271 2,925 294 24.3 23.4 20,340 23,265 26.3 25.4 21,519 24,554 UNION HUTTIG 272 3,143 293 21.0 22 .. 0 22,776 25,112 23.0 24.0 23,922 26,451 s GILLETT 273 3 174 288 23.6 24.6 20,081 21,921 26.5 27.5 21,637 23,436 FAULKNER GUY-PERKINS 274 3,198 283 23.0 23.5 20,696 23,355 25.0 25.5 21,847 24,396 INDEPENDENCE CUSHMAN 275 3,235 286 22.9 24.8 21,442 24,645 25.4 27.3 22,633 25,939 NE DELAPLAINE 276 3 052 285 21.4 23.2 21,828 24,835 24.1 25.4 22,888 25,892 51-04 NEWTON WESTERN GROVE 277 2,743 283 21.1 21.4 20,175 23,780 23.2 23.5 21,487 24,766 33-03 IZARD MOUNT PLEASANT 278 3,213 274 24.6 24.5 22,182 24,694 26.6 26.5 21,885 24,298 WABBASEKA-TUCKER 279 2 931 282 21.0 20.0 18,326 22,969 24.0 23.0 19,553 24,399 68-03 SHARP EVENING SHADE 280 2,941 273 24.0 24.7 18,271 21,090 26.0 26.7 19,470 22,054 68-05 SHARP WILLIFORD 281 3,197 271 22.0 22.5 19,234 21,649 24 .. 5 25.0 20,713 22,744 7-04 RANT PRATTSVILLE 282 3 011 268 17.0 17.0 25,864 28,709 19.0 19.0 27,408 30,378 ARKANSAPSU BLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUALFI SCAL REPORTA NALYSIS COLUMN 3 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE t'.jO. ~ EXPENSE 1990-91 NUMBERO f AVG. SLRY. NO. Of CERT. AVG. SLRY. PER ADA TEACHERS K-12 TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. 90-91 91-92 A/D/A A/D/M 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 90-91 91~92 90-91 91-92 _____ 32-02 INDEPENDENCE - 46-0 MILER 02-02 ASHLEY 27-03 GRANT POYEN 51-03 NEWTON MOUNT J 14-07 COLUMBIA WALKER 23-06 FAULKNER MOUNT VERNON/E W E 24-0:S FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW 291 3,528 3,790 227 240 22.0 22.5 1(L844 ~650 2Q_,J,_l_3 ~_059 69-04 STONE RURAL SPECIAL 292 3,234 3,397 227 236 18.:S 17.5 22,961 2~270 20 .. 5 2~ 989 26 I 960 __ 69-02 STONE STONE COUNTY 293 3 162 3 898 223 234 18.5 18 8 20 093 26 395 20.5 21 104 26 885 72-09 WASHINGTON WINSLOW 294 3,124 3,551 223 236 20.0 20.4 18,706 2j.__,297 22.0 1__.,855 47-01 MISSISSIPPI ARMOREL 295 3,850 4,344 218 232 21.4 21.8 22,820 26,179 23.4 0 6 38-07 LAWRENCE STRAWBERRY 296 3 432 3 885 216 224 4 49-04 MONTGOMERY ODEN 297 3,461 3,703 215 227 24,224 63-06 SALINE PARON 298 3,994 4,3661 215 229 26 619 37_1_ _ 54-05 PHILLIPS LAKE VIEW 299 3 240 2 778 213 214 19 376 22.3 21.1 0 945 70-05 UNION MOUNT HOLLY 300 4,294 5,081 212 224 21 .. 5 24.3 22,745 23,644 23.5 27.0 5,146 65-03 SEARCY SAINT JOE 301 3,678 4,116 202 214 19.5 19.5 19,352 23,262 21.5 21.5 4 499 61-01 RANDOLPH BIGGERS-REYNO 302 3 205 3 428 197 206 18.6 19.0 19 721 22 032 20.6 21.0 20 653 22 895 28-06 GREENE STANFORD 303 3,357 3,548 194 201 20.1 20.5 19,263 20.., 816 22.4 22.8 20, 131~694 34-02 JACKSON GRUBBS 304 3,306 3,673 188 200 19.3 19.3 17,374 2~410 21.3 21.3 18,485 21 324 21-03 DESHA DESHA-DREW 305 3 126 3 420 182 190 11.3 10.8 18 583 21 402 13.3 12.8 21 094 24 394 34-04 JACKSON SWIFTON 306 3,474 3,563 181 191 20.1 19.6 18,578 20,946 22.1 21.6 20 019 22,423 41-03 LITTLE RIVER WINTHROP 307 3,675 3,738 169 176 14.6 14.6 20,966 23,019~.6 16.6 22 339 24,477 __ 43-05 LO\"IOKE HUMNOKE 308 3 647 3 727 169 180 15.8 17.1 18 729 19 880 17.8 19.1 19 963 21 024 53-02 PERRY PERRY CASA 309 4,405 4,182 167 184 19.2 15.7 23,028 24,809 21.2 ___JJ_._7 24,200 26,192 20-01 DALLAS CARTHAGE 310 3,483 3,725 165 172 17.5 17.5 19,528 21,383 19.5 19.5 20,894 22,722 12-05 CLEBURNE WILBURN 311 3 041 3 911 164 177 14.2 15.4 18 682 22 473 16.2 17.4 21 181 25 723 73-05 WHITE GRIFFITHVILLE 312 4,024 161 168 17.6 19,502 19.9 21 079 03-06 BAXTER TRI-COUNTY CON. 313 4,809 4,762 151 159 18.3 13.8 20,313 23,402 20.3 16.3 21,378 25,052 36-05 JOHNSON OARK 314 4 027 4 242 150 158 16.9 17.9 19 417 21 674 18.9 19.9 20 721 23 160 02-04 ASHLEY PARKDALE 315 3,169 3,231 145 152 14.7 12.8 17,735 20,021 16.7 14.8 17,592 1~~ 21-01 DESHA ARKANSAS CITY 316 6,165 6,609 145 152 18.2 17.0 22,727 23,780 20.7 19.5 25 110 26,262 50-04 NEVADA EMMET 317 2 982 3 323 143 151 13.0 12.0 19 106 23 854 15.0 14.0 20 489 25 302 71-03 VAN BUREN SCOTLAND 318 3,655 4,078 130 135 14.0 14.5 19,973 21,899 16.0 16.5 21,154 23 335 75-05 YELL FOURCHE VALLEY 319 4,346 5,125 128 136 16.4 18.2 19,128 22,348 __ 1_8.4 20.2 20,494 23,~ 31-06 HOWARD UMPIRE 320 4 781 5 471 123 127 14.9 15.6 20 349 22 369 17.8 18.5 22 124 24 559 23-02 FAULKNER ENOLA 321 3,529 121 126 13.1 17,962 14.6 19,520 68-06 SHARP POUGHKEEPSIE 322 3,842 3,5981 115 120 15.1 14.0 18,377 19,044 17.1 16.0 19,478 19,503 65-04 SEARCY WITTS SPRINGS 323 5 293 5 726 I 94 99 14.8 14.8 18 050 20 234 16.8 16.8 19 145 21 278 71-01 VAN BUREN ALREAD 324 4,920 5,270 93 99 13.1 13.1 19,780 21,502 15.2 15.3 21,262 23,133 -- --------- LEA,:, COUNTY 60-01 PULASKI 60-03 PUL SKI 66-01 SEBASTIAN 60-02 PULASKI 63-03 62-01 70-01 58-05 43-04 16-08 17-05 47-02 4-03 04-01 52-04 63-02 35-09 27-05 03-03 26-03 29-03 14-02 26-05 73-ii 35-10 19-05 02-01 39-04 30-04 05-03 15-07 18-04 32-01 01-04 66-02 21-04 28-08 17-01 04-06 10-02 CRITTENDEN HILLER F KNER SALINE ST FRANCIS UNION POPE LONOKE CRAIGHEAD CRAWFORD MISSISSIPPI PHILLIPS BENTON OUACHITA SALINE JEFFERSON GRANT AXTER GARLAND HEMPSTEAD COLUMBIA GARLAND WHITE JEFFERSON CROSS ASHLEY LEE HOT SPRING BOONE CONWAY CRITTENDEN INDEPENDENCE ARKANSAS SEBASTIAN DESHA GREENE CRAWFORD BENTON CLARK ARKANSAPSU BLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUALFI SCAL REPORTA NALYSIS COLUMN 4 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO. 31 DI BRYANT FORREST CITY EL DORADO RUSSELLVILLE CABOT JONESBORO VAN BUREN BLYTHEVILLE HELE -W S BENTONVILLE FAIRVIEW BENTON WATSON CHAPEL SHERIDAN MOUNTAIN HO HOT SPRINGS HOPE MAGNOLIA LAKE HAMILTON SEARCY WHITE HALL WYNNE CROSSETT MARIANNA MALVERN HARRISON SO. CONWAY CO. MARION BATESVILLE STUTTGART GREENWOOD DUMAS NORTHEAST ARKANSA ALMA SILOAM SPRINGS ARKADELPHIA 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 EXPENSE PER ADA 90-91 91-92 2,587 2 699 2,525 2,593 2 975 2,360 2,338 2 610 2,493 2,672 2 481 2,516 2,439 2,692 2,375 2,553 2 614 2,728 2,673 3 113 2,950 2,932 2 796 2,909 2,818 3 005 2,764 2,989 3 022 174.5 154.3 155.0 145.0 158 .. 5 149.9 148.6 137.5 151.4 140.5 137.0 148.9 25_,_173 24, 293 21,~8 194. 8_ _ 205. 0_2 4 662 27 786 191.0 189.0 25 9 23,808 27 357~-1~9~5~.1 192.4 24 2 23~5 27,543 197.7 199.6 2~373 28,510 23 103 2 45 200.0 00. 24 252 26 867 22,021 2~604 183.0 183.0 22--'--732 26,362 22,991 2A,373 163.3 165.2 23,976 27,642 23 250 28 587 165.8 167.8 24 263 29 621 24,102 28,037 154.8 156.8 25,111 25_,114 27,967 168.3 169.8 2~851 22 802 27 051 162.1 159.8 23 728 25,396 28,836 150.L.____!_56.6 26,332 25,061 28,513 143.5 148.0 26,197 29,752 23 495 27,217~2.7 162.6 24 277 28 050 23,431 27,669 146.8 149.8 24,749 29,088 24,071 28,077 144~~5-~14_8.0 25,273 29,350 22 384 26 027 155.8 159.3 23,404 27 122 ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS COLUMN 4 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO. _32___ EXPENSE 1990-91 NUMBER OF AVG. SLRY. NO. Of CERT, SLRY, PER ADA _TEAQiE8S K-12 TCHRS. K-12 EEBSONNEL E'ERS. 90-91 91-92 0-91 91-92 90-91___'l1._-92 90-21 21-92 JACKSON GRE NE MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI GR AN DREW MONTICELLO LITTLE RIVER ASHDOWN 3 - ,., FE' ON A 47-06 MISSISSIPPI SO MISSISSIPPI 3,400 06-02 BRADLEY WARREN 2,809 61-03 RANDOLPH POCAHONTAS 2 8 4 57-03 POLK MENA 2,494 2,927 iL697 1,786 113.5 24,930 28_,810 117.9 25,675 29...,642 31-05 HOWARD NASHVILLE 2,514 2,943 1,690 1,771 109.2 110.2 23,172 26,948 116.5 21,_028 27..,_762 43-01 LONOKE LONOKE 2 390 2 814 1 661 1 740 104.9 07.4 22 918 26 479 111.1 23 78 27 5 0 02-03 ASHLEY HAMBURG 62 2,729 2,984 1,630 1,714 109.5 110.0 21,956 25_, 346 117.2 23,234 26__,604 56-05 POINSETT TRUMANN 63 2,655 2,939 1,568 1,673 115.1 111.9 21_.,_395 25_, 291 124.8 120.6 22_.,_393 26_,245 73-02 WHITE BEEBE 64 2 335 2 763 1 575 1 670 103.4 106.7 21 807 26 192 109.6 113.9 22 683 26 867 44-01 MADISON HUNTSVILLE 65 2,493 2,908 1,566 1,666 104.6 105.9 22,473 27,092 109.6 110.9 23,110 27,761 16-11 CRAIGHEAD NETTLETON 66 2,572 2,909 1,539 1,638 102.5 110.1 22,004 24,966 111.3 118.5 22.L963 25,949 23-07 FAULKNER VILONIA 67 2 455 3 029 1 542 i 614 97.0 101.0 23 538 27 980 104.0 109.0 24 352 28 878 23-03 FAULKNER GREENBRIER 68 2,344 2,902 1,505 1,586 87.5 99.0 24,801 27L934 93.5 104.5 25,713 28_.,__921 36-01 JOHNSON CLARKSVILLE 69 2,363 2,750 1,490 1,560 97.5 102.0 22,571 25_,660 102.5 107.0 23,479 26,759 67-01 SEVIER DEQUEEN 70 2 407 2 788 1 449 1 519 88.8 90.4 23 6 26 561 94.3 96 4 24 568 27 738 64-01 SCOTT WALDRON 71 2,814 3,235 1,424 1,511 109.1 108.5 21,944 24,952 115.3 115.3 22,658 25,840 40-03 LINCOLN STAR CITY 72 2,~11 2,896 1,450 1,506 91.9 92.3 22,897 26,320 100.6 102.0 24,005 27,384 75-04 YELL DARDANELLE 73 2 606 2 836 1 335 1 409 91.9 90.5 21 614 24 497 97.2 96.3 22 307 25 274 24-04 FRANKLIN OZARK 74 2,499 2,874 1,322 1,400 85.5 87.5 22,725 25,873 91.9 93.8 23,698 26,926 73-01 WHITE BALD KNOB 75 2,701 3,031 1,322 1,397 86.4 84.8 22,921 26,642 91.9 90.9 23,756 27,616 08-01 CARROLL BERRYVILLE 76 2 231 2 610 1 331 1 393 84.0 88.0 21 773 25 257 88.0 92.0 22 371 25 847 12-02 CLEBURNE HEBER SPRINGS 77 2,480 2,944 1,300 1,382 89.5 91.5 22,139 26,271 94.9 97.2 22,990 27,210 01-01 ARKANSAS DEWITT 78 2,718 3,109 1,317 1,378 92.7 94.7 23,157 26,141 98.9 101.1 24,016 27,140 48-01 MONROE BRINKLEY 79 2 399 2 800 1 264 1 338 89.1 87.1 20 413 23 896 95.1 93.1 21 121 24 460 42-01 LOGAN BOONEVILLE 80 2,499 2,901 1,256 1,328 73.9 75.6 24,567 29,031 80.4 81.1 25,796 30,124 09-03 CHICOT LAKESIDE 81 2,617 2,973 1,216 1,310 86.3 86.0 20,759 23,497 92.3 92.0 21,660 24,566 16-02 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE 82 2 477 2 839 1 229 1 310 81.8 82.1 21 231 24 726 89.8 90.1 22 227 25 797 20-02 DALLAS FORDYCE 83 3,087 3,474 1,249 1,303 88.7 88.0 22,429 25,216 95.7 94.0 23,368 26_,245 68-04 SHARP HIGHLAND 84 2,418 2,674 1,229 1,290 75.5 79.0 22,162 24,775 80.5 84.0 23,154 25,869 21-05 DESHA MCGEHEE 85 2 357 2 619 1 227 1 276 79.S 81.0 22 334 25 180 84.5 86.0 23 200 26 226 42-03 LOGAN PARIS 86 2,638 2,817 1,192 1,260 82.0 82.2 23,725 26,602 87.9 88.1 24,571 27,499 11-01 CLAY CORNING 87 2,465 2,900 1,187 1,250 82.5 80.9 21,926 26,340 88.0 86.4 22,844 27,340 50-06 NEVADA PRESCOTT 88 2 567 2 862 1 162 1 210 84.3 83.3 21 144 24 028 91.3 90.2 22 078 25 149 09-01 CHICOT DERMOTT 89 2,502 2,780 1,123 1,193 74.3 73.0 24,145 26,991 79.3 78.0 25,129 28,122 58-02 POPE DOVER 90 2,465 2,857 1,113 1,177 70.0 73.0 23,319 26,826 75.0 78.0 24,022 27,664 08-03 CARROLL GREEN FOREST 91 2 430 2 769 1 071 1 126 71.3 72.5 21 586 24 559 77.0 78.5 22 420 25 469 71-02 VAN BUREN CLINTON 92 2,463 2,829 1,073 1,126 70.3 74.0 22,278 25,652 75.0 79.0 23,318 ~~ 32-09 INDEPENDENCE SOUTH SIDE 93 2,586 3,002 1,039 1,103 69.7 73.0 22,643 26,433 76.0 80.0 23,544 27,356 62-02 ST FRANCIS HUGHES 94 2 727 3 119 1 058 1 099 75.5 76.5 22 664 25 381 83.4 84.3 23 741 26 598 38-04 LAWRENCE 09-02 CHICOT 16-03 CRAIGHEAD 37-03 LAFAYETTE 54-Q.4 PHILLIPS 30-02 HOT SPRING ARKANSASP IIBI re SCHOOLD ISTRICT$ ANNUALE lSCAL REPORTA NALYSIS BROOKLAND STAMPS HARVELL GLEN ROSE CROSS COUNTY PERRYVILLE SHAC \\/ER YELLVILLE-SUMMIT RIVERSIDE OLUl1N 4- BANKED...IN DESCENDING ORDER EXPENSE PEFLADA _9Q::_91_ 91-92 NUMBERO F 65.2 65.0 63.8 59.9 59.8 68.2 59.4 64.5 60 .. 2 58.1 56.8 62 .. S 61.1 64.0 55.5 54.0 58.7 58.8 57.0 54.0 51.7 60.0 53.5 52.4 57.6 56.0 56.5 59.0 54.0 52.0 50.5 52 .. 7 49 .. 5 54.7 49.0 51.6 AY~. SLRY. NO, OF CERT. ~T~C=H=R=S=~K~-~1=2~--P~ERSONNEL 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 8 9 10 27 570 75.0 75.0 400 72.6 75.3 042 69.0 69.0 225 68.8 73.4 794 76.5 76.0 25,736 74.7 74.7 24 946 72.0 75.8 24 753 67.4 69.5 23,000 76.0 76.7 27,971 62.5 67.5 23 340 26 548 64.0 68.3 21,499 24,299 69.4 70.2 23,968 26,910 73.2 69.2 21 791 24 279 69.0 67.8 22,618 27,508 64.8 64.4 21,804 25,099 72.6 64.9 20 335 23 052 69.0 73.2 20,860 24,222 66.4 64.4 20,832 24,557 69.5 68.5 23 248 27 539 62.3 63.7 24,097 27,353 60.3 60.3 21 794 24 954 62.2 61.6 4 393 27 180 67.0 67.0 20,867 25 353 66.0 65.1 20 983 24,052 68.0 67.5 22 887 28 382 60.5 60.5 22,833 27,336 57.0 57.0 21,915 24,938 61.7 62.2 23 408 25 834 62.8 63.5 22,276 25,284 63.4 61.2 23,866 27,882 56.6 58.0 22 743 25 741 56.5 55.2 20,372 23,814 65.8 65.2 22,719 26,790 53.9 56 .. :S 23 765 27,066 54.8 56.4 21,660 24,347 58.0 61.1 21,364 23,937 63.0 60.0 20 599 24 198 62.0 60.5 21 348 24,708 63.8 63.8 23,099 26,583 57.0 58.0 23 170 27 850 51.3 55.0 23,320 27,812 54.5 54.5 22,384 26,159 54.7 55.7 22 977 26 960 51.5 52.5 21,391 23,965 57.7 57.7 24,145 28,048 51.0 52.3 20 793 23 340 53.5 54.6 PAGE NO. 33 CERT. 90-91 11 24,663 22 619 24 492 24 414 23 881 23 487 23,037 22 351 21,078 25,660 24,204 22,440 24,955 22 612 23,505 23,193 21,113 22,017 21,680 24,437 25,116 22,779 25 672 21,649 21,675 24 258 23,763 22,802 24,420 23,274 24,795 23 534 21,367 23,797 24,945 22,574 22,383 21,467 22,079 23,966 24,117 24,117 23,111 23,926 22,211 25,200 21,850 SLRY. PERS. 91-92 12 28,238 27 459 27 986 27 141 26 957 26 948 25 910 25 564 23,844 28,714 27,317 25,281 27,781 25 086 28,858 26,462 23,894 25,501 25,556 28,466 28,311 25,790 28 428 26,249 24,759 29,298 28,354 25,858 27,038 25,953 28,992 26,712 24,893 27,602 28,160 25,422 25,126 25,059 25,468 27,267 28,803 28,609 26,870 27,902 24,796 29,180 24,201 - - -- - ---- ------------ ----------------------------- LEA,:, COUNTY 17-02 CRAWFORD 4A 02 MTI I ER 54 02 PHILLIPS 32 06 INDEPENDENCE 54 01 PHILLIPS 65-02 SEARCY 50-08 NEVADA 72-01 WASHINGTON 04-07 BENTON 58-04 POPE 24-02 FRANKLIN 23-05 FAULKNER 43-03 LONOKE 05-02 BOONE 13-03 CLEVELAND 72-04 WASHINGTON 62-05 ST FRANCIS 59-01 PRAIRIE 74-01 WOODRUFF 25-02 FULTON 58-03 POPE 28-03 GREENE 36-06 JOHNSON __ 63-01 SALINE 16-01 CRAIGHEAD 70-07 UNION 48-02 MONROE 08-02 CARROLL -- 06-01 BRADLEY 26-07 GARLAND 32-11 INDEPENDENCE 63-04 SALINE 37-02 LAFAYETTE 73-09 WHITE 31-02 HOWARD 12-03 CLEBURNE 26-04 GARLAND 73-06 WHITE 19-03 CROSS 41-02 LITTLE RIVER 24-03 FRANKLIN 55-04 PIKE 70-06 UNION --30-03 HOT SPRING 35-01 JEFFERSON 51-02 NEWTON 73-03 WHITE ARKANSAPSU BLICS CHOOLD ISTRICTSA NNUAFLI SCAL REPORTA NALYSIS COLUMN 4 ANKED IN DESCENDING ORD R EXPENSE 1990-'11 NUMBEORF AVG. SLRY. F'ER ADA TEACHERS K-12 TCHRS . K-12 90-91 91-92 A/D/A A/D/M 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 DT!'lTRICT \"'\"NK 1 ? 3 4 s 6 7 A CEDARVILLE 142 2 591 2 906 708 760 50.7 50.4 23 371 26 507 :c-tJnA rC\"\u0026gt;.JTCAI ....... ?.A7? ~ -..ncc 7f\\\"\u0026lt; 7AO \"'\" 0 !'ii 0 ':)':) 779 ':)CC Q':),J.. ELAINE 144 2 774 3 144 698 744 53.0 54.0 20 938 23 921 NEWARK 145 5 384 5 823 711 742 70.0 70.1 28 616 28 774 BARTON/LEXA 146 2 453 2 905 710 741 45.0 47.0 '\"\u0026gt;2 438 26 247 MARSHALL 147 2 646 2 965 697 736 50.5 51.5 21 313 24 246 NEVADA COUNTY 148 2,638 3,031 692 731 48.1 49.0 21 590 24 755 ELKINS 149 2 691 3 336 683 722 45.4 46.4 22 933 28 969 PEA RIDGE 150 2 659 3 153 679 720 51.1 52 .. 5 20 828 24 170 POTTSVILLE 151 2,557 2,812 671 707 45 .. 0 48.0 25,001 26,620 CHARLESTON 152 2 560 2 969 678 702 47.0 49.0 22 853 25 850 MAYFLOWER 153 2,356 2,883 667 701 44 .. 5 47.0 21,680 25,128 CARLISLE 154 2,668 2,961 669 696 48.2 47.7 22,134 25,011 BERGMAN 155 2 559 3 029 665 694 42.2 46.1 23 322 26 319 RISON 156 2,366 2,886 663 689 44.8 44.7 22 378 27 958 GREENLAND 157 2,404 3,172 651 689 43.0 44.3 21,167 27,310 PALESTINE/WHEATLE158 2 768 2 916 656 681 48.0 44.0 21 968 24 550 DES ARC 159 2,329 2,791 642 676 40.7 41.9 21,648 25 241 AUGUSTA 160 2,649 3,108 639 673 46.2 46.2 20,958 23,980 SALEM 161 2 628 2 937 641 672 47.8 48.8 20 407 23 401 HECTOR 162 2,650 3,051 633 667 46.0 47.0 22,406 25 015 MARMADUKE 163 2,488 2 767 629 658 40.6 40.6 23 344 27 541 WEST SIDE 164 2 615 2 931 622 657 44.4 45.9 22 259 24 808 BAUXITE 165 3,039 3 401 621 656 39 .. 5 40.0 25,259 28,632 BAY-BROWN 166 2,683~,073 619 648 42.7 42.7 21,575 25 787 PARKERS CHAPEL 167 2 549 3 004 618 643 44.6 45.6 21 989 26 020 CLARENDON 168 2,504_ 3,013 606 637 42.0 42.0 19 908 24 849 EUREKA SPRINGS 169 2,430 2,756 595 625 40.8 41.5 21,305 24,147 HERMITAGE 170 2 568 2 972 589 624 40.0 41.0 21 319 23 910 MOUNTAIN PINE 171 2 678 2 979 583 622 43.5 43.5 21,482 25 103 MIDLAND 172 2J6'l.7 3,003 582 618 44.4 45 .. 2 21 141 24 131 HARMONY GROVE 173 2 564 3 033 591 618 38.5 41 .. 5 23 031 25 728 LEWISVILLE 174 2 970~J.84 579 612 43.3 40.3 22 519 26 079 PANGBURN 175 2,776 3 195 568 597 42 ...0 42.7 21,758 24 359 DIERKS 176 2 492 2 866 573 596 39.2 40.2 21 712 26 081 QUITMAN 177 2,608 2,903 562 594 39.5 38.2 22,919 26,206 JESSIEVILLE 178 3, 45__b 321 566 593 41.7 41.7 27,093 27,444 JUDSONIA 179 2 626 554 592 38.0 22 494 PARKIN 180 2,736 3,509 554 591 42.0 42.3 20,121 23,897 FOREMAN 181 2,988 3 142 569 590 43.6 42.6 21 414 24,109 COUNTY LINE 182 2 830 3 086 555 588 44.3 40.7 19 945 24 416 MURFREESBORO 183 2,727~.144 555 583 44.2 43.3 22,202 25,552 NORPHLET 184 2,607 2,883 563 583 41.0 4l .. O 23,212 26,417 MAGNET COVE 185 3 014 3 172 553 582 43.9 42.0 21 175 23 619 ALTHEIMER-SHERRIL186 2,847 3,139 549 581 39.4 40.4 19,907 22,626 JASPER 187 2,778 3,_203 555 581 37.6 37.6 23,619 27,283 BRADFORD 188 2 627 2 989 547 575 39.7 40.0 21 833 25 472 PAGE NO. JL,. NO. Of CERT. AVG. SLRY. PERSONNEL CERT . PERS . 90-91 91-92 90-91 91-92 9 1n  1? 53.7 53.4 24 312 27 503 ,.,..,\" ' CCA r, ~-. \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt;L \".\u0026gt;7 1Q7 56.6 56.6 21 778 25 043 75.3 75.4 29 495 29 644 48.n 5n.n \"'3 6\"0 ?7 440 53.5 54.5 22 120 24 725 51.1 52.0 22 489 25 675 48.4 49.4 23 955 29 881 54.2 55.5 21 783 25 149 48.0 51.0 25,738 27 432 50.0 52.0 23 825 26 923 47.5 50.0 22,604 26,056 51.1 50.7 23 184 26 163 45.3 49.2 24 596 27 627 47.8 47.7 23,383 29,055 46.0 47.3 22,285 28,225 52.0 48.0 22 901 25 470 43.8 45.0 22,547\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_946","title":"Report: ''School Monitoring Reports,'' 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":["1992/1993"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School facilities","School principals","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''School Monitoring Reports,'' 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/946"],"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":["177 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.\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_919","title":"Reports: Enrollment, 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":["1992/2010"],"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 (Ark.)--History--21st Century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Reports: Enrollment, 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/919"],"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":["271 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_912","title":"Reports: Gifted and Talented, 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":["1992/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Students","Gifted \u0026 talented","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Reports: Gifted and Talented, 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/912"],"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":["131 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\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":38,"next_page":39,"prev_page":37,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":444,"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}}]}}