{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1500","title":"Testing: Stanford Achievement Test, comparative data, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1992/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School integration","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Stanford Achievement Test, comparative data, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1500"],"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":["372 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_832","title":"Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) four-year-old program long-term plan; District Court, joint notice of appeal; District Court, motion for approval of Forest Heights Junior High School construction project","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":["1991-10"],"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":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School facilities","School improvement programs","School integration","Educational statistics","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) four-year-old program long-term plan; District Court, joint notice of appeal; District Court, motion for approval of Forest Heights Junior High School construction project"],"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/832"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["96 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (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_192","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), racial count and school capacity,","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":["1991-10-01"],"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","Education and state","School integration","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), racial count and school capacity,"],"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/192"],"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":["237 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 TO: LITTLER OCKS CHOODLI STRICT 810 WESTM ARKHSATMR EET LITTLER OCKA, RKANSAS October 8, 1991 Board of Directors FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\n,::3 Monitoring and Program Development THROUGHD: r. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools~ SUBJECT: October 1 Enrollment - 1991-92 School Year Please find attached the October 1 enrollment statistics for the 1991-92 school year. cc: Senior Management Team /' LITTLER OCKS CHOODLI STRICT 810 WESTM ARKHASTMR EET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS OCTOBE1R ENROLLMECNOTM PARISON 1990-91/1991-92 WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SENIORH IGH: 10/1/90 2201 3174 90 5465 58 10/1/91 2152 3243 114 5509 59 INCREASE(DECREASE()4 9) 69 24 44 % (2.2%) 2.1% 26.7% .8% JUNIORH IGH: 10/1/90 1878 4025 81 5984 67 10/1/91 1882 4112 68 6062 68 INCREASE(DECREASE) 4 87 (13) 78 % .2% 2.2% (16.1%) 1.3% ELEMENTARY: 10/1/90 4740 9435 161 14,336 66 10/1/91 4851 9374 166 14,391 65 INCREASE(DECREASE1) 11 (61) 5 55 % 2.3% (.7%) 3.1% .4% SPECIALS CHOOLS: 10/1/90 49 22 0 71 31 10/1/91 40 24 0 64 38 INCREASE(DECREASE) (9) 2 0 (7) DISTRICTT OTAL: 10/1/90 8868 16,656 332 25,856 64 10/1/91 8925 16,753 348 26,026 64 INCREASE(DECREASE) 57 97 16 170 % .6% .6% 4.8% .7% KINDERGARTEN: 10/1/90 682 1200 22 1904 63 10/1/91 694 1231 18 1943 63 INCREASE(DECREASE) 12 31 (4) 39 % 1.8% 2.6% (18.2%) 2.1% WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK FOURY EARO LD: 10/1/90 76 146 6 228 64 10/1/91 120 163 9 292 56 INCREASE(DECREASE4) 4 17 3 64 % 57.9% 11.6% 50% 28.1% DISTRICTT OTAL WITHF OURY EARO LDS: 10/1/90 8944 16,802 338 26,084 64 10/1/91 9045 16,916 357 26,318 64 INCREASE(DECREASE10) 1 114 19 234 % 1.13% .. 7% 5.6% .9% SUMMAROYF OCTOBE1R ENROLLMENT 1991-92 GRADE HHITE BLACK OTHER* TOTAL %BLACK K 694 1231 18 1943 63 1 757 1414 22 2193 64 2 693 1291 32 2016 64 3 656 1240 22 1918 65 4 688 1333 24 2045 65 5 668 1410 22 2100 67 6 657 1348 25 2030 66 UNGR 38 107 1 146 73 TOTALE LEM. 4851 9374 166 14,391 65 7 649 1407 24 2080 68 8 597 1422 21 2040 70 9 626 1271 23 1920 66 UNGR 10 12 0 22 55 TOTALJR HIGH 1882 4112 68 6062 68 10 700 1241 44 1985 63 11 731 1056 37 1824 58 12 710 933 33 1676 56 UNGR 11 13 0 24 54 TOTALS R HIGH 2152 3243 114 5509 59 SPEC. SCHOOLS 40 24 0 64 38 FOURY EARO LDS 120 163 9 292 56 DIST TOTALS 9045 16,916 357 26,318 64 *SUMMAORFY.S TUDENTLSI STEDI N \"OTHERC\" ATEGORY: SPANISH - 92 ASIAN/PACIFICIS LANDER- 233 ESKIMO/AMERICINADNI AN - 27 OTHER 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT REPORT Uc I~ 1 , i. \u0026lt;:\n,c1\n, 13CflUUI../. hF:{,DE l.JHITE CL.(.:1C::I\u0026lt; Cf:iNTF,r\".1I... UNC1R{,l:ED ~cUE:TDT{1L l\u0026lt;lt-lD, TOTr::1.1. . F'(\\lF, Uhll3f,:PiDFD ~:\nuurCJT(1L. f\u0026lt;ItID .. TIJT(:iL ,. 1. f2.1.L L. Uh'C'iF~hDE'P SUE:TUTtiL.. l\u0026lt;IhlD .. TDT{1I.... t1C CL.[: L.l ..r :,N UNCiF:(iDED f:3UE:TDT(\\L K[l\\lD TUT{il.. .. r,,:'.1F:![\u0026lt; vE' JJ unc:,n\u0026lt;-:,oF:D f:3UE:TfJT.t.i l.. l\u0026lt;It--lD. rC JTf:1.l.. 1 () ll l? 10 11. :LO 1l le 10 ll l ,.~ 0 169 6 1+0 0 1 l :1.06 l\n::::~~ } l 0 1 :Jt+ l~.A u:m l.+76 :I. l '+U'/ 0 9:l :I. :I. l 0 1 ::v+ 1. r'.'.O 11. 9 l+ r-, ...... , ..:) / I 0 10:-36 J. ~3 r.~09 l bl+ Ji.1U u 0 196 c::.01., UJ7 ~::iB7 0 r::!lt3 r.=:co 1.90 i:)t+O l!:3 0 l'.5U :I.' .56 1 :J,::~ i.+l.+6 9 () () ,-, ,' I) :1:.J (l u 6 19 () J.9 0 :I.r :?. 0 1.E 7 1. i:?. 0 TUTP1l.. 0 l 7i::'. 1 J.771 r::'.'I :::3:1.1 091. 0 '.]U(l l OC,c:. :1.7 J. l. 0 :I. 0 '.]:]6 / ~Jl+ 1. :]0~:3 C/UO J.000 0 E~l:J::l E~6:'.J fl l+ .!+ f.::.O..\n:?o~~ I,()()., ()(l~\n~-:_:.\n., ::II 7 !1~ 6'? ,. r.:~0% l:,O .. ()7Y C:10. !:St+% UUufi9i'\nl:,O \"B::]~~ 1:,e .. 11.\n,\n~.=l_+:\n,, (\nl+ ~.{ 90 .. 001/. 6~.~.-.: \u0026gt; JUi~ 0.00% ~5:J,. OE~ ~ijC ?.. C +~,~ 69 .. [?.~]j~ ~:.-\n:~:~ n O ') ~~ !:3CHUUI./. .C. =iF:fiDE~ C:I....U')L:F,:Oi'.E1 L.. Ut -.~L ,F ,,:: :D1 E:D TfJT(:1I.... DU1 H.J( 1 f,: 1...11Jf-3F,:C:)DFD TClT (1L. ,., / ,-, / t3 9 FDf-i[ffT HE T u1-1rn I iLI-..IDL:r:,HCJI~ U!~bl~hDE:O 11no1::1\\./.,...: \\L._1::: Ut/C::\nf\nnDE:D TUT(\\!.... i\"l(\\l'-lt,,I UNDf~tlDED TUT(\\L. 7 n 9 ,. ., I f:3 F'UL..P1~=I\nf-:H: E:I (3HT~3 UtJCh:(iDFU fl TUTtil... l,JHIT[ (i Tl :I.0 9 1.06 i+f} r:26:] r\"Jr,::- / . .J r:!OF: () :I.l. .1~ :\n100 :I.F:P t+ fJ6 1.(:,fl C:9 i. 0 :I. '/9 1.UC? 16'.J :I.'. .':ii.+ l l:::i'.:5 l :I. l t.+t!O ,.,. I :I.U:l :I.UC! l '/0 '.:St1 l () E:l: 6 i:.:~:]9 71 l () 1t:.1.9 :I.~:.:\n:::: U?H j i.+9 :I.f :39 i+91. :1.70 J.61. DTHEfi 0 l l 0 u (l ~i.. -- ,. .,. / 16 c:: .,.J l'.3 (). l 0 0 :I. TDT {1l .. () (? ~:\n::~: r.:~.~:: ~~ 5 [.~{:,9 ::) l .. ::l '-''\"' :I.'. .':it? .1::\u0026gt;\u0026lt;:I). c_:_:!~_.==_.:=.j\nE'.-'c+:_: :, 0 F:7 l '.J(1l1. 0'.59 () C.~r)t, f:_~9~5 i::H :I. n.7\u0026lt;:? p~.=:\n..:., c:~/+f.? 76:1. , E:FiFi: , {:, ,::\n,1. (\n~:_~~: s ~.f'5~ \" -::?f+  l:, (y' ,, F: :I.- ~.~ 60,. 7F~!-~ ~.=Js . . F~:= .~ '?O .. \u0026lt;:ru:,\n'/ u :.{\n(:~:-~{ E\nr..: ':? r?}~ {\n~=.:,=. j6 ,-:%.,. 70,, o:=)}~ !:\nCl IUDL. / UF:f:)DF: ~,U!JTHl,JF:~\nI Ur-1Uh:{:,DED DP,DU[,TT u:,~c:\nrinnr::: n 1:31...,E:TrrU,L . 1:::1t,ID, l+ yr:\n: (JI.. I: \"TDTP,L.. DnL.E: UNbf:\n:t1DE:D ~3UDTUT(1L. f:::It,ID. TUTi':)L. E:r\\UFL. I l~E: Ut\\lUF/i':11.)[,D ':3UDTUTP,L.. f::It--lD .. TD lt,L. 7 u 9 1 1::: ...J '.J .., . :I l 1:,. WITTE 6:1. J. '7, (/...) :I. 1'.J '+ /+ 1.0 p.,./ l1 H 60 9 :I.c ? il ll il .-. ,, i \"+ 0 J f.,C/ l '/ .7. 1.71.::i :::ii::!:I. '.:-3 :J'.J 1.9 l.b :1.6:1. l+() l+? i.f l+ '.JC) E~'+9 l-1-{:, '.Ji :Jc:~ f::l r.~ ::16 UTHF:F~ 0 l+ 0 :J 7 (i () 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 () () 0 i () (i :I. 0 1 c:: . .. ! 0 9 / ' F:F/h: ?:1. .. 6:l:-~ fl() .. 00% f:,O. 00% '7\n~{\" l E:~~:~ Fl:J .. 7,.?:,\nHi:\n\" ')f.::,~: HO\" H!.5~: 7H .. :I.H:1\n\"/(\" l+!:_:)~-~ [:: l+ \" f.::[J, ~.~ ECHDDl... / C,:\nF'~1'.:1DE: F!ClUl\u0026lt;l~I~ !3UE:TDTtil... l=:I I\\ID. TDT(!L nr\n,,-:,uy Ut-lUFi{,OFD HUDTDT(\\L_ I\u0026lt; I l\u0026gt;ID, TCJT(~L. CtiF:\\iEF,: UIJUF/tiDED ~\nUE:TDThL. 1,::am.. r DT(,L CIITC:UT Ul~C~h:tiDEn i::.un1urt11.. l\u0026lt;Il'ID. TUTtiL .. :I. i.1, l. ..,.. 1::.-  .. J b l \"LJ. 3 r.:: ._\n6 l l+:] t+ r:: l+P P'+'+ r\nr-11:: r::. I ,..,J :I. l El .I. f37 :]()fl 30 i::(36 '..:i'.J UTfl[F/ l ,., .:.i 3 l l 1 :I.C ! (i () (?. (l l. '.:3 (l 6 (l 6 (l 1 () :I. :l () (l 0 l (l () 0 TCiT{:iL .. \n.':[ r.::r-, -...J I f.:\nf3 (,:I. :J(, :I. :I. (ii) 9H ~'51:I..+ : (:,(1' /:,() t :1.9 90 nc:, I - '.'.F!.L.( - iCI\u0026lt; ,. , .... , 1:::-,'\"i / I .'.J ., ._.J,'.J lt ~50 .. O~iii~ l:iD\" :LO r:, .. , ('\"\\r\"11/  .. ..1.,:\n,\" 7 / ,, .. ~5~~5 \"OOi~ ~St+.. OB1/\ntJCHCJUL./. ur::riDF.:-: CLU 1,)EF'.D(il. .E l.Jl\\l(:,F!(iDFD j t.+ r.: ._J 6 ~::UE:TCJTnL. --!\u0026lt; Il'-ID. TDTtiL DUDD UNhf,:tiDED ':,UBTCJT('il._ f:::ItID. Fn I I? r:nh:I\u0026lt; UNUh{iDE:D ~3UE:TDT i')L I\u0026lt; li'ID .. TDT(iL. l l+ l t: ._J i ..  .. J FUhl:::HT F'('.1PI\u0026lt; un(3h(lDE:D SUDTDT(iL_ l\u0026lt;It-.lD .. TDT(:11. i+ f31.+ l+ l l+ 109 ll 19 170 BL.{)C:I\u0026lt; t.j./J 3 30 17\n:~1  i::1.b t::~9 1 ~Sc~ J. l+ 166 E~06 '.S 1. :I.l) 167 ,:1.lf 191 UTHl:::f~ l () l 1 0 l I.+ () l+ () 0 :I. \u0026lt;) 0 0 l l '.:3 l l l () 0 0 3 0 :?3 l l l l (l 1 0 5 TUTr:iL_ 61.+ ,., I '+ r:?. l+'.J ~50 i,\u0026gt;.6:J t+'? 7'/. :I. .I.% U0.00% i+L:. H6i\\ i:,U .. l H:1\nt+ l . l1.{\ni: (:\n'7. l.i.l+1/. ~~F_\n:'.\nIt O O i~ n~:.),. 00% H!5 .. :3'/!~ {+'..:]n F1f+~~ :]i+\" ()l~ ~J. l+{:, II Cl i~ bf.:HUCJL../ C\nf,:r::1DE r::ntii\\ll\u0026lt;L .. I i\"I UNCir~:hDliD 1:3UDTUT(\\l... l\u0026lt;ll\\lD. t+Yf\n: DI.... D TCJTnL. r:~UL.DP I CHT UNU!\n:(1DED UUBTUTr-':\nL. f\u0026lt;I t!D. TDTf.'.'1..1 .. G:-:11\n:1..(~t,ID l..lt-.1[=iF~r1DF:D ~31.JBTCJfT.'. 'iL. l=:IND. 1..1Y I~ UL. .D TClTt,L l y. C?. ':)  .. J t+ :l C,F:YLR ::\ni:-r:I. :N u::\nUNUF!t1DFD ~3UDTDTP!L.. f::JI\\ID. TUTt1L.. 1 lJHTTE l :10 ? 7 ,., ,' 6 71.\n:?.'.:30 ::Jt1, f?.61.f 0 t+ 0 1 0 9 j ....... d i.'.5 r.?. 19 6 Dl.... ( 1C:I\u0026lt; 9 1:-.c:._ J  .. J ~:i9 3t1,9 t+!J '.:31 :I. i::?. 3'7 '.:30 ~J~:i ::30 :T7 '+3 1.?i.?lf E:!7 11. ,.., ( I') cur.:.. c?. 19 1.6 '.:1'.:3 :1.~\n3 c:'.'7 1HO UTHEF! 0 () () () 0 0 () 1 ,::l 1. () I.+ l 1.0 l 1 :l 0 () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026lt;) 0 \u0026lt;) 0 I I I'. I TCIT (.1L_ :1.0 l::,l+ I '.:Fi'1 ~:.ib l\nO ~50'7 u 111:::/ ...... Ul 77 rJ~'+ I . '. . '+'+t:, I /-.c\nI .... - I ~:_)ot:, I :3H t+ ~=~ I\n:2:J:] .' :1.U '.i,Dl...(1CI\u0026lt; ..:~+. :.:.= :\n: 3~ 3} ~ :_:\no.. ,SE?% '.]i.:} n 9{.?~\n~~l =.5. \\ 7~ =~1~. s ::.~7.. fli+ i~ t,,6 .. :I. 9'.~ :I. 00 .. 001/. CU,, r?l11/, l 00. (H)~-\n9'7.'.J'/1/. :t. ()(\u0026gt;. 00% 96. :1.t'.,1/, 61.. :1u. ~ ~:\ncHCJUL / Ui,()Di::: GI E:B~:\nut. 1. ur:,:r,oi:::o ~:\nUF!TUTP,L.. I\u0026lt; [l\\iD\" TCJT,::1..1 . f:UE:TUT r:',L.. fil'-ID\" t1.\\h: CiL..D TUT(:1l... JLFF:E:h:\\:\nc)i I Ur,IUh:nL-l':D '.:,l.JE:TUTP.1L f It-H)\" TCJT,:\\L.. rif1E:EL. 1/{\\LE UNUh:(1DF:D :::~:1r.r.JJ.r 1.: :t ~1.... 1:11,::u .. 'fUT(.L.. l l .. J l r:: -..}. lJHI'IT: 1.6 I. i.1, :I. l 0 r: (i (i l ,.,.,., . ..:::,c, \u0026lt;:.?.70 UL.(\\CI\u0026lt; :l.6U :1.90 '.J l 17 16~:3 j :.-:: 1.\n_:_:! JUH l+ 0 l l (i '7 l () () l 0 () () 0 1. l l (i l l 0 () 0 0 1 0 l 0 l TUTnL ~'.)00 :::19 l '7 :l.t,U  l'..:i :l? F:OU 70 '/l+ r,1::./ ,,J HO 70 '/ :I ~.:.6= ,\n~ 0 0 }:~ !:iS6.. ti l ~--~ ... .. , .-\\ , ,. , t,. c:, .::\n\" ,:::-, ~:/: ,~ :I. OU .. 00~..,\n, l ()() .. 00}~ /1.0 I 00% l+1:i \"CJ:,J\nt\n'1':\"i. '.J l % \\3C::il UCJL_/ Uh:i-:,DE, t1CC.l:::f,:t1UrT Ut~Cin(1DED \\JUbTUTf1L. vum. TUT ('lL t1[(1Dm~u .. I r:T I .. Jl\\lhl'it1DED t3UE:TOTt1L. 1,:H ID. TDTP1L. l'I I TCI !ELI._ UMUF:,:1nE:D 1:,UBTClT ill_ l\u0026lt;IhlD. f+'/F: UL_D rurr1L Ui,lhli(1DFD ~3UE:TCJ{T\\L . I\u0026lt; I:i'ID. TUT{:1L l c:.._ J l l i+ WIITE () f.?.7 eu\n:~1.f c~ I l:~Cj' F::J 16 l 1+ l J 7t+ 0 e :l l ...,. I 170 ,? 1 191 l t+2 lU l \u0026lt;'::-0 0 (i 0 1 (i 0 l 0 1 () () 0 () 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 0 () l 1 0 t+ t TDT(iL 0 ,-,1::: ,' , . .J E)O Hl 72 i+::.:51 {\n!) '/ l 60 9 i+6 '+b l+ 1 l+6 31. t::t::: . .J ...J l\n() '.J:jf., ~:~,=.9\nBn~ ~ l.1 :I., . l:, ./. % '/0, 9 .I :t\n6 l .. :::.1:: ~ \nl+~5 .. oo~,\n100.00 r)r? .. hB~-~ \\-=~j~'j .. ~~~.}. :~)- ~ :50 .. '7. /.% ~:n.?.o o:\u0026lt; i'.1 i+  (:, () ~, :\n,\nii . J 7'.1\nl+::J t'J/1 :,,\nl1 l+ .. 9l+% '-1-!.5.. 00!,~ SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE 1:1_11_1YI 31H! E:I Ci IT~3 3UE:TUT(1L_ f:IND. TfH,':C.l... Fi J C3HT'.::\nL..L. L. . UNUFi(1DE'.:U '3UUTUTP,L. l\u0026lt;IiIO. t, 'y f~ CH..D TUTnL. l 'I L ', .. I F:llCl\u0026lt;FF'C:1...1..E . h'. UlIUl::r,DFU t3UE:.l'UT t,L. 1,: I l~D. t+VF: C)\n_.. D rCrJ 1 11. F:Ut'I Ir,IE Ut JhF'.i''iDE.D '.:,unTUT{\\L .. I: l lffi. Lf'(F, ULD fDT(1L. l 1:1 l\n' I l1 :I c.~B ,\".'.:3 I ~.i l 0 0 0 (i 0 () 0 l :l i:.~ 67 llh 9 t+ 7 :1.0 r.::-1::: -..J-...J J.f.:,9 :i.6 lW':i ]'.j E:'.t+l ::::)(\nl l I.+() :]/~ E:t 9 '.:31?. l 0 'I 1. 9 '.JO l l l l J 0 6 0 b 0 0 :i (i 0 (i l 0 0 l l 0 1. 0 i.1, 0 l 0 (i 0 0 0 (i :I. l 0 0 l ru1t\\L. i1H F~l+E:: '.'.ll lh r.~i:39 f..11, r.::r.:: -.. J._J Y.i.::.1.r ., c::f: '+ J. \"OJ~~ ~.::_i.f, +0 9% I 00 , 0()\n.\nl00.CO% l 00 .. 00'.~ JOO .. 0()% 1 ()(). 00:t. (~-{::\n, \" ,~7:- , }: t,f3,, ~]:/% cc\" /\nt~ ~,~ oc:.:.~: :,\n,c~~ t:~7 .. ~.50'!1+ i:J{J \".-:\".1-6/~ !3CI IUDL../ C:il~{,DE: 1::\nL1l' I IL:1,1'.~ I.Jt,ILih'.{\\OED \\:\nun TUT ,:11__ 1: I [.JD .. 1:f'(f\n OLD TDT(\\L TF:F,f,Y Ut,ICJllf'1DLD t3UE:TDT f'1L_ f=:liID. TOT{'.1L lJPll\u0026lt;.EFI ELD Uf\\lUF~tiDLD Hl_)fl1c1r(\nL_ l\u0026lt;II\\ID. TUTr\\L_ lJh'.,3H l [\\lhTCJt-1 Ut,IC,h:(1DE:D f:\nucT DTn! f:Jl,ID '1\\ 1\n: ULD -1 ClT t,L ,,_. .. , J 1+ c: '.J f.1 \\JHITF l 0 () I) :I. l I ~3/:\nI.+() t.+O c?.1? :]{\n0 l '7 J l1. j t+7 BL.(\\Cf\u0026lt; t.,.1 C.~0:3\n:::1+ i'.3 t:+O PE!l ,_:c.~.: ~ pt+~:~ l 100 '.:i 1 (?0 t1UO () 0 () 0 0 (i 1 1 \u0026lt;) 0 l 16 (i l 0 l u l 9 0 0 :J (i (i 0 (i l l t.+ l '+1 ::::::7 1c:OU E.~~-=_:\n:i. r..~ f.?t, . ~~:_:\n'/0 L+~)~3 ~:5c,'J (i ?t.+ 6i:: 68 t':,8 '/0 79 i:.,\n::: l f.+'/9 t.+ l :.:ii~ J'.30 l l C, 117 c_~~B 91.+ 1 oo .. oo~: 91=:.\n. :ti::% ')'/\" Ji.+% l UO ,, OOi\nl ()t) .. UO% i ()0 .. ()()~{ \\'J'/ 11 ,\n)01/: \\:\ni!':\n.o o:~ ti::::\n.. uo~~ t+ f+ ,. :-~\\:)_\n- ~,~ 0 .. 00% 7!~_-7j. l }'\n70 .. H9:,.,~ ,SU .. .l '?~-~ /:,5 .. 79~-~ 5{~'.) ~ (7E:% !i,:j'} .. E:~'7~~ ~_:_/.:1_,~ \" 0 :.-:..1)~ !:~i7 II ()'/j~ t3C:HUClL/. (3F:t1DE i1/(\nT~3UlI '.:\nuE:TUt1L. I\u0026lt; Il\\10. TDT(\\L. ~31JF. :TUT1~,L. I\u0026lt; Il,ll.i .. \"CCi-h1L .. t.,.I, IL L. J P-1lI'. :'i l.Jl'lhi:'if:,DFD bUF::TCJTr1L. f:JI\\ID .. TCIT(1L. [,JI L'.:3UI\\I ur-1UF:{1DE:/J ':3UDT(jThl ... I: 1 ! ,ID. TUT(:11... l r: ...J l :I. l 1. .. .,. / I 1,,/HITL 10 :I.CJ (?.0 l\"'/ :I. :I. '..''i l :I. l '7 :I. fj l'.5 c::O :I. :I. t1, J.6 l'.JO {1, :I. 1 :Ji! 1,f::::Cj' 9 J. '.:l [\nU J.7 l ()lj i::'.9 167 '.:3:I . F'a,\n_Jf? ..... l l 0 l J. 0 0 0 () '.J 0 0 0 ,..-,_ -, l () 0 0 () 0 0 l () :I. TUT(1I ... 70 H:3 t+ j :I. !:56 L1,b? ::J9 3t:~:~3 1,1::\no /d ~5B t+')~i :I.? ')' l .. (.?9% HO .. :fo'.1\n7['\" ~33 b0.(,()\n1\niA.'71.:,~ 1::::,:::, r,.-:J.i / .... J .. J \" I .... I /t ~:_l:+\n., H lj, }~ ~56 11 1.61/\n'/'.3 , 1 (ii, ~::(.11(lD L. / 1. d ,J, l:F \\JClUl1fi:I.H I: u: w\nnr-,ni:-1_, c\n1_Jf::.f'i')T(,L. 1-:111n.. =- 11 \\T.: U I . .r:1 r ( I l'i\"lL. r=, 1i:n f: r.\n: r:1 r-1.1.:\nlll 1131((\\I)[:D lU I (,1 .. 1=.t I.?. 11 I I U II 1..1. lltlC:ili(ll)r:D 1cirt,1 ... E . I'll I C:111.LJ.. ( DrYi) Ill 1nr:f,DFU T(lli)L. l-JI 11 TE l (i 9 n H '.JJ '.J l l l L:L..t,CI\u0026lt; tr.:' 1. 1.,. 1.9 c!:J j_ Cj' j\n?.:] 110 j:_~7 B .I t..,'.'::.\n j (:, 10 ...,. ,' 7 UTIIFf'.1 1. () 0 () () 0 0 i,. :I. l '..':i :1.:.\"\n,., l i+ .I. n u ./,,' ' /-.,~/. .' /()~,~ l:, ~:~ r ~5\n ~~-~ / .- ,. ..... I I ..  I i\n., TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1500 Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 B~~E Bowles, Assistant Superintendent Desegregation ~Hogan, Assistant Superintendent Support Services October 24, 1991 General Information for Office of Desegregation Monitoring As per your request I have attached a copy of each school buildings capacity. Should additional information be needed, please contact me. Thank you. bb Attachment SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 24, 1991 High School Jacksonville High Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Robinson Sylvan Hills Junior High Schools Fuller Jacksonville North Jacksonville South Northwood Robinson Scott (Alternative School) Sylvan Hills Elementary Schools Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato College station Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson School Capacity 1233 948 963 948 569 1041 School Capacity 1015 681 723 938 511 125 944 School Capacity 400 420 328 768 564 676 340 488 676 748 850 624 444 604 636 658 656 588 280 608 760 444 570 SCHOOLS Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato College Station Dupree Fuller Elem Harris Jacksonville Elem Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Elem Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Taylor Tolleson PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT TO CAPACITY COMPARISON 1991-92 % % Enrollment BLK CAPACI1Y FILLED 352 39% 400 88% 408 14% 420 97% 268 25% 328 82% 737 47% 768 96% 611 2% 564 108% 663 21% 676 98% 310 34% 340 91% 431 24% 488 88% 529 58% 676 78% 605 34% 748 81% 844 27% 850 99% 522 44% 624 84% 331 16% 444 75% 515 13% 604 85% 629 18% 636 99% 658 15% 658 100% 631 27% 656 96% 443 23% 588 75% 205 34% 280 73% 443 26% 608 73% 755 17% 760 99% 423 26% 444 95% 566 24% 570 99% AVAILABLE SEATS 48 12 60 31 0 13 30 57 147 143 6 102 113 89 7 0 25 145 75 165 5 21 4   :\n,, :,,, ,),,, '{/,:,:,:,,,,):/?:\\ -- Fuller Jr. 863 48% 1,015 85% 152 Jacksonville North 626 27% 681 92% 55 Jacksonville South 600 30% 723 83% 123 Northwood 953 22% 938 102% 0 ' f .. 1991-92 % % AVAIIABLE SCHOOLS Enrollment BLK CAPACI'IY F1LLED SEATS Robinson Jr. 431 25% 511 84% 80 Sylvan Hills Jr. 953 21% 944 101% 0 Jacksonville High 1,051 27% 1,233 85% 182 Mills High 639 46% 948 67% 309 North Pulaski 828 21% 963 86% 135 Oak Grove High 926 23% 948 98% 22 Robinson High 412 25% 569 72% 157 Sylvan Hills High 901 22% 1,041 87% 140 PCSSD - 10/1/91 ENROLLMENT REPORT I SCHOOL \\\"1HI'f'E BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PAC.ISL. AM INn. ,.- -Ml SCHOOL oovs GIRTS 'AOVC: r.nn.c: BOYS r.TRLS OOYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLS TOTAL Adkins 108 101 71 65 4 2 1 352 Arnnl\u0026lt;'I Ori..ve 178 168 33 24 1 1 2 1 408 R\n,,1,-.,..,... 99 102 26 41 268 R\nait-lPC: 225 157 lQO  1 60 2 1 737 0 ~-,, Mot-n 322 277 7 3 I 1 611 rAt-n 270 249 78 64 1 l 6n1 rnl 1~~ C:t-a. 120 83 c\nc\n50 l l 310 n.-~ 165 154 '1.\n47 2 l 4 2 431 Fuller Elem. 122 99 170 138 529 Harris 206 189 108 97 l l l 2 605 J'vi l le E.lem. 1?8 ?7? l l ~ l l 7 1 'i fi 844 Landmark 160 131 115 116 522 Lawson 139 139 33 20 331 Oak Grove El. 233 212 33 36 l 515 Oakbrooke 270 244 56 58 l 629 Pine Forest 258 301 45 53 1 658 Pinewocxi 228 224 83 90 1 4 1 631 Robinson Elem. 164 175 60 40 2 2 443 I Scott 80 56 36 33 205 Sheiwocd 175 151 49 67 l 443 S. Hills Elem. 342 279 73 53 3 2 1 1 1 755 Taylor 160 146 58 54 2 1 2 423 Tolleson 213 205 71 66 3 4 4 566 'IUI'AL ELEM. 4565 4114 1619 1492 18 24 20 19 3 5 11. 879 I I I Fuller Jr. 231 209 221 190 l 4 6 l 863 I J'ville North 236 208 81 91 3 2 5 626 I I J'ville South 204 199 90 90 2 1 6 7 1 600 : J'v:ille Hiah 387 356 149 133 5 3 9 8 l 1051 ! Mills 173 171 148 143 l 2 l 639 North Pulaski 343 304 102 68 1 5 2 2 1 828 Northwood 392 337 113 101 4 1 2 3 953 Oak Grove Hiali 377 338 104 106 1 926 Rob. Jr. Hiqh 171 152 62 46 431 Rob. Sr. High 165 141 63 42 1 412 S.Hills Jr. 382 367 118 81 3 1 l 953 S.Hills Hinh 348 350 101 97 2 l l l 901 I 'TrfT'AT . 3409 3132 1352 1188 21 12 27 36 5 l 9 183 I 'IUI'AL DIST 7974 7246 2971 2680 39 36 47 55 8 6 21.062 BILLY J. BOWLES 10/4/91 Ann: ~~ ~ PCSSD Attached is Pulaski County Special School District's October 1, 1991 Enrollment Report. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PCSSD - 10/1/91 ENROLLMENT REPORT I OCHOOL \\mrr\u0026gt;E BLACK HISPANIC /\\SIAN/PAC ISL hM TNn /f.\".\u0026lt;::l(TM') SCHOOL a BOYS GIRLS RfW\u0026lt;:: r-nn_c\n: OOYS f!TRT.\u0026lt;:: OOYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLS TOTAL -\nj\n/,,._c/,(. Mkins 108 101 71 65 4 2 1 352 .J'1 Arnoln nriu.o 178 168 33 24 1 1 2 1 408 I-- R\u0026gt;llc.or 99 102 26 41 268 ~ R.lt-P~ ??S 1S7 lQO  160 2 1 737 .J/-7 l:t::.un11 .....,. .. ~ 322 277 7 3 1 l 611 -2 C'.i\\t-o 270 249 7 P, 64 l l 663 ~/ C'o 11 \"\"\"\"\" C+-,. 120 83 55 50 l l 310 m - 165 154 Sn 47 2 l 4 2 . 431 ~ Fuller Elem. 122 99 170 138 529 ...::'.5'6' Harris 206 189 108 97 l l l 2 605 ..3. .1. J'vi e E.lem. 1?R ?7? l l \u0026lt; l l 7 1 'i n P.44\nr1 Landmark 160 131 115 116 522 J/.\u0026gt;/ Lawson 139 139 33 20 331 //n Oak Grove El. 233 212 13 36 1 515 /3 Oakbrooke 270 244 56 58 l 629 IX Pine Forest 258 301 45 53 1 658 J.5 Pinewood 228 224 83 90 1 4 1 631 ..:.. r1 Robinson Elem. 164 175 60 40 2 2 443 ~.3 I Scott 80 56 36 33 205 .\n,\n..., Shen.uod 175 151 49 67 l 443 ~ p S. Hills Elem. 342 279 73 53 3 2 l 1 l 755 I'' Taylor 160 146 58 54 2 1 2 423 _.J.~ Tolleson 213 205 71 66 3 4 4 566 ~~ 'IUI'AL ELEM. 4565 4114 1619 1492 18 24 20 19 3 5 11.879 ~~ 7iJ ..Ji .~ I.~~~ .../-'0(~ ~\u0026lt;--Jr, .,...1,~J.-1.1 i. ~\nx, -3/.76'/ ,.:\n)C, )r, ..J I Fuller Jr. 231 209 221 190 1 4 6 l 863 -'/, J--- J'vi .e North 236 208 81 91 3 2 5 626 ~~ J,-- J'v:Jj 1.1.11 South 204 199 90 90 2 1 6 7 l 600 30 : J'vit: ~~ Hiqh 387 356 149 133 5 3 9 8 l 1051 A.'/ ! Mills 173 171 148 143 1 2 1 639 4(,, North Pulaski 343 304 102 68 l 5 2 2 1 828 ..::iJ. .,_,,N.,-orthwood 392 337 113 101 4 l 2 3 953 ~ Oak Grove Hiat 377 338 104 106 l 926 di.~ Rob. Jr. Hiqh 171 152 62 46 431 ~5 Rob. Sr. High 165 141 63 42 1 412 ~=\u0026gt;  S.Hills Jr. 382 367 118 81 3 l l 953 A./ S.Hi 111:: H\nnh .:!41:3 350 101 97 2 l l l 901 ~ I 'IOI'AL ,-.-.-.. --~- 3409 3132 1352 1188 21 12 ?7 36 5 l 9.183 ~g~ 7C/74 7..JJ/~ .2971 ~l\".SO -~9 ~ 7 .Ii'~ X t.:: ~/\"'-\nJ_, I 'TY'YTT'I.I nT~ 36 17 .55 9 1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas RACIAL COMPOSITION OF SCHOOLS Including Kindergarten October 1, 1991 School Enrollment Black 8 189 % 80.0 44.6 64.3 Non-Black % Alternative 10 (3 - 6) Amboy 424 Baring Cross 14 (K - 6) Belwood 151 Boone Park 528 Central 382 Crestwood 241 Glenview 233 Indian Hills 433 Lakewood 290 Lynch Drive 257 Meadow Park 254 North Heights 410 Park Hill 213 Pike View 410 Redwood 240 Rose City 245 Seventh Street 348 Total Elem. 5,083 Alternative 29 (7 - 11) Daring Cross 31 (7 - 12) Lakewood Md. 570 Ridgeroad Md. 551 Rose City Md. 389 NLRHS-East 1,336 NLRHS-West 1,267 Total Sec. 4,181 Dist. Total: 9,264 9 55 319 197 98 130 190 135 121 129 194 98 190 144 119 184 2,509 18 23 262 246 203 578 507 1,837 4,346 36.4 -60. 4 51. 6 40.7 55.8 43.9 46.6 47.1 50.8 47.3 46.0 46.3 60.0 48.6 52.9 49.4% 62.1 74.2 45.3 44.6 52.2 43.3 40.0 43.9% 46.9% 2 235 5 96 209 185 143 103 243 155 136 125 216 115 220 96 126 164 2,574 11 8 316 305 186 758 760 2,344 4,918 20.0 55.4 35.7 63. 6' 39.6 48.4 59.3 44.2 56.1 53.4 52.9 4 9. 2 52.7 54.0 53.7 40.0 51.4 47.1 50.6% 3 7 . 9 25.8 54.7 55.4 4 7. 8 56.7 60.0 56.1% 53 .1% School Alternative (3 - 6) Amboy Baring Cross (K - 6) Belwood Boone Park Central Crestwood Glenview Indian Hills Lakewood Lynch Drive Meadow Park North Heights Park Hill Pike View Redwood Rose City Seventh Street Total Elem. Alternative (7 - 11) Baring Cross (7 - 12) Lakewood Md. Ridgeroad Md. Rose City Md. NLRHS-East NLRHS-West Total Sec. Dist .. Total: 1991/92 Approved% Range for Black Enrollment Elem.: 37.4 - 62.3 Middle: 35.1 - 58.5 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas RACIAL COMPOSITION OF SCHOOLS Excluding Kindergarten October 1, 1991 Enrollment Black % Non-Black % 10 8 80.0 2 20.0 352 166 47.2 186 52.8 12 8 66.7 4 33.3 127 49 38.6 78 61.4 450 269 59.8 181 40.2 330 152 46.1 178 53.9 215 93 43.3 122 56.7 207 111 53.6 96 46.4 388 182 46.9 206 53.1 256 126 49.2 130 so.a 229 110 48.0 119 52.0 225 114 50.7 111 49.3 356 180 50.6 176 49.4 172 90 52.3 82 47.7 342 168 49.1 174 50.9 207 113 54.6 94 45.4 201 104 51.7 97 48.3 305 142 46.6 163 53.4 4,384 2,185 49.8% 2,199 50.2% 29 18 62.1 11 37.9 31 23 74.2 8 25.8 578 262 45.3 316 54.7 551 246 44.6 305 55.4 389 203 52.2 186 47.8 1,336 578 43.3 758 56.7 1,267 507 40.0 760 60.0 4,181 1,837 43.9% 2,344 56.1% 8,565 4,022 47.0% 4,543 53.0%\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\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_977","title":"Desegregation: ''North Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as Modified''","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":["1991-07-22"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School employees","School facilities","School improvement programs","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: ''North Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as Modified''"],"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/977"],"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":["7 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SC lN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS' WESTERN DIVISION L DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PLAINTIFF DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED JULY 22, 1991 SP-00699 TABLE OF CONTENTS HISTORY OF NLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN SECTION 1: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN SECTION 2: STAFF RECRUITMENT PLAN SECTION 2A: STAFF RECRUITMENT PLAN SECTION 3: SPECIAL EDUCATION PLAN SECTION 3A: SPECIAL EDUCATION SECTION 4: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION SECTION 5: COMPENSATORY PROGRAMS AIMED AT DROPOUT PREVENTION SECTION 6: EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES SECTION 7: DISCIPLINE, EXPULSIONS AND SUSPENSIONS DISCIPLINE 902 910 919 924 926 938 939 960 963 966 SECTION 8: GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION 968 SECTION 9: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND INADEQUATE FACILITIES 973 SP-00700 HISTORY OF NLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN The desegregation plan approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its decision in Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist. No. 1, et al, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) on December 12, 1990 (hereinafter \"NLR Plan\") is actually to be found in several documents beginning with its original submission in March, 1986 and culminating with the stipulation regarding compensatory education filed on October 25, 1989. The purpose of this document is to consolidate all the elements of the Plan into a single document for ease of reference. The NLR Plan was initiated by the filing on March 17, 1986 of the \"Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School District\" ( hereinafter \"March Plan\") . See Joint Designated Record Vol. 1 at 67-69\nVol. 2 at 81-364\nand Vol.3 at 365-535 (hereinafter'' __ JDR __ \"). The purpose of this initial submission was to address the interdistrict violations addressed by the Court of Appeals in LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404, 435 (8th Cir. 1985). The district court, however, required the NLRSD to provide a plan to address its intradistrict violations as well, and in response the NLRSD filed on October 14, 1986, its \"Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School District\" (hereinafter \"October Supplement\"). 3 JDR 536- 634. 902 IILRSD SP-00701 In its Order of February 27, 1987, the district court approved the NLR Plan as described in these two documents. LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F. Supp. 363, 367-68 (E.D. Ark. 1987)\nsee also, LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d at 1387. Subsequently, some modifications to the NLR Plan were made either by petition to and approval by the district court or by operation of the settlement among the parties which has now been approved. LRSD v. PCSSD, Order (E.D. Ark., January 18, 1991). The first modification occurred as a result of the NLRSD's motion of July 21, 1987 to add an addendum to the NLR Plan to address the impact of Acts 624 and 762 of 1987 which was approved by the district court by its Order of July 27, 1987. Copies of the Addendum and the district court's order have been attached as Addendum lE to Section 1 of the NLR Plan which addresses student assignment. The next modification occurred as a result of the NLRSD's \"Petition to Modify NLRSD Student Assignment Plan and to Close Central Junior High School\" filed on July 20, 1988 ( 4 JDR 910) (hereinafter \"NLR Secondary Reorganization\") and approved by the district court by its Order of September 1, 1988. 5 JDR 1032. This modification provided for the reorganization of NLRSD secondary schools beginning in the 1990-91 school year and resulted in a single high school for the NLRSD with grades 9-10 at the former Northeast High School campus and grades 11-12 at the former Ole Main campus. Additionally, Central Junior High School was closed and the student assignment zones for the remaining three 903 RLRSD SP-00702 junior high schools for grades 7 and 8 redrawn to ensure comparable racial balance. These modifications were implemented at the beginning of the 1990-91 school year, i.e., August, 1990. The remaining modifications occurred as a result of the settlement among the parties. First, the parties agreed to the NLRSD's \"Petition to Modify NLRSD's Desegregation Plan\" (hereinafter \"NLR 2/89 Petition\") submitted to the Special Master in February, 1989 and incorporated into the parties' \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\". See 8 JDR 1737-46. The provisions of the Petition dealing with interim efforts to desegregate Lakewood Junior High School pending the secondary reorganization to be implemented in the 1990-91 school year (8 JDR 1737-39) were satisfied and are no longer applicable since the secondary reorganization has now been accomplished. The other provisions of the Petition have now been incorporated into the NLR Plan. The final modification of the NLR Plan occurred as a result of the \"Stipulated Compensatory Education Programs to be Implemented by the NLRSD with Settlement Monies\" (hereinafter \"NLR Comp. Ed. Stip.\") filed on October 25, 1989 (14 JDR 3584-91) which satisfied paragraph VIII D. of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989) (14 JDR 3483) (requiring a description of the compensatory education programs to be implemented by the NLRSD with funds to be received from the Settlement Agreement). This Stipulation also gave effect to and now supersedes that portion of the original NLR Plan which described additional compensatory education programs 904 RLRSD SP-00703 which could be implemented only with additional State funds. See 3 JDR 562-574. In organizing the original NLR Plan and these modifications into a single plan document, the March Plan has been used as the base document. Thus, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the October Supplement, which involve the same topics as Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the March Plan, have been relabeled Sections lA, 2A and 3A and placed immediately after Sections 1, 2 and 3 respectively of the March Plan language. Sections 4 through 9 of the October Supplement have then been added as Sections 4 through 9 of this consolidated plan document. The addenda which immediately followed the respective sections of the March Plan and October Supplement have been moved to a separate volume for attachments. Commentary - is included through the use of footnotes or parentheticals\nomissions are reflected by\"[***]\" with an explanatory footnote as appropriate\nand new language is identified by footnote or by underlining as appropriate (except for this History, all of which is new). These steps were taken to minimize the amount of editorial change and to retain as much of the original language as possible since that is the language approved by this Court and the Court of Appeals. SP-00704 905 IILRSD PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING THE REMEDIAL ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AS IT APPLIES TO THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 1ariginally submitted on March 17, 1986, supplemented on October 14, 1986 and approved by the Court in LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F. Supp. 363, 367-68 (E.D. Ark. 1987). 906 RLRSD SP-00705 - [***]2 INTRODUCTION I I 3 In its decision of April 13, 1984, this Court found the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) to have committed the following segregative acts: 1. The NLRSD constructed and renovated schools in a manner which sought to preserve the racial identification of North Little Rock neighborhoods. Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 584 F. Supp. 328, 343, Paragraph 39 (E.D. Ark. 1984) (LRSD I). 2. Blacks were underrepresented on the administrative staff and teaching faculties of the NLRSD schools. Paragraph 91. Id. at 348, 3. Whites were underrepresented in schools south of Interstate 40 and blacks were underrepresented in schools north of Interstate 40. Id., Paragraph 92. 4. The NLRSD has failed to have blacks coaching at the senior high school level. Id., at 348-49, Paragraph 93. 5. Blacks were significantly overrepresented in special education classes and no valid testing procedure could explain it. Id., at 349, Paragraph 94 and 99. Furthermore, the NLRSD classified white students as \"learning disabled\" while blacks 'The March Plan Introduction was rendered irrelevant by the requirement to file a plan to address the NLRSD's intradistrict as well as interdistrict violations and has therefore been deleted. See 2 JDR 83-84. ~ource: October Supplement, 3 JDR 541-43. 907 IILRSD SP-00706 were classified as \"mentally retarded.\" Id. at 350, Paragraph 103(l)(d) \u0026amp; (l)(g). 6. Blacks were underrepresented in the NLRSD's gifted and talented program. Id. at 349-50, Paragraph 100 \u0026amp; Paragraph 103(l)(a). 7. A disproportionate number of blacks drop out of school. Id. at 349, Paragraph 102. 8. Blacks were disproportionately expelled from school. Id., Paragraph 102. 9 . The NLRSD does not provide education programs for black students. 103(l)(c). adequate compensatory Id. at 350, Paragraph 10. A disproportionate number of black students were bussed in the NLRSD with \"less than satisfactory desegregation results.\" Id. at 351, Paragraph 103(5)(a). However, only four of these violations were found to have had a continuing interdistrict effect. Specifically, the NLRSD \"(a) failed to assign blacks to its central administration or to high school principalships and coaching positions\n( b) concentrated whites in schools north of Interstate 40 and blacks in schools out of it\n(c) assigned students to special education classifications on a discriminatory basis\nand (d) failed to apportion the burdens of transportation equally on black and white students.\" Id. at 353, Paragraph 10. The NLRSD's remedial plan, submitted as NLRX R-1, was directed toward remedying those segregative acts determined to have 908 RLRSD SP-00707 interdistrict segregative effects and did not address those violations which were intradistrict in their effect under the assumption that remedial efforts directed to intradistrict violations would be addressed in proceedings in Davis v. Board of Educ. of NLRSD, No. LR-68-C-151. The Court, however, directed that North Little Rock supplement its remedial plan in the present case to address the intradistrict violations that were not determined to have an interdistrict effect and that is the purpose of this document. 909 RLRSD SP-00708 SECTION 1: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN4 HISTORY OF STORM PLAN5 Elementary students within the District are assigned according to the Storm Plan in grades 1-6. The Storm Plan pairs a school in a predominately black area with one or more schools in a predominately white area. These schools are grouped so that each group's racial make-up represents the racial make-up of the District. This plan is based on two primary premises: first, that it accomplish total integration and, second, that it is the least discriminatory method possible in that no area of the District can be considered to be favored in any way. In order to be as fair as possible, students were initially - selected at random for transportation. The following procedure was used: all letters of the alphabet were placed in a container and an alphabet was drawn from the container. Beginning with that letter of the alphabet the student body in each school was divided into groups of appropriate size. When the end of the alphabet is reached, the process starts over and the District continues to regroup alphabetically. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS6 The North Little Rock School District desegregation plan, 4rhe Court found in LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F. Supp. 363, 367 (E.D. Ark. 1987) that the NLRSD had corrected any violations relating to student assignment. ~ource: March Plan, 2 JDR 85 ~ource: March Plan, 2 JDR 85 910 RLRSD SP-00709 - approved by the Court of Appeals, see Davis v. Board of Ed., 449 F.2d 500, 501 (8th Cir. 1971) and revised with the approval of the district court, see Davis v. Board of Ed., Order (E.D. Ark., May 12, 1978), incorporates the following features 7: 1. Since the total student population of the elementary schools in the North Little Rock School District is approximately 42 percent black and 58 percent non-black students, each elementary school in the district must have a student population which approximates as nearly as is feasible these percentages. 2. To assure that each school will have a student population which is composed of approximately 42 percent black students and 58 percent non-black students, schools are placed in groups so that students within each group can be assigned to schools in such numbers as is necessary to achieve the desired racial composition in each school. See Addendum lA. 3. Children entering the first grade after May 1, 1978, as well as all children entering the district from another school district after May 1, 1978, will enter the District pupil assignment plan according to the last name of the child shown on his official birth certificate (or his previous school record if he is entering from another ~tatistics in this section reflect the school population of the NLRSD in the 1985-86 school year since this part of the Plan was submitted in March, 1986. As of October 1, 1990, the elementary student population in the NLRSD was 49. 2% black and 50.8% non-black. 911 RLRSD SP-00710 school district) and will continue in the rotation cycle under that name. 4. Kindergarten students are assigned to their neighborhood schools and are not transported for purposes of racial balance. This was approved by the court in Davis v. Board of Ed., 362 F. Supp. 730 (E.D. Ark. 1973). S. Black students living in predominately white areas and white students living in predominately black areas are not bussed or transferred. The questions and answers concerning the District's student assignment plan (Addendum 18) are published in August of each year and mailed to all patrons of the North Little Rock School District. The decision of the Court of Appeals directs that the student - population in the District have a racial composition within 25% of the racial composition of the District as a whole. Mem. Op. at 62\n778 F.2d at 435. The NLRSD has 4,620 elementary students of whom 2,467 (57.9%) are non-black and 1,793 (42.1%) are black. Thus, in order to meet the~ 25% standard, each school must have a non-black population between 42.4% and 73.4%, i.e., 57.9% ~ 15.5%. All the elementary schools in the District are presently in compliance with this standard. 8 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS9 \u0026amp;rhese data and the use of the present tense related to data provided in March, 1986. 9source: March Plan, 2 JDR 87 and NLR Secondary Reorganization, 4 JDR 910. 912 IILRSD SP-00711 Junior high schools, grades seven and eight, 10 are also assigned by zones. [***) Each junior high school reflects the racial make-up of the District. These zones will be changed, if and when necessary, to maintain the racial balance within the District. [***)11 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS [ * * * ] 12 For twenty years, the NLRSD had two senior high schools - Northeast and Ole Main. Beginning in the 1990-91 school year, however, these schools were consolidated into a single school - North Little Rock High School - with two campuses. All students grades 9-10 are assigned to the East campus (formerly Northeast High School} and all students grades 11-12 are assigned to the West campus ( formerly Ole Main) . 13 STUDENT DISTRIBUTION NORTH AND SOUTH OF I-40 1As a result of the NLR Secondary Reorganization, 4 JDR 910, Central Junior High School was closed. The remaining three junior high schools were converted to grades 7-8 rather than 8-9 and their attendance zones were redrawn to ensure racial balance. The language of this subsection has been modified to reflect these changes. 11Addendum lC, 2 JDR 94, which was referenced in the deleted language has also been eliminated. 14.l'he section in the March Plan, 2 JDR 88, dealing with senior high school assignment has .been deleted since it has been superseded by the NLR Secondary Reorganization, 4 JDR 910. Addendum lD, 2 JDR 95, which was referenced in this language has also been deleted. 1~ource: NLR Secondary Reorganization, 4 JDR 910. 913 RLRSD SP-00712 [***]14 VOLUNTARY TRANSFERS BETWEEN NLRSD AND PCSSD 15 To a.uoid thi. poti.ntia.l that any NL.RSO :.i.conda.ry :.chool:. might thi. othi.r :.i.conda.ry achool:., and to a.:.:.i:.t thi. Fu.la.a.Id Cou.nty Spi.cia.l School Oi:.trict in thi. gff,-ctiui. impl,-mi.nta.tion of it:. propoai.d long tgrm d,-:.,-gr,-ga.tion plan, th,- North L.ittli. Rock School Oi:.trict will a.:.:.ist th,_ FCSSO in it:. i.ffort:. to rgcru.it black :.tu.d,-nt:. from Ridgi.roa.d, Roa'- City a.nd Ci.ntra.l Junior High School:. to a.tt,-nd Oa.k Groui. Junior High School on a. voluntary ba.:.i:. In addition, th,- NL.RSO will pgrmit black :.tud,-nt:. from Ol,- Ma.in High School to a.tt,-nd thi. :.i.nior high :.chool a.t Oak t\nrovi. prouidi.d no :.chool a.nd that :.a.id tra.n:.f,-r:. do not rg:.ult in a lo:.:. of rgv,-nui. to th,- NL.RSO North L.ittl,- Rock will a.l:.o a.cc,-pt thi. tra.n:.fgr of 1-ihit,- stud,-nt:. from Oak t\nrovi. Junior and Si.nior High School:. to Oli. Ma.in High School a.nd Ro:.,- City, Ridg,-roa.d and Ci.ntra.l Junior High School:. undi.r thi.:.,- :.a.mi. condition:. To aid in the desegregation of NLRSD and PCSSD schools, the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District will cooperate in each other's efforts to recruit 1~he language in the March Plan regarding student distribution north and south of I-40 has been deleted since it does not describe any plan, policy or procedure governing student assignments and any violation in this regard has been found to be corrected. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F. Supp. 363, 367 (E.D. Ark. 1987). 1~ource: NLR 2/89 Petition, 8 JDR 1739-40. 914 RLRSD SP-00713 black students from the NLRSD to attend PCSSD schools and white students in the PCSSD to attend NLRSD schools on a voluntary basis provided no transfer negatively affects the desegregation status of any NLRSD or PCSSD school. 16 COMMUNICATION OF ANTICIPATED SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS Further, the parties desire that any shifts in the racial composition of schools that might fall outside the Court-approved standard be identified and addressed before the beginning of a school year. To this end, the North Little Rock School District agrees it will prepare an estimate of the anticipated school enrollment of each of its schools on or before July 1 for the coming school year. If it is determined that any school is within two percentage points of the limit approved by the Court, the Court and other parties will be notified and appropriate action, if any, will be determined and taken prior to the commencement of the academic year. INTERDISTRICT TRANSFERS OF TEACHERS' CHILDREN. 17 In the 1987 Legislative Session, the Arkansas General Assembly passed two Acts which either directly affect or could affect the 16source: NLR 2/89 Petition, 8 JDR 1739 -40. The language limiting such transfers to Oak Grove Junior and Senior High Schools in the PCSSD and to secondary schools in the NLRSD has been modified to reflect the adoption of the Public School Choice Act, A.C.A.  6-18-206 (Supp. 1989), passed after the NLR 2/89 Petition was agreed to by the parties and submitted to the Court, which permits such interdistrict transfers to any school in another district provided only that one is moving from a greater racial proportion to a lower racial proportion. 17Source: Proposed Addendum submitted by NLRSD on July 21, 1987 and approved by the Court's Order of July 27, 1987 regarding Acts 624 and 762 of 1987. See Addendum lE. 915 RLRSD SP-00714 desegregation efforts of the North Little Rock School District. Act 762 of 1987, copy attached as part of Addendum lE, 18 directs that no school district may permit or accept transfers of students from other school districts if either school district is under a desegregation order and the transfer would negatively affect the racial balance of the district subject to the desegregation order. This policy is consistent with the established policy of the NLRSD and the District will continue to adhere strictly to these requirements. However, the Legislature also passed Act 624 of 1987, copy attached as part of Addendum lE, which states that \"the children or wards of anyone who is a public school teacher in one school district entitled and a resident of another school district ... shall be to attend school in either ... district ... \". This is seemingly inconsistent with the \"no transfer\" requirements of Act 762, and, as a result, the Attorney General was asked for an opinion regarding this apparent conflict. In Opinion No. 87-190, copy attached as part of Addendum lE, the Attorney General opined that a child living in one district who was enrolled, pursuant to Act 624, in another district was not a transfer subject to the provisions of Act 762 since the child was statutorily entitled to attend school in either district. In light of the Attorney General's opinion, the NLRSD has no discretion regarding the admission of the children or wards of non- 1~hile Addenda lC and 10 have been deleted, see notes 10 and 11 supra, this has been designated lE to avoid any possible confusion. 916 RLRSD SP-00715 resident teachers and this situation could result in an interdistrict segregative effect on the racial composition of the LRSD and NLRSD. Specifically, the NLRSD has 578 teachers of whom 141 live in the LRSD, the great majority of whom are white. 19 Thus, if a significant number of these teachers enrolled their children in the NLRSD, it would result in a negative impact on the racial composition of the LRSD student body. To date, the number of applications for such interdistrict enrollment of teachers' children has been minimal and the race of those applying has been so balanced as to have no adverse effect on either school district involved. However, to protect against the potential adverse interdistrict effect that such enrollment makes possible, the NLRSD will report to the Court annually regarding the - number and race of teacher's children who are being enrolled in the district where the teacher is employed rather than in the district in which they reside. Should a problem develop, the NLRSD will ask the Court for relief. Until that time, however, the NLRSD will adhere to the requirements of Acts 624 and 762 as interpreted by the Attorney General's Opinion No. 87-190. 1'These numbers were accurate as of July, 1987 when the - Addendum was submitted to the court for approval. 917 IILRSD SP-00716 SECTION lA: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT20 Section 1 of NLRX R-1 21 addressed issues relating to student assignment and established a plan for assigning students in the NLRSD which remediated any concentration of whites and blacks north and south of Interstate 40 and achieved a racial balance in each school well within the standard of plus or minus one fourth of the District-wide racial make-up. These student assignment provisions were not criticized at trial or in the proposed findings submitted by the parties and the NLRSD believes these provisions fully remediate the effects of any violation related to student assignment. 22 2Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 544. 21NLRX R-1 is the March Plan. 24I'he Court held in LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F. Supp. 363, 367 (E.D. Ark. 1987) that all deficiencies related to student assignment had been corrected. 918 RLRSD SP-00717 - SECTION 2: STAFF RECRUITMENT PLAN23 The Eighth Circuit directed the North Little Rock School District to develop a plan to comply with earlier decrees regarding increasing the representation of blacks as principals and administrators in the North Little Rock School District. To ensure that a greater number of black applicants are attracted to teaching positions which would improve the pool of qualified applicants for administrative positions, and in order to meet the standards set by applicable law, the North Little Rock School District proposes the following components of a comprehensive recruitment plan. INTERNAL ACTIVITIES 24 1. The District will develop a budget that anticipates activities related to all components of the plan and provides the necessary funding for these activities. 2. North Little Rock School District personnel will be notified of vacancies in administrative and principal positions and will be encouraged to apply. 3. Periodically, the North Little Rock School District will conduct an interest survey among its teachers and administrators with the purpose of identifying those individuals who would be interested in advancement to administrative or principal positions. COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CONTACTS25 23source: March Plan, 2 JDR 96 24source: March Plan, 2 JDR 96 25source: March Plan, 2 JDR 97 919 IILRSD SP-OO718 College and universities are perhaps the qualified applicants for teaching positions. District will contact these institutions for recruiting qualified black applicants. best source Therefore, the purpose of the of 1. The District will identify regional colleges and universities which have strong teacher education programs with significant black enrollment. 2. The District will identify regional universities having post graduate education programs with significant black enrollment for the purpose of soliciting black applicants for administrative positions. 3. The district will contact those institutions identified in paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as others, using a letter of introduction (Addendum 2A) and will provide them with a brochure containing brief information about the District, occupational opportunities and employee benefits\nan Equal Opportunity Employer statement\nand a kit containing other pertinent information. 4. District personnel will visit institutions expressing interest, those teacher training with special emphasis on established career days or special events sponsored by the institutions and with special attention given to institutions that have historically produced great numbers of black educators. S. District personnel will attend visitation seminars at interested institutions at times agreed upon by the 920 RLRSD SP-00719 6. institution and the District. Prearrangements and announcements would be made through the appropriate officials at the institutions. The District will develop appropriate materials for distribution to institutions and their interested students, including an introductory letter (Addendum 2B)\na description of employee benefits (Addendum 2C)\na District brochure (Addendum 20)\nan application\nspecific informational items on teaching, coaching, and administrative positions\nnotices on current job vacancies\na schedule of visitations and seminars\nand the brochure described in paragraph 3 above. COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES 26 Another excellent source for recruitment can be found in community programs and activities. To this end, the District will ensure that its participation in community programs and activities is consistent with its commitment as an equal opportunity employers. 1. Black community leaders will be invited to talk with the North Little Rock School District concerning the employment of black administrators. 2. The District will also contact community organizations, such V as the Urban League of Greater Little Rock, which provide employment referrals for black professionals. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS 27 2t:source: March Plan, 2 JDR 98. 2~ource: March Plan, 2 JDR 99. 921 BLRSD SP-00720 Placement services provided by professional associations for their members is an additional method of recruitment. 1. The District will identify those educational organizations which could serve as a source of black applicants for administrative positions. 2. The District will contact those organizations which provide employment information and will provide them with relevant materials regarding employment with the NLRSD. 3. Where appropriate, District personnel will attend regional or national conferences sponsored by professional associations for the purpose of recruiting administrative personnel. OTHER OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES 28 1. Recruitment activities will be administered by those fully aware of the District's non-discrimination and equal employment opportunity policies. 2. Recruitment programs may be held in hotel/motel conference rooms in cities considered a promising source of applicants - for example, Memphis, Tennessee\nJackson, Mississippi\nBaton Rouge, Louisiana. Such programs would be preceded by extensive local publicity. 3. It will be the policy of the North Little Rock School District to notify in writing all recruitment sources and to state in all recruiting materials, including newspaper advertisements, that it is an \"Equal Opportunity Employer\". 4. The District will produce a 10-minute slide show or videotape 28source: March Plan, 2 JDR 99. 922 SP-00721 IILRSD presentation describing the District and occupational opportunities in the District for use at recruitment sites. 5. When appropriate, the District will advertise teaching and administrative vacancies in newspapers and other media in communities that have colleges and universities targeted for recruitment efforts. SP-00722 923 RLRSD SECTION 2A: STAFF RECRUITMENT PLAN29 In Section 2 of NLRX R-1 30 the NLRSD enumerated the steps it will take to improve the recruitment and selection of black faculty and staff. Included in these are job posting and an employee interest inventory intended to improve promotional opportunities for black employees, with particular emphasis on placing blacks in administrative and principal positions. These efforts are all related to remediating violations 2 and 4 which related to the underrepresentation of blacks principal and coaching positions. in administrative, teaching, At trial, there was criticism of the failure to provide for numerical goals and timetables. In the NLRSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the District addressed this criticism by incorporating requirements that the District develop numerical goals and timetables. NLRSD F.O.F. \u0026amp; C.O.L. #20. A labor economist will be employed to conduct an analysis of the pool of qualified applicants in the relevant labor market for each job classification. 31 In addition, the vacancies in the District for the last five years, anticipated new positions and positions it is anticipated will be eliminated will be considered in determining the vacancies reasonably anticipated in the future. The 29source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 545-46. 3:rhe March Plan. 31This labor market analysis was completed in 1988 and submitted to the Special Master. See 5 JDR 1451-78. 924 RLRSD SP-00723 availability data and vacancy information will then be utilized in developing reasonable goals and timetables for each classification. The NLRSD proposes that these be submitted to the Court no later than March 1, 1987. NLRSD F.O.F. \u0026amp; C.O.L. No. 23. When fully implemented, the NLRSD believes these recruitment efforts and selection goals will fully remediate any violations related to the underrepresentation of blacks in administrative, teaching, principal or coaching positions. 925 RLRSD SP-00724 SECTION 3: SPECIAL EDUCATION PLAN32 INTRODUCTION The Court of Appeals has ordered the North Little Rock School District to adopt a \"racially neutral plan evaluating and placing students requiring special education.\" Mem. Op. at 61, 778 F.2d at 435. In addressing this directive, the NLRSD remains cognizant of several important factors. First, the District is obligated by State and federal law to provide every handicapped child with a free and appropriate education. While classifying black children as in need of special education when, in fact, they do not need it, could be discriminatory and, thus, a violation of the Constitution, the failure to provide special education to a black child who did need it would be a violation of Public Law 94-142 and Arkansas Act - 102 of 197 3. Recognizing the tension between these important public policies, the District considers that the emphasis of its special education plan must be on ensuring the accuracy of its evaluation programs and the elimination of any masking influence caused by cultural of socioeconomic biases. Second, the District recognizes that the Court of Appeals' primary concern is with the classification of black students as educably mentally retarded (EMR) and has, therefore, focused specifically on the evaluation, placement and instructional practices related to its mental retardation programs. Third, the District also notes that the evidence giving rise to the Court's findings arose from data collected in 1976 and 1980. Since 1980, however, significant 32source: March Plan, 2 JDR 117. 926 RLRSD SP-00725 - changes have been implemented in the State and federal regulations governing evaluation and placement in special education programs, many of which were specifically aimed at safeguarding against the misclassification of students as needing special education. See generally, Referral, Placement \u0026amp; Appeal Procedures: For Special Education and Related Services (Ark. Dept. of Educ. 1985) ([***]\nhereinafter referred to as \"Referral Procedures\".) and Program Standards and Eligibility Criteria for Special Education (Ark. Dept. of Educ. 1985). \"Program Standards\".) ( [ ***] 33\nhereinafter referred to as With these factors in mind, the North Little Rock School District proposes the following plan for implementing a race neutral special education program. STRICT ADHERENCE TO PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS REQUIRED BY STATE GUIDELINES 34 The Arkansas Department of Education, and the Regulatory Agency Responsible for the enforcement of the Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975, P.L. 94-142, 20 u.s.c.  1401 et seq., has issued detailed regulations governing the operation of special education programs in Arkansas public schools. These detailed guidelines were first issued in 1981 and were updated and reissued in 1985. See \"Referral Procedures\" (1981) and \"Program Standards\" 33since these are published documents available from the Arkansas Department of Education and are quite voluminous, they have been deleted as Addendum 3A and 3B and, references to Addendum 3A or 3B have been deleted. 3'1source: March Plan, 2 JDR 118 927 RLRSD SP-00726 - ( 1981) contained in NLRX 28. [ *** J 35 These guidelines incorporate provisions which specifically act as safeguards against improper evaluation and placement. DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS36 In \"Referral Procedures\" ( 1981 \u0026amp; 1985), the Department of Education adopted detailed requirements for due process designed to safeguard against the misevaluation of a child and to ensure that the best educational interests of the child were of paramount importance. The North Little Rock School District complied with these requirements by implementing due process procedures consistent with the State regulations. A copy of the NLRSD's due process procedures are attached hereto as Addendum 3C. For a complete understanding of all the details of these procedures, one is referred to the procedures themselves. A summary of some of the more important features follows: 1. Parents must be notified of every step in the referral, evaluation and placement process and given the opportunity to attend and participate in all meetings and conferences. 2. Parents must give their consent before any formal evaluation or testing of the child may be done. 3. The parent has the right to be represented by the person of their choice at all proceedings. While not required by State or federal regulations, the NLRSD provides the parents of children being evaluated with a list of independent agencies who provide assistance to parents in this process. See 35Reference to Addendum 3A and 3B deleted. 3~ource: March Plan, 2 JDR 119 928 lfLRSD SP-00727 Addendum 3D. 4. No child can be placed in a special education program without either parental consent or court order. 5. The parent may request an independent professional evaluation from a list of twenty-four approved agencies. See Addendum 3E. While the NLRSD is required to pay for such an evaluation only in the event the District's evaluation is found to be incorrect, the NLRSD has nonetheless paid for every independent evaluation requested in the past even though its evaluations have never been found to be incorrect. The NLRSD will continue this practice to the extent its budget permits. 6. Finally, the parent has the right to appeal any evaluation or placement decision to a hearing officer, who conducts a formal evidentiary hearing, and ultimately to a court of competent jurisdiction. See \"Referral Procedures\" at 24-33 (1985). 7. In any appeal, the burden of proof as to any placement is upon the school district. See \"Referral Procedures\" at l.B, p. 24 (1985). 8. The NLRSD advises parents of these rights in writing at the beginning of the referral and evaluation process. ---SAFEGUARDS AGAINST IMPROPER USE OF TEST INSTRUMENTS37 In addition to the procedural safeguards discussed above which are designed to ensure an open process involving fully informed parents having access to independent review of any decision, the State regulations first adopted in 1981 also require the incorporation of specific safeguards in the assessment process. 3~ource: March Plan, 2 JDR 120. 929 RLRSD SP-00728 The most important of these safeguards are as follows: 1. Tests and other evaluation materials: a. Have been validated for the specific purpose for which they are used\nand b. Are administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer. c. Include materials tailored to assess specific areas of educational need 9nd not merely those which are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient. 2. No single procedure is used as the sole criterion for determining an appropriate educational program for a child. 3. The evaluation is made by a multidisciplinary team or group of persons, including at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge in the area of suspected disability. 4. The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, where appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities. 5. Intellectual ability must be measured by an individual intelligence test appropriate to the student and such testing may only be done by a certificated educational examiner, licensed psychologist or licensed psychological examiner. See \"Referral Procedures\" at 3-4 (1985). STATE REGULATIONS SPECIFY WHICH TESTS MAY BE USED IN MENTAL RETARDATION ASSESSMENT38 38source: March Plan, 2 JDR 122. 930 RLRSD SP-00729 In furtherance of the requirement that tests must have been validated for the purpose for which they are used, the Arkansas Department of Education, in its \"Program Standards\" specifies by name, which tests may be validly used for what purpose. This is done for each handicap category. The provisions relating to mental retardation assessment are found at pages 13-1 through 13-7 of the \"Program Standards\" (1985). The North Little Rock School District is in compliance with these regulations. It uses no test not specifically approved in these regulations in making final evaluation and placement decisions and will continue to adhere to this practice. ADOPTION OF ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO AVOID OVERREPRESENTATION OF MINORITY STUDENTS IN EMR PROGRAMS39 In addition to maintaining its compliance with all State and federal regulations governing special education, particularly those provisions designed as safeguards against the misclassification of individuals as being mentally retarded, the North Little Rock School District will engage in an on-going effort to identify and study new assessment and evaluation techniques which are designed to address the problem of overrepresentation of minority children in EMR programs. [ * * * ] 40 39source: March Plan, 2 JDR 122 4References to SOMPA found in the March Plan, 2 JDR 123, have been eliminated pursuant to the NLR 2/89 Petition, 8 JDR 1740-41. 931 RLRSD SP-00730 CANTALICIAN STUDY41 In 1984, the Cantalician Foundation, published a booklet entitled \"Technical Assistance on Alternative Practices Related to the Problem of the Overrepresentation of Black and Other Minority Students in Classes for the Educ ably Mentally Retarded\" (Cantalician Foundation, Inc.: 1984). (Addendum 3F\nhereinafter referred to as \"Cantalician Study at __ \"). This publication was commissioned by the Office of Civil Rights, United States Department of Education in an effort to provide technical assistance to state and local educational agencies in the reduction of the overrepresentation of minority students in EMR programs. As a result of its study, the Cantalician Foundation identified six alternative instructional practices, two alternative referral practices and two alternative assessment practices which appeared to be effective in reducing minority placement in EMR classes. The alternative instructional practices were endorsed by the Foundation because, if implemented successfully, they would enable some students at risk of EMR placement to improve their performance to the extent that referral for special services would not be necessary. The six practices identified were: 1. Direct Instruction with DISTAR (Cantalician Study at 10) 2. Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (Id. at 13) 3. Precision Teaching (Id. at 20) 4~ource: March Plan, 2 JDR 123. 932 RLRSD SP-00731 4. Peer Tutoring (Id. at 20) 5. Adaptive Learning Environment Model (Id. at 23) 6. Computer Assisted Instruction (Id. at 26) 42 At page 7-8 of its March, 1986 Plan, the NLRSD committed to implement the six alternative instructional practices recommended by the Cantalician Foundation in its report in 1984. Three of these practices have been implemented -- DISTAR, Peer Tutoring and Computer Assisted Instruction. The contents of the Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI) and Adaptive Learning Environment Model (ALEM) have been implemented through other programs although not necessarily in the form specifically described by the Cantalician Foundation in its report. The parties recognize that the purpose of the Cantalician Report was to provide - school districts with exemplary programs which could be adapted to each district's curriculum and needs. It was never suggested that the programs could be effective only if implemented exactly as described in the Report. Thus, because the North Little Rock School District has adopted various programs such as PACIR, TESA and Classroom Management as well as DISTAR and Computer Assisted Instruction which implement the educational content and elements of ECRI and ALEM, the District has acted consistent with the intent of the Cantalician Report. Therefore, the parties agree that the North Little Rock School District should not be required to 42A detailed description of these practices is contained in the Cantalician Study attached hereto as Addendum 3F and will not be repeated here. [This footnote is in the original Plan. See October Supplement, 2 JDR 124.) 933 RLRSD SP-00732 implement the Adaptive Learning Environment Model and the Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction alternative practices except as is already being done through other programs. (See Exhibit A Attached Addendum 3J). The sixth proposed alternative instructional practice was Precision Teaching. This has been very effective in teaching the profoundly handicapped but even the Cantalician Foundation warned that there was as yet no evidence of its efficacy in teaching nonhandicapped students. The North Little rock School District has made several attempts to obtain information regarding the effectiveness of this method in teaching non-handicapped students but has been unable to obtain such information. The District will continue to seek this information but the parties agree that the North Little Rock School District should not be required to implement the Precision Teaching Model as an alternative instructional practice until such supporting data is forthcoming. The District will assess the use of Precision Teaching when data is supplied supporting its efficacy for non-handicapped students. 43 CANTALICAN STUDY -- ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT PRACTICES 44 The Cantalician Foundation also recommended four alternative referral and assessment practices: 1. Pupil Appraisal Assessment Program (Id. at 30) 4~ource: NLR Petition, 8 JDR 1741-43. 44source: March Plan, 2 JDR 124-25. 934 RLRSD 2. Rapid Exam for Early Referral and Classroom Learning Screening (Id. at 35) 3. Reclassification and Declassification (Id. at 40) 4. Interactive Model for Professional Acticn and Change for Teachers (Id. at 46) The alternative referral and assessment practices listed above will be closely studied by the NLRSD. If there are critical attributes within the above referenced practices that are not currently in use in the North Little Rock School District and the addition of these attributes will lower referral and placement rates in the District without compromising educational quality, these attributes will be added or used to replace current practices. OTHER ALTERNATIVE PRACTICES45 In addition to the alternative instructional practices endorsed by the Cantalician Foundation, the NLRSD has also implemented a Chapter I Project for Elementary schools designed to identify children in grades K - 2 who lack the basic learning skills necessary for successful performance in the regular classroom. Teacher aides are assigned to the regular classroom specifically for the purpose of working with the students in this program and provide these students with intensive, individualized instruction designed to develop the learning skills needed. When successful this program avoids the need to place a student in a special education program and permits advancement through the 4~ource: March Plan, 2 JDR 125. 935 RLRSD normal curriculum. A more detailed description of this program is contained in Addendum 3G, entitled \"North Little Rock Public Schools: A Chapter I Project for Elementary schools\". INCREASED REVIEW BY INDEPENDENT PARTIES 46 State regulations provide that the Department of Education will conduct a review of each school district's special education program at least once every three years to determine compliance with all State and federal regulations. The North Little Rock School District's last compliance review was completed on April 18, 1984 and the District was found to be in compliance. See NLRX 30 \"Monitoring Checklist and Compliance Letter'' attached as Addendum 3H. All suggested improvements were implemented by January 31, 1985. See Letter to Ark. Dept of Education dated 1/31/85 attached as Addendum 3 I . In addition to this regularly scheduled compliance review, the District will invite the following organizations to conduct inservice training and/or periodic review of the district's policies, practices and procedures related to special education. 1. Child Advocacy Services, Inc. 2. Bureau of the Educationally Handicapped 3. Parents' Coalition for the Handicapped 4. Federal Office of Special Education 5. Arkansas Department of Education 6. Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education 46source: March Plan, 2 JDR 126. 936 RLRSD 5p-00735 As a further effort to open the District's assessment process to outside review and constructive criticism, child advocates will be invited to attend conferences where children's needs are being discussed, subject to parental approval where necessary. The Superintendent of the North Little Rock School District will also appoint a committee whose members will include, but will not be limited to, parents, patrons, students, teachers, licensed examiners, counselors, principals, speech therapists and special education administrators which committee will be charged with reviewing student records and special education procedures and whose members will be asked to attend student conferences. Additionally, this committee will be asked to monitor all phases of the District's special education program and its compliance with State and federal regulations at least every 18 months. 937 RLRSD SP-00736 SECTION 4: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION49 The North Little Rock School District believes that each student can learn and encourages each student to achieve according to his or her best abilities. Careful appraisal, frequent evaluation, and flexible grouping ensure that each student will receive instruction according to identified strengths and needs. The curriculum in the elementary schools places primary emphasis on the basics of reading, spelling, language, mathematics, writing, social studies, science and health. Students also participate in music, art, and physical education activities. Mastery of skills in each subject is stressed, and career awareness is a component in many of the basic subjects. The junior high program provides a period of transition from the elementary school to senior high school. The transition covers all areas of school life: academic, co-curricular, and social. At the junior high level, continued emphasis is placed on the individual and on basic skills instruction, while a wider scope of instructional programs and co-curricular activities is introduced. In addition to basic disciplines, junior high students may select electives in modern foreign languages, industrial arts, home economics, exploratory business, art, communications, choral music, and band. Introduction to competitive athletics, student government, spirit clubs, and special interest organizations encourage self-development and preparation for high school. The senior high schools provide a comprehensive course of 49source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 548. 939 RLRSD SP-00738 study based on the District's commitment to providing a classical college preparatory curriculum and career preparation programs. A strong basic academic program and a wide-range of electives in fine arts, foreign languages, forensics, business, and vocationaltechnical skills offer a multitude of options to high school students. The District recognizes, however, that the regular curriculum is often insufficient in aiding disadvantaged students, particularly disadvantaged minority students suffering the effects of centuries of societal discrimination, to achieve mastery of basic skills. Therefore, within the framework of a comprehensive curriculum which meets and exceeds state standards and which is structured to meet the varying individual needs of all students, the North Little Rock School District must address identified remedial needs of disadvantaged minority students. The following compensatory programs and compensatory components of programs will be provided to help students overcome the segregative effects of a nonunitary school system. Like the Little Rock School District, however, the North Little Rock School District lacks sufficient resources to implement all the compensatory programs it would like to have available and still provide a regular program of instruction which is educationally adequate. The District is aware that Little Rock contends that the State is obligated, pursuant to the Court of Appeals decision in this case, to provide additional funds to all three school districts for additional compensatory education. The NLRSD does 940 RLRSD SP-00739 not necessarily share this interpretation but should Little Rock's position be the correct one, there are compensatory programs beyond the District's present means which should be implemented if the State is obligated to provide the additional funding. Because of this ambiguity in the availability of resources, the NLRSD has provided two lists of compensatory programs. The first lists those programs which the District has implemented or will implement from its present funding base and without additional funding from the State. The second lists those compensatory programs the District would like to implement but cannot without additional State aid. [***)~ PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL STATE ASSISTANCE EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM Kindergarten programs will be implemented at each elementary school with a District goal of 100 percent attendance by all eligible students. Two diagnostic tests, the Boehm-R Test of Basic Concepts and the [***) Early Prevention of School Failure Test 51 , will be administered to all kindergarten children at the first of each school year. The Boehm test assesses student understanding of fifty basic concepts which are fundamental to understanding verbal 5Addendum 4A and, thus, references to Addendum 4A have been eliminated since Add. 4A has been deleted and superseded by the NLR Comp. Ed. Stip. regarding compensatory programs to be implemented with the settlement funds from the State. See 14 JDR 3584-91. 51The Early Prevention of School Failure Test has replaced the Dallas Preschool Screening Test included in the October Supplement (3 JDR 550-51) pursuant to the NLR 2/89 Petition, 8 JDR 1743. 941 IILRSD SP-00740 instruction and are essential for early school achievement. [***] 52 Teachers will use the data from these two tests to design a prescriptive learning program for each child. They will assume the responsibility for implementing the instructional learning programs. Intensified Instruction. At levels kindergarten through second grade, teacher aides will be assigned to assist teachers in providing learning experiences for selected students who exhibit deficiencies in reading, language, and basic concepts. Third grade students in selected schools will also receive special instruction from paraprofessionals. The paraprofessional will provide supplemental compensatory instruction for selected students. Instruction will occur in small groups and on a one-to-one basis. The instructional lessons provided by the paraprofessional will be correlated with the instructional lessons provided by the teachers. BASIC SKILLS INSTRUCTION53 The curriculum in grades K-7 places primary emphasis on the mastery of the basic skills in reading, language arts, and mathematics. Careful appraisal, frequent evaluation, and flexible grouping ensure that each student will receive instruction according to identified strengths and needs. s2I d. 5~ource: October Supplement, 3 JDR 552. 942 RLRSD SP-00741 In grades 8-12, continued emphasis will be placed on the individual student and on basic skills instruction within the framework of a comprehensive secondary curriculum. 1. PACIR. A curriculum renewal project for Mathematics and Language Arts called Practical Approach to Curriculum and Instructional Renewal (PACIR) will be developed to insure that classroom learning meets the expectations of parents and students. In this program, objectives will be developed\nstudents' progress will be measured\nstudents' needs will be identified\nany programs, practices, and resources will be adjusted. Through this emphasis on the mastery of the basic skills, the North Little Rock School District will continue to focus on the remediation of identified deficiencies in reading, language arts, and mathematics. 2. Early Childhood Program. First and second grade students, as well as third grade students in selected schools, who have identified reading deficiencies will receive supplemental reading instruction as described in the Early Childhood section. This instruction will be in addition to the regular reading instruction and will be planned and directed by the classroom teacher. The program will include one-to-one tutoring by a trained paraprofessional. 3. Additional Reading Instruction. Generally, District elementary students will be involved 943 RLRSD sp-00742 in only one small group classroom instructional reading lesson per day. Selected elementary students will be involved in an additional reading instructional lesson per day. Students who are reading below grade level and who are experiencing difficulty in reading will be prime candidates for this additional instruction. 4. Academic Skills Development Plans. State Minimum Performance Tests will be administered to students at the third, sixth, and eighth grade levels. Teachers will work in cooperation with principals, parents, and counselors to develop and implement Academic Skills Development Plans for all students who do not pass the Minimum Performance Tests. Each individual student plan will include a list of the basic skills which were not mastered by the student and strategies for remediation of these deficiencies. Teachers will be required to indicate the date when mastery of each skill has been reached. 5. Remedial Reading at the Junior High School Level. Remedial reading classes will be provided at each junior high school for students with deficiencies in reading. The classes will be staffed by reading specialists. Special emphasis will be placed on the following skills: comprehension, word recognition, communication, study skills and survival reading skills. PUPIL SERVICES 54 54source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 554. 944 RLRSD SP-00743 In addition to the opportunities for academic achievement provided by the core curriculum, the District will provide specialized programs and services to diagnose and meet the particular educational needs of all students and to foster their individual physical, social, intellectual, and emotional growth. The special needs of identified disadvantaged and minority students will be met in a variety of ways. 1. Guidance Services. A guidance program will be provided in each school to aid students in educational, personal, social, and vocational development. All students will have access to a guidance counselor. The ratio for secondary schools will be one counselor for every 450 students. For elementary schools, the ratio will be one counselor for every 600 students. Particular attention will be paid in this program to the needs of minority and disadvantaged students. 2. Diagnosis and Prescription. A comprehensive assessment program will permit the District to identify students who are having academic problems and to provide opportunities for them to experience success. The assessment program will include standardized tests in grades 2-10\nMinimum Performance Tests in grades 3, 6, and 8\naptitude tests\nsubject area mastery tests\ndiagnostic tests, such as the Boehm Test\nteacher-made tests\npsychological tests\nand heal th screening. Test data will be used in planning appropriate compensatory programs and services for 945 RLRSD SP-00744 students. Again, particular emphasis will be placed on the needs of minority and disadvantaged students. 3. Social Work. A half-time social worker will provide services for students who have serious problems with school adjustment. The social worker will serve as a link between school, home, and community and will assist students in overcoming academic, social, and behavior problems. 4. Homebound Services. Students with medical conditions which require them to be absent from school for four or more consecutive weeks will be provided instruction by a certified teacher. LEARNING RESOURCES55 1. Library/Media Program. The library/media program is a key component of the instructional program. The District Instructional Materials Center and the individual school media centers are extensions of classroom instruction as books, films, videotapes, and other instructional materials are utilized to expand and enrich the curriculum. The media specialist, recognizing students' unique learning abilities, performance levels, learning styles, and interest, prescribes appropriate curricular and special interest learning materials. This service is extremely beneficial to educationally disadvantaged students as their specific learning needs are matched to 5~ource: October Supplement, 3 JDR 556 946 RLRSD SP-00745 appropriate learning materials. 2. Computer Assisted Instruction. For those students whose instructional needs require reteaching and additional drill and practice to achieve mastery in reading, language, and mathematics, computer assisted instruction will be provided. Computer activities will be integrated into the instructional program so that classroom instruction will be reinforced by concentrated ontask learning on the computer. All schools will use computers and computer assisted instruction and computer managed instruction software. 3. Basic Skills Computer Laboratories. Basic Skills Computer Laboratories have been established at Argenta Elementary School, Central Junior High School, and Rose City Junior High School. The basic skills computer laboratories provide supplementary computer assisted and computer managed instruction in reading, language, and mathematics for all students on a regularly scheduled basis. Utilizing IMPAC software and course materials, the supplemental instruction is geared to the individual student's needs. The educationally disadvantaged student will benefit greatly from this individualized program. SUMMER LEARNING EXPERIENCES56 To extend students' opportunities for the mastery of the basic skills and for enrichment, a program of summer learning experiences 5'Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 558. 947 IILRSD SP-00746 will be established. 1. Summer School for Secondary Students. A summer school program will be offered on a tuition basis for students in grades 9-12. Students may elect to take remedial or enrichment courses. 2. Pilot Project for Eighth Grade Students. During the summer of 1987, a pilot summer program funded by JTPA (Job Training Partnership Act) will be conducted to remediate the learning deficiencies of eighth grade students who did not pass the Minimum Performance Test. The procedure will be to assess learning deficiencies, plan for and provide individualized instruction, and utilize the best learning approaches available in a concentrated time frame. Transportation will be provided for the students. If the pilot project is successful and if JTPA continues to fund the project, the eighth grade summer school will be implemented each summer. PARENTAL/COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT57 Parents will be encouraged to become informed about the District's educational program and involved in their children's instructional program. Opportunities for involvement will include: PTA\nChapter 1 Parent Advisory Committee\nDistrict committees such as Curriculum, Textbook, Discipline, Gifted, Special Education, and Six-Year Planning\nand local school committees such as Six-Year Planning, 5~ource: October Supplement, 3 JDR 558. 948 RLRSD SP-O0747 - PTA, and NCA Self-Study. Steps will be taken to assure that there is biracial participation in this committee work. A part-time coordinator will work with Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) which serves as a vehicle to involve parents directly in the instructional process. Parents will serve as resource persons, do one-to-one tutoring for students not achieving mastery of the basic skills, and perform other volunteer tasks. Parents will be kept well-informed of their children's progress in school. Conferences will be scheduled at least twice each year for parents of elementary students and at least once each year for parents of secondary students. This parental involvement, while important for all students, is extremely critical to the success of many disadvantaged and minority students, and special - attention will be paid to these students. Report cards will be issued at the end of each nine week grading period. Written interim progress reports will be sent home to parents if a student is making unsatisfactory progress. Parents will be asked to confer with teachers throughout the year concerning the student's progress. For minority students who are participating in other compensatory education programs extra steps will be taken to involve parents or guardians in the student's educational experiences. Through the Classmates Program, the business community will become more informed about and more involved in the educational process. Efforts will be made to extend Classmates, which provides the opportunity for a business and a school to become community 949 RLRSD SP-00748 partners, to all North Little Rock schools. STAFF DEVELOPMENT58 The North Little Rock School District Staff Development Program is designed to assist each staff member in performing at his/her optimum level in every area of the total teaching act. The District programs which will impact greatly on compensatory education are the Program for Effective Teaching (PET) and Classroom Management Training. 1. Program for Effective Training. The Program for Effective Training (PET) teaches the teacher the key elements which must be present in any instructional lesson if student mastery is to occur. A training cycle consists of: seven full days of instruction for the teacher\nfive practice lessons taught by the teacher while being observed by a trained observer\nand follow-up conferences by the observed and teacher. Since all present staff members have completed PET training, new teachers will receive the training each spring. Students with learning deficiencies will profit as the instructional proficiency of teachers is increased. 2. Classroom Management Training. In the training sessions, Classroom Management is approached as a matter of preparation, organization, and instruction. The program stresses that effective classroom managers are successful, not so much because they are more 5~ource: October Supplement, 3 JDR 560. 950 RLRSD SP-00749 effective in responding to problems of inattention or disruption, but because they are more effective in preventing such problems. Each training cycle consists of two days of training for each teacher and three classroom observations. Following each observation, the trained observer confers with the teacher to commend areas of strength and to provide assistance in overcoming deficiencies in classroom management. All elementary teachers have completed this training. New elementary teachers and all secondary teachers will receive Classroom Management Training. Since many students who are encountering learning problems are often inattentive or disruptive, this program impacts positively on these students as teachers learn to manage classrooms more efficiently and effectively. 951 RLRSD SP-00750 STIPULATED COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WITH SETTLEMENT MONIES59 The programs listed below will be implemented with settlement monies pursuant to paragraph VIII. D, at page 39, of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989, as amended. The District cannot presently implement these programs without funds from the Settlement Agreement due to the financial condition of the District. In its October, 1986 Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as it Applies to the North Little Rock School District, approved by the Court in its Order of February 27, 1987 (LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 659 F. Supp. 363, 367-68 (E.D. Ark. 1987), the NLRSD described in Section 4: Compensatory Education, certain educational programs needed to address achievement disparity of black students which could be implemented only with additional funding from the State. With the settlement monies from the State, the NLRSD will now be able to implement those programs as described below. SETTLEMENT PLAN FOR COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Programs to be Implemented with Settlement Monies I. Learning Resources 59source: NLR Comp. Ed. Stip., 14 JDR 3584-91. These stipulated programs were approved by the Court of Appeals in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1387-88 (8th Cir. 1990). This stipulation gave effect to and now replaces that portion of Section 4 of the October Supplement describing programs which could only be implemented with additional state funds. Therefore, 3 JDR 562-574 has been deleted and replaced by this stipulation. 952 RLRSD SP-00751 Goal: Provide technology based remedial basic skills instruction to reduce the achievement disparity between black and non-black students. A. Basic Skills Computer Laboratories The first priority of this Settlement Plan is to establish a twenty-eight station Basic Skills Computer Laboratory in each elementary school to assist students in mastering the basic reading, language and mathematics skills. Settlement funds, federal funds and other available funds will be utilized to fund the computer laboratories. The first priority will be to increase the size of existing computer laboratories at Redwood, Boone Park, Amboy, Glenview and Rose City elementaries to twenty-eight station labs. Computer laboratories would then be added to all other elementary schools in priority based upon the largest number of economically deprived students as determined by the eligible participants in the free/reduced lunch program. The expansion of labs at these five schools will occur the first year of the Plan and additional schools will be equipped with a computer laboratory starting the second year of the Settlement Plan and completing that installation process by the end of the fourth year of the Settlement Plan. B. Diagnostic and Prescription Diagnostic and prescriptive services will be 953 HLRSD SP-00752 available to each grade 1-8 student and teacher in reading, language and mathematics through locally developed PACIR objectives with prescriptive test and the use of the Curriculum Management software that IBM has under development or some comparable alternative. 60 The North Little Rock School District has requested that IBM Corporation allow North Little Rock School District to participate in the pilot of this software this year. Through the use of PACIR objectives and diagnostic tests using the Curriculum Management software, individual education plans (IEP) will be made available for students. These services will be available during the fourth year of the Plan provided IBM Corporation has developed and releases the Curriculum Management software in early 1990. 61 II. Pupil Services (and Program Monitoring) Goal: To assess student achievement and monitor the reduction of achievement disparity between black and non-black students. A. Diagnosis and Prescrietion Standardized achievement testing will be extended to grade 1 and grade 11 in order to provide more sequential 6~BM has withdrawn the Curriculum Management software and the status of its development and likelihood of release is unknown. The NLRSD is presently seeking a suitable alternative. 954 RLRSD SP-00753 and comprehensive data for curriculum assessment and individual student mastery. Achievement data by race will be developed for each school by grade. These data will be analyzed each year to determine program efficacy and in developing achievement components of each school's annual School Improvement Plan. Beginning in year one of the Settlement Plan, the District will provide up to $5,000.00 to assist disadvantaged youth in paying for college entrance testing such as the SAT and ACT. III. Staff Development Goal: Provide teachers with additional skills and awareness which will more greatly involve minority students into the mainstream of classroom activities and reduce teacher preconceptions which might hinder learning by black students. A. Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA) Extensive research shows that teacher interaction with students perceived as low achievers is less motivating and less supportive than interaction with students perceived as high achievers. Research also shows that high achievers receive more response opportunities and are given more time to respond to questions. This has particular application to educating minority and disadvantaged students. The Teacher Expectation and Student Achievement Program (TESA) deals with these important research data. 955 NLRSD SP-00754 It addresses the effects of teacher expectations on student achievement. In the program, teachers learn to increase specific motivating and supportive interactions with low achievers. Fifteen interactions are presented in the program. The training program consists of five workshop sessions and five classroom observations per teacher. The TESA program will begin implementation the first year of the Plan, and all teachers will have received TESA training by the end of the sixth year of the Plan. IV. Early Childhood Goal: To better prepare disadvantaged and minority four and five year old students for school success. A. Pre-Kindergarten Program To better prepare disadvantaged and minority students for school success, a HIPPY program will be established in lower socio-economic elementary attendance zones such as Redwood, Pine, Boone Park, Argenta, Glenview and Seventh Street. This program will focus on academic and social skills necessary for school success. Parent involvement in the learning process of the students is a component of the program. One attendance zone will be added each year beginning in 1989-90 school year and continuing until all identified schools' programs are made operational. Funds outside the settlement funds will be utilized until after 956 RLRSD SP-00755 V. year four of the Settlement Plan. Summer Learning Experiences Goal: Provide tuition grants and transportation to low socio-economic students to attend summer school. A. Summer School for Secondary Students To meet the summer school needs of educationally disadvantaged students, tuition scholarships and transportation will be provided to those students who would be unable to attend without assistance. Regulations governing the free and reduced lunch participants will be the guide in awarding scholarship tuition and transportation for secondary summer school. Tuition scholarships and transportation will be made available the second year of the implementation plan. B. Summer School for Elementary and Junior High School Students Goal: To enable low achieving opportunity to receive small instruction. students the group remedial Summer learning opportunities will be provided for selected elementary and junior high school students who have not mastered the basic skills curriculum. Each year the instructional department will carefully review and analyze Metropolitan Achievement Test data and the data from the Minimum Performance Tests to determine the content areas and grades in greatest need of remediation services. The curriculum would provide remedial and enrichment activities in large and small group settings 957 RLRSD SP-00756  through both computer assisted and teacher directed instruction. Summer school activities are currently on-going for grades 1, 3, 6 and 8. An evaluation and review of each program is made each summer. Continued review and evaluation will continue with consideration given for program expansion for the second year of the implementation plan. VI. Basic Skills Instruction Goal: A. B. Provide remedial instruction mastery to reduce achievement black and non-black students for basic skills disparity between Remedial Reading Laboratories at the Senior High School Level Remedial reading instruction will be provided at each senior high school for students with deficiencies in reading. Instruction would be provided jointly through computer assisted and teacher directed by a reading specialist. Special emphasis would be placed on the following skills: comprehension, word recognition, communication and survival reading skills. These services will be implemented beginning with the fifth year of the Settlement Plan and continuing through year seven. Remedial Reading and Mathematics Supplementary Instruction at the Elementary Level Remedial reading and/or remedial mathematics 958 IILRSD SP-00757 supplementary instruction will be provided in the elementary schools serving students who score below the twentieth percentile in grades 1, 2 and 3. The Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) will be used as the evaluative instrument for grades 2 and 3. An appropriate standardized instrument will be selected for evaluation of grade 1 students prior to implementation date. Grades 4, 5 and 6 will be served as funds become available. The supplementary instructional program will be staffed by itinerate (floating) reading and/or mathematics specialists who will be assigned to schools as needed to deliver instruction to students who score below the twentieth percentile on diagnostic instruments described above for grades 1, 2 and 3. The learning experiences would be in addition to classroom instruction, but will be correlated with classroom programs. The supplementary instructional services will be provided the fifth, sixth and seventh year of the settlement plan. VII. The implementation of the District's compensatory education programs will also be monitored by the State pursuant to Section III A of the Settlement Agreement and nothing in this plan is intended to limit that monitoring responsibility. 959 RLRSD SP-00758  SECTION 5: COMPENSATORY PROGRAMS AIMED AT DROPOUT PREVENTION62 In North Little Rock, as in any urban school district today, at least 25 percent of the students could be categorized as potential dropouts. Characteristics of these \"at risk\" students may include: poor self-concept, a high degree of frustration with school work, possession of values that are in direct conflict with those of the school, and difficulties in verbal and nonverbal communication. All compensatory programs address those symptoms, even at the early elementary level\nhowever, if the problems have not been corrected as the student enters the secondary schools, the risk of dropout intensifies . A number of intervention programs which address the \"at risk\" student will be implemented. WIN PROGRAM63 The WIN Program (We Intervene Now), designed to identify and modify student behaviors which interfere with educational progress, is being piloted at Lakewood Junior High School during 1986-87. If the program is successful, it will be implemented in other secondary schools. The intent of the program is to provide an intervention process that involves the student, parent, and school personnel. This intervention process will be especially beneficial for disadvantaged students. 62source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 575. 6~ource: October Supplement, 3 JDR 575. 960 RLRSD SP-00759 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT CLASSES (SAC) 64 Student Assignment Classes (SAC) will be established for oncampus suspension of secondary school students. Students involved in this program will continue academic work under the supervision of the SAC teacher during the time of suspension. ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL65 Suspension to the North Little Rock Boys Club is an alternative to out-of-school suspension that will be provided for selected secondary school students. This program will be available for students whose behavior is unmanageable both at school and at home and who cannot function in the on-campus suspension program. Students involved in this program will continue their academic work, and receive counseling services at the Boys Club Alternative School. VOCATIONAL SERVICES 66 Compensatory services in the area of vocational education will also be provided through the Carl Perkins Project, which is specifically targeted for students who are potential dropouts. An individualized written vocational plan will be completed for each student identified for inclusion in this program. Services will include the assessment of interests, learning modes, and individual needs by a vocational education evaluator and the use of a computerized Job Opportunity Based Search System to place students 64source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 576. 65source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 576. 66source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 576. 961 RLRSD SP-00760  in the most appropriate vocational courses. STUDENT ATTENDANCE67 When possible, parents of senior high school students will be notified each day that a student is absent from one or more classes. To aid in this effort, an automatic phone calling system will be installed in each of the senior high schools. A computer will call the home of each absentee at night and ask for a response from a parent. Follow-up calls will be made the next day by school personnel . 6~ource: October Supplement, 3 JDR 577. 962 SP-00761 RLRSD SECTION 6: EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES 68 The North Little Rock School District recognizes that clubs and student organizations are an important part of the total educational experience for students. All clubs and student organizations shall operate under the direction of the principal and shall be under the supervision of a staff member appointed or approved by the principal. Membership in student organizations and clubs shall not be restricted on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or other arbitrary criteria. Further, entry shall not be by decision of the current membership of the organization. Eligibility requirements for participation in cheerleading,  drill teams and athletic activities are determined by the Arkansas Activities Association. Other extracurricular activities and/or organizations related to special interests or subject areas do not have a minimum grade requirement, except those clubs and organizations that are governed by charters from parent organizations. In order to assure greater participation by minority students the following actions will be taken: 1. Principals, counselors, sponsors, and teachers will inform and encourage minority students to become more active in all extracurricular activities. 2. Schools will publicize and inform minority students and 68source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 578. 963 NLRSD SP-00762  their parents well in advance of the selection process so that they will know what to expect and when to apply. 3. All selection committees will be biracial in make-up. 4. The District recognizes that one impediment to minority participation in extracurricular activities is the lack of transportation before or after normal school hours. Unfortunately, the NLRSD lacks the resources to provide extracurricular transportation for its students and, therefore, has requested that the Court direct the Department of Education to provide such transportation, not only for majority-to-minority transfer students but for all students. See NLRSD F.O.F. \u0026amp; C.O.L. Nos. 10 \u0026amp; 11. Absent funding by the State, however, the NLRSD will be unable, with its present resources, to provide such additional transportation and still provide a regular program which is educationally adequate. 5. Principals and sponsors will monitor participation in all extracurricular activities and, where such participation is racially identifiable, special efforts will be made to promote minority participation in any such racially identifiable clubs and/or organizations. 6. The District will annually review try-out procedures and eligibility requirements to identify and eliminate any practices that discourage or adversely affect minority participation. 7. Each school will prepare a summary report for all clubs, 964 RLRSD SP-00763  organizations and other extracurricular activities reflecting the racial composition of the officers in each activity, the total membership, and all those who tried out or sought membership. This report will be prepared in April of each year which provides sufficient lead-time to permit planning, publication and recruitment of minority participation for the following year. See Addendum 6A. These reports will be compiled in a District summary for all extracurricular activities which will be completed and presented to the Board of Education at its May meeting each year . 965 RLRSD SP-00764 SECTION 7: DISCIPLINE, EXPULSIONS AND SUSPENSIONS DISCIPLINE 69 Disciplinary polices are periodically reviewed to ensure fundamental fairness and the absence of bias. In this effort all District policies relating to student conduct and discipline were revised in the 1985-86 school year. See Addendum 7A. To ensure that parents and students are advised of expected student conduct, bases for discipline and all disciplinary procedures including any right of appeal, District-wide handbooks were developed in the 1985-86 school year and given to each student. Students are annually required to have their parents read the handbooks and sign a statement acknowledging that both the parents and the student have read the handbook. Additionally, the handbook  is reviewed with the students in all schools during class time. SUSPENSIONS 70 The NLRSD student population is 40% black and 60% white. 71 In the 1985-86 school year 48% of those students suspended were black. While the District does not believe this is significantly disproportionate, it has taken additional steps to ensure fairness and the absence of bias. First, as discussed above, it has revised its policy to provide clear standards of expected behavior as well as guarantees of due process including the right of appeal. Second, each 69source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 582. 7Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 582. 71This was the population in 1985-86. 966 RLRSD SP-00765  suspension is reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs and the Superintendent to ensure that District policies are followed. Third, a summary of suspensions showing the number and race of students suspended in each school will be compiled by the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs and will be provided to the Board of Education at its July meeting each year. A review of all suspensions will be conducted for any school that has a disproportionate number of suspensions of minority students to ensure that race has not been a factor in the suspensions. EXPULSIONS 72 The North Little Rock School District has expelled only twenty students during the last three years. 73 Of this number ten have been black. Seventeen of these expulsions have been because of serious offenses relating to drugs or the possession and/or use of weapons. Given the very small number of expulsions and the extreme seriousness of the offenses involved, the District believes that any violation relating to expulsions has been corrected. Further, all expulsions are made by the Board of Education and then only after a hearing. 7~ource: October Supplement, 3 JDR 583. 73The data in this section were accurate as of the 1985-86 school year. 967 RLRSD SP-00766 SECTION 8: GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION74 The Court based its determination that the NLRSD denied black students access to its program for gifted and talented students on data from 1980. LRSD I, 584 F. Supp at 349, Paragraph 100. Since that time, significant changes have been made in the District's identification procedures designed specifically to improve the identification of gifted minority students. These efforts, which are detailed below, have been described by Dr. Emily Stewart, an expert in gifted and talented education, as comparing favorably with the state of the art for identifying minority gifted students. T. 2692. She also testified that the referral and placement of minority children in the NLRSD gifted program for the 1983-84  school year, NLRX 22 and 23, were consistent with the national norm and were reflective of a concerted effort to identify gifted minority students. T. 2689. [ * * * ] 75 CALLAHAN/TREFFINGER STUDY76 During the 1982-83 school year, the District's concern was the identification of all gifted students, but an overriding concern was the identification of the culturally disadvantaged. Through a 7'tlctober Supplement, 3 JDR 613 75References to SOMPA found in the October Supplement, 3 JDR 613, have been eliminated pursuant to the Petition to Modify NLRSD's Desegregation Plan, 8 JDR 1740-41, which was in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. 76source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 614 968 RLRSD SP-00767 Title IV-C Grant, the District was afforded the opportunity to hire two consul tan ts in the field of gifted education, Dr. Donald Treffinger from State University College at Buffalo, New York, and Dr. Carolyn Callahan, University of Virginia. The plan was to develop a methodological case-study/placement procedure. The casestudy method provides information from a variety of sources and also summarizes strengths and weaknesses for instructional programming. Dr. Callahan evaluated the District's case-study placement procedures. She found that although the identification of minority students was uneven across the District, the selection of minority students had increased by 43% districtwide. Recommendations in Dr. Callahan's study were used by the District to implement other  strategies to increase identification and selection of culturally different students as well as to even out the process across the District. CREATIVE POSITIVES FOR IDENTIFYING DISADVANTAGED YOUTH77 During the same year, Positives of Disadvantaged Torrence. See Addendum BA. the District utilized the Youth and Children,\" by \"Creative E. Paul The District also adopted the Torrence Test of Creative Thinking. This test has been even more useful in discovering giftedness among the culturally different. The District continues to use the test, and special scoring of strengths is used in the creativity test for purposes of screening and identification of 7~ource: October Supplement, 3 JDR 614. 969 RLRSD SP-00768 culturally disadvantaged students. MULTIPLE REFERRAL SOURCES78 As a safeguard against bias, nominations for placement in the gifted program are sought from a wide variety of sources including parents, other students, and the individual student himself or herself as well as from teachers and principals. This ensures that everyone who might see a different facet of the nominated student perhaps not seen by others is encouraged to nominate that student if he or she feels the student might be gifted. MULTIPLE PLACEMENT CRITERIA 79 Student placement decisions are based on multiple criteria. See Addendum 8B. No single criterion or cut-off score is used to exclude a student from placement. Teacher ratings may override  poor test scores\nhowever, good normative information may outweigh negative teacher ratings. Creative Positives Among the Culturally Different by E. Paul Torrence is used to assist in identification of the culturally different. GROUP DECISION-MAKING 80 Another safeguard against bias and a further assurance that no student is overlooked lies in the fact that no single individual makes a placement decision. Each school has a case study/placement committee made up of the principal or assistant principal, counselor, resource teacher for gifted and talented, and two 78source October Supplement, 3 JDR 615. 79source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 615. 8Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 616. 970 RLRSD SP-00769 classroom teachers. On the elementary level, one teacher is primary\nthe other is intermediate. On the secondary level, one classroom teacher is a current teacher of the student being referred. The principal is responsible for the total process and serves as chairman of the case study/placement committee. The resource teacher of gifted and talented will be actively involved in the committee work. The supervisor of gifted and talented assists as needed. student. No single person can decide to place or not to place a PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND APPEAL81 Parents are involved throughout the referral and placement process. They are invited to refer their children for placement.  They are required to complete the Parent Questionnaire, Addendum 8C, which is an important source of information not obtainable by other means. They meet with the case study/placement committee concerning placement recommendations. Finally, parents have the right to appeal the decision of the case study/placement committee to the Director of Elementary or Secondary Education. The Director and the Supervisor of the Gifted and Talented Program then review all identification instruments, Addendum 8B, and meet with the parents to review all placement criteria. If an error has occurred an appropriate correction will be made. MONITORING AND INTERVENTION 8~ource: October Supplement, 3 JDR 616. 971 RLRSD SP-00770 Reports are submitted to the Central Administration showing the race and grade of all students referred and placed in the gifted programs in each school. Where there is an unevenness of nominations, referrals, and placements of the culturally disadvantaged students, the permanent folders are carefully examined by the Supervisor for Gifted and Talented Education. As a result of such additional reviews, minority students who might be gifted are identified and follow-up procedures are initiated to observe and document the student's actions which would justify referral, evaluation and possible placement. Also, additional in-service training regarding the use of the creative positives in identifying minority gifted students is conducted for teachers in those schools. 972 RLRSD SP-00771 SECTION 9: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND INADEQUATE FACILITIES 82 The North Little Rock School District was established in 1901 with all students housed in a single building. As the population increased during the next several years, schools were added to accommodate student growth. The District made an early commitment to neighborhood schools as evidenced by the relatively small size and geographic location of school buildings. Such commitment prevailed until recent times. Constructed in the 1950 's, the Belwood Elementary School, for example, contains only seven classrooms and small spaces for library, offices, and cafeteria. Most elementary schools were originally designed to house two hundred or less pupils. Almost all of the existing school facilities have been expanded since their original construction. Although facility expansion has increased pupil capacity in most North Little Rock Schools, the neighborhood school concept has remained evident in the location of elementary schools. No elementary pupil within the District is assigned to a home school which is located two or more miles from his place of residence. From its inception in 1901 until the 1969-70 school year, student population grew at a steady rate until reaching the alltime high of 14,000. Since the 1969-70 school year, student population has, consistently declined. The October, 1986, enrollment was 9,686 students, an overall decrease of 4,414 since 8~ource: October Supplement, 3 JDR 632. 973 IILRSD SP-00772 1969-70. Through its history, various school facilities have come into and gone out of existence. During the 1970-71 school year, elementary and secondary students attended school on twenty-eight separate school campuses. Twenty-three regular schools and two special schools currently serve students in the twenty-six square mile district. Beginning with the 1972-73 school year, all North Little Rock schools have been fully integrated in accordance with the \"Storm Plan\" approved by the Federal District Court ( Judge Henley). Attendance zones have been established and racial quotas established to ensure that the racial composition in all elementary and secondary schools is within plus or minus twenty-five percent of the percentage of the minority school population. Beginning with the rebuilding of Amboy Elementary School (fire) in 1970, the North Little Rock School District has sought Court approval of all openings, closings, and additions to school facilities. The most recent such action was a request (granted) to close the Levy Elementary School prior to the 1985-86 school year. In light of the declining to stable student population, it does not appear likely that new school construction will be necessary in the near future. If new facilities or additions to existing facilities become necessary in the future, the District shall rely on the standards contained in Swann v. CharlotteMecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S.l (1977). The overall condition of school facilities in the North Little 974 RLRSD SP-00773 Rock School District is excellent. A rather well-financed maintenance program has kept facilities in a very serviceable and attractive condition. This is evidenced by the fact that since the 1982-83 school year every school in the District has been reviewed as part of the ongoing North Central Accreditation process and all have satisfied NCA standards. No building is in need of major renovation. All buildings are well ventilated and heated. Over fifty percent of the students attend school in air-conditioned facilities. The overall condition of buildings shows only minor variations throughout the District. Certainly, no building condition bears a relationship to its geographical location within the District. 975 RLRSD SP-00774 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED JULY 22, 1991 Appendix 5p-Q0775 ,:  l Addendum lA Addendum lB Addendum lE Addendum 2A Addendum 2B Addendum 2C Addendum 2D Addendum 3C Addendum 3D Addendum 3E Addendum 3F Addendum 3G Addendum 3H Addendum 3I Addendum 3J Addendum 6A Addendum 7A Addendum 8A Addendum 8B Addendum 8C TABLE OF CONTENTS NLRSD Racial Count as of 10/1/85 Questions and Answers Addendum to Section 1 Notice Regarding Applicants Notice Regarding Positions. Schedule of Benefits NLRSD Brochure Due Process Steps for Appraisal NLRSD Special Services Dept. List of Agencies 63 Cantilician Study 69 Chapter I. Project 101 . A.D.E. Monitoring Checklist Letter to Arkansas Dept. of Educ. Recommendations Activities Report Policies and Procedures Gifted/Talented Program Instruments of Identification 1050 1051 1054 1064 1065 1066 1069 1080 1112 1113 1119 1151 1168 1191 1197 1198 1200 1228 1238 Parent Questionnaire . . . 1239 SP-00776 Pages 976 - 1049 are Reserved for Future Use RLRSD SP-00777 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED MAY 1, 1991 Appendix SP-00778 Addendum lA Addendum lB Addendum lE Addendum 2A Addendum 2B Addendum 2C Addendum 2D Addendum 3C Addendum 3D Addendum 3E Addendum 3F Addendum 3G Addendum 3H Addendum 31 Addendum 3J Addendum 6A Addendum 7A Addendum 8A Addendum 8B Addendum SC TABLE OF CONTENTS NLRSD Racial Count as of 10/1/85 Questions and Answers Addendum to Section 1 Notice Regarding Applicants Notice Regarding Positions. Schedule of Benefits NLRSD Brochure Due Process Steps for Appraisal NLRSD Special Services Dept. List of Agencies 63 Cantilician Study 69 Chapter I. Project 101 A.D.E. Monitoring Checklist Letter to Arkansas Dept. of Educ. Recommendations Activities Report Policies and Procedures Gifted/Talented Program Instruments of Identification 1050 1051 1054 1064 1065 1066 1069 1080 1112 1113 1119 1151 1168 1191 1197 1198 1200 1228 1238 Parent Questionnaire . . . . . 1239 SP-00779 -. :. - NORTH LITTLE ROCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS RACIAL COUNT AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1985 EXCLUDING KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS ADDENDUM lA SCHOOLS GROUP A LAKEWOOD CRESTWOOD BELWOOD PINE TOTALS GROUP B PIKE VIEW ARGENTA TOTALS GROUP C GLENVIEW LYNCH DRIVE TOTALS GROUP D AMBOY INDIAN HILLS SEVENTH STREET BOONE PARK TOTALS GROUPE PARK HILL NORTH HEIGHTS REDWOOD TOTALS GROUP F MEADOW PARK ROSE CITY TOTALS BARING CROSS* DISTRICT TOTALS NONBLACK No.(%) 143 (63.6) 100 (57.l) 61 (55.0) 93 (53.l) 397 (57.9) 234 (60.6) 97 (53.9) 331 (58.5) 104 (58.8) 123 (51.0) 227 (54.3) 172 (58.1) 209 (63.5) 169 (57.1) 239 (54.8) 789 (58.1) 116 ( 61. 7) 238 (63.2) 133 (54.l) 4 8 7 ( 61. 0) 117 (56.5) 116 (53.5) 233 (55.0) 3 (30.0) 2,467 (57.9) BLACK No. ( % ) 82 (36.4) 75 (42.9) 50 (45.0) 82 (46.9) 289 (42.1) 152 (39.4) 83 (46.l) 235 ( 41. 5) 73 (41.2) 118 (49.0) 191 (45. 7) 124 (41.9) 120 (36.5) 127 (42.9) 197 (45.2) 568 (41.9) 72 (38.3) 127 (34.8) 113 (45.9) 312 (39.0) 90 (43.5) 101 (46.5) 191 (45.0) 7 (70.0) 1,793 (42.1) TOTALS 225 175 111 175 686 386 180 566 177 241 418 296 329 296 436 1357 188 365 246 799 207 21 7 424 10 4,260 *Baring Cross was created as an alternative to placing severely handicapped children in state institutions. The only students assigned to this school are those who are profoundly and mult~isD handicapped. (/) \"O I 0 0 \"-J CXl 0 001050 QUESTIONAS NDA NSWERS ADDENDUM 1B CONCERNINTGH E REVISEDE LEMENTARSYCH OOLD ESEGREGATIPOLNA N FORT HE NORTHL ITTLE ROCKS CHOOLD ISTRICT 1. Q. What about children in the same family who have different names? A. A child who enters the School District after May 1, 1978, as a first grader or as a newcomer to the district on any grade level will be placed in the pupil assignment rotation according to his/her last name as it appears on the official birth certificate. Special consideration cannot be given to families whose members have different last names. 2. Q. After the number of assignments have been made in the spring to achieve the proper racial balance, what provisions will be made to protect that balance from losses resulting from moving during the summer? A. An additional 10 percent will be selected as a standby list. 3. Q. Will the elementary schools continue to operate on a staggered time schedule? A. Yes, this is necessary to prevent st~dents fro~ having to wait at school longer than is desirable. It should be noted that no child will be transported more than 7.5 miles one way\ntherefore, the staggered time schedule causes only slight differences in school schedules. ~. Q. Can a student avoid being transported if he/she attend~ a private school during the year(s) he was assigned to a school outside his neighborhood? A. Any movement within the District will place the student in the rotation plan or assignment presently in effect in the attenda~ce zone where he will be residing. If a student attends a private school during the years(s) he is to be bused he is auto~aticallv buse~ ~hen te ret~c~~ to the ~orth Little Rock Puhlic Schools. SP-00781 HLRSD 0010 fj l 5. Q. Where do students attend school who enroll after the school year begins? A. Students will be assigned according to their place in the alphabetical rotation system. 6. Q. Are the loading and unloading of buses used to transport children supervised? A. Yes, principals and teachers supervise the loading and unloading of each bus. 7. Q. Where do buses load and unload? A. The neighborhood elementary school will be the pick-up point for all children being transported. 'No stops vill be made to receive or discharge pupils at any other point. It is the parent's responsibility to deliver children to the neighborhood school\nit is the district's responsibility to return the children to the neighborhood school in the afternoon. In case the student is late and does not board the bus at the neighborhood school, it is the responsibility of the parent to transport the child to the school he/she attends. 8. Q. When this plan was revised, were any changes made in the elementary attendance zones? A. Yes, minor changes were made to alleviate crowding in two schools. The zones were revised so that some students who would have attended Crestwood Elementary will now attend Indian Hills, Some students who would have attended Crestwood will now attend Lakewood, and some students who would have attended Seventh Street will no~ attend Redwood. SP-00782 HLRSD 0 0 1 0 r- 'J J ,) ,_ 9. Q. How were the groupings of schools determined? A. Using the percentages of 42 percent black and 58 percent nonblack students as a goal for each groupings, factors such as the racial composition of attendance zones, the present enrollment of each school and the capacity of each school were considered. 10. Q. Will any student be exempt from assignment outside their neighborhood? A. Yes, kindergarten students and students who live in an elementary zone with a racial composition such that their race is in the ~inority. Also, there may be instances where some handicapped children will not be transported although it is the general policy of the district to include special education students in the pupil assignment plan. There are children whose handicapping condition requires a particular special education program which may not be available in every school. It is also necessary to consider the number of students who can be accommodated in a particular program in a school since it is essential that enrollment in special education classes be small enough to allow for as much individual attention as is needed for each child. Exceptions may also be made for children with a medical disability if the situation warrants. These must be considered on an individual basis. SP-00783 HLRSD 0010~53 I -1- i I l . ADDENDUMlE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKAl'ISAS JUL 211987 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COttfARLR . BRENTSC LE EAS'l'ERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ' RK WESTERN DIVISION Sy: ____ ~-- oEP.cLtRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAil'ITI:fF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al DEF.HlDANTS ADDENDUMT O STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PROVISIONS Of SECTION 1 OF THE PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING THE REMEDIAL ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOP. THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AS IT APPLIES TO THE ~ORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (NORTH LITTLE ROCK FLAN) In the 1987 Legislative Session, the Ark~.r).S~.s G\u0026lt;.=n\u0026lt;.=ra.l Assembly passed two Acts which either directly affect or could affect the desegregation efforts of the North Littl\u0026lt;.= Rock School , District. Act 762 of 1987, copy attached as Exhibit \"A\", directs that no school district may permit or a.cc\u0026lt;.=pt tra.nsfers of students from other school districts if \u0026lt;.=ither school district is under a desegregation order and the transfer would negatively affect the racial balance of the district subj\u0026lt;.=ct to the desegregation order. This policy is consistent with the established policy of the NLRSD and the District will continue to adhere strictly to these requirements. However, the Legislature also passed Act 624 of 198,, copy attached as Exhibit \"B\", which states that \"the children or wards of anyone who is a public school teacher in one school district ... and a resident of another school district ... shall lfLRSD 001054 03-009 (/) \"Cl I 0 0 '-J (X) ,p,.  be entitled to attend school in either ... district This is seemingly inconsistent with the no transfer requirements of Act 762, and, as a result, the Attorney General was asked for an opinion regarding this apparent c~nflict. In Opinion No. 87-190, copy attached as Exhibit c, the Attorney General opined that a child living in one district who was enrolled, pursuant to Act 624, in another district was not a transfer subject to the provisions of Act 762 since the child was statutorily entitled to attend school in either district. In light of the Attorney General's opinion, the !lLRSD ha.s nc discretion regarding the admission of the children 0r wards 0 non-resident teachers and this situation could result in an interdistrict segregative effect on the racial coroposition of the LRSD and NLRSD. Specifically, the NLRSdhas 578 teachers of whom 141 live in the LRSD, the great majority of whom are white. Thus, if a significant number of these teachers enrolled their children in the NLRSD, it would result in a negative impact on the racial composition of the LRSD student body. To date, the number of applications for such interdistrict enrollment of teacher's children has been minimal and he race of those applying has been so balanced as to have nc adverse effect on either school district involved. Howe~er, to protect against the potential adverse interdistrict effect that SQCh enrollment makes _possible, the NLRSD will report to the Court BLRSD (/) 'U I 0 0 '-J Cl) 0, -2- 0010[5~-j I '  annually regarding the number and race.of teacher's children who are being enrolled in the district where the teacher is employed rather than in the district in which they reside. Should a problem develop the NLRSD will ask the Court for ielief. Until that time, however, the NLRSD will adhere to the requirements of Acts 624 and 762 as interpreted by the Attorney General's Opinion No 87-190. July 21, 1987 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Tower Capitol at Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220! (501) 375-1122 . STEE'HEl'l W. JONES, Attorneys for the North Little Rock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy 0f the foregoing Addendum was mailed to the attached. list '2 counsel on this 21st day of July, 1987. SP-00786 HLRSD 00105t\u0026gt; -3- 0 3-0'J 9 , 2 3 State of Arkan5a5 76th General A55embly Regular Se5sion, 1987 ACT7 62 l~d7 A Bill By: Reps. Towosend, I. Brown, Walker For An Act To Be Entitled HOUSE BILL 1790 \"AN ACT TO ALLOWT HE TRANSFERO F CHILDRENF ROHO NE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ANOTHER\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.\" 4 BE IT ENACTEDB Y THE GENERALA SSEHBLYO F THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: 5 6 SECTION 1. Upon the petition of a 5tudent residing in one school 7 district (resident district), to transfer to another school district (receiving 8 district)\nthe Board of Directors of the resident district may enter into an 9 agreement with the Board of Directors of the receiving school district trans- 10 ferring the 5tudent to the receiving district for purposes of education. 11 Forms for use in transferring children from one school district to another  12 shall be provided by the State Department of Education. After the petition 13 has been approved by the Board of Directors of th~ resident district and the 14 Board of Directors of the receiving district, copies of approved transfers 15 shall be filed by the receiving district with the office of the County Clerk, 16 with the administrative offices of the respective 5chool districts, and with 17 the State Department of Education. This legal transfer of a student from one 18 district to another places the responsibility for the education of the student 19 on the receiving district and permits the receiving district to count these 20 children in average daily memb~rship for state aid purposes. This- section '- 21 does not transfer the local tax money from the resident district. -:\"----..-.._ 2 2 ~  I 23 SECTION 2. Boards of Directors of local ~chool districts are prohib~ted 24 from granting legal transfers in the following situations: ~'-~\\ ~5 (a) where eith~r the resident or the receiving district is under.a ~ 26 desegregation related court order or has ever been under such a court o~e i 27 and , \\ 28 (b) the transfer in question would negatively affect the ra~~a~ 2: of ,that di~trict which 1 ~en unrlA uch a court order. , \\ ~,' 3 /4(/1,~'fi- .I BIT -...........S.P.-0-0787 00105'1 mih227 '.  , 2 3 !i 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 H.B. SECTION 3, Each form filed with the State Department or Education reporting a legal ~tudent tran~fer must be accompanied by an affidavit 8igned by each member or both ~ch~ol boards 8tating that the transfer does not violate the prohibition ~et forth in Section 2. SECTION 4. The Arkansas Department or Education ~hall w~thhold state aid in an amount equal to that to be generated by the student in Question in the respective districts from each district, if the transfer fails to comply with Section 3, SECTION 5, (a) Any di~trict not currently unde~ a desegregation related court order but which bas been under such a court order in the past may apply for a waiver of the prohibition ~et forth in Section 2. (b) The State Board of Education may grant ~uch a di~trict a v.aiver from the provisions of Section 2 if it is determined that the district's desegregation status would cot be adversely affected by allowing a legal transfer which would negatively affect tbe district's racial balance. 22 23 2~ 25 SECTION 6. Act 275 of 1959 as a.mended, the,~ame being Arkansas Statutes 80-1518.1, 80-1518.2 and 80-1525 through 80-1528, is hereby specifically repealed along with all other laws or par . of laws in conflict with this Act. . . lif fr( \u0026gt;1,,,(I( I( J7\n.M: f f?// ..  .,' :-\n', .~. ,-:, .. . 26 ,,..,\n. , .. /:, . SP-00788 NLRSD onio,~_c' \\ J l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 \"'I, 19 '20 :~ 22 ,, 23 (\\ 24 \u0026gt; 2S ~\n~~-8 ' 9 ' \\ 30 State of Arkanau  76th General .laaembly hgular Seaaion. 1987 !y: kpreaentative Thomason ACT6 24 1987 A Bill ROUSE !ILL167 4 For An Act To Be Entitled \"AN ACT TO PROVIDE ni.AT liU: CHILDREN OR WARDS OF A PERSON \\,/HQ IS A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER IN ONr SCHdbL DISTRICT AND A RrSIDEh'T OF ANOTHER SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL !E Eh'TITLED TO ENROLL IN AHD A.ITEND SCHOOL IN EITHER TrlE DISTRICT IN \"7HICH THE PARrh'T OR GUARDIAN RESIDES OR IN nu: DISTRICT Di lir'RICH THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN TE.ACHES\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.\" :BE IT ENACTEDB Y '11:ITG ENERALA SSEMBLYO F 'IRE STATE OF ARKANSAS: ) SECTION l. The children or vards of any person vho is a public achool teacher in one school district in this State and a resident of another achool district in this State ahall be entitled to be enrolled in and to attend school in either the district in which the parent or guardian resides or the district in vhich the parent or guardian is a public achool teacher. SECTION 2. All lavs and parts of lavs in conflict vith this Ar:.t are hereby repealed. _ C), _0 J-~., ,r J.ef'-~ {A~~ SP-00789 EXHIBIT B STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 201 EAST MARKHAM STREET STEVE CLARK TORNEY GENERAL HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 371-2007 Opinion No. 87-190 May 29, 1987 The Honorable John Ward Representative, District 6S 2705 Donaghey Drive North Little Rock, AR 72116 Dear Representative Ward: This is in response to your opinion request wherein you posed the following inquiries ~hich appear to result from the apparent conflicts between Act 624 and Act 762 of 1987, to-wit: 1. By virtue of Act 624, is i school district required to enroll the children of teachers who reside in other districts and whose children have been attending in another district if the receiving district is currently under a desegregation order? 2. Would it be considered a \"transfer\" under Act 762 for children who have been attending another district to enroll in another under the provisions of Act 624? 3. Would it be considered a \"transfer\" under Act 762 for the receiving distriet to enroll children of teachers who reside in other districts (by virtue of Act 624) which children have not been enrolled in any district (e.g., first graders)? Act 624 of 1987 provides in pertinent part as follows: SECTION 1. The children or wards of any person who is a public school teacher in one school district in this State and a resident of another school district in this State shall be entitled to be enrolled in and to attend school in either the district in which the parent or guardian resides or the district in which the parentHLRS or guardian is a public school teacher. D 0010GO Cl) 'U I 0 .0. .., (0 0 Representative John Ward May 29, 1987 Page 2 Act 762 of 1987 limits legal transfers among school districts to those situations where such transfer would not adversely impact the racial balance of either the sending or receiving district if one of the districts were under a court ordered desegregation plan. Because Act 624 of 1987 entitles children of public school teachers to attend school in either their resident district or the district wherein their parent or guardian teaches, it is the opinion of this Office that such children are not transfers and would not come under the limiting provisions of Act 762 of 1987. Thus, in response to your question 1, the school district wherein the parent or guardian teaches would be required to accept the child of the parent or guardian. As stated above, the answer to your question 2 is that a child coming under the provisions of Act 624 would not be considered a transfer under Act 762. And, new students (e.g., first graders) availing themselves of the special provisions of Act 624 would also not be considered transfers under Act 762. The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve,. was prepared by Assistant Attorney General C. Randy McNair III. JSC:CRM:jk SP-00791 NLRSD 00108.l FILED U.$. DIHRICT . (ASTfRN D.  COURT ISTRICT ARKANSA!\" IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 2 'l 1987 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DI STRICT PLAINT I FIi. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al DEFENDANTS ORDER The North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) has requested this Court's approval of an addendum to its desegregation plan which was approved in the Order of February 27, 1987. The NLRSD has expressed the concern that Arkansas Act 624 of 1987, which provides that teachers residing in one school district but teaching in anothe~ have the right to enroll their children in either district, could have an interdistrict segregative effect on student enrollment in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Since 141 of the NLRSD's 578 teachers live in the LRSD and most of these teachers are white, these concerns are legitimate although the problem is merely prospective and no such interdistrict segregative effect has occurred to date. In its plan addendum, the NLRSD corrmits to report to this Court annually regarding the number and race of students being enrolled in the NLRSD from other districts and in other districts - from the NLRSD. No further action is contemplated unless a segregative effect actually occurs at which time this CourtH,UU\nD 0010 E\n!, I (/) 'ti I 0 .0. .., lO I\\J be asked for appropriate relief. The scope of the NLRSD's proposed addendum to its desegregation plan is appropriate in light of the speculative nature of the problem. The NLRSD proposes to comply with the State law until such time that this compliance actually results in a segregative effect. Until that time it will keep the Court apprised of the impact of Act 624. Such reporting compromises no party's rights and is entirely consistent with rulings of this Court and the Court of Appeals requiring the school districts in this case not only to remediate past interdistrict segregative effects but also to avoid further such effects.  For these reasons, the NLRSD's Motion to Approve Plan Addendum is approved and it is directed to report to the Court on an annual basis the number and race of children enrolled in the NLRSD or removed from the NLRSD and enrolled in other districts pursuant to Arkansas Act 624 of 1987. IT IS SO ORDERED this ,J._7 day of July, 1987. SP-00793 HLRSD -- i I I -  ADDENDUM 2A ADMINISTRATIVEO FFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET January 14, 1986 MEMTOO : Officers of Teacher Training Institutions FROM: Doyle Crownover, Assistant Superintendent for Administration SUBJECT: Employment Applications The North Little Rock Public Schools seeks to staff its schools with the best teachers available. To be able to do this, we covet opportunities to consider your teacher candidates. Toward this end we have prepared material that gives prospective teacher applicants information concerning employment in the District. We are eager to have this information placed in the hands of all potential teachers, and solicit your assistance in this effort. We would welcome calls or visits from your teacher candidates, and would be happy to visit your campus to talk with groups of prospects if it appears this would be mutually beneficial. SP-00794 NORTHLI TTLER OCKS CHOODLI STRICTIS ANE QUAOL PPORTUNIETMY PLOYER HLRSD P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/758-1760 00108'1  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET The North Little Rock (Arkansas) School District is seeking an opportunity to consider for employment the most outstanding teaching and administrative candidates available. If you desire to be a part of the professional staff of a public school district that is recognized as being a state leader in learning opportunities and student performance, we earnestly solicit your application. We ask you to examine the enclosed materials to acquaint you with the advantages and desirability of employment with tre North Little Rock School District. If becoming associated with this District appeals to you, we encourage you to complete and return the application form, ADDENDUM 2B SP-00795 NLRSD P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK. AA 72115/0687 501 /758-1760 0010 6\n_) ADDENDUM 2C Salary NORTHLI TTLER OCKS CHOODLI STRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Benefits of Teaching in North Little Rock School District Teachers are paid on an indexed salary scale that recognizes training and experience. Increments are provided for each 12 hours of graduate study beyond the Bachelor's Degree, and for each 15 hours beyond the Master's, and for each year's experience up to eight years at the Bachelor's Degree level, and up to 15 years at the Specialist's Degree level. For the 1985-86 school year the salary for a regular classroom teacher of 187 days of employment with a Bachelor's Degree and no previous experience is $14,530. A teacher with a Specialist's Degree and 15 years experience receives $25,611. Fringe Benefits Each teacher is provided a fully paid Blue Cross-Blue Shield Major Medical Coverage, a dental insurance coverage, and a hospital indemnity plan, with the option of having f~nily members included through payroll deduction. We provide $21,000 life insurance coverage on each teacher. Each teacher is provided an amount of $15.83 per month which may be applied to the cost of family coverages, or for additional life insurance. The total value of these coverages is $91.93 per month. All teachers must be members of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Beginning on July 1, 1986, they will have the option of joining the contributory plan (6% of salary) or non-contributory plan (05~ of salary). Those choosing the contributory system will qualify for a greater annuity upon retirement. Deferred tax options are also available for retirement planning. Teachers also participate in the Social Security retire1ilent system. Sick Leave Teachers in the North Little Rock system receive nine days per year sick leave for the first four years in the District. These days per year then increase for each of next six years until 20 days per year are awarded for the tenth year and thereafter. Unused sick days are accumulated up to 100 days. Personal Leave Teachers of the District are awarded one day per year of leave for personal reasons. There is an accumulation provision for these days if they are unused. HLRSD en \"O I 0 0 \"-I (0 C]) 00108ii - Page 2 (Benefits of Teaching in North Little Rock School District) Inservice Training The North Little Rock School District maintains an ongoing, indepth program for increasing the competency of its staff. The program is constantly revised and adapted to the needs of the staff. Professional Leave Upon approval of request, teachers are granted professional leave for a wide variety of activities. SP-00797 NLRSD ADDENDUM 2D NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS-- moving in the right direction, helping every child achieve 001osn SP-00798 From the Superintendent .. We arc pleased that you want to know about public schools in Nonh Little Rock. This brochure will give you some basic facts about our schools, students, teachers and educational programs. We hope you will also visit our schools to see for yourself why we have one of the state's best school systems. Quality education has been a standard in the Nonh Little Rock School District since the first school door opened in 1901. Since then, the District has grown to approximately 30 square miles with 25 schools serving nearly 9,500 students, the founh largest in Arkansas. Along with growth in siz.c and enrollment, the District has also grown in educational stature to become a recognized leader in learning opponunities and student performance. To ensure individual student growth, school curriculum is broad in scope while emphasinng basic skills in reading, communication and computation. All schools have earned accreditation status by the Nonh Central Accreditation Association, and all are rated \"A\" by the State of Arkansas. Public suppon for our schools is reflected through Parent Teacher Associations (PT A), the District PT A Council, advisory committees and other groups. The District enjoys the help of patrons through the Volunteers in Public Schools program. Through these and other efforts, community members are involved in the education of our children. The School Board and the staff agree with the\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1205","title":"Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas","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":["1991-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas"],"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/1205"],"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":["648 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\nCombined financial statements and supplemental information with independent auditors' reports by Thomas and Thomas, certified accountants\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nTHE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Financial Statements and Supplemental Information (With Independent Auditors' Reports Thereon) June 30, 1991 CERTIFIEO PV8UC ~Atfl'$ I THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Financial Statements and Supplemental Information (With Independent Auditors' Reports Thereon) June 30, 1991 f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Table of Contents June 30, 1991 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - All Governmental Fund Types Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual - All Budgeted Governmental Fund Types Notes to Combined Financial Statements SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES Combining Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures - Special Revenue Funds Rockefeller Day Care Center - Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures (Cash Basis) - Budget and Actual Revenues of Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as prescribed by Handbook II) Expenditures of Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as prescribed by Handbook II) Reconciliation of General and Debt Service Fund Balances - Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Handbook II Basis of Accounting Schedule of Long-Term Debt OTHER REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Independent Auditors' Report on Internal Control Structure Based on a Study and Evaluation Made as a Part of an Audit of the Basic Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the Additional Tests Required by the Single Audit Act 1 4 6 8 12 31 32 33 34 35 36 40 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Table of Contents (Continued) June 30, 1991 Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance Based on an Audit of the Basic Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 44 Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with General Requirements Applicable to Federal Financial Assistance Programs Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with Specific Requirements Applicable to Major Federal Financial Assistance Programs Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to Nonmajor Federal Financial Assistance Program Transactions Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Independent Auditors' Report on Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance 45 46 48 49 52 53 I - ~and~ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Little Rock Office: 201 E. Markham  Suite 500  Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-2025  FAX (501) 375-8704 Texarkana Office: 701 Arkansas Blvd.  Texarkana, AR 75502 (501) 773-2168  FAX (501) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District) as of, and for the year ended, June 30, 1991, as listed in the accompanying table of contents. The financial statements are the responsibility of the School District's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. As described more fully in Note l(F) of the combined financial statements, the School District does not record the valuation base of its property, buildings, and equipment at historical cost in the general fixed asset group of accounts ,as required by generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, except for the effect of the failure to record the general fixed asset account group at historical cost, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, the combined financial statements referred to in the first paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas as of June 30, 1991, and the results of its operations for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles . 1 Members American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Private Companies Practice Section and S.E.C. Practice Section The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Two Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an op1n1on on the combined financial statements taken as a whole. The supplemental information included at pages thirty-one through thirty-eight is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic combined financial statements. The information has been subjected to the procedures applied in the audit of the basic combined financial statements of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the combined financial statements taken as a whole. November 5, 1991 Little Rock, Arkansas 2 ~QA) -r-re...~ Certified Public Accountants I COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 3 I Assets and Amounts to be Provided General Cash (Note 10) $ 55,842 Investments (Note 10) 9,907,823 Property taxes receivable (Note 3, 5 and 12) 2,252,877 Accrued interest and other receivables Bl, 110 Due from other governments (Notes 8 and 11) 7,968,755 Due from other funds 9,319 Inventories 400,105 Fixed assets (Notes l(F) and 4) Prepaids and deferred charges 20,991 Total assets 20,696,822 Amount to be provided for retirement of general long-term debt (Note 5) Total assets and amounts to be provided $ 20,696,822 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups June 30, 1991 Fiduciary Governmental Fund Ty~es Fund Trne Account General Special Debt Capital Fixed Revenue Service Projects Agency Assets $ $ , 851 $ 85,739 $ 168,213 $ 1,550,000 13,780,332 800,000 683,725 12,118 41,936 2,088,298 105,129 40,652 150,454 145,460,826 616,665 3,800,870 1,301,241 14,013,136 1,008,865 145,460,826 $ 3,800,870 $ 1,301,241 $ 14,013,136 $ 1,008,865 $ 145,460,826 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 4 Grou~s General Total Long-term (Memorandum Debt Only) $ $ 310,645 26,038,155 2,936,602 135,164 10,057,053 155,100 550,559 145,460,826 637,656 186,281,760 71,877,108 71,877,108 s 71,877,108 s 258,158,868 (Continued) Liabilities and Fund Equity Liabilities: Bank overdrafts (Note 10) Accounts payable Accrued payroll taxes and withholdings Accrued interest payable (Note 12) Retainage payable (Note 4) Estimated claims liability (Note 14) Deferred revenues Due to school activity groups and other agencies (Notes 2 and 9) Due to other funds Notes payable (Note 12) Long-term debt payable (Note 5) Contracts payable Total liabilities Commitments and contingencies (Notes 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 14) Fund Equity: Investment in general fixed assets (Notes l(f) and 4) Fund Balance: Reserved for prepaids and deferred charges Reserved for inventories Unreserved: Designated for debt service Designated for capital projects Undesignated Total fund equity Total liabilities and fund equity LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups (Continued) June 30, 1991 General $ 57,307 3,296,595 2,554,541 101,000 252,068 35,462 133,628 14,080,000 7 900 20,518,501 20,991 400,105 (242,775) 178,321 Governmental Fund Types Special Debt Revenue Service S 632,824 $ $ 112,575 552,490 21,472 1,319,361 150,454 2,331,055 2,481,509 616,665 684,576 1. 301,241 Capital Projects 785,959 182,214 968,173 13,044,963 13,044,963 Fiduciary Fund Type Agency 1,008,865 1,008,865 Account Groups General General Fixed Long-Term Assets Debt s s 71,877,108 71. 877,108 145,460,826 145,460,826 s Total (Memorandum Only) 690,131 4,195,129 2,554,541 101,000 182,214 252,068 587,952 L 008, 865 155,100 14,080,000 71,877,108 7 900 95,692,008 145,460,826 637,656 550,559 684,576 13,044,963 2,088,280 162,466,860 $ 20,696,822 $ 3,800,870 $1,301,241 $14,013,136 ~ 1,008,865 $145,460,826 $ 71,877,108 $ 258,158,868 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 5 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance All Governmental Fund Types Revenues Local Sources: Property taxes (Notes 3 and 12) Tuition Interest Food sales Food services and other Magnet schools funding (Note 11) Total local sources State Sources: Minimum foundation programs (Note 8) Desegregation settlement (Note 8) Magnet schools funding (Note 11) Handicapped children aid Vocational aid Transportation aid Compensatory education Other Total state sources Federal Sources: Elementary and Secondary Education Act Vocational Education Act Food services Energy conservation Other Total federal sources Total revenues s Year Ended June 30, 1991 General 41,321,190 334,760 805, 768 619,916 43,081,634 22,759,804 10,356,778 602,063 930,950 2,885,960 609,943 1,090,271 39,235,769 28,585 28,585 82,345,988 s Special Revenue 34,416 71,307 1,344,429 882,602 2,693,138 5,025,892 6,285,892 637,358 6,923,250 3,467,391 268,295 3,634,607 514,775 620,812 8,505,880 20,455,022 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 6 s Debt Service 13,465,844 82,624 125,158 13,673,626 13,673,626 s Capital Projects 332,213 68,832 401,045 401,045 s Total (Memorandum Only) 54,787,034 369,176 1,291,912 1,344,429 1,571,350 2,818,296 62,182,197 22,759,804 10,356,778 6,285,892 602,063 930,950 2,885,960 609,943 L 727,629 46,159,019 3,467,391 268,295 3,634,607 514,775 649,397 8,534,465 116,875,681 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance All Governmental Fund Types (Continued) Expenditures Instructional services: Basic programs Exceptional child programs Vocational-technical programs Adult continuing education programs Compensatory education programs Other instructional programs Total instructional services Instructional support services Pupil transportation services Operation and maintenance of plant School administration General administration Capital outlay (Note 4) Principal retirement of long-term debt (Note 5) Interest charges (Notes 5 and 12) Fiscal agent's fees Debt issuance costs Food services Community services Indirect and other (Note 11) Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Contributed assets Proceeds of long-term debt (Note 5) Operating transfers in (Notes 3 and 11) Operating transfers out (Notes 3 and 11) Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other uses Fund equity, beginning of year Fund equity, end of year (Notes 2 and 8) Year Ended June 30, 1991 General $ 39,093,805 4,681,223 3,879,053 14,264 1,636,102 1,088,004 50,392,451 s 8,435,274 5,523,600 10,187,374 5,524,559 7,373,144 3,464,604 155,000 125,000 776,427 18,054 91,975,487 (9,629,499) 53,522 7,648,889 7,596,913 (6,018,306) 9,281,018 (348,481) 526,802 178,321 Special Revenue $ 7,981,805 572,079 932,774 702,381 2,717,955 278,588 13,185,582 1,520,760 1,048,177 1,220,846 911,544 5,410,705 207,934 453,907 23,959,455 (3,504,433) 3,592,755 (59,028) 3,533,727 29,294 2,452,215 $ 2,481,509 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 7 s Debt Service 5,483,830 3,726,121 62,898 9,272,849 4,400,777 3,084,203 (6,955,779) (3,871,576) 529,201 772,040 $ 1,301,241 s Capital Projects 6,887,061 507,889 62,587 7,457,537 (7,056,492) 17,197,450 (1,240,758) 15,956,692 8,900,200 4,144,763 $13,044,963 Total (Memorandum Only) $ 47,075,610 5,253,302 4,811,827 716,645 4,354,057 1,366,592 63,578,033 9,956,034 5,523,600 11,235,551 5,524,559 8,593,990 11,263,209 5,483,830 3,881,121 62,898 632,889 5,410,705 984,361 534,548 132,665,328 (15,789,647) 53,522 24,846,339 14,273,871 (14,273,871) 24,899,861 9,110,214 7,895,820 $ 17,006,034 Revenues Local Sources: Property taxes {Notes 3 and 12) Tuition Interest Food sales Food services and other Magnet schools {Note 11) Total local sources State Sources: Minimum foundation programs {Note 8) Desegregation settlement {Note 8) Magnet schools funding (Note 11) Handicapped children aid Vocational aid Transportation aid Compensatory education Other Total state sources Federal Sources: Elementary and Secondary Education Act Vocational Education Act Food service Energy conservation Other Total federal sources Total revenues THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRIC'f OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual All Budgeted Governmental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1991 $ 49,122,429 635,908 100,000 680,165 50,538,502 23,371,654 8,356,778 468,000 890,092 2,400,000 243,243 1,524,480 37,254,247 44,625 44,625 87,837,374 General Fund S 41,321,190 334,760 805,768 619,916 43,081,634 22,759,804 10,356,778 602,063 930,950 2,885,960 609,943 1,090,271 39,235,769 28,585 28,585 82,345,988 Variance - Favorable {Unfavorable) $ (7,801,239) (301,148) 705,768 (60,249) {7,456,868) {611,850) 2,000,000 134,063 40,858 485,960 366,700 (434,209) 1,981,522 (16,040) (16,040) (5,491,386) The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 8 s Budget 55,000 1,282,134 1,081,967 2,705,116 5,124,217 6,297,871 6,297,871 2,886,618 340,012 3,169,164 349,233 6,745,027 18,167,115 Special Revenue Funds $ Actual 34,416 71,307 1,344,429 882,602 2,693,138 5,025,892 6,285,892 637,358 6,923,250 3,467,391 268,295 3,634,607 514, 775 620,812 8,505,880 20,455,022 s Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) 34,416 16,307 62,295 {199,365) {11,978) (98,325) (11,979) 637,358 625,379 580,773 (71,717) 465,443 514,775 271,579 1,760,853 2,287,907 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual All Budgeted Governmental Fund Types (Continued) Year Ended June 30, 1991 General Fund Sl!ecial Revenue Funds Variance - Variance - Favorable Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Exl!enditures Instructional services: Basic programs s 39,824,551 s 39,093,805 s 730,746 s 8,109,834 s 7,981,805 s 128,029 Exceptional child programs 4,300,105 4,681,223 (381,118) 342,837 572,079 (229,242) Vocational-technical programs 4,003,153 3,879,053 i24,100 699,334 932,774 (233,440) Adult continuing education programs 655,110 14,264 640,846 63,073 702,381 (639,308) Compensatory education programs 2,143,448 1,636,102 507,346 2,851,680 2,717,955 133,725 Other instructional programs 1,101,272 1,088,004 13,268 258,748 278,588 (19,840) Total instructional services 52,027,639 50,392,451 1,635,188 12,325,506 13,185,582 {860,076) Instructional support services 8,276,060 8,435,274 (159,214) L 207,548 1,520,760 {313,212) Pupil transportation services 5,109,606 5,523,600 (413,994) 2,000 2,000 Operations and maintenance of plant 10,886,626 10,187,374 699,252 L 042, 298 1,048,177 (5,879) School administration 5,421,139 5,524,559 (103,420) General administration 6,648,197 7,373,144 (724,947) L 177,809 1,220,846 {43,037) Capital outlay (Note 4) 3,859,480 3,464,604 394,876 633,168 911,544 (278,376) Principal retirement on long-term debt (Note 5) Interest charges (Notes 5 and 12) 155,000 (155,000) Debt issuance costs 125,000 (125,000) Food service 7,170,539 5,410,705 1,759,834 Community services 1,012,270 776,427 235,843 175,908 207,934 {32,026) Indirect and other (Note 11) 18,054 (18,054) 451,884 453,907 (2,023) Total expenditures 93,241,017 91,975,487 1,265,530 24,186,660 23,959,455 227,205 Excess of revenues over {under) expenditures (5,403,643) (9,629,499) (4 I 225,856) (6,019,545) (3,504,433) 2,515,112 Other Financing Sources (Uses) Contributed assets 53,522 53,522 Proceeds of long-term debt (Note 5) 6,000,000 7,648,889 L 648,889 Operating transfers in (Notes 3 and 11) 590,000 7,596,913 7,006,913 3,592,775 3,592,755 Operating transfers out (Notes 3 and 11) {3,181,520) (6,018,306) (2,836,786) (59,028) (59,028) Total other financing sources (uses) 3,408,480 9,281,018 5,872,538 3,592,755 3,533,727 (59,028) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses $ 0,995,163) $ (348,481) $ 1,646,682 $ (2,426,790) $ 29,294 $ 2,456,084 {Continued) The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 9 Revenues Local sources: Property taxes (Notes 3 and 12) Tuition Interest Food sales Food services and other Magnet schools and other (Note 11) Total local sources State Sources: Minimum foundation programs (Note 8) Desegregation settlement (Note 8) Magnet schools funding (Note 11) Handicapped children aid Vocational aid Transportation aid Compensatory education Other Total state sources Federal Sources: Elementary and Secondary Education Act Vocational Education Act Food service Energy conservation Other Total Federal sources Total revenues THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual All Budgeted Governmental Fund Types (Continued) Year Ended June 30, 1991 Debt Service Fund Variance - Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) $ 7,501,576 ,$ 13,465,844 $ 5,964,268 $ 330,000 82,624 (247,376) 125,158 125,158 7,831,576 13,673,626 5,842,050 7,831,576 13,673,626 5,842,050 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 10 Total (Memorandum Only) Variance - Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) 56,624,005 $ 54,787,034 $ (1,836,971) 635,908 369,176 (266,732) 485,000 959,699 474,699 1,282,134 1,344,429 62,295 1,762,132 1,502,518 (259,614) 2,705,116 2,818,296 113,180 63,494,295 61,781,152 CL 713,143) 23,371,654 22,759,804 (611,850) 8,356,778 10,356,778 2,000,000 6,297,871 6,285,892 (11,979) 468,000 602,063 134,063 890,092 930,950 40,858 2,400,000 2,885,960 485,960 243,243 609,943 366,700 1,524,480 1,727,629 203,149 43,552,118 46,159,019 2,606,901 2,886,618 3,467,391 580,773 340,012 268,295 (71,717) 3,169,164 3,634,607 465,443 514,775 514,775 393,858 649,397 255,539 6,789,652 8,534,465 1,744,813 113,836,065 116,474,636 2,638,571 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual All Budgeted Governmental Fund Types (Continued) Year Ended June 30, 1991 Debt Service Fund Total (Memorandum Only) Variance - Variance - Favorable Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Actual (Unfavorable) ExJ:!enditures Instructional services: Basic programs s s s s 47,934,385 s 47,075,610 s 858, 775 Exceptional child programs 4,642,942 5,253,302 (610,360) Vocational - technical programs 4,702,487 4,811,827 (109,340) Adult continuing education programs 718,183 716,645 1,538 Compensatory education programs 4,995,128 4,354,057 641,071 Other instructional programs 1,360,020 1,366,592 (6,572) Total instructional services 64,353,145 63,578,033 775,112 Instructional support services 9,483,608 9,956,034 (472,426) Pupil transportation services 5,111,606 5,523,600 (411,994) Operations and maintenance of plant 11,928,924 11,235,551 693,373 School administration 5,421,139 5,524,559 (103,420) General administration 7,826,006 8,593,990 (767,984) Capital outlay (Note 4) 4,492,648 4,376,148 116,500 Principal retirement of long-term debt (Note 5) 3,359,093 5,483,830 (2,124,737) 3,359,093 5,483,830 (2,124,737) Int erest charges (Note 5 and 12) 2,466,391 3,726,121 (1,259,730) 2,466,391 3,881,121 (1,414,730) Debt issuance cost 125,000 (125,000) Fiscal agents' fees 6,500 62,898 (56,398) 6,500 62,898 (56,398) Food service 7,170,539 5,410,705 1,759,834 Community services 1,188,178 984,361 203,817 Indirect and other (Note 11) 451,884 471,961 (20,077) Total expenditures 5,831,984 9,272,849 P,440,865) 123,259,661 125,207,791 (1,948,130) Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 1,999,592 4,400,777 2,401,185 (9,423,596) (8,733,155) 690,441 Other Financing Sources (Uses) Contributed assets 53,522 53,522 Procee~s of long-term debt (Note 5) 6,000,000 7,648,889 1,648,889 Operat7ng transfers in (Notes 3 and 11) 3,084,203 3,084,203 4,182,755 14,273,871 10,091,116 Operating transfers out (Notes 3 and 11) (6,955,779) (6,955,779) (3,181,520) (13,033,113) (9,851,593) Total other financing sources (uses) (3,871,576) (3,871,576) 7,001,235 8,943,169 1,941,934 Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses s 1,999,592 s 529,201 s (1,470,391) s (2,422,361) s 210,014 s 2,632,375 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 11 I I THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements June 30, 1991 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies The accounting policies of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District) conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) applicable to governmental units, except for the practice of recording various components of its general fixed assets at appraised values rather than at cost (Note l(F)). The following is a summary of the more significant accounting policies. (A) Fund Accounting The accounts of the School District are organized on the basis of funds or groups of accounts, each of which is considered to be a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of self-balancing accounts which comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures. The following fund types and account groups are used by the School District: Governmental Fund Types: General Fund - The General Fund is the primary operating fund of the School District. All general tax revenues and other revenues that are not allocated by law or contractual agreement to another fund are accounted for in this fund. The general operating expenditures, the fixed charges, and the capital improvement costs that are not paid through other funds are paid from this fund. Special Revenue Funds - Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources, other than major capital projects, requiring separate accounting because of legal or regulatory provisions or administrative action. Debt Service Funds - Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for the payment of principal, interest, and fees on long-term general obligation debt. Capital Projects Funds - Capital Projects Funds are used to account for financial resources segregated for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities. Fiduciary Fund Type: Agency Fund - The Agency Fund is used to account for the school activity groups and other agencies. The assets in this fund are held by the School District in a fiduciary capacity. 12 I I I I THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) (A) Fund Accounting (Continued) Account Groups: General Fixed Asset Account Group - This account group is established to account for the fixed assets of the School District. General Long-Term Debt Account Group - This account group is established to account for the long-term debt that is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the School District. (B) Basis of Accounting The modified accrual basis of accounting is utilized by all funds. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable. Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the liability is incurred, if measurable, except for unmatured interest on general long-term debt which is recognized when the interest is due. Resources from special grants are generally recognized as revenues to the extent of expenditures made under the provisions of the grants. Significant funds received before the revenue recognition criteria have been met are reported as deferred revenue. {C) Budgetary Accounting Certain revenues and expenditures are budgeted in accordance with various legal requirements which govern the School District's operations. The annual budget is submitted to the Arkansas State Department of Education (the State) for approval. Revisions by subsequent budget amendments, if any, are not submitted to the State. Budgeted revenues and expenditures were approved by the Board of Directors at their August 23, 1990 meeting. No amendments were adopted subsequent to this date. The budgets formally approved by the Board of Directors include the General Fund (salary, desegregation and other operating) and the Debt Service Fund, as required by the State (Handbook II) and certain construction and special revenue expenditures. The budgets of the School District utilized in its internal budgetary accounting systems and for financial reporting vary in some regards from those required by applicable state statutes to be formally approved by the Board of Directors. 13 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) (C) Budgetary Accounting (Continued) The budgets approved by the Board of Directors are utilized in the preparation of the Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual. Certain budgeted items have been reclassified for this financial statement presentation to facilitate comparison to the classifications required in reporting the related actual amounts. Such reclassifications relate primarily to operating transfers and proceeds of long-term debt. In addition, certain amounts (primarily property tax revenues and food service expenditures) are budgeted in accordance with accounting methods required by applicable state regulations with the related actual amounts being reflected in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. (D) Investments Investments are stated at cost, which approximates market value. Investments consist of certificates of deposit, repurchase agreements, and treasury bills. (E) Inventories Inventories are stated at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out) or market (net realizable value). Inventories are recorded as expenditures when transferred to schools and departmental offices for utilization. (F) General Fixed Assets In the general fixed asset group of accounts, land is valued at historical cost. Certain other components are stated at costs estimated by independent appraisers and by School District employees at various appraisal dates. Valuations of land improvements and buildings are intended to approximate fair market values at the latest appraisal dates (1965 and 1971, respectively)\nfurniture and fixtures are stated at appraisal values determined for insurance purposes in 1975. Additions since the date of the last appraisals are recorded at cost. The amount that such valuations vary from historical cost has not been determined. (G) Property Taxes Property taxes are recognized and recorded as current period revenues in accordance with the provisions of Interpretation 3 of the National Council of Governmental Accounting's (NCGA) Statement 1, which states that: (1) Property tax revenues should be recognized when they become available\nand (2) available means when due and receivable within the current period and collected within the current period or expected to be collected soon enough thereafter (generally not to exceed sixty days) to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. 14 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) (H) Interfund Transactions During the course of operations, transactions occur between individual funds for goods provided or services rendered. These related receivables and payables are classified as \"due from other funds\" or \"due to other funds\" on the balance sheet. Quasi-external transactions are accounted for as revenues or expenditures. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund, are recorded as expenditures in the reimbursing fund and as reductions of expenditures in the fund that is reimbursed. All other interfund transactions, except quasi-external transactions and reimbursements, are reported as transfers. Nonrecurring or nonroutine permanent transfers of equity are reported as residual equity transfers. All other interfund transfers are reported as operating transfers. (I) Accumulated Vacation and Sick Leave School District employees do not receive vacation pay as such. Certain employees contracted to work 240 days per year receive additional pay if they work more than 240 days in any particular year. These employees are paid upon termination for any unpaid days accumulated in this manner. Due to the small number of employees contracted for 240 days per year who have accumulated unpaid days in this manner, the School District's liability for this type of compensated absence is not considered material and, therefore, has not been recorded in the accompanying financial statements. Accumulated sick pay or personal leave days are not paid upon termination. Accordingly, the School District has not recorded a liability in the accompanying financial statements since payment is not probable and the amount of ultimate payment if any, is not determinable. (J) Encumbrances Encumbrances for goods or purchased services are documented by purchase orders or contracts. Encumbrances outstanding at year end are not reported as expenditures for financial statement purposes as the related goods have not been received or the services performed. 15 -- THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) (K) Total Columns on Combined Statements Total columns on certain combined statements are captioned \"memorandum only\" to indicate that they are presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in these columns do not present financial position, results of operations, or changes in fund equity in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. Certain comparative data have not been presented because inclusion would make certain statements unduly complex and difficult to understand. (L) Tax Exempt Status The School District is a tax exempt organization since its revenues are nontaxable under Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code. (M) Bond Premiums or Discounts and Other Issuance Costs Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) require that bond discounts and additional issuance costs be included in the calculation of proceeds and reported separately as an expenditure on the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances. In prior years, the School District capitalized such issuance costs and amortized them over the lives of the related bond issues, in accordance with Handbook II prescribed methods. This accounting method was not considered a material departure from GAAP. Issuance costs related to the September, 1990 bond issue (see Note 5) were recorded in accordance with GAAP as an expenditure of the Capital Projects Fund. Neither the balance of unamortized capitalized issuance costs, nor the change in the method of accounting for 1991, are considered to have a material impact on the financial statements. 16 II II Ii THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 2: Reconciliation of Fund Equity - The School District issued unaudited financial reports (the \"State Report\") on August 28, 1991 to the Arkansas State Department of Education. Financial information in the State Report was prepared in accordance with accounting methods prescribed in Handbook II, as required by applicable state regulations. In that report, the \"Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds\" are generally the equivalent of the combined General and Debt Service Funds used for annual financial statement presentation purposes. The \"Federal Grants Fund\" corresponds to the Special Revenue Fund, except that it does not include activity in the \"Revolving Funds\" and the \"Food Service Fund\". The \"Building Fund\" per the State Report corresponds to the Capital Projects Fund. Balances and transactions related to the Agency Fund are reflected in the State Report as the \"Student Activity Fund.\" The following is a reconciliation of total fund balances as shown on the State Report and in the accompanying financial statements at June 30, 1991: Fund equity per State Report Current period adjustments, net: Handbook II Other Fund balances not included in State Report: Revolving Funds Food Service Fund KLRE-FM/KUAR-FM Cumulative effect of prior years adjustments Fund equity per financial statements Due to school activity groups and other agencies per financial statements 17 s Governmental Fund Ty12es 14,754,087 (602,727) 85,269 277,703 2,203,806 287,896 $17,006,034 Fiduciary Fund Ty12es s 937,083 71,782 $ 1,008,865 I I THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 3: Property Taxes Pulaski County, Arkansas (the County) levies a property tax each February on the assessed value listed as of January l of the prior year for all real and personal property located in the County. Assessed values are established by the County Assessor's office. All taxes are due from property holders on an installment basis by October 10 and related amounts collected on behalf of the Little Rock School District are receivable from the County as collected. Taxes to be levied upon January 1, 1990 assessment values are as follows: Millage Valuation General Debt {Millions) Fund Service Real Estate $ 1,085 34.0 9.9 Personal property 356 34.0 9.9 Utilities 70 35.8 10.2 $ 1,511 During 1985, a reassessment was completed for all property located in Pulaski County, Arkansas. Based upon the results of this reassessment, the assessed value of all property within the sphere of taxation by the School District at January 1, 1985 increased approximately $400 million, as compared to January 1, 1984. In addition, there was an overall reduction of millage under Amendment 59. The School District is liable for its prorata share of the cost incurred by the State of Arkansas in relation to the reassessment. It is understood that reimbursement of this cost to the State, totaling approximately $513,000, will be made over a five year period beginning in fiscal year 1987 through semi-annual withholdings from the School District's revenues. Property tax revenues are reflected net of such withholdings. Property tax revenues of the Debt Service Fund totaling approximately $6,956,000 (the excess of funds necessary to meet current debt service requirements) have been transferred to the General Fund during the year ended June 30, 1991 as provided for under the statutes of the State of Arkansas. Note 4: Fixed Assets The following is a summary of the major components of fixed assets of the School District as of June 30, 1991: 18 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 4: Fixed Assets (Continued) Balance Balance June 30, 1990 Additions June 30, 1991 Land $ 2,861,085 $ $ 2,861,085 Land improvements 925,255 925,255 Buildings 105,035,846 5,293,409 110,329,255 Furniture and equipment 25,375,431 3,465,966 28,841,397 Construction-in-progress 2,503,834 2,503,834 Totals $ 134,197,617 $ 11,263,209 $ 145,460,826 The School District has entered into contracts for the construction or renovation of various facilities as shown below. Retainage payable in relation to these contracts totaled approximately $182,000 at June 30, 1991. June 30, 1991 Balances Project Expended/ Commitment Authorization Accrued Remaining: Geyer Springs Elementary $ 1,762,784 $ 1,218,437 $ 544,347 Woodruff Elementary 753,328 506,226 247,102 Western Hills Elementary 1,019,459 536,800 482,659 Forrest Heights Elementary 3,442,600 117,439 3, 325,161 Other projects 279,490 124,932 154,558 $ 71257,661 $ 2,5031834 $ 4,753,827 Note 5: Long-Term Debt On September 24, 1990, the School District received $6,000,000 of desegregation loan proceeds from, and executed a promissory note to, the State of Arkansas (see Note 8). The principal will bear interest beginning on the seventh anniversary of the date of the note at the rate of 3% per annum. The Principal of this loan is to be repaid in twenty equal annual installments beginning seven years after the execution of the loan and is secured by liens in favor of the State on certain new and existing millages. Under terms of the desegregation settlement agreements, if at any time between September, 1989 and December 31, 2000, the composite scores of the School District's black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and the School District are 90% or greater of the composite scores of the School District's white students (excluding special education students), any principal or interest payments Previously paid on the desegregation loan will be repaid to the School District and any outstanding loan balances forgiven. 19 1: THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 5: Long-Term Debt (Continued) A summary of all long-term debt transactions of the School District for the year ended June 30, 1991, is as follows: Balance at July 1, 1990 New debt issued: Construction school bonds - Capital Projects Fund Desegregation loan - General Fund (Note 8) Present value of capital lease obligations related to purchases of equipment and buses - General Fund Total new debt issued Debt retired: School bonds Capital lease obligations Revolving loan Pulaski County, Arkansas Special School District (Note 8) Total debt retired Balance at June 30, 1991 $ 52,514,599 17,197,450 6,000,000 1,648,889 24,846,339 2,180,750 2,124,737 60,000 l I ll8, 343 5,483,830 $ 71,877,108 Long-term debt at June 30, 1991 is comprised of the following: School bonds, construction and refunding issues s Pulask 0 i County Special School District (Note 8) Arkansas State Department of Education Revolving Loan Arkansas State Department of Education Desegregation Loan Capital lease obligations, secured by related buses and computer equipment $ Principal Balance 51,003,550 9,952,323 180,000 6,000,000 4,741,235 71,877,108 20 Interest Rates 3.25% - 7.7% 4.2% - 10% 9% 3% 6.6% - 8.9% Maturities Semiannually\nthrough 2020 Semiannually\nthrough 2003 Semiannually\nthro_ugh 1994 Annually\n1998-2017 Various\nthrough 1995 1 I I THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 5: Long-Term Debt (Continued) The annual requirements to amortize all long-term debt outstanding at June 30, 1991 are as follows: Year Ending June 30 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Thereafter Amount 5,499,5'28 5,232,230 4,428,025 4,260,686 3,460,714 48,995,925 $ 71,877,108 Total interest payable in the future on debt outstanding at June 30, 1991, excluding amounts for the desegregation loan, is approximately $39.5 million. Interest on the desegregation loan, assuming a twenty year amortization beginning in 1998, would approximate $1.7 million. Subsequent to year end, approximately $15 million of construction bonds, dated October 1, 1991, were issued to finance capital expenditures. Note 6: Prior-Year Defeasance of Debt In prior years, the School District defeased certain 1984 and 1985 construction bonds by placing the proceeds of a refunding bond issue in an irrevocable trust to provide for all future debt service payments on the old bonds. Accordingly, the trust account assets and the liability for the def eased bonds are not included in the School District's financial statements. At June 30, 1991, $2.8 million of bonds outstanding are considered defeased. Note 7: Retirement Plans All School District employees are required by law to be covered by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (ATRS) except the following: (1) certain bus drivers, cafeteria workers and janitors, who are required by law to be covered by the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System (APERS) and (2) ~art-time teachers, teacher aides and foreign exchange teachers who may elect in writing to exclude themselves from coverage. Effective July 1, 1991, all new employees of a school district, including part-time employees, must be members of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Both systems are multipleemployer, cost-sharing public employee retirement systems which also provide death and disability benefits. Benefits for both systems are established by state statute. 21 1 I I ! I I ' THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 7: Retirement Plans (Continued) The payroll for employees covered by the ATRS for the year ended June 30, 1991, was approximately $74,000,000 and the payroll for employees covered by APERS for the same period was approximately $6,000,000. The School District's total payroll was approximately $81,000,000. ATRS employees who retire at or after age 60 with 10 years of credited service, or after 30 years of credited service regardless of age, are entitled to a retirement benefit, payable monthly for life, equal to 1.85 percent of their final average salary for each contributory year of credited service and 1.17 percent of their final average salary for each non-contributory year of credited service. Final average salary is the average of the member's highest five fiscal years of earnings, regardless of when they occur. Benefits fully vest upon reaching 10 years of service. Vested employees that retire prior to accumulating 30 years of service or reaching age 60 will experience a reduction in benefits for early retirement. APERS contributory employees who retire at or after either (a) age 65 with 10 years service, or (b) age 60 with 20 years service, or (c) 30 years of service regardless of age, are entitled to a retirement benefit, payable monthly for life, equal to 1.8 percent of average pay for each contributory Year of credited service, or a minimum of $150. Average pay is the average of the highest 60 calendar month's of pay. Benefits fully vest upon reaching 10 years of service. Vested contributory employees that retire at or after age 55 but prior to age 65, with 10 years of service, receive reduced retirement benefits. APERS non-contributory employees who retire at or after age 65 with 10 years of service, or 30 years of service regardless of age, are entitled to a retirement benefit, payable monthly for life, equal to 1.8 percent of average Pay for each year of credited service. The retirement benefit is reduced fer applicable Social Security primary benefits for each year of credited service . The APERS benefit cannot be less than .7 percent of average pay times years of non-contributory service, or $150 monthly. Vesting, average pay calculations and early retirement provisions are the same as those of APERS contributory employees. Contribution requirements are established by State statute for each system. For the year ended June 30, 1991, employees covered by ATRS had the option to contribute 6% of full salary or $7,800, whichever applies, and employees covered by APERS had the option to contribute 6% of full salary. Federal funds of the School District were used to provide the 12% matching contribution, for all eligible ATRS employees who are paid through Federal Programs, while the state provided the matching contribution for other ATRS employees. The School District is liable for the 4% match for APERS employees. 22 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 7: Retirement Plans (Continued) For the year ended June 30, 1991, retirement and matching contributions for School District employees, expressed in thousands of dollars and as a percent of covered payroll, are as follows: ATRS APERS Total Employee contributions $ 1,877 2.54% $ 17 .28% $ 1,894 2.82% Matching Contributions: School District 240 4.00 240 4.00 State 8,055 10.88 8,055 10.88 Federal 361 _\u0026amp; 361 _\u0026amp; $ 101293 13.91% $ 257 4.28% $ 101550 18.19% The pension benefit obligation (PBO) is a standard disclosure measure of the present value of pension benefits, adjusted for the effects of projected salary increases and any step-rate benefits, estimated to be payable in the future as a result of employee service to date. The measure, which is the actuarial present value of credited projected benefits, is intended to help users assess each system's funding status on a going-concern basis, assess Progress made in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due, and make comparisons among PERS and employers. The systems do not make separate measurements of assets and PBO for individual employers, thus such information is not available as it relates to the School District individually. The total PBO, net assets available for benefits and funded status at June 30, 1990, the date of the latest actuarial valuation, is shown below for each system: ATRS APERS Total Pension benefit obligation $ 2,380,800 $ 1,054,875 $ 3,435,675 Net assets available for benefits 2,232,810 114111279 316441089 Unfunded (overfunded) pension benefit obligation $ 1471990 $ (356,404) $ (2081414) Ten year historical trend information showing each system's progress in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due is presented in each system's June 30, 1990 comprehensive annual financial report. Note 8: Desegregation and Related Funding Issues During 1982, the School District brought litigation to consolidate the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. This was an interdistrict school desegregation case involving complex federal litigation in both trial and appellate courts. 23 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 8: Desegregation and Related Funding Issues (Continued) In relation to the remedy issues of this litigation, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District entered into agreements, which were approved by the Courts, for the transfers of certain schools, buildings and related personal property between the districts. The Little Rock School District assumed approximately $14. 6 million in long-term debt (see Note 5) related to the properties transferred to them. The transfer of property also resulted in approximately $300 million in property assessment values being transferred to the Little Rock School District effective upon the January 1, 1987 assessments. The litigation also resulted in the courts ordering the School District to initiate certain desegregation programs with the Arkansas Department of Education (the State) being liable for certain aspects of funding the programs. All major financial aspects of this litigation have been settled and accepted by the courts. Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the Arkansas Department of Education agreed to pay the School district a total of $71 million, net of $2 million in legal fees awarded the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. This amount included approximately $57,130,000 for compensatory education and other desegregation programs and $13,870,000 for cash equivalent Payments in lieu of formula guarantees. In addition, the State agreed to loan the School District up to $20 million between July 1, 1989 and July 1, 1999. The loan proceeds are to be used for desegregation purposes and are secured by liens in favor of the State on certain new and existing millages. As of June 30, 1991, $6,000,000 had been received in regard to the loan provisions of the agreement and is recorded as proceeds from long-term debt in the general fund (see Note 5). During the year ended June 30, 1991, the School District recorded settlement Proceeds of $8,356,778 in the general fund for compensatory education programs and other desegregation expenses. Included in this amount is a receivable of $4,747,528 due the School District on July 1, 1991 for reimbursement of desegregation expenditures made prior to year end. Legal fees advanced by the State, totaling $2,000,000, to be deducted from settlement proceeds in the final years of payment to the School District, are recorded as settlement Proceeds in the general fund. In addition, the School District received and recorded additional cash equivalent payments in lieu of Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA) formula guarantees totaling $2,000,000 which are recorded as MFPA revenue in the general fund. 24 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 8: Desegregation and Related Funding Issues (Continued) Net amounts of future funding under the above described agreements (excluding potential loan proceeds) at June 30, 1991 are as follows: MFPA Year Ending Desegregation Guarantees Total June 30, 1992 s 8,637,482 s 2,000,000 s 10,637,482 June 30, 1993 8,926,606 2,000,000 10,926,606 June 30, 1994 8,094,112 2,000,000 10,094,112 June 30, 1995 6,042,591 2,000,000 8,042,591 June 30, 1996 3,829,942 1,870,114 5,700,056 Future years 6831125 6831125 Total $ 36,213,858 $ 9,870,114 $ 46,083,972 Note 9: Agency Funds As the School District serves only in a fiduciary capacity for the school activity funds and other agency funds, related transactions are not reflected in the combined statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance. A summary of transactions in these school activity and other agency funds during the year ended June 30, 1991, and the resulting change in amounts due to the school activity groups and other agencies, is as follows: Due to school activity groups and other agencies at June 30, 1990 Transactions during the year ended June 30, 1991: School activities and other agencies revenues Interest on investments School activities and other agencies expenditures Due to school activity groups and other agencies at June 30, 1991 Note 10: Cash and Investments $ 874,461 3,260,064 19,575 (3,145,235) $ 1,008,865 Arkansas statutes authorize school districts to deposit their funds in any bank located in the State of Arkansas. In addition, they may invest in bonds of the United States of America, general obligation bonds of the State of Arkansas, and bank certificates of deposit or repurchase agreements from a bank or savings and loan that has pledged direct obligations of, or obligations which are fully guaranteed by, the United States of America. 25 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 10: Cash and Investments (Continued) The carrying amount of the School District's deposits (including Agency Funds) with a Little Rock, Arkansas financial institution was $310,645, net of $690,131 reflected as bank overdrafts for financial statement purposes, and the bank balance was $1,707,000. The bank balance is categorized as follows: Amount insured by the FDIC Amount collateralized with securities held by the Federal Reserve Bank in the School District's name Uncollateralized Total bank balance $ 270,982 1,300,000 136,018 $ 1,707,000 Investments of the School District (including Agency Funds) at June 30, 1991, are summarized below. Investments, which are all represented by specific identifiable investment securities, are classified as to credit risk by the three categories described as follows: Category 1 - Insured or registered, or securities held by the School District or its agent in the School District's name. Category 2 - Uninsured and unregistered, with securities held by the counterparty's trust department or agent in the School District's name. Category 3 - Uninsured and unregistered, with securities held by the counterparty, or by its trust department or agent, but not in the School District's name. Total Category Carrying 1 2 3 Amount Certificates of deposit $ 1,150,000 $ 300,000 $ $ 1,450,000 Treasury bills 20,188,155 20,188,155 Repurchase agreements 4,400,000 4,400,000 s 21,338,155 s 300,000 s 4,400,000 s 26,038,155 Note 11: Magnet School Funding A~ a part of its desegregation program (see Note 8), the Federal court directed the School District to participate in a ''Magnet School\" system and has vested control of these schools in a Magnet Review Committee (MRC). 26 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 11: Magnet School Funding (Continued) During the year ended June 30, 1988, six schools from the Little Rock School District were organized as a separate reporting group under the control of the MRC. The MRC received its authority from the Federal court as the result of desegregation litigation (see Note 8). During the year ended June 30, 1991, the approved funding level of these schools (\"the Magnets\") totaled $3,370 per average daily membership (ADM) from the State of Arkansas, Pulaski County special School District (PCSSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD). The State contributes one half of the cost ($1,685 per ADM) with the three school districts sharing the balance of the cost. The State pays its portion of the NLRSD and PCSSD contributions directly to the respective districts for subsequent remission to the LRSD. Average daily membership: LRSD NLRSD PCSSD Total ADM Contribution rate - local sources Total school districts' contributions Less operating transfers from General Fund to Magnet Fund Total Magnet Revenue - local sources Total Magnet Revenue - state sources $ s $ $ 2,351.97 478.07 900.46 3,730.50 1,685 6,285,893 (3,592,755) 2,693,138 6,285,892 The Little Rock School District accounts for the Magnet School's operating revenues and expenses within its Special Revenue Fund since these funds are restricted to the operations of the Magnets. The School District's portion of the total costs consists of $3,592,755 recorded as an operating transfer from the General Fund with the balance of $370,314 being indirect administrative cost contributions. In addition to the above discussed operating revenues, the School District is also reimbursed by the NLRSD and PCSSD for debt service payments for capital improvements to the Magnets. The total of such reimbursements (which are reflected in revenues of the Debt Service Fund) for the year ended June 30, 1991 are as follows: North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Total 27 $ 35,434 89,724 $125,158 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 12: Note Payable On March 28, 1991, the School District issued $14,080,000 of tax and revenue anticipation promissory notes (TRANS). The TRANS, plus accrued interest at a rate of 5.50% per annum, are payable in full December 31, 1991. Security for the TRANS is a pledge of revenue of the School District for the year ended June 30, 1991. Accrued interest of $101,000 is recorded in the General Fund at June 30, 1991. Total interest charges incurred on notes payable, including balances under previous lines-of-credit, for the year ended June 30, 1991 were approximately $155,000. Note 13: Other Litigation and Contingencies At June 30, 1991, the School District is a defendant in various legal actions. Several involve claims by former employees asserting discriminatory hiring practices. The School District intends to vigorously contest these cases. Management and legal counsel are of the opinion that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is small and, thus, no provision has been made in the financial statements for any potential liabilities. During the year ended June 30, 1991, judgments were entered against the School District totaling approximately $580,000 to be paid to the District's former attorneys for services performed on behalf of the School District in the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The School District recorded a liability and related expenditure for $580,000 in the June 30, 1991 combined financial statements. Note 14: Risk Management The School District is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts\ntheft of, damage to, and destruction of assets\nerrors and omissions\ninjuries to employees and students\nand natural disasters. Effective October 1, 1990, the School District established a Risk Management Fund within the General Fund to account for and finance its uninsured risks of loss. Under this program, the Risk Management Fund provides coverage up to a maximum of $100,000 for each property damage, general liability or other covered claim. The School District purchases commercial insurance for claims in excess of coverage provided by the Fund and for all other risks of loss. Settled claims did not exceed loss fund or other commercial coverage during the year ended June 30, 1991. 28 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements {Continued) June 30, 1991 Note 14: Risk Management {Continued) The claims liability of $252,068 recorded in the General Fund at June 30, 1991 is based on the requirements of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 10, which requires that a liability for claims be reported if information prior to the issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The claims liability includes an amount for claims that have been incurred but not reported. Claims liability activity for the year ended June 30, 1991 is as follows: Balance July 1, 1990 s Claims expense 384,717 Claims paid {132,649) Balance June 30, 1991 s 252,068 29 II II II i 1, II ! SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES 30 'I I I I J\n:I! II Schedule 1 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combining Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures - Special Revenue Funds Year Ended June 30, 1991 Total Federal Food Other Magnet (Memorandum Programs Service Programs Schools Only) Revenues Meal sales $ $ 1,344,429 $ $ $ 1,344,429 State, local and other assistance 34,416 614,452 905,508 8,979,030 10,533,406 Federal financial assistance 4,871,273 3,634,607 8,505,880 Interest income 71,307 71 307 Total revenues 4,905,689 5,664,795 905,508 8,979,030 20,455,022 Ex12enditures Basic programs 38,404 7,943,401 7,981,805 Exceptional child programs 329,798 242,281 572,079 Vocational-technical programs 245,192 181,598 505,984 932,774 Adult continuing education programs 78,262 624,119 702,381 Compensatory education programs 2,707,413 9,352 1,190 2,717,955 Other instructional programs 4,598 29,598 244,392 278,588 Instructional support services 571,066 4,500 945,194 1,520, 760 Operation and maintenance of plant 1,622 1,046,555 1,048,177 General administration 80,426 33,992 1,106,428 1,220,846 Capital outlay 595,785 208,741 107,018 911,544 Food services 5,410,705 5,410,705 Community services 207,934 207,934 Indirect and other 83,593 370,314 453,907 Total expenditures 4,905,689 5,619,446 921,563 12,512,757 23,959,455 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 45,349 (16,055) (3,533,727) {3,504,433) Other Financing Sources (Uses) Operating transfer in for LRSD portion of Magnet funding 3,592,755 3,592,755 Operating transfers out for Magnet School equipment lease payments (59,028) (59,028) Total other financing sources 3,533,727 3,533,727 Excess of revenues over (under) expend-itures and other financing uses $ $ 45,349 $_ (16,055) $ $ 29,294 31 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Rockefeller Day Care Center Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures {Cash Basis) - Budget and Actual Year ended June 30, 1991 Revenues Federal funds Tuition Non-Federal matching contribution LRSD {Development program and line item reimbursement) Total revenues Expenditures Salaries and fringe Program supplies General administration Non-Federal matching expenditures Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Units Eligible Non-eligible Total Note: Budget 10-1-89 to 10-1-90 to 9-30-90 9-30-91 $133,770 41,780 $ 3,525 167,239 346,314 322,763 17,806 2,450 3,525 346,544 (230) 14,376 3,179 17,555 $123,663 32,500 $ 332,438 488,601 440,701 18,853 29,055 488,609 (8) 13,000 3,250 16,250 Schedule 2 Actual 6-30-91 $ 81,019 34,416 42,237 157,672 93,458 14,594 5,885 42,237 156,174 $ 1,498 10,667 2,652 13,319 --The budget amounts as reflected above are by grant periods. The actual amounts, which reflect transactions during both the budget periods, are based on the School District's fiscal year ending June 30, 1991. 32 Schedule 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Revenues of Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as Prescribed by Handbook II) Year Ended June 30, 1991 Total General and Debt Service Funds (Memorandum Only) Unadjusted Adjusted Handbook II Net Handbook II Budget Revenues Adjustments Revenues Revenue - Local Sources Current taxes $ 31,547,258 $ 31,899,358 $ s 31,899,358 Delinquent taxes 4,059,535 3,214,974 3,214,974 40% pullback 20,902,212 20,601,593 20,601,593 Excess treasurer's fee 115,000 118,998 118,998 Depository interest 330,000 317,646 317,646 Revenue in lieu of taxes 200,000 120,412 120,412 Miscellaneous and rents 250,000 858,778 (540,800) 317,978 Interest on investments 100,000 141,376 106,480 247,856 Athletic receipts 100,000 91,322 9}, 322 57,604,005 57,364,457 (434,320) 56,930,137 Revenue - County Sources County General 130,165 73,971 73,971 Severance tax 16,232 16,232 130,165 90,203 90,203 Revenue - State Sources MFPA 23,371,654 22,037,764 22,037,764 Apportionment 74,267 73,971 73,971 Vocational 1,526,000 1,265,710 1,265 , 710 Handicapped children 468,000 602,063 602,063 Orphan children 12,720 8,820 8,820 Transportation 2,400,000 2,885,960 2,885,960 Compensatory education 243,243 609,943 609,943 Incentive fund 743,493 1,007,481 1,007,481 Adult education 694,000 624,119 624,119 Desegregation settlement 8,356,778 10,356,778 10,356,778 Desegregation loan 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 43,890,155 45,472,609 45,472 1 609 Revenue - Other Sources Public law 874 44,625 28,585 28,585 Transfer from federal grant 90,000 95,588 95,588 Transfer from bond account 500,000 613,166 3,435,059 4,048,225 634,625 737,339 3,435,059 4,172,398 Total revenues $ 102,258,950 s 103,664,608 s 3,000,739 s 106,665,347 33 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Expenditures of Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds  (Basis of Accounting as Prescribed by Handbook II) Year Ended June 30, 1991 Schedule 4 Total General and Debt Service Funds (Memorandum Only) Unadjusted Adjusted Handbook II Net Handbook II Budget Expenditures Adjustments Expenditures Certified salaries $ 49,642,449 $ 48,991,356 $ $ 48,991,356 Non-certified salaries 14,989,410 14,761,997 14,761,997 Substitute salaries 1,439,593 1,439,593 Employee benefits 7,037,307 8,032,968 8,032,968 Purchased services 9,842,416 10,457,142 56,735 10,513,877 Supplies and materials 5,379,939 4,020,746 4,020,746 Capital outlay 3,605,028 3,628,473 571,862 4,200,335 Debt service 6,831,984 6,646,769 2,444,186 9,090,955 Other objects 419251987 510361791 (651,879) 413841912 Total expenditures $ 102,2541520 $ 10310151835 $ 2,4201904 $ 1051436,739 34 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule 5 Reconciliation of General and Debt Service Fund Balances - Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Handbook II Basis of Accounting June 30, 1991 Adjusted June 30, 1990 Handbook II fund balances Adjusted Handbook II revenues (Schedule 3) Adjusted Handbook II expenditures (Schedule 4) Adjustments to convert to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP): Property taxes - debt services Property taxes - general fund Special revenue fund adjustments General and debt service GAAP fund balances at June 30, 1991 General fund Debt service fund Total 35 $ (238,491) 106,665,347 (105,436,739) 4,778,210 (4,273,953) (14,812) $ 1,479,562 $ 178,321 1,301,241 S 1,479,562 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Long-Term Debt June 30, 1991 Long-term debt at June 30, 1991 is comprised of the following: $4,485,000 December, 1965 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1995\ninterest at 3.25 to 3.6% $2,051,000 June, 1973 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1993\ninterest at 4.7 to 5.0% $6,482,700 June, 1977 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1996\ninterest at 4.25 to 5.1% $6,134,565 March, 1979 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1999\ninterest at 5.4 to 6.0% $4,889,200 March, 1980 Surplus Revenue Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1994\ninterest at 5.75 to 6.0% $7,826,000 June, 1987 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2007\ninterest at 6.7 to 7.7% $5,512,750 May, 1988 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2007\ninterest at 6.2 to 7.2% $3,371,000 June, 1988 Refunding School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1999\ninterest at 5.6 to 6.6% $8,164,100 September, 1989 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2008\ninterest at 6.1 to 6.75% $17,197,450 September, 1990 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2020\ninterest at 6.25 to 7.2% Total bonds 36 Schedule 6 $ 1,187,000 445,000 2,815,000 3,595,000 1,915,000 7,485,000 5,365,000 2,835,000 8,164,100 17,197,450 51,003,550 (Continued) Schedule 6 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Long-Term Debt (Continued) June 30, 1991 Lease payable in annual installments through July 1991\ninterest at 6.6% Lease payable in annual installments through October 1991\ninterest at 8.38% Lease payable in annual installments through October 1991, interest at 8.38% Lease payable in annual installments through October 1992, interest at 7.0% Lease payable in annual installments through April 1993\ninterest at 8.0% Lease payable in monthly installments through July 1993\ninterest at 7.8% Lease payable in semi-annual installments through July 1994\ninterest at 8.5% Lease payable in annual installments through February 1993\ninterest at 5.9% Lease payable in annual installments through April 1994\ninterest at 8.9% Lease payable in annual installments through October 1993\ninterest at 7.62% Lease payable in annual installments through October 1994\ninterest at 7.99% Lease payable in annual installments through March 1995\ninterest at 7.95% Lease payable in monthly installments through February 1994\ninterest at 7.42% Total capital lease obligations 37 $ 378,378 135,769 19,679 25,882 44,114 106,767 605,997 1,931,484 43,061 144,807 1,134,000 87,163 841134 417411235 (Continued) Schedule 6 (Continued) THE -LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Long-Term Debt (Continued) June 30, 1991 $14,632,725 debt payable to the Pulaski County Special School District semi-annually through 2003 Revolving loan\npayable in semi-annual installments through January 1994 at 9% Desegregation loan\npayable in 20 annual installments beginning September, 1997\ninterest at 3%. Total Long-Term Debt 38 $ 9,952,323 180,000 6,000,000 $ 71,877,108 OTHER REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 39 ~cud~ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Lottie Rock Office: 201 E. Markham  Suite 500  Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 3752025  FAX (501) 3758704 Texarkana Office: 701 Arkansas Blvd.  Texarkana, AR 75502 (501) 7732168  FAX (501) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE BASED ON A STUDY AND EVALUATION MADE AS A PART OF AN AUDIT OF THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AND THE ADDITIONAL TESTS REQUIRED BY THE SINGLE AUDIT ACT The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District), as of and for the year ended June 30, 1991, and have issued our report thereon dated November 5, 1991. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards\nGovernment Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States\nand Office of Management and Budget (0MB) Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and 0MB Circular A-128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the combined financial statements are free of material misstatement and about whether the School District complied with laws and regulations, noncompliance with which would be material to a major federal financial assistance program. In planning and performing our audit of the combined financial statements of the School District for the year ended June 30, 1991, we considered its internal control structure in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the combined financial statements and on its compliance with requirements applicable to major federal financial assistance programs and not to provide assurance on the internal control structure. The management of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas 'is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of internal control structure policies and procedures. The objectives of an internal control structure are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of combined financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that federal financial assistance programs are managed in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Because of inherent limitations in any internal control structure, errors or irregularities, or instances of noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of 40 Members American Institute of Certified Public Accounlants Private Companies Practice Section and S.E.C. Practice Section Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Two the structure to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate. For the purpose of this report, we have classified the significant internal control structure policies and procedures in the following categories: 1. Accounting Controls 2. - Cash - Fund balances - Revenues/receivables - Payrolls - Cash receipts - Fixed assets - Expenditures/payables - Investments - Cash disbursements - Property taxes receivable Controls Used in Administering Federal Programs General Requirements: Specific Requirements: Political activity Davis-Bacon Act Civil rights Cash management Federal financial reports Allowable costs/Cost principles Drug-free Workplace Act Administrative requirements Types of services Eligibility Matching, level of effort, or earmarking Reporting Special tests and provisions For all of the internal control structure categories listed above, we obtained an understanding of the design of relevant policies and procedures and determined whether they have been placed in operation, and we assessed control risk. During the year ended June 30, 1991, the School District expended 87% of its total federal financial assistance under major federal financial assistance programs. We performed tests of controls, as required by the 0MB circular A-128, to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and operation of internal control structure policies and procedures that we considered relevant to preventing or detecting material noncompliance with specific requirements, general requirements, and requirements governing claims for advances and reimbursements and amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to each of the School District's major federal financial assistance programs, which are identified in the accompanying schedule of federal financial assistance. Our Procedures were less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on these internal control structure policies and procedures. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 41 I I I I I I L I [ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Three We noted certain matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the School District's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the combined financial statements or to administer federal financial assistance programs in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Fixed Assets At present, the School District does not have a complete inventory or detail subsidiary ledger of all fixed assets which can be agreed or reconciled to total general fixed assets as reported in the combined financial statements. The School District's fixed asset tracking system should be expanded to include all of its assets and to provide for a complete annual physical inventory count of capital assets. The inventory should be used to determine that all assets purchased are still in possession of the School District and that assets are being utilized in an effective and efficient manner. * * * * * * A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of the specific internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that would be material in relation to the combined financial statements being audited or that noncompliance with laws and regulations that would be material to a federal financial assistance program may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control structure that might be reportable conditions and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all reportable conditions that are also considered to be material weaknesses as defined above. However, we believe the reportable condition described above is not a material weakness. 42 The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Pour This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and State agencies. This is not intended to limit the distribution of this report which is a matter of public record . November 5, 1991 Little Rock, Arkansas 43 .7.._J) ~ ~, -rl/l ~l--~ Certified Public Accountants ~cud~ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Lottie Rock Olfice: 201 E Markham  Suite 500  Little Rock. AR 72201 (501) 375-2025  FAX (501 I 3758704 Texarkana Olfice: 701 Arkansas Blvd  Texarkana , AR 75502 (501) 7732168  FAX (501) 7747244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE BASED ON AN AUDIT OF THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District), as of and for the year ended June 30, 1991, and have issued our report thereon dated November 5, 1991. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Audi ting Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas is the responsibility of the School District's management. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of the School District's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. However, the objective of our audit of the combined financial statements was not to provide an opinion on overall compliance with such provisions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests indicate that, with respect to the items tested, The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas complied, in all material respects, with the provisions referred to in the preceding paragraph. With respect to items not tested, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe t~at the School District had not complied, in all material respects, with those provisions. This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. This is not intended to limit the distribution of this report which is a matter of public record. November 5, 1991 Little Rock, Arkansas Certified Public Accountants 44 Members American Institute of Certified Public AccounIants Private Companies Practice Sectoo and S E.C Practice Section ~and'~ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ~Ille Rock Office: 201 E. Markham  su,te 500  Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 3752025  FAX (501) 375-8704 Texarkana Office: 701 Arkansas Blvd.  Texarkana, AR 75502 (501) 773-2168  FAX (501) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the financial statements of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District) as of and for the year ended June 30, 1991. We have applied procedures to test the School District's compliance with the following requirements applicable to its federal financial assistance programs, which are identified in the schedule of federal financial assistance for the year ended June 30, 1991: - Political Activity - Federal Financial Reports - Davis-Bacon Act - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles - Civil Rights - Drug Free Workplace Act - Cash Management - Administrative Requirements Our procedures were limited to the applicable procedures described in the Office of Management and Budget's Compliance Supplement for Single Audits of State and Local Governments. Our procedures were substantially less in scope than an audit, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion on the School District's compliance with the requirements listed in the preceding paragraph. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. With respect to the items tested, the results of those procedures disclosed no material instances of noncompliance with the requirements listed in the second paragraph of this report. With respect to items not tested, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the School District had not complied, in all material respects, with those requirements. However, the results of our procedures disclosed immaterial instances of noncompliance with those requirements, which are described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. This is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record. November 5, 1991 Little Rock, Arkansas ~4~ Certified Public Accountants Members American lnslitute ol Certified Pubhc Accountants Private Companies Practice Section4 ~ S.E.C. Practice Seclion ~ad~ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS little Rock Office: 201 E. Markham  Suite 500  Little Rock, AA 72201 (501) 375-2025  FAX (501) 375-8704 Texarkana Office: 701 Arkansas Blvd.  Texarkana, AR 75502 (501) 773-2168  FAX (501) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO MAJOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the financial statements of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District) as of and for the year ended June 30, 1991. We also have audited the School District's compliance with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed\neligibility\nmatching, level of effort, or earmarking\nreporting\nlevels of service\nannual assessment of educational needs\nservices provided to children enrolled in private schools\ncommitment of funds\nrecord retention\nclaims for advances and reimbursements\nand amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to each of its major federal financial assistance programs, which are identified in the accompanying schedule of federal financial assistance for the year ended June 30, 1991.- The management of the School District is responsible for compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with those requirements based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance with those requirements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and 0MB Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and 0MB Circular A-128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the requirements referred to above occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the School District's compliance with those requirements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonabl~ basis for our opinion. The results of our audit procedures disclosed immaterial instances of noncompliance with the requirements referred to above, which are described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. We considered these instances of noncompliance in forming our opinion on compliance, which is expressed in the following paragraph. In our opinion, the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas complied, in all material respects, with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed\neligibility\nmatching, level of effort, or earmarking\nreporting\nlevels of service\nannual assessment of educational needs\nservices provided to children enrolled in private schools\ncommitment of funds\nrecord retention\nclaims for advances and reimbursements\nand amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to each of its major federal financial assistance programs for the year ended June 30, 1991. 46 Members American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Private Companies Practice Section and S.E.C. Practice Section The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Two This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. This is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record. November 5, 1991 Little Rock, Arkansas 47 ~-tf~ Certified Public Accountants !iZ.ma'\u0026amp;a?td~ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Little Rock Office: 201 E. Markham  Suite 500  Little Rock. AR 72201 (501) 375-2025  FAX (501) 375-8704 Texarkana Office: 701 Arkansas Blvd.  Texarkana, AR 75502 (501) 773-2168  FAX (501) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO NONMAJOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TRANSACTIONS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the financial statements of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District) as of and for the year ended June 30, 1991. In connection with our audit of the combined financial statements of the School District, and with our consideration of the School District's internal control structure used to administer federal financial assistance programs, as required by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments, we selected certain transactions applicable to certain nonmajor federal financial assistance programs for the year ended June 30, 1991. As required by 0MB Circular A-128, we have performed auditing procedures to test compliance with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed and eligibility that are applicable to those transactions. Our procedures were substantially less in scope than an audit, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion on the School District's compliance with these requirements. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. With respect to the items tested, the results of those procedures disclosed no material instances of noncompliance with the requirements listed in the preceding paragraph. With respect to items not tested, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas had not complied, in all material respects, with those requirements. Also, the results of our procedures did not disclose any immaterial instances of noncompliance with those requirements. This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. This is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record . November 5, 1991 Little Rock, Arkansas ~i~ Certified Public Accountants 48 Members American Institute of Certilled Public Accountants Private Companies Practice Section and S.E.C. Pract1ce Section Program Department of Education Title VI-B Handicapped Chapter 1 Compensatory THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs June 30, 1991 Findings/Noncompliance Title VI-B requires the School District to re-evaluate children in the handicapped program every third year to determine if they have progressed enough to be placed in the mainstream of education. During our review of 25 files, we found one child who had not been re-evaluated, as required, in the third year of participation in the program. The Chapter 1, ESEA Monitoring Report dated May 21, 1991, noted that Stephens Elementary School was improperly operating its Chapter 1 program as if approved as a schoolwide project. This finding resulted in questioned costs of $71,480.20. In order to accurately record the effect of the finding on the June 30, 1991 financial records of the District, expenses in this amount were charged to the general fund with a related deferral of revenue in the special revenue fund. These funds will be available for use in the 1991-92 school year. A Chapter 1 project must be based on an annual assessment of educational needs that selects those educationally deprived children who have the greatest need for special assistance. The Chapter 1, ESEA Monitoring Report dated Hay 21, 1991 noted that the student selection process was done without regard to identifying students having the greatest needs and was not uniformly applied throughout the School District. A corrective action plan was filed prior to June 30, 1991 to help ensure that participating students are properly selected in the future. 49 Questioned Costs THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs (Continued) June 30, 1991 Program Department of Education Chapter 1 Compensatory (Continued) Department of Agriculture Naticml Sdml Lunch Program Findings/Noncompliance At least once every three years the School District must complete a Sustained Gains Study to evaluate the effectiveness of its Chapter 1 program. The study uses an objective measurement of individual achievement in basic and more advanced skills aggregated for the School District as a whole and determines whether improved performance is sustained over more than one year. The Chapter 1, ESEA Monitoring Report dated May 21, 1991 noted that a Sustained Gains Study was not completed during the three-year period 1987-89. The Sustained Gains Study was completed and submitted prior to June 30, 1991. Chapter 1 guidelines require that, for participating students failing to show a gain for two consecutive program years, there must be a record or other evidence that the students' plans were in place. The Chapter 1, ESEA Mani tor ing Report dated May 21, 1991 disclosed that no record or evidence of such plans existed. A corrective action plan was filed by the School District prior to June 30, 1991. The National School Lunch Program requires that all meals reported for reimbursement must be supported by accurate meal counts and records and may only be served to eligible children. A review was performed by the Department of Agriculture during the year ended June 30, 1991, and the summary of findings that was prepared noted meal count errors, claims consolidation errors, applicationapproval errors, and roster errors. The total amount of questioned costs associated with these errors was $555. 62. This amount was 50 Questioned Costs THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs (Continued) June 30, 1991 Program Department of Agriculture National School Lunch Program (Continued) Department of Energy Energy Conservation Findings/Noncompliance deducted from a claim for reimbursement submitted by the School District prior to June 30, 1991. The Davis-Bacon Act requires that wage rates paid laborers on federally financed construction projects at least equal local established rates. We noted through our discussion with the Arkansas Energy Office as to the School District's compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act that instances of noncompliance occurred during the year. As of June 30, 1991, these instances had been resolved and workers had been paid the prevailing wage rate. A corrective action plan was filed by the School District prior to June 30, 1991. 51 Questioned Costs ~cud~ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS little Rock Office: 201 E. Markham  Suite 500  Little Rock, AR 72201 Texarkana Office: 701 Arkansas Blvd.  Texarkana, AR 75502 (501) 773-2168  FAX (501) 774-7244 (50l) 375  2025  FAX ( 5 0l) 375 \" 8704 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS I REPORT ON SCHEDULE OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District) for the year ended June 30, 1991, and have issued our report thereon dated November 5, 1991. These combined financial statements are the responsibility of the School District's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these combined financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the combined financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an op1n1on on the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas taken as a whole. The accompanying schedule of federal financial assistance is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the combined financial statements. The information in that schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the combined financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the combined financial statements taken as a whole. November 5, 1991 Little Rock, Arkansas ~~~ Certified Public Accountants 52 Members American lns11tute of Certified Pubhc Accountants Private Companies Practice Section and SEC. Practice Section Federal Grantor/Pass-Through Grantor/Program Title Major Programs U.S. Department of Education Passed Through State Department of Education: CHAPTER I Compensatory Title VI-B Handicapped U.S. Department of Agriculture Passed Through State Department of Education: National School Lunch Program U.S. Department of Energy Passed Through Arkansas Energy Office: Energy Conservation Total Major Programs Other Federal Programs U.S. Department of Education Passed Through State Department of Education: EESA TITLE II Public Law 874 ECIA CHAPTER II CHAPTER I Handicapped Indochinese Refugee Child Assistance Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 Vocational Education Act (Carl Perkins) Adult Basic Education Total U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Labor Passed Through State Department of Education: CETA/Vocational Job Training Partnership Act Total U.S. Department of Labor THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance Year Ended June 30, 1991 Federal CFDA Number 84.010 84.027 10.555 81.052 84.164A 84.041 84.151 84.009 84.146 84.186A 84.048 84.002 17. 250 17. 250 53 Program or Award Amount $ 2,904,808 534,635 623,854 77,762 268,961 64,987 7,394 244,170 372,269 83,005 51,796 181,397 Federal Funds Revenues Recognized Expenditures $ 2,757,413 439,580 3,196,993 3,620,962 514,775 7,332,730 43,859 28,585 213,526 56,872 1,306 135,030 268,295 81,027 828,500 51,796 91,616 143,412 $ 2,757,413 439,580 3,196,993 3,620,962 514,775 7,332,730 43,859 28,585 213,526 56,872 1,306 135,030 268,295 81,027 828,500 51,796 91,616 143,412 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRIC'f OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance (Continued} Year Ended June 30, 1991 U.S. Department of Agriculture Passed Through State Department of Education: Nutritional Education Total U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed Through State Department of Human Services: Development Disabilities Planning Council Title XX Daycare - Contract Title XX Daycare - Vouchers Title XX New Futures Total U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Total Federal Financial Assistance Note: Medicaid reimbursements paid to providers are defined as contracts for services and not federal assistance\ntherefore, they are not covered by the reporting requirements of 0MB Circular A-128. Federal CFDA Number 10.564 93.630 93.667 93.667 93 . 667 54 $ Program or Award Amount 13,645 45,405 44,475 31,056 Federal Funds s Revenues Recognized 13,645 37,131 38,530 50,310 8,284 134,255 s 8,452,542 Expenditures s 13,645 37,131 38,530 50,310 8,284 134,255 s 8,452,542\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_1188","title":"Magnet Review Committee: 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":null,"dc_date":["1991-05-27"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School management and organization","School employees","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: 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/1188"],"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":["208 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nReport from Magnet Review Committee to Honorable Susan Webber Wright, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nDonna Grady Creer Executive Director TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Distribution Lis~oAt tached Report Donna Grady Creer cutive Director Magnet Review Co ittee Magnet Review Committee's Report to the Court July 31, 1991 (501) 758-01 56 Your copy of the Magnet Review Committee's Report to the Court is enclosed. This year, as per the Court's directive, the report was forwarded to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring which, in turn, transmitted the report to Judge Wright. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the Magnet Review Committee Office. DGC:sl Attachment  Magnet Review Committee Donna Gracy Creer Executive O,rector May 27, 1991 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas RECEI ED U. s. Post Office and Courthouse P. 0 . Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright:  Monitoring omce ot oesegregat1on (50 1) 758-0156 Attached please find the eighth Magnet Review Committee status report on interdistrict magnet school development and progress. The content of the report (with some exceptions) is l imited to the time period from August, 1989 to June, 1990. The Committee is prepared to elaborate on the areas described in the report and/or provide additional information as you may direct. The Xagnet Review Committee has worked closely with the host district (Little Rock School District), Pulaski County Special School District, North Little Rock School District, the Arkansas Department of Education and the Joshua Intervenors to operate and monitor the interdistrict magnet schools. The ~agnet Review Committee will work cooperatively in fulf i lling its oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, !.'2~ Chairperson Pulaski County Special School District {)a-_ ~,:~ ~~ Dana Chadwick Marcia Harding {/ North Little Rock School Arkansas Department of District Education The Honorable Susan Webber E~a2~ Joshua Intervenors ~iJlx,\n}~ ~telle Matthis Wright Page 2 -~~~ Clearence Lovell Arkansas Department of Education ~~ Little Rock School District Executive Director, MRC MRC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitor Dr. Burton Elliott, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Ruth Steele, Little Rock School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. Magnet Review Committee (MRC) ..... ........ 1 SECTION II. MRC Subcommittees......................... 7 SECTION III. Student Assignment - Interdistrict Magnet Schools............................ 14 SECTION IV. Student Assignment - Majority-to-Minority Transfer Program.......................... 17 SECTION V. Student Recruitment....................... 18 SECTION VI. Staff and Curriculum of the Interdistrict Magnet Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 SECTION VII. Research and Evaluation ................... 86 SECTION VIII. Policy Issues......................... . . . . 89 SECTION IX. Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budgets ...... 98 SECTION X. Monitoring ................................ 100 SECTION XI. Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 SECTION I THE MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE (MRC) The Magnet Review Committee was established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Court, St. Louis, in November 1985. The MRC formed in September 1986 and has continued to serve under guidelines delineated in the U. S. District Court Order of September 8, 1986, and subsequent Orders of the Court of Appeals and District Court. Current membership includes: Pulaski County Special School District Chairperson - Dr. Bobby Altom Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum Pulaski County Special School District 925 E. Dixon Road P. O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 490-2000 Member since October, 1987 Little Rock School District Ms. Estelle Matthis Associate Superintendent Educational Programs Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 370-1601 Member since August, 1990 North Little Rock School District Mr. Dana Chadwick Director, Secondary Education North Little Rock School District P.O. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8023 Member since July, 1990 -1- Arkansas Department of Education Ms. Marcia Harding Coordinator of Special Education Services Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 682-4222 Member since September, 1986 Arkansas Department of Education Mr. Clearence Lovell Associate Director of Federal Programs Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 682-4286 Member since October, 1989 Joshua Intervenors Ms. Evelyn Jackson Retired Teacher 27 Detroit Circle Little Rock, AR 72206 374-2587 Member since August, 1988 The Magnet Review Committee currently employs Donna Grady Creer as Executive Director and Sandra M. Luehrs as Administrative Assistant. Their job descriptions are included in this section of the report. The Magnet Review Committee holds regular meetings every other Tuesday. The meetings are generally held at the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1900 North Main Street, Suite 101, North Little Rock, Arkansas, and last a minimum of two hours. The Committee holds one meeting per year at each of the six interdistrict magnet schools. After each school-site meeting, the Committee tours the school and is updated on the program. Additional called meetings and/or subcommittee meetings are held as necessary. -2- TITLE: REPORTS TO: TERM OF EMPLOYMENT: JOB DESCRIPTION Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Chairperson, Magnet Review Committee Twelve (12) Months, Renewable on Annual Basis PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Coordinate the Magnet/M-to-M Educational Team (MET) 2. Inform the parties to the case, Magnet Review Committee members, and the press of regularly scheduled and specially called meetings. 3. Prepare the Magnet Review Committee agenda, and provide members with anticipated schedule prior to meeting. 4. Manage fiscal, personnel resources, and office operations of the Magnet Review Committee. 5. Develop and write reports and other correspondence for the courts. 6. Attend local meetings related to magnet schools. 7. Collect data and prepare evaluation reports for the Magnet Review Committee. 8. Monitor enrollment patterns and provide information to the Magnet Review Committee. 9. Secure consultants as directed. 10. Gather data for decision making. 11. Represent the Magnet Review Committee at various functions of the Committee and other duties a s assigned by the Magnet Review Committee. 12. Handle problems which may arise. 13. Develop record-keeping system. 14. Attend state, regional, and national meetings related to magnet schools. 15. Perform duties as assigned by the Magnet Review Committee. -3- TITLE: REPORTS TO: TERM OF EMPLOYMENT: JOB DESCRIPTION Administrative Assistant to Executive Director Magnet Review Committee Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Twelve (12) Months, Renewable on Annual Basis PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Record, maintain and distribute accurate minutes of regular and called Magnet Review Committee meetings, MET meetings, and any other Magnet Review Committee or ad hoc subcommittee meetings. 2. Use organizational and management skills in setting up and maintaining an effective and efficient office. 3. Use word processing skills effectively. 4. Exhibit excellent secretarial skills in Magnet Review Committee filing, completion or development of business forms, and record keeping. 5. Apply bookkeeping and computer skills in maintaining accurate financial records. Keep accurate records of bills, disbursements, and expenditures. Prepare memos to Metropolitan Education Service Center delineating bill payment. 6. Exhibit excellent oral and written communication skills. 7. Maintain current inventory. 8. Distribute magnet school promotional materials. 9. Confer with vendors regarding purchases and services. 10. Handle all mailings, including special deliveries, bulk rate mailings, and Federal Express services. -4- 11. Maintain meeting schedules for both the Magnet Review Committee and the Magnet/M-to-M Educational Team (MET). 12. Supervise temporary help. 13. Assure the policies and procedures of the Magnet Review Committee are followed. Assure the policies and procedures of the Metropolitan Education Service Center are followed with regard to bookkeeping services. 14. Handle, direct and counsel incoming calls from magnet parents or potential magnet parents. 15. Maintain cooperative working relationship with Magnet Review Committee members, magnet school personnel, the three school districts, Arkansas Department of Education, Metropolitan Education Service Center, and any other person contacting the Magnet Review Committee office. 16. Perform other duties as assigned by the Magnet Review Committee or the Executive Director. 17. Keep accurate records of magnet and M-to-M withdrawals, transfers and enrollment. -5- According to the Interim Court Order, dated February 27, 1987, the Magnet Review Committee's operating funds are as follows: \"The Committee shall be financed as agreed by the parties with a budget of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000), with Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), or half, to be paid by the State and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) by each of the three districts.\" This budget figure has remained constant for the past four years. The escalating cost of goods and services, and the increased number of magnet programs to be publicized, may necessitate an increase in the amount of the Magnet Review Committee's operating budget. The Magnet Review Committee reviews its expenditures monthly and revises its budget annually - usually in June of each year. After the June review, the Committee will make recommendation to the Court if increased funds are needed for its 1991-92 operating budget. Every effort will be made to assure agreement by all parties prior to petitioning the Court. -6- SECTION II MRC SUBCOMMITTEES THE MAGNET/M-TO-M EDUCATIONAL TEAM (MET) The Magnet/Majority-to-Minority Transfer Educational Team (MET) meets on the first Thursday of each month at the Magnet Review Committee Office. During its existence, the MET has spearheaded most recruitment and information activities for the interdistrict magnet school and Majority-to-Minority (M-to-M) transfer programs in Pulaski County. During the 1989-90 recruitment period, the MET initiated the following activities: Print Brochures and application for the Parkview Science Magnet program. (Individual) brochures and a recruitment packet for each program. Newspaper ads in: Arkansas Democrat Arkansas Gazette Spectrum Arkansas State Press The Maumelle Monitor The North Little Rock Times The Sherwood Voice Jacksonville Daily News The North Pulaski Leader Nightflying High School Times Area High School Newspapers 80,000 information flyers on the M-to-M transfer program. Radio/TV 30-second spots on the interdistrict magnet school and M-to-M transfer programs on KLRT (Channel 16) and KATV (Channel 7). 30-second spots on area radio stations. -7- People Oriented Activities Speakers for various meetings and activities. Recruitment booth at McCain Mall. Skate night at local skating rinks. Recruitment booth at University Mall. Live remote broadcast at McCain Mall (KKYK). Recruitment booth at Park Plaza Mall. Participation by interdistrict magnet school bands, choirs, and dance and drama troups at various civic and community affairs. Miscellaneous Balloons, pencils, pins on the interdistrict magnet school and M-to-M transfer programs. Bus and bench ads on M-to-M transfer program. School-generated recruitment activities. Slidetape presentation of Booker Arts Magnet. The Magnet/M-to-M Educational Team has initiated a newsletter titled, \"The 'M' Connection.\" Scheduled to debut January, 1991, ''The 'M' Connection\" will include information on programs, enrollment procedures, course offerings, notices, parent information, and student and staff profiles. The newsletter will be distributed quarterly to area banks, hospitals, grocery and discount stores, public utility company offices, churches and to parents. This publication was delayed from an earlier date in an effort to include current information for the coming school year. Magnet/M-to-M Educational Team members include: Pulaski County Special School District Dr. Ruth Simmons Herts Pulaski County Special School District 925 E. Dixon Road P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 490-2000 (work) -8- (Black) Pulaski County Special School District (Continued) Mr. Lawrence Nicholson 1415 East 38th Little Rock, AR 72206 374-2115 (home) Ms. Vicki Benton 110 Fox Dell Circle Jacksonville, AR 72076 982-6286 (home) 982-4511 (work) Knight Intervenors Ms. Carol Green (LRCTA) 5502 Robin Road Little Rock, AR 72204 568-8514 (home) 228-3000 (work - Parkview Magnet) Ms. Sandra Henson (NLRCTA) 5 Trevino Drive Maumelle, AR 72118 851-2060 (home) 945-1446 (work - Rose City Junior High) Ms. Nora Ann Babb (PACT) 12120 Southridge Little Rock, AR 72212 225-0033 (home) 835-5334 (work - Oakbrooke Elementary) Little Rock School District Mr. James Washington Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72202 324-2272 (work) Ms. Paulette Mabry 11833 Rivercrest Little Rock, AR 72212 227-0314 (home) 682-5761 (work) Ms. Diane Vibhakar 10555 Rivercrest Little Rock, AR 72212 224-3678 -9- (Black) (White) (Black) (White) (White) (Black) (Black) (White) North Little Rock School District Mr. Bobby Acklin North Little Rock School District P.O. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8010 Ms. Alfrieda Marshall 704 Cedar North Little Rock, AR 72114 375-0880 (home) Ms. Lynn Welch 129 Davis North Little Rock, AR 72114 945-2847 (home) Joshua Intervenors Reverend William Robinson (Little Rock) Hoover United Methodist Church 4000 West 13th Little Rock, AR 72202 663-9621 (work) Austin Porter, Jr. (Pulaski County) 990 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3742 372-4623 (work) 490-0174 (home) Henry Herbey (North Little Rock) 1422 S. Maple Little Rock, AR 72204 663-8942 (home) Arkansas Department of Education (Black) (Black) (White) (Black) (Black) (Black) Ms. Brenda Matthews (White) Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 682-4214 (work) -10- Arkansas Department of Education (Continued) Ms. Pat Jones Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce 1 Spring Building Little Rock, AR 72201 374-4871 (work) VACANT POSITION. Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer INTERDISTRICT TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (ITA) (Black) (White) The Interdistrict Transportation Authority (ITA) is responsible for the administration of an interdistrict transportation plan for both magnet schools and M-to-M transfers. The ITA is composed of the Transportation Director, or other designee, of each district and a representative of the State. Committee members are: Chairperson - Mr. Spence Holder Coordinator, School Transporation Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 682-4264 Member since September, 1988 Mr. Bobby Acklin Assistant Superintendent, Pupil Services North Little Rock School District P. 0. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8010 Member since August, 1989 -11- Mr. Ed Hogan Assistant Superintendent, Support Services Pulaski County Special School District 925 E. Dixon Road P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 490-2000 Member since September, 1987 Mr. Richard Johnson Transportation Director Little Rock School District 5400 Murray Little Rock, AR 72209 562-6300 Member since September, 1987 The ITA reports to the Magnet Review Committee quarterly or on an \"as needed\" basis. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICERS COMMITTEE The Magnet Review Committee formed the Student Assignment Officers Committee and hears periodic reports from them in an effort to assure uniform student enrollment application procedures, and to keep abreast of changes in enrollment patterns, applications, waiting lists, withdrawals, seat allocation, application processing and other matters related to interdistrict magnet schools and M-to-M transfer program assignments. The committee meets on the third Tuesday of each month at 1:30 p.m., in the Magnet Review Committee Office. This committee consists of: LRSD - James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation James Washington, Student Assignment Officer Sue Pederson, Administrative Assistant NLRSD - Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Affairs Sandy Juckett, Administrative Assistant PCSSD - Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Marilyn Nowlin, Administrative Assistant. The committee has assisted the Magnet Review Committee in making the interdistrict magnet school and M-to-M transfer programs assignment processes equitable, efficient and effective. -12- GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS COMMITTEE Function: Membership: To determine if magnet program requirements necessitate change in credits needed for graduation. Each district sends one member, usually a curriculum person. It was not necessary for the Capacities Committee and the Graduation Requirements Committee to function during the 1989-90 school year. OTHER COMMITTEES There are additional committees which operate at the direction of the Magnet Review Committee. These committees function on an as-needed basis as follows: CAPACITIES COMMITTEE Function: Membership: To assess and make recommendation on the number of students which can, according to State standards and program needs, be housed within the schools' physical plants. Each district and the State sends two members, usually the Director of Plant Services and one other, along with the MRC Executive Director. -13- SECTION III STUDENT ASSIGNMENT INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS Interdistrict magnet school enrollment is open to students in grades K-12 in Pulaski County, Arkansas with the following exceptions: Students who apply for placement in Parkview Science Magnet should have successfully completed Algebra I in the 9th grade. Pulaski County Special School District white students in the southeast quadrant of the district and black students in selected schools north of the river are not allowed interdistrict magnet school placement as this would negatively impact overall district racial ratios. Students identified as handicapped under State guidelines, whose Individualized Educational Program (IEP) requires self-contained special education placement (more than 50% of the instructional day spent in special education programming), are not recommended for magnet placement. Magnet programs are open to identified handicapped students whose IEP's require that up to 50% of the instructional day be spent in special education programming (itinerant and resource room services). Brochures describing course offerings and application procedures, and the application forms for the interdistrict magnet schools are available at the Magnet Review Committee Office, the districts' Student Assignment Offices and the interdistrict magnet schools. The enrollment procedures for each of the three districts in the interdistrict magnet school program are listed below. Prior to applying for interdistrict magnet school enrollment, it is suggested that a parent peruse brochures offered by the Magnet Review Committee Office and the resident district Student Assignment Office. The student and parent should visit the selected interdistrict magnet during school hours. This process will assist the parent in making a sound decision. -14- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Interdistrict Magnet School Application and Enrollment Process The parent should obtain an interdistrict magnet school application and an Optional Enrollment Request Form (OERF) at the beginning of the recruitment period. In the Little Rock School District, the recruitment period usually runs six weeks in the spring. Applications may be mailed from the Magnet Review Committee Office or picked up at the Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office, or at any interdistrict magnet school. The completed application should be returned to the Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office. Magnet slots for K, 7th and 10th graders are filled by lottery or random selection process. Names of all students who apply but are not selected for immediate entrance are placed on waiting lists which roll over to the appropriate grade level at the end of the year when magnet vacancies occur. Magnet vacancies which occur at grades other than entry level (K, 7, 10) are filled from waiting lists. Students who apply after the designated application period are added to the waiting list in chronological order. Parents are notified by letter of magnet placement. Enrollment in a magnet school commits the student to attendance at that school for a minimum of one semester. Upon completion of one semester, a student may opt to transfer to a non-magnet school. However, if release from the magnet school's one-semester commitment is desired prior to the semester's end, the following exit process must be followed. Exit Process Parents must go to their home district's Student Assignment Office or to the Magnet Review Committee's Office for a Magnet Withdrawal Form. Parents must complete the withdrawal form. The completed form must be returned to the home district's Student Assignment Office, Magnet Review Committee Office, or to the student's current school. The Magnet Withdrawal Form is forwarded to the Magnet Withdrawal Committee, composed of the Student Assignment Officers from the school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. The decision to grant or deny a withdrawal is made by the withdrawal committee based on assessment of data. The home district Student Assignment Office is responsible for contacting the parent to communicate a decision. -15- If a student's request is denied, the parent has the option to appeal the decision to the Magnet Review Committee. The Magnet Review Committee's decision is final. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The parent should obtain an interdistrict magnet school application form at the beginning of the recruitment period (usually March-May of the year prior to enrollment). Application forms may be mailed from the Magnet Review Committee Office, or picked up at the Pulaski County Special School District or North Little Rock School District, Pupil Personnel Office, or at any interdistrict magnet school. The completed application form should be returned to the Pulaski County Special School District Pupil Personnel Office or the North Little Rock School District Pupil Services Office. Applications will be dated and placed on an interdistrict magnet school waiting list accordingly. North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District will receive a list of the number of vacancies by school, grade and race for the coming school year and will match students on the waiting list with available spaces. PCSSD and NLRSD officials will call the host district to confirm placement. A letter notifying parents of interdistrict magnet school placement will be mailed to parents. Parents will be instructed to go to the host district and complete a Pupil Information Form. The date for enrollment and registration will also be given. The withdrawal procedure for Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District is the same as for Little Rock School District. Transportation is provided for interdistrict magnet school students who live more than two (2) miles from school. The student's host district transportation department is responsible for providing the student with information on pickup route, departure, arrival and return time. The ITA, as described in Section II, is responsible for making decisions regarding transportation for the interdistrict magnet school and M-to-M transfer programs. During the 1988-89 school year, 37 buses were purchased for exclusive use by the interdistrict magnet school program in an effort to assure all interdistrict magnet school students would be on the first or second bus run. The buses are marked \"Pulaski County Magnet Schools.\" -16- SECTION IV STUDENT ASSIGNMENT MAJORITY-TO-MINORITY TRANSFER PROGRAM The Majority-to-Minority (M-to-M) transfer program continues to increase the options available to all students. This school year, there was an increase of 48 students in the M-to-M transfer program (from 547 to 595). Students who apply for a Majority-to-Minority (M-to-M) transfer should obtain an application from the Magnet Review Committee Office or the resident district Student Assignment Office. The student has the option to select up to three schools. Students who plan to participate in extracurricular activities must enroll prior to Labor Day. The Student Assignment Office at the resident district will determine placement. A student's commitment to the M-to-M program is one year. After completion of that year, a student may, if desired, return to the resident district for school placement. The Metropolitan Supervisor (the late Eugene Reville) recommended making M-to-M application and withdrawal similar to those policies established for interdistrict magnet schools. The recommendation was tabled and considered for 1990-91. In April, May and June of the 1990 school year, plans were made to open new magnets accessible via M-to-M transfers. Those magnets are: Rockefeller Elementary Magnet School Washington Elementary Magnet School Dunbar Junior High Magnet School Central Senior High Magnet Program. Transportation is provided for M-to-M students who live more than two (2) miles from school. The student's host district transportation department is responsible for providing the student with information on pickup route, departure, arrival and return time. The ITA, as described in Section II, is responsible for making decisions regarding transportation for the interdistrict magnet school and M-to-M transfer program. -17- SECTION V STUDENT RECRUITMENT Recruitment of students for the interdistrict magnet school program and the Majority-to-Minority (M-to-M) transfer program is a responsibility of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) and its recruitment arm, the Magnet/M-to-M Transfer Educational Team (MET). Assistance comes from the interdistrict magnet schools and the districts' Student Assignment Offices. The recruitment period for the interdistrict magnet school program for the corning school year usually begins in March. Announcement of the recruitment and enrollment period is widespread (newspaper, radio/TV, sending home of announcements, posters, flyers, information in school counselors' offices, etc.). The Magnet/M-to-M Educational Team closely examines the list of vacancies for the interdistrict magnet schools and targets recruitment accordingly. Section II of this report details recruitment strategies. -18- SECTION VI STAFF AND CURRICULUM OF THE INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS Magnet schools have been included in the Little Rock School District's desegregation plans since the early 1980's. Magnet schools in Pulaski County are a great success, both educationally and in attracting and holding white students. Staff and leadership of the magnet schools are energetic and creative in developing innovative educational programs. The programs provide a strong educational foundation in the basic skills. The faculties demonstrate a commitment to the principle that all students can learn. E~uitable and adequate resources are allocated to the promotion of e\u0026lt;.ucational themes and the maintenance of safe and orderly school climate. The staffing for the interdistrict magnet school program is handled by the Little Rock School District Department of Human Resources. Interdistrict magnet school principals play key roles in the development of job descriptions and in the staff selection process. Careful attention is given to an individual's desire to be a part of the magnet team, the individual's interest in the school theme and the teaching qualifications as related to the curriculum. A list of staff members, ethnicity, years of experience, and experience in the magnet setting is included in this report. The curriculum for each interdistrict magnet school program is developed by the interdistrict magnet school staff and administration. District and State guidelines, goals and objectives, and school theme descriptions are considered in curriculum development. A school-based team which monitors the curriculum meets each summer for curriculum adjustments and augmentation. Curricular revisions are forwarded to the Magnet Review Committee for review. For the Court's reference, curriculum guides for each magnet program area are available in the Magnet Review Committee Office. -19- OVERVIEW PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL The 1987 Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School became Arkansas' first and only interdistrict magnet high school, with its enrollment of 825 students from the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special School Districts. As a magnet school, ParkviB'-1 provides expanded and specialized studies in the arts and sciences, in addition to the standard academic curriculum. All students meet state standard graduation requirements, while choosing from a wide range of course electives such as calculus, statistics, French, Spanish, German, Latin, AP English, architectural drafting, computer programming, AP History, journalism, Naval ROTC, and many vocational courses. Although the emphasis at Parkview is on the arts and sciences, a variety of extracurricular and athletic opportunities are offered to its students to enhance the total educational curriculum. -20- SCHOOL Par kv i PW Art$ I Sci ence_fu_gr)C L$_c\n_booJ --- PR I NC I PAL JqqQ-31 CERTIFIED STAFF .. J.C. Babs - I tlo. Year Subject Area/ No. Years Service Name Race Stx Grade Speciality Area Experience Maqnet Pre 10, Science Acklen, Ruthie B F ll , 12 Soecialist 24 3 l 0, Social Studies/ Black, Danny w M ll, 12 Coach 18 3 10, Fine Arts Blackman, Tony w M 11, 12 Soecialist 2 2 .. 10, Fine Arts Boosey, Fred w M 11, 12 Soecialist 12 3 Bratton, Donald w M 10, 11 1? Latin 32 3 Burke-Carroll, Rosemary w F ,0. Visual Arts 20 3 11 1? Soecialist 10, Visual Arts Campbell, Judy w F 11 1? Soecialist 1 1 10 Social Studies Carpenter, Carolyn w F ll '12 20 3 Carr, Marcelline 10, B F 11 1? Math 20 3 10, Visual Arts Clark, Robert w M 11 . 12 C::nnr-i\n:,li\u0026lt;:+ 4 3 10, Carrothers, Billie B F 11 12 Math 27 3 . . ... 10, Music Cripps, Joe w M 11 1? SnPr:i\nilist 3 3 10, Cross, Kathryn B F 11 12 French 26 3 10, Health/ Daniell, Terence w M 11 1? r.ni!rh 3 3 10, Dance Elrod, Laura w F 11 1? Sn\u0026lt;\u0026gt;r-i a 1 i st 5 3 10, Music Farlow, Millie B F 11 12 \u0026lt;:\nn\u0026lt;\u0026gt;ci a 1 i st 3 3 . 10, Faubel, Virginia w F 11 1? Vocational 17 3 10, Physical Ed/ Flanigan, Al B M 11 l? rn:1r-h 13 3 Flemmons, Mari w F 10, 11 l? Journalism 4 3 10, Fulbright, Debbie w F 11 12 Resource 14 - 2 l 0, Fuller, Danny w M 11 1? Science \u0026lt;:\nn,:,ri\n:,li\u0026lt;:t 13 3 Gates, Charles w M 11 1? ll~r,.+i \"\"\" l 21 3 10, Science Gilson, James w M 11 1? Soecialist 2 1st vear 10, Goolsby Gertraud w F 11 l? German 3 1st year I I 10, Fine Arts Goss. Judy w F 11 1? Soeci a 1 i st 2 2 10, Music Graham, John B M 11 1? SnPcialist 5 2 Green Carol B F 11 , 12 Vocational 19 3 Greenway Beth w F 12 Enalish 15 3 -21- SCHOOL  Parkview Arts/Science Magnet Schoo I PRINCIPAL --------------- 1990-91 CERTIFIED STAFF J.C. Babbs No. Year Subject Area/ No. Years Service Name Race Sex Grade Speciality Area Exoerience Maqnet Pre 10, Hampton, Vannessa B F 11,12 Math 13 3 l O, Music Hardin, Richard w M 11, 12 Sn\u0026lt;\u0026gt;r: i.i -1 is t 12 3 Henrv Sarah B F 10 English 16 3 .. l 0, Hrishikesan, Ruth w F 11 1? Social Studies 20 3 Jennin2s, Carol Ann w F l, 0, , , ,, Vocational 17 3 --\u0026gt;-- Johnson, Art w M 1?1? NJ ROTC 5 3 10, Math Johnson. J.C. B M 11.12 23 3 10, Visual Arts Kino~  Gail w F 11.12 Sni:\u0026gt;ri\nilic:t 10 3 Kelley, John ..  B M l O, 11.12 ~~1~~ceSpecialis 20 3 Knioht. katherine B F 10 English 12 3 KreadY. Sarah w F 12 English lQ 3 ..... . 10, Music lamb, Ernest B M 11.12 Snecialist l 10, Lovelace. Dorothv B F 11.12 Vocational 14 3 Lubansky, Mari an w F 10, 11 12 Math 0 l st vP\nir l O, Science Menz, Evelvn w F 11 12 Snor-\n:,l\nc\nt 18 3 Nauden. Lou Ethel B F K Kindergarten 23 2 ' English/PAL Nauoher, Nan w F 11,12 4 3 l 0, Social Studies Pertle. Judv w F    n .... , ~ n 1 10 Science Picard. Dick w M 11 '1? Soecialist 4 3 RioleY Charles w M 10, 11 1? Social Studies/ l'n~rh 2? 3 10, . Social Smith, Linda w F 11.12 Engl1shlstudies 5 3 10, Smith. Susanna 0 F 11 -12 Spanish 11 1 10, Visual Arts Sti!lPV JE\u0026gt;rrv w M 11. 1? Specialist 1 l 10, Stenhi:\u0026gt;nc\n. S\n:,r\ni w F 11. 1? Math ?1 1 I I 10, Science  Tanner, Phyllis w F 11 1? c---\n~1\ncc+ n  l cc.t vear TaYlor, Susan w F 11 English 15 3 Treadwav. Pat 10, Fine Arts w F 11. l? S  ecialist 3 l cc.t VPar Tvler. Lois B F 10, Math/PAL n 3 11 l? -22- SCHOOL Parkyjew Arts/Science Magnet School PRINCIPAL ------,Ot::-t--Ct_~\u0026amp;=~~~/\n~:f'------- 1990-91 CERTIFIED STAFF J.C. Babbs No. Yea Subject Area/ No. Years Service Name Race Sex Grade Special itv Area Experience Maqnet Pr Wa 1 ker, Ella B F 10, 11,12 Vocational 16 3 Washam, Gavle w F 11 Enql1sh 14 3 10, Watson. Claudia .. 8 F 11, 12 Vocational 21 3 Williams, Joyce w F 12 Enqlish 1R 3 10, Wilson Phillip 8 M 11, 12 Math 4 3 10, Fine Arts Wisener, Karen w F 11 1? Soecialist ?1 3 We 1.1 s, Georgi a w F Librarian 18 2 Landers\nf~~Jette w F Counselor 22 2 Homard, Marqie w F Counselor 22 3 Powell, Lucious B M Counse 1 or 29 3 Junious C. Babbs B M Principal 16 3 Anne Hansen w F Ac\nc\nic\nt\nint Prin ?n 1 Haro l d Ha yqood w M Assist\nint Prin 4 1 Maud Woods B F Assistant Prin 1? 1 -23- :- 10:. T., :, lor. S . C:-ccm.,.1y, D ~.if . 7-10.: 402 '..'1 il 1,1~ ,J. 7-102 PREP I MASTER SCHEDULE PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET SCHOOL 402 202 i! PR'::? 402 I 40\nKrco~y  S. -+--,--2-0_4 ___ t------t-3---2-0,-' ----j,-7---l-C6---+-----\n-j ,-_-l_C_6---+,-_-l-06-- 402 402 402 402 p A L PREP P A L 302 P.U:? ! ln 302 7-101 \\..'.1sh,j\n:l, C. 302 C-1 02 8-103 S:it~, L. H-104 Henry, S. ~ 2-107 Carr. H. 3-207 \\Hlson, P. 2-109 3-207 PR!P lubo1nalc.y. p. Cccr.J 2-101 Corrother  ,8 l'lE.P 2-10 .. 2-101 Joh:u oJ n,J , C. Al1. ll 2-207 )-:01 302 PREP 202 H.Al\u0026amp; Il Ceoa PRIP riu:r 2-109 t.lg, II r rP Trl,r. I.. Alt, I rR[P 302 PRE? 204 20. A.ti.1st A2 Pi\\!P 202 PR!:P U. AI\u0026amp;, 11 P.rep PJL.'1' Cone . Ccc :::. Alg,11 lnt.Alg. PR[? 11 . Trtc -24- PREP Alg . I Ccoc , 2-107 Int.Ale Alg.11 P A L 302 204 PR!? l:f. Ceom Ceca. Alg . Il Alg . I Ccoc . rR!P I' A L Alg. II 2-Ic . Int.Ale )02 PUP 202 ~-207 b 1' Ceo:a . ,1 1 . u nt.\u0026gt;-11. S. H. ~-107 \\lg. I I 1 2 J 4 5 6 k -- Fl':' . ,-,:, : St.1rc\u0026lt;.raf t Cor..::,. l Or,11 , ! nt. Cil! 11.l f hc,1 t -'t\" s1nr, p~~ j \\.\n~:c:icr .K. ------- '?-10 ~ \u0026lt;\n-n~ V:-1a q ' 8-109 noo:i.cy, F. \u0026lt;.: v ir,m. I /1.ctins L PREP Coau:i, I PREP Act i :1 Y-//\u0026lt;/- c nes 8-1 06 Co= II Trc :H,! \\o.1y , 11 Dr.,:r. .1 Deb:1te Dr.:i::ia PREP Drama PREP heacr ~ist\u0026lt;JI 8- 105 Crc.Jt i vc Thc.:i t re PREP Theatre Theatre Drac.1 I I J.!Rt: i' Coss, J llrit inc ll istory History History 8-114 8-105 8-106 8-114 1 8-109 Bl.1ckr:.:m, T Sto\u0026amp;Croft PREP Coa:11.I Co11111.I Stage Craft Coa:11.I PREP I 3-101 3-101 3-108 13-108 3-108 Ourkc-C.1rrr: l PREP A2 Art Intro to Art Design Adv. Craft ArtDesi\u0026amp;n PREP Paint 3-108 3-108 3-104 J- i 08 Kin\u0026amp;, G. Cra.!tfibcr PRE? Draw I PREP GraphicOuigu GT Coor. (Otte )-104 3-104 3-104 3-104 _j-J.U4 Cl.:irk,B. Draw I ArtHistory ArtHiatory Draw I PREP i\\rtHist. !'R!:P 3-102 Coc,pbc!l, J . PREP Draw III PREP Drav II Draw I Drav II !Praw Stoley , J. l!ALL HI H SCHOOL ~ FOREST EIGHTS JR . ICH '.A:s::1 4 Cya, 5-o~~c '.l-t0.2- ii-10~ 1 ance\n,//// Elrod, L. D.1nccEnscmb: e: Tech III PREP DanccHistory . PREP Tech I is tor,, - 5- 104 03nce Dance Dane  Dance J 1,\n.stice, M, Tech I PREP Tech II Tech II Tec:h l I 9-104 9-104 2-108 9-104 2-108 Hardin . R. Choir 1 Choir II PREP Hus 1cTheory Madrigals ~usicTheory PREP 1 I 2-108 9-1~9 9-109 9-109 9-10 !fineMt  ~!~r Crippa, J . Music Theory Band II Orchestra PRLP PREP Sur. ey I 2-108 2-108 2-108 1 9-10, 2-101 Fa r lou, H. PREP Music The or) HusicTheor PREP ~u1icTheory LobSinsers Husil III II II Theur T ,-.. ~-:,,,v\n, 9- 10' C.r3h.?m, J PREP Band II S.H, Band I PREP SH St ~g, 83nd 9-109 L1mb , E HANN H. GNITT SCIIOOL l Int. Orchestra I -25- -- ------~------ ----- r----- ,tl\" I/\\, __ :,I ~\" 1 I 5. :l--.! 'IO PHlr A.:iistory PREP A.llistory ,\\. !ll ~t .. : I 1 Govt. !'.1rp.:nt~r.c. 5H - - - --1---  1 W.lllstory ~-~OJ , lJck, o. \\.', 1111.t ,lTY ~ . Hi s tory !?il.EP \\J.llistory SCPV. !'HEP\n-205 ~ W.lli5tory .J.History PRE? W. llistory PREP W. Histor lrlshik~n Psy 3-208 Upley, c. A.111atory A. History IA.Hi~tory A.H!atory surv. PREP PREP 5-202 I\n-~rt le, J \\.I.Geo. W.Geo PUP w.ceo W.Geo. PREP W.Geo LANGUAGE 8-204 Sp4n, II Span. I Span. I Span. I Span. II Sp4D.Ill PREP S::iith, S. -201 8-208 8-208 6-208 r.ratton, o. KALL HICH SCHOOL Latin II Latin I Latin I Latin II d-101 Cross, K. French I PREP French I French II PUP French II French III, IV\n-106 Goolsby, c: German I German II German I 8-211 rlcmcona ,M. Photo Yearbook Jlsm I PREP newspaper Prep 'hoto ~ Micro. Bio. 2-205 PREP Bio.Lab Bio.Lab .H. tenz, E. Bio.Lab PUP Micro.Bio. tz-201 2-203 2-201 2-201 2-201 Tomner. p Biology llumanPhys. PREP Biology Biology PREP lolog:1 2-202 r tc:ird, o. Physics Physic  PR!P PREP S.H. Un!f~ed nifhd Phy~lcs hy~!cs 2-204 Qua I.Analysis '.\"ul )er, o. Chea. Tech PREP Checi!stry Chem. Tech. PREP hem. Qual.Analyaia ech. ~-203 ,\\c:klen, R. Slo.Lob. PREP Bio. PREP Bio. Lab 1810. to.Lab. 2-206\"\" 2-20(. 2-20, 1. 2..oz. t-:ellc)', J. B!olosy Biology Biology Scienc:eTec:h Supv. PREP PREP ~-206 App.Stat, App.Stat. I Gilson, J. Che11lac ry 7/05 PREP Chomhtry\nChemistry PREP App.Stat, App.Stat. : -26- .!ICAT!Ot!Al 2-102 l-llU 1 ~1-!Ul I~dc,i crndcn t Ki:i.dcrc.1:-tcr. .11kcr, L Prep L1.v1:is Supv. SH i~ PREP .. Clo thing Clothinc -110 .1uden, L 1a:,oERGAil: :1 K K PllP K - K K I l-210 Super Write faubcl, v. C. O.E. ~ S!l C O E COOP 3-20S J.ey Board \\ford Proce\u0026amp;i D Intro Cor::\n, ~ntro Coi:p Coc:pTcc !1 lenninss Tech ~ Typing lI PREP Pll.P Tech DuaAp\n:,i . 3-209 3-210 3-210 J-20~ .O\\cl.1ce,0 ~ eyboard I S II Bua . La., PREP Bus.Law eybo4rd I PREP yboar~-I )-208 ~ I~ 3- 208 ~ ZBI ,'.1tso:1,C PRE? Cc=\n, . .\\::ct. Plltl' oc\n, . Acct. Keyboard I Keyboard I ~a II ~-101 Gates, c. PREP PREP t.C.T. l I.C. T. II t CT COOP 9-101 .\nrccn .c D.E. I O.E. II PREP PREP  O.E coclP 9-102 ~.1nicl, T PREP Health Reill th Supv. Health Ht.\u0026gt;lth REP ~\\~ Fbnigo PREP PE PE Ki ode rgarteo SUPV. PE RP ~JROTC 3-103 Johnson, A. ~JROTC III NJROTC II NJROTC I NJROTC I NJROTC III NJ ROTC II ~ 9-101 9-101 9-101 Fulbr1Ght I lle:aource Resource esource -27- OVERVIEW HORACE MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET SCHOOL Horace Mann Arts/Science Magnet School is a junior high school housing grades 7, 8, and 9. The school consists of two different curricular programs--the School of Sciences and the School of the Arts. Students will select one school or the other, depending on their interests and aptitude. There are no academic performance requirements for entry into either program\nhowever, it is recommended that applicants have a strong interest in or aptitude for an area of the magnet curriculum in the school for which they apply. While students of all academic abilities are accepted for enrollment, it should be understood that the intensity and the depth of study will require a commitment to excellence on the part of all students. School of Sciences Students applying for seats in the School of Sciences will participate in the traditional and required curriculum of English, science, mathematics, and social studies, but, in addition, will take a laboratory science class. At Grade 7, the lab is a semester in length. At Grades 8 and 9, the lab is for the full year. In addition to the required courses, students in the School of Sciences may select electives. School of the Arts Students applying for seats in the School of the Arts will take the traditional and required curriculum of English, science, mathematics, and social studies. In addition to the traditional curriculum, students will select an area of concentration from the area of visual arts, drama, dance, and music. Students will participate in the appropriate courses in the area of concentration\nstudents may also select electives. -28- SCHOQL MAi~N ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET JHS PRINCIPAL M. G. LACEY ----'-'--''---'\"--'----='-'-==..o..---------- 1990-91 CERTIFIED STAFF No. Years Subject Area/ No. Years Service in Name Race Sex Grade Soecialitv Area Exoerience Maanet Proararn Johnson, lvria B M 7 Science 14 8 Johnson, Lorraine B F 9 English 7 4 Jones, Dennis B M 8/9 Math 3 2 Jones, Linda w F 9 Social Studies 9 4 Jordan, Ruth B F 8/9 Health/Science 5 2 Lamb, Earnest B M 7/8/9 Orchestra 4 2 Langston, Pamela w F 7 Counselor 9 G I Lawson, Ellen w F 8 counselor 19 8 I Lerner-Sweet, Joanna w F 7 Math 5.5 3 Levin, Barbara w F 7 Math 21 7 Little, Madeline 0 F 9 Computer 7 1 Lloyd, Emily w F 8/9 Piano 2 1 Lowe, R. C. B M 7 Social Studies 18 3 Mims, Richard w M 8 Science 15 4 .. Morris, Yvonne B F 7 Science 6 4 Nance, Elizabeth w F 7 Science 10 4 Nichols, Susan w F 7/8/9 Drama 8 4 North, Edna B F 9 Reading 28 8 Norton, Gary w M 8/9 Social Stu:lies 14 5 Parsley, Jim w M 8/9 k\u0026lt;\\rt 21 4 Pickle, Shirley w F 7/8/9 Spanish/English 15.5 6 Redmond, Wendell B M 9 Science 11 l _~ 5 Remley, o. C. B M 7/8 Social Studies 7 6 Robinson, Mary K. w F 7 Home Ee. 7 4 I I Rollefson, Louise w F 7/8/9 J\n'rench 12 4 Schmidt, Fred w M 8/9 Art 25 4 Tippen, Dervis w M 9 Social Studies 26 6 Trice, Nancy w F 7 English 6 2 i -29- SCHOOL MANN AR'i'S/SCIENCES MAGNET JHS PRINCIPAL M. G. LACEY  - 1990-91 CERTIFIED STAFF No. Years Subject Area/ No. Years Service in Name Race Sex Grade Speciality Area Experience Maqnet Proqram Binns, Judith w F 9 Business 9 4 13ond, Bryan w M 8/9 English 1 1 Bookout, Robin w F 8 Vocational 12 7 Boykin, Patricia B F 7/8/9 Special Eclucatio1 12 2 Circs, George w M 7/8/9 Health/P.E. 23 8 Daniel, Rosalie w F Media specialist 18 8 Desjardin, Deborah w F 8/9 Math 20 6 Dodson, Tommy B M 9 Vocational 1q 4 Dunn, Cloteel B F 9 Counselor ?q R Edmonds, Nina w F 8/9 Science 6 2 Everett, Judy w F 7/8 Reading 1? 4 Farmer, Jerome B M 7/8/9 Physical Eclucati Dn 17 8 Fletcher, Danny B M 7/8/9 Band 6 6 Foreman, Carolyn B F 7/8/9 Choir 10 8 .. Freeman, Janice w F 7 Math 22 4 Garner, Susan w F 7 English q_ 'i 4 Gibson, Lewis B M 8 Math 23 4 Halter, Bridget w F 9 Math 3 3 Harris, Catherine B F 7 English 11 8 Hayes, Melissa w F 7/8/9 German 3 1 Hayes, Stella B F 8 English ?F- R Hill, Sheketa B F 9 English 1 -~ 7 F, Holcomb, Irene B F 7 Social Studies 24 4 Holt, DeeAnn w F 8 Social Studies 1'i ? House, Michelle w F 7/8/9 Art 13 3 Hughes, Louis w M 9 Science / 9 6 I Hufford, Gary w M 8 Science 6 6 Jernigan, Rita w F 8/9 Math 10 6 ! -30- [ SCHOOL t,,1,i:t-:JN ARTS/ SCIENCES MAGNET JHS PRINCIPAL M. G. LACEY ~: [) IIl [1 (I] 1[1 J Name Turner, Diane Weaver, Carol \\.Jilliams, Lawrence Presley, Traci Tidwell, Michael Lacey, M.G. Baugh, Sharon Matthis, James \\foods, Willie Race w w B w B 1990-91 CERTIFIED STAFF Sex F F M F M Subject Area/ Grade Speciality Area 8 English 9 Science 8 Science 7/8/9 Dance 7/8/9 Dance No. Years Experience 24 6 25 3 12 (10 as a~ministrator) 30 22 29 28 -31- No. Years Service in Maqnet Proqram 4 3 8 3 4 3 3 8 4- I I : I I I : ' I I I I I Grade 7 School of Sciences Students will enroll in seven courses. REQUIRED COURSES English Mathematics Life Science Social Studies Lab Science Regular, Enriched, Gifted/Talented Regular, Enriched (1 semester) Music Exploratory (9 weeks) Art Exploratory (9 weeks) Study Skills (9 weeks) Introduction to German (9 weeks) Industrial Arts or Home Economics (1 semester) Remedial Programs (Required for students whose reading, language arts, or mathematics standardized test scores are two years below grade level or who ~ail the !:1PT). Electives German I Spanish I . French I Learning Laboratory Accelerated Learning Program Lab Art I Choral Music Dance I Band Communications/Speech Orchestra Physical Education -32- REQUIRED COURSES Eng!,.ish Mathematics Life Science Social Studies Grade 7 School of the Arts Students will enroll in seven courses. Regular, Enriched,Gifted/Talented Regular, Enriched Music Exploratory (1 semester) Art Exploratory (1 semester) Study skills (9 weeks) Introduction to German) Introduction to Spanish Choose one ( \u0026lt;? weeks) Introduction to French Industrial Arts or Home Economics ( 1 semester) Remedial Programs (Required of students whose reading, language arts, or mathematics standardized test scores are two years below grade level or who fail the MPT). Learning Laboratory Accelerated Learning Programs AREA OF CONCE~TRATION Choose One Visual Arts Drama Dance Music Lab Art 1 Communications/Speech Dance I Band . Orchestra Choral Music -33- Grade 8 School of the Arts Students will enroll in seven classes. REOUI~ED COURSES English Mathe!llatics Earth Science Regular, Enriched, Gifted/Talented Regular, Algebra I American History Career Orientation Health (9 weeks) Physical Education (1 semester) (9 weeks) Remedial Courses (Required for students whose reading, language ar~s, or mathematics standardized tests scores are t~o years below grade level.) Learning Laboratory Accelerated Learning ARE.!. OF CONCE:fl\"RATION Choose One Visual Arts Lab Arc r, II Dra~a Communications/Speech, Drama Dance Dance I, II Music Band - Beginning, Inter:nediate Orchestra - Beginning, Inter~ediate Choral Music Musicianship (Piano Lab) is re~uired of all music students students in either grade 8 or 9. Elecc::.ves Ger.nan I, II French I, II Spanish I, II Lab A::-t I, II Dance I, II Communications/Speech Drama Physical Education Band - Beginning, Intermediate Orchestra -Beginning, Intermediate Choral Music For electives, auditions or faculty permission may be required for other than entry level courses. -34- Grade 8 School of Sciences Students will enroll in seven classes. REQUIRED COURSES English Mathematics Earth Science Regular, Enriched, Gifted/Talented Regular, Algebra I American History Lab Science Career Orientation (1 semester) Health (9 weeks) Physical Education (9 weeks) Remedial Courses (Required for students who~e reading, language arts, or mathematics standardized test scores are two years below grade level). Electives German I, II French I, II Spanish I, II Lab Art I, II Dance I, II Communications/Speech Drama Learning Laboratory Accelerated Learning Physical Educition Band, Beginning, Intermediate Choral Music Musicianship I, II (Piano Laboratory) For electives, auditions or faculty permission may be required for other than entry level courses. -35- Grade 9 School of the Sciences Students will enroll in seven courses. REQUIRED COURSES English Regular, Enriched Mathematics Transition Math, Pre Algebra, Algebra I, II\nGeometry Physical Science Civics Regular, Gifted/Talented Computer Technology Lab Science Choose One Computer Science Computer Literary (full year) (1 semester) Remedial Co11rses ( Required for students whose reading, language arcs, or mathematics standardized test scores are two years below grade level or who fail the MPT.) Electives Spanish I, II, III French I, II, III German I, II, III Lab Art I, II III Dance, I, II, III Learning Laboratory Accelerated Learning Band -Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced Orchestra -:c5~\"~ing, Intermediate, Advanced Choral Music Elementary Music Theory Exploratory Business/Typewriting Physical Education - (1 semester), Mechanical Exploration (1 semester) (full year Connnunications/Speech Drama . Theatre and the Arts Musicianship I, II (Piano Lab) Construction Exploration (1 semester) Health ( 1 semester) For electives, auditions or faculty per~ission may be required for other than entry level courses. -36- Grade 9 School of the Arts REQUIRED COURSES English Regular, Enriched Mathematics Transition Math, Pre Algebra, Algebra I, II\nGeometry Physical Science  Regular, Gifted/Talented Civics Computer Technology (Choose One) Computer Science (full year) Computer Literacy (1 semester) Remedial Courses (Required for students whose reading, language arts, or mathematics standardized test scores are two years below grade level, or who fail the MPT.) Learning Laboratory Accelerated Learning AREA OF CONCE~TRATION (Choose One) Visual Arts Lab Art I, II, III Drama Dance Communications/Speech, Drama, Theatre and the Arts Dancel, II, III Music - Band -Beginning, Inter.nediate, Advanced Orchestra -Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced Choral Music Musicianship (Piano Lab) is required of all music students in either grade 8 or 9. Electives Spanish I, II, III French I, II, III Lab Art I, II, III Dance I, II, III Physical Education -(1 sem.) (full yr.) Co=unications/Speech Drama Theatre and the Arts Musicianship I, II (Piano Lab) Band, Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced Orchestra, Beginning, Intermediate,Advanced Elementary Music Theory Exploratory Business/Typewriting Mechanical Exploration ( l semester) Construction Exploration (1 semester) Health (1 semester) -37- Little Rock School District MANN ARTS AND SCIEi.~CES MAGNET SCHOOL Parent Contract My child--------,-------------- has been approved (complete name) for attendance at Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet School. As a parent, I agree to provide positive support for the policies and program of Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet School and will: ensure prompt and regular school attendance\nensure appropriate behavior\nensure compliance with the dress code policy\nprovide a proper study environment and require completion of homework as assigned\njoin and support the parent/teacher association\nsupport school rules and policies\nmaintain frequent and open communication between the school and the home by: attending parent conferences and parent meetings\nsigning and returning information sent home for parent's information\nmonitoring progress and signing the student's plan book regularly\nI agree with the fundamental principles stated above and will assist the staff with my support. I am aware that my child's continued enrollment in Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet School is contingent upon my honoring this contract. Date _____________ Parent/Guardian's Name ___________ _ (Please Print) Phone I Address -------------------- (home) (work) Parent's Signature -------------- -38- I l,J \\0 I HORACE MANN JUNIOR HIGH SclENCEs/ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL TEACHER Fletcher Lamb Foreman MUSIC/ART h\u0026amp;fief00 \u0026amp; 2nd PERI 00 3rd PERIOD 4th PERI 00 5th PERIOD 6th PERIOD 7thl\"R IO O Tea. Ho. TIHE _____ 1 _______ _ Advanced Band Intermediate 218 grades 7-9 -- ~r'f. M 220 Adv. Orchestra Int. Orchest. -- -- ---- --- 7-9 En rl. 7-9 X X X X X ~ It Beg. Orch. It ~avels It to It Parkview It Champer Orch. R E E----- E----- E----- E REnrl.-2:2._ HEnrl. __ HEnrl. __ HEnrl. __ HEnrl. 7-9 H ~ Boys' Choir ~ Prep __ ~ Girls' Choir ~ Intro. Music ~ Girls' Choir 1 224 Intro. Music Enrl. 7 ~ Enrl. ~ ! Enrl. ~ Enrl.7--:\n- ! Enrl. -7- t~. ~ ~ --------t---t------j--==--,xzt---==a..--,xr--==---y~r---==--yt-x-__,.\n:=\"'-- x 210 Prep__ ___ Piano_!_ R _flano III R _f.hm\u0026lt;Lll.... ~ ~n~ R Piano_!__ R Prep __ ~ Lloyd Enrl. 8-9 ~ Enrl: 9__ ~ Enrl. ~ ~ Enrl. ~ ~ Enrl. ~ ~ Enrl. __ R X X X , X X X R labArtII R labArtII f labArt ' II R~Intro. R~ep __ ~ R Enrl . 8-9 ~ Enrl. 8-9 H Enrl. ~ ~ Enrl. _7__ ~ Enrl. __ ~ Parsley 129 Prep Art. Int,co. Enrl. 7 TOTAL Exel. H. R.  ~ H ---------+---t--------+-------,xrr---------,x\n-r-------.ix--t-------,xt-------x:\n+------vixr--- - _la_bA_r_t_In_ ___ Pr..=E._ Schnidt 128 9 Enr 1. House 12G Office Dutx__ _Lab l\\r.Ll... Enrl. 7-9 Enrl. Enr I. Enrl. R lab A.E!__!_ R lab Art I ~ ~b Art I ~ _!'._re_p__ ~ ~b Art I B REnrl.~ ~Enrl.~ REnrl.~ REnrl. __ REnri.7-9 ! X X X X X X R ----..e12-- ~ _Ira'lcl.s_ ~ __ tQ__ ~ -5.ou.tbl=t ~ ____k. ~ ( fi Enrl. fi Enrl. A Enrl. fi Enrl. A Enrl. H X 8 R-- R Enrl. X 8 R-- R Enrl. X 8 R-- ~ Enrl. X B R-- R Enrl. X B R-- ~ Enr I. X 8 R-- ~ Enrl. X X X X 8 8 8 8 R----- R----- R----- : REnrl. __ REnrl. __ REnrl. __ H X X X X 8 8 B 8 R----- R----- R----- ~ R Enrl. __ ~ Enrl. __ ~ Enrl. __ ~ i __ --- i __ --- f __ --- XH~ ~Enrl. __ ~Enrl. ~Enrl. ~l TEACHER Robinson Bookhout Tea. No. 123 VOCATIONAL, HFALTI-1 AND PHYSICi'.L ?CUCA'!!Cl:l i'iMe~100 \u0026amp; 2nd PERI OD 3rd PERIOD 4th PERIOD 5th PERIOD 6th PERIOD 7thPERIOD TIME _____ , _____ _ Horne X X X X X X Ec_o_,_,cmi_c_s _ H_cr.i_. e _Ec_o_n_or.iics R _Hor_,ic F.c_on_cm_, ics R _ P_i:_ep_ .'. R l!or,1c Economics R Home Ee. R Home Ee. R 7 Enrl. 7 ~ Enrl. _J__ ~ Enrl. ~ Enrl. _z__ ~ Enrl. 7__ ~ Enrl. _7__ ~ X X X X X ~ ~reer Orientation ~reer. Or. R ~eer Or. R __fre.lL- It l\\lleod~fc It --.Career...lli:.. It _Ei:cp__ R TOTAL Exel. H. R. \u0026amp; S H lll Enrl. 8 EH Enrl. a  ~ Enrl. ~ Enrl. __ ~ Enrl . ..1L_ ~ Enrl. __ ~ l.::,_. ____ _\n:...__--+---+--.!!.8.---+---===:.,_--\nt--_\n:.,.___:::=::::.._yf_ __: _____x t_ ____x t--____) (1----71--- 0 XB ,\"-reer Or. X X X X ft I Career Orientation Career Or. \"\" B Prep B Duty B Career Or. B Prep ER Dodson 127 --~ ---- f - f--- f--- f--- Enrl.__..2_ iEnrl.-- H-En_r_l. HEnrl. HEnrl. .~Enrl. H ~B X X _ ~ ,. X R ___fr~ R .....Ga\nip.J..u... R .81.lsine.s.s...Explor.R -Cmp.J..it_ R Cornp. Lit. R E E E E E E HEnrl: __ HEnrl,....9__ HEnrl.~ HEnrl._9__ HEnrl . ...9..__ H Billns 115 ~ter Lit_. ____ PrfilL_ 9 Enrl. Little X X X X X ~ 113 Ccmp. Science ~- Science R ~cp__ It Cornp.~nce ~ Peep__ , R ~p._,Smnce R ..wap . ..sci..erJcc R 9 Enrl. 9 A .Enrl. R Enrl. 9 H Enrl. __ / R Enrl. -9.._ R Enrl . ..9__ ~ --------+---1----:::._----+---===----vt-x---=~-=---,x+--....\n....\n_ xxt-\"-----xxr-----xxr------:xu--. Jo...-dan 130 FatT.Jer Hcaltn/PE Health/PE 8 Health/PE ---- En rl. 8 Physical Ed_. _ Physical Ed. 7-9 Enrl. 7-9 Enrl. Enrl. R Health/PE R __fy-th Sr.iencc R ....l:ep __ R ...llealt.b.LEE... ~ ..:.lc.altlL.__\n~ Enrl. 8 ~ Enrl. _8_ R Enrl. _ _ ~ Enrl. .a__ R Enrl . ..9__ R X X X X X R Health/PE R Cafeteria Duty ~ P.ep__ R Healthfts_ R Prep __ fi Enrl. 8 R Enrl. R Enrl. R Enrl. 8 R Enrl. X X X X X : Prep __ : _i!lysical F.d. ~ ___fE_ep__ ~ PhysicalEd. ~ Physic~. AEnrl. __ AEnrl.7-9 ~Enrl. __ REnrl.7.:2._ REnrl.7..:.L_ X B R-- A Enrl. X B R-- ~ Enrl. X X X B B B R-- R-- --- R-- R Enrl. __ AEnrl. __ REnrl. X X X B B B R-- --- R-- --- R-- ~ Enrl. __ ~ Enrl. __ ~ Enrl. X B R-- R Enr I. X B R-- ~ Enr I. H X B ~ H X B ~ H I .\".'.\".. I  a a a SPf:CI/,L EDUCll'flON I A~e~s\u0026amp;ii00 \u0026amp; TIME _____ 1 _______ _ Tea . 2nd PERI OD 3rd PERIOD 4th PERI OD 5th PERIOD 6th PERIOD 7thf\u0026gt;rRIOO TEACHER llo. Boykin 116 X Reading/Euglish L\u0026lt;'arning St.:at B Prep -- -- ---- --- R -- --- 7-9 Enrl. 7:::1_,_ R Enrl.\nS. St. Math ~ S. St. Eni!.lish ~\nF,n.:lishl S. St.~ R ~11-~t.:, R -5c.i.e~1V1C'i,_ __!'.:ep__ R ~_la_t:_n, ~s R HE Enrl. E E E E ~ H Enrl, __l,-=9,_ H Enrl. H Enrl. -1=!:i,_ H Noi:th 112 Read/Eng. Assist. Prep 7-9 Enrl. _. _ IXt . Read/English E -- --- . H Enrl  ..J.=5L X X X X X It Read/~:Oglish It P-.:cp__ It Read/English It Read/English : R -En_r_l. _7_ __q _ H En r I , __ H -En_r_l. -9-- ~ ~ - . !l _ ~ ~ , Prep ~ Read/English ~ Read/Euglish ~ Prep ~ Read/English i Everett ~- f- f- ~- -~--8- E Read/F.11g. Assist. Read/English ST. 3-- ----- 7-9 Enrl. 7-9 R Enrl. H Enrl. 7-9 H Enrl. 7-9 H Enrl.  . Enrl. ._  H --------l---1-------+---===--___\nx\u0026lt;i+-----'==---.\n,x+- --==\n,.._-\n~\n+----===---\n+-x--==-- x B 8 ~ B 8 8 ---- Enrl. ---- Enrl. -- -- ---- Enrl. -- -- ---- Enrl. -- -- ---- Enrl. -- -- ---- Enrl. -- -- ---- Enrl. R-- R-- R-- R-- R-- R E E E E E E H EnrL H Enrl. H Enrl, H Enrl. H Enrl. H X X X X X ~ R- R_ ~ ,R- a_ R fi _En r1. R En r1. ~ En r1. I R En rl. R En r I. R ~ ~ ~ R-- R-- R-- R En r I . fi En r I . R En rl . X X B B R-- R-- R Enrl. fi Enrl. X X B B R-- R-- R Enrl. REnrl. X X B B R-- R-- R Enrl. ~ Enrl. . X X 8 B R-- R-- ~ En r1. ~ En r 1. X B R-- R Enr l. X B R-R Enrl. X B R-- R Enrl. X B R-- ~ Enrl. X B R-- fi Enrl. X B R-- R Enrl. X B R-R En rl. X B R-- ~ Enr 1. X B R-- ~ Enr 1. --- X 8 R-- ~ En rl. X B R-- R Enrl. X 8 R-- ~ Enrl. X B R-R Enrl. X B R-- ~ Enr,1. X B ~ H X i H X ~ E H X f H X f E H TOTAL Exe I. H. R.  ~ H I TEACHER Hill L. Johnson ENGLISH A~e~~oo \u0026amp; 2nd PERI 00 3rd PERIOD 4th PERIOD 5th PERIOD 6th PERIOD 7thl\"t:RI 00 TIHE ____ _ --\"------- 1--------',t------- Tea. tlo. I_ I I X X X X X X ~glish GT/Enr P-.:cp__ l English (R) R English (R)_~. R Engli5h GT/Frn:BR __ P.:c_p__ 8 English GT/Em!! R----- R 133 9 Enrl. __ ~ Enrl. ..5L___ ~ Enrl  ..5L___ ~ Enrl. 9 ~ Enrl. ~ Enrl. 9 ~ 139 English (R) E:iglish GT/En1 Prep It En~lish GT/Eni English GT/Enr It Prep It English GT/Enc~ TOTAL Exe I. H. R. \u0026amp; S H I __ 9 ____ EnrJ.9 ~Enrl.-- ~EnrJ.9 ~Enrl.9 ~~-- ~-En_r_l_-9--Hr ~--------+---l-------+-------\nt-------:+--------\n+-------::,f--_:=::\n:::..----:+--===-----\n+---- 1 X X X X X g Bond _J'rfill._ __ ~ifil..IB) 8 ~ifilL..ill) i ..f!.!GJ.ish (P..) i __f_rc2...._ 8 English (R) i ~li_s_h_(_R) ~ Enrl. 8 ~ Enrl. 9 H Enrl. 8 H Enrl. ! Enrl9  . Enrl. _8_ H --------+--+--Pr-c-.p ----+-F.n_g_l.\n:is::\n:h=GT=-/-En-rxvB +-E-ng_l_i.\n:sh=(::\n:P..=-)--xvB -t-En-g-.--=GT::\n:/::\n:Ei::\n:,=-r-.- -ii~-t--En-g-_-=(::\n:R7=---iil-t-En-g-h-=.5 ::\n:h=(R=-)--ii Plcp ~ S. Hayes ---- --- R -- --- R -- --- R -- --- R -- ___ R __ ___ R Tu1.11er lla..,:is Pickle Gan,cr 137 Enrl. _3_ ~ Enrl. _8 _ ~ Enrl. _ 8_ ~ Enrl. _8__ ~ Enrl. B ~ Enrl. ~ 134 English ql'/Enr. GT Duty -- -- ---- -- 8 Enrl. X X X X X X R __::1\u0026amp; GT.Enr. R _ Prep l ~g. GT/l:.m:. ,R __ Prep R Eng. GT/Enr. R -- (R) ~ _Enrl. _8__ ~ Enrl. __ H Enrl. _8__ / ~ Enrl. ~ Enrl. 8 ~ --,,\n-x------:+-----..,xr+-------::+--_.\n==---:+-_.\n=:::....-.,+.--  Prep Eng. B Eng. GT/Enr. ~ Eng. GT/Enr. 8 Eng. GT/Em:. ~ Eng. (R) ~ Prep ~ 136 -- -- ---- -7- Enr I. -- 131 ~nish) __ ___h\"ee.___ Enrl. 132 ___f_lee___ __ ~y Skills Enrl. 7 Enrl. En rl. R---- R---- R---- R---- R----- R ~Enrl._7 __ REnrl._7 __ ~Enrl._7__ REnrl. 7 ~Enrl. ~ X X  X X X X R ~nish) R ___h\"eL_ ~ English (R) R ~panish) ~ ~nish) ~ R Enrl. R Enrl. h Enrl. s R Enrl. h Enrl. H X X X ~ ~gli5h (R) 8 Study Skills B Study Skills R-- -- R-- -- E Enrl. 7 E En r I. .7 E Enrl. 7 H -- H -- H ~ X X R-- --- ~-- --- r ~ Enrl. __ R Enrl. ~ X X X B B B r- -- R-- -- R-- -- H Enrl. -- ~ Enrl. -- HE Enrl. X X X B 8 B R-- -- R-- -- R-- -- ~ X X R-- --- l-- --- f ~ Enrl. __ ~ Enrl. - - - ~ Enrl. ~ Enr I, ~ Enrl. f TEACHER Levin Lerner-Sweet Freeraan h~e~oc1 \u0026amp; TIHE ____ _ Tea . No. I _ 203 201 204 GT/E'.llr. Math 7 Prep Math (r..) MATII 2nd PERIOD GT/Enr. Math Enrl. _]_ Math (R) Enrl. ~ Prep 3rd PERIOD X B Prep R-- ~ Enrl. 4th PERIOD 5th PERIOD 6th PERIOD 7thP'fRIOD ------~--------- X X X X R GT/En~. Math:_. R GT/Enr. Math R _Pr_ep__ RG T_/1::n _r_._ M_at_h ~ Enrl. ]__ ~ Enrl. 7 ~ Enrl. R Enrl. 7 IXt __!:: :tAns ~s t. XIt MatI ( )  X Ma I  X h (R) X h  1 R It t 1 Assist It Mat It Mat _Assist. E E-- --- E-- --- E-- --- E-- --- HEnrl._u__ HEnrl.]__ HEnrl._7 __ HEnrl.7 HEnrl.7 X 8 R E H X B R E H ~ , Prep ~ Math Assist. ~ Math (R) ~ Math Assist. ~ Math (I\\) I ~-- ~--- ~--- ~--- ~ - ~ --------+--~--7 _____ 1-E_n_r_l.-===--ifi\n+-E_n_r_l.-===--iH\n+-E_n_rl_.-==7=:....-.\n,H:,+-En_r_l_.-=7==--....,.HI-E-n_r_l_. -=7==-___\n\"\n:-\n-, 7 H Pre-Alg. Prep ~ Pre-Alg. ~R Pre-A_lg. ~ Prep - ~ Math (R) B Pre-Alg. ~ ________ --- R -- --- R-- --- R-- --- R-- --- R ~ Enrl\n.!l..=2..._ ~ Enrl. 8-9 ~ Enrl. ~ Enrl. 8. ~ Enrl. 8-9 R D. Jones 8-9 Enrl. R ~th (R) R _::::th~ i Math ~ , ff Prep__ R Math ~ i Gibson 202 Math (R) Prep Enrl. TOTAL Exe I. H. R. \u0026amp; ~ H R.En r l. 8 ~ En r1  8 H En rl . 8  I R En r I. R En r l. 3 ~ --------+--:1-------+--~=\n.._-v+-x--==-----\nxi+--__\n==---v+x--===-....\nx+----===--...\nx+-__\n==.-..\nx.J----  Desjardin Pre-Alg. Prep B Ple-Alg. B Alg.8 GT/Enr. B Pre-Alg. B Pre-Alg. B Prep 8 8 Jernigan 206 Halter 205 --8-~----En-r-l.==== !-En-r-1.-8---9- !-En_r_l.=_8~~- !-En-r-1.0_ _i_ _ i-En-r-1.-8---9- !-En-r-l.--1 Math Assist. Alg.I 8 GT/Enr.~ Alg. II GT Enr ~ Prep ~ Geom. GT/Enr. ~ Alg. II GT/Hon.~ . ~ -- -- ---- --- R -- --- R -- --- R -- --- R -- --- R _Gec\ni. G'f/Enr. 'f 7 Enrl. _8__ R Enrl. 9 R Enrl. R Enrl. 9 R Enrl. 9 R Enrl.9 Alg. I (R) Alg. I (R) ~ Prep ~ Alg. I (R) ~ Alg. (R) ~ Alg. I GT/En~ Prep -- -- ---- --- R -- --- R -- --- R -- --- R -- --- R -- --- 9 Enrl. _9_ A Enrl. __ A Enrl. 9 A Enrl. 9 R Enrl. 8 A Enrl. X X X X X B B B B B Enrl. R -- --- R -- --- R -- --- R -- --- R -- --- A Enrl. __ A Enrl. __ A Enrl. A Enrl. A Enrl. Enrl.  i __ --- i __ --- i __ --- i __ --- 11-- --- ~ Enrl. _____ ~Enrl. . ~Enrl. ~Enrl. ~Enrl. H X ~ E H X f E H TEACHER Tippen L. Jones Norton SOCIAL STIJDIES 1iMet00 \u0026amp; TIME Tea. No. I_ 211 214 ----- Prep 2nd PERI OD Civics GT/En Enrl. _9 _ Enrl . .:L_ 3rd PERIOD 4th PERIOD 5th PERIOD 6th PERIOD 7thf'ERIOD ~ Civics (R) R -- --- ~ Civics GT/En ~ Civics GT/En ~ Civics GT/En ~ Prep R -- --- ' R -- --- R -- ___ R ____ _ R EnrJ.9 __ R Enrl. 9 R Enrl. 9 R Enrl. 9 R Enrl. X X X X X It _cj,_vi~En It Cm_cs..iBl_ It Civics_J]U_ It Prep It Civics 'R' E E E-- E----- E--~ H Enrl. .9.__ H Enrl. .9.__ H Enrl. ~ H Enrl. H Enrl. 9 X B R E H X B R E H 212 Prep hn. Hist. GT ~ Civics (R) ~ Na. Hist. (R) ~ Civics (R) ~ Ptep ~ \u0026lt;\\m. Hist. GT ft R Enrl. 8 ~ - - ~ - -- ~ - -- ~ - -- . ~ - -- E ~ Enrl. 9 H Enrl. 8 H Enrl. 9 H Enrl.  Enrl. 8 H __R_ ern_l_e_y_ ___t -2--9-1-Soc--.- S-.t-. -GT---+-MI-._ H...\ni_s_t_. (_R_)--i\n~it--P-r..aep==--\n~rt-Pr.1-,- .- H-i~=~t =.=(R_)_-i~n-hn-.- Hi=s=t.=_.=(-R)--i~:it-hn-. -H-'i=s=t -.= (_R_) -i.i Prep ~ ------- f----- f----- ,----- f-.---- f-----R 7 EnrJ.__a_ HEnrl. __ HEnrl._8 __ ttEnrl._8_ HEnrl.8 HEnrl. __ R Holt 215 () X X X , X X ~ Ml. Hi5 L . R Prep___ R Pr.I. Hist. GT R Prep__ I /v.1. Hist. GT , R Arn. Hist. (R) R Arn. Hist. (R) R TOTAL Exel. H. R. \u0026amp; S H R Enrl. __ A _Enrl. _8__ A Enrl. __ H Enrl. _8__ / R Enrl. 8 R Enrl. 8 ~ ---------+---f----'.._-----t--------xc+--------x:rt--------.:xr+-------,,x-+--.......\n==--x-1---==:\n_--xl---  Lowe 125 Holcor.1b ~tu\u0026lt;lies (\u0026amp;_ 2.:.,_Stu\u0026lt;lies (R) R ~tu\u0026lt;lies GT ~ __f!:ep__ ~ .L.l_tudies (R) ~ _fEep__ ~ 2..:,_Jitudies (R) B Enrl. _7__ R Enrl. 7 R Enrl. R Enrl. _ _7_ A Enrl. R Enrl. 7 ~ 7 X X X X X X ~ep _____ ~tudies GT R -2!._udies GT ~ _s_._Stud_i_e_s (R) ~ Prep__ i ~tudies GT ~ _s_._Stud_i_es_GT i Enrl. 7 R Enrl. 7 R Enrl. 7 A Enrl. A Enrl. 7 fi Enrl. 7 Enrl. Enrl. En rl. X B R-- A Enrl. X B R-- R Enr I. . x B R-- ~ Enrl. X X X B B 8 R----- R----- R-- R Enrl. A Enrl. __ A Enrl. X X X B B B R-- R-- --- R-- R Enrl. __ R Enrl. __ R Enrl. X X X 8 B 8 R----- R----- R-- ~Enrl. ~Enrl. ~Enrl. X B R-R Enrl. X B R-R Enr I. X B R-- ~ En r I. H X ~ E H X r H .. - = TEACHER Tidwell Presley Nichols DANCE, DRAMA, FOREIGN LANGUAGES ~Me~a\u0026amp;ii00 \u0026amp; 2nd PEP.JOO 3rd PERIOD 4th PERIOD 5th PERIOD 6th PERIOD 7thP'ERIOD TIME _____ 1 ______ _ Tea. No. I _ I I I Dance II Dance II X X X X X\nSfl-- -- ---- -- B Dance III B11 Prep __ ,. BR Dance_I_ ~ ~nee II ~ ~nee TIT R R-- --- E 222 114 7-9 Enrl. 7-9 Dance I 7-9 Dauce I Enrl . 7-9 A Enrl. 9 A Enrl. ~ Enrl . .1=9._ ~ Enrl. -2..:9..- ~ Enrl. 9 H X X X X X ~ 8 Prep __ It Dance_!_ It __ Da~ It __ D=e.J It Dance I R R E E E----- E ~ Enrl. A Enrl. ~ H Enrl, 7-9 H Enrl. ~ H Enrl. ~ H X X X X X ~ Com\n,/Specch Drama B Conn/Speech B _beIL- B --1ll:ana_ 8 Jheat~s : ..ca:ri,/~ R --- ~ ~ ~ ~ E E 7-9 Enrl. 8-9 ~ Enrl.7-9 H Enrl. H Enrl. 8-9 H Enrl.9  . Enrl.7-:SL_ H _...:,_ ____ ~_:\n!_ ____ -f::::_:.~==--~~_\n__-===--~xr---=:=:-71rr---=~-=---t~ 8 r--==--B ~ Rollefson 140 French I __ Frcnc~killi __P r~ ~ -El:encil...l.I. R ---Rl:Cfl-- r -El:encl....llI R ~n~ R -- -- Enrl. 7 EHEnrl:H EEnrl.8-9 ~Enrl. HEnrl..2.__ ~Enrl.~ ~ 7-9 M. liayes Gerr.,an I X X X X X ~ __ Gem~kill~ __Q_crr.ian III R Prep __ i GP.m.~ill\nR -..C\u0026amp;.tll1all.-1.l R ---Erep..__ ~ TOTAL Exel. H. R. \u0026amp; ~ H Enrl.. EH_Enrl. AEnrl. HEnrl. 1 AEnrl. ~Enrl. __ H -------~--~------1..:.:..:.:...:..:...===--*x--==:-7x~--===---xrr-......:==-7xr-.....\n,\n=--\n:\n,..-7xrr-----7xrr--- . ~ _2J~mish II R __fr~ ~ _Jn.:J.i,sh. ~ ....5pani.sb.LS... SkiJi ~riis4-I i ________, 1.-_-4-7.-.9.. :.=-----+---===--~xt-HE- _E,n:r=l.: ::8\n-.9- ~xt-H-E _E,n:.rl...\n.\n=._YX~ Et-nrl . 7 A Enrl. _:z__ R Enrl.7.=.9_ H X X X Pickle Enrl Enrl. ~----- R----- ~----- ~----- R----- I fiEnrl. fiEnrl. fjEnrl. fjEnrl. fjEnrl. H X X X X X X Enrl. B 8 8 8 B __ ~ R-- --- R-- --- R-- --- R-- --- R-- E R Enrl. R Enrl. R Enrl. R Enrl . R Enrl. H Enrl. X X X X X X B B B B 8 ~ R-- --- R-- R-- --- R-- --- R-- --- E R Enrl. ~ Enrl. R Enrl. R Enrl. __ R Enrl. __ H X X X X X i _____ l _____ i _____ i _____ ~----- ~ Enrl . ~Enrl. _ ~Enrl, ~Enrl. ~Enrl. ~Enr.1 ~ = . TEACHER Nance I. John:\non t1o::-ris \u0026amp;lr.ioocls William:\nSCIENCE A~e~S\u0026amp;il00 \u0026amp; 2nd PERI 00 3rd PERICO 4th PERICO 5th PERICO 6th PERI OD 7thf'fRIOO Tea. TIHE _____ 1 _______ _ -------'-1-------- No. _ i I X X X X X X Life ScicnceGT/fu Life Scie11ce ~ Life Science (RI __b:e.IL-- :_. R _li(e ~ce ~.k_Sc~ GT. R ~P-- R 106 E E E E E E ] Enrl. 7 H Enrl. 7 H Enrl. __ H Enrl. 7 H Enrl. 7 H Enrl. H 101 7 Enrl. __ X X X X X X It ife Sci GT/Enr It Life Sci (R) It Prep It Life Sci (R) ltll..ab Sc:i GT/Enr. ~ -- E E----- E----- E----- E ~ Enrl. _]_ H Enrl. _7__ H Enrl. __ H Enrl. _7__ H Enrl. _7__ H 103 7 X X X X X g B 'lab Sci. (R) B Life Sci (R) 8 P1:ep B Life Sci (R) B Life Sci (R) R ~-- ~-- f-- ~-- -~-- E Enrl. R Enrl. _.:z__ H Enrl. 7 H Enrl. H Enrl. 7 .Enrl. 7 H Prep Phys. Sci (R) ~ F.arth Sci (R) g Prep ~ E. Sci ~R) g Phys. Sci (R) B E. Sci GT/Enr. ~ R----- R----- R----- R----- R----- R E E E E E E Enrl. 9 H Enrl: _8_ H Enrl. __ H Enrl. _8__ H Enrl. _9__ H Enrl. _8_ H X X X X X g 110 F.a.:th Sci (!2_ Prep_ __ R E. Sci J.!:L R E. Sci __Q1_ ~ Pi:ep __ , R ...f:_Sci (ll) R Uci (R) R TOTAL Exel. H. R. \u0026amp; \u0026lt; H 8 Enrl. __ ~_Enrl._8_ _ ~Enrt._8_ _ HEnrl. __ /REnrl.8 REnrl.8 ~ ---------+--1----------------x~-------:x:+-------,:,_rt--------:x-+-------\n-xt--------.xt--- - RE. Sci GT/Em:. R ~i GT/Enr R ~Sci GT/fur. ~ Prep__ ~ ~ci GT/ Em:.( R Enrl. _8__ R Enrl. _3_ R Enrl. _8_ R Enrl. __ ~ Enrl. _3__ H Mirls 104 Prep -- E. Sci GT/Enr ---- --- Enrl. 8 Hufford X X X X X X 105 ...E.._ScL.I..ab GIL.En. ....E.._.5cL.Lah. (n) ~ E. Sci Lab GT.En~ E. Sci Lab (R) ~ E. Sci lab GT/EnR __ Pre_p__ ~ I::. Sci. Lab (R)I 8 En rt . _a__ A Enrl. _a__ A Enrt. ...a__ A Enrl . ...a__ A Enrl. A Enrl. _a__ H Redmond X X X X X X 102 -Pr-ep -- ---P-. S-ci G-T/Eur B P. Sci. GT/Enr 8 Prep B P. Sci (n) B P. Sci GT/Enr B P Sci GT/Enr . 8F R-- -- R-- -- R-- --- R -- --- R-- --- Enrl. 9 REnrl._9_ R Enrl. R Enrl. 9 R Enrl. 9 E 9 E -- -- -- -- H Enrl. __ H Weaver X X X X X X 107 -Ph-ys. -Sc-i (r-t) --Ph-ys. -Sc-i (R) RB -P-rep -- B Phy:\n, Sci (R)B Phys. Sci GT/Enfl Prep B Phys Sci (R) f ~~- 9_ R-- -- R-- -- R -- --- 9 Enrl. ..9__ ~ Enrl. R Enrl. 9 ~ Enrl. R Enrl. c\nE -- -- -- -- H . x X X X X X 8 8 B B 8 -- -- ---- -- R-- -- R-- -- R-- -- R-- -- R-- -- ~ Enrl. ~ Enrl. 1~ En r I. ~ Enr I. ~ En r I . ~ Enr I E H TEACHER Hughes Jordan Page 2 Tea. Ho. I 117 130 SCIENCE A~ef00 \u0026amp; 2nd PERIOD 3rd PERIOD 4th PERIOD 5th PERIOD 6th PERI 00 7thf'f:RIOD TIHE _____ 1 ______ _ TOTAL Exel. H. R. Phys. Sci Lab Phys. Sci Lab GT/i::nr9 ---- 9-Enrl. __ Health Prep 8 Enrl. __ Enrl. Enr 1. En r I. ~ Phys. Sci Lab R-- --- EH En rI . G_T/E_ur 9 R Health A Enrl. -8-- X 8 i Phys. Sci 1..a3 A Enrl. 9 It Ea~th Sci (R) A Enrl. 8 X 8 ~--- I I \u0026amp; ~ H ~ Prep ~ Phys. Sci Lab ITa Phys Sci Lab ~ R-- --- R-- --- R-- R A Enrl. R Enrl. 9 R Enrl. 9 R X X X X 8 8 8 8 I f - - ~ - - -~ - - ~ Enrl. ~ H Enrl. ~ H Enrl. H Enrl.  . Enrl. H ~ .. ~ s---=='---x..i------ R-- R-- R -- --- R----- R----- l ~ Enrl: ~ Enr I. ~ Enrl. ~ Enrl. ~ Enrl. R X X X X X X ~-- R-- I-- ,R __ R __ R H_Enrl. __ ~Enrl. HEnrl. / AEnrl. AEnrl. ~ ---------\n----1r--------t---------x 5 ~-----:_:---:x:+---.\n...\n.\n.._ _~ x- -..\n==---\n.\nx+--_\n::\n::::\n::_ _\nx4-__. =::\n::=--:.:.xL.--  8 8 B B B R---- R---- R---- R---- R---- R Enrl. AEnrl. __ REnrl. REnrl. AEnrl. REnrl. ~ X X X X X X En rl. 8 B 8 B B ~ R-- --- R-- --- R-- --- R-- --- R-- --- f A Enrl. A Enrl. A Enrl. A Enrl. A Enrl. H Enrl. i----- i----- !----- i ____ ! ____ i R Enrl. __ R Enrl. R Enrl. R Enrl. R Enrl. R Enr I . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X R-- --- R-- R-- --- R-- --- R-- --- ~ R Enrl. __ R Enrl. __ R Enrl. R Enrl. R Enrl. R i _____ i _____ i _____ i _____ i _____ i Enrl. ~ Enrl. __ ~ Enrl . _ _ ~ Enrl. __ .. ~ Enrl. ~ Enrl. R OVERVIEW BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Booker Arts Magnet School provides those educational experiences that help each student develop to his or her highest potential. Emphasizing the interrelationship of the elementary curriculum and the arts, Booker Arts Magnet School provides an education that fosters academic and aesthetic growth of students who espress an interest and/or a need in the arts. The goals of Booker Arts Magnet School are to nurture the students' learning, to encourage personal expression, to use the arts to motivate achievement, to foster self-discipline inherent in artistic achievement, and to instill within students a lifetime understanding of the relationship of the arts to their daily lives. The faculty of Booker Arts Magnet School challenges children to grow, to strive for excellence, to express individuality, to cultivate creativity, and to expand horizons. Booker educators celebrate students' potential and nurture their development. They observe students as they grow and mature and welcome each developmental stage as an exciting opportunity and challenge. -48- ____ B\n..O\n..O\n..K\n.\n.E\n..R\n.\n__A\n.\n.R_T.:..S\n__HA\n___G:..N_ET__:_____ PR INC I PAL Ro be rt L. Brown , Jr  llame Race Abbott, Jo Ann 0 -\\llev, ~ary Lou w l.-\\rmstron2 :-lartha I w I I Bar2e, Janet I w I Bohn. Chervl I w I Bonds, Wilma I w I I Bonewi tz, Chris I w I Brown Robert L. I B I Burns. Patricia I w I Burruss. Merilvn I w Carter Steohanie I B I Cherrv. Sandra I B I rnlford Susan I w Dickerson, Nora Kaye I w Dorer, Robert I w Doolev. Vivian I B ! i:-1 1i nt\u0026gt; ton Loretta I B l:'1 ot-r-1-.o,. T 11rl V w I u~-,H ,,~- r,,c:c:.:inrlra B ~\nr_kPrc:on - Jill I w ~ ..\np Carolvn I w T,:ir-kc:nn Shervl I w Toff,-' oc: Vearlon B r ,.,1-,,, c,nn M,:ivrPan I B 1,1., __. l)nc,o M'\\rie I w KPllev Clementine B Kelley, Lois w Kinder. Briam w I 1990-91 CERTTFIEO STAFF Sex I Grade F I 3 F I K-6 F I 4 F I 2 F 1 F I 1-3 M 5 M K-6 F K-6 F 3 F 1 F I 4 F 6 F 1.2 5.6 M K- 6 F 2 F 3 F 1-'i F 6 F K F K-6 F K F K F s F ? F 2 F 2 M v_i::. I Subject Area/ I Soecialit Area I I !Curriculum S, oec1 a l 1 s t I PAL MATH ~rU~~b~~st3H~ Principal I Media Spec. I Reading/Lan. =-s I 1-\\rts/ Soc. Stt. PAL Reading ' Creative Movement I ! I I PAL Reading lead 7  n./Lan3. rts oc. t1 'HH~~,d I Re\u0026lt;:ding/ Science 1 Math I !Reading/Lang. Arts/ Soc. St1 Music .,__,_ -ft 7 years of this was in Lubbock, Texas -49- I No. 'fears No. Years Service in Exoerience Maanet Proor,1m 0 20 6 26 I 5 2 I 1 1 I 1 13 I 0 0 I 0 16 I 3 13 ~ I 7 10 I 1 0 I 0 13 I 5 12 I 7 9 I 1 20 I 7 8 I 3 3 I 1 12 \\ I 2 0 I 0 9~ 9** 13 I 4 11 I 3 12 I 7 19 I 6 9 I 4 18 I 7 1 1 3 3 \u0026gt; I i I ' I I I I __B \"\"\"O_O--_K_ E _R_A_R_T_S_MA_G_N__ET ______ P!WIC I PAL __R _o_b_e_r_t_L_._B_r_o_w_n.,\n.,_J_r_. ___ 190-91 c~~rrrE9 s-~Fr ' ... I I ! I I Grade I ,'lo. edrs I I Subject Area/ :lo. Years Ser'lice in Name Race Sex Soecia 1 it, Area Excerience Maonet Proor.1: Koehler, Yvonne lw F I K-6 !Creative Movement I 30 4 ~ ee I\\J I F K-6 Asst Prin . 6 0 lw I F I 5 I Reading/ I Lehnhoff, Denna Math/ Science 21 4 Kovach Lillian Ren Lewis, Linda lw I F I K-6 I Art 3 2 ~1cDonald, Thomas lw I M I 5-6 I Orchestra 14 2 McGuire, Steve lw I M I K-6 I Speech Therapy 8 7 Mc~orran, Marv lw I F I 1-6 I Resource 16 5 Mefford, Elizabeth lw I F I 4 I ~:tR}ns~iencel 2 1 Meverdirk Carol lw I F I I Computer Soecialist I 19 7 Mosbv Lorraine Is F K-6 I Counselor 18 1 Pace. Katie Is F I 1-6 I Resource 18 0 Pleasent. Carwin Is M K-6 I Music I 26 2 Sarlo. Thomas lw M K-6 I Art 11 7 Sher. Elizabeth lw F I 1 I I 1 1 Smith Marv A. Is F K-6 I Curriculum Specialist I 12 5 Solomon. Alicia I S I F I 1 I I 4 2 Taylor, Carolyn I S F 4 IReadin~\n/Lang. Arts/ cc.Stu 26 4 I I I l \\J,q 11 c: RnhhiP S F K 3 1 i I I ,~?t~}ns~c ~a~i ! Weir. Nancv w F 6 13 5 I White, Dishoungh I S M 3 I 3 I 3 : White. Gloria I S F 4-6 jPAL Math 16 I 7 Whitmire, Carol I w F 6 !Reading Math Science 14 I 2 ! I tJ I counselor I ' IJnnrlh,:,m ~ir-hollo F' K-6 8 0 i Zies, Mar\nt 1 w I F K-6 I Music 13  I 4 I I I I -50- 7:50 8:00 8:00 8:45 8:45 10:30 10:40 11: 25 11: 25 12:20 12:20 1:20 1:20 2:25 2:25 2:35 2: 35 3:05 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL 1990-91 KINDERGARTEN - SECOND GRADE ART/MUSIC/CREATIVE MOVEMENT SCHEDULE Opening Exercises Planning Curriculum Development Lunch Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Dismissal Planning -51- 7:50 8:00 9:00 9:25 10:30 11: 30 12:15 12:40 1:30 2:35 8:00 9:00 9:25 10:25 11:30 12:15 12: 40 1:25 2:35 3:03 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL 1990-91 THIRD GRADE - SIXTH GRADE ART/MUSIC/CREATIVE ~OVEMENT -52- Opening Exercises Planning Curriculum Development Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Lunch Curriculum Development Third Grade Sixth Grade Planning 7:50 - 8:10 8:10 - 8:30 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:15 9:15 - 9:30 9:30 - 10:40 10:40 - 11:25 11:25 - 12:20 12:20 - 1:15 1:15 - 1:25 1:25 - 1:55 1:55 - 2:25 2:25 - 2:35 2:35 - 3:05 Booker Arts Magnet School 1990-91 Kindergarten Schedule Opening Exercises Oral Language Development Shared Book (Whole Language) Math Recess Language Lunch and Recess Specialists* (Planning) Rest Snack Social Studies Free Play/ Centers Evaluation/ Dismissal Planning * Art/Music/Creative Movement -53- 7:50 - 8:00 8:00 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:45 10:45 - 11: 30 11:30 - 12:25 12:25 - 1:20 1:25 - 1:40 1:40 - 2:25 2:25 - 2:35 2:35 - 3:05 Booker Arts Magnet School 1990-91 First Grade Schedule Opening Exercises Reading Math Lunch and Recess Language Arts Specialists* (Planning) Recess Science/ Social Studies Evaluation/ Dismissal Planning *Art/Music/ Creative Movement -54- 7:50 - 8:15 - 10:15 10:50 11:40 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:15 2:20 2:35 Booker Arts Magnet School 1990-91 Second Grade Schedule 8:15 Opening Exercise 10:15 Reading - 10:50 Math - 11 :35 Lunch and Recess - 12:00 Spelling - 12:30 English - 1:00 Science/ Social Studies - 1:15 Recess - 2:20 Specialists* (Planning) - 2:35 Evaluation/ Dismissal - 3:05 Planning * Art/Music/Creative Movement -55- 7:50 - 8:00 8:00 - 11:10 11:10 - 11:55 11:55 - 12:40 12:40 - 1:25 1:25 - 2:20 2:20 - 2:35 2:35 - 3:05 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL 1990-91 THIRD GRADE SCHEDULE Opening Exercises Language Arts Reading Social Studies Lunch and Recess Science Specialists* (planning) Math D.E.A.R. Planning * ART/MUSIC/CREATIVE MOVEMENT -56- 7:50 8:10 9:25 10:30 11:15 12:00 12:40 1:50 2:30 2:35 8:10 9:25 10:25 11: 15 12:00 12:40 1:50 2:30 2:35 3:05 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL 1990-91 FOURTH GRADE SCHEDULE Opening Exercises Reading Language Arts or Math Specialists* (planning) Language Arts or Math Lunch and Recess Social Studies or Science Language Arts ~r Math Social Studies or Science Evaluation /Dismissal Planning *ART/MUSIC/CREATIVE MOVEMENT -57- 7:50 - 8:00 - 9:00 - 10:00 - 10:30 - 11:30 - 12:20 - 12:45 - 1:45 - 2:35 - 8:00 9:00 10:00 10:30 11:30 12:20 12:45 1:45 2:35 3:05 Booker Arts Magnet School 1990-91 Fifth Grade Schedule Opening Exercise Reading Language Arts or Math Science or Social Studies Specialists* (Planning) Lunch and Recess Science or Social Studies Language Arts or Math Science or Social Studies Planning *Art/ Music/ Creative Movement -58- 7:50 - 8:05 8:05 - 8:40 8:40 - 9:40 9:40 - 10:40 10:40 - 11:40 11:40 - 12:25 12:30 - 1:30 1:30 - 2:30 2:30 - 2:35 2:35 - 3:05 Booker Arts Nagnet School 1990-91 Sixth Grade Schedule Opening Exercise Social Studies or Science Reading Language Arts or Math Social Studies or Science Lunch and Recess Language Arts or Math Specialists* (Planning) Evaluation/ Dismissal Planning -1. Art/Music/Creative Movement -59- OVERVIEW CARVER BASIC SKILLS/MATH-SCIENCE MAGNET SCHOOL Philosophy The philosophy of Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School is to provide educational experiences that help each child to reach his/her potential. This philosophy is congruent with the Little Rock School District's philosophy which boasts a comprehensive program that promotes intellectual growth, social interaction, development of self-worth, acceptance of responsibility for learning, and appreciation for cultural diversity. Goals The goals of Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School are:  to develop the highest possible competence in academic skills and concepts  to nurture the student's mental processes  to foster self-discipline  to develop task commitment and self-motivation  to develop an understanding of the relationship between the scientific process, applied mathematics, and other curriculum areas  to equip students at an early age with the interest and educational skills to live in the technological world of tomorrow Curriculum Carver Magnet School's ultimate objective is to ensure that each student obtains a minimum of 85% mastery of the basic skills curriculum. The areas of mastery are manifested in language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, fine arts, and physical education, with additional emphasis on a hands-on approach to math and science education. Instructional activities are presented through child-centered classrooms, large group instruction, effective classroom management, standard basal textbooks, curriculum units, and resource materials. A computer lab, math lab, science lab, field trips, guest speakers, and specific math/science projects enhance mathematics and science core curriculum. Sixth grade students are assessed for pre-algebra aptitude and grade level math skills. Placement in pre-algebra is conditional on high assessments in both categories, parental consent, and student motivation. -60- SCHOOL Cr1rvc.r M,q1net PRINCIPAL Mary E. Guinn -~.:..c....__--=-----'--'----------- --=--------------- 199O - 9 l CERTIFIED STAFF No. Years Subject Area/ No. Years Service in Name Race Sex Grade Speciality Area Exoerience Maanet Proaram ANGELA DOYNE B F K KINDERGARTEN 10 4 KATHLEEN HARRISON w F K KINDERGARTEN 5 2 MELBA HOOKER w F K KINDERGARTEN 10 2 MARY CATHERINE BLACK w F 1 FIRST 2 1 LINDA GLENN w F 1 FIRST 8 4 EUNICE SKUBAL w F 1 FIRST 1 1 JULIE CURTIS w 2 2 SECOND 6 6 CLAUDIA HAMILTON w F 2 SECOND 16 4 KIM WASHINGTON B F 2 SECOND 1 1 LISA MACK w F 2 SECOND 9 3 BRYANNA KELLEY w D 3 THIRD 5 1 CYNTHIA WILSON w F 3 THIRD 3 1 DIANE LANGLEY w F 3 THIRD 9 2 PRISCILLA PENN w F 3 THIRD 1 1 SHARON ANDREWS w F 4 FOURTH 4 4 MARILYN BARLOW w F 4 FOURTH 2 2 JULIE HENRY w F 4 FOURTH 2 2 SHIRLEY HICKMAN w F 4 FOURTH 27 1 BETTY GLENN w F 5 FIFTH 25 4 CHRISTI OLIVER w F 5 FIFTH 10 4 TEATA PACE B F 5 FIFTH 3 3 ALICA WOMACK w F 5 FIFTH 1 1 DEBBIE BYRD w F 6 SIXTH 1 1 LINDA FLEMING B F 6 SIXTH 1 1 WILLIE MORRIS B M 6 SIXTH 9 2 JOY THOMAS w F 6 SIXTH 4 4 LINDA AMMEL w F COUNSELOR 5 3 VIRGINIA BELOTTI w F MEDIA SPECIAL ST 23 2 -61- ~J cHOOL -~- ,-u ..(IR ~\\ll...U!..!... 1 ~1. .....~ .:i..J.\u0026lt;l.l~..G.. ..N ~EL': ..'..1...l' _________ PRI\",..C l P\"L MARY E . r:, lJINN 11 --------------- 1990-91 CERTIFIED STAFF No. Years Subject Area/ No. Years Service in Name Race Sex Grade Soecialitv Area Experience Maqnet Prooram PAULA BETTIS w F MUSIC 4 4 KAREN CAMPBELL w F CURRICULUM SP., C.8 2 JEFF CARR B M ASST.PRINCIPA 17 1 MEREDITH CHASE w F GIFTED SPEC. R 4 JANE CRUM w F INTERVENTION PEG. 11 4 MARY E. GUINN B F PRINCIPAL 13 4 PATRICIA KILLINGSWORTH w F MATH SPEC. 20 4 AUDREY LEE B F COMPUTER SPEC * 4 4 DEBORAH MANNING w F ART SPEC. 7 3 ROBERTA MAY w F Y.A.P.SPEC. 5 4 YORIKO PERRITT 0 F SCIENCE SPEC. 18 4 JESCENA SWEAT B F PHY.ED. SPEC . 7 4 KATHY TATUM B F COUNSELOR R 1 CAROL THOMPSON w F MEDIA SPEC. 4 4 TERRI VALUE B F SPEECH THERAP ST 8 4 SHIRLEY WALKER B F RESOURCE SPEC. 10 4 *ASSOCIATE DEGREE -62- 9:20 9: 35 11: 05 11 :35 12:05 12:35 - 7:45 a.m. 7:55 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 8:05 a.m. 9:35 a.m. 9: 50 a.m. 11: 50 a.m. 12:20 p.m. 1:05 p.m. 1:35 p.m. 2:35 p.m. 3:05 p.m. * * * * * * * * CARVER MAGNET SCHOOL DAILY SCHEDULE 1990-91 Teachers Arrive/Preparation Time Students enter classrooms Each teacher is asked to stand at his/her door to receive students. Homeroom period, lunch count, etc. Tardy Bell Instruction Begins Kindergarten Recess Primary I \u0026amp; II Recess Kindergarten Lunch/Recess Primary I \u0026amp; II Lunch/Recess Primary III \u0026amp; Intermediate IV Lunch/Recess Intermediate V-~ VI Lunch/Recess Student Dismissal Teachers are asked to stand at their doors and assist in supervising students to the nearest exit. End of Day Teachers (Except Specialists on extended days) *INDICATES WHEN BELL WILL RING 6. -63- 6th Grade 8:05 - 9:05 G/T 9:05 - 10:05 Math 10:05 - 11 : 05 Activity 11 : 0 5 - 12:05 Sci/SS 12:05 - 2:35 L.A. (Lunch 12:35 - 1 : 3 5) 4th Grade 8:05 - 9:05 Math 9:05 - 10:05 G/T 10:05 - 11:05 Sci/SS 11:05 - 12:05 Activity 1 2: 0 5 - 1 : 0 5 Lunch 1:05 - 2:35 L.A. General Schedule Recess ( K) 9:20 - ( 1 -2) 9:35 - LUNCH (K) 11 : 0 5 - ( 1 -2) 11 : 3 5 - ( 3-4) 12:05 - (5-6) 12:35 - -64- 5th Grade 8:05 - 9:05 Activity 9:05 - 10:05 Sci/SS 10:05 - 11:05 G/T 11 : 0 5 - 12:05 Ma th 12:05 - 2:35 L.A. ( Lunch 1 2: 3 5 - 1 : 3 5) 3rd Grade 8:05 - 9:05 Sci/SS 9:85 - 10:05 Activity 10:05 - 12:05 L.A. 12:05 - 1:05 Lunch 1 : 05 - 1: 50 Math 1 : 5 0 - 2:35 G/T 9:35 9:50 11 : 50 12:20 1 : 05 1 : 3 5 CARVER SCHEDULE - 1990-91 KA Monday 1:05 Computer 2:05 Music Tuesday 10:05 Music 1:35 Young Astronauts Wednesday 9:35 P.E. 1 :05 Computer Thursday 1:05 Art 2:05 Counselor Frida::t: 9:35 Science Lab 10:05 Art 10:35 P.E. 1 : 05 Math Lab Recess 9:20 - 9:35 Lunch 11:05 - 11:50 -65- KB Monday 9:35 Music 1:05 Counselor CARVER SCHEDULE - 1990-91 1:35 Young Astronauts Tuesday 1:35 Computer Wednesday 8:05 Music 1:35 Computer Thursday 1 : 35 Art 2:05 P.E. Friday 1 0: 05 p .E. 1 0: 35 Art 1 : 05 Science Lab 1 : 35 Math Lab Recess 9:20 - 9:35 Lunch 11:05 - 11:50 -66- KC Monday 9:35 P.E. 1:35 Counselor Tuesday 8:05 Music 1:05 Computer Wednesday 9:35 Art CARVER SCHEDULE - 1990-91 1:35 Young Astronauts Thursday 10:05 Music 1:05 Computer Friday 8:05 Art 8:35 Science 1 : 05 P.E. 2:05 Math Lab Lab Recess 9:20 - 9:35 Lunch 11:05 - 11:50 -67- 1A Monday 1:00 Music 1:45 Science Lab Tuesday 1:30 Computer 2:00 P.E. Wednesday 1:30 Computer 2:00 Art Thursday 1:00 Music 1:30 Counselor Friday 10:00 Math Lab. 11:00 Art 2:00 P.E. CARVER SCHEDULE - 1990-91 Recess 9:30 - 9:45 Lunch 11:30 - 12:15 -68- 1B Monday 1:00 Computer 2:00 Art Tuesday 11:00 Music 1:45 Science Lab Wednesday 1:00 Computer 1:30 Counselor 2:00 P.E. Thursday 2:00 Art Friday 10:30 11 : 00 2:00 Math Lab P.E. Music CARVER SCHEDULE - 1990-91 Recess 9:30 - 9:45 Lunch 11 : 3 O - 1 2: 1 5 -69- 1C Monday 1:30 P.E. Tuesday 1:00 Computer 1:30 Counselor 2:00 Art Wednesday 1 :00 Music 1:45 Science Lab Thursday 1:00 Computer 1 : 30 Friday 11 : 00 1 : 30 2:00 Music Math Lab P.E. Art CARVER SCHEDULE - 1990-91 Recess 9:30 - 9:45 Lunch 11 : 3 0 - 1 2: 1 5 -70- 2A Monday 10:30 Math Lab 1:00 Science Lab 2:00 Computer Tuesday 1:00 P.E. 1:30 Music ivednesday 1 :00 P.E. 1:30 Music 2:00 Counselor Thursday 2:00 Computer Friday 1:00 Art CARVER SCHEDULE - 1990-91 Recess 9:30 - 9:45 Lunch 11 : 30 - 1 2: 1 5 -71- 2B Monday 1:00 Art 2:00 Counselor Tuesday 10:30 Math Lab 1:00 Science Lab 2:00 Music Wednesday 1:30 P.E. 2:00 Computer Thursday 1:30 P.E. Friday 1:30 Music 2:00 Computer CARVER SCHEDULE - 1990-91 Recess Lunch 9:30 - 9:45 11:30 - 12:15 -72- 2C Monday 1:00 P.E. 1:30 Computer Tuesday 1:00 Art 2:00 Counselor Wednesday 10:30 Math Lab 1:00 Science Lab 2:00 Music Thursday 1 :00 P.E. 1:30 Computer Friday 1:00 Music CARVER SCHEDULE - 1990-91 Recess 9:30 - 9:45 Lunch 11:30 - 12:15 -73- 2D Monday 1:30 Music 2:00 P.E. Tuesday 1:30 P.E. 2:00 Computer ylednesday 1:00 Art Thursday 10:30 Math Lab 1:00 Science Lab 2:00 Music Friday 1 :30 Computer 2:00 Counselor CARVER SCHEDULE - 1990-91 Recess Lunch 9:30 - 9:45 11:30 - 12:15 -74- OVERVIEW GIBBS MAGNET SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE Philosophy and Objectives Because the complex world today is constantly changing and becoming increasingly interdependent, children need special skills to function as citizens of the world in the twenty-first century. Gibbs Magnet School of International Studies and Foreign Language provides educational experiences that will enable each child to develop to his or her highest potential. Utilizing a global perspective, the Gibbs program expands and enhances the multi-ethnic core curriculum through the infusion of international studies and foreign languages. Learning activities, which promote the social, emotional, and intellectual growth of each student, result in a child who appreciates commonalities and diversities among the peoples of the world. The intent of this program is to assist each child in acquiring the skills needed to function as a citizen of the world. International Studies Program The Gibbs International Studies Program is designed to assist each child in developing an understanding of and appreciation for the similarities and differences among the peoples of the world. The International Studies Program is based on essentials common to all people (universals of culture). As students learn these universals of culture, they apply their knowledge of these basics to people around the world. A sixty (60) minute block of time is allocated daily for the study of international studies concepts, including the study of foreign languages. Resource speakers, field trips, correspondence with children of other countries, and exposure to peoples from other countries are utilized to enrich and extend classroom instruction. Language specialty will begin at the kindergarten level. Conversational language instruction serves as the basis for the language program. However, some reading and writing of the specialized language is required to equip students with language skills essential for advanced placement in a junior high program. (Gibbs students will be required to pass a Level I language test for advanced placement at the junior high level . ) -75- SCHOOL Gibbs Magnet School of International Studies PRINCIPAL Ms. Donna Davis ---'-\"\"--'-...CC...:...:..:.::..:C=---..::..:'--.-=-=---------- 1990-91 CERTIFIED STAFF -- i I Mo. Years ! ' \\ Grade Subject Area/ No. Years Service in i Name Race Sex Special itv Area Exoerience Maanet Proqra\n:, I ' I T'\\rmn ~ f)\n:ivi S w F Principal 24 4 I Sharon Davis B F ! Assistant Principal 12 4 I I I I I Ro 1 i nil\" Pd \u0026lt;'e w F K 8 2 i I F I K 20 2 : I Shirley Talley B I I I I Carolvn Blome w F 01 12 4 i ! P,:,mola Newsome I I 01 15 2 ! B F i Carol Shufelber2er w F I 02 5 1 I I Jeanne Whitesell w F I 02 16 4 i i I Ro,:,tri 7 Kimh.o! 11 II-Ii :m. F 03 14 2 I i ' I r:arvn Tm, 1 h.:,., w F 01 10 2 i I I I l I Timothy Goetz w M 04 1 1\ni I I I Wilhelmina Lewellen B F 04 30 4 'I I I ! Susie Robinson B F 04 16 1 I I I I I Mary Jones B F 05 2 2 I I I i I Patricia Luzzi w F 05 9 1 i i ! ' Kanna Adams w F 06 7 2 I I Kay Dufour w F 06 15 2 I I Jean Anderson w F French 30 4 I i I ! Frances Kaye Bateman w F Gifted/Talented 20 4 I i Judy Bryant w F Counselor 24 2 i I I Cassandra Curry B F Speech 4 4 I International I I i Vicki Gonterman w F Studies 11 4 i I I I I Kayren Grayson w F Music 12 3 : ( Physical : I I Nancy P. Hamilton w F Fducationa 7\\ 4 I l Ann J. Hurd B F Reading 28 4 I I I I Catherine Lavey w F Media 13 4 I i I I Nancy Mitchell w F Resource 18 1 I _! I Susan Purvis w F Art 10 4 ~r . . . .. -  I ] .. SCHOOL Gibbs Magnet School of International PRINCIPAL Ms . Donna Davis - ]) Studies 1990-91 CERTIFIED STAFF - - No. Years ] Subject Area/ No. Years Service in Name Race Sex Grade Soeciality Area Exoerience Maanet Proara111 Patricia Singer w F Spanish 11 4 11 Marv L. Torrence B F Math 34 4 I Donald W. Williams w M German 3 1 .JI .... I  rJ I fl fl i I fl I I rJ I I I rJ fl rJ I I r1 - rJ ! i i I I ri I - .. rJ -77 I - - . Kindergarten 8:00 - 10:10 10:10 - 10:40 10:40 - 11:25 11:25 - 12:25 12:25 - 12:40 12:40 - 2:20 2:20 - 2:35 First - Second Grade 8-:00 - 10:20 10:20 - 11:10 11:10 - 11:55 11:55 - 12:40 12:40 - 2:20 2:20 - 2:35 GENERAL SCHEDULE K - 02 Language Development EPSF (Modality Instruction) International Studies/Science Lunch/Recess Rest Hour Language Development (Story Time) Activity period (Includes computer lab, music, physical education, art, counselor, library, Discovery, foreign language) Closing Instruction Preparation for Dismissal Reading/Language Arts Math Lunch/Recess International Studies/Science Activity Period (Includes computer lab, music, physical education, art, counselor, library, Discovery, foreign language) Closing Instruction Preparation for Dismissal RECESS Kindergarten 9:30 - 9:45 Grades 01-02 9:50 - 10:05 Lunch Kindergarten 10:40 - 11:25 Grades 01-02 11:10 - 11:55 -78- 3rd (:cede: 8:CS 9:33 ': :30 - 2:25 Sc:../SS 5th Grade 9:35 - 10:35 Sci/SS 10:35 i 2: 1 5 L ,E!\u0026lt;]. 1 2: 1 5 - 1 : 1 5 Lunch 1 :20 2:20 r-iat:-i :: .. :- r:.:...~. -~ : .:. :-: .. :::.-c: ~: l(~ - --- -- ---------- -- ----- .',:c i: s (_1 -2) 1~:30 - 1:30 ~ath ~ :30 - 2:25 S~i/3S : :05 - 9:0 5 S~i/SS ~ :05 - 10:05 Lang. nrt~ 1J: 05 1 1 : 3 5 - 1 2: 1 5 Lang. !\\rt'.j 12:15 1:13 Lunch 1:20 - 2:20 Math 9:30 - 9:'1S ~ ::iG -- \"i 0:05 ( i:\n: ,, : ,: 8 1 1 : 2 j ( \"i - 1 :  _) _\n- 1 1 : 5 0 ( .. - -79- OVERVIEW WILLIAMS BASIC SKILLS MAGNET SCHOOL Williams Basic Skills Magnet School is a high-performance, high expectations elementary school offering a program for grades K-6, promoting a highly structured, disciplined approach to academic and social behaviors. Strong emphasis is placed on mastery of basic skills at the student's instructional level in reading, math, English, spelling, writing, science, social studies, health, penmanship, art, music, and physical education. Williams Basic Skills Magnet School goals are:  Development of basic academic skills and concepts mastery at the highest levels possible  Development of students' higher level thinking skills  Promotion of students' self-discipline development  Development of task commitment, self-motivation, and responsibility This school best serves responsible students who learn well in a highly structured environment and are highly motivated by competition in all program areas. -80- SCHOOL Williams Magnet PRINCIPAL Dr. Edwin S. Jackson 1990-91 CERTIFIED STAFF No. Years Subject Area/ No. Years Service in Name Race Sex Grade Speciality Area Experience Magnet Prooram Babbs, Floretta B F K Elem/Farly Child 14 4 Bradberry, Mary Jo w F K Elem/Farly Child 16 4 Palinski , Rebecca w F K Elem/Farly Child 16 3 Breece, Patricia w F 1 Elera/Farly Child 14 3 Green, Judi w F 1 Elem/Farly Child 7 2 Mobley, Ella B F 1 Elem/Farly Child 25 8 Crawford, Carmelia B F 2 Elementary 10 3 Goodman, Susan w F 2 Elementary 3 1 Martin, Barbara w F 2 Elementary 18 8 Bryant, Ardeen B F 3 Elementarv 25 4 Connelly, Renee w F 3 Elementarv 5 5 Davis, Carolyn w F 3 Elernentarv 22 8 Busch, Michelle w F 4 Elementarv 3 1 Frazier, Zora w F 4 Elementarv 14 6 Thomason, Lisa w F 4 Elernentarv 11 4 I mute' Sharon w F 4 E.C. F.d 1 1 Edwards , 'Ilrresia B F 5 Elementarv 8 4 I Kemp, Roberta w F 5 Elementarv 20 5 Weindorf, Mary Jane w F 5 Elementarv 8 5 Bloom, Louise w F 6 Elernentarv 32 8 Goodfellow, Diane w F 6 Elementarv 15 8 Nesby, Henry B M 6 Elementarv 12 5 Dempster, Hildred w F Gifted 17 4 Phillips, Dorothy B F Gifted 20 ?, I Collier, Rose B F M.\u0026lt;tQTje~-snPcialist 10 4 Washington, Anne w F IM.i.1met SnPcialist 1? 4 PAL Haney, Lynn w F Reading Spec. 17 4 Maddox, Anna Leigh w F !Math Soec. - PAL lQ 4 -81- SCHOOL ---'W~i\"\"l-\"'-li:c!ams=~Ma,..gn\"'\"\"'e'-\"t'--__________ PRINCIPAL Dr, Edwin S. Jackson 1990-91 CERTIFIED STAFF flo. Years Subject Area/ No. Years Service in I Name Race Sex Grade Soecial itv Area Experience Maqnet Prooram Curry, Linda B F Resource 7 2 Dyson, Carol w F K-6 Art Specialist 22 8 George, Lori w F Speech Therapist 4 1 Mcleod, Betty w F Counselor 29 6 Maxwell, Lisa w F K-6 P.E. 7 4 Naglak, Kathryn w F K-6 Librarian 12 6 Strickland, Barbara w F K-6 Music Specialist 13 8 I Mitchell, Deborah B F Vice Princinal 10 4 Jackson, Dr. Edwin S. w M Principal 34 4 I -82- (g Williams LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Williams Magnet School 7301 Evergreen Street Phone 666-0346 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 RECESS LUNCH 7:45 a.m. 7:50 a.m. 7:50-8:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 8:00-8:05 a.m. 9:15-9:30 a.m. 9:30-9:45 a.m. 11:00- 11:45 a.m. 11:30-12:15 p.m. 12:00-1:00 p.m. 12:30-1:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m. 2:35 p.m. 3:05 p.m. 1990-91 BELL SCHEDULE Teachers arrive at school Students enter rooms Preparation for opening Tardy bell Opening exercises Grade K (Northeast play area) Grades 1 \u0026amp; 2 (Northeast play area) Grade K (Northeast play area) Grades 1 \u0026amp; 2 (Northeast play area) Grade 3 (Northeast play area) Grade 4 (Southwest play area) Grade 5 (Southwest play area) Grade 6 (Southwest play area) Preparation for dismissal bell All students dismissed End of formal work day A CHOICE FOR EXCELLENCE -83- Williams School -: LU1E:lT ,\\RY :' JWGRM1 : CiiEDUL ~ GRADE LEVEL CURRICULUM TIME EMPHASIS AREAS COMPONENTS ALLOTMENT l - 6 LANGUAGE ARTS Spe 11 i ng Weekly 1 - 6 l - 6 READING Handwriting Primary I, II Oral/Written Corrmunication (Social Primary III Studies, Science, Music, Art:(1-3]~ Intermediate Listening Skills (Social Studies, Music) [l - 3]* Exercises in Foreign Language** Higher Order Thinking Skills (Social Studies, Science) [1 - 3]* Infonnation Skills Vocabulary Development Comprehension Literature Content Reading Skills in Science, Social Studies, Fine Arts [l - 3]* Physical Activities (Enactment of Plays, etc.) [1 - 3]* Primary Intermediate MATHEMATICS Computation Problem Solving Primary Intermediate Higher Order Thinking Skills Measurement Numeration Whole Numbers Rational Numbers Geometry Probabilty/Statistics Practical Arts Activities [1 - 3]\"'* Physical Activities, Games, etc.* 750 Mir 625 Mir: 400 Mir: 525 Min 400 Min 225 Min: 300 Min: 5. --- -- ----- - Williams School : / Intermediate I '' I 3 - 6 SC I ENCE General Science 170 Min Health/Safety I Conservation/Nature Study I I : Effects of Alcohol, Drugs, Tobacco Fire Prevention Higher-order Thinking Ski 11 s 4 - 6 SOCIAL Geography Intermediate 170 Mir STUDIES Arkansas and U.S. History Economic Education Family and Colll'IX.lnity Relation-ships - Citizenship l - 6 FINE ARTS/ Music Instruction and Intermediate 60 Mir PRACTICAL Listening and Primary ARTS** Art Appreciation and Instruction Activities in Practical Arts** 4 - 6 PHYSICAL Exercises Intermediate 60 Mir EDUCATION Games/Dance Movement Activities Art and ~sic Activities I 3 - 6 ' INFORMATION Dictionary Skills Primary I I I 30 Mir i SKILLS** Maps. Charts, Graphs I ' Tables of Contents Knowledge of Computers Use of Media Equipment/Materials Reference Skills *Social studies, science, music, art, physical education activities, and practical arts will be integrated into the teaching of language arts, reading, and mathematics at the primary level  Required in New Standards, effective 1986-87 SECTION VII RESEARCH AND EVALUATION The Honorable Henry Woods, U. S. District Judge in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, issued on September 3, 1986, an \"Order Concerning Magnet Review Committee.\" Item 4 of the Order states, in part, \"Upon implementation of the magnet school program, the Magnet Review Committee will continue to monitor, evaluate, and recommend changes in the actual operation of the magnet schools ..... \" In August of 1987, the Magnet Review Committee developed a plan for evaluating the magnet schools. The evaluation plan provides for determining the desegregative effects of the magnet school program, as well as the educational quality of these programs. Key variables inherent in effective schools were identified for study by the Magnet Review Committee, and a framework for longitudinal evaluation was adopted. The framework consists of four phases to the evaluation process. This plan was provided to the Court in the Magnet Review Committee's Report to the Court of September 3, 1987. The Magnet School Program Evaluation for 1988-89 was conducted for the Magnet Review Committee by the Office of Educational Research and Services, College of Education, Arkansas State University (ASU), under the direction of Dr. Donald E. Wright. The evaluation report was published in October, 1990 and was shared with the Court, all parties and the public. The evaluation project focused upon the following: 1. A re-examination of the attitudes/opinions of all parents of magnet school students with regard to student recruitment, transportation and parent/ community involvement. 2. An analysis of student performance data on the MAT-6 (grades 4-7-10) and MPT (grades 3-6-8) for magnet school students as compared to student performance statewide on these standardized achievement measures. What follows are the summary statements from the study, as published in the full report as pages 117-119. 1. The return of 60 percent on the parent survey is sufficient to warrant consideration of the responses. 2. There is no difference in the return rate of parents based on race or resident district. -86- 3. The majority of parents responding had students attending a magnet school for a second year, especially parents of elementary students. 4. A higher proportion of black students are attending a magnet school for the second year than students of other races. This was true by school except for Gibbs elementary. 5. The efforts of the MRC regarding student recruitment have been rewarded. The parents are very positive of recruitment procedures. 6. Transportation as a category was acceptable to the parents\nhowever, there is still some concern about \"student time on bus,\" \"bus drivers,\" and \"transportation information.\" 7. The parents of magnet school students indicate there is a continued need for efforts by the MRC and the magnet school administration to improve the area of parent and community involvement. 8. Working parents, especially parents of black children, have a difficult time becoming involved in school activities. 9. Elementary students take school notices home to parents and parents read them for information about school activities, whereas, secondary students just \"tell\" their parents about school activities. 10. Parents of black students \"talk with their child\" about school more than parents of white students. 11. The black students in grade 3 will perform better on both sections (reading and math) of the Minimum Performance Test (MPT) than the state average passing rate. 12. The black students in grade 6 will perform better on the reading and math tests of the MPT than the state average passing rate, and perform as well or better in the areas of language arts, science and social studies. 13. The magnet school's eighth grade students do not perform as well as the state average passing rate on the MPT content area tests of science and social studies. -87- 14. Although the magnet school grade 4 students have a comparable composite percentile rank on the MAT-6 as the state population of grade 4 students, the black students of the magnet school do not perform as well as their white peers. 15. Although the magnet school's seventh grade students have a comparable composite percentile rank on the MAT-6 as the state population of seventh grade students, the black students of the magnet school do not perform as well as their white peers. 16. The state composite percentile rank for the MAT-6 was, although comparable, higher than the composite percentile rank for the grade 10 magnet students in all content areas. The white students will perform at a higher level than their black peers on this particular test. 17. The magnet school students perform better, as measured by the MPT and the MAT-6, in the content areas of reading and math, whereas, the weakest area is science. 18. The least difference in performance by the race variable was in the content area of language arts. -88- SECTION VIII POLICY ISSUES The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) is cognizant of the Court's June 30, 1987, Order clarifying the role of the MRC in policy development for the operation of the interdistrict magnet school program and setting forth guidelines for presentation of MRC policy decisions to the Court for adoption subsequent to the Order. The MRC recognizes that the most appropriate course of action is for magnet schools to adhere to the policies of the host school district whenever possible. On certain occasions, it has become necessary for the MRC to develop and adopt a policy or guidelines that would be unique to the interdistrict magnet schools. These policies and guidelines, which have been disseminated to the three districts for implementation, are included in this report and are listed below: POLICY POLICY GUIDELINES GUIDELINES POLICY POLICY POLICY Interdistrict Magnet School Transfers, Revised December 1, 1987 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Inclement Weather Procedure, Adopted December 1, 1987 Interdistrict Magnet School Enrollment for the 1989-90 School Year, Adopted December 20, 1988 Classifying Equipment Interdistrict Magnet School Student Early Graduation, Adopted July 25, 1989 Application to Interdistrict Magnet Schools, Adopted November, 1989 Application for a Majority-to-Minority (M-to-M) Transfer, Adopted February, 1991 As policies governing the interdistrict magnet schools are developed in the future, they will be submitted to the Court in accordance with the Court Order. -89- POLICY ON INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL STUDENT TRANSFERS Revised December 1, 1987 Students enrolled in an Interdistrict Magnet School in a given semester will be required to remain in that magnet school for the duration of that semester. Students who develop extenuating circumstances which might warrant a change in assignment may petition to obtain a change of assignment. Petitions will be received by the host district. Petitions will be reviewed by a three (3) member Withdrawal Committee comprised of student assignment officers or designates for the three (3) Pulaski County, Arkansas, districts. A majority of these officers will determine whether a student is allowed to change assignment* Parents who wish to appeal the decision of the Withdrawal Committee may do so by writing a letter of appeal to the Magnet Review Committee. The decision of the Magnet Review Committee is final. Specific student assignment will be made according to policies of the home district. * Identified handicapped students are excluded from the review process as described herein. Decisions pertaining to the appropriateness of their educational programming and placement shall be made in accordance with Public Law 94-142 and Arkansas Act 102 regulatory procedures. -90- OoMa Grady Creer Executive Director Magnet Review Committee 22nd and Poplar P.O.Box687 North Little Rocle, Arkansas 72115 INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS INCLEMENT WEATHER PROCEDURE Adopted December 1, 1987 (501) 758-3545 1. When Little Rock School District schools are closed, interdistrict magnet schools will be closed. No magnet school buses will run when LRSD schools are closed\n2. When Little Rock School District is open, interdistrict magnet schools will be open. If Little Rock School District is open, and Pulaski County Special School District and/or North Little Rock School District is closed, Pulaski County Special School District and/or North Little Rock School District magnet school bus routes will not run. Students whose buses do not run will not be expected to attend class. If a student is transported to and from school on that day by other means (parents, taxi, etc.), the district is not liable for any accident that may occur. 3. Magnet school students who miss class work due to inclement weather will not be penalized in any way. Adequate time will be given to compensate for any work missed. -91- DoMa Grady Crear Executive Director TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 James JenninL~RS,D Donna Grad~ , _Executive Director Magnet Revie Committee Interdistrict Magnet School Enrollment December 21, 1988 At its December 20, 1988 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote, agreed to: 1) apportion vacant seats at entry level grades (501) 758-0156 (K, 7th, and 10th) in accordance with percentages set forth in the Stipulation. 2) give preference to PCSSD and NLRSD . students for vacancies occuring in grades 1-6, 8-9, 11-12. If PCSSD, and NLRSD are unable to fill these vacancies, Little Rock School District students may be seated. 3) apply the same formula in 1) and 2) above with regard to additional seats at Carver Magnet. 4) deny sibling preference and guaranteed placement from one organizational level to the next. Please keep us informed as LRSD makes plans for 1989-90 student assignment. DGC:sl cc: Eddie Collins, PCSSD Arma Hart, LRSD Andrew Power, NLRSD -92- In accordance with the Order dated the 30th day of June, 1987, the Magnet Review Committee is submitting the following report titled, \"Classifying Equipment for Funding Purposes,\" for your approval. The policy states, \"Equipment not built into an existing building should be classified under the heading of operating costs. Equipment built into the building will be classified under the heading of construction costs.\" The Magnet Review Committee used the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual published by the Arkansas Department of Education in 1976, and revised in 1986, to reach a decision. Chapter 5, \"Supplies and Equipment,\" offered the following information in a subsection titled, \"Distinguishing Between Built-In and Movable Equipment.\" If an agency finds it necessary to distinguish between built-in and movable equipment, it usually would relate to one of the following situations: (a) estimating the costs of a building (built-in equipment is included\nmovable equipment is not)\nand (b) determining which equipment items can be purchased from various funding sources. After an item has been identified as equipment, the following criteria may be applied to determine if the item is built-in or movable: An equipment item is built-in if: 1. It is an integral part of a building\nthat. is, it is permanently fastened to the building, functions as part of the building and causes appreciable damage to the building if it is removed\nor 2. It is permanently attached to a side and functions as part of the site (except buildings or other structures). Built-in equipment may be incorporated into a building at the time the building is erected or at a later date. Built-in equipment is sometimes referred to as fixed equipment (not to be confused with fixed assets). Movable equipment consists of items that: 1. Are transportable from one location to another without appreciable damage or change to the location from which they are removed or to the location where they are installed, and -93- 2. Do not function as integral parts of the building or site and are not permanently fastened or attached to the building or site. A piece of equipment that is simply bolted or screwed to the floor, such as a heavy lathe or desk, and that can be moved as a unit once these fasteners have been removed, is movable equipment. The term movable refers to permanency of installation and not to size or weight. The Magnet Review Committee anticipates reference to this policy when dealing with magnet school budget, renovation, and construction. -94- INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL STUDENTS EARLY GRADUATION July 25, 1989 Interdistrict magnet school students who meet early graduation requirements should submit a written request for early graduation to the high school principal prior to the beginning of the fifth (5th) semester if early graduation is to be held at the end of the sixth (6th) semester. If the student requests to graduate at the end of the seventh (7th) semester, the request must be made prior to the beginning of the sixth (6th) semester. A plan for early graduation will be reviewed in a conference to include the student, counselor, parents, and the high school principal. After a complete evaluation of the request, the principal will make a final decision on the request and forward that decision to the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Special Programs in the host district and the Magnet Review Committee. At Parkview Fine Arts/Science Magnet School, only six of the seven credits earned during the regular school day, per year, may be counted toward early graduation. Additional credits earned for the purpose of early graduation must be taken through extended day programs, correspondence courses, or sunnner school, as in other public high schools in the Pulaski County area. GRADUATION: If early graduation is approved, the student may participate in commencement exercises on the same basis as regular graduates. Students who do not wish to participate in commencement exercises will receive their diploma as soon as practical after the exercises. -95- POLICY FOR APPLICATION TO INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS In an effort to stem the late influx of interdistrict magnet school applications (which generally are received in late December), the Student Assignment Officers Committee recommended, and the Magnet Review Committee approved, the following policy. This policy prevents parents/students from seeking to be placed on a magnet waiting list when there is not a likelihood of being placed in an interdistrict magnet school for that school year. Students who are on the previous school year's waiting list are automatically placed at the top of the waiting list for the next school year. Waiting list placement at the bottom of an extensive waiting list for the previous school year only serves to put the applicant ahead of students who wait for the beginning of the application period's waiting list. POLICY FOR APPLICATION TO INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS Adopted November, 1989 Students may submit an application for an interdistrict magnet school from the beginning of the enrollment period through the Wednesday before the Thanksgiving holiday. These students will either be seated or placed on a waiting list until a seat becomes available. After the Thanksgiving holiday, if a seat is available and a student can be placed immediately into that seat, an application may be completed and the student immediately seated. No application will be taken to place a student's name on the waiting list. -96- POLICY FOR APPLICATION FOR A MAJORITY-TO-MINORITY (M-TO-M) TRANSFER Adopted February, 1991 Eligible students may apply for an M-to-M transfer at any point during the school year. The Fall cutoff date is October 1. The Spring cutoff date is February 1. Applications received after the Fall cutoff date will be held for processing until the Spring semester. Applications received after the Spring cutoff date will be held until the Fall semester. Hardship cases or extenuating circumstances (students who move into the community after October 1, or students who move from one Pulaski County school district to another during the semester) will be reviewed by the Student Assignment Officers on a case by case basis. The unanimous approval of the Student Assignment Officers Committee is necessary. Students participating in an M-to-M transfer are required to remain in the program for the semester in which they are enrolled. If a student wishes to request withdrawal before the end of that semester, the application for withdrawal must be submitted to the student's home district for approval or denial by the Student Assignment Officers Withdrawal Committee. Withdrawals for M-to-M students are handled in the same manner as withdrawals for interdistrict magnet school students. -97- --------- SECTION IX INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETS . The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) adopted budget for operation of the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for the 1989-90 school year was $12,781,300.00. This figure was computed on a per pupil cost of $3,100 times a total seating capacity figure of 4,123 for the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for that school year. The fiscal year for expenditure of this budget was July 1, 1989, through June 30, 1990. Initially, each of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools was allotted a proportional share of funds to budget based upon its seating capacity. However, following close budgetary review, monies were shifted among the programs where necessary to accommodate program and services needs. The adopted budget was submitted by the MRC to the Court for approval. The Interdistrict Magnet School Program operated in accordance with the adopted budget during the 1989-90 school year. Final expenditures for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools during the 1989-90 school year were as follows: Interdistrict Magnet Schools Cost Per Pupil 1989-90 (provided by Little Rock School District) Mann Parkview Booker Carver Gibbs Williams TOTAL 89-90 EXP $2,598,149.00 $3,044,434.00 $1,849,132.00 $1,599,842.00 $1,130,522.00 $1,423,412.00 $11,645,491.00 * Average Daily Membership ADM* PER PUPIL 880 2,952.44 798 3,815.08 633 2,921.22 600 2,666.40 337 3,354.66 509 2,796.49 3,757 3,099.68 The operating expenditures and per pupil cost rates varied across the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools. This variance is the same experienced within any school district, reflecting the general differences found in operating elementary versus secondary schools (junior and senior high schools) and special programs. In the magnet schools, the -98- variance was also attributable to ongoing start-up costs of programs involving unique program design and the associated personnel, equipment and staff development needs. In summary, the total expenditure for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools for the 1989-90 school year was $11,645,491.00 at an average per pupil expenditure of $3,100. The allocated budget ($12,781,300.00) was based on magnet school seating capacity (4,123) while the expended budget was based on the ADM of 3,757.00 (actual adjusted enrollment). The total expenditure is in keeping with the guidelines set forth by the Court for operation of the interdistrict magnet schools. While the Magnet Review Committee does not hire or evaluate interdistrict magnet school personnel, the effect of personnel contract negotiations on salary directly impacts the budget. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work with the host district in configuring the budget for the next year. However, it should be noted that cost containment is difficult when teacher contract negotiations cause budget fluctuations beyond the Magnet Review Committee's control. -99- SECTION X MONITORING The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) is charged with the responsibility of \"monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet schools\" (August 29, 1986 Stipulation). To this end, the Committee: Staffs an office\nHolds bi-monthly meetings to look at issues\nWorks with committees (listed in Section II of this report) who meet and report to the MRC\nConducts an annual formal evaluation of the interdistrict magnet school program. The MRC considers the monitoring function to be a critical and ongoing responsibility and shall continue to monitor in accordance with the aforementioned Court ruling unless otherwise directed by the Court. -100- SECTION XI RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Magnet Review Committee does not condone the practice of sibling preference in the matter of student selection for assignment to an interdistrict magnet school, nor does it recommend that such a practice be initiated within the interdistrict magnet schools. Students who express an interest, ability or need for a program are admitted to an interdistrict magnet school based on their resident district's criteria. It is not a given that siblings have the same or similar interests, abilities or needs for a magnet program. 2. Currently, personnel in the three Pulaski County school districts are considered as viable applicants when staffing the interdistrict magnet schools\nthis practice should continue. The Magnet Review Committee will study the staffing practices in light of: racial and gender balances, hiring policy of the host district as it affects interdistrict faculty transfer, and interdistrict staffing ratios. Based on its findings, the Magnet Review Committee will make recommendations, as appropriate, to the Court. It is necessary that interdistrict staffing be accomplished. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work with the host district on this issue. 3. The Magnet Review Committee, in a letter dated December 18, 1990, forwarded to the Court the recommended per pupil expenditure for the interdistrict magnet school program for the 1990-91 school year. This recommended per pupil expenditure is $3,370 (an increase of $270 per pupil over the $3,100 per pupil figure which has been used since the inception of the interdistrict magnet schools). The Magnet Review Committee requests Court approval or disapproval of this increased per pupil amount. 4. The Magnet Review Committee recommends that all entities directed to monitor the interdistrict magnet school programs need to discuss the process of monitoring in order to avoid duplicative efforts. -101-\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_988","title":"Desegregation: ''North Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as Modified''","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":["1991-05-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","School employees","School facilities","Student assistance programs","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: ''North Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as Modified''"],"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/988"],"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":["28 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED MAY lrAPRIL 22, 1991 ~lW (I 1 1991 IN THE UNITED sTATEs DISTR.JtC1iC\"(l g)(nti91 CARL H O ... Nrs c EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS B .  H... ' LEAK ,, , . . WESTERN DIVISJ.@h. I . .,\n,h ... 111 I::\u0026gt;, CLE~\n~,-------- By: ----------:--:---:: DEP. CLERK DEP. CLER~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED !!f.A.:Yf\n.\":.lt PRIL 22, 1991 :,.\n~--.\n.,\n-\n,.-\n,.,\n-..\n.. .:.\n. . -\n- TABLE OF CONTENTS HISTORY OF HLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN SECTION 1: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN. SECTION 2: STAFF RECRUITMENT PLAN. SECTION 2A: STAFF RECRUITMENT PLAN SECTION 3: SPECIAL EDUCATION PLAN SECTION 3A: SPECIAL EDUCATION SECTION 4: COMPENSATORYED UCATION . . . 902 . . . 910 ..... 919 .... 924 . . . 926 .. 938 . 939 SECTION 5: COMPENSATORYPR OGRAMSA IMED AT DROPOUTP REVENTIOB62 SECTION 6: EXTRACURRICULARA CTIVITIES . . . . . . . 965 SECTION 7: DISCIPLINE, EXPULSIONS AND SUSPENSIONS DISCIPLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968 SECTION 8: GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION. . 970 SECTION 9: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND INADEQUATE FACILITIES .. 975 901 NLRSD HISTORY OF NLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN The desegregation plan approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its decision in Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist. No. 1, et al, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) on December 12, 1990 (hereinafter \"NLR Plan\") is actually to be found in several documents beginning with its original submission in March, 1986 and culminating with the stipulation regarding compensatory education filed on October 25, 1989. The purpose of this document is to consolidate all the elements of the Plan into a single document for ease of reference. The NLR Plan was initiated by the filing on March 17, 1986 of the \"Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School District\" (hereinafter \"March Plan\"). See Joint Designated Record Vol. 1 at 67-69\nVol. 2 at 81-364\nand Vol.3 at 365-535 (hereinafter\" __ JDR __ \"). The purpose of this initial submission was to address the interdistrict violations addressed by the Court of Appeals in LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404, 435 (8th Cir. 1985). The district court, however, required the NLRSD to provide a plan to address its intradistrict violations as well, and in response the NLRSD filed on October 14, 1986, its \"Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School District\" (hereinafter \"October Supplement\"). 3 JDR 536- 634. 902 NLRSD In its Order of February 27, 1987, the district court approved the NLR Plan as described in these two documents. LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F. Supp. 363, 367-68 (E.D. Ark. 1987)\nsee also, LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d at 1387. Subsequently, some modifications to the NLR Plan were made either by petition to and approval by the district court or by operation of the settlement among the parties which has now been approved. LRSD v. PCSSD, Order (E.D. Ark., January 18, 1991). The first modification occurred as a result of the NLRSD's motion of July 21, 1987 to add an addendum to the NLR Plan to address the impact of Acts 624 and 762 of 1987 which was approved by the district court by its Order of July 27, 1987. Copies of the Addendum and the district court's order have been attached as Addendum lE to Section 1 of the NLR Plan which addresses student assignment. The next modification occurred as a result of the NLRSD  s \"Petition to Modify NLRSD Student Assignment Plan and to Close Central Junior High School\" filed on July 20, 1988 (4 JDR 910) (hereinafter \"NLR Secondary Reorganization\") and approved by the district court by its Order of September 1, 1988. 5 JDR 1032. This modification provided for the reorganization of NLRSD secondary schools beginning in the 1990-91 school year and resulted in a single high school for the NLRSD with grades 9-10 at the former Northeast High School campus and grades 11-12 at the former Ole Main campus. Additionally, Central Junior High School was closed and the student assignment zones for the remaining three 903 NLRSD junior high schools for grades 7 and 8 redrawn to ensure comparable racial balance. These modifications were implemented at the beginning of the 1990-91 school year, i.e., August, 1990. The remaining modifications occurred as a result of the settlement among the parties. First, the parties agreed to the NLRSD's \"Petition to Modify NLRSD's Desegregation Plan\" (hereinafter \"NLR 2/89 Petition\") submitted to the Special Master in February, 1989 and incorporated into the parties' \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\". See 8 JDR 1737-46. The provisions of the Petition dealing with interim efforts to desegregate Lakewood Junior High School pending the secondary reorganization to be implemented in the 1990-91 school year (8 JDR 1737-39) were satisfied and are no longer applicable since the secondary reorganization has now been accomplished. The other provisions of the Petition have now been incorporated into the NLR Plan. The final modification of the NLR Plan occurred as a result of the \"Stipulated Compensatory Education Programs to be Implemented by the NLRSD with Settlement Monies\" (hereinafter \"NLR Comp. Ed. Stip.\") filed on October 25, 1989 (14 JDR 3584-91) which satisfied paragraph VIII D, of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989) (14 JDR 3483) (requiring a description of the compensatory education programs to be implemented by the NLRSD with funds to be received from the Settlement Agreement). This Stipulation also gave effect to and now supersedes that portion of the original NLR Plan which described additional compensatory education programs 904 NLRSD which could be implemented only with additional State funds. See 3 JDR 562-574. In organizing the original NLR Plan and these modifications into a single plan document, the March Plan has been used as the base document. Thus, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the October Supplement, which involve the same topics as Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the March Plan, have been relabeled Sections lA, 2A and 3A and placed immediately after Sections 1, 2 and 3 respectively of the March Plan language. Sections 4 through 9 of the October Supplement have then been added as Sections 4 through 9 of this consolidated plan document. The addenda which immediately followed the respective sections of the March Plan and October Supplement have been moved to a separate volume for attachments. Commentary is included through the use of footnotes or parentheticals\nomissions are reflected by\"[***]\" with an explanatory footnote as appropriate\nand new language is identified by footnote or by underlining as appropriate (except for this History, all of which is new). These ste~s were taken to minimize the amount of editorial change and to retain as much of the original language as possible since that is the language approved by this Court and the Court of Appeals. 905 NLRSD PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING THE REMEDIAL ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AS IT APPLIES TO THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT1 1Originally submitted on March 17, 1986, supplemented on October 14, 1986 and approved by the Court in LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F. Supp. 363, 367-68 (E.D. Ark. 1987). 906 NLRSD INTRODUCTION II 3 In its decision of April 13, 1984, this Court found the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) to have committed the following segregative acts: 1. The NLRSD constructed and renovated schools in a manner which sought to preserve the racial identification of North Little Rock neighborhoods. Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 584 F. Supp. 328, 343, Paragraph 39 (E.D. Ark. 1984) (LRSD I). 2. Blacks were underrepresented on the administrative staff and teaching faculties of the NLRSD schools. Paragraph 91. Id. at 348, 3. Whites were underrepresented in schools south of Interstate 40 and blacks were underrepresented in schools north of Interstate 40. Id., Paragraph 92. 4. The NLRSD has failed to have blacks coaching at the senior high school level. Id., at 348-49, Paragraph 93. S. Blacks were significantly overrepresented in special education classes and no valid testing procedure could explain it. Id., at 349, Paragraph 94 and 99. Furthermore, the NLRSD classified white students as \"learning disabled\" while blacks 2The March Plan Introduction was rendered irrelevant by the requirement to file a plan to address the NLRSD's intradistrict as well as interdistrict violations and has therefore been deleted. See 2 JDR 83-84. 3Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 541-43. 907 NLRSD were classified as \"mentally retarded.\" Id. at 350, Paragraph 103(l)(d) \u0026amp; (l)(g). 6. Blacks were underrepresented in the NLRSD's gifted and talented program. Id. at 349-50, Paragraph 100 \u0026amp; Paragraph 103(1) (a). 7. A disproportionate number of blacks drop out of school. Id. at 349, Paragraph 102. 8. Blacks were disproportionately expelled from school. Id., Paragraph 102. 9. The NLRSD does not provide education programs for black students. 103(1) (c). adequate compensatory Id. at 350, Paragraph 10. A disproportionate number of black students were bussed in the NLRSD with \"less than satisfactory desegregation results.\" Id. at 351, Paragraph 103(5)(a). However, only four of these violations were found to have had a continuing interdistrict effect. Specifically, the NLRSD \"(a) failed to assign blacks to its central administration or to high school principalships and coaching posi~ions\n(b) concentrated whites in schools north of Interstate 40 and blacks in schools out of it\n(c) assigned students to special education classifications on a discriminatory basis\nand (d) failed to apportion the burdens of transportation equally on black and white students.\" Id. at 353, Paragraph 10. The NLRSD's remedial plan, submitted as NLRX R-1, was directed toward remedying those segregative acts determined to have 908 NLRSD interdistrict segregative effects and did not address those violations which were intradistrict in their effect under the assumption that remedial efforts directed to intradistrict violations would be addressed in proceedings in Davis v. Board of Educ. of NLRSD, No. LR-68-C-151. The Court, however, directed that North Little Rock supplement its remedial plan in the present case to address the intradistrict violations that were not determined to have an interdistrict effect and that is the purpose of this document. 909 NLRSD SECTION 1: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN' HISTORY OF STORM PLAN5 Elementary students within the District are assigned according to the Storm Plan in grades 1-6. The Storm Plan pairs a school in a predominately black area with one or more schools in a predominately white area. These schools are grouped so that each group's racial make-up represents the racial make-up of the District. This plan is based on two primary premises: first, that it accomplish total integration and, second, that it is the least discriminatory method possible in that no area of the District can be considered to be favored in any way. In order to be as fair as possible, students were initially selected at random for transportation. The following procedure was used: all letters of the alphabet were placed in a container and an alphabet was drawn from the container. Beginning with that letter of the alphabet the student body in each school was divided into groups of appropriate size. When the end of the alphabet is reached, the process starts over and the District continues to regroup alphabetically. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS6 The North Little Rock School District desegregation plan, 4The Court found in LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F. Supp. 363, 367 (E.D. Ark. 1987) that the NLRSD had corrected any violations relating to student assignment. 5Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 85 'source: March Plan, 2 JDR 85 910 NLRSD approved by the Court of Appeals, see Davis v. Board of Ed., 449 F.2d 500, 501 (8th Cir. 1971) and revised with the approval of the district court, see Davis v. Board of Ed., Order (E,D. Ark., May 12, 1978), incorporates the following features': 1. Since the total student population of the elementary schools in the North Little Rock School District is approximately 42 percent black and 58 percent non-black students, each elementary school in the district must have a student population which approximates as nearly as is feasible these percentages. 2. To assure that each school will have a student population which is composed of approximately 42 percent black students and 58 percent non-black students, schools are placed in groups so that students within each group can be assigned to schools in such numbers as is necessary to achieve the desired racial composition in each school. See Addendum lA. 3. Children entering the first grade after May 1, 1978, as well as all children entering the district from another school district after May 1, 1978, will enter the District pupil assignment plan according to the last name of the child shown on his official birth certificate (or his previous school record if he is entering from another 'statistics in this section reflect the school population of the NLRSD in the 1985-86 school year since this part of the Plan was submitted in March, 1986. As of October 1, 1990, the elementary student population in the NLRSD was 49. 2% black and 50.8% non-black. 911 NLRSD school district) and will continue in the rotation cycle under that name. 4. Kindergarten students are assigned to their neighborhood schools and are not transported for purposes of racial balance. This was approved by the court in Davis v. Board of Ed., 362 F. Supp. 730 (E.D. Ark. 1973), 5. Black students living in predominately white areas and white students living in predominately black areas are not bussed or transferred. The questions and answers concerning the District's student assignment plan (Addendum 1B) are published in August of each year and mailed to all patrons of the North Little Rock School District. The decision of the Court of Appeals directs that the student population in the District have a racial composition within 25% of the racial composition of the District as a whole. Mem. Op. at 62\n778 F.2d at 435. The NLRSD has 4,620 elementary students of whom 2,467 (57.9%) are non-black and 1,793 (42.1%) are black. Thus, in order to meet the 25% standard, each school must have a non-black population between 42.4% and 73.4%, i.e., 57.9%  15.5%,(:-A11~ne ~ ...... ....,.\n,x..\n.\n.,\n...:\n:-:,...,~..vX J~il~~Ei.:~.S~.El!w. ~n-\" ~~~p~s~.!.~. ~~,\n~ }-n,::S~l\u0026gt;1-:!~il!i.l4:1ii, ~:~yj ,,,.tandarcf\"when the Court a ~ rovedthe .NI.a Plan~rn=,T!f8ii,Y.Rb\"\"v'! l,.,,..,,_ \"'-'\"\"\"\" \"\"'', v ... ='- N,.--.-,.x-.--.,, .............., ., ... PI\u0026gt;..,.,..,.',\u0026gt;.w ... ,N=\u0026lt;,.X,vx, =....-.x,,. -~ .~ .. \"', . ...._,__-..,,,.,. \"\"\"'\"\"M=- 1[~QZ\":.3~p~_~ [.ee.)~\n-3~):]\"~\"':-~::~Ji~:J~:!7_,'U[.l' the elementary schools in the District are preseAtly in compliaAce with thi\u0026amp; 912 NLRso JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS8 Junior high schools, grades seven and eight, 9 are also assigned by zones. [***] Each junior high school reflects the racial make-up of the District. These zones will be changed, if and when necessary, to maintain the racial balance within the District. [***]~ SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS For twenty years, the NLRSD had two senior high schools - Northeast and Ole Main. Beginning in the 1990-91 school year, however, these schools were consolidated into a single school - North Little Rock High School - with two campuses. All students grades 9-10 are assigned to the east campus (formerly Northeast High School) and all students grades 11-12 are assigned to the West campus ( formerly Ole Main). 12 8Source: March Plan, Reorganization, 4 JDR 910. 2 JDR 8 7 and NLR Secondary 9As a result of the NLR Secondary Reorganization, 4 JDR 910, Central Junior High School was closed. The remaining three junior high schools were converted to grades 7-8 rather than 8-9 and their attendance zones were redrawn to ensure racial balance. The language of this subsection has been modified to reflect these changes. 10Addendum lC, 2 JDR 94, which was referenced in the deleted language has also been eliminated. 11The section in the March Plan, 2 JDR 88, dealing with senior high school assignment has been deleted since it has been superseded by the NLR Secondary Reorganization, 4 JDR 910. Addendum lD, 2 JDR 95, which was referenced in this language has also been deleted. 12 Source: NLR Secondary Reorganization, 4 JDR 910. 913 NLRSD STUDENT DISTRIBUTION NORTH AND SOUTH OF I-40 [***)13 VOLUNTARYT RANSFERSB ETWEENN LRSD AND PCSSDu [***] To aid in the desegregation of NLRSD and PCSSD schools, the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District will cooperate in each other's efforts to recruit black students from the NLRSD to attend PCSSD schools and white students in the PCSSD to attend NLRSD schools on a voluntary basis provided no transfer negatively affects the desegregation status of any NLRSD or PCSSD school. COMMUNICATIOONF ANTICIPATED SCHOOLE NROLLMENT15 S Further, the parties desire that any shifts in the racial composition of schools that might fall outside the Court-approved standard be identified and addressed before the beginning of a school year. To this end, the North Little Rock School District agrees it will prepare an estimate of the anticipated school enrollment of each of its schools on or before July 1 for the coming school year. If it is determined that any school is within 13The language in the March Plan regarding student distribution north and south of I-40 has been deleted since it does not describe any plan, policy or procedure governing student assignments and any violation in this regard has been found to be corrected. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F. Supp. 363, 367 (E.D. Ark. 1987). -- uSource: NLR 2/89 Petition, 8 JDR 17 39-40. The language limiting such transfers to Oak Grove Junior and Senior High Schools in the PCSSD and to secondary schools in the NLRSD has been eliminated to facilitate voluntary desegregative transfers. 15Source: NLR 2/89 Petition, 8 JDR 1739. 914 NLRSD two percentage points of the limit approved by the Court, the Court and other parties will be notified and appropriate action, if any, will be determined and taken prior to the commencement of the academic year. INTERDISTRICT TRANSFERS OF TEACHERS' CHILDREN.16 In the 1987 Legislative Session, the Arkansas General Assembly passed two Acts which either directly affect or could affect the desegregation efforts of the North Little Rock School District. Act 762 of 1987, copy attached as part of Addendum lE, 17 directs that no school district may permit or accept transfers of students from other school districts if either school district is under a desegregation order and the transfer would negatively affect the racial balance of the district subject to the desegregation order. This policy is consistent with the established policy of the NLRSD and the District will continue to adhere strictly to these requirements. However, the Legislature also passed Act 624 of 1987, copy attached as part of Addendum lE, which states that \"the children or wards of anyone who is a public school teacher in one school district entitled and a resident of another school district ... shall be to attend school in either ... district ... \". This is seemingly inconsistent with the \"no transfer\" requirements of Act 16Source: Proposed Addendum submitted by NLRSD on July 21, 1987 and approved by the Court's Order of July 27, 1987 regarding Acts 624 and 762 of 1987. See Addendum lE. 17While Addenda lC and 1D have been deleted, see notes 10 and 11 supra, this has been designated lE to avoid any possible confusion. 915 NLRSD 762, and, as a result, the Attorney General was asked for an opinion regarding this apparent conflict. In Opinion No. 87-190, copy attached as part of Addendum lE, the Attorney General opined that a child living in one district who was enrolled, pursuant to Act 624, in another district was not a transfer subject to the provisions of Act 762 since the child was statutorily entitled to attend school in either district. In light of the Attorney General's opinion, the NLRSD has no discretion regarding the admission of the children or wards of nonresident teachers and this situation could result in an interdistrict segregative effect on the racial composition of the LRSD and NLRSD. Specifically, the NLRSD has 578 teachers of whom 141 live in the LRSD, the great majority of whom are white, 18 Thus, if a significant number of these teachers enrolled their children in the NLRSD, it would result in a negative impact on the racial composition of the LRSD student body. To date, the number of applications for such interdistrict enrollment of teachers' children has been minimal and the race of those applying has been so balanced as to have no adverse effect on either school district involved. However, to protect against the potential adverse interdistrict effect that such enrollment makes possible, the NLRSD will report to the Court annually regarding the number and race of teacher's children who are being enrolled in the district where the teacher is employed rather than in the district 18These numbers were accurate as of July, 1987 when the Addendum was submitted to the court for approval. 916 NLRSD in which they reside. Should a problem develop, the NLRSD will ask the Court for relief. Until that time, however, the NLRSD will adhere to the requirements of Acts 624 and 762 as interpreted by the Attorney General's Opinion No. 87-190. 917 NLRSD SECTION lA: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT19 Section 1 of NLRX R-1 20 addressed issues relating to student assignment and established a plan for assigning students in the NLRSD which remediated any concentration of whites and blacks north and south of Interstate 40 and achieved a racial balance in each school well within the standard of plus or minus one fourth of the District-wide racial make-up. These student assignment provisions were not criticized at trial or in the proposed findings submitted by the parties and the NLRSD believes these provisions fully remediate the effects of any violation related to student assign. men. t 21 19 Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 544. 20NLRX R-1 is the March Plan. 21The Court held in LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F. Supp. 363, 367 (E.D. Ark. 1987) that all deficiencies related to student assignment had been corrected. 918 NLRSD SECTION 2: STAFF RECRUITMENT PLAN22 The Eighth Circuit directed the North Little Rock School District to develop a plan to comply with earlier decrees regarding increasing the representation of blacks as principals and administrators in the North Little Rock School District. To ensure that a greater number of black applicants are attracted to teaching positions which would improve the pool of qualified applicants for administrative positions, and in order to meet the standards set by applicable law, F#f'''N.5fiTtl'.#.1\n:l)~'.1)l\u0026lt;R::\nsph.QQI:'.\n:P!'.~fi\nt,q.1\n/~g1l~'.t#g''.'.'.::sBmP9f.\\.~P#.!''.X:R~,'.'''.'.:~::::\n'if~9#P##!i~n#ln::::::::'.:'.#~~i.'\ntfig~~n{f:'.''.~e'''Ji'.~~:::''::Ji:~::::):\u0026gt;\"~$th~e fRN'o.r\nt:h: :aL~itt~.lex ~:ey:%~?.~:'~': Reek School District. proposes the following components of a eomprehensive reeruit.ment plan, INTERNAL ACTIVITIES 23 1. The District will develop a budget that anticipates activities related to all components of the plan and provides the necessary funding for these activities. 2. North Little Rock School District personnel will be notified of vacancies in administrative and principal positions and will be encouraged to apply. 3. Periodically, the North Little Rock School District will conduct an interest survey among its teachers and administrators with the purpose of identifying those individuals who would be interested in advancement to 22 Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 96 23 Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 96 919 NLRSD administrative or principal positions. COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CONTACTS2 ' College and universities are perhaps the best source of qualified applicants for teaching positions. Therefore, the District will contact these institutions for the purpose of recruiting qualified black applicants. 1. The District will identify regional colleges and universities which have strong teacher education programs with significant black enrollment. 2. The District will identify regional universities having post graduate education programs with significant black enrollment for the purpose of soliciting black applicants for administrative positions. 3. The district will contact those institutions identified in paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as others, using a letter of introduction (Addendum 2A) and will provide them with a brochure containing brief information about the District, occupational opportunities and employee benefits\nan Equal Opportunity Employer statement\nand a tit containing other pertinent information. 4. District personnel will visit those teacher training institutions expressing interest, with special emphasis on established career days or special events sponsored by the institutions and with special attention given to institutions that have historically produced great numbers of black 2'source: March Plan, 2 JDR 97 920 NLRSD educators. 5. District personnel will attend visitation seminars at interested institutions at times agreed upon by the institution and the District. Prearrangements and announcements would be made through the appropriate officials at the institutions. 6. The District will develop appropriate materials for distribution to institutions and their interested students, including an introductory letter (Addendum 2B)\na description of employee benefits (Addendum 2C)\na District brochure (Addendum 2D)\nan application\nspecific informational items on teaching, coaching, and administrative positions\nnotices on current job vacancies\na schedule of visitations and seminars\nand the brochure described in paragraph 3 above. COMMUNITYA CTIVITIES 25 Another excellent source for recruitment can be found in community programs and activities. To this end, the District will ensure that its participation in community programs and activities is consistent with its commitment as an equal opportunity employers. 1. Black community leaders will be invited to talk with the North Little Rock School District concerning the employment of black administrators. 2. The District will also contact community organizations, such as the Urban League of Greater Little Rock, which provide 25 Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 98. 921 NLRSD employment referrals for black professionals. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS26 Placement services provided by professional associations for their members is an additional method of recruitment. 1. The District will identify those educational organizations which could serve as a source of black applicants for administrative positions. 2. The District will contact those organizations which provide employment information and will provide them with relevant materials regarding employment with the NLRSD. 3. Where appropriate, District personnel will attend regional or national conferences sponsored by professional associations for the purpose of recruiting administrative personnel. OTHER OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES 27 1. Recruitment activities will be administered by those fully aware of the District's non-discrimination and equal employment opportunity policies. 2. Recruitment programs may be held in hotel/motel conference rooms in cities considered a promising source of applicants - for example, Memphis, Tennessee\nJackson, Mississippi\nBaton Rouge, Louisiana. Such programs would be preceded by extensive local publicity. 3. It will be the policy of the North Little Rock School District to notify in writing all recruitment sources and to state in 26 Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 9 9 . 27Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 99. 922 NLRSD all recruiting materials, including newspaper advertisements, that it is an \"Equal Opportunity Employer\". 4. The District will produce a 10-minute slide show or videotape presentation describing the District and occupational opportunities in the District for use at recruitment sites. 5. When appropriate, the District will advertise teaching and administrative vacancies in newspapers and other media in communities that have colleges and universities targeted for recruitment efforts. 923 NLRSD SECTION 2A: STAFF RECRUITMENT PLAN28 In Section 2 of NLRX R-1 29 the NLRSD enumerated the steps it will take to improve the recruitment and selection of black faculty and staff. Included in these are job posting and an employee interest inventory intended to improve promotional opportunities for black employees, with particular emphasis on placing blacks in administrative and principal positions. These efforts are all related to remediating violations 2 and 4 which related to the underrepresentation of blacks in administrative, principal and coaching positions. teaching, At trial, there was criticism of the failure to provide for numerical goals and timetables. In the NLRSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the District addressed this criticism by incorporating requirements that the District develop numerical goals and timetables. NLRSD F. 0. F. \u0026amp; C. 0. L. #2 0. A labor economist will be employed to conduct an analysis of the pool of qualified applicants in the relevant labor market for each job classification. 30 In addition, the vacancies in the District for the last five years, anticipated new positions and positions it is anticipated will be eliminated will be considered in determining the vacancies reasonably anticipated in the future. it\n}\n[J.\n[~j 28 Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 545-46. 29 The March Plan. 30This labor market analysis was completed in 1988 and submitted to the Special Master. See 5 JDR 1451-78. 924 NLRSD 1\u0026amp;:1+M+'+~::1::s~f.4.':1\n~#@'n::s#s~ns:m+ntsm~~2n1:::t\\!4i++':Jim:::::\n:p.ijy~J\nsifffig:'~~-~Pn~l$.X#:'gjl,ilibai:tm\u0026amp;'eil.f\u0026gt;lJii!::r.l'.)'.~A#ti:'.'qX~iJiJ.:$.l.o.,~.~'nfaif.\\l\n++Y.l[:{i.jpJ\n~~#j,.i\n@P:i: 'i'he aailability data aftd T.\"aeaftey iftformatioft will theft be utilized ift deelopiftg reasofta.ble goals and timetables for eaeh elassifieation. 'i'he NLRSD proposes that these be submitted to the Court no later than Mareh 1, 1987. NLRSD F.O.F. \u0026amp; c.o.L. No. 23. When fully implemented, the NLRSD believes these recruitment efforts and selection goals will fully rernediate any violations related to the underrepresentation of blacks in administrative, teaching, principal or coaching positions. 925 NLRSD SECTION 3: SPECIAL EDUCATION PLAN31 INTRODUCTION The Court of Appeals has ordered the North Little Rock School District to adopt a \"racially neutral plan evaluating and placing students requiring special education.\" Mem. Op. at 61, 778 F. 2d at 435. In addressing this directive, the NLRSD remains cognizant of several important factors. First, the District is obligated by State and federal law to provide every handicapped child with a free and appropriate education. While classifying black children as in need of special education when, in fact, they do not need it, could be discriminatory and, thus, a violation of the Constitution, the failure to provide special education to a black child who did need it would be a violation of Public Law 94-142 and Arkansas Act 102 of 1973. Recognizing the tension between these important public policies, the District considers that the emphasis of its special education plan must be on ensuring the accuracy of its evaluation programs and the elimination of any masking influence caused by cultural of socioeconomic biases. Second, the District recognizes that the Court of Appeals' primary concern is with the classification of black students as educably mentally retarded (EMR) and has, therefore, focused specifically on the evaluation, placement and instructional practices related to its mental retardation programs. Third, the District also notes that the evidence giving rise to the Court's findings arose from data collected in 1976 and 1980. Since 1980, however, significant 31 Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 117. 926 NLRSD changes have been implemented in the State and federal regulations governing evaluation and placement in special education programs, many of which were specifically aimed at safeguarding against the misclassification of students as needing special education. See generally, Referral, Placement \u0026amp; Appeal Procedures: For Special Education and Related Services (Ark. Dept. of Educ. 1985) ([***]\nhereinafter referred to as \"Referral Procedures\". ) and Program Standards and Eligibility Criteria for Special Education (Ark. Dept. of Educ. 1985). ( [***] 32\nhereinafter referred to as \"Program Standards\",) With these factors in mind, the North Little Rock School District proposes the following plan for implementing a race neutral special education program. STRICT ADHERENCE TO PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS REQUIRED BY STATE GUIDELINES33 The Arkansas Department of Education, and the Regulatory Agency Responsible for the enforcement of the Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975, P.L. 94-142, 20 u.s.c. S 1401 et seg., has issued detailed regulations governing the operation of special education programs in Arkansas public schools. These detailed guidelines were first issued in 1981 and were updated and reissued in 1985. See \"Referral Procedures\" (1981) and \"Program Standards\" 32 Since these are published documents available from the Arkansas Department of Education and are quite voluminous, they have been deleted as Addendum 3A and 3B and, references to Addendum 3A or 3B have been deleted. l3 Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 118 927 NLRSD (1981) contained in NLRX 28. [***] 34 These guidelines incorporate provisions which specifically act as safeguards against improper evaluation and placement. DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS35 In \"Referral Procedures\" ( 1981 \u0026amp; 1985), the Department of Education adopted detailed requirements for due process designed to safeguard against the misevaluation of a child and to ensure that the best educational interests of the child were of paramount importance. The North Little Rock School District complied with these requirements by implementing due process procedures consistent with the State regulations. A copy of the NLRSD's due process procedures are attached hereto as Addendum 3C. For a complete understanding of all the details of these procedures, one is referred to the procedures themselves. A summary of some of the more important features follows: 1. Parents must be notified of every step in the referral, evaluation and placement process and given the opportunity to attend and participate in all meetings and conferences. 2. Parents must give their consent before any formal evaluation or testing of the child may be done. 3. The parent has the right to be represented by the person of their choice at all proceedings. While not required by State or federal regulations, the NLRSD provides the parents of children being evaluated with a list of independent agencies who provide assistance to parents in this process. See 3'Reference to Addendum 3A and 3B deleted. 35Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 119 928 NLRSD Addendum 3D. 4. No child can be placed in a special education program without either parental consent or court order. 5. The parent may request an independent professional evaluation from a list of twenty-four approved agencies. See Addendum 3E. While the NLRSD is required to pay for such an evaluation only in the event the District's evaluation is found to be incorrect, the NLRSD has nonetheless paid for every independent evaluation requested in the past even though its evaluations have never been found to be incorrect. The NLRSD will continue this practice to the extent its budget permits. 6. Finally, the parent has the right to appeal any evaluation or placement decision to a hearing officer, who conducts a formal evidentiary hearing, and ultimately to a court of competent jurisdiction. See \"Referral Procedures\" at 24-33 (1985). 7. In any appeal, the burden of proof as to any placement is upon the school district. See \"Referral Procedures\" at l.B, p. 24 (1985). 8. The NLRSD advises parents of these rights in writing at the beginning of the referral and evaluation process. ---SAFEGUARDS AGAINST IMPROPER USE OF TEST INSTRUMENTS36 In addition to the procedural safeguards discussed above which are designed to ensure an open process involving fully informed parents having access to independent review of any decision, the State regulations first adopted in 1981 also require the incorporation of specific safeguards in the assessment process. 36 Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 120. 929 NLRSD The most important of these safeguards are as follows: 1. Tests and other evaluation materials: a. Have been validated for the specific purpose for which they are used\nand b. Are administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer. c. Include materials tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely those which are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient. 2. No single procedure is used as the sole criterion for determining an appropriate educational program for a child. 3. The evaluation is made by a multidisciplinary team or group of persons, including at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge in the area of suspected disability. 4. The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, where appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities. 5. Intellectual ability must be measured by an individual intelligence test appropriate to the student and such testing may only be done by a certificated educational examiner, licensed psychologist or licensed psychological examiner. See \"Referral Procedures\" at 3-4 (1985). STATE REGULATIONS SPECIFY WHICH TESTS MAY BE USED IN MENTAL RETARDATION ASSESSMENT 31 37 Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 122. 930 NLRSD In furtherance of the requirement that tests must have been validated for the purpose for which they are used, the Arkansas Department of Education, in its \"Program Standards\" specifies by name, which tests may be validly used for what purpose. This is done for each handicap category. The provisions relating to mental retardation assessment are found at pages 13-1 through 13-7 of the \"Program Standards\" (1985). The North Little Rock School District is in compliance with these regulations. It uses no test not specifically approved in these regulations in making final evaluation and placement decisions and will continue to adhere to this practice. ADOPTION OF ALTERNATIVEA SSESSMENTP ROCEDURESA ND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO AVOID OVERREPRESENTATIOONF MINORITY STUDENTS IN EMR PROGRAMS 38 In addition to maintaining its compliance with all State and federal regulations governing special education, particularly those provisions designed as safeguards against the misclassification of individuals as being mentally retarded, the North Little Rock School District will engage in an on-going effort to identify and study new assessment and evaluation techniques which are designed to address the problem of overrepresentation of minority children in EMR programs. [ *** )39 38 Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 12 2 39References to SOMPA found in the March Plan, 2 JDR 123, have been eliminated pursuant to the NLR 2/89 Petition, 8 JDR 1740-41. 931 NLRSD CANTALICIAN STUDY'0 In 1984, the Cantalician Foundation, published a booklet entitled \"Technical Assistance on Alternative Practices Related to the Problem of the Overrepresentation of Black and Other Minority Students in Classes for the Educ ably Mentally Retarded\" (Cantalician Foundation, Inc.: 1984). (Addendum 3F\nhereinafter referred to as \"Cantalician Study at __ \"). This publication was commissioned by the Office of Civil Rights, United States Department of Education in an effort to provide technical assistance to state and local educational agencies in the reduction of the overrepresentation of minority students in EMR programs. As a result of its study, the Cantalician Foundation identified six alternative instructional practices, two alternative referral practices and two alternative assessment practices which appeared to be effective in reducing minority placement in EMR classes. The alternative instructional practices were endorsed by the Foundation because, if implemented successfully, they would enable some students at risk of EMR placement to impr?ve their performance to the extent that referral for special services would not be necessary. The six practices identified were: 1. Direct Instruction with DISTAR (Cantalician Study at 10) 2. Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (Id. at 13) 3. Precision Teaching (Id. at 20) ' 0source: March Plan, 2 JDR 123. 932 NLRSD 4. Peer Tutoring (Id. at 20) 5. Adaptive Learning Environment Model (Id. at 23) 6. Computer Assisted Instruction (Id. at 26)' 1 At page 7-8 of its March Plan, the NLRSD committed to implement the six alternative instructional practices recommended by the Cantalician Foundation in its report in 1984. Three of these practices have been implemented -- DISTAR, Peer Tutoring and Computer Assisted Instruction. The contents of the Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI) and Adaptive Learning Environment Model (ALEM) have been implemented through other programs although not necessarily in the form specifically described by the Cantalician Foundation in its report. The parties recognize that the purpose of the Cantalician Report was to provide school districts with exemplary programs which could be adapted to each district's curriculum and needs. It was never suggested that the programs could be effective only if implemented exactly as described in the Report. Thus. because the North Little Rock School District has adopted various programs such as PACIR, TESA and Classroom Management as well as DISTAR and Computer Assisted Instruction which implement the educational content and elements of ECRI and ALEM, the District has acted consistent with the intent of the Cantalician Report. Therefore. the parties agree that the North Little Rock School District should not be required to 41A detailed description of these practices is contained in the Cantalician Study attached hereto as Addendum 3F and will not be repeated here. [This footnote is in the original Plan. See October Supplement, 2 JDR 124.] 933 NLRSD implement the Adaptive Learning Environment Model and the Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction alternative practices except as is already being done through other programs. (See Addendum 3J). The sixth proposed alternative instructional practice was Precision Teaching. This has been very effective in teaching the profoundly handicapped but even the Cantalician Foundation warned that there was as yet no evidence of its efficacy in teaching nonhandicapped students. The North Little rock School District has made several attempts to obtain information regarding the effectiveness of this method in teaching non-handicapped students but has been unable to obtain such information. The District will continue to seek this information but the parties agree that the North Little Rock School District should not be required to implement the Precision Teaching Model as an alternative instructional practice until such supporting data is forthcoming. The District will assess the use of Precision Teaching when data is supplied supporting its efficacy for non-handicapped students.' 2 CANTALICAN STUDY -- ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT PRACTICES'3 The Cantalician Foundation also recommended four alternative referral and assessment practices: .,.-,'M~,:2,soyrce :_.. , ,. NLR Peti tigp, ~-8 JDR .P 41\"'.':43_ ~ _F \"''\"-TliTs\"''underl'rn~ ~anguage paraphrases pages portions of the Petition Modify, 8JDR '.1741-43, regarding the Cantalician Study, If there are .ahx ~i~Iu~~~~~~I{'.l:c!_.!~-~! l~g- ~-~ n~~~!.:1..:1 ~:A~~ 9.A~9!:.~.'. :.~.~~ 1-:~-~ $~~-~-~--A!.~~ffi}J\\~ ' 3Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 124-25. 934 NLRSD 1. Pupil Appraisal Assessment Program (Id. at 30) 2. Rapid Exam for Early Referral and Classroom Learning Screening (Id. at 35) 3. Reclassification and Declassification (Id. at 40) 4. Interactive Model for Professional Action and Change for Teachers (Id. at 46) The alternative referral and assessment practices listed above will be closely studied by the NLRSD. If there are critical attributes within the above referenced practices that are not currently in use in the North Little Rock School District and the addition of these attributes will lower referral and placement rates in the District without compromising educational quality, these attributes will be added or used to replace current practices. OTHER ALTERNATIVE PRACTICES\" In addition to the alternative instructional practices endorsed by the Cantalician Foundation, the NLRSD has also implemented a Chapter I Project for Elementary schools designed to identify children in grades K - 2 who lack the basic learning skills necessary for successful performance in the regular classroom. Teacher aides are assigned to the regular classroom specifically for the purpose of working with the students in this program and provide these students with intensive, individualized instruction designed to develop the learning skills needed. When successful this program avoids the need to place a student in a \"source: March Plan, 2 JDR 125. 935 NLRSD special education program and permits advancement through the normal curriculum. A more detailed description of this program is contained in Addendum 3G, entitled \"North Little Rock Public Schools: A Chapter I Project for Elementary schools\". INCREASED REVIEW BY INDEPENDENT PARTIES' 5 State regulations provide that the Department of Education will conduct a review of each school district's special education program at least once every three years to determine compliance with all State and federal regulations. The North Little Rock School District's last compliance review was completed on April 18, 1984 and the District was found to be in compliance. See NLRX 30 \"Monitoring Checklist and Compliance Letter\" attached as Addendum 3H. 1985. All suggested improvements were implemented by January 31, See Letter to Ark. Dept of Education dated 1/31/85 attached as Addendum 31. In addition to this regularly scheduled compliance review, the District will invite the following organizations to conduct inservice training and/or periodic review of the district's policies, practices and procedures related to special education. 1. Child Advocacy Services, Inc. 2. Bureau of the Educationally Handicapped 3. Parents' Coalition for the Handicapped 4. Federal Office of Special Education 5. Arkansas Department of Education ' 5Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 126. 936 NLRSD 6. Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education As a further effort to open the District's assessment process to outside review and constructive criticism, child advocates will be invited to attend conferences where children's needs are being discussed, subject to parental approval where necessary. The Superintendent of the North Little Rock School District will also appoint a committee whose members will include, but will not be limited to, parents, patrons, students, teachers, licensed examiners, counselors, principals, speech therapists and special education administrators which committee will be charged with reviewing student records and special education procedures and whose members will be asked to attend student conferences. Additionally, this committee will be asked to monitor all phases of the District's special education program and its compliance with State and federal regulations at least every 18 months. 937 NLRSD SECTION 3A: SPECIAL EDUCATION'6 The provisions of the NLRSD's plan for remediating violations related to the overrepresentation of blacks in special education programs is fully set forth in Section 3 of NLRX R-1\". In its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the Law, the NLRSD did provide that the District would maintain records sufficient to identify and tabulate separately the total number of students by race in each school and grade level and by type of placement who are (a) referred for consideration for placement in a special education program\n(b) evaluated for such placement\nand (c) actually placed in a special education program. These data are to be maintained in the central administrative offices although separately from each student's individual file. This data is to be reviewed by the central administrative staff and reported to the Court annually. NLRSD F.O.F. \u0026amp; C.O.L. No. 80a. Furthermore, it is suggested that the Arkansas Department of Education monitor compliance with all classification procedures and safeguards on an annual basis rather than once every three years. NLRSD F.O.F. \u0026amp; C.O.L. No. 80b. Also, the NLRSD would establish an intradistrict review committee to monitor the District's special education programs and, particularly, its classification proceedings . NLRSD F. 0. F. \u0026amp; C . 0. L. No. 8 0c . F\"\n ~he\"\" Joshua ~--, ~.  ................. .-. )., /4 I\u0026gt;rx-i..t-.e....r -.v...e ... r..i..o...r...s. -.............m... -a.y..... ..a.. p p.o.. .i-.. n-... t.. ......a...-. ... ..r...e..p....: r..e .s...e...n. t..a..t..f..v.. e ..   .... -.. -.t..o.... ......t..h. ios:. . ... ..,.,. ..\"...c....o .... m.- .-...m . .- ..-.x f. .-t ...:..t.-.e.......m..e .. sv ! ,6 Source: October 1986 Supplement, 3 JDR 547. \"The March Plan. 938 NLRSD SECTION 4: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION48 The North Little Rock School District believes that each student can learn and encourages each student to achieve according to his or her best abilities. Careful appraisal, frequent evaluation, and flexible grouping ensure that each student will receive instruction according to identified strengths and needs. The curriculum in the elementary schools places primary emphasis on the basics of reading, spelling, language, mathematics, writing, social studies, science and health. Students also participate in music, art, and physical education activities. Mastery of skills in each subject is stressed, and career awareness is a component in many of the basic subjects. The junior high program provides a period of transition from the elementary school to senior high school. The transition covers all areas of school life: academic, co-curricular, and social. At the junior high level, continued emphasis is placed on the individual and on basic skills instruction, while a wider scope of instructional programs and co-curricular activities is introduced. In addition to basic disciplines, junior high students may select electives in modern foreign languages, industrial arts, home economics, exploratory business, art, communications, choral music, and band. Introduction to competitive athletics, student government, spirit clubs, and special interest organizations encourage self-development and preparation for high school. '8Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 548. 939 NLRSD The senior high schools provide a comprehensive course of study based on the District's commitment to providing a classical college preparatory curriculum and career preparation programs. A strong basic academic program and a wide-range of electives in fine arts, foreign languages, forensics, business, and vocationaltechnical skills offer a multitude of options to high school students. The District recognizes, however, that the regular curriculum is often insufficient in aiding disadvantaged students, particularly disadvantaged minority students suffering the effects of centuries of societal discrimination, to achieve mastery of basic skills. Therefore, within the framework of a comprehensive curriculu..~ which meets and exceeds state standards and which is structured to meet the varying individual needs of all students, the North Little Rock School District must address identified remedial needs of disadvantaged minority students,t\"\"The Oist:flc't  c-. - -   X ,.r also recognizes. that. achlevement disparity does existootweeti t:n.4 X\u0026lt;- . ...   -  -   -  ,. - -     -   ---  --    -- -   . . ._  .... ---v CVX .. .\n-.. e::::::oc:.:.J.1., pLic'k'.~:and-nc,nbfac~ student __p_o piilatiqn::~=~d,?fessi~g ~ ~:?~SR~!~ [ssuemay start \"1fth' 1:he''developmentof disparit:y\"i\nffans''\"''a1fWeaER XJ. ......- .. -.. ... -.,.. . -... -..........  ... ..  .......... ,... . . . . ...- .. -.-..-.... ..... ,....  ..-,,-,...  .-.. -,-,. ..........  ... ,.t-.. ., .. . ........... -.-......  . . ... -..-... -.-.... -.. -..-... .-..,. ..... ~...,,. ...-. .-.-.-..X.-.\u0026lt; The following compensatory programs and compensatory components of programs will be provided to help students overcome the segregative effects of a nonunitary school system. Like the Little Rock School District, however, the North Little Rock School District lacks sufficient resources to implement all the 940 NLRSD compensatory programs it would like to have available and still provide a regular program of instruction which is educationally adequate. The District is aware that Little Rock contends that the State is obligated, pursuant to the Court of Appeals decision in this case, to provide additional funds to all three school districts for additional compensatory education. The NLRSD does not necessarily share this interpretation but should Little Rock's position be the correct one, there are compensatory programs beyond the District's present means which should be implemented if the State is obligated to provide the additional funding. Because of this ambiguity in the availability of resources, the NLRSD has provided two lists of compensatory programs. The first lists those programs which the District has implemented or will implement from its present funding base and without additional funding from the State. The second lists those compensatory programs the District would like to implement but cannot without additional State aid. [***] 49 PROGRAMSIM PLEMENTEDW ITHOUTA DDITIONALS TATE ASSISTANCE EARLY CHILDHOODP ROGRAM Kindergarten programs will be implemented at each elementary school with a District goal of 100 percent attendance by all eligible students. ,9 Addendum 4A and, thus, references to Addendum 4A have been eliminated~ince _A_d d. 4A has been deleted and superseded by the NLR Comp. Ed.rstip.\nStrip, regarding compensatory programs to be implemented with the settlement funds from the State. See 14 JDR 3584-91. 941 NLRSD Two diagnostic tests, the Boehm-R Test of Basic Concepts and the [***] Early Prevention of School Failure Test 50 , will be administered to all kindergarten children at the first of each school year. The Boehm test assesses student understanding of fifty basic concepts which are fundamental to understanding verbal instruction and are essential for early school achievement. [***] 51 Teachers will use the data from these two tests to design a prescriptive learning program for each child. They will assume the responsibility for implementing the instructional learning programs. Intensified Instruction. At levels kindergarten through second grade, teacher aides will be assigned to assist teachers in providing learning experiences for selected students who exhibit deficiencies in reading, language, and basic concepts. Third grade students in selected schools will also receive special instruction from paraprofessionals. The paraprofessional will provide supplemental compensatory instruction for selected students. Instruction will occur in small groups and on a one-to-one basis. The instructional lessons provided by the paraprofessional will be correlated with the instructional lessons provided by the teachers. 50 The Early Prevention of School Failure Test has replaced the Dallas Preschool Screening Test included in the October Supplement (3 JDR 550-51) pursuant to the NLR 2/89 Petition, 8 JDR 1743. 51Id. 942 NLRSD BASIC SKILLS INSTRUCTION52 The curriculum in grades K-7 places primary emphasis on the mastery of the basic skills in reading, language arts, and mathematics. Careful appraisal, frequent evaluation, and flexible grouping ensure that each student will receive instruction according to identified strengths and needs. In grades 8-12, continued emphasis will be placed on the individual student and on basic skills instruction within the framework of a comprehensive secondary curriculum. 1. PACIR. r.wt:J \\~\n'~a:f:\u0026gt; ~\n:J:lieJ~$.91~~2y'~)\n'.1Y.$*t::C:.J:: if'.iC:t:\u0026lt;J\ngU\nt,_ t~iiew.a.r:,p r~\nfj~ c\n:'1:\":: )~~f.'7''.ff~i:$$ajlt.r' c\n@s a ::\nta:i\ngw.,ageL~ti'Jl1.:iillJia Ji.t~~\niiii:.:..~.:. PP#i~4h,:t.p\n, '~: :c:~t,i.q.4J.wn'L~na::1M'.t.~t\ntgn!ft,:\n:::g~\u0026amp;a.1 K~!i.C:C:.Rw .tJp ::\n~~.'.:.4~~],9.~4#? :,,::\ntn~.W:f:..-h~(t,ct\n'.. ::s1},.):~~gqijf::lf(tJilhg A C\\H:fi:E.'W:lfi renewal project for Mathematics and Language Arts called Practical Approach to CurriculWII and Instructional Renewal (PACIR} will be developed to insure that classroom learning meets the expectations of pacccnts and students, In this program, objectives will be developed\nstudents' progress will be measured\nstudents' needs will be identified\nany programs, practices, and resources will be adjusted. Through this emphasis on the mastery of the basic skills, the North Little Rock School District will continue to focus on the remediation of identified deficiencies in reading, language arts, and 52 Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 552. 943 NLRSD mathematics. 2. Early Childhood Program. l\\Y\u0026lt;tl\nffi\\gnp. g\n::jtfig'.}l~~+H~.?)t~h)klY.~A:Pt!%itf:[t@i!\n)Ni,pt:l.[jj.eptinq first and second grade students, as well as third grade students in selected schools, who have identified reading deficiencies will receive supplemental reading instruction as described in the Early Childhood section. This instruction will be in addition to the regular reading instruction and will be planned and directed by the classroom teacher. The program will include one-to-one tutoring by a trained paraprofessional. 3. Additional Reading Instruction. Generally, District elementary students will be involved in only one small group classroom instructional reading lesson per day. Selected elementary students will be involved in an additional reading instructional lesson per day. Students who are reading below grade level and who are experiencing difficulty in reading will be prime candidates for this additional instruction. 4. Academic Skills Development Plans. State Minimum Performance Tests will be administered to students at the third, sixth, and eighth grade levels. Teachers will work in cooperation with principals, parents, and counselors to develop and implement Academic Skills Development Plans for all students who do not pass the Minimum Performance Tests. Each individual student plan will include 944 NLRSD a list of the basic skills which were not mastered by the student and strategies for remediation of these deficiencies. Teachers will be required to indicate the date when mastery of each skill has been reached. 5. Remedial Reading at the Junior High School Level. Remedial reading classes will be provided at each junior high school for students with deficiencies in reading. The classes will be staffed by reading specialists. Special emphasis will be placed on the following skills: comprehension, word recognition, communication, study skills and survival reading skills. PUPIL SERVICES53 In addition to the opportunities for academic achievement provided by the core curriculum, the District will provide specialized programs and services to diagnose and meet the particular educational needs of all students and to foster their individual physical, social, intellectual, and emotional growth. The special needs of identified disadvantaged and minority students will be met in a variety of ways. 1. Guidance Services. A guidance program will be provided in each school to aid students in educational, personal, social, and vocational development. All students will have access to a guidance counselor. The ratio for secondary schools will be one 53 Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 554. 945 NLRso counselor for every 450 students. For elementary schools, the ratio will be one counselor for every 600 students. Particular attention will be paid in this program to the needs of minority and disadvantaged students. 2. Diagnosis and Prescription. A comprehensive assessment program will permit the District to identify students who are having academic problems and to provide opportunities for them to experience success. The assessment program will include standardized tests in grades 2-10\nMinimum Performance Tests in grades 3, 6, and 8\naptitude tests\nsubject area mastery tests\ndiagnostic tests, such as the Boehm Test\nteacher-made tests\npsychological tests\nand heal th screening. Test data will be used in planning appropriate compensatory programs and services for students. Again, particular emphasis will be placed on the needs of minority and disadvantaged students. 3. Social Work. A half-time social worker will provide services for students who have serious problems with school adjustment. The social worker will serve as a link between school, home, and community and will assist students in overcoming academic, social, and behavior problems. 4. Homebound Services. Students with medical conditions which require them to be absent from school for four or more consecutive weeks will be 946 NLRSD provided instruction by a certified teacher. LEARNING RESOURCES54 1. Library/Media Program. The library /media program is a key component of the instructional program. The District Instructional Materials Center and the individual school media centers are extensions of classroom instruction as books, films, videotapes, and other instructional materials are utilized to expand and enrich the curriculum. The media specialist, recognizing students' unique learning abilities, perfonnance levels, learning styles, and interest, prescribes appropriate curricular and special interest learning materials. This service is extremely beneficial to educationally disadvantaged students as their specific learning needs are matched to appropriate learning materials. 2. Computer Assisted Instruction. For those students whose instructional needs require reteaching and additional drill and practice to achieve mastery in reading, language, and mathematics, computer assisted instruction will be provided. Computer activities will be integrated into the instructional program so that classroom instruction will be reinforced by concentrated ontask learning on the computer. All schools will use computers and computer assisted instruction and computer managed instruction software. 5'Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 556 947 NLRSD 3. Basic Skills Computer Laboratories. Basic Skills Computer Laboratories have been established at Argenta Elementary School, Central Junior High School, and Rose City Junior High School. The basic skills computer laboratories provide supplementary computer assisted and computer managed instruction in reading, language, and mathematics for all students on a regularly scheduled basis. Utilizing IMPAC software and course materials, the supplemental instruction is geared to the individual student's needs. The educationally disadvantaged student will benefit greatly from this individualized program. SUMMERL EARNINGE XPERIENCES55 To extend students' opportunities for the mastery of the basic skills and for enrichment, a program of sununer learning experiences will be established. 1. Summer School for Secondary Students. A summer school program will be offered on a tuition basis for students in grades 9-12. Students may elect to take remedial or enrichment courses. 2. Pilot Project for Eighth Grade Students. During the summer of 1987, a pilot summer program funded by JTPA (Job Training Partnership Act) will be conducted to remediate the learning deficiencies of eighth grade students who did not pass the Minimum Performance Test. The procedure will be to assess learning deficiencies, 55Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 558. 948 NLRSD plan for and provide individualized instruction, and utilize the best learning approaches available in a concentrated time frame. Transportation will be provided for the students. If the pilot project is successful and if JTPA continues to fund the project, the e~ghth grade summer school will be implemented each summer. PARENTAL/COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT56 Parents will be encouraged to become informed about the District's educational program and involved in their children's instructional program. Opportunities for involvement will include: PTA\nChapter 1 Parent Advisory Committee\nDistrict committees such as Curriculum, Textbook, Discipline, Gifted, Special Education, and Six-Year Planning\nand local school committees such as Six-Year Planning, PTA, and NCA Self-Study. Steps will be taken to assure that there is biracial participation in this committee work. A part-ti.me coordinator will work with Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) which serves as a vehicle to involve parents directly in the instructional process. Parents will serve as resource persons, do one-to-one tutoring for students not achieving mastery of the basic skills, and perform other volunteer tasks. Parents will be kept well-informed of their children's progress in school. Conferences will be scheduled at least twice each year for parents of elementary students and at least once each year for parents of secondary students. This parental involvement, 56 Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 558. 949 NLRSD while important for all students, is extremely critical to the success of many disadvantaged and minority students, and special attention will be paid to these students. Report cards will be issued at the end of each nine week grading period. Written interim progress reports will be sent home to parents if a student is making unsatisfactory progress. Parents will be asked to confer with teachers throughout the year concerning the student's progress. For minority students who are participating in other compensatory education programs extra steps will be taken to involve parents or guardians in the student's educational experiences. Through the Classmates Program, the business community will become more informed about and more involved in the educational process. Efforts will be made to extend Classmates, which provides the opportunity for a business and a school to become community partners, to all North Little Rock schools. STAFF DEVELOPMENT57 The North Little Rock School District Staff Development Program is designed to assist each staff member in performing at his/her optimum level in every area of the total teaching act. The District programs which will impact greatly on compensatory education are the Program for Effective Teaching (PET) and Classroom Management Training. 1. Program for Effective Training. The Program for Effective Training (PET) teaches the 57 Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 560. 950 NLRsD teacher the key elements which must be present in any instructional lesson if student mastery is to occur. A training cycle consists of: seven full days of instruction for the teacher\nfive practice lessons taught by the teacher while being observed by a trained observer\nand follow-up conferences by the observed and teacher. Since all present staff members have completed PET training, new teachers will receive the training each spring. Students with learning deficiencies will profit as the instructional proficiency of teachers is increased. 2. Classroom Management Training. In the training sessions, Classroom Management is approached as a matter of preparation, organization, and instruction. The program stresses that effective classroom managers are successful, not so much because they are more effective in responding to problems of inattention or disruption, but because they are more effective in preventing such problems. Each training cycle consists of two days of training for each teacher and three classroom observations. Following each observation, the trained observer confers with the teacher to commend areas of strength and to provide assistance in overcoming deficiencies in classroom management. All elementary teachers have completed this training. New elementary teachers and all secondary teachers will receive Classroom Management Training. 951 NLRSD Since many students who are encountering learning problems are often inattentive or disruptive, this program impacts positively on these students as teachers learn to manage classrooms more efficiently and effectively. 952 NLRSD STIPULATED COMPENSATOREYD UCATIONP ROGRAMS TO BE IMPLEMENTEDB Y NORTHL ITTLE ROCK SCHOOLD ISTRICT WITH SETTLEMENTM ONIES58 The programs listed below will be implemented with settlement monies pursuant to paragraph VIII. D, at page 39, of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989, as amended. The District cannot presently implement these programs without funds from the Settlement Agreement due to the financial condition of the District. In its October, 1986 Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as it Applies to the North Little Rock School District, approved by the Court in its Order of February 27, 1987 (LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 659 F. Supp. 363, 367-68 (E.D. Ark. 1987), the NLRSD described in Section 4: Compensatory Education, certain educational programs needed to address achievement disparity of black students which could be implemented only with additional funding from the State. With the settlement monies from the State, the NLRSD will now be able to implement those programs as described below. SETTLEMENTP LAN FOR COMPENSATOREYD UCATION Programs to be Implemented with Settlement Monies I. Learning Resources 58 Source: NLR Comp. Ed. Stip., 14 JDR 3584-91. These stipulated programs were approved by the Court of Appeals in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1387-88 (8th Cir. 1990). This stipulation gave effect to and now replaces that portion of Section 4 of the October Supplement describing programs which could only be implemented with additional state funds. Therefore, 3 JDR 562-574 has been deleted and replaced by this stipulation. 953 NLRSD Goal: Provide technology based remedial basic skills instruction to reduce the achievement disparity between black and non-black students. A. Basic Skills Computer Laboratories B. The first priority of this Settlement Plan is to establish a twenty-eight station Basic Skills Computer Laboratory in each elementary school to assist students in mastering the basic reading, language and mathematics skills. Settlement funds, federal funds and other available funds will be utilized to fund the computer laboratories. The first priority will be to increase the size of existing computer laboratories at Redwood, Boone Park, Amboy, Glenview and Rose City elementaries to twenty-eight station labs. Computer laboratories would then be added to all other elementary schools in priority based upon the largest number of economically deprived students as determined by the eligible participants in the free/reduced lunch program. The ex~ansion of labs at these five schools will occur the first year of the Plan and additional schools will be equipped with a computer laboratory starting the second year of the Settlement Plan and completing that installation process by the end of the fourth year of the Settlement Plan. Diagnostic and Prescription Diagnostic and prescriptive services will be 954 NLRSD available to each grade 1-8 student and teacher in reading, language and mathematics through locally developed PACIR objectives with prescriptive test and the use of the Curriculum Management software that IBM has under development or some comparable alternative. 59 The North Little Rock School District has requested that IBM Corporation allow North Little Rock School District to participate in the pilot of this software this year. Through the use of PACIR objectives and diagnostic tests using the Curriculum Management software, individual education plans (IEP) will be made available for students  El~ :::#filjij9'.p:#gy\n'.pi\nggj\n!~~~:\ni~A~f']?!!:!.E.!:at\nIgqjltl ~p.1: #\n2y#iei: raaJ'#.Jap#XC~9-c:\u0026lt;1.t\ntpila:t\n'\n#i\u0026gt;?:4!g-:h.iPf~:~#C1'.iJi#'49 ~~n~,~ .f.~. g:14\u0026lt;swi~~:::::0::::\n:\n.m:~-iil:i,'.\\~n~~9.:~til:M\\t~Pe+~vffi1i)\nThese services will be available during the fourth year of the Plan provided IBM Corporation has developed and releases the Curriculum Management software in early 1990. 60 II. Pupil Services (and Program Monitoring) Goal: To assess student achievement and monitor the reduction of achievement disparity between black and non-black students. 59IBM has withdrawn the Curriculum Management software and the status of its development and likelihood of release is unknown. The NLRSD is presently seeking a suitable alternative. ' 0Id. 955 NLRSD A. Diagnosis and Prescription Standardized achievement testing will be extended to grade 1 and grade 11 in order to provide more sequential and comprehensive data for curriculum assessment and individual student mastery. Achievement data by race will be developed for each school by grade. These data will be analyzed each year to determine program efficacy and in developing achievement components of each school's annual School Improvement Plan. Beginning in year one of the Settlement Plan, the District will provide up to $5,000.00 to assist disadvantaged youth in paying for college entrance testing such as the SAT and ACT. III. Staff Development Goal: Provide teachers with additional skills and awareness which will more greatly involve minority students into the mainstream of classroom activities and reduce teacher preconceptions which might hinder learning by black students. A. Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA) Extensive research shows that teacher interaction with students perceived as low achievers is less motivating and less supportive than interaction with students perceived as high achievers. Research also shows that high achievers receive more response opportunities and are given more time to respond to questions. This has particular application to educating 956 NLRSD minority and disadvantaged students. The Teacher Expectation and Student Achievement Program (TESA) deals with these important research data. It addresses the effects of teacher expectations on student achievement. In the program, teachers learn to increase specific motivating and supportive interactions with low achievers. Fifteen interactions are presented in the program. The training program consists of five workshop sessions and five classroom observations per teacher. The TESA program will begin implementation the first year of the Plan, and all teachers will have received TESA training by the end of the sixth year of the Plan. IV. Early Childhood Goal: To better prepare disadvantaged and minority four and five year old students for school success. A. Pre-Kindergarten Program To better prepare disadvantaged and minority students for school success, a HIPPY program will be established in lower socio-economic elementary attendance zones such as Redwood, Pine, Boone Park, Argenta, Glenview and Seventh Street. This program will focus on academic and social skills necessary for school success. Parent involvement in the learning process of the students is a component of the program. 957 NLRSD One attendance zone will be added each year beginning in 1989-90 school year and continuing until all identified schools' programs are made operational. Funds outside the settlement funds will be utilized until after year four of the Settlement Plan. Summer Learning Experiences Goal: Provide tuition grants and transportation to low socio-economic students to attend summer school. A. Summer School for Secondary Students B. To meet the summer school needs of educationally disadvantaged students, tuition scholarships and transportation will be provided to those students who would be unable to attend without assistance. Regulations governing the free and reduced lunch participants will be the guide in awarding scholarship tuition and transportation for secondary summer school. Tuition scholarships and transportation will be made available the second year of the implementation plan. Summer School for Elementary and Junior High School Students Goal: To enable low achieving students the opportunity to receive small group remedial instruction. Summer learning opportunities will be provided for selected elementary and junior high school students who have not mastered the basic skills curriculum. Each year the instructional department will carefully review and analyze Metropolitan Achievement Test data and the data 958 NLRSD from the Minimum Performance Tests to determine the content areas and grades in greatest need of remediation services. The curriculum would provide remedial and enrichment activities in large and small group settings through both computer assisted and teacher directed instruction. Summer school activities are currently on-going for grades 1, 3, 6 and 8. An evaluation and review of each program is made each summer. Continued review and evaluation will continue with consideration given for program expansion implementation plan. VI. Basic Skills Instruction for the second year of the Goal: Provide remedial instruction for basic skills mastery to reduce achievement disparity between black and non-black students A. Remedial Reading Laboratories at the Senior High School Level Remedial reading instruction will be provided at each senior high school for students with deficiencies in reading. Instruction would be provided jointly through computer assisted and teacher directed by a reading specialist. Special emphasis would be placed on the following skills: comprehension, word recognition, communication and survival reading skills. These services will be implemented beginning with the fifth year of the Settlement Plan and continuing 959 NLRSD VII. B. through year seven. Remedial Readina and Mathematics Supplementary Instruction at the Elementary Level Remedial reading and/or remedial mathematics supplementary instruction will be provided in the elementary schools serving students who score below the twentieth percentile in grades 1, 2 and 3 . The Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) will be used as the evaluative instrument for grades 2 and 3. An appropriate standardized instrument will be selected for evaluation of grade 1 students prior to implementation date. Grades 4, 5 and 6 will be served as funds become available. The supplementary instructional program will be staffed by itinerate ( floating) reading and/or mathematics specialists who will be assigned to schools as needed to deliver instruction to students who score below the twentieth percentile on diagnostic instruments described above for grades 1, 2 and 3. The learning experiences would be in addition to classroom instruction, but will be correlated with classroom programs. The supplementary instructional services will be provided the fifth, sixth and seventh year of the settlement plan. The implementation of the District's compensatory education programs will also be monitored by the State 960 NLRSD pursuant to Section III A of the Settlement Agreement and nothing in this plan is intended to limit that monitoring responsibility. 961 NLRSD SECTION 5: COMPENSATORPYR OGRAMSA IMED AT DROPOUTP REVENTION61 In North Little Rock, as in any urban school district today, at least 25 percent of the students could be categorized as potential dropouts. Characteristics of these \"at risk\" students may include: poor self-concept, a high degree of frustration with school work, possession of values that are in direct conflict with those of the school, and difficulties in verbal and nonverbal coI!llllunication. All compensatory programs address those symptoms, even at the early elementary level\nhowever, if the problems have not been corrected as the student enters the secondary schools, the risk of dropout intensifies. A number of intervention programs which address the \"at risk\" student will be implemented. WIN PROGRAM62 The WIN Program (We Intervene Now), designed to identify and modify student behaviors which interfere with educational progress, is being piloted at Lakewood Junior High School during 1986-87. If the program is successful, it will be implemented in other secondary schools. The intent of the program is to provide an intervention process that involves the student, parent, and school personnel. This intervention process will be especially beneficial for disadvantaged students. 61Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 575. 62Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 575. 962 NLRSD STUDENT ASSIGNMENT CLASSES (SAC)63 Student Assignment Classes (SAC) will be established for oncampus suspension of secondary school students. Students involved in this program will continue academic work under the supervision of the SAC teacher during the time of suspension. ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 64 Suspension to the North Little Rock Boys Club is an alternative to out-of-school suspension that will be provided for selected secondary school students. This program will be available for students whose behavior is unmanageable both at school and at home and who cannot function in the on-campus suspension program. Students involved in this program will continue their academic work, and receive counseling services at the Boys Club Alternative School. VOCATIONALS ERVICES65 Compensatory services in the area of vocational education will also be provided through the Carl Perkins Project, which is specifically targeted for students who are potential dropouts. An individualized written vocational plan will be completed for each student identified for inclusion in this program. Services will include the assessment of interests, learning modes, and individual needs by a vocational education evaluator and the use of a computerized Job Opportunity Based Search System to place students 63Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 576. \"source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 576. 155Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 576. 963 NLRSD in the most appropriate vocational courses. STUDENT ATTENDANCE 66 When possible, parents of senior high school students will be notified each day that a student is absent from one or more classes. To aid in this effort, an automatic phone calling system will be installed in each of the senior high schools. A computer will call the home of each absentee at night and ask for a response from a parent. Follow-up calls will be made the next day by school personnel. 66 Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 577. 964 NLRSD SECTION 6: EXTRACURRICULARA CTIVITIES 67 The North Little Rock School District recognizes that clubs and student organizations are an important part of the total educational experience for students. All clubs and student organizations shall operate under the direction of the principal and shall be under the supervision of a staff member appointed or approved by the principal. Membership in student organizations and clubs shall not be restricted on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or other arbitrary criteria. Further, entry shall not be by decision of the current membership of the organization. Eligibility requirements for participation in cheerleading, drill teams and athletic activities are determined by the Arkansas Activities Association. Other extracurricular activities and/or organizations related to special interests or subject areas do not have a minimum grade requirement, except those clubs and organizations that are governed by charters from parent organizations. In order to assure greater participation by minority students the following actions will be taken: 1. Principals, counselors, sponsors, and teachers will inform and encourage minority students to become more active in all extracurricular activities. 2. Schools will publicize and inform minority students and 17 Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 578. 965 NLRSD their parents well in advance of the selection process so that they will know what to expect and when to apply. 3. All selection committees will be biracial in make-up. 4. The District recognizes that one impediment to minority participation in extracurricular activities is the lack of transportation before or after normal school hours. Unfortunately, the NLRSD lacks the resources to provide extracurricular transportation for its students and, therefore, has requested that the Court direct the Department of Education to provide such transportation, not only for majority-to-minority transfer students but for all students. See NLRSD F.O.F. \u0026amp; C.O.L. Nos. 10 \u0026amp; 11. Absent funding by the State, however, the NLRSD will be unable, with its present resources, to provide such additional transportation and still provide a regular program which is educationally adequate. 5. Principals and sponsors will monitor participation in all extracurricular activities and, where such participation is racially identifiable, special efforts will be made to promote minority participation in any such racially identifiable clubs and/or organizations. 6. The District will annually review try-out procedures and eligibility requirements to identify and eliminate any practices that discourage or adversely affect minority participation. 7. Each school will prepare a summary report for all clubs, 966 NLRso organizations and other extracurricular activities reflecting the racial composition of the officers in each activity, the total membership, and all those who tried out or sought membership. This report will be prepared in April of each year which provides sufficient lead-time to permit planning, publication and recruitment of minority participation for the following year. See Addendum 6A. These reports will be compiled in a District summary for all extracurricular activities which will be completed and presented to the Board of Education at its May meeting each year. 967 NLRSD SECTION 7: DISCIPLINE, EXPULSIONS AND SUSPENSIONS DISCIPLINE 68 Disciplinary polices are periodically reviewed to ensure fundamental fairness and the absence of bias. In this effort all District policies relating to student conduct and discipline were revised in the 1985-86 school year. See Addendum 7A. To ensure that parents and students are advised of expected student conduct, bases for discipline and all disciplinary procedures including any right of appeal, District-wide handbooks were developed in the 1985-86 school year and given to each student. Students are annually required to have their parents read the handbooks and sign a statement acknowledging that both the parents and the student have read the handbook. Additionally, the handbook is reviewed with the students in all schools during class time. SUSPENSIONS69 The NLRSD student population is 40% black and 60% white. 70 In the 1985-86 school year 48% of those students suspended were black. While the District does not believe this is significantly disproportionate, it has taken additional steps to ensure fairness and the absence of bias. First, as discussed above, it has revised its policy to provide clear standards of expected behavior as well as guarantees of due process including the right of appeal. 68 Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 582. 69 Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 582. 70This was the population in 1985-86. 968 Second, each NLRSD suspension is reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs and the Superintendent to ensure that District policies are followed. Third, a summary of suspensions showing the number and race of students suspended in each school will be compiled by the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs and will be provided to the Board of Education at its July meeting each year. A review of all suspensions will be conducted for any school that has a disproportionate number of suspensions of minority students to ensure that race has not been a factor in the suspensions. EXPULSIONS71 The North Little Rock School District has expelled only twenty students during the last three years. 72 Of this number ten have been black. Seventeen of these expulsions have been because of serious offenses relating to drugs or the possession and/or use of weapons. Given the very small number of expulsions and the extreme seriousness of the offenses involved, the District believes that any violation relating to expulsions has been corrected. Further, all expulsions are made by the Board of Education and then only after a hearing. 71Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 583. 72 The data in this section were accurate as of the 1985-86 school year. 969 NLRSD SECTION 8: GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION73 The Court based its determination that the NLRSD denied black students access to its program for gifted and talented students on data from 1980. LRSD I, 584 F. Supp at 349, Paragraph 100. Since that time, significant changes have been made in the District's identification procedures designed specifically to improve the identification of gifted minority students. These efforts, which are detailed below, have been described by Dr. Emily Stewart, an expert in gifted and talented education, as comparing favorably with the state of the art for identifying minority gifted students. T. 2692. She also testified that the referral and placement of minority children in the NLRSD gifted program for the 1983-84 school year, NLRX 22 and 23, were consistent with the national norm and were reflective of a concerted effort to identify gifted minority students. T. 2689. [* * *]\" CALLAHA/NTR EFF INGER STUDY75 During the 1982-83 school year, the District's concern was the identification of all gifted students, but an overriding concern was the identification of the culturally disadvantaged. Through a 73 October Supplement, 3 JDR 613 ''References to SOMPA found in the October Supplement, 3 JDR 613, have been eliminated pursuant to the Petition to Modify NLRSD's Desegregation Plan, 8 JDR 1740-41, which was in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. 75Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 614 970 NLRSD Title IV-C Grant, the District was afforded the opportunity to hire two consultants in the field of gifted education, Dr. Donald Treffinger from State University College at Buffalo, New York, and Dr. Carolyn Callahan, University of Virginia. The plan was to develop a methodological case-study /placement procedure. The casestudy method provides information from a variety of sources and also sununarizes strengths and weaknesses for instructional programming. Dr. Callahan evaluated the District's case-study placement procedures. She found that although the identification of minority students was uneven across the District, the selection of minority students had increased by 43% districtwide. Recommendations in Dr. Callahan's study were used by the District to implement other strategies to increase identification and selection of culturally different students as well as to even out the process across the District. CREATIVE POSITIVES FOR IDENTIFYING DISADVANTAGED YOUTH76 During the same year, the District utilized the \"Creative Positives of Disadvantaged Youth and Children,\" by E. Paul Torrence. See Addendum SA. The District also adopted the Torrence Test of Creative Thinking. This test has been even more useful in discovering giftedness among the culturally different. The District continues to use the test, and special scoring of strengths is used in the creativity test for purposes of screening and identification of 76 Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 614. 971 NLRSD culturally disadvantaged students. MULTIPLE REFERRALS OURCE7S7 As a safeguard against bias, nominations for placement in the gifted program are sought from a wide variety of sources including parents, other students, and the individual student himself or herself as well as from teachers and principals. This ensures that everyone who might see a different facet of the nominated student perhaps not seen by others is encouraged to nominate that student if he or she feels the student might be gifted. MULTIPLE PLACEMENTC RITERIA78 Student placement decisions are based on multiple criteria. See Addendum 8B. No single criterion or cut-off score is used to exclude a student from placement. Teacher ratings may override poor test scores\nhowever, good normative information may outweigh negative teacher ratings. Creative Positives Among the Culturally Different by E. Paul Torrence is used to assist in identification of the culturally different. GROUP DECISION-MAKING79 Another safeguard against bias and a further assurance that no student is overlooked lies in the fact that no single individual makes a placement decision. Each school has a case study/placement committee made up of the principal or assistant principal, counselor, resource teacher for gifted and talented, and two 77Source October Supplement, 3 JDR 615. 78Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 615. 79Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 616. 972 NLRso classroom teachers. On the elementary level, one teacher is primary\nthe other is intermediate. On the secondary level, one classroom teacher is a current teacher of the student being referred. The principal is responsible for the total process and serves as chairman of the case study/placement committee. The resource teacher of gifted and talented will be actively involved in the committee work. The supervisor of gifted and talented assists as needed. No single person can decide to place or not to place a student. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND APPEAL 80 Parents are involved throughout the referral and placement process. They are invited to refer their children for placement. They are required to complete the Parent Questionnaire, Addendum SC, which is an important source of information not obtainable by other means. They meet with the case study/placement committee concerning placement recommendations. Finally, parents have the right to appeal the decision of the case study/placement committee to the Director of Elementary or Secondary Education. The Director and the Supervisor of the Gifted and Talented Program then review all identification instruments, Addendum 8B, and meet with the parents to review all placement criteria. If an error has occurred an appropriate correction will be made. MONITORING AND INTERVENTION ' 0 source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 616. 973 NLRSD Reports are submitted to the Central Administration showing the race and grade of all students referred and placed in the gifted programs in each school. Where there is an unevenness of nominations, referrals, and placements of the culturally disadvantaged students, the permanent folders are carefully examined by the Supervisor for Gifted and Talented Education. As a result of such additional reviews, minority students who might be gifted are identified and follow-up procedures are initiated to observe and document the student's actions which would justify referral, evaluation and possible placement. Also, additional in-service training regarding the use of the creative positives in identifying minority gifted students is conducted for teachers in those schools. 974 NLRSD SECTION 9: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND INADEQUATE FACILITIES 81 The North Little Rock School District was established in 1901 with all students housed in a single building. As the population increased during the next several years, schools were added to accommodate student growth. The District made an early commitment to neighborhood schools as evidenced by the relatively small size and geographic location of school buildings. Such commitment prevailed until recent times. Constructed in the 1950 's, the Belwood Elementary School, for example, contains only seven classrooms and small spaces for library, offices, and cafeteria. Most elementary schools were originally designed to house two hundred or less pupils. Almost all of the existing school facilities have been expanded since their original construction. Although facility expansion has increased pupil capacity in most North Little Rock Schools, the neighborhood school concept has remained evident in the location of elementary schools. No elementary pupil within the District is assigned to a home school which is located two or more miles from his place of residence. From its inception in 1901 until the 1969-70 school year, student population grew at a steady rate until reaching the alltime high of 14,000. Since the 1969-70 school year, student population has, consistently declined. The October, 1986, enrollment was 9,686 students, an overall decrease of 4,414 since 11 Source: October Supplement, 3 JDR 632. 975 NLRSD 1969-70. Through its history, various school facilities have come into and gone out of existence. During the 1970-71 school year, elementary and secondary students attended school on twenty-eight separate school campuses. Twenty-three regular schools and two special schools currently serve students in the twenty-six square mile district. Beginning with the 1972-73 school year, all North Little Rock schools have been fully integrated in accordance with the \"Storm Plan\" approved by the Federal District Court ( Judge Henley) . Attendance zones have been established and racial quotas established to ensure that the racial composition in all elementary and secondary schools is within plus or minus twenty-five percent of the percentage of the minority school population. Beginning with the rebuilding of Amboy Elementary School (fire) in 1970, the North Little Rock School District has sought Court approval of all openings, closings, and additions to school facilities. The most recent such action was a request (granted) to close the Levy Elementary School prior to the 1985-86 school year. In light of the declining to stable student population, it does not appear likely that new school construction will be necessary in the near future. If new facilities or additions to existing facilities become necessary in the future, the District shall rely on the standards contained in Swann v. CharlotteMecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S.1 (1977). The overall condition of school facilities in the North Little 976 NLRsD Rock School District is excellent. A rather well-financed maintenance program has kept facilities in a very serviceable and attractive condition. This is evidenced by the fact that since the 1982-83 school year every school in the District has been reviewed as part of the ongoing North Central Accreditation process and all have satisfied NCA standards. No building is in need of major renovation. All buildings are well ventilated and heated. Over fifty percent of the students attend school in air-conditioned facilities. The overall condition of buildings shows only minor variations throughout the District. Certainly, no building condition bears a relationship to its geographical location within the District. 977 NLRso IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED MAY 1, 1991 Appendix Addendum lA Addendum 1B Addendum lE Addendum 2A Addendum 2B Addendum 2C Addendum 2D Addendum 3C Addendum 3D Addendum 3E Addendum 3F Addendum 3G Addendum 3H Addendum 3I Addendum 3J Addendum 6A Addendum 7A Addendum SA Addendum 8B Addendum SC TABLE OF CONTENTS NLRSD Racial Count as of 10/1/85 Questions and Answers Addendum to Section 1 Notice Regarding Applicants Notice Regarding Positions. Schedule of Benefits NLRSD Brochure Due Process Steps for Appraisal . NLRSD Special Services Dept. List of Agencies Cantilician Study 63 69 Chapter I. Project 101 A.D.E. Monitoring Checklist Letter to Arkansas Dept. of Educ. Recommendations Activities Report Policies and Procedures Gifted/Talented Program Instruments of Identification 1050 1051 1054 1064 1065 1066 1069 1080 1112 1113 1119 1151 1168 1191 1197 1198 1200 1228 1238 Parent Questionnaire . . . . 1239 SCHOOLS GROUP A LAKEWOOD CRESTWOOD BELWOOD PINE TOTALS GROUP B PIKE VIEW ARGENTA TOTALS GROUP C GLENVIEW LYNCH DRIVE TOTALS GROUP D AMBOY INDIAN HILLS SEVENTH STREET BOONE PARK TOTALS GROUPE PARK HILL NORTH HEIGHTS REDWOOD TOTALS GROUP F MEADOW PARK ROSE CITY TOTALS BARING CROSS* DIS'l'RICT TOTALS NORTH LITTLE ROCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS RACIAL COUNT AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1985 EXCLUDING KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS NONBLACK No. ( % ) 143 (63.6) 100 (57.l) 61 (55.0) 93 (53.l) 397 (57.9) 234 (60.6) 97 (53.9) 331 ( 58. 5) 104 (58.8) 123 (51.0) 227 (54.3) 172 (58.l) 209 (63.5) 169 (57.l) 239 (54.8) 789 ( 58.1) 116 ( 61. 7) 238 (63.2) 133 (54.l) 487 (61.0) 117 (56.5) 116 (53.5) 233 (55.0) 3 (30.0) 2,467 (57.9) BLACK No.(%) 82 (36.4) 75 (42.9) 50 (45.0) 82 (46.9) 289 (42.l) 152 (39.4) 83 (46.1) 235 (41.5) 73 (41.2) 118 (49.0) 191 (45. 7) 124 (41.9) 120 (36.5) 127 (42.9) 197 (45.2) 568 (41.9) 72 (38.3) 127 (34.8) 113 (45.9) 312 ( 3 9. 0) 90 (43.5) l 01 ( 4 6. 5) 191 (45.0) 7 (70.0) 1,793 (42.l) ADDENDUM lA TOTALS 225 175 111 175 686 386 180 566 177 241 418 296 329 296 436 1357 188 365 246 799 207 217 424 10 4,260 ~Baring Cross ~as cre~ted as a~ al~ern~tive to placing se~erely handicapped children 1n state 1nst1tut1ons. The only students assigned to this school are those who are profoundly and multilJ:liSD handicapped. 001050 QUESTIONAS NDA NSWERS ADDENDUM 1B CONCERNINTGH E REVISEDE LEMENTARSYC HOOLD ESEGREGATIOPNLA N FOR THE NORTHL ITTLE ROCKS CHOOLD ISTRICT 1. Q. What about children in the same family who have different names? A. A child who enters the School District after May 1, 1978, as a first grader or as a newcomer to the district on any grade level will be placed in the pupil assignment rotation according to his/her last name as it appears on the official birth certificate. Special consideration cannot be given to families whose members have different last names. 2. Q. After the number of assignments have been made in the spring to achieve the proper racial balance, what provisions will be made to protect that balance from losses resulting from moving during the summer? A. An additional 10 percent will be selected as a standby list. 3. Q. Will the elementary schools continue to operate on a staggered time schedule? A. Yes, this is necessary to prevent st~dents fro~ having to ~ait at school longer than is desirable. It should be noted that no child will be transported more than 7.5 miles one way\ntherefore, the staggered time schedule causes only slight differences in school schedules. 4. Q. Can a student avoid being transported if he/she attend~ a private school during the year(s) he was assigned to a school outside his neighborhood? A. Any movement within the District will place the student in the rotation plan or assign~ent presently in effect in the attendance zone where he will be residing. If a student attends a private school during the years(s) he is to be bused he is auto~aticallv buse~ ~hen r.e ret~c~s to the ~orth little Rock Puhlic Schools. HLRSD 0 0 J O fj l 5. Q. Where do students attend school who enroll after the school year begins? A. Students will be assigned according to their place in the alphabetical rotation system. 6. Q. Are the loading and unloading of buses used to transport children supervised? A. Yes, principals and teachers supervise the loading and unloading of each bus. 7. Q. Where do buses load and unload? A. The neighborhood elementary school will be the pick-up point for all children being transported. 'No stops will be made to receive or discharge pupils at any other point. It is the parent's responsibility to deliver children to the neighborhood school\nit is the district's responsibility to return the children to the neighborhood school in the afternoon. In case the student is late and does not board the bus at the neighborhood school, it is the responsibility of the parent to transport the child to the school he/she attends. 8. Q. When this plan was revised, were any changes made in the elementary attendance zones? A. Yes, minor changes were made to alleviate crowding in two schools. The zones were revised so that some students who would have attended Crestwood Elementary will now attend Indian Hills, Some students who would have attended Crestwood will now attend Lakewood, and some students who would have attended Seventh Street will now attend Redwood. lfLRSD 0 0 1 Qr') .J t) 1_ 9. Q. How were the groupings of schools detennined? A. Using the percentages of 42 percent black and 58 percent nonblack students as a goal for each groupings, factors such as the racial composition of attendance zones, the present enrollment of each school and the capacity of each school were considered. 10. Q. Will any student be exempt from assignment outside their neighborhood? A. Yes, kindergarten students and students who live in an elementary zone with a racial composition such that their race is in the ~inority. Also, there may be instances where some handicapped children will not be transported although it is the general policy of the district to include special education students in the pupil assignment plan. There are children whose handicapping condition requires a particular special education program which may not be available in every school. It is also necessary to consider the number of students who can be accommodated in a particular program in a school since it is essential that enrollment in special education classes be small enough to allow for as much individual attention as is needed for each child. Exceptions may also be made for children with a medical disability if the situation warrants. These must be considered on an individual basis. NLRSD 001053 , ADDENDUMlE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT [ASTtRN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 211987 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAHITifF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al DEFf.l'IDANTS ADDENDUMT O STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PROVISIOI-JS OF SECTION 1 OF THE PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING TBt. REMEDIAL ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOP. THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AS IT APPLIES TO THE ~0RTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT {NORTH LITTLE ROCK PLA1'l) In the 1987 Legislative Session, the Ark?.!'.S?.s C:eneral Assembly passed two Acts which either directly affect or could affect the desegregation efforts of the North Little Rock School District. Act 762 of 1987, copy attached' a.s E\n-~hibit \"A\", directs that no school district may permit or accept transfers of students from other school districts if either school district is under a desegregation order and the transfer would negatively affect the racial balance of the district subject to the desegregation order. This policy is consistent with the established policy of the NLRSD and the District will continue to adhere strictly to these requirements. However, the Legislature also passed Act 624 of 1987, copy attached as Exhibit \"B\", which states that \"the children or wards of anyone who is a public school teacher in one school district ... and a resident of another school district ... shall NLRSD 001054 03-009 be entitled to attend school in either ... district This is seemingly inconsistent with the ~no transfer\" requirements of Act 762, and, as a result, the Attorney General was asked for an opinion regarding this apparent c~nflict. In Opinion Attorney General No. 87-190, copy attached as Exhibit \"C\", the opined that a child living in one district who was enrolled, pursuant to Act 624, in another district was not a transfer subject to the provisions of Act 762 since the child was statutorily entitled to attend school in either district. In light of the Attorney General's opinion, the !Jl-RSD ha.!5 n0 discretion regarding the admission of the children or wards of non-resident teachers and this situation could result in an interdistrict segregative effect on the racial composition of the LRSD and NLRSD. Specifically, the NLRSdhas 578 teachers of whom 141 live in the LRSD, the great majority of whom are white. Thus, if a significant number of these teachers enrolled their children in the NLRSD, it would result in a negative impact on the racial composition of the LRSD student body. To date, the number of applications for such interdistrict enrollment of teacher's children has been minimal and ihe race of those applying has been so balanced as to h~vs n0 ~1verse effect on either school district involved. Howe,er, to protect against the potential adverse interdistrict effect that such enrollment makes possible, the NLRSD will report to the Court .NLRSD -2- 03-')')'] 00105:5 CT IM .-. annually regarding the number and race.of teacher's children who are being enrolled in the district where the teacher is employed rather than in the district in which they reside. Should a problem develop the NLRSD will ask the Court for ielief. Until that time, however, the NLRSD will adhere to the requirements of Acts 624 and 762 as interpreted by the Attorney General's Opinion No 87-190. July 21, 1987 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Tower Capitol at Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 . STEE'HEI-1 w. JONES, Attorneys for the North Little Rock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and corre-:t -:opy 0f thca foregoing Addendum was maile\u0026lt;l to the attached. list '2 cou.nsel on this 21st day of July, 1987. lfLRSD 0010 5 t\u0026gt; -3- 03-009 State of Arkansas ACT7 6 2 l~d7 A Bill 76th General Assembly Regular Session, 1987 HOUSE BILL 1790 2 3 By: Reps. Towosend, I. Brown, Walker For An Act To Be Entitled \"AN ACT TO ALLOWT HE TRANSFERO F CHILDRENF ROHO NE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ANOTHER\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.\" 4 BE IT ENACTEDB Y THE GENERALA SSEHBLYO F THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: 5 6 SECTION l. Upon the petition of a student residing in one school 7 district (resident district), to transfer to another school district (receiving 8 district)\nthe Board of Directors of the resident district may enter into an 9 agreement with the Board of Directors of the receiving school district trans- 10 ferring the student to the receiving district for purposes of education. 11 Forms for use in transferring children from one school district to another 12 shall be provided by the State Department of Education. After the petition 13 has been approved by the Board of Directors of th,e resident district and the 14 Board of Directors of the receiving district, copies of approved transfers 15 shall be filed by the receiving district with the office of the County Clerk, 16 with the administrative offices of the respective school districts, and with 17 the State Department of Education. This legal transfer of a student from one 18 district to another places the responsibility for the education of the student 19 on the receiving district and permits the receiving district to count these 20 children in average daily membership for state aid purposes. This section 21 does not transfer the localtax money from the resident district. 22  I 23 SECTION 2. Boards of Directors of local school districts are prohib~ted 24 from granting legal transfers in the following situations: ~'-~ \\ 25 (a) where either the resident or the receiving district is under.a 26 desegregation related court order or has ever been under such a court o~e  27 and ~. \\ 28 (b) the transfer in q~uestion would negatively affect the raifi.'i:ts~a~ 29 of that di\ntrict shich is or h been unO ouch a court order. \\',. \\ \"~ 30/4_)_/11,\nfl{\n~:( ]fBi--IT A 00~05':~ f {  mih227 H.B. 1 SECTION 3. Each form filed with the State Department of Education 2 reporting a legal student transfer ~ust be accompanied by an affidavit 8igned 3 by _ea~h member of both school boards 8tating that the transfer does not ~ violate the prohibition set forth in Section 2. 5 6 SECTION~- The Arkansas Department of Education shall wfthhold state aid 7 in an amount equal to that to be generated by the student in question in the 8 respective districts from each district, if the transfer fails to comply with 9 Section 3. 10 11 SECTION 5. (a) Any district not currently unde~ a desegregation related 12 court order but which bas been under such a court order in the past may apply 13 for a vaiver of the prohibition set forth in Section 2. 1~ (b) The State Board of Education may grant such a district a waiver from 15 the provisions of Section 2 if it is determined that the district's desegrega-  16 tion status would not be adversely affected by allowing a legal transfer which 17 would negatively affect the district's racial balance. 18 19 SECTION 6. Act 275 of 1959 as amended, the,same being Arkansas Statutes 20 80-1518.1, 80-1518.2 and 80-1525 through 80-1528, is hereby specifically 21 repealed along with all other laws or par . . :: -litf\u0026lt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt;1/I\u0026gt;J\nl!fM6IV.1/   , / '\n- i ,.: ,,,--,: .. , .,..:... , . /:, . 25 26 =.-, .. of laws in conflict with this Act. :~~:!v:D/BY- ~?uc~J~ \\ . ' NLRSD onio.~_\n\\ J l 2 3 Ii 5 6 7 State of Arkanaaa 76th ~neral .uaembly l.egular Se11ion 1 1987 !y: kpresentative Thomason ACT6 24 1987 A Bill For An Act To Be Entitled ROUSE !ILL1674 \"AN ACT TO PROVIDE TiiAT nu: CHILDREN OR WARDS or A PERSON WHO IS A PUBLIC SCHOOL ITACHER IN ONE SCHobL DISTRICT AND A RESIDENT OF ANOTHER SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL !E Eh'TITLED TO ENROLL IN Al,\"D ATTEND SCHOOL rn EITHER TrlE DISTRICT IN 'WHICH THE PAREh'T OR GUARDIAN RESIDES OR IN !RE DISTRICT Ill l.7HICH THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN TIACHES\nAND FOR OTHl:R PURPOSES.\" 8 !E IT ~ACTID BY '11:ITG ENERAL ASSD ill LY OF nn: STATI OF ARKANSAS: 9 10 ) SECTION l. The children or varde of any pcr\u0026amp;on vho is a public school 11 teacher in one school district in this State a.nd a resident of another achool 12 district in this State shall be entitled to be enrolled in and to attend 13 school in either the district in which the parent or guardian resides or the 14 district in which the parent or guardian is a public achool teacher. 15 16 SECTION 2. All la~s and parts of la~s in conflict vith this A.c.t are 17 18 19 23 24 25 26 27 30 EXHIBlT B /I ,. I_ . _.._ __. _ ----- STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 201 EAST MARKHAM STREET HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 371-2007 Opinion No. 87-190 May 29, 1987 The Honorable John Ward Representative, District 65 2705 Donaghey Drive North Little Rock, AR 72116 Dear Representative Ward: This is in response to your opinion request wherein you posed the following inquiries ~hich appear to result from the apparent conflicts between Act 624 and Act 762 of 1987, to-wit: 1. By virtue of Act 624, is a school district required to enroll the children of teachers who reside in other districts and whose children have been attending in another district if the receiving district is currently under a desegregation order? 2. Would it be considered a 11 transfer 11 under Act 762 for children who have been attending another district to enroll in another under the provisions of Act 624? 3. Would it be considered a 11 transfer 11 under Act 762 for the receiving distriet to enroll children of teachers who reside in other districts (by virtue of Act 624) which children have not been enrolled in any district (e.g., first graders)? Act 624 of 1987 provides in pertinent part as follows: SECTION 1. The children or wards of any person who is a public school teacher in one school district in this State and a resident of another school district in this State shall be entitled to be enrolled in and to attend school in either the district in which the parent or guardian resides or the district in which the parent or guardian is a public school teacher. HLRSD 0010GO zmanza ,,,.   =n_-_.,.\"-=: Representative John Ward May 29, 1987  Page 2 Act 762 of 1987 limits legal transfers among school districts to those situations where such transfer would not adversely impact the racial balance of either the sending or receiving district if one of the districts were under a court ordered desegregation plan. Because Act 624 of 1987 entitles children of public school teachers to attend school in either their resident district or the district wherein their parent or guardian teaches, it is the opinion of this Office that such children are not transfers and would not come under the limiting provisions of Act 762 of 1987. Thus, in response to your question 1, the school district wherein the parent or guardian teaches would be required to accept the child of the parent or guardian. As stated above, the answer to your question 2 is that a child coming under the provisions of Act 624 would not be considered a transfer under Act 762. And, new students (e.g., first graders) availing themselves of the special provisions of Act 624 would also not be considered transfers under Act 762. The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve~- was prepared by Assistant Attorney General C. Randy McNair III. JSC: CRM: jk NLRSD 001081 -n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 FJLED U.S. OISTllJCT .  (ASTERN OJ  COURT STRICT ARKANSA~ JUL 2 '? 1987 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al DEFENDANTS ORDER The North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) has requested this Court's approval of an addendum to its desegregation plan which was approved in the Order of February 27, 1987. The NLRSD has expressed the concern that Arkansas Act 624 of 1987, which provides that teachers residing in one school district but teaching in anothe~ have the right to enroll their children in either district, could have an interdistrict segregative effect on student enrollment in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Since 141 of the NLRSD's 578 teachers live in the LRSD and most of these teachers are white, these concerns are legitimate although the problem is merely prospective and no such interdistrict segregative effect has occurred to date. In its plan addendum, the NLRSD corrrnits to report to this Court annually regarding the number and race of students being enrolled in the NLRSD from other districts and in other districts from the NLRSD. No further action is contemplated unless a segregative effect actually occurs at which time this Court!Q.RSD -,... ----..,-------- be asked for appropriate relief. The scope of the NLRSD1 s proposed addendum to its desegregation plan is appropriate in light of the speculative nature of the problem. The NLRSD proposes to comply with the State law until such time that this compliance actually results in a segregative effect. Until that time it will keep the Court apprised of the impact of Act 624. Such reporting compromises no party 1 s rights and is entirely consistent with rulings of this Court and the Court of Appeals requiring the school districts in this case not only to remediate past interdistrict segregative effects but also to avoid further such effects. For these reasons, the NLRSD1 s Motion to Approve Plan Addendum is approved and it is directed to report to the Court on an annual basis the number and race of children enrolled in the NLRSD or removed from the NLRSD and enrolled in other districts pursuant to Arkansas Act 624 of 1987. IT IS SO ORDERED this ,J._7 day of July, 1987. / NLRSD -- i \\  Ir . .a I ADDENDUM 2A ADMINISTRATIVEO FFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET January 14, 1986 MEMTOO : Officers of Teacher Training Institutions FROM: Doyle Crownover, Assistant Superintendent for Administration SUBJECT: Employment Applications The North Little Rock Public Schools seeks to staff its schools with the best teachers available. To be able to do this, we covet opportunities to consider your teacher candidates. Toward this end we have prepared material that gives prospective teacher applicants information concerning employment in the District. We are eager to have this information placed in the hands of all potential teachers, and solicit your assistance in this effort. We would welcome calls or visits from your teacher candidates, and would be happy to visit your campus to talk with groups of prospects if it appears this would be mutually beneficial. NORTHLI TTLER OCKSC HOODLI STRICTIS ANE QUAOLP PORTUNIETMY PLOYER HLRSD P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AA 72115/0687 501/758-1760 001084 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET The North Little Rock (Arkansas) School District is seeking an opportunity to consider for employment the most outstanding teaching and administrative candidates available. If you desire to be a part of the professional staff of a public school district that is recognized as being a state leader in learning opportunities and student performance, we earnestly solicit your application. We ask you to examine the enclosed materials to acquaint you with the advantages and desirability of employment with tre North Little Rock School District. If becoming associated with this District appeals to you, we encourage you to complete and return the application form, P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK. AR 72115/0687 501 /758-1760 ADDENDUM 2B NLRSD OOJ 06\n, Salary NORTHLI TTLER OCKS CHOODLI STRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Benefits of Teaching in North Little Rock School District ADDENDUM 2C Teachers are paid on an indexed salary scale that recognizes training and experience. Increments are provided for each 12 hours of graduate study beyond the Bachelor's Degree, and for each 15 hours beyond the Master's, and for each year's experience up to eight years at the Bachelor's Degree level, and up to 15 years at the Specialist's Degree level. For the 1985-86 school year the salary for a regular classroom teacher of 187 days of employment with a Bachelor's Degree and no previous experience is $14,530. A teacher with a Specialist's Degree and 15 years experience receives $25,611._ Fringe Benefits Each teacher is provided a fully paid Blue Cross-Blue Shield Major Medical Coverage, a dental insurance coverage, and a hospital indemnity plan, with the option of having fillnily members included through payroll deduction. We provide $21,000 life insurance coverage on each teacher. Each teacher is provided an amount of $15.83 per month which may be applied to the cost of family coverages, or for additional life insurance. The total value of these coverages is $91.93 per month. All teachers must be members of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Beginning on July 1, 1986, they will have the option of joining the contributory plan (6% of salary) or non-contributory plan (O~~o f salary). Those choosing the contributory system ~vill qualify for a greater annuity upon retirement. Deferred tax options are also available for retirement planning. Teachers also participate in the Social Security retire1ilent system. Sick Leave Teachers in the North Little Rock system receive nine days per year sick leave for the first four years in the District. These days per year then increase for each of next six years until 20 days per year are awarded for the tenth year and thereafter. Unused sick days are accwnulated up to 100 days. Personal Leave Teachers of the District are awarded one day per year of leave for personal reasons. There is an accumulation provision for these days if they are unused. NLRSD 00108i\nP~ge 2 (Benefits of Teaching in North Little Rock School District) Inservice Training The North Little Rock School District maintains an ongoing, indepth program for increasing the competency of its staff. The program is constantly revised and adapted to the needs of the staff. Professional Leave Upon approval of request, teachers are granted professional leave for a wide variety of activities. NLRSD 0010S'/ ADDENDUM 2D NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS-- moving in the right direction, helping every child achieve From the Superintendent We are pleased t\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_1008","title":"\"Educational Equity Guidelines Resource Handbook,\" Arkansas Department of Education","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"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991-04"],"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":["Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","Educational planning","School administrators","School employees","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["\"Educational Equity Guidelines Resource Handbook,\" Arkansas Department of Education"],"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/1008"],"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":["115 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_886","title":"'Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District, fourth quarter","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":["1991-04/1991-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","School discipline","Gifted \u0026 talented","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["'Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District, fourth quarter"],"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/886"],"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":["259 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_494","title":"Incentive Schools: Census analysis 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":null,"dc_date":["1991-02-09"],"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","Demography","Educational statistics","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Census analysis 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/494"],"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":["77 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\nPopulation change for Caucasians and African Americans in Arkansas counties\n1 qq Census Analysis Shows 12.0% Net Outmigration of Arkansas Blacks q Dr. Lawrence L. Santi Ms. Mary A. McGehee Division of Demographic Research University of Arkansas at Little Rock Little Rock, AR 72204 501-569-8571 q February 9, 1991 q The present note is the fifth in a series of reports produced by UALR's Division of Demographic Research over the past couple of weeks on population change in the State and counties of Arkansas, q as reflected in recently released data from the 1990 Census of the Population. q q In the first note, we analyzed patterns of overall change from 1980 to 1990 in the population of Arkansas counties, and in a second installment, we decomposed these patterns of overall population change into portions attributable to natural increase (the excess of births over deaths), on the one hand, and to net Our third and fourth notes were q migration, on the other. concerned with population change among the two major racial groups in the State, showing first, how overall population growth rates differed between whites and blacks, and second, how the racial composition of Arkansas counties changed over the 1980s. qq In the present note, we merge these two lines of inquiry with race-specific decompositions of overall population growth in Arkansas counties into natural increase and net migration components (i.e., we perform such decompositions separately for the white and the black populations of the State). qq The logic of these decompositions is quite simple. We begin with the 1980 Census count of persons of a given race living in a particular county. We calculate a \"natural increase\" component by subtracting the number of deaths occurring to persons of that race over the decade from the number of births occurring to women of that race. Adding the natural increase component to the initial 1980 population gives us an \"expected\" 1990 population, which is then compared to the \"actual\" 1990 Census count to arrive at an estimated \"net migration\" component. 1 We recall that the recently released 1990 Census count of persons of all races showed an overall population growth for the State as a whole of 2.8%, which was decomposed into a 5.1% growth due to natural increase and a 2.3% loss due to net outmigration. I When we examine these numbers separately for whites and blacks, we see significant differences between the two racial groupings. The white population of the State of Arkansas experienced 2.9% overall growth during the 1980s, attributable to a 3.7% natural increase and net outmigration of 0.8 '6  By way of contrast, the black population experienced no overall growth during the 1980s (a measured increase of 144 persons, which constitutes 0.0% of the State's 1980 black population), due to the countervailing effects of 12.0% natural increase and 12.0% net outmigration. In the balance of this report, we examine population growth and its components at the county level, separately for whites and for blacks. Population Change and Its Components Among Whites The data on which this discussion is based are presented in 4 Each of the Tables lA, IB, IC, and ID, and Maps lA, IB, and IC. four tables contains the same basic information, and differ only in the order in which counties are listed. In Table lA, counties 4 4 are listed in alphabetical order, while in Tables IB, IC, and ID, counties are sorted in order of percentage change in population, percentage natural increase, and percentage net migration, respectively. Tables IB, IC, and ID present the detailed data that are presented in broader categories in Maps lA, IB, and IC, respectively. As far as overall change in the white population of Arkansas counties is concerned, the relevant data are presented in Table Thirty-nine of the State's 75 counties (just over IB and Map lA. ' _ half) experienced white population growth, while the remaining 36 experienced decreases. The greatest increases occurred in Faulkner, Benton, and Saline Counties, all of which experienced The I white population growth of 20% or more over the 1980s. greatest decreases were observed in the Delta counties of Phillips and Lee, each of which experienced white population 1 declines of approximately 20%. The major portion of white population growth in the State of Arkansas occurred in a northwestern quadrant delimited by drawing lines north and west from Lonoke County. Indeed, within this general area, only the counties of Pulaski, Newton, Conway, and Searcy experienced overall white population losses during the Outside of this northwestern quadrant, the counties of 1980s. Grant and Craighead also experienced fairly strong white population growth. Decreases were observed in the white populations of most counties in eastern and southern Arkansas, including those counties commonly referred to as Delta counties. Having reviewed patterns of overall growth and decline in the white population of Arkansas counties, we now turn to an examination of the specific demographic forces underlying these migration. patterns of overall change, i.e., natural increase and net \\ 1 . Data on patterns of natural increase are presented in Table IC and Map IB, while net migration data are displayed in M i i Table ID and Map IC. 2q Focussing first on patterns of natural increase, we observe that 57 of Arkansas' 75 counties (76%) experienced positive natural increase (i.e., more births than deaths) within their white populations. The overwhelming majority of these counties saw \"slight\" rates of natural increase, i.e., rates of less than \"Moderate\" rates of natural increase among whites (5.0% to 5.0%. q 9.9%) were observed in 12 of the State's more metropolitan counties. 7 '  ' '' ' --i-ij 10.0%. In no county did natural increase among whites exceed q Slight natural decreases among the white population (i.e., more deaths than births) were observed in 18 counties, the greatest The counties q being the 5.6% decrease seen in Baxter County, experiencing natural decrease were, of course, counties with \"older\" populations. q Despite the fact that 52.0% of Arkansas counties experienced growth in their white populations during the 1980s, only 41.3% the q (31 counties) experienced net inmigration of whites\nremaining 44 counties (58.7%) experienced net outmigration of whites. The counties of Faulkner, Benton, and Baxter experienced the highest rates of net white inmigration, all with 10-year inmigration rates of 19% or more. q At the other extreme were the Delta counties of Desha, Chicot, Phillips, and Lee, all of which experienced net white q outmigration of 19% or more. Indeed, all eastern or Delta  counties, with the exceptions of Lonoke, Greene, and Craighead, i experienced net outmigration of their white populations during These findings suggest that the lack of economic the 1980s. 1 q opportunities in the Delta affects whites as well as blacks, even though the economic status of whites who remain in the Delta is significantly better than that of their black counterparts. q This preliminary review suggests three distinctive \"types\" or \"patterns\" of population change among the white population of the q State of Arkansas. The first of these might be called the q \"metropolitan growth\" pattern, in which population growth is fueled both by solid rates of natural increase and strong net inmigration. The experiences of Faulkner and Benton Counties, the two fastest growing counties in the State, best exemplify this first growth pattern. The second basic pattern of white population change might be called the \"rural loss\" pattern, in which population declines occur as a result of strong forces of outmigration overwhelming lower rates of natural increase. This pattern is characteristic of most counties in eastern and southern Arkansas. A third pattern might be referred to as the \"older growth\" pattern, in which population growth is based exclusively on net inmigration offsetting the effects of negligible or even negative natural increase. this pattern of growth. Baxter and Cleburne Counties are exemplars of 3F In setting forth these three basic \"growth scenarios\", wenote that in no case does significant overall growth in the white population (i.e., growth of 5.0% or more) occur in the absence of net inmigration. Natural increase or decrease can enhance or retard overall rates of population growth for whites, but patterns of net migration appear to be the main driving force of population change among whites in the State of Arkansas. (Tables lA, IB, IC, and ID, and Maps lA, IB, and IC are presented in the following 11 pages. The discussion of county-level population change among blacks begins on Page 16\nTables and Maps for blacks begin on Page 18.) the comparable I I M 4 RI I TABLE 1A: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER) I COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS NAT INC XNATINC ESTHIG XESTHIG I I I 4 I I 4 4 4 4 4 Arkansas Ashley Baxter Benton Boone Bradley Calhoun Carroll Chicot Clark Clay Cleburne Cleveland Colimbia Conway Craighead Crawford Crittenden Cross Dallas Desha Drew Faulkner Franklin Fulton Garland Grant Greene Henipstead Hot Spring Howard Independence Izard Jackson Jefferson Johnson Lafayette Lawrence Lee Lincoln Little River Logan Lonoke Madison Marion Miller Mississippi Monroe Montgomery Nevada Newton Ouachita Perry Phillips Pike Poinsett Polk Pope Prairie Pulaski Randolph 19280 19230 27252 76644 25950 9736 4354 16067 8217 18133 20558 16826 6657 17270 16414 59884 35413 27928 15287 6533 11231 12940 42196 14319 9897 64106 12527 30573 16413 23626 10858 29304 10724 18697 53235 16970 5979 18221 6912 8547 10370 19630 30101 11277 11246 28322 42748 8240 7688 7664 7700 19441 7098 16100 9907 25052 16837 37758 8679 254697 16614 16816 17511 30964 94968 28038 8012 4357 18416 6692 16344 18031 19292 6681 16564 16139 64449 40974 28152 14343 5873 9500 12530 54644 14644 9969 66770 13491 31627 14888 23066 10504 30344 11266 16081 47878 17632 5884 17223 5449 8611 10820 20083 35395 11435 11899 29464 40689 6862 7718 6856 7582 19702 7780 12915 9621 22797 17035 44126 8170 252554 16322 -2464 -1719 3712 18324 2088 -1724 3 2349 -1525 -1789 -2527 2466 24 -706 -275 4565 5561 224 -944 -660 -1731 -410 12448 325 72 2664 964 1054 -1525 -560 -354 1040 542 -2616 -5357 662 -95 -998 -1463 64 450 453 5294 158 653 1142 -2059 -1378 30 -808 -118 261 682 -3185 -286 -2255 198 6368 -509 -2143 -292 -12.8 -8.9 13.6 23.9 8.0 -17.7 0.1 14.6 -18.6 -9.9 -12.3 14.7 0.4 -4.1 -1.7 7.6 15.7 0.8 -6.2 -10.1 -15.4 -3.2 29.5 2.3 0.7 4.2 7.7 3.4 -9.3 -2.4 -3.3 3.5 5.1 -14.0 -10.1 3.9 -1.6 -5.5 -21.2 0.7 4.3 2.3 17.6 1.4 5.8 4.0 -4.8 -16.7 0.4 -10.5 -1.5 1.3 9.6 -19.8 -2.9 -9.0 1.2 16.9 -5.9 -0.8 -1.8 2284 2387 2881 11870 3701 1009 440 2167 1019 1997 2231 1863 722 2172 2229 8400 5841 4237 2144 752 1554 1649 6710 2019 1109 7957 1670 4043 1986 2982 1606 4199 1100 2011 6631 2367 698 2483 851 944 1393 2805 4468 1672 1320 4383 7624 1023 855 835 1077 2796 1024 2226 1288 3457 2316 6098 1027 39730 2094 2166 1809 4410 8468 2920 1288 484 1964 848 1782 2636 2167 704 2007 1732 5395 3491 2296 1528 909 1103 1188 3660 1624 1245 8880 1280 3182 1824 2492 1361 2984 1493 2059 5042 2112 827 2207 713 754 1009 2370 2839 1289 1364 3037 4161 1011 989 1006 690 2394 855 1743 1140 2648 2082 3381 911 21935 1823 118 578 -1529 3402 781 -279 -44 203 171 215 -405 -304 18 165 497 3005 2350 1941 616 -157 451 461 3050 395 -136 -923 390 861 162 490 245 1215 -393 -48 1589 255 -129 276 138 190 384 435 1629 383 -44 1346 3463 12 -134 -171 387 402 169 483 148 809 234 2717 116 17795 271 0.6 3.0 -5.6 4.4 3.0 -2.9 -1.0 1.3 2.1 1.2 -2.0 -1.8 0.3 1.0 3.0 5.0 6.6 7.0 4.0 -2.4 4.0 3.6 7.2 2.8 -1.4 -1.4 3.1 2.8 1.0 2.1 2.3 4.1 -3.7 -0.3 3.0 1.5 -2.2 1.5 2.0 2.2 3.7 2.2 5.4 3.4 -0.4 4.8 8.1 0.1 -1.7 -2.2 5.0 2.1 2.4 3.0 1.5 3.2 1.4 7.2 1.3 7.0 1.6 -2582 -2297 5241 14922 1307 -1445 47 2146 -1696 -2004 -2122 2770 6 -871 -772 1560 3211 -1717 -1560 -503 -2182 -871 9398 -70 208 3587 574 193 -1687 -1050 -599 -175 935 -2568 -6946 407 34 -1274 -1601 -126 66 18 3665 -225 697 -204 -5522 -1390 164 -637 -505 -141 513 -3668 -434 -3064 -36 3651 -625 -19938 -563 -13.4 -11.9 19.2 19.5 5.0 -14.8 1.1 13.4 -20.6 -11.1 -10.3 16.5 0.1 -5.0 -4.7 2.6 9.1 -6.1 -10.2 -7.7 -19.4 -6.7 22.3 -0.5 2.1 5.6 4.6 0.6 -10.3 -4.4 -5.5 -0.6 8.7 -13.7 -13.0 2.4 0.6 -7.0 -23.2 -1.5 0.6 0.1 12.2 -2.0 6.2 -0.7 -12.9 -16.9 2.1 -8.3 -6.6 -0.7 7.2 -22.8 -4.4 -12.2 -0.2 9.7 -7.2 -7.8 -3.4 5r I I Saint Francis Saline Scott Searcy Sebastian Sevi er Sharp Stone Union Van Buren Wash i ngton White Woodruff Yell 16383 51361 9585 8808 87566 13097 14390 8961 34361 13258 97229 49012 7683 16551 14722 62215 10035 7750 88719 12081 13908 9687 32414 13845 108743 52509 6502 17172 -1661 10854 450 -1058 1153 -1016 -482 726 -1947 587 11514 3497 -1181 621 -10.1 21.1 4.7 -12.0 1.3 -7.8 -3.3 8.1 -5.7 4.4 11.8 7.1 -15.4 3.8 2273 7276 1225 975 13364 1670 1486 1115 4590 1379 15628 7122 929 2240 1725 3894 1160 994 8562 1538 1946 1029 4047 1527 8248 4987 963 1956 548 3382 65 -19 4802 132 -460 86 543 -148 7380 2135 -34 284 3.3 6.6 0.7 -0.2 5.5 1.0 -3.2 1.0 1.6 -1.1 7.6 4.4 -0.4 1.7 -2209 7472 385 -1039 -3649 -1148 -22 640 -2490 735 4134 1362 -1147 337 -13.5 14.5 4.0 -11.8 -4.2 -8.8 -0.2 7.1 -7.2 5.5 4.3 2.8 -14.9 2.0 I State Totals 1890322 1944744 54422 2.9 265698 196287 69411 3.7 -14989 -0.8 I SOURCES: DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. I I a aa 6 TABLE IB: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE CHANGE) COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS MATING XNATINC ESTHIG XESTHIG I 4 4 4 4 4 4 Faulkner Benton Saline Lonoke Pope Crawford Cleburne Carroll Baxter Washington Perry Stone Boone Grant Craighead White Marion Izard Scott Van Buren Little River Garland Mi Iler Johnson Yell Independence Greene Logan Franklin Madison Ouachita Sebastian Polk Crittenden Lincoln Fulton Montgomery Cleveland Calhoun Pulaski Newton Lafayette Conway Randolph Hot Spring Pike Drew Howard Sharp Columbia Mississippi Lawrence Union Prairie Cross Sevier Ashley Poinsett Hempstead Clark Jefferson 42196 76644 51361 30101 37758 35413 16826 16067 27252 97229 7098 8961 25950 12527 59884 49012 11246 10724 9585 13258 10370 64106 28322 16970 16551 29304 30573 19630 14319 11277 19441 87566 16837 27928 8547 9897 7688 6657 4354 254697 7700 5979 16414 16614 23626 9907 12940 10858 14390 17270 42748 18221 34361 8679 15287 13097 19230 25052 16413 18133 53235 54644 94968 62215 35395 44126 40974 19292 18416 30964 108743 7780 9687 28038 13491 64449 52509 11899 11266 10035 13845 10820 66770 29464 17632 17172 30344 31627 20083 14644 11435 19702 88719 17035 28152 8611 9969 7718 6681 4357 252554 7582 5884 16139 16322 23066 9621 12530 10504 13908 16564 40689 17223 32414 8170 14343 12081 17511 22797 14888 16344 47878 12448 18324 10854 5294 6368 5561 2466 2349 3712 11514 682 726 2088 964 4565 3497 653 542 450 587 450 2664 1142 662 621 1040 1054 453 325 158 261 1153 198 224 64 72 30 24 3 -2143 -118 -95 -275 -292 -560 -286 -410 -354 -482 -706 -2059 -998 -1947 -509 -944 -1016 -1719 -2255 -1525 -1789 -5357 29.5 23.9 21.1 17.6 16.9 15.7 14.7 14.6 13.6 11.8 9.6 8.1 8.0 7.7 7.6 7.1 5.8 5.1 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.4 2.3 2.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.1 -0.8 -1.5 -1.6 -1.7 -1.8 -2.4 -2.9 -3.2 -3.3 -3.3 -4.1 -4.8 -5.5 -5.7 -5.9 -6.2 -7.8 -8.9 -9.0 -9.3 -9.9 -10.1 6710 11870 7276 4468 6098 5841 1863 2167 2881 15628 1024 1115 3701 1670 8400 7122 1320 1100 1225 1379 1393 7957 4383 2367 2240 4199 4043 2805 2019 1672 2796 13364 2316 4237 944 1109 855 722 440 39730 1077 698 2229 2094 2982 1288 1649 1606 1486 2172 7624 2483 4590 1027 2144 1670 2387 3457 1986 1997 6631 3660 8468 3894 2839 3381 3491 2167 1964 4410 8248 855 1029 2920 1280 5395 4987 1364 1493 1160 1527 1009 8880 3037 2112 1956 2984 3182 2370 1624 1289 2394 8562 2082 2296 754 1245 989 704 484 21935 690 827 1732 1823 2492 1140 1188 1361 1946 2007 4161 2207 4047 911 1528 1538 1809 2648 1824 1782 5042 3050 3402 3382 1629 2717 2350 -304 203 -1529 7380 169 86 781 390 3005 2135 -44 -393 65 -148 384 -923 1346 255 284 1215 861 435 395 383 402 4802 234 1941 190 -136 -134 18 -44 17795 387 -129 497 271 490 148 461 245 -460 165 3463 276 543 116 616 132 578 809 162 215 1589 7.2 4.4 6.6 5.4 7.2 6.6 -1.8 1.3 -5.6 7.6 2.4 1.0 3.0 3.1 5.0 4.4 -0.4 -3.7 0.7 -1.1 3.7 -1.4 4.8 1.5 1.7 4.1 2.8 2.2 2.8 3.4 2.1 5.5 1.4 7.0 2.2 -1.4 -1.7 0.3 -1.0 7.0 5.0 -2.2 3.0 1.6 2.1 1.5 3.6 2.3 -3.2 1.0 8.1 1.5 1.6 1.3 4.0 1.0 3.0 3.2 1.0 1.2 3.0 9398 14922 7472 3665 3651 3211 2770 2146 5241 4134 513 640 1307 574 1560 1362 697 935 385 735 66 3587 -204 407 337 -175 193 18 -70 -225 -141 -3649 -36 -1717 -126 208 164 6 47 -19938 -505 34 -772 -563 -1050 -434 -871 -599 -22 -871 -5522 -1274 -2490 -625 -1560 -1148 -2297 -3064 -1687 -2004 -6946 22.3 19.5 14.5 12.2 9.7 9.1 16.5 13.4 19.2 4.3 7.2 7.1 5.0 4.6 2.6 2.8 6.2 8.7 4.0 5.5 0.6 5.6 -0.7 2.4 2.0 -0.6 0.6 0.1 -0.5 -2.0 -0.7 -4.2 -0.2 -6.1 -1.5 2.1 2.1 0.1 1.1 -7.8 -6.6 0.6 -4.7 -3.4 -4.4 -4.4 -6.7 -5.5 -0.2 -5.0 -12.9 -7.0 -7.2 -7.2 -10.2 -8.8 -11.9 -12.2 -10.3 -11.1 -13.0 7 4I  Dallas Saint Francis Nevada Searcy Clay Arkansas Jackson Woodruff Desha Monroe Bradley Chicot Philli ps Lee 6533 16383 7664 8808 20558 19280 18697 7683 11231 8240 9736 8217 16100 6912 5873 14722 6856 7750 18031 16816 16081 6502 9500 6862 8012 6692 12915 5449 -660 -1661 -808 -1058 -2527 -2464 -2616 -1181 -1731 -1378 -1724 -1525 -3185 -1463 -10.1 -10.1 -10.5 -12.0 -12.3 -12.8 -14.0 -15.4 -15.4 -16.7 -17.7 -18.6 -19.8 -21.2 752 2273 835 975 2231 2284 2011 929 1554 1023 1009 1019 2226 851 909 1725 1006 994 2636 2166 2059 963 1103 1011 1288 848 1743 713 -157 548 -171 -19 -405 118 -48 -34 451 12 -279 171 483 138 -2.4 3.3 -2.2 -0.2 -2.0 0.6 -0.3 -0.4 4.0 0.1 -2.9 2.1 3.0 2.0 -503 -2209 -637 -1039 -2122 -2582 -2568 -1147 -2182 -1390 -1445 -1696 -3668 -1601 -7.7 -13.5 -8.3 -11.8 -10.3 -13.4 -13.7 -14.9 -19.4 -16.9 -14.8 -20.6 -22.8 -23.2 State Totals 1890322 1944744 SOURCES: 54422 2.9 265698 196287 69411 3.7 -14989 -0.8 DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. I I I 1 I t  1 8  I TABLE IC: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE NATURAL INCREASE) COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS MATING XMATINC ESTMIG XESTHIG I I 4 aaa a Mississippi Washington Faulkner Pope Pulaski Crittenden Crawford Sa Ii ne Sebast i an Lonoke Newton Craighead Miller Benton White Independence Cross Desha Little River Drew Madison Saint Francis Poinsett Grant Conway Boone Ashley Phillips Jefferson Greene Franklin Perry Howard Lincoln Logan Chicot Hot Spring Ouachita Lee Yell Randolph Union Lawrence Johnson Pike Polk Prai rie Carroll Clark Sevier Hempstead Stone Columbia Scott Arkansas Cleveland Monroe Searcy Jackson Marion Woodruff 42748 97229 42196 37758 254697 27928 35413 51361 87566 30101 7700 59884 28322 76644 49012 29304 15287 11231 10370 12940 11277 16383 25052 12527 16414 25950 19230 16100 53235 30573 14319 7098 10858 8547 19630 8217 23626 19441 6912 16551 16614 34361 18221 16970 9907 16837 8679 16067 18133 13097 16413 8961 17270 9585 19280 6657 8240 8808 18697 11246 7683 40689 108743 54644 44126 252554 28152 40974 62215 88719 35395 7582 64449 29464 94968 52509 30344 14343 9500 10820 12530 11435 14722 22797 13491 16139 28038 17511 12915 47878 31627 14644 7780 10504 8611 20083 6692 23066 19702 5449 17172 16322 32414 17223 17632 9621 17035 8170 18416 16344 12081 14888 9687 16564 10035 16816 6681 6862 7750 16081 11899 6502 -2059 11514 12448 6368 -2143 224 5561 10854 1153 5294 -118 4565 1142 18324 3497 1040 -944 -1731 450 -410 158 -1661 -2255 964 -275 2088 -1719 -3185 -5357 1054 325 682 -354 64 453 -1525 -560 261 -1463 621 -292 -1947 -998 662 -286 198 -509 2349 -1789 -1016 -1525 726 -706 450 -2464 24 -1378 -1058 -2616 653 -1181 -4.8 11.8 29.5 16.9 -0.8 0.8 15.7 21.1 1.3 17.6 -1.5 7.6 4.0 23.9 7.1 3.5 -6.2 -15.4 4.3 -3.2 1.4 -10.1 -9.0 7.7 -1.7 8.0 -8.9 -19.8 -10.1 3.4 2.3 9.6 -3.3 0.7 2.3 -18.6 -2.4 1.3 -21.2 3.8 -1.8 -5.7 -5.5 3.9 -2.9 1.2 -5.9 14.6 -9.9 -7.8 -9.3 8.1 -4.1 4.7 -12.8 0.4 -16.7 -12.0 -14.0 5.8 -15.4 7624 15628 6710 6098 39730 4237 5841 7276 13364 4468 1077 8400 4383 11870 7122 4199 2144 1554 1393 1649 1672 2273 3457 1670 2229 3701 2387 2226 6631 4043 2019 1024 1606 944 2805 1019 2982 2796 851 2240 2094 4590 2483 2367 1288 2316 1027 2167 1997 1670 1986 1115 2172 1225 2284 722 1023 975 2011 1320 929 4161 8248 3660 3381 21935 2296 3491 3894 8562 2839 690 5395 3037 8468 4987 2984 1528 1103 1009 1188 1289 1725 2648 1280 1732 2920 1809 1743 5042 3182 1624 855 1361 754 2370 848 2492 2394 713 1956 1823 4047 2207 2112 1140 2082 911 1964 1782 1538 1824 1029 2007 1160 2166 704 1011 994 2059 1364 963 3463 7380 3050 2717 17795 1941 2350 3382 4802 1629 387 3005 1346 3402 2135 1215 616 451 384 461 383 548 809 390 497 781 578 483 1589 861 395 169 245 190 435 171 490 402 138 284 271 543 276 255 148 234 116 203 215 132 162 86 165 65 118 18 12 -19 -48 -44 -34 8.1 7.6 7.2 7.2 7.0 7.0 6.6 6.6 5.5 5.4 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -5522 4134 9398 3651 -19938 -1717 3211 7472 -3649 3665 -505 1560 -204 14922 1362 -175 -1560 -2182 66 -871 -225 -2209 -3064 574 -772 1307 -2297 -3668 -6946 193 -70 513 -599 -126 18 -1696 -1050 -141 -1601 337 -563 -2490 -1274 407 -434 -36 -625 2146 -2004 -1148 -1687 640 -871 385 -2582 6 -1390 -1039 -2568 697 -1147 -12.9 4.3 22.3 9.7 -7.8 -6.1 9.1 14.5 -4.2 12.2 -6.6 2.6 -0.7 19.5 2.8 -0.6 -10.2 -19.4 0.6 -6.7 -2.0 -13.5 -12.2 4.6 -4.7 5.0 -11.9 -22.8 -13.0 0.6 -0.5 7.2 -5.5 -1.5 0.1 -20.6 -4.4 -0.7 -23.2 2.0 -3.4 -7.2 -7.0 2.4 -4.4 -0.2 -7.2 13.4 -11.1 -8.8 -10.3 7.1 -5.0 4.0 -13.4 0.1 -16.9 -11.8 -13.7 6.2 -14.9 9 I Calhoun Van Buren Fulton Garland Montgomery Cletxjrne Clay Lafayette Nevada Dallas Bradley Sharp Izard Baxter 4354 13258 9897 64106 7688 16826 20558 5979 7664 6533 9736 14390 10724 27252 4357 13845 9969 66770 7718 19292 18031 5884 6856 5873 8012 13908 11266 30964 3 587 72 2664 30 2466 -2527 -95 -808 -660 -1724 -482 542 3712 0.1 4.4 0.7 4.2 0.4 14.7 -12.3 -1.6 -10.5 -10.1 -17.7 -3.3 5.1 13.6 440 1379 1109 7957 855 1863 2231 698 835 752 1009 1486 1100 2881 484 1527 1245 8880 989 2167 2636 827 1006 909 1288 1946 1493 4410 -44 -148 -136 -923 -134 -304 -405 -129 -171 -157 -279 -460 -393 -1529 -1.0 -1.1 -1.4 -1.4 -1.7 -1.8 -2.0 -2.2 -2.2 -2.4 -2.9 -3.2 -3.7 -5.6 47 735 208 3587 164 2770 -2122 34 -637 -503 -1445 -22 935 5241 1.1 5.5 2.1 5.6 2.1 16.5 -10.3 0.6 -8.3 -7.7 -14.8 -0.2 8.7 19.2 I State Totals 1890322 1944744 54422 2.9 265698 196287 69411 3.7 -14989 -0.8 SOURCES: a DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. a a a a a aa 10 TABLE ID: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE MIGRATION) COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS MATING XNATINC ESTMIG XESTMIG aaaaaaa aa Faulkner Benton Baxter Cleburne Saline Carroll Lonoke Pope Crawford Izard Perry Stone Marion Garland Van Buren Boone Grant Wash i ngton Scott White Craighead Johnson Montgomery Fulton Yell Calhoun Little River Greene Lafayette Logan Cleveland Sharp Polk Franklin Independence Miller Ouachita Lincoln Madison Randolph Sebastian Pike Hot Spring Conway Columbia Howard Crittenden Newton Drew Laurence Prairie Union Dallas Pulaski Nevada Sevier Cross Henipstead Clay Clark Searcy 42196 76644 27252 16826 51361 16067 30101 37758 35413 10724 7098 8961 11246 64106 13258 25950 12527 97229 9585 49012 59884 16970 7688 9897 16551 4354 10370 30573 5979 19630 6657 14390 16837 14319 29304 28322 19441 8547 11277 16614 87566 9907 23626 16414 17270 10858 27928 7700 12940 18221 8679 34361 6533 254697 7664 13097 15287 16413 20558 18133 8808 54644 94968 30964 19292 62215 18416 35395 44126 40974 11266 7780 9687 11899 66770 13845 28038 13491 108743 10035 52509 64449 17632 7718 9969 17172 4357 10820 31627 5884 20083 6681 13908 17035 14644 30344 29464 19702 8611 11435 16322 88719 9621 23066 16139 16564 10504 28152 7582 12530 17223 8170 32414 5873 252554 6856 12081 14343 14888 18031 16344 7750 12448 18324 3712 2466 10854 2349 5294 6368 5561 542 682 726 653 2664 587 2088 964 11514 450 3497 4565 662 30 72 621 3 450 1054 -95 453 24 -482 198 325 1040 1142 261 64 158 -292 1153 -286 -560 -275 -706 -354 224 -118 -410 -998 -509 -1947 -660 -2143 -808 -1016 -944 -1525 -2527 -1789 -1058 29.5 23.9 13.6 14.7 21.1 14.6 17.6 16.9 15.7 5.1 9.6 8.1 5.8 4.2 4.4 8.0 7.7 11.8 4.7 7.1 7.6 3.9 0.4 0.7 3.8 0.1 4.3 3.4 -1.6 2.3 0.4 -3.3 1.2 2.3 3.5 4.0 1.3 0.7 1.4 -1.8 1.3 -2.9 -2.4 -1.7 -4.1 -3.3 0.8 -1.5 -3.2 -5.5 -5.9 -5.7 -10.1 -0.8 -10.5 -7.8 -6.2 -9.3 -12.3 -9.9 -12.0 6710 11870 2881 1863 7276 2167 4468 6098 5841 1100 1024 1115 1320 7957 1379 3701 1670 15628 1225 7122 8400 2367 855 1109 2240 440 1393 4043 698 2805 722 1486 2316 2019 4199 4383 2796 944 1672 2094 13364 1288 2982 2229 2172 1606 4237 1077 1649 2483 1027 4590 752 39730 835 1670 2144 1986 2231 1997 975 3660 8468 4410 2167 3894 1964 2839 3381 3491 1493 855 1029 1364 8880 1527 2920 1280 8248 1160 4987 5395 2112 989 1245 1956 484 1009 3182 827 2370 704 1946 2082 1624 2984 3037 2394 754 1289 1823 8562 1140 2492 1732 2007 1361 2296 690 1188 2207 911 4047 909 21935 1006 1538 1528 1824 2636 1782 994 3050 3402 -1529 -304 3382 203 1629 2717 2350 -393 169 86 -44 -923 -148 781 390 7380 65 2135 3005 255 -134 -136 284 -44 384 861 -129 435 18 -460 234 395 1215 1346 402 190 383 271 4802 148 490 497 165 245 1941 387 461 276 116 543 -157 17795 -171 132 616 162 -405 215 -19 7.2 4.4 -5.6 -1.8 6.6 1.3 5.4 7.2 6.6 -3.7 2.4 1.0 -0.4 -1.4 -1.1 3.0 3.1 7.6 0.7 4.4 5.0 1.5 -1.7 -1.4 1.7 -1.0 3.7 2.8 -2.2 2.2 0.3 -3.2 1.4 2.8 4.1 4.8 2.1 2.2 3.4 1.6 5.5 1.5 2.1 3.0 1.0 2.3 7.0 5.0 3.6 1.5 1.3 1.6 -2.4 7.0 -2.2 1.0 4.0 1.0 -2.0 1.2 -0.2 9398 14922 5241 2770 7472 2146 3665 3651 3211 935 513 640 697 3587 735 1307 574 4134 385 1362 1560 407 164 208 337 47 66 193 34 18 6 -22 -36 -70 -175 -204 -141 -126 -225 -563 -3649 -434 -1050 -772 -871 -599 -1717 -505 -871 -1274 -625 -2490 -503 -19938 -637 -1148 -1560 -1687 -2122 -2004 -1039 22.3 19.5 19.2 16.5 14.5 13.4 12.2 9.7 9.1 8.7 7.2 7.1 6.2 5.6 5.5 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -1.5 -2.0 -3.4 -4.2 -4.4 -4.4 -4.7 -5.0 -5.5 -6.1 -6.6 -6.7 -7.0 -7.2 -7.2 -7.7 -7.8 -8.3 -8.8 -10.2 -10.3 -10.3 -11.1 -11.8 11 I Ia aa a Ashley Poinsett Mississippi Jefferson Arkansas Saint Francis Jackson Bradley Woodruff Monroe Desha Chicot Phillips Lee 19230 25052 42748 53235 19280 16383 18697 9736 7683 8240 11231 8217 16100 6912 17511 22797 40689 47878 16816 14722 16081 8012 6502 6862 9500 6692 12915 5449 -1719 -2255 -2059 -5357 -2464 -1661 -2616 -1724 -1181 -1378 -1731 -1525 -3185 -1463 -8.9 -9.0 -4.8 -10.1 -12.8 -10.1 -14.0 -17.7 -15.4 -16.7 -15.4 -18.6 -19.8 -21.2 2387 3457 7624 6631 2284 2273 2011 1009 929 1023 1554 1019 2226 851 1809 2648 4161 5042 2166 1725 2059 1288 963 1011 1103 848 1743 713 578 809 3463 1589 118 548 -48 -279 -34 12 451 171 483 138 3.0 3.2 8.1 3.0 0.6 3.3 -0.3 -2.9 -0.4 0.1 4.0 2.1 3.0 2.0 -2297 -3064 -5522 -6946 -2582 -2209 -2568 -1445 -1147 -1390 -2182 -1696 -3668 -1601 -11.9 -12.2 -12.9 -13.0 -13.4 -13.5 -13.7 -14.8 -14.9 -16.9 -19.4 -20.6 -22.8 -23.2 State Totals 1890322 1944744 54422 2.9 265698 196287 69411 3.7 -14989 -0.8 SOURCES: DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. 12 a A P I 4 CHANGE IN THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 hWTpN Percentage Change SEB MAOISM RANK :-S LdfsAM POLK^ HI FMfiNTC:  ! i EVIEI L RI' SEARCY aSHZRI STONE^? .............. l^^!gS!KlStVT INDEP \n, VAN a\njl corjw PEW\nji, Pl.iLASMlIt GARLfin A' ST_ hot s'-'Rt. iiihiKE A. GRANT Loss of 1 0,0% or more r . CLARK 1 L rAUAS\\ U\\WR /JACK ibs^ V POINSEn . Loss of 5.0% to 9.9% WHnE _ JEFF lOD CROSS jjCflIT-Loss of less than 5.0X RAIR MONI ARKANSAS ST FRAN LEE IILLIPS, Gain of 5.0% to 9.9X Gain of less than 5.0% ) aEVE UNC \u0026gt;\nT DESHA C'U/'Slj l\n'BPArif FREW 5\nGain of 10,0% or more t' IOLUMEJ UNION  .ASHLEY / / :hig\u0026lt; M A p I S : NATURAL INCREASE AMONG THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 'RROLL boone MARIO1 FULTON Percentage Change 1 VIASH '7P' MAOISM l^lfEWTONl SEARCY .GARO SHARI' Decrease of 10.0% or more C^QNE \u0026gt;\u0026lt;L L/l\" r-L-*'.: ilCRAWU:-\n.. TRANK j'oi^N, VAN B IN^Y^ [SCRiRAAIlGGHHEEAAOB 9 - , wwiSwaiiK' '\"Ml fj WPOPEI CCLEB ip/ SEB': LOGAN 1 co NW, TELL SCOTT PERRY. y^MffiPUlASKI Yof IK POLK/\nMONTG GARLND M^NI\n\u0026lt; lH0W WT SPRG grant JEFF PdiNSETT\n: CROSS l-CRfT.' STFRAN:- LEE-IHltLIfe iF Decrease of 5.0% to 9,9% Decrease of less than 5.0% Increase of less than 5.0% sEyi :iajtRK'- CALLAS' Increase of 5.0% to 9.9% L.RiVEBSr 4IL1\nNEV OUACI CALM SCOLUMB piivE UR(C\n'BRAD 5^ :Dl Increase of 10.0% or more \u0026lt; LINION,. ?: ASilLpr : :Hfl AI A P I c : NET MIGRATION AMONG THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 WASH rCRAWp SEB POLK' O BOONE U.iDISfl ' ^301 RAMI' SAft li SI II I OH' FULTON J? IviZARDl SHARI' NEWTON SEARCr JTw tPOPE + V'*? J 'ONM inoIp rjAiCK corw WHTTE-S: sPil E SEMEH L-RIVEI A- /\\PERfrY]ij RAULKi 1^1^ P LILAS KI k i! 'I^IR MQNI GARLND..^ HOT SPRL'l CRAHT CLARK DA! IAS JEFF ar.'E ARKANSAS UHC HFMF's.\n/ N/EV 'T DESrtA^ CLAY?  .'.. A-. iHtgreei \u0026lt;CRAI6I \u0026lt;pdiNSETr - CRO^^ CRIT^ ST LEE '.X IILU^ Percentage Migration J'P7l\n- 10.0% or more out 5.0% to 9.9% out Less than 5.0% out Less than 5.0% in 5.0% to 9.9% in reOLUUB OLIACIJ CALH BPAEl LFREW liSiC'H ASHLEY\nhici 10.0% or more in   Population Change and Its Components Among Blacks I As the State-level numbers indicate, the 1980s constituted a decade of no appreciable growth in the size of the black 12% natural increase was population of the State of Arkansas\noffset by 12% net outmigration to produce no overall change. I At the level of counties, increases in the overall size of the black population were observed in only 6 of the 35 counties for which data are available. (See Table 2B and Map 2A, and Note 1 I for a discussion of data limitations for the black population.) The remaining 29 counties (82.9% of the counties for which data are available) experienced decreases in their black populations I over the 1980s. (Note 1 also reminds us that these 35 counties I encompass 92% of the total black population of the State of Arkansas, so that these 35 counties provide fairly complete coverage of the black population.) The greatest increases in black populations occurred in Howard and Pulaski Counties, with black population growth of 17.4% and i 13.3%, respectively. Lincoln County experienced a 2.9% increase i in its black population during the 1980s, while Crittenden, Union, and Jefferson Counties experienced increases of under 1.0%. I At the other end of the continuum, 10 counties experienced overall black population declines of 10.0% or more, with the greatest decrease occurring in Monroe County, with a 22.9% drop. I a As we examine the demographic dynamics underlying these patterns of overall population change, we begin to see that the demographic experiences of whites and blacks in the State of Arkansas over the past decade are qualitatively as well as quantitatively different. I First, all 35 counties for which data are available showed natural increase (an excess of births over deaths) among their none showed natural decrease (an excess of black populations\ndeaths over births). (See Table 2C and Map 2B.) This contrasts with the experience of the white populations of Arkansas counties, of which 76.0% showed natural increase and 24.0% showed natural decrease. For the State as a whole, the total population (i.e., all races) showed a natural increase of 5.1%. For the black population, only three counties (Bradley, Hot Spring, and Calhoun) showed natural increase below that level. The highest rates of black natural increase were observed in Pulaski and Mississippi Counties, with percentage increases of 17.4% and 16.7%, respectively. However, almost as consistently as all 35 counties showed natural increase within their black populations, all but one of these 35 I counties showed net outmigration of blacks. (See Table 2D and Map 2C.) The only exception to this pattern of net outmigration 16 i V is Howard County in southwestern Arkansas, which showed 7.1% net inmigration of blacks. i V Thirty of the 35 counties for which data were available showed net black outmigration of 10.0% or more, with four of these counties (Desha, Phillips, Lonoke, and Monroe) showing net black outmigration of more than 25.0%.  When its 7.1% net black inmigration is considered together with its 10.3% black natural increase, we see how it came to pass that Howard County experienced the largest overall percentage increase in its black population (17.4%).  The experience of Howard County can be contrasted with that of Pulaski County, the county with the second largest percentage increase in its black population. In the case of Pulaski County,  the 13.3% increase in its black population is attributable to 17.4% natural increase (the highest in the State among any racial group) and 4.2% net outmigration.  This review of population change in the black populations of Arkansas counties suggests yet a fourth \"basic type\" of This pattern is 9 population change, the \"black Delta\" pattern. characterized by significant overall population decline, due to massive outmigration in the face of strong forces of natural increase. This pattern contrasts with the \"rural loss\" pattern 9 observed among whites, in which more moderate overall population declines are seen as the result of strong outmigration and weaker natural increase. 9 Even in the eastern Delta counties, where both white and black populations sustained significant losses during the 1980s, the contrast between the \"black Delta\" pattern and the more general 9 \"rural loss\" scenario is readily apparent. Indeed, the largest percentage decrease in white population occurred in Lee County, where the County's overall white population decline of 21.2% 9 9 exceeded the County's overall black population loss of 12.1%. However, when we decompose these overall decreases into natural increase and net migration components, we see that net black outmigration was nearly as large as net white outmigration (23.2% versus 21.9%) . 9 In Phillips County, the county with the second largest percentage decrease in its white population, the decomposition is even more interesting. Although Phillips County's overall percentage decrease in its white population was greater than that for blacks (19.8% versus 14.4%), decomposition analysis shows that the net outmigration rate for Phillips County blacks was greater than that of Phillips County whites (26.8% versus 22.8%). Although net migration appears to be the driving force of overall population change for blacks just as it is for whites, the strong rates of natural increase obseirved among blacks require that both factors be taken into account in any comparison of population change among whites and blacks in the State of Arkansas. 17 TABLE 2A: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)  COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG, BIRTHS DEATHS HATING ZNATINC ESTMIG XESTMIG ii  II I I  i Arkansas Ashley Bradley Calhoun Chicot Clark Cleveland Columbia Conway Crittenden Cross Dallas Desha Drew Hempstead Hot Spring Howard Jackson Jefferson Lafayette Lee Lincoln Little River Lonoke Miller Mississippi Monroe Nevada Ouach i ta Phillips Prairie Pulaski Saint Francis Union Woodruff 4805 7237 4022 1706 9414 5079 1194 9242 2974 21207 5068 3957 8444 4886 7062 3014 2486 2887 36825 4189 8520 4794 3470 4218 9136 16164 5738 3398 11002 18410 1417 81407 14190 13970 3490 4738 6616 3648 1447 8859 4913 1059 8992 2876 21401 4782 3698 7139 4754 6464 2865 2919 2759 36877 3711 7487 4935 2931 3536 8625 16006 4422 3196 10739 15753 1294 92200 13521 14061 2991 -67 -621 -374 -259 -555 -166 -135 -250 -98 194 -286 -259 -1305 -132 -598 -149 433 -128 52 -478 -1033 141 -539 -682 -511 -158 -1316 -202 -263 -2657 -123 10793 -669 91 -499 -1.4 -8.6 -9.3 -15.2 -5.9 -3.3 -11.3 -2.7 -3.3 0.9 -5.6 -6.5 -15.5 -2.7 -8.5 -4.9 17.4 -4.4 0.1 -11.4 -12.1 2.9 -15.5 -16.2 -5.6 -1.0 -22.9 -5.9 -2.4 -14.4 -8.7 13.3 -4.7 0.7 -14.3 1065 1402 703 271 2027 885 225 1750 546 5333 1254 767 1847 974 1292 513 586 611 8146 726 1894 845 519 855 1770 4307 1180 568 2307 4563 262 21253 3490 3031 713 604 805 504 222 1182 544 134 1059 347 2341 516 482 928 447 814 367 330 357 3772 496 1060 447 317 400 932 1607 738 382 1377 2293 167 7062 1502 1697 472 461 597 199 49 845 341 91 691 199 2992 738 285 919 527 478 146 256 254 4374 230 834 398 202 455 838 2700 442 186 930 2270 95 14191 1988 1334 241 9.6 8.2 4.9 2.9 9.0 6.7 7.6 7.5 6.7 14.1 14.6 7.2 10.9 10.8 6.8 4.8 10.3 8.8 11.9 5.5 9.8 8.3 5.8 10.8 9.2 16.7 7.7 5.5 8.5 12.3 6.7 17.4 14.0 9.5 6.9 -528 -1218 -573 -308 -1400 -507 -226 -941 -297 -2798 -1024 -544 -2224 -659 -1076 -295 177 -382 -4322 -708 -1867 -257 -741 -1137 -1349 -2858 -1758 -388 -1193 -4927 -218 -3398 -2657 -1243 -740 -11.0 -16.8 -14.2 -18.1 -14.9 -10.0 -18.9 -10.2 -10.0 -13.2 -20.2 -13.7 -26.3 -13.5 -15.2 -9.8 7.1 -13.2 -11.7 -16.9 -21.9 -5.4 -21.4 -27.0 -14.8 -17.7 -30.6 -11.4 -10.8 -26.8 -15.4 -4.2 -18.7 -8.9 -21.2 State Totals 373768 373912 144 0.0 84607 39615 44992 12.0 -44848 -12.0  SOURCES\nDIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. I 18 V H TABLE 2B: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE CHANGE) V COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS MATING XNATINC ESTHIG XESTHIG   aaaaaa Howard Pulaski Lincoln Cri ttenden Union Jefferson Mississippi Arkansas Ouach i ta Drew Columbia Clark Conway Jackson Saint Francis Hot Spring Milter Cross Chicot Nevada Dallas Hempstead Ashley Prairie Bradley Cleveland Lafayette Lee Woodruff Phillips Calhoun Desha Little River Lorwke Monroe 2486 81407 4794 21207 13970 36825 16164 4805 11002 4886 9242 5079 2974 2887 14190 3014 9136 5068 9414 3398 3957 7062 7237 1417 4022 1194 4189 8520 3490 18410 1706 8444 3470 4218 5738 2919 92200 4935 21401 14061 36877 16006 4738 10739 4754 8992 4913 2876 2759 13521 2865 8625 4782 8859 3196 3698 6464 6616 1294 3648 1059 3711 7487 2991 15753 1447 7139 2931 3536 4422 433 10793 141 194 91 52 -158 -67 -263 -132 -250 -166 -98 -128 -669 -149 -511 -286 -555 -202 -259 -598 -621 -123 -374 -135 -478 -1033 -499 -2657 -259 -1305 -539 -682 -1316 17.4 13.3 2.9 0.9 0.7 0.1 -1.0 -1.4 -2.4 -2.7 -2.7 -3.3 -3.3 -4.4 -4.7 -4.9 -5.6 -5.6 -5.9 -5.9 -6.5 -8.5 -8.6 -8.7 -9.3 -11.3 -11.4 -12.1 -14.3 -14.4 -15.2 -15.5 -15.5 -16.2 -22.9 586 21253 845 5333 3031 8146 4307 1065 2307 974 1750 885 546 611 3490 513 1770 1254 2027 568 767 1292 1402 262 703 225 726 1894 713 4563 271 1847 519 855 1180 330 7062 447 2341 1697 3772 1607 604 1377 447 1059 544 347 357 1502 367 932 516 1182 382 482 814 805 167 504 134 496 1060 472 2293 222 928 317 400 738 256 14191 398 2992 1334 4374 2700 461 930 527 691 341 199 254 1988 146 838 738 845 186 285 478 597 95 199 91 230 834 241 2270 49 919 202 455 442 10.3 17.4 8.3 14.1 9.5 11.9 16.7 9.6 8.5 10.8 7.5 6.7 6.7 8.8 14.0 4.8 9.2 14.6 9.0 5.5 7.2 6.8 8.2 6.7 4.9 7.6 5.5 9.8 6.9 12.3 2.9 10.9 5.8 10.8 7.7 177 -3398 -257 -2798 -1243 -4322 -2858 -528 -1193 -659 -941 -507 -297 -382 -2657 -295 -1349 -1024 -1400 -388 -544 -1076 -1218 -218 -573 -226 -708 -1867 -740 -4927 -308 -2224 -741 -1137 -1758 7.1 -4.2 -5.4 -13.2 -8.9 -11.7 -17.7 -11.0 -10.8 -13.5 -10.2 -10.0 -10.0 -13.2 -18.7 -9.8 -14.8 -20.2 -14.9 -11.4 -13.7 -15.2 -16.8 -15.4 -14.2 -18.9 -16.9 -21.9 -21.2 -26.8 -18.1 -26.3 -21.4 -27.0 -30.6 State Totals 373768 373912 144 0.0 84607 39615 44992 12.0 -44848 -12.0 a SOURCES: DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. a U.S. DEPARTHENT OF HEALTH AND HUHAN SERVICES, NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. a 19  TABLE 2C: COHPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE NATURAL INCREASE)  COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS MATING XNATINC ESTHIG XESTHIG   aa Pulaski Hississippi Cross Crittenden Saint Francis Phillips Jefferson Desha Lonoke Drew Howard Lee Arkansas Union Hi Iler Ch i cot Jackson Ouachita Lincoln Ashley Honroe Cleveland Coltrnbia Dallas Uoodruff Hempstead Clark Prairie Conway Little River Lafayette Nevada Bradley Hot Spring Calhoun 81407 16164 5068 21207 14190 18410 36825 8444 4218 4886 2486 8520 4805 13970 9136 9414 2887 11002 4794 7237 5738 1194 9242 3957 3490 7062 5079 1417 2974 3470 4189 3398 4022 3014 1706 92200 16006 4782 21401 13521 15753 36877 7139 3536 4754 2919 7487 4738 14061 8625 8859 2759 10739 4935 6616 4422 1059 8992 3698 2991 6464 4913 1294 2876 2931 3711 3196 3648 2865 1447 10793 -158 -286 194 -669 -2657 52 -1305 -682 -132 433 -1033 -67 91 -511 -555 -128 -263 141 -621 -1316 -135 -250 -259 -499 -598 -166 -123 -98 -539 -478 -202 -374 -149 -259 13.3 -1.0 -5.6 0.9 -4.7 -14.4 0.1 -15.5 -16.2 -2.7 17.4 -12.1 -1.4 0.7 -5.6 -5.9 -4.4 -2.4 2.9 -8.6 -22.9 -11.3 -2.7 -6.5 -14.3 -8.5 -3.3 -8.7 -3.3 -15.5 -11.4 -5.9 -9.3 -4.9 -15.2 21253 4307 1254 5333 3490 4563 8146 1847 855 974 586 1894 1065 3031 1770 2027 611 2307 845 1402 1180 225 1750 767 713 1292 885 262 546 519 726 568 703 513 271 7062 1607 516 2341 1502 2293 3772 928 400 447 330 1060 604 1697 932 1182 357 1377 447 805 738 134 1059 482 472 814 544 167 347 317 496 382 504 367 222 14191 2700 738 2992 1988 2270 4374 919 455 527 256 834 461 1334 838 845 254 930 398 597 442 91 691 285 241 478 341 95 199 202 230 186 199 146 49 17.4 16.7 14.6 14.1 14.0 12.3 11.9 10.9 10.8 10.8 10.3 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.5 8.3 8.2 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.2 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 5.8 5.5 5.5 4.9 4.8 2.9 -3398 -2858 -1024 -2798 -2657 -4927 -4322 -2224 -1137 -659 177 -1867 -528 -1243 -1349 -1400 -382 -1193 -257 -1218 -1758 -226 -941 -544 -740 -1076 -507 -218 -297 -741 -708 -388 -573 -295 -308 -4.2 -17.7 -20.2 -13.2 -18.7 -26.8 -11.7 -26.3 -27.0 -13.5 7.1 -21.9 -11.0 -8.9 -14.8 -14.9 -13.2 -10.8 -5.4 -16.8 -30.6 -18.9 -10.2 -13.7 -21.2 -15.2 -10.0 -15.4 -10.0 -21.4 -16.9 -11.4 -14.2 -9.8 -18.1 State Totals 373768 373912 144 0.0 84607 39615 44992 12.0 -44848 -12.0 a SOURCES: DIVISION OF DEHOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. a U.S. DEPARTHENT OF HEALTH AND HUHAN SERVICES, NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. 20 H II TABLE 2D: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE MIGRATION) H COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE %CHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS NAT INC XNATINC ESTMIG XESTMIG II II Howard Pulaski Lincoln Union Hot Spring Clark Conway Columbia Ouachita Arkansas Nevada Jefferson Crittenden Jackson Drew Dallas Bradley Milter Chicot Hempstead Prai rie Ash I ey Lafayette Mississippi Calhoun Saint Francis Cleveland Cross Woodruff Little River Lee Desha Phillips Lonoke Monroe 2486 81407 4794 13970 3014 5079 2974 9242 11002 4805 3398 36825 21207 2887 4886 3957 4022 9136 9414 7062 1417 7237 4189 16164 1706 14190 1194 5068 3490 3470 8520 8444 18410 4218 5738 2919 92200 4935 14061 2865 4913 2876 8992 10739 4738 3196 36877 21401 2759 4754 3698 3648 8625 8859 6464 1294 6616 3711 16006 1447 13521 1059 4782 2991 2931 7487 7139 15753 3536 4422 433 10793 141 91 -149 -166 -98 -250 -263 -67 -202 52 194 -128 -132 -259 -374 -511 -555 -598 -123 -621 -478 -158 -259 -669 -135 -286 -499 -539 -1033 -1305 -2657 -682 -1316 17.4 13.3 2.9 0.7 -4.9 -3.3 -3.3 -2.7 -2.4 -1.4 -5.9 0.1 0.9 -4.4 -2.7 -6.5 -9.3 -5.6 -5.9 -8.5 -8.7 -8.6 -11.4 -1.0 -15.2 -4.7 -11.3 -5.6 -14.3 -15.5 -12.1 -15.5 -14.4 -16.2 -22.9 586 21253 845 3031 513 885 546 1750 2307 1065 568 8146 5333 611 974 767 703 1770 2027 1292 262 1402 726 4307 271 3490 225 1254 713 519 1894 1847 4563 855 1180 330 7062 447 1697 367 544 347 1059 1377 604 382 3772 2341 357 447 482 504 932 1182 814 167 805 496 1607 222 1502 134 516 472 317 1060 928 2293 400 738 256 14191 398 1334 146 341 199 691 930 461 186 4374 2992 254 527 285 199 838 845 478 95 597 230 2700 49 1988 91 738 241 202 834 919 2270 455 442 10.3 17.4 8.3 9.5 4.8 6.7 6.7 7.5 8.5 9.6 5.5 11.9 14.1 8.8 10.8 7.2 4.9 9.2 9.0 6.8 6.7 8.2 5.5 16.7 2.9 14.0 7.6 14.6 6.9 5.8 9.8 10.9 12.3 10.8 7.7 177 -3398 -257 -1243 -295 -507 -297 -941 -1193 -528 -388 -4322 -2798 -382 -659 -544 -573 -1349 -1400 -1076 -218 -1218 -708 -2858 -308 -2657 -226 -1024 -740 -741 -1867 -2224 -4927 -1137 -1758 7.1 -4.2 -5.4 -8.9 -9.8 -10.0 -10.0 -10.2 -10.8 -11.0 -11.4 -11.7 -13.2 -13.2 -13.5 -13.7 -14.2 -14.8 -14.9 -15.2 -15.4 -16.8 -16.9 17.7 -18.1 -18.7 -18.9 -20.2 -21.2 -21.4 -21.9 -26.3 -26.8 -27.0 -30.6   n I State Totals 373768 373912 144 0.0 84607 39615 44992 12.0 -44848 -12.0  SOURCES: DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK.  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. 21gl g HI MA^ 2 4 CHANGE IN THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 T Percentage Change BENTON CAvRRFROLL BOONE MARIOT No data lor blacks WASH MADISN NEWTON SEARCY STONE ----- lJI________ - CRAIGHEAD INDEP MISS, CRAW RANK JOHN VAN B POPE CLEB POINSETT Loss of 10.0% or mors SEB LOGAN CO NW Jfaulk TELL SCOK PERRY POLK SEVIEI L RIVER MONTG GARLND SALINI wi- LONG PIKE ^MP .4ILLEfr h . HOT SPRG grant CLARK CALLAS' y.EFF CLE'yE NEV OUACI CALH 'BRAof COLUHB ASHLEY. CROSS WHITE DREW WACK  :CRir- Loss of 5.0% to 9.9% Loss of less than 5,0% Goin of less than 5.0% Gain of 5.0% to 9.9%  Gain of 10.0% or more V J I e: NATURAL INCREASE AMONG THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 ? BENTON CARROLL BOONE MARI 01 ElAX FULTON RAND CLAY Percentage Change WASH MADISN NEWTON SEARCY IZARD SHARP LAWR 'GREENE No data tor blacks STONE CRAW RANK JOHN VAN B SEB LOGAN YELL POPE CONW, SCOTT POLK MONTG PIKE SEVIEI L RIVER HEMP tILLERs\nCLEB TT-'-yFAULK PERRY GARLND SALINI ^r SPRG grant CLARK': . ( : .dDALI^' NEV\\ dtWci CMH 8|!6sbi Tfi INDEP fJACif :RAIGHEAD POINSETT Decrease of 10.0% or more WHITE Decrease of 5.0% to 9.9% Decrease of less than 5.0% Increase of less than 5.0% Increase of 5,0% to 9.9% fASHLEYJ Increase of 10.0% or more 7 V ifJfSil'w, iuNkwi NET MIGRATION AMONG THE BLAGK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 T Percentage Migration BEMTON \u0026gt;RROLL BOONE MARIOI WASH MAOISM T No doto lor blacks CRAW RANK NEWTON SEARCr :Tr ------L-L,I STONE V CRAIGHEAD JOHN 1 INDEP MISS, POPE VAN B CLEB / raACK POINSETT 1 0.0% or moro out 1 SEB LOGAN CO NW, lEAULK YELL WHITE 0 SCOTT PERRT , PULASKI long PRAIR POLK HOW\u0026lt;I MONTG GARLND SALINi s 1 moni SEVEI CROSS ST FRAN LEE IILLIPS. CRIT 5,0% to 9.9% out Less than 5.0% out ^7 PIKE L RIVER HEMP JILLER LAB HOT SPRG grant CLARK 'CALLAS' NEV OUACI CALH GOLUMB UNION JEFF CLEVE 'brad ARKANSASf Less than 5,0% in LING r DESHA DREW ASHLEY :hic\u0026lt; - '|r -\u0026gt;: -I KU- 5.0% to 9.9X In 10.0% or more inMn Notes II 1. The birth and death data used in this report come from two main sources. Data for the white population were compiled from  Arkansas Vital Statistics, an annual publication of the Arkansas Department of Health's Center for Health Statistics. Since this II locally produced publication has only recently begun to present data separately for blacks (as distinct from \"nonwhites\"), we were forced to turn to a different source for our birth and death data for the black population, vital Statistics of the United 11 States, an annual publication of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Center for Health Statistics. M However, the federal publication presents separate data for blacks only for counties whose nonwhite population numbered 10,000 or more or constituted 10.0% or more of the county's total population. As a result, our analysis of the black population is II restricted to those 35 Arkansas counties that met these criteria\nthose 35 counties did, however, encompass approximately 92% of the State's black population in both 1980 and 1990. II If la 25  dJ^ II Despite Differences in Overall Growth Rates, Racial Composition of the Population Remains Relatively Stable 11 Dr. Lawrence L. Santi Division of Demographic Research University of Arkansas at Little Rock II Little Rock, AR 501-569-8571 72204 II January 29, 1991 II A recent report by my colleague, Ms. Mary McGehee, examined black-white differences in rates of population growth for the State of Arkansas and its 75 counties (\"Changes in Population by Race for Arkansas: 1980-1990\", January 26, 1991). In the H present note, we will take another look at the race data from the 1990 Census. H In contrast to Ms. McGehee's report, which focussed on differential growth rates between whites and blacks, the present note concerns itself with the extent to which these patterns of differential change produced change in the racial composition of II Arkansas counties. More specifically, we will examine the black percentages of the 1990 populations of Arkansas counties and see the extent to which these patterns differ from those of 1980. (These data speak more directly to the headline of a story appearing in last Sunday's Arkansas Gazette, \"Racial mix in the Delta is shifting.\" that headline might suggest.) The present results are not as dramatic as The relevant data are presented in four tables which contain the same basic information but have the counties arrayed in different If sort orders. In Table 1, counties are sorted alpabetically by county name, while in Tables 2 and 3, counties are sorted in descending order of their black percentages for 1980 and 1990, El respectively. The data in Table 4 are sorted by the differences in the black percentage of Arkansas counties between 1980 and 1990. These data are also displayed in Maps 1, 2, and 3. II In general, these data show very little change in the racial composition of Arkansas counties from 1980 to 1990. In all, 31 II of Arkansas' 75 counties (41.3% of all counties) registered slight increases in the black percentages of their populations, 25 counties (33.3%) showed slight decreases, and the remaining 19 counties (25.3%) showed no change at all (i.e., change of less than 0.1%, up or down). More specifically, the adjective \"slight\" used above to modify the words \"increases\" and \"decreases\" means changes in black percentages of less than plus or minus 4.0%. Indeed, in only 13 counties did the black percentage increase by as much as a single percentage point, and in only 7 counties did the black percentage decrease by one point or more. The greatest increases in the black percentage of the population were observed in Chicot, Howard, Jefferson, Lee, Pulaski, andH n Arkansas Counties, all of whom experienced increases in their black percentages of 2.0% or more. II II At the other end of the continuum, the greatest decreases were seen in Lafayette, Lonoke, Calhoun, and Little River Counties, all of whom experienced decreases in their black percentages of 2.0% or more. As a summary assessment, patterns of population change in the State of Arkansas during the 1980s have done very little to alter the State's highly concentrated racial distribution. Only three II II counties in the State (Lee, Chicot, and Phillips Counties) had \"majority black\" populations in 1980, and these were the same three \"majority black\" counties in 1990. The remaining 72 counties in the State, and this includes most of those counties we commonly refer to as \"Delta counties\", have been and continue to be \"majority white\" counties. At the other extreme, 21 counties p8.0% of all Arkansas counties) had black populations which constituted less than 1.0% of their total populations in 1980, and the number of such counties increased to 23 (30.7% of all counties) by 1990. (Franklin County and Crawford Counties were the two counties that saw their black percentages slip from just over to just under the 1.0% mark.) H  M II The present note shows little change in the overall racial composition of the State and its counties during the 1980s. However, it is likely that this impression of overall stability in the racial composition of Arkansas' population masks important differences in the underlying population dynamics of the two major racial groupings in the State, and it is likely that these dynamics will vary across counties within the State. The complex n II task of sorting out the relative contributions of natural increase and net migration to the demographic experience of Arkansas during the 1980s is proceeding as the appropriate data become available. II II 2TABLE 1: THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 AND 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER) 1980 1990 COUNTY BLACK TOTAL %BLACK BLACK TOTAL %BLACK CHANGE if If If If H f  fl Arkansas Ashley Baxter Benton Boone Bradley Calhoun Carroll Chicot Clark Clay Cleburne Cleveland Columbia Conway Craighead Crawford Crittenden Cross Dallas Desha Drew Faulkner Franklin Fulton Garland Grant Greene Hempstead Hot Spring Howard Independence Izard Jackson Jefferson Johnson Lafayette Lawrence Lee Lincoln Little River Logan Lonoke Madison Marion 4805 7237 26 50 2 4022 1706 4 9414 5079 3 4 1194 9242 2974 2876 460 21207 5068 3957 8444 4886 3700 154 1 5756 420 5 7062 3014 2486 551 3 2887 36825 273 4189 84 8520 4794 3470 307 4218 0 2 24175 26538 27409 78115 26067 13803 6079 16203 17793 23326 20616 16909 7868 26644 19505 63239 36892 49499 20434 10515 19760 17910 46192 14705 9975 70531 13008 30744 23635 26819 13459 30147 10768 21646 90718 17423 10213 18447 15539 13369 13952 20144 34518 11373 11334 19.9 27.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 29.1 28.1 0.0 52.9 21.8 0.0 0.0 15.2 34.7 15.2 4.5 1.2 42.8 24.8 37.6 42.7 27.3 8.0 1.0 0.0 8.2 3.2 0.0 29.9 11.2 18.5 1.8 0.0 13.3 40.6 1.6 41.0 0.5 54.8 35.9 24.9 1.5 12.2 0.0 0.0 4738 6616 4 124 5 3648 1447 6 8859 4913 6 6 1059 8992 2876 3778 374 21401 4782 3698 7139 4754 4778 99 10 5604 377 20 6464 2865 2919 595 11 2759 36877 309 3711 88 7487 4935 2931 273 3536 3 6 21653 24319 31186 97499 28297 11793 5826 18654 15713 21437 18107 19411 7781 25691 19151 68956 42493 49939 19225 9614 16798 17369 60006 14897 10037 73397 13948 31804 21621 26115 13569 31192 11364 18944 85487 18221 9643 17457 13053 13690 13966 20557 39268 11618 12001 21.9 27.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 30.9 24.8 0.0 56.4 22.9 0.0 0.0 13.6 35.0 15.0 5.5 0.9 42.9 24.9 38.5 42.5 27.4 8.0 0.7 0.1 7.6 2.7 0.1 29.9 11.0 21.5 1.9 0.1 14.6 43.1 1.7 38.5 0.5 57.4 36.0 21.0 1.3 9.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0 1.8 -3.2 0.0 3.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 -1.6 0.3 -0.2 0.9 -0.4 0.0 0.1 0.8 -0.2 0.1 -0.0 -0.4 0.1 -0.5 -0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.3 3.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 2.5 0.1 -2.5 0.0 2.5 0.2 -3.9 -0.2 -3.2 0.0 0.0 3 aa I  aaaaaa Miller Mississippi Monroe Montgomery Nevada Newton Ouachita Perry Phillips Pike Poinsett Polk Pope Prairie Pulaski Randolph Saint Francis Saline Scott Searcy Sebastian Sevier Sharp Stone Union Van Buren Washington White Woodruff Yell 9136 16164 5738 11 3398 5 11002 133 18410 414 1868 2 836 1417 81407 155 14190 1458 2 0 4916 783 100 7 13970 51 1475 1497 3490 352 37766 59517 14052 7771 11097 7756 30541 7266 34772 10373 27032 17007 38964 10140 340597 16834 30858 53156 9685 8847 95172 14060 14607 9022 48573 13357 100494 50835 11222 17026 24.2 27.2 40.8 0.1 30.6 0.1 36.0 1.8 52.9 4.0 6.9 0.0 2.1 14.0 23.9 0.9 46.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 5.2 5.6 0.7 0.1 28.8 0.4 1.5 2.9 31.1 2.1 8625 16006 4422 8 3196 0 10739 119 15753 378 1773 0 1129 1294 92200 146 13521 1348 1 2 5666 787 66 8 14061 41 1676 1703 2991 371 38467 57525 11333 7841 10101 7666 30574 7969 28838 10086 24664 17347 45883 9518 349660 16558 28497 64183 10205 7841 99590 13637 14109 9775 46719 14008 113409 54676 9520 17759 22.4 27.8 39.0 0.1 31.6 0.0 35.1 1.5 54.6 3.7 7.2 0.0 2.5 13.6 26.4 0.9 47.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.8 0.5 0.1 30.1 0.3 1.5 3.1 31.4 2.1 -1.8 0.7 -1.8 -0.0 1.0 -0.1 -0.9 -0.3 1.7 -0.2 0.3 -0.0 0.3 -0.4 2.5 -0.0 1.5 -0.6 -0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 -0.2 0.0 1.3 -0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 State Totals 373768 2286357 16.3 373912 2350725 15.9 -0.4 a SOURCE: DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. aaa 4  TABLE 2: THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 AND 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE BLACK, 1980)  1980 1990  COUNTY BLACK TOTAL %BLACK BLACK TOTAL oBLACK CHANGE II HHHH If II Lee Phillips Chicot Saint Francis Crittenden Desha Lafayette Monroe Jefferson Dallas Ouachita Lincoln Columbia Woodruff Nevada Hempstead Bradley Union Calhoun Drew Ashley Mississippi Little River Cross Miller Pulaski Clark Arkansas Howard Conway Cleveland Prairie Jackson Lonoke Hot Spring Garland Faulkner Poinsett Sevier Sebastian Craighead Pike Grant White Saline 8520 18410 9414 14190 21207 8444 4189 5738 36825 3957 11002 4794 9242 3490 3398 7062 4022 13970 1706 4886 7237 16164 3470 5068 9136 81407 5079 4805 2486 2974 1194 1417 2887 4218 3014 5756 3700 1868 783 4916 2876 414 420 1497 1458 15539 34772 17793 30858 49499 19760 10213 14052 90718 10515 30541 13369 26644 11222 11097 23635 13803 48573 6079 17910 26538 59517 13952 20434 37766 340597 23326 24175 13459 19505 7868 10140 21646 34518 26819 70531 46192 27032 14060 95172 63239 10373 13008 50835 53156 54.8 52.9 52.9 46.0 42.8 42.7 41.0 40.8 40.6 37.6 36.0 35.9 34.7 31.1 30.6 29.9 29.1 28.8 28.1 27.3 27.3 27.2 24.9 24.8 24.2 23.9 21.8 19.9 18.5 15.2 15.2 14.0 13.3 12.2 11.2 8.2 8.0 6.9 5.6 5.2 4.5 4.0 3.2 2.9 2.7 7487 15753 8859 13521 21401 7139 3711 4422 36877 3698 10739 4935 8992 2991 3196 6464 3648 14061 1447 4754 6616 16006 2931 4782 8625 92200 4913 4738 2919 2876 1059 1294 2759 3536 2865 5604 4778 1773 787 5666 3778 378 377 1703 1348 13053 28838 15713 28497 49939 16798 9643 11333 85487 9614 30574 13690 25691 9520 10101 21621 11793 46719 5826 17369 24319 57525 13966 19225 38467 349660 21437 21653 13569 19151 7781 9518 18944 39268 26115 73397 60006 24664 13637 99590 68956 10086 13948 54676 64183 57.4 54.6 56.4 47.4 42.9 42.5 38.5 39.0 43.1 38.5 35.1 36.0 35.0 31.4 31.6 29.9 30.9 30.1 24.8 27.4 27.2 27.8 21.0 24.9 22.4 26.4 22.9 21.9 21.5 15.0 13.6 13.6 14.6 9.0 11.0 7.6 8.0 7.2 5.8 5.7 5.5 3.7 2.7 3.1 2.1 2.5 1.7 3.5 1.5 0.0 -0.2 -2.5 -1.8 2.5 0.8 -0.9 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.0 1.8 1.3 -3.2 0.1 -0.1 0.7 -3.9 0.1 -1.8 2.5 1.1 2.0 3.0 -0.2 -1.6 -0.4 1.2 -3.2 -0.3 -0.5 -0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.9 -0.2 -0.5 0.2 -0.6 5  a R aaa Pope Yell Perry Independence Johnson Logan Washington Crawford Franklin Randolph Sharp Lawrence Van Buren Montgomery Baxter Stone Newton Benton Izard Carroll Cleburne Scott Marion Greene Clay Polk Fulton Boone Searcy Madison 836 352 133 551 273 307 1475 460 154 155 100 84 51 11 26 7 5 50 3 4 4 2 2 5 3 2 1 2 0 0 38964 17026 7266 30147 17423 20144 100494 36892 14705 16834 14607 18447 13357 7771 27409 9022 7756 78115 10768 16203 16909 9685 11334 30744 20616 17007 9975 26067 8847 11373 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1129 371 119 595 309 273 1676 374 99 146 66 88 41 8 4 8 0 124 11 6 6 1 6 20 6 0 10 5 2 3 45883 17759 7969 31192 18221 20557 113409 42493 14897 16558 14109 17457 14008 7841 31186 9775 7666 97499 11364 18654 19411 10205 12001 31804 18107 17347 10037 28297 7841 11618 2.5 2.1 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 -0.3 0.1 0.1 -0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 -0.0 -0.2 0.0 -0.1 -0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 a state Totals 373768 2286357 16.3 373912 2350725 15.9 -0.4 a SOURCE: a DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. aa 6 I TABLE 3: THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 AND 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE BLACK, 1990) I 1980 1990 H COUNTY BLACK TOTAL %BLACK BLACK TOTAL %BLACK CHANGE FM nHH II II fl fl fl Lee Chicot Phillips Saint Francis Jefferson Crittenden Desha Monroe Lafayette Dallas Lincoln Ouachita Columbia Nevada Woodruff Bradley Union Hempstead Mississippi Drew Ashley Pulaski Cross Calhoun Clark Miller Arkansas Howard Little River Conway Jackson Cleveland Prairie Hot Spring Lonoke Faulkner Garland Poinsett Sevier Sebastian Craighead Pike White Grant Pope 8520 9414 18410 14190 36825 21207 8444 5738 4189 3957 4794 11002 9242 3398 3490 4022 13970 7062 16164 4886 7237 81407 5068 1706 5079 9136 4805 2486 3470 2974 2887 1194 1417 3014 4218 3700 5756 1868 783 4916 2876 414 1497 420 836 15539 17793 34772 30858 90718 49499 19760 14052 10213 10515 13369 30541 26644 11097 11222 13803 48573 23635 59517 17910 26538 340597 20434 6079 23326 37766 24175 13459 13952 19505 21646 7868 10140 26819 34518 46192 70531 27032 14060 95172 63239 10373 50835 13008 38964 54.8 52.9 52.9 46.0 40.6 42.8 42.7 40.8 41.0 37.6 35.9 36.0 34.7 30.6 31.1 29.1 28.8 29.9 27.2 27.3 27.3 23.9 24.8 28.1 21.8 24.2 19.9 18.5 24.9 15.2 13.3 15.2 14.0 11.2 12.2 8.0 8.2 6.9 5.6 5.2 4.5 4.0 2.9 3.2 2.1 7487 8859 15753 13521 36877 21401 7139 4422 3711 3698 4935 10739 8992 3196 2991 3648 14061 6464 16006 4754 6616 92200 4782 1447 4913 8625 4738 2919 2931 2876 2759 1059 1294 2865 3536 4778 5604 1773 787 5666 3778 378 1703 377 1129 13053 15713 28838 28497 85487 49939 16798 11333 9643 9614 13690 30574 25691 10101 9520 11793 46719 21621 57525 17369 24319 349660 19225 5826 21437 38467 21653 13569 13966 19151 18944 7781 9518 26115 39268 60006 73397 24664 13637 99590 68956 10086 54676 13948 45883 57.4 56.4 54.6 47.4 43.1 42.9 42.5 39.0 38.5 38.5 36.0 35.1 35.0 31.6 31.4 30.9 30.1 29.9 27.8 27.4 27.2 26.4 24.9 24.8 22.9 22.4 21.9 21.5 21.0 15.0 14.6 13.6 13.6 11.0 9.0 8.0 7.6 7.2 5.8 5.7 5.5 3.7 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.5 3.5 1.7 1.5 2.5 0.0 -0.2 -1.8 -2.5 0.8 0.2 -0.9 0.3 1.0 0.3 1.8 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.1 -0.1 2.5 0.1 -3.2 1.1 -1.8 2.0 3.0 -3.9 -0.2 1.2 -1.6 -0.4 -0.3 -3.2 -0.0 -0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.9 -0.2 0.2 -0.5 0.3 7 I g  Saline Yell Independence Johnson Perry Washington Logan Randolph Crawford Franklin Lawrence Sharp Van Buren Benton Montgomery Fulton Izard Stone Greene Marion Clay Carroll Cleburne Madison Searcy Boone Baxter Scott Polk Newton 1458 352 551 273 133 1475 307 155 460 154 84 100 51 50 11 1 3 7 5 2 3 4 4 0 0 2 26 2 2 5 53156 17026 30147 17423 7266 100494 20144 16834 36892 14705 18447 14607 13357 78115 7771 9975 10768 9022 30744 11334 20616 16203 16909 11373 8847 26067 27409 9685 17007 7756 2.7 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.5 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1348 371 595 309 119 1676 273 146 374 99 88 66 41 124 8 10 11 8 20 6 6 6 6 3 2 5 4 1 0 0 64183 17759 31192 18221 7969 113409 20557 16558 42493 14897 17457 14109 14008 97499 7841 10037 11364 9775 31804 12001 18107 18654 19411 11618 7841 28297 31186 10205 17347 7666 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 -0.3 0.0 -0.2 -0.0 -0.4 -0.4 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 -0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.0 -0.0 -0.1 II state Totals 373768 2286357 16.3 373912 2350725 15.9 -0.4 II SOURCE: M DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. fl fl fl 8 a TABLE 4: THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 AND 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON CHANGE IN PERCENTAGE BLACK, 1980-1990) 1980 1990 COUNTY BLACK TOTAL %BLACK BLACK TOTAL %BLACK CHANGE li H HH n II nnn Chicot Howard Jefferson Lee Pulaski Arkansas Bradley Phillips Saint Francis Union Jackson Clark Nevada Craighead Dallas Mississippi Sebastian Woodruff Pope Columbia Poinsett Sevier Lincoln White Johnson Drew Fulton Independence Cross Izard Benton Lawrence Greene Marion Madison Searcy Yell Clay Hempstead Crittenden Washington Boone Carroll Cleburne Stone 9414 2486 36825 8520 81407 4805 4022 18410 14190 13970 2887 5079 3398 2876 3957 16164 4916 3490 836 9242 1868 783 4794 1497 273 4886 1 551 5068 3 50 84 5 2 0 0 352 3 7062 21207 1475 2 4 4 7 17793 13459 90718 15539 340597 24175 13803 34772 30858 48573 21646 23326 11097 63239 10515 59517 95172 11222 38964 26644 27032 14 060 13369 50835 17423 17910 9975 30147 20434 10768 78115 18447 30744 11334 11373 8847 17026 20616 23635 49499 100494 26067 16203 16909 9022 52.9 18.5 40.6 54.8 23.9 19.9 29.1 52.9 46.0 28.8 13.3 21.8 30.6 4.5 37.6 27.2 5.2 31.1 2.1 34.7 6.9 5.6 35.9 2.9 1.6 27.3 0.0 1.8 24.8 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 29.9 42.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 8859 2919 36877 7487 92200 4738 3648 15753 13521 14061 2759 4913 3196 3778 3698 16006 5666 2991 1129 8992 1773 787 4935 1703 309 4754 10 595 4782 11 124 88 20 6 3 2 371 6 6464 21401 1676 5 6 6 8 15713 13569 85487 13053 349660 21653 11793 28838 28497 46719 18944 21437 10101 68956 9614 57525 99590 9520 45883 25691 24664 13637 13690 54676 18221 17369 10037 31192 19225 11364 97499 17457 31804 12001 11618 7841 17759 18107 21621 49939 113409 28297 18654 19411 9775 56.4 21.5 43.1 57.4 26.4 21.9 30.9 54.6 47.4 30.1 14.6 22.9 31.6 5.5 38.5 27.8 5.7 31.4 2.5 35.0 7.2 5.8 36.0 3.1 1.7 27.4 0.1 1.9 24.9 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 29.9 42.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 nnnH nNVH Scott Polk Randolph Montgomery Faulkner Newton Ashley Baxter Van Buren Logan Sharp Conway Desha Pike Hot Spring Perry Crawford Prairie Franklin Garland Grant Saline Ouachita Cleveland Miller Monroe Lafayette Lonoke Calhoun Little River 2 2 155 11 3700 5 7237 26 51 307 100 2974 8444 414 3014 133 460 1417 154 5756 420 1458 11002 1194 9136 5738 4189 4218 1706 3470 9685 17007 16834 7771 46192 7756 26538 27409 13357 20144 14607 19505 19760 10373 26819 7266 36892 10140 14705 70531 13008 53156 30541 7868 37766 14052 10213 34518 6079 13952 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 8.0 0.1 27.3 0.1 0.4 1.5 0.7 15.2 42.7 4.0 11.2 1.8 1.2 14.0 1.0 8.2 3.2 2.7 36.0 15.2 24.2 40.8 41.0 12.2 28.1 24.9 1 0 146 8 4778 0 6616 4 41 273 66 2876 7139 378 2865 119 374 1294 99 5604 377 1348 10739 1059 8625 4422 3711 3536 1447 2931 10205 17347 16558 7841 60006 7666 24319 31186 14008 20557 14109 19151 16798 10086 26115 7969 42493 9518 14897 73397 13948 64183 30574 7781 38467 11333 9643 39268 5826 13966 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 8.0 0.0 27.2 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.5 15.0 42.5 3.7 11.0 1.5 0.9 13.6 0.7 7.6 2.7 2.1 35.1 13.6 22.4 39.0 38.5 9.0 24.8 21.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.9 -1.6 -1.8 -1.8 -2.5 -3.2 -3.2 -3.9 II state Totals 373768 2286357 16.3 373912 2350725 15.9 -0.4 SOURCE: DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. 10 MAP 1: THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 (Source: Division of Demographic Research, UALR) 7 BENTON CARROLL BOONE MARIOI WASH MAOISN BAX FULTON IZARD CRAW WNK NEWTON SEARCY STONE INDEP\nRXGHEAD MISS, JOHN VAN B POPE CLEB T WACK POINSETT LOGAN CONW, lEAULK \u0026gt;0 SCOTT POLK HOW CROSS #crit\nXtell PERRY r I NO\nFpAIR WONTG GARLND SALII HOT SPRG G| PIKE HEMP\nCLARK .DALI .NEV. OU AC' Percentage Black Less than 1.0% 1.0% to 9.9% /SHFRAN \"\nT 10.0% to 19.9% 1 IB 20.0% to 29.9% 'E U DR  : ASHI kRKANSAS\nwoi I 30.0% to 39.9% +0.0% to 49.9% 50.0% or more MAP 2: THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1990 (Source: Division of Demographic Research, UALR) 7 Percentage Black BEMTON .CAvRRFROLL BOONE MARIOl Less than 1.0% WASH MADISN NEWTON SEARCY STQnFV\" J- 7 \"|CiRRAAJJGGHHEEAADD :. CRAW RANK JOHN J VAN B INDEP f MISS, / 1.0% to 9.9% \\ Loswy^ SCOTT POLK fhot MONTG PIKE POPE CONW, PERRT .ND SALINI R SPRG Cl '^El livS'^HEMP j|LLEH WA IK-QAtl IB XlNi CLEB IFAULK POINSETT LONO't L THim 10.0% to 19.9X 20.0% to 29.9% |S^ 30.0% to 39.9% 'E : LII  DI ASHI |de^ +0.0% to 49.9% a 50.0% or more li MAP 3: CHANGE IN THE BLACK PERCENTAGE OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980-1990 BENTON \u0026gt; 1 ,RROLL BOONE WASH I \\ MAOISM J kx\nV-? CRAW RANK JOHN SEB Sm^ LOGAN YELL SCOK POLK L RIVET? MONTG PlM-HEMP f i \" ' IPlWX rand I CLAY \\ ' -----------7GREENE/ ----------awr f jL________________________________ Percentage Difference Decrease of 1.0% or more NElVroN SEARCY STONE ,fe CLEB *5' PERRY GARLND l-flOTSPfK LAWR mo'ni CALH t. ?!5P ?* ipOPE\n*1 tla.F\u0026gt; pdiNSEn^ vY-CRIT Decrease of less than 1.0% No change S Increase of less than 1.0% Increase of 1.0% or more Division of Demographic Research University of Arkansas at Little Rock\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_353","title":"Cost per pupil","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":["1991/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Cost per pupil"],"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/353"],"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":["273 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\nPer Pupil Expenditure by School 1992-1993 Actual School Number School Name Actual 91-92 Expenditure Budget 92-93 Actual 92-93 Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Expenditure Octi 1992 Octi 1992 92-93 Actual 51 47 46 24 33 48 50 31 52 18 20 38 29 37 22 42 30 45 28 32 40 17 44 19 23 25 36 39 34 26 49 41 Wakefield Terry Mablevale Forest Park Meadowcliff Fullbrig ht Otter Creek Cloverdale Watson Brady McDermott Pulaski Heights Western Hills Geyer Springs Baseline Washington Jefferson Woodruff Chicot Dodd Romine Bale Wilson Badgett Fair Park Franklin Rockefeller Rightsell Mitchell Garland Ish Stephens $1,080,201.67 $1,201,389.07 $1,206,535.14 $981,517.03 $1,076,269.43 $1,330,115.51 $851,542.87 $934,944.01 $1,131,452.56 $1,041,098.68 $1,317,443.02 $839,547.56 $877,344.34 $707,928.80 $885,849.79 $2,162,216.22 $1,304,570.79 $649,511.89 $1,486,051.76 $849,570.99 $1,103,629.12 $1,013,230.42 $1,111,388.63 $697,035.45 $883,765.97 $1,575,718.57 $1,637,994.32 $1,162,902.06 $1,208,845.13 $1,289,211.46 $1,011,279.63 $1,163,545.97 $1,019,654.16 $1,160,444.45 $1,147,518.12 $869,050.69 $1,002,625.92 $1,324,804.26 $802,665.92 $923,339.89 $1,112,392.78 $990,898.05 $1,222,557.18 $903,190.50 $821,912.41 $719,345.29 $808,448.36 $2,223,513.84 $1,274,108.81 $639,833.62 $1,455,057.31 $809,999.85 $1,231,028.03 $1,029,374.87 $1,131,098.45 $641,908.51 $872,728.18 $1,801,195.82 $1,707,964.33 $1,284,635.19 $1,280,639.42 $1,317,830.72 $1,160,352.63 $1,274,741.49 $1,041,513.36 $1,175,147.95 $1,127,149.24 $1,009,041.26 $1,051,067.36 $1,317,057.53 $879,354.11 $919,636.35 $1,136,159.29 $1,009,510.96 $1,291,407.88 $969,181.35 $870,983.22 $755,680.79 $915,687.59 $2,242,772.97 $1,340,589.71 $669,017.57 $1,532,460.98 $872,462.96 $1,147,564.73 $1,040,097.06 $1,196,557.69 $724,769.38 $873,357.37 $1,733,066.85 $1,758,362.40 $1,238,081.45 $1,319,496.71 $1,384,930.53 $1,021,284.19 $1,255,977.41 500 541 500 444 440 530 353 366 451 398 509 379 335 282 339 822 483 234 535 304 361 321 355 202 243 411 361 249 264 256 187 209 69 44 56 45 66 42 41 80 74 69 54 52 62 63 77 59 42 63 65 60 77 77 75 76 79 86 69 96 88 91 97 97 $2,083.03 $2,172.18 $2,254.30 $2,272.62 $2,388.79 $2,485.01 $2,491.09 $2,512.67 $2,519.20 $2,536.46 $2,537.15 $2,557.21 $2,599.95 $2,679.72 $2,701.14 $2,728.43 $2,775.55 $2,859.05 $2,864.41 $2,869.94 $3,178.85 $3,240.18 $3,370.59 $3,587.97 $3,594.06 $4,216.71 $4,870.81 $4,972.21 $4,998.09 $5,409.88 $5,461.41 $6,009.46 Note: FTE is from the 1993-1994 budget and does not reflect changes due to enrollment losses Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitonng Based Upon Information Supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedPer Pupil Expenditure by School 1993-1994 Budget School Number School Name Actual 91-92 Expenditure Budget 92-93 Actual 92-93 Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget 93-94 Expenditure Oct 1 1992 Oct 1 1992 92-93 Actual FTE Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Oct 1 1993 Oct 1 1993 93-94 Budgeted 47 24 46 33 51 20 38 50 48 29 30 52 37 18 31 45 35 22 32 28 42 44 23 17 19 40 25 36 34 39 26 41 49 Terry Forest Park Uablevale Meadowcliff Wakefield McDermott Pulaski Heights Otter Creek Fullbright Western Hills Jefferson Watson Geyer Springs Brady Cloverdale Woodruff M.L. King Baseline Dodd Chicot Washington Wilson Fair Park Bale Badgett Romine Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell Garland Stephens Ish $1,201,389.07 $981,517.03 $1,206,535.14 $1,076,269.43 $1,080,201.67 $1,317,443.02 $839,547.56 $851,542.87 $1,330,115.51 $877,344.34 $1,304,570.79 $1,131,452.56 $707,928.80 $1,041,098.68 $934,944.01 $649,511.89 $1,160,444.45 $869,050.69 $1,147,518.12 $1,002,625 92 $1,019,654.16 $1,222,557.18 $903,190.50 $802,665.92 $1,324,804.26 $821,912.41 $1,274,108.81 $1,112,392.78 $719,345.29 $990,898.05 $923,339.89 $639,833.62 $885,849.79 $849,570 99 $1,486,051.76 $2,162,216.22 $1,111,388.63 $883,765.97 $1,013,230.42 $697,035.45 $1,103,629.12 $1,575,718.57 $1,637,994.32 $1,208,845.13 $1,162,902.06 $1,289,211.46 $1,163,545.97 $1,011,279.63 $808,448.36 $809,999.85 $1,455,057.31 $2,223,513 84 $1,131,098.45 $872,728.18 $1,029,374 87 $641,908.51 $1,231,028.03 $1,801,195.82 $1,707,964.33 $1,280,639.42 $1,284,635.19 $1,317,830.72 $1,274,741.49 $1,160,352.63 $1,175,147.95 $1,009,041.26 $1,127,149.24 $1,051,067.36 $1,041,513.36 $1,291,407.88 $969,181.35 $879,354.11 $1,317,057.53 $870,983.22 $1,340,589.71 $1,136,159.29 $755,680.79 $1,009,510.96 $919,636.35 $669,017.57 $25,501.31 $915,687.59 $872,462.96 $1,532,460.98 $1,196,557.69 $873,357.37 $1,040,097.06 $724,769.38 $1,147,564.73 $1,733,066.85 $1,758,362.40 $1,319,496.71 $1,238,081.45 $1,384,930.53 $1,255,977.41 $1,021,284.19 541 444 500 440 500 509 379 353 530 335 483 451 282 398 366 234 339 304 535 822 355 243 321 202 361 411 361 264 249 256 209 187 Note: FTE is from the 1993-1994 budget and does not reflect changes due to enrollment losses 44 45 56 66 69 54 52 41 42 62 42 74 63 69 80 63 77 60 65 59 75 79 77 76 77 86 69 88 96 91 97 97 $2,172.18 $1,201,978.91 $2,272.62 $1,034,064.02 $2,254.30 $1,149,041.07 $2,388.79 $1,044,336.95 $2,083.03 $1,101,790.19 $2,537.15 $1,314,256.17 $2,557.21 $1,049,040.22 $2,491,09 $911,092.87 $2,485.01 $1,392,965.59 $2,599.95 $894,632.77 $2,775.55 $1,360,887.52 $2,519.20 $1,195,073.02 $2,679.72 $784,275.30 $2,536.46 $1,090,136.40 $2,512.67 $1,091,282.28 $2,859.05 $687,642.24 0 $1,658,864.16 $2,701.14 $1,031,401.85 $2,869.94 $880,215.87 $2,864.41 $1,617,845 51 $2,728.43 $2,369,300.33 $3,370.59 $1,200,696.51 $3,594.06 $918,162.06 $3,240.18 $1,158,843.33 $3,587.97 $737,551.85 $3,178.85 $1,329,911.36 $4,216.71 $1,636,195.14 $4,870.81 $1,877,365.19 $4,998 09 $1,370,625.10 $4,972.21 $1,278,754.99 $5,409.88 $1,444,866.58 $6,009.46 $1,318,562.68 $5,461.41 $70,411.25 45 37 46 33 41 42 40 30 47 34 45 43 34 43 42 27 4 41 35 64 90 40 32 43 28 45 62 72 50 44 50 46 561 458 488 434 447 509 398 341 520 332 504 442 288 397 386 236 553 343 292 509 721 354 263 303 189 334 345 340 230 189 205 145 43 44 64 71 75 51 48 41 45 65 42 80 72 66 79 62 65 77 65 70 63 74 76 74 70 74 87 71 93 97 88 97 $2,142.56 $2,257.78 $2,354.59 $2,406.31 $2,464.86 $2,582.04 $2,635.78 $2,671.83 $2,678.78 $2,694.68 $2,700.17 $2,703.79 $2,723.18 $2,745.94 $2,827.16 $2,913.74 $2,999.75 $3,007.00 $3,014.44 $3,178.48 $3,286.13 $3,391.80 $3,491.11 $3,824.57 $3,902.39 $3,981.77 $4,742.59 $5,521.66 $5,959.24 $6,765.90 $7,048.13 $9,093.54 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Based Upon Information Supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedLRSD Junior High Budgets, Enrollments and Per Pupil Expenditure Dunbar Jr High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure Actual Expenditures 1991-1992 2,177,871.82 691 3,151.77 Actual Expenditures 1992-1993 Actual Expenditures 1993-1994 2,233,736.11 705 3,168.42 2,375,356.69 701 3,388.53 Budget 1994-1995 Dated 8/08/94 2,215,349.31 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cloverdale Jr High Enrollment | ~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,012,575.56 745 2,701.44 2,162,862.55 775 2,790.79 2,197,345.54 701 3,134.59 2,072,735.61 Forest Hts. Jr. High Enrollment | ~~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,320,122.47 765 3,032.84 2,365,925.57 787 3,006.26 2,424,252.56 788 3,076.46 2,494,614.11 Henderson Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,464,130.70 859 2,868.60 2,836,387.32 914 3,103.27 3,049,192.92 915 3,332.45 2,961,683.42 Mablevale Jr. High Enrollment | ~ Per pupil Expenditure 1,918,244.33 665 2,884.58 2,047,442.02 667 3,069.63 2,097,826.14 654 3,207.69 2,053,420.97 Pulaski Hts. Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,337,373.84 761 3,071.45 2,484,029.31 774 3,209.34 2,493,182.82 790 3,155.93 2,391,960.24 Southwest Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,124,034.56 704 3,017.09 2,299,448.03 695 3,308.56 2,150,663.98 679 3,167.40 2,068,377.82 Mann Magnet Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 3,055,026.00 872 3,503.47 2,896,401.00 849 3,411.54 3,157,632.00 851 3,710.50 3,195,685.00 Totals Avg. Per Pupil Expenditure 18,409,379.28 6062 3,036.85 19,326,231.91 6166 3,134.32 19,945,452.65 6079 3,281.04 19,453,826.48 I I I I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Enrollment based upon Oct. 1, 1992 \u0026amp; 1993 iz i - r Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDPupil/Staff Ratios Highest to Lowest Per Pupil Certified Pupil/Staff Budget Enrollment Cost Staff Ratio Elementary Schools Terry Pulaski Hts Jefferson McDermott Forest Park West Hills Wakefield Meadowcliff Geyer Springs Fulbright Cloverd Elem Wilson Brady Mablevale Elem Otter Creek Woodruff Watson Baseline Dodd ML King Bale Romine Chicot Fair Park Washington Badgett Garland Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,366,303 1,005,828 1,440,462 1,324,462 1,132,508 927,759 1,180,715 1,146,039 824,349 1,546,660 1,108,921 1,161,523 1,149,456 1,346,068 940,017 736,630 1,204,878 974,549 918,043 1,776,722 1,083,388 1,322,365 1,619,962 925,563 2,262,546 705,781 1,188,474 1,840,649 1,971,799 1,224,438 1,038,383 537 422 506 484 434 320 426 402 278 509 402 366 374 429 332 202 423 284 284 488 307 277 430 242 602 185 237 377 314 243 205 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,544 2,383 2,847 2,736 2,609 2,899 2,772 2,851 2,965 3,039 2,759 3,174 3,073 3,138 2,831 3,647 2,848 3,432 3,233 3,641 3,529 4,774 3,767 3,825 3,758 3,815 5,015 4,882 6,280 5,039 5,065 31 26 32 31 28 21 28 27 19 35 28 26 27 31 24 15 32 22 22 39 26 24 39 22 55 17 22 36 ,34 27 24 17.32 16.23 15.81 15.61 15.50 15.24 15.21 14.89 14.63 14.54 14.36 14.08 13.85 13.84 13.83 13.47 13.22 12.91 12.91 12.51 11.81 11.54 11.03 11.00 10.95 10.88 10.77 10.47 9.24 9.00 8.54 Elementary Totals 38,395,240 11321 $ 3,392 870 13.01 Junior High Schools Dunbar Forest Hts Southwest Pul Hts Henderson Clov Jr Mablevale $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,291,519 2,467,869 2,137,196 2,327,556 3,060,661 1,960,786 2,166,389 732 759 612 781 792 609 491 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,130 3,251 3,492 2,980 3,864 3,220 4,412 52 57 49 63 66 52 52 14.08 13.32 12.49 12.40 12.00 11.71 9.44 Totals $16,411,976 4776 $ 3,436 391 12.21 High Schools Central Hall Fair McClelland $ $ $ $ 5,006,526 3,238,721 3,046,831 3,372,519 1546 889 849 878 $ $ $ $ 3,238 3,643 3,589 3,841 101 71 70 79 15.31 12.52 12.13 11.11 Totals $14,664,597 4162 $ 3,523 321 12.97 Secondary Totals $31,076,573 8938 $ 3,477 712 12.55 Grand Total $69,471,813 20259 $ 3,429 1582 12.81 Prepared by Bob Morgan Unaudited Black Area School Enrollment LRSD Schools u (Q m Maiority Black Area Schoofs Wakefield Clo'rerdale Watson Wilson Badgett Faw Park Chicot M^dowctiff Baseline GeyerSpnngs Bale Mabelvale Woodruff Western Hills Dodd Brady SilsTotai 368 384 353 304 166 211 345 305 247 231 243 318 170 208 190 250 4293 Maiorrty White Ares Schoofs Forest Park Fuibngtit Jefferson McOermott Ferry Otter Creek P'jJeski Heights Sub*Tolal Total For Area Schools 205 255 210 259 239 139 189 1496 5789 4) 5 o n o u CO u (9 (aQ. o o \u0026lt;0O o \u0026amp; O Incentive Schools Frenklin'' Garland'' Mitchell'' RightselF' Rockefeller'' Sub-Total Interdistrict Schoofs Os Romine- Washington- 400 235 250 210 259 1354 A Sub-Total Magnet Schoofs Booker' Carver* Gibbs Williams 289 213 422 924 Sub-Total Special Schools Bementary Sub-Total 316 326 165 264 1071 17 9155 Magnet ** Magnet Program *Incenttve - inlerdistnct 51 64 84 72 44 53 99 93 75 71 85 139 81 106 97 124 1338 222 254 285 213 279 193 207 1653 2991 24 2 7 6 131 170 230 80 210 520 267 290 132 232 921 29 4631 10 5 7 8 0 6 3 2 5 8 19 3 3 1 7 20 112 8 9 6 15 18 7 10 73 185 7 18 0 3 16 44 12 9 24 45 21 13 10 12 56 0 330 429 453 444 384 210 270 452 400 327 310 347 460 254 315 294 394 5743 435 518 501 487 536 339 406 3222 8965 431 255 257 219 406 1568 531 302 656 1489 604 629 307 508 2048 46 14116 85.78% 84 77% 7950% 79.17% 7905% 78.15% 76.33% 76.25% 7554% 74 52% 70.03% 69.13% 86 93% 66.03% 64.63% 63.45% 74.75% 4713% 49.23% 41.92% 53.18% 44.59% 41.00% 46.55% 46 43% 6457% 92.81% 92.16% 97 28% 95.89% 63.79% , 86 35% 54.43% 70.53% 64.33% 52.06% 52.32% 51 83% 53.75% 51 97% 52.29% 36.96% 64.86% 432 492 492 394 257 351 558 465 390 328 401 515 324 328 328 467 6582 399 540 492 517 SIS 351 374 3188 9770 434 298 298 258 469 1757 728 487 836 2051 656 613 353 517 2139 15717 -63 -39 -48 -10 -47 -81 -106 -65 63 -18 -54 -55 -70 -13 -34 73 839 36 22 9 -30 21 -12 32 -64 -903 -3 -43 -41 39 -63 -189 -197 -185 -180 -562 -52 16 -46 -9 107 1761 Distribution Of Black Children By Type of School - Bem \u0026gt; Total 9138 Magnet Schools- 1071 12% Interdlstnct Schools-924 10% Incentive Schools^ 1354 15% Area SchooJs-S789 63% 87% 92% 90% 97% 82% 77% 81% 86% 84% 95% 87% 89% 78% 96% 90% 84% 87% 109% 96% 102% 94% 104% 97% 109% 101% 92% 99% 86% 86% 85% 87% 89% 73% 62% 78% 73% 92% 103% 87% 98% 96% Prepared by Bob Morgan Unaudited Area Schools to Show a Relationship Between Per Pupil Cost, Capacity and Pupil/Staff Ratio January Percent Per Pupil Certified Pupil/Staff Budget Enrollment Capacity of Capacity Cost Staff Ratio ' Area Schools 23 Fair Park 19 Badgett 28 Chicot 45 Woodruff 17 Bale 22 Baseline 32 Dodd 44 Wilson 46 Mablevale Elem 18 Brady 48 Fulbright 37 Geyer Springs 29 West Hills 33 Meadowcliff 52 Watson 30 Jefferson 50 Otter Creek 51 Wakefield 31 Cloverd Elem 20 McDermott 24 Forest Park 47 Terry 38 Pulaski Hts $ $ 925,563 705,781 $ 1,619,962 $ 736,630 $ 1,083,388 $ $ 974,549 918,043 $ 1,161,523 S 1,346,068 $ 1,149,456 S 1,546,660 $ $ 824,349 927,759 $ 1,146,039 $ 1,204,878 $ 1,440,462 $ 940,017 $ 1,180,715 $ 1,108,921 $ 1,324,462 $ 1,132,508 $ 1,366,303 $ 1,005,828 242 185 430 202 307 284 284 366 429 374 509 278 320 402 423 506 332 426 402 484 434 537 422 351 257 558 324 401 390 328 394 515 467 540 328 328 465 492 492 351 492 492 517 399 515 374 69% $ 72% $ 77% $ 62% $ 77% $ 73% $ 87% $ 93% $ 83% $ 80% $ 94% $ 85% $ 98% $ 86% S 86% $ 103% S 95% S 87% $ 82% $ 94% $ 109% $ 104% $ 113% $ 3,825 3,815 3,767 3,647 3,529 3,432 3,233 3,174 3,138 3,073 3,039 2,965 2,899 2,851 2,848 2,847 2,831 2,772 2,759 2,736 2,609 2,544 2,383 22 17 39 15 26 22 22 26 31 27 35 19 21 27 32 32 24 28 28 31 28 31 26 11.00 10.88 11.03 13.47 11.81 12.91 12.91 14.08 13.84 13.85 14.54 14.63 15.24 14.89 13.22 15.81 13.83 15.21 14.36 15.61 15.50 17.32 16.23 Totals Non Area Schools 36 Rockefeller 39 Rightsell 34 Mitchell 26 Garland 25 Franklin 40 Romine 42 Washington 35 ML King $ 25,769,864 8578 9770 88% S 3,004 609 14.09 Totals Grand Totals $ 1,971,799 $ 1,038,383 $ 1,224,438 S 1,188,474 $ 1,840,649 $ 1,322,365 $ 2,262,546 $ 1,776,722 $ 12,625,376 38,395,240 Effect of Adding 46 Students to Baseline 22 Baseline - Before Baseline - After $ $ 974,549 974,549 Effect of Closing Two Schools Totals - Before Fair Park Badgett Totals - After $ 25,769,864 $ $ 925,563 705,781 $ 24,138,520 314 205 243 237 377 277 602 488 469 258 298 298 434 487 836 728 67% $ 79% $ 82% $ 80% $ 87% $ 57% $ 72% $ 67% $ 6,280 5,065 5,039 5,015 4,882 4,774 3,758 3,641 34 24 27 22 36 24 55 39 9.24 8.54 9.00 10.77 10.47 11.54 10.95 12.51 2743 3808 72% $ 4,603 261 10.51 11321 13578 83% $ 3,392 870 13.01 Effect of Increasing Staff By One @$40,000 Wakefield - Before Wakefield - After $ 1,180,715 $ 1,220,715 284 330 390 390 73% $ 85% $ 3,432 2,953 22 22 12.91 15.00 8578 8578 9770 351 257 9162 88% $ \\6//$ ^72/$ 94% $ 3,004 3,825 3,815 2,814 609 22 17 570 14.09 11.00 10.88 15.05 426 426 492 87% $ $ 2,772 2,866 28 29 15.21 14.69 Prepared by Bob Morgan UnauditedArea School Per Student Costs Area School Per Student Costs School BADGETT ________ BALE ______ _____ B^aiNE________________ BRADY CENTRAL CHICOT_____________________ CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY CLOVERDALE JR HIGH________ DODD_____________________ DUNBAR____________________ FAIR FAIR PARK . FOREST HEIGHTS . . _ FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT_________________ GEYER SPRINGS______________ HALL________________________ HENDERSON_________________ JEFFERSON__________________ MABELVALE ELEMENTARY______ MABEL VALE JR HIGH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH MCDERMOTT________________ MEADOWCLIFF______________ OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS INT__________ PULASKI HEIGH.TSJR_HIGH Benefits Capital Outlay SOUTHWEST TERRY WAKEFIELD WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILSON WOODRUFF .5 o A T $331.53 _ $0.90__ Materials Supplies Other Objects ___ $330.82 ___ $311.49 $302.14 $307.58 $386.99 $259.14 $313.39 $340.81 $300.01 $343.41 ____ $33118^ ____$317,94 $268.34 ___ $311.84 $285.96 $342.83 $375.60 $282.11 $315.97 $434.35 ___ $362.48. $275.29 $292.36 $282.38 $248.69 J298W $363.36 $266.11 $285.29 J270.77 $292.22 $309.04 $328.51 $1.60 $0.00 $0.00 $6.16 $1.11 $0.00 $1.69 $3.49 116.15 $7.55 $0.00 142.52.1 $43.97 ____$3.38_____ $3.92 J$3.03 $3.85 $5.19 $56.31 $0.99 $1.51 $5.94 J2B.29___ $2.07 $1.24 $2.32 $0.71 $6.45 $5.11 $4.10 $0.87 $0.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $51.85 137.33 $57.90 $42.63 $38.63 $52.90 $35.39 $32.73 $51.53 J32.68 $47.40 __ $51.68 $45.66 $34.58 $56.26 $51.31 $53.85 $32.00 .... 170,14 $51.95 $50.80 $56.22 $49.37 $30.95 $32.76 $50.26 $48.08 $47.58 $52.37 $46.35 $54.74 $0.00 $038 $0.00 J0.89 $0.00 ! $0.07 ! J Purchased Servic^ JISO CXY . $2.71 $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $0.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.22 $0.00 JO.26 $0.00 $0.14 $0.00 $0.00 $118.47 $192.37 $112.82 $140.96 $82.95 $89.65 $173.53 $135.74 $162.79 $177.24 -_$l?P.7? . $157.2k $102.19 $119.55 $131.09 $190.40 $171.91 $107.72 _1141.98 $131.98 $215.26^., $128.82 $90.80 $159.34 $122.33 $100.07 $167.12 $89.66 $88.97 $130.61 $131.56 $129.62 $165.72 Salaries $2,668.63 __ $2,613.12 $2,464.07_ $2,464.58 J2,672.65 $3,Q62.99_ $2,051.08 $2,580.18 ___ $2,699.61 $2,583.80 $2,977.79 ___ 12,767,88. _ $2,697.98 $2,187.63 __ $2,552.53 $2,174,63 ___ $3,001.20 $3,238.85 $2,410.27 $2,504.78 $3,685.61 . $3,079,21 $2,278.37 $2,415.64 $2,331.12 $1,962.38 $2,567.56 $3,072.53 $2,134.19 $2,348.42 $2,186.51 ___ $2,423.10 $2,539.79 $2,572.34 tA^-^ Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS ALL HIGH SCHOOLS 5,068.00 \" IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL RECEIVER DEC 1 , 1995 CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET 1 1 $ 11,352,320.00 17,845,851.00 29,198,171.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,521.28 5,761.28 100% Office Of Desegregation hionitoring INSTRUCTION____________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL ___________ $ $ $ 737,901.00 12,071,325.00 12,809,226.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,381.87 2,527.47 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL ____________ $ $ $ 1,044,413.00 2,012,601.00 3,057,014.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 397.12 603.20 10% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL _______________ 1 1 $ 5,551,285.00 2,102,065.00 7,653,350.00 73% 27% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 414.77 1,510.13 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL 1 $ $ 2,769,966.00 2,769,966.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 9% J. LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL _________________ 1 $ $ 1,248,755.00 1,659,860.00 2,908,615.00 43% 57% 100% $ $ $ 246.40 327.52 573.92 10% Page 1 Ba ESheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET INSTRUCTION___________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 837.00 IN DOLLARS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL 1,874,880.00 3,404,231.00 5,279,111.00 121,867.00 2,366,077.00 2,487,944.00 172,489.00 332,984.00 505,473.00 916,816.00 460,107.00 1,376,923.00 457,471.00 457,471.00 206,237.00 245,063.00 451,300.00 36% 64% 100% 5% 95% 100% 34% 66% 100% 67% 33% 100% 100% 0% 100% 46% 54% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,240.00 4,067.18 6,307.18 145.60 2,826.85 2,972.45 206.08 397.83 603.91 1,095.36 549.71 1,645.07 546.56 546.56 246.40 292.79 539.19 100% 47% 10% 26% 9% 9%Sheetl MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL#OF STUDENTS 884.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,980,160.00 3,348,363.00 5,328,523.00 37% 63% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,787.74 6,027.74 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 128,710.00 2,129,169.00 2,257,879.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,408.56 2,554.16 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 182,175.00 503,058.00 685,233.00 27% 73% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 569.07 775.15 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 968,298.00 413,802.00 1,382,100.00 483,159.00 483,159.00 217,818.00 302,334.00 520,152.00 70% 30% 100% 100% 0% 100% 42% 58% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 468.10 1,563.46 546.56 546.56 246.40 342.01 588.41 26% 9% 10%Sheetl HALL HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 911.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 2,040,640.00 3,193,915.00 5,234,555.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,505.94 5,745.94 100% INSTRUCTION___________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 132,642.00 2,160,160.00 2,292,802.00 .6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,371.20 2,516.80 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 187,739.00 308,865.00 496,604.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 339.04 545.12 9% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 997,873.00 377,932.00 1,375,805.00 73% 27% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 414.85 1,510.21 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 497,916.00 497,916.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 10% LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL $ $ $ 244,470.00 346,958.00 591,428.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 268.35 380.85 649.21 11% Page 1Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS FAIR HIGH SCHOOL 890.00 ' IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,993,600.00 3,001,845.00 4,995,445.00 40% 60% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,372.86 5,612.86 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 129,584.00 1,986,456.00 2,116,040.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,231.97 2,377.57 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 183,411.00 348,495.00 531,906.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 391.57 597.65 11% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 974,870.00 310,114.00 1,284,984.00 76% 24% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 348.44 1,443.80 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 486,438.00 486,438.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 10% LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL $ $ $ 219,296.00 356,780.00 576,076.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 246.40 400.88 647.28 12% Page 1Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 1,546.00 IN DOLLARS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL 3,463,040.00 4,897,497.00 8,360,537.00 225,098.00 3,429,463.00 3,654,561.00 311,674.00 519,199.00 830,873.00 1,693,427.00 540,110.00 2,233,537.00 844,982.00 844,982.00 380,934.00 408,725.00 789,659.00 41% 59% 100% 6% 94% 100% 38% 62% 100% 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 48% 52% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,167.85 5,407.85 145.60 2,218.28 2,363.88 201.60 335.83 537.43 1,095.36 349.36 1,444.72 546.56 546.56 246.40 264.38 510.78 100% 44% 10% 27% 10% 9%Sheetl ALL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 5,623 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET 12,595,520 19,446,132 32,041,652 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,458.32 5,698.32 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL _______________ INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL ZZZZZZZZZZZ OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS______________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET ~ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET ~ TOTAL ______________________ 818,708 13,033,196 13,851,904 1,158,888 2,612,328 3,771,216 6,159,560 2,063,725 8,223,285 3,072,942 3,072,942 1,385,508 1,756,883 3,142,391 6% 94% 100% 31% 69% 100% 75% 25% 100% 100% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 145.60 2,317.84 2,463.44 206.10 464.58 670.68 1,095.42 367.01 1,462.44 546.50 546.50 246.40 312.45 558.85 43% 12% 26% 10% 10%Sheetl MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 491.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,099,840.00 2,166,387.00 3,266,227.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 4,412.19 6,652.19 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 71,490.00 1,449,519.00 1,521,009.00 5% 95% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,952.18 3,097.78 47% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 101,185.00 317,267.00 418,452.00 24% 76% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 646.16 852.24 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 537,822.00 170,629.00 708,451.00 268,361.00 268,361.00 120,982.00 228,972.00 349,954.00 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 35% 65% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ A 1,095.36 347.51 1,442.87 546.56 546.56 246.40 466.34 712.74 22% 8% 11%Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 792.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,774,080.00 3,060,661.00 4,834,741.00 37% 63% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,864.47 6,104.47 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 115,315.00 2,191,564.00 2,306,879.00 5% 95% 100% 1 1 $ 145.60 2,767.13 2,912.73 48% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 163,315.00 273,988.00 437,303.00 37% 63% 100% 1 $ 206.21 345.94 552.15 9% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 867,525.00 344,752.00 1,212,277.00 432,511.00 437,876.00 195,149.00 250,357.00 445,506.00 72% 28% 100% 99% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1 $ $ 1,095.36 435.29 1,530.65 546.10 552.87 246.40 316.11 562.51 25% 9% 9%Sheetl MANN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 847.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,897,280.00 3,054,156.00 4,951,436.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,605.85 5,845.85 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 123,323.00 2,122,129.00 2,245,452.00 5% 95% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,505.47 2,651.06 45% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 174,550.00 404,376.00 578,926.00 30% 70% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 477.42 683.50 12% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 927,770.00 292,498.00 1,220,268.00 462,936.00 462,936.00 208,701.00 235,153.00 443,854.00 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 47% 53% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 345.33 1,440.69 546.56 546.56 246.40 277.63 524.03 25% 9% 9%Sheetl SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 612.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,370,880.00 2,137,196.00 3,508,076.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,492.15 5,732.15 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 89,107.00 1,442,640.00 1,531,747.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,357.25 2,502.85 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 126,121.00 258,188.00 384,309.00 33% 67% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 421.88 627.96 11% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 670,360.00 230,628.00 900,988.00 334,495.00 334,495.00 150,797.00 205,740.00 356,537.00 74% 26% 100% 100% 0% 100% 42% 58% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 376.84 1,472.20 546.56 546.56 246.40 336.18 582.58 26% 10% 10%Sheetl FOREST HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 759.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,700,160.00 2,467,868.00 4,168,028.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,251.47 5,491.47 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 110,510.00 1,620,096.00 1,730,606.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,134.51 2,280.11 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 156,415.00 346,791.00 503,206.00 31% 69% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 456.91 662.99 12% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 831,378.00 278,393.00 1,109,771.00 414,839.00 414,839.00 187,018.00 222,588.00 409,606.00 75% 25% 100% 100% 0% 100% 46% 54% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 366.79 1,462.15 546.56 546.56 246.40 293.26 539.67 27% 10% 10%Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 609.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET 1 $ $ 1,364,160.00 1,960,787.00 3,324,947.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,219.68 5,459.68 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 1 $ 88,670.00 1,193,161.00 1,281,831.00 7% 93% 100% 1 S $ 145.60 1,959.21 2,104.81 39% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL ~ 1 A $ 125,503.00 311,767.00 437,270.00 29% 71% 100% 1 $ 206.08 511.93 718.01 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 667,074.00 267,894.00 934,968.00 332,855.00 332,855.00 150,058.00 187,965.00 338,023.00 71% 29% 100% 100% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ $ 1,095.36 439.89 1,535.25 546.56 546.56 246.40 308.65 555.05 28% 10% 10%Sheetl PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 781.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,749,440.00 2,327,557.00 4,076,997.00 43% 57% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 2,980.23 5,220.23 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 113,714.00 1,555,741.00 1,669,455.00 7% 93% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 1,991.99 2,137.59 41% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 160,948.00 361,519.00 522,467.00 31% 69% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 462.89 668.97 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 855,476.00 199,892.00 1,055,368.00 426,863.00 426,863.00 192,438.00 210,405.00 402,843.00 81% 19% 100% 100% 0% 100% 48% 52% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 255.94 1,351.30 546.56 546.56 246.40 269.40 515.80 26% 10% 10%i Sa^.u^ Incentive Schools Cost per Student $600 Cost per Student $500 $400 VI ro o Q $300 $200 $100 $0  Jb 'hy- Incentive Schools 11 IIBs w Ave rag ^Rockefeller Costs for 1993-1995 IFranklin Rightsei Garland Ish IIMitchel Stephens SCHOOL STEPHENS GARLAND RIGHTSELL MITCHELL ROCKEFELLER FRANKLIN ROMINE WASHINGTON KING GIBBS WILLIAMS BOOKER CARVER STEPHENS GARLAND NEW STEPHENS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACT SHEET STEPHENS /GARLAND JUNE 7,1994 BUDGET 1993/94 1,273,272.88 1,408,766.58 1,238,154.99 1,311,925.10 1,764,565.19 1,567,895.14 1,267,911.36 2,278,100.33 1,588,019.16 1,390,795.00 1,800,998.00 2,254,707.00 2,048,463.00 94/95 (1,316,770.51) 95/96 (1,316,770.51) ENROLLMENT 1993/94 145 205 189 230 340 345 334 721 553 299 472 595 595 PER PUPIL 8,781.19 6,872.03 6,551.08 5,704.02 5,189.90 4,544.62 3,796.14 3,159.64 2,871.64 4,651.49 3,815.67 3,789.42 3,442.79 INTEREST/CONST FUNDS PARKIN/RENT/UTILIT GARLAND TO IRC 231,559.00 96/97 (1,316,770.51) (1,350,530.66) 2,100,000.00 231,559.00 (107,872.00) 75,000.00 TOTAL (3,950,311.53) (1,350,530.66) 2,100,000.00 463,118.00 (107,872.00) 75,000.00 TOTAL SAVINGS (1,316,770.51) (1,085,211.51) (368,614.17) (2,770,596.19) CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FUNDS AVAILABLE INCLUDING INTEREST SECOND LIEN BONDS 3,701,624.01 2,615,300.00 7 TOTAL PROJECTED COST TO CONSTRUCT 6,316,924.01 C/W I F\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_407","title":"Discipline, newspaper clippings","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":["1991/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School discipline","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School management and organization","Newspapers"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, newspaper clippings"],"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/407"],"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":["newspaper clippings"],"dcterms_extent":["23 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1991 ARKANSAS democrat w vvcuiNtzouMY, JULY 17, 1991  9A * LRSD stats show penalties against students rose 20% 0 BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat Start Water The number of serious disciplinary sanctions in the Little Rock School District rose 20 percent to 4,022 in the 1990- 91 school year, according to a 61-page report released Tues- day afternoon. Suspensions, ranging in length from 3 days upward. and expulsions were levied against 2,671 students, which is almost 11 percent of the districts enrollment. A total of 1,351 students were suspended more than once during the year. Superintendent Ruth Steele said the increases in suspensions and expulsions are partly the result of more stringent supervision at two of eight junior high schools. Efforts to reduce disciplinary problems will include an expansion of in-school suspension programs and alternative classrooms for misbehaving students, she said. District officials also are studying the relationships between absenteeism, academic achievement and suspensions as a way to help students before they be- come serious disciplinary problems. According to the report, firearm possession brought 13 sanctions in both 1989-90 and 1990-91. The number of sanctions levied for use of a weapon increased from six to eight. Assaults increased by 34 percent, from 65 to 87\nthe number sanctions for theft increased by 98 percent, from 36 to 71, and the number of sanctions for indecent exposure rose 70 percent, from 19 to 32. Disciplinary^ actions for possession of weapons, separate from the firearms possession statistics, rose 20 percent, from 49 to 59\nand sanctions levied for assault on staff members increased by 112 percent, from 12 to 26. A total of 3,340 sanctions, or 83 percent, of the 4,022 disciplinary actions were levied against black students, who made up 64.5 percent of the enrollment.ARKANSAS S LAtiGEST LOCAL NEWS SECTION Metro/State   Wednesday, July 17,1991 ytotenoe rises at LR schools Gazette staff  .... . BStort-term^suspensions were vious years, although a couple of up Oy bO7 to 3,7/1. ^tegories - verbal assaults on Ruth Steele, district superinten- inciting to riot  dedent, acknowledged that a dispro- portionate number of the suspen- number of firearms possessions fell on black males and said remained the same at 13, but  f- vu offireannswentupfromsixto principals and teachers in an effort 8ht. Possession of all weapons to bring that number down. from 49 to 59\nsuspensions for gang membership rose from seven Suspensions over all increased Physical assaults on staff mem- fror^o \" activity students were involved in 2 429 or more than doubled and the number 60.4 percent, of the cases  of cases of weapons po_ssession in- The renort indicat^rf that- creased by 10 in the Little Rock Schoo! District for 1990-91. The figures were released Tuesday in a report comparing the number of suspensions and offenses for school years 1989-90 and The report indicated that:  In 71 incidents expulsions suited, compared to 68 the suspen\u0026lt; The number of firearms Schools Continued from Page 1B sions increased from: OUS year.  Long-term suspensions of 11 days to a semester were up by 62 to 180. previ- will continue to assist Almost all offenses resulting in suspension increased from the districts 25,083 enrollment. I Five students were suspended I eight times, she said. Another 20 I students were suspended seven I times, 40 were suspended six times, | 60 were suspended five times, 120 I pre- to 15 and assaults on staff increased from 12 to 26, a record.  907 to 1,056 for fighting.  1,070 to 1,142 for failure to were suspended four times, 322 follow rules.  32 to 76 for refusing to serve detention. were suspended three times and 784 were suspended twice. Steele said the report would be  314 to 405 for abusive Ian- distributed to principals, teachers guage. and members of the districts  57 to 103 for repeated tardi- safety committee for further security measures. ness.  65 to 87 for assault.  36 to 71 for theft.  21 to 38 for vandalism. Besides alternative classes, the district operates in-school suspension programs in the junior high H 19 to 32 for indecent exposure schools, except for Mann Magnet or sexual contact. School, Steele said. Other mea-  162 to 199 for disorderly con- sures short of suspension, she said, duct. include detention hall and loss of  5 to 18 for forgery.  11 to 31 for possession of pag- privileges. Steele said fights at Central High ing devices. School decreased significantly this Steele noted that although sus- past school year and she credited pensions totaled 4,022, the number Johti Hickman, principal, with of students who were suspended providing tough but caring leader- was 2,671, or about 10.6 of the ship. SECTION B Steele said the increases point to the need for more alternative classrooms. The school board has approved additional alternative classes for three elementary schools and Dunbar Junior High School. In the past school year, 60 seats were available for junior high alternative classes at Carver. According to the report. See SCH00LS/8B suspen- i|. Arkansas .Gazette., /.^ursfiayr. , 1991 Assaults in Little Rock School District Physical Verbal assaults assaults \u0026gt; on staff on staff . 1990-91 1989-90 1988-89 '20* ' 12 12 1987:88, 16 1986-87, 1985-86 -95, 3 ,'?45* \" . 74 40 . 29 - 14 51 5 i s * Through Mardr TT ' ___^.^.^Gazetta SiWednesday, May 29, 1991...Arkansas Gazette 13 assaults on staff noted in LR schools, up from 7 i jBY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat Staff Writer Assaults on Little Rock School District teachers and staff in the first semester of 1990 nearly doubled over the\nsame period a year earlier, fig- i ures show. Statistics show 13 reported I cases of physical assault on ' teachers and staff in the first semester of 1990-91, compared\nwith seven cases in 1989-90 - i an 86 percent increase. I think that is a hard-core statistic that should be dealt with. said Sam Stueart. chairman of the district's Safety and i Security Task Force.  I think that is a hard-core \u0026gt; statistic that should be dealt with. I ) The figures were presented to the Little Rock School * Board at Thursday's meeting. j The statistics, which com- I pare first-semester offenses by students, show increases in six other categories:  t'lghting, from 429 cases in 1989 to 499 in 1990 - a 16 percent increase.  Student assaults. 35 to 46 - 31 percent.  Theft. 19 to 23 - 21 percent.  Indecent exposure, nine to 12 - 33 percent.  Possession of paging devices - one to 13. 1.200 percent. I'd be more tolerant if the LRSD offenses Offense 1989-90 1990-91  Percent First semester First semester increase Teacher assaults Fighting Student assaults i Theft Indecent exposure Carrying paging devices 7 13 86% J 429 499 : 16% 35 46 31% 19 23 21% i 9 1 district didnt have the resources to do the job,\" said Skip Rutherford, a school board member. This community passed a significant millage. yet many elements of the security task force have been rejected or ignored. Parents deserve -and expect safe schools.\" The security task force's report to the school board Thursday showed that 38 of its 102 recommendations had been carried out. Stueart. who headed the 58- member task' force, said a number of those recommendations could be easily carried out, such as keeping all school entrances except front doors locked from the outside. Why must every door be unlocked? Stueart wondered. Every vagrant can walk in any door. All we need to do is exercise a little common sense. Dr. Ruth Steele, the dis12 13 33% 1200% trict's superintendent, said officials will review security options for the 1991-92 school year. Td be more tolerant if the district didnt have the resources to do the job. This community passed a significant millage, yet many elements of the security task force have been rejected or ignored. Parents deserve and expect safe schools.  Steele said she isn't playing down the increase in offenses. But she said the higher numbers in some of the offenses can be attributed to a more rigid enforcement of the discipline code\" and an increase in security, particularly at the secondary level, resulting in more reported cases of offenses. '} I  ! I? (I 4 w\nI s d P y t i ?I I Pulaski Arkansas Democrat-Gazette SATURDAY, MARCH 14, 1992 i I I  J Search of LRSD schools yields 4 bullets, brass knuckles BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Four .32-caliber bullets and a pair of brass knuckles were among items discovered after a mandatory three-day search of all junior high and senior high students, a Little Rock School District spokesman said Friday. The spokesman said officials searched the area where the bullets were found, but no gun was found. No information was available Friday to identify the school where the bullets were found. The brass knuckles were found at Central High after a student search Thursday, Bill Barnhouse, the districts director of safety and security, said Friday. Superintendent Ruth Steele ordered officials at the eight junior high schools, five high schools and Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Center to search all students at least once for weapons Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. Steele said Tuesday she planned to review the reports and decide what instructions to give principals regarding security for the remainder of the school year. No decisions had been revealed Friday, the spokesman said. Steele called for the mandatory searches after campus supervisors found a weapon near Central High on Tuesday afternoon - the first reported discovery of a weapon since the district began random student searches with hand-held metal detectors Feb. 11. A Little Rock Police Department report said a student held a .380-caliber handgun on another Central student on the schools 14th Street sidewalk Tuesday afternoon. It is not known if the student ever had the gun inside the school. According to interviews Wednesday, Central campus supervisors Benny Johnson and Floyd Smith, Principal John Hickman and Assistant Principal Michael Peterson searched the area along with police. Johnson found the gun under a house at 13th and Dennison streets, less than two blocks from Centrals campus, according to interviews. Police said the handgun had been reported stolen. A 15- year-old student was charged with theft by receiving and aggravated assault. A .380-cal- iber bullet was found in the students book bag, which also was recovered at the house. The school district spokesman said that aside from the bullets and brass knuckles, the list of recovered items from students since Wednesday included: a pair of scissors, dice, smokeless tobacco, several packs of cigarettes, a handheld Nintendo game, a radio and several portable cassette players.! i it I Pulaski Arkansas Democrat-Gazette SATURDAY, AAARCH 21, 1992 LRSD tells schools when to search for weapons BY DANNY SHAMEER searches that principals must dering, Central High, Steele . . If a student has a metal locker searches. when they^can metal, can de-  Spectators at athletic con- tect anything from keys to guns tests or visitors during school  or knives. Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer\nAll junior and senior high school students will be searched with metal detectors ut least twice a month under new administrative orders by the Little Rock School District. Smaller groups - such as a busload, an entire class or a lunchroom crowd - will be searched at least once a week. The new instructions outline the first standards on the type, number and method of 1  carry out. No such written policy had been in place when the district began using hand-held metal detectors Feb. 11 to look for weapons. When Superintendent Ruth Steele first ordered the searches last month, she said had ordered that every secondary student be searched at least once from March 11-13, with new instructions on security precautions to follow. The result is the five-page administrative directive dated  If a student has a metal object found by the detector but fails to cooperate with search under the written procedures, parents will be called a at the time that the frequency of searches would depend on the results of the early screenings. After the discovery of a gun March 10 on the sidewalk bor- Tuesday and released by the district Friday. Under the directive:  District employees are barred from conducting strip searches or physical searches of students. to the school. If parents will not or cannot come, police will be called.  Secondary school principals will have to provide the district with a written plan for searches that includes staff assignments, securing the campus while scanning takes place and provisions for student- hours - including district employees who are not wearing identification badges - can also be subject to searches. Each of the districts eight junior high schools, five high schools and the vocational- technical center have at least three hand-held metal detectors. The detectors, which look like chain saws and screech r Under a step-by-step procedure. students who have anything that triggers the metal detector during a routine search could be told to empty pockets, pull up pant legs, or be asked to turn over a jacket, purse or book bag for a hand search. The student could also be asked to show the backside of a belt buckle so an official can see if a weapon is hidden there. 1Arkansas Democrat   TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1992 I I Discipline problems worsening LR teachers want administrative help BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Stall Writer The Little Rock School Districts student discipline problems are\\ worsening and ad- ministratdrs are doing little to help curb the problems, districtteachers complain in a re-, cent survey. Seventy-eight percent of the secondary and 87 percent of the elementary school teach- ers responding to the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association survey said they saw behavior problems increase this year. More than 80 percent said they felt that central office administrators limited their principals in dealing with errant students. Teachers feel they are expected to work miracles without support from the administration, Eleanor Coleman, CTA president, said Monday. Schools will close for the summer this week, but Coleman said a CTA committee of district employees will work through the break to develop ideas for improving student discipline. Coleman announced the results of the teacher survey at a school board meeting last week. She discussed the poll in an interview on Monday. Teachers reported that district rules are applied inconsistently from school to school, Coleman said. In addition, the number of disciplinary problems is underreported because teachers feel discouraged by principals and others from making the reports, she said. Coleman said principals do not always act on teacher complaints about a student. Some teachers responding to the survey said they have been blamed for student problems or have been cited on job evaluations for complaining about behavior problems. The districts records on discipline show that 2,818 students were suspended or expelled during the first three nine-weeks grading periods this year. That figure is slightly below 2,879 suspensions or expulsions for the same period last year.  Allf I I I i ( I I i ( 1- 'We don't want children out on the street. We want the dis- cipline problems solved, Coleman said. She said teachers want some options lor dealing with the students. Coleman formed a blue-ribbon task force in December to identify problems in the schools and suggest changes. The teachers union formed the task force in response to v members growing complaints \u0026lt; about control in the schools. In my eight years, we have ' never had as many calls as we , have had this year about administrators not complying with the (teachers') contract , when it comes to discipline. j Frank Martin, CTA executive 1 l( director, said. . . , n Martin said a surprisingly j, large number of the callers were elementary teachers. See BEHAVIOR, Page 10B UVIMW r Mvrx JI I I I I  Continued from Arkansas Page As many as 2500 surveys were sent to teachers and other school employees, with about 80 percent responding, Coleman said. The poll included some open-ended questions seeking suggestions for school improvement. Coleman said she anticipates the CTA committee will call for more discipline management training for employees, more alternative classrooms, administrative support and cooperation in dealing with misbehaving students, use of adult teams to work with individual students, mentoring programs, and more parent and community cooperation. The CTA has also included  proposal on improving discipline for the 1992-93 teachers contract, which will be negoti- a ated this summer. Teachers cited discipline as a top priority to be discussed in the contract negotiations, Coleman said. In IArkansas Democrat (j^azcttc WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 23, 1992 I -- ' -- Teacher punched in face\n' pupil with gun ticketed I A Little Rock junior high , school teacher was attacked Tuesday while trying to break up a fight outside her class, and a pupil at another city junior high school was ticketed Monday for carrying a gun on school property, police said. Sherrye Keaton, a teacher at Southwest Junior High at 3200 S. Bryant St,, said that a boy punched her in the face about 12:30 p,m, when she stepped between him and another student who had confronted each other outside her classroom, Keaton was treated at Baptist Medical Center and released Tuesday afternoon. Police said that Keatons attacker, who was believed to be 16 or 17, was loudly threatening a student in the hallway outside the classroom. Keaton told the threatened boy to go into her class and remained outside with the other youth, who punched her in the face, police said. Police did not know if Keatons attacker was a student at the school. No arrest had been made Tuesday night. Also on Tuesday, police ticketed a 14-year-old Pulaski Heights Junior High pupil about 4 p,m, Monday for carrying a weapon on school grounds, according to a police report, A school employee found the .25-caliber handgun on the boy, who told police he found the gun and was keeping it for himself. Police said the gun was unloaded. and the child was cited and released to his parents. It was the third incident this year involving weapons on school grounds, police said. SATURDAY. NOVEMBER 7. 1992   \u0026gt;3 Federal law stiffens drug, gun penalties in 29 school districts Id Bl 5a BY LINDA SATTER Democral-Gazene Staff Writer Fed up with criminals endangering schoolchildren and escaping long-term punishnient ' under state laws, federal offi- cials have started a crackdown against drugs and guns on and near school property in 29 Arkansas school districts. U.S. Attorney Chuck Banks said Friday at a news conference at Little Rock School District headquarters that increasing numbers of violent and drug- related events at schools, particularly in Little Rock, prompted him to start enforcing two federal laws in the states Eastern District. The federal gun statute has been in efTect since 1989 and the drug statute since late 1990. They impose strict penalties against anyone caught possessing firearms or illegal drugs within 1.000 feet of public or private school property. The federal laws are comprehensive and broader than . similar state laws. Banks said. For example, the federal firearms law pertains to possession or discharge of any firearm near public or private school property  including school buses or bus stops  while the state law applies only to handguns, and only near public school property. The federal firearms statute includes a mandatory $5,000 fine or a five-year prison sentence. Penalties under the federal drug statute include up to 10 years in prison, depending on the amount and type of illegal drug in a person's possession. Banks said. Under federal sentencing, theres no probation, theres no parole, theres no joking, theres no fooling, Banks warned. He added that unlike frequent consequences under similar state laws, theres no revolving door system under federal laws to allow criminals back into society more quickly than law enforcement officers can impose sentences. Banks said 29 of about 180 school districts in his jurisdiction have agreed to start a Gun- Free/Drug-Free Schools awareness program. The program began Oct. 15 in Little Rock. On Oct. 26, a spray of gunfire shattered a back window of a See SCHOOLS, Page 12A A li VA ja'rt!\n'.' t^K- :f- f r t? 4-' jfw 'll 'SWe.- Arkansas Democral-Qazerte/R\u0026gt;ck McFarlan' WARNING  Mac Bernd (from left), Little Rock School District superintendent talks with John Hickman. Central High School principal\nVictor Anderson. Hal High principal: and Jodie Carter, McClellan Community High principal, after receiving signs stating that their schools are drug- and gun-free zones. Schools  Continued from Page 1A McClellan Community High School classroom in Little Rock, 'forcing 12 students to hit the floor. No one was injured, but the 18-year-old man who was arrested faces both state and federal charges. I dont want to sound like were trying to militarize the schools. Banks said, explaining his enormous reluctance to bring the federal government and its criminal laws against young people. But. he said, the federal government has a responsibility to assure that schools are secure. For the past year or year and a half. Ive looked at these (crime) statistics pretty carefully. I had the position tliat school matters were best left to school officials, but over the course of the past 14 to 16 months, incidents occurring around our schools by young adults  not necessarily students  led me to believe these statutes need to be used ... and a more aggressive posture should be taken by the U.S. attorneys ofTice. I probably was a little remiss in not going along with it sooner, Banks added. Bill Cromwell, an assistant U.S. attorney in Fort Smith who represents the state's Western District, said in a telephone in- terview Friday that his area has no similar program. Cromwell said authorities  have had to use the federal laws in the western half of the state only once or twice because we've not had the extent of the problem the Eastern District has had. Participating schools will post metal signs with drawings of a syringe and a handgun, both crossed out, above the words \"Drug Free, Gun Free School Zone  Violators will face federal and state prosecution. The purpose of the signs is to create awareness, to give notice and to deter crime, Banks said. He said he knows of only two other U.S. attorneys in the country to start such a program. Its not a nationwide concerted effort. Its something I decided to do afier I saw they were doing it in Texas. Banks said. Its a tough program. remarked Mac Bernd, superintendent of the Little Rock School District. Accompanying him and Banks at the news conference were high school principals Jodie Carter of McClellan. Vic Anderson of Hall and John Hickman of Central. The program has been endorsed by Bernd and members of the Little Rock School Board. Banks said criminals can expect \"dual prosecutions (under both state and federal laws) as a matter of policy until we feel the public and the people prone to commit these crimes understand that we mean business. Under federal sentencing guidelines, he said, if you get sentenced to serve, even if youre a first offender, youre going to serve  and you're not going to like it. Bernd said school principals will continue to report crimes to local police, who in turn will notify federal authorities. AWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1993 a Student punishments drop 8.5% in LRSD I BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Gazerte Education Writer The number of Little Rock School District students suspended or expelled in the first quarter of this school year dropped 8.5 percent from last year, but a disproportionately high number of the suspensions continued to involve blacks. Rudolph Howard, the districts student hearing officer, told the Biracial .Advisory Committee on Tuesday night that the number of suspensions fell by 61, from 713 last academic year to 652 in the first nine weeks. The committee, appointed by the school board at the direction of the federal court, monitors certain schools and aids the board on desegregation matters. Eighty-five percent of the suspensions, 552, were of black students. Blacks make up 64 percent of enrollment. For every one white student suspended, 5.6 black students were suspended, he said. Junior high schools reported 396 sanctions compared to 208 in senior highs and 48 in elementary schools. The number of suspensions for less serious offenses declined, but the number levied for more serious offenses increased from 28 to 41. The more serious offenses, such as arson, weapons possession or physical and verbal assault of staff members, can be punishable by expulsion. Howard said the number of firearms violations increased from four to six this year, and possession of weapons such as knives jumped from two last year to 10 this year. He said the districts stepped- up weapons searches added to the higher number. The number of lesser offenses. such as fighting, profanity and tardiness, fell from 587 last year to 528. Category II offenses, or those falling in the middle, dropped from 98 to 83, Howard said. Those include assault, battery, theft and gambling. In another matter, the committee approved plans to\n Reorganize itself to improve meeting attendance.  Better monitor and address recurring desegregation-related problems that no other agency or committee monitors. A draft of a report that will be submitted Jan. 28 to the board says those problems include racial disparities in the suspension and expulsion rates, academic disparity between black and white elementary pupils, multicultural education, and human and race relations. To have sufficient time to plan and monitor those problems, the committee voted to ask U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to suspend the committee's job of monitoring the seven incentive elementary schools.Arkansas Democrat 7^ (gazelle SATURDAY, JUNES. 1993 Copyright O 1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. Suspended students to get second chance Trial program lets 4 from Forest Heights complete work missed during year in the morning and spend the BY DANNY SHAMEER Democral-Gazelto Education Willet Officials are planning a trial program that will allow suspended Forest Heights Junior High School students to make up work they miss. The Little Rock School Board, in an unusual move in January, agreed to waive a policy that prevents suspended students from making up missed work. Only Forest Heights students in the program are affected., The Community Study Center had a dress rehearsal of sorts for about four weeks this spring, with four students who had b^en removed from Forest Heights, 5901 Evergreen St., for fighting earlier in the school year participating in the program. But the trial program will really get under way next fall, when up to 10 Forest Heights students at a time could be accommodated. I think it will be better next fall because we have had some experience with it already, said Jim Brown, Little Rock Boys Club director, who coordinates the project. \"It look a little while this year to try and gel it started working, but now were in the swing of things. Instead of wasting time during the school day, the suspended students spend the day in a structured setting at the Little Rock Boys Club. They have the chance to get credit for work completed according to the practice of their regular teacher. The credit is conditioned on the students consistent attendance and performance in the program. Andrette Killion, the centers teacher, thinks the one-on-one instruction will help the stu- dents get ready to return to their regular school and achieve academic success. The schedule can be flexible, Killion said. We cover the core subjects, and we let the students express themselves through writing, drawing and thinking. The goals of the program, which is voluntary, are\n Give students chance to continue their normal classroom work while suspended.  Motivate suspended students to achieve academically.  Connect suspended students with adult mentors, positive educational programs and activities that will further their academic growth.  Accelerate the suspended students return to school. The students are brought to the Little Rock Penick Boys Club, 1201 Leisure Lane, by van day in programs similar to those in place at Forest Heights. The program is now financed by a $9,000 grant from New Futures for Little Rock Youth. Next fall, the program will be financed by a $20,000 state Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention grant. New Futures developed the  program with the school district. Forest Heights, members of the Hoover Neighborhood Collaborative, the Little Rock Housing ' Authority and others. Forest Heights students who have long-term suspensions  those barred from school for a semester or the remainder of a school year  and live in an area bounded by Fair Park Boulevard on the west, Howard Street on the east. East Capitol Avenue on the north and Asher Avenue on the south are eligible for participation. I SATURDAY, JUNE 19. 1993   Committee to study bill to ban paddling in schools Damocrat-Gazette Capitol Bureau Legislation that would prohibit corporal punishment in Arkansas schools will be studied by an interim legislative committee. Legislative Council members agreed Friday. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Judy Smith of Camden, was tabled last month by the Legislative Council. Council members agreed Friday to send the bill to the interim Education Committee for further study. The Legislative Council handles legislative affairs when the full Legislature is not in session. Under the bill, school officials would be prohibited from spanking or paddling students. Corporal punishment does not work, Smith said Friday. In .Arkansas, its illegal to hit a prisoner and to beat animals, so why wouldnt it be illegal to hit children? Rep. Ted Mulleni.x of Hot Springs had asked the Legislative Council to table the proposed legislation at the May meeting. .I believe we have ... to get back to the basics in the school systems, and I believe discipline in the school systems is completely out of control,\" Mullenix said Friday. Mullenix stressed that he didnt advocate abuse of students and that corporal punishment must be monitored.\" The Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts have outlawed corporal punishment of students. I I12B  FRIDAY, AUGUST 13,1993 , Arkansas Democrat  azctte LRSD explores using volunteers in truancy nroeram BY SHAREESE HAROLD held liable for driving truant dren^s Home in west Little Rock, to have more details about the * O Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Volunteers soon may be on the lookout for students skipping school as part of a truancy pick-up program that the Little Rock School District and the held liable for driving truant students to a drop-off center, where someone would call parents to pick up the students and city of Little Rock are planning to start this school year. return them to school. Anderson serves on a task force of city representatives, school district volunteers and parents that is exploring ways to implement the program. One potential drop-off site . - ------------------- the committee may consider us- whethervolunteers eould.be ing is the United Methodist Chil- Victor Anderson, principal at Hall High School, is working with the city to determine said Estelle Matthis, interim district superintendent. Things are still being worked out, so we cant report much on this program right now,\" Matthis said. The concept is great, but the issue is' complicated. Well have to go into this program with our eyes open. Matthis also told the school board Thursday that she hopes program in a report she gives them at their Aug. 26 meeting. Regarding other items on the agenda, Matthis said she might report about the role the feder- $527,260 in funds which would be used to help improve student scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, eighth edition. ----------------- Rock. Personnel changes will also __ Sources said Wood accepted a math instructor job at the Uni versity of Arkansas at Little ally monitored school desegregation plan plays in school, operations. appear on the agenda. Dianne Wood, the districts mathematics supervisor, is re-  , signing. Wood, who has been V* district for 28 years, is  - J persou in an upper ucation grant application that management position to resign pniiln ensure the district since June. to approve a compensatory ed- could 4B  THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14,1993 Arkansas Democrat  azette LRSD suspends, expels more, but fewer for arms .BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The number of student suspensions and expulsions in the Little..Rock School District increased by 167 to 3,962 in 1992- 93, Khile the number of expulsions related to possession or use.of weapons fell by about 22 percent. The suspension and expulsion statistics were distributed Wednesday to members of the districts Biracial Advisory Committee. The committee routinely reviews the data because of concerns about the disproportionately high number of black students punished. For each of the past three years, more than 81 percent of all suspensions and expulsions were given to black students  who make up 64 percent of enrollment. In 1992-93, 83.7 percent, or 3,310, of the districts total disciplinary actions were levied against black students. There were 652 suspensions or expulsions levied against whites. For possession or use of weapons or firearms, 64 penalties were administered last year, compared with 82 in 1991- 92 and 80 in 1990-91. There were 14 suspensions or expulsions last year for possession of a firearm, 47 for possession of a weapon other than a firearm and three for use of a weapon. A majority of the weapons and firearms apparently were found in the first semester, according to the report, as 44 of the suspensions or expulsions occurred in the first semester, compared with 20 in the second School district officials strengthened their policies last year on random searches of students for weapons after a teacher was stabbed multiple times in her classroom at Parkview Magnet High School. The teacher was seriously hurt but survived the attack. Hand-held metal detectors are used in all the junior and senior highs to conduct the searches. The number of disciplinary actions taken because of verbal assaults against staff members rose from 59 in 1991-92 to 82 last year. The number of sanctions resulting from physical assaults against staff dropped from 18 to ....... 13. Twelve sanctions were junior high students as against levied against students for being gang members, up from 10 the previous year. The disciplinary report also said\n 1,044 suspensions were levied for fighting, 1,350 for refusing to obey rules, 329 for use of foul language and 231 for disorderly conduct.  139 suspensions were the result of assaults or battery.  20 suspensions were given to students for carrying pagers. District rules call for police to be notified when students are caught carrying pagers.  More than twice as many sanctions were levied against senior high students, 2,441 to 1,002. There were 519 sanctions levied in the elementary schools.  Parkview recorded the fewest sanctions among the high schools, with 43. Central High, the districts largest school, had 126, compared with 43 the previous year. Hall High had 332 suspensions or expulsions last year and 374 the year before. Fair High had 327 last year and 223 the previous year. McClellan High reported 133 sanctions last year and 92 the previous year.  Dunbar Magnet Junior High had the most sanctions levied, 406, in 1992-93 among the junior highs. Mann Magnet Junior High had the smallest number, 175.  In the elementary schools, Booker Magnet School reported 47 suspensions or expulsions. Badgett, Franklin Incentive and Williams Magnet schools reported no sanctions.Arkansas Democrat TgS azcUc SATURDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1993 5 Arkansas Democrat-Gazelte/Scotl Carpenter tricls new anti-truancy program to volunteers at the Martin Luther King School at 4800 W. 26th St. on Friday afternoon. TRUANCY TRAINING  Jo Evelyn Elston, director of Pupil Services for the Little Rock School District, explains the dis- LRSD revives truancy program, says go to school or face patrols BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-Gazette Education Writer Students attending the Murry Park Magnet School or the Park Plaza Mall Academy beware! The Little Rock School District  with help from other civic and public agencies  is reinstating an anti-truancy program absent for several years. Beginning Nov. 1, Little Rock police will pick up youth in the city who appear to be school-age but not at school. The patrol officers will deliver the students to a truancy center in the second-floor library of the old Oakhurst/King school at 4800 W. 26th St. There, truants will be interviewed by adult volunteers. Their parents will be called and the students taken to school, either by their parents or on a district school bus reserved for that duty. Parents will be asked to meet with school staff. A group of eight volunteers were trained Friday on interview techniques, district policies on truancy and attendance, adolescent behavior, and social service agencies. Some of the students will be hostile,\" Jo Evelyn Elston, director of pupil services for the Little Rock School District, told the volunteers. \"After all, they did not plan to go to school that day, and they have been brought here by the police. Our purpose is to defuse that hostility. \"They are not prison inmates, Elston said. They could be your kids or grandchildren. The students probably wicll spend no more than an hour at the center before they are taken to school, Elston said. Besides the Police Department, the district has worked with the New Futures for Little Rock Youth organization and two interdenominational religious organizations, the Greater Little Rock Religious Forum and Rock Vision. The anti-truancy program will be staffed by three district employees, a coordinator, a security officer and a bus driver. Plans call for two volunteers to work each day. Elston said it was impossible to predict how many students might go through the center on any given day. The staff will have some control over the number, however, as the coordinator can direct the police dispatcher to tell officers to stop picking up youth when the center becomes crowded. Little Rock School Board members, who approved.the anti-truancy program in August, have cautioned school district administrators against targeting absent students of any one race or neighborhood. The program is based on Act 867 of 1989, which authorizes school districts and law. enforcement agencies to cooperate to form stay-in-school programs. ---------------------------------------------------------- TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1993 Truants absent as center opens doors Workers predict busier days ahead as school year progresses BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Districts new truancy center opened for business Monday, a trained volunteer counselor was in place and a bus driver to take truants to school was on standby. However, the day turned into a dress rehearsal for the workers because no truants were picked up by police and delivered to the center, which is at 4800 W.-26th St., on the second floor of the old Oakhurst/King School. No, were not discouraged, Jo Evelyn Elston, district director for pupil services, said Monday afternoon. She said she and the staff at the center are continuing to work with Little Rock police officials to identify young people who are skipping school. The department is supportive of the truancy program, Lt. Charles Holladay, a spokesman for the police department, said Monday. This was just the first day. I believe youll see activity pick up. Youll see more and more of the students who are on the street picked up and taken to the truancy center. Holladay said a memorandum was distributed to officers describing the truancy program. He said the success of the program is dependent upon the initiative of the officers to pick up students. This program gives us an opportunity to get kids off the street who may otherwise get involved in criminal activity, he said. The officer will be doing the kid a favor by getting him back in school and, at the same time, deterring a crime. There will be days like this, Manual Jones, the interim coordinator for the truancy center said about the fact that no truants were picked up Monday. Its warming up now but it was chilly this morning. There probably weren't many people standing around outside. In the spring that may be different. Jones, who is on loan to the center from the New Futures for Little Rock Youth agency, said he expects to get periodic reports from the police about the number of daily contacts police make each day with youth. Students who have been suspended or expelled from the district will have a written notice to show officers and wont be picked up. Also, a suspected truant wont be taken to the truancy center if the police find that warrants are out for the persons arrest. The truancy center was established in response to a 1991 state law that allows school districts and police departments to work together to find truants. Until now. the district has had virtually no anti-truancy program for many years. The district used to use social workers to check on absentees but that was discontinued after state education standards required schools to have elementary school counselors. The center is a collaborative project put together by interdenominational religious organizations, the school district. New Futures and the Little Rock Police Department. A task force of representatives from various public and private agencies will oversee the operation of the center and examine ways to help chronic absentees attend school. We dont want children to go underground. We want them to go to school, Annie Abrams, a volunteer counselor at the center, said Monday. Abrams, 62, a grandmother, retired from the Little Rock School District in June after 10 years as the federal Chapter I parent involvement coordinator and 27 years as an employee of the Arkansas Teachers Association and Arkansas Education Association. I feel we have to get the students off the street, Abrams said. If this approach doesnt work, well be back with another approach. Abrams said that as a retiree she can work for youth in a broader way than she could within the Chapter I program. I wanted to be part of a system to get children back in school, she said. If we dont save the children, we're not saving our future. If members of the public see children and teens that they believe to be truant, they should call Elstons office at 324-2162. If the suspected truants are outdoors or in a public place, arrangements will be made to have a police officer pick them up and take them to the center. If the truant student is at home, arrangements can be made to send a district social worker to the home to investigate. Elston is seeking people who are interested in serving as volunteer counselors at the center. The volunteers must be at least 25 years old, able to relate to children and adolescents, and be available for at least two hours at a time during the week. All candidates will be interviewed to determine whether they have been the subject of child abuse and neglect complaints. The volunteers must undergo a minimum of six hours of training. The volunteer counselors will question truants delivered to the center to determine the students schools and the reasons for the truancy. The volunteers will make arrangements for each childs parents to take their child to school. If the parent is unable to pick up their child, the student will be sent to school on a bus stationed at the center.Push-ups called corporal punishment BY RACHEL O'NEAL Democral-Gazette Capitol Bureau Using push-ups to discipline unruly public school students is a form of corporal punishnient, according to an attorney generals opinion released Tuesday. In the opinion, Deputy Attorney General Elena Willis found push-ups are included under the legal definition of corporal punishment. While no case specifically addresses the issue, \"the practice would appear to fall within the broad definition, in the sense that it is a punishment inflicted on the body, Willis wrote in the opinion. She added that no state law forbids the use of push-ups or other forms of corporal punishment. The question of whether either is authorized in a particular school district, however, will depend upon local policy, Willis said. The opinion was requested after a Dunbar Junior High School students parents complained their child had to perform push-ups. The school is in Little Rock. In 1988, the Little Rock School District banned corporal punishment. That policy defines corporal punishment as \"the intentional use of physical force or physical contact upon a student for any alleged offense or behavior, or the use of physical force in an attempt to modify the behavior, thoughts or attitudes of students. The Little Rock policy also says that corporal punishment \"in any form will not be used as a disciplinary measure ... by any teacher, administrator or other school personnel. North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school district have banned corporal punishment as well. Jeff Cowell, a teacher and coach at the junior high, said Tuesday he gave students who misbehaved an option\neither reSee PUSH-UPS, Page 7B Arkansas Democrat (gazette Push-ups  Continued from Page IB main in a push-up position for two to three minutes or have a disciplinary notice placed in their file. Cowell said he had been using push-ups as a form of punishment for about five years. But he said he was told to stop doing so after the parents complained. \"My whole philosophy is Tf they are not in class, they ca'ii- not learn. Kids are kids. They are going to make mistakes, but we can learn from our mistakes, Cowell said. Cowell said almost all the students  both girls and boys chose to perform the push-up. He added he did not allow female students to perform the push-up until they had on appropriate clothes. Jerry Malone, attorney for the Little Rock School District, said Tuesday that he had not seen the opinion. Malone also said he didnt know if it was the school districts intent to include pushups and other forms of exercise in its corporal punishment policy.  The district, as always, will look at it and make as reasonable a determination as we can of what our next step needs to be, Malone said. Malone added that under the school districts definition of corporal punishment, \"it doesnt sound like push-ups are a physical force against a student by an employee. Rep. Mark Riable of Little Rock, who requested the attor: ney generals opinion, sent a letter Monday to Little Rock School District Superintendent Henry Williams suggesting that push-, ups and other forms of exercise be used as a form of classroom discipline. \"Certainly a little exercise will not hurt most children and certainly our classroom teachers need as much help as they can get to maintain an orderly environment for the benefit of all the students, especially those desiring to learn, Riable wrqte in the letter. Williams did not return telephone calls Tuesday. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1993 Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1993 EDITORIALS Annals of law An exercise in crime emember ^m class? The brutal rope climbing? The grueling jogs around the track? The endless sit-ups and jumping jacks? The sadistic smile on the coachs face you promised yourself youd wipe off someday? For generations of students, workouts like these made P.E. something to dread. Now it turns out that such exercise isnt only unpleasant\nit may be against the law. For the last five years, a junior-high teacher in Little Rock named Jeff Cowell has given unruly students a choice: Receive a formal disciplinary notice or do push-ups for a couple of minutes. Most kids took the push-ups. That is, until one students parents complained about this form of discipline. Push-ups, they argued, are a form of corporal punishment  something Little Rock schools have banned since 1988. Uh oh.  The debate went unresolved until Elana Wills, one of the states deputy attorney generals, handed down her opinion. Ms. Wills declared that pushups are not necessarily the healthy activity theyve been assumed to be for so long. In fact, she said, theyre a punishment inflicted on the body. , Of course push-ups are punishment. And of the most corporal kind. Which . makes Mr. Cowell a regular Torque-mada of the tenth grade. WE DID NOT MAKE THIS UP, as Dave Barry would say. ' Congratulations to D.A.G. Wills. Finally somebody has had the courage to speak the truth about push-ups. Theyre punishment, as any middle-aged, white-is J collar worker addicted to the candy machines will testify. Gym classes across the country will doubtless agree with this landmark decision and cancel all push-ups. Next on\nthe banned list: Sit-ups, jumping jacks, and other examples of cruel and all-too- usual punishment. After all, if physical exercise is an illegal form of punishment for bad behavior, surely it is even less justifiable when imposed on kids who havent misbehaved at all. Unless, of course, kids who act up have more rights than those who dont  an increasingly widespread suspicion. What we have here in Wills v. Common Sense is a legal breakthrough, or at least breakdown. A Magna Carta for couch potatoes. Any lawyer will immediately grasp Attorney Lieutenant Wills reasoning, though perhaps only lawyers will. At last the Nineties may have found their Dorothea Dix, sweeping the barbaric vestiges of a more primitive age from our public institutions. Theres no reason for Atty. Lt. Wills to stop now. There are all kinds of other medieval tortures being administered RIGHT NOW in local high schools\nBoring chemistry lectures. (An electroencephalogram would surely indicate brain death among some students within the first 60 seconds of exposure to such treatment.) Then there are pop quizzes, which have been known to make weaker hearts race. And what about having to climb all those stairs between classes? And, worst of all, the sound of chalk on black boards. Anything but that. Talk about corporal punishment: That sound makes the whole body wince. And so cruelly on... Atty. Lt. Wills could put a stop to this suffering with more of her revolutionary opinions. And maybe she will. We nominate diagramming sentences as the next target of her remarkable jurisprudence, or maybe getting to school on time, which has been known to put an unbearable strain on some adolescents. Just keep in mind the new motto of public education: No pain ... no pain. EDUCATION WEEK  NOVEMBER 17, 1993 Punishment Pushups: Fbrcing students to do pushups is a form of corporal punishment, a state official in Arkansas has ruled. Deputy Attorney General Elena Willis said this month that pushups are covered under the Little Bock school districts ban on corporal punishment. The opinion was requested after parents at a junior high school objected to a teachers practice of using pushups as a disciplin- apr measure. -The school has agreed to abide by the decision.1  THURSDAY. NOVEMBER 25,1993  Truants range from comical to sad BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Darold Maxfield, new coordinator of the Little Hock School District.s truancy center, has already heard all kinds of excuses from children who have been picked up for missing school. The most unusual one involved socks. It seems a couple of basketball players needed socks to wear to that night's basketball game. They went to the mall to buy the sock,s instead of to school. The mall wasnt open for business yet. While the kids waited for the doors to open, police picked them up and took them to the truancy center at 4800 W. 26th St. Not all the reasons for truancies are as amusing or innocent. Some of the 58 students who have been picked up since Nov. 1 have been unable to find care for their children. Others have family problems that keep them at home. One elementary pupil simply missed his bus. Some of the young people picked up by police have never enrolled in school this year, or have attended just one day. Others believe they have been suspended and cannot go back to school, or believe they cannot return without their parents accompanying them for a conference. Maxfield and his crew of vol- ' iinteers have the job of helping students solve their problems and getting them back into school. Now, in addition to handling students brought to the center, the adult volunteers are following up on cases from earlier in the month to see if those students are still in school. A * I T JI 'it . I??' ''-.A h Sf -JI \u0026gt; 011J TRUANCY CHECK  Malcolm Jackson, security officer at the Little Rock School Districts truancy center, makes Wednesday, one student at the center had been to scliool one day this year. The boys fattier was unaware of the absenteeism, but once he was called he got his child back in classes. After a slow start, business at the center picked up. Maxfield said. The center opened this year as the result of collaboration among the school district, the Police Department, New Futures for Little Hock Youth and interdenominational church organizations. \u0026lt;.. a Sira tf ''li Arkansas Democral-Gazette/Sleve Keeses a telephone call Wednesday about an absentee while Darold Maxfield, coordinator at the center, looks on. Police picked up only two students the first week the center opened. But Maxfield said Wednesday the center has had as many as 16 students in a day. On a typical day, the center handles four to six cases. There has been one repeater. Most of the students picked up are junior high age. Only one elementary child has been taken to the center. All but one of the truants have been black  a situation Maxfield wants to review because of Little Hock School Board directives against police targeting children of a single race. The students have been found all over the place. Maxfield said. A lot are picked up as the result of telephone calls to the center. At least one young man reported to high school alter a long period of absenteeism because he didnt want to be picked up by police and taken to the center. For information on volunteering or to report suspected truants, the telephone number at the center is 671-6398. Aritansas Democrat ' SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 6,1994 Unruly acts surging on LR school buses BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock school bus dri- vers who complain that student misbehavior is increasing now have numbers to support their claim. Brad Montgomery, the Little Rock School District transportation director, said Saturday there were 2,449 behavior incidents on buses as of Jan. 4. He projected the number will exceed 5,400 by the end of the school year. That compares with 3,912 incidents in all of 1992-93 and 1,318 incidents in 1991-92. We really need to look at this, Montgomery said about discipline problems on buses. A school bus is a dangerous place to misbehave. The consequences can be fatal.\" Montgomery gave a comprehensive transportation report to the Little Rock School Board at a daylong board work session Saturday. The board discussed a variety of issues, including concerns about parts of the districts desegregation plan, the need for regular replacement of roofs on school buildings and See BUSES, Page 4B Buses  Continued from Page 1B ways to improve the boards method of doing business. , Bus drivers have complained in newspaper and television news accounts about student behavior problems. Early this school year, one frustrated driver took her unruly passengers to the police department and left the bus. un- The most frequent bus behavior problems, 1,472 so far this year, occurred on buses transporting elementary pupils, but the more serious incidents involved junior high students, Montgomery said. There have been 885 junior high incidents and 92 senior high incidents. . District drivers have had 70 bus accidents this year, most of them minor, Montgomery said In half the accidents, the drivers were found to be at fault. The primary cause was driver inattentiveness or being distracted by students. The transportation department, which employs 344 drivers, aides, supervisors, dispatchers and mechanics, uses 279 buses to transport about 14,000 students every day. The buses run 558 routes each day, including runs for athletics and other after-school programs. The buses make 10,500 stops a day for students. Also during the work session, board members got the results of a transportation department loss-prevention study done by Gallagher Bassett Services Inc. of North Little Rock, a subsidiary of Arthur J. Gallagher and Co., one of the districts insurers. The loss-prevention study, done in December, made 28 recommendations for improving department safety. The study found:  A majority of drivers do not inspect their buses before starting their routes.  Drivers were observed loading students on heavily trav- eled streets without using emer- .gency flashers or stop arms.  Several drivers bring their children to work with them The children play in the bus lot, creating a hazard as buses leave the lot. Additionally, the children add to confusion in the congested dispatchers office' and drivers lounge.  The quality of the dispatch radio is poor. Dispatchers can be hard to understand, and are sometimes distracted and frustrated by activities in the dispatch office. The two-way radios in some buses are broken and the unnecessary chatter and occasional profanity on the radio could impede emergency calls.  The five driver supervisors are distracted from working with drivers in the peak morning hours because they must simultaneously answer complaint calls from parents. - Discipline for students who misbehave on the bus is inconsistent, insufficient numbers of security personnel are assigned to the transportation department, and employee discipline is poor as the result of the school board taking long periods to vote on recommended firings. More than one-third of theArkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1994 i Police beat 14-year-old jailed after knife fight Police arrested a 14-year-old boy Tuesday morning after an apparently gang-related fight on a Little Rock School District bus in Southwest Little Rock. Police said the boy was scratched on the arm when he allegedly pulled a steak knife during the disturbance. He did not require medical treatment, police said. The fight began about 8:15 a.m. when two other 14-year-olds began arguing about being in different gangs, police said. The driver, Roy Burnley, 42, stopped the bus without incident and separated the three boys until police arrived. The three boys were taken to the detective division and questioned, police said. The steak knife was stored in the Police Departments property room. The boy with the knife was arrested on two counts of aggravated assault. He was being held Tuesday night in the Pulaski County Juvenile Detention Facility.MONDAY, MAY 2, ,994 I LR schools lose track of truants Estimates rise to 1,200 a day BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democral-Gazsne Staff Writer Truancy in Little Rock schools has increased so dramatically that the system cant accurately count its AWOL students, officials say, One estimate puts the number of truancy cases in the district at 1,200 each school day. The problem is compounded because, for the most part:  School officials do not know who the truants are.  Officials can't obtain an accurate count of unexcused absences on any given day.  The odds are good that a students absence will not be reported to his parents, even though district policies require notification. In a report to the state Department of Education, the Little Rock School District cited only 250 cases of truancy for the 1992-93 school year. But a small volunteer-staffed truancy center set up last November already has dealt with 375 cases this school year, and coordinator Darold Maxfield says the operation has hardly dented the problem. Maxfield suspects that roughly 1,200 district students play hooky each school day. Spot checks with individual schools indicate Max-fields figure js on target. For example, attendance secretary Tracey Nelson said about 200 of Hall High Schools 976 students were absent April 22. She estimated only about 20 of those absences were excused and that truancy accounted for most of the rest. See TRUANCY, Page 5A J Arkansas Democrat :^azettc MONDAY. MAY 2.1994  5A Truancy  Continued from Page 1A Thats a typical day for the school, Nelson said. Southwest Junior High had 26 unexcused and nine excused absences Wednesday among its 679 students, attendance secretary Virginia Irving said. School ofllcials said the absentee rate was about average for this time of year. Jeanette Wagner, spokesman for the school district, said she did not know how last years truancy numbers were calculated. This years numbers have not been separated by excused and unexcused absences, she said. *A lot of times I just have to take it upon myself to get the kid back in school  Darold Maxfield, truancy coordinator Dr. Henry Williams, the district superintendent, did not return several telephone messages left at bis office. Jo Evelyn Elston, director of pupil services for the district, said officials began to address truancy as a serious problem when residents complained about the number of children on the streets during school hours. Last fall, the truancy center opened as a collaboration between the school district, the Police Department, New Futures for Little Rock Youth and sev-eral interdenominational church organizations. It is fi-  nanced mostly through private donations.  So far, the center is dealing with six to eight students a day. Maxfield said the center will . need more volunteers, truant officers and community donations to have a real effect. At firsL district officials were concerned that police would target black students. But about 60 percent of the truants who pass through the center are black, closely tracking the districts 65 percent black enrollment. Police say truants can be found almost anywhere in the city. Their reasons for skipping school range from enjoying nice 4* A M* s.r.A.Y. ArWftsw Oemocral-QazaaaUonts RIchartson 11 TRUANCY TROUBLES  Darold Maxfield, truancy coordinator for the Little Rock School District, estimates hat upwards of 1,200 students are absent from Little Rock schools on any given day. School officials say they do not know who the truants are and cant obtain an accurate count of the numbers of absentees. weather to escaping from dysfunctional families, Maxfield said. High school students get away with truancy more easily than junior high students, police say, because they often have cars and are harder to spot and catch. Police deliver truants to the truancy center, in the second-floor library of the old Oakhurst/King school at 4800 W. 26th St. Volunteers then interview students to find out where they attend school and how to notify their parents. Often, the process has a happy ending. Tenile Allen, 17, became one of the center's cases a couple of weeks ago when her mother, Angela Allen, found out she was playing hooky. Allen called the truancy center and asked them to talk with Tenile and explain to her what happens to truant students. She had a session with him (Maxfield), and he gave her a lecture on discipline, Allen said. Its been fine since then. But many parents cant take off from work to talk to school officials. In those cases, the truancy center tries to work with school officials to get the child back into class. A lot of times I just have to take it upon myself to get the kid back in school, said Maxfield, who has a military background and a degree in criminal justice. If a child is at home or on private proper^ where police have no jurisdiction, then the truan-cy center calls a social worker to find out why the child is not in school. Some parents keep their children at home to babysit younger children, while other children may stay home because of family problems, he said. More parents in the work force, economic needs that force children to skip school or drop out to find work, teen-age pregnancy and student apathy all contribute to truancy, Elston said. Arkansas law requires children between the ages of 5 and 17 to attend school. So any child can be picked up, even one who has dropped out of school or who was never enrolled. A truancy arrest is not counted as a real arrest or even a brush with the law. said Capt. W.W. Williams, patrol division commander for the Little Rock police. Punishments for truancy include detention, Saturday school or suspension. Court punishments can include fines and suspension of students drivers licenses. If a child does not report to school and a parent has not called by 8 or 9 a.m., school officials try to call the parents at home or work, Elston said. But absentees are often so numerous that it is impossible to notify every parent. We do not have the manpower to call every day, If school officials can't call the parent, they send a letter to the students home. By this time, the student may have skipped two or three days. Sometimes the letter never reaches parents because many families move without notifying the school, Elston said. Some parents do not have telephones or have good numbers, Elston said. On a students sixth absence, school officials ask parents to attend a conference. On the ninth absence, the school refers the parents to Little Rock Municipal Court. On the 12th absence, the student fails the semester, Elston said. If students miss so many days that they fail their classes, peer tutoring and summer school are available  but they are not free, Elston said. Another option for chronic truants is the districts Alternative School at 800 Apperson St. for junior high school students. But students must be referred to the school. Lynn Rodgers, manager of reTruancy case coordinator finds problematic link to curfew trouble, crimes BY CHRIS REINOLDS Oemocrat-Gazene Staff Wtiter Kelly Carter sees lots of truants. She also sees lots of curfew violators. And some young criminals. Often, she sees all three in one youth. You see primarily the same kids in the same situations for each program that is offered out there, said Carter, Little Rock Municipal Court truancy case coordinator. So far this year, police have picked up 388 truants and 145 youths for curfew violations, although not all of the truants were turned over to the Little Rock School Districts truancy center. Of the 145 youths who violated curfew, 13 also were referred to Municipal Court for truancy. The court is a last resort to solve a students truancy problem. Carter and Little Rock Municipal Traffic Judge Bill Watt said many of the students police pick up for truancy will also violate the curfew law. You get a tremendous number of kids in the same rotation. Watt said. Watt, whose caseload contains about 30 percent truancy cases, said the criminal justice system. Department of Correction and the schools lack a partnership to combat these youth problems. Were not even scraping the edge. Watt said. There is a direct correlation involving truants, curfew violators and youths who get involved in crimes, according to a sample of 400 youths the court tracked. Of those youths, all were victims, suspects or witnesses in more than 1,200 police incidents. Watt said. Police averaged three contacts per child. If the kids are not in school, they are a major problem for you on the street. And if hes not doing what hes supposed to during the day then hes not doing it during the night, Watt said. Little Rock Municipal Court started issuing fines in 1987 for parents who were derelict in sending their children to school. Most of the cases involve junior high and high school students. Watt said' about 60 percent of truants are  lightweights, and the other 40 percent are problems. First-time truancy offenders parents are fined $10 a day for each day missed. Secondtime offenders can be fined between $20 and $50 a day for each day missed. Carter said. The curfew calls for the youths to be issued citations and their parents contacted on the first offense. For subsequent curfew violations, parents can be fined up to $500. Little Rock. Jacksonville, Sherwood, Maumelle, Benton and Searcy and Pulaski County all have curfews. Little Rocks curfew, started in January, requires youths under age 18 to be home by midnight on Fridays and Saturdays and by 10 p.m. on other nights. Exceptions to its provisions include constitutionally protected activities. such as protests. search evaluation at New Futures, said it would be a great help if the district could calculate truancy. Hopefully, at some point the Little Rock School District could establish those measures. Rodgers said. We just don't have anything that looks at truancy. Its just really difficult to figure that issue out. Each district is required by law to submit truancy numbers in an annual disciplinary report. said Ray Lumpkin, coordinator of the Principals Assessment Center-Student Discipline for the Department of Education. It is difficult to compare truancy rates in different school districts across the state because districts report truancy numbers differently, said Rodger Callahan, the departments associate director of accountability. Arkansas Demcxrrat CBazctte WEDNESDAY, MAY 4,1994 Not trailing truants The Little Rock School District has admitted that it cant keep track of its truants because as many as 1,200 students play hool^ every day. The district confessed that it constantly violates its policy that parents of children who miss school must be notified of the absences. Its going to be hard to convince any reasonable person that a school district that cant keep track of its children stands much of a chance of giving them an adequate education.\\ THURSDAY, MAY 5, iyy4 .Z oi.------ ---------------------- Jpg NLR,-county have grip on truancy LR district underreports student absences to state BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer The North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts say they have truancy problems  but nothing like the one in Little Rock. Officials from both districts say they have a firm grasp on now often truancy occurs and who the truants are. The Little Rock School District has about 1,200 truants a day, according to the estimate of truancy coordinator Darold Maxfield and spot checks with school attendance officials But in a report to the state, the school system recorded only 250 incidents of truancy for the 1992- 93 school year. And school offi- ' cials said they often do not fol- ' low the district policy that requites them to contact parents whose children miss school. Pulaski County schools re- ported-1,329 incidents of truan- I cy,out'Of 21,633,-Students en- f rdlled for the 1992-93 school . include L ,.. Chronic truants.TfrttStddtiai' jisi truant siYHihAc u io I 1 re- I I six times, it is counted SIX truancy incidents. ' Rock reported 1 ana ------ j------- icpurieu oftruMcy for the school yeaf out of 9,251 V Students. Bobby Aeklin, the district s assistant silpdrintendent tor ^tudent affairs, said the 1992-  no 1\" \" Wsher than the lu9T-92 figures because of a  tougher truancy policy. Now the J .patching more stu- - oents through increased roll checks and pplice'/kssistance, Ackiin said. Eddie Collins, Pulaski Coun- , ty assistant superintendent for pupil personnel\n, attributed his districts lower truancy rate to a closed-campus policy and a predominantly rural district. He said the truancy numbers for the district are accurate. We have not had any concerns that truancy is a problem, Collins said What we really enforce is the attendance policy. The students know they could fail that course if they miss 10 days, and the kids have been pretty receptive to that notion. And when students skip school, parents are always notified, Collins said. The schools use an automatic calling system to contact parents in the evening. The prerecorded telephone message tells parents their child did not show up for school. Some schools follow up with a letter, Collins said. I We dont have a problem with contacting parents, Collins said. If the child has been absent [ five days and parents have not contacted school officials, then the principal usually calls parents to let them know the student is in danger of losing credit, Collins said. A child who misses 10 school days fails. North Little Rock schools also use an automatic calling system. That does OK, but the students can get around it, Ackiin said. We do get lots of responses back though. North Little Rock police have an agreement with the schobl district to pick up truants and take them to the districts alternative school, until school officials decide where they belong. Police have picked up 145 students since.the 1993-94 school . year started.'This is the second I year police have worked with the schools\n  We think its better for everybody if we can keep them in school and off the street, A^in said. 0 Truancy  Continued from Page 1B If students begin to miss five or six days in a row, the principals should try to reach the parents, Ackiin said. North Little R'ock allows a student to miss up to 12 school days. After the 12th day, he loses credit. When a student is constantly missing, we try to catch it before and try to call, Ackiin said. While most schools across the state report truancy numbers to the state, state officials say there is no clear definition of how to calculate truant students. Ray Lumpkin, coordinator of the Principals Assessment Center/Student Discipline for the Department of Education, said school districts should declare a student truant when the school and the parent dont know the students whereabouts. The state publishes its annual disciplinary report to help school districts identify areas where they need to improve. The truancy numbers are part of that report. Lumpkin said the state doesnt police school districts numbers, but workshops are available to help districts combat disciplinary problems. It ought to make school districts look at problems, Lumpkin said. Little Rock district officials should have noticed a problem with the extremely low truancy numbers, Lumpkin said. School districts are required by law to keep track of unexcused absences because schools must determine how many days a student can miss before losing credit, Lumpkin said. The state reported 22,154 truancy incidents in the 1992-93 school year out of an enrollment of 440,682. I26 ARKANSAS TIMES * AUGUST 25,1994 I MEDIA A BETTER HEADLINE: DUCK THIS B.S. BY MAX BRANTLEY__________ Never has the Arkansas Democrat- Gazettes institutional bias against the Little Rock School District been more evident than in last Mondays newspaper. Under the headline School Security. From hickory stick to ducking bullets\" police reporter Jim Kordsmeier began a report thusly\nAsk most adults to describe their first days of school and the memories most likely will be similarnew clothes and pencils, the first football game, the sanitary smell of clean rooms and waxed hallways. Ask astudentin the Little Rock School District the same question and the memories might be altogether different locker searches, fights, random metal detector sweeps, guns, the navy blue shirts of security guards. Gonearethedayswhenreading.riting ' and tithmetic were taught to the tune of a hickory stick. In the Little Rock School District, school can be adangerous place. And on what is this overwrought, Gannett-style lead based? It is the news that some 167 Little Rock high school students were expelled for fighting in the last school year. That is less than one expulsion a day in a community of more than 5,300 teen-agers, the majority fixim underprivileged circumstances. The premise might have had some validity had the writer attempted to compare the numberof fights per capitain Little Rock with.the number recorded in neighboring school districts, or, say, the crime statistics in a poverty-stricken community of5,300 people somewhere in Arkansas. But this is not the DOG s way when it comes to the Little Rock School school supplies. The halls smelled clean and the floors were freshly waxed. We didnt see a security guard, but we did see dozens of old friends from previous years, all smiling and none looking nervously over shoulders. We didn taccompany our daughter to day one at Central High School. Her embarrassment would have been far too great But it was her second year to attend Central, so shes an old hand at dodgingknives and bullets. Funny thing, of all the topics discussed in daughters District. When it examines standardized test scores, for example, it is careful to note the wide disparity in scores between blacks and whites in Little Rock. But it never goes on to note No gun was fired in Little Rock schools last year. first year at Centtai, not mentioned once were locker searches, fights, random metal detector sweeps, guns or the navy blue shirts of security guards. that, when broken down by race. Little Rock whites and blacks score far above the state average and far better than the neighboring districts to which whites with media-induced panic flee from the whizzing bullets of the Little Rock schools. Ducking bullets? No gun was fired on campus in the Little Rock schools last year. None. And speaking of violence, to the best of our recollection, the last school teacher in Pulaski County injured by an assault was a teacher at the exclusive Pulaski Academy. Her leg was broken by a marauding intruder in the school. The Democrat-Gazette did not report that story, of course. It didnt happen at Central High. J We have aconflict of interestbutit happens to have some relevance. We took a fourth grader to Gibbs Elementary in the Little Rock School District Monday. Onr son had a new haircut, new clothes and a backpack full of new Fact is, through a cumulative 13 years of Little Rock schooling at three elementaries, one junior high and one high school and a couple of years of mentoring in an inner city elementary, weve never had occasion to seriously doubt the safety of eitherourchildren orthose weve worked with. There has been violence in the Little Rock schools. The potential for more remains, here and everywhere. The District is responding to that potential with a variety of security measures, as are many other school districts. It is a pity that such a need exists. But to single out Little Rock with a headline about ducking bullets (derived from a baseless quote by a security guard with a Say McIntosh complex) and to suggest that the average Little Rock students impression of school is a place fraught with danger is worse than unfair, itis wrong. Anditdamages every single person who calls Little Rock home. I iTUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1994  I LR studies day curfew 1 for students  Board looks at plan to cut high truancy 1 BY KEVIN FREKING Democrat-Gazette City Hall Reporter i The Little Rock Board of Directors this week will take up a youth curfew for school hours. A curfew ordinance com-\nposed by City Attorney Tom- Carpenter would require youths 17 and younger to stay off public property such as streets,, parks or sidewalks between 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on school days- . ,  The penalty for violating the, ordinance would match that im-, posed for night curfew violations. The first offense leads to a citation and parental notification. Subsequent offenses lead to a fine of up to $500 for parents. , , City Director Michael Keck said he read about school-time curfews established in San Antonio and Austin, Texas, to deter juvenile crime and truancy. The reason why I brought it up, the first part of the year, there was a great increase in daytime burglaries, and (Municipal) Judge (Bill) Watt didnt think there was aggressive enforcement of the truancy laws, Keck said. Although the city board could enact the ordinance as early as next Tuesday, Keck said, he wants to hold one or two public hearings to give res- See CURFEW, page 7A Curfew  Continued from Page 1A idents more opportunity to comment on the proposal. The state already has truancy trict had about 1,200 truants a laws designed to ensure children attend school. Watt, who oversees truancy and curfew cases in Lit- tie Rock, said the Little Rock school attendance officials. School District is supposed to refer students to his court after 10 unexcused absences. At that point, the judge can ----------  ------- _ fine parents a minimum of $10 absences from a class. After six tistics are not yet available to per day or as much as $50 per absences, a school administrator determine its effectiveness. He day for unexcused absences, is supposed to meet with the \"\"........ The judge can also suspend a parents or guardians. students drivers license. Reaction to a proposed cur- A daytime curfew ordinance few from a handful of students fore the curfew was put in would dictate that truants be cit- outside Central High on Monday place showed that 35 percent of ed to appear in Watts court as ranged from ambivalence to op- crinie in Austin was committed early as the second time they position. during school hours. are caught by police for skip- The only problem I would When a minor is stopped in ping school. have with it is if you had a job, Austin during school hours, the Watt said he discussed the said Adrienne Matlock, 16. student is taken to a processing Tonya Mitchell, a senior, said center to determine whether he is truant. During the first few daytime curfew with Carpenter on Monday. He said they also discussed an alternative to the daytime curfew that entails tow- fight authority. She said the ing truants cars. same thing happens now with When you cut down on their the night curfew. I dont think you should fine mobility, you have everybody showing up in court because parents, said her sister, Tolice they want their car back, Watt Mitchell, a junior. A lot of there is a provision to penalize said. times, its not the parents parents. Rose said. Watts suggestion also would fault. School started Aug. 15, and Carpenter said the board weve got it in full operation, will need to address what to do Rose said. Its just as an ob- bring the youths to his attention more quickly than when officials rely on the school district with youths in home-school proto report a child after 10 unexcused absences. Watt has criticized the Little home school right now, Car- Rock School Districts truancy penter said. I guess we can put reporting in recent months. The in an exemption for home truancy problem is worse than schooling. Thats one question the district has reported. Watt thats been raised. The Austin daytime curfew believes. The Little Rock School Dis- day, according to May estimates eral exceptions, including for home-school students and private from the districts truancy coordinator and spot checks with Under the school districts guidelines, the district notifies sistant city attorney in Austin, parents or guardians when a Rose said the curfew began student has three unexcused about six months ago, and sta- a curfew may push some students to skip school as a way to grams. A significant number are in also runs from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on school days and contains sev- school students who have different days off than public school students, said Bob Rose, an assaid the curfew was generated by a neighborhood group fed up with crime. He said statistics be- months of the program, the students were taken back to school. Parents were not cited. Rose said. This year, the students will be cited for violations, and servation, but I think everyone agrees the hard-shell truant it probably wont affect. It will certainly impact the casual truant.f- Arkansas Democrar^^azetteJ SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1994 comtwnt O Little Rock Newspapers. Irw. Better schools require strict discipline A' 21 s most parents know, the weird thing about an ele- .mentary school is that. St (low n deep, you have no idea what exactly happens to your child behind its closed doors. The place exists in an orbit beyond your reach\none sometime.s imagine.s his offspring fending for himself in black space. This reality makes you reluctant after a while to accept the pronouncements of graduate school deans and highly paid public school superintendents further from the classroom I doui s than you. If you trust the observations on the system of anyone it tends to be those on the front-lines, the ones behind the closed doors. And what these soldiers have been saying lately does not jibe with the pronouncements of superintendents, whether theyre coming from Little Rock, New York or Los Angeles Michael Leahy because things might get a lot worse later and we might really want then to (remove him from school) for a couple of days.\" A disgusted Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams denies that teachers are hindered from suspending any student for iamses out there. Five, ten years from now, if nothing has a lengthy period. Yet, in his next ..... ............ ...................breath, Williams betrays a jarring that he had given himself over ambivalence over how tough voice so level that she felt afraid to doing it. school discipline ought to be. Re- She would liot let her trauma fleeting upon the classroom bul-interfere with hci normal class [y the .22, he says, Just be-routine, such as it was. She cause this boy threatejts to hurt a taught arithmetic and reading, re- teacher doesnt mean he should cited stoi'ie.v ,u,d, to the disgust of be suspended from his school. So her other .siudrots, spent about stunning does this policy decla-one- third of all class time re- ration seem to be in its potential spending to the incorrigibility of for disaster that a listener reads While_ _th_eI superintendents and----- educational think tanks wring changed, the politicians will yield to a growing clamor for private school vouchers, the public schools will become the exclusive hellholes of the have-nots, and the gulf between the social classes will make the Grand Canyon look like a tiny gulch. What can we do? To start with, forget about fancy new programs for ten minutes\nwe have an abundance of programs, and plenty of innovative, committed teachers. Think discipline. Demand the regular in volvement of parents or guardians as early as a childs preschool year. Remove all older troublemakers and place them in separate rooms and buildings with caring teachers and support Yes. thats personnel, until theyre ready to right  if cooperate. Give the kids who hes a special back quote the to Williams. thats hands over Underlying Causes and Promising Reforms, a funda- A education student,\" the superintendent adds. Twenty-want to learn  the vast majority of them  a real chance. This kind of talk doesnt come easily for some of us. Our instincts run toward wanting to help the earnest masses while simultaneously coming to the rescue of sullen rebels  even when these two things are mutually exclusive. It is the enduring conundrum of our liberalism. Yet, if we now feel ourselves about to get weepy over the whitmental dilemma of the schools now involves something parents cant see happening in that insular world. The problem, in short, usually comes down to a prototypical bully making life miserable for someone in a cramped classroom. The quandary lies in the reality that, no matter what a codebook says, the bully often can torment and threaten with impunity. and that during Septem-bei. in east Little Rock, the bully knew it. I am goin^ to come back, with my gtin tomorrow aud I am goiug to kill you. he told his prey one morning. There ain't nothing you can do. He was not a young man gone berserk over a pi^ailed girlfriend who had left him. He wao not a teenage drug dealer threatening a potential witness. He was a nine-year-old boy, diagnosed as hyperactive, and she I his young schoolteacher of he? brightest studenLs vriwed, They say they can remove any -------- , r ,u The boy, an elementa^ stu- this made her heart sink, this kid. But, still, when a teacher schoolteacher last week of the dent in the Little Rock School bgp wonder whether she gets shoved or another teacher fledgling gang b^ully who d District, had been a serious dis- p^ght be on the brink of losing gets hit by a chair when two stu- threatened to kill her. The boy ciplinary problem since the be- best dents are fighting and, if theyre had been removed from class not ginning of the school year, dis- special ed students, the (super- by the school district but rather rupting his class, exploding into schoolteacher intendents and assistant super- by his dissolute mother, who had a 1 age when chastised. He intendents) attitude seems to be, abruptly left Arkansas with him warned the entire class, in what I seldoin pursu warrant, seemed no idle boast, that he -L toainct in,, vn mile hnllv Im sure^they have rules, but its The teacher felt worried for would S()on be initiated into a Ho ag^^inst volafi e ^hat you pick up. the child, but relieved for her 17 feared street gang Soon after, be leying pretty truth if ..... now, things are better, they get pvt HU' t li four hours later, a high-ranking administrator in the district's special education de-partment contradicts the superintling of once sacred tenets, we ought to be mindful that the old lias been an abysmal burdeciaring failure in lifting in great numbers the groups we purport to care so deeply about. In a school tendent. all his statement inoperative. 11 \u0026gt; We can remove a stu-system now two-thirds black, the troublemakers have made the the bully, capiivc to his fury, alternately cojtli\n,\nand adnionish-dent from a particular (school) struggle of good Little Rock kids anytime we wish..., declares the all the more arduous. When a ing him. Uthcu in the class, readministrator. bully in either high school or an sentful that tin. bad boy had - - stolen cente. .viagv and devoured refiects the murkiness of the dis- ----------- . hours meant loi them, threatened trict's overall discipline policy, frightened teachers\nenergies mutiny Do .sumedihig about lum or They have all kinds of policy, *' srhnnl Im goiug to do bud stuff, too, one says the young schoolteacher, of her brightest students vowed, rpmove anv Yet the confusion at the top elementary grade consumes one-third of a class time and a then the center of that school has come apart. Hes gone, said the young and this made her heart sink, this kid. But, still, when a teacher schoolteacher last weeK oi ine made her bully might be on tin. brink of losing gets hit by a chair when two stu-her best. dents are fighting and, if theyre The young schoolteacher seldom considered pursu_ ing stem disciplinary action against the volatile bully. special ed students, the (superintendents and assistant superintendents) attitude seems to be. Oh, do your best to work it out. Im sure they have rules, but its don't really seem to underfailed to respond, the boy final ly reappeared at school, more angry than ever in moments, telling the teacher on that frightening morning that he would shoot her with his .22. his 'special education' student, and stand.\" the policy i.s thot you can't treat The grumblings at the grass-those students like the rest, she roots, among teachers and par-the that cant savs. And (my school's princi- ---------- pal) and 1 didn't want to use all schools ought to blare like an of the ten days up at that point alarm for all the Henry Will- __________________ all my time these days,\" she said ents alike, about disorder in the softly. There are no fairy tales in her school, but now at least 17 kids have a chance. Arkansas Democrat [ FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1994 Copyright  Little Rock Newspapers. Inc Teachers are schools problem, not children, minister says  BY SUSAN ROTH Ipnce in schools, the session was voice. Stewart look the teachers 'ypocnsy.^and they .,noctori ihnl ipnph- ? Democrat-Gazelle Education Writer ^The problem with today's schools is the teachers, not the children, the Rev. Hezekiah Stewart declared Thursday. Stewart, director of the Watershed Project, a Little Rock prdgram that counsels troubled youngsters, addressed more than 200 teachers at a session of the Arkansa.s Education Association's annual convention at Rqbinson Center. pevoted to the issue of vio- lence schools, the session was one of hundreds aimed at educating teachers during the three-day convention. Also speaking was Dr. Barbara Stanford, associate director of the Arkansas International Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Stanford introduced a conflict resolution program she developed that focuses on consistency of discipline, good listening skills and student mediation. In his booming preacher's to task for failing to get along with each other, with parents and with administrators. You act like you get along but you reall.v don't, he said. The white teachers get togeth- and talk about the black er teachers and the black teachers get together and talk about the white teachers. Students see that, Stewart said. They respond to your facial expressions more than to what you say. Kids cant stand Youngsters say they dont think teachers care about them. Stewart said. How do you manage getting up in the morning hungry? How do you manage to sleep when your parents are up all night Fighting, or there's crack cocaine or alcohol in your house all night? he asked. A child leaves home and brings that to school and you want him to sit down? Forget it. It's not going to Stewart suggested that teachers spend the first hour of the school day giving children encouragement and hope. Children need to be loved by some- one, and love is conducive to learning, he said. Administrators should also go back to classrooms to learn about the to problems students bring school with them, he said. Teachers should also make an effort to build relationships with parents, Stewart said.Voices WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1994  9B [f only teachers had time to teach\nreminded recently that there is e to improving education than can bund in buying more textbooks, hir- )re teachers and enhancing test Behavioral problems might be reduced there is too much abuse and not enough reminder came from a local read- has been following our ongoing di- about the state of education. ewith, an excerpt from his letter front of Hall High School is a sign ming that the school is drug-free i-free.... Theres another si^, iden- front of Forest Heights Junior High, isume theyre in front of all Little chool District high and junior high Meredith Oakley a sad commentary on our life and on our children and our schools, gns such as this are considered ap- ite. ,ed, it is a sad commentary, not because such signs recognize that re these types of problems in pub- xjls, but because such signs impart oneous message that drugs and ive been expunged from the school ition. lot convinced that guns and drugs eliminated: theyve been around ?, and they have become too acces- ven grade-school pupils have been with them. res no easy solution to the problem, s can do only so much. Im afraid : blame accrues to the parents, be- hats where behavioral problems lu think the state of education is OU should consider the environ- n which troubled and troublesome youths are reared. The words squalor and deprivation do not begin to describe the situation. Aberrant behavior is a natural byproduct of familial instability and inadequacy. I truly believe that some children are irrevocably lost before they ever hit their teens. We might have a fighting chance of separating young people from guns and drugs if we could make all parents care what happens to their offspring, but that is an improbability. Although we like to think that evep^ parent wants whats best for his or her children, taint necessarily so. Neither is a sign outside a school that declares the school to be free of guns or drugs. Thats wishful thinking at best. Schools cant even eliminate gum chewing. Sound fatalistic? Sure it does. But that is not to say that all at-risk youths are corruptible in the face of poor parenting skills. In trying to improve the state of education, we should not ignore the state of the family unit. The state of the family unit in many households is not very good. You have households with too many children and too few parents, and households in which discipline. Actually, teachers, not parents, are our first line of defense against the development of aberrant behavior. As another reader pointed out, a public schoollhat exists in any community or society will mirror the social values and ills of that particular community. If we are to attack behavioral problems, we must give teachers the tools diey need, and what they are most in need of is the freedom to teach in an environment that tolerates no nonsense. As Other Reader pointed out. if a student doesnt want to learn, or if his parents present more of a problem than the student does, public school teachers must still try to educate the student, Teachers dont have time anymore to teach. Society simply must find a way to untje the hands of educators when it comes to discipline, but in a manner so that they have leeway, not,license. .. We have become such a litigious society that Im not sure how to help teachers do their job, but it seems logical that a mix of better teachers, smaller class sizes and less paperwork would go a long way toward improving the state of education..^ It wouldnt hurt too much for the government to provide more support for parental counseling in its welfare programs. Im confident it would improve tlje teachers lot Associate Editor Meredith Oaideys column, appears every Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. ' 'Arkansas Democrat [ MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1994 Coovrieht  Llttl Rock irw Going to school 'with dad The ultimate deterrent I f public schools enforced the same rigid policy on truancy as __they did back in the 50s and beyond, a judge named Bill Watt might not have to haul parents into Little Rocks municipal court  or have them attend classes with their children to make a point. There was a time when truancy wasnt much of a problem. Students were expected to attend school, and all but a few did. Most kids didnt want to be embarrassed by being marked as a truant. An unexcused absence was rare, and it meant carrying a bright pink admittance card from class to class for each teacher to sign. .A visit to the dean of boys or girls was a fearful thing, and being expelled almost unheard of. Kids whispered when they talked of it. Today, the policy in public schools is to allow nine absences before anybody need take much notice. By then, skipping school may have become a habit. Unlike the school systems. Judge Watt has been cracking down on truancy the past couple of years. He sees a connection between missing school and daytime crime  especially thefts of property and break- ins. His latest gimmick to discourage truancy  bringing the parents into the picture  seems to be working. No wonder. He offers parents a choice: Attend classes with their child for 15 days or pay a fine of $1,500. One parent chose to attend class because he had lost his job and couldnt pay the fine. Going back to school made sense for him, even if it meant having to take a night job. But his 16-year-old daughter threw a hissy, she even offered to find a job and earn enough to pay the fine if thats what it took to keep from having dad sit next to her in class for three weeks. (Gosh, that could be even worse than having to carry around a pink card from class to class.) Can a little judge from Little Rock have discovert the functional equivalent of the 50s pink slip in the '90s? We can hear the shocked whispers now\n\"She had to take her mother to class! Talk about gro^'. 'Then again, the girls father says his punishment wont change his daughters attitude because she doesnt want to attend school. He may have a point. But if compulsory attendance doesnt change attitudes, it might change behavior. Specifically, it could cut down on the citys crime problem. Its worth a judicious try.. Arkansas Democrat (Bazctte [ FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1^ Copyngnt \u0026lt;9 Little Rock Ncwspaoereaw LR board OKs discipline book, power to bar disruptive pupils BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer - All Little Rock School District teachers and administrators will undergo further training next month on the districts new student discipline handbook, the school board decided Thursday. The board also reaffirmed a in provision the existing teacher contract that allows teachers to bar disruptive students from their classrooms. Board members said the votes were an attempt to assure parents and employees that state laws and school district policies on discipline and safety will be enforced. Both measures were unanimously approved. Board President Linda Pon- dexter proposed both mea- sures in response to numerous complaints from teachers and parents this year. Pondexter, who teaches junior high civics in the neighboring Pulaski County Special School District, earlier this month asked that the board rescind the new student discipline handbook and return to the discipline handbook used last year. She said Thursday, though, that the cost and logistics of printing and distributing the old handbook by the time the second semester begins next month made the proposal impractical. Pondexter said the contract provision allowing teachers to bar disruptive students from class was possibly the districts best-kept secret. She said the provision allows teachers to maintain order in . , - ------------ on tests, they wont be sus- their classrooms but also re- pended but will be subject to quires the teacher, a parent other penalties, such as in- and the principal to meet with- school suspension or detention in 48 (lours to decide how to re- hall. solve the behavior problem. That requirement makes every- ___ __ _____ one involved accountable, she handbook \"had \"been watered down, but he agreed that more A total of 353 students were training on the handbook was barred from their classrooms last year. Of those, 319  about 90 percent  were black. \"I dont like to see that a dis- ------ we will enforce them, Riggs proportionate number of the said. students are African-American,\" Pondexter said. \"But if a disproportionate number of African-Americans misbehave, olution supporting plans to then a disproportionate num- ' ber should be put out of class. ... People have the impression ture with the city of Little that we are putting statistics Rock, the state Department of above the safe^ of our children Human Services and other and our staff community organizations Pondexter was applauded Cloverdale Junior High will frequently by audience mem- be the first school to host a bers, largely parents and staff Beacon program, based on a members from the Chicot and similar program in New York Mabelvale elementary schools. City. Activities and programs Henry will be offered at the school for Williams said he agreed that children and adults. parents must be involved in re- People in the community solving discipline problems will decide what the programs but said staff must be flexible should be. in scheduling times when The new Stephens Elemen- wcjrking parents can visit the tary School also will host a Bea- school. con program when it opens in 1996-97. The district this year adopt- ed a new handbook that reduces the number of offenses for which students can be suspended. When students fight or cheat Board member John Riggs said he didn't believe the necessary. I want our parents to know that we have a set of rules and The training will be held at each school. The board also passed a resopen schools after hours to the community through a joint venArkansas Democrat ' WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1994 Truants, principals risk wrath of Watt BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer I In its first effort in at least 17 years to track truancy, the i 11 I Little Rock School District counted 3,680 truants during the 1993-94 school year, figures obtained Tuesday show. But Little Rock Municipal Judge Bill Watt said the problem is much larger than the figures indicate, and he promised to jail principals if. 1 they dont report chronic i truants, as state law requires. Im going to turn some heat on, and it will get interesting, Watt said Tues- day. Theyre (the district) getting funded for phantom students, and theyre giving a bogus number of 3,000 students for the whole year. ' Watt said he discussed Truancy  Continued from Page 1A dents involved in truancy cases instead of the incidents of truancy. Elston said the number represents only students who were caught for truancy. She said she didnt know how many students evaded school officials and Little Rock police. Elston said students who forge their parents signatures on excuse notes and parents who lie to school officials could contribute to a higher truancy number. There may be some kids ' were not catching, Elston said. Last year, the district officially reported only 250 truancy incidents among the 21,633 students enrolled for the 1992- 93 school year. Elston said Tuesday that that number represented students suspended for truancy  not incidents of truancy. This year, students wont be suspended for truancy. The building principal will either assign in-house suspensions or another form of discipline, Elston said. Elston said the district tallied a more complete count of truants last year to aid the new truancy center. Last fall, the taking action against princi- luc  truancy center opened as a col- pals with Little Rock Super- i intendent Henry Williams ! during the summer. Williams' couldnt be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon. In May, the Little Rock laboration between the school district, the Police Department, New Futures for Little Rock Youth and several interdenominational churches. The center dealt with six to eight students a day. School District truancy coordinator, Darold Maxfield, estimated that about 1,200 students among the 25,594 enrolled for 1993-94 were truant, on a typical day. Spot checks at several schools'supported his estimate. .- But Jo Evelyn Elston, di- - ___________.. rector of pupil services, dis- ! school officials should start We wanted to have some base-line data so we could get some handle on the number of Watt said Central High School didnt report one truant last year, but Watt has court records that show Central High School students with more than 10 truancy incidents. If I was the district. Id use this (the court) as a tool, he said. Watt said many of the 4,000 to 5,000 juveniles he sees for traffic and curfew violations each year also have been truant  but not reported. Once the students are referred to the court, many other problems, like absent parents and criminal activity, can be addressed. The North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts have kept track of truants every year. North Little Rocks number ofJruants rose last year while Pulaski Countys truancy rate declined. The North Little Rock district reported 2,215 incidents of truancy last year  393 more than in the 1992-93 school year. The enrollment for the 1993-94 school year was 9,085 students. Bobby Acklin, assistant superintendent for desegregation, said the higher number reflects a crackdown by school officials and police.\nThe schools are doing a better job of searching for them, Acklin said. It ought to reach a peak and then I hope to see it go down. The students know its a priority for us. Acklin said Little Rocks numbers are lower comparatively because that district has a larger area to cover. Were not as spread out as truants, Elston said. Although Elston said the district was dealing with the truancy problem. Watt said puted Maxfields estimate.  I wouldnt put any stock in it other than its just conjecture, Elston said. This year we have some hard ferring more truants to not just counting them. recourt, data based on schools. ,, Maxfield said he couldnt comment on the latest numbers. Elston said this was the first time the district had tracked truants since she started working for the district 17 years ago. The report indicates the number of stu- See TRUANCY, Page 13A State law says schools should refer students who miss more than 1() days of school without a valid excuse to the Little Rock Municipal Court. At court parents and students face fines of up to $50 a day for each school day I missed. ' Little Rock and Pulaski County (districts), Acklin said. Ours go to McCain Mall. The Pulaski County district reported 1,029 students disciplined for truancy in the 1993- 94 school year. In 1992-93 the district caught 1,329 students playing hooky. Eddie Collins, assistant superintendent for pupil services, said those students represented the bulk of the truancy problem 'in the district. i Enrollment for the 1993-94 I school year was 20,426. Collins said the district may be missing some truants, but he feels administrators are doing a better job of keeping students in school. We have a very good attendance reporting system, everythings computerized, Collins said. T, Arkansas Democrat ^(Bazcttc [ FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16. 1! Copyngnt O Little Rock Newspaoer LR board OKs discipline book, power to bar disruptive pupils BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat\u0026lt;3a2etta Education Writer All Little Rock School District teachers and administrators will undergo further training next month on the districts new student discipline handbook, the school board decided Thursday. The board also reaffirmed a provision allowing teachers to ed a new handbook that rebar disruptive students from duces the number of offenses class was possibly the dis- \" ' ' tricts best-kept secret. ed a new handbook that for which students can be suspended. When students fight or cheat ,, . , - ---------- on tests, they wont be sus- their classrooms but also re- pended but will be subject to quires the teacher, a parent other penalties, such She said the provision allows teachers to maintain order in Teand the principal to meet withas in- . ----------------- in 48 hours to decide how to re- provision the existing solve the behavior problem, teacher contract that allows That requirement makes everv- teachers to bar disruptive stu-  '     dents from their classrooms. in school suspension or detention hall. Board members said the votes were an attempt to assure Board member John Riggs ----------. said he didn't believe the one involved accountable, she handbook had been watered down, but he agreed that more training on the handbook was necessary. I want our parents to know that we have a set of rules and A total of 353 students were , . barred from their classrooms parents and employees that last year. Of those, 319  about state laws and school district 90 percent  were black  policies on discipline and safe- ty will be enforced. Both mea- sures were unanimously ap- students are African-Ameri- prwed. can, Pondexter said, But if a Board President Linda Pon- disproportionate number of dexter proposed both mea- African-.Americans misbehave sures in response to numerous then a disproportionate num- complaints from teachers and ber should be put out of class parents this year. - . . 1 dont tike to see that a dis- we will enforce them  Riggs proportionate number of the said. The training will be held at each school. The board also passed a resolution supporting plans to open schools after hours to the Pondexter, who teaches junior high civics in the neigh- _________ boring Pulaski County Special and our staff School District, earlier this . .--------------- community through a joint ven- ... People have the impression ture with the city of Little that we are putting statistics Rock, the state Department of above the safety of our children Human Services and other !\u0026gt;nr! nn communlty organizations. month asked that the board rescind the new student disci- Pondexter was applauded . ,, , J----- ------ bers, largely parents and staff pline handbook and return to members from the Chicot and the discipline handbook used Mabelvale elementary schools, last year. Superintendent She said Thursday, though,  , , *---------- Cloverdale Junior High will frequently by audience mem- be the first school to host Beacon program, based on a a similar program in New York Williams said he agreed that that the cost and logistics of parents must be involved in reprinting and distributing the solving discipline problems old handbook by the time the but said staff must be flexible City. Activities and programs Henry will be offered at the school for second semester begins next month made the proposal impractical. Pondexter said the contract but said staff must be flexible in scheduling times when working parents can visit the school. The district this year adopt- children and adults. People in the community will decide what the programs should be. The new Stephens Elementary School also will host a Beacon program when it opens in 1996-97.Arkansas Democrat ^(gazette TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1995 School-hours curfew begins for LR children under 18 I i Democrat-Gazene Start Little Rocks daytime cur- few begins today. Children under 18 are barred from city streets and parks from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on school days. Since last year, the city has had a curfew barring children under 18 from being on the streets from 10 p.m. to a.m. 5 Sunday through Thursday, and from midnight to 5 a.m. Fridays and Saturdays. Curfew exceptions allow children to be out if working, attending school activities or accompanied by an adult. Those caught breaking the curfew are given a citation on the first offense and, for subsequent offenses, their parents are fined up to $500. The school-hours curfew doesn't cover holidays, afterschool hours and summer vacations. The Little Rock Board of Directors approved the curfew Jan. 3. The day curfew covers students who are registered as home-school students. Technically, the ordinance prohibits a child who is too young to attend school from being outside, unaccompanied by parent or a guardian, from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Little Rock police said truancy regulations address students skipping school, but a day curfew will also prevent students who have been expelled or suspended from school from roaming city streets and parks.Arkansas Democrat (gazette ?  WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1995  Curfew nets 6, puts teens at mall on spot BY JULIAN E. BARNES Oemocral-Gazene Staff Writer Seventeen-year-old Michael Ward of Bryant hadnt heard of Little Rocks new day curfew, until he went to check out the sneakers in J.C. Penneys. (The clerk) asked me, Shouldn't you be in school? Then he told me about the curfew. said Ward, a junior at Bryant High School, Its a free country. When you go to the mall you shouldnt have to worry about the police. Still Ward, like most of the young people at University Mall on Wednesday, said that, while he didnt want to watch his back for the mall cop, the curfews intent  to keep kids in school  was good. Little Rock police issued six citations for violations of the school-time curfew Tuesday the first day the law was in effect, Lt. Charles Holladay said. Although the rainy streets were mostly empty, there were youth in the mall, many from Bryant. Bryant schools had the day off for teachers conferences, but young people from other cities whose schools werent closed were in violation. Kelly Davidson, 15, who was hanging out at University Mall about 30 minutes before the end of her school day in North Little Rock, said she wasnt in violation of the curfew because she was with her parents and had a doctors appointment. While Davidsons parents werent immediately to be found, Case Dillards mom was sitting right beside him as the two ate lunch at Park Plaza Mall, If I want to go to the mall, I have to have an adult with me, said Case, 12, of the new curfew, I think they could find an easier way to keep kids from crime, he said. He said he had never been to the mall during school hours without a parent. Still, it was the principle of the thing. Park Plaza Mall officials said they already questioned young people in the mall and dont expect the daytime curfew to change things. But there are those who think the day curfew might make the mall cops more quick to question people about whether they are truant. After visiting his mother in the hospital, Casey Green, 9, had lunch with his dad at the University Mall McDonalds, Finishing his lunch quickly, he took $2 and went to the arcade, A cop stopped me and asked me why I wasnt in school, Casey said. He was a little shaken by the confrontation, but his father said such scrutiny is now a necessary evil. I think its a shame its come to this, Rick Green said, But over here in Little Rock, they need it,FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 1995 \u0026lt; Expulsion appeals survive LRSD vote Motion: Only parents could plead BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer A school principal's decision to expel a student for misbehavior should be final unless a parent appeals, the Little Rock School Boards president said Thursday. But the board didnt agree, rejecting Linda Pondexters motion in a 3-3 vote. Passage requires a majority vote. Board member O.G. Jacovelli was absent. The tie vote came during a lengthy board meeting in which administrators hinted at programs that could be eliminated or modified next year to achieve $8 million in projected budget cuts. Early-childhood education programs for 3- and 4-year-olds, vocational education, portation. nursing transservices, safety, security and the McClellan community education program are among some 15 areas targeted for cuts or changes. Few details were available Thursday. The administration is reviewing the recommendations before presenting them to the board in the ne.xt few weeks. I Appeals  Continued Irom Page 1B plan. In making the motion to up- hold principals' expulsion recommendations, Pondexter cited a district report showing that while principals recommended 57 students for expulsion last semester, only one student was actually removed. That causes me a great deal of concern. Pondexter said. I want assurances that the principal's recommendation stands unless the parent appeals. 1 dont want one individual to be able to set aside a recommendation, she said, adding that the district's hearing officer i.s given too much latitude in handling disciplinary matters. An expulsion is effective for either the remainder of a se- mester nr the school year. Stu- dnnt.s can be expelled and reinstated only by a vote of the Most of the proposals would have to be approved by both the school board and U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who monitors the districts compliance with its desegregation See APPEALS, Page 9B school board. Students who appeal an expulsion have the right to a hearing before a district administrator and can then appeal to the board. Offenses warranting expulsion include use of a weapon, possession of a firearm, physical assault on or verbal abuse of staff, drug sales, arson and gang membership. Pondexters motion came after several highly publicized fights at area junior and senior high schools that have resulted in 23 students arrests since Jan, 13. Dr. Henry Williams, superintendent, said he agreed with Pondexter. He announced that a coalition of district administrators, principals and teachers will hold a news conference Monday to announce measures to provide more support to principals. We plan to make a strong statement about reclaiming our schools and to show that thi.s foolishness going on in our schools won't be tolerated, Williams said. Pondexter and others contend that at least some of the recent school fights stem from the fact that students suspended last fall are returning to school for the new semester. She said she didn't have any numbers to back that up. A fight at McClellan High School was allegedly started by students who either had returned from suspensions or had transferred from other schools. Our kids are in the news every day, but they don't do anything serious enough to be expelled? Pondexter asked. She noted that 22 expulsion recommendations came from Henderson Junior High and 11 came from Central, but none of the students were expelled. The principals recommendations should be upheld unless a parent asks for an appeal. We need to return local control back to the schools, Pondexter said. Unfortunately, children are getting a message that if we mess up, its OK because they'll be back in school in a few days.  Larry Robertson, the districts hearing officer, said ne tried to remove misbehaving students from school by placing them on long-term suspension.s and, in some cases, placing them in alternative settings. His goal is to keep students off the street, and he has heard complaints from only one principal, he said. Long-term suspensions last longer than 10 days and can cover an entire semester. Board members Pondexter, Pat Gee and Judy Magness voted for the motion. Dr, Katherine Mitchell, John Riggs IV and Kevin OMalley opposed it, Mitchell questioned how Pondexters proposal was any different than current policy, while OMalley complained that the proposal was out of order because it wasn't on the agenda for the meeting.SATURDAY, JANUARY 28, 1995 We will no longer coddle kids Williams  Continued from Page 1A has said he believes that fight was started by one student who had been suspended but who returned to school for the new semester and by two students who peals the recommendation to the central office or the school board. In I principals have been asking for - - - that the district be Unruly face ouster, LRSD chief vows BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Educ\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":39,"next_page":40,"prev_page":38,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":456,"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}}]}}