{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_717","title":"\"Proposed Planning Report, 1986-87-1991-92''","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"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["\"Proposed Planning Report, 1986-87-1991-92''"],"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/717"],"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":["402 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\nDr. Ed Kelly, superintendent\nProposed Planning Report 1986-87 - 1991-92 Dr. Ed Kelly, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas1 Mission Statement Sequence of Events Priorities Organizational Chart Enrollment Projections TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 2 5 7 8 I ) I I !l I' I Comparative School Profile (Staffing) 21 I I Financial Assumptions and Revenue Estimates 42 Student Al locations 46 I !' 1 , Building Utilization Projections 47 Program Plans by Year 51 f ( I 1986-87 52 Goals and Objectives for 1986-87 53 ,1 i  I 11 Calendar for All Contract Lengths 57 I Support Services 64 Educational Programs 75 1 I Administrative Programs 95 t 1987-88 111 ) 1988-89 144 1989-90 162 1 1990-91 177 1991-92 185 i Ji' !i I I 1 i i I I MISSION STATEMENT I OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide an educational program that enables each child to achieve his/her highest potential. To that end, the Little Rock School District will provide: (1) a program of basic education for all students\n(2) programs that address the special needs of students (emotional, physical, and mental)\nand (3) enrichment opportunities such as art, music, and athletics. Through an organized program of studies, each student will experience academic success and will learn and appreciate responsibility and productive citizenship. I I' 1 I I 1 1 I i1 -1- i I J I ) I I I I I If I PLANNING SEQUENCE FOR THE 1986-87 SIX-YEAR PLAN AND MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLAN i The 1986-87 six-year plan cannot be based upon an evaluation of what happened during the 1985-86 school year because there is not enough time to evaluate the year before the term report has to be filed. Therefore, it must be based upon the results of the 1984-85 school year. For purposes of clarification, the mission statement adopted by the Board of Directors will be the general goal of the District. All activities of the District will be centered around that mission statement. The goals that are stated in the first year of the six-year plan are goals that have been established that will be addressed in the six-year plan. These are the specific plans around which the plan will be written. The annual goals that are adopted by the Board prior to the beginning of the school year will be used as specific measurements by which the District will be able to evaluate its growth. GOALS FOR MEASURING GROWTH 1 GOALS FOR THE SIX-YEAR PLAN MISSION STATEMENT 1. The District administrators will evaluate the degree to which the 1984-85 goals were reached. 2. 3. The Board of Directors will approve the goals for the 1985-86 school year, (see attached) 1 I The District will hold three public meetings for the purpose of receiving input from the citizens concerning the 1986-87 school year. The dates for those meetings are listed below. i Rockefeller Intermediate School - September 19, 1985 Pulaski Heights Junior High School - September 23, 1985 Parkview High School - September 30, 1985 , I 4. Appoint a planning coordinator November, 1985. t 5. The Board of Directors will adopt a mission statement November, 1985. 1 I i I I -2- I j  6. The Superintendent will appoint grade level and/or subject area committees composed of staff members to study their respective areas. Recommendations will be presented to the Superintendent prior to December. 1985. 7. The individual buildings will begin to plan how they will receive community input for developing tneir building plan. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 1 The Superintendent will prepare for the Board a six-year plan. The plan will be presented to the Board prior to January 22, 1986. The District will conduct a series of public meetings for the purpose of sharing the plan with the public and for the purpose of receiving input on the plan. Those meetings are scheduled as listed below. On or about January 28, 1986 On or about February 5, 1986 On or about February 13, 1986 The Board of Directors will conduct a series of public work sessions on the proposed six-year plan. The Board of Directors will discuss the proposed six-year plan at regularly scheduled Board meetings in January, February, and March. The public shall have the opportunity to address the Board about their concerns relating to the planning report. The Board shall adopt the six-year plan on or before May 1, 1986. The Board shall adopt the individual building plans on or before May 15, 1986. The District and the individual building plans will be submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education prior to July 1, 1986. The District will evaluate the degree to which the goals established for 1985-86 school were attained and report those to the Board and the public prior to September 1, 1986. The Board will adopt goals for the 1986-87 school year prior to the beginning of the 1986-87 school year. The Superintendent will announce the dates for the public meetings for the purpose of hearing concerns of the public on items included in the 1987-88 school year prior to October 1, 1986. The Board will adopt or modify the mission statement prior to December 1, 1986. -3- 1 Revised 8-28-85 1 IITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GOALS/OBJECTIVES 1985-86 1. 2. 3. At least eighty-five (85%) percent of the students in the Little Rock School District will master the skil1s/competencies on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (grades 3, 6, and 8) and the Little Rock School District Criterion Referenced Test (Grades 1, 2, 4, 5 ) in the 1985-86 school year. At least seventy-five (75%) percent of the students as determined by performance on a standardized test measure will show individual growth of at least one year and one month or be at least one year above grade 1evel. The school climate at individual buildings will improve as evidenced by: a. b. decrease in behavioral incidents that cause classroom and building disruptions and result in administrative referrals and/or suspensions. increase in parental participation. I I r c. improved attendance. d. reduction in the number of class tardies. e. f. improved building cleanliness. increase in student participation by race and sex in extracurricular activities. (Where the race is in a minority increase must be shown.) (1) more black student participation in academic and service club activities. 4. (2) more white student participation in athletic activities. The difference between the percentage of black students above grade level and the percentage of white students above grade (5) percent as measured by stan- level will decrease by five dardized tests. 5. 6. Teacher absences due to short term illness (1-19 days) will be decreased by ten (10) percent over the 1984-85 school year. Ninety (90) percent of the parents who complete the \"Quality of Education\" survey that will be conducted during the 1985-86 school year will rate the quality of education being provided in the Little Rock School District as satisfactory. (This goal will not be used in principal's evaluation.) -4-I PRIORITIES First Priority A. To help all students receive and master the tools for learning: 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. reading writing mathematical skills science and scientific skills study skills speaking (communication) creative thought critical thought B. To develop in students an awareness and an appreciation of their heritage: 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. history music art language literature politics economics philosophy sociology Second Priority The second level of priorities are listed below. These are. as the rafpnnri-zation of second priority suggests, not as important as the areas in the first priority. These are areas in which the educational system should assist but for which it should not assume primary responsibility. The * schools do not have the financial capability nor the expertise to assume total responsibility for these activities. 'I I a a II I I! The development of socialization skills and internprsnnal tjki 1 1 \u0026lt;:: f I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. counseling services psychological services health education sex education drug education extracurricular activities -5-  1 1 fl fl Third Priority Support services or logistical concerns:  f 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. business concerns personnel functions school lunch programs school transportation programs negotiations and contract management building use and maintenance I Fourth Priority 1 These areas could be classified as \"other\" functions with which the schools become involved: I 1. 2. 3. i hot breakfasts day care centers community use of facilities 3 -6- I I I ri Hrwi I Director of Communications Associate Superintendent PRINCIPALS-CommunitY I Board oi Directors Superintendent Special Assistants Associate Superintendent Evaluallon/Testing Salety Pupil Accounting Student Records Desegregatlon/Human Relations Manager for Support Services Administrative Assistant Director ol Special Education [Supervisors ol Special Education Director of Vocational-Technical Education [Supervisors of Vo-Tech Education Director of Physical Educallon/Alhleflcs Stall Academy Director ol Personnel Director ol Federal Programs [pAC Coordinator Coordinator of VIPS Legislation Litigation Director ol Pupil Services Administrative Assistant Director ol Financial Services Director ol Data Processing Director ol Plant Services Facilities Coordinator Supvs. of Custodians Supv. ol Adult Education Supv. ol Engllsh/Soclal Studies Supv. ol Elementary Education Supv. ol Instructional Technologies Supv. ol Math Supv. ol Reading/Director of IRC Supv. ol Music Supv. ol Science Coord, ol Cultural Arts Resources Coord, ol Gilled/Talenled Nurses Guidance Counselors Social Workers Psychological Examiners CARE Program Director ol Purchasing [warehouse Manager Director of Transportation [Supvs. of Transportation I Difflctor of Food Service Supvs. of Food Service Warehouse Manager J I ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 by Grade Level I I 4$ t !L I 1 -8- T r \u0026amp; (  f'** Little Rock Public Schools November 26, 1985 TO: FROM: Dr. Ed Kelly, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Leonard L. Thalmueller, Special Assistant // to the Superintendent, Evaluation and Testing SUBJECT: Projected Enrollment for 1986-87 Attached are the enrollment projections for the 1986-87 school year. The October 1, 1985, enrollment data and the percentages of change in the primary, intermediate, junior high, and senior high levels over a four-year period were used in calculating the projected enrollments. Basic Assumptions 1. The present school organization will remain intact for the 1986-87 school year. 2. The October 1, 1985, enrollment summary is accurate. 3. The pattern during the past four school years will continue into the 1986-87 school year. 1I These projections represent the enrollments anticipated for October 1, 1986. em JI cc: Executive Staff 3 p p -9- I I 5 * ft. _ jg SCHOOL BUILDING CAPACITY UNGRADED CENTRAL HALL PARKVIEW METROPOLITAN TOTAL SENIOR HIGH 2050 1250 1150 N/A 4450 19 19 I o I Special Schools Kindergarten Primary Elementary Intermediate Junior High Senior High Total ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 10th GRADE 818 402 417 1637 Actual Enrollment October 1, 1985 15 1 ,640 2,925 3,619 2,559 4,484 4,057 19,299 nth GRADE 614 346 334 1294 SUMMARY 12th GRADE 533 289 344 1166 SUBTOTAL 1965 1037 1095 19 4116 Projected Enrollment October 1, 1986 15 1,634 2,974 3,613 2,681 4,358 4,116 19,391 KINDERGARTEN 63 25 19 107 Percent Change 0 -0.4% +1.7% -0.2% +4.8% -2.8% +1.5% +0.5% TOTAL 2028 1062 1114 19 4223 li   J 4i iMUtl Iw  lit  - i SCHOOL BUILDING CAPACITY UNGRADED DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MANN PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH 870 725 1000 950 725 765 5035 13 13 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 th GRADE 165 240 229 355 245 221 1455 Sth GRADE 178 246 241 342 246 227 1480 9th GRADE 173 237 271 286 238 205 1410 TOTAL 516 723 754 983 729 653 4358 I I 1J SCHOOL BOOKER FRANKLIN GARLAND GIBBS PULASKI HEIGHTS ROCKEFELLER STEPHENS WASHINGTON TOTAL INTERMEDIATE BUILDING CAPACITY 620 490 465 350 500 450 400 330 3605 UNGRADED 36 19 55 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS 4 th GRADE 180 133 100 92 130 95 114 80 924 5th GRADE 178 130 111 90 128 101 98 72 908 6 th GRADE 164 110 84 79 130 90 79 58 794 SUBTOTAL KINDERGARTEN TOTAL 558 373 314 261 388 286 291 210 2681 558 68 88 48 26 150 51 47 478 441 402 309 414 436 342 257 2159. L J J a a a a n CALE SCHOOL BUILDING CAPACITY UNGRAOEL) 1st GRADE 465 12 75 CARVER ISH KING MITCHELL RIGHTSELL 455 375 280 255 375 9 84 57 83 73 72 I co I ROMINE WESTERN HILLS WILSON SUBTOTAL ELEMENTARY WILLIAMS MAGNEl GRAND TOTAL ELEMENTARY 585 210 470 3470 530 4000 99 49 77 21 21 669 72 741 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 2nd GRADE 69 65 46 70 47 68 90 52 5 593 75 668 3rd GRADE 57 66 50 54 54 58 61 48 57 505 78 583 4 th GRADE 56 43 55 67 36 40 77 33 51 468 72 540 5 th GRADE 56 55 45 50 45 44 66 44 4 469 63 532 6th GRADE 50 49 49 60 33 40 63 49 0. 453 75 528 SUBTOTAL KINDERGARTEN TOTM 375 362 311 384 288 322 456 275 405 3178 435 3613 75 50 50 51 49 50 100 41 52 518 0 518 45C 412 361 435 337 372 I 556 31S 457 3656 435 4111 JI E . IBIm BRADY SCHOOL BUILDING CAPACITY 450 FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT JEFFERSON MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF TERRY WOODRUFF TOTAL PRIMARY SCHOOLS 300 450 590 465 565 470 535 300 4125 UNGRADED 10 19 29 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 PRIMARY SCHOOLS 1st GRADE 138 99 99 141 105 176 141 165 92 1156 2nd GRADE no 75 94 109 84 150 120 116 58 916 3rd GRADE 92 61 90 84 100 134 103 138 71 873 SUBTOTAL KINDERGARTEN TOTAL 340 235 283 344 308 460 364 419 221 2974 50 63 47 57 75 63 50 75 51 531 390 298 330 401 383 523 414 494 272 3505 7 1 1 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 Through 1991-92 1 I I I. I 1 I j I -15-Utti mhuI immI UM' ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY 1986-87 THROUGH 1991-92 I ! ENROLLMENT PRIMARY INTERMEDIATE ELEMENTARY JUNIOR HIGH SENIOR HIGH TOTAL 1-12 .1 I I -1 1986-87 2974 531 2681 478 3613 518 4358 4116 107 17,742 1634 - 2 Lui 1987-88 2993 541 2849 474 3689 525 4342 4056 107 17,929 1647 I II i I i 1 o ex 5 Q Lui I o ex: 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 3015 3023 3084 3131 551 560 571 583 2888 2936 2984 3034 472 469 467 464 3773 3877 3995 4071 534 543 549 557 4284 4248 4199 4156 4062 4069 4077 4085 107 107 107 107 18,022 18,153 18,339 18,477 1664 1679 1694 1711 t r f I I I f II  1 - 3 K 4 - 6 K 1 - 6 K 7 - 9 i I I I I * These data do not include approximately fifteen students who likely will be assigned to schools such as, Fullerton, Francis Allen, Pathfinder, and Youth Home. TeH mi s ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1986-87 THROUGH 1991-92 r ( SCHOOL PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1986-87 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1987-88 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1988-89 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1989-90 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1990-91 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1991-92 1 I I I ! SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 10-12 K 10-12 K 10-12 K 10-12 K 10-12 K 10-12 K I I t r Central 1965 63 1947 63 1972 63 1998 63 2026 63 2054 63 I 'i I I Hall 1037 25 1056 25 1056 25 1056 25 1056 25 1056 25 r Parkview 1095 19 1033 19 1014 19 995 19 975 19 955 19 II I I Metropolitan 19 20 K 20 20 20 20 I I L I I I II 1- I II I u k TOTAL SENIOR HIGH JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH 4116 7 - 9 516 723 754 983 729 653 4358 107 4056 107 4062 107 4069 107 4077 107 4085 107 K 7 - 9 496 728 680 1039 747 652 4342 K 7 - 9 K 7-9 K 7-9 K 7 9 K 1 465 716 636 1051 757 659 4284 437 415 400 J i 728 596 1068 762 657 4248 735 742 561 531 1086 1105 748 728 654 650 ) ( 4199 4156 *Represents the full-time students at Metropolitan. rw\"! A] ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS 1986-87 THROUGH 1991-92 II SCHOOL PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1986-87 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1987-88 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1988-89 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1989-90 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1990-91 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1991-92 INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS 4 - 6 K 4-6 K 4-6 K 4 - 6 K 4-6 K 4 - 6 K Booker 558 608 609 609 609 609 I I 00 I t j Franklin Garland 373 314 68 88 399 326 63 88 403 321 59 88 405 327 55 88 407 330 51 88 410 332 47 88 T\u0026lt; i ir Gibbs 261 48 270 48 262 48 255 48 247 48 240 48 Pulaski Heights 388 26 385 27 383 28 386 29 390 30 395 31 I I Rockefeller 286 150 306 150 315 150 319 150 324 150 330 150 Stephens 291 51 333 52 360 53 384 54 409 55 434 56 t i Washington 210 47 222 46 235 46 251 45 268 45 284 44 I L I TOTAL INTERMEDIATE 2681 478 2849 474 2888 472 2936 469 2984 467 3034 464 u I, ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1986-87 THROUGH 1991-92 SCHOOL PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1986-87 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1987-88 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1988-89 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1989-90 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1990-91 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1991-92 CO 4- I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1 - 6 K 1 - 6 K 1 6 K 1 - 6 K 1 6 K 1 6 K Bale 375 75 427 75 482 75 528 75 575 75 610 Carver 362 50 354 50 345 50 350 50 352 50 350 50 Ish 311 50 303 50 ,294 50 278 50 267 50 262 50 Ki ng 384 51 401 52 430 53 441 54 462 54 480 55 Mitchel 1 288 49 292 49 286 49 293 49 291 49 294 49 Rightsei 1 322 50 331 50 336 50 347 50 348 50 350 50 Romine 456 100 462 104 465 no 481 115 513 120 520 I 125 Western Hills Wil son Williams Magnet TOTAL ELEMENTARY 275 405 435 3613 41 52 518 255 422 442 3689 41 54 525 251 435 449 3773 41 56 534 257 447 455 3877 41 59 543 258 470 459 3995 41 60 549 260 480 465 4071 41 62 557 Ilin a E ftSwfcj I ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS PRIMARY SCHOOLS 1986-87 THROUGH 1991-92 SCHOOL PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1986-87 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1987-88 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1988-89 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1989-90 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1990-91 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1991-92 I I I I I I r t I k i I h ki ti f I I PRIMARY SCHOOLS Brady Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Jefferson McDermott Meadowcii ff Terry Woodruff TOTAL PRIMARY 1 - 3 340 235 283 344 308 460 364 419 221 2974 K SO 63 47 57 75 63 50 75 51 1 - 3 K 1 - 3 K 1 - 3 K 1 3 K 1 - 3 K 360 249 283 340 289 481 372 412 207 2993 50 65 43 57 75 65 60 75 51 541 378 259 258 340 287 495 369 428 201 3015 SO 67 41 58 75 67 67 75 51 551 398 270 225 344 287 506 369 436 188 3023 SO 69 38 60 75 69 73 75 51 560 421 282 222 351 291 519 378 444 176 3084 SO 71 35 63 75 71 80 75 51 571 446 295 210 357 294 534 378 452 165 3131 SO 74 32 66 75 73 87 75 51 583 ( ( i I 1 I I I COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILES (STAFFING) 1985-86/1986-87 i I I ! I s J B I -21-HIGH SCHOOL 1985-8I) COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE CENTRAL 1986-87 Change 1985-86 HALL 1986-87 Change 7 ! p ENROLLMENT K 10 11 12 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT* STAFF, CERTIFIED English/Language Arts Journa1i sm Speech/Drama Reading Mathematics Science Social Studies Vocational Ed. Business Ed. Distr. Ed. Home Ec./Child Devel Health/P.E. Foreign Languages Mu', i ( Art ROTO Special Ed. Counselors E i bra r1ans Speech Therapy Admini s tra tor'. TOTAL certifiedSTAFF STAFF, NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodia1 Food Service Nurses I I I i I I1 I Aides (except CARI) Instructional Superv i sory I TOTAI NON'CE'RTIFIFt) tOtaC staff Students arc counted at their base schools 63.0 763.0 607.0 556.0 0.0 63.0 818.0 614.0 533.0 0.0 25.0 380.0 300.0 324.0 0.0 25.0 402.0 346.0 289.0 0.0 1989.0 2028.0 (+39.0) 1029.0 1062.0 I 16.0 1 .0 3.2 2.0 12.0 8.8 9.0 5.0 8.0 3.0 7.0 5.0 6.2 2.2 2.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 16.0 1 .0 3.2 2.0 12.0 8.8 9.0 5.0 8.0 3.0 7.0 5.0 6.2 2.2 2.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 8.2 1 .0 1 .4 1 .0 6.0 4.6 5.2 5.6 5.4 1 .0 2.6 3.0 4.4 1 .6 1 .0 0.0 3.0 4.0 1 .0 8.2 1 .0 1 .4 1 .0 6.0 4.6 5.2 5.6 5.4 1 .0 2.6 3.0 4.4 1 .6 1 .0 0.0 3.0 4.0 1 .0 r 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 .109.4 109.4 (0) 64.0 . 64.0 (Q) 14.0 12.0 7.0 1 .0 14.0 12.0 7.0 1 .0 8.0 10.0 5.0 .5 8.0 10.0 5.0 .5 t L II I\" 1,1 I 3.0 3.0 1 .0 1 .0 37.0 37.0 (0) , .24,5_____ 24.5 __(0_l 146.4 146.4 _X0) J._84t.5 88.5 ZCOJ -22- HIGH SCHOOL 1985-86 COMPARATIVESCHOOL PROFILE METROPOLITAN PARKVIEW 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change I' ir: ] I I ENROLLMENT K 10 11 12 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT* STAFF, CERTIFIED Engli sh/Language Arts Journa1i sm Speech/Orama Reading Mathematics Science Social Studies Vocational Ed. Business Ed. Uistr. Ed. Home Ec./Chi 1d Devel Health/P.E. Foreign 1 anguaejes Muit Art ROTC Special Ed. Counselors Librarians Speech Therapy Admin i s t rators lOTAL CERYi'FIEO STAFF STAFF. NON CLRTIFILI) Clerical Custodi a I Food Service Nui'ses Aides (except CARL) I ns true t i ona1 SupervIsory TOTAl NON CERT IFILO TOTAL STAFF Students are counted at their base schools I 19.0 19.0 656.0..........'656.0 25.5 25.5 2.0 2.0 .2 2.0 2.0 29.7 29.7 (0): 2.0 5.0 1 .0 1 .0 2.0 5.0 1 .0 1 .0 I 2.0 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 12.0 41 .7 -23- 12.0 4'1 .1 (0) 20.0 403.0 383.0 321 .0 0.0 19.0 417.0 334.0 344.0 0.0 1127.0  111'4.0 Fn.'o) 9.6 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 8.0 5.0 5.4 4.8 6.0 1 .0 3.0 3.0 3.2 2.0 1 .0 2.0 3.4 4.0 1 .0 9.6 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 8.0 5.0 5.4 4.8 6.0 1 .0 3.0 3.0 3.2 2.0 1 .0 2.0 3.4 4.0 1 .0 I I 4.0 4.0 70.4 70.4 (0} I 8.0 8.0 3.0 .5 8.0 8.0 3.0 .5 L 1 .0 1 .0 ^L.L*2d.5 'JjCo} _ l-lQ) I ' 90.9' 90.9 Ml I I. H ' L 'I' iJI I I COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE [ JUNIOR HIGH DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS /aE-a ENROLLMENT 7 89 Ungraded total' ENROLLMENT* 198*^-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change a STAFF, CERTIFIED English/Language Arts Journali sm Speech/Orama Reading Mathematics Science Social Studies Vocational Ed./Career Ed. Business Ed. Distr. Ed. Home Ec. Health/P.E. Foreign Languages Musi c Art ROIC Special Ed. Counselors 1 ibra ri ans Speech Therapy Admi n i s tra tors lOIAL CERTIFIED STAU I I t 1 '.lAFl . NON CERTIFIED C 1 ei'i ea 1 Cus todi a 1 Food Servict* Nurses I Aides (except CARE) 1 ns true t i ona1 Superv i sory I 1 101 Al NON CERT I I I ED I 10TA1 staff 4 Students are counted at their base schools 175.0 183.0 228.0 0.0 586.0 5.0 3.0 5.2 4.6 5.0 3.2 1.0 2.6 1.6 2.0 1 .0 2.0 3.0 1 .0 3.0 43.2 3.0 6.0 4.0 .3 13.3 56.5 -24- 165.0 178.0 173.0 0.0 516.0, LJC-lQiO 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.8 3.2 1 .0 2.6 1 .6 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1 .0 3.0 42.2 3.0 6.0 4.0 .3 13.3 55.5 i I I I (-1-0) I I iI (0) (-1.0) I i I I 1 i 241 .0 240.0 253.0 0.0 240.0 246.0 237.0 0.0 734,^0 ^723,0____QT. 0} 6.4 6.4 3.0 6.8 5.2 5.8 3.6 1 .0 3.0 6.8 5.2 5.8 3.6 1 .0 I I ! 1 3.4 1 .6 1 .4 1 .0 3.4 1 .6 1 .4 1 .0 i t 1i . I 3.0 2.0 1 .0 3.0 2.0 1 .0 3.0 3.0 48.2 48.2 (0) 3.5 6.0 7.0 .5 3.5 6.0 7.0 .5 'I I [ 17.0 17.0 (0) 65.2 65.2 (0) H. ' i  ii-i ! 'ic! t f T JUNIOR HIGH ENROLLMENT 789 Ungraded TOTAL'ENROLLMENT* STAFF. CERTIFIED English/Language Arts Journa 1 i srn Speech/Draina Reading Mathematics Sc i ence Social Studies Vocational Ed./Career Ed. Business Ed. Distr. Ed. Home Ec. Health/P.E. Foreign Languages Music' Art ROIC Special Ed. Counselors I ibr.irians Speech Therapy Adminis trators I 245.0 290.0 280.0 13.0 828.0 7.4 4.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 2.6 1 .0 3.0 2.0 2.2 1.0 5.0 3.0 1 .0 3.0 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE HENDERSON 1986-87 Change 229.0 241 .0 271 .0 13.0 754.0 7.2 4.0 6.6 6.4 6.6 2.6 1 .0 3.0 2.0 2.2 1 .0 5.0 3.0 1 .0 3.0 MANN 1985-86 355.0 292.0 268.0 0.0 ( -74- 0l_., '91. O 8.2 3.0 7.6 9.8 6.0 4.0 1 .0 101 AL CERTIFIED STAFI 55.6 54,6 (-1.0) 1986-87 Change 355.0 342.0 286.0 0.0 1 i 1 1 I ...._Z983',__[+6o) 9.0 3.0 8.0 10.0 6.2 4.0 1 .0 I i I I STAFF. NON CERTIFIID C 1 er i Cl) 1 Lus tod i a 1 Food Service Nurses I I 1( i i i i I Ii 2.2 1 .6 1 .6 1 .0 2.2 1 .6 1 .6 1 .0 5.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 1 .0 I 3.0 3.0 58.0 59.6 (+1.6) i!i 4.0 8.0 6.0 .5 4.0 8.0 6.0 .5 I I 4.0 7.0 6.0 .5 4.0 7.0 6.0 .5 i 1 H. 1 Aides (except CARI ) 1 ns true t iona1 Superv1snry lOIAl NON CiRTIFlED total staff Studentb are counted at their base schools 11 I 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 24.5 24.5 (0) I I i 3.0 3.0 80.1 79.1 (-1.0) -25- 20.5 20.5 (0) 78.5 80.1 (1.6) COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE JUNIOR HIGH PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST 1980-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change fl ENROLLMENT 7 89 Ungraded 240.0 239.0 252.0 9.0 245.0 246.0 238.0 9.0 222.0 215.0 244.0 0.0 221 .0 227.0 205.0 0.0 fl total\" E'NROLLMENT*  740.0 738.0 (72.0) _^68]_.0____ 653.0 . (-28.0) fl fl fl I STAFF, CERTIFIED Engli sh/Language Arts Journa1i sm Speech/Urarna Reading Mathematics Sc i ence Social Studies Vocational Ed./Career Ed. Business Ed. Distr. Ed. Home Ec. Health/P.E. Foreign 1, anguages Music Art RO 11 jpecial Ld. Counselors I ill IS) ri,) ns Speech Therapy Admi nistrator s I i 5.6 5.6 6.0 6.0 lOlAl ClRIIFITl) SIAM MAI 1 , NON Cl RI II Ii.p (. 1 er ) c.i 1 Cus tod i ,11 Iood Service Nurses I I i Aides (excepi (ARI ) 1 os tr'ui 1100a 1 luper'v 1 sor-y s OHAI non (J HI II ill) lOlAl MATT Students are counted at their base schools 3.0 5.6 5.6 5.6 2.6 .6 3.0 5.6 5.6 5.6 2.6 .6 3.0 5.2 4.8 5.0 2.2 .8 3.0 5.2 4.8 5.0 2.2 .8 2.8 2.0 1 .2 1 .0 2.8 2.0 1 .2 1 .0 II 2.2 1 .2 2.0 1 .4 2.2 1 .2 2.0 1 .4 4.2 3.0 1.0 4.2 3.0 1 .0 I 3.0 3.0 I II 4.0 3.0 1 .0 4.0 3.0 1 .0 3.0 3.0 46.8 46.8 (0) 44.8 44.8 (0) 3.5 6.0 7.0 .3 3.5 6.0 7.0 .3 1 I I I i i 16.8 16.8 (0) I 63.6 63.6 {0}  -26- 3.0 5.0 7.0 .3 3.0 5.0 7.0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 16.3 16.3 (0) 61 .1 61.1 (0) ''SI J COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROF IL E INTERMEDIATE BOOKER FRANKLIN 1I9 ENROLLMENT K 4 5 6 Ungradlid TOTAL ENROLL'mLNT 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1 STAFF, CERTIFIED I ns true ti ona1 K 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL INSTR.' S'TA'FF ' %Isi AVG. CI ASS SIZE \" I sIIClAl INSTR. SIAII I I bra ri (ins Music leathers Art Tf'achers Counselors Resourte Room (Sp. In.) Ch. 1 Readin\u0026lt;) Ch. I Math f 1 P.L. Teachers Adm Inis Lra Lors Speech Therapy 101Al CLRTITIEd STAH SI AFI , NGN CERTIFIED C let) (, a 1 Custodia1 I ood Scrv 11.(.' Nurses A i\u0026lt;lf. ((XI cpt CARI ) 1 ns t. riji t iona 1 Superv1sory T0TAL_N0N CLRTJFILI) total staff i I I I I I I I I I I I 179.0 141 .0 160.0 37.0 180.0 179.0 164.0 36.0 74.0 131 .0 109.0 145.0 0.0 68.0 133.0 130.0 110.0 0.0 Tu'.o\" 6.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 24.0,, 21 .5 1 .0 1 .5 1 .0 .3 1.5 2.0 1.0 1 .0 2.0 2.0 37.3 2.5 5.0 5.0 0.0 10.0 4.0 26.5 63.8 659 .d  {,+42.0) 7. .459. d 44h0_ __,_{-18^0) 7.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 0.0 I _2A.fO   X+2Xi ' 18.0 JL.0_ _ _ 21 .5 1 .0 2.0 2.0 .3 1 .5 2.0 1 .0 2.0 2.0 2.0 41 .8 2.5 5.0 5.0 0.0 10.0 4.0 26.5 68.3 (0) I i I I (+4.5) J I (o) I I I i I 25.5 25.9 ( + .4) fc -11- 1 .0 .5 .2 .3 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .5 .2 .3 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 26.0 25.0 (-1.0) 2.0 4.0 4.0 .3 2.0 4.0 4.0 .3 1 .0 2.2 1 .0 2.2 13.5 ,.13.5_____(0) (+4.5)1 39.5 \" 38.5 (rb.O) I 4 3 7 T COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE INTERMEDIATE ENROLLMENT K 4 5 6 Ungraded T_OTAL XnMlME_NT  STAFF, CERTIFIED I ns true ti ona1 K 4 5 6 Ungraded JJS1C,s1af ' avg. class size GARLAND GIBBS I I 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change n dFClAl INSTR. STAII LI bra f ians Music Teacher-s Art Teachers Counsel 0 r*. Resource Room (Sp. Id.) Ch. I Readinij Ch. I Math P.L. Teachers Administrators Speech Thera()y I I total CERTirirD SJAFf I I SIAFI , NON CERTIFIED (Clerical Custod i a 1 loud Service Nurses 1 I * i I I i I Aide', (e^xcept (.API ) In', t.riK t lon.il Superv1 SOIy 1 I t I Wkk.NQN C'E'RTIFIED iPJAl:. 8tAF 87.0 109.0 87.0 113.0 19.0 88.0 100.0 111 .0 84.0 19.0 49.0 95.0 77.0 83.0 0.0 48.0 92.0 90.0 79.0 0.0 I, I  41570' '\"40270 (''3-OT'L3O4._O_\nlo?-Zo7ZZIt5^o) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 18.0 23.0 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 2.0 1.0 1 .0 1 .0 .6 25.8 1.5 3.0 3.0 .3 3.0 1.7 12.5 38.3 \"1'8.0 14.0 T4.0 is:: -28- 22.3 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .6 25.8 1 .5 3.0 3.0 .3 3.0 1.7 12.5 38.3 (-.7) (0) [ I I I I II I i (0) _ 21 .7 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .4 20.6 1.5 3.5 4.0 .3 1 .0 1 .6 11.9 (0) L.. 32.1 22:0I+.3') 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .4 20.6 1 .5 3.5 4.0 .3 1 .0 1 .6 - J_b9_ 22^ I (0) (0) ::cq)_\nh 7 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE INTERMEDIATE PULASKI HEIGHTS ROCKEFELLER 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change w ENROLLMENT K 45 6 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF, CERTIFIED Instructional K 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL INSTR. STAFF \" AVO. CLASS SIZE ' Ul (,|AI INSIR. SIAM I 25.0 131 .0 130.0 108.0 0.0 26.0 130.0 128.0 130.0 0.0 150.0 97.0 88.0 76.0 0.0 150.0 95.0 101 .0 90.0 0.0 I i II I 394,0 414.0 (+20.01 .411 '.0 T .43.JL_X+21..O) 1 .0 5.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 1 .0 5.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 i! ( 16.0 16.0 (or: 18_.-0______ m... s, I 24.6 25.8 (+1.2) t 22.8 24.2 ^I+lJ) ' I 1 I hr.i r I an Music Teachers Art, TeacFiers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. id.) Ch. 1 Reiidint) Cii. 1 Ma t il P.E. Teachers Administrators Speech Therapy total certified STAFF STAFF , NON CERTIFlED C1 er 1 (.a 1 Cus tod i a 1 Food Servite Nurses Aides (except CARI ) Inst rue 11ona1 Superv1sory JlQN CER11F irp total STAFF-I I I IIII I I I 1 .0 .5 .2 .3 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .5 .2 .3 2.0 1 .0 1.0 I I i 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 il ' t : i 1 .0 .4 1 .0 .4 II 1 .0 .6 1 .0 .6 23.4 23.4 (0) t I ! I 23.8 23.8 (.0) I il I 1 I' 1.5 3.0 0.0 .5 1 .5 3.0 0.0 .5 I I I 1 .5 3.5 4.0 .5 1 .5 3.5 4.0 .5 1 .0 1 .9 1 .0 1 .9 1 .0 1 .3 1 .0 1 .3 I! . 1 1- i!. 7.9 7.9 (0) 11.8 ~ 11.8~~' Co) I SI .3 31 .3 (0) 35.6 35.6 .(0) I I I 1 li -29- II 1 I I 5 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE I INTERMEDIATE ENROLLMENT K 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL' ENROLLMENT STAFF, CERTIFIED Instructional K 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL TNSTR. STAFF '' AYG. CLASS size SPECIAI INSTR. STAFF I. i brar ians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Readintj Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Administrators Speech Therapy I 1985-86 50.0 103.0 79.0 72.0 0.0 304.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 12.0 25\n3  .5 .5 .4 .3 3.0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 .5 STEPHENS 19.86-87 Change 1985-86 WASHINGTON 1986-87 Change I 1 IO 19.2 I I STAFF , NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses i 2.0 3.0 3.0 .3 Aides (excepi (.ARI ) 1 ns truet i ona1 Superv1sory I 1 .0 1 .6 total non'C'ERilFl EO LQIAL^tafT'.... 10.9 51.0 114.0 98.0 79.0 0.0 342_.O ' 1+38.0} 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 13.0 I+l^ 48.0 76.0 70.0 44.0 0.0 47.0 80.0 72.0 58.0 0.0 238.0 257.0 (+19.01 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 ( 10.0 10.0 '26.3 I+iYol......_y_.8_ Ma9), .5 .5 .4 .3 3.0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 .5 20.2 2.0 3.0 3.0 .3 1 .0 1 .6 .5 .5 .4 .3 1.0 1 .0 0.0 .5 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 I I 1 .0 .4 1 .0 .4 (+1 - OL ' Y5 J1 .15.1 _ -.(0), 3o_J\n:L jij ?~ (+i\nb) -30- 2.0 3.0 3.0 .3 2.0 3.0 3.0 .3 if : I 1 .0 1.1 1 .0 1.1 10.4 10.4 ..J.CQl 1 \u0026lt; 25.^ 25^PRIMARY COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE BRADY FAIR PARK I ENROLLMENT K123 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change ' 'I s TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF, CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) TOTAL INSTR. STAFF I' AVG. CLASS SIZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF Librarians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. td.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.L. Teachers Admini strators Speech Therapy totalcertified stafi STAFF. NON CERTIFIED C1 eri ca1 Custodial Food Service Nurses s Aides (except LARI ) Inst rue 11ondI Superv1sory 110N.Cj._RXl_FIL0 T0IA13TA1T------ 47.0 132.0 102.0 94.0 50.0 138.0 110.0 92.0 JZ5. Q____ 390.0____t+I5_,01 2.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 15.0 UH _ _____ 25.0______ 26.. 0____(+1.0) 1 .0 .5 1 .0 .5 I .3 1 .0 1.0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 21 .8 21 .8 (0) 1.5 3.0 4.0 .3 1 .5 3.0 4.0 .3 1 .0 2.1 1 .0 2.1 11.9 11.9 (oi._: 33.7 -31- 62.0 95.0 67.0 66.0 61 .0 99.0 75.0 61.0 II i 290.0 296.0 I+6,OJ  3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 22.3 .5 .5 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 19.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 .3 1 .0 2.0 IJ ..3 33.7. -.,-101,. .L._30,L_ 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 10} .5 .5 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 19.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 .3 1 .0 2.0 (0) 11. J____ 10). 30.6 1 (Oj I I ( i' I I t I I' 1 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE PRIMARY J 1985-86 JEFFERSON MCDERMOTT 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change i ENROLLMENT K123 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) 71 .0 107.0 101 .0 94.0 18.0 75.0 105.0 84.0 100.0 19.0 65.0 171 .0 138.0 104.0 0.0 63.0 176.0 150.0 134.0 0.0 ( Ia TOTAL ENROLLMENT 391.0 383.0 I=ajU. 478.0 523.0 (+45.0) I ' I STAFF. CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) TOTAL INSTR. STAFF AVG. CLASS SIZE r I1 3 SPECIAL INSTR. STATE L i bra rians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.L. Teachers Admini s tra tors Speech Therapy total' CERTIFIED STATE I I STAFF. NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses I 1 Aides (except (ARI ) I ns trui t i ona1 Superv1sory I TOTAim CERjjriED TOKriTATT'-- 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 7.0 6.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 0.0 II 18.0 17.0 1-1... 0) X+LJD. 21 .7 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 24.3 1 .5 2.0 4.0 .3 3.0 1 .4 12.2 ... 36.5. 22.5 7+-8y 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 23.3 1.5 2.0 4.0 .3 3.0 1 .4 12.2 I 23.9 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 24.9 I+l.O) 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 (-1.0) 26.3 27.3 (+1-0) 1 .5 3.0 5.0 .3 1 .5 3.0 5.0 .3 1 1 .0 1 .8 1 .0 1 .8 I (0). ____ 12.6______ _Cq) Z 35 Z Zl-ltQ) .L. -38,9_ .35. 9. (+1.0) -32- ..s I T I PRIMARY COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE MEADOWCLIFF 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 TERRY 1986-87 Change a3s ENROLLMENT K123 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) 50.0 144.0 107.0 115.0 43.0 141 .0 120.0 103.0 75.0 149.0 138.0 115.0 75.0 165.0 116.0 138.0 I TOTAL ENROLLMENT 416.61 24O7.6 19^ 477.0 494.0 (+17.0) pI STAFF. CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) 2.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 3.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 r TOTAL INSTR. STAFF 17.0 16.0 (--bQl 21 .0 21.0. IM i AVG. CLASS SIZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF L ibrarians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Administrators Speech Therapy totalCERTIFIED STAFF 2'4V4 23.9 22.7 23.5 I+^8J 1 .0 .5 1 .0 .5 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 I 1 I staff, non CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses I Aides (except CAKE) I ns true tlona I SupervIsory I j i TOTAL NON CERTIFIEO total' staff .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 23.8 1 .5 3.0 4.0 .3 1 .0 2.0 11.8 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 22.8 1.5 3.0 4.0 .3 1 .0 2.0 11.8 (-1.0) .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 28.3 2.5 4.5 5.0 .3 1 .0 2.6 28.3 _ (0) 2.5 4.5 5.0 .3 1 .0 2.6 ! (0)_______15.9_______ J5.2_____ XQ) 35.6 ....,3A.6_ ._Irl.Q)_L._44,2______44^ (Q) I i h. -33- i COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE ^1 h PRIMARY FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1 ENROLLMENT K123 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) 50.0 98.0 91 .0 109.0 0.0 47.0 99.0 94.0 90.0 0.0 58.0 141 .0 101 .0 102.0 10.0 57.0 141.0 109.0 84.0 10.0 i. Ii TOTAL ENROLLMENT 348.0 330.0 (-18.0) 412.Q 4Q1.0 t-n.oj -a STAFF, CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 1 .0 3.0 6.0 4.0 3.0 1 .0 Are I Is TOTAL INSTR. STAFF MG. CLASS SIZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF L ibrar ians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.L. Teachers Admini strators Speech Therapy TOTAL CERTIFIED STAR STAFF, NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses Aides (except CARI ) Instrut 11ond 1 Superv i sory TOTAL NO'N CERTIFIED total STAFF 4- 14.0 14.0 ioi 18.0 17.0 L--L-Q) ^_24r8 23.5____ 22,.-a___ 23 ..5_____ t+JJ 1 .0 .5 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 19.8 2.0 3.0 2.0 .3 3.0 1.9 12.2 1.0 .5 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1.0 1 .0 19.8 2.0 3.0 2.0 .3 3.0 1 .9 (0) 1 .0 .5 1 .0 .5 .3 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 23.8 22.8 (-1-.0) 2.0 3.0 5.0 .3 2.0 3.0 5.0 .3 3.0 2.1 3.0 2.1 (0) _ J5-5 15.4 {.0} 32,0.___ 13210, lllQL JZ _3_9_.L2_1 ._,_3K.2 .(-T.0) -34- PRIMARY 1985-86 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE WOODRUFF 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change I1 \u0026lt; .1 I i I ENROLLMENT K123 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF. CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) TOTAL INSTR. STAFF AVG. CLASS SIZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF L i bra ri ans Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.L. Teachers Admi ni s trators Speech Therapy TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF STAFF, NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodia1 Food Service Nurses Aides (except CARL) I ns true Liona1 Superv i sory TOTAL NON'certified TWL~sTA7r 59.0 84.0 71 .0 59.0 0.0 51.0 92.0 58.0 71 .0 0.0 273\no-- -27270 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 13.0 13.0 101 I 21 .0 20.9 .5 .5 .5 .5 I ' J I I !\nj '  It J .3 .5 1 .0 1 .0 .5 17.3 2.0 2.5 2.0 .3 1 .0 1.4 9.2 .3 .5 1 .0 1 .0 .5 17.3 2.0 2.5 2.0 .3 1 .0 1 .4 (0) 9,2 .......(OJ______ 26.5 \" 26.5 \"(Of -35- I I , , I i ' ' I': I,! i ! i I J Till bh fli I i 1 II I Ii T COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE ! i ELEMENTARY BALE CARVER i 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change I 1 I 1 ENROLLMENT K123 4 56 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF. CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL INSTR. STAFF\" AVG. 'CLASS' SI'ZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF Librarians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. 1 Reading Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Administrators Speech Therapy TOTAL CER'TIFIED STAFF ' STAFF. NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses Aides (except CARE) Instructional Supervisory total non CERTIFIED TTyTAL\" STAFF I i 75.0 60.0 50.0 55.0 51 .0 49.0 43.0 12.0 75.0 75.0 69.0 57.0 56.0 56.0 50.0 12.0 50.0 83.0 63.0 60.0 63.0 54.0 46.0 0.0 50.0 84.0 65.0 66.0 43.0 55.0 49.0 0.0 I 395.0 450.0 (+55.0) 419.0 412.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 0.0  18.0 19.0 19X1_____ 19_.P______ LOX . 21\n9'\"' 23.6 (+1.'7') \"22.0 21'.6 (-.4) 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1.0 0.0 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 2.0 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 2.0 2.0 1 .0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 ^2^2 26.2 r+1-0) 2872 28.2 Jol77 1 .5 3.0 3.0 .5 3.0 2.1 BTT 38.3 1 .5 3.0 3.0 .5 3.0 2.1 TXT 39.3 1 .5 3.5 5.0 .5 1 .0 2.3 liJ. 42.0 1 .5 3.5 5.0 .5 1 .0 2.3 13.8 UU 7 ELEMENTARY 1985-86 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE ISH KING 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1 ip1 1 1 -A ENROLLMENT K123 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF, CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL INSTR. STAFF AVG. CLASS SIZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF L ibrari ans Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. 1 Reading Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Admi ni strators Speech Therapy TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF STAFF, NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses Aides (except CARE) Instructional Supervisory total NON CERTI FlEB total staff 50.0 57.0 59.0 56.0 50.0 48.0 46.0 7.0 50.0 57.0 46.0 50.0 55.0 45.0 49.0 9.0 50.0 86.0 55.0 65.0 48.0 64.0 45.0 0.0 51.0 83.0 70.0 54.0 67.0 50.0 60.0 0.0 I 373.0 361 .0 (-12.0) 413.0 435.0 (+22.0) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 16.0______15.0 23.3 1 .0 1 .0 .5 .3 2.0 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 ____ 25.8 1.5 3.0 4.0 .4 2.0 1 .7 12^ 38.4 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1 ! (-1..0)____ 17^.0______ 18.a_. 2~4'.O ' '(+.7} 1 .0 1.0 .5 .3 2.0 2.0 1.0 1 .0 1 .0 24.2 24.1 -(1.0.) I 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 ( 24\\8r_ _23^ 1.5 3.0 4.0 .4 2.Q 1.7 12^ UI 2ZU JUL.0J 1.5 3.0 4.0 .3 1 .0 1.1 11^ 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1.0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 24.2 1.5 3.0 4.0 .3 1 .0 1 .7 Iki 35.7 t ib(bj Bi (i) . 0 Hi' I'I 1 I if -11 I1 ELEMENTARY 1985-86 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE MITCHELL 1986-87 Change 1985-86 RIGHTSELL 1986-87 Change ENROLLMENT K123 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF. CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL INSTR. STAFF MG. CLASSSfZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF Librarians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Administrators Speech Therapy TOTALCERT1FIEO STAFF \" STAFF. NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses Aides (except CARE) Instructional Supervisory tutal non cEftnniD total STAFF 50.0 58.0 64.0 43.0 51 .0 35.0 47.0 0.0 49.0 73.0 47.0 54.0 36.0 45.0 33.0 0.0 50.0 78.0 62.0 47.0 45.0 40.0 56.0 0.0 50.0 72.0 68.0 58.0 40.0 44.0 40.0 0.0 f I 348.0 337.0 UlUU 378.0 2ZZJ1 1-6.0). 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 .0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 .0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 .0 2.0 1670 2177 1 .0 1 .0 .4 .3 1 .0 2.0 1.0 1 .0 1.0 U.l 1 .5 2.0 2.0 .3 1 .0 1 .7 317? -38- 141P \"  'r-2,.. 0L_ .16,0. ____ 16..0_____ 2470 1 .0 1 .0 .4 .3 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .5 2.0 2.0 .3 1 .0 1 .7 T+2.3y ~ 23.6 23.2 (-4) I 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 3.0 3.0 1 .0 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 3.0 3.0 1 .0 1 1 .0 .5 1 .0 .5 J. _Z2'^-J ______ (Qi 3T7~2 7-7-07 26.7 iol 1 .5 3.0 4.0 .3 3.0 1 .4 13.2 1 .5 3.0 4.0 .3 3.0 1 .4 13.2 30^ I 1 nn Hl li I Ji 7 ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT K123 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT 1985-86 95.0 96.0 69.0 85.0 73.0 68.0 84.0 570.0 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE ROMINE 1986-87 Change WESTERN HILLS 1985-86 1986-87 Change STAFF. CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 TOTAL INSTR. STAFF 24.0 AVG. CLASS SIZE ^2 I 100.0 99.0 90.0 61 .0 77.0 66.0 63.0 556.0 (-14.0) 41 .0 56.0 54.0 41 .0 39.0 54.0 41 .0 41.0 49.0 52.0 48.0 33.0 44.0 49.0 326.0 316.0 MQ-0) - I I 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 .0 2.0 2.0\ni  24-b - JQI_____ 14^ 13.0,____(-K0) II 22x1 23.2 24.3 SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF Librarians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Admi ni strators Speech Therapy TOTAL* CERTIFIED staff STAFF. NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses I il Aides (except CARE) Instructional Supervisory wial non ccftTiriCD B^tAl staff 1.0 1 .0 .2 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1.0 1 .0 1 .0 .2 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .2 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1.0 .2 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 I, 1 I i!| ri* II- 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 I II I. 11 .1 il I I * 31 ?5 31 .5 7\nJPIZL'_L,22,5 19.5 2.5 4.5 6.0 .5 2.5 4.5 6.0 .5 1 .5 2.5 2.0 .5 1.5 2.5 2.0 .5 jf ifkI 2.0 5.8 2.0 5.8 1 .0 1 .5 1 .0 1.5 2173 BIT 2x2 2J1 iPi i 52.8 52.8 -39- (0) I 2975 22^ IIJ il T Fp I I si a COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT K123 45 6 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF, CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL INSTR. STAFF AVG. CLASS SfZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF L ibrarjans Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Administrators Speech Therapy total certified staff ~~ STAFF, NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses Aides (except CARE) Instructional Supervi sory TOTAL NON CERTTmg TCTATTrAFF *Posit1ons for UnaradedStu^ WILLIAMS MAGNET 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 WILSON 1986-87 Change 0.0 75.0 71 .0 71.0 72.0 77.0 67.0 16.0 0.0 72.0 75.0 78.0 72.0 63.0 75.0 0.0 50.0 94.0 61.0 61 .0 60.0 59.0 74.0 0.0 52.0 77.0 86.0 57.0 61 .0 64.0 60.0 0.0 I 435.0 (-14.0) 459.0 457.0 (-2.0) 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 *2.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 *2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 *1 .0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 *1 .0 I 2o:o 2O.O  lor::. 21 .0 2O.O\"3.-L_Q) 22.4 1.0 1 .0 1.0 .3 1.0 0.0 1 .0 1.0 0.0 26:3' 2.0 3.5 4.0 .5 3.0 2.0 15.0 TTTs 2_] .1_____ (.-_^ 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 26.3 2.0 3.5 4.0 .5 3.0 2.0 15.0 21 .8 1 .0 .5 .2 .3 .5 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 (0] 26'. 5 IS IS 22.8 ~ (+1.0) 1 .0 .5 .2 .3 .5 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 25.5 (-1.0) I J I 2.0 3.5 5.0 .3 2.0 3.5 5.0 .3 ( 3.0 4.4 3.0 4.4 18.2 44.7 iS^ 43.7 in !' r (-1-Q) .3 T T J I I PERSONNEL SUMMARY I! ' I 1 1985-86 1986-87 Positions Total Regular Federal Total Regular Federal i Admini strators Teachers Clerical Central Admin. School Secretaries Library Clerks Federal Health/Social Services Nurses Social Workers Therapists Psychological Examiners Support Personnel Food Service Transportation Custodial Maintenance Aides Instructional Instructional Assistants Non Instructional *40.4 FTE GRAND TOTAL 1 127 116.1 10.9 127 116.1 10.9 1191.3 1047.2 144.1 1186.9 1039.2 1 147.7^ 55.5 76.5 31 2.9 16 2 2 1 145 111 180.5 37 51 28 75 2138.7 53.5 70.5 31 16 2 4 111 180.5 31 28 28 69* 2 6 2.9 2 3 145 23 6 1 55.5 76.5 31 2.9 16 2 2 7 145 111 180.5 37 51 28 75 2134.3 53.5 70.5 31 16 2 4 111 180.5 37 28 28 69* 2 6 2.9 2 3 145 23 6 Reflects a net decrease of 4.4 FTE derived from the following reductions and additions: Reductions Addi tions Dunbar Henderson Frankl in Jefferson Meadowci iff Fulbright Woodruff Ish Mitchell Western Hills Wilson 1.0 1.0 1 .0 1 .0 1.0 1.0 1 .0 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 1.0 77:0 Mann Booker Stephens McDermott Bale King 1 .6 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 : I I I 1 I : -41- II j h I i h 3 I i FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND REVENUE ESTIMATES 1 1 ( t '11. I' 1 -42- 1 t I I\nt I SIX-YEAR REVENUE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS 1986-87 THROUGH 1991-92 9 I . GENERAL SCENARIO  Revenue (jrouth will be constrained durino the period by several factors. Nationally, it is likely the administration will continue to follow policies that will \"boil the fat out\" of the economy, and the Arkansas economy will continue to do worse than the national picture. It is unlikely that federal funds for education will increase significantly even if the voucher system gets the treatment it should. Since Congress seems to have no better handle on the national economy than the administration, it is questionable that the 1988 election will have any positive effect on the economy. 1' 11 ! P I f id I 2. LOCAL REVENUES  Amendment 59 will prevent growth in local income i' from personal property until the millage rate equals that of real property (that may take ten years). Utility property income will be frozen for the first five years and will begin a reduction process in the sixth year. The growth in real property will depend on the state of the I* I economy. Ue have projected annual growth for the period at the average annual rate experienced for the past nine years. 3. STATE AID  Besides the general impact of the national economy, the agricultural outlook specifically will restrict state income in the near In addition, our form^a aid nay be reduced the first two years of the period for \"repayment\"/excess formula payments in the past two future. years. In light of these constraints, we have projected small Increases In state aid for the period. Ue have projected operational funding for the gifted and talented program for the entire period. 4. FEDERAL AID  We have not projected the Magnet School Assistance Grant in 1986-87 because, although two-year funding is the normal life of the grant, there are no guarantees. Ue should have more specific information about the grant before the 1986-87 budget Is adopted. The projection of federal aid Is baaed on Indirect costs and Impact aid. 5. BAL ANGES  The district should maintain a minimum of *1 million in the contingency throughout the period. I I I I I s -43- I I I 'Ip4 I p1 pI p 1 I 8B87rvBS DESCRIPTION BEGINNING BALANCE REVENUE LOCAL SOURCES Current Taxes Delinquent Taxes 40X Pullback Excess Treasurer's Fee Depository Interest Revenue in Lieu of Taxes Tuit ion 'Miscellaneous and Rents Interest on Investnents Athletic Receipts REVENUE TOTAL COUNTY SOURCES County General REVENUE TOTAL STATE SOURCES 1986-87 REVENUE ESTIMATE REVISION 1 (11-26-85) 85-86 ESTIMATE 86-87 ESTIMATE GAIN (LOSS) $1,13S,840 20.071.156 1,244.318 11.060.350 68.000 150,000 60.000 50,000 50,000 175,000 55,000 $32,983,824 36 $36 .000,000 (133,840\u0026gt; I I I I I I 3 Kindergarten Supplies MFPA Apportionment Vocational Guidance Handicapped Children Orphan Children Transportation High School Textbooks Gifted Grant 18.104 14,341.961 80,000 953,323 0 132,325 16,801 993,018 435,092 75,000 TOTAL $17,045,624 IS REVENUE OTHER SOURCES I I Public Lau 874 Tranefer Tron Fed. Grants Transfer Tron Bond Acct. 40,000 80,000 360.209 TOTAL $480,209 TOTAL REVENUE $51.649,533 -44- 22.364,071 1,244.318 11.597.625 68.000 150.000 60.000 50.000 50.000 175.000 55.000 $2,292,915 0 $537,275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I i i I! r $35,814,014 Z,830,190 36 0 $36 $0 I. I ! II 18,104 14,457,967 80,000 953,323 0 132,325 16,801 1,051,233 435,092 144,269 $17,289,114 40,000 80,000 0 $120,000 $54,223,164 0 $116,006 0 0 0 0 0 $58,215 0 $69,269 1 i $243,490 0 0 ($360,209) Ir ($360,209) $2,573,631 1 I  I 1 II j 3 r iiSS^sii  YEAR 1986-87 CATEGORY BALANCE 1,000,000 LOCAL REVENUE 35,814,014 SIX-YEAR REVENUE ESTIMATES 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1,000,000 37,454,280 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 38,990,249 40,619,454 42,338,423 44,160,612 I 4^ tn I COUNTY REVENUE 36 36 36 36 36 36 STATE AID 17,290,112 17,523,309 18,049,008 18,590,478 19,148,192 20,105,602 FEDERAL 120,000 120,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 210,000 TOTAL 54,224,162 56,097,625 58,239,293 60,409,968 62,686,651 65,476,250 I T 1 I ! STUDENT ALLOCATIONS I i': I . St Allocations for materials, supplies, and textbooks will be made on the following basis: School Based Materials \u0026amp; Supplies K-6 $16.00 Junior High $17.00 s Senior High $21.00 Includes kindergarten supplies, instructional supplies, instructional equipment, library supplies, and library books. Textbooks K-6 $31.50 I i Junior High $30.00 Senior High $39.00 Includes state and local funding. I  1 I i I i! i ' -46- 5 I I g f 1 -3 BUILDING UTILIZATION PROJECTIONS I I i I\nI n  1 1 t.i I i i 1 II I I I i I I A J B I 0 b -47- T  1985-86 BUILDING UTILIZATION (Based on October 1, 1985 Enrollment) 1 SCHOOL CAPACITY ENROLLMENT Z UTILIZATION PORTABLE BLDG. CAPACITY ADJUSTED % I OF UTILIZATION ' ' s Senior High Schools I  b Central Hall Parkview Junior High Schools Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Elementary Schools Bale Carver Gillam Ish King Mitchell Rightsell Romine Western Hills Williams Wilson 2050 1250 1150 870 725 1000 950 725 765 465 455 255 375 280 255 375 585 210 530 470 1934 1008 1110 573 717 824 917 738 669 397 417 0 380 421 349 384 559 324 443 450 -48- 94Z 81Z 97Z 66Z 99Z 82Z 97Z 102Z 87Z 85Z 92Z 0 lOlZ 150Z 137Z 102Z 96Z 154Z 84Z 96Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 (1) 25 (1) 0 65 (3) 115 (5) 100 (4) 0 80 (4) 90 (4) 0 50 (2) 94Z 81Z 97Z 66Z 99Z 82Z 97Z 102Z 87Z 81Z 87Z 0 86Z 107Z 98Z 102Z 84Z 108Z 84Z 87Z I I7 1985-86 Building Utilization PORTABLE BLDG. ADJUSTED ) SCHOOL CAPACITY ENROLLMENT Z UTILIZATIONS CAPACITY OF UTILIZATION Intermediate Schools Booker 620 522 84Z 0 84Z Franklin 490 467 95Z 0 95Z Garland 465 414 89Z 0 89Z Gibbs 350 306 87Z 0 87Z Pulaski Heights 500 394 79Z 0 79Z Rockefeller 450 407 90Z 0 90Z I Stephens 400 304 76Z 0 76Z Washington 330 240 73Z 0 73Z Primary Schools Brady 450 366 81Z 0 81Z r ' 1 1 Fair Park 300 288 96Z 25 (1) 89Z i Forest Park 450 348 77Z 0 77Z I i 1 Fulbright 590 417 71Z 0 71Z Jefferson 465 394 85Z 0 85Z 1 I I i I McDermott 565 474 84Z 0 84Z Meadowcliff 470 408 87Z 0 87Z i I' Terry 535 484 90Z 15 (1) 88Z u Woodruff 300 275 92Z 0 92Z ! u ! I i r F I I a f ! I I 'I i I I -49- I IT I BUILDING UTILIZATION SUMMARY Capacity Enrollment !S Utilization High School 4450 4052 91Z 1 I Junior High School Elementary School Intermediate School Primary School TOTALS Adding the Portable Classrooms (26) Elementary Bale Carver Ish King Mitchell Romine Westren Hills Wilson Primary Fair Park Terry 5035 4255 3605 4125 21,470 Capacity 4438 4124 3054 3454 19,122 Enrollment 88Z 97X 85% 84% 89% % Utilization 25 25 65 115 100 80 90 50 550 + 4255 - 4805 4125 86% I 25 15 40 + 4125 - 4165 3454 83% The total capacity of the Little Rock School District, including portable classrooms and Gillam, Is 22,060, based on classroom sizes as specified In the new standards. The October, 1985 enrollment is 19,122. That is a difference of 2,938 excess spaces I 1 at 100% capacity. If the building capacity were at 95%, then there would be 1,835 spaces in excess space. -50- I 1 II I j f I PROGRAM PLANS BY YEAR .1 I I I (I i i I J -51- at 1 r J I 3 1986-87 a J 1 a I I I r i I 4 ji t -52- 1 I I I f  1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1986-87 1 1 1 I -53-r p1pg EDUCATIONAL GOALS The Little Rock School District will provide a comprehensive educational program that will enable each child to achieve his/her highest potential in the least restrictive environment. statement of Need I. I The Little Rock School District has developed a system which emphasizes a the basics in reading, mathematics, and writing skills. The District p attempts to evaluate how well the student masters these basic skills. In addition to the \"basic\" skills, the District needs to put more emphasis on the developmental skills. Students need to do more reading and writing, and develop higher level thinking skills. Objective Number One J The District will attempt to develop an early childhood program. Objective Number Two I Specific curriculum objectives and specific levels of knowledge in measurable forms for all subjects will be developed for grades 7, 8, and 9. Objective Number Three Various methods, including criterion referenced tests, will be used to test students in grades K-8 that will assess \"basic\" skills and higher level thinking skills. Objective Number Four The District will test student progress through measures other than standardized tests. Objective Number Five The District will continue to work toward the elimination of barriers that prohibit academic progress of all students. I I -54- 7 1 I 3 FINANCIAL GOALS The Little Rock School District will provide the most comprehensive programs within the limits of the District's financial capabilities. r statement of Need Limited financial resources will require the administration to manage the District on a priority basis. what items have the highest priority. Decisions will have to be made as to J New sources of revenue will be needed if special programs are to be p1 it t funded. Changes in Amendment 59 and the manner in which school districts are funded will be needed in order to improve the long-term financial position of the District. Objective Number One The District will fund programs for the 1986-87 school year on a priority basis. Objective Number Two The District administration will seek sources of revenue to fund specific programs. Objective Number Three The District administration will continue to seek more efficient ways of managing the District's limited funds. Objective Number Four The District will work cooperatively with state entities to seek improvements in the funding of education at the state and federal levels. -55- I I1I J 1 ADMINISTRATION GOALS J I . .1 The Little Rock School District administration will manage the District in a manner that will provide the most efficient and equitable education possible. I p statement of Need I There is a need to continue to improve the quality of teaching and the quality of administration in the Little Rock School District. There is a need to broaden expectations of students academically in order to avoid limiting expectations to just the \"basics.\" There is a need to increase the academic expectations of students in the \"regular\" and \"basic\" classes and avoid the development of elitism in the gifted and talented programs. There is a need to remove any barriers that prohibit the District from reaching a unitary status. There is a need to limit the administrative requirements of paperwork for teachers and a need to develop a better communication between schools concerning students who have problems that are not easily recognized through the record-keeping procedures. The District needs to eliminate the practipe of taking the teachers and principals from the building during periods of instruction. Objective Number One The District administration will examine practices of the District that are discriminatory and will remove them. Objective Number Two The District administration will remove all unnecessary and burdensome paperwork. Objective Number Three The District administration will reduce, if not eliminate, the amount of time that teachers and principals are out of the building during periods of instruction. I Objective Number Four The District administration will continue to monitor employee performance and develop strategies to improve weak performance when it is observed. I -56- I t J .urI-n I  J HBB n CALENDAR FOR ALL CONTRACT LENGTHS 83 B I rf I -57- I July WO SV I 4^' Ji' 1 ip M T W 1 2 August September LH 1 2 3 October CM CO I 1 November 3 4 5 December 1 2 3 January 87 February 2 3 4 March 2 3 4 April 1 May 0 June 1 WO 2 WO 3 Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation 1986-87 Calendar 9.25 Months - 185 Days August 21 - June 3 SH LH SD I Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School O tn o  \u0026lt; tn m XJ O m X (ZV o -o s: o o Th 3 4 2 6 4 LH 1 5 5 2 SD 4 f M T W Th F M T W Th F M T U Th F M T U Th F m on co LH 4 1 5 3 7 5 SH 2 6 6 3 1 SO 5 7 4 8 6 10 8 5 9 9 6 4 SD 8 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 5 9 7 11 9 6 10 10 7 5 SD 9 6 7 8 11\n12 T 13 14 15 18 19 20 24 I 21 25 I 22 28 WO 25 29 WO 26 30 WO 27 31 28 29 2 2 3 7 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 21 1 21 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 20 i 21 22 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 10 11 12 15: 16 17 18 19 24\n25 SH SH 22 23 + 7 8 9 12: 13 LH WO 11 11 8 6 SO 10 14 15 16 19 20 26 SH 24 21 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 12 13 16 17 18 19 WO 20 SV SV 23, 24 SV 25 9 7 11 10 13 14 15 16 17 201 21 22 8 12 11 15 12 16 13 17 14 18 15 19 18, 19 22 23 + I i 20 24 23 LH 27 LH 25 22 26 SV 26 23 21 25 24 SH 28 SH 26 23 27 SV 27 24 22 26 27 28 29 30 WD 31 22 18 1 1 1 23 18 SH 29 26 30 27 LH 25 29 SH 30 SH 31 15 1 7 15 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 26 30 27 28 29 18 20 16 22 20 1 175 2 2 1 6 1 1 1 2 9 8 19 20 17 22 20 3 185 M I July August September October November December January '87 Februa ry March April May June wo e SV T 1 W 2 LH 1 2 3 1 3 4 5 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 4 4 1 3 1mm' '.iWltiU iMii' WJ Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation 1986-87 Calendar 12 Months - 240 Days July 1 - June 30 SH LH SD I Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School t/i m P o O T5 o   i o I CO z o O Th 3 4 2 6 4 LH 1 5 5 2 4 F LH 4 M T W 'Th F M T W Th F M T W Th F M T U Th F co to GO o GO 1 5 3 7 5 2 6 6 3 1 5 7 4 8 6 10 8 5 9 9 6 4 8 1 8 5 9 7 11 9 6 10 10 7 5 9 9 6 10 8 12 10 7 11 11 8 6 10 10 7 11 9 13 11 8 12 12 9 7 11 1 11 8 12 10 14 12 9 13 13 10 8 12 14 15 11 : 12 15 13 17 I 16 14 18 15 i 16 12 , 13 16 16 13 11 15 17 17 14 12 16 16 13 17 15 19 17 14 18 18 15 13 17 T 17 14 18 16 20 18 15 19 19 16 14 18 18 15 19 17 21 19 16 20 20 17 li 19 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 31 1 22 18 I 19 22 I 23 20, 21 24 , 25 22 23 liT 19 20 23 . 24 23 24 20\n21 t 18, 19 22 23 1 20 24 22 26 SH 24 21 25 25 22 20 24 .. 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 21 25 26 29 30 1 21 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 23 LH 27 LH SH 28 SH SH 25 22 26 26 23 21 25 26 23 27 27 24 22. 26 29 26 30 27 LH 25 29 30 27 31 28 26 39 31 28 29 30 29 27 30 28 29 1 1 2 1 7 4 1 3 18 19 20 20 22 22 20 22 250 250 days minus 10 vacation days = 240 contracted day M WD SV T M July 1 2 August 'iiWIM r I cn oI LH September 1 2 3. October 1 November 3 4 December 1 2 January '87 February 2 3 Ma rch 2 3 April May WD June 1 2 Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation 1986-87 Calendar 11 Months - 220 Days July 21 - June 19 SH LH SD I Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School o tz GO O -\u0026lt; GO tn m 2 O -O ( m O  o m o z GO Z o o o GO (/ Th 3 A 2 F M T M Th F M T W Th F M T W Th F M T W Th F 5 3 4 4 1 WD 3 6 4 LH 1 5 5 2 WD 4 LH 4 WD 1 5 3 7 7 WD 4 1 6 10 5 8 SH 2 6 6 3 1 WO 5 5 9 9 6 4 WD 8 8 WO 9 WO 10 WD 11 WD 14 WD 15 WD 16 WD 17 WD 18 WD WO 21 WO WD 22 WD WD 23 WD 5 9 7 11 9 6 10 10 7 5 WD 9 6 7 8 n , 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 WD 24 I 21 WO 25 I WD 28 WO WD 29 WD WD 30 WD WD 31 * 9 9 22 25 26 27 28 29 2 2 17 21 10 8 12 10 7 11 11 8 6 WD 10 11 9 13 11 8 12 12 9 7 WD 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 21 1 21 10 14 12 9 13 13 10 8 WD 12 13 14 15 16 i 17 20' 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 WD 31 22 1 23 1 17 j 18 J i 15 i 16 12\n13 16 16 13 11 WD 15 19 20 17 14 21 24\n25 SH SH 26 SH 18 15 19 16 22! 23 t LH WD 19 20 24 21 17 17 14 12 WD 16 18 18 15 13 WD 17 19 19 16 14 WD 18 LH 27 SH 28 18 1 1 18 LH 25 22 SH SH SH SH 26 29 30 31 15 1 7 15 23 26 27 28 29 30 18 2  1 1 19 20 WO 20 17 15 WD 19 23. 24 SV SV 23. 24 20| 21 18, 19 22 23 t 25 SV 25 22 20 24 26 SV 26 27 SV 27 30 31 20 16 1 20 11 23 24 21 22 27 LH 25 28 29 30 22 22. 25 26 29 26 27 28 29 20 1 20 30 1 175 2 6 9 14 15 43 220   a M M ID .V T July 1 August September LH 1 2 October W 2 3 1 f  I*\nI cn * I November 3 4 5 December 1 2 3 January '87 February 2 3 4 March 2 3 4 April 1 May June 1 WD 2 WD 3 Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation 1986-87 Calendar 10.5 Months - 210 Days July 31 - June 17 SH LH SO I Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School tz* o o O m r- o cn Th 3 4 2 6 4 LH 1 5 5 2 WD 4 F M T W Th F M T U Th F M T W Th F M T W Th F I tn O -D r- m a  o X iz* co z o D LH 4 WD 1 7 WD 4 8 wo\" 5 9 WD 6 10 WD 7 11 WD 8 14 WO 15 WD 11'12 T 5 3 7 5 SH 2 6 6 3 1 WD 5 8 6 10 8 5 9 9 6 4 WD 8 9 7 11 9 6 10 10 7 5 WD 9 10 8 12 10 7 11 11 8 6 WD 10 11 9 13 11 8 12 12 9 7 WD 11 12 10 14 12 9 13 13 10 8 WD 12 isl 16 13 14 17 I 18 15 16 12: 13 16 16 13 11 WD 15 17 17 14 12 WD 16 16 WO 13 17 15 19 17 14 18 18 15 13 WO 17 17 WO 14 18 WD 15 21 WD 18 22 WD 19 23 WD 20 24 1 21 25 I 22 28 WD 25 29 WD 26 30 WD 27 WD 31 28 29 2 2 1 1 17 21 18 19 16 117 20 18 15 19 19 16 14 18 i 21 19 16 20 WD 20 17 15 19 22 20 i 23 21 24' 25 X SH SH 221 23 t LH WD 19 20 23, 24 SV SV 23, 24 20| 21 18| 19 22 23 t 1 24 22 26 SH 24 21 25 SV 25 22 20 24 1 25 23 LH 27 LH 25 22 26 SV 26 23 21 25 26 24 SH 28 SH 26 23 27 SV 27 24 22 26 29 27 SH 29 26 30 27 LH 25 29 30 28 SH 30 27 31 28 26 30 29 SH 31 28 29 27 30 29 30 28 21 1 21 WD 31 30 29 22 18 15 18 20 16 1 1 1 23 18 1 7 15 2 1 1 1 19 20 17 22 20 1 175 2 22 1 6 9 12 33 21 13 210July roos I UD SV Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation M T U Th F H T U Th F 1 2 3 LH 4 7 8 9 August September October November December January '87 February Ma rch April May June 1 4 5 6 10 WD 7 11 WO 8 r LH 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 3 1 2 2 o 1 4 2 3 3 WO 2 5 3 4 4 1 WD 3 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 1986-87 Calendar 10 Months - 200 Days August 7 - June 10 SH LH SD I Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School -\u0026lt; x co o : in O TJ C 1 tn O m z o o o M T W Th F M T W Th F M T W Th F co co co o co 14 MD 15 WO 11 12 15 i 16 T I 13 i 14 t 16 WD 13 17 15 17 I 18 19 17 WD 14 18 16 20 18 WO 15 21 WO 18 22 WD 19 23 WO 20 24 I 21 25 I 22 28 WO 25 29 WD 26 30 WD 27 31 28 29 2 2 13 17 19 17 21 22 23 201 21 24 22 25 26 29  30 21 1 21 23 24 27 28 29 39 WD 31 22 1 23 4 LH 1 5 SH 2 8 5 9 6 10 11 12 15 i 16 17 18 19 24\n25 SH SH 22! 23 LHt' WD 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 5 5 2 WD 4 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 6 3 1 WD 5 9 6 4 WD 8 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 WD 20 SV SV 23 24 7 5 WD 9 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 20| 21 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 I 18 19 26 SH 24 21 25 SV 25 22 20 WD 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 22' 23 1 t t 24 LH 27 LH 25 SH 28 SH 26 SH 29 SH 30 SH 31 18 15 1 1 18 1 7 15 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 18 2 1 1 19 26 27 20 20 SV 26 SV 27 30 31 16 1 17 23 24 27 28 29 30 22 22 21 22 LH 25 26 27 28 29 20 1 20 25 26 29 30 1 7 8 175 2 6 9 23 200 July cn GO  E I M August LH , September October November Oecember January '87 February March April May June 1 3 1 2 2 o 1 wo SV T 1 2 4 2 3 3 wo 2 W 2 3 1 5 3 4 4 1 wo 3 Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation 1986-87 Calendar 9.50 Months - 190 Days August 14 - June 3 SH LH SO I Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School o un tz o o \u0026gt; z -\u0026lt; izv  I f c co o m o -o O m un 2 O O o (/\u0026gt; 2 \u0026gt; O X \u0026lt;  Ln o Th 3 4 2 6 4 LH 1 5 5 2 so 4 F M T W Th F M T W Th F M T W Th F M T U Th F LH 4 1 5 3 7 5 SH 2 6 6 3 7 4 8 6 10 8 5 9 9 6 8 5 9 7 11 9 6 10 10 7 9 6 10 8 12 10 7 11 11 8 10 7 11 9 13 11 8 12 12 9 11 8 12 10 14 12 9 13 13 10 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 11 : 12 15 13 17 I 16 14 18 15 16 12i 13 16 16 13 17 17 14 13 17 15 19 17 14 18 18 15 1 SD 5 4 so 8 5 SD 9 6 SD 10 7 8 n 12 13 11 12 15 16 17 WD 14 18 I WD 15 19 16 17 20 18 15 19 19 16 14 18 21 19 16 20 WD 20 17 15 19 WO 18 22 WD 19 23 20 21 24 25 X SH SH 22 I 23 LH WD 19 20 23 24 SV SV 23\n24 20| 21 18| 19 I 22 23 t  t - WD 20 24 22 26 SH 24 21 25 SV 25 22 20 24 24 I 21 25 23 LH 27 LH 25 22 26 SV 26 23 21 25 25 1 22 26 24 SH 28 SH 26 23 27 SV 27 24 22 26 28 29 WD 25 29 27 SH 29 26 30 27 LH 25 29 WD 26 30 28 SH 30 27 31 28 26 30 30 WD 27 29 SH 31 28 29 27 31 28 29 2 2 8 12 30 WD 31 21 22 18 15 1 1 1 1 1 7 21 23 18 15 29 30 18 20 16 30 28 29  I 2 1 1 1 22 20 1 175 2 1 2 6 9 13 19 20 17 22 20. 3 190 -i-i . -,5'  I \u0026lt;4?  JU'. SUPPORT SERVICES 1986-87 I I I. I  I I1 I X. -64- I ' *1 I I  I T n 'I: PROBLEM NUMBER ONE J 1 The current school bus fleet consists of ninety-one (91) route buses and sixteen (16) special education vehicles, the majority of which must be replaced within the next three (3) years to ensure current service levels. A. Proposed Solution I i I I I 1. Accelerate the procurement cycle of buses by entering into lease-purchase agreements. 2. Offer for sale all vehicles considered to be unrepairable. B. Analysis I i i The current bus fleet has forty-eight (48) 1977 Ford buses, most of which have in excess of 100,000 miles. The District is averaging five (5) breakdowns a day with a high (worst case) estimate of eleven (11) on any one day. Replacement parts, particularly engines and transmissions, are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain. Recognizing replacement requirements, the District has obtained ten (10) new buses each year for the past four (4) years. Continuation of this replacement cycle is required to maintain current service. A five year lease-purchase plan will allow the procurement of buses at approximately $6,400 per bus per year with a purchase option of $1 at the end of five years. The total cost of a bus 1 would be approximately $32,000 as opposed to $25,000. This would appear to be the best method of updating and increasing the fleet within yearly budgetary constraints. C. Operational Plan 1. Objectives a. To provide adequate operational vehicles to ensure service at the present levels. b. To continue replacement at minimum cost. I 2. Implementation Strategy a. Funds will be allocated to lease buses at $6,400 per bus per year. I b. Older, high mileage buses will be sold to partially alleviate the cost of the replacement program. I -65- i'T 3. Responsibility S' Under the direction of the Manager of Support Services, the Director of Transportation will be responsible for implementing this plan. 4. Evaluation I Evaluation will be based upon the time line and cost of modernizing and increasing the size of the bus fleet. pj a a 5. Cost Ten additional vehicles at $6,400 per bus per year $ 64,000 -66-T 1 PROBLEM NUMBER TWO I District lunch and breakfast programs operate as an integral part of the educational process without financial support from District operating funds. Participation in the federal child nutrition program provides free and reduced price benefits for approximately 9,500 students. Because of the federal legislative process, there is no stability in funding from year to year. A. B. Proposed Solution j I Operation of the lunch and breakfast programs will continue under the federal and state guidelines, based on available funding for 1986-87. Analysis Program income from federal reimbursement is not expected to increase by any significant amount. Child nutrition programs are up for reauthorization by Congress in 1985. Federal section 4 reimbursement is currently received for all reimbursable meals served in the program. Reimbursement for free meals. Section 11, covers the cost of raw food, labor, and other expenses, including replacement eeqquuiippmmeenntt.. The price charged for student meals increases in direct relation to rising labor (salary increases) a,.n.Jd f'o--oJd cosLts_.. The value of donated commodities received from I I a C. the United States Department of Agriculture will possibly decrease by one-half to one cent per meal. Operational Plan 1. Objectives a. b. To break even for the 1986-87 school year in the District lunch and breakfast programs. Report by July 20, 1987. 1 2. 1  To utilize microcomputer capability in supplying individual school food service operations with three financial management statements within the 175-day operating period by January 1, 1987. Implementation Strategy a. b. To direct department operations for preparation and service of 2,099,475 meals in the lunch program and 428,000 meals in the breakfast program. Monthly financial reports will be available to the Manager, Support Services, by the 20th of the second month following the report period. -67- I I 7 Ri I 3. Responsibility 3 I ss' Under the direction of the Manager, Support Services, the Director of Food Services will be responsible for implementing this plan. 4. Evaluation The District programs will be evaluated by District and State Department of Education personnel, using the Assessment Improvement Monitoring System Performance Standards and I I the Supervisory Assistance Review procedures. Financial audits will be performed by independent school auditors. State Department of Education auditors, and a commodity reviewer. 5. Cost Operational cost for all programs is anticipated to be $5,181,901 (includes no funds from District operating budget). |l! 1 'ft I1 I 1 HII li .III i' I -68- J I T T .1I ' 4 PROBLEM NUMBER THREE The existing nutrition education program for kindergarten through third grade is coordinated and funded by the Food Service Department. The funds for this program are from continuing federal grants which provide for payment of educational food experiences only. The program is an integral part of the basic skills curriculum for all students in K-3, emphasizing language arts, reading, and math skills to teach nutrition concepts. Skills are cross-referenced with the Early Prevention of School Failure Program, the Cumulative Reading Record Folder, and Mastery Skills Record for Mathematics currently used by the District. A. B. C. Proposed Solution Funding application will be made to the State Department of Education to continue the Little Rock School District nutrition education program for all students in grades K-3 for 1986-87. Analysis Federal legislation will impact the continuation of this program. Should Congress decide to cut nutrition education funds for 1987, the Nutrition Education Section of the State Department of Education would determine the outcome of the grant applications. Operation Plan 1. 2. Objective a. b. To submit a letter of application to the Arkansas State Department of Education by April 30, 1986. To coordinate the curriculum plans, revision, and implementation for the 1986-87 school year. Implementation Strategy a. b. c. Review the nutrition education curriculum with the Elementary Education Supervisor by August 15, 1986. Procure and organize the distribution of food, materials, and supplies to Kindergarten, Primary 1, Primary 2, and Primary 3 classrooms by September 30, 1986. Complete pre-test and post-test procedures at all grade levels by May 30, 1987. -69- .1 ll 3. Responsibility 1 4. -Il 5. Under the direction of the Manager of Support Services and the Director of Food Service, the Coordinator of Nutrition Education will be responsible for this plan. Evaluation a. b. c. Cost The State Department of Education requires a financial audit of grant funds. The Nutrition Education Coordinator will conduct pre-tests and post-test evaluations of randomly-selected students to measure knowledge gained through program participation. At the end of the school year, teachers will be surveyed to evaluate curriculum and program organization. Grant and coordinator's salary is $26,214. (This amount is included in Program Operation Cost in a preceding problem.) I I I -70- i 4 ri I PROBLEM NUMBER FOUR S The computer system currently makes no provision for the addition of test scores (standardized or other) into the student database. A. B. Proposed Solution The computer system should be able to capture and manipulate student test scores for both standardized tests and District-wide tests for all District students. Analysis The addition of standardized and District test scores would make it possible to produce statistics and studies of student perform-ance without the current investment in staff time. Also, the addition of these scores to the student record would become a part of the student's historical record, which could be used for longitudinal studies. The District is currently considering an in-depth evaluation of each child for placement in the gifted program. Specific computer assistance will be required in order to effectively utilize standardized test scores as a component of this evaluation and to be complete the evaluation in a timely manner for student placement. C. Operational Plan 1. 2. 3. Objective To add the ability to capture and manipulate student test scores to the District's computer system by June, 1987. Implementation Strategy During the 1985-86 school year, an analysis of the requirements for effective use of such test scores and the best method for collecting the scores will be performed. Appropriate procedures and computer programs will be developed and tested using the results of standardized tests given to students during the 1984-85 and the 1985-86 school years. The system will be implemented for all students in the 1986-87 school year. Responsibility \"I The Director of Data Processing, under the supervision of the Manager of Support Services, will be responsible for the implementation of this plan. -71- J I 4. Evaluation This plan will be considered successful if the 1987-88 multi-year analyses of student standardized testing can be performed by the computer system instead of manually and if the 1986-87 single-year analyses can also be performed using the computer system. 5. Cost Staff time 1 /A'. i 1  -72- 'I l!l r f:' hi J I n PROBLEM NUMBER FIVE 3 The lack of funds to replace antiquated equipment continues to affect the efficient operation of the District's food service facilities. The identification of equipment for replacement has been on an emergency basis as opposed to a plan. The Food Service Department has developed a manual property accounting system during the last five (5) years\nhowever, an automated system would provide timely reports that would provide better management and utilization of equipment. A. Proposed Solution Manage available resources to maintain quality nutrition feeding program. I B. Analysis The implementation of an automated property accounting system will enable the department to systematically replace antiquated equipment on a priority basis. The Food Service Department has w classified equipment and will develop an automated inventory control system, using the department microcomputer. c. Operational Plan n J- 1. Objectives a. n To implement a department automated property accounting system for food service equipment by January 1, 1987. b. B To revise plan for capital expenditures for a three-year period, based on equipment replacement schedule, using automated data and maintenance records, by May 30, 1987. B 2. Implementation Strategy a. B Complete property accounting data for input by January 1, 1986. b. Using automated property accounting reports, establish criteria and adjust plan for a five-year capital expenditure plan by May 30, 1987. 3. Responsibility Under the direction of the Manager, Support Services, the Director of Food Service will be responsible for this plan. I n 4. Evaluation I Evaluation will be based on task completion schedule. -73- *I 4' 5. Cost I No increase in funding will be required. Implementation will be through utilization of existing staff and hardware. I 3 I I 'i I t -74- ), I aS 4n 4 1 1 B] 1' K] E 1 I B 'S EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 1986-87 I r DB I I PROBLEM NUMBER ONE Many youngsters are entering kindergarten in the Little Rock School 3 District unprepared for kindergarten work, their school career at a disadvantage. A. Proposed Solution As a result, they begin A program for pre-kindergarten youngsters that will concentrate on developing the skills necessary for learning will be developed. B. Analysis Pre-kindergarten youngsters who have not been exposed to early childhood experiences that lead to learning readiness are at a disadvantage upon entering kindergarten. The Little Rock School District will develop a program to identify youngsters who need kindergarten readiness skills and offer this program on a volunteer basis at selected sites. I I il C. Operational Plan 1. Objective To offer a program to identify and serve pre-kindergarten youngsters who need learning readiness skills. 2. Implementation Plan The program will be developed prior to January, 1986, in order to begin the identification process in the spring of 1986. The number of children served will depend on the number of available teachers. Criteria for entrance to the I program will be developed prior to the identification process being developed. 3. Responsibility 4. The Associate Superintendent will be responsible for the development and implementation of this program. Evaluation This program will be evaluated over a three-year period. Successful accomplishment of the objective will be measured by test scores on standardized tests of the youngsters identified for the program as compared with test scores of youngsters not included in the readiness program. -75-  1 7 1 5. Cost The cost will be determined by the number of teachers employed. It is estimated that more students should receive pre-school instruction than will be able to receive service immediately. The cost per teacher based on 1985-86 figures is about $23,500 per teacher. 1 1 -76- ,.1 T \"4\" PROBLEM NUMBER TWO  \u0026gt; i Opportunities are limited for gifted and talented students to investigate and create beyond the regular classroom. A. B. Proposed Solution After evaluation of the seventeen pilot gifted and talented programs of the Little Rock School District, a gifted and talented program shall be developed in each school by June, 1987. Analysis C. I I There is a need to provide equitable access to programs designed to give comprehensive opportunities for students to extend their educational experiences. Operational Plan 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Objective To establish gifted and talented programs in each Little Rock School District school by spring, 1987. Implementation Strategy a. b. c. d. e. Revise current pilot program consistent with spring, 1986, evaluation. Summer of 1986, staff training Inform principals of training possibilities and state requirements Recruit staff Conduct training Responsibility The Coordinator of gifted and talented programs will be responsible for the implementation of this plan under the direction of the Associate Superintendent. Evaluation The success of this proposal will be determined by observations, evaluations, and surveys. Cost $168,000 -77- T PROBLEM NUMBER THREE I The Little Rock School District is far behind in offering computer programming opportunities. A. Proposed Solution H In order to meet state standards and to strengthen the quality of the mathematics program, a committee for computer implementation should be established immediately to determine the cost and guidelines for computer implementation. B. Analysis rj 1. With PASCAL now being offered as an Advanced Placement, all three school districts in Pulaski County will need to lay the groundwork for this course offering. C. 2. 3. Integration of computers into every applicable phase of the District's K-12 instructional program should be mapped out. With the number of microcomputers continuing to double each year, the following areas require immediate attention: a. b. establishment of a maintenance fund and/or programs to prevent repair costs from limiting programs\nestablishment of a line item in the budget to provide seed money for short-term computer pilots and feasibility studies in a wide variety of K-12 subject matter areas. Operational Plan 1. Objective I ! To form a committee for computer implementation to determine guidelines, pilot expenditures, and expenses for implementing computers into the District's K-12 curriculum. 2. Implementation Strategy Prepare recommendations for implementing the computer curriculum  February, 1986. 3. Responsibility a. Selection of committee members -- The Associate Superintendent, the Math Supervisor, and the Supervisor of Instructional Technology. b. Election of chairman and recorder--Committee Members -78- 1  n J c. Selection of sub-committee -- Committee Chairperson, working under the direction of the Math Supervisor 4. d. e. Schedule meetings Committee Chairperson Write committee report  Committee Chairperson and Recorder Evaluation Successful completion will be determined by the development and submission of the Committee's recommendations. a 5. Cost n 1  I 1'1 Seed money for computer pilots Maintenance program for microcomputers Resource/consultant/travel expenses Total $ 15,000 7,000 2,000 $ 24,000 -79-1 I PROBLEM NUMBER FOUR A tremendous need exists in today's society for youngsters to receive instruction in drug, alcohol, and sex education. A recent cover story in Time states that \"...each year more than a million American II II teenagers will become pregnant... some 30,000 of them under age 15. Arkansas leads the nation in the number of teenage pregnancies, and many of these occur in Pulaski County. Clearly the problem of alcohol and drug abuse and the problem of teenage pregnancy must be addressed more effectively than we have been able to do thus far. A. Proposed Solution The Little Rock School District will provide instruction on drug, alcohol, and sex education in grades 4-9. B. Analysis Ui Efforts to address the problems of drug, alcohol, and sex education through extended day services have not been successful. It is necessary to provide instruction in these areas within the regular curriculum. c. Operational Plan 1. Objective 2. To incorporate instruction in drug, alcohol, and sex education as part of the regular curriculum in grades 4-9. Implementation Strategy A committee of supervisors and teachers will be appointed to recommend appropriate content for programs in drug, alcohol, and sex education for students in grades 4-9. Their recommendations will be received by September, 1986. Teachers will receive inservice training in appropriate methods of instruction in these areas during the first semester of the 1986-87 school year. Program content will be incorporated into the regular curriculum by January, 1987. 3. Responsibility The Committee will make its initial recommendations to the Associate Superintendent in charge of curriculum who will present them to the Superintendent and Board. Curriculum content decisions will be made by the Superintendent and Board. The responsibility for implementation will be that of the Associate Superintendent in charge of curriculum. -80-Lrd 4. Evaluation  III 1 5. I The evaluation of the program will be determined by teachers, principals, students, and parents who are involved with the program. Cost Supplies and printing Inservice training, 1 day 0 $35 for 142 Total $ 2,000 $ 4,970 $ 6,970 I -81- '1* if - PROBLEM NUMBER FIVE  There is a need to ensure that at the junior high and high school levels all students are being required to master the same basic level of knowledge in each subject area taught. Presently, teachers have a heavy burden grading tests. There is a need to give some type of district-wide standardized tests that assures uniformity in teaching and learning without placing an additional burden on the teachers. A. Proposed Solution B. C.  I It is recommended that the District develop a bank of test questions for each of the subject areas taught. These test questions will be stored in the District's mainframe computer. When it is necessary to give quarterly, semester, and year-end tests, such tests could be generated by requesting from the computer a certain number of test questions which are selected from the storage bank. This procedure would allow uniform expectations of teaching and learning. Analysis Although the curriculum that is used in the District is uniform, it is necessary to develop a uniform level of expectation for subject material that is mastered by students. By developing a computerized testing program where tests can be generated from the computer from a \"bank\" of questions, testing for uniform knowledge is possible. It is also possible to develop an answer sheet that can be graded by using scanning procedures. By developing such a procedure, the District can make its expectation level more uniform and aid the teachers in their areas of responsibility. replace essay tests. Operational Plan 1. 2. Objective This system cannot and should not, however. It will be used only for objective tests. To develop a system where the computer can store, select, and print computer tests for all subject areas taught in the District. The objective is to develop a system that will grade the tests. The purpose of developing this system is to make uniform our expectations of students in all subject areas. Implementation Strategy The District will begin this process in the 1986-87 school year by making sure the instructional objectives for each subject area are updated, and the plan for developing the computerization will begin in 1986-87. In 1987-88, it is planned that the areas of English, mathematic, science, and 1 -82- 1 1 iS  social studies at the junior high level will be completed. In the 1988-89 school year, all other courses at the junior high level will be included. During the 1986-87 and 1988-89 school year, the process of writing test questions and including them in the computer will take place for all subjects at the senior high level. It is planned that by the 1989-90 school year, this process can be used for all subjects in grades 7-12. I A 3. Responsibility The responsibility for this effort will be the Associate Superintendent in charge of curriculum and instruction and the Director of Data Processing. F 4. Evaluation 3 The success of this proposal will be determined by whether or not this plan is implemented. h 5. Cost Staff Time  1 I -83- I rI PROBLEM NUMBER SIX For several years, the junior high school has suffered from an identity crisis that remains somewhat unresolved. Some educators believe the junior highs should be abolished and replaced with middle 4 schools. Others believe the existing junior high structure, with a different program, would best meet the needs of early adolescents. There are some indications that young adolescents of today are maturing faster than they used to and that the typical six-three-three grade pattern no longer works well for today's students. Other concerns are that junior high schools too often are simply miniature versions of high school (complete with emphasis on subject matter mastery) with little regard for growth characteristics and special needs of early adolescents. All of these concerns point to the need for reviewing the total junior high program. In addition to these concerns, the Arkansas standards will require that several courses be offered at the seventh and eighth grade levels which are not now required by the Little Rock School District. The present six-period day will make it difficult if not impossible to provide all the required courses, to students. Many electives will be unavailable I A. B. Proposed Solution Appoint a task force to review the total junior high program and make recommendations to the Superintendent regarding curriculum, scheduling, staffing, and extracurricular activities. Analysis J Besides apparent differences that exist between District offerings and state requirements, there are some obvious concerns with the overall effectiveness of the junior high program. Attention needs to be given to such issues as cognitive development of early adolescents, learning styles, physical and social maturation. 11 teacher qualities\" most needed by those who instruct junior high youngsters, appropriate extracurricular I activities, and guidance and counseling needs. The scheduling of classes should be reviewed to determine if a different system of instructional delivery might be more appropriate for the junior highy school. Other issues include the opportunity to develop I learning and study skills under the direction of trained personnel, the opportunity to explore career interests, and the need to establish programs in drug, alcohol, and sex education for junior high youngsters. -84- I I C. Operational Plan 1. Objectives a. To develop a task force to study the junior high program and make recommendations to the Superintendent in the following areas: I 1. 2. 3. 4, Curriculum Scheduling Staffing patterns Extracurricular activities b. f To establish timetables for implementation of program changes prior to June, 1987. I 2. Implementation Strategy a. Select committee members and define role of task force by February, 1986. b. Present committee recommendations to the Superintendent by April 15, 1986. 1 I I I 3. Responsibility The Task Force will present recommendations to the Superintendent. Responsibility for implementation will rest with the Associate Superintendents and the Manager of Support Services. 4. Evaluation Final reports from the Task Force will be evident. Surveys of teachers and students will be used for evaluative purposes. 5. Cost The cost of the Task Force will be minimal. The costs for redesigning the junior high program will be developed in the report of the Task Force to the Superintendent. -85-PROBLEM NUMBER SEVEN Many students in our District would like to have the opportunity to take additional courses beyond what is available to them within a six-period day. Additionally, the new standards will require that new courses be added to the curriculum. Some of these courses will be required. This is a special problem for the junior high program. : 1 A. Proposed Solution Provide an extended school day for junior and senior high school students so that they will be able to take additional courses and thus receive a more comprehensive education than would otherwise be possible. B. Analysis i1 It will be difficult, if not impossible, to offer all the required courses necessary to meet the standards within the current six-period day. While consideration has been given to a seven-period day, such a decision would mean shortening class periods and thus reducing individual teacher-student interaction within a given class. At the same time, many students would like the opportunity to take additional courses beyond those required for graduation. From a cost perspective, it would be difficult if not impossible to employ teachers to teach an additional hour. A method for extension of the school day that is cost effective is needed. 1 C. Operational Plan I 1. Objectives a. b. 2. \u0026gt; To complete a report to the Superintendent and Board by January 1987 containing an analysis of extended day programs and recommendations for implementation. To implement an extended day schedule in the 1987-88 school year. Implementation Strategy A committee of principals, teachers, and central office administrators will study extended day programs and will make recommendations to the Superintendent and Board for the implementation of a cost-effective program by the 1987-88 school year. Principals will assess staffing needs, determine staff reporting and leaving time, and develop a master schedule by April, 1987. needs A -86- J  3. Responsibility 7J1 The initial recommendations will be made by the Committee. Responsibility for implementation will be that of the secondary principals working under the assigned associate superintendent. I 4. Evaluation 1 5. Teachers, students, administrators, and parents will assess the success of the extended day program. Cost Committee expenses (printing and supplies) $ 50.00  w  s -87- '5' II si\n'31 k-\u0026gt;il I a f I  I PROBLEM NUMBER EIGHT I The Little Rock School District needs to continue planning secondary magnet schools. A. B. C. 1 Proposed Solution 1I Planning for a secondary high school for the visual and performing arts should continue. Analysis The magnet schools program of the Little Rock School District has been very well received by students and patrons. The Eighth Circuit Court has directed Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County District to examine magnet options. Operational Plan 1. 2. 3. 4. Objective To design a high school that would develop the potential of students from all cultural and socio-economic backgrounds who exhibit an interest, talent, and ability in the visual and performing arts. Implementation Strategy a. b. c. Determine course, objectives, content, and teaching strategies. Determine what materials, textbooks, and supplies will be needed. Spend the 1986-87 school year developing the with implementation set for 1987-88 school year. Responsibil i ty courses The Associate Superintendent will have major responsibility. The Community Committee which began work in 1984-85 will continue work with the Supervisor of Music and Coordinator of Cultural Arts as resource personnel. Evaluation Evaluation will be consistent with the evaluation that is made of all educational programs in the Little Rock School District. -88r 1 I  H II I I I T 7 5. Cost s The feasibility of funding such a school under a Department of Education grant, State of Arkansas funds, or through combined efforts of the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County, and North Little Rock should be explored. I I I I E -89- I 9 I I PROBLEM NUMBER NINE The District has provided a comprehensive staff development program for its staff members for several years, but it has been unevenly utilized. Some administrators and teachers avail themselves of every possible opportunity to upgrade their skills and learn more about effective educational practices. Others are either reluctant participants or choose not to participate at all. One of the concerns regarding staff development is how to get employees oriented to the philosophy and program of the District while at the same time not adversely impacting on instruction time for 4 students. There are disadvantages to programs which operate only after hours, on the weekends, and during the summer, but clearly, the impact of removing teachers from their duties in the classroom in order to receive inservice instruction training must be carefully assessed. At the same time, if a mediocre teacher's performance can 4 improve as a result of participation in a program during the school day, that too must be considered. During the 1984-85 school year, at least two schools whose teachers were out for seven half-days to participate in PET showed gains in achievement on the SRA test. 4 Another concern has to do with providing training opportunities for administrators and support personnel and for providing school-based staff development programs. Without appropriate leadership from principals, it is unlikely that any lasting change will occur in the instructional practices of teachers. At the same time, unless principals receive the training they need, they can hardly be expected to emerge as instructional leaders of their schools. Further, specially trained teachers have unique needs that are not always appropriately addressed by the District's staff development model. A. B. Proposed Solution Establish a staff development program for all District employees and Board members which will provide systematic training in issues and concerns vital to the District and which will enhance the ability of the identified groups to carry out their responsibilities more effectively. Analysis 1. Effective June 1, 1987, the State Department of Education will require that each district develop and implement a plan for professional staff development and inservice training for school board members, school and district administrators, teachers, and support staff on a continuing and regular basis throughout the year. -90- -I.  1: C. 2. Although the District has recognized the need for staff development as evidenced by the staff development model, scheduling has prevented full and/or effective implementation. Operational Plan rI i J  ( i 1 I 1. Objective To upgrade student performance and achievement by providing systematic inservice training for Little Rock School District School Board members, school and district adminstrators, teachers, and support staff. i I 2. Implementation Strategy a. The Board will adopt a policy concerning staff development. b. A staff development advisory committee will be appointed with a provision for rotating membership. This committee will receive and act upon proposals and recommendations from employees concerning the content of staff development programs. 1 c. A needs assessment will be conducted to determine the areas of interest and concern as perceived by all groups of District employees. I d. Each principal and central office administrator will attain observation status in PET. I e. Annual inservice for principals will be provided, utilizing the Leadership Academy and the Principals Center. f. By February 1 of each year the principal will present to the Associate Superintendent (Curriculum) a building level staff development plan for the year based on local needs assessment data. g. The Associate Superintendents will complete all areas of staff development as set forth in the Little Rock School District Staff Development Model (i.e., PET, Mastery Learning, TESA, and Assertive Discipline). I I h. Annually, staff development in PET, TESA, Classroom Management, and Assertive Discipline will be provided until all schools have completed training in these components. I I i. A Principals Center will be established. I ! -91- i p, I  j. k. 1. The components of the Program for Effective Building Leadership (PEBL) will be implemented. All teachers will have completed PET by 1991-92 and new teachers will be employed on the condition that they take PET. -I' 3. 4. A trainer of trainers cycle will be conducted to assist principals and other employees in the delivery of staff development activities at the local schools, utilizing current and relevant theories of adult development and learning. Responsibility I The Associate Superintendent in charge of curriculum will have primary responsibility for the development and implementation of the staff development program.  \u0026lt;3 ' Evaluation s a. b. c. d. 5. Cost The objective(s) for each inservice or staff development activity must be clearly defined. Each participant will evaluate the inservice as it relates to the stated object!ve(s). The evaluation instrument for personnel will reflect the application of skills and concepts taught in the Little Rock School District Staff Development Model. The number of students working at, above, or below grade level at the end of the first and third nine weeks of the current year will be compared with the same data of the previous year. SRA data will be used to compare growth of students for the current year with the previous year. Five PET Cycles @ $6,000 per cycle Principals Staff Development and Inservice Four Cycles of TESA, Assertive Discipline, and Classroom Management $ 30,000 $ 20,000 TOTAL $ 30,600 $ W76(m 1. L. f -92- I\nII I- 'I I .! I 11 ii J I J 9 'I * PROBLEM NUMBER TEN In order to avoid the emphasis that is being placed on minimum competencies as being an acceptable level of work for all students, it is necessary to try to develop an attitude or atmosphere for learning that accepts the best a student can do as the minimum level of performance. A. B. Proposed Solution In order to try to create an atmosphere for learning and achievement, the District will develop a series of steps to promote learning for the sake of learning without any differentiation through the use of grades. Those steps will be listed below. The District will expand the opportunities for students to learn by developing an academic summer school program. This will be a \"set\" program that will become an automatic part of the summer school offerings each summer. Admission to the classes that are offered will be open to any student who wishes to pursue the subjects that are taught. The District will develop a lecture series. The lecture series will be developed for the purpose of exposing students in the Little Rock School District to some of the nation's politicians, academicians, and newsmakers. The District will consider developing the use of a voluntary scholar's test. The purpose of the test, which will be voluntary, would be to give students the opportunity to know to what degree they have mastered academic material. No differentiation will be made on any diploma. Analysis For the past several years the Little Rock School District has worked hard to improve the basic skills of its students. While the basic skills have improved, the District has not developed an attitude that indicates that learning for the sake of learning is important. The above steps are proposed in order to try and create the idea that not only can all students learn but that developing ones own talent and interests can be done in various ways. The academic summer school is proposed in order to try to expand the opportunities for students to take interesting and challenging classes. The lecture program is proposed in order to give students the opportunity to be exposed to national figures in various areas. The scholars test is proposed in order to try to give students an opportunity to self-evaluate their academic development. -93- 1 i ____3-t C. Operational Plan 1. 2. Objective The objective is to develop and instill an idea of academic performance in the students in each of the buildings in the Little Rock School District. By using these activities, the importance of academics can be emphasized without additional emphasis on grading and acceptance into programs based on prior performance. Implementation Strategy .JH 1! 3. 4. 5. 1 It is proposed that implementation of the proposed plan be completed by the fall of 1986, with the exception of the scholars test. It is anticipated that the scholars test will be available for all students at the end of the 1987-88 school year. Responsibility Responsibility for the program will be shared by the associates superintendents. Evaluation I Evaluation of this program will be measured by the participation in the academic summer school program, attendance at the lecture series, and by the number of students who take the scholar's test. The success of the academic coaches will be measured by an analysis of whether or not that position has had an impact on improved academic participation and performance of the students. Cost Funding for the summer school program will be by tuition. Funding for the lecture series will be sought from private donations. Costs for the tests will be determined later. depending upon what tests are used. -94- II } I i I il Hi I I I rt 5 1 I I I I ,'1 w ' 3 1 ADMINISTRATION 1986-87 -95- II (I i! 4' PROBLEM NUMBER ONE By 1990, the Little Rock School District will have to extend the number of student attendance days from 175 to 179. With the increased cost of utilities, it is necessary for the District to use as many as possible of the \"low energy consumption days\" for student attendance. Recently, the Arkansas General Assembly passed legislation, which was later modified, that emphasized the importance of schools scheduling student attendance days to begin after Labor Day of each year. Temperatures increase significantly after Memorial Day\ntherefore, it is necessary for the Little Rock School District to use as many of the days available between Labor Day and Memorial Day as possible since these are usually lower energy consumption days. A. B. C. Proposed Solution It is recommended that the Board direct the administration to negotiate a change in the manner in which the District has dismissed school for the Arkansas Education Association Convention and to study the alternatives for changing the use of spring vacation during the 1987-88 school year. Analysis ihe District has tried various energy management plans in the past. Some have been more successful than others. The District will again have to become more energy-conscious as a result of the Grand Gulf settlement and anticipated increases in the price of natural gas. This matter is further complicated by the requirement of the new state standards to increase the number of student days from 175 to 179. between Labor Day and Memorial Day. There are a given number of days Unless more days between those two dates are used for student attendance, school days will have to be used either prior to Labor Day or after Memorial Day to a greater degree than they are now used. This not only reduces the effectiveness of teaching because of the heat but also increases utility costs. Operational Plan 1. 2. Objective To better utilize the dates that are available between Labor Day and Memorial Day for student instruction by reducing the days when students are dismissed for other activities. Implementation Strategy To ask the Board of Directors to direct the administration to change the practice of dismissing school two days for the AEA convention. To examine the possibility in future years I' I I i I I E -96- 19 fl of better utilizing the days now used for spring vacation and/or Christmas vacation. 1 3. Responsibility Responsibility for this project will be that of the Superintendent of Schools and those to whom he delegates certain areas of responsibility. 4. Evaluation Successful completion of this proposed solution will be the reduction of utility consumption and by expanding the number of days of student attendance. I. b bl 5. Cost None I 1 -97-9 Bl PROBLEM NUMBER TWO Despite the District's efforts to remediate students who are placed in remedial or \"low\" sections of a subject, too many students are still allowed to remain in a \"lower track.\" A. Proposed Solution I i Beginning in the 1986-87 school year, no student will be promoted beyond the sixth grade who has not been evaluated in a manner that indicates that he/she has the ability to be successful in the seventh grade. I Beginning with the 1987-88 school year, the Little Rock School District will have only two levels of required classes: regular and honors. The classes that are separated because of content level such as Algebra I, Algebra II, or Geometry, will remain. In the 1988-89 school year this requirement will be moved to the eighth grade. I In the 1989-90 school year, it will be moved to the ninth grade and on through the succeeding years until it includes the twelfth grade. p d B. Analysis There is a need to educate all students to a level of competence that enables them to be successful once they get out of high school. Presently, too many students are not required to master a minimal level of knowledge that will enable them to be successful in ensuing years. By phasing out the present levels that place students in different groups, we will ensure that all students have at least a minimal level of knowledge. Remedial programs will need to be developed other than summer school. These remedial programs can only be developed, however, with additional funds. Nonetheless, it is best to set the requirement and the expectations of all students rather than allow the number of students who presently go through school performing at such a low level. C. Operational Plan 1. Objective 1 To ensure that all students achieve a minimum amount of knowledge in a subject. 2. Implementation Strategy 1'! It is recommended that this procedure be phased in in order to prevent any additional hardships to those students who have already reached the junior high level or grades above junior high without having mastered the minimum requirements. Again, remedial programs should be established to help teach students and will be done if money is available. -98-a 1 1 II 3. Responsibility The responsibility for this effort will be that of the two Associate Superintendents. 4. Evaluation I, i I? 5. The success of this proposal will be measured by the elimination of the present grouping patterns and the increase in the number of students who master the minimum skills. Cost None 1 11 1 I 1 I -99-9 PROBLEM NUMBER THREE At the high school level, students are assigned by the computer to certain classes. The computer is not able to anticipate the fact that students have had teachers in previous years and failed the class or identify situations where learning and teaching styles don't match. The computer also is not able to know of personality conflicts between specific students and specific teachers. As a result, there are a i! large number of transfer requests early in each semester. In addition, there are a large number of students who have difficult semesters or difficult years because of the teacher to whom the student was assigned. ' I I I A. Proposed Solution I i ' B. 1 C. It is recommended that at least one of the high schools voluntarily accept on a trial basis the responsibility for developing a system where students are allowed to select their teachers and the period they want to take the particular class. Analysis It is necessary to try to adopt a plan that accommodates students in not only selecting a class, but also selecting the hour in which it is taught and the teacher they would like to have as an instructor. Student-teacher conflicts can be reduced and schedule changes can be substantially reduced. The most common concern that has been expressed about this idea is that students are not able to select teachers for themselves that are in their best interests because they will select the teachers who are the II easiest.\" Principals who have been involved in this type of scheduling, however, indicate that this is not so and are in favor of this process. By trying this on an experimental basis in one of our high schools, we can determine the degree to which it is successful and whether or not it should be continued and expanded to include the other high schools. Operational Plan 1. Objective To develop a scheduling system which allows the students to select not only their subjects but the hours in which the subjects are taught and the teacher that will be teaching the particular classes. I I 2. Implementation Strategy During the 1986-87 school year, high school principals will be questioned about their willingness to volunteer in such a project. After a high school has been selected, the scheduling process will be started for the spring of 1987 and will take effect in the fall of 1988. -100-9 I 3 3 2 3. Responsibility Responsibility for this project will be under the direction of the Associate Superintendent in charge of administration and the principal of the high school that is to participate. 4. Evaluation I I I The success of this project will be determined by the high I school principal. The information in his evaluation would i' '3 4 5. be gathered from students and teachers in his/her building. Cost None I I R I I J 4 I -I I I I -101- I 7 PROBLEM NUMBER FOUR The District does not have a handbook to assist administrators in the interviewing, evaluation, and selection of certified personnel. A. Proposed Solution To develop an interview handbook for the selection of certified personnel. B. Analysis The development of an interview handbook for the selection of certified personnel will provide assistance in the interviewing, evaluating, and selection of certified personnel. The handbook will also provide for some standardization in the selection of teaching personnel when a number of people are involved in the interviewing and selection process. I i I C. Operational Plan 1. Objective I I I To develop a handbook that will provide assistance to administrators as they interview to achieve an assessment of a potential candidate in a short amount of time. 2. Implementation Strategy I a. b. The selection of a committee to assist the Personnel Director in the development of the handbook by May 1, 1986. p Instructional Supervisors and Principals will be trained in the use of the handbook by June, 1986. i I i I h  3. Responsibility The Director of Personnel, under the direction of the proper Associate Superintendent, will be responsible for developing the handbook and its implementation. 4. Evaluation The selection process of certified personnel will be evaluated to determine what impact the handbook has had on the selection of quality certified personnel. Il i( II II li 5. Cost Printing and binding $ 1.000 -102-p.-iT PROBLEM NUMBER FIVE A problem exists in finding an adequate method of preparing first-year teachers to teach in the Little Rock School District.  I' i  S-l Each year the Little Rock School District spends a substantial amount of funds to pay for substitute teachers. During the 1984-85 school year, the District spent in excess of $700,000 for substitute teachers. In addition to the amount of money spent on substitute teachers, the quality of instruction provided by substitutes is substantially below the level of instruction provided by the regular classroom teacher. It is becoming increasingly difficult to attract competent young professionals to the teaching staff and keep classroom teachers in the classroom. A. Proposed Solution To address the problems stated above, it is recommended tht the District institute a \"differentiated staffing\" plan. B. Analysis There is a need to provide training for first year teachers in the Little Rock School District, to provide an available source of competent substitute teachers, and to develop a means of providing a career ladder or some way of keeping professional teachers in the classroom. The differentiated staffing plan would incorporate three basic ingredients, include an entry level group of teachers. The first would These individuals would be employed in the \"training\" part of the program. Although all individuals would be college graduates, they will be assigned to work and be supervised by a \"master teacher.\" They will receive additional training in the areas designated by the District such as the Program for Effective Teaching, etc. and will serve as substitute teachers. II It is hoped that this pool of training\" staff will provide the source from which we will employ regular classroom teachers for the following year. The second level is the level of regular classroom teacher, is the same level that the District presently employs and the responsibilities will be the same. This ihe third level would be called the \"career\" category. After a given number of years of satisfactory performance, a regular classroom teacher would be eligible to be placed at the II level. career\" 1 i! The \"career\" level teachers would not only be placed on a different salary schedule, but they would form the nucleus from which department chairmen, master teachers, and course instructors would be chosen. The individuals at the II career\" level would be eligible for extra work during the summer to work on curriculum and instruction, performance based. All promotions would be -103- 7 C. Operational Plan 1. Objective The objective is to provide the District with a source from which it can draw first-year teachers who are well-prepared to go into the classroom, a reliable source of substitute teachers who are more competent than those from which we draw at the present time, and an incentive plan that will recognize, encourage, and reward career teachers in the Little Rock School District. 2. Implementation Strategy It will not Implementation will begin in the fall of 1986. be possible for us to employ all of the first-year teachers that will be needed in the fall of 1986 and create a pool of \"training\" teachers. We will attempt to begin hiring the \"extra\" staff members and developing a pool. The District will seek grants and other means of trying to establish the training pool. t I During the 1986-87 school year, the District will attempt to develop the complete career ladder process with the appropriate levels and appropriate evaluation instrument being developed. Full implementation is planned for the fall of 1987. I 3. Responsibility r The ultimate responsibility will be under the direction of the Superintendent of Schools with specific parts of the program being assigned to the Associate Superintendents, the Manager of Support Services, and the Director of Personnel. 4. Evaluation I I i The success of this plan will be dependent upon its implementation and the degree to which the quality of instruction from first-year teachers and substitute teachers I is improved. Evaluation of the career ladder element of the plan will be through staff surveys. I 5. Cost I 1 The cost is dependent upon the number of teachers that can be hired at an approximate cost of $15,700 per new teacher, including fringe benefits. I I I 1 I -104-7 PROBLEM NUMBER SIX The need exists within the Little Rock School District to eliminate pre-school registration for students who are attending the same schools as the previous year. It would be the goal of this system to reduce the number of days of registration and the manpower used in filling out registration forms. It will, however, be necessary for students new to the District and new to the school to pre-register. A. Proposed Solution Have only two days of registration. The pupil data forms will be entered into a computer and these students placed on a printout. The school would need to send any changes to the Pupil Accounting Office on a change form. B. Analysis Through computerization of our registration process, the office personnel will be able to plan more efficiently and effectively for the upcoming school year. Also, fewer days will be necessary for registration. i I' C. Operational Plan 1. Objective 2. 3. All children attending the same school in the LRSD will be able to attend school without pre-registering. Implementation Strategy a. b. Utilize one person from Pupil Accounting to feed the information into the computer. Develop a \"change form\" to be fed into the computer for any changes of address, phone number, etc. Responsibility i I b. Pupil Accounting Office The school secretary will be responsible for securing the \"change forms\" and submitting them to Pupil Accounting along with any new pupil data forms. I a. 1 4. Evaluation Registration at the beginning of the school year will r\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_39","title":"Rankings of Arkansas School Districts on Selected Items","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1991-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Public schools","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Rankings of Arkansas School Districts on Selected Items"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/39"],"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":["230 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRANKINGS OF ARKANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICTS ON SELECTED ITEMS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JANUARY 1991 Alicansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 BURTON L ELLIOTT, Director, General Education Division January 1991 Memo To: The Governor of Arkansas, Members of the General Assembly, and Superintendents of Public Schools Fran: Burton L. Elliott, Director, General Education Division Subject: Rankings of the School Districts on Selected Items Contained herein are the names of the school districts of Arkansas ranked on the basis of twelve (12) selected items contained in the Annual Statistical Re\nirt of the Public Schools (Re~rt op the !louse Concurrent Resolution No. 58 of 1961) dated January, 1991. These figures do not incl e expenditures of restricted ederal funds such as OCIA or personnel paid with federal funds. Data for 1989-90 are actual\ndata for 1990-91 are estimates. The school districts are listed in LF.An 1111bero rder beginning on page 3 for easy reference. This should permit the reader to quickly locate an individual district on any table. Definitions of iteir.s included are listed below: l. ~ Per AM. The current expense, less the amount received fran the other districts for tuition, divided by the resident ADA~. rgarten expense and kindergarten pupils are included in this figure. n,e 1989-90 ADAw ere used in computing the expense for both years. 2. Average Daily Attendance. TI,e ADA is total days of attendance divided by the nunber of days taught. This nt\u0026gt;nber includes those who attend school outside the district on a tuition agreement between the respective districts. Th.is is the annual average. 3. Avera~~ llenbership. n1e total days of attendance and absence divided by the n1111ber of day, taught. This nunber includes t eo attend outside the district on tuition agreement between the respective districts. Th.is is the annual average. nie overage for tlie first three (3) quarters is used for MFPA and transportation aid purposes. 4. llnber of Teachers lt-12. Includes all certificated personnel except superintendents, principals, supervisors, assistant superintendents, and those paid with federal funds. 5. Average Salary of Teachers lt-12. The average salary of tlie personnel defined in item four (4) above. 6. NU11beco f Certificated Persomel. n,e n1111bero f personnel defined in item four (4) above plus superintendents, principals, supervisors, and assistant superintendents. Personnel paid with federal funds are not included. 7. Average Salary of Certificated Persantl. The average salary of the personnel defined in item six (6). The data contained lierein should be of interest to persons desiring to compare the statistics of one district with those of another. for additioMl infonMtion call or write the Office of Statistics and Local Fiscal Services, Division of Department of Finance and Aan.lnistration, 501-682-4259. Printing of this publication has been made possible by n1e United States Department of Education in conjunction with The National Center for Education Statistics (ICES), P. L. 100-297. The information presented or reported herein was printed pursuant to a grant Cran the United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. However, the opinions expressed herein do not necesarily reflect the position or policy of tl,e United Stales Office of Education, and no official endorsement by the lklited States Office of Education should be inferred. In keeping with the guidelines on Title VI, Section 601 1 Civil RipJ1ts Act of 1964 j Title IX, Section 901, F.ducstional Amenclincnts of 1972\nand Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 197J, the Arkansas Department of Education assures that no person tn the United States shall on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or handicap be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any progr1111 or activity receiving federal financial assistance.  An Equal Opportunity Employer Page 2 CONSOLIDATIONS AND ANNEXATIONS Effective July l, 1990, the following districts were consolidated or annexed: Wilmar consolidated with Drew Central (Drew County). Washington annexed to Blevins, Hope and Saratoga (Hempstead County). Oil Trough annexed to Newark and Southside (Independence County). Garland (Miller County) consolidated with Lewisville (Lafayette county). Effective October 16, 1990, court ordered annexation for the following district: *Camden annexed to Fairview (Ouachita County). T *Due to late annexation of Camden to Fairview, the 1990-91 information for Camden was reported separately. ARKANSAPSU BLIC SCHOOi ANNUALFI SCAL REPORTA NAYi SIS 3 EXPENSE 1989-90 NUMBERO f AVG, SLRY. NO. OF CERT. AVG. SLRY. PER ADA TEACHERSK -12 TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. 89 90 90-91 AIPIA A/DIM 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 I EA  COUNTY DISTRICT RANK 1 ,, 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 01 01 ARKANSAS PEWITT ? 536 2 622 3-=\no 1 ,4':)? 94 0 9'1 Q ,,,, oc\n3 ?2 or.:\no j00,4 jOi .4 22,905 ?2.964 01 02 ARKANSAS GILLETT 2 :\u0026gt;,906 3.357 281 :,94 24.3 26.5 19.032 19,066 26.9 29 ..5. 20.442 20.444 01 04 ARKANSAS STIITTGART 3 2,3?8 2 467 ,, 3?6 ?,445 152.4 15?.1 22 .10B 23.172 162+5 16?.i 22.966 24,059 01--05 ARKANSAS HJJHPHREY 4 ') C-.94 ?,785 294 309 -\"\u0026gt;? 5 ~,, fl 20 ?''3 ?i 755 ?4,6 24,6 21 .20~\n2:\u0026gt;.741 02-01 ASHLEY CROSSETT 5 2,518 2,595 2,638 2,759 179.8 184.1 23,442 23,595 190.2 196.i 24.240 24,434 02 02 ASHLEY ECIINTAINH ILL 6 3,013 3,099 234 248 21.2 21.3 19.983 :?0.030 23,2 ?3,3 21.228 2i. 632 02 03 ASHJE Y HAHBIIRG 7 2 512 ,, 656 :t , 6Cj6 1 748 l12 Q i09 4 :\u0026gt;0.707 :,?,346 !19.7 ii7.2 2?,Qj6 2\n5,314 0? 04 ASHLEY PARKDALE 8 2,953 2.787 161 168 14.3 14.5 17.153 17,445 16.3 16.5 19,540 16,893 03-02 BAXTER COTTER 9 2,709 2,729 510 540 36.8 36.5 21,033 21.576 39.8 39.5 22,265 22,742 03-03 BAXTER MOUNTAIHNO ME 10 ?.534 2,602 3,229 3,401 195.5 195,0 22,878 23,360 210.5 210.7 23,819 24,366 03-04 BAXTER NORFORK ii 2,288 2,443 455 478 29.6 31.0 19,675 20,001 32.6 34.0 21,058 21,351 03-06 BAXTER TRI-COUNTYC ON. 12 4,646 4,547 164 175 18.7 18.2 20,384 20,769 21.7 20.2 21,765 21,980 04-0i BENTON BENTONVILLE i3 2,353 2.438 3,789 3,996 229.0 232 .. 7 22,905 23,166 244.0 247.7 23,975 24,278 04-02 BENTON DECATUR 14 2,677 2,961 477 503 39.2 43.0 18,905 19,466 42.2 46.0 19,871 20,414 04-03 BENTON GENTRY i5 2,540 2,608 969 1,022 70.6 71.5 20,871 20,597 74.6 75.5 21,600 21,281 04 04 BENTON GRAVETTE 16 2,081 2,455 1,056 1.119 64.5 67.0 20.604 22,504 69.0 71.0 21,436 23,264 04--05 BENTON ROGERS 17 2,555 2,626 5,861 6,187 350.7 357.9 25,081 25,296 379.3 385 .. 5 26,126 26,389 04-06 BENTON SILOAM SPRINGS 18 2.421 2,664 2,074 2.198 129.0 133.0 22,695 23,808 139.0 144.0 23,745 24,980 04-07 BENTON PEA RIDGE 19 2,308 2,726 665 708 45.8 51.0 19,387 21,391 49.1 54 .. 2 20,569 22,320 05-01 BOONE ALPENA 20 2.592 2,699 458 481 32.0 31.6 21,356 22,577 35.0 34.6 22,521 23,845 05-02 BOONE BERGMAN 21 2,468 2,702 646 673 40.2 42.6 23,312 23,420 43.2 45.6 24,605 24,730 05 03 8QONE HARRISON 22 2,284 2,403 2,490 2,612 i45.4 i5i,4 22.355 23.057 162.3 162.3 23,461 24,212 05-04 BOONE OHAHA 23 3.308 3,398 266 285 23.1 22.9 20,416 20,629 25.9 25.7 21,840 22,109 05-05 BOONE VALLEYS PRINGS 24 2.484 2.557 760 798 50.0 50.5 23.166 23,672 54.0 54.5 23.931 24,431 05 06 BQONE LEAD HILL 25 3,124 3,256 321 341 26.1 26.3 20.035 20.221 28.8 29.1 2L656 21.756 06--01 BRADLEY HERHITAGE 26 2,591 2,612 602 636 39,5 40,0 21,056 21,062 42.5 43.0 22,194 22,049 06-02 BRADLEY WARREN 27 2,428 2,470 1.727 i.805 121.0 114.7 22,192 23,046 130.4 125 .. 2 23,450 24,340 07-0f C.AI HCIIN HAMPTON 28 2.510 2,684 873 910 59.2 59.2 22,333 23,710 62.7 62.7 23,430 24,735 oe-01 CARROLL BERRYVILLE 29 2,277 2,403 1,247 1,310 82.0 81.5 20,959 22,362 86.5 86,0 21,632 23,023 08-02 CARROLL EUREKSAP RINGS 30 2.473 2.476 586 617 41.0 40.0 21,027 21,808 44.0 43.0 22,196 22,943 08-03 CARROLL GREENF OREST 31 2,252 2,435 1.069 1,128 70.3 71.3 20,676 21,864 76.0 77.0 21.557 22,644 09-01 CHICOT DERMOTT 32 2,392 2.574 1,214 1,280 77.8 74.3 22,387 28,490 82.8 79.3 23,287 29,061 09-02 CHICOT EUDORA 33 2,825 2,858 950 991 68.6 68.0 21,672 22,556 74.8 74.1 23,034 23,882 09-03 CHICOT LAKESIDE 34 2,693 2,529 1,258 1.341 86,4 88,0 21,015 20,749 92.4 94.0 21.874 21.634 10-01 CLARK AMITY 35 2,823 2,920 278 295 21.8 21.1 20,943 20,979 23.9 23.2 22,056 22,122 10-02 CLARK ARKADELPHIA 36 2,624 2,739 2,104 2,203 145.1 146.9 22,085 22,426 155.0 156.8 22,900 23,511 i0-03 CLARK GURDON 37 2,554 2,536 869 911 65.0 65.4 20,036 20,094 69.6 69.4 20,986 20,918 ii-Qi CLAY CORNING 38 2,468 2,471 1,201 i,296 85.i 82.4 21,752 21,848 90.6 87.9 22,660 22,756 11-04 CLAY PIGGOTT 39 2,390 2,445 904 948 67.2 64.9 19,495 20,693 71.2 68.9 20,252 21,405 H-06 CLAY CLAYC OUNTYC ENTR4 0 2,403 2,560 756 791 54.7 54,7 19,664 21,264 57.7 57.7 20,353 21,875 12-01 CLEBURNE CONCORD 41 2,479 2,656 512 544 35.7 34,0 20,965 22,053 38.7 37.0 22,059 23,302 12-02 CLEBURNE HEBER SPRINGS 42 2,340 2,509 1,253 1,327 83.5 88.5 21,795 21,878 88.9 93.8 22,741 22,776 12-03 CLEBURNE QUITMAN 43 2,568 2,587 539 570 38.9 38.8 22,553 22,433 41.9 41.8 23,40l. 23,292 12-04 CLEBURNE WEST SIDE 44 2,652 2,899 399 419 30.0 31.7 21,029 20,719 33.0 34.7 21,944 21,694 12-05 CLEBURNE WILBURN 45 3,235 3,089 160 171 15.5 15.7 17,461 17,949 17.5 17.7 19,728 20,319 i3-01 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND 46 2,896 2,879 389 406 26.8 26.8 21,424 19,646 29.9 29.7 22,368 20,791 13-03 CLEVELAND RISON 47 2,503 2,565 632 659 42.7 44.7 22,133 22,391 45.7 47,7 23,204 23,328 ARKANSASP UBLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUALF ISCAL REPORTA NALYSIS LEA ORDE:R PACE NO. 4 EXPENSE 1989-90 NUMBERC F AVG SLRY. NC. CF CERT. AVG SLRY. PER ADA TEACHER$ K-12 TCHRS K-t2 f'fBSONNEL CERT PERS 89-90 90-91 AID/A AIDIM B9 90 90--91 89-90 90-91 82 90 90--91 89-20 90-91 LEA t COUNTY DISTRICT RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to U 12 13 04 CLEYEIAND WQQQI AWN 48 ., 497 2 62f ,407 ,42f 30 4 30 4 f9 525 20,179 33 4 33 4 20 868 21 437 u 01 COLUMBIA EHERSON 49 3,000 3,173 377 395 29.6 30 6 22,992 23,450 32 6 33 6 24 336 24 722 u 02 COLUHBIA HAGNOLIA 50 2,317 2,436 2,947 3.124 175.1 177.2 23.B74 24,616 188.3 121.2 24 933 25,678 14 03 COJ IJHBIA HCHEIL 51 2,632 2 280 334 357 25 5 25 5 17 880 1A 772 28 5 28 5 19 298 19 224 14:=(M COLUHBIA TAYLOR 52 2,820 2,676 351 364 27.5 26.0 20.507 20,641 30.5 29.0 21,719 22.065 14-06 COLUHBIA WALDO 53 2,616 2,633 518 550 40 1 39 3 20 092 20.550 43 6 42 3 21 505 21 226 14-07 COLUHBIA WALKER 54 2,892 2,861 236 246 21 5 2, 5 18 311 18 579 24 5 24 0 19 288 20,059 5- MWAY NEl10 VISTA 55 2.683 2,774 375 395 29.6 29.0 20.633 20.243 32 1 32.0 21,553 21 180 ___ 15-05 CONWAY WONDER'.'LIEW 56 2,465 2,581 421 442 30 5 30.0 18 823 19 064 33,5 33 0 f9 9c\n2 20 303 15-07 CONWAY so. CONWAYco . 57 2 503 2 634 2 450 ., 600 152 0 153 0 21 775 22 283 164 7 165 7 22 7i7 23 193 16-01 CRAIGHEAD tAY-BROWN 8 2,600 2,635 609 642 41.7 4\n\u0026gt;.7 20.745 21,182 44.7 45 7 21,685 22,112 16-02 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE 59 2,359 2.518 1.235 1.313 79.8 SLR 20,882 21,321 86 8 89 8 21,805 ?2 307 16 03 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAND 60 2,461 2,636 797 84t 53 5 54 0 21 528 22 720 56 s 57 0 22 476 23 631 16-05 CRAIGHEAD BUFFALOJS LAt!Q CE 61 2,463 2,650 793 827 sa.o 59.0 20.902 21.367 61-7 63,7 21.581 2?.142 16-08 CRAIGHEAD 2,560 2,617 4.598 4,844 306.3 306.3 25.267 25,674 326 3 376 3 26 133 26 509 16 ii CRAIGHEAD NETTLETON 2,592 2 602 483 1,579 102 5 106 5 21 934 21 4?7 109 5 1:14 3 22 166 ?2 225 16-12 CRAIGHEAD VALLEY YIEW 4 2,185 2,484 932 976 56.3 57.5 22 809 24 308 S2 3 6i s 23 44i 25,084 16-13 CRAIGHEAD IVERSIDE 5_2.,507 2,671 818 861 59.o 59 0 20,362 21,390 62 0 63 0 21 38!5 22 395 17-01 CRAWFORD AIHA 2 257 ., 378 2 158 ., 262 130 0 136 5 22 823 23 5'1 139 2 145 7 24 131 24 851 17-02 CRAWFORD CEDAR~ILI.E_ 6J. 2,418 2,570 723 776 48,6 50,7 2'\u0026gt;.751 23.416 5LB 53 7 23 645 24.355 17-03 CRAWFORD MOUNTAINBURG ----68 ~ 2,592 770 822 53.0 53.6 21,989 2? 526 56 0 56 6 22 801 ?3 372 17 04 CRAWFORD MULBERRY 69 2.504 2,618 422 449 32 7 33 1 21 308 21 652 36 0 36 4 22 487 ?2 736 17-05 CRAWFORD VAN_BUREl'I 70 2,269 2,452 4,207 4,499 256.0 267 2 24.320 25,050 272.5 283,7 25.262 26 037 18-01 CRITTENDEN CRAWF08DSV..ILLE._ 71 2,473 2,607 555 584 38.8 38.8 19.029 19,323 42.0 42,5 20 311 20,546 18 02 CRITTENDEN EARLE 7? ?,919 2 742 1,002 1,069 69 0 71 5 24 67? 2?,883 23 7 76 7 25 543 '\u0026gt;3 843 18-03 CRITTENDEN WEST MEMPHIS 73\n!J27 2,527 5.750 6.121 384.1 385.6 23,966 25.141 411.1 412.6 24.799 25.893 18-04 CRITTENDEN MARION 74 2,373 2.589 2,287 2,426 139.5 142.0 23.420 24.099 151.1 153.7 24. 511 25,102 18-05 CRITTENDEN TURRELL 75 2,926 2,804 530 568 34 0 33 7 2? 421 C'? 648 37 6 37 0 23 839 24 069 19-01 CROSS CROSS COUNTY 76 2,614 2,669 862 902 62.0 61.5 19,776 19.719 65.5 66.6 20,639 20,674 19-03 CROSS PARKIN 77 ~ 2,896 :no 604 43.3 40.9 19.715 20,252 46.3 43.9 21,036 21.678 19 05 CROSS WYNNE 78 2,341 2,516 2.783 \",926 181 4 162 1 22 804 ?4 208 193 0 193 7 23 730 25 051 20-01 DALLAS CARTHAGE 79 3.,204 3,422 163 173 17.5 17.5 17.130 19.129 19.:5 19.5 19,082 20,494 20-02 DALLAS FORDYCE 80 2_,J\nl42 3.030 1.294 1,358 87.2 89.5 22.407 22.403 94.0 96.5 23.255 23.326 20-03 DALLAS SPARKMAN 81 2.514 2.687 370 391 29.7 28,5 18 584 20 029 31 7 30 5 21 463 21-01 DESHA ARKANSASC ITY 82 5\u0026amp;43 ~.942 141 1:i1 11+:5 18.2 22.968 22,955 20.0 20.7 25.273 21-02 DESHA DELTA SPECIAL 83 3,041 2,961 312 331 26.5 27.1 19.992 18,616 29.5 30.i 20,351 21 03 DESHA DESHA DREW 84 3.094 3. 109 189 200 11.6 11.2 17.969 18.097 13.6 20,705 21-04 DESHA DUMAS 85 4.IJ!_92 2,380 2,253 2,377 131.0 130.5 24,355 24,661 141.5 25,782 21-05 DESHA MCGEHEE 86 2,150 2 247 1 252 1 305 78.0 00.0 21,537 21,597 83.5 22.434 22-02 DREW DREW CENTRAL 87 2,410 3.102 860 900 54.9 69.1 22,300 22,066 57.9 23.146 22-03 DREW MONTICELLO 88 2 609 2 578 2 065 2 158 142.1 136.9 21,839 22.764 154.1 23,947 22-05 DREW __ WILMAR 89 3 236 190 1 6 20.5 03 23-01 FAULKNER CONWAY 90 2,346 2,601 5,298 5,575 321.1 345,6 24,427 25. 143 344.6 371.1 25.461 26,109 23-02 FAULKNER ENOLA 91 3,382 2,971 133 139 14.9 12.6 16,491 17,583 16.9 13.6 18.620 19.118 23-03 FAULKNER GREENBRIER 92 2 219 2,430 1,443 1,520 82.0 87.0 23.832 24,914 87.0 93,0 24,691 25,826 23-04 FAULKNER GUY-PERKINS 93 3,089 3,124 278 290 22.9 23.9 20,431 20,290 25.0 26.0 21,578 21,400 23-05 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER 94 2,286 2,438 647 687 40.5 45.0 21,685 21,867 43.5 48.0 23.225 22,743 _LEA_~ COUNTY lW3IRICL ARKANSAS PUBLlC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS LEA ORDER RANK EXPENSE P.ER_ADA 1989 90 89 90 90 91 A/DIA A/D/H J. ____2_ ____3, ___ .:,__ NUMBER Of AVG. SLRY. TEACHERS K 12 TCHRS. K-12 89 90 90-91 89 90 90-91 6 7 8 NO. Of CERT. PERSONNEL B9 90 90 91 9 10 PAGE NO. 2 AVG. CERT. 89 90 11 SLRY. PERS. 90 91 12 23-06 EAIII KNER HOIINT VERNON 95 ,, 662 2 831 2\"9 239 19,5 19,7 18.301 19.027 ?1 5 21,7 19,540 19,946 -23::-07 FAULKNER VILONIA ----'26 ~224 2,649 1.495 1.568 88.5 97.0 23.066 24,103 9:5.:S 104.0 23,961 2~ 4 01 FRANKLIN ALTUS-::DENNING ...97 .2.,_t,03 2,562 319 345 26.6 25.6 19.438 19,388 28.6 27.6 20.629 20,656 __ ?4-02 FRANKi IN CHARI E9TQN 9B ~.397 2.475 676 702 46 O 46.0 2?.091 2?.276 49.0 49.0 22.B73 23,216 ---24::::Q3 FRANKLIN .COUNTY LINE 99 .2,684. ~726 564 599 4L.9_ 41.9 20.022 21.540 __ 4~~9 __ 44.9 20,822 22,328 4:::04 FRANKLIN __C1ZA8K 100 2,364 2.-5.2-1_..,1~-~3~1~e~_.1~--= 4u_0_u.87.ccO_4_ J 85. 5 22. 245 22. 760 -~9~~4~_9 L 9 23, 192 23, 745 EBANKllN PLEASANT VIEW 101 3 136 3.29B 237 251 19,2 21,0 20.001 20.009 21.2 23.0 21.43:5 21.218 -25..-01 FULTON MAMMOTSHP RING 102 2,678 2,766 45~~8 _\n34.3 33.8 21,976 22,068 36.8 36.3 23,108 23,154 --25-_0.2_FUL.ION ALEH 103 2,444 2,545 __6_42 676 45.8 4I__.8 20,380 20_,___570 48.8 50.8 21,403 21,542 2:5 03 FLH TON VIOL A 104 \" 772 2.B32 396 418 30.0 30.0 21.314 21.674 32.0 32.0 22,442 22.802\nu,-O.L..GARLJllil2 CUTTER-MORNING ST105 2,777 2.,899 456 __ 492 34.6 35.6 22 858 22 966 3!L__L 38.6 24,130 24,146 ---26::.Q.2..ldIB.LAt-m. FOUNTAIN LAKE 106 2,978 3,041 868 921 62.7 62.5 24 315 24 497 68.0 67.0 25,635 25,705 26-03 GARI AND HOT SPRINGS 107 3.183 3,216 3,266 3.495 246.0 239.5 24,044 24,583 262.5 256.0 25,062 25,643 -2.6..-~..GABLA!IID_ JESSIEVILLE 108 3,088 3,168 552 _ 581 41.5 41.5 23,389 23 1 441 44.6 44.6 24,573 24 1 573 -26:=05...GARLAND _LAKE..HAHI.LTON 109 2,.346 2,.514 163.5 _ __.,_,,6,.,,3,_..0_24,12356,4 73 176.0 176.0 25 336 26 599 26-06 GARI AND IAKESIDE 110 2,492 2,646 127.3 127.4 23,387 24,147 137,3 137,4 24,256 25,036 26-07 GARLAND HOl.!tffAIN PINE 111 2,690 2,791 43~4 42_.4 20 529 21,943 _4~6-~4~_45.4 21,725 2~84 ..2:Z:::Q3_ Ci.R8NL.. YEN. ___1_12 2,947 3,3:51 250 18.0 0.1 22,892 22,787 -~2=0~~0~_~2=0.1 24,182 24 279 27-04 GRANT PRATTSVILLE 113 2,937 3.009 283 17.0 17.0 25,949 26.600 19,0 19.0 27,386 28,067 27-0:S GRANT SHERIDAN 114 2,361 2,__547 3 4'-' 201. 9_ _,2,,_,0..\u0026lt; .,\u0026gt;65.,,_,,2 .,,2\"--'--'6\"'0\"'5\"-'2\"'3\"'-'-'3 .,~,3 ~o_9 ,\u0026lt;,2-,_...1.,'2-'_-9,.___1.,.,\",6'2-''--\"2,..,3'-L.\u0026gt;5,,0\"'8'-----\"2..:4,___,_,28-01 GREENE DELAPLAINE 115 3,154 3_..__u__7 263 21.4 21.6 20,740 21~4 24.~0~-=2~4--\".2 21 677 21 920 28 03 GREENE MARMADUKE 116 2,389 2.491 657 40,5 40.5 22.218 23,498 43,5 43.5 23,116 24,404 2B-06_GBEENE STANFORD 117 3,082 3__,__gj5 206 216 19.8 20.0 18 518 19 284 22.3 22.3 19,623 20,134 28-07 GREENE GREENE COUNTY TEC118 2,.353 2.,.481 ~O 2 11 26 3 3 3 22 277 22,875 135.1 140.1 23 101 23 683 2B OB GREENE NORTHEAST ARKANSA119 2,529 2 2,404 151.3 151.5 22.378 23,224 162.8 161.7 23,212 23,923 _29_::0_i_l:IEtTEAD ~LEVlNS 120 2,712 2 418 30.9 31,020,372 21,118 33.9 34.0 21,129 21,960 29-03 HEMPSTEAD HOPE 121 2,322 _ _....,_--'-\"-=---\"'-'---\"05197 4.0 79.5 23 262 24,350 186.0 191.5 24,210 25,342 29-05 HEMPSTEAD SARATOGA 122 2,689 284 298 23,8 24.8 18,717 18,996 26.3 27.3 20,028 20,267 29-06 HEMPSTEAD SPRING HILL 123 2,778 2,795 269 288 21.0 22.0 19 456 19 669 -~2~4~~0~_~2=5=~0~2=0~6=4~9~2=0~9~7~6,,__ 29-QJ HEMPSTEA WASHINGTON 124 3,061 201 210 16.7 19,680 18.7 20,413 30-01 SPRING BISMARCK 125 2,412 2,712 727 774 47,o 48.2 21,925 23,135 50.0 51.2 22,989 23,991 30-02 SPRING GLEN ROSE 126 2., 560 2, 725._ __ 7,__7,_,5=-----_-'_8 \"'-=,,-,1_5._9, ,2__, .___,,,,,65. c.,,_,62_', -_=, 2\"'3'--',_,,3'-'9'-'9~:: \u0026gt;=_-',-54,!,6,.5J,,c\"l-.!'-8'~., _5,,0,,,5_~,3.._,, ,6_,_,2,,:,,3:4.,L,,3, ,,,6c..__e,2e,5'--'-'--'7--'30-0 PRING AGNET COVE 127 2.L693 2,_67~ 603 624 44.5 42.4 21,025 21,195 47.5 45.4 21,959 22 1 161 30-04 SPRING MALVERN 120 2,102 2,327 2,638 2,754 172,o 174.0 21,533 22,034 101.0 183.5 22 1 147 22,687 30-05 SPRING OUACHITA 129 2 1 522 2 1 697 379 396 29.4 29.4 18 1 182 18 1 860 32.3 32.3 19,343 20,067 ARD~----~D~I~E~RKS 13Q 2,335 2,471 559 583 39.6 40.2 20,329 21,120 42.6 43.2 21,295 22,139 ARD MINERAL SPRINGS 131 2,333 2,418 496 519 37,1 37.0 19,581 19,600 40.7 40.7 20,813 20,906 D NASHVILLE --=1=3=2~=2~=2~9-=8~1=_2,~,5~9~1~~1~,~6~7~3=----~1,,_,~7~6~3,,__1=0~6,.__,_.2=--=1=0=_8 ==_0,1-=-=12==32=~=,-2==3-~-7--~_4_,,1,=,21~=25~=,..=.,47-',-,'2=037~ ,3~1~0,,_2~3\"'--'--,::D UMPIRE 133 4 441~-4~8 06,=9~_~1=2=0=-----~1=2\"'5,,__---=-1_,4_._.=0--=1-=5ce--\"0~2=0~,__,,0~7---'9_,,2=0'--'''--'7c..e-'6--e\"e03..._.,_4~-=12,,=72~\"-':-.\"c'30'=-'---9-.-.-,-,2--~=--INDEPENDENCE BATESVILLE 134 2,526 2,628 2,338 2,463 156.5 156.5 23,631 25,464 168.0 167.7 24,423 26,114 32-02 INDEPENDENCE CORD-CHARLOTTE 135 2,621 2,746 243 254 19,2 19.1 20,300 20,743 21.2 21.1 21 1 581 22,014 32-03 INDEPENDENCE CUSHMAN 136 3,064 3.515 265 287 22.2 23.9 21,170 21,973 24.7 26.4 22,492 23,228 32-06 INDEPENDENCE NEWARK 137 5.623 7.209 497 525 50,8 70.0 26,866 26,531 56.1 75.3 27.954 27,356 32-07 INDEPENDENCE OIL TROUGH 138 2,847 284 302 21. 1 20,622 23. 6 21,564 32-09 INDEPENDENCE SOUTH SIDE 139 2,295 2,669 972 1,024 62.0 69,121,627 22_,___Q__4,__~6~8_~_- ~75~._5 ~~5\"-'2~2\"-.L..,4~3~4___, _2~3\"'-L~3~32-10 INDEPENDENCE SULPHUR ROCK 140 2,529 2,576 303 321 22.9 23.7 19,575 19~~i~6L9'--~2.-4...... .__,9.,.2,_~ 5~,~1.....,2~0~,~3~3~2,___.2~0u,~3~6~32-11 INDEPENDENCE MIDLAND 141 2,818 2,761 557 598 44.1 43.5 20,838 21,007 47.0 46.4 21,818 22 1012 ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL FISCAi REPORT ANAi YSIS EXPENSE 1989 90 NUMBER OE AVG. SIRY. NO OF CERT. AVG SLRY PER ADA TEACHERS K 12 TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL CERT PERS. 89 90 90 9t AID/A AIDIM 09 90 90 91 82 90 90 91 09 90 90-91 82 90 90 91 LEA t COUNil DISTRICT RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 a 9 10 U 12 33-01 IZARD CAI rcn ROCK 142 ? 4?1 2 751 440 465 33 6 34 1 19 O?B ?O 680 36 6 37 1 20 1?0 21 762 33-02 IZARD ____ JM~E~L~BOU.,,,,,~R=N1E4 3 2.375 2.582 471 493 33.4 34.6 20.225 20 000 36.4 37.6 21 459 21 909 --~3 IZARD_ ____ ~M~O-W~N~T~P-L-E-A~S~A~N~I~_1___4 3~~4,~-1-3~~4,-06~~0--24~ 1-5~_ _ 2_8__ 6 __25_.A_ 26.1 21 7!59 21 950 26 6 21 1 \u0026lt;'1 408 21,618 33 06 IZARD IZARD en CONSOL 145 2,573 2 674 494 5?9 38 o 38 6 20 608 ?O 415 41 o 41 6 21 419 21 279 34-02 JACKSON___ GRUBBS 146 2.948 2.979 209 222 19.8 19.3 16 021 17 474 21.0 ?1.3 16 277 18.576 ___ 34-03 JACKSO_N_~-- NEWPOR_T_ ___ ~? 2.356 2.498 2,160 2,264 134.3 133,1 23.563 25.239 142 8 141 6 24 333 26 032 34-04 JACKSON SWIFTON 148 ?.943 3.083 127 209 20,6 ?o o 17 416 10 231 ?2 6 ?2 o 19 239 12 110 34-05 JACKSON JUCKERMAN 149 2,298 2.428 523 552 37.7 36.6 18.2w80,,_\u0026amp;1~a~-~5~9~4c__~ 4~0~u3,uJ79 ~.~6,____.1~2~-~4~0~2._.1L9..._,7~35-01 JEFFERSON ALTHEIMER-SHERRIL150 2,755 2,800 542 574 41.0 41.0 18,584 18,968 44.0 44.0 19.612 19,969_ 35 02 JEFFERSON DOLLARWAY 151 2.587 2,685 1,973 2.004 133.o 13?.o 27 406 23 261 142 5 141 5 ?3 301 24 183 35-05 JEFFERSON PINE BLUFF 152 2 724 2~ _L.__1_64_7~,~5~5~2~-4~4~6~-~424 9.0 25,183 26.374 475.7 480.0 26,064 27,225 35-08 JEFFERSO~ WABBASEKA-TUCKE1R5 3 3.,__Q99 ~~--2~6~5'----2~1~1~--2~1~~5~_~2-1~.6~1~9~,2~11~-1-8~,-8_8~7_ __ 2=4~--2~--2~4~.5 ~ 2~0-,~8-1~1~2~0~,0~5~8~- 35 09 JEFFERSON WATSON CHAPEL 154 2,512 2,726 3.389 J.552 209,6 210.5 25.441 26,461 225 1 226.o 26.493 27.621 35-10 JEFFERSON WHITE HALL 155 2 846 ~~ 2,882 182,0 __ 183~0 24.068 24.153 194.2 194.3 25,024 24.956 36-01 JOHNSON CLARKSVILLE 156 2,312 2,506 ~1~,'--'-4=2~3,__1~-~4~949,35 1.QO_._Q_2 L..390 21.896 99.5 i05.0 36 04 JOHNSON LAHAR 157 2,297 2,451 969 1.025 63,1 64,620,576 21,363 66.6 68,121,342 22,116 22,193 22,726 36-05 JOHNSON DARK 158 3,832 3_,__l_l6 _150 162 _1_7_.2 17~7.934 18.756 19.2 19.2 19,246 1.9..,_979 36-06 JOHNSON WEST SID!\n_ 159 ~548 .2..,_642 ~1 641 ~O 44.5 21,661 21,951 47.0 47.5 22,454 22,760 37 01 LAFAYETTE BRADLEY 160 2.616 2.836 464 492 38 4 37.4 18 136 20 1s1 41 4 40 4 19 998 21 454 37=02 LAFAYETTE LEWISVILLE 161 2_.8. 88 3~ 515 !14.L _38_._6 43,..\nL21,_755 21,342 ~ .2..~. . ,.0'------\"4\". .',.68\u0026lt;-.-,\u0026lt;2.,2 .,,w9~4=4L-\"2~2.._..~5~3~3~ 37=03 LAFAYETTE STAMPS 162 ....2.,_4 63 2,..ll9 868 902 58. ~ 58_._5_2Q_._550_2Q_,_4_9 1 -62....Q ___624---21..,~86 21 . 376.__ 38 01 LAWRENCE BLACK ROCK 163 2,343 2.576 389 410 29,0 29.8 20,769 21 203 32 o 3?.8 21 611 22 101 38-04 LAWRENCE HOXIE 164 2.,_436 ~556 _____f!fj2 9~ ~.__c\n\u0026gt; 60,6 21.999 ~6.4_ 64.1 _____64.82 2,920 23,514 38-05 LAWRENCE LYNN 165 ~47\nL276 __221 233 -21....2 _20.0 20.556 2.0......889- 73.2 22.0 21,330 21,681 38-06 LAWRENCE SLOAN HENDRIX 166 2,647 2.948 498 523 37.o 36 6 22 226 23 226 40 o 39 8 23 491 2S 099 38-07 LAWRENCE STRAWBERRY ii, 7 ~ ~ ----23]' _24L ~ 20, 7 19 ~ ...li,__555 _2~ 22.7 20.4_67_2(L._BQ4_ 38-08 LAWRENCE WALNUTR IDGE 168 2,375 2,432 __8_62_ 913 63.4 ~'L..89fl--2Q.,_709__ .67....A..__ .....6.6..D 20,657 21,489 39 04 LEE MARIANNA 169 2.757 2.793 2.692 40-01 LINCOLN GOULD 1 70 2 460 ~ ~ 40-02 LINCOLN GRADY 171-3.,_0!i7 2.977 302 40 03 LINCOLN STAR CITY 172 2.276 2 ~00 1 467 41-01 LITTLE RIVER ASHDOWN 173 _.?.,_45~ 2,516 2,070 41-02 LITTLE RIVER FOREMAN ---~4 2,726 2,701 593 41-03 LITTLE RIVER WINTHROP 175 3.784 3.751 166 42-01 LOGAN BOONEVILLE 176 2,423 2,521 1,217 ---~4~2~-~2 LOGAN MAGAZINE ---~77 2,634 2,685 448 42 03 LOGAN PARIS 178 2,362 2.629 1,189 42-04 LOGAN SCRANTON 179 2,585 2,571 396 ---~4=3~-...,._01 LON~Oecl\u0026lt;,.,E~--- LONOKE 180 2,326 2, 456 1, 636 43-02 LONOKE ENGLAND 181 2,187 2.386 1,095 43-03 LONOKE CARLISLE 182 2 483 639 69 43-04 LONOKE CABOT ____ 183 2 126 45 4,435 ---43 05 LONOKE HUMNOKE 184 3,721 3.263 169 44-01 MADISON HUNTSVILLE 185 2,392 2 1 480 1,521 44 02 MADISON KINGSTON 186 2 1 689 2,808 292 44-03 MADISON SAINT PAUL 187 2,915 2,966 309 45-01 MARION FLIPPIN 188 2 546 2 671 725 2 889 186,0 178 5 21 579 23 597 201 o 195 o 22 776 24 744 ~-2 ...1..~.. 1.._ . _ ,.2...,.11..~._ _.:..z.1._. .,..=,4_\".'18.~..1,: Zw,c,6~2~2..__~3.,,0., ...~11~.0..1.~. .= _4~~39.,~01,,~_1._-6_~ --6=4'-'1~ 312 .......2.:i,_5_ -20.-...:i...17,105 18,197 28.5 23.5 17,936 19,338 1,524 2.180 620 175 1.306 477 1,263 417 1.714 1.165 7 '5 4,714 180 1,628 309 329 771 89 2 133.6 44.5 14.R 74.4 32,5 ALO 30.4 103.8 74,5 48 1 261.0 20,5 100.3 22.3 25.0 47-0 86.1 21 629 ?3 359 28 o 96 8 22 661 24 366 133, 4 21, 946 ~2..,22~... ._18w.1....=.. .4....._., S_c .o.,.,1.,.1,, 4\"'4'\"'.\"..'09...._ _.9_=.23,\u0026lt;.2-.-,. \u0026lt;2~3,_.,._.1\"\"'4\"'4,.__ 43.6 20.760 21.103 47.5 46.6 21,795 22,126 14.S 20 856 20,981 16 8 16 5 22 466 22 352 74  4 23  040,___,.2-3u,...o 4u_9_c,7..u.,91\u0026lt;._..,, ._.9'-.-. --9'8z....,_0_.9,.2.L ~33.....,,.9,_L, -72..,.._i.=..4,'5~c......L__ 33.S 20.546 20,955 35.5 62 O 22 612 23 465 86 8 28.5 20,687 21.67l5 33.1 103.8 22,425 23.472 110.0 36.!5 21,478 87 8 23 461 30.9 21,869 HO,O 23.281 21,844 24 254 23,163 24.379 73.0 20,631 22,552 79.5 18,021.462 23.596 48_. 1.____,121'\"..1:4..:..,,2_,.\n5 ,.,~.,20.\u0026gt;.,_\u0026lt;2 ..o..c..,1,.. s,. ..1,._1. _,,5,....1..2... 2.. .. u,,1w17 L..1..31. .... ,: :,4\n:L4-i,\"92. ..,9,__ 263.5 23,435 24.697 275.0 277.5 24,224 25,563 16.4 16.126 17.424 22,5 18.4 17 444 18.878 25.3 20.251 21,076 27.5 48.0 22 932 23 082 so.o ARKANSASe UBI IC SCl:!001 PISIRICIS ANl!IIIAEII SCAL REeORI ANALYSIS LEA ORDER eA!.E NO. 7 EXeENSE 1989-90 NUMBERP E AY!.- SLRY. NO. PE CERT. AYI\u0026lt;. eER APA IEACl:IERS K-12 TCl:IBS. K-12 E'ERSONf'!EL 89-90 90-92 Al'.Pl'.A Al'.Pl'M 89-90 90--91 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 I EA 0 CPUNI:r: PISIBICT BANK 1 2 3 4 s 6 1 8 9 45 02 MARION YEI I VII I E-S!INNU 289 2 687 2 755 779 831 56,7 sc\n\"'i 21 2651 21,452 59,1 59.5 22 167 2\n'.313 45-03 MARION MARIOl'l co 120 2,830 2,271 222 312 21.2 22.9 21 .164 20,6'Z1 23,2 24,2 22,283 21,7'19 46-01 NII I ER BBI!il:II SIAR 191 2,743 -2.,_'294 245 256 11.0 1:Z.O 22,532 23,604 i9.0 19,0 22,924 2~\\,676 46-02 HI! I EB GENOA CENIBAI 122 2,411 2,675 704 755 49.0 49.3 2i. 122\n:\u0026gt;i.733 51.0 51.3 22.304 22.871 46-03 HILLER EOUKE 123 2.533 2,613 740 76:S :S1,Q ~a.1 21,.!!09 22,313 54.6 54.7 22,386 23,044 46-04 MILLER * !.ARLAND 124 7,307 21 95 13.1 8 5 15.1 1 816 46-05 MIi I ER IEXARKANA 125 ?,76? 5,421 5,802 384.0 381.5 22,797 24,181 409,5 408.0 23,780 25.169 47-01 MISSISSIPPI ABMOREL 196 4,115 2 \"3 2 ., 21.5 21 794 24 960 22.2 23.5 23 060 26 180 47-02 MISSISSIPPI E!LYil:IEYILLE 127 2,6B 4,136 4,400 :ns.1 278.7 23 192 23 6~8 296.6 297.2 24 255 24 730 47-06 HISSISSiee1 1,828 1,920 140,1 135.1 21,5B2 21.809 148.6 143.6 22,548 22.818 47-08 MISSISSIPPI 2 059 2 175 149.5 150.0 24 295 25 575 159.0 159. 5 25 086 26 461 47-12 MISSISSIPPI 862 915 _ 60.6 59.5 21,137 21,366 65.2 64.1 22,167 22,170 47-13 MISSISSIPPI OSCEOLA 2.136 2.266 140.5 144,0 22,182 23,781 149,1 152.3 22,986 24,601 48-01 MONROE BRINKJ....EY 1 286 1 350 86.1 89.1 20 504 20 626 92.1 95.1 21 230 21 321 48-02 MONROE CLARENDON 589 42.0 42.0 19,937 20,045 45.4 45.4 21,194 21,338 48-03 MONROE l:IPLLY !.BOYE 401 28.5 28,5 18.578 19.144 30.5 30.5 19,773 20,269 42-01 MONTGOMERY CADDQ HILLS 514 37.5 38.0 21 552 21 392 40.5 41.0 22 311 22 446 42-02 MONIC.OHERY MOUNT IDA 206 0 36. 37.1 21 573 21 883 39.4 40.1 22 719 23 010 49 04 MONTGOMERY ODEN 201 219 232 18,7 19.5 20,776 20,898 20.7 21.5 21.551 21.643 :10-04 NEVADA EHHET 208 3,228 132 140 12.6 12.9 18,897 19,123 14.6 14.9 20,387 20,578 S0-06 NEVADA PRESCOTT 209 2,592 1,171 1.230 64.5 84.3 20,852 21,224 91.5 91.3 21,752 22,122 :so 08 NEVADA NEVADAC QUNIY 699 739 48,4 47,9 21,372 21,824 51.4 50.9 22,166 22,714\n51-01 NEWTON DEER 335 357 24.5 24.5 20,509 21. 774 26.5 26.5 21,790 22,907 s1-02 NEWTON JASPER 546 577 37.1 36.6 21 580 22 138 40.1 39.6 22 455 22 983 :st-03 NEWTON MOUNT JUDEA 229 246 19,0 19. 1 20,425 21.094 21.0 21.1 21,670 22,322 51-04 NEWTON WESTERN GROVE 262 280 21.2 20.4 20,174 20,248 23.3 22.5 21,154 21,349 :S2 01 OUACl:IIIA BEARDEN 833 865 55,1 55.0 22,327 22,482 60.1 60.0 23,721 23,865 52 02 OLJACHIIA CAMDEN 216 2,619 1 .923 2.021 140.s 142.8 22,791 23,015 158,3 152,6 23.866 24,142 52-04 OUACHIIA FAIRVIEW 217 2.505 2,073 2,170 120.0 119.5 24,599 24,911 129.1 128.6 25,585 25,981 52 05 OUACl:IIIA HARMONGYR OVE 218 2,494 2,692 749 782 47.7 48.4 22,127 22,487 50.7 51.4 23,080 23,440 :S2 06 OUACHIIA STEel:fENS 219 2,764 2.769 sos 525 36.0 35,0 21.866 22.270 39,0 38.0 22,915 23,259 53-01 PERRY EAST END 220 2.802 2,775 480 511 35.8 36.1 20,336 21.093 38. 7 39.0 21,459 22,146 S3-02 PERRY PERRY CASA 221 3,504 3,873 180 193 20.0 21.0 17,576 18,935 22.0 23.0 19,092 20,149 :SJ 03 eEBRY eEBBYVILLE 222 2.490 2,677 785 842 50.1 50.9 21.931 22,439 53.1 53.9 23,006 23,470 S4 01 PHILLIPS BARTON/LEXA 223 2,315 2,622 722 755 44.0 44.0 22,590 23,713 47.0 47.0 23,750 24,882 54-02 PHILLIPS ELAINE 224 2,667 2,679 715 768 51.6 53.0 21.027 21.130 55.6 56.6 21,848 21,958 S4-03 PHILLIPS HELENA-WESTH ELEN225 2,519 2,617 4,231 4,485 291.0 292.0 21,466 22,303 309.0 310,0 22,334 23,293 54 04 Pl:llLLIPS MARVELL 226 2,704 2,701 826 868 59.0 56.0 22,002 22,727 65.0 61.9 23,017 23,699 54-05 PHILLIPS LAKE VIEW 227 2,941 2,649 234 236 19.8 18.3 17,066 17,443 22.0 21.3 18,098 18,802 55 01 PIKE DELIGHT 228 2.776 2,848 385 405 33,5 34,5 19,057 19,119 36,5 37.5 19,656 20,336 55-02 PIKE GLENWOOD 229 2,580 2,633 397 421 31.0 32.0 18,105 18,170 34.0 35.0 19,447 19,470 55-03 PIKE KIRBY 230 2,441 2,471 440 465 34.1 35.8 19,989 18,995 38.1 39.8 20,861 20, 16:5 55-04 PIKE MURFREESBORO 231 2,591 2,808 552 587 43.1 44,2 21,568 21,789 46.1 47.1 22,693 22,927 56-02 POINSETT HARRISBURG ,!32 2,401 2,473 943 1.000 65.5 65.0 20,514 21,337 69.5 69.0 21,186 22,082 56 04 PolNSETT HARKED TREE 233 2.617 2,599 875 938 63.5 64.:5 20,668 20,739 67.5 68.0 21,363 21.411 54 05 POINSETT TRUMANN 234 2,545 2.610 1.601 1,717 113,6 116.2 21,173 21.696 124,5 126.0 22,216 22,6:52 56-07 POINSETT WEINER 235 3,010 3,148 350 370 29.4 30.4 19,997 19,973 31.4 32.4 20,793 20,746 *Includes suhstaoti al bonuses given Drior to the consolidation of the district. LEA COUNTY JU.STRICT ARKANSAS .PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAi EISCAI REPORT ANAi YSIS I EA ORDER EXPENSE PER.._ADA_ 1989-90 NUMBER OE TEACHERS K-12 62-90 90 91 AIDIA AIDIH 62 90 90-91 __filllil( ..i__ 2 3 4 5 6 AVG SI RY TCHRS K-12 NO OE CERT PERSONNEi 89 90 90-91 69 90 20 91 7 0 2 iO PAGE NO 8 AVG SIRY CERT PERS 69 90 90-91 H 12 56 OB POINSETT EAST POINSETT COtl236 2 337 2.481 790 B32 57 3 57 a 12 760 21 071 61 3 61 a 20 4?5 ?1 021 57-01 POLK A~ -----2.3:l. 2, ~6_ _2_,_685_ _ _,\n3'-'-5\"'0'-----\"3u6u9L...._~2o..5_. L2~.,5,6.,co,_..,. _..2:., ,_. o.,,0.,._,6,_,. ,0~2,.1~,.e.2_,1 .1,.,z29'-c-_'7_' --_- '~_5.2._::.. c ,00L:i_.._. .2._:\n,._,._.1..5,4.,,..2,4\",'-.7.,._2_\"_'2 \"\"'-'. 57-02 POLK HATFIELD __238 2,848 3.004 282 302 ?4? 23.8 19.516 21 077 26\n\u0026gt; 25,620 254 21 846 57 03 POLK MENA 239 2.530 2 609 615 713 107 o 102 r, 24 526 24 806 114 w, 116 6 25 338 25 628 57-04 POLK VAN COVE 240 3J35---2.,J\nl9J 355 381 32.0 31,512,464 18.787 35.0 34.5 20 5?7 20,097 57-05 POLK WICKES 241 2,35.2___2_._5:iQ_ 479 508 30,8 30.0 21,012 22.342 33 3 32.5 22 221 23.705_ 58-01 POPE ATKINS 242 2.353 2.444 1,035 1,101 68,0 70,023,176 23 216 73 o 75 o 23 2v.o 23 231 58-02 POPE DOVER 243 2,359 2,541 1,082 1,144 66.Q 70.0 23,149 23.522 71.0 75,024.036 24,275 58-03 POPE HECTOR 244 2,505_2_,_?_J_O 632 668 42.5 46.0 22,412 22.424 45.5 49,0 23.2?4 23,122 58 04 POPE POTTSVILLE 245 2,546 2.576 669 102 46,2 47 o 2? 221 23 603 31? r,o o 23 673 24 370 58-05 POPE RUSSELLVILLE 246 2,746-2.,J\n186 4.474 4.727 300,4 302.0 24.694 25.144 319,4 321.0 25.757 26,230 59-01 PRAIRIE DES ARC 247 2,229 ~3 634 670 40.9 41.9 19,929 20,479 44.0 45,020.950 21,295 59 02 PRAIRIE DEYALLS BLUFF 248 2.430 2.653 458 477 33,7 34,912,267 12,664 36 5 37 6 20 356 21 013 59-03 PRAIRIE HAZEN 249 2,256 ~ 55~8._~...,,5~8~1.__~3~6.,_.__,_1 .._3 ,.,_,_9~x0_.1~9~.~9~5~9_..1~9~.~5u9~6.__~3u9u,u1.,__~4~2.._.~o\"-'2-1_. ...._.1~0~6~2-60-01 PULASKI LITTLE ROCK 250 3,416 3,954 ~2L472 24,245 1.809,5 1,838.8 25.211 27.822 1.957.7 1,983.0 26,453 29.303 ___ _.6..,,0c..-_,..0.L \".'.2,A._,_.,,S.P.,_K,.,U.. . I._ ___,NLXOW.L. J. I.R....1 L.\u0026gt;T..T.1..LTH,.L.IE- .-2.o.- R5..1 . .,O~\"3\"cC..,\"''\"K\"Z _. ..,l\"_\"~,l, _3 . 08 3 9 '-z'.= '1c-4,,__~_..6,,0C.L3.0._.\" .'8.u.5.'L-\".'..LO21'- .\u0026lt;4.'.-..3.-. .ul_i3i.68.. _,2...._4. 4'\"~47.. ..._.._.6. .,._ _,5..,_9~9.,...5..~. .0..-..\".'_26-6Lc6, ..-=o1~4~6'-62~6~1=0~9--- 60-03 PULASKI PULASKI COUNTY SP252 3, 112 3 , 2 9 9 ---1Q....l!!l ~  l9l_.1..,,u2...,9c,6,....,~3.9. .1~ .1..,,.0_2.,,..,_., .2_.,.., 65...,,8__..7__. .__. .,.2,3_..,.17.,.,.3_'- --\"'1~,-\"4\"\"1\"'8'-\"._,.0c__.1....,,--=4:S.,,~33,.~33u-,-.,.2__,.2~1~-~61-01 RANDOLPH BIGGERS-REYNO 253 3,051\nLQQO 199 209 18.4 18,520,012 19.351 20,4 20.5 20,922 20.3?1 61 02 RANDOLPH MAYNARD 254 2,582 2 112 480 507 36 1 36 6 20 170 20 122 40 1 41 1 21 048 21 111 61-03 RANDOLPH POCAHONTAS 255 2,153 2..J'.iQ9 717 1,811 101.0 110.0 22.853 24.000 107.0 116,023,641 24,690 61-04 RANDOLPH RANDOLPH COUNTY 256 2,604 2....969 275 294 21.B 23,418.222 18.897 24 8 26 4 12 283 12 988 62 01 ST FRANCIS FORREST CITY 257 2 552 2,630 4.979 5 200 308 3 222 2 22 907 23,071 340 6 332 7 23 9:\n,r, 24 206 62-02 ST FRANCIS HUGHES 258 2,760 2.,_801 L._251_..._1., .._.. _10,_,2 ..____. _7....2.,.a \"_' .1..~. s,...~5._..2_.2...,.\"\"8,.2...,1._.2_,836....1,_ ,6..1.Q_8_3 .4 23.789 24,596 62-05 ST FRANCIS PALESTINE/WHEATLE259 2,745 2.,_803 687 722 47.2 47.0 22,148 22.440 52.2 51.0 23 133 23,355 63-01 SALINE BAUXITE 260 2,565 2.785 601 638 39.0 39.0 23,229 24 437 42 o 4? o 24 487 25 609 63-02 SALINE BENTON 261 2,387 ~ 3,761 3,957 237,5 239.0 23.038 23.917 251.5 254.0 23.939 ?4 843 63-03 SALINE BRYANT 262 2,137 2,\nll2__ 4,803 5,119 277.9 288.1 24.859 25.890 292.1 301.8 25,573 26,587 63-04 SALINE HARMONY GROYE 263 2,402 2 644 523 6?2 31 5 38 r, 2? 110 ?2 942 40 5 41 5 23 37? 24 25? 63-06 SALINE PARON 264 3,784 3.J92- __208_ 221 _.,1~2~-~2~-~1~9J-~4,___.2u1..,.~4u9Ll7L_.._,2 ~21\"L'-,1~~6.,29_\"a '8--.-,,-.. 2.1~.~4'----\"'2~2~.~5~64'-\"2\"'2...,.~7_,.0~8.__ 64-01 SCOTT WALDRON 265 2,715 -2J16 L448 1,548 107.1 109.1 22,025 21.393 113.5 115,222,698 22,130 65 01 SEARCY LESLIE 266 2,459 2,645 295 313 10.1 12,610.232 10 101 21.1 22 6 20 537 20 366 65-02 SEARCY MARSHALL 267 2,441 2~84 712~~ 5(b5_50~-~s.,___.2~0.,_,_,.419L7'---'2~1\"_- -'-\"_,2,.6.5~~33..\"_'\"_~ 5'----~5~3._.,~5,_..2...,1....,.u2...,1~5L--'2~2~.~65-03 SEARCY SAINT JOE 268 3,610\nL593 205 218 1.'L...:i _.1~9~-~51_.,11~9J,~2u1~5.___.1u9~,~5o5o_3_._ _2~~21~\"1-L-'.5~.5..._,._2 .. ,,o6,~.,0_i,9_. ,_2~0~,i9.=,4~3c__ 65 04 SEARCY WITTS SPRINGS 269 4,642 4,862 106 113 14,6 14.6 16 250 18,582 16 6 16 6 12 022 12 626 66-01 SEBASTIAN FORT SMITH 470 3,018 ~o 10,863 11.596 745.4 75B,5,_.2~7u,~0~7~6,_.2~B~-~0~1L9,__7L9~5..i..c.6.,_._s..8~ ...,1 0.. 1\". -~L51'-~\"-2d19-2~ ,_,.ou1~3.__ 66-02 SEBASTIAN GREENWOOD 271 2,376 2.512 2,190 2,298 134.7 141,624,325 24.307 142 7 149.6 25.234 25,207 66 03 SEBASTIAN HACKETT 272 2,462 2,606 509 533 37 5 38 o 20 498 21 742 40 5 41 o 21 450 22,721 66-04 SEBASTIAN HARTFORD 273 2,830 2..J\n!J:l1 441 \"\\7.1_ ~ 36.5 20,437 20.387 39.5 39.6 21,388 21,389 66-05 SEBASTIAN LAVACA 274 2,488 ~ 713 747 52.0 50,520.045 20,623 55.0 53.5 21.114 21,699 66 06 SEBASTIAN MANSFIELD 275 2,424 2,633 865 58,1 58,222 202 22 164 62 1 62 2 23 312 ?3 161 67-01 SEVIER DEQUEEN 276 2,237 ~8 1.428 84,1 _fili._7,_,.2. 2 ......c,8.,3_3~2~4__,_._ ,_,.~_97_~,0.0~~0. ~1 94.2 23,731 25,801 67-03 SEVIER HORATIO 277 2,295 2,353 459 32.0 31.0 20,959 21.896 34.7 33,522,269 23,090 67 04 SEVIER LOCKESBURk 278 2,345 2.502 456 32,5 33,519.620 21.201 35.5 36,520.644 2?.304 ARKANSASP UBLIC SCHOOL Al'fl'fUALE ISCAL REPDRI At,fAL)'.Sl!ii 9 EXPEl',ISE 1989-90 t,fUMBERD E AVG, SLR)'.. t,10. DE CERL AVG. SLR)'.. PER ADA IEACHERS K-12 ICHRS, K-12 PERSQl-ll'IEL CERI. PERS, 89-90 90-91 A/D/A A/D/H 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 LEA  COUl'fTY DIBIRICI RAl'fK 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 u 12 68-06 SHARP PQIJGHKEEPSIE 263 3.404 3.549 125 133 14.9 15.5 17,024 18.003 16.9 17.5 18.156 19.121 69-01 STONE MDUNIAil'f VIEW 284 2.396 2,369 1.010 1,061 64,5 65.5 24,213 23,354 68.0 69,0 25.064 24,196 69-02 STONE STONE COUl'fTY 285 3,409 3,475 201 213 18.5 18.5 19.752 19,670 20.5 20.5 20,441 20.560 69-04 SIONE RIJRAJ SPECIAi 286 2 744 2 711 255 267 17.6 17.6 2'=',140 2?. 168 19.6 19.6 23,291 23,171 70-01 UNION EL DORADO 287 2,579 2.743 4,842 5.113 337.9 338,4 22.516 23.441 359.1 359.1 23,287 24,294 70-02 UNHlN HUTTIG 288 3,334 3,251 278 292 22.0 21.0 22,226 23,259 25.0 23,0 23,317 24.363 70-03 UNION HJNCTION CITY 289 2,442 2,479 877 925 57.1 57.1 23,396 23.596 59.3 59.3 24,433 ?4,626 70-05 UNION MOUNTH OLLY 290 3,755 4,253 230 244 20,8 21.5 22,386 23,932 23.6 24.5 23.851 2:s.201 70-06 UNION l'IORPHLET 291 2,526 2,580 568 593 40.3 41.0 23.103 23,254 43.3 44.0 24,237 24,301 70-07 Ul'fIQN PARKERS CHAPEL 29? 2.529 2.702 581 605 43.2 44.8 21,704 22.183 45,9 47,1 22,414 22,996 70-08 UNION SMACDKY ER 293 2.531 2,659 832 49-1 50,0 23.153 24,348 53.7 54.0 24,351 25.540 70 09 UNION STRDl'IG 42,0 43,0 2i,990 21.851 45,5 46.2 22,869 22.754 70-11 UNION UNIOl'f 25.1 25.1 20,393 21,7:\n9 28.0 28.0 21,643 23.179 71-01 YAl'f BUREi'! ALREAD 9 3 8 391 0 062 15.1 15 .. 2 19 415 21 505 71-02 YAl'f BUREi'! CLINTOl'f 297 2.493 2,545 i,013 1.014 66,9 61,5 22,610 22,732 71.0 72.2 23,313 23,659 71 03 YAN BIJBEl'f scan Al'fD 298 3,406 3,5:53 125 132 13.0 13.5 19,920 20,178 i5.0 15.5 21,187 2i.37i 71-04 YAl'f BUREi'! SHIBLE)'. 299 2,:534 2,857 470 494 33 .. 5 35.5 18,700 21.119 36.5 38.5 19,772 22,300 71-05 YAl'f BUREi'! SOUTH SIDE 300 2,675 2,767 419 440 33,0 32,5 21,134 21,425 35.0 34.5 21,856 22,392 72-01 WASHINGTON ELKINS 301 2.377 2,821 656 695 43,9 45.9 20,669 22,912 46.9 48.9 21,703 23,872 72-02 WASHil'fGTQl'f EARMil-!GIQl'f 302 2,345 2,609 983 1,035 64,5 6!\n!,0 ,U,277 21,308 69.3 72.8 22,200 22,381 __ 72 03 WASHINGTOl'f EAYETTEYILLE 303 2,794 2,865 5,703 6,119 390.3 393.1 25,524 25,773 411.2 415.0 26,215 26,507 7?-04 WASHINGTON GREENAL l'fD 304 2,393 2,746 597 636 40.9 42,9 20.212 20,392 43,9 45,9 21,393 21,488 72-0:S WASHINGTOl',f LINCDLl'f 305 2,566 2,678 926 984 64.0 66.6 21,229 21,394 68.0 70.6 22,234 22,324 72 06 WASHINGTOl'f PRAIRIE GROVE 306 2,542 2,547 993 1,060 63.7 62,5 22,697 22,955 68.2 67.8 23,765 24,010 72-07 WASHINGTON SPRINGDALE 307 2.S89 2,761 6.864 7,376 431,0 438,5 25.486 26,216 464.0 473,5 26.567 27,301 72-08 WASHINGIOl'f WEST EOBK 308 2,492 2,6'.Ui 910 955 61,3 62.4 20,152 20,571 66.3 67.4 21,261 21,630 72:=()9 WASHll' fGTOl'f WINSLOW 309 3,544 3,225 22~ 23fl 20,3 20.0 18,655 18,782 23.1 22.0 19,544 19,676 73-0i WHITE BALD Kl'IOB 310 2,518 2,750 1.295 1,379 84,9 83.9 22.039 23,180 90,9 89.4 22.!\n!26 23,980 73-02 WHITE BEEBE 311 2,237 2,373 1,559 1,651 100.6 102.4 21,117 21,966 107.6 108.7 21,939 22,836 73-03 WHITE BRADEOBD 312 2,555 2,59S 532 ::i65 3e.9 38.7 21,338 21,813 41.9 41.7 22 445 22 920 73-04 WHITE CEl'fIRAJ 2,362 2,483 497 526 35,8 36.3 20.264 21,042 38.6 38.8 21,295 22,009 73-05 WHITE GRIEEITHYILLE 3.728 3,970 164 171 17.1 17.8 19,196 19,425 19.5 20.2 20,348 20,742 73-06 WHITE JUDSONIA 2.488 526 566 37.0 36.5 20,965 21,556 40.0 39.5 22,145 22,784 KENSETT 2,804 469 501 36,0 34.0 22.484 22.878 39,0 37,0 23,797 24,229 5 04 323 25.5 25.1 19 111 20 253 27.5 27.5 20 252 21 2~5 73-09 WHITE PANGBURN 318 2,641 2,762 580 608 41,4 41.8 21,417 22,055 44.9 45.3 22,539 23,537 73 10 WHITE ROSE BUD 319 2,533 2,888 518 549 36.9 37.8 20,786 21,965 39.9 40.8 21,849 23,065 73-11 WHITE SEARCY 320 2,504 2,646 2,e42 3,013 184.0 182.5 23,565 24,562 196.0 196.5 24,635 2:5,447 74-01 WOODRUEE AUGUSTA 321 2,541 2,570 686 722 49.0 46.0 20,837 22,280 52.0 49.0 22,039 23,467 WQQDBUEE COTTON PLANT 322 2,948 2.831 316 336 29.4 28,4 18,032 19,038 32,4 30.9 18,939 19,940 RUEF MCCRORY 323 2,210 2,345 848 891 53.5 53.0 22,149 22,858 57.0 56.5 22,906 23,614 DA VI E 324 2 742 2 647 497 523 38.4 38.6 21 214 21 461 41.3 41.5 22 412 22 604 DARDANELLE 325 2,:526 2.684 1.34i 1.414 86.2 88.8 20.548 2:1..618 92,0 94.8 21,277 22,296 FOURCHE VALLEY 326 4 215 4 968 123 132 17.4 17.6 17 017 21,060 19.4 19.6 18,158 21,924 327 2,499 2,531 4!53 487 35.4 36.3 19,402 19,661 38.4 39.3 20,491 20,710 328 2.451 2.523 347 372 25,9 26,9 17,929 18,080 28.9 29.9 19,157 19,272 N329 2 938 3 051 395 423 35.0 35.0 19 281 19 584 38.0 38.0 20 311 20 607 ARl\u0026lt;ANSASP UBLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUALF ISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS COLUNN 1 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO. 10 EXPENSE 1989-90 NUl1BER OF AVC. SLRY. NO. OF CERT. AVG. SLRY. -- PER ADA TEACHERS K-12 TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. .8'1-90 90-91 A/D/A A/D/H 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 LEA  COUNTY DISTRICT RANK I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I - \"'6-04 HILLER CARLAND 1 7,307 91 95 13.1 28,185 15.1 31,816 ----:21-0iDESHA --- ARKANSAS CITY 2 '5,843 5,942 141 151 17.5 18.2 22,968 22,9:55 20.0 20. 7 25,413 25 273 .s.!-06 INutl\"t:.NDENCE NEWARK 3 !5,623 7,209 497 525 50.8 70.0 26,866 26,531 56.1 75.3 27,954 27,356 03-06 liA~TER TRI-tOUNTY CON. 4 4,646 4,547 164 175 18.7 18.2 20,384 20,769 21.7 20.2 21:765 21,980 65--04 SA~Y WITTS SPRINGS 5 4,642 4,862 106 113 14.6 14.6 18 250 18.582 i6.6 16.6 19 099 19 626 - 31-06 nu-.RD UHPIRE 6 !4,441 4,869 120 125 14.0 15.0 20,079 20,763 17.0 18.0 21,704 22,392 -- 71-01 VANB UREN ALREA~ 7\n4,412 4,914 95 10i 12.9 13.1 18,391 20,062 15.1 i5.2 19,415 21 505 75-05 YELL F~ VALLEY 8 ,4,215 4,968 123 132 17.4 17.6 17,017 21 060 19.4 19.6 18 i58 21 924 36-05 JOHNSON DARK 9 3,832 3,716 150 162 17.2 17.2 17,934 18,756 19.2 19.2 19,2\"'6 19,979 - -41 -~ LITTLE RivtR WINTHROP 10 3,784 3,751 166 175 14.8 14.5 20,856 20,981 16.8 16.5 22,466 22,352 63-06 SALINE PARON 11 3,784 3,792 208 221 19.2 19.4 21,497 21 698 21.2 21. 4 22 564 22 708 70-5 UNION MOUNT HOLLY 12 3,755 4,253 230 244 20.0 21.5 22,386 23,932 23.6 24.5 23,~1 25,201 f .o-v\n:, WM.I. I I:. i.RIH l THVILLE 13 3,728 3,970 164 171 17.1 17.8 19,196 19,425 19.5 20.2 20,348 20,742 -- 43-\u0026lt;= l -'NUil\" Hl.lf'INUKE 14 3,721 3,263 169 180 20.5 16.4 16 126 17,424 22.5 18.4 17 444 18 878 -- 65-03 SEARCY SAINT JOE 15 3,610 3,593 205 218 19.5 19.5 19,215 19,553 21.5 21.5 20,609 20 9-43 72-\u0026lt;\u0026gt;9 WASHIM\u0026gt;TON WINSLOW 16 3,544 3,225 222 238 20.3 20.0 18,655 18,782 23.1 22.0 19,544 19,676 53-02 PERRY PERRY CASA 17 3,504 3,873 180 193 20.0 21.0 17 576 18,935 22.0 23.0 19 092 20 149 47-01 MISSISSIPPI ARHOREL 18 3,-469 4,US 216 231 20.2 21.5 21,794 24,960 22.2 23.5 23,060 26,180 e.u--01 PlLASKI LITTl. ROCK 19 3,416 3,954 22,472 21,782 1,809.5 1,838.8 25,211 27,822 1 957.7 1,983.0 26,453 29 303 69-02 STONE STONE COUNTY 20 3,409 3,475 201 213 18.5 18.5 19 752 19,670 20.5 20.5 20 447 20 560 71-03 VAN BUREN SCOTLAND 21 3,406 3,553 125 132 13.0 13.5 19,920 20,178 15.0 15.5 21,187 21 371 61:1-06 SHARP POUGHKEEPSIE 22 3,404 3,549 125 133 14.9 15.5 17,024 18,003 16.9 17.5 18 156 19,121 23-02 FAUU\u0026lt;NER ENOLA 23 3,382 2,971 133 139 14.9 12.6 16 491 17,S83 16.9 13.6 18,620 19 118 38-05 LAWRENCE LYNN 24 3,347 3,276 221 233 21.2 20.0 20,:556 20,889 23.2 22.0 21,330 21,681 70-02 UNION HUTTIG 25 3,334 3,251 278 292 22.0 21.0 22,226 23,259 25.0 23.0 23,377 24,363 0!!!-04 BOONE UMfV1R 26 3,308 3,398 266 285 23.1 22.9 20,416 20,629 25.9 25.7 21,840 22,109 51-03 NEWTON MOUNT JUDEA 27 3,254 3,384 229 246 19.0 19.1 20,425 21,094 21.0 21.1 21,670 22,322\n:)V--V'f Nl:.VHUH 1:.nnc.1 -\"\"' 3,..:-\u0026gt;0 3,228 132 140 12.6 12.9 18,897 19,123 14.6 14.9 20,387 20,578 22-os DREW WIL\"AR 2'i' 3,236 190 196 20.5 17,036 22.5 18,316 12-v\n:, C'I ~ WILBURN 30 3,235 3,089 160 171 15.5 15.7 17,461 17,949 17.5 17.7 19,728 20,319 ov-v..:. PULA5KI r\u0026lt;ur\u0026lt;IH L.ll 1LE rnA.\" .Sl 3,211 .s,264 9,0B3 9,171 603.5 608.5 24,83:5 24,744 659.9 665.0 26,146 26,109\n.\u0026lt;V--V1 UHl..l..H::\u0026gt; ..\".,.~ ~ 32 3,204 3,422 163 173 17.5 17.5 17,130 19,129 19.5 19.5 19,082 20,494 26-v.o - Hu, SPRINGS 33 3.183 3,216 3,266 3,495 2\"'6.0 239.5 24,044 24,583 262.5 256.0 25,062 25,643\na, 01 1,~1:.1'\u0026lt;1:. DELAPLAu'ft:. .... 3,1..-. 3,117 248 26:5 21.4 21.6 20,740 21,024 24.0 24.2 21,677 21,920 24-05 FRANKLIN Pl~ - T VIEW 35 3,136 3,298 237 251 19.2 21.0 20,001 20,009 21.2 23.0 21,435 21 218 57-04 POLK VAN COVE 36 3,135 2,897 355 381 32.0 31.5 19,464 18,787 35.0 34.5 20,527 20,097 o:,-ol\nBOONE LEAV HILL ,\u0026gt;'\ns, 1.\u0026lt;:'f 3, ..:.:x, \"'\"\"]. ..,... 26.1 :.Z6.3 Lu,035 20,221 28.B ..-:,,.1 21,656 21,756 ov-v.o PULASKI PULASKl 1.,uur,1 T or- .oc, 3,112 3,...,,..., 20,747 21,000 1,L-,,o.9 1,310.2 26,S87 27,313 1,,110.0 1,433.2 27,783 28,5:53 \"'.:\u0026gt; v,, ..,.,., .. c.r,......,,. WA .A JUCKEf\u0026lt; ,\u0026gt;-,, 3,099 2,838 265 277 21.5 21.8 19,917 18,887 24.2 24.5 20,871 20,058 21-03 DESHA DESHA-DREl.l ,ffl .s,v.,. .. 3,lv-,, 10-,, LUU 11.6 11.2 17,YOY 18,097 13.6 13.2 20,515 20,705 ~~- COY-PERRINS \"1 3,v.,.., 3, 1L .. ..: (D ,.,_..,v 22.9 23.9 Lu,431 20,290 25.0 26.0 21,578 21,400 .co O'I - -----ll.LI:. .... , .S, 0l:IB 3, loo ::,52 561 41.5 41.5 23,389 23,441 44.6 44.6 24,573 24,573 ..,... -oo-c:RE~ STANFORD .... 3, \"\"'\" .S,1.:,\n, LVO 216 1Y.B ..:v.0 1s,::118 1'i\",-\"\"'4 ..it:.3 ..:..:.3 l'i\",623 20,134 32-03 INDEPENDENCE cuSRR~ .... .s,064 ... ::,1::, 26::. \"\"\"'' ..:.::.2 23.'i\" 21,170 :21, ... ,3 24.7 26.4 22.492 -\"\"',228 4\u0026amp;:7-V r ~- n- ...., I -r,.., - -- ,_.,...,... . .... .s,uo:i. 201 .!10 16. -, 19,oov 11:1.7 20,413 -.v--v..: LlNCULN .. l'\u0026lt;HUJ \"6 .s,v-1, 2,.,.,, \"'v.:: .S12 ,:\n:, . ::, .:v.::i 17,10::) 1t1,1-,,, ...... s ..:.o.5 17, ....... 1'i',338 - -~COnc.r\u0026lt;1 uuc.n .., 3, V-1.\u0026gt; .. ,.,.vv 21'J' -\"\"'\"\" 11:1.7 1Y.:5 ..:u, r76 -\u0026lt;U,DYa ..:u. 7 21.::, 21,551 21,643 *Includes substantial bonuses given prior to annexation of district. ARKANSAS Pl !Bl re SCHOOi COi IIHN 1 DISTRICTS ANNIIAI FISCAi REPIJRT_Al,,IAU.....,...-2_.._ _______ _ RANKED TN DESCENDING ORDER P~ NO. 11_ ARKANSAS Pl 181 re SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNUAi FISCAi REPORT ANAi YSXS COi IJMN 1 BANKED IN DESCENDING 08PE8 PAGE NO 12 ARKANSAS PIIBI IC SCHOOi DTSTRTCTS ANNIIAI FISCAi REPORT ANAi YSIS GOIIIMN 1 RANKED TN DESCENDING ORDER PACE NO 13 ARKANSAS PIIBI JC SCHOOi OJSIRJCIS ANNIIAI EISCAI REPORT ANAi YSIS ____________________________ ----1C..iOUJIL..lulcMa.N.N c,.u..K...i.i,E..cr:.ROu.A,_ .._J,.,.E.N :.L1.N1.:0,uicDE.,c.J\u0026lt;.SulNlC0 \u0026lt;GLL...u01DRc..DicEC1:R'-------------- ---- __ :--eAGENiJ---rzi-- 50.7 71.0 137.3 66.3 53.1 ~Q.J. 21,7 145,1 28._9 51.4 72.2 137.4 24_,_25 67.4 21,26 23.00 --- ---- ------------- A8KAliSAlLPUBLIC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNIIAI EISCAI REPnRI ANALYSLS COi I !MN RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER P-AGE NO. 15 - No..._OE...cERL.. AVL. SLRY. EERSONJIIEL GERL PERS. -------------------------4--.1:lX.:::xl.L.j...---XlU::.:U..-OlL.LlL..___..LLIJLL,:,1---\"\"'=\u0026gt;CU-----'A.i=\u0026lt;-l.-----\"\"\u0026gt;=:\"-\"---20.=St.1.-. a8-\u0026gt;\u0026lt;9=-c,,9\"'Q'---\"'9\"-Qo.:-,,_9~1--\u0026lt;:8.,,9c:-,-,9u.Q,___,9.,QJ\"-=-:9\"-'66-06 S.EBASUAN 42-01 LOGAN 33-01 lZARJ\u0026gt; 17-02 CRAWFORD 282 2,346 2, :514 2\u0026amp;75 J....22.1.. -1.63..._5 8 51 .10 1.1 12 4B a 50 8 21 403 21.542 59_3 24,433 24,.626 39..13 20,861 20,165 53 s 21 ~,s ~~ 020 64..13 22.,920 23,514 37-.6 .20-,358 21,013 _43_..5 4.3..5 23,-1-16 24,404 .2!51......!5 254-0 23,939 24.843 1291 48...9 21, 703 23,872 142....7 ...149....6. 25.,234 25,207 36 4 21 909 21,489 25,102 ARKANSAS Pl IBI IC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNI IAI EISCAI REPORT ANAi. YSIS COi I !MN RANKED TN DFSCENDTNC: ORDER PAGE NO. 16 ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS COLUMN 2 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO. 17 1989-90 NUMBER OF AVC. SLRY. NO. OF CERT. AVC. SLRY. TEACHERS l\u0026lt;-12 TCHRS. l\u0026lt;-12 PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. A/DIM 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 89-90 90- 1 U:A  COUNTY- DISTRICT RANI\u0026lt; 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 H 12 32-06 INDEPENDENCE NEWARK 1 5, 5~ 50.8 70.0 26,866 26,531 56.1 75.3 21-01 DESHA ARKANSAS CITY 2 5, 151 17.5 18.2 22,968 22,955 20.0 20.7 75-05 YELL FOURCHE VALLEY 3 4 132 17.4 17.6 17,017 21,060 19.4 f.9.6 71-01 VAN BUREN ALREAD 4 4 95 101 12.9 f.3.1 18,391 20,062 15.1 15.2 31-06 HOWARD UMPIRE 5 4 120 ___ 125 --14.0 15.0 20,079 20,763 17.0 18.0 65-04 SEARCY WITTS SPRINCS 6 4 106 113 14.6 14.6 18, 0 8, 2 16.6 1 .6 03-06 BAXTER TRI-COUNTY CON. 7 4, 164 175 18.7 f.8.2 :20,384 20,169 21.7 . 70-05 UNION MOUNT HOLLY 8 3, 230--244-- 20.8 21-::-s 22,386 23,932 23.6 25,201 47-01 MISSISSIPPI ARHOREL 9 3, 216 231 20.2 21.5 21,794 24,960 2 .2 23.5 23,0 26,180 73-05 WHITE CRIFFITHVILLE 10 3, 164 171 17.f. 17.8 19,196 19,425 19.5 20.2 20,348 20,742 60-01 PULASKI LITTLE ROCK H 3, 22,472 21,782 1,809.5 1,838.8 25,211 27--\n-0227 , 957. 7 1~983.0 26,453 29,303 53-02 PERRY PERRY CASA 12 3, 180 193 20.0 21.0 17,576 18,935 22.0 2 .o 19,0 2 20, 63-06 SALINE PARON 13 3, 208--221 19.2 19.4 1. 97 21,698 21.2 21.4 22,564 22,708 41-03 LITTLE RIVER WINTHROP 14 3, 166 175 14.8 14.5 20,856 20,981 16.8 16.5 22 466 22 352 36-05 JOHNSON CARI\u0026lt; 15 3, 150 162 17.2 17.2 17,934 18,756 19.2 1 .2 65-03 SEARCY SAINT JOE 16 3, 205--218 1'i'.5 19~5 1'i',21:5 19,553 21.5 2L5 71-03 VAN BUREN SCOTLAND 17 3, 125 132 13.0 13.5 19,920 20,178 15.0 15.5 21,1.8 7 21,3' 71 68-06 SHARP POUGHKEEPSIE 18 3, 125 133 14.9 15.5 17,024 18,003 16.9 1 .5 18,156 9,12 32-03 INDEPENDENCE CUSHMAN 19 3, 265 --287 22.2 23.9 21,170 21,i\n,73 24.7 26.4 22,492 23,228 69-02 STONE STONE COUNTY 20 3, 201 213 18.5 18.5 19,752 19,670 20.5 20.5 20,447 20,560 20-01 DALLAS CARTHACE 21 3,2 163 173 17.5 17.5 17,130 19,129 19.5 19.5 19,082 4 05-04 BOONE OMAHA 22 3, 266 285 23.1 22.9 20,416 20,629 2!5.9 2:5.7 21,1:140 51-03 NEWTON HOUNT JUDEA 23 3,2 229 246 19.0 19.1 20.4~ 21,094--21.0 21.1 21.670 01-02 ARKANSAS GILLETT 24 2,9 281 294 26.5 19,032 19,066 26.9 29.5 2 ,4 27-03 GRANT POYEN 25 2,9 237 250 18.1 22,892 22,787 20.0 20.1 24,1 60-03 PULASKI PULASKI COUNTY SP 26 3,11 20,747 1,310.2 26,587 27,313 1,418.0 1 433.2 27 783 24-05 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW 27 3,13 23 21. 20,001 20, 9 38-05 LAWRENCE LYNN 28 3,34 221 20.0 20,:556 20,81:19 60-02 PULASKI NORTH LITTLE ROCK 29 3,21 9,083 608,524,833 24,744 43-05 LONOKE HUMNOKE 30 3,72 9 05-06 BOONE LEAD HILL 31 3 32{ --~4i 70-02 UNION HUTTIG 32 278 292 66-01 BASTIAN FORT SH 33 50-04 NEVADA EMMEf 34 72-09 WASHINGTON WINSLOW 35 26-03 GARLAND HOT PR NGS 36 49-04 MONTGOMERY ODEN 37 47-08 MISSISSIPPI GOSNELL 38 14-01 COLUHB A EHER 26-04 CARLAN!) JESSIEVILI.E 28-06 GREENE STANFORD 56-07 POINSETT WINER 33-03 IZARD HOUNT PLEASANT 38-07 LAWRENCE STRAWBERRY 23-04 FAULKNR CU -PE K s 28-01 GREEN DELAPLAINE 21-03 DESHA l\u0026gt;E:SHA-l\u0026gt;REW ARKANSAS Pl IRI IC SCHOOi DISTFUCIS ANNI IAI FISCAi REPORT ANAi YSIS cm I !MN 2 RANKED IN DESCEND INC ORDER PACE NO JR __ ARKANSAS PltBI TC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNUAi FISCAi REPORT ANAi YSTS COi IIMN 2 RANKED TN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO 19 .. COIINTY LEA\n, COl.ltilY 1-4-04 CQLUl'IB1A 46.-.02 MILLER 16-J.3 CRAIGHEAD 4.5::-0.1 MARI.Oli _DISTRICT ARIUlliSAS PUBLIC sr.1-mrn DISTRICTS ANNI IAI FISCAi REPORT ANAi YSIS ~ ? RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDE6\" 1989-90 ~ PAGE NO 20 48-02 MONROE 50-08 NE\\lADA 54-01. PHILLIPS 1.3-04 CLEll.ELAND ARKANSAS Pl IBI JC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNI IAI FISCAi RFE'ORT ANAi YSTS COi I !MN 2 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO 21 _ _ LEA t COUNTY DISTRICT ~-0.1 .LCK.AN l!OOliEY I_LLE__ __.1_6-02-...CBAilHEAD WE.8J S.IDE ~i-0.1 llTT.LE_R.IVER_ .ASHDOWN ARKANSAS Pl !Bl IC SCHOOi PISIRICIS ANNI IAI FISCAi REPORT ANAi YSIS COi IIHN 2 RANKED IN DESCENDING......IJRDER__ .-26-0:5 ~ I.AKE__ HAM..IL.ION 73~ITE _ __..,8...::-::,G,0R7E ENE 44-01 HAD=SDN~--- F'AGE NO 22 ___ _ I EA 0 ARKANSAS PllBI IC SCHOOi DISTEUCTS ANNllAI FISCAi REPORT ANAi YSIS COLIIMN 2 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO23 ARKAl\u0026gt;ISAS Pl IBI IC SCHOOi DISIRICIS Ablbli lAI FISCAi REPORT AblAI YSIS COi 11Mbl 3 RAl\u0026gt;IKED Ibl DESCEblDiblG ORDER PAGE blO 24 ~l,ISAS_ Pl fBf IC SCHOOi DISIRICIS ANNI IAI EISC~LREeORL Al\u0026gt;IAL.YSJS _c()LLJMllL3_ RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDF\".R PISIRICI RANK .LEA__._ COi INTY 32-09 --1W)EPEHDENCE 4.-03- llENIQN___ DISTRICT SOUTH lllDEGENIRY ARKANSAS Pi 191 IC SCHOOL -lUSJ:f\n-JCTS ANN! IAI FTSCAL..REPORT ANAi YSil'l COi i lHN 3 RANKED IN DESCENDING O6\"DER-RANK ---~3 .. 6.. -=0~4 -~.:\u0026gt;1.Jllll... ____ ..J..ecl8tl'---------1='--~..,,:\n.'i.I._-'-\u0026gt;.$:U..~__:u,.:z'._..._.1,u.\nL__....1:\u0026gt;.~..1.... _ _/.:i!I.....0.......::1.L..::U::tt.......:.JL...,.1.CL~-_QtJ:t.....Q.. _ __Jl:ll\nl....J.---\"':l.....-i.a:.....:,,:,..:.....\nu.J:1.... 09-02 CH.I.CCI. -56-02 J\u0026gt;OXNSEII. ----- --------------------------------------------------------------- LEA COUMIY 7Q-09 UNION 51-02. l'IEWillli.__ 12-Q3.__CLE1URNL DIS.TIUCT ARlLJlliSAS _f'LJBLIC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNI iAi FISCAi REPORT ANALYSIS 0LUMN 3 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER ---- ---l\"Pc..,A .G. e,EN uo___..2 ~7 _ .ARKAhlSAS. PUBLIC SCHOOL DI.SIRlCIS-AblNLIAL FISCAi REEORT .ANALYSIEL COLI.JHl\u0026gt;L.3 RAblKED IN PESCFNOING ORDER PAGE NO 28 _ __._c..,..._..,,.,____._c..u011Jll,aNu.I..1.Y_ 32-10 INDEPENDENCE 40-02 LINCOLN. 29-0:S HEMPSTEAD 32-07 INDEPENDENCE 01-02 ARKANSAS 10-01 CLARI\u0026lt; 70-02 UNlQN 33-03 lZARD HEMPSTEAD GRANT BOONE INDEPENDENCE. 35-0.8 JEFFERSON -51=04 . .NEWION. 68-05 SHARP ~ PUBLIC SCHOOL-1lISIRICIS ANNI IA FISCAi REP.DEU ANA YSIS COl..Ut1N 3 Rl\\NllED IN DESCFNil.ING DRDER... DISTRICT SARATOGA 267 2-1,689 2,857 284 298 23.8 24.8 18,li7 .i.8,996 OIL TROUGH 268 2,847 284 302 21.1 20,622 GlLLETT 270 2,906 3,3:57 281 294 24.3 26.!5 19,032 .19~.066 AMITY 271. 2,823 2,920 278 295 21.8 2Li 20,-2,U 20,979 HUTTIG 273 3,334 3,251. 278 292 22.0 2i.O 22,226 -23 .259 MOUNTP LEASANT 274 3,004 3,146 275 286 2!5.6 26  .i 21. 759 2i+950 267 283 17.0 OMAHA 278 CUSHMAN 279  :5 265 2El7 22 ...2 23.9 2.L .1.70 -2.L..973 WABBASEKA-TUCK2E8R0 2_, 1338 265 -277 21.5 21.8 19,9.17 iB,8.87 WESIEfi:hl Gfi:QllE 28! 2. 4 20 j74 ?O 7~8 WILLIFORD 282 2,907 3,000 261 280 22.0 23.0 iB,84.0 iB,869 PAG\nE NO 29 - 26..3 Z:Z.3-20,028 20,267 ---ZL.o 21,,564 26.9 29---5 20,442 20,444 ZL.9 23....2 22,056 22 .. i22 \"'6 0 2l 5:ZB 2l 400 --25--0 23.0 --23,377 24,363 26.6 27--1-21,.408 21,618 24.7... 26.4 22,492 23,228 24.2 24...5. 20,87i 20,058 \"3 3 \"2 5 ?j i5~ '\n)j 349 - ~-5. 25.:S .1.9 ,87i 19,956 ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL lUSIRICTS ANNI IAI FISCAi BEPJJR:L .A. NAL'lSI..S ...cou.JMN 3.- RANK.El)_ ..IN......DESCE ...QRDER... LFA c\nCOillilY 60-Qi Plll ASKI 60-03 PLJJ..ASK.I 66.-0i. SEBASllAl!L 60 02 PIii ASKI 35-0!5. JEFFERSOl'i- 72.-07 WASHING.TON i.8-03 CRITTENDEN 72.-03 WASHINGTON ARKANSAS Pl 181 IC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNI IAI FISCAi REPORT ANAi YSIS COIIIMN 4 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER I ITT! E ROCK 1 euL.ASIU COIJNIY se -2- FORT SM.ITH -3 NORTH I TTTI E ROCK P.I.NE_ BLUFF SPJUNGDALE PAr\nE MJ3l __ _ LEA~ .COUNTY .16-11. CRAIGHEAD 23-07 FAULKNER 40-03 LINCOLN 23-03 F_ilULKNER 36-01 JOHNSON. 01-0.1 ARKANSAS 24-04 FRAN.KLIN. 73-01 WHITE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCl-mOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL.-f:ISCAL.- f\u0026lt;EP-OR+ -ANAL.-SXS. COUJt1N- 4 RANl(X)_ Il\u0026gt;l--CSCENDINi\nOfWER MJHBER OF D1STfUCT 9!1 ...2.,J)B..1. Pl lBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS COLI IHN 4 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE: NO  __ ARKANSAS p1 IBI IC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNIIAI FISCAi REPORT ANAi YSJS COi IIMN 4 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO 35 .ARKAtlSAS .J?illlLIC ...SCI-IDOi DISTRICTS _,.Au,Nu\nulA,Nw1.1L.l. -tFc.1I~S~C,\n,A\ni1.L..-lR~E\n.1PcC10.11R,c.T1-\u0026lt;A~N~A~LL.-Y:r.\nS:\n,i,\nIS::\n_---------------:-:---- .cou.JMN 4-RANKED IN DESCENDIN~ ORDER PA\nE NO 3=6_ _ LEA~ _cnuN]\"'( .IUSIRICI 29-0.1. HEMPSTEAD 42-04 LOGAN 1.3-0.1. 55-0.1. 3Q-Q5 .1..4-0.1. 15-03 57-04 POLK 75-08 YELL 111111111111111 I I I I L EA  _...,c..,OuullDNuT...,Yc_ --ARl\u0026lt;'ANSAS Pl IBLIC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNI IAI FISCAL REPOr'T CQI I !MN 5 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER DISTRICT PAGE NO 39 -LEA-$ COIINTY --21=02 _\\/AN --BURtL _sa-02 P.0\u0026gt;.E ---1..0=03...CLARK -..04-=-0A BENT.ml DISTRICT EUDOAA ATKDIS 40 ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNI/Al FISCAL BeORI ANAi YSIS COLJJMN----5_ RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO. 4l LEA- .$. .couNTY 33-06..UARD. --3 -05-JACKSQN_ 23-.1,0 JJHIIE. 03-02. .l3AlCTER. A9-02JENILOMER't -59\"'3. PRAI.RIE,_ 52-M OUAClilTA 23-07 _)JHU DISTRICT ARKANSAS- PJJBLIC SCHOOL. ..J\u0026gt;LSTfUCTS ~ ElSCAL REP.run ANALYSIS COLUMN 5- ~ IN .DSCENDil\u0026gt;IG ORDER XPENSE .i,982-9.0 NlJMBER_ OF A\\JG. SLR.- f.'ER ADA TEACHERS X-1.2 TCHRS.. K-i2 85'-90 S'0-91 AIDIA All)I~ 89-9 I 89-90 90-91 RANK. 1. 2. 3 A 't 5 7 a NO- OF CERT. PERSONNEL 89-90 90-91 9 ...1.0 PAGE- N0.42 AVG. SLRY  CERT. PERS. 89-90 90-91 LEA t COUNTY .lll.STRICT ARKANSAS fUBLIC SCHOOL DIST~ EISCAl- REeORT ANAi YSIS COWMN .5 RANKD-I.N ~R ___ t~4,,0. 4 Cot I INBIA -- --...U.UJ...ut\u0026lt;------\"\"\"'\"'-__...~.,_,.,_..,,.,_-0-J.-0----'._,.,--~--+-----~..\n,.t--\"'...u.--J.u..,.~+-:.p.,\n'-r-CI..._,. __ ~,-\n\u0026gt;----'-'\"-',-\n.\"\"-~\"'-- .... ~_,._.__ 40.-0i LINCOLN_ 13-01. CLEVELAND_ 24-01 FRANKi IN 21-02 DESHA 05--06. BOONE 2c:\n-oe YFt I 33-03 IZARD 14-03 COLUMBIA. 40-02 I JNCOI N 57-01 POLK 73-08 WHITE 44-03 MADISON 51.-01 .NEl,ITON 57-02- POLK 29-05 HEMPSTEAD ACOf\u0026lt;N_ MCRAE. ARKANSAS UBL.IC SCHOOL- I).1Sl'.JUC1'.S ~ .f\"-ISCAI..- .REPOR.T ANAL.'t'SIS COLUMN S RANl(l)_ IN DESCENDING ORDER EXPNSE J.$189-90- NUmlER- OF AllG- ~- RER ADA TACHERS J\u0026lt;--.12 TO!RS.. K-i.2- --------------~ -~------~8~9~=~9~01--49~0~-~9~11,..--~A~t~I)~t~A1--~A~l~D~l~M\"-+t~a~9~-~~99~~00uJ.-=~9l~ 11-__JS~9~9~09u0. 91 t.EA 4:- COUN'.f't DIS'.TRIC.X RANK- 1- -2- 3- 4.- t !5. 6- 7 A \"3-05 LOblOKE. 72=09 .I.IASHINGTON 53-02- P.ERR'I' 28-06 GREENE. blO- OF CERTP. ERSONNEL SSZ SZO SZ0-9l .9 iO All.!.- SlR'l'. c:ERI:- P8S.. 89-90 90 91 il 12 LEA COllNTX 60,01 PIii ASICI 60-03 Pl II ASK I DISTRICT I ITT! E ROCK ARKANSAS Pl 1B1 IC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNI IAI FISCAi REPORT ANAi XSIS COi I IMN 6 RANKED TN DESCENDING ORDER Pl JI ASK I COi lNTY- SP _,:,__.,_._ FORT Sl'I T T-H-HARTON MONTICFII 0 PAGE NO 45 ~KANSAS PUBLIC. SCHOOL DISTf\nICTS ANNI IAL FISCAL-REPORT ANALYSIS COLUHN----6 .RANKD---.IN .DESCEND-UU\nORDER .LEA ._ COUNTY -IlISllUCT RANK 47-06 --lilSSJ:Slllf'e.L SO filSSI.SSIPP.I 41-01 LITTLE.-!U\\I.ER -ASHDOWN ____ 3,.4.,-.,.,3.. o:, _..,1A...1, u\u0026lt;Co uS\n:,,Ou.N-----ANc.E,~,.,1pmu- -------!i.1.--_.:\n~~r,_..-2,..4!\n!8-___\n2-,..,u.~---2.,..24,4_-4~..,.\ni.+------4~1-,...,1,_j,.~~.\nJ_-2:\n.,.:\ni.ijl-_j.-4\n:\ni.._\nli--.1.4~\"---.:\ni4,..:J.\nJ\ni......:\nt4,.,.o\n,hl---- 04-06. ..BENTON -5ILOAH SPRINGS 35-02 .JEFFRSON -IlOU..ARIJAY -1.2::02.J:LEBU_ HEBER SP.R1hlGS 40-03 LJ:.NCOLN _sTAfLCllY 11 ~ I~ I EA 29 01 HEMPSTEAD 62-03 SEVIER ...1k-!U.. COi I IHBIA -ARKANSAS PIIBI IC SCHOOi COLIIMN 6 DISTRICT DISTRICTS ANNUAi FISCAi RFP06'T ANAi YSJS RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO 4L __ _ ARKANSAS Pl IBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REPOl\u0026lt;T ANALYSIS --CC\ntO11.L~IJlil1!UN\u0026gt;l-\u0026lt;6f\u0026gt;---lR~A~NIIIKiC-IEI.IDD-I1\"NN-DD-EESSC~ENN.pD-LINN~c\n-1:io1J,R:llDll:EJiR:..------------------i\"PAA~NcQ\nE.. -.5P_ - 111111111 111 111111111111111 I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I ' I ' ' I ' ' I ' I I I ' I I I ~ Pl IBI IC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNI IAI FISCAi RFPO6'T ANAi YSIS COi IIMN 7 RANKED TN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO 52 *TocJ11des s11hstaotial ham1ses given prior ta the consolidation of. ~h-~distri~c=~------------------------------------- I FA C041NTY 62-02 ST FRANC.Ia i.6=-12__CRAIGHFAD_ 46-0:S HI! LFR 52=02 OUACl:Uia 72-06 WASHINkTOl'L 04--.06 JlFNTlltL 52-fil_ 01.JACH.IIA l\u0026gt;ISTRICT ARKANSAS Pl IBL IC C::CHOOL l\u0026gt;ISTRICTS ANNUAi FISCAL REPOJ\nT ANALYSIS ~ IN l\u0026gt;ESCENl\u0026gt;IN~ ORl\u0026gt;ER 1989 90 8.33 86.5 -55-...i PAC\nE NO S3 I I I I I .IilSTJUCL ---42--~ ---55-.0AJ\u0026gt;JKE-A6\" KANSAS P-UBLI.C-SCHOOL-DISl\"-fHCT\"l ANNI IAL FISCAL ~ -AWAL-S-I-S-- COUJMN 7 AANKED--IU DESCENDIN~ ORDER pA(\nF N0.55 _ ARKANSAS Pi !BL.IC SCHOOL. DISTRICTS ANN! !AL. FISCAi REPORT ANAL.YSIS --COl...lJHU 7--RANKED IN DESCENDIN~ ORDER PAGE NO 56 I..EA-4 .couNPI DISTRICT J.9-03 CROSS 29-07 HEMPSTEAD 03 04 BAXTER H-06 CLAY 67-0-4 SEVIER 31 04 HOWARD 32-10 INDEPENDENCE_ J.3-0-4 CLEVELAND 75-.09 YELL 59-02 PRAIRIE. ___ 6~-03 SEARCY 73 05 WHITE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL- DISTIUCTS ANNI IAL. FISCAL. FEf'OR:r ANAL.YSlS COI...Ul'1N -4 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER 1989-90 -1..2....5 PAGE NO.sz AVG SL.RY CERT. Plii:Rlii -LEA- .0. COUNTY DISTRICT AAl\u0026lt;Al\u0026gt;ISAS PUBLIC SCHOOi.- DISTRICTS ANNUAL. f:\"ISCAL. REPOR:r ANAL'l'SIS ~MN 7 -RANK\u0026amp;l\u0026gt;- lt,j DSCENI)J\nNt\n. -lmOER EXPENSE 1989-90 NlJt1BEr,\nPER ADA lil'i' i\nt(j 'i'O 'i'l A ti) IA A II) 1'4 RANK 1- 2 3 4 s ~s 07 bAWRENl~Ce~----~6HT~R~A~UHB~E~R~R~Y1------.!l~:-\n!-li-l\ni ...,:\n.i' . '_i'_\nii_!, ,.--'Nic-- .:.\n.i.\nn~ -~1-4-\u0026lt;r:-\n-i-4-7-1 i.....\u0026amp;-----.\u0026amp;\u0026lt;~-1+-.,.,1,-.,.i----,-\n,\n,~-._\n,j ........ -_\n.i..,.-,...~---,-.:,\"4\u0026gt;-...,.. __ _ 73..0S. WHITE ttcRAE- :5!5-01- -PIKE U:Ll.(.HT 01 02 ARKANSAS CZLLTT 18-01 CRUu:NDEN- CRAWF..oRDS\\/!.LLE 33-01 .IZARD- CAU:C0 ROCK 04-02 :BENTON 4a-oi MONROE 28--e.06 t.REENE 71-01 \\!AN Bllfi:EN 1'I 07 .cou.JMBIA 23.-06 .FAULKNER 2.,..552- 304- 323 44 () 30 ...5 226-3 44 0 19 61'\") 19,969 30.5 --1.9+ 773 20-#269 22.3 J.9+623 20,i.34 '\u0026gt;j E:jQte\n24.0 --1.9,988 20,059 2L7 J.9+!540 i.9,946 39 6 19 40? LEA Ca COUNTY 66-01 SEIIAS'.fIAN-'- 0-0i PULASKI ,o 0~ FULAliil\u0026lt; I 27-04 \u0026lt;.RANT -32-06 lNDEPNDENCE- 35-05 JEFFERSON 72-07 WASHINGTON 63 ...0 3 SALINE 72-03 WASIUNGTON j,6-0S. CRAIGHEAD 47-0e MISSISSIPPI :U-05 GARLAND 32-.0i .INDEPENDENCE. 04=0:5 EIENTON 34-03 JACKSON 58-05 POP-E J.8-03 CRITTENDEN 17-05 CRAWFOF\u0026lt;D 47,0i MISSISSIPPI 23--03 FAULKNER. 52-04 OUACHLTA ::S7r03 POLI\u0026lt; 30-02- HOl\" S1,RiNG '-0-02 PULASK.I '701 t.EVIER 43-04-LONOK --21-.04 .l)SHA. ~TRICT FORT SHI-TH L:tTTLE~OCK ARKANSASP UBLIC SCHOOi..- l)IS+..,R.I. \u0026lt; -C-\u0026gt;-T~S--H\"\"\"'u...'-COLUMN a. RANKEl\u0026gt;-,1,.I~N-jJ=y_. J:'UL.AliilI\u0026lt; COYITY lii~ PRATTSVILLE NEWARK f'INE.. BLUFF Sl?RINGDALE llRYANT FAYETTE'.\\IILLE JONESBORO (\n05NELL LAKE- HAMIL TON BATESV.I LI..E. ROIOER .NEWPORT f,USSE:LLVILLE. WEST HEMF'HIS VAN :SUREN pcHOREL $\\NALYSIS LEA C COUNT 38=06 L.A1JRENCS: 63 02 SALINE 04 06 BENTON ..U,,,U. MISSISSIPPI 54-0i PlUl.LIPS. .07-0i- CALHOUN. QS.,-.OS. .B001'IE- - 47-02 MISSISSIPPI. 62.-02- ST FRANCIS 46-01 MIi I ER 58-04 POPE. 39-04 LEE 02--Di ASHLEY 58-02 P0P.E 17-01 CRAWFORD 28-03 ,!\nREEN 42--0i LO,!\nAN 42-03 LO,!\nAN .14-0i COUJMBlA 26-04 GARLAND. 05-02 BOOblE. 03-03 BAXT.ER 40-03 LINCOLN -ARKANSAS f.'UBUC- SCHOOL lUSUU.CU. Al\u0026gt;INUAL .f\" ISCAL- ~EP..Qf.::f ~ llISTR.tCT S10Al\u0026gt;I-MENllRIX .BENION. SZLOAl'I SE'R-UICS OSCEOLA BAAlOl\u0026gt;l.lLEXA~ TON .\\tAL.L.EY SPRil\u0026gt;IGS BLYTHE.VIllE. HUGHES MAR11ADUKE BOONEVILLE.. MOUNTAIN HOl1E STAR CU -42- 49. -COUJHN S RANKED U1- l\u0026gt;ESCENOINl\n- -Or\u0026lt;~ so 2,421 Sj,~ 52- 2,315 S3 2,::a.o 2,484 Lli:A  CQUMTY AAl\u0026lt;ANli\u0026gt;AS PUBL~C ~ l\u0026gt;lliTRICTS ANNUAL i:::IS.CAL REl\"'ORT ANALYSIS ~- -8  RMll\u0026lt;ED IM DESGI.Nl\u0026gt;ING-~ l).ISTRJ:CT t,IASHl,lll.U: TUJ\nRELL HIINTSVILLE !iOl.JNTA.UIBt..lRGALPENA 1989 90 J\u0026gt;ACE NO 6l LEA c, COUNTY 22m02 DREW 01-01 ARKANSAS 73-09 -WHITE -~i2..Qi..-CLEl.ll.!RNE- 30-04 HOT SPRINC\n32-03 UIDEPNDENCE ~3 02 !JHITE 7.3-10 WHITE 36-06 JOHNSON --- ---33-03 IZARD 26-07 GARLAND 36-01 JOHNSON 49-02 MONTGOMERY -1.2-02 CLEBURNE. 23-0'5 EAi II ICNER 08-03 CARROLL 70-09 UNION 70-11 UNION 01-05 ARKANSAS 66-03 SEBASTIAN 46-02 MILLER --63-06 SALINE 49-0L HONT_GOMERY ARKANSAS PUBUC SCHOOL l)ISTRl~ -FISCAL ~f'OR-T-4\\NAb'l'SIS COLI.INN S AA/111(1) -IN DliCENl)IHG----Qf(PER WSTRICT RANK D~EW CENTRAL --~\ni_~~,0-__...-4'p:\ni._--~16G'----'~~-~...-9------\u0026lt;!,9..,4---i!i!,.-aOO~M\u0026gt;6\u0026lt;!.--j--6+r-9----'ig..-6---zra-~~-2i!~-46-DEWITT fANGBURN --CONCOROliALVERN CUSnMAN IIEEBE-ROSE BUD WEST SIDE HO! !NT Pl EASAN MOUNTAIN PINE CLARKSVILLE MOUNT IDA HEBER SPRINGS HAYE! OIJER GREEN FOREST STRONG UNI.ON HUMPHREY HACKETT GENOA. CENTRAL F'ARON 3,06-4 3,515\ni, 2:17\ni, :17:J 2,533 2.,888 2,548 2,.642 ! lp f~ it I nil~ .. .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. ....r rf LEA 4- .couNTY 72-04 ~4SHDl~TON 66-04 SEBASTIAN 23-04 FP1 II Kl\u0026gt;!Ef\n: 73-08 WHITE i9-03 CROSS i9-0i CRQSS __ _ 6.9-02-..ST(ll,IE_ _ 29 06 75-07 J..3-0i J..J..LJIU::JL..8llil SCMOOL.-l)l~+S- Al#IIJAI.. F..lSGAb-~ AAAb_Sl-SC01.. UMN. S RANKED- :tH- P6SC91~ ORDER PAG\u0026amp; -NO-. ~ ARKANSAS PIISI.IC SCHOOi. DISTIO:ICTS ANNIIAI. FISCAi. REPORT ANALYSIS COi.i iNN El RANKED IN DESCENDIN\u0026lt;\nORDER PAGE NO GS 1989-90 --34-03 IACl\u0026lt;SON 66-07 SEBASTIAN-ARKANSAS Pl IBI IC SCHOJ.10J.11-.rD. .. RU. :-.J.C..I. I\n..s,T c,.S..N, _,.,..AN ls ,.AI. '-L--\"F..1I.,:.S.1 ,\u0026lt;--C\u0026lt;R,1eAc 1E=P~O.~.N .P. A .\n.. L .,-TY_,-,\n.SAS= a\u0026gt;.J-.-.-I- - ------- COL t MN~S!'--..-R~AU\u0026gt;Nuol(\n.cE\n...,E.1 a.D::\u0026gt;S-:J\u0026gt;I1LC-t.N.1~EDa .1N.. R.1. D\u0026lt;D1,i1,,,IE.,Ni:.'Rl'c--\n-..-.-.-.-.-.,-o-- f'Al\nii\nN0.67 _ CO!INTY DISTIUCT 0 4 0~ ill,\nITOI IO liITRY i. lil-02 -CIU-+T+.ET... N ... ,o.E. . N.. e------sE .A... R... L... n0.E -.SS-Oi l?OPE AT-Kuis SS-,02 POPt\n, 7i.-,02 llAN WREbl 9-...Qi. CROSS --..U-J.2 HIS9ISSIPPJ: :54-04 PMIL.L.IPS l)Ol,IER CLLNUlN ARl\u0026lt;-ANSAS-PUa...IC SCHOOL DISTRICTc ANNI IAL. FI\"'CAL. l\"'EPOl\"'T ANAL.YSIS COL.I IMN 9 RANl\u0026lt;li:D IN DEliiCENDINIO ORDli:R i.91i19-90 PAGE NO 68 I EA 0 COIJNTY 52 01 PRAIRIE 7.2=0A-WASHINGTQN COi IIMBTA DISTRICT ARKANSAS Pl IBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNI IAL FISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS ----COUJl'IN--5 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAC\nEN069 COtlNTY .1.2-04 Cl EBt IRNE 03-04 -BAXTER-ARKANSAS PtJBl....IC-SCHO DISTF'ICTS ANNUAL FISCAL ~E:F!OR'f -ANAl..8-IS -COLUl'IN 9 R~DE..scc\nNDIM\n..oRDER DISTRICT .G..Il..l.E.U MOUN.T Pl EASo\\NT DEER -SARATOGA ..!-la TF-IELD \\lEN.J' NG SHADE LU-PERKDIS- -XPENSE: 1989 90 PER-~ NUMBER-Ole TEACHERS-K-1-2 \".\u0026gt; ?Q 8 ~ N0-.71- AVG, SL-RV. .l-\"F.:RS. 90 91 12 L.f:A...- COIINTY -ARKANSAS Pl IBLIC SCHOOi DISTRICTS ANNI IAL FISCAL REP06'T ANAi XSIS ~ RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER 1969-90 0 I STRICT ~K-PAC- MJ 7Z I EA 0 C011NTY PlSTRlCT ARKANSAS PUBLIC SC~OOL PlliTl\u0026lt;ICTS ANNUAL.. FISCAL REPOIH ANAL'\\'~ COLUMN 10----R~-DESC6NP-I-NG--OROER RANK --41.-01 LITTLE RIVER- 9 2~ -~1'.0N-- SILOAM SPR~ -SO- --2-,--4:\n?~ii-,9\"\"8,._-h!,,...,,_..,..__ ----\"'14'47-Q0'6,-M-.15Ui...iUw:ilil111-I\"\"P-\"P\"\"l'-----llilM0~M~l.iililt11liiNl~lilt11l,i.i8h:l.l....--P--:-.--:PM:~..\u0026gt;,,-X-1---~,-:Si-\n.!1S---:-\n,ii ,-9'20~---i-40-.-4----\u0026amp;-\ni5,.--1------2-JM\u0026gt;S\n!-s14-,-8':'9--4-48-r,H-i-4\n..,6H22-~,m.~~Hcl:~- 34 03 IACK SON-- NE1~PORT 2, 498 2, 160~ 35-02 IEFFERSON DOLLARl,IA't- 53 -2.3-03J.AJ.JLKNR_ -2.4-0~ -1..6.-02. ...cruuc.HEAD ...42._-.03-1-0GAfL _()8_-QL.CARROLL__ 21-0S DESHA ___ 62_-02_Sj ffiANC.I.6._ ~O.L.LOGJlli --1.8-02-CRIII.EliD.EN _r.REENBRJER OZARIL _FARIS ____BERRYI/.ILLE ---9 4... 2.,_ 9 i 9 ...2..J 42 .L..0.02. ---1..,.0.69 -62...Jl ----23...2 76.7 .25_,..543 23,843 ARKANSAS Pl IBL.lC SCHOOL. 01sn1cTs ANNI IAL FISCAL REPORT . .ANAL:tSIS. COL.UMN 10 RANl\u0026lt;ED IN DESCENDIN~ ORDER --P-AI.E NO 75 ARKANSAS F'i !BL.IC SCHOOL. l)ISTi::ICTS AM~li iAL. FISCAL. i\n:i.:i\noi\n:T ANALYSIS COi i il'IN 10 RANKE]) IN l)E$Ciii\nNDING ORDEI-' F\"ACE ~10 76 i..EA_._ COUN\"IX- 68-03 SHARI\" 57-02 POLK 44-02. MADISON 40-02 LINCOLN 02-02. ASHLEY MAN BANDOLPH -COUNU'GI IY-PFRt\u0026lt; I NS EVENING SHADE -HATFIELD KINGSTCN GRADY FOUlilAIN HILL ,, ,, 279 2,689 280 3,057 282 3,013 ANAL..YSIS At:\nSL.RY SL.RY. 248 \"\" ,., F. ,, 0oe 292 309 22.3 ,977 .302 312 25--5 ., 3,099 234 248 21..2 60-()j, PULASKI 72-03 -WASHUU\nTON ,o 0~ PIILAli DISTRICT -BL YTHEVII IE NORPHI EI ARKANSAS F'-U8l.--IC~ Wrnl'.S +\\Nl\u0026gt;IUAl... ~-XSCAI..--R~ ANALYSIS COLUNN-- ,U -RANt\u0026lt;.l)_~i\n:!iCl.~IDU-1(\nOJ\n:DEf\n' li:ANK substantial bonuses given prior to the consolidation of the district. ~ 4::1 Oi L.ONOKli: DISTRICT ARKAMSAS PUBLIC SCMOOL. DISTF\u0026lt;ICTS ANNUAL. i\n:ISCAL. REPOJ\nT ANALYSIS --Gt\u0026gt;bUMN-11 RAIKEP IM PaSC!ii:NPJ:~ RANK PA(\nE NO 82 LEA iii 71-0:5 73-10 C0 1lNTY DISTRICT -CUSl,IMAN MUL..BERR-Y-ARKANSAS .f'UBI-I-1,\n----at.-lUl..-ll-.l.4:H-\u0026gt;'4-\\.\n+\u0026gt;!t-4-,'fY\u0026lt;~--t---bAl.------RF.\n~ -ANAk-SI.s- ____ -COLUMN 11 RANl\u0026lt;E:1\u0026gt; IM DErnl\u0026gt;I~~ ..XP\u0026amp;NSE PER-ADA- -NUMi\u0026lt;E:R OF'TEACHERS---- K-1-2 AVG. Sl.RY.----\u0026lt;....,..--{)F-GEfH-. 1'GHR8--.- K--12 --PERSGNNEL. -PAGE NO. 83 -- AV~. SI_RY. .CERT. F'ERS. -05-04-BOONE 32-11 I~l\u0026gt;ENGE: DISTRIGT Oi'IAHA l'HDLAHD OS.--.u\u0026lt;:,-,1$Ul,ffi-------4. 70 04-0 lill.NTON U-05 CRAX1\u0026gt;- ARl(.ANSAS-PUBL~ DISTRICTS ANIUAb FISCAL RE:?ORT--All\u0026gt;IAl~H..1,._------------------ -------{\n9L~ H- RAMKE:D I 1 DE:SCE:IDI IG ORDER PAC\u0026amp;\nN0 84 -RANK 24-03 FRANRL--:rN :Ji-04 HOWARD :m--08 LAWRENCE 29-06 HEMPSTEAD ~SAS PUBLICS CHOOLD ISTRICTSA NNUAFLI SCAL REPORTA NALYSIS cm.JNrrTINE\"\" MINERAL SPRTfilG'!o lJALNOT7UDGE SPR~t: COLUM1N1 RANKEDIN DESCENDING~O~R~D~E~R,\u0026lt;------------------.P\"AGE'\"\"'\"'=--NO=-.--=g5 1989-90 NUMB~R-0~ . S RY. 0. OF CERT. --.E=A--CHERS-K-12 TCHRS. K-12 PERSONNEL 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 89-'i'O 90-91 ~~--~~-- ~--~5 6 ---.., 8 9 10 AVC. CERT. 89-'i'O 1 St.RY. PERS. 90-91 --------------------t------+----- 12 ARKANSAPSU BLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUALF ISCAL REPORTA NALYSIS COLUMN11 RANKEDIN DESCENDINGO RDER PAGE NO. 86 1999-90 LEA t COUNTY 43-05 LONOKE HUMNOKE LEA# COUNTY 09-0i CHICOT 66-0i SEBASTIAN 60-03 PULASKI 27-04 CRANT 35-09 JEFFERSON 47-01 rfISSTSSTPPI 32-01 DIDEPENDENCE\" 60-02 POLASKI 17-0S CRAWFORD 52-04 OUACHITA 18-03 CRITTERDEN 67-01 SEVIER 30-02 HOT SPRING ~6-02 GARLAND 14-02 COLUHBIA :IT-03 PCJOr 63-01 SALINE -------ro-00 ~ -----.3- 1 1 ~ Al6-0S-l1TL\"L.~ -'1804 CRITT~ liS-12 Cl\u0026lt;AiGREA-U 19-05 0\u0026lt;oss- ---:23-07 FAULKNER ARKANSAPSU BLIC S~ROOLl \u0026gt;ISTRICTS ANNUALF ISCAL REPORTA NALYSIS DERMOTT 2 l'='ORT73HITH 3 POLASKI COUNTYS P 4 ProITTSVILLE 5 WATSON CHf!iPEL 2. ---vICONTA COLUMN12 RANKEDIN DESCENDING-ORDER-----------------~P~A~c~E~N~o~.-8-7 __ _ EXPENSE PER ADA 1989-90 LEA cocmrr O\"l-06 BENION 3:l-10 JEFFERSOff 54-01 l'HTL1-TPS 63-02 SALINE --:39-04 L~ ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANNUAL FISCAL REFORT ANALYSIS COLUMN i2~NKED IN DESCENDINC ORDER DISTRICT SILOAM SPRINGS WHITE RALL TiARTON/LEXA BENTON MARIANNA TiERQiAN AARR 48 49 50 \"\"5S \"\"\"\"5\"6 EXF'ENSE F'ER ADA i 2 2,421 2,664 2,846 2,696 2,315 2,622 . 2,468 2,702 2,520 2,614 2,0 2,~,\"SB2 722 755 646 073 4,139 4,400 i,717 NUMBER OF TEACHERS K-12 ~ SLRY. TCHRS. K-12 89-90 90-91 7 8 ' rn2.o 183.0 24~4.fS'l 44.0 44.0 22,590 23,713 -,823 23,511 23,038 23,917 178.5 21.579 23,597 59.2 22,33 23,710 42.6 23,312 \"\"23,420 278.7 23,192 23,648 NO. OF CERT. PAGE NO. _88 AVG. SLRY. PERSONNEL CERT. PERS. 89-90 90-91 89-90 90-91 9 10 ii 12 9.0 194.2 47.0 139.2 251.5 201.0 62.7 43.2 296.6 .6 ,9.9 H)r.0 144.0 23,745 194.3 25,024 47.0 23,750 145.7 24,131 254.0 23,939 195.0 22,776 62.7 23,430 45.6 24,605 297.2 24,255 3.6 24,336 ~3,939 i 16-:0 23 641 24,980 24,956 24,882 24,851 24,843 24,744 24,735 24,730 24,730 24,722 24,715 24,690 4,676 4,626 24,601 ---LEA .-coONTY DISTRICT DISTRICT ARKANSAPSO BCTCS CHOOLD ISTRICTS ANROAL~i SCAL ~EPORTA NALYSIS RANK i CC[UMN i~ANKED IN DESCEND-INC-ORDER --- 1989-90 NUM~ERO F -- - -TE:ACHE::RKS -12 D/H 8 90-91 2 -\nr---,r S 6 -,wr\n:- SLRY. TCHRS. K-12 89-90 90-91 ,- 8 NO. OF CERT. PERSONNEL 89-90 90-91 9 10 f'A~E NO. 90 AVG. SLRY. CERT. PERS. 89-90 90-91 11  12 144.9 23,144 23,122 90 84 73..:04 WHITE 03..:06\" BAXTER 44-03 MADISON 29-1Y1 HEMPS I EAD ----S-~PH I LLI PS 75-05 YELL 28 0i C:.F\u0026lt;EENE\" 33-02 IZARD 11 06 CLAY SAINI PAUL llLEVINS~ A:rNF ~ACLEY -ELAPLAU!tc MELBOURNE --cr.AY-\"l: PUBLIC SCHOOCDISTRICt!:n!1NNUAL FlSCAL REPORT ANALYSIS COLUMN 12 RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER PAGE NO. 91- - 1999-90 LEA COUNTY 25-02 FULTON 71-01 VAN BOREN 72-04 WASfITNGTOlll 20-03 DALLAS- 13-04 Cl.EVELAND 56-04 POYNSETT H-o-4 CLAY 23-04 FAULKNER 66-04 SEBASTTAN 13-08 WAI IE 24-05 FRANl\u0026lt;Cllr 15-03 CONWAT 59-02 -PRiURIE------- 29-06 HEMPSTEAD 10-03 ct.ARK :n-04 HOWARD 1\"3-01 CLEVELAND 56-07 -POYNSETT\" 73-----oS WAI IE 7'5-07 YEU. 21-03 -UESHA ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL l\u0026gt;ISTRrn ANROAi:::-F\"ISCAL REPORT ANALYSIS- -CO[. UHN 12 RANRElr--xN l\u0026gt;ESCEND!NC O mE:R DISTRICT woom::-Alilff MARKED TREE:PIGGUI I c\nUY-PERKTNS HARTFORD GRIFF I I Av ILLE ULA -i\u0026gt;ESWFUREW 2e..1 252 53 254 2,390 2,445 \"3,0B\u0026lt;r \"3,124 r,830 2,881 2,  63 T,406 AVC. SI.RY. CERT. LEA t COUNTY DISTRICT t\nARCAND ARKANSAPSU BLIC SCHOOLD ISTRICTS ANNUALFI SCAL REPORTA NALYSIS COLUMN12 RANKEDIN DESCENDINGO RDER 1989-90 NUMBEROF AVC. SLRY. , 44 28,185 PACE NO. 93 NO. OF CERl. AVG. SLRY.\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_1452","title":"Report: \"1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report,\" Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1991/1992"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: \"1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report,\" Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1452"],"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":["92 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_957","title":"Report: ''Arkansas Compensatory Education Annual Evaluation Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1992"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Arkansas Compensatory Education Annual Evaluation Report,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/957"],"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":["500 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_884","title":"Reports: School building capacities, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/2010"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School buildings"],"dcterms_title":["Reports: School building capacities, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/884"],"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":["127 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_731","title":"Salary schedules","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":["1991/2005"],"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","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Salary schedules"],"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/731"],"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":["456 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 24, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend your approval of the following salaries for the 1990-91 school year for the senior administrators listed below: 1989-90 Salary 1990-91 Sal ary Difference % Amount Associate Superintendent $56,500 Estelle Matthis $59,890 +6% $3,390 Associate Superintendent James Jennings 58,500 59,890 +2.4% 1,390 Manager, Support Services Chip Jones 49,600 52,576 +6% 2,976 Asst. Superintendent Margaret Gremillion 50,000 53,000 +6% 3,000 Controller Mark Milhollen 50,539 53,000 +4.9% 2,461 Total $13,217SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON OCTOBER 24, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Sec'a 3 t? TO\nFROM: SUBJECT: October 24, 1991 Board of Directors OCT 2 3 1991 Office of Dssegregsiicn f ioiing Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools PERSONNEL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS Act 10 funds resulted in average salary increases of 13.37 percent for certified administrators and 14 percent for teachers, contrast, eight senior administrators received 4 percent. In Until such time as we complete a salary study to address and solve the many inequities I have already mentioned, I recommend that duty stipends manner: be provided to senior administrators in the following Estelle Matthis James Jennings Jim Ivey Angela Sewall Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Arma Hart Mark Milhollen $ 3,500 3,500 3,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500. I also recommend that educational stipends paid to other administrators be applicable to these employees' salary. These recommendations are effective for the 1991-92 school year. f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 RECEIVED Office of Desegregation Monitoring J UN 'i 5 1993 June 24, 1993 TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATOR PAY Now that the Board and virtually all other employee groups have agreed on contracts for the 1993-94 school year, it is necessary for the Board to make administrators. decisions concerning the District's In my opinion, the District must address the issue of recruiting and retaining talented managers. To that end, I suggesting that compensation for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources and School Support be set at $68,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. I am also suggesting that compensation for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator be set at $61,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. Further, I am advocating a 1.5% base salary increase for all 12- month administrators except those listed above. In addition, I suggest that all 12-month administrators be placed on a 250 day contract with paid vacation days credited according to years of experience as an administrator in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District at the time of the merger in 1987 as follows\ndays\n15+ years, 25 days. 0-7 years, 15 days\n8-14 years, 20 For all administrators whose contracts are less than 12-months, I suggest a 3% base salary increase. Finally, accumulate contract. am advocating that administrators be sick leave up allowed to If a contract is reduced. to the length of the individual's the accumulated sick leave cannot be greater than the length of the current contract. I It is my recommendation, following\ntherefore. that the Board adopt the A $68,000 annual salary for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources Support for FY 1993-94\nand Schoolr A $61,000 annual salary for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator. 1.5 base salary increase for administrators for FY 1993-94\nall 12-month A A 250 day contract for all 12-month administrators with paid vacation days based on experience in LRSD and PCSSD of 15 days for 0-7 years of service\n20 days for 8-14 years of service\nand 25 days for 15 or more years of service\nA 3% base salary increase for all administrators on a less than 12-month contract\nand The ability for administrators to accumulate sick leave up to the length of the individual's contract.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 24, 1993 Board of Directors 72201 C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools ADMINISTRATOR PAY Now that the Board and virtually all other employee groups have agreed on contracts for the 1993-94 school year, it is necessary for the Board to make administrators. decisions concerning the District's In my opinion, the District must address the issue of recruiting and retaining talented managers. To that end, I suggesting that compensation for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources and School Support be set at $68,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. I am also suggesting that compensation for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator be set at $61,000 for the -1993-94 fiscal year. Further, I am advocating a 1.5% base salary increase for all 12- month administrators except those listed above. In addition, I suggest that all 12-month administrators be placed on a 250 day contract with paid vacation days credited according to years of experience as an administrator in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District at the time of the merger in 1987 as follows: days\n15+ years, 25 days. 0-7 years, 15 days\n8-14 years, 20 For all administrators whose contracts are less than 12-months, I suggest a 3 base salary increase. Finally, accumulate contract. am sick advocating that administrators be leave up to the length of the allowed to individual's If a contract is reduced, the accumulated sick leave cannot be greater than the length of the current contract. I It is my recommendation, following: therefore. that the Board adopt the A $68,000 annual salary for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources Support for FY 1993-94\nand School A $61,000 annual salary for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator. 1.5 base salary increase for all administrators for FY 1993-94\n12-month A A 250 day contract for all 12-month administrators with paid vacation days based on experience in LRSD and PCSSD of 15 days for 0-7 years of service\n20 days for 8-14 years of service\nand 25 days for 15 or more years of service\nA 3% base salary increase for all administrators on a less than 12-month contract\nand The ability for administrators to accumulate sick leave up to the length of the individual's contract.LRSD 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Base Salary Number of Certified Positions Actual Average Salary Actual Average Step Increase Actual Average Salary Raise Average Total Increase (D-hE) Revised ^rage Salary (C+F) Impact on Budget (BxF) Total Cost to District (BxG) 16,000-21,000 21,001-26,000 26,001-31,000 31,001-36,000 36,001-41,000 41,001-56,000 56,001-61,000 61,001-76,000 76,001-81,000 81,001-86,000 TOTAL (J) 1993-94 Average Salary (A) The base salary will be used only for identifying employees within a certain salary range. (B) The number of positions column identifies the number of positions within that base salary range. (C) The actual average salary is an average salary for all the positions identified in column (B). (D) Actual average step increase is the averaged dollar amount received per position identified in column (B). (E) Actual average salary raise is the averaged dollar amount received for the \"across the board\" percentage raise per position identified in column (B). (F) Average total increase is the step increase plus the salary raise. This is the amount the district will pay \"over and above\" last year. (G) Revised (or adjusted) average salary is the average salary identified in column (C) plus the step increase, plus the salary raise. (H) The impact on the budget is the number of positions identified in column (B) times the average total increase, column (F). This is the additional amount the district will be paying during 1993-94 over what they paid in 1992-93 for the positions identified in column (B). (I) Total cost to district is the amount the district will pay for salaries of those positions identified in column (B) during 1993-94. (J) 1993-94 average salary is determined by dividing the total cost to district, column (I), by the number of positions, column (B),Exhibit 1-C Revised LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) BASE SALARY (1993-94 Schedule) (JI o 20,000-25,000 25,001-30,000 30,001-35,000 35,001-40,000 40,001-45,000 45,001-50,000 50,001-55,000 55,001-60,000 60,001-65,000 65,001-70,000 (B) NUMBER OF CERTIFIED POSITIONS 301.50 433.30 470.90 411.50 216.00 20.00 (C) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY 1992-93 21,320.10 .26,148.75 30,702.44 35,010.48 39,430.38 44,607.72 (D) ACTUAL AVERAGE STEP INCREASE 804.37 805.44 806.53 809.77 824.31 947.95 (E) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY RAISE 671.10 837.56 947.47 1,085.23 1,387.76 1,382.95 (F) AVERAGE TOTAL INCREASE (D^E) 1,475.47 1,643.00 1,754.00 1,895.00 2,212.07 2,330.90 (G) REVISED AVERAGE SALARY (C*F) 22,795.57 27,791.75 32.456.44 36,905.48 41,642.45 46,938.62 (H) IMPACT ON BUDGET (B*F) 444,854.21 711,911.90 825,958.60 779,792.50 477,807.12 46,618.00 (I) TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT (B*G) 6,872,864.36 12,042,165.28 15,283,737.60 15,186,605.02 8,994,769.20 938,772.40 TOTAL 1993-94 AVG SAL 1,853.20 32,008.91 3,286,942.33 59,318,913.85 Note: The base salary ranges in (A) are determined using the 1993-94 salary schedule\ntherefore, average salaries for the personnel shown in (C) for 1992-93 may fall below the ranges defined in (A) for 1993-94.^6^ Exhibit 1-C Revised LITTU: ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES UI o (A) BASE SALARY (1993-94 Schedule) 20,000-25,000 25,001-30,000 30,001-35,000 35,001-40,000 40,001-45,000 45,001-50,000 50,001-55,000 55,001-60,000 60,001-65,000 65,001-70,000 (B) NUMBER OF CERTIFIED POSITIONS 301.50 433.30 470.90 411.50 216.00 20.00 (C) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY 1992-93 21,320,10 .26,148.75 30,702.44 35,010.48 39,430.38 44,607.72 (D) ACTUAL AVERAGE STEP INCREASE 804.37 805.44 806.53 809.77 824.31 947.95 (E) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY RAISE 671.10 837.56 947.47 1,085.23 1,387.76 1,382.95 (F) AVERAGE TOTAL INCREASE (DtE) 1,475.47 1,643.00 1,754.00 1,895.00 2,212.07 2,330.90 (G) REVISED AVERAGE SALARY (C^F) 22,795.57 27,791.75 32,456.44 36,905.48 41,642.45 46,938.62 (H) IMPACT ON BUDGET (B-F) 444,854.21 711,911.90 825,958.60 779,792.50 477,807.12 46,618.00 (\u0026lt;) TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT (B-G) 6,872,864.36 12,042,165.28 15,283,737.60 15,186,605.02 8,994,769.20 938,772.40 TOTAL 1993-94 AVG SAL 1,853.20 32,008.91 3,286,942.33 59,318,913.85 Note: The base salary ranges in (A) are determined using the 1993-94 salary schedule\ntherefore, average salaries for the personnel shown in (C) for 1992-93 may fall below the ranges defined in (A) tor 1993-94.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 30, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: .Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: stelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Associate Superintendent Pay Rate Effective August 3, 1993, Dr. Henry Williams directed me to administratively assign Sterling Ingram to assume temporary responsibilities for the Desegregation offices. He is performing the responsibilities left vacant by the resignation of Marie Parker. By means of this memorandum. Sterling Ingram should be paid in accordance with Superintendent for Desegregation. the position of Associate Dr. Williams has approved the increased rate of pay for Sterling Ingram. /bjf cc: Mark MilhollenLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 25, 1994 TO: FROM: Bob Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring ark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services SUBJECT: Information Request Per your telephone request concerning a special sorting of data included in the Districts salary object codes, I submit the attached schedule which includes changes filed in the May 18, 1994, Court submission (under the categories designated by you). Please contact me if additional information is needed. MDM:ca AttachmentLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Object Actual 1992/93 Budget 1993/94 Budget 1994/95 INSTRUCTION iio 117 120 124 _______130 140 Total Instruction I 349,686,191,29 | I $166,548.53 I $7,987,966.23 | $52,365.03 I $195,978.02 I $1,076.76 I $54,683,609.33 | $191,735.00 I $7,468J 71.67 I $0.00 ! I $53,090,125.36 | $0.00 $62,343,516.00 $52,736,456.32 $163,614.11 $3,199,755.04 _________$0.00 _________$0.00 _________$0.00 $61,099,825.47 -3,5% INSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 110 115 117 120 124 130 135 140 145 Total Inst Admin I I $3,201,426.21 I $5,386.52 I $157,451.13 I $2,383,373.10 | $17,122.71 I $1,167,653.99 ' $175,747.31 $7,108,161.47 $3,157,753.52 | I $114,150.31 I $2,317,952.67 | I $1,226,321.00 I I $185,264.20 I $0.00 1 $7,001,446.70 I $3,455,670.47 $128,183.00 $2,471,351.29 $60,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $200,000.00 $7,715,204.76 SUPPORT SERVICES 0110 0117 0120 0121 _______0140 Total Sup Sen/ $11,967.73 $2,650.00 $5,297,373.66 $1,167,691.67 I $234,152.52 j $6,713,840.53 I $0.00 $5,176,657.28 | $1,136,945.28 I $231,580.25 i $6,545 J 82.31 I $0.00 $5,576,194.79 $1,089,626.75 $200,000.00 $6,365,821.54 ^gRSQTQTAL I- $71,912,127.91 I $7S,mi45.ST | $75.S80.85T.77~j9 1/4 MOS. -95-96 000001 1 20262 000002 21316 000003 22369 000004 000005 000006 23443 24537 25652 2 21072 22126 23180 24254 25348 26462 3 21883 22937 23990 25064 26158 27273 4 22693 23747 24801 25875 26969 28083 5 23504 24558 25611 26685 27779 28894 6 24314 25368 26422 27496 28590 29704 7 25125 26179 27232 28306 29400 39515 8 25935 26989 28043 29117 30211 31325 9 26746 27799 28853 29927 31021 32136 10 27556 26610 29664 30737 31832 32946 11 28367 29420 30474 31548 32642 33757 12 29177 30231 31285 32358 33453 34567 13 29388 31041 32095 33169 34263 35377 14 30798 31852 32905 33979 35074 36188 15 31609 32662 33716 34790 35884 36998 16 32419 33473 34526 35600 36694 37809 17 35337 36411 37505 38619 18 37221 38315 39430 19 39126 40240 20 41051 7 '010*744 IS*? WALKER LAW FIRM 'S33 P02 AUS OS 'S? John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Lw ] 723 BaO.WWAY Little Rock. Akkans.is 12206 Telephone (.501) 374-375$ FAX (501) 374-4I8\nJOHN W. %\u0026gt;LiLK ILILPH WASHINGTON ^URK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. f Fax August S, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Mr Richard Hurley Little Rock School District 810 W. xMarkham Little Rock, Arkansas Re: Little Rock School Dititrict Gentlemen\nUnder the Arkansas Freedom of Information xAct, would you please provide me the salary histoiy of Roy Wade, Cleo Collier, Jerome Farmer and James Moseby, and anuy other writings that reflect their pay. Please provide this information to me by Tuesday, August 13, 1997. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 1 ^mcerely. W. Walker rww\nlp cc. Ms. Ann Brown FRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK MfRSCHEL H. pmOAT, e-.a. ROBERT V. LICmT, P-A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W . MOOR 6 BYNQN M. eiBEMAN. JR-. P A. JOE 0. BCkU. PA. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAME3 BWTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERV. P.A. H.T. LAR2ELJC. OSCAR E. OAVlS. JR , P A. JAMES C. CLAR*. 4P-. P A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN OCWtY WATSON, P.A. FAUL B. BENHAM III. F A. larry W. BURKS.P.A. A. WYCKLIFP N13BET. JR.. F.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MER^OITh P. CATLETT, F A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P A. 9M\u0026lt;PHCRO rubsell HI. P.A DONALD H- BACON. P A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. Paulson ii. p.a. BARRY e. COPLIN, P A. RICHARD D. TAVLOR. P-A. JOSEPH B. HORST. JR.. P.A. (LIZABETH J. ROBBEN. F.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, F.A. ROBERT 8. SHAPER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIPPIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P-A. Michael 5- moore. OlANt $. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A ?AATNERSHI\u0026lt;\u0026gt; OF INOIVlOUAUS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW KEVIN A, CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. waOOELL, JR.. P A. CLYOE 'TAO* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN 4 Mill, R.A. 2000 first commercial building 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 T6LSPH0NE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 August 24, 1994 /I ? 2B 'sg/i SUPrsoFFICt SCO J. i,ANCA8TCR. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P A. M. OAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT B, REACH. JR.. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C baker, JR.. P A. H. CHARLES axnnwENO, jR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. tucker, f.A. JOHN CLATTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WAGE, P.a. PRICE C, CAROnER J. MICHAEL PlCAENB TONIA P. JONCS DAVID D. WILSON H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNtn JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAP CARLA 0. SPAINHOUn JOHN C. PENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX PRAM C. HICKMAN OliTTY J, OCMORV SqWNNib WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P A  .s. Clark WII I I. .M . TERRY wHtiAM L. Catton, jr.. p RtTEA' *\u0026lt;A. (SOU 370.1606 ^fce/veo Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Dr. williams\nI have noted that the board intends to consider a proposal to use any revenues in excess, of those budgeted to provide stipends to senior teachers and support personnel who did not receive a step increase. I am concerned about the proposal for several reasons which I will discuss below. Jerry Malone will be present at the board meeting tomorrow night to discuss the proposal with you and the board. My first concern is for the integrity of the bargaining process. After long and sometimes difficult negotiations, the board has approved and the Class Room Teachers Association has ratified an agreement between the parties. I know of no precedent for an effort to reopen or change the agreement at this point. I am also concerned that the use of excess revenues to pay stipends would not be favored by the district court. The court has expressed its concern that the district continues to fund recurring expenses with non-recurring revenues. The district must also make plans to replace the diminishing settlement funds and should have a contingency plan to repay the settlement loan. It would be difficult to justify to the court the payment of stipends in the face of our long term budget problems. 20d too ** NOIlWiS 30IAd3S ailWISOVJ ** 19517 Sgl 60 SS ! Z0 0  80 17661Jerry Malone will be prepared to discuss these and other concerns about the stipend proposal, like to discuss the matter further. Please call me if you would Yours truly, er Heller CJH/k J lOd too ** NOIiViS 30IAd3S 3HWIS0VJ ** Z9Gt C2l GO 55:10 oc-ao-teGiJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received ^U6 2 0 1997 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. office Or DESEGREGMlOfl MONIIOWIW via Facsimile 371-0100 August 18, 1997 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find the salary histories of four black employees of the Little Rock School District. Please look at this matter and you will see how the District finds money whenever it wants. I further believe that the District rewards those who seek to regress the legitimate intervention of the Joshua Intervenors. The stipend policy gives Mr. Millhollen, Dr. Hurley and Mr. Gadberry huge opportunity to manipulate pay of employees and it also shows how the budget itself can be manipulated. I believe that a budget hearing is in order and request that you advise the Court of same. \" ' '  matter if you seek our input. We can shed more light on this Clearly budget manipulation affects the District's ability to met its desegregation plan obligations. Please let me hear from you. Walker JWW:js Enclosure Cleophis Collier salary history Hired revised Grade - step 8/24/87 1-2 asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1-3 11-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 tchr-2-7 tchr-2-8 tchr-4-9 admcer-2-7 admcer-2-8 Cleophis Collier Months-days 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 10.5months-210 10.5months-210 Salary Stipends(total) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 16,234.00 17,702.00 18,555.00 19,200.00 21,075.00 24,311.00 25,180.00 26,739.00 29,872.00 36,222.00 37,288.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,510.00 5,510.00 5,642.00 5,642.00 5,839.00 5,388.00 6,019.00 6,206.00 6,206.00 1,840.00 1,840.00 Page 1 4 .Hired Grade - step 8/27/74 1-0 revised revised revised 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1-1 1-2 1-3 11-4 III-5 IV-5 IV-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-11 IV-12 IV-13 IV-14 IV-14 IV-16 IV-17 IV-18 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 admcer-2-15 Jerome Farmer salary history Jerome Fanner Months-days Salary 10months 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 $ 7,250.00 $ Stipends(total) $ 8,240.00 $ $ 8,692.00 $ $ 10,790.00 $ $ 11,571.00 $ $ 13,988.00 $ $ 15,766.00 $ $ 17,282.00 $ $ 19,861.00 $ $ 19,999.00 $ $ 21,603.00 $ $ 22,515.00 $ $ 23,453.00 $ $ 26,178.00 $ $ 27,488.00 $ $ 28,799.00 $ $ 31,248.00 $ $ 35,671.00 $ $ 37,960.00 $ $ 38,763.00 $ $ 39,054.00 $ $ 39,126.00 $ $ 44,752.00 $ 300.00 380.00 589.00 801.00 857.00 1,656.00 1,722.00 2,207.00 2,548.00 3,954.00 4,838.00 5,031.00 5,034.00 5,915.00 6,673.00 6,100.00 6,100.00 5,891.00 5,891.00 5,985.00 5,985.00 6,966.00 272.00 Page 1Hired Grade - step 8/21/73 1-0 revised revised asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-sr hi 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 11-7 11-8 11-9 11-10 IV-12 IV-13 35-2-7 36-2-8 36-2-9 36-2-10 36-2-11 36-2-12 admcer-2-13 admcer-2-14 admcer-2-15 admcer-2-16 admcer-3-17 Jimmy Mosby salary history Jimmy Mosby Months-days 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 10months-180 Salary $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 6,700.00 $ 7,468.00 $ 8,480.00 $ 8,938.00 $ 9,806.00 $ 10,471.00 $ 12,213.00 $ 13,809.00 $ 15,155.00 $ 17,561.00 19,827.00 $ 22,158.00 $ 23,079.00 $ 22,937.00 $ 29,072.00 $ 30,648.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 34,322.00 $ 38,999.00 $ 40,132.00 $ 42,371.00 $ 43,405.00 $ 44,718.00 $ 48,584.00 $ Stipsnds(total) 335.00 635.00 360.00 369.00 394.00 410.00 466.00 592.00 108.00 124.00 375.00 1,637.00 286.00 340.00 340.00 1,254.00 2,370.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 362.00 Page 1Hired 8/14/67 I-2 revised revised 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 Roy Wade salary history Roy Wade Grade - step Months-days Salary 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-5 1-7 1-8 11-9 11-10 11-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 ill-12 111-12 111-12 1111-14 IIII-14 1111-14 tch-5-15 tch-5-15 tch-5-17 tch-5-18 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 10months 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,958.00 6,716.00 6,901.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 8,280.00 8,982.00 admcer-3-20 11 mo-210 $10,346.00 $11,672.00 $12,234.00 $13,584.00 $15,442.00 $16,464.00 $18,677.00 $21,300.00 $22,108.00 $23,268.00 $23,643.00 $24,026.00 $27,645.00 $29,028.00 $30,340.00 $32,883.00 $37,496.00 $37,633.00 $38,763.00 $39,054.00 $39,126.00 $40,088.00 $40,088.00 $52,430.00 Page 1 Stipends(total) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,485.00 1,658.00 1,500.00 2,050.00 1,840.00 2,214.00 2,014.00 2,094.00 2,950.00 2,717.00 2,475.00 2,908.00 5,559.00 5,427.00 5,652.00 5,652.00 6,345.00 7,001.00 6,567.00 7,388.00 7,978.00 7,977.00 8,277.00 7,847.00 8,685.00 9,435.00 1,862.00oZZ John W. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received MJG 2 0 1997 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. OFFICE OF desegregation MONilORlNQ Via Facsimile 324-2146 August 18, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Don: This request is being made pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Would you please provide to me the following information by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday afternoon. a printout of all stipends paid to employees in the District for the past five years\n1. 2 . a copy of the District's stipend policy\nany written interpretations of the stipend policy made by any administrator or by the Board within the last five 3 . years\nand the salary history of all junior and senior high principals for the last five years. 4. Please explain how an uncertified administrator can be given a salary of $54,000 pursuant to your salary scale. Is this being done so as to reward Mr. Roy Wade for \"standing up\" to the class counsel for the Joshua Intervenors. I am also curious to know why Ms. Gayle Bradford is the highest paid senior high school principal in the District. advised that she has the least experience as a senior high administrator or principal of any high school principal now occupying that position. ?  ' - - I am and Ms. Again, it seems as if the Hall faculty Bradford's favorites who do not favor the desegregation plan are rewarded for their adversity to it. if I am wrong. Please correct me. Please let me hear from you.I. Sincerely, \u0026gt;3ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown 5013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM 992 P32/08 AUG IS 97 17:55 John vv. Walker, e.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telerhont (501) 374-3758 PAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR, Ms. Ann Brown Via Facsimile - August 18, 1997 371-0100 Desegregation Monitoring 201 Last Markham, Suite 5io Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find the employees of the Little Rock i this matter and Salary histories of four black , School District. T.u ... Will see how the District whenever it wants. '-ricr Please look at finds money I further believe that the to thJ The stipend policy gives Mr Mi 11 hnn of the Joshua Intervenors. Gadberry huge opXtu^i^v Millhollen, Dr. Hurley and Mr. also shows how the budget itself^can^b J^P}oy6es and it xtseir can be mamnniat-o/t itself can be manipulated. I believe that you advise the Court%f^same ^^We^c^ order and request that matter if you seek on? m ^^^ht on this affects thrniSric?\" aSuiv Obligations. ability to met its desegregation plan Please let me hear from you.  Walker JWW:js Enclosure5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 992 P03/O8 AUS 18 97 17:56 Cleophis Collier salary history Hired revised Grade - step 8/24/87 1-2 asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 I-3 II-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 tchr-2-7 tchr-2-8 tchr-4-9 adnncer-2-7 admcer-2-8 Cleophis Collier MonthsKJays Salary Stlpendsftotal) 9.25monlhs-192 $ 16.234.00 $ Salary 9.25months-192 $ 17,702.00 $ 9.2Snionths-192 $ 18.555.00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 19,200.00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 21,075.00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 24,311,00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 25,180.00 S 9.26rnonths-192 $ 26,739.00 S 9.25months-192 $ 29.872,00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 36,222,00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 37,288.00 $ 5,510.00 5,510.00 5.642.00 5,642.00 5,839.00 5.388.00 6,019.00 6,206.00 6,206.00 1,840.00 1,840.00 Page 1 45013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 59. PO4/0S AUG IS 97 17 b Hired Grade - 8/27/74 1-0 step revised revised revised 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 I-1 1-2 1-3 11-4 III-5 IV-6 !V-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-11 IV-12 IV-13 IV-14 IV-14 IV-16 IV-17 IV-18 1992-93 Tchr-5- i-19 1993-94 Tchr-5-19 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 admcer-2-15 Jerome Farmer salary history Jerome Farmer Months-days Salary Stipendsftotal) 7,250.00 S lOmonths Wmonths 10months lOmonths lOmonths Wmonths Wmonths Wmonths Wmonths lOmonths 9.25months Wmonths Wmonths lOmonths Wmonths Wmonths 9.25 mo-192 9.2S mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 $ $ $ 8,240.00 $ 8,692.00 S S 10,790.00 $ $ 11,571.00 $ $ 13.988.00 $ $ 15,766.00 $ $ 17,282.00 S $ 19,861.00 $ $ 19,999.00 $ $ 21,603.00 S $ 22,515.00 $ S 23.453.00 $ $ 26,178.00 S $ 27,488.00 $ S 28,799.00 S $ 31,248.00 $ $ 35,671,00 S S 37,960,00 S $ 38,763,00 $ S 39,054.00 $ $ 39,126,00 S S 44,752.00 $ 300.00 380.00 589.00 801.00 857.00 1,656.00 1,722.00 2,207.00 2,548.00 3,954.00 4,838.00 5,031.00 5,034.00 5,915,00 6,673.00 6,100.00 6,100.00 5,891.00 5,891.00 5,985.00 5,985.00 6,966.00 272.00 Page 1513137441S'? WALKER LAW FIRM 992 R05'0S AUG 13 '9' Hired Grade - 8/21/73 1-0 step revised revised asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 asst-jrhi 1988-89 asst-jrhi 1989-90 asst-jr hl asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1990-91 1991-92 I-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 11-7 11-8 11-9 11-10 IV-12 IV-13 35-2-7 36-2-8 36-2-9 36-2-10 36-2-11 36-2-12 1992-93 admcer-2-13 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 asst-srhi 1996-97 admc9r-2-14 admcer-2-15 admcer-2-18 admcer-3-17 Jimmy Mosby salary history Jimmy Mosby Months-days 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25month5 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months IOmonths-180 Salary Stlpends(total} 6,700.00 $ $ $ S s s 7,468.00 $ 8,480.00 $ 8,938.00 $ 9,806.00 $ S 10,471.00 $ S 12,213.00 $ $ 13,809.00 S $ 15,155.00 S $ 17,561.00 S 19,827.00 $ $ 22,158.00 $ $ 23,079.00 $ $ 22,937.00 S 335.00 635.00 360.00 369.00 394,00 410.00 466.00 592.00 108.00 10.5months-210 $ 29,072.00 $ 10.5month8-210 $ 30,648.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 31,500.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 34,322.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 38,999.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 40,132.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 42,371,00 $ 10.5mon(hs-210 $ 43,406,00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 44,718,00 5 10.5months-210 $ 48,584.00 $ 124.00 375.00 1,637.00 286.00 340.00 340.00 1,254.00 2,370.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 362.00 Page 15013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM qq- F06 '08 AUG IS  17: 5 Hired revised revised Roy Wade salary history Roy Wade Grade - step Months-day: 8/14/67 I-2 'S 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-5 1-7 1-8 11-9 11-10 II-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 111-12 III-12 111-12 IIII-14 1111-14 1111-14 tch-5-15 tch-5-15 tch-5-17 tch-5-18 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 admcer-3-\nlOmonths lOmonths 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths Wmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25 mo-192 9,25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9,25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 20 11 mo-210 Salary $tipends(total) $ 5,958.00 $ $ 6,716.00 $ $ 6,901.00 $ $ 7,210.00 $ $ 7,210.00 S $ 8,280.00 S $ 8,982.00 $ $10,346,00 $ $11,672,00 $ $12,234.00 $ $13,584.00 S $15,442.00 $ $16,464.00 $ $18,677.00 $ $21,300.00 $ $22,108.00 $ $23,268.00 S $23,643.00 $ $24,026.00 .5 $27,645.00 $ $29,028,00 $ $30,340.00 $ $32,883.00 $ $37,496.00 $ $37,633.00 $ $38,763.00 $ $39,054.00 $ $39,126.00 $ $40,088.00 $ $40,088.00 $ $52,430.00 $ 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,485.00 1,658.00 1,500.00 2,050.00 1,840.00 2,214.00 2,014.00 2,094.00 2,950.00 2,717.00 2,475.00 2,908.00 5,559.00 5,427.00 5,652.00 5,652.00 6,345.00 7,001.00 6,567.00 7,388.00 7,978.00 7,977.00 8,277.00 7,847.00 8,685.00 9,435.00 1,862.00 Pago 15013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM 932 PO7.-0S AUG 18 97 17 w. walker R.ALPH Washington UaRK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR .JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadw'ay Little Rock. .Arkansas 7'''C'6 Telephone (501) 374.3758 F.AX (501) 374.4187 Via Facsimile - August 18, 1997 324-2146 Dr. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Don\no In?oation^Jctf' pursuant to the information by 5\n00 Would you please Arkansas Freedom P.m. on Thursday following District fc^ employees past five years\nin the 2 . a copy of the District's stipend policy\n J , Written interpretation^^ i \" '\" made by any administrator or by the Board within thZlast years\nand of the stipend policy five 4. principals fcrX^aS\"!iw* years. senior high 1 am also . . ,------- curious to know why M\nsenior high school administrator ? least eSperi:^:: . Gayle Bradford is the principal in the District. occuDvinrf Th +-^ Principal of any high school position. Again, it seems as as a senior high principal now I am Bradford's favorites who do not rave plan are rewarded for their adversity to^T^ If I am wrong. if the Hall faculty not f^yor the desegregation *\"* Please correct me, Please let me hear from you.501374418? WALKER LAW FIRM y82 POS OS AUG IS 8? JWW\njs cc: Ms. Ann Brown Sincerely, /? SahTi W. Walkfir-\n.John w. Walker At,Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 11, 1997 Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear John: In organizing papers on my desk this morning, I discovered that I had neglected to respond to a fax you sent me on August 18, 1997. My failure to answer was wholly unintentional, and I apologize for my oversight. Your fax expressed concerns about the equity of stipends the LRSD has paid to certain of its employees. Attached were four pages listing the salary histories of four black males, who are employees of the LRSD. Also attached was a copy of your August 18, 1997 letter to Don Roberts, in which you asked for certain information about LRSD salaries and stipends. In your letter to me, you suggested that a budget hearing would be appropriate as a means for monitoring the LRSD. Monitoring the LRSD is not presently an option available to this office, nor has it been since the Court granted the districts motion for a moratorium on monitoring. However, as you requested, I will keep Judge Wright informed of your concerns. Sincerely yours, (^23^ Ann S. Brown'DK-15-97 MON 10:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 F.Ol S John w. Walker, p.a. Attornty At L.w 1723 Broadway Littls Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON X-URK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. VO December 12, 1997 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LR-C-32-S56 LRSD V PCSSD Dear Judge Wright\nEnclosed please find the job postings by the Little Rock School District for four positions: Associate Superintendents for Desegregation, Support Services and Instruction and Director of Planning, Research and Development, I am writing to request that you allow the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to review and study the impact of the salary structure set forth in the postings, i.e. $70-90,000.00 plus car allowance and benefits with one position being open ended defined as negotiable. We have, previously had extensive budget hearings, no budget that allows payment of $100,000.00 or more including benefits to any group of employees. I believe that allowing the District to make these changes without court approval will have a tendency to have an adverse impact upon the ability of the District to meet, not only its desegregation obligations, but its other obligations as well. The effect will be magnified because the concept of equal pay will mean that scores of administrators There is may be able to make legitimate cla Thi level. s for upward pay adjustments, will include principals and other persons at the Director o  o Dr. Leslie Carnine, the new superintendent, may not be aware of the budget concerns of the Court or the history of pay to administrators in the District.  The Court is reminded that there has been no showing of a dearth of qualified applicants for administrative positions and thus, that huge payment is required to attract necessary staff. The salaries are grossly out of line for this district in comparison to other districts in the State except the possibility of the Pulaski County Special school District where we have raised similar concerns regarding pay inflation for administrators, many of who.m are unnecessary. Dr. Carmine's principal advisor appears to be Mr. BradyDEC-15-97 MON 10:39 SUSAN K WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 Page. 2 - Letter to Juge Wright December 12, 1997 Gadberry who has expressed chagrin at being paid less money than Dr. Richard Hurley, the Personnel Director. 'Y' ou will recall that Dr. Henry Williams brought Dr. Hurley aboard and paid him far more than anybody else without adherence to the salary schedule in existence. That put him ahead of his supervisor, Mr,. Gadberry. By allowing advertisement at these ranges of pay, a number of people like Mr. Gadberry will be able to make claims for pay adjustments. This, in turn, will generate, I believe, more contention from the teachers and the grossly unpaid services workers, most of whom are black. Because of the broad implications and the possible far reaching effect of the pay initiatives, I respectfully request that you allow ODM to review this matter and to make a prompt report to the Court before the February 1, 1998 deadline. WWaayy II remind the Court that such increases also will necessarily result in substantial budget adjustments for ODM staff, if the concept of comparability to administrative positions in the LRSD is carried forward and if the Court ends jurisdiction any time soon. For those monitors will be entitled to Associate Superintendent level pay as well. This is not a anttii--Drr.. CGaarmniinnee lleetttteerr.. I expect that the teachers organization will express grave reservations regarding the source of additional revenues having been told that the District is on the verge of being broke in the recent negotiations. Thank you for your attention to this request. JVW\nj s CC ! Dr. Leslie Carnine Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brov/n DEC-15-97 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISITUCT 810 WESTMARKHAM STREET ' LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST December 9, 1997 .n?? The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION: Associate Superintendent for Instruction QUALIFICATIONS\n1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Successful experience, in an urban setting, as a principal and/or administrator with instructional program implementation responsibilities. 5. Evidence of successfill experience with parent and staff involvement in decision making. 6. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW, REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Staff as may be designated by the Superintendent JOB GOAL: To assist the Superintendent in the task of providing leadership, support, and direction in the area of instruction by providing building principals with a vehicle to more effectively utilize the division of instruction to improve teaching and learning.DEC-15-97 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQLTRY TO\nDr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE. BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTHRXTEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or emplojment practices.DEC-15-97 HON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST V  f December 9. 1997 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION: Associate Superintendent for Desegregation QUALICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (S) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Successful experience as an administrator in a multi-cultural setting or urban setting. 5. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality and equity in student learning and school organization. 6. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 7. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision-making and communication. 8. Demonstrated knowledge of how to apply the concept of high expectations to school organizational patterns. 9, Extensive experience in organizing staff development programs with a focus on Effective Schools research. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO\nSuperintendent of SchoolsDEC-15-97 MON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 APPLICATION DEADLINE: February 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable NOTE: All interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for the position. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer, Equity concerns may be addressed to the Superintendent of Schools. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.DEC-15-97 MON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLEROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST- December 9, 1997 The Little Rock School District is now 1997-98 school year: accepting applications for the following position for the ... POSITION: Director - Planning, Research and Evaluation QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Experience in research, testing, and program evaluation, 5. Evidence of successfol experience in developing and implementing monitoring and evaluation of educational programs. 6. A commitment to parent and staff involvement in decision making. 7. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 8. Ability to administer programs and supervise professional staff. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Planning and Evaluation Specialists and assigned clerical and secretarial support personnel assigned to the department.1 DEC-1'5-97 NON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 08 APPLICATION DEADLINE\nFebruary 1, 1998 - stalling date negotiable SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock Schoo! District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: All interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for this position. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with the provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDU.AL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.DEC-15-97 MON 10:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 09 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 December 9, 1997 PLEASE POST  accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION\nAssociate Superintendent for Support Services QU.ALIFICATIONS\n1. 2. 3. Minimum of a Masters Degree. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. In-depth knowledge and experience with financial, budgeting, computer, and data processing systems and applications are essential. Evidence, through positive past accomplishments, js required to demonstrate the high level of analytical, problem- solving, and decision'tnaking skillsneeded for this position. 5. A strong commitment to quality desegregated public education must be shown along with a full understanding of the relationships required between student, staff, and administration to be a highly motivated, successful school district.  parent, 6. Demonstrated ability to effectively communicate, both orally and in writing is essential. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE Qualifications in the initial screening interview. REPORTS TO\nSuperintendent of SchoolsDEC-15-97 MON 10:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 10 5. Serves as chief financial and support services advisory to Superintendent and liaison with all professional staff, students, and the financial and support services serves as community on matters relating to SALARY AND TERMS\n$70,000 - $90,000 - commensurate with experience, plus berxefits package. month position, plus car allowance. a twelve (12) EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board s policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE\n.February 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable be considered for this position. SEND VTUTTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO. Dr. Richard E, Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: ^IVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A \\^RY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS, THEREruKt l AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARTT v ktc am that an interview will be CONDUCTED ^^^SSARILY MEAN THEREFORE, BECAUSE The Little Rock School District is addressed ,o ,he Associate SuperinSm *\" It is the policy of the Little Rock School District practices. I'  .. , .-------------------f'Ot to discriminate on the basis of aae sex, racr* disability in its educational programs, activities or employment  f' 'keyOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 January 15, 1998 Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear John\nJudge Wright has asked me to acknowledge that she has received your letter dated December 12, 1997. In that correspondence, which was copied to me. Les Camine, and Chris Heller, you raised concerns about recent LRSD job postings for four associate superintendent positions that listed a salary' structure of 570-90,000 plus benefits. You requested that ODM be allowed to review the potential effect of the salaries and report to the Court before February 1, 1998. Judge Wright and 1 have discussed your request. However, as you are aware, the LRSD is presently under a moratorium that has suspended ODMs monitoring of the district. Therefore, I will not be able to investigate and report on the matter of the salaries posted for the associate superintendents. Because you are troubled by the high salaries that have been proposed. 1 trust that you, Les, and Chris will discuss the matter in the spirit of openness and cooperation that we all seek in our working relationships with one another. Sincerely yours, in S. Brown cc: Susan Webber Wright Les Camine Chris Heller ROACH ELL LAW FIRM Attorneys at Law 504 Lyon Building 40 I West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. Arkansas 7220 1 Richard W. Roachell Travis N Creed. Jr. Janelle S . Evyan telephone (50 I ) 375-5550 FACSIMILE (50 I ) 375-6 I 86 Honorable Susan We] United States Di :ct Judge\nr Wright 600 West itol Avenue Linle (ck, Arkansas 72201 Re: January 19, 1998 RECSSViO JAN 2 1 1SS3 OFFICE OF OESEGREGATIOH MONITORING Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special SchooiDistrict, etal. United States District Court No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright\nOn behalf of the Knight, et al. Intervenors, I have been authorized to write to you concerning Mr. Walkers letter dated December 12, 1997. The Knight, et al. Intervenors are wholly in agreement with Mr. Walkers arguments that posted job openings by the Little Rock School District for the four positions cited are grossly out of line for this district and that the consequences, both long term and short term, of filling such positions at such salaries and benefits would impair the Districts desegregation obligations in ways that should be studied carefully by ODM. Sincerely yours, ROACHELL LAW FIRM Richard W. Roachell RWR:ajm cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Timothy Gauger Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Sam Jones Mr. John Walker Mr. Stephen Jones AC.P Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT JUL 2 1 1998 July 17, 1998 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATiONMONITOfiING Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re\nRevised Desegregation and Education Plan Section 2/3 2.2.3 Dear Ms. Brown: We have extended the current administrative pay system by two new levels. Levels 7 and 8 have been added to the current structure for the purpose of placing the newly appointed assistant superintendents and associate superintendents. As has been previously noted, the changes and promotions will not require additional funds for district leadership positions. We have and will continue to look for opportunities to consolidate administrative and staff positions. Please understand that the rationale will be to look for opportunities that will increase services to children and teachers rather than compromise a service function. We further have indicated to the individuals promoted and to the Board of Directors that we believe the total salary plan should be independently reviewed for adequacy and equity. We anticipate contracting for that service and are optimistic that a report and recommendations will be forthcoming during November 1998. Further, we believe that by the conclusion of the 1998-99 academic year that we will have accomplished the goal v/hich was established by the revised desegregation and education plan. Respectfully. cesliffi V. Camine Superintendent of Schools Attachment: Administrative Salary Plan \u0026amp; Placements cc: Board of Directors Mr. Chris Heller 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 received From the desk of. . .  Leslie V. Carnine JUL 2 1 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LEVEL 8 - ASSOCIATES Vic Anderson* Junious Babbs Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell 14 12 20 8 LEVEL 7 - ASSISTANTS OR EQUIVALENTS Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Kathy Lease* 10 17 16 Doctorate degreesreceived JUL 2 1 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ADMC12 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ,1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17622 18838 20054 21270 22486 23702 24918 26133 27349 28565 29781 30997 32213 33429 34645 35861 37077 38293 39509 40724 34010 35226 36442 37658 38874 40090 41306 42522 43738 44954 46170 47386 48601 49817 51033 52249 53465 54681 55897 57113 35949 37165 38381 39597 40813 42028 43244 44460 45676 46892 48108 49324 50540 51756 52972 54188 55404 56619 57835 59051 38064 39279 40495 41711 42927 44143 45359 46575 47791 49007 50223 51439 52655 53870 55086 56302 57518 58734 59950 61166 41059 42275 43491 44707 45923 47139 48355 49571 50787 52003 53218 54434 55650 56866 58082 59298 60514 61730 62946 64162 45465 46681 47897 49113 50328 51544 52760 53976 55192 56408 57624 58840 60056 61272 62488 63704 64919 66135 67351 68567 53888 55104 56320 57536 58752 59968 61184 62400 63615 64831 66047 67263 68479 69695 70911 72127 73343 74559 75775 76991. 63897 65113 66329 67545 68761 69977 71193 72409 73625 74?41 76057 77272 78488 79704 80920 82136 83352 84568 85784 87000Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 August 7, 1998 Dr. Les Carnine Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thanks for your recent letter informing me about some of the changes youve made in the LRSDs administrative pay levels. The letter arrived July 21, which was just after Id left for a two-week trip to tend to ill family members. Im presently processing the mail that accumulated while I was out of state, so please forgive my delay in responding to you. It may be helpful for you to know that the Court has a history of intense concern about how the LRSD constructs and manages its budgets, because of the relationship between finances, district operations, and desegregation goals. For example, the Court has been concerned about such past district practices as: funding long-term commitments (such as salaries) with one-time or short-term monies, failure to clearly align each annual budget with the districts educational and desegregation commitments\nbasing new budgets on the previous budget instead of actual expenditures (known as budgeting on budget\")\ntop-down rather than bottom-up budgeting (top-down budgeting sets numbers at the summary level and then forces the detail figures to fit those totals)\nfailure to link planning and evaluation activities to drive budget decisions\nand failure to use written business cases (or a similar process) as a decision-making tool to define and support all manner of decisions, including salary increases, adding or deleting positions and programs, and so on. Im not sure I understand how the information in your letter and its attachments fits into the districts approach to fulfilling its Plan commitment (2.2.3) to establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, provide compensation in accordance with qualifications, and minimize complaints of favoritism. I note that you chose to set the salaries of top administrators before establishing the uniform salary schedule for all positions in the district, which sounds like the carts before the horse and also could be construed as a form of favoritism. I also note that youve chosen to establish the salaries of top administrators before concluding contract and salary negotiations with the union, a timing decision that could bolster the unions leverage position..August 7, 1998 Page Two I'm not questioning your right to make decisions about salaries or timing. Rather Im concerned about the districts overall financial management practices. I would be remiss if 1 didnt emphasize that the Court has paid considerable attention to budget management over the years and has frequently admonished the LRSD about the need for a budget planning and management system that will enable the district to make careful financial decisions, effectively manage its multimillion dollar business, and reach its desegregation goals. I would be happy to discuss with you any aspect of the districts budgeting history, including the role of the Budget Specialist the Court appointed for the district in 1993. .Although ni be closely monitoring the districts budget development and management process and will need further information later on, right now Id appreciate a copy of your administrative organizational chart that includes the names of each individual administrator. Id also like the job description for each position so I understand who is responsible for what. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, I ' I -Ann S. Brown ///AC.9 1/4 MOS. (192) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 'teachers 2000-01 4.25% 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 '3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 '24,118\" 25\n372' 26^26 29,207 30,533 2 25^83 2\u0026amp;.iZl 21.5^} 28'869 \"30,17f 31,498 3 '26,047 27,302 28.556 29^834 '31,136 32,463 9J/2 MOS. (1^) _ _1 '24,746 26,033 2^ 3 26,726 28,013 27y:^0^ 28310 _^9^99 28,631 29,621 29,968 30^^ 31,329 32,318 30,611 31,947' 33^308 10 MOS. (207) 1 _ 26,002 2 27,042 27,354 28^9 28706 30,085 3'1,489 '32,919 29. 2ii21 32\n529' 33,959 3_ 28,082 30,787 _4 27.012 28766 20.020 30,799 32j01 33,428 _4___ 27,716 29,002 30,289 31,60i 32,937 34,298 4 29,12'2 30^475 3\u0026lt;827  32,'165 33,205 33,569 '3\u0026lt;999 34,609 36,039 jb'lM MOS. (212)_______ _ 1 _ 26,630 28,015 29^00 30,811 _5 _ 21.Qn 29,23\u0026lt; 30',405 31,763 33,066 34,392 J_ 28,705' 29,992 ?L279 32,591 33,927 35,288 5 30,163 31,515' 32,867 34,245 35,649 37,079 6 __ 2^42 30J9'6 3'1,450 32j2Q 34,031 35,357 7 29,906' 31,160 33,693 34,995 36,322 8 30.871 32.125 33.379 3'4658 35.960 37.286 9 31,836 33.090 34,344 36,925 38,251 10 32,800 '34,055' 35,309 36,587 37^889' 39,216 11_ 33,765 35,019 i7,^2 '38,854 40,181 12 34,730 35,984 37,238 '38,516 13 35,695 36,94^ 38,20^ 39,481 39^819 40784' 41,145 42,110 14 ^659 39,168' 40,446 41748 43,075 15 37,624 38,878 40.132 41.411 42.713 44.039 16 38,589 39,843 41,097 42\n375 '43,678 45,004 17 43,340 18 44.305 '44,642 45,607 45,969 46,934 19 46.5^ 1 47,898 20 48,863 6 29,69^' 30,982 32,269 ' 33,580 ' 34,917 ' 36,278 ' 1 30,685 31,972 33,259 34,570 '35,907 37,268 8 31,675 32,962 34,249 35,560 36,896 38,257 9 32.665 33.952 35.238 36.550 37.886 39.247 10 33,655 34,941 36,228 37,540 38,876 40,237 11 34,645 35,931 12 35,634 36,921 37,218 38,M8 38,530 39,866 Ti,227 39,519 40,856 13 36,624 37,911 39,198 40,509 41,846 42,217 43,207 14 37,614 38,901 40,188 41,499 42,835 44,196 15 38,604 39,891 41,177 42,489 43,825 45,186 16 39,594 40,881 42,167 43,479 44,815 46,176 17 18 19 20 43,157 44,469 45,805 47,166 45,459 46,795 '48,156 47,785 49,146 50,136 6 31,203 32,555 33,907 35,285 36,689 38,119 7___ 32,243 33,595 34,947 36'325 37,12Q 39,159 8 33,283 34,635 35,987 37'365 38,769 40,199 9 34,323 35,675 37,027 38,405 39,809 41,240 10 35,363 11 36,403 12 37,443 38.795 36,715' 37,755 39,107 40,147 _13__ 38,483 39,835 14 39,523 40,875 39,445 40,849 42,280 40^485 41,526 42,566 41,188 42,228 41,890 43,320 42,930 44\u0026gt;60 43,970 45,400 43,606 45,010 46,440 15 40,563 41,916 43,268 44,646 '46,050 47,480 16 41,604 42,956 44,308 45,686 r 47,090  4X520 17 18 19 20 45,348 46,726 48,130 49?56Q 47,766 49J70 50600 50,210 51,640 52,681 20 19 18 17 16 42,608 43,993 15 41,543 42,928 14 40,478 41,863 43748 44,659 13 39.413 40798 '42,182 12 38,348 39J32 41 jl7 11 3X667 _ 40^52 42,901 44,366 10 36,217 37,602 38,987 40,398 41,836 9 35,152 36,537 i 37,922 r 39,333 I '40,771 _8___ ^,08^7 35\n472 36,856 38,268 39.706 1 33,022' 34,406 6 31.956 33.341 5 3O^89 'Z2.27Q 4 __ '29,826 3l',211 3 2 27,696 29\nOM\" '36?465' '31,876' 28,761 30746 3i?530 32'942 32.595 33.661 '34,726 35.791 44,313 45^378 46,443 47,855 49,293 50,757 46,789 48,227 49,692 48.920 45724 42,529 '43^594 ____________ 45.252_ ^6,097 47,162 50,358 51,423 51,823 52,888 37,203 '38,641 36.137 L35:2.72 36,510 34.007 ' 4X967 r 45,431 53.953 33,315 \" 34,380 3X7~14~ 34,779 Ct: ' 5' 32.249 6 35.445 37.575 '35^844' 36^910137,975 I 39,040~| 40,105 | 41,170 42,236 '43,301 Teachers at the top of the schedule who do not receive step increases are paid an additional $1,500. 46,496 47.562 '48,627101/2 MOS. (217__21_. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TEACHERS 2000-01 4.25% 1 2 3 4 5 6 1_ 2\u0026lt;258 28,676 30,093 ^1.8^ 33,610 34,509 2 '28,349 29J66' 32^628 34,100 35,599 3 \"29,439 30'856 '32,274 _33,7f9 35,i'9l' 4 30,529 31,947 5 3\u0026lt;626 33,037 6 33\n364  34,455 .^1809 36,281 36,690 37,780 10 3/4 MOS. (222) 35,899 37,371 38,870 32.710 34J27 35,545 36,990 38,462 39,961 7 33,800 35,218 3X635 38,080 39,552 41,051 8 34,891 36.308 'i7J2\u0026amp; 39,170 40,642 42,141 9 35.981 37,398 38^816 40,261 41,733 43,232 10 3X071 3X489 3X906 41,351 42,823 44,322 11 38,162 39,579 40,997 42,441 43,913 45,412 12 39,252 40'669 43,532 45,004 46,503 1^ 40,342 41,760' 43,177 44,622 46,094 47,593 14 41,433 42?850' 45,712 '47,184 48,683 15 42,523 43,940 45,358 46,803 48,275 49,774 16 42.613 46.448 47.893 49.365 50,864 17 18 19 20 47,539 4X983 50,455 51,954 50,074 51,546 53,045 52,636 54,135 55,225 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 27,886 29,337 32,265 33776 2_ 29,00J 30^52 3L992 33,380 34^886 35.304_ 36j1?2  Yi Mos.l^f 1 2 3 4 L_ 28.515 29,997' 3\u0026lt;480 '32,991 5 34?531 6 36,099 _ 2___ 29,655 32'621 34,132 35,672 1 2 3 4 5' 6' 3 30. UL 3r^'^ 33:0JJ 34,496 36,001 37,535 4 31,233 32,683 34,133 35,61\u0026lt; 37,117 ___ 32,348 33,798 35,248 36,726 38,232 M,651_ 39,766 6 33,464 34,914 36364 37,842 39,348 40,882 7 34,579 36,029 37,479 38,957 40,463 41,997 8 35,695 37,145 38,595 40,073 41,579 43,112 9 36,810 38,260 39,710 41 j 88 42,694 44,228 10 37,926 39,376 40,826 42,304 43,810 45,343 11 39.041 40.491 4 \u0026lt;941 12 40,156 41,607 43,057 43,419 44,535 44,925 46,459 46,041 47,574 13 41,272 42,722 44,172 45,650 47,156 48,690 14 42,387 43,837 45,288 46,766 48,271 49,805 15 43,503' 44,953 46,403 47,881 49,387 50,921 16 44,618 46,068 47,518 48,996 50,502 52,036 17 18 19 20 48,634 50,112 51,618 53,152 51,227 52,733 54,267 53,849 55,382 56,498 30,796 3X278 33,761 25,272 36,812 12 MOS. (247) _1 3T0'27 32640 34,254 2 32^268 33,881\" '35^4'95' 3 33'509 35 J 22 36,736 35,898 '37,139 38,380 __4 __ ?l:036 33,4'19 \"34,902 36413 \"37,953 39,521 5 33,077 34,560 3'6,042 37.554 39.093 1O\n662 6 34,217 35,700 37,183 38,694 40,234 41,802 7 35,358 36,841 38^324 39,835 41,375 42,943' 8 36.499 37,981 '39,464 40,975 42,515 44,083 9 37,639 39,122 40,605 42,116 43,656 45,224 JO__ 38,780 40,262 41,745 4X257 44,796 46,365 11__ 39,920 42,886 12 41,061 42,544 44,026 44,397 45,538 45,937 47,505 47,077 48,646 13 '42,201 43,684 45,167 46,678 '48,218 49,786 14 43,342 44,825 46,308 47,819 49,359 50,927 15 44,483 45,965 47,448 48,959 50,499 52,068 16 45,623 47,106 48,589' 50,100' 51,640 53,208 17 18 19 20 4 5 34,750 35,'991 36,363 37,977 39,621 37,604 6 38,846 39^18 40,459 37,'573 \"38815 ' 40,056 4\u0026lt;297 39,280 '40,521  41,762 43,003 40,862 42,538 44,2'4'4 42,103 A2,77Q 45,485 7 38,473 \"40,087 41,700 43,344 45,020 46,726 8 39,714 JL328 42,941 44,586 46,261 47,987 9 40,955 42?569 44,182 10 42,19'6 43,810 45,423 11 43,438 45,051' 46,664 12 13 44,679 45,920 45,827 47,068^ 48,309 47,502 49,209 48,743 60,450 49,984 51,691' 46,292 47,905 49550 51,225 52,932 47,533 49,146 50,791 52,466 54,173 14 47,1'61 4X774 50,388 52,032 53,707 55,414 15 48,402 _50,qi5 5\u0026lt;629' 52,272 54,948 56,655 16 49,643 51,256 52,870 54,514 56,190 57,896 Teachers al Ihe lop of Ihe schedule who do nol receive step increases are paid an additional $1,500. 49,729 51,241 52,780 54,349 52,381 53^921 55,489 55,062 56,630 57J7Q 17 18 19 20 54,111 55,755 57,431 59,137 56,996 58,672 60,378 59,913 61,610 62,860appendix B SUPPLEMENTARY PAY SCHEDULE 2000-01 ( ATHLETICS amount I Senior High: Head Football Coach Asst. Head Football Coach Asst. Football Coach Off-Season Football Coach Asst. Off-Season Football Coach Head Basketball Coach Asst. Head Basketball Coach Head Track Coach Asst. Head Track Coach Asst. Track Coach Cross Country Coach Volleyball Coach Softball and Baseball Coach Gynmastics Coach Golf Coach (Boys or Girls) Tennis Coach (Boys or Girls Sponsor - Cheerleader, Drill Team, Pep Club Asst. Gymnastics Coach Asst. Volleyball Coach Soccer Coach Pre-Season Football Middle School: Head Football Coach Asst. Head Football Coach Head Basketball Coach Asst. Basketball Coach Head Track Coach Asst. Track Coach Volleyball Coach Gymnastics Coach Golf Coach (Boys or Girls) Tennis Coach (Boys or Girls) Sponsor - Cheerleader, Drill Team, Dance Team, Pep Club Asst. Gymnastics Coach Asst. Volleyball Coach Soccer Coach Pre-Season Football MUSIC Senior High\nBand Director Asst. Band Director Middle School: Band Director Orchestra Director 3,740 2,031 1,710 1,282 962 3,740 1,390 1,817 1,496 1,390 535 1,390 1,817 1,603 460 460 1.817 612 1,176 1,390 per diem pay 1,390 641 1,390 641 1,390 641 1,176 1,226 460 460 962 612 481 1,176 per diem pay 2,672 1,870 1,870 1,069appendix B SUPPLEMENTARY PAY SCHEDULE 2000-01 ( JOURNALISM Senior High Middle School (Yearbook) Middle School (Newspaper) 1,977 1,069 535 1 DRAMA Senior High: Play Director (one play) Play Director (two plays) OTHER Senior High \u0026amp; Middle School: Department Coordinator Extra Duty - Before and After School Extra Duty - During School Hours ELEMENTARY Volunteer lunch and/or playground (30 minutes) The stipend will increase the same percentage as the base salary increases each year. 908 1,817 908 2,084 2,084 1,335I PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION 2000 - 2001 Article 9, Section L, of the PN Agreement states that Teachers requested (by principal or Central Office administrator) to provide professional services on a day not specified in Article Vn as a workday shall be compensated for the time spent in performmg those services according to the following schedule\nHours per Calendar Day 2 to 6 hours more than six hours Compensation .25 percent of base salary ($60.30) .50 percent of base salary ($120.60) are This provision does not apply to teachers who paid a stipend for extra duty, to services performed outside the minimum schedule hours of work on a workday specified in Article VII, nor to the State Department requirements for job performance. SUBSTITUTE PERIOD PAY Article 31, Section D slates, When elementary teachers are required to cover an entoe class other than their own, they shall be paid one-twentieth (1/20) of one percent (.0005) of the annual base salary for a 914 month teacher for the major portion of each hour, rounded to the nearest A hour, that they are required to substitute. For second^ teachers the contract states, Secondary teachers who serve as substitutes shall be pmd one-twentieth (1/20) of one percent (.0005) of the annual base salary for a 9% month teacher for the major portion of each hour, rounded to the nearest 'A hour, that they^^e required to substitute. For the 2000 - 2001 school year ($24,118 x .0005 - $12.06) SiJ d L n ij n 5 o p s 'I O n s D s 8 1M MOS. (192) f 11 2 3 4 5 6 1_ 20.546 2''.873 20:200\" 30.^3 31,931 2 \"26,38 4' 29771'1 3'l,dB4 32,442 33,335 33,646 3 J7,567 267094 307221 31,574 32,962 34.356 9 112 MOS. (197) 1 j 1 I 2 ' 3..... 2 I 23,599 I 3 4 29,91)1 ' 311,4115 31,3'19 31,873 27,761 26,285 zn'.iza ' 29,6'46 5 3^63J 33,287 6  r 31,204 ''34',7Z7  ' i(\u0026gt; MOS. (K(7): 1 2 3  I 4 ! 5  6 I i 1 2 4 _ 28.688 5 29,609 '30,630 26.915 36'933 31,'242 32j95_ '3'3.973_ 35.37'7 32,283 3i:9S7 33.284' 33,616 34:637 7 31,651 34,305 35,656' I 8 4 '34'994 ' 36,615 37,036' 36,396 \"5 37,419  38,446' 6 7 'Little Roa\u0026lt; schooi wsiRicr .....teachers'2002 03 27875/.' 9 327672 7 33,593 33.999  35,020 35.320 : 367347 '36,679 i \"37.700 10 'i'l 3\u0026lt;71+  35735 36,041  37,062 37.368'J 38,389 M,721 12 36,758 38:d83 \"39.4'10 .....vv I 39,'742 4O,'763' 'aa.ce?  39',d7B'['40,099' '41,120............ '39:461 40,462 41:5'63'1 42,524 ^  I  31.008 32.3E6 33,610 35,251 29j^33^ 30,380 30,694 7 31:742 32,056 33,444 '34',8S8 \"36:299 33,103 34,491 I 31,427\n32,476 32.789 347161 35.539 35,906 36,953' 3t346 _ 36.394 33.837 35.199 38.001 39.441 8 33,523 34,684 36,246 37,634 39,048 40,489 9 10 34,570 35,616 35,932 37,204 36,682 40:086 41,536 36.980 38,341 39,720 '41.144 42,584 11 36,665 38,027 39,369 40,777 42,191 43,632 I fzzTzzjrs\" 13 J 15 3'^777 .\"3'8,798 j 39,818 ' 39,104 ' 4'0,125 ' 41.146 ^2,141 14 39.104 ' 40,125 40,431 , 4j.452 41.'7M'''42,8b5 43:162. 44,183 43,545 44'566' '45,567' '427473 43,826 '45,204 4'6,608 __16 _ 40.839 42,167 43\",494' 44,847 17 44,515 46,225 '47,246 .^29. 48,650 18 46,868'r46,889 49,671 19  20 49,268\" 12 37.713 39.075 13 38,'76d\" 40,122 46:437 41,4'84 41,826 I \"42,872 oho*. Zit'dfic 14 39,808 41,170 '2'5'i22 '43,020 1'5 40.855 4272'17 '43:579 16 4'3,2'65 44.627 17' T 18  19 20 43:2'39i 44:286\" 45,334 44,879  46,774 '44,967 '46:016 46,382\" 4\"7,429 477822 48,869 '45,674 47.063 46,477 46.017 4'87i io\" \"49.524  60,905\" 50,572 52,012 23,620 30,0111 3t,4il2 32,910 34,426 I 35,940 I 2!),1?0 30,801 32,0:12 3.-4,41iO 34,976 30.490 20.720 31,151 32,562 34,041 ' 35,527 37.040 :i1MOS (212) i 1 l'i 23,3111 2 3' 2 : 33,7'76'_3ti'.o 2J,87T' 3O:438 34,904 3 32,212 4 5 6 3^16 35.258 _3'2^8l)y 33.369' 31,2'1)9 '347863' , 35,821 3'6:385' 36:808'! 37,372'' 37,935 4 30,82'1 32,252 33,063 35,142 36,627 38,141 5 31:922 33,353 34,784 36,242 37,728 39:'242' 6 33,023 34,454 35,685 37,343 38,629 40,343 8 34,123 1 36,224 35,554 ^,655 36,085 38,444 39,930 41,443 36,066 39,545 41,031 I 42,544 9 36,325 37,756 39,187 40,645 42,131 43,646 10 37,426 38.857 40,268 41,746 43,232 44,746 i 11 36,526 39,957 41,386 42,647 44,333 45,847 12 39,627 41,058 42,489 43.948 46,434 46,947 13 40,728 42,159 43,590 45,048 ' 46,534 48,048\" 41.829\" 43:200 44.691 46.149 ' 47.635 49:149 15 16 42,929 44.030 44,360 \"4577'91' 4'7:250\" 48,736 50,249 46,692' 47\n93' '48,350 1 4'9:45'1 '5i',3M 52,451 18 19 20 '60:552\" ?,2:O36 'W:552 53,139 H652  66,763 4 ij Mi '33,0'31 \"s' 6 '32:393 ,\"33,620 '34,168 34^97 _35JM '35.900' 37,118 a'z.sl^' 39.^2 a'Bjsid \"40.190 35,266 '34,'947 36,413 a i' 9 36,075 37.'262 10 -f i 11 J:L5L 36.245 39.372 J7.641 30:006 38,668 40,134' 3^,767 41,317 46,894' 42,022 40,500 4i:627 387330 i' 39,457' _3^796 ^0,9M 41,2612 42:388  42,75'5 I \"43,882 12 4O,'M4' 42,050 13 41,712 J3:177 14  16 42.444 43,572 43,140 4'4,276\nISIM 44.699 45,826 46,954 I'ucliei ( al the lop t the schedule who do no! receive step fncisaies ere paid an additional 61,500. '43:516 1 44,643 \"427630 43,963 '44.304 '457^ \"16 45.094 17 18 19 20 \"45,009 48,531\" '46,136 45,770 46,897 47,856 48,786' 48:681 4'9:269' 46,659 47,26'4' 48:391 '50,336' 40.913\" 51,463 48,025 49,152 4'9:518 ' 50,646 51.040 62.690 5'1:7'73\n' \"53.2'95 i 54,422 ' 53,7\"18' 54,845 r55,972' 52,168 \"57.1'60'Ari\u0026lt;ansas Democrat '(Gazette  TUESDAY. MARCH 21, 1995  Teachers want raise\ncut in works LR would lop 2 days from its school year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL  Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School District teachers want a 5 percent raise next year. But the district, contending its cupboard is bare, is proposing a shorter work year and an accompanying pay cut. District administrators and the Classroom Teachers Association exchanged proposals late last week in preparation for the first negotiating session on the 199.596 teachers contract. The session is set for March 28. The district's proposal re- llects financial problem,s that were subjects at several school board meetings in Februaiy and March. The district is trying to balance next year's budget by making $9.1 million in cuts and adjustments. The district's initial contract proposal includes no provisions for across-the-board raises for teachers. The proposal also calls ftni contract changes that would\nReduce the school year by two days, with teachers working 190 days and students attending class 176 days. Employee salaries would be cut accordingly, about 1 percent. For example, the $20,225 paid beginning teachers this year would fall t6 $20,014 next year.  Remove the automatic salary increase most teachers get for an additional year of experi- efice. This year, those incremental raises were about $800 per year for each teacher who hadnt reached the top of the salary schedule. i Freeze the district's cost for fringe benefits for teachers. If insurance premiums increase, the teachers would have to absorb the cost.  Reinstate the practice of assigning teachers to supervise liinch and playground duly, which would allow the district to eliminate supervisory aide positions. Teachers now have a 30- minule duty-free lunch each day.  Halve the extra pay for junior and senior high teachers who teach six classes each day instead of the standard five. Teachers are paid the equivalent of 20 percent of their salary for teaching a sixth period. That supplement would be reduced to 10 percent. The CTA proposal calls for a S percent across-the-board raise for teachers in addition to the traditional increment. Teachers ineligible for the increment because they have reached the top of the salary schedule should get a bonus equal to 5 percent of their salaries, the CTA says. Trimming the school year vyould require the state Department of Education's approval.Ajkansa^emocrat (  WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1997 LR schools, LRSD teachers get pay haggling out of the way BY CYNTHIA HOWELL T- ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE . _ vi auiger LeuDetter, the new Little Rock School District President of the union, said the teachers will start work next negotiations were hard but month with salary increases rang- district officials were more open ing from 3.6 percent to 5.3 percent usual about the financial con- ff a tentative agreement reached dition of the system. dopted by the school I believe we have the best set- fpophiner Pvnon'oni-a board and the Classroom Teachers Bement possible given the dis- ^aCniTlg CXpenence. Association. . tricts financial situation  T .Arlhot- ------------------------------- The salary agreement holds the promise of more money for teach- ere if the school district wins a $5 5 million lawsuit against the state over the funding of health insurance and teacher retirement That ca.se IS pending before the Sth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St Louis. Interim Superintendent Don ssgs eggss bbsb , .  tuiuouauj' early in a low-key and amicable fashion. Typically, teacher salary negotiations continue until school ' starts in August, raising fears about teacher strikes. _ Thats the case in the neighboring Pulaski County Special \u0026amp;nd North Little Rock districts, plagued by contract disputes and labor relations problems. To get this done on July 15 fits in with our effort to show the community that we are doing things differently, Roberts told the board. This means we can focus See LRSD- Page 5B  Continued from Page 1B on getting school started and getting people to buy into the fact that we all must work together as a team. The districts 18,000 teachers perCCnt start work Aug. 13. Students start increaSC in thc BaSC scnooi Aug. 20. I , Grainger Ledbetter, Salary, Whlch will gO from $20,760 to $21,020 more open tricts financial situation, Ledbetter said. A few other contract provisions remain to be settled between the districts and unions negotiating teams. Once those issues are resolved, the complete tentative agreement will be presented to the School Board and to the union membership for final approval. trict employee salaries. That pro- Ihe salary agreement calls for vision is capped at a $5.5 million a 1.25 percent increase in the base crt ' salary, which will go from $20,760 by the suit, to $21,020 for a teacher with a bachelors degree and no teaching A final provision of the salaiy agreement makes a bonus of ^70 available for up to one-third of the districts teachers if they take nine crease, or $840, for their added SS/ yearofexperience. -we think this will provide The district s most experienced teachers with the skills and moti- experience. Also, most current teachers will get an average 2.7 percent inteachers , who have reached the top of the salaiy schedule, are ineligible for the experience increment. In lieu of the increment those teachers will get a stipend of The salary agreement calls for a 1.25 percent for a teacher with a bachelors degree and no $980 for their added year of work, up from $810 the previous year. The top salary will be $43,566 for teachers who work 9!!i months and have at least 21 years of experience and a masters degree plus 30 more credit hours. Teachers could get another raise of as much as 3 percent if the court award  the amount sought II vation to use computers, Roberts said, adding that the training may be provided by either staff members knowledgeable about computers or computer operators in private businesses. Roberta said money for the computer training will likely come from whats left of a $20 million loan from the state to the district for desegregation. About $5 million of the loan has not yet been spent. Roberts said he envisioned using some of that money this year to buy computer equipment. In another break from tradition, the tentative salary agreement was negotiated before the School Board voted on a budget for the 1997-98 school year. It doesnt have to happen this way eveiy year, Roberts said. But it is a way to say that employee relations are important and that they shouldnt come at the end of everything else. The board may vote on a 1997- 98 budget at a meeting Tuesday. That budget is expected to include the raises, as well as funding for some expected enrollment in- creases and anticipated changes in the district alternative eduoa.- tion program for junior high stu-, dents.  as The superintendent praised Uip- School Board for efforts to stabi-. lize the school district and work, together. The salary agreement- typified those efforts, he said,  did tile recent orderly hiring of a new superintendent  Leslie Cai\n- nine  who will replace Roberta by the end on the year. ,. j\n,Arkansas Democrat ^(5azcltfe. O FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1997  i LR schools hope to offer everyone 1.25% pay raises BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOT RAT-GAZETir All Little Rock School District employees can expect raises this year if the School Board approves recommendations administrators made Thursday. Board members first heard the salary proposal during a meeting announcing the expansion of a drug-abuse prevention program. Superintendent Don Roberts and Mark Milhollen, the district's manager of financial services, pre- ' sented a draft 1997-98 budget that includes a 1.25 percent increase in every employee groups base salary, plus the traditional raise employees get for another year of experience. The proposed increases are similar to the proposal made earlier this month for the districts 1.800 teachers. District administrators are reSee RAISES, Page 8B X -I- Raises  Continued from Page IB fining the proposed budget, which the School Board took no action on Thursday. .. The budget draft shows that the district finished the 1996-97 school year with a $2.1 million balance in federal and local funds. Much of that will be spent this year to off- get anticipated expenses of $162 million. Revenues are projected at $160 million. This is the first year since 1989 tliat the district will be without special desegregation funding from the state. The district got its last payment of $683,125 this past year, Milhollen said. The state payments have been as high as $8 million annually as the result of a financial settlement between the district and the state.  I But the school district can stilt draw from a $20 million loan from the state and will continue to get special state funding to support magnet schools and interdistrict student transfers. In other School Board business, organizers of a year-old program to reward Little Rock high school students who choose not to use illegal drugs announced plans to exThe budget draft shows that the district finished the 1996-97 school year with a $2.1 million balance in federal and local funds. pand the program to include junior high students. John Ostner, a member of the Downtown Little Rock Rotary Club, told the School Board that 22 percent of eligible public and private high school students participated in tire voluntary prevention program last winter. The number far exceeded his expectations, Ostner said, and he called the program a resounding success. The Rotarj Club organized the program  Teens Resisting Unhealthy Choices Everyday, or TRUCE  last year, basing it on a similar program in Texas. Students are asked to prove they are drug-free by undergoing a urinalysis, and get a TRUCE card that entitles them to discounts and hiring preferences at more than two dozen busirresses. Of tire 6,116 students enrolled iir Little Rocks five public high schools. Mount St. Mary Academy and Pulaski Academy last year, 1,319 participated in tire program. Participation in the private schools was greater, with 45 percent of tire 875 enrolled at St. Marys and Pulaski Academy taking part, compared to 921  or 17.6 percent  of the public schools 5,241 students. Tlris school year. Baptist Health has joined with tire Rotary Club to sponsor tire program. Also Thursday. Roberts told tlie boaid hes close to completing negotiations with IBM and National Computer Systems to update the districts administrative computer system, quadr upling its capacity. He said the improvements should serve the district for tire ne.xt four to five years. The hardware improvements will cost about $2M,000. The $133,000 cost of software improvements will be waived and the three-year service contract dis- coiurted by 35 percent, Roberts said. The negotiations, once completed, will end an ongoitrg dispute be tween the district and computer system providers that dates back to 1991, he said. IArkansas Democrat (j^azette^  THURSDAY, AUGUSTU Teachers OK pact for raises of 3.6% to 5.3% The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association voted Wednesday to accept a contract providing salary increases from 3.6 percent to 5.3 percent The contract was approved unanimously, association President Grainger L^better said. He declined to speculate on how many teachers showed up to vote at Hall High School, but he said turnout was light The contract now faces a LiWe Rock School Board vote, e.xpected tonight There are no real surprises here, Ledbetter said. This ,is something eveiybody has known about for some time.\n* Union and school district ofiB- cials reached a tentative agreement July 15. If approved by the school board, the contract will raise the base teacher salary from $20,760 tb $21,020. Most, teachers will receive an average a? percent increase.'*^ I*\u0026gt;.2B  WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1998  Alkans^ Democrat LR teachers seek 10 percent pay increase next year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-OAZETTE The teams would like to reach crease of 2.3 to 33 percent Teach- settlement before_the last ^y of en at tte top of tte sala^^^^^ assigned to the junior and senior district policy. is barred from a class for the sec- Repeated or habitual noncom- ond time, according to the propos- pliance with established building al, the child shall not be returned.   .. . ------j_ A teacher who refuses to accept Repeated or habitual noncom- highs. . . The association has proposed --------------C\"'7C\"u new contract language that would Procedures by the buildi^ ad- a settlement betore me lasi a*y ui cia at uix f am. ivnnri refhers^!ocrau|n 1?^^^^ ^a^lnlTcS^^thels^^^ sp^cificauFtoate each school .ffiMSS.SS.'l... aKSffJSSMJ  SKSS.'tiK.S'S SSSluEK -----------------r,,il.,i,n. Intial teachere. e^urelh^^^iwl'administSora officer, the proposed contract Ues, according to the CTA propos- ence increment would get a $!0 principal as the person with the primary responsibility for enforcing discipline in their schools. ----------------- Some orincipals give teachers view team of representatives from ciai pay given lu vuaviito cuiu lu 1 11,  nnt lA il-A aa,tv,1Haa HiaTTA anncQls- teachers who do extra duty such the message that they are not to tion proposal. ministration should be reviewed such a student will not be threat- by the Discipline Management ened with reprisals, tte proposal Committee and, if unresolved, said. Additionally, a student who shall be reviewed by a joint re- has been suspended but is ^peal- \" 1 ing the suspension and IS still at- the committee,the CTA, an assis- tending school should not be al- tant superintendent, the principal lowed to participate in regular and the districts student hearing school-spo^ored eve^ or activi- tors.  Dut, just as important to teachers as the salary proposals are ^TepraS^s%Taete^^^^ tioto thTc?eato of a P^efKafSnSet stuck S|a^assocj_a_tion have pl^^^^^ '\"^ntssuesrelatedtodiscipllne, management con....................... bf a new contract and will contin- -ue to try to meet once or twice a rne associauou ^'''Cgigmentary school for dis- would have the authority to re-  week for the next few weeks to cent across-the-board ra runtive pupils and the assignment view a principals discipline en- jeach a settlement, said Brady teachers, coupledl^th a gffl ex- to forcement if a teacher believes Gadberry, the director of labor re- penence * J g^npLnee every school Currently, virtually the principals action is inconsis- g?tooT^ The torameni^anfounte to ai im all 7ampus se^ty officers are tent with building procedures or first stages of negotiations. Ihtial teasers, lusuauasco v j-aisc would increase a The language provides a means ------------------------j for an appeal beyond the school ing table this year, is site-toed The association seeks a 7 per- Ss-sS rupttye pupils and the assis^ent \"owj_pracipals^dism^^^^ ^at ^w teachers to bar disrup- proposed contract naust be^ - tive students from class, some- proved by the Little Rock School : times permanently. Once a child Board and the association.Arkiuisas Democrat| WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1998 School chief sets ay for top aides: 831 to $87,000 5 LR districts new associate superintendent for instruction at the top ol salary schedule BYCYNflllA IIDWr.LL ARKANSAS OI-MfK'KAI GAZhl II, IJltle Hock School District Ku pcrintendent Leslie Carnine ha.s set 1998-99 salarie.s ranging from $64,831 to $87,000 for his seven new top assistanls. But salaries for all district administrators and other nonleaching employees may be subject to change soon. Carnine said this week lie wants a consultant to review district salaiy schedules for equity and adequacy. Carnine wa.s hired as superin- Icndent last summer and assumed Mill ian l.,in:cy, I'ornier piin-vipiil at Miinii Ails anil Svienves Magnet .liinior High, will be assistant snperintendent I'or secondary education at a salaiy of $73,343. Katherine Lease, a former Little Rock district employee who most recently worked as director ofsec-ondaiy education in Fayetteville s public schools, will oversee the district's (mice of Planning, Research and Evaluation at a salaiy or$72,127. (aiiiiiie said he tried to limit administiatois pay raises to 10 the duties in October. Selecting associate and assistant superinlen-pciccnt. 'I'liat cap was exceeded. though, in cases where the adniin-istratois will work more days per dciiLs in M...a..r.c..h..,.. ..h..e began ruling yeaCr.a rnine, who IS paidi $ti1i1n5,otXoKn) na year, said that although the assistant and associate superinlen-positions that had been vacant for a year or two because of resignations and retireinenls. At the lime - --------- J . of llie appointnienls, which took deiiLs salaries are \u0026gt;\u0026gt;'8 effect July 1, Carnine said the .i.s ti .a.l.i..v..e.. .s..a..l.a...r.i..e.s ove-ranll ssbhmoudldd bhee salaries were not final. lleessss Uthniss yyeeaarr.. TIhhaaltss bBeeccaauussee aass Carnine has added two new lev- many as 11 admniistrative imsi-ehs to the districl'.s adininistralive lion.s are being ssaablairryv sscchheedduullee ttoo aaccccoommmmooddaattee ers are being moved into cainims the new associate and assistant su- I norinfprulPIlb\n. level positions. . The number of positions in the districl'.s planning, icseaKli and evaiiialion oirice, the stall uevel-opineiit onke. the Instructional Resource Center and the districts student assignment office are being reduced, Carnine said. On the other hand, stalf positions will be incre.ased for alterna-perintendents. Previously, the schedules highest adininislrative salaiy was $68,567. The highest salary now possible for an assistant superintendent is $76,991 and the highest possible for an associate superintendent is $87,000. An ciniiloyee's lernUned noUn7y by Um assigned tivror' \"'^'^\".'..XeroVas-job but also by years of experience ............... \"mnbei and educational background. Bonnie Lesley, Uie districts new associate sutieriiitendent for instruction, will be paid the top pals, salary of $87,000. Now the Little Rock districts curriculum leader, Lesley is a fonner associate superproarauis, and the number of as- sislaiil. piiiiei_p_al1s.. iJn.. eleinentaiy schools will rise, ^hunine said, Not all schools have assistant pruici- i'lie call for an independent review of district salaiy schedules T eslev is a former associate super- was prompted by the distiic s fnlendent and chief of staff of pub- newly i -ised desegregation and Victor Anderson, a longtime junior high and high school principal and former assistant superintendent for secondary education in Lillie Rock, will be paid $79,704 as associate supcrintendcnl for operalions. Sadie Mitchell, also a former liewi,y I iovv. -- education plan, Carnine said, and by his own discomfort with what he Ihinlcs are i.neipiitics in pay. The desegregation inaii, approved by a federal judge in April, obligates the district to establish a uniform salaiy schei.'ule for all positions that will coiiii.'ciisalc cin-also a loriiiei ployees based on their qiialifica-princ. pa. a... most recently lions and iniininize coiiip,anils of worked as an assistant superinlen- m|. deni for eleinentaiy education is Caininc has sK ,,icinn or the districts desegrega- meiils can be coinpieieu uy principal who denl elementaiy liuw aaovc.ukv ------------ school services at a salaiy ol vision of the districts desegrega-lion obligations. Three people were selected by Carnine and approved by the School Board for assistant super-has asked .lim Mal-veiiiber. , , , The affected salaiy schedules are for administrative and support intendent positions. Frances Cawtlion, fonner principal alJefferson Eleiiientary, wi 1 be assistant superintendent for el-pineiilnrj' ediicalinii at a salary of cinlion. personnel, rather thanteachers. UClOUllllVll  . - ----- - Carnine said. Tlie leacliers salary schedule is subject to collective hurgaining each year with Uie Lit- Ue flock Classroom Teachers Asso- \\ Arkansas Democrat 7^ OjjazcHc  FRI DAY, APRIL 23, 1999 ILR board extends contract for school chief with raise BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARK.ASSAS DEMOCRAtC.VETTE The Little Rock School Board voted 5-1 Thursday to increase Superintendent Les Gamine's compensation package by 10 percent years. A majority of teachers got across-the-board raises of 8.5 peri cent over two years, plus step increases for e.xperience of about 5.4 percent. Board member Katherine and e.\\lend the duration of his con- Mitchell cast the dissenting votes on tract by one year to give him a the contract e.xtension and on the three-year pact benefits. Board member Judy Maj The board approved the contract ness left the meeting before the changes during a meeting in which a counselor from JA Fair Higli votes were taken. Mitchell said after the meeting School appealed to board members that she objected both to aspects of for help in resolving faculty dissen- Gamine's job performance and to sion regarding the school's former the informal process the board used principal. William Broadnacc. Five percent of the approved in- in evaluating the superintendent  Earlier this month, board mein- crease will go to Gamine's annual bers discussed Gamine's job perforsalary, raising it from SI 15.000 to mance in an e.xecutive session S120.750. The remaining 5 percent closed to the public. Mitchell said S5.750. will be contributed annually the evaluation was done in Gar- to his retirement fund. The raise is nine's absence and that Berkley retroactive to Sept 1.1998. then presented a summary of the The salary increase marks the boards discussion to the supenn- first raise in base pay for the dis- tendenL Mitchell said her remarks   about Gamine's job performance tricts chief e.xecutive since 1993.  when Dr. Henry Williams was hired were not included  and therefore not valued  in Berkley's verbal re: as superintendent t Board President Larry Berkley P^ Gamine.     She said the omission was espe- said after Thursday's meeting that a majority of the seven-member board was pleased with the direction Gamine is taking the district's educational program and with the districts progress in complying with its dese^egation plan. Gamine has been a district employee since September 1997. Board members said the increase in his compensation was intended to be somewhat similar to the percentage increases paid district teachers over the past two cially disturbing because she was the only black board member participating in the evaluation. Board member Mike Daugherty, who is. also black, was absent2B  FHIDAY, OCIOUEU 15. 1999  Pay schedule for secretaries is approved by LR board . BY ARIEL RJ-KANK ARKANSAS 1)1 MO( RAI (iA/l I II The Little Itock School Board approved a new saliiry sclicdiile . for secretaries and administrative staff at a special meeting , Thursday niglit. , Board members and school . district employees concerned pbout disparities in pay within the district called the move ii step in the right direction, but . said that it was nol a solution. . Richard Hurley, the districts director of human resources, told . Ilie board the district mostly followed the recommendation!\nof a . salary consultant who had been  hired to evaluate the secretarial and administrative jobs and recommend a salary scale. Thc district also surveyed 10 other school districts to determine liow they decided secretarial salaries. Hurley said. The most lively part of thc discussion focused on the fact that middle and elementary school secretaries are to be placed on a lower salary grade than secretaries for high school principals. Secretary Vickie Armstead told the board she and her fellow clerical employees support the new salaiy scale but not the ranking system that deterniined it. The schedule will give secre- Ufies on the superintendents\n.staff about $4,(MX) more per year - than entry-level grade school sec-\nrctarics, who earn about $14,(XX) a -year. Much work needs to be done *lo solve the ineejuities, 2 'Board member she said. Board Michael 'Uaugherty said the rankings by iwhich tile new pay scale was de- ^termined create a caste system. \u0026lt; But Hurley and Superinten- ,dent Les Camine said they hope -to put salaries for all secretaries fon thc new scale within the next .three years. They would have ^likcd to do so immediately, but *thc money isnt there, they said.  Were not creating fa hicrar- chyl. It already exists, Hurley tsald. *. The board also postponed un- Itil its next meeting two issues on *the agenda  a retmest by the ^districts speech palliologists to\n*be removed from the bargaining Cunit of the Classroom Teachers ^Association, and tlie seleciion of | \\a fiscal agent to assist in generat- nng at least $50 million through a nhliagc increase means. and other4B  FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1998  Aikansas Democrai ^(Bazcttc Board apprehensive about cost of teacher raises, new school  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL . . . . ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE .: .in a 4'A-hour meeting devoted - both to academic and financial is-  sues. Little Rock School Board  members voiced concerns Thursday  about the long-term cost of a proposed 4.5 percent employee pay , raise and the possible $105 million nice of a new school -\" The board took no action on any ' issues. Most  including the pro-\nposed 1998-99 teacher contract proposed school attendance zones and a curriculum for the eight new mid- - die' schools  are set for a board - voi? Jfev. 19. The new Stephens Elementary , School, projected to cost about $3 / -  -million more than the $7.2 million .  the district has set aside for it will - -likely be the subject of a special -' -School Board meeting next week. A majority of the board members indicated Thursday that they were inclined to approve the proposed teacher contract But they also acknowledged that changes in district finances will be necessary in the ne.xt few years to avoid a $356,000 deficit by 2001-2002. District administrators described the long-range financial projections as a worse-case scenario that included no Binding increases for enrollment growth, legislative funding changes, increases and modifications in federal funding, or significant increases in local tax revenues. The proposed contract ratified by the Classroom Teachers Association last week, calls across4he- board raises of 4.5 percent or 525 percent for teachers this year if the district gets reimbursed for shortfalls in state-funded teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Most other district employees will get identical percentage raises, also contingent on the state funding. The proposed teacher contract also includes provisions to increase contributions to employee health insurance costs and to raise stipends for e.xtra duty, such as coaching or club sponsorships. The district e.xpects to get as much as $20 million in state reimbursements for 1996-99 and about $8 million annually each year thereafter. The total cost of increased teacher benefits this year is about $9.3 million, and the district owes teachers $3.4 million for raises that went unpaid in 1997-98. Board member Judy Magness said it appeared the district cant afford the raises in the long term, especially if the district is also to pay for installing and using more computers in schools, training for sitebased decision-making and repairing school building. Magness questioned who authorized district negotiators to offer teachers the 4.5 percent raise. She said she thought the cap in the contract talks was to be 4.25 percent She asked for changes in the process used to get board input in future negotiadons. Besides the promised 4.5 percent teachers and other employees are already getting incremental raises that they traditionally get for their addition^ year of e.'cperience. For teachers, the increment is about 3 percent Superintendent Les Carnine said the board approved the incremental increase in September as part of the 1998-99 budget The district deferred some $2 million in anticipated e.'cpenses in that budget to be able to pay the e.xperience increment The move was intended to help employees offset insurance premium increases that took effect OctL Board President Larry Berkley said he wanted the district to pay the highest salaries in the state but also wanted to be sure it can remain solvent The board also got its first look at plans for the construction of a new Stephens Elementary School in central Little Rock at 18th and Maple streets. The district has owned most of the land for the school but has bought four adjacent properties, which prompted board members to ask why they were not asked to approve the purchases. They asked for a breakdown of the specific costs of the school to better determine what costs they could trim before the plans for the school are completed. Stephens is intended to be a state-of-the-art school for the 21st century. Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell said. The school will feature one computer for every five students, as well as a focus on economic education and communityi .4s currently designed, the split- level 75.000-square-foot school for about 650 pupils in pre-kinder- garten through fifth grade will be laid out like a city. The bookstore might be a simulated bank, the main hai might be a mall and the cafeteria could be divided into four different kinds of restaurants. Mitchell said. It would cost about $90 a square foot to build.r THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2000  District, teachers sign tentative pact for coming 3 years LR School Board, union members may OK contract with 7.25% and 5% raises next week BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRATCAZETTE Most Little Rock School District teachers can expect total pay increases of 7.25 percent this year and more than 5 percent in each of the next two years, according to a tentative contract signed Wednesday by district and teacher leaders. The three-year agreement must be ratified by the Little Rock School Board and the membership of the Classroom Teachers Association to become final. That is expected to happen next week. 'The teachers association has scheduled a membership meeting at 5 p.m. Tuesday, the day before most teachers start work for the 2000-01 school year. The meeting to act on the contract proposal will be at the Arkansas Education Association building, 1500 W. 4th SL As of late Wednesday, the School Board had not scheduled a time to consider the newly inked I agreement but has a special meeting set for 5:30. p.m. Tuesday on a different matter Brady Gadberry, special assis- ,tant to the superintendent and the ence will be $50,363, compared jj.i-- with $48,372 last year. The contract proposal estab- districts chief negotiator, said the three-year proposal is significant because it will contribute to loi^- term stability and enable the district and community to concentrate on attaining release from federal court monitoring of the districts desegregation efforts. The districts 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes procedures for court release by next June. Wednesdays agreement is actually the second three-year pact between the district and the teachers union, Gadberry said. But the first agreement, in 1989-90, was concluded after teachers went for al- niost an entire school year without a contract. As a result the first year of tlie three-year contract was retroactive. According to terms of the agreement, all teachers will get a 4.25 percent pay increase this year and a minimum increase of 2.875 percent in each of the next two years, which amounts to a 10 percent raise over three years. The annual raises are coupled with the average 3.03 percent experience increment traditionally paid eligible teachers for their additional year of work. *  ' As a result, a majority of teachers should see a 7.25 percent increase this year and well over 5 , percent in the next two years. ' Teachers who have the most experience in the district and have reached the top of the salary schedule are ineligible for the 3.03 percent increment. But they do get a $1,500 stipend. Tlie salary for a beginning teacher with a bachelors degree will go from $23,135 in 1999-2000. to $24,118 this year. The top salary for a teacher with 20 years of experi- lishes a minimum salary increase for the second and third years.but also establishes a procedure'to increase percentages as nonrestrict- ed revenues to the district increase. Gadberry said there was a strong probability that pay increases will exceed the minimum. The contract language takes into account the possibility of teacher raises enacted by state lawmakers when the Arkansas General Assembly convenes in January. Gov. Mike Huckabee and others have See TEACHERS, Page 5B, m!Zi' .. i ^^Ir? ^^4^3 V^1 5. I f- 1',. f.-rS Teachers  Continued from Page IB indicated that raising teacher salaries will be a priority during the legislative session. The Little Rock contract proposal includes adjustments in the salary schedule, beginning with the 2001-02 school year, as a way to raise beginning salaries and entice new teachers to the district. According to the proposal, salaries paid first-time teachers this year will be eliminated for 2001-02. This years salaries for all second-year teachers will become the first-year salaries in 2001-02 and a new second-year salary level has been developed. Players in the contract negotiations, which began in earnest last June, were reluctant Wednesday to reveal the terms of the proposal until after it could be presented to the teachers. K Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEVE KEESEE Signing in Heather Passmore stands beside her children, Emily, 4, Eric, 6, and Andrew, 8, at Little Rock's Carver Magnet Elementary School during registration Wednesday. Registration for all Little Rock School District schools will go onjrom 10 a.m.-7 p.m.today. The two older children will be first- and third-graders. Classes start Tuesday at Mabelvale, Woodruff and Stephens. Other Little flock schools start classes Aug. 21. that she felt very positive about the proposal and deferred other comments until after next weeks membership meeting. Gadberry released the proposed terms to the Aikansas The teams used Francis X. Quinn, a labor relations specialist from Oklahoma, on both Tuesday and Wednesday to complete the negotiations. Quinn has been employed by the district and the association at different times in the past as an arbitrator or fact finder in employee and contract disputes. He was in the Little Rock School District this week for matters not related to the contract negotiations when he was called on to help, Gadberry said. Other changes in the contract for this year include the creation of a sick bank that will enable employees to donate unused sick days to be used by other critically ill employees. teaUer bIcheS d?^e^' benwcrat-M,butonly^er^e and no^experience in 20014)2 will. XSaVon Ac^ be $25,803. A second-year teacher with the same degree will earn $26300. A third year teacher will earn $26,796. In the final year of the contract, the beginning salary will be $26,835, the second-year salary will be $^351, and the third-year teacher with a bachelors degree will be paid $27,687. The top salary in the district that year will be $53,777. Players in the contract negotiations, which began in earnest last June, were reluctant Wednesday to reveal the terms of the proposal until after it could be presented to the teachers. Clementine Kelley, president of the teachers association, said only  information. The states Freedom of Information Act states that all records maintained in public offices or by public employees within the scope of their employment are presumed to be public records. And according to the law, any citizen of the state may inspect and copy public records. Gadberry said his reluctance to release the information was in deference to the union. The negotiating teams met most of Tuesday and for a few hours Wednesday to find acceptable language on the restructuring of the salary schedule beginning with 2001-2002.  WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2000  Teacher raises ^ttled in time school year BY JULIA SILVERMAN ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE the most senior teachers in the Tjfile Rock School District will be more than $50,000 this year, the first classroom teachers in the state to reach that level, under the terms of a three-year agreement ratified unanimously Tuesday night by the members of the Classroom 'Teachers Association. '\"'Tuesdays action caps several months of negotiation between the teachers and the city school board, which has yet to formally ratily the agreement but is expected to do so soon. And it came only one day before almost all of the districts teachers went back to work for the 2000-2001 school year. TTie agreement represents a carefully balanced compromise, said leaders of the negotiation efforts. TTie school boards primary objective was to raise first-year teacher salaries to attract more people to the profession and to the district, while the teachers association wanted to make sure that its members, many of whom have years of experience, would get their long-wished-for substantial  SeeTEWI iHERS, Page 3B ' Teachers  Continued from Page 1B pay raises. I feel very good about this, said Clementine Kelley, the president of the teachers association, af- past salary increases, will cortie' ter the meeting, which drew about from the districts general operat- 150 teachers. ing fund, which consists of both School board representatives state and local money. Under the have said the agreement will leave terms of the agreement during the administrators free to focus on oth- second and third years of the con-, er concerns, such as attaining re- tract the teachers will receive, a' lease from federal court monitor- percent raise equal to the average ing of the districts desegregation percentage increase of the general efforts. operating funds they have received Under the terms of the agree- over the last five years. ment, all teachers will receive pay raises of 425 percent this year, and state Legislature intends to raise . at least 2.875 percent in each of the teacher salaries, which would next two years. make the general operating fund Also, each year most teachers al- larger, and which in turn might ready receive a 3,03 percent annual push teacher raises past the 2.875 increase for experience. Teachers percent mark, with more than 20 years of expert- ence receive a $1,500 stipend. That means first-year teachers will make $24,118 this year, up from $23,135 last year, and the more senior teachers will make $50,363, up from $48272. By the end of the next three years, the districts first-year teachers will be making $26,8^. A teacher with 20 years experience, a masters degree and 30 additional credit-hours will make $53,777, ac-' cording to the contract '  For the second and third years, teachers are guaranteed a raise of at least 2.875 percent according to the contract , Money for that raise, as it has for'- There are indications that the FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 2000  LR School Board \" gives final approval to salary increases: Teachers, other district workers to get raises BY CYNTHIA HOWELL u ARKANSAS DtMCK RAT-CAZETI E Little Hock School Board members, by ratifying a prcpGuvd teacher contract Thursday, final- sent salary settlements with.ail other employee groups by Aug. '24. - ____ , On other financial matters, the ircrint u? authorized the issuancd of bonds to Prudential Securities on the districts construction bonds and the one that offered tlie in- fiod. ?ece workers who do not participate in negotia- tions or in Sie k and confer salary Ulks. -'\" The board adopted the contract y?\"issues will tak\ne and pay raises at a wide-ranging The bondf wm^be^ w it also authorized DortiSth^^vp^?,a^^^ pleted over about the next, five the sale of $46 million in construction bonds and considered regulations that will give parents a say on whether their children can be exempted from semester exams. portion of the revenues raised by.a 5-mill tax increase approved by voters in May. . Don Stewart, the districts chief financial officer, told the bo^rd that the district ended this past school year with about $7.6 million m its operating fund. That amount School district administrators ^d leaders of the Classroom Teachers Association reached a tentative agreement on the threA- x , .----------------- year teacher contract last week jna^et-school fund balances are Association members endorsed it Tuesday'so board approval the final step. . _________________ The contract provides a 4 25 8enda for the Aug. 24 regulaT percent raise across the board for includ- this year and at least a 2.875 per- ** revised regulations that will cent increase in each of the next 9Uire parents of students-in two years  more if revenue in- **'*'''\"** creases in the district warrant. grows to $9 million if federal and included. Part of Thursday's board meetwas . . -------------- . mg concentrated on reviewing the monthly business meeting, including revised regulations that will grades nine through 12 to give permission for their children to be exempted from one or more of their semester exams. Some parents Eligible teachers will also get an average 3.03 percent increase -T-T' each year for every added vear of ?iid teachers had complained duTr work experience, so most teachers =~Png will actually see their annual who met grade and atten- salaries increase by 7.25 percent *- *- this year and more than 5 percent in the next two years. The districts T \"j most experienced teachers who the college-bound, have reached thc top of the salary , With the new regulations, \". Stif? schedule are not eligible for the who have a parents penfiis- expericnce increment but will get and meet the grade, attem a top-out stipend of $1,500. dance and behavior requirements The districts chief negotiator 9^ he exempted. During the yean Brady Gadberry said the salaries e schools will honor a parents including the new starting salaries ''lst for a change on the testing of $24,118 this year and $ffi 803  the request is sent to the next year for a bachelors degree , Principal in writing at leastclO and no experience, are competi-  . before the first day of semes* live within the state but not as  er , high as starting salaries in the , Even though students :mayi'be Northwest Arkansas districts. S exempted from a test, they have ' 'Gadbeny said he hopes to pre- option of taking to raise tieif ing the past year about exempting cf 1An A M,* ..A 1 _ _ V It -------- ...HUM OVVV4V dance requirements because the adults said that the lack of testing was detrimental to the studehU regulations,'IStif? ter tests. thA nntinn nPtalrinr* it tA grades. In that case, taking thatest I will not result in a lower semester grade for the course, according to ' the regulations. FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 2004  LR teachers raises are official School Board OKs 2.875% for 2003-04,10% for next year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board made teacher pay raises of 2.875 percent this year and 10 percent next year official Thursday night by ratifying a two-year contract settlement that was negotiated earlier this month by district representatives and the Classroom Teachers Association. This years raise will be retroactive to last July 1 and will be paid to the districts approximately 3,000 teachers in their April 1 paycheck. Also Thursday, the board approved a similar retroactive 2.875 percent raise for all other employee groups. The nonteaching employees iso will get the same increase in insurance benefits for this year that teachers are getting. As of April 1, the districts contribution to monthly insurance premiums will go from $187 to $253. Our teacher salaries now have us being very competitive with surrounding school districts, said Beverly Williams, the districts director of human resources and chief negotiator. While we have districts in outlying parts of the state that still pay higher, I believe we have an attractive salary that will cause us to win the best teachers in the area and maintain those we already have. Williams said district administrators will return to the board later this year with recommendations for 2004-05 raises for nonteaching employees. School Board President Tony Rose, whose wife is a district elementary school teacher, described the two-year contract as a great victory scored for teachers and the district. This was a mutually agreed upon contract. It wasnt done so much through negotiations as it was through collaboration, he said. Board member Baker Kurrus called the raise substantial and significant. It gives our people incentive to stay in the classroom and gives people who are beginning to get some experience the chance to have a career that is fulfilling and doesnt involve the sacrifices that teachers have had to make to stay in the classroom, he said. Thats my greatest hope  that we continue to reward the people who have the greatest impact on our students. Board member Larry Berkley said he was particularly pleased with a contract provision that provides teachers with an incentive of $1,300 next year if they use no sick leave. The district and the teachers association have been at odds all year and continue to be in arbitration over a provision in the new teacher evaluation system that rates teachers based on their work attendance. But the disagreements over the teacher evaluation system were completely absent from Thursdays meeting. We are so very pleased at the extension of kindness and understanding and professionalism that the district extended to us by offering what we think is the most significant raise that Little Rock teachers have ever had ... and I thank you very much, Katherine Wright Knight, president of the association, told the board. Kurrus said he hopes the two organizations can build on the  good relationship as a way to bet- 1 ter serve the city. Weve always pulled on the same rope in this business, but frequently we pulled in opposite directions, he said. Now ... we are all on the same end of the rope, pulling in the same direction, and , its amazing how much more we r can do. ! SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2004  ! LR teachers to get I credit for experience ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board voted Thursday in favor of giving teachers in the Little Rock School District full credit on the district's salary schedule for previous teaching experience in schools, as well\nas colleges or universities. Teachers have, in the past, been I given credit for time spent teaching in other kindergarten through 12th-grade classrooms and for time spent teaching in colleges or universities if they held teaching licenses while working on those I campuses. Now, on the basis of a memo ' of understanding between the 5 School Board and the Little Rock | Classroom Teachers Association, j teachers will earn credit for teach- j ing in colleges and universities accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education or accrediting agencies of comparable rank as long as their higher-education e.xperience was in their major teaching fields. ' Beverly Williams, the districts ' director ofhuman resources, said ! the change would apply to new I hires and teachers working in the i district in the 2004-2005 school , year but it is not retroactive to pre- I vious teaching years. I2B  THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1,2005  LR School Board ratifies 2005-06 teacher contract Agreement gives 0.5% pay raise BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board on Wednesday ratified the 2005- 06 teacher contract, but not without some board members objecting to complaints made by teacher leaders about the 0.5 percent across-the-board pay raise in the agreement. The board's 6-1 vote, which makes the contract final, followed on the heels of a similarly positive vote by the Classroom Teachers Association on 'Tuesday. But Katherine Wright Knight, the president of the Classroom Teachers Association, said shortly after the union vote that the half-percent salary increase is an embarrassment. Board member Tony Rose, who participated in the negotiations as part of the district's team, on Wednesday accused the teachers association of waging a campaign of disinformation at a time when the School Board had directed district administrators to offer teachers all that the district can afford. I want to make sure it is noted that the day of antagonistic methods of negotiating a labor contract in this district have to end, Rose read from notes before voting for the agreement. Rose warned that the districts recognition of the association as the sole bargaining agent for teachers could be in jeopardy. I will carefully weigh the actions and words of the CTA over the next few months, and I hope I wont be compelled by those actions and words to move myself into a position of opposition to a union that I previously supported, he said. Rose questioned why teacher leaders publicly named longevity pay for veteran teachers and an experimental incentive plan at Meadowcliff Elementary as significant issues to the association but did not raise those issues as such at the bargaining table. If damage control by the CTA representatives has to include distorting the truth of the negotiations, I dont see the collaborative efforts, Rose said. It inclines me to support opening the negotiations process to the public and press so that we dont have those kinds of misunderstandings. The reaction of board members to the news account of her comments surprised Knight. I honestly think it was a misinterpretation of what I said, Knight said later Wednesday about the reaction. I said what was true. It was not intended to offend anyone. It was intended to communicate what my people believe. Board member Baker Kurrus cast the sole negative vote to the contract. He said he objected to the provision that calls for the salary negotiations to be reopened in midyear only if the Lake View school funding case  now pending in the Arkansas Supreme Court  results in an increase in unrestricted state funding to the 25,000-student district. If we are going to have a contract, lets have a contract, he said. If diesel costs go to four bucks or the cost of electricity doubles, we are not going to reopen negotiations. If we are going to go to a situation where we are going to open things back up,\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_947","title":"''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991-01/1992-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School discipline","School facilities","Student assistance programs","Gifted \u0026 talented","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/947"],"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":["618 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1506","title":"\"Students Placed in the Gifted Program,\" 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":["1991/1992"],"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","Little Rock School District","Educational innovations","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["\"Students Placed in the Gifted Program,\" 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/1506"],"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":["91 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_724","title":"SWAT visits","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":["1991/2005"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School facilities","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["SWAT visits"],"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/724"],"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":["72 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\nInformal school visits and reports made by the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring\n0 3 Z 0 6  1 9 ? 1 11 rRQM JOHN W.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3'10100 P . 02 MBMORAMDUM to\nMR. JOHN W. WALKER FROM: MR. KIRK HERMAN MRS. JOY CHARLES-SPRINGER re: LRSD V. PC38D - New Construction within the LRSD date: MARCH 5, 1991 On site visits to four elementary schools (Geyer Springs, Cloverdale, Woodruff, and Western Hills) within the Little Rock District revealed substantial construction underway. Over 5.5 million dollars has been budgeted to effectuate changes in the present structures that were visited. Changes range from construction of additional classrooms, new playgrounds, parking lots, and cafeterias. Construction at all sites has been tentatively set for completion by the beginning of the new school year. August, 1991. Mr. Herman visited Woodruff and Western Hills. Cloverdale and Geyer Springs, as follows: I visited Our findings at the locations were CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY Principal: Sadie Mitchell (black female) Current Student capacity: 400 students 75% black 25% white Current number of classrooms: 15 After construction the school will have 21\" classrooms (3 sections each of K-6) The construction will consist of t 5 tr additional classrooms, a new playground, office, nurse's station and a cafeteria to be shared with Cloverdale Jr. High School. Final student capacity (after construction)\nstudents 492 i I I03Z0B/1991 11:33 FROM JOHN U.UBLKER P . fl. TO 3710100 P. 03 i i ! I I I I PAGE TWO March 5, 1991 The only portable building at Cloverdale Elementary is the music room. High has several Cloverdale Jr. portables, The budget between Cloverdale Elementary and Jr. High is approximately 2 1/2 million dollars. GEYER SPRINGS ELgHSKTARY Principal\nEleanor Cox (black female) Current student capacity\n200 students 76% black 24% white Current number of classrooms\n9 After construction, the school will have 23\" classrooms. The construction will consist of \"14\" new classrooms, a new playground and a new parking lot. Final student capacity\n400 Anticipated capacity next school year\n325 There are currently 8 portable buildings that house the intermediate classes. There is also classroom sharing at Geyer Springs. The budget for Geyer Springs construction has been set at 1 1/2 million dollars. WESTERN HILLS BLEMSNTARY Principal\nMargie Puckett (white female) Current student capacity\n336 students 63.7% black 35.8% white ,5% other The construction will consist of \"10\" classrooms. additional I Iaszeszigai 1 1 ! 39 FROM JOHN U.USLKER P.fl. TO 3T10100 P . 04 PAGE THREE March 5, 1991 There are currently 6 portable buildings that house classes at Western Hills. The budget for Western Sills has been set at 1 million dollars. WOOPSPP? ELEMENTARY Principal\nPat Higginbotham (white female) Current student capacity\nunknown 80% black 20% white The construction will consist of \"10 new classrooms and expansion of the cafeteria. There are no portable buildings that house classes at Woodruff. The budget for Woodruff has been set between $800,000 and 1 million dollars. I I Please let us know if additional information is needed. I ( i I I I i i ! i I03zafi^l'?91 11:37 FROM JOHN U.UHLKER P.A. TO 3710100 p.ai JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney at Law i?a Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas tjsob Telephone (5O1) 374-\ni758 FAX (501) :3744187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON \u0026gt;L\\RK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JK. Abo iximitwd io Practiw io n*nr^ \u0026amp; tb Din.nct uC CUwAib)*. FACSIMILE COVER I-AZAR M. PALNiCK LAW \u0026amp; FINANCE SLTx\nSUITE 1002 129 roURTH AVENiiL PmSBURGH. PA i52.S 1412) 28.?-?220 TO: 2^ CblAA/^ Y'KY. NO. : FROM: hr QlD DATE: RE: U^S) ptfjz. THIS FAX CONSISTS OF IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE. PAGE(S), PLEASE CALL AT THE NUMBER LISTED ABOVE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District January 29, 1992 Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for J' CT Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Educational Equity Monitoring Schedule Please find attached the Educational Equity Monitoring Schedule for the third nine weeks. 810 West Narkham Street * Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-35611 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING THIRD VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 SCHEDULED DATE Wed., 01-22-92 SCHOOL Western Hills Elem. SPECIALISTS Dunbar, Tadlock Thu., 01-23-92 Jefferson Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar Mon., 01-27-92 Washington Maonet Dunbar, Tadlock Tue., 01-28-92 Booker Maqnet Tadlock, Dunbar II II Fair High Hobby, Smith Wed., 01-29-92 Central High Smith, Hobby II II Fulbright Elem, Dunbar, Tadlock Thu., 01-30-92 It It Geyer Springs Elem. Mabelvale Jr. High Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Fri., 01-31-92 Caryer Magnet Tadlock, Dunbar Mon., 02-03-92 Williams Magnet Dunbar, Tadlock Tue.. 02-04-92 Mabelvale Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar Wed., 02-05-92 Badgett Elem. Davis, Brooks It It Mann Magnet Smith, Hobby Thu.. 02-06-92 Bale Elem. Davis, Brooks Fri.. 02-07-92 Woodruff Elem. Dunbar, Tadlock II II Hall High Smith, Hobby Tue.. 02-11-92 Metropolitan Vo-Tech. Smith, Hobby Wed.. 02-12-92 Baseline Elem. Davis, Brooks Thu.. 02-13-92 II II Brady Elem. Gibbs Magnet Davis. Brooks Tadlock, DunbarLRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING THIRD VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 2 SCHEDULED DATE SCHOOL SPECIALISTS Fri., 02-14-92 Chicot Elem. Dunbar, Tadlock Mon., 02-17-92 Cloverdale Elem. Davis, Brooks II If McDermott Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar Tue.. 02-18-92 II fl II II Wed., 02-19-92 II II II If Thu.. 02-20-92 II II II II Mon., 02-24-92 II II II II Tue.. 02-25-92 II II II It Fri.. 02-28-92 II II Tue.. 03-03-92 II II Wed., 03-04-92 II II Cloverdale Jr. High Dodd Elem. Terry Elem. Fair Park Elem. Dunbar Magnet Meadowcliff Elem. Forest Park Elem. McClellan High Watson Elem. Otter Creek Wakefield Elem. Pulaski Heights Jr. High Parkview Magnet Pulaski Heights. Elem Wilson Elem. Romine Elem. Southwest Jr. High Franklin Elem. Henderson Jr. High Forest Heights Jr. High Garland Elem. Hobby, Smith Davis. Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Smith, Hobby Tadloc}'., Dunbar Davis, Brooks Hobby, Smith Dunbar, Tadlock Brooks, Davis Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Smith, Hobby Brooks, Davis Hobby, Smith Smith, Hobby Brooks. DavisLRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING THIRD VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 3 SCHEDULED DATE Thu., 03-05-92 SCHOOL Ish Elem. SPECIALISTS Brooks, Davis Mon., 03-23-92 Mitchell Elem. Brooks, Davis Tue., 03-24-92 Riqhtsell Elem. Brooks, Davis Wed., 03-25-92 Rockefeller Elem, Brooks, Davis Thu., 03-26-92 Stephens Elem. Brooks, DavisLittle Rock School District TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: April 1, 1992 Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring RECEIVED APR 7 1992 01iic3 of Desegregation Won'itorina James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Educational Equity Monitoring Schedule - Fourth Visit Please find enclosed the District's schedule for the fourth monitoring visits to all schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361LRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOURTH VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 2 SCHEDULED DATE Mon., 05-04-92 II tl Tue., 05-05-92 II II II II Wed., 05-06-92 II II II II Thu., 05-07-92 II II It II Fri., 05-08-92 Mon., 05-11-92 It II Tue., 05-12-92 II II It tl Wed., 05-13-92 II It tt II Thu., 05-14-92 II II II II SCHOOL Bale Elem. Fulbricfht Elem. Baseline Elem. Gever Sorinas Elem. Metrooolitan Vo-Tech. Bradv Elem. Cloverdale Jr. Hiqh Williams Maanet Cloverdale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Pulaski Heiqhts Jr. Hiqh Mann Maqnet Dodd Elem. Woodruff Elem. Fair Park Elem. Gibbs Maqnet Southwest Jr. Hiqh Chicot Elem. Forest Park Elem. Henderson Jr. Hiqh Forest Heiqhts Jr. Hiqh McDermott Elem. otter Creek SPECIALISTS Davis, Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Tadlock, Dunbar Smith, Hobbv Davis, Brooks Hobbv, Smith Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Tadlock, Dunbar Hobbv, Smith Smith, Hobbv Davis, Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Tadlock, Dunbar Smith, Hobbv Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Hobbv, Smith Smith, Hobbv Tadlock, Dunbar Brooks, DavisSCHEDULED DATE Mon., 04-06-92 Tue., 04-07-92 II 11 If 11 Wed., 04-08-92 II II tl II Thu., 04-09-92 II II II II Tue., 04-28-92 II tl Wed., 04-29-92 II 11 tl II Thu., 04-30-92 II II II It Fri.. 05-01-92 tl II It II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOURTH VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 SCHOOL Franklin Elem. Carver Magnet Fair High Garland Elem. Central High Ish Elem. Western Hills Elem. Jefferson Elem. Mabelvale Jr. High Mitchell Elem. Hall High Rightsell Elem. Parkview Magnet Rockefeller Elem. Washington Magnet Booker Magnet McClellan High Stephens Elem. Badgett Elem. Dunbar Magnet Wilson Elem. SPECIALISTS Brooks, Davis Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Smith, Hobby Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Smith, Hobby Brooks, Davis Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Davis, Brooks Smith, Hobby Dunbar, TadlockLRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOURTH VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 3 SCHEDULED DATE Mon., 05-18-92 If H Tue., 05-19-92 It fl Wed., 05-20-92 SCHOOL Pulaski Heights. Elem Terrv Elem. Meadowcliff Elem. Romine Elem. Watson Elem. SPECIALISTS Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Tadlock, Dunbar Davis, Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Thu., 05-21-92 Wakefield Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar\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_781","title":"Test data","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["Test data"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/781"],"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":["193 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\nIndiana Achievement Level Tests Reading Goal Structure 1. Reading Strategies/Word Meaning a. Context clues b. Root/base words, structural analysis, prefixes and suffixes c. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms, multiple meaning d. Phonetic clues 2. Literal Comprehension a. Identify main idea/summarize b. Recognize or recall significant detail c. Determine sequence of ideas or events d. Interpret directions e. Use reference skills 3. Inferential/Interpretive Comprehension a. Make inferences b. Make predictions c. Identify cause and effect d. Categorize information 4. Critical Judgment Skills a. Draw/evaluate conclusions b. Distinguish between fact and fiction c. Identify persuasive content d. Identify authors purpose e. Identify authors point of view, bias, stereotypes f. Identify literary devices/techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) g. Identify literary elements (plot, characters, setting, theme, etc.) h. Distinguish between fiction-nonfiction, fantasy realityIndiana Achievement Level Tests Language Usage Goal Structure 1. Writing Strategies and Skills a. Prewrinng b. Drafting skills: complete sentences, clarity, figurative language, mood, tone, etc. c. Revising proofing, editing d. Forms appropriate to purpose e. Appropriate sentence forms f. Paragraph skills including form, topic sentence, etc. 2. Grammar and Usage a. Basic sentence patterns b. Types of phrases and clauses c. Noun forms including plurals, possessives d. Verb tenses e. Irregular verb forms f. Subject-verb agreement g. Adjective forms h. Adverb forms i. Pronoun forms including plurals, possessives j. Negative forms 3. Mechanics of Writing a. Appropriate end punctuation b. Commas c. Apostrophes d. Enclosing punctuation e. Underlining titles f. Beginning capitalization g. Capitalization of proper nouns and adjectives h. Capitalization of pronoun I i. SpellingIndiana Achievement Level Tests Mathematics Goal Structure 1. Reasoning/Connections/Problem Solving a. Logic/reasoning b. c. 2. a. b. c. d. Strategies Connections/application of process skills Number Sense/Place Value Counting, order Greater than, less than, equal comparisons Odd, even Place value e. Rounding f. Fraction and decimal concepts and relationships g. Ratios, proportions, percent h. i. j- 3. Notation systems Primes, factors, multiples, roots Application of process skills Computation /Estimation/AIgebraic Functions a. Addition and subtraction of whole numbers (algorithms) b. Multiplication and divisions of whole numbers (algorithms) c. Addition and subtraction of fractions and decimals (algorithms) d. Multiplication and division of fractions and decimals (algorithms) e. Commutative, associative, distributive properties/order of operations f. g- h. i. 4. Solve equations, evaluate expressions, understand concept of variable Patterns and functions Coordinate system Application of process skills Geometry and Spatial Sense a. Recognize, describe, compare, classify geometric objects b. Describe geometric relationships c. Identify, describe angles d. Line characteristics e. Geometric patterns f. Identify fundamental transformations g. Pythagorean theorem h. Application of process skills 5. Measurement and Estimation a. Attributes of length, capacity, volume, weight, mass b. Attributes of time and temperature c. Concepts of perimeter, area, diameter, radius, circumference d. Value of money e. Relationship between and among metric and customary units f. Application of process skills 6. Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability a. Analyze data from charts, graphs, and tables b. Concepts of chance, probability, prediction c. Measures of central tendency d. Ordered pairs e. Application of process skillsNWEA NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION Achievement Level Tests: Assessments that Make a Difference Achievement Level Test results help teachers, schools and districts to: T'he Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Achievement Level Tests are a  Monitor the progress of all students toward state and district standards series of tests aligned with local curriculum and state standards. While most tests simply provide scores that compare and rank students and schools. Achievement Level Tests provide the information most important to educators  scores that measure growth in student achievement. Level tests provide thorough and reliable data that can be used with confidence to make instructional and program improvement decisions. about the testing experience. Another benefit of focusing the tests around specific achievement levels is that each test is shorter in length, resulting in less class time used for testing. But most importantly, teachers receive accurate information that enables them to monitor each students academic growth. When to Administer Achievement Level Tests Most districts administer Achievement Level Tests in both the fall and spring. Tests may be administered starting in the spring of second Measure growth in student achievement over time Place students into appropriate courses or instructional settings  Provide instructional focus  Screen students for Title I eligibility, special education services and gifted programs  Evaluate program effectiveness More Accurate Data About Individual Students Teachers want to improve student learning, but to do this, they need more accurate information than the traditional, single-form test can provide. With conventional tests, low-performing students see only a few questions that they can get right, and high-performing students see only a few that they will miss. This RIT Score 250 r 238 - 226 - 214 - 202 - 190 Achievement Level Test Longitudinal Report   *  diiu| R Score H Average W Grade 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 grade. The reading and language usage tests are appropriate for most students through grade 10\nthe mathematics tests through algebra and geometry. Science tests can be given to students in third grade through high school science courses. Term F96 S96 F97 S97 F98 S98 F99 Academic growth for individual students can be tracked through the NWEA longitudinal report. Shown here is a student's progress in mathematics from grade 6 through grade 9. The Test Administration Process Achievement Level Tests are not timed and take about one Communicate to parents and the community not only causes boredom and frustration in students, it also makes achievement scores less accurate. With Achievement Level Tests, students take tests that are tailored to their current achievement level. This gives students a fair opportunity to show what they know and can do. There are no wasted test items on level tests. Students can actually attempt all items in a given test, which makes them feel better hour per subject for most students. An easy-to- follow administration booklet and instructional video smoothly guide the test administration process. For all districts new to the concept, NWEA provides an on-site introductory workshop that guides teachers through proper test administration procedures. The administration of NWEAs Achievement Level Tests differs from other tests since students must be assigned a test of appropriate difficulty. In the first year of the program, brief locator tests help place students into the right test level. In subsequent years, NWEA's scoring program uses prior test results to automatically assign students to the right level. Test Results Returned Quickly, Measure Progress Level test results are returned within two weeks. Districts with appropriate technical expertise may license the NWEA scoring software for immediate on-site scoring. Level test results are reported on an achievement scale called the NWEA RIT scale. This scale RIT Score -! State Standard Score = 23i~~|-- 220 - IM T 21 7l 221 225 205 - 190 - 201 208 211 175 Grade Median RIT Score Achievement Level Test scores can predict performance on critical state tests. The chart here shows the progress of students towards one state's reading standard of 231. 3 4 enables teachers to measure student progress much like a yardstick measures height. Growth in student achievement can be accurately tracked between terms and across years. In addition to the RIT score, NWEA provides percentile scores for districts to use to compare their students to others in the nation. NWEAs norms include more than 500,000 students, the largest K-12 norm base in the country. More importantly, NWEA provides the only systematically-collected set of growth norms available, enabling districts to accurately compare the growth of students with others in their grade. Goal scores provide specific measures related to the districts curriculum. These scores make it possible to compare student performance in each goal area to typical performance for students in that grade. Reports Summarize Test Results, Used to Improve Learning NWEA provides class, grade, school, district, and parent reports. Teachers use the information to focus classroom instruction and help pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra attention. District and school leadership teams use the data to make informed decisions and answer the difficult question, Are we a more effective school system today than we were yesterday? \"This scale enables teachers to n n n n n n 5 6 7 8 Predicting Student Performance on State Tests Schools should never be surprised by student performance on high-stakes tests. NWEA staff works with school districts to create an alignment between the level test scales and the state test scales. Districts commonly use data from Achievement Level Tests to predict student performance on state tests, which measure student progress much like a yardstick measures height.\" helps districts identify students eligible for special intervention programs and shows how all students are progressing toward the standards. NWEA Support to Districts NWEA provides extensive support to districts that use Achievement Level Tests, from early design decisions through the implementation process, and appropriate and effective use of the data. NWEA: Assessment Expertise The Northwest Evaluation Association is a non-profit organization working in partnership with many of our nations school districts. Our mission, Partnering to help all kids learn, is rooted in the belief that accurate information about student achievement leads to improved student learning. NWEA provides professional training, consulting services, and ongoing research. We build long-term relationships with clients, helping them design and maintain comprehensive assessment programs that are making a difference in student learning. Northwest Evaluation Association 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97224 Tel: (503) 624-1951 Fax: (503) 639-7873 www.nwea.orgLittle Rock School District ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 2000-2001 Test Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 'j I. i\"! I  1 t , / 1*1 1 it| I \"n ^IjI hki J ta' 'fe 'fc* it IsStiBi- .  'riji.-M 1 --H-l--J'lTi JfiBi! 1-,-1 ' 12 Observation Survey Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Achievement Level Tests: Reading, language arts, math, science April Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring 1st Quarter CRT-October Alg I \u0026amp;II Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg I 811 Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig 2! Quarter CRT-January Read \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts 3'\" Quarter CRT-March Read. \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig End of Module Math As completed As completed As completed As completed As completed As completed End of Unit Science As completed As completed As completed As completed As completed End of Level Social Studies State tRa lli'hti Miifefy' of kfstii bon^hitiarkdi And standards, ' May SwHaSSl state Benchmark: Math and Literacy April April (pilot) April End of Course Algebra I (pilot) May May May May End of Course Geometry (pilot) May May May End of Course Literacy (pilot) iBSi 1 Ihfeij^ibk/\nft May SAT-9: Norm-referenced Test Sept ACT. PLAN, EXPLORE PSAT NAEP Feb. NAEP (randomly selected schools) February Sept Sept October Feb. Feb. FebruaryLittle Rock School District HAND DELIVERED February 13, 1991 53 V I a*?'  Mrs. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building t * Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Hart: As per your telephone request through Polly Ramer on February 12, 1991, I am forwarding 1990 test scores for Carver and Washington Elementary Schools. I regret the delay, but I was out of the office at the time of the request and my staff is not authorized to release information without my approval. Sue Tadlock indicated to Ms. Ramer that a written reguest was needed for our records. Please be advised that a written request is not needed at this time, letter in our files is sufficient. A copy of this Please contact me if you need additional assistance. Sincerely r Sterling Ingram, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation cc: Ruth Steele James Jennings bjg 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Little Rock School District August 27, 1991 RECEIVED Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building AUG 2 8 1991 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregaticn lioring Dear Mrs. Brown: We are enclosing the third administration summary report of the 1991 Arkansas Minimum Performance Test. This is in addition to test information provided to you on August 21, 1991. If I can answer any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Sterling Ingram, Director Planning, Research and Evaluation 324-2124 cc: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent James Jennings, Associate Superintendent bjg 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADMINISTRATION 19 9 1 *NUMBER INC. SCHOOL/IN SUMMARY TOTAL TEST PASSING SCORE = ____________STUDENTS FAILING 4204 STUDENTS PASSING BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL CLOVERDALE/219 Number Percent 193 88 12 46 9 35 4 15 26 12 DUNBAR/152 Number Percent FOREST HEIGHTS/219 Number Percent HENDERSON/295 Number Percent MABELVALE/193 Number Percent MANN/284 Number Percent PULASKI HEIGHTS/223 Number Percent SOUTHWEST/206 Number Percent ELIZ. MITCHELL/5 Number Percent DISTRICT/1796 Number Percent 136 89 197 90 263 89 178 92 276 97 207 93 191 93 2 40 1643 92 8 50 11 50 16 50 9 60 4 50 7 44 6 40 1 33 74 48 5 31 10 46 15 47 5 33 4 50 9 56 9 60 66 43 2 13 2 67 16 11 22 10 32 11 15 8 16 7 15 7 3 60 153 __8 M F 0 M 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 5 3 F 1 6 1 5 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 M 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 *The number included in this summary has been revised to reflect students moving into and out of the district since the first and second administrations.O' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: November 22, 1991 To: Ann Brown Office of Deseiggrreeggaattiioo:n Monitoring From: sterling Ingra: itor Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Test Scores Incentive Schools As requested today by Polly Ramer, we are providing Metropolitan Achievement Test results by race and gender for each of the incentive schools. If you have questions, please feel free to contact this office. bjg GnADE/nftCE iruHLirii TKSYKO J TOT/.T* W D 2 TOTAL II W o 1 TOTAL h W o 1 TOl'Al. n w 0 5 TOTAL D y o 6 TQTAI^ 8 W 0 7 7'lZJ AL II H O 8 TOTAL w o 9 Tar.M, 0 w o m TOTAL h If o J 1 TOTAl. n H 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANHIHC, RESRARCir AHO EVALVZiTIDH STANFORD ACHlKVBMEirT TEST\nEIGIITK EDITION MATlOriAI. PP^CRMTILr RAHK/KORMAL CURVE KQUIVAI.KHT SCORES (PR/NCR) UlSl'RIGTWIDE aUHMARY 1992 EMVlROHMEMT* TOTAL HEAODIC TOTAL r4ATHRHATICS LArrctmoE BCICHCE SOCIAL tJClEHC*: /*SIC nATj'Env COMPLETE  n/iTTERV 269 4 1330 697 24 1883 1)73 67 2 28 170 3 1 131 632 IC 1867 L211 632 23 1922 1200 612 22 184 J 1709 609 25 1694 1122 050 31 1 57,7 1060 493 19 15114 995 53 6 23 1602 949 609 4 1 .3 4 72 B25 612 3 5 12/45,8 35/41,9 63/37,(1 66/58,0 4fl/49.0 4Q/44.6 70/CJU 74/63,3 41/45.1 32/40.2 63/57.2 66/60.1 37/43.9* 27/37,3 S9/55.0 49/49.5 45/47.5 36/42,4 67/59.5 74/63,5 39/44.0 31/39,5 64/57,0 67/59.1 O 30/44.1 29/38.1 02/55,3 57/56.9 39/44.2 27/36.9 63/57.0 57/53.5 44/47,0 33/40.9 67/59,2 60/55.4 38/43.3 26/36.6 63/56,8 58/54.1 60/49.9 37/42,0 74/63.6 67/59.2 12/ 5 31/39.3 70/61.0 72/62,2 41/45,2 29/.nO-S 6//59,4 73/62.6 44/46.6 30/39.2 08/60,1 63/57.2 49/49,2 35/-ll.n 72/62.3 64/57.4 50/49.8 34/41.4 69/60.7 66/58.4 57/53,8 46/47,7 77/69.6 07/73.6 *'/49.7 59/43.9 70/60.9 64/57.4 43/46,3* 32/40.0 65/5n,0 O7/59 3 45/47.4 34/41.3 69/60.3 73/61.6 45/47.3 33/40.8 70/C1.2 74/63.5 C I 50/54.1 46/47.8 76/65,1 00/68.0 50/50.D 38/43.6 70/60.9 68/59,6 43/46.1 30/30.0 67/59.1 63/57,1 46/40.0 35/43.6 67/59.2 61/55,9 49/49.2 36/42.4 70/61.1 69/60.4 47/48.2 34/41.0 70/61.0 68/51.7 57/53.9 43/49.2 73/63.0 76/05.1 46/47.6 35/42.1 05/50.0 64/57.4 46/47.6 34/41.5 68/60.0 66/58.7 4Q/4*J.O 38/43.S GB/59.7 69/G0.3 48/45,0 3A/43.6 68/59.7 67/53.0 47/48.2 36/42,2 60/60.0 67/59.0 53/51,7 43/46,5 71/61,9 03/69.9 48/48.7 38/43.7 67/59.1 66/50.7 45/47.4 33/40,6 70/61.2 74/63.6 46/48.1 37/43.1 65/58.2 70/60.0 44/46.0 34/41.1 65/58.3 71/61.5 44/46.7 32/40.4 67/59.2 72/63,4 57/53.0 48/49.7 74/63.3 75/64.3 51/50.3 41/45.4 68/59.9 64/57.7 54/52.0 43/46.0 74/63,5 75/64.0 59/54.5 49/49.0 76/65.0 72/62.0 54/52.1 43/4C.4 73/63.1 72/62.2 54/52.1 43/46.0 75/64.0 73/62.6 45/47,4 36/42,2 64/57,3 75/64.3 39/1UO  n/lB.IJ 9/54.7 07/73.C 34/41.2 23/34,1 57/53.9 68/59.6 37/43.2 26/36.7 56/53,1 58/54.n 43/46.5 32/40,1 59 / 54,6 62/56.4 43/46,1 33/40,7 64/57.7 70/61.1 42/45,6 31/39,7 6S/S7.9 75/64-5 47/40.6 35/42.1 72/62,0 80/67.8 46/47.9 '35/41.7 69/60,6 75/64,5 46/47.7 33/40.9 71/61.5 70/66.0 o O o tO/49.1 Jn/\u0026lt;13.6 G0/GO.7 E1/GB.5 45/47.4 34/43,3 CB/60,1 77/65,7 46/40.0 34/41.3 72/62.1 63/70.0 43/46.2 32/40.0 66/5B,6 04/71.2 43/4G.1 30/39.2 60/59.0 86/72.6 cn 54/51.9 42/45.9 73/63,0 69/60.6 50/50,2 38/43,4 72/62.5 69/60.7 49/49.6 36/42.5 73/62,6 71/61.4 47/40,2 34/41.I 70/61,0 71/61.7 48/48.8 34/41,1 73/62.6 73/62.9 47/40.6 31/41.5 68/60.0 59/54.6 45/47.3 32/39.8 67/59.D 64/57.3 43/46.2 30/36.7 66/58.4 57/53,8 47/48,4 34/4 1.2 6B/60.1 64/57.7 47/48.5 3?/4O,4 70/61.2 65/58.2 40/49.1 35/41,9 66/50.S 61/56,1 32/40.2 fin/[i9.7 SQ/54.4 Sl/50.6 36/42.7 69/60-7 72/62.3 * At O.TdoH 1 nnd 2 tliD .SCIENCE nnti SOCIAL.SCIENCE objoctlvos aro comblnad .ind rnflortrid nii ceorts uinicr EWVIROPMEUT. 51/50.4 36/42.3  70/60,9 69/60.S Sl/90,4 34/41.3 72/62.1 7O/61\u0026lt;D li O oSCHOQI./MO. TESTEO* saazEBEftiiEzm Humber _ Peroent ssaiBABma Humbar --------Eaiaant LITTLE HOCK SCHOOL DISl'RICT Pr^KHIttB, RESBWICIt, AHD EVALUATIOll ARKANSAS dlNIMUH PERFORMZiNCB TEST GRADE EIGRT SUKHARV third adhihistratioh 19 9 3 ----ISTAb TEST PflSaiKS-'^RE c, 4304 STlfDEHTS ____ PASSIRQ __ DUCK gWi\u0026gt;E.KTB FA I LIMO LtKI Tnr\u0026gt; -_____ K WfllTB . A OTHER Z. J^OIidL . aeuagL/Ho. tested* ailEa3AJEIiiJ[I5/221 Humber UllSEBSa)lZ213 Humber laiDELyALEzua Hiinbor Pprcowt H\u0026amp;lUf/lSi Humber ------Pgroaht raiAEKIABISHlS/Jll Humber flO5TFIWF.ST/t94 Rinahor ______RSLEflflI lIlA_niTHELC4Z2 Humber --------Ea2SHt_____ limiAeLE POINTMl Rumbsr ---------Eaxaant______ CISlEl 1/1162 Humbor _____- Paroei 154 _2i 201 -AA 115 SA 214 BA lai SA 234 _2A 2il\u0026gt; ----------Ifi____ ISfi ___52- A AA 31 1525 ___SA 12 AA 12 AA 24 25, 14 -lA 12 JI A .41- 14 -5A 20 59 A 0 ii 121 _SA * The number of students tested lias Into and out of the district i special education students Qdnij.i)iatraklefk fiummary. 13 -12 A -21 A 25 IS -.-S2_ 12 43 11 II -12 ~0 A ___0 A. 3A -A lA _1 100 A 12 Al .11 .3 A. A 0 ii A A. A 21 IS 0 A. _a -A A_ _a A. A -A A A_ A _A _3 A A -A 32 A -A A' -i_ A -A 31 lA fiisyBiiEjUiEZiia tlUDbsr Patoont A A 25 Al_ liHHUABZm Hunber JL ~o 32 -lA FOREST HElnilTH/21A Nunbor _6 _A_ A -A 25 18___ UEamaotf/ui Hun.bnr __- Peroant A A A A- A -A A -A -12. Zi_ A A A -A A -A A -A A -A A A _A 25 JA 22 9 2J 10 34 -la___ ii. A -Al 235 A3_ tevlsed to reflect studenta movinc since the second adininlstraticn and to exclude 10 inav hava hn^n a-,.. ' uxeauao . --------  KILAa UAUI vho may havo been includod In the second BiaEurALBZua Rtlinber -- Percent MAHH/273 Humber ______Paroenl PULASKT HEIgKTS/?2fl Riunbec Pnroant:  sflimniEaiziaa Humber 5mAIITCIIEl.r./9 Humbar ---------latoent  EtUHACl.B POIHT/S  Humber _____Percent_____ DISTniCT/1779 Humber ______Peroent l.ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PWRHINQ, RESEAHCri, AHI) EVAUJATIOH ARKAHSAS MtHIMUH PERFOIIHAlfCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADHIHISTRATIOH 19 9 2 BTUDEHTS isaiiL ISA 90 222 ____SA iSi -AA 122 - Bj 153 -AA 251 A4. 2S2 _AA 152 -AA A IS. Ji 1555 __BA to co o CD iffioUt.TES'C-jasauffi^coRE 4204 1-lU- SLACK 10 Ai_ IS -SA 21 -SA 12 5B JL AA_. 19 in 15 Al 0 IOS -SS- F 10 AS Ji 12 ii AA- -15- A S8 15 -iL JA A 2A SS AA ejWBEHTB EAIUUg___ JI KKITE i JI OTHER o _IS1AL_ 0 10 0 0 A -U. Q 0 2 A _2 54- ii 11 -5. A -i_ JA 0 0 1 A 0 0 A -14. _2i_ _1 AA 12 -A- 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 _a o 0 a 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 _a 0 21 -IS 20 0 32 -H 32 AA 22 .11 IS -A 26 Ak 32 AA Ai JAai_. 225 18 (Into Olid out of the diatriot aiiino^hn^T to rntlect students moving apoolnl Bducatlon otudonte who may hava hm '''\"'^olstratlon and to oxolude\nadministration sumnary? inoludsd In the socond I t3 Dl O to tJ \u0026gt;c 50 o\u0026gt; o C3- o o O) IS o oijJ. I i LiE. KUtA OC-ilUUlj UXJj TKX^- T PLAHNIWG, RES15AKCH AND EVALUATION EXHIBIT 2 A ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING FIVE YEAR COMPARISON 1909-1993 \\   I I 1 I ALL STUDENTS GRADE SUBJECT '09 '90 '91 '92 '93 ' 89 BLACK STUDEN' ' 90 '91 '92 '93 '09 WliITE_STU DENTS__ '90 '91 ' 92 '93 ' 09 OTHER STUDENTS ' 90 '91 '92 '93 i\u0026gt; 3 6 8 0 READING MATH READING MATH LANGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES READING MATH rj^NGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES TOTAL TEST * 86 89 88 09 75 66 70 90 89 85 67 74 91 07 87 90 90 77 72 77 09 8 7 84 74 75 91 87 87 94 90 70 73 73 07 84 02 63 63 92 08 91 92 89 77 75 74 05 06 01 62 66 00 86 88 91 80 7 6 80 76 86 03 80 63 67 82 06 8 4 86 60 56 60 86 06 79 55 65 83 82 07 88 70 62 '69 05 83 79 64 68 02 83 92 88 71 64 65 02 79 76 SO 54 02 0 7 09 06 70 67 66 79 81 75 52 57 81 83 07 84 70 73 69 02 70 75 51 58 * TOTAL TEST SCORE AFTER THIRD ADMINISTRATION EACH YEAR. 96 97 96 95 89 86 09 90 97 97 09 91 95 95 97 96 92 92 94 98 97 93 93 91 95 94 90 95 90 90 09 97 95 94 08 01 90 97 90 95 90 90 09 97 95 92 85 04 96 96 99 94 90 95 91 95 92 91 07 05 70 83 96 96 80 05 80 90 80 70 70 83 95 90 95 95 06 82 9 5 08 93 00 03 01 96 91 100 97 90 07 90 9 0 90 02 70 70 96 96 94 91 85 00 05 97 92 06 01 01 06 91 95 9 2 92 02 02 02 77 79 69 74 I |! .h I1 ,a r w Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE October 7 1992 For more informations Dianne Woodruff,\n020 J LR5D ACT AND SAT SCORES RELEASED Better ACT and SAT scores were aligned with those Little Rock School District students who had taken advanced placement and honors t jurses in addition to their regularly required core courses. Students who took honors classes scored much better on the SAT on the average than the mean scores for all students. Of the 315 students who took the SAT, 212 C677.3 had taken honors English and 152 t.4SZ.') had taken honors mathematics c our ses. \"These test summaries support the belief that student will do better on tests if they take advanced placement and s honors level courses,\" said Mac Bernd, super intendent. Although LRSD offers more advanced placement course than other districts, as part of our emphasis on academic achievement were working towards offering even more advanced placement courses, If Bernd added. II In terms of the disparity among blacks and whites. we can see that getting students into advanced placement c1 asses could really help their achievement levels, If Bernd said. (MORE) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ^(Sonag^MoooLRSD ACT and SAT Page 2 scores \"We must work to prepare al 1 our students to quali fy for, enrol 1 in and complete the more advanced and challenging advanced placement c ourses,\" said Bernd. Recently released SAT and ACT scores for the 19'31-92 school year show a variety of statistical information that compares LRSD students to other Arkansas district scores and to the National averages. Both tests are administered several times throughout the school year and are summarized at the end of the testing period. The tests measure verbal and mathematical reasoning skills, developed over many years of education. that are related to academic performance in college. The ACT exam was administered to 1,101 LRSD students, while 315 students took the SAT exam. The ACT test summary shows an increase in overall composite scores from 1990-91 to 1991-92 for LRSD students. English. mathematics and science reasoning all had increased sc or es. The reading score did not change over the two-year period. Parkview Magnet School students c jmposite scores wer ea better than Arkansas and National composite scores. Students from Fair, Hal 1, McClellan and Parkview Magnet had higher composite scores in 1991-92 than in the 1990-91 school year. CMOREjLRSD ACT and SAT Scores Page 3 In comparing 13'31 and 1'3'32 ACT composi'fcB scores for black and white students, the black pupil composite remained stable at 17 i while the white student composite score increased slightly from 21.'2 in 1'3'31 to 21.7 in 1'3'32. Although LRSD students did not score as high on the SAT test in the verbal \u0026lt;453) and mathematics \u0026lt;48'3) areas as in the previous year, the 1'3'32 mean scores for LRSD students were substantially higher than the National Average scores of 41 verbal and 47S mathematics. Fair High School students scored higher on the SAT than the Arkansas and National average in mathematics. In comparing black and white students. LRSD, Ar kansas and National white students scored higher on the average on the verbal and mathematics sections than black students. Note: A detailed summary which includes national. school comparisons will be mailed state and LRSD upon request.u 10/07/92 16:27 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001/004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE (Qc. TO FROM 7 SENDER'S PHONE# SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Pages (include cover page) Fax Phone Number Speed dial FOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE USE ONLY Transmitted By Date Time . RECEIVED TO: Mrs. Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent FROMz'^a. Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr. DATE: May 16, 1993 MAY 1 3 1993 SUBJ: Oitica of Dossgregation Mcnitoring AMPT Test Summary/Six Years I am providing you with the results of Garland's sixth grade (Black male)student performance over a six year period. The results from 1988 -1991 reflect the progress of Black male students under the instructional leadership of another principal. Particular focus on Black males is being used because of the enormous gender disparity in performance between black students. Detailed results of the performance of Black male students from 1988 to 1993 can be obtained from the office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. The results in reading are being provided for you because they are the single most important predictor of future success in educational attainment. The District Summary results are being used as a standard to normalize the results at Garland. READING 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 District Summary Percent Passed Garland School Percent Passed Difference 78 79 84 88 86 84 73 -5 47 -32 80 -4 77 -11 91 +5 95 +11 The major difference in the variables impacting the results for the last two year has been the emphasis placed on culturally specific content in the school's curriculum. The students at Garland School, in grades 4 through 6, responded to this statement \"African-African American History is taught in this school\", on the Incentive School Student Survey with 80% favorable response as \"ALWAYS\". When the outcomes of the MPT performance in Reading and Math were shared with the sixth grade students, they were asked to explain the cause of the difference. They responded by saying that school was about them. They learned a lot about Africa and African Americans. When you compare the District Summary with Garland's progress for the same period. you find a significant difference in gains for Black males, uncharacteristic of the performance level during the tenure of another principal. I would like to get on the agenda to share this with the Board of Directors. I am asking your assistance in making this happen. We can close the gap before the year 2000. cc Monitoring Teams05/21/83 14:36 0501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 121002/003 \u0026lt;1 I I Little Rock School District I t NEWS RELEASE May 21,1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RH.FASES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES Three Little Rock School District schools, Cloverdale and Terry Elementary, both, area schools, and Williams Magnet Elementary achieved 85% I mastery of the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test in all areas in all grade levels. Six additional schools achieved mastery in all subject areas except one  in aU grade levels except one. The schools are McDermott, Jefferson and Woodruff area elementary schools and Carver Magnet, Ish Incentive and Romine Interdistrict elementary schools. j I 1 The seven incentive elementary schools improved as a group and are 1 making progress, especially at the 6th grade level. Rightsell Incentive I I i Elementary students in grade three and six improved in six of the seven areas of testing. Mitchell Incentive Elementary and Stephens Incentive Elementary improved in all areas in grade six. Rockefeller Incentive Elementary I I I improved overall in grade three. The Districts Magnet Schools continue to score at or near the 85% passage requirements in all grades and areas tested. (MORE) fin iaMteAMia05/21/93 14:36 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003/003 I LRSD MPT Tests-1993/94 Page 2 The district-wide passing rate for Sth grade students is seventy-eight percent which is one percentage point higher that the 1992 school year passing rate. The increased passing rate indicates continued growth in Little Rock School District student's mastery levels. ### I i i i ( I ireceived t JAH OHse o5 Dsesesi^' .MpPi-pnCiS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date: January 4, 1994 To: From: Margie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Sterling Ingra^^Director Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test, 1993 As requested in your telephone call today, we are enclosing copies of the school summary reports for the 1993 Arkansas MPT. If we can provide any additional information, please let me know. bjg cc: Jerry Malone P 1 4 1 t JRECEIVED AUG 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT DATE: August 18, 1994 TO: Ms. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: r. Robert Glowers RE: 1993-94 Stanford Achievement Test Results Please find enclosed results of the 1993-94 administration of the SAT-8 test for the Little Rock School District. Enclosed are districtwide and individual school reports disaggregated by ethnicity. One report provides a three year trend of the test administration giving the basic and complete battery score results. The second report provides subject area results along with basic and complete battery scores for the 1993-94 school year. Please let me know if you have any questions. Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent 08/31/94 13:36 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst 002 5-- C3X Little Rock School District August 31, 1994 RECEIVED TO\nFROM\nMargie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring Or. Robert dowers. Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation SUBJECT\nAUG 3 11994 0ffiC3 of !9 Stanford-8 Results for Incentive Schools, 1991-92 As per your request, please find attached copies of the Stanford-8 Test results for the Incentive Schools by Subject area/Race for the 1991-92 school year. If I can be of further assistance, please contact iny office. dge Attachmentco o o s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION (A C5 STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTII.E RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o Xi o (/3 a SCHOOL\nFRANKLIN ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE HUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM CO o C'l CM CO o IO 3 co co 05 co co* o 1 TOTAt, B W O 2 TOTAL B H O 3 TOTAL B H O 4 TOTAL B W O 5 TOTAL B H O 6 TOTAL B W O 70 64 6 63 60 3 60 55 5 39 37 2 56 50 4 2 55 51 4 25/35.5 25/35.5 26/36.2 26/36.3 25/35.8 35/41.6 19/31.5 18/30.8 30/38.8 28/37.9 26/36.4 58/54.0 25/36.0 25/35.5 33/40.8 21/32.8 19/31.3 48/48.8 19/31.5 18/30.4 59/54.5 17/29.5 16/28.6 31/39.3 25/35.6 23/34.6 75/64.4 15/28.5 14/27.1 18/30.9 66/58.6 30/38.8 28/37.5 62/56.2 35/41.9 35/41.6 47/48.4 29/38.3 27/37.0 56/53.0 31/39.4 27/36.9 97/89.6 28/37.6 26/36.7 24/35.4 74/63.8 36/42.7 34/41.3 69/60.6 27/36.9 26/36.2 51/50.7 25/36.0 23/34.5 79/66.9 25/35.6 24/34.8 56/52.9 23/34.1 21/33.1 59/54.9 27/37.0 26/36.1 46/48.0 24/34.9 21/33.0 85/71.4 28/37.5 25/35.9 34/41.0 86/72.7 38/43.3 36/42.5 57/53.8 18/30.8 16/29.0 50/50.1 18/30.9 19/31.2 81/68.2 23/34.2 22/33.5 13/26.6 77/65.8 39/43.9 37/43.1 59/54.8  At Grsdcs 1 and a the SCIENCE and SOCIAI. SCIENCE objootivos are combined and reflected as one score unde EWVinoNHENT. 23/34.2 21/33.0 45/4 7..3 23/34.1 21/33.0 43/46.2 20/32.1 18/30.9 42/45.9 28/37.8 26/36.7 68/59.6 26/36.2 24/35.3 19/31.2 81/68.2 43/46.0 41/45.0 66/58.9 26/36.1 25/35.8 89/76.2 21/33.0 19/31.7 21/32.8 77/65.2 36/42.7 34/41.4 66/58.4 23/34.1 22/33.8 89/75.5 20/32.3 19/31.1 18/30.4 78/66.3 36/42.3 34/41.0 67/59.2o [l Liri'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIJVNNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION U) n STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o X3 U cn Of SCHOOL: GARI^ND ELEHENTARY EMVIROHHENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM ec o CM CM CC o ira 3 n ec X 00  o _1 _TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL B N O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B H O J2_._ 32 29 26 3 28 28 31 30 1 35 35 62 62 ** At Grades 1 -_-62/_6S--5- -31/39.7-- 31/39.7 - -29/38,^-- 29/38.5 -20/32t1 20/32.1 -------35/Al-r$h 35/61.9 -26/36^1----- 26/36.1 19/31.8 17/29.7 51/50.7 32/60.3 29/38.6 65/58.3 25/35.9 23/36.5 68/60.7 25/35.7 21/33.3 65/58.3 21/33.1 18/30.8 55/52.8 26/36.2 23/36.1 58/56.2 12/25.6 12/25.6 29/38.5 29/38.5 26/35.0 26/35.0 20/32.0 20/32.0 22/33.9 22/33.9 19/31.2 19/31.2 17/30.0 17/30.0 23/35.1 43/46.3 23/36.3 23/36.3 27/37.2 27/37.2 39/66.3 38/43,7 69/60,4 29/38.1 28/37.9 43/46.3 26/36.7 26/36.2 54/52.1 36/61.5 33/40.9 69/60.4 28/37.7  28/37.6 49/49,5 26/36.6 20/37.9 51/50.5 30/63.8 38/63.8 63/66.6 63/66.6 and z the ecIBNCE and flocIAL 32/60.0 32/60.0 39/66.3 39/66.3 SCIENCE objectives 30/38.7 30/38.7 31/39.5 31/39.5 29/38.3 29/38.3 28/37.6 28/37.6 39/63.9 39/63.9 67/68.5 67/68.5 39/63.9 39/63.9 38/63.5 38/63.5IO o o Ka.'S LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION CA o STANFORD ACIIIEVFJIENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o 4= O CZ5 0 SCHOOL: H1TCHEI.L ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY cv n o CM CM CC o IO \u0026amp; co cc 03 cc 00, o _ 1 TOTAL B H O 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL B W o 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 40...... 38 2 32/40.1 31/39.6 49/49.6 30/39.1 30/38.7 43/46.3 30,38.8 29/38.4 44/47.0 21/33.9 - 20/31.9 55/52.6 __.ie'it -31/39.5- - 30/38.8 54/52.1 26/36.3  25/35.6 49/49.4 43 41 2 39 35 3 1 41 38 ,3 24 23 1 38 38 20/32.0 21/32.9 4/13.8 25/35.9 23/34.1 58/54.4 42/45.8 26/36.3 26/36.2 26/36.5 27/37.1 26/36.4 55/52.6 29/38.3 29/38.3 At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE are combined and rrt F 1 48/49.0 49/49.5 31/39.6 31/39.7 32/40.0 21/33.0 26/36.3 25/35.6 52/50.9 29/30.6 30/39.2 12/25.3 26/36.2 26/36.7 12/25.2 46/40.1 44/47.0 73/62.9 43/46.3 34/41.3 31/39.5 75/64.2 26/36,.5 29/38.2 25/35.7 71/61.5 65/58.1 42/4 5.9 39/44.1 78/65.9 49/49.5 32/40.0 28/37.9 73/62.6 40/44.7 30/39.2 27/37.1 71/61.8 42/45.8 37/42.8 37/42.9 34/41.3 56/53.1 56.53.4 44/46.8 42/45.9 42/45.9 25/35.9 25/35.7 29/38.3 26/36.7 26/36.5 30/39.1 29/38.2 29/38.2 28/37.7 29/38.2 34/41.3 30/39.0 26/36.7 29/38.2 28/37.5 43/46.3 40/44.7 94/82.7 33/40.9 33/40.9 and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives 35/41.6 34/41.0 66/58.7 50/49.8 49/49.6 59/54.8 42/45.6 41/45.0 67/59.3 42/45.5 40/44.9 67/59.3 43/46.2 43/46.2 39/44.2 39/44.2 36/42.6 36/42.6 36/42.2 36/42.2co o o s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ce Q STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE HANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o 3 O W o: SCHOOL: RIGHTSEIX ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM CD CM CM CO O1 co co OJ co \\ co * o 1 TOTAL B ' V O 2 TOTAL B H O 3 TOTAL B W 0 4 TOTAL n H O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O - 39- 38 33 32 38 37 33 33 62 62 33 33 *'63/66.2 63/66.5 '*56/67.9\" 66/68.0 32/60.6' 33/60.3 25/35.9' 26/36.2 60/66.7 61/65.0 39/66.0 60/66.6 65/67.1 65/67.2 32/60.2 32/39.9 53/51.6 26/36.2 26/36.2 21/33.1 21/33.1 36/61 .0 36/61.0 71/61.5 70/61.0 66/68.1 65/67.1 95/86.6 53/51.6 53/51.6 69/69.5 69/69.5 66/58.7 66/58.7 66/66.9 65/67.2 57/53.8 57/53.8 58/56.1 58/56.1 62/65.7 61/65.0 86/70.9 37/62.8 37/62.8 37/63.1 37/63.1 62/65.6 62/65.6 26/35.2 23/36.7 56/53.2 26/35.1 27/37.2 28/37.9 28/37.9 36/62.3 36/62.3 30/38.8 29/38.6 55/52.6 31/39.6 31/39.6 37/63.2 37/63.2 61/65.2 61/65.2 38/63.8 38/63.3 75/66.2 . 36/62.6 39/66.2 30/38.8 30/38.8 63/66.0 63/66.0 36/61.5 36/61.0 73/62.9 32/60.1 35/61.9 29/38.6 29/38.6 60/66.6 60/66.6 o lO 3 1 ** At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIEJtCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE obioctivo aro combined and reflnnl-od 13o s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ) o STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o .c o tn q: SCHOOL: ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM O CM CM O to ei o co a\u0026gt; 00 J o --1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B M O 4 TOTAL B W o 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B H O - 62----- 41 20 1 - 42/45\n8 - 52/51.0 64/57.5 -30/3071  45/47.1 61/56.0 59/54.8 51750 .'3----- 46/47.8 59/54.8 70/61.0 33/40-.3!.... 26/36.7 49/49.3 35/41.9 46/48.1 41/45.1 57/53.6 68/59.9 42/45.5 37/42.8 51/50.7 63/57.0 41 29 10 2 39 26 12 1 38 33 5 38 32 5 1 36 27 9  At Grades 1 and 20/37.8 23/34.6 43/46.3 34/41.0 42/45.9 38/43.5 56/52.9 40/44.6 44/46.9 38/43.5 58/54.0 68/59.6 30/38.9 23/34.2 54/52.2 26/36.7 31/39.8 25/36.0 51/50.3 36/42.4 30/39.2 24/34.8 53/51.3 35/41.8 20/32.2 13/26.0 38/43.8 69/60.4 36/42.7 33/40.5 43/46.4 67/59.3 35/41.6 26/36.4 54/52.1 63/57.0 20/31.9 16/29.4 24/34.9 61/55.9 27/37.2 22/33.9 38/43.3 38/43.6 28/37.6 21/33.2 41/45.2 66/58.7 25/35.7 18/31.0 39/44.0 63/57.0 29/38.4 28/ 37.6 38/43.4 30/39.2 28/38.0 39/44.0 55/52.6 37/42.9 32/40.3 53/51.6 38/43.4 36/42.3 51/50.5 49/49.7 46/47.7 71/61.4 63/57.0 48/48.7 43/46.1 64/57.3 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL 25/35.6 23/34.5 41/45.3 26/36.7 28/37.6 41/45.2 31/39,3 27/37.0 58/54.3 28/37.8 29/38.6 40/44.4 26/36.3 27/36.8 41/45.1 41/45.1 36/42.6 63/56.9 75/64.2 43/46.2 38/43.8 66/58.8 66/58.7 34/41.0 32/40.0 40/44.6 59/54.8 36/42.4 33/40.7 52/50.9 62/56.4 35/41.8 32/40.0 52/51.0 62/56.4 38/43.8 34/41.1 55/52.7 48/49.0 45/47.3 58/54.2 56/53.4 50/49.9 75/64.1 45/47.4 40/44.9 59/54.9 45/47.5 40/44.8 61/55.7 SCTEHPP nh-i oci-00 o o LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PliANNlNG, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION U) Q STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o 43 O tn os SCHOOL: STEPHENS ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY -----1 TOTAL D W O 38- 37 1 22/3i-.%  22/33.8 23/34.4  42/5-r5-  41/45.4 52/51.1 -35/41.-8 - 35/41.6 53/51.6 -23/34T5- 23/3ii.l th tn .2 31/39. 6 ' 31/39.6 35/41.9 75735.-3 - 24/35.2 25/35.8 C-l n o CM CM CO o 1(5 63 n Oi co OO \u0026gt; 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 32 32 21 21 2 2 39 39 30 28 1 1 At Grados 1 27/37.3 27/37.3 20/32.6 20/32.6 24/35.4 30/39.2. 17/30.2 17/30.2 33/40.9 . 29/38.2 73/62.9 98/93.3 26/36.2 26/36.2 43/46.1 43/46.1 34/41.4 34/41.4 35/42.0 35/42.0 40/44.9 35/41.6 94/32.7 99/99.0 33/40.5 33/40.5 35/42.0 35/42.0 38/43.6 38/43.6 34/41.3 34/41.3 37/42.9 35/42.0 33/40.7 84/70.9 and 2 the ECIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE obloctivas 24/35.2 24/35.2 23/3^.5 29/38.5 27/36.8 27/36.8 32/40.4 38/43.3 34/41.4 54/52.1 97/89.6 21/33.3 21/33.3 22/34.0 22/34.0 36/42.3 36/42.3 33/40.5 33/40.5 31/39.7 31/39.7 35/41.9 35/41.9 32/40.2 32/40.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 42/45.5 37/42.9 89/75.8 96/86.9 36/42.3 31/39.7 98/93.3 35/41.8 30/39.2 76/64.9 98/93.309/07/95 ! i I 13:29 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM @002/002 i i mn V J. I Little Rock School District I 1 f i t i Media Advisory PREPARATIONS FOR STANFORD 8 TESTING I i September 7,1995 f I I For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 Friday, September 8,1:30 - 2:00 p.m. Stanford 8 testing begins around the state on Monday and students at Otter Creek Elementary School will get ready at a Test Buster Assembly in their cafeteria. One student will dress as Rocky (the boxer) and will \"challenge\" the test. ### I I ! I09/11/95  10:15 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM 002/002 f' Little Rock School District Media Advisory I ( I } i i I i i I 1 September 11,1995 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 No special events are scheduled for students in the Little Rock School District this week while Stanford 8 Tests are being administered. ! Thursday, September 14, 5:00 p.m. The LRSD Board of Directors will hold their regular monthly agenda meeting. I I 1 ### 1 I I 1 I I ( f i ! 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 78201  (5011324-2000c\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation NOV 2 2 1995 of Desegregation f^Ol'IiiOfiiig MEMORANDUM Date: November 21, 1995 To: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Subject: 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report C^cc Please find enclosed your personal copy of the 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report. Also enclosed are copies for distribution to the Board members. If 1 can be of further assistance, please call me. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board Members Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Joshua Intervenors John Walker, Attorney ^Office of Desegregation MonitoringI'l/i h Dra ^T^sr Tt. 'ry (tz. ** Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation MEMORANDUIVI RECiSVED DEC 1 5 1995 J\nOffice of Dssegiegauon Munuwuiy TO: Ann Brown. Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director RE: Revised Stanford Achievement Test Results: Historical Comparisons DATE: December 12,1995 h bra t'y - An error occurred during the processing of the comparative data report causing the scores for five schools (Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Mitchell, McDermott, and Martin L. King) to be interchanged. The results affect these schools only. All other data, to include other school and district totals, remain the same. Please replace previously received data with the attached revised version. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Lacey, Testing Coordinator or myself at 324-2120. Attachment a: e?ved N 1995 CKffiBB Little Rock School District Office ol Desegregation December 8. 1995 Monitoring MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director vl Planning, Research, and Ev^uation Tl.'k I'x RE: 1995 Stanford Achievement Test Results Cop'd /I'bi-a 'LX t Please find enclosed results of the Fall 1995 administration of the SAT-8 test for the Little Rock School District. Enclosed are districtwide and individual school reports disaggregated by ethnicity. One report provides a four year trend of the test administration giving the basic and Complete Battery score results. The second report provides subject area results along with Basic and Complete Battery scores for the Fall 1995 school year. Please let me know if you have any questions. Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000c: /tlrye. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation RECEiV''n FEB 8 1996 3 MEMORANDUM FROM: RE: January 25, 1996 Superintendents Cabinet Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Insert for SAT-8 Annual Report Office of Deseflregation Monuoii htg Please see attached SAT-8 Annual Report pages 7 and 8. If your document is missing these pages, please insert. We regret the inconvenience. cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams LRSD Board Members Arm Brown, ODM John Walker, Attorney Magnet School Review 1O-.8 (2, 4, 6, 9, and 10) scored average or above\nin 1994, eight grades (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) scored above the national average, and for 1995 six grades (2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9) scored at or above the national average. Grade 6 and 9 have remained above the national average for each years results. Fifth grade students in 1994 scored at the 56th percentile which equalled grades 4, 5, and 6 in 1995. 4.1.6 Science Five grade levels (2, 4, 5, 6, and 9) scored at or above the 50th percentile in science on the Stanford Eight in 1995. Only grades 4, 5, and 6 scored at or above the 50th percentile for the 1994 administration. In 1993 grades 4 and 6 exceeded the national average while in 1992 grades 6 and 9 scored average or above. 4.1.7 Social Science The 1994 social science data show that five of die nine grades levels tested (3, 4, 5, 6, and 10) scored above the national average. Grade 4 achieved the highest percentile rank in social science. In 1993, grades 4, 5, and 6\nand in 1992, grades 6 and 11 scored above the average national percentile. In a review of the 1995 data only 9 grades 4, 5, 6, and 10 exceeded the average national percentile (See Exhibits 1-6). 4.1.8 Highest Performance The national percentile ranks for grade 6 were at or above the national average in every subject area for all administrations (1992 through 1995), and grade 4 was above average in every subject area except reading (See Exhibits 1-6). 4.1.9 Analysis of Test Data for Elementary Students The Group Skills Analysis with Objectives Performance reports presents summary information for a class, school or district. This analysis provides a summary of the groups performance on the \"Content Clusters.\" Below average (BA) refers to the bottom 23 % of the reference group\nAverage (A), to the middle 54%\nand Above Average (AA), to the top 23%. These performance categories are especially helpful when identifying strengths and needs within content areas. This report, as well as other alternative assessments, assists the schools instructional leaders and staff when reviewing curriculum and setting priorities for instruction.Grade all Sheet 1 Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) Scores by Elementary Schools compared Io Total District Scores - Complete Battery [ School Name Williams (magnet) Carver (magnet) Icioverdale Romine (interdist) iGibbs (magnet) Western Hills I Rightsell (incent) Terry I King (interdistrict) Otter Creek I McDermott Rockefeller (incent) I Booker (magnet) Wilson I Fulbright Watson I Pulaski Heights Brady I Wakefield Washington (Inter) I Woodruff Forest Park I Bale Geyer Springs I Meadowcliff Dodd I Jefferson Fair Park iGarland (incent) Mabelvale I Chicot Baseline I Badgett Mitchell (Incent) I Frankin (incent) School Black 61.5 50 District Black 41.7 41.7 48.48 I 41.7 48.2 47.44 45.28 45.26 45 44.92 43.92 42.58 42 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 41.86 I 41.7 41,84 41.54 41.16 40.9 40.88 40.34 39.88 39.64 39.4 39.06 39 38.4 38.16 37.7 37.64 ,. 37.58 f 37.48 37.34 I 37.22 . 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 1 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 34.96 1 41.7 34.94 31,8 1 41.7 41.7 % diff 147.5% 119.9% 116.3% 115.6% 113.8% 108,6% 108.5% 107.9% 107.7% 105.3% 102.1% 100.7% 100.4% 100.3% 99.6% 98.7% 98.1% 98.0% 96.7% 95.6% 95.1% 94.5% 93.7% 93.5% 92.1% fo 91.5% , 90.4% 90.3% 90.1% 89.9% 89.5% 89.3% 83.8% Sorted by the % difference of School Black Scores to District Black Scores School White 75.58 71.36 I 65.9 49.3 I 69.24 63.96 I 17.3 68.56 I 62.3 61.54 I 66.12 51.38 I 57.98 52.06 I 66.82 48.32 I 68.62 56.68 1 48.78 63.28 I 53.9 75.66 I 53.96 46.2 I 48.76 , 48.76 83.8% 76.3% I 70.66 64.06 0 50.94 49.34 38.64 45.86 52.8 62.4 ZIZ Dlstricf White 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63,32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 % diff 119.4% 112.7% 104.1% 77,9% 109.3% 101.0% 21.3/^ 108.3% 98.4% 104.4% 81.1% 91.6% 82.2% 105.5% 76.3% 108.4% 89.5% 99.9% 85.1% 119.5% 85.2% 73.0% 77.0% 77.0% 111.6% 101.2% 0.0% 80.4% 77.9% 61.0% 72.4% 83.4% 98.5% School Total 68.46 60.86 50.2 49.28 57.16 51.92 45.24 58.4 53.64 54 53.58 45.02 49.34 44.54 54.18 42.44 55.52 45.52 41.52 48.58 45.68 58.08 42.32 40.58 40.98 41.96 57.52 41.84 37.76 42.08 39.56 37.64 37.64 35.24 32.64 Page 1 District Total 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 I % diff 138.6% 123.2% 101.7% I 99.8% 115.8% I 105.1% 91.6% I 118,3% 108.6% I 109.4% 108.5% I 91.2% 99.9% I 90.2% 109.7% I 85.9% 112.4% I 92.2% 84.1% I 3rd Qlr Enrollm't 513 630 454 312 310 318 223 534 557 333 484 402 605 384 520 453 434 389 428 98.4% : 656 92.5% I 117.6%  85.7% I 82.2% I 83.0% 1 85.0% I 116.5% I 84.7%  - I 76.5% I 85.2% I 80.1% I Report date: May 23,1996__ % Black % eligible for free or___% ellgito for reduced Lunch free lunch 241 433 343 320 405 281 506 273 257 448 454 76.2% . 323 76.2% i 71.4% 66.1% I 220 258 455 52.0% 52.0% 85.0% 71.0% 54.0% 66.0% 96.0% 45.0% 54.0% 41.0% 53.0% 64.0% 52.0% 79.0% 49.0% 80.0% 47.0% 63,0% 86 0% 64,0% 67,0% 47,0% 70,0% 75,0% 76,0% 65,0% 42.0% 92.0% 69.0% 76.0% 76.0% 79.0% 97.0% 93.0% 22.4% 33.0% 78.0% 54.5% 39.4% 61.3% 83.0% 28,7% 51,7% 34,8% 41,3% 65,9% 46,9% 73,7% 36,2% 74,8% 43,6% 49,6% 81,1% 63,0% 68.5% 37.0% 74.9% 76.6% 73.3% 66.9% 38.3% 75.5% 94.6% 73.9% 77.3% 81.7% 77.3% 98.5% 86 5% 17.9% 27.0% 69.8% 46.5% 33.5% 54.4% 76.2% 27.2% 43.8% 30.9% 37.6% 59.2% 36.7% 68.0% 31.7% 67.3% 39.2% 43.4% 72.2% 56.7% 61.8% 32.3% 66.4% 65.9% 68.9% 61.9% 36.0% 69.6% 89.9% 64.1% 68.1% 74.3% 74.1% 95.0% 79.8%Sheen Normal Curve Equivalenl (NCE) Scores by Elementary Schools compared to total District Scores-- Complete Battery ~]~ Grade all School Name Forest Park Williams (magnet) ICarver (magnet) Jefferson iGibbs (magnet) Pulaski Haights iTerry Fulbright iMcDermotl Cloverdale I Fair Park Western Hills Iwashington (inter) Frankin (incenl) I King (interdistrict) Otter Creek I Booker (magnet) Brady (Bale Woodruff I Mitchell (incenl) Wilson I Rockefeller (incenl) Mabelvale IChicot Romine (interdist) [Wakefield Dodd I Meadowcliff Watson [Geyer Springs Badgett [Baseline Rightsell (Incent) [Garland (incenl) Sch(X)l Black 39.4 61.5 50 37.7 47.44 40.9 45 41.54 42.58 48.48 37.64 45.28 39.88 31.8 44.92 43.92 41.86 40.88 39.06 39.64 34.94 41.84 42 37.48 37.34 48.2 40.34 38.16 38.4 41.16 I 39 34.96 [ 37.22 45.26 [ 37.58 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I i District Black 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 % diff 94.5% 147.5% I 119.9% 90.4% ] 113.8% 98.1% 107.9% 99.6% 102.1% 116.3% 90.3% 108 6% 95.6% 76.3% 107.7% 105.3% 100.4% 98.0% 93.7% 95.1% 83.8% 100.3% 100.7% 89.9% 89.5% 115.6% 96.7% 91.5% 92.1% 98.7% 93.5% 83.8% 89.3% 108.5% [ 90.1% I 1 I Sorted by the % difference of School White Scores to District While Scores School While 75.66 75.58 71.36 70.66 69.24 68.62 68.56 66.82 66.12 65.9 64.06 63.96 63.28 62.4 62.3 61.54 57.98 56.68 53.96 53.9 52.8 52.06 51.38 50.94 49.34 49,3 48.78 48.76 48.76 48.32 46.2 45.86 38.64 17.3 0 District While 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 % diff 119.5% 119.4% I 112.7% 111.6% 109.3% 108.4% 108.3% 105.5% 104.4% 104.1% 101.2% 101.0% 99.9% 98.5% 98.4% 97.2% 91.6% 89.5% 85.2% 85.1% 83.4% 82.2% 81.1% 80.4% 77.9% 77.9% 77.0% 77.0% , 77.0% 76.3% 73.0% 72.4% 61.0% 27.3% 0.0% r Schrxjl Total 58.08 68.46 60.86 57.52 57.16 55.52 58.4 54.18 53.58 50.2 41.84 51.92 48.58 32.64 53.64 54 49.34 . 45.52 42.32 45.68 35.24 44.54 45.02 42.08 39.56 49.28 41.52 . 41.96 40.98 42.44 40.58 37.64 37.64 45.24 37.76 Page 1 DisIricI Total 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 % diff 117.6% 138.6% I 123.2% 116.5% I 115.8% 112.4% I 118.3% 109.7% ( 108.5% 101.7% [ 84.7% 105.1% I 98 4% 66.1% [ 108.6% 109.4% I 99.9% 92.2% 85.7% 92.5% 71.4% 90.2% 91.2% 85.2% 80.1% 99.8% 84.1% 85.0% 83.0% 85.9% 82.2% 76.2% 76.2% 91.6% 76.5% I 3rd Qlr Enrollm't i 433 513 630 506 310 434 534 520 484 454 273 318 656 455 557 333 605 389 343 241 258 384 402 448 454 312 428 281 405 453 320 220 323 223 257 I Report Dale May 23,1996 % Black 47.0% 52.0% 52.0% 42.0% 54.0% 47.0% 45.0% 49.0% 53.0% 85.0% 78.0% 66.0% 64.0% 93.0% 54.0% 41.0% 52.0% 63.0% 70.0% 67.0% 97.0% 79.0% 64.0% 69.0% 76.0% 71.0% 86.0% 65.0% 76.0% 80.0% 75.0% 79.0% 76.0% 96.0% 92.0% I I I I 1 | I I % eligible lor free or reduced Lunch I I I I I I I LZ 37.0% 22.4% 33.0% 38.3% 39.4% 43.6% 28.7% 36.2% 41.3% 78.0% 75.5% 61.3% 63.0% 86.5% 51.7% 34.8% 46.9% 49.6% 74.9% 68.5% 98.5% 73.7% 65.9% 73.9% 77.3% 54.5% 81.1% 66.9% 73.3% 74.8% 76.6% 77,3% 81.7% 83.0% 94.6% I % eligible for free lunch 32.3% 17.9% 27.0% 36.0% . 33.5% ' -  39.2% 31.7% 37.6% 69.8% 69.6% 54.4% 56.7% . , 79,8% 43.8% 30.9%  36.7% . 43.4% ,\n66 4%  61.8%  95.0% 68.0% 59.2% 64.1% 68.1% 46.5% 72.2% 61.9% - 68.9% 67,3% 65.9% 74.1% 74.3% 76.2% 89.9%Shee11 Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) Scores Elemenlary Schools compared Io To1al Dislrid Scores Complele Ballery f aii School Name Williams (magnef) Carver (magnet) I Terry Forest Park I Jefferson Gibbs (magnet) I Pulaski Heights Fulbright I Oller Creek King (inlerdislricl) I McDermott Western Hills Icioverdale Booker (magnet) I Romine (interdist) Washington (inter) I Woodruff Brady I Rightsell (incent) Rockefeller (incent) I Wilson Watson I Bale Mabelvale I Dodd Fair Park I Wakefield Meadowcliff |Geyer Springs Chicot iGartand (incent) Badgett I Baseline Mitchell (incent) iFrankin (incent) School Black 61.5 50 I 45 39.4 I 37.7 47.44 I 40.9 41.54 I 43.92 44.92 I 42.58 45.28 I 48.48 41.86 I 48.2 39.88 I 39.64 40.88 I 45.26 42 I 41.84 41.16 I 39.06 37.48 I 38.16 37.64 I 40.34 38.4 I 39 37.34 I 37.58 34.96 I 37.22 34.94 I 31.8 1 I District Black 41.7 41,7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41 7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41 7 41 7 % diff 147.5% 119.9% 107.9% 94.5% 90.4% 113.8% 98.1% 99.6% 105.3% 107.7% 102.1% 108.6% 116.3% 100.4% 115 6% 95.6% 95.1% 98.0% 108.5% 100.7% 100.3% 98.7% 93.7% 89.9% 91.5% 90.3% 96.7% 92.1% 93.5% 89.5% 90.1% 83.8% 89.3% 83.8% 76.3% I Sorted by the % difference of Schooi Tofal Scores fo Disfricf Total Scores School White 75.58 71.36 68.56 75.66 70.66 69.24 68.62 66.82 61.54 62.3 66.12 63.96 65.9 57.98 49.3 63.28 53.9 56.68 17.3 51.38 52.06 48.32 53.96 50.94 48.76 64.06 48.78 48.76 46.2 49.34 0 45.86 38.64 52.8 62.4 D^trict White 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 . 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 % diff 119.4% 112.7% 108.3% 119.5% 111.6% 109.3% 108.4% 105.5% 97.2% 98.4% 104.4% 101.0% 104.1% 91.6% 77.9% 99.9% 85.1% 89.5% 27.3% 81.1% , 82.2% 76.3% 85.2% 80.4% 77.0% . 101.2% 77.0% 77.0% 73.0% 77.9% 0.0% 72.4% 61.0% 83.4% 98.5% School Total 68.46 60.86 58.4 58.08 57.52 57.16 55.52 54.18 54 53.64 53.58 51.92 50.2 49.34 49.28 48.58 45.68 45.52 45.24 45.02 44.54 42.44 : 42.32 42.08 41.96 41.84 41.52 40.98 40.58 39.56 37.76 37.64 37.64 35.24 32.64 Page 1 District Total 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 , I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 , 49.38 I 49.38 Z 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 I diff 138.6% 123.2% 118.3% 117.6% 116.5% 115.8% 112.4% 109.7% 109.4% 108.6% 108.5% 105.1% 101.7% 99.9% 99.8% 98.4% 92.5% 92.2% 91.6% 91.2% 90.2% 85.9% 85.7% 85.2% 85.0% 84.7% 84.1% 83.0% 82.2% 80.1% 76.5% 76.2% 76.2% 71.4% 66.1% 3rd Qfr Enrollm'f 513 630 534 433 506 310 434 520 333 557 484 318 454 605 312 656 241 389 223 402 384 453 343 448 281 273 428 405 320 454 257 220 323 258 455 r Report Date May 23, f996 % Black _%^ligible tor free or reduced Lunch 52.0% ... 52.0% I 45.0% 47.0% I 42.0% ,, 54.0% j 47.0% ~ 49.0% I 41.0% 54.0% I 53.0% 66.0% I 85.0% 52.0% I 71.0% 64.0% I 67.0% 63.0% . I 96.0% 64.0% I 79.0% 80.0% I 70.0% 69.0% I 65.0% 78.0% I 86.0% 76.0% I 75.0% 76.0% I 92.0% 79.0% I 76.0% 97.0% I 93.0% 22.4% 33.0% 28.7% 37.0% 38.3% 39.4% 43.6% 36.2% 34.8% 51.7% 41.3% 61.3% 78.0% 46.9% 54.5% 63.0% 68.5% 49.6% 83.0% 65.9% 73.7% 74.3% 74.9% 73.3% 66.9% 75.3% 81.1% 73.3% 73.3% 77.3% 94.6% 77.3% 811% 98.5% 86.5% % eligible for free iunch 17.9% 27.0% 27.2% 32.3% 36.0% 33.5% 39.2% 31.7% 30.9% 43.8% 37.6% 54.4% 69.8% 36.7% 46.5% 56.7% 61.8% 43.4% 76.2% 59.2% 68.0% 67.3% 66.4% 64.1% 61.9%  69.6% . 72.2% 68.9% 65.9% 1-68.1% 89.9% 74.1% 74.3% . 95.0% 79.8%e' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation 810 West Markham Street Little Rock. AR 72201 r* ve\u0026lt;' J MEMORANDUM ' D Date: May 29, 1996 To: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Superintendents Cabinet Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Magnet Review Committee CTA From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Subject: 1995-96 Fall Stanford Achievement Test - Eighth Edition Annual Report Analyses '' /t 7) Please find enclosed the 1995-96 Stanford Achievement Test - Eighth Edition Annual Report Analyses. This report represents a summary of the Stanford Eight Achievement Tests that were administered to students in grades 2 through 11 in the fall of 1995. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board MembersJohn w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OCT 1 b 1996 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Office of Desegregation Monitoring via Facsimile 324-2308 October 15, 1996 Mr. Rudolph Howard, Principal Central High School 1400 Park Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Howard: I am writing to request information regarding the PSAT testing that was done at Central today. This office has received several calls from parents of class members alleging disparate treatment regarding the testing. For example, in one of Ms. Becker's 10th grade English classes, none of the black students were allowed to take the test nor did they receive information regarding the same. With information that I have provided thus far, would you please provide the following to this office: 1) gender and grade level\nthe number of students who took the PSAT by race. 2) the name of the teachers by core subject whose students were given the PSAT\n3) state the date(s) of the next PSAT testing\nprovide all documentation that was published by the administration and/or staff to advise students of the PSAT 4) testing\nprovide all documentation (item #4 above) including criteria used to be considered for testing that was provided to the students and the date(s) this information was provided either through written notice or announcement\n5) 6) provide all correspondence, brochures, literature that the administration, teachers, counselors and other staff members have regarding PSAT testing\nand 7) state the name of the person(s) responsible for the PSAT testing besides yourself.I would like to have this information by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday afternoon, October 17, 1996. immediate attention to this request. Thank you for your incerel I /^oy C. Springer Kloshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Dr. Victor Anderson Dr. Don Roberts Ms. Ann Brown Joshua class membersLU Q UJ LU m LU Visit our home page on the World Wide Web: hup: 11 WWW. collegeboard. org  iap z cc o U5J z o i 5 S I -J 55 LU oz cci (fi DC UJ Q. V) Vi 0)3 QQ^ LU LU (/) Vi LU CC O Q co Q LU m UJ O H t/i O 0. _ i/\u0026gt; OJ LJ .y X- \u0026gt; (U Ln m G o m m 9^ o O O \u0026lt; O QQ \u0026gt; -5 QJ  2 I'C-Se^' /SI I 5o h\ntj U O 7 m 'I 2  - x: in Q H H Wwe^a n,t .hear from , you: to The College Board Educational Excellence for All Students Tell us whot you think of the PSAT/NMSQT Student Bulletin Tell us about yourself So,, 1. How much do you actually read? _____ all of it _____ most of it _____ some of it _____ none of it 5. 6. 2. Which pages do you read? [Check all that apply.] _____ None _____ Front page _____ Tips and hints about verbal questions _____ Tips and hints about math questions _____ Tips about bubbles for address, scholarships, (2-5) (6-9) 3. 4. majors, etc. _____ Full-length test ____ Scholarship information (11-12) 7. How do you rate the Student Bulletin? [For each characteristic, circle the appropriate number on the scale.] 1____ boring 2 3 4 5 6 interesting 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 hard to read easy to read 1 2 3 4 unattractive 5 6 attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 uninteresting lots of helpful info 9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 information hard to find information easy to find 1______ too long 2 3 4 5 6 too brief 10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 disorganized well-organized What is your overall impression of the Student Bulletin? Sex _____Female _____Male Grade Level _____12th grade _____11 th grade _____10th grade _____ 9th grade _____ Sth grade _____Not yet in Sth grade you re thinking about college Grade Average _____A+ or A _____A- or B+ _____ B or B- _____C+ or C _____C- or D+ _____D or below Educational Plans _____specialized training or certificate program _____two-year college degree _____four-year college degree _____master's degree _____doctoral or related degree _____I don't know How did you get your copy of the Student Bulletin? from a counselor from a teacher from a volunteer or secretary Other (Please specify) Did you take the PSAT/NMSQT last year? ______yes ______no Optional Name (please print) School Code Phone ( ) thank you The College Board wants to help you get ready for college. Taking the PSAT/ NMSQT lets you get feedback about academic preparation, get mail from colleges, and get scholarships. The PSAT/NMSQT Student Bulletin has a lot of helpful information about doing well on the test. But it won't help, unless you read it. We want to know what you read (or don't read), and why. Your answers will influence future editions. Thank you. Sincerely, Maureen Welsh Director of School Services P.S. If you tell us who you are, we may contact you.I CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 1500 SOUTH PARK STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 2 / /995 October 17, 1996 Office of ^^^^gregation Moniionna Joy Springer Joshua Intervenors 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Ms. Springer: In response to your request for information regarding PSAT testing practices and procedures at Central High School, the following insights are herein provided according to your fax dated 10/15/96. 1. The number of students according to race, level. gender and grade A. Race White 230 Black 94 Other 22 Total 346 B. Gender WM 78 WF 152 BM 35 BF 59 OM 11 OF 11 Total 346 C. Grade Level Grade 10 Grade 11 WM WF Sub Totals 27 68 95 BM BF 2 OM 13 OF 15 4 6 10 WM WF 51 84 135 BM BF 2. Total Grade 10 - 120 Total Tested 33 46 79 OM OF 7 5 12 Total Grade 11 - 346 226 The name of the teachers by core subject whose students were given the PSAT. As I indicated in our phone conversation on 10/16/96, I do not fully understand what you are needing here, however, I hope that the following explanation suffices. A. The PSAT is a test which is strongly recommended to be given to 11th grade students, however, we do encourage 10th grade students to take it. that we promote for 10th graders to take. The PLAN Test is a test I make this point because a greater effort of solicitation is made to 11th graders versus 10th graders. Observe, however. that many 10th graders (120) as well as 11th graders (226) took the test. Page 2 B. C. Since any and all students who take the PSAT are enrolled in core subjects, any and all teachers that teach the core areas will have students represented. Is a roster of all my English, math, science and/or social studies teachers being requested here? The PSAT is not administered via classes, e.g., English, math, etc. Testing sites are set up according to our scheme and students from all classes, English, math. etc., are assigned to the sites. Please see the five page special bulletin attachment for the testing sites and the students assigned there. 3. The next PSAT testing will be in October of 1997. Again, it will be recommended for 11th graders, but 10th graders will be encouraged to take it. 4. Provide all documentation that was published by the administration and/or staff to advise students of the PSAT. A. Announcement of PSAT testing is provided in the LRSD's 1996-97 calendar. The District's calendar is presented by the Superintendent to the Board for approval in the Spring each year. All patrons and schools have access to the calendar prior to the beginning of school each year. See attachment. B. Central High School publishes a monthly calendar. It is distributed to all staff the week prior to the beginning of each month. calendar in their classrooms. Teachers are encouraged to post the C. See attachment. Central High communicates all major and/or important events through its newspaper. The- Tiger. The paper is delivered to our students by the journalism department D. twice to three times per month. See attachment. Central attempts to keep its students informed via a Daily Bulletin. The announcements concerning the PSAT were contained in the bulletins on the following dates: 9/20/96 10/09/96 10/01/96 10/10/96 10/04/96 10/11/96 Teachers read the daily bulletin to students during 1st period. See attachment. E. In addition, announcements regarding the PSAT were made via intercom both mornings and afternoons, October 1-4, 1996. Special bulletins were published and distributed 10/7, F. 10/11 and 10/14, 1996. See attached. Counselors personally visited every 11th grade English class during the period 10/1 - 10/11, 1996, in an effort to discuss the importance of the test and to encourage registration.Page 3 G. All teachers, irrespective of subject area and/or grade level, received two (2) special bulletins regarding the PSAT on the following dates: 1996 . See attachment. October 7, 11, and 14, 5. Provide all documentation (Item #4 above) including criteria used to be considered for testing . . . Item #4 contains all documentation asited for in Item #5. There was no additional criteria provided to students except that they pay for the cost of the test, $9.00, at which time the PSAT Student Bulletin was given to every 10th grade student who signed the stand-by list and to all 11th grade students who paid the $9.00. 6. Provide all correspondence, brochures . . . See Item #6 and PSAT Student Bulletin (attached). 7. State the person(s) responsible for the PSAT testing besides yourself: Sam Blair, Test Coordinator and Head Counselor Ann Graves, Counselor Peggy Hawthorne, Counselor Lynda Johnson, Counselor Linda Porter, Counselor SincefrefLy, Rudodph Howard Principal RH/mj s cc: Dr. Dr. Ms . Victor Anderson Don Roberts Ann Brown Joshua class membersLittle Rock School District First Class Schools For World Class Kids dis n/ Vil'. ^'l jl h  t-' ^f-y.-. ... ^' / \"V . 1\ni- ^'1/ '\u0026gt;J SB V /'r i!' ^2 ii ig\n! w  * * iS\nw A y t ik..^ y\" 1996-97 CALENDAR0^ S M T W T F s 1 School Day Photos 10th. 11th. Kinoer-garten \u0026amp; Faculty PTSA Mtg Library 5:30 p.m. 2 FBLA Meeting 125B 3 Senior Make-up Picture Day (Rm 103) 4 Home-coming Court Nominees Pep Rally(NLR} Order Senior Ring Lunch Times only 5 6 20 ! r. 13 College Admissions Program 2:00 Auditorium I 27 'Daylight Savings Time Ends I'\"'\" 7 Faculty Meeting 14 21 Home-coming Carnations Sale Mu Alpha Theta 28 8 15 PSAT (Periods 10th \u0026amp; 11th Graders End of 9 weeks 22 Early Dismissal 29 Order Senior Announcements Invitations/ Caps Gowns Report Cards Go Home 9 Teachers meeting with Dr. Roberts 4:30 p.m. 16 Students Out Teacher Workday 23 30 Order Sr. Announcements Invitations/ Cap \u0026amp; Gown Plan Test 10 FBLA Mtg 125B 17 24 1st Equity Monitoring 31 11 Pep Rally (Conway) I 12 I I 18 Scoliosis Screening 25 Pep Rally (Home-coming) Park view 1 I 1 I 19 26 i I I ! I i t I II IV [ n II I L-......  w .. CenfRolHighTigeRsJ Enrollment totals 1785 students Sophomores - 760 Juniors - 529 Seniors 464 Kindergartners  32 Tonight's football game is here at Quigley. Kickoff is 7:30 p.m. LITTLE ROCK CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Volume 102 Little Rock, Arkansas, October 4,1996 Number 5 THE BELL IS BACK!  i * Winning BELL very special to Class of 97 Ringing the belt Pictured at left are three Central High Tigers who want nothing better than to re-paint the bell from orange and white to black and gold. At left are Ralph Jack-son. Joseph McCraney and Errick Berry. Students had an opportunity to see and hear the Central bell ring Tuesday niorning while It sat in Student Council Sponsor Mr. Mark Mead ows truck on the school's front law. It was a truly glori OUS sight. By Ryan Davis It's back!! And it'saboui linx. After four years al Hall Ihe coveted Bell is honw. all thanks lo the spanking given lo ihe Warriors by Ihe TiguT bxnhalt leani. Rushing for 267 yards, die Tigers delivered a smashing 20-0 defcal to iIk Wjuriors of Hall High. \"It's bevn four years (since we last had Ihe Hell] iuid we didn't gel any respcx'i.\" senior light end Jixscph McCr.iixV staled. \"We got our rcs|X'Ci back. Anyixxly who thinks b.id alxml the leaiii. ...we an- going to prove them wrong.\" The Warriors, whoenlereil the \"Hallie for llie Hell on a ihrcv-gaiiK winning sire.ik, were only able lo allain 7.S yards rushing due lo the lix\u0026gt;l-pn.Hf Tigei defense. \"We tried lo prose sonwlliing lo our fans aixJ coaches. ' senior defensive eixl Fmck Herry s.n,l. Berry liiilliei si.iu-d lli.tl ilu \"defense' kind \u0026lt;f lei dow n dm iiig the ganx.' :il West Memphis,\" which allowed the Blue I X s il- h \u0026gt; rush oser 7\u0026lt;X\u0026gt; yards. Il Was an alt (lefeiise first h.ilf with die Tigers leading 7 0 .i-. h.ilflinx buzzer s^uixled. Tlii' was due lo senior l.iilb.n k Virgil Jones' selling up the louelxlowt. followiijg.i 47 y.trd p.isscmpk lii'n from qii.irlerb.iek Rt'bbie Stilleiiger .iiid dien niiming foiii y.irds for the hHiehdwn. Thl^ iixrcdible pl.iv c.iiiie willi I I' Continued on page 4 Ntws BRiefs\n4 of states 10 scholars are Central High students Krill .lohnsnn, a Cenii'al High innior. will lx* leaiured .is fli.innel Il's \"SliMlenl of Hie Week\" ironi (X t. 1-11. Johnson i\\ .1 .Student Council junior ap. president of Little Rixks chapter ofTop Teens, vice pa*sident of Centr.il's SBCMIi. .ind was nominated for the 1997 N.i-tion. il Youth Le.idership l-orum on Medicine. He w.is the winner 01 the I99.S-9f) Mr. LRCH Photogenic Contest. S* By Christine Whitson Four seniors .ire semilln.il-ists in the National Achievement Scholarship Program (NASP). Tliey are Salonica Gray. Larissa Jennings. T. Michelle Payne, and Ngozi i Scott. This awjird honors - ouisiJinding African-Americiin students. World Test, a celebration of uorld coinmuniiies. people, pl.inis and animals, will lx* held lomorrow Ironi 10-7 ill M.icAnhiir P.irk. Aeimission is free. Semifinalists. These three seniors were among 10 students from around Arkansas who were recently announced as National Achievement Scholar semifinalists. Pictured are Ngozi Scott, Salonica Gray and Larissa Jennings. The fourth semifinalist, not pictured, is T. Michelle Payne. About 1,200 finalists and 750 scholarships will be awarded next spring. To Ik considered, sludeiils iixik the Preliminitry Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) in their junior year. The NASP is conducted by the National Merit Scholarship Coqxxa-tion. An estimated I(X).(XK) Africiin-Aniericiui students entered the competition by taking the PSAT iind 1.5(X) semilinal-ists were chosen natiiutwide. The semifinidisis will com-peic by Inking ihc Scholnsiic Aphiiidc Test (SAIIi .Uhl cdinplcimg .1 SIX) word esvix. Tlie essay is lo lx* .ilxui then ac.idcnuc |Xrloriii.incc. exir.i curricular acliviiics they participate in. iheir contribiiitons lo Ihe community and scIuk)I. iuid their educational plans lor the filllire. There will lx* 1.2\u0026lt;MHinalisis and 750 scholarship.s awarded totalling S.^ million. They will be given next spring. Juniors inieresicil in com|Xiing for next years scholarships shotikl coniact their counselor. Other semifinalisis in Arkansas are fmm Blytheville. Jacksonville. Mount St. Mary's. Pine Bluff. Russellville, and Helena. Ocfolivr will be a busy monih al Central and throughout the LRSD. College night is Thursday. (X t. 10. A pep rally IS planned for next Friday, (kt. 11 for the hxuball gameagainsi Conw.iy. The S Yl' Tesi is (Xt. 12. The ISAI will fx given to HUh and llih graders during period.s l-.l on Tuesday. (Xt. 1.^. Thal IS Ihe final day of ihe firsi 9-weeks. Siudeiiis are out of school on Wevlnesil.iy, (X'l. 16 for a teacher workday. Mu Alpha Theta will hold a carnation sale for lloinccom-ing Week.l XI. 21 -2.\u0026gt;. Tuesday. I \u0026gt;ci. 22 IS .in early dismissal ^Liy. The homecoming game is I'rid.n. Oci. againsi Parkview. Seniors will or^ler oul guuHs tX't. 2v-.P\u0026lt; ni Homecoming nominees told A total of 22 young ladies have been nominuied Homecoming nominees. Pictured above are Kumari Hardy. Jenny Wiedower. Misiv Price. Tiffany Mays, NiLki MclilHMg, Suzanna Monk, Evita Washington. Mary Fleming. Jill Irv.'in. Eiuubuili Faulkner. Moyao Kearney. AlonUra Givons, Molly Darragh, Tiffany Cravens, Tanya Corbin, Monica Simpbuii, thmugh first periixJ ciasse.s to contend for posiiioiw on the 1996 Central High Fixxlxill Homecoming Court. These students met with Mr. Mark Meadows. Siiident Council .sponsor, last Thursday lo Iciini about practice and appropriate attire. They will be* presented before the student btxly at an assembly nxlay. Students will have m opportunity to vote for the court, lloniecoining is Oitober 26 against Ihe Parkview High Schi**\ni i I 1 CENTRAL ilIGM SCHOOL DAILY BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 20, 1996 FRIDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter 1/f Richard Boyd I/f Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson l/f Patrick I Tilery Expul Jonathan Van Buren I/T Vincent Williams lixpul luirl Westbrook lixpul I b iea Singleton-I I lenry James -xpi /r James llubbiud lixpul Rec. Nicole Breedlove l/f Eabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Harold Smith 9/19-9/25 Kissy Russell I/f Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Sem Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Courtney Smith 9/12-9/25 , Edmar Higgins Expul. Courtney Blackwell 9/13-9/26 Maria Slubbcrfield 1/f Quentin Davis 1/f Danny Brown LT Antimoore Jackson Expul Phillip Hatton L/T John Roberts LT Rec. Wyncse Gantt 9/18-9/25 Korey Williams Rashee Barnett 9/19-9/26 Shawnrita Sain 9/19-9/25 Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1 st Sem Ryan Bell 9/19-9/26 David Hall 9/19-9/25 Elijah Johnson Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris I/f Adrias Moore 9/12-9/26 Archie Howard 9/11-9/24 Melvin Shepard 9/16-9/27 HI-STEPPERS: Teachers please dismiss all Hi-Steppers at 3:00 pm to leave for the bailgame in West Memphis. TEACHERS: Thank you for your splendid help in administering the Stanford 9. We had almost 100% perfect teacher attendance for the three days. Please add these future test dates to your calendar\nwe know that nobody likes to be surprised. As you can tell, the standardized test mania continues unabated: * October 15 - PSAT (about 400 juniors and sophomores) October 30 - PLAN test for sophomores (pre-ACT\nLRSD mandates it for all sophomores now) November 11 - 14 - State-mandated Exit exam for juniors (4 days) November 15 - Exit exam makeups STAFF MEMBERS: If you are cunenlly certified in First Aid, please notify Mrs. Stone immediately. ALL STAFF: Anyone interested in coaching swimming? Please contact Mr. Howard. WELLNESS CIJNIC: Friday Sept. 20th is the last day to sign up for a group in the Wellness .Clinic. All students who are interested in a group and all teachers or administrators who want to refer a student to a group should do so by that dale. STUDENTS: YOUNG DEMOCRATS: There will be a meeting on Tuesday the 24th during both lunches in Mrs. Cobbs room 337. SOPHOMORES \u0026amp; JUNIORS: The Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange Program scholarship is now being olTered to students with a 3.0 GPA or higher. The student winners will spend a full year in Germany immersed in the lan| studeiit.s I,PA language and '199^'^' guidance office for an application. Applications must e postmarked by November 12, GERMAN CLUB: Sign up for German Club in room 312. Dues are $3.00. Our first meeting is Friday September 20. GUIDANCE: Any 10th, 11th and 12th graders interested in applying for the Prudential Spirit of community award, see Mrs. Porter. Central Highs top volunteer will be chosen to compete at the state level. Requirements include writing. Two essays about your volunteer work. Deadline for submitting your application. Deadline is Oct. 18,1996. GUIDANCE: Any 10th, 11th and 12th graders interested in applying for The voice of Democracy scholarship, see Mr s Graves. Requirements include a 3-5 minute recording and an essay on the students personal responsibility and understanding of the rights and responsibilities of being an American. Deadline: Nov. 2, 1996. INTERACT CLUB: Do you ever feel the urge to Mamba? Does the sight of Leder-hosen give you goose-bumps' Do siicred pigeons erk your curiosity'. If you answered yes to any of these questions then youd best get on the train and sign up for Interact, a service oriented club with an internal flare. Register today at lunch! JOURNALISM: Attention all seniors - those seniors who need a senior photograph made for the yearbook or to purchase must come by room 103 between Sept 13 and Sept 20 to receive an appomtment. See Mrs. Cherry to make your appointment ASAP. Thursday, Oct 3 is the last day our school photographers will be here taking senior pictures. SPANISH CLUB: Anyone currently enrolled in a Spanish Class that is interested in joining Spanish Club Please sign up in Rm. 335 or pay your Spanish Teacher. Dues are $3. Deadline to sign up is September 20. interested in joining Mu Alpha Theta should obtain and return a form in room 145 by F:3O pm^^ P a:ements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30th 8:30 am -DAILY B U L L E TIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1996 TUESDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Danieks Adrin Shorter L/T Richard Boyd L/T Jabari Cummins lixpul Demingo Johnson L/T Patrick Tillery lixpul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams lixpul liarl Westbrook lixpul lirica Singleton-I/f lidmar Higgins Expul. Maria  Iliagins Stubherlielu L/T Quentin Davi.s I./'f Danny Brown LT Chris Beasley 9/23-10/7 Mark Thompson 9/24-9/30 l ory Irby 9/25-10/2 Natasha Samuel 9/25-10/9 Justin Thabit 9/26-10/3 James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/T Fabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Jeffrey Moss 9/26-10/3 Kissy Russell L/T Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1 st Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris L/T Antimoore Jackson Expul Phillip Hatton I/f Archie Howard ITT Rashaad Profit I/f Felyxia Williams 9/25-10/2 De Wayne Veasley 9/25-10/2 Lakilia Turner 9/26-10/3 Sem John Roberts LT Rec. Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Korey Williams Kinte Perry 9/30-10/4 Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1st Sem Elijah Johnson Expul Gerron Garrett 9/24-10/9 Marina McElrath 9/25-10/2 Teri Walker 9/25-10/2 Billy Robinson 9/26-10/3 WELLNESS: Wellness Clinic groups will start meeting Monday, 9-30-96. liach member will sign a group contract and we have placed a copy of it in your mailboxes. As soon as group membership has stabilized (1-2 weeks) wc^will give vou a calendar and roster. If you have any questions please contact the Wellness clinic. ' .hoMahis Rouse Scholarship for Outstanding Teachers are available in O  t f Stone if you wish to apply . Each school may nominate two teachers. Ilie award consists varies  lSKr?p?ytoffK M  educational activity. The cash award ATTENTION TEACHERS: The following students are helping with school pictures. Please allow them to make-un anv k\"Sept. 30} 9-12 noon: Matt Milhollen, Meghan OMalley, and Tara Hall From 12-3 1 eah lleloUi \u0026lt;? *^7  Wick^d. (Tuesday, Oct. 1 )9-12 noon: Paula Moore, Lucie WetzeL Molly fhmsd J Oct 31 9 ?2 noon-Idlahunty and Kristen Wanek. Matt^lb^R-n indV.m d^n^fer Wagner. 12-3 pm.: Anthony Jacuzzi, Jill Irwin. Matt Milfiolen, and Tara Hail. STUDENTS\nJUN IORS \u0026amp; SENIORS\nIf you would like to be nominated for the National Youth'i.eadership Forum on Defense Intelligence and Diplomacy to be held in Washington D.C. in February, please see Mr.s Graves You must have a B average. I he cost to you is $890 plus transportation to Washington. -a cs. i ou iiiusi nave a i j Troubadour Members there will be a meeting in room 134 on Thursday October 3 1996 We w ill meet in room 134 dunng each lunch penod. Please attend we will nominate officers at this meeting! Th.\\h^th^'^ldmf Giris Basketball Team will be Thursday Oct. 3 at 6:00 in the Gvm. 1 nis IS inc XiriiH irvout. It vou nave anv cpc* f ia*) * Ihis is thcLjnal Tryout. If you have any questions see Coach Fitzpatrick in room 102. K Attaition French Club Members there will be a French Club meeting this Thursdav October 3rd diirino SKnS:.,'\n\" -'I \u0026gt;5.  lunch seniors portraits on matted \"'de^ See M^^. CheiT7befom SMOKING CLASS: Smoking class will be held October 2nd \u0026amp; 3rd at 8:00 in the Library Conference room. -d-?pd lunch in room 325. Elections will be held  t , r Al --------luuivii Hl luviu ixj aiiu secont and plans for the year will be discussed. Drawing for grand prize will be Oct. 2. W^d 2 Teenage Republicans will be having their membership drive from Wed., Sept 25 to cd. Oct. 2. Ihcrc will be a tabic in front of the library during first and second lunch for anyone interested in signing up. f ^der your caps \u0026amp; gowns \u0026amp; 1:30 pm. announcements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30th 8 30 am - tllN JOKS : Unlike the SAT or ACT, which are the PSAT is not a required test. used for college adnii ss ion , SOPIIOMOKI- UTrniiKS JENIOKS JDNIGRS: used to determine However, it is the tesl , next year's National Merit and National Achievement Semifinalists. This year's test is October The cost This year's _____ is $9.00 (correct change) payable in advance You may bring your payment to Mrs. Graves in the Guidance 01 fice B1^ORE_ school or DURING LUNCH by Thursday. October You will be given test 1 \u0026gt;. Graves Thursday, a receipt, whicE~will be your ticket. well as your pass to class. Please come to register early. of admission as Please 111. : The PSAT is a test for juniors, tests than we expect to need. but we have ordered iiioi e Sophomores wishing to trike the PSAT \"for practice\" may sign a stand-by list Gii i dance bn t office beginning today. The test costs in the sophomores will pay on the day of the test since we don't know how many tests will be\"available. stand-by list does be taking the test. Signing the not assure a sophomore that ho/she will Kepreseiitatives from the following colleges will be In the Guidance Conference Room next week applicants. to talk to prospective If you are interested-and meet the college's admission requirements, you may sign the list on the back bulletin board in the Guidance Office before the d.iy of the visit. - ---- Mon., Oct. 7: Wed., Oct. 9\nThur!!. Oct. 10: Erl., Oct. 11: 10:00 a.m. Hendrix College, Conway, AK. 9:55 a.m. Park College, St. Louis, MO 1.45 p.m. Drury College, Springfield, HO. 8:55 a.m. University of Chicago, Chicag.o, 8:55 a.m. Kenyon College, Gambler, Oil. III.. 10:00 a.m. Centenary College,Shreveport, LA. 11:00 a.m. University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 1:45 p.m. Columbia U. , New York, New York 2:45 p.m. Davidson College, Davidson, N.C. The applications for the Discover Card_ Youth Program Tribute Award Scholarships are here in Ihe Guidance Of fice. These scholarships can be used for any post high school training you are planning to enter. mus_t have a GPA of 2.75 or higher to compete. You You must demonstrate accomplishments in four out of these five a teas: Special Talents, Leadership, Obstacles Overcome, Community Service, Unique Endeavors. due to be received The application i: See Mrs. Graves for an application. by the committee by January 10, 199/.DAILY B U L L E TIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 4,1996 FRIDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter L/T Richard Boyd ITT Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson L/T Patrick I illery lixpul Jonathan Van Buren ITT Vincent Williams Expul liarl Westbrook Expul Erica Singlcton-I/T lidmar\"' Higgins Expul. )ore Jackson Ex Antimoore Expul Quentin Davis IZf James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/T Fabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Jeffrey Moss 9/26-10/3 Kissy Russell ITT Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Sem Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Hams ITT John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard L/T Korey Williams Kinte Perry 9/30-10/4 Deshun Williams 10/2-10/8 Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1st Sem Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul IJanny Brown LT Chris Beasley 9/23-10/7 Natasha Samuel 9/25-10/9 Phillip Hatton L/T Sherita Smith 10/2-10/8 Rashaad Profit L/T Gerron Garrett 9/24-10/9 Drh?m ' teachers: Please send your Individual Improvement Plan (IIP) to ^^^^'^^FRS. 1 lease excuse the following students on Tuesday Oct 7 nt in-tsnm trv *1 \u0026lt; wc have placed a copy of it calender and roster, l VJ\" meeting Monday, 9-30-96. liach member will sign a ei 11 you have any questions please contact the Wellness clmic. ' ' I^ch member will sign a groifp contract and we will give you a are available in ATTENTION TEACHERS: The following student.s missed work. . (MoX Sept W 9 12 n^-lJfaSMiZnxf ^hool pictures. Please allow them to make-up any Vi.,:.:.. cV 1 P Matt Milhollen, Meghan O Malley, and Tara Hall From 12-3 1 pah ftplmti .ef.? Wickard. (Tuesday, Oct. 1)9-12 noom Paula Moore Luefe We^el Mollv Santini, and Lydia Mcew. 12-3 p.m : Meghan Rose, Katie Dowell, Ashley Dillahunty and Kri^cm ^anck Tiffany Wyatt. Ellen leay, and Jennifer Wagner. 12-3 pm,: Anthony/aXuill S Kelly Morion, uiumvj, onu v-tum\nWlCKa Darragh. James Mccoy (Ihursdav, Oct. 3) 9-12 noon: Malt Milholen. and Tara Hall. STUDENTS: yu ni^ mo^to a\"sS Ar?\"= stop by the bookstore this Friday if Ibk\\n n 7\" Calendar of activities and Fall Conference Room 325A or from yur business teacher. The next meeting will be Wednesday, October 10. information may get Md? L8?(13^163^* Multi-CuItural Day for Seniors on Monday, October CONGRATULATIONS TO 96-97 LATIN CLUB OFFICERS: Whitney Bailey, I reas. Kara Lipsmeycr, Rep. Brooke Ishmael Pres. Patrick Hicks, V-Pres. Chastity Hicks, Scc.-SPANISH CLUB\nI or anyone who signed up for Spanish Club, ihere will be e meetina Tuesday October 8 Tbi,  very iinportunt. Wc w.lf be elceling officer,. Fir,l IrrrK* will meet to R. 314 and Snd 13'vSl nSl to S 3 ------------------------s meeting will meet in nn. 335. GO'*'  \"k'' 'taulalion. See Mm. AH ENTION SENIOR REPRESENTATIVES: Then! will be a meeltog of the Senior Council on Frid.v  P'* K-ic will be finalized.^' in Ms. Cobbs* I. Ifaltcnduncu is SENIORS: Applications for the National Beta Club chgihic tor mcmbcrsliip, ----- '  - good cilizen.ship grades.' ,, --------''4are available in the Library and Rcxim 219 Tube ' 1-hi^ g.'^e pom! average (including 9th grade) of at least 3 0 and have Jhe application deadline is Fnday, October 11,4:00p.m. El^^iu. joiu. E' SCHOLAR.SHIP INFORMATION HAS ARRIVED IN THE GUIDANCE OmCF Cheek ihe srtholarship box. Your l-.nghsh teacher also has a copy on her bulletin board, rfltl.. Check the YOUNG DEMOCRATSTEENACE HEPUBUCANS\nIf you are 18 before Nov S ckclIOtl Yon \u0026lt;-nn rPDKtnrbv thaa likvoww Uei. 1 u-? vviviv iiv. j, s .SEC'ME\nStudents who are creative and motivated iipplication. are encouraged lo join SECME. Sec Mrs Blcvtoa (room 122) fur an VC a I) LW pm^' *'8' * nnouKanoiU from Josinu to the bookstore On 291h \u0026amp; 30lh 8:30 am - ll KI It (ttt.\nHl. like the SAT or ACT. which . - ---------- are used for college ndmi Ih.\nl.SAl IS not a required test. ii.Hd lo duterrnj! However, It in i|i(\u0026gt; tfst , . , years National Merit ami N.iiion.il Aclilovpment Semi f inali sts . \"*  III.' cost This year's tost is Octnhci V.niA/eAl W..aa*evU1* a*' ' ~  ' iH 59.00 (correct change) payable in aJv,ii\u0026gt;cc* i.Mi may hi mg your payment to Mrs. Craves in the Guulaiic- 'Ml mo BIJOHK SCIKXJL oc pllRING LUNCH by Thursday, Vou wilt ho given a receipt, whTcKwill bo  'I Hiiiiission as well as your pass to class. Ot'tOhlM 'iHirttiiKi:  \u0026gt;l your ticket li tcijister early. Ile.uto come The PSAT is n tost for juniors, but we have ordciwd tji than wc export to need. inoj  Sophomores wishing tf) t.ikt*   It. --.W|..ua WAOIIAIKI I tJ l.ll Hit' ISAf tor practice\" may sign a stand-by list iti ttn- Co idanco otEico beginning tflday. .---------------XAJSI\n*. The tost costs 59.0(1. sopiioinores will pay on the day of tlio test niiitro -I'oil know how mony test.s will be nvail.ible.  I.iiul-liy tint does not assure wo SigniiKj (h.\u0026gt; Ik- lakiiK] the tost. a sophomore that hn/siin wi I I Hi.-iinii\n: ' I n mu:\nUIIHOIh\n: Rcprcuentatlwes fro the following cnllegcn will bo in the Uuld.nicc Coiifereoce Rona oext week to talk to --- pronpertIve If you are Interested vaod acet the ro] irge'ii udaliialuii requlrvacnts, you asy alga the list on the h.irk nppllcantu. biillctla board In the Guidance Office before the day w I u \u0026lt; \u0026gt; ----------- TUES, Oct. 8: Wi-d., Oct. 9: Tlnirn.Oct. 10: Frl., Oct. 11: |\u0026gt;I \u0026lt;h\u0026gt;- 10:00 a.a. Hendrix College, Conway, AH. 9:55 a.a. Park College, St. Louis, MO \" Drury College, Springfield. MO. 1.45 p. 8:55 a. 6:55 a. 10:00 11:00 1:45 P Ualverslty of Chicago, Clilr.np.ti, III.. Kenyon College, Csabler, OH. Centeoary College,Shreveport. 1^. University of Tulaa, Tuhi.i. (JK Goluabla U. , New York, New Yik 2:45 p.a. Davldsoo College, Davldcon, N.C. Tin* applications for the Discover Card Youth Pro.jr.nn 11ibute Award Scholarships are here in the Guidance of H co. These scholarships can be used for any post higli school training you are planning to enter. have a GPA of 2.75 or higher to compete. Yon You must ilt.-inonstratc accomplishments in four out of these five \u0026lt;11 nns s Special Talents, Leadership, Obstacles Overconx!, ('(iimniinity Service, Unique Endeavors. The Application is linn to be received by the committee by January 10, 1'197. .Stjc Mrs. Graves for an application.DA I L Y B UL L E TIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 9, 1996 WEDNESDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adi in Shorter L/f Richard Boyd L/f Jabari Cummins F.xpul Deiningo Johnson L/T Iiilhck Tillery Expul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams Expul Earl Westbrook Expul Erica Singleton-1/f Edmar Higgins Expul. Anlimoore Jackson Expul Quentin Davis L/T Danny Brow n LT Rashaad Profit ITT Natasha Samuel 9/25-10/9 Jainc.s Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/f Fabrian Bridgewater F.xpul Deon Earnest Expul Deshun Williams 10/2-10/8 Kissy Russell I./!' Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Sem Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris ITT DeWayne Veasley 10/3-10/9 Phillip Hatton L/T Sherita Smith 10/2-10/8 Gerron Garrett 9/24-10/9 Shurrod Smith 10/8-10/15 John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard IVr Korey Williams Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1 st Sem Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul Timothy Turner 10/4-10/10 Fred Williams 10/3-10/17 TO ALL FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENTS: The Central High School library is now exhibiting the original art works ot many prominent African American artists including Romare Bearden and Jacob I.awrence. These works on paper arc from the Arkansas Arts Centers permanent collection and will be on display through October 30th Ihis show sponsored by the Central High School P.T.S.A. IS STUDENTS: ,1 a program on the College litorium at 2:00 p in. this Sunday. Panelists will COLLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS AND SENIORS: The Guidance Department has arranged Admission Process for parents and students to be held in Centrals auditorium at 2:00 p in. th... Vur^fi'^^scntatiyes from the University of /Arkansas, Hendrix, several other in-state institutions, and Rice University 1 he Rice representatives will speak about the college admission process as it applies to highly-sclective colleges We hope the attendance will be such that we will be able to make this an annual program ATTENTION COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS: COLLEGE NIGHT IS HERE! You and your parents arc cordiallv nivited to the atmual Little Rock School District College Night at the Convention Center, lower level of the Excelsior Hotel in downtown Little Rock, Thursday evening. Financial aid workshop starts promptly at 6:00 p.m., with browsing at 6'30 Don t forget to come. z . ACCEPT NO BOUNDARIES: Applications are now available for the Accept No Boundaries Prejudice Identification and 5^5?,*?' s a day long seminar designed to promote friendship, learning and harmony. Ihe Retreat VVI he ni'lfl wnHnoccinv CV'trtKoi- 1 A orrl le AXnJ _________ti_________________ \u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026gt; \u0026lt; i-v ... II 1_ Lil MJ J J ----1_---------------. o lA IWAlUOllAM) IVUllllXlg OliU iiadUVtiy. 1X1 wi 1 be held Wednesday, October 16, and is free to ANB members. Pick up applications from Mrs. McDennott in room 33X or Ironi an ANB Steering Committee member. THE LADIES CLUB: Ihe Ladies Club will meet during both lunch periods Thursday, Oct. 10th in room 220. Please bring your $3 .00 dues. Do not bring any food ro drinks to the meeting. You will have plenty of time to eat lunch. is the ^LLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS: Have you brought your money and registered for he PSAT? Friday morning dciidline. Bring your moiiey-$9.00 in correct change or a personal check made out to LR Central High. to the Guidance Ollice by 10:00 a.m. Friday. Students who registered after this time will go on the sophomore waiting list FBLA: Any FBLA members not enrolled in a business class and that would like a subscription to the free magazines should come by room 325. e central inon school or mr. central high anyonein TERES IEDMUST BRING A8x 10 black or white or color photograph to room 134. Ihe cost fh,. n,t.,. .etinm -n, photographers will be displayed in the 1997 school yearbook. Troubadours lasts from Monday October 7 to October 25,1996. For more details see Mrs of the competition is $ 10.00 per photo. The arc the sponsors of the contest. The contest Holladay. JUNIORS: Ihe Japen-U.S.Senate Scholarship Program applications are in the Guidance Office. If you are interested in \u0026lt;ni*nziino n ciimmw iti Innon onH kovia nt lanoE n \"i /\"ir* a ___________________i.. a___i _x! . z \u0026lt; ------------------------------------------r *-re-\"-'. vziin.!-. n yuu aic line Japan and have at least a 3.0 GPA, you may apply. Applications must be postmarked by 15. 1996. liach scholarship recipient is required to pay a $500 program contribution. You must also pay some ! domestic travel. See Mrs. Graves. November expenses including program contribution. You must also pay some other EBLA: Attention any member who did not get the 1996-97 calendar of activities and Fall Conference infonnation may eel 1 hlin KllClin / S A rrnm V/Mir hiicinoee foozvl-tav. \"TTnzi 'TT..___J - V  i o this in Room 325A or from your business teacher. The next meeting will be Thursday, October lO. * '?*' Univereity of Arkansas at Fayetteville will have Multi-Cultural Day for Seniors on Monday October 14th. Il you are interested in attending call 1-800-377-8632.DAILY BULLETIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 10, 1996 THURSDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter IZf Richard Boyd L/T Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson Lff Iatriek T illery lixpul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams Expul Earl Westbrook E^ul Erica Singleton-L/T Edmar Higgins Expul. Antimoore Jackson Expul Quentin Davis L/^f Danny Brown LT Rashaad Profit L/T James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove iVt Fabrian Bridgewater Expul 13eon Earnest Expul Ryan Goins 10/9-10/23 Kissy Russell L/T Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris L/T John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard L/T Korey Williams Sem Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1 st Sem Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul Timothy Turner 10/4-10/10 Fred Williams 10/3-10/17 Phillip Hatton L/T Shurrod Smith 10/8-10/15 staff and STUDENTS: The Central High School library is now exhibiting the original art works 01 many prominent ?Vncan Amencan artists including Romare Bearden and Jacob Lawrence. These works on paper s^msoTed b^'^TentrlfH^ This show is STUDENTS: ATTN NATIONAL MERIT SEMIFINALIST: Thursday at the beginning of 1st lunch, meet on the front steps to take a picture for the yearbook. It wont take long dont miss out.   ... :,ieps lu laxc a TOURNAMENT: Please excuse the following students on Thursday, October 10 at 10:20 tnt- VOIIl'V HhI 1 Tni im.'imont of Ui-vTnrs* a__________  w, t* \u0026lt; it . .. a.m. to go to lU V X/ 11 k 11 T X X vrtvuov 111%, iMiiMVTiiig oiuuviiid uii iiiui^ay, MClODcr lu at iu:zo a ir tlK Volleyball Tournament at Mountain Home: Samatha Jones, Anne Davis, Holly Edmonds, Judith Batson Jill And^on, Haley Walker, Courtney Hager, Katara Nowden, Blair Wdllace, Cordelia Bohlar, Heather Alverson, Breanna Brakhop, Misty Lewis. bin CULTURAL SOCIETY: There will be a Black Cultural Society meeting in Mrs. Blevins room 122 during both lunches. I his meeting is very important please plan to be therethank you. A SENIORS: Representatives from the following colleges will be in the Guidance Conference Room next week to talk to prospective applicants If you are interested and meet the colleges admission requirements you may sign the list on the back bulletin board m the Guidance Office BEFORE the dav nf the vi.it emeius. you may sign lulletin in day of Ute visit. Mon., Oct. 14: 11:00 a m. Rice University, Houston, Texas fhurs.. Oct. 17: 2:45 p.m. Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. I  1: Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. 11:00 a.m. Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. Fri.. Oct. 18: 9:55 a m. Middlebur juniors and SENIORS: The Guidance Department has arranged a program on the College parents and students to be held in Centrals auditorium at 2:00 p.m. this Simday. Panelists wall th . from the University of Arkansas, Hendrix, several other in-state institutions, and Rice University Hie ^cc representatives will speak about the college admission process as it applies to highly-selective colleges We hone the attendance will be such that we will be able to make this an aumual program. =\u0026gt;viecuve colleges, we hope state institutions, and Rice University. ATTENfrION COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS: COLLEGE NIGHT IS HERE! You and your parents are cordially in\\ ited to the annual Little Rock School District College Night at the Convention Center, lower levefof the Excelsior I lotel ACCEPT NO BOUNDARIES: Applications are now available for the Accept No Boundaries Prejudice Identification and u m'if-h\"l ts a day long seminar designed to promote friendship, learning anil harmony lire Retreat \"i\" l * a SiSjSmmiS S A' JUNIORSUlavc you brought your money and registered for he PSAT? Friday morning ntrn-. hv 1 \u0026gt;our money-$9.W m correct change or a personal check made out to LR Central High, to tire Guidance Oiliee bv 10:00 a.m. Pridav uho ...:n____xi_____i___ . .  .* '-juiumitv deadline. Bring your money$9.00__________________ _____ i ix vein Oflice by Friday. Students who registered aflerUiis time wilTgo on'thrsophomo^^ is theFBLA: Any FBLA members not enrolled in a business class and that would like a subscription to the free magazines should come by room 325. ATTENTION STUDENTS\nYOU MAY BE THE NEXT MISS CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OR MR CFNTRAI HIGH SCIKXJL. ANYONE INTERESTCD WJST BRING A 8 x 10 black or white orcolor photograph^ooni 134^e cost '97 school yearbook. Troubadours of the competition is $10.00 per photo. The photographers will be displayed in the 1997 school yearbook Troubadours are the sponsors ot the contest. Ihe contest lasts from Monday October 7 to October 25, 1996. For more details see Mrs. Holluday. JUNIORS: Ihe Japen-U.S.Senate Scholarship Program applications are in the Guidance Office. If you are interested in spending a summer m Japan and have at least a 3.0 GPA, you may apply. Applications must be postmarked by Novem 15. 1996. I'.ach scholarship recipient is required to pay a expenses including domestic travel. See Mrs. Graves. November $500 program contnbution. You must also pay some other FBLA: Attention any member who did not get the 1996-97 calendar of activities and Fall Conference infonnation this m Room 325A or from your business teacher. The next meeting will be Thursday, October 10. may get GUIDANCE: Ihe University of /Vkansas at Fayetteville will have Multi-Cultural Day for Seniors on Monday October 14th. II you are interested in attending call 1-8(10-377-8632.  ATTENTION SENIOR REPRESENTATIVES: There will be a meeting of the Senior Council on Friday in Ms Cobbs room (room 337) dunng both lunch periods. Please attend as plans for the Senior Picnic will be finalized. If attendance is sparse at these meeting, the Senior Picnic will be canceled. JUNIORS \u0026amp; SENIORS: Applications for the National Beta Club are available in the Library and Room 239 To be eligible lor membership, you must have a cumulative grade point average (including 9th grade) of at least 3 0 and ha\\ e good citizenship grades, the application deadline is Friday, October 11, 4:00p.m Please join YOUNG DEMOCRATS/TEENAGE REPUBLICANS: If you are 18 before Nov. 5, you are eligible to vote in this years election. You can register by the library during both lunches. Its simple, easy \u0026amp; worthwhile. Remember\n Ihe only wrong choice is no choice.  JUNIORS \u0026amp; SENIORS: If you would like to be nominated for the National Youth Leadership Forum on Defense Intelligence and Diplomacy to be held in Washington D.C. in February, please see Mrs. Graves. You must have a B average. Ihe cost to you is $890 plus transportation to Washington. SENIORS: You may order your caps \u0026amp; gowns \u0026amp; announcements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30th 8 30 1:30 pm. am -DAILY BULL ETIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 11,1996 FRIDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter ITT Richard Boyd ITT Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson l/f Patrick Tillery Expul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams Expul Earl Westbrook Expul Erica Singlclon-I/f Edmar Higgins Expul. Antimoore Jackson Expul Quentin Davis I/f Danny Brown LT Rashaad Profit L/T James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/T Fabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Ryan Goins 10/9-10/23 Kissy Russell L/T Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1 st Acie Cummins jAntonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris IZT Sem John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard L/T Korey Williams Nakita Smith 10/10-10/17 Carl Ragland 10/9-10/23 Anton (jrant 9/9 lo End 1 st Sem Rashee Barnett Expul Rec. Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul Fred Williams 10/3-10/17 Phillip Hatton L7T Shurrod Smith 10/8-10/15 lechers meeting (district dialogue) with Dr. Don Roberts set for October 9 has been rescheduled for Ihursday, October 17, at 4:30 p.m. The meeting will be held m the Central High Schooi Auditorium. FACULTY \u0026amp; STAFF: The University of Arkansas has a limited number of South End zone tickets for Saturdays came ayatnst LoilHiianfl I t^rn in war Mptnnrial StnHinm Ifintomriorl i\n lU., __________r*!______ .2-1- -P against Louisiana I ech in War Memorial Stadium. If interest^ , sign the list on the counter of the main officeprint IcPlhlv nv nn Infpr than 1 1 00A Vn fzYrl A vvM .r**... * 1 UI II u I \u0026lt; Al \u0026lt; i ^7 .. ** ***''**'*^ '*****-vli iiiv wjuiiivi UI uic indin oHicepnni legibly! !-by no later 11:00 a.m. today(Fnday). You must sign in ink so it will be legible on a Fax machine Tickets may be picked up before the 6:00 p.m. kickoff Saturday at Gate 4, War Memorial Stadium. AND^STTJDENTS: Ihe Central High School library is now exhibiting the original art . A A .  .   . Lawrence. i works of many prominent African American artists including Romare Bearden and Jacob Lawrence These works on paper arc from the Arkansas Arts Centers permanent collection and will be on display through October 30th This show is .sponsored by the Central High School P.T.S.A. STUDENTS: THE PIX: Students, we need a Central logo for the 1997 Pix. Please turn in your entries to room 103 bv (kt 21 If we use your entry, you will receive a free yearbook! SPANISH CLASSES: All Spanish Classes will meet in the auditorium Monday, Cktobcr 14 to hear a guest speaker Please be prompt. FUTURE 51)0\nIhe first future 500's meeting will be this Saturday (kt. 12 at the Carver YMCA on 1116 West 14th Street Ihe meeting will be from 10 am. to 12 a.m. and ID. cards will be made for $3.00. If you have not yet turned in vour information sheets, please do so to the guidance office by Friday. THE PIX\nSeniors: Reserve space for your senior before Oct. 15! Bring a down payment, pictures \u0026amp; words to room 103. ATTENTION SENIOR: Senior Picnic tickets will be on sale Thursday, Friday and Monday during both lunch periods in f ill* hcUTK ^t(YrP Tn A pzret IC tA nnzl it inAlnr^oe all tlin Pnbi\u0026lt;i\u0026gt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt; a.\u0026gt;..\u0026gt;. A -at..Jal__Jll LLI i  .\u0026lt; . - I Tl_  d* A--.-.---.---A .,Fxaaa^ 9 * * J MISU 1 U UI u 9^ Will lUilCll Lz^l iklClo j the bookstore. Jhe cost is $6.00 and it includes all the Corkys Barbeque you can cat. Activities will be held durina the Senior Picnic which is on October 22nd from 2:35pm to 5:00 pm. BLACK CULTURAL SOCIETY: There will be a meeting for the Black Cultural Society, Friday (kt 11 1996 during both lunches in Mrs. Blevins room (122). ORCHESTRA: Please excuse these Orchestra students 5th \u0026amp; 6th period Fri. (kt. 11 th. Ibey will be attending Southern Region Orchestra Clinic in Conway: Jeremy Antipolo, David Beuerman, Maributh Mock. BO(}KSTORE\nStudents please be remind^ that the parking lot across from the library is reserved for those who have Please do not park in that lot if you did not purchase a space. And if you did purchase a space. purchased those spaces. 1_________................... please make sure you park in your assigned space. ATTN.. NATIONAL MERIT SEMIFINALIST\nThursday at the beginning of 1st lunch, meet on the front steps to take a picture for Ihe yearbook. It wont take long dont miss out. VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT: Please excuse the following students on Thursday, October 10 al 10:20 a m. to go to the Volleyball Tournament at Mountain Home: Samatha Jones, Anne Davis, Holly Edmonds, Judith Batson. Jill ..... . i.a,vui.,uui I.'III... a,u,i,auia rUUlC l..avtS, iUJliy r.UULOllUS. juuiui naison. J III Watson, Anita Bunch, Hillary Anderson, Haley Walker, Courtney Hager, Katara Nowden. Blair Wallace, Cordelia Bohlar, Heather Alverson, Breanna Brakhop, Misty Lewis.JUNIORS \u0026amp; SENIORS: Representatives from the following colleges will be in the Guidance Conference Room next wee.. lo la... to prospectiyc applirants II/pu arc interested and meet the colleges admission requirements, you may sign the list on the back bulletin board m Ihe Guidance Office BEFORE the day of Sie visit.  * week Io lalk lo Mon.. (X't. 14:11:00 a m. Rice University, Houston, Texas I hurs.. Oct. 17: 2:45 p m. Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. i. IV,. 1 u. Q.ss Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. I ri.. Oct. 18: 9:55 a.m. Middlcbi 11:00 a.m. COLLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS AND SENIORS: fhe Guidance Department has arranged a program on the College Admission I roccss lor parents and students to be held in Centrals auditorium al 2:00 p.m. this* Sunday. Panelists wall '^'^^representatiyes Irom the University of Arkansas, Hendrix, several other in-state institutions, and Rice University I he Riee representatives will speak alrout the college admission process as it applies to highly-selective colleges We hope the attendance will be such that we will be able to make this an annual program. wueges. we nope ATTENTION COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS: COLLEGE NIGHT IS HERE! You and vour narents are cordiallv in\\ ited to the 1 -itlle Rock School District College Night at the Convention Center, lower Icve/of the ! xcelsior 1 liilel Xm l'evening. Financial aid workshop starts promptly at 6:00 p.m., with browsing at 6:30. l/vJll I IvHgvl lU CXIlTiV, ACCEPT NO BOUNDARIES: Applications Reduction Retreat. Hie Retreat is a day long seminar are now available for the Accept No Boundaries Prejudice Identification and xiiiik k liXv YzA W resigned to promote friendship, learning ana harmony llie Retreat 33g members. Pick up applications from Mrs. MclXinJlott in 3.^8 or Irom an ANB Steering Committee member. room THE LADI^ES CLUB: Hie I\u0026gt;adics Club will meet during both lunch periods Thursday, Oct. 10th in room 220 Please bnng your $3.00 dues. Do not bnng any food ro drinks lo the meeting. You will have plenty of time to eat lunch. is the COLLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS: Have you brought your money and registered for he PSAT? Friday morning is the onite'hv !\" pCTSonal check made out to LR Central High. to the (Juidanee OllKL h) lO.OO am. 1 nday. Students who registered after this time will goon the sophomore waiting list. S 1\"ANYOW^lJw SM high SCHOOL OR MR. CEWfRAL HIGH o fh,.* i. A or while or color photograph to room 134. The cost photographCTs will be displayed in the 1997 school yearbook. Troubadours lasts from Monday October 7 to October 25, 1996. For more details see Mrs of the competition is $ 10.00 per photo. Ibe are the sponsors of the contest. Ilie contest Holladay. a|V..7iIh f Applications for the National Beta Club are available in Ihe Library and Room 239 To be , must have a cumulative grade point average (including 9lh grade) of al least 3 0 and have good citizenship grades. Ilic application deadline is Friday, (Xitober 11, 4:00p.m. Please join. ?'30 pm*^' gowns \u0026amp; announcements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30lh 8:30 am -P E C I A L To: \"Th Molt B*utiful High School m Central High School 1500 Park Straat Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone (501) 324-2300 October 7, 1996 P.S.A.T. BULLETIN READ NOW, THEN KEEP UMTlZ. Staff directly affected by PSAT testing on Tuesday, October 15: otr. I Alve son, Becker, Brandon, Caldwell, Caruth, N. Callaway, Cobb, Colburn, Col Cox, Daniel, Deitz, Dixon, Dumas, Futrell, Gadberry, J. Gray, Hammons, Hardin, Hargis, Holladay, Jernigan, Ligon, McDermott, McDonald, McLendo Hammons, Moore, A.Nash, Pedigo, Pierce, Pittman, Rosenberger, Rutledge, L.Thomps Watson, Williamson From: Rudolph Howard, Principal Copies: Counselors and Assistant Principals\nMr. Givens\nC. Williams The PSAT will be administered to about 375 juniors and sophomores Oct. 15, periods 1-3 and possibly into 1st lunch.  ' on Tuesd This undertaking can be managed only with the cooperation and flexibility of EVERYBODY involved, logistics are complex due to our limited space, inconveniences. P\"l ease read t'h i s master plan carefully. There will be unavoidable Note how it will affect you and your students. Let Mr. Blair or me know IMMEDIATELY if you see something that won't workDON'T WAIT UNTIL THE DAY OF THE TEST. I. 100 desks to be moved to Library to supplement the 90 stations available there now. Total capacity: 190. (All Library testers^jrs. NEEDS: 190. II . III. 2 classrooms to test junior overflow: 4 classrooms to test sophomores: Rooms 214 and 216 58 maximum Rooms 333, 336, 338, and 339--120 max IMPLEMENTATION, SOPHOMORE TESTING: ROOM 333 - will test 30. Ms. Thompson and her students will meet in Ms. D. McDonald's Room 236 on Tuesday, pds. 2 \u0026amp; 3. advance and post a reminder on the door. ROOM 336 - will test 30. rooms. Tell students in Ms. Becker and her students will meet in the Tell students and post a reminder on the door: Pd. 1 - to Room 248 (Hammons) Pd. 2 - to Room 342 (Cole) Pd. 3 - to Room 335 (Caldwell) ROOM 338 rooms. will test 30. Ms. McDermott's classes will meet in these Tell students and post a reminder on the door: Pd. 1 - to Room 251 (Dixon) Pd. 2 - to Room 246 (Deitz) Pd. 3 - to Room 250 (A. Nash) ROOM 339 will test 30. Ms. Hargis's students should all be testing. If any are not, send them to Ms. McDermott in the roomS listed above IMPLEMENTATION, JUNIOR TESTING: A. CUSTODIANS will move 40 desks with smooth. large-surface tops from Room 125 to the Library at the beginning of 5th period on MONDAY AFTERNOON, OCT. 14. (Mr. Givens, please have custodians at Room 12! junior testing (continued) 96/page 2 ready to begin as soon as halls clear at 1:40 p.m.) crew will move the desks back to the study hall (125) 1:40 p.m.--on Wednesday. The same custodian at the same time- B. C. D. E. During the last 10 minutes of 5th period on Tuesday, period students will move desks to the Library, period on Monday, Ms. Caruth's students will move her desks to the Lib- , then meet the remainder of 6th period in Ms. rary Note: Ms . Pedigo's 5th At the BEGINNING of 6t Jernigan's room 237 If it is important to you to get your ov/n desks back instead of someone else's, you may want to supervise ycur students' moving of the desks back to your classroom right after the test (4th pd.) on Tuesday. ROOM 143 day. Pd. 1 Pd. 2 Pd. 3 Pd . 4 Ms . Pedigo and her students will meet in these rooms Please tell them and post a reminder on the door: on Tues - to Room 147 (Mr. Moore) - to Room 134 (Ms. Holladay) - to Room 148 (Mr. Watson) - Students report to Library to move desks back to room ROOM 145 - Ms. Caruth's students will move 30 desks to the Library duri\nthe first 5 minutes of 6th period on Monday, theJt meet in Room 237. Caruth and her students will meet in these rooms Pd. Pd. Pd. Pd. 1 to Room. 235 (Ms. Williamson) 2 - to Room 239 (Ms. Hardin) 3 - to Room 151 (Ms. Rutl6:dge) 4 Students Ms on Tuesday: report, to Library to move desks b^l( k to ROOM 214 - Ms. Pittman and her students will meet in these rooms on Tuesday. Please announce and post a reminder: Pd. 1 - to Room 113 (Ms. Colburn) Pd. 3 - to Room 104a (Mr. Gray) ROOM 216 - Ms. Gadberry's students should all be taking it. them to Coach Cox in 218. If any are not, send Final notes: The PSAT last year ran right up to 12:00. We did not run over into first lunch, but if it should happen this year, students whose 4th period classrooms are in xise will need to eat 1st lunch on Tuesday. STUDY HALL TEACHERS: Study halls will meet in the study hall teacher's own classon Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning. Please tell students and post a reminder on the door of 125. Also, detention halls will have to meet elsewhere Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning (Auditorium?) room Period 4 study hall students should be instructed to eat 1st lunch Tuesday , then assist custodians in moving chairs back to Room 125 soon as the halls clear at 12:35 p.m. on as THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATIONSpage 1 of 5 Monday, Oct. lA, 1996 TEACHERS: SPECIAL BULLETIN The following students (juniors) are to report directly to the rooms indicated on Tuesday, October 15, 1996, at 8:40 a.m. to take the PSAT/NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP QUALIFYING TEST. three hours. The testing session will last a little over Students are to report promptly at 8:40 with two (2) sharpened pencils with erasers, f '  . . ... of the test. Please remind your students of the date, time, and place REPORT TO LIBRARY pCiAci Is. skccr loe-Torg- Abson , Adams, Alverson, Alverson, Anderson, Anderson, Anderson, Anderson Antipolo, (A - P) Brian Chris Heather Ryan Hillary Julie Quincy Tamara Jeremy Armstrong, Clifton Bailey , Sherrhonda Ball, John Bailey, Whitney Baldwin, Cassie Batson, Judith Bauman, Katie Beasley, Demeatrice Binz, Kristen Blackmon, Ro mar Blann, Barbara Carpenter, Olivia Blanchard, Nick Block, Michael Chester, Daniel Bohanan, Donald Cleveland, Lawrence Bonner, Marlon Cole, Tekima Boyette, Chris Bradley, Lacey Brainard, Branch, Brewer, Brown, Brown, Brown, Anne Eunice Anthony Carrie LaTonya Tony Buchanan, April Buck, Buen, Call, David Kristina Seth Collins, Cook, Corbin, Cowart, Dang, Darnell, Davidson, Davis, Davis, Tina Timothy Tanya Lauren Minh Scott Darren Anne Arica Dayananda, Dedner, Denman, Dowell, Nilu Cynthia Monica KatiePSAT - JUNIORS (continued I page 2 of 5 Library: Mon.. Oct. (4-, 1996 Downing, Whitney Guy, Clarence Houston, Randall Earlywlne, Ashley Hall, Jesse Irving, Stewart Edmonds, Holly Hall, Kathryn Ismael, Brooke Elmore, Leah Hampton, Herlanda Jackson, Ralph Hardy, Kumari Ely, Jessica Hayes, Christie Jarsma, Kim Enoch, Kim Hayes, Nicole Jenkins, Elizabeth Farrell, Tim Hearon, Tom Jennings, Laura Faulkner, Adam Fergurson, Kelly Heister, David Johnson, Britt Finn, Flick, Katrina Michael Hester , John Johnson, Camela Flowers, Kristi Hicks, Chastity Johnson, Ceaser Flullen, Larry Flye, Henson Hicks, Lindsey Hildebrande, Natalie Johnson, Christopher C. Fox, Allen Hines, Megan Johnson, Josh Franke, Christen Hintergardt, Jared Johnson, Katie Freeland, Michael Hoffman, Patrick Jones, Jones, Carletta Christina Gardner, Freeman Holden, Laura Beth Jones, Crystal Ghori, Safiya Holland, Emily Jones, Harold Glasier, Evan Holloway, Tywana Jones, John P. Gray, Amanda Holmes, Margaret Keen, April Grimmett, Jeff House, Erin Kilgore, CollinsPSAT JUNIORS (continued) page 3 of LIBRARY: Korte, Leslie Miller, Emmett Oct. , 1996 Passini, Rusty Krupitsky, Eugene Mitchell, Jay Perry, SuLauren Langford, Laura Mitchell, Maury Peters, Jessica Latch, Ashley Moore, Angela Pettus, Todd Lilly, Keith Morrison, Alicia Powell, Jennifer Lipsmeyer, Kara Morton, Kelly Prewitt, Jennifer Ludwig, Stefan Mosley, Nikki Purvis, Benjamin Malvin, Katrina Neal, Josh Putterman, J Ames Mapili, Gazele Nguyen, Freddy REPORT TO ROOM\n216 (Jt - S) M]^', GADBERRY Martinez, Andrea Nicks, Lyncola Ray, Rimmer, Cora Virginia Massie, James Nugent, Courtney Norman, Varnell Robinson, Marie Mezza, McCoy, Leslie Norris, Tiffany '' Lydia Obiaga, Genese Rose, Meghan McCullum, Prentice McElderry, Jacob Oden, Cassie Sampson, Aaron McCulen, McJunkin, Crystal Jeremy Owens, Erin Saviers, Marshall McGrew, Justin McMullen, Ahmad Packard, Clay Schiller, Lauren McKindra, Fatima Padgett, Sara Schmalz, Lea Mehlin, Wayne Pan, Dan Schmidt. Geoffrey Miller, Ashley Pasha, Khaleelah Sevier, SharondaPSAT - JUNIORS (continued) page A of 5 Scott, Mark REPORT TO ROOM: 214 Washington, LaTasha (T - Z ) Sclvally, Robyn Tappin, Jacqueline Webb, Josh Shaw , Tashia Taylor, Elliott Wilson, Jamie Sheth , Seema Thomas, Brian Wirth-Jones, Sasha Shaffer, Zarinah Thomas, Jenny Anne Wittenberg, Justin Simmons, Kerri Thomas, Katrina Wright, Sarah Sims, Corakeita Thompson, Jeffrey Yarbrough, Elizabeth Slaughter, Maribeth Thompson, Jill Smith, Jake Thrist, Andrea Smith, Sam Tiner, Natalie Spann, Jeremy Toombs, Michael Torrence, Vincent Sparks, Tava Trice, Trent Stacey, LaTlsha Tucker, Courtney Stanley, Rebecca Tucker, Justin Steadman, Zach Turner, Levy Steelman, Amanda Vickers, Leigh Stefanova, Boriana Wage, Aaron Steward, Doug Walters, Ben Sullivan, Jessica Warriner, Prenticepage of 5 5 Monday, Oct. 14, 1996 SPECIAL BULLETIN TEACHERS: The following students (sophomores) are to report directly to the rooms indicated below on TUESDAY, October 15, 1996, at 8:40 a.m. to take the PSAT/NATIONAI MERIT SCHOLARSHIP QUALIFYING TEST. three (3) hours. The testing session will last a little over Students report promptly at 8:40 with two (2) sharpened pe\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_748","title":"Test data","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/2005"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Test data"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/748"],"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":["207 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\nState Benchmark Exams 1998-99 through 2000-01 Mathematics and Literacy Grades 4 and 8J. ^'i 'Aiiaf i r^iiiv.^ri~i\u0026amp;\u0026lt;tA'^*'ftito 4 /i Grade 4 Mathematics !. (-i- 4 r Pefcent fiwfident and Advanced In 1998-99 In 1999-00 In 2000-01 ' (. State 34% 41% * 48% i' *  'r\u0026lt; K\u0026gt; 4 . s S: LRSD PCSSD NLR 22% 30% 30% w ??% 43% 'W w '  '- tS 'if' J?' } s^i w* ? '-5 jtA ) 1 a as\u0026gt;ni 'U \u0026lt; 4 s Wj Ml V \u0026gt;*  5^'J' f* Grade 4 Mathematics \u0026gt; X  4-w  Percent PfOficiefit and Advanced -i. .f in 1998-99\n-In 1999-00: in 2000-01:  State Black LRSD White Black White 9% 14% 1. 18% Ho 44% 49% 57% k. 8% 15% 16% rW s. JS^ V 53% 61%  3 A  I * '  \u0026lt;\"J. ij i i i ! 1 4. Grade 4 Mathematics Highest Perforttiihg 3^\nMost Impfoved \" ' iX / , t i I 1. ? Jefferson 64% Baseline +23 Forest Park 57% Bale +19 Fulbright 53% Williams 52% Terry Gibbs, Carver 48% 46% ***   ' 44% 'i'. McDermott 44%  Fair Park +18  Franklin +14  Fulbright +11 Tejry +10 Badgett +9 Booker ,4 :fr' 1 * ' ^1 T \"1^! .1  't \u0026lt; 4 I Grade 4 Mathematics Below Basic f/- -'S.'.i .\u0026lt;.4UI^ 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 f I''*' \u0026gt; { 59% 55% 51% A*- Z''. v\n4 y-^ '\"A' .f 5 ,  ?5- 'tiLf e e r Grade 4 Mathematics Below Basic Xi* fi ,5 Lowest Percent .--'-'A. --. '''.''f :x A,  I  ' i Most Improved !r\u0026lt; ::  \u0026lt; [ f' Jefferson  Fulbright  Gibbs  Williams  Terry 14% 26% 29% 30% 33% .1  Bale  Fair Park  Baseline  Cloverdale Jefferson 36 28 22 21 17 6 3 i. .iiZ Ci if-X 'kJ } Grade 4 Literacy Percent Proficient aiid Advanced 't'y'.' -.t- - In 1998-99 - In 1999-00\n- In 2000-01: State 44% 47% 43% LRSD PCSSD NLR 32% 42% 35% ??% 34% ??% ??% 41% I.. m^2.4,. rlix.\n: * 79: ' i 4 ] 1 4 irt. jlb*..' Grade 4 Literacy r\u0026lt;r\".rrr JPefcefit Prc^ci^ntiajid Adviced ?/' i. V 'fr\u0026lt; . \u0026lt;' .i -In 1998-99: -In 1999-00: In 2000-01 State Black White 21% 51% 26% 21% a. 53% 51%   LRSD Black White 20% 30% V 23% 5- 62% 66% .'A ' 63%  x- -ia * S  .-4  -A- ? ^5 8 sA.'    -I.. in. \u0026gt; f .t' A 1 Grade 4 Literacy Ai 'S\u0026gt; r^J Highest i s\u0026lt; fl ''!t\n^iji' ^1 .4 Mfti r' \u0026lt;* .\u0026lt;- ? .+,i' ' i '\u0026gt; fij rA\u0026gt;\ni***' V'  Jefferson 95%  Fulbright 74% Forest Park 71%  Williams 52% Jefferson +24 Fair Park +14 Wakefield +11 e': V '-'.\\ *n': Terry 49% McDermott 47% Booker Baseline Bale + 9 + 4 *  ? \u0026lt; a' /  r?'. y'\u0026gt; (jibhs Vv' .k 1^1. 45%^ T, /A *7 Rockefeller 45% 'W I  [ Y\nX\nJ 'A' sJi 'i?- vS/Vt\nr- i k-'.yz'- nsgH1 . J Grade 4 Literacy BelbW Basic V.L. 4\n.A?f V'.'' .V 1 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 t I r. I-  . 41% 28% 32% 10 V 4, 'Ji s ' 3' -^4Grade 4 Literacy Below Basic .V'' .4 J'' 1 A Lowest Percent Jefferson Fulbright Forest Park McDermott Gibbs\nS.\\ Williaths Rockefeller L'\"- 0% 7% 9% 12^ i' 13% 14% f Most Improved Wakefield Wilson Jefferson Cloverdale Mabel vale '* 'h iH' v7 Booker 3 17 15 14 13 9 'tr?' i 8 11 r \u0026gt;ry' 3^ Ma a J i t Grade 8 Mathematics A  Percent Proficient and Advanced .t. ^z - In f^99-00: - In 2000-01: ,i State 21% LRSD PCSSD NLR 9% 17% ??% 14% ??% 15% f A- f, I 'n .f' 12 Jl*t 1 ) i I Grade 8 Mathematics \u0026gt;5^ Percent Proficient and Advanced State Black White i' LRSD Black White 1111999-00 In 2000-01\ny/' V: H' \"j c n, 3% 4% -4r* X h' k'l 19% 27% 2% 4% jiy 28% 45% ti 'J: {'\"i h . '.4*I 1 Grade 8 Mathematics ft- V li! LV'' \u0026lt;* Highest Performing J: Most Improved / J !*\u0026lt;\u0026gt; Pulaski Heights 32% Pulaski Heights 4-22  . Mirt,'.\n:.i \" *.'*7  ' '1. ' 'AiPF' ' Mann Dunbhr 29% 23% Mann Dunbar +12 + 9 \u0026lt; .y A, -'i-u I' t ' 14 'i. ,',  i-- 2:'AX\ng'.1 i 1 J Grade 8 Mathematics BelbWBasic  1999-2000 2000-2001 58% 55% tl '* t r? J r 'i\nr Lf- V'. u'-.-i. jf'W ?' i 15 : j-^ -j .j' Grade 8 Mathematics 1 Below Basic '1  'rr'-e 1- Lowest Percent Most Improved Mann 31%  Pulaski Heights -11 V. Pulaski Heights 42% Cloverdale 6 A \u0026lt;w ^j3\ni\nf t-- VI .1 .t ^55'^ 4 f j.' ' 16 '5^\nI 0 'i I Grade 8 Literacy Percent Proficient and Advanced State LRSD PCSSD NLR 5? 1999-2000 2000-2001 ??% 37% 15% 31% ??% 26% ??% 26%  V- C'r f k T. J'. 7, itet\n-V. i'T- I ft.' I, i'A r' i- V''^'5 t- A 7 \u0026gt; ' - 8^ 4 .. I j ! Grade 8 Literacy I- a Percent Proficient and Advanced \u0026gt; j. *7? -In 1999-00: -In 2000-01: State Black White 9% 16% 29% 44% LRSD Black White 4: 1. 8% 18% 32% 61% J:. 18 vlU.. r f. Grade 8 Literacy Highest Perfouning Most Improved Forest Heights 48% Pulaski Heights 45%  Forest Heights +31  Pulaski Heights+26 M' Mann \u0026lt;Sr' 7 -A- 44% t,- Dunbar Mabelvale V -f- +23 +21 X # \u0026gt; 'at.Grade 8 Literacy B^ldWBasic  / .  'J 5l( iS 'r.  1999-2000  2000-2001 5? 46% 33% I 'O* ViL f - ! 'Mr'' i.i- *f' I 1 20 0 i . -  \u0026lt; :I J I Grade 8 Literacy Helbw Basic r Lowest Percent Most Improved  Mann 17%  Forest Heights 25%  Pulaski Heights 27%  Mabelvale  Dunbar -26 -24 Mabelyale L)unbar r- V .'.hi 4 HdhdersPh 1 % 31% 32% ' J.'.'.*- ' Forest Heights -18 Hhhdersori -11 t-\n'5' .r.-v -* .1. \u0026gt;\u0026lt;e \u0026gt;' '.x f 21. \u0026lt; l^,Jli^'U. J 4i i.- tp j W Grade 4 Mathematics 'A*\n' 1* 'V' Highlights 'f**' ?}.? \u0026gt;\u0026gt; rc* 'r\u0026gt;- ii i-i '. J I- Percelit Proficient/Advanced did not 'm'- .*\n- \u0026gt;J fl. - . '{: vJviA^\nX'r decline\n8 points above baseline year. Percent Below Basic went down 4 points in one year and 8 points in two years. 18 schools improved. 1 7 i' S' \u0026gt; 't'  ' t.tf ^'. ' v-^\nh A- 22 \u0026gt;1'4 1 1 j Grade 4 Literacy Hishlights if. ....-, iSj.\nEVenjthoUgh'doy^^  Bistiict is still S^pdirits ahead of baseline year, compared to state s decline of one point since baseline year. percent performing Below Basic down 9 points since baseline year, compared to 6 5 for state !.-r-h .\u0026lt;V' XV .!\u0026gt;, 'f H-j. i.'-^l f. ,11 '\u0026lt;fc :*! 8 schools impfoyed\n3, stayed the s^ihe  'st \"i-.'r/ Jefferson scored 95%! ! i / iW' '3 M f  r 323, v1 Grade 8 Mathematics 4 Xtju \u0026gt;' '-Is !^,i X\n'm' B XsS-ii-''\" Sdoresw^^eilt up 8 points^ cOii^ sWs the state 7 of the 8 middle schodls improved t ek rtf- District out-performed NLR and PCSSD. ' 7 * Percent Below Basic went down 3 points 9 compared to 0 ppiutS for the State r!'.vV 2 \"I, u t * -'U, ? \u0026gt; V a\u0026gt; J 24 7 ^4^ A aJ Grade 8 Literacy Highlights \u0026lt;: I J A District improved 16 points^ comp^ed to ? 13 for the state. This area most improved of four tests All 8 middle schools improved. Percent at Below Basic declined 13  W-V- .f.' points, as compared to 9 for M ERSDdht pdrfoffled^ 4 V. PCSSD t' \"I j .1:\n1 '1 vi-25  t' .'fkir Grade 4 Mathematics .'/.^7CVr' ff Plans for Improvement Si Si :k V. ^4 Classfoom and homeWrk practice Sets S .k' '^i-Uk? aligned with Benchmark items have already been developed and distributed to schools it' .* for use in grades 3-5 rM *t .\u0026gt; WM tl V. Parent packets have Been developed arid I-'/v disseminated to each elementary school to ,f' x provide information and include activities forparehts to hefothieir children. t^, \u0026gt;* fp- * !# s,*' 26 W' 't r I L i iv^ K?3^ -^os  r'^5 ) i Grade 4 Mathematics Continued V j- L*\u0026gt;4 A \u0026lt; e t 3' -Lead teachers will facilitate after-school study groups to deepen teacher understanding of curriculum and to plan -f'- collaboratively A Mathematics staff will work collaboratively with principals to deyeloj) pl^S fbf - 4 itnproved .achievement\n, including plans for Content training for teachers. t SWiO'V ) -.4 Grade 4 Mathematics G ontinued iw fr-f 5\" ' '1^'' ^4^ - End-of-^module ctiteHon-referenced tests win be given after each mathematics modotile to keep track of student achievement on on-going basis. \u0026gt;- :r'AV.  yfi'' f^: \u0026lt; V- Students in grade 4 m 2001-Q2 will 'h^ RS'-y  .4 '\u0026gt; .'4- experienced the new curriculum for two yearS\"iirst timesb we should see gaitis 28. 25^:ni. Grade 4 Literacy J plans for ImproYement \u0026lt;*? 9.9^!^. Identify present 3^^ grade students who perforttied below grade level on the DRA(at the end of last 1 'v'ii' year) Identify present 4* grade students who are below grade level in reading (based upon combination of ALT score, classroom performance, and teacher V- i .1 '. .-.J  -i input) l\u0026gt;j' f i... :^- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; rain all grade^eaehers on adriimistfhddn oftheDRA .e - .t\" /\u0026gt; Ji  ' :i s.\"t -b i\n..Jt *\u0026gt; 5V.^\u0026lt;\u0026lt;Sfe V t  ' ih ^\n.W\n-i .1 .** 1 ! i\ni*. t Grade Four Literacy Plans for Lnrprover^ iAAM\u0026lt;Ua^adMUU*J\u0026lt;at2t r Administer the DRA40 all identified 3S1\u0026amp; 4*^\ngrade Students z--, ci- *y\u0026gt;' \u0026amp; Using those results, teachers write SAIPs on all students below grade level on the newly administered DRA. SAIPs would include providing instruction in guided reading, comprehension and writing - .y -y t Provide fiaining on guided reading, / bompreheh^idhahdCOtih^^^ grade teachers, beginning with teachers who have not ? k, had Effective Literacy 30 O I tV. J Grade F our Literacy Bitf irrthitii^ *1 \\4'' i-^ rc\u0026lt;i\u0026lt; FlausTfbrdmprovement 'Wt 't Pfoviae^training Monitor for Implementation 1. Develop Literacy Checklist 2. Continue classroom visitations and teacher demonstrations 3 aiS '?\u0026gt;/\u0026lt; c A\n.v ** .b t \u0026gt;*:'V mI dohtihhe dh-site ihdivii^uaii^ed grade level staff f development \" ' XJi V *K Provide all 3*^**, 4*, and 5^ grade teachers with six\nthemes of reading and writing prompts with iruhrics tailored to our reading program and correlated to the State Benchmark Exam \u0026gt;- f i y -- K* ? i*- Ji .!H. i KiX ,r f^* i * j_A-----?y . \u0026gt; - --- - -\u0026lt;---I Grade Si^atliematics 5'' Plans for^mprovemenh:, ^4f \"/S-vf. }\u0026gt; \u0026gt; # C\u0026gt; 'i-''i\u0026amp;V a! VT\u0026amp; 2. Developed and disMbuted for grades 6-8 '.V\u0026gt; classroom and homework practice sets aligned with Benchmark items. j- S Assigned two lead teachers to middle schools to provide support. OK  K ?' v' i. aV- I K' a Developed pacing guides for grades 6-8 to ensure\n?cp^er^ge- ofcriticalcontent r-tl \u0026lt; , Jt.' ..V' -All rH,' 32, i ,i.s' 1 1 Grade 8 Matnematics Gontinued - i J:  \\ End-Of-module diiterion-teferehced tests will be given after each module to keep ftack of student achievement on on-goihg y basis i \u0026gt; \u0026gt;- t-\n' VK Students taking the Benchmark in 2002 mil have had three years of Connected Mathemeities orie year in J). 4 a 2001) I F * \u0026gt; 1 IJ t jbgj \u0026lt;d* . y 33 fti-. i .1' i :jiiw 3'^ i * i*lJ. r* '' '^l-- .aaJMh ' -\" v'jyv*' *5^ iiirifaniitfcifatkr j^tos^foij^pro^ Af' -%\u0026gt;}. I-\n:*\"- \u0026gt;v. 'V ' Oi \u0026lt;*,'4!^: iOfeS Develop stratfegi\u0026lt;^lati\u0026amp;fbf  \u0026lt; I each school. Develop strategic plans for improvement for \u0026gt;-. ,f=' vA  'V W' ' fc - - iy- identified teachers Conduct quarterly check-point sessions at  , ' ' '\"i each school. Provide teacherded workshops on /hi Practices 99 Vx Best 34 K* -tr  t Iy b ( Grade 8 \"Literacy J Gontinued A,: i^ \u0026lt; '1 il^ 'Sv v T'acilitate interschool and intraschool collaboration and fearii teacliihg. e ' ' M '*i*?*i. *\n .A J: jk\u0026gt; ^\n'W''K Implement comprehension strategies in Mosaic of Thought Continue training in Mosaic of Thought Strategies throughsummer2002 \"nt'\nf 'i\" Jt' *  A  \" 'i rA i' ^T* i:. II?' :iSt S' f ti\" 51 I 14\n% i-t 'ft iai: I* ^1 s ) ' / \u0026gt;*?5 u* if iSSiS' 4^ \u0026gt;'?f o* Wi '!*' sj*3 '' -xc 'HJ''RKOESVEI JtL 2 * innt (i (ifHCfcC ^54 Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge' June 27, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Ste. 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: As per your telephone request of June 24, I am enclosing the following:  five years of SATO data, by school and race, and . two years of DRA data by school and race. We have not yet received the results of the State Benchmarks. Yours truly. Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg Enclosures cc: Dr. Kenneth James Junious Babbs Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032Developmental Reading Assessment The LRSD began the administration of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) in fall 1999 (pre-test). The school year's post-test was administered in late spring 2000. Both tests were administered again in 2000-01. ORA scores are reported below as the percent of students by grade who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level. \"Readiness\" is defined as the necessary knowledge and skills for success at the next grade level. One-Year Changes Table 1 displays the schools' kindergarten scores by grade level so that the one-year change can be visible. Tables 2 and 3 display the grade 1 and grade 2 scores, respectively. received JUL 2 - omcfof DESESnON mowing 1School LRSD Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson .King__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 1 Percent Readiness, Kindergarten Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 72.2 21.6 58.5 51.1 81.0 76.9 80.5 56.1 56.4 86.5 68.3 55.8 64.3 94.5 85.1 89.2 89.5 63.6 61.0 94.8 77.4 90.6 90.4 82.5 92.1 75.8 66.7 40.8 91.9 46.8 81.2 56.4 75.0 89.1 66.7 69.2 Spring 2001 80.7 50.0 59.0 94.0 89.6 93.4 90.4 70.9 82.5 80.0 75.6 82.9 58.6 94.0 87.7 93.4 83.9 80.5 73.3 94.3 77.1 92.3 90.6 84.9 80.5 76.2 86.4 66.1 86.7 61.1 84.1 73.7 73.0 89.7 80.0 46.2 Change 8.5 28.4 0.5 42.9 8.6 16.5 9.9 14.8 26.1 -6.5 7.3 27.1 -5.7 -0.5 2.6 4.2 -5.6 16.9 12.3 -0.5 -0.3 1.7 0.2 2.4 -11.6 0.4 19.7 25.3 -5.2 14.3 2.9 17.3 -2.0 0.6 13.3 -23.0 2School LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson King AAabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 2 Percent Readiness, Grade 1 Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 53.6 5.9 66.7 29.6 69.3 34.9 76.1 26.8 28.4 58.3 62.5 69.8 57.6 61.0 46.8 65.9 69.1 56.6 50.8 80.4 70.0 25.0 67.7 50.0 35.7 76.3 59.6 23.5 47.1 22.0 35.5 24.7 81.4 84.1 82.9 84.2 Spring 2001 63.8 26.5 66.6 70.8 87.4 53.5 91.8 51.2 33.9 73.5 72.7 80.0 58.9 66.6 38.6 71.4 73.9 66.6 60.5 87.9 66.6 25.0 69.6 61.7 41.7 65.2 76.5 51.0 59.8 66.6 41.1 66.6 55.6 97.1 53.8 61.5 Change 10.2 20.6 -0.1 41.2 18.1 18.6 15.7 24.4 5.5 15.2 10.2 10.2 1.3 5.6 -8.2 5.5 4.8 10.0 9.7 7.5 -3.4 0 1.9 11.7 6.0 -11.1 16.9 27.5 12.7 44.6 5.6 41.9 25.8 13.0 -29.1 -22.7 3School LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson __________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 3 Percent Readiness, Grade 2 Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 67.5 11.8 72.1 47.1 79.8 70.8 81.8 38.6 57.9 51.7 62.9 89.6 81.2 79.3 72.5 80.5 71.1 80.8 43.4 67.1 57.9 48.6 87.2 45.2 94.7 71.4 68.8 31.3 81.2 40.0 63.3 54.4 89.5 89.7 60.4 78.3 Spring 2001 75.4 42.9 81.4 60.5 81.4 79.6 93.1 52.1 45.1 82.8 67.7 85.7 83.6 88.7 66.0 82.9 85.0 85.6 63.0 89.6 75.0 50.0 90.5 74.5 70.5 84.2 81.6 61.4 67.1 54.4 81.4 51.2 91.7 92.6 61.4 86.5 Change 7.9 31.1 9.3 13.4 1.6 8.8 11.3 13.5 -12.8 31.1 4.8 -3.9 2.4 9.4 -6.5 2.4 13.9 4.8 19.6 22.5 17.1 1.4 3.3 29.3 -24.2 12.8 12.8 30.1 -14.1 14.4 18.1 -3.2 2.2 2.9 1.0 8.2 4Performance Levels Table 4 below displays a comparison for the District and by school of the spring 2000 and spring 2001 kindergarten scoresthe percent of students who scored at or above the readiness level. Tables 5 and 6 provide the results for first grade and second grades, respectively. The schools shaded black are those schools with 80 percent or more students scoring at or above the \"readiness\" level. Sray-shaded schools are those with 50-79 percent of the students scoring at the \"readiness\" level. The schools in white boxes are those schools with fewer than half (0-49 percent) of the students scoring at the \"readiness\" level. 5Table 4 Percent Readiness, Kindergarten, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average McDermott Fulbright Rightsell Terry Mitchell Otter Creek Jefferson Gibbs Williams Dodd Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Washington Booker Carver Meadowcliff Brady______ Rockefeller Western Hills Woodruff Fair Park Wilson______ Romine Franklin King Mabelvale Bale Cloverdale Watson Chicot Forest Park Baseline Wakefield Garland Badgett 1999-2000 72.2 94.8 94.5 92.1 91.9 90.6 90.4 89.5 89.2 89.1 86.5 85.1 82.5 81.2 81.0 80.5 77.4 76.9 75.8 75.0 69.2 68.3 66.7 66.7 64.3 63.6 61.0 58.5 56.4 56.4 56.1 55.8 51.1 46.8 40.8 21.6 School LRSD Average McDermott Baseline Fulbright Gibbs Brady Mitchell Otter Creek Carver Williams Booker Geyer Springs Terry Romine Pulaski Heights Washington Jefferson Forest Park Cloverdale King Rightsell Dodd Wilson Meadowcliff Rockefeller Fair Park Watson Mabelvale Western Hills Chicot Stephens Wakefield Bale Franklin Badgett Woodruff 2000-01 80.7 94.3 94.0 94.0 93.4 93.4 92.3 90.6 90.4 89.7 89.6 87.7 86.7 86.4 84.9 84.1 83.9 82.9 82.5 80.5 80.5 80.0 80.0 77.1 76.2 75.6 73.7 73.3 73.0 70.9 66.1 61.1 59.0 58.6 50.0 46.2 6Table 5 Percent Readiness, Grade 1, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average 1999-2000 School 53.6 LRSD Average 2000-01 64.0 Woodruff Williams Wilson Western Hills McDermott E 1 1 Rockefeller Carver Meadowcliff Forest Park Booker Jefferson Otter Creek Bale Gibbs Fair Park Fulbright Romine Dodd Franklin King Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Terry Geyer Springs Rightsell_____ Washington Brady Baseline Cloverdale Chicot Mitchell Watson Garland Wakefield Badgett 76.3 76.1 70.0 69.8 69.3 69.1 67.7 66.7 65.9 62.5 61.0 59.6 58.3 57.6 56.6 50.8 50.0 47.1 46.8 35.7 35.5 34.9 29.6 28.4 26.8 25.0 24.7 23.5 22.0 05.9 Williams Carver McDermott Booker Forest Park Romine Jefferson Dodd Fair Park Gibbs Baseline Otter Creek Watson Wakefield Fulbright Kins_________ Meadowcliff Bale Rockefeller Pulaski Heights Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Franklin Western Hills Wilson Brady Chicot Stephens Rightsell_____ Washington Geyer Springs Cloverdale Badgett______ Mitchell RTwl 76.5 73.9 73.5 72.7 71.4 70.8 69.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 65.2 61.7 61.5 60.5 59.8 58.9 55.6 53.8 53.5 51.0 51.0 41.7 41.1 38.6 33.9 26.5 25.0 7Table 6 Percent Readiness, Grade 2, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average Rightsell Williams Forest Park Western Hills Otter Creek Carver Franklin Terry King Gibbs Booker_______ Fulbright_____ Woodruff Geyer Springs Bale_________ Rockefeller Jefferson Brady________ Romine McDermott Washington Fair Park Wilson Cloverdale Meadowcliff Watson Dodd Mitchell Baseline Pulaski Heights Mabelvale Wakefield Chicot Garland Badgett 1999-2000 67.5 94.7 89.7 89.6 89.5 87.2 81.8 81.2 81.2 80.8 80.5 79.8 79.3 78.3 72.5 72.1 71.4 71.1 70.8 68.8 67.1 63.3 62.9 60.4 57.9 57.9 54.4 51.7 48.6 47.1 45.2 43.4 40.0 38.6 31.3 11.8 School LRSD Average Carver Williams Western Hills Otter Creek McDermott Fulbright Woodruff Forest Park King Jefferson Rockefeller Franklin Gibbs Dodd Romine Washington Booker Bale Brady Meadowcliff Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Fair Park Terry Geyer Springs Mabelvale Wilson Stephens Baseline Wakefield Chicot Watson Mitchell Cloverdale Badgett 2000-01 75.4 93.1 92.6 91.7 90.5 89.6 88.7 86.5 85.7 85.6 85.0 84.2 83.6 82.9 82.8 81.6 81.4 81.4 81.4 79.6 75.0 74.5 70.5 67.7 67.1 66.0 63.0 61.4 61.4 60.5 54.4 52.1 51.2 50.0 45.1 42.9 8Achievement Gap The achievement gap between African American and other students is always an issue of concern in the Little Rock School District. A major emphasis in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is the significant narrowing and eventual elimination of that gap. Tables 7, 8, and 9 provide DRA data, by school, reflecting the achievement of African American and other students for comparison purposes and a calculation of the gaps. The gap is being addressed at this level not only through the literacy and mathematics program initiatives in the primary grades, but also by the addition of as many pre-kindergarten sections as has been possible. As of spring 2001 there were 953 four-year-olds enrolled in pre-kindergarten classes and another 358 in HIPPY and infant/toddler programs for a total of 1312. 9School Table 7 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at Readiness\" Level, Kindergarten, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Black 99-00 69.3 16.1 56.8 48.6 85.4 84.6 74.4 59.2 54.2 88.2 67.7 30.4 65.6 89.5 90.0 90.5 80.0 59.6 61.5 94.7 82.6 89.7 91.2 72.7 91.7 67.4 78.9 40.4 92.7 53.3 81.8 57.1 76.2 92.3 71.4 68.6 Black 00-01 77.0 52.6 61.3 92.5 92.3 92.3 83.8 70.6 82.2 76.5 72.7 53.8 59.3 81.3 87.5 66.7 75.5 78.1 86.4 77.8 92.3 87.1 79.3 80.0 73.7 85.4 65.5 87.5 77.1 64.4 75.0 73.2 73.1 86.7 79.4 48.6 Non-Black 99-00 84.7 100.0 80.0 100.0 79.4 72.7 91.7 60.0 83.3 85.0 77.8 91.3 60.0 97.2 80.0 87.5 97.2 70.0 75.0 97.3 62.5 100.0 94.6 94.4 100.0 90.9 73.3 0.0 96.2 33.3 83.3 0.0 77.8 88.5 33.3 75.0 Non-Black 00-01 88.8 0.0 50.0 100.0 85.7 100.0 97.2 71.4 83.3 88.2 85.7 100.0 100.0 98.0 100.0 96.9 86.5 66.7 100.0 72.7 0.0 95.5 91.7 100.0 80.0 87.5 100.0 100.0 94.7 44.4 95.7 33.3 72.7 92.9 80.0 25.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Gap 99-00 15.4 83.9 23.2 51.4 6.0* 11.9* 17.3 0.8 29.1 3.2* 10.1 60.9 5.6* 7.7 10.0* 3.0* 17.2 10.4 13.5 2.6 20.1* 10.3 3.4 21.7 8.3 23.5 5.6* 40.4* 3.5 20.0* 1.5 57.1* 1.6 3.8* 38.1* 6.4 Gap 00-01 11.8 52.6* 11.3* 7.5 6.6* 7.7 13.4 0.8 1.1 11.7 13.0 46.2 40.7 16.7 12.5 30.2 11.0 11.4* 13.6 5.1* 92.3* 8.4 12.4 20.0 6.3 2.1 34.5 12.5 17.6 20.0* 20.7 39.9* 0.4* 6.2 0.6 23.6* 10School Table 8 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at \"Readiness\" Level, Grade 1, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff * Block 99-00 48.3 7.4 81.5 30.2 61.4 34.2 64.7 28.0 28.3 60.0 57.7 53.3 57.1 60.9 47.1 50.0 55.0 52.5 51.1 85.7 70.0 28.1 46.7 31.8 38.5 62.9 64.7 24.1 31.0 24.5 24.4 27.3 78.1 81.3 87.5 84.4 Block 00-01 57.4 22.6 65.2 68.3 88.5 48.4 83.3 59.3 30.9 72.2 64.7 65.0 59.4 58.3 51.7 54.5 56.8 65.5 87.5 65.5 25.7 87.8 45.5 42.9 62.5 80.0 53.2 36.6 36.1 59.5 36.8 27.7 46.4 97.1 55.1 65.7 Non-Block 99-00 71.2 0.0 58.8 20.0 84.6 52.9 90.3 26.9 33.3 62.5 100.0 82.9 100.0 68.8 46.2 85.0 84.4 64.4 66.7 76.9 77.8 0.0 88.2 68.0 0.0 95.8 50.0 25.0 73.5 14.3 55.2 0.0 90.9 89.7 75.0 83.3 Non-Black 00-01 77.3 100.0 69.2 85.7 85.7 66.7 100.0 36.0 57.1 73.3 100.0 92.0 66.7 74.4 92.6 91.7 76.1 50.0 87.9 69.2 0.0 89.3 75.0 90.0 71.4 73.3 33.3 66.7 75.9 38.5 50.0 0.0 87.5 97.0 33.3 25.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Gap 99-00 22.9 7.4* 22.7* 10.2* 23.2 18.7 25.6 1.1* 5.0 2.5 42.3 29.6 42.9 7.9 0.9* 35.0 29.4 11.9 15.6 8.8* 7.8 28.1* 41.5 36.2 38.5* 32.9 11.7* 0.9 42.5 10.2* 30.8 27.3* 12.8 8.4 12.5* 1.1* Gop 00-01 19.9 77.4 4.0 17.4 2.8* 18.3 16.7 23.3* 26.2 1.1 35.3 27.0 7.3 16.1 40.9 37.2 19.3 15.5* 0.4 3.7 25.7* 1.5 29.5 47.1 8.9 6.7* 19.9* 30.1 39.8 21.0* 13.2 27.7* 41.1 0.1* 21.8* 40.7* 11School Table 9 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at \"Readiness\" Level, Srade 2, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Black 99-00 63.8 9.7 71.4 46.2 81.0 72.5 78.3 42.9 62.7 52.9 54.5 83.3 83.1 75.0 69.7 71.4 58.6 78.6 32.4 62.8 55.2 50.0 87.5 30.0 97.3 65.8 65.6 39.3 83.3 40.5 61.7 53.2 92.6 87.1 58.1 82.9 Black 00-01 69.8 44.4 84.4 60.5 70.9 76.3 91.1 55.3 46.7 73.7 62.5 62.5 83.3 83.3 63.9 75.0 78.3 78.4 60.0 89.5 80.0 42.9 91.7 65.0 69.8 72.7 83.3 58.5 59.4 46.9 74.3 59.2 91.4 91.4 60.0 84.8 Non-Black 99-00 81.6 50.0 83.3 57.1 79.5 100.0 94.7 31.6 25.0 71.4 90.0 96.3 0.0 93.0 85.7 90.0 78.7 93.9 68.8 86.4 57.1 66.7 90.0 65.0 0.0 93.8 80.0 80.0 77.5 50.0 73.1 80.0 100.0 94.3 80.0 77.8 Non-Black 00-01 86.8 0.0 72.7 60.0 95.2 90.9 95.2 46.2 20.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 93.1 72.7 94.1 89.2 95.6 83.3 89.7 50.0 0.0 89.7 81.5 0.0 100.0 75.0 100.0 72.2 100.0 88.6 0.0 92.3 93.9 75.0 100.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Sap 99-00 17.8 40.3 11.9 10.9 1.5* 27.5 16.4 11.3* 37.7 18.5 35.5 13.0 83.1* 18.0 16.0 18.6 20.1 15.3 36.4 23.6 1.9 16.7 2.5 35.0 97.3* 28.0 25.6 40.7 5.8* 9.5 11.4 26.8 7.4 7.2 21.9 5.1* Sap 00-01 17.0 44.4* 11.7* 0.5* 24.3 14.6 4.1 9.1* 26.7* 26.3 37.5 34.5 16.7 9.8 8.8 19.1 10.9 17.2 23.3 0.2 30.0* 42.9* 2.0* 16.5 69.8* 27.3 8.3* 41.5 12.8 53.1 14.3 59.2* 0.9 2.5 15.0 15.2 12 fJOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS 7\u0026lt; 7^ j John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 15, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED AUG 1 7 ZOOI Dear Ms. Marshall: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Please find enclosed Stanford Nine results for reading and language. This is information that we have not been previously provided by the Little Rock School District. It is not within any of the volumes of documents submitted by the school district to either the court or the parties. Several witnesses indicated that these data have been available and are being used by the District at the same time the new superintendent. Dr. James and Dr. Bonnie are proposing to discontinue much of the testing. The Board has approved eliminating much of the testing. The enclosed testing information reveal the reasons for abandonment of tests by the District. While the school district may not have eliminated the Stanford 9, it appears headed in that direction. Mr. Heller is complaining that we have sought too much information from the District and are obstructing school opening. Please see my letter to him today. As the monitor approved by the court. I am writing to request that you obtain all of the test data on all of the subjects test for each school. I am also requesting that you provide a report to the parties assessing the LRSDs progress with respect to remediation of achievement disparities between African American and non African American children during the past four years. Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. incerely, John W. Walker JWW\njs Enclosure 4. 0 fifed /i'6rary - f.rcj '^etl I 9 O n 9 ACHiEl^EMBHT TEST SEJUES, NINTH EDITION n G^BLADE: 07 Item Analysis Summary FOR LITTLE ROCK ? o TEST TYPE: MULTIPLE CHOICfi TEST DATE: 09/00 District Code: 036001 Page 14 T H L D SUBTEST CLUSTER OBJECTIVE Rems Item Number Aslan/ Padfie Is. t ! J t u c J I 3 0 H J T 0 PROCESS CLUSTER SUMMARY FOR Thinking Skills 42 Iteew Mean p^value Above Averege Avere^ Belew Aver^^a 71 43 52 5 49 8 39 55 SUBTEST SUMMARY FOR Reading Comprehension Ta-tal N-Count: ASIANZPACIFIC IS.= NATIVE AHERXCAN: DISTRICT* 21 BLACK= 1046 1 WHITES 401 1511 54 Items Hean p'velua HISPANICS OTHERS 21 15 74 52 STANFORD tEVEL/FORM: Irtetwediale i/T 1995 NORMS: Fall National response: analysis PERCENT CORRECT Hispanic 54 lo 43 46 56 Scores based on oomiative data copyrieht O 1996 by Harooust Brace A CcTi^any. AB rescrveiL Natfv* Anwvtcan 40 0 0 5 37 While 73 44 44 12 75 Otker 69 20 47 33 63 District 56 18 41 41 59 NKnal 63 66 Copy 01 PtocmjNo. HII2-J92IU-15-OJM3-1Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 August 20, 2001 Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear John: Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2001, to which you attached certain Little Rock School District standardized test results. The data you included were for the SAT-9 taken by 7'* graders in September 2000 and for the ACTAAP benchmark exams for 8\" graders, administered in April 2000. We are in the process of gathering various test data from the districts. However, due to the ongoing hearings on the LRSDs bid for unitary status and Judge Wrights associated directives, at this time I dont anticipate that ODM will issue a report on LRSD achievement indicators. ! very much appreciate your keeping us informed. Sincerely yours, Ann S. MarshallT Date: August 21, 2001 To: From: Re: Melissa Inventory of LRSD Test Data Attached is an accumulation, from various sources, of LRSD test data. 1 need you to list out exactly what were got here by test, subject area, date administered, and grade level. Next, indicate any holes in the information, that is, what tests, dates, or grade levels are missing. It may be helpful to refer to Genes chart (distributed at staff meeting several weeks ago) of the various tests each district gives and the time of their administration. After youve finished the LRSD, do the same for the PCSSD and NLRSD. I dont think we have much recent test data on hand from either of the other districts. Once youve determined what we don t have, write a draft of a letter to each district that will enable us to update our files. The attached copies are mine, so please return them when youre through. See how fast you can get this done. Thanks much.Name of Report Standardized Testing Annual Rpt Standardized Testing Annual Rpt AMPT Results 5 year Comparison MAT-6 National Percentile Scores Comparative Data AMPT Results 5-Year Comparison Comparison of Passing Rates on the MPT AMPT Test Results SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Cun e Equivalent Scores SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Cune Equivalent Scores AMPT Third Administration SAT Percentile Rank/Normal Curve Equivalent Scores Comparative Data SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Curve Equivalent Scores SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Curve Equivalent Scores AMPT SAT 8 Annual Report Analyses SAT 8 Percentile Rank and Normal Curve Equivalent SAT Percentile Rank/Normal Curve Equivalent Scores/Comparative Data SAT 8 Percentile Rank and Normal Curve Equivalent LRSD Testing Reports on File at ODM March 5,1996 Year(s) 1986-87 1987-88 1987-91 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 1988-92 1989-92 1989-93 1992 1992 1992 1992-93 1993 1993 1993-94 1994-95 Fall, 1995 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 1995 Summarized By school Bv school District summary District summan' By school District summary District summary \u0026amp; by school By school District summary^ By school By school By school District summary By school \u0026amp; district summary By school \u0026amp; district summan By school \u0026amp; district summary By school \u0026amp; district summary By school \u0026amp; district summary Grades 1-6 1-6 3,6,8 1-11 3,6,8 3,6,8 3, 6,8 1-11 1-11 8 1-11 1-11 1-11 6,8 1-11 1-11 1-11 1-11 Race BAV B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W Gender F/M F/M F/M F/M F/M Areas Reported Subject areas Subject areas # pass. # fail, by subject area Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas # pass\n# fail Basic Battery/ Complete Battery Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Basic Battery, Complete BatteryTest Subject Date Administered The following are the recent LRSD test results that are in our files. DRA Literacy Spring 2000, Spring 2001 SAT 9 Reading 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Math 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Language arts 1996-97-2000-01 SATO Science 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Social studies 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Basic battery 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Complete battery 1996-97-2000-01 ACTAAP Math 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Literacy 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Math 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Literacy 1998-99-1999000 Grade Levels K 1st 2n 5\\ 7\\ IO' 5th, 1 Qth 5'\\ 7\\ IO* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 4th 4* 8* 8* The following, which are duplicates of those in our files, were sent by John Walker. SAT-9 Reading September 2000 7* SAT-9 Language arts September 2000 7* ACTAAP Literacy April 2000 8*IMw Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge August 23, 2001 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Melissa\nI am attaching, as per your request, copies of the grade 4 Benchmark scores for 1998- 99 and 1999-2000. We do not have as yet the 2000-01 reports. I am also attaching a copy of the grade 8 scores for the pilot year in 1999-2000. Again, we do not have the 2000-01 results as yet. As I told you on the telephone, we have not had time as yet to put all the ALT scores on tables. I have the all-student reports done, but I still lack the disaggregations. That task is next on my list. As soon as I get them done, I will provide the full set to you. I sent you earlier our preliminary report on the Developmental Reading Assessment. I now have tables constructed of all the Observation Survey data, each of the five subtests, including disaggregations, plus the mean scores for each sub-test on the DRA, again disaggregated, so I am sending those pages along as well. Wonderful stuff! Let me know if you have questions. Yours truly, Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Attachment cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W. Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 T  5AT - /^C'TA A? TO A 6At^ 1|. Srt /icrnpre (JiCf\u0026gt;i\u0026lt;/ii\u0026lt;naiiK^ i\u0026lt; 1/ I ( I J(A'^ nii.\\ h i:\u0026gt;i/ia- Ci^'^ ^2A^-~___ xuyra\u0026gt;\u0026lt;g__ ^yDcl ^Ido______ loo______ __'~l )(oo 7^0 _bfdlin____^Qii ) _____200' 0 I___ h 5 n f! u II H H U :i. i IJ ~7 2. 1 1^ /a 2..,. 1 s.^1 /o )  ^.7lo GraudLf- It II 4^Individual Approach to a World of'Knowledge ?SII1 August 23, 2001 Ms, Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Melissa: I am attaching, as per your request, copies of the grade 4 Benchmark scores for 1998- 99 and 1999-2000. We do not have as yet the 2000-01 reports. I am also attaching a copy of the grade 8 scores for the pilot year in 1999-2000. Again, we do not have the 2000-01 results as yet. As I told you on the telephone, we have not had time as yet to put all the ALT scores on tables. I have the all-student reports done, but I still lack the disaggregations. That task is next on my list. As soon as I get them done, I will provide the full set to you. I sent you earlier our preliminary report on the Developmental Reading Assessment. I now have tables constructed of all the Observation Survey data, each of the five subtests, including disaggregations, plus the mean scores for each sub-test on the DRA, again disaggregated, so I am sending those pages along as well. Wonderful stuff!  Let me know if you have questions. Yours truly, 4 Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Attachment cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 y / /-I AUG 2 V ZOGi Table 1 Letter IdentificationKindergarten-Black Students Maximum Score = 54 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATiOMrlO^lTDF School Fall 1999 Spring Growth 2000 Fail 2000 Spring Growth 2001 Codes LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline_______ Booker________ Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd_________ Fair Park_____ Forest Park Franklin______ Fulbright_____ Geyer Springs Gibbs_________ Jefferson______ King__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine_______ Stephens (Grid) Terry_________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 27.59 20.56 26.56 16.78 37.31 29.17 26.37 21.43 20.88 31.19 29.03 31.22 I 21.06 38.81 29.45 40.25 25.75 29.73 23.03 28.72 28.45 39.92 29.82 26.38 39.44 25.44 37.47 29.81 34.09 I 25.81 23.51 21.96 20.25 38.32 22.90 30.57 48,48 45,33 50.67 38.28 51.92 50.33 50.84 48.50 48.83 51.25 47.21 50.17 50.03 53.44 49.33 54.00 46.80 49.93 49.50 51.94 49.23 45.48 51.58 48.38 50.69 48.09 50.90 48.57 51.54 45.81 41.87 45.25 43.80 51.24 49.12 46.83 Only students with a fall and spnng score arc included in this report. 20.89 24.77 24.11 21.50 14.61 21.16 24.47 27.07 27.95 20.06 18.18 18.95 28.97 14.63 19.88 13.75 21.05 20.20 26.47 23.22 20.78 5.56 21.76 22.00 11.25 22.65 13.43 18.76 17.45 20.00 18.36 23.29 23.55 12.92 26.22 16.26 27.43 12.38 30.85 29.03 32.37 28.08 28.67 21.26 21.35 26.13 34.09 25.82 23.10 30.38 29.06 37.15 21.68 32.43 29.68 28.27 24.23 26.17 31.58 24.15 29.70 25.74 30.03 20.04 30.70 24.84 32.20 23.25 34.52 38.19 21.07 25.64 49.38 46.62 49.59 46.89 51.24 49.48 52.08 45.85 48.35 51.31 53.82 49.73 49.48 50.92 50.90 53.76 48.32 48.80 46.96 51.60 45.48 49.41 50.77 50.37 50.45 49.89 51.50 48.06 50.63 47.13 47.88 49.00 45.57 52.11 50.07 49.39 21.95 34.24 18.74 17.86 18.87 21.40 23.41 24,59 27.00 25.18 19.73 23.91 26.38 20.54 21.84 16.61 26.64 16.37 17.28 23.33 21.25 23.24 19.19 26.22 20.75 24.15 21.47 28.02 19.93 22.29 15.68 25.75 11.05 13.92 29.00 23.75 FR SP SP FR SFA, SP RR M YC, SFA, SP M YC,FRRR,SP FR SFA, SP.CSR RR, CSR SP FR, SFA, SP I, FR, RR, SP FR, RR. SP RR, .M RR SP FR EYE, SP TA FR. SFA, SP I, FR, SP RR, TA I, FR.SP I, SP YC, SFA, SP I, FR, EYRSP YC, TA FR, SP NC, DI, ,M, SP FR CSR SP SP RR M FR RRSP FRSFA.EYE,SP Codes: DI=Direct Instrucuon\nEYE=Extended Year Education\nFR=75% or higher eligible for free/reduced lunch\nl=lncennve School\nM=Magnet School\nNC=Newconier Center\nRR=Reading Recovery\nSFA=Success for All\nTA=Title I Targeted Assistance\nSP=Title 1 Schoolwide Project 98/ / - ZX5(9 ffirrt h It, Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge August 28, 2001 V*  4 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann\n1 promised to send to you our ALT data as soon as I could get the disaggregated scores onto tables. I completed the grades 2-8 reading and language usage reports this past week-end, so they are attached. As soon as other reports are ready, I will also forward them. \\Ne are told that the Benchmark results will arrive this week. If they do, well work to get those to you as quickly as possible. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 J Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge September 10, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: RECF''^D SEP I i' ?!l!)l urHbi\nV- 1 0WGATi02^GJjjI0RiMB All of our test scores are finally in, and we have compiled our reports, attaching for your files the following\nI am 1. ALT Reading and Language Usage 2. ALT Mathematics and Science 3. Grade 4 Literacy and Mathematics - Benchmarks 4. Grade 8 Literacy and Mathematics - Benchmarks 5. ACT, 1997-98 through 2000-01 6. Advanced Placement Please let me know if you have questions. Sincerely, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg Attachments cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 CC JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydl^wbell.net Via Facsimile - 371-0100 November 12, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED NOV 14 2001 Re: LRSD Six Year SAT 9 Summary lafflCEOl- OeSTIONMONITORil Dear Ms. Marshall: Would you please provide the NCE scores for grades 5, 7 and 10 by year and race for the most recent LRSD Stanford 9 results. In other words, as measured by the NCE scores on the SAT 9, has the disparity decreased in academic achievement between the black students and white students in the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your attention to this request. incerely, John W. JWW:js Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 11, 2002 Dr. Boimie Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bonnie: Thanks very much for forwarding a copy of your August presentation to the Board on recent algebra, geometry, and literacy test scores. The results indicate very encouraging improvements, upon which we congratulate you, your professional colleagues, and, of course, the students. some We appreciate your keeping us informed and look forward to hearing good news during the school year. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Marshall k st\u0026lt;ru\u0026gt; 144 vS jtu lift (x\u0026gt; July 22, 2005 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for your request for ACTAAP \u0026amp; ITBS disaggregated test results by school, race and gender from last school year. We have received such data related to the ITBS, however, ACTAAP data received by LRSD consists only of raw scores for individual students and is not yet normalized by the Department of Education. Our PRE Department will prepare a set of ITBS data for you in the format you requested and furnish it to you within two weeks. Please let us know whether this satisfies your request. Siricerely yours, L't/p :aren DeJamette, Ph. T H^ai fl . V // Director, PRE Department xc\nMr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Thursday, May 9,1991 Arkansas Gazette Bghth grade MFT test results Caposite pass rate School: Dfetncts RodR\nN^\u0026lt;\nLJ^G|RiLiisskf: ? No. tested , 1792 fe^paSs^ll^ggig Q/ /o passed 78 536 ssas\n85.5 County 1483'1 B^253\n\u0026lt; 84.5 : I r. t J J- r. J ::Pa^s-rafie| bysubji^ Reading Language.... Sqenc8hi:W-:-: 87% 82 Soc. Studies '\"^ S- i \u0026lt; 89% SOT 86... 75 89%IGA  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT  THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1991 Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (Sth grade) STUDENTS FAILING School Cloverdale * iDuhbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann ^ulaski Heights Southwest * Elizabeth Mitchell DISTRICT Students passing ~7i 70 83 76 81 88 80 69 29 78 Black Male Female White Male Female 38 50 38 43 40 48 44 40 44 44 39 57 44 51 43 50 48 20 47 3 7 3 2 5 14 ' 2 2 40 18 13 4 3 3 0 3 NA 5 NA 17 Total students tailing 29 soil 17 24 19 12 20 3t 71 Note: Figures are percentages, with fractions rounded off to the nearest whole number, and therefore may not total 100 percent. WA = not available * = other races not included^Thursday, May 23, 1991...Arkansas Democrat _______________ LRSD pass rates on Minimum Performance Test I { } I I s.\nfrhe chart shows the percentage of black, white and tot^ studeriU.passlhg the MPT^ SCHOOL/GRADE READING MATH LANGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES BADGETT 3 6 BALES 6 BASELINE 3 6 BOOKER 3 6 BRADY 3 6 CARVER 3 6 CHICOT 3 6 CLOVERDALE 3 6 DODD 3 6 FAJR PARK 3 6 FOREST PARK 3 8 FRANKLIN 3 6 FULBRiGKrS 6 QARLAN0 3 6 QEYER SPRINGS 3 6 GIBBS 3 6 ISH3 6 JEFFERSON 3 8 MABELVALE 3 8 MCDEFBAOnS 8 HEADOWCUFF 3 6 MICHELL 3 8 OUERCREEKS 6 PULASKI HEIGHTS 3 8 OHrSELL3 8 ROCKEFELLER 3 6 ROMINES 6 STEPHENS 3 6 TERRY 3 6 WAKEFIELD 3 8 WASHMQTON 3 8 WATSONS 6 WESTERN HILLS 3 6 W1LUAMS 3 8 WILSON 3 8 WOODRUFF 3 6 DUNBAR FOREST HBGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN PULASKI HEtOHTS SOUTHWEST ALL 73 88 67 86 85 88 93 99 P 98 99 96 .65 P 94 92 74 79 91 85 93 98 92 94 P 96 69 91 95 100 90 98 75 P 90 98 86 88 94 99 84 98 93 94 92 100 88 P 96 93 M 95 84 91 59 94 93 IM 87 96 90 93 P 95 93 92 94 1W P 87 P 98 B 69 86 65 84 83 85 90 98 77 98 98 92 54 88 97 89 78 78 91 81 87 97 90 95 72 93 67 90 93 100 83 100 75 83 89 97 74 85 91 96 78 96 92 94 83 too 80 87 96 93 85 95 87 90 60 92 89 too 82 94 80 84 77 92 94 89 97 100 84 90 80 97 w 88 100 71 100 100 92 97 100 94 100 100 100 94 92 85 too 71 -79 91 100 too 100 100 86 97 100 too 100 100 100 100 95 90 100 95 92 100 too 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 100 50 100 97 100 95 100 100 100 94 100 93 100 97 100 92 79 100 100 ALL 92 58 75 81 P 93 91 97 80 92 97 86 56 72 96 92 S3 80 88 88 99 100 87 83 83 92 58 76 100 too 88 90 75 83 90 98 77 76 89 96 81 100 100 88 96 too 90 89 92 93 97 95 94 84 65 94 93 97 88 85 98 100 77 95 98 too 94 97 72 91 76 98 B 90 62 73 78 78 96 88 96 74 91 96 75 49 68 97 91 80 78 88 85 97 100 87 81 72 88 58 n 100 100 78 95 75 83 83 97 70 74 86 96 75 100 100 88 92 100 84 90 92 93 96 95 97 83 60 92 89 98 83 81 96 100 72 94 97 too 91 97 68 94 67 97 W 100 40 86 100 100 85 97 100 94 100 98 100 75 85 92 100 88 84 91 100 100 100 75 86 100 97 100 67 100 100 100 85 100 100 p 81 95 95 91 100 100 100 100 100 88 100 100 83 too too 100 97 96 94 94 100 100 89 96 100 100 97 96 85 88 too too ALL 58 67 54 87 78 76 56 59 59 74 92 68 81 50 80 90 83 82 58 87 85 82 81 76 80 73 65 69 85 84 88 95 86 92 S3 80 B 80 63 52 78 74 63 51 49 49 P 90 65 68 52 86 90 83 72 61 82 79 82 63 77 80 71 65 75 76 81 77 94 81 n P 73 W 57 100 54 100 100 90 69 85 79 100 95 71 97 33 67 90 92 81 90 94 96 75 100 50 190 89 97 96 100 93 71 100 ALL 38 58 44 82 90 n 43 71 61 59 75 49 82 59 85 85 91 58 76 68 71 83 74 80 68 56 69 79 66 93 78 68 p 83 93 B it S3 44 71 88 61 29 60 51 48 69 43 73 55 93 81 P n 39 67 50 71 63 67 80 67 54 75 71 62 84 73 S3 75 94 90 W ao 87 46 97 100 95 85 100 79 100 82 71 94 100 67 90 100 100 85 92 94 96 100 100 75 92 72 100 68 100 89 79 100 ALL 38 58 54 92 73 78 44 P 55 68 80 55 86 53 95 83 75 80 58 82 78 76 85 74 80 68 75 68 85 78 81 74 78 88 65 75 B 38 58 59 P 70 61 34 48 46 59 72 49 76 48 100 81 75 P 50 74 71 76 63 70 80 17 73 n 76 72 65 67 75 81 65 70 W 40 48 100 100 91 77 92 74 100 90 71 100 100 83 85 10c 73 98 88 100 88 100 100 too 83 95 88 86 96 64 86 83 86 84 85 95 89 89 81 81 80 78 93 00 88 88 98 97 97 98 99 98 75 89 88 85 87 87 n 79 69 84 85 78 81 75 74 84 88 98 98 97 95 99 U 77 77 81 80 84 93 84 77 74 73 74 76 78 89 72 72 87 86 95 97 97 97 97 95 61 50 71 58 58 71 71 56 52 40 60 49 40 55 48 50 O 71 94 65 88 92 96 80 53 56 79 56 65 80 66 47 48 52 71 51 53 71 47 42  65 63 95 73 P P ' P i 61Thursday, August 8, 1991... Democrat LRSD Metropolitan Achievement Test comparison I Sr.high Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview I i Jr. high loverOale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest - 1990 7 B W 40 62 28 47 42 81 41 79 34 73 51 85 42 88 41 64 1990 10 B W 42 84 38 71 45 78 38 63 56 81 1991 7 B W 32 53 46 80 36 70 33 74 34 61 53 83 34 84 34 48 1991 10 B W 42 86 37 63 40 74 40 65 57 84 1990 8 B W 35 55 24 44 43 78 38 76 41 65 50 85 38 80 33 73 1990 11 B W 38 81 32 64 38 73 28 58 41 68 1991 8 B W 34 56 30 61 40 77 37 78 36 70 49 84 33 84 35 61 1991 11 B W 40 85 36 70 42 76 37 59 54 79 1990 9 B W 52 73 42 68 50 85 54 83 52 78 63 91 52 89 53 73 Chart shows percentile ranking, by grade and race, of the test's complete battery, comparing 1990 scores to 1991 scores. A ranking in the 50th percentile is considered average. 1991 9 B W 45 64 44 77 49 83 46 84 45 72 61 90 50 85 42 67 I ! Elementary 1990 1 B W 1991 1 B W Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver \u0026lt; . Chicot Cloverdale Dodd , Fair Pai^' Forest Park 29 40 55 79 45 66 27 83 45 54 30 50 41 74 38 74 23 63 46 72 95 73 41 59 29\n48: 66 40 27 50 21 78 97 42 1990 2 B W 30 46 30 53 60 63 60 80 42 84 63 93 26 48 63 50 60 52 32 79 40 \u0026lt;71 64 89 49 93 33 45 53 88 57 94 1991 2 B W 26 51 33 55 41 57 41 78 28 55 61 92 43 61 70 81 26 31 33 70 61 93 1990 3 B W 20 39 40 63 40 63 42 75 30 69 46 87 35 62 49 76 38 71 34 66 43 91 Frankiih. Fulbright _ 27 44 37-82 23 72 49 86 Garland 37 - 31 65 Geyer Springs 51 63 54 74 Gibbs :\u0026lt;\u0026lt;:4\n:\u0026gt; Ish Jeffersonii Mabelvale ,\u0026lt;\n: 40 84 39 88 43 25 28 60 . 38 78 25 \u0026lt;77 23 49 32 55 46 52 27 51 32 54 49 83 34 80 34 77 27 83 23 46 26 52 64 43 70 . 28 51 48 90 58 93 32 35 57 47 61 48 McDermott-  49 92 43 80 Meadowcliff MitcheiL- \u0026gt;  Otter Creek 31 67 32 60 \u0026lt; 48 91 53 71 57 84 37 80 44 76 42 74 46 88 50 59 34 63 33 53 62 89 61 87 44 78 34 73 44 60 32 78 42 23 44 75 47 28 43 78 45 80 Pulaski-'Heights 26 72 21 64 Rightsell Rockefeller Romine ,, Stephens\"  Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 51 73 47 - \u0026lt;39 43 33 70 ,38 48 55 , 44 25 61 33 - 40 85 64 - 34 37 40 81 48 79 46 52 39 68 20 63 45 94 40 54 50 58 1991 3 B W 29 56 26 37 37 47 39 73 34 61 55 90 23 49 54 53 34 36 38 83 46 89 38 77 40 81 25 57 37 66 49 86 37  40 80 31 ^7 44 75 36 76 45 56 51 81 1990 4 B W 35 35 27 45 53 59 1991 4 B 31 36 49 50 80 .44 44 70 72 93 38 70 39 63 62 54 58 80 57 1990 5 B 21 29 44 84 49 69 1991 5 B W 1990 6 B W 35 21 37 46 29 5 4 45 69 49 49 49 75 47 83 51 84 61 88 49 84 42 71 57 83 90 55 91 65 91 68 92 46 63 32 64 37 73 45 72 Q7 79 .17 85 39 63 49 55 41 26 44 72 29 75 53 87 36 62 44 68 40 37 53 49 47 90 32 47 29 , 45 49 85 51 87 \\53 99 : 59 81 25 - 51 76 52 83 50 74 49 82 38 - 40 67 40 55 59 38 50 42 60 55 74 41 52 80 32 58 46 84 95 52 88 36 85 53 :43 81 41 76 79 44 82 43 80 40 37 v' -\u0026lt;45 1991 6 B W 33 37 37 83 53 57 49 87 ' 51 82 50 91 39 70 39 63 38 64 66 82 57 95 49 64: 52 73 48 38 37 75 41 65 61 92 59 93 60 58 47 10 36 61 38 23 61 80 59 71 63 91 58 92 60 93 66 85 37 63 50 75 55 54 52 88 41 86 41 92 89 58 82 47 92\u0026lt; 46 64 35 57 34 34 35 55 51 62 45 53 51 84 62 84 49 49 38 68 41 80 55 83 53 61 37 82 43 27 72 - 44 83 58 83 45 76. 36 53 28 73 32 - 31 41 40 40 47 82 19 66 43 42 45 47 53 41 48 45 49 56 47 67 47 75 47 .40 53 \u0026lt;44 52 53 - \u0026lt; 53 43 88 58 82 50 78 41 36 59 31 :79 33 69 48 40 39 90 58 J 28 38 33 - 60 35 58 33 58 27^ 42 35 27 82 58 28 75 28 33 43 46 40 70 54 62 58 67 35 44 44 46 66 64 89 50 87 44 44 48 55 53 23 61 54 54 42 95 36 - 43 49 54 58 27 44 78 53 79 53 53 43 70 53 79 65 83 54 40 64 32 70 48 48 45 ' 61 56 73 55 65 79 39 84 40 85 30 30 41 74 51 38 88 33 51 30 46 32 74 39 55 45 48 25 66 48 85 50 83 84 94 87 :95 82 70 77 82 33 25 20 33 46 78 58 85 59 82 43 97 91 82 93 70 91 63 50 65 61 56 50 53 27 35 56 67 19 60 38 27 75 85 47 69 59 77 60 61 55 55 51 72 48 68 53 72 54 75 42 75 52 52 46 74 51 83 55 80 83 89 46 59 36 48 75 92 72 72 75 87 75 92 72 90 47 44 50 50 43 60 53 74 59 62 28 30 42 42 43 66 51 59 48 75Au.qust 12, 1991 Monday Arkansas Ppmncrat MAT 6 anaylsis for elementary schools (Total possible score is 600. School average of 50% or higher is 300 or more total points) _ . ' Total points I B ^4 Total points  Ranking 1 '??:.'2 3 Name Williams Magnet Car/er Magnet- Forest Park area Total points' i 4 Gibbs Magrwt 5 Otter Creek area 7 . 0 9 : 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 6 Terry area 502   455 402\n393:::'.- ' Name Williams Jefferson area McDermott area Fulbright area Booker Magnet Western Hills area Cloverdale area Washington Magnet Wilson area M J- Mitchell incentive Geyer Springs aroa Meadowcliff area Remine area- V Watson area Fair Park area \u0026lt; Rightseil incentive Rockefeller incentive Wakefield area , Brady areaii' Pul. Heights area Stephens incentive Baseline area Ish incentive Woodruff area Mabelvale area Chicot area [jodd area Franklin area Badgett area\nBale area Garland incentive 392  , 372 366 363 349 338 335 320 308 308 306 291 283 - 283 ( 283 282 281 281 279 269 . 268: 267 264 262 260 255 226 .218 :213 Carver \u0026lt; Gibbs Cloverdale Wilson Forest Park Mitchell Terry (black) 454 'S\u0026lt;i367''  329 .:.:S:329\n\u0026gt;-.' Name Carver (per 600 whita pupils 551 Forest Park ' 548 McDermott Romine Western Hills Otter Creek Rightsell Stephens Geyer Springs Ish Booker Fulbright Baseline Watson Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Jefferson Wakefield Brady Franklin Dodd Chicot Mabelvale ' Badgett Pul. Heights 325 312 311 303 296 294 284 283 272 i 272 263: 262 259 259 258 246 245 245 242 240 240 226 218 217 212 209 : :::208 Washington 207 Garland Woodruff Bale 204 202 188 Williams Gibbs- : Jefferson Otter Creek? Washington Booker McDermott Fulbright\\ : Western Hills Terry Pul. Heights Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Brady Franklin Cloverdale Watson. - Geyer. Springs Wakefield Bale Chicot Romine Wil sen Woodruff Mabelvale Dodd Bale . Baagett Stephens\" Garland\" Mitcheir* Ish\" Rightseil\" 542 537 498 490 483 481 477 475 . - 472 468 : 426 417 415 409 404 402 400 372: \\ 369 368 366 358 354 351 345 330 325 318 306 283 261 255 206 *AI1 pupils based on total percentile rank for each grade \"Total points possible are less than 6CC because there were not white students enrolled in all grades.Metropolitan Achievement Tests ,tK': The chart shows how Arkansas students ranked against national percentiles on the MAT~6 tests, 1986-91 I '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 Composite / Basic Battery 64 66 66 67 67 65 Total reading 60 62 62 62 62 61 Total math 67 68 67 70 70 69 Total language 63 64 65 66 65 64 u Composite / Basic Battery 54 58 59 60 61 60 Total reading 51 53 55 Total math 53 57 58 Total language 55 59 61 55 59 62 55 54 60 59 63 61 ( Composite / Basic Battery 53 54 55 56 58 57 , fOtA, Total reading 49 49 50 Total math 50 51 52 Total language 58 59 60 51 51 52 I 53 61 55 54 62 61 SOURCE: Nat'l Education Assn. 7- M. STOREY / Democrat-Ga2etteI I, t * Arkansas Democrat MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1991 B  I  I 4 J J 1 U Magnet schools rank highest in MAT6 scores 4  l! , BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat Staff Writer A ranking of Little Rock\nSchool District schools based I on their Metropolitan Achieve- ! ment Test results from last I I spring puts Williams Magnet I Elementary, Mann Magnet Jun- i ior High and Parkview Magnet I High schools on top. : Garland Elementary, South- i west Junior High and McClellan High schools make up the bottom of the lists when only test scores are considered. The test assesses students in the areas of social studies, mathematics, reading, language arts and science. Williams, which offers a basic skills magnet program, had the highest number of points, followed by Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School, Forest Park Elementary, Gibbs International Studies Magnet School and Otter Creek Elementary School. Four of the top 10 elementary schools were magnet schools, meaning they have special academic themes, strict rules on parent involvement and are open to pupils from all three Pulaski County school districts. The schools were created to enhance desegregation and are financed by all three districts and the state, which pays half the cost of educating each child. Parents voluntarily enroll their children in the magnet schools. No students are assigned to the schools. Little Rock Superintendent Ruth Steele in an interview last week cautioned that ranking schools could be like comparing apples and oranges. You have to remember that children or their parents want to be at the magnet schools and that they came from all three school districts, she said. They have waited on lists or participated in a lottery to be in those schools. That can be very different than staying at an assigned school. She also noted that poverty can affect student achievement and the incidence of poverty is likely to be greater among students in the districts area schools and predominantly black incentive ! 4 H I  3 ' J J i schools. Area schools are schools that have attendance I J zones and no special court-or- J dered desegregation program. The Arkansas Democrat t  I t  ranked the schools based on 5 ' the school-by-schooi, grade-by- t 1 grade data released by the dis- , trict last week. Three sets of 5 rankings were done using the ? test scores of all students, the a | scores of all black students J I and the scores of all white Stu- * dents. The rankings revealed: ,  Tremendous disparities j 4 exist between the average 4 achievement levels of black 4 and white students in the dis- 5 trict, and between schools in ,4 the district.  Eight elementary schools 1 I that ranked in the top 12 had both high white scores and the ! high black scores, indicating * that schools that do a good job ! for one race do a good job for J the other.  The elementary incentive J schools, which get double per- J See SCORES, Page 5B I I i J 1 Scores MAT 6 anaylsis for elementary schools  Continued from Arkansas Page pupil funding and are designed to improve the achievement level of black children, had mixed test results. Mitchell Elementary ranked highest among the incentive schools.  Some of the districts area schools, like Forest Park, Cloverdale, McDermott and Western Hills, reported high or fairly high test results. Those schools dont get the special funding and public attention that magnets and incentive schools get. The school rankings were determined by adding the percentile scores for all grades at a school. Fer example, Williams first-graders scored at the 92nd percentile. That was added to the second grade per- centile of 88, the third-grade percentile of 75, the fourthgrade score of 85, the fifthgrade score of 80 and the sixthgrade score of 82 for a total of 502 points. The highest number of points possible at any grade wa.s 100, thus the total perfect score would be 600. An average score was 300. Eighteen of the districts elementary schools scored above the 300 mark and 18 scored below. When the scores of black students were considered. only nine schools had 300 or more points. When white scores were considered in isolation, all schools scored above average. (The average for white students is less than 300 at some of the incentive schools because there were not white students in every grade.) I told the principals that whatever conclusions are drawn about the test scores, it is clear that what happens in a class to white students is very different than what happens to . black students, Steele said. Theres a lot of work for everybody to do. Im not pleased\nI cant be pleased when there are disparities of 30 percentile points or more between black and white children. (Total possible score is 600. School average of 50% or higher is 300 or more total points) Ranking Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Williams Magnet Carver Ma^t Forest Park area Gibbs Magnet Otter Creek area Terry area Jefferson area McDermott area Fulbright area Booker Magnet Western Hilts area Cloverdale area Washington Magnet WSson area Mitchell incentive Geyer Springs aroa Meadowcliff area Romine area Watson area Fair Park area Rightsell incentive Rockefeller incentive Wakefield area Brady araa Pul. Heights area Stephens incentive Baseline area Ish tocentive Woodruff ares Mabelvale area Chicot area Dodd area Franklin area Badgett area Bale area Garland incentive Total points* Name 502 474 455 444 402 393 392 377 372 366 363 349 338 335 320 308 308 306 291 283 283 283 282 281 261 279 269 268 267 264 262 260 255 226 218 213 Williams Carver Gibbs Cloverdale Wilson Forest Park Mitchell Terry McDermott Romir\u0026gt;e Western Hilis Otter Creek Rightsell Stephens Total points (black) 454 367 329 329 325 322  312 311 303 296 294 284 283 272 Name Carver Forest Park Williams Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Washington Booker McDermott Fulbright Total points (per 600 white' pupils Geyer Springs 272 Ish Booker Fulbright Baseline Watson Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Jefferson Wakefield Brady Franklin Dodd Chico\nMabelvale Badgett Pui. Weights Washington Garland Woodruff Bate 263 262 259 259 258 246 245 245 242 240 240 226 218 21' 212 209 208 207 204 202 188 Western Hills Terry Pul. Heights Fair Park Rockefellei Meadowcliff Brady FrankJir^ Cloverdale Watson 551 548 542 537 498 490 483 481 477 475 472 468 426 417 415 409 404 402 400 372 I I I Geyer Springs 369 Wakefield Bale Chicot Romine Wil sen Woodruff Mabelvale Dodd Bale Badgett Stephens* Garland Miicbeil** Ish** Rightseil* 368 366 358 354 351 345 330 325 318 306 283 261 255 206 All pupils based on total percentile rank for each grade Total points possible are less than 600 because there were not white students enrollee in all grades. The results of the MAT6 will be used to determine whether the district must repay a $20 million loan to the state of Arkansas. The loan is a provision in the districts financial settlement of the 8-year-oid school desegregation lawsuit with the state. If the district raises the average score of black children to 90 percent of the average score of white students by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay the money. The incentive schools are intended to help the district meet that goal by offering after-school, weekend and summer programs, as well as smaller class sizes, parent centers and field trips. When the scores of black children are considered by themselves, Mitchell students ranked seventh in the district. Rightsell Elementary ranked : 13th, Stephens was i4th and Ish was 16th, Rockefeller was 22nd and Garland 34th. Black students at Mitchell outscored black students at Terry, McDermott, and Jefferson, which are area schools, and at | Booker Magnet and Washing- 5 ton Magnet elementaries. In the junior high rankings, ,, Mann was first, followed by Pulaski Heights, Forest  Heights, Dunbar, Henderson, Mabelvale, Cloverdale and j Heights Southwest. Dunbar, the dis- s tricts newest magnet school, showed some large gains in scores when compared to last year. At the high school level, Parkview was first, followed by I Central, Hall, Fair and McClel- j Ian. When only the scores of white students were ranked, Central Parkview. was ahead ofuiasKi Black pupils in LRSD below national average on Stanford 8 scores BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Black pupils in the Little Rock School District on average scored below the national average in all subjects and at all reported grade levels on the new Stanford Achievement Test. Eighth Edition. White pupils, on the average, scored above the national average in ail subjects and at -all grades reported. Dr. Ruth Steele, whose last day of work in the Little Bock School District is today, said Thursday the scores had changed little since last year. A disparity between black and white pupils continues to exist in the district, Steele said. As superintendent, I must say that one of my disappointments has been our inability to significantly raise the test scores and reduce the disparity, she said. score earned by black pupils was at the 48th percentile in sixth-grade math and fifth- grade social studies. The lowest average score was at the 28th percentile in fifth-grade reading. The 50th percentile is considered to be the national average. 7 must say that one of my disappointments has been our inability to significantly raise the test scores and reduce the disparity. ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1992 LRSD SAT results Stanford Achievement test. Eighth Edition national percentile {Districtwide summary, 1992) rank The achievement disparity between the races exceeded 30 points in some subjects and grades. . Steele is retiring from the district and will become a half-time associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Central Arkansas. Dr. Mac Bernd, formerly a superintendent in San Diego County, Calif., will replace her. According to the test results, the highest average The highest average score for white pupils was at the 77th percentile in second-grade math and the lowest was at the 57th percentile in grade-nine math. The achievement disparity between the races exceeded 30 points in some subjects and grades. In eighth-grade reading, white pupils scored at the 67th percentile, compared to black pupils 29th percentile score. A total of 19,287 pupils in grades one through 11 took the nationally standardized exam last spring. The Stanford 8 replaces the Metropolitan Achievement Test, Sixth Edition, which had been administered in past years. The Stanford 8 compares the achievement levels of Little Rock pupils with the achievement levels of a national sample of pupils who took the same tests. The test is especially signif- Grade/ race 1 TOTAL B W 2 TOTAL B W 3 TOTAL B W . -4 TOTAL 5 TOTAL B _______W. 6 TOTAL B _______W .2JQTAL 8 TOTAL B ______ML 9 TOTAL B ______ML *10 TOTAL 11 TOTAL B W Number tested 2,094 1,330 697 1,883 1,173 672' 1,783 1,131 632 1.867 1,922 1,288 612 1,843 1,209 609 1.694 1,573 1,060 493 1,554 995 ___53fi_ 1.602 1,472 825 612 Total Total Environment Soc. reading math Lang. Science science 42 35 63 39 29 62 39 27 63 44 38 26 63 50 37 24. AZ 41 29 44 30 ja. 49 50 34 69 48 40 70 57 46 n 58 46 76 58 53 43 2L 57 74 JS. 39 30 59 34 23 .52. 37 43 32 59 41 32 63 49 39 70 50 38 70 4^ 48 38 52 51 41 55 45 48 38 52. 54 42 25 48 48 35 66 37 27 59 43 32 65 43 30 67 46 45 33 20. 54 43 24. .42. 45 34 58. 50 38 22. 45 47 32 68 46 35 67 48 46 37 55. 59 48 25 42 46 34 22 49 36 73 43 51 36 69 Complete battery 39 31 64 45 33 70 47 34 70 47 44 32 ___S2_ 54 43 75 ___4S_ 43 30 ___sa_ 48 34 73 47 51 34 12. 'Data by race for grades 4,7 and 10 are unavailable at this time. \" At grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT NOTE: Totals may not add up because other* category was omitted. leant to the Little Rock School District in light of the district's financial settlement agreement with the state of Arkansas. If the district raises the average scores of black children to at least 90 percent of the average score earned by white pupils by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay a $20 million loan. The state is loaning the district the money to aid in the districts desegregation efforts. The district Thursday had not yet broken the test scores down by school, said Sterling Ingram, director of the districts planning, research and evaluation office. The district also does not have the fourth-, seventh- and 10th-grade scores broken down by race yet Those grades are handled differently in scoring the tests because the test results must be reported to the state Department of Education./   ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  THURSDAY, MAY 14,1992  1 2Wof LR eighth-graders fail state performance test t I L BY CYNIHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Stall Writer The number of Little Rock eighth-graders who failed the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test in March climbed to LRSD 1992 MPT results (Eighth grade summary) a record 412 pupils, who arc now in jeopardy of not being promoted. Statistics released Wednesday by the Little Rock School District show that 23 percent of 1.781 eighth-graders failed the exam on the first attempt. Last year, 400 pupils, or 22 percent of the test-takers, failed the exam on the first try. 'The Minimum Performance Test, mandated by the slate, tests students in reading, math, language arts, science and social studies. It is given to pupils in third, sixth and eighth grades, though only eighth-graders must pas.s the exam to be eligible for promotion to the ninth grade. The Little Rock eighth- graders' failure rates are^ almost 7 percentage point.s higher than those recorded for the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts, which released their All students I No. tested No. passed Percent passed Black males  Percent passed Black females - Percent passed White males  Percent passed White Females Percent passed Other--------------- Percent passed Reading 1,781 1,505 85 Math 1,781 1,523 86 Lang. Arts 1,781 1.435 81 Science 1,781 1,110 62 Soc. Slud. 1,781 1,172 66 Total 1,781. 1,369 77 76 79 69 57 57 NA 81 84 81 47 57 NA 96 98 97 94 88 87 84 NA 95 95 83 85 NA 92 86 81 81 NA 3 testing results Tuesday. Eighth-graders in both those districLs had 16.2 percent fail- ure rates. Pupils have three chances to pass the eighth-grade test The test will be given again May 26-29 and once more July 24-2!l. Last year, 92 percent of the eighth-graders . districts passed the test after three tries. Of the Little Rock eighth- graders who failed, 90 percent are black, though black.s make up 64 percent of the district's enrollment. A total of 372 black eighth-graders failed the test, as did 40 white pupils. Seventy pupils, or 34 percent of the test-takers at Southwest Junior High School, failed the test thi.s year. South- west's failure rate was the highest among the eight junior high schools. Mann Magnet Junior High School had the highest pass rate 87 percent. Here are the failure rates fol' the other junior highs:  Forest Heights Junior High - 73 failures, 32 percent.  Mabelvale Junior High - 52 failures, 30 percent.  Henderson Junior High - 54 failures, 25 percent.  Dunbar Magnet Junior High - 50 failures, 21 percent.  Cloverdale Junior High - 37 failures, 17 percent.  Pulaski Heights Junior High - 30 failures, 16 percent. Among the district's third- graders, 68 percent passed the reading test, compared to 88 percent last year. Eighty-seven percent of the third-graders passed the math test last year, compared to 91 percent this year. At Carver Magnet Elementary School, all third-graders passed the reading test and 99 percent passed the math test. See TEST, Page 7B lebi j  Continued horn Pulaski Page\nAll Gibbs Magnet School third- */[ (I __________ js^uisiig nin fit ittainHn I r graders the test All s ividf^iivb .J...--- passed both parts of 1 \"Uie Uiird-graders at 1, Otter Creek, J\n^I(i:i^'aTwe\n^n-llills I passed the math test. Overall, pas.s rates lor sixth- Overall, pass uveiaii, , graders fell from 94 percent to m normiil Ulis year in reading. 92 percent this year  90 ^r-U to 89 1 in inatli.iind rroni TH perceiiUo\n77 percent in language aits. ____ imnro I ates improved The pass rates improveu 73 percent to 75 percent from LRSD desegregation official resigns to take post at Hendrix ir science JI VVHV vv r- - and 73 percent to 74 IP hvivuv-'- I..-  1 l^uccnt in social studies. I Janies Jennings, associate .superintendent for desegregation in tile Little Rock School District, said Wednesday that lie i.s resigning to become an assistant professor of education at Hendrix College in Con- I  way. Jennings, who has been an associate superintendent since March 1987 and a district I L i I einployce since 1977, said his resignation is effective Juno 30. lie is completing liis doctorate in educational administra- tion this spring at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. He will attend Memphis Slate University thi.s summer and next fall to obtain a master's degree in history. Jennings is one of five top administrators leaving the district this year. The others include Superintendent Ruth Steele, Deputy Superintendent Tony Wood, Manager for Support Services Janies Ivey and Transportation Director Richard Johnson.Arkansas Democrat W(Sazettc ABk-AMCAg- MCWCPAPFR LITTLE ROCK. AUGUST 14,1992 88 PAGES 9 SECTIONS 35e White students still outpace blacks, achievement tests show BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer White students in the Little Rock School District continued to outperform blacks in standardized tests in 1991-92, according to school-by-school results on the Stanford Achieve- mejit Test, eighth edition. - The scores were released .i74th percentile to the 82nd per- Thursday for exams taken in April by 19,287 students in grades kindergarten through 11. They show wide variations in achievement between schools. For example, Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School averaged scores for the six grades that ranged from the i centile. Pupils in five of the six, ^ades at Garland and Franklin incentive elementaries averaged scores that were below the 30th percentile. The 50th percentile is considered the national average. We have some areas to cheer about, and some we could hold a wake over, Dr. Mac .1 Bernd, Little Rocks new school superintendent, said. The test shows us where we need to improve. The test results and the elimination of the racial disparity gap are especially important to the Little Rock district. Narrowing the gap would be a general sign that )^e district is ac- . - ) eomplishing its desegregation goals. Also, if the district narrows the gap to the degree that the average score of black students is at least 90 percent of the average score of white students by 2000, the district won't have to repay a $20 million desegrega- See TESTS, Page 14AH4A  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  FRIDAY, AUGUST 14,1992 LRSD Stanford 8 Test results Chart shows percentile ranking, by grade and race, of the tests complete battery. A ranking in the 50th percentile is considered average. Elementary Badgett Dale Baseline Booker(M) Brady Carver (M) Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin (1) Fulbright Garland (I) Geyer Springs Gibbs (M) Ish (1) Jefferson Mabelvale' McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchel! (I) Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Righlsell (I) Rockefeller (I) Romine Stephens (I) Terry Wakefield Washington (M) Watson Western Hills Williams (M) Wilson Woodruff 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT 19 20 27 23 27 25 35 21 47 36 76 68 35 26 56 54 21 22 33 26 61 29 21 19 40 18 26 26 32 26 49 36 25 25 54 21 31 24 59 35 31 26 26 25 54 38 42 18 39 40 42 37 49 47 24 24 61 43 21 18 55 38 24 22 43 29 80 72 68 67 28 14 17 65 34 54 66 85 50 71 20 70 84 48 66 38 68 75 40 84 44 49 70 73 51 63 25 71 33 82 32 61 89 71 56 39 31 67 29 26 54 28 22 47 52 35 74 44 39 58 73 54 89 36 26 56 49 39 77 36 27 44 31 22 71 64 30 74 23 21 59 60 41 75 26 23 58 47 40 64 71 53 84 43 43 49 58 28 77 37 27 52 61 40 82 34 28 47 26 26 12 57 30 69 55 27 76 58 58 - 30 24 53 25 26 16 22 22 - 54 33 67 36 26 48 52 29 81 39 34 64 52 40 72 79 68 89 58 54 63 26 18 40 33 30 45 31 30 35 38 31 63 44 29 60 30 20 64 72 49 90 39 36 46 54 50 61 31 28 35 36 27 72 66 32 66 20 18 42 63 35 78 17 17 - 33 33 32 72 57 88 31 31 - 63 46 76 38 28 52 69 54 81 31 29 27 30 27 71 60 39 76 62 39 78 34 34  25 18 39 40 40 42 31 31 - 68 50 82 37 30 49 44 22 72 31 20 58 53 40 71 77 67 86 45 41 56 35 28 60 32 25 44 60 38 74 37 57 42 41 56 23 56 26 / 33 lij 67 m 38 3 58 g 36 \u0026lt; 56 5 37 H 26 i 56 i 47 I 32 I 26 i 41 I 47 1 54 i 42 i 51 i 40 i 39 i 74 I 38 i 33 5 lU co \u0026lt; O z 21 20 24 31 28 47 35 36 32 51 41 65 33 29 41 63 42 82 40 32 54 49 43 63 48 42 44 30 27 71 57 31 87 20 19 18 46 29 61 28 28 - 32 25 49 67 40 88 31 32 20 68 37 85 38 30 49 53 40 68 33 19 56 42 40 67 52 37 69 44 28 62 29 29 - 35 32 52 39 38 42 26 26 - 46 31 67 28 22 56 46 28 70 45 46 44 40 31 60 74 59 86 30 29 39 45 38 54 41 38 46 30 27 46 37 36 46 59 44 76 44 32 66 79 69 90 47 36 59 51 50 56 56 48 65 47 41 75 64 43 82 36 34 67 66 40 78 38 38 - 44 43 48 72 48 87 44 44 - 79 56 90 41 35 52 50 43 67 51 46 67 36 36 - 66 39 84 36 28 54 40 40 - 45 40 61 44 41 76 35 30 76 71 57 82 43 36 59 56 38 78 53 40 71 60 51 72 82 76 88 44 41 56 38 30 50 Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar(M) Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann (M) Pulaski Heights Southwest 7 8 9 35 59 50 37 33 55 55 34 LU m LU \u0026lt; 32 27 49 39 33 53 53- 36 72 39 26 65 37 29 66 38 25 69 50 38 74 42 34 70 Sr. high Central Fair Hall McClellan 10 11 37 27 56 ' 42 29 61 O z O z 56 43 79 45 26 76 33 28 50 61 64 82 57 30 82 40 33 66 55 36 43 34 LU CO 3 UJ (D 3 Parkview (M) 58 b z  57 33 82 39 28 58 50 34 69 42 33 56 57 43 75 Noles: Scores lor race by grades 4,7 and 10 are not yel available. Magnet schools are noted with an *M*, Incentive schools are noted with an 'I'. Tests  Continued from Page 1A lion loan from the slate.  Bernd said the districl.s new curriculiini, which begin.s this fall, could improve scores. Its a simple concept of teaching students what you are going to test them on, he said. If we know that long division ixS on the lest, then we should make sure the students know long division and are skilled in it. Asked if the scores would show improvement by next year, Bernd said he gets suspicious if he sees sudden,huge gains in a ^districts test scores. ' I think we can set this district on a course of steady improvement so that in five years people can look back and say, \"We really improved.  Il is difficult to compare the 1991-92 lest scores lo the scores earned in past years because the state changed the test from the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6) to the Stanford 8. Racial disparities existed in test results on the MAT6 as well. While comparisons are hard to make from last year to this year on race disparities, a review of the scores this year showed at least one case where the white first-graders scored 54 points higher than their black */ think we can set this district on a course of steady improvement so that in five years people can look back and say ff f we really improved. classmates. A review of the scores showed that students at the dis tricts seven double-funded, pre- dominantly black incentive schools did not have high average scores. Black second-graders at Rightsell Incentive Elementary School scored at the 58th percentile. That was the only average score for black children in the incentive schools that was above the 50th percentile. Students at the districts magnet schools, which also get extra money, averaged scores higher than the incentive schools. Scores for black children at Williams ranged from the 59th percentile in the fifth grade to 76th percentile in the sixth grade. At Booker Arts Magnet Elementary, however, the scores for the black children ranged from the 21st percentile in the first grade to the 44lh percentile in the sixth grade. Bernd said the incentive schools are going to be the focus of some strong efforts in the coming year. He plans to meet with the principals of those schools soon to discuss ways to improve the schools by encouraging excellent teaching. Bernd is an advocate of the effective schools body research, which prescribes certain steps for improving learning conditions for children. He already has conducted one workshop for Little Rock principals on the program. The test scores showed some strengths at the districts area schools, which arc non-magnet, non-incentive neighborhood schools. Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry elementary schools were among the schools with average scores over the 50th percentile...IB'- rs I\" it (? tg 5.  THUnSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1992 LR seniors raise ACT average 0.2 point in 92 ) I ) BY CYNIHIA ROWELI OnnKR'ial G.i7rHP E(1ih\niIiwi WhIpi The composite score earned by Little Rock School Dislrict .senior.s on the American College Test improved in 1992 as compared to 1991. but it remained below the stale and national composite scores. The Little Rock district on Wednesday released its 1992 scores for both the ACT and the Scholastic Achievement Test, the two most common college enirance exams in (he country. More than three times a,s man.v Lillie Rock graduating studenl.s took the AI'T ill 1991- 92 than look the SAT. Thal is I commonly the case, as most , Arkansas colleges and universities retpiest the At/!' score on I enrol I incut applications. The results of the exams I\nshowed that students who took traditional academic courses and Advanced Placement courses are more likely tr? score higher on the college entrance tests. Superintendent Mac Bernd said he hoped to increase the nund)er of advanced courses as a way of improving student achievement levels of both black and white students. Ad vanced Placement courses are LRSD ACT scores ^1992 LRSD SAT scores i National State LRSD Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview -Noniber 832.217 16,977 1,101 *264 *144 *224 *155 *166 Composite\n___score 20.6 20.0 19.7 19.9 19.1 19.9 18.3 20.7 Black students While sludenls Number Composite Number Composite 1991 Number 75,356 2,373 465 141 65 92 82 85 17 16.7 17.2 16.2 16.4 17.7 17.0 18.9 604,469 11,577 488 123 79 132 73 81 21.3 20,6 21.7 23.0 21.6 21.1 20.0 22.5 tested Verbal 1991 scores* * Includes only black and wtiite tesi takers and nol students of other races _____________ National' State LRSD Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 1,032,685 1,660 293 151 15 97 4 26 422 482 467 480 485 434 NA 502 Math 474 523 495 502 527 477 NA 516 1992 Number tested 1,034,131 1,579 315 122 24 96 3 64 1992 scores* Verbal 423 474 453 457 451 441 NA 455 Math 476 516 489 489 521 486 NA 481 * Top score in each category Is 800. NA = not available those courses taken in high school that enable some stu dents to receive college credit for their work. \"We must work to prepare all our students to (pialify for. enroll ill and complete the more advanced and challenging Advanced Placement courses,\" Bernd said. A total of 1.101 graduating students took the ACT in Little Rock. Slightly more students took the test in 1992 than in at least the last four years. The district's composite score of 19.7 reversed an annual decline in score.s since at least 19117. when the composite was 20.2. In 1991. the composite  which i.s c.ilculated from Eiig- lish. mathcnmlics. rcadiiiE and science scores  was 19..5. The Little Rock score was below the national composite of 20.6 and the state composite of 20.0. Parkview Magnet High School students, with a 20.7 composite score, exceeded both the state and national composite scores. The highest possible score is 36. The Little Rock student!! scored the highest in reading. Allowed by English, science, and then math. When the scores arc broken down by race, while student.s in all five Little Rock high school.s scored highest in reading. Black students, however, were likely to score a.s high or higher in subjects other than reading. Average scores for white students were higher than average score.s for black sludenls on both the ACT and the SAT. The largest disparity in ACT scores was the 6.8 poinis between black and white students at Central High. The composite score of Little Rock black students. 17.2. was higher than the Arkansas com posite for black students, 16.7, and the national composite for black students, 17.0. Similarly, the composite score for Little Rock white stu dents, 21.7, was higher than the Arkansas composite for whites, 20.6, and the national composite for wliites, 21.3. On the SAT. a total of315 slu dents took the lest, scoring 453 on the verbal exam and 4B9 on the math exam. Both scores represented a decline from the 19tH scores of 467 on the verbal exam and 495 on the math exam. The number of students taking the lest rose by 22 from 293 in 1991. The Little Rock scores exceeded the national scores of 423 on verbal and 476 on math tests, but they were less than the state averages of 474 on the ver bal test and 516 on the math exam. I 1Arkansas Democrat ^(i^azctte THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1993 Copyright  1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. B LR group hopes after-school tutors will raise black awareness, grades BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer An after-school and Saturday educational program that offers academic tutoring and cultural exposure to black students in the Little Rock School District is being planned for next fall by an off-campus group. Wayne E.X. Burt, chief elder of the Council for African-American Progress, said Wednesday that the after-school program will be housed in the education building of the Liberty Hill Baptist Church, 1215 S. Schiller St. The council is seeking at least 24 trained teachers, as well as volunteer tutors, to work in the program, Burt said. The program is designed to serve as many as 500 students in grades one through 12, Burt said. Hours will be 3:30 p.m. until 8 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. to noon Saturdays. The program, called the Institute of African-American Studies and Progress, will be financed by council members. No tuition will be charged. Burt announced the councils plans at a lecture at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. His talk was one of three lectures sponsored this semester by the UALR Black Forum. The program will save the Little Rock School District $20 million, Terrence Cain, education director for the council, said Wednesday. Cain was referring to a $20 million loan from the state of Arkansas that the school district will not have to repay if it can raise black childrens standardized test scores to within 10 percent of white students scores by the year 2000. Cain and Burt said they believe their program can reduce the academic achievement disparity that has traditionally existed. The Council for African- American Progress spent more than a year lobbying the Little Rock School Board to add more information about black history, culture and perspective to the district curricula. The school board did adopt a new curriculum that includes information about a variety of cultures, but council members have said they are not satisfied with those offerings. Burt said the council decided to turn its attention to an afterschool program. In his lecture Wednesday, Burt said blacks must learn to provide for themselves, to create industries and jobs for one another. One segment of the community is producing jobs and two segments need them, he said. He also s4id blacks must learn about themselves as a way to develop self-esteem. Black and white Americans know far more about European history and geography than they do about Africa,land both races must be educated, he said. I (Arkansas Democrat (gazette   FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1993 Copynght  1993. Una Rock Newspapofs. Inc, I Flunking MPT no longer i forces rerun of Sth graded' New law brings other criteria to bear  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Wnter Arkansas Minimum Performance Test wont terrify eighthgraders anymore. It wont force them to repeat the grade or intimidate them into dropping out Instead, the MPT and new tests that will be developed can help students, many educators say. Arkansas pupils in grades three, six and eight have taken the MPT since 1982 to measure their competence in basic skills. In 1988, at the suggestion of the Education Standards Committee led by Hillary Rodham Clinton, schools began to use the test to determine whether eighth-graders could advance to the ninth grade. But a new state law has changed things. The requirement that eighth- graders pass the test before promotion brought considerable criticism. Teachers and parents have complained over the years about the eighth-grade MPT, saying too much instructional time is spent preparing students for a relatively e^asy, multiplechoice test. In a recent Winthrop Rock^ feller Foundation survey at. 2,100 teachers, the educators said the test was too easy, de-^ tracted from the teaching of cre^' ative and advanced thinking\nskills, and was more likely.to cause students to drop out than to motivate them. ' \"i. About one-fifth of the teach?\ners recommended eliminating the test Others suggested maior revisions in the format and the way it is used. -I- i In a significant change of dU  rection, this years Act 846 of the' I legislative session declared th'a^' eighth-graders who flunk the test will not automaticallylbe forced to repeat the eighth grade. And in what proved someJ thing of a surprise to educators\n: ! the provision affects this years: eighth-graders, who took the test in March. I  Under newly adopted guid^ lines, local school districts must establish other criteria which can include MPT failure and bad grades  to decide whether , r See MPT, Page 17AMPT  Continued Irom Page 1A a pupil should be held back. :rm particularly pleased they dropped the compulsory retention, Gene Jones, assistant superintendent for instruction in the North Little Rock School District, said of the new law. 1 was a little surprised they did it this year. -. Jones said he didnt believe mandatory retention had produced better-educated students. Several North Little Rock eighth-graders who failed the exam this year were held back last year for failing the test, he said. Students may be more successful if they know they can be jlromoted if they go to summer school or take other steps to raise their grades or improve their attendance, Jones said. ! Vicki Gray, administrative a'dyiser for student assessment ih the state Department of Education, said this week that despite the law change, school districts must continue with plans to give eighth-graders three chances to pass the exam and offer remedial help to those who do not pass. It's obvious the students have not mastered the skills they will need in ninth grade, Gray said of those who failed the tpsjt on their first try. i It is especially important that eighth-graders learn the skills this year because they will be thd first in the state required to Ilas^ an exit exam to get a high srchool diploma, she said. The exit exam, which will go into effect for the 1996-97 school year, dlso is provided for in Act 846. Act 846 authorizes the state pepartment of Education to change the way student achieve- hient and thinking skills are assessed in the public schools.  The law also spells out how the MPT should be used while Ihe new system is being developed. That transition period piust end by June 30,1996. Education Department officials are circulating a memo describing the law and the testing changes. It notes that:  Beginning next year, Ihird- graders will no longer take the MPT, though the te.st will continue for the sixth and eighth grades.  The Education Department will institute a comprehensive assessment program for grades one through three next year that will include testing and teacher evaluations.  School districts experimenting with alternate forms of student assessments may ask the state Board of Education to waive the MPT requirements for the sixth and eighth grades. The current test was developed by Arkansas educators. It consists of five sections  reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. The exam is given once in March and again at the end of the school year. It is given again in midsummer for those who failed it earlier. In 1988, 98.6 percent of the eighth-graders passed the test. In 1992, 95.7 percent of the eighth-graders passed. Statewide test results are incomplete for this year, although individual school districts have received reports on their students' performances. Virginia Raum, director of counseling services in the Pulaski County Special School District, said the MPT has served a purpose in forcing school officials to look at what individual students were accomplishing. But she also said it is time to move to a different kind of assessment. The county school district is using the same methods it employed in past years to help eighth-graders who failed the test in March. The district hires substitute teachers so that regular classroom teachers can work in small groups with the pupils who failed. Packets of practice questions were sent to the parents so they also can help their children pass the test when they retake it later this month. Decisions on retentions will be made on a case-by-case basis aRer the third administra- I tion of the test, Raum said. Concerning development of a new testing system, Dr. Emma Bass, associate director for school improvement in the Education Department, said the new program may not consist of only a single test. Instead, she said, it will likely be a combination of different kinds of evaluations. The new system for grades one through three must be designed as soon as possible this summer to give school districts time to plan and budget for it, Bass said. Rules and regulations for any new system will be advertised and explained during public hearings, she said.Arkansas Democrat SATURDAY, MAY 22, 1993 Copyright O 1993, Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. I________________________________________________________ _______----------- ---------r - T III ...................................- -    MPT failure rates increase in NLR, county BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Qazette Education Writer Failure rates increased for North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school district eighth-graders on the Minimum Performance Test this year but improved slightly for Little Rock pupils. The test measures mastery of basic skills in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. Statistics released by the three Pulaski County districts showed:  Eighteen percent, or 267, of the county district students failed the slate-mandated exam on the first try in March, compared to 16.2 percent, or 223 students, last year.  Twenty-one percent, or 138, of North Little Rock pupils failed, compared to 16.2 percent, or 97 pupils, last year.  Twenty-two percent, or 383, of the Little Rock eighth-graders failed this year, a 1 percent improvement over last year, when a record 23 percent, or 412 pupils failed. Minimum Performance Test resuits 1993 Minimum Performance Test pass/fail rates District____________ Little Rock North Little Rock Pulaski County Special Total tested Total passing 1,750 668 1,455 1,367 (78%) 530 (79% 1,188 (82%) Note: Results following the first administration of the test, which will be given two more times. Source: School districts ___________________ by 1996 as newer, more broad- tive of a first year of a new cur- based exams are developed. The test results are reflec- riculum, Little Rock Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd said. The district this year began a revised curriculum in most key subject areas in an effort to correct problems found by a team of out-of-state educational auditors in 1991. Until this year, eighthgraders who failed the MPT could not enter the ninth grade. Students who fail the test this year also are in jeopardy of not passing the school year, but Act 846 of the 1993 legislative ses- High. The failure rate was 19 sion says criteria besides the test results must be considered before holding back a student. The MPT will be phased out Total failing 383 (22%) 138 (21%) 267(18%) The MPT will be given again this month and in July. School districts are directed by law to provide remedial help to the students who fail. Schools that have failure rates in excess of 15 percent must implement improvement programs. Following are the school-by-school results for the eighth-grade test:  Little Rock  The failure rate ranged from 16 percent at Mann Magnet Junior High to 29 percent at Cloverdale Junior percent at Dunbar Magnet Junior High, 23 percent at Forest Heights Junior High, 24 percent at Henderson Junior High, 23 percent at Mabelvale Jupior High, 18 percent at Pulaski Heights Junior High and 26 percent at Southwest Junior High.  North Little Rock  The failure rate ranged from 16 percent at Lakewood Middle School to 25 percent at Rose City Middle School. The rate was 19.per- cent at Ridgeroad Middle School. Only two of the'13'students at the alternative school who took the test passed it.'.  Pulaski County Special  The failure rate ranged from 9 percent at Robinson Jiihior High to 27 percent at Fuller Junior High. The failure rale was 18 percent at Jacksonville North Junior High, 26 percent at Jacksonville South Junior High\n10 percent at Northwood Junior High, 14 percent at Oiik Grove Junior High and 18 percent at Sylvan Hills Junior High: Virginia Raum, district director for guidance services, said there were computational errors at Jacksonville North and.Qak Grove, which will be corrected and reflected in later reports.Arkansas AAansas Democrat '^(Fijizcttc MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1993 Copyright O 1993. Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. B Rising remedial student figures disturb educator BY SHAREESE HAROLD ............................. Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer More Arkansas college freshmen took remedial courses in state-supported schools this year than did those who entered Arkansas public colleges and universities last year, a recent report shows. One state education official said the figures are disturbing. According to the 1993 high school feedback report, 57.1 percent of 1991-92 high school grad- uates attending the states public colleges and universities were assigned to at least one remedial course. Last year, 56.6 percent of the 1990-91 graduates were assigned to remedial math, reading or English classes. Remedial courses are semester-long, noncredit skills enhancement classes. Students are placed in these classes based on their performance on the ACT college entrance test or college- sponsored assessment examinations. Each year, the state Department of Higher Education releases two remedial monitoring reports. The high school feedback study shows how Arkansas high school students rank, and the placement status report, prepared by the American College Testing Service each spring, rates remediation levels of all Arkansas college freshmen. Ed Crowe, associate director of planning and research at the state Department of Higher Education, called this years feedback report figures disturbing. Especially since we had 50 percent of Arkansas (high school) students complete the core curriculum in high school, which should have prepared them for college,\" Crowe said. Its a little disappointing because we felt we were making progress. Districts core curricula include college preparatory courses designed to strengthen students math, reading and English skills. The major factor in college placement is whether students take these courses, Crowe said. In Arkansas, 50.7 percent of the fall 1992 freshmen took these courses in high school,___ pared to 43.8 percent last year and 41 percent in 1990. com- STATEWIDE: graduates The feedback report reflects the number of students who took the ACT college entrance exam. Students who score below 19 on any ACT category are automati- cally placed in a remedial course for that particular category. By subject area, 48.2 percent of the 1992 Arkansas graduates needed math remediation, a small decrease from the 48.9 percent who needed such help in 1991. In reading, 29.2 percent See COLLEGE, Pago 5B Pct, needing remediation in: High schools Graduates* l^nglish Math Readino ( Northwest  Fayetteville 107 Fort Smith (Southside) ioi Fort Smith (Northside) Springdale Van Buren Northeast Blytheville Jonesboro Newport Greene Co. Tech. Southwest Arkadelphia Ei Dorado Hope Hot Springs Southeast 69 103 52 46 156 52 .48 65 82 45 37 PULASKI COUNTY: High schools Pct needing remediation in\nGraduates* I English Math Reading J Dermott Pine Bluff Stuttgart 21 53 150 41 15 17 28 21 12 43 22 23 27 26 28 29 35 48 49 51 14 30 41 16 21 57 36 31 38 40 51 49 46 81 74 58 10 17 23 14 13 28 20 29 23 31 27 22 32 College  Continued from Page 1B took remedial courses, up from 27.8 percent the year before, and 33.1 percent needed English remediation, compared with 32.7 percent in 1991. Crowe estimated that 15 percent of the states college-bound seniors last year attended out- of-state and private colleges or universities. Those students are exempt from state-required college-entry testing in math, read- ing and English and are not included in the report. Act 1052 of 1987 requires all freshmen entering state-funded colleges and universities to complete math, reading and English placement tests. Future first-year college students from Arkansas may need fewer remedial programs, Crowe said, because of the states more rigid training for math and science teachers and early intervention. One long-term solution is coming from Governor (Jim Guy) Tuckers suggestion to the state Legislature urging them to look into strengthening the education process of kindergarten to third grades, Crowe said. Students are afraid of taking math and science classes because they were never encouraged to go that way in the early grades. Teachers are now being taught to emphasize those areas by stroking younger students curiosities about math and science. Crowe said once teachers are better trained to teach these courses, remedial placement scores should start to look better. Central Hall J.A. Fair McClellan Parkview Non-dlstrict Ark. School for the Blind Pulaski Co. Special Jacksonville Mills Oak Grove North Pulaski Robinson Sylvan Hills North Little Rock NLR High School Private schools 111 112 89 77 93 3 46 42 38 39 31 33 54 59 46 65 49 100 46 38 33 39 38 -ihM 33 26 27 25 17 13 21 26 ' , 108 44 53 92 39 119 146 55 42 16 13 31 27 25 25 18 29 22 51 48 49 38 38 34 37 29 55 13 46 57 60 43 '' 32 29 29  Flgum ar. la-tax gadoM, anading paOllc cgUagn and [sources: Stale Oept. o( Higher Education: Amencan Colleqe Testing Sarwce. Catholic High School Mount St. Mary Pulaski Academy I Arkansas Baptist 18 12 6 15 18 19 13 31 STOREY/SCALUON/Oemocrar-Ga^etre  SUNDAY, AUGUST 22, 1993  5J SAT results put males ahead Attention countrymen, who may have believed, as I always have, that women are smarter than men. The next time one of your countrywomen starts putting on airs, ask her about the SAT scores. SAT stands for Scholastic Aptitude Test. It is one of the tests that most colleges require would-be college students to take. There is a rousing argument in academic circles as to whether the test accomplishes its purported objective, which is to predict the probability of success in college, but it's been around for a couple of decades and it shows no signs of going away. The 1992 SAT scores were reported and hidden away in Thursdays Democrat-Gazette. Among the phalanx of comparative figures was this one: Men outperformed women. Not by just a little bit. The men creamed the women. Maybe I should say the boys creamed the girls, given that were talking about teen-agers here, but whatever the terminology, the average score of males was 930 to 877 for females. Males beat females on both the math and the verbal portions of the exam. The edge was only eight points on the verbal (428 to 420) so most of the male margin of victory was in the math portion, which measures the skills that will be most valuable in the technological age that is rapidly engulfing us. As you might expect, the College Board, which watches test results more closely than most of us, had a ready excuse for women. Men scored better, board spokesmen said, because they /I ^ohn R. Starr tend to take more difficult science and math courses, such as physics and calculus, in high school. That (and not discrimination) might also be why men have more of the high-paying jobs that demand math and science skills. News in the test scores was not all good for men, whose average score was exactly the same as last year. The womens average score was up a point. When SAT scores are reported, the comparison of the accomplishments of men and women is usually forgotten as the social scientists rush to see how blacks did in comparison with whites. The Scripps Howard News Service, which provided the SAT story used by the Democrat-Gazette this year, neglected to report SAT scores by race. Instead, the story used figures that show that youngsters from families with incomes over $70,000 a year do a lot better than those from families that live on $20,000 to $30,000 a year\nthat those who attend private schools do better than those who attend public schools\nand that those who attend suburban public schools do better than those who attend inner city schools. Results from tests administered by the three Pulaski County school districts did compare white and black performance, and these figures, like those in previous years, demonstrate that, while all men are created equal, differences develop rather quickly and often are quite pronounced. In Little Rock, where the public schools have almost been destroyed in a 26-year effort to equalize educational opportunity between the races, white scores on the Stanford 8 battery of tests were almost double those of blacks. In the fourth grade, whites were in the 75th percentile, which means they did better than 74 percent of the students taking the test nationwide. Blacks were in the 40th percentile. In the seventh grade, whites were in the 69th percentile, blacks in the 31st, In the 11th grade the percentiles were 74 for whites, 34 for blacks. Blacks did best (45th percentile) in the sixth grade, worst (28th percentile) in the first grade, indicating that the schools reduce the environmental factors that contribute to poor performance for the first six years but then begin to lose ground. The good news for Little Rock was that, generally, its students  white and black  did better than those from the other two districts. In the second grade in North Little Rock, blacks scored in the 13th percentile, a performance that should be embarrassing both to their parents and to the school district. ----------------- John R. Starr is the former managing editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. His column appears every day.Arkansas Democrat \"^(^azettc } THURSDAY, APRIL 7,1994 __Copyngh, 8 u. Ro I Insulting to black community I read with great dismay that Little Rock school Superintendent Henry Williams continues to pursue replacement of the SAT test as a good indicator of the educational level of the black student under his care. This continual quest of a lower common denominator for the black student is insulting to the black community, the Little Rock community at large and the classroom teachers of Little Rock. Williams continues to imply through this effort that a black student, while sitting in the same classroom and receiving the same information as a white, Korean, Hispanic or other student, is unable to take the same test in the same manner and produce positive results. If this is true, the SAT test is not the problem. Williams attempt to dumb down the test for black students or escape a test vehicle such as the SAT that is successfully used by tens of millions of students each year is a sickening statement of affairs in the Little Rock School District. Williams poor black us attitude is leading the black student to an educational grave. Is there not one member of the Little Rock School Board who has the courage to challenge Williams to factually prove and present specific examples of racial discrimination within the SAT? He should be publicly rebuked for such a reckless and racist attitude. Anyone who has taken the SAT knows that if you can read, write and do basic computations, then the SAT is easily understood. I believe that the black student is the equal of any other student, in spite of what Williams might imply. I reject his insinuation that the black student needs a set of tests and standards different from the rest of America and the world community. Will anyone speak this encouragement to them? I ISATURDAY, AUGUST 13. 1994 Coovncm O Crtda ftocx ^-nrwwrr. iw. Gap lingers between black, white scores BY DANNY SHAMEER AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Gazatts Stall Wntan A large gap persists between standardized test scores of black students and white students in the Little Rock School District, a report released Friday shows. Among black students, only fifth-graders improved for 1993- 94, increasing the average score three points to 37 from 34 for 1992-93. But white fifth-graders increased by four points  to 74 from 70  during the same period. A score of 50 is the national average. Scores  Continued from Page 1A great deal of energy and im- Narrowing the gap between black and white students is a key provision of the court-enforced desegregation settlement under which Pulaski County's three school districts operate. The disparity is also a significant issue because of a financial settlement with the state. If the district can show it has raised the average scores of black students to at least 90 percent of the average scores of whites by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay up to $20 million in loans from the state. The state is lending the dis- 10th.  In math, students in grades two, three, four, five and six were above the 50th percentile. In science, students in fourth. trict money to help with desegregation, and the financially struggling district counts on that money to meet e.xpenses. So far, the district has borrowed $12 million, and it plans to borrow another $1.6 million this fiscal year to buy buses. In two years, the district will have to start putting money into a trust fund to repay the state in case achievement goals arent met The settlement agreement states that the district must pay back the loan seven years after starting to get the money. Because the district borrowed $6 million in the 1989-90 school year, it would need to begin repayment in the 1996-97 school year. Dr. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said the 1994 test results reflected some gains by black students when compared to test results flrom previous years, and he was encouraged. He expects greater improvements ne.xt year at schools across the district. Im hoping the enthusiasm of building level administrators and teachers will generate a See SCORES, Page 16A Little Rock School District test scores 4 provements in instructional fifth and sixth were at or above strategies.\" Williams said. He the 50th percentile. noted that many schools will have new principals this year.  Black students on average failed to reach the 50th per- One reason that he gave this centile on the complete battery summer for shifting principals in any grade level. Black first- was to improve instruction and graders did the worst, scoring at student achievement. the 30th percentile. Black sixthTest results varied widely graders fared the best, reaching from school to school. For example:  Williams Magnet Elemen- the 44th percentile.  White students averaged above the 50th percentile in tary School black students every grade with a high of 78 at scored well above the 50th per- the sixth grade and a low of 68 centile in every grade level. The at the first grade. lowest black score was the 63rd Williams said the district percentile at the sixth grade, will implement a Great Expec- The highest was 80 at the first tations program at Mitchell and grade.  At Dodd Rightsell elementary schools Elementary that he hopes will help students School, the highest average per- knock the top ofF test scores centile by blac.k students was 48 next year. at the sixth grade. The lowest was the Sth percentile at the centive schools. Mitchell and Rightsell are in- first grade. Modeled after a program in In an example of disparity. Oklahoma City public schools. Forest Park Elementary School the Great Expectations program white second-graders scored at is an approach to teaching that the 85th percentile. But black promises student success. Stu- second-graders averaged the dents and teachers make a con- 21st percentile. Results showed: scious effort to speak in sentences and address each other by  In seven of 11 grades, name, students recite from mem- scores regardless of race. showed some increase over 1992 in the complete battery. ory. and students write daily. The Stanford 8. which students took last spring, compares  Students, overall, scored at the achievement levels of stu- or above the 50th percentile on dents with the achievement lev- the complete battery in four els of a national sample of stu- grades: fourth, fifth, sixth and dents who took the same test. 1994 test scores by grade Stanford Acfiievamant Test scores for the Uttfe Rock School District 88 7Z 7t  7^ 78 77 50 30 25 32 \n 0 47 44 III 32 I aadc.-.. r Whitar 1 '34  II I 3' 1 30 IhLULIlLIIJ 1st 2rxJ 3rd 4m sth em 7m sm 9m iom urn  Little Rock School District IST GRADE students took the. Start ford Achievement Test in April. Students who score in the 50th Reading percentile are at the naSortai axerage. Anything balovftheSOtnparcantila is considered bekw average. Math Language arts Science Social studies Total. 46 48 48 46 Blacfc 35 3S 2ND ORAOE 67 35 34t 69 3i6IUDE- Reading Math Language arts Sdenca- Social studies Reading Math Language arts Science- Sociai studies Reading Malhr , Language arts Science' Social studies Reading ' Language arts Sdene^ Social studies Total 41 58 51 48 Black 28 45 38 35 White 64 77 71 70 Total. 43 5T 51 4 52 Blaclc.\\^ 29 68 12 38 72 4g 39 74 ' ATHGRABE smeitAoe Total 49 61 55 50 61 Black 35 Whits 71 50 - TT 43 38 49 74 7Z 78 Thtat 41 5G' 56\n5^ 56 Biwdr'^ 28 67 j STH GRADE Total 52 59 53 57 58 Black White 39 49- 43 45 47 77 78 71 78 77 STH GRADE Total 42 41 '  51 I\"- 48 \" 48 Black 29\n30  ' 39 3S 34 lOTH GRADE 4at 44 *45 75 74 7TKGRADC\nTotal ' BiKfc 1 *45  52 '47 White 69 ^63.\" 74 \"72\"  73'\" 32 . J? 331^ 39 36 ETHGiUDe\nTout Bli 43 \"\" i 47  31 40 35 71 77 69 69 72 Reading Math Language arts Science Social studies Total 49 43 49 49 53 Black 35 33 36 34 41 Whita 74 81 71 74 73 UTH Total 45 40 46 43 47 31 69 -i, 33 68 (.n OvSt ScfToot Ostnet 31 71Arkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1995 Whites score well in LRSD But districts blacks dont do as well on Stanford test as some in area BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazene Education Writer When it comes to student test scores, especially for white At a glance students. the Little Rock School District compares well to outlying districts. The state Department of Education released district-by- district Stanford Achievement Test results this week. A spot check of basic battery scores, broken down by race, showed that Little Rock white students overall netted higher scores than their peers in several Central .Arkansas districts, as well as in some of the states other large districts. The basic battery scores are a combination of mathematics, reading and language arts scores. Following is a listing of 10 school districts and their 1994 Stanford basic bat- tery scores for 1994:  School district  Little Rock  North Little Rock 4th grade 7th grade Black White Black White 10th grade Black White 42 31  Pulaski County Special 37  Conway  Cabot  Bryant  Pine Bluff  Jonesboro  Fort Smith  Fayetteville 43 na na 32 40 32 38 76 59 61 71 62 58 56 63 65 61 33 30 29 41 na na 32 35 33 38 69 58 51 65 58 53 71 67 61 63 36 28 28 33 na na 37 34 38 43 72 66 55 67 60 54 74 67 69 66 Little Rocks black students outperformed white stu- didnt fare quite as well. Black *es in the nearby Pulaski students attending Little Rock County Special, North Little schools scored higher than Rock, Conway, Cabot and black students in the Pulaski Bryant districts, according to the 1994 test results. County Special and North Little Rock districts, but that wasnt always the case in comparisons with other districts in Central Arkansas, The Arkansas Department of Little Rock whites also outscored  whites in the more distant Jonesboro, Fort Smith and Fayetteville districts. Little Rock whites scored at Education administers the the 76th percentile in the Stanford Achievement Test to fourth grade, the 69th per- students across the state in centile in the seventh grade fourth, seventh and 10th and the 72nd percentile in the gr^es. 10th grade. Of the 10 districts included The Arkansas students are compared to a national sample in the spot check, only the Pine of students, the percentile Bluff School District reported o , 1,. -- XU - higher average scores for tional average on the test, white students in two grades\nWhite students in grades white seventh-graders scored at commonly referred to as the na- four, seven and 10 in Little the 71st percentile, and 10th- graders scored at the 74th percentile. White fourth-graders in Pine Bluff scored below their Little Rock peers, at the 56th percentile. Little Rock black fourthgraders scored at the 42nd percentile, seventh-graders scored at the 33rd percentile and 10th- graders scored at the 36th percentile. Black students in the nearby Conway district outscored the Little Rock blacks at both the fourth and seventh grades. Black lOth-graders at Pine Bluff, Fort Smith and Fayetteville had higher average scores than their peers in Little Rock. The Cabot and Bryant districts had very few or no black students in the targeted grades.iMUHbUAY, JUNE 22. 1995 All SAT scores rising, but white pupils gains outdistancing blacks BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer standardized test scores earned by both black and white students in the three Pulaski County school districts have improved since 1991-92, but achievement disparities between the races have widened, according to a new study by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The study, submitted Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber WrighL compares Pulaski County students scores in 1991-92 with those earned in 1993-94 on the Stanford Achievement Test eighth edition. In their desegregation plans, all three districts made commitments to reducing the achievement gaps that have traditionally existed between black and white students on standardized exams. The Little Rock School District, in particular, has staked repayment of a $20 million state loan on narrowing the racial disparity gap by the year 2000. The study looked at the 1991-92 test scores for first-, fourth-, seventh- and ninth-graders and the 1993-94 scores for third-, sixth-, ninth- and llth-graders. Among the three districts, black and white Little Rock students had the highest overall scores, followed by Pulaski County Special School District students. Although the North Little Rock district had the lowest overall scores, it also showed the greatest improvement between 1991-92 and 1993-94. North Little Rock students improved their scores on the exams five subject area tests by a total of 64.3 points, compared to 50.6 points in the Little Rock district and 59.2 points in the Pulaski County district The five subject area tests are in reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. In Little Rock the disparity widened in most subjects at each grade by an average of 1.9 points. The disparity grew in each subject at each grade by an average of 1 point in the Pulaski County district LRSD board to meet on 2 budget issues The Little Rock School Board will hold a special meeting at 5 p.m. today to vote on budget proposals for next year, including hiring a private company to operate the school bus system and closing two elementaiy schools. After the special meeting, the board will hold its regular monthly meeting at 6 p.m. The board is to consider hiring Laidlaw Transit Inc. of Ontario and Cincinnati to run the bus system next year. The contract could save the district $700,000 next year. The board also will consider closing Badgett and Fair Park elementary schools, among the districts smallest schools, for a possible savings of about $1.1 million next year. and an average of 0.4 points in North Little RocL The actual 1993-94 test score disparities in Little Rock ranged from a low of 15.4 points between black and white sixth-graders in language ' arts to a 24-point gap between black and white third-graders in science. The disparity in Little Rock nar- , rowed only in sixth-grade language arts, ninth-grade reading and llUi- grade mathematics. In North Little Rock the 1993-94 disparities ranged from a low of 12.9 points between black and white sixth-graders in language arts to a 22.7-point gap in ninth-grade reading. The disparity gap narrowed in seven of the 19 categories analyzed, i In Pulaski County the disparities I between black and white students in 1993-94 ranged from a low of 9.1 points in llth-grade mathematics to  a gap of 16.4 points in sixth-grade reading. The disparity narrowed in seven of the 19 categories analyzed.THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1995 \nLRSD test scores slip overall, fail to close racial gap Superintendent Henry 1 Williams could not be reached BY MARTHA DUNN AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral QuelW Stall Writ. seven of 11 grades fell below last years. Students scored belter than the nalional average in just scores. f. j\nTwo years of improving Stan- three grades. High school seniors ford Achievement Test scores in tlie Little Rock School District pare Little Rock students scores ended this\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_1019","title":"\"A Curriculum Audit of the Little Rock School District,'' Little Rock, National Curriculum Audit Center, Arlington, Virginia","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["\"A Curriculum Audit of the Little Rock School District,'' Little Rock, National Curriculum Audit Center, Arlington, Virginia"],"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/1019"],"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":["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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nA CURRICULUM AUDIT OFTHE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock, Arkansas Little Rock School D1str1ct Board of Educauon Center Conducted Lnder the Auspices of the NATIONAL Ct:RRICULUM AUDIT CE TER Na110nal Academy for School E.tccu11vcs 180 l orth Moore Street Arlington, Virginia 22:0Q R. Gerald Melton Executive Director c C.-1.C/NASE December, 199\\l AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS NATIONAL ACADEMY FOR SCHOOL EXECUTIVES NATIONAL CURRICULUM AUDIT CENTER Members of the Audit Team: William K. Poston Jr. Lead Auditor Department of Professional Studies Iowa State University Larry E. Frase Professor, Educational Ad.ministration San Diego State University San Diego, California 92116 Charlsie A. Hina Director, Principal Assessment Kentucky Department of Education Frankfurt, Kentucky 41014 Michael K. Maryanski Deputy Superintendent Ravensdale School District Ravensdale. Washington 98051 Mada Kay Morehead Director, Research and Evaluation Kyrene School District Tempe.Arizona 85284, Ames, Iowa 50011 Jayne Hartman Director Research and Evaluation St. Lucie County Schools Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947 Glenn Holzman Research Associate School Improvement Model Projects Ames, Iowa 50011 Clifford E. Mohn Assistant Superintendent Independence Public Schools Independence, Missouri 64055 Constance M. Pace Principal Niagara Falls High School Niagara Falls,NY,14301 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. Background, Purpose and Scope of W orlc Background Purpose Scope of Work II. Methodoloc\ny PAGE 1 2 3 4 The Model for the Curriculum Audit 5 Standards for the Auditor 5 Data Sources 6 Standards for the Curriculum Audit 7 III. Findings of the Auditors 8 Standard 1: The School District Demonstrates Control 8 Finding 1.1: Administrative Stability Has Been Sparse 10 Finding 1.2: Line of Authority is Fragmented and Disordered 12 Finding 1.3: Long Range Planning is Inadequate 17 Finding 1 .4: Board Policies are Outdated 19 Finding 1.5: Board Member Relationships Disrupt Operations 23 Finding 1.6: Board Members Intrude Into Administration 25 Finding 1.7: Professional Negotiations Agreement Limits Control 29 Standard 2: The School District's Objectives for Students 32 Finding 2.1: Melange of Curriculum Guides Exists 33 Finding 2.2: Curriculum Documents Inadequate for Instruction 35 Finding 2.3: Curriculum Development and Revision is Faulty 44 Finding 2.4: Written Curriculum Procedures are Deficient 44 Finding 2.5: Articulation and Coordination is Ineffective 45 Standard 3: The School District's Program Consistency 48 Finding 3.1: Allocation of Resources Inconsistent and Inequitable 49 Finding 3.2: Monitoring Practices are Inconsistent 54 Finding 3.3: Placement of Students is Inconsistent 55 Finding 3.4: Promotion-Retention Practices are Faulty 64 Finding 3.5: Staff Development is Inadequate 65 Finding 3.6: Collection and Use of Data is Erratic 67 Section Standard 4: The School District Use of Results finding 4.1: Testing Program is Inadequate Finding 4.2: Test Scores Show Mixed Trends Finding 4.3: Assessment Program Delimits Decision-Making Standard 5: The School District's Productivity Finding 5.1: Revenues Exceed Expenditures Finding 5.2: Budgeting Limits Participation Finding 5.3: Management Shows Inadequate Control Finding 5.4: Budgeting Follows Traditional Format finding 5.5: Disparities Exist Among Schools Finding 5.6: Productivity is Jeopardized TV. Recommendations of the Auditors Page 68 70 72 86 90 91 92 93 94 94 97 100 Recommendation 1: Create a Sound Board Policy Framework 100 Recommendation 2: Reorganize the Administrative Structure 101 Recommendation 3: Establish Management Stability and Integrity 105 Recommendation 4: Adopt Policy For Improved Governance 107 Recommendation 5: Purge Parts of Professional Negotiations Agreement 108 Recommendation 6: Improve Educational Facilities 109 Recommendation 7: Develop and Implement Functional Curriculum Documents 110 Recommendation 8: Develop Process for Participative Curriculum Management 112 Recommendation 9: Consolidate Curriculum Functions 114 Recommendation 10: Establish Functional Assessment and Expand Testing 115 Recommendation 11: Establish Consistency and Equity in Programs 117 Recommendation 12: Modify Budgeting Practices 119 Recommendation 13: Develop and Use Long Range Planning 121 V. Summary Appendix A: Curriculum Management Policy Model Appendix B Background of the Auditors 123 124 126 Table of Contents: Lanie Rock Cumrulum Audit Pagdi O December 21. 1990 Exhibit Number: Il.1.1.1 Ill.1.1.1 lll.1.2.1 III.1.3.1 ill.1.3.2 III.1.4.1 Ill.2.1.1 III.2.2.1 III.2.3.1 III.3.1.1 III.3.1.2 ill.3 .1.3 IIl.3.1.3 III.3.3.1 Ill.3.3.2 Ill.3.3.3 Ill.3.3.4 III3.3.5 ill.3.3.6 IIl.3.3.7 III.3 .3.8 III.3.4.1 IIl.3.4.2 III.4.1.1 III.4.2.1 III.4.2.2 III.4.2.3 III.4.2.4 III.4.2.5 III.4.2.6 III.4.2.7 III.4.2.8 III.4.2.9 III.4.2.l 0 IIl.4.2.11 Ill.4 .2.12 III.4 .2.13 ill.4.2.14 III.4.2.15 III.4.3.1 Ill.5.1.1 III.5.1.2 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Title o[ Exhibit Page A Schematic View of Quality Control 5 Little Rock Superintendents 11 Current Table of Organization 16 Employee Percentage of Black Children 18 Employee Percentage of White Children 18 Individual Board Requests 28 Rating of Curriculum Guides 37-40 Summary of Curriculum Guide Ratings 42 Distribution of Curriculum Guides 43 Comparisons of Library Books 50 Comparisons of JHS Faculty Racial Composition 52 Comparisons of Teacher Experience in Selected Schools 53 Comparisons of JHS Student Racial Composition 54 Placement Criteria Comparisons: HS Gifted and Talented 56 Placement Criteria Comparisons: Elementary Gifted and Talented 57 Regular and Enriched JHS English Racial Distributions 59 Regular and Enriched HS English Racial Distributions 60 Comparisons of Blacks in Special Education and Total School 62 Comparisons of Special Education and Total School Percentages 62 Annual Long Tenn Suspension Rates 63 Annual Drop Out Rate Comparisons 63 Percentage of Grade 1 Students Retained 64 Comparisons Between Schools in Retention of Grade 1 Sr..:dents 65 Matrix of Tests Administered in the Little Rock School District 71 Comparisons of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 4 Reading 72 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 7 Reading 74 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 10 Reading 74 MAT-6 Reading Achievement Scores 75 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 4 Math 76 MAT-6 Math Achievement Scores 77 MA T-6 Language Achievement Scores 78 Comparisons of Black and White Students: MA T-6 79 Change in Percentile: Cohort Groups 80 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: AMPT Math 81 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: AMPT Reading 82 High School Ranks on American College Test 83 Comparison of Little Rock Schools on American College Test 84 Comparison of Little Rock Schools on Scholastic Aptitude Test 84 Comparison of Little Rock Schools on SAT: Math 85 Schools with Less Than 85% Passing: AMPT 87 Revenues and Expenditures 91 Revenues and Expenditures Trend 92 Table of Contents: Little Rock Curriculum Audit Page iii  December 21. 1990 Exhibit Number: lII.5.3. l III.5.6.1 Ill.5.6.2 IV .2.1.1 Table of Exhibits, Continued: Title of Exhibit Sample of Teacher Changes Student Enrollment Trends Private School Enrollments Recommended Table of Organization PHOTOGRAPHS VIEW Little Rock School District Board of Education Center Central High School Elementary Art Student in Action Underutilized Library During School Hours Kindergarten Children at Work Elementary School Colleagues Another Underutilized Library During School Hours Children Sorting and Classifying Objects Caution: Children on Task Small Group Reading Lesson Boy and a Book Regular English: Pulaski Heights Junior High School Enriched English: Pulaski Heights Junior High School Elementary School Classroom Instruction High School Students on Computers Elementary Pupils Completing Worksheets PAGE Title 1 10 14 20 25 31 34 36 46 51 58 58 69 95 109 Page 93 98 98 104 Table of Contents: Little Rock Cumculu.m Audit Pia\u0026lt; iv o Dca:mbcr 21, 1990 I. BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE OF WORK. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit CCl N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page I This document constitutes the final report of a curriculum audit of the Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas. The audit was requested by the Little Rock Superintendent of Schools and was commissioned by the Little Rock Board of Directors in July of 1990. The audit was conducted on site in Little Rock, Arkansas, during the time periods of September 16-21, 1990, and October 3-4, 1990. BACKGROUND Little Rock is the capital city of Arkansas. Located in the central part of the state, it comprises an important commercial center for the surrounding region, and is home for several major national corporations. The Arkansas River, the moderate climate, and an energetic, resourceful population have helped this city grow and thrive in industrial, service, and economic enterprises over its history. The principal industries in the region are agriculture and commercial distribution of goods and services. The Little Rock School District has served the Little Rock community for nearly 125 years. It is the largest school district in the state, and has 51 schools serving over 25,000 students. The annual budget of the school district exceeds $100 million, and the district employs nearly 3500 people, including about 2000 teachers. Central High School  Little Rock, Arkansas Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 2 The Little Rock School District has been in the process of providing equal educational opportunity for all of its students, and the superintendent states that academic growth and progress is a major focus throughout all district programs. The school district has elementary schools (grades preschool - sixth grade), junior high schools (grades seven through nine), and high schools (grades ten through twelve). A seven-member Board of Directors, elected by voters from seven geographic zones, govern the Little Rock School District. Directors serve for three years on a staggered schedule. Current members of the Board include the following individuals: Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Board President Ms. Oma Jacovelli, Board Vice President Ms. Robin Armstrong, Member Ms. Patricia Gee, Member Mr. William D. Hamilton, Member Mr. John E. Moore, Member Mr. James L. Rutherford, Member PURPOSE The newly-structured Board and brand-new administrative team of the Little Rock School District have expressed a desire to provide the highest quality of educational service to its community by requesting this assessment of services and programs of the district. Although most of the factors examined were preexistent to the new Superintendent, the audit was requested to help the administration implement changes necessary to be productive in instruction and fiscal management. The Little Rock School District conveyed this desire to the National Curriculum Audit Center, Arlington, Virginia to undergo a curriculum audit to objectively analyze and assess their efforts toward productivity. The Little Rock School District would be then able to determine if their efforts have been appropriate and effective, and if there are any areas for growth or improvement. Hopefully, this would tie the district's purposes to the responsibilities of the leadership team. A curriculum audit reveals the degree to which the officials of the Little Rock School District and professional staff have developed and implemented a sound, valid, and operational system of curriculum management. Such a system would enable the Little Rock School District to make maximum utilization of its human and financial resources in the education of its students. If such a system were implemented and fully operational, it would also ensure that the Little Rock School District taxpayers, and the State of Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 0 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 3 Arkansas, that their financial support had been well used under the conditions in which the school district functioned. SCOPE OF WORK The curriculum audit is a process which was first used in the Columbus, Ohio, Public Schools in 1979. The audit was provided through the auspices of the auditing firm of Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell. The audit is based upon generally accepted ideas pertaining to what it takes to provide effective instruction and curricular delivery, some of which have been popularly referred to as \"effective schools research.\" Curriculum audits have been performed in many states including Kentucky, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vrrginia, California, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Arizona, Illinois, Connecticut, and Arkansas. The methods used in the curriculum audit have been reported in educational professional literature in the past decade, and also described at many national seminars and conventions. Curriculum audits are now conducted by professionally trained auditors, who are officially certified by the National Curriculum Audit Center. The National Curriculum Audit Center is housed within the National Academy for School Executives, a division of the American Association of School Administrators, in Arlington, Virginia, in the Washington, D.C. area. This audit for the Little Rock School District was conducted under a contract between the Little Rock School District and the AASA-NASE National Curriculum Audit Center. II. METHODOLOGY THE MODEL FOR THE AUDIT Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. Dccember21, 1990 Page4 The model for a curriculum audit is shown in Exhibit Il.l. The model has been published in Curriculum Management, by Fenwick W. English, and published by Charles C. Thomas, Publishers (1987). Quality control in a school district assumes that at least three elements must be present in the district's operational and planning functions for it to be successful: (1) First, a work standard must be defined (policy, goal, objective), (2) Secondly, activities and operations of personnel and work must be directed toward carrying out or accomplishing the work standard (or policy, goal, objective), and (3) Third, and most importantly, measurement (feedback) must be obtained for determining how well the district is reaching or attaining its established standards. Over time, a school district must be able to track progress toward attaining more and more of its established standards within its financial constraints. Basically then, the school district (and in this case, the Little Rock School District) becomes more and more proficient at its essential tasks, and it can demonstrate the \"spiral\" of upward attainment publicly. Within the Little Rock School District, and its governance and operational structure, curricular quality control should reveal the presence of: (1) a written (planned) curriculum which can be effectuated into the work of teachers in classrooms, (2) a taught (implemented) curriculum which is shaped by the written curriculum, and (3) a measured (tested) curriculum which consists of testing or assessment tools of pupil learning which are linked to both the written (planned) and taught (implemented) curricula. In this way, the Little Rock School District, and any other school district can get better at delivering teaching and learning as time goes by. Exhibit Il.1 A SCHEMA TIC VIEW OF Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit \u0026lt;:l N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 5 CURRICULAR QUALITY CONTROL STANDARDS FOR THE AUDITOR IHE WIITTII CIJIIICULUW [WDll PU.ii CIJIIJCUL.U QUALIIY CDHTlDL THI TISTID ClJIRIClJLUW (WUSUIEMEJl'T) Principles which govern a curriculum audit, which are not unlike those of a financial audit, include the following: 1. Technical Expertise. Auditors must have had experience in conducting school district affairs at all the levels audited, and they must have demonstrable understanding of the tacit and contextual clues of sound curriculum management. 2. Independence. Auditors must have no vested interest in the findings or outcomes of the audit. 3. Objectivity. The auditors must be able to verify observable events in the audit with documents, interviews, and site visitation. Essential facts of the audit must be triangulated by the auditors. 4. Consistency. The auditors must use essentially the same methcxls used from one audit to the next. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (C) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 6 5. Materialicy. The auditors must exercise broad authority in exploring, investigating, examining, and selecting for analysis all aspects of the operation being audited which are more important than others. 6. Full Disclosure. The auditors must reveal all information that is important to the users of the audit, such as the Board of Education (Governing Board or Board of Directors), the administration, the teaching staff, students, parents and taxpayers. DATA SOURCES A variety of data sources are ordinarily used during a curriculum audit to determine if the elements of effective teaching and learning are being delivered, and if the elements are appropriately interrelated. The audit process also establishes whether or not pupil learning has improved as the result of effective utilization of curricular quality control. The major sources for the audit of the Little Rock School District included the followin2: 1. Documents. These consisted of Board policies, curriculum guides, reports, memoranda, budgets, state reports, accreditation documents, budgets, or any other written source of information which would reveal connections between elements of the planned, implemented, and tested curricula. 2. Interviews, Interviews were conducted to obtain further information on the same elements and their interconnections. Interviews were held with most of the members of the Board of Education, top level administrative staff, building principals, other administrators, teachers, parents, and other relevant persons. 3. Site Visitations. Site visitations were made to reveal the context in which curriculum is being implemented and to obtain important contextual reference information for contrast with documents or unusual working conditions. The auditors visited all schools in the Little Rock School District. STANDARDS FOR THE CURRICULUM AUDIT Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 7 The auditors utilized five standards against which to compare. verify, and comment upon the Little Rock School District's existing curricular management practices. These standards have been extrapolated from an extensive review of management principles and practices, as well as utilized in the previous audits in many other school districts around the country. While any set of such standards does not reflect perfection or an ideal management system, the standards do represent working characteristics that any complex organization should possess in being responsive and responsible to its clientele. A school district that is using its human and financial resources for the greatest benefit of its students is a district that is able to establish clear objectives, examine alternatives, select and implement alternatives, measure results as they develop against established objectives, and adjust its efforts so that it achieves a greater share of those objectives over time. The five standards employed in the Little Rock School District curriculum audit included the following: 1. The school system is able to demonstrate its control of resources, programs and personnel. 2. The school system has established clear and valid objectives for students. 3. The school system has documentation explaining how its programs have been developed, implemented, and conducted. 4. The school system uses the results from district designed or adopted assessments to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffective practices or programs. 5. The school system has been able to improve its productivity. III. FINDINGS Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit :, N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 8 Standard 1: The School District is Able lo Demonstrate Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel Although educational program control (direction) and accountability are often shared among different components of a school system, fundamental control rests with the school board and top-level central administrative staff. Quality control is a fundamental element and is one of the major premises of local educational control in a well managed school system. The critical premise involved is that the will of the electorate is carried out by the local governing board by establishment of local priorities within state law and regulations. The local governing board is the responsible body for accountability to the general public. Through the development and construction of policy, a local school board provides the focus to direct the operations of a school system through delegation to administrative staff. In this way the expression of popular will is assured, and the district is enabled to be responsive to its patrons and clients. It also enables the system to meaningfully assess and utilize student learning as a critical factor in determining its success. Although educational program control and accountability are often shared among different components of a school system, fundamental control of, and responsibility for, the operations of a school system rest with the governing board and its top level management staff. What the Auditors Expected To Find In The Little Rock School District A school district meeting Standard 1 would be able to demonstrate the existence of:  A clear set of policies that reflect state requirements and local program goals and the necessity to use achievement data to improve school system operations *Documentation of sound planning by the Board and top- level management staff for the attainment of goals over time  An administrative structure that was functional and facilitated the design and delivery of the district's curriculum *Sound curriculum coordination and articulation within all school buildings and across all levels within the school system Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 NA.S.E. December 21 . 1990 Page 9 * A direct, uninterrupted line of authority from the school board/superintendent to principals. teacher leadership roles, and teachers * A clear mechanism to control change and innovation within the school system * Administrative and staff responsiveness to school board policies, currently and over time. What the Auditors Found in the Little Rock School District The auditors found a fairly secure school system that has weathered some very difficult times and that has come through many complexities and challenges of desegregation. The Superintendent is relatively new to this position, but has considerable experience in administration within the state. The Board has recently gone through an election with resultant restructuring of its leadership, and individually the members of the Board all indicate commitment and allegiance to the improvement of educational opportunity in Little Rock. As testimony to the district's efforts toward improvement, the district recently received voter approval of additional financial support for its educational program. Community support seems to have turned in favor of the school district with few exceptions. Overall, the Little Rock School District is a rather well-run school district in terms of practices and general operations. The Little Rock School District has enjoyed a reputation among parents and the public that finances are generally managed prudently and usually in the best interests of student . The Little Rock School District appears to have benefited from the lengthy service of some key persons, including faculty and other employees. Yet, there are many areas where improvements can be made, and that is the purpose of this audit. The Board and Superintendent agreed to have the curriculum audit conducted in the Little Rock School District, precisely to find the areas where the district falls short of its intentions for quality control in educational operations. The audit is not intended to itemize or list the virtues of the Little Rock Schools. There are many aspects of the district which deserve commendation, reinforcement, and continued support. However, the audit aims to focus only on some of the problems incurred in quality control, and there are a number of those. For example, the auditors found inadequate direction and precepts for management of the district's curriculum\ninsufficient long range planning for change\nand uneven monitoring of educational program delivery in schools. The findings follow in detail: Fledgling Art Student in Action Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 10 Finding 1.1 Top-level and building-level administrator stability has been sparse in the Little Rock School District. A measure of stability in school districts is found in the average length of tenure among the districts' chief executive officers over time. Surprisingly, the Little Rock School District has had (QJ.rr_ different superintendents in the four year period from 1986-1990, resulting in a remarkable dearth of stability in top level leadership. In the last twelve years, the governing board has appointed five individuals to the position of superintendent or interim superintendent. One person was appointed to the chief executive officer's position twice, but not during consecutive years. The turnover rate has been highest during the last 39 months with three individuals occupying the position of superintendent (see Exhibit Ill.1.1). Exhibit III.1.1 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 11 SUPERINTENDENTS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: 1978-90 NAME SCHQQL YEAR Mr. Paul Masem 1978-82 Dr. Ruth Steele 1982 Dr. Ed Kelly 1982-87 Mr. Vance Jones 1987 Dr. George Cannon 1987-89 Dr. Ruth Steele 1989-Present As if to exacerbate the situation, there has been a 52% turnover in administrative positions between the principal and superintendent levels since school year 1986-87 and 41 % since school year 1988-89. The rapid turnover in upper level management positions, particularly the superintendency, is viewed by teachers, administrators, and community members as a major weakness for the district and has resulted in cynicism and a lack of confidence. The following quotations reflect these attitudes:  \"The district has suffered from changes (turnover in superintendency) and it gives the public a strong sense of instability.\"  \"This superintendent is too good to last very long.\"  \"Don't know from day to day if they are going to be there.\"  \"This is a rudderless ship''  \"We'll just play 'around' with (this) directive because it will change next year.\"  \"They (superintendents) all disappear sooner or later.\"  \"It's hard to work in all the turmoil -- removal of superintendents.\"  \"Becomes confusing with new initiatives from each new superintendent.\"  \"They all have their own program and there is no follow-up.\" Exceedingly high turnover in the superintendent's position precludes leadership continuity in the Little Rock Public Schools. The turnover led to excessive turnover in other central office administrative positions, and along with court decisions regarding desegregation, may be chiefly responsible for the following organizational dysfunctions: tack of an effectively used strategic long range plan\n*lack of teacher trust in the board, administration, or school curriculum programs\nsense that change is based on politics, not what's best for the youth\nconfusion and cynicism among community members\n*disorientation and conflict among board members about curricula and operations\nconfusion among school district staff, and patrons upon roles and responsibilities\nand *inadequate board policies, regulations, and adherence to board policies in the following areas: evaluation of operations, programs, instruction, and services, policy AF\nevaluation of school board operational procedure, policy AF A\nLittle Rock School District Curriculum Audit c, N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 12 evaluation of superintendent. policy AFB. item 3: evaluation of instructional programs, policy AFE \u0026amp; IM\nschool board member ethics, policy BBF, paragraphs 6 \u0026amp; 11\nevaluation of the superintendent, item 3, policy CBG\nreview of new initiatives and curriculum offerings, policy IFB\nand approval of curricula prior to addition of new courses, policy, IFD. Employees and community members search intensely for definitive direction from a superintendent backed by the Board of Directors. This can only come with a long-term superintendent working in harmony with the board of directors. Without that support, the staff will \"do their own thing\" and essentially ignore administrative directives. The result is confusion and a weak. disjointed curriculum throughout the district. Finding 1.2. Linc of authority and direction of the district's curriculum management function is disordered and fragmented.  Administration of curriculum activities, including design and delivery of instruction, is a critical function in an effectively operating school system. In Little Rock, the administrative functions were examined by the auditors, and several criteria were utilized to determine the level of appropriate organizational procedures and the level of effectiveness in managing the curriculum affairs of the school district. Primarily, the auditors found that the top managerial personnel were well prepared for their assignments\nhowever, incongruence and disorderliness of direction was evident among individuals assigned responsibility for supervision of the educational activities of the district. For example, the following points were noted: Parents, teachers, principals, and board members complained of the \"bureaucratic\" difficulti in communicating within the district regarding educational issues. Some felt that the administration couldn't make any contribution to the improvement of instructional quality because of the disheveled lines of communication. Board members and key instructional personnel unaware of some course modifications at the junior high and high school levels prior to implementation, and principals often reported a dearth of supervision and direction for day-to-day operations of the instructional program. Many principals did not identify supervisory activities germane to improvement of instruction, and accepted little or no direct responsibility for key instructional tasks and duties (staff development, selection of teacher materials, disaggregation of assessment data, supervision of teachers, etc.). Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 0 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 13 Key administrative personnel indicated little or no involvement in setting budget and programmatic priorities of the district. Infrequent administrative collaboration was evident in long range planning, staff development program design and implementation, and assessment utilization and planning. Teachers and parents lamented the inadequate support given to improvement of the quality of instruction, lack of articulation between grade levels, comparability with other schools and school districts, and the impotence of teacher and parent participation in instructional program development. Some principals took uneven notice of ineffective and inadequate classroom patterns and teaching activities. Observed teaching activities which reflected very low power teaching techniques and feeble and ineffectual instructional activities included the following: a. Elementary classrooms with inordinately large amounts of student \"seat work\" and exceptionally few direct instructional activities. b. Grouping practices which demonstrated linle flexibility, insubstantial rationale, inequity and ineffectuality. c. Teaching with inadequate reference to recently adopted curriculum guides and excessive use of the text book for direction. d. Librarians presiding over severely underused library facilities. Few examples were found where librarians actively teach the student body under their direction on a regularly scheduled basis. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 14 High School Library During School Hours e. A vast majority of classrooms with no interactive, cooperative, or direct instructional activity. (in most classrooms visited, students were doing \"seat work\" which was busy work with worksheets or workbooks or textbooks and too few teachers were observed actually teaching a lesson). These observations point out the overall ineffectiveness of the administrative organization to respond to educational needs and to implement growth producing instructional supervision. Learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse, unless administrative direction, expertise, and intervention is provided in the educational programs of the Little Rock School District. Moreover, the administrative organization is dysfunctional. As shown in the attached organization chart, organizational precepts of quality are lacking. The auditors examined the organization of the Little Rock School District with the following criteria and principles: 1. 2. 3. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21 . 1990 Page 15 Principles of Sound Organizational Management Span of Control Effective supervision on a day to day basis requires direct responsibiliry for not more than 7-12 employees Chain of Command No employee should have more than one supervisor Logical Grouping of Tasks of similar nature should be grouped together Functions 4. Separation of Line and Line positions (principals, teachers) should be separate from Staff curriculum design, and program assessment functions 5. Scalar Relationships All positions shown at the same level must have similar responsibiliry, authority and compensation 6. Full Inclusion All central functions, particularly functions facilitative of qualiry control need to be included in the organizational structure In summation, the auditors reviewed the Little Rock School District Organization Chart (on following page), and made the following determinations: 1. Instructional supervision of teaching and learning is inadequate and ineffective. Principals are not appropriately supervised, and support for school operations is inadequate. 2. The superintendent's span of control is too great for qualiry control. 3. Responsibility for curriculum design and assessment use functions are woefully absent. 4. Scalar relationships and the chain of command are inappropriate and inaccurate. Job roles are confused and lines of communication are obscured. 5. Instructional functions for quality control are not appropriately included. Overall, the organizational relationships in Little Rock Schools are insufficiently defined and inadequately configured to offer sound and appropriate leadership for improved teaching and learning in the district. I Planning, Research, I \u0026amp; Evaluation Manager for Support Services Budge! Development Purchasing Data Processing Transportation Food Services Plant Services I Board of Directors I 1 Superintendent I Communications I j Deputy Superintendent I I I I Contract/Labor jl I Human Resources 11 Contr I Relations I New Futures I oiler I I Associate Superintendent Associate Superl -- ----------- for Educational Programs ~--------- for Desegregation ntendent Monitor\u0026amp; Stall Development . elopment I I I I I Assistant I Principals I I Superintendents Educational Programs: English PE/Athletics Social Studies Exceptional Children Malh Vocational Ed. Reading Adult Ed. Science Instructional Technology Foreign Language Library Media Programs Art/Music Stall Development Ing \u0026amp; Program Dev I ____ _J Student Assign ments ms/ nlstration Federal Progra Grants Admi Pupil Personne I Services Magnet Revie w Committee Community Pr ograms (JTPA. VIPS ) Early Childho od Programs t'\"\" n ~ E\ntrl .... ::,\n) ,_. 0 IC t:) 0 ~, 0.... n IC '\"1 ~ --'CJQ en CGl-l r.i n E!. = 0 N 0- r....i. 0 0 t ... 0= I:'\"\"' ... no ::r - ~~ 6 C - z ::: 0 ~  :,:0\n:t\u0026gt; $l (./),... P1 w ::,- 0 ~ \"~ 0 8\n .~. 5. ~ ~ n C :\n3. _., n C 0 2:\" .\",C 3 \"c1 \u0026gt; C .\"..\".. ~ II II Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit !tl N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 17 FINDING 1.3 Implementation of long-range planning or strategic vision is inadequate to direct efforts to improve quality of the Little Rock School District. The auditors found that \"everything is a crisis\" in the Little Rock Schools, and \"nothing is routine.\" Wellthought out plans ahead of time are incomplete, despite hundreds of pages of \"plans.\" The following plans were examined by the auditors: Tri-District Desegregation Plan for the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District (January, 1990) Long Range Plan for School Facilities - Little Rock, Arkansas (September 1988) Proposed Planning Report, 1986-87 - 1991-92 (August 1985) The auditors found that the plans were not instrumental in guiding the day-to-day operations of the Little Rock School District. Most Board members and administrators did not indicate any acquaintance with the provisions of the planning, nor any involvement with delivery of the planned activities. Dese~e~ation Plan. An exception to ineffective planning is the planning pursuant to desegregatio activities, where the district desegregation staff gathers a number of activities under its umbrella. However, the desegregation plan confounds many school operations, not so much from its intentions or purposes as from its implementation. Teachers and principals reported too many surprises in educational changes attributable to the desegregation plan. Board members and parents complained about the abolishment of homogeneous classes (tracking) at the secondary level, indicating little acquaintance with the sound and extensive rationale for such practice. Communication and involvement of district stakeholders (parents, teachers, others) is insufficient to foster appropriate \"ownership\" of the plan throughout the school community. Control in implementing the plan was inadequate as reflected in these findings: Staff development is prescribed to \"focus ... (the staff) to address the racism reality.' A noble goal, but in operation, the auditors found no teacher or principal who was aware of a comprehensive needs assessment of staff employees designed to match training with individual differences among teachers or administrators. Student assignment was planned to provide impartial and nonpolitical procedures to \"desegregate schools .. :, but many complaints were heard by the auditors of unfairness and partiality in implementing the student assignment process. As an example, magnet schools were alleged to have a disproportionate Little Rock School District Cumculum Audit \u0026lt;0 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 18 number of children of employees. To evaluate the allegation, a sample of the population was tested by the auditors with the following results: Employee Percentage of Black Children - Gibbs Magnet 1990 p6.95% 93.05% Employee Percentage of White Children - Gibbs Magnet1990 92.47% D Employees  Other D Employees  Other The distribution of a disproportionate number district employee's children among magnet schools would be an indicator of inequitable or political practices. The results are inconclusive with just one school, but the perception (or misperception) among community members remains in place and the problem demands resolution. Little Rock School Distnct Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 19 Of course. the plan is in response to orders from the U.S. District Court, and its evaluation of effectiveness rests with those charged with such responsibility. Nevertheless, the auditors found that the desegregation plan affects many areas of operation, but it does not serve as a rationale instrument of guidance for actions among school personnel as it should. The purpose of strategic plans is to organize and focus district resources to meet future student needs. A strategic vision is the organization's vision of its desired future, and thereby provides guidance for curriculum decisions. Such a plan provides a district with criteria and processes for confronting problems and managing the district. At this time, the district has no strategic or formal comprehensive plan for education in the Little Rock School District. Without a well developed plan, the Little Rock Schools will be directed by crisis and bullied by politi activists. Finding 1.4. Board policies are outdated and generally ineffective in establishing curricular quality contro1. The auditor examined the following policies of the Little Rock School District: Policy Code Content Date AD Philosophy June 26, 1980 ADA Mission Statement January 26, 1984 AFA Evaluation of Board June 26, 1980 AFE Evaluation of Instructional Program June 26, 1980 CH Policy Implementation March 24, 1983 GCL Staff Development June 26, 1986 IF Curriculum Development October 29, 1981 IFD Curriculum Adoption Nov. 19, 1981 L\"M: Program Evaluation Dec. 17, 1981 The policies fail to establish a framework for sound curriculum planning, configuration of courses, specific curricular outcome statements, relationship of testing or test data to such outcomes, or lead to the creation of any plan reviewed by the auditor that could be called comprehensive, despite the fact that the Little Rock board policy (AD-#1) required one. The policies did not indicate or mention any sense of curricular priorities which could be measurable or related to content.  l ,ttlc Rock \u0026lt;\nchool D1stnC1 Curriculum Audit ~ '.'-i .. .\n.S.E. Decemt\u0026gt;er 21. 1990 Pag:c 20 No clear operational guideline cxi,1- for tht: dcv, it1pmcnt , ir evaluation :if curriculum in the district. Board Policies (AD, AD:\\), The Phii,1~oph) \u0026lt;10J \\! i~~ion \\tatcmenl arc \\!,t:neral and somewhat vague statements. For instance, no ch.:a1 direCLion i5 offered [or measuring the requirement that \"the instructional program should provide each student with lhc: opportunity for maximum intellectual and inter-personal development, whcn:in each student compdes with his own potential. These statements were not cited once by anyone a~ valuable references in curriculum decision making. Board Policy (* AF A), Evaluation of School Board Operational Procedure. indicates that an appropriate plan should be in operation for many areas including policy. However. operational procedures as they relate to curriculum policy are not available. Specific criteria for the development of curriculum objectives and an appraisal system of such has not been established. Kindergarten Children At Work Board policy (AFE), Evaluauon of Instructional Programs. is concerned with the purpose of evaluating instruction. This is to be done by determining the educational needs and providing information for planning. Checks of strengths ,rnd v. eaknesses of the programs must he undertaken. However, there is no mention of what the definition of needs. ,trengths or weaknesses are. \\!or is there any direction as to the method which should be used 1r\nproviding, information for planning. The policy also requires that evaluation of instructional program be programs in terms of community requirements\". What does Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit \u0026lt;0 NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 21 \"suitability ... in terms of community requirement\" mean. Does it refer to the desegregation plan? Or does it refer to changing needs of occupational pursuits and directions in the community? There is no clear method as to how planned instructional programs are uniformly evaluated. Board policy (CH), Policy Implementation, requires that administrators and supervisors are responsible for informing staff members of existing policies and are to see that such are implemented. However, many sources indicated that policies and regulations are not effectively communicated. Thus a direct, unintem1pted line of authority does not exist. Often times when directives and procedures are communicated, with the intent to achieve an \"effective and efficient\" running school system, there has been evidence that opposition has occurred which leads to confusion. For example board members were aware of the implementation of a new program, \"Learning Foundations.\" Even though the program is in place, continuous attempts by some board members to increase opposition to this program were apparent. Even though the policy indicates that \"all board members, district employee, and students are expected to abide by (them).\" Board policy (GCL), Staff Development, deals with technical assistance to employees in the implementation of curriculum. However, during many interviews with administrators, teachers and noninstructional employees it was apparent that limited training is actually offered. Need surveys, long range planning, training of staff prior to implementation of new initiatives are not adequately undertaken. Staff described the district's efforts as \"knee jerk and window dressing\". Assistant principals, for instance felt that they were not given ample preparation or training in how the multi-cultural curriculum guides were to be used. However, they were expected to evaluate instructional staff on the use of such documents. Board policy (IF), Curriculum Development, requires that the superintendent establish \"curriculum committees for the study of curriculum improvements.\" However, minimum building level staff are actually involved in the development of curriculum. Presently, a ratio has been established with the union, as to the number of teachers and central office administrators who will make up these committees. Building level administrators are omitted even though they have involvement in evaluating the actual implementation of said curriculum. There were also instances when central office administrators solely developed changes in curricular pursuits because of time constraints. An example of this was when the Board forced an immediate implementation of a gifted and talented program, over the recommendation for a three-year phase-in by a community advisory committee, which caused severe financial and educational difficulties. With the occurrence of minimum or no building level staff involvement the final results produce what has been Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (rJ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 22 referred to as an average to below standard curriculum which is not used in an effective manner. Teachers and other staff members are apprehensive and somewhat resistive to implementation. In some schools, teachers continue to use former guides even though programs have changed. The expectation that \"all teachers will make a contribution to curriculum committee work\" is not being followed. Board policy (IFD), Curriculum Adoption, sets forth the requirement that the superintendent shall \"suggest and implement administratively, changes and improvements in curriculum offerings\" but such \"shall be reported to the Board prior to implementation\". Several board members indicated that changes in program/course offerings were never reported to them, for example PAL, or the gifted and talented program. Board members were not aware that there was a course adoption policy. This policy has been in effect since November, 1981. Additionally, during interviews held with the Biracial Committee, parents and board members, evidence was gathered that curricular sequences have been changed abruptly, with little planning taking place. Student courses of study have been effected without broad participation in the decisions, and this has created problems for students attempting to complete their requirements for graduation. Board policy (IM), Program Evaluation, requires that the district must \"establish an evaluation process\" in order to obtain objective information regarding instructional program and the performance of personnel\". However, no standardized framework has been established for this to occur. No uniform method exists of how instructional programs and personnel performance are to be evaluated. During interviews the auditors found only one central office administrator who developed and consistently used documents to evaluate principals assigned to her department. The auditors found no evidence of coordination or articulation among other central office administrators to evaluate in the same manner. In fact, several principals complained that they had been evaluated by a top administrator from the central office, despite the fact that the evaluator had not visited their school during the period of their evaluation. This policy further indicates that an established evaluation process must be conducted by \"professionals, but little direction is provided. o evidence existed to indicate that there was use of evaluation data by the board or district to determine educational needs. Evaluation and resultant changes often seem to be tied to the desegregation plan. The policy also indicates there should be a relationship between stated goals and actual accomplishments. Goals and long range outcomes change often thus limiting the possibility of such correlation. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ti) N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 23 The policy further required the district to use evaluation to \"improve the performance of personnel\". However, personnel are not involved or informed of appropriate training. Personnel reported this hampers the development of their skills. No teachers reported direction from supervisors as to training tied to perceived or measured effectiveness in the classroom. Throughout the district many schools and staff members were found \"doing their own thing\" without coordinated direction from the school administration, thus established control was lacking, and consi~tency and guidance were absent.. The district is unable to tell whether or not a program, a teacher, or a set of learning materials is effective or productive. No standardized methods have been established by which district staff can use assessment data to evaluate student progress, and the district lacks a way to assess the adequacy of the curriculum or its comparability. The board has not established any policy which requires curriculum to be developed in the district that was internally consistent or demonstrated coherency around a core. The district has not established a definition of a core curriculum. FINDlNG 1.5 Board member relationships with the superintendent and administrative staff disrupt management operations of the Little Rock School District. Despite board policies and precepts which call for support and cooperation with top level administration, board member actions and activities provide frequent and disruptive interventions into the managerial operations of the school district. Policies, presumably established to provide appropriate board roles, reflect the following: Board Policy AFB. \"Evaluation of the Superintendent\" states: \"The Board of Directors shall: Determine the duties of the Superintendent ... and~ him. or. bs\u0026lt;r ill th.e dischar~e Q.( ~or.~~ (emphasis added). Board Re~ulation BBA-R, Duties and Responsibilities. states: \"Board members and the Superintendent should tt!al eaci! other~ courtesy and~ bQth ill pyhlic and ill priya_te\" (emphasis added). As an example of dysfunction in regard to these policies, the auditors observed one board member, at a parent meeting at Pulaski Junior High School, who publicly ridiculed the district administration before parents. When a parent questioned the principal on why the school district doesn't extend the school day (in order to improve learning), the principal said, \"That is a Board matter.\" Immediately, the board member interrupted the meeting and loudly stated to the entire group, 'Well, the administration tells us Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit :\u0026gt; N.A.S.E. December 21 . 1990 Page 24 that the attention span of kids is only 20-45 minutes, and we can't do anything like that (extend the school day) until we (board members) get a straight answer from the administration.\" Why this board member chose to make such a self-effacing comment is anybody's guess, but the premise was faulty. Extending the school day IS a Board matter, and it has nothing to do with the attention span of children. Such caviling statements only serve to denigrate the integrity of the Board, administrators, and the Little Rock School District as a whole. Further, community leaders interviewed by the auditors indicated serious concern over troublesome board member behaviors. Their concern centered on the long term good of the Little Rock community. The feeling is that the combative nature of the governing board and the contentious disputes that board members seem to cultivate are harmful and jeopardize the future of the entire community. The logic was, as the schools go, so goes the major social institutional foundation, so goes the community, so goes the economy. One leader's statement was that \"unless the Board quits the negative and destructive battling, and begins to heal the hurts of the school district, the whole community could go down the river.\" Auditors carefully reviewed policies, procedures, district records, and communiques. Interviews were conducted with teachers, administrators, board members, and parents. The auditors found board members to be in flagrant violation of Board Policy AFB and Regulation BBA-R. Board members frequently publicly rebuke and embarrass managerial employees including the superintendent, other central office administrators, and building level staff. Elementary School Colleagues Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (!:) N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 25 Teachers, administrators, and parents perceive the divisiveness caused by board members as one of the district's greatest weaknesses. Examples of improper public statements by board members include the following: \"I'm going to get that sorry son-of-a-bitch\" (reference made to an associate superintendent)\n\"She is a PR disaster. Don't let her out in the schools, on TV, or in the newspapers\" (reference to the superintendent)\n\"She is incompetent\" (reference to an top level administrator)\n\"She has skinny little lips and shouldn't be on (sic) the media\"\n(reference to superintendent) \"The administration has not really studied this, they do no planning.\" These comments not only violate board policy and regulations, but they are signs of disrespect, mistrust, lack of confidence, and cynicism which creates open divisiveness within the school district. This divisiveness renders the Little Rock School District ineffective in carrying out its mission. Teachers and administrators stated that the divisiveness caused by the lack of trust and respect shown by board members has contributed greatly to the excessive turnover in superintendents. They further believe that it has a debilitating effect on the effectiveness of the central office team, teachers, and principals. The effect of divisiveness is illustrated by the following comments by employees: \"sad to see the way they treat each other\"\n\"it contributes to the instability of our school district\"\n\"this divisiveness spills over into the community\"\n\"as an employee I get very discouraged\"\n\"this perpetuates the bad light we have been viewed in\"\n\"it perpetuates lack of confidence in administrators\"\n\"it upsets the teachers\"\n\"this causes poor public relations\"\nLittle Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 26 \"it shows lack of confidence in administration and leads to the demise of public confidence\"\n\"too many embarrassing and belittling remarks made\"\n\"to the public it looks like the kids are not our focal point and the public loses confidence. Board members' public humiliation and belittlement of the staff members and district greatly weakens the power and ability of the administrative team to influence and lead the organization productively. Finding 1.6 Board members intrude into administrative roles and disrupt the operations of the Little Rock School District. Board Regulation BBA-R states, \" ... when board members receive complaints or criticism ... they should encourage the person making (the complaint) to take (it) through the channels of procedure set under Board policy.\" The auditors learned that this aspect of Board Regulation BBA-R is frequently not followed. Instead, it is common practice for board members to receive complaints and criticism and take them directly to an administrator. Moreover, the auditors found that board members do not adhere to the section of Board Regulation BBA-R, \"Processing Requests for Information\" which states, \" ... when a board member wants information about a particular program or area, he or she should direct the request to the superintendent or one of the two associate superintendents.\" Board members frequently bypass the superintendent and the associate superintendents to make inquiries and to request information from middle management and teachers. Several administrators, including principals, alluded to the confusion board members create with such practice. Lines of communication within the organization are confused. When asked whether she felt she should comply with Regulation BBA-R, one board member stated,  ... no!, I'll investigate it myself.\" In addition, the \"Processing Requests for Information\" section of BBA-R lacks a process for ranking requests and determining which, if any, requests will be pursued by the administration. This causes the administration to be chasing individual board member demands without Board action. Such individual Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit I!:\u0026gt; N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Pa~e 27 board member action is violative of sound principles of educational management and state law which limits board member authority to only such times as the Board sits, deliberates, and acts as a body. The following quotations by teachers, CT A Officers, and administrators, other than the superintendent and two associate Superintendents, confirmed that one or more board members frequently do not adhere to Regulation BBA-R. Such statements further illustrate staff members' perceptions of board members' behaviors. \"The board calls me to check on things and sometimes other people.\" \"Board members bring questions (directly) to principals and it causes problems.\" \"They call my staff directly and make requests for information and they call me at home.\" \"A board member called me to have a drink tonight and \"discuss\" business.\" The auditors also found that board members act in violation of Board Policy BBA, \"Duties and Responsibilities,\" which states, \" the Board of Directors \u0026amp;hall: .... 10. ~ authority a.s ~ members o!lb'. fillell ~ a.s a ~ ~ in session, or as legally directed by the board. . ... 12. Exercise !lQ administrative responsibility ~ individuals with re.speg to the~- 13. Re1ram individuals 1roni commandin~ the ser:vke.s of .any S:C.l!ool employee  ( emphasis added). Teachers, administrators, and community members perceive that individual board members are playing administrative roles. Some believe that this has increased greatly with the turnover in superintendents. Others believe that \"all the meddling causes confusion.\" The auditors found that individual board members command services of administrators by giving selfinitiated directives to administrators. Board members also exercise administrative responsibilities without board approval. Examples of these behaviors range from ordering the public relations staff to keep the superintendent off TV and out of the newspapers, to directing other administrators in their conduct of committees. The latter includes giving orders as to \"which decisions\" the committees \u0026amp;hould make. Board members also direct administrators to complete numerous and time consuming reports, which is another example of individual board members commanding services of school employees, exercising administrative responsibility, and exerting authority without support of a board vote. Information and report requests by individual board members in the Little Rock School District are out of control. The auditors found that board members make excessive numbers of requests for information and that these requests demand large amounts of administrators' time. As stated Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C\u0026gt; N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 28 by one administrator, \" the board does not fully appreciate the time required to respond to their problems.\" Demands for reports are communicated to administrators other than those designated in board Regulation BBA-R via the telephone and at board meetings. Some board members make such demands to the administration with a FAX machine from their employer's office! All of these requests are in violation of Board Policy BBA and Board Regulation BBA-R. Board member individual requests and demands upon the organization for \"reports\" are mind-boggling in quantity. After attending one board meeting and reviewing lists of requests for reports made at board meetings during the past year, the auditors found that these requests severely limit administrators' time to perform their formally assigned duties. Sixty-five nxrnests for information or directives from individual board members were made in seven board meetings reviewed by the Auditors as shown in Exhibit IIl.1.4.1: Exhibit IIl.1.4.1 Individual Board Member Directives and Requests for Reports .lwru:li Meetin,~ Q.ate August 28, 1990 July 9, 1990 June 6, 1990 March 16, 1990 May 18, 1990 September 21, 1990 September 28, 1990 Number Qi Reg_uests Total 15 4 5 13 7 11 10 65 Auditors reviewed examples of the types of requests and directives from individual board members which are provided below: 1. VIPS hours for McDermott and Fulbright schools\n2. annual operating cost of the IRC, administration annex building\n3. information on the checks written to the various office supply companies\n4. report on buildings where academic disparities do not exist or are minimal\n5. report on teachers who had been placed on the wrong salary scale\n6. report summary of the District's excess property and short and long-term plans for it\n7. report on all existing policies of the music department\n8. report on all the students who had been through \"Changing Directions\" to see how they are doing\nLittle Rock School Oistnct Curriculum Audit q:, N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 29 9. report on how Metropolitan can be better utilized and report on how Metro grads fare in the job market - are they employable\n10. study by the Biracial Advisory Committee on all secondary schools similar to the one conducted at Central High last fall\n11. report on number of volunteer hours at each school\n12. report on number of schools that have active PTA'S or PTSA's--survey schools to see how many rooms do not have a home room parent\n13. report on breakdown of volunteer hours worked in incentive schools, area schools, and magnet schools\n14. report on why Bobby Chapple could not participate in choir performances\n15. report on break down of staffing at the restructured schools\n16. report on the following aspects in incentive schools: enrollment, classes with 1-20 ratios, and vacancies\n17. estimate on costs of refurbishing Quigley Stadium\n18. report on adequacy of maintenance staff\n19. report on athletic eligibility requirements in neighboring six states\nand 20. report on how the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District gate receipts are distributed. On the face of it, some of this requested information appears to be appropriate for Board utilization, and it is. However, such demands for information are not appropriate from individual board members unless the board member makes a motion to receive such information, and after debate and passing the motion, the Board as a whole takes action requesting the information. The auditors found that many of the requests were frivolous, and that board members were trying to respond to some small segment of their constituency, or to \"second-guess\" the administration, as several staff members put it. Responding to these idiosyncratic requests consumes large amounts of administrative anc! secretarial time and severely infringes upon administrators' time to carry out their duties. Many requests serve only the political interests and self-serving needs of individual board members and do not represent the interest of the total board. The result is a rudderless organization, drifting and darting sporadically as board and community politics warm-up and cool-off, and as board members pursue short-term individual gains and sacrifice long-term district gains. Effective school districts base decisions on \"what is best for students,\" not individuals' political interests. FINDING 1.7 The Board's professional negotiations agreement with the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association inhibits Board control of educational programs. Board Policy ADA, \"Mission Statement of the Little Rock School District, states: Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 30 \"The mission of the Little Rock School District is to ~ a!! educational pro~am tl!fil ~ ~ chi!..d 1.Q achieve ~ ~t potential.\" The auditors found provisions in the \"Professional Negotiations Agreement Between the Board of Directors and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association\" which inhibit board control of educational programs and achievement of its mission for every child within its care. These provisions include the following:  length of the work day Article III.A. \u0026amp; XXII.C.1 \u0026amp; 2)\n duties (Article XXII.B. \u0026amp; F.)\n class-siz.e limits (Article XXI.A.)\n employment of teachers (Article V.A.)\n meetings (Article XXX.A., B., \u0026amp; C.), and  teacher rights regarding instructional methodology (Article XXXI.D.). Each of these constraining and unreasonably delimiting provisions is detrimental to community control of its educational programs and institution. The length of the work day is set at 5 hours and 15 minutes per day in Article ID. A \u0026amp; XXII. C. 1, 2, \u0026amp; 3).A with an additional fifty-four (54) minutes for planning, for a total work day of six (6) hours and nine (9) minutes. This is an extraordinarily short teachers' work day. When combined with provisions which restrict the length and number of meetings teachers may be required to attend and the duties to which teachers may be assigned, it severely limits board flexibility in use of instructional time for improving the quality of educational programs. Low class siz.es are generally accepted as beneficial to the educational program. However, sophisticated research studies establish a broad range of acceptable class sizes. Lowering class sizes to a point still within the range does not result in increased learning. The class-siz.e provisions provided in the Agreement place undue educational and financial restrictions on the board. The board needs flexibility in determining and implementing educational improvements through differential configurations of numbers of students. Further, the board must have authority to require the use of certain teaching techniques and behaviors. Researchers have made significant findings regarding teaching techniques for delivering Board-adopted curricula. Restricting the authority of the board and administration to prescribe appropriate instructional techniques significantly restrains the board's ability to improve educational programs for students in the Little Rock School District. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 31 Another Underutilized Library During School Hours Finally, Article V establishes seven years as the maximum allowance granted to new hires for previous teaching experience. This provision severely and unnecessarily restricts the district's ability to recruit the highest quality teachers. The research literature in industry and education is replete with evidence that selection of an employer is frequently based on salary. The educational literature also states that teachers' mobility is severely limited by salary caps based on years of teaching experience. The Little Rock Public Schools may be inadvertently failing to hire high quality teachers due to limits on the number of years of experience granted on the salary schedule. The Little Rock School District Board has been too generous in giving up its authority in the management of teaching practices in its schools, creating a restrictive and detrimental artificial environment for quality control in teaching and learning. The negotiations process has provided undue constraints on the elected Board to represent the public and to act in accordance with appropriate educational outcomes and guidelines. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit I!) N A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 32 Standard 2: The School District Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Student A school system meeting this audit standard has established a clear, valid and measurable set of pupil standards for learning and has set them into a workable framework for their attainment. Unless objectives are clear and measurable, there cannot be any cohesive effort to improve pupil achievement in any one dimension. The lack of clarity denies to a school district the capability of concentrating its resources through a focused approach to management. Instead, resources may be spread too thin and be ineffective in any direction. Objectives are essential to attaining local quality control under the governance of the Board of Education. What the auditors erpected to find in the Little Rock School District: The auditors expected to find a clearly established, district-wide, set of goals and objectives in all subject matter areas and for all grade levels adopted by the Board of Education. Such objectives would set the framework for the operation of the district, its sense of priorities, and explicit direction for the superintendent and the professional staff. Moreover, the auditors expected to find evidence of resources (people, time, materiel) directed toward accomplishment of established goals and objectives. Inherent in such direction would be found evidence of long range planning in instructional decision making, and precision in district efforts to define its mission through policies, regulations, reports, curriculum guides, and other documents. Basically, without defined outcomes (targets), organizational activities (arrows) can be misdirected, fragmented, and inadequately focused. Good school systems have defined what they stand for, and what must be evidenced to show accomplishment of the things for which they stand. What the auditors found in the Little Rock School District: The auditors found curriculum documents that listed objectives for many subjects on a K-12 basis, but these were not linked to Board-adopted central goals or standards for learning. In some cases, the auditors found that changes in the curriculum were unknown by the Board, or had created a surprise for board members when they learned about the changes. District curriculum documents are not very Little Rock School Distnct Curriculum t\\ud1t 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 33 effective in providing teachers the information necessary for guiding instruction or for giving supervisors any clear direction to help them monitor and manage the instructional process. The auditors found large gaps between the written curriculum and what is actually taught. The auditors found inadequate planning for systematic curriculum development in the Little Rock School District. The district has developed a number of multicultural guides in recent years\nhowever, this was done as a result of the desegregation plan rather than as a part of a comprehensive curriculum dt::clopment process. As in several other areas of district operations, the desegregation efforts drive district curriculum planning, leaving control of pivotal curriculum quality to random action. No written procedures exist regarding curriculum changes at the secondary level. As a result, confusion exists regarding what steps should be followed, who is involved in the decision, and what criteria is used in making the decision. In addition, a lack of curriculum articulation and coordination exists in the district. Curriculum guides in the Little Rock School District exists in many different forms within and between curriculum areas. Formats were perplexing and non uniform, which contributed to the limited use of guides by teachers and principals. Guides found range from the locally developed guides to those produced by the state department. Generally, the guides are not effective management documents. Finding 2.1 A voluminous melange of curriculum guide documents exists in the Little Rock School District. The auditors were given and reviewed over 200 curriculum guide documents which are currently being \"used\" in the Little Rock School District. These varied in format within and between curriculum areas. Multicultural curriculum guides for grades K-6 were implemented during the 1989-90 school year. The auditors were told by district supervisors and central office staff that these guides would replace previous curriculum documents and were to be used to direct instruction in the classroom. In addition to the multicultural guides at the elementary level, the auditors reviewed district secondary guides (7-12) which were written prior to 1989. However, district guides have not been written for all course offerings at the secondary level. The auditors were told by teachers and supervisors that state guides were to be used in the courses for which district guides had not been developed. Little Rock School District Cumculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 34 The district recently developed multicultural guides [or several curriculum areas at the secondary level. Teachers are expected to begin using these guides during the current school year. !\\1ulticultural guides were not developed at all grade levels for each core curriculum area. In addition, some of the multicultural guides were designed to be stand alone documents, while others were designed to supplement district guides which are currently in use. The variety of guides plus the [act that they are being used for different functions is confusing to both staff and administration. This was evident when the auditors asked staff members and administrators what was used to direct instruction. The answers varied greatly. Children Sorting and Classifying Objects As an example of the diversity 1)f wswers. when one teacher was asked how he determines what content to teach in his class. he tapp\u0026lt;!d the ~ide of his head a couple of times without verbal comment. Some department supervisors indicated that the stale guides were being used lo direct instruction in grades 9-12. Other supervisors stated that l11e teachers were probably using the teacher resource book that goes along with the text. When the question was posed 10 huilding administrators, one response was as follows. \"The basal textbooks direct instruction.\" The auditors round that teachers follow any of a number of things in selecting content to teach. tncluding course content guides, state guides, the new multicultural Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (!) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 35 guide, the district guide or the text to direct instruction. Little congruity was found in content determination at the school level. To add to the confusion, the auditors found that there was not a comprehensive list of curriculum guide documents. School officials provided the auditors what was stated to be a comprehensive set of curriculum guides, prior to their visit to the district. However, on several occasions, the auditors found teachers using curriculum documents which the auditors had not seen. Upon request, district officials did provide the additional guides, but it was clear that there was confusion regarding what guides were actually being used. Finding 2.2 Curriculum guides in most curriculum areas are inadequate to direct instruction. The auditors reviewed and rated the curriculum documents provided by the school district personnel. The guides varied in quality within and between curriculum areas. A summary of the curriculum guide rankings appear in Exhibit III.2.1. The guides were analyzed using five criteria which support sound curriculum management. The evaluation of the guides pertained to the following criteria: (1) clarity and validity of a guide's objectives, (2) congruence of the curriculum guide to the testing/evaluation program, (3) delineation by grade level of the prerequisite essential skills upon which to initiate instruction, (4) delineation of the major instructional tools in the forms of textbooks and supplementary materials, (5) clear examples for classroom application. For a curriculum guide to be an effective management tool, it must focus the efforts of the teacher in the classroom. Furthermore, in order to result in sound curriculum management the guides should connect classes vertically and horizontally across grade levels and schools. Curriculum guides should be \"user friendly.\" A teacher should be able to understand and use them without any additional information or training. A curriculum guide is considered excellent if it receives a composite score of 13-15 points. There were no district guides that scored in this range. There were, however, several curriculum guides which scored a 12 rating. These guides appear to be effective curriculum documents which could be used as models for the other curriculum areas to emulate. The remainder of the guides were rated less than adequate to very poor. Lmle Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ :--1.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 36 Generally speaking, the district curriculum documents were strong in stating the objective, providing the text and supplementary material to be used and giving practical suggestions to classroom teachers in teaching the content. The guides were generally weak in specifying the necessary prerequisite skills, knowledge and attitudes upon which to initiate teaching and weak in identifying methods of assessing student learning related to the objectives. Caution - Children on Task EXHIBIT III.2.1 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit c N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 37 RA TING OF CURRICULUM GUIDES DEVELOPED IN THE LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (Guides Listed in Rank Order of Quality) CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE DATE GRADE RA TING BY CRITERIA TOTAL Published LEVELS 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS Language Arts 1989 K-6 2 3 3 3 12 Language Arts 1989 7-9 2 3 3 3 12 Language Arts 1989 10-12 2 1 3 3 3 12 Reading 1989 K-6 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/Eng Asst 1990 7 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/Eng Asst 1990 8 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/ Eng Asst 1990 9 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/ Eng Asst 1990 10-12 2 l 3 3 3 12 Art Survey 7 2 2 3 3 2 12 Crafts/ Fibers 11-12 2 3 3 3 12 Intermediate Alg 1989 10-12 2 3 2 3 2 12 Social Studies 1989 K-6 2 2 3 3 11 Pottery 11-12 2 3 2 3 11 Drawing II 11-12 2 3 1 3 2 11 Drawing III 11-12 2 3 1 3 2 11 Biolab 10-12 2 3 3 2 11 Chemtech 11-12 2 3 3 2 11 Regular Math 1989 7 2 l 3 2 2 11 Study \u0026amp; Learning Foundations 1990 7-9 2 0 3 3 3 11 Exploratory Music 2 3 0 3 2 10 Dance II 2 3 0 3 2 10 Dance III 2 3 l 2 2 10 Ort'hestra Level D-E-F 2 3 0 3 2 10 Pottery-Ceramics 10-12 2 3 2 2 10 Jewelry Techniques 11-12 2 3 2 2 10 Print ma.king 10-12 2 3 2 2 10 AP Studio Art 11-12 2 3 2 2 10 Art History 10-12 2 3 2 2 10 Drama 11-12 2 2 2 3 10 History of Theatre 2 3 0 2 3 10 Life Science 7 2 3 0 3 2 10 Geography 1990 7 2 1 0 3 3 9 American History 1990 8 2 1 0 3 3 9 Dance I 2 3 0 2 2 9 Music Theory I 2 0 3 3 9 ~lusic Appreciation 2 3 0 3 1 9 Photography 10-12 2 3 2 l 9 Mime 2 2 0 2 3 9 Classic Scene Study 2 2 0 2 3 9 Science Target Concepts/ Slcills 1989 K-6 2 0 3 3 9 Mathematics Multietbnic Guide 1989 K-6 2 2 3 2 9 Regular/ Honors - Geometry 1989 10-12 2 2 2 2 9 CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE DATE GRADE Published LEVELS Advanced Algebra - Regular 1989 11-12 AP Calculus AB/BC 1989 Family Life Ed.New Futures 1990 K-o Honors Algebra II 1989 9 Psychology Jewelry Techniques 11-12 Dance Techniques Earth Science 8 Physical Science 9 Enriched Math 1989 7 Regular Math 1989 8 Regular Algebra-J.H. 1989 9 Algebra 1-H.S. 1989 10 Enriched Algebra I 1989 8 Pre-Algebra 1989 11-12 Concepts of Geometry 1989 11-12 Regular Algebra II 1989 10-12 Trigonometry Regular/ Honors 1989 11-12 Greek I-III 1989 Latin I-II 1989 AP Latin 1989 French I-IV 1989 AP American History Sociology Concert Band Stage Band Acting Children s Theatre Science Technology Earth Science - Multicultural 1990 8 Physical Science - Multicultural 1990 9 :,,,tarketing Mgmt 12 Marketing 11-12 Intro to Marketing 10-12 Music 1989 K-o Music History 10 Music History 11-12 Dance History 10 Spanish I-IV 1989 Life Science - Multicultural 1990 7 Statistics Unified Physics I-IV German I-IV 1989 Computer Applications - Spread Sheet 11-12 Computer AppLications - Data Base 11-12 Computer Programming - RPG 11-12 Computer Programming - Cobol 11-12 Computer Programming - Adv. Basic 11-12 Computer Technology - Inf. Systems 10-12 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 38 RATING BY CRITERIA TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 0 3 3 9 2 2 2 2 9 2 1 0 2 3 8 2 3 0 2 8 2 2 0 2 2 8 2 1 0 3 2 8 2 1 0 3 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 1 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 1 2 2 8 2 1 2 2 I 8 2 1 0 2 2 7 2 0 0 2 3 7 2 2 0 2 1 7 2 2 0 2 1 7 2 2 0 0 3 7 2 .2 0 0 3 7 2 1 0 3 I 7 0 2 3 7 0 1 2 3 7 2 0 3 7 2 0 3 7 2 0 1 1 3 7 2 0 0 3 6 2 0 2 6 2 0 2 1 6 2 2 0 0 2 6 2 0 2 2 0 6 0 0 3 5 2 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 4 0 2 I 0 4 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE Computer Technology - Introduction Word Processing I \u0026amp; II Typewriting I Typewriting II Office Tech. Lab Office Procedures Cooperative Office Ed Record Keeping Computerized Acct I Computerized Acct lI Accounting I Accounting II Intro to Drafting Exploratory Business Carpentry Basic Welding Intro to Computers - Data Processing Automotive - Technology II Auto Body Basic Electronics American Government - Civics American History Contemporary American History Economics Global Studies World Cultures World Geography World History Family Life Ed - New Futures Food Production Mgmt Child Care Guidance-Management Parenting Human Development Housing. Home Furnishings Foods \u0026amp; Nutrition Consumer Education Oothing \u0026amp; Textiles Child Development Independent Living Family Living Home Economics I Personal Living Skills Exploratory - Home Economics Home Economics - Practical Arts DATE GRADE Published LEVELS 9-12 l0-12 7-12 9-12 11-12 11-12 11-12 10-12 10-12 11-12 10-12 11-12 10-12 9-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 9-12 9-11 11-12 11-12 11-12 9-lO 9-lO 10-12 1990 7 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 39 RATING BY CRITERIA TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 l 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 I 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 :? 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE DATE GRADE Published LEVELS Industrial Arts-Technology Ed 7-S Exploratory - Career Ed Career Orientation Radio Broadcasting Health Occupations Computer Repair - Technology Printing 89-90 Suspension-Steering Specialist 1987 Brake Specialist 1987 Electronic - System Specialist 1987 Automotive Technology -Technician 1987 Cobol Commercial Art I-II 1987 10-12 Printing Press - Operations Industrial Equipment - Maintenance 1987 10-12 Basic Drafting II 11-12 Cosmetology T.V. Production Computer Technology II Commercial Foods 1-11 Structured RPG Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ' N.A.S.E. DeccmbC'r 21. 1990 Page 40 RATING BY CRITERIA TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 When the district curriculum guides were separated by subject areas, the results were even more revealing regarding strengths and weaknesses. Exhibit III2.2 gives the average scores of the district curriculum guides in each subject area. The curriculum areas are listed from highest average to lowest average. Also listed are the total number of guides rated in each content 3Tea along with the highest and lowest rated guide. The strongest curriculum guides were in language arts, while the weakest documents were in vocational education. Since there are different types of curriculum documents being utilized, it appears appropriate to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each type of document. These are as follows: A) Multicultural Guides Strengths - Generally speaking, these guides were strong in stating the objectives, delineating the text and supplementary material, and providing examples of how to approach key concepts/skills in the classroom. Weaknesses - These guides were weak in the respect that they did not identify methods of assessing student learning and the majority of guides did not specify the necessary prerequisite skills expected of students (language arts and reading were the exception). B) State Guides Strengths - These guides did state the objectives to be taught. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ NA.S.E. December 21.1990 Page 41 Weaknesses - Since these guides were designed more as a resource than a stand alone document, there are several weaknesses when used as the curriculum guide. These guides lack the following components: An assessment or evaluation piece, a listing of required prerequisite skills, delineation of major instructional resources and a linkage to classroom utilization. C) District Guides (Non multicultural) The district guides vary more in format and content than the other two categories. As a result, it's more difficult to generalize their strengths and weaknesses. The reader should take this into consideration when reading the following summary. Strengths - The guides stated the objectives to be taught, listed the text and supplementary materials, and provided examples of how to approach key concepts and skills (although this was limited in several guides.) Weaknesses - Although some guides provided an assessment component, the majority of the district guides were lacking this criteria. The majority of the guides also did not articulate the necessary prerequisite skills. As mentioned above, several guides lacked examples of how to approach key concepts or skills. EXIDBIT IIl.2.2 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C NA.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 42 SUMMARY OF CURRICULUM GUIDE RATINGS BY CONTENT AREA LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTENT AREA I TOTAL I HIGHEST I LOWEST CONTENT I GUIDES I RATED I RATED AREA I REVIEWED I GUIDE I GUIDE AVERAGE I I I RATING LANGt:AGE ARTS I 9 I 12 I 12 12 READING I 11 I 12 I 12 12 STUDY \u0026amp; LEARNING I 3 I 11 I 11 11 FOUNDATIONS I I I ART I 11 I 12 I 8 10.2 DRAMALTHEA TRE I 6 I 10 I 7 8.7 I I I MATHEMATICS I 24 I 12 I 5 8.7 SCIDICE I 17 I 11 I 4 8.3 MUSIC/DANCE I 21 I u I 6 7.6 SOCIAL STUDIES I 20 I 11 I 2 7.2 FOREIGN LANGUAGE I 6 I 8 I 4 7 FAMILY LIFE ED-NEW I 8 I 9 I 2 8 FUTURES I I I VOCATIONAL I 66 I 7 I 2.6 ED\\XATION I I I Moreover, significant gaps exist in the coverage of curriculum with appropriate guides. In Exhibit ill.2.3, one can see the auditors analysis of the scope of curriculum. With such disproportionate distribution of guides, it is impossible for the Little Rock School District to connect student learnings from one level or school to the next. Art Business Career Education Computer Science Consumer Sciences Drivers Education English. Lang. Arts family Life foreign Language Guidance Health Industrial Arts Learning foundations Math. General 'vlatn Algebra Math. Advanced 'vlusic Photography Phys. Educ .. Dance Psychology Reading Science. BiolO!!ical Science. Physical Science, General Social Studies Speech and Drama Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit c N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 43 Exhibit IIl.2.3 Distribution of Curriculum Guides by Subject Matter and Grade Level Little Rock School District K\\ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I s I 9 I i I l l l 1 i I 1 1 1 1 1 l I l I l 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I l I 1 1 1 1 l 1 l 1 1 l 1 l I 1 l 1 l 1 l I 1 1 l l I l I I I I I 2 I t I l 1 2 T 2 l I I 1 I 3 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I l I I l I 1 I I 1 I I I 2 2 1 4 10 I 11 I 12 I n I 4\\111111 I 1 I 14 I 14 I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 3 3 2 1 l 1 6 l 1 1 1 4 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 5 8 7 2 1 1 5 Note: Numbers in the cells indicate the oumber of curriculum guides provided to the auditors at a given grade level or subject matter field. Cells which are empty have no curriculum guide at that grade level for that subject matter field. Gaps and overlap are evident in the distribution of curriculum guides, indicating little or no coherence, or 'flow\" of teaching and learning throughout the system. Connections, if any, among grade levels, subject areas, schools, etc. would be random and determined by caprice or whim rather than soundly developed reason or rational planning. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N .A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 44 Finding 2.3 There is no systematic plan for development and revision of curriculum in the Little Rock Public Schools The auditors found no systematic plan for curriculum development in the Little Rock Public Schools. Although a majority of staff members interviewed indicated there was no such plan in existence, a couple of administrators thought the district did have a written plan. When the auditors asked to obtain a copy of the plan, they were given a copy of the Arkansas schedule for textbook adoptions. When interviewing supervisors it was evident that such a process was not currently in place. One department supervisor indicated that her department reviewed the curriculum for revision after textbook adoptions. A second supel'Visor said his department does not follow this procedure. It is obvious that clear expectations regarding a comprehensive plan for curriculum development have not been establishe A systematic plan for curriculum development would identify what areas of curriculum would be revised how goals and objectives would be re-validated\nhow curriculum materials (including textbooks) would re-evaluated\nhow test and assessment data would be utilized to strengthen the curriculum\nand how curriculum monitoring would be incorporated in the curriculum development activities entailed in the plan. The auditors found no documentation that addressed these very important areas in the Little Rock School District. The auditors did obtain a copy of a memo to the Superintendent dated 24 May 1990 from the planning, research and evaluation department which provided a sample plan for curriculum review. This would appear to indicate that the administration is aware of the need for such a plan and is considering steps for implementing a comprehensive district curriculum review process Finding 2.4 Written procedures are deficient to direct additions or deletions of courses or program changes at the secondary level. When the auditors asked for written procedures for adding, deleting, or changing course offerings at the secondary level. they were given a page of the board policy related to curriculum development (IFD) which states, Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N .A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 45 \"Changes and improvements in the curriculum offerings may be suggested and implemented administratively, as deemed necessary and educationally sound by the Superintendent of Schools but shall be reported to the Board prior to implementation ... \" This policy does not state what procedures should be followed, rather it gives the administration authority to implement changes when necessary. The auditors asked several staff members what procedures would be followed if a teacher wanted to replace an existing course with a new offering. Responses were varied and included reactions as follows: Building Principal - \"Course changes go to the Associate Superintendent and then to the Deputy Superintendent.\" Curriculum Supervisor - \" .... first go to the supervisor, then to the Assistant Superintendent and then to the senior management team ..... not sure if it then goes to the Board.\" Assistant Principals indicated that it would first be presented to the principal, then to the supervisor, then to the Assistant Superintendent, and finally to the Superintendent. Assistant Superintendent - \" ........ a committee would be formed as stipulated in the professional negotiations agreement. The department supervisor would review the recommendation with the Associate Superintendent. The Associate Superintendent would meet with the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent. The final step would be to present it to the Board for approval.\" It is evident from the explanations above that there is not a clear understanding among the administrative staff regarding procedures to be followed when requesting a change in the existing curriculum. To further complicate the issue, the auditors were made aware of the fact that an AP Chemistry course was approved for this year at one of the high schools as a result of parents coming directly to a Board meeting. It appears this particular course adoption circumvented any formal procedure. In summary, confusion exists regarding what procedures to follow and criteria needed to recommend a course change at the secondary level. Fmding 2.5 Curriculum articulation and coordination is ineffective in the Little Rock School District. The auditors found little evidence of a coordinated and articulated curriculum. Such a curriculum would have continuity from grade level to grade level and consistency across grade levels and between school buildings. The district has not established a central curriculum body to ensure that coordination and articulation exist in the educational program. Furthermore, no key administrative officer has assumed this responsibility in the Little Rock School District. Small Group Reading Lesson Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 46 The elementary and secondary programs appear to function separately with very little communication from one level to the other. When supervisors explained the curriculum development and textbook adoption process, they described elementary committees and secondary committees working separately without knowledge of what was being done al the other level. For example, the language arts multicultural guides were developed by a K-6 committee and a 7-12 committee which worked separate from each other. The committees were not brought together to discuss issues or coordinate the use of instructional material. An example of lack of articulation can be found in the textbook adoption process for science textbooks implemented in the 1989-90 school year. District documents identified three committees, K-6, 7-9, and 10- 12. The committees functioned as separate decision making groups. There was no evidence that they met as one group to discuss content, assessment or instructional issues which cross the identified grade level groupings. When supervisors were asked about curriculum articulation and coordination, they were aware of the problems, One supervisor stated, \"There is no communication between elementary and secondary teachers.\" A second supervisor indicated, \"Articulation K-12 is a problem. There is no sequencing or little Rock Scnool District Curriculum Audit C NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 47 coordination. The fifth grade teachers have no idea what the eighth grade teachers are teaching or visa versa.\" A third supervisor shared that teachers have expressed concerns about the lack of a K-12 scope and sequence. The Board of Directors appear to be concerned about this problem as well. When the auditors reviewed minutes of the March 23, 1989 meeting, they found the following statement: \"Board members expressed continuing concern that there is not a unified curriculum ...... .\" Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit l N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 48 Standard 3: The School District Has Documentation Explaining How Its Programs Have Been Implemented, Developed, Conducted A school district meeting this curriculum audit standard is able to show how its programs have been created as the result of a systematic identification of deficiencies in the achievement and growth of its students compared to measurable standards of learning. In addition, a school system meeting this standard is able to demonstrate that it possesses a focused and coherent approach toward defining curriculum and that as a whole, it is more effective than a simple sum of its parts, i.e., any arbitrary combination of programs or schools does not equate to the larger school district entity. The purpose of having a school district meet this standard is to obtain the educational and economic benefits of a coordinated and consistent program for students, both to enhance learning by maximizing pupil interest, and by utilizing economies of scale where applicable. What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Little Rock School District The auditors expected to find a highly developed, articulated and coordinated curriculum in the district that was effectively monitored by the administrative and supervisory staffs. Such a curriculum would be: 1. Centrally defined and adopted by the Board of Education\n2. Demonstrably consistent with a coherent rationale for at least content delineation within curriculum\n3. Clearly explained to members of the teaching staff and building level administrators\nand 4. Monitored by central office personnel and building principals. What the Auditors Found in the Little Rock School District The auditors found historical evidence of many individual programs which were designed to address specific curriculum needs and inequities. While these programs, as designed, reflect current best practices, they are plagued by inconsistent implementation at the school, principal, teacher, and student level. Multiple and separate program efforts compete for staff attention and for district resources. There is Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 49 inconsistent implementation across schools, programs and grades of the designed curriculum and the programs which support curriculum delivery. Moreover, the auditors found a distinct pattern of \"tracking\" which was implemented along racial lines for certain course and educational offerings, which had the appearance of \"resegregation\" and inequity in some cases, particularly in English and mathematics \"enriched\" and \"regular\" classes. Such practices demonstrate inconsistency of curriculum management and direction within the school district. For example, the district has a policy, imposed by the Federal courts, that \"no school shall be racially identifiable.\" Several factors within the schools are not consistent with this policy, and the policy is impotent as a predictor of school curriculum practices as shown in this audit section. Finding 3.1: The allocation of resources to support curriculum implementation is inconsistent and inequitable The auditors found inconsistent and inequitable implementation of the curriculum linked to the following variables:  inequity of facilities  inequity of curriculum materials  inequity of staff expertise and assignment Inevi,ity Q[ Facilities. There is tremendous variance in the quality of facilities and the status of repair and disrepair across area schools, magnet schools and incentive schools. Staff reported that magne schools receive first priority and that requests for repair for area schools are not treated equa . Staff also indicated that a visit by a member of the Governing Board often triggered installation or repair of a long requested improvement in basic facilities. This discrepancy will be discussed in more detail in a later section of this document under Standard 5. Inequity Qf Curriculum Materials. An example of inequity in distribution of curriculum materials is the allocation of library books to schools. While each school meets minimum North Central standards for the number of books per student, there is a marked inequity in library holdings. Exhibit III.3.1.1 illustrates these differences across schools. Library book distribution at the elementary schools, organized into categories of area schools, magnet schools and incentive schools, shows that an average allocation for an elementary school is 24 library books per pupil, with a range in allocation is from 15 books per pupil to about 54 books per pupil. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit Cl N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 50 Library book allocation per student across junior high schools averages about 16 library books per student. The range is about 10 books per student to about twenty-three books per student. Library book allocation per student across the high schools averages about 13 books per student. The range is about 11 books per student to about 19 books per student. Library book allocation for all schools is about 25 books per student on average, with a range of 10 books per ~tudent to 54 books per student. These are unusually wide variances for a school district striving to gain equity and consistency across educational sites. N u m Exhibit Ill.3.1.1 Comparisons of Number of Library Books Per Pupil - Little Rock Schools b 100 e r 0 r B 0 0 k s ..\n!4 s 10 Elementary 1!1?3 -16 e Junior High Level of Buildings 9 -3 1 High School :~ Mean I I  High j I These differences in library allocation parallel many other observed differences in distribution and allocation of resources. The difference in the allocation of library books per student across elementary, junior high school and high schools was mirrored across supplies, furniture, equipment and buildings. Another example of inequity in curriculum materials is the distribution of maps and globes to support the social studies curriculum and the new multicultural curriculum. Auditors observed marked differences in the availability of these basic tools across the schools. Many staff reported that they did not have the materials called for in their curriculum guides and did not know when basic classroom tools such as maps and globes would be a priority in school budgets. Lntle Rock School D,stnct Curriculum Audit C N .A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 51 There is evidence. however. that there is equity in some textbook allocations. All classrooms at all elementary sites which were visited appeared to have complete sets of the basal reading series and the supporting materials. Both regular classrooms and special education resource programs had adopted reading materials. Most sites have the new social studies textbook and supporting materials\nhowever, there was evidence that some sites were not using these materials. Young Scholar With a Book Inequity cl Silll Eiq2ertise llilll Assiiwment. The auditors found evidence of inequity of stall expertise across school sJtes. Experienced staH are more likely to transfer to magnet schools and new inexperienct:d staff arc mor::: li\\.:dy tone assigneii to area scnoob. In addition, some school's faculties are not reflective o[ the district's faculty composition and characteristics, which indicates inconsistency or disagreement betwern district policy and school-level practices. As an example nf the inconsi~tcncy in staff a~signrnenl. the auditors looked at schools and the composition of their faculty compart:d to their student body. Junior High School faculty compositions reflect imbalance in '. cacher assig:nment by race as shown in the following Exhibit lll.3 .1.2: Exhibit III.3.1.2 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 52 Comparisons of Racial Composition of Junior High School Faculties - Little Rock Schools 1990 District Southwt PulskiH MannM Mablvl Hndrsn ForstHt Dunbar ClovrDI 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 White Tchrs = Black Tclirs From the above exhibit, it is easy to determine that their is a big difference in the racial percentages of faculty at the various schools. For example, Pulaski Heights Junior High has the smallest percentage of black teachers of all the schools and is a full 13 percentage points less than the district average. The question of whether this is intentional or not on the part of the administration is less important than the question of why such discrepancies aren't predicted by official school district policy. If the district policy were applied consistently in the case of the junior high schools, faculty assignment would be no less \"racially identifiable\" than the policy specifies. There is also a difference in the level of expertise assigned to various schools. In the following exhibit, Exhibit III.3.1.3, the average number of years of experience of the teaching faculty at junior high schools was examined, and the differences were noticeable. One school, Cloverdale Junior High School has a ..___ very inexperienced faculty, and the average faculty member is nontenured. Such discrepancy in assignment of teaching expertise represents inconsistency given no policy requirement for the distribution of experienced teachers faun . District Southwt PulslriH Exhibit 111.3.1.3 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC NA.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 53 Comparisons of Teacher Experience  Little Rock Junior High Schools 1990 i=================================.-----~ -!::===============================================::.--~ MannM I i:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,-------~ Mablvl ~---------------~ Hndrsn ,\n:==========================================-.-----~ ForstHt Dunbar t====:.:.:.-:.-:.-:.-_-_-_-_-....,----------~ OovrDI -=======\n===--~-----,-----+----------, 0 2 4 6 8 10 Average Years of Experience Distribution of students is shown in the Junior High Schools in Exhibit Ill3.l.4. There are also discrepancies between schools in the racial composition of schools, but in this case, such discrepancies were documented in accordance with plans and policy of the district. However, the auditors found that in actual practice, the magnet concept provides an incentive at the junior high level for a composition of white/black students which favors an inordinate percentage of white students. The auditors heard from many sources that the magnet junior high school is highly sought after by white families, and that more white students than black students are admitted into the magnet junior high because of greater 'political\" influence on district assignment processes among white parents. The pupil assignment office procedures were not a part of the audit. nor was a clear finding determinable. However, the racial composition of the various junior high schools might appear to support the complaints heard from parents and teachers, as shown in the following exhibit: Exhibit UI.3.1.4 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit \u0026lt;l) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 54 Comparisons of Racial Composition of Junior High School Students Little Rock Schools 1990 District Southwt Pulsk.iH MannM Mablvl Hndrsn ForstHt Dunbar OoVTDI 0% - ------------ - - --- --- ----. - . -- -- - 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Finding 3.2: Curriculum monitoring practices arc inconsistent 0 White Students = Black Students Some principals monitored teachers' lesson plans for incorporation of curricula objectives\nhowever, man principals had no strategy for determining the degree of classroom implementation of the prescribed curriculum. Teachers also reported wide discretion in selection of teaching content, and reported little direction from some principals in curriculum or determinations of what to teach. A specific example of inequitable curriculum monitoring is the multicultural curriculum. Only about onethird of the principals routinely checked each teacher's lesson plans for incorporation of multicultural objectives. Teachers' lesson plans, in the schools where principals monitored, consistently reflected integration of multicultural objectives into instructional plans. However, in many schools, there is no systematic observation of the implementation of this relatively new curriculum. At schools where principals do not monitor implementation of the multicultural curriculum, teachers often did not report a plan to teach the new curriculum. There is also no evidence of a systematic plan to link observed teacher training needs in this new curriculum to current staff development efforts. urthermore, there is no evidence of any effort to disaggregate and analyze student achievement data for acquisition of multicultural objectives. Specific level tests have not been developed and the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test samples multicultural objectives prior to the scheduled sequence for instruction in the Little Rock curriculum guide. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 55 Finding 3.3: Placement of students in programs and classes is inconsistent Gifted and Talented Classes. The Little Rock School District has provided instruction for gifted and talented students at each of its schools, but placement of students does not appear to follow any clear cut guidelines or procedures. Teachers complained that procedures to group students for \"GT\" instruction, as it is called, were inconsistent and undependable. The auditors found that the pattern of criteria used for placement of selected students to be erratic and without common patterns. According to the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, classes in gifted and talented, as well as in special education, were grohibited from bein~ racially identifiable, but the auditors found this mandate was not being followed. In a move toward equity, the district has provided a chance for nearly every student in the district to get into the talent pool for consideration. Criteria for placement include the following: Gifted and Talented Nomination Criteria Total Battery on the MAT-6 (50%ile or above) Recommendation for inclusion (any source) Gifted and Talented Selection Criteria Academic Ability (MAT-6) Creativity (Torrance Test) Motivation (Teacher Referral) Additional Data (Biographical data, etc.) Placement by the School and District Placement Committees Placement records examined by the auditors did not confirm a consistent pattern of compliance with any objective criteria. For example, below is a comparison of the selection profiles used in placement of selected gifted and talented students in high schools and in elementary schools. Students were scored according to three criteria: Metropolitan Achievement Test, Version 6\nTorrance Test of Creative Ability\nand teacher rating of potential for success in the program. As shown in the following exhibit (Exhibit IIl.3.3.1) , the profile of these four randomly selected students is inconsistent. No similarity of test/rating information appears among the group. Exhibit III.3.3.1 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 56 Placement Criteria Comparisons Among Gifted and Talented Students 100 T ..... ~ 90 - T * T t I ~ I i  MAT-6 80 t I   Test/Rating I I I 70   I  TTCA Score 0-100 60 1 .\u0026amp; I AT. Profile 50 40 WMale BMale WFcma BFcma Little Rock High School Students II these four randomly selected students were representative of the high school student population enrolled in the gifted and talented program, the criteria for placement stated by the Little Rock School District would be violated. Looking at the chart, the white male has a lower teacher recommendation profile than the black male, yet the MAT-6 six scores are similar. No such similarity exists between the white female and the black female. According to the Little Rock School District's published criteria for placement in the Gifted and Talented program, the students selected above apparently qualify for eligibility for screening. Any student with a 50th percentile (50%) or above on the MAT-6 or any student who is recommended for inclusion is eligible for consideration. As lo placement in the program, the decision is made centrally by a review and placement committee, which is empowered to place students in the Gifted and Talented program at any school in the district. More information is available as the efficacy of this placement process. The following exhibit (Exhibit IIl.3.32) demonstrates the range of abilities placed in the elementary gifted program: Exhibit IIl.3.3.2 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit :, N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 57 Placement Criteria Comparisons Among Gifted and Talented Students 100 - ' 90 -   !  80 !!! I  MAT-6 Rdg Test/Rating 70 ! I A.TICA Score (0-100) T i 60 l  T  T. Profile I l I 50 A A' 40 WMale BMale WFema BFema Little Rock Elementary School Students In the elementary examples given above the range of achievement on the MAT-6 is spread out considerably from the 65th percentile or so for the females, and at the 95th percentile for the males. Discontinuity in placement is obvious from the data given. Inconsistency of placement procedures can be a threat to equity in the Little Rock School District unless the rules and procedures governing student placement are clearly defined. As the auditors found, little or no consistent rationale was found to be established in the placement of gifted and talented students. If the inconsistency were observed with a corresponding balance in racial distribution among classes, such an inconsistency could be construed to help the school district avoid racially identifiable classes. However, the auditors observed that the racial distribution of students in gifted and talented classes and in \"regular\" classes followed no such pattern. Note the racial composition of the classes in the pictures below: Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ' N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 58 SluJenls c1l Pulc1ski Heights Junior High School: Gifted and Talented (Enriched) English Students al Pulaski Heights Junior High School - \"Regular\" English Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 59 Staff also reported that black high school students were frequently counseled to enroll in Gifted and Talented courses rather than Advanced Placement courses. This counseling practice and/or placement decision creates inequity in future opportunity for post-secondary schooling. Physically Handicapped Pro~ams. Placement practices for integration of physically handicapped students are dictated by the physical inaccessibility of many schools and programs. While the physically handicapped are a low incidence population, their educational needs have greater legal protection than those of the non-handicapped. Many schools in the Little Rock School District are not accessible to the physically handicapped. The opportunity of this population is restricted by the absence of physical access at many sites. Decisions regarding their programming are influenced by the condition of school sites. The inequity in facilities produces greater inequity for this population than for others. Reeular and Enriched Classes, Student placement in classes in various basic skill areas (math, English, social studies, etc.) appear to have deleterious characteristics of tracking by ability which results in resegregation of races. For example, in the junior high schools, the percentage of black students in regular classes is dramatically higher than the percentage of black students in enriched classes. Both types of classes have a racial distribution of students different that the distribution of the entire student body. Exhibit III.3.3.3 shows the difference among these classes across junior high schools. 85 P 75 + C r 65 - C C 55 - n 45 - I a 35 1 g C 25 - 15 Exhibit IIl.3.3.3 Junior High School Racial Distribution in Regular and Enriched Classes: Little Rock Schools, 1990 All Classes Regular Classes Enriched Classes  Black 0 White High school English classes also renected inconsistency in student placement. The percentage of black students in regular English classes far exceeds the equivalent percentage of the total student body. High Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 60 Schools are also dissimilar in this regard. A black student has a greater likelihood, on a percentage basis, to get into a gifted English class at McClellan and Parkview High Schools, and much less of a chance to receive the same opportunity at Hall, Central, and Fair High Schools. These discrepancies in English classes amount to \"resegregation\" or \"tracking\" of races on a homogeneous basis, which shows gross inconsistency and wrongful inequities in educational opportunities for minority students. The distribution of students and comparisons between high schools are shown in Exhibit III.3.3.4 as follows: CHS-Gift CHS-Reg Exhibit III.3.3.4 Comparisons of Pupils by Race in 11th Grade Gifted and Regular English Clasacs. Little Rock. High Schools 1990 FHS-Gift _!!! ___ , FHS-Rcg HHS-Gift HHS-Reg MHS-Gift MHS-Reg PHS-Gift PHS-Reg --- - -----.- --- --- --- 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Students 350 i O White I I  Black The auditors found that junior high school principals were not cognizant of these discrepancies. No principal complained about the imbalance of racial groups within the regular and enriched classes. The obvious conclusion is that there is great inconsistency and inequity in the assignment of students to classes on the basis of ability resulting in greater racial disparities. Special Education Proiuams. Placement in special education programs is inconsistent. The percentage of black students in special education is discrepant from the percentage of black students in the school district, and the discrepancy is very noticeable at some schools. The district percentage of black students is about 64%, but the percentage of black students placed in special education is about 70%, indicating inconsistency in placement practices at the school level. Not all principals indicated that they participate Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 61 in the placement process, since some principals reported that they delegate the responsibility for school placement process teams. Principals perform unevenly in the capacity of controlling consistency in placement of special education students. As an example, two junior high schools, Pulaski Heights and Forest Heights, demonstrate major discrepancies in the special education placement practices between blacks and whites. In these two schools, a larger percentage of blacks is placed in special education than the total school percentage of blacks would indicate should be the case. For example, Pulaski Heights Junior High School has a total school population of 721 students, of which 454 students are black comprising a black percentage of 63%. However, the special education student placements number 65, of which 53 are black, comprising a black special education percentage of 82%. Forest Heights has a total school population of 808 students, of which 538 students are black comprising a total school black percentage of 67%. However, the special education student placements number 73, of which 59 are black, comprising a black special education percentage of 81 %. Other schools do not show such dramatic differences in total student body and special education percentages of black students. These discrepancies were not explained by the principals. Central office administrators indicated that such distributions were inconsistent with district policies and desegregation mandates from the federal courts. The abdication of principal's control results in inconsistency and inequity. The racial distribution disparities between the total school populations and the special education populations are illustrated in the descriptive exhibit (Exhibit III.3.3.5) which follows: p E R C E N T Exhibit IIl.3.3.5 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 62 COMPAIUSONS OP BLACK ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGES SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS AND TOT AL SCHOOL STUDENT BODY: UITU! ROCK SCHOOLS 85 I so l\na i) ! 0 75 T C I I ..,., 70 t I I I I   I  SPED 6.5 l iJ Ci I I  60 t  ID SCHOOL ss T so I I 4s l I 40 a ... \u0026lt;n1 Dm,t,u Pcwadl - MAbd - Pawltl SoaWea JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The discrepancy between junior high school special education black student percentages and total student body black student percentages is mirrored in high schools as well. Central High School has 58% black students in the total student body, but has 84% black students in special education programs, with a 26 percentage point discrepancy. Parkview High School has 54% black students in the total student body, but has 64% black students in special education programs, with a 10 percentage point discrepancy. Differences in the high schools are shown in the following exhibit: Exhibit lll.3.3.6 Comparisons of Special Education and Total School Black Student Percentages: Little Rock Hi~ Schools, 1990 Special Ed Total School High School Black Black Students Students JA Fair 58% 56% McClellan 69% 59% Parkview 64% 54% Hall 64% 53% Central 84% 58% Such discrepancies as shown in the exhibit above establish that the placement pra, School District are inconsistent, and inequitable for students across the school sys Discrepancy: Total% - Spec Ed% -2% -10% -10% -~ C NA.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 63 Suspensions and Drop Outs. The rate and nature of suspended students and the number and nature of students who drop out varies across schools as well. For example, students are twice as likely to drop out of McClellan High School as they are from Parkview High School. In addition, students are far more likely to be suspended for misconduct from McOellan High School as from Fair High School. These data are illustrated in the following exhibits: Exhibit Ill.3.3.7 Annual Long Term Suspension Rates 1989-90 p e 1.50% +---------------------.-------------- ,, C 1.25% -----------------/-. ___\"_ ' __________ e 1.00% ...._ ______________\" \"/_ ____' -_,,,,_ _________ n / '\"' t 0.75% --------------,-,,---------------- a 0.50% +-I-----..,.-.,-\"--.-------,------------------ e 0.25% ,----------s,-------,,,\"~-------------------- g 0.00% _\n__ ____________ __,_ ________ -+----- 30.00% 1 p e 25.00% 1 C 20.00% - e n 15.00% - a 10.00% 1 g e 5.00% - 0.00% Central Fair Hall McClellan Little Rock High Schools Exhibit III.3.3.8 Annual Drop Out Rate Comparisons: 1988-89 Central Fair Hall McCtelln Little Rock High Schools Parkview Parkview  Total U White  Black Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 64 Consistent school district practices would be predicted if there were an established policy, framework for decisions on suspension, and uniform drop-out processing. No diversification of services among high schools was found to attend to measured differences in the student body clientele, nor were consistencies noted among schools in methods for handling such problems. Such absence of predicted configurations in school district practices reflect the inconsistency of policy and practice in the Little Rock School District. Finding 3.4: Promotion-retention practices are inconsistent Staff in schools report applying the same criteria when making retention and promotion decisions. In a random sample of retention reports from six elementary schools, there is a marked difference across schools in the results of the application of the reported criteria. Exhibit Ill.3.4.1 shows the differences. Grade one was selected for analysis. The percent of students retained ranges from a low of 52% to a high of 52%, with an average retention rate in the six sample schools of 22%. p 60.00% T e 50.00% 1 r C 40.00% - e 30.00% n T 20.00% ! a 10.00% .!. g e 0.00% Exhibit III.3.4.1 Percentage of Grade One Students Retained - Six Sample Schools: Little Rock, 1990 52.00% n 22.00% 5.20% Low Mean High Retentions vary significantly from school, particularly in grade 1. In several selected elementary schools, the number of first grade students retained in 1989-90 was particularly disparate, indicating inconsistency. This discrepancy in retention prac\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":41,"next_page":42,"prev_page":40,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":480,"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}}]}}