{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_158","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), racial count","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":["1990-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), racial count"],"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/158"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["28 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n (: (?_,. 0 . 7 _\":l,-, -./ LITTLER OCKS CHOOOL ISTRICT 810 \\/EST MARKHASTMR ~U LITTLI: ROCK, AR~ANSAS OCTOBE1R ENROLLMEtnNMT P~DIS0N 1QAQ-Q0/1Q~0-91 WHITE Rl.ti.\u0026lt;:K 0THl:R TnTAL %RLACK SF.NIORH IGH: 10/2/89 ?.461 V/\n4 77 t:\n802 'i6 1 0/1 /90 2201 1174 90 54/\n'i 58 ]Nr,qr:ASl:(nECR~ASE) {?.60) {90) 13 D37) % (10.1\n%) {2.8%) 16.9% (5.8%) ,lllN! OR HTG H: 10/2/89 1951 3917 90 5978 ljfj 10,1 /9() 1878 40?.5 fl 1 i:\n91v1 Fi 7 INCREASE(OECREASE(n) ) RA ( g) Fi % (1. 7o/,) ?. . ?.% ( 1 0%) . 1 % ELEMENTARY: 10/?./139 ~-579 9489 1?7 1.1.1, 95 f,,7 1( )/1 /90 1174n 91\\1 5 1f i 1 1~,:116 '~6 JNCREASE(nf:1.REASE) 161 { 54) lit 141 % ,, 1. So/, (. 6%) ?.S. 7% 1% I) J STR.r r .T TnTA L: 10/?/89 8991 16,f\nQ() ?.Q4 25,975 611 10/1/90 8819 16,fj14 1V ?5,78S ljil. TN1.R~ASE(l)f:\u0026lt;:Rl:AS(F 1.)7 2 ) ( Sfi) 38 ( 19n l % ( 1. 9%) ( .1%) 1?.Q% (. 7%) I( 1 M'1J:Qr,ARFN: 1rJ/?/R9 fi?.9 Pfi.1. 1 lj 19()\u0026lt;) f'ifj 10/1 /9() 68? 1?,nn 22 190ll fi 3 INCREASE{nECREASE) 51 (G4) 6 ( 5) % 8. I\\% {s.n1,J 17.5% {.2fi%) SUMMAORYF OCTOBl:1R , 1990 rnqOI_LMF]JT GRAf1E WHITE BLACK OTHER* TOTAL %BLACK K 68? 1200 2?. 1904 63% 7?.7 1461 32 2220 56% 2 667 1285 20 1972 6S% 3 656 1 ?.82 ?. ?. 1960 65% 4 705 1411 26 214?. 66% 5 6n7 1379 1 S 2061 67% 6 596 1310 24 1930 68% IJNGR 40 107 0 147 70% TOTALE LEM. 4 74() 9435 161 14,336 66% 7 611 1391 21 20n 69% 8 637 1367 ?.4 2028 67% 9 599 1203 35 1837 63% IINGR :l 1 64 96 67% TOT. JR HIGH 1878 4-025 81 5984 67% 10 708 113 7 34 1879 61% 11 745 1024 31 18()() 57% 12 734 994 ?.5 1753 57% lJNGR 14 19 0 33 58% TOT. SR HIGH 2?01 3174 90 5465 58~{ TOTAL: 8819 16,634 33?. ?.S,785 6S% SPl:C SCHOOLS 49 ?. ?. 0 71 31% DIST TOTALS 8868 16,656 33?. ?.'i,856 64% *SUMMAORFY S TUnENTUS STrn !N \"OTHl:R\"C ATEGOP.Y: SPANISH - 91 ASIAN/PACIFICIS LANf1ER- 215 ESKIMO/AMERICIANND IAN - 24 OTHER 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER ENROLLMENT SURVEY Oct 1, 1990 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK CENTRAL UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 202 320 13 535 59.81% 11 180 292 9 481 60.71% 12 235 316 13 564 56.03% SUBTOTAL 617 928 35 1580 58.73% KIND. 0 49 0 49 100.00% TOTAL 617 977 35 1629 59.98% FAIR UNGRADED 8 12 0 20 60.00% 10 104 192 3 299 64.21% 11 134 170 4 308 55.19% 12 107 130 2 239 54.39% SUBTOTAL 353 504 9 866 58.20% KIND. 2 11 0 13 84.62% TOTAL 355 515 9 879 58.59% HALL UNGRADED 6 7 0 13 53.85% 10 150 236 7 393 60.05% 11 185 208 6 399 52.13% 12 161 243 3 407 59.71% SUBTOTAL 502 694 16 1212 57.26% KIND. 10 9 0 19 47.37% TOTAL 512 703 16 1231 57.11% MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 132 230 7 369 62.33% 11 127 214 2 343 62.39% 12 120 169 2 291 58.08% SUBTOTAL 379 613 11 1003 61.12% KIND. 3 17 0 20 85.00% TOTAL 382 630 11 1023 61. 58% PARKVIEW UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 120 159 4 283 56.18% 11 119 140 10 269 52.04% 12 111 136 5 252 53.97% SUBTOTAL 350 435 19 804 54.10% KIND. 0 12 0 12 100.00% TOTAL 350 447 19 816 54.78% Page - 1 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK CLOVERDALE UNGRADED 14 40 1 55 72.73% 7 59 180 1 240 75.00% 8 78 168 2 248 67.74% 9 73 147 1 221 66.52% TOTAL 224 535 5 764 70.03% DUNBAR UNGRADED 7 125 159 3 287 55.40% 8 54 143 0 197 72.59% 9 57 121 1 179 67.60% TOTAL 236 423 4 663 63.80% FOREST HEIGHTS UNGRADED 7 8 0 15 53.33% 7 62 156 7 225 69.33% 8 71 188 3 262 71. 76% 9 84 178 8 270 65.93% TOTAL 224 530 18 772 68.65% HENDERSON UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 7 55 240 5 300 80.00% 8 67 218 6 291 74.91% 9 89 214 8 311 68.81% TOTAL 211 672 19 902 74.50% MABELVALE UNGRADED 10 16 0 26 61.54% 7 63 141 0 204 69.12% 8 74 149 1 224 66.52% 9 67 98 1 166 59.04% TOTAL 214 404 2 620 65.16% MANN UNGRADED 7 107 195 4 306 63.73% 8 135 167 5 307 54.40% 9 114 153 6 273 56.04% TOTAL 356 515 15 886 58.13% PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 7 80 153 1 234 65.38% 8 104 148 2 254 58.27% 9 78 153 3 234 65.38% TOTAL 262 454 6 722 62.88% Page - 2 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SOUTHWEST UNGRADED 0 0 0 0.00% 7 60 167 0 227 73.57% 8 54 186 5 245 75.92% 9 37 139 7 183 75.96% TOTAL 151 492 12 655 75.11% BADGETT UNGRADED 1 3 0 4 75.00% 1 6 18 0 24 75.00% 2 4 27 0 31 87.10% 3 8 32 0 40 80.00% 4 10 39 0 49 79.59% 5 11 17 0 28 60.71% 6 5 21 0 26 80.77% SUBTOTAL 45 157 0 202 77.72% KIND. 11 9 0 20 45.00% TOTAL 56 166 0 222 74.77% BALE UNGRADED 3 4 0 7 57.14% 1 10 50 0 60 83.33% 2 10 38 0 48 79.17% 3 7 49 1 57 85.96% 4 10 46 4 60 76.67% 5 14 41 0 55 74.55% 6 4 43 1 48 89.58% SUBTOTAL 58 271 6 335 80.90% KIND. 8 31 1 40 77.50% TOTAL 66 302 7 375 80.53% BASELINE UNGRADED 1 13 50 1 64 78.13% 2 14 47 2 63 74.60% 3 10 40 2 52 76.92% 4 7 39 0 46 84.78% 5 14 30 0 44 68.18% 6 14 28 0 42 66.67% SUBTOTAL 72 234 5 311 75.24% KIND. 19 38 2 59 64.41% TOTAL 91 272 7 370 73.51% Page - 3 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK BOOKER UNGRADED 1 42 41 1 84 48.81% 2 33 50  4 87 57.47% 3 34 51 0 85 60.00% 4 40 51 2 93 54.84% 5 47 53 0 100 53.00% 6 34 56 0 90 62.22% SUBTOTAL 230 302 7 539 56.03% KIND. 30 44 1 75 58.67% TOTAL 260 346 8 614 56.35% BRADY UNGRADED 2 3 0 5 60.00% 1 19 52 l 72 72.22% 2 17 39 0 56 69.64% 3 18 48 1 67 71.64% 4 19 55 1 75 73.33% 5 19 52 0 7,1 73.24% 6 6 44 1 51 86.27% SUBTOTAL 100 293 4 397 73.80% KIND. 21 37 l 59 62.71% TOTAL 121 330 5 456 72.37% CARVER UNGRADED 1 31 37 1 69 53.62% 2 41 46 2 89 51. 69% 3 42 49 0 91 53.85% 4 45 53 1 99 53.54% 5 41 54 2 97 55.67% 6 44 53 2 99 53.54% SUBTOTAL 244 292 8 544 53.68% KIND. 23 35 1 59 59.32% TOTAL 267 327 9 603 54.23% CHICOT UNGRADED 11 8 0 19 42 .11% 1 31 70 1 102 68.63% 2 27 48 0 75 64.00% 3 19 43 0 62 69.35% 4 25 46 0 71 64.79% 5 21 46 1 68 67.65% 6 19 49 0 68 72.06% SUBTOTAL 153 310 2 465 66.67% KIND. 27 52 0 79 65.82% TOTAL 180 362 2 544 66.54% Page - 4 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK CLOVERDALE UNGRADED 1 15 35 0 50 70.00% 2 12 46 0 58 79.31% 3 19 41 0 60 68.33% 4 17 46 0 63 73.02% 5 11 52 1 64 81.25% 6 14 41 0 55 74.55% SUBTOTAL 88 261 1 350 74.57% KIND. 10 28 1 39 71.79% TOTAL 98 289 2 389 74.29% DODD UNGRADED 3 4 0 7 57.14% 1 22 21 1 44 47.73% 2 17 28 0 45 62.22% 3 15 27 0 42 64.29% 4 10 29 0 39 74.36% 5 28 25 1 54 46.30% 6 19 40 1 60 66.67% SUBTOTAL 114 174 3 291 i'll 59 .?Cl% KIND. 20 20 0 40 50.00% 134 194 3 331 58.61% FAIR PARK UNGRADED 1 13 57 1 71 80.28% 2 9 41 0 50 82.00% 3 11 38 0 49 77.55% 4 10 39 0 49 79.59% 5 6 42 0 48 87.50% 6 6 32 0 38 84.21% SUBTOTAL 55 249 1 305 81.64% KIND. 10 30 0 40 75.00% TOTAL 65 279 1 345 80.87% FOREST PARK UNGRADED 1 29 19 1 49 38.78% 2 23 26 0 49 53.06% 3 30 37 1 68 54.41% 4 21 35 0 56 62.50% 5 19 33 0 52 63.46% 6 22 29 2 53 54.72% SUBTOTAL 144 179 4 327 54.74% KIND. 33 26 1 60 43.33% TOTAL 177 205 5 387 52.97% Page - 5 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK FRANKLIN UNGRADED 1 3 0 4 75.00% 1 6 64 1 71 90.14% 2 5 53 0 58 91.38% 3 7 33 3 43 76.74% 4 10 46 3 59 77.97% 5 8 53 1 62 85.48% 6 11 42 1 54 77.78% SUBTOTAL 48 294 9 351 83.76% KIND. 11 49 0 60 81.67% TOTAL 59 343 9 411 83.45% FULBRIGHT UNGRADED 5 4 0 9 44.44% 1 32 49 3 84 58.33% 2 44 30 0 74 40.54% 3 34 54 0 88 61. 36% 4 38 42 3 83 50.60% 5 40 41 1 82 50.00% 6 35 45 0 8'0 56.25% SUBTOTAL 228 265 7 500 53.00% KIND. 31 28 0 59 47.46% TOTAL 259 293 7 559 52.42% GARLAND UNGRADED 0 14 0 14 100.00% 1 6 19 2 27 70.37% 2 2 23 2 27 85.19% 3 2 27 2 31 87.10% 4 1 37 1 39 94.87% 5 0 40 2 42 95.24% 6 3 35 2 40 87.50% SUBTOTAL 14 195 11 220 88.64% KIND. 4 16 0 20 80.00% TOTAL 18 211 11 240 87.92% GEYER SPRINGS UNGRADED 1 7 14 0 21 66.67% 2 7 17 0 24 70.83% 3 8 13 0 21 61.90% 4 13 24 0 37 64.86% 5 4 37 0 41 90.24% 6 6 16 0 22 72.73% SUBTOTAL 45 121 0 166 72.89% KIND. 11 24 0 35 68.57% TOTAL 56 145 0 201 72.14% Page - 6 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK GIBBS UNGRADED 1 20 26 1 47 55.32% 2 18 26 1 45 57.78% 3 16 26 3 45 57.78% 4 28 35 1 64 54.69% 5 24 26 0 50 52.00% 6 20 23 0 43 53.49% SUBTOTAL 126 162 6 294 55.10% KIND. 14 25 0 39 64.10% TOTAL 140 187 6 333 56.16% ISH UNGRADED 0 6 0 6 100.00% 1 2 33 0 35 94.29% 2 0 18 0 18 100.00% 3 0 17 0 17 100.00% 4 2 26 0 28 92.86% 5 0 11 0 11 100.00% 6 0 15 0 1'5 100.00% SUBTOTAL 4 126 0 130 96.92% KIND. 0 16 0 16 100.00% TOTAL 4 142 0 146 97.26% JEFFERSON UNGRADED 3 6 0 9 66.67% 1 30 34 3 67 50,75% 2 33 33 0 66 50.00% 3 33 33 1 67 49.25% 4 38 36 1 75 48.00% 5 30 36 0 66 54.55% 6 26 33 1 60 55.00% SUBTOTAL 193 211 6 410 51.46% KIND, 32 26 1 59 44.07% TOTAL 225 237 7 469 50.53% MABELVALE UNGRADED 2 3 0 5 60.00% 1 37 62 0 99 62.63% 2 35 39 1 75 52.00% 3 44 29 0 73 39.73% 4 35 47 0 82 57.32% 5 23 57 1 81 70.37% 6 31 53 0 84 63.10% SUBTOTAL 207 290 2 499 58.12% KIND. 28 31 1 60 51. 67% TOTAL 235 321 3 559 57.42% Page - 7 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK MCDERMOTT UNGRADED 0 2 0 2 1()0.00 % 1 24 46 2 72 63.89% 2 33 41 1 75 54.67% 3 20 60 1 81 74.07% 4 37 46 0 83 55.42% 5 22 53 0 75 70.67% 6 27 49 0 76 64.47% SUBTOTAL 163 297 4 46\n1 6i.l. 0() % KIND. 30 26 4 60 43.33% TOTAL 193 32 3 8 524, 61. f,t'I. % MEADOWCLIFF UNGRADED 1 24 47 0 71 66.20% 2 19 49 0 68 72.06% 3 23 37 1 61 60.66% 4 27 48 1 76 63.16% 5 17 39 0 56 69.64% 6 18 33 1 5'2 63.46% SUBTOTAL 128 253 3 384 65.89% KIND. 26 34 0 60 56.67% TOTAL 154 287 3 444 64.64% MITCHELL UNGRADED 0 7 0 7 100.00% 1 9 29 0 38 76.32% 2 2 27 0 29 93.10% 3 2 24 0 26 92.31% 4 3 18 0 21 85. 71% 5 3 29 0 32 90.63% 6 1 18 0 19 94.74% SUBTOTAL 20 152 0 172 88.37% KIND. 4 31 0 35 88.57% TOTAL 24 183 0 207 88.41% OTTER CREEK UNGRADED 1 26 24 0 50 48.00% 2 27 23 0 50 46.00% 3 26 23 0 49 46.94% 4 20 29 0 49 59.18% 5 26 27 0 53 50.94% 6 28 23 0 51 45.10% SUBTOTAL 153 149 0 302 49.34% KIND. 26 31 0 57 54.39% TOTAL 179 180 0 359 50.14% Page - 8 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED 1 22 27 1 50 54.00% 2 17 29 0 46 63.04% 3 17 29 1 47 61.70% 4 8 33 1 42 78.57% 5 11 30 0 41 73.17% 6 8 32 1 41 78.05% SUBTOTAL 83 180 4 267 67.42% KIND. 25 31 2 58 53.45% TOTAL 108 211 6 325 64.92% RIGHTS ELL UNGRADED 1 0 35 0 35 100.00% 2 0 33 1 34 97.06% 3 0 27 0 27 100.00% 4 0 27 0 27 100.00% 5 0 21 0 21 100.00% 6 0 18 0 18 100.00% SUBTOTAL 0 161 1 162 99.38% KIND. 1 30 0 31 96.77% TOTAL 1 191 1 193 98.96% ROCKEFELLER UNGRADED 1 22 34 3 59 57.63% 2 5 24 1 30 80.00% 3 3 27 0 30 90.00% 4 6 27 1 34 79. 41% 5 7 26 0 33 78.79% 6 2 24 0 26 92.31% SUBTOTAL 45 162 5 212 76.42% KIND. 26 33 0 59 55.93% TOTAL 71 195 5 271 71.96% ROMINE UNGRADED 2 10 0 12 83.33% 1 10 59 0 69 85.51% 2 9 44 0 53 83.02% 3 11 40 0 51 78.43% 4 10 37 0 47 78.72% 5 8 36 2 46 78.26% 6 7 52 1 60 86.67% SUBTOTAL 57 278 3 338 82.25% KIND. 9 45 0 54 83.33% TOTAL 66 323 3 392 82.40% Page - 9 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK STEPHENS UNGRADED 0 7 0 7 100.00% 1 0 35 0 35 100.00% 2 1 22 0 23 95.65% 3 2 19 0 21 90.48% 4 1 32 0 33 96.97% 5 2 30 0 32 93.75% 6 2 17 0 19 89.47% SUBTOTAL 8 162 0 170 95.29% KIND. 4 28 0 32 87.50% TOTAL 12 190 0 202 94.06% TERRY UNGRADED 1 34 40 1 75 53.33% 2 30 38 1 69 55.07% 3 30 41 1 72 56.94% 4 38 45 1 84 53.57% 5 36 45 0 81 55.56% 6 27 54 0 81 66.67% SUBTOTAL 195 263 4 462 56.93% KIND. 32 26 2 60 43.33% TOTAL 227 289 6 522 55.36% WAKEFIELD UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 29 43 2 74 58.11% 2 26 39 1 66 59.09% 3 23 42 1 66 63.64% 4 25 55 1 81 67.90% 5 23 53 2 78 67.95% 6 22 56 0 78 71. 79% SUBTOTAL 148 288 7 443 65.01% KIND. 21 38 0 59 64. 41% TOTAL 169 326 7 502 64.94% WASHINGTON UNGRADED 2 7 0 9 77.78% 1 45 117 2 164 71.34% 2 46 65 2 113 57.52% 3 58 57 0 115 49.57% 4 36 57 1 94 60.64% 5 44 51 0 95 53.68% 6 43 35 3 81 43.21% SUBTOTAL 274 389 8 671 57.97% KIND. 39 49 3 91 53.85% TOTAL 313 438 11 762 57.48% Page - 10 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK WATSON UNGRADED 1 20 53 0 73 72.60% 2 32 39 1 72 54.17% 3 18 50 0 68 73.53% 4 26 53 1 80 66.25% 5 25 57 1 83 68.67% 6 27 55 0 82 67.07% SUBTOAL 148 307 3 458 67.03% KIND. 20 40 0 60 66.67% TOTAL 168 347 3 518 66.99% WESTERN HILLS UNGRADED 1 18 31 1 50 62.00% 2 18 32 0 50 64.00% 3 16 29 1 46 63.04% 4 26 24 0 50 48.00% 5 22 31 0 53 58.49% 6 14 38 1 53 71. 70% SUBTOTAL 114 185 3 302 61. 26% KIND. 17 19 1 37 51.35% TOTAL 131 204 4 339 60.18% WILLIAMS UNGRADED 1 30 38 2 70 54.29% 2 32 37 0 69 53.62% 3 31 38 1 70 54.29% 4 44 49 1 94 52.13% 5 30 45 0 75 60.00% 6 25 41 2 68 60.29% SUBTOTAL 192 248 6 446 55.61% KIND. 26 33 0 59 55.93% TOTAL 218 281 6 505 55.64% WILSON UNGRADED 5 16 0 21 76.19% 1 33 41 0 74 55.41% 2 14 51 0 65 78.46% 3 14 37 0 51 72.55% 4 12 42 0 54 77.78% 5 14 40 0 54 74.07% 6 17 36 2 55 65.45% SUBTOTAL 109 263 2 374 70.32% KIND. 9 35 0 44 79.55% TOTAL 118 298 2 418 71. 29% Page - 11  SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK WOODRUFF UNGRADED 1 10 11 0 21 52.38% 2 5 17 0 22 77.27% 3 5 15 1 21 71.43% 4 7 18 1 2G c,9. .:n 5 17 20 0 37 54.05% 6 9 31 2 42 73.81% SUBTOTAL 53 112 4 169 66.27% KIND. 9 8 0 17 47.06% TOTAL 62 120 4 186 64.52% EASTER SEALS UNGRADED 14 4 0 18 22.22% TOTAL 14 4 0 18 22.22% ELIZ. MITCHELL UNGRADED 30 13 0 43 30.23% TOTAL 30 13 0 43 30.23% E. MITCHELL(DAY) UNGRADED 5 5 0 10 50.00% TOTAL 5 5 0 10 50.00% Page - 12 (\\J a.. Cl'. a: Q'. _J ..... CJ) ~ I.O IS) u w Cl PCSSD -  10-1-90 ENROl.LMENT REPORT (Iev. 10/15/90} I tn II'!' BI..ACK HISP.1\\NIC .'\\SI/1,N/POC -ISJ,_ JIN TNn ,r.~1rno1l lroiCXX. IIOYS GI.Rf.::\nnnvc ~Tor c:, BOYS ~UJI\u0026lt;: lOYS GIRLS nr\u0026gt;YS GIRLS 'l'O'l'AT Adkins 107 119 69 61 l 2 1 360 B/,.,/2, Arnn 1 ti nr i..r4\u0026gt; 187 151 38 27 3 l 3 l 411 /r.-.7ll 98 107 40 46 291 ~0% 205 134 166 , 125 2 6 638 \"4(_,, 7a :,q7 284 10 4 1 596 .-..2. o/a r.::.t-n 251 247 RR f.R 1 . 655 .,,\n:\n,/('.) 96 75 'io.4 \"i.l 2 1 279 __2:~ 157 155 4') 44 2 2 8 4 414 .-:./ Fuller Elem. 156 90 l i:\n4 160 560 -~:,-\nHarris 225 188 qc\n105 l 1. 1 616 ,,._\n)..., !-\"J'--..\n.v..\n.\nl1l_ e\n...:\nE~llf'!lll=~-..iu-,n,-L-7'---.c..?..1.t\n~Q,.,_..._l.._l..__1-+-'l'--l=+--9- ..\n:2\n_.,_.,._...\n5\n..__..,_..\n:f\u0026gt;\n.._-+-..:b\n.._.-+----4---l---8!\"-1~7.!...-'--'_.,.z:+:).S-:.-_ I Lancbmrk 162 144 1 u-. 130 Cf,\nf, ~r- Lawson l'i3 139 1.'io 18 345 J./:\n_ Oak Grove El. 266 22 7 \"l9 40 l 573 /- OakbrCX\u0026gt;ke 282 238 67 72 659 ..:1/ Pine Forest 291 288 40 57 1 677 14 Pinewood 725 222 74 95 1 1 l ~ 1 q ~7 Robinson Elem. 170 165 60 37 1 433 ~ . I Scott 75 61 38 33 ~07 .-Kf Shen.ood 169 170 51 58 448 ..::.'\n-1 S. Hills Elem. \"lf\u0026gt; l \"ll\\R 7fi 4Q 4 l l .l 1 802 //- Taylor 17\"l ,~.... '\u0026gt;4 71 1 468 A~ Tolleson 22 6 200 1.4 6'.\u0026gt; 3 3 5 3 566 ..::J~ 'IUl'AL EUN. 4 i\n1q 4 1.15 l iifl2 l. 532 16 15 30 27 3 l 12 000 ,~G- ~ I l I f\\tl..ler Jr. I J'ville North 297 .I J'ville South 717 1 J 'ville Hiah 414 ! Mil'ls 203 North Pulaski 328 Northwood 403 Oak Grove Hiat 429 ~- Jr. Hiah 174 Rob. Sr. High 195 S.Hills Jr. 365 c:: \u0026amp;HIie, 1-li.nh. 1f'i.A I 'IOTAL \"\\ 617 199' 242 203 403 180 306 339 372 179 161 355 \"l.Ti 3.312 204 89 86 135 164 89 105 114 64 64 130 110 1.354 200 92 70 148 136 65 86 109 51 46 97 10:\n,_ 1.202 4 3 2 2 1 1 3 5 7 12 l 1 4 3 2 1 1 4 2 T 19 16 25 1 1 l 5 . 22 2 1 3 3 1 l 43 4 2 2 .i , 837 n.n 1.150 685 ....:J./2/ 940 l 027 468 466 ~,- 'IOT--Af.-O-TS'l'-.-+-8-2_5_6..J-.-7_4_4_7-1-2-.-9-5-6--L2-.-7-3_4.J__3_5_.J.___3 _1_ J__5_5_-1---7-0-J-~7-4---6-t::2:-:l-.-:5-::-9-=17 c,2C.ib I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas RACIAL COMPOSITION OF SCHOOLS October 1, 1990 School Enrollment Black % Non-Black % Amboy 407 179 44.0 228 56.0 Argenta 236 157 66.5 79 33.5 Baring Cross 17 8 47.1 9 52.9 Belwood 168 61 36.3 107 6 3. 7 Boone Park 489 294 60.1 195 39.9 Crestwood 223 80 35.9 143 64.l Glenview 244 138 56.6 106 43.4 Indian Hills 442 158 35.7 284 64.3 Lakewood 242 96 39.7 146 60.3 Lynch Drive 261 118 45.2 143 54.8 Meadow Park 295 150 50.8 145 49.2 North Heights 443 217 49.0 226 51.0 Park Hill 210 94 44.8 116 55.2 Pike View 4 36 206 47.2 230 52.8 Pine 182 102 56.0 80 44.0 Redwood 265 162 61. l 103 38.9 Rose City 215 111 51.6 104 48.4 Seventh Stre~et 354 194 54.8 160 45.2 Total Elem. 5,129 2,525 49.2% 2,604 50.8% (Including Kindergarten) NLRHS-East 1,372 605 44.1 767 55.9 NLRHS-West 1,180 443 37.5 737 62.5 Lakewood Jr. 567 247 4 3. 6 320 56.4 Ridgeroad Jr. 523 231 44.2 292 55.8 Rose City Jr. 394 207 52.5 187 47.5 Baring Cross 29 21 72. 4 8 27.6 Total Sec. 4,065 1,754 43.1% 2 I 311 56.9% DISTRICT: 9,194 4,279 46.5% 4,915 53.5% School Amboy Argenta Baring Cross Belwood Boone Park Crestwood Glenview Indian Hills Lakewood Lynch Drive Meadow Park North Heights Park Hill Pike View Pine Redwood NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas RACIAL COMPOSITION OF SCHOOLS October 1, 19 90 Enrollment 337 186 Black % 163 48.4 112 60.2 7 43.8 56 38. 6 235 61.2 75 38 . 1 121 55.3 145 38.3 95 43.8 109 46.8 12a so.a 196 52.4 Rose City Seventh Street 16 145 384 197 219 379 217 233 256 374 1 79 380 152 210 180 29 7 88 49.2 187 49.2 77 50.7 114 54.3 97 53.9 140 47.1 Total Elem. 4,341 * (Excluding Kindergarten) NLRHS-East NLRHS-West Lakewood Jr. Ridgeroad Jr. Rose City Jr. Baring Cross Total Sec. DISTRICT: 1,372 1,180 567 523 394 29 4,065 8,406 2,145 49.4% 605 44.1 443 37.5 247 43.6 231 44.2 207 52.5 21 72.4 1,754 43.1% 3,899 46.4% Non-Black % 174 51.6 74 39.8 9 56. 3 89 61.4 149 38.8 122 61.9 98 44.7 234 61.7 122 56.2 124 53.2 128 50.0 1 78 4 7. 6 91 so.a 193 50.8 75 49.3 96 45.7 83 46.1 157 52.9 2,196 50.6% 767 55.9 737 62.5 320 56.4 292 55.8 187 47.5 8 27.6 2,311 56.9% 4,507 53.6% *In conformance with the NLRSD's court approved student assignment plan, kindergarten students are not bused for racial balance purposes and are excluded in determining a school's compliance with racial balance guidelines.\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_1131","title":"Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services"],"dc_date":["1990-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","Arkansas State University","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1131"],"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":["151 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n(])ulaski CountH Dnterdistrict ~agnet Schools evaluation 1991-1992 ARKA.NSAS STATE UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Prepared for The Magnet Review Committee Conducted by Educational Research \u0026amp; services Arkansas State University August l, 1992 Project Staff A~- ~ /~So ~~,,, A,e Gerald B. Dickinson, Director Consultant/Authors Mitch Holifield Don Wright Consultants Dianne Prince Kent Layton Ron Towery Jane Gates Virginia Rhodes, Production Manager Graduate Assistants Barbara McFarland Dennis Martin Becky Gibson ,. AC:DlOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the help and cooperation of Ms. Donna Grady-Creer, her office staff, the Magnet Review committee, and all the staff and administration at the magnet schools. The evaluation project was made easier by the honest, forthright and candid responses from district faculty and staff. The Magnet Review Committee is courageous efforts in providing the County the best possible education. continued support. to be commended on their children of Pulaski I encourage their A great debt is owed my respected colleagues for their professional work and dedication to the project. Finally, a huge \"thanks\" to my office staff and research assistants without whom this evaluation project could not have been completed. Gerald Dickinson, Project Director TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section I. Student and Staff Movement......................... 3 Section II. Mimimum Performance Testing ........................ 19 Metropolitan Achievement Testing ................... 44 American College Testing ........................... 102 Section III. Desegregation ...................................... 103 Section IV. Summative Evaluation ............................... 142 PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION July 16, 1992 Evaluation Report Format This evaluation report is designed to provide a logical and sequential accounting of project objectives, assessment activities and evaluation reports. A formative evaluation for each objective is provided in separate sections to facilitate a measure of success in achievement or completion of each of the expected outcomes. Section titles correspond to Expected outcomes as identified in the evaluation proposal. The fourth section has been designed for summative evaluation. 1. student and Staff Movement -- To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding student\\staff movement during the past year: a. What staffing patterns are evident regarding teacher movement in the magnet schools? b. What type of student is on the waiting list for assignment to a magnet school i.e., race, sex, grade, magnet theme? 2. Student Achievement -- To obtain 1991 standardized scale scores for the following tests for the appropriate grade groups: a. Minimum Performance Test (MPT) Grades 3-6-8 b. Metropolitan Achievement Test, 6th edition (MAT 6) Grades 4-7-10 c. American College Test (ACT) Grade 12 3. Desegregation -- To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the \"desegregation\" goal of the project. a. What is the social interaction between and within the disaggregated groups by race, sex, and socio-economic status? Additional variables of solidarity and isolation will be studied for students, staff and parents. b. Are there evidences of stereotyping by students, i.e., graffiti and name calling? 1 c. What are the reflections of the academic and professional interactions between the building administrators and the teaching staff during staff meetings, between teachers and students during class interactions, and between the building administrative staff, teachers, and students during school related activities? 4. Analysis and Interpretation -- To utilize appropriate evaluation techniques and strategies in the analysis of data and correct interpretation of results. This section pertains to procedure and is relevant to other sections. There is no evaluation component that corresponds to this section since it is relevant to the other evaluation components. 5. Summative Evaluation -- Each section of the evaluation (sections 1-3) is formative in that it becomes a part of the summative evaluation (section 4). The Sununative Evaluation section will draw together data from each of the component sections to generalize conclusions and convey statements about the magnet school program as a whole. 2 SECTION I Student and Staff Movement PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: student and staff Movement BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in Expected Outcomes, Number 1, (A and B), listed below. To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding student\\staff movement during the past year: A. What staffing patterns are evident regarding teacher movement in the magnet schools? B. What type of student is on the waiting list for assignment to a magnet school i.e., race, sex, grade, magnet theme? The personnel function of any organization must support the overall strategy of the organization. Human resource planning is an integral part of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program. The functions of the staffing component of the magnet plan are carried out by the Little Rock School District Office of Personnel. Magnet school enrollment is allocated among the three participating districts, Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special, by percentage of total enrollment in each district. The enrollment percentage allotments by district are as follows: Little Rock: North Little Rock: Pulaski County Special: 43% 42% 15% 42% 43% (Elementary) (Secondary) (a maximum of 100 students may attend Parkview) (Elementary) (Secondary) A \"shadow area\" is designated surrounding each school, from which 20% of Little Rock's enrollment allocation comes. Also, 50% of the total magnet school enrollment must be black and 50% non-black. 3 METHODOLOGY The evaluator visited LRSD Personnel Office to determine the staffing procedures and to gather data relative to staff turnover and other pertinent data. Following proper communications, data were received from the LRSD regarding students waiting to enter the interdistrict magnet schools. Data were also provided regarding total enrollments in each participating district, and disaggregation of total enrollment numbers by grade. FINDINGS staffing The staff of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools are employees of the Little Rock School District. Recommendations for filling vacancies are made by each building principal and his site committee. The personnel office is responsible for contracting magnet school staff, subject to approval of the Magnet Review Committee. The office is run by a Director of Personnel for the Little Rock School District. Office staff are aware of and sensitive to major laws affecting hiring practices including Equal Employment Opportunity, Affirmative Action Programs and others. Office personnel reported that there was very little turnover in magnet school staff. Recruitment efforts were minimal because of internal personnel available for any vacancies. Additional information relative to staff movement may be provided in an addendum when data are provided to the evaluator. Student Movement Data relative to student movement was gathered by investigating student waiting lists for all magnet schools and the three Pulaski county districts. The waiting list data received were disaggregated by district, magnet theme desired and race. The data were not disaggregated by sex or by grade. Tables 1-12 and Graphs 1-11 following reflect the data provided to the evaluator. Table 1 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Booker Elementary School. 4 District TABLE l students Waiting Assignment Booker Elementary School # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 38 18 Little Rock 468 101 Pulaski County 30 12 # Waiting Total 56 569 42 Graph 1 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Booker Elementary School. Graph l Booker Elementary School students Waiting Assignment Nunoer aoo,--------------------, 7001------------------------i Graph 1 Nortn Little Rock 56Q Little Rock School District Pulaski Col.ntY - Sieck a Wnite O Total Table 2 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to carver Elementary School. 5 District TABLE 2 Students Waiting Assignment Carver Elementary School # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 47 39 Little Rock 413 168 Pulaski County 8 28 # Waiting Total 86 581 36 Graph 2 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Carver Elementary Magnet School. Graph 2 carver Elementary School Students Waiting Assignment Nuncer aoo~-------------------, 700~--------------------i 581 8 Nortn L1ttte Roel\u0026lt; Littte Roel\u0026lt; Pulaski C:O..,ty  School District  8lacl\u0026lt; ~ Wnite D Total Graph 2 Table 3 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Gibbs Elementary School. 6 District TABLE 3 Students Waiting Assignment Gibbs Elementary School # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 5 2 Little Rock 479 103 Pulaski County 7 3 # Waiting Total 7 582 10 Graph J below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Gibbs Elementary School. Graph 3 Gibbs Elementary School students Waiting Assignment No.mtier aoo..------------------ 1001------------------- 001-------- 3001-------- 2001-------- 1001-----5--2 ~ 7~ oL.....c.=z:=::.=:z.....- Norin L,111e Roel\u0026lt; l.Jttle Floek - School District PuJaak1 County - Black a wn,,e D Total Graph 3 Table 4 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Williams Elementary School. 7 District TABLE 4 students Waiting Assignment Williams Elementary School # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 8 4 Little Rock 473 321 Pulaski County 4 12 # Waiting Total 12 794 16 Graph 4 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Williams Elementary School. Graph 4 Williams Elementary School Students Waiting Assignment 794 Number aoo,-----------,~~--------, 700-----------,1----++-----------, eoo--- - ----- --,1---1-r-----------, 400---- --- 300------- 200 f----- - - - 100 Nortn Li ttle Rock 473 Lit tle ~OCk - School District Pulaski County  Black l.\\\\\\\\'i1 wnite O Total Graph 4 Table 5 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Horace Mann Junior High School's Arts magnet theme. 8 TABLE 5 Students Waiting Assignment Horace Mann Junior High School--Arts I Waiting # Waiting District Black White North Little Rock 12 0 Little Rock 464 211 Pulaski County 14 7 I Waiting Total 12 675 21 Graph 5 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Mann Junior High School - Arts. Graphs Horace Mann Junior High School--Arts students Waiting Assignment NLmOer aoo~-------------------. 00\u0026gt;--------- 300\u0026gt;--------- 200------- 100 r----,.,.-------,--0---,r-- !!75 Nortn l.1ttle RoCk Little Rock Pulaakl County SchOol District - BleCk m Wnite D Total Graph 5 Table 6 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Horace Mann Junior High School's Science magnet theme. 9 TABLE 6 Students Waiting Assignment Horace Mann Junior High School--Science I Waiting I Waiting District Black White North Little Rock 11 5 Little Rock 466 84 Pulaski county 11 34 I Waiting Total 16 550 45 Graph 6 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Horace Mann Junior High School - Science. Graph 6 Horace Mann Junior High School--Science Students Waiting Assignment Nt.moer 800 700 eoo 500 400 300 200 100 ~ 5 0 Nortrl Little Rock Uttle Rock Putaski C.OU,,ty -School District - Black a WP'l,te D Total Graph 6 Table 7 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Parkview High School's Arts magnet theme. 10 District TABLE 7 students Waiting Assignment Par.Jtview High School--Arts I Waiting # waiting Black White North Little Rock 15 6 Little Rock 581 131 Pulaski County 10 4 I Waiting Total 21 712 14 Graph 7 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Parkview High School's Arts magnet theme. 800 700 eoo 500 400 300 200 100 0 Graph 7 Parkview High School--Arts Students Waiting Assignment Nunber e Nor tr, L, ttle Rock Uttle Rock School District Pulaski County - Siad\u0026lt; ~ White  Total Graph 7 Table 8 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Parkview High School's Science magnet theme. 11 District TABLE 8 students Waiting Assignment Parkview High School--Science # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 1 0 Little Rock 337 32 Pulaski County 1 15 # Waiting Total l 369 16 Graph 8 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Parkview High School's Science magnet theme. Graph 8 Parkview High School--Science students Waiting Assignment NLmber eoo,--------------------, 1001---------------------1 eoo1---------------------1 5001---------------------1 300\u0026gt;-------- 200------,00---,-- 0-,-- o L....c.::::z::::::\n~z_- Little Roel\u0026lt; School District Pulaski County - Bleck !,\\\\\\\\II White CJ Total Graph 8 Table 9 on the following page presents the students in the North Little Rock District who have requested assignment to the interdistrict magnet schools. The numbers are disaggregated by school requested and by race. 12 TABLE 9 Students Waiting Assignment North Little Rock School District School # Waiting # Waiting Desired Black White Booker 38 18 carver 47 39 Gibbs 5 2 Williams 8 4 Mann-Arts 12 0 Mann-Science 11 5 Parkview-Arts 15 6 Parkview-Science 1 0 # Waiting Total 56 86 7 12 12 16 21 1 Graph 9 below depicts the waiting list numbers for the North Little Rock School District by school requested and by race . Graph 9 North Little Rock School District Students Waiting Assignment Number 100,....:....~-------------------, 901------------------- --1 aol-------------------1 70 1-------- - ----------- -1 eo----- ------ 50f---,.:_47~ --------------1 40~.,.-- 30 20 10 0 Graph 9 School Requested - Black B Wl'l11e 13 Table 10 below presents the students in the Little Rock School District who have requested assignment to the interdistrict magnet schools. The numbers are disaggregated by school requested and by race. School Desired Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann-Arts Mann-Science Parkview-Arts TABLE 10 students Waiting Assignment Little Rock School District # Waiting I Waiting Black White 468 101 413 168 479 103 473 321 464 211 466 84 581 131 Parkview-Science 337 32 # Waiting Total 569 581 582 794 675 550 712 369 Graph 10 below depicts the waiting list numbers for the Little Rock School District by magnet school requested and by race. Graph 10 Little Rock School District students Waiting Assignment NllT\\ber 581 600.-----------------,\n:::::::-----, Graph 10 School Requested - Black 9 White 14 Table 11 below presents the students in the Pulaski County Special School District who have requested assignment to the interdistrict magnet schools. The numbers are disaggregated by school requested and by race. TABLE 11 students waiting Assignment Pulaski County Special School District School # Waiting # Waiting # Desired Black White Booker 30 12 Carver 8 28 Gibbs 4 12 Williams 4 12 Mann-Arts 14 7 Mann-Science 11 34 Parkview-Arts 10 4 Parkview-Science 1 15 Waiting Total 42 36 16 16 21 45 14 16 Graph 11 below depicts waiting list numbers for the Pulaski county Special School District by magnet school requested and by race. Graph 11 Pulaski County Special School District Students Waiting Assignment Number ,oo------------------ g()t--------------------4 sot--------------------4 70~-------------------l eo---------------------------1 50t--- ------------- - ---4 40~------------a-L-.------l 301-,\ni--- 20 10 0 Graph 11 School Requested - Bleck ~ WMe 15 Enrollment figures for each school district for the 1991-1992 school year, excluding magnet school enrollments, are as follows: Little Rock: North Little Rock: Pulaski County Special: 25,962 9,029 20,501 Table 12 below presents the total number of students as well as the percentage of students in each district who are on magnet school waiting lists. TABLE 12 Total students Waiting Assignment By School District Total Students Percent of Non- District On Waiting List Magnet Students Little Rock 4832 18.6% No. Little Rock 211 2.3% Pulaski Co. 200 1.0% Almost 19% of Little Rock students who are not now in magnet schools are on waiting lists for those schools. In contrast, only 2.3% of North Little Rock students and 1% of Pulaski County students who are not now in magnet schools are on waiting lists for them. Enrollment information for each district was further disaggregated, with separate figures provided for elementary, junior high and high school enrollments. The enrollment figures are as follows: North Little Rock Elementary Junior High (7-8) Senior High (9-12) Little Rock Elementary Junior High Senior High 16 5167 1505 2357 14767 6062 5509 Pulaski County Elementary Junior High Senior High 11767 4732 4002 Table 13 below presents the percentage of students, by grade group, in each district who are on waiting lists for assignment to interdistrict magnet schools. TABLE 13 students Waiting Assignment By District and By Grade Group Total Students Percent of Non- District/Grade Group On Waiting List Magnet Students North Little Rock - Elementary 161 3.0% Junior High 28 1.8% Senior High 22 1.0% Little Rock - Elementary 2526 17.6% Junior High 1225 20.2% Senior High 1081 19.6% Pulaski County - Elementary 104 0.9% Junior High 66 1.4% Senior High 30 0.7% In the North Little Rock district, a higher percentage of elementary school students are requesting placement in magnet schools. In the Little Rock and Pulaski County districts, junior high students are requesting placement in magnet schools at higher percentage rates. 17 CONCLUSIONS * The magnet school staff consists of highly qualified and dedicated teachers and administrators. * There is very little movement (turnover) in magnet school staff. * All Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools have waiting lists including both black and white students. * All three school districts have students on the waiting lists for magnet schools. * The Little Rock School District has the highest percentage of enrollment on waiting lists for magnet schools. 18 SECTION II Student Achievement POLASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Standardized Testing Program BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in Expected outcomes, Number 2, (A and B), listed below. To obtain the standardized scale scores for the following tests for the appropriate grade groups and to analyze and assess magnet school student performance: A. Minimum Performance Test (MPT) Grades 3-6-8 (1991) B. Metropolitan Achievement Test, 6th edition (MAT 6) Grades 4-7-10 (1991) C. American College Test (ACT) - Grade 12 METHODOLOGY Following proper communications, data were received from the LRSD and the State Department of Education. Data were then subjected to both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses using the PC computer and statistical software package \"Statistics With Finesse.\" FINDINGS Minimum Performance Tests Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT) data were received from the Little Rock School District. Test data were disaggregated by school, grade, sex and race. The only scores provided for the MPT, administered in grades three, six and eight, were the percent passing. These data prohibited the evaluator from making statistical comparisons in that statistics are not accurate when using percentile scores. The MRC should use caution when comparing test data. Percent passing information disaggregated by school, grade, sex and race is presented in graphic form. A section is included for comparing magnet schools in grades three and six. For grade three, reading and math percentiles for students passing are presented. For grades six and eight, percentiles for students passing are presented for reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. According to Public Law 6-15-412, \"It is the policy of this state that at least eighty-five percent (85%) of the students in each school and school district at each grade level at which competency tests are administered should score at or 19 above the level of performance established for mastery of basic skills\". 'l'hroughout this document, this minimum Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) requirement is compared to magnet school percent pass results. Grade Three There were 30,990 total third-grade students state-wide that took the MPT in reading. Ninety-three percent {93.0%) received a passing score or higher on the reading subtest. The percent passing for the 1991 school year is one percent lower (94% compared with 93%) than the percent passing the previous year. State-wide, there were 471 schools {85.0% of the total schools) with eighty-five percent (85%) of their students passing. There were 30,990 total third-grade students state-wide that took the MPT in math. Ninety-two percent {92.2%) received a passing score or higher on the math subtest. State-wide there were 460 schools {83.0%) of the total schools) with eighty-five percent (85%) of their students passing. The percent passing for third-grade students in each of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools is compared to the percent passing for third-grade students state-wide. Tables are presented to show the percent passing for both the reading and the math subtests. Graphs are also provided for quick visual comparisons of how third graders at each magnet school performed in comparison with third graders state-wide for both the reading and the math subtests. A final comparison of percent passing for all magnet thirdgrade students is compared to the percent passing for all third-grade students state-wide. 20 Booker Elementary School r The passing rate for third-grade students at Booker Elementary was above the ADE required eighty-five percent (85%) passing rate. Eighty-two third-grade students were tested at Booker Elementary School. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the students (76 of 82) passed the MPT in reading. Ninety-one percent (91%, or 75 of 82) passed the MPT in math. Further disaggregation of the results by race and sex are presented in Table 1 on the following page. Table 1 Booker Elementary Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing By Race\\Sex students By Race\\Sex State: All Students Booker: All Students Black Males Black Females White Males White Females *Others N=82 Reading % Pass 93 93 89 90 100 95 Mathematics % Pass 92 91 78 94 100 95 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores were not reported by gender. The passing rate for all third-grade students at Booker was about the same as the passing rate for third-grade students state-wide. Black males and black females were below the state percentage passing when compared to all students statewide in reading. Only black males were below the state percentage passing for all students in math. Graph 1 reflects the percent passing for third-grade students at Booker Elementary compared to the percent passing for third-grade students state-wide on reading. Graph 2 shows the percent passing for math compared to the state-wide percent passing. State-wide data for percent passing were not disaggregated by race\\sex and the MRC should use caution when interpreting results of comparisons of magnet . scores to state-wide scores. See Graphs 1 and 2 on the following page. 21 Booker Percent Passing by Graph 1 Elementary Third Grade Reading Race\\Sex Compared to State Percent Passing N:82 Percent 120$ ,----------------------- 0% State All Stuoents 81 Male 81 Female w Maie w Female - Reading MPT Grae\u0026gt;n 1 Graph 2 Booker Elementary Third Grade Math Percent Passing by Race\\Sex Compared to state Percent Passing N:82 Percent 120$,----------------------- 100$ 100$ 80$ 60$ 20$ State All Stuoents 81 Male 81 Female W MMe w Fem.e  Marn MPT Graot\\ 2 22 carver Elementary School ~ The percent of students passing at Carver Elementary on both the reading and math subtests was above the eighty-five percent (85%) passing required by the ADE. Eighty-seven third-grade students at Carver took the MPT. Ninety-nine percent (99%, or 86 of 87) of Carver third graders passed the MPT in reading. Ninety-seven percent (97%, or 84 of 87) of the third-grade students passed the MPT in math. All sub-groups were above the state-wide percent passing in reading. All sub-groups except black females were above the state-wide percent passing in math. Black females at ninety percent (90%) were below the state percent passing in math but well above the eighty-five percent (85%) passing rate required by the ADE. MPT results disaggregated by race and sex are shown in Table 2 and Graphs 3 and 4 below. Table 2 carver Elementary Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing By Race\\sex Students By Race\\Sex state: All Students Carver: All Students Black Males Black Females White Males White Females *Others N=87 Reading % Pass 93 99 100 95 100 100 Mathematics % Pass 92 97 100 90 96 100 * Total of all students in-the \"Other\" race category. These scores were not reported by gender. Graphs 3 and 4 on the following page present a comparison of the percent of Carver Elementary third-grade students passing the MPT to the state-wide percent passing the MPT for reading and math. 23 Graph 3 carver Elementary Third Grade Reading Percent Passing DY Race\\Sex Compared to State Percent Passing N:87 Percent 120'llr----------------------, 40'11 20$ 0'l!. - A88\u0026lt;l1ng M?T Gnon ~ Graph 4 Carver Elementary Third Grade Math Percent Passing Dy Race\\Sex Compared to state Percent Passing N=87 Percent 120'11 100$ 100'11 100$ 80'l!. 60'11 40$ 20'l!. 0'l!. Stare All sruoenrs 81 ~ale 81 Female w ~ ... w Female -Marn MPT Graon 4 24 Gibbs Elementary School ,. Forty-two third-grade students at Gibbs Elementary took the MPT. Thirty-eight (90 percent) passed the reading sub-test and thirty-seven (88 percent) passed the math subtest. Table 3 below shows the percent passing for Gibbs Elementary third graders disaggregated by race and sex. Table 3 Gibbs Elementary Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing by Race\\Sex N=42 students Reading Mathematics By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass State: All Students 93 92 Gibbs: All students 90 88 Black Males 78 89 Black Females 86 71 White Males 100 100 White Females 100 100 *Others 100 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores were not reported by gender Graphs 5 and 6 on the following page reflect the comparisons of percent passing reading and math for third grade at Gibbs Elementary compared to the percent passing for third grade state-wide. Black males in reading and black females in math did not pass at the eighty-five percent (85%) level required by the ADE. Percent passing in reading at Gibbs Elementary third grade are compared to percent passing reading for all third graders state-wide in Graph 5. Graph 6 shows percent passing math at Gibbs Elementary compared to the percent passing math for all students state-wide. 25 Graph S Gibbs Elementary Third Grade Reading Percent Passing by Race\\Sex Compared to State Percent Passing N=42 Percenl 120'llr-----------------------, - Aeaa,ng MPT Graen 5 Graph 6 Gibbs Elementary Third Grade Math Percent Passing by Race\\Sex Compared to state Percent Passing N=42 Percen1 120'!1,----------------------- 100'!1 100'!1 100'!1 0'll State All Stuoenr 81 ~ale 91 Female w ~ w Femaie Othefs  Main MPT Graen 6 26 Williams Elementary School r Sixty-five third-grade students took the MPT test at Williams Elementary School. Ninety-four percent (94%) passed the reading subtest and the same percent of students (94%) passed the math subtest. Table 4 below shows the percent of Williams third-grade students passing the MPT compared to the percent of third-grade students passing state-wide. Results are disaggregated by race\\sex. Table 4 Williams Elementary Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing by Race\\Sex Students By Race\\Sex State: All Students Williams: All Students Black Males Black Females White Males White Females * Others N:65 Reading % Pass 93 94 94 89 100 94 100 Mathematics % Pass 92 94 88 94 100 94 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores are not reported by gender. The percent passing for third-grade students at Williams Elementary is higher than the percent passing for third-grade students state-wide. All groups, when disaggregated by race\\sex, had passing rates higher than the eighty-five percent (85%) level required by the ADE. Graphs 7 and 8 on the following page show the comparisons of percent passing for third-grade students at Williams Elementary to the percent passing for third-grade students state-wide for both the reading and the math MPT subtests. 27 Graph 7 Williams Elementary Third Grade Reading Percent Passing by Race\\Sex Compared to State Percent Passing N:65 Percenr 120'!/ir------------------------.. 100'6 100'!/i Stat All Student 81 Male 81 Fem.I W Male W Ftimale Otha - Reading MPT Graen 7 Graph 8 Williams Elementary Third Grade Math Percent Passing by Race\\Sex Compared to state Percent Passing N:65 Percenr 12Q'l/i,----------------------~ State .a.u Sruoenr Bl ~ale 81 Female w MIiie w Femat OtMrs  Marn M?T Graen 8 28 All Magnets -- Third Grade There were 276 magnet school third graders who took the MPT in reading and math. Ninety-five percent {94.5%, or 261 of 276) passed the MPT reading subtest, compared to the statewide percent passing of ninety-three percent (93.0%). Ninety-three percent (93.1%, or 257 of 276) magnet school third graders passed the MPT math subtest. The state-wide percent passing the math subtest was ninety-two percent (92.2%). Table 5 below shows the comparison of percent passing for all third-grade magnet school students to the percent passing for all third-grade students state-wide. Magnet School Williams Carver Gibbs Booker Total-Mag. Total-State Table 5 Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing by Magnet N:276 Reading No. No. % No. Pass Tested Pass Pass 61 65 94% 61 86 87 99% 84 38 42 90% 37 76 82 93% 75 261 276 95% 257 28834 30990 93% 28567 All Magnets -- Black Males Math No. % Tested Pass 65 94% 87 97% 42 88% 82 91% 276 93% 30990 92% The percent passing for black males as a group was ninetythree percent {93%, or 63 of 68) for reading and was above . the eighty-five percent (85%) required by ADE. The percent passing for black males as a  group for math was ninety percent (90%, or 61 of 68). For only one sub-group, black males, in reading at Gibbs Elementary (78%) and math at Booker (78%), was the percent passing below the eighty-five percent (85%) passing rate required by ADE. Table 6 on the following page shows the percent passing for all black males for each magnet school for reading and math. 29 Magnet School Williams Carver Gibbs Booker Totals Table 6 Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing--Black Males N:68 Reading No. No. No. Pass Tested % Pass Pass 15 16 94% 14 25 25 100% 25 7 9 78% 8 16 18 89% 14 63 68 93% 61 All Magnets -- Black Females Math No. Tested % Pass 16 88% 25 100% 9 89% 18 78% 68 90% Ninety-one percent (91%, or 76 of 84) of all third-grade black females passed the MPT reading subtest. Ninety percent (90%, or 75 of 84) passed the MPT math subtest. Only one sub-group of black females, in reading at Booker (71%), had a percent passing lower than the eighty-five percent (85%) passing score required by ADE. Table 7 below shows the percent passing for black females for each magnet school. Magnet School Williams Carver Gibbs Booker Totals Table 7 Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing--- Black Females N:84 Reading Math No. No. No. No. Pass Tested % Pass Pass Tested 16 18 89% 17 18 20 21 95% 19 21 12 14 86% 10 14 28 31 90% 29 31 76 84 91% 75 84 All Magnets -- White Males % Pass 94% 90% 71% 94% 90% Fifty-nine white males took the MPT for reading and math. All white males passed the MPT reading subtest and ninetyeight percent (98%, or 58 of 59) passed the MPT math subtest. Table 8 on the following page shows the percent of thirdgrade white males passing the MPT tests. 30 Magnet School Williams Carver Gibbs Booker Totals Table 8 r Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing--White Males N:59 Reading No. No. No. Pass Tested % Pass Pass 14 14 100% 14 28 28 100% 27 6 6 100% 6 11 11 100% 11 59 59 100% 58 All Magnets -- White Females Math No. Tested % Pass 14 100% 28 100% 6 100% 11 100% 59 98% Sixty-one white third-grade females took the MPT reading and math subtests. Ninety-seven percent (97%, or 59 of 61) passed both MPT subtests. Table 9 below shows MPT test results for white females at each magnet school. Magnet School Williams Carver Gibbs Booker Totals Table 9 Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing--- White Females N=61 Reading Math No. No. No. No. Pass Tested ~ 0 Pass Pass Tested 15 16 94% 15 16 13 13 100% 13 13 10 10 100% 13 13 21 22 95% 21 22 59 61 97% 59 61 All Magnets -- Others % Pass 94% 100% 100% 95% 97% Only five students were classified \"others\" for the magnet schools. Data categories for race are determined by ADE. All third-grade students classified as \"others\" who took the MPT passed all of the tests. MPT test results for \"others\" are shown in Table 10 on the following page. 31 Magnet No. School Pass Williams 1 Carver 1 Gibbs 3 Booker -- Total 5 Grade Six Table 10 Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing--others N=S Reading No. No. Tested % Pass Pass 1 100% 1 1 100% 1 3 100% 3 -- -- -- 5 100% 5 Math No. Tested % Pass 1 100% 1 100% 3 100% -- -- 5 100% State-wide, 29,962 sixth-grade students were administered the MPT. The exam consisted of the following subtests: reading, math, language arts, science, and social studies. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the students tested received a passing score or higher on the reading subtest. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the schools state-wide had a student pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) or higher in reading. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the sixth-grade students tested passed the math subtest. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the schools state-wide had a student pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) or higher in math. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of sixth graders tested received passing scores on the language arts subtest. Only seventy percent (70%) of the schools state-wide had a student pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) or higher in language arts. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of students tested passed the science subtest. Only seventy-four percent (74%) of the schools state-wide had a student pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) or higher in science. Eighty-six percent (86%) of sixth graders tested received a passing score on the social studies subtest. Only sixtythree percent (63%) of the schools state-wide had a student pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) or higher in social studies. The percent passing for sixth-grade students in each of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Schools is compared to the percent passing for sixth-grade students state-wide. Tables and graphs are presented for visual comparison. A final 32 Graph 9 Booker Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Booker Percent Passing Compared to state Percent Passing N=78 Percent 120\"5~-------------------, 100\"5 80\"5 60\"5 40% 20% 0% Reading Matn L~ge Science Soc Stud - State m BoOker MPT Graon g carver Elementary School The percent passing for Carver sixth-grade students was below the state required eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on three of the MPT subtests. Only seventy-six percent (76%) of the students tested passed the language arts subtest, seventy-seven percent (77%) passed the science subtest and seventy-eight percent (78%) passed the social studies subtest. Ninety-six percent (96%) of the sixth-grade students passed the reading subtest while eighty-six percent (86%} passed the math subtest. Table 12 on the following page reflects the test results for Carver sixth-grade students on all MPT subtests. 34 comparison of percent passing for all magnet sixth-grade students is compared to the percent passing for all sixthgrade students state-wide in Table 15 and Graph 13. Booker Elementary School The percent passing for Booker Elementary sixth-grade students was above the ADE required eighty-five percent (85%) on all MPT subtests except science. Table 11 below reflects the percent of students passing each subtest. Test data are disaggregated by race and sex for black and white students. Test results for students categorized as \"other\" were not reported by gender. Table 11 Booker Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Percent Passing by Race\\Sex N=78 Students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All students 96 93 88 89 86 Booker: All Students 99 97 87 82 92 Black Males 95 90 70 65 80 Black Females 100 100 84 76 92 White Males 100 100 100 100 100 White Females 100 100 100 96 100 *Others 100 100 100 100 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores are not reported by gender. Black males fell below the ADE required eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on language, science and social studies subtests. Black females fell below by only one percentage point in language at eighty-four percent (84%). Black females were also below the required pass rate on the science subtest with seventy-six percent (76%) receiving passing or better scores. White males, white females and students categorized as \"others\" received passing or higher scores on all MPT subtests. Graph 9 on the following page shows the percent passing for all groups at Booker Elementary compared to all students state-wide. 33 Tabla 12 carver Elementary sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Languaga Arts\\Science\\Social Studies Percent Passing by Race\\Sex N:94 students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All Students 96 93 88 89 86 carver: All Students 96 86 76 77 78 Black Males 86 68 61 68 61 Black Females 100 83 65 52 61 White Males 100 100 86 97 97 White Females 100 100 100 97 97 *Others 100 100 100 100 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores are not reported by gender. The pass rate for black males was substantially below the ADE required pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) on four of the five subtests. Black females were also below the required pass rate on four of the subtests, although the pass rate for the math subtest was just below the required pass rate at eighty-three percent (83%). All other groups were above the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate. Graph 10 below reflects the comparison of the pass rates for all students at Carver with the pass rates for all students state-wide. Graph 10 Carver Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies carver Percent Passing Compared to state Percent Passing N:94 Percent 120$ 96$96$ 100$ 80$ 60$ 40$ 20$ 0$ Reeo1ng Marn L~ Science Soc sruo  Stare m ear- MPT Graen 10 35 Gibbs Elementary School The percent passing for all sixth graders at Gibbs Elementary was at or above the ADE required pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) on all subtests except social studies. Table 13 below shows the percent passing for all students at Gibbs Elementary. Test data are disaggregated by race and sex for black and white students. Table 13 Gibbs Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Percent Passing by Race\\Sex N=41 students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % State: All students 96 93 88 89 Gibbs: All Students 98 90 90 85 Black Males 100 100 100 90 Black Females 100 91 82 73 White Males 100 100 100 100 White Females 94 81 88 88 * Others -- -- -- -- * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores are not reported by gender. No students tested in this category. Pass 86 83 100 64 100 81 -- Black females were below the ADE required eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on three of the subtests (language arts, science, social studies). White females were below the state required pass rate on two subtests (math, social studies). Graph 11 on the following page reflects the comparison of pass rates for Gibbs sixth-grade students with the pass rates for sixth-grade students state-wide. 36 Graph 11 -Gibbs Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social Studies Gibbs Percent Passing Compared to State Percent Passing N:41 Percenr 120'11 96'1198'11 100'11 80'11 80'11 40'11 20'11 0'11 Reaa1ng Mains Language Science Soc 511..d - Stare - GitlOS MPT Graen 11 Williams Elementary School The percent passing for Williams sixth-grade students was above the ADE required eighty-five percent (85%) on all MPT subtests except science. The percent passing for Williams students are compared with the percent passing state-wide in Table 14 below. Table 14 Williams Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social Studies Percent Passing by Race\\Sex N:65 Students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All Students 96 93 88 89 86 Williams: All Stud. 100 97 92 82 88 Black Males 100 100 100 93 100 Black Females 100 95 86 62 67 White Males 100 100 93 87 100 White Females 100 92 92 92 92 *Others 100 100 100 100 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores are not reported by gender. 37 Passing rates for males for both races and for white females were above the ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate for all subtests. Passing rates for black females were below eighty-five percent (85%) on two subtests (science and social studies). comparisons of passing rates for all Williams students and for students disaggregated by race and sex with passing rates for all students state-wide are shown in Graph 12 below. Graph 12 Williams Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Williams Percent Passing Compared to state Percent Passing N:65 Pe\u0026lt;cent 120'llr-----------------~ 80'll 80'll 40'll 20'll O'll Reea,ng Marn Language Sc,ence Soc StUJ - Stare m Willi lWT'S MPT Graon 12 All Magnets The percent passing for all Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools was above the ADE required eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate for all MPT subtests except science. The percent passing both language arts (84.9%) and social studies (84.9%) subtests was at the eighty-five percent (85%) level. Table 15 and Graph 13 on the following page compare the pass rate for all magnet school sixth graders with the pass rate for sixth graders state-wide. 38 Table 15 ,. Sixth Grade--All Magnets Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Percent by Magnet School N:278 Magnet Read Math Lang Sci SocStd School % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % State-wide 96 93 88 89 All Magnets 98 92 85 81 Booker 99 97 87 82 Carver 96 86 76 77 Gibbs 98 90 90 85 Williams 100 97 92 82 Graph 13 sixth Grade--All Magnets Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Magnet School Percent Compared to State Percent N:278 Percent 120$ 96'l,98'l, 100'1, 80$ 60$ 40$ 20$ O'l, Reao,ng Marn Language sc,enca Soc Stud  Stare m All Magnets MPT Graon 13 39 Pass 86 85 92 78 83 88 Grade Eight state-wide, 29,323 eighth graders were administered the MPT. The exam consisted of the following subtests: reading, math, language arts, science, and social studies. Ninety-five percent (95%, or 268 of 282) of the eighth-grade students at Horace Mann Junior High magnet school passed the MPT subtest in reading. State-wide, the reading subtest pass rate was the same--ninety-five percent (94.5%, or 27,705 of 29,323). Eighth-grade students had a pass rate of eighty-seven percent (87%, or 246 of 282) at Mann Junior High on the math subtest. The state pass rate was ninety-five percent (95.1%, or 27,883 of 29,323). Ninety-three percent (93%, or 262 or 282) of Mann Junior High eighth graders passed the MPT language arts subtest. Statewide, the language arts subtest pass rate was the same-ninety- three percent (92.6%, or 27,159 of 29,323). Mann eighth graders had a pass rate of seventy-one percent (71%, or 201 of 282) on the MPT subtest in science. The state pass rate was eighty-six percent (86.4%, or 25,338 of 29,323). Only eighty percent (80%, or 225 of 282) of the eighth-grade students at Mann Junior High had passing scores on the social studies subtest. State-wide, the pass rate was eighty-six percent (85.8%, or 25,150 of 29,323). A total of 29,323 eighth graders state-wide were administered the Minimum Performance Tests. Better than ninety-six percent (96.7%) passed. At Mann Junior High 284 students were administered the MPT with ninety-seven percent (97%) passing. Percent passing information is based on completion of three administrations of the MPT. Mann eighth-grade students had a pass rate of more than eighty-five percent on the reading, math and language subtests. Their scores on the science and social studies subtests were below the ADE mandated passing rate of eighty-five percent (85%). Graph 14 on the following page compares MPT subtest scores of Mann eighth graders with subtest scores for eighth graders state-wide. 40 Graph 14 ,. Eighth Grade--All Magnets Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social Studies Magnet School Percent Compared to State Percent N:278 Percent 120-r.,--------------------, 100$ 80'1, 60'1, 40'1, 20'1, O'l, Aeaa,ng Meth Language sc,erce Soc Stud  Total - Stare B Merv, MPT Graen 14 * Percent passing information is based on completion of three administrations of the MPT. Table 16 below compares MPT subtest scores of Mann eighth graders disaggregated by race and sex with subtest scores for eighth graders state-wide. Table 16 Mann Junior High Eighth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social Studies Percent Passing By Race\\Sex N:284 Students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All Students 95 95 93 8~ 86 Mann: All Students 95 87 93 71 80 Black Males 91 82 82 61 73 Black Females 94 80 94 50 70 White Males 95 93 93 88 87 White Females 100 97 100 95 92 *Others 100 83 100 67 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores are not reported by gender. 41 Passing rates for white males and females were above the ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on all subtests. Passing rates for black males were below the mandate on all subtests except reading. Black females passed both the reading and language arts subtests at rates higher than the mandate. Passing rates for \"other\" students were below eighty-five percent (85%) on two subtests (math and science). SUMMARY (MPT) Grade Three Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School third-grade students passed the MPT subtests for reading (93%) and math (93%) at or above the 85 percent pass rate mandated by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). All Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools had third grade pass rates on all subtests at or above the ADE mandated 85 percent pass rate. All student groups disaggregated by sex\\race had pass rates at or above 85 percent except for the following: Black males Gibbs Elementary: reading subtest (78%) Booker Elementary: math subtest (78%) Black Females -- Gibbs Elementary: math subtest (71%) Grade six All Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools had pass rates for sixth grade students at or above the ADE mandated 85 percent pass rate for the reading and math subtests. Only Carver Elementary was below the 85 percent pass rate on the language subtest. Only Gibbs Elementary was at or above the 85 percent pass rate on the science subtest. Booker Elementary and Williams Elementary were at or above the 85 percent pass rate on the social studies subtest. When disaggregated by race\\sex the following were noted below the 85 percent pass rate: Black Males -- Booker Elementary: language subtest (70%) science subtest (65%) socstud subtest (80%) Carver Elementary: math subtest (68%) 42 language subtest (61%) science subtest (68%) socstud subtest (61%) Black Females Booker Elementary: science subtest (76%) Carver Elementary: math subtest {83%) language subtest (65%) science subtest (52%) socstud subtest (61%) Gibbs Elementary: language subtest {82%) science subtest (73%) socstud subtest (64%) Williams Elementary: science subtest {62%) socstud subtest (67%) White Females -- Gibbs Elementary: math subtest {81%) socstud subtest {81%) Grade Eight The pass rate for all students at Mann Junior High School was above the state mandated 85 percent pass rate on all MPT subtests. When disaggregated by race\\sex the following were noted as below the ADE 85 percent pass rate requirement. Black Males -- Mann Junior High: math subtest (82%) language subtest (82%) science subtest {61%) socstud subtest {73%) Black Females -- Mann Junior High: math subtest (80%) CONCLUSIONS science subtest (50%) socstud subtest (70%) * With few exceptions Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School third-grade students passed the Minimum Performance Tests at or above the ADE mandated 85 percent pass rate. * Pulaksi County Interdistrict Magnet Schools achieved the required 85 percent ADE mandated pass rate for six grade students. Black students tended to have lower scores on the language, science and social studies subtests. * Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School junior high students achieved the ADE 85 percent pass rate on the Minimum Performance Test. Black males were slightly below the 85 percent pass rate on the language and math subtests (82%). Science and social studies scores were well below the 85 percent mandated for black males. Black females were slightly below the 85 percent pass rate on the math subtest {80%). Subtest scores for science and social studies were well below the mandated 85 percent pass rate for black females. 43 Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT 6) The Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT 6) was administered to all students in grades 4, 7 and 10 at the six magnet schools: Carver, Booker, Williams and Gibbs (elementary schools)\nHorace Mann (junior high)\nand Parkview (high school). State mean scores were provided by the Department of Education. NCE Scaled Scores were provided for state means on each of the subtests (reading, math, language, total battery, science, social studies) and for the complete battery. The demographics provided for disaggregating the variables were school, grade, sex and race. Data analyses of mean scores are organized by school, grade, race and sex for each of the subtests and the complete battery. Data analyses include the following comparisons: * Magnet mean scores by grade (all groups) to state mean scores (all groups) * Magnet mean scores: - by sex (males, females) to state mean scores (all groups) - by sex (males, females) to mean scores, magnet schools only - by race (all schools\\by school) to state mean scores - mean scores by race\\sex (by school) to state mean scores by race\\sex The directional hypothesis for data analysis is as follows: Magnet school mean scores will be higher than state mean scores. The 1-Tailed, t-Test for Independent Samples was selected to measure the significance of score differences between groups. In the tables that follow, the \"Diff.\" column represents the actual differences in the state mean scores and the magnet school mean scores. In addition, mean score differences are presented as \"t-Values\" which were computed using the 1-Tailed t-Test. The PC microcomputer utilizing the software package \"Statistics with Finesse\" was selected to analyze the data. The probability level of .05 with a critical t-Value of 1.65 was chosen to denote statistical significance. The \"Prob.1- Tail\" column presents the statistical probability of a mean score difference occurring by chance. When the probability value is .05 or less (p=/\u0026lt;.05), chances are 95 out of 100 that the differences are statistically significant. If mean score differences are significant the evaluator accepts the directional hypothesis: Magnet school mean scores are higher than state mean scores. When mean score differences are computed at probability levels greater than .05 (p\u0026gt;.05), or when negative t-Values are computed, the hypothesis must be rejected. 44 FINDINGS Grade Four Grade four magnet school mean scores compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 17 and Graph 15 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests) : N = 336 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 TABLE 17 Comparison of Grade Four St we Mean Scores and Grade Four Magnet School Mean Scores Magnet state Prob Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 59.61 55.7 3.913 3.854 .0001 Math 68.97 60.2 8.772 7.928 .0001 Language 64.50 57.5 7.001 7.060 .0001 Tot Battery 65.26 58.2 7.063 6.715 .0001 Science 62.51 59.1 3.409 3.417 .0004 Soc Studies 64.52 59.0 5.523 5.009 .0001 Comp Battery 65.50 58.8 6.696 6.366 .0001 Magnet school mean scores were higher than state mean scores on all subtests. Magnet mean scores were higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher {p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 15 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 17. 45 ~ GRAPH 1S Comparison Of Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores and Grade Four State Mean Scores NC Scores 100.-------------------- 90-- ----------------------1 80l----------- 70f---- 60 50 40 30 20 10 o._.-=\"'-- AMdino Matn Lanouege Tot Battery Science Soc Stud Como Batt - Magnet Mean - State Mean Graph 15 Breakdown by School Mean scores for each of the four magnet elementary schools are compared below with state mean scores in each of the test areas. carver Elementary School carver Elementary School mea~ scores compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 18 and Graph 16 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 94 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 46 TABLE 18 Comparison of Grade Four State Mean Scores and Grade Four carver Elementary School Mean Scores carver State Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 59.63 55.7 3.924 2.220 Math 71. 64 60.2 11.44 5.481 Language 67.91 57.5 10.41 17.27 Tot Battery 66.82 58.2 8.623 4.608 Science 65.18 59.1 6.081 18.18 Soc Studies 65.23 59.0 6.231 3.157 Comp Battery 67.12 58.8 8.319 4.438 Prob. 1Tail .0144 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0008 .0011 .0001 carver Elementary School mean scores were higher than state mean scores on all subtests. Carver scores were higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Carver mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for all tests. Graph 16 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences noted in Table 18. GRAPH 16 comparison Of carver Elementary Mean Scores and state Mean Scores--Grade Four NCE Scores 100,---------------~ go-------- RNotno watr, ~ Tot 8anwy ~ Soc SIUCI COfflD Sau - c.- Meen m Stare .....,, Graen 16 47 Williams Elementary School Williams Elementary School mean scores compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 19 and Graph 17 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 91 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 TABLE 19 Comparison of Grade Four State Mean Scores and Grade Four Williams Elementary School Mean Scores Williams state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 64.70 55.7 8.997 5.061 .0001 Math 74.70 60.2 14.50 8.259 .0001 Language 70.80 57.5 13. 30 7.952 .0001 Tot Battery 71. 98 58.2 13.78 8.254 .0001 Science 67.41 59.1 8.312 5.124 .0001 Soc studies 69.52 59.0 10.52 5.851 .0001 Comp Battery 71. 86 58.8 13.06 7.937 .0001 Williams Elementary School mean scores were higher than state mean scores on all subtests, as well as on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for all tests. Graph 17 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 19. 48 ,. GRAPH 17 Comparison ot Williams Elementary Mean Scores and State Mean Scores--Grade Four NCE Scores 100,--------------------, 90 80 70 60 50 20 10 0 Graph 17 RMa1no Matri Lan\nuaoe Tot 8atte,y Science Soc Stud Comp Bart  Wllllams Mean m Stare Mean Booker Elementary School Booker Elementary School mean scores compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 20 and Graph 18 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 89 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 49 ,. TABLE 20 Comparison of Grade Four State Mean Scores and Grade Four Booker Elementary School Mean Scores Booker state Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 53.97 55.7 -1. 734 -0.804 Math 59.27 60.2 -0.934 -0.421 Language 54.46 57.5 -3.039 -1. 559 Tot Battery 56.15 58.2 -2.054 -0.944 Science 55.23 59.1 -3.873 -1. 958 Soc Studies 54.48 59.0 -4.522 -1.991 Comp Battery 56.04 58.8 -2.757 -1.274 Prol). lTail .2117 .3375 .0613 .1738 .0267 .0248 .1031 Booker Elementary School mean scores were lower than the state mean scores on all subtests and on both batteries. Since t-Values are all negative, the directional hypothesis must be rejected. None of the score differences are statistically significant (p=/\u0026lt;.05). Graph 18 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 20. Graph 18 comparison of Booker Elementary Mean Scores and state Mean Scores--Grade Four NCE Scores 100,--------------------, 90 so 60 so 20 10 o.___...,,.\"'- Aead1ng Graph 18 Mar\" Lanouaoe Tot Batte,y Science Soc Stud Como Bait - Bool\u0026lt;sr Mean m State Mean 50 Gibbs Elementary School ,. Gibbs Elementary School mean scores compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 21 and Graph 19 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests) : N = 62 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 TABLE 21 Comparison of Grade Four State Mean Scores and Grade Four 4 Gibbs Elementary School Mean Scores Gibbs State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 60.24 55.7 4.542 1.918 .0299 Math 70.46 60.2 10.26 4.093 .0001 Language 64.50 57.5 6.998 3.344 .0007 Tot Battery 66.13 58.2 7 .927 3.267 .0009 Science 61.72 59.1 2.616 1.098 .1383 Soc Studies 70.53 59.0 11.53 4.745 .0001 Comp Battery 67.27 58.8 8.466 3.442 .0005 Gibbs Elementary School mean scores were higher than state mean scores on all subtests and on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet school mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state mean scores for all tests except science. Graph 19 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 21. 51 Graph 19 comparison of Gibbs Elementary Mean scores and State Mean Scores--Grade Four NCE Scores 100,----------------------. 90~---- --- 90~------------'~--------- 10 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 19 Reeci,no Ma,,, Un\nuaoe Tcr Battery Scaerce Soc Stud Come, B  tt - Gibes Masn m State Maen comparison by Sex -- Females Grade four magnet school mean scores for females compared with state means for all fourth graders are presented in Table 22 and Graph 20 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests) : N = 182 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - M1=tth: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 52 TABLE 22 Comparison of Grade Four State Mean Scores and Grade Four Magnet School Mean Scores--FEMALES Mag. State Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 59.83 55.7 4.126 3.157 Math 67.03 60.2 6.831 4.892 Language 66.65 57.5 9.151 7.370 Tot Battery 65.09 58.2 6.886 5.148 Science 60.48 59.1 1.376 1.113 Soc Studies 62.98 59.0 3.982 2.877 Comp Battery 64.70 58.8 5.901 4.518 Prob. lTail .0009 .0001 .0001 .0001 .1335 .0023 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for fourth grade females were higher than state mean scores on all subtests and on both batteries. Magnet mean scores were significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state mean scores on all subtests except science and significantly higher on both batteries. Graph 20 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 22. Graph 20 Comparison of Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores--FEMALES and Grade Four state Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,----------------------, 90 --- ----  -------\n80 ---- - - 701------\n=.---\n=------------ 40 20 10 0 Graph 20 Aeao1no Marn Lanouaoe Tor Bartery Science Soc Stud Como Batt - Magnet Mean - Female ~ State Mean - Total 53 comparison By Sex,. -- Males Grade four magnet school mean scores for males compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 23 and Graph 21 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests): N = 153 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 TABLE 23 Comparison of Grade Four State Mean Scores and Grade Four Magnet School Mean Scores--MALES Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 59.75 55.7 4.050 2.605 .0050 Math 71.19 60.2 10.99 6.248 .0001 Language 61. 72 57.5 4. 218 2.702 .0038 Tot Battery 65.33 58.2 7 .131 4.262 .0001 Science 64.69 59.1 5.590 3. 512 .0003 Soc Studies 66.13 59.0 7.131 4.061 .0001 Comp Battery 66.22 58.8 7.422 4.372 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for fourth-grade males were higher than state mean scores on all subtests. Magnet mean scores were higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for all tests. Graph 21 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 23. 54 Graph 21 comparison ~f Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores--MALES and Grade Four State Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,---------------------, 90~-----------------ao \u0026gt;--------------------1 701---- 60 50 30 20 0 Graph 21 Aeedino Mau, L.ano1.1aoe Tot Battery Science Soc Stud Comp Batt - Magnet Mean - Male  State Mean - Total comparison by Sex -- Magnet Only Grade four magnet school mean scores are compared by sex in Table 24 and Graph 22 that follow. The number tested (N) for males and females are as follows: Females Males N = 182 N = 153 TABLE 24 Comparison of Grade Four Magnet School Females and Grade Four Magnet School Males Test Mag.Mean-Female Mag.Mean-Male Diff. Reading 59.83 59.75 .08 F Math 67.03 71.19 4.16 M Language 66.65 61. 72 4.93 F Tot Battery 65.09 65.33 .24 M Science 60.48 64.69 4.21 M Soc Studies 62.98 66.13 3.15 M Comp Battery 64.70 66.22 1.52 M 55 Magnet school mean scores for fourth-grade males were higher than for fourth-grade females on all tests except reading and language. The difference between male and female scores was barely discernable on the reading subtest and the total battery. Graph 22 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 24. Graph 22 comparison of Grade Four Magnet Mean scores by Sex NCE Scores 100..------------------- 90t------------------- ---l 80f------------------------l 701---- 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 22 Readino Mart'! La~ Tot Battery Science Soc Stuo Coma Batt - Male m Female Comparison by Race -- Blacks Grade four magnet school mean scores for blacks compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 25 and Graph 23 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests): N = 179 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 56 TABLE 2S Comparison of Grade Four state Mean Scores and Grade Four Magnet School Mean Scores--BLACKS Mag. state Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 51.33 55.7 -4.369 -3.800 Math 59.32 60.2 -0.881 -0.658 Language 58.23 57.5 0.730 0.590 Tot Battery 55.94 58.2 -2.258 -1. 833 Science 53.12 59.1 -5.984 -5.269 Soc Studies 54.98 59.0 -4.020 -2.945 Comp Battery 55.63 58.8 -3 .170 -2.631 Prob. 1Tail .0001 .2556 .2779 .0342 .0001 .0018 .0046 Magnet school mean scores for black fourth graders were lower than state mean scores on all subtests except language. Magnet school mean scores were lower on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet school mean scores were not statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on any tests. Graph 23 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 25. Graph 23 Comparison of Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores--BLACKS and Grade Four State Mean Scores NCE Scores ,oo.--------------- 90 80 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 23 ~eaa,n\nMath Language T01 Batlery Sc,.-ice Soc Slua Como Batt - Magnet Mean - Black ~ S1818 Mean - Total 57 comparison by Race -- Whites Grade four magnet school mean scores for whites are compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders and presented in Table 26 and Graph 24 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests): N = 151 state - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 TABLE 26 Comparison of Grade Four state Mean Scores and Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores--WHITES Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 69.58 55.7 13.88 10.18 .0001 Math 79.52 60.2 19.32 13. 95 .0001 Language 71.34 57.5 13.84 9.775 .0001 Tot Battery 75.68 58.2 17.48 12.83 .0001 Science 72. 90 59.1 13.80 10.99 .0001 Soc Studies 75.00 59.0 16.00 11. 90 .0001 Comp Battery 76.40 58. 8 17.60 13.33 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for white fourth graders were higher than state mean scores on all subtests. Magnet mean scores were higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for all subtest and both batteries. Graph 24 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 26. 58 Graph 24 comparison ot Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores--WHITES and Grade Four State Mean Scores NCE Scores 100.----------------------, oo ~ ------ ------------i 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 24 AN01no Math Language Tot Sattwy Science Soc Stu:2 Como S  n  Magnet Mean - White m Stare Mean - Total comparison By Race -- Magnet Only Grade four magnet school mean scores are compared by race in Table 27 and Graph 25 that follow. The number tested (N) for blacks and whites are as follows: Blacks Whites N = 179 N = 151 TABLE 27 Comparison of Grade Four Magnet School Blacks and Grade Four Magnet School Whites Test Mag.Mean-Black Mag.Mean-White Dift. Reading 51.33 69.58 18.25 Math 59.32 79.52 20.20 Language 58.23 71.34 13.11 Tot Battery 55.94 75.68 19.74 Science 53.12 72. 90 19.78 Soc Studies 54.98 75.00 20.02 Comp Battery 55.63 76.40 20.77 59 w w w w w w w Magnet school mean scores for whites were higher than magnet school mean scores for blacks on all subtests and on both batteries. Graph 25 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 27. Graph 25 Comparison of Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores by Race NCE Scores 100,----------------------, 90 ~ -- ao---- 10 60 50 40 30 20 ANdino Mat1, Languaga Tot Battery Scaenc Soc Stud Como Batt - Black ~ Whrte Graph 25 Like Group Comparisons Fourth-grade magnet school mean scores, disaggregated by sex and race, are compared below with fourth-grade state mean scores disaggregated by the same criteria. All comparisons to this point have been with state means disaggregated by grade only. 60 Black Males Grade four magnet school mean scores for black males compared with state mean scores for fourth-grade black males are presented in Table 28 and Graph 26 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests): N = 72 State - Reading: N = 3,510 - Math: N = 3,510 - Language: N = 3,509 - Total Battery: N = 3,497 - Science: N = 3,512 - Social Studies: N = 3,514 TABLE 28 Like Group Comparisons--By Race and Sex Grade Four Black Males--state vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 49.09 41.67 7.415 3.935 .0001 Math 59.08 49.18 9.898 4.242 .0001 Language 51.13 47.80 3.331 1.932 .0286 Tot Battery 52.83 44.85 7.979 4.025 .0001 Science 53.92 45.22 8.272 4.252 .0001 Soc Studies 53.85 45.98 7.870 3.229 .0009 Magnet school mean scores for fourth-grade black males were higher than state mean scores for fourth-grade black males on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 26 that follows presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 28. 61 Graph 26 Lika-Group Comparison--Mean Scores Grade Four Black Males--Magnet vs state NCE Scores 100,-------------------- 90---------eo---- ------------ ro --- -- -- - --- - --- -----' 80 50 30 20 10 0 -/'IQ Marft Lan\n_., Tor Barewy Sc:oarca Soc SIUOIN - Magnet Mean - 4,8 ,M m Stare Mean - 4,8 ,M Graph 26 Black Females Grade four magnet school mean scores for black females compared with state mean scores for fourth-grade black females are presented in Table 29 and Graph 27 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests) : N = 107 state - Reading: N = 3,673 - Math: N = 3,674 - Language: N = 3,676 - Total Battery: N = 3,670 - Science: N = 3,677 - Social Studies: N = 3,676 62 r TABLE 29 Like Group comparisons--by Race and sex Grade Four Black Females--State vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 52.84 46.51 6.333 4.414 .0001 Math 59.48 50.87 8.611 5.365 .0001 Language 63.00 55.40 7.607 4.886 .0001 Tot Battery 58.04 49.79 8.246 5.335 .0001 Science 52.86 46.98 5.884 4.250 .0001 Soc studies 55.74 48.25 7.491 4.697 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for fourth-grade black females were higher than state mean scores for fourth-grade black females on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for all tests. Graph 27 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 29. Graph 27 Like Group comparison--Mean scores Grade Four Black Females--Magnet vs state NCE Scores 100.------------------~ 9Qf--------- Ruono Math Lanouaoe Tot Battery Science Soc Stuo ... - Magnet Meen - 4,8,F - S1818 Meen - 4,8,F Graph 27 63 White Males Grade four magnet school mean scores for white males compared with state mean scores for fourth-grade white males are presented in Table 30 and Graph 28 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests): N = 78 State - Reading: N = 10,778 - Math: N = 10,782 - Language: N = 10,787 - Total Battery: N = 10,763 - Science: N = 10,789 - Social Studies: N = 10,785 TABLE 30 Like Group Comparisons--by Race and Sex Grade Four White Males--State vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 68.99 57.56 11.43 5.921 .0001 Math 81. 30 62.98 18.32 9.309 .0001 Language 70.68 55.90 14.78 7.151 .0001 Tot Battery 76.00 59.65 16. 35 8.296 .0001 Science 74.29 63.23 11.06 5.800 .0001 Soc Studies 76.52 63.01 13.51 7.393 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for fourth-grade white males were higher than state mean scores for fourth-grade white males on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=\\\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 28 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 30. 64 Graph 28 Like- Group Comparison--Mean Scores Grade Four White Males--Magnet vs State NCE Scores 100,---------------------. 00-------------------1 ao~--- 10 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 RMia,ng ._..u, l..anQuao Tor a.,_,.., Sciiric Soc Stl.ldiM _.. Magner Mean 4,W,M - Stare Mean 4,W,M Graph 28 White Females Grade four magnet school mean scores for white females compared with state mean scores for fourth-grade white females are presented in Table 31 and Graph 29 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests): N = 73 State - Reading: N = 10,576 - Math: N = 10,574 - Language: N = 10,578 - Total Battery: N = 10,561 - Science: N = 10,584 - Social Studies: N = 10,584 65 TABLE 31 Like Group Comparisons--By Race and Sex Grade Four White Females--state vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 70.21 61.17 9.037 4.672 .0001 Math 77.62 63.64 13. 98 7.221 .0001 Language 72.06 63.08 8.978 4.635 .0001 Tot Battery 75.34 63.52 11.82 6.266 .0001 Science 71.41 63.25 8.162 5.093 .0001 Soc studies 73.37 62.81 10.56 5.347 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for fourth-grade white females were higher than state mean scores for fourth-grade white females on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 29 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 31. Graph 29 Like Group Comparison--Mean scores Grade Four White Females--Magnet vs State NCE Scores 100r------------------~ 90 ------ 80 -  ..... . 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 29 Aeaa,no ~ath Lanouaoe Tot Battery Science Soc Studies - Magnet Mean - 4,W,F g State Mean - 4,W,F 66 FINDINGS Grade Seven Horace Mann Junior High School Grade seven magnet school mean scores compared with state mean scores for all seventh graders are presented in Table 32 and Graph 30 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and the magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 286 State - Reading: N = 30,724 - Math: N = 30,722 - Language: N = 30,723 - Total Battery: N = 30,655 - Science: N = 30,718 - Social Studies: N = 30,715 - Complete Battery: N = 30,632 TABLE 32 Comparison of State Mean Scores and Grade seven Magnet School Mean Scores Magnet State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 55.67 52.2 3.468 2.948 .0017 Math 53.04 54.6 -1.562 -1.435 .0762 Language 61.05 56.0 5.047 4. 55.8 .0001 Tot Battery 57.30 55.1 2.193 1.927 .0275 Science 58.99 56.6 2.392 2.109 .0179 Soc Studies 57.86 55.6 2.255 1.885 .0302 Comp Battery 57. 72 55.5 2.216 1.922 .0278 Magnet school mean scores were higher than state mean scores on all subtests except math. Magnet mean scores were higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher {p=/\u0026lt;.05) for reading, language, total battery, science and complete battery. Graph 30 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 32. 67 ~ Graph 30 Comparison of Grade seven Magnet Mean Scores and Grade Seven state Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,--------------------, 00--------------------1 ao------------------ 70--------OOr------- - 50 RNdinQ Marh Language Tor Battery Scitne Soc Stud Comp Bart - Magnet Mean a State Mean Graph 30 Comparison By Sex -- Females Grade seven magnet school mean scores for females compared with state mean scores for all seventh graders are presented in Table 33 and Graph 31 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 159 State - Reading: N = 30,724 - Math: N = 30,722 - Language: N = 30,723 - Total Battery: N = 30 ,655 - Science: N = 30,718 - Social Studies: N = 30,715 - Complete Battery: N = 30,632 68 TABLE 33 Comparison of Grade seven State Mean Scores and Grade seven Magnet Mean Scores--FEMALES Mag. state Test Kean Kean Diff. t-Value Reading 55.67 52.2 3.473 2.264 Math 52.60 54.6 -2.004 -1.482 Language 63.96 56.0 7.964 5.583 Tot Battery 58.08 55.1 2.984 2.058 Science 57.91 56.6 1. 305 0.933 Soc Studies 57.99 55.6 2.392 1.627 Comp Battery 58.15 55.5 2.648 1.819 Pro:b. lTail .0125 .0702 .0001 .0206 .1761 .0529 .0354 Magnet school mean scores for seventh-grade females were higher than state mean scores for all seventh graders on all subtests except math. Magnet mean scores were higher on both batteries. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for reading, language, total battery and complete battery. Graph 31 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 33. Graph 31 Comparison of Grade Seven Magnet Kean Scores--FEMALES and Grade seven state Mean Scores NCE Scores ,oo~----------------- 90 80 70 - --eo - ---so - 40 30 20 10 0  Magner Mean - Fema1e - Stare Mean - Total Graph 31 69 comparison by sex -- Males Grade seven magnet school mean scores for males compared with state mean scores for all seventh graders are presented in Table 34 and Graph 32 that follow. The number tested (N} for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests}: N = 127 State - Reading: N = 30,724 - Math: N = 30,722 - Language: N = 30,723 - Total Battery: N = 30,655 - Science: N = 30,718 - Social studies: N = 30,715 - Complete Battery: N = 30,632 TABLE 34 Comparison of Grade Seven state Mean Scores and Grade seven Magnet Mean scores--MALES Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 55.66 52.2 3.461 1.891 .0305 Math 53.59 54.6 -1.008 -0.567 .2857 Language 57.40 56.0 1. 395 0.825 .2055 Tot Battery 56.30 55.1 1.204 0.664 .2538 Science 60.35 56.6 3.753 2.018 .0229 Soc Studies 57.68 55.6 2.083 1.056 .1465 Comp Battery 57.17 55.5 1.674 0.903 .1841 Magnet school mean scores for seventh-grade males were higher than state mean scores for all seventh graders on all subtests except math. Magnet mean scores were slightly higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05} for reading and science only. Graph 32 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect differences presented in Table 34. 70 ~ Graph 32 comparison of Grade Saven Magnet Mean Scores--MALES and Grade Saven State Mean Scores /\\ICE Scar. 100,---------------------. 901------------------eot------------------- i 70t-------------------i 80 i--:==------- 50 40 30 20 10 0 Q-aph 32 Comparison by Sex -- Magnet Only Grade seven magnet school mean scores are compared by sex in Table 35 and Graph 33 that follow. The number tested (N) for males and females are as follows: Females - Males - N = 159 N = 127 TABLE 35 Comparison of Grade Seven Magnet School Females and Grade seven Magnet School Males Test Mag.Mean-Female Mag.Mean-Male Diff. Reading 55.67 55.66 .01 F Math 52.60 53.59 .99 M Language 63.96 57.40 6.56 F Tot Battery 58.08 56.30 1.78 F Science 57.91 60.35 2.44 M Soc Studies 57.99 57.68 .31 F Comp Battery 58.15 57 .17 .98 F 71 Magnet school mean scores for seventh-grade males were higher than female mean,scores in math and science. Mean scores were almost equal in reading. Female mean scores were higher than male mean scores in language, total battery, social studies and complete battery. Graph 33 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 35. Graph 33 Comparison of Grade Seven Magnet Mean Scores by Sex NCE Scores 100.------------------~ oo------------- -------1 so-------------------~ 70---------------- ----1 80r-~----~ ~~ 50 40 30 20 10 0 ~ino Math Laf\"IQUage rot Battery Science Soc Stud Como Batt - Mate m Female Graph 33 Comparison By Race -- Blacks Grade seven magnet school mean scores for blacks are compared with state mean scores for all seventh graders in Table 36 and Graph 34 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 187 State - Reading: N = 30,724 - Math: N = 30,722 - Language: N = 30,723 - Total Battery: N = 30,655 - Science: N = 30,718 - Social Studies: N = 30,715 - Complete Battery: N = 30,632 72 ,. TABLE 36 comparison of Grade seven state Mean Scores and Grade seven Magnet School Mean Scores--BLACKS Mag. State Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 49.29 52.2 -2.907 -2.216 Math 47. 36 54.6 -7.243 -6.110 Language 56.67 56.0 0.668 0.504 Tot Battery 51.22 55.1 -3.881 -3.007 Science 52.60 56.6 -3.999 -3.170 Soc Studies 51.42 55.6 -4.181 -3.194 Comp Battery 51.21 55.5 -4.287 -3.313 Prob. lTail .0140 .0001 .3073 .0015 .0009 .0008 .0006 Magnet school mean scores for seventh-grade blacks were higher than state mean scores for all seventh graders in one subtest, language. Magnet mean scores were not statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state mean scores on any subtests or batteries. Graph 34 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 36. Graph 34 Comparison of Grade seven Magnet Mean Scores--BLACKS and Grade seven Magnet Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,---------------------, 90 - ----- 80 ~ -------- ro----------------- so~-----=~-------==----=-----:-=---i 50 20 10 o'--\"..,,,~--=_, Aeac:11no ~eth language Tor Batty Sc,ence Soc Stua Como Batt - Magnet Mean - Bleck - State Mean - Total Graph 34 73 comparison by Ra~e -- Whites Grade seven magnet school mean scores for whites compared with state mean scores for all seventh graders are presented in Table 37 and Graph 35 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 97 State - Reading: N = 30,724 - Math: N = 30,722 - Language: N = 30,723 - Total Battery: N = 30,655 - Science: N = 30,718 - Social Studies: N = 30,715 - Complete Battery: N = 30,632 TABLE 37 Comparison of Grade Seven State Mean Scores and Grade Seven Magnet School Mean scores--WHITES Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 67.87 52.2 15.69 8.689 .0001 Math 64.01 54.6 9.412 5.287 .0001 Language 69.51 56.0 13. 51 7.763 .0001 Tot Battery 68.98 55.1 13. 88 8.141 .0001 Science 71. 37 56.6 14.77 8.719 .0001 Soc Studies 70.36 55.6 14.76 7.782 .0001 Comp Battery 70.25 55.5 14.75 8.750 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for grade seven whites were higher tests. higher than state mean scores for all seventh graders on all Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state means on all tests. Graph 35 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 37. 74 Graph 3S comparison ~t Grade Seven Magnet Mean scores--WHITES and Grade seven State Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,---------------------, 90------------ ao--- 50 40 30 20 0 ReadinQ Matl'\\ Lanouage Tot Bartv Saenca Soc Stud Comp Batt - Magnet Mean - White m State Mean - Total Graph 35 Comparison by Race -- Magnet Only Grade seven magnet school mean scores are compared by race in Table 38 and Graph 36 that follow. The number tested (N) for blacks and whites are as follows: Black White N = 187 N = 97 TABLE 38 Comparison Of Grade Seven Magnet School Blacks and Grade seven Magnet School Whites Test Mag.Mean-Black Mag.Mean-White Ditt. Reading 49.29 67.87 18.58 Math 47.36 64.01 16.65 Language 56.67 69.51 12.84 Tot Battery 51.22 68.98 17.76 Science 52.60 71. 37 18.77 Soc Studies 51.42 70.36 18.94 Comp Battery 51.21 70.25 19.04 75 w w w w w w w Grade seven magnet school mean scores for whites were higher than mean scores --for blacks in all subtests and both batteries. Graph 36 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 38. Graph 36 Comparison ot Grade Seven Magnet Mean Scores DY Race NCE Scores 100,-------------------~ 90 -ino Marn ~ Tot 8atrwy Saenc Soo Stud Como Batt - Black m White Graph 36 76 Like Group comp~ison Grade seven magnet school mean scores, disaggregated by sex and race, are compared with grade seven state mean scores disaggregated by the same criteria. All comparisons to this point have been with state means disaggregated by grade only. Black Males Grade seven magnet school mean scores for black males compared with state mean scores for seventh-grade black males are presented in Table 39 and Graph 37 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 80 State - Reading: N = 3,250 - Math: N = 3,248 - Language: N = 3,251 - Total Battery: N = 3,239 - Science: N = 3,243 - Social Studies: N = 3,243 TABLE 39 Like Group Comparisons--Race and sex Grade seven Black Males--state vs Magnet Mean scores Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-value 1-Tail Reading 48.58 38.75 9.826 4.664 .0001 Math 46.45 42.79 3.656 1.886 .0315 Language 52.82 45.59 7.228 3.306 .0007 Tot Battery 49.27 41. 63 7.640 3.596 .0003 Science 52.53 44.91 7.616 3.638 .0002 Soc studies 50.01 43.87 6.139 2.842 .0028 Grade seven magnet school mean scores for black males were higher than state mean scores for seventh-grade black males on every subtest and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state means on all tests. 77 Graph 37 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 39. Graph 37 Like Group Comparison--Mean Scores Grade Seven Black Ma.les--Magnet vs State NCE Scores 100,------------------~ 90 ao~--- ----- 70f--------eo--- 50 ~-,---,,~ 40 30 20 10 0 ----------- Reading Mat!'\\ Lanouao Tot Battwy Scene Soc StuelJel - Magnet MeM - 7,8 ,M - State Mean - 7,8,M Graph 37 Black Females Grade seven magnet school mean scores for black females compared with state mean scores for seventh-grade black females are presented in Table 40 and Graph 38 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests) : N = 107 State - Reading: N = 3,307 - Math: N = 3, 3_02 - Language: N = 3,303 - Basic Battery: N = 3,291 - Science: N = 3,303 - Social Studies: N = 3,302 78 ,. TABLE 40 Like Group comparisons--Race and sex Grade seven Black Females--state vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prol:\u0026gt;. Test Mean Mean Ditt. t-Value lTail Reading 49.83 42.16 7.668 4.582 .0001 Math 48.04 46.04 1.997 1.345 .0907 Language 59.55 54.80 4.747 2.982 .0018 Tot Battery 52.68 47.17 5.506 3.450 .0004 Science 52.66 45.25 7.406 4.743 .0001 Soc Studies 52.47 47.07 5.404 3.331 .0006 Grade seven magnet school mean scores for black females were higher than state mean scores for seventh-grade black females on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state mean scores on all tests. Graph 38 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 40. Graph 38 Like Group comparison--Mean Scores Grade Seven Black Females--Magnet vs state NCE Scores 100 ,----------------------, 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 - 20 10 0 Graph 38 --------------- - Read1no Math Lanouaoe Tot Battery Seia\"ICe Soc Sludtes - Magnet Mean - 7,8,F ~ Slate Mean - 7,8,F 79 White Males Magnet school mean scores for grade seven white males compared with state mean scores for seventh-grade white males are presented in Table 41 and Graph 39 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 45 State - Reading: N = 10,210 - Math: N = 10,213 - Language: N = 10,214 - Total Battery: N = 10,190 - Science: N = 10,215 - Social Studies: N = 10,215 TABLE 41 Like Group Comparisons--Race and sex Grade Seven White Males--state vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 68.10 54.95 13.15 4. 921 .0001 Math 66.37 57.32 9.047 3.300 .0010 Language 65.42 53.60 11. 82 5.059 .0001 Tot Battery 68.70 56.55 12.15 4.802 .0001 Science 74.45 61.44 13. 01 4.988 .0001 Soc Studies 71.52 58.27 13. 25 4.294 .0001 Grade seven magnet school mean scores for white males were higher than state mean scores for seventh-grade white males on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 39 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 41. 80 Graph 39 Lik Group Comparison--Mean Scores Grade seven White Males--Magnet vs State NCE Scores 100,--------------------, 90.,__ __ _ ___ _ BO 70 60 50 R....:t1ng Mau, LanQuaoe Tot 8atf9f'y Science Soc Stud..,.  Magner Mean  7,W,M ~ Stare Mean  7,W,M Graph 39 White Females Grade seven magnet school mean scores for white females compared with state mean scores for seventh-grade white females are presented in Table 42 and Graph 40 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 52 State - Reading: N = 9,969 - Math: N = 9,967 - Language: N = 9,968 - Total Battery: N = 9,959 - Science: N = 9,970 - Social Studies: N = 9,970 81 ,. TABLE 42 Like Group comparison--Race and sex Grade Seven White Females--state vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 67.70 57.28 10.42 4.216 .0001 Math 61.98 58.65 3.325 1.438 .0782 Language 73.05 62.77 10.28 4.187 .0001 Tot Battery 69.21 60. 92 8.292 3.563 .0004 Science 68.71 59.26 9.446 4.358 .0001 Soc Studies 69.35 59.63 9.716 4.153 .0001 Grade seven magnet school mean scores for white females were higher than state mean scores for seventh-grade white females on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 40 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 42. Graph 40 Like Group comparison--Mean Scores Grade seven White Females--Magnet vs state NCE Scores 100,------------------~ 901----------------------1 801------ eo 50 30 20 10 0 Graph 40 Reading Math Lanoueo Tor Baoery Sc.ience Soc Studies - Magnet Mean - 7,W,F g State Mean - 7,W,F 82 Grade Ten FINDINGS Parkview senior High School Grade ten magnet school mean scores compared with state mean scores for all tenth graders are presented in Table 43 and Graph 41 that follow. The number tested (N) for state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 270 State - Reading: N = 27,081 - Math: N = 27,128 - Language: N = 27,103 - Total Battery: N = 27,005 - Science: N = 27,125 - Social Studies: N = 27,100 - Complete Battery: N = 26,954 TABLE 43 Comparison of State Mean Scores and Grade Ten Magnet School Mean scores Magnet state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 57.57 50.8 6. 774 6.971 .0001 Math 56.48 52.0 4.476 4.149 .0001 Language 63.10 56.0 7.097 7.392 .0001 Tot Battery 60.60 53.7 6.902 6.923 .0001 Science 60.31 54.6 5.706 5.101 .0001 Soc Studies 58.89 52.4 6.492 5.658 .0001 Comp Battery 61.07 54.1 6.966 6.669 .0001 Magnet school mean scores were higher than state mean scores on all subtests. Magnet mean scores were higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for all tests. Graph 41 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 43. 83 Graph 41 Comparison ot Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores and Grade Ten State Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,---------------------, 90 ao - -- ---- 70 \u0026gt;-------- 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 41 RHdu\"IQ Matl'\\ Lanouaoe Tor Battery Science Soc Stud Como Baff - Magner Mean m Stare \"'49111' comparison by Sex -- Females Grade ten magnet school mean scores for females compared with state mean scores for all tenth graders are presented in Table 44 and Graph 42 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 153 State - Reading: N = 27,081 - Math: N = 27,128 - Language: N = 27,103 - Total Battery: N = 27,005 - Science: N = 27,125 - Social studies: N = 27,100 - Complete Battery: N = 26,954 84 ,. TABLE U Comparison of Grade Ten state Mean Scores and Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores--FEMALES Mag. State Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 57.01 50.8 6.210 5.005 Math 57.21 52.0 5.208 3.758 Language 65.82 56.0 9.820 7.712 Tot Battery 61.63 53.7 7.929 6.067 Science 57.02 54.6 2.424 1. 791 Soc Studies 57.52 52.4 5.121 3.844 Comp Battery 60.88 54.1 6.778 5.152 Prob. lTail .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0377 .0001 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for grade ten females were higher than state mean scores for all tenth graders on all subtests and on both batteries. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 42 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 44. Graph 42 comparison of Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores--FEMALES and Grade Ten State Mean Scores NCE Scores 100.--------------------, 90 so - ----------------- 70 ~ - - -----------------------i 60 50 30 20 10 0 Graph 42 Fleadf'IQ Math Lanouaoe Tot Bartery Science Soc Stud Como Batt - Magnet Mean - Female m State Mean - Total 85 comparison by Sex -- Males Grade ten magnet school mean scores for males compared with state mean scores for all tenth graders are presented in Table 45 and Graph 43 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 117 State - Reading: N = 27,081 - Math N = 27,128 - Language: N = 27,103 - Total Battery: N = 27,005 - Science: N = 27,125 - Social Studies: N = 27,100 - Complete Battery: N = 26,954 TABLE 45 Comparison of Grade Ten state Mean Scores and Grade Ten Magnet School Mean Scores--MALES Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 58.31 50.8 7 .511 4.842 .0001 Math 55.52 52.0 3.520 2.058 .0209 Language 59.54 56.0 3.537 2.525 .0065 Tot Battery 59.26 53.7 5.559 3.615 .0002 Science 64.60 54.6 9.998 5.523 .0377 Soc Studies 60.69 52.4 8.285 4.166 .0001 Comp Battery 61.31 54.1 7. 211 4.255 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for grade ten males were higher than state mean scores for all tenth graders on all subtests and on both batteries. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state mean scores for all tests. Graph 43 following presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 45. 86 Graph 43 comparison ot Grade Ten Magnet Mean scores--MALES and Grade Ten state Mean scores NCE Scores 100,---------------------, 00 - ------ 80 70 60 50 40 30 10 0 ------- - lnQ Marn Lana,.,- Tor Bartery Soonca Soc Stud Como Barr  Magnet Mean - Male  Stare Mean - Total Graph 43 comparison by Sex -- Magnet Only Grade ten magnet school mean scores are compared by sex in Table 46 and Graph 44 that follow. The number tested (N) for females and males are as follows: Females Males N = 153 N = 117 TABLE 46 Comparison Ot Grade Ten Magnet School Females and Grade Ten Magnet School Males Test Mag.Mean-Female Mag.Mean-Male Oitt. Reading 57.01 58.31 1.30 Math 57.21 55.52 1.69 Language 65.82 59.54 6.28 Tot Battery 61.63 59.26 2.37 Science 64.60 60.69 3.91 Soc Studies 57.52 60.69 3 .17 Comp Battery 60.88 61. 31 .43 87 M F F F F M M Magnet school mean scores for grade ten females were higher than mean scores for grade ten males on the math, language and science subtests and on the total battery. Male mean scores were higher on the reading subtest and on the complete battery. Graph 44 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 46. Graph 44 comparison of Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores by Sex NCE Scores 100.-------------------~ 90 r------------- - --- ---l 80 r------ --------------l 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ReaCJit'IQ Marn Lanouaoe Tot Sartery Science Soc Stud Como Batt - Mele ffl Female Graph 44 comparison by Race -- Blacks  Grade ten magnet school mean scores for blacks compared with state mean scores for all tenth graders are presented in Table 47 and Graph 45 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 152 State - Reading: N = 27,081 - Math: N = 27,128 - Language: N = 27,103 - Total Battery: N = 27,005 - Science: N = 27,125 - Social Studies: N = 27,100 - Complete Battery: N = 26,954 88 TABLE 47 Comparison of Grade Ten State Mean Scores and Grade Ten Magnet School Mean Scores--BLACKS Mag. State Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 51.11 50.8 0.306 0.256 Math 50.66 52.0 -1.336 -1.. 013 Language 58.54 56.0 2.540 2.123 Tot Battery 54.28 53.7 0.584 0.484 Science 52.07 54.6 -2.535 -1. 958 Soc Studies 51.00 52.4 -1.401 -1.049 Comp Battery 53.67 54.1 -0.435 -0.355 Prob. lTail .3990 .1563 .0177 .3145 .0261 .1479 .3615 Magnet school mean scores for grade ten blacks were higher than state mean scores for all tenth graders on the science and language subtests. The magnet school mean scores are statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on both these subtests. Magnet mean scores were lower than state mean scores on reading, math and social studies subtests and on both batteries. Graph 45 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 47. Graph 4S Comparison of Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores--BLACKS and Grade Ten State Mean Scores NCE Scores ,oor-------------------, 90 so i---------------? o i--------- -----------------1 60 t------- 50 30 20 10 0 Reading Math Lanouaoe Tot Battery Scaenc Soc Stud Como Batt  Magnet Mean - Black ~ State Mean - Total Graph 45 89 comparison by Ra~e -- Whites Grade ten magnet school mean scores for whites compared with state mean scores for all tenth graders are presented in Table 48 and Graph 46 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 114 State - Reading: N = 27,081 - Math: N = 27,128 - Language: N = 27,103 - Total Battery: N = 27,005 - Science: N = 27,125 - Social Studies: N = 27,100 - Complete Battery: N = 26,954 TABLE 48 Comparison of Grade Ten state Mean Scores and Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores--WHITES Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 65.91 50.8 15.11 11.85 .0001 Math 63.98 52.0 11. 98 7.513 .0001 Language 68.77 56.0 12.77 8.915 .0001 Tot Battery 68.65 53.7 14.95 10.84 .0001 Science 70.89 54.6 16.29 11. 09 .0001 Soc Studies 68.81 52.4 16.41 10.41 .0001 Comp Battery 70.48 5:.t .1 16.38 11. 71 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for grade ten whites were higher than state mean scores for all tenth graders on all subtests and on both batteries. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 46 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 48. 90 Graph 46 Comparison rof Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores--WBITES and Grade Ten State Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,------------------~ 90 - -- eo- --------- - - -- 10 60 50 40 :JO 20 10 0 RMdu\"IQ Matf'I laf\"IQUaQe Tot Battwy Saence Soc Stud Como Batt - Magnet Mean - White m State Mean - Total Graph 46 Comparison by Race -- Magnet Only Grade ten magnet school mean scores are compared by race in Table 49 and Graph 47 that follow. The number tested (N} for blacks and whites are as follows: Black White N = 152 N = 114 TABLE 49 Comparison Between Magnet School Grade Ten Blacks and Grade 10 Magnet School Whites Test Mag.Mean-Black Mag.Mean-White Ditf. Reading 51.11 65.91 14.80 Math 50.66 63.98 13 .32 Language 58.54 68.77 10.23 Tot Battery 54.28 68.65 14.37 Science 52.07 70.89 18.82 Soc Studies 51.00 68.81 17.81 Comp Battery 53.67 70.48 16.81 91 w w w w w w w Magnet school mean scores for whites were higher than magnet school mean scores for blacks on all subtests and on both batteries. Graph 47 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 49. Graph 47 Comparison ot Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores by Race NCI: Scores 100,----------------------, 90 \u0026gt;---------- ao---------------------j 70r-------=,._ eo so 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 47 ANCJinQ ~au, Lanouaoe Tot Battery Science Soc Stud Como Ban  Blad\u0026lt; R White 92 Like Group comparison r Grade ten magnet school mean scores, disaggregated by sex and race, are compared with tenth-grade state mean scores disaggregated by the same criteria. All comparisons to this point have been with state mean scores disaggregated by grade only. Black Males Grade ten magnet school mean scores for black males compared with state mean scores for tenth-grade black males are presented in Table 50 and Graph 48 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 71 State - Reading: N = 2,636 - Math: N = 2,644 - Language: N = 2,637 - Total Battery: N = 2,624 - Science: N = 2,643 - Social Studies: N = 2,638 TABLE 50 Like Group Comparison--Race and sex Grade Ten Black Males--State vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 51.39 38.94 12.45 7.446 .0001 Math 49.58 42.16 7.423 3.599 .0003 Language 55.75 46.33 9.416 5.566 .0001 Tot Battery 52.98 42.08 10.90 6.402 .0001 Science 55.23 44.26 10.97 5.605 .0001 Soc studies 52.05 40.83 11.22 4.934 .0001 Grade ten magnet school mean scores for black males were higher than state mean scores for tenth-grade black males on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher on all tests. Graph 48 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 50. 93 Graph 48 Likw Group Comparison - Mean Scores Grade Tan Black Males - Magnet vs State NCE Scores 100.---------------------, 00--------- -----------i ao ro-- ao 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 48 Black Females Read1no Marn Lanoua\nr Tot Sattwy Saenc Soc Studiea - Magnet Mean  10,8,M m State Mean  10,8 ,M Grade ten magnet school mean scores for black females compared with state mean scores for tenth-grade black females are presented in Table 51 and Graph 49 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school -are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 81 State - Reading: N = 2,898 Math: N = 2,899 - Language: N = 2,896 - Total Battery: N = 2,886 - Science: N = 2,897 - Social Studies: N = 2,891 94 TABLE 51 Like Group Comparison--Race and Sex Grade Ten Black Females--state vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 50.85 41.89 8.963 5.269 .0001 Math 51.61 42.58 9.032 5.335 .0001 Language 60.99 53.73 7.259 4.407 .0001 Tot Battery 55.43 45.95 9.480 5.568 .0001 Science 49.29 40.50 8.788 5.258 .0001 Soc Studies 50.01 39.39 10.69 6.997 .0001 Grade ten magnet school mean scores for black females were higher than state mean scores for tenth-grade black females on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 49 following presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 51. Graph 49 Like Group Comparison--Mean Scores Grade Ten Black Females--Magnet vs state NCE Scores 100,------------------------, 90 - - - -------- ------------ , 80 70 eo - --- -so 40 30 20 0 Graph 49 Aea\u0026lt;11no Math Language Tot Battery Setence Soc Studtea - Magnet Mean - 10,B.F ~ State Mean - 10,8,F 95 White Males Grade ten magnet school mean scores for white males compared with state mean scores for tenth-grade white males are presented in Table 52 and Graph 50 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 45 State - Reading: N = 8,510 - Math: N = 8,519 - Language: N = 8,512 - Total Battery: N = 8,481 - Science: N = 8 I 514 - Social Studies: N = 8,508 TABLE 52 Like Group Comparison--Race and sex Grade Ten White Males--State vs Magnet Mean scores Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 68.92 52.27 16.65 7.371 .0001 Math 64.60 55.00 9.598 3.870 .0002 Language 65.07 53.71 11.36 5.161 .0001 Tot Battery 68.78 54.54 14.24 6.180 .0001 Science 78.74 61. 05 17.69 8.120 .0001 Soc Studies 73.46 56.57 16.89 6.381 .0001 Grade ten magnet school mean scores for white males were higher than state mean scores for tenth-grade white males on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 50 in the following page presents mean score  differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 52. 96 Graph so Lik.-Group Comparison--Maan Scores Grade Tan White Males--Magnat vs State NCE Scores 100.--------------------, 90 t--------------------- aor---------------,=---ro 80 50 40 30 20 10 0 AMd,ng ~au, Language Tot Battwy Science Soc Studi.a - Magret Mean 10,W,M - State Mean 10 ,W,M Graph 50 White Females Grade ten magnet school mean scores for white females compared with state mean scores for tenth-grade white females are presented in Table 53 and Graph 51 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 69 State - Reading: N = 8,420 - Math: N = 8,435 - Language: N = 8,427 - Total Battery: N = 8,402 - Science: N = 8,436 - Social Studies: N = 8,430 97 TABLE 53 Like Group Comparison--Raca and Sex Grade Tan White Females--stata vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Valua lTail Reading 63.94 55.46 8.476 5.760 .0001 Math 63.57 54.88 8.691 4.155 .0001 Language 71.19 62.43 8.756 4.768 .0001 Tot Battery 68.57 58.91 9.660 5.596 .0001 Science 65.78 54.95 10.83 6.305 .0001 Soc Studies 65.78 55.33 10.45 5.570 .0001 Grade ten magnet school mean scores for white females were higher than state mean scores for tenth-grade white females on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 51 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 53. Graph S1 Like Group Comparison--Mean scores Grade Ten White Females--Magnet vs state NCE Scores 100 ..----------------------, eo------ -- ---------- --1 so----- Reading Math Language Tot Battery Science Soc Sludtel - Magnet Mean - 10,W,F m State Mean - 10,W,F Graph 51 98 SUMMARY MAT 6 Grade Four Pulaski county Interdistrict Magnet School mean scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test {MAT) were significantly higher than state mean scores on the Total and Complete Batteries, as well as, on all subtests. Carver and Williams Elementary Schools mean scores were significantly higher than the state mean scores on both batteries and on all subtests. Mean scores at Gibbs Elementary were significantly higher than state mean scores on both batteries and on all subtests except science. ~ Mean scores at Booker Elementary School were below state mean 7 scores. Magnet school mean scores for males were significantly higher than state mean scores on all subtests. Magnet mean scores for females were significantly higher than state mean scores on all subtests except science. Magnet school mean scores for black students were lower than state mean scores for all students, however, magnet mean scores for black students were significantly hig er tan sffteniean scores for black students. Magnet school mean scores for white students were significantly higher than the state mean scores for white students. Magnet school mean scores for white students were higher than magnet school mean scores for black students. Grade Seven -- Horace Mann Junior High School Pulaski County Interdistrict-Magnet School student mean scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test {MAT) were significantly higher than state mean scores on both the total and complete batteries and on all subtests except science. Magnet school mean scores for females were higher on all subtests except math. Magnet school mean scores were significantly higher for reading, language, total battery and complete battery. Magnet school mean scores for males were higher than state mean scores on all subtests except math. Magnet school mean scores were significantly higher on reading and science subtests. Magnet school mean scores for black students were higher than 99 ~ state mean scores for all students only on the language subtest, however\nmagnet school mean scores for black students were significantly higher than state mean scores black students. for Magnet school mean scores for white students were significantly higher than state mean scores for all students. Magnet school means scores for white students were significantly higher than state mean scores for white students. Grade Ten -- Parkview Senior High School Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School mean scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test {MAT) were significantly higher than state mean scores on both the total and complete batteries and on all subtests. Magnet school mean scores were significantly higher than state mean scores for both males and females. Magnet school mean scores for black students were significantly higher than state mean scores for all students on language and science subtests. Magnet school mean scores for black students were lower than state mean scores for all students on other subtests. Magnet school mean scores for black students were significantly higher than state mean scores for black students on both batteries and on all subtests. Magnet school mean scores for white students were above the state mean scores for all students and for white ~tudents on both batteries and all subtests. CONCLUSIONS * Magnet school mean scores- for fourth grades were significantly higher than the state mean scores. * Magnet school mean scores for white fourth-grade students are higher than mean scores for all students and for white students. * Magnet school mean scores for black fourth-grade students are lower than mean scores for all students, however, magnet school mean scores for black students are higher than state mean scores for black students. * Magnet school mean scores for white fourth-grade students are higher than magnet school mean scores for black fourth-grade students. 100 * Magnet school mean scores for seventh-grade students are significantly1ligher than state mean scores for seventhgrade students. * Magnet school mean scores for black students are higher than state mean scores for black students. * Magnet school mean scores for white students are higher than state mean scores for white students. * Magnet school mean scores for tenth-grade students are significantly higher than state mean scores for tenthgrade students. * Magnet school mean scores for black tenth-grade students were higher than state mean scores on language and science subtest for all students and higher on all subtests than state means scores for black students. * Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School students had higher performances than their state counterparts. 101 American College Test (ACT) The ACT was administered to those Parkview seniors who registered to take it. Mean scores for Parkview students for 1992 were provided by the Little Rock School District. The ADE provided mean scores for seniors across the state for 1991. These mean scores were as follows: Parkview Seniors - Mean ACT Score - 1992 State Seniors - Mean ACT Score - 1991 20.0 19.9 Parkview seniors as a group scored virtually identically to seniors across the state on the ACT. Both the state and Parkview mean scores are in the 52nd percentile nationally. Parkview scores ranged from a low of 12 to a high of 32. state scores were further disaggregated by whether or not the tested students had taken a recommended college preparatory core curriculum. The Parkview scores were not disaggregated by this variable. The state mean scores for these two groups of students were as follows: Completed Core Curriculum - 1991 Did Not Complete Core Curriculum - 1991 102 21.8 18.6 SECTION III Desegregation PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Desegregation BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in Expected Outcomes, #3, (A, B, and C), listed below: 3. To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the \"complete desegregation\" goal of the project. A. What is the social interaction between and within the disaggregated groups by race, sex, and socio-economic status? Additional variables of solidarity and isolation will be studied for students, staff and parents. B. Are there evidences of stereotyping by students i.e., graffiti and name calling? C. What are the reflections of the academic and professional interactions between the building administrators and the teaching staff during staff meetings, between teachers and students during class interactions, and between the building administrative staff, teachers and students during school related activities? METHODOLOGY After notification by the MRC of acceptance of this proposal, the research team began immediately to develop instruments and procedures to collect data for objective #3. A review of the literature was conducted for identifying and developing instruments appropriate for collecting data appropriate for assessing the social interactions of students, teachers and staff. Sociometric techniques were utilized to examine the social structure and social status of individuals within a group (Borg and Gall, 1979). One such honored technique is the sociogram which is a graphic illustration of interpersonal relationships within a group (Almy, Cummingham et al, 1975). As demonstrated by Sprite and Griggs, 1976, the sociogram functions, then, as \"a measure of social acceptance because it is based on student's selection of companions for group activities.\" During the second half of the twentieth century, numerous researchers have confirmed in their studies 103 concerning schools the usefulness of sociograms in quantifying stud~nt relationships that may have escaped the scrutiny of teachers: (For representative examples, see Tabe, Brady, Robinson, and Vickers, 1951\nGronlund, 1950\nLindzey and Borgatta, 1954\nLane and Beauchamp, 1955\nBlyth, 1958\nTabe, 1962\nRemmers, 1963\nEpstein, 1968\nWhite 1969\nKennedy, 1971\nCornelius, 1973\nBonney, 1974\nGade, 1977\nMarkus and Barasch, 1982\nClark and Ayer, 1988). A sociogram was developed by the project staff to assess student interaction relative to social classroom activities (choosing students to sit by), academic activities (choosing students to work with) and socialization on the playground (choosing students to play with). The sociogram was administered in the fall and spring of the 1991-92 school year. Administration dates were scheduled during the same week. This report reflects the total results of the first (fall) administration of the sociogram. Only data from the spring administration of the sociogram for those items for which a change in significance was noted from the fall to spring administration are shown. The Chi-Square Test for Independence was chosen to assess and evaluate the significance of student choice patterns. The PC computer utilizing the software package \"Statistics with Finesse\" was selected to analyze the data yielded by the sociograms. Two site visits to various magnet schools were made by the director and one team member prior to the visit made by a seven-member evaluation team. A pre-visit orientation was scheduled at Arkansas State University with the executive director of the MRC, the project evaluation team, Dean of the College of Education, administrators from another district with magnet schools, and office staff from the MRC and office of Educational Research and Services at ASU. The seven-member evaluation team consisted of professionals from Arkansas State University. Team members possessed competencies in specialty areas of elementary and early childhood education, secondary education, educational administration, and program evaluation. The purpose of the site visits was to collect data .relevant to the project objectives. Each magnet school was visited by a team of two professionals. The project director visited all magnet school sites during the two days scheduled for the team visits. Visits lasted from 4 to 5 hours, and included observations of classroom and non-classroom activities. Forms were developed to record and codify data collected during the observation visits. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Site data were collected by observation to assess the social and interactive behavior of 104 teachers, staff, and students in and out of the classroom. The first part o~ this report reflects the sociogram data and analysis, relative to Objective 3A. The second part of the report reflects the observations and findings of the project evaluation team relative to Objectives 3B and JC. FINDINGS Sociograms A total of 914 sociograms were administered to students in the magnet schools. The sociograms were administered during the same week by all the magnet schools in the fall of 1991. The sociograms were administered to 214 black males, 294 black females, 202 white males and 204 white females. During the spring of 1992 sociograms were administered to 925 students in the magnet schools. There were 216 black males, 288 black females, 210 white males and 211 white females. Three categories were identified to assess student behaviors. The categories were designed to allow students to express choice or preferences in situations of academic activity (work with) play activity (play with), and general social activity (sit near). Students were asked to name five students in their class with whom they would choose to\n(1) work with, (2) play with, and (3) sit near. A copy of the sociogram is included in the appendix of this report. Variables disaggregated for analyzing the results of the sociograms were sex and race. Data were analyzed on the basis of student choices listed for the opposite race in each of the three categories. The PC computer using the \"Statistics with Finesse\" software was chosen to examine the data. The Chi-Square Test of Independence was chosen to conduct the statistical analysis. The .05 level was chosen to denote significance in determining variable independence. Complete results of the fall administration of the sociogram are presented. Only changes in socio-metric measures (from dependent to independent\\from independent to dependent) that resulted from the second (Fall to Spring) administration are noted. Numerals for tables presenting data from the spring administration are followed by \"(s).\" Work With students were asked to choose five classmates with whom they would like to work. Tables 1-8 reflect the data for \"Work With\" as provided by analysis of the sociograms from the fall administration. 105 Disaggregated by'Race -- Black Race compared to White Race The data analysis (fall) revealed a significant difference in student choices when disaggregated by race. A Chi-Square of 15.3971 was computed which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1287 and a Probability of 0.0088. A higher proportion of black students, at 16.5 percent, chose to work with no students of the opposite race than did white students at 11.8 percent. The percentage of total students choosing to work with at least one student of the opposite race was 85.6 percent. More than sixty percent of the students chose at least two students of the opposite race to work with. Analysis of data from the spring administration reflected a change in student choice patterns. A Chi-Square of 8.2023 was computed which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0938 and a Probability of 0.1454 (not significant at the .05 level). Data are presented in Table 1 and Table 1 (s) that follow. TABLE 1 Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Blacks Compared to Whites Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen o 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Race 84 116 127 112 53 16 508 % 16.5 22.8 25.0 22.0 10.4 3.1 100.0 White Race 48 112 128 85 27 6 406 % 11. 8 27.6 31. 5 20.9 6.7 1.5 100.0 Total 132 228 255 197 80 22 914 % 14.4 24.9 27.9 21.6 8.8 2.4 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Number of Observations 914 Chi-Square 15.3971 Contingency Coefficient 0.1287 Cramer's Phi Prime 0.1298 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1186","title":"Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services"],"dc_date":["1990-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Arkansas State University","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Education--Standards","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1186"],"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":["234 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n Pulashi Count, lntsrdistriGt Magnet SGh.ool Program Ealuation PursU6 Ths Posail,ilitiss ! AN EVALUATION OF THE PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM Prepared For The Magnet Review Committee Conducted by Office of Educational Research \u0026amp; Services Arkansas State University September, 1990 Donald E. Wright, Director Virginia A. Rhodes, Office Manager INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Data Collection Instrument Development for Parent Survey Standardized Test Data Results of Parent Survey Population Demographics survey Data Analysis Procedures category Comparisons Statist~cal Analysis Results of Standardized Test Minimum Performance Test (MPT) Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 8 Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10 Summary Statements Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C OCT 2 0 \\992 O I. e o, De~ grei:1 1 3 3 7 8 8 17 18 18 33 54 55 55 62 79 95 95 102 110 117 120 123 136 INTRODUCTION The Magnet Review Committee (MRC), after intense study of the first evaluation report, decided to continue collecting data on some aspects of that report and to expand the data collection to other criteria. The recommendations of the external evaluator provided guidance for the committee in this decision-making process. The results of the first report revealed some concerns existed in the categorical areas of transportation, recruitment of students and parent and community involvement. Additionally, the committee wanted to explore the use of standardized achievement test scores to provide evaluative data regarding the magnet schools. Therefore, the external evaluator was requested to submit a continuing proposal to conduct the second phase of the evaluation of the Interdistrict Magnet School Program. Project Objectives The following objectives were constructed to guide the evaluator in conducting the project: 1. To develop an instrument for data collection that will re-examine the attitudes/opinions of all parents of magnet school students. The instrument will focus on those items from the 1988 data collection instrument where fifteen percent or more of the parents disagreed with the positively stated item. 2. To obtain 1989 standardized scale scores for the following tests for the appropriate grade groups: A. Minimum Performance Test (MPT) Grades 3-6-8. B. Metropolitan Achievement Test, 6th edition (MAT-6) Grades 4-7-10. 1 3. To utilize appropriate evaluation techniques and strategies in the analysis of data and the correct interpretation of results. 4. To file a written report that will enable the Magnet Review Committee to utilize as evidence when changes in the magnet school program are considered. Methodology The following procedural activities were conducted in completing the study: 1. Data from the 1988 survey were reviewed by the research team and six questions were identified as having a 15 percent disagreement response. These six questions were from the categories of Philosophy, Policy and Practice (one question)\nResource Allocation (one question)\nand Parent and Community Involvement (four questions). The research team developed a new data collection instrument to proportionally reflect these categories. 2. Data was requested from the Little Rock School District and the State Department of Education for the appropriate standardized test data. 3. The data were analyzed by both descriptive and inferential statistics. The PC microcomputer, the PFS data base, and the SYSTAT statistical package were used in the data analysis. 2 DATA COLLECTION Instrument Development for the Parent survey The evaluation team critically assessed each item of the 1988 survey that received a 15 percent disagreement response. The consensus of the team was that it would take several questions to truly examine the expressed concern of the parents. The team was also aware that the MRC had implemented changes that were predicted to have a favorable impact on the parent responses. The first item analyzed was from the Philosophy, Policy and Practice category and was as follows: \"The recruitment procedures provided me with enough information to make a choice about enrolling my child in a magnet school.\" - Fifteen percent of the parents disagreed with this statement. This disagreement ratio lead the team to construct three questions regarding recruitment to further investigate the parents' concern. These items were as follows: 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were answered before I selected this school for my child. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. The second item analyzed was from the category of Resource Allocation and read as follows: \"Transportation to this school is satisfactory for my child.\" Fifteen percent of the parents recorded a disagree response for this item. As before, this ratio of disagreement 3 responses prompted the team to develop four new questions focusing on the transportation issue. These questions were as follows: 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 18. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. Four questions with more than 15 percent of the parents recording a disagreement response came from the category Parent and Community Involvement. These items and the respective percent of disagreement were as follows: \"I am actively involved in this school.\" (26 percent). \"Members of the community (other than students' parents) are actively involved in this school.\" (32 percent). \"The community is aware of this school's magnet theme.\" (20 percent). \"I receive information about activities at my child's magnet school in plenty of time to attend.\" (21 percent). As would be expected, the Magnet Review Committee expressed considerable concern regarding the parent responses to questions regarding Parent and Community Involvement. The evaluation team responded by developing ten new questions for the survey form regarding this component. Those questions were as follows: 4 6. I attend school programs and activities on a regular basis. 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent involvement. 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. - 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 17. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. 19. Community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. After reviewing these ten statements, it was of interest to the team and the MRC to determine just how do parents get information about their child's school activities. Thus, the need for the last survey question was created. 5 \"I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: A. from school notices sent home. B. from talking with my child. c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio, or T.V. D. from talking with other parents.\" Following team consensus on the individual items and the total package of items, the survey form was submitted to the MRC for review and revision. The MRC approved the survey items and format with minor suggestions. These items were incorporated into the final draft of the evaluation instrument. Security of the data is always a major concern to an evaluator. Attention was given to ensure that the survey data was not compromised in any manner. The Director and office staff of the MRC mailed a survey form directly to all parents of magnet school students, K-12. This mailing included instructions and a stamped addressed envelope for returning the completed form to the MRC office. At set intervals the MRC office forwarded all returned responses in the sealed envelopes to the Office of Educational Research. These large packages were usually transported by a commercial bus line. The building principals assisted with the parent survey by encouraging parents via the school newsletter and parent meetings to complete and return the survey form. The office manager of the Office of Educational Research received and inspected each package from the MRC office. This process included coding the population group, numbering each survey form, checking for incompleted forms, 6 and verifying the integrity of the security process. All data entry and data analysis were conducted by the staff of the Office of Educational Research. Proper caution, concern and reconciliation were exercised during data entry and data analysis. Standardized Test Data All standardized test data for the magnet school students were obtained from the Little Rock School District. Although several delays did occur in obtaining these results, the Little Rock School District personnel were cooperative in complying with the request. The comparative group was the state average. This information was obtained from the Arkansas State Department of Education. The department personnel were extremely helpful and cooperative in complying with the request. 7 RESULTS OF PARENT SURVEY The evaluation team coded the survey responses to provide two types of information. Demographic information from the parents was coded for sorting of the survey items other than by school to provide a clear picture of the parent opinions. Additionally, the items were coded numerically for statistical purposes. Population Demographics Population data on the records of the MRC indicated there were 3412 parents of magnet school students in grades K-12. There were 2047 usuable survey forms returned by the parents. Only fifteenparents indicated they had two or more students in the magnet school program. The data for these parents were recorded only once and allocated to the first - school/grade listed on the returned form. Although several parents did not answer all questions, only a small number (19) of the survey forms were determined to be unusable because of incorrect markings on the instrument. These adjusted figures computed to a return rate of 60 percent. This is judged by the evaluator to be an excellent return rate for this type survey. The following graphs presents a profile of the parents responding to the survey. The data reveals that 23.6 percent of the parents responding have students attending Booker Elementary School. The other schools and the respective percent of parents responding were as follows: Carver, 8 17.34 percent\nGibbs, 13.24 percent\nWilliams, 19.69 percent\nMann, 17.05 percent\nand Parkview, 9.09 percent. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES IMGtET SCHOOL PARENTS PEHCEHT sos.---------------------, BICR o.'R 008 WMS WH PICV PERCENT Cl= IDT,6l,. BY ~00.. The race of the parents responding was black, 47.48 percent\nwhite, 50.51 percent\nall other 1.71 percent. Only six parents (.29 percent of the total) elected to not respond to this question. SLMAARV a= RESPONSES WtSET SCHOOL PARENTS PBUNI' eos---------------------, IUOC 'MtTE OTlER PEFa:NT RESPODNG B'f RAO: 9 The total race distribution by school was also presented. These data reveal that for the total 972 black parents, 24 - percent had students at Booker\n20 percent had students at Williams\nand the school with the smallest number of black parents was Parkview with 10 percent. The 1034 white parents were distributed similarly with 22.6 percent at Booker\n19.5 percent at Williams\nand 8.2 percent at Parkview. There were 35 parents of the other race that responded to the survey. Gibbs and Mann had the highest percent of these parents with 25.7 percent. SWMARY OF RESJ\u0026gt;C5ES MAGtETSQiOOLPHElTS SOSPBaNT~:::::::::.:---------------7 BIOi 01A OBS Y6III WM R\u0026lt;V PEFO:NT ~ TOTAL RK:E BY SCH0CX.  a...oc-012 E:a WK1'0IM rz3 onER35 The within school race distribution revealed that Booker parents were about evenly divided\nParkview had more black 10 parents responding\nwhereas, Carver, Gibbs, Williams and Mann - had more white parents responding. Sl.MAARY OF RESPONSES MAGtET SCHOOL PJ1'FENTS PERCENT eos.---------------------, ~ ~ aos 20S -OS M-l!Ol7 Ell\u0026lt;R C\\11 GBS WMS l,W,I ACY AKE ClSTRIBUTIOO BY SCHOa.  euac E'::a YffTE cm ontER The parents were asked to identify their residence as to the district in which they lived. These responses revealed that 1388 (67.81 percent) of the parents lived in Little Rock, 429 (20.96 percent) in Pulaski County district and 213 (10.41 percent) lived in North Little Rock school district. Additional sorting revealed that 22 percent of the Little Rock parents have students at Booker, whereas, 30 percent of the North Little Rock parents have students at Booker. Likewise, 23 percent of Little Rock parents have students at Williams, but, only 10.8 percent of North Little Rock parents have students at Williams. The greater proportion of Pulaski 11 County parents have students at Booker (25.41 percent), Carver (24.71 percent), and Mann (21.45 percent). SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PNENTS PERCENT -40S.---------------------, 20S BtGI Ot'A OBS WMS t.lAN PKV asrncr RES1CENCE sv sa-KX:t.. - UTT\\.E ROOC- ~ NQ. UTTU! ROOC-2'19 C:\nJ PU.,'8111 \u0026lt;D.HTYlt- e\u0026lt;M7 A fourth disaggregation of the data revealed that 51. 55 percent of Carver parents lived in the Little Rock district, 29.86 percent lived in the Pulaski County district and 17.18 percent lived in the North Little Rock district. Plnsll PARENT DISTRBJTION MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS 100....------------------- QO 80 80 74 BICA CIN \u0026lt;JBlll8 WMIS I.WM PKVW Resident llstrlct llstrlblilon Bv Scrod - Uttta !bcx-\u0026amp;18 ~ ~ Oa.-4211 CD N. Uttll Aadt~ ...,~ 12 When the data were analyzed with the two variables of race - and resident district the results revealed that 71.3 ~ercent of the black parent respondents lived in the Little Rock district. Sixty-four percent of the white parents responding lived in Little Rock and 74.29 percent of the other race parents lived in Little Rock. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MASETSQtOOLPNENTS PERCEfT 100Sr---------------------, DOS sos ~ 110'\u0026amp; l50S 40S sos 20'\u0026amp; BUOC41'2 ~ 01HEJk'8 AKE ClSTR\u0026amp;JTlOO rN OOTRICT - lJtM Aadl m ~ Qull:y CJ N. Ullle FIDdl Additional analysis revealed that by race the Little Rock parent respondents were evenly split black to white\nwhereas, 13 both Pulaski County and North Little Rock had a higher proportion of white parents responding. SUYMRY CF RESPONSES MAGtET SCHOOL PAfEN\"TS PERCEHT ~.--------------------, llOS ~ ~ ~ 50'5 -40'\u0026amp; SO'S 20'S -OS ~ IUOC 'M-tTE OTlJI DSTRICf OOTRIEUTIOO BY RACE -Ut11a--- ~~~ c:JN.U-~ ... SA/EV An area that is always of interest to the MRC is the parents responding that had children attending a magnet school for a second year. Data from the surveys revealed that for all students 73 percent of those that attended last year were from the Little Rock district, whereas, 58 percent of those that did not attend last year were also from Little Rock. SlMAARY OF RESPONSES PERCEHT UJI\u0026amp;.---------------------, 7ft YES HO ATTENEl LA'\u0026gt;T YEAR aSTR BY OSTRICf - UTTl A00C ~ PU...4l6IQ \u0026lt;XllfTY C:J N. UTTl.E ROCJ( ... III.IMY 14 When each district was analyzed the results revealed that 70 percent of the Little Rock parents had students attending a magnet school for the second year. Also noted was that over 50 percent of the Pulaski County and North Little Rock parents had students attending a magnet school for the second year. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES Maglet School Parada 10PE0HC'8SfT .,.::\n_------------------, GOS PU.MIQ 00. UT1l ROCJ( N. urn. ROOIC asTRICf OSTR BY ATTENCED L\u0026gt;ST YEAR ves ~NO When data was disaggregated by school, the results were that the elementary school parents were largely parents with students attending a magnet school for the second year. The 15 secondary school parents were about evenly split between new students to the program and students returning for a second year. SUM\\1ARY CF RESPONSES Mavlet School Parel,ts PEflCENT ICO'S.-------------------- IIOS ~ 70'\u0026amp; IIOll ~ ~ ~ 20S vs OS IJ\u0026lt;R o.'A \u0026lt;.- Me .... PKYW ATT8CED UiS( YEAR ClSTR 8f SOfOCt. -VE\u0026amp; r::aNO When race was coupled with the attended last year variable, it was found that a significantly higher proportion of black parent respondents had students in the second year of the magnet program than the white parents. The percentages were 69 percent to 62 percent respectively. SlMMRY a= RESPONSES 1P0EHC0ENT- -------------------, 110 BUOC-4'72 ~ ona,ea AKE ClSTR 8V ATTeOED LA.ST YEAR - RT9CB) ~ 00 NCf R'1BO ~ ....0 Dllla 16 - When the individual schools were added to these variables, the data revealed that of the parents responding a higher percentage of black parents had students in a magnet school for a second year than the white parents. The only reversal of this was Gibbs Elementary School with a larger percentage of white parents reporting attended last year. The secondary schools of Mann and Parkview were evenly split. SlM\\1ARY OF RESPONSES MagJlet School Parents t20\n....:PERCENT=-:..::.=.:...: ______________- -, 100 BO survey Data 80 48 EUO\u0026lt; 'VBS WHITE Yfll AKE B'f AJTEr,IE) LAST YEAR B'f SQ-100.. - 80CICBI ~ ~ Cl OIBI -~ Each respondent was asked to react to the survey items with a sincere attitude using the following scale: T if you think the statement is true GT i:f you think the statement is generally true GF i:f you think the statement is generally false F if you think the statement is false To begin the statistical analysis, it was necessary to assign numerical values to the categories of responses (i.e.' T=l, GT=2, GF=3, F=4) on the survey form. 17 Analysis Procedures The initial stage of the data analysis was descriptive in form. Cumulative summary information provided frequency distributions and graphs on each demographic variable and survey item. After examining the distribution of responses for each survey item via each variable, cross-tabulation contingency tables were completed to investigate the relationships among the items and the demographic information. The non-parametric chi-square test of significance was utilized to determine if the variables were statistically independent. Category Comparison This section of the report focused on the composite responses of the population for each of the survey categories. The three categories of survey items were Recruitment, Transportation and Parent and Community Involvement. The data in the accompanying graph illustrates that the parents as a population rated the survey items overall quite high (i.e., 1.789 on a scale of l=High or true to 4=Low or false.) This value revealed the summary rating for all items to be better than generally true. The three category areas fared almost as well. The area of recruitment had the highest agreement with community involvement the lowest. However, all ratings were better than generally true. The specific survey items for each category were also presented in graphic form. The category, item and survey form numbers are presented prior to the graphic displaying the responses to categories as follows: 18 Recruitment: 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were answered before I selected this school for my child. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. Transportation: 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 18. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. Parent~ Community Involvement: 6. I attend school programs and activities on a regular basis. 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent involvement. 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 19 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 17. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. 19. community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e., museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 2A 2.2 2.0 u 1.4 \\2 ~ OF RESPONSES WQETSCHOOLPNl:NTS RAlNJ \\110111 TOW. ~ IE\u0026lt;JUT\\ENT CD,,M IN\\Q.V. SlJM?f ~IES -MJWERRlNO The total distribution of responses for each item is presented in Appendix A. 20 Recruitment Category Swnmary - The parents of the magnet school students were very positive in their responses regarding recruitment of students. The parents were quite sure that most, if not all, questions were answered before they selected a school for their child. This was especially so for parents with children attending a magnet school for the first time. Generally, all parents felt that they were clear about the expectations for students of a particular magnet school. This value appeared to be a result of increased effort by the MRC to familiarize parents of students new to the magnet schools of the expectations. Yet, the parents of white students were not as positive as other parents, and the parents of North Little Rock students were less satisfied regarding information about expectations - for students than were other parents. The expectations for parents of magnet school students appears to be quite clear to all parents. SLMMRY CF RESPONSES MacJiet School Para1l8 ,.\n..:ARNI..:.\n....::_ _______________ , \\76 \\IIIM 2 011rEDCRt aJEBT10N 10 aencN  a.oncN 20 Aecnitrrent Q.Jestkre - AIEJWJE RAIN) 21 SLMAARY a= RESPONSES Mcvlet School Paet,ls Pwoa1t 70Sr---------------------. DOS Tna Oan.True OlnFaN FalN ~ a.a Reatitment Questions - CHO ~ 0-11 tZJ CHO Transportation Category Summary The parents of the magnet school students were overall quite positive in their responses regarding transportation of the students. The black parents tended to disagree more that \"the bus is generally on time at the bus stops,\" whereas, the white parents tended to disagree more that \"the amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me.\" The bus drivers were viewed by parents to generally be \"competent, courteous, and in control of the students on the bus.\" The parents in Pulaski County were very positive in their reactions as were the parents of most elementary students. The parent of a secondary student sometimes recorded a negative response. The parents of black students that were pleased were very pleased, but the ones that were unhappy were quite unhappy. Information about \"bus schedules, bus stop locations and expected student conduct on the bus\" could be better disseminated. Several parents, especially black Little Rock parents, reported dissatisfaction with the information they had received. 22  SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MagJlet School Parents RATING 4.-------------------- 3 2 0 CAlEQCRY 0-7 o- Q-IB ~ TRANSPOUAllON OLESTI~ - AIEJWERRlNO SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MagJ)et School Parents Pwoa1t 10S------------------- l50S sos 1hia Oln.Tna OaF-. F-. ~ Oda Trmspatalial Q.Jestions - CH ~ O- mJ 0-19 - 0-2' 111811tlHOQ Community Involvement Summary The parents of magnet school students submitted responses that indicate a continual need for efforts by the MRC and the magnet school administrators to improve this area. Although parents as a population attend magnet school programs and 23 activities, some voids still exist. Parents of students new to the magnet school family\nparents of Parkview High School\nblack parents especially of grades 7, 8 and 10\nand parents residing in the county district do not attend at the same ratio as other parents. Some parents, especially black parents of students at Booker, Mann and Parkview do not feel that the media provides adequate coverage of the school programs and activities. But, generally, the parents of black children feel significantly stronger than the other parents that the school activity encourages parent involvement and they can discuss their concerns during school meetings. These black parents, however, confess that their responsibilities at home and/or at work prevent them from being active in their child's school. There is no more than a 50-50 chance that parents know what is occurring at the other magnet schools. SlJIMARY OF RESPONSES MacJJet School Para,ts Pwod 70Sr--------------------, Tna Gan.True Olr\\Faaa ,=... ~ Olla Camulity ll\"l'tOl\\rent Questions  o-e ~ o-e d o-o  o-n ~ 0-12 24 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MagJlet School Parents RAl1N(3 .. .------------------~ 3 2.547 001:0CA't o-. o-. o-o o-n 0-12 c:nM...t,IITY INVCt..ve.ENT QlESTIONS -MRMRR1NO - The parents reported that the communities of Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski county are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers and providing materials and special equipment. Parents with students that were in the magnet schools previously reported that community organizations and civic centers were active as hosts for magnet school class visits. Elementary grades one and two, and secondary grades eleven and twelve apparently do not make use of this resource as often as the other grades. The parents, especially black parents with students in the magnet schools last year, felt strongly that information about magnet schools is available. 25 SUMMARY a= RESPONSES Mcvlet School Parents 11Plro0a1I '5.-------------------. Tn e.n.Tna e.n.Faea \"-- .-..,U D11111 Camulity lr?.oMlrrent Questions - 0-M ~ 0-15 c.:J 0-17 - 0-9 = ~ ~ a= RESPONSES Mac,letSchoolPaalla R-IJ1N-Q ---------------~ s 2 0 2. .. 0IIJE80R'f 0-14 0-15 0-17 o- 0-a cnu.NTY INVCl.ve.ENT Cl.STIONS -MJWERRNJ 26 In addition to the distribution of the total parent responses, it was decided to present the categorical responses by school. These graphics are presented in the following pages. The parents of Booker Elementary students reported an overall average of 1.828. This average compared to the highest rating of 1.736 for the transportation category and a low rating of 1.908 for the parent and community involvement category. This view is that the items were better than generally true. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES Mag,et School Parents ~RATIN~C3 -------------------, 2.2 2.0 1.8 \\8 1. \\2 1.0 0.8 o.e O. 0.2 0.0 ~ AEaUTl,ENT OCl,U.HTY INY. TOW. ~NERIGES - BOOICEI 1ll80 27 The parents of Carver Elementary students reported a somewhat higher average for the total instrument (1.731.) The best Carver rating was for the category of recruitment (1.546) and the lowest rating of 1.851 for parent and community involvement. As with Booker, the Carver parent ratings signal a better than generally true observation by the respondents. 2A ,... t2 1.0 a.a 0.11 QA 0.2 0..0 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES Mcviet School Parents RA11N0 nwe\u0026gt;CJrW1ClH RE\u0026lt;JU1\\ENT CD,MHTY IHY. 1CTM. CATEGORYNER.AGES - QllfWER 1IIIIO 28 The parents of Gibbs Elementary students reported very similar responses to all areas. The averages ranged from 1.638 for the transportation category to 1.786 for the parent and community involvement category. The overall average for Gibbs' parents was 1 . 682. SUM\\1ARY OF RESPONSES Mculet School Para1ls ' RATNJ 2A 2.2 2.() 1.8 \\II \\A \\2 \\0 o.a 0.11 TIWG'OIWlON REffil.11\\ENT cx::w.aNTY INY. 10TM. CATEGORY NERIG:S -GIBBS1Gll8 29 - The parents of students attending Williams magnet school responded in a very positive manner. A very high rating of 1.483 was noted for the recruitment category and a very positive overall rating of 1.677. As with the other elementary schools, the parents of Williams students rated the parent and community involvement as the lowest category. u 2.2 2.0 1.8 \\ti 1A \\2 \\,() 0,8 a.a o. 0.2 SUWMRY OF RESPONSES Mac,let School Paents IWN3 \\8138 0.0 TRNG'CRW10N RE\u0026lt;JUl\\ENT 00,U.HTY INV. lOrM. CATEGORVNER.6GES - M.1.W,11 111119 HlMlER - 40IS 30 - The parents of the junior high (students of Mann magnet school) responded with averages closer to the generally true rating. The overall average was 1.935, the recruitment category 1.767, the transportation category 1.861, and parent and community involvement 2.038. 2.4 2.2 2.0 \\.8 \\II 1.4 \\2 \\.0 0.8 0.11 QA 0.2 0.0 SUMMARY CF RESPONSES Mac,let School Parents RA1N3 2.cm ~ REOIUT\\EHT CO\u0026amp;\u0026amp;HTY INY. 10W. ~NEFW3ES ..... 111118 31 - The parents of students at Parkview high school had very similar responses to the parents of the junior high students. These were very close to the generally true level. The strongest rating average was the recruitment category and, as was now expected, the category of parent and community involvement was the highest numerical value which meant the poorest response. 0.4 0.2 0.0 SlM'AARY OF RESPONSES M\nvlet School Parents AAlN3 TIWCSPCRW1CJN RE\u0026lt;JUn.EHT OCMW.HTY INY. 10fM. ~NERAGES -PNIIC'o1EW'll80 - The responses for each item by school is presented in Appendix B. 32 Statistical Analysis To analyze and interpret the data, the statistical technique \"Chi-Square\" was utilized. This technique was selected because of its power in analyzing frequency data resulting from survey responses. Because of the extremely large number of parent responses the evaluation team anticipated large Chi-Square values signaling highly significant differences for the comparison of the demographic values. The same technique was used in the Phase I (1988) evaluation and a complete rationale was presented in that report, therefore, it will not be repeated in this report. Likewise, the team applied the Pearson Contingency Coefficient to the Chi-Square values in order to measure the strength of association among the demographic variables and the ratings on the separate survey items. The range of \"strength of association\" is from a low of 0.00 to a high of 1.00 with a marginal association accepted at 0.20. For an item to be significant for a particular demographic variable it must be significant by Chi-Square computation and meet the criteria of strength of association according to the Pearson Contingency Coefficient. The evaluation team, recognizing that the significance of a single demographic descriptor may have specific meaning and impact to the MRC, elected to present consensus statements regarding each survey item rather than address only the significant difference. Additionally, a graphic of the responses by school is presented in this section. 33 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 QlO Qll Ql2 Ql3 Ql4 Ql5 Ql6 Ql7 Ql8 Ql9 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Race NS NS s s NS s s NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY Item by Demographic Magnet School Parent District School Grade NS S* s s s NS NS NS NS NS NS s NS NS NS s NS NS NS NS s NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS s NS -. NS NS NS s s NS NS s NS s s NS s s NS NS NS NS NS NS NS s s ALY NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS s * This item and this demographic descriptor meet the criteria of the Chi-Square and the Pearson Contingency Coefficient for significant differences. s = Significant Difference NS= Non-Significant Difference 34 Question #6. I attend school programs and activities on a regular basis. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT 80$r---------------------------, TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL g BOOKER rnilIJ WILLIAMS O MANN N 2047 QUESTION e J::::::::::::j CA.AVER - PARKVIEW FALSE - GIBBS The responses appear to be true or generally true for the vast majority. However, the parents of the \"new\" students reported they did not attend as regularly as the parents of \"old\" students. As the graph illustrates, the parents of the secondary schools attend programs and activities on a much less regular basis. Parents of black children were less regular in attendance as were parents of children in grades 7, 8, and 10. Parents in the Little Rock district were more in agreement with this item than parents living in the Pulaski county district. 35 Question #7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT 80$------------------------- TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES SY SCHOOL - TOTAL a BOOKER [mil) WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 7 r::::::::i:j CARVER - PAAKVIEW - GIBBS The responses reveal the parents of Gibbs Students feel very comfortable with this transportation item. The other school's parents responses were very similar. Other analyzes indicate that parents of black students rated the item somewhat lower than whites\nparents of Pulaski county students rated the item higher\nand no other marked differences were found for this item. 36 Question #8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and programs in the magnet schools. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT eo~.....--------------------------. 30~ ,o, 0~ TRUE GEN, TRUE GEN, FALSE FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL B BOOKER mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN CZ] CARVER - GI BBS - PARKVIEW N2047 QUESTION 8 As illustrated by the graph, the parents are still not totally satisfied with the media coverage. The parents of black students responded in the extreme categories of true and false\nwhereas, the parents of white students responded more in the general categories. Otherwise, the district of residence, the school attended, the grade of the student or if it was a second year student had no effect on the parent response. 37 Question #9. The school actively encourages parent involvement. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT 100$ ..---------------------------, 80$ 40$ 20$ TRUE - TOTAL mmJ WILLIAMS N2047 QUESTION Q GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SQHOOL - BOOKER D MANN J::::::::::::) CARVER - PARKVIEW FALSE - GIBBS The data in the graph illustrates that by school this item received very positive responses. As one would expect the secondary schools, according to the parents, encourage parent involvement less than the elementary schools. The demographic separations occurred for the grades where K-6 was even more positive than expected, for race when black parents were more positive than statistically expected and for attended last year where first year parents were somewhat disappointed with the school's effort. The resident district - had no impact on the parents' responses for this item. 38 Question #10. All my questions about magnet schools were answered before I selected this magnet school for my child. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT eo~,--------------------------, 30~ ,o~ 0~ TRUE - TOTAL GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - BOOKER ffimJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 10 f:::::::::::j CARVER - PARKYIEW FALSE - GIBBS As evidenced by the responses reported in the graph, this statement received a very positive reaction. There were no differences when disaggregated by the demographic variables. This is understandable when the responses are this positive. 39 Question #11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent - me from being active in my child's school at this time. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT ~o~.-------------------------..... 301 20, TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL ~ BOOKER mIIIJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 11 1::::::::::::j Cb,RVER - F'ARKVIEW FALSE - GIBBS This is an item where the evaluator was seeking a negative type response. This type item has a dual purpose: (1) to solicit an opinion from the parent and (2) to check if the parent was indeed reading the statement or just marking the item in a positive manner. The responses satisfied the evaluator in both instances. The parents, especially black parents and parents that reside in the Pulaski county district do work and, often in their opinion, prevents them from being active in their child's school activities. The parents of students in the second year of a magnet school also expressed this opinion. Otherwise, as the graph shows, the responses were divided throughout the response options. 40 Question #12. Varios members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski county communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT eo~-------------------------~ 40t. Ot. TRUE GEN, TRUE GEN. FALSE FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL B BOOKER IIiIIIJ WILLIAMS O MANN !:::::::::::] CARVER - GI BBS - AA.RKVIEW N:2047 QUESTION 12 As the data in the graph illustrates, the by school responses were as expected, i.e. the parents of elementary students were more positive regarding this item than were the parents of secondary students. Parents in general do not view this area as a high positive aspect of the magnet schools. Parents of black students were much more positive than parents of white students and parents of students in grades 3, 5 and 6 were more positive than other grades. Otherwise, no real differences from the expected reaction. 41 Question #13. The expectations of the s.tudents were made - clear before I selected this magnet school. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT eo~,--------------------------, 20i Oi TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL - BOOKER CZ] QA.FIVER - GIBBS mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN - FARKVIEW N2047 QUESTION 13 The data for the responses to this item reveal a very high positive response. There were no differences among the parents for any of the demographic variables. The most obvious change was that parents with second-year students were somewhat negative to this item, but parents of firstyear students were very positive. 42 Question #14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT ~01,--------------------------, 301 201 1055 055 TAUE CEN. TAUE CEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL - BOOKER mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 14 CZJ CARVER - FARKVIEW FALSE - CIBBS The distribution of the parent responses were very similar regardless of the demographic variable investigated. However, the distribution caused some concern as it represents a parent response of a lack of knowledge regarding activities and programs at other schools. 43 Question #15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school - during parent/teacher organization meetings. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT 80$-------------------------, 60$ 40$ TAUE GEN. TAUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL B BOOKER mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 1e CZJ CARVER - PARKVIEW FALSE - GIBBS This distribution -reveals a high degree of acceptance among the parents for this statement. The \"this statement is true\" respondents represents all parents, but especially parents of black students, and parents of students in grades K, 1, 3, and 6. The very high responses made it difficult to find any differences for the other demographic variables. 44 Question #16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT ~0$.--------------------------. TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES SY SCHOOL - TOTAL g BOOKER milIJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 1e J::::::::::::j QA.RYER - PARKVIEW FALSE - (31888 These data reveal that the majority of parents are satisfied with the \"time\" component of the transportation category. There is some dissatisfaction, as expected, but not attributable to a particular demographic variable. Regardless of the variable investigated the distribution was approximately the same. 45 Question #17. My child's school is making a serious effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT so~...-------------------------. 40~ 20$ 0'1 TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL - BOOKER mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 17 IE]] CARVER - PAAKYIEW FALSE - GIBBS The data presented in this graph illustrates that the parents, as a school group, responded favorably to this item. The parents of black children were very positive in their responses, as were the parents of students in grades K, 3, 4, and 5. The parents of students in grades 7, 8, 9, and 10, although positive, were less positive than the lower grade students' parents. The resident district and the years attended had little to no impact on the responses. 46 Question #18. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT eo~,-------------------------- TRUE CEN. TRUE CEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL ~ BOOKER rnmJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 18 IZ3 CARVER - PARKVIEW FALSE - GIBBS These responses of the parents reveal some dissatisfaction in this area. The distribution was general for the demographic of school and years attended. However, the responses were somewhat different than expected for race (parents of black students were extreme in responses), district (Pulaski County parents rated higher than expected), and grade (lower grades were significantly higher and upper grades significantly lower than expected.) 47 Question #19. Community sponsored organizations and civic - centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. - SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT so~,-------------------------~ I . TRUE (3EN. TRUE GEN. FALSE FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL - BOOKEFI c::J OA-AVEFI - GI BBS mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN - PAFIKVIEW N2047 QUESTION 1Q The distribution of parent responses by school were in the true and generally true category. Parents of students at Booker and Williams were higher than expected. The same is true for the parents of students in gradesK, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8\nwhereas, the parents of students in grades 1, 2, 11 and 12 were somewhat lower than expected. The other demographic variables were about as expected. 48 Question #20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT so~-------------------------. TRUE CEN. TRUE CEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL a BOOKER mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 20 EE] CAAVEA - PAAKVIEW FALSE - CIBBS The distribution of parent responses by school were higher than expected for all schools. This distribution of high positive responses was also true for the demographic variable of race, district and years attended. The variation of responses for grades K, 7, and 8 created a less than expected significant value. 49 Question #21. I was properly infomed about bus schedules, bus stop locations and expected student conduct on the bus. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT so~---------------------------, 40\\1 TAUE GEN. TAUE GEN. FALSE FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL B BOOKER mm:J WILLIAMS O MANN j::::::::::::j CARVER - GI BBS - PARKVIEW N2047 QUESTION 21 The parent responses to item number 21 reveal a very high (True) reaction to this statement. There were no significant differences found between expected and actual responses for any of the five demographic variables. All sub-groups of - parents responded very similar to the total group responses. so Question 1t1L It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT so~-------------------------, 20'1 O'I TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPO~SES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL - BOOKER Emil WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 22 CE] C\\RVER - PARKVIEW FALSE - GIBBS The parents of magnet school students responded very positive to this question. The great majority of responses were in the response areas ot true or generally true. This same distribution was present for all parent sub-groups. There was no significance but it was noted that Mann parents were not quite so positive, that parents of students attending for the first year were not quite so positive, that parents of black children were more positive than white parents, and very little impact by district or grade on the parent responses. 51 Question #23. I receive most of my infomation about the activities at my child's school: (please circle one) This was a different type item in-so-far that it asked for a different type response. The selection of responses were: A. from school notices sent home B. from talking with my child c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV D. from talking with other parents The data is presented in two graphs with the first illustrating the total parent response and the second the response by school. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT so~.--------------------------, 70~ 60~ 00~ SCHOOL NOTIOES CHILO MEDIA OTHER ~ENTS PARENT RECEIVES INFORMATION - PARENT RESPONSES 52 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT 100~ ,--------------------------~ QO% 60% 70~ 80~ ~Oi 40$ 30$ 20$ 10$ Oi SCHOOL - TOTAL mm) WILLIAMS N2047 QUESTION 23 CHILO MEDIA PARENTS RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - BOOKER D MANN c::J CARVER - GI BBS - PARKVIEW . Where do parents get their information about their child's magnet school? The responses confirmed the expectations inso- far as elementary students take notices home, whereas junior high and high school students do not\nand students new to the magnet school talk with their parents about their experiences, whereas, students that attended the same school last year simply bring home notices. Additionally, the white parents get more information from school notices brought home, whereas, the black parents tend to talk about school happenings with their children. A surprising few responses from the parents indicated that their information source was the media or other parents. 53 RESULTS OF STANDARDIZED TEST DATA The results of the standardized test data was received from the Little Rock School District. The demographics provided for disaggregating the data were school, grade, sex and race for the students tested. The only scores provided were the PERCENTILE RANK for the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) and PERCENT PASSING for the Minimum Performance Test (MPT). The Arkansas State Department of Education provided the state averages with like demographics for the MPT, but, could only provide state grade level averages for the MAT-6. These data prohibited the evaluator from making statistical comparisons as statistics are not accurate when using percentile scores. In fact, percentile averages are not accurate. The MRC must use professional judgment and caution in reacting to the results as presented in this report. However, in consultation with the MRC it was decided that the evaluator would present the percentile averages and present passing in graphic form and the MRC would accept the responsibility for proper interpretation. This decision was made in view of the fact that after requesting the test data for a nine-month period, this was the best data to be received. The evaluator had requested the scaled score for each student for both the MPT and the MAT~6 which would have permitted a statistical analysis. 54 Minimum Performance Test (MPT) Results The results of the magnet school students' performance on the - MPT and the state performance is presented in the accompanying graphs. The reader is reminded the data are presented as the percentage number of students that passed the exam. Gradel Reading There were 31,793 total third grade students state-wide that took the MPT in reading. There were 29,769 third grade students (94 percent) that received a passing score or higher on the reading test. The magnet school third grade students were part of the total. When the magnet school students were sorted by school the results revealed that 76 of the 81 students (94 percent) of the students at Booker\n66 of the 67 students (98 percent) at Carver\n44 of 45 students (98 - percent) at Gibbs\nand 82 of the 83 students  (99 percent) at Williams had scores at or better than the minimum passing score. Further disaggregation of the scores included grouping by sex and by race . The data shows that 95 percent of the total females in the state, grade 3, passed the state's MPT in reading. This 95 percent passing was equaled by Booker magnet school and was bettered by Gibbs (96 percent), Carver (1 00 percent) and Williams (100 percent) . The male population for the state was reported to have a 72 percent pass rate. This is compared to a 92 percent at Booker, 96 percent at Williams, 97 percent at Carver and 100 percent at Gibbs. 55 (.J1 O'I MINIMUM .PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 3 READING PERCENT PASSING 110 ,--------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS - BOOKER ~ CARVER !:Ittl GIBBS m WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RACE WHITE E~.:::3 ST,,A JE The black student group had a pass rate for grade 3 reading of 85 percent\nwhereas, Booker black students recorded an 88 percent pass rate, Carver black students a 97 percent pass rate and both Gibbs and Williams a 100 percent pass rate. The white student group had a pass rate of 96 percent statewide for grade 3 reading. The magnet school group of white students recorded pass rates of Booker 100 percent, carver 100 percent, Gibbs 97 percent and Williams 97 percent. Further disaggregation of the grade 3 reading results revealed that the black females at Carver, Gibbs and Williams had a 100 percent pass rate\nthe black males at both Gibbs and Williams had a 100 percent pass rate\nthe white female.s at Booker, Carver and Williams had a 100 percent pass rate\nand the white males at Booker, Carver and Gibbs had 100 percent pass rate. When the systat statistical computer program was used to compute differences between percent proportions, no significance was found between the state percent passing rate and any of the magnet schools percent passing rate. However, a significant difference was found between the black students state-wide and magnet school black students at Carver, Gibbs and Williams. No significant difference was found for the other variables._ 57 U1 co MINIMUM PERFORMANCE-TEST GRADE 3 READING PERCENT PASSING 110 ,...------------------------. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS Ill BOOKER ~ CARVER [3IT] GIBBS Ill WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX Gradel Math The percentage of students taking and passing the grade 3 mathematics section of the MPT was similar to the reading percentages. Ninety-five percent (30,089 of 31,787) of the third graders state-wide received a passing score on this section of the MPT. When the four elementary magnet schools were disaggregated the results revealed that Booker had a pass rate of 96 percent, Carver a pass rate of 100 percent and Gibbs and Williams a pass rate of 98 percent. The state passing rate for female third graders was also 95 percent\nwhereas for the magnet schools for the like group it was 98 percent for Booker\n100 percent for Carver\n96 pertent for Gibbs and 98 percent for Williams. The male passing rate for all third grade students was 97 percent. Both Carver and Gibbs had 100 percent of the students passing the math section of the MPT and Booker and Williams were very close to that percent. State-wide the black students had a pass rate of 88 percent for mathematics at the grade three level. Every magnet school had a higher pass rate with Carver, Gibbs and Williams at 100 percent and Booker with a 93 percent pass rate. The white students, for the state, had a pass rate of 97 percent with Booker, Ca~ver and Gibbs reporting an equal or better pass rate. Williams had a competitive 95 percent. Further sorting of the magnet schools third grade class revealed that the black females and black males at Carver, Gibbs and Williams had a 100 percent pass rate\nwhereas, the - white females at Booker and Carver and the white males at Booker, Carver and Gibbs had a 100 percent pass rate. 59 MINIMUM PERFORMANCE .. TEST GRADE 3 MATH PERCENT PASSI NG 110 .------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK WHITE AVERAG.ES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS .. BOOKER ~ CARVER l:?\\d GIBBS - WILLIAMS ~ STATE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RICE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST ' GRADE 3 MATH PERCENT PASSING 110 ..-------------------------. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS Ill BOOKER ~ CARVER l -f? I GIBBS .. WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX The statistical analysis program systat yielded no significant differences between proportions of passing for - the state rate and the rate for any of the magnet schools. The significant differences did occur in relation to mathematics performance at Carver and Willia.ms where the magnet black students had a significantly higher percent passing rate than the state rate. Grade Q Reading The percent passing for the state-wide sixth grade population was 94 (27,425 of 29,330). All four magnet schools exceeded this percent with Booker with 97 percent, Carver with 99 percent, Gibbs with 100 percent and Willia.ms with 99 percent passing. When the group was disaggreated by sex the females, statewide recorded a percent passing rate of 95. Likewise, the female population of the magnet schools had a percent passing rate as follows: Booker 99 percent\nCarver 100 percent\nGibbs 100 percent and Williams 97 percent. The total male population had a percent passing rate of 92. The like group in the magnet schools recorded a percent passing rate as follows: Williams and Gibbs 100 percent\nCarver 97 percent and Booker 95 percent. The sorting by race revealed that the black population had a state-wide passing rate of 84 percent. The magnet school black students performed at a passing rate of 100 percent for both Williams and Gibbs\n97 percent for carver and 95 percent for Booker. The white population state-wide recorded a percent passing rate of 96. The results for the magnet schools revealed that both Gibbs and Carver had a 100 percent 62 O'I w MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 6 READING PERCENT PASSING 110 .-----------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK WHITE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS - BOOKER ~ CARVER LtI=I GIBBS - WILLIAMS I STATE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RICE passing\nBooker a 99 percent passing and Williams a 97 percent passing. Further disaggregation was possible for the magnet schools. This presented data for the race and sex combined. The black females of the magnet school population recorded percent passing as follows: Carver, Gibbs and Williams 100 percent\nBooker 97 percent. The white female group had the following percent passing rate: Booker, Carver and Gibbs 100 percent\nWilliams 92 percent. As stated previously, both Williams and Gibbs had 100 percent passing fo~ both black and white males\nwhereas, Booker had 92 percent passing for black males and 97 percent passing for white males. Carver reported a passing rate for black males of 94 percent and 100 percent for white males. The statistical analysis of differences between two proportions did not yield a significant difference between the state's percent passing and any of the four magnet schools. The significant differences were found for the disaggregated variables and are listed as follows: The black students in all four magnet schools had a significantly higher proportion of students passing the MPT than did the state's black students as a population. Grade 6 Math Ninety-three percent of the sixth grade population state-wide performed at the minimum level required for passing. The magnet schools and the respective percent passing were as follows: Booker 97 percent (137 of 141)\nCarver 100 percent (69 of 69)\nGibbs 100 percent (48 of 48)\nand Williams 99 percent (66 of 67). 64 O'I u, MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 6 READING PERCENT PASSING 110 .-------------------------. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS .. BOOKER ~ CARVER t'\u0026lt;? I GIBBS 1111 WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY Rf.CE/SEX O'I O'I MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 6 MATH PERCENT PASSING 110 .--------~-------------------. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK WHITE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS - BOOKER ~ CARVER HF?) GIBBS - WILLIAMS  STATE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY R.ACE The breakout by sex revealed that 95 percent of the total females and 92 percent of the total males recorded a minimum passing score or higher on the MPT. The magnet schools and the percent passing rate for females and males respectively were as follows: Booker 99 percent and 95 percent\nCarver 100 percent and 100 percent\nGibbs 100 percent and 100 percent\nand Williams 100 percent and 97 percent. The group was then sorted to reveal the percent passing by race. The state-wide rate was 86 percent passing for blacks and 95 percent passing for whites. For the magnet schools the rate passing for black and white respectively were as follows: Booker 93 percent and 100 percent\nCarver 100 percent and 100 percent\nGibbs 100 percent and 100 percent\nand Williams 100 percent and 97 percent. Additional sorting provided data for sex by race for the four magnet schools. These data were as follows: Booker black females 97 percent passing, black males 88 percent passing, white females and white males 100 percent passing\ncarver black females, white females, black males, white males all 100 percent passing\nGibbs black females, black males, white females, white males all 100 percent passing\nand Williams white males 94 percent passing and all others, white females, black females and black males 100 percent passing. The statistical analysis of the difference between proportions yielded a significant difference between Carver's percent passing in math and the state's percent passing in math. Further analysis revealed the black students at Carver, Gibbs and Williams had a significantly higher percent passing rate than did the state as a population. 67 Grade Language Arts The language arts section of the MPT .appeared to be more difficult for the students. The percent passing for the total state was 88 percent. The magnet school students also found this test somewhat more difficult. Ninety-four percent of the Booker sixth graders met or exceeded the required minimum score\nwhereas, 93 percent of Carver students\n83 percent of Gibbs students and 96 percent of Williams students entered a minimum or better score. When disaggregated by sex the state-wide percent passing for females was 91 percent and for males 85 percent. The percent passing for magnet schools for females and males respectively was as follows: Booker 98 percent and 90 percent\nCarver 94 percent and 92 percent\nGibbs 88 percent and 78 percent\nand - Williams 97 percent and 94 percent. The ''by race\" breakout for the state was 76 percent of the black students and 92 percent of the white students recorded a score that met or exceeded .the state requirements. The magnet schools and the percent passing for black students and white students respectively were as follows: Booker 90 percent and 97 percent\nCarver 88 percent and 97 percent\nGibbs 63 percent and 96 percent\nand Williams 97 percent and 93 percent. Further sorting by combining race and sex revealed percent passing for the magnet schools for black females, black males, white females and white males. The specific values for the magnet school and the disaggregate group are as - follows: Booker black females 94 percent, black males 85 percent, white females 100 percent, and white males 94 69 -.J 0 MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST .. GRADE 6 LANGUAGE ARTS PERCENT PASSING 110 ..-------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FFMALE MALE BLACK ' WHITE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS .. BOOKER ~ CARVER l/thl GIBBS - WILLIAMS  STATE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY R/tCE -..J ...... MINIMUM PERFORMANCE-TEST ' GRADE 6 LANGUAGE ARTS 110 P_ER_CE_NT _PAS_SIN_G _______________ __, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS .. BOOKER ~ CARVER l\u0026gt;tfl GIBBS .. WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY RfiCE/SEX percent passing\nCarver black females 94 percent, black males 81 percent, white females 93 percent and white males 100 - percent passing\nGibbs black females 78 percent, black males 50 percent, white females 93 percent and white males 100 percent passing\nWilliams black females 100 percent, black males 92 percent, white females 92 percent and white males 94 percent passing. The statistical analysis of the difference between two proportions yielded a significant difference between both Booker and Williams when comparing percent passing rates with the state's passing rate. In additional analysis it was noted that the females at Booker and black students at Booker and Williams recorded a significantly higher percent passing rate than did the state as a population. Grade Science The state distribution of scores for grade six on the science component of the MPT revealed that 25,631 of the 29,326 students that took the test (87 percent) received a score equal to or greater than that required to pass the test. When the magnet school students were disaggregated from the total the sub-group scores revealed that 125 of 141 (89 percent) of the students at Booker magnet met or exceeded these same requirements and 61 of 69 students (88 percent) at Carver met or exceeded these requirements. Other magnet schools at Gibbs 40 of 48 (83 percent) and Williams 54 of 67 (81 percent) also met or exceeded these requirements. When the total scores were sorted by sex the results revealed that the state passing rate for females was 86 percent and for males was 89 percent. The magnet school and the respective passing rates for females and males respectively 72 -..J w MINIMUM PERFORMANCE- TEST GRADE 6 SCIENCE PERCENT PASSING 110 .------------ ------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK  WHITE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS - BOOKER ~ CARVER [ ftJ GIBBS - WILLIAMS ~ STATE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RICE were as follows: Booker 90 percent and 87 percent\ncarver 84 percent and 92 percent\nGibbs 84 percent and 82 percent\nand - Williams 71 percent and 91 percent. When sub-grouped by race the state's percent passing rate was 69 percent for the black population and 93 percent for the white population. The results for the magnet schools black students revealed that Booker (80 percent) and carver (88 percent) exceeded the state percent passing\nwhereas, Gibbs (68 percent) and Williams (69 percent) were approximately the same as the state's percent passing. The results for the magnet schools white students revealed that Booker (95 percent) was higher than the state percent passing, Carver-. (89 percent) was lower than the state percent passing and Gibbs and Williams were equal to the state percent passing for grade 6 science. Additional disaggregation of the magnet school results for race and sex provided data that shows Carver's black females (94 percent) out performed the other magnets black females on percent passing the MPT. Williams' black males (85 percent passing) was the best of the magnets for that sub-group and Booker's white females group (96 percent) led all magnet elementary schools for that sub-group. The white male subgroup was all quite high with Carver and Gibbs both at 100 percent passing, and Booker and Williams both at 94 percent passing. The statistical analysis of the difference between two proportions failed to identify any significant differences between the state passing rate and the individual magnet school population. The state's total female students had a 74 -.J (.J1 MINIMUM PERFORMANCE  TEST GRADE 6 SCIENCE PERCENT PASSING 110 .-------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS Ill BOOKER ~ CARVER FL:Z7:Ti::JI GIBBS 1111 WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX significantly higher percent passing rate than the percent passing at Williams magnet. The black students at Carver had a significantly higher passing rate in science than the state's black students. Grade Social Studies The percent passing rate for grade 6 social studies statewide was 87 percent. The magnet schools all exceeded the state percent with Booker 94 percent passing, Williams 93 percent passing, Carver 90 percent passing and Gibbs with 88 percent passing. When subdivided by sex the state percent passing rate was 87 percent for females and 86 percent for males. The magnet . school and the percent passing for females and males respectively were as follows: Booker 95 percent and 92 percent\nCarver 88 percent and 92 percent\nGibbs 88 percent and 87 percent\nand Williams 94 percent and 91 percent. The groups disaggregated by race yielded a percent passing rate for the state's black students of 68 percent and for the state's white students of 92 percent. For the magnet schools the school and the percent passing rate for black students and white students respectively were as follows: Booker 86 percent and 99 percent\nCarver 88 percent and 92 percent\nGibbs 74 percent and 96 percent\nand Williams 94 percent and 90 percent. Additional sorting for the magnet schools yielded results for race and sex. The black females that scored the highest percent passing rate was Williams (96 percent passing) - closely followed by Carver (94 percent passing). 76 --.J --.J e . MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 6 SOCIAL STUDIES PERCENT PASSING 110 .------------------------. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK  WHITE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS - BOOKER ~ CARVER h':tJ GIBBS - WILLIAMS  STATE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RICE -.J co MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 6 SOCIAL STUDIES PERCENT PASSI NG 110 ,---------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS .. BOOKER ~ CARVER l\\'? I GIBBS 11111 WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX The pace setter for the black male sub-group was clearly Williams with a 92 percent passing rate. The best school for - the white females was Booker with 98 percent passing, however, both Gibbs (93 percent) and Williams (92 percent) had over 90 percent passing. The white male was the most consistent performers in all magnet schools in social studies i.e., Booker 100 percent, Carver 100 percent, Gibbs 100 percent and Williams 88 percent passing. The statistical analysis of the difference between two proportions found no significant difference between the magnet students' percent passing rate in social studies and the state population performance. Additional analysis did yield a significant difference between Williams and the state population regarding black student's percent passing rates. Grade~ Reading The percent passing rate for the state population of eighth graders was 96 percent. The magnet school Mann recorded the exact same percent. The population for the state was 28,727 students and for Mann was 269 students. The percent passing for Mann grade 8 females was two percentage points more than the state passing rate, i.e., 99- 97. The males at Mann had a 93 percent passing, whereas, the state percent passing rate was 95 percent. When disaggregated by race the results revealed that the state's black students had a 90 percent passing rate and Mann's black students recorded a 94 percent passing rate. The state's white students performed at a 98 percent passing rate and the Mann white students performed at a 98 percent passing rate. 79 co 0 MINIMUM PERFORMANCE_ TEST .. GRADE 8 READING PERCENT PASSI NG 110 ,-------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK MAGNET SCHOOLS 1111 HORACE MANN  STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RICE WHITE 00 I--' MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 READING PERCENT PASSING 110 ,------------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0'--- BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE MAGNET SCHOOLS Ill HORACE MANN ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX Additional sorting by sex and race revealed that Mann's magnet school students recorded a higher percentage pass rate than did the overall state population of eighth grade students. The sub-group and the percent passing for Mann and the state total respectively were as follows: Black females 98 percent, 92 percent\nblack males 89 percent, 87 percent\nwhite females 100 percent, 98 percent\nand white males 98 percent, 97 percent. The statistical analysis of the differences between two proportions revealed no significant differences existed between the 8th grade population at Mann magnet school and the state as an eighth grade unit. This was also true i.e., no significant difference for any of the disaggregated subgroups. Grade~ Math The state percent passing rate for grade eight mathematics was reported at 97 percent. The Mann magnet school reported a percent passing rate of 96 percent. When disaggregated by sex and race the percent passing varied very little. The female rate for the state was 97 percent passing and the same percent (97 percent) passing was recorded for Mann magnet. The males recorded a state rate of 96 percent pass~ng and Mann recorded a 94 percent passing. The by race sorting revealed that both the state and Mann recorded 98 percent passing rate for the white students. The black students performed at a 94 percent passing rate at Mann and the state reported a 93 percent passing rate. 82 (X) w MINIMUM PERFORMANCE -TEST GRADE 8 MATH PERCENT PASSI NG 110 ~-----------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK MAGNET SCHOOLS 1111 HORACE MANN ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RJICE WHITE 00 ~ MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 MATH PEnCENT PASSING 110 ,----------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o~- BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE MAGNET SCHOOLS .. HORACE MANN ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY R/0:/SEX Further analysis of the disaggregated data was conducted for the combination of race and sex. The black females performed at a 94 percent passing rate at the state level and a 96 percent passing rate at Mann junior high. The black males recorded a 90 percent passing rate at Mann magnet and a 92 percent passing rate at the state level. The white females and the white males performed at about identical rates. The sub-group and the percent passing for Mann magnet and the state respectively were white females 98 percent, 98 percent and white males 98 percent, 97 percent. The statistical analysis of differences between proportions failed to provide a significant difference for any group or sub-group. Grade~ Language Arts The state percent passing rate for the grade 8 language arts section of the MPT was 92 percent. The percent passing for Mann magnet was also 92 percent. When the two groups were sorted by sex and race the results varied very little. The female population recorded the same percent passing (97) for both groups. The male population for the state recorded a percent passing of 96 and the Mann magnet school males recorded a 94 percent passing. The group and the percent passing for black students and white students respectively were as follows: Mann 99, 87 an\" d state 94, 87. Further disaggregation of the data provided results for sex by race for both the state and for Mann magnet school. The sub-group and the percent passing for the state and Mann respectively were as follows: black females 92, 93\nblack males 63, 81\nwhite females 97, 100\nand white males 91, 98. 85 00 en MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 LANGUAGE ARTS PERCENT PASSING 110 .---------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK MAGNET SCHOOLS .. HORACE MANN  STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY Rf.CE WHITE (X) -..J MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 LANGUAGE ARTS PERCENT PASSING 110 .--------------- ------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o~ BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE MAGNET SCHOOLS .. HORACE MANN ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX The statistical analysis for difference between two proportions was applied to the data for grade 8 language arts. The only comparison that yielded a significant difference was for the white students where Mann magnet students had a significantly higher percent passing than the state's white students as a population. Grade~ Science The state population for grade 8 in the science area test of the MPT had a percent passing rate of 88 percent. The total Mann eighth grade performed at the 78 percent level. When disaggregated by sex and by race the results yielded data for females, males, black race and white race. The . analysis revealed that the females percent passing for the state group was 85 and was 77 for the Mann females. The state's male population had a passing rate of 91 percent, whereas, Mann's male population performed at a 77 percent passing rate. The breakouts of the present passing by race and group were as follows: Mann magnet black 66 percent passing, white 95 percent passing\nstate population of black students 72 percent passing\nwhite students 93 percent passing. Additional sorting yielded the following results for both the state subgroup and the magnet subgroup: black female, state percent passing 69, Mann percent passing 67\nwhite female, state percent passing 90, Mann percent passing 93\nblack male, state percent passing 75, Mann percent passing 66\nwhite male, state percent passing 95, Mann percent passing 98. 88 00 \\D MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 SCIENCE PERCENT PASSI NG 110~-------------------. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEM.ALE MALE BLACK MAGNET SCHOOLS .. HORACE MANN  STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY Rf.CE WHITE \\0 0 MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 SCIENCE PERCENT PASSI NG 110 .------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o~- BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE MAGNET SCHOOLS 111111 HORACE MANN ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX The statistical analysis yielded significant differences for several group comparisons. The state's eighth graders, the state's male population, and the state's female population had a significantly higher percent passing rate than Mann magnet school. Further analysis of the disaggregated scores failed to yield more significant differences. Grade~ Social Studies The percent passing for the state's eighth graders in the social studies area was 89 percent. The Mann magnet school recorded an 81 percent passing rate. The total groups were disaggregated by sex and by race. The results were as follows when sorting by sex: females, state rate 88 perceht passing, Mann 81 percent passing\nmales, state rate 91 percent passing, Mann 80 percent passing. The 4 percent passing rate for the breakouts by race were as follows: black race, state 82, Mann 72\nwhite race, state 92, Mann 93. Further sorting yielded subgroups of sex by race. The results for the black females were that the state had an 81 percent passing rate and Mann magnet had a 76 percent passing rate. Also, the black males had a state-wide passing rate of 82 percent and Mann magnet had a passing rate of 68 percent. The state's white females performed at a passing rate of 90 percent which was almost equal to Mann's white females rate of 89 percent. The white males at Mann magnet performed at a rate of passing of 98 percent while the state's percent passing for the like group was 93. 91 I.O N MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST ' GRADE 8 SOCIAL STUDIES PERCENT PASSI NG 110 ....------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK MAGNET SCHOOLS - HORACE MANN  STATE AVERAGE 1989 DAfA BY SEX: BY RICE WHITE I.D w MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 SOCIAL STUDIES PERCENT PASSING 110~-------------------~ 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ----- BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE MAGNET SCHOOLS 1111 HORACE MANN ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX The statistical analysis yielded several significant differences between the two groups. The state group of eighth graders out-performed the Mann magnet group on the total and with both sexes. Additionally, the black race as a group and the black males as a group out-performed the Mann magnet groups of like students. 94 Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) The Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) 1989 scores for the - magnet schools were used for this report. It is of significance, once more, to remind the reader that these scores are reported in percentile rank (PR) scores for the students and for the school. The summary of averages computed for the disaggregated groups are averages of percentile ranks and do not have statistical significance. These graphics are only for information to the Magnet Review Committee and the magnet school administration. Grade 1 MAT-6 Composite The composite scores for the grade 4 of the magnet schools and for the state area population are presented here. The data, also presented in graphs, reveal that an average of - percentile ranks on the MAT-6 places the magnet schools on an approximate equal with the state percentile rank (PR). The state's PR for reading 62 and the magnet schools average PR was 61. This continued to be displayed when the other test components were graphed. The test content and the state's PR and the magnet school's average PR respectively were presented as follows: Mathematics, state PR=70, magnet school a . erage PR=72\nLanguage Arts, state PR=66, magnet school average PR=67\nthe basic battery of reading, mathematics and language arts, state's PR=67, magnet school average PR=68\nscience, state PR=68, magnet school average PR=67\nand social studies, state PR=68, magnet school average PR=70. Further sorting of the four magnet elementary schools population allowed for more data presentations. For example, the group population MAT-6 PR's were sorted and averaged by 95 I.O O'\\ 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENTILE RD MAT-6 SUMMARY , GRADE 4 MA LA BB SC MAT -6 SUB-TESTS - MAGNET AVERAGE ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 QA5S NER.AGE ss sex the results appear as follows: reading, female PR=64, male PR=57\nmath, female PR=74, male PR=71\nlanguage arts female PR=72, male PR=63\nbasic battery, female PR=71, male PR=65\nscience, female PR=67, male PR=68\nand social studies, female PR=72, male PR=69. Additional sorting allowed the data for the magnet schools to be viewed by race. This disaggregation revealed that the white students had a considerably higher average PR than did the black students, i.e., for reading, white PR=72, black PR=SO and for science, white PR=78, black PR=57. It was of interest to the evaluator that, however fragile the data, the smallest difference in average PR's between the races were in language arts. When the swnmary PR's were grouped by both sex and race for grade four of the four elementary schools, the results appeared somewhat the same. The females' average PR for content, white and black respectively were as follows: reading, white PR=76, black PR=54\nmathematics, white PR=84, black PR=65\nlanguage arts, white PR=77, black PR=66\nbasic battery, white PR=81, black PR=61\nscience, white PR=80, black PR=SS\nand social studies, white PR=83, black PR=61. Similar results were illustrated when the black and white males were compared. The highest PR averages for the black males were in the content areas of math, science and social studies\nwhereas, the highest average PR's for white males, also, were math, science and social studies. 97 I.O 00 PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY GRADE 4 100 ,--------------------------. 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS Ill FEMALE ~ MALE 1989 M/rGNET SCHOOLS BY S X I.O I.O PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY GRADE 4 100 ~-----------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA 1989 Mt-GNET SCHOOLS BY RICE LA BB MAT -6 SUB-TESTS .. WHITE ~ BLACK SC ss I-' 0 0 MAT -6 SUMMARY GRADE 4: FEMALE BY RACE PERCENTILE 100 .-------------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS Ill WHITE FEMALE ~ BLACK FEMALE 1989 DATA ALL Mf.GNET SCHOOLS I-' 0 I-' MAT -6 SUMMARY .. GRADE 4: MALE BY RACE PERCENTILE 100 r----------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS .. WHITE MALE ~ BLACK MALE 1989 DATA ALL MPGNET Sa-tOOLS Grade i MAT-6, QY School The total percentile rank for each of the magnet schools in the content areas will be presented in graphic form for better understanding by the reader. The total reading PR for Carver and Gibbs was 61 with Williams the highest total reading PR=72 and Booker the lowest at PR=SO. The reader must bear in mind that percentile rank, by definition, means that this percent of scores on a national norm were equal to, or less, than the score attained by this particular group. The data in the graphic reveals .that Williams magnet continued to be the pace setter for the other content areas and Booker, al~hough consistently scoring higher than 50 percent of the schools nation-wide, revealed the lowest PR except in social studies. Additional graphs are presented in Appendix c. These graphs present by school illustrations of data for the disaggregated groups. Grade 1 MAT-6 The data for grade 7 were obtained from Horace Mann Junior High School. The composite average for Mann magnet school and the state composite for the state's seventh grade appears very close. The largest difference between the PR's was in reading (Mann's PR=60, state's PR=SS) and in language arts (Mann's PR=67, state's PR=62). The highest PR for Mann was in language arts, whereas, the highest PR for the state as a group was in science. The only content area where the state's PR was higher than the magnet school was mathematics. It should be noted that the majority of PR's for the state and for Mann were about the PR=60. 102 ...... 0 (.\nJ MAT-6 SUMMARY PERCENTILE 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 RD MA - BOOKER 1989 CLASS AVERAGE GRADE 4 LA 88 MAT -6 SUB-TESTS r~ITIT1 CARVER ~ GIBBS SC ss ~ WILLIAMS I-' 0 ~ PERCENTILE 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 RD 1009 U..ASS NERN3E MAT -6 SUMMARY GRADE 7 MA LA BB SC MAT -6 SUB- TESTS Ill MAGNET AVERAGE ~ STATE AVERAGE ss When the data were sorted by race, the PR's revealed a similar condition as existed in the elementary schools. The white students consistently scored higher than the black students within the magnet school. These data revealed that the largest differences in average PR's were reading and mathematics. The highest PR for the black students was in the language arts content area and the lowest was in the area of math. The white students scored higher, as a group, in science and they also recorded their lowest PR in mathematics. When the data were disaggregated by sex, the PR's were somewhat different than for the elementary schools. With the exception of language arts the males' average PR was higher than their female counterparts. The highest male PR was in science (PR=70) and the highest female PR was in language arts (PR=69). The lowest average PR for both was in mathematics. When both race and sex was used for sorting the results revealed that the white females had consistently higher average PR's than did the black females. However, the highest average PR for both female groups was language arts and the lowest for both groups was mathematics. For the male population, the ~hite males had the highest average PR for each content area. In contrast with the females, the white males' highest PR was in science, but, like the females, the black males' highest PR was in language arts. The lowest PR for the black males was, again, like the females, in mathematics. The lowest PR for the white males was in language arts. 105 ..... 0 O'I PERCENTILE MAT -6 SUMMARY GRADE 7 100 ~------------------------ 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA 1989 Mf.GN T SCHOOLS BY RICE LA BB MAT -6 SUB-TESTS Ill WHITE ~ BLACK SC ss I-' 0 --.J PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY GRADE 7 100 .---------------------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA 1989 MAGNET SCHOOLS BY SEX LA BB MAT -6 SUB-TESTS - FEMALE ~ MALE SC ss f--' 0 (X) MAT -6 SUMMARY GRADE 7: FEMALE BY RACE PERCENTILE 100 .------------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC MAT -6 SUB-TESTS .. WHITE FEMALE ~ BLACK FEMALE 1989 DATA ALL MI-GNET SCHOOLS ss f--' 0 I.O MAT -6 SUMMARY  GRADE 7: MALE BY RACE PERCENTILE 100 ~---------------------. 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS Ill WHITE MALE ~ BLACK MALE 1989 DATA ALL M.AGNET SCHOOLS Grade lQ MAT-6 The data for the sophomore class at Parkview High school was - collected for the study. The magnet school students' performance when compared to the state average, was close to the 50th percentile rank in all content areas. The content area of the highest PR for both the magnet school (PR=58) and the state (PR=61) was language arts. The content area with the lowest PR for Parkview sophomores was math (PR=47) and for the state sophomores was reading (PR=Sl). The data was sorted by race for additional analysis. These results reveal that the white group of sophomores averaged between PR=56 (mathematics) and PR=64 (language arts). Likewise, the black group of sophomores averaged between PR=40 (social studies) and PR=54 (language arts). The greatest difference between the groups' performance was in - social studies where the white race group had a PR=61 and the black race group had a PR=40. Additional sorting by sex produced a much closer comparison. The male group of sophomores had a high PR average of 56 in science and a low PR average of 48 in mathematics. The female group of sophomores had a high PR average of 60 in language arts and a low PR average of 46 in mathematics. The largest difference in the PR's was in the content area of science, i.e., male PR=56, female PR=47. When sorted by race and sex the data revealed that the white females and black females had highest PR's in the content area of language arts. The lowest PR for the white female group was in mathematics (PR=57), whereas, the lowest PR for the black female group was social studies (PR-38). 110 ..... ..... ..... 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENTILE RD MAT -6 SUMMARY GRADE 10 MA LA 88 SC MAT -6 SUB-TESTS I 19119 CLASS NERl'GE - MAGNET AVERAGE ~ STATE AVERAGE ss ...... ...... l'v PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY GRADE 10 100 ------------------------ 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS - WHITE ~ BLACK 1009 M/tGNET SQ-fOOLS BY RNA: PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY GRADE 10 100 .--------------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS 1111 FEMALE ~ MALE 1989 MAGNET SCHOOLS BY SEX MAT -6 SUMMARY  .. GRADE 10: FEMALE BY RACE PERCENTILE 100------------------------. 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA 88 SC ss MAT-6 SUB-TESTS .. WHITE FEMALE ~ BLACK FEMALE 1989 DATA ALL M/tGNET SCHOOLS The black male group's highest average PR was in the content area of language arts (PR=52) and the wl:lite male group's - highest average PR was in science (PR=68). The lowest PR average for the black males and white males respectively was reading (PR=42) and mathematics (PR=54). 115 I-' I-' CTI MAT -6 SUMMARY GRADE 10: MALE BY RACE PERCENTILE 100 .----------------------. 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS Ill WHITE MALE ~ BLACK MALE 1989 DAf A ALL Mf.GN T SCHOOLS SUMMARY STATEMENT Based on the findings of the study and the insight gained from the evaluation team's interaction with other educators, the following statements appear valid. 1. The return rate of 60 percent on the parent survey is sufficient to warrant consideration of the responses. 2. There is no difference in the return rate of parents based on race or resident district. 3. The majority of parents responding had students attending a magnet school for the second year, especially parents of elementary students. 4. 5. A higher proportion of black students are attending a magnet school for the second year than students of other races. This was true by school except for Gibbs elementary. The efforts of the MRC regarding student recruitment have been rewarded. The parents are very positive of recruitment procedures. 6. Transportation as a category was acceptable to the parents\nhowever, there is still some concern about \"student time on bus,\" \"bus drivers\" and \"transportation information.\" 7. The parents of magnet school students indicate there is a continued need for efforts by the MRC and the magnet school administration to improve the area of parent and community involvement. 117 8. 9. Working parents, especially parents of black children, have a difficult time becoming involved in school activities. Elementary students take school notices home to parents and parents read them for information about school activities, whereas, secondary students tend to just \"tell\" their parents about school activities. 10. Parents of black students \"talk with their child\" about school more than parents of white students. 11. The black students in grade 3 will perform better on both sections (reading and math) of the Minimum Performance Test (MPT) than the state average passing rate. 12. The black students in grade 6 will perform better on the reading and math tests of the MPT than the state average passing rate, and perform as well or better in the areas of language arts, science and social studies. 13. The magnet schools' eighth grade students do not perform as well as the state average passing rate on the MPT content area tests of science and social studies. 14. Although the magnet school grade 4 students have a comparable composite percentile rank on the MAT-6 as the state popul~tion of grade 4 students, the black magnet school students do not perform as well as their white peers. 118 15. Although the magnet school's sev.enth grade students have a comparable composite percentile rank on the MAT-6 as the state population of seventh grade students, the black students of the magnet school do not perform as well as their white peers. 16. The state composite percentile rank for the MAT-6 was, although comparable, higher than the composite percentile rank for the grade 10 magnet students in all content areas. The white students will perform at a higher level than their black peers on this particular test. 17. The magnet school students perform better, as measured by the MPT and the MAT-6, in the content areas of reading and math\nwhereas, the weakest area is science. 18. The least difference in performance by the race variable was in the content area of language arts. 119 APPENDIX A 120 - - MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questions openly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child's School _ M_a_,g._n_e_t_S_ch_o_o_l_P_a_re_n_t_s_-_N_=_20_4_7_ 2. Child's Grade _ _ 3. Child's Race: Black __ _ White --- Other --- 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ____ _ North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ___ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No __ _ =================---------------------------------------=-------------- Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale: Mark Column T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F MO 6. I attend school programs and activities on a las 1 lss9 11641 155 I 1a] regular basis. 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. 1731 I 796 I 123 I 102 I 2951 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and 1275 Ina I 56812451 39 programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent I 12061643 I u6 I s 1 I 11 involvement. 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were 1943 1797 116711331 7 answered before I selected this school for my child. 121 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 17. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. 18. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. 19. Community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 23. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: (please circle one) T GT GF F MO 1 3 70 1696 1444 I s 17 I 20 1 144319941318 Isa I 212 j 11129 1643 1163 I 89 I 23 I I 32ol 626lss7 ls16 I 2s I l10os I683I192 I 112 I ss I I 6s5l 6o7l166 l24s 13411 19661 8281148 173 132 I I 3741 8451278 121713331 I 92l I 8171161 58 I 90 I 111171 5921196 I 120 I 22 111941438 184 l115l216I 110251786 I 141 1 s 7 1 38 I A. from school notices sent home 1229 B. from talking with my child 539 c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV 10 D. from talking with other parents 31 E. Missing Data 238 122 APPENDIX B 123 - - MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questions openly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child s School Booker Magnet N=483 2. Child's Grade _ _ 3. Child's Race: Black___ White _ _ Other --- 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ____ _ North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ___ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No __ _ Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale: Mark Column T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F MO 6. I attend school programs and activities on a 1173 223, 43 39 5 I regular basis. 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. I 178 I 199 I 26 I 24 56 I 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and ls9 1149168 I l I 198 9 programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent l2s41l871 291 11! 2 l involvement. 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were 1200 1198 I 431 4 l I l answered before I selected this school for my child. 124 . 11. -12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. -18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. T GT GF My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory. with me. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: {please circle one) I 119 I 241 I I 217 I 1791 185 I 152 I 12561 1541 1 182 1 1361 I 223 I 191 I I 105 I 185 I I 3271 118 I I 233I 1491 I 290 I 105 I I 224 I 1971 A. from school notices sent home 319 B. from talking with my child 110 c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV D. from talking with other parents E. Missing Data 125 0 8 46 60 53 1161 42 35 40 77 161 58 30 34 F MO 21 I 42 l 25 9 1241 6 22 9 67 63 26 I 3 I 56 I 60 I 14 8 38 5 28 30 22 6 - - MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questionsopenly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child's School_ __c _a_r_v_e_r_Ma_g_n_e_t _N= _3_5_5_ ___ 2. Child's Grade- -- 3. Child's Race: Black. _ _ White. __ _ Other _ _ 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ____ _ North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ___ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No __ _ =================-=======-======-=====-================================ Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale: Mark column T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F MO 6. I attend school programs and activities on a I 141 I 150 j 31 l 30 3 regular basis. 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. 1132 1144114 I 16 49 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and I 55 1166195 133 6 programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent I 241 l 96 l lo l 4 I 4 involvement. 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were 1184 !129\\21 I 21 I 0 answered before I selected this school for my child. 126 I l l I I 11. My responsibilities (at home or work} prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 17. 18. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. 19. community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 23. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: {please circle one) 75 T GT GF F MO 1361 69 173 2 74 1711 61 I 10 39 I I 219 I 101' 19 I 12 I 4 I 50 I 117 I 91 I n I 5 I 2051100I 30 I 12I 8 l111l10il41l 47I55I I 1s9I 127I 25 5 9 187 I 141I 46 30 I 51 1211157144 7 l26 I 230, 74 34 13 I 4 219 I 69 11 I 17 1 39 1 1951 1211 25 8 I 6 I A. from school notices sent home 229 B. from talking with my child 63 c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV o D. from talking with other parents 6 E. Missing Data 57 127 MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questions openly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child's School- -G-ibb-s -N=-27- l -------- 3. Child's Race: Black___ White _ _ 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ____ _ 2. Child's Grade _ _ Other _ _ North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ___ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No __ _ ==================c============================================ ======= Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale: 6. 7. 8. 9. - 10. Mark Column T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F I attend school programs and activities on a regular basis. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and programs in the magnet schools. The school actively encourages parent involvement. All of my questions about magnet schools were answered before I selected this school for my child. 128 133I117 I 12 I 93 1 91 1 42 I 129 I 62 !201 1 62 1 6 l12s 1111 I 1s MO s 7 1 11 I 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 17. 18. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. 19. Community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 23. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: (please circle one) T GT GF F MO 1 38 1 89 67 75 2 162 1137 3 7 9 I 26 135 1001 25 11 0 150 109 I 70 39 J 153 91 13 10 4 78 78 17 28 170 1621 98 146 1 99 33 122 1 71 1 108 j 125 I 23 5 10 1451 8 71 2 7 9 3 1481 55 I 148, 95 A. from school notices sent home 195 B. from talking with my child 39 C. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV O D. from talking with other parents 1 E. Missing Data 36 129 MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questionsopenly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child's School _ W_i_l_l_i_a_m_s_M_a~g~n_e_t _ N_=_4_0_3 __ _ 2. Child's Grade --- 3. Child's Race: Black _ _ White _ _ Other _ _ 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ____ _ North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ___ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No --- ======================================================================= Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale: 6. Mark Column T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F I attend school programs and activities on a regular basis. I247 I 132 I 12 MO 7. 8. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and programs in the magnet schools. I 145 I 144 I 23 16 I 75 I 9. 10. The school actively encourages parent involvement. All of my questions about magnet schools were answered before I selected this school for my child. 130 51 l 195 I 114 I 38 I s I I 31 l 79 I 10 I I 208 I 140 I 321 20 I 3 I 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 17. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. 18. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have - control of the students on the bus. 19. Community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 23. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: {please circle one) T GT GF F MO 63 116 I 101 !118 j J 100 I 211 1 so J 28s I 18 19 17 4 I 561 112 I 1381 92 5 11811132152 28 l142l122l2s 33 81 l229l1s4l12 4 4 1 64 I 1a9 I 4 s 23 8 2 11971167,22 5 12 I 214 I 99 13 13 4 1243187 I 10 9 54 I 224 I 1so I 18 6 5 A. from school notices sent home 327 B. from talking with my child 37 c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV O D. from talking with other parents 3 E. Missing Data 36 131 - - MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questions openly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child s School Mann Magnet N=349 2. Child's Grade --- 3. Child's Race: Black___ White _ _ Other --- 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ------ North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ____ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No __ _ Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale: ,_ Mark Column T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F MO 6. I attend school programs and activities on a I 99 11661 41 I 40 3 I regular basis. 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. I 139 I 1so I 26 l20 I 14 I 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and . I 109146 I 37 I 150 I 7 programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent l12s I 1421 s1l20 2 I involvement. 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were 11481 1431 33 23 2 I answered before I selected this school for my child. 132 T GT GF F MO 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 162 I 113 I 83 84 7 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 17. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. 18. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. 19. community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. 62 I 152 72 180 I l 13 I 36 52 I 93 I 98 1141 1129 I 37 1131 I 1201 30 1081 1591 46 52 1171 152 1161 1651 30 11561 1131 45 2061 85 113 111 I 52 I I l 5 s I 101 s 124 181 I 4 71 211 I 24 I 12 I I 51 I 231 1 16 I 22 I 31 I 4 I 29 I 16 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 1531 1421 32113 I 9 23. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: (please circle one) A. from school notices sent home B. from talking with my child c. from announcements in newspapers, 124 163 on radio or TV 6 D. from talking with other parents 10 E. Missing Data 46 133 - MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questions openly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child's School __ P_a_r_k_v_i_ew_M_a_g_n_e_t _ N_=_l_8_6 _ 2. Child's Grade 3. Child's Race: Black _ _ White --- Other _ _ 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ____ _ --- North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ___ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No __ _ ===========-===---------------==---==================================== Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale:  :.f~ Mark Colwnn T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F MO 6. I attend school programs and activities on a I 58 regular basis. 71 25 I 32 I 0 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. I 44 68 141 16 I 44 I I 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and I 31 I 82 I 391 33 I 1 I programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent I 71 I nl 241 12 I 2 I involvement. - 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were I 75 76 I 20 I 15 I 0 I answered before I selected this school for my child. 134 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski county communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 17. 18. 19. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. -~ \\ Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. ., ' Community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music :enters) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 23. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: (please circle one) T GT GF F MO I 48 1 48 40148 2 26 82 38 I 93 I 72 11 9 I 27 143 44168 I 69 I 77 18 I 16 I 41 I so 18 I ss I 99 21 11 I o I I 20 1 60 25 1 52 1 85 1 26 11 1 79 1 70 19 16 2 1 88 I 37 10 1 81 1 81 15 5 4 A. from school notices sent home 35 B. from talking with my child 127 c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV 4 D. from talking with other parents E. Missing Data 135 3 17 APPENDIX C 136 ..... w -..J PERCENTILE MAT -6  SUMMARY MALE STUDENTS 100 ,------------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD - BOOKER Hmm~ MANN 1989 MAGNET SCHOOLS MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS ~ CARVER h?/J GI BBS - WILLIAMS  PARKVIEW ...... w (X) PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY FEMALE STUDENTS 100 .------------------------ 80 60 40 20 0 RD - BOOKER Hmm~ MANN 1989 MAGNET SCHOOLS MA LA BB SC ss MAT-6 SUB-TESTS ~ CARVER tt?d GI BBS 8 WILLIAMS 0 PARKVIEW ...... w \\0 PERCENTILE MAGNET SCHOOL MAT -6 SCORES 100 .-------------------------. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 RD - BOOKER nmrn~ MANN 1989 - BLACK MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS ~ CARVER FtHJ GIBBS m WILLIAMS 0 PARKVIEW ...... \"\"' 0 PERCENTILE MAGNET SCHOOL MAT -6 SCORES 100 ,----------------------------, 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 RD - BOOKER llmlg~ MANN 1989 - WHITE MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS ~ CARVER Mt=t :I GIBBS - WILLIAMS 0 PARKVIEW I-' ~ I-' MAT-6 SUMMARY BOOKER STUDENTS PERCENTILE 100 .--------------------. 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA 88 SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS - FEMALE ~ MALE 1989 GRADE 4: BY SEX PERCENTILE MAT -6 SUMMARY CARVER STUDENTS 100 ..-------------------------. 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB- TESTS .. FEMALE ~ MALE 1989 GRADE 4: BY SEX  PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY GIBBS STUDENTS 100 ,------------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT-6 SUB-TESTS ... FEMALE ~ MALE 1989 GRADE 4: BY SEX  PERCENTILE MAT -6 SUMMARY  WILLIAMS STUDENTS 100 .-----------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RO MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB- TESTS Ill FEMALE ~ MALE 1989 GRAD '1: BY SEX \nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1570","title":"\"Voluntary Interdistrict Coordinating Council for the Settlement Agreement''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":["North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District"],"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":["1990-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Standards","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School attendance","School discipline","School buses","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Student activities","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Voluntary Interdistrict Coordinating Council for the Settlement Agreement''"],"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/1570"],"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":["40 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1164","title":"Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1990-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1164"],"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":["245 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\nCombined financial statements and supplemental information with independent auditors' reports by Thomas and Thomas, certified accountants\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n     THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Financial Statements and Supplemental Information (~ith Independent Auditors' Reports Thereon) June 30, 1990  '  THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Financial Statements and Supplemental Information (~ith Independent Auditors' Reports Thereon) June 30, 1990 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Table of Contents June 30, 1990 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - All Governmental Fund Types Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual - All Budgeted Governmental Fund Types Notes to Financial Statements SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES Combining Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures - Special Revenue Funds Rockefeller Day Care Center - Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures (Cash Basis) - Budget and Actual Revenues of Teachers Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as prescribed by Handbook II) Expenditures of Teachers Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as prescribed by Handbook II) Reconciliation of General and Debt Service Fund Balances - Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Handbook II Basis of Accounting Schedule of Long-Term Debt OTHER REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Independent Auditors' Report on Internal Controls (Accounting and Administrative) - Based on a Study and Evaluation Made as a Part of an Audit of the Basic Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the Additional Tests Required by the Single Audit Act Page No. 1 4 6 8 12 27 28 29 30 31 32 35 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Table of Contents (Continued) June 30, 1990 Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance Based on an Audit of the Basic Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with General Requirements Applicable to Major Federal Financial Assistance Programs Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with Specific Requirements Applicable to Major Federal Financial Assistance Programs Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to Nonmajor Federal Financial Assistance Program Transactions Independent Auditors' Report on Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance Page No. 39 40 41 43 44 45 :Zk,\niu an/ !iZ.,md CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Llltle Rock Office: 201 E. Markham  Suite 500  Lillie Rock. AR 72201 (50 11 375-2025  FAX (501) 3758704 Texarkana Oll1ce: 701 Arkansas Blvd.  Texarkana, AR 75502 (501) 773-2168  FAX (501) 774.7240 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District) as of, and for the year ended, June 30, 1990, as listed in the accompanying table of contents. The financial statements are the responsibility of the School District's management . Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. As described more fully in Note 1 (F) of the financial statements, the School District does not record the valuation base of its property, buildings, and equipment at historical cost in the general fixed asset group of accounts as required by generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, except for the effect of the failure to record the general fixed asset account group at historical cost, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, the combined financial statements referred to in the first paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas as of June 30, 1990, and the results of its operations for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. 1 Members American lnslttute of Certified Public Accountants Private Companies Practice Section and S. E.C. Prac11ce Sectron I The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Two Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the combined financial statements taken as a whole. The information included at pages twentyseven through thirty-three is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic combined financial statements. The information has been subjected to the procedures applied in the audit of the basic combined financial statements of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the combined financial statements taken as a whole. As discussed in Note 13 to the financial statements, the School District is party to several legal actions regarding expenses and other issues. The ultimate outcome of these legal actions cannot presently be determined. Accordingly, no provision for any payables that may result has been made in the accompanying combined financial statements or schedules. November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas 2 Certified Public Accountants FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 3 Assets and Amounts to be Provided Cash (Note 10) $ Investments (Note 10) Property taxes receivable (Note 3) Accrued interest and other receivables Due fro  other governments (Notes 8 and 11) Due fro  other funds Inventories Fixed assets (Notes l(F) and 4) Prepaids and deferred charges Total assets A ount available in debt service funds Amount to be provided for retire-ment of general long-term debt Total assets and amounts to be provided $ THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups June 30, 1990 Govern  ental Fund Tr11es Fiduciary Special Debt Capital Fund Tr11e General Revenue Service Projects Agencr 741,986 250 244,548 35,647 4,940,000 1,450,000 3 , 500,000 775,000 2,466,897 738,406 266,199 6,482 1,554 7,309,571 536,868 35,625 793,149 63,814 405,755 96,120 9 305 263 673,401 15,397,727 2,867,344 1,412,057 4,539,251 874,461 15,397,727 2,867,344 1.412,057 4,539,251 874,461 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial state ents. 4 Account GrOUQS General General Total Fixed Long-Term (Me111orandUJ1 Assets Debt Onlrl $ 1,022,431 10,665,000 3,205,303 274,235 7,846,439 892,588 501,875 134,197,617 134,197,617 682,969 134,197,617 159,288,457 98,639 98,639 52,415,960 52,415,960 134,197,617 52,514,599 $ 211,803.056 (Continued) Liabilities and Fund Eguitv Liabilities: Bank overdrafts Accounts payable and accrued eirpenses Accrued payroll taxes and withholdings Deferred revenues Due to school activity groups and other agencies (Notes 2 and 9) Dua to other funds Note payable (Note 12) Long-term debt payable {Note 5) Contracts payable Total liabilities Commitments and contingencies (Notes 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13) Fund Equity: Investment in general fixed assets {Notes l(f) and 4) Fund Balance: Reserved for prepaids and deferred charges Reserved for inventories Unreserved: Designated for debt service Designated for capital projects Undesignated Total fund equity (Note 2) Total liabilities and fund equity LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups (Continued) June 30, 1990 Governmental Fund TyPes Special Debt General Revenue Service $ 3,051,737 2,230,911 2,636,381 155,000 252,571 6,532,150 12 175 14,870,925 9,305 405,755 111, 742 526,802 $ 15,397.727 38,615 376,514 415,129 263 96,120 2,355,832 2,452,215 2,867,344 640,017 640 017 673,401 98,639 772 040 1.412,057 Capital Projects 394,488 394,488 4,144,763 4,144,763 4,539,251 Fiduciary Fund Type Agency 874,461 874,461 874,461 Account Groups General General Fixed Long-Term Assets Debt 52,514,599 52,514,599 134,197,617 134,197,617 134,197,617 52,514,599 The acco panying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 5 $ Total (Memorandum Only) 3,051,737 2,664,014 2,636,381 531,514 874,461 892,588 6,532,150 52,514,599 12 175 69,709,619 134,197,617 682,969 501,875 98,639 4,144,763 2,467,574 142,093,437 $ 211,803,056 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance All Governmental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1990 Governmental Fund T:x:11es Total Special Debt Capital (Me111orandum General Revenue Service Projects Onl:x:) Revenues Local Sources: Property taxes (Notes 3 and 12) $ 39,644,968 $ $ 12,016,064 $ $ 51,661,032 Tuition 358,192 22,317 380,509 Interest 297,123 46,648 96,443 81,102 521,316 Food sales 1,202,118 1,202,118 Food services and other 714,238 779,827 170,670 1,664,735 Magnet schools funding (Note 11) 5,886,880 103,922 5,990,802 Total local sources 41,014,521 7,937,790 12,216,429 251,772 61,420,512 State Sources: Minimum foundation progra111s (Note 8) 22,775,499 22,775,499 Desegregation settleaent (Note 8) 12,559,250 12,559,250 Magnet schools funding (Note 11) 5,886,883 5,886,883 Handicapped children aid 467,841 467,841 Vocational aid 1,167,117 1,167,117 Transportation aid 2,444,837 2,444,837 Other 429 841 623,276 1,053.117 Total state sources 39,844,385 6,510,159 46,354,544 Federal Sources: Elementary and Secondary Education Act 3,289,346 3,289,346 Vocational Education Act 443,476 443,476 Food service 3,194,146 3,194,146 Other 75 237 474 164 549 401 Total Federal sources 75 237 7,401,132 7 476 369 Total revenues $ 80,934.143 $ 21,849,081 $ 12,216,429 $ 251. 772 $ 115,251,425 (Continued) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 6 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance (Continued) Expenditures Instructional services: Basic programs Exceptional child progra  s Vocational-technical programs Adult continuing education progra  s Compensatory education programs Other instructional progras Total instructional services Instructional support services Pupil transportation services Operation and maintenance of plant School administration General ad  inistration (Note 12) Capital outlay (Note 4) Principal retirement of long-term debt (Note 5) Interest charges (Notes 5 and 12) Fiscal agent's fees Food services Co  unity services Magnet School expenses, net (Note 11) Indirect and other (Note 11) Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Contributed assets Proceeds of long-term debt (Note 5) Operating transfers in (Note 3) Operating transfers out (Note 3) Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other uses Fund equity (deficit) - beginning of period Fund equity - end of period (Notes 2 and 8) All Governmental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1990 $ 34,809,433 4,455,522 3,799,945 42,486 746,434 901,200 $ 44,755,020 7,775,548 4,399,206 9,452,136 4,924,052 4,694,728 3,907,957 612,656 3,535,925 5 986 84,063,214 (3 p 129,071) 49,659 3,097,928 6,312,392 (1. 741,591) 7,718,388 4,589,317 (4,062,515) 526,802 $ Govern  ental Fund Types Special Debt Revenue Service 7,641,657 537,986 825,325 713,277 2,485,660 288 63L 12,492,539 1,546,063 944,122 1,113,360 164,316 4,938,025 224,830 295,887 21,719,142 129,939 (152,522) (152,522) (22,583) 2,474,798 $ 4,841,016 3,015,537 61,937 7,918,490 4,297,939 1,894,113 (6 I 231. 290) (4,337,177) (39,238) 811,278 $ 2,452.215 s 772.040 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 7 $ Capital Projects 4,664,865 90 706 4,755,571 (4,503,799) 8,164,100 (81,102) 8,082,998 3,579,199 565,564 S 4,144,763 Total (l1e11orandu111 Only) $ 42,451,090 4,993,508 4,625,270 755,763 3,232,094 1,189,834 57,247,559 $ 9,321,611 4,399,206 10,396,258 4,924,052 5,808,088 8,737,138 4,841,016 3,015,537 61,937 4,938,025 837,486 3,535,925 392 579 118,456,417 (3,204,992) 49,659 11,262,028 8,206,505 (8,206,505) 11,311,687 8,106,695 (210,875) 7,895.820 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Cobined State ent of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual All Budgeted Govern ental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1990 General Fund S11ecial Revenue Funds Variance - Variance - Favorable Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Actual !Unfavorable) Revenues Local Sources: Property taxes (Notes 3 and 12) $ 39,832,151 $ 39,644,968 $ (187,183) $ $ $ Tuition 358,192 358,192 22,317 22,317 Interest 499,067 297,123 (201,944) 60,000 46,648 (13,352) Food sales 1,833,894 1,202,118 (631,776) Food services and other 834,861 714,238 (120,623) 589,768 779,827 190,059 Magnet schools (Note 11) 6,076,000 5,886,880 (189,120) Total local sources 41,166,079 41,014,521 (151. 558) 8,559,662 7,937,790 (621,872) State Sources: Mini  um foundation progra s (Note 8) 22,583,088 22,775,499 192.,411 Desegregation settle  ent (Note 8) 15,559,2.50 12.,559,2.50 (3,000,000) Magnet schools funding (Note 11) 6,076,000 5,886,883 (189,117) Handicapped children aid 562,064 467,841 (94,223) Vocational aid 1,357,960 1,167,117 (190,843) Transportation aid 2. ,472, 241 2,444,837 (27,404) Other 661,588 429,841 (231,747) 62.3,276 623. 2.76 Total state sources 43,196,191 39,844,385 (3. 351. 806) 6,076,000 6,510,159 434,159 Federal Sources: Ele  entary and Secondary Education Act 3,173,592 3,289,346 115,754 Vocational Education Act 448,681 443,476 (5,205) Food service 3,007,285 3,194,146 186,861 Other 645. 009 75 237 (569,772) 547,368 474 164 (73,204) Total Federal sources 645,009 75,237 {569, 772) 7,176,926 7,401,132 2.24, 206 Total revenues $ 85,007,279 $ 80,934,143 $(4,073,136) $ 21,812,588 $ 21. 849. 081 $ 36,493 (Continued) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 8 Expenditures Instructional services: Basic programs Exceptional child programs Vocational-technical programs Adult continuing education programs Compensatory education programs Other instructional programs Total instructional services Instructional support services Pupil transportation services Operations and maintenance of plant School administration General ad inistration (Note 12) Capital outlay (Note 4) Food service Community services Magnet schools expenses, net (Note 11) Indirect and other (Note 11) Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Contributed assets Proceeds of long-term debt (Note 5) Operating transfers in (Note 3) Operating transfers out (Note 3) Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expendi- THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual (Continued) All Budgeted Govern  ental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1990 Budget $ 36,681,093 4,648,156 3,823,070 736,140 746,390 957,012 47,591,861 7,995,787 4,296,288 10,044,238 4,859,204 4,924,345 2,190,337 1,115,090 1,570,520 1 647 647 86,235,317 (1,228,038) 223,517 223,517 General Fund $ 34,809,433 4,455,522 3,799,945 42,486 746,434 901,200 44,755,020 7,775,548 4,399,206 9,452,136 4,924,052 4,694,728 3,907,957 612,656 3,535,925 5 986 84,063,214 (3,129,071) 49,659 3,097,928 6,312,392 (1,741,591) 7,718,388 Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) $1,871,660 192,634 23,125 693,654 (44) 55,812 2,836,841 220,239 (102,918) 592,102 (64,848) 229,617 (1,717,620) 502,434 (1,965,405) 1,641,661 2,172,103 (1,901,033) 49,659 3,097,928 6,088,875 (1,741.591) 7,494,871 tures and other financing uses $ (1,004,521) $ 4,589,317 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 9 Special Revenue Funds $ 7,998,198 675,249 747,725 35,426 2,623,215 __ .:,.27:....:,5,896 12,355,709 1,603,258 2,016,549 200,821 7,091,720 466,959 455,886 24,190,902 (2,378,314) $ (2,378,314) Actual $ 7,641,657 537,986 825,325 713,277 $ 2,485,660 288,634 12,492,539 1,546,063 944,122 1,113,360 164,316 4,938,025 224,830 295,887 21,719 I 142 129,939 (152,522) (152,522) (22,583) Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable ) $ 356,541 137,263 (77,600) (677,851) 137,555 (12,738) (136,830) 57,195 (944,122) 903,189 36,505 2,153,695 242,129 159,999 2,471,760 2,508,253 (152,522) (152,522) $ 2,355,731 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Coabined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual (Continued) All Budgeted Governmental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1990 Debt Service Fund Total (Memorandum Onlv) Var i ance - Variance - Favorable Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Revenues Local sources: Property taxes (Notes 3 and 12) $ 11,995,678 $ 12,016,064 $ 20,386 $ 51,827,829 $ 51,661,032 $ (166,797) Tuition 380,509 380,509 Interest 124,949 96,443 (28,506) 684,016 440,214 (243,802) Food sales 1,833,894 1,202,118 (631,776) Food services and other 1,424,629 1,494,065 69,436 Magnet schools and other (Note 11 ) 103,922 103,922 6,076,000 5,990,802 (85,198) Total local sources 12,120,627 12,216,429 95,802 61,846,368 61,168,740 (677,628) State Sources: Minimum foundation programs (Note 8) 22,583,088 22,775,499 192,411 Desegregation settlement (Note 8) 15,559,250 12,559,250 (3,000,000) Magnet schools funding (Note 11) 6,076,000 5,886,883 (189,117) Handicapped children aid 562,064 467,841 (94,223) Vocational aid 1,357,960 1,167,117 (190,843) Transportation aid 2,472,241 2,444,837 (27,404) Other 661,588 1,053,117 391,529 Total state sources 49,272,191 46 354 544 (2,917,647) Federal Sources: Elementary and Secondary Education Act 3,173,592 3,289,346 115,754 Vocational Education Act 448,681 443,476 (5,205) Food service 3,007,285 3,194,146 186,861 Other 1,192,377 549 401 (642 I 976) Total Federal sources 7,821,935 7 476 369 (345,566) Total revenues $ 12.120,627 $ 12,216,429 $ 95,802 $ 118,940,494 $ 114,999,653 $(3,940,841) (Continued) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 10 Expenditures Instructional services: Basic programs Exceptional child programs Vocational - technical programs Adult continuing education programs Compensatory education programs Other instructional programs Total instructional services Instructional support services Pupil transportation services Operations and maintenance of plant School administration General administration (Note 12) Capital outlay (Note 4) Principal retirement of long-term debt (Note 5) Interest charges (Note 12) Fiscal agents' fees Food service Community services Magnet School expenses, net (Note 11) Indirect and other (Note 11) Total expenditures Excess of revenues over expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Contributed assets Proceeds of long-term debt (Note 5) Operating transfers in (Note 3) Operating transfers out (Note 3) Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual (Continued) $ All Budgeted Governmental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1990 3,284,798 2,666,888 6,500 5,958,186 6,162,441 Debt Service Fund $ 4,841,016 3,015,537 61,937 7,918,490 4,297,939 1,894,113 (6,231,290) (4,337,177) Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) $ (1, 556,218) (348,649) (55,437) (1,960,304) (1,864,502) 1,894,113 (6,231,290) (4,337,177) $ 6,162,441 $ (39,238) $(6,201,679) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 11 Total (Memorandum Only) $ 44,679,291 5,323,405 4,570,795 771,566 3,369,605 1,232,908 59,947,570 $ 9,599,045 4,296,288 10,044,238 4,859,204 6,940,894 2,391,158 3,284,798 2,666,888 6,500 7,091,720 1,582,049 1,570,520 2,103,533 116,384,405 2,556,089 223,517 223,517 2,779,606 $ 42,451,090 4,993,508 4,625,270 755,763 3,232,094 1. 189,834 $ 57,247,559 9,321,611 4,399,206 10,396,258 4,924,052 5,808,088 4,072,273 4,841,016 3,015,537 61,937 4,938,025 837,486 3,535,925 301 873 113,700,846 1,298,807 49,659 3,097,928 8,206,505 (8,125,403) 3,228,689 4,527,496 Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) $ 2,228,201 329,897 (54,475) 15,803 137,511 43 074 2,700,011 277,434 (102,918) (352,020) (64,848) 1,132,806 (1,681,115) (1,556,218) (348,649) (55,437) 2,153,695 744,563 (1,965,405) 1,801 . 660 2,683,559 (1,257,282) 49,659 3,097,928 7,982,988 (8,125,403) 3,005.172 $1,747,890 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 1990 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies The accounting policies of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas {the School District) conform to generally accepted accounting principles applicable to governmental units, except for the practice of recording various co~ponents of its general fixed assets at appraised values rather than at cost {Note 1 {Fl). The following is a summary of the 111ore significant accounting policies. {A) Fund Accounting The accounts of the School District are organized on the basis of funds or groups of accounts, each of which is considered to be a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of self-balancing accounts which comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures. The following fund types and account groups are used by the School District: Governmental Fund Types: General Fund - The General Fund is the primary operating fund of the School District. All general tax revenues and other revenues that are not allocated by law or contractual agreement to another fund are accounted for in this fund. The general operating expenditures, the fixed charges, and the capital improvement costs that are not paid through other funds are paid from this fund. Special Revenue Funds - Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources, other than major capital projects, requiring separate accounting because of legal or regulatory provisions or administrative action. Debt Service Funds - Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for the annual payments of principal, interest, and fees on long-term general obligation debt. Capital Projects Funds - Capital Projects Funds are used to account for financial resources segregated for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities. Fiduciary Fund Type: Agency Fund - The Agency Fund is used to account for the school activity groups and other agencies. The assets in this fund are held by the School District in a fiduciary capacity. 12 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies {Continued) Account Groups: General Fixed Asset Account Group - This account group is established to account for the fixed assets of the School District. General Long-Term Debt Account Group - This account group is established to account for the long-term debt that is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the School District. (B) Basis of Accounting The modified accrual basis of accounting is utilized by all funds. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable. Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the liability is incurred, if measurable, except for unmatured interest on general long-term debt which is recognized when the interest is due. Resources from special grants are generally recognized as revenues to the extent of expenditures made under the provisions of the grants. Significant funds received before the revenue recognition criteria have been met are reported as deferred revenue. (C} Budgetary Accounting Certain revenues and expenditures are budgeted in accordance with various legal requirements which govern the School District's operations. The annual budget is submitted to the Arkansas State Department of Education for approval. Revisions by subsequent budget amendments, if any, are not submitted to the Department of Education. Budgeted revenues and expenditures, as revised and amended, were approved by the School Board at their March 20, 1990 meeting. No amendments were adopted subsequent to this date. The budgets formally approved by the Board of Directors include the General Fund {teacher salary, desegregation and other operating}, the Debt Service Fund, and certain construction and special revenue expenditures. The budgets of the School District utilized in its internal budgetary accounting systems and for financial reporting vary in some regards from those required by applicable state statutes to be formally approved by the Board of Directors. {D} Investments Investments are stated at cost, which approximates market value. Investments consist of certificates of deposit and repurchase agreements. 13 II Ii THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements {Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies {Continued) (E) Inventory Inventories are stated at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out) or market (net realizable value). Inventories are recorded as expenditures when transferred to schools and departmental offices for utilization. (F) General Fixed Assets In the general fixed asset group of accounts, land is valued at historical cost. Certain other components are stated at costs estimated by independent appraisers and by School District employees at various appraisal dates. Valuations of land improvements and buildings are intended to approximate fair market values at the latest appraisal dates (1965 and 1971, respectively)\nfurniture and fixtures are stated at appraisal values determined for insurance purposes in 1975. Additions since the date of the last appraisals are recorded at cost. The amount that such valuations vary from historical cost has not been determined. (G) Property Taxes Property taxes are recognized and recorded as current period revenues in accordance with the provisions of Interpretation 3 of the National Council of Governmental Accounting's (NCGA) Statement 1, which states that: ( 1l property tax revenues should be recognized when they become available\nand (2) available means when due and receivable within the current period and collected within the current period or expected to be collected soon enough thereafter (generally not to exceed sixty days) to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. (H) Accumulated Vacation and Sick Leave School District employees do not receive vacation pay per se. Certain employees contracted to work 240 days per year receive additional pay however, if they work more than 240 days in any particular year. These employees are paid upon termination for any unpaid days accumulated in this manner. Due to the small number of employees contracted for 240 days per year who have accumulated unpaid days in this manner, the School District's liability for this type of compensated absence is not considered material and, therefore, has not been recorded in the accompanying financial statements. 14 r I THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) (H) Accumulated Vacation and Sick Leave (Continued) School District employees are granted a specific number of sick leave days with pay. Certain employees are also granted a specific number of personal leave days with pay. Employees may accumulate a maximum of 175 sick days. Employees are not paid for accumulated sick pay upon termination and, accordingly, the School District has not recorded a liability for accumulated sick pay in the accompanying financial statements since the payment is not probable and the amount of any ultimate payment is not determinable. (I) Encumbrances Encumbrances for goods or purchased services are documented by purchase orders or contracts. Encumbrances outstanding at year end are not reported as expenditures, for financial statement purposes, as the related goods have not been received or the services performed. (J) Total Columns on Combined Statements Total columns on the combined statements are captioned \"memorandum only\" to indicate that they are presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in these columns does not present financial position, results of operations, or changes in fund equity in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. (K) Tax Exempt Status The School District is a tax exempt organization, since its revenues are nontaxable under Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code. Note 2: Reconciliation of Fund Equity The School District issued unaudited financial statements (the \"State Report\") on August 28, 1990 to the Arkansas State Department of Education. These financial statements were prepared in accordance with accounting methods prescribed in Handbook II, as required by applicable state regulations. In that report, the \"Operating Fund\" is generally the equivalent of the General Fund for purposes of this report. The \"Federal Grants Fund\" corresponds to the Special Revenue Fund, except that it does not include activity in the \"Revolving Funds\" and the \"Food Service Fund.\" The \"Debt Service Fund\" and the \"Building Fund\" per the State Report correspond to the Debt Service Fund and Capital Projects Fund, respectively. Activity within the Operating and Debt Service Funds is presented in a combined format for presentation in the State Report. Balances and transactions related to the Agency Fund are reflected in the State Report as the \"Student Activity Fund.\" 15 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 2: Reconciliation of Fund Equity (Continued) The following is a reconciliation of fund equity as shown on the State Report and in the accompanying financial statements for the year ended June 30, 1990: Fund equity at June 30, 1990 per General Special Revenue State Report $ 119,571 143,575 Prior years' equity adjustments and other (225,653) 232,939 Net Handbook II audit adjustments (132,409) Adjust property taxes receivable (2,501,935) Record Revolving Funds and Food Service Fund equity 2,437,403 Record deferred revenue Reclassify debt service fund equity Record KLRE-FM/ KUAR-FM fund equity Fund transfer Fund equity per financial statements Due to school activity groups and other agencies per financial statements $ (376,514) 3,282,040 (14,812) 14 I 812 526,802 2,452,215 16 Debt Service 4,054,080 (3,282,040) 772,040 Capital Projects Agency 3,529,742 $ 848,745 799,083 (184,062) 4,144,763 25,716 $ 874,461 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued} June 30, 1990 Note 3: Property Taxes Pulaski County, Arkansas (the County} levies a property tax each February on the assessed value listed as of January 1 of the prior year for all real and personal property located in the County. Assessed values are established by the County Assessor's office. All taxes are due from property holders on an installment basis by October 10 and related amounts collected on behalf of the Little Rock School District are receivable from the County as collected. Taxes to be levied upon January 1, 1989 assessment values are as follows: Real Estate Personal property Utilities Valuation (Millions} $ 1,066 339 68 $ 1,473 Millage General Debt Fund Service 28.50 25.20 34.70 7.40 13.50 9.90 During 1985, a reassessment was completed for all property located in Pulaski County, Arkansas. Based upon the results of this reassessment, the assessed value of all property within the sphere of taxation by the School District at January 1, 1985 was approximately $944.1 million, as compared to $545.5 million at January 1, 1984. In addition, there was an overall reduction of millage under Amendment 59. The School District will be liable for its pro rata share of the cost incurred by the State of Arkansas in relation to the reassessment. It is understood that reimbursement of this cost to the State, totaling approximately $513,000, will be made over a five year period beginning in fiscal year 1987 through semi-annual withholdings from the School District's revenues. Property tax revenues are reflected net of such withholdings. Property tax revenues of the Debt Service Fund totaling approximately $6,200,000 (the excess of funds necessary to meet current debt service requirements} have been transferred to the General Fund during the year ended June 30, 1990 as provided for under the statutes of the State of Arkansas. 17 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 4: Fixed Assets The following is a summary of the major components of fixed assets of the School District as of June 30, 1990: Land Land improvements Buildings Furniture and equipment Totals Note 5: Long-Term Debt Balance June 30, 1989 $ 2,861,085 925,255 100,370,981 21,303,158 $ 125,460,479 Additions $ 4,664,865 4,072,273 $ 8,737,138 Balance June 30, 1990 $ 2,861,085 925,255 105,035,846 25,375,431 $ 134,197,617 A summary of long-term debt transactions of the School District for the year ended June 30, 1990, is as follows: Balance at July 1, 1989 New debt issued: Construction school bonds - Capital Projects Fund Present value of capital lease obligations related to purchases of equipment and buses - General Fund Total new debt issued Debt retired: School Bonds Capital lease obligations Revolving loan Pulaski County, Arkansas Special School District (Note 8) Total debt retired Balance at June 30, 1990 $ 46,093,587 8,164,100 3,097,928 11.262,028 1,990,000 1,556,218 60,000 1,234,798 4,841,016 $ 52,514,599 Long-term debt at June 30, 1990 is comprised of the following: School bonds, construction and refunding issues Pulaski County Special School District (Note 8) Principal Balance $ 35,986,850 11,070,666 18 Interest Rates Maturities Semiannually\n3.25% - 7.7% through 2008 Semiannually\n4.2% - 10% through 2003 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Ndte 5: Long-Term Debt (Continued) Principal Interest Balance Rates Arkansas State Department of Education Revolving Loan $ 240,000 9% Capital lease obligations, secured by related buses and computer equipment 5,217,083 6.6% - 8.5% $ 52,514,599 Maturities Semiannually\nthrough 1994 Annually\nthrough 1994 The annual requirements to amortize all long-term debt outstanding at June 30, 1990 are as follows: Year Ending June 30 Amount 1991 $ 5,212,004 1992 5,091,529 1993 4,712,969 1994 3,876,525 1995 3,822,217 Thereafter 29,799,355 Total Debt $ 52,514,599 The total interest payable in the future on debt outstanding at June 30, 1990 is approximately $22 million. In September 1990, approximately $17 million of second lien bonds were issued to finance future capital expenditures. Note 6: Prior-Year Defeasance of Debt In prior years, the School District defeased certain 1984 and 1985 construction bonds by placing the proceeds of new bonds in an irrevocable trust to provide for all future debt service payments on the old bonds. Accordingly, the trust account assets and the liability for the def eased bonds are not included in the School District's financial statements. At June 30, 1990, $3 million of bonds outstanding are considered defeased. 19 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 7: Retirement Plans All employees are required by law to be covered by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System except the following: (1) bus drivers, cafeteria workers and janitors who are required by law to be covered by the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and (2) part-time teachers, teacher aides and foreign exchange teachers who may elect in writing to exclude themselves from coverage. Both systems are multiple-employer, cost-sharing public employee retirement systems (the Systems). The payroll for employees covered by the Systems, for the year ended June 30, 1990, was approximately $63,000,000\nthe School District's total payroll was approximately $71,800,000. For the year ended June 30, 1990, employees had the option to contribute 6.0% of full salary. Federal funds of the School District were used to provide the 12% matching contribution for all eligible employees who are paid through Federal programs, while the state provided the matching contribution for employees paid with state and local funds. For the year ended June 30, 1990, the School District's share of contributions and matching was approximately $2,100,000. The amount of unfunded prior service cost of the retirement plan and the excess of the actuarially computed value of vested benefits over the total of the retirement fund are not available for the School District as a separate entity. However, as of June 30, 1989, the date of its latest actuarial report, the Arkansas Teacher Retirement system had total unfunded prior service costs of approximately $360 million. Note 8: Desegregation and Related Funding Issues During 1982, the School District brought litigation to consolidate the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. This was an interdistrict school desegregation case involving complex federal litigation in both trial and appellate courts. In relation to the remedy issues of this litigation, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District entered into agreements, which were approved by the Courts, for the transfers of certain schools, buildings and related personal property between the districts. The Little Rock School District assumed approximately $14. 6 million in long-term debt (see Note 5) related to the properties transferred to them. The transfer of property also resulted in approximately $300 million in property assessment values being transferred to the Little Rock School District affective upon the January 1, 1987 assessments. 20 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 8: Desegregation and Related Funding Issues (Continued) The litigation also resulted in the courts ordering the School District to initiate certain desegregation programs with the Arkansas Department of Education (the State) being liable for certain aspects of funding the programs. All major financial aspects of this litigation have been settled and accepted by the courts. Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the Arkansas Department of Education agreed to pay the School district a total of $71 million, net of $2 million in legal fees awarded the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. This amount included approximately $57,130,000 for compensatory education and other desegregation programs and $13,870,000 for cash equivalent payments in lieu of formula guarantees. In addition, the State agreed to loan the District an amount up to $20 million. During the year ended June 30, 1990, the School District recorded settlement proceeds of $12,559,250 in the General fund for compensatory education programs and other desegregation expenses. Included in this amount is a receivable of $4,609,250 due the School District on July 1, 1990 for reimbursement of desegregation expenditures made prior to year end. In addition, the School District received and recorded additional payments from the State of $2,000,000 as cash equivalent payments in lieu of Minimum Foundation Program Aid (11FPA) formula guarantees which are recorded as 11FPA revenue in the general fund. As of June 30, 1990, no funds have been received in regard to the loan provisions of the agreement. Net amounts of future funding under the above described agreements (excluding potential loan proceeds) at June 30, 1990 are as follows: 11FPA Year Ending Desegregation Guarantees Total June 31, 1991 $ 8,356,778 $ 2,000,000 $ 10,356,778 June 31, 1992 8,637,482 2,000,000 10,637,482 June 31, 1993 8,926,606 2,000,000 10,926,606 June 31, 1994 8,094,112 2,000,000 10,094,112 June 31, 1995 6,042,591 2,000,000 8,042,591 Future years 4,513,067 1,870,114 6,383,181 Total $ 44,570,636 $ 11,870,114 $ 56,440,750 21 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 9: Agency Funds As the School District serves only in a fiduciary capacity for the school activity funds and other agency funds, related transactions are not reflected in the combined statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance. A summary of transactions in these school activity and other funds during the year ended June 30, 1990, and the resulting change in amounts due to the school activity groups and other agencies, is as follows: Due to school activity groups and other agencies at June 30, 1989 Transactions during the year ended June 30, 1990: School activities and other agencies revenues Interest on investments School activities and other agencies expenditures Due to school activity groups and other agencies at June 30, 1990 Note 10: Cash and Investments $ 867,835 3,308,366 28,447 (3,330,187) $ 874,461 Arkansas statutes authorize school districts to deposit their funds in any bank located in the State of Arkansas. In addition, they may invest in bonds of the United States of America, general obligation bonds of the State of Arkansas, and bank certificates of deposit or repurchase agreements from a bank or savings and loan that has pledged direct obligations of, or obligations which are fully guaranteed by, the United States of America. The carrying amount of the School District's deposits (including Agency Funds) with financial institutions was $1,022,431 and the bank balance was $2,080,069. The bank balance is categorized as follows: Amount insured by the FDIC Amount collateralized with securities held by the Federal Reserve Bank in the School District's name Uncollateralized Total bank balance $ 101,100 1,000,000 978,969 $ 2,080,069 Investments of the School District (including Agency Funds) at June 30, 1990, are summarized on the following page. Investments represented by specific identifiable investment securities are classified as to credit risk by the three categories described as follows: 22 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 10: Cash and Investments (Continued) Category 1 - Insured or registered, or securities held by the School District or its agent in the School District's name. Category 2 - Uninsured and unregistered, with securities held by the counterparty's trust department or agent in the School District's name. Category 3 - Uninsured and unregistered, with securities held by the counterparty, or by its trust department or agent, but not in the School District's name. Certificates of deposit $ Repurchase agreement $ Note 11: Magnet School Funding 1 150,000 150,000 Category _2_ $ - $ $ - $ 3 1,800,000 $ 8,715,000 10,515,000 $ Total Carrying Amount 1,950,000 8,715,000 10,665,000 As a part of its desegregation program (see Note 8), the Federal court directed the School District to participate in a \"Magnet School\" system and has vested control of these schools in a Magnet Review Committee (MRC). During the year ended June 30, 1988, six schools from the Little Rock School District were organized as a separate reporting group under the control of the MRC. The MRC received its authority from the Federal court as the result of desegregation litigation (see Note 8). The approved funding level of these schools ( \"the Magnets\") totals $3,100 per average daily membership (ADM) from the State of Arkansas, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD). The State pays $1,550 plus the \"table rate\" for each ADM from the respective school districts, with each school district paying the difference (\"contribution rate\") between $1,550 and their respective \"table rate\". Beginning in fiscal year 1990, the State paid its portion of the NLRSD and PCSSD contributions direct to the respective district's for subsequent remission to the LRSD. 23 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 11: Magnet School Funding (Continued) STATE LRSD NLRSD PCSSD Contribution rate $ 1,550 $ 1,550 $ 1,550 $ 1,550 Times Average ADM 3,756.61 2,400.02 422.79 933.80 Total 5,822,746 3,720,031 655,325 1,447,390 Additional contributions receivable 64,135 40 979 7 217 15,940 Total Magnet School Funding $5,886,881 $3,761,010 $662,542 $1,463,330 Total $11,645,492 128,271 $11,773 I 763 During the year ended June 30, 1990, expenses of the Magnet Fund exceeded total MRC contributions from the State and other districts. In order to maintain a balance between revenues and expense, additional contributions totaling $128,271 (as shown above) will be collected from the participants during the year ended June 30, 1991. Such amounts are recorded as due from other governments in the special revenue fund, except for the LRSD's portion, totaling $40,979, which was paid prior to year end. The Little Rock School District accounts for the Magnet School's operating revenues and expenses within its Special Revenue Funds since these funds are restricted to the operations of the Magnets. The School District's portion of the total costs ($3,761,010 as shown above) consist of $3,535,925 transferred from, and reflected as an expense of the General Fund, with the balance of $225,085 being indirect administrative cost contributions. In addition to the above discussed operating revenues, the School District is also reimbursed by the NLRSD and PCSSD for debt service payments for capital improvements to the Magnets. The total of such reimbursements (which are reflected in revenues of the Debt Service Fund) for the year ended June 30, 1990 are as follows: North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Total 24 $ 29,422 74,500 $ 103,922 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 12: Note Payable During the year ended June 30, 1990, the School District borrowed funds under various short term line-of-credit agreements to meet cash flow requirements. At June 30, 1990, the existing line-of-credit is due November 15, 1990, bearing interest at .5% over the Worthen bank prime rate, not to exceed 12% per annum. Collateral for the loan is all revenues of the School District. At June 30, 1990, the outstanding balance of $6,532,150 is reflected as a liability of the General Fund. Subsequent to June 30, 1990, the line-ofcredit agreement was increased to $15 million, and the due date extended to December 31, 1990. Total interest charges under the line-of-credit for the year 1990 were approximately $460,000. For financial statement charges are reflected in the General Fund as general expenditures. Note 13: Other Litigation and Contingencies ended June 30, purposes, such administration At June 30, 1990, the School District is a defendant in various legal actions. Several involve claims by former employees asserting discriminatory hiring practices. The School District intends to vigorously contest these cases. Management and legal counsel are of the opinion that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is small and, thus, no provision has been made in the financial statements for any potential liabilities. In addition, the School District's former attorneys have asserted a claim regarding services they performed on behalf of the District, although no litigation has been filed. Management and current legal counsel believe the prospect of the School District prevailing in this matter is substantial. Due to the uncertainties involved, no provision has been made for the related liabilities, however counsel has estimated the potential loss on the claim of up to $800,000 if an unfavorable judgment is rendered. During the year ended June 30, 1990, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) conducted an audit of the School District's method of reporting compensation to summer school teachers as contract labor. The IRS asserted that payments to these individuals were wages subject to payroll withholdings. An assessment of approximately $167,000 was paid by the School District subsequent to year end. The School may recover up to 100% of the assessment upon substantiation to the IRS that the payments to these individuals were properly reported as income. The School District intends to vigorously pursue such action. Expected unrecoverable amounts are not considered material to the financial statements, thus no accrual of a payroll tax liability based on the IRS determination has been recorded. 25 SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES 26 Schedule 1 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Co111bining Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures - Special Revenue Funds Year Ended June 30, 1990 Total Federal Food Other Magnet (Me11orandum Progra11s Service Progra111s Schools Only) Revenues Meal sales $ $ 1,202,118 $ $ $ 1,202,118 State, local and other assistance 22,317 492,809 910,294 11,773,763 13,199,183 Federal financial assistance 4,206,986 3,194,146 7,401,132 Interest inco111e 46 648 46 648 Total revenues 4,229,303 4,935,721 910,294 11,773,763 21,849,081 Ex2enditures Basic programs 38,644 7,603,013 7,641,657 Exceptional child progra11s 345,264 192,722 537,986 Vocational-technical progra11s 266,219 80,672 478,434 825,325 Adult continuing education programs 33,454 679,823 713,277 Compensatory education programs 2,475,282 10,378 2,485,660 Other instructional programs 7,230 22,799 258,605 288,634 Instructional support services 716,348 4,483 825,232 1,546,063 Operation and 11aintenance of plant 1,442 942,680 944,122 General administration 68,363 24,805 1,020,192 1,113,360 Capital outlay 20,069 68,970 75,277 164,316 Food services 4,938,025 4,938,025 Co111munity services 224,830 224,830 Indirect and other 70,802 225,085 295 887 Total expenditures 4,229,303 5,006,995 861,604 11,621,240 21,719,142 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (71,274) 48,690 152,523 129,939 Other Financing Uses Operating transfers out for Magnet School equip11ent lease payRtents (152 I 523) (152,523) Excess of revenues over (under) expend-itures and other financing uses $ $ (71,274) $ 48,690 $ 22,584 27 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Rockefeller Day Care Center Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures (Cash Basis) - Budget and Actual Year ended June 30, 1990 Revenues Federal funds Tuition Non-Federal matching contribution DCFS State contract LRSD (Development program and line item reimbursement) Total revenues Expenditures Salaries and fringe Program supplies General Non-Federal matching expenditures Total eXl)enditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Units Eligible Non-eligible Total Note: Budget 10-1-88 to 10-1-89 to $ $ 9-30-89 9-30-90 133,770 38,180 3,775 3,600 167,239 346,564 322,713 17,806 2,500 3 775 346,794 (230) 19,436 3,491 22,927 $ $ 133,770 41,780 3,525 167,239 346,314 322,763 17,806 2,450 3,525 346,544 (230) 14,376 3,179 17,555 Schedule 2 $ $ Actual 6-30-90 70,759 22,317 39,494 132,570 84,518 1,005 39,494 125,017 7,553 9,696 1. 723 11,419 The budget amounts as reflected above are by grant periods. The actual amounts, which reflect transactions during both of the budget periods, are based on the School District's fiscal year ending June 30. 28 Schedule 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Revenues of Teachers Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as Prescribed by Handbook II) Revenue - Local Sources Current taxes Delinquent taxes 40% pullback Excess treasurer's fee Depository interest Revenue in lieu of taxes Miscellaneous and rents Interest on investments Athletic receipts Revenue - County Sources County General Severance tax Revenue - State Sources MFPA Apportionment Vocational Handicapped children Orphan children Transportation Incentive fund Adult education Desegregation settlement Revenue - Other Sources Mineral lease Public law 874 Transfer from Federal grant Transfer from bond account Total revenues Year Ended June 30, 1990 Total General and Debt Service Funds (Memorandum Only) Budget $ 31,399,224 3,690,486 16,624,076 114,044 416,496 283,030 298,676 207,520 129,181 53,162,733 123,967 123,967 22,583,087 75,805 1,357,960 562,064 12,720 2,472,241 573,063 639,020 15,559,250 43,835,210 7 5,989 150,000 73 517 229,513 $ 97,351,423 29 Unadjusted Net Adjusted Handbook II Audit Handbook II Revenues $ 31,399,221 3,818,496 16,514,086 114,083 328,190 285,620 244,379 65,376 93 402 52,862,853 75,270 15 567 90 837 22,054,472 74,267 1,525,310 467,841 12,210 2,444,837 343,364 679,824 12,559,250 40,161,375 75,237 89,325 81,102 245,664 $ 93,360,729 Adjustments $ (24,748) (24 748) 1,894,113 1,894,113 $ 1,869,365 Revenues $ 31,399,221 3,818,496 16,514,086 114,083 328,190 285,620 244,379 65,376 93 402 52,862,853 75,270 15 567 90,837 22,029,724 74,267 1,525,310 467,841 12,210 2,444,837 343,364 679,824 12,559,250 40,136,627 75,237 89,325 1,975,215 2,139,777 $ 95,230,094 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule 4 Expenditures of Teachers Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as Prescribed by Handbook II) Year Ended June 30, 1990 Total General and Debt Service Funds (Memorandum Onll) Unadjusted Net Adjusted Handbook II Audit Handbook II Budget E,cpenditures Adjustments Ex:Qenditures Certified salaries $ 42,705,810 $ 43,196,383 $ $ 43,196,383 Non-certified salaries 12,593,914 12,319,992 12,319,992 Substitute salaries 1,479,154 1,424,809 1,424,809 Employee benefits 7,271,123 6,652,750 6,652,750 Purchased services 7,685,854 7,207,561 56,644 7,264,205 Supplies and materials 6,076,627 3,574,181 (29,561) 3,544,620 Capital outlay 4,599,420 2,875,669 48 I 811 2,924,480 Debt service 6,432,286 6,325,499 6,325,499 Other objects 3,349,315 4,507,893 1,925,880 6,433,773 Total expenditures $ 92,193,503 $ 88,084,737 $ 2,001, 774 $ 90,086,511 30 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule 5 Reconciliation of General and Debt Service Fund Balances - Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Handbook II Basis of Accounting June 30, 1990 Total adjusted beginning Handbook II fund balances Adjusted Handbook II Revenues (Schedule 3) Adjusted Handbook II Expenditures (Schedule 4) Adjustments to convert to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP): Property taxes - debt services Property taxes - general fund Special revenue fund adjustments Total general and debt service GAAP fund balances at June 30, 1990 General fund Debt service fund Total 31 $ (5,382,074) 95,230,094 (90,086,511) 4,054,080 (2,501,935) (14,812) $ 1,298,842 $ 526,802 772,040 $ 1,298,842 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Long-Term Debt June 30, 1990 Long-term debt at June 30, 1990 is comprised of the following: $4,485,000 December, 1965 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1995\ninterest at 3.25 to 3.6% $1,586,200 December, 1970 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1990\ninterest at 4.75 to 5.0% $2,051,000 June, 1973 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1993\ninterest at 4.7 to 5.0% $6,482,700 June, 1977 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1996\ninterest at 4.25 to 5.1% $6,134,565 March, 1979 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1999\ninterest at 5.4 to 6.0% $4,889,200 March, 1980 Surplus Revenue Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1994\ninterest at 5.75 to 6.0% $7,826,000 June, 1987 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2007\ninterest at 6.7 to 7.7% $5,512,750 May, 1988 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2007\ninterest at 6.2 to 7.2% $3,371,000 June, 1988 Refunding School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1999\ninterest at 5.6 to 6.6% $8,164,100 September, 1989 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2008\ninterest at 6.1 to 6.75% Total bonds 32 Schedule 6 $ 1,400,000 124,000 580,000 3,200,000 3,885,000 2,305,000 7,701,000 5,512,750 3,115,000 8 z 164 I 100 35,986,850 (Continued) Schedule 6 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Long-Term Debt (Continued) June 30, 1990 Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through July 1990\ninterest at 7.2% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through March 1991\ninterest at 6.6% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through June 1991\ninterest at 7.0% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through July 1991\ninterest at 6.6% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through October 1991\ninterest at 8.38% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through October 1991, interest at 8.38% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through October 1992, interest at 7.0% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through April 1993\ninterest at 8.0% Installment purchase contract\npayable in monthly installments through July 1993\ninterest at 7.8% Installment purchase contract\npayable in semi-annual installments through July 1994\ninterest at 8.5% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through February 1993\ninterest at 5.9% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through April 1994\ninterest at 8.9% Total capital lease obligations $14,632,725 debt payable to the Pulaski County Special School District semi-annually through 2003 Revolving loan\npayable in semi-annual installments through January 1994 at 9% Total Long-Term Debt 33 121,624 154,629 40,164 732,333 262,019 37,977 43,773 65,594 151,170 749,101 2,803,572 55,127 5,217,083 11,070,666 240,000 ~ 52,514,599 OTHER REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 34 % puzd anc/ !:11.u:vmad CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS o,.\n.o\nQllrce 20' E Marlcharn  Suite 500  l11Ue AOC'\u0026lt; AR 7220 R 1501) 375-,025  FAX (501) 375-8704 Texarkana Olflce. 701 Anca,..sas 81 a  Te.\u0026lt;arkana AA 7550~ (501) 773-2\"68  FAX (501) 77J 7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS (ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRATIVE) - BASED ON A STUDY AND EVALUATION MADE AS A PART OF AN AUDIT OF THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AND THE ADDITIONAL TESTS REQUIRED BY THE SINGLE AUDIT ACT The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District), as of and for the year ended June 30, 1990, and have issued our report thereon dated November 16, 1990. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and Office of Management and Budget (0MB) Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and 0MB Circular A-128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the combined financial statements are free of material misstatement . In planning and performing our audit of the combined financial statements of the School District for the year ended June 30, 1990, we considered its internal control structure in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our op1n1on on the combined financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control structure. During the year ended June 30, 1990, the School District expended 88% of its total federal financial assistance under major federal financial assistance programs. As required by 0MB Circular A-128, our consideration of the internal control structure also included: 1) Tests of controls to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and operation of internal control structure policies and procedures that we considered relevant to preventing or detecting material noncompliance with specific requirements, general requirements, and requirements governing claims for advances and reimbursements and amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to each of the School District's major federal financial assistance programs, which are identified in the accompanying schedule of federal financial assistance. Our procedures were less in scope that would be necessary t o render an opinion on these internal control structure policies and procedures. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 35 Members Amencan lm\nt11u1e of Ceruf1eo Public Accoun1an1s P~rvate Companies Practice Sec11on and S E.C Practice Seel/on The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Two 2) Obtaining an understanding of (a) the design of internal control structure policies and procedures that we considered relevant to preventing or detecting material noncompliance with specific requirements, general requirements, and requirements governing claims for advances and reimbursements and amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to the School District's non-major federal financial assistance programs and (bl whether they have been placed in operation. The management of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of internal control structure policies and procedures. The objectives of an internal control structure are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of combined financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that federal financial assistance programs are managed in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Because of inherent limitations in any internal control structure, errors or irregularities, or instances of noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected . Also, projection of any evaluation of the structure to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate. For the purpose of this report, we have classified the significant internal control structure policies and procedures in the following categories: 1. Accounting Controls Cash Revenues/receivables Cash receipts Expenditures/payables Cash disbursements - Fund balances - Payrolls - Fixed assets - Investments - Property taxes receivable 2. Controls Used in Administering Federal Programs General Requirements: Political Activity Davis-Bacon Act Civil Rights Cash Management Federal Financial Reports 36 Specific Requirements: Types of Services Eligibility Matching Level of Effort Reporting Cost Allocation Special Requirements The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Three For all of the internal control structure categories listed above, we obtained an understanding of the design of relevant policies and procedures and determined whether they have been placed in operation, and we assessed control risk. We noted certain matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the entity's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the general-purpose financial statements or to administer federal financial assistance programs in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Fixed Assets At present, the School District does not have a complete inventory or detail subsidiary ledger of all fixed assets which can be agreed or reconciled to total general fixed assets as reported in the combined financial statements. The School District's fixed asset tracking system should be expanded to include all of its assets and to provide for a complete annual physical inventory count of capital assets . The inventory should be used to determine that all assets purchased are still in possession of the School District and that assets are being utilized in an effective and efficient manner. A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of the specific internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that would be material in relation to the general-purpose financial statements being audited or that noncompliance with laws and regulations that would be material to a federal financial assistance program may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control structure that might be reportable conditions and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all reportable conditions that are also considered to be material weaknesses as defined above. However, we believe the reportable condition described above is not a material weakness. 37 The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Four This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, all applicable Federal and State agencies. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report which is a matter of public record. November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas Certified Public Accountants 38 XmaJ t:z?ld !://2c).,ma\nJ CERTI FIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS L.i:t:e Roel( Olfce 20' E Mar,\u0026lt;t-am  Su,te 500  L,!lle Rock. AA -:-2~ 1501) 375-2025  FAX ,so 375-8704 Texar,\u0026lt;ana Olf,ce. 701 Arkansas Blvd  Texarl\u0026lt;a\"la , AR 75502 (501) 773-~68  FAX (501) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE BASED ON AN AUDIT OF THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District), as of and for the year ended, June 30, 1990, and have issued our report thereon dated November 16, 1990. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and 0MB Circular A-128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas is the responsibility of the School District' management. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of the School District' compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. However, our objective was not to provide an opinion on overall compliance with such provisions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests indicate that, with respect to the items tested, The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas complied, in all material respects, with the provisions referred to in the preceding paragraph. With respect to items not tested, nothing ca  e to our attention that caused us to believe that the School District had not complied, in all material respects, with those provisions . This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record . November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas ~\u0026lt;,~dAI Certified Public Accountants 39 MPmoers American 1ns111u1e of Certified Pubhc Accoun1an1s Private Ccmoan1es Practice Section ano S EC. Pac11ce Sec1,on Y~ //Uv.1 and !::bf uM CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS L. 1we Roel\u0026lt; 0 1ftce 201 E Ma,~!iam  Surte 500  L1111e Roci\u0026lt;. AR 12201 (501) 3i5-2025  FAX ,so) 375-8704 Texar\"ana O!hce. 701 Arkansas Siva  Tellarkana AR 75502 (501) 773-2168  FAX 1501) 774 7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO MAJOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have applied procedures to test The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas' (the School District) compliance with the following requirements applicable to each of its major federal financial assistance programs, which are identified in the schedule of federal financial assistance, for the year ended June 30, 1990: Political Activity Civil Rights Cash Management Federal Financial Reports Our procedures were limited to the applicable procedures described in the Office of Management and Budget's Compliance Supplement for Single Audits of State and Local Governments. Our procedures were substantially less in scope than an audit, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion on the School District's compliance with the requirements listed in the preceding paragraph. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. With respect to the items tested, the results of those procedures disclosed no material instances of noncompliance with the requirements listed in the first paragraph of this report. With respect to items not tested, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the School District had not complied, in all material respects, with those requirements. Also, the results of our procedures did not disclose any immaterial instances of noncompliance with those requirements. This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record. November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas ~oAJ J., ~ ().,.., aa,J Certified Public Accountants 40 Memoers Amencan lns111u1e of Cerltfled Pubhc Accountants Pnva,e Comoanies Practice Secuon ano S.E C Pracuce Sec11on !:fbmaJ and 5:ao,mad CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS L11t1e Reck Ofl1ce 20' E Ma~tlam  Su11e 500  l,\"!le ROCi\u0026lt;. AA 722~1 ,so, 375-2025  FAX 1501) 375-8'04 Texarkana Olf1ce 701 Arkansas Blvd  Texarkana AA 75502 150') 773-2168  FAX (501) 7'J-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO MAJOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas' (the School District) compliance with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed\neligibility\nmatching, level of effort, or earmarking\nreporting\nlevels of service\nannual assessment of educational needs\nservices provided to children enrolled in private schools\ncommitment of funds\nrecord retention\nclaims for advances and reimbursements\nand amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to each of its major federal financial assistance progra11s, which are identified in the accompanying schedule of federal financial assistance, for the year ended June 30, 1990. The management of the School District is responsible for compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with those requirements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and 0MB Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and 0MB Circular A-128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the requirements referred to above occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the School District's compliance with those requirements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. The results of our audit procedures did not disclose any instances of noncompliance with the requirements referred to above. 41 Memoers American lns111u1e of Cerufled Pubhc Accountants Prn,a1e Comoanies Prac11ce Sec11on and SEC Pracuce Section The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Two In our opinion, The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas complied, in all material respects, with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed\neligibility\nmatching, level of effort, or earmarking\nreporting\nlevels of service\nannual assessment of educational needs\nservices provided to children enrolled in private schools\ncommitment of funds\nrecord retention\nclaims for advances and reimbursements\nand amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to each of its major federal financial assistance programs for the year ended June 30, 1990. November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas 42 ~{~~ Certified Public Accountants Y~ma: and' !://4:\n.m a..1 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS L11t1e RocK Oll1ce 201 E Markham  Sute 500  Lil!le Roc1' AR 7220\" 150:) 375-2025  FAX 1501) 375-870\u0026lt; Te,:arJ(ana Olf1ce 701 Arkansas Blvd  Texarkana.AR 75502 1501) 773-2168  FAX (501) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO NONMAJOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TRANSACTIONS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas In connection with our audit of the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District), as of and for the year ended June 30, 1990, and with our study and evaluation of the School District' internal control systems used to admini ster federal financial assistance programs, as required by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128, Audi ts of State and Local Governments, we selected certain transactions applicable to certain nonmajor federal financial assistance programs for the year ended June 30, 1990. As required by 0MB Circular A-128, we have performed auditing procedures to test compliance with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed\neligibility and cost allocation that are applicable to those transactions. Our procedures were substantially less in scope than an audit, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion on the School District' compliance with these requirements. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. With respect to the items tested, the results of those procedures disclosed no material instances of noncompliance with the requirements listed in the preceding paragraph. With respect to i teJAs not tested, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas had not complied, in all material respects, with those requirements. Also, the results of our procedures did not disclose any immaterial instances of noncompliance with those requirements. This report is intended solely for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record. November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas Certified Public Accountants 43 Members American lns11tute ol Certified Public Accounlants P\"vate Comoan1es Pracuce Section and S E C. Pracr,ce Section % mu a:?u/ :1/c\n,,/?uz.:t CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Little Reel\u0026lt; Office 20' E Mark:ham  Suite 500  Little Rocic AR 72201 1501) 3:5-2025  FAX 15011 375-8704 Texarkana Office 701 Arl(ansas Blvd  Texancana, AR 75502 (501) 773-2168  FAX (501) 774-72'4 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas for the year ended June 30, 1990, and have issued our report thereon dated November 16, 1990. These combined financial statements are the responsibility of management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these combined financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and 0MB Circular A-128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an op1n1on on the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas taken as a whole. The accompanying Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the combined financial statements. The information in that schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the combined financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the combined financial statements taken as a whole. November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas ~4,il)\u0026lt;~a.A) Certified Public Accountants 44 Members American tns111u1e of Cerulied Pubhc Accountants Private Comoames Pact1ce Section and S.E C Prac11ce Secuon Federal Grantor/Pass-Through Grantor/Program Title U. S. Department of Education Passed Through State Department of Education: CHAPTER I Compensatory EESA TITLE II Title VI-B Handicapped Public Law 874 ECIA CHAPTER II CHAPTER I Handicapped Indochinese Refugee Child Assistance Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 Vocational Education Act (Carl Perkins) Adult Basic Education Total U.S . Department of Education U.S. Department of Labor Passed Through State Department of Education: CETA/Vocational Job Training Partnership Act Total U.S. Department of Labor U.S . Department of Agriculture Passed Through State Department of Education: National School Lunch Program Nutritional Education Total U. S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed Through State Department of Human Services: Development Disabilities Planning Council Development Disabilities Planning Council Title XX Daycare Title XX New Futures Title XX Dropout THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance Year Ended June 30, 1990 Federal CFDA Number 84.010 84 . 164 84.027 84.041 84. 151 84.009 84.146 84 .184 84.048 84.002 17. 250 17 . 250 10.555 10.564 13.630 13 . 630 13.667 13.667 13.667 Total U.S . Department of Health and Human Services Total Federal Financial Assistance 45 $ Program or Award AIRount 2,491,902 57,067 526,637 319,199 72,461 7,394 121,366 448,585 35,427 55,552 154,278 11,932 45,405 36,070 178,360 31,056 2,100 Federal Funds $ Revenues Recognized 2,491,902 37,832 460,966 75,237 278,134 58,344 6,270 114,079 443,476 33 454 3,999,694 50,218 84 289 134 507 3,194,146 11 932 3,206,078 8,274 23,723 68,561 23, 762 2 100 126,420 $ 7,466,699 Expenditures $ 2,491,902 37,832 460,966 75,237 278,134 58,344 6,270 114,079 443,476 33 454 3,999,694 50,218 84 289 134,507 3,194,146 11 932 3,206,078 8,274 23,723 68,561 23,762 2 100 126,420 $ 7,466,699\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1213","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990-01-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School management and organization","Magnet schools","School employees","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1213"],"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":["300 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nReport from Magnet Review Committee to Honorable Henry Woods, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nMr. Eugene Reville Metropolitan Supervisor 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72203 Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer January 3, 1990 The Honorable Henry Woods Judge, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U.S. Post Office and Courthouse P. o. Box 3683 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Woods: Please find attached the seventh Magnet Review Committee status report on interdistrict magnet school development and progress. The content of the report is limited to the topics listed in the Table of Contents and covers the time period from August 1988 to December 1989. The Committee is prepared to elaborate on the areas described in the report and/or provide additional information as you may direct. The MRC has worked closely with the host district (Little Rock School District), Pulaski County Special School District, North Little Rock School District, the Arkansas Department of Education and the Joshua Intervenors to operate and monitor the six (6) interdistrict magnet school programs. The MRC will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling its oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, o+~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson P1/[_~ski 2=-:Jecial School Crown North Little Rock School District District ~~ Marcia H~rding {) Arkansas Department of Education (501) 758-0156 The Honorable Henry Woods E~c~ Joshua Intervenors ]fdtl.~ Little Rock School District MRC:sl Attachment -2- December 20, 1989 :ff~~ Arkansas Department of n y Cr Executive Direct cc: Aubrey V. Mccutcheon, Special Master Eugene Reville, Metropolitan Supervisor Attorneys of Record Dr. Burton Elliott, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Ruth Steele, Little Rock School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. Magnet Review Committee (MRC)............. 1 SECTION II. MRC Subcommittees......................... 6 SECTION III. Student Assignment - Interdistrict Magnet Schools............................ 15 SECTION IV. Student Assignment - Majority-to-Minority Transfer Program .......................... 21 SECTION V. Student Recruitment ....................... 25 SECTION VI. Staff and Curriculum of the Interdistrict Magnet Schools............................ 26 SECTION VII. Research and Evaluation ................... 27 SECTION VIII. Policy Issues ............................. 29 SECTION IX. SECTION X. Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budgets ...... 36 Recommendations........................... 38 Appendix A................................ 40 Appendix A-1 - Interdistrict Magnet Schools Survey Results Appendix A-2 - M-to-M Survey Results Appendix B - Capacity Committee Report .... 41 Appendix C - Interdistrict Magnet School Brochures and Sample Application Forms ............ 42 Appendix D - Transportation Information ... 43 Appendix D-1 - NLRSD Appendix D-2 - PCSSD Appendix D-3 - LRSD TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Appendix E - Majority-to-Minority Transfer Program Flyer and Sample Application...... 44 Appendix F - Interdistrict Magnet Schools Waiting Lists....... 45 Appendix F-1 - NLRSD Appendix F-2 - PCSSD Appendix F-3 - LRSD Appendix G - Interdistrict Magnet Schools Staff Information........... 46 Appendix H - Adopted 1988-89 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budget. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 SECTION I THE MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE (MRC) The Magnet Review Committee was established by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Court, St. Louis, in November 1985. The MRC formed in September 1986 and has continued to serve under guidelines delineated in the U. S. District Court Order of September 8, 1986, and subsequent Orders of the Court of Appeals and District Court. Current membership includes: Pulaski County Special School District Chairperson - Dr. Bobby Altom Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum Pulaski County Special School District 1500 Dixon Road P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 490-2000 Member since October, 1987 Little Rock School District Ms. Rachel Myers Assistant Superintendent for Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 370-1627 Member since August, 1989 North Little Rock School District Ms. Jane Brown Director, Secondary Education North Little Rock School District P. 0. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-6114 Member since July, 1989 -1- Arkansas Department of Education Ms. Marcia Harding Administrator, Compliance/State Program Development, Special Education Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 682-4222 Member since September, 1986 Arkansas Department of Education Mr. Clearence Lovell Associate Director of Federal Programs Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 682-4286 Member since October, 1989 Joshua Intervenors Ms. Evelyn Jackson Retired Teacher 27 Detroit Circle Little Rock, AR 72206 374-2587 Member since August, 1988 The Magnet Review Committee currently employs Donna Grady Creer as Executive Director and Sandra M. Luehrs as secretary. Their job descriptions are included in this section of the report. The Magnet Review Committee holds regular meetings every other Tuesday. The meetings are generally held at the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1900 North Main Street, Suite 101, North Little Rock, Arkansas, and last a minimum of two hours. The Committee holds one meeting per year at each of the six interdistrict magnet schools. After each school-site meeting, the Committee tours the school and is updated on the program. Additional called meetings and/or subcommittee meetings are held as necessary. -2- TITLE: REPORTS TO: TERM OF EMPLOYMENT: JOB DESCRIPTION Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Chairperson, Magnet Review Committee Twelve (12) Months, Renewable on Annual Basis PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Coordinate the Magnet/M-to-M Educational Team (MET) 2. Inform the parties to the case, Magnet Review Committee members, and the press of regularly scheduled and specially called meetings. 3. Prepare the Magnet Review Committee agenda, and provide members with anticipated schedule prior to meeting. 4. Manage fiscal, personnel resources, and office operations of the Magnet Review Committee. 5. Develop and write reports and other correspondence for the courts. 6. Attend local meetings related to magnet schools. 7. Collect data and prepare evaluation reports for the Magnet Review Committee. 8. Monitor enrollment patterns and provide information to the Magnet Review Committee. 9. Secure consultants as directed. 10. Gather data for decision making. 11. Represent the Magnet Review Committee at various functions of the Committee and other duties as assigned by the Magnet Review Committee. 12. Handle problems which may arise. 13. Develop record-keeping system. 14. Attend state, regional, and national meetings related to magnet schools. 15. Perform duties as assigned by the Magnet Review Committee. -3- TITLE: JOB DESCRIPTION Secretary to Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee REPORTS TO: Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Twelve (12) Months, Renewable on Annual Basis TERM OF EMPLOYMENT: PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Record, maintain and distribute accurate minutes of regular and called Magnet Review Committee meetings, MET meetings, and any other Magnet Review Committee or ad hoc subcommittee meetings. 2. Use organizational and management skills in setting up and maintaining an effective and efficient office. 3. Use word processing skills effectively. 4. Exhibit excellent secretarial skills in Magnet Review Committee filing, completion or development of business forms, and record keeping. 5. Apply bookkeeping and computer skills in maintaining accurate financial records. Keep accurate records of bills, disbursements, and expenditures. Prepare memos to Metropolitan Education Service Center delineating bill payment. 6. Exhibit excellent oral and written communication skills. 7. Maintain current inventory. 8. Distribute magnet school promotional materials. 9. Confer with vendors regarding purchases and services. 10. Handle all mailings, including special deliveries, bulk rate mailings, and Federal Express services. -4- 11. Maintain meeting schedules for both the Magnet Review Committee and the Magnet/M-to-M Educational Team (MET). 12. Supervise temporary help. 13. Assure the policies and procedures of the Magnet Review Committee are followed. Assure the policies and procedures of the Metropolitan Education Service Center are followed with regard to bookkeeping services. 14. Handle, direct and counsel incoming calls from magnet parents or potential magnet parents. 15. Maintain cooperative working relationship with Magnet Review Committee members, magnet school personnel, the three school districts, Arkansas Department of Education, Metropolitan Education Service Center, and any other person contacting the Magnet Review Committee office. 16. Perform other duties as assigned by the Magnet Review Committee or the Executive Director. -5- SECTION II MRC SUBCOMMITTEES THE MAGNET/M-TO-M EDUCATIONAL TEAM (MET) The Magnet/Majority-to-Minority Transfer Educational Team (MET) meets on the first Thursday of each month at the Magnet Review Committee Office. During its existence, the MET has spearheaded most recruitment and information activities for the interdistrict magnet school and Majority-to-Minority (M-to-M) transfer programs in Pulaski County. During the 1989-90 recruitment period, the MET initiated the following activities: Print Brochures and application for the Parkview Science Magnet program. (Individual) brochures for Parkview Arts and Mann Arts/Science. Newspaper ads in: Arkansas Democrat Arkansas Gazette Spectrum Arkansas State Press The Maumelle Monitor The North Little Rock Times The Sherwood Voice Jacksonville Daily News The North Pulaski Leader Nightflying 80,000 information flyers on the M-to-M transfer program. Radio / TV 30-second spots on the interdistrict magnet school and M-to-M transfer programs on KLRT (Channel 16) and KATV (Channel 7). 30-second spots on area radio stations. -6- People Oriented Activities Speakers for various meetings and activities. Recruitment booth and live remote broadcast by KIPR at the Stoned Soul Picnic. Recruitment booth at McCain Mall. Recruitment booth at University Mall. Live remote broadcast at McCain Mall (KKYK). Recruitment booth at Park Plaza Mall. Miscellaneous Balloons, pencils, pins on the interdistrict magnet school and M-to-M transfer programs. Bus and bench ads on M-to-M transfer program. School-generated recruitment activities. Slidetape presentation of Booker Arts Magnet. (Individual) brochure/recruitment packet for Williams Basic Skills Magnet. (Individual) recruitment packet for Booker Arts Magnet. The Magnet/M-to-M Educational Team has initiated a newsletter titled \"The MMM Connection.\" Scheduled to debut January 26, 1990, \"The MMM Connection\" will include information on programs, enrollment procedures, course offerings, notices, parent information, and student and staff profiles. The newsletter will be distributed quarterly to area banks, hospitals, grocery and discount stores, public utility company offices, churches and to parents. Magnet/M-to-M Educational Team members include: Pulaski County Special School District Ms. Ruth Simmons Herts Pulaski County Special School District 1500 Dixon Road P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 490-2000 (work) -7- (Black) Mr. Lawrence Nicholson 1415 East 38th Little Rock, AR 72206 374-2115 (home) Ms. Vicki Benton 110 Fox Dell Circle Jacksonville, AR 72076 982-6286 (home) 771-0555 (work) Knight Intervenors Ms. Carol Green (LRCTA) 2313 West 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72203 375-0942 (home) 225-6440 (work - Parkview Magnet) Ms. Sandra Henson (NLRCTA) 5 Trevino Drive Maumelle, AR 72118 851-2060 (home) 771-6180 (work - Central Junior High) Ms. Nora Ann Babb (PACT) 12120 Southridge Little Rock, AR 72212 225-0033 (home) 835-5334 (work - Oakbrooke Elementary) Little Rock School District Mr. James Washington Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 370-1604/370-1609 (work) Ms. Paulette Mabry 11833 Rivercrest Little Rock, AR 72212 227-0314 (home) Ms. Diane Vibhakar 10555 Rivercrest Little Rock, AR 72212 224-3678 -8- (Black) (White) (Black) (White) (White) (Black) (Black) (White) North Little Rock School District Mr. Bobby Acklin North Little Rock School District P.O. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-6110 Ms. Alfrieda Marshall 704 Cedar North Little Rock, AR 72114 375-0880 (home) Ms. Lynn Welch 129 Davis North Little Rock, AR 72117 945-284 7 (home) Joshua Intervenors Reverend William Robinson (Little Rock) Hoover United Methodist Church 4000 West 13th Little Rock, AR 72202 663-9621 (work) Austin Porter, Jr. (Pulaski County) 990 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3742 372-4623 (work) 490-0174 (home) Henry Herbey (North Little Rock) 1422 s. Maple Little Rock, AR 72204 663-8942 (home) Arkansas Department of Education Ms. Brenda Matthews Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 682-4214 (work) -9- (Black) (Black) (White) (Black) (Black) (Black) (White) Arkansas Department of Education (Continued) Ms. Pat Jones Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce 1 Spring Building Little Rock, AR 72201 374-4871 (work) VACANT POSITION Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer (Black) (White) In an effort to determine if there were sufficient parental support for additional interdistrict magnet school programs for the 1989-90 school year, and to identify the magnet school theme most attractive to parents of elementary school-aged children, the Magnet Review Committee developed, distributed, collected and compiled data from an interdistrict magnet school survey. Students in Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District hand-delivered a packet to their parents which contained the following: a letter explaining the survey, the survey itself and a brochure describing the current interdistrict magnet school programs and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Press releases in area dailies and weeklies encouraged parents of private school students to contact the Magnet Review Committee Office to obtain the survey. The survey results are included in Appendix A-1. In February 1989, the Magnet/M-to-M Educational Team developed, distributed, collected and compiled data from a survey of parents of Majority-to-Minority transfer students. The survey was distributed in an effort to determine: methods of transportation, source(s) of information about the program, the level of participation in the program, and willingness to enroll siblings in the program. The sample of the survey and the results are included as Appendix A-2. INTERDISTRICT TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (ITA) The Interdistrict Transportation Authority (ITA) is responsible for the administration of an interdistrict transportation plan for both magnet schools and M-to-M transfers. The ITA is composed of the Transportation Director, or other designee, of each district and a representative of the State. -10- Committee members are: Chairperson - Mr. Spence Holder Coordinator, School Transporation Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 682-4264 Member since September, 1988 Mr. Bobby Acklin Assistant Superintendent, Pupil Services North Little Rock School District P. o. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-6110 Member since August, 1989 Mr. Ed Hogan Assistant Superintendent, Support Services Pulaski County Special School District 1500 Dixon Road P. 0. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 490-2000 Member since September, 1987 Mr. Richard Johnson Transportation Director Little Rock School District 5400 Murray Little Rock, AR 72209 562-6300 Member since September, 1987 The ITA reports to the Magnet Review Committee quarterly or on an \"as needed\" basis. -11- MAGNET GRANT WRITING COMMITTEE In December 1988, the Little Rock School District contacted parties to the Court case to discuss application for a grant from the U.S. Department of Education Magnet Schools Assistance Program. The Magnet Grant Writing Steering Committee was established and held weekly meetings to develop a proposal. The grant writing process proceeded as follows: Each interdistrict magnet school selected a committee to assess needs, develop strategies to meet needs, and write the plan. The Steering Committee provided background information on the desegregation case and interdistrict magnet schools in Pulaski County, and also compiled the grant application. The Magnet Review Committee and all parties in the case reviewed the proposal prior to submission. Regrettably, this proposal did not receive an award. Plans are underway to submit a proposal for the 1991-92 funding cycle. A list of the 1988-89 Grant Writing Steering Committee members follows: Bill Ballard, NLRSD Emma Bass, ADE Billy Bowles, PCSSD Jane Brown, NLRSD Esther Crawford, NLRSD Donna Grady Creer, MRC David Greenwood, PCSSD Sterling Ingram, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors James Jennings, LRSD Dr. J. J. Lacey, Jr., LRSD Dr. John Moore, NLRSD Nancy Sheehan, Knight Intervenors Dr. Beverly White, LRSD -12- CAPACITIES COMMITTEE In September 1988, the Magnet Review Committee formed a committee to study program seating capacity in each of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools in Pulaski County. The Magnet Review Committee asked that the committee pay particular attention to the use of space in theme areas (e.g., fine arts, math/science, foreign language). The Magnet Review Committee's Capacities Committee consisted of the Student Assignment Officer and School Plant Manager from each of the three school districts. Committee membership was as follows: Little Rock School District: James Jennings - Associate Superintendent, Desegregation Wayne Adams - Coordinator of Plant Services North Little Rock School District: Bobby Acklin - Assistant Superintendent, Student Affairs Jerry Massey - Director, School Plant Services Pulaski County Special School District: Ed Hogan, Chair - Assistant Superintendent, Support Services Eddie Collins - Assistant Superintendent, Pupil Personnel Magnet Review Committee: Donna Grady Creer - Executive Director. James Washington, Student Assignment Officer (LRSD) and Jack Robinson, Plant Services Construction Manager (LRSD), as well as the magnet school administrators, offered their assistance. The Capacities Committee made a report to the Magnet Review Committee in April 1989, which was presented to the Court at that time. A copy of that report is included as Appendix B. GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS COMMITTEE During the 1988-89 school year, Dr. Beverly White, serving as LRSD's Associate Superintendent for Research, Development and Curriculum, wrote the Magnet Review Committee asking the Committee to examine the differences in requirements for graduation and early graduation among Pulaski County high schools. The Magnet Review Committee formed a committee to study this issue. -13- Graduation Requirements Committee members were: Marvin Zimmerman - LRSD English/Social Studies Supervisor Dr. Bobby Altom - PCSSD Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum Dr. John Moore - NLRSD Assistant Superintendent, Instruction Donna Grady Creer - MRC Liaison. The committee made a report to the Magnet Review Committee on July 25, 1989, and the recommendation was adopted by the Magnet Review Committee at that time. A copy of the Interdistrict Magnet Schools Early Graduation Guidelines, dated July 25, 1989, is incorporated as a part of the Policy Issues section of this report. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICERS COMMITTEE The Magnet Review Committee formed the Student Assignment Officers Committee and hears periodic reports from them in an effort to assure uniform student enrollment application procedures, and to keep abreast of changes in enrollment patterns, applications, waiting lists, withdrawals, seat allocation, application processing and other matters related to interdistrict magnet schools and M-to-M transfer program assignments. This committee consists of: LRSD - James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation James Washington, Student Assignment Officer Sue Pederson, Administrative Assistant NLRSD - Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Affairs Sandy Juckett, Administrative Assistant PCSSD - Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Marilyn Nowlin, Administrative Assistant. The committee has assisted the Magnet Review Committee in making the interdistrict magnet school and M-to-M transfer programs assignment processes equitable, efficient and effective. -14- SECTION III STUDENT ASSIGNMENT INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS Interdistrict magnet school enrollment is open to students in grades K-12 in Pulaski County, Arkansas with the following exceptions: Students who apply for placement in Parkview Science Magnet should have successfully completed Algebra I in the 9th grade. Pulaski County Special School District white students in the southeast quadrant of the district and black students in selected schools north of the river are not allowed interdistrict magnet school placement as this would negatively impact overall district racial ratios. Students identified as handicapped under State guidelines, whose Individualized Educational Program (IEP) requires self-contained special education placement (more than 50% of the instructional day spent in special education programming), are not recommended for magnet placement. Magnet programs are open to identified handicapped students whose IEP's require that less than 50% of the instructional day be spent in special education programming (itinerant and resource room services). Brochures describing course offerings and application procedures, and the application forms for the interdistrict magnet schools are available at the Magnet Review Committee Office, the districts' Student Assignment Offices and the interdistrict magnet schools. Selected brochures available through these offices, and sample application forms, are included as Appendix C. The enrollment procedures for each of the three districts in the interdistrict magnet school program are listed below. Prior to applying for interdistrict magnet school enrollment, it is suggested that a parent peruse brochures offered by the Magnet Review Committee Office and the resident district Student Assignment Office. The student and parent should visit the selected interdistrict magnet during school hours. This process will assist the parent in making a sound decision. -15- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Interdistrict Magnet School Application and Enrollment Process The parent should obtain an interdistrict magnet school application at the beginning of the recruitment period. In the Little Rock School District, the recruitment period usually runs six weeks in the spring. Applications may be mailed from the Magnet Review Committee Office or picked up at the Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office, or at any interdistrict magnet school. The completed application should be returned to the Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office. Magnet slots for K, 7th and 10th graders are filled by lottery or random selection process. Names of all students who apply but are not selected for immediate entrance are placed on waiting lists which roll over to the appropriate grade level at the end of the year when magnet vacancies occur. Magnet vacancies which occur at grades other than entry level (K, 7, 10) are filled from waiting lists. Students who apply after the designated application period are added to the waiting list in chronological order. Parents are notified by letter of magnet placement. Enrollment in a magnet school commits the student to attendance at that school for a minimum of one semester. Upon completion of one semester, a student may opt to transfer to a non-magnet school. However, if release from the magnet school's one-semester commitment is desired prior to the semester's end, the following exit process must be followed. Exit Process Parents must go to their home district's Student Assignment Office or to the Magnet Review Committee's Office for a Magnet Withdrawal Form. Parents must complete the withdrawal form. The completed form must be returned to the home district's Student Assignment Office, Magnet Review Committee Office, or to the student's current school. The Magnet Withdrawal Form is forwarded to the Magnet Withdrawal Committee, composed of the Student Assignment Officers from the school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. The decision to grant or deny a withdrawal is made by the withdrawal committee based on assessment of data. The home district Student Assignment Office is responsible for contacting the parent to communicate a decision. -16- If a student's request is denied, the parent has the option to appeal the decision to the Magnet Review Committee. The Magnet Review Committee's decision is final. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The parent should obtain an interdistrict magnet school application form at the beginning of the recruitment period (usually March-May of the year prior to enrollment). Application forms may be mailed from the Magnet Review Committee Office, or picked up at the Pulaski County Special School District or North Little Rock School District, Pupil Personnel Office, or at any interdistrict magnet school. The completed application form should be returned to the Pulaski County Special School District Pupil Personnel Office or the North Little Rock School District Pupil Services Office. Applications will be dated and placed on an interdistrict magnet school waiting list accordingly. (A copy of each district's waiting lists is contained in Appendix F.) North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District will receive a list of the number of vacancies by school, grade and race for the coming school year and will match students on the waiting list with available spaces. PCSSD and NLRSD officials will call the host district to confirm placement. A letter notifying parents of interdistrict magnet school placement will be mailed to parents. Parents will be instructed to go to the host district and complete a Pupil Information Form. The date for enrollment and registration will also be given. The withdrawal procedure for Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District is the same as for Little Rock School District. Transportation is provided for interdistrict magnet school students who live more than two (2) miles from school. The student's host district transportation department is responsible for providing the student with information on pickup route, departure, arrival and return time. Information from each school district on transportation is included in Appendix D. The ITA, as described in Section II, is responsible for making decisions regarding transportation for the interdistrict magnet school and M-to-M transfer programs. -17- During the 1988-89 school year, 37 buses were purchased for exclusive use by the interdistrict magnet school program in an effort to assure all interdistrict magnet school students would be on the first or second bus run. The buses are marked \"Pulaski County Magnet Schools.\" -18- Oa te 15-0ec-89 Nagnet School Enrollment Schoo 1 Narie/ 11-01-89 . Students by Race/ Students by Race/ t. Students-District/ 1/. Students by District/ PCSSD PCSSD NLRSD NLRSO LRSD LRSD Total Total Total Bldg. Black White Black White Black White Black White Enroll~ntCapacity \", Students by Race/ 104 53 41 51 180 181 32S 28S 610 660 Students by Race/ 66 341/. 451/. 55'/. 501/. 501/. 531/. 47'/. ohl Students 157 92 361 1. Students 26 15 59'/. rver Ele~. PCSSD PCSSD NLRSD NLRSD LRSD LRSD Total Total Total Bldg, Black White Black White Black White Black White EnrollmntCapacity  Students by Race/ 71 144 36 72 166 101 273 317 590 613 Students by Race/ 331/. 67'/. 331/. 67'/. 621/. 381/. 461/. 541/. Total Students 21S 108 267 '' Students 36 181/. 451/. PCSSD PCSSD NLRSO NLRSD LRSD LRSD Total Total Total Bldg, Black White Black White Black White Black White EnrollmntCapacity , Students by Race/ 21 10 32 14 119 134 172 158 330 351 Students by Race/ 68'/. 321/. 701/. 301/. 47'/. 531/. 52t. 48'/. Total Students 31 46 253 Students 9'1. 141/. 77'1. PCSSD PCSSD NLRSD NLRSD LRSD LRSD Total Total Total Bldg. Black White Black White Black White Black White EnrollmntCapacity , Students by Race/ 28 53 20 16 207 177 255 246 501 515 , Students by Race/ 35 65 56 441/. 541/. 461/. 511/. 49'/. Total Students 81 36 384 Students 16 7'1. 77'1. PCSSD PCSSD NLRSD NLRSO LRSD LRSD 1otal Total Total Bldg. Black White Black White Black White Black White Enroll~ntCapacity , Students by Race/ 141 88 42 37 293 276 476 401 877 935 % Students by Race/ 621/. 38'1. 531/. 47'/. 511/. 49'/. 541/. 461/. tal Students 229 79 569 Students 26 9'1. 65'/. PCSSO PCSSO NLRSD NLRSO LRSO LRSO Total Total Total Bldg. Black White Black White Black White Black White EnrollmntCapacity , Students by Race/ 132 74 30 42 272 255 434 371 805 991 % Students by Race/ 641/. 36 421/. 58'I. 521/. 48'I. 541/. 46 tal Students 206 72 527 Students 261/. 9'I. 651/. G!WiO TOTALS PCSSD PCSSO NLRSO NLRSO LRSD LRSD Total Total Total Bldg, Black llhite Black White Black White Black White EnrollmntCapacity , Students by Race/ 497 422 201 232 1237 1124 1935 1778 3713 4065 % Stu den ts by Race/ 541/. 46 461/. 541/. 521/. 48'/. 521/. 48'/. tal Students 919 433 2361 Students 25'/. 121/. 641/. -19- 1989-90 Magnet School Waiting List PCSSD 10/17/ 89 Number Number Total Black s Whi t es Count ---------- ----- 30 ,.., ..:.. 32 Carver 8 12 20 Gibbs 3 1 4 Wil 1 iams c-::'- 2 7 Mann Arts 30 1 31 Mann Science 6 2 8 Parkview Arts 17 4 21 Parkview Science 1 0 1 ---------- ----- 100 24 124 1989-90 Magnet School Waiting List NLRSD Reported 11-01-89 School Name Booker Carver Gibbs W i l 1 i ams Mann Arts Mann Science Parkv i ew Arts F'=1. r kvi ew Sc ience Number Blacks 1989-'?0 14 18 .c_::,- 1 10 10 6 0 64 Number Whites 8 35 3 15 0 3 (l 0 64 Ma g net School Wait i ng List Total Count 22 53 8 16 10 13 6 0 128 LRSD Re p orted 12-08-89 Schooi '\\lame Bo  kEer Carver Gibos l-Ji 1\n1ams 1.,,nn\n'-rt'= ,1ann Science Pan,.v1ew A1-t: :=:-al\"f. V l EW Sci 2:1=e ~lumber Blacks 4-82 3 50 515 371 48 31 J95 35 Number \\..Jh i tes 58 268 197 462 47 0 Total C  Llnt 5 40 61 8 7 12 833 442 85 -TOTALS --TOTAI_S 1038 33 11: --TJT ALS -20- SECTION IV STUDENT ASSIGNMENT MAJORITY-TO-MINORITY TRANSFER PROGRAM A flyer on the M-to-M transfer program is available at the Magnet Review Committee Office, the three districts' Student Assignment Offices, Public Information Offices and information desks. Application forms are also available for mailout (from the MRC Office) and pickup from the Student Assignment Offices. The MET distributes flyers and applications at mall booths and other people-oriented functions. The flyer and a sample application form are included as Appendix E. Students who apply for a Majority-to-Minority (M-to-M) transfer should obtain an application from the Magnet Review Committee Office or the resident district Student Assignment Office. The student has the option to select up to three schools. Students who plan to participate in extracurricular activities must enroll prior to Labor Day. The Student Assignment Office at the resident district will determine placement. A student's commitment to the M-to-M program is one year. After completion of that year, a student may, if desired, return to the resident district for school placement. Transportation is provided for M-to-M students who live more than two (2) miles from school. The student's host district transportation department is responsible for providing the student with information on pickup route, departure, arrival and return time. Information from each school district on M-to-M transportation is included in Appendix D. The ITA, as described in Section II, is responsible for making decisions regarding transportation for the interdistrict magnet school and M-to-M transfer program. -21- 1989-90 Majority-to-Minority Transfers F'CSSD to LRSD Numbe1~ NL1mber Total Receiving School Name School data are not available. Returning Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (l 0 (l 0 0 0 New i\"1 to Transfers Count (I 0 0 0 0 0 0 (\u0026gt; 0 (\u0026gt; 0 0 0 M ----- 29 24 1989-90 Majority-to-Minority Transfers NLRSD to LRSD Ceni:r.3.1 Hi gh ::,Ltnbo\u0026lt;r Jr. J  : . :=- \"' i r !-I 1 gh Pulas~1 Heights Jr. Sout:-,1\u0026lt;iest .J1~. v.Jooc:ruff Elem . Number Returning Transfers (I 0 0 ') 0 .) 0 0 Number New Transfers 2 3 r::- ,.., ..\n.. 2 1 -, - 17 -22- Total M to M CoLint 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I 53 -TOTALS ,.., -_j r::- ,-..', .::. 2 1 .'.\"\n.'. 17 -TOTALS 1989-90 Majority-to-Minority Transfers LRSD to F'CSSD --------------------------------------------------- Receiving School Name Baker Elem. Jacksonvi l le High Lawson Elem. North Pulaski High Oak Grove Elem. Oak Grove High Robinson Elem. Robinson High Robinson .Jr. Sherwood Elem. Sylvan Hills Elem. Sylvan Hills High Sylvan Hills .Jr. Schools - 13 Number Number Total Returning ~ew M to M Transfers Transfers Count 32 24 56 0 2 2 3 7 1 (l 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 7 8 28 9 37 9 21 30 28 39 67 1 0 1 0 6 6 .c_::,\" 8 13 7 13 20 115 138 253 -TOTALS -23- 1989-90 Majority-to-Minority Transfers LF:SD to I\\ILRSD --------------------------------------------------- Receiving School Name Amboy Elem. Argenta Elem. Baring Cr oss Spec. Central Jr. Glenview Elem. Indian Hills Elem. Lakewood Elem. Lakewood .Jr . Meadow Park Elem. Northeast High 01 e Main High Park Hi l 1 El em. Pine Elem. Redwood Elem. Ridgeroad .Jr. Rose City Elem. Rose City .Jr. Seventh St. Elem. NLtmber RetLirning Transfers 3 1 1 5 ,.., ..:.. 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 c~:- 1 0 ,::- -' 4 34 NLtmber Total New M to M Transfers Count 4 7 1 2 0 1 13 18 0 2 1,0.., 13 ..::. 3 10 1,.., ..:.. 1 1 33 34 4 4 1 1 2 2 c:- -' 10 0 1 1 1 0 ,::- -' 3 7 90 124 -24- -TOTALS SECTION V STUDENT RECRUITMENT Recruitment of students for the interdistrict magnet school program is a responsibility of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) and its recruitment arm, the Magnet/M-to-M Transfer Educational Team (MET). Assistance comes from the interdistrict magnet schools and the districts' Student Assignment Offices. The recruitment period for the interdistrict magnet school program for the coming school year usually begins in March. Announcement of the recruitment and enrollment period is widespread (newspaper, radio/TV, sending home of announcements, posters, flyers, information in school counselors' offices, etc.). The Magnet/M-to-M Educational Team closely examines the list of vacancies for the interdistrict magnet schools and targets recruitment accordingly. Section II of this report details recruitment strategies. -25- SECTION VI STAFF AND CURRICULUM OF THE INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS The staffing for the interdistrict magnet school program is handled by the Little Rock School District Department of Human Resources. Interdistrict magnet school principals play key roles in the development of job descriptions and in the staff selection process. Careful attention is given to an individual's desire to be a part of the magnet team, the individual's interest in the school theme and the teaching qualifications as related to the curriculum. A list of staff members, ethnicity, years of experience and experience in the magnet setting is included as Appendix G. The curriculum for each interdistrict magnet school program is developed by the interdistrict magnet school staff and administration. District and State guidelines, goals and objectives and school theme descriptions are considered in curriculum development. A school-based team which monitors the curriculum meets each summer for curriculum adjustments and augmentation. Curricular revisions are forwarded to the Magnet Review Committee for review. For the Court's reference, curriculum guides for each magnet program area are available in the Magnet Review Committee Office. -26- SECTION VII RESEARCH AND EVALUATION The Honorable Henry Woods, U. S. District Judge in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, issued on September 3, 1986, an \"Order Concerning Magnet Review Committee.\" Item 4 of the Order states, in part, \"Upon implementation of the magnet school program, the Magnet Review Committee will continue to monitor, evaluate, and recommend changes in the actual operation of the magnet schools ..... \" In August of 1987, the Magnet Review Committee developed a plan for evaluating the magnet schools. The evaluation plan provides for determining the desegregative effects of the magnet school programs, as well as the educational quality of these programs. Key variables inherent in effective schools were identified for study by the Magnet Review Committee, and a framework for longitudinal evaluation was adopted. The framework consists of four phases to the evaluation process. This plan was provided to the Court in the Magnet Review Committee's Report to the Court of September 3, 1987. The Magnet School Program Evaluation for 1987-88 was conducted for the Magnet Review Committee by the Office of Educational Research and Services, College of Education, Arkansas State University (ASU), under the direction of Dr. Donald E. Wright. The evaluation report was published in June 1988 and was shared with the Court, all parties and the public. The Magnet Review Committee accepted a proposal by the ASU Office of Educational Research and Services to conduct the evaluation of the interdistrict magnet schools for the 1988-89 school year. This evaluation is in process and is anticipated to be completed by early Spring 1990. The objectives of the study are as follows: 1. To develop an instrument for data collection that will re-examine the attitudes/opinions of all parents of magnet school students. The instrument will focus on those items from the 1988 data collection instrument where fifteen percent or more of the parents disagreed with the positively stated item. -27- 2. To obtain 1989 standardized scale scores for the following tests for the appropriate grade groups: A. Minimum Performance Test (MPT) Grades 3-6-8\nB. Metropolitan Achievement Test, 6th Edition (MAT-6) Grades 4-7-10\nC. American College Test (ACT) Grade 12. 3. To utilize appropriate evaluation techniques and strategies in the analysis of data and the correct interpretation of results.* 4. To file a written report that will enable the Magnet Review Committee to utilize as evidence when changes in the magnet school program are considered. * The analysis of student achievement data will include disaggregation of the data. Following receipt of the final report of the Evaluation of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program, 1988-89 School Year, the Magnet Review Committee will make the report available to the Court, interested parties and the public. -28- SECTION VIII POLICY ISSUES The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) is cognizant of the Court's June 30, 1987, Order clarifying the role of the MRC in policy development for the operation of the interdistrict magnet school program and setting forth guidelines for presentation of MRC policy decisions to the Court for adoption subsequent to the Order. The MRC recognizes that the most appropriate course of action is for magnet schools to adhere to the policies of the host school district whenever possible. On certain occasions, it has become necessary for the MRC to develop and adopt a policy or guidelines that would be unique to magnet schools. These policies and guidelines, which have been disseminated to the three districts for implementation, are included in this report and are listed below: POLICY POLICY GUIDELINES GUIDELINES POLICY Interdistrict Magnet School Transfers, Revised December 1, 1987 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Inclement Weather Procedure, Adopted December 1, 1987 Interdistrict Magnet School Enrollment for the 1989-90 School Year, Adopted December 20, 1988 Classifying Equipment Interdistrict Magnet School Student Early Graduation, Adopted July 25, 1989 As policies governing the interdistrict magnet schools are developed in the future, they will be submitted to the Court in accordance with the Court Order. -29- I POLICY ON INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL STUDENT TRANSFERS Revised December 1, 1987 Students enrolled in an Interdistrict Magnet School in a given semester will be required to remain in that magnet school for the duration of that semester. Students who develop extenuating circumstances which might warrant a change in assignment may petition to obtain a change of assignment. Petitions will be received by the host district. Petitions will be reviewed by a three (3) member Withdrawal Committee comprised of student assignment officers or designates for the three (3) Pulaski County, Arkansas, districts. A majority of these officers will determine whether a student is allowed to change assignment* Parents who wish to appeal the decision of the Withdrawal Committee may do so by writing a letter of appeal to the Magnet Review Committee. The decision of the Magnet Review Committee is final. Specific student assignment will be made according to policies of the home district. * Identified handicapped students are excluded from the review process as described herein. Decisions pertaining to the appropriateness of their educational programming and placement shall be made in accordance with Public Law 94-142 and Arkansas Act 102 regulatory procedures. -30- OoMa Grady Creer Executive Direclor Magnet Review Committee 22nd and Poplar P.O. Box687 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS INCLEMENT WEATHER PROCEDURE Adopted December 1, 1987 (501 l 758-3545 1. When Little Rock School District schools are closed, interdistrict magnet schools will be closed. No magnet school buses will run when LRSD schools are closed\n2. When Little Rock School District is open, interdistrict magnet schools will be open. If Little Rock School District is open, and Pulaski County Special School District and/or North Little Rock School District is closed, Pulaski County Special School District and/or North Little Rock School District magnet school bus routes will not run. Students whose buses do not run will not be expected to attend class. If a student is transported to and from school on that day by other means (parents, taxi, etc.), the district is not liable for any accident that may occur. 3. Magnet school students who miss class work due to inclement weather will not be penalized in any way. Adequate time will be given to compensate for any work missed. -31- onna Grady Creer acutive Director TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 James JenninL~RS,D Donna Grady , Executive Director Magnet Revie Committee Interdistrict Magnet School Enrollment December 21, 1988 At its December 20, 1988 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote, agreed to: 1) apportion vacant seats at entry level grades (501) 7580156 (K, 7th, and 10th) in accordance with percentages set forth in the Stipulation. 2) give preference to PCSSD and NLRSD students for vacancies occuring in grades 1-6, 8-9, 11-12. If PCSSD, and NLRSD are unable to fill these vacancies, Little Rock School District students may be seated. 3) apply the same formula in 1) and 2) above with regard to additional seats at Carver Magnet. 4) deny sibling preference and guaranteed placement f rom one organizational level to the next. Please keep us informed as LRSD makes plans for 1989-90 student assignment. DGC: sl cc: Eddie Collins, PCSSD Arma Hart, LRSD Andrew Power, NLRSD -32- I In accordance with the Order dated the 30th day of June, 1987, the Magnet Review Committee is submitting the following report titled, \"Classifying Equipment for Funding Purposes,\" for your approval. The policy states, \"Equipment not built into an existing building should be classified under the heading of operating costs. Equipment built into the building will be classified under the heading of construction costs.\" The Magnet Review Committee used the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual published by the Arkansas Department of Education in 1976, and revised in 1986, to reach a decision. Chapter 5, \"Supplies and Equipment,\" offered the following information in a subsection titled, \"Distinguishing Between Built-In and Movable Equipment.\" If an agency finds it necessary to distinguish between built-in and movable equipment, it usually would relate to one of the following situations: (a) estimating the costs of a building (built-in equipment is included: movable equipment is not)\nand (b) determining which equipment items can be purchased from various funding sources. After an item has been identified as equipment, the following criteria may be applied to determine if the item is built-in or movable: An equipment item is built-in if: 1. It is an integral part of a building\nthat. is, it is permanently fastened to the building, functions as part of the building and causes appreciable damage to the building if it is removed\nor 2. It is permanently attached to a side and functions as part of the site (except buildings or other structures). Built-in equipment may be incorporated into a building at the time the building is erected or at a later date. Built-in equipment is sometimes referred to as fixed equipment (not to be confused with fixed assets). Movable equipment consists of items that: 1. Are transportable from one location to another without appreciable damage or change to the location from which they are removed or to the location where they are installed, and -33- I I 2. Do not function as integral parts of the building or site and are not permanently fastened or attached to the building or site. A piece of equipment that is simply bolted or screwed to the floor, such as a heavy lathe or desk, and that can be moved as a unit once these fasteners have been removed, is movable equipment. The term movable refers to permanency of installation and not to size or weight. The Magnet Review Committee anticipates reference to this policy when dealing with magnet school budget, renovation, and construction. -34- I INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL STUDENTS EARLY GRADUATION July 25, 1989 Interdistrict magnet school students who meet early graduation requirements should submit a written request for early graduation to the high school principal prior to the beginning of the fifth (5th) semester if early graduation is to be held at the end of the sixth (6th) semester. If the student requests to graduate at the end of the seventh (7th) semester, the request must be made prior to the beginning of the sixth (6th) semester. A plan for early graduation will be reviewed in a conference to include the student, counselor, parents, and the high school principal. After a complete evaluation of the request, the principal will make a final decision on the request and forward that decision to the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Special Programs in the host district and the Magnet Review Committee. At Parkview Fine Arts/Science Magnet School, only six of the seven credits earned during the regular school day, per year, may be counted toward early graduation. Additional credits earned for the purpose of early graduation must be taken through extended day programs, correspondence courses, or summer school, as in other public high schools in the Pulaski County area. GRADUATION: If early graduation is approved, the student may participate in commencement exercises on the same basis as regular graduates. Students who do not wish to participate in commencement exercises will receive their diploma as soon as practical after the exercises. -35- SECTION IX INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETS The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) adopted budget for operation of the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for the 1988-89 school year was $12,781,300.00. This figure was computed on a per pupil cost of $3,100 times a total seating capacity figure of 4,123 for the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for that school year. The fiscal year for expenditure of this budget was July 1, 1988, through June 30, 1989. Initially, each of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools was allotted a proportional share of funds to budget based upon its seating capacity. However, following close budgetary review, monies were shifted among the programs where necessary to accommodate program and services needs. The adopted budget was submitted by the MRC to the Court for approval on February 10, 1989, (see Appendix H). The Interdistrict Magnet School Program operated in accordance with the adopted budget during the 1988-89 school year. Final expenditures for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools during the 1988-89 school year were as follows: Interdistrict Magnet Schools Cost Per Pupil 1988-89 (provided by Little Rock School District) Mann Parkview Booker Carver Gibbs Williams TOTAL 88-89 EXP $2,602,655.24 $3,068,687.24 $1,843,387.31 $1,263,554.98 $1,122,127.49 $1,387,400.74 $11,287,813.00 * Average Daily Membership ADM* PER PUPIL 863.68 $3,013.45 824.48 $3,721.97 650.65 $2,833.15 460.51 $2,743.82 347.54 $3,228.77 494.37 $2,806.40 3,641.23 $3,100.00 The operating expenditures and per pupil cost rates varied across the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools. This variance is the same experienced within any school district, reflecting the general differences found in operating elementary versus secondary schools (junior and senior high schools) and special programs. In the magnet schools, the variance was also attributable to ongoing start-up costs of -36- I programs involving unique program design and the associated personnel, equipment and staff development needs. In summary, the total expenditure for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools for the 1988-89 school year was $11,287,813.00 at an average per pupil expenditure of $3,100. The allocated budget ($12,781,300.00) was based on magnet school seating capacity (4,123) while the expended budget was based on the ADM of 3,641.23 (actual adjusted enrollment). The total expenditure is in keeping with the guidelines set forth by the Court for operation of the interdistrict magnet schools. -37- I SECTION X RECOMMENDATIONS 1) The Magnet Review Committee recommends that the adjusted interdistrict magnet school program seating capacity (as reported in the Report to the Court on Interdistrict Magnet School Capacity, dated April 19, 1989) be the base figure for the interdistrict magnet school program budget. It is necessary to annually reassess program needs as they affect seating capacity for each interdistrict magnet school to ensure sufficient space for each program. 2) It is recommended that the Magnet Review Committee and the host district (Little Rock School District), who are responsible for the annual budgeting of the interdistrict magnet school program, will continue to analyze the adequacy of the $3,100.00 per pupil allocation for funding this program and will make recommendation on their findings. Additionally, the Magnet Review Committee will present the Court with an analysis of the adequacy of its annual operating figure of $150,000.00. Both figures have remained constant for three years in succession. Increased costs for goods and services associated with the interdistrict magnet school programs and Magnet Review Committee functions warrant consideration in determining budget figures. 3) Currently, personnel in the three Pulaski County school districts are considered when staffing the interdistrict magnet schools\nthis practice should continue. The Magnet Review Committee will study the staffing practices in light of: racial and gender balances, hiring policy of the host district as it affects interdistrict faculty transfer, and interdistrict staffing ratios. Based on its findings, the Magnet Review Committee will make recommendations to the Court. It is necessary that interdistrict staffing be accomplished. 4) The Student Assignment Officers Committee (described in Section II of this report) now works with the Magnet Review Committee to determine vacancies/ allocations for filling interdistrict magnet school seats. If the three districts have not filled their allotments prior to the first day of school, seats are released to any of these districts with -38- appropriate students on its waiting lists. However, the Magnet Review Committee recommends that any unused seats for white students in the North Little Rock School District or Pulaski County Special School District be held for use by whites from either of these two districts until the first nine weeks grading period of the host district (Little Rock School District) has ended. This practice is necessary to adhere to the original guidelines set forth by the Court regarding interdistrict participation and racial composition in the magnet school program. 5) The MRC recommends continued use of the current interdistrict magnet schools evaluation design. Future evaluation will be expanded to include social desegregative issues. -39- APPENDIX A -40- I I I I I APPENDIX A-1 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Survey Results INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS SURVEY The Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaskl County Special School Districts, In their continuing effort to meet the needs of the citizens In Pulaski County, are currently assessing the practicality of expanding the interdistrict (which Includes all three school districts In Pulaski county) magnet school program. The present magnet school program Is explained In the enclosed brochure. Please take a few moments and answer the questions by marklng the box to the left of your response with an (x). If you need assistance or have questions, you may call the Magnet Review Committee office (758-0156) between 8:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 9th, or Thursday, Nov. 10th. Ail Individual responses will remain anonymous, and data will be reported only as group information. Thank you for your input. We value your opinion. Please Indicate the number of school-aged children in your family. 0 A. 1 0 B. 2 0 C. 3 O D. 4 or more How many of your children will be In elementary schools (grades K-6) during the 1989-90 school year?  A. 1  B. 2  C. 3  D. 4 or more How many of your children are presently enrolled in the interdistrict magnet school program?  A. None D B. 1 D C. 2 D D. 3 E. 4 or more Please indicate the school district in which you reside. D A. Little Rock School District D B. North Little Rock School Dis-trict D C. Pulaski County Special School District n D. Other (please list) 5. If your child attends school In a system/district other than your resident district, please Indicate. 6. In the space provided, please write your home address zip code. 7. How important is the location of the school In deciding whether or not you would enroll your child? 0 A. Location Is very important.  B. Location is somewhatlmpor-tant. 0 C. Location is not important. 8. Listed below are five suggested locations for lnterdistrict magnet elementary schools. Please rank the locations (1 for the most desirable location through 5 for the least desirable location) in order of preference. D A. State Capital Complex area 0 B. Area bounded by Interstate 630, 9th Street, Center Street, and Chester Street (downtown) D C. Crystal Hill/Maumelle area (northwest Pulaski county) 0 D. Junction of Interstate 430 and Colonel Glenn Road D E. 27th and Main, near the Interstate 30 and Roosevelt Road intersection 9. Would you bring or permit your child to be transported to a school located In a school district other than the one In which your child Is presently enrolled? o A. Yes 0 B. No 0 C. Undecided 1 O. Listed below are lour suggested elementary magnet school themes. Please rank (1 through 4, with 1 being your most desirable and 4 as your least desirable) the themes In order of preference. If you have a theme to suggest which Is not listed below, please fist It In the space provided (E). D A. Montessori The Montessori method of teaching recognizes the natural learning potential of children, structures a learning environment, and channels this natural curiosity Into enriched learning experiences. Independent, self-directed learning Is emphasized. Students progress at their own rates using specially designed Montessori materials to assist them In becoming self-directed learners and mastering basic skills on their own. The Montessori program allows the natural development of children using materials which provide learning habits, Including independence, responsibility, coordination, order, and concentration In order to develop academic competency. .----- --- - --- ~ Enriched learning opportunities are provided to encourage and assist students In proceeding to higher developmental stages In learning. D B. Environmental Science Environmental Science Is the study of the Interaction between flvlng and non-living things and their surroundings. Study at an Environmental Science magnet consists of educational experience which enables students to develop an awareness and understanding of the environments In which they live. Students develop skills for handling a variety of environmental problems and positive attitudes which will help them live In harmony with the world around them. The program utilizes the natural interest of children In animals and plants and how they Interact with each other. Basic skills In reading, math, and other fundamental areas are Incorporated into these activities. D C. Computer Science The Invention of the computer has rapidly and forever changed the world we know. This and coming generations have an Increasing need for computer literacy which, In tum, will create many opportunities as large quantities of Information are processed with the virtually unlimited power of computers. The Computer Science magnet theme would recognize both the need and the opportunity. and would seek not only to make students (Continued on Back) dC/1 then lo e c er lo maximum advantage and to Improve basic sk/1/s In reading, math, and crlllcal thinking. Students In all the Pulaski county area schools are exposed to computers, but the Computer Science magnet would offer an advanced level of instruction and state-of-theart facilities for students in elementary schools. 0 D. Communications Basic Instruction In all required subjects would be stressed with special emphasis placed on reading, language, writing, and speaking skills. Student learning would be geared toward enhancing their love for and understanding of the written and spoken word. Opportunities to work on mock newspaper and magazine staffs, and In mock radio/ T.V. stations would be provided at the upper elementary level. Li E. Other (Please Specify): Please Indicate the race or ethnic origin of the person responding to this survey. D A. American Indian or Alaskan Native D B. Asian or Pacific Islander D C. Black D D. Hispanic D E. White 12. Would you be Interested In your chlld attending a magnet that offers an all-day preschool program for 4- year-olds? D A. Yes D B. No D C. Not Applicable D D. Undecided Please return your completed survey to your child's teacher on or before Friday, November 11, 1988. Thank you for your help. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL SURVEY OVERVIEW In November, 1988, the Magnet Review Committee sent home approximately 26,000 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Surveys to parents of students in LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD elementary schools. The survey was distributed in an effort to obtain parent input on proposed magnets for the 1989-90 school year. 4,147 surveys were completed and returned, with a response percentage of 16%. Of these 4,147 responses, 1,499 were from black parents, and 2,648 from non-black participants. The bulk of the responses were from parents in the 72076 (Jacksonville), 72116 (NLR and Sherwood), and 72204 (Central LR). 72118 (Levy and Maumelle) and 72206 (LR South Side) followed. The first choice for a theme for proposed magnets is Computer Science, and the Crystal Hill/Maumelle area (northwest Pulaski county) was the favored location. Overall, the respondents feel that location is very important in deciding to send their children to an interdistrict magnet school. Additional information is forthcoming and a survey form is attached to this report. I The Magnet Review Committee, at the request of the Special Master and the parties in the Pulaski County Desegregation Case, has configured the recent Interdistrict Magnet Schools Survey results by district and by race. Little Rock School District had 1,796 respondents - 972 black, and 824 white and other. The theme choice ranking for all Little Rock School District respondents is: First Choice: Second Choice: Third Choice: Fourth Choice: 656 513 471 156 Computer Science Communications Montessori Environmental Science The theme choice ranking for black respondents in Little Rock School District is: First Choice: Second Choice: Third Choice: Fourth Choice: 357 288 256 71 Computer Science Communications Montessori Environmental Science The theme choice ranking for white and other respondents in Little Rock School District is: First Choice: Second Choice: Third Choice: Fourth Choice: 299 225 215 85 Computer Science Communications Montessori Environmental Science Four Hundred Fifty One (451) parents of North Little Rock School District students, grades K-6, responded to the Interdistrict Magnet Schools Survey. Of these respondents, 131 are black, and 320 are white or other. The theme choice preference of all respondents in North Little Rock School District is: First Choice: Second Choice: Third Choice: Fourth Choice: 150 139 127 35 Computer Science Montessori Communications Environmental Science The theme choice preference of black respondents in North Little Rock School District is: First Choice: Second Choice: Third Choice: Fourth Choice: 45 43 35 8 Computer Science Montessori Communications Environmental Science The theme choice preference of white or other respondents in North Little Rock School District is: First Choice: Second Choice: Third Choice: Fourth Choice: 105 96 92 27 Computer Science Montessori Communications Environmental Science The 1,893 Pulaski County Special School District parents (434 black, and 1,459 white or other) responded as follows: First Choice: Second Choice: Third Choice: Fourth Choice: 660 586 480 167 Computer Science Montessori Communications Environmental Science The black parents in Pulaski County Special School District responded as follows: First Choice: Second Choice: Third Choice: Fourth Choice: 141 137 118 38 Montessori Computer Science Communications Environmental Science White or other parents in Pulaski County Special School District responded as follows: First Choice: Second Choice: Third Choice: Fourth Choice: 523 445 362 129 Computer Science Montessori Communications Environmental Science APPENDIX A-2 M-to-M Survey Results 0 INTElDISffllCT MAGNETSOfOOLPROGRAM Pursue The Possibilities! M-to-M (Majority-to-Minority) Transfer Survey Dear Parent, Thank you for your participation in the Majority-to-Minority (M-to-M) transfer program. We value your input. The Magnet Educational Team would like for you to complete the following survey in order that we may develop strategies to increase M-to-M participation for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. Please complete the survey and return it in the enclosed envelope by February 24th. If you have questions, please call the Magnet Review Committee Office at 758- 0156. Again, thank you. We look forward to your response. The Magnet/ M-to-M Educational Team M-to-M Transfer Survey 1. How long have you been a participant in the M-to-M transfer program? _ 1 year _ 2 years _ more than 2 years 2. How many of your children participate in the program? 2 3 4 more 3. If you have other sch~ol-age / preschool children, would you enroll them in this program? __ yes no 4. How were you informed about the M-toM transfer program? __ Home district school personnel (teacher, principal, counselor) Brochure __ Magnet Review Commiuee Office Radio __ Newspaper __ O1her(s) - Lisr: _______ _ 5. How is your child transported to school? School Bus Car Pool Taxi __ Family Car Other: __________ _ 6. Check the following reasons that attracted you to the M-to-M transfer program. Location of school (near job) Curriculwn (councs, labs) Faculty and/or administration Convenience (near to aflcr-sdiool daycare or aflcr-school lessons, such as piano, dance) Special programs (band, athletics, choir, cheerleader, etc.) Relocation (for example - lived in Little Rock, moved to North Little Rocle, but wanted to stay in Linle Rock schools) 7. Please check the activily (ies) in which you or your child participate. School Volunteer _ PTA/PTO Room Mother Athletics Band Choir __ Cheerleader, Majorette, Flag, etc. Clubs Other: 8. Would you be interested in helping to recruit students for the M-to-M transfer program? __ yes no send more mformation If you would like to, you may use this space to comment on the M-to-M transfer program. THANK YOU! Use the enclosed envelope to return by February 24th. In March of 1989, the Magnet Review Committee, via U. S. mail, distributed 165 surveys to parents of M-to-M transfer students. Thirty-five parents returned the survey to the Magnet Review Committee Office. Data gathered from the survey revealed that a majority of the respondents: - learned of the program from home district school personnel or the brochure. - transport their child to school in the family car or by school bus. - chose to participate in the M-to-M program because of the location of the school or special programs offered by the school. APPENDIX B Capacity Committee Report -41- Magnet Review Committee April 19, 1989 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Henry Woods Judge, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse P. o. Box 3683 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Woods: In August, 1988 the Magnet Review Committee submitted for the Court's consideration a request for modifying seating capacity at interdistrict magnet schools. At that time, it was the Court's opinion that insufficient justification was provided to support the Magnet Review Committee's recommendation. The Magnet Review Committee was advised that should it desire to recommend adjustments to seating capacity in the future, it may do so but must provide sufficient supportive evidence of need. In September, 1988 the Magnet Review Committee appointed a Capacities Committee which had as its purpose on-site examination and projection of the capacity for each interdistrict magnet school building given current programming needs, Standards for Accreditation for Arkansas Public Schools (inclusive of standards for facilities) and North Central Association Standards. (501) 758-0156 The report will delineate the Committee makeup, its meeting and activities schedule, the individual school reports and capacity computations for each and the Magnet Review Committee recommendations for maximum seating capacity conforming to established standards for educational programming in each interdistrict magnet school. The Magnet Review Committee would appreciate the Court's consideration and timely response as we are in the process of recruiting students, budgeting and planning programs for the 1989-90 school year. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling its oversight responsibility and The Honorable Henry Woods -2- April 19, 1989 will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, ~~ Marcia Harding, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee cc: Aubrey v. Mccutcheon Attorneys of Record REPORT to THE COURT on INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS CAPACITY Submitted By THE MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE April 19, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Meeting Schedule Guide to Report Findings Williams Basic Skills Magnet Gibbs International Studies Magnet Booker Arts Magnet Mann Arts-Math/Science Magnet Parkview Arts Magnet Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet Recommendations Summary INTRODUCTION In September, 1988, the Magnet Review Committee formed a committee to study studP.nt capacity at each of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools in Pulaski County. The Magnet Review Committee asked that the committee pay particular attention to the use of space in theme areas (e.g., fine arts, math/science, foreign language). The Magnet Review Committee's Capacities Committee consists of the Student Assignment Officer and School Plant Manager from each of the three school districts. Committee membership is as follows: Little Rock School District: James Jennings - Associate Superintendent, Desegregation Wayne Adams - Coordinator of Plant Services North Little Rock School District: Andrew Power - Assistant Superintendent, Student Affairs Jerry Massey - Director, School Plant Services Pulaski County Special School District: Ed Hogan, Chair - Assistant Superintendent, Support Services Eddie Collins - Assistant Superintendent, Pupil Personnel Magnet Review Committee: Donna Grady Creer - Executive Director James Washington, Student Assignment Officer (LRSD) and Jack Robinson, Plant Services Construction Manager (LRSD), as well as the magnet school administrators, offered their assistance. Information for this report was obtained through a series of meetings, on-site visits, review of building plans, and usage and discussion. DATE Sept., 1988 Sept., 1988 Oct. 4 Oct. 12 October 20 October 25 October 29 November 1 December 2 December 9 January 3, 1989  LOCATION/ACTIVITY MRC Office Memo delineating overall objective Magnet Review Committee Office Williams Magnet Gibbs Magnet Booker Magnet Parkview Magnet Mann Magnet Magnet Review Committee Office Magnet Review Committee Office Magnet Review Committee Office PCSSD Administrative Offices LRSD Central Office Magnet Review Committee Office OBJECTIVE Appoint Committee Plan work\nEstablish visitation schedule Tour plant\nTalk with administrators\nDetermine capacity based on findings As above Examine findings\nFormulate draft of report Finalize report\nDiscuss recommendations with magnet principals Present report to the Magnet Review Committee Subcommittee work on adequate space for all programs at Carver and Gibbs To work with LRSD on Carver capacity and housing for Gibbs music program Present revised report to Magnet Review Committee DATE January 5 February, 1989 March 14 April 4 April 18, 1989 LOCATION/ACTIVITY Telephone Conference Call MRC Meeting MRC Meeting MRC Meeting OBJECTIVE Magnet Review Committee forwarded draft of Capacities Committee report to districts for comment Responded to MRC's assessment of revised report Presented revision of portions of report to MRC MRC instructs Donna Grady Creer to compile completed report Report presented to MRC GUIDE TO REPORT Present Capacity is as used for 1988-89 school year. Present Enrollment is as of February 13, 1989. PAL= Program for Accelerated Learning State Standards Require: 20 students maximum per classroom for Kindergarten 23 students maximum per classroom for Primary (Grades 1 , 2 , 3 ) 25 students maximum per classroom for Intermediate (Grades 4, 5, 6) WILLIAMS BASIC SKILLS MAGNET Present Capacity: 515* Present Enrollment: 491 Observations Portables are in use to accommodate art, music, and counseling. PAL Math, PAL Reading, and Computer Lab teachers (3) and students are housed in one non-partitioned classroom. Two of the three magnet specialists are housed in converted storage areas with no heating, ventilation, or air conditioning available. Teacher aides work area is in an open space (hallway). Recommendations Capacity of permanent structure is 419 with existing programs. Capacity should be reduced by 96 to alleviate use of portables and congested PAL computer area. An option to lowering capacity would be to add 3,000 square feet of additional space to house art, music, counseling, PAL, and computer lab. * In 1989-90, one class will move from primary to intermediate which will increase capacity by two students (from 515 to 517). Capacity Computations 3 - Kindergarten x 20 10 - Primary x 23 9 - Intermediate x 25 = 60 = 230 = 225 Total Capacity= 515 NOTE: Pull-out rooms were not considered in capacity. GIBBS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES MAGNET Present Capacity: 351 Present Enrollment: 349 Observations Classroom presently used for music has no soundproofing. Recommendations Capacity should remain as is. Consider cafeteria (using moving sound partition) for music. Acoustical renovation of cafeteria could include folding sound partition. CaEacity ComEutations 2 - Kindergarten x 20 = 40 7 - Primary x 23 = 161 6 - Intermediate X 25 = 150 Total Capacity = 351 NOTE: Pull-out rooms were not considered in capacity. BOOKER ARTS MAGNET Present Capacity: 660* Present Enrollment: 643 Observation Adequate as is. *When Booker became an interdistrict magnet school, students in grades 4 and 5 were allowed to \"grandfather\" into grades 5 and 6 . . At the end of the 1988-89 year, the grandfathered 6th graders will graduate, which will enable us to eliminate two 6th grade classes and add one 1st and one 2nd grade class. This will allow for four classes per grade level. Capacity Computations 4 - Kindergarten x 20 = 80 10 - Primary x 23 = 230 14 - Intermediate x 25 = 350 Total Capacity = 660 NOTE: Pull-out rooms were not considered in capacity. MANN ARTS-MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET Present Capacity: 975 Present Enrollment: 855 Observations Crowded conditions in rooms being used for foreign language and some English classes. These classrooms do not meet minimum standards measured by the North Central Association (750 square feet). A teachers' lounge in Building 8 is located in a space that could serve as a classroom for a small sized class. Recommendations In Building 8 there is a classroom used as a teachers' lounge. The classroom presently used for a teachers' lounge (Room 13) should be used as special education classroom. Teachers' lounge should be provided elsewhere. Additional space to provide a teachers' lounge is available. Four rooms in Building 8 have been divided. These four rooms should be returned to their original size or made into two rooms. Provided these changes are made, the capacity of the current program at Mann is 935. Capacity Computations Regular Classrooms - 44 x 25 Gym - 2 X 21 Special Education - 2 x 8 Music/Piano - 1 x 18 PAL - 2 x 15 Dance Studio - 2 x 20 Total X 75% Capacity = 1,100 = 42 = 16 = 18 = 30 = 40 = 1,246 = 935 PARKVIEW ARTS MAGNET Present Capacity: 1,150 Present Enrollment: 798 Observations Some rooms in building under present situations will not meet North Central Association standards. Crowded conditions in piano lab, art studio (three rooms), and dance studio. Recommendations Capacity should be reduced from 1,150 to 991*, based on present program needs. Transfer Wood Shop to Building 3 (Stage Shop). Special Education should be moved from 3-103 to one of present art rooms. Other art room will be used as health room\nthis then frees clothing lab for the piano lab. Pottery and jewelry should be moved from 9-103 to 3-108. 3-102 should be art room. 3-103 should be art room. 3-108 should be art room. This will provide for all art to be housed together and will provide adequate space to meet State standards for lab classes. Capacity Computations Regular Classrooms - 49 x 25 Piano Lab - 1 x 18 Dance Studio - 1 x 20 Special Education - 1 x 8 Gym - 1 X 25 Auditorium Shop - 1 x 25 Total X 75% Capacity = 1,225 = 18 = 20 = 8 = 25 = 25 = 1,321 = 991* *One Kindergarten class with a capacity of 20 is not included in this figure. CARVER BASIC SKILLS/MATH-SCIENCE MAGNET Present Capacity: 613 Recommendations Remain as is (new Carver). Capacity Computations 3 - Kindergarten x 20 11 - Primary x 23 12 - Intermediate x 25 Total Capacity Present Enrollment: 474 = 60 = 253 = 300 = 613 NOTE: Pull-out rooms were not considered in capacity. RECOMMENDATIONS The Magnet Review Committee, after examination of the Capacities Committee findings and interviews with the Committee, and through formal motion and vote, adopted the following recommended capacities figures: MAGNET PRESENT RECOMMENDED* SCHOOL CAPACITY CAPACITY CHANGE Williams 515 515 0 Gibbs 351 351 0 Booker 660 660 0 Mann 975 935 -40 Parkview 1,150 991 -159 Carver 613 613 0 4,264 4,065 -199 *To go into effect in the 1989-90 school year SUMMARY In summary, the Magnet Review Committee and the Capacities Committee have spent considerable time, effort, and energy attempting to develop a true seating capacity for the aforementioned schools. Both State and North Central Association standards were considered in our deliberations as we examined the physical plant to capacity needs. It is our position that the recommended capacities will help promote a more functional and adequate facility considering the program presently being housed in each interdistrict magnet school. APPENDIX C Interdistrict Magnet School Brochures and Sample Application Forms -42- Student Selection Sludents entering Kindergarten through sixth grade fort he coming year are eligible to make application for the magnet school. Applications may be obtained by contacting the following Districts:  Little Rock Schools 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 37 4-3361 North Little Rock Schools 2700 Poplar P.O. Box 687 No. Little Rock, AR 72115 Phone: 758-1760  Pulaski County Schools 1500 Dixon Road P.O. Box 6409 Little Rock, AR 72716 Phone: 490-2000 From applications received, students will be randomly selected from the three above listed Districts. A 50-50 racial compostion, with no more than 10% deviation, will be maintained. Students not selected will be placed on a waiting isl according to their random selection based on race, grade level, and District. II a District does not use its total allocations by a specified date, vacancies will be filled according to the Magnet Review Committee (MAC) directives. All vacancies ocrurring after school begins will be filled al semester break. The selection process may be changed al any lime al the discretion of the Magnet Review Committee. Once a student is selected parents must sign a format Parent Contract subscribing to !he attached w\nmams Basic SkiIIs Magnet Schoof Philosophy and Policies A student may remain io the magnet school unlit he/she completes the sixth grade. Certified Staff  1 Principal  1 Vice Principal  22 Classroom specialists  3 Magnet specialists  2 Accelerated learning specialists  1 Media specialist  1 Art specialist  1 Music specialist  1 Physical education specialist  1 Resource speciafisl  1 Counselor 1 Speech therapist Non-Certified Staff  2 Office secretaries  1 Media secretary  1 Nurse  1 Computer specialist 1 General aide  7 Supervision aides  4 Custodians  4 Cafeteria personnel PLEASE NOTE: PARENT CONTRACT IS ATTACHED. PLEASE STUDY, SIGN AND RETURN TO SCHOOL AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE. Williams Magnet School A Choice for Excellence 7301 Evergreen Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Little Rock School District Dr. Edwin S. Jackson, Principal Ph.I 666-0346 William Basic Skills Magnet Schoof Philosophy Nilliams Basic Skills Magnet School is a high, Jerformance, high expectations elementary school offering a program for grades K - 6, promoting a highly structured.disciplined approach to academic :ind social behaviors. Strong emphasis is placed on mastery of basic skills at the student's instructional level in reading, -nath, English, spelling, writing, science, social\ntudies, health, penmanship, art, music and physi:: al education. Mlfiams Basic Skills Magnet School goals are:  Development of basic academic skills and concepts mastery at the highest levels possible  Development of students' higher level thinking skills  Promotion of students' self-discipline development  Development of task commitment, sett-motivation and responsibility [his school best serves responsible students who earn weU lo a highly sto,ciured enyjronrnent and ice highly motivated by co,weUtion io an program m:as. ?olicles nstructlonal Program - A combination of homo:, eneouS/heterogeneous grouping procedures is 1sed In developing homeroom groups. Re-group-ng for Instruction, within the homeroom and across ,10meroom and grade level groups, Is used in the ,arious subject areas ii deemed appropriate. Basic skills specialists teach reading, math, English, spelling, writing, science, social studies, heatth, :\u0026gt;enmanship, and social iving skills. Music, art and\n\u0026gt;hyslcal education are taught by specialists in hose areas. Speech and resource room specialsis are also available. Large/small group instrucion using the basal textbook approach with high ,xpectalions in a highly structured and disciplined\nelting Is basic to the program. Studenrs are placed ar rheic iosrrucrional levels wilh lhe undersranding rhar successful cpmpletion or assionmenrstprocesses wilhin a specified time frame is reauired Critical skills and concepts from the various subject areas are emphasized at each grade level. To be eligible for academic promotion, the student must: Master targeted skills and concepts with 80% mastery Complete academic activities with 80% mastery Complete homework with 80% mastery The grading scale is as follows:  94 - 100%- A  72 - 84%- C  85 - 93% - B  63 - 71% - D  62 and below - F Homework - Minimum time to be used each day with homework activities: Kindergarten 30 minutes Grade One 30 minutes Grade Two 30 minutes Grade Three 45 minutes Grade Four 60 minutes Grade Five 60 minutes  Grade Six 60 minutes (These times are in addition to work not finished in class.) ParenUStall Conference - SchooVCommunity communications are essential foreJlective schools. Parents are expected to come to school for conferences at staff request. Staff will conference with parents at any time parents wish to discuss the educational program of their child. Conferences will be held during staff planning time. School Attendance /Tardy- Exceptlor emergencies and sickness, students are to be in school and are to arrive before the tardy bell rings. Student Olsclpllne - Specific rules governing student behavior are strictly and fairty enforced. The Little Rock Public Schools Rights and Responsibilities Handbook and the Willliams Magnet School Discipline Management directives will be used. The Williams Magnet School Discipline Management program consists of overall school rules and individual classroom rules - two separate documents. You will be given the three documents referred to above. Dress and Grooming - Students are to maintain their person and clothing in a modest, clean, and orderly manner resulting in pride in self and school. To help develop attiludes and behaviors which Indirectly alfect the learning process, students are to comply with the lollowing: Dress requirements lor males:  slacks - hemmed  jeans - blue denim excluded  shoes with socks shirt with collar - tucked in if not designed to be worn outside coats, jackets, and sweaters hair neatly trimmed and clean without tails Dress requirements for females: dresses skirts  jeans - blue denim excluded  slacks - hemmed  sweaters over blouses (if V-neck and open under arms)  coats and jackets  shoes with socks  blouse - tucked in if not designed to be worn outside  hair - neat and clean  tasteful jewelry  exclude make-up Clothing to avoid - Sundresses, culottes, shorts, peg pants, tee shirts, vests without blouses, clothing with writing, pictures, and/or advertising, fleecefined sweat clothing, and any other clothing not listed in the above guidelines. Please contact the vice principal or principal before buying any clothing not listed above. If you are not sure that dothing is appropriate, please contact us before allowing your child to wear it to school. Tennis shoes and gym unifonns are required for physical education in all grades except Kindergarten. PTA Membership and Meeting RequirementsParents I guardians are expected to join the Williams Basic Skills Magnet School PTA and to attend all required PTA meetings. PARENT CONTRACT My child,----,-,-- -----..,,.,,,...,..- is presently enrolled in grade __ at Williams Basic Skills Magnet School. As parent of the above named student, I will provide positive support and involvement for the lollowing: Philosophy Instructional Program Homework Policy ParenVStalf Conferences Policy  School Attendance/Tardy Policy Discipline Policy Dress and Grooming Policy PTA Meeting Attendance Requirement PTA Membership Requirement I have read the attached explanation of the above Philosophy and Policies, and agree to support and follow the contents of this Contract. I understand that my child's success at Williams Basic Skills Magnet School is contingent upon both parents and students honoring this contractual agreement. Date ParenUGuardian Name Student's Signature ParenUGuardian Signature Address Telephone: Home Work Principal's Signature Date Please sign Contract, cut along dotted line and return within three days. to: Dr. Edwin S. Jackson, Principal Williams Basic Skills Magnet School 7301 Evergreen Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 COURSES OFFERED AT MANN English Regular, Enriched, Gifted/Talented Mathematics Regular, Enriched Transition Life Science Social Studies Lab Science Earth Science Math, Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, 11, \u0026amp; Geometry American History Physical Science Regular, Gifted/Talented Civics Computer Technology Home Economics Industrial Arts Career Orientation German I, 11, Ill Spanish I, II, III French I, II, Ill Lab Art I, II, III Dance I, II, III Physical Education - (1 sem.), (full-year) Communications/Speech Drama Theatre and the Arts Musicianship I, II (Piano Lab) Band, Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced Orchestra, Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced Elementary Music Theory Exploratory Business/Typewriting Mechanical Exploration (1 semester) Construction Exploration (1 semester) Health (1 semester) Horace Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet School Mrs. Marian G. Lacey, Principal 1000 E. Roosevelt Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 ~~~~~~~ Little Rock Publk Schools - Ell[[)-~ [ill) ra ~ m Horace Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet School Where the Worlds of Science and Art Co,ne Together ....  The Best of Horace Mann Arts and Sciences PHILOSOPHY Mann Magnet School will have an atmosphere of scientific inquiry that will generate an enthusiasm for science and art among its students. Students will be encouraged to ask questions and teachers will assist students in learning the skills necessary to find answers to those questions. Mann Magnet School will provide a strong content background in science, mathematics, and language skills because appropriate questions cannot be asked and suitable answers cannot be recognized without a firm content foundation. Students in Mann Magnet School will develop study skills which will allow them to make optimum use of their time and will help them in the lifelong learning process. A variety of teaching styles and teaching methods will be used at Mann Magnet School to engage students in the learning process. Mann Magnet School will foster an atmosphere where teachers will feel free to implement innovative instructional units and try new instructional methods. Teachers will be active learners at Mann Magnet School. Curriculum Overview Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet School Is a junior high school housing grades 7, 8, and 9. The school consists of two different curricular programs, the School of Sciences, and the School of the Arts. Students will select one school or the other depending on their interests and aptitude. There are no academic performance requirements for entry into either program: however, it is recommended that applicants have a strong interest in or aptitude for an area of the Magnet School magnet curriculum in the school for which he applies. While students of all academic abilities are accepted for enrollment, it should be understood that the intensity and the depth of study will require a commitment to excellence on the part of all students. School of Sciences Students applying for seats in the school of sciences will participate In the traditional and required curriculum of English, science, mathematics and social studies, but in addition will take a laboratory science class. At grade 7, the lab is a semester in length. At grades 8 and 9, the lab is for the full year. In addition to the required courses, students in the school of sciences may select electives School of the Arts Students applying for seats in the school of the arts will take the traditional and required curriculum of English, science, mathematics, and social studies. In addition to the traditional curriculum, students will select an area of concentration from the area of visual arts, drama, dance, and music. Students will participate in the appropriate courses in their area of concentration. Students may also select electives. EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENTS Teaching as a profession has, is, and will attempt to increase the engaged time on task for students, but the student alone has direct control over how much time and effort he/she puts into learning. To increase the probability of learning, the student will: - -  Come to school each day unless some serious circumstance prevents attendance.  Be prepared for each class with the necessary materials and completed homework.  Spend class time participating in activities planned by the teacher.  Learn and use the study skills taught by the teachers to make study time more efficient and effective.  Do his/her best on homework assignments, class work, quizzes and tests.  Takematerialshomeforparent'ssignatureasrequested by the school.  Show respect for teachers and fellow class members  Show respect for public property by not defacing desks, tables, walls, books, etc. and by not littering the school ground.  Participate in extra curricular activities.  Keep lines of communication open with parents and teachers (we are here to help you)  Not sell himself/herself short on the academic goals that can be reached with honest effort and the willingness to accept help. nmwu,n!! - '\"' \"\"\"'ur - IJ\"\"'l.\"\"S 10-12 ~ sWIY lrch.o:!'S black .nl llllte .nl rolor r:NJU,,-acny. Cdto\"d. 11\u0026lt;1\u0026gt;lll'rtCr\". drll electro,lc fldSll 11111 Ile CXM'\u0026lt;\"OO. 0artra:m lectnl\u0026lt;U!S ID prlnl black anl \"'11~ f1111 \"111 be Slu1100. ~M.\\.!\"M_~S l/1 d ~~- !JW/11G 11  a,e )\u0026lt;\u0026gt;ll\"  'T\"\" 10-11 - f'rcroJJls I te: Cr\"\"1ng I Cr\"\"1ng 11 ls a \u0026lt;nne \"'11dl 1s S!Ju:tlroo as M ln-\u0026lt;n\u0026gt;t/1 Stu:IY or v1SWI pera,ptlcn. Slc111 O!'.ela:nmt In onxxrt1a1. l8'Sll0Cthe. drll s1m1ng or the turen ria. rrouns m txXlY \"111 be 811TdS1ZOO. The stu:mt v111 be re\u0026lt;JJ1rnl ID e\"'11b1l se lectoo wrts. ~ - \u0026lt;re )el\u0026lt;\" - 9\"acles 11-12 - Pren!Q.J1S1~: CrMng II ~~ l~~s~~l~~ \"11! be re\u0026lt;JJ1roo to 91ve ..-mm cr,u~ or their wrt drll e\"'11b1 t se locte:1 'oCrtS. CIW]S -fl fl.RS - \u0026lt;re )6)1\" - IJ\"aa!S 11-12 - Prerw.,ls 1 te: 1 )6)1\" of h1gi sdml art Th1s ~ 1s \u0026lt;ES 1c\nrel for s~ 1nt.en5t.oo In t1'e Stu!Y or fllllfl drll th? va1ety or aarts lll1c11 1narixn~ u-ese 111ter1als .rd Will 1rclu:le fatr1c \u0026lt;ES 1!11. ~. l\u0026gt;llU1llll\u0026lt; Ing . .....-lng. mcnrre drll son sa,Jp0.re. ~ THl'ff EX!IID TI ~ CXMmfllil\\ Hirn 9JID.. ClffiIUJJ..M ~ars I  mt )Odt'\" Y'fl'I .. , 10 1l ll.vomong \u0026lt;Xlr'IC rcr lL'Onl\u0026lt;l.e on Wl ltl. IO:lYll a...-o,_ Ml:]~ - lb~\n=-'ss~~~~' ~ lntlnal .. tt 1~1: bollrt. __,, down \"'11 J\u0026amp;u. lib.:\n\"_. -~ 11-12 - l'rerewrn~: c.a ll!nl!U~ ~a\n-,.:~~~ eitiena-n ll .IO.wakl ~I: bolltt. IIIXlern \u0026lt;Ira rc1 J4U. ~~  ere --  ~lsltr: ~ Ttnlca.es I cr ~~ mrst CJ \"-\u0026lt;!Illa,_ ~IJ'W\u0026gt;l'lr-\u0026lt;llran..ants. H.SfC RA !Y\nIC n(]JI'( I - cre i,w-  ~ 10-11 . ~Ira, f'cr II IOU,. !nde Stubits.,., rt! orolleo ~ll41C Slll!Clllt, - lllls ~ ts C1!S Ive:! to ln!ra1.a! araots o\u0026lt; !ml 1 IIUS le lrcl1.C1l1\u0026gt;\n1 rout la,. l\u0026lt;nrlrology. rcl ,..,..,,,._ !Y\nIC 1IOJ!r II  Ole 11W\"  ~ 11-12  \"\"\"-lsltr: ltlslc n..:r,. I lllls ~ IS d!SIIJl!ll rcr lnttnsl~ Stufy In ot,ta,IC PIIOI CDlloctl\u0026lt;n. lln::tkroat tnIIC l\\nmy. S ,~ aet8\"S ..i rtWnis. bo-ort an~1 le\u0026lt;tu-ts re1 the '\"\"\"r ra\u0026gt;11 ar 1141c.  !Y\nIC 1IOJ!r Ill  cre _.  ~ 11-12  \"\"\"-lsltr: 1'1.,-sts,sla, 0( ll'IS!nc1a 'lllls ~ IS C1!S ,.,,..., rar IIHb\u0026gt;(h Stufy rcl OiMki\u0026gt;e,t o\u0026lt; stills ,_ to - n:it,t kn l\u0026lt;nrlro'loo1)-. reolf11\u0026gt;\n1 rel \"1tlng o\u0026lt; Nno!Y.  san r\"r\"ou'e'c~t \"1.1-.1i Ilnrs ,t.t,u..o,-,r '1t1A1 .I trroso:,s ll l\u0026lt;n. 1 1111.)Jr IHIRD,\u0026amp;TIOl ll) 11 TIOII{  ere ,o,,-  ~ 10-11  !milroo rcr rumits .to chl:M the stii:Jyol'o-..., as a nre arts \"'1'lll ar an:entnit 101. lllls = Is a?slgm to lntra\u0026gt;..cr \u0026lt;hlle ru.ooits to thelel ~ ar the tteotn. l\"rol P\u0026lt;ISt to . \"'11 the lteotrlcal Pl'ICtlaS ldt ._ lnnlUOY\" the hi story or the tteotre. ~  cre Se.5t.er  ~ M\u0026gt;-12 'lllls mrse 11111 e,i, lcr! r\\rclme1ta 1 tednki-es o\u0026lt; arantrot101. ~~~~ ~ ~':i\"'~~~~l/nJl Q\u0026amp;lif C :ro( snpr  ere ~ler  'TlldeS 11-12  Prereo:i11s ltr: 0-.... I Class IC Scrne Sl1JlY 11111 l!IPl\u0026amp;Slir fa.,, 1~. ~~r::1:\n1~~~~\"\"' lrclu:ES to, to ~sa nes. the paint to omr. 1'Tlrtlw1c h~ 'inj bis. .-cl 1110t kroa I oveul\u0026lt;n. .ICTIIC  ere,--~ 10-12  l'renQJlslte: Plfflssl\u0026lt;n at lnstn.ctaThls CXl.lY Is 051\\ned frr lntmsl-.e stuf)I tn ting tednlQ.eS. \"'1ICler ~,-. rcl ~ - OllUJOl\"S IIOnt  ~1~ 10-12 - ~lsltr: f'e-lllssl\u0026lt;n OIIIO\"!n\"s 118tre IS I cn,y O!slget frr St.Ld), In snsmtat~ to )O.r9 ILC!l\u0026lt;nces  - dlneter IZAll\u0026lt;n. - .-cl cmtUl1rr,i. ~gr~~ 10-12  l'renQJlsltr: D-ni I rrlfflllssta, This CDIY IS CleSl\\ned ID cmtln.e stllls _,_ IJc9,II ln~I. =~~=~===T~t\u0026lt;N~  ~ti~ 10-12  \"'\"\"-lsltr: Stu:mts Will leorn to fflttsnt poetry. ll'llSe  .-cl CR!llllc lllerltin ID In 11.1:ftau. ln:ludel:I 111 Ille mnr rt! -.-Clses In SOio ting. cl.et ,ct Ing rcl l\"Nltrs tteotre. VIS.W.. ARTS MT HtSTlJlY - a,e )COi\" - cncrs 1\u0026lt;\u0026gt;-11 - ~rm rcr all 1011,. \u0026lt;\nrol\u0026lt;le --- slunlts ..iu are em:, lie:! lnlrevt sua 1 arts = la 11 ty - kt Hlstrry Is .ir, lntnxlJtory si.ney or the hlst,:ry or visual art rnno llre-fl1stor1c to IO'.Bl1 art. The iurose or lh1s m.rse 1s to provide the slimlt 111th a rtul'.latl01 In art arore:latla,. IIDID!!:...1 - ~ ~ir art~ 11-12 - l'l\"ennJtstte: ae _,- or StWJrts \"111 SW!Y ClllY. glazes. \"'11 kiln. lbmi1ldlng 1et1n!s VI 11 lrcllD! p1rch. Slat\u0026gt;. \"'11 mil anstru:t la,. Stu1Y VI 11 lrcllD! kiln Sta::lc1ng a-11 llleel tlrot1ng tednlo.es . B!!m!!..11  a,e se,est.er  ~ 11-12 - l'ren!Q.ils1tr: Altt.ery I Stulm.s VI 11 le.in 11n ti\u0026lt;lrCBI patt.ery stills. t11U111S lz1ng llleel teem lo.es. l:f ln au-at l\u0026lt;n a-11 CBD\"alla, tecm1o.es. !UU - a,e seiest.er  !n\u0026lt;leS 11-12  l'rereo,1s I tr: lntro:u:t la, to Painting . This = ts 051!181 rar stuB1tS .to l\u0026gt;M had -1ence With lmlc palnt1ng ta::tm\u0026lt;i,.es .-cl 111511 to wrt With oils. lirtn2s1s ts m \u0026lt;le-.elQ\u0026gt;lng a IU\"SOl41 style\nCXJIPlSltla, .-cl O)kr tteay VI 11 Ile exaalno:!. f'Rf Nl!W(IIG  ae smester  !n\u0026lt;leS 10-12  l'ren!QJI site: \u0026lt;hlt11c Ce\u0026gt; l!Jl. lravtr,J I rr lravtng II l'Hntlllll:tng ts I curse \"1tdt ol'fe-s stulles tn Yirfa,s 11!tta!5 of rwnxlclng a1gtn,s1 art wrt. 1l\"r stut, Of far-\u0026lt;nlrr silt scnmlr,J .nl lltl'o7lll:tTf tednl\u0026lt;1Jl5 Is lrcll.Bl. ~  Clll! _.-  !n\u0026lt;leS 10-12 This CDIY ts .., tntro:u:tta, ID !\u0026gt;!sic a-aw1r,J Ullts or StLd), 1n Ille follooi1r,J re\u0026amp;S: line. =1t1a1. fa,o\n. ta'lal scale. textln!.smlrr !tln\"Y. lfllaf'98181t. l)erSl)l!Clhe. pen .n1 1nt. P0rtnl  .nl 1ettte\"1ng.  Dear Parent: The Magnet Review Committee, the Little Rock School District and Parkview Magnet High School are pleased to announce a new magnet school opportunity for prospective sophomores. During the 1989-90 school year, Parkview will offer a science magnet program for 10th graders. A three-year program will be available for students who enroll. Currently, only one-hundred (100) 10th grade students (45 from Pulaski County Special School District, 15 from North Little Rock School District, and 40 from Little Rock School District) will have the opportunity to take additional courses, such as:  Microbiology  Environmental Health  Organic Chemistry  Technical Writing  Human Anatomy and Physiology  Qualitative Analysis  Applied Statistics  Russian I, II These courses provide a program of study that highlights the medical sciences and related professions. The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) will provide program assistance. Prior to graduation, a student must complete: 4 semesters of Biology 3 semesters of Chemistry 2 semesters of Physics semester of Applied Statistics semester of Technical Writing 6 semesters of Mathematics 4 semesters of Foreign Lanp1age (Russian, German or Latin) Yearly Science Research Project A student may elect additional science courses. Prospective sophomores who have successfully completed Algebra I are encouraged to apply. The application process is as follows: 1) Students may apply from June 19-30. 2) Complete application form on back of this brochure. 3) Return completed application to your resident district Student Assignment Office. 4) A random selection procedure will be used to process all assignments. 5) Students will be notified of assignment by mail on or before July 7, 1989. 6) Parkview Science Magnet School staff will contact assigned students for scheduling and pre-registration. If you have questions, or need additional information, contact the Magnet Review Committee Office at 758-0156. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM Pursue The Possibilities! INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL APPLICATION {Please Print or Type) STUDENT'S NAME: GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPTEMBER, 1989: DATE OF BIRTH: __________ SEX: RACE: BLACK: QfffCE USE ONLY Date Received by Home District: Time: ___ _ NON -BLACK: __ _ ADDRESS: HOME PHONE: _______ _ BUSINESS/ EMERGENCY PHONE: _______ _ CURRENT SCHOOL: MAGNET SCHOOL DESIRED: Elementary: Indicate 1st, 2nd, 3rd Choice Secondary: Booker Arts (K-6) Carver Basic Skills/Math Science (K-6) Gibbs International Studies (K-6) Williams Basic Skills (K-6) Mann Arts (7-9) Mann Science (7-9) Parkview Arts (10-12) I give permission to the current school my child attends to release any information needed to complete processing of this application. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: DATE: Please return to: (Plaese i:rnt-Turi sg,) Student Assignment Office Little Rock School District West Markham \u0026amp; Izard Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 For questions or additional information, call: Magnet Review Committee Office - 758-0156 Little Rock School District- 375-7828 .1...BS..12 Office use Qolv Date Received: ID#------ Placement: ___ _ Date:  If you wish to withdraw this application for any reason, you may do so w:J.2r to assignment of your child. Once assignment Is made, your child Is obligated to attend the lnterdlstrlct magnet school for the semester In which your child Is enrolled.  Magnet school seating Is subject to racial guidelines and other conditions for placement.  You wlll be notified by letter If your child has been assigned to a magnet school or remains on the magnet school waiting 11st. INTERDISTRJCT __ s A_~ t ,_ E._ MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM Pursue The Possibilities! INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL APPLICATION (Please Print or Type) STUDENT'S NAME: GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPTEMBER, 1989: DATE OF BIRTH: __________ SEX: RACE: BLACK: OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received by Home District: Time: ___ _ NON -BLACK: __ _ ADDRESS: HOME PHONE: _______ _ BUSINESS/ EMERGENCY PHONE: _______ _ CURRENT SCHOOL: MAGNET SCHOOL DESIRED: Elementary: Indicate 1st, 2nd, 3rd Choice Secondary: Booker Arts (K-6) Carver Basic Skills/Math Science (K-6) Gibbs International Studies (K-6) Williams Basic Skills (K-6) Mann Arts (7-9) Mann Science (7-9) Parkview Arts (10-12) I give permission to the current school my child attends to release any information needed to complete processing of this application. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: DATE: Please return to: (Aea.5e pml. Then sgi) Student Affairs Office North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar P. 0. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 For questions or additional information, call: Magnet Review Committee Office - 758-0156 North Little Rock School District - 771-611 0 .LIW2 Office use O01v Date Received: IO#------ Placement: ___ _ Date\n____ _  If you wish to withdraw this application for any reason, you may do so 12!12.t to assignment of your child. Once assignment Is made, your child Is obligated to attend the lnterdlstrlct magnet school for the semester In which your child Is enrolled.  Magnet school seating Is subject to racial guidelines and other conditions for placement.  You will be notified by letter If your child has been assigned to a magnet school or remains on the magnet school waiting 11st. 0 INTERDISTRJCT MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM Pursue The Possibilities! -S-A-~l-'I-..E-INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL APPLICATION (Please Print or Type) STUDENT'S NAME: GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPTEMBER, 1989: DATE OF BIRTH: ---------- SEX: RACE: BLACK: OFF(CE USE ONLY Date Received by Home District: \"Time: ___ _ NON-BLACK: __ _ ADDRESS: HOME PHONE: _______ _ BUSINESS/ EMERGENCY PHONE: _______ _ CURRENT SCHOOL: MAGNET SCHOOL DESIRED: Elementary: Indicate 1st, 2nd, 3rd Choice Secondary: Booker Arts (K-6) Carver Basic Skills/Math Science (K-6) Gibbs International Studies (K-6) Williams Basic Skills (K-6) Mann Arts (7-9) Mann Science (7-9) Parkview Arts (10-12) I give permission to the current school my child attends to release any information needed to complete processing of this application. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: DATE: Please return to: (Please i:n,t-ThErl sg,) Division of Pupil Services Pulaski County Special School District 1500 Dixon Road P. 0. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 For questions or additional information, call: Magnet Review Committee Office - 758-0156 Pulaski County Special School District - 490-2000 LM.12 ornce use 001v Date Received: ID#------ Placement: ___ _ Date:  If you wish to withdraw this application for any reason, you may do so w:l2r. to assignment of your child. Once assignment Is made, your child Is obligated to attend the lnterdlstrlct magnet school for the semester In which your child Is enrolled.  Magnet school seating Is subject to racial guidelines and other conditions for placement.  You will be notified by letter If your child has been assigned to a magnet school or remains on the magnet school waiting list. IMNATEGRNDEISTT SROICiOT OL PROGRAM ~\u0026lt;\u0026gt;FFIOF USF\"'\" V Pursue The Poss-ib_ili_tle_s_l----~~~P_A_R_K_V_I_E_W_S_C_I_E_N_C_E_M_A_G_N_E_T_A_P_P_L_IC_A_T_I_O_N________ .\n(P ..... typeo,pMI\n) STUDENTS NAME: RESIDENT DISTRICT: LRSD NLRSD PCSSD DATE OF BIRTH: SEX: _____ RACE: BLACK: __________ _ WHITE: ____ OTHER: ___ _ ADDRESS:------------------------------------ CrTY: ___________________ STATE: ___________ ZIP: ___ _ HOME PHONE: BUSINESS/EMERGENCY PHONE: ASSIGNED SCHOOL FOR 89-90: ------------------------------- My child will be a sophomore in the 89-90 school year and has successfully completed Algebra I. I give permission to the current school my child attends to release any Information needed to complete processing of this application. PARENTS SIGNATURE:-------------------------------( Please print  Then sign) DATE: ____________ _ Please return to your resident school district: North Llllle Rock Schoo! Plstrlct Student AH airs Office North Little Rock School District 2700Poplar P. 0. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 For questions or additional inlormation, call: LIUIP Rock School Pllclct Student Assignment Office Little Rock School District Room300 West Markham \u0026amp; Izard Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Pvlgsk! county Spec!a! Schoo! Pllclct Division of Pupil Services Pulaski County Special School District Llll2 1500 Dlxon Road ::~nix P. 0 . Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Magnet Review Committee Office - 758-0156  tt you wish to withdraw this application for any rnson, you may do ao~ to anlgnment of your child. Onca Inlgnm1nt la made, your child 11 obligated to attend Iha lntardlstrlct magnet school for tha 11mntar In which your child la anrollld.  Magnet school seating ls subject to racial guldallnn and other condltiona for placamanL  You will b1 notified by latter ff your child hu b11n assigned to a magnet achoo! or ramalna on tha magnet achoo! waiting llaL PURSUE THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE p ARKVIEW SCIENCE MAGNET PROGRAM! APPENDIX D Transportation Information -43- APPENDIX D-1 North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES December 6, 1988 Mr. Spence Holder ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Holder: 2700 POPLAR STREET The North Little Rock School District operates a fleet of 44 buses daily, eight of which are used for Magnet Schools only. These ei~ht buses represent 18 percent of our fleet. Therefore, we have identified those operational cost th.it\nire charizc\u0026lt;l porport.ionnllty to the Magnet\nind M/M Programs. Enclosed you will find the proposed Magnet and M/M Transportation budget for 1988-89. Also enclosed is the school bus transportation data requested. Sincerely, / ,\n , \\ ., . ,. . .,.... I J\u0026lt;J..:/_ . ,/ r/ :\\.,, _...,.\n.,r. _, 1 ~ Ari.~rew c.' pe~~\n_.-   Assistant Superintendent-Student Affairs ACP/sj JOB TITLES EMPLOYEES Supervisor of Transportation !lead Mechanic Mechanic Assistant Mechanic Mechanic's Helper Secretary Fringe Benefits BUS DRIVERS Magnet Extracurricular Activities H/H Fringe Benefits OPERATIONS Bus Payments 1 Mobile Relay Station 1 Control Station Fuel, Parts, and Repairs Insurance Radios UTILITIES Natural Gas Water Electric Phone TOTALS nm NORTH LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSED BUDGET MAGNET/M TOM TRANSPORTATION 1988-89 December 6, 1988 YEARLY SALARY AND/OR COST 1007. STATE 18% STATE $ 31,300.00 $ $ 5 ,6-34. 00 25,200.00 4,536.00 18,587.00 3,346.00 16,994.00 3,059.00 14,031.00 2,526.00 11,745.00 2,114.00 8,851.00 1,593.00 50,400.00 50,400.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 2,626.00 2,626.00 4,358.00 4,358.00 53,632.07 53,632.07 6,876.25 1,238.00 1,511.03 272,00 155,629.00 28,013.00 67,000.00 12,060.00 4,448.00 4,448.00 6,000.00 1,080.00 550.00 99.00 6,700.00 1,206.00 4,362.00 785. 00 $495,800.35 $120,464.07 $ 67,561.00 TOTAL STATE $ 5,634.00 4,536.00 3,346.00 3,059.00 2,526.00 2,114.00 1,593.00 50,400.00 5,000.00 2,626.00 4,358.00 53,632.07 1,238.00 272.00 28,013.00 12,060.00 4,448.00 1,080.00 99.00 1,206.00 785.00 $188,025.07 ./''/. ~-:\\c _u~\\ I YEAR MAKE ,.- :-.,L r- cT i:~:\\ c.--o l\\OU'i/CHASSIS ,'\\-1-: - -?~),- -a.~:\nb:i l-n-7 lford/GIC .. .. .. .-. --.-. --.-. - --\": -7I l:188 l~~r\u0026lt;.1/Chevy . ---- -- ------~ --.- \" \" .. .. I .. ... -------.I --\" \" \" \" .. .. I \" \" It ------, \" '  It ~ \" \" It \" .. ., .. I \"_J \" \" \" . - - - . --- -- ' I I \" .. .. ! -.-. I 1.167 h':tru/G:IC - --- - ____ __J_ I .. .. I \" I . - ..  ------ I - \" \" \" \" .. i i \" I .... --- -------! i--\"- -\n\" \" \" \" \" -- I \" I \" \" \" .. . - - . ---\" --- \" I \" \" \" I ..\n------- - i \" \" \" \" ! I .. \" .. I -- \" - \" \" \" .. ., \" \" \" \" II \" \" II I II ... ' \" II II SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION DATA FOR BUSES# USED FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS AND H TOM TRANSFERS HAGNEr USE BUS SERIAL REGUl.AP. USE H/\\GNET IJ~E NtnIBER Ntn:BER DAILY \u0026gt;IILEAG~ DAILY HIJ,EAGE ~ruq.\ntW- - 1-3-144 5Jk6 81 0 76 m les 1-3-153 IJV115J)J 0 112 \" !-J-154 .JV115319 0 117 \" 1-3-155 JV115251l 0 126 It 1-3-156 JVJ 15245 0 105 \" 1-3-157 JV115316 n l:?7 It 1-3-156 JV115269 0 \u0026amp;O \" i-3-5.\n4 31303114 :\n,.: ~=c \" 1::, \" 31303114 1-3-535 516376 (I r,5 \" 1-3-356 16 0 !10 \" 1-3-357 JO 0 kl It '-'-'~\" Jr, n 1 ,n \" 11- '-\" ,., 71 n f..(,, \" 11-~-~An (,R n '17 \" 1-3-541 88 0 77 II 1-3-542-  ..-!H 0 ,_126..~_!1. .\n!} 7 t:U::ilER OF I DATE BliS DAYS lll:S H TO H us~ TAKE): OliT 1-!:'.5 I ... lt!GlfALU U@K ! M TO H USE I G: t\ns:: (IF USE (I: DAILY t!ILEAGt  t'AILY Mil,:.~r.=: ... ,'..\"'.'!cJ_~.\nr_.~ A?:'LICA::LE) 0 (1 0 0 0 !l n (l 0 2 lli I l'~ I 0 0 I 0 0 ,, n 0 I) I n ,, .:I'. - ' ::r. .. , :::  0 0 n n I I ! n n ' ii \" I 0 n n 0 - L -.:F ::~s I ::us Yf,.\\P- HA.KE . ::~ :,:, rs:: SIZE  ~:.\u0026gt;JrnF.v::rn:\n:o BOD'l /CIL.\\SSIS Al 11:L:i C J.\"\nJ, i~8b j 22 l9bli lford/G~IC I \" ,, ' 1\u0026gt;5 l'.l87 \" \" \" ., uS 198!.: 11ard/Chcvy ,, \" .,:\nl!lb6 \" \" I \" \" l 03 ! ):Jt\n7 lfaru/G:-IC Aug -ll:i t _\nI l\\!8:, 22 \" \" \" \" .. n 1!188 \" \" -- I I - !' - ---- i I ' I - ' ! --- ---- ----'- I --------- - sc\n,:QQi, BUS 1:il.Ph/:l\u0026gt;Od.'rArttJH DA'l'A FOR IIUS.6S USED FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS AND M TOM TRANSFERS MAGNET USE BUS SERIAL REGULAR USE MAGNET USE NUN.BER NIDIBER DAILY MILEAGE DAILY MILEAGE -3-544 14517658 0 12.2 - c= 6P04211V J-3-130 ~31819 0 70 -3-152 JVl 15 308 0 0 -3-151 ~Vll5301 0 0 ~P042HV -3-126 $31960 0. 0 ~1303H4 -~-5:xi Sl6316 0 122 -3-544 ~4517858 0 70 NC .[il OF l DAE 3US DAL iluS M TOM USE I ~i~\n~\n()!_I! 1-:..\\S I:'i REGUA.LR USE M TO H USE or us= (IF t\nSE (If DAILY MILEAGE DAILY NILEAGE APPLICABLE A!'PLIC..\\2LE) 0 0 f.\n1 -~s 2 ~-=-~-= -=---:.,---.-- . I 0 0 \" \" 2 0 12S :liks 0 -~ 12. 6 \" ...:.  r 4 I I 0 C.7 \" - 0 0 i I 0 0 : tlATE :\n:\n:, 3US YEAR HAKE rt:r 1:,T 1 rsr. SIZE K'l. '.( UfACIURED ilCJDY/CHASSIS 08-Jfl - lll 71 19Sl Chevy/Wan! --02-- I ,-::8 59 1987 Chevy/Ward -0-2- I '  Iii! 59 1987 Chevy/Ward -- - 10- llH:J 71 1987 Chevy/Ward --- -- 10- l ,-:l7 71 1987 Chevy/Ward ---- I0- lll - 117 71 1987 Chevy/Ward ---- -- 10-111- :!7 71 1987 Chevy/Ward -------- 10  111 - 1:17 77 1987 Chevy/Ward -- ---- 02-1 1-1\n/I 59 1987 Chevy /lfa rd ------- 02-1 HIii 59 1987 Chevy/lfard  08-10-111 16 1981 Ford/Ila rd 08-J0-8 I 16 1981 Ford/Ward BUS SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION DATA FOR BUSES USED FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS AND H TOM TltANSFERS MAGNET USE SERIAL REGULAR USE MAGNET USE NUHBER HUMBER DAILY MILEAGE DAIU MILEAGE 5 134465 18 43 34 108777 N/A 40 35 108787 N/A 45 41 115358 N/A 59 42 115373 N/A 43 43 101169 N/A 56 44 101159 N/A 44 46 101184 27 60 47 108836 N/A . 54 48 108852 N/A 50 31 82723 63 45 32 82722 -- tWHBER OF DATE BUS DAYS Bt:S M TOM USE TAJ\u0026lt;Ell OUT 1-:.i.s 1:: REC:UI.LR uru: H to H U3t OF USE (IF USE (IF DAILY MILEAGE DAILY Mll.F,LC:0: L.gr!,ICABLE APPLICASLE) -  .\n20 52  APPENDIX D-2 Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) ! ,..  1IJ     PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT November 30, 1988 Spence Holder ARKANSAS DEPARIMENI' of EDUCATICN 4 capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Spence Holder: 1500 Dixon Road/P.O. Box 6409 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 Please accept this purposed budget as our projected cost to operate Magnet and M to M buses for the school year 1988-89 as of this da'.:e. OUr bill for the m::mths of September, October, and November 1/3 of $773,3:1.44 is $257,512.70. SinceO? _________ ru7(~ Assistant Superintendent l'IWPOSED OUOGET NAGNET/M TOM TRIINSPORTIITION 1980-89 l'.C.S.S.D. JOB TITLES OPERATIONS YEARLY SALARY - AND/OR COST 100% ST/\\TE 16% ST/\\TE I I Administrative ! ( 1 ) Director 50,710.00 8,113.60 ( 2) Administrative Assistants 64,796.00 10,367.36 ( 1 ) Administrative Ass.istant 15,500.00 H Year) I 15,500.00 ( 1 ) Operations Supervisor 26,760.33 4,281.65 ( 1 ) Route Supervisor 20,504.88 3,280.78 (2) Mechanic Foreman 48,269.34 Mechanics 7,723.09 I ( 2) Mechclnic Lead 40,423.68 6,467.79 (2) Parts man 48,754,80 7,800.77 (7) Mechanics 135,012.69 21,602.03 (8) Mechanics Helpers 116,113.68 18,578.19 (J) Labors 34,806.96 5,569.11 (7) Gels Pump Operators 36,194.52 926.58 Summer Help 12,025.25 15,500.00 96,634.09 F.I.C.A. (7.51%) I 1,164.05 7,257.29 S.:ilaries 16,664.05 103,892.27 Ori ver Activity Driver 237,509.37 20,QQQ,QQ_ 257,509.37 F.I.C.A. (7.51% 257,509.37 19,338.95 Utilities 276,848.32 NcJtural Gels 6,254.51 Electricity 8,930.60 Water/Sewer 815.61 Telephone 13,670.17 29,670.89 4,747.39 Insurance .. F .. -. I ~~ leet. Z49,. Z3l.00 1988-89 P.C.S.S.D. .,on r 1T L[S YtARL Y SALARY OPERATIONS /\\ND/OR COST 100% STATE 16% STATE nus Pil~ncnts 1987 Uni ts (30) SlGJ,307.00 1988 Uni ts (9) s 163,307.00 \"\"  1175 .00 ilil,1175.00 207,782.00 Fuel, Parts, Hrecker, Paint : \u0026amp; Dody Service, Seilt Repair 100,000.00 Contract ServicE 100,000.00 Taxi, Parent etc . 10,000.00 10,000.00 Sub Total .626, 794 .82 148,516.62 - Grand Total 773,311_.44 I ..           - - - ---- ------- -- APPENDIX D-3 Little Rock School District (LRSD) Little Rock School District December 9, 1988 Mr. Spence Holder, Coordinator School Transportation Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall, Rnom 704-A Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Holder: Enclosed is the information requested by your office concerning estimated Magnet Schnol/M to M t.cansportation costs for school year 1988-89. A detailed cost breaktlown i3 included. If you have any questions, cDmmc:-::its, or concerns, please contact my office. Sincerely, TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT I !J_'tif~-L-R1chard '-1). Jnhnson Director RDJ:mks Encl. cc: George D. Cannon 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501).374.3.361     1. 2 . Projected 1988-89 M to M \u0026amp; Magnet Transportation Cost Little Rock School District Driver Salary/Fringe Benefits Based on step 3 Fringe Benifits 15% Number of Magnet Routes Parkview Mann Booker Gibbs Carver Williams 11 16 12 6 7 11 63 $42.42 rer. day 6.36 48.76 per day M to M Routes Robinson Baker Sylvan Hills 1 1 1 3 66 Magnet \u0026amp; M to M routes per day x $16 . 25  $1,072.50 $ 1072.50 x 90 days (178 reg. days+ 2 route practice days)=$ 96,525.00  66 x $24.38  $1609.08 x 90 days $144,817.20 $241,342.20 Operation/Maintenance Cost (fuel, oil, tires, insurance, Magnet -M -to -M Dai~y Route Miles 5346 149 180 route days X 180 X 180 972,972 20,820 Cost per mile (minus drive's Wages/Fringe, Depreciated Capitol Expense) .6661 x 972,972 miles S 666,159.94 etc.) 3 . Taxi Transportation Magnet Students 60.00 per day 710.00 !?!\n ~ 770. 00 per day M to M Students $770.00 x 5  $3,850.00 per week x 36 weeks $138,600.00 C.A.T. M to M students $100.00 per month x 9  $900.00 $139,500.00 4. Extra Curricular Secondary-Athletics Parkview Mann Activities and Field Trips Parkview Mann Elementary Field Trips Booker Carver Gibbs Williams $ 8,164.00 14,063.90 $1,623.00 2,552.10 $ 757.80 732.60 334.20 647.70 TOTAL s. Magnet School Route Buses Depreciated Capitol (straight line rlep.) $28,875.30 Expenses Annual% of use Model Units ~ Amount for Magnet Route 1983 1 s 1 $4,026.00 .3333 = $1,341.87 1983 1 s 1 $4,026.00 .50 = $2,013.00 1984 1 s 1 4,318.00 1.00 = $4,318.00 1984 1 s 1 4,318.00 .3333 = $1,439.19 1984 1 s 3 4,318.00 .so = $6,477.00 1986 1 s 1 4,515.00 .3333 = $1,504.85 1987 1 s 22 4,515.00 . 3333 = $33,106.69 1987's 2 4,515.00 .so = $4,515.00 1987 1 s 3 4,515,00 .75 = $10,158.75 1988's 14 4,795.00 .3333 = $22,374.43 1988 1 s 3 4,795.00 .so = $7,192.50 1988's 4 4,795.00 .75 = $14,385.00 $108,826.28 If 35 state owned buses are purchased and used as planned depreciation would be based on one half year. $ 54,413.14 AREA SUBTOTALS 1. Drivers Salary/Fr.inge $241,342.20 2. Ops. /Mnt. 666,159.94 3. Taxi 139,500.00 4. Extracurricular 28,875.30 5. Depreciated Capitol 54,413.14 Transportation cost for Magnet \u0026amp; M to M 1988-89 $1,130,290.50 APPENDIX E Majority-to-Minority Transfer Program Flyer and Sample Application -44- Considering SCHOoLS For 8990? W\u0026amp;al,r NOTo4De ~ .!:7 TO ca M TRANSFER7 MAJORITY fl MINORITY 9 What are M-to-M transfers? Majority-to-Minority (M-to-M) transfers among the three public school districts in Pulaski County are available for all students at all grade levels. Any student who lives in a district where his or her race is in the majority may enroll at any school in a district where his or her race is in minority, provided that school offers appropriate programs for the student's needs at his grade level. A white student who lives in the North Little Rock or Pulaski County District may enroll at any Little Rock Public School at his or her grade level. A black student who lives in Little Rock may enroll at any North Little Rock or Pulaski County Public School at his or her grade level. Free bus transportation will be provided for students who participate in Mto- M transfers. Bus stops will be established throughout neighborhoods in Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County. II you are a white parent In North Little Rock or Pul1kl County ... Would you like for your child to attend a Little Rock school that is close to your workplace m Little Rock? Would you li.ke the convenience of dropping your child off at a school on your way to work in the morning? Would you like to take advantage of before-and-after CARE programs at Little Rock elementary schools? CARE provtdes achvtties m a safe, educahonal environment from 7 a.m. unhl school starts and after school until 5:30 p.m. CARE is provtded for a floating fee of no more than $3 per day and S6 per day on school holidays. Would you like for your secondary child to take advantage of foreign languages like Latin and German? Would you li.lce for your secondary child to take advantage of Little Rock vocational programs that might not be available in your district? If you are a black parent In Little Rock ... Does your child have a friend or relative at a school in North Little Rock or Pulaski County? Would you like for your child to attend that school? Would you like for your child to be possibly enrolled in the Talented and Gifted (TAG) Program m Pulaski County? How about the Quest Program for gifted and talented students in North Little Rock? Would you like to check out educational programs, class sizes and student racial ratios at any North Little Rock or Pulaski County school where your child might be enrolled? Would you like for your child to attend a North Little Rock or Pulaski County school that is close to your workplace outside Little Rock? Would you like the convenience of dropping your child off at a school on your way to work? If you are interested in any of these options, please call 758-0156 for an application or additional information. PULASKI COUNTY STUDENT TRANSFER (M-TO-M) FORM Students may request to attend a school in another district within Pulaski County under the Majority-to-Minority Transfer Program if the student is in the racial majority in his/her resident school and district and will be in the racial minority in the school and district selected. STUDENT'S NAME: STUDENT'S RESIDENT ADDRESS: GRADE LEVEL: DATE OF BIRTH: SEX: CURRENT SCHOOL: PARENT OR PERSON HAVING CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT: PARENT'S MAILING ADDRESS: PARENT'S HOME PHONE NUMBER: PARENT'S WORK PHONE NUMBER: _________ _ OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED: MAJORITY-TO-MINORITY (M-TO-M) TRANSFER lSTCHOICE: 2NDCHOICE: 3RDCHOICE: IS STUDENT HANDICAPPED? YES WILL YOUR CHILD REQUIRE BUS TRANSPORTATION? NO YES RACE: __ NO I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release or transfer any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. I understand that if my transfer request is approved, my child must remain in the program for a minimum of one (1) school year. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: DATE: THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO YOUR LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RESIDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVAL (Signature of approving official) RECEIVING SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVAL (Signature of approving official) TRANSFER APPROVED: DATE DATE DATES OF ATTENDANCE: APPENDIX F Interdistrict Magnet Schools Waiting Lists -45- APPENDIX F-1 North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) ,, SCHOOL: 0001\u0026lt; ER GRADE: IC FIRSl CHOICE LISTING 6 _ NA~E _ PARENT BOYD, LA Tl SHA 10 BOYD, SHEL IA 12 \" DESAI, J.ASMLNE N.ARAN ,\", DESAI, NARAN P. DESAI ,. \" ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ' 9 JI ,. .\". JS ....AUQRESS BIRTHOATE 505 WEST 36TH 6/10/84 Z501 EAST hP.OAOWAY 1/05/64 M~GN~T SCHOOL WAITIN\u0026amp; LIST ~Ol'E Pt-iONE BUS PHNE 753-4ozq 171-0564 945-3231 RAC!\nSEX B F w F     - ~- - ---- - --------- APPL IC AT l!JN DA If __ __!!Cll!llf.fS.~~APPL ICAT ION TIME 1ST 2ND 3RD 9/Z5/8q lZ:()0 8/21/89 10:11 q5 qz q4 95 93 00  -- . --------------------------- ~ o \" .. \",, ,, ,, ,, I. ' II ,, SCHOOL: BOOKER GRADE: I FIRST CHOIC E LIS TINC. N~HE PARENT A8RAHAl'11 l'l~RCVS JOOELL ABRAW,111 ODELL PHI Lll es, TEQUILA A PHILLIPS t CORA H. HUGHES, CHl'RA DIAAB, LINDA OO\u0026gt;l\u0026lt;OO\u0026gt;l\u0026lt;OOO\u0026gt;l\u0026lt;\u0026gt;l\u0026lt;'l\u0026lt;OO BULLINGER, MACKENZIE JO VAUGHAN, SANORA AUOKESS BIRTHOATE 51 DOVE CREEK CIRCLE !1/04/ tl2 117 1'1ELROS DRIV E 12/05/82 SHORTER LAKOENS, B- 8,Al05 9/25/ 82 8UJ C.REfM' Al E: ll/07/82 MAGfl E: T SCHOOL '4A1TING LIST HOHE: PHONE RACE APPLICATION DATE qq( lfil IC ES** BUS PHl'iE SEX APPLICATION TI11E 1ST 21'10 3RD 83't-0664 ll 3/U/89 tl34-4l8't H e:56 95 93 92 37't-2l28 u 4/21/!!9 7\u0026lt;\nA-39't't F 1:00 P.M. 95 93 9't 37't-935't I\\ 7/2't/89 F 4:00 p \" 95 93 00 9't5-7l't5 w 8/0't/89 661-9272 F 3:00 P.H. 95 00 00 r ( SCHOOL: BOOKER GRADE: Z ' ----- - ' FIRST CHOICE LISTING ~ _ \u0026amp;1.1 ' PARENT PERKINS SHALONDA DARICE  PERKINS MR. AND MRS. CHARLES \" _ftENNEII---8ECCU HARREN II BENNETT SHARON D. ,\". \" \" lLLlAMS..__U\u0026amp;Bl .ANN ,. WILLIAMS, VICKI \" \" )l ,. JS -ADDRESS 8I RTHOATE 50a4 NORTH WOODLAND 7/08/82 5ll~ S. WOODLAND 4/02/82 ll3 WEST \"I-\" l/26/8 7. ~AGNET SCHOOL WAITING LIST HOME PHONE SUS PHNE 945-27l.6 682-4Z79 ']45-1309 68o-698'j 75)-9496 171-5111 RACE. SEX (! F ,e. w F     -- -------------------------. APPLIC AT IOl'f ..D\u0026amp;IE APPLICATION TlflE 3/15/89 8:J9 4/07/6'1 __ 8:'t8 8/Zl/89 3:11 P.M. .. CHOICES'!.'!. _ 1ST 2ND 3RD 95 00 00 95 00 00 95 94 92 -- ----- ----------- --------  ,.. ' SCHOOL: BOOKER l GRADE: 3 .j ,... FIRST CHOICE LISTING '  NAME ----- - ,,... 1- PARENT  ,_  BENNETT BRYAN OESHUN ,. BENNETT, SHARON o. \"- \" _OAYt CONSTANCE ROBERT A \" SANDERS, PHYlltS E. \" ,... ,\". ( ( G ,\"_ '.! -1lil'.l.D..S..illl..1 KATHRYN ~\", OAVtOSON, RtCHARO A. \" - 2 ., i, -- i25 i2 1 ...- l( \" \" ,\". \" II '\" \" .\", i\"\n, - - 'i\n, ~: ' . , iso Is, ~, ~, Is ' Is ~ ADDRESS ----itt\"RTHDATE 5226 S. WOODLAND OHtVE - 3/14/81 4!06 BELW OOD CRIVE l/l'l/81 la TENNY~ON CCURT 3/18/81 MAGNET SC ~OOL WAITING LIST --- - - -- - - - ---- ------- -- - ---------------- - HOH~ ptjQNE BUS P .. NE 945-1309 686-5870 771-0327- 375-98 .. 5 83',-6427 378-5725 RACE SEX .B. ll F w F APPLICATtON DATE CHOtCES APPltCATION Tl~ME~~l--S~T ZN0-\".3Ro 4/07_/fJ'! e:41 4/12/8~ 8:50 9/l't/!!9 11:45 95 00 00 95 93 92 SCHOOL: BOOKER ,-. 1 GRADE:  FIRST CHOICE L (ST I NG (\"'\nt:IAHE.._ ,... PARENT ! COLCLOUGH, JEHIAH To ,. 10 CLAl\u0026lt;K, SIGN RET \" \" ,\", ,. ,. \" : , ,,. ., ,~ \" \" \" 0 __ ADDRESS BIRTHOAH 1911 CRUTCHER STREET 6/27/79 MAGNET SCHOOL WAITING LIST HOHE PHONE BUS PHNE 664-75\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_243","title":"Annual reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1990/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Annual reports"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/243"],"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":["printouts"],"dcterms_extent":["33 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\nAnnual Report for 1990-91 Little Rock School District Board and District Work Toward Achieving Long-range Goals Long-range goals adopted for the District in 1989 by the Little Rock School Board continue to be our focal points for improvement: increasing educational achievement for all students, establishing climates of excellence in all schools and enhancing human relations skills for District employees. Academic Achievement Results of the Metropolitan Achievement Test over a four-year period reflect a pattern of progressively better achievement for students in grades one through 11. However, much work remains to be done to address academic achievement at the junior high level where student growth either remained virtually static or dropped slightly. (See report of MAT-6 scores included as an attachment to this report.} On the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test, scores received over a five-year period also are encouraging. (See report of Minimum Performance Test results included as an attachment to this report.) Eighty-seven percent of Little Rock students tested in grades three and eight passed the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test in reading. Ninety-four percent of the sixth graders passed the reading portion. In the math area, 87 percent, 90 percent and 84 percent passed in grades three, six and eight, respectively. At the eighth grade level, the second administration of the test showed marked improvement in the percentage of students passing the test, with all but two junior high schools having at least an 85 percent passing rate. A third administration of the test given in August resulted in all schools passing the total test and achieving an overall 92 percent pass rate for the District. Strategies to increase performance in the Arkansas minimum performance test include tutoring, increased reading and mathematics assistance, computer assisted instruction, more homework, and cooperative learning. In terms of long-range achievement, the District expects to 1 implement most of the 13 recommendations of the Board-approved curriculum audit performed by the National Curriculum Audit Center of Arlington, Va. Results were reported in January 1991 and serve as the basis for the No More Excuses posture outlined by the superintendent in March. Tliis document will serve as the guide for initiating steps to implement the recommendations from the audit and other steps which we agree will further student progress. The District will continue to emphasize and expand early childhood education, homework programs, extended day activities, restructuring efforts at the junior high level and secondary reading and mathematics assistance programs to address academic achievement issues. In addition, the District has launched a major curriculum review and revision process, under the direction of the associate superintendent for educational programs. Two new magnet schools opened: Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science and Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented. Central High School added an international studies program. Six incentive schools offered extended day, Saturday school, full-time counselors, auxiliary teachers and small classes. McClellan initiated a comprehensive community education program, and Rockefeller opened with an early childhood education magnet program serving infants as young as six weeks of age. Also, as a result of the Districts successful millage election in 1990, major construction projects were started at Geyer Springs, Western Hills, Woodruff and Cloverdale elementary schools and Cloverdale Junior High School. Construction and/or improvement projects are on schedule at virtually every school in the District. Revenues 1990-91 Local Total, $103,123,807 Other, 44.9%  State, Other, $46,300,150 0 Local, $56,823,657 2 Expenditures 1990-91 Other Objects, 1.01% Magnets, 3.5% Debt Service, 6.48% Capital Outlay, 3.53% Supplies, Materials, 3.92% -  Q  B  Purchased Services, 10.19% Salaries/Benefits, $73,225,914 Purchased Services $10,457,142 Supplies, Materials, $4,020,746 Capital Outlay, $3,624,884 Debt Service, $6,646,769 Magnets, $3,592,755 Other Objects, $1,040,327 Total: $102,608,537 Salaries/Benefits, 71.37% - Climates of Excellence Declared by the District superintendent as The Year of the School, the 1990-91 school year was a year in which the needs of individual schools received major priority. Restructuring efforts continued at four junior high schools with assistance from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Center for Leadership in School Reform. Academic progress incentive grants of $25,000 each were awarded to area schools for school improvement projects. The focus on the school as the basic unit for the delivery of quality education to students will continue in the 1991-92 school year. A reorganization of central office staff will provide principals closer access to the office of the superintendent. Local school plans will continue to be used to improve instruction and learning in all our schools. Human Relations Through the use of trained employees, the Districts bus drivers and education support personnel received special training in human relations skills. For teachers and principals, minicourses were available through our Staff Development Office. An annual survey of attitudes toward human relations reflected the following\nA comparative analysis of the results at each organizational level showed that items ranked as areas of greatest priority did not vary significantly from those identified in 1990, witli 3a slight difference in relative standing. These focus on lack of demonstrated respect among teachers, students, parents and administrators\nlack of fairness and consistency relative to school rules and student discipline\nand lack of satisfaction by all groups, except junior high parents, relative to student progress. Areas that shifted to a lower grouping in 1991 from 1990, indicating an improvement in perception, were about teachers receiving equal treatment (junior high level)\nextra learning time provided for students who need or want it (elementary parents)\nparents promotion of the schools instructional program (elementary teachers)\nand parents treating principals with respect (elementary teachers). The survey item regarding school safety ranked as a greatest priority area for junior high parents only and collective data from each organizational level (excluding junior high parents) showed that respondents from the majority of the subgroups did not regard safety within the school as a major concern. More work will continue in this area during the 1991-92 school year as the results of the annual surveys are used to improve interaction among our students. Appeals Court Rules in Favor of 1989 Plan On December 13, 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the Settlement Plan agreed on by the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District in 1989 for operation of desegregated schools. Reaching a conclusion to this long-running court case allows the District to place its effons in operation and action, rather than hearings and plan development. While there will continue to be adjustments among the parties, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the court to assure compliance with our plan, we can now offer parents and patrons stability and predictability in terms of the school assignments and other aspects that affect school choice decisions. 4GKAPK 1222 KUMHER TESTED 1929 1922 1991 TOTAL.. reading__ 1980 1929 1222 1991 _TQ T A II- M A1H EMA' 1292 1929 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICP METROPOLITAN ACHIEVEMENT TE.STS (MA'r-6) NATIONAL PERCENTILE SCORES 'jjes.l__tq: .122a .122111222 1998, COMPARATIVE DATA , 1989, 1990 AND 1991 AL_I-AN\u0026lt;iy\u0026amp;8___ 1222 122a 1221 _____ 3CTEI.ICE_ 1202 .1902 ,199a 1991 .fiOCIMi. STUDIES___ 1202 JJB9. 129a 1921 TOTAL ___BASIC_DATTERY___ A22a. 1902. - J25\u0026gt;1 TOTAL __COM p 1,6T K_ DAT' im. -im EBY- .laiLt __1__ _.i._ 0 __ 1'... .11 _ ZQ2:: 1921 20} 1 1 ?Qn-i 1?.'Z9 ?066 _12- _.19. _59_ _22- -Ol.. ,_24,. _11_ _12_ _5a_ _.52_ _HAA -MA* -1!M _li.A4 .-49- .52- ._53_ ._21. _i\na! 1A . 22-. .51 - L9 r 1911 117 2 1712 17,90 19.92 17.77 1912 1209 1910  109.2 1127 1812 1 7  \u0026gt; 1129 1206. 19 30 164.9 1927 1951 1959 I 906 17 2 Q 1706 1 7 69 .Ifi.. -.11- 54 5a -.11.. -21.. 54 .11.. _2.1_ .-22- - 19 -12. _5a.. -IL. ._21_ .54 . 04 . -5 a. 55 _01_ .09... _61_. ._51_ -21.. ..54,_ ,ay 64 _01.- _02_. .57-.. -IONA! MA! _ 4 2. .. -.12. -HA! _M.A* .22 . Il.. _52. . .UA.*.. . MA* .6Q. -24- _A1.. _61_ 66 ,7 1292 1610 1668 1610 K'Qo .1490 _4S___4n_ -.26_ .,21.. -.-49- _24_ ._22__ _92._ _22_ ,2Q ...53 -24. -.53- ._5Q_ _21_ .12 _20_ 22. 19  _2Q. -.23_J._22_ .-23- 57_ _23_ -oe.. _oi_ _01_ - o.a. _54.- _.5Q- -5X. _45, _:19_ -29 .49.. -49- '4- -52... ._52- . 19.. .53. . 51 .51. 12. .-.f\u0026gt;a. _.6a_ --5,2. -2a._ .5.1,. _26.- -21- _.29_. .52 . -22- -21 _59_ _59._ _52_. -21- *\n9 ..59.- 56 _22_. _42_ -21-. _55_ _22_. -24- -2 ^'L _22_ _16_ _26_ _5a_ _62_ _65_ -21- 66 .-21- _ 57 -22- -52- -fiO- -22_ .. ,9 61 61 .-62_ ._2a_ _21_ _47_ _22_ -23-. 59 52 50 i3_- -22_ _52_ _55.. -22 21 54 50 .21 12. . 2a_ AJ- 12. _22___ .-24_ -26.- 5 .21 _22_ ..61- 61 57 _59. 21 49 1.7 19- _56_ _2X.. -20_. -21- _22_ _55___51_ 22. 21 20. 51. 7.1 .61.. ..60 71 ...02.. 2 67 58 _63_ -29- _21_ 65 -.22.- 22 21 .67 66 62 _2k_ _52_ .11.. -11- .64. 61 .2.0.,. ..49 4 9 49 Students in grades one and two did not take scietico and sod a 1 stud ies in 1908 or 1989. 22, _22. ,49.. ,-.4 9_. ..53 . -54 -22- _22_ -29 _5 ...23 .59 .29- .J 2.. S'd. 51 54 ._22_ _aa. _53_L-22 12.. -29J19 8.7 19 8 8 READING 19 89 1990 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS DISTRICT SUMMARY FIVE YEAR COMPARISON 1987 THROUGH 1991 1.9J7, lJ-08, READING 1989 .1990. J.S11 198.7 MATHEMATICS 1988 1989 1990 1991 GRADE 3 No. Tented No. Passed P e r c e n t_ P a s s e d_ 1191 19871 1988 1274 1103 1044 154 1 1946 1683 1958 1709 1 863 1616 1275 1081 1844 1566 1946 1735 1958 1694 1863 1620 __0 7, __8_4 MATHEMATICS 198.9. 19.9.0 8_6j___87 ___.87. 0 5, ___8.5 09 87 87 19U 1987 1,198 8 I.AHGUAGE ARTS 19.8.?. .1^0 199.1 1987 198.8. SCIENCE 1989 1990 19JX 1987 SOCIAL STUDIES 1988 1989 1990 1991 GRADE 6 No. Tested No. Passed 1202 1063 1765 1533 1799 1590 1709 1542 1722 1615 1202 999 1765 1518 1798 1602 1709 1544 1722 1558 1201 836 1765 1301 1790 1354 1709 1315 1722 1336 1200 799 1765 1135 1799 1196 1709 1223 1722 1255 1200 718 1765 1157 1799 1265 1709 1318 1722 1265 Percent_Pa3Sed._ 88. 87, 0 0 ___9 0 .9.4, ___8 3. .8 6 __0?____.9 0 ___90. 7,0 __74 ___75 12 ___7.8. _|___,67. 64 .66 12 73 J, 60 6.6 7.0 IT. ___13 1987 .19.8 8 READING 1989 .19? 0 -199J, 1987 118.8, MATHEMATICS 1?8? IHQ. 1991 1987 LANGUAGE ARTS 1?J_O .19 8?. ..19?J. ,.19.91 SCIENCE .1987 19.8,8. 1989 1990 1991 1987 SOCIAL STUDIES 1988 1989 19,9Q .19_9 1 GRADE 8 No. Tested No. Passed 1326 1130 1811 1679 1799 1623 1756 1562 1792 1561 1326 1098 1811 1609 1799 1608 1756 1536 1792 1506 1326 945 1811 1560 1799 1537 1756 1478 1792 1467 1326 724 1011 1272 1799 1207 1756 1298 1792 1121 1326 866 1811 1275 1799 1337 1756 1324 1792 1134 Percent Passed 81 93 90 89 87 83 .89 ___8.9J___8.7.)___.841. ___7,1 ___86,1___85. ^BJ.)___02. 5. 1.9 ^7 Ai 65 70 7i 75 ___63.27^J'?? \"Sr-nJ 7-1 SEP 2 9 1992 Annual Report for Little Rock School District Board and District Work Toward Achieving Long-range Goals Long-range goals adopted for the District in 1989 by the Little Rock School Board continue to be our focal points for improvement: increasing educational achievement for all students, establishing climates of excellence in all schools and enhancing human relations skills for District employees. Academic Achievement The Stanford Achievement Test was administered in April 1992 to 19,287 students in grades one through 11. Because this is the first year for administering the Stanford, a longitudinal display of data is not given. However, results are encouraging. (See report of Stanford scores included as an attachment to this report.) On the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT), scores are reported for a five-year period. (See report of MPT results included as an attachment to this report.) Eighty-eight percent of Little Rock students tested in grade three passed the MPT in readin\nNinety-one percent of the third graders passed the math portion. In the reading area, 92 percent and 85 percent passed in grades six and eight, respectively. At the eighth grade level, the third administration of the test showed marked improvement in the percentage of students passing the test, with all but two junior high schools having at least an 85 percent passing rate. The 1992 percent pass rate for the District is 88 percent. Strategies to increase performance in the Arkansas minimum performance test include tutoring, increased reading and mathematics assistance, computer assisted instruction, more homework and cooperative learning. In terms of long-range achievement, the District began to implement recommendations of the Board-approved curriculum audit performed by the National 1 Curriculum Audit Center of Arlington, Va. Results were reported in January 1991 and serve as the basis for the No More Excuses posture outlined by the superintendent in March 1991. The administration was authorized by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for Little Rock students which is comprehensive, relevant, challenging and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12. This covered the core areas of the curriculum (reading, language arts. math, science and social studies), as well as gifted/talented, physical education and vocational education. Implementation began in August 1992. The scope of this revised curriculum exceeds required statewide assessment requirements. Local schools have some flexibility in implementing the curriculum as they make decisions regarding teaching strategies, methodologies and resources. Additionally, curriculum guides were sequentially developed and objectives have been correlated to the skills in the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test and the Stanford Eight nonreferenced test. Also in August 1992, an Instructional Management System was implemented to enable teachers, administration and parents to monitor progress of individual students and provide corrective prescriptions to improve learning. It can monitor the effectiveness of instruction through an assessment component aligned with the curriculum, also. The District will continue to emphasize and expand early childhood education, homework programs, extended day activities, restructuring efforts at the junior high level and secondary Revenues 1991-92 Local State, Other, 43.1%  State, Other, $49,292,940 B Local, $64,998,181 Total, $114,291,121 2 Expenditures 1991-92 Other Objects, 1.53%  Magnets, 3.32% Debt Service, 7.06% Capital Outlay, 3.52% B   Supplies, Materials, 3.56% a   J Salaries/Benefits, $82,183,954 Purchased Services $9,036,188 Supplies, Materials $4,010,760 Capital Outlay $3,959,731 Debt Service $7,950,100 Magnets $3,738,667 Other Objects $1,724,698 Purchased Services, 8.02% Total: $112,604,098 Salaries/Benefits, 72.99% reading and mathematics assistance programs to address academic achievement issues. Two new magnet schools were planned by e District and approved for opening in the fall of 1992 by the federal court: Henderson Health Science Magnet Junior High and McClellan Business/ Communications Magnet High School. The number of incentive schools was increased to seven with the inclusion of Franklin Elementary. Incentive schools continued to offer extended day, Saturday school, full-time counselors, auxiliary teachers and small classes. The number of elementary schools offering free four-year-old programs was increased from seven to 11. Those schools. Rightsell, Romine, Mitchell and Woodruff, joined the previous schools of Rockefeller, Badgett, Franklin, Garland, Ish, Stephens and Washington. Also, results from the Districts successful millage election in 1990 continued to be evident. Major construction projects were completed at Geyer Springs, Western Hills, Woodruff and Cloverdale elementary schools, Cloverdale Junior High School and McClellan Business/Communications Magnet High School. Remodeling and construction began at Forest Heights Junior High School. Construction and/or site improvement projects are on schedule at approximately 20 other schools in the District. 3Positive School Climate On April 30, 1991, the City of Little Rock, the LRSD and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arkansas announced a program to help in the battle against the abuse of alcohol and other drugs. This unique program is an insurance policy which covers all children enrolled in the LRSD and provides coverage for treatment of problems arising from substance abuse. It is the only one of its kind in the nation. During 1991-92, 264 students were refemed for assessment, 75 percent of whom had no private insurance coverage for substance abuse treatment. Various restructuring efforts for improved organization and delivery of instruction and services continued, including work at four junior high schools under the umbrella of the New Futures for Little Rock Youth program. Funding assistance for the restructuring in the four schools continued from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Center for Leadership in School Reform. Also, the collaborative work between the District and the Arkansas Health Department continued at two school-based health clinics for improved health services to students . The Johnson and Johnson Community Health Foundation continued its commitment to the effort with the award of an additional $20,000 grant to the clinic at Forest Heights Junior High School. A third clinic, to open in tlie fall of 1992 at McClellan High School, was approved by the Board. Academic progress incentive grants of $25,000 each were awarded to area schools for school improvement projects. Safety and security continued to be a priority. In February 1992, the use of hand-held scanning devices to detect metal was begun and frequent, random searches at secondary schools continue. This was part of the continuing response to needs identified in the Safety and Security Task Force Report in 1989 and to the 53-point action plan for safe schools developed in 1991. Dr. Ruth Steele announced in October 1991 her resignation as superintendent, effective July 1, 1992. The LRSD Board of Directors formed a search committee and Dr. Mac Bernd was hired in May 1992. The focus on the school as the basic unit for the delivery of quality education to students will continue in the 1992-93 school year. A reorganization of central office staff will provide principals closer access to the office of the superintendent. Local school plans will continue to be used to improve instruction and learning in aU schools. Twenty-six schools are in 4the first or second year of the five-year rotating cycle of the Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (COE) effort begun in 1990. COE is the evaluation process designed by the state to accredit schools which combines state and North Central Accreditation criteria. Human Relations During 1991-92, the primary mission of the Districts Staff Development Department was to provide District employees with professional growth experiences that support the Districts goal of educational excellence and equity for all students. These experiences were designed and implemented according to the (1) mandates of the desegregation plan\n(2) specific identified needs as reflected in the local schools annual improvement plans\nand (3) district-wide expectations. Areas addressed included effective teaching, teacher expectations and student achievement, classroom management, cooperative/team learning, learning styles, self-esteem for students, at-risk students, classroom discipline, stress management, thinking skills, prejudice reduction training, new teacher/mentor program and subject area mini-courses. In the annual survey of attitudes toward human relations in LRSD schools, a comparative analysis of the results at each organizational level showed that items ranked as areas of greatest priority varied from those identified in 1991, with several differences in relative standing. The 1992 data revealed new areas of priority, including the need for voluntary visits by parents at the junior high and senior high levels\nparent promotion of the instructional program\nand involvement of parents and community members in school decisions through advisory committees. Improvement was noted relative to respect among teachers, students, parents and administrators\nand fairness and consistency relative to school rules and student discipline. Although the perception of junior high parents relative to school safety improved, the area remains a concern for junior high parents. As reported in 1991, collective data from each organizational level (excluding junior high parents) showed at respondents from the majority of the subgroups did not regard safety within the school as a major concern. More work will continue in this area during the 1992-93 school year as the results of the annual surveys are used to improve interaction among our students. 5Progress Made on Desegregation Plan Implementation On December 13, 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the Settlement Plan agreed on by the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District in 1989 for operation of desegregated schools. Following the court ruling, timelines in the 1989 plan were revised and necessary modifications were made to reflect the status of programs that had been implemented and were being retained. While there will continue to be adjustments to details in the plan among the parties, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the court to assure compliance, the District continues to improve its ability to offer students, parents and patrons stability and predictability in terms of school assignments and other aspects that affect school choice decisions. 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) DISTRICTWIDE SUMMARY 1992 ENVIRONMENT* GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE B.^SIC BATTERY COMPLETE * BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W o 2094 1330 697 2 4 42/45.8 35/41.9 63/57.0 66/58.8 48/49.0 40/44.6 70/61.1 74/63.3 41/45.1 32/40.2 63/57.2 68/60.1 37/42.9* 27/37.3 59/55.0 49/49.5 A 45/47.5 36/42.4 67/59.5 74/63.5 39/44.0 31/39.5 64/57.8 67/59.1 2 TOTAL B X W 0 1883 1173 672 28 39/44 . 1 29/38 . 1 62/56.2 63/56.9 57/53.8 46/47.7 77/65.6 87/73.6 49/49.7 39/43.9 70/60.9 64/57.4 43/46.3* 32/40.0 65/58.0 67/59.3 A 45/47.4 34/41.3 69/60.3 73/62.6 45/47.3 33/40.8 70/61.2 74/63.5 3 TOTAL B W 0 1783 1131 632 18 39/44.2 27/36.9 63/57.0 57/53.8 58/54.1 46/47.8 76/65.1 80/68.0 50/50.0 38/43.8 70/60.9 68/59.6 43/46.1 30/38.8 67/59.1 63/57.1 46/48.0 35/41.6 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 68/59.7 4 TOTAL B W 0 1867 1211 632 23 44/47.0 33/40.9 67/59.2 60/55.4 57/53.9 49/49.2 73/63.0 76/65,1 46/47.6 35/42.1 65/58.0 64/57.4 46/47.6 34/41.5 68/60-0 66/50.7 48/49.0 38/43.5 68/59.7 69/60.3 48/49.0 38/43.6 68/59.7 67/59.0 47/48.2 36/42.2 68/60.0 67/59.0 5 TOTAL B W 0 1922 1288 612 22 38/43 .3 26/36.6 63/56.8 58/54.1 53/51.7 43/46.5 71/61.9 83/69.9 48/48-7 38/43.7 67/59.1 66/58.7 45/47.4 33/40.6 70/61.2 74/63.6 46/48.1 37/43. 1 65/58.2 70/60.8 44/46.8 34/41.1 65/58.3 71/61.5 44/46.7 32/40.4 67/59.2 72/62.4 6 TOTAL B W 0 1843 1209 609 25 50/49.9 37/42.8 74/63.6 67/59.2 57/53.8 48/48.7 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 48/49.0 76/65.0 72/62.0 54/52.1 43/46.4 73/63.1 72/62.2 54/52.1 43/46.0 75/64.0 73/62.6 7 TOTAL B W O 1694 1122 550 21 42/45.5 31/39.3 70/61.0 72/62.2 45/47.4 36/42.2 64 /57.3 75/64.3 43/46. 1 33/40.7 64/57.7 70/61.1 42/45.6 31/39.7 65/57.9 75/64.5 47/48.6 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 78/66.0 8 TOTAL D W 0 1573 1060 493 19 43/45.2 29/38.5 67/59.4 73/62.6 39/4 4.0 30/38.8 59/54.7 87/73.6 48/49.1 38/43.6 69/60.7 81/68.5 45/47.4 34/41.3 68/60.1 77/65.7 46/48.0 34/41.3 72/62.1 83/70.0 43/46.2 32/40.0 66/58.6 84/71.2 4 3/46. 1 30/39.2 68/59.8 86/72.6 9 TOTAL B W O 1554 995 536 23 44/46.6 30/39.2 68/60.1 63/57.2 34/41.2 23/34 . 1 57/53.9 68/59.6 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 47/48.2 34/41.1 70/61.0 71/61.7 48/48.8 34/41. 1 73/62.6 73/62.9 10 TOTAL B W O 1602 949 609 41 49/49.2 3 5 / 4 3.. 8 72/62.3 64/57.4 37/43.2 26/36.7 56/53.1 58/54.0 47/48.6 34/41.5 68/60.0 59/54.6 45/47.3 32/39.9 67/59.0 64/57.3 43/46.2 30/38.7 66/58.4 57/53.8 47/48.4 34/41.2 68/60.1 64/57.7 47/48.5 32/40.4 70/61.2 65/58.2 11 TOTAL D W O 1472 825 612 35 50/49.8 34/41.4 69/60.7 66/58.4 43/46.5 32/40.1 59/54.6 62/56.4 48/49.1 35/41.9 66/58.5 61/56.1 47/48.6 32/40.2 63/59.7 58/54.4 51/50.6 36/42.7 69/60.7 72/62.3 51/50.4 36/42.3 70/60.8 69/60.5 51/50.4 34/41.3 72/62.1 70/61\n0  At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and refl noted an on*^ nrnrn undnr ENVIRONMENT.1255 1252. READIHG 1220 1221 GR.A!)E_6 No. Tested llo. Prtssetl 1765 15 13 ?eESIl^..tS.9ied_ J___ft2. 12.63 1799 159 0 00 1262 1709 15 12 .23. 1722 1615 21 READING 1223 1221 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIHUM IERIOHMANCE TEST RESULTS UI STH I CT SUHMAHY FIVE YEAR COnrARISOH FIROT ADMINIOTRATION 1900 'I'HROUGII 1992 ISQfi 1252 REAUIUC 1225 1221 12 22 1235 1252 MATHEMATICS 1223 122.1 122? QB.ade, s No. No. Tus t ed Passed 10)1 1679 1 ^99 1623 1756 1562 PtCfent_Ea95e.'d_J___2lJ__30___eg. 17 9 2 1561 __32 i No. Tested No. Passed I9reDt_ Fa33ed_ 122? 1875 1725 1222 170 1 1505 _35. 1255 17 65 1518 104 1 154 1 __8 4 \"iiATii'EMATICS 1236 lull 1 609 12 S2 1220 194 6 1603 -12 21 ...6 1950 1709 __07 -122J 1063 16 16 _,0L 128 5 1003 1503 __0 8 1044 1 566 19 4 6 1 7 35 ___0 5 1___0? iahguage'arts*'' 1232 1223 1221 17 90 1602 1 709 15 14 1722 1 550 _.32L_..23L-._2 0 1232 MATHEMATICS 1223. 1221 1 075 167 1 ... 9.1 1222 1765 1301 ___24 1265 1799 ) 600 17 56 1536 17 9 2 1 506 __311___31J_J2.|__34 170 1 1 523 _.63 I 0 1 1 1560 1798 1 354 22 19 50 16 9 4 1221 \u0026amp;2. 1063 1620 __fi? 1280 1 803 1635 1.232 2 1 SCIENCE 1223 1221 1222 1256 SOCIAL STUi)JE, 1262 1220 12 2 1 ij22 1709 1315 1722 1336 .12___IS. lANGUAGE ARTS 1232 17 9 9 153 7 1223 1 4 70 ___84 199 1 1792 14 67 ___02 1875 14 4 6 1765 1 135 1799 1 196 1709 1223 17 2 2 1255 - W_71J___2,1 1221 1701 1 4 35 31 1233 18 11 1272 70 1232 SCIENCE 1223 1221 1 /yy 1 20? IL 17 5 6 1290 1792 112 1 1875 1410 __2.2 1222 1701 1110 421__31 17 65 1157 1238 18 11 127) ...IS I 299 I 265 . 7\u0026lt;i 1709 1110 1 7 .! . I B75 1 )0 ! .21 .. 2 2 SOCIAL STUDIES 1262 17 9 9 13 3/ 71 12 2,0 I ?j .._.251. 122 1 1 / 9 1 1 J 4  f i 12 2? I 70 I 11/2 ....44LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADMINISTRATION 1 9 9 2. SCHOOL/NO. TESTED* STUDENTS PASSING TOTAL TEST PASSING SCORE = 4204 STUDENTS FAILING BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL CLOVERDALE/219 Number Percent DUNBAR/242 Number Percent FOREST HEIGHTS/218 Number Percent HENDERSON/211 Number Percent MABELVALE/175 Number Percent MANN/273 Number Percent PULASKI HEIGHTS/228 Number Percent SOUTHWEST/199 Number Percent ELIZ. MITCHELL/9 Number Percent PINNACLE POINT/5 Number Percent DISTRICT/1779 Number Percent 198 90 222 92 181 83 179 85 153 87 257 94 202 89 162 81 5 56 1559 88 10 48 10 50 24 65 21 66 12 55 7 44 10 38 15 41 109 50 10 48 6 30 13 35 11 34 9 56 16 62 15 41 1 25 1 20 88 40 2 10 2 10 3 14 5 14 2 50 2 40 11 5 1 25 2 40 12 5 21 10 20 8 37 17 32 15 22 13 16 6 26 11 37 19 4 44 __5 100% 220 12 M F M 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 1 5 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 6 21 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * The number of students tested has been revised to reflect students moving into and out of the district since the second administration and to exclude special education students who may have been included in the second administration summary.Little Rock School District RECE!Er\u0026gt; OCT 6 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring DATE: October 1, 1992 TO: Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Marie A. Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity SUBJECT: Annual Report for 1991-92 The enclosed State Report was submitted to the LRSD School Board on September 24, 1992. The report will be submitted to Arkansas State Department of Education on/or before October 15, 1992. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at 324-2270. rjg: 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Annual Report for 1991-92 Little Rock School District Board and District Work Toward Achieving Long-range Goals Long-range goals adopted for the District in 1989 by the Little Rock School Board continue to be our focal points for improvement: increasing educational achievement for all students, establishing climates of excellence in all schools and enhancing human relations skills for Dis-trict employees. Academic Achievement The Stanford Achievement Test was administered in April 1992 to 19,287 students in grades one through 11. Because this is the first year for administering the Stanford, a longitudinal display of data is not given. However, results are encouraging. (See report of Stanford scores included as an attachment to this report.) On the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT), scores are reported for a five-year period. (See report of MPT results included as an attachment to this report.) Eighty-eight percent of Little Rock students tested in grade three passed the MPT in reading. Ninety-one percent of the third graders passed the math portion. In the reading area, 92 percent and 85 percent passed in grades six and eight, respectively. At the eighth grade level, the third administration of the test showed marked improvement in the percentage of students passing the test, with all but two junior high schools having at least an 85 percent passing rate. The 1992 percent pass rate for the District is 88 percent. Strategies to increase performance in the Arkansas minimum performance test include tutoring, increased reading and mathematics assistance, computer assisted instruction, more homework and cooperative learning. In terms of long-range achievement, the District began to implement recommendations of the Board-approved curriculum audit performed by the National 1 Curriculum Audit Center of Arlington, Va. Results were reported in January 1991 and serve as the basis for the No More Excuses posture outlined by the superintendent in March 1991. The  -- administration was authorized by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for Little Rock students which is comprehensive, relevant, challenging and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12. This covered the core areas of the curriculum (reading, language arts, math, science and social studies), as well as gifted/talented, physical education and vocational education. Implementation began in August 1992. The scope of this revised curriculum exceeds required statewide assessment requirements. Local schools have some flexibility in implementing the curriculum as they make decisions regarding teaching strategies, methodologies and resources. Additionally, curriculum guides were sequentially developed and objectives have been correlated to the skills in the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test and the Stanford Eight non-referenced test. Also in August 1992, an Instructional Management System was implemented to enable teachers, administration and parents to monitor progress of individual students and provide corrective prescriptions to improve learning. It can monitor the effectiveness of instruction through an assessment component aligned with the curriculum, also. The District will continue to emphasize and expand early childhood education, homework programs, extended day activities, restructuring efforts at the junior high level and secondary Revenues 1991-92 Local State, Other, 43.1%  State, Other, $49,292,940 H Local, $64,998,181 Total, $114,291,121 2 Expenditures 1991-92 Other Objects, 1,53%  Magnets, 3.32% Debt Service, 7.06% Capital Outlay, 3.52% a   Supplies, Materials, 3.56% a   Salaries/Benefits, $82,183,954 Purchased Services $9,036,188 Supplies, Materials $4,010,760 Capital Outlay $3,959,731 Debt Service $7,950,100 Magnets $3,738,667 Other Objects $1,724,698 Purchased Services, 8.02% Total: $112,604,098 Salaries/Benefits, 72.99% reading and mathematics assistance programs to address academic achievement issues. Two new magnet schools were planned by the District and approved for opening in the fall of 1992 by the federal court: Henderson Health Science Magnet Junior High and McClellan Business/ Communications Magnet High School. The number of incentive schools was increased to seven with the inclusion of Franklin Elementary. Incentive schools continued to offer extended day, Saturday school, full-time counselors, auxiliary teachers and small classes. The number of elementary schools offering free four-year-old programs was increased from seven to 11. Those schools. Rightsell, Romine, Mitchell and Woodruff, joined the previous schools of Rockefeller, Badgett, Franklin, Garland, Ish, Stephens and Washington. Also, results from the Districts successful millage election in 1990 continued to be evident. Major construction projects were completed at Geyer Springs, Western Hills, Woodruff and Cloverdale elementary schools, Cloverdale Junior High School and McClellan Business/Communications Magnet High School. Remodeling and construction began at Forest Heights Junior High School. Construction and/or site improvement projects are on schedule at approximately 20 other schools in the District. 3Positive School Climate On April 30, 1991, the City of Little Rock, the LRSD and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arkansas announced a program to help in the battle against the abuse of alcohol and other drugs. This unique program is an insurance policy which covers all children enrolled in the LRSD and provides coverage for treatment of problems arising from substance abuse. It is tlte only one of its kind in the nation. During 1991-92,264 students were referred for assessment, 75 percent of whom had no private insurance coverage for substance abuse treatment. Various restructuring efforts for improved organization and delivery of instruction and services continued, including work at four junior high schools under the umbrella of the New Futures for Little Rock Youth program. Funding assistance for the restructuring in the four schools continued from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Center for Leadership in School Reform. Also, the collaborative work between the District and the Arkansas Health Department continued at two school-based health clinics for improved health services to students . The Johnson and Johnson Community Health Foundation continued its commitment to the effort with the award of an additional $20,000 grant to the clinic at Forest Heights Junior High School. A third clinic, to open in the fall of 1992 at McClellan High School, was approved by the Board. Academic progress incentive grants of $25,000 each were awarded to area schools for school improvement projects. Safety and security continued to be a priority. In February 1992, the use of hand-held scanning devices to detect metal was begun and frequent, random searches at secondary schools continue. This was part of the continuing response to needs identified in the Safety and Security Task Force Report in 1989 and to the 53-point action plan for safe schools developed in 1991. Dr. Ruth Steele announced in October 1991 her resignation as superintendent, effective July 1, 1992. The LRSD Board of Directors formed a search committee and Dr. Mac Bernd was hired in May 1992. The focus on the school as the basic unit for the delivery of quality education to students will continue in the 1992-93 school year. A reorganization of central office staff will provide principals closer access to the office of the superintendent. Local school plans will continue to be used to improve instruction and learning in aU schools. Twenty-six schools are in 4the first or second year of the five-year rotating cycle of the Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (COE) effort begun in 1990. COE is the evaluation process designed by the state to accredit schools which combines state and North Central Accreditation criteria. Human Relations During 1991-92, the primary mission of the Districts Staff Development Department was to provide District employees with professional growth experiences that support the Districts goal of educational excellence and equity for all students. These experiences were designed and implemented according to the (1) mandates of the desegregation plan\n(2) specific identified needs as reflected in the local schools annual improvement plans\nand (3) district-wide expectations. Areas addressed included effective teaching, teacher expectations and student achievement, classroom management, cooperative/team learning, learning styles, self-esteem for students, at-risk students, classroom discipline, stress management, thinking skills, prejudice reduction training, new teacher/mentor program and subject area mini-courses. In the annual survey of attitudes toward human relations in LRSD schools, a comparative analysis of the results at each organizational level showed that items ranked as areas of greatest priority varied from those identified in 1991, with several differences in relative standing. The 1992 data revealed new areas of priority, including the need for voluntary visits by parents at the junior high and senior high levels\nparent promotion of the instructional program\nand involvement of parents and community members in school decisions through advisory committees. Improvement was noted relative to respect among teachers, students, parents and administrators\nand fairness and consistency relative to school rules and student discipline. Although the perception of junior high parents relative to school safety improved, the area remains a concern for junior high parents. As reported in 1991, collective data from each organizational level (excluding junior high parents) showed that respondents from the majority of the subgroups did not regard safety within the school as a major concern. More work will continue in this area during the 1992-93 school year as the results of the annual surveys are used to improve interaction among our students. 5Progress Made on Desegregation Plan Implementation On December 13, 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the Settlement Plan agreed on by the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District in 1989 for operation of desegregated schools. Following the court ruling, timelines in the 1989 plan were revised and necessary modifications were made to reflect the status of programs that had been implemented and were being retained. While there will continue to be adjustments to details in the plan among the parties, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the court to assure compliance, tlie District continues to improve its ability to offer students, parents and patrons stability and predictability in terms of school assignments and other aspects that affect school choice decisions. 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) DISTRICTWIDE SUMMARY 1992 ENVIRONMENT* GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BAITERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W 0 2094 1330 697 2 4 42/45.8 35/41.9 63/57.0 66/58.8 48/49.0 40/44.6 70/61.1 74/63.3 41/45.1 32/40.2 63/57.2 68/60.1 37/42.9* 27/37.3 59/55.0 49/49.5 45/47,5 36/42.4 67/59.5 74/63.5 39/44.0 31/39.5 64/57.8 67/59.1 2 TOTAL B \\ W O 1883 1173 672 28 39/44.1 29/38.1 62/56.2 63/56.9 57/53.8 46/47.7 77/65.6 87/73.6 49/49.7 39/43.9 70/60.9 64/57.4 43/46.3* 32/40.0 65/58.0 67/59.3 45/47.4 34/41.3 69/60.3 73/62.6 45/47.3 33/40.8 70/61.2 74/63.5 3 TOTAL B W 0 1783 1131 632 18 39/44.2 27/36.9 63/57.0 57/53.8 58/54.1 46/47.8 76/65.1 80/68.0 50/50.0 38/43.8 70/60.9 68/59.6 43/46.1 30/38.8 67/59.1 63/57.1 46/48.0 35/41.6 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 68/5S: . 7 4 TOTAL B W 0 1867 1211 632 23 44/47.0 33/40.9 67/59.I 60/55.4 57/53.9 49/49.2 73/63.0 76/65.1 46/47.6 35/42.1 65/58.0 64/57.4 46/47.6 34/41.5 68/60.0 66/58.7 48/49.0 38/43.5 68/59.7 69/60.3 48/49.0 38/43.6 68/59.7 67/59.0 47/48.2 36/42.2 68/60.0 67/59.0 5 TOTAL B W 0 1922 1288 612 22 38/43.3 26/36.6 63/56.8 58/54.1 53/51.7 43/46.5 71/61.9 83/69.9 48/48.7 38/43.7 67/59.1 66/58.7 45/47.4 33/40.6 70/61.2 74/63.6 46/48.1 37/43.1 65/58.2 70/60.8 44/46.8 34/41.1 65/58.3 71/61.5 44/46.7 32/40.4 67/59.2 72/62.4 6 TOTAL B W o 1843 1209 609 25 50/49.9 37/42.8 74/63.6 67/59.2 57/53.8 48/48.7 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 48/49.0 76/65.0 72/62.0 54/52.1 43/46.4 73/63.1 72/62.2 54/52.1 43/46.0 75/64.0 73/62.6 7 TOTAL B W O 1694 1122 550 21 42/45.5 31/39.3 70/61.0 72/62.2 45/47.4 36/42.2 64/57.3 75/64.3 43/46.1 33/40.7 64/57.7 70/61.1 42/45.6 31/39.7 65/57.9 75/64.5 47/48.6 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 78/66.0 8 TOTAL B W O 1573 1060 493 19 41/45.2 29/38.5 67/59.4 73/62.6 39/44.0 30/38.8 59/54.7 87/73.6 48/49.1 38/43.6 69/60.7 81/68.5 45/47.4 34/41.3 68/60.1 77/65.7 46/48.0 34/41.3 72/62.1 83/70.0 43/46.2 32/40.0 66/58.6 84/71.2 43/46.1 30/39.2 68/59.8 86/72.6 9 TOTAL B W 0 1554 995 536 23 44/46.6 30/39.2 68/60.1 63/57.2 34/41.2 23/34.1 57/53.9 68/59.6 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 47/48.2 34/41.1 70/61.0 71/61.7 48/48.8 34/41.1 73/62.6 73/62.9 10 TOTAL B W 0 1602 949 609 41 49/49.2 35/41.8 72/62.3 64/57.4 37/43.2 26/36.7 56/53.1 58/54.0 47/48.6 34/41.5 68/60.0 59/54.6 45/47.3 32/39.9 67/59.0 64/57.3 43/46.2 30/38.7 66/58.4 57/53.8 47/48.4 34/41.2 68/60.1 64/57.7 47/48.5 32/40.4 70/61.2 65/58.2 11 TOTAL B W O 1472 825 612 35 50/49.8 34/41.4 69/60.7 66/58.4 43/46.5 32/40.1 59/54.6 62/56.4 48/49.1 35/41.9 66/58.5 61/56.1 47/48.6 32/40.2 68/59.7 58/54.4 51/50.6 36/42.7 69/60.7 72/62.3 51/50.4 36/42.3 70/60.8 69/60.5 51/50.4 34/41.3 72/62.1 70/61i 0 * At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected ar. r.corn nndnr ENVIRONMENT..?BAJ\u0026gt;t*_9 No. Tested No. Passed 120 8 1765 1513 19 8? readThg 1799 1 59 0 SInt._ES.ia.4_i._ill___SS. ills i6 1220 1709 1542 lA 1991 1722 1615 n KEADIIIG UO ISi LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERIOIUIANCE TEST RESULTS OISTniCT SUMMARY FIVE YEAH COMPARISON FIROT ADMINISTRATION 1908 TIiROUGlI 1992 1-215 1292 READING 1229 1221 1212 1229 1292 MATHEMATICS 1220 1211 122? i No. Tested Uo. Passed percent Passed 122? 1875 1725 m? 1299 17 65 1518 ..9A 188 184 1 1541 8 4 HATliEMATT\u0026lt;:S 1212 1220 1790 1602 1 709 154 4 19 4 6 1603 86 .1221 1722 1558 IU. 1950 1709 87 1212 1875 1671 ... fj. MATHEMATICS ISfi. mi i22 1863 1616 _^.ei 1199 17 65 1301 ___Ll. 1 803 1503 00 1044 1566 1946 1735 19 58 16 9 4 1063 1620 .1___85____811___07 J__0 7 ITkUGUAGE ARTS llfil 1220 1121 1221 1199. 12SS 1803 1635 __9 1 1.29.2 SCIENCE 12 22 1221 1221 1299 SOCIAL SrUDH..', 1292 1 229 1 ? 3 1 1 798 1354 1709 1315 1722 1336 1875 1446 1765 1135 1799 1196 1709 1223 1722 1255 1 875 1410 17 65 1157 I 199 1 265 1 709 1 H 8 1 7 . 1 2. 187 5 1 )8 Z li ._21L__2A lAHGUAGE ARTS ill ISO mi 71 mi _ ttl 7jJ 7.J _ { T) .22 . li 2i mi ill SCIENCE 128 121 1221 i 28 a SOCIAL STVJOIES 18 1 ?p 12! OB.AIJE. S No. Tested No. Passed mil 1679 r? teaat-EassslJ.__11. 1 7 99 1623 __29 i 7 5 \u0026amp; 1562 __82. 1792 1561 .17 170 1 1505 _..15. lull 1 609 1799 1 608 __llL.-.Sl 1756 1536 11 1792 1506 11 170 1 1 523 _-.91 18 11 1560 11 it 99 1537 11 1756 1478 1792 1467 b\n1701 1 4 35 __Bl 1811 1 272 11 1 /99 1 207 1 7 56 1 290 ill. 11 1792 1121 ii 1781 1110 ___ 18 11 127) ...ip 1 ?9'J 13)1 ...7 i 112 1 1 /\u0026gt;- I I J 4 I za I .7} 11 IfLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADMINISTRATION 1 9 9 2. TOTAL TEST PASSING SCORE = 4204 STUDENTS FAILING SCHOOL/NO. TESTED* STUDENTS PASSING BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL CLOVERDALE/219 Number Percent DUNBAR/242 Number Percent FOREST HEIGHTS/218 Number Percent HENDERSON/211 Number Percent MABELVALE/175 Number Percent MANN/273 Number Percent PULASKI HEIGHTS/228 Number Percent SOUTHWEST/199 Number Percent ELIZ. MITCHELL/9 Number Percent PINNACLE POINT/5 Number Percent DISTRICT/1779 Number Percent 198 90 222 92 181 83 179 85 153 87 257 94 202 89 162 81 5 56 1559 88 10 48 10 50 24 65 21 66 12 55 1 44 10 38 15 41 109 50 10 48 6 30 13 35 11 34 9 56 16 62 15 41 1 25 1 20 88 40 3 14 2 50 2 40 11 5 2 10 5 14 1 25 2 40 12 5 21 10 20 8 37 17 32 15 22 13 16 6 26 11 37 19 4 44 __5 lOQ! 220 12 0 M F M 0 2 0 0 0 0 F 1 5 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 o, .X 0 0 * The number of students tested has been revised to reflect students moving into and out of the district since the second administration and to exclude special education students who may have been included in the second administration summary.Annual Report for 1992-93 Little Rock School District Board and District Work Toward Achieving Long-range Goals Long-range goals adopted for the District in 1989 by the Little Rock School Board continuf to be our focal points for improvement\nincreasing educadonai achievement for all students, establishing climates of excellence in ail schools, and enhancing human relations skills for o District employees. Academic Achievement The Stanford Achievement Test was administered in April 1993 to 18,777 students in grades one through 11. In comparison to the 1991-92 districtwide percentile, scores show that at the primary and intermediate grade levels scores for total reading, total mathematics, and language increased from the previous year. There was an increase in science and social studies as well. (See report of Stanford scores included as an attachment to this report.) The percentile ranking for the secondary levels showed increases or stability in reading, mathematics, and English, with the exception of grade eleven. A representative sampling of principals across organizational levels reported that numerous strategies were being employed to reduce the disparity that still remains between black and white students. Some of the strategies mentioned were peer tutoring, teaching reading two times a day, accuracy of placement, flexible assignments, an early morning tutorial program, and remediation of students through the use of Academic Skills Development Plans. The Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT) scores are reported for a five-year period. The test was admimstered in grades three, six, and eight. (See report of MPT results included as an attachment to this rer'on.) In the 1992-93 academic year, 86 percent of ail students tested in third grade passed reading\n1 88 percent passed mathematics. Passing percentages for third grade black students were 81 percent in reading and 8 j percent in mathematics. Ninety-six percent of third grade white J students passed both of these areas. At the sixth grade level, passing percentages for all tested students ranged from 91 percent in reading to 76 percent in language ans and social studies. Eighty-seven percent of third grade white students passed reading\nninety-nine percent of the sixth grade white students passed in this area. Eighty-seven percent of the eighth grade students who were tested passed the total test. At the eighth grade level, passing percentages for black students ranged from 82 percent in reading to 51 percent in science. The range for white students was 95 percent passing reading to 85 percent passing social studies. A slightly greater percentage of black students passed reading an in the previous year. The 1993 Arkansas Legislature passed a bill which allows eighth grade students to be promoted to the ninth grade without passing the MPT, as was previously required. This bill was implemented in 1993\ntherefore, no eighth grade students were retained solely on the basis of their failure to pass the 1993 MPT. Strategies to increase performance in the Arkansas Minimum Performance test include tutoring, increased reading and mathematics assistance, computer assisted instruction, more homework, and cooperative learning. State, 2 Expenditures 1992-93 Debt Services, 8.52% Services, Supplies, Equipment, 18.54%  Services, Supplies, Equipment, $20,795,262 Salaries/Benefits, 72.94% a  Salaries/Benefits, $81,820,303 Debt Services, $9,554,535 Total: $112,170,100 The District will continue to emphasize and expand early childhood education, homework programs, extended day activities, restructuring efforts at the junior high level, and secondary reading and mathematics assistance programs to address academic achievement issues. Two new magnet schools opened in the fall of 1992: Henderson Health Science Magnet Junior High and McClellan Business/Communications Magnet High School. Incentive schools continued to offer extended day, Saturday school, full-time counselors, auxiliary teachers, and small classes. The number of elementary schools offering free four-year-old programs was increased from 11 to 16, making them available in Badgett, Bale, Cloverdale, Franklin, Garland, Geyer Springs, Ish, Mitchell, Rightseil, Rockefeller, Romine, Stephens, Washington, Watson, Wilson, and Woodruff schools. Also, during the 1992-93 school year, the most significant building projects completed were the addition to Forest Heights Junior High and the construction of the Martin Luther King Jr. Interdistrict Elementary School. To date, the District has expended approximately 80 percent of the bond issues and completed 132 projects which include building improvements as well as new facilities. Twenty-five projects are scheduled for the 1993-94 school year. 3Positive School Climate In the annual survey of attitudes toward human relations in LRSD schools, a comparative analysis of the results at each organizational level showed that items ranked as areas of greatest priority varied from those identified in 1992, with several differences in relative standing. The 1993 data revealed new areas of priority including the need for more student respect for teachers and other students and a need for students to be more excited about learning. A concern was that slow learners did not receive as much praise as more advanced students. Another concern was that pupils felt that the school rules were not fair. Improvement was noted relative to involvement of parents and community members at the elementary and high school levels in school decisions through advisory committees. Safety and security continued to be apriority. In February 1992, the use of hand-held scanning devices to detect metal was begun and frequent, random searches at secondary schools continue. This was part of the continuing response to needs identified in the Safety and Security Task Force Report in 1989 and to the 53-point action plan for safe schools developed in 1991. Curriculum and Staff Development The Little Rock School District was authorized by the Board of Directors to design and develop a written curriculum that is comprehensive, relevant, challenging, and developmentally appropriate for kindergarten through twelfth grade. With this charge, a revised curriculum was developed in the 1991-92 school year and implemented beginning with the 1992-93 school year. The board also approved the installation and use of a technology system to monitor and assess student progress in mastering the revised curriculum. This new system, the Abacus Instructional Management System, was piloted in twenty-two elementary schools and two junior high schools during the 1992-93 school year. Implementation of the revised curriculum and its computer management system was moni- tored throughout the 19^-93 school year, and a curriculum debriefing meeting was held with a committee of teachers and administrators at the end of the 1992-93 school year. Feedback from 4monitoring and the debriefing meeting suggested that the curriculum was being used by teachers at all levels and was viewed by teachers, principals, and parents as a strong document that has to the potential to make a marked difference in student achievement. Teachers reponed that the curriculum is closely correlated to the LRSD standardized testing program and reflects the latest initiatives in curriculum development at the national level. Staff development provided for the revised curriculum was reported by teachers as a positive experience. Although curriculum implementation and training for multiple subject areas all at one time was not always viewed by teachers as the ideal method for curriculum renewal, the end result was positive. A \"trainer of trainers\" curriculum workshop was conducted in August 1992. One teacher for each subject area from each school received initial training about the revised curriculum. These trainers provided curriculum training for all teachers at each local building during the 1992-93 pre-school conference. In addition, elementary curriculum grade level to^ cluster meetings were held throughout the first semester of 1992-93. Each elementary teacher attended four sessions: language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Secondary traimng sessions were held through subject area cluster meetings and secondary council meetings. A large scale training program for the Abacus Instructional Management System was also undertaken in 1992-93. Training sessions for curriculum supervisors were followed by sessions for the principals and teachers at 24 pilot schools. Trainees learned to access curriculum objectives in the computer, make tests from a test item bank correlated to the objectives, and use teacher observation records and teacher-made tests to assess student mastery of curriculum objectives. During the summer of 1993, teacher committees worked to add items to the test item bank and to revise existing test items. Abacus will continue at the pilot schools and will be expanded to include the remainder of the elementary schools during the 1993-94 school term. Student and class reports generated from Abacus will give teachers, principals, and parents an up-to-date record of how well an individual student or group of students is mastering the objectives in the revised curriculum. This data will give parents, teachers, principals, curriculum supervisors, and admimstrators a basis for effecting change at the district, school, classroom, and family level.Desegregation Audit and Review During the 1992-93 school year, the LittleRock School District initiated a Desegregation Audit/Review. The purpose of the audit, as commissioned by the Superintendent, was to determine the degree to which each program of the Desegregation Plan had been implemented. What began as an assessment of implementation evolved into the formation of a system for monitoring, reporting, and determining the level of success of the Desegregation Plan. 6SLIP SHEET TO AGENDA 09-22-94 Annual Report for 1993-94 Little Rock School District NEW DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS Of major importance to the Little Rock School District (LRSD) in the coming years, is the review of LRSDs mission statement and goals. Dr. Henry P. Williams, superintendent, requested a day-long planning session to review the direction the school district should take. The group developed a new mission statement and listed six major goals for the district. The group consisted of members of the board of directors, district administrators, Classroom Teachers Association and Parent Teachers Association members. Office of Desegregation Monitoring representatives, Joshua Intervenors, and a variety of community members. Both the goals and mission statement printed below provide direction for the district s educational and academic focus\ninsures equity for students, parents, and staff\nguides budget planning\nand emphasizes staff development and school safety. LRSD Mission Statement The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the Districts curriculum.This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education. LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GOALS 1. Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. 2. Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. 3. The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day-to-day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. 4. Solicit and secure financial and other support our schools, including our desegregation plan. resources that are necessary to fully 5. Provide a safe and orderly climate that is students. conducive to learning for all 6. Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT The Stanford Eight Achievement Test was administered during the spring of 1994, to more than 18,000 students in grades one through 11. A Complete 2Battery was used to assess student achievement mathematics, English, science, and social in the areas of reading, reviewed separately for the diagnostic results of individual. science. When scored, subtests may be strengths and weaknesses. class, or grade level The 1994, districtwide average percentile totals showed that percentile ranks at the school level remained fairly stable. (Percentile points ranae from a low of one to a high of 99 with 50 being (Percentile points range from average.) Grades 4, 5, 6, and 10 scored at or above the fiftieth percentile on the complete battery test district level. However, from Spring 1992 scores at the indicated some increase to Spring 1994, seven of 11 grades complete battery at the district level. in the average percentile rank of the Stanford 8 A sample of principals reported that strategies were being developed and Will be implemented to focus on reducing achievement disparity. Some of the strategies shared were team teaching, individualized tutoring in mathematics and science, smaller classes, a program entitled Math-Plus, Reading Clubs for at- risk students, test taking skills, an after school homework and tutoring program, and a Reading and Language Direct Instruction Program. Arkansas Minimum Performance Test The Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT) five-year period. In.1993-94, the scores are reported for a Third-grade students test was administered in grades six and eight. were not tested, as was previously required. The 1993-94 school year was the last year of administration of the MPT. 3At the sixth grade level, passing percentages for all tested students ranged from 91 percent in reading to 78 percent in language arts. Ninety-seven percent of sixth grade white students passed reading\neighty-eight percent of the sixth grade black students passed in this area. Passing percentages for eighth grade students who were tested ranged from 83 percent in reading to 60 percent in science. At the eighth grade level, passing percentages for black students ranged from 76 percent in reading to 47 percent in science. The range for white students was 96 percent passing reading to 88 percent passing science. A slightly greater percentage of eighth grade students improved their scores in social studies over the previous year. Some strategies to enhance learning and increase achievement for all students based on areas of need identified on the Arkansas Minimum Performance test include Academic Skills Development Plans, Math-Plus, Language Arts-Plus, tutoring\nhomework centers, use of Abacus (the districts instructional management system), and implementing a variety of teaching methods and educational programs. Principals also identified the need to continue staff development in human relations to improve student performance. Climate/Hu man Relations Sun^'ey A School Climate\\Human Relations Survey is conducted each year by the LRSD. The purpose of the survey is to gather opinions concerning teacher- student relations, instruction, school security, student-peer relations. parent- school relations, etc. The results are used to develop plans to capitalize on the strengths and remedy weaknesses. 4Data from the 1994 survey indicated that at least two-thirds of parents, students, and teachers surveyed agreed on several items: They were knowledgeable about their rights and responsibilities at their respective schools, and all three groups agreed that teachers treat one another with respect. The following items were among those that received the highest percentage of always and usually answers by each group: Students were knowledgeable about their rights and responsibilities, and also answered positively concerning the treatment of librarians and secretaries at schools. Among the items receiving the highest percentage of always and usually answers from teachers were that parents were welcome at school, received reports of student progress at conferences, and that principals treated parents with respect. Items to which parents most frequently responded always and a usually indicated that they agreed with the above findings. Answers to survey items also pointed to weaknesses. Some of the areas of concern identified indicated that: Students, teachers, and parents held the opinion that students did not treat other students with respect, and teachers expressed the opinion that students did not treat teachers with respect. Additionally, the survey indicated that it is the perception of parents that teachers do not expect low achievers to respond as often as other students. Information derived from the School Climate\\Human Relations Survey will serve as a useful tool in reinforcing those positive aspects of parental awareness and planning for better communications for the 1994-95 academic year. 5Curriculum and Staff Development The Little Rock School District (LRSD) educational program which provides a quality, integrated children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. established for each subject and grade level. Curriculum objectives have been the elementary level and subject areas. The objectives are introduced at are expanded as students advance toward mastery of In order to meet the National Education establishment of new learner Goals, Act 236 of 1991 called for assessment, and professional development. outcomes linked to new curriculum frameworks. The State Board of Education adopted the Arkansas Learner Outcomes in October 1991, and in May of 1992, the State Board adopted a schedule for the rievpinnm.^, curriculum a schedule for the development of frameworks. Frameworks in developed. English, Language Arts, and Mathematics were The Districts current Course Content Guides in . English, Language Arts, and athematics were used for instruction until the 1994-95 school the 1993-94 school local curriculum guides K-12 in year the District used the state frameworks year. During to revise the the following years, LRSD curriculum English, Language Arts, and Mathematics. During frameworks for remaining will be revised in accordance with state course content areas. LRSD offers 18 challenging advanced placement students assuring that all students will be allowed courses for high school to prepare for the future at their own level of learning. A Youth Apprenticeship Program is offered at 6 t IMetropolitan VoTech Education Center, and it provides students with on-the-job training and related classroom instruction. LRSD offers Tech Prep which is designed to guide students into higher level academic and vocational courses giving them the strong technical and academic foundations on which to build their future. Quality staff development was executed in 1992 to support the implementation of the revised District curriculum through the trainer of trainers model for administrators and teachers. (975) workshops were conducted during the 1993-94 school Nine hundred and seventy-five thousand eight hundred and year, and nine received Professional Growth Training and ninety-seven (9,897) educators enrolled and programs and teaching methods: training credits in the following PET, TESA, Classroom Management, Cooperative learning, Learning Styles, and Thinking SkiUs. staff development training was well received by administrators and by the Staff Development teachers. The hands-on computer training, and implementaUon of the Abacus instructional Management System by the Staff Development and Media/Instructional Technology Departments instructional management tool. ensured the use of this viable Training for the Abacus Instructional Management for all teachers in 14 additional elementary schools this System was provided classes were offered year, and refresher at the districts Instructional Resource Center. sessions were held in the evenings for principals. During the Special year, 72 sessions of Abacus training were held for a total of 810 1993-94 school The training will equip teachers with the skills participants. and knowledge to use Abacus to 7monitor on a regular basis individual student students strengths and needs, ability to generate reports for growth as well as diagnosis of Additional features of the Abacus system are its parent conferences, obtain immediate feedback of test results, identify supplementary objectives, and to develop individual lesson resources correlated to curriculum plans for students. During the summer of 1994, objectives were added revised mathematics and language to the Abacus system along with additional correlated to the revised objectives. arts Abacus as the record-keeping system of the All elementary schools will test items I now use District. DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The Desegregation Plan to by the Little Rock School District, the North was approved in May 1992. The plan was agreed Pulaski County Special School District for Little Rock School District, and the operation of desegregated schools. During the 1993-94 school year, the Little Rock School District identified all Obligations, within our plan, within our court orders, and within monitoring reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Little Rock School  The Little Rock School is updated by Program District Planning, Research and Evaluation Department. District has incorporated a living document which Managers on a Quarterly basis. obligations. This living document called the PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT is used to monitor progress in meeting our defined The Little Rock School District has students to their Attendance Zone schools. undertaken a major effort to assign all unless other choices were approved. 8The district is following our obligation to phase out Grandfathering, whereby students were allowed to remain in their current school, whether or not the school was the Attendance Zone school. Because of this effort, many Incentive School students have elected to go to their Attendance Zone school. This effort resulted in a total increase of 165 students in our incentive schools in August of 1994 over the October 1993 student count. This increase occurred with one (1) less Incentive School in 1994-95 than in 1993-94. The Little Rock School District also has moved toward actively and aggressively recruiting students to our district. During the 1993-94 school year, a districtwide recruitment plan was written to address requirements in the desegregation plan, court orders, as well as monitoring reports. The document includes plans for incentive, area, magnet and interdistrict schools. As part of the districtwide recruitment plan, each school is required to have an individual recruitment plan and a school recruitment team to implement activities in their plan. Recruitment efforts for Clinton Elementary, Pulaski County Special School Districts new mterdistrict elementary school, were extremely successful. More than 200 Little Rock School District students were part of the desegregation exchange and will now attend Clinton Elementary. LRSDs four-year-old program continues to grow and serve parents of preschool children in preparing them for kindergarten. With the addiUon of eight more classes, the district enrolled 695 students in the program for the 1994-95 school year, an increase of 203 students over last year. The Little Rock School District wUl continue to comply with every aspect of our Desegregation Plan. 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for ethnic and cultural diversity, develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the District's curriculum. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education.URSD Annual eport r, A Progress Report on the Little Rock School District 2003-2003 School Year advertising supplement i fall 2003 | Little Rock School District This is the fifth annual report that the Little Rock School District has prepared as an insert to inform the community about the highlights of the prior school year. Despite many challenges, the 2002-03 school year was successful in terms of growth in many academic indicators. Student learning is, and will always be, the primary focus in our schools. classes have been relocated during the process at some campuses, but the end result is worth the disorder as upgraded facilities contribute to a more appropriate and functional teaching and learning environment. The declaration last fall by U.S. District judge Bill Wilson that the Little Rock School District is unitary in all areas except program evaluation was appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments have been held, and the district awaits the courts decision. Work continues in the final area in which the district must comply with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. That piece, program evaluations, is being finalized and will be submitted to judge Wilson in the spring of 2004. Teachers continue to monitor closely student performance on key state and national achievement tests. Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, schools analyze student performance data based on specific subgroups, including race, limited-English-proficient, free/reduced lunch qualification and special education. While many schools experienced double-digit growth on the state Benchmark Exams, in some cases a subgroup performance might have resulted in a school being placed on school improvement. In other cases, if a school made its required improvement during the year, it remained on the school improvement list because two consecutive years of mandated growth are required for a school to be removed from the list. We are working diligently with schools that are on school improvement in order to provide the necessary resources for teachers and administrators to improve students academic achievement. The district has updated its Strategic Plan. This work, done by more than loo community residents working in six major areas, will help to guide the districts direction in the next five years. I look forward to assisting district staff, business and civic leaders, parents and others this school year. The challenges facing our students are great and cannot be overstated. However, I believe that this community has put its support into our schools, and teachers, staff and students will benefit from knowing that public education is highly valued in our city. Morris Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent r I i: On the Inside Construction continues at schools throughout the city. Many major projects, such as Hall High, are complete, while others, such as Williams, are just beginning. Students, teachers and parents have been patient as they have lived through renovations in their buildings. Entire Performance LRSD News Page 2-3 Page 4-5 Honors \u0026amp; Achievements . . .Page 6-7 Construction Zone Page 8 Page 2 I advertising supplement State Benchmark Exams Our Performance A Grade 4 Literacy 1 o LRSD Arkansas Grade 4 Math LRSD Arkansas 1 -\u0026amp;s o    African-Arne ri can 53 46 African-Arne ri can 35 38 Grade 6 Literacy LRSD Arkansas Grade 6 Math LRSD Arkansas White 90 77 White 82 76 African-American 13 14 African-American 8 12 Grade 8 Literacy LRSD Arkansas Grade 8 Math LRSD Arkansas White 49 37 White 54 50 1 Academic Achievement One of the primary issues facing school districts across the state and nation is student academic achievement as measured by accepted examinations. There are two types of exams administered to studentscriterion-referenced exams and norm-referenced exams. Criterion-referenced exams measure student achievement on a specific curriculum or base of knowledge. In the case of students in the Little Rock School District, the Arkansas Benchmark Exam is the criterion-referenced test that students take. It measures how well students are learning the mandated Arkansas standards. As of the 2002-03 school year, the Benchmark Exam was required for students in grades 4, 6 and 8. It also is required as an End-of-Course test for students who take Algebra and Geometry, and all 11th grade students must take the End-of-Course Literacy Benchmark Exam. LRSD students recorded some significant increases at many schools on the Benchmark Exams. Benchmark results presented here indicate the percentage of students who perform at the proficient and advanced levels. There are no national comparisons on the Benchmark Exam since it an Arkansas-developed and -administered test. Algebra African-American 28 25 African-American 45 White 68 57 White 52 33 5 I What steps are being taken to assist students in schools on the school improvement list?  LRSD Arkansas Geometry LRSD Arkansas African-Arne ri can 15 18 African-American 17 11 Grade 11 Literacy LRSD Arkansas African-Arne rican 20 19 White 6o 54 White 63 47 White 71 57 Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, students in schools on school improvement receive supplemental services and school choice options, depending on which year of school improvement the school is placed. The LRSD offers supplemental services, which consists of tutoring by a provider selected by the Arkansas Department of Education, to students in year two of school improvement. All schools in alert status or on the school improvement list develop their school improvement plan to include proven strategies to help students build skills and knowledge in literacy and mathematics. Professional development activities in these schools are geared toward improving teacher preparation to address identified student needs. Principals of LRSD schools on the improvement list are encouraged to work with principals of schools that have scored well on the Benchmark Exam in order to duplicate successful strategies. Our Performance Page 3 I advertising supplement Stanford Achievement Exam \u0026amp; ACT Norm-referenced exams compare student academic performance to that of a national norm group of students who took the same test. This allows a district to see how its students are doing compared to others, regardless of the specific curriculum taught in school. Students in Arkansas must take the Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition, as a norm-referenced exam. Stanford Achievement Exam results are stated as a percentile. For example, a percentile rank of 72 means that these students did as well or better than 72 percent of the students in the norm group who took the same exam, African-American students in the LRSD were within 1 or 2 points of their counterparts in the state at every grade level. White students in the LRSD scored 9-17 percentile points ahead of their peers on the Stanford Achievement Test. Another exam that allows comparisons with students across the nation is the ACT college entrance exam. The districts composite ACT score climbed from 19.0 in 2001-02 to 19.5 in 2002-03. Students in the LRSD showed significant progress in many areas of all of these exams in 2002-03. When scores are disaggregated and comparisons made both within Arkansas and to other students nationally, LRSD students perform quite well. Looking at the scores for the district, state and nation on all three exams, there is an achievement gap that can be accounted for, in part, by poverty. With more than 50 percent of its students who qualify for the free/reduced lunch program, the LRSD continues to focus on methods to help students who are not performing well on standardized exams. Academic achievement remains the LRSDs top priority. Stanford Achievement Exam Grade 5 LRSD Arkansas LRSD Arkansas African-American 35 37 Grade 7 African-American 35 37 White 72 62 White 73 64 What About Schools on the School Improvement List? Readers of the local newspaper may wonder why, with LRSD student scores ahead of the state and nation in many areas on required exams, there are several schools on the states school improvement list. There are several answers to this question. There are some schools in the LRSD which have shown significant improvement on the Benchmark Exam, but they have not reached the level of improvement (Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP) required by the state. Not only must the entire school meet the AYP, but subpopulations, such as limited-English-proficient students, students who qualify for free/reduced lunch and special education students, must meet the same AYP as all other students. Also, once a school is on the school improvement list, it must meet AYP for two consecutive years to be removed from the list. Some LRSD schools did meet AYP this year, but remain on the list until they meet AYP for a second year. All schools on school improvement, indeed all LRSD schools, continue to look closely at test results to determine areas in which to concentrate lessons in order to help students learn the necessary course material and to improve academic performance in the future. I L Grade 10 LRSD Arkansas LRSD Arkansas Nation African-American 30 31 ACT Exam White 72 55 J African-American White 17.1 16.7 16.9 23.0 21.1 21.7  Page 4 I advertising supplement LRSD News J Grants The Little Rock School District is committed to having all of its students reading at or above grade level by the end of the third grade. The district received a three-year Arkansas Reading First grant from the Arkansas Department of Education in the amount of $4,412,184. This grant money will be used to implement a comprehensive, research-based reading program in 12 elementary schools that were determined by 1999-2002 literacy data and other factors to have the greatest need. The Reading First project will build on the districts current literacy plan and will provide human and financial resources to more fully implement that plan. Other new grants implemented in 2002-03: Hall High and Henderson Middle School received 21st Century Community Learning Center grants to establish after-school and summer academic enrichment programs for the next five years. The schools will share a total of up to $1 million over five years. The U. S. Department of Education selected the LRSD to receive funding under the Professional Development for Music Educators Program in the amount of $706,785 over three years to provide ongoing professional development support for LRSD music teachers. The LRSD received the Teaching American History Grant in the amount of $995,953 over a three-year period. The district and its partners will provide professional development for all American history teachers in grades 5, 8 and 11. Paulette Martin, Director of Adult Education, accepts the Adult Education Week Proclamation from Governor Mike Huckabee. Adult Ed Celebrates Milestone The Little Rock Adult Education Center marked 25 years of service to the community. During the past 25 years, the Little Rock Adult Education Center has served nearly 65,000 adults with over 7,000 receiving their Arkansas GED diplomas. The main center and its 18 satellite programs serve over 2,500 adults a year. Classes offered include refresher courses in reading, math and English\nGED preparation\ncomputer-assisted instruction\ncomputer literacy\nfamily literacy\nand English as a second language. Foundation Provides $100,000 in Teacher Grants It wasnt Ed McMahon delivering the Publishers Clearing House grand prize, but it was just as exciting for many teachers and principals in the Little Rock School District. April 2 was the day the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock delivered 32 grants totaling nearly $100,000 throughout the district. Foundation members, donors, city dignitaries, LRSD School Board members and others boarded three school buses to personally deliver balloon bouquets and grant checks to surprised teachers! Each grant met certain criteria, whether it was targeting student achievement, parent involvement or improving teacher quality. kJ A Foundation Board of Directors member Larry Lichty gives Fair Park Elementary's Margaret Isum a hug as she receives her $5,000 grant. -4 I LRSD News Page 5 I advertising supplement SREB Training The Little Rock School District was selected from an elite group of ten urban districts across the nation by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) to be the first to participate in a new national leadership initiative. The goal of the SREB Leadership Initiative is to prepare school and teacher leaders to lead a comprehensive school improvement effort that will result in increased student achievement. All five LRSD high schools as well as four middle schools (Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale and Southwest) are participating in the program. The leadership initiative will provide school leadership teams an intensive three-year curriculum program beginning with the 2002-03 school year. I High schools and several middle schools receive SREB training. 1 Volunteers Give 400,000 Hours Parents and other community residents continue their longstanding practice of serving schools in the LRSD. In 2002-03, volunteer hours climbed above 400,000. This huge commitment of time and energy helps to bolster the work that teachers and other staff do to help students achieve. The growth in volunteer hours has been phenomenal. In the past five years, the number of hours has grown from 187,580 in 1997-98 to 400,031 during the last school year. c o o ZEJ Volunteer Hours iiSO,ooo^^ . 4OO,OCX3 350,000 300,000 250.000 200,000 J 150,000 r 100,000 i. 50,000 0 Bi Uh3fiS0 I II xaM\u0026gt;^ Advanced Placement Enrollment 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 \u0026gt;4i. H t f i     MM! t In order to improve academic achievement, the LRSD encourages students to take challenging courses. One way to do this is through enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) classes at the high school level. AP courses are very rigorous and meet national guidelines in terms of curriculum and college preparation. Students in AP classes may take the national AP exams in the spring. Those students who earn at least a 3 on the national AP exam may, in most cases, earn college credit for these classes. The LRSD has worked with teachers, counselors, students and parents to increase student enrollment in AP classes. To that end, we have been successful. The accompanying chart shows the increase in AP class enrollment in LRSD high schools during the past few years. Since the 1997-98 school year, there has been more than 20 percent annual growth in the number of students enrolled in AP classes and a total growth during that time of more than 100 percent. We expect these students to demonstrate higher levels of academic performance based on the more challenging courses they take, and their success in high school should continue at the college level. Honors \u0026amp; Achievements  * a Page 6 I advertising supplement Yang Dai scored a perfect 36 on the ACT exam.  Katherine Wright Knight was named Arkansas 2003 Teacher of the Year and received the national NEA Foundation Award for Teaching Excellence.  Sharon Boyd-Struthers of Rockefeller Elementary\nTimothy Eubanks of Parkview High\nRuth Eyres of J.A. Fair High\nCatherine Koehler of Baseline Elementary\nand ' Judy Meier of Rockefeller Elementary earned National Teacher Certification from @ the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. National Board Certification is a credential attesting that a teacher has been judged by his or her peers as one who is accomplished and makes sound professional judgments about student learning.  Gillian Glasco and Earnest Sweat, seniors at Parkview Magnet High School, were elected to office at Boys and Girls State. Gillian was elected Governor at Arkansas Girls State, and Earnest was elected Lieutenant Governor at Arkansas Boys State. s\u0026lt;i  Five students from Central High School were Semifinalists this year in the Siemens Westinghouse Competition in Math, Science \u0026amp; Technology. p \\ The Siemens Competition recognizes remarkable talent all over the country and fosters individual growth for high school students who are willing to challenge themselves through science research. The students were Daniel Liu, Satish Mahalingam, Mark Mazumder, Ananth Ranganathan and Xiazhong (Jeff) Wang.  Jeff Fuell and Kenneth Patterson, students at Parkview Magnet High School, had artwork selected for use on commemorative stamps that were issued in 2003 by the U. S. Postal Service celebrating the life of civil rights leader Daisy Bates.  Dr. Linda Brown, principal of Parkview Magnet High School, was named 2003 Principal of the Year by MetLife and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. 2 Oariane Mull recieves her award for best essay in the U.S. Rice Producers Association Essay Contest. 3 Patterson and Fuell display their stamp artwork at a Board of Directors meeting. Central Fed Challenge team? from left-KevIn Luneau. David Mitchell, Jessica Marshall, Chris Burks, Shep 5 Russell, Daniel liu and team sponsor Sam Stueart. Katherine Wright Knight (left) and Dr. Linda Brown meet with First Lady Laura Bush during a reception at the White House honoring recipients of NEA teaching excellence awards.  Nineteen LRSD students were named National Merit Semifinalists in 2002-03, two were named National Achievement Semifinalists, and three were named National Merit Commended Students. The National Merit Semifinalists are: Kyla Achard, Adva Biton, Fredrick Brantley, Kevin Burns, David Gutierrez, Catherine Keisler, Daniel Liu, Mark Mazumder, Colin McAlister, Joseph McDonnell, Stephanie Nielson, Nadia Patel, Rachel Rouby, Brennan Taylor and Benjamin Wells, all from Central High School, and Alison Boland, Benjamin Carson, Jessica Lovelace-Chandler and Lorinda Peoples from Parkview Magnet High School. The National Merit Commended students are Annie B. Bauman and Mary Orsini from Central High School and Dori Scallett from Parkview Magnet High School. The National Achievement Semifinalists are Everette Callaway from J. A. Fair High School and Lorinda Peoples from . Parkview Magnet High School. David Simmons Henrywinner of the John W. Harris Leadership Award.  The MathCounts team from Pulaski Heights Middle School captured the state championship.  The J.A. Fair basketball team captured the Arkansas state 4-A championship.  The Central High chess team earned the title of Chess Association of Arkansas Schools State Champions for the 3A-5A Division. Honors \u0026amp; Achievements^H  A Central High sophomore scored a perfect 36 on the ACT exam. Yang Dai was one of only three students in Arkansas, and 58 nationally, who achieved this distinction.  Thirty-nine students were recognized by the Duke Talent Search State Recognition program. The seventh graders took either the SAT or the ACT assessment to qualify for recognition (the same exams administered to college-bound high school students). ______  The Dunbar PTA was one of only three schools in Arkansas to receive the Certificate of Excellence from the National PTA, and it was named the Arkansas PTA Outstanding Local Unit.  Students at Metropolitan Career-Technical Center took away 26 medals from the 2002 Skills USA competition in Hot Springs. 8  Central High Schools Fed Challenge team bested the defending two-time champion to win the state Fed Challenge championship. The Fed Challenge involves researching the status of the national economy and making recommendations for actions as if the team members were the actual Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System. t Page/ I advertising supplement  The Central High School Lady Tigers varsity womens soccer team won WjkLI the womens 5-A state soccer championship.  Dariane Mull, a 5th grade student at Terry Elementary, won the 5th grade category of the U.S. Rice Producers Association Essay Contest. The contest was open to students in grades 4 to 12 in the rice-producing states of Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas. JOJ 9 j\u0026lt;. / '  The Central tennis team won this years state 5-A state title. The womens team compiled an 'impressive record of 5-A conference and state championships in 2001 and 2003. The mens team has been 5-A conference and state champs every year from 2000 to 2003. JI Utik  Five LRSD teachers and two students were honored with the 2003 Stephens Award. Jackson T. Stephens and the late W. R. Witt Stephens formed this program in 1985 to provide scholarships to outstanding students and cash awards to exceptional educators in Little Rock. The award-winning students were Mark M. Mazumder and Nadia A. Patel of Central High School. The outstanding teachers were: Kimberly Dade, Kirby Shofner and Amy Snodgrass of Central High\nVannessa Pace-Hampton, Parkview High\nand Hosea D. Malone, Hall High. (9)  Anne Ye, a 7th grade student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, won the Arkansas state spelling bee championship and represented Arkansas in the National Spelling Bee in Washington.  David Simmons Henry, an 8th grade student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, received the John W. Harris Leadership Award from the National Beta Club. Only 50 students nationwide (25 senior high and 25 junior high/middle school) are recognized each year. Anne Ye-state spelling bee champion. Central Chess Team: From left-johnson Wong, Coach Joe Gray, Joe Liu, Victor Harris. Barbara Luke (president of CAAS) and Coach Chuck West. MathCounts Team from Rilaski Heights Middle School. Dunbar PTSA president lana Hunter Geft) and principal )ohn Bacon with national PTA president Linda Modge at the national PTA convention in Charlotte. NC. National Merit and National Achievement Semifinalists.  Central High seniors Adva Biton, Fredrick Brantley and Stephanie Nielson and Parkview senior Kristen Olson received Achievement Awards in Writing from the National Council of Teachers of English. They were judged as being among the best student writers in the country. t. ( I I 1 ) I I I Page 8 I advertising supplement Construction Zone q A Construction Progress at LRSD Schools Improvements continue on many LRSD schools, thanks to the millage increase approved by Little Rock voters in 2000. While work wraps up on a few schools and continues on some, it is just beginning on others. During the summer of 2003, Wakefield Elementary held a groundbreaking for a building to replace the school that was accidentally destroyed by fire in 2002. Things are progressing rapidly at Mann Magnet Middle School where students will be in the new multi-story building next semester. Central High Schools exterior renovations are complete. The interior refurbishment of classrooms and offices continues. Major construction work continues at Williaips Elementary and Mabelvale Middle School. Construction has begun at Dunbar, while Hall Highs new gymnasium and classrooms are complete. o Central High School Construction. I- 6 I - 8 1 9 0 Terry Elementary School Media Center Construction. Construction Outside Dunbar. A  Brady Elementary Classroom Construction. s  Mabelvale Middle School Construction. Wakefield groundbreaking: From left-parent Ron Harrington, LRSD Interim Superintendent Morris Holmes, former Board president Judy Magness. Wakefield principal Les Taylor. Wakefield student lazmlne Coleman and UALR Share America representative Cheryl Chapman take part in the groundbreaking for the new Wakefield Elementary building. Dunbar Classroom Construction. Mabelvale Middle School Construciton. Hall High Construction. 5 1 Board of Directors: Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Mike Daugherty, Bryan Day, Baker Kurrus, Larry Berkley, Tony Rose, Sue Strickland How much of the 2000 millage bond proceeds has been spent? As of the printing of this annual report, more than $98 million has been invested in the voter-approved school and technology improvements. That total includes expended and encumbered (contracted) projects. Contracts for building additions and renovations at Parkview Magnet High School and Brady Elementary will be awarded this fall. Design plans are almost complete for improvements at Mitchell Elementary. Little Rock School District  8io West Markham  Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 447-1000 www.LRSD.org 11 'I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST .MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, .ARKANSAS 72201 DATE: October 23, 2003 RECEIVED TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors OCT 2 2 2003 FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject: 2002-03 Annual Report Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcomes: Arkansas Department of Education (.ADE) Rules Governing Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools, Standard 7.02.2, requires each school district to publish an annual report in a newspaper with general circulation in the district before November 15 of each school year, a report to the public detailing progress toward accomplishing program goals, accreditation standards, and proposals to correct deficiencies. Further, Standard 7.03.3.1 requires each school board, prior to November 15, to hold a public meeting to review and discuss its annual report. To provide a summary of the information that will be included in the published 2002-03 annual report. To raise public awareness of the districts activities and performance during the 2002-03 school year and to comply with ADE directives. Budget Amt.: Cost of publishing the annual report is about $8,600. Additional copies are printed for district use as a recruitment tool and information brochure during the school year. The summary of the annual report is provided. Major information categories in the report include academic performance and student discipline\nboth areas have been previously reported to the Board. Other information included relates to program/grant information and achievements/honors.Annual Report 2002-03 Superintendents Message to the Community an This is the fifth annual report that the Little Rock School District has prepared as insert to inform the community about the highlights of the prior school year. Despite many challenges, the 2002-03 school year was successful in terms of growth in many academic indicators. Student learning is, and will always be, the primary focus in our schools. Teachers continue to monitor closely student performance on key state and national achievement tests. Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, schools analyze student performance data based on specific subgroups, including race, limited-English- proficient, free/ reduced lunch qualification and special education. While many schools experienced double-digit growth on the state Benchmark Exams, in some cases subgroup performance might have resulted in a school being placed on school a improvement. In other cases, if a school made its required improvement during the year, it remained on the school improvement list because two consecutive years of mandated growth are required for a school to be removed from the list. We are working diligently with schools that are on school improvement in order to provide the necessary resources for teachers and administrators to improve students academic achievement. Construction continues at schools throughout the city. Many major projects, such as Hall High, are complete, while others, such as Williams, are just beginning. Students, teachers and parents have been patient as they have lived through renovations in their buildings. Entire classes have been relocated during the process at some campuses, but the end result is worth the disorder as upgraded facilities contribute to a more appropriate and functional teaching and learning environment. The declaration last fall by U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson that the Little Rock School District is unitary in all areas except program evaluation was appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments have been held, and the district awaits the courts decision. Work continues in the final area in which the district must comply with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. That piece, program evaluations, is being finalized and will be submitted to Judge Wilson in the spring of 2004. The district has updated its Strategic Plan. This work, done by more than 100 community residents working in six major areas, will help to guide the districts direction in the next five years. I look forward to assisting district staff, business and civic leaders, parents and others this school year. The challenges facing our students are great and cannot be overstated. However, I believe that this community has put its support into our schools, and teachers, staff and students will benefit from knowing that public education is highly valued in our city. Morris Holmes, Ed.D. Interim SuperintendentAcademic Achievement One of the primary issues facing school districts across the state and nation is student academic achievement as measured by accepted examinations. There are two types of exams administered to studentscriterion-referenced exams and norm- referenced exams. Criterion-referenced exams measure student achievement on a specific curriculum or base of knowledge. In the case of students in the Little Rock School District, the Arkansas Benchmark Exam is the criterion-referenced test that students take. It measures how well students are learning the mandated Arkansas standards. As of the 2002-03 school year, the Benchmark Exam was required for students in grades 4, 6 and 8. It also is required as an End-of-Course test for students who take Algebra and Geometry, and all 11* grade students must take the End-of-Course Literacy Benchmark Exam. LRSD students recorded some significant increases at many schools on the Benchmark Exams. Benchmark results presented here indicate the percentage of students who perform at the proficient and advanced levels. There are no national comparisons on the Benchmark Exam since it an Arkansas-developed and -administered test. Grade 4 Literacy LRSD Arkansas Grade 4 Math LRSD Arkansas Grade 6 Literacy LRSD Arkansas Grade 6 Math LRSD Arkansas Grade 8 Literacy LRSD Arkansas Grade 8 Math LRSD Arkansas Algebra LRSD .Arkansas Geometry LRSD Arkansas 11 * Grade Literacy LRSD Arkansas African-American 53 46 African-American 35 38 African-American 13 14 .African-American 8 12 African-American 28 25 African-.American 4 5 African-American 15 18 African-American 17 11 African-American 20 19 While 90 77 White 82 76 White 49 37 White 54 50 White 68 57 White 52 33 White 60 54 White 63 47 White 71 57Norm-referenced exams compare student academic performance to that of a national norm group of students who took the same test. This allows a district to see how its students are doing compared to others, regardless of the specific curriculum taught in school. Students in Arkansas must take the Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition, as a norm-referenced exam. Stanford Achievement Exam results are stated as a percentile. For example, a percentile rank of 72 means that these students did as well or better than 72 percent of the students in the norm group who took the same exam. African-American students in the LRSD were within 1 or 2 points of their counterparts in the state at every grade level. White students in the LRSD scored 917 percentile points ahead of their peers on the Stanford Achievement Test. Grade 5 LRSD Arkansas Grade 7 LRSD Arkansas Grade 10 LRSD .Arkansas African-American 35 37 African-American 35 37 African-American 30 31 White 72 62 White 73 64 White 72 55 Another exam that allows comparisons with students across the nation is the ACT college entrance exam. The districts composite ACT score climbed from 19.0 in 2001-02 to 19.5 in 2002-03. Disaggregated scores are\nLRSD Arkansas Nation African-American 17.1 16.7 16.9 White 23.0 21.1 21.7 Students in the LRSD showed significant progress in many areas of all of these exams in 2002-03. When scores are disaggregated and comparisons made both within Arkansas and to other students nationally, LRSD students perform quite well. Looking at the scores for the district, state and nation on all three exams, there is an achievement gap that can be accounted for, in part, by poverty. With more than 50 percent of its students who qualify for the free and reduced lunch program, the LRSD continues to focus on methods to help students who are not performing well on standardized exams. Academic achievement remains the LRSDs top priority.What About Schools on the School Improvement List? Readers of the local newspaper may wonder why, with LRSD student scores ahead of the state and nation in many areas on required exams, there are several schools on the states school improvement list. There are several answers to this question. There are some schools in the LRSD which have shown significant improvement on the Benchmark Exam, but they have not reached the level of improvement (Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP) required by the state. Not only must the entire school meet the AYP, but subpopulations, such as limited-English-proficient students, students who qualify for ffee/reduced lunch and special education students, must meet the same AYP as all other students. Also, once a school is on the school improvement list, it must meet AYP for two consecutive years to be removed from the list. Some LRSD schools did meet AYP this year, but remain on the list until they meet AYP for a second year. All schools on school improvement, indeed all LRSD schools, continue to look closely at test results to determine areas in which to concentrate lessons in order to help students leam the necessary course material and to improve academic performance in the future. What steps are being taken to assist students in schools on the school improvement list? Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, students in schools on school improvement receive supplemental services and school choice options, depending on which year of school improvement the school is placed. The LRSD offers supplemental services, which consists of tutoring by a provider selected by the Arkansas Department of Education, to students in year two of school improvement. All schools in alert status or on the school improvement list develop their school improvement plan to include proven strategies to help students build skills and knowledge in literacy and mathematics. Professional development activities in these schools are geared toward improving teacher preparation to address identified student needs. Principals of LRSD schools on the improvement list are encouraged to work with principals of schools that have scored well on the Benchmark Exam in order to duplicate successful strategies. Advanced Placement Enrollment In order to improve academic achievement, the LRSD encourages students to take challenging courses. One way to do this is through enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) classes at the high school level. AP courses are very rigorous and meet national guidelines in terms of curriculum and college preparation. Students in AP classes may take the national AP exams in the spring. Those students who earn at least a 3 on the national AP exam may, in most cases, earn college credit for these classes. The LRSD has worked with teachers, counselors, students and parents to increase student enrollment in AP classes. To that end, we have been successful. The accompanying chart shows the increase in AP class enrollment in LRSD high schools during the past few years. Since the 1997-98 school year, there has been more than 20 percent annual growth in the number of students enrolled in AP classes and a total growth during that time of more than 100 percent. We expect these students to demonstrate higher levels of academic performance based on the more challenging courses they take, and their success in high school should continue at the college level. Foundation Provides 5100,000 in Teacher Grants It wasnt Ed McMahon delivering the Publishers Clearing House grand prize, but it was just as exciting for many teachers and principals in the Little Rock School District. April 2 was the day the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock delivered 32 grants totaling nearly 5100,000 throughout the district. Foundation members, donors, city dignitaries, LRSD School Board members and others boarded three school buses to personally deliver balloon bouquets and grant checks to surprised teachers! Each grant met certain criteria, whether it was targeting student achievement, parent involvement or improving teacher quality. Honors and Achievements Katherine Wright Knight was named Arkansas 2003 Teacher of the Year and received the national NEA Foundation Award for Teaching Excellence. Sharon Boyd-Struthers of Rockefeller Elementary\nTimothy Eubanks of Parkview High\nRuth Eyres of J. A. Fair High\nCatherine Koehler of Baseline Elementary\nand Judy Meier of Rockefeller Elementary earned National Teacher Certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. National Board Certification is a credential attesting that a teacher has been judged by his or her peers as one who is accomplished and makes sound professional judgments about student learning. Gillian Glasco and Earnest Sweat, seniors at Parkview Magnet High School, were elected to office at Boys and Girls State. Gillian was elected Governor at Arkansas Girls State, and Earnest was elected Lieutenant Governor at Arkansas Boys State. Five students from Central High School were Semifinalists this year in the Siemens Westinghouse Competition in Math, Science \u0026amp; Technology. The Siemens Competition recognizes remarkable talent all over the country and fosters individual growth for high school students who are willing to challenge themselves through science research. The students were Daniel Liu, Satish Mahalingam, Mark Mazumder, Ananth Ranganathan and Xiazhong (Jeff) Wang. Mark Mazumder also was named a Regional Finalist and competed against nine other entrants in the Southwest Region at the University of Texas at Austin. Additionally, Mark also was named a National Semifinalist in the Intel Science Talent Search, one of only three Arkansas students to achieve this distinction this year. Often considered the junior Nobel Prize, the Intel Science Talent Search recognizes Americas brightest students for excellence in science and math. Jeff Fuell and Kenneth Patterson, students at Parkview Magnet High School, had artwork selected for use on commemorative stamps that were issued in 2003 by the U. S. Postal Service celebrating the life of civil rights leader Daisy Bates. Dr. Linda Brown, principal of Parkview Magnet High School, was named 2003 Principal of the Year by MetLife and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Nineteen LRSD students were named National Merit Semifinalists in 2002-03, two were named National Achievement Semifmalists, and three were named National Merit Commended Students. The National Merit Semifinalists are: Kyla Achard, Adva Biton, Fredrick Brantley, Kevin Bums, David Gutierrez, Catherine Keisler, Daniel Liu, Mark Mazumder, Colin McAlister, Joseph McDonnell, Stephanie Nielson, Nadia Patel, Rachel Rouby, Brennan Taylor and Benjamin Wells, all from Central High School, and Alison Boland, Benjamin Carson, Jessica Lovelace-Chandler and Lorinda Peoples from Parkview Magnet High School. The National Merit Commended students are Annie B. Bauman and Mary Orsini from Central High School, and Dori Scallett from Parkview Magnet High School. The National Achievement Semifmalists are Everette Callaway from J. A. Fair High School and Lorinda Peoples from Parkview Magnet High School. The MathCounts team from Pulaski Heights Middle School captured the state championship. Team members were: Sho Maymia, Miles McCullough, Albert Speed, Corina Oprescu and their coach Treia Cook. Each team member also placed individually in the top ten. The J.A. Fair basketball team captured the Arkansas state 4-A championship. Team members were: Seniors: Melvin Fisher, Vincent Hunter, Earnest Maxwell and Quen Spencer\nJuniors: Lonnie Henry, Shaun Reynolds, Larry Porter and Dwight Watkins\nand Sophomores: Quincy Googe, Charles Hayes and Parris Pattillo. The Head Coach was Charlie Johnson, and the Assistant Coaches were Tom Poole and Erik Jackson. The Central High chess team earned the title of Chess Association of Arkansas Schools State Champions for the 3A-5A Division. Teams are limited to four players at the state level, and Centrals team consisted of Victor Harris, Joe Liu, Shep Russell and Johnson Wong. Other team members included David Gutierrez, Daniel Krupitsky, Elizabeth Richardson and Shannon Rodgers. The teams coaches were Joe Gray and Chuck West. A Central High sophomore scored a perfect 36 on the ACT exam. Yang Dai was one of only three students in Arkansas, and 58 nationally, who achieved this distinction. Thirty-nine students were recognized by the Duke Talent Search State Recognition program. The seventh graders took either the SAT or the ACT assessment to qualify for recognition (the same exams administered to college-bound high school students). Students listed were recognized at the State Ceremony\nand students denoted with an asterisk also were recognized at the Grand Ceremony-they scored in the top 2 percent of all participating students in the nation. Dunbar Magnet Middle School: Aska Amautovic, Melody Chang, Dylan Frost, Megan Jackson, Scotty Lankford, Peter Liu*', Linsey Miller, Cameron Murray, Melissa Nichols, Hannah Roher, Hannah Smith, Russell Viegas, Samuel Whitehorn, Anne Ye* and Elaine Zhou. Forest Heights Middle School: Jamie Coonce, Stacy Coonce\"* and Sasha Ray. Henderson Magnet Middle School: Geoffrey Jackson and Sarita Robinson. Mabelvale Magnet Middle School: Kelicia Hollis and Victoria Kreie. Maim Magnet Middle School: Cyrus Bahrassa, Jillian Carroll, Samuel Clark, Maura Conder, Elizabeth Cox, Abigail Dobson, Patricia Graves, Dillon Hupp, Grace Nam and Jillian Petersen. Pulaski Heights Middle School: Sarah Ball, Ellen Barber, Colton Koehler, Miles McCullough, Colin Rockefeller, David Steward and Kathryn Tull. The Dimbar PTA was one of only three schools in Arkansas to receive the Certificate of Excellence from the National PTA, and it was named the Arkansas PTA Outstanding Local Unit. Students at Metropolitan Career-Technical Center took away 26 medals from the 2002 Skills USA/VICA competition in Hol Springs. Students earning medals and state honors were: Matt Davidson, Jeff Merks, Fabian Marks, Nick Spear, Rolonda Foreman, Veronda Lee, LaToya Jacko, Danyell Boyd, Mary Katherine Knight, Dale Jackson, Georgina Pena, Tonya Bums, Shamika Walker, Lynzzie Cash, Tabitha Clark, Bessie Haygood, Megan Moody, Andrea Sanders, Danny Aaron, Jermond Booze, Steven Spencer, Dustin Ashley, Jeremy Baker, Jason Bredlow, Tim Lingo, Ben Royer, Greg Fundyler, Jordan McElrath, Cole Camhron, Chad Ellis, Ashley Kelly, Tara Womack and Tiffany Neam. Central High Schools Fed Challenge team bested the defending two-time champion to win the state Fed Challenge championship. The Fed Challenge involves researching the status of the national economy and making recommendations for actions as if the team members were the actual Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System. Team members were Kevin Luneau, David Mitchell, Jessica Marshall, Chris Burks, Shep Russell and Daniel Liu. Their sponsor was Sam Stueart. The Central High School Lady Tigers varsity womens soccer team won the womens 5-A state soccer championship. The team members were: Anne Claire Alien, Caroline Allen, Jamie Bandy, Lindsey Barron, Kate Burnett, Lauren Cloud, Camille Cook, Allison Corbin, Sally Cunningham, Riley Duke, Sheffield Duke, Stephanie England, Lizzy Gray, Elizabeth Harrell, Marissa Hayes, Cara Janton, Elizabeth Jones, Jessica Jones, Whitney Maloney, Kendall Polansky, Stephanie Rogers, Megan Russell, Lindsey Short, Rosalind Smith, Becca Vehik, Robin West and Claire Wetzel. Their coach was Keith McPherson, the assistant coach and manager was David Duke, and the teams physical therapist was Bill Bandy. Dariane Mull, a 5* grade student at Terry Elementary, won the 5* grade category of the U.S. Rice Producers Association Essay Contest. The contest was open to students in grades 4 to 12 in the rice-producing states of Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas. The Central tennis team won this years state 5-A state title. The womens team compiled an impressive record of 5-A conference and state championships in 2001 and 2003. The mens team has been 5-A conference and state champs every year from 2000 to 2003. The womens team members were Ashley Batchelor, Dovie Dockery, Ashley Driver, Barrett Jones, Lauren Kamey, Jessica Marshall, Holly McGetrick, Nancy Mitchell, Collins Speed and Presley Thomas. The mens team members were Matthew Angulo, Scott Bacon, Nick Clifford, Andrew Crone, Alex DePriest, Brock Dial, Andrew Humphrey, Daniel Krupitsky, Kevin Luneau, Sam McSpadden, David Mitchell, Jay Murphy, Blake Ross, John Shults and Peter Thomas. The team coach was Joy Thompson, and the team manager was Megan Heard. Five LRSD teachers and two students were honored with the 2003 Stephens Award. Jackson T. Stephens and the late W. R. Witt Stephens formed this program in 1985 to provide scholarships to outstanding students and cash awards to exceptional educators in Little Rock. The award-winning students were Mark M. Mazumder and Nadia A. Patel of Central High School. The outstanding teachers were: Kimberly Dade, Kirby Shofner and Amy Snodgrass of Central High\nVannessa Pace-Hampton, Parkview High\nand Hosea D. Malone, Hall High. Anne Ye, a 7*' grade student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, won the Arkansas state spelling bee championship and represented Arkansas in the National Spelling Bee in Washington.David Simmons Henry, an 8* grade student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, received the John W. Harris Leadership Award from the National Beta Club. Only 50 students nationwide (25 senior high and 25 junior high/middle school) are recognized each year. Central High seniors Adva Biton, Fredrick Brantley and Stephanie Nielson received Achievement Awards in Writing from the National Council of Teachers of English. They were judged as being among the best student writers in the country. Grants The Little Rock School District is committed to having all of its students reading at or above grade level by the end of the third grade. The district received a three-year Arkansas Reading First grant from the Arkansas Department of Education in the amount of $4,412,184. This grant money will be used to implement a comprehensive, researchbased reading program in 12 elementary schools that were determined by 1999-2002 literacy data and other factors to have the greatest need. The Reading First project will build on the districts current literacy plan and will provide human and financial resources to more fully implement that plan. Other new grants implemented in 2002-03: Hall High and Henderson Middle School received 21 Century Community Learning Center grants to establish after-school and summer academic enrichment programs for the next five years. The schools will share a total of up to $1 million over five years. The U. S. Department of Education selected the LRSD to receive funding under the Professional Development for Music Educators Program in the amount of $706,785 over three years to provide ongoing professional development support for LRSD music teachers. The LRSD received the Teaching American History Grant in the amount of $995,953 over a three-year period. The district and its partners will provide professional development for all American history teachers in grades 5, 8 and 11. Adult Ed Celebrates Milestone The Little Rock Adult Education Center marked 25 years of service to the community. During the past 25 years, the Little Rock Adult Education Center has served nearly 65,000 adults with over 7,000 receiving their Arkansas GED diplomas. The main center and its 18 satellite programs serve over 2,500 adults a year. Classes offered include refresher courses in reading, math and English\nGED preparation\ncomputer-assisted instruction\ncomputer literacy\nfamily literacy\nand English as a second language. SREB Training The Little Rock School District was selected from an elite group of ten urban districts across the nation by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) to be the first to panicipate in a new national leadership initiative. The goal of the SREB Leadership Initiative is to prepare school and teacher leaders to lead a comprehensive school improvement effort that will result in increased student achievement. All five LRSD high schools as well as four middle schools (Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale and Southwest) are participating in the program. The leadership initiative will provideschool leadership teams an intensive three-year curriculum program beginning with the 2002-03 school year. Construction Progress at LRSD Schools Improvements continue on many LRSD schools, thanks to the millage increase approved by Little Rock voters in 2000. While work wraps up on a few schools and continues on some, it is just beginning on others. During the summer, Wakefield Elementary held a groundbreaking for a building to replace the school that was accidentally destroyed by fire in 2002. Things are progressing rapidly at Mann Magnet Middle School where students will be in the new multi-story building next semester. Central High Schools exterior renovations are complete. The interior refurbishment of classrooms and offices continues. Major construction work continues at Williams Elementary and Mabelvale Middle School. Construction has begun at Dunbar, while Hall Highs new gymnasium and classrooms are complete.achievement efficiency professionalism service 2004-05 Little Rock School District ANNUAL REPORTMMMktMlik .Is8 1 1  W II . f  25,868 students in 50 schools  34 elementary schools  8 middle schools  5 high schools  1 accelerated learning center  1 alternative learning center  1 career-technical center  4,064 employees  One of the top 10 employers in Arkansas  Student enrollment increased by 1.5% in 2004-05  87% of the enrollment growth is at the elementary level r Back row, left to right: Micheal Daugherty, Board president. Zone 2\nTony Rose, Zone 6\nBaker Kurrus, Board vice president, Zone 4\nBryan Day, Board secretary. Zone 3 Front row, left to right: Larry Berkley, Zone 5\nSue Strickland, Zone 7\nDr. Katherine Mitchell, Zone 1 I The 2004-05 school year was a time of change for the LRSD, changes that were carefully planned and executed with one central goal in mind: student achievement. Public schools are seldom viewed as true businesses. In order to achieve our vision of becoming the highest achieving urban school district in the nation, however, the Little Rock School District has taken a very business-based approach to educating our students. This report will review the LRSD's progress toward meeting its goals and detail the following critical components of its business: Student Achievement Operational Efficiency Employee Professionalism Customer Service We are very happy with the strong foundation we have laid for the future of the Little Rock School District. There is much more work that lies ahead for us, and like most businesses today, we face significant challenges. But if we view these challenges as opportunities and rally the support of our community, we can fulfill our promise of having great schools for a great city. Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools I 1 Student Achievement State LRSD 80 r State Benchmark Exam Grade 4 80 r State Benchmark Exam Grade 6 02 Uc fO D c 02 'y \"S \".p 70 - 60 - 50 - 40 - 30 20 - 28 10 - Math 58 62 28 African- American Caucasian i| 4  t Maj Literacy 30 | 31 African- American 60 69 \"C OJ u c: 03  'o (X vP 70 - 60 - 50 - 40 - 30 - 20 -I 10 - 20 Math Literacy 79 60 65 16 53 36^37 Caucasian O-\" African- American Caucasian African- American Caucasian All Little Rock School District schools met the state standards for accreditation in 2004-05. Every school is reviewing student assessments to determine appropriate measures needed to increase academic achievement for each child. Some schools received additional teaching positions, such as instructional coaches, to provide extra assistance. Other schools are using new tools, such as the Student Online Achievement Report, that will help teachers identify student progress toward mastering required concepts. The state Benchmark exam was administered to all students in grades 3 through 8. Results of the Benchmark exams are difficult to measure against prior year performance, however. The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) changed the scoring on the 2004-05 literacy examinations to reflect additional knowledge that students must possess. Therefore, comparison with prior year performance is not valid, according to the ADE. Iowa Test of Basic Skills Data Comparing LRSD Student Performance to State-wide Student Performance African-American Students Caucasian Students LRSD 3rd Grade State 3rd Grade Reading 41 40 Math Conce\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_245","title":"Area School Advisory Committee","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":["Area School Advisory Committee"],"dc_date":["1990/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational statistics","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Area School Advisory Committee"],"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/245"],"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":["printouts"],"dcterms_extent":["2 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\nPULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA 319 North Pine Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 February 12, 1990 HAND DELIVERED FEB 1 3 1990 Ms. Martha Hirsch Alman 41 North Sherrill Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Ms. Barbara Patty 324 Midland Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Re: Parent Desegregation Planning Committee For Regular Or Area Schools Dear Ms. Alman and Ms. Patty: On behalf of the Pulaski Heights Elementary School PTA, I write to identify perceived disparities between area schools. including Pulaski Heights, and magnet schools. Our concerns and comments are based on our experience regarding elementary schools. Given a bit more time, we will be glad to identify more specific needs of the area schools under the categories identified below. We have two main concerns: 1. Without a more balanced distribution of resources, the area schools may not continue to offer the same quality of education as the magnet schools offer. 2. Without a more balanced distribution of resources, the magnet schools actually may impede desegregation, rather than facilitating it, by giving parents the impression that the only viable options for their children are magnet schools and private schools. Because of our concerns, we believe that the area schools should receive a greater portion of the educational resources available to the Little Rock School District than they have received recently.Ms. Martha Hirsch Alman Ms. Barbara Patty February 12, 1990 Page 2 For the last few years, the magnet schools have received a greater concentration of the District's resources in the following areas: 1. Administrators 2. Teachers 3. Physical facilities 4. Laboratories 5. Extra programs 6. Money The District has concentrated its best administrators and teachers and its greatest resources in the magnet schools in order to ensure that they attract the required diversity of students to desegregate the schools in hard-to-desegregate areas and that they provide exemplary education. The experience of the last few years proves that the concentration of resources in the magnet schools has been more than sufficient to accomplish those goals, as indicated by the oversubscription of those schools and the long waiting lists for places in those schools. Despite the more-than-sufficient attractiveness of the magnet schools, the current desegregation and student assignment plan contains a new component to further enhance their attractivenessthat is, sibling preference. This change exacerbates the disparity between magnet schools and area schools in terms of attractiveness to potential patrons and parental involvement in, and support for, the schools. While the magnets have flourished, the area schools have struggled. Pulaski Heights Elementary, which had become a minor enhancement school, is gradually being desegregated by parents from the area around the school who are committed to sending their children to Pulaski Heights, spending time and money on the school, and ensuring that Pulaski Heights is an excellentMs. Martha Hirsch Alman Ms. Barbara Patty February 12, 1990 Page 3 academic institution. This commitment has resulted in a racial balance closer to court-approved guidelines and in improvements to educational programs and resources at the school. The success of that continuing effort depends upon greater support from the District than the area schools have received in the last few years. The area schools have had to find funding from the PTA and other outside sources for basics which the District should provide and which it does provide to the magnet schools. For example, at Pulaski Heights, the PTA has had to provide funds for basic musical instruments, a program with the Arkansas Arts Center to serve as part of the curriculum, and basic maintenance of, and improvements to, the school grounds. The District satisfies these kinds of needs and many more for the magnets and leaves the area schools to fend for themselves. Area schools can be desegregated and can provide excellent education without the concentration of resources needed in the magnet schools. Nevertheless, they cannot do so if the existing disparity between magnet schools and area schools is not reduced. We encounter a number of parents who state that they will send their children to private schools, unless they get into a magnet school. We are concerned that this attitude may be increasing. The increased emphasis on magnet schools can only aggravate that situation. With those facts in mind, it would be counterproductive to build new magnet schools at this time. New magnets would cost millions of dollars and would draw students out of existing schools. While it may be necessary to convert incentive schools into magnet schools in order to desegregate them, additional resources should be used to strengthen existing area schools. rather than to construct new unneeded buildings. Furthermore, the District and the Metropolitan Supervisor should publicly support and champion the area schools as fervently as they do the magnet schools. In order to continue to provide quality desegregated education, the area schools need more consistently excellent and supported principals, administrators, and teachers, improvedMs. Martha Hirsch Alman Ms. Barbara Patty February 12, 1990 Page 4 physical facilities, additional laboratory facilities, more specialty programs, and greater funding. Additionally, a great attaction of the area schools is the fact that children from the same family can attend the same area school. Adding sibling preference for the magnet schools will make it that much harder to desegregate the area schools. Almost 80% of the District's students attend area schools. Given that fact, area school patrons are the key to a successful millage election. In order to motivate and galvanize that constituency, the District needs to make a specific commitment to the area schools of additional resources from existing funding and from any millage increase. In summary, the magnet schools have received more than enough resources to accomplish their goals, but the area schools have not. Unless the tide is turned, the educational opportunities in the area schools may be inferior to those in the magnet schools, we may create desegregated magnet schools and inferior segregated area schools, and we may be unable to pass school millages necessary to provide an adequate education for our children. For these reasons, we ask that your committee encourage those responsible for the allocation of resources to provide a more balanced distribution of resources between the magnet schools and the area schools. Sincerely, Goorrddoonn TW^iillssoonn,, Prreessiiddeenntt Pulaski Heights Elementary School PTA Steve Shults, Board Member Pulaski Heights Elementary School PTA cc: Mr. Skip Rutherford Dr. Ruth Steele Mr. Eugene Reville Q.K 'Jr' TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District February 22, 1990 fEB 2 4 'W g??'^735'. Eugene Reville, Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Community Support Grants \u0026gt;1 (Sa^ /4 \u0026amp;t6c- iw B The Little Rock School District met with Area Schools Committee on February 12 to discuss deletions and/or additions to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan. Both parties agreed that the community support grants should be deleted from the plan. Ihe community support grants were intended to be used by area schools to support recruitment efforts. However, both parties agreed that the attendance zones will serve as a natural recruitment tool. Please note that this request only applies to the community support grants. The academic progress incentive grants should not be deleted. cc: Chip Jones Estelle Matthis Martha Alman, Conmittee Chairperson Arma Hart 810 West Narkhatn Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361AREA SCHOOL PARENT COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1990 HIGHLIGHTS A meeting was held in the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor at the request of the Area School chairperson, Mrs. Martha Alman. There were approximately 15 members in attendance. a reporter from the Arkansas Democrat, Cynthia Howell, was also in attendance. According to the chairperson, the purpose of the meeting was to gain an understanding of the direction the committee was going to pursue rn working with the LRSD regarding the part of the desegregation plans that dealt with the section on Area Schools. Mrs. Alman also explained that the committee had undertaken the following actions which were not at the pleasure of the district: 1. A copy of the report devised by the committee was 2. submitted to all P.T.A. Council presidents throughout the district. A survey developed by the committee was sent to all the schools in the district. Mr. Reville expressed to the committee that it was quite alright for the report to be submitted to the P.T.A presidents, however. the survey should be done through the district and by district personnel. The results should then be shared with the committee to determine if any disparities exist. If so, they should work with the district to eliminate the disparities. Mr. Reville stressed that he did not want the committee to work in an adversary role against the district. He further commented on the important work that the committee had done and expressed their importance to the efforts of the district. Other concerns expressed by the committee were: 1. 2 . 3. 4. 5. The perception of a disparity felt by parents of the district. The need for a planning and implementation timeline and the date? The desire to see the survey form and comment on it before the district sent it out to the schools. The name of the contact person from the LRSD, and the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. The district should not cut music, p.e, and art from the Area Schools. Would the federal Court permit it? A'\"\"6 . 7. Will the money to implement programs in the Area School come from desegregation money? Committee is still interested in the 1 million dollars that can be secured for the community grant. If it is 8. 9. not used where will the money go? Committee would like to form a liaison with the Early Childhood, Disparity and Area Schools Committees. Can a date be set up for a future meeting? Committee would like to see a copy of the court approved document on Area Schools as soon as the district receives a copy. Mr. Reville answered all the concerns of the committee. Mrs. Hart will do a follow-up with the district today to set a timeline of March 15,1990 for the districts planning and implementation timeline to be submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor. A Survey should be developed and submitted to the schools by March 12, 1990, and reviewed by the parent committee at least three days A progress report will be before it is sent to the schools. submitted to the Metropolitan supervisor regularly. Mr. Reville stated to the parents that he would meet with them upon request, however, if there were disagreements with the district they would contact Mrs. Hart first in seeking assistance. Mr. Reville told the committee that he hoped they would acquire The committee chairperson asked if they other minority members. could also add other members to the committee. This is to be done only with the approval of Supervisor. the office of the Metropolitan The meeting was knowledge. taped by the committee with Mr. Reville's The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. Arma Hart Assoc. Metro. Deseg. Superv.OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 March 2, 1990 TO: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District FROM: Hart, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor RE: Area School Committee Meeting I cim sending you information regarding the meeting held on February 27, 1990, with the Area School Committee and this office, call if you have any additional questions. Please AH:par enclosure A ' / / / AREA SCHOOL PARENT COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1990 HIGHLIGHTS A meeting was held in the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor at the request of the Area School chairperson, Mrs. Martha Alman. There were approximately 15 members in attendance. Cynthia Howell, a reporter from the Arkansas Democrat, was also in attendance. According to the chairperson, the purpose of the meeting was to gain an understanding of the direction the committee was going to pursue in working with the LRSD regarding the part of the desegregation plans that dealt with the section on Area Schools. Mrs. Alman also explained that the committee had undertaken the following actions which were not at the pleasure of the district: 1. 2. A copy of the report devised by the committee was submitted to all P.T.A. Council presidents throughout the district. A survey developed by the committee was sent to all the schools in the district. Mr. Reville expressed to the committee that it was quite alright for the report to be submitted to the P.T.A presidents, however, the survey should be done through the district and by district The results should then be shared with the committee personnel. to determine if any disparities exist. If so, they should work with the district to eliminate the disparities. Mr. Reville stressed that he did not want the committee to work in an adversary role against the district. He further commented on the important work that the committee had done and expressed their importance to the efforts of the district. other concerns expressed by the committee were: 1. The perception of district. a disparity felt by parents of the 2. 3. 4 . 5. The need for a planning and implementation timeline and the date? The desire to see the survey form and comment on it before the district sent it out to the schools. The name of the contact person from the LRSD, and the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. The district should not cut music, p.e, and art from the Area Schools. Would the federal Court permit it?6. 7 , Will the money to implement programs in the Area School come from desegregation money? Committee is still interested in the 1 million dollars 8. that can be secured for the community grant, not used where will the money go? If it is 9. Committee would like to form a liaison with the Early Childhood, Disparity and Area Schools Committees. Can a date be set up for a future meeting? Committee would like to see a copy of the court approved document on Area Schools as soon as the district receives a copy. Mr. Reville answered all the concerns of the conunittee. Mrs. Hart will do a follow-up with the district today to set a timeline of March 15,1990 for the districts planning and implementation timeline to be submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor. A Survey should be developed and submitted to the schools by March 12, 1990, and reviewed by the parent committee at least three days A progress report will be before it is sent to the schools. submitted to the Metropolitan supervisor regularly. Mr. Reville stated to the parents that he would meet with them upon request, however, if there were disagreements with the district they would contact Mrs. Hart first in seeking assistance. Mr. Reville told the committee that he hoped they would acquire The committee chairperson asked if they other minority members. could also add other members to the committee. This is to be done only with Supervisor. the approval of the office of the Metropolitan The meeting knowledge. was taped by the committee with Mr. Reville's The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. Arma Hart Assoc. Metro. Deseg. Superv.March 19, 1990 TO: Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools FROM: The Parents Committee on Area Schools Martha Alman, Chairman The Parents Committee on Area Schools shares the same goals administration and most of the teachers and parents in the educational system of unsurpassed us ^We^hAv desegregation resolved and behind us. We have worked long and diligently, and for education in Little Rock district: excellence, with /.b' i/' work to do instructed our part in attaining that goal. will continue to - - -------- We have been in the area school section of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan to work with the District It is our desire to do ways. can . in several specific just that, helping by what means we We are aware that there is , . , . a very real budget crisis in which has been building for many years, and we ------ plans we have made for area if Hp other plans are very much in jeopardy very \"* \"t  1. a the District, are also very aware that the schools as not pass. p,  . feel that the greatest obstacles the Littl District must ---- overcome in e Rock School passing a millage are lack of open perceot^nn credibility due to the community's perception of chronic mismanagement and insensitivity, believe that if, as you have begun to do, with all the facts about the budget, the increase will be s W e voters are presented ------, where the money is, and spent, they will begin to see that the system fthe goal of an excellent educational system tor our children now and in the future. District Open communication is so essential on all levels suggest that ... how We in addition to disseminating as much information as terms simple enough for everyone to understand, the set up a telephone hotline to receive input from teachers. We have heard some interesting and workable to know^that thev The teachers need being hea^d communication, that they are oeing heard. a restructuring of the lines of communication in the administration so allowed to freely communicate with the metropolitan supervisor and the board' restructuring in the chain of command, save money, but could lead to more efficiency. possible, District in anonymously given those in the front lines\". an avenue of communication. We also suggest that the principals be superintendent, the There might also be some which would perhaps not We as teachers, principals and parents, information for the District. a committee would like to continue to talk with administrators are gathering and dispensing We do not understand why the averse to open communication, particularlywhen Mr. Reville defined these discussions as part of our responsibilities. We have discussed areas where budget cuts might be made. We do not have the information or the historical perspective to make suggestions. It is the job of the administrators to make those decisions, but they owe it to the public to explain those decisions. received, fully explored. We do feel, from the information that we have that there are perhaps some areas which have not been services--custodial supervisors. Are there more cuts which can be made in support for example? Could outside firms be hired to provide bus service and custodial services at a lower cost? (Some schools are not adequately cleaned now.) Attention to detail in ways that might only be suggested by teachers and parents could save money and garner public support. The public has read that administrators' salaries in Little Rock are among the highest in the nation, while teachers' salaries are among the lowest. From public perception. an acceptable good faith gesture on the part of the adminstration would be to take a significant across the board salary cut. a 10% cut. this would only save approximately $50,000, but it With would show the teachers, patrons and especially the voters that the administration is serious about recovery budgeting and about the education of the children as the first priority. also begin a give and take process with teachers, groups and parents. It could special inters! cc: Little Rock School District Board of Directors Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor/l.'\u0026gt; ! rV-t.t / LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 122Q1. 2- Date: April 19, 1990 /vA Building Principals To: From: Through: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintenden Educational Programs and Staff Developmen' Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Re: Reques for Proposal - Academic Incentive Grants ava The Little Rock School District is pleased to announce the .ability of funds to identify and establish initiatives to reduce the number of low achievers.- provide guidelines for funding of proposal Incentive Grants. The purpose of this memorandum is to for A.cademic Progress The primary purpose of the Academic Progress Incentive Grants Program shall be to (i) improve the education of all students, and (2) reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial. socioeconomic, and gender groups. Availability of Funds The grant awards shall be non-competitive for cne year with an option to continue for two additional years.. , Grants shall not exceed $25,000. awards. Incentive and magnet schools.-are not eligible for grant Application Content The application must contain the following information: 1. 2. 3 . 4 . c: Need for'Project Program Description Plan of Operation Evaluation Plan Budget InformationMemorandum - April 19, 1990 Request for Proposal Academic Incentive Grants Page 2 Allowable Activities Area schools may receive funds to identify and implement strategies based on promising practices to enhance student achievement and reduce the disproportion in academic achievement among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and economic status. Grant proposals The Teachers, building administrators, and patrons shall participate in the development_of the local school proposal. Grant proposals should avoid additional personnel costs, to the extent possible. District will not assume responsibility for continuing costs that occur after the expiration of the funding period. Selection Criteria A panel will review all applications according to the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. A detailed and well-planned proposal Appropriate goals and objectives Well-documented need Innovativeness Potential for replicability Realistic budget Quality of evaluation Ability to continue after grant period ends Documentation of teacher, administrator, and patron involvement during proposal development Use of volunteers and/or collaborative efforts with businesses, outside organizations, etc. Only one proposal per area school will be accepted. Application Deadline 1990. Applications must be received by 5:00 p.m. on June 5, Send to Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development. A grant writing inservice is scheduled for May 1, 1990, at 9:00 - 11:00 a.m. \"  \" a.m. for elementary schools and 1:30 p.m.- 3:30 p.m. for secondary schools, in the Board Room.  '   representative at the inservice. Each area school should have a bjgAPPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT I. Proposal Narrative (Limit proposal to no more than ten double-spaced, typed Additional pages will not be considered.) pages. A. Need for Project Describe the identified needs and how they will be met through the project. - - - Include any statistical data. B. Program Description Give a description of the program to be implemented, program goals, organizational management, curriculum, personnel and staff training, if needed. Include C. Plan of Operation Include project management time line. Task/Person Responsible/Completion Date A suggested format: D. Evaluation Plan Describe the methods you will use to evaluate activities outlined in this program. E. Budget Information List items to be funded through the grant. The maximum to be funded through the grant will be $25,000 per area school. Identify separately related items that will not be funded through the grant. II. Document Organization A. Organize the proposal in the following order, additional blank sheets of paper. Do not use B. 1. 2. 3. Cover sheet Narrative Budget Submit the original plus four copies of the proposal to: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT APPLICATION 1990-91 Name of School Principal Date Submitted Signature of Principal PROPOSAL COMMITTEERECEIVED MAR I 2 1993 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright tor Horoh 19, 1993 HeagfeV '\"3 March 9, 1993 I. Area School parents and patrons of the Little Rock School District request that this letter and the accompanying petitions be made a part of the court record. We wish to address the Court on Budget discussions directly related to Desegregation Plan. We educate 64% of all students in the Little Rock School District, that is approximately 10,788 out of 16,700 black students, and 6,000 out of 9,000 white student's, certainly the majority. Wg are concerned about the following issues: 1) The Little Rock School District has promised, under the Desegregation plan, to make available to the Area Schools $25,000 per Area School per year for a three-year period or more (if the evaluation proves that the grant had positive results) for Academic Progress Incentive Grants to decrease academic disparity. Unfortunately, Area school patrons have had to repeatedly request these funds from the Little Rock School District. Currently, the Little Rock School District has slashed the available money from $25,000 to $10,000 per Area School (a cut of almost 1/2 million dollars). To date for this year, our district has only given Area Schools a total of $50,000 of the allotted $320,000. 2) The Little Rock School District is also obligated to make available to the Area Schools funding for Focused Areas of Activities, but has not responded to pleas and public requests for defining and implementing this funding. 3) Area Schools have borne a disproportionate burden of cuts budget shown by reductions in funding for Gifted/Talented staff, music, counselors, physical plant assets, and general per capita funding compared to Magnet and Incentive Schools. This scenario has significantly diminished the educational opportunities of Area School students. 4) Area School parents and patrons perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts and their negative impact on the Little Rock School District efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the Little Rock School District. 15) There have been no monitoring or evaluation efforts by the Little Rock School District for the Area School portion of the Desegregation Plan. 6) Area School Parents and Patrons have worked hard for our District. We simply do not understand why the Little Rock School District is failing to meet the letter and spirit of the Desegregation Plan. we respectfully request Little Rock School District fulfill its promised obligation to the Area Schools. District II. Impact of the 1992-93 Budget Cuts on Area Schools. 1) Cuts in funding, and lack of funding for Academic Progress Incentive Grants, have limited the Area Schools abilities to provide the very programming (such as afterschool tutoring) which has proven to be an effective tool in funding. for decreasing academic disparity. When Area Schools are put \"on hold\" and don't receive approval or funding for Academic Progress Incentive Grants until February of 92 for the 91-92 school year, and then are cut to $10,000 for the 92-93 year, the potential effectiveness of the program has diminished, greatly. But who knows the outcome? The District has been unwilling to provide information such as: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) Which schools applied for grant dollars? Who is on the grant review committee? What is the criteria for the grant awards? The oversight and monitoring process? Who and why denied, who and why accepted? Evaluation techniques? Results of Evaluations? Why aren't there Area School parent representatives on the grant review committee? It is also unfair that the Little Rock School District used evaluation criteria to approve or disapprove grants initially, and then failed to evaluate. 2) The Little Rock School District's unwillingness to respond to or define \"Focused Areas of Activities'', order for the Area Schools to apply for and receive fair portion of total funding, has again adversely affected the Area Schools abilities to decrease Academic in a disparity. 3) When budget cuts (such as Gifted/Talented.Q^ music, counselors) are made at the Area Schools (but^Magnets, Incentives) Public perception is that quality of *   , Private school education is lower in Area Schools. 24) 5) parents who perceive that quality of education is lower in Area Schools and who are unable to obtain a Magnet School seat are discouraged from sending their children to public schools. This defeats one main goal of the Desegregation Plan, which is to fully desegregate the District. Perhaps it is time for the Little Rock School District to realize that the Area Schools have a role in helping to fully desegregate the Little Rock School District. When budget cuts are made at the Area Schools, public perception is that quality of education is lower at Area Schools. Therefore, children whose parents are knowledgeable about the 'special offerings\" at the Magnet Schools seek to transfer to Magnets from Area Schools, if seats are available. Because of these transfers, Area Schools have lost many G/T and high achieving minority (as well as majority) students, thus diminishing the number of minority role models, high achievers, G/T students in the Area Schools. We feel that this has also skewed the academic scores: according to figures reported in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on 8/14/92, overall scores at Magnet Schools were higher than at Area Schools. (However, academic disparity was GREATER at Magnets than Area Schools.) This again defeats one main goal of the Desegregation Plan, which is to decrease academic disparity. It is time for the Little Rock School District to realize that the Area Schools have a role in helping to decrease academic disparity. Domino Effect. Since there is no longer a music program, planning time for the classroom teacher has been reduced due to lack of travel time and because the classroom teacher has the added responsibility of teaching music one hour per week. The librarian now has to deal with whole classes for thirty minutes rather than one half class for thirty minute each, so that the teacher has prep time. This has drastically diminished the effectiveness of REACH lessons in the library, which are supposed to reinforce curriculum objectives. Little Rock School District The libraries at Area Schools, are now available less frequently for classes working with their teachers. Therefore the children's instruction in research and other areas have been decreased significantly. Free flow for independent study and reading is necessarily more limited. Children who really desire to use the library are often turned away because of this tight schedule and because of limited library personnel. 36) Eliminating music teachers in Area Schools has adversely affected the classroom teacher, as well as, our children. Teachers vary greatly in their music skills and comfort level in teaching music concepts, increased pressure associated with implementing the new curriculum, teachers simply cannot spend adequate time planning and carrying out music instruction. This situation has adversely affected teacher morale. Children suffer because they are no longer integrated in grade level and school wide music programs. Skills such as listening and group cooperation and multi-cultural understanding and appreciation are a vital part of music education at the elementary level, which is no longer With the This available. 7) Gifted/Talented programs have been cut in half by the reduction of teachers. The impact on children in Area Schools is especially great because Area Schools lack the extra personnel and programs available in Magnet and Many parents who choose public Incentive Schools. schools over private schools in large measure because of a fine Gifted/Talented program developed and supported by both the State and Little Rock School District, are especially demoralized by these cuts. Once again, Area Schools are inequitably dealt the greater loss because their program offerings are not as enriched as those found in Magnet and Incentive Schools. Children, i\" kindergarten and first grades (and sometimes second) are no longer afforded the opportunity to participate -- Gifted/Talented programs at all in Area Schools. Since these are the formative years when children are being introduced to problem solving and higher order thinking skills which are tested on the Stanford 8, the lack of Gifted/Talented instruction must certainly adversely affects the academic progress of Area Schools children. And those children whose talents are not evident in the traditionally expected ways may be missed during the selection process for Gifted/Talented participation in the upper grades because of the reduced scope of the program. The Gifted/Talented program cannot adequately meet the needs of the children it targets by once again t-hfi rosnonsibllitv for instruction with the Children in in 8) program. placing the responsibility classroom teacher. The direct services to children provided by our counselors are a vital part of ensuring their success in school. Any reduction in counselor time in Area Schools necessarily impacts on academic progress, citizenship, and school environment. Counselors work with children who have specific behavior problems which disrupt the learning environment in already crowded classrooms, and which interfere with academic progress. Counselors are 49) vital in addressing social problems which affect our - children and disrupt the learning process, such as drug and gangs. children They provide social work functions for whose and situations background family necessitate extra support in order for them to succeed in school. Counselors are instrumental in setting up programs to encourage children who have no incentives from home to achieve in school. One Counselor per 450 students is not enough. school nurses who were already spread thinly among Area Schools are now even less of a visible presence. The pressure of giving medication and attending to illness and injury on a daily basis falls to the school secretary and principal on days when the nurse is not assigned to the school.- For example, an area elementary school might dispense an average of 50 medications daily, including critical medications for illnesses such as asthma and diabetes. school personnel. Medical testing is also handled by These responsibilities are obviously time consuming, requiring up to 3/4 of the day for the secretary (or principal, in the secretary's absence) on The nurse also days when the nurse is not there. provides screening services such as vision, hearing, and scoliosis testing to diagnose problems which would otherwise go undetected in children whose only medical Volunteers often care is provided by the school nurse, hesitatingly perform, but with little expertise, these services when the nurse has no time. Health education is another important service the school nurse handles. Information about physical development, diseases and personal hygiene contributes to keeping children healthy and thus positively affects academic achievement. Hc\" can we not see the importance of development screening How and health education for children who do not get basic Information, care and protection elsewhere? Area Schools cannot take any further cuts in nursing staff. 10) At the public meetings held in 1992 with our new superintendent, Dr. Mac Bernd, many, many more examples of negative impacts of the budget cuts on Area Schools were presented by Area School Parents and Patrons. However, there have been no responses. III. Conclusion. Area Schools play a major role in the Desegregation Plan. We represent 64% of students in the Little Rock School District. That is 10,788 out of 16,700 black students, and 6,000 out of 59,000 White students of the 26,000 students in the district. We struggle for a fair share of resources and repeatedly cry out to the administration to have our children's educational needs net. After the current year budget cuts, we perceived more than ever that we have no recognized role in achieving the goals of the Desegregation Plan. We are the first to be cut and the last to be given our portion of programming and funding which is a part of the district-written and court-approved Desegregation Plan. We obviously care a great deal about and take pride in our children and our schools. We have spent nuch time and effort in presenting these specific negative impacts of the 1992-93 budget cuts. following: We hope they will indicate to the court the * * Budget cuts to Area Schools must be reinstated with no further cuts to Area Schools. Little Rock School District must live up to the letter and spirit of the Desegregation Plan. Area Schools must have an avenue to be heard in any future desegregation matters at the Little Rock School District level and by the court. we sincerely thank you for your consideration. These petitions are still being circulated and will be forwarded to the court. Name Address Date ------t ^2. 0^  ' ' 31/ gii 0. 'i. 3J./ z M CU^ -------- / I RteXrl .-97OT Kt 7 fj '1^1 7t'\\ 1V\\zM.er 6 L-K-kl Patrons   CHRONOLOGY OF MEETTWdS/REQUESTS -----RY AREA SCHOOL PATRONS TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION of the Little Rock School District have repeatedly ____clarification of 4-participation nts^Sd and release of funds for Academic Progress Incentive Grants and requested Focused Areas of Activity. 7-25-1990 Area School Patrons met with - Dr. concerning zcademlo ProgrB Incentive Grants. At Area that time, there was time line for Area discussion of. the irrational Schools regarding the grant first letter discussing the Academic sent to the schools proposals. The  Progress Incentive Grants was------ -t.- on April 26th, which discussed a grant writing session on May Sth, with proposals due June 5th. Dr SSlOn oil WAV** 4-Vs4wV . Steele was told that it was outrageous to think and parents have the time t-hat Principals, teachers,  ----- to creatively think about and come up with progr^s the last month of school. told that the Area School Patrons Dr. Steele was me area ouuuui  were met with such statements as  Don't worry, we re working with the schools\" -   about the Academic Progress However, when the administration when patrons questioned the administration Incentive Grants. However, when me was asked \"will the schools receive the Academic progress Incentive Grants dollars by fall 90.   administrations response was \"I can t answer that . The following questions were asked of Dr. Steele: 1) IS there a schools? grant writer helper for the Area 2) Did any Magnet or Incentive Schools request 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) grants? the Magnets and Incentives sent a memo Why were _ regarding these grants. , . ,, 4-bir4-u- Was there enough money budget for all thirty four Area Schools? available for these grants. Is there money --------- --- - Where is it coming from and how much is it. Who's on the Grant Review Committee? What are the review procedures? _ If the grant or portions of the grant are ____ _ ___9 hnnnanq to that monev? 1 rejected, what happens money? reabsorbed into something else or wha?Fall 1991 Feb. 1992 Aug. 1992 . --S) 10) 11) What is the procedure if a school's grant (or portion of) are rejected? Are there any Area School patrons on the Grant- Review/Evaluation Committee? if not, could we please have representation? - Will the grants be in place by September '90? Area School Patrons met with Dr. Steele concerning the Academic Progress Incentive Grants money being put on hold. The administrations explanation was -that because of the budget crisis and the double - funding at Incentive Schools, that the money for Academic Progress Incentive Grants were not available and that the court had to rule on this.  Area School patrons waited until February 1992 and then demanded the money (a copy of the demand may ......... be obtained). It was perceived that because these demands were placed on the administration, the grant monies were made available. Several Area Schools patrons talked with several board members concerning Academic Progress incentive Grants and Focused Areas of Activity and why the Little Rock School District had not gone forward with its plan. Dec. 19, 1992 Area School patrons presented to the Little Rock School District board requesting the board to have the administration define Focused Areas of Activity and describe the difference between Focused Areas of Activity and Academic Progress Incentive Grants. Each board member was handed a copy of the Area School portion of the Desegregation Plan, as was taken from the May 1, 1992 revision. Board members were urged to make these areas clear, and to provide the money. other suggestions concerning these grants were made available. There was NO RESPONSE to these requests. Fall 1992 Area School patrons met with Dr. Mac Bernd concerning Area Schools such as budget cuts and disinterest by the District in Academic Progress Incentive Grants and Focused Areas of Activity. 2 Bernd was asked the same question that were asked Dr. of Dr. Steele 7-25-90. There has been no response to these questions and concerns.I t 800 Marell Street, LittJe Rock. Arkansas 72202-3591, (501) 320-1100 or TDD (501) 320-1184 ( SECTION OF COMMUNITY PEDIATRICS AND PUBUC POUCY I I I' Charles R. FeOd, M.D. Seclimi Chief (501)320-1431 Faa (501) 320-2340 Seoalary 320-2651 I  i February 25, 1992 Paul Brown. Ed D, RK Cram t\u0026gt;ai tlii,oian\u0026lt; A Comnranliy ttwhli (501)636-9605 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 1810 W. Markham : Little Rock, AR. 72201 r \u0026gt; ri II . I Frank Farmer. Ph.D. CoMalUM la Ratal Sociology (501)320-3333 I Dear Dr. Bernd: J F- Great Gay. Ph.D. Health Policy CoasuhatH (501)569-3293 I the needs of pupils and staff in the a^ea concerned about tuppoj\nL  *0 RawR S. Kirbjr, Phjj. Epidemioloiy \u0026lt;501)320-3333 I  -I at home^^r^^^ I me at 320-3605, or 661-0393 Sim L Shulu, M.D. (MI)32O-3M7 -hoet M Udouj. M.D. (.501)320-3606 ii I -'i , I  1 i I 1 f 7, Cymhb Montgomery, R.N.P. I Joycf Moore. R.N.P, \u0026lt;501 \u0026gt; 320-3*08 1 Torn Noil. MS.W. 1 Director. Edocalioa Sernas (501)320-3628\nAHtMsat Accot Rebeca Pocock Projecl Direclof (SOI)32(M)8 I I ' i Ji I j  Best wishes, Charles R. Feild, M.D. Associate Professor of Pediatrics CRF/mda i \u0026lt; \u0026gt; f I1 - 1 t:  -e-:!- 'V-T w'-ir ? I I Timoihy Lee Project Rcprcscnlalite (501)320-7526 J I Arkmn School HoHh Imuranct Preyed Cd Smart Prof ran -I Oiarira Nickenon, MPA Aflmtnhlralor (501)320-3635 Tina Cohm Coordinator. l) 320-3605 \u0026gt;(500 320-3948 ii i I J-\".'' * r ! .1 Depirtment of Perfiairia Uniwnilj tl faitnu hi Molicii Sdowj Tn- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From\nParents and Patrons of Area School Children jn the LRSD Re- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds tor Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters, name address date z aa^^o^- - -I------ '\\\\aixLA 3/5?/^3 lda\\ ___^^a.gn------- MjLiO ^If.'''^ A \u0026lt;/Gl \u0026gt;i7 7^1.0-7 12 Io \u0026lt;f-C:\u0026lt;T!Jjar.a___ 72^00- 3- k-^r 3-\u0026amp;\"9-\u0026lt;3 5j. ^?e\u0026gt; ^aio-Hipr '7^^7 f,^^7 '22.'z-o y To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in the I BSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in Its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. '^xz) Qi/Yv 7 (c/gi date Ct' I/Qljc.zst / A/rvw 7g^7  Q|Oto yA. n1 3. \u0026gt;o - 'i^ A M . fl / - / g - 7 3. 3-1 It -7^7 3-IU^ ....... . 13r' I. Aa R _______S//i)/?3 3-1 To: Thft Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children igthe LRqD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and niake available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. n address 3 Aid neo date 1^01 nar^e^reT - lot^ )\\7, Pirv Lp dlLLj^ H 7t^ Q^'mi to I ' Cg)^T\u0026amp;(^ To\nThe Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LBSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings 1, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. b} ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. / n^e date .address l/0( AJo.THXjZA. s eft. na-aei\u0026lt;r ~ 7) ^itKQ3 n-3 *7^^/2 ^2^ _____(tio   ___ Itt-b \u0026lt;rTo- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright f^rom: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in.the LRSH Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cui Hearin.gs I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music taculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address sn -So t I dale pr iVitJKLKrViA/\u0026gt; y/^ f\\G. J iJLi/ A\u0026gt;f {iO^ dl'\\ J-f VS-13 -2^i=l-^^  r 11 IIG S,.,. txJ4\u0026gt;oJ^i^ 5o. C/aIh^^-^ C ' J P7/\u0026lt;/  Ko ^ 4------------ 3 \u0026gt; 1 Lhil 5. -fl-ir Pa^t Tn- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Prom: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequi..t.a....b....l.e.... ..b....u...d.. get. c_ uts (gifted anmdi itoailoe niotneidil fva/n do rmhnynsiic faculty, school nurses, ccoouunnsseelloorrss,,. aa_ _nn ad_ zgg\u0026lt;eeznn\\neeArrraaolli rppvee/irir ncboadnppiiittiaaa ffluuiinnnrdutiimnnngy^)\nepamnnrdut ttuhhicfethiirr nn.eftg0a3ttiiv\\/e6 iimmDprS aCctt (on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. due 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation\u0026gt;matters. 47^^ address , datte 7/2 - 7 ------------------ -i- 'Si 20902 3^ (^ooi 7/00 7 J 9^'7 5 ' 7 2,2 o 7 ZWai Tn- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRSD. Re- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School, patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in I I desegregation matters. name , address / 5 blt-J ..lx  J JI- ! .A.aA cL^.n/c iQ/j/s'. It . '/'jL/icy / -7^5 '// 'I'n/n./i, //r. i.fl LU Qr~ 'C' /2 WU?To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in the LRSD Re- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation_matters. na address date \u0026gt;u\\. A.' iJ^ C . V\\\\\\Sdk:u\u0026gt;\\^ UAo\u0026lt; AAAiQi s? \u0026lt;1 Ju S- \u0026gt;0-^3 L. k\u0026gt;^ r-y^ Cob^ 3 -/c '?3 3 th?3 ______________Lil --------------------  SMAtr. , L.'^. laaoA S\\\\iT? ^1. f -------- 1 l^ .l l^n\u0026lt;\\Z^ ^/(i/-i3 u ylc^.'^ ?-//-73-r To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cui Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in address S- yV\u0026amp;r^naC, date 3-^-73 3-1-13 . 6 ,1 nQ Ca A vZ, i\u0026gt; ino^ \u0026lt;vJI -Yaj.'A.or it 9 a ^nno q-ix. Qv, JS2^ k'-tc ,fy,i\"ir ---------------Cl 3-9^^\"? /Cb bib Is iVl -J I  I i-?- ntffia. p4  ' f ~ 3lUi. a '- iV^r' N. uC- j^Th*^ Honorable Susan Webber Wright Prom: parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRSD. Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. \u0026lt; 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. due 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. lame address date , )OV\u0026gt;I 1^ a^xi^y- Qf/nn WK 32^ -------------- - 7)7, ?.aa.-z)23 ------^.7?/23 lJ- PTg o- '^3 O.3^ ^r -f-j ll 't Z^f (\\\u0026lt;Zj otitis XU4. 7-3/g fyi(urxc^To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wrighl Prom: parents and Patrons ot Area School Childrejiin the LRSD. Re: March 19.1993 Budget Ci^ Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere in this petition. concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented andI music\nacufty, ^ch^ nurses, and general ,Sr capita landing) and their negative intact on the Districts eftorts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due tunding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and available its due funds for Focused Areas ot Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. Court to include Area School patrons and parents in tuture budget hearings 6) ask the and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an desegregation matters. name Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in address date u2 -T 'h. J-/O'7^ Or (2k. 3-^ ^(19 A'2 f- /. 1 IL 1, 22 23 M T,. 2^  H1) ^enyDtChflnA- Dr Cha nAi To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Prom: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children.in.the URSQ Rft- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. address date 5-11-^3 3LtgtW\u0026lt;^kuK\u0026gt;o\u0026lt;I J-41^ 0 n 7 3-//-U 3'//-7T- 2 ___ _ r. To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Re: h\u0026lt;arnh 19 Ifln3 Rudnet Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere in this petition. concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined 3t ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that they concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music facu ty. sch\u0026lt;30 nurses, SoTand general capita .ending) and 'heir negative impac. on .he Districts eftorts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due^ ndfngllor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make due funds lor Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings 6) ask the and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters, name address date I stern tJills----- Ml, Z-.S LnV.\u0026gt;(ialtiI----------------- h QLWui3(n.-d L. zof.: 7.\ni 7Z.2O4- --- Ay IJXA____ 5 93 1 c I ~'\\3 3 jL 72^^ 7S.SJy 3-/c-^3 3To- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully. 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. a\u0026lt; c -A '\u0026lt;.  T7 T' '  ^77^ date it f i~l\u0026gt;i'   :i v'K^sbC / f i-'-' ^^)a-9 3 f U( c Z  Zip  rv-r... / jz / \"J f ' - Z S\\\\'\\ $t !-' -v^  I i I 'J i :j:f ' t \u0026gt;'. I \\ I 1To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings 1, as a parent or patron ol children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. I 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. Dj address le d A P Q I r\u0026gt;Q  _ 2ZZZZWZSS3Z^^ a._ 'J- h LTo- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From\nParents and Patrons ot Area School Children in.th^ LRSD. Rp- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music taculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita tunding) and their negative impact on the Districts ettorts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding tor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and detine and make available its due tunds tor Focused Areas ot Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 1 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in tuture budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. me ZL address ,---------- h3le5 fl^ i-l- I Ctstl'Mc CjPLL. LIL. Ci \u0026lt;g- \u0026gt;Jtll S'! l-lC___ iz.-z.c-) 'V \u0026lt;7330*1 date 3-^13 g - /C - 9 5 3- /r. 3-10-^^ 3/ 1^*13 ^0 ^1.  10 friii-'/ 1To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wrighl From: Parenis and Palrons ol Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parenl or palron ol children in Ihe area schools ol Ihe LRSD, respecllully\n1) ask Ihe Court Io include Ihis pelilion and signalure as a part ol Ihe Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court Io listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gilted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's eftorts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask Ihe Court Io demand Ihal Ihe LRSD live up Io Ihe commillmenis II made Io Ihe Area Schools in ils Desegregalion Plan. 5) ask Ihe Court Io order the LRSD Io make readily available Io Ihe Area Schools its due lunding lor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and deline and make available its due lunds lor Focused Areas ol Activities as approved by Ihe Court ordered plan without monetary penally in other Area School programs. 6) ask Ihe Court Io include Area School palrons and parenis in luture budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask Ihe court Io appoini an Area School commillee Io oversee Ihe LRSD in desegregalion mailers, name address dale /C/r ^-9- \u0026lt;r3 ^1 a A \u0026lt;- ifsnvo F 1^X4 7-^3 ^/o Or \u0026lt;.r rf'^7tftffz. f To- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD. Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cyl Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully. 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns * .................. _ z-txA__ I____ I mi ir^izx f o/M ittv/ o/*hr4nl about the ineiiquitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsseeHCHff^s,, aanndd ggeenneerraall ppeerr ccaappiittaa ffuunndoiinngg)) aannad itnheeiirr nneeggaattiivvee iimmppaacut ounu tmhee Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. sp 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the commitments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. - IS U\n- dpt IK address date J /c  JZ ZO ') ''\u0026gt;! I i /'i 1 \"7- '7^9'6 2 J ( To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From\nParents and Patrons of Area. School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respectfully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns in this petition. of the Area School patrons as outlined 3t ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that they concerns about the ineguitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school and general per caplla landing) and their negativei impact on DisUicl's ellorts to implement the Desegregation Pian have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its SI ask the Court to order the LRSD to make reaaiiy avaiiauie tu ..v due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define make available its due funds tor Focused Areas ot Activities as approved by the Court available programs ordered plan ! include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings 6) ask the Court to and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an desegregation matters. Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in address date VTn- The Honorahle Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRS Re: March 19.1993 Budgel Cui Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns ' ............................................rtlrtnlAH onH mi lOIA faci litu Qnhnnl about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the nurses, counsellors, ano gerieidi pei uapiia lUHuina\nr- . .. District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. due 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas ot Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address . / - date .................................. ^rin\u0026gt;s ,  3- 7-72,, 3- 7515 gOT k) ___ CSII .^Zg-. LP^UAj\u0026gt;, 6 MUbuxi, Of.__To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Parenis and Patrons ol Area School Children in.the.LRSD. Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or palron ol children in Ihe area schools ol the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signalure as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ol the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 33)) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the ineguitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school counsellors and general per capita lunding) and their negative impact on the Dnuisrstreicst,'s efforts to implement the Desegregalion Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools ils due lunding lor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and available its due funds lor Focused Areas ol Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penally in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregalion matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters, name address dale X\u0026gt;t7 3 ( 'jj To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings * and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. hLl^ address kJ. OoJz:-. L Q. 13^05 date 510 . Gr^ Il 'r\nL5-C5 ],Oi4n^ I __ '7^0^ -------J-Tn Q (:\u0026gt;Qi\u0026lt;. UL L!\u0026lt;L 72 i-\u0026lt;\u0026gt; 'y 3/u^ To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children In the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron ol children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ol the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music laculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds lor Focused Areas ol Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in tuture budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name C \u0026lt; address date jryiaj. IaJ. \\Z.tv\\c1 r/lA\u0026lt;e^\u0026gt; fcxAtdM________ r^sQS./ .^is 'i^ , a^inqUf^)^ ^J2-'t27oi___-5|?|93 tfal--o.s^^ 7p^ A/- 'J -^3^06^ 3 // L0 /4iye. \"7To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name , -tt .. address 3 J U vU ______ dale e-4- /.:3oo A 2350 Y' 3 jj____To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in the LRSD Re- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address late L .SB / 1iO I ty I  7gy o-//- ?To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wriqhl From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in Ihe.LRSD Re. March 19.1993 Budget Cui Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere in this petition. concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty. schcwl counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the nurses. LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the _ Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. Court to order the.LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings 6)ask the and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address Slate. 3. E 7To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children In the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable bu'rget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative Impact on the District's efforts to Implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in Ils Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address -/.Zg-g. J 4/1 , date 3/n/pTo: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the kESD Re: March 19. 1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. narpi address dateTn: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cui Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds tor Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in s. de^gregation m^ R^e/^ // address (, \\iA\u0026gt;: '^ja^ A -'f- _js^ TjTj2. / ' 4 I c: \u0026gt; t A-, \\To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in deseg ri name/ ition matters. address date zTo\nThe Honorable Susan Webber Wright Prom\nParents and Patrons ot Area School Children.in.the.LRSD Ro- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ol the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the ineguitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding tor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. nam' address dateTo: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in the Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in Its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in I desegregation matters, name address date04 (Tl '93- 10 501 3203948 ACH COMM PEDS @002 his ToAid U.S. School tiv-, 'ats tic-j adej 'susj ''fea?.a.S3sst\"s'- W A CH fon Warch 27 . '^pveloped a new of Commerce has way of '  . :.! n a study ree^7/, h . ,\u0026gt;.:  'tnal the E\u0026lt;JPiior dan Prep. a some of that moi ^^P^pendingModeli dl i\nfewer \u0026gt;0*relies .'The other sd\n^7 S^ruB an ^.ergy'efficient repairs.'. jr...!',I IS and par- Countv \"ere AAilaamr edai pair services could fS' bbuurrgg CCoubntyu sno^-^,^ Spariani districts have exiiSZ^L?!*'' s.^boo! . I ihe the Us- * I  Ifnn NNTaacs-hktv.mnte- ,t.h. e '4\ncuuW soul was to  Z. lixjia ur, j education I the Shitlv' Oke I the study's m^n University and\n- 'the monfy UnlessU die tAiid, the tL\u0026lt;^r 1,. ^nssnom, h/ the resf.  s not reaching L\n in th i:i t 'ded from St re- Perceni of the budg, r-liersg h ^npaetiorn asla aidvTehraTet e of -------.-- '^I i oc- SO percent of ^^SLI!,.P'^=ent to I ri re^ the dast^^' .should Ir\n\"y \" hat I the cost of main Zne iyd tral ornces percent to 63 as against the i fr w ^nding, frvai W I\nag-1 tnf' ..aLion text nd I can unders', I Por th\u0026lt; Ks. and present the I d v^ay that the public I ft I US to loolf ^'bws I tn laymen's terms \"7idT.''^5.5f*\"t y\u0026gt;la policy analyst ' Commission o/lhe sLt'?/ ^Oation 't and advocacy Broun ? fesearch y. Ms. Fulton on the^ Denver, he f mission for Se^X^^ FinancedbvtS i?i5^!^.?.*htiy. I spent tt Si si m 'I a st he the study's sSeni^^\" \"dianapolis\nh. W school e^end1turi^f,'P t^tthtles tl. htlegories, central nfi?'tain cat-1 Hi * te Sites, wiiicTare the?X.-d\"3'^ ' 1 subcategoriel five version of one used to tra^v ^ refined IM \\ j New York City nublie  I \"J'^Z^real^Xe in in 1990\nit I Y s Systems In the ft  eral districts Spent an arge percentage--u--n--a--cceptably th- ) b feiexda m$1p lem, itlhlioen a ''tict idenii- U1 fem's' '\"dcS^SFM' Commerce, saidict . I Hi Arkansas Childrens Hospital Pqgnfap\u0026lt;\u0026lt;Jfetfflahlta Chhmby ofArionss forMedka:! SdcnoiS OiariesR. Feild, M.D.,FAAP\nA5y?ct** Professor of Pediatrics I\n, Chief, Community Pediatrics \u0026amp; . :\n.. PubficFtaticy\n. 501/320-1438 Fax (501) 320-2840 Emergencies (501) 320-1185 800 MaishaH Street  Uttk Rode, Aitensas 72202-3591 ! / School BADGETT____________________ BALE_________________________ BASELINE____________________ BRADY_______________________ CENTRAL CHICOI______________________ CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY CLOVERDALE JR HIGH DODD_______________________ DUNBAR______________________ FAIR_______________________ fair PARK___________________ FOREST HEIGHTS^, FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT GEYER SPRINGS_______________ HALL_________________________ HENDERSON__________________ JEFFERSON___________________ MABEL VALE ELEMENTARY MABELVALE JR HIGH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH MCDERMOTT_________________ MEADOWCLIFF_______________ OTTER CREEK_________________ PULASKI HEIGHTS INT___________ PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH SOUTHWEST TERRY WAKEFIELD WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILSON WOODRUFF Area School Per Student Costs ^ea School Per Student Costs Benefits $331.53 $330.82 ____ $311.49 $302.14 ____ $307,58 Capital Outlay $386.99___ $259.14 $313.39 $340.81 $300.01 $343.41 $331.18 $0.90 $1.60 $0.00 $0.00 $6.16 11.11 $0.00 $1.69 $3.49 $16.15 $7.55 Materials .Suppliei Other Objects $42.52 143.97 $68.05 151.85 $37.33 $57.90 $42.63 $38.63 152.90 $35.39 $32.73 $0.00 $0.58 io.oo $0.89 I $0.00 $0.07 Purchased Servici __ $150.00 $118.47 Salaries $2,668.63 $2.663.12 $192.37 $2,464.07 $112.82 $140.96 _______ $317,94 $268.34 $311.84 $285.96 $342.83 $375.60 $282.11 $315.97 $434.35 $362.48 $275.29 $292.36 $282.38 $248.69 $298.00 $363.36 $266.11 $285.29 _$270.77 _$292.22 $309.04 $328.51 _______ $3.38 $3.92 ________$3.03 ________$3.85 ________$5.19 _______$56.31 ________$0.99 ________$1.51 ______ $5.94 _____ 128,29 ________$2.07 ________$1.24 ________$2.32 ________$0.71 ________$6.45 $5.11 $4.10 $0.87 $0.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $51.53 $32.68 $4/40 J51.68 $45.66 $34,58 $56.26 $51.31 $53.85 $32.00 $70.14 $51.95 $50.80 $56.22 $49.37 $30.95 $32.76 $50.26 $48.08 $47.58 $52.37 $46.35 $54.74 $2.7 L $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $0.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0-22 $0.00 $0.26 $0.00 $0,14 $0.00 $0.00 _____ 182.95_ $89.65 $173.53 _____ $135.74 _____ $162.79 $177.24 $190.79 $2,464.58 $2,672.65 $3,062.99 $2,051.08 $2,580.18 $2.699.61 $2,583.80 $2,977.79 $2,767.88 $157.21 $2,697.98 $102.19 $119.55 $T31.O9 _$190.40 $171.91 $107.72 _$141.98 $131.98 $2.187.63 $2,552.53 $2,174.63 $3,001.20 $3,238.85 $2,410.27 $2,504.78 $3,685.61 _________$215,26________ $3,079.21 $128.82 $90.80 $159.34 $122.33 $100.07 $167.12 $89.66 $88.97 $130.61 $131.56 $129.62 $165.72 $2,278.37 $2,415.64 $2,331.12 $1,962.38 $2,567.56 $3,072.53 $2,134.19 $2,348.42 $2,186.51 $2,423.10 $2,539.79 $2,572.34 School Salaries Area School Students Per Staff Member frtiK As /c 1/8/96 [BADGETT\nBALE BASELINE BRADY CENTRAL GHICOT iCLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY 'CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 'DODD IDUNBAR lUUl 'CAIC FAIR FAIR PARK____________________ FOREST HEIGHTS______________ FOREST PARK_________________ FULBRIGHT____________________ GEYER SPRINGS_______________ HALL__________________________ HENDERSON__________________ JEFFERSON___________________ .MABELVALE ELEMENTARY MABELVALEJRHIGH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH MCDERMOTT iMEADOWCLIFF ,OnER CREEK___________ PULASKI HEIGHTS INT PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH 'SOUTHWEST_____________ ^ERRY__________________ iwAKEFIELD_____________ WATSON________________ WESTERN HILLS__________ WILSON________________ WOODRUFF 9.21 8.17 8.92 9.68 11.84 7.54 11.95 9.35 8.61 11.27 9.16 10.65 10.39 10.56 9.88 11.14 10.11 9.69 11.58 9.20 6.82 8.80 11.00 9.93 10.38 10.29 9.86 10.12 11.19 11.06 10.39 11.43 10.82 9.25 Z Page 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 26, 1995 To: Board of Directors From: Judy Magness - Board of Directors Subject: PROPOSAL FOR AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Attached committee. is a It proposal for developing an area school advisory t is recommended the Board approve the establishment of this committee. that  I/'I I I I I PROPOSAL FOR AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ASAC) Currently, area schools educate approximately 80% of the Little Rock School District student population. Parents of these students are ardent supporters of public education in general and this school district in particular. We care deeply about the qua ity of our children's education and the quality of the school environment. Parents of these We care deeply about the We are concerned about inequities , j among area schools and between .schools and other types of schools, i.e. magnet, incentive and interdistrict schools.  We are aware of the higher funding evels, greater program resources, and extra attention devoted to these other types of schools. And yet, area schools educate a majority of the children, black and white, in the Little Rock School District. aiiu wuxue, me Therefore, the success of desegregation and the success in reducing disparity. the ma^or goals of the Little Rock School District must be with the area schools. These schools are, we believe, playing a crucial role in desegregating our school district and in increasing the educational achievement of targeted groups of children.  f There is no group that is an advocate for children in our area We propose to be that group. schools. we As an advisory committee to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, we would work in partnership with the district toward the successful achievement of its goals. we would We have the energy and enthusiasm for this task because it is the children in our area schools who stand to benefit. Interdistrict Plan of April 29 The 1992 provides for 'community-wide ---------\n----------7 . 7 f [Jiuviueb tor CQrainuniuy multi-ethnic citizen/parent/teacher/student committees for incut into planning and decision-making\", specifically the establishment of building, district, and multi-district level committees which are racially, geographically and socioeconomically representative to provide input and feedback the operations of the schools and the districts (page 59). on i I i We welcome this opportunity to be fully educated and informed about Little Rock School District goals and plans which affect area schools. Our readiness to work in partnership with Little Rock School District dates back to initial desegregation plan efforts when community input was actively sought in many areas. Area School Parents and Patrons propose that an Area School Advisory Committee (ASAC) be established with the following guidelines (modeled after Magnet Review Committee and Bi-Racial Advisory Committee Organization): I I I Ii 1) Members: a) b) c) d) e) f) One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area Schools' Parent-Teacher Association to represent each of the Area Schools One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by PCSSD One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by Little Rock School District One (1) Ncn-ypting representative appointed by ODM This membership would reflect the diversity of Schools [\"single, married, divorced- Black/White/Hispanic/Asian, etc.\nReligious\nworking/non- working\nincome status, etc.] the Area I I 2) 3) 4) 5) At least one manber will represent ASAC on each of those groups that make decisions which affect Area Schools (e.g., Academic Progress Incentive Grants and Focused Areas of Activities\nMagnet Review Committee\nInterdistrict/Incentive School groups, etc.) ASAC will be informed of any plans (by LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, ODM, Joshua Intervenors, MRC, etc.) which potentially affect Area Schools. (Examples\nA new Magnet School would directly effect the Black/White ratio at Area Schools\nchanges in funding at an Incentive School would directly affect Area School funding\nreduction of grant money\nchanges in M/M transfers, etc.) PCSSD, NLRSD, any ASAC members will be able to review, consider, hear information (snch as Business cases), evaluate, offer suggestions, and report its findings to committee and the Little Rock School District Board and Administrators, ODM befQce decisions are made concerning Area Schools, propose tt^t an--ailotted time period be given to ASAC to'^ make suggestions for ArM~Schoo^ts'at each'monthly Little Rock School District Board Meeting.  evaluate, offer and We a) b) Within 2.1 \u0026lt;jays from establishment of ASAC, it is suggested that Little Rock School District provide each member with information concerning Area Schools (i.e. Desegregation plan information, number of B/W/0 students, student/teacher ratio, etc.) Ten (12) working days from mail-out of Area School information, the committee will meet to begin planning and implesenting a time table and goals to review information concerning Area Schools. I I6) 7) 8) c) It would be helpful for the Little 3^1__1 to provide the ASAC with a Little Rock School District Area School Administrator for the first two meetings to information. As liaison to ASAC, this administrator would facilitate information. Rock School District on. the flow of The ASAC will a) b) c) PJ^oposals (including changes in 2?,./J^3?tives) for Area Schools made by the Little Rock School District Initiate ideas and or ODM/court. Tpon/nnv/ Proposals and submit them to LRSD/ODM/court for their consideration. Provide written feedback to Little concerning the impact of proposed changes o Schools before the changes are implemented. Rock School District on the Area findings to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, L .... requested together with recommendation operation and administration of and to the ODM and Court, to the efficient the Area Schools. as ASAC will work for =  V, consensus, but recognizes the right of any member to express dissenting concerns. The ASAC may involve volunteer consultants and assist in the ASAC process. experts toLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 26, 1995 To: Board of Directors From: Judy Magness - Board of Directors Subject: PROPOSAL FOR AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Attached\ncommittee. is a It proposal for developing an area school advisory is recommended establishment of this committee. that the Board approve the a' PROPOSAL FOR AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ASAC) Parents of these Currently, area schools educate approximately 80% of the Little Rock School District student population. Parents of these students are ardent supporters of public education in general and this school district in particular. We care deeply about the quality of our children's education and the quality of the school environment. We are concerned about inequities among area schools and between area schools and other types of schools, i.e. magnet, incentive and interdistrict schools. We are aware of the higher funding levels, greater program resources, and extra attention devoted to these other types of schools. And yet, area schools educate a majority of the children, black and white, in the Little Rock School District. Therefore, the success of desegregation and the success in reducing disparity, the major goals of the Little Rock School District must be with the area schools. These schools are, we believe, playing a crucialrole in desegregating our school district and in increasing the educational achievement of targeted groups of children. area There is no group that is an advocate for children in our schools. We propose to be that group. As an advisory committee the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, we would work in partnership with the district toward the successful achievement of its goals. We have the energy and enthusiasm for this task because it is the children in our area schools who stand to benefit. The Interdistrict Plan of April 29, 1992 provides for \"community-wide multi-ethnic citizen/parent/teacher/student committees for input into planning and decision-making\", specifically the establishment of building, district, and multi-district level committees which are racially, geographically and socioeconomically representative to provide input and feedback the operations of the schools and the districts (page 59). on We welcome this opportunity to be fully educated and informed about Little Rock School District goals and plans which affect area schools. I Our readiness to work in partnership with Little Rock School District dates back to initial desegregation plan efforts when community input was actively sought in many areas. Area School Parents and Patrons propose that an Area School Advisory Committee (ASAC) be established with the following guidelines (modeled after Magnet Review Committee and Bi-Racial Advisory Committee Organization): I1) Members: a) b) c) d) e) f) One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area Schools' Parent-Teacher Association to represent each of the Area Schools One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by PCSSD One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by Little Rock School District One (1) Ncn-ypting representative appointed by ODM This membership Would reflect the diversity of the Area Schools ('single, married, divorced- 2) Black/White/Hispanic/Asian, etc.\nReligious\nworking/non- working\nincome status, etc.] At least one member will represent ASAC on each of those groups that make decisions which affect Area Schools (e.g.. Academic Progress Incentive Grants and Focused Areas of Activities\nMagnet Review Committee\nInterdistrict/Incentive School groups, etc.) 3) ASAC will be informed of any plans (by LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, ODM, Joshua Intervenors, MRC, etc.) which potentially affect Area Schools. (Examples: A new Magnet School would directly effect the Black/White ratio at Area Schools\nchanges in funding at an Incentive School would directly affect Area School funding\nreduction of grant money\nchanges in M/M transfers, etc.) NLRSD, any 4) ASAC members will be able to review, consider, hear information (such as Business cases), evaluate, offer suggestions, and report its findings to committee and the Little Rock School District Board and Administrators, and ODM befQce decisions are made concerning Area Schools. We propose that an--a-llotted time period be given to ASAC to^^ make suggestions for Area\"SchooLs at each monthly Little Rock School District'Board Meeting. 5) a) b) I i I Within 21 days from establishment of ASAC, it is suggested that Little Rock School District provide each member with information concerning Area Schools (i.e. Desegregation plan information, number of B/W/0 students, student/teacher ratio, etc.) Ten (iQ.) working days from mail-out of Area School information, the committee will meet to begin planning and impl^enting a time table and goals to review information concerning Area Schools. I I 1C) It would be helpful for the Little __1 Liou.xi^ to provide the ASAC with a Little Rock School District Area School Administrator for the first discuss background information, this administrator would facilitate information. Rock School District two meetings to As liaison to ASAC, the flow of 6) The ASAC will a) consider any plans PJ^oposals (including changes in goals/ob]ectives) for Area Schools made by Rock School District or ODM/court. the Little b) Initiate ideas and proposals and submit LRSD/ODM/court for their consideration. them to c) Provide written feedback to Little Rock __1 concerning the impact of proposed changes on the Area Schools before the changes are implemented. School District 7) findings to the Little Rock School istrict Board of Directors, and to the ODM and Court, requested together with recommendation operation and administration of the to the efficient as 8) Area Schools. ASAC will work for consensus, but recognizes the right of any member to express dissenting concerns. The ASAC may involve volunteer assist in the ASAC process. consultants and experts to\u0026lt;?C: CCCTBBg^ u Little Rock School District February 17, 1995 a' FEB 2 1 1595 MEMORANDUM CigC3 05 DoSi :ga:\nen TO: Representatives to the Area Schools Advisory Committee FROM: Judy Magness, Board Member Martha Alman, Convener SUBJECT: AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved a proposal for development of an Area Schools Advisory Committee at the January 26, 1995 Board meeting. The purpose of the Area Schools Advisory Committee is to be an advocate for children in the LRSD Area Schools by working in partnership with the District toward the successful achievement of its goals. Each Area School received a copy of this proposal in early January. The first committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 8 at 6 p.m. , in the LRSD Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 W. Markham Street. In order to convene this meeting, committee members will need to be selected as follows: A. One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area School Parent-Teacher Association B. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education C. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors D. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Knight Intervenors E. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by LRSD F. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by Pulaski County Special School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000Memo February 17, 1995 Page 2 G. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by North Little Rock School District H. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) I. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) We would like to have the membership reflect the diversity of the Area School enrollment. Please complete the attached form and return it by March 1, to the attention of the Area Schools Advisory Committee, Superintendent's office of the Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201. If you should need another copy of the ASAC proposal, please indicate on the bottom of this form. FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED MY MARCH 1Cc - Little Rock School District February 17, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO\nFROM\nSUBJECT\nFEB 2 1 1995 Office of Desegregation Mcnilodiig Representatives to the Area Schools Advisory Committee Judy Magness, Board Member Martha Alman, Convener AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved a proposal for development of an Area Schools Advisory Committee at the January 26, 1995 Board meeting. The purpose of the Area Schools Advisory Committee is to be an advocate for children in the LRSD Area Schools by working in partnership with the District toward the successful achievement of its goals. Each Area School received a copy of this proposal in early January. The first committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 8 at 6 p.m. , Building at 810 W. in the LRSD Board Room of the Administration Markham Street. In order to convene this meeting, committee members will need to be selected as follows: A. One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area School Parent-Teacher Association B. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education C. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors D. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Knight Intervenors E. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by LRSD F. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by Pulaski County Special School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000Memo February 17, 1995 Page 2 G. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by North Little Rock School District H. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) I. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) We would like to have the membership reflect the diversity of the Area School enrollment. Please complete the attached form and return it by March 1, to the attention of the Area Schools Advisory Committee, Superintendent's office of the Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201. If you should need another copy of the ASAC proposal, please indicate on the bottom of this form. FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED MY MARCH 1 from Our Representative to the ASAC is\nNAME\nMelissa Guldin, Associate Monitor ADDRESS\n201 E. Markham, Suite 510, Heritage West Building, Little Rock, AR 72201 PHONE\n(home) 663-8177 (work) 376-6200 STAFF ODM PARENT I would like a copy of the ASAC proposal-VS- 5 Little Rock School District February 17, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: FEB 2 1 1595 CuiCS 0! Representatives to the Area Schools Advisory Committee Judy Magness, Board Member Martha Alman, Convener AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved a proposal for development of an Area Schools Advisory Committee at the January 26, 1995 Board meeting. The purpose of the Area Schools Advisory Committee is to be an advocate for children in the LRSD Area Schools by working in partnership with the District toward the successful achievement of its goals. Each Area School received a copy of this proposal in early January. The first committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 8 at 6 p.m.. Building at 810 W. in the LRSD Board Room of the Administration Markham Street. In order to convene this meeting, committee members will need to be selected as follows: A. One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area School Parent-Teacher Association B. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education C. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors D. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Knight Intervenors E. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by LRSD F. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by Pulaski County Special School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Memo February 17, 1995 Page 2 G. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by North Little Rock School District H. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) I. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) We would like to have the membership reflect the diversity of the Area School enrollment. Please complete the attached form and return it by March 1, to the attention of the Area Schools Advisory Committee, Superintendent's office of the Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201. If you should need another copy of the ASAC proposal, please indicate on the bottom of this form. FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED MY MARCH 1KKBBgg Little Rock School District Media Advisory March 2,1995 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 The newly formed Little Rock School District Area Schools Advisory^ Committee (ASAC) will hold its first meeting on Wednesday, March 8 at 6:00 p. '.m. in the board room of the administration budding at 810 W. Markham. Community members are invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to serve as representatives on the committee, ASAC was proposed by LRSD Zone 3 representative Judy Magness and was approved by the School Board in January. ### O ATr*tr'k* C4-M. 30/30'd 62:9T G6. 3 JieW 303-t732-I0S-Txej $331^^35 iSIOdcinS OSdlSee. /f-. Clryyp/c/e r? n .'7 PSRk i : ' b- :\n- :'l TO: LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FR: AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS MAR 8 1995 Office ot Desegfogation Monixn\nJ March 6,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons collected approximately 430 signatures (in less than a 24-hour period) protesting the proposed 1995-96 Budget Cuts by the LRSD Administration. Area School Parents and Patrons feel that most of these cuts were addressed in the March 1993 petition to the Court, which was accepted into the Court record. We simply feel outraged and betrayed by this Administration's blatant disregard of the primary needs of the children in the majority of the LRSD'S schools, which were addressed in that March 1993 petition. And AGAIN, we ask the Administration and the Court not only to listen to our concerns, but also to act responsibly by making cuts which DO NOT AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHH .DREN o 7 /RECS1VS3? MAR 5 1995 TO: LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FR: A CONCERNED PARENT WHO HAS TALKED WITH MANY PARE!NM 0sesresaBo.n Mcn.ic\nng March 8,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons are dazed at the prospect of the Administration's attempt to cut the Area Schools' Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the Focused Areas of Activities allotted monies, especially in light of the the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's report of December, 1994. This Administration's latest Business Case on these monies is so poorly written and difficult to understand( besides the fact that it is filled with inaccurate and incomplete information) that it simply should be rejected by the Court. The Court should demand that the LRSD give these monies to the ARFA SCHOOLS in a timely and efficient manner, and should hold The LRSD accountable for its lack of concern for the Area Schools. It is difficult to try to figure out iff this Administration deliberately writes such incredulously vague reports to confuse the people, or if this Administration is simply too incompetent to write clear, concise informational reports. Area School Parents and Patrons are adamantly opposed to cutting nurses in the Area Schools. It is this type of cut which makes the patrons of LRSD reel with feelings of rage, lack of trust, and abandonement. We demand MORE NURSES, NOT FEWER, IN OUR AREA SCHOOLS. Area School Parents and Patrons demand that the LRSD have a logical, workable plan of action in order to consider the closing of any schools. We believe that the LRSD has no workable plan for children who would be left without a school. The suggestions previously made by this district are illogical and unworkable. Haw dare the ^strict suggest that students be placed in already filled-up, overcrowded and underserved Area Schools. We do NOT support the closings of Fair Park and Badgett. Area School Parents and Patrons are fervently opposed to cutting any Counseling or Music services to our Children. AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS DO NOT SUPPORT ANY CUTS WHICH DIRECTY AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHILDREN. 7 O'. .V MINUTES 'A-5 AREA SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ASAC) 2 7 ^995 APRIL 10, 1995 LRSD Administration Building OfiiCS -  O' M j Steve Arnold served as facilitator for the second meeting of the ASAC. He called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM. Fourteen persons attended the meeting, ten of whom were voting members. The meeting began with Mr. Arnold thanking all those who helped form the ASAC as well as those committee members who attended a recent meeting called by the LRSD administration. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, called several members of the ASAC and asked them to come to the district offices and discuss a LRSD business case which proposed changes to both the Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG) and the grants for focused activities. According to representatives who attended the meeting with LRSD, during 1995-96 the district seeks to combine the two grants and offer $5000 in combined funds to each school as an allocation. While the schools will no longer be required to file a grant proposal, the projects upon which the funds are spent will be evaluated. Each school should use the APIG/focused activity fund for activities that promote academic achievement or a thematic emphasis for the school. The committee briefly discussed the need for better participation among the area school representatives, and decided to develop bylaws which would address attendance guidelines and other basic organizational issues. Steve Arnold volunteered to enlist the aid of an outside expert to prepare a draft for discussion. The committee agreed to take the task up at our next meeting. Mr. Arnold said, that in order to give committee members time to review the document, he would try to have a draft ready to mail out with the May meeting notice. Dannette Haley gave a report on the LRSD budget hearing held earlier that day in District Court. The report focused primarily on the courtroom discussion of APIGs and focused activities. Ms. Haley also explained that a number of schools had not yet received their funding, and she urged ASAC members to go back and encourage principals to go after the funding before the year ran out. Any APIG/focused activity funds left over at the end of the 1994-95 budget year will revert to the general fund. Melissa Guldin, an associate monitor at the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) explained that the LRSD does not \"roll over\" funds into a specific account\nall unspent money is reallocated through the regular budget process. Judy Magness, a member of the LRSD Board of Directors, asked the committee members to comment on the budget proposals related to APIGs and focused activities. Magness also commented that, to date, the district has spent $1,600,000 on the APIG grants to area schools. The group spent a great deal of time discussing the possibility of changing the grant funding to a per pupil basis, rather than a standard allocation per school.Page 2 ASAC Minutes for 4/10/95 Edwina McClerkan made a motion , which Dannette Haley seconded, that said : \"For the 1995-96 school year, focused activities and APIG will be combined and funded at a level of $20 per student per year. This funding will be in the form of a budget allotment [rather than through a grant application process].\" The motion was passed unanimously by the voting members present. Several committee members raised concerns about maintenance and repairs at the districts area schools. Representatives reported waiting for long periods for responses to work order requests. Due to the considerable number of concerns related to plant services, the committee decided to invite Doug Eaton, the LRSD Director of Plant Services, to attend the May ASAC meeting. The committee decided to place Mr. Eatons presentation first on the agenda and then take up the issue of ASAC by-laws. Steve Arnold placed the proposed agenda items as a formal motion, which Edwina McClurkan seconded. The motion passed without dissent. Cindy Farris, reporting for the Media Perception sub-committee, said that she has begun to keep a file of all newspaper articles and photos related to the public schools.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArea School Advisory Committee\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1206","title":"Exhibits: Unitary hearing, Pulaski County Special School District, Volume II","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":["1990/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Unitary hearing, Pulaski County Special School District, Volume II"],"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/1206"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["74 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\nExhibit numbers 426-437\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\na EXHIB TS 426 - 437 0 y e2  MAR 9 1998 OFFICE OF DES6REGAl\\OM MOMITORIMQ \u0026lt;f GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING REPORTS 1996-97 Submitted by Virginia Raum Director of Counseling Services l:XHIBIT I . 4'\u0026amp; 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS Home School Counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Elementary Counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Superstars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Secondary Counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Scholarships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 College Admission - Black Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Number of Black Students Taking ACT .. .. ..... .. ............... . ........ 25 College Representatives ...... .. ........... .. ... . .. . .. . . . ... .. . . ...... 26 Next Step Plans of Seniors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Arkansas Governor's School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 - HOME SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAM 1996-97 During the 1996-97 school year, the Pulaski County Special School District employed thirteen home school counselors/consultants to provide services to academically disadvantaged students in schools in the district that had minority student enrollment equal to or greater than 40% of the school's population. Schools receiving services were: Mills University Studies High School Fuller Junior High School Lajuana Green Bob Barker Baker Elementary/Taylor Elementary Rosalyn Jackson Bates Elementary Shirley Miller Clinton lnterdistrict Magnet School Carol Carlan Shade Gilbert Karen Lowery Crystal Hill lnterdistrict Magnet School Judith Fears-Drayton I Michelle Klee- substitute) College Station Elementary Mary Roper Fuller Elementary Mary McFadden Harris Elementary Bob Carey Jacksonville Elementary Greg Woods Landmark Elementary Laura Montgomery Student Selection Students were selected for participation in the Home School Counseling Program based on the following criteria: The student's scores on a nationally recognized norm-referenced achievement test were at or below the 25th percentile. The student's grade point average on a 4-point scale fell below a 2.0 grade point average. The student's attendance record indicated multiple absences that could be impacting academic performance. School records listed disciplinary actions taken that resulted in time out of school for the student. 1 - Students meeting all four identification criteria were offered service first. Students not meeting all enrollment standards were offered service as slots became available. Every effort was made to collect data for evaluation on each student. Students new to the district !kindergarten or transfer) could be included in the program based on teacher recommendation. Early Prevention of School Failure scores were also used to identify kindergarten students. Standardized tests were administered in the fall of 1996-97. Test scores were compiled for each student. The examination given was the Stanford Achievement Test -Ninth Addition. The home school counselors and consultants used the scores for selection of students to participate in the program and to evaluate student academic growth. All members of the Home School Counseling staff participated in Process Parenting Training. A grant for $10,000 was secured from the Arkansas Department of Human Services-Children and Family Services Division to fund the training. The counselors and consultants were introduced to the program with a three day training sessions. The counselors and consultants then presented the program to parents whose children are served by the participating schools. The instruction provided valuable information for both professional and personal use in working - with students, their families and school personnel. 2 HOME SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAM ENROLLMENT Number of students receiving services during the school year: 1995-96 1996-97 Total number of students 1296 1238 Black students 851 (66%) 817 (66%) White students 445 (34%) 421 (34%) Black males 499 (39%) 454 (37%) Black females 352 (27%) 363 (29%) White males 265 (20%) 254 (21%) White females 180 (14%) 167 (14%) Number of students who dropped out of the program: 1995-96 1996-97 - Total number of students: 125 176 Black students 66 (53%) 101 (57%) White students 59 (47%) 75 (43%) Black males 40 (32%) 60 (34%) Black females 26 (21%) 41 (23%) White males 32 (26%) 47 (27%) White females 27 )22%) 28 (16%) Number of students receiving services second semester: 1995-96 1996-97 Total number of students 1146 1062 Black students 772 (67%) 716 (67%) White students 374 (33%) 346 (33%) Black males 453 (40%) 394 (37%) Black females 319 (28%) 322 (30%) White males 225 (20%) 207 (20%) White fem ales 149 (13%) 139 (13%) 3 READING - ELEMENTARY LEVEL - IMPROVED DECLINED NOT VERIFIED SAME 95-96 96-97 95-96 96-97 95-96 96-97 95-96 96-97 Black students 332 272 36 41 109 122 85 72 White students 141 104 25 16 46 48 31 42 GRADE POINT AVERAGE - ALL SUBJECTS - SECONDARY LEVEL IMPROVED DECLINED NOT VERIFIED SAME 95-96 96-97 95-96 96-97 95-96 96-96 95-96 96-97 Black students 98 89 91 80 4 34 17 6 White students 66 67 52 37 l 30 12 2 ATTENDANCE Black Students - IMPROVED DECREASED NOT VERIFIED SAME 95-96 96-97 95-96 96-97 95-96 96-97 95-96 96-97 Elementary 228 172 194 207 76 97 64 31 Junior High 46 50 65 23 30 l 0 Senior High 44 25 47 70 3 5 4 6 318 141% 1247135%1 306140%1) 300 142%1 79110%11132118%) 6919%) 37 15%1 White Students IMPRQVED DECREASED NQT VERIFIED SAME 95-96 96-97 95-96 96-97 95-96 96-97 95-96 95-96 Elementary 108 74 80 76 33 45 22 15 Junior High 42 32 39 14 30 l Senior High 27 22 17 33 2 4 4 0 177 147%) 128 137%1 136 136%) 123136%) 3519%1 79123%1 26 17%) 16 15%) 4 - TOTAL NUMBER OF S-ENTS RECEIVING SERVICES - SECOND SEMESTER 1996-97 COUNSELOR/CONSULTANT BLACK MALES BLACK FEMALES WHITE MALES WHITE FEMALES TOTAL ELEMENTARY CAROL CARLAN 34 31 33 19 117 BOB CAREY 39 37 18 13 107 ROSALYN JACKSON NO REPORT MICHELE KLEE 31 22 9 8 70 MARY MCFADDEN 38 41 17 13 109 SHIRLEY MILLER 45 36 22 15 118 LAURA MONTGOMERY 44 32 16 15 107 MARY ROPER 41 18 12 18 89 GREG WOODS 47 34 13 12 106 TOTAL 319 251 140 113 823 JUNIOR HIGH BOB BARKER 32 26 36 16 110 KAREN LOWERY 40 26 34 13 113 TOTAL 72 52 70 29 223 SENIOR HIGH LAJUANA GREEN 30 33 22 10 95 SHADE GILBERT 33 27 22 15 97 TOTAL 63 60 44 25 192 GRAND TOTAL 454 363 254 167 1238 5 TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENl- HO DROPPED FROM THE PROGRAM - 1996-97 COUNSELOR/CONSULT ANT BLACK MALES BLACK FEMALES WHITE MALES WHITE FEMALES TOTAL ELEMENTARY CAROL CARLAN 8 13 8 3 32 BOB CAREY 1 0 0 1 2 ROSALYN JACKSON NO REPORT MICHELE KLEE 2 1 1 1 5 MARY MCFADDEN 4 8 3 1 16 SHIRLEY MILLER 7 4 5 4 20 LAURA MONTGOMERY 3 0 3 1 7 MARY ROPER 4 3 3 6 16 GREG WOODS 4 1 1 2 8 TOTAL 33 30 24 19 106 JUNIOR HIGH BOB BARKER 6 2 8 2 18 KAREN LOWERY 10 3 9 3 25 TOTAL 16 5 17 5 43 SENIOR HIGH LAJUANA GREEN 6 4 2 3 15 SHADE GILBERT 5 2 4 1 12 TOTAL 11 6 6 4 27 GRAND TOTAL 60 41 47 28 176 6 TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS REMAINING AE PROGRAM AT THE END OF SECOND SEMESTER - 1996-97 COUNSELOR/CONSULT ANT BLACK MALES BLACK FEMALES WHITE MALES WHITE FEMALES TOTAL ELEMENTARY CAROL CARLAN 26 18 25 16 85 BOB CAREY 38 37 18 12 105 ROSALYN JACKSON NO REPORT MICHELE KLEE 29 21 8 7 65 MARY MCFADDEN 34 33 14 12 93 SHIRLEY MILLER 38 32 17 11 98 LAURA MONTGOMERY 41 32 13 14 100 MARY ROPER 37 15 9 12 73 GREG WOODS 43 33 12 10 98 TOTAL 286 221 116 94 717 JUNIOR HIGH BOB BARKER 26 24 28 14 92 KAREN LOWERY 30 23 25 10 88 TOTAL 56 47 53 24 180 SENIOR HIGH LAJUANA GREEN 24 29 20 7 80 SHADE GILBERT 28 25 18 14 85 TOTAL 52 54 38 21 165 GRAND TOTAL 394 322 207 139 1062 7 I COUNSELOR/CONSULTANT ELEMENTARY READING LEVEL CAROL CARLAN BOB CAREY ROSALYN JACKSON MICHELE KLEE MARY MCFADDEN SHIRLEY MILLER LAURA MONTGOMERY MARY ROPER GREG WOODS TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH GPA BOB BARKER KAREN LOWERY TOTAL SENIOR HIGH GPA LAJUANA GREEN SHADE GILBERT TOTAL GRAND TOTAL REPORT ON STU. T ACADEMIC PROGRESS SECOND SEMESTER 1996-97 IMPROVED DECREASED I BLACK WHITE BLACK WHITE 7 10 14 5 33 13 10 4 NO REPORT 36 9 3 0 49 20 0 0 50 20 0 0 57 23 0 1 24 7 5 16 2 9 5 272 104 41 16 21 11 15 11 26 22 8 47 33 23 12 20 18 29 9 22 16 28 16 42 34 57 25 361 171 121 53 8 NO WAY TO VERIFY SAME BLACK WHITE BLACK WHITE 12 10 11 16 14 7 18 6 0 0 11 6 18 6 0 0 17 7 3 1 13 3 3 0 19 9 4 4 29 6 22 9 122 48 72 42 13 18 2 17 12 2 0 30 30 3 2 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 156 78 78 44 I COUNSELOR/CONSUL TANT ELEMENTARY I CAROL CARLAN BOB CAREY ROSALYN JACKSON MICHELE KLEE MARY MCFADDEN SHIRLEY MILLER LAURA MONTGOMERY MARY ROPER GREG WOODS TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH BOB BARKER KAREN LOWERY TOTAL SENIOR HIGH LAJUANA GREEN SHADE GILBERT TOTAL GRAND TOTAL REPORT ON-DENTS ATTENDANCE SECOND SEMESTER 1996-967 IMPROVED DECREASED ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE BLACK WHITE BLACK WHITE 19 21 17 12 26 7 28 10 NO REPORT 5 2 40 6 26 11 22 9 17 5 34 16 31 8 25 13 20 8 18 5 28 12 23 5 172 74 207 76 25 13 12 10 25 19 11 4 50 32 23 14 15 10 34 17 10 12 36 16 25 22 70 33 247 128 300 123 9 NO WAY TO VERIFY SAME ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE BLACK WHITE BLACK WHITE 3 8 5 0 14 7 7 6 3 5 2 2 18 6 0 13 5 6 2 14 3 3 3 14 8 0 0 18 3 7 2 97 45 31 15 13 18 0 17 12 0 0 30 30 0 0 0 4 0 5 4 2 0 5 4 6 0 132 79 37 16 rE. REPORT ON . DENT TEST SCORES - 1996-97 COUNSELOR/CONSUL TANT IMPROVED DECREASED NO WAY TO VERIFY TOTALS TEST SCORES TEST SCORES TEST SCORES ELEMENTARY BLACK WHITE BLACK WHITE BLACK WHITE CAROL CARLAN 20 12 4 5 20 24 85 BOB CAREY 13 8 15 5 47 17 105 ROSALYN JACKSON NO REPORT MICHELE KLEE 12 8 20 2 20 6 68 MARY MCFADDEN 15 9 12 5 40 12 93 SHIRLEY MILLER 41 18 17 6 9 2 93 LAURA MONTGOMERY 34 10 11 9 28 8 100 MARY ROPER 12 8 7 3 33 10 73 GREG WOODS 19 5 8 4 49 13 98 TOTAL 166 78 94 39 246 92 715 JUNIOR HIGH BOB BARKER 21 17 12 14 17 11 92 KAREN LOWERY 19 13 14 11 20 8 85 TOTAL 40 30 26 25 37 19 177 SENIOR HIGH LAJUANA GREEN 8 3 3 42 23 80 SHADE GILBERT 7 6 4 0 42 26 85 TOTAL 15 9 7 84 49 165 GRAND TOTAL 221 117 127 65 367 160 1057 Students with identical scores for both years are not reported. 10  HOME SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAM ELEMENTARY LEVEL Baker Elementary The home school consultant at Baker Elementary was asked to serve two schools this year. Taylor Elementary was added to her assigment. Due to a family medical emergency, the home school consultant was on leave for the last nine-weeks of the school year and not available to submit a final report. Bates Elementary Career awareness was the emphasis at this school. The home school consultant conducted groups on careers and incorporated two field trips into the activities. The trips were planned to appeal to the educational needs of parents, as well as the future needs of the students. Selected parents were asked to accompany the children. After the death of a Bates' student at a school bus stop, the consultant also worked with the Granite Mountain Community on grief issues. Clinton lnterdistrict Magnet School The Home School Program at Clinton elementary was well received by the staff, parents, and students. Special attention was given to disaster relief, fire victims and the homeless. Many families were identified with special needs and several agencies were contacted to provide assistance. Positive results were experienced by the students who received tutoring (both individual and group) in reading, mathematics and spelling . College Station Elementary The home school consultant worked closely with the elementary counselor to provide for the needs of the students in the program. The tornado at the first of March had a severe impact on the students and the community. Many agencies were contacted for assistance. The counseling department at this school coordinated much of the disaster relief. Crystal Hill lnterdistrict Magnet School Judith Fears-Drayton, Crystal Hills' Home School Consultant, has been on leave second semester. There was a period of about 2 l /2 months the school was without a home school consultant. Mrs. Michelle Klee was hired as a substitute in mid-March. Mrs. Klee tutored the students in math, English, spelling and reading. School supplies were purchased so that the students had the necessary items to complete school assignments. She also assisted the elementary counselors with the Aim High Club, a career day, and the Peace Patrol training. Fuller Elementary The March tornado and the closing of Apollo Terrace has proven stressful to the students at Fuller Elementary. The home school consultant worked closely with the elementary counselor to remove some of the pressure by providing activities such as Project Improve, Our Club, a basketball team and a choir. Field trips to Blanchard Springs, the Titanic Exhibit in Memphis and Space Camp in Huntsville, Alabama were taken to give the students insight into careers. 11  Harris Elementary A mentoring program was established to help students perform academically and to improve school discipline. Assistance with the Mentor Program was provided by the Masons, retired military personnel and teachers. The home school consultant continued to coach a basketball team, to help with the Future Builders' Tutoring Program and to transport students to and from the pfeiffer Camp Program. Several efforts were made, with the cooperation of local agencies, to help improve the lives of the students identified for the program by providing medical assistance or eyeglasses. Landmark Elementary The home school consultant focused this year on positive parent participation. Parents assisted with Fall Fest and solicited prizes and funds worth about $5000. During the spring Mardi Gras celebration, parents operated a store at school where students could purchase items for the Mardi Gras parade. This activity enriched the students understanding of another area of our country and served as a multicultural experience. The tornado on March 1, 1997, had a great impact on the students and families in the school . Landmark and the home school consultant were there with open arms to make sure the families were taken care of and physical and emotional needs of the students were met. Jacksonville Elementary The home school consultant found the second year at Jacksonville Elementary to be a rewarding one. A drill team, a basketball team and the stock market game were implemented to help motivate students to achieve. Parents were more receptive to assistance and the school staff was supportive. The basketball program helped several students improve their grades, control their bE:havior in the classroom, and improve their self-esteem. Several students were observed going from being unmotivated to developing a sense of pride in their accomplishments and an understanding that if they do positive things\npositive things will happen to them. Fuller Junior High School The home school counselors at Fuller Junior High were involved in their customary duties , including school-based counseling, home visits, parent support, referrals and consultation with outside agencies. The tornado which hit Pulaski and Saline Counties was particularly devastating to a number of Fuller Junior High School students and their families. Over 100 Fuller students were identified as having been affected, physically and emotionally by the storm. The home School Counselors worked with the administration, the secondary counselors and the school staff in coordinating the crisis response and providing relief through acquiring and delivering donations from students, staff, churches, and other agencies. School efforts included group counseling, providing updates and information to staff, and follow-up support and sessions for victims. Duties also included serving as liaisons to several committees. Working with the Parent/Guardian Training Committee, the home school counselors helped plan and facilitate the first Fuller parent Visit Day.'~ Over 100 parents registered to experience a day at Fuller with their children. Plans are being made for this to be an annual event. 12  Mms University Studies High School While both home school counselors were new to Mills this school year, they felt the year was a good one and that a strong foundation was built with students, parents, faculty, and administrators that will lead to better years to come. The major accomplishment made for the community came during the relief efforts in the aftermath of the tornado. Food, clothing, and other support was given to families and students from College Station and the Arch Street areas. The activities the counselors participated in and assisted with included: Job Fair, Honors Night, COE, graduation exercises, study skills training, drug education ( activities such as Neon Drunk Driver Simulator and Prom Promise Pledge Day) and career planning . 13 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - HOME SCHOOL COUNSELOR/CONSUL TANT REPORT 1996-97 1995-96 1996-97 Number of black students counseled individually: 5,323 5303 Average per counselor 409 442 Number of white students counseled individually: 2,734 2943 Average per counselor: 210 245 Number of black students seen in groups 4,502 3440 Average per counselor: 346 287 Number of white students seen in groups 4,874 2728 Average per counselor: 375 227 Number of teacher/counselor conferences 3,993 4146 Average per counselor: 307 346 - Number of administrator/counselor conferences: 1,833 1821 Average per counselor: 141 152 Number of parent/counselor conferences: 2,625 2062 Average per counselor: 202 172 Number of conferences with referral agencies: 776 786 Average per counselor: 60 66 Number of conferences with other resources, support staff, etc. 2618 2554 Average per counselor: 201 213 Number of hours of home visits: 2498 3206 Average per counselor: 192 267 14 ELEMENT ARY COUNSELING 1996-97 The Pulaski County Special School District employed twenty-nine 129) elementary counselors to provide counseling services to students in grades K-6 during the 1996-97 school year. The racial composition of the group was twenty-three whites 179.3%) and six blacks 120.6%). All elementary counselors were female. Twenty of the counselors worked in single schools full time. Eight counselors served two schools and one counselor provided service to three separate schools. The duties performed by the elementary counselors were in compliance with Act 908 of 1991 of the Arkansas legislative session. Under the regulations for this act, the counselor/student ratio is 1/450. The act requires school counselors to spend 75% of work time providing direct services to students. The remaining 25% could be devoted to administrative activities provided the activities relate directly to the provision of guidance services. The elementary counselors conduct classroom guidance sessions, small group counseling sessions, individual counseling, and consultations. Approximately 50% of the counselors' time was spent in delivering classroom sessions. This amount of time was spent on classroom instruction because the elementary counselors believe that prevention of problems is easier to achieve than modification of behaviors or attitudes, once problems exist. The following sessions were conducted in all or most of the schools in the district during the 1996-97 school year: 1. Orientation to Counseling Service 2. Self Esteem Building 3. Friendship 4. Transition to Junior High 5. Conflict Resolution 6. Teamwork 7. Career Awareness B. McGruff 9. Study Skills 1 O. Too Good For Drugs Introductory Units Examples of other units taught in selected schools included: 1 . Test Preparation 2. Prejudice/Discrimination 3. Character Education 4. Understanding and Respecting Feelings 5. Safety/Self Protection Other programs conducted, maintained, or supported by the elementary counselors were: 1. Student Ambassadors 2. S.T.O.P. !Peer tutoring program) 3. Red Ribbon Week 4. Academic Awards 5. Superstars Program 6. Rice Depot !food distribution) 15 The elementary school counselors assisted in the following: l . 2. 3. 4. Junior University SA T-8 Testing D.A.R.E. Program Kindergarten Testing A growing number of children enter school with physical and emotional needs that are not being met. The role of the elementary counselor is to identify those children and to facilitate assistance so that the children can concentrate on academic growth.  Counselors should be there to help a child one-on-one or in small groups, to solve a problem, deal w1Yh an interpersonal or family issue, or work on a conflid between the students and a teacher or another staff member, or even a conflid w1Yh a friend- Carolyn Shelton, president of the American School Counselor Association. Better Homes and Gardens Magazine The elementary counselors in the Pulaski County Special School District attempt to fill the above described role. They are a dedicated group of individuals working with parents, students, teachers, and administrators to improve the school climate by meeting individual needs . This school year, many of the counselors took an active part in the tornado relief efforts for victims of the March l, 1997, tornado. The counselors coordinated the procurement of resources and their distribution. They conducted small groups and individual sessions to help students deal with the loss of relatives, friends, homes and pets. The counselors comforted students when additional spring storms came through this area and share information and insight with concerned parents. Whatever the crisis, be it the death of a student at a bus stop , a tornado , or the death of a parent, the persons employed as elementary counselors use all their acquired skill s to bring comfort to the involved individuals. Children can learn and teachers can teach, only when their individual needs are met. 16 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - ELEMENT ARY COUNSELING REPORT 1996-97 1994-95 1995-96 196-97 Number of students seen in classroom guidance activities: 181,101 171,395 167,804 Average per counselor: 6,037 5,910 9,683 Number of black students seen in small groups: 5,497 7,765 6,1 88 Average per counselor: 183 268 213 Number of white students seen in small groups: 7,696 9,729 8,304 Average per counselor: 257 335 286 Number of black students counseled individually: 7,364 7,040 7,582 Average per counselor: 245 243 260 Number of white students counseled individually: 14,220 12,989 13,937 Average per counselor: 474 447 480 Number of black parents seen in conferences: 594 690 760 Average per counselor: 20 23 26 Number of white parents seen in conferences: 2,205 2,364 2550 Average per counselor: 74 82 88 Number of black parents contacted by phone: 769 722 759 Average per counselor: 26 25 26 Number of white parents contacted by phone: 1,806 1,547 1,965 Average per counselor: 60 53 68 Number of black parents contacted by letter: 4,172 2,959 4,234 Average per counselor: 139 102 146 Number of white parents contacted by letter: 7,842 7,043 9,351 Average per counselor: 261 243 322 Number of teacher/counselor conferences 8,335 7,976 8,797 Average per counselor: 278 275 303 Number of administrator/counselor conferences 3,565 3,698 3,924 Average per counselor: 119 128 135 Number of support staff/counselor conferences: 2,185 2,318 2,558 Average per counselor: 73 79 88 17 - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERSTARS 1995-96 SCHOOL BLACK BLACK TOTAL PERCENT ENROLLMENT WHITE WHITE TOTAL PERCENT ENROLLMENT SCHOOL FEMALES MALES BLACKS TOTAL PERCENTAGE FEMALES MALES WHITE TOTAL PERCENTAGE TOTAL Adkins 89 85 174 42% 40% 132 112 244 58% 60% 418 Arnold Drive 58 56 114 23% 25% 205 171 376 77% - 75% 490 Baker 48 52 100 22% 24% 171 183 354 78% 76% 454 Bates 117 97 214 54% 53% 103 76 179 46% 47% 393 Bayou Melo 7 18 25 3% 3% 435 395 830 97% 97% 855 Cato 91 65 156 20% 23% 311 315 626 80% ----- 77% - 782 Clinton 225 183 408 48% 48% 217 225 442 52% 52% 850 -- - College Station 77 75 152 45% 46% 84 103 187 55% 54% 339 ------ ---- Crystal Hill 188 188 376 44% 45% 244 243 487 56% 55% 863 Dupree 68 66 134 27% 26% 204 158 362 73% - -- -- 74% 496 --- --- Fuller 178 161 339 62% 63% 126 85 211 38% 37% 550 --- - Harris 80 46 126 50% 53% 55 69 124 50% 47% -25-0 - Jacksonville 113 116 229 43% 42% 176 132 308 57% 58% 537 Landmark 158 173 331 43% 43% 234 210 444 57% 57% 775 32 70 16% 16% 181 192 373 84% \u0026gt;---- - -- - Lawson 38 84% 443 Oak Grove 41 40 81 21% 22% 172 132 304 79% 78% 385 Oakbrooke 54 92 146 22% 24% 248 255 503 78% 76% 649 Pine Forest 68 58 126 22% 21% 218 229 447 78% 79% 573 Pinewood 127 146 273 35% 35% 259 256 515 65% 65% 788 Robinson 64 50 114 22% 24% 213 202 415 78% ~ 76% - 529 Scott 36 36 72 38% 35% 60 60 120 63% 65% 192 84 19% 25% 178 188 366 81% - ~ 75% --- Sherwood 44 40 450 Sylvan Hills 50 50 100 21% 21% 179 187 366 79% 79% 466 --- Taylor 96 148 244 39% 41% 184 199 383 61% - 59% 627 Tolleson 88 52 140 23% 23% 241 231 472 77% - 77% 612 Grand Totals 2203 2125 4328 31% 33% 4830 4608 9438 69% 67% 13766 18 Enrollment percentage is taken from the third mne weeks period Percent of Tolal 1nd1cates the percentage of sludents who received super star awards by race w1th1n the school SECONDARY COUNSELING 1996-97 The Pulaski County Special School District employed thirty certified secondary counselors to provide counseling services to students in grades 7 -12 in the district. The counselors employed by the district averaged 12.65 years of experience in counseling and guidance. Of the thirty counselors employed: Four were male Twenty-six were female Nine were black Twenty-one were white 113%) 187%) 130%) 170%) Eleven of the secondary schools' counseling departments organized a Care Committee composed of students trained to help other students. The Alternative Learning Center did not form a committee because the student body was configured into families that provide the same type of support services. A total of 492 students participated on the committees. Black students 1197) made up 40% of the committees membership and white students 129 51 comprised 60% of the membership. Students participating on a Care Committee receive training in peer counseling and the warning signs for suicide. Some activities undertaken by various committees included: l . Participation in Youth Suicide Prevention Week/Conference 2. Red Ribbon Week Activities 3. Food/Clothing drives for Tornado Victims 4. Prom Promise 5. Christmas Toy Drive 6. All Star Retreat The counseling departments sponsored Guidance Advisory Committees. These committees served in an advisory capacity to the school counseling personnel. The committees composed of parents, teachers, students, administrators, and counselors met and reviewed current counseling practices. Recommendations for change or improvement came from the committee back to the counselors for consideration. During the 1996-97 school year, 116 persons served on the committees. Of that number fifty were black 143%) and sixty-six were white 157%). Jacksonville High, Mills High, North Pulaski High, Oak Grove High and the Alternative Learning Center did not have committees. Sylvan Hills Junior High School combined the Guidance Advisory Committee with the School Equity Committee. The counselors conducted various activities to promote multicultural understanding. The activities included: l . distributing information on minority enrichment programs at state institutions, 2. designing and preparing bulletin boards with multicultural themes, 3. recommending students for inclusion in the Upward Bound Program, 4. working with foreign exchange students, 5. scheduling visits by representatives of minority institutions, and 6. recruiting students for Future 500. 7. scheduling presentations on multicultral issues by outside agencies li.e., Multirace say It Straight\"-by The Centers for Youth and Families) 19 The secondary counselors continued to conduct many activities in educational and career guidance. A list of activities follows: 1 . The Pulaski County Special School District held a college Day  for seniors in October. 2. The three districts, in conjunction with Pulaski Technical College, conducted a \"Job Fair\" for seniors going into the world of work. 3. All ninth-grade parents were invited to individual conferences to discuss the educational and career goals of their students. 4. Selected students were accompanied to Metropolitan Vocational School's Open House. The counselors administered the Test of Adult Basic Education IT ABEi Practice Exercise and Locator Test. Acts 572 and 837 of 199 5 placed the responsibility for testing students sixteen and seventeen years of age, who wish to drop out of public school and enroll in an adult education program, on the public schools. Due to time constraints, the counselors elected to administer the Locator Test rather than the complete battery. After the parents contact the counselor to request testing, the test is administered and a parent/student/counselor conference is held. A discussion then takes place on the best education path for the student to pursue. At the conclusion of the conference, a decision is reached. If the conference decision is for the student to continue the pursuit of an adult education program of study, a form is completed and the parent is instructed to take the completed form and a letter requesting permission to withdraw from public school to the office of Pupil Personnel. The Arkansas Legislature removed this testing responsibility at the end of the 1996-97 school year from the counselors. The role of the secondary counselor included being responsible for personal and social counseling\neducational and career planning\nminority recruitment for scholarships, college applications, enrichment programs, and advanced classes, as well as standardized testing. The individuals who are employed as counselors are persons who are willing to put forth much effort to see their responsibilities completed. Because of the variety of tasks allocated to the secondary counselors, patrons often complain about the speed in which their needs are met. Pulaski County secondary counselors work hard to fulfill the requests of parents, teachers and students in a timely manner. Unfortunately, as the work load increases on secondary counselors so does the time needed to response to concerns and demands. The promotion of positive community relations (quick and accurate response to concerns) must be a priority for counselors. 20 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - SECONDARY COUNSELORS REPORT 1996-97 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Number of classroom counseling sessions: 1,294 489 857 Average per counselor: 43 16 29 Number of black students seen in small groups: 1,480 1,563 1,309 Average per counselor: 49 52 44 Number of white students seen in small groups: 2,769 2,547 2,017 Average per counselor: 92 85 67 Number of individual counseling sessions with black students: 19,306 17,222 22,473 Average per counselor: 644 574 749 Number of individual counseling sessions with white students: 28,266 28,055 25,962 Average per counselor: 942 935 865 Number of conferences with black parents: 6,123 6,927 6,492 Average per counselor: 204 231 216 Number of conferences with white parents: 13,205 13,794 12,125 Average per counselor: 440 460 404 Number of teacher/counselor conferences: 11, 158 12, 124 10,836 Average per counselor: 372 404 361 Number of administrator/counselor conferences: 5,447 5,587 4,865 Average per counselor: 182 186 162 Number of referral agency/counselor conferences: 1,187 985 871 Average per counselor: 40 33 29 Number of special education conferences: 2,432 2,344 1,678 Average per counselor: 81 78 56 Number of conferences with college, 1,312 1,402 1,022 vocational technical, and military representatives: 43 47 34 Average per counselor: 21 Total Value Accepled Scholarships Number of Accepled SCHOOL Scholarship ht Year 4 Year Value Value Jacbonville Hieh $237.315 $870 175 95 Mills Hieh $287.547 $1,140 756 79 Nonh Pulaski Hi2h $229.745 S 815 .245 77 Oak Orove Hiah $ 66 658 S 229 882 25 Robi010n Hiah $ 74 275 $ 279 690 29 Sylvan Hills Hi.l!h $206 660 S 748 640 87 Diltrict SI 102 200 $4 048 388 392 SCHOLARSHIP REPORT 1996-97 Total Value Declined Scholarships Number of Srudenl\u0026amp; Black While Other Isl Year 4 Year Value Value 16 38 4 $145 849 $ 572 896 20 30 2 $ 274 967 $ I 078 252 37 12 I $55 634 $ 222 539 3 16 0 $ JO 280 $ 41.120 3 19 0 $ 70 600 $ 266.300 18 51 0 $ 83 139 $ 310 330 97 172 7 S640.470 $2 491,337 TOTAL276 22 Number of Declined Number of Students Scholarships Black White Other 32 3 14 I 61 16 JO 2 21 4 13 0 3 0 3 0 33 1 10 0 22 7 20 0 172 31 70 3 TOTAL 104 DISTRICT COMPARISON OF SCHOLARSHIPS AWARDED - 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Number of accepted scholarships: 232 258 392 Total value of accepted scholarships: First year value $727,363 $827,161 $1,102,200 Four year value $2.760,291 $3,121,140 $4,084,388 Number of students accepting scholarships: Black 58 56 97 White 170 195 172 Other 4 7 7 - Total 232 258 276 Number of declined scholarships: 155 95 172 Total value of declined scholarships: First year value $663.427 $510,733 $640.470 Four year value $2,589,644 $1,961,962 $2.491,337 Number of students declining scholarships: Black 13 18 31 White 67 74 70 Other 0 3 3 Total 80 95 104 23 SCHOOL NUMBER TAKING ACT SCHOOL YEAR 91-92 92-93 93-94 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 48 66 58 MILLS HIGH 33 37 33 NORTH PULASKI HIGH 27 15 24 OAK GROVE HIGH 11 11 19 ROBINSON HIGH 13 13 28 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 23 22 28 COLLEGE ADMISSION TESTS BLACK STUDENTS 1995-96 II 94-95 95-96 96-97 91 -92 35 47 38 17 29 23 46 17 35 20 30 18 18 18 17 17 18 9 21 17 29 21 41 17 AVERAGE SCORE 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 17 17 17 17 18 17 18 18 19 19 18 18 18 18 19 16 18 17 18 16 17 17 17 16 16 19 17 17 18 18 r.   r\nmrmi~~-.e,1~--~r ... , .. t\n!r ...... --,,.-r.-:i- 11!':~\"'t~1TI(\"\"\"1'P:::JF.~'lr 'Jr  r ..  -- i1 '\"' r-.  .,. -!i7  .,. - .. r  -r- 'f\n1 l!:_\n__~ ..~ ,.__ ___ _ !_. 24 NUMBER OF BLACK ST,ENTS TAKING ACT 1995-96 BY SCHOOL SCHOOL YEAR JACKSONVILLE HIGH 38 SYLVAN HILLS MILLS HIGH 46 HIGH NORTH PULASKI HIGH 30 OAK GROVE HIGH 17 ROBINSON ROBINSON HIGH 21 HIGH SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 41 OAK GROVE HIGH NORTH PULASKI HIGH ''. MILLS HIGH JACKSONVILLE HIGH 0 10 20 30 40 50 25 l Series2 I  Series1 COLLEGE REPRESENTATIVE MONITORING FORM 1996-97 SCHOOL Number of institutions Number of traditionally who sent representatives minority institutions who for visits. sent representatives for visits. Jacksonville High 18 3 Mills High 21 2 North Pulaski High 10 l Oak Grove High 8 0 Robinson High 14 l Sylvan Hills High 71 6 Total 142 13 (9%) Comparison of College Representatives Who Visited Total number of institutions: Number of minority institutions: 1993-94 163 15(9%) 26 1994-95 114 15 (13%) 1995-96 135 18 (13%) 1996-97 142 13 (9%) COLLEGE REPRESENTATIVE MONITORING FORM The Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District held a College Fair at Fisher Armory on October 24, 1996 . Students from Jacksonville High School, Mills High School, North Pulaski High School, Oak Grove High School, and Robinson High School, participated. The College Fair was held to facilitate student access to a variety of colleges and universities. The activity is funded through the district's office for desegregation. The following colleges and universities sent representatives: Abilene Christian University Arkansas State University - Jonesboro Arkansas State University - Beebe Arkansas Tech University Art Institute of Dallas Baylor University Centenary College of Louisiana Central Baptist College Christian Brothers College College of the Ozarks Drury College East Texas Baptist University Harding University Henderson University Hendrix College ITT Technical Institute Lambuth University Lane College Louisiana Tech University Lyon College Northwood University Oklahoma Baptist University Oklahoma City University Ouachita Baptist College Park College Philander Smith College Phillips University Pulaski Technical College Shorter College Southern Arkansas University Southern Methodist University Southwest Baptist University St. Louis College of Pharmacy 27 Texas Christian University Union University University of Arkansas -Fayetteville University of Arkansas - Little Rock University of Arkansas - Monticello University of Arkansas - Pine Bluff University of Arkansas Medical Science University of Central Arkansas University of Mississippi University of the Ozarks University of Tulsa Washington and Lee University Webster University Westminister College William Jewell College William Woods University Williams Baptist College . ~ - - - \"NEXT STEP\" PLANS OF SENIORS - 1996-97 I I I PLANS OF SENIORS B w B w B w B w B w B w B w Total \"' Numbar of enior in class (who areduatad). 78 128 81 90 47 136 16 60 11 61 69 176 269 649 918 100\"\u0026lt;. Number with Diana to enter colleae: 41 80 40 89 9 63 7 20 8 46 35 119 140 388 628 67\"\" Number enterina non-colleae trelnina oroarama: 8 6 10 8 18 28 6 17 0 5 9 18 48 80 128 14'6, Number planning to enter the field of acience, math, modern foraign larvw.,..,...a: 7 17 6 11 6 24 3 6 7 24 12 31 39 112 161 18'6, Number plannina to enter the field of teachina: 8 16 6 6 6 13 0 0 0 6 16 8 33 44 77 II \"- Numbar aoina immedlatelv into military ervice: 6 6 4 7 6 11 0 1 0 0 3 8 18 33 61 8'6, Numbar goina directlv into regular emc\u0026gt;lovment: 23 38 6 8 16 46 3 22 2 10 12 29 60 148 208 23\"- Number of preceding category who plan to enter college 10 16 0 0 7 21 1 5 1 5 7 15 26 82 88 10% later: Othr (married and no oln for trelning or emolovmentJ: 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 7 1\" Number with no olan at ell: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o\" 28 COMPARISON OF \"NEXT STEP\" PLANS OF SENIORS . . . Plans of Seniors B w TOTAL % II w TOTAL % CHANGE % Number of aeniora in cl  11 (who grdu tdl. 262 894 948 100% 289 849 918 100% --- Number with plan to enter college: 138 384 620 66% 140 386 628 67% lncree  e Number entering non-college training programs 34 82 118 12% 48 80 128 14% Increase Number planning to enter the field of  cienc , math, modern foreign languages: 32 131 183 17% 39 112 161 18% Decree e Number planning to enter the field of teaching: 28 62 88 9% 33 44 11 8% Decrease Number going immediately into military service: 26 48 71 1% 18 33 61 8% Decree  e Number going directly into regular employment: ( 62 162 214 23% 80 148 208 23% Same Number of preceding category who plan to enter college later: 17 63 10 1% 28 62 88 10% Increase Other (married end no plans for training or employment I: 3 13 18 2% 4 3 1 1% Increase Number with no Diena et ell: 2 1 9 1% 0 0 0 0% Decrease 29 1997 Arkansas Governor's School STUDENTS NOMI NA TED SCHOOL TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER Jacksonville High 6 6 0 0 Mills High 24 16 5 3 North Pulaski High 10 9 1 0 Oak Grove High 0 0 0 0 Robinson High 7 4 3 0 Sylvan Hills High 5 5 0 0 Totals 52 40 9 3 In Pulaski County Special School District, 52 students applied for admission to the Arkansas Governor's School and 27 were accepted (52% of those whCJ applied). School Number of Students Number of Students Accepted Alternates Jacksonville High 4 0 Mills High 17 ' 0 North Pulaski High 2 1 Oak Grove High 0 0 Robinson High 3 1 Sylvan Hills High 1 0 District Total 27 2 30 Ten Year History Year To Attend As Alternates Total 1988 36 12 48 1989 29 8 37 1990 26 15 41 1991 21 19 40 1992 33 11 44 1993 28 6 34 1994 18 9 27 1995 21 11 32 1996 31 11 42 1997 27 2 29 Areas of Participation Areas Number of Students Number of Students Accepted Alternates Choral Music 3 0 Drama 0 1 Language Arts 8 1 Instrumental Music 1 0 Math 3 0 Natural Science 6 0 Social Studies 4 0 Visual Arts 2 0 31 RECOMMENDATIONS: Counselors at all levels are expressing a need for computers and computer software to support counseling functions. The elementary counselors have requested televisions and VCR's to use in classroom presentations with students. Home school counselors and consultants would like to expand the use of the cellular phones beyond just emergency situations. 32 NOT IN EVAL. Comments or Suggestions: 0 ~ l \\ A TN fuLt::~ Computer printers and word processing capabilities are needed in e~ounselor's office. There is still a need to enable all counselors' computers to run the GIS Jr. Career Program and in C.O. classes, aiding in 4-year plan work for 8th graders and parent conferences in 9th grade. In addition, a greater flexibility in the use of air conditioning before and after contract times would be beneficial. Counseling students and meeting students' needs continues to be a priority. There are many ongoing conferences with students, teachers, and administrators. There seems to be a larger number of suicidal, DHS, and screening/referral meetings. The court continues to recommend students for special education testing. This issue needs to be addresses by PCSSD. Sylvan Hills Junior Do something to relieve counselors of Special Education paperwork. Place counselors on higher pay scale (comparable to examiners). Due to the large number of students with special needs !CBI, MR, LD, ADD-HD, OHi, 504, Emotional Disturbed) this department needs a counselor/social worker to work with this population!!! Northwood We continue to need help on how to get everything done that is expected of us with fewer days of contract. Mills We are still in need of a copier. When the machine does work, copies are only file copy acceptable. Anything of importance must be taken to the main office for copying. Also, I believe a paper shredder should be purchased for the school. The amount of documents that contain personal and confidential information that is disposed of yearly is scary. The documents are tossed in a dumpster for anyone to find and read. Space is needed for small group work. The conference room is shared by many people. It has been requested that specialist and other people use the conference room on days other than Tuesday and Wednesday mornings. This time is needed for small group work. Oak Grove High The Guidance Secretary's contract should be extended to be the same as the counselor's contract\nand the secretary should be paid better wages. There is a dire need for a new typewriter and copier. Our offices need soundproofing. Everything that is said in our offices is heard outside in the waiting room. Our intercom does not work. Please cut out or assign to other departments some of our paperwork so that we may devote more time for counseling. Our principal said that counselors are suppose to spend 75% with the students and 25% on paperwork. What will be done about this since as of now it seems that it is the other way around the paperwork receiving the 7 5%. How will this be monitored? What procedures should we follow to accomplish this because they are right? Counselors should be counseling. Robinson High With a new counselor, new secretary, and new department head, each of us faced many new challenges this year. It has been a very busy, but productive year. Sylvan Hills High GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING REPORTS 1995-96 Table of Contents Home School Counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Elementary Counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Superstars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Secondary Counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Scholarships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 College Admission - Black Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Number of Black Students Taking ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 College Representatives ... . ... . ... . .. .. ............... . ..... .. ... . ......... . . . .... 20 Next Step Plans for Seniors ..... . ..................... . ........ .. ............... . . . . 22 Arkansas Governor's School ..... . .. . .. . ..... . .... .. . . ......... . ..... . ...... . .. . . . . 24 Recommendations .. ...... ... .... . . . ......... .. ..... .. ......... . ... .. . .. . . ........ 26 - HOME SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAM 1995-96 During the 1995-96 school year, the Pulaski County Special School District employed thirteen home school counselors/consultants to provide services to academically disadvantaged students in schools in the district that had minority student enrollment equal to or greater than 40% of the school's population. Schools receiving services were: Mills University Studies High School ruller Junior High School Baker Elementary Bates Elementary Clinton lnterdistrict Magnet School Crystal Hill lnterdistrict Magnet School College Station Elementary Fuller Elementary Harris Elementary Jacksonville Elementary Landmark Elementary Dr. Robert Clowers Bob Barker Rosalyn Jackson Shirley Miller Carol Carlan Judith Fears-Drayton Mary Roper Mary McFadden Bob Carey Greg Woods ~aura Montgomery Lekita Scott Karen Lowery Mary Roper Students were selected for participation in the Home School Counseling Program bases on the following criteria: The student's scores on a nationally recognized norm-referenced achievement test were at or below the 25th percentile. The student's grade point average on a 4-point scale fell below a 2.0 grade point average. The student's attendance record indicated multiple absences that could be impacting academic performance. School records listed disciplinary actions taken that resulted in time out of school for the student. Students meeting all four identification criteria were offered service first. Students not meeting all enrollment standards were offered service as slots became available. Every effort was made to collect data for evaluation on each student. Students new to the district !kindergarten or transfer) could be included in the program based on teacher recommendation. Early Prevention of School Failure scores were also used to identify kindergarten students. Standardized testing was moved from spring to fall during the 1995-96 school year. The levels of the Stanford Achievement Test - 8th Edition ISAT-81 changed from 1994-9 5 to 199 5-96. Test scores were compiled on each student, but the home school counselors and consultants were not asked to evaluate growth, since the second test I 1995-961 was administered within five months of the first test 11994-951. Test score comparisons are therefore not included in this report. 2 HOME SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAM ENROLLMENT Number of students receiving services during the school year: 1994-95 1995-96 Total number of students 998 1296 Block students 643 164%1 851 166%) White students 355 136%1 445 134%) Block moles 385 139%) 499 139%) Block females 258 126%) 352 127%) White moles 209 121%) 265 120%) White females 146 115%1 180 (14%) Number of students who dropped out of the program: 1994-95 1995-96 - Total number of students 89 125 Block students 53 160%1 66 153%) White students 36 140%1 59 147%) Block moles 33 137%1 40 132%1 Block females 20 122%1 26 121%1 White moles 23 126%1 32 (26%) White fem oles 13 115%1 27 )22%) Number of students receiving services second semester: 1994-95 1995-96 Total number of students 909 1146 Block students 590 (65%) 772 167%1 White students 319 (35%) 374 133%) Black moles 352 139%1 453 140%) Block females 238 126%) 319 128%1 White moles 186 120%1 225 120%) White females 133 (15%1 149 (13%1 3 - BEADING - ELEMENTARY LEVEL IMPRQVED DECLINED NOT VERIFIED SAME 94-95 95-96 94- 95 95-96 94-95 95-96 94-95 95-96 Black students 312 332 26 36 79 109 10 85 White students 161 141 12 25 32 46 8 31 GRADE POINT AVERAGE - ALL SUBJECTS - SECONDARY LEVEL IMPRQVED DECLINED NQT VERIFIED SAME 94-95 95-96 94-95 95-96 94-95 95-96 94-95 95-96 Black students 93 98 60 91 5 4 12 17 White students 67 66 32 52 2 1 12 12 ATTENDANCE Block Students IMPROVED DECREASED NQT VERIFIED SAME 94-95 95-96 94-95 95-96 94-95 95-96 94-95 95-96 Elementary 149 228 175 194 63 76  64 Junior High 81 46 30 65 . 1 Senior High 12 44 30 47 5 3 4 242141%1 318141%1 235 140%1 306 140%1 68!12'l.l 79!10'l,l 6919'l.l White Students IMPRQ~D DECREASED NQT~RIFIED SAME 94-95 95-96 94-95 95-96 94-95 95-96 94-95 95-96 Elementary 83 108 80 80 23 33  22 Junior High 61 42 21 39  Senior High 6 27 11 17 2 2  4 150 l47'l.l 177 147'l.l 112 135%1 136 136%1 2518'l.J 35 19%1 26 (7'l,j  Information not available in same format. Seventy-seven students or 8% of all students had the same attendance as the previous year in 1994-9 5. 4 HOME SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAM ELEMENTARY LEVEL Baker Elementary The home school consultant at Baker Elementary worked with students individually and in small groups in an effort to make a difference in student attitude and to contribute to the students' academic success. Parent workshops were held. The last workshop offered during the 199 5-96 school year dealt with the SAT-9. Parents had an opportunity to work with the Preview for Parents and to become familiar with the format of the new examination. Bates Elementary To increase career awareness and motivate students, the home school consultants organized two groups that met once every two weeks. The groups viewed films, had guest speakers, talked about careers, and played games based on careers. The climax of the program was a trip to the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff to helped tie education into career goals. Clinton lnterdistrict Magnet School The new person hired last fall to serve this school had a productive year. The program was well received and supported by the facility, the PTA, and the community. The consultant completed home visits, parent training sessions, student tutoring, and study skills training . School activities and field trips allowed the consultant more interaction with the targeted population of the program. College Station Elementary A mente/mentor program was implemented at College Station Elementary. The home school consultant working in conjunction with the elementary counselor asked community volunteers to participate in the program as good role models for academically at-risk students. The consultant and counselor held a luncheon for the mentors, students, and the students' parents. Crystal Hill lnterdistrict Magnet School The home school consultant at Crystal Hill Elementary implemented the school's participation in the Joseph pfeifer Kiwanis Camp, Alternative Classroom Experience. The consultant performed all duties related to Camp pfeifer, such as interviewing parents, completing paperwork, arranging for physical examinations, providing transportation to and from the camp, meeting and consulting with the camp's staff on student progress and conducting required student follow-up conferences. 5 Fuller Elementary This school year proved fruitful and intriguing to the consultant at this school. The consultant served on both the Parent Involvement Team and the Discipline Management Team. A Junior Beta Club and an Our Club were sponsored by the consultant and the elementary counselor. Working with the elementary counselor, the consultant was able to take a group of students to St. Louis, Missouri, to provide an educational and inspirational experience for the students. Harris Elementary At Harris Elementary, the home school consultant and the elementary counselor organized an all male club, HARRIS RAINBOW CLUB. The purpose of the club was to improve behavior, promote leadership qualities, and increase cooperation on the school campus. The club met, went on field trips, and visited business sites in the community. Landmark Elementary The home school consultant served as an advocate to parents when needed, provided transportation to conferences, medical facilities, referral agencies, and secured school materials for use by the students at home. Parents were encouraged to participate in school activities. Students were provided school supplies, individual conferences, individual tutoring, and other services as needed. e Jacksonville Elementary This was the first year for the Home School Counseling Program at Jacksonville Elementary. The new home school consultant organized a student drill team for the school. The purpose of the drill team was to help students build positive self esteem and to teach them the role of discipline in life. Fuller Junior High School The home school counselors at Fuller Junior High were involved in the ongoing school improvement process. One served as chairperson of the Discipline Committee, which oversees the work of the action committees in the implementation of the five-year plan. Both counselors served on the Steering Committee, which oversees the total school improvement plan. During the summer, the counselors will work with a group to redesign the student handbook. At the request of Fuller administrators, the home school counselors have assisted the district Coordinator of Multicultural Education in the development of a teen court at Fuller. 6 Mills University Studies High School The Home School Counseling Program benefited many students at Mills University Studies High School. A workshop was held for parents that focused on \"Helping Your Student Study along with summer employment information. The home school counselors participated in or assisted with a financial aid night, the Miss Mills Pageant, the annual Job Fair, a Prom Promise Assembly, and a Mock African Wedding. The counselors served as contact persons for MADD and the substance abuse program. They were in charge of the school's care groups, including \"Friends Against Drinking, Drugs, and Suicide (FADDS) and coordinated a special FADDS event called the \"Neon Drunk Driving Simulator\". The simulation provided a sate way for students to experience the effects of operating a motor vehicle while under the simulated influence of alcohol. In conclusion, the home school counselors/consultants at all levels have worked with parents and students in an effort to improve student success in school. A variety of activities have been undertaken to reach that goal. The personnel in this program are dedicated to students and make every effort to meet the physical, psychological, and educational needs of the children they serve. Concerns raised by the home school counselors/consultants during the last school year were: 1. 2 Personal Safety Usually, the parents of the students on the case load are cooperative, but the neighborhoods are often unsafe. Cellular phones have been provided for the home school personnel in an effort to provide access to emergency assistance, but evening and night visits still involve some risk. Strategies for Working With at Risk Students As the magnitude of the problems experienced by students in the schools increases, the need for successful intervention strategies multiples. The home school counseling program continues to explore new intervention methods and strategies, but additional resources are needed. 3. Lack of Understanding of Role by Staff Members School personnel in some cases have expressed a lack of understanding of the role and responsibilities of the home school counselors/consultants. There seems to be a constant need to explain the program in depth. 7 - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT HOME SCHOOL COUNSELOR/CONSUL TANT REPORT 1995-96 1994-95 Number of black students counseled individually: 2,846 Average per counselor: 285 Number of white students counseled individually: 1,247 Average per counselor: 125 Number of black students seen in groups 945 Average per counselor: 95 Number of white students seen in groups: 800 Average per counselor: 80 Number of teacher/counselor conferences: 1,789 Average per counselor: 180 Number of administrator/counselor conferences: 727 Average per counselor: 73 Number of parent/counselor conferences: 1,357 Average per counselor: 136 Number of conferences with referral agencies: 289 Average per counselor: 29 Number of conferences with other resources, support staff, etc. 2006 Average per counselor: 200 Number of hours of home visits: 1623 Average per counselor: 162 8 1995-96 5,323 409 2,734 210 4,502 346 4,874 375 3,993 307 1,833 141 2,625 202 776 60 2618 201 2498 192 ELEMENT ARY COUNSELING 1995-96 The Pulaski County Special School District employed twenty-nine (29) elementary counselors to provide counseling services to students in grades K-6 during the 1995-96 school year. The racial composition of the group was twenty-three whites (79 .3%) , five blacks ( 17 .2%), and one other(3.4%l. All elementary counselors were female. Twenty of the counselors worked in single schools full time. Seven counselors served two schools and two counselors provided service to three separate schools. The duties performed by the elementary counselors were in compliance with Act 908 of 1991 of the Arkansas legislative session. Under the regulations for this act, the counselor/student ratio is 1/450. The act requires school counselors to spend 75% of work time providing direct services to students. The remaining 25% could be devoted to administrative activities provided the activities relate directly to the provision of guidance services. The elementary counselors conduct classroom guidance sessions, small group counseling sessions, individual counseling, and consultations. Approximately 50% of the counselors time was spent in delivering classroom sessions. So much time was spent on classroom instruction because the elementary counselors believe that prevention of problems is easier to achieve than modification of behaviors or attitudes, once problems exist. The following sessions were conducted in all or most of the schools in the district during the 1995-96 school year: 1 . Orientation to Counseling Service 2. Self Esteem Building 3. Friendship 4. Transition to Junior High 5. Conflict Resolution 6. Teamwork 7. Career Awareness 8. McGruff 9. Study Skills 1 O. Too Good For Drugs Introductory Units Examples of other units taught in selected schools included: l . Test Preparation 2. Prejudice/Discrimination 3. Multicultural Awareness 4. Understanding and Respecting Feelings 5. Safety /Self Protection Other programs conducted, maintained, or supported by the elementary counselors were: l . Student Ambassadors 2. S.T.O.P. (Peer tutoring program) 3. Red Ribbon Week 4. Academic Awards 5. Superstars Program 9 The elementary school counselors assisted in the coordination of the following: l. 2. 3. Junior University SA T-8 Testing D.A.R.E. Program During the 1994-95 school year, the elementary counselors in cooperation with the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service and Hallmark Corporation piloted the reamwork Series: r.J. Talks. This school year the counselors added a second component, Conflict Resolution Series: T.J. ralks. The new series ties into the discipline management plans written by many elementary schools, and reinforces the schools' efforts to establish a safe and orderly learning environment. A student survey has been developed by the counselors to determine what segments of the elementary counseling program are seen as most helpful by former students I current junior high school seventh graders). The new survey will be piloted during the 1996-97 school year Information from the survey will be tabulated and analyzed. Results of the analysis will be reviewed and will be available for monitoring committees that examine the district's counseling program. An inservice was held in May to familiarize the elementary counselors with the legal issues identified with sexual harassment. Attorney Paul Blume from the Arkansas School Boards Association came and shared information on the laws related to this issue. He also discussed current cases that have arisen in Arkansas. The elementary counselors are trained to meet many school and home-based issues and problems. They serve as a resource to students, teachers, parents, administrators, and to the community at large. The complexity of school counseling continues to expand. The need for well trained, caring individuals grows. Pulaski County Special School District is fortunate to have a cadre of professional people to serve in this employment category. 10 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - ELEMENT ARY COUNSELING REPORT 1995-96 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Number of students seen in classroom guidance activities: 162,072 181,101 171 ,395 Average per counselor: 5,589 6,037 5,910 Number of black students seen in small groups: 4,636 5,497 7,765 Average per counselor: 160 183 268 Number of white students seen in small groups: 8,002 7,696 9,729 Average per counselor: 276 257 335 Number of black students counseled individually: 7,072 7,364 7,040 Average per counselor: 244 245 243 Number of white students counseled individually: 12,796 14,220 12,989 Average per counselor: 441 474 447 Number of black parents seen in conferences: 659 594 69 Average per counselor: 23 20 23 Number of white parents seen in conferences: 2,299 2,205 2,364 Average per counselor: 79 74 82 Number of black parents contacted by phone: 783 769 722 Average per counselor: 27 26 25 Number of white parents contacted by phone: 1,920 1,806 1,547 Average per counselor: 66 60 53 Number of block parents contacted by letter: 3,819 4,172 2,959 Average per counselor: 132 139 102 Number of white parents contacted by letter: 10,161 7,842 7,043 Average per counselor: 350 261 243 Number of teacher/counselor conferences: 9,911 8,335 7,976 Average per counselor: 342 278 275 Number of administrator/counselor conferences: 4,109 3,565 3,698 Average per counselor: 142 119 128 Number of support staff/counselor conferences: 2,228 2,185 2,318 Average per counselor: 79 73 79 11 SCHOOL BLACK --- - --- FEMALES - - Adkins 77 Arnold Drive - - - - 59 - - Baker 72 -- Bates 97 -- Bayou Me_t~ 9 - Cato 76 -- Clinton 175 ------- ---- College Station 58 Crystal Hiif -  -- ------ 174 -- Dupree 66 Fuller - - - --------- 180 - - ---- Harris 99 ---- -- ---- Jacksonville 130 f---- .. - - ------ Landmark 134 ------ - --- -- Lawson 43 -- Oak Grove 55 --~- Oakbrooke 61 Pine Forest 54 - Pinewood 119 -- Robinson 58 ---- Scott 38 - Sherwood 58 Sylvan Hills 64 Taylor 94 Tolleson 76 Grand Totals 2126 BLACK MALES 74 45 51 69 5 - 113 135 f--52 f------ 169 -- 51 ---- ---162 74 - 108 ---- 133 --- - 38 PULASKI COUNT- CIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERSTARS1995~6 TOTAL PERCENT PERCENT WHITE WHITE TOTAL --- --- ---- SCHOOL --- --- -- - --- BLACKS TOTAL FEMALES MALES WHITE ---- ---- --- --- --- 151 38% 38% 119 130 249 ---- ----- --- - --- \"761- - 104 22% 23% 193 168 - -- ------ -- - ---- 123 25% 26% 169 204 373 ---- -- -- - - 166 51% 55% 78 83 161 ---- -- --- -- --- - 14 2% 2% 402 410 812 --- - ~1% ___ 339 - - -- 189 21% 352 691 ----- ----- - --- -- 310 46% 49% 175 182 357 - 110---- - --- -- --- 42% 40% 64 90 154 ----- ----- - -----~---- ---- --- .. 343 45% 47% 238 179 417 ---- ------ -- - - ---- - -- - 318 - 117 27% 26% 178 140 ------ --- ------- ----- - - - 151 - - -- - 342 53% 57% 152 303 --------- - - ------ - ---- - 173 47% 48% 94 101 195 -- ---- ---- - - ------- ----- 238 37% 39% 230 183 413 ----- ------ - ---- - -- -- 267 41% 41% 209 177 386 - ---- ---- -------- ---- - - -- - 81 18% 20% 186 181 367 - ----- ----- ------- - -- 175 ___ 28 83 19% 23% 174 349 - -- 12-1 - - 23%- - ------- 60 22% 218 176 394 . - - ---- ----- - -- - ---- 50 104 20% 20% 198 211 409 --- - ----- ---- - - ----- 126 - --24-5 - --1! ~ -- ~!% 271 - 267 538 61 119 23% 24% 199 203 402 ---- --- ----- ------ 38 76 33% 36% 87 68 155 - 24% 66 124  ---26-%-  198 197 ---~ - - - ---- ---------- 64 128 25% 24% 191 184 375 - ------ ----- -- ----- 117 211 40% 36% 158 162 320 ----- ----- -- ---- --- - 61 137 23% 20% 255 204 459 -- - 32%. --- 1950 4076 30% 4788 4565 9353 PERCENT PERCENT SCHOOL SCHOOL ----- TOTAL TOTAL -- ---- -- - 62% 62% 400 -- - --- 78% 77% 465 --- ---- - - 75% 74% 496 -- --- -- - 49% 45% 327 -- - 9-8% 9--8-%- 826 - - - -79-%- 79% 880 ---- --- -54%- 51% 667 --- 58% 60% 264 -- 55% 53% 760 ---- -- 73% 74% 435 ---- -- - - 47% 43% 645 --- - 53% 52% 368 --- -- -- 63% 61% 651 -- 59o/o -- - 59% 653 -- - - - 82% 80% 448 --- ----- -- 81% 77% 432 - --- - - -- - - 77% 78% 515 --- iioi. 80% 513 -- ---- -- - 69% 69% 783 --- ----- --- --- 77% 76% 521 -- --- 64% --- 67% 231 ------ ---- --- 76% 74% 519 - -- 76% -- 75% 503 - 60% . --- --- 64% 531 ---- ----- 77% 80% 596 -- ---- ----- 70% 68% 13429 Percent of School indicates lhe percentage of slUdents of a race enrolled in lhe school. Percent of Total indicates the percantage or students who received super star awards by race within the school 12 SECONDARY COUNSELING 1995-96 The Pulaski County Special School District employed thirty certified secondary counselors to provide counseling services to students in grades 7- 12 in the district. The counselors employed by the district averaged twelve years of experience in counseling and guidance. Of the thirty counselors employed: Four were male Twenty-six were female Eight were black Twenty-two were white (13%) (87%) (27%) (73%) Twelve of the secondary schools organized a Care Committee composed of students trained to help other students. The Alternative Learning Center did not form a committee because the student body was configured into families that provide the same type of support services. A total of 487 students participated on the committees. Black students ( 188) made up 39% of the committees' membership and white students 1299) comprised 61 % of the membership. Students participating on a Care Committee receive training in peer counseling and the warning signs for suicide. Some activities undertaken by various committees included: 1. Participation in Youth Suicide Prevention Week/Conference 2. Red Ribbon Week Activities 3. Food/Toy Christmas Drives 4. Prom Promise 5. School Carnival Booths The counseling departments sponsored Guidance Advisory Committees. These committees served in an advisory capacity to the school counseling personnel. The committees composed of parents, teachers, students, administrators, and counselors met and reviewed current counseling practices. Recommendations for change or improvement came from the committee back to the counselors for consideration. During the 1995-96 school year, 124 persons served on the committees. Of that number, forty-three were black (35%) and eighty-one were white (65%). Mills High School and the Alternative Learning Center did not have committees. Sylvan Hills Junior High School combined the Guidance Advisory Committee with the School Equity Committee. The counselors conducted various activities to promote multicultural understanding. The activities included: 1. distributing information on minority enrichment programs at state institutions, 2. designing and preparing bulletin boards with multicultural themes, 3. recommending students for inclusion in the Upward Bound Program, 4. working with foreign exchange students, 5. scheduling visits by representatives of minority institutions, and 6. recruiting students for Future 500. 13 The secondary counselors continued to conduct many activities in educational and career guidance. A list of activities follows: 1. The Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District held a college Day  for seniors in October. 2. The Little Rock School District joined the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District in a career Fair for juniors not planning to attend college. 3. The three districts, in conjunction with Pulaski Technical College, conducted a \"Job Fair\" for seniors going into the world of work. 4. All ninth-grade parents were invited to individual conferences to discuss the educational and career goals of their students. 5. The Boy Scouts of America - Explorer Divisions working with the counselors provided guest speakers on a variety of career options. In the fall of 1995, the counselors began administering the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABEl Practice Exercise and Locator Test. Acts 572 and 837 of 1995 placed the responsibility for testing students sixteen and seventeen years of age, who wish to drop out of public school and enroll in an adult education program, back on the public schools. Due to time constraints, the counselors elected to administer the Locator Test rather than the complete battery. After the parents contact the counselor to request testing, the test is administered and a parent/ student/ counselor conference is held. A discussion then takes place on the best education path for the student to pursue. At the conclusion of the conference, a decision is reached. If the conference decision is for the student to continue the pursuit of an adult education program of study, a form is completed and the parent is instructed to take the completed form and a letter requesting permission to withdraw from public school to the office of Pupil Personnel. The role of the secondary counselor continues to expand. The counselors are responsible for personal and social counseling\neducational and career planning\nminority recruitment for scholarships, college applications, enrichment programs, and advanced classes, as well as standardized testing. The individuals who are employed as counselors are persons who are willing to put forth much effort to see their responsibilities completed. Unfortunately in many situations, as the responsibilities grow, the quality of performance becomes secondary to getting the job done. The secondary counselors in the Pulaski County Special School District are to be commended for making a concerted effort to maintain a high level of performance. 14 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - SECONDARY COUNSELORS REPORT 1995-96 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Number of classroom counseling sessions: 936 1,294 489 Average per counselor: 31 43 16 Number of black students seen in small groups: 952 1,480 1,563 Average per counselor: 32 49 52 Number of white students seen in small groups: 1,770 2,769 2,547 Average per counselor: 59 92 85 Number of individual counseling sessions with black students: 16,476 19,306 17,222 Average per counselor: 549 644 574 Number of individual counseling sessions with white students: 29,601 28,266 28,055 Average per counselor: 987 942 935 Number of conferences with black parents: 5,253 6,123 6,927 - Average per counselor: 175 204 231 Number of conferences with white parents: 11,769 13,205 13,794 Average per counselor: 392 440 460 Number of teacher/counselor conferences: 10,823 11, 158 12,124 Average per counselor: 361 372 404 Number of administrator/counselor conferences: 4,667 5,447 5,587 Average per counselor: 156 182 186 Number of referral agency/counselor conferences: 856 1,187 985 Average per counselor: 29 40 33 Number of special education conferences: 2074 2,432 2,344 Average per counselor: 69 81 78 Number of conferences with college, 1,354 1,312 1,402 vocational technical, and military representatives: 45 43 47 Average per counselor: 15 SCHOOL Jacksonville Hi1h Mills Hi1h Nonh Pulaski Hi1h Oak Grove Hi1h Robinson Hi1h Total Value Accepted Scholanhips Number of r------i Accepted Scholarships 1st Year 4 Year Value Value $22.5,207 $8.53,334 93 S 57,970 S 233,812 27 $178,45.5 S 668,6.53 96 S 62 797 S 26.5,963 33 S 62,470 S 207,180 30 Svlvan Hills Hi1h $240 262 S 892,198 89 - ::::%::::::::::::::::::::,:,:::::::::\nJ\u0026amp;t\nlilt/i -:-:\n:\n:\n:\n::::: SCHOLARSHIP REPORT 1994-95 Total Value Declined Scholarships Number of Students Black White Other 19 46 6 21 0 13 43 .5 4 19 0 3 1.5 0 II .51 :::::\n:,:::::::::::::=:-::- :::,:::::::::\n::,o:\n:::::,\n:::: 1.::::::::::::: Vii}::' :::::::::::::,:::11::::::::::::::::, TOTAL2.58 16 1st Year Value $256,093 S 46,905 S .51,782 $32,879 S 40,620 S 82,454 4 Year Value SI 002,.542 S 164,106 S 201 128 S 131,516 S 150,440 S 312,230 Number of Declined Number of Students Scholarships Black While Orhcr 60 3 19 19 8 II 0 19 JO 16 3 6 0 14 0 8 0 37 3 20\n:,.\n:\n.\n... ,:\n...\n:\n.  }::' .. :::'\": . ',',?'::,:::::::,:,:,::us,{:\\/'\u0026lt;''=' t la \u0026gt;! ,,: ,,:1\\ 1 TOTAL95 DISTRICT COMPARISON OF SCHOLARSHIPS AWARDED - 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Number of accepted scholarships: 193 232 258 Total value of accepted scholarships: First year value $589,769 $727,363 $827,161 Four year value $2,156,327 $2,760,291 $3,121,140 Number of students accepting scholarships: Black 29 58 56 White 160 170 195 Other 4 4 7 - Total 193 232 258 Number of declined scholarships: 145 155 95 Total value of declined scholarships: First year value $449,290 $663,427 $510,733 Four year value $1,665,946 $2,589,644 $1 ,961 ,962 Number of students declining scholarships: Black 10 13 18 White 62 67 74 Other 1 0 3 Total 73 80 95 17 SCHOOL NUMBER SCHOOL YEAR 90-91 91-92 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 49 48 MILLS HIGH 27 33 NORTH PULASKI HIGH 29 27 OAK GROVE HIGH 13 11 ROBINSON HIGH 13 13 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 27 23\niii~ OIST~IOT,t':iMii, ._-i,~.a :.a..91il ,,iA1~5.,,Q TAKING 92-93 66 37 15 11 13 22 COLLEGE ADMISSION TESTS BLACK STUDENTS 1995-96 ACT 93-94 94-95 95-96 90-91 58 35 47 17 33 29 23 18 24 35 20 17 19 18 18 18 28 18 9 17 28 29 21 15 AVERAGE SCORE 91-92 92-93 93.94 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 17 16 18 17 17 17 17 19 17 ,\n:,1.~ 1,~ i'..tA901'U: tu!J.18,~ - 1l..J. l~.i.!t~~\n~ 18 94.95 95-96 17 17 18 19 18 18 17 18 17 16 17 18 : J/~~1 'lt.l~'i1 i1.~.1'3Ji.i NUMBER OF BLACK S.ENTS TAKING ACT 1995-96 BY SCHOOL SCHOOL YEAR JACKSONVILLE HIGH 47 MILLS HIGH 23 NORTH PULASKI HIGH 20 OAK GROVE HIGH 18 ROBINSON HIGH 9 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 21 DISTRICT! . -1~.:, I SYLVAN HILLS HIGH i ROBINSON HIGH i OAK GROVE HIGH I NORTH PULASKI HIGH i MILLS HIGH ~ JACKSONVILLE HIGH I 0 10 20 30 40 50 19 COLLEGE REPRESENTATIVE MONITORING FORM 1995-96 SCHOOL Number of institutions Number of traditionally who sent representatives minority institutions who for visits. sent representatives for visits. Jacksonville High 16 3 Mills High 17 2 North Pulaski High 13 3 Oak Grove High 8 2 Robinson High 18 5 Sylvan Hills High 63 3 Total 135 18 (13%) Comparison of College Representatives Who Visited Total number of institutions: Number of minority institutions: 1993-94 163 1519%) 1994-95 114 15 (13%) 20 1995-96 135 18 (13%) COLLEGE REPRESENTATIVE MONITORING FORM The Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District held a joint College Fair at Fisher Armory on October 24, 1995 . Students from Jacksonville High School, Mills High School, North Pulaski High School, Oak Grove High School, Robinson High School, and North Little Rock High School participated. The College Fair was held to facilitate student access to a variety of colleges and universities. The activity is funded through the district's office for desegregation. The following colleges and universities sent representatives: Abilene Christian University Arkansas State University - Jonesboro Arkansas State University - Beebe Arkansas tech University Art Institute of Dallas Austin College Baptist School of Nursing Baylor University Bethel College Centenary College of Louisiana Central Baptist College Christian Brothers College College of the Ozarks Cornell University David Lipscomb University Dillard University Drury College East Texas Baptist University Freed-Hardeman University Harding University Henderson University Hendrix College ITT Technical Institute John Brown University Kansas Newman College Lambuth University Lane College Mississippi State University Morehouse College Northeast University Northwood University Oklahoma Baptist University Ouachita Baptist College Park College Philander Smith College Phillips University Pulaski Technical College Rhodes College Shorter College Southern Arkansas University Southern Methodist University Southwest Baptist University Stephens College Union University University of Arkansas -Fayetteville University of Arkansas - Little Rock University of Arkansas - Moticello University of Arkansas - Pine Bluff University of Arkansas Medical Science University of Central Arkansas University of Memphis University of the Ozarks University of Tulsa Vanderbilt University Washington and Lee University Webster University Wellsley College Westminister College Wiley College William Jewell College William Woods University Williams Baptist College 21 - - . \"NEXT STEP\" PLAN,OF SENIORS - 1995-96 - . PLANS OF SENIORS B w B w B w B w II w B w B w Total % Numbef of seniors In class lwho oraduatedl. 69 146 66 70 47 206 16 60 17 66 47 166 252 694 946 100% Number with plans to enter college: 46 103 31 36 18 71 10 37 10 36 21 101 136 364 620 65% Number entering non-colleae training orogram1: 7 8 10 9 9 36 3 6 2 3 3 22 34 82 116 12% Number planning to enter the fields of 1cience, math, modern forelan language : 13 48 4 9 4 16 4 14 3 13 4 31 32 131 163 17% Number Dlannlng to enter the field of teachlna: 11 19 6 3 3 13 1 8 1 4 4 17 26 62 88 9% Number going Immediately Into militarv service: 3 8 6 6 6 26 3 0 1 2 7 8 26 46 71 7% Number going directly into reoular emolovment: 13 26 7 19 14 61 0 8 4 13 14 36 62 162 214 23% Number of preceding category who plan to enter college 0 0 4 8 4 20 0 3 1 4 8 18 17 53 70 7% later: Other lmarried and no olan1 for treinlng or emolovmentl: 0 2 1 1 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 13 16 2% Number with no olan1 at all: 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 7 9 1% 22 COMPARISON OF 11NEXT STEP\" PLANS OF SENIORS . . . ( ( Plans of Seniors B w TOTAL % B w TOTAL % CHANGE % Number of seniors In class lwho graduatedl. 261 726 978 100% 262 694 946 100% ... Number with plans to enter college: 149 462 611 63% 136 384 520 66% Decrease Number entering non-college training programs 41 88 129 13% 34 82 116 12% Decrease Number planning to enter the fields of science, math, modern foreign languages: 46 178 223 23% 32 131 163 17% Decrease Number plaooing to enter the field of teaching: 21 84 86 9% 28 82 88 9% Same Number going Immediately Into military service: 23 67 70 7% 25 46 71 7% Same Number going directly Into regular employment: 33 118 149 16% 62 162 214 23% Increase Number of preceding category who plan to enter college later: 21 44 66 7% 17 53 70 7% Same Others !married and no plans for training or employment I: 0 7 7 1% 3 13 16 2% Increase Number with no olans at all: 6 6 10 1% 2 7 9 1% Same 23 1996 Arkansas Governor's School STUDENTS NOMINATED SCHOOL TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER Jacksonville High 8 5 3 0 Mills High 27 22 5 0 North Pulaski High 9 5 4 0 Oak Grove High 1 1 0 0 Robinson High 10 8 2 0 Sylvan Hills High 7 5 2 0 Totals 62 46 12 0 In Pulaski County Special School District, 62 students applied for admission to the Arkansas Governor's School and 31 were accepted (50% of those who applied). School Number of Students Number of Students Accepted Alternates Jacksonville High 4 3 Mills High 17 2 North Pulaski High 3 2 Oak Grove High 0 1 Robinson High 5 1 Sylvan Hills High 2 2 24 Nine Year History Year To Attend As Alternates Total 1987 46 28 74 1988 36 12 48 1989 29 8 37 1990 26 15 41 1991 21 19 40 1992 33 11 44 1993 28 6 34 1994 18 9 27 1995 31 11 42 Areas of Participation Areas Number of Students Number of Students Accepted Alternates Choral Music 2 0 Drama 0 1 Language Arts 6 2 Instrumental Music 9 3 Math 5 3 Natural Science 2 0 Social Studies 4 2 Visual Arts 3 0 25 RECOMMENDATIONS The work load for all counselors continues to increase. Many parents and school staff personnel expect the counselors to be able to \"fix\" the students when they misbehave or fail to achieve in school. Unfortunately, in many cases the problems did not occur over night nor can they be remedied quickly. In order for parents, teachers, and administrators to understand the role counselors can play, adequate time must be available to conferences to discuss the issues. Mounting paperwork demands make this difficutt, if not impossible. Improved technological resources are needed to speed up the output of the paper trail\". Counselors at all levels have indicated a need for computers and printers. Elementary counselors are also requesting TV NCR to improve their efforts with small groups and individuals. The home school personnel would like to be able to use their cellular phones for more than emergency calls. Since counselors have not been identified as a group to benefit from the monies collected for technological advancement in the district, they must wait for old equipment to be passed down, appeal to the PTA, or devise money making projects. When the issue of technology is revisited, please remember the counselors whose responsibility is to serve all students. 26 e : GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING REPORTS 1994-95 Table of Contents Home School Counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Elementary Counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Superstars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Secondary Counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O Scholarships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 College Admission - Black Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - College Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Next Step Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Arkansas Governor's School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Recommendation for Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 HOME SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAM 1994-95 The Pulaski County Special School District employed ten home/school counselorsconsultants to serve disadvantaged students in the district. Schools involved were Baker Elementary, Bates Elementary, Clinton Elementary, College Station Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary, Fuller Elementary, Harris Elementary, Landmark Elementary, Fuller Junior High, and Mills High School. Student selections were based on the following criteria: 1. The student's scores on a nationally recognized normed reference achievement test were at or below the 25th percentile. 2. The student's performance on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test at grades 3, 6 or 8 indicated failure to master basic skills in half or more of the areas tested. 3. THe student's grade point average on a 4 point scale fell below a 2.0 grade point average. 4. The student's attendance record indicated multiple absences that could be impacting academic performance. 5. School records indicated disciplinary actions taken which resulted in time out of school for the student. Not all students selected for the program exhibited all criteria. Students were evaluated according to the criteria and those meeting multiple criteria received service first. Kindergarten children were normally included in the program based on teacher recommendation and Early Prevention of School Failure scores. A waiting list was established for those meeting only one or two criteria. Students were added to the program as vacancies occurred. The following information was compiled from reports submitted by the home/school counselors-consultants at the end of the year: 1 ENROLLMENT Number of students receiving services during the school year: l 993-94 1092 Black Students 695 (64%) White Students 397 (36%) Black Males 403 (36%) Black Females 292 (27%) White Males 236 (22%) White Females 161 (15%) Number of students who dropped out of the program: l 993-94 160 Black Students 98 (61 %) White Students 62 (39%) Black Males Black Females White Males White Females 54 (34%) 46 (29%) 36 (23%) 24 (15%) Number of students receiving services second semester: 1993-94 939 Black Students 603 (64%) White Students 336 (36%) Black Males Black Females White Males White Females ACADEMIC 351 (37%) 252 (27%) 199 (21%) 137 (15%) l 994:95 998 643 (64%) 355 (36%) 385 (39%) 258 (26%) 209 (21 %) 146 (15%) ]994-95 89 53 (60%) 36 (40%) 33 (37%) 20 (22%) 23 (26%) 13 (15%) 1994--95 909 590 (65%) 319 (35%) 352 (39%) 238 (26%) 186 (20%) 133 (15%) Many of the district's students served by the program transferred from school to school and/or from district to district. This movement of students created a problem in record flow. It was often difficult to accumulate records on each child to check for academic growth, improved attendance and test scores. 2 READING El EMENTARY I EVEI Black Students White Students Improved '93-'94 '94-'95 263 143 312 161 Declined '93-'94 '94-'95 7 1 26 12 Nat Verified '93-'94 '94-'95 103 42 79 32 The reading level remained the same for 14 students in 1993-94 and for 18 students in 1994-95. GRADE POINT AVERAGE ALI SUBJECTS - SECONDARY I EVEI Improved Declined Nat Verified - '93-'94 '94-'95 '93-'94 '94-'95 '93-'94 '94-'95 Black Students 95 93 81 60 34 5 White Students 60 67 54 32 18 2 The grade point averages remained the same for 24 students in 1993-94 and for 10 students in 1994-95. TOTALS - ALL I EVELS: 939 Students ( 1993-94) 909 Students ( 1993-94) Improved Declined Nat Verified '93-'94 '94-'95 '93-'94 '94-'95 '93-94 '94-'95 Black Students 358 (59%) 405 (69%) 88 (15%) 86 (15%) 137(23%) 84(14%) White Students 203 (60%) 228(71%) 55 (16%) 44 (14%) 60 (18%) 34 (11%) 38 students or 4% of all students' academic performance remained the same in 1993-94 and 28 students or 3% remained the same in 1994-95. ATTENDANCE BLACK STUDENTS Elementary Junior High Senior High Improved '93-'94 '94-'95 149 54 38 149 81 12 241 (40%) 242(41 %1 3 Declined '93-'94 '94-'95 109 175 39 30 49 30 197(33%) 235 (40%) Nat Verified '93-'94 '94-'95 91 63 22 14 5 127(21 %) 68 (12%) WHITE STUDENTS Improved Declined ~at ~erified '93-'94 '94-'95 '93-'94 '94-95 '93-'94 '94-'95 Elementary 80 83 63 80 36 23 Junior High 48 61 27 21 8 Senior High 24 6 24 11 11 2 152 (45%) 150 (47%) 114 (34%) 112 (35%) 55 (16%) 25 (8%) 53 students or 6% of all students' attendance remained the same as the previous year in 1993-94. 77 students or 8% of all students' attendance remained the same as the previous year in 1994-95. TEST SCORES - BLACK STUDENTS Elementary Junior High Senior High Improved '93-'94 '94-'95 160 61 7 185 49 15 228 (38%) 249 (42%) Declined '94-'94 '94-'95 91 51 19 99 62 21 161 (27%) 182 (31 %) Same 7 2 9(2%) The remaining students were either not tested (kindergarten, first grade or twelfth grade) or prior scores had not been received. (35% in 1993-94 and 25% in 1994-95) WHITE STUDENTS Improved Declined Same '93-'94 '94-'95 '93-'94 '94-'95 Elementary 82 99 39 50 3 Junior High 42 42 36 37 Senior High 9 11 8 3 133 (40%) 152 (48%) 83 (25%) 90 (28%) 3 (1%) The remaining students were either not tested (kindergarten, first grade or twelfth grade) or prior scores had not been received. (35% in 1993-94 and 33% in 1994-95) 4 The home/school consultants and counselors worked as liaisons between the school and the home. Their activities varied from school to school based on the needs of the program's participants at each site. During the 1994-95 school year, some of the activities conducted by various home school consultants and counselors were: Parent Workshops 1. Violence Prevention Seminars 2. How to Help Your Child Succeed with Homework 3. Introduction of Discipline Management Plan 4. How to Improve Your Child's Behavior Community Outreach 1. Luncheon at Granite Mountain Community Center with a speaker on R.A.I.N. 2. Christmas Outreach Program Tutoring Programs Assisted 1 . Future Builders 2. We oare 3. Woodson Community Center 4. Christ the King Church Some of the efforts made by the personnel in this program to assist students and parents included: 1. helping a family to move from a dilapidated house to a safer apartment, 2. encouraging a reluctant and unwilling parent to attend school conferences and events, 3. finding alternative residential placement for children when a parent was incarcerated, 4. helping a grandparent enroll in a GED program, 5. finding a permanent home for a homeless family, and\n6. conducting a mentor program to help students stay our of trouble. The home/school consultants and counselors continue to serve as a bridge of communication between the home and the school. The services provided by program personnel allow parents who could not attend school conferences and other school events the opportunity to participate and to build stronger parenting skills. 5 - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT HOME/SCHOOL COUNSELOR-CONSUL TANT REPORT 1994-95 Number of black students counseled individually: Average per counselor: Number of white students counseled individually: Average per counselor: Number of black students seen in groups: Average per cqunselor: Number of white students seen in groups: Average per counselor: Number of teacher/counselor conferences: Average per counselor: Number of administrator/counselor conferences: Average per counselor: Number of parent/counselor conferences: Average per counselor: Number of conferences with referral agencies: Average per counselor: Number of conferences with other resources, support staff, etc. Average per counselor: Number of hours of home visits: Average per counselor: Sb 1993-94 3,375 338 1,549 155 777 78 735 74 2,532 253 1,127 113 2,137 214 715 72 3,282 328 2,065 207 1994-95 2,846 285 1,247 125 954 95 800 80 1,789 180 727 73 1,357 136 289.5 29 2,006 200 1,623 162 ELEMENT ARY COUNSELING 1994-95 The Pulaski County Special School District employed 30 elementary counselors to provide counseling services to the 11,000 + elementary students enrolled in grades K-6 during the 1994-95 school year. Of the 30 counselors, five persons were black (17%) and 24 persons were white (83%). All elementary counselors were female. Twenty-three of the counselors serves a single school full time. Seven counselors served multiple schools. The current required elementary counselor/student ratio is 1 /450. The duties performed by the elementary counselors were in compliance with Act 908 of the 1991 Arkansas legislative session. This act required school counselors to spend seventy-five percent (75 %) of work time providing direct counseling services to students. The remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of work time could be devoted to administrat.1Ye activities provided the activities relate directly to the provision of guidance services. Approximately fifty percent (50%) of the elementary counselors' time in Pulaski County Special School District was spent delivering classroom or small group guidance sessions. The following list delineates the sessions conducted at all or most of the schools: 1 . Student Orientation 2. McGruff 3. Too Good For Drugs (sixth grade) 4. Self-Esteem (second and third grade) 5. Study Skills 6. Test Taking Skills 7. Friendship 8. Career Awareness 9. Transition to Junior High 10. Teamwork: Talking With T.J. Other counseling programs presented in selected schools included: 1. Safety/Self Protection 2. Diversity/Prejudice Reduction 3. Manners 4. Conflict Resolution 5. Responsible/Respect In addition to conducting small group and classroom sessions, the elementary counselors met with individuals (students, parents, and staff) to discuss school related problems or home problems that affected student school performance. The elementary counselors also assist with the standardized testing (SAT-8). 6 Other activities coordinated by the elementary school counselors were: 1 . Red Ribbon Week 2. Superstars Program 3. Project \"Yes\" 4. Honor Assemblies 5. Birthday Club 6. S.T.0.P. (Peer Tutor Program) During the 1994-95 school year, two courses on conflict resolution were taught through the Staff Development Department. Several elementary counselors enrolled in and completed a course. Many of the counselor inservices held during the school year included conflict resolution activities the counselors could duplicate in the school setting. Additional conflict resolution courses were held during the summer for staff development credit at individual expense. Career educ$n was another area that was stressed during the year. Each elementary counselor received Careers Now! Making the Future Work - Activity Manual based on the National Career Development Guidelines. This manual contained activities that could be used in the classroom to facilitate career awareness at all levels and in all areas of career development. The elementary counselors reviewed a variety of instructional materials in this area in order to begin the development of a more comprehensive career guidance component. Efforts in this area will also continue into the next school year. The elementary counselors working in cooperation with the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service and the Hallmark Corporation piloted the Teamwork Series: T.J. Talks as a component of the district's self-esteem curriculum. Elementary counselors continued to meet head-on the emotional, social, and societal problems children are bringing to the school setting. The elementary counselors also continued to be a resource for staff, students, and parents. The societal problems made visible in the news media are also evident in our schools. The counselors worked diligently to assist students to make school a positive environment for learning. 7 PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY COUNSELOR REPORT 1994-95 1993-94 Number of students seen in classroom guidance activities: 162,072 Average per counselor: 5,589 Number of black students seen in small groups: 4,636 Average per counselor: 160 Number of white students seen in small groups: 8,002 Average per counselor: 276 Number of black students counseled individually: 7,072 Average per counselor: 244 ~ Number of white students counseled individually: 12,796 Average per counselor: 441 Number of black parents seen in conferences: 659 Average per counselor: 23 Number of white parents seen in conferences: 2,299 Average per counselor: 79 Number of black parents contacted by phone: 783 Average per counselor: 27 Number of white parents contacted by phone: 1,920 Average per counselor: 66 Number of black parents contacted by letter: 3,819 Average per counselor: 132 Number of white parents contacted by letter: 10,161 Average per counselor: 350 Number of teacher/counselor conferences: 9,911 Average per counselor: 342 Number of administrator/counselor conferences: 4,109 Average per counselor: 142 Number of support staffi'counselor conferences: 2,288 Average per counselor: 79 8 1994-95 181,101 6,037 5,497 183 7,696 257 7,364 245 14,220 474 594 20 2,205 74 769 26 1,806 60 4,172 139 7,842 261 8,335 278 3,565 119 2,185 73 \u0026lt;D Black Black SCHOOL Females Males Adkins 113 131 Arnold Drive 88 54 Baker 64 67 Bates 79 66 Bayou Meto 7 2 Cato 113 114 Clinton 171 140 College Station 63 69 Crystal Hill 198 173 Dupree 63 36 Fuller 157 160 Harris 98 82 Jacksonville 119 103 Landmark 171 145 Lawson 39 44 Oek Grove 56 36 Oekbrooke 81 69 Pine Forest 60 46 Pinewood 116 120 Robinson 49 68 Scott 31 62 Sherwood 69 62 Sylvan Hills 51 53 Taylor 87 91 Tolleson 90 66 GRAND TOTALS 2182 2008 PULASKI COUN~CIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPE~RS 1994-95 Total Percent Percent White White Black Total School Females Males 244 39% 40% 173 215 142 26% 22% 241 166 121 27% 25% 162 166 145 48% 52% 74 ., 81 9 1% 1% 462 435 227 25% 22% 333 334 311 49% 45% 188 189 132 44% 42% 68 103 371 43% 46% 266 243 89 20% 23% 185 164 317 64% 60% 120 146 180 39% 43% 145 134 222 39% 38% 190 164 316 44% 42% 235 176 83 20% 22% 164 175 92 23% 23% 162 160 120 22% 20% 231 197 96 23% 20% 166 158 236 31% 31% 279 250 107 21% 23% 209 203 83 34% 33% 69 94 121 26% 24% 177 191 104 23% 22% 186 171 178 37% 36% 176 122 146 23% 23% 271 226 4190 30% 32% 4909 4649  Percent of School indicates the percentage of students of II race enrolled in the school.  Percent of Total Indicates the percentage of students who received super star awards by race. Total Percent Percent School White Total School Total 388 61% 605 632 407 745 78% 549 328 73% 76% 449 165 52% 48% 300 897 99% 99% 906 667 75% 78% 894 377 51% 66% 688 171 56% 68% 303 498 57% 55% 869 349 80% 77% 438 265 46% 40% 682 279 61% 57% 459 354 61% 62% 576 410 66% 68% 726 339 80% 78% 422 302 77% 77% 394 428 78% 80% 648 321 77% 80% 417 529 69% 69% 764 412 79% 77% 619 163 66% 676 246 368 75% 76% 489 357 77% 78% 461 297 63% 64% 475 497 77% 77% 642 9568 70% 68% 13748 SECONDARY COUNSELING 1994-95 The Pulaski County Special School District employed 30 certified secondary counselors to provide counseling services to students in the secondary schools in the district. The counselors employed by the district averaged 11 years of experience in the area of counseling and guidance. Of the 30 counselors: 4 were male 26 were female 8 were black 22 were white (13%) (87%) (27%) (73%) Ten of the thirteen secondary schools organized a Care Committee composed of students trained to help other students. Oak Grove High School and Northwood Junior High Stjlool did not have a committee during the 1994-95 school year. The Alternative Learning Center did not form a committee because of the \"families\" concept under which the school operates. A total of 406 students were involved in the Care Committees in the ten secondary schools. Black students (148) made up 36% of the committees' membership and white students (258) comprised 64% of the membership. Activities undertaken by the committees included suicide prevention, drug free pledge drives, Red Ribbon Week participation, Adopt-A-Family for Christmas gifts, and memorial scholarships or plaques for victims of the Oklahoma bombing. The counseling departments also sponsored Guidance Advisory Committees. These committees served in an advisory capacity to the school counseling personnel. The committees composed of teachers, administrators, parents, students, and counselors met and reviewed current counseling practices and made recommendations for change or improvement. During the 1994-95 school year, 175 persons served on these committees. Of that number, 76 were black (43%) and 97 were white (56%). The counselors also conducted various activities to promote multicultural understanding. Some of the activities were: 1. coordinate recruiter visits from minority institutions of higher education, 2. distribute and collect Future 500 applications, 3. design and prepare bulletin boards with multicultural themes, 4. distribute information on minority enrichment programs at state institutions, 5. schedule guest speakers for some school assemblies and class seminars, and\n6. recommend students for inclusion in the Upward Bound Program. 10 During the 1994-95 school year, the following activities were conducted in the area of career guidance : 1. A \"College Day\" was held for all seniors in the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District, 2. A \"Job Fair\" was held for seniors from the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District, 3. A tri-district career fair was held for non-college bound sophomores at Metropolitan High School, 4. Parents of ninth grade students were given the opportunity to have individual conferences with school personnel about their students' career plans, 5. A four-year career plan folder was started for students in the eighth grade. The secondary counselors continued to provide services to students in the area of educational planning and personal growth/development. They conducted orientation activities, registration activities, graduation information seminars, financial aid workshops, arw_ distributed, completed and collected applications for all types of educational programs and scholarships. 11 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SECONDARY COUNSELOR REPORT 1994-95 1993-94 Number of classroom counseling sessiogs: 936 Average per counselor: 31 Number of black students seen in small group counseling sessions: 952 Average per counselor: 32 Number of white students seen in small group counseling sessions: 1,770 Average per counselor: 59 - Number of individual counseling sessions with black students: 16,476 Average per counselor: 549 Number of individual counseling sessions with white students: 29,601 Average per counselor: 987 Number of conferences with black parents: 5,253 Average per counselor: 175 Number of conferences with white parents: 11,769 Average per counselor: 392 Number of teacher/ counselor conferences: 10,823 Average per counselor: 361 Number of administrator/counselor conferences: 4,667 Average per counselor: 156 Number of referral agency/counselor conferences: 856 Average per counselor: 29 Number of special education conferences: 2,074 Average per counselor: 69 Number of conferences with college, vocational technical and military representatives: 1,354 Average per counselor: 45 12 1224-2~ 1,294 43 1,480 49 2,769 92 19,306 644 28,266 942 6,123 204 13,205 440 11,158 372 5,447 182 1,187 40 2,432 81 1,312 43 Total Value Accepted Scholarships Number of Accepted SCHOOL Scholarships 1st Year 4 Year Value Value Jaclcsonville Hi11h $205 306 $ 745 388 106 .... Mills Hi11h $ 77 911 $ 315 890 31 w North Pulaski Hi1th $148 715 $ 582 231 63 Oak Grove Hi11h $ 92 366 $ 324 656 42 Robimon Hi11h $ 42 602 $ 160 824 26 Sylvan Hilla Hi1th $160 463 $ 631 302 86 :,::t::':::::tttii?t':t,} '''\"'{?:?:,:,,,:,,,:,:,:,:,,,,,:,:,:,: ,,,,,,,,,,,,:?'i'?{c'c{c:,,,,,:,c,:,: .,.,:,:,:::::::::::c::tt'::::::c:::,:::,:::,:,::: i:,:,,,:,:,,,,,:,,,,,:,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,:,,,,,:?{i'?,?: ,.,.,.,. .,.,.,.,.,.,,?,?'?:,,,:,:,,,:,,,:,:,: :::::~  ~#.::t::: ,,,,,,,,, Cc{?:,:,:,:,,,,,:,:,,,\n,,\"'\",:,:,,,,,:,,,,,:,:,:,,,,,: SCHOLARSHIP REPORT 1994-95 Total Value Declined Scholarships Number of Studenll Black White Other 1st Year 4 Year Value Value 14 45 2 $115 898 $ 446 640 9 12 0 $ 30 006 $ 99 374 11 38 2 $133 438 $ 551 278 8 23 0 $ 24 914 $ 95 048 3 14 0 $ 62 286 $ 240 144 13 38 0 $296 885 $1 157 160 lc/c{?,,:,:,,,:,:,:,,,,,,,:,,,:,: .,.,.,'\"''\"''\"'\"'\"''?:,:,:,:?'' :?\u0026lt;?:,,,,,:,:,:,,,,,:,,,:,:,:,,, i:,:,,,,,,,:,:,:,:,:,,,,,:,c,:,:,,,.,.,:?{? r::::::::::::::,'t::::::::::::::::::r::::::: ''\"'''''''' ,,,,,,,,,,,, {c'c{l\n,\nIQ'c,,,,,,\n,,, 1'''\"'''\"'\"'''4,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,, 1:::::'.3,:nn\n~~. ,.,.,.,. TOTAL232 Number of Declined Number of Students Scholarships Black White Other 30 2 14 0 8 I 4 0 40 s 19 0 10 0 8 0 23 I 7 0 44 4 IS 0 :t':::':tc\n:::,::c\n::::'A:::t\\/:'I: ,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ::'}t::::::.:\n.:'::C::'/': /':}:,:li(:,j::::::::::::: \\?/Hk /::::\n: TOTAL80 DISTRICT COMPARISON OF SCHOLARSHIPS AWARDED Number of accepted scholarships: Total value of accepted scholarships: First year value Four year value Number of students accepting: Black White Other TOTAL Number of declined scholarships: -Total value of declined scholarships: First year value Four year value Number of students declining: Black White Other TOTAL 1993-94 193 $589,769 $2,156,327 29 160 4 193 145 $449,290 $1,665,946 10 62 1 73 1994-95 232 $727,363 $2,760,291 58 170 4 232 155 $663,427 $2,589,644 13 67 0 80 The number of scholarships increased, the total value of scholarships increased, and the number of minority students receiving scholarships increased. 14 SCHOOL SCHOOL YEAR 89-90 JACKSONVILLE IDGH 41 MILLSIDGH 44 NORffl PULASKI IDGH 19 OAK GROVE IDGH 5 ROBINSON fflGH 6 SYLVAN IDLLS fflGH 27 . -: I :::\n:\n:1\n:\n:::: ... (11 SCHOOL SCHOOL YEAR 89-90 JACKSONVILLE IDGH 5 MILLS IDGH 5 NORm PULASKI mGH 1 OAK GROVE fflGH 2 ROBINSON IDGH SYLVAN IDLLS fflGH 3 COLLEGE ADMISSION TESTS BLACK STUDENTS 1994-95 NUMBER TAKING ACT AVERAGE SCORE 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 ,, 49 48 66 58 35 18 17 17 17 17 17 27 33 37 33 29 17 18 17 17 18 18 29 27 15 24 35 17 17 18 18 18 18 13 11 11 19 18 17 18 17 16 18 17 13 13 13 28 18 15 17 17 17 17 17 27 23 22 28 29 17 15 17 19 17 17 .,., ........ ,., ..,. .......... -iltik:::\ni::::\n!1li/i:]!\n: Ii~!?1 a I i }ii ::::11il t1\n1: :}J'.\nI ! :at , .. iii, NUMBER TAKING SAT AVERAGE SCORE 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 4 3 3 1 900 873 803 830 5 4 2 3 824 866 693 990 963 3 3 3 3 3 1000 660 683 860 773 1130 1 920 1120 1 2 3 520 490 700 1 1 1 5 902 550 660 132 942 SCHOOL Jacksonville Hi Mills Hi North Pulaski Hi Oak Grove Hi Robinson Hi COLLEGE REPRESENTATIVE MONITORING FORM 1994-95 Number of institutions who sent representatives for visits. Number of traditionally minority institutions who sent representatives for visits. 19 12 11 12 21 Comparison of College Representatives Who Visited 1993-94 2 2 0 3 4 1994-95 Total number of institutions sending representatives: 163 114 Number of minority institutions sending representatives: 15 (9%) 15 (13%) 16 The Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District held a joint College Day/Night program at Fisher Armory on Thursday, October 25, 1994. Mills High, Oak Grove High, Jacksonville High, North Pulaski High, Robinson High, and North Little Rock High participated. The following colleges and universities sent representatives: Arkansas CaJleges and Universities Arkansas State University - Beebe Arkansas State University Arkansas Tech University Baptist Schools of Nursing and Allied Health Central Baptist Church Harding University Henderson State University Hendrix College John Brown University Lyon College Quachita Baptist University Philander Smith College Pulaski Technical College Shorter College Southern Arkansas University Southern Arkansas University Tech University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences U .A.M.S. College of Pharmacy University of Arkansas - Fayetteville University of Arkansas - Little Rock University of Arkansas - Monticello University of Arkansas - Pine Bluff University of Central Arkansas Williams Baptist College Out of State CaJleges \u0026amp; Universities Abilene Christian University Baylor University Bethel College Centenary College of Louisiana Christian Brothers University College of the Qi.arks Cornell University Drury College Grambling State University Kansas Newman College Lambuth University Lane College Louisiana Tech University Mississippi University for Women Morehouse College Northwood University Oklahoma Baptist University Phillips University Southwest Baptist University Stephens College Union University University of Memphis University of Mississippi University of the Qi.arks University of Tulsa Washington \u0026amp; Lee University Webster University Westminister College William Woods College Wiley College Willliarn Jewel College Yale University The purpose of the joint program was to provide Pulaski County Special School District students access to more elite institutions and larger scholarship opportunities. This activity was funded through Billy Bowles' office with desegregation funds. 17 - - - \"NEXT STEP\" PLANS OF SENIORS - 1994-95 ( PLANS OF SENIORS B w B w B w B w B w B w B w Total 'l(, Number of seniors in class (who oraduatad). 69 162 56 68 46 184 19 70 21 60 50 181 251 725 976 100 ~ co Number with clans to enter collaoa: 36 112 36 41 27 90 12 48 14 42 24 129 149 462 611 63 Number entering non-collage training programs: 9 16 9 9 6 31 6 6 0 3 12 23 41 88 129 13 Number planning to enter the fields of science, math, modern foreign lenguegas: 9 39 12 18 11 36 1 24 3 20 9 41 45 178 223 23 Number clennina to enter the field of taachino: 6 10 6 7 2 22 2 5 4 6 1 14 21 64 85 9 Number aoina immadiatalv into militerv service: 7 12 6 6 4 20 1 3 0 0 5 6 23 67 70 7 Number ooina diractlv into ragul11r amalovmant: 7 22 3 9 8 36 1 13 7 15 7 21 33 116 149 15 Number of preceding category who plan to enter collage 3 15 3 6 7 9 3 6 4 3 1 7 21 44 65 67 later: Others (married and no plans for treinino or amolovmant): 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 Number with no plans et ell: 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 6 10 1 COMPARISON OF \"NEXT STEP\" PLANS OF SENIORS , , ( , ( .... Plans of Seniors B w TOTAL % B w TOTAL % CHANGE (0 Number of seniors in class (who graduated). 270 736 1006 100 251 725 976 100 --- Number with plans to enter college : 136 470 606 60 1491 462 611 63 Increase Number entering non-college training programs 46 81 127 13 41 88 129 13 Same Number planning to enter the fields of science, math, modern foreign languages: 46 146 191 19 45 178 223 23 Increase Number planning to enter the field of teaching: 21 40 61 6 21 64 85 9 Increase Number going immediately into military service: 32 56 88 9 23 57 70 7 Decrease Number going directly into regular employment: 45 111 156 16 33 116 149 15 Decrease Number of preceding category who plan to enter college later: 18 49 67 7 21 44 65 7 Same Others (married and no plans for training or employment ): 1 5 6 1 0 7 7 1 Seme Number with no plans at all: 10 13 23 2 5 5 10 1 Decrease ARKANSAS GOVERNOR'S SCHOOL 1994-95 STUDENTS NOMINATED SCHOOL TOTAL WHITE BLACK Jacksonville High 7 3 3 Mills High 11 8 3 North Pulaski High 17 14 2 Oak Grove High 4 3 1 Robinson High 5 4 1 Sylvan Hills High 8 5 3 Totals 52 37 13 OTHER 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 In the Pulaski County Special School District, 52 students were nominated for Arkansas Governor's School and 21 students were accepted (40% of those who applied). COMPARISON OF LAST YEAR TO CURRENT YEAR YEAR TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER 1994 52 29 20 3 1995 52 37 13 2 The number of black students and other students nominated in 1994-95 school year decreased. 20 FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF GOVERNOR'S SCHOOL STUDENTS YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995_ SCHOOL JACKSONVILLE HIGH MILLS HIGH NORTH PULASKI HIGH OAK GROVE HIGH ROBINSON HIGH SYLVAN HILLS HIGH TO ATTEND AS AL TERNA TES 26 15 21 19 33 11 28 6 18 9 21 11 GOVERNOR'S SCHOOL STUDENTS 1994-95 NOMINATED ACCEPTED 7 4 11 4 17 4 4 2 5 3 8 4 21 TOTAL 41 40 44 34 27 32 ALTERNATES 1 4 4 1 0 1 AREAS OF ACCEPTANCE AREAS # ACCEPTED # AL TERNA TES Choral Music 1 0 Drama 2 0 Language Arts 6 2 Instrumental Music 2 1 Math 3 3 Natural Science 1 3 Social Studies 4 1 Visual Arts 2 1 22 RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGES IN COUNSELING 1995-96 The area of counseling is becoming more technically oriented , as are all facets of American education. For students in the Pulaski County Special School District to be on par with students around the state and the nation , the district has to make continuous efforts to update the technology available in the counseling offices. In cooperation with the American College Testing Program, Jacksonville High School will continue to pilot the CD interactive version of Discover for high school students. Pulaski Technical College is working with the district to fund the Discover software for junior high school students. Discover is a computer-based program designed to help 6th-12th grade students with education planning and career exploration. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock is in the process of forming a committee to explore the possibility of providing computer equipment and software to feeder high schools thereby allowing students to gather college information plus register for admission andTor scholarships with UALR and other post-secondary institutions. The district continues to fund the Guidance Information System (GIS) at the high school level and will endeavor in the next two years to update the hardware that supports this program. As these and other outside agency continue to provide assistance and support to the district's efforts to connect with the \"information highway\", the district will have to continue to explore ways to address the equipment and telephone needs of the counselors. A second area of concern is the allocation of counselors to the individual schools. The old numerical formula, that has been used to determine the number of counselors to assign to a school in order to meet the needs of the student population, does not now appear to function adequately. A committee will need to be formed to devise a formula that addresses the variables effecting the student populations in the each segment of the district. Some factors which may need to be considered are: 1 . Number of Special Education Students Served 2. Number of 504 Students Served 3. Number of Students Enrolling and Moving 4. Number of Major Crisis Situations Occurring 5. Number of Suspensions and Explosions 6. Number of Students Pursing College Admissions 7. Number of Scholarships Sought 23 In recent years each time the Arkansas Legislature has met, new laws have been enacted that have expanded the responsibilities of the school counselor. The following is an abbreviated list of some of the laws and duties: Act 837 of 1995-GED Enrollment for 16 \u0026amp; 17 Year Old Students Requires the counselor to administer the Test for Adult Basic Education (T.A.B.E.) or a General Educational Development pre-test to students wishing to drop out of public school to enroll in an adult education program and to hold a conference with their parents to discuss academic options. Act 1 097 of 1 991- Concurrent College and High School Credit Requires the c1runselor to determine if a college level course meets the graduation requirement of the local school district. Act 49 of 1.993-Reporting of Child Abuse Cases Requires the school counselor to forward information about founded child abuse and neglect cases to the next school in which a student enrolls. Act 688 of 1993-Requires School Districts to Attach Seals to the Transcripts and Diplomas of College Prep and Tech Prep Curriculum Completers with a 2.75 GPA Requires the counselor to identify which students meet tech prep or college prep curriculum requirements and have the qualifying GPA. Act 846 of 1 993-Competency and Outcomes-Based Assessment Place the responsibility on the school to give Benchmark and ACT AP Exit Exam which the counselor coordinates. Counselors also coordinate the SAT-8 testing. Act 451 of 1991-Reporting Child Abuse Set up the process whereby the mandated reporter of child abuse or neglect receives reports on the actions or intentions of the Department of Human Services. In the PCSSD, the mandated reporter is the school counselor. 24 The actions of the Arkansas Legislature will continue to impact the responsibilities assigned the counselors in the district and could impact the counselor allocation formula. The Tech Prep/ College Prep Initiative from the Arkansas Department of Education has required a parent conference with every student's parents to discuss career and educational planning. The district has selected the ninth grade for this activity to occur. In conclusion, the demands on counselors continue to increase. Parents and students expect comprehensive and speedy service. As a district, we must strive to be sure that we have staff and technical equipment to meet their needs. 25 GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING REPORTS 1993-94 Table of Contents Home /Sch.ool Counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Elementary Counseling .................................... 7 Su per-sta.I-s                                             10 Seconda.ry Counseling ................................. 11 Schola.r-shiJ\u0026gt;S ........................... 14 College Admission - Black Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 College Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Next Step PlallS          .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Arkansas Governor's School ................................. 19 HOME SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAM 1993-94 The Pulaski County Special School District employed ten home/school counselors-consultants to serve disadvantaged students in the district. Schools involved were Baker Elementary, Bates Elementary, College Station Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary, Fuller Elementary, Harris Elementary, Landmark Elementary, Fuller Junior High, and Mills High School. Student selections were based on the following criteria: 1. The student's scores on a nationally recognized normed reference achievement test were at or below the 25th percentile. 2. The student's performance on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test at grades 3, 6 or 8 indicated failure to master basic skills in half or more of the areas tested. 3. The student's grade point average on a 4 point scale fell below a 2.0 grade point average. 4. The student's attendance record indicated multiple absences that could be impacting academic performance. 5. School records indicated disciplinary actions taken which resulted in time out of school for the student. Not all students selected for the program exhibited all criteria. Students were evaluated according to the criteria and those meeting multiple criteria received service first. Kindergarten children were normally included in the program based on teacher recommendation and Early Prevention of School Failure scores. A waiting list was established for those meeting only one or two criteria. Students were added to the program as vacancies occurred. The following information was compiled from reports submitted by the home/school counselors-consultants at the end of the year: ENROLLMENT Number of students receiving services during the school year: L.m 695 Black Students (64%) 397 White Students (36%) 403 Black Males (36%) 292 Black Females (27%) 236 White Males (22 % ) 161 White Females (15%) 1 Number of students who dropped out of the program: 160 98 Black Students 62 White Students (61%) (39%) 54 Black Males (34 % ) 46 Black Females (29%) 36 White Males (23 % ) 24 White Females (15%) Number of students receiving services second semester: 939 603 Black Students (64%) 336 White Students (36%) 351 Black Males (37%) 252 Black Females (27%) 199 White Males (21 %) 137 White Females (15%) ACADEMIC Many of the district's students served by the program transferred from school to school and/or from district to district. This movement of students created a problem in record flow. It was often difficult to accumulate records on each child to check for academic growth, improved attendance and test scores. Readim:\nElementary Level Black Students White Students Improved 263 143 Declined 7 1 The reading level of 14 students remained the same. Grade Point A verai:e\nAll Subjects - Secondary Level Black Students White Students Improved 95 60 Declined 81 54 The grade point averages of 24 students remained the same. 2 Not Verified 103 42 Not Verified 34 18 TOT AL5 - ALL LEVELS: 939 Students Improved Black Students White Students 358 (59%) 203 (60%) Declined 88 (15%) 55 (16%) Not Verified 137 (23%) 60 (18%) 38 students or 4% of all students' academic performance remained the same. A'ITENDANCE Black Students Improved Declined Not Verified Elementary 149 109 91 Junior High 54 39 22 Senior High 38 49 14 241 (40%) 197 (33%) 127 (21%) White Students Improved Declined Not Verified Elementary 80 63 36 Junior High 48 27 8 Senior High 24 24 11 152 (45%) 114 (34%) 55 (16%) 53 students or 6% of all students' attendance remained the same as the previous year. TEST SCORES Black Students Elementary Junior High Senior High Improved 160 61 7 228 (38%) Declined 91 51 19 116 (27%) The remaining students were either not tested (kindergarten, first grade or twelfth grade) or prior scores had not been received. (35%) 3 - White Students Improved Declined Elementary 82 39 Junior High 42 36 Senior High 9 8 133 (40%) 83 (25%) The remaining students were either not tested (kindergarten, first grade or twelfth grade) or prior scores had not been received. (35%) The home/school consultants and counselors worked as liaisons between the school and the home. The activities varied from school to school based on the needs of the program participants in each building. Some of the activities conducted during the 1993-94 school year included the following: Provided Transportation for Parents 1. School conferences 2. Honor Roll Assembly/Banquet 3. Health clinics 4. Juvenile Court 5. Child Study Center 6. Family Counseling Center 7. Mental Health Services Provided Workshops for Parents 1. Family Safety 2. Study Skills 3. Helping Your Children With Homework 4. Growing Up and Loong It 5. Preventing Neighborhood Crime Provided Small Group Meetings for Parents 1. Teen Pregnancy 2. Drug Abuse Prevention Recruited Parent Volunteers 1. C~room aides 2. Counseling Advisory Committee 3. Speakers for c~room programs Provided Students With Learning Opportunities 1. BRAG (Group to raise academic achievement) 2. Family Growth Project (project to prevent pregnancy) 3. STOP (Peer tutoring program) 4. Adopt Me Program (Group to build self-esteem) 4 Open Activities 1. Enrolled students in the Future Builders Program 2. Procured and delivered food baskets for needy families 3. Helped parents enroll in GED program 4. Secured medical assistance, free g~, clothing, utilities, and housing for families in need The home/school consultants and counselors felt that their personal safety was in question when conducting home visits. The district provided cellular phones so that the consultants and counselors would be able to seek assistance in any emergency. A training was also held to provide the personnel in this program with current information on self-protection strategies. The ten persons staffing this program were encouraged to make home visits in teams and to make the visit before dark. The home/school counselors and consultants continued to provide needed services to potentially \"at-risk\" students in our district. They served as a bridge between parents who had doubts about the integrity of the school and the school staff that lacked the expertise to work effectively with these parents. The personnel that staffed the program continued to be dedicated to the welfare of all children without regard to race, ethnic origin or socioeconomic status. The home/school consultants and counselors have a positive effect on the school climate in the schools they serve. 5 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT HOME/SCHOOL COUNSELOR-CONSULT ANT REPORT 1993-94 Number of black students counseled individually: ~ Average per counselor: ~ Number of white students counseled individually: ~ Average per counselor: 155 Number of black students seen in groups: 777 Average per counselor: ~ Number of white students seen in groups: m Average per counselor: 74 Number of teacher/counselor conferences: 2,532 Average per counselor: 253 Number of administrator/counselor conferences: 1,127 Average per counselor: ill Number of parent/counselor conferences: 2,137 Average per counselor: 214 Number of conferences with referral agencies: 715 Average per counselor: 72 Number of conferences with other resources, support staff, etc.: ~ Average per counselor: ~ Number of hours of home visits: 2,065 Average per counselor: 207 6 ELEMENTARY COUNSELING 1992-93 The Pulaski County Special School District employed 29 elementary counselors to provide counseling services to the 11,000+ elementary students enrolled in grades K-6 during the 1993-94 school year. Of the 29 counselors, five persons were black (17%) and 24 persons were white (83%). All elementary counselors were female. Twenty-two of the counselors served one school full time. Seven counselors served multiple schools. The current required elementary counselor/student ratio is 1/450. The duties performed by the elementary counselors were in compliance with Act 908 of the 1991 Arkansas legislative ~ion. This act required school counselors to spend seventy-five percent (75%) of work time providing direct counseling services to students. The remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of work time could be devoted to administrative activities provided the activities relate directly to the provision of guidance services. Approximately fifty 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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_649","title":"Little Rock Schools: Franklin Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/2003"],"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","Franklin Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational statistics","School facilities","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Franklin Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/649"],"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":["138 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\nWhat is the Highland Park Redevelopment Initiative? With a HUD development grant and investments by corporations, the community and the City, the Highland Park Redevelopment Initiative is a strategic, catalytic reinvestment effort in a centrally located neighborhood of Little Rock. The approach includes: The total demolition of the former Highland Park public housing site\nThe reconstruction of a new mixed-income development\nand Perhaps more significantly, assisted housing residents and community members living in and around Highland Park have and will continue to participate throughout the development process.  Whom may I contact for additional information or for a presentation to my community or civic organization? L. Lee Jones, Executive Director Little Rock Housing Authority or Polly Kinslowe, Sr. Vice President McCormack Baron and Associates 1000 Wolfe Street, Little Rock, AR 72202 (501)340-4821 phone (501)340-4845 fax The Highland Park Community Redevelopment Initiativer Invitation MEETING AGENDA The Development Team Tke Little Rock Housing One of the overarching goals of the redevelopment of Highland Park is the ACTIVE INVOL VEMENTof community residents in the creation of an economically strong community. T'he highly experienced development firm of McCormack Baron and Associates, along Autkority Boand of Commissioners, Residents and Staff, join witk our experienced development partner McCormack Welcome and Acknowledgments with the Fennell Purifoy Architectural firm will provide the leadership for the Little Rock Housing Authority, housing residents, and community members in the planning and Baron and Associates, Inc. Highland Demolition Update in inviting you to attend a community meeting to review and discuss tke preliminary arckitectural design and renderings for tke new mixed-income di on Development Team Introductions An overview of the Design Process Review of the Proposed Site Plan evelopment to Le kuilt Review of the Proposed Unit Plan building of the development. M new mixed-income cCormack Baron is a unique for-profit company that approaches the development tke former Hi^kland Park pukkc kousing site Review of the Proposed Building Elevations 1 Discussion /Questions/ Comments Thursday December 5,1996 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Wrap-up / Next Steps Franklin Incentive Elementary School 1701 S. Harrison Street Mrs. Ethel Dunbar, Principal process with a social purpose. A nationally recognized leader in urban revitalization, MBA's corporate purpose and commitment is ^to create quality housing and provide superior property management. With this as a beginning premise, McCormack Baron has' found that the redevelopment process is best served by creating strong relationships with cities, as well as with neighbors and neighborhood groups to learn their goals, needs and expectations with respect to new housing within their community. The LRHA, housing residents, McCormack Baron, Fennell Purifoy and the community of Little Rock working together have the expertise necessary to make the Highland Redevelopment Initiative a model for others throughout the nation. Little Rock School District c ommunication technology is integrated into the core curriculum at Franklin through the addition of r creative writing, public speaking, interpersonal skills, multi-cultural education, and conflict resolution. Skills that are taught throughout the curriculum are speaking, writing, reading, studying, listening, test taking and thinking. Technology is utilized in five areas:  individualized learning  group interaction  management and coordination of student learning  student expression  knowledge production (creating, exploring and discovering) Goals of the program are to enhance student achievement, reduce gender and racial disparity, promote self-discipline, develop higher level thinking skills, instill task commitment and responsibility, develop basic academic skills, and to enhance the educational, cultural and social opportunities of students. Students are allowed, with instructional guidance, to set their own pace. The positive learning atmosphere at Franklin is success-oriented, risk-free, organized, orderly and flexible. Our student-centered atmosphere has learning centers and interactive computer software. Students are encouraged to set their own goals. They're free to move about the classroom and receive positive reinforcement for their efforts and accomplishments. At Franklin, we teach communication skills that are the building blocks for understanding. ft Xo) Xo\" \u0026gt; JO O to LA 00 3* ft) 3 OO 3 fp (T\u0026gt; ?3 O o pr c a.  \u0026gt; !CZ/\u0026gt;5 C 3 O O o Sc OQ 3 3  O O o I 1 a 72 O \u0026gt; 72 o 3 z o NJ o co \u0026gt; o c w Iort tfOoJ n\u0026gt; o dQQJ  0n)' o' 2O 3 O Franklin Communications Technology Elementary School First Class Schools For World Class Kids Communication Skills En-* hance Ability To Succeed Students at Franklin get a head start as they learn to speak and write effectively and interact with people who have varying viewpoints. Some of the special programs that promote communications skills include: Beta Club, Math Olympiads, international pen pals. Quiz Bowl, Career Club, Drama Club, B.U.G. (Bring Up Your Grades), Lunch Bunch Computer Club and a school newspaper. Students become active learners by engaging in project-oriented activities and by writing activities that broaden their knowledge of telecommunications. We promote G.U.M. - Getting, Understanding and Manipulating information. Through this process, students become independent thinkers, doers and learners. These are the skills which ultimately can lead them to a successful and productive career. SPECIAL ATTRACTIONS  Interactive Technology to Enhance Communications Skills  Science Lab and Production Lab  Management and Coordination of Student Learning A Different Learning Environment A 54-station computer lab, a \"Writing to Read\" lab, and the usage of other interactive technology creates an enhanced learning environment for students at all levels. Our trained staff promotes independent thinking and responsibility among students. We promote the best of both educational worlds - high sensitivity and high tech - which develops students with a head and a heart for the future. *  Conflict Resolution  Multicultural Education  Achievement Recognition  Emphasis on Individualized Learning Styles Franklin Communications Technology Elementary School 1701 South Harrison Little Rock, AR 72204 501/671-6380  Activities: Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Spanish Club, Interdistrict Pen Pals FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CALL OR VISIT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN, LITTLE ROCK, AR 501/324-2272 OR CALL OUR INCENTIVE SCHOOL HOTLINE, 501/688-3085  Gifted/Talented Program  Extended Day and Extended Week Activities  Before and After School Care Program - Supervised Activities, 7 a.m.-5:30 p.m.  Four-Year-Old Program Franklin Communications Technology Elementary School is a part of the LRSD Incentive School Program. Incentive schools receive extra financial resources which allow for big results in basic skills education and enrichment. experiences. Reading and mathematics will be stressed in the academic program, and parent involvement will be encouraged. Franklin Early Childhood Environmental Sciences/Basic Skills Magnet (Pre K-6) An early childhood and environmental sciences magnet will be opened at the Franklin Elementary school beginning in the 1991-92 school year. Romine Gifted and Talented/Basic Skills Magnet (Pre K-6) An interdistrict magnet school will be established at Romine Elementary featuring an intensive traditional program along with a strong gifted and talented program. An emphasis on critical thinking will prepare students for earning a living, for responsible citizenship. and for self-development after formal education is completed. Because the magnet parent committee recommends traditional programs for elementary magnet schools, all students will take the same course of study. Students will benefit from the use of three learning modes\n1) traditional instruction by lecture and reading. 2) individualized instruction in coaching labs that use active learning and critical thinking, and 3) student discussion seminars that further the understanding of basic ideas and values. This program will start at the beginning of the 1991-92 school year. 12 FACILITIES LRSD will have thirty-one non-magnet elementary schools. The magnet schools will continue to operate under present court orders. Elementary Academies There will be twenty-two Elementary Academies. The name reflects LRSD's commitment to provide an excellent desegregated education program in each of these schools. The Elementary Academies with the capacity and projected racial composition of each, are listed below: School Capacity Black Non-Black Total % Black Badgett 275 92 73 155 53% Bale 394 188 124 312 60% Baseline 417 206 125 331 6 2% Brady 420 190 172 362 52% Chicot 563 255 231 486 52% Cloverdale 420 213 141 354 60% Dodd 424 198 164 362 55% I Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright  Geyer Springs Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff 351 154 130 284 54% 436 203 180 383 53% 607 267 236 503 53% 235 120 98 218 55% 490 541 531 465 226 205 431 52% 261 260 237 231 216 208 492 476 445 53% 55% 53% 25 02227 School Capacity Black Non-Black Total % Black Otter Creek 383 183 162 345 5 3% Pulaski Heights 328 159 119 278 57% Terry 537 260 224 484 54% Wakefield 472 215 184 399 54% Watson 472 227 157 384 59% Western Hills 328 165 140 305 54% Wilson 409 228 170 398 57% Totals 9,501 Incentive Schools There will be eight Incentive Schools which are listed below with the number of classrooms in each each at twenty-five students per classroom: as well as the capacity of School  Classes Capacity at 25 Franklin 28 700 Garland 16 400 Ish 11 275 Mitchell 14 350 Rightsell 12 300 Rockefeller 16 400 Stephens 13 325 Washington 42 1050 Totals 136 3800 26 02228Black Enrollment in Incentive and Interdistrict Schools Total Enrollment in Ele. Aca Racial Composition of Ele. Aca. Recruitment Capacity for Ele. Aca. 2,000 10,350 62.3% \u0026lt;89\u0026gt; 2,500 9,850 60.9% 411 3,000 9,350 58.8% 911 3,500 8,850 56.5% 1,411 3,600 8,650 56% 1,511 Construction 1988-89 Washington School is closed for the 1938-89 school year. A new Washington School is being built at the same site with a projected capacity of 1,050 students. The students who were originally assigned to Washington for the 1938-39 school year have been reassigned to Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller and Rightsell. These students (166) will have a preference to return to the Washington in the 1989-90 school year. new 1989-90 A new wing is being added to Franklin School and will be completed prior to the start of the 1989-90 school year. Franklin's new capacity will be 560. Woodruff has a capacity of 245 students and is situated in a neighborhood that has no real potential for white growth. Woodruff is presently 75% black. Probably the best use of this facility is to use it as the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) * or as an alternative school. Woodruff will be closed as an elementary school at the end of the 1988-89 school year. 29 02231\u0026lt;o introduction incentive SCHOpr. PROGRAM Beginning in the 1989-90 school year, District will have the Little Rock School school program. eight (8) schools Rockefeller may become providing the incentive but would continue to provide the i an interdistrict school, incentive school purpose or the incentive program. The academic excellence desegregate. will school program is to promote and ensure in schools that have been It is believed that the difficult to incentive school nor only compensate the program victims of program will also segregation, but the serve as a tool for long-lasting desegregation promoting meaningful and in these schools school district. and in the entire The following schools program: will provide the incentive school -Franklin -Garland -Ish -Mitchell -Rightsell -Rockefeller -Stephens -Washi.net on In order to be successful, the incentive the academic, program must address ticipants. social and emotional needs_ of all student The incentive parprogram must also serve as a recruit-  31 02233ODM Visits to LRSD Schools, Opening Days 1994 Franklin Incentive School We were pleased to note that:  Brush had been cleared from the fenceline on the northern border of the school.  A new sidewalk had been installed at the entrance to the building.  The parking lot had been resurfaced.  A new parent center, which is attractive and comfortably-appointed, had been situated across from the office.  The school's new business partner, the City of Little Rock, had installed two new picnic tables on the playground.  The entrance area had bright, attractive signs welcoming students and visitors.  Classrooms appeared well-prepared and ready for students.  Hallways were clean and decorated with bright, attractive displays and bulletin boards\nhall floors were waxed.  Hall mles posted throughout the building were expressed in positive terms.  Staff and students were fnendly and helpful. We also noted some areas needing attention. On June 2, 1994, ODMfiled a letter to the court regarding the condition of the Mitchell and Franklin facilities. Later in June, the LRSD responded to that letter, indicating that the problems cited in the letter had been addressed. However, as we visited Franklin during the opening week of school, monitors found some of the same deficiencies cited in the June 1994 letter. The problem areas now include:  Most of the walls throughout the building had paint that is splotchy and mis-matched\nsplashes and drips of misplaced paint mar the windows, baseboards, and bathroom fixtures.  Ceiling tiles throughout the building had been discolored and damaged by water stains.  The glass in many of the windows and exterior doors was dirty.  Several hall flooring tiles were broken.  A girls' restroom on the first floor contained only one fully operable sink (one sink had no water, and two other lacked water pressure sufficient for hand washing). All of the sinks were dirty, one was rusty, and all bore the remains of old paint, as did the toilet seats.  A boys' bathroom on the second floor contained a continuously rutming urinal.  The rocky hill on the northeast border of the school property remains a tempting danger zone. Continual erosion has exposed solid rock outcroppings whose slopes are covered with small, sharp stones.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 June 2, 1994 fileo EASSTR'CTARV'^\u0026lt; The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. 3316 Little Rock, AR 72201 JIM - 2139^ Bv:. OEP CLEW\u0026lt; Dear judge Wright: During the process of monitoring the six incentive schools in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) this year, we recendy concluded visits to Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Stephens, and Rockefeller. We are presently preparing a comprehensive incentive school monitoring report that will include findings based upon these on-site inspections. During our May visits to the incentive schools, we noted problems with the Franklin and Mitchell facilities that alarm us. Because our complete report will not be published until later this summer, 1 am filing this short, preliminary report to alert the Court and the parties to conditions at Franklin and Mitchell that need immediate correction before staff and students return to those buildings next school term. The comments are excerpted from the draft Facilities Section of our incentive school report and, therefore, include our positive observations as well as notations describing conditions needing prompt attention. The LRSD is presently petitioning the Court to close Stephens Incentive School, citing the \"declining condition\" and \"structural problems\" of that facility as among the reasons for seeking to close it. By immediately tending to needed repairs at Franklin and Mitchell, the LRSD will be able to prevent declining conditions that could lead to structural problems at those two buildings. Quick attention to facility needs should help the district avoid any appearance that it is failing to maintain incentive schools as a basis for eventually closing them due to deterioration. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. cc: All Parties and Counsel of Record ODM Observations of the Facilities at Franklin and Mitchell Incentive Schools When the monitors visited the incentive schools in the spring of 1993-94, we noted several problems with the facilities at both Franklin and Mitchell. Below is our description of the conditions we observed at those two schools, followed by a summary list of problems that require immediate attention. Franklin: The Franklin facility has deteriorated visibly since the last monitoring visit we made during the 1992-93 school year. The roof leaks that have plagued the school for years persist, leaving damaged ceilings throughout the building. Gaping holes mar the cafeteria ceiling, and the ceiling of the principals office collapsed a few weeks prior to our visit. Rainwater also floods under doors into one office and a classroom on the third level of the building. On the first level, both ceiling and floor tiles have deteriorated and are unattractive. Walls throughout the interior are grubby and unattractive. The Franklin custodians have spot- painted some walls, but the spots stand out conspicuously because the new paint does not match the old. The district made several improvements to the schools exterior during 1993-94. Workers removed some old, dangerous wooden equipment from the playground and replaced it with more modem equipment salvaged from Ish Incentive School, which closed at the end of the 1992-93 school year. Four-year-olds received an additional climbing structure in their play area and e assistant principal reported that the PTA and Student Council were working cooperatively on future projects for playground improvements. Mitchell: Our previous reports on the incentive schools have praised the Mitchell facility. Indeed the 1908 structure designed by Charles Thompson, Arkansas most noted architect, is beautifully designed and appears structurally sound. But several areas of the building have fallen into disrepair. During 1993, we noted a severe ceiling leak in the reading room. During the past year, the math classroom next door developed a similar problem. Teachers told us that district workers made several attempts to correct the problem, but the leaks have nevertheless persisted. The district installed new carpet in each classroom during the spring of 1994, but the unabated leaks ruined the ceilings and the new carpet in both these classrooms, leaving an objectionable musty smell. The new carpet in other parts of the building looks fresh and neat, but its slate blue color clashes with the earth-toned walls. When the district renovated Mitchell several years ago, the architects took care to select a color palette appropriate to the period of the schools construction. The new carpet ignores those earlier efforts, and gives the interior a rather hodgepodge appearance. The multi-story building includes a basement that houses the cafeteria, kitchen, and minimal classroom space. The stairs leading down to one section of the basement have become so tilted, due to settling of the building, that they present a danger to solid footing. Workers had replaced the broken floor tiles noted in our 1992-1993 report, but several of the brown and white floor tiles, used throughout the first floor of the building, were loose when we visited this time.The exterior of the building includes some commendable improvements and some obvious needs. The schools entry area is now pleasantly adorned by a large flower bed planted with blooming annuals. The four-year-old children have an additional play structure designed for their use, but it is inconveniently located and inaccessible from their classroom. The youngsters must leave their room and walk into the main building to find the only exit that leads to this fenced play area. The buildings exterior trim paint has begun to flake off in some areas, signaling the need for scraping and repainting. Summary Listing of Conditions Requiring Immediate Correction Franklin: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Ceiling leaks Ceilings damaged by leaks Holes in the cafeteria ceiling Collapsed ceiling in the principals office Dirty walls Mismatched spot painting Flooding from rainwater on the third level Deteriorated ceiling and floor tiles on the first level Mitchell: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ceiling leaks Ceilings damaged by leaks Carpets damaged by leaks Tilted basement stairs Loose floor tiles Peeling exterior paint9 f- Drcib^rr Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT June 21, 1994 JUN 2 4 1994 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street, Suite 520 Heritage West Building Otiios ci Dessgrsgaiion iv: -g Little Rock, AR 72201 .^2 -V Dear Ann: !i I have enclosed for your perusal and records a copy of a document that was forwarded to me by Mr. Eaton in response to your partial report on the physical condition of particularly Mitchell and Franklin. the incentive schools. The report provided by Mr. Eaton seems to suggest that the buildings are not being neglected and are on a regular maintenance schedule and obviously do receive special consideration when circumstances warrant special attention. It might be a good idea, Ann, for us to meet with Doug regarding the incentive schools so that you and your people are aware of what the capital plans call for with regard to the repairs of all District facilities. Should you require additional information on the incentive schools. please let me know, and I'll get it for you. In the meantime. please consider the possibility of scheduling a meeting with Doug to look at all of the facilities. Sipcerely, Hl P. Williams Superintendent of Schools HPW:nr Encl. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED AUG 8 1995 Office of Desegregation Moniicring Via Facsimile - 324-2146 August 7, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: In making a routine monitoring visit today, we were shocked to find at Franklin Incentive School the following: 1) There is no principal\n2) 3) There is no assistant principal\nThere are eight teaching vacancies\nand 4) Registration is underway and staff, parents and students are in substantial disarray. By return facsimile these facts\nand if so, ' are obvious plan violations. 1, please let me know, if you are aware of what you intend to do about them. These Very truly yours, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Linda Pendexter Ms. Ann BrownI SW' Lar -'J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Franklin Incentive School 1701 South Harrison Phone 671-6380 Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 September 29, 1995 -IS9S Dear Mrs Lyon: As you know, our theme is Communications and Technology with an emphasis on reading and writing. As a staff, we realize that we must adhere to the language of the Desegregation Plan and develop this selected theme through Interdisciplinary Thematic units. A thorough assessment of equipment in our building revealed that computers have not been placed in any of the classrooms and there is one VCR/television for each grade level. To say this poses a problem with instructional planning is an understatement The computer laboratory is equipped with 56 computer stations, but many are in need of repair. needed. New mice, headphones, and pads are In addition, there is a need for current software programs on the hard drive. Deluxe. For example\nWordperfect, and Print Shop * ' I I^.-^HSSWAIW^  As the building principal, I am asking that you give consideration to making a request through your department to determine if the district would purchase VCR's, and television for each classroom in our building. I am especially appreciative of your past assistance. Sincerely, Ethel Dunbar, Principal cc: Dr. Henry Williams Mr. Mark MilhollenZ-\"' A - IMN' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT\n-r4rs'v EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING / PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas September 1995 I 08/23/95 \u0026lt;9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Equitable Placement by Race/Gender in School Programs 1 2.0 Curriculum 2 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards 4 4.0 Committees 4 5.0 Extracurricular Activities 5 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment 5 7.0 Special Education 6 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education 7 9.0 Staff Development 8 10.0 Parental Involvement 9 11.0 Student Discipline 10 12.0 Building Leadership/Management 11 Key: I Interview O = Observe / SP School ProfileLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNTNGf RESEARCH--AwNi'tDw EVALUATION DEPARTMENT 1995-96 Froz'klli CominM_nic\u0026lt;v+on SCHOOL\n4\u0026gt;Tffl\u0026gt;nol PRINCIPAL: MONITOR(S) GRADE LEVEL(s): DATE: NUMBER OF CLASSES VISITED: AAalt n^la ^A^ctr4-\nin .on Observers are recruired to provide evidence for each criterion. Please print observations and evidence in sufficient detail to indicate positive practices and areas in need of improvement. Observers should review the School Profile prior to completing this form. CRITERIA CIRCLE ONE 1.0 Ejuitable Placement by RaceZGende: in School Programs The school ensures equal access and fair treatment in all programs resulting in optimum conditions for student learning. S 1.1 The composition of students have access to, he school staff ensures that YES 3P SP 1.3 and contact with, NO varied staff of certified and non-certified a personnel. School enrollment reflects the racial,/ethnic composition prescribed by the court approved desegregatip: EVIDENCE: 1 hbuml i oalQeTs VikH Class/course enrollments generally reflect the racial/ethnic co: YES YES NO imposition of the school. --------- Scj\\QpX\\5 s 5 gn/OC 4^ EVIDENCE: 1 Educational Equity Monitoring CRITERIA CIRCLE ONE SP 1.4 If needed, strategies to eliminate disproportionate class/course enrollments or one- YES NO SP/0 1.5 race classes EVIDENCE: / evident.j ffUoh a55n nm s_ Indicate specific subject, (math, science. 11  \\ /\u0026gt; \u0026gt; 7 2.0 /I O/I 0 language, etc.) room number and approximate number of students of any one race classes. . Rm# Rm# Rm#' 5 Number of students 7 Race^ Time^/^'Sub j ect Number of students RaceTTTime//?,'#/7Subj ect / ___ ^Number of students/^ Race'^Timey^^Z/fSubject Rm# ^3.44umber of students___ Race__ Time___ Subject____ Curriculum Race The school provides a curriculum that is reflective of cultural differences. Local and/or state-developed course content guides enhance multicultural content in all curriculum areas. 2.1 2.2 2.3 In classrooms observed, the teachers have adequate  materials and equipment to deliver, the curriculum. oLseujjna/^ei d aiuA/Ta ddjj-ia--j-^-- FJyLu'ld^ onfy) t)r\\P. j-eAC/juC Current and complete student records are maintained in the classroom and school o ice to monitor the progress in achievement of the individual learner (i.e. grade books. Abacus reports, PRFs, interim and parent conference reports, r^ort cards lesson plans) EVIDEN' had be.^ ' I  I   IUX( i tti I i YES NO ts, reoort cards, iBsson  , idupJ aiSplcuJ^ All students are actively involved in classroom YES NO iinnssttrruuccttiioonr.jX / / , i H EEVVIIDDEENNCC:E: cla^5 ohs^e^d i\u0026gt;j jp^ni-tof^r LS~i Educational Equity Monitoring TS^n--------- --------- 0 2.4 _____________________ CRITERIA____________________________ Classroom seating patterns promote interaction among students of ^i^er , EVIDENCE: race/\u0026lt;6^de: e 0 0 o O/I 2.5 There is evidence that the multicultural curriculum is being implemented. 2.5.1 2.5.2 c. 5. k 2.6 3 yp. CIRCLE ONE YES NO Bulletin boards, displays of projects, publications, and productions throughout the school (including the media center) reflect the racial/ethnic/gender differences of the student body and/or multiculturali EVIDENCE: inWrTf^ YES NO ralism. il I J VP s lUL Bulletin boards, displays of projects, publications, and productions in the classroom reflect ,the racial/ethnic/ gender differences of the student body and/or multiculturalism. / j ClS^ ZXy6UAzA4j^fl-Z. tre is a. disolay af 'ttudenr diidJ There a display ____________ __ 1 i .  EVIDENCE: Liosr^.. n{nn^' JZl [\u0026lt;1 , YES YES NO NO Multicultural objectives of the curriculum EVIDENCE: YES NO\nkce: ovTQMXnc::, im^uides are  tn aught 7^f\u0026gt;\u0026gt;nc^ 'amnmffKfi J t The library media specialist annually evaluates the adequacy of multicultural materials in the media collection and continually evaluates new materials to be considered for^purchase. EVIDENC, .14- Y-ES NO ! .als tor purcnase. i Kk-Tt/x ij^ r,jg4a^ . Gfy\u0026gt; . -r z? zpipa i, \\ferr ITYUjvC SrVuyitAy N\\jp a. ^TCUtT ITYXO^ Educational Equity-Monitoring PS^g' 4------------------------------------- CRITERIA 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards * The school ensures that no student is denied access to being selected for honors and awards through establishment of non-biased and equitable policies and procedures. SP 3.1 A variety of awards and honors is provided in areas such as scholarship, citizenship, oporto, school and .ance ubs, a: SP 3.2 SP c 4.0 S CIRCLE ONE YES NO ^ENCE\nga/^zationsy . Written procedures and requirements governing honors and awards are distributed to staff, students and parents EVID^CE: fthOfe. YES NO The offerings and procedures regarding honors and awards are evaluated regularly for equity and to determine if new awards are necessary to meet student need: riarr^-hiX. I I The distribution of honors and awards is generally i reflective Ev: lective O',thhee school ppccppuullaattiioonn./ YES YES NO NO Committees The school staff ensures that appointments to all school based committees are made in a non-biased and equitable manner which results  in comm.' ttees with diverse population that have knowledge of educational programs for a varied student population. 4.1 The composition of each appointed school based staff/parent committee generally reflects the vYES f NO staff/ stude: ) cf kJK'kt' oJ' c/\u0026gt;7 4 kJ h 4L'z2cnnifrt^,, , /III k, Equity Monitoring Plga.ft.., ,, __ _ -U .------f _ __ _ __________________________ CRITERIA 5-0. Extracurricular Activities t CIRCLE ONE  SP SP 6,0 The school's extracurricular I , -------------- program helps to develop important academic/non-academic skills, abilities and interests t = S'  I 5.1 Procedures 5.2 are ev-i-d--e--n t' to assure t^XhAaU Vt Os tVuUd ents apprisedof infonnation regarding various opportunities in extracurricular activities/ eexxcteenndaeedd eedd-u--c--a--t------- ' fJ2c2izU}zzx:^ tiqn. are YES NO ^AvT the, c^mi7iayh,t^ P^^'^^oipation in extracurricular extended educational activities/ tthhee sscchhooooll pooulation. 7*\u0026gt; programs generally reflects YES^ NO ^czhievement/Assessment The school staff implements i._ procedures for administration, most recent standardized tests. non-discriminatory analysis, and use of the I SP ^.1 When test results are examined, students remains stable oi -o-----l--a-----c----k------ -----s----t--u-denl^ achievemen sEA^IKD- safe evement a^M improves achievement of increases as YES NO spfo e.2 * fwiyr I, ry r tCLaP !/\u0026gt; ^^aixh Goals and strategies a__r__e_ __d_e__v_el,o__o__e,d _ ana. .i mp.l ement i. to aecrease the achievement differences between iscK students and white students ed YES KO measure of student achievement. ...Stanford Eight Achievement Test EVIDENCE: on the following / Cin+.'\" I'n acJ^e-verne^ i)/ Whife intiMSfcd or nv!UMJ swjwUe ach'wemt/ir oP blatk inwezbS^- AJo Usf GrcJeS' 6o^^ cumL V)V\nR djetxti^sec/- 3Ti5\\afJk VxiVaiI'C vjU'te s'juJ^: Monitorrn CRITERIA CIRCLE ONE SP 6.3 Failure/retention rates reflect the school population YES O/I 6.5 Ev: Graduation rates reflect the schoo (high school only) EVIDENCE\n* NO Test taking skills a: 7.0 Special Education k opulation. taught througho' bpcki useJ .0/ YES NO t the year. YES NO The school staff ensures that student placement and services provided in the special education program are non-discriminatory. SP/I 7.1 Strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignmenntt t' o specia'l education,are evident EVIDENCE YES NO Q/T 1.1 o 7.3 Q -J il education evident. '/ f The teachers have adequate materials and equipment to deliver ii^hhee ccuurrrriiccuulluxi ji. , gDENCE: Cor\u0026gt;\\l d n/)f Facilities are comparable to those of the campus in general.^ t /  ^IDENCE: \\ ccmaPgX^^ (^Are, A.i.. J Classrooms are integrated into the total school environment. EVIDENCE: YES O YES YES NO NO ^IDEN^L^'\\ is /-hit M. ^cith3naT -Equfty \"Hon i ng / O/I 7.5 0 7.6 CRITERIA CIRCLE ONE the students served/., ^^ENC^ special education meet the needs of '( ^rrent copies of student records are maintained in the classroom to monitor the progress and achievement of the individual learner (i.e., grade books, lEP--------- ---------------- EVIDENCE:\nals and objectives YES NO ES NO ^als objectives, .lesson plans).  ,  8-0 Gifted and Talented Education The school staff ensures that student placement and services provided in the Gifted/Talented program non-discriminatory. are SP/I 8.1 Strategies to eliminate disproportionate assignment to gifted and talented are evident. EVIDENCE: student YE, \\ctervhBA/J^\" NO 8.2 *he teachers have adequate materials and eouipment to deliver the curriculum. EVIDENCE: YES NO Q 8.3 Facilities are comparable to those of the in general. EVIDENCE: campus YES NO 0 8.4 Classrooms are integrated into the total school environment. EVIDENCE: YES NOPage 8 Hgnitogina CRITERIA CIRCLE ONE O/I 8.5 Facilities for gifted and talented meet the needs of the students served. EVIDENCE: _______________________________ ___ ______________ YES NO 0 8.6 Current copies of students' records are maintained in the classroom to monitor the progress and achievement of the individual learner (i.e., test results, identification folder, progress folder). EVIDENCE: ~~ ______________________ YES NO 9.0 Staff Development The staff development plan for the school demonstrates commitment to educational equity. SP/I 9.1 Staff development activities related to educational equity to enhance the achievement of a diverse student population have been provided and YES are ongoing (i.e., Cooperative Learning, TESA, PET) m J p\\j T rvn I eAri ti\u0026gt;p * tl  SP/I 9.2 staff development activities in teaching straxegies for multicultural have been provided. EVIDENCE: :urriouluE delivery YES NO I SP/I 9.3 Staff development activities related to discipline/classroom management have been provided (i.e., assertive discipline, conflict management, and positive classroom discipline, ere.). YES EVIDENCE: ar Educational Equity Monitoring Page-9  ------ ______ SP/I 9.4 _____________________ CRITERIA______________________ Regular classroom teachers are provided ongoing training in understanding the remedial programs. EVIDENCE: 3Z3 CIRCLE ONE YES 10.0 Parental Involvement The school provides equitable opportunities for parental involvement in the district/school activities. O/I 10.1 The school utilizes a variety of methods (memo, letter, phone, home visits) to encourage parental involvement in school and in home supported educational activities. (List in order of YES NO eeffffeeccttiivveenneessss^)) ^EIVDIDEENNCCEE:: ut f.,cnALmJU\u0026lt;l I \u0026lt;gxh^ib(4^ 1 n.-bi SP/I 10.2 All identifiable groups of parents are actively involved in school functions. YES EVIDENCE: ^nvolv- SP/I 10.3 Documentation is available to indicate that parents are actively involved in each phase of YES NO I SP remediation programs in which their child(ren) 10.4 Contact is made regularly with the home to communicate positive/negative (as appropriate) information related to student behavior and/or aacchnievxeemvenetmenrv J I | | pts I EVIDENT 10.5 School patrons and parents are given an opportunity to actively participate in developing the local School Improvement Plan/Comprehensive Outcome Evj s (COE). _m 5 YES NO (^Y^P NO ^duea t i-ona l--Equity-MenirtogiB^ Page 10 . _ __________________________________CRITERIA________________ SP/I 10.6 Mini-seminars at PTA meetings and/or in the community have been held to make parents aware of district structure, policy and programs, and ways CIRCLE ONE YES NO to access them. SriDENCE: . _ 11.0 Student Discipline I The staff ensures that student disciplinary policies and practices are non-discriminatory. 11.1 Information, including the staff's expectation for student conduct, in the form of handbooks and/or public presentations regarding student disciplinary policies and procedures is distributed to all students EVIDENCE: den^s and parente. _________a I 11.2 School staff has plans, procedures, and practices which are designed to enable students to remain in school, promote academic success and alleviate behavior problems. EVIDENCE: =------------ X SP 11.3 Suspension and expulsion rates are generally representativie of, the student population,. EVIDENCE\nSP/I 11.4 If needed, strategies to eliminate disproportionate discipline sanctions among identifiable student groups are evident. ^IDENCE: /2^,. ,7^^ l -d A J7/i 0 11.5 Classroom instruction proceeds in an orderly manner. EVIDENCE: (I r-TkAj^ t c:u. 'TL^ I'-Yi YES ') YES (Jt- 22.- NO NO NO YES^ YES NO NOEducationalEquity Monitoring Page 11  0 ___________________________ CRITERIA__________________ _ 11.6 How visible are the following persons in directing/controlling students? . the following for each person(s). Indicate one of CIRCLE ONE A. B. C. Very active/very visible Somewhat active/somewhat visible Not active/not visible Principal Assistant Principal(s) Teachers A Supervision Aides/Security EVIDENCE: \u0026gt;ervision :E: j/4, ..4^ Aidi 4 t 12.0 Building Leadership/Management In the desegregated setting, the principal must demonstrate a strong commitment tt_o educationa'l' equity. SP/O 12.1 The school has a clear, concise, well-written ye: NO Statement of EVIDENCE,*, C A f specific improvement goals.,\nJicf. AO/ '' J! t ------------------------------------------------- 12.2 The campus and building are clean and free of debris and graffiti EVIDENCE:, '7L^. YES, NO 12.3 Hallways EVIDENCE: IL derly 'ti' d are ^rd^ly, - - NO O O 't X 12.4 There is evidence that curriculum monitoring YES ) NO occurs. EVIDENCE: I^age 12 CRITERIA CIRCLE ONE .0/1 12.5 There is evidence that the guidance program provides equitable services to all students (i.e., counselor's YES NO T/Q /SP .cheduleindividual/group). (l~Y^. y rj.^JL Af.'u 12.6 District and school security guidelines are being followi PN'LP\u0026gt;P:SiQ.^'. '^^. l , TA xiL^ 'U^ T-YES NO ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS RELATIVE TO THE MONITORING VISIT: .____________________________ discipline manacement qvautcrly retort School Franklin Incentive Beginning Period QJ Cp ' Principa'.. Ending Period. PART I. Please indicate number of suspensions by race and category. \\\\ I A. Out of School Suspensions - Category 1 Violations Black TiMal Black While Total While Spanish T.ilal Span Asia/Fac Total Asia/ Pac Total InJ/ Elk Total Other TkHali I J- zz Total* column Ctiieo- riT 777 199( on 1 ontlo mg  Ill- M F M F F M F M  I F M n yiin J - Sb h'u 9 I o 5 3 i i 1 B. Long-Term Suspension - Category II Violations Cradei Black Total Black While Total White Spanish Total Span Aaia/Pac Total Alia/ Pac b4/Esk Total IndZ Elk Oiher ht Total Other Toiali I i 3 4 5 2- 2. 3- St M F I M F M F M F M F F Toult ?\u0026lt; column 4 i 1 iS C. Expulsions - Category III Violations T Gra Jet. Black Total Black While ToUl While Spaniih Total Span Asia/Pac r 1 -i2_ 3 2E Total Aaia/ Pac Ind/Esk Total Ind/ l-.ik Oiher Toul Other TsiUls M F l M F M F M F F M F 5 11 I TtMlIl per \u0026gt;olumn NOTE: Quarterly Reports are due in the Hearing Office one (1) week following the end of each Gradi Period. SEE REVERSE FOR PARTS 11, III AND IV.PART II. Please complete. NOIE: These fl NOTE: ni.a M Peinn'\u0026lt;ab H'Xrwrhi If.'tnuti San.-ljktfia Sprcal PART III. Teaching Fipcncfuie 0 3 4-10 li-iS 16-20 11-2S 26-30 30 Over Touli Grtdi K 9 If,Ures are to he included in Part I. Students on Sent Homes are not included in Patt 1. 1996 1 .taI Black w.l.lk- M Tot,I Spnnisli M 1 |. Total Span AsinO.' M I Foial Asia/ P.'ie hulVA M r Total InJ/ P k Oihcr M F Tpt,i Oil.vr T.'t.-N i I 1 it ! r I' Personal I'laia - Please indicate lecoinnicnding the various suspensions. race, .sex and experience of staff inenibilets- Bla-k mJ F Tuial bta-k ^1 Lj Total Volute Spanish I ' ToIaI S( an Asia/Piie ~ r 1 iital Asia/ Pae Ind'H.'k M I Total Ind/ I sk Other M I T.rial Other Touli I J PART IV. Id s r P-nrollmcnt Data - Please indicate and Race. liMal black V-hiie your school.s enrollment by Grade l evel, ,S, -i-ZHl M ^2 i' Tsital hilc Spoiiish M Total Span Air./p,c 2 ^3g Sr F Total Ab/ Poe M i- Total In.l/ i sk Other M F Total Other Toiah Per 3 4 5 6 Totali r\u0026gt;jr eolomn PK 51 0 J i W-  \u0026amp; -L i I 1 0 1 i_ t^ 0 'p-ta .XL.., 3. I t. T 10 i4 1 STiJ. \u0026lt;rf? hPP- 1 2 G 1 : 2 4 PN P . 0 1 I. 1. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Franklin Incentive School 1701 South Harrison Phone 671-6380 Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 April 12, 1996 TO: Horace Smith FROM: Ethel Dunbar5 rincipal Mr. Smith, Please review the attached list of field trips by grade level. Please call, if there are questions. Hl w P R - 1 2 O 1 PM P . 0 Grade 6 1. 2 . 3 . United Artist Theatre - \"Jumanj i\" Capitol Palace - Chinese Cuisine\" Hot Springs - Radford House Grade 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 . 8. Territorial Restoration Old State House State Capitol Jumanj i Shorter College National Weather Service NLR NLR Power Co - Arkla Smart House Toltec Mounds Franklin Falcon Singers 1. 2. 3 . 4 . 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Park Plaza Rosecare Nursing Home Franklin PTA Open House Washington Elementary School Cloverdale Elementary School Franklin Black History Program Hillcrest Community First Baptist Highland Park First Commercial Bank Downtown Little Rock 10. Franklin PTA Christinas Program 11. VIP's ReceptionLITTLE AOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Franklin Incentive School 1701 South Harrison Phone 671-6300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 April 12, 1996 ATTENTION: PROSPECTIVE PARENTS LOCAL REALTORS, DAYCARE OWNERS, \u0026amp; Qraatings, rranXlin School is looking for bright, nthuaiastic leatnarai As part of our recruitment efforts, we are inviting incoming parents and children in the Tri District Pulaski County School zone A__________ _________1________ 1 J ________________JI _ M . .k to tour our building and \"Check Os Out. M Wa are located in Central Little Rook. Franklin offers quality programs, competent staff members, smaller class size, Extended Day/Week activities and before and after school CARE. Please examine the brochure and share the good news with clients and friends. Don't hesitate to call us at 671-6380 between 7:45 A.M. and 3:05 p.m. sincerely. Q c Pamela Person-Theme specialist 5013744107 UALKER LAW FIRM 047 P02/04 SEP 17 90 16:52 John W. Walker^ P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Dttle Rock. Arkansas 72206 :Telephone (5C1) 374-3758 : FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON XtARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Via Facsimile - 324-2146 September 17, 1998 Dr, Leslie Gamine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Franklin Jncentive School Dear Dr. Gamine: J T P'^\" commitments regarding Franklin Section 5.5 of the Revised Plan, \"Incentive Schcois. This sectio: in reads: LRSD shall continue to provide double funding t \"r '-tt_serv!ces depanmeni shall provide the. to Franklin, Garland. Mitchell... It fonher reads: \"The clant necgssarvto preserve the comparable chvsieal equality oFthese schnnls  JeallocX of'rXX ' ^O'ene -Joshua that she has received several calls from patrons and  i ^'^*'71\"CMtivc School indicating that there is much work to be done regardmg the physical condition of this builcing. I understand that a concerned parent aroup has alLdy They further ir.d.cate, in foeir opinion, student assignment and public relations \u0026amp;i c n ' assigned to Franklin from a viri or attendance zones and the Communications Department is not promoting Franklin with the much work to be done regarding 'ns. are not comparable Tom a variety announcements and articles, I am available to discuss this ma|ter with you. Ms. Sadie Mitchell or Mr. Junious Babbs the appropriate person who has responsibility for this area. or Also, I have not heard from you regarding my letter of .August 20 1998 staffing at Rockefeller Incentive School I convenience regarding the am attaching a copy of that letter for your I501374Z1S7 WALKER LAW FIRM 647 P0J/04 SEP 17 98 16:52 Page 2 - Letter to Dr. Leslie Gamine September 17, 1998 1 await a response from you. incerely. ( Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ Enclosure cc: Mr. Julius Babbs Ms. Sadie Mitchell Mr. Chris Heller Mr. John W. Walker Ms. Lorene Joshua Ms. Ann Brown I I )5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 914 P02 OCT 01 98 15:10 r w 10^ Little Rock School District Associate Superintendent - Operations Phone (501)324-2009 FAX (501)324-2032 September 21,1998 Ms. Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Springer\n I have been asked to respond to your correspondence It Gamine wherein you express concerns about the Franklin school fe 17, 1998, to Dr. [ding. You reference correspondence to Dr. Gamine from a group of parents regarding building concerns. Dr. Gamine has not received any correspondence from a parent group regarding the Franklin building, nor has any Cabinet member. I have located correspondence from Mrs. Dunbar of August 12, 1998, to Frances Cawthon, Assistant Superintendent. In the letter, she expressed a need for air conditioning to be purchased for the auditorium, referred to nonspecific roof leaks, a light fixture in need of repair, and requested the walls be repainted following summer school. She also wrote Mr. Doug Eaton on September 8,1998, in which she requested the installation of an air conditioning unit in the auditorium. Mr. Eaton responded to Mrs Dunbars request on September 14, 1998, and explained that the maintenance and operation budget does not fund capital projects such as the installation of an air conditioning unit at Franklin. The type of unit needed to cool the space requested would cost approximately $30,000. As there are no funds remaining for Franklin in the bond account, a project of this size must be deferred until the District raises additional capital funds through a millage campaign or a bond issue. Franklin does have an air conditioned cafeteria which is large enough in size to hold a PTA meeting or other comparable function Please be assured that the District remains committed to the maintenance and upkeep necessary to preserve the comparable physical equality of the Incentive schools. During the 1997-98 school year, from 7-1*97 to 6-30-98, there were 273 work orders logged and completed by the Facilities Servias Department at Franklin. This school year 83 work 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324 2000 5013744187 UfiLKER LAtJ FIRM 914 P03 OCT 01 98 15:10 Ms. Joy C. Springer September 21,1998 Page 2 orders have been logged and completed since 7-1-98. Regarding roof leaks, Mrs. Dunbar states in her August 12 correspondence, Work orders are submitted, but most are not responded to . . During the 1997-98 school year eight work orders for roof leaks were logged\nsix repairs were completed One additional roof leak was reported on 9-15-98, and has not been repaired as of 9-21-98. Mrs. Dunbar further alludes to a pomise to repair a light fixture that fell from the ceiling in the auditorium in May 1998. She says, Plant Services was called, they came, gave us a temporary fix, promts^ to return, but havent. The promised repair was completed 7- 22-98. Mrs. Dunbar states, in her letter to Mr. Eaton,, but projects in other buildings that require funding are being completed  Other capital projects that require expenditures of this magnitude are only being funded in schools where the pre-existing bond money was not already spent, as it has been at Franklin. Regrettably, the requested air conditioning unit for the auditorium cannot be funded at this time. When the District begins a capital campaign in the near future, the Franklin community may choose to make it a priority for their campaign. The Facilities Services Department will continue to respond to the work orders that it receives at Franklin in a timely and professional manner. Sincerely, Victor Anderson Associate Superintendent, Operations c Dr. Les Carnine Frances Cawthon Ethel Dunbar Doug EatonJohn W. Walker, RA. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECB SEP 3 3 199^ JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING Via Facsimile - 324-2032 September 28, 1998 Dr. Victor Anderson Associate Superintendent for School Operations Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Franklin Incentive School Dear Dr. Anderson\nI am in receipt of your letter in response of mind of September 17, 1998 regarding Franklin Incentive School. Thank you for same. The concerns previously referenced in my letter came as a result of parent concerns through Ms. Lorene Joshua. I do not have any knowledge of dialogue or conespondence between Ms. Dunbar, Ms. Cawthon, and Mr. Eaton. I do, however, have personal knowledge of the physical condition of the building having spent the 1998 spring semester there. The purpose of my letter was to bring to the administrations attention concerns from patrons of the District regarding the school and to remind the District of its commitment to maintain Franklin at a comparable level to other schools in the District. I again call your attention to Sections 5.5 and 2.9 of the Revised Plan. LRSD shall continue to provide double funding to Franklin, Garland, Mitchell...' . The plant services department shall provide the maintenance and upkeep necessary to preserve the comparable physical equality of these schools. 99 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure an equitable allocation and/or reallocation of resources to LRSD schools. Moreover, the law of this case is that lack of funds cannot be used by the District as an excuse for not meeting plan commitments. It speaks volumes when you acknowledge that the principal of the school has on several occasions called to the attention of your Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Education and the Director of Plant Services the need to address the maintenance and upkeep of the Franklin School building. This is our point exactly. There is a commitment to double fund Franklin and to maintain its physical plant at a level equal to that of other schools in the District. It does not appear that this is being done. We, therefore, request that this be done. I will be happy to meet with you, Ms. Cawthon, Ms. Dunbar, Mr. Eaton and anyone else Page 2 - Letter to Dr. Victor Anderson September (iS,, 1998.,.. -I!-.:'?--   you choose to make sure that all parties are satisfied with the commitments that have been made. Please let me hear from you. jncerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. John W, Walker Ms.AniiBrown Dr. Leslie Gamine Ms. Frances Cawthon Ms. Ethel Dunbar Mr. Doug Eaton Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 To\nFranklin Parent Involvement Team RSCEWED OCT 1 S 1999 From:^Frances Cawthon, Assistant Superintendent OfflCEOF Date: October 13, 1999 mBnOKMONITORINQ Thank you for the concern you expressed regarding the nursing services at Franklin Academy. I, like you, would like to see a full time registered nurse in all of our schools. However, the way Franklin's budget is currently allocated will not allow for that service. The Campus Leadership Team may consider shifting resources to allow for a full-time nurse. This would be a campus-based decision including all members of the Campus Leadership Team. Many of our elementary schools that do not receive the extra benefits of double funding also have high percentages of students in the categories that you enumerated in your letter. While your students at Franklin do not receive as many services as we would like to provide, there is certainly no discriminatory treatment in the budget allocation. Although Franklin is still a double-funded school, they are currently over their double funding by approximately $80,000. Im sorry I couldnt give you a more satisfying answer. I do appreciate the interest, energy, and concern that the staff and parents have given expressing their ideas and making the inquiry. Please continue working through the Franklin Campus Leadership Team. Your combined efforts can assure the schools priorities are best met within the budgets capabilities. cc: Ann Brown John Walker Junious Babbs Ethel DunbarOctober 6, 1999 / igD Mrs, Frances Cawthon Assistant Superitendent OCT I 8 1999 RE: Nurse Rollins - Reduction of days at Franklin Elementary Dear Mrs. Cawthon: OfriCEOF OESEGREGAUCNMCNITORiNQ We the parents and staff of Franklin Elementary wish to express our concerns relative to the reduction of our schools nursing service. During the Incentive School inception, it was decided at the time (by the Courts) that each Incentive School would have additional staff that the area elementaries did not have. Those persons were identified as being a full-time nurse, social service worker, art specialist, music specialist, counselor, physical education, and a theme specialist. Double funding was established to support this extra staff and to aid with the desegregation efforts of identified schools. Over the past few years, from 1989 to the present, our students have had access to said persons to assist with their many educational, physical, social, and emotional needs. With the re-writing and Court approval of the new Desegregation Plan, changes have been made that has and continues to negatively impact Incentive Schools. First, class sizes increased, second, programs were eliminated, and now services are being denied. were Our children at Franklin School, for the most part, are in a high risk category. Many of these students come from homes where drugs are used, siblings are gang members, parents are incarcerated, education is not valued, little or no medical care is provided, and domestic violence is a way of life. The school nurse along with the counselor and social service worker functions as a team in securing and/or providing services for our students.  u\u0026gt; According to recent research from At Risk to Excellence, 'Three decades of research on school reform has led to the identification of four basic elements that students need from their schools\nrelevant schoolwork, a nurturing and supportive environment, opportunities for academic success, and help with personal problems. Unfortunately, studies of schooling for students at risk of academic failure demonstrate that schools often fail to address the special circumstances including economic, family, community, ethnic, and racial statusthat characterize students placed at risk (Natriello, McDill, \u0026amp; Pallas 1990). We cannot afford to fail our students. Removing Nurse Rollins from our building two days per week is taking away, to a strong degree, the basic / element to provide assistance with personal problems. To reduce the day services of the school nurse at Franklin Elementary School means taking away a service that our students, parents, and staff need so desperately. Please know that Franklin is the largest Incentive School with the greatest need and should be given priority consideration when it comes to meeting the needs of the students and proposedOctober 6, 1999 Page 2 personnel cuts. The new Desegregation Plan states that the Incentive School would continue to receive double funding. We ask what is the purpose of the funding, if its not for programs and personnel. Dont make our students continue to suffer because of segregation practices of the past. For the sake of unitary status, it is imperative at this juncture, that all students are treated in an equitable manner. Our request is that serious consideration be given to reinstating our school nursing services to five days per week. Enclosed please find a petition and services provided for 1998-1999. Please provide a response to our principal and/or Parent Involvement Team at your earliest convenience. Thank you for our cooperation and understanding. Sincerely, Concerned Staff and Parents of Franklin Enclosures cc: Dr. Carnine, Superintendent Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent Ann Brown, Director of ODEMSERVICE PROVIDED - 1998-1999 1. Number of times students seen for illness or injury: 4,^1^ 2. Number of students receiving a physical exam by nurse: 47 3. Daily average number of students who took medications at school. 4. Consultations v/ith Doctors, Pharmacists, Case Managers, Department of Human Services, Arkansas Childrens Hospital 52 5. Health Fair during Fall Fest. 6. Classes - 59 7. Parent Conferences \u0026amp; Home Visits 29 8. Student Immunizations given. 137 9. Staff \u0026amp; B Skin Tests. 10. Faculty Conferences. 100 11. Faculty Health Assessment. SU 12. Pupil Service Team Meetings 9 13. All students were weighed and measured 7 14. Vision Screening 419 16 Referred 15. Hearing Screening 419 2 Referred 16. Dental Screening 108 79 Seen by Dentist All these services will be decreased but especially, #2, #4, #6, #7, #8, #10, #11 and #16. All of the above services were provided at Franklin School. In addition , our nurse was often requested to assist at other locations.PARENT PETTnON % Please sign this petition if you are concerned about our nursing services being reduced from five (5) days to three (3) days!! Parents Name Address \u0026lt;2^QCCSG\u0026lt;Ji 'Ci y' Cl^M 722.{^ /i ,^/ L 1 ttf In -p k ^,e4\u0026gt;e. c Rf}. SelSC'ZZ,^ 1^3 G\u0026gt;C,Cryii 7(.W eddl^/a:Ji  rr- -   -. .M ,^- -  ~ A ]^zvy^ ^icL^ Ln-triecc iTf\u0026amp;iiu Zip Code 722z\u0026gt;\u0026lt; 7Z?d2 7/^^/ 72ZQZ^ ~1].'2-OC 77ZO4' 7^1^ 72.202 Students Name ^(^^2 Qouu Grade 5____ 1^ iz. t \u0026amp;s* 027o-M.^ ^111^7277^ 11X6 7223^ ''la/n/Mmi^hf^ z ^ll~l \u0026amp;l/ol. 7Z2O^ 7sa!l 7z ^chxC'k Rt-v.0\u0026lt;y ^0 AP.^SkxykJU ecKZ^/4\u0026lt;v\\p/L 9 zr\u0026gt; Z1 JiUuXLr) '^2k:LL22zL I r I t 2:.ccxqJtjlz2 ^nuAjiy^ .^L? CaV Fr.W j)r. /fbMi4^|(p 311) 5 (/cheC ^17) -^^^UJC)r27 w it. T 1^7 iPARENT PETITION Please sign this petition if you are concerned about our nursing services being reduced from five (5) days to three (3) days!! Parents Name Address Zip Code 'IZZiZ ^^4 \u0026gt;Ai2^ XA{/thvQ\u0026gt; Tq'i?^A)L ^^pssLrrvA,r'-i Students Name Grade ! k\u0026gt;l X S , 'j ^i/xAoM'_kZ A 1^ hJ (z ! /I ~ . MM /M'^ '^6d'V-\u0026gt;-ks^ (ajuAoo/ Cil^ 2 2^.qV 19^^ 4-r'4\u0026lt;XcU. ^c\u0026gt;iK^Aa\u0026gt;\\ ______ * vkEckAA 2r\u0026lt; 5/3^ I ) .-\u0026lt;Tp~rl__A(g/AxA-^ . SfT? J 1 A A/n a^\\.A4, vy^Lyi1( j v  n ihKo.StUcfeH \u0026amp;ttofcsjMKidi rg^ A'^rc^ i'7 i C^ a El ) 23(9^12J [G?c\u0026gt;l 5Qn f -A 222^1 7'3-- r 7^7! -A ( ^. ffl ^CEi ^^Ktg^LzsTaode sis^ :C Ct^ PARENT PETITION Please sign this petition if you are concerned about our nursing services being reduced from five (5) days to three (3) days!! Parents Name Address -5 If Zip Code / r Students Name Grade 1 /6/(7KU7 ^ka/lPiCn Q^ I V\u0026lt;i-fA6cA^ SD n ^rrru)7^J^ Hu W lih I wV _ I^QI kUad'^^-f- 5!9P CkfdAc) \u0026lt;8^137)^ 21 ir n '\u0026lt;^(2t'{r, 7^^ 0(-- 122^Q f -^ii Si'll 21 pk i\u0026gt;\u0026lt;-4 t 1^- K\u0026gt;i~w iWiT.. '-Si \u0026lt;2h^ by^^^^pQ^Ovivo.Ir, U ^3^ Ho/^2^ b poi ^T,| Id\n'll I * m i fc^*i.awr IT  I , ..^, t5^Acxr\u0026gt;J\u0026lt;^'^ ViiWctvQ 5 S. CftCt^SlbSm I a c\\Q-/V'C\u0026lt;T-^-vo7V A\u0026lt; l([_PARENT PETITION Please sign this petition if you are concerned about our nursing services being reduced from five (5) days to three (3) days!! Parents Name 7 Address SloM  210^ /y '~~-V^ ^Z^XX j 0 UfAA izTOrifTOh^- cA/mj (J, i-ee,! ^^73~t^eG? QAM%Vx-j -f \u0026gt;a. lUilO dl-l -dn d 5- (A(k(b^ 2U-^ctca.J,4(e7^C Zip Code 7'^^04 7o)3(}4^ 72A-2,d^) 774 072^ -i-im laxxt^ I I \"ns-^B ^Vl^' rxx-S-^ i 7 ' Students Name Ldc^ 1 Grade \"V ^TTr\" _!\u0026lt;____ PiAc} I ^jhiKu I ) le,AcXcQ.r I \\ /c^-r\u0026gt;/7\u0026lt;Ai^ VAI dtc A n^^7K7( (WhiAym --L 5 I. t 1 fre-K K lc_ c bic4n/^ ddrf-SS k\\air{aD(ijWJ/nny.'^ 3: Tph PARENT PETITION Please sign this petition if you are concerned about five (5) days to three (3) days!! our nursing services being reduced from Parents Name c Address Zip Code Students Name Grade _Ljndzf. C\u0026gt;\u0026lt;2 2o p) 4ts\u0026gt; 2saj-iE/(f'P^ SP, i-\u0026lt;\u0026lt;L \u0026lt;^13.5.0 a ' 9Jr\u0026gt;l 3-ftas^,^r, ' n'2-j:,\u0026lt;ii /6I^ /^ K  15/^ S/ Uor-r\nSr\u0026gt;7x ZV/jP. cu^ t-^v \u0026gt;-\n' 5 Vra 'Ph,lljps//y\u0026amp;C6 ^c~, r -7^^! .77/a Att~] IWr. IW^PSL \u0026gt;O-tn\u0026lt;\\ rOo(Qai^ mP:kr\\^o\\K\\  ?Z2o4 Sj'k MUi^ ^D/ot^rf^a', Ifi-ti ^-o/Ci= \\A/,jl',^_ p^rwf 3^-^y SMvc lA-^ fpri Oloy a K W\u0026gt;^Af\u0026gt; ix\u0026gt;ep?(^ \u0026gt;l ' tP / /y 3 JQKa S pgQj. fr!t^v3 C26jC^^C^y^_^/)Q^Qx\u0026gt;^ZItr aPARENT PETITION Please sign this petition if you are concerned about our five (5) days to three (3) days!! nursing services being reduced from Parents Name Address p\\l LR Zip Code qaji3- 7351 a, Students Name Grade j5Z er IOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Frances Jones From: Melissa Guldin/A^ Subject: Franklin Nurse Date: October 28, 1999 As we discussed this morning, I have been reviewing the correspondence regarding the reduction of the Franklin nurse from a full-time position to one that is .6 FTE. I have copies of the petition signed by Franklin parents and staff and your memo responding to their concerns. Elements of your memo have raised questions about the budget that neither I nor Skip Marshall could find answers to in the September 1, 1999 LRSD Budget. In the second paragraph of your memo, you note that Franklin (or possibly the incentive schools as a whole?) are over their double funding by approximately $80,000. No matter how we compared budget projections and actual budgets or expenditures, we never arrived at any difference of $80,000. Could you please send further explanation for how that figure was determined? I would also appreciate receiving a copy of the formula that the district used to allocate the nursing staff among the elementary schools. When we talked, you mentioned state requirements for nursing services, but I do not have a copy of that allocation formula. Thank you for taking time to look into this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. CC: Ethel DunbarCAWTHON, FRANCES H. From: Sent: To: MILHOLLEN, MARK Tuesday, November 16,1999 10:51 AM CAWTHON, FRANCES H.. Recently you asked for information concerning Franklin's budget for 99-00 \u0026amp; double funding.Historically when the calculations have been made for double funding they are made as a group \u0026amp; not for individual schools However in an attempt to allocate by school I made an allocation for you as follows: based on previous enrollment numbers Franklin makes up approximately 28% of the total Incentive school enrollment I took 28% of the projected difference between expenditures \u0026amp; actual obligations $285,166.41 (9/1/99 budget tab 6) \u0026amp; arrived at 79,846.59 which I rounded off to 80,000 Hope this answers your question Post-It .TW brand fax transmittal memo 7671 *ot pages  y To Co. Van bar Co. 667 Dept. Fax? Phone # Fax# 1LH A/ ^kOCK school district 'ifl Division of School Services Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent NOV 2 8-1999 TO: Melissa Gouldin omcEOh desegregation M0NIT0R1II6 FROM: Frances Cawthon DATE: November 19. 1999 SUBJECT: Franklin Nurse I have attempted to address each of the questions you've raised, so that everyone has clarity and the same understanding on each of these issues. The allocation of nursing services was refigured for all schools for the 1999-2000 school year due to the sixth graders moving into the middle school program and changing the enrollment at all elementary schools. The state requirement for nurses is one per school district with a recommendation for one per thousand students. The Little Rock School District's ratio is one per 775 students at the elementary schools. Because the new plan does not stipulate any differences among area schools, Franklin Academy, whose enrollment at that time was 459, was given the same allocation as all other area schools. Please see Mark Milhollen's attached response to the budget question on the overage of Franklin's budget. These figures are based on the September 1, 1999 budget calculations. If there is further clarification needed, perhaps Mr. Marshall and Mr. Milhollen could meet and work on specific numbers based on the October 1, 1999 report and see if there is any misunderstanding about the method of calculation. Thanks for your patience in waiting for my response. Let me know if you have further questions. Cc Ethel Dunbar 810 W. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax\n501-324-2032) AHciiisas DciiiocnK i^7!\u0026lt;l,\"\u0026gt;jzc((c I--------------------------------------------------------------------------. LR classroom burned in possible arson I  I 1 t I ni I.- I it - k' ) ? i B ti '^i I Wf O-,- 'iw JU,,.  f'l '^  1 (wphine niomton, a custodian al Franklin Elenienla^ School in Lillie Rock 9llS Fir InSDAcInr r^Hnrfoc .....* _________I If f. * .*11- ci.f. i_ . z\u0026lt;. . fl-------- .w.i.M.,. t_.cii.viiiaiy ovnvuj Hi UHUO nuUK, -Ils Fjre Inspector Charles Dowers how a classroom was arranged before a lite Aikniisns Donioctat Gnzotlo/BEIMJAMIN KGAIN broke out irt the room caily Sunday morning. Principal Ethol Dunbar said the school would return to \"business os usual\" today. Fire BY DOUG in-Tl-RS ARKANSAS WSUK R.\\ I-li-VI I IT Fnmi his vunluRe point on the bulletin board near the door of Franklin Elcinentao's Hoorn tUHI Sunday aReriioon, a cardboard Santa Claus looked out on twisted nuorescent lights, a melted and warped computer, a pile of sog.t\nv. charred ceiling tiles and walls blackened with greasy soot. Early that morning, .someone apparently set fire to the room, used every school day by 11 fourth-, nilh- and si.xlh grade special-education students. Now, a little more than 12 hours aflcr the blaze, cleanup was about to begin. The room won't be back in service until at least next semester, said Les ('amine. Little Hock School District superintendent. And although firefighters isolated tlie blaze to a single classroom, Uic more than 50 computers - 30 of them purchased last year - in the room next door will be out of service for several weeks. The smell of smoke permeated rooms all down the hallway. Nevertheless. Principal Ethel Dunbar said tlie school, al 1701 S. Harrison St., would return to business ns usual\" today. School officials will find other spaces for the 11 displaced students, she said. Dunbar spent much of Sunday morning contacting the school's faculty and staff members to tell them that classes would go on. She wasn't sure, tliough. how teachers See FIRE, Page 38  Continued from Page 1B and students would react to news of the su.spected arson. \"I will say that our studeiit.s and staff are veiy resilient,\" she said. The school has an alarm system. Dunbar said, and prior to Sunday morning, there hadn't been a break in for several months. A guard monitored the building and grounds Sunday night. Little Rock lirefigliter.s took the call at 12:30 a.in. and spent nearly four hours al the school. Capt. Harrell Davis said. Al- I though initial fire reports did not mention what, if any. substances were used to fuel the fire, a Little Hoi k police onirer n lio lespond ed to the school's break-in alarm Sunday morning saw that a win dow near the blaze bad been bro ken out and the trim around it was pulled back. Although Carnine said insur ance adjusters bad notyeteslimat- ed the damage, fire dcpartnient of- ficial.s put the toll at about $100,000 - the same as the deductible on the di.strict.s insurance policy, according to spokesman Suellen Vann. \"You don't worry about things that can be replaced. Carnine said. He was grateful that no one was in the building when the fire broke out shortly alter midnight, and that the damage wa.s confined to a small area. \"When you look at something like this.\" he said, it could have n |iilArkansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, JUNE 3,1994 SB Two schools in disrepair, monitor tells Wright I BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The federal monitor in the Pulaski County school desegregation case alerted the judge Thursday to leaky roofs and damaged floors at two Little Rock inner-city elementary schools. Those schools, virtually allblack in enrollment, get double funding and have special academic themes to enhance the education programs as part of a $129.75 million desegregation settlement with the state. Ann S. Brown, who runs the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, reported to the federal court that repairs are needed at Franklin and Mitchell incentive schools. She wrote in the letter attached to the report that the Little Rock School District in petitioning the court to close Stephens Incentive School cites the buildings condition and structural problems as one of the reasons. Quick attention to facility needs should help the district avoid any appearance that it is Plan would close 2 LR primary schools The parties in the Pulaski County school desegregation case proposed closing two inner-city elementary schools that get double funding Thursday. If U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright approves, the Little Rock School District could close Stephens and Garland incentive schools. The agreement signals a shift in the Joshua intervenors position. The intervenors, who represent black families, have fought closing incentive schools before. Under the agreement:  Stephens would close this month and be rebuilt elsewhere by 1996, when it would failing to maintain incentive schools as a basis for eventually closing them due to deterioration, Brown wrote in a letter to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright. reopen as a magnet school with a faculty that is at least 40 percent black. Stephens students could attend Garland, which would close in 1996, when Garland students would attend the new school.  The new school, also named Stephens, would have 700 students, primarily from the Little Rock district. Some Pulaski County Special School District students would attend. No set number is promised.  The new school would have a basic education program that may change only on Henry Superintendent Williams recommendation. based on educational and financial reasons. Dorsey Jackson, Little Rock School Board president, said in a telephone interview Thursday that if Brown is implying the district is letting the buildings deteriorate on purpose, shes wrong. There is no master plot by the Little Rock School District to close the incentive schools, Jackson said. Jackson said the problem is that incentive schools arent doing the job they were set out to do because the plan is ill-conceived. But he said the district would carry out the plan. Ninety-five percent of the community wants neighborhood schools, Jackson said. The. other 5 percent read too many sociology books. .\"e Browns report said that Franklins cafeteria ceiling has holes and the ceiling of the principals office collapsed a few weeks before the monitoring visit. The report noted that rainwater floods underneath doors into one office and a classroom, and ceiling and floor tiles have deteriorated. At Mitchell, the report said that the district hasnt repaired ceiling leaks, a set of stairs tilts, and some floor tiles are loose.Arkansas Democrat aze^ TUESDAY. DECEMBER 13,1994 Report alleges teacher ordered boys beating A Little Rock substitute teacher ordered students to beat up a classmate, sending the child to the hospital Dec. 5, according to a police report released Monday. Eugene Pitts, 11, of 2005 Lewis St. was struck several times at Franklin Elementary after the substitute teacher encouraged the childs classmates to attack him, the report said. Pitts grandmother. Ruby Irvien, took the boy to the hospital after school. Irvien said she was angry about the schools initial handling of the incident. They didnt let him call me from school, she said. He was in pain. He had some bruised ribs. The youth was treated at Arkansas Childrens Hospital for injuries to his nose and ribs. The Little Rock School District and state Department of Human Services are investigating the incident.AikansasDemocrat^^^^ttc THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1994 Teacher charged after 5th-graders beat classmate BY JIM BROOKS to maintain discipline in her Democrat-Gazette Staff Water rOOm, a police ^davlt said. ' J Pitts IS a chronic discipline ^rouTof problem at the school and   was fighting with another student when Howard intervened, district officials said Wednes- Substitute teacher Amanda Howard laughed as a  children beat ll-year-oid Eugene Pitts at her bidding. Little Rock police said. Police said Howard, arreted day. up the Wednesday on a second-de^ee  Russell Mayo, as- assault warrant stopped a De^ ^te superintendent. She 5 brawl at Franklin Elementa^ sociate sup^ejin School only after one _ oy said. Go at it,and stepped fr^ between them. Another student suggest^ that they all take their tun^ him, and she didnt opp(^ that, said Mayo. Howard surrendei^ Wednesday at Little Rock pol^ peatedly punched Pitts in the Investigators said Howard, 25, of 2002 Scotty Court grew frustrated at Pitts repeated disruptions of the class she was supervising Dec. 5 at the school at 1700 S. Harrison St. ho^nuarters on a second-de* class gree assault warrant. She wasS^ So she encouraged tneomer she wasSs. students in the fifth-grade clas gr g^^ation to appear in LitJ to beat Pitts, police said. W Ie sued a cira^n pp as many as 10 students includ- ^le Rock MWai ing, some girls, toine^d injhe ^J^^ers investigators w^ told that Howard was laughM as the attack took place. io students, uiK joined in the melee, the children who actually beat Pitts will not be charged, police said. They basically were following the instructions of their teacher, said Lt. Charles Ho -  Geniasici,\u0026lt; laday, police spokesman. Jofi^e detective. So she thert Howards instruction to the p ASSAULT, Page WB class was an apparent attempt u\nne anacK. luur. - And then, he (Pitts) star^ ino and there was one Kia crying, and who was really getting some licks in, said Gray Lemaste^^a Assault  Continued from Page 1B stepped in and said, Thats enough.  The director of the agencys Children and Family Services Division said DHS cooperated with Little Rock police in a coordinated investigation. Police took primary respon- Pitts was treated at Arkansas sibility for interviewing her, and Childrens Hospital for injuries of his nose and ribs. He was re- , leased the same day. we did interviews with the children, said Beverly Jones. Howard had been a substi- Hospital workers notified the tute classroom aide for the last Little Rock Police Department two months, Mayo said. She has and the state Department of Hu- been removed from the districts man Services. The school district, substitute list, he said. viewing the incident as a routine ___ Pitts ^andmother said the boy ' fight between students, did not was feeling better Wednesday. ' report the incident to police. Hes been going to school every day, said Ruby Irvien. Im supposed to go up there in the morning and talk to the principal. Second-degree assault occurs when a person. . . recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of physical injury to another person. The Class B misdemeanor carries a punishment of up to 90 days in jail and a fine of no more than $500. Howard came to Little Rock police headquarters to sign the citation but was also held for Maumelle authorities, who had an active hot check warrant for her..Arkansas Democrat Odette 1 I Sub teacher at thrashing has rap sheet 5th-graders in melee wont be charged BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democfal-Gazett Staff Writer A substitute teacher charged with encouraging a group of fifth- graders to beat a classmate has a criminal record dating back to 1989, Little Rock police said. Amanda Howard, a Little Rock School District substitute aide, was arrested Wednesday on a second-degree assault warrant. Police said Howard laughed as a group of fifth graders beat 11- year-old Eugene Pitts at her bidding Dec. 5. Howard, 25, of 2002 Scotty Court stopped the brawl at Franklin Elementary School only after boy repeatedly one punched Eugene in the face, police said. Investigators said that after growing frustrated at Eugenes repeated disruptions of the class she was supervising, Howard en couraged the other pupils to beat the boy. Although as many as 10 joined in the melee, the children who actually beat Eugene will not be charged, police said. The incident isnt Howards first brush with the law. She was convicted of theft of property in Pulaski County Circuit Court in 1989 and sentenced to four years in jail, police record.s show. And Howard was charged with aggravated assault and disorderly conduct in 1990 and interfering with a police investigation in 1989. The aggravated assault and disorderly conduct charges were dismissed, police spokesman Terry Hastings said. Records on the interference charge werent available Thursday evening. On Wednesday, when Howard was appeared at the Little Rock Police Department on the misdemeanor battery warrant, she was detained on a hot-check warrant out of Maumelle as well. Police records also show Howard used the alias Kim Moore and was assigned an FBI number routinely given to someone convicted of a felony. Richard Hurley^ human resources director for the school  district, said the district doesn't conduct routine background checks on substitutes, though checks are performed on security guards and workers who su-' pervise the before-and-after-, school day-care programs. Howard denied being a convicted felon on her application, Hurley said. School district officials conduct background checks only if they are unsure or suspicious of a potential employee. Hurley said the cost of background checks is one of the reasons the checks are not routine. District officials have said. they are reviewing their hiring: policies.Arkansas Democrat   THURSDAY, DECEMBER 22,1994 Teacher pleads innocent in student fight BY OLIVIER UYTTEBROUCK Democrat-Gazette Police Reporter  Jr. \u0026amp; substitute Little Rock teacher Amanda Howard pleaded innocent Wednesday to allegations that she told a class of fifth-graders to beat an unruly classmate and then laughed during the beating. Howard, 25, also pleaded innocent to an unrelated charge of harassing communications for A allegedly calling her ex- I' t V - Amanda Howard boyfriends workplace as many as 18 times on one day in 1992. Howard, of 2002 Scotty Court, is scheduled for trial Jan. 19 on both misdemeanor charges in Little Rock Municipal Court. Little Rock police said Howard encouraged her students to attack 11-year-old Eugene Pitts after she grew frustrated by his repeatedly disrupting a Dec. 5 class at Franklin Elementary School, 1700 S. Harrison St. in Little Rock. Howards instruction to the class was an apparent attempt to maintain discipline in her room, police wrote in an affidavit. Police wrote that Howard stood by and laughed while up to 10 students, a majority of the class, attacked the boy. One boy repeatedly punched Eugene in the face, police said. Howard eventually broke up the fight after Pitts began crying, police and Little Rock School District officials said. District officials did not report the attack. Police were notified by Arkansas Childrens Hospital employees after they treated Eugene for injuries to his nose and ribs. He was released the same day. Regarding the harassing communications charge, workers at a Little Rock business told police Howard began calling the business Oct. 15, 1992, and laughing or leaving the line open, police wrote in an affidavit. Howards ex-boyfriend worked at the business, police wrote. On Oct. 31, 1992, police put a trap on the business phone. That day they traced 18 calls made from Howards phone to the business.Arkansas Democrat j I Sub teacher at tlirashing has rap sheet 5th-graders in melee wont be charged BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Qazette Staff Writer A substitute teacher charged with encouraging a group of fifth- graders to beat a classmate has a criminal record dating back to 1989, Little Rock police said. Amanda Howard, a Little Rock School District substitute aide, was arrested Wednesday on a second-degree assault warrant. Police said Howard laughed as a group of fifth-graders beat 11- year-old Eugene Pitts at her bidding Dec. 5. Howard, 25, of 2002 Scotty Court stopped the brawl at Franklin Elementary School only boy repeatedly after one punched Eugene in the face, police said. Investigators said that after growing frustrated at Eugenes repeated disruptions of the class she was supervising, Howard encouraged the other pupils to beat the boy. Although as many as 10 joined in the melee, the children who actually beat Eugene will not be charged, police said. The incident isnt Howards first brush with the taw. She was convicted of theft of property in Pulaski County Circuit Court in 1989 and sentenced to four years in jail, police records show. And Howard was charged with aggravated assault and disorderly conduct in 1990 and interfering with a police investigation in 1989. The aggravated assault and disorderly conduct charges were dismissed, police spokesman Terry Hastings said. Records on the interference charge weren't available Thursday evening. On Wednesday, when Howard was appeared at the Little Rock Police Department on the misdemeanor battery warrant, she was detained on a hot-check warrant out of Maumelle as well. Police records also show Howard used the alias Kim Moore and was assigned an FBI number routinely given to someone convicted of a felony. Richard Hurley^ human re-. sources director for the school district, said the district doesnt conduct routine background. checks on substitutes, though checks are performed on security guards and workers who su-' pervise the before-and-after-. school day-care programs. Howard denied being a convicted felon on her application. Hurley said. School district officials con-' duct background checks only if they are unsure or suspicious of a potential employee. Hurley said the cost of background checks is one of the reasons the checks are not routine. District officials have said, they are reviewing their hiring I policies.Arkansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, JANUARY 20,1995 Substitute teacher gets 90 days in jail for urging classmates to beat 5th-grader punishes only conduct, not speech. Howard BY OLIVIER UYTTEBROUCK Democral-GazeHs Police Reporter A judge Thursday handed a 90-day jail sentence to former substitute tteeaacchheerr Amanda Howard after four fifth-graders testified she told them to beat up an 11-year-old classmate. Though their testimony differed in some details, all four Franklin Elementary School students said Howard gave the command, then laughed while as many as 10 students joined in the Dec. 5 beating. She said: Everybody kick his I butt,  a 10-year-old boy testified Thursday. Those were her exact words. A second witness, a 10-year-old girl, said Howards words were: All yall kick his A. Little Rock Municipal Judge Lee Munson commended both students as good witnesses before he con- V\n\u0026lt; She plans to appeal the misdemeanor conviction, Padilla said Thursday. remained free Iw victed Howard of sec- Howard ond-degree assault. Munson rejected the argument of Howards attorney, Fernando Padilla, who said that the second-degree assault statute Thursday on a $2,500 appeal bond. Little Rock School District officials did not report the attack. Police were notified by Arkan-sas Childrens Hospital employees after they treated Eugene Pitts for injuries to his nose and ribs. The boy was reSee TEACHER, Page 10B Teacher  Continued from Page 1B leased the same day. In her own testimony, Howard acknowledged she told the stu-lents that she wouldnt interfere f they beat 11-year-old Eugene. Howard said she made the statement after Eugene hit several students in the class  a claim Eugene denied in court Thursday. Howard testified she planned to send Eugene to the principals office for talking and disturbing the physical education class. When she called him to the front of the class, Eugene at first refused, Howard said. Other students testified that a student made a comment to Eugene, who responded by grabbing \" the other boys neck. A third boy entered the fight at that point, , striking Eugene, one student tes-  tified. Howard then told the class to attack Eugene, students said. In Thursdays testimony, the numbers of students involved in j the fight varied from four to 10. Students said Howard sat behind  her desk and laughed during the attack, which lasted a minute to three minutes before Howard intervened, students said. Police wrote in an affidavit that one boy repeatedly punched Eugene in the face. Howard - broke up the fight after the boy\nbegan crying, police wrote. a I Arkansas Democrat \\^(6azclU' FRIDAY.JylARCH 29. 1996 Teen-ager stabbed in back in brawl A teen-ager playing basketball Wednesda.v allenioon at a Little Hock elenientary school was slabbed in the back in a brawl in volving about a dozen other youths. police sail!. The injured 17 year-old told police he was playing basketball on an outdoor court at Franklin Elenientary about 6 pan. when a fight started involving 10 to 15 other teen agers. The teen-ager told police someone stabbed him in the back during the fight, but he could not describe the assailant. He was treated at Ar-kansa. s Children s Hospital. Police said the wound did not appear to be life threatening. Arkansas Demcxzrat azettc  TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1997  i Schbol assesses ! i damage,sleuths seek fire, source Engineers inspected Franklin Elementary School for structural damage Monday, a day after a suspected arson destroyed a specialeducation classroom and saturated a wing of the Little Rock school with smoke. Students attended their normal classes, while cleanup crews scoured the damaged wing and fire investigators looked for the cause of the fire. As of Monday evening, investigators hadnt  pinpointed the source of the fire, said Robert Jones..Little Rock School District director of securitj. Engineers also had not concluded the extent of structural damage, if any, Jones said. Fire officials estimated the damage at $100,000  the same amount as the districts insurance deductible  but claims adjusters for the self-insured school district havent released a dollar amount. Jones said he expects the structural report and damage estimate to be completed today or Wednesday. Fire investigators did not com- ment on their inquiry, other than to say the blaze is still considered a suspicious fire. Ethel Dunbar, the schools prin- I cipal, wouldnt comment Monday on the fire or the investigation.Arkansas Democrat '^ (gazette   THURSDAY, MAY 28. 1998 ~ w Tl k! \\  J d I./\n' B-A itrr' .W' tfR[O Ct^ fi\u0026lt; \"f u .J! Ill 'X l?9j ^j\u0026gt;i Sfj 1/ t\\ T' Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/RICK McFARLAND '' ./. I'f. t I ?  I 1 ' Franklin Incentive Elementary School pupils color a poster at the school. Little Rock's Public Works Department spon- Wednesday to promote Stuff It! Little Rock Recyc-l es,. a- c ol.- sored the book, intended to educate children about recy-oring and activity book featuring writing and art by students cling. 42 pupils recycling prose, art becoming a book ARKANSAS DEMOCR,\\T-U,\\ZETTE Nearly 50 young artists and writers from Franklin Incentive Elementary School in Little Rock are getting published. And they may increase environmental awareness along the way. Art and 25-word essays from 42 students at the school are being printed in a 50-page coloring and activity book sponsored by Little Rocks Public Works Department. The city is the schools Partner in Education. The book, Stujf It! Little Rock Recycles, was unveiled at a morning press conference at the school Wednesday. Distribution of the book will begin in the fall. An initial printing of about 100 enabled the city to give each of the contributing pupils copies. The city hopes to produce about 600 copies in the fall and is seeking a corporate sponsor to help pay for printing costs. The books will be distributed at exhibits and functions that Public Works employees attend throughout the year. Dan McFadden, spokesman with the city, said the students were shown a video on recycling and given general guidelines about the type of art they should create. Karon Lawson, the art teacher at Franklin, worked with the children on the project. One little 10-year-old girl wrote\nT feel so happy when I know my family and friends are recycling, it makes me want to sing. and then she drew the musical notes, McFadden said.  WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2003  'Dental team gives Franklin pupils screenings THE ASSOCIATED PRESS  Pupils at Franklin Elementary School received free dental screenings Tuesday as part of the Dental Health Action Teams Future Smiles pro- . gram. , With parental permission,\npupils received tooth sealants  plastic coatings applied to teeth to protect them from cavitycausing bacteria. The team was a group of dental health, education and community professionals that serves about 1,800 children in Little Rock public schools. The program, led by the state Department of Healths Office of Oral Health and the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Share America, emphasizes prevention and purchases portable equipment to do the screenings through a grant from the Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas.STAFF PEVELOPMEWT - CERTIFIED STAFF TOTAL NUMBER OF CERTIFIED STAFF Number Completing Prior to 1991-92 * Number Completing During 1991-92 TRAINING RELATED TO EDUCATIONAL EQUITY Prejudice Reduction Human Relations Interpersonal Cross-Cultural Communication MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DELIVERY Learning Styles/Modes Curriculum Infusement STRATEGIES THAT ENHANCE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA) IDEA School Improvement Training Cooperative Learning Steps to Effective Teaching Gifted and Talented Reading Whole Language Mathematics - Elementary (Secondary Subject Areas - List Under \"OTHER STAFF DEVELOPMENT\") High Scope Computer Program For Effective Teaching (PET) 1 cycle 2 cycles 3 cycles Assertive Discipline Classroom Management Parent-Teacher Conferences EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES Equitable Staffing Practices OTHER STAFF DEVELOPMENT (SPECIFY) These data should * To be completed at the end of the third nine weeks. Do not include staff be for completed staff development activities, development activities scheduled for 4th nine weeks (1991-1992). iSTAFF DEVELOPMEWT - SUPPORT STAgg TOTAL NUMBER OF SUPPORT PERSONNEL Number Completing Prior to 1991-92 * Number Completing During 1991-92 TRAINING RELATED TO EQUITY DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT PARENT/COMMUNITY RELATIONS OTHER STAFF DEVELOPMENT (SPECIFY) These data should * To be completed at the end of the third, nine weeks, be for completed staff development activities. De development activities scheduled for 4th nine weeks (1991--1992) . Do not include staff Do not send to Planning, Research, and Evaluation office.I i I I QUARTERLY DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT REPORT Insert or have available a copy of the most recent report for current school year. This report should be available at the time of the monitoring visit. I nn not send to Planning. Research A and Evaluation office.MAP OF SCHOOL PLANT Insert a copy of the map of the school plant.EXTEMPED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS PROGRAM GRADE BM BP WM WF OM OP TOTAL Governor's School AEGIS Bovs' State Girls' State Summer Laureate Odyssey of the Mind Math Olympiad Others (Please Specify) TOTAL List any educational programs that are conducted outside the *  Include the most current information. normal school day. Complete and return to Planning, Research, and Evaluation office.SCHOOLWIDE 8TPDENT HONORS/AWARDS Complete one each grading period. First Nine Weeks WHITE BLACK OTHER Honor/Award Grade MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL TOTAL Include the most current information, i.e., scholarship, citizenship, athletic honors/awards, etc. Do not send to Planning, Research, and Evaluation office.SCHOOLWIDB STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS Complete one each grading period. Second Nine Weeks WHITE BLACK OTHER Honor/Award Grade MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL TOTAL Include the most current information, i.e., scholarship, citizenship, athletic honors/awards, etc. nn send to Planning, Research, and Evaluation office.SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HOWORB/AWARDS Complete one each grading period. Third Nine Weeks WHITE BLACK OTHER Honor/Award Grade MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL TOTAL Include the most current information, i.e., scholarship, citizenship, athletic honors/awards, etc. ASCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS Complete one each grading period. Fourth Nine weeks WHITE BLACK OTHER Honor/Award Grade MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL TOTAL Include the most current information, i.e., scholarship, citizenship, athletic honors/awards, etc. Do not send to Planning, Research, and Evaluation office.COMMITTEE WHITE JIALE EMPLOYEES FEMALE PLACE MALE FEMALE SCHOOL dOMMITTEEB/PRREHTM, mvOLVEMEHT OTHER WHITE P?lRElfr8 ! PATROMS HALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER WHITE OFFICERS MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE FEMALE OTHER MALE FEMALE P L H c y tiAte, aclal Committee ent Teacher Aasoc ES. rent Workahopa lease Specify Others) lotes List membership of all school committees, Including committees composed if parents/patrons, staff merobers, or a combination of parents and staff. lave available upon request documentation concerning physical involvement ixamples of such documentation are the VIPS' Sign-in Roster, notices of various school functions, items of publicity about parent participation, etc. It is not lecessary to provide monitors with a sign-in sheet of attendance at PTA etc. leetings. )uplicate as needed. Complete and return to Planning, Research, and Evaluation office.EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES T I V I T Y t CLUB ___WHITE BMPBRBHIP BLACK ,L1 EMALE OTHER ha: tALB 8_ B-L-L lALB : C K EMa: O-T-H MALE OrnCERS/LEADERSHIP POSITIONS iJB. R_L-A tALB J OTHER lAIiB_ Jisai K T B P O W 8 O R n C K Include information I report should include membership information. irding sponsors and officer positions. In addition, include student Decs of cosuoittees. licate as needed. raplete and return to Planning, Research, and Evaluation office.STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT/ASSESSMENT DATA Please insert or have available the reports provided by the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department.8TUDEWTS RETAINED include only those students retained at grade At the secondary level. --------------- Do not include failures of-individual gpvrses... level white GRADE LEVEL HALE RBTAIHED BLACK .rBHAXiE. OTHER TOTAL I KAIiS. female HALE FEMALE I total PERCENT Provide the most current information SECONDARY SUBJECT AREA COURSES FAILED WHITE BLACK OTHER SUBJECT AREA Grade Male Female Hale Female Male Female TOTAL Male I Female English 7/10 English 8/11 English 9/12 Hath History/Social Studies______ Science Provide the most current information GRADUATION DATA FOR 1990-91 SCHOOL YEAR (HIGH SCHOOL ONLY) TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS GRADUATING: BM BF WM WF OM OF TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Duplicate as needed. Complete and return to Planning, Research, and Evaluation office.CLASS/COURSE ENROLLMENT (Secondary Only) Please insert or have available master schedule or current print-out entitled \"Summary Master/Teacher Schedule Report - Race and Sex.\" Do not send to Planning, Research, and Evaluation office.ATTENDANCE DATA Please insert or have available current attendance data for: Staff - Certified - Support Student Provide most current student data, including withdrawals by gender, race, and grade level. Ai A dii}..\n:\u0026lt; v'*' 1 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL PROFILE 1991-92 SCHOOL: Vc anUicn GRADES: -4 I ' L 1 \u0026lt;-1 __~ ...Lr__ J PRINCIPAL: LcL:dL2 Race/Gender E KA ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL(S): TalOl'-ftlO _______ Race/Gender WSCHOOL f V GRADE li L 'J _E ROOM ,^4 K (5-^ d- 1 r\\ 7 7^ 7^ 1___ Z)^ TOTAL CLASS ENROLLMENT (Elementary Schools Only) 1991-92 I TEACHER'S GENDER/RACE F F F WHITE PRINCIPAL CLASS ENROLLMENT BLACK OTHER MALE 4 FEMALE 2. MALE -5- LtI ic) 15- dllL 3^ OL \u0026lt;- 11. JL II 11 1 I p  E 3 tA F 6 v/ '^d 27 0 J. o L ! o 2 2. (y'- d. I Q. 0 0 I a I 3 o a _E 3 I I 12 IQ /1 LL IQ 13 /o FEMALE s __ 1 '7 MALE 6? 0 FEMALE I / i I TOTAL c9O ^-O I O /6 c^ Io 1 9 a (L 1 a a \u0026lt;3 -3^ o 0 0 u a 0 0 a c\u0026gt; 2 0 c\n0 a o O o CL- 0 20 t I 2- 13 2(2 =?s S.9 o Do not include teachers of pull-out classes (art, music, physical education, etc.). List each class separately. The official date for enrollment data is October 1, 1991. Duplicate if needed.SCHOOL ENROLLMENT GRADE LEVEL 3 A 5 aelf-CQnh TOTAL WHITE MALE IL 3 L A I A 10 BLACK OTHER FEMALE '3 3_ MALE in 3(e FEMALE MALE I 0 FEMALE 3 a C) 0 Cl TOTAL Iq.O.. 2 SPECIAL ED. ~ Self Contained -J A4 .0^ 3 \\1 2 0 o S .01 loo ENROLLMENT SPECIAL SERVICES ' MALE WHITE BLACK OTHER FEMALE CD MALE 7 3 FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL (O a Resource Room 0 0 T Speech/Vision or Hearing Impaired, etc. Indirect Services *GIFTED/TALENTED REMEDIAL/ COMPENSATORY o 0 TOTAL PERCENT * Include ONLY those students who have been identified as Gifted by the G/T office and are receiving G/T instruction. The official date for enrollment data is October 1, 1991. Do not compute the percentages. AJ SUPPORT PERSONNEL WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL POSITION Attendance Clerk Cafeteria Workers Custodians Instructional Aides MALE FEMALE MALE C'- 2 FEMALE MALE a. o FEMALE cj- G I I o 4 O I I \\ D 0 Media Clerk ) Nurse I I o I.\nRegistrar Secretary I c Security Officerfs) o Social Workerfs) (' ) Supervision Aides O O o n C. ) Other TOTAL 0 o I 1 The official date for staffing information is October 1, 1991. and Evaluation office.CERTIPIED PERSONNEL WHITE POSITION Adminlstratorlsl MALE FEMALE I__ BLACK MALE \\ FEMALE o T H E..R TOTAL MALS T Classroom Teachers Counselor(b} I I Librarianfs) Reading (Compensatory/ Remedial)___ I Mathematics (Compensatory/ Remedial)___ Gifted (Elementary only) I raBA-St. - CCi I 7 Speech Therapist- other M u SI c I Q I I U A / I Tf Ouf v^cr TOTAL to 40 J 1 O D Advanced Placement/Honors/Gifted/Enriched (Secondary Only) Of the secondary classroom teachers listed above, indicate the number teaching AP, Honors, Gifted, and/or Enriched classes. ACADEMIC AREA (English, History, etc) WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK OTHER TOTAL MALE. FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL The official date for staffing information is October 1, 1991. Complete and return to Planning, Research, and Evaluation office.u' ^Slt-.' -\u0026lt;\u0026lt;!*  A**-, -\u0026lt;' .. :-K*\n^r'*' // 'f\u0026gt; /h i i 7r\u0026gt; SCHOOL PROFILE 1991-92 SCHOOL: anUicn GRADES: I ' v_ - Lg__ PRINCIPAL: 'C O-r^ i \u0026gt;\u0026lt;ii ? Race/Gender ^jA ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL(S): 'aVii-fViQ _______ Race/GenderTABLE OP CONTENTS 1. 2 . 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Personnel: - Certified Staff - Support Staff - Staff Changes (After October 1) Enrollment\n- School - Special Services - Class/Course Attendance Data: - Certified Staff - Support Staff - Students Extended Educational Programs Honors/Awards (Schoolwide) Committees/Parental Involvement Extracurricular Activities (Including Student Monitors) Student Achievement/Assessment Data Retention Data Secondary Subject Area Courses Failed Graduation Data (High School Only) Staff Development Activities - Certified Staff - Support Staff Quarterly Discipline Management Report Map of School PlantSTAPP CHANGES (After October 1) Added/Delated Certified Staff Positions During Current School Year POSITION Added Deleted BLACK WHITE OTHER Total M F M F M F TOTAL Added/Deleted Support Staff Positions During current School Year BLACK WHITE OTHER M F POSITION Added Deleted Total M F M F TOTAL Duplicate if needed.CLASS ENROLLMENT (Elementary Schools Only) 1991-92 I Fr v-j SCHOOL PRINCIPAL CLASS ENROLLMENT GRADE ROOM TEACHER'S GENDER/RACE WHITE BLACK OTHER (g - 3 F F MALE FEMALE J___ iL- FEMALE MALE O FEMALE TOTAL \\ o li TOTAL z. 30 9 J 1? n I I I O Do not include teachers of pull-out classes (art, music, physical education, etc.). List each class separately. The official date for enrollment data is October 1, 1991. Duplicate if needed.Ip i V\u0026lt;^\nV f c^ - ' I l.\\/\" r^ c *   / r _^y)y nJh 1 3^ i 1/ ....9------- _________________________________ i _. .. .._____________________________________________=___ / t \\r V 1 5 i V^' 'i f' / I /i^ T?: '.V ~-i. yili -7 :i2U,-i:Z. /i i i____ i I M. J ? T l4 yf -f  ? - t /r-^'a .... 1i i A V ^-fr f ------------------------------ fl i- \u0026lt; -f- z / # f u. fi ..fj / I I { 1 I  I . ,1 p.. ! I leA.r~:-e4A44:^L, _____ / ff '^.-sr i-'t AL1 -t^VTAt4l4fA. Cfn^ i Afj f-r- Ji^^tiXic f , ________________ '^^6^-f. J c it -/. 't! AJ. Vf j d ) P /} yrieh / f^la 4 A u ia A i f - , L / ^..0^ \u0026gt;* i / JI t L \u0026lt;' .t^-' / I- /lA'i-ViKl^ J  t /y. a t / J /i-- t-^-LC^A^d- ^^/ *- t' f 4  / /h f A1 i  '- I -/ i ii' V' /.?xc I ___i \u0026gt; J jL_.-:^Sr J t i tf- A r 11. J -..\u0026lt;'llVfe3^. f. iA:\u0026lt; {. '-^i. ! li j\n,r 'i' ff y^ - i - -i J f 4 t-t: J I ! i-, ^i^ClLCL -d Ai^^v^Q.^nc/Hi7t il r e. t-cc-iL \u0026lt;- I . - ------------^^2/. t 'i I K I I' r ..9._ .tyilI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS 1990-91 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 3 SCHOOL\nfranklin elementary READING 1988 1989 1990 1991 1988 MATHEMATICS 1989 1990 1991 ALL STUDENTS No. Tested No. Passed 58 47 66 55 55 47 38 35 58 49 66 60 55 42 38 33 Percent Passed BLACK MALES No. Passed Percent Passed BLACK FEMALES No. Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES No. Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES No. Passed Percent Passed AL 11 AS. 15 AS. 14 93 100 83 23 74 16 94 80 10 91 85 18 82 18 90 50 100 92 19 86 100 100 100 84 13 68 16 94 14 93 86 91 76 87 25 81 17 100 100 11 100 16 73 16 80 25 100 18 82 100 50 100 8 8 4 2 2 5 1 1 7 7 2 6 7 2 OTHER MALES No. Passed 0 0 Percent Passed OTHER FEMALES No. Passed *4 -'-4 Percent Passed 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 2 * 2 0 * 2 2 * Total of all students in the \"Other - ---- race category. These scores were not reported by gender.SCHOOL: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY READING _1988_. 1989 1990 I 1991 1988 AI STAAQ.A'S No. Tested No. Passed 47 4 1 64 59 50 43 47 44 47 44 r er c e nX _Pp.s s e d_ .....8 7__ ____A2. 86 94 AA Pe r. AJi'lUA No. Passed 10 18 15 17 13 It Passed .5 L.ACK FEM.ALET- No. Passed rercent. PasseA__ lUITlLJliLKS i\no. Passed Percent Passed '.HITE FEMALES No. passed 63 18 100 8 100 1. Percent Passed 100 OTHER HALES No. Passed Percent Passed OTHER FEKALES No. Passed * 3 Percen t Pa s.s^ 100 of 82 25 96 5 100 1 100 * 4 100 75 17 94 4 80 4 100 * 3 lAA students in the 89 18 100 5 83 1 100 * 3 100 \"Other 81 18 100 8 100 2 100 * 3 100 not reported Ly gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS 1990-91 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 6 MATHEMATICS 1989 1990 1991 1988 LANGUAGE ARTS 1989 1990 1991 1988 SCIENCE 1989 1990 1991 1988 SOCIAL STUDIES 1989 1990 1991 64 62 Ai 20 91 26 100 5 100 7 100 * 4 AAA race category. 50 39 78 13 65 15 83 5 100 4 100 * 2 Ai 47 39 83 14 74 16 89 5 83 1 100 * 3 100 47 38 AA 11 69 15 83 1 88 2 100 * 3 ADA. 64 57 Ai 19 86 24 92 3 60 7 lAA * 4 AAA 50 30 60 10 50 9 50 4 80 4 lAA. * 3 ADA. 47 32 68 10 53 14 78 5 83 0 0 * 3 100 47 27 51 6 38 10 56 7 88 1 50 * 3 100 64 44 Ai 14 64 17 65 4 80 5 71 * 4 100 50 22 9 45 2 11 4 80 4 100 * 3 100 47 23 A2. 8 42 8 44 5 83 0 * 2 67 47 27 iZ. 6 38 10 56 7 88 1 50 * 3 100 64 49 U- 14 64 20 77 5 100 6 86 * 4 100 50 31 .62. 11 55 9 50 4 80 4 * 3 100 47 26 55. 8 41 10 5 AA 0 * 3 100 I i li J II 4 .LWisx   1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 WHITE FEMALE TOTAL READING 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE J6481 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 10/07/91 PAGE 328 COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N 50 26 01_ 75 49 25 1____5PZ 1 0 Q 50Z OZ OZ _ .2__J _QQZ___ 0 0 0 OZ OZ OZ ___2_,_1Q0Z 0 0 0 OZ OZ OZ 2 _1OOZ _ 0 Q 0 OZ OZ OZ 0 2 0 0 OZ 1 OOZ OZ OZ 2 0 0 0 1 OOZ OZ OZ OZ 2 0 C 0 1 OOZ OZ OZ OZ 1 I Number Tested ____Mean N\u0026lt;t_H_NC. WHITE MALE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 ?? 75 49 _ oLj^ es. Number Tested Mean Nat_* 1 NCE _ ALL WHITE Percentile Summary ____7^ 50 26 2 j:o.9_ TOTAL READING N Z 2 82.2_______ 2 ___69.3...... TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE N X N X 2 72.6_. BASIC BATTERY N X 2 50.0 2 82.0 2 76.8 SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY . 1 i N X N N X i 0 1 0 OZ 50Z OZ 1- ...soz 2 45,8 TOTAL READING N Z 2 0 0 ipoz OZ OZ 0 1 1 OZ 50Z 50Z 1 0 1 0_ BOZ OZ BOZ OZ _ 1 0 1 0 BOZ OZ BOZ OZ 1 0 1 0 BOZ OZ BOZ OZ 1 0 1 0 50Z OZ 50Z OZ , i I I 2 91 8 2 53,0 2 58.7 2 53.5 2 66.9 2 61.1 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY I ' 17 I N Z N Z N Z N Z N N I 1-------- ,1 i ^9. 75 49 01 j^es __L 2 0 . 1. 25X_________4___UQZ BOZ OZ ^Z____ 0 0 - J OZ OZ 2 .._.50X - - 1 1 --Q._ 25Z 25Z OZ - 3___75Z____ 0 1 OZ 25Z 1 _ . 25Z ____0____ ox 2 1 0 BOZ 25Z OZ 3 0 1 0 75% OZ 25Z OZ 3 0 1 0 7SZ OZ 25Z OZ I I Is ) Number Tested Mean Nat.Ll_tlE 4 S8^3- 4 4 ___ 4 65.7___ 4 51.8_____ 4 74.4 4 _ 68.9 7CI 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Di fitrIbut ion J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 329 I I *! SCHOOL: GRADE: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY ' '0 Percintiie SuoBary 76 5 0 26 01 99 75 43 25 Nuaber Tested Mean Nat * I NCE BLACK MALE Percentile Sunmary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE ALL BLACK Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE N X N X N  X N X N N X N Li 5 5 7 6 S2X 22X 30X 6 6 7 3 27X 27X 32X 14X 7 7 5 4 30X 30X 22X 17X 4 6 B 4 1 8X evx lex 1 5 3 14 4X 22X 1 3X 61 X 2 4 6 1 1 9X 17X 26X 48X 5 4 7 6 23X 18X 32X 27X | I 23 47.6 22 52.3 23 51 .8 22 49.3 23 33.4 23 38.5 22 46.4  1 I TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY i N X N X N X N X N X N N X 5 3 1 0 23 12X 7X 24X 56X 11 6  9 16 26X 14X 21X 38X 7 5 14 17 1SX 12X 33X 40X 6 3 14 17 15X 8X 35X 43X 3 1 0 9 21 7X 23X 21 X 49X 5 7 9 22 12X 16X 21X 51 X 7 3 12 1 8 18X 8X 30X 45X 41 37.6 42 47.6 43 41.8 40 39.4 43 38.6 43 39.4 40 37.2 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N 1 0 8 17 29 64 41 . 1 X 16X 13X 27X 45X N X N X N X N X N X N X 17 12 1 6 19 27X 19X 25X 30X 12 1 3 21 21X 18X 29X 32X 1 0 9 22 21 16X 1 5X 35X 34X 4 15 1 2 35 6X 23X 18X 53X 7 1 1 15 33 1 IX 17X 23X 50X 12 7 1 3 24 19X 1 1 X 31 X 39X -I 64 49.2 66 45.3 62 42.9 66 36.8 66 39.1 62 40.4 I I .i 1 ...T  1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 OTHER MALE TOTAL READING 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 10/07/91 PAGE 330 COMPLETE BATTERY Percent lie Sunsary N N X N X N X N X N X N X 50 26 AA 75 49 A oi_r..25 1 0 ,0 ___ttX. 1 OOX OX _ox A 1 0 0 __ox 1 OOX ox ox A 1 0 0 __OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 i 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 i 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 0 1 0 ox ox 1 OOX ox 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX \" I ! Number Tested Mean Nat.:i_NtE. ALL OTHER Percentile Summary 7 6 50 26 99 75 49 01. -^25____ Number Tested Mean Nat LL.-NCE 1 1 61^7 57x0 1 ___54,8 . 1 1 1 58.7, 50.0 48.9 1 59.3 r TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N 0 1 0 1 61 .7 X N X N X N X N X N X N X ox i box ox 0 1 0 0 1 57.0 OX 100X ox ox 0 1 0 OX 1 box OX __0__,__QX 0 1 0 0 ox 1 OOX ox ox 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 0 1 0 OX ox 1 OOX ox 0 1 0 0 ox 1 OOX OX OX ...J 1 1 1 54.8 58.7 50.0 1 1 48.9 59.3 hl i' - H |.V.| i I I vs \u0026lt;4IO tt2 13 IB .WJi'Sl. 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE J6481 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 10/07/91 PAGE 331 COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile SuBaary 76 - 50 26 75 49 01-25 Number Tested Ht\u0026lt;n_W4t\u0026lt;LJCE. N X N X N X N X N X N X N Ji 1 1 17 JO 14K 16X 25X 43X 21 13 16 19 1 9X 23X 28X lA 14 20 21 _g3X____ 20X 28X 30X _L1 1 0 23 SI ____ 15X 34X _31X____ 5____7X 18 13 35 25X 18X 49X 1 0 1 1 17 33 14X 15X 24X 46X 15 8 20 24 22 X 12X 30X 36X 69 42.3 63 St.5 71 67 -44.4, 71 .37.S_... 71 41.2 .. 67 42,3 10 I  I . I : I I = 'l I I vi1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 332 I SCHOOL: GRADE: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 WHITE FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N X N X N X N X N X N X N 76 so 26 01 99 75 49 25 1 1' 0 1 33X 33X OX 33X 0 1 2 0 OX 33X 67X OX 0 2 0 1 OX 67X OX 33X 0 2 0 1 OX 67X fiY. 33Y. 0 1 2 0 OX 33X 67X OX 0 1 2 0 OX 33X 67X OX 0 2 0 1 OX 67X OX 33X Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE 3 50.2 3 48.3 3 42.1 3 47.5 3 50.9 3 49.1 3 48.7 Si i ' WHITE MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL ~ LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N X N X N X N X N X N X N X I. . 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 0 0 1 0 OX OX 1 OOX OX 1 0 0 0 100X_ \"OX OX OX 0 i 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX ox 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 0 1 0 OX OX lOOX OX 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX Number Tested Mean Nat'l NCE 1 1 ALL WHITE Percentile SuBmary 76 SO 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat'l NCE 42.5 79.6 1 1 50.0 54.2 1 1 58.1 46.8 1 55.3 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N N X N 1 1 1 1 25X 25X 25X 25X 1 1 2 0 25X 25X SOX OX 0 3 0 1 OX 75X OX 25X 0 3 0 1 OX 75X OX 25X 0 2 2 0 OX SOX SOX OX 0 1 3 0 OX 25X 75X OX 0 3 0 1 OX 75X OX 25X 4 48.3 4 56.1 4 44.1 4 49.2 4 52.7 4 48.5 4 50.4 1 U4 /Q  2 14 t1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution #J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 333 I SCHOOL\nGRADE: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 i'i ! BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sumsary N X N X N X N X N X N X N I .1 76 r, 50  26 - 01 - 75 49 25. .1_____4X_ 1 15 6 4X 65X 26X _4___17X_ 5 11 3 22X 48X 13X 0 8 1 1 4 OX 35X 48X 17X 1 6 1 1 5 4X AZ'A 22X 0 1 6 1 6 OX 4X my. 2 1 5 15 37. AX 22X 65X 1 4 1 1 7 4X 17X 48X 30X 'f I Nunber Tested Mean Nat_*l_NCE BLACK MALE Percentile Sunnary 76 50 26 99 75 49 01 Nunber Tested Mean NatNCE ALL BLACK Percentile Sunnary 76 .^99, 50 26 01 75 49 25_____ Nunber Tested ___Mean NatZlMCE 23 .38..7. TOTAL READING N X 23 ___5,1 .vO_____ 23 .....43.7 23 42.1 23 31.8 23 36.6 23 40.2 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N N X -I _ _ 0__ 6 4 .__J_7 . 27 33. S _ OX 22X 15X 63X 7 5 1 26X 1 9X zex ._8___3fiX ____2 8 3 7X 30X 1 1 X 3 4 5 ____15 1 IX 1EX 1 9X 56X 0 4 2 21 37. 15X 7X 78X 1 4 9 13 4X 15X 33X 48X a 6 6 IS OX 22X 22X 56X TOTAL READING N X 1____2X_ _ 7 1 9 23 14X 38X 46X 27 46.2 27 38.9 27 37.0 29.4 27 35.5 27 34.7 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N N X N X N X N --It___22X______ 10 18 1 1 SOX 36X 22X 2 1 6 14 18 4X 32X 28X 36X 4 1 0 16 SO 8X _ SOX 3SX 40X 0 5 8 37 OX I OX 16X 74X 3 5 1 4 28 6X 1 OX 28X 56X 1 1 0 1 7 22 2X 20X 34X 44X 50 .35._9_ 50 ___48.4 ____ 50 ___41 . 1 50 ______39.7 50  -30.5 50 36.0 50 37.2 i.'J1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 334 J SCHOOL: GRADE: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percent 11 Sunnary N X N X N X N X N X N N X  0 .n __ 50 26 75 49 8 20 -4X 15X 37X te__zzy, . _ 01 25___ g4___44X 1 1 20 1 1 20X 37X SOX ___e_____4y. 19 14 19 35X 26X 3SX 4 1 3 1 6 21 7X e4X 30X 39X 0 1 1 0 37 OX 13X 19X 69X 3 6 17 28 6X 1 IX 31X 52X 1 13 1 7 23 2X 24X 31 X 43X Nuaber Tested 54 .. Mean NatZJL NCE____ 54 _49.0 54 ____4J.. 3. 54 40,4 54 ____32.1 54 36.9 54 38.2 .'I 'I 1'\nrj I st 1. _______10 'I r at I 40 I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  3 UHITE FEMALE TOTAL READING 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS riAT6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE ttJ6481 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 10/07/91 PAGE 335 COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sumaary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Nunber Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE  UHITE MALE Percent lie Sumaary 76 99 50 75 26 01 49 25 Nuaber Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE ALL WHITE Percentile Sunaary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat'I NCE N X N X N 'X N X N N X i.'-i 1 1 0 0 50X 50X OX OX 2 0 0 0 1 OOX ox ox ox 2 0 0 0 ipox ox ox ox 2 0 0 0 1 OOX ox ox ox 1 BOX 1 BOX 0 0 OX ox 0 S 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX ox 2 0 0 0 1 OOX OX OX OX 2 62. 1 2 79.5 2 86.9 2 76.0 2 67.2 2 54.0 2 72.0 TOTAL READING TOTAL  MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC\" \" BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY P-l N 3 1 0 1 5 63.1 X N X N X N X  N X N X N X 60X 2 OX OX 20X 4 0 0 1 80%  OX OX 20X __3 0 1 1 60X ox 20X 20X 4 0 0 1 80X OX OX 20X 3 1 1 0 60X 20X 20X OX 3 1 1 0 6 OX 20X 20X OX 4 0 0 1 SOX ox ox 20X 5 67.0 5 63.8 5 65.8 5 66.6 5 67.7 5 66.4 t: (  l-i TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY - - -It N 4 2 0 1 7 62.8 X N X N X N X N X N X N X 57X e9X ox 1 4X 6 0 0 1 86X OX ox 1 4X 5 0 1 1 71 X OX 14X 14X 6 0 0 1 8\u0026amp;X OX OX 14X 4 2 1 0 57X 29X 14X OX 3 3 1 0 43X 43X 1 4X OX 6 0 0 1 86X OX OX 1 4X 7 70.5 7 70.4 7 68.7 7 66.8 7 63.8 7 68.0 n I Hi ':'i 1 I- iI -I \"I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE J6481 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 1 0/07/91 PACE 336 COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Suaaary N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N 50 26 QI 12. 75 49 25 1 2 5 .11 1 iz 22Z 56Z 1 6 1 1 111 ^17, 1 IZ 1 IZ 1 3 3 2 33Z 33Z 22Z 0 2 6 1 OZ 22Z 1 1Z 1 b 5 3 11% OZ 56Z 33Z 1 0 3 5 1 1Z OZ 33Z 3(\u0026gt;7, 1 0 6 2 1 1Z OZ 67Z 22Z Number Tested Mean NatJ_l_NCJ BLACK MALE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 99 75 49 ____0t,_r__25. Number Tested ___Mean Nat * 1 NCE d----- I ALL BLACK Percent i1 Summary 76 - 93 50 26 75 49 Number Tested .^ean_Nat\u0026lt;r_NC. 3 9 .48., 8 3 A8  5 _ 9 44.3 3 39,5 9 38.3 9 42.8 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N N J 1 5Z 3 1 0 14Z 45Z 2 8 7 9Z 36Z 32Z 3K \u0026amp; 6 6 A 27Z 27Z 27Z 3 5 7 14Z 83Z 32Z 7___,32Z_ 3 7 $ (, 14Z 32Z 27Z 27Z 2 6 8 6 9Z 27Z 36Z 27Z 2 7 6 7 9Z 32Z e7Z 32Z !d 22 39.1 22 47.8 22 53.9 22 44.7 22 45.2 22 44.3 22 44.2 I  TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N ._L____6Z. 4 12 1 3 13Z 39Z 42Z 3____1J!X 14 8 6 45Z 26Z 19Z 7 9 9 6 29Z 29Z 19Z 3 7 13 8 J OZ 23Z 42Z 26Z 4 7 1 1 3 . 13Z E3Z 35Z 29Z 3 _ 1 OX 6 1 1 1 1 1 9Z 35Z 35Z 3 7 12 9 1 OZ 23Z 39 Z 29Z 9 f 31 19.9. 31 46.1 31 .52x1____ 31 ___44.7 31 -43.6 31 42.5 31 43.8 I., 11 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 I ' I MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 337 I I I SCHOOL: GRADE: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3 OTHER FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE Percentile Sunaary SOCIAL STUDIES N X N X N X N X N X N COMPt.ETE BATTERY 50 26 01 75 49 25 1 1  QX- N Nuaber Tested 0 0 0. ox ox ox 1 X 1 Mean Nat * l^NCE_______75.8 ALL OTHER TOTAL READING Percentile Sunmary N X ...r 76 50 26 99 _ 75 49 _ 1 6 Q 1 OOX OX OX OX 0 0 ox ox I__100X ___0_____ox, . 0 0 0 OX OX px ...1 0 0 0 lOOX ox ox ox 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 1 0 0 0 1 OOX ox ox OX 1 0 0 0 t OOX ox ox ox 1 7J.Q____ 1 ___86*9. TOTAL MATHEMATICS total LANGUAGE N X N X 1 . -79.6 BASIC BATTERY N X 1 64.2 1 70.1 1 77.0 L._J-QQX 0 0 . 0- OX ox -OX. 1 6 0 100X OX OX _____10_____ox , 1 0 0 _____0 to OX OX ox OX SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N N X N Number Tested Mean Nat'I NCE 1 75.8 1 71 .8 1 __86.9 1 79.6 I I 0 1 0 0 1 64.2 OX t OOX ox ox 1 0 0 0 1 70 . 1 1 OOX ox OX OX 1 0 0 0 1 77.0 1 OOX c ox Q'/.1 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991 MAT-6 Distribution I J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 338 SCHOOL: GRADE: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N X N X N X N X N X N N X 76 50 26 01 JI 75 49 25 7  i 12 1 4 18X 15X 31X 36X 1 0 1 8 7 26X 36X 21X 18X 13 9 1 0 7 33X 23X 26X 18X 1 0 7 13 9 26X 18X 33X 23X 8 1 0 12 9 21X 26X 31 X 23X 1 9 12 1 1 18X 23X 31X 28X 1 0 1 12 1 0 26X 1 8X 31 X 26?. Number Tested Mean NaVl NCE 39 44.9 39 52.7 39 56.4 39 49.9 39 48.3 39 47.1 39 49.0 I )1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 DI Ctrl but Ion J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 339 I i SCHOOL: GRADE: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 4 UHITE FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY rl Percentile Sumaary N X N X N X N X N X N N 'A 50 26 75 49 017.25___ _1_ 1 4 .0 .1_TX 17X 67X OX .2. 3 1 0 33X BOX 17X OX 2___33X 2 2 0 33X 33X OX 2 1 3 0 33X 1 7X SOX OX 1 3 2 0 17X BOX 33X OX 1 0 4 1 17X OX 67X 1 7X 1 3 2 0 17X BOX 33X OX Number Tested ______Mean NaVl_NCE. 6 53.0- 6 _____65..5___ 6 -58.9 6 59,5 6 55.7 6 52.1 6 58.3 I' ' UHITE MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY . ! Percentile Summary N X N X N N X N X N X N 4' 76 50 26 99 75 49 . Ok.-.25_____ 0 1 0 OX 25X OX __3_.._75X__ q 1 2 1 OX, 2BX 5Q% 25X 0 1 1 OX 25X 25X __2___BOX 0 1 0 3 OX 25X OX 75X 1 0 0 3 2BX OX OX 75X 0 1 0 3 OX 25X OX 75X 0 1 0 3 OX 25X OX 75X 4 Number Tested Mean Nat'l NCE 4 33.9 4 38.3 4 37.4 4 35.0 4 32.6 4 31 . 1 4 33.6 ALL UHITE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Suaaary N X N X N X N X N X N X N X 50 26 75 49 .1___10X _oi_^_e5. 2 4 3 20X 40X 30X -2. 4 3 1 .2QX____ 40X 3 OX JLPX 2 3 3 20X 30X 3^7, _2__. SOX 2 2 3 3 20X 2 OX 30X 30X 2 3 2 3 20X 30X 20X 30X 1 1 4 4 1 OX 1 0 4 OX 4 OX 1 4 2 3 1 OX 40X 20X 30X u Number Tested ______Ilean_bat2-1_NCE_ 1 0 1 0 ____54.6 1 0 ...50 ,-3 . 1 0 49,7 1 0 - -46.4 . 1 0 43.7 1 0 48.4I I IS ..r I I r I little rock school district 1 991 SCHOOL :  SRADE: franklin elementary black female Percent 11  SuBBary SCHOOL total reading total mathematics N X N X mat-6 Distribution total language BASIC battery SCIENCE #16481 M6BYSC Q/Q7/3I PACE 340 -------------- 5Q - Z6 - .SI 75 49 25 1 4 5 22Z 28X -8___44 K A 5 4 7 N X N X N X social studies complete battery N Nuaber Tested  Mean NatM_jjCE 22Z 6 39Z________ 3 BLACK MALE Percent 11 e Sunaary 1 8 -^^3_______ TOTAL reading N X 18 ____76 50 26  .99__ 75 49 01-.^25. e S. 5 IS, I IX 1 1X 26X 53X Nuaber Tested Nat/l NCE J 9 - ALL black TOTAL reading Percent tie N X 6--_3S. 50 S6 IS 49 -X-------8X. -----PI T 25______ 6 1 0 1 6X ETZ -49X, Number Tested Mean._Mai_Ll NCE^ 37 -39^5_. 39X 33X -TX_ 1 8 ___50.8.. total mathematics total language N 1 5 5 5X 26X 26X -5__-42X__ 1 3 ____38.8 total mathematics N X N X - . 1 IX 6 4 32X 21X - -T_.37X 1 3 total language N X ------3____17X 2 7 6 1 IX 39X 33X 2 1 e 3 1 1Z 6X 33X SOX 2 4 3 9 X N\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information 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_554","title":"Little Rock Schools: Garland Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/2001"],"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","Garland Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School management and organization","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Garland Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/554"],"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":["49 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\nLittle Rock School District G arland is the only elementary school with a multimedia technology theme. By using state-of-the-art technology, Garland students learn to become effective users of ideas and information. Multimedia technology and educational research are incorporated into the Little Rock School District curriculum at Garland to enhance learning and better prepare students for a changing social and technological environment. Educational diversity and a multicultural focus creates an environment of interest in other cultures and an anticipation for learning about various customs, holidays and celebrations. \"Learning with dignity through technology is our motto. A caring, encouraging atmosphere is our specialty. ) Garland Multimedia Technology and Educational Research Elementary School First Class Schools For World Class KidsTheme-Focused, Multimedia Technology Adds Interest, Enhances Learning SPECIAL ATTRACTIONS  Gifted/Talented Program Students at Garland Multimedia Technology and Educational Research Elementary School learn reading, math, social studies and science via multimedia technology. Computer labs are available for students pre-K through sixth grade. Multimedia technology is available in classrooms with each grade level focused on a theme, such as:  Literacy Through Technology  Early Literacy Through Technology  Researching America Through Technology  Telecomputing Technology  Media Productions  Exploring the World Through Technology We at Garland are preparing students for a changing social and technological environment in a caring atmosphere. We have a low pupil-to- staff ratio which helps increase interaction between students and staff.  Extended Day and Extended Week Activities - Activities Include: Individualized Academic Assistance, Clubs, Field Trips and a Homework Center  Before and After School Care Program  Parent Workshops - Training parents to Assist their Children with Homework, Computer Literacy, and Nutrition  Four-Year-Old Program  Special Skills Program - Chess, Spanish, Choir, Dance, Aerobics and Taekwondo  Multicultural Program - Intensive Study of Various Cultures  Achievement Recognition  Tutoring in the Classroom  Media Center - with an Electronic Encyclopedia  Parent Link - A Voice Mail Link For Parents and Teachers Special Programs Garland offers special programs that include a gifted and talented program, speech therapy, resource classes, community based instruction, an academic support program for reading and math, comprehensive counseling and nursing, a library media specialist, social worker and multimedia theme specialist. From health to resources - from academics to discipline - Garland is in the forefront. *Garland Multimedia Technology and Educational Research Elementary School 3615 W. 25th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 501/671-6380 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CALL OR VISIT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN LITTLE ROCK, AR 501/324-2272 OR CALL OUR INCENTIVE SCHOOL HOTLINE, 501/688-3085 Garland Multimedia Technology and Educational Research Elementary School is a part of the LRSD Incentive School Program. Incentive schools receive extra financial resources which allow for big results in basic skills education and enrichment. R s I 1^4 Garland 361SW. 25th Uttle Rock. AR 72204 Incentive Mr. Robert L. Brown. Jr.. Principal Phone: (501) 671-6275 A nxm^/brmational'* id \"fij ?i! iii'j it*' I BWSglSSI Ji  i' iliSchedule of Events 4:30 - 6:00 6:10-6:30 6:30 - 7:00 7:00 - 7:30 7:30 - 8:00 8:00 - Until POWER 92 Live Remote Broadcast Dr. Hank Williams, Incoming Superintendent of LRSD Mr. Jimmy Pritchett, Little Rock Fighting Back Program Mr. Robert Brown, Jr., Principal of Garland Incentive School Classroom Tours Dinner Served Come share in the excitement of a New and Progressive year at Garland Incentive School Open House Monday, September 20,1993 Pre-open house activities begin at 4:30. Door Prizes to be given away!! OB B BS\niCl ^'2! VfJ = \\\u0026lt;'l B'-y-s' jVxV w' Would Like Garland Incentive Schoo! :^l a OS kd invite WrfTfcU T aaj?^ tlnaniiB^^ InfH ST 3 ,TIME-9:00 A.M, - 2:30 P.M. ADDRESS-3615 West 25th Little Rock, Arkfinsas 72204 *'HAT - Multicultural Celebration feHEN - May 27 \u0026amp; 28, 1993 la-HERE-Garland Incentive School PARTICIPANTS-Pre-K - 6th ,W--/-W-Zft/rZrAt*fi.it it ttut/f  -  -J . i iS ^2? fe' sskS B. PS'S I i I VHY - To Celebrate Cultural Awareness Robert L. Brown Jr. Prinoipal ilK ACCOLADES Garland's Certified Staff Academic 4 #1 in Growth for 93 MPT Reading \u0026amp; Math 4 #1 in Growth for 93-Stanford 8 Overall #1 in Growth for 93Standford 8 2nd Grade 4 #1 in Growth for 93Standford 8 4th Grade A Top 10 in Growth for 93-Standford 8 6th Grade MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY II Discipline F 7J% Reduction in Behavior Referrals (From 1045 to 285 in 93) 86% Reduction in Suspensions (From 65 to 9 in 93) AND A Few of Garland's Special People Diversity r 250% Increase in Enrollment of Hispanic Students F Multicultrual Focus EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 'V Fiesta Celebration \"I Cinco De Mayo 'V Three Kings Day KWANZAA Day V Chiness New Year 'I Russian Day 4 Japanese Celebration V Jewish Celebration V Korean Celebration V Jamaican Celebration 'V German Celebration V Native Amer PowWow Garland Incentive School 4 Learning with Dignity through technology!! CALL 671-6275 FOR MORE INFO. First Class School for World Class Kids. Little Rock School District Garland Incentive School  Computer-Assisted Instruction with Theme Focus Children learn computer-based instruction in elementary school reading, math, social studies and science. Writing to Read computer labs are available for Kindergarten and first grade. Computers are also available in each classroom with each level focused on a theme enhanced by technology. Themes include:  Emergent Literacy Through Technology.  Early Literacy Through Technology.  Researching America Through Technology.  Telecomputing Technology.  Media Productions  Exploring the World Through Technology. We are preparing students for a changing social and technological environment in a caring, encouraging atmosphere  Parent Link This allows 24 hour accessibility to homework, school news, and teachers through voice mail technology.  Extended Day \u0026amp; Week Classes after school (homework center, special skills, clubs and leisure activities and on Saturday, as well as field trips, enhance learning. .  Before and After School Care Program Supervised activities from 7:00am to 5:30pm.  Parent Workshops Special training in working with their children to assist with homework, computer literacy, nutrition and child development.  Four-Year-Old Program The four-year-old program offers certified teachers, and instructional aide and an age appropriate curriculum enhanced with computers that prepares for kindergarten level learning.  Special Skills Program Foreign language, band, choir, dance, Tae Kwon Do and Chess are offered during and/or after school.  Multicultural Program Intensive study of various cultures that make up our world culminating with a school wide multicultural celebration.  Achievement Recognition Students are recognized for improved efforts and academic growth with high frequency throughout the school year.  Tutoring in the Classroom Tutoring is provided through community volunteers and school peers.  Media Center Provides technologically advanced resources with exceptional research capabilities.  Special Programs Gifted and Talented Program Speech Therapy Resource Classes Community Based Instruction Academic Support Program for Reading and Math Full Time Counseling Program Full Time Nurse Multimedia Educational Technology Research and Academy infuses multimedia technology into the Little Rock School District Curriculum that enhances students' learning to better prepare them for a changing social and technological environment. Students will become effective users of ideas and information through intellectual and physical access to materials in all formats with emphasis on multimedia technology. Garland's Multimedia Technology and Research Academy is located at 3615 West 25th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas and is open to the community and all which comply with desegregation requirements.ACCOLADEl Garland's Certified Staff Academic MULTIMEDIA Outstanding Growth! TECHNOLOGY Discipline  73% Reduction in Behavior Referrals (From 1045 to 285 in 93) 4 86% Reduction in Suspensions (From 65 to 9 in 93) A Few of Garland's Special People Diversity r 250% Increase in Enrollment of Hispanic Students r Multi-Cultrual Focus 'I Fiesta Celebration 'i Cinco De Mayo 'I Three Kings Day KWANZAA Day 'I Chiness New Year 'I Russian Day 'I Japanese Celebration 'I Jewish Celebration V Korean Celebration Jamaican Celebration 'J German Celebration V Native Amer PowWow EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Garland Incentive School 4 Learning with Dignity through technology!! Gariand Incentive School Multi-Cultural Celebration Moy 26 \u0026amp; 27. 1994 CALL 671-6275 FOR MORE B^FO. Little Rock School District OPEN HOUSE 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM Each Day Come Check Us Out!!! Garland Incentive School  Computer-Assisted Instruction with Theme Focus Children learn computer-based instruction in elementary school reading, math, social studies and science. Writing to Read computer labs are available for Kindergarten and first grade. Computers are also available in each classroom with each level focused on a theme enhanced by technology. Themes include:  Emergent Literacy Through Technology.  Early Literacy Through Technology.  Researching America Through Technology.  Telecomputing Technology.  Media Productions  Exploring the World Through Technology. We are preparing students for a changing social and technological environment in a caring, encouraging atmosphere  Parent Link This allows 24 hour accessibility to homework, school news, and teachers through voice mail technology.  Extended Day \u0026amp; Week Classes after school (homework center, special skills, clubs and leisure activities and on Saturday, as well as field trips, enhance learning.  Before and After School Care Program Supervised activities from 7.00am to 5\n30pm.  Parent Workshops Special training in working with their children to assist with homework, computer literacy, nutrition and child development.  Four-Year-Old Program The four-year-old program offers certified teachers, and instructional aide and an age appropriate curriculum enhanced with computers that prepares for kindergarten level learning.  Special Skills Program Foreign language, band, choir, dance, Tae Kwon Do and Chess are offered during and/or after school.  Multi-Cultural Program Intensive study of various cultures that make up our world culminating with a school wide multi-cultural celebration.  Achievement Recognition Students are recognized for improved efforts and academic growth with high frequency throughout the school year.  Tutoring in the Classroom Tutoring is provided through community volunteers and school peers.  Media Center Provides technologically advanced resources with exceptional research capabilities.  Special Programs Gifted and Talented Program Speech Therapy Resource Classes Community Based Instruction Academic Support Program for Reading and Math Full Time Counseling Program Full Time Nurse Multimedia Educational Technology Research and Academy infuses multimedia technology into the Little Rock School District Curriculum that enhances students' learning to better prepare them for a changing social and technological environment. Students will become effective users of ideas and information through intellectual and physical access to materials in all formats with emphasis on multimedia technology. Garland's Multimedia Technology and Research Academy is located at 3615 West 25th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas and is open to the community and all which comply with desegregation requirements.GOALS a DEGREES \"Rites of Passage\" To be ceremoniously initiated into the \"Rites of Passage,\" these goals must be consistently practiced by the individual. * To give one's undivided attention and respect to elders * To observe and ponder the meaning of ail things * To recognize the one source greater than yourself * To seek knowledge, wisdom and understanding * To respect mother, father, authority, life and truth * To be responsible for one's own actions/consequences * To encourage self-love and self respect * To respect the humanity of all people * To practice personal grooming/cleanliness * To develop higher learning capacities by\nGARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL'S 6TH GRADE CLASS OF 93 PRELUDE a. developing better thinking and memory skills b. acquiring an interest in the dictionary * To practice correct methods of classroom participation * To adhere to rules and regulations and show respect for policies * To learn self-identity: a. Who am I? b. Where am I? c. Where did I come from. How did I get here. d. What do I want to be and how will I get there. * To demonstrate appreciation for one's culture and heritage * To actively participate in the organized development of one's community  To use and manage money properly within the community * To develop a spirit of self determination and cooperative economics etc.) research foods their * To develop survival skills (husbandry, crafts, farming, carpentry,  To develop a life-long love for learning through study and I * To develop the discipline needed to select and consume healthy * To teach others what you have mastered and serve as a guide for PASSAGE \"In America. Black la a country.\" \"RITES OF PASSAGE\" Garland Incentive School's 1993 6th Grade Graduates Rites of Passage Awards Program 0  Males Robert Allen Stephen Buford Richard Burton Marvin Collins Denaro Cook James Fields William Green Ronald Harris Jerome Hunter Michael Hunter James Ivey James Johnson Vernon Jones Kelvy Matthews Steve Preston Joel Rodriguez Jose Rodriguez Steven Smith Keith Tucker Gary Vanderbilt Clifton Watson 101 * 0 Females Latasha Butler Holly Carroll Valencia Coleman Ashley Hill Terri Jackson Eva King Alisha Lemons Tameka Lewis Simona Matthews Eryn Surratt Theme: Children Are the Reward of Life -African Proverb Processional Libations Salute Musical Selection Rites of Passage Overview Recognition of Guest Speakers Musical Selection Motivational Speech Presentation of Awards 6th grade students Pele Shonowa, Entrepreneur The Liberation Flag Mr. Rickey Banks Steven Preston Student Council Vice-President Valencia Coleman 6th Grade Student Mr. Rickey Banks Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr. Principal, Garland Incentive School * Passed MPT (Reading) * Passed MPT and Stanford-8 Mr. Robert L. Brown, )r. Principal, Garland Incentive School First Annual Overcomer's Award Mr. Terrence Hardin C.AA.P. 6th Grade Teachers for 1993: Ms. Yolanda Anderson Mr. Leroy Slater Remarks Closing Song \"Lift Every Voice and Sing\" Recessional 6th grade students Reception - Media Center Garland incentive School For Guest and Sth and 6th grade students only.The Liberation Flag was created by Marcus Garvey. Red stands for the blood and struggle. Black represents the people and their color. Green stands for land and the future. There can be no future without struggle, and there can be no struggle without people. It is your responsibility to know who you are (Black), know that your purpose is to struggle (Red), and know that your goal is liberation and a better tomorrow (Green). Every flag has meaning and Garvey was careful in selecting yours. Salute II This Flag Is Mine Here's to this flag of mine the Red, Black, and Green Hopes in its future bright Africa has seen Here's to the Red of it. Great Nations shall know of it In time to come. Red blood shall flow of it Great flag of mine. Here's to the Black of it Four hundred millions back of it Whose destiny depends on it The Red, Black, and Green of it Oh, flag of mine. Here's to the Green of it Young men shall dream of it. Face shot and shells of it. Maidens shall sing of it Waving so high Here's to the whole of it G\u0026gt;lors brought and pole of it Pleased is my soul with it Regardless of what is told of it. Thanks God for giving Great flag of mine. I LIFT EVERY VOICE AND SING Lift every voice and sing Till earth and heaven ring. Ring with the harmonies of Liberty\nLet our rejoicing rise High as the listening skies. Let it resound loud as the rolling sea. Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us. Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us. Facing the rising sun of our new day begun Let us march on till victory is won. Stony the road we trod, Bitter the chastening rod, Felt in the days when hope unborn had died\nYet with a steady beat, Have not our weary Feet Come to the place for which our fathers sighed? We have come over a way that with tears has been watered. We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered. Out from the gloomy past. Till now we stand at last Where the white gleam of our bright star is cast God of our weary years, God of our silent tears. Thou who hast brought us thus far on the way: Thou who hast by Thy might Led us into the light. Keep us forever in the path, we pray. Lest our feet stray from the places, our God, where we met Thee, Lest, dur hearts drunk with the wine of the world, we forget Thee\nShadowed beneath Thy hand. May we forever stand. True to our God, True to our native land. i James Weldon Johnson  This poem has been put to music and is now our Black National Anthem. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS 1990-91 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 3 SCHOOL: GARLAND ELEMENTARY READING 1988 1989 1990 1991 MATHEMATICS 1988 1989 1990 1991 ALL STUDENTS No. Tested No. Passed Percent Passed BLACK HALES No. Passed Percent Passed GLACK FEMALES No. Passed Percent Passed 39 32 82 13 76. 11 79 51 35 69 16 55 16 89 44 29 66 15 65 13 65 26 18 69 57 80 39 32 82 12 71 12 86 51 34 67 17 59 15 83 44 24 55 15 65 40 26 15 58 50 70 8 8 8 7 7 WHITE MALES No. Passed 1 1 0 4 4 1 0 1 Percent Passed 100 100 100 100 100 100 WHITE FEMALES No. Passed 0 2 0 3 1 3 0 0 Percent Passed 100 100 100 50 OTHER MALES No. Passed 0 0 Percent Passed OTHER FEMALES No. Passed 7-1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 Percent Passed 100 100 100 100 100 100 k Total of all students in the \"Other ___ - race category. These scores were not'reported by gender.SCHOOL: garland elementary READING 1988 1989 1990 j 1991 1988 ALL STUDENTS No. Tested Ho. Passed 31 25 81 PercenX Passed I__2. BLACK EALES No. Passed 8 Perc-.\nnt Passed 73 SLACK EEKALES No. Passed I 12 percent Passed 80 'fflITf. KALES l.'o. Passed i I 0 Percent Passed I___ WHITE FEMALES No. Passed 3 Percent Passed OTHER MALES No. Passed percent Passed OTHER EEK.a.LES No. Passed Percent Passed. 100 * 2 100 36 19 53 9 47 9 56 0 0  1 100 31 25 81 12 80 13 81 0 0 0 0 34 31 91 10 77 18 100 1 100 2 100 0 0 31 24 77 7 64 12 80 0 3 100 * 2 100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS 1990-91 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 6 HATH EI-IAT ICS 1989 36 20 56 8 42 11 69 0 0 * 1 100 1990 31 29 94 14 93 15 94 0 0 0 0 1991 34 26 76 8 62 16 89 1 100 1 50 0 0 1988 31 20 65 5 45 11 73 0 3 100 LANGUAGE ARTS 1989 36 10 28 4 21 6 - 38 0 0 0 1990 31 22 71 10 67 12 75 0 0 0 1991 34 17 50 7 54 9 50 0 1 50 0 1988 31 17 55 5 45 8 53 0 2 67 SCIENCE 1989 36 6 17 4 21 2 13 0 0 0 1990 31 26 84 13 87 13 81 0 0 0 1991 34 20 59 7 54 10 56 1 100 2 100 0 1980 31 17 55 5 45 8 * 1 0 0 0 * 2 0 0 0 SOCIAL STUDIES 1989 36 6 17 3 16 3 1990 Tl -I 53 0 3 100 * 1 19 0 0 0 0 Total of a.ll students in the \"Other\" race category. 'ceres '..an not reported by gender. i 50 100 i 50 31 19 61 8 53 11 - 69 0 0 0 0 3A 18 53 6 46 9 50 1 100 UU J 2 100 ... 0 0 I j i I2 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: CARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1 WHITE FEMALE 1 991 MAT-6 Di st ri but 1 on J6431 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 351 1! po r' I H' k.- Cl- Percentile Summary ._Z6 50  26 - 01-..: 75 49 -25 Number Tested TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N X N N 0 0 1 0 1 Mean, NatL_NCE_______48.3 WHITE MALE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 99 75 49 __-_25 __ Number Tested Mean NmV L. NCE_. ALL WHITE Percentile Summary _____ 50 26 75 49 _ 01 -_-e5_____ Number Tested Mean -Nat_Lr_NCE_. _ ox ____ ox 1 oox ox TOTAL READING N X 1 i 1 33X 33X 33X __Q_____OX . 3 54.5 TOTAL READING N X .1____25X 1 2 0 asx SOX .._0X 4 .53.1 0. 1 0 0_ 1 1 OOX OX ox - Q_ 0 1 0 ox ox 1 oox ox 0 0 1 0 OX ox 1 OOX OX 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 OX 1 oox OX ox 1 1 1 1 1 -55.3______ TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 1 0 -_O_. 3 65.9 .3 48.9 60.4 53.7 50.5 TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N N X N 33X OX OX _ 1 1 0 1 33X 33X OX 33X 1 1 1 0 33X 33X 33X OX 3 0 0 0 1 oox ox ox ox 1 0 2 0 33X OX 67X OX 2 0 1 0 67X OX 33X OX 3 52.0 3 56.8 3 78.1 3 56.5 3 60.4 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N N X 2____BOX__ 2 0 0 SOX OX ___OX____ 4 ..63.2._ 1 1 1 1 e5x_.... 25X E5X 25X I____25X 1 2 0 25X SOX OX 3 1 0 0 75X 25X OX OX 1 1 2 0 25X 85X BOX OX 2 1 1 0 5 OX 25X 25X OX 4 - 49.4 ... 4 _____54,8 ... 4 73.7 4 55.8 4 57.9 I . r1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution ttJ6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 35 I-' i=' I t*r 'I \u0026gt;'i SCHOOL: GRADE: OAKLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sunaary 50 26 01 75 49 25 Nuaber Tested N Z N Z N X N Z N N Z N Z 0_____ 9Z. 2 1 5 8 Mean NatJ_l_NCE_____ _35.9, . BLACK MALE Percentile Suaaary 76 50 26 ?9 75 49 01.-.25.- Nuabe Test ed Mean Nat'1 NCE ALL BLACK 25Z 13Z 63Z TOTAL READING N Z 0_____QJi___ __ 4 1 3 50Z 13Z 38Z 1 3 1 3 13X 38Z 1 3X 38Z 0 3 3 OZ S5Z 38Z 38Z 2 1 1 4 25 Z 13Z 13Z 50Z 1 2 0 5 13Z 25Z OZ 63Z 0  3 3 OZ 25Z 38Z 38Z 8 44.3 8 __41\u0026lt;5_ 6 39.4____ 8 42.3 8 39.2 8 37.4 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N Z N Z N Z N X N Z 2 0 3 17Z OZ 25Z 2 3 3 . .. 7. -__.58Z 12 ___ 3?. e TOTAL READING Percent lie Suaaary N Z 76..^99_______ 50 S6 75 49 _ 2 2 4 .. lOX 1 OZ 20Z 01 t,25_.,. 12 . 60Z.. Nuaber Tested 20 __ Mean_NatJ_l .NCE_________38.1 17Z 25Z 25Z 2 2 4 4_.33X__________4 12 45 P 1 2 42.6 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N Z .2____lOX___ 74 35Z 20Z 1.___ 35X_____ SO ______ 44. J?_____ 17Z 17Z 33Z 33Z 2 0 5 17Z OZ 42Z 5__ 4 ex 12 42.0 TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY N Z N Z 35 57 15Z 25Z 25Z 35Z 2 28 8 10X 1 OZ 4 0Z 40Z so .___-42. SO 41 .0 2 4 3 3 17Z 33Z 25Z 25 Z 2 1 7 2 1 7Z 8Z 58Z 1 7Z 2 0 5 5 17Z OZ 42Z 42Z 1 2 45.2 12 47.7 1 2 41.4 SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N 4 54 7 SO 44.1 Z N Z N Z 20Z 25 Z 20Z 35Z 3 3 7 7 15Z 15Z 35Z 35Z 2 28 8 lOZ 1 OZ 40Z 40Z SO 44.3 20 39.8 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PACE 353 SCHOOL: GRADE: CARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Suaeary N Z N X N X N X N X N X N X 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 3 '3 6 12 13X 13X 25X SOX 4 9 4 1 17X 38X 17X 29X 4 6 6 6 17X 25X 25X 33X 3 3 1 0 6 13X 1 3% 42X 33X 7 6 4 1 29X 25X 17X 29X 4 4 9 7 17X 1 7X 38X 29X 4 3 9 8 17X 1 3X 38X 33X Nunber Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE 24 40.6 24 47.8 24 43.4 24 43.3 24 49.0 24 46.2 24 42.8 i\n! i I ..J\n^lI *1 -J i  I ( I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC SCHOOL: GRADE: GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 white female TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL language 10/07/91 PAGE 354 Percentile SumBary BASIC battery N X N X N X SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE battery - - -76_-. a9_____________~ 50-75 \"o' 26-49 I ------QL - 0 75 49 25 _ . OX OX 1 oox . _ ox 0 1 0 __OX 1 OOX OX 0 N X N X N N Number Tested 1 Mean Nat.'l_NCE_______4q.i____ white male total reading _P____ 0 1 0 OX OX 1 OOX - ox X 1 -62.3____ 1 ..3T.7 total MATHEMATICS Percentile Sumnary TOTAL language N X N X N 0 0 1 0 1  OX OX 1 OOX OX 1 0 0 0 100X OX OX OX 0 1 0 0 ox 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX ox OX 45.8_______ BASIC battery 1 84.6 SCIENCE 1 54.2 SOCIAL STUDIES 1 50.0 COMPLETE battery 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 , N X Number Tested Mean Nat'I NCE ALL WHITE 0 0 0 1 1 ..35.8 Percent He SuaiKary 76 =_aa____ so 26 01 75 49 25__ Number Tested --- Mean Natll_tiCE. QX ._______0 ox OX 1 OOX TOTAL reading N X N X N 1 0 0 1 52.1 ox 1 oox ox - ox 0 1 0 .0 1 -50.0 Z N TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X J----??-----------0-_____ox 1 1 _ OX SOX sox 2 0 lOOX OX - Q_____ox 2 38..-a____ 2 51.2 OX 1 OOX OX . OX 0 0 1 0 1 42.5 total language N Q ____OX 1 1 0 SOX SOX OX 2 43^J8_____ ox ox 1 oox ox 0 1 0 0 1 53.2 BASIC battery N 0 0 2 0 2 -..44.2 X - OX OX 1 OOX ox OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 1 54.2 SCIENCE N X OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 0 1 0 1 45.2 SOCIAL STUDIES N OX OX 1 OOX ox COMPLETE battery N X 1 1 0 0 50X SOX ox ox 0 2 0 0 OX 100X OX OX 0 1 1 0 OX SOX SOX OX 2 68.9 2 54.2 2 47.6I ( I I I I I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE #J6481 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 10/07/91 PAGE 355 COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sunmary 76 _-_9i____ 50 26 01 75 49 25 Number Tested N 7. N X N X N X N X N X N __0 4 4 5 1 3 Mean Natfl NCE________41 .2 BLACK MALE Percentile Summary 76 - 99.._ 50 26 01 75 49 25___ Number Tested Mean Nat'l NCE ALL BLACK Percentile Summary ___76 99_. 50 26 01 75 49 25 Number Tested t_____ ---0X,_. 31X 31 X _ 38X _ TOTAL READING N X 1 6 3 3 8X________2 _ 46X 23X 23X 3 5 3 15X 23X 36X 23X .0 5 ft  OX 38X 46X 1 5X 0 1 8 4 OX 8X 62X 31 X 0 6 6 1 OX 46X 4 6X 8X 0 4 7 2 OX 31 X 54X 1 5X 13 48.3____ TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 1 3 46.3.__ 1 3 ___44.2 1 3 39.8 13 48.5 1 3 43.7 TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N N X 0 6 2 .8 1 0 26.6 OX OX 20X SOX TOTAL READING N X 0 4 6 0 2 0 S 1 0 25.5 ox_ 26x OX ____ TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X OX_________1_____4X__.. 17X 26X 8 3 -13.. . 57X_____ _ .1 1 .. 35X 1 3X 23 -Mean Nat il NCE_______34.8 23 38.4 . 1 0 2 7 1 OX OX 2OX 70X 0 1 1 8 OX 1 OX 1 OX SOX 1 0 1 8 1 OX OX 1 OX SOX 1 1 1 7 1 OX 1 OX 1 OX 7 OX 0 1 1 8 OX 1 OX 1 OX sox 1 0 24.0 1 0 23.5 1 0 30.7 1 0 33.2 1 0 22.5 TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N N X N N N ____3 . 3 7 ___10 23 ___36.6 .. 13X 13X 30X 43X 0 6 7 1 0 OX 26X 30X 43X 1 1 9 1 2 4X 4X 39X 52X 1 7 7 8 4X 30X 3 OX 35X 0 5 8 1 0 OX 22X 3SX 43X 23 ____35.2._,. 23 .,35.8 23 41 .8 23 34.4 I I .1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution *J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 356 SCHOOL: GRADE: GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY I I j-------- Percentile Summary N N 7. N Z N Z N N Z N I I I f !  I 1 J i____ 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 0 4 7 1 4 OZ 1 6Z . 28Z 56Z 1 10 3 1 1 4Z 40Z 12Z 44Z 3 4 8 1 0 12Z 1 6Z 32Z 40Z 0 6 9 1 0 OZ 24X 36Z 40Z 2 2 9 1 2 8Z ez 36Z 48Z 1 9 7 8 4Z 36Z 28Z 32Z 0 6 9 1 0 OZ 24Z 36Z 40Z Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE 25 35.1 25 39.9 25 37.2 25 35.9 25 38.5 25 42.8 25 35.5 I J 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3 WHITE MALE TOTAL READING 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 357 Percentile Suanary N ____76 ._- 99___ 50 26 75 49 _____0 ____01 ^.25 1 1 P _ _.ox sox sox I Nuaber Tested 2 1 . Mean Nat It NCE.________47_.,5. ALL WHITE TOTAL READING Percentile Sunmary N X 76 -.59____ 50 26 75 49 0 1 1 01 25 _ OX SOX SOX .._.QX I .1 I ,1 Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE____ BLACK FEMALE Percentile Summary .76 - ,99 50 26 75 49 ____01 r,25_____ Nuaber Tested Meaa NatJ.!. NCE 2 47.5 TOTAL READING N X TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N P 2 0 0 2 _..60.8 X N N X N X N X N  .l . 0 4 _8X___ OX 33X 7 _ 58X 1 2 J6.3_ __PX 1 OOX OX px 0 1 1 0 OX SOX sox OX 0 1 1 0 _0X SOX SOX OX 1 0 1 0 SOX OX sox OX 0 1 1 0 OX BOX SOX OX 0 1 1 0 OX BOX SOX OX 2 52,____ 2 53.6 2 55.6 2 49.8 2 53.7 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N 0 2 0 0 S 60.8 X N X N X N X N X N X OX 16 ox ox ox __ 0 1 1 ___0 2 52.9 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 1____8X_____ 1 3 1 12 5,1_.0, 58X 25X _ 8X___ OX SOX sox OX 0 1 1 OX SOX SOX 0____OX 2 53.6 TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY N N X 1 0 1 0 SOX OX SOX OX 0 1 1 0 OX SOX BOX OX 0 1 1 0 ox sox sox ox 2 55.6 2 49.8 2 53.7 SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N N X N . _ 1 2 6 3 8X 17X SOX 25X 1 1 5 5 OX Q7. 42X 4 EX 0 3 6 3 OX 25X SOX 25X 1 1 4 6 8% 8X 33X BOX 1 1 5 5 8X 8X 42 X 42X 12 46.0., 12  42,3 .. 1 2 41.7 12 39.5 12 40.9 i II 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 358 SCHOOL: GRADE: GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentlie Sumnery N X N X N X N X N N N X 50 26 01 - 75 - 49 25___ 0._____OX , 1 1 1 Q 8X dX 83X 1____,8X_. 3 2 25X 17X .-.1, , _8X NuAber Tested 1 S Mean Nat/I NCE_______25.8 .. ALL BLACK TOTAL READING  ,fi! _ .50X 12 40.5 r Percentile SusBary N X ..I 76 50 26 99 75 49 1 1 5 4X 4X 21X 1  I 01 -_25.,_ _____1.7......71X Number Tested Mean Nat1 NCE  24 31 , Q 1 A 8 8% 33X SOX _.l.... 8X 1 1 9 8X 8X 75% 1 0 5 6 8X OX 42X SOX 0 2 5 5 OX 1 7X 42X 42X 1 0 2 9 8X OX 17X 75X 1 2 .35.^9 12 30,7.. 1 2 34.7 12 34.7 1 2 30.2 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N N X N 2 16 5 8X 42X 21X 2 3 1 0 ex 13X 42X .. ._.7.__29X._ 9___38X 2 2 b 14 8X 8X 25X 58X 1 3 1 1 9 4X 13X 46X 38X 1 3 9 1 1 4X 13X 38X 46X 2 1 7 1 4 8X 4X 29 X 58X 24 45.7 24 41.0 24 36.5 24 38.2 24 37.1 24 35.6 iH i i I .J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution #J6481 M6BYSC 1 0/07/91 PAGE 3S9 1 SCHOOL: GRADE: GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percent lie Suaairy N X N X N X N N X N X N X i \u0026gt; I 4 -r ,I L_... 76 so 26 01 99 75 49 25 1 2 6 17 4X 8X 23X 65X 2 12 5 7 8X 4 6X 1 9X 27X 2 4' 1 1 9 8X 15X 4SX 35X 2 3 7 1 4 8X 1 ex 27X 54X 2 3 1 2 9 ex 12X 4SX 35X 1 4 1 0 1 1 4X 15X 38X 42X 2 2 8 1 4 8X 8X 31X 54X Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE 26 32.3 26 46.9 26 41 . 9 26 37.8 26 39.5 26 38.1 26 36.9  'I  I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 360 SCHOOL: GRADE: GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 WHITE FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summery N X N X N X N N X N N X 50 26  01 75 49 25 ___ 0 6 t 0 _ OX OX 1 OOX _ QX 0_____^OX _ 1 0 Q 1 OOX OX ox 0 i 0 0 OX i oox ox OX 0 i 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 0 1 0 OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 0 1 0 OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 1 0 0 ox 1 oox ox ox Number Tested 1 1 1 Mean. Nat U NCE________4.9. 5 .58,_7 6 0,4 1 1 ALL WHITE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE _._55.9 41 .3 1 1 48.4 52.6 Percentile Sunnary N X N X N X 76 50 26 75 49 P____OX_____ 0 1 OX 1 oox 01 r-25 _ 0_____OX .. 0 1 0 p  OX 1 oox OX ___ox 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE I 1 1 BLACK FEMALE Percentile Summary . 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Numbe Tested Mean Nat f.l NCE_. 49-5 58.7 60.4 BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N y. N TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE N X N X N X ___0_____OX______ 4 5 8 24X 29X 47X . 4___8,4_x___________2__ 5 5 3 29X 29X 18X 6 2 7 12X 35X 12X 41 X 1 7 .38., 5... 17 ____50.4 17 .45.3 0 1 0 0 1 55.9 OX 1 OOX OX ox 0 0 1 0 1 41.3 BASIC BATTERY N 3 3 6 5 17 42 X 18X 1 8X 35X 29X OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 0 1 0 1 48.4 SCIENCE N X 0 3 6 8 OX 1 8X 35X 47X 1 7 36.8 OX OX 1 OOX ox 0 1 0 0 1 52.6 SOCIAL STUDIES N 0 3 6 8 17 40,1 X OX 1 8X 35X 47X OX 1 OOX OX OX COMPLETE BATTERY N X 0 5 6 6 OX 29X 35X 35X 1 7 41 . 5 ^'11 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 1 0/07/91 PAGE 361 I i , t 'L_ SCHOOL: GRADE: CARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N N X N X N X N X N N X 50 S6 - ^3 01 Nunbe 75 49 1 5 1 0 _4 . 5X 25 X SOX SOX ___5____25X . 7 4 4 35X BOX SOX 2 8 6 1 QX 40X 30X 4 _20X 3 5 7 5 15X S5X 35X S5X 5 4 6 5 S5X SOX 30X 25X 2 6 6 6 1 OX 3 OX 30X 3 OX 3 5 6 4 15X 25X 40X SOX Tested Mean Nat_'l NCE 20 ____45.4 _ SO 5S . e____ 20 ...47.4. SO 47.7___ 20 ._47.1 20 45.7 SO 47.4 ALL BLACK TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percent lie Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25____ Number Tested Mean Nat*1 NCE N X N X N N X N N X N 1 9 15 _ 12 37 42.2 S4X 41X 32X , 9 12 9 24X 3SX S4X 7__._19X 37 51.4 4 14 8 1 1 37 46  4 1 IX 38X 22X _30X 6 8 13 1 0 1 6X 22X 35X 27X 5 7 12 13 14X 1 37. 35X 2 9 12 14 5X S4X 3SX 38X 3 1 0 1 4 1 0 8X S7X 38X ^17. 37 45.5 37 42.4 37 43 . 1 37 44.7 I i II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution #J6481 M6BYSC 1 0/07/91 PAGE 368 SCHOOL: GRADE: GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY I I r Percentile Suanary N X N N'  X N X N X N N X *1 '1 I L____ 76 5 0 26 01 39 75 49 25 1 9 1 6 1 2 3X 24X 42X 32X 9 13 9 7 24X 34X 24X 1 8X A 11X 15 39X 8 11 SIX S9X _6 9 13 1 0 1 6X 24X 34X Z67. 5 7 13 1 3 13X 18X 34 X 34X 2 9 13 1 4 5X 24X 34X 37X 3 1 1 1 4 1 0 8X 29X 37X 26 X Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE 38 42.4 38 51 .6 38 46.8 38 45.8 38 42.4 38 43.3 38 44.9 r . 1 H1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT t 991 MAT-6 Distribution DJ6481 M6BYSC 1 0/07/91 PAGE 363 t SCHOOL : GRADE: GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 5 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summery N X N X N X N X N X N N ______7k 50 26 01 75 49 25 g 14X 4 4 4 29X 29X 29X 4.___a?x__. 7 2 1 SOX 14X 7X _3 7 3 1 21^_ BOX 21X 7X __ 3 7 1 3 21X 5 OX 7X 21X 2 4 5 3 14X 29 X 36X 21 X 1 6 3 4 7X 43X 21X 29X 3 5 3 3 21 X 36X 21X 21 X Number Tested 14 - Mean Nat * I NCE________48..3__.. 14 ____58.1 1 4 ____56,0. 14 54.3 1 4 47.1 14 48.5 1 4 52.2 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N X N X N N X N N X N 76 50 26 99 75 49 01 -.25 0 3 5 _ ,17_ OX '12X 20X 68X 3 6 9 7 12X 24X 36X 28X 1 5 1 0 9 4X 2DX 40X 36X 0 6 7 12 OX 24X 28X 48X 1 1 1 1 12 4X 4X 44X 48X 0 5 1 1 9 OX SOX 44X 36X 0 5 9 1 1 OX 20X 44X Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE 25 33.8 25 44.3 25 40.2 25 38.0 25 35.9 25 41 .8 25 37.7 ALL BLACK TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N X N 'A N X N X N X N X N X . . 76 50 26 01 99... 75 49 25 -2.__5X.. 7 9 21 1 8X 23X 54X _ 7_ ____ 13 1 1 8 33X 2ex 21X 4 12 13 1 0 1 OX 3ix 33X 26X 3 13 8 15 8X 3rx 21 X 38X 3 5 1 6 15 ex 13X 41X 38X 1 1 1 14 13 3X 28X 36X 33X 3 1 0 12 1 4 8X 26X 31X 36 X Number Tested __Mean Nat M NCE. 39 .39.\u0026lt;.fl____ 39 49..3___ 33 ____45,9 39 .43.9 39 39,9 39 44.2 39 42.9I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J64d1 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 364 i -.t \" I ^'1 .4 SCHOOL: GRADE: GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 5 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary 76 99_._. 50 26 01. 75 49 25 Nueber Tested N X N X N X N X N X N N X 2 5X 1 9 S1 39 18X e3X 54X .7____1 8X 13 1 1 8 33X 28X 21X 4 12 13 1 0 10X 31X 33X 26X 3  13 8 15 8X 33X 21X 38% 3 5 1 6 15 8X 1 3X 41 X 38X 1 1 1 14 13 3X 28X 36X 33X 3 1 0 12 1 4 8X 26X 31 X 36X Mean Nat/,1_NCE_______39 \u0026lt;0 __ 39 .. -49 ,3 _ _ 39 ... 45.9 39 43.9 39 ___39.9 39 44.2 39 42.9 i . I .*T------------------ -1 I -^1 I J I J '1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution ttJ6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 365 J- I t- I SCHOOL: GRADE: CARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 6 WHITE FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Suamary.... 76 50 6 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat/1 NCE WHITE MALE Percentile Sumeary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE ALL WHITE Percentile Suaaary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE N 0 1 1 0 2 46.2 X OX SOX SOX OX TOTAL READING N 0 0 1 0 1 41 .3 N X N X N X N X N X N X ox ' ox 1 oox ox TOTAL READING N 0 1 2 0 3 44.6 X OX 33X 67X OX ^0 ' 0 1 1 OX OX SOX 50X 0 0 2 0 OX * OX 1 OOX OX 0 0 a 0 OX OX 1 OOX ox 0 1 1 0 OX 50X SOX OX 1 0 1 0 SOX OX 50X OX 0 0 e 0 OX OX 1 OOX OX 2 39.9 2 44.6 2 43.3 2 so. 0 2 57.6 2 46.6 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N 0 0 1 0 1 46.8 x' N N X N N X N OX OX 1 oox ox ___0 o'' 0 1 OX OX OX 1 OOX 0 0 1 0 ox OX 1 OOX OX 0 0 0 1 OX OX OX 1 OOX 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX ox OX 0 0 1 0 OX OX 1 OOX OX 1 1 1 1 ao.4 36.5 31 .5 51 . 1 1 37.7 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N 0 0 2 1 3 42.2 X N X N X N X N X N X _0X OX 67X 33X 0 0 2 1 OX OX 67X 33X 0 6 3 0 _0X OX 1 OOX OX 0 1 1 1 OX 33X 33X 33X 1 1 1 0 33X 33X 33X OX 0 0 3 0 OX OX 1 oox ox 3 36.5 3 41 . 0 3 43.8 3 55.4 3 43.6 ' I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 366 SCHOOL: GRADE: GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 6 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY ! i Percentile Summary N % N X N N X N X N X N 50 26 75 49 P1 - es 1 3 1 0 ...4 17X 56X 22X 3____l.TX 1 1 4 0 61 X 22% OX 6 5 7 0 33X 26X 39X OX 4 3 1 0 1 22X 17X 56X 6X 4 3 3 8 22X 17X 17X 44X 4 4 5 5 22X S2X esx 28X 4 3 1 0 1 22X 1 7X 56X 6X I. Number Tested Mean Nat:1 NCE 18 . - 44.3 1 6 .. .57.2 18 . 57,.7^ _. 18 52,4 1 8 45.0 18 49.4 1 8 50.9 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N X N X N X N X N X N N X 76 50 26 99 75 49 __01 - 25 1 4 3 _5, 8X 31X 23X 38X 3 2 5 23X 15X 38X 3 _23X 2 5 2 -4 15X 38X 15X 31X 1 5 2 5 8X 38X 15X 38X 4 2 4 3 31X 15X 31 X 23 X 2 6 3 2 15X 46X 23X 1 5X 1 5 3 4 8X 38X 23X 31 X Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE 13 41 . 6 13 47.8 1 3 46.8 13 44.6 1 3 48.8 13 52.9 13 46.5 ALL BLACK TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N X N X N X N X N X N X N X ____T6 -_99 50 26 01 75 43 25 _ 2 7 13 ^3 6X_ 23X 42X 97,,. .6____L9X__ 13 9 3 42X 29X .1 0?! 1 0 9 32X 29X t3X 5 6 12 6 _16X_. 26X 39X 1 9X 8 5 7 1 1 26X 1 6X 23X 35X 6 10 8 7 19X 32X 26X 23X 5 8 1 3 5 1 6X 26 X 42X 1 6X Number Tested Mean. Natll NCE. 31 43.2 .. 31 -__ .53 J5. 31 .._.53.1 31 49.1 31 46,6 31 50.9 31 49.0 I \u0026gt;I I t- !  i l- I '1 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: CARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 6 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Di st ribut ion TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE J6481 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 1 0/07/91 PAGE 367 COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Suanary -76 -^99 ... 50 26 01 - 75 - 49 - 25 Nuaber Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE____ I________ N X N X N X N X N X N N X 2 8 15 _? ._6X 24X 44X -6- ...ISX____ 1 3 1 1 4 3ex 32X 12X . Q 1 0 t 1 5 S4X 29X 32X 15X 5 8 15 6 15X e4X 44X 1 8X 8 6 8 1 2 24 X 18X 24X 35X 7 1 1 9 7 21 X 3 EX 26X 21X 5 8 1 6 5 15X 24X 47X 15X 34 .43.3 34 52.3 34 _ .51..7 .- 34 48.4 34 46.4 34 51 .3 34 48.5 I I - I I1 GARLAND SCHOOL ENROLLMENT GRADE LEVEL 4-year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 CBI TOTAL PERCENT B 268 BLACK WHITE OTHER M F M F M F TOTAL % BLACK 3 8 3 2 2 18 61% 15 15 19 14 17 20 26 6 135 48% 1989-90 W 0 T 12 22 11 21 13 17 17 6 127 45% % Blk B 1 1 1 3 2 10 4% 1 1 5 2 2% 1% 15 2 285 94% 211 28 39 34 35 32 38 43 12 279 96% 95% 88% 100% 94% 97% 100% 100% 94% 1990-91 1991-92 W 0 T % Blk B W 0 T % Blk 18 11 240 88% 262 15 2 279 94%Q recewep\noct 2 8 '992 GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL AND ARKANSAS HUMANITIES RESOURCE CENTER Office of Desegregation Moimoring PRESENTS .. PERSISTENCE OF THE SPIRIT PRESS RELEASE PHOTO EXHIBIT OFFERS NEW INSIGHTS INTO BLACK ARKANSANS EXPERIENCE IN ARKANSAS A traveling version of the photographic exhibit featuring 300 years of Arkansas black history, Persistence of the Spirit. wUl be on display at Garland Incentive School, 3615 West 25th Street, in Little Rock, from October 26 through November 1, 1992. This traveling exhibit was funded by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities with 'research funding from the Arkansas Humanities Council. A special cocnmunity presentation will be held on Sunday, November 1  ---------------- _____ .. ___ _ WMXivAwjr } vut Mvv A 1^92 from 2:30 p.m. to 4\n30 p.m..in honor of Dr. Ruth Polk Patterson, a former employee of the Little Rock School District. The exhibit and the accompanying video was done to honor Dr. Patterson In her efforts to include black studies as an integral component of the district's curriculum. The forty-eight exhibit panels, designed as a free-standing exhibit have been touring Arkansas since June, 1986. Again, Persistence will be on public view November 1, 1992, from 2:30 j).m. until 5:30 p.m. for area residents. This first-ever statewide research effort puts the experience of black Southerners west of the Mississippi into the lairger national context. It covers Arkansas history beginning In the sixteenth century with Desoto's famous expedition (that {passed through the Arkansas territory) up through contemporary times. 'Maps, diaries, engravings, letters, newspapers, and photographs reveal the extensive role blacks played lnj the making of Arkansas history and culture.0. I- Noted African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, commented: \"...Persistence of the Spirit is a landmarkan important achievement.\" The traveling version of this exhibit contains over 300 images of people and scenes, including the first recorded photo of a black Arkansasa Little Rock servant holding a small child in 1859. I i Viewers will discover many famous people who are native Arkansans. They are portrayed in a continuum of dedicated men and women who embody the spirit of their times. The exhibit is organized around five time periods: \"Black Pioneers\" (pre 1721 - 1803), \"No Share in the Harvest\" (1803 - 1860), \"First Freedom\" (1860 - 1900), \"tell em Were Rlsln'\" (1900 - 1954), and \"We Speak for Ourselves\" (1954 - 1986).. This first-time collection of photographs and essays reveals the breadth and depth of black life in the state of Arkansas. It demonstrates a legacy of struggle which persists in our time. The spirit of \"freedom and liberation\" continues to propel black Arkansans toward self-determination and justice in education. For more information, contact the Arkansas Humanities Resource Center, 10816 Executive Center'brive, Suite 310, Little Rock, AR 72211, (501) 221-0093 Mr. MalvinVdones President - Garland PTA  t. RECE5VSD TO: FROM Mrs. Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr. DATE: May 16, 1993 MAY 1 3 1993 Oifica of Oessgregation Monitoring SUBJ: AMPT Test Summary/Six Years I am providing you with, the results of Garleind'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 73 -5 79 84 88 86 84 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 Africein 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 TeamsOffice 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 September 28, 1993 Ms. Aletha Cirila 6310 Asher Avenue, Apt. 524 Uttle Rock, AR 72204-7746 Dear Aletha: 1 enjoyed meeting you over the phone last week and talking with you about your experiences in the Uttle Rock School District. Im so glad youre pleased with whats happening for your child at Garland Incentive School. Enclosed is the information I promised you: excerpts from the Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan (incentive school section) and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (public relations section). 1 think these sections contain the most information about your concerns and questions regarding incentives schools and the districts relationship with the community. 1 have asked a member of my staff, Mr. Bob Morgan, to look into your questions about the money allotted to Garland. Bob is out of state this week, but has already begun looking at the numbers and should have some information to share with you next week. He will either call or write you about what he finds. In the meantime, 1 hope youve heard from Mr. Millhollen and gotten at least some of your questions answered. Im very impressed with your interest and involvement. Tfianks for being persistent the issues you raise are important and deserve to be addressed. Please dont hesitate to let me know if 1 can be of any further help. Hang in there! Sincere yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. 5'. LmiE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT i Novesiber 4, 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: This document Included in this document is the information requested relative to Garland Incentive School as well as the Romine Interdistrict School. represents the best thinking of those ^V(^ved at the school level as to what programs might be helpful to the _ recruitment and retention of students at each of the facilities. I,' a--n--d- -I  sur e that you would agree, UtLhLdaVt we TTmlTlugTst do all in our p__o-w---e-r-- --t-o--- --i--n--c--r--e--a--s--e-- --t-h--e-- ---v--i--a--b---i-l-i--t-y--- --a--n--d- --v---i-s-biobtihl itoyf othfese schools _ as we try to grow them in population and make them more S'ttractive to parents and students. whether or not the acquisition of lie technology equipment will meet their intended purpose, that achievement, the inclusion of this technology does signa- to parents and the community that we are serious about our commitment to toese spools and are willing to support them in this effort to meet the instructional these schools. needs of students enrolled at I would also like to assure you that it is not the intent to ignore the practice of submitting business expenditures are necessary. requested in your 10-19-93 letter, that business or desire cases when program In the case of those that you , we were under the impression cases for these three projects were not necessary because they wree*r*r4e:i approved a-kvnszd^ khra^dJ .e.__ a_ _-t-i . - . implementation in the previous year'sf ubnuddsg eat.llocated to t-hpm for However, be that as it may, I assure you that you will receive all future ^d required documents on a timely basis as they relate to tthhiiss aanndd no+t-hbiaei-r* f\u0026lt;inan4cial c_ _o__n__s_i__d__e__r_a__t_i_o__n__s_ .. . .. ^*^2 -i-xa.ue uu in the budget decision making process. so that they might be used In this regard Finally, in your letter you also requested that we append other business cases for new positions since 10-28-93- in th^s recrard I Zin di created only one new position, Zhich later in this letter, but we have adjusted people currently on staff to meet some of these instructional and support services that are required by the 810 West Maridiam Little Rock, Arfcansas 72201  \u0026lt;501)32^000 U M X I- A wUUUX VlbU 4^ UU0/ UU4 Mrs. Ann Brown November 4, 1993 Page 2 District eind the Superintendent to meet needs and to help us focus our day to day operational more clearly on meeting the goals of the Changes ttit haTeiS. oS^S that will follow will use existing funds that have been an ?????? ftued or XJtloS 4at 22 t. changes have allowed us to free un funds to yhat ever changes that are nade, as we Jeo^gaSS^ f2 maxiinum efficiency. as we reorganize for With regard to the position that I like to suggest to you that I, as  xx beginning to evaluate existing personnel require other.people in this organ!^tion, wno are capable of discharging specific i----- ..... . referred to earlier, I would as a new Superintendent who is and the needs of the _ +.\u0026lt;4. 1 , , . responsibilities and who staff have not been trained to perform, or be accountable for. Therefore, I will propose to the Board allowed to o^anize with the addition of filled immediately or I will continue to of Directors that i be reorganizing for majcimum efficiency, one new position to be as soon as the position can be advertised, review our organization with the mind-set of recommendations in the future. and perhaps make other The following programs did not have business provided are the reasons for such decisions. Truancy Pick-up Program cases developed\nproposed was presented to the Board of S LS regularly-scheduled X.... meeting. The Board susmended the rules a. ' ' * to implement this program. Funds were' available in thi^^vlXw: SSi implemented since we were unabl? to place police resource officers in all of our hm suspended and voted moved to suspend the rules, and it carried  in.all of our schools. Mrs. Pat Gee Hamilton seconded the motion, unanimously for suspension of the rules. ____ , -----:-------...wo, ai wie ri? i Ag St??? for implementation of the program, Dr.' Katherine chell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. John BPP^he Interdistrict School Commuaicatien Station project. after of ^tation ..s n^Sd ?o' a encouraged to enhance this Windows on Future,\" and that we had11/04/93 13: 33 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @ 004/004 . Ann Brown November 4, 1993 Page 3 led to believe ^at would allow that We only needed to ua to sell Si SSiS -arfcetins coman.^J 4-..-^?? Educational Management have^ finalized tool that will this ----------coinmuni tv purchase and  - We '^ill begin highly pi to develop publicize this communication Garland , ^loation technology. Research ' Multimedia Teehnnln, MuItlBifidi a a marketing ghueational been ul We did not believe IS  allocated to that a fdnd the first pr puroSS\"\"*'\"/ =u\u0026lt;:4-S. int??n^ needed to infuse into incentive school ----- case 5S-JSSS  V^?..E-=lact. into i It was our\"oDi7r^n and support the 2.tegret?on''\nrSSi: our reasonable are reguirerSyT^ tusSS =- --------- cost of nearly two min inn Robert Brown e requested a conference to diicSj I as funds could be fSmatter, we Of tSe'SX^J?.^ -i-ting cases, as we projected therefore, a cost of proposal could be Phase'  --lop his\" considered by the It was also Of some of the proposal. the expertise their Should you call. i^eguire further document Bos-/I zq  Proposal. ____ eoa^d during the _ recommended that otrriculum supervi 1994-95 Garland utilize isors as they develop explanation, please d co not hesitate to Sincerely Henry HPW:nr Encl. 'Williams superintendent SchoolsODM Visits to LRSD Schools, Opening Days 1994 Garland Incentive School We were pleased to note that:  The hallways were clean, bright, and decorated with posters and signs of welcome.  Classrooms were neat, attractive, and prepared for children.  All staff and students we encountered were welcoming, friendly, and polite.  Children were busily engaged in learning and play activities\nsome were quietly eating lunch in the cafeteria.  Many students were wearing the attractive school uniforms.  Bilingual signs were posted throughout the halls, showing sensitivity to the school's significant Hispanic population.  The staff is more racially balanced this year with the addition of five white teachers, two of whom are male,  Fresh St, Augustine sod recently had been installed near the building's entrance, and new stands of grass were evident on the playground. We also noted some areas needing attention:  The exterior doors on the north side of the building were badly faded, and had suffered considerable water damage which caused the wood to become separated and shredded.  The boys bathroom on the first floor smelled strongly of urine, and accumulated dust covered the eye-level tile border.  One sixth grade classroom had a ceiling leak.  Brackets for the televisions and VCR's had not been mounted on the walls, inhibiting progress toward theme implementation,  Hallways throughout the building were marred by numerous small patches of missing paint, apparently where tape had been removed.April 18, 1994 Jerri Jo Tackett 23 Rio Grande Forest Dr. Little Rock, AR .72212 Dear Board Member\nI received a copy of this letter and the attached program at a meeting of the Arkansas School Counselor Association that 1 attended on Saturday, April 16,1994. I am forv.arding each of you a copy thinking that you may not have received your own. As an elementary counselor in this school district I am embarrassed for the principal and sad for the students at Garland Incentive School who experienced this public display of their test scores. I hope that you have worked with Mr. Brown and can assure the Arkansas Counseling Association that this blatant disregard of students rights to privacy will not occur again. I appreciate you handling this matter in a professional manner. Sincerely, I  Jo Tackett Occ I F r Qi COUNSELING 0 JUSLii 1 F March 16, 1994 Little Rock School Board 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72203 J Dear Board: The attached copy of a graduation attention of the Arkansas program has come to the Counseling Association and we have page where it lists the XuSSt'S.r' some serious concerns. r U.U ixsts rne student that passed the Minimum Performance Tests and passed (sic) the Stanforts^ ^s^lea ieil as Buckley Amendment and FERPA, like vou to ^iso, would illegal and violates both the is clearly , ------------3 guidelines. like you to note that people do not as 'ass an achievement test. As a counseling association, of this  we would like to see the creators program provided education and guidance and sensitivity to multi-cultural issues. on legal issues We appreciate your attention and issue. allowing us to present this Sincerely\", Counseling Association R. Blair Olsen Executive Secretary Arkansas Counseling Association Sonya Howard Ethics Chairperson cc to: Little Rock School Board President ACA Board President ASCA ________A Branch of the American Counseling Association________ 1421 Wilson  Arkadelphia  Arkansas  71923  (501) 246-7222* Garland Incentive School's 1993 6th Grade Graduates Males Robert Alien * Saphen Buford ** Richard Burton Marvin CoHfos r I EsbuIs Latasha Buder * Holly Carroll * Rites of Passage Awards Program Theme Children are the Reward of Life - -African Proverb DenaroCook V * Jaipes Fields * Wn^m Green * Ronald Harris Jerome Hunter  Michael Hunter * James Ivey * James Johnson  Vernon Jones ** Kdvy Matthews ** Steve Preston JodRodtiguei Jose Rodriguez * Steven Smith * Keith Tucker Valencia Coleman Ashley Hill  Terri Jackson  Eva King Alisha Lemons * Tameka Lewb * Simona Matthews * Eryn Surratt Gary Vanderbih * Qifton Watson f I I '.J\"? Processional Libations Salute Musical Selection Wtes of Passage Overview Recognition of Guest Sp\u0026lt;akrt Musical Selection Motivational Speech Presentation of Awards 6th gPade students - Peie Shonowa, Entrepreneur  The Uberation Flat' Mr. Ridtey Banks Steven Preston Student Council Vice-President Valencia Coleman 6th Grade Student Mr. Rickey Banks * Passed MPT (RK^ *  Passed MH* and Stanford-8 6ih Grade Teachers for Ms. Yolanda Andkrson Mr. Leroy Slater   Remarks Closing Sok \u0026lt;a-.' \\ S'- ' Recessional  Mr. Robert L Brown, Jr. Principal, Garland Incentive School  Mr. Robert L BTown, Jr. Principal, Garland Incentive School First Annual Overcomcr's Award Mr. Tetrence Hardin CAAJ. TJft Every Voice and Sing\" 6th grade students Recepdon-Media Cen ter Gland Incentive School Sth an/16th grade students only. i5-24-94 RECE5V HAY 2 6 1994 Office of Desegreg: idu ... \u0026lt;u Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: I must confess my enjoyment in reading one of your letters to a member of my staff. Their decision and response to the allegations shared with me by Dr. Henry Williams was accepted with much gratitude. The adversity has provided opportunities for this staff to grow closer together. We are hke a family, and all the children belong to us. Now it has fallen upon my shoulders to defend their honor and integrity. The enclosed letter from Ms. Elizabeth Boyter, Staff Attorney with the Arkansas Department of Education, reveals a serious allegation from within the Little Rock School District upper management. In response to the statement \"... because of past allegations of documents being altered,\" I have spoken with Dr. Bernd, Dr. Steele, Dr. Cannon and Mrs. Mary Guinn. None of them recall any problems with the testing program at Garland Incentive School. So the past allegations never reached the previous superintendents' level. Why has it come about at this time? I know what I think, but if a resolution is to be reached, my thoughts are insufficient to warrant a change in how matters are approached. If you can help us remove this illusion of dishonesty, we would appreciate your effort. Respectfully, tx Robert L. Brown, Jr.'IJJ iOS Il Aiiansas .4? DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION ----- 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-447.5 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division May 16, 1994 Mr. Henry Williams Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Brown Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Williams and Mr. Brown: I am forwarding you a copy of the Department's SAT 8 investigative report. If you need any additional Information, please let me know. Sincerely, Elizabeth Boyter STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chainnan - EIAINESCOTT, Utile Rock - Vice Chairman - RICHARD C. SMITH, JR. Tillar Members CARLE. BAGGETT. Rogers  WILLIAM B. FISHER. Paragould  JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR.. Fort Smith .JAMES A. McLARTY III. Newport  RAE RICE PERRY. Arkadelphia  SHERRY WALKER. Utile Rock  NANCY M. WOOD, Lillie Rock An Equal Opportunity Employer ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION Requested By: Elizabeth Boyter, Staff Attorney Arkansas Department of Education District Investigation: Little Rock School District Investigative Team: Vicki Gray, Administrative Advisor Student Assessment Yvette Dillingham, Supervisor Teacher Education and Licensure ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Summary of Allegations: Dave Floyd, Supervisor School Plant Service On April 19, 1994, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) received a letter concerning possible irregularities or violations of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition The letter was written by Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr., Principal, Garland Incentive School. school. Mr. Brown expressed concern about test security for the Summary of Investigative Activities: 1. On April 27, 1994 , a letter was sent to Dr. Williams, Superintendent, Little Rock School District, scheduling the investigation. 2 . On May 4, 1994, Vicki Gray, Yvette Dillingham and Dave Floyd interviewed individuals in the Little Rock School District. These individuals included: Dr. Superintendent\nDr. Research and Evaluation, Robert Glowers, and Hr. Principal, Garland Incentive School. Findings of Fact: 1. Dr. 2 . 3 . Henry Williams, Director of Planning, Robert L. Brown, Jr. , williams stated that Stanford 8 answer documents were picked up early from Garland Incentive School because of past allegations of documents being altered. Dr. Glowers did adjust the document pick-up for fourth grade to adhere to state guidelines. Mr. Brown was frustrated that his staff did not have time to tl clean up I the documents (i.e. etc.) before being picked up. erase stray marks. erasures, Mr. Brown was also concerned at the lack of an explanation for the early pick up of materials. * Conclusions: 1. There is no evidence that the security of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, was violated.06/02/94 17:15 Q FRIDAY LAW FIRM  002 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTER' TNORS The attached PRE-HEARING SUBMISSION draft Stipulation and Agreement Regarding Stephens and Garland Schools\" is hereby submitted as a document which, if finally agreed upon by the parties, will be presenlied to the court at or before the scheduled June 7, 1994 hearing. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By Christopher HellerJ ---- Ra-r Mn m n Q T Bar No. 8108306/02/94 17:16  FRIDAY LAW_JFIRM_____ @003 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a of the foregoing Pre-Hearing Subnlssion \"\"\" followin^pVopiri^dirositing in the United States mail on this 2nd day of June, 199c4o\npy cf same Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roache11 Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor -H---e--r-i-t--a-g-ae- West Bldg. Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Heller/^ 06/02/94 17:16 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @004 DRAFT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAI*ITIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT REGARDING STEPHENS AND GARLAND SCHOOLS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) has filed a \"Motion to Close Stephens School\" and has notified the court of its intention to seek permission to construct new school on the prtjsent a Stephens site. The parties have met to consider the issues re.'.ated to LRSD's motion and have reached the following stipulatior and agreement: 1. Stephens Incentive School will be closed at the er.d of the 1993-94 school year. Students who would otherwise have attended Stephens Incentive School will be assigned to Garland Incentive School but will have the option of attending ether Schools where their presence will aid desegregation. 2. LRSD shall build a new school within generally the same area in which Stephens and Garland schools are now located. The new school shall accommodate approximately seven hundred students06/02/94 17:17  FRIDAY LAW FIRM 0005 and will be constructed as soon as possible but shall be completed no later than July 31, 1996, 3. The new Stephens school will be a magnet school and the student body will consist primarily of black and white LRSD students and some majority-to-minority transfer students from PCSSD. PCSSD will attempt to recruit students to attend Stephens Magnet School but will not be required to provide a predeternined percentage of the student population of that school. 4. Garland Incentive School will be closed when Steohens Magnet School is opened. The former Garland students shaLl be assigned to Stephens Magnet School. The Garland building shall be used for school district purposes such as an instructional res-jurce center and/or parent training center. Students who reside within the area of the Stephens Magnet School shall be entitled to preferential assignment to the new school. 5. Stephens Magnet School shall provide a basic education program which may be modified upon an educationally justifiablt and financially feasible recommendation of Dr. Henry Williams. This provision shall not apply to any other superintendent unless same has been negotiated with the Joshua Intervenors \u0026lt; use for the school has been jointly determined. and an appropriate Stephens Magnet School shall have a bi-racial faculty with at least forty percent black faculty members. The educational program and other programs shall be conducted from perspective of integration among a principals, faculty, other staff members. parents and students. 206/02/94 17:18 FRIDAY LAW FIRM 006 Q The school will promote the use of uniforms as is done at Williams Magnet School unless it is demonstrated to be unfeasible. 6. Stephens Magnet School benefits which will provide the following are found in LRSD incentive schools: a. Extended Day Program including extra compensation for b. c. d. e. g- h. staff where necessary and appropriate\nExtended Week Program including extra compensation for staff where necessary and appropriate\nExtended Year Program including extra compensation for staff where necessary and appropriate\nEarly Childhood Program\nCurriculum Specialist\nStudent Educational Plans\nComputer Loan Program\nParent Programs including parents as tutors, aides and advisors. The parties do not intend that these positions will be reserved exclusively for parents. Parent support work shops shall be provided at least once each quarter of the school year. Parents shall be employed as aides with the expectation that they nay, in accordance with the desegregation plans, complete college teaching dagree programs leading to teacher certification at L-^SD's expense and enjoy possible career district. opportunities in the f. Upon a final court determination that scholarships for incentive school students are required by the desegregation p..ans. 306/02/94 17:19 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @007 scholarships shall be extended to Stephens Magnet School stidents on the same basis as they are made available to incentive /school students. 7. The goal for the racial composition of the new Stdphens Magnet School shall be fifty-five percent black student enro\n.lment with a target racial composition sixty-five percent black. range of fifty percent bleick to 8. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring has identified potential sources of magnet school funding which could be used to help support the Stephens Magnet School. LRSD will pursue federal magnet school grants and funds from other potential funding sources. 9, In the event that disputes arise with respect to this stipulation and agreement, they will be resolved among the parties and by the court in a manner consistent with the principals and expectations of the original settlement plans in this case. This agreement and stipulation made this 2nd day of June, 1994. Respectfully submitted, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 By:. M. Samuel Jones By:_________________ Christopher Heller 406/02/94 17:20 Q FRIDAY LAW FIRM  008 JOSHUA INTERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TOBY Bldg. Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 By:^_________________ John W. Walker By:______________ Steve Jones KNIGHT INTERVENORS Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 506/02/94 17:14  FRIDAY LAW FIRM  001 HERSCHEL M. RRIDAV, ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A, JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. SISEMAN. JR., P.A, JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR. JAMES C. CLARK. JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKUFF NISBET. JR., P A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL ill DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON It. P.A. BARRY e. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT $. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN 111, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL DIANE I. MACKEY. P.A. WALTS I M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN t. CRABS, P.A. WILLIA A A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A CLYDE TAB* TURNER. P.A. CALVIL J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY . MALONE. P.A. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201*3403 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 [ ] Copy and return with P.O.T. [ Return P.O.T. only TELECOPY TO FOLLOWING NO: THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR: TO: 4//A/ .zgAoVA/ FIRM NAME: FROM: MESSAGE: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES y THIS INFORMATION SHEET PLUS DATE: TIME: M. OAVuE CORLEY. P.A. RO8ER1 a. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE I ROWN, P.A. JAMES BAKER. JR., P.A. M. chai LES 08CHWEN0, JR.. P.A. MARRY i. LIGHT. R.A. SCOTT I. TUCKER JOHN C:.AYTON RANDOLPH GUY AL rON WADE PRICE c. Gardner J. MICH AEL PICKENS TONIA I . JONES DAVID }. WILSON JEFFRE H. MOORE ANDREI' T. TURNER JOHN R VY WHITE DAVID n. ORAF CARLA \u0026lt;. SPAINHOUR JOHN C FENOLEY.JR. ALLISOI. GRAVES BAZZEL JONANI C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRIITOPHER LAWSON GREGOFY D. TAYLOR TONY L WILCOX FRAN C HICKMAN BETTY DEMORY Cluwaii WILLIAI. J. SMITH WILLIA*\u0026lt; A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.a. B.S. CL. RK WILLIAK L. TERRY WILLIAL L. PATTON. JR.. P.A VRITiH'a OlHiCr NO. 7 PAGES __AM/PM IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES PLEASE CALL 501/376-2011 ASAP TRANSMITTING FROM: EXT. 215 TELECOPY OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: AUTOMATIC FAX MIDA CANON -560 -770 RAPICOM-200 (CLIENT NUMBER) - 501/376-2147 (MATTER number: U /J: ar capy of traarmUtlhrRECEIVER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 8 1994 Office of Desegregation Mo, ng LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT REGARDING STEPHENS AND GARU The Little Rock School District (LRSI Close Stephens School\" and has notified tl to seek permission to construct a new school on the present Stephens site. The parties have met to consider the issues related to LRSD's motion and have reached the following stipulation and agreement: 1. Stephens Incentive School will be closed at the end of the 1993-94 school year. Students who would otherwise have attended Stephens Incentive School shall be assigned to Garland or Franklin Incentive School but will have the option of attending other schools where their presence will aid desegregation. 2. LRSD shall build a new school within generally the same area in which the Stephens and Garland schools are now located. The new school shall accommodate approximately seven hundred kathy\\LRSD-At,.SQ J RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 8 1994 Office of Desegregation Mu... ...ng LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING STEPHENS AND GARLAND SCHOOLS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) has filed a \"Motion to Close Stephens School\" and has notified the court of its intention to seek permission to construct a new school on the present Stephens site. The parties have met to consider the issues related to LRSD's motion and have reached the following stipulation and agreement: 1. Stephens Incentive School will be closed at the end of the 1993-94 school year. Students who would otherwise have attended Stephens Incentive School shall be assigned to Garland or Franklin Incentive School but will have the option of attending other schools where their presence will aid desegregation. 2. LRSD shall build a new school within generally the same area in which the Stephens and Garland schools are now located. The new school shall accommodate approximately seven hundred kathy\\LRSD.Atr.Sl2students and will be constructed as soon as possible but shall be completed no later than July 31, 1996. The new Stephens school shall be a magnet school and the student body shall consist primarily of black and white LRSD students and some ma jority-to-minority transfer students from PCSSD. PCSSD will attempt to recruit students to attend Stephens Magnet School for purposes of desegregation but will not be required to provide a predetermined percentage of the student population of that school. 4. Garland Incentive School shall be closed as an educational learning center for elementary pupils when Stephens Magnet School is opened. The former Garland students shall be assigned to Stephens Magnet School. The Garland building shall be used for school district purposes such as an instructional resource center and as parent training center. Students who reside within the area of the Stephens Magnet School shall be entitled to preferential assignment to the new school. 5. Stephens Magnet School shall provide a basic education program with an appropriate theme which may be modified upon an educationally justifiable and financially feasible recommendation. Stephens Magnet School shall have a bi-racial faculty with at least forty percent black certified faculty members not including 3 . administrators. The educational program and other programs and activities shall be conducted from a perspective which promotes racial integration, rather than simply racial desegregation, among principals, faculty, other staff members, parents and students. laiiv\\LRSD-Atr.Sl2 2The school will also promote the use of uniforms as is done at Williams Magnet School unless it is demonstrated to be unfeasible. 6. The double funding provisions for Stephens and Garland schools shall apply to Stephens Magnet School unless and until the new school becomes an effectively desegregated school. In accordance with the standard established by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, double funding will not be required if and when the racial composition of the student population is at or below eighty percent black. The provisions of paragraph 7 of this agreement shall remain in effect after the double funding requirement has ended. Moreover, the Stephens Magnet School shall be funded at the level contemplated for the highest quality educational programs in the LRSD. 7. Stephens Magnet School shall provide the following benefits which are found in LRSD incentive schools: a. Extended Day Program including extra compensation for staff where necessary and appropriate\nb. Extended Week Program including extra compensation for staff where necessary and appropriate\nc. Extended Year Program including extra compensation for staff where necessary and appropriate\nd. Early Childhood Program\ne. Curriculum Specialist\nf. Student Educational Plans\ng- Computer Loan Program\nImtbyXLRSD-Agr.StZ 3h. Parent Programs including parents as tutors, instructional aides and advisors. The parties do not intend that these positions will be reserved exclusively for parents. Parent support workshops shall be provided at least once each quarter of the school year. Parents shall be employed as instructional aides with the expectation that they may, in accordance with the desegregation plans, complete college teaching degree programs leading to teacher certification at LRSD's expense and enjoy possible career opportunities in the districts. Upon a final court determination that scholarships for incentive school students are required by the desegregation plans as contended by Joshua, scholarships shall be extended to Stephens Magnet School students on the same basis as they are made available to incentive school students. 8. The goal for the racial composition of the new Stephens Magnet School shall be fifty-five percent black student enrollment with a target racial composition range of fifty percent black to sixty-five percent black. 9. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring and LRSD are aware of potential sources of magnet school funding. The parties believe that this funding could be used to help support the Stephens Magnet School. LRSD will pursue federal magnet school grants and funds from other potential funding sources. lathy \\LRSD-Aif.Sl2 410. All parties will be fully involved in the development of the new Stephens Magnet School to ensure that the desegregation plan objectives can be achieved. LRSD will cooperate with the parties to ensure that the new Stephens Magnet School is a properly utilized and efficiently operated educational facility from the onset and thereafter. 11, In the event that disputes arise with respect to this stipulation and agreement, they shall be resolved among the parties and. if necessary, by the court in a manner consistent with the principles, expectations, and goals of the original settlement plans in this case. 12, The parties believe that this stipulation and agreement is not only consistent with the settlement plans for Stephens and Garland schools, but that it provides a desegregation and education plan which IS superior to that contained in the settlement agreement. 13, The parties pledge their good faith cooperation in implementing this stipulation and agreement. 14, The parties agree to withdraw their appeal regarding Stephens school. 15, LRSD filed its Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites on April 6, 1994 and filed a substituted Exhibit 1 to that motion on April 21, 1994, The parties agree that early childhood programs within LRSD should be located in accordance with LRSD's motion and substituted Exhibit 1, lutfay\\LRSD-A^,Si2 516. The LRSD agrees to either resolve the matter of costs with Joshua or, failing resolution. to have the amount of same referred to the Court for disposition at the cost of the LRSD. 17. The parties agree that the combination of the operation of Washington Interdistrict Magnet School and the agreements contained in this stipulation and settlement satisfy the desegregation plan requirements for interdistrict schools required to be constructed within LRSD. No additional interdistrict schools within LRSD are required by the desegregation plans. The parties agree to cooperate with the City of Little Rock in an effort to enhance the facilities and educational opportunities of Stephens Magnet School. This agreement and stipulation made this day of June, 1994. Respectfully submitted, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 By: M. S el\\ Jones Christopher Hell kalhy\\LRSD-A,i.St2 6 \u0026lt; r JOSHUA INTERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Bldg. Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 ^ohn W. Walker By: Jones KNIGHT INTERVENORS Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 By: Richard Roachell kBthyKLRSD-ART .SC 7 JUL-13-94 WED 9:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P.Ol FILED U.S DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES w. MCCORMACK. CLERK _______ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS M - 1 / / KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS little ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE TO JOSHUA PROPOSED. ORDER REGARDING STEPHENS AND GARLAND SCHOOLS For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states J 1. The Joshua Intervenors have provided the Court a proposed order concerning Stephens and Garland schools. a The proposed order follows stipulation and agreement among all the parties concerning the stephens and Garland issues and a June 7, hearing concerning those issues. 1994 2. LRSD is in agreement with the proposed order. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above, LRSD prays for the entry of an order approving the stipulation and agreement of the parties such as the order proposed by the Joshua Intervenors. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTJUL-13-94 WED 9:35 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heiier CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School and Joshua Proposed Order Regarding Stephens and Garland Schools has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 7th day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 kiky\\P-SkU3,,.ftD 2JUL-13-94 WED 9:35 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 stopher Hell 3LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT QU1Z:SSPLST POSITION SUPPORT POSITIONS ______STAFF A! GARLAND BLACK M F CAFETERIA WORKER CUSTODIANS MEDIA CLERK SECRETARY NURSE SOCIAL WORKER INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES SUPERVISION AIDES OTHER SUBTOTAL SUPPORT POSITIONS 0 2 0 0 0 02 0 1 3 10 0 0 1 11 2 0 :l 5 18 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 16.67 60.00 nF 11/10/94 WHITE M F OTHER M F TOTAL % BLACK 0 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 1 11 1 16 31 100.00 100.00 00 00 00 100.00 81.25 66.67 . 100.00 b 5 0 2 30 76.67 00 16.67 00 6.67 30 76.67 MAP-3 1-95 FR I 01:16 PM UUkLBBBB G A R L A D 5016716295 P - 0 .2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTR ICT Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research 361$ West 2$th 1-27-93  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Dear Garland Parents, In an effort to provide our students. , '* wfll implement the program on Monday January 30 new policy to all ' \" environment 1995. for counselor. students on Monday mornlna 4-b.r% ______________.. behavior management The teachers will teach the Mrs. Jones, school reinforce the rul.: Sfth vouMihf.d,/\n' Pleeii that we are all working Woether a^^^^  =''\" ^'em the most important thing to happen at school e rules to all As our discipline plan suspension room and lunch detent! The in-school suspension will be used school suspensions part of behavior. to out of we will establish __ an ln-3chool on as a consequence for negative (please refer to your Responsibility Handbook), receive an expulsion Rock Police Department will also committing category three offenses. , - as an alternative for category one and two offenses of the Student's Rights copy uiiB oruaent's and in category three In-School will recomaiendatlon. be notified for The Little students Suspension will be Mnned by a certified teacher. Students will report as soon  \\ * certified teacher, until the close ^of school Reou\\a^r nd remain there the in-achool teacher their S^ve the assignments In-school and the tearh ' will complete back to the classroom teachi^ for students to maintain their  ^^i '*ill enable assigned to in-school will grades while on %uape\\on^ computer, G.T., or other clashes \"ft, will also be prohibited from utt Activities until they complete principal will Students P.E., music, assign students to In-school. _ J . ^cr.d a conference with the principal before the student call if the time required to^ attend except resource classes. attending assemblies and Extended Dav \u0026gt; their in-school days. * ' Students Only the child, Parents will be teacher, return to the classroom. scheduled is not convenient. and Please recess wrltt.n .nd ou_l and ,,.t.d K V '-------- ' remain quiet and Students who choose not to behave---------- assigned extra iyi. TeVcSJr \"\" detention may be hall. leacners will make assignments to detention IMAR-31-95 FR I 01:17 PM GARLAND 5016716295 P . 04 GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE PLAN CLASSROOM RUT\u0026gt;ES\nSTUDENTS WILL: FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF ALL STAFF MEMBERS. RESPECT THE RIGHTS, FEELINGS, AND PROPERTY OF OTHERS KEEP HANDS, PEET, AND OBJECTS TO MYSELF. WALK QUIETLY IN THE BUILDING AT ALL TIMES. CAFETERIA RULES\nSTUDENTS WILL: STAY IN ASSIGNED AREA UNTIL DISMISSED BY SUPERVISION AIDE. USE QUIET VOICES AND GOOD MANNERS. LEAVE EATING AREA CLEAN. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES: FIRST OFFENSE - WARNING SECOND OFFENSE - RECESS DETENTION THIRD OFFENSE - CALL PARENTS/BEHAVIOR DOCUMENT FOURTH OFFENSE - TIME OUT IN BUDDY TEACHERS RGOMZBEHAVIOR DOCUMENT POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES: EACH classroom TEACHER WILL DEVELOP AND POST CLASSROOM CONSEQUENCES POSITIVE A STUDENT RECEIVING THREE BEHAVIOR DOCUMENTS IN A FIVE DAY PERIOD SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE ATTACH THE THREE BEHAVIOR DOCUMENTS TO THE LONG FORM AND SEND TO THE OFFICE. UPON RECEIPT OF THE THIRD BEHAVIOR DOCUMENT A CONFERENCE WILL BE SET-UP BETWEEN THE STUDENT PARENT TEACHER, AND PRINCIPAL. UPON THE FOURTH BEHAVIOR DOCUMENT IN A FIVE DAY PERIOD, A STUDENT WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THREE DAYS INSCHOOL SUSPENSION. SEVERE BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE SENT TO THE OFFICE IMMEDIATELY! ONLY SEVERE BEHAVIOR OR THREE BEHAVIOR DOCUMENTS IN A FIVE DAY PERIOD SHOULD BE WRITTEN UP ON A LONG FORM. ALL CATEGORY THREE OFFENSES SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO PRINCIPAL'S ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY. THE MEiiMrii^R-3 1-95 FR I 0 1:16 PM GARLAND 5016T16295 P , 0.3 Students who continue to break the rules may receive a different deemed appropriate by the principal.' nDrICSDPLT AAYV ErYXrTnRDEPMiiPE BBEPtHrwAVr\u0026gt;Ii\u0026gt;OARn MAY _B_E_ _ _R__E__F__E_R\u0026lt; R.. E_ D TrO  STUDENTS THAT THE OFFICE IMMEDIATELY. Since we are serious about improving student achievement nt taught conflict resolution by Mrs. ---------- Ms. Webb, Social Worker, will work with them respect themselves and other Jones. people. students to help Thank you for your help in making importance of a good educatl on. your child aware of the Sincerely, Karen Buchanan, Principal Amm4cie* Wright, resi nt c% Cher nselor JiOnes, ------------------------- Catherine Webb, Social Worker Mic el' Green, Discipline o. ittee 7^ Di ipline Co ittee ^aylor, Discipline Committee Faye/ Norviopd, Discipline Committee Mary Smith Discipline jiommittee i. 1. m.-VtXzXGEMI-.N 1 QIJAKIi.rly KEIOIU Sctiodi Garland Beginning Period I rin\u0026lt;ipj|_tWard Ending Period _Aiigiist 21,199 5 October 17,1995 PART I. Please indicate number of suspensions by race and category. A. Out of School Suspensions - Category I Violations j Gtik. R:\u0026gt;.k F Total Black While F Total While Spanikh M F Ttiial Span Aaia/Pav M F Total Alia/ Pac ind/E\u0026gt;k M F Tula! Ind/ Elk Other F Total Other Tou J. i 1 1 1 1 r d h - ... ,tliL rv 3|fiCi CL twiiiwo a. T.-al.n Ciliii.m 2 'X H. l-ong-Term Suspension - Category 11 Violations Gradct Black Total Black While Tmil While Spanikh Total Span Aaia/Pac Total Alia/ Pac Ind/Eik Total Ind/ Elk Other Total tXher Tola: F M F M F M F M F M F L____ r Total! P='' column C. Expulsions - Category III Violations GiaJei Black Xi F T.il.l Slick White M F Total White Spaniah M F Total Span Aaia/Ptc M F Toiel Alta/ Pac Ind/Esk M F Total Ind/ Kak Other M F Total Other Totah I- L T.xah volutnn NOPE: Period. Quarterly Reports are due in the Hearing Office one (1) week following the end of each (Ir.ulir SEE RIAERSE FOR PARTS 11, III AND IV.Sewt Himut PART II, Please complete. NOTE: These llgiircs are to be included in Part I. NO! E. Students on Sent Homes M lolal Black Wbiu M F Ttal While 'xnrlMund \u0026gt;5lms(irn luk bun tab arc not included in Part I. Spanish M F TMI Span Aiia/p.u M F Tia| Asia/ Pac Ind/Esk M F Tt'ial InJZ F k (iihcf M F Toijl Oihcr T.t.. 1 1 1 1 I i! !l !i 1 II II J T It ll 'I PART in. Personal Data - Please indicate recommending the various suspensions. race, sex and experience of staff members- . ichinf 0-3 . 4 10 lt-I5 16-20 21-25 26-30 JO Over Total! Je I Black M * 1 F 2 PART IV. Black M F  JJ, 16 11 IB 15 19 15 -Lh lA 4 12 16 4 3 127 )tDU\u0026lt;'UCMr,CBB Total Black 2 U-hiitf M F Total Wliite Spanish M I- Total Span Aaia/Pac M F Total Asia/ Pac IntPEsk M F Total lod/ Fxk , Other F Txttal Other Toul* I 1 3 3 Enrollment Data - Please indicate and Race. your schools enrollment by Grade Level, Se: ex Total Black WJtiie M F Total White Spanish K1 F 1 la. 32. 32 23. 29 35 1 0 1 0_ 0 7 108 P).3S^ 1 A 1 1 2 1 13 Tout Span 5. 0 AtiaZPac M F Total Asia/ Pac InJ/Fsk F Total InJ/ Fsk Other F Total Other Tetais Per C.M.Ie 18 J 2. 0 A 1 2 1 1 6 3 3 2 29 38 30 35 29 32 38 -7 255c,! Garland loc.QnLlVfl - negiuhirtl PFrioii J^a\u0026lt;EiLria26-_______ fcy F E^FEL,-,___ tndinj 1i'j PART I. Ibrcli-ll, 1996 Pleave indicaic number of suspensions by race and category A. Out of -School -Suspensions - Caiegoi'y I Violalion s Black M F Bu\u0026lt;k M f Ts^ti WUiu Sfinith H T.iul Spn Aiii'F*\nM f LMtl Aau/ hkbFkX ~\nrr~ li\u0026gt;J/ Fkk V \u0026gt;ih\u0026lt;r Ki TiHii (Hh^e T,.. I T -n Crrinnrrt B-^SSfes-Term Suspension - Category il Violations (3-10 days) 6 Ka:k x\u0026lt; rm Kk Tom ww IL 0 Tdel AM/rr T(l Atia/ Ftk- IL -fi.- tr'4'f k Told IlKlf Other rm F.k M 1. JI,-  \u0026lt;'\u0026gt;she( ______IL... T.'Ul* -I 15 XU 0 _0_ F M r M M F F 2 8 0 X 1 0 7 0 0 lull r\" TC't\u0026gt;ar\u0026gt;\u0026gt;n 1 14 21 0 0 0 X-siL. C. Expulsions - Category III Violations G\u0026gt;a\u0026lt;il F Tout (wk M TMd WMU M r T,.l Jptu Ak/FH M M'Fik Fk crriiai M F Tsaul Fak OUtir KI F foul (Xhvf r-uu mr. A-ii.. .:rtbz NOTE: Quarterly Reports are due in the Hearing Office one (I) neck following ihe end of each tu.uiuip Pcno.t, SEE REVHKSK for r-ARTS II. Ill AND |V.PAH r ii. Pic.ivc coinpklc. NOTH: These hgurcs nrc (a be irwludod in Part I. **NOTF.: Siudenia on Sent Homes arc not included in Part 1. ni.A M 1iU4| I',lit I Wutt! T\u0026lt;4O M .tpAniifc rz: fl i n rti^ I wMzm^ \u0026lt; -1 n M r- T.ImI Spirt Aiii'Pmc H f T.rtl Ami/ r.- H F Ti'isl InJ' cn Other h( F l..nl llili.'r -A J PAR7' HJ. Personal |\u0026gt;aia - Plcatc indicate race, sex and experience of iiaff members rceomniending the varioxit tuspciisions. Tdivkinj Expefjcrx e Bilik Tu.il CliA u-hiiv' T.-.I VkStiK Srni-4i TvUI Srsrt Aaa/Pu Tixil AlIV F*v Ud'F'k Tout (k Other Kf T.Mll (KB.I \u0026lt; tn 1. .L 0 11 0 Ills isjo .2. IIJS !*.sn so fXtl 0 3 Tiu)* M I F M F M F F F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 6 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 PART IV. Enrollincni Dau - Please indicate your school's enrollment by Grade Pevei, Sex and Race, .wjiTs. a' - nr 3. Grd MKk M f T.l tiuk WIhU til r Tout S*I11M ^..lA Pre-K J... T M F ToM **\u0026gt; AateiTM M F Tout A*u/ Fk M/Crt M F Tixt U4I ek Oi*\u0026lt;f r.Ki Fl F (kiKi hl CiMj K 12 17 29 JI 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 18 29 lat IBIS 33 0 . 4 0 4  0 0 0 37 2nd 16 11 3rd 27 0 Q 1 1 0 2 1 3 0 0 ...._0_ 28 4 th a_lXL.27, 0 0 5 til 6th CBl 20 5 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 16 3 36 8 n^i. 128 111 239 ,tAA 1 1 0 0 _0____J59.. 0 ._27., 1 0 2, 1 i 1 2 2 0  \"o 0 0 0 0 o' 0 39 8 1 11 6 17 0 0 0 257S'-t'Qc' GAPLAW) TNCENTIVE-. lUftinrtine Pt'io'i A?.5_..... r\n' r '^l.U.QSEL- WA(W-.. Tridhg rei''!!.QECEMBEK, 19,12?5,_____ f'AKT I Plejie indicate nurnbei of suspensions by race and category A. ()iii 01 School Sijs|)ensinns  Category I Vlolaiiisns t Btr Ki T.riI 6i(k M F TsMd WfciM M F TcUl bj'sn Axft/Nc T'Atl I.U'bh M F j\n' ' Aua/ Fd Tuul ItvJ^ Fak K T..ii Oihv-f T,- .0. X!. 1 .-.S-ftO- T -I., f ' 1 1 0 0 0 0 2^ 1 B' JS^jjg-Term Suspension - Category 11 Violations (3-10 days) \u0026lt;jrJ A. 5 T.-iwft.n tick KI 1. 1 4 Teu) a^k 1 i. Wkiu ToiH Ta4l AaiAfftr\n9\u0026lt; I Tout Alia/ Fif E\u0026gt;k XL Oth4r *3 r\u0026gt;(tl -Q_. ______0_ -a Touh 1- _,L .(! F M F 0 0 M F UlJff.k H r r M F 6 0 A 0 0 0 0 A 0 1 C. Expulsions - Caiegory HI Violations n/a M F T*(l aw* HX M F WlHH M F Toui  IIMPHH A4WrM M F T^l Ama/ F\u0026gt;i M\u0026gt;Fk M F TsMkI Fkk OOitr K( Thul (HH.r T ol. r.\n=t\nNOI E: Quittcriy Reports are due in the Hearing office one (i) week lolloping the end of cadi (.i.uhng Pf not. \u0026lt;\ni E RE\\ I'RSB for parts II, HI ANb |V.WWW\" PAH r 11. Plc.isc coinpluic. NO! P: These figures are ie\u0026gt; be iiKludcd in Pari I. 'NOi r,.' Siudeiiis on Sent Homes arc nol included in Part I. D kt' ni.A niitk T.Jsl SVhIK $pahiak T.'Ul S|isn Ati*/P4s- Tl*l A'tl/ rue T..4SI inJI t*fc Oihdf Kt T.'OI I Still I T,v.'. M M r M F F PART Id. Personal Data - Plcatc indicate race, sex and experience of Jiaff membeu tcccmtnending the various suspensions. Tehin/ EjpcncfKc 0-5 10 II 15 lA-lO 11 isjo mo. Toul. f.^il Oil. I Whj\u0026lt; Tuul $r*n Tool Ati*/ am Jrtd-F'k Kf TmI I|i4/ Ilk ntMr Kt T.\u0026gt;il (Wi.r T.Ub 2 0., iL . JI 0. .n. M F 2L M F 0 H 0 0 0 0 M 0 F F F 1 9 1 3 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 PART IV. Lnrollincnt Oabi - Please indicate your schools enrollment by Grade Level. .Sex and Race. Cr4 Tnul f4\u0026lt;K SI ToU ~ WhtW TiM AU/Kh Tout AmZ Fk U4/C4 \u0026gt; Tmil l\u0026gt;4/ Elk CiMf \u0026gt;77 F T.aal 01X0 r,i OrkJ-- Ji M 16 Li. U. 12 Ai 28 33 28 18 16 34 15 12 27 (I 0 J3_,. J)_ U.,,. ,JA_ _____AL -..JJ_____LSL,  0 __3L 5 6 CM 17 18 5 fl2 17 .3 _0 1) 0 0 o' 0 BW TOTAL 125 110 2.55 12 5 1? 38 1 jj 253 lllxiww^rrwian (Sa M f Pre=K_ii\u0026amp;. 1 1 3 4 8 1 1 r 0 0 M r M a M 0 i 0 X 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 1 4 1 1 T 0 0 2 1 T 4 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 li__ ...2S-.. 0 0 0 0 IGARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL EXTENDED DAY SATURDAY SEX/RACE BREAKDOWN Date I fXctivity October 21, 1995 IMAX Theater November 18. 95 Mid-Amer Musewm - Hots Springs January 20, 1996 Franklin Tech February 24, 1996 Aoril 13, 1996 Extravaganza ___ AR Ans Center and Science Museum Pariv in the Park Sponsor Rightsell Rockefeller j Franklin I Garland Mitchell Total 97 92 72 67 I BM I BF I WM I WF 40 42 28 1 34 ll O.M OF 44 41 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 I 2 3 3 2 3TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ms . kt Little Rock School District\nOctober 24, 1996 J'- 2 J997 0 Office of Desegregaiion Monloring Lionel Ward, Principal, Garland Incentive Carla Miranda, Aide, Garland Incentive Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent Frank Martin, \u0026lt;1 Executive Director, T.P 'Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations Abuse Complaint Made By Carla Miranda Miranda in a workers' compensation claim made that she was physically and verbally abused by her r allegations Mr. Ward. Based on workers' compensation the claim. written icipal, Mr. report attache Mark Milhollen, to Manager the of Support Services, needed to review. informed me that there was a claim that I I interviewed Ms. Miranda in the presence or Dr. Director of Human Resources and her union representatives. Hurley, In the interview Ms. Miranda reiterated the claims that she had made in the attachmenr she put on the claim form. 1 asked Ms. Miranda a direct question. \"Do you believe that Mr. Ward intentionally shoved the door into you or struck you with the door?\" She answered. \"No. \" Ms. Miranda gave me the names confirm her allegations because of people of their she believed could incidents she alleged. proximity to the The review of the site where the door was allegedly slammed into Ms. Mr. Miranda showed that there was no possible way that Ward or anyone else could have known that Ms. Miranda was behind the door. The door is solid. without a window. and opens so that it is behind it. impossible to see anyone who might be 810 West Markham Street Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 I interviewed Mr. Ward at the school and informed him of the allegations happened. Miranda. 1 and asked him to tell me his version of what He denied any verbal and/or physical abuse of Ms. He told me that he would cooperate completely and understood the need for the investigation. As evidenced by the attachments, follow-up interviews were done by Dr. Hurley with the people that Ms. Miranda said could support her allegations. In an October 21, 1996, memo to me. Dr. findings do not support any allegations Hurley stated, of any incident \"My of striking or grabbing Ms. Miranda or of any profane or loud, abusive language directed at her by Mr. Ward.\" There is no basis for any disciplinary action against Mr. Ward related to claims of abuse made by Ms. Miranda. Additionally, the evidence shows that if Ms. Miranda's arm was struck by Mr. Ward opening a door into her. it would have been for him to know she was standing behind the door. impossible If it occurred, it could not have been an intentional act. By copy of this memo and the attachments. I will also inrormi the LRSD workers' compensation carrier or these internal findings. cc: Mark Milhollen Workers' Compensation Carrier AttachmentsARKANSAS CENTER FORSURGERK OF TH.E HAND AND UPPER EXTRE3im Eduard R. Weber. M.D. Michael M, Moore. M.D, G. Thomas Frazier. M.D. Joseph E. Sheppard. M.D. Marcia L. Hixson. M.D. October 8, 1996 Members of the American Societs forSurcerv of the Hand Dioiomais of the .Amcncan Board of Orthopaedic .Surgeons with .Added CcntHcation in Hana Surgers Fefiows of the .American Academy oi Onhopaedic Surgeons Public Employee Claims Division 217 University Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72204 Attention Alan McClain JAN 2 W Office of Desegregation Monitoring Re\nCarla Miranda Claim #PE941608 WCC File #E410054 Dear Mr. McClain\nI re-examined Carla Miranda on 10/08/96. Her arm is much better following her injury at work. She has been off work since the accident on 08/30/96 until the present time. She is currently under the care of Dr. Sherman at DAMS and, at this time, she is off for psychological and emotional reasons. I will be happy to see Ms. Miranda back as needed. Please let me know if I can supply any additional information. PATIENT INFOR.MATION. SCHEDULING soil 66U-40SS 18001 SSn-4088 Sincerely yours, -z Marcia L. Hixson, M.D. E.MERGENCY HAND HOTLINE  S(X) 1 84-W.A.VD i5011 663-8400 MLH/ph/lO15 1008mira.c LITTLE ROCK Doctors Plaza Suite 200 VX) S. .'VlcKinley Little Rock. AR 72205 15011 664-4088 '8001 880-4088 Fa.x: (501) 664-7113 cc: Pamela S. Brown, M.D. 9501 Lite Drive, S-195 Little Rock. AR 72205 Zan Davis Attorney at Law 400 West Capitol, S-2422 Little Rock, AR 72201 PINE BLL'FF 1801 W. 40th 5-C Pine Bluff. AR 71603 '501)535-7231 Allen Sherman. M.D. UAMS, Slot 543 4301 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 Carla Miranda 13006 El Rd Little Rock, AR 72206 HOPE 4()7 W. I6lh Hope. AR 71801 501)777-8110 Fax: (501 \u0026gt;722-2231 Municipal League of Workers' Compensation P.O, Box 37 North Little Rock. AR 72115 Attention Amy Boswell I I interviewed Mr. Ward at the school and informed him of the allegations happened. Miranda. 1 and asked him to tell me his version of what He denied any verbal and/or physical abuse of Ms. He told me that he would cooperate completely and understood the need for the investigation. As evidenced by the attachments, follow-up interviews were \u0026amp; done by Dr. Hurley with the people that Ms. Miranda said could support her allegations. In an October 21, 1996, memo to me. Dr. Hurley stated, \"My I 8 I I I findings do not striking or grabbing Ms. support any allegations of any incident of Miranda or of any profane or loud. abusive language directed at her by Mr. Ward.\" There is no basis for any disciplinary action against Mr. Ward related to claims of abuse made by Ms. Miranda. Additionally, the evidence shows that if Ms. Miranda's arm was struck by Mr. Ward opening for him to occurred, a door into her. know she was it would have been standing behind the door. it could not have been an intentional By copy of this memo and the attachments. the LRSD workers' compensation carrier act. I will of impossible also these If it inform nternal findings. c Mark Milhollen Workers' Compensation Carrier Attachments I 4 IOctober 21, 1996 J RECEIVED To: Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations 2 1995 Hurle' From: Dick Hurley, Director of Human Resources ^Office ot O339grega\ni\u0026amp;n Monitcriiig r Subject: Garland investigation Per your request, I went to Garland elementary school to investigate an alleged incident involving Mr. Lionel Ward and Ms. Carla Miranda. Ms. Miranda had alleged that Mr. Ward had hit her with a door and, later, had grabbed her arm forcefully. My initial involvement was to attend a meeting in your office with Ms. Miranda. My notes from that meeting are attached. Ms. Miranda provided the names of three people that she felt could corroborate her version of the incident. At least, she said, they were in the area and would have heard something. When I went to the school, Mr. Ward met me and asked me into his office and proceeded to provide me with background documentation regarding his relationship with Ms. Miranda. I informed him that my participation was narrow in scope and was only intended to follow up on Ms. Mirandas allegations. He insisted that even a narrow focus investigation would necessitate understanding the overall picture, so he provided several documents which I kept. I interviewed the school secretary (Ms. Pat Crosslin) and Mrs. Harshaw, an aide who also works in the office. These were two names provided to me by Ms. Miranda. The third person, Ms. Rogers was out of the building for staff development and I decided to interview her by phone later when she was available. Mr. Ward asked me to interview Ms. Thelma Coleman because she works in the library and would have been present during any incident occur in that area. .'hich may My interview notes are attached. My findings do not support any allegations of any incident of striking or grabbing Ms. Miranda or of any profane or loud, abusive language directed at her by Mr. Ward.Interview of Ms. Thelma Coleman (Note\nThe question presented was: There has been an alleged incident that any have occurred between Mr. Ward and Ms. Miranda in the time frame between late August or early September. Can you please tell me what first-hand knowledge you have of any physical or verbal incident which may have occurred between Mr. Ward and Ms. Miranda during that time frame?) I did not observe anything at all. There was no problem in the library that I am aware of. I did not see or hear any incident. I did not hear any loud conversation.Interview of Ms. Harshaw (Note: The question presented was: There has been an alleged incident that any have occurred between Mr. Ward and Ms. Miranda in the time frame between late August or early September. Can you please tell me what first-hand knowledge you have of any physical or verbal incident which may have occurred between Mr. Ward and Ms. Miranda during that time frame?) Mr. Ward and Ms. Norwood were in the office. Ms. Miranda was walking around out in the hallway and looked as if she was distressed. Like she didnt want to go into the office, but was going to go in anyway. It was a morning when I came over here (the office) to work. Mr. Ward had put me in the office a couple of hours each day before I go to my classroom as an Aide. I think the other Aides were jealous because Ms. Miranda would shun me....That is not the Christian thing to do. I quit speaking to Ms. Miranda, because she would not speak to me. My daughter said ms. Miranda was mean to her in her classroom. I went to Mr. Ward to get my child moved but he said no and he would speak to the teacher, Ms. Arnold. The teacher is nice to me and my daughter but Ms. Miranda is not. The teacher talked to Ms. Miranda and she started being better to my daughter. The social worker told me there were other problems with ms. Miranda but I only care about my daughter. I saw Ms. Miranda when I walked down the hallway. I was going to the busses when I saw her. I was in the main hallway, and she was outside Mr. Wards office in an agitated mood. Mr. Ward was in the office with Ms. Norwood. I didnt see or hear anything else.Interview with Ms. Pat Crosslin (School secretary) (Note\nThe question presented was: There has been an alleged incident that any have occurred between Mr. Ward and Ms. Miranda in the time frame between late August or early September. Can you please tell me what first-hand knowledge you have of any physical or verbal incident which may have occurred between Mr. Ward and Ms. Miranda during that time frame?) I know nothing about anything that might have happened in the library. I do know that Ms. Miranda came into the office and leaned on the counter with her arms full. She said \"I am waiting for Mr. Ward. She went in his office and the door was partially closed. She was there twice on the same day, about 10 or 15 minutes apart. I did not see or hear anything improper. If she was hurt, I dont know anything about it. I give out the workers comp forms and she did not ask for one. She didnt appear to be injured at all when she came into the office and leaned on the counter.Interview (by phone) of Ms. Rogers (Note: The question presented was: There has been an alleged incident that any have occurred between Mr. Ward and Ms. Miranda in the time frame between late August or early September. Can you please tell me what first-hand knowledge you have of any physical or verbal incident which may have occurred between Mr. Ward and Ms. Miranda during that time frame?) I saw and heard nothing myself. Mr. Ward.had made a schedule change, so me and her came in to ask him about it. He said he wasnt going to change it, so we left. I was going to get moved into the room she had and she wanted to keep it, so I didnt care and that is why we went. But, he is authority, so I knew it was no use. There is nothing I seen or heard. I am not a witness to anything. I heard stuff through the grapevine, but I did not see anything. We came from the library together and we left his office together.Meeting with Carla Miranda October 10, 1996 Brady Gadberrys Office B.G. I have talked to Mr. Ward. I did not talk to the others. C.M. Will you do it please? B.G. C.M. Do you still wish to transfer? I want my job back and for him to go home. I dont believe he hit me intentionally. I believe you are responsible for your actions. You dont blow up...You maintain control. If someone blows up because you called the Union, they are out of control. B.G. Do you want to transfer out of the building? Previously, you agreed to a transfer but when we made it possible, you backed out. Now I am asking you Do you want to transfer? C.M. If he is staying, yes, I want out! I dont think I should have to move out. B.G. I want this to be perfectly clear...Mr. Ward is the building administrator and, as such, has the authority to place you where he wants for the betterment of the school. What is done regarding Mr. Ward will be confidential. Any action, up to and including Board action, is private according to law. We will follow-up and take whatever action is deemed appropriate. If you want to transfer, we will make every attempt to move you. If nothing is found within two weeks, we will make a place until something can be found. C.M. Im under Doctors care just to get out of the house. My surgeon is Marcia Hickson. My Counselor is Allen Sherman at the Medical Center.C.M. I want you to ask the others about the things going on. B.G. Give me their names and I will ask Dr. Hurley to follow up and interview the people. Note: Ms. Miranda provided the names of Mrs. Rogers, the School secretary, and Mrs. Harshaw.Interview with Ms. Faye Norwood (School CTA Representative) (Note: The question presented was: There has been an alleged incident that any have occurred between Mr. Ward and Ms. Miranda in the time frame between late August or early September. Can you please tell me what first-hand knowledge you have of any physical or verbal incident which may have occurred between Mr. Ward and Ms. Miranda during that time frame?) I was not aware of any incident at all. I was called in as a witness because of my Union position. Nothing out of the way was said or done while I was present. Mr. Ward passed a letter to her to sign. She signed it and I signed it as a witness. I didnt even read the letter. There were no loud voices or profanities or anything. I had got called on the intercom to come to the office and I came. Mr. Ward had previously had a meeting with the Aides to tell them he was reassigning them. Some did not get changed. I did not and a pre-K Aide did not get changed. Ms. Miranda is a representative for the Aides, so she may have talked to Mr. Ward about the changes. I personally saw nothing at all out of the way.Mark Stodola Prosecuting Attorney Sixth Judicial District Pulaski \u0026amp; Perry Counties October 11, 1996 State of Arkansas OFFICE OF THE Prosecuting Attorney 122 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone 501 / 340-8000 Fax 501 / 340-8049 Lionel Ward 3912 Tudor Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Mr. Ward: This office has received a complaint concerning Ms. Carla Miranda. Ms. Miranda alleges that you have been harassing and have made several harassing calls to her home. If this complaint is verified and either of you persist in such behavior, this office may be under a duty to issue a criminal information charging you with a violation of .\\rk. Code ,4nri. 5-71-208 Harassment which could result in your arrest and appearance in Municipal Court. Be advised that you should limit any contact with Ms. Miranda to relevant matters only. If this complaint is untrue or you have an explanation for your actions, please bring it to my attention immediately. Sincerely, 1 Prosecuting Attorneys Office Sixth Judicial District Dan Turner Complaints Department LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 October 24, 1996 TO: Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services FROM:, Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations SUBJECT: Carla Miranda, SSN: 431-23-4688 It has been confirmed with Lionel Ward, principal at Garland, that Carla Miranda did attend the workshop on the days of August 6, 7 and 8. Please pay her at the rate of pay the other instructional aides w'ere paid for that workshop. Thank you. J- /JAMES W. DANIEL CHAIRMAN PAT WEST HUMPHREY, COMMISSIONER ALICE L HOLCOMB. COMMISSIONER JOHN A. KENNEDY INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DAVID GREENBAUM CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE of FORT SMITH DIVISION 616 GARRISON - ROOM 207 FORT SMITH, AR 72901 TELEPHONE 501-783-7970 SPRINGDALE DIVISION 244 SOUTH 40TH SPRINGDALE, AR 72762-3845 TELEPHONE 501-751-2790 WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 4TH \u0026amp; Spring Streets P.O. BOX 950 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-0950 Telephone 501-682-3930! 1-800-622-4472 Arkansas Relay System TDD 1-800-285-1131 November 12, 1996 Ms. Carla Miranda 13003 El Road Little Rock, AR 72206 RE: Carla Miranda vs Little Rock School District WCC FILE: CARRIER: E612750 #541 24267 Dear Ms. Miranda: Ne enclose for your information a copy of the AR-2 form insurance company which indicates an intention to controvert, filed by the that is deny, the injury of August 30, 1996. You should review the controversion section of the AR-2 form for the carrier's position in this matter. You have two options under the Arkansas Worker's Compensation law if you wish to pursue your claim: 1. 2. You may request a conference of the parties with a Legal Advisor/ or You may request a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. If you have any questions, you may call our toll free number 1-800-622- 4472 or (501-682-3930) and an Advisor will assist you. Yours very truly. FAYDEANE GRAY Director Operations/Compliance Enclosure FG/sn cc: Municipal League WCT P O Box 37 North Little Rock, AR 72215 Form AP-2 Authoruy ACA 11-9-803 ana ACA 11-9-810 Aevisec 3.15.93 ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 625 Marshall Street, 2nd Floor Justice Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201-1073 EMPLOYER'S REPORT OF INITIAL PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION OR INTENTION TO CONTROVERT Initial Filing I I Amended Filing Awnr^ ciio Mrt r.^irripr (Tlaim No F AWCC File No. Carrier Claim No. '^*1\"_*c Employee Name (Last. First. Ml) \u0026gt; .' I* iQ.Z4J?~: Employee SS No. ^/Li, '73 Ao I Employer Nai Na^ Fed. Employer I.D. No.  State Zip Cope h Carrier Or Self-Insured Name NAlC or Seif-insureo Fed. Emotoyer t.D. No. Claims Office Location (City. State) COMPENSATION (if not applicable, skip to next section) I I Cate of Iniury City, State of Iniury Dates Covered by First Check a -I o-.-I-. I First Date inaemniiy Triggereo Body Part Iniured : Oisap.iitv Oaiei Date of First Comp. Check Average Weekly Wage Weekly Comp. Rate Check condition applicable: __.Medical Only Claim (no indemnity duel PPD Only Case CONTROVERSION SECTION DATE OF INJURY OR DEATH: REASONFOR CONTROVERTING CLAIM:__/ A J r^L_Q -Q' Tin SI t..:\nI-\n4 DEATH CASE DATA NOV -Jy\" List all Dependents below: Attach Death If no dependents, check here: N.AME OF DEPENDENT Certificates and Birth cei^icat^.Jofl^ependent Children 'lONSfiiP ^og^^i di DATE CF 3IRTH : RcLATi iEASED WEEKLY BENEFIT AMOUNT CERTIFICATION i i (If more space is needed, attach supp e^ental sheet) 1' I certify that the foregoing is a complete and accurate reoort according to the records of the insurer pertaining to first W\u0026lt;wl M f LI lU I LI Ik- I V-\u0026gt; I I y LA WW W . payment, controversion and beneficiary information. I further certify that a copy, of this report'br'equivalent ntrtrmntii'M'i r \u0026lt;-\u0026gt; if/i am l/*\\\\zOO /*ir hiC Hpnpf I f?l fl TIPP  nformation has been provided to the employee or his beneficiaries. Signature Printec or Typewritten Name 'He Date* iaUniqa MUNICIPAL LEAGUE w WORKERS COMPENSATION TRUST P.O. BOX 37 NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72115 PHONE (501) 374-3484 November 4, 1996 Ms. Carla Miranda 13003 El Road Little Rock, Ar. 72206 Re: Carla Miranda vs Little Rock School District Claim No: 541-24267 Dear Ms. Miranda: Thank you for your cooperation during the investigation into your claim for workers compensation benefits. As you know, your claim was initially accepted as a compensable medical claim. However, after further investigation it has been determined you did not sustain a compensable work-related injury. As I stated in our telephone conversation, if you plan to persue your claim the proper procedure is to retain an attorney and request a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the Workers Compensation Commission. Attached is the only medical bill we have received that has not been paid. Respectfully Yours, Ms . Tommie Purdom Sr. Claims Representative Enclosure District No. 1 Trustee Mayor John Patrick Pocahontas District No. 3 Trustee \u0026amp; Group Manager City Clerk Sandra Fearman Rogers At-Large Trustee Mayor Emmitt J. Conley Cotton Plant District No, 2 Trustee Mayor Harold Maclntire Shannon Hills District No. 4 Trustee Mayor Gene Yarbrough Star City Assistant Director Sheryl! D. Lipscomb LR SCHOOL DISTRICT ' 810 W MARKHAM TQ! ATTN JUANITA DRIVER 7 n i'! IE ... . w tZ .  s XXKCA .c- LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 1 057736  MeJ-CSe Mec c3-o Ssc's:: s SSf'J C~AMP.A A.AP H S 3= cr C 2 PATIENTS NAMS .as: Na*-'? 's: Na-^e M'ac-c iniiia : eiT=\\Sg,= MIRANDA CARLA ! ' MM DO : =A-,ENT S a\n5: 13003 E L ROAD LR = CODE 72206 c q'L-cn- jyr / U HE^uTH INSURANCE CLAIM FORM J'y ' c f c 02 25 57 iEN RE-AO'.S- A ? t =i.-'E\\TS\"i AR TElP'O\\E A^ea Cose ( 501 888 2373 -as:\\a'-r -\"w'r M30F'''t3 ' 3P .P- SE** X X REAC SAC !E EoRr.i before COMF.ETiNG i SIGNING TH'E SIGNATURE ON FILE X - SE* ' X C-- X X 10 15 96 431-23-4683 4 .\\Sj=i! S NAMi .a'f't: M co - LR SCHOOL DISTRICT NSjP=2 5 Arr==?S S--er- 810 W MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK 72201 I C: I AR  501 671 bZlS  i LR SCHOOL DISTRICT I , AR WORKER'S COMP I X SIGNATURE ON FILE X 726 31 f -------------- X r 10 08 96 3 1 99213 1 I 56 00 1 10 08 96 3 1 WC103 1 25 00 1 I.UMEEF 710758074 X I I I -fSiClAN EES OP C.P: S MA-RC I A ^HIX'SCN, ' MO 710758074 10 15 96 c LC L C c ? 710758071 --------------- 71075807A c c t Of c 1223455 X 31 00 0 00 t  31 00 PEN ' MARCIA HIXSON, MO . 600 SO MCKINLEY, SUITE 200 ! LITTLE ROCK, AR 72205 L-,. 710 75 8074 Please\" indicate accountr when '^AViflG''p5\u0026gt;'vWf^T LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research 3615 West 25th Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 August 30, 1996 TO\nCarla Miranda, Instructional Aide FROM: Lionel Ward, Principal SUBJECT: Conference Follow-Up This communication is in response to our meeting after you received your schedule for this school year. Initially, you were invited and challenged to accept the decision for the strengths you have displayed in your assignments before. It would seem, tthheenn., that you would take the changes and begin thinking about how it can be done rather than what you could do to keep it from getting done. It is unfortunate cnat you chose the low road. I have a real problem with you making any trouble for the positive school climate desired. You were told earlier that changes in schedules were likely. Today, the changes happened following deliberations that consider your strengths and the strengths of' others.. More to the point. this decision was made in relevance to students' lives and implementation of Incentive School Programs. IS an administrative decision that provides Again, the decision support for the strategic plans outlined in the Little Rock School District. Mrs. Miranda, you have been a part of the lives of students and teachers of Garland for a long time. If you decide that you would prefer not continue your linkage to Garland, you are perfectly within your right to seek a transfer or tender your resignation. That choice, Mrs. Miranda, is yours. Should you choose to continue your tenure at Garland, be prepared to give each day your very bes t. All you have to do is enroll your immediate energies. If yoir me. / .ave questions. strongly encourage you to raise them with 1 a\nW ESSED BY: DATE/TIME: NCIP, ' S SIGNATURE ARKANSAS CANCER RESEARCH CENTER Behavioral Medicine Program 4301 West Markham. Slot 543  Littl\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_685","title":"Little Rock Schools: Ish Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Ish Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School enrollment","Educational statistics","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Ish Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/685"],"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":["108 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\nIsh Elementary was open from 1965 to 1993.\n1 S r. A a 1 2 3 4 5 b VAI't MRi WALKER. THE COURT I know, when I 6 V 7 8 6 Yes, ma'am. -7 that has not been addressed. As you permitted the district to.survey.the students. suggested that OJ 10 J / 11 F.i t ( .* !. 8.1 ' 81 91 OS SS es AS iJS IZ !? I \u0026amp; ? f 13 14 IB 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2B I,, as an incentive,.they might offer some of these benefits that are offered to incentive .school as get the kids to go to Ish. an ,incenti,ve to I have not in any wayiruled with\nrespectto that motion, however, and I had assumed that the\u0026gt;incentive school of one thing and that the interdistrict magnet is another with.' respect to this  1 can t the magnet program called? remembe r. but I some MS. BROWN. THE COURT. remember what it's called. High Intensity learning. High intensity learning. But, in any event, I What is I couldn't will be addressing that later, did not intend to address it today. preliminary questions about King. MR. WALKER. the COURT. although 1 do have Al 1 right, your Honor. And with respect to scholarships. I know Mr. Walker keeps reminding the Court that we have not ruled.on schoIarshi ps. The scholarship issue is a in terms of how to real ly hard one:fori me administer the schoI arships, and also, as I recall, the Plan does not commit the Litt la.Kock Oistrict to scholarships absolutely. to discuss it. MR. WALKER. but commi ts That's the district in good-faith where we differ, -That's why we )LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS 1990-91 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 3 SCHOOL: ISH ELEMENTARY 1988 READING 1989 1990 1991 1988 MATHEMATICS 1989 1990 1991 ALL STUDENTS No. Tested No. Passed Percent Passed BLACK MALES No. Passed Percent Passed BLACK FEMALES No. Passed Percent Passed 17 13 76 75 83 28 26 93 12 92 11 92 27 25 93 10 91 15 94 16 12 75 67 80 17 16 94 88 100 28 28 100 13 100 12 100 27 24 89 11 100 13 81 16 12 75 67 80 6 5 A 8 7 6 4 8 WHITE MALES No. Passed 0 2 3 0 3 3 0 0 Percent Passed 100 100 100 WHITE FEMALES No. Passed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Passed OTHER MALES No. Passed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Passed OTHER FEMALES No. Passed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Passed * Total of all students in the \"Other -- race category. These scores were not reported by gender.SCHOOL: ISH ELEMENTARY 19..88 ! READING 19 8^ 1990 199 1 T 1989 No. Tested No. Passed 24 23 24 17 12 10 13 11 24 23 Perc.en^P^ss^______2^-___ 71 83 85 96 BL.ACK MALES i:o. Passed 11 6 4 7 11 Percij t Passed 100. SO. 100. I mn. BLACK FEMALES No. Passed 7 7 6 3 7 711ent Passed WHITE HALES Ho. Passed Percent Passed __\nWHITE FEMALES No. Passed Percent passed OTHER MALES No. Ptissed _a8. 70 100 0. 88 2 2 0 0 2 100 3 100 0 Percent Passed____ OTHER FEMALES No. Passed 0 Percent Passed ______ Total cf 0.1a 50 2 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 3 100 0 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS 1990-91 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUIdMARY GRADE 6 MATHEMATICS 1989 24 19 79 1 AB. 8 80 2 50 2 100 0 0 1990 1991 1988 LANGUAGE ARTS 1989 1990 1991 I 1988 SCIENCE 1989 1990 1991 ----------SO^AL STUDIES 1988 1969 1990 1991 12 10 83 4 AJ. 6 100 0 0 0 0 13 11 85 7 100 3 60 0 0 0 0 24 13 54 4 36 5 63 1 100 2 67 0 0 24 17 12 10 13 11 24 13 24 15 12 10 13 12 24 10 24 12 12 10 13 10 71 1 88 6 60 2 50 2 100 0 0 83 4 67 6 100 0 0 0 0 85 7 100 3 60 0 0 0 0 .. 54 6 55 4 50 1 50 2 67 0 0 63 83 92 42 77 6 4 7 6 4 4 6 75 5 50 2 50 2 100 0 0 67 6 100 0 0 0 0 100 4 80 0 0 0 0 55 2 25 2 100 0 0 0 50 5 50 1 25 2 100 0 0 67 6 100 0 0 0 0 86 1 3 60 I 0 0 0 0 1 I I students in the \"Othei-\" race category. vcK not reportocI by gender.I 'I I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL : GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1 WHITE FEMALE Percentile Summary so 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE WHITE MALE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE ALL WHITE Percentile Summary 76 5 0 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE 1991 MAT-6 Distribution #46481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 788 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY  N % N N X N \" Z N X N X N 1 0 0 0 1 67.7 1 OOX OX OX OX 1 o' 0 0 1 93.3 TOTAL READING N X 0 0 1 0 1 36.5 ox ox 1 OOX ox TOTAL READING N X 1 0 1 0 SOX bx SOX OX 2 52.1 1 OOX ox ox OX 1 0 0 0 1 65.6 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 0 1 0 0 1 55.3 ox 1 OOX ox ox TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 1 1 0 0 SOX SOX OX OX 2 74.3 1 O^OX bx ox ox 1 0 0 0 1 73.7 TOTAL  LANGUAGE N X 0 0 0 1 1 26.3 OX OX OX 1 OOX TOTAL LANGUAGE N* X 1 b 0 1 50X bx OX sox 2 46.0 100X_ OX OX OX BASIC BATTERY N 0 0 1 0 1 40.1 ox ox 1 OOX ox BASIC BATTERY N X 1 0 1 0 5 OX OX Qy. 2 56.9 0 1 0 0 1 50.0 OX 1 OOX ox ox 0 0 1 0 1 48.9 SCIENCE N X 0 0 0 1 1 27.2 OX OX OX 1 OOX SCIENCE N 0 1 0 1 ox sox ox sox 2 38.6 OX OX 1 OOX OX 1 0 0 0 1 74.7 SOCIAL STUDIES N X 0 0 0 1 1 31 . 5 ox ox ox 1 OOX SOCIAL STUDIES N X 0 0 1 1 ay. ox sox sox 2 40.2 1 OOX ox ox ox COMPLETE BATTERY N 0 0 0 1 1 35.8 OX OX OX 1 OOX COMPLETE BATTERY N 1 0 0 1 SOX ox ox sox 2 55.3 h- I- i I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PACE 789 I SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sunnery .....76 50 - 26 ' 01  75 49 5 Number Tested N X N X N X N X N X N X N 1 10X 2 2 5 1 0 ___flean NatU.llCE_________43.0 BLACK MALE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 -5_ Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE ALL BLACK Percent lie Summary ___76 -.59. 50 26 01 75 49 25_____ Number Tested 20X 20X SOX 4 1 0 5 40X 1 OX ox sox 2 2 2 4 20X 20X 20X 4 OX 3 0 3 4 30X  OX 30X 40X 1 0 2 6 1 1X OX 22X 67X 2 0 3 20X OX 3 OX SOX 3 0 3 3 33X OX 33X 33X TOTAL READING N X 1 0 45.7 1 0 43.9 1 0 43.8 9 27.7 1 0 36.2 9 39.4 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N N X 1 2 4 1 0 6X 12X 24X 59X 2 5 3 7 12X 29X 18X 41X 1 3 2 12 67, \\77 1 1 X 677 1 2 6 8 6X 12X 35X 47X 1 4 4 9 6X 22X 22X SOX 2 3 3 1 0 1 IX 17X 1 7X 367. 1 3 5 8 6X 1 QX 29X 47X 17 35.6 17 37.4 1 8 34.6 17 35.1 1 8 35.5 1 8 34.3 1 7 33.0 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N N X N 4 6 1 5 15X 22X 56X_ .6_^ 6 3 12 22X 22X 1 IX 44X 3 5' 4 1 6 .11X isx 1 4X 57X 4 2 9 12 1 5X 7X 33X 44X 2 4 6 15 7X 15X eax 56X 4 3 6 15 1 4X 1 IX 21 X 54X 4 3 8 1 1 ISX 1 2X 31 X 4ex 27 MeaQ-Nat_Ll_lCE________3ft.^___ 27 4Q..4______ 28 37.9 27 38.2 27 .32.7 28 35.0 Z6 35.31 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 790 I  I SCHOOL\nGRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1 ALL STUDENTS Percent i1 Sumnary TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N X N N 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 3 4 7 .15 1 OX 1 4X 24X 52X _7 7 3 12  24X _ e4X 1 OX 41X___ 4 5 4 17 13X 17X 13X 57X 5 _ 17X 2 1 0 1 2 7X 34X 41X 2 5 6 1 6 7X 1 7X 21X 55X 4 3 7 1 6 13X 1 OX 23X 53X 5 3 8 1 2 187. 1 1 X 297. 43X Nuaber Tested 29 ___Mean NattL NCE_________23 , Z 29 ..42 ,.6 30 38.4 29 ____ 39.5_____ 29 33.1 30 35.3 28 36.6 p- r j--------- I I I I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution #J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PACE 791 SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH'INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 UNITE FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL....... LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY Percentile Suaiary SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES N X N COMPLETE BATTERY % N X N X N X .of 1 76 5 o' 26 01 99 75 49 25 N X Number Tested Mean Nat^lNCE ALL WHITE I 2 I 0 0 1 56.4 Percentlie Summary' 76 50 26 01 99 7S 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE BLACK FEMALE Percent Ue Nummary 76 50 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE OX 1 OOX OX OX N TOTAL READING N X 0 T 0 0 1 56.4 0 0 1 0 1 47.9 OX 1 OOX OX OX TOTAL READING N X t 0 3 2 17X OX SOX 33X 6 45.9 OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 i 0 0 1 62.3 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 0 0 1 0 1 47.9 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 1 56.4 TOTAL LANGUAGE N X OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 0 1 0 1 49.5 BASIC BATTERY N X ox ox 1 OOX ox 0 0 1 0 1 46.8 SCIENCE N X ox ox 1 OOX ox 0 1 0 0 1 55.9 SOCIAL STUDIES N X OX 1 OOX OX OX COMPLETE BATTERY N X OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 1 0 0 1 62.3 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 1 2 1 2 17X 33X 17X 33X 6 47.7 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 1 56.4 TOTAL LANGUAGE N X ox 1 OOX ox ox 0 0 1 0 1 49.5 BASIC BATTERY N X OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 0 1 0 1 46.8 SCIENCE N OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 1 0 0 1 55.9 SOCIAL STUDIES N X ox 1 OOX ox ox COMPLETE BATTERY N 2 0 0 4 33X ox OX 67X 1 i 2 2 17X i7X 33X 33X 0 2 2 2 OX 33X 33X 33X 2 1 1 2 33X 17X 1 7X 33X 1 1 2 2 1 7X 17X 33X 33X 6 39.1 6 44.7 6 _____42.2 6 47.7 6 43.5 . )I I It/ It*: {'I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: iSH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL reading 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution #J6481 M6BYSC I 0/07/9 I PAGE 793 Percentile Su n n e r y 50 26 75 49 -O t^ -_  S .. Number Tested Mean Nat:i_MCE. N Z N Z ------------------ ---------------3___.16J!_ 6 3EZ 7 6 32Z 6 3EZ 32Z 4____1Z___ 1 9 -4a.a. 37X 32X 19 -52 . i TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES N N N Z N COMPLETE BATTERY N z 5 5 7 6X 377, 7 6 3 16Z... 37X 32X 16X . _1 6 8 4 5X 32X 42X 2tX 1 h 3 3 37X 32X 1 6X 1 6X 3 6 7 3 t 9 42.9 1 6X 32X 37X 1 6X 1 9 ... 49.0 1 9 46.8 1 9 53.2 1 9 48.9 I ( J N 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Di st ribut Ion J648I M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 792 SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 BLACK MALE L i TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Suamery N X N X N X N X N X N X N X I IO 50 26 75 49 B____17X I\" i' Q1 _r..25__. 5 3 2 42X 25 X 17X 2 5 4 1 17X 0 OX 42X 33X 8X 4 5 3 33X 42X 25X 2 5 4 1 17X 42X 33X 8X 1 4 5 2 8X 33X 42X 17X 5 5 1 1 42X 42X 8X 8X 2 4 5 1 1 I 7. 337 42X 8X P \u0026lt;0 I -S I7wr- I. rw, Nunber Tested Mean . NAt_Ll_NCE. 12 .49.6, - 12 _54.1. 12 -.._43.2 .. 12 50.5 1 2 ____48.8 12 56.4 12 51 . 1 ALL BLACK TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percent lie Sumaary 50 26 ..-01 75 49 25, Nunber Tested Mean .Nat/,l._NC_E__ N X N X N N X N X N X N 3 5 6 _4 18 48 r4 17X 28X 33X eex. 3 7 5 3 18 52.5 17X 39X 28X -L7X______ 2 4 5 7 1 8 41 . B 11X 22X 28X ....39X 3 6 6 17X 33X 33X 3____17X 18 48.6 1 6 7 4 6X 33X 39X 22 X 7 6 2 3 337. 337, 1 IX 17X 3 5 1 3 17X 28X 39X 17X 1 8 46.6 18 53.5 18 48.6 1 : I I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J\u0026amp;481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 794 SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY 1^2 ^1 I Percentile Sunnary 76 so' 26 01 99 75 ZS Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE BLACK MALE Percentile Sumaary 76 SO 26 01 99 75 49 as Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE ALL BLACK N 0 a 5 3 1 0 39.a X N N X N X N X N X N Percentlle Sumaary 40 41 I I* so 26 0 1 99 75 49 as Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE OX 2 OX SOX 30X 3 5 0 20X 36x SOX OX a 5 2 1 aox sox aox 1 ox 0 5 3 a ox sox 30X aox 0 3 3 4 OX 30X 30X 40X 0 4 2 4 OX 4 OX aox 4 OX 0 4 4 2 ox 40X 40X aox 1 0 52.1 1 0 57.8 1 0 47.0 1 0 41.5 1 0 41 . 4 1 0 45.1 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY I !! N X N X N X N X  N X N X N 1 _ 0 0 3 3 OX OX SOX SOX __a__ 0 1 3 33X  OX 17X SOX 1 1 1 3 17X 17X 17X SOX 0 2 0 4 OX 33X OX 67X 0 a 3 1 OX 33X SOX 17X 1 1 2 2 1 7X 1 7X 33X 33X 0 2 1 3 OX 33X 17X SOX 6 32.8 6 47.7 6 45.2 6 38.9 6 42.5 6 46.4 6 39.5 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N 0 a 8 6 1 6 36.8 X N X N X N X N X N N X OX i3X SOX 38X 4 3 6 3 25X 1 9X 38X 1 9X 3 '6 3 4 19X 38X 1 9X asx 0 7 3 6 OX 44X 1 9X 38X 0 5 6 5 OX 31 X 38X 31 X 1 5 4 6 6X 31X 25X 38X 0 6 5 5 OX 38X 31 X 31 X i. i 16 50.5 1 6 53.1 1 6 44.0 16 41 .9 1 6 43.3 1 6 43.0 I 1 J\nI j W i1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution ttJ6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 795 I I SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3 ALL STUDENTS ft--- I t r I Percentile Suweary .7^.^ SO - 26 - 01 - -sa 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean NatM.JiCE. TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N 0 S 8 6 1 6 -36 X N X N X N X N X N N X _ QX 13X 50% 38X 4 3 6 3 25X 1 9X 3QX 19X 3 6 3 4 19X 38X 19X 25X 0 7 3 OX 44X 1 9X 38X 0 5 6 5 OX 31X 38X 31 X 1 5 4 6 6X 31 X esx 38X 0 6 5 5 OX 38X 31 X 31X 1 6 50 ._5 1 6 53.1 1 6 44.0 1 6 41 . 9 1 6 43.3 1 6 43.0 I I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution #J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 796 SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 WHITE FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sumaery N X N X N X N X N X N N X 50 26 01 75 49 25 _  _____OX 0 0 .1 OX OX 1 OOX ._._L_____OX, 0 0 OX OX 1-. 1 QOX._. 0 0 0 1 OX OX OX 1 OOX 0 . OX 0 0 1 OX OX 1 OOX 0 0 0 1 OX OX OX 1 OOX 0 0 1 0 OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 0 0 1 OX OX ox 1 OOX J -i r Numbe Tested 1 __ Mean MatM.NCE________2.1.8. 1 1 ALL WHITE TOTAL READING ___21.. 8 _ TOTAL MATHEMATICS 1 1 29.9 ____20.4 85.3 1 1 38.3 83.0  I Percentile Summary N X N X 76 t_99____ 50 26 75 49 0 0 0 OX OX OX _01 .T. 25____ 0 0 0 . . 1. - lOOX .OX_____ OX OX . .1 _ 100X _ -! . . Number Tested Mean Natll. MCE__ BLACK FEMALE Percentile Sunaary 50 26 75 49 ___0125_____ Number Tested Hean ,MatM. NCE 1 21 .8 TOTAL READING N X 1 21^8 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X i___ TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N N X N N N 1. 4 5 _7X___ 27X 33X 5 ......33X._. 15 ^4.2.____ ____4____2.7X_____ 6 2 4 OX 13X _ . 3.__ 20X_ 15 ________55^4 0 0 0 1 1 29.9 OX OX OX 1 OOX 0 0 0 , -_1 OX OX OX lOOX 0 0 0 1 OX ox OX 1 OOX 0 0 1 0 OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 0 0 1 OX OX OX 1 OOX 1 1 20.4 25.3 1 1 38.3 23.0 TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N N N X N X . .3 .... 20X 5 5 2 33X 33X 13X 3 3 7 2 20X 20X 47X 13X 2 4 5 4 13X 27X 33X 27X 3 4 4 4 20X 27X 27X 27X 3 3 7 2 2 OX 20X 47X 1 3X 15 53..0 . 15 49.6____ 1 5 _____45.3 15 47.8 1 5 48.81 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 1 0/07/91 PAGE 797 I I 0 jU SCHOOL: GRADE ISH iNCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sumaary N ' X N N X N X N X N N 76 50 ze 01 99 75 49 25 0 3 3 4 OX 30X 30X 40X 4 4 2 0 40X 40X 20X OX 0 4 4 2 OX 4 OX 40X 20X 0 5 3 2 OX '5 OX 30X 20X 2 ' 2 3 3 20X 20X 30X 30X 3 2 2 3 3 OX 2 OX 20X 3 OX 2 2 4 2 20X BOX 40X 20X NuBber Tested Mean Nat'l NCE 1 0 41.7 10 62.7 1 0 44.3 1 0 48.2 1 0 47.1 1 0 51 . 2 1 0 48.4 ALL BLACK TOTAL READING TOTAL' MATHEMATICS TOTAL--------- LANGUAGE BASIC .... BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY i- Percent lie Suaaary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Nuabe Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE N 1 7 8 3 25 43.2 X N X N N X N N X N\n I 4X 28X 32X 36X 8 32X 10 4 OX 4 3 16X 12X 3 9 9 4 yzx 36X 36X 16X 3 8 1 0 4 1 2X 32X 40X 1 6X 4 e 8 1 1SX 24X 32X 28X 6 6 6 7 24X 24X 24X 28X 5 5 1 1 4 20X 20X 44X 16X ^'1 25 58.3 25 49.5 25 49.1 25 46.0 25 49 . 1 25 48.6 3 7-]1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Oi st ri but ion #J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 798 I i.... SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sunnery ____76_.r_99., 50 26 ____01 75 49 25. Number Tested Mean Nat?X_NCE________ N X N X N X N X N X N N X .._1 7 8 10 26 -4X 27X 31 X 38X .8 . _.31X_, 1 0 4 4 38X 1 5X 15X 3 9 9 5 12X 35X 35X 19X 3,_12X 8 1 0 5 31X 38X 1 9X A h 8 8 I5X 23X 31X 31 X 6 6 7 7 23X e3X Z17. 5 5 1 1 5 1 9% 1 9X 42X 1 9X 26 56.9 ____ Zb 48.8 Zb 48.0 26 45.2. 26 48.7 26 47.6\n I I 1 1 I I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 5 WHITE MALE TOTAL READING 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE 1tJ6481 MSBTSC 10/07/91 PAGE 799 Percentile Sunaery 76 99 50 26 01  75  49 : 25_ Nuaber Tested N X N X N X N X N X SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X -0 0 1 ,0 N 1 Mean Net* I .NCE________47.4 ALL WHITE Percentile Sunnary 76 50 26 99 75 49 Nuaber Tested _____n Nat^l NCE_ BLACK FEMALE Percentile Sunnary Th..- 93.___ 50 26 75 49  .-QI - 25_____ Number Tested  Mean NaiM KCE. OX ox 1 OOX . OX -J 0 0 _100X _ ox ox _0_ OX . 0. 1 0 0 . OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 ox 1 OOX OX OX 1 0 0 0 1 oox OX ox ox 1 0 0 0 1 OOX OX 07. 07 0 1 0 0 X OX 1 OOX OX OX 1 _^7,vQ____ 1 58.1______ 1 S6.4_________ 1 78.2 1 82.7 1 64.2 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES N X N X N N X N X N X COMPLETE BATTERY 0 0 1 a. N 1 .47.4 OX ox 1 OOX  OX. TOTAL READING N X ~ Q_____OX 1 2 1 4 1 -100X_ 0 0 1 67.0 25 X BOX .25X__ OX OX .OX 0 i 0 . 0 1 52. 1 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X -1____25X 1 1 25X 25X 1 .__25X 4 ____48. OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 1 56.4 TOTAL LANGUAGE N X ox 1 OOX ox ox_ _ BASIC BATTERY N X 1 0 0 0 1 78.2 1 oox ox ox ox 1 0 0 0 1 82.7 SCIENCE N X 1 OOX OX ox ox 0 1 0 0 1 64.2 SOCIAL STUDIES N X OX 1 OOX ox OX COMPLETE BATTERY N X  1 0 1 . 2 25X ox 25X BOX 0 1 1 2 ox___ 25X asx BOX 0 0 4 0 ox ox 1 oox ox 0 0 1 3 OX ox 25X 75X 0 1 2 OX 25X 25X BOX 4 4 42,2 . 4 ____ 45,7____ 4 33.3 4 40.6 L I'i r IN I .,1t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT6 Distribution *J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PACE 800 I i\ni------ t J I I I r SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 5 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE ALL BLACK Percent 1le Summary Th 33 SO - 75 26 01 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat'I NCE N Z N Z N N Z N N Z N J 1 '! I r  I r 1 4 1 1 14Z 57 Z 1 4Z 14Z 4 2 0 1 57Z 29Z OZ 1 4Z 2 2 1 2 E9Z 29Z 14Z 29Z 3 2 1 1 43Z 29Z' 1 4Z 1 4Z 1 4 2 0 1 4Z 57Z 29Z OZ 2 1 3 1 29Z 1 4Z 43Z 1 4Z 2 3 1 1 29Z 43Z 1 4Z 14Z 7 53.2 TOTAL READING N Z 7 65. t 7 49.7 7 56.9 7 53.5 7 52.5 7 55.7 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N Z N Z N Z N Z N N Z 1 5 3 2 3% 45Z 27Z 18Z 5 45Z 3 27X 1 2 9Z 1 8Z 3 2 Z 4 37% 18Z 18Z 36Z 3 3 2 3 7Z 27Z 18Z 27Z 1 4 6 0 9Z 36Z 55Z OZ 2 1 4 4 1 8Z 9Z 36Z 36Z 2 4 2 3 18Z 36Z 18Z 27 Z 1 1 48.7 1 1 59.0 1 1 45.4 11 51 . 6 1 1 50.7 11 45.5 1 1 50.2 t I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 801 4- 4 i SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 5 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary 76 -_-99___ 50 26 01 75 A3 25 Number Tested Mean Natil.NCE. N X N X N X N X N X N X N 7. .1 J------ I t- J.------- | k ! 1, 5 4 2 1 2 J8.6 ____8X,. 42X 33X 17X .6 1 2 SOX 25X 8X J7X 3 3 2 4 25X 25X 17X 33X 3 4 2 3 25X 33X 1 7X 25X 2 4 6 0 17X 33X SOX OX 3 1 4 4 25X 8X 33X 33X 2 5 2 3 1 7X 42X 17X 25 X 12 _____52.6 1 2 46,0 12 ____52.0 1 2 53.0 12 46.6 1 2 51 .4 i- ' i i i 3I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution *J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 802 I SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 6 f, i: I hr r i.^ i r^' BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary 50 26 pl 75 49 25 Number Tested N N X N X N X N N X N _ 2- 0 1 2 40X OX 20X 40X __e___4ox____ 1 0 2 20X OX 40X 2 1 2 0 _ 40X____ BOX 40X OX 2 1 0 2 40X 2CX OX 40X 2 0 1 2 40X OX BOX 40X 2 0 1 2 40X OX BOX 40X 2 1 0 2 40X BOX OX 4 OX 5 Mean Nat ' L,NCE...............44.2. 5 _______58.2..._ 5 58.7 5 52.6______ 5 44.8 5 47.2 5 50.8 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary 50 26 75 49 01 - .25 Number Tested Mean Nat'l. NCE ALL BLACK Percentile Summary N X N X N X N X N X N N X 76 50 26 99 75 49 Ol.r e5_. Number Tested Mean NatlI^NCE 0 4 1 OX 57X 14X 1_____t 4X 2 4 29X 57X 2 .._ -29X 0 OX 1 B 4 .0 14X e9X 317. OX 0 5 2 0 OX 71 X 89X OX 3 3 1 0 43X 43X 14X OX 1 4 2 0 1 4X 57X 29X OX 1 4 a 0 1 4X 57X 29X OX 7 49.2 7 53,5 7 49.9 7 50.7 1 3h . 8 1 33.1 7 53.1 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N X N X N X 2 4 2 4 .. 17X____ 33X 17X 33X . 3 _ .25X 3 4 25X 33X 2 -_.17X ._3__25X 3 6 _ 0 25X SOX OX 2 6 2 2 17X SOX 1 7X 1 5 3 2 2 42X 25X 1 7X 17X 3 4 3 2 25X 33X 25X 1 7X 3 5 2 2 25X 42X 117 117. 12 J7^1._ IB ________55.5. 12 ____53.5____ 12 51 .5 12 51.8 12 53.5 1 2 52. 1 .t   i I ' I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 803 ! I r I 'i [ I I ) I SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 6 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sumaary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Nuaber Tested Mean Nat*1 NCE I--------- 1- I I. N X N % N X N X N X N N X 2 4' 2 4 17X 33 X 17X 33X 3 3 4 2 asx asx 33X 17X 3 3 6 0 25X 25X SOX   2 17X SOX 17X 17X 5 3 a a 42X 25X 17X 1 7X 3 4 3 2 asx 33X asx 1 7X 3 5 Z 2 25X 42X 17X 17X 12 47.1 12 55.5 12 53.5 12 S1 .5 12 51.8 12 53.5 1 2 52.1TO : Mr. Stan Strauss Principal, Ish Incentive School FROM: Ms. Sandra Thomas Members Present: President, Ish Incentive School PTA ~~ and PTA Members Present on 3/9/93 DATE : March 12, 1993 RE: Concerns of Parents/Patrons At concerns the last PTA meeting, held March 9, 1993, Issues and were raised by members present, not only their concerns, but also concerns expressed by many parents not present. The by following is a list of these present. concerns . 1 . Second Grade Students Formerly Taught by Mr. Ellis Many parents \"passed out\" and there or lack thereof. feel that the second 9-weeks grades were is no Indication of advancement We want a special meeting with you, the new teacher. the appropriate district administrator, parents of these students to discuss the present classroom situation and the grading procedure. and the 2 . Extended Day There Is concern for what occurs It is our primarily for understanding that this during Extended Day. the extension program 3 . either as of classroom a tutorial or for accelerated learning. provides academics, At the December PTA meeting you stated that Extended Day would was being Implemented to foster \"higher level thinking\". writing. However, arithmetic) we want learned children need extension of what we want to take place. the first. basis And (reading. if our classroom learning, that is We want to be assured that the classroom coordinates each child's Extended Day activities. acknowledge and desire leisure children but not in lieu of academics. activities teacher for We our Music Instruction The number of children who are participating in choral music has diminished significantly.The children are expressing that the music presented is not interesting or relevant to their experiences. Why are these children expected to sing along with recorded music played on a low quality system?  Why is there not a musician on staff available for these students? We want a meeting with you. the music teacher, and the appropriate district administrator to discuss this situation. 4 . Building Maintenance Restroom facilities for boys and girls were observed during the meeting time, earlier on the meeting date. and numerous other times 3 . found to be unsatisfactory during this school and paper towels, flushed clean floors toilets : soap dispensers environment) . toilets ( {especially around obviously over (bar soap is not lacking warm after school the base a long period of year and water, hours), 0 f the time), and satisfactory in this The bathrooms were also odorous. want these deficiencies corrected) During the PTA meeting roaches were We observed abundantly around the base of the water fountain in the cafeteria. during spring break. We want this building exterminated Water fountains were found to not be running continuously, or to have very low pressure. We recommend all fountain sites. that cups and dispensers working, be Installed at Classrooms are not being cleaned after school ends (trash emptied, bathrooms cleaned, floors mopped and waxed on a routine basis). perform these tasks. haven to situation. only as well. We We have personnel hired to our We chi 1dren want them want this building regardless of to experience in a warm supportive environment, Campus Facilities There area 1 s for no playground equipment or to be their a home learning not but a clean one Pre-K students. What designated play forthcoming to alleviate this situation provi sions are as spring will be here shortly and these children will spend more time out of doors? Non-students are utilizing grounds during school hours or otherwise loitering on the and non-parent.s utilizingcampus . We want this stopped IMMED I ATE LY. We want the grounds properly maintained during this season . These are some very specific concerns that we have about the overall operation and administration of this institution. As this is an Incentive School, we feel compelled to bring this next item to your attention, as it has been brought to our attention. During Mrs . Redwood's Black History program. Mr . Ford, a grasp singing new teacher in this school, was observed choosing not to the hands of the children standing around him during the of \"We Shall Overcome\" and \"Reach Out and Somebody's Hand when all other members of the audience Touch did so . We were told that he ultimately \"slipped out\" of the assembly. THIS IS A PROBLEM. Mr. Strauss, we do not want you to feel that the PTA is not proactive. We want you to know that we want this school to be the best that is can be and we are willing to help. However, it has been expressed that if a parent comes to or a problem his/her child may soon come home you with a concern with a Behavior Document. THIS IS A PROBLEM. In keeping with our time day to inform you that the PTA proactive stance, we want to take this has scheduled a campus clean up for April 3, 1993 from 9a,ra. to support in this clean up effort and 4p.m. your We solicit attention to concerns detailed above. March 24, 1993. We anticipate a written response your the by cc : Ms. Janet Bernard Ms. Arma Hart Ms. Gill South Little Rock Community Development Corp.received June 6,1993 JUN 7 '993 Honorable Susan Webber Judge of the United States District Court Federal Building 600 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72202 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Judge Webber\nAs stated, in the December 12,1990 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, submitted September 4,1991, and filed November 14,1991, that there should be no retreat from the elements of the 1989 plan, better known as the Desegregation Plan. The elements related to the incentive schools are as follows: \" (J) Double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools\n.., (5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\n(g) the agreed elements of early childhood education\nat least in the incentive schools\nand (?) appropriate involvement of parents.\" Because the district administration has not effectively monitored and/or implemented the strategies and timelines to assure that the objectives of the plan were attained, the objectives have not been met and thus our children have not been granted the opportunities afforded them under the plan. Further, because the Little Rock School District administratoKof Ish Incentive School have failed to live up to the quality and spirit of the orders, of the District Courts, which are established to assure access to an equitable, quality education in an environment conducive to the elimination of achievement disparity between the races, we appeal to this Court to deny approval of the proposal assignment zones for the new King school which includes the present assignment zones of the Ish Incentive School. The ineptness, insensitivity and lack of commitment of the assigned Building Administrator is reflected in:S. Facen to Judge Webber - page 2 1. The presence of an ineffectively administered school facility: (the building not maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. 2. The grounds never being fully cut, trimmed or cleaned, even though parents have brought this to the attention of the principal\nand parents have volunteered to assist in cleaning the grounds\non one occasion parents cleaned the grounds with no assistance from any staff member. 3. The repair of the building roof at a large cost during this current school year, only to have the roof continue leaking. 4. The building remaining unsecured for about five weeks even though this was brought to the attention of the principal. 5. School being infested with roaches, both around drinking fountains and in the classrooms for a period to exceed at least three months after being brought to the principals attention by teachers and parents. 6. Unsightly appearance around cafeteria door for the entire period of this school year even though it has been brought to the attention of the principal. 7. The drainage ditch on the south side of the building, cleaned recently for the first time since 1991, even though it was brought to the principals attention\nwith emphasis on the adjoining fence line which is weed covered and together create hazards to our children from mosquito and other insect bites. 8. Grounds never cleaned of glass and other hazardous items, until April 3,1993 when parents performed the tasks, but designated as play area for four year olds. These deficiencies could reflect the need for more custodial staff\nhowever, our observations are that these inefficiencies are tolerated. The neighborhood is willing to assist when needed, but not used. 9. The disrespect and insensitivity shown the neighborhood and parents whose desire it is to be accepted as equal partners in the education of our children. 10. Failure to provide funds to teachers so that curriculum can be effectively implemented. 11. Failure to provide leadership which encourages and/or enhances effective and quality cooperation between and among parents and teachers. 12. Failure to make a commitment to an effective curriculum and/or environment that supports and encourages the celebration of ethnic and cultural diversity. 13. Failure to assure that staffing provides the children cultural identity of persons in leadership.S. Facen to Judge Webber - page 3 Examples\nExcept Environmental Education Specialist, who occassionally acts as the assistant principal, every person in the building who interacts with every student is white. The Media Specialist The Media Clerk The Computer Lab Tech The Art teacher The Music teacher The Principal The Nurse The Physical Education teacher Others who do at one time or another interact with every student are: Counselor Speech teacher In one class room both the teacher and the instructional aide are white male. Every menial employee task is Black. The result is these children always see white people as the people in charge when there is cooperation between the classroom teacher and the specialist. And all the unskilled tasks are performed by Black people. Although there are many negatives in this building the community is committed to appropriate involvement to maximize the opportunities made accessible to our children. When the school is allowed to remain at its present location\nand the inclusion of the Ish zones are disallowed in the proposed zones for King, we will be the recipients of: 1. time for the full implementation of the advantages granted our children under Court order\n2. a process by which the busing experience is minimized\nS. Facen to Judge Webber - page 4 3. The elimination of a hardship on parents - transportation out of the neighborhood, an objective originally expressed in the Little Rock School Districts suit\n4. Accessibility to a gifted and talented program\n5. adequately and sensibly ^^jlaftdod funds for meeting recurring and special needs of the children 6. maximum advantages of smaller class sizes 7. a quality before and after school care program 8. a full-time counselor 9. School nurse 10. Certified auxiliary teachers. 11. Instructional aides 12. Supervision aides 13. Special interest clubs 14. an environmental curriculum These things will assure our children of all the advantages and opportunities for eliminating the achievement disparities between the races. It would be a miscarriage of justice for this Court to change the course set forth in the guidelines of the order of the Eighth Circuit Court regarding the Incentive schools, particularly Ish. The time and energies expended in putting forth the plan certainly justifies assuring that the spirit and the letter of the order is attained toS. Facen to Judge Webber - page 5 assure that opportunities are granted our children. Further, we appeal to this Court to acknowledge and give credence to the expressed needs and concerns of the community, which will give support to previous expressions of the Federal District and Appeals Court. All for the sake of the children. Sincerely yours, Sarah Facen I cc: Mac Bernd, Little Rock District Superintendent President - Little Rock School District Board of Directors Ann Brown, Desegration Monitor, Little Rock School District ,undersigned residents of the Southend of Little Rock and supporters of Little Rock Public Schools desire the continuance of public school  The education within Ish Incentive School at its' current location. With consideration This request is supported by the attached narrative, to our expressed concerns (see attached), we are confident that this (see attached), we school can be among the best in the district. NOME ftDDRESS PHONE # .Li^i VAa.... i' i r i /.I \\ ! in.! hi - lA. h. ..Ai--------- \u0026lt;r L'l-___ L /'! y.:' A'A 3  y - OlyL\u0026gt;0 31jm-. '1V3. ^3 rr y   : y,' \"  I   ' ( I i  .A.'7' 5 / L i 2- 1 \u0026lt;  ] U17.' ., 1 V\n  .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ' I Xd. } , t-v r ,33 /S^iXLy \u0026lt; ,1 i\u0026gt;7i, 7 1 J- 7 '3.c'33 -r-r f '7 ro S.1 ()ja'j yL- _____________ '^.ce/iahi 7)3(1^ ^4\n\"XTT- J. -''  A LjkXLr er 7 ' 7' rUL 7' :jaci-3. f :isr/ 'J- a Lil yo. ^R.y^72$' I 'r / ,^jLr 1 '2\u0026gt; \u0026lt;1 C\u0026gt;73 (3\u0026gt;-.-\u0026lt;!1-^1.^_______ 377/7yy? S ']^-\u0026lt;^773 373i-ZTl^ 31The undersigned residents of the Southend of Little Rock and supporters of Little Rock Public Schools desire the continuance of public school education within Ish Incentive School at its current location. This request is supported by the attached narrative, With consideration to our expressed concerns (see attached), wwee aarree confident that this school can lae among the best in the district. NAME ADDRESS PHONE  ' .7' ''7cz,, . \u0026lt;O\n- Z7. h 3(73j7  1 \"i  t  i,. I  ' .2. ''? I /hi'J Lt ( ?LkcC-i riL 7/7'73 -Pchha h 5-77 ri 31 7 77Z72_1__ , / Ll7_ .1 ~Ji 'll' /.tl lih- 'j -h, I h' \u0026gt; A\n/ 7 )\u0026lt;3L7h.'A.'' CH / ) 1  I. t ) 4,f4 !/ , -L_ J t. 6 7'2  2 \u0026lt; ,f . 3') 7 \u0026lt;'/hi'h-D/- I Jf ! // ' f y /'IJ 3y(/^ 7c y J)\u0026gt;: ^.13.^.. ! 1 /hkhk,, IL /C^Th-______ \"AftcLsi .^76 - 7'^4-)i5c7 7 r. X)^-DO^7-^ 7 / 2-^- I j_ / \u0026lt;f ,y'-) ./ \u0026lt; 2 ! h)hl. J t V ! J-n' .''y ----- '\\i V . I Ch- J. A il I ^.'jl Cl IL.J J_1__ L. S (. 7 I - ' S ^12 7S't' . \u0026gt; The undersiqned residents of the Southend of Little Rock and supporters o^ Little Ruck Public Schools de^sire the continuance of public school educa tiun w.} thin Ish Incenti e School at its' current location. This request is supported by the attached narrati With consideration to our expressed concerns (see a t tac hed ) , we are confident that this school can be among the best in the district. NHML hDDRESS PHONE H _ ......... V:- _.3Q00 Mb- Lrp,3S. 4- 4^5. actd3 'Sj j~I [v 3 f b r J 41^1\nBlSq , The undersigned residents oT the Southend of Little Rock and supporters ot Little Rock Public Schools desire the continuance ot public school education within Ish Incentive School at its' current location. This request is supported by the attached narrative. With consideration to our expressed concerns ((sseeee aa tt ttaacchheedd)) ,, we are confident that this school can be among the best in the district. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # I V\u0026gt;--^ \u0026lt; ALii. 7/n 2^0^ 1 UALiOu jLLx_J_2^q| Z. 57^-35/r  The undersiqned residents of the Southend o-f Little Rock and supporters o-f Little Rock Public Schools desire the continuance of public school education within Ish Incentive School at its' current location. Ti ^|)ues __ __ p oufr expressed c ithoo\\/'can is SU bk arnon H/tt NAME -K - 'lU-tt f' \u0026gt;^1\n^- t by t^^ attd'c^hed narrat. ( see\\attac}i6d ) , ( wi^ are' (see\\attad best'' in'''-the\" ADDRESS Jilt. 7  Ai4i tlV'Bonai^^rt^tiion I e on A^fen ty t ha ____________ PHONE  ') 0:7 [J\". 1 T' 7C 7\u0026gt;it7 '7~!  T- y ^7 3,-,. -,,_______ TZ':ix5\u0026lt;^ /. '/ f ! i-CTTr-y^ 2b-^ 7if/ y/rcT^ yr. lei l-cdyiACCf cTy^f 'C ^-7________ _71iy7U77ij^^____ i' I 57 S7^ ~/^ oKeeb /Memorial \u0026lt;. (tburcfj 3101 South Izard Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 375-8687 Rev. Dr. W.H. Graves, Presiding Bishop Rev. J.W. Johnson, Presiding Elder Rev. W.S. Jones, Pastor Parsonage Phone. (501 ) 372-0604 Evanda Evans, Steward Board Chairrnan W.C. Washington, Tnistee Board Chairman Ruth Evans, Missionary President Stephanie. Coleman, Secretary May 3, 1993 Mr. John Moore, President Board of Directors Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Moore: The membership of the Reed Memorial CME Church is pleased to lift our voice in support of maintaining Ish Elementary as an operating school. Ish Elementary has served the families of South Little Rock since 1965. integral part of the community. It has, over the years, become an Ish, in conjunction with other institutions in the neighborhood, has developed many solid, contributing citizens. The mood of the country and, indeed, of this community, is support for strengthening and rebuilding the family. In south Little Rock, Ish School is considered a part of the neighborhood family and provides a focal point for many self-esteem building activities. community. The four year old program is a real plus for the The K-6 program coupled with the after-school incentive effort is a program that is valued and respected. The trend of more community and parental involvement, of which the Reed Memorial Family will be a part, will only serve to increase the academic achievement of the students. We ask that you accept this letter as the official position of the Reed Memorial Church family. We ask that the Ish Elementary School remain open as an operating school that can continue to serve the citizens of South Little Rock. Sincerely, Rev. WilJJram S. Jones, Pastor * . v FILED -E ASTERNO DISISTTRRICICTT C AORUKRATNSA\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN J 11993 carl h. brents, clerk 3y.-_Ay . Jk(7 .AAr^/v OEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court held a hearing on June 8 and 9, 1993, on plaintiff's motion for approval of the attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School Interdistrict School. and the site selection for the Stephens Most of the testimony addressed the King attendance zones\nadditional testimony on the matter of the Stephens site will be taken at a later date. The Court issues the following Order concerning the attendance zones for King. The Little Rock School District hired Dr. Leonard Thalmueller, a former LRSD employee, to draw up several proposed attendance zones plans for the new King Interdistrict School. The plan approved by the LRSD Board of Directors assumed that the Ish Incentive School would be closed unless 100 or more students in the Ish attendance zone wished to attend that school for the 1993-94 academic year. The Court finds that the zoning changes approved by the LRSD are acceptable. They were drawn in such a way as to minimize changes in the attendance zones for other schools. The Court approves the plan, however, only on the condition that Ish remain open unless the LRSD establishes. according to the Court's criteria, that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. The incentive schools are an integral part of the desegregation plan and the LRSD failed to present sufficient evidence to justify the closing of Ish at this time. The Court further f inds that it would not be appropriate to close Ish according to the criteria set forth by the LRSD at the hearing. The Court orders that Ish will remain open during the 1993-94 school year if 100 or more students want to attend Ish. The 100 students who will decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the following groups: 1. Students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones\n2. Students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zones\nand 3. Students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones. The Court is adding this third group of students, which is significant in number. because it believes it is only fair to recognize that these students have a stake in the closing of Ish. Student assignments are confusing and are in a state of disarray for a number of reasons, including grandfathering leftover from the earlier controlled choice student assignment plan. The LRSD has the burden of recruiting students to populate the King Interdistrict School from the above three groups of students. The LRSD also has the burden of proving that fewer than 100 -2-students in the above-mentioned groups wish to attend Ish. Within 10 days from June 9, 1993, the LRSD must submit to the Court its proposed survey of these students along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. This plan must include a time schedule with deadline dates for implementing each step of the survey process, including the date by which the district will determine whether Ish is to remain open or to close. Because the district's student assignment plan for King includes closing Ish and reassigning those students to King, the LRSD must develop an amended student assignment plan for assigning students to King in the event Ish remains open. The district must submit this amended plan to the Court by July 16, 1993. The Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan. The Court notes that at the hearing the LRSD committed to a total of four four-year-old classes at King if Ish is closed. The Court believes this is a wise decision that will aid the LRSD's King recruitment efforts. The Court is not approving any expansion of the capacity of Jefferson Elementary School by approving attendance zone changes in this Order. DATED this //~ day of June, 1993. JUDGE -3- THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET 3H^ IN compliance WITH RULE 56 AND/QR 79\u0026lt;a).FRCP ON., BY rIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs, No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS By Order dated June 11, 1993 [doc.#1848], the Court approved the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School on condition that the Ish Incentive School remain open unless the LRSD establishes that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. In this regard, the Court directed that within 10 days from June 9, 1993, the LRSD submit to the Court its proposed survey of potential Ish students* along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. The LRSD complied with the Court's directive and, by Order dated June 30, 1993 [doc.#1873], the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. Now before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1908] on grounds that the survey process has 1 The Court determined that the 100 students who will decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the following groups: (1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones\n(2) students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zones\nand (3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones. indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by this Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") have responded in opposition to the motion. Having carefully considered the parties' pleadings, the Court finds that the LRSD's motion is well-founded and that the goals of the settlement plan will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the motion. The motion to close the Ish Incentive School therefore is granted. Joshua objects to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted on grounds that (1) the survey did not consider preschool children who may have desired to attend pre-school programs at Ish, and (2) it is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of the students who did not respond to the survey would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, i.e. 55.4%, and on that basis. the actual number of preferences which may be presumed is 145.^ Joshua further states, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that \"[t]he process was designed to fail.\" Joshua's objections to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted are denied as untimely. In the June 11, 1993 order. the Court specifically stated that \"[t]he Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan.\" In the June 30, 1993, Order, the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, in 2 objections. Joshua has not submitted a brief in support of its response setting forth any autliority that would support its -2-part because no objections had been filed. Joshua has not attempted to explain its neglect of the Court's deadlines, and it is far too late at this time to consider objections to the survey and its process. Joshua also objects to the closing of incentive schools which are located in predominately African-American neighborhoods. While such concerns certainly are valid, the Court would point out that the King Interdistrict school, which will be desegregated, is a new school in an African-American neighborhood and, indeed, is in close proximity to Ish. There thus is no net loss of schools in predominately African-American neighborhoods with respect to the Y the settlement plan which precludes the closing of incentive^ schools when there is an insufficient student population to j closing of Ish. The Court would also note that there is nothing in support the school. The Court does reiterate. however. that it will closely watch all proposed school closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by African-American citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School be, and it is hereby, granted. Dated this day of 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WES'lLIP.W Division LITTLP: POCK SCnOOr, IJISTlCrCT, FT AL. PLAINTIFFS V. i,P-C-82 - 0 6 6 PULA-SK I COUNTY .SPPXIIAL SClIOCjl, DISTRICT, FT AI,. DEFENDANTS I.OREHE JOSHUA, ET A[.. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET Ai,. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO STATUS REPORT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose the Status Report of the Little Rock School District filed herein on or about July 16, 1993. For cause we respectfully show the Court that: The survey was not extended to all potential students of Ish School. Although the Court may have approved the survey form and process, there was no effort made, on information and belief, to reach pre-school children which may or may not have included kindergarten children. The concept of one hundred necessarily has to take into account this group of students. Joshua strenuously opposes the Court's intent to close an incentive school in view of the Order of the Eighth Circuit herein. The incentive school benefits which were promised to the present enrollment has not been delivered and stand not to be MRS . 1. 2 . 3 . no. delivered. This includes the scholarchip benefits which the Court has not ruled upon despite the commitments by the school district to the Eighth Circuit and the community. 4 . The process was designed to fail. It is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage ofthe students who did not return the forms would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did i.e., 55.4%. On that so, basis, the actual number of preferences which may be presumed is 145 . Joshua continue to object to the closing of schools which are located in predominantly African American neighborhoods. WHEREFORE, Joshua recjuest a hearing, after an opportunity for discovery, to present its position and to present the position of parents as representative ill the attached letter from Mrs. Sarah Facen. Respectfully submitted, JOSHUA INTERENORS By: John' W. Walker, Bar #6404 6 joAn w. walker, p.a. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3750 72206 6 .CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document lias been served upon all counsel of record by U.S. Mail on this 23rd day of July, 1993. ( John W. WalkerIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION/' (, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. S NO. LR-C-82-866' PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL received JUL 19 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS STATUS REPORT ON THE ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL BY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Comes the Little Rock School District and for its Status Report states: 1. In an Order dated June 11, 1993, the Court directed the Little Rock School District to prepare a survey to send to various students to determine if 100 or more students wished to attend Ish Incentive School. If fewer than 100 students in the listed groups did not wish to attend Ish then the Court authorized the Little School District to close Ish. 2. In an Order dated June 30, 1993, the Court approved the Little Rock School District's King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments. and the revised school selection r,i / t I form. 3. The Affidavit of Marie Parker, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, sets forth the process which the -1- cvaUndjfLittle Rock School District has followed in implementing the survey process. 4. The survey process has indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by the Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish Incentive School 5. In accordance with the above the Board of the Little Rock School District voted on July 15, 1993, to close Ish Incentive School. 6. Pursuant to' the Little Rock School District's timeline which was approved by the Court, the District will mail student assignment notices on July 23, 1993. 7. The Little Rock School District had prepared an amended student assignment plan for use in the event Ish remained open. However, in view of the survey results and the closure of Ish it is not necessary to file the amended student assignment plan. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201 BY: FREDERICK S. URS^Y 67055 -2- cvaUrtdjf CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Frederick S. Ursery, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following by depositing a co of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on this day of July, 1993. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220.1 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 'REDERICK S. URSERY -3- cviUndar AFFIDAVIT Comes the affiant, Marie Parker, and after being duly sworn. states: I am the Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity for the Little Rock School District. The following is a list of the actions which have taken place in regard to implementing the Ish assignment survey: June 11, 1993 Court approved an attendance zone for King on the condition that Ish remain open unless the LRSD established. according to the Court's criteria, that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. June 21, 1993 Filed a timeline ^or implementing the King/Ish survey process. a proposed form letter to parents with attached fact sheets on the King Interdistrict School and the Ish Incentive School, and a school selection form. June 1993 Compiled a list of: 1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zone\n2) students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zone\n3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zone. June 1993 Press release to announce community meetings. June 1993 Fliers announcing community meetings delivered door. . to persons. door by recruiters and community June 1993 Fliers announcing community meetings provided to local churches. June 1993 Patrons of Ish community telephoned parents of Ish students regarding meeting. June 29, 1993 Conducted community meeting at Ish to provide information about schools. access to Ish and King June 30, 1993 July 1993 Court approved the King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. Press release to announce July 8 community meeting.July 1993 Fliers distributed door to door throughout Ish neighborhood to announce July 8 community meeting. July 7, 1993 Mailed letter to parents of students with Ish Fact Sheet, King Fact Sheet, stamped and addressed return envelope. Survey Form, July 8, 1993 Conducted second community meeting at Ish to provide additional information regarding access to King and Ish schools and to allow parents to register at that time, chose to do so. if they July 1993 Patrons conducted door to door campaign encouraging parents to return survey form. July 1993 Developed amended student assignment plan (in the event Ish remained open). July 9-14, 1993 Conducted Assignment telephone Office survey encouraging complete and return survey form. via Student parents to July 14, 1993 Survey foirms compiled and results submitted to the LRSD attorneys and the Interim Superintendent for further action. July 15, 1993 The LRSD Board voted to close Ish. The following are the results from the survey process: 260 Survey Forms Mailed 148 Received 82 Requested Ish 66 Requested King Respectfully submitted, MARIE PARKER WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this day of..-July, 1993. NOTAR' My Commission Expires: Cyd. /Q\nJUL-19-93 MON 9:21 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 drk IN THE UNITED STATES PXstrict\ncourt :\u0026gt;F,'7ik^SA's  . I'erAtr' 1. EASTERN DISTRICT. pF, WESTERN DIVISION' 93 JUL 15 Pfl |: Li'f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CARL n. BRENTS, cr I NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL I. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS STATUS REPORT ON THE ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL BY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Comes the Little Rock School District and for its Status Report states: 1, In an Order dated June 11, 1993, the Court directed the Little Rock School District to prepare a survey to send to various students to determine if 100 or more students wished to attend Ish Incentive School. If fewer than 100 students in the listed groups DiiA, i I did not wish to attend Ish then the Court authorized the Little School District to close Ish, 2. In an Order dated June 30, 1993, the Court approved the Little Rock School District's King/Ish survey process. the revised form letter with attachments, form. and the revised school selection 3. The Affidavit of Marie Parker, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, sets forth the process which the -1- e*iUnd.MJUL-19-93 NON 9:21 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 Little Rock School District has followed in implementing the survey process. 4. The survey process has indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by the Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend ish Incentive School 5. In accordance with the above the Board of the Little Rock School District voted on July 15, School. 1993, to close Ish Incentive 6. Pursuant to the Little Rock School District's timeline which was approved by the Court, the District will mail student assignment notices on July 23, 1993. 7. The Little Rock School District had prepared an amended student assignment plan for use in the event Ish remained open. However, in view of the survey results and the closure of Ish it is not necessary to file the amended student assignment plan. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE i CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, TVrkansas (501) 376-2011 72201 BY: FREDERICK S. URS 67055 -2- /JUL-19-93 HON 9:22 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 04 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Frederick S. Ursery, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following by depositing of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, day of July, 1993. on this Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220.1 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR -7-2-2-01 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 'REDERICK S. URSERY a c -3- 0v*\\lMd.\u0026gt;r JUL-19-93 MON 9:22 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 affidavit Comes the affiant, Marie Parker, and after being duly sworn, states\nI am the Associate Superintendent for Organizational Learning Equity for the Little Rock School District. and The following is a list of the actions which have taken in regard to implementing the Ish assignment survey: place June 11, 1993 Court approved an attendance zone for King on the condition that Ish remain open unless the LRSD established, according to the Court's criteria, that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993*94 academic year. June 21, 1993 Filed a timeline -for implementing the King/Ish survey process, a proposed form letter to parents with attached fact sheets on the King Interdistrict School and the Ish Incentive School, and a school selection form. June 1993 Compiled a list of\n1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zone\n2) Students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zone\n3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zone. June 1993 Press release to announce community meetings. June 1993 Fliers announcing community meetings delivered door. - to door by recruiters persons. and community June 1993 Fliers announcing community meetings provided to local churches. June 1993 Patrons of Ish community telephoned parents of Ish students regarding meeting. June 29, 1993 Conducted community meeting at Ish to provide information about access to Ish and King schools. access June 30, 1993 Court approved the King/ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. July 1993 Press release to announce July 8 community meeting.93 HON 9:23 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 July 1993 Fliers distributed door to door throughout ish neighborhood to announce July 8 community meeting. July 7, 1993 Mailed letter to parents of students with Ish Fact Sheet, King Fact Sheet, Survey Form, stamped and addressed return envelope. July 8, 1993 Conducted second community meeting at Ish to provide additional information regarding access to King and Ish schools and to allow parents to register at that time, chose to do so. if they July 1993 July 1993 Patrons conducted door to door campaign encouraging parents to return survey form. Developed amended student assignment plan (in the event Ish remained open). i I July 9-14, 1993 July 14, 1993 July 15, 1993 260 14 8 82 66 Conducted telephone survey Assignment Office encouraging complete and return survey form. via Student parents to Survey forms compiled and results submitted to the LRSD aattttoorrnneeyyss aanndd tthhee Interim Superintendent for further action. The LRSD Board voted to close Ish. The following are the results from the Survey Forms Mailed Received Requested Ish Requested King survey process\nRespectfully submitted, MARIE PARKER WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this day of^July, 1993. NOT. My Commission Expires: Cy JUL-20-93 TUE 8:24 I SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 U.S. D II. L? RIC I I. li\n . I I ,\n- ' . i : s  I . * IN THE UNITED STATES DIS'IRicT' COCRT EASTERN D-I-S-T--RI COTFcAKKANSA^!.| q. r.q WESTERN DlVISlbhf\"^ CARL ERENTS ' Ft-' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY__. V. NO. LR-C82866 cilPrcLi\n? PLAINTIFFS PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO CLOSE ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL Comes the Little Rock School District and for its Motion to Close Ish Incentive School states: 1. In an Order dated June 11, 1993, the Court directed the Little Rock School District to prepare a survey to send to various students to determine if 100 or more students wished to attend ish Incentive School. If fewer than 100 students in the listed groups did not wish to attend Ish then the Court authorized the Little School District to close Ish. 2. In an Order dated June 30, 1993, the Court approved the Little Rock School District's King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection 4 form. 3 . The Amended Affidavit of Marie Parker, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, sets forth the process which the Little Rock School District has followed in implementing the survey process. -1- evi'Ind.Ar JUL-20-93 TUE 8:25 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 4. The survey process has indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by the Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend ish Incentive School. 5. In accordance with the above the Board of the Little Rock School District voted on July 15, 1993, to close Ish Incentive School. 6. Pursuant to the Little Rock School District's timeline which was approved by the Court, the District will mail student assignment notices on July 23, 1993. 7. The Little Rock School District had prepared an amended student assignment plan for use in the event ish remained open. However, in view of the survey results and the closure of Ish it is not necessary to file the amended student assignment plan. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the Ish Incentive School be closed and for all other just and proper relief to which it is entitled. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201 pv'hd.if BY: -2- FREDERICK :K S . URSER^, \\ #67055JUL-20-93 TUE 8:25 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 I, Frederick s. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE , , Ursery, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing status Report on the ish Incentive School by Little Rock School District has been served upon the following by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, _L3. day of July, 1993. on this Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 FREOrfRICK S. URSERY -3- ev'ld.er JUL-20-93 TUE '8:26 SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 05 AMENDED AFFIDAVIT Comes the affiant, Marie Parker, and after being duly sworn, states: I am the Associate Superintendent for Organizational Learning Equity for the Little Rock School District. and The following is a list of the actions which have taken place in regard to implementing the ish assignment survey: June 11, 1993 Court approved an attendance zone for King on the condition that Ish remain open unless the LRSD established, according to the Court's criteria, that fewer than lOO students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. June 21, 1993 Filed a timeline for implementing the King/Ish survey process, a proposed form letter to parents with attached fact sheets on the King Interdistrict School and the ish Incentive School, and a school selection form. June 1993 Compiled a list of: 1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zone\n2) students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zone\n3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zone. June 1993 Press release to announce community meetings. June 1993 Fliers announcing community meetings delivered door to door by recruiters persons. and community June 1993 Fliers announcing community meetings provided to local churches. June 1993 Patrons of Ish community telephoned parents of Ish students regarding meeting. June 29, 1993 Conducted community meeting at Ish to provide information about access to Ish and King schools. to June 30, 1993 Court approved the King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. July 1993 Press release to meeting. announce July 8 communityJUL-20-93 TUE 8:26 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 06 July 1993 Fliers distributed door to door throughout ish neighborhood to  - * meeting. announce July 8 community July 7, 1993 Mailed letter to parents of students with JI IsTx Fact Sheet, King Fact Sheet, Survey Form, stamped and addressed return envelope. July 8, 1993 Conducted second community meeting at ish to provide additional information regarding access to King and Ish schools and to allow information parents to register at that time, chose to do so. if they July 1993 Patrons conducted door to door campaign encouraging parents to return survey form. July 1993 Developed amended student assignment plan (in the event Ish remained open). July 9-14, 1993 Conducted telephone survey via student Assignment Office encouraging parents complete and return survey form. via to July 14, 1993 Survey forms compiled and results submitted to the LRSD attorneys and the Interim Superintendent for further action. attorneys July 15, 1993 The LRSD Board voted to close Ish. The following are the results from the survey process: 260 Survey Forms Mailed 173 Received 82 Requested Ish 66 Requested King 25 Requested to remain at their current school Respectfully submitted, Ik marie parker WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this /^day o Uly, 1993. Mi^^oWiissior. Expires: NOTARY7PUB CJUL-20-9'3 TUE '8:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 07 U.S Cl IN^'ltHE^-UUlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern CT 33 ' WESTERN PIVISION OF AJRKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL lyiSTRICT. B I -- V. '3 PLAINTIFFS NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS - KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ^lEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO CLOSE ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL~ In its order of June 11, 1993, the court stated that \"Ish will remain open during the 1993-94 school year if lOO or more students want to attend Ish.\" The court further noted that LRSD \"has the burden of proving that fewer than 100 students ... wish to attend Ish.\" The court required that LRSD submit within ten days from June 9, 1993 \"its proposed survey ... along with the plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results\". The court also required that LRSD's plan include a time schedule with deadline dates for implementing each step of the survey process, including the date by which the district will determine whether Ish is to remain open or to close.\" Order June 13, 1993, p, 3. LRSD's plan for determining whether 100 to attend Ish school for the 1993-94 school or more students wish year was approved by the court in an order dated June 30, 1993 . The amended affidavit CM3L IT 1 \" 1 of Marie Parker shows that LRSD followed its court approved plan for determining the number of students who wish to attend Ish. -1-JUL-20-93 TUE 8:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 08 I Only S2 students selected Ish school. Therefore, in accordance with the court's order of June 11, 1993 and the survey process which was approved June 30, 1993, Ish Incentive School should be closed and those students who would otherwise have been assigned to Ish should be assigned to King Interdistrict School. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201 BY: -2- FREDERICK S. URSERY/ #670551, JUL-20-93 TUE 8:28 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 09 -CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ^^sery, hereby certify a copy of the SchoS bv Report on the Ish Incentive School District has been served upon the depositing a copy of same in the United States mail postage prepaid, on this . day of July, 1993. Frederick S. Ursery, that Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr, Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Su 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR Suite 510 72201 FREDERICK S, URSERY -3-06/28.-93 09:20 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODJI @002-002 a Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE JUNE 28, 1993 For more information\nJeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSP SCHEDULES COMMUNITY MEETING AT ISH SCHOOT A special meeting will be held for Ish School and interested community members Tuesday. Tune 29 atJsh School. 3001 Pulaski street. parents, patrons at 7 p.m Parents of clhldren currently attending Ish School and those who are assigned to the Ish attendance zone but do not attend Ish wiU discuss and be given information on school assignment options for the 1993-94 school year. Students assigned to the Ish attendance zone for the 1993-94 school year have the option of attending Ish School or Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School opening in the 1993-94 school year. For more information call 324-2272. ### 810 West Markham Street  Little07/07/93 12:39 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/002 ?l\nii Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE July 7, 1993 For more informatioii\nJeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD SCHEDULES COMMUi r MEETING AT ISH SCHOOL A special meeting will be held for Ish School parents, patrons and interested community members Thursday July 8 at 6 p.m. at Ish SchooL3001 Pulaski Street. Parents of children currently attending Ish School and those who are assigned to the Ish attendance zone but do not attend Ish will discuss and be given information on school assignment options for the 1993-94 school year. Parents may also register tbpir children at the community meeting. Students assigned to the Ish attendance zone for the 1993-94 school year have the option of attending Ish School or Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School opening in the 1993-94 school year. ### BIQ We.t Markhan, Street . l.ltt.P Rnrk 722Q1  f5Q1^324.7nnn07/12^93 14:22 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 001/001 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE July 10, 1993 For more information\nJeanette Wagner, 324-2020 Which School will your child attend: Ish. King or some other. school. The Little Rock School District is asking all parents to complete and return the surveys that were mailed out on July 7, which discussed school assignment for Ish attendance zone students for the 93-94 school year. The surveys included: 1) students who now attend ish and live in the Ish attendance zone 2) students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zone 3) students now attending Ish and live outside the Ish atendance zone. The deadline for returning the surveys is July 14, 1993 . If you have any questions, please contact Marie Parker at 324-2272. ###'RECEIVED J LSTHi.to TCCURT if\n!!:ANAS JUL 2 8 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 211993 Office of Desegreja'ucn MoMiSfina GAF f jTS, CLlRK CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District for Court approval to close the Ish Incentive School filed on July 19, 1993. Any party wishing to file a response to the E ! motion must do so no later than Wednesday, July 28, 1993. r\u0026lt;4 DATED this day of July, 1993. united SiTtAATtEeSs 'dist'rRiIgCT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET N OMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP yN BY_^ 1 .b 1  i -3 i'\"\n1 1 Office of Desegragation Monitor 201 E Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Bldg Little Rock, AR 72204 vjt Case: 4:82-cv-00866WH IB. M2 rn H M IN THE UNITED STATES' DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT. OR ARKANSAS' WESTERN DlVi'slOi * SY, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO ORDER On July 23, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. undersigned counsel received a copy of the court's order of this date. United States District Court all day. Undersigned counsel was in Although the court's order was entered on July 23, 1993, it was not filed until July 27, 1993, Moreover, counsel did not receive a copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion until approximately 5:15 p.m, on this date. Under the circumstances, therefore, with particular emphasis upon the time left for reply, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose the motion for approval to close the Ish Incentive School and respectfully request that the court accept as the response in opposition the pleading filed by Joshua on July 23, of that document is attached hereto. 1993. A copy Respectfully submitted, JOSHUA INTERVENORS j^hn W, Walker #64046 John W. Walker P.A. 1723 BroadwayUS Dis I Cl Little Rock FAX NO. 5013246096 P. 03 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICR I, John w. Walker, hereby certify that a true and of the foregoing document correct copy record by U.S has been served upon all counsel of  Mail on this 23rd day of July, 1993. Jgnn W. Walker Iz' HU. WUUU IN the united STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. plaintiffs NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL. SCHOOL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. dependants KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, INTERVENORS ET AL, INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenor of the Little Rock School s -OPPOSITION TO STATUS REPORT respectfully oppose the Status Report Ai16, 1993. ^S-Chool. For cause we District filed herein on or about July respectfully show the Court that: The survey was not extended to all potential students of Although the Court may have approved the a, survey form process. there was no effort made. i^Vto reach pre-school children which on information and belief, kindergarten children. may or may not have included The concept of one hundred to take into account this necessarily has 2. group of students. line Joshua strenuously opposes the Court's intent to ncentive school in view of the Order of the Ighth Circuitt herein. 3. Aerexn. The incentive school benefits present enrollment has delivered. has not whicn re promised to the been delivered and stand not to be This includes the schol ruled upon despite the a^hip benefits which the Court to the Eighth Circuit and the \u0026gt; commitments by the school district community. / 5. 4. It is reasonable to 5 The process was designed to fail. assume that an equal percentage of us DisI Cl Lillie Rock FAX NO. 5013246096 P. 05 the students who did not return the forms to that would have opted for Ish percentage which actually did SOy basis, the actual number 145. i.e., 55.4%. On that  Ul 6. of preferences which may be presumed is Joshua continues which are located in WHEREFORE, Joshua to object to the closing of schools predominantly African American neighborhoods. request a hearing, after an discovery, to present its opportunity for position and to present the parents as representative in the attached latter from Facen. position of Mrs. Sarah By: Respectfully submitted, JOSHUA INTERENORS Joh JOffi  Walker, Bar #64046 --- W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 JUL-M IHU 1UU4 Uh. LUny\u0026lt;lBU!) w Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 122^^ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE John W. Walker, hereby certify that of the foregoing document has been served a true and correct copy upon all counsel of record by U.S, Mail on this 28th day of July, 1993. n W. Walker I 1John w. Walker, I.a. AnoRNEY At Law 1723 Broadway ijTrLE Bock. Arkansas Tei.E'PIIONE (501) 371-3758 I'AX (501) 371-1187 received JUL 3 0 1993 JOHN W. WALKER RALLil WASHINUWN MARK Bt'RNLTIK AUSTIN PORTER. -II\n. July 29, 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, /vR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell \u0026amp; Streett 401 West Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD\nNo. LR-C-82- 866 Dear Sirs or Madam: Enclosed please find a copy of Joshua's Response to Order which has been filed in the above matter. Sincerely, A- John W. Walker JWW:Ip Enclosure cc: All Counsel of Recordo' \\995 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT racteRN district of ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS LR-C-02-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS On July 28, RESPONSE TO ORDER 199 3 al\n5:00 p.lu. undersigned coun el received a copy of the court's order of this date. United States District Court. a.I 1 day. Undersigned counsel was in Although the court's order was entered on July 23, 1993, jt was not filed until July 27, 1993. Moreover, counsel did not receive a copy of Little Rock School District' s (LRSD) motion unt.il approximately 5:15 p.m. on this date. Under the circumstances, therefore. with particular emphasis upon the time left for reply. the Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose ttie motion for. approval to close the Ish Incentive School 50 and respectfully request that the court accept as the response in opposition the pleading filed by Joshua on July 23, 1993 . A copy of that document is attached hereto. Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORS j^hn W. Walker #64046 John VJ. Walker P.A. 1723 BroadwayI , 111 title Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 (JI': KJ' I. P' I (JATE jOEJSER'/ACE Joli 11 W. VJo.lkci', Ik\nI oljy '-er 72206 tify a true uud correct copy of I Ik- lorofjoinq dt?cuiiieiit liac I 'Cell seivod upon all counsel of record by d . Ma 1.1 OU tli.i u 2111 h day of July, 1993. I'' 3 6,. )  t i b I.  Jolin W. Walker'RECEIVED t c. . OiST \"J 3 FD  asr^ '^xsz\u0026amp;n rn\nCT COURT fS:'CT ARKANSAS JUL 2 8 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL 2 7 1993 WESTERN DIVISION OtiicQ of Desegregation Monitoring OAF?:.. Ti, ii-r 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the By: 'jT3, CLlRK L'^P. CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Little Rock School District for Court approval to close the Ish Incentive School filed on July 19, 1993. Any party wishing to file a response to the motion must do so no later than Wednesday, July 28, 1993. nJ DATED this day of July, 1993. united SiTtAATtEeSs 'disTRrIicCT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN \u0026gt;N OMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP by 1 1 J T 50 Olfes c' ,^N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS On July 28, RESPONSE TO ORDER 1993 at 5:00 p.m. undersigned coun el received a copy of the court's order of this date. United States District Court all day. Undersigned counsel was in Although the court's order was entered on July 23, 1993, it was not filed until July 27, 1993. Moreover, counsel did not receive copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion until approximately 5:15 p.m. on this a date. Under the circumstances, therefore, with particular emphasis upon the time left for reply. the Joshua Intervenor respectfully oppose the motion for approval to close the Ish Incentive School and respectfully reque t that the court accept as the response in opposItion the pleading filed by Josliua on July 23, 1993 . A copy of that document is attached hereto. Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORS Walker #64046 jjbhn W. John W. Walker P.A. 1723 BroadwayI , Joliii of the Lilt tie Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 cisicjM.r.ior service Vb'.i .1 ker, 72206 iKii f\nby \u0026lt;\nej-tify l.liiiL a true and correct copy f.'fjr erjo i.nq docuiiieiit liar: leell SC) V('il upon all counsel of recoi. 11 l.r/ IJ Ma 1J oil th j \n2!il li dcij' of Ju I y, 1993 . \u0026lt; L I I .folin V\\l. WalkerAUG- 2-93 HON 15:4! SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 ua.oiSTmcT count EAsrenN district Arkansas IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 0 2 1993 CARLfi,BR By J13 ENTS, CLERK P. CL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER By Order dated June 11, 1993 [doc,#1848], the Court approved the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD) attendance zones for the King Interdistriot School on condition that the Ish Incentive School remain open unless the LRSD establishes that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. In this regard, the Court directed that within 10 days from June 9, 1993 , the LRSD submit to the Court its proposed survey of potential Ish students^ along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. The LRSD complied with the Court's directive and, by Order dated June 30, 1993 [doc.#1873], the Court approved the LRSD's King/lsh survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. None of the parties objected. Now before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1908] on grounds that the survey process has 1 The Court determined that the 100 students who will decide the immediate Future of Ish will come from the following groups\n(1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones\n(2) students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zones\nand (3) students now attending Ish but who live outside die Ish attendance zones.AUG- 2-93 HON 15:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by this Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") have responded in opposition to the motion. Having carefully considered the parties^ pleadings, the Court finds that the goals of the settlement plan will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School, and that the motion should be and hereby is granted. Joshua objects to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted on grounds that (1) the survey did not consider preschool children who may have desired to attend pre-school programs at Ish, and (2) it is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of the students who did not respond to the survey would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, i.e. 55.4%, and on that basis. the actual number of preferences which may be presumed is 145.^ Joshua further states, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that \"[t]he process was designed to fail.\" Joshua's objections to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted are denied as untimely. In the June 11, 1993 order, the Court specifically stated that \"[t]he Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan. II In the June 30, 1993, Order, the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, in 1 conclusion. Joshua has not submitted a brief in support of its response setting forth any authority that would support such a -2-AUG- 2-93 MON 15:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 part because no objections had been filed. Joshua has not attempted to explain its neglect of the Court's deadlines, and it is now far too late to ask this Court to consider objections to the survey and its process. Joshua also objects to the closing of incentive schools which are located in predominately black neighborhoods. While such concerns are certainly valid, the Court notes that the King Interdistrict school, which will be desegregated, is a new school in a black neighborhood and, indeed, is in close proximity to Ish. There thus is no net loss of schools in predominately black neighborhoods with respect to the closing of Ish. The Court would also note that the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish due to an insufficient number of students does not conflict with the terms of the settlement plan. The plan states the following with respect to incentive schools: There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending those schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. to these elementary area The recruitment of white students percentage schools may increase the of white students in these schools to maximum percentage of 60 percent. The incentive schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens, The incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school\nany -3- aAUG- 2-93 HON 15:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 recruitment and/or any assignment shall be in accordance with each district's student assignment plan. Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. shall utilize the services To meet that goal, the parties of a consultant who has demonstrable experience in developing and successfully implementing such educational setting. programs in maj ority-black Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, pg. 4. According to the desegregation plan, the double funding allotted the incentive schools is intended to help alleviate the racial-isolation of the children attending these predominately one- race schools. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stressed the importance of this incentive school feature\nIt may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools ,.. Appeal of Little Pock School District^ 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991). However, in accordance with the aforementioned survey process, the LRSD gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood. King offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists, a 56 station computer lab. electronic-assisted instruction, and an automated a media center. Also, as previously noted by the Court, if Ish were to close and its students transfer to King, the LRSD committed to -4-AUG- 2-93 MON 15:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 06 increase the total number of four-year-old classes at King from two to four. Nevertheless, to the extent the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish is a disputed modification of the plan, the Court finds that such modification is in compliance with the standards for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, suprsi 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: To modify [a] consent decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes experience has achieving proven its goal. either it less effective because [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree. modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. A Td. at 258, quoting with approval Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). Here, the Court finds that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100} IS changed circumstance which a constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein. Furthermore, the Court finds that the circumstances and conditions thus have changed which warrant \"fine- tuning\" the plan. Th closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict school, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Although the Court grants the LRSD's motion to close Ish, it does not excuse the LRSD from its obligation to recruit white -5-AUG- 2-93 MON 15:44 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 students to desegregate the remaining incentive schools. The Court reiterates that it will closely watch all proposed school closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens. The motion to close Ish does not evidence such a pattern. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School be, and it is hereby, granted. Dated this 2nd day of August 1993. UNITED STATES DIStfRIC' 'RI CT JUDGE -6-h \u0026lt;\u0026gt; U.S. OfSTAlCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 4 1993 On'ics oi Deses^^S\"'-'*^^ vi:or..tor'!\n'.g IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 0 2 1993 WESTERN DIVISION KC!RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL I INTERVENORS ORDER By Order dated June 11, 1993 [doc.#1848], the Court approved the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School on condition that the Ish Incentive School remain open unless the LRSD establishes that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. In this regard, the Court directed that within 10 days from June 9, 1993, the LRSD submit to the Court its proposed survey of potential Ish students^ along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. The LRSD complied with the Court's directive and, by Order dated June 30, 1993 [doc.#1873], the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process. the revised form letter with attachments. and the revised school selection form. None of the parties objected. Now before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1908] on grounds that the survey process has fell  students who wiU decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the toUowmg groups\n(1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance who live within the Ish attendance zones\n(2) students not attending Ish but zones, and (3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones. I indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by this Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua) have responded in opposition to the motion. Having carefully considered the parties' pleadings, the Court finds that the goals of the settlement plan will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School, and that the motion should be and hereby is granted. Joshua objects to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted on grounds that (1) the survey did not consider preschool children who may have desired to attend pre-school programs at Ish, and (2) it is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of the students who did not respond to the survey would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, i.e. 55.4%, and on that basis. the actual number of preferences which may be presumed is 145.^ Joshua further states, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that \"[t]he process was designed to fail.\" Joshua's objections to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted are denied as untimely. In the June 11, 1993 order. the Court specifically stated that tl [t]he Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan.\" In the June 30, 1993, Order, the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, in 2 conclusion. Joshua has not submitted a brief in support of its response setting forth any authority that would support such a -2-part because no objections had been filed. J oshua has not attempted to explain its neglect of the Court's deadlines, and it is now far too late to ask this Court to consider objections to the survey and its process. Joshua also objects to the closing of incentive schools which are located in predominately black neighborhoods. While such concerns are certainly valid, the Court notes that the King Interdistrict school, which will be desegregated, is a new school in a black neighborhood and, indeed. is in close proximity to Ish. There thus is no net loss of schools in predominately black neighborhoods with respect to the closing of Ish. The Court would also note that the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish due to an insufficient number of students does not conflict with the terms of the settlement plan. The plan states the following with respect to incentive schools: There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, a period of at least six years,   that number of black students for sufficient to accommodate _ ------ who, by attending those schools, make it possible to achieve a student population the remaining Little Rock schools y an schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with variance of 5 percent.  (elementary area a to these elementary The recruitment of white students _ - area schools increase the percentage of white students in these schools to maximum percentage of 60 percent. T V, incentive schools shall be: r^.J.li,,, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens may a Franklin, Garland, Kigniseii, Rockefeller, and Stephens. The incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in into the incentive , / iVxiiy d uesignauea numneir of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools --established those seats attributable t.. LL.1:, available for those students who otherwise would have been assigned to an incentive school\nAs are to LRSD will be incentive or could any -3-assignment shall be in accordance district's student assignment plan. Funding for the incentive schools shall be f incentive schools shall be set at two elementary area schools to ensure ---------racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated of a consultant who has aemonstrable \u0026lt;---- implementing that the children who are experiences/activities. services of educational setting- experience in developing and successfully such programs in a majority-black Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, pg. 4. According to the desegregation plan. the double funding allotted the incentive schools is intended to help alleviate the racial-isolation of the children attending these predominately one- race schools. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stressed the importance of this incentive school feature\nhelpful for us to state those elements of the K- , that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double fundinrr -fnr fa 4-4- the ------ They are (1) double funding for students attending incentive (virtually allblack) schools ... Appeal of Little Rock School District, 1991). 949 F.2d 253, 256 {8th Cir. However, in accordance with the aforementioned survey process, the LRSD gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood. King offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists, a 56 station computer lab. electronic-assisted instruction. and an automated media center. Also, as previously noted by the Court, if Ish were to close and its students transfer to King, the LRSD committed to -4- Iincrease the total number of four-year-old classes at King from two to four. Nevertheless, to the extent the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish is a disputed modification of the plan, the Court finds that such modification is in compliance with the standards for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: To modify [a] consent decree[] lo moairy [a] consent decree[], the court need only defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because e^erience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree, modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. has its either [or] A Id. at 258, quoting with approval Heath 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). V. De Courcy, 888 F.2d Here, the Court finds that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100) is changed circumstance which constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein. Furthermore, the Court finds that the circumstances and conditions thus have changed which warrant \"fine- tuning\" the plan. The closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict School, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Although the Court grants the LRSD's motion to close Ish, it does not excuse the LRSD from its obligation to recruit white -5- a i Istudents to desegregate the remaining incentive schools. The Court reiterates that it will closely watch all proposed school closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens, not evidence such a pattern. The motion to close Ish does IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School be, and it is hereby, granted. Dated this 2nd day of August 1993. unite\n'ATES D :s2r^t judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79\u0026lt;a) FRCP ON BY^ -6-U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 4 \u0026gt;993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 0 2 1993 OH'iCS oi OeseGifcG: icr. n^oC'VjritiQ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By: ^ents, clerk OH. CieRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS . No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER By Order dated June 11, 1993 [doc.#1848], the Court approved the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School on condition that the Ish Incentive School remain open unless the LRSD establishes that fewer than students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. 100 In this regard, the Court directed that within 10 days from June 9, 1993, the LRSD submit to the Court its proposed survey of potential Ish students^ along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. The LRSD complied with the Court's directive and, by Order dated June 30, 1993 [doc.#1873], the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. None of the parties objected. Now before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1908] on grounds that the survey process has The Court determined that the 100 students who will decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the following groups. (1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones\n(2) students not attending Ish but U/kzs lia.a. .L* T-U ___l_ . .. ' '  Who live within the Ish attendance zones\nand (3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones. .'-aaindicated that only 82 students in the group listed by this Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") have responded in opposition to the motion. Having carefully considered the parties' pleadings, the Court finds that the goals of the settlement plan will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School, and that the motion should be and hereby is granted. Joshua objects to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted on grounds that (1) the survey did not consider preschool children who may have desired to attend pre-school programs at Ish, and (2) it is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of the students who did not respond to the survey would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, i.e. 55.4%, and on that basis. presumed is 145.^ the actual number of preferences which may be Joshua further states, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that \"[t]he process was designed to fail.\" Joshua's objections to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted are denied as untimely. In the June 11, 1993 order. the Court specifically stated that \"[t]he Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan.\" In the June 30, 1993, Order, the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process. in 2 conclusion. Joshua has not submitted a brief in support of its response setting forth any authority that would support such a -2-part because no objections had been filed. Joshua has not attempted to explain its neglect of the Court's deadlines, and it is now far too late to ask this Court to consider objections to the survey and its process. Joshua also objects to the closing of incentive schools which are located in predominately black neighborhoods. While such concerns are certainly valid, the Court notes that the King interdistrict school, which will be desegregated, is a new school in a black neighborhood and, indeed, is in close proximity to Ish. There thus is no net loss of schools in predominately black neighborhoods with respect to the closing of Ish. The Court would also note that the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish due to an insufficient number of students does not conflict with the terms of the settlement plan, states the following with respect to incentive schools: The plan There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending those schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to these elementary maximum percentage of 60 percent. The incentive schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens. The incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school\nany a a -3-recruitment and/or any assignment shall be in accordance with each district's student assignment plan. Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. To meet that goal, the parties shall utilize the services of a consultant who has demonstrable experience in developing and successfully implementing such programs in a majority-black educational setting. programs a Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, pg. 4. According to the desegregation plan. the double funding allotted the incentive schools is intended to help alleviate the racial-isolation of the children attending these predominately one- race schools. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stressed the importance of this incentive school feature: It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools ... Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991). However, in accordance with the aforementioned survey process, the LRSD gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood. King offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists, a 56 station computer lab, electronic-assisted instruction. and an automated media center. Also, as previously noted by the Court, if Ish were to close and its students transfer to King, the LRSD committed to -4- increase the total number of four-year-old classes at King from two to four. Nevertheless, to the extent the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish is a disputed modification of the plan, the Court finds that such modification is in compliance with the standeirds for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: To modify [a] consent decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because ej^erience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions either ] effective have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree, modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. A Id. at 258, quoting with approval Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). Here, the Court finds that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100) is changed circumstance which a constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein. Furthermore, the Court finds that the circumstances and conditions thus have changed which warrant \"fine- tuning\" the plan. The closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict School, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Although the Court grants the LRSD's motion to close Ish, it does not excuse the LRSD from its obligation to recruit white -5-students to desegregate the remaining incentive schools. The Court reiterates that it will closely watch all proposed school closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens, not evidence such a pattern. The motion to close Ish does IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School be, and it is hereby, granted. Dated this 2nd day of August 1993. united states'DISTRIC' STRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 1^1321 -6-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER LbU uAS-R.\\ ofsTRrZJ^APMNSAS I 0 1993 CARL S. dHENTS, CLERK 0P. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the Joshua Intervenor's (Joshua) motion [doc.#1929] for this Court to reconsider its order granting the Little Rock School District's motion to close the Ish Incentive School. The Court has carefully considered Joshua's motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied. Joshua has not set forth any facts or legal conclusions that would justify I I I reconsideration of the Court's order. IT IS SO ORDERED this /O day of August 1993. UNiT^ ST^Ss d':^:'RICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLI^CE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(al FRCP ON by I I II I i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER filed caste^oisSSnsas AUG 1 0 1993 CARL  .ihl DP. .fcRK PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the Joshua Intervenor's (Joshua) motion I [doc.#1929] for this Court to reconsider its order granting the Little Rock School District's motion to close the Ish Incentive School. The Court has carefully considered Joshua's motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied. Joshua has not set forth any facts or legal conclusions that would justify i^i^NTS, CLERK ( I I I I ( I I reconsideration of the Court's order. IT IS SO ORDERED this /O day of August 1993. I UNITED STATES DIST?'RICT JUDGE 3N THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET MM COMPLI^CE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79/al FRCP - ^-10-Q--, BY W ' 1 SE^H-gS TUE 14:27 SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS . No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER By Order entered August 10, 1993, this Court denied the Joshua Intervenor's (\"Joshua\") motion for reconsideration of its order granting the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") motion to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1934]. Counsel for Joshua has let the time for filing a notice of appeal from the Court's order lapse. Now before the Court is Joshua's motion for an order granting them an extension of time until October 10, 1993, in which to file a notice of appeal. As grounds for its motion, counsel for Joshua states that he was confused by the following statement made by the Court in a hearing on August 12, 1993, regarding the resolution of Joshua's motion for reconsideration: I have not in any way ruled with respect to that motion ... Transcript, at 6 (August 12, 1993). The Court frankly does not understand how counsel could have been confused about the parameters of his own motion for reconsideration. As counsel knows, the motion is comprised of twoSEP-14-93 TUE 14:28 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 parts J First, Joshua asks the Court to modify its opinion by rescinding its order closing the Ish incentive School. Second, Joshua states that \"[i]n the absence of modification, the Court is requested to issue an Order requiring that all incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits, fallow the incentive school children wherever they may be assigned. Moreover, in the event that King opens as a racially identifiable school, Joshua further requests that it become an incentive school so that all children therein will have the benefit of incentive school programs including the promised scholarships [doc.#1929]. When the Court's statement is not taken out of context as counsel has done, it becomes clear that counsel's confusion is not justified: The children Court\n[Y]ou are entitled mentioned to promised incentive school benefits, have a motion pending on that  whether receive Ish their Now, you Mr. Walker: Yes, ma'am. The Court\nthat has not been addressed. As you know, when 1 permitted the district to survey the students, I suggested that as an incentive, they might offer some of these benefits that are offered to incentive school as an incentive to get the kids to go to Ish. 1 have not in any way ruled with respect to that motion. Transcript, at 5-6 (August 12, 1993). 1 The motion is captioned as follows\n\"Motion for Correction of Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law aiut Motion for Ruling on Request that Incentive School Benefits Including Scholarship Benefits Follow the Incentive School Children.\" (Emphasis added.) -2-SEP-14-93 TUE 14:28 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 The Court clearly was not speaking to Joshua's motion asking that the Court reconsider its order to close Ish, but was speaking to Joshua's motion requesting that the Incentive school benefits follow the Incentive school children. Moreover, the order denying Joshua's motion for reconsideration was entered on August lo, 1993, two days prior^the hearing in which the above statements were made and well in advance of the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. Counsel does not contend that he failed to receive notice of the order. Nevertheless, because the LRSD does not object, the court will grant Joshua's motion for an extension of time. Joshua is hereby given until and including October 10, 1993, in which to file their notice of appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of September 1993. 'judge 2 Ths mailing certificate of the Clerk states tliat the order was mailed to Mr. Walker on August 10, 1993. -3- SEF14-93 TUE 14:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT FAX LINE (501) 324-6576 DATE\n9/14/93 TO\nAnn FROM\nBarry NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET  4 Message\nOitice SEP 1 5 o! Dese5'C8-''' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 1\" 1993  LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS No. LR -C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the court for an ORDER allowing them to have 30 days from August 12, 1993 in which to file a notice of appeal herein. For cause. Joshua shows the Court that on August 10, 1993, the Court entered an ORDER denying Joshua's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order of August 2, 1993 authorizing the Little Rock School District to close Ish Incentive School. When the parties appeared before her Honor on August 12, 1993, 30 days ago taking into account the weekend which just passed, the Court stated that: \"I have not in any way ruled with respect to that motion \" (p. 6, Transcript of Proceedings, a copy of which is attached hereto.) Joshua's motion for reconsideration was filed on August 2, 1993. The Court has not entered a judgement in this case. Therefore, an ORDER allowing Joshua thirty additional days in which to appeal the court's order would be both appropriate and of no prejudice to the Little Rock School District. Joshua's counsel has spoken with the Little Rock School District's counsel regarding this motion and counsel is authorized to state to the court that Mr, Jerry Malone has no objection to this reguest. Wherefore, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court enter an ORDER granting them until October 10, 1993 in which to file their notice of appeal from that order. Respectfully submitted. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, certify that a copy of the forego!^ has been served on September, 1993. all counsel of record on this RECEIVED fir\" Hr OCT 1 3 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURtF\"X1thi^w^, OJfice of Desegregation Monitoring EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. C^Rt R- TEAINTIFFS-V. NO. LR-C-82-866 BV-PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, As next Friend of Minors Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua\nSARA MATTHEWS\nAs Next Friend of KHAYYAM DAVIS\nALEXA ARMSTRONG\nCARLOS ARMSTRONG\nALVIN HUDSON\nTATIA HUDSON\nMRS. HILTON TAYLOR, As Next Friend of HILTON TAYLOR, JR., PARSHA TAYLOR and BRIAN TAYLOR\nREV. JOHN M. MILES, As Next Friend of JANICE MILES and DERRICK MILES\nNAACP\nand ROBERT WILLINGHAM, Next Friend of TONYA WILLINGHAM INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the Joshua Intervenors appeal the Orders of the Court entered herein on August 10, 1993 and September 27, 1993, respectively, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Respectfully submitted, ! . B 5995 No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 I. 111' Hr I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of October, 1993, Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Co\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":42,"next_page":43,"prev_page":41,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":492,"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}}]}}