{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_497","title":"\"Education Policy Analysis: A Catch-22 and More, Little Rock's Incentive School\"","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":["Morgan, Bob","Arkansas Policy Foundation"],"dc_date":["1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["\"Education Policy Analysis: A Catch-22 and More, Little Rock's Incentive School\""],"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/497"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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\nCo \\ --- IIP ARKANSAS POLICY FOUNDATION Greater Oftportunitv Throng Innovative Change RECEWSD 4. 0' '''\"O JUN 2 1997 OrriCEOF DEScGREGA'nQH E D U CATI 0 N POLICY ANALYSIS A Catch-22 and More Little Rock^s Incentive Schools (After Catch 22, A novel by Joseph Heller) by Bob Morgan Summer 1997 For those that never knew or have forgotten, a Catch-22 is: 1. a. A situation in which a desire outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions\nb. The rules or conditions that create such a situation. 2. A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness. 3. A contradictory or self-defeating course of action. 4. A tricky or disadvantageous condition. Ill Center Street, Suite 1610, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501-376-9967 Fax: 501-376-6556 email: Aggiemw2@AOL.comin ARKANSAS POLICY FOUNDATION Greater Opportunity Through Innovative Change I I I I - I  I  I ' I 4 'JUN 2 W97 EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS A Catch-22 and More Little Rocks Incentive Schools (After Catch 22, A novel by Joseph Heller) by Bob Morgan Summer 1997 For those that never knew or have forgotten, a Catch-22 is: 1. 2. 3. 4. a. A situation in which a desire outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions\nb. The rules or conditions that create such a situation. A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness. A contradictory or self-defeating course of action. A tricky or disadvantageous condition. 111 Center Street, Suite 1610, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501-376-9967 Fax: 501-376-6556 email: Aggiemw2@AOL.comIMP ARKANSAS POLICY FOUNDATION Greater Oplmrhmity Tfirou^ Innovative Change Foreword With special acknowledgment and appreciation to the University of Arkansas Little Rock (UALR) and an unequivocal endorsement for its timely and candid study...  Plain Talk: The Future of Little Rock's Public Schools II In introducing, last February, their milestone analysis of Little Rock's deeply disturbing school crisis and the serious challenges represented by our city's long-running desegregation case, UALR authors quoted Thomas Jefferson. II II n II fl H II II II II II II I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves\nand if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion. Thomas Jefferson Jefferson was right to trust in the power of citizenship and the innate will of people to do what is right and best. And UALR was right to sound a call for the broadest possible citizen involvement in solving our education woes. The key to ending the school crisis in Little Rock hinges on bringing the full community back into the process of changefully armed with facts, knowledge and information, and empowered to get the job done. Responsibility for repairing and restoring high quality education in Little Rock cannotmust not be solely left to those with narrowly defined agendas. They are destined to fail\nand as evidence of their failure, nothing has happened after all these years that resolves our crisis in spite of their continuing actions. Those who would, at all costs, preserve and protect their own interests in this tragedy perpetrate a great wrong on our community and its children. Resolution can never come from the war of competing interests. Nor will courts and government get the job done. They can, however, play a pivotal role in facilitating a return of local control and autonomy. Give responsibility back to the people who own the system and who pay for it. When this happens we will fix our schools and rescue future generations from the continued failure that has characterized public education in Little Rock. The UALR study, in a stunning rebirth of community frankness and intellectual honesty, offered up more \"plain talk\" on our schools than we have heard in years. It is refreshing beyond measure. The Arkansas Policy Foundation pledges to continue the trend by offering more \"plain talk\" from time to time. We begin with an insightful analysis of the \"Catch 22\" aspects of our incentive schools. The commentary that follows was developed by Bob Morgan, a former Associate Monitor with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We commend it to your review and believe it to be a timely and eye-opening analysis. Michael Watson President, APF Jack T. \"Steve  Stephens, Jr. Chairman, APFSchools 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 recruitment and/or any II assignment shall be in accordance with each districts student assignment plan. (Point 2) ll As to Point I - This provision is a Catch-22 because as the white enrollment decreased in size there were no applicants for these seats yet the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) has insisted that the seats be held long after black parents who could have used the seats had made other choices) Point 2 - For at least six years the LRSD must keep incentive schools but could not phase them out as intended, yet another Catch-22 situation. As inter-district schools were built only a small number of seats were taken out of service at Ish and Stephens compared to the seats added at M. L. King, Washington, Crystal Hill and Clinton The double funding obligation is also ordered by the 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 \u0026gt;1 n I I I I experiences/activities. (Point 1) The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. (Point 2) It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district.\"(Point 3) As to Point 1 - Certainly with the high percentage of black students in area schools and the low percentage of white students there is not much meaningful opportunity for desegregated experiences/activities\". Catch-22 once again! Point 2 - The purpose of the incentive school program should not be confused with the purpose of the schools which was to put enough black students into them to create a situation where a 60 40 black white ratio would have been possible. Point 3 - The incentive school program is too broad and nebulous to accomplish this goal. How would meaningful and long-lasting desegregation promoted by this tool be measured? At the time the desegregation plan was sanctioned by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in December of 1990 there were 9,344 children in the LRSD area schools. There were 5,980 black children and 3,364 of other races. To attain the 60/40 ratio 934 black children would have to be assigned to incentive schools. To the credit of the LRSD the enrollment numbers confirm that about 400 black students were transferred to incentive schools and there was an increase in other race enrollment, improving the area school ratio in the 91-92 school year. In the 92-93 school year incentive school enrollment decreased by 298. Analysis of enrollment numbers is difficult because of the variables to consider: demographic changes out of the inner city, the closing of Ish and Stephens, the construction of inter-district schools, etc. The almost explosive growth of four- year-old classes also distorts the analysis. However, the strict adherence to incentive schools limited the ability of the district to adapt, and to devise and execute policies that would have retained and attracted more white and other race children. The Little Rock incentive schools fit the description of a Catch - 22! 2I A CATCH 22 AND MORE - LITTLE ROCK INCENTIVE SCHOOLS [AFTER CATCH-22, A NOVEL BY JOSEPH HELLER] For those that never knew or have forgotten a Catch-22 is 1. a. A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions: b. The rules or conditions that create such a situation. 2. A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness. 3. A contradictory or self-defeating course of action. 4. A tricky or disadvantageous condition.' p I For those new to the Little Rock school desegregation case, you might not be aware of what an incentive school is or why we happen to have them in the Little Rock School District. Some of the explanation will become evident as we continue, but the incentive school remedy to the wrongs of discrimination is traceable back to a law case involving the Detroit School District commonly referred to, as \"Milliken 11\". In this case the United States Supreme Court ordered additional funds to improve Detroit's segregated minority schools. The decision stated that the education components were a means to \"restore the victims of discriminatory conduct to the position they would have enjoyed in the absence of such conduct\". p p The parties in the Little Rock school desegregation case in January 1989 incorporated the Milliken case approach into their agreement thereby creating the \"incentive schools\" as the vehicle to desegregate the district. They were to motivate black children to higher achievement despite a segregated setting and the program quality was to be an \"incentive\" for white parents to choose them. Why are the Incentive Schools a Catch-22? p The desired Incentive Schools solution is plainly spelled out in the Inter-district Plan page 4: 11' 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 these 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. The recruitment of white students to these elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to a 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. (Point 1) As new Interdistrict 1 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright  1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved. Ish closed at the end of the school year 1992-93. ^Stephens closed at the end of the school year 1993-94How did Little Rock get into this Catch- 22? I Federal Judge Henry Woods rejected the Little Rock School District plan that had been submitted to him for approval and prophetically said \"The plan adequately explains why the Incentive Schools, but fails to explain how...The availability of \"double funding\" is meaningless if the programs on which the money is spent are not designed and implemented to achieve educational excellence. M He knew the plan would fail by saying \"Approval of the LRSD long range plan would have resulted in progressive segregation of elementary schools over a six year period.\" In fact that has happened. I I The Little Rock School District appealed Judge Woods' rejection of the plan to the Eighth Circuit Court. Judge Woods recused himself from the case and it was assigned to Judge Susan Weber Wright, who still has the responsibility for it. In its argument for the acceptance of its desegregation plan the district promised everything, with an attitude that getting out of court was the primary objective. The district naively thought that the court would release them on their own recognizance to do whatever they wanted once the desegregation plan was approved. The district must have been surprised when the Eighth Circuit Court Order of December 1990 continued court supervision and created the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with primary responsibility for monitoring the incentive school implementation. I Do the Incentive Schools provide a workable, equitable solution? I I The Eighth Circuit order* states A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law in an ongoing equitable decree which is manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged, indeed they are not permitted to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. II I I Reference also the years of Incentive School Monitoring Reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Basically these reports are quality control reports on the efforts of the LRSD to follow the plan. They find that the district either by design, ineptitude or poor execution is unable to make the schools work. The District Court has expressed reservations about the Incentive Schools and the plan in general but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals imposed the terms and conditions of this desegregation plan and in effect gave the District Court its \"marching orders\". The District Court judge has made suggestions to the parties as to remedies that they might seek, even asking that the law be researched to determine if another case involving a consent decree could be used to seek relief on the basis of \"changed circumstances\", but no motions were ever filed using \"changed circumstances\". Circumstances have changed in the LRSD. In regard to the Incentive Schools the parties have failed to acknowledge the shift in population out of the so called inner city to southern Little Rock. That shift was recognized by the Joshua Intervenors when they brought suit to reapportion the school board zones, but they have failed in their representation of those children that moved from Incentive Schools to the 09 zip code or to address the westward growth of the city. The District Court also took the unusual step of holding hearings on its own to determine if the Incentive Schools were a viable tool in this desegregation case. Nationally recognized 4 Page 35 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals order of December 1990 3professionals were invited to appear in open court to help provide the District Court and community with some indication if the incentive schools were effective, and if ineffective what new strategies might hold promise for Little Rock. Dr. Herbert Wahlberg, an educational psychologist, testified that the extra funding and enhancements of incentive schools had failed to raise the achievement scores of black children. He stated that he did not believe that incentive schools were effective in raising achievement levels anywhere: he stated that he did not know whether the failure was caused by poor implementation or whether the theory simply does not work. Wahlberg testified that the schools failed in three aspects: They failed to attract white children, achievement scores of black children were not raised, and the \"exotic\" curriculum was inefficiently implemented so that it harmed learning. Wahlberg was asked what he would do to help disadvantaged students in the Little Rock School District. He stated that there is a crisis of achievement in the United States, not just in Little Rock. He said that he would concentrate on learning, would assign more homework, extend the school year and would also change methods of teaching to incorporate mastery learning and cooperative learning. Dr. David Armor stated that most efforts to desegregate schools are counterproductive and do not improve achievement. He said \"my opinion here is that one of the reasons why racial balance by itself doesn't have an impact is that, in fact, it has to overcome really major kinds of family background differences in economics and education. And there's not really a single desegregation plan to my knowledge that has ever overcome those economic conditions, because they are not aimed at the family. They are aimed at school buildings and students and faculty.\" In his expert opinion then, the LRSD desegregation plan was not a workable solution toward reducing the disparity or improving the achievement of black children. Dr. Gary Orfield, of the Harvard Project on School Desegregation, led the writing of a report Giving Separate But Equal Another Chance\", which goes into some detail as to how unworkable the LRSD incentive schools are, also testified. One telling comment on how unworkable the plan was is \"The implementation of Little Rock's Milliken II plan illustrates how unchecked planning and design procedures common in such remedies can produce fundamentally incoherent, ill- conceived and unaffordable programs which so far have demonstrated little promise for reducing educational inequity.\" In his testimony here, he stated that the incentive school plan had lots of conceptual problems magnified with poor implementation. The incentive school plan, he said, was burdensome and complex, required big energy for a low payoff, and contributed to administrative overload. In response to a direct question Orfield said the benefits expected couldn't be obtained. The District Court, having heard this testimony, has not issued an order or opinion, perhaps waiting for a \"white knight\" or \"silver bullet\" solution to this \"Catch-22\" that would free it from issuing a controversial opinion. To the LRSD this testimony could be a \"silver bullet\", but so armed the LRSD has not asked for relief from the District Court. p p p p p p p p p p p Are the Incentive Schools unfair to class members? k This desegregation case is a class action suit and all black children in the LRSD are members of the class\nthose black children for whom relief was sought from the courts. The double funding (LRSD has expended far above the actual double funding obligation) has proven ineffective in improving achievement in the incentive schools and promoting k 4desegregation. Those 64% of class members attending area schools are consequently deprived of scarce resources. In year after year of budget cuts, when computer aides, instructional aides, music teachers, new computers etc. were stricken from the budget, area schools bore the brunt of cuts while incentive school budgets were sacrosanct. The attached chart shows clearly the extent of the inequity to class members in other than incentive schools (area schools, magnet schools and inter-district schools). The LRSD unfortunately has a large percentage (58.52%) of its elementary students that are considered \"disadvantaged\". Of 7,824 disadvantaged children most of whom are black, only 1,167(15%) are enrolled in incentive schools while 6,658 (85%) are in other schools. Of the ten schools (41% of the total) with the highest numbers of disadvantaged children, only Franklin is an incentive school. The 6,658 children needing help require our attention. If one black child was being physically abused in these schools the public outcry would be loud and clear to correct that inequity. Yet this is a different form of abuse inflicted on thousands of children that is ignored. These abused children need early and concentrated help to ever achieve at an acceptable level. I The editorial page of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on April 15, 1997 (tax day) addressed the same question, albeit in a different context: \"The greatest social injustice of American society is no, not the back-breaking tax burden foisted on poor working families (including a tax on their groceries in Arkansas) but a system of public education that deprives the children of the poor and ghettoized of anything like an equal chance at acquiring knowledge, self-discipline, and the self- respect that comes with real accomplishment. These kids are being set up for one heckuva fall.\" I I I I I I I I 5School WASHINGTON WAKEFIELD CHICOT FRAhKUN MABELVALE WATSON CLOYffIDALE WEADOWCUFF BOOKS? WLSON Totd StiKlerts 602 426 430 377 429 423 402 402 601 366 Hack 391 365 333 352 306 350 348 304 319 297 Other 211 61 97 25 123 73 54 98 282 69 Black% 64.95% 85.68% 77.44% 93.37% 71.33% 82.74% 86.57% 75.62% 53.08% 81.15% Frcc/Rcduccd Meals Percent 6298% 81.07% 77.31% 86.52% 73.88% 74.83% 77.97% 73.33% 46.94% 73.70% Totd Disadvantaged 379 345 332 326 317 317 313 295 282 270 ML KING DODD MITCFELL BASELINE BALE GARLAhD GEYB? SPRINGS CARXiER \"ROCKEFELLB? MCOB?MOTT 488 284 243 284 307 237 278 627 314 484 252 188 237 223 224 223 223 323 211 262 236 96 6 61 83 14 55 304 103 222 51.64% 66.20% 97.53% 78.52% 7296% 94.09% 80.22% 51.52% 67.20% 54.13% 51.71% 86.90% 98.45% 81.73% 74.93% 94.55% 76.56% 33.02% 65.92% 41.32% 252 247 239 232 230 224 213 207 207 200 p B P WESTERN HILLS JEFFB^SON BRADY FULBRIGHT PULASKI HTS FAIR PARK ** RIGHTSELL FOREST PARK TERRY ROMINE 320 506 374 509 422 242 205 434 537 277 209 220 238 247 201 198 197 204 241 192 111 286 136 262 221 44 8 230 296 85 65.31% 43.48% 63.64% 48.53% 47.63% 81.82% 96.10% 47.00% 44.88% 69.31% 61.32% 38.34% 49.61% 36.15% 43.55% 75.46% 8296% 36.95% 28.65% 54.59% 196 194 186 184 184 183 170 160 154 151 P   P BADGETT WOODRUFF GIBBS OTTER CREEK WLLIAMS 185 202 309 332 513 13371 151 136 164 135 264 8728 65% 34 66 145 197 249 4643 35% 81.62% 67.33% 53.07% 40.66% 51.46% 77.73% 68.46% 39.35% 34.83% 2242% Total Disadvantaged in Incentive Schools Total Disadvantaged in Other Schools 144 138 122 116 115 7824 58.52% 1167 6658 15% 85% Mt Incenthe Schools The enrollment figures are based on the 1995-96 school year. The chart is based on information obtained from the LRSD. II P I 6Is money being wasted? On page 40 of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals order of December 1990, the Court wrote \"If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. tl Some people have argued that none of the money spent on children is wasted money. But a prudent person would suggest that there is waste if spending on \"exotic\" programs is done carelessly or if there is a vacant seat in a classroom or on a school bus, if facilities are neglected, if necessary supplies are not purchased, or expensive items are purchased then are not used or are misused. The extra staff at the incentive schools including underutilized teachers, and class size limitations is waste. The old buildings that are in constant need of repair and are energy inefficient constitute a waste of resources. A particularly embanassing waste was the Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) on which almost twenty million dollars was expended with poor results. I I I The excess number of seats with the resultant overstaffing in the school district and the failure of the school board to reduce the excess by closing schools is waste of the highest magnitude. In other school districts (Cleveland Ohio, Hartford Connecticut and the District of Columbia) the Court recognized the waste of excess capacity and ordered schools closed. Cleveland closed 14 at one time\nD.C. is under order to close 16. Most of the old incentive schools already have replacement schools in the area (M. L. King, Carver, and Washington) or seats available in the new PCSSD Interdistrict Schools (Clinton and Crystal Hill). For year after year the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) has calculated the double funding obligation of the LRSD for the incentive schools and in almost every year expenses in the incentive schools have exceeded that obligation. In the December 18, 1996 ODM report on incentive school double funding Recommendation 1 stated \"In each annual budget, allot an amount of money adequate to meet the double funding obligation in the incentive schools, and then control expenditures to prevent overspending that budget category.\" This is a classic \"Catch- 22\" for the only way to control expenditures is to cut the wasteful programs and extra staff, but cuts have not been looked on favorably by the District Court. Would a prudent person say there is waste in the LRSD Incentive Schools? I Why are the Incentive Schools so important? The Incentive Schools are the crux of the LRSD desegregation plan. The Interdistrict Plan still would exist and the Financial Settlement still would exist, but if the Incentive School provisions in the LRSD Desegregation Plan were removed there would not be much left. Most of that remainder is obsolete timelines or has lost its significance i.e. the pages devoted to curriculum at Parkview High School. In its December 1990 order, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said on page 38 \"In order for some schools to be well integrated it may be necessary to tolerate a small number of all-black 7schools.\" (Emphasis added) and on page 39 \"The commitment to provide double funding for the incentive schools is crucial to our holding that the settlement plans are not unconstitutional per se.\" This would imply that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals felt too, that the Incentive Schools were the crux of the desegregation plan for the LRSD. Our schools have not become well integrated and we have created a class within a class. The continued existence of the incentive schools serves the purpose of various special interest groups. These groups could be called the \"desegregation establishment\". Their interests might be power, influence or continued existence. It has little to do with children, black or white. n What Next? v The importance of doing something now to help our disadvantaged black children to be successful is obviously important to the black community but it is important to the white community as well. As a society we cannot tolerate a perpetuation, under a new guise, of the two tiered education system of segregation. We cannot allow a black child to fail to learn to read in the first grade and then whine when lack of accomplishment by that child leads to discipline problems in the fourth and tragically later on, a prison sentence. II II The Incentive Schools are not the answer to this problem! II Time has run out on the Little Rock School District. The Incentive Schools have been around since 1990 and certainly have not achieved their objective. The district is about to start the tenth stanza of the same old song. To put it another way we have a 1966 Buick and if we paint it, put new tires on it and get the best radio money can buy we still have a 1966 Buick not a 1997 Cadillac. We need a new transportation system not a fixed up old car! II I A noted management book \"High Velocity Culture Change\" warns \"Culture change moves at a slow crawl if the existing culture gets to call the shots on methodology. Or to put it another way, you'll have trouble creating a new culture if you insist on ways that are consistent with the old one.\" They also point out that we are in an era where organizations must adopt a \"do what works\" mentality instead of trying to live out a \"do what feels good\" philosophy. V R The LRSD is too tied to the old culture and lacks the board leadership and management capability to even ask for change. The chilling effect of being involved in court for so many years has created a paranoid mentality that stifles innovation. The current efforts of the district using various \"work groups\" while commendable are simply those new tires on an old car. We need the money that is being spent on this tired old, out of gas car to provide equity to our children and the seed capital for innovative change. R R By any basic category for evaluation  such as educational, managerial, financial, and discipline  the school system has failed our children placing itself in a state of educational and operational crisis. Fundamental justice for the school children, their parents, and all the taxpayers and citizens who support and depend upon the LRSD, requires a complete overhaul in governance structure and management systems. 8I Because action by the parties is lacking the District Court appears to be the only authority with the capability to force the necessary systemic change that is needed. It should act unilaterally to change the status quo and provide the guidance towards new solutions and reform. There should be a new approach to the issue of governance. The present system is not working but we pretend that it is as evidenced by the \"business as usual\" search effort for a new superintendent and the failure of the board of directors to address the financial situation. Other districts have faced the same types of problems and different authorities have imposed new governance for failed school systems as precedent. In the District of Columbia, Chicago, Hartford and Newark, the existing leadership systems were replaced by structures more accountable for education performance, less bureaucratic, and less sensitive to politics. I Most recently, the Connecticut legislature on April 16, 1997 took control from the Hartford School Board and created a trusteeship. In New Jersey three school districts, Jersey City, Patterson and Newark have had new governance imposed on them. On a larger scale the Kentucky Supreme Court in 1990 ordered complete school reform from finance to curriculum for the entire State of Kentucky and the latest reports are very favorable. Is it a transferable system? H There are some who feel the Kentucky story is too unique to be transferable, because it was n5 launched by a court case and swept out the old system. \"But that may be its very strength: I Improving America's schools may demand radical surgery rather than piece-meal experimentation. By dumping an inadequate system and starting from scratch, by investing more and tying funding to performance, Kentucky has boosted its children's academic prospects. Arguably, that has lifted I .,6 its economic prospects as well. Those are important lessons from an unlikely place. The goal of sweeping change is to not only improve the efficiency of management, but also, and more importantly, educational effectiveness. The mission of any school system is to educate students and its failure in this mission provides a compelling basis for intervention. For Little Rock a governance structure would have to be established to insure accountability to the District Court and community. Accountability not based on numbers of tasks performed, bodies counted, maps on the wall, color of the paint etc. but on the financial stability of the district and the achievement of our children. Plain Talk, the UALR report identifies several \"backlog\" items as priorities and there are others but the issues and problems are overwhelming for this district to address. A court appointed Chief Operating Officer with court and community support, working with a new superintendent might provide a radical format for success. We know where the current path leads - to failure. The problem of achievement in the early grades is another issue requiring immediate court intervention. The District Court should order that attention be directed to improving achievement. Currently there is no Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum, no direction and the usual dysfunctional result. There needs to be professional leadership by staff with proven track records of curriculum development, staff development and innovation. Plain Talk, the UALR report called for bold experimentation to identify \"things that work\". We have some people in the district that 5 Susan Traiman, Director of the Education Initiative for the Business Roundtable from Business Week April 7,1997  Peter Galuszka in Harlan County Ky. -Business Week April 7, 1997 9are successful in implementing programs and the new leadership should use them as examples that the LRSD can do things successfully. Instead of a new desegregation plan the court should order that an education plan with the goal of increased achievement for all LRSD students be implemented. Again from \"High Velocity Culture Change\": II It's time for tough love. Caring Harder. Caring enough to take the company (district) through the tough, unpopular struggle of culture change so that it can survive. Trying not to disturb people, seeking to appease everybody by taking it slow and easy, can be the crudest move of all.\" p Parting Words p As the Little Rock School District searches for a new superintendent and the work groups continue their tasks. Plain Talk, the UALR report on the LRSD, has appropriate comments in Chapter 7 that bolster the previous section and are worth repeating. II p It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the problem is systemic. Changing the p players, specifically the superintendents, has not changed the outcome of the game. Figure 7-1 indicates that they are simply burning out sooner. It is also hard to avoid the conclusion that some important changes a modem urban school district should undertake simply will not occur, given the current complexity of the decision-making environment. For example, a strong case can be made for offering a calendar and schedule deliberately constructed to fit the needs and schedules of parents and families today. But it is obvious that LRSD officials do not have the time and energy to develop and put into place a revised or p p p expanded calendar and schedule. II Continued: p What Does It Add Up To? Several observations seem unavoidable after this review of the sources and consequences of complexity as faced by LRSD officials. p The environment within which LRSD officials operate is so complex that it is crippling. The superintendent and the central administration frequently suffer \"system overload\"like an electrical power system sometimes does in extremely hot weather, or like a tractor does when too many heavy wagons have been hitched at one time. p k The LRSD cannot unilaterally simplify the decision-making environment within which it operates. The keys to a manageable future lie outside the LRSD itselfin the hands of the community and the court. k k The LRSD needs stable leadership to give it direction and consistency and to assure soundness in all its operations. Since 1982, however, the LRSD has had six \"permanent\" and four interim superintendents\na total of 10 leadership changes in k 10 k riI I 15 years. Frequent changes in leadership have meant that instability and uncertainty have become almost permanent features, with negative effects on the morale and performance of school personnel. Frequent changes in leadership also undermine public confidence in an organization. In a fundamental sense, it does not appear to matter who the superintendent is. We conclude with an assessment of the status quo as reflected in comments by former superintendents:  Little Rock would be one of the top five most troublesome desegregation cases in the country. The district has the reputation of just not being workable at all.  The Little Rock desegregation plan is so complex and so difficult to administer, it is preordained that people cannot carry out the plan in the schools.  The desegregation plan in Little Rock is unworkable. It is so prescriptive that it ties the hands of the superintendent and the board. The system is like a dysfunctional family. You have a system that is set up to fail.  The way things are now, a superintendent cannot succeed. I Observations and Options The status quo is an option that could be chosen deliberately or by default. But the plans that were intended to be a pathway out of an undesirable situation in 1989 have become an impediment to progress.\" I Post Script I Only fundamental change will reverse the situation as described in \"Plain Talk\" and this paper. The community of Little Rock must have the civic will to institute a structure for the public schools that puts students first, links performance and accountability for education results, and provides a disciplined environment in which learning can occur. Achieving this objective requires that the District's parents and children, its teachers, and other school system employees recognize that the status quo is harmful to the goals of a quality public education and therefore is unacceptable. At this time the civic will is lacking and the responsible officials don't have the collective strength to make necessary changes. Action by the court would be loudly decried as \"more federal intervention\" but it could force change and prepare the district for a return to complete local control. Since 1957 the federal court has been involved with this district\nlet 1997 be the year that the court defines the terms of disengagement. 11I Afterthoughts on Bob Morgan's Suggestions I Where there is a will, there is a way. The people have the will. Even the Judge may have it. The school board doesn't. I I I Bob Morgan's timely suggestions are born out of a sincere desire to avert the serious consequences of an almost certain economic collapse of the Little Rock School District. He is among a handful of area business and political leaders who have astutely discerned that the district simply cannot operate, or move forward, with any real success under the status quo of the current desegregation plan. Something must changeand quickly. The Catch-22 of the incentive schools in Little Rock is, indeed, a convoluted and complex barrier to freeing our schools from federal oversight and the clutches of a \"consent decree\" that, in many respects, seems unbreakable. I Dire situations often call for unprecedented solutions and Little Rock is surely a case where bold actionas opposed to no actionis warranted. The judge has reason to intervene even in a consent decree if there is a defect in the plan (this plan is demonstrably unworkable) or if there is a change of circumstances (as LRSD has had) or to further the original purpose of the plan. What better purpose could be served than restoring a measure of equity to disadvantaged black children. I I Still, while there may be some precedent for a judge's unilaterally intervening in a desegregation case ( Hillsborough County in Florida), several APF legal experts on desegregation issues feel it is unlikely that Judge Susan Weber Wright would take such action. The responsibilities she would take upon herself would be enormous-with no real guarantees of success. It would be risky for one person to assume such a burden-especially a judge. Moreover, in a time when \"judicial activism\" is an issue dominating the national policy debate, judges are taking care to stick to their role of upholding law rather than making it. Never-the-less, Bob Morgan has made the all-important first part of a critical argument that provides compelling reasons to dissolve the plan. The Catch-22 of incentive schools and the structure of the plan itself make it \"impossible\" to break or to administer. I What would further compel a judge to \"break a contract\" between parties? APF believes it hinges on a demonstration of political and civic will by the people. The current obstacle is, of course, the local school boardthe seven member elected body representing the people. Some school board members are captive to special interests who clearly have a stake in the case. Others fear the personal or business consequences of being too bold or aggressive. The people of Little Rock have been content to tolerate a board unwilling to unify on this issue and seek its resolution. So have many local politicians and business leaders. The political and civic will is simply not there yet, or a school board reflective of that will would be in place. And until the Judge sees an expression of such will, it is likely she will not act regardless of who may file a motion or seek to intervene. I I In the meantime, a growing number of business leaders are suggesting that it may, in fact, take the district's financial collapse to disrupt the status quo and set the stage for a whole new paradigm of education...one open to ideas such as charter schools and parental choice. They may be right. The war of competing interests will rage on in Little Rock's desegregation case\nthe peoplefrustrated by the dominance of those interestswill continue exhibiting a sense of futility in affecting change, and the Judge will sit and wait...and wait...and wait. I And in her waiting there is a disturbing irony. Why? Because Judge Wright likely wants relief for Little Rock's schools as much the people in this city want it. But she needs visible evidence in her courtof a community and its leaders united in their common will to take responsibility for such a dramatic change. Little Rock is more than ready\nweary of the disabling and divisive effects of the nation's longest running desegregation case (forty years). But the school board itself, representing the people, cannot seem to muster the wisdom or courage to lead a desperately needed initiative for the sake of our schools and our children. They cannot find their own collective political will to band together, putting children above all else, and move for our release. Until they do. Little Rock will remain a community torn by competing education interests and hostage to its past. Will we ever move on? The answer, at least for now, appears to be no. Michael Watson, President, APF\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\u003eMorgan, Bob\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas Policy Foundation\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_468","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District's Incentive Schools Work Team 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":["1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District's Incentive Schools Work Team 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/468"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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\nRightsell Garland Rockefeller Franklin Mitchell Little Rock School District Incentive Schools Work Team Report Spring 1997Incentive School Work Group Little Rock School District August 14, 1997 Don Roberts, Superintendent Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent Co-Chairperson Sadie Mitchell, Assistant Superintendent Co-ChairpersonWork Group Members Margaret Gremillion, Co-Chairperson Sadie Mitchell, Co-Chairperson Gene Jones, ODM Anne Mangan, Principal, Rockefeller Incentive Sharon Brooks, Principal, Rightsell Incentive - Work Group Recorder Melvia Mathis, Teacher Ellistine Gaddy, Teacher Lionel Ward, Principal, Garland Incentive - Work Group Editor Kathy Penn-Norman, PRE Ken Milton, Teacher Ethel Dunbar, Principal, Franklin Incentive Jimmy Calhoun, Teacher Connie Whitfield, Parent Lillie Scull, Principal - Mitchell IncentiveBoard Member Representative Judy Magness Out-of-State Consultants Chad Wooley, President \u0026amp; Chief Operating Officer Voyager Foundation Dallas, Texas Sherry Tupper, Executive Director Voyager Foundation Dallas, TexasLocal Visitors/Participants Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Anne Brown, ODM JoEvelyn Elston, Pupil Services Sharon Faulkenberry, Teacher - Rightsell Incentive School Charlene Pierce, Teacher - Rightsell Incentive School Francella Dodson, Teacher - Rightsell Incentive School Darian Smith, Teacher - Rightsell Incentive School Marion Woods, Staff Development Work Group Pat Price, Early Childhood Charlie Neal, Procurement John Ruffin, Information Services Lucy Lyon, Technology Work Group Dr. Loretta Davenport, Philander Smith College Dr. Bill Geiger, UALR Mary Kaye Rowe, Theme Specialist - Rockefeller Incentive School Melissa Guldin, ODM Betty Raper, Staff Development Work Group Dr. Ed Jackson, Planning, Research and Evaluation Joy Springer, Joshua Intervenor Attorney John Walker, Joshua Intervenor Polly Ramer, ODM Mary Menking, Principal - Williams Magnet Leon Adams, Federal Programs Dr. Tish Henslee, UALR Suellen Vann, Communications Brady Gadberry, Labor Relations Mark Milhollen, Business OfficeGeneral Information Page Timeline 1-2 Background Information (History) 3 Purpose 4 Overview 5 Process 6-7 Common Standards 8 Recommendations 9 Individual School Plans Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell RockefellerIncentive SchooCyVortz ^rouj) 'TimeCine Task Select Committee Members Incentive School Work Group Meeting Ideas for Planning Strategies Successful Programs in the Magnet Schools Issue Incentive School Desegregation Book Superintendents Charge Incentive School Work Group Meeting Incentive School Work Group Meeting Incentive School Work Group Meeting Mail Meeting Schedules Review Incentive Test Scores Incentive School Work Group Meeting Incentive School Work Group Meeting Rough Draft for April 24 Review Surveys__________ Memphis School District Visit Omaha Visit Board Report_______ Voyager Visit - Dallas Incentive School Work Group Meeting Review Survevs School Visitation Reports Incentive School Work Group Meeting Timeline February - March March 5 Person Responsible Dr. Don Roberts______ Team Members March 5 March 5 March 5 March 12 March 12 March 26 April 1 April 3 April 9 April 9 April 16 April 16 April 23 April 23 April 23 April 24_______ April 28 - May 2 April 30 April 30 April 30 May 7 Gene Jones Sadie Mitchell Team Members Dr. Don Roberts Team Members Team Members Team Members Margaret Gremillion PRE Team Members Team Members Team Members_________ PRE__________________ Team Members (Matthis, Gaddy, Milton, Magness, Ward) _________ Sharon Brooks_________ Team Members_________ Team Members (Mangan, Gaddy, Brooks, Matthis) Team Members Kathy Penn-Norman Representatives Team Members 1Task Incentive School Work Group Meeting Rough Draft for May Report Incentive School Work Group Meeting Incentive School Work Group Meeting Individual School Plan Reports Incentive School Work Group Meeting Final Review Meeting Print Final Product Board Report Timeline May 14 May 14 May 21 May 28 June June 9 June 11 June 11 June 14 *Agendas are available for each meeting Person Responsible Team Members Team Members Team Members Team Members School Principals and Staff Team Members Principals Team Members Team Members 2BACKGROUND INFORMATION (HISTORY) Incentive School programs of old made too many promises or demands that have resulted in little success. Of course, this conclusion depends upon the authors representing the information. For example, the recent report, PLAIN TALK from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock suggests that \"students in some incentive schools score as high as, and in some cases higher than the magnet students at the comparable grade level.\" Although the original goals of the Incentive Schools grant detailed programs, many of the same programs have not brought about significant academic success for many students. 3I PURPOSE OF THE INCENTIVE SCHOOL WORK GROUP | TTie purpose of the Incentive School Work Group was to develop innovative ideas that would enhance the programs and curriculum. The work group was given the charge to brainstorm, research and visit other schools in preparation for writino model individual school plans. 4OVERVIEW The leaders and participants on the Incentive Schools Work Group determined recommendations under which all incentive schools will operate. The process began by reviewing and discussing the scope of programs offered in each of the five Incentive Schools\nFranklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, and Rockefeller. All schools developed an individual school plan designed to improve the quality of education. The Group was concerned with the effects of Incentive School programs as based upon student achievement, attitudes, perceptions and behaviors. Each staff and school community participated in a survey to determine which programs helped students to achieve. The response to surveys explored such ideas as school programs, educational benefits, and student achievement (academic performance). The surveys were open-ended. The answers were not limited to the choices typically offered in multipie-choice type surveys, answers with specific perceptions. This approach permitted 5PROCESS Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of the Little Rock School District, was instrumental in declaring the directions of the committee. Dr. Roberts believed that the team should review areas that may need adjustments. With the goal of the committee clear, a major investigation was underway. Considerable discussions followed as committee members worked to get a solid understanding of the task. Indeed, the cornmittee reviewed the existing desegregation plan along with a generous reflection of available research on various topics, including the success of the Voyager Program. The Voyager Program, a private-for-profit program, operates in full partnership with local schools. The expressed desires documented in the earlier surveys compelled the in-depth look at this particular program. After hearing about this program. Committee members believed an on-site visit to Dallas, Texas was appropriate. Voyager appeared to represent a strategy that would enhance the Extended Day Program offered in Incentive Schools. Following the earlier on-site visit, Chad Wooley, President and Chief Operating Officer, and Sherry Tupper, Executive Director of the Voyager Foundation were invited to Little Rock to formally present a model of Voyager's academic program. The list of individuals present included school faculty members, parents and other interested parties who represented the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock's Philander Smith College, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the District's Division of Federal Programs, the District's Office of Pupil Services/CARE and the Joshua Intervenors. During the presentation, Wooley asserted the important relationships between \"hands-on adventures and enthusiastic real-life work that prepare children for a successful future.\" Specific articles (\"A Blueprint for Action,\" a product of the National Council on Educating Black Children) and test data also were used to help in deciding upon the next steps. The entire process encouraged site visits to Omaha (Nebraska), Dalias (Texas), Fort VVorth (Texas), and Memphis (Tennessee). During the on-site visits observers identified activities that supported the following:  Memphis Paideia Program  Memphis New American Schools (NAS) Co-NECT Design  Memphis Modern Red Schoolhouse  Memphis Accelerated Learning Centers  Little Rock Success For All  Dallas Vertical/Horizontal Planning  Dallas Voyager - Expanded Learning  Fort Worth Applied Learning Centers In There is evidence that program recommendations, initially proper, are far less necessary to support a wide range of opportunities in incentive schools, keeping with this premise, the committee looked at the distinction of magnet 6schools and other successfully-proven schools by visiting with identified school principals\nand by reviewing information obtained from such national meetings as the Magnet School Conference held recently in Las Vegas, Nevada\nCalifornia's National School Board Conference and Atlanta, Georgia's Conference on Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity in the Public School, This brings us to the heart of the problem for each incentive school. The findings point out that some programs such as Writing to Read, Writing Across the Curriculum, Reading Across the Curriculum, and African-American History may be regarded as unnecessary components of the district's curriculum. The truth is that the district's curriculum is quite different today and does not require such specific additions. The findings also conclude that quality training for untrained staff members could greatly enhance the role of all parties as well as the success of all programs. Finally, the committee asked in many different ways, \"How can we best ensure more success for the students served by Incentive Schools? It seems safe to conclude that, based upon the process followed, the design of the suggested changes in Incentive Schools are possible and will have positive effects on the success of each school and student achievement. 7COMMON STANDARDS FOR ALL INCENTIVE SCHOOLS Philosophy, Mission and Goals The Each incentive school offers a blueprint for facilitating improvement beyond the basic elements of school organization with dramatic interventions. The approaches are ail linked to student achievement as well as improved student performance. A parent component is also a part of the successful conditions desired. The school improvement efforts included in the following pages launch new initiatives designed to improve incentive schools. This new beginning serves to encourage parents, staff and students in the remarkable potential of emerging model schools. An emphasis on results should produce maximum academic benefits for all students. The systematic, organized efforts proposed are almost certain to grant the results desired. As it is proper for each school to pursue educational programs especially designed for the student population it serves, it is proper for each incentive school to meet some common standards. These standards are not limited to the list that follows. The standards identified do not form a basis for comparing one incentive school to another. Each school will: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Develop a plan of action to ensure the achievement of specified goals that includes revisions and modifications when necessary. Encourage parent/community involvement throughout the school year. Use a reasonable review period to become familiar with students abilities and learning requirements. Maintain stimulating classroom environments with active, engaged participants. Provide an effective program of instruction for all students. Maintain records as required by the law, district policy, and state regulations. Enforce school policies, directives and regulations. Take steps to ensure a safe, secure and orderly climate. Maintain attractive grounds and facility. 8RECOMMENDA TIONS The Committee believes the following recommendations will improve the quality of education for incentive school students and ensure dramatic results in student Without each recommendation, the district risks additional limitations for every student, teacher, parent and administrator in the incentive schools. The/ecommendations include\nachievements. Hi] an Incentive/Academy School Director with the responsibility of coordinating .tivities like the Saturday Program, other practices and successes for incentive schools. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. ^his position supersedes the open Staff Development Specialist position ) Respond to staff development opportunities for staff through the formal Department of Staff Development and instructional supervisors (IRC Staff). Hire, train, and place assistant principals in the remaining three incentive schools to assist with daily operations, organization and management. (This position provides balance for all schools and provides a stronger support to teachers, students and parents. Effected schools will forgo the current auxiliary teacher position in three schools with the exception of Rockefeller and Franklin They will exchange those positions for Science Specialist. Recognize all schools as academy befitting the effectiveness of the improvement efforts in each school, ex. \"SarlaniTAcademy.\" Train and place instructional aides to give students added advantages in the classroom.  Use pre- and post-assessrnents/inventories annually to ensure progress toward school and district goals (Kindergarten through Second Grades). Evaluate student performance on a quarterly basis. Begin standardized test assessments at third grade in the school year 1997-98. Establish professional growth opportunities both within and outside the state to maintain and encourage proper initiatives and successful strategies for staff. Retain a Theme Specialist at each incentive school to assist with program implementation and response to curricula matters. Schedule an instructional day with minimum pull outs. Focus on Kindergarten through Second Grade. Hire an on-site CARE/Afterschool facilitator on all campuses with the I'^spopsibility of monitoring and assisting CARE staff, coordinating structured activities, and improved relations with parents. (Exception: Rightsell -Voyager) 9BENJAMIN FRANKLIN CoBBl)' '(SIS) Etaltl) Seta) ft JHl !' J r I 1 11 r A* nu: ( H I (n: voiu i \\ / rosi.j: I (Itrl Bhihe Pnrihnr, Piinci|)\nil \\l\ni\\INTRODUCTION The Benjamin Franklin Community Technology School serves students from pre-K through grades six. The primary pool of each staff member is to teach, nurture, and administer to the whole child. This process guarantees that every student is afforded the opportunity to obtain a solid academic foundation and life skills that will ensure success in tomorrow's society. The instructional focus will be language arts with a strong emphasis on reading and oral/written communication. The school staff will work cooperatively with IRC personnel, parents, patrons, educational partners, and community agencies to provide services, innovative instructional practices, and other enriching experiences that will highly impact the prescribed (LRSD) curriculum. Included in the fundamental foundation will be the continuation of the Marva Collins' philosophy, proven instructional concepts and the belief in the six basic tenets. SIX BASIC TENETS All children can learn (Glasser) Climate of mutual respect (Likert) Building self-esteem (Clemes \u0026amp; Bean) Teacher attitude and responsibility (Haim Ginott) High Expectations (Pygmalion Effect) Teacher Knowledge and Skill (Bloom) The Benjamin Franklin Community Technology School is comprised of the following components: High Impact Curriculum Parental Involvement Community Involvement Staff Development Enrichment Activities TechnologyGOALS Schedules will be developed to ahow for two hour (am) time blocks for language arts instruction, extended extracurricu'ar activities will occur at the school site and at various community locations, and the first phase of a community outreach center will be implemented. 1. Jo increase the academic performance level of each student. . 2. To broaden and maintain a collaborative relationship with the community. 3. To increase parental involvement significantly by providing workshops, seminars, and training. 4. To promote a school climate that is safe, orderly, comfortable, and provides a sense of belonging and pride. 2GOAL I: TO INCREASE THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE LEVEL OF EACH STUDENT. Objective: To increase student perf xmance on standardized and criterion tests. STRATEGIES: 1. Develop and administer pre and post quarterly reading assessments. 2. Analyze and utilize all test data (standardized and criterion). 3. Analyze and utilize the New Century Computer Jostens Laboratory assessments. 4. Update the Writing-toRead Laboratory equipment, materials, and software. 5. Deliver the prescribed curriculum with the following materials. Open Court Phonics Accelerated Reader Shurley Method of Language Arts Instruction Classic literature Poetry Computer software correlated with SAT-9 objectives Vital Links (Stanford 9). 6. Add classroom computers. 7. Require K Crusade training for all teachers. 8. Teach creative writing daily. 9. Provide experiences using video production. 10. Make effective use of classroom centers. 11. Provide appropriate staff development 312. Purchase needed technology: Purchase sixteen (1 6) computers, work stations attached to network and printers for pre-K, first, and second grade classrooms. Purchase sixteen (16) printers for pre-K, kindergarten, first, and second grade classroom. Establish a computer software library for classroom use. Design and establish a computerized writing and research center in the media center. Purchase the lab version of Encyclopedia Encarta for the NCE lab so that an entire class is able to research information at the same time. Inservice staff on the use of Arkansas Educational Television/lnstructional Television Resource Database. Inservice staff on computer software, electronic instructional planning, and E-mail management. Inservice staff on Internet curriculum and access. Provide on-going training for staff as needed for New Century Education Lab. Purchase and install video distribution center. Install a school-wide closed circuit television system with cable in the classroom, with locking wall mounted 19-inch television and a VCR in all regular classrooms and special classrooms. Purchase four (4) TV/PC to TV presentation devices for check out from the media center to support instruction. Purchase a table for mobile satellite research station to support the need of special population adapted to support physically challenged students (inclusion). Purchase one (1) additional networked student work station in each class, grades 4 through 6. Add equipment/cabling to allow the auditorium to be used as a Technology/Multi- Media training facility, adding closed circuit TV capabilities, two 30-inch wall mounted TV/TV/VCR and 1 2-15 network data port to allow electronic instructional12 continued planning, PC training for large groups, APSCN Microsoft Exchange, E-mail, Server for E-mail management and Internet training. Upgrade electrical capacity to support our evolving technology infrastructu re. Purchase six (6) additional New Century Education log-in classroom student workstation licenses for user in the 3rd-6th grade classes. Purchase two (2) digital cameras for use with student instruction, parent activities, and for use with an extended day photo/journalism club. Staffing. Purchase MECC/IMPAC Partnership Educational Software, MS-DOS-Windows Platform in the Network VersionGoal II\nTO BROADEN AND MAINTAIN A COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMMUNITY. Objective: To petition and solicit churches, community groups, universities, agencies and businesses to expand partnerships that will maximize interaction with the school. STRATEGIES: 1. Establish and/or expand tutorial and mentoring programs. 2. Establish a community services outreach center that will provide resources and referrals for Franklin's students and parents 3. Petition agencies, universities, and businesses to participate in extended extracurricular experiences for students to replace extended day as it exists. 6Goal III: TO INCREASE PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SIGNIFICANTLY BY PROVIDING WORKSHOPS, SEMINARS, AND TRAINING. Objective: To make parents aware of their responsibilities as they relate to the education of their children and assisting staff in establishing criteria for participatory involvement STRATEGIES 1. Develop'strategies that will reduce violence, child abuse, the use of drugs, and alcohol with the aid of the counselor and social services worker. 2. Use school resources to provide inservices, seminars, and training to parents on how to make effective school visits. 3. Form a parent committee to ensure that discipline, awards, incentives, student school assignments, and extracurricular activities are equitable. 4. Train and encourage parents to establish a home environment that builds respect, as well as an interest in learning. 5. Disseminate interim and conference reports, parent bulletins and monthly newsletters to keep parents abreast of student progress. 1Goal IV: TO PROMOTE A SCHOOL CLIMATE THAT IS SAFE, ORDERLY, COMFORTABLE, AND PROVIDES A SENSE OF BELONGING AND PRIDE. Objective: To believe, recite, and adhere to the wording of the school creed which supports the six basic tenets. STRATEGIES. 1. All students will memorize and interpret phrases of the school creed when requested by teachers. 2. All students will obey school/classroom cafeteria rules 3. Staff will consistently and equitably enforce the school discipline plan. 4. The guidance staff will expand the Life Skills Program. 5. The necessary building/campus repairs and additions will be made which include central air conditioning for the cafeteria and auditorium, new roof, playground equipment and landscaping. 8RECOMMENDATIONS PROGRAM DELETIONS Foreign Language Laboratory Saturday Program Parent Home Study Guides Semi-Departmentalization Student Education Plans Extended Day (as if currently exists) ABACUS \u0026lt; Recruitment Report PROGRAM RETENTIONS Latin Program Writing to Read Laboratory Computer Laboratory (NCE \u0026amp; Jostens) STAFF RETENTIONS (FULL TIME\nSchool Nurse Counselor Social Service Worker Media Specialist Art Specialist Music Specialist Physical Education Specialist Title I Specialists Speech Therapist Theme Specialist STAFF ADDITIONS (FULL TIME) Science Specialist Media Clerk One half-time Counselor 9STAFFING NEEDS To operate the regular school day will not require additional staff for the 1997 - 98 school year. However, in lieu of an auxiliary teacher, I am requesting a science specialist. The auxiliary teacher can possibly be placed in a regular classroom. The staff used during the existing extended program would be reduced greatly if students can pursue extracurricular activities at the Penick Boys' Club, War Memorial Fitness Center, Joel's House of Dance, PARK, St. Vincent Hospital and UALR. Aides or certified staff could be assigned to accompany students This arrangement would result in the amount of stipends paid to the extended day staff. However, student fees would be a factor. BUDGET REQUESTS The changes indicated do not rerjuire additional allocation of funds. Seemingly, at this juncture, the 1997 - 98 proposed changes would not exceed the established budget. 10AUG-12-97 TUE 14:15 WORD EXPRESS 374 7373 P . 02 CORRECTED COPY LRSD INCENTIVE SCHOOL STAFFING Work Sheet POSITION FTEs in 1996-97 Recommended FTE's in 1997-98 Difference + or- Budget Impact Principal 1 1 Asst. Principal 1 1 Theme Specialist 1 1 Classroom Teacner Counselor Media Specialist Media Clerk Nurse Social Worker Instructional Aide/SPED Supervision Aide Auxiliary Teacner Other Art/P.E.i'Music Special Education Title 1 Gifted Speech Subtotal Extended Day Teachers Extended Day Aides Other. Science Specialist Computer Lab Manager Secretary Subtotal GRAND TOTAL 26 1 1 .40 1 1 22 Pk-6 3 1 3 3 2 1 1 69.40 26.00 3 0 1 2 32 101.40 26 1.5 1 1 1 1 22 Pk-6 3 0 3 3 2 1 1 69.5 14 est. 10 1 1 2 28 97.5 .5 .60 (-1) .1 12 7 1 20 20.1a 12 continued LRSD iri( :entive school staffing Work Sheet POSITION FTP'S in 1796-97 Recommended FTE's in 1997-98 Difference t or - Budget Impact Principal 1 1 Asst. Principal 1 1 Theme Specialist 1 1 Classroom Teach' 26 28 2 Counselor 1 1.5 .5 Media Specialist 1 1 Media Clerk .40 1 .60 Nurse 1 1 Soaal Worker 1 1 Instructional Aide 1 1 Supervision Aide 3 3 Auxiliary Teacher 1 0 Other Art/P.E./Music 3 3 Special Education 3 3 Title I 2 2 Gifted 1 1 Speech 1 1 SubTotal 62.40 72 3.1 Extended Day Teachers 26.00 1 4 est. 12 Extended Day Aides 8 5 3 Other: Science Specialist 0 1 1 Computer Lab Manager 1 1 Secretary 2 2 Subtotal GRAND TOTAL 35 101.40 19 91.5 19.1A aDfflQD  GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3615 WEST 25 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72204 (501) 671-6275 Lionel Ward Principal 1997-98 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL PLAN PROPOSAL MAY 1997This essentials GARLAND INCENTIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3615 WEST 25TH STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 LIONEL WARD, PRINCIPAL document helps necessary Incentive School. to for Teaching and Learning, The define, greater communicate student recommendations and success understand at are devoted Garland to: (1) and (2) Student Achievement, Curriculum, Assessment, and (3) Staff Development and Training. relates to the desired outcomes. The modifications in this plan are made on the basis of the wisdom of current research-, theory- Each main goal on one oasxs o the wxsdom of current research-, theory- ased frameworks, and sound, educational judgements and practices. In our efforts to , create a learning environment that organizes, testers and prescribes success for students, the instructional success for students program wxll be used to promote learning effectively. achieved in a four-day instructional day. This is best At the center of the accompanying changes in teaching delivery and programs is ELITE Teaching and Learning. 7 ___ will be made to both accommodate and for students. As deliberate professionals, all decisions facilitate greater learning ^xle it xs true that the ultimate goal of the ELITE Teaching and Learnxng Program permits greater student learning, it also grants more success for the professional teacher. This approach, eveloped by Principal Lionel Ward, is based upon over twenty years of service, training, and experience in public schools. is specifically the Little Rock School District. ELITE TEACHING\n(E.L.I.T.E DELIVERS QUALITY LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION  Effective Learning In Technical Environments) IMPLEMENTING A FOUR-DAY INSTRUCTIONAL DAY School Day: Each school day, Monday through Thursday, will teach the core curriculum with an emphasis on basic (reading, language arts, mathematics, science, \u0026lt;__1___i_l studies)\nschoolwide Title 1 programs (Reading and Mathematics)\nresources classes\nand social and other services for students with exceptional abilities, talents, or physical attributes (CBI). One day will be devoted to Extended Day activities of an academic nature and staff development. serve to foster student All activities will School Year: success. The length of the school year shall remain the number of days prescribed by the approved district calendar. The length of the school day will remain the same for students and staff.  Early Childhood Program (Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten and Grades One and Two).GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL PAGE 2 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL PLAN GOAL ONE: Learning) TO FOSTER IMPROVED TEACHER PERFORMANCE (Teaching and The following performance objective approach will maximum efforts are exerted toward achieving the stated goal. Similar strategies are applied to each of the succeeding goals. ensure that    Assign students to classes based upon needs that match the strengths, training and specialized areas of the instructional staff. Decide upon learning standards that are consistently applied and assessed at each grade level. Define specific job specifications necessary to implement instructional programs and supervise students' movement about the building and grounds. Use trained instructional aides in each classroom to help with the delivery of instructions to students in small group, cooperative group patterns as well as one-on-one learning episodes. Follow specific hiring procedures that include the participation of staff, parent and possibly student participation in committee recommendations to the principal. The principal's recommendation will consider the committee's selections. All applicants must be committed to the philosophy of the Incentive School program for a minimum of three (3) years. This does not  prevent proper administrative recommendations when an employee (certified or non-certified) reveals an unwillingness to work for the overall good of school programs. Structure instructional blocks to accommodate curricula expectations and standards outlined by state and district standards. Emphasize a less-fragmented day for all students, especially Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, First Grade, and Second Grade. Structure instructional schedules to permit less-fragmented days for all grades. Follow district and state expectations   presented as the model of standards necessary to meet state accreditation. Employ instructional strategies that offer a powerful effect upon academic learning (i.e. Junior Great Books Program, basal readers, charts and workbooks, positive displays and murals.) Use in-house people resources to compliment the regular classroom experience: nurse. counselor, worker, art specialist, music specialist. social services theme specialist. assistant principal, physical education teacher, reading specialists, gifted and talented specialist. speech therapist, media specialist, media clerk, aides, instructional aides and a lab attendant. resource teacher. supervisionGARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL PAGE 3 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL PLAN aides, instructional aides and a lab attendant.  Engage community resources, organizations and agencies to drive good practices by all.  Engage parents in support teams to promote student success.  Use written regular communiques to keep parents informed about student progress: parent-teacher conference forms\ninterim *    behavior fonns\nreports\nwritten reports\nportfolios assessments, reports\nand other notes designed to relay ideas and secure proper feedback. GOAL TWO: TO FOSTER IMPROVED ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE (Student Achievement/Curriculum and Assessment) This goal can be satisfied through emphasis on the following strategies.  Establish student-centered programs (project-based).  Clearly communicate specific learning objectives and standards Students are not permitted for parents, teachers and students, to fail.  Deliver instruction using appropriate learning strategies for individuals and student groups.  Present information using a logical sequence with questions and cuiswers to promote student understanding.  Provide ample guided and independent practice after presenting new information or skills.  Follow highly engaging activities that are hands-on and reflect real-life learning experiences for students.  Monitor, record, and maintain criteria for measuring student progress.  Use educational field trips, speakers and exhibits to support the curriculum and academic programs.  Involve parents and guardians in the learning process: estciblishing proper study schedules, reviewing and signing student homework assignments, maintaining regular contacts with the teacher or other proper staff members.  Implement curricula expectation based upon learner outcomes (district and state standards). f Help students to acquire, use and interpret knowledge though multiple approaches to teaching, including a curriculum suited This for students served by small classes.  Emphasize various learning experiences necessary for helping students better understand what they are learning. This approach necessitates a curriculum that provides experiences in reading, language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, physical education, art, music, research, and computer science. education.  Teachers should provide written evidence of preparation upon request.  Create learning environments conducive to effective learning: rich experiences, well-managed, orderly, colorful messages, mutualGARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL PAGE 4 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL PLAN respect, warm and respectful communications.  Use praise, reward and recognition for parents, teachers and students. Use a variety of pre- and post- assessment activities annually to help plan and modify curricula expectations and instructional methodology for all grades (i.e. Early Prevention of School Failure).  Evaluate Staff). student performance quarterly with inventories (IRC  Establish guidance services to help students with eliminating barriers to learning successfully. GOAL THREE: TO FOSTER Development and Training) IMPROVED PERSONNEL DECISIONS (Staff The strategies that follow offer potentially the most influence upon student achievement. The procedures note should contribute to all goals.  Teachers should participate in faculty and district groups for designing and implementing curriculum necessary for greater student success. team teaching, peer  Teachers should participate in peer support systems such as demonstration teaching, coteaching, team teaching, peer coaching, mentoring, peer review, peer evaluation, and support for at-risk colleagues.    Staff members must regularly participate in training sessions designed to support collective work and learning. Teachers must participate in training sessions designed to encourage the effective use of instructional aides. Provide monthly staff development opportunities for staff. Develop inservice opportunities for staff through needs assessments, faculty involvement, and faculty evaluations of each inservice programs. Encourage and reward teachers for their success with student achievement. Provide training commensurate with employee assignments: instructional aides, supervision aides, custodians, etc. Provide professional out-of-city/state growth opportunities for staff. SUMMARY The reform opportunities for Garland Incentive School provides the entire school community (parents, teachers, students and staff) with workable goals and strategies. Clearly, the main emphasis is on improving the quality of education offered to all students. IS our hope that each activity receives commitment for achieving the results desired. full It through this approach we and supportive We believe that can achieve the complete plans of the school and ultimately the Little Rock School District.ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS The next section offers an array of options the Committee believes ensure that each incentive school shows dramatic results, following recommendations promise to improve the quality of education incentive school students. Without for promise school improve The students. each every recommendation, the district risks additional limitations for student, parent and administrator in the incentive schools. ... teacher, The recommendations include: 1. 2 . Hire an Incentive/Academy School Director with the responsibility of coordinating activities like the Saturday Program, other practices and successes for incentive schools. (This position supersedes the open Staff Development Specialist position.) 3 . Respond to staff development opportunities for staff through the formal involvement of the Department of Staff Development and instructional supervisors (IRC Staff). Hire, train, and place an assistant principals at each incentive school to assist with daily operations, organization and management. 4. 5. (This position provides balance for all schools and provides a stronger support to teachers, __1__ and parents than the current Auxiliary Teacher position.) Rename all schools as academy befitting the effectiveness of the improvement efforts in each school, ex. \"Ben Franklin Elementary Academy.\" students 6. 7. 8 . 9 . 10. 11. 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . ex. Hire, train, and place instructional aides for each classroom to give students added advantages in the classroom. Assign maximum classes size for all grades levels to eighteen (18). Use pre- and post- standardized assessments annually to ensure progress toward school and district goals (Kindergarten through Second Grades). Begin standardized test assessments at third grade in the school year 1997-98. Establish professional growth opportunities both within and outside the state to maintain and encourage proper ^^^tiatives and successful strategies for staff. Establish K-3 Gifted and Talented training as a tool for increasing teacher and student success. Evaluate student performance on a quarterly basis through inventories (IRC Staff) . Compensate staff members appropriately to reflect the highest for competent, capable teachers and staff. Retain a Theme Specialist at each incentive school to assist with program implementation and response to curricula matters. Establish a less fragmented day for all grades, particularly Kindergarten through Second Grade. Hire an on-site CARE facilitator on desired campuses with the responsibility of monitoring and assisting CARE staff, coordinating structured activities, and improved relations with parents. Designate a minimum three-year commitment for staff.GUIDE FOR REDUCING REFORM PLANNING TO WRITING (Schools may elect to use the school letter-head as a symbolic way of presenting the focus of the school plan.) I. DPENING STATEMENT (Describe the general directions/scope of the school plan. Refer to the general aims, ends, outcomes, or goals of the plan.) II. MAIN GOALS (Decide upon the main goals, objectives, and essentials of the school plan. Focus upon those areas of change that most facilitate the changes desired.) HI. STRATEGIES (Ust the best strategies, methods, or experiences that will help fulfill the school plan.) IV. STAFF NEEDS (Point out staff/needs and changes important to the school plan. Use the form provided.) V. BUDGET REQUESTS (Identify budgetary support needs necessary to fund programs staff, staff development and training, materials, and supplies. VI. SUMMARY (Optional)POSITION Principal Asst. Principal Theme Specialist Classroom Teacher Counselor Media Specialist Media Clerk Nurse Social Worker Instructional Aide Supervision Aide Auxiliary Teacher Other: Specialist Music LRSD INCENTIVE SCHOOL STAFFING WORK SHEET FTE'S IN 1996-97 1.0 0.0 1.0 15.0 1.0 1.0 . 5 1.0 1.0 16.0 2.0 (5 hours each) 1.0 1.0 Other: P.E. Specialist GT Specialist Art Specialist Speech Therapist Dean of Curriculum Resource Teacher Extended Day Teachers Extended Day Aides Other: Title I Sub-Total Grand Total 1.0 0.5 1.0 . 5 0.0 . 5 Entire Staff Positions 16.0 2.0 RECOMMENDED FTE'S IN 1997-98 1.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 16.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0  1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 2.0 DIFFERENCE + OR - 0.0 1.0 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 + 0.0 0.0+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 1.0 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BUDGET IMPACTr I MITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2410 South Battery Street Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 324-2415 I Hl SCHOOL ! ! INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL PLAN 1997 - 1998 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL A DISTRICT Mitchell Elementary 2410 South battery Street Little rock, AR 72205 (501)324-2415 MITCHELL CREATIVE DRAMATICS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1997-98 REFORM PLAN I. OPENING STATEMENT Mitchell Elementary School strives to provide enhanced educational port programs for aU students. The focus of the plan is to restructure opportunities and sup-the instructional day by imple- j' \"Minimum pullout activity schedule for each grade level, and the adoption of a s ool-wide supplemental reading program for early intervention and on-going prevention of school failure for students At-Risk. After carefully assessing the needs of the student population, it was determined that hensive early intervenrion/prevention program should be the means for achieving a program of instruction, to enhance a theme, and to redefine the role of students, teachers/staff and a compre-a more improved parents. II. .MAIN GOAT A 1. To increase student achievement and overall academic performance\nand on National, State, and/or Local assessment. 2. To enrich students social, emotional, and physical development to assist them in becoming productive citizens. 3. To provide a safe and orderly environment so that learning can be promoted. 4. To increase and improve parental involvement. 5. To develop and implement more effective methods for assessment of student achievement. III. STRATEGIES FOR OBTAINING GOALS GOAL #1 - To increase student achievement and academic performance..  Develop and implement a four (4) day, minimal pullout instructional schedule. This schedule will have (1) alternating day identified as an activity day for each grade level. Activities such as Art, P.E., Mitchell Elementary Library, and Crearive Dramatics will be scheduled.  Implement a school-wide (Title I) Supplemental Reading Progi (Success For All) for K-2nd grades Tam (year 1), Grades 3-4 (year 2), and Grades 5, 6 (year 3). Continue with effective instruction and monitoring of the HBJ series in grades 1-6.  Hire a full-time Assistant Principal to assist the principal in the general administration of the school and to assume some of the many responsibilities included in operation of an incentive school.  Using Key Links SAT-9 Practice Series, incorporate a daily test taking skill instructional plan at each grade level 1-6, to be reflected in teachers wrinen lesson plans.  Discontinue the (3) three-day Extended Day Program - shorten but enhance the activities of enrich- ment by reducing the program to one (1) day a week Extended Day. Activities will include, but - - , --------------,  may not be limited to Girl/Boy Scouts, Social Skills, Drama/Dance Class, Young Artists, Young Authors, etc... Through collaborative efforts with VIPS, plan on-going field trips that correlate with the LRSD integrated curriculum for each grade level.  Provide on-going in-service/staff development training geared toward current trends and changes of our present/future society and based on the needs of the staff.  Restructure the paraprofessional program (responsibilities, job qualifications, schedules, and in-service training) so these individuals can be more effective as instructional assistants.  In accordance with Labor Relations and Human Resources regulations, work with these departments to upgrade the existing status of the Theme Specialist Position from non-certified to certified in education or a related field to include a minimum of (12) hours in early childhood and/or elementary education, have a minimum of two (2) years of successful teaching experience in early childhood education and/or the primary/intermediate grades. The rationale is that a Theme'Specialists should have an instructive background to be a support to teachers.  Research current national trends, facts, and survey parental, community support for implementation of a mandatory school uniform policy.  Delete the word incentive from the school s name and add academy.  Reorganize the Writing-To-Read Lab for K-lst grades and install these computers directly into the K-1 classrooms for more effective instructional/technological support. Redirect rhe role of the Writing-To-Read assistant as an additional computer lab attendant for grades 2-6 and as a support and monitoring assistant for Writing-To-Read in K-lst classrooms. * Discontinue to operate as a u nent Great Expectations school. No longer focusing on the academic compo- of G.E., such as the Open Court Phonics. Instead, emphasis will be placed on phonics and comprehension skills through the Success For All Supplemental Program. We will continue to incorporate the basic tenets of Great Expectations methodology, such as (1) climate of respect, (2) all children can learn, (3) high expectations, (4) teacher attitude and responsibility, and (5) teacher knowledge andMitchell Elementary skill. GOAL #2 To enrich srudents social, emotional, and physical development, that will strengthen abilities to become productive citizens. STRATEGIES * Hire a full-time Resource teacher to Mitchell. meet the high case load of students referred/placed in Resource at  Develop and implement a more efiFective discipline/classroom management pL .an.  Maintain the current use of a part-time Social Worker and full-time elementary Counselor.  Work collaboratively with the LRSD CARE Progr\nand provide a more _ am and Pupil Services Department to implement quality, child centered and comprehensive CARE Progr: am.  Work cooperatively with existing Vital Link Program/Partnerships to benefit students as future Arkansas employees. GOAL #3 To provide a safe and orderly environment so that learning can be promoted successfully.  Through a collaborative agreement between Plant Services, Library Services (LRSD), a local Community Development Center (CDC) and the LR Public Library System, replace the old library shelves L* II * * * L ___ / 1 fl 1  a . . Mitchell with newer/modern shelves at to be donated by the Public Library System in August, 1997 (th\u0026lt; current shelves in use are in poor and hazardous condition.) .e  Through collaborative efforts with LRSD Plant Services, Library Services, and a local GDC organization, install accordion doors in the library to reduce noise level from hallway, other classrooms.  Lower ceiling in library\nLRSD Plant Services addressed this would also help reduce noise. concern and agreed that lowering ceiling  Revise the schedule of one (1) paraprofessional to add as additional supervision to the Pre-K class during a structured in library class. This will allow Pre-K students to come into the library on 2nd floor level, having the additional supervision necessary (Early Childhood Guidelines). GOAL #4 To increase parental involvement and community support. STRATEGIES Establish and maintain a strong Family Involvement Plan as outlined by the Success For all Program. Continue program support from community and business organizations, such as VIPS, Partners-in-Education, PTA, .Mentors, etc... 5'Mitchell Elementary  Communicate regularly with parents through school calendars and newsletters (monthly, quarterly each semester). or GOAL#? To develop and implement effective methods for assessment of student achievement. STRATEGIES  Eliminate standardized SAT-9 testing at second grade.  Eliminate Abacus Assessment - move toward current trends of portfolio  Utilize the computer lab assessment generated on on-going basis. assessment. At grades K-2nd conduct alternative assessment in Reading at end of each grading period which will be a mam responsibUity of the Success For AU school-based Tide I facilitator. In grades 3-6, classroom teachers will conduct quarterly assessment in Reading/Math using the current adopted basal series assessment component. IV. STAFF NEEDS - Narrative - Based on past years spending of the Extended Day Program 1997-98 Extended Day spending will be greatly rcduced.through rhe 1-day/weekly extended day, a reduction in number of staff needed for teaching extended day classes, reduction in number of days snacks will be needed, ^d the elimination of excessive amounts spent on Saturday field trips, (teacher stipends, travel, Stu ent ees, etc...) These expenditures can be allocated for more effective use of instructional support, resources and materials, provisions, and possibly pay for the addition of an assistant principal in accor- dance with approved budgi ret. SUMMARY Over the past several years, the number of students attending the Litde Rock Public Schools who are identified as^ At-Risk has steadily grown. These statistics have been confirmed by the state and local district evaluations of rhe SAT-8 and SAT-9 results. It is the responsibility of all_schools, not just incentive schools in the district to provide the educa- tional services necessary to enable students to function successfuUy in a mainstreamed educational setting. The correlates of effective schools do not consider the social ills and low socioeconomic backgrounds of children to be a handicapping condition. Hence the theory, All Children Can Learn. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of the local school, in accordance with the local school district, to provide whatever services are needed to help students overcome educational deficiencies. This is the vision for Mitchell Creative Dramatics Elementary School 1997-98 Reform Plan.RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 911 West 19th Street - Little Rock, AR 72206 501 - 324 - 2430 A r, i TO L 7 r/ II INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL PLAN 1997 - 1998 IIRIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I. OVERVIEW: _ Rlghtsell Elementary School will provide an effective educational program for students (Pre-K through 6th). This program will be delivered through three basic sections including the regular school day, the after school program, and extracurricular activities. The regular school day will be structured arotmd the Great Expectations Teaching Model. This approach encompasses the very best of what is known about teaching today: 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) All children can learn (William Glasser) Building self-esteem (Clemes \u0026amp; Bean) High expectations (Pygmalion Effect) Climate of mutual respect (Likert) Teacher atUtude \u0026amp; responsibility (Halm Ginott) Teacher knowledge \u0026amp; skill (Bloom) The after school program will become the Voyager Program (replacing CARE and Extended Day). This program will stress hands-on activities and learning through action. \"Students will have fun in this program, but the fun will be educationally based and follow carefully crafted curricula. The Voyager Program will be broken into nine-week segments, or adventures, each focusing on a theme.\" Extracurricular activities will also be provided for students through the Enrichment Program. This program will allow students to participate in activities that enrich social, emotional, and physical development. Some examples may Include: *Boy/Glrl Scouts Quiz Bowl. Cheerleading Basketball Team Computer Club Student Council Field Trips Recognition Programs Academic Clubs Jr. Great Books Honors/AwardsTO3^E: (1) Great Expectations (2) VOYAGER (3) Enrichment Program (4) Title I Schoolwide (5) Computers (6) Fine TVrts (7) Exceptional Program GRADES: Pre-K 6th Pre-K6th Pre-K6th Pre-K6th Pre-K6th Pre-K6th Pre-K6th CLASS SESSIONS: Daily Af ter-Schcx31 As Scheduled Daily Daily 180 mins, a week As Scheduled \u0026gt; o  Q) h-t CL O (D BASIC COMPONENTS: -All children can learn -Self Esteem -High Expect. -Respect -Teacher Responsibilit' -Teacher Knowledge -Academics -Thematic - Units -Hands-On -High Level Experiences Academics -Extra Currie Activities - Intramural Sports -Field Trips -Small Groups -Quarterly Assessment -Computer Lab -Modified Reading Recovery -Demonstration Teaching -Whole Groups - CCC Lab -Reading -Math -Langu. Arts -GEO-Safari -Writing-To- Read - Art -Music -P.E. -GT -Sp. Ed. -Counselor -Speech -Nurse -Social Wrk. -Libarian -Auxiliary Teacher -Curr. Spec. 3 H K- cn n M r* m r* 3 n M M (D M CL Z Q \u0026gt; c cn n Q C I UNIQUE FEATURES: -Phonics -Recitations -Life/Skill Principles -Classical Literature -Magic Triad (discipline) -On going GEA Training -School Creed -Multi-Level student groups -High Impact learning -Enhanced Science and Math S\u0026lt; Resear. _Different Voyager Experiences (quarterly) -Boy Scouts -Girl Scouts -Cheerleaders -Basketball Team -Computer Club -Student Coun -Quiz Bowl -Jr. Great Bk -Schoolwide Plan -Variety of Assessments -Inclusion of all students -Staff Develp -Horizontal S, Vertical Planning -Parent Training \u0026amp; Workshops -\"NeW'CCC Lab _Computer Assisted Instruction -Computer Assessment Reports -IBM Software -Internet -Certified Teachers -Special Assemblies -Speciality Clubs and Activities -lEPs as designated -SmallA-arge Groups -Focus on' individual student need -Parent Involvement -Various Assessments H* O c o 3 t-RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL in. STRATEGIES / GOAL # 1: OBJECnVE_To Increase student achievement on national, state and/or local assessments STRATEGIES: (A.) (B.) (C.) (D.) Delete use of ABACUS Program and use current computer assessment In the school (CCC Computer Lab) Re-structure the Wrltlng-to-Read Program, by placing these computers in the classrooms and developing students' skills through Instruction by the regular classroom teachers and Instructional aides Change the Writlng-to-Read aide to a full time computer lab attendant Modify the Extended Year Program to include only the K-3 Summer Program (ADE) and the Elementary Summer School (LRSD) (E.) Implement the state (ADE/Frameworks) and the district (LRSD/Multicultural Curriculum): thus ellmnatlng the many segments of the Incentive School Curriculum (F.) Regularly analyze assessment data * SAT - 9 (National Assessment) (annually) * Writing Assessment (State Benchmark) (annually)  Computer Assessment (District and/or Local School) (quarterly) Readlng/Math Assessment (Local School) (quarterly)RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL III. STRATEGIES ! GOAL # 2: OBJECTIVE: To enrich students' social, emotional, and physical development through enrichment and extracurricular activities STRATEGIES: (A.) Establish a school schedule which provides (Enrichment Program) activities such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Cheerleading, Basketball, Computer Club, Quiz Bowl, Student Council, Academic Clubs, and Field Trips (thus eliminating the Extended Week Program) (B.) Provide opportunities for students to be exposed and Involved tn competitive experiences (C.) Schedule appropriate field trips related to the curriculum (D.) Incorporate life skills and life principles to ciirricular-related subjects (E.) Extend learning experiences with visual, auditory, and kinesthetic activitiesRIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL in. STRATEGIES ! GOAL # 3: OBJECTIVE: To provide a safe and orderly environment so that learning is promoted and the school is enhanced STRATEGIES: (A.) Replace the fence surrounding the school with a fence that provides better safety for students, security of the building, and beautification to the school (B.) Remove carpet in the art and music room and replace it with floor tiles (C.) Replace all outside double doors on the first floor with doors that provide better security and that are more energy efficient (D.) Review and revise the school discipline plan (Include specific guidelines and expectations for the In-School-Suspension Classroom) (E.) (F.) Install outside security lights on the east side of the school campus Regularly review the Custodians' Log Book (local school) and Work Order Requests (LRSD Plant Services) for actions takenRIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL in. STRATEGIES ! GOAL # 4: OBJECTIVE: To Involve parents, business, and collaborative efforts community members through STRATEGIES: (A.) (B.) (C.) (D.) Expand specific area of focus to the social worker's responsibilities to include parent training, family advocacy, and intervention training (related to absences, tardies, and home visits) Include community action programs such as DARE Program, Neighborhood r J Community Health Centers, Mentors, VIPS, and Partners-In- Educatlon as an integral part of the school program Implement the \\fital Link Program for sixth graders Communicate regularly with parents and community members through a school newsletterRIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL III. STRATEGIES / GOAL # 5: OBJECTIVE: To have high expectations for teachers and students STRATEGIES: (A.) (B.) Change the school theme to \"Great Expectations\" Implement the Voyager Program (thus eliminating the Extended Day Program and CARE Program) (C.) Provide staff development and awareness on current educational trends and practices (D.) Provide GEA training and other appropriate training for certified and non-certlfied staff members (E.) (F.) Empower teachers, students, and parents through committees, active planning, and other leadership opportunities Provide effective Instructional strategies for teachers and sufflclent time task for students by Including horizontal (grade levels) and vertical (all teachers/subjects) planning directly related to the curriculum on * Eliminating excessive paperwork (SEPs, Learning Style Inventories, Parent Home Study Guides, \u0026amp; Student Profiles) * Eliminating designated program names and Incorporate only the effective curricular objectives based on students' needs (Foreign Language Lab, Spanish Program, Science Lab, Latin Enrichment Program, and Seml-Departmentallzatlon) (G.) Revise the school's schedule to limit excessive pull-outs for a less fragmented dayRTCIITSEI.L ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LRSD INCENTIVE SCHOOL STAFFING Work Sheet * Position FTES in 1996-97 Recommended PTEs in 1997-98 Difference + or - Budget Impact Principal Asst. Principal 1.00 None I 1.00 I 1.00 - 1.00 Theme Specialist 1.00 1.00 Classroom Teacher 14.00 I 14.00 Counselor 1.00 1.00 Media Specialist 1.00 1.00 Media Clerk .40 .40 Nurse 1.00 1.00 Social Worker .50 .50 Instructional Aide 8.60 8.60 Supervision Aide 2.00 2.00 Auxiliary Teacher 1.00 None 1.00 Other Art/Music/PS 2.50 2.50 Speech Special Ed. GT Title I SubTotai Extended Day Teachers .20 .50 .80 2.00 37.50 17.00 Extended Day Aides/c\n\\]\u0026gt;E 10.00 Other Ex.Day Sec. 1.00 .20 .50 .80 2.00 37.50 12.00 6.00 None -5.00 -4.00 -1.00 Sub Total 28.00 18.00 5: -10.00: Grand Total 65.50 55.50 -10.00 I I I I I (* The site director will be an added position in the Voyager Program\nhowever, this teacher will be paid by the Voyager Administrative Office in Dallas, Texas.)RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IV. STAFFING NEEDS: The staffing needs of the regular school day will generally remain the same from the 1996-97 school year through 1997-98. Instead of an auxiliaiy teacher, an assistant principal will be added (the FTE of 1.00 will remain the same). The staffing needs of the after-school program (Voyager) will be significantly reduced. The staff will be reduced as follows: 1996-97 1997-98 (17) Teachers (Ex. Day) (12) Teachers for Voyager * (6) Aides (Ex. Day) (6) Aides for Voyager (4) Aides (CARE) - - None - - (1) Secretary (Ex. Day) - - None - - ( * An additional staff position, a site director, will be added to the after-school program. The site director will be paid by the Voyager Administrative Office in Dallas, Texas.)RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL V. BUDGET REQUESTS: The modifications in the academic programs (sections I, II, III, and IV) are compatible for the \"1997-98 Proposed Budget Allocation for RlghtseU School.\" The program changes will not exceed the school's total budget allocation. After the Initial staff training costs for Voyager (1997-98) there will be a moderate decrease in overall expenses (in upcoming years) as a result of the following: * Less staff persons for the after-school program * No buses for the after-school program * Controlled salary stipends for the after school staff ($16.00 an hour for teachers) ($8.00 an hour for paraprofesslonals/aldes) Some line items on the budget will be adjusted to reflect the restructured program modifications for Rightsell School.RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL VI. SUMMARY: Rightsell Elementary will become an instructlonally effective school by focusing on student achievement, staff development, high expectations, and parent/community involvement. Rightsell Elementary, a high performance school, will deliver an \"academic enriched curriculum\" through a variety of approaches and strategies. Regular planning, assessments, evaluations, and surveys will be conducted to make modifications to various programs components to meet the needs of students.fl zur^ 19 GOOD REASONS TO SEND YOUR CHILD TO SCHOOL ON 19TH \u0026amp; CHESTER \" ( Rightsell Elementary School) 1. CCC Computer Lab 2. Small Class Size (1 to 20) 3. 4 -Year-Old-Program 4. Great Expectations Program 5. Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Program 6. Partners-In-Education 7. Special Education Services 8. Full Time Counselor and Nurse 9. School Uniforms 10. Active Parent Involvement 11. Cheerleaders (Junior \u0026amp; Varsity) 12. Basketball Teams (Junior \u0026amp; Varsity) 13. Boy Scouts \u0026amp; Girl Scouts 14. Voyager (After-School) Program 15. Field Trips (Local \u0026amp; State) 16. Good Test Scores 17. Clean, Orderly School Environment 18. Art, Music, \u0026amp; P.E. Programs 19. Dedicated Principal, Teachers, \u0026amp; Support StaffCctkefeller Ccmputer Science Early Childhccd Magnet 7CC East 17th Street Little Ccck, AC 777( t 1 1^ 3? .ij*\n4i S! j! Individual SchccI Elan Ercpcsal 1997-1998 ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL EARLY CHILDHOOD MAGNET PROPOSED SCHOOL PROGRAM 1997-1998 SCHOOL YEAR 1. DESCRIPTION OF SCHOOL Rockefeller Elementary is a unique school where the education of children begins at the age of six weeks and continues through b*** grade. The Early Childhood Magnet Program has proven to be a valuable recruitment tool because parents have chosen to have their children remain at Rockefeller for the elementary grades. Rockefeller is an open space school. There are five early childhood classes, three kindergarten, r, 2**, 3\"*, and 4* grade classes. There have been two 5* and 6* grade classes but an additional 5\" grade class will be added next year. Every year it has been necessary to create a new class at each grade level to accommodate additional students. Rockefeller has improved its racial balance during the past ten years to the present school population of 60% African American and 40% White. The school theme of Computer Science has very successfully been implemented and there are plans to develop the school into a model technology school. In addition to the successful implementation of the computer theme. Rockefeller can boast of outstanding delivery of other specialty areas such as science, art, physical education, and music. The Intermediate Show Choir performed at Carnegie Hall in New York City this spring and has performed at many local community functions. A very successful science fair was held at the end of this school year. There are outstanding committed teachers and support staff members that work hard to make a difference in the lives of young children.II. MAIN GOALS The mission of Rockefeller School, as a computer science and early childhood magnet, is to equip all children in our diverse school community with the knowledge and skills to become responsible, productive, and confident citizens prepared to excel in our ever changing technological world. This is accomplished by providing nurturing early childhood experiences, a comprehensive and challenging curriculum and a foundation in computer science skills. The main goal will be to increase student achievement in all curriculum areas. Strategies will be developed to increase student academic performance, develop higher order thinking skills, and promote a positive sense of worth/high self-esteem. III. STRATEGIES High expectations for all staff and all students! Proposed Daily Schedule: Early Childhood Program - 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Elementary K - O'** Grade - 7:50 a.m. - 2:35 p.m. Extended Day CARE Program - 7:00 a.m. - 7:50 a.m. 2:35 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. EARLY CHILDHOOD  Rockefeller will continue to provide an Early Childhood Education Program beginning with infants, six weeks of age, through four years old only if the following recommendation is adopted by the district.  Recommendation is being made to hire an Early Childhood Specialist who will oversee the program until 5:30 p.m. each day and also work the summer months when the administrators are off contract or away from the school site. This wiL ensure constant proper implementation of a quality program and total compliance with licensing regulations. This will allow a certified specialist to be present and working with the staff all day, every day. If this recommendation is not adopted by the district, it is recommended to scale back on the student enrollment thereby phasing out the infant and toddler program - discontinue assigning new students in this age bracket each year. A decision about the continuation of the three year old program will be studied. Parents will be given notice immediately if this approach is taken.ELEMENTARY  K-3 Training is recommended for Primary teachers - either completed or scheduled to take the course in the coming year.  K - 2*^ Grades will focus heavily on reading, writing and math with large language arts blocks of time provided. Other curriculum areas will be covered through the language arts block and grades will not be required for those additional subject areas on the report card.  Evaluate student performance frequently with assessment inventories which will be conducted by Title 1 specialists and IRC staff and plan teaching strategies accordingly. Customized assessment for primary grades can be developed to determine needs and progress.  Standardized testing will be eliminated for 1st and 2nd grade students.  Utilize guidance and social worker services to assist students with eliminating problem areas that might be providing a hindrance to successful learning.  Art, Music, and Physical Education will be offered as a pull out program for all grade levels by full time certified specialists. Scheduling will be done is a manner that will allow in common grade level planning with teachers or administrators.  A science specialist will be added to the staff and that person will teach science to as many classes as can be scheduled during the week, but definitely all 4*, 5*, and 6\" grade classes. (3* grade will receive science instruction from this specialist for as many times a week as the schedule will allow.) This should increase student achievement in science.  Employ instructional strategies that will make a difference in academic achievement and serve as a reinforcement and enhancement to the basal readers. These strategies may include Junior Great Books, the Shurley Method of teaching English grammar, Open Court Phonics Program and resource materials suggested in the basals that compliment the adopted curriculum. 3TECHNOLOGY  Rockefeller will serve as a model technology school for the district by developing a technology based instructional program that will be outstanding and worthy of bringing visitors to observe. A technology plan will be on file with the district outlining in full detail the projected overall plans for the school. There will be access to computer technology in every classroom, software to support the LRSD adopted curriculum, staff development training plans, and technical staff in the building to support the technology. Every classroom will have access to the internet.  Computer instruction will include the final stages of the CCC pilot program with 4\", 5\", and 6\" grade students through the fall testing period. If a different software is approved by the district for the computer lab, a change in software will be allowed as soon as the contracted time is ended.  Writing to Read lab will be discontinued but replaced with upgraded software in the classroom. Each first grade class will be provided six computers for enrichment. Software will be provided that will emphasize phonics and improving reading and writing skills. Kindergarten will have additional computers placed in their classrooms and software to reinforce phonics instruction and introduce beginning reading and writing skills.  Computer instructions for Kindergarten - 3\"* grade will use Josten software and students will receive instruction mainly in the classroom by distributive method but the lab setting will still be available for word processing and other computer related instruction. Exciting music software will enhance areas of study and additional computers are projected for the music classroom.  The one instructional aide who was assigned to work in the Writing to Read lab will be allowed to work with first grade teachers and students to assist with the computer instruction scheduled in each of the classrooms. This additional assistance will aid in improving academic achievement. 4MONITORING AND EVALUATION *Teacher made tests *Teacher/SpeciaIist Observation *Criterion Referenced Testing *Computer Printouts *Frequent Reading Inventories *Standardized Testing *EIiminate 2^ grade standardized testing *Implement Pre/Post Reading Inventory for 172** grade SCHOOL POLICY AND PROCEDURE RECOMMENDATIONS: *Student Uniform Code required * Staff Dress Code *Staff and Parents required to join PTA Parent Contract - Strictly adhered to *PTA attendance required by parents/staff ic Compensation for teachers and principals for additional contracted time beyond 3:05 p.m. - using the same pay scale formula of daily rate of pay/hourly rate of pay for both groups. *Attendance/Tardy Policy established/supported by district *Strict discipline plan established and enforced 5EXTENDED DAY  Extended Day activities will be integrated with the Little Rock School District CARE program. It is recommended that the CARE program be restructured so as to develop a quality after school/extended day program. Students wishing to participate in the after school program will apply for admission to the CARE program unless the parents request for the student to walk home or be picked up at the completion of the planned activity. Bus transportation will be provided at the end of the regular school day only - 2:35 p.m. A director/supervisor, selected from the certified staff will be employed and on site each day and will provide training for the workers hired by CARE. The director and principal will evaluate the performance of the workers and the quality of the program. Strict guidelines about behavior will be established for those wishing to participate in the program. Effort to work with community outreach programs will be explored and can be part of the restructuring process. A City Latch Key Program will be considered at the school site for a certain number of children. There will be some activities provided for eligible students and instructed by staff members who choose to work. (Example of possibilities: Primary and Intermediate Show Choir, Piano Keyboarding, Computer Club, Science Club, Art and the scouting programs. Students enrolled in this extended day program will either participate in one of the offered activities, the Latch Key Program, or regular CARE program. Any certified teachers or specialists who work beyond their contracted time or during the regular planning time would be paid a pre-determined amount of pay. These programs would run only on the days that regular school is in session.  A partnership could be developed with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and/or other local colleges where pre- pro students and student teachers could be trained to help with the after school program and earn some money and perhaps extra college credit through participation in the program. This would have to be worked out with the college or university. 6rv. STAFFING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT NEEDS  The principal will be allowed to recommend hiring or transferring staff member/members - certified or non-certified.  In addition to the certified teachers presently employed, a recommendation for a new certified teaching position will be made: Science teacher for 3* - 6'*\" grades.  In addition to the non-certified staff presently employed, the option to hire a computer technician will be considered, if the number of computers in the building warrants the need.  There will be at least two instructional aides for every three K - 6\" grade classes with the possibility of one per classroom in 1 and I** grades where there will be heavy focus on reading, writing and math. st  The district will build into the school budget enough money to provide several days inservice before the beginning of each school year.  Eliminate excessive paperwork such as the SEP, Learning Styles Inventory, and Pupil Profile Form.  Staff development for teachers, instructional and supervision aides will be provided so as to establish guidelines necessary for effective implementation.  Provide inservice opportunities by allowing staff members to attend conferences related to their assigned teaching or instructional area which are held within the city or out-of-city/ state. 7RECOMMENDED CERTIFIED POSITIONS  Principal  Assistant Principal  Early Childhood Specialist  Computer Theme Specialist  Science Specialist  Counselor  Media Specialist  Art Specialist  Music Specialist  Physical Education Specialist  Two Title 1 Specialists  Resource Teachers - enough for identified number of students  Speech Therapist  Gifted Teacher  Classroom teachers - enough to accommodate the number of students enrolled by grade level - not to exceed 20 per classroom.  Auxiliary Teacher - willing to trade out for science teacher REQUIRED FULL TIME NON-CERTIFIED SUPPORT STAFF  Nurse  Social Worker  Library Clerk  Computer Lab Attendant - Change from .80 FTE to 1.0 FTE to accommodate the theme and model technology school implementation.  Instructional Aides - 2 per three classes  Supervision Aides - enough hours allotted to cover before school, after school and lunch/recess times. V. VI. BUDGET REQUESTS See attached budget form for staffing changes FACILITY STUDY NEEDS New carpet needed throughout Additional classroom space needed to accommodate number of students enrolled. 8Position Principal Asst. Principal Theme Specialist LRSD INCENTIVE SCHOOL STAFFING Work Sheet. FTE's in 1996-97 Recommended FTE's in 1997-98 Difference + or - Budget Impact I 4. I 4. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 ! Early Childhood Classroom Teacher Classroom Teacher | Media Specialist { Auxiliary Teacher Eady Childhood Specialist Science Specialist Art Music P.E. Resource (Title I Gifted Speech Media Clerk IComputer Lab {Attendant (Nurse Social Worker (Eady Childhood llnstructional Aide (Elementary llnstructional Aide r- {Sub Total (Extended Day Teachers I I i (Extended Day Aides I (Other: ^ub Total |Grand Total I i 5.0 19.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 19.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 18.0 12.0 70.3 0.0 70.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 i 18.0 12.0 71.5 0.0 71.5 I + 1.0 + 1.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + 1.2 I I I 0.0 + 1.2 I If enrollment continues to increase, as projected for 1997-98, the part time positions may have to be increased to full time. I\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_515","title":"Incentive Schools: Programs and operations 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":["1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Programs and operations 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/515"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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\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_1280","title":"'Plain Talk, the Future of Little Rock's Public Schools,'' University of Arkansas at Little Rock","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","University of Arkansas at Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["'Plain Talk, the Future of Little Rock's Public Schools,'' University of Arkansas at Little Rock"],"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/1280"],"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":["11 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1467","title":"Report: ''Double Funding of the Incentive Schools,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1996-12-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Double Funding of the Incentive Schools,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1467"],"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":["00:00:40"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1665","title":"Court filings concerning Joshua intervenor's fee petition of November 1995, LRSD's motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction, PCSSD teacher strike issue, and LRSD program and budget tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","School management and organization","School employees","School districts","Education and state","Lawyers","Teachers","Employee rights","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Joshua intervenor's fee petition of November 1995, LRSD's motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction, PCSSD teacher strike issue, and LRSD program and budget tool."],"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/1665"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["13 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) witness list; District Court, order; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, substituted motion to intervene by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, substituted claim in intervention of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court, motion for reconsideration; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for reconsideration; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration concerning their fee petition of November 1995; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion for reconsideration regarding their fee petition; District Court, motion for an extension of time to respond to Joshua's September 1996 motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, opposition of the Joshua intervenors to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for reconsideration of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply and memorandum brief in support of its reply to motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration concerning their fee petition of November 1995; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration regarding the teacher strike issue; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their motion for reconsideration regarding the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, order; District Court, response of the Joshua intervenors to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) extension request regarding Joshua intervenors' fee petition of October 1996; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) October program planning and budgeting tool FY 1998; District Court, motion to request Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, C:CT O 11996 vs. * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * * * * * * * * Intervenor. * ORDER OCi J 1996 Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for approval of the interdistrict magnet school budget for the 1996-97 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court in a letter dated September 12, 1996 [attached]. Any objections to this request must be filed on or before October 15, 1996. 5t IT IS SO ORDERED this / day of October 1996. \u003e n1~~~ \\~ TSDIRICJUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56 ANO/OR 79(a)FRCP ON I0/1196 BY vs:: \\ i 282 9 Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Direcior September 12, 1996 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: RECEIVED sus.~ER.s OF B=RWRrGrrr SEP 1 7 1996 U. S. DISTRICT Jl.JDGE (501) 758-0156 In a letter dated June 24, 1996, the Magnet Review Comfnittee submitted the 1996-97 interdistrict magnet schools' budget (labeled Draft 4) in the amount of $16,961,535 for your approval. The total amount budgeted was based on a per-pupil expenditure of $4,660 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,639.7 students. This budget submittal also showed an increase of $597 .00 per student over the 1995-96 budget, with the first year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. Draft 4 of the interdistrict magnet schools' budget, however, did not reflect any results of salary negotiations which were in progress. Salary negotiations have now been completed, and Draft 5 of the interdistrict magnet schools' budget is attached herewith. Draft 5 includes the revised salary figures and fringe benefits, as well as the first year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan. These factors have resulted in an upward adjustment for tne 1996-97 budget from $4,660 per-pupil expenditure to $4,782, an increase of $122.00 per student from Draft 4 submitted to you on June 24, 1996, and a resulting overall increase of $719 .00 per student over the 199 5-96 budget. The total revised budget amount for the 1996-97 interdistrict magnet schools' budget is now $17,361,466. The Magnet Review Committee approved this revised budget (Draft 5) during its regular meeting on September l 0, 1996. The MRC now respectfully requests your approval. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. One of our primary goals is to ensure efficient and effective cost containment while continuing to deliver attractive instructional programs. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise prudent oversight of the magnet schools' budget. !. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- September 12, 1996 Thank you for your consideration and response to this important matter. Sincerely, l~~ Magnet Review Committee ATTACHMENT: CC: 1996-97 lnterdistrict Magnet Schools' Budget (Approved Draft 5) Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM , 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6 0 S337,925 6 0 S352 057 60 S3625'2 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10 0 S498.372 10 0 S475 200 10 0 S464 55i 03 Spec1alIsts 39 2 S1 262,967 39.2 $1 ,261 .287 39 2 S1 .327 018 04 Counselors 12.4 $418.344 12.4 S476,775 12 4 S485.416 05 Media Spec. 6.5 S232.294 6 5 $237 .118 65 S246 812 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 00 $0 0.0 so 1 0 S33 000 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 08 Foreign Lano. 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 09 Vocat ional 12.6 S408. 793 12.6 $410,775 12 6 S410 213 10 Special Education 7.7 $303,215 8 2 $291 732 82 S277 703 11 Gifted 54 S197.313 54 $193,626 54 $199 281 12 Classroom 175 9 S5 544 709 176 9 S5. 770 069 177 9 S5 929 2;-5 13 Substitutes 0.0 S141 .654 co S162 174 00 S154 99C 14 Other-K1nderqarten 14.0 S430.419 14 0 S470.419 14 0 S493 279 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 289 7 S9 776.005 291 2 S10 101 232 293 2 S10 384 452 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 19 0 S331 .216 20 0 S360 466 20 0 S345 , ~ STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 S153,060 54 $159 275 54 S167 347 17 Custodians 28.5 S351 .307 29 0 S361 256 29 0 S394 758 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 SC 00 so 00 SC 19 Para professionals-Other 60 S130.786 60 S126 778 60 S147 035 20 Other-Aides 37 0 S269 245 37 0 S294 451 37 0 S305 326 21 Fringe 8enef1ts (20) xxxxxxxx S1 221 .133 S1 261 .!44 xxxxxxxx S3 207 241 TOT AL SUPPORT SAL.ARY 95 9 S2.456.748. 97 4 S2 563 571 97 4 S4 567 425 TOTAL (10-20) XXXXJO()O( S12 232.753 S12.664 903 xxxxxxxx S1.! 951 a:-s PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es x:xxxxxxx S529.201 $583 967 xxxxxxxx S5.91 944 SERVICES 23 Travel lOOOOOOO( S28.648 S44 557 xxxx:xxxx S33 .600 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOOO( so so xxxxxxxx SB 15J 25 Other lOOOOOOO( S125.316 S63 614 xxxx:xxxx S75 97  TOTAL (30) lOOOOOOO( S683.165 $692,137 S710 265 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office xxxxxxxx so so S3 600 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxxx S353.697 y S336 537 S373 203 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxxx $38,223 S47 864 S29 65J 29 Other $17,581 S21 , 103 $28 476 TOTAL (40) S409 501 y S405 .503 S434.929 CAPITAL 30 Equipment )()()00000( S122.540 S98 368 xxxxxx:xx S351 816 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair etc. xxxxxxxx so so xxxx:xxxx S5.500 (50) 32 Other lOOOOOOO( $0 y yy so S35C TOTAL (50) $122.540 y S98 368 xxxxxxxx S357 566 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )()()00000( $13,975 S15994 xxxxxxxx s~ .. 54.; (60) 34 other )()()00000( so so xxxxxxxx S~ I TOTAL (60) lOOOOOOO( S13.975 S16 994 xxxx:xxxx S11 64.! I TOTAL (30-601 )()()00000( S1 ,229, 181 $1 213 802 xxxx:xxxx S1 514 5:;.; I TOTAL (10-60 ) 385 6 S 13.461 ,934 388 6 $13 877 905 390 6 S16.466 382 TOTAL LINE ITEMS {SECOND PAGE) $816,096 S874 401 S895 064 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $14,278,030 xxxxxx $14,752,306 xxxxxx $17,361.466 Line Item Costs  Actual Actual Budaet 1994-95 1995-96 1996 -97 Stipends S 18 594 S20 833 S68 323 Other Ob1ects $0 so so Indirect Costs St35.687 S769 926 s-11 251 Vocational $15 065 $31 996 S32.000 Athletics $25 586 S30 952 S32 .000 Gifted Proqrams $498 S377 S500 Plant Services $17,460 $15 000 S 15.000 Read1nq S188 S417 $500 Science $0 so so Enol1sh $500 S900 S1 500 Special Education S2.518 S3 999 S4 000 xxxxxx $0 so so xxxxxx so so so xxxxxx so so so Total Line Items S816.096 $874 401 S895 064 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,522.80 3,630.89 3 630.89 Total r::osts $14.278,030 $14,752.306 $17 361 ,466 Per Pupil Cost $4,053 $4,063 $4,782 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94.95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Booker Magnet School . F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $56,095 1 0 $57 ,267 1 0 S59 663 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $52,333 1 0 S41 ,994 1 0 S40,672 03 Specialists 7.0 $217,496 7.0 $254,408 7 0 S261 ,827 04 Counselors 2.0 S67,432 20 $70,167 2.0 S,3 553 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,190 1.0 S39 000 1 0 S39.960 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 00 so 1.0 S33 000 07 MUSIC 00 $0 0.0 so 00 so 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 00 so 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1.3 $51,870 1.3 $52,948 1 3 S34 ,055 11 Gifted 1.0 $37,221 1.0 $38,031 1.0 S38,946 12 Cla ssroom 30.2 $965,196 30 2 S1 ,016,033 30.2 S1 031 ,056 13 Substitutes 0.0 $25,235 0.0 $16,708 00 S20 COO 14 Other-Kindergarten 40 $126,536 4 0 $127935 4 0 S134 40C TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1 .637,604 48.5 S1,714 .490 49 5 S1 767 31 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31 ,932 20 $32 915 20 S33 -23 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28.104 1 0 S30. 747 1 0 S30 :'25 17 Custodians 40 $50 716 4.0 S45.217 4 0 S53 110 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 00 so 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 00 so 00 so 00 so 20 Other-Aides 70 S55,860 70 $64 468 7 0 S62.894 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx:x S199,799 $209,864 S528.136 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14 0 $366.411 14 0 -$383,212 14.0 $708 596 TOTAL (10-20) . S2,004 016 $2.097 701 $2,475 727 .I PURCHASED 22 Ut!l1t1es $66.393  $77,731 $78 070 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxx:x S3.817 $6 721 S5 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aoreements xxxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxxx $10.475 S4 657 S2 780 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx:x S80 685 S89 108 S85 35C MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pa l's Office XlOOCOOO( xxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom XlOOCOOO( $48 677 $19 417 xxxxxxxx 342 J,9 (40) 28 Media XlOOCOOO( so S5 922 S6 sc 29 Other xxx:xxxxx S3 218 xxxxxxxx S3 518 S4 205 TOTAL (40) xxx:xxxxx $51 ,895 - S28 35- xxxxxxxx ~52 ~3! CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxx:xxxxx $15 651 S5.581 S4t Q\" I OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1nq Repair, etc. S2 500 (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $15.651 $5.581 S46 .921 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $0 $245 $250 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $0 $245 S250 TOTAL (30-60) $148,231 $123.791 $185455 TOTAL (10-60) 62.5 $2,152,247 62.5 $2,221 492 63 5 $2,661 182 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) S130,151 $134 187 S142998 GRAND TOTAL XlOCXXX $2,282,398 xxxxxx $2,355,680 xxxxxx $2,804,180 Line Item Costs  Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends $2,550 $7,428 S20.733 Other Objects Indirect Costs $117.710 $123,189 S118,602 Vocational $2,410 so so Athletics $4,094 50 so Gifted Programs $80 5117 $155 Plant Services $2,794 S2.550 S2.505 Reading $30 571 $84 Science 50 so so English $80 S153 $251 Special Education S403 S680 S668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $130 151 5134 187 s~2 998 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 19%-97 3rd Qtr ADM or Pro1 559 60 594 05 594 05 Total Costs S2 282.398 $2 355 680 $2804,180 Per Pupil Cost $4,079 $3,965 $4,720 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Carver Magnet School . F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budoet CERTIFIED 01 Pr1nc1pal 1.0 $49,673 1.0 S53,423 1 0 S55 761 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1 0 $39,816 1.0 $41,602 1.0 S43 871 03 Specialists 8 0 S287,352 8.0 $238,979 80 S262.515 04 Counselors 20 $63,337 20 S65,001 20 S68.259 05 Media Spec 1 5 $48,897 1 5 $50 145 1 5 S52 230 06 Art-Pert /Prod 00 $0 00 $0 00 so 07 Music 00 so 00 so 00 so 08 Fore1qn Lano 00 $0 0.0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 00 $0 00 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1 0 $45,076 1 5 S46.511 1 5 S48 9G1 11 Gifted 1.4 $52,136 1 4 $45.188 1 4 S57 800 12 Classroom 24 3 S630 244 24 3 S683,406 24 3 S707 479 13 Substitutes 0.0 $23,223 0.0 S36.998 00 S17.150 14 Other-K1nderQarten 4 0 S88 ,097 4 0 S121 858 40 S131 099 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44 2 S1,327 849 44 7 S1 383 111 .!4 7 S1445C64 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 S47,887 3 0 S47.543 30 ss 1 ce2 STAFF 16 Nurses 1 0 S31,806 1 0 S30,330 1 0 S34 275 17 Custodians 4 0 S41 ,564 40 S43,474 4 0 S45 328 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 0.0 so 00 so 00 SC 19 Pa raprofess1onals-Other 0.0 so 00 so 00 S:J 20 Other-Aides 11 0 $89,247 11 0 S91 .044 11.0 S94 342 21 Fnnqe Benefits(20) XXXX)O()O( S177,960 S185 651 S4 75.080 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $388,465 19.0 S398,042 19 0 S700 945 TOTAL (10-20) S1,716,314 S1.,781 ,153 S2, 146,009 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es $67,508 S65,064 S7.1.899 SERVICES 23 Travel $7,524 S18,594 $9 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $14,292 $7.181 S8 591 TOTAL (30) $89.324 S90.839 S89 490 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office XXXX)O()O( SUPPLIES 27 ReQular Classroom XXXX)O()O( S66 .365 S60 846 S68 OCO (40) 28 Media XXXX)O()O( $1 ,039 S11 530 S2 000 29 Other S3, 113 S3 942 xxxxxxxx S3 .500 TOTAL (40) XXXX)O()O( S?0,517 S76 318 xxxxxxxx S73,500 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXXX)O()O( $14,917 $6,070 xxxxxxxx S56.240 OUTLAY 31 Bulld1nq Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other XXXX)O()O( TOTAL (50) $14,917 S6 070 S56.240 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $6,495 S6,863 S3,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $6,495 $6 ,863 S3 .000 TOTAL (30-60 ) S181 .253 S180,090 S222.230 TOTAL (10-60 ) 63 2 S1 ,897 567 63 .7 S1 961 243 63 7 S2 368.239 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) S145 549 S123.660 S143 566 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $2,043,116 xxxxxx $2,084,903 xxxxxx $2,511 ,905 Line Item Co5ts - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends S9,973 S4 811 S28 990 Other Ob1ects Ind irect Costs $125,067 S115 -189 s111 189 Vocational S2.561 so so Athletics S4,350 so so Gifted Proqrams $85 S109 S145 Plant Services S2. 968 $2 400 S2 385 Reading S32 $67 S82 Science so so so English S85 S144 :5239 Special Education $428 S640 S636 xxxxxx XXJOOO( XXJOOO( Total Line Items $145549 S123 660 S143 666 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Otr ADM or ProJ. 582.50 595.67 595 67 Total Costs $2,043.116 S2.084 903 S2 511 905 Per Pupil Cost $3,507 $3,500 $4,217 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94.95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Gibbs Magnet School - F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $40,467 1.0 $46.100 1 0 $45 602 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1.0 $65,021 1 0 S44,974 1 0 S47 .653 03 Spec1al1sts 58 $164 ,180 5 8 $169808 5 8 $182 294 04 Counselors 1 0 $41 ,051 1.0 $41 ,861 1 0 $42,870 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $39,625 1.0 S39 140 1 0 $42,303 06 Art-Perf /Prod. 00 so 00 $0 00 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 00 $0 00 so 08 Fore1qn Lang. 0.0 $0 00 $0 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 00 so 10 Special Education 1 5 $71,708 1.5 $58 950 1 5 $56.132 11 Gifted 1 0 $34,567 1 0 S35 377 1.0 S24 850 12 Classroom 15 0 $423,335 15 0 S442 440 15 0 s~co 12a 13 Substitutes 00 $14 ,238 00 S9 030 00 S14.CCC 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $60,096 2 0 S6 1. ~17 2 0 S6~ ~37 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 29 3 $954 288 29 3 S949 396 29 3 s s8o -5a SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1 4 S12, 127 1 4 S19 010 1 4 S20 060 STAFF 16 Nurses 08 $10,787 0 8 S 12 958 08 S 13 702 17 Custodians 3 0 S40.155 30 $37 ,641 30 S38 323 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 00 SC 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 00 so 00 so 00 so 20 Other-Aides 5 6 S26,814 56 $33 864 5.6 $45 637 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) xxxxxxxx S119,391 S119 320 S31Q,946 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 S209,274 10.8 S222.793 10.8 S428.668 TOTAL (10-20) $1 ,163,560 $1 ,172.187 XlOOOOOO( S1 ,409 436 PURCHASED 22 Util1t1es xxxxxxxx S31 .890 S35 . 783 S38 ,577 SERVICES 23 Travel $1,479 $2 527 XlOOOOOO( S2.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements XlOOOOOO( S25C 25 Other $7,117 S4 255 XlOOOOOO( $2,100 TOTAL (30) $40.486 S42.565 S42.927 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office xxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxxx S25.601 II $19 527 )0000000( $35 000 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxxx $2,305 S5 291 S3 500 29 Other $1 ,542 $1 821 $1 860 TOTAL (40) xxxxx:xxx S29,449 S26.638 S40 360 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $12,842 S11 287 $49 035 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair. etc. (50) 32 Other T )0000000( TOTAL (50) )000()()()0( S12,842 S11 287 .xxxxxxxx S49.035 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees S1 321 S1 567 )0000000( S994 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $1 ,321 S1 567 S994 TOTAL (30-60) )000()()()0( S84,098 S82 057 $133 3'6 TOTAL (10-60) 40 1 S1247658 40.1 S1 254 245 40 .1 S1 542.752 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) S55 825 $71 178 S685\" 7 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $1,303,4')3 xxxxxx $1,325,419 xxxxxx $1,611,369 Line Item Costs - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends so so so Other ObIects Indirect Costs S51 ,498 S69 :94 Sc6 -, 3 Vocational S1 055 so so Athletics S1 .791 so so Gifted Proqrams S35 S60 580 Plant Services S1 222 S' ~50 S' 3C5 Read1na S13 S33 S42 Science so so so Enql1sh S35 S81 s2s Spec1ul Education $176 S360 S348 xxxxxx )()()()00( )()()()00( Total Line Items S55 825 S71 178 S661 - Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Qtr ADM or ProJ. 289 10 290 60 290 60 Total Costs S1 .303.483 $1 ,325.419 $1611 ,369 Per Pupil Cost $4,509 $4,561 $5 ,545 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96 -97 Williams Magnet School - F.T.E. Actual f .T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budciet CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 S60.896 1 0 S62. 128 1 0 $64 55 - STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1 0 $40,205 1 0 S41 ,246 1 0 $43 238 03 Speciali sts 5 0 $184 522 5 0 S188.658 5 0 S 195 7J8 04 Coun selors 1 4 S41 ,395 1 4 S50.648 1 4 S43 362 05 Media Spec. 1 0 S29.1 17 1.0 S30, 706 1.0 $32.313 06 Art-Peri /Prod. 0.0 so 0 0 $0 00 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 08 Fore1Qn Lanq 00 $0 0.0 so 0 0 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1.1 $29,147 1.1 $29,957 1. 1 S42,724 11 Gifted 2.0 $73,389 2.0 $75,030 2 0 $77.685 12 Classroom 20.0 S666 653 20 0 $704 799 20 0 S711 283 13 Substitutes 0.0 S11 467 0.0 $12.190 00 S16 CCO 14 0th er-Kinderciarten 3.0 S114,639 3.0 S117,049 3 0 s;19 _9-3 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 S1 .251 ,430 35 5 S1 .312 .612 35 5 S1 346 993 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 26 $37,966 2 6 S41 219 26 SJ2 227 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 S35.551 1 0 S36.694 1.0 S38 t.27 17 Custodians 3 5 S46,384 4 0 S48 426 40 S54,336 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 0.0 so 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 00 so 0.0 so 20 Other-Aides 90 S38 036 90 S42.437 9.0 S4 7 -;-5 21 Frinae Benefits(20' xxxxxxxx S 156.998 S163,340 $422.312 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.1 $314,935 16.6 S332.115 16 6 S605.078 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxxx $1 566,365 S1 644 726 S1 ,952.071 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es xxxxxxxx S39.636 S51 988 S52, 119 SERVICES 23 Travel xxx:xxxxx $558 )()000000( $1 573 $3 -oc (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other xxxxxxxx S13 .763 S3.-66 S4 65C TOTAL (30 ) xxx:xxxxx S53 957 )()C.()()()00( S5 7. 327 S60 .:es MATERIALS, 25 Princ1pal 's Office xxx:xxxxx )()C.()()()00( SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom xxx:xxxxx S54 558 S40 466 x:xxxxxxx S59 35t. (40) 28 Media xxx:xxxxx S4 034 )()00()()00( S5 163 S5,000 29 Other xxxxxxxx S1 713 S2 096 S1 366 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxx S60,306  S47, 726 S65 750 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxxx S15,921 )()000000( S28 553 S38 6J0 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1ng Repair etc. XXXXXlOO( (50) 32 Other S350 TOTAL /50) S15,921 $28.553 S38 950 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XXXXXlOO( $1 ,544 S3 304 S200 (60) 34 Other XXXXXlOO( TOTAL (60) $1 ,544 $3,304 S800 TOTAL (30-60) $131 ,729 S136 910 $165 969 TOTAL (1 0-60) 51 .6 $1 ,698,094 52.1 S1 781 ,636 52.1 $2.118 040 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $106,906 $106,894 $109,192 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxx $1,805,000 xxxxxx $1,888,530 xxxxxx $2,227,232 Line Item Costs - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends S3.232 S4 Oi2 S10.000 Other Objects Indirect Costs S95,639 $100 091 S96 364 Vocation al S1 ,958 so so Athletics S3 326 :50 so Gifted Proorams S65 $90 $120 Plant Services $2,270 $1 ,950 $1 935 Reading $24 $54 $63 Science $0 so so Enolls~ $65 $117 $194 Special Education S327 S520 ssc xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items S106 906 S106694 S109 192 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 . 1996-97 3rd Qtr ADM or ProJ. 449.80 496 17 496 17 Total Costs S1 805,000 $1 ,888 530 S2 227 232 Per Pupil Cost $4,013 $3,806 $4,489 1996-87 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Mann Magnet School . F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. BudQet CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $64 646 1 0 S65 818 1 0 S67 16C STAFF 02 Asst Pr1n 3 0 5146 643 3 0 5147 909 3 0 s31 J,2 03 Spec1al1sts 3.6 S102.932 3.6 S103 631 3 6 so3 o:o 04 Counselors 3 0 574 142 3 0 5114 903 3 0 Sl 19 49;- 05 Media Spec. 1 0 S42.120 1 0 S42 951 1 J S43 98 06 Art-Pert /Prod. 00 so 00 SC 00 so 07 Music 00 so 00 so 0 0 so 08 Fore1qn Lang 0.0 so 00 so 0 0 so 09 Vocational 5 6 5192 183 5 6 $198 :\"36 5 6 S'91 956 10 Special Education 1 3 S50.553 1 3 550 898 1 3 540 94;- 11 Gifted 00 so 00 so 00 so 12 Classroom 46 8 S 1 464,542 46 8 S1 ,524 966 4, 8 Si 5.!6 :-73 13 Substitutes 0.0 S36,319 00 S37,832 0 0 S36.200 14 Other-Kinderqarten 0.0 so 00 so 00 so TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65 3 S2.174.080 65 3 S2.287 643 66 3 S2 281 232 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 40 568,815 5.0 S82.502 5 0 sa5 41 ~ STAFF 16 Nurses 1 0 S32,359 1 0 S33 4 72 1 0 $34 275 17 Custodians 6.0 $66,778 6.0 S73 986 60 S74 94, 18 Paraorofess1onals-Chptr 1 0.0 so 0.0 so 00 SC 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1 0 $33,357 1.0 S31 ,444 1 0 S31 937 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $33,285 2.4 $33,901 2 4 S29445 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) xxxxxxxx S263.037 $275 972 S682 54c TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14 4 $497,631. 15.4 $531 ,276 15.4 S938 .558 TOTAL (10-20) $2,671.701 $2,818 921 $3 219 791 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es xxxxxxxx $155,343 $160,645 S169 940 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxxx $10,011 $6,563 xx:xxxxxx $6,900 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements $4 500 25 Other xxxxxxxx $45,210 $35,376 $36 980 TOTAL (30) )000()000( $210,564 S202.583 xx:xxxxxx S218320 MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pal's Office xxxxxxxx S2 750 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXXXlOOO( $81 026 S98 .129 S76 2r (40) 28 Media lOOOOOOO( S9.486 XXX)OOO()( 59 981 xx:xxxxxx S7 COC 29 Other xxxxxxxx $2,421 . S3. 929 xx:xxxxxx S5 90C TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxx S92.933 S112.039 S91 927 CAPITAL 30 Equipment )000()000( $37 285 $21 987 xxxxxxxx S80 520 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1nq Repair. etc. )000()()00( S3 OOC (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $37 285 $21 987 S83 520 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )000()000( $1 ,104 $1 277 S2 400 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $1 ,104 $1 ,277 S2.400 TOTAL (30-60) $341 ,886 S337 886 S396 167 TOTAL (10-60) 79 7 $3013,587 80 7 $3,156.807 81 7 S3 615 958 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $191 880 $205 681 S203 007 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxx $3,205,467 xxxxxx $3 ,362,488 xxxxxx $3,818,965 Line Item Costs - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 St1oends $480 $1 698 $4 600 Other Ob1ects Indirect Costs $176,565 $169 384 $163 077 Vocational $3,616 $15 998 $16 000 Athletics $6,140 $13 928 $14 500 Gifted Programs $118 so $0 Plant Services $4 190 $3 450 $3 450 Reading $46 $96 S115 Science $0 so so English $120 S207 S345 Special Education $605 S920 S92C XX)()()()( xxxxxx xxxxxx Tota l Line Items S191 880 $205 681 S203 007 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3ro Otr ADM or Pro1 842 80 82 1 75 s2 1 ,5 Total Costs S3 205,467 $3,362 488 S3818965 Per Pupil Cost $3,803 $4,092 $4,647 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Parkview Magnet School - F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 S66 148 1 0 $67 ,321 1 0 S69 939 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin 30 S 154,354 30 $157 ,476 3 0 S158. 145 03 Spec1alIsts 9 8 $306 ,485 98 $305 ,803 98 $321 014 04 Counselors 30 S130 987 3.0 $133,995 3.0 $137,875 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,345 1.0 S35, 176 1.0 S36.020 06 Art-P erf./P rod. 0.0 $0 00 so 0.0 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 00 $0 0.0 so 08 Fore1qn Lanq. 00 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 09 Vocatio nal 7 0 $216,610 7 0 $212,039 7.0 $218,257 10 Special Education 1 5 $54 861 1 5 $52,468 1 5 $54 946 11 Gifted 0 0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 12 Classroom 39 6 $1 394 739 40 6 $1,398.425 40 6 S1 472.557 13 Substitutes 0.0 S31 172 00 $49,417 00 S51 640 14 Other-Kind erg art en 1 0 S41 051 1 0 S41 .861 1 0 S42 e-c TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66 9 S2.430 752 67 9 S2 453 979 67 9 S2 563 :252 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 S132 489 60 S137 277 60 s1 1 2.:39 STAFF 16 Nurses 06 S14 453 0.6 S15 075 06 S15 9.;,: 17 Custodians 80 S105.710 80 $112.513 8 0 s12e e48 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 00 so 19 Paraorofess1ona ls-Other 5 0 S97.429 so S95 334 so S1i5C98 20 Other-Aides 20 S26,003 2.0 S28 739 2.0 S25. 231 21 Fringe Benefits(20} lOOOOOOOC $303.948 $307 297 $788 222 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21 .6 $680,032  21 .6 $696,234 21 6 $1 ,185581 TOTAL (10-20) $3,110,784 $3,150,214 $3.748844 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es lOOOOOOOC $168,431 $192,757 S181 ,339 SERVICES 23 Travel SS,259 $8.580 S7 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements lOOOOOOOC S4 COO 25 Other lOOOOOOOC S34 459 S8,379 S20 :::-D TOTAL (30) S208.149 S209,715 s2132:;9 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office Sc::O SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom S77 470 S98, 152 XlOOOOO\u003cX S92 .:s3 (40) 28 Media S21,359 $9.976 S6 COO 29 Other $5 574 $5,796 S11 625 TOTAL (40) $104 403 $113,924 $110 958 CAPITAL 30 Equipment S25.924 S24,889 S83 000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. vvvvvvvv (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $25,924 S24,889 . S83.000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees S3 511 S3. 738 S4 200 (60) 34 Other xx:xxxxxx )()0()()000( TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxxx S3 511 S3. 738 XlOOOOO\u003cX S4 2CJO TOTAL (30-60) )()()0()()00( S341 987 S352 267 XlOOOOO\u003cX S41 1 367 TOTAL (10-60) 88 5 S3452,771 89 5 $3 502,481 89 5 S4160211 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $185 785 $232 801 S227 ::'.l4 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $3,638,556 xxxxxx $3 ,735,282 xxxxxx $4,387,815 Line Item Costs  Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 St1oends $2 359 S2 824 $4 000 Other Ob1ects Indirect Costs S,69 208 5192 482 S'.85 316 Vocationa l SJ 465 S15 998 S16 000 Ath let ics S5 885 517023 S 17 500 Gifted Proorams $115 so so Plant Services $4 016 SJ 300 S3 420 Read1nq $43 596 S 114 Science so so SC Enolish $115 S198 5342 Special Eaucat1on 5579 S880 :591: XXXXX:\u003c XX)()()()( XX)()()()( Total Line Items S185,785 5232 801 S227 604 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Otr. ADM or ProJ. 799.00 832.65 832 65 Total Costs S3.638.556 $3.735 282 S4387815 Per Pupil Cost $4,554 $4,486 $5 ,270 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF Pllli A!Kfe'duNTY, ARKANSAS ~ 4~ o'3 R LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 Ot) oc1 -, r EC Er .r\"F?~ OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS; ME.KiBER~ ~- ,' '-. ts~.Y, OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, J.L. WILS~ffQ~~~,b,.R\\\\~~sP-S OCT i PRESIDENT; ODELL DA VIS, JR., VICE PRES'ID'ENT; 1996 SIDNEY FITZHUGH, SR., MEMBER; IRMA MOREHOUSE, SECRETARY; WILLIAM WARD, Office of Desegregat;or, IAOOi!011fl MEMBER; VELMA LARKIN, MEMBER; GENORA ......, FRAZIER, MEMBER; AND LEON PHILLIPS, JR., SUPERINTENDENT PLAINTIFFS vs. NO. 92-5318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; JIMMIE LOU FISHER LUMPKIN, TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; REP. BOBBY HOGUE, SPEAKER OF THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STANLEY RUSS, PRESIDENT PROTEMPORE OF THE ARKANSAS SENATE; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GENE WILHOIT, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JAMES McCLARTY, CHAIRMAN; EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., MEMBER; CARL E. BAGGETT, MEMBER; GARY BEASLEY, MEMBER; MARTHA DIXON, MEMBER; WILLIAM B. FISHER, MEMBER; JAMES WHITMORE, MEMBER; LUKE GORDY, MEMBER; BETTY PICKETT, MEMBER; ELAINE SCOTT, MEMBER; RICHARD SMITH, MEMBER; SHERRY WALKER, MEMBER WITNESS LIST DEFENDANTS Comes now the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order, and for its Witness List, states as follows: James Smith, Superintendent orth Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8000 Barry K.incl North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8000 and Danny Reed Director of Special Education North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8000 These witnesses will testify generally concerning the impact of the state funding formula on the North Little Rock School District. Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (50n1) 375-1122 d-;p ;f{ \u0026J :- /J ! vU-~Y STEPHEN W. JONES # ZJS083 ALLEN CARNEY #94122 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 1st day of October, 1996 sent via U.S. Mail one copy of the foregoing to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 William P. Thompson James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jimmy Lee Wilson 801 Perry Street Helena, Arkansas 72342 Bill Llewellyn P.O. Box 287 M~=g;;;;;: u]~ Stephen W. Jones 3 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * * FiL~D ~ US OISTi\":ICT COU~T EA.:, TERIJ DISTRICT I\\R;-ANSAS OCT O 2 1996 JAMi:Sr~~ORivlACK, CLERK By: \\_~JUb\u0026QT\\ / DEP CLER!( OCT 3 1996 Intervenor. * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Office of Desegregation Mornionng * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRQER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors asking the Court to issue a written order setting forth its ruling on the Pulaski County Special School District's motion for equitable relief [doc. # 2780]. In that motion, the PCSSD asked the Court to order striking teachers back to work. The Court grants the Joshua Intervenors' motion [doc. # 2822]. At the conclusion of the August 29, 1996 hearing on the motion, which the Court treated as a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court directed the court reporter to transcribe the Court's findings and file them as the Court's Order. See doc. # 2786. On August 30, 1996, the findings were filed as a transcript. See doc. # 2801. (sc.t.- .fr.1,1rosa-,f\u003e+ .f.ld ,..,. /i'b,4 .--y) The Court, therefore, pursuant to the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the transcript filed on August 30, 1996, hereby grants the motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District on August 27, 1996. 11\u0026 SO ORDERED this 2-_ day of October 1996. ; fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 5\" AN,A 79(1!}.FRCf' IN ON dJ,fd,/96 BY 17  \\~  2 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS; MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, J.L. WILSON, PRESIDENT; ODELL DA VIS, JR., VICE PRESIDENT; SIDNEY FITZHUGH, SR., MEMBER; IRMA MOREHOUSE, SECRET ARY; WILLIAM WARD, MEMBER; VELMA LARKIN, MEMBER; GENORA FRAZIER, MEMBER; AND LEON PHILLIPS, JR., SUPERINTENDENT vs. NO. 92-5318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; JIMMIE LOU FISHER LUMPKIN, TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; REP. BOBBY HOGUE, SPEAKER OF THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STANLEY RUSS, PRESIDENT PROTEMPORE OF THE ARKANSAS SENATE; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GENE WILHOIT, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JAl'1ES McCLARTY, CHAIRMAN; EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., MEMBER; CARLE. BAGGETT, MEMBER; GARY BEASLEY, MEMBER "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1003","title":"\"Educational Equity Monitoring 1995-96, Second Semester Summary Report,\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-09"],"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","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Educational Equity Monitoring 1995-96, Second Semester Summary Report,\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1003"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1654","title":"Court Filings concerning ADE's motion to dismiss, PCSSD's motions regarding the minimum teacher salary law and the court's orders, planning and budgeting plans, and LRSD's motion to end federal court jurisdiction","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1996-08-22/1996-08-30"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Knight Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Teachers","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning ADE's motion to dismiss, PCSSD's motions regarding the minimum teacher salary law and the court's orders, planning and budgeting plans, and LRSD's motion to end federal court jurisdiction"],"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/1654"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Court of Appeals, response to motion to extend time by Joshua intervenors; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to abstain; District Court, response to separate school districts' motion to intervene; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to the Knight intervenors' responses to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions regarding the minimum teacher salary law and the court's orders of June 15, 1993, and July 14, 1993; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) brief in support of its motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, intervening school districts' reply to the response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) to motion for intervention; District Court, memorandum brief in support of intervening school districts' reply to the response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) to motion for intervention; District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer; District Court, supplemental brief; Court of Appeals, summary of argument, Servicemaster Management Services L.P.; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) August 1996 program planning and budgeting process and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) August program planning and budgeting tool for FY 1996-97 and FY 1997-98; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to Joshua's response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, portion of transcript  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  !  AUG 2 6 1996 Office f\u003ef D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS asegregauon Mon1tormg FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ......_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 96-047EALR SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. APPELLANT APPELLEE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME BY JOSHUA INTERVENORS ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. (\"ServiceMaster\"), for its response to the motion to extend time made by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") states: 1. Joshua requested in a letter filed with the Court dated August 21, 1996, that it be heard with respect to \"argument one\" of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Brief as an appellee and that it be heard with respect to \"argument two\" of the LRSD Brief, which involves ServiceMaster, as an appellant. 2. Subject to the positions taken hereinbelow, ServiceMaster has no objection to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellee only with respect to argument one of the LRSD Brief and to any extension of time granted to Joshua for that purpose. However, ServiceMaster hereby objects to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellant with respect to argument two of the LRSD Brief. 3. Joshua was served a copy of the District Court's Order dated March 11, 1995, which was appropriately styled and was in no way misleading~ Joshua knowingly failed to file an appeal of its own accord with respect the District Court's Order concerning argument two, the ServiceMaster issue, as prescribed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In addition, this appeal is not and cannot be characterized as a cross-appeal. 4. The status of Joshua in this appeal filed by the LRSD can only be as an appellee with respect to the argument one presented by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, ServiceMaster requests that any order granting Joshua's request to file a brief in this case be qualified and limited to allow Joshua as an appellee only and that Joshua not be allowed to argue or make references to ServiceMaster and argument two presented by the LRSD in its appellee's brief or in oral argument. Respectfully submitted, Joseph S. Mowery Giroir \u0026 Gregory, Professional Association 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 372-3000 and John C. Everett Everett, Shemin, Mars \u0026 Stills P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72202 (501) 443-0292 Attorneys for Appellee ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. \"\" ' , ... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to the Motion to Extend Time has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of the same in the United States mail on this 23rd day _of August 1996. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 17223 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capital, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Bldg. Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept. of Education 4 State Capital Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 624/RESP JOSH.823 FILED  U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 3 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION B y: DEP. CLERK NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO . LR--C - 8 2 - 8 6 6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. DEFENDANTS AUG 2 o 1996 IlITERVENORS Office of Desegregation Moniton~VENORS RESPONSE TO ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS Comes now North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"), by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., and for its Response to the Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Dismiss, states as follows: 1. On or about July 23, 1996, the Arkansas Department of Education filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Abstention. 2. Subsequently, the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") filed Responses to the Department of Education's Motion to Dismiss. 3. Upon careful review of the PCSSD' s Responses, and in order to promote economy and avoid burdening the Court with repetitious filings, NLRSD joins in and adopts the motions and corresponding memoranda referenced in paragraph No. 2. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, NLRSD respectfully requests this Court: (a) Dismiss the Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to C, Dismiss; (b) Award NLRSD its costs and attorneys fees; (c) Award .NLRSD all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 By, s~~Caa, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 23rd day of August, 1996 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RECEJl/~~ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 2 B 1996 DEFENDANTS Office Of Desegr . INTERVENORS _ esation Monitoring  - ~- - - INTERVENORS .RESPONSE TO ARKAN~AS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO ABSTAIN For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: LRSD adopts Pulaski County Special School District's response to ADE's motion. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:~ cw~: :::~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Arkansas Department of Education's Motion Dismiss Or, In The Alternative To Abstain has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 23rd day of August, 1996. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway - Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2 \\ FILED. U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 3 1996 WESTERN DIVISION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. NO. LR-C-82-866 AUG t o 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------,0::-::E\"\"P.--:aC\"\"\"LE=-==R=K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. Office of Desegre9allcn Momtorm~ INTERVENORS INTERVENORS -  ~- -  RESPONSE TO SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS' MOTION TO INTERVENE Comes now the North Little Rock School District ( 11NLRSD 11 ), by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., and for its Response to Separate School District's Motion to Intervene and Answer, states as follows: 1. On or about July 23, 1996, a number of Arkansas school districts filed a Motion to Intervene and an Answer in the above referenced matter. 2. The Pulaski County Special School District ( \"PCSSD\") filed Responses to such Motion and Answer on or about August 2, 1996. 3 . Upon careful review of the PCSSD' s Response, and in order to promote economy and avoid burdening the Court with repetitious filings, NLRSD joins in and adopts the motions and corresponding memoranda referenced in paragraph No. 2. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, NLRSD respectfully requests this Court: (a) Award the relief sought by the PCSSD; (b) Award NLRSD its costs and attorneys fees; (c) Award NLRSD all other relief to which it may be entitled. By: Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 )iii:~Jo~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 23rd day of August, 1996 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant .Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stepnen w. Jon~ AUG 2 3 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Dasagregilllon Munitonn~ ----PLAINTIFF -...- .,  v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD REPLY TO THE KNIGHT INTERVENORS' RESPONSES TO THE PCSSD MOTIONS REGARDING THE MINIMUM TEACHER SALARY LAW AND DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS THE COURT'S ORDERS OF JUNE 15, 1993 AND JULY 14, 1993 The Pulaski County Special School District {\"PCSSD\") for its reply states: 1. The negotiated agreement between the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") and the PCSSD explicitly recognizes that any savings generated by the early retirement incentive program are to be used to reestablish the District reserves. 2. Compliance by the District at this point in time with the new minimum salary law will interfere with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate since it cannot now reasonably project sufficient funds to justify compliance and PACT has not, and cannot reasonably project such funds 3. The PCSSD incorporates by reference its motion for equitable relief and brief in support filed August 27, 1996 in further support of this reply. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By~ M. mue (76060) At~orneys for 1 Pulaski county Sp~School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August ;'1 7 ,7- , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas . 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr~7Jones~ \\ _______/ 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 ~ f\\ECENEO liUG 2 9 1996~ AUG 2 7 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS . I oeseNegation Mon~o1111~ Olhce o ,., _.. ...- I.NTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to release previously reserved four-year-old program seats throughout the distric~ and kindergarten seats in the incentive schools (doc.#2729]. The Court previously issued oral approval of the motion and follows with this Order. The LRSD states that it engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1995-96 school year and that, while those efforts yielded positive results, seats still remain vacant in the LRSD's four-year-old classes and also in the kindergarten level in the incentive schools. The c~urt has repeatedly been reluctant to condone releasing seats reserved for white children because relinquishing those seats makes it more difficult for the district to desegregate the schools, especially the incentive schools. In previous orders granting the LRSD's request to assign black students to seats set 2 7 8 ~ aside for white students, 1 the Court has noted that it is not - satisfied that the district has engaged in timely, vigorous, and sustained recruitment which is targeted at filling the reserved seats. Again this year, the LRSD's recruitment record does not convince the Court that the district has been significantly more energetic or diligent in recruiting students. Further, the Court has previously observed that the district has repeatedly filled incentive school kindergarten seats in proportions that are outside the guidelines, indicating that the district had either already released seats to black children or never reserved them for whites in the first place. Such is the case again this year. Despite these recurrent problems, the Court is mindful that another major goal of the early childhood programs, in addition to racial integration, is to promote the academic achievement of black students. The desegregation plan provides that vacant seats reserved for white children will not remain unfilled. (LRSD Desegregation Plan, pg; 140.) The Court notes that the LRSD has pledged, in its motion, to continue \"vigorous recruitment efforts\" and also to determine what adjustments are necessary and appropriate to ensure that the effect of releasing the seats is minimized on future year enrollments. The Court encourages the parties to consider amending the district's racial balance goals in the plan so _that the district will have more flexibility in filling these seats. More realistic goals, together with vigorous 1 See Orders of September 7, 1994 and Seplemb~r 7, 1995. -2- recruitmentr could assist the LRSD in meeting its desegregation obligations. 2 .., 7/J1.__ IT IS SO ORDERED this._ day of August 1996. -UNITED ST.Z TES DISTR.i,cT JUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT t:NTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN : C.,MPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND10R 79(a) FRCP )N ?J ~ '3' /'J~ BY k7t:: ;c;::::: 2 The Court refers the parties to the testimony of Dr. David J. Armor, who t.:stilied dunng May 1996 with respect to his studies and conclusions regarding achievement disparity and student assignm.:nt. -3- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ' v. LR-C-82-866 RECEfVED PLAINTIFF AUG 2 8 1996 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitiffi..ENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the district court Order of July 3 O, 19 9 6 by which the district court interpreted the \"pooling\" provision of the Settlement Agreement to require that LRSD pay PCSSD $345,294. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL- DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (50~~ BY:~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served on the following counsel of record by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 27th day of August, 1996: ~r. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER i1UG 2 7 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Upon motion of the Little Rock School District, the time within which it must file its application for attorneys' fees with respect to this Court's January 13, 1995 decision and the May 15, 1996 decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is hereby extended to and including August 30, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this )- ... ?\" 1\\ day of August 1996. 2782 MAR 2 7 1997 li1L.::U OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOrmORING U.S. DISTRICT COUAT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR~\u003c;TERNOISTRIC'tARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1996 WESTERN DMSION 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 KNIGHT, ET AL. JAMES W. MCI.UK1v1~1.,K, 1.:LERK By: -----,,.pm.~-. l\"\"lf....,.,F DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. The teachers in the PCSSD are on strike. 2. As a result of this unilateral action by a party to this case, the PCSSD cannot deliver the educational services and desegregation programs outlined in the Desegregation Plan and by orders of this Court. 3. As more fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum, this Court should order striking teachers to return to work in the PCSSD because their unilateral action precludes the PCSSD from performing its constitutionally mandated role as a desegregating school district, because the issues which underpin the strike are already before this Court, because this Court already has a mediator in place, because the strike is inconsistent with the negotiated agreement between the parties, and because PACT has a remedy at law to allege breach of contract or specific performance of the agreement. 4. This Court possesses broad equitable powers to take all reasonable acts and to fashion all reasonable orders necessary to accomplish the remedial goals of the Desegregation Plans. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court directing that PACT end its strike, that the PCSSD teachers return to work pending resolution of the issues already before this Court, and, as appropriate, for a reference to the United States Department of Justice Community Conciliation Service and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By __ ...,,c...-.i.:----~-====-----M. S Atto Dis Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August n._, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 ' r :~ .. . -  RECEniED U.S. DISTRICT COURT MAR 2 7 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cc:MR'flNo,srn,cTARKANsAs 0:=FICE OF DESEGREGATIOi'J MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1996 WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JAMES W. MCliUliMAliK, CLERK 3y: PLiUm'IFF DEP C'.. : DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS PCSSD BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Introduction The teachers in the PCSSD are on strike. As a result of their unilateral action, the - PCSSD cannot operate its schools as required to deliver the education and desegregation services envisioned by the desegregation plan and the orders of this Court. The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") is a party before this Court. It has been since July, 31, 1984. Procedural History On July 31, 1984, the Knight Intervenors, which specifically include the PACT, filed their complaint in intervention in this case. Paragraph 1 of the complaint in intervention states that: Intervenors intervene for the purpose of requesting that the Court order the protection of their rights to bargain and the rights they have bargained, pursuant to the agreements and policies between Intervenors and their respective districts. The District Court's order granting intervention followed an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit directing that the intervention be granted. The concluding paragraph of the opinion of the Court of Appeals, dated July 6, 1984, states in pertinent part that: The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the appellants' motion for leave to intervene as parties in the remedy phase of this case. Their intervention shall be for the purpose of litigating the issues raised in their complaint, the protection of their existing contractual rights and their right to bargain collectively. Thus, as parties to the remedial phase of this litigation, PACT is decidedly subject to the remedial orders of this Court as is any other party. The Applicable Law The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision approving the Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plan in 1990. In that decision, it also outlined the rules for implementation. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). The Court of Appeals delivered both broad responsibilities as well as a broad charter and grant of authority to the District Court in respect of the Settlement Agreement and the Plans. As it held at page 1394: 8. The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. In its subsequent decision, reported at 949 F.2d 253, the Court of Appeals evaluated the status of changes to the desegregation plans proposed by the parties but rejected by the District Court. In a passage often quoted by the District Court since then, the Court of Appeals held that: 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 ... (3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools acco~ding to the agreed timetable; ( 4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable; 949 F.2d 253 at 255. The Issues Underpinning the Ongoing Strike Are Alread,y Before This Court On May 22, 1996, this Court delivered a letter to the parties in this case informing them that Mr. Gus Taylor, Chief Conciliator for the United States Department of Justice Community Conciliation Service, was being made available to the parties. As the Court directed: There are a number of disputes among these parties in which your services might be of great value. I will not attempt to list them for you now. By sending you this letter I am inviting you and the attorneys for the parties to contact each other. Mr. Taylor's services to the parties, which have been rendered on several occasions in the past in this case, are free of charge. On August 5, 1996, the PCSSD filed and served its amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce the settlement agreement with the State. Among the issues advanced by the PCSSD in that filing is the proposition that the State's new minimum salary law violates that provision of the Settlement Agreement which prohibits the enactment of any legislation which substantially interferes with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate. On August 19, 1996 -- ironically the day the strike began -- the Knight Intervenors, including PACT, filed a response denying that the new minimum salary law substantially interferes with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate and that the minimum salary law did 3 not violate any provision of the Settlement Agreement. Indeed, PACT affirmatively requested the federal court to find that the minimum salary law should be enforced in all respects including those issues raised in PCSSD's motion to clarify the Court's orders of June 15, 1993 and July 14, 1993 and to grant to them \"all relief to which they may be entitled\". The referenced PCSSD motion, as it relates to the Court's orders of June 15, 1993 and July 14, 1993, deals with the issue whether the \"savings\" realized by the PCSSD from the previous refunding of its bonded indebtedness and the savings generated from its early retirement program are or should be available to the District to fund teacher raises this year. PACT has contended from the outset of the strike that the District should use its contingency fund, a fund generated by the savings realized by the refinancing of the debt and the early - retirement program, to fund raises to comply with the minimum salary law. In their memorandum also dated August 19, 1996, PACT contends that the Court should clarify its June and July, 1993 orders to declare that: \"The savings may, in the discretion of the District, be used to increase teachers' salaries.\" Accordingly, the two central issues around which the strike seems to revolve are already before the District Court and the issues have been joined between the parties. Further, the District Court has already placed a mediator in place to resolve the disputes that may exist or may arise between and among the parties. In sum, PACT specifically intervened in the federal court action with regard to its negotiated agreement and it is respectfully submitted that all strike issues should be resolved by the District Court, particularly given the resources the Court possesses through the Office 4 of Desegregation Monitoring to evaluate any budget and revenue claims that may be advanced by either of the parties. The Negotiated Agreement Is Inconsistent With The Present Strike As a preliminary matter, it should be observed that Section 8, Item C of the negotiated agreement between the Board of Directors of the PCSSD and the PACT provides: \"The parties agree that state and federal statutes and court orders are incorporated into this Agreement.\" (emphasis added). Accordingly, the parties explicitly recognize as part of their negotiations and agreement that the orders of this Court would be part of and control. The PCSSD declared impasse no later than August 26, 1996. Section 12 of the negotiated agreement sets forth the \"impasse resolution procedure\". It is clear from the structure of the impasse procedure -- which begins with mediation, continues with fact finding and ultimately places authority for a final decision with the Board -- that the agreement contemplates that all parties are working and that no job action is occurring when impasse is declared. Among other reasons, the status quo between the parties should be restored so that the impasse procedure can proceed in normal fashion which requires that the teachers return to work. Further, Article VI, Section 2A of the Agreement provides that: The Association agrees that the Board shall have the right to establish the work year and annual school calendar. Thereafter, certain provisions and conditions associated with establishing the calendar are set forth including days when school can be held and days when it cannot. Singularly absent 5 from the Agreement is any term which would support the proposition that the teachers are entitled to interrupt or change the work calendar by striking, when they explicitly recognize that the Board shall establish the working days. The teachers' publicly espoused position that raises can be funded from savings generated by the early retirement incentive program are specifically refuted by Article IX, Section 8 of the Agreement which explicitly recognizes that: The purpose of the early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce District expenditures in order to build a reserve which will off set the cessation of State Desegregation Settlement Funds in 1995-96 and 1996- 97. As previously observed, this issue is presently and squarely before this Court and issue has been joined. Finally, any contention that the teachers are presently operating without the benefit of a contract is specifically refuted by Article XVII, Section 1 of the Agreement which provides: The Collective Bargaining Agreement after ratification by the Board and the Association shall be effective upon the signing by the President of the Board and the President of the Association and shall remain in effect until a successor a~reement is ne~otiated. (emphasis added). Ar~ument PACT sought, and w "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1629","title":"Court Filings concerning PCSSD's motion to modify desegregation plan with regard to class sizes, Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees and costs for post-judgment monitoring, settlement agreement with the state, and LRSD 1995-96 fourth quarter status report and budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-08-12/1996-08-22"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School integration","Lawyers","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning PCSSD's motion to modify desegregation plan with regard to class sizes, Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees and costs for post-judgment monitoring, settlement agreement with the state, and LRSD 1995-96 fourth quarter status report and budget"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1629"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["125 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to modify desegregation plan with regard to class sizes; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time to present petition for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) supplemental response to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees and costs for post-judgment monitoring; District Court, motion to quash affidavits; District Court, Joshua intervenors' correction to motion of November 22, 1995; District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) supplemental response to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to the state defendants; District Court, memorandum in support of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for attorneys' fees as to the state defendant; District Court, affidavit of M. Samuel Jones III; District Court, order; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes; District Court, brief in support of Knight, et al.,response to mostion of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, brief is support of Knight, et al., intervenors response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, motion for extension of time to file petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1995-96 fourth quarter status report and program planning and budget document and addendum to 1995-96 third quarter status report and program planning and budget document  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  AUG 1 ti. 1996 FILED U.S. D!STRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 121996 IN '3'HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'1it',icS W McCORMACK. CLERK Olflce of Desegregation Mormorni\"EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: ------;::;;:'r,,'~w WESTERN DIVISION DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-Soo PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT. ET AL. ' '' RECEIVED DEFENDANTS !llJG 1 A 1996 INTERVENORS O,f. . INTERVENOR$ , ice of Desegregat,on Monitormn .f. ii JOSHUA INTERVENORS OPPOSITION TO PCSS\u0026~-Su MOTION TO MODIFY DESEGREGATION PLAN WITH RESPECT TO CLASS SIZES Come now the Joshua Intervenors and respectfully oppose the Pulaski County Special School District's motion to modify the desegregation plan regarding compensatory education classes. The reasons given by the school district for its position is that the plan requirement is too modest to yield any tangible results. The District has not demonstrated ~hat it has compiled with the agreement in the first place; and secondly the District is in contempt for de facto modification of the plan. The issue is presented because the teacher organization has filed a grievance regarding the matter and one way for the District to avoid an unfavorable result with respect to the grievance is to have the Court void it. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose this motion and cite as authority the Settlement Agreement herein. Joshua also requests that the District provide a comprehensive report to the Court indicating to which it has complied with the plan provisions. The report should also include a class by class break down, the results achieved on a longitudinal basis, along with the amount of funds expended and/or saved by this effort since the institution of this particular settlement plan provision. Joshua also requests that the District provide a written business case demonstrating the \"sufficient information to indicate that the funds spent on reducing class sizes in compensatory schools by 5% can be better utilized in other areas.\" WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court reject the Pulaski County Special School District's motion to modify the desegregation plan with respect to class size in compensatory education schools after a hearing which is hereby requested. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading was forwar~~via United states mail to all counsel of record on this ( ~ day of August, 1996. F)Lxt~[if - AUG 1 4 1996 Office ot Desegregalion Monitoring 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 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER FiLr-D US 01s,h;:::T COURT EASTERN OISTf;. ICT ARKANSAS AUG 13 1996 JAMtSyV. M?CORMACK,CLERK By: II  s-::, 'hdw.f o DEP'eLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions for extensions of time upon which the Court now rules. The Little Rock School District's {LRSD) motion [doc.#2711) for an extension of time in which to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' (Joshua) motion for implementation of the recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring {ODM), is moot, the response having already been filed. .The Clerk is to remove this motion from the pending motions report. The motion (doc.#2726) of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for an extension of time in which to respond to the various school districts' motion to intervene is granted. response is due on or before August 19, 1996. The ADE's The LRSD's motion [doc.#2732) for an extension of time in - which to file a reply to Joshua's response to LRSD's motion to end 2750 federal court jurisdiction is granted. LRSD's reply is due on or before August 30, 1996. The motion of the parties [doc.#2736] for an extension of time in which to respond to the ADE' s motion to dismiss or, in i;he alternative, for abstention, and for an extension of time in which to respond to the various school districts' motion to intervene is granted. The parties' responses to these motions are due on or before August 23, 1996. 1 The Knight Intervenors' (Knight) motion [doc.#2741] for an extension of time in which to respond to PCSSD's motion to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes, and Knight's motion [doc.#2749) for an extension of time in which to respond to amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce the settlement agreement with the state are both granted. Knight's responses to these motions are due on or before August 19, 1996. Also before the Court is the LRSD's motion (doc.#2712] to shorten Joshua's time to respond to discovery with respect to the hearing on Joshua's petition for attorney's fees. In the alternative LRSD asks that the hearing on Joshua's petition be continued from the scheduled hearing date of July 29, 1996. Because the hearing was in fact continued until August 19, 1996, the LRSD's motion is moot and need not be addressed. Accordingly, 1 The Court notes that the Pul:i,ki County Sp.:c1JI Sd1ool Dl\u003etncl (PCSSD) h~, J!r.:~Jy riled 11, response to both motions. -2- the Clerk is to remove this motion from the pending motions report. R IT IS SO ORDERED this~ day of August 1996. -3- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 1 4 1996 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Desegrega1,on Monitorins _.. PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO PRESENT PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES \u0026 COSTS On July 31, 1996, the Court's memorandum and order granting the motion of the PCSSD with respect to the \"pooling\" issues was entered. Rule B-3 of the United States District Court Rules requires in many instances that the petition for attorneys' fee be filed within 14 days of entry of the order. Counsel for LRSD and the PCSSD have conferred and have agreed to ask that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and further defer any ruling on the issue of attorneys' fees until 30 days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ~ Q\u003c:::::C ~ M. Samuel Jones III76060) Attorneys for Pulaski County Sp~chool Di-strict 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August /3, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by facsimile on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. rUEh JonesIII ~ / ' 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL AUG 1 4 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS '/: 2 tJ I' #'VJ KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Offi' ce Of D INTERVENORS esegregation Monitormg LRSD'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO JOSHUA' s MOTION FOR ArrTNTERI-M~ - AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FOR POST-JUDGMENT MONITORING LRSD for its Supplemental Response to Joshua's Motion for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees and Cost for Post-Judgment - Monitoring states: 1. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are the following exhibits: A. Affidavit of Dr. George C. Cannon; B. Affidavit of James L. (\"Skip;') Rutherford; and, C. Joshua Intervenors' Responses to LRSD's Interrogatories. 2. In their affidavits, Cannon and Rutherford confirm that Joshua's $2,000,000.00 fee paid by LRSD as a part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement included compensation for future post-judgment monitoring by Joshua during the life of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. See Exhibits A and B. 3. Attached to Joshua's Responses to LRSD's Interrogatories - are fee requests submitted by counsel for Joshua in other cases. See Exhibit c. Comparison of these fee requests with Joshua's fee request in the present case raises serious questions as to the accuracy and reliability of Joshua's \"reconstructed\" time records. 4. For example, on August 11, 1995, counsel for Joshua claims to have worked a total of 21 hours. In the present case, counsel claims to have worked 7. 5 hours in \"preparation for and hearing before Judge Wright re: budgets.\" See Activity Statement of John Walker, p. 87. In Davis v. Franks, U.S.D.C. No. 88-4082, counsel represented that he was in Hope, Arkansas on August 11, 1995, and spent 8.0 hours meeting with clients. Finally, counsel stated that on August 11, 1995, he spent 5.5 hours \"work[ing) on proposed findings of fact\" in Day v. Johnson, U.S.D.C. No. 94-849. See Exhibit C. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees for Post-Judgment Monitoring be denied. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ( 501) 376-2011 BY: 2 istopher Heller ( n c. Fendley, Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the fo~lowing ~eop/q.Y deposi~y of sam/)jn the United States mail on this ~ay of --+f41---~~-cxs=----' 19--7,e--. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 h~istopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. 3 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Mr. Chris Heller .. ,. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX(501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 August 15, 1996 Mr. John C. Fendley Friday Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Chris and Clay: Enclosed please find a copy of the motion which I am filing with respect to the letter that I received from you regarding the hearing on Monday. Also enclosed are subpoenas for Dr. George Cannon and Mr. Skip Rutherford requesting their appearance at the hearing on Monday. JWW:js Sincerely, Dictated but not read John W. Walker cc: Honorable Susan Webber Wright Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel of Record Enclosures IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT_ COURT-~--, ... ,.,._,., . :::::., EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS~ WESTERN DIVISION C=? c__::, 7 .'\u003c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS MOTION TO QUASH AFFIDAVITS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, do hereby request that the Court quash the affidavits of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon. For its motion, Joshua states as follows: 1. The Little Rock School District's affidavits of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon are untimely. 2. The Joshua Intervenors are prejudiced by the late filing of the affidavits. Undersigned counsel has not received said affidavits as of this date and is not familiar with the contents thereof. 3. However, Joshua does not oppose the appearance of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon at the hearing on Monday in order that undersigned counsel may question them regarding said affidavits. Attached as Exhibits A and Bare subpoenas for witnesses Skip Rutherford and George Cannon which are served upon counsel for the Little Rock School District on this date for their appearance at the hearing on Monday, August, 19, 1996. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that - the Court quash the affidavits of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon or in the alternative require that they appear at the hearing for cross examination. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)~ :?74-3758 J /1 By: {/AL JI tf\u003cUL1c-i___ Certificate of service I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was delivered facsimile to John C. Fendley and Chris Heller, Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, 2000 First Commercial Bank Building, Little Rock, AR and by United States mail to all other counsel of record on this 15th day of August, 1996. - .... =AO= =88 =(R=ev= =119='1= S=ub=po=en=a =In =a C=lv=l C=a=se= ============- it h lb(.,f /l Issued by the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF-----------------  SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE Little Rock School Dist,V, Pul, County Special School Dist, 1 CASE NUMBER: LR-C-82-866 TO: Mr. Skip Rutherford [ii YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place. date. and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY United States District Court United States Federal court Building 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 COURTROCM Judge Wright OA TE ANO TIME August 19, 1996 9:00 a.:n~ D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place. date. and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in - e above case. A.CE OF OEPOSmON D YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place. date. and time specified below (list documents or objects): PL..A.CE D YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. PREMISES Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers. directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated. the matters on which the _person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 30(b) (6). - I John W. Walker, P.A., 1723 Broadway 1 Little Rock, AR 72206 (SM Aute 44, l'edII Aut11 of Clvfl ~ooedute. ~1111 C \u0026 0 OIi ,-_ .. , If action 11 pending In district other than dl1trlct of !nuance. 1t1t dl1tr1ct under c111 number. OATE August 15, 1996 --- .... - /(Kh/btl 6 - AO 88 IRev 1 /9\" ! Subeoena In a ClvQ Case - - Issued by the - - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF - SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE Little Rock School Dist V . Pul, Co, Special School Dist, 1 CASE NUMBER: LR .. ~82-866 TO: Dr. George Cannon ~ YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place. date. and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM United States District Court Judge Wright United States Federal Court Building 3rd Floor 600 West Capitol DATE ANO TME Little Rock, AR 72201 August 19, 1996 9:00 a.m. D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date. and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in - above case. E OF DEPOSITION I OM' ANO \"'\"  YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date. and time specified below (list documents or objects): .. PLACE lo,ne=o,.,,  YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. PREMISES ' I OMSANO '\"' Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors. or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf. and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the _person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b) (6). fl;?S~~~ATTOA~Y ,OA ~ 0A OEFE~ANT) OATE . - - August 15, 1996 -- ,1$8\\JINQ ~!R'S NAM, AOOAl!aa ANO F'HONI NUMll!R John W. Walker, P,A., 172} Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72206 1 (SN Rule ,a. 11-t \"ult1 of Clvtl lllrooedute, llatll 9 l 0 1111 \"-If)  : !'l.t 1f action 11 pending In dl1trlct other than dl1trlct of I11uance. ltate dl1trlct under ca  e number. : ' JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITILE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVE~ AUG 1 9 1996 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Office of Desegregation Monitonn~ August 16, 1996 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States Federal Court Building 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: In preparing for the hearing on Monday, August 19, 1996 regarding our fee petition, we determined that we had made several errors in calculation. This material is to correct those errors. You will find enclosed an amended Attachment One to our Motion of November 22, 1995, summarizing our entire claim. The following correction should be made in our Memorandum filed on November 22, 1995: at page 12 - the first full paragraph should read as follows: The Joshua Intervenors seek, for the substantive work on the case through October 28, 1995, an award for 2,016 hours of attorney time and 3,444.4 hours of paralegal time, as well as reimbursement of the amount actually paid to six persons who worked on the Joshua monitoring reports. See motion, Attachment One. This includes: [attorneys] John w. Walker, (1761.0 hours), Wiley Branton, Jr. (79.8 hrs), Austin Porter (175.2 hrs.); and paralegals Joy c. Springer (3079.1 hrs.) and Opal Sims (365.3 hrs.) Intervenors submission, viewed in the light of the record in this case, establishes that a claim is made for time \"reasonably expended on this litigation.\" at page 19 - in the first paragraph, the lodestar total for the work, other than for pursuing the fee award, should be for $740,375.81 for personnel and $17,636.00 for litigation costs. at page 20 - the request for work on the fee petition should be $35,075.00 for the work of four persons. -.... Affidavit of Joy c. Springer - (November 21, 1995) - at page 16, para. 20, the number of hours claimed for work on the fee petition should be 90 hours rather than 73 as indicated in her fee petition. We are seeing to it that opposing counsel receive this information ort Friday, August 16, 1996. Sincerely, Bob Pressman for John W. Walker BP:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Of Record Enclosure CORRECTED ATTACHMENT ONE TO JOSHUA FEE PETITON (August 16 1 1995) ,,_.,M.., -l ATTACHMENT1ONE SUMMARY OF AWARD SOUGHT A. Substantive Work On Case Number Individual Year(s) of Hours Rate Atty. John W. Walker 1990 6.85 $250.00 1991 562.4 same as above 1992 308.5 same as above 1993 329.2 same as above 1994 218.2 same as above 1995 335.85 same as above Sub-Total 1,761.00 $440,250.00 Atty. Wiley A. Branton, Jr 1990 1991 9.3 1395.00 1992 64.0 9600.00 1993 6.5 975.00 1994 1995 Sub-Total 79.8 $11,970.00 1 Atty. Mark Burnette [Time Waived] Atty. Austin Porter Jr. 1991-1995 175.2 $130.00 Sub-Total 175.2 $22,ns.oo Joy Charles Springer (Paralegal) 1990 27.5 $50.00 1991 849.0 same as above 1992 681 .9 same as above 1993 548.9 same as above 1994 505.0 same as above 1995 466.8 same as above Sub-Total 3,079.1 $153,955.00 Opal Sims (Paralegal) 1991 365.3 $40.00 Sub-Total 365.3 $14,612.00 2 Other Paralegal Costs: (Reimbursement of amounts paid for work on Joshua Monitoring Reports). Amount Individual Year(s) Paid Kirke Herman 1991 $16,675.00 1992 $8,400.00 1993 $12,732.00 1994 $4,587.00 Evelyn Jackson 1991 $2,700.00 Debbie Parker 1992 $26,225.81 LaRhonda Pondexter 1991 $5,218.00 1992 $6,875.00 Clementine Rouse 1991 $2,200.00 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $2,000.00 Delores Sykes 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $3,600.00 1994 $3,600.00 Sub-Total $96,812.81 Sub-Total Substantive IVork on Case (Personnel) $740,375.81 3 B. Work on this Motion Individual Number of Hours Rate Amount Atty. John W. Walker 37.0 $250.00 $ 9,250.00 Robert Pressman 120.0 $175.00 $21,000.00 Joy C. Springer 90.0 $ 50.00 $ 3,650.00 Austin Porter Jr. 2.5 $130.00 $ 325.00 Sub-Total 249.5 $35,075.00 C. Litigation Expenses Description Amount ~ Reimbursement provided to Joy C. Springer for mileage costs anc $ 4,742.00 other monitoring expenses; see J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Reimbursement to Kirke Herman for monitoring costs; see $ 100.00 J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Cost of copying docket in clerk's office; see J. Springer Aff., $ 60.00 para. 21 Witness fees for LASO budget Hearing and other costs; see $ 294.00 J.Springer Aff., para. 21 Copying and fax charges; see J. Springer Aff., para. 22 $ 9,250.00 4 Postage charges, see J. Springer Aff., para. 22 $ 3,190.00 Sub-Total 17,636.00 GRAND TOTAL $793,086.81 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF L' 1-; .l- \" -- - - I  ..J r I -. -;',( .. - . ' v -- vs. ...---NO. LR-C-82-866 -,.,..~ ,1 i.',_::,_ ,  --~ 1~ -cC,l_':_P RECEIVED'\"\" \"~ - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS AUG l 9 1996 LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. Office of Desegre9ation Mom1onr19 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR AN INTERIM AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES On or about August 9, 1996, the Joshua Intervenors filed a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding the Issue of an award of Attorney's Fees and Costs. Included in such document were brief excerpts from six (6) cases deemed relevant by Joshua, an affidavit of Joy Springer, a report on discipline; and an affidavit supporting Mr. Walker's request that any fee award in his favor be set at $250.00 per hour. As an initial matter, as set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that the \"fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.\" NLRSD submits that, based upon both the Joshua Intervenor's failure to adequately identify those time entries which apply specifically to NLRSD, and the failure to keep contemporaneous time records, Joshua has failed to satisfy the standard set forth in Hensley and an interim award is inappropriate. The prejudice created by such lack of accurate, contemporaneous time records is evidenced in the Little Rock School District's Supplemental Response on this issue filed August 14, 1996. Such Response notes that on a particular day, August 11,  1995, counsel for Joshua claims, in three separate fee petitions, to have worked a total of 21 hours in two separate cities. Clearly, the significant period of time relevant to the fee petition, five years, renders Joshua's failure to maintain adequate records fatal to its petition as the attendant prejudice to the Districts is overwhelming. See Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534-35 (9th Cir. 1995), holding that an \"applicant [for fees] should maintain billing time records in a manner that will enable a reviewing court to identify distinct claims. Individual Student Disciplinary Actions. Perhaps the most inappropriate basis for the recovery of attorneys fees from the NLRSD is Joshua's request for compensation for the representation of various African-American students in personal disciplinary disputes. Quite simply, neither the Plan nor relevant case law contemplates Joshua providing counsel, at the District's expense, for each African-American student who faces disciplinary action. The purpose of the Court's activities and the scope of its jurisdiction is to enforce the implementation of NLRSD 's Plan with respect to the class as a whole. Nothing in that Plan suggests black students may not be disciplined nor that each would be represented by counsel at District expense. Rather, the Plan describes a process that will be followed, and, unless it is alleged that this process is not being followed in a particular case, it is not related to the issue of Plan implementation and falls outside the scope of this Court's interest. We would note that the Court has already reached the same conclusion with respect to teacher disputes, and the sa\"m e reasoning applies here. Each disciplinary proceeding in unique and specific to the individual student. If Joshua contends that the NLRSD is failing to comply with the terms of the Plan as they relate to student discipline, the appropriate action is to file a motion stating such in this Court. Adopting Joshua's position would result in legal representation for all african american students at District expense for any event which occurs at or is related to school. Clearly, such eventuality is not contemplated by the provisions of the Plan or the relevant case law. Hourly Rate. The Supreme Court has clearly articulated that the goal of the reasonable fee provision \"to attract competent counsel, ... not produce windfalls to attorneys .. 886, 897, 104 s.ct. 1541 (1984). II Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. In the present matter, it is beyond dispute that an award of Two Hundred Dollars per hour is more than adequate to attract experienced counsel. It is apparent, based upon a review of the Fee Survey cited by Joshua, that an award of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per hour would not result in a \"relegation of the present matter to \"those lawyers with belowmarket billing.\" Casey v. City of Cabool, Mo., 12 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 1993). In fact, the great majority of those polled in such survey reported top hourly fees of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) - per hour or less. As the Supreme Court held in Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96, 896 n. 11 (1984), \"the requested rates [ should be] in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.\" By: Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 41M CaAMf24/ Stephen w. Jones,1#78083 Allen Carney 0#94122 - - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 16th day of August, 1996 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206  Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACEELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVf:.rl AUG 1 9 1996 Office of Desegrega:ion Moniicnng -  _...,._,. ___ ........ - - - -~ - --- - .. ._,,.,.. - PCSSD MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS AS TO THE STATE DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. The mandate of the Court of Appeals was returned to the clerk of this Court by letter dated July 18, 1996. The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court on two of the three issues presented on appeal. By previous order, the District Court had extended the time for the bringing of this fee petition until 30 days after return of the appellate court mandate. 2. The PCSSD, and others, are clearly the prevailing parties and are entitled to pursue an attorney's fee and an award of costs pursuant to Ark.- Code Ann. S 16-22-308 and 28 u.s.c.  19-20. 3. A memorandum detailing the law controlling this petition and the factors for the Court to consider in fashioning a fee and cost award is submitted with this motion. 4. Also attached to this motion as exhibit A is the affidavit of M. Samuel Jones, III detailing the time devoted to - these claims. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs, all as provided by law. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE on August /l , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John w. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C.:82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Rec AUG 1 9 1996 PLAINTI~F DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OfflceotD INTERVENORS - ...... _ - 8SeQre9aJJon Monitorm~ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT O.F! .THE PCSSD MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AS- TO THE STATE DEFENDANT The PCSSD fully participated in these c "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1631","title":"Court Filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental memorandum regarding the issue of an award of attorneys' fees and costs","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":["Walker, John W."],"dc_date":["1996-08-09"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers","Court records","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School discipline","Student assistance programs","School improvement programs","Education--Evaluation","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental memorandum regarding the issue of an award of attorneys' fees and costs"],"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/1631"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  Rece,,,En~~HN w. WALKER. P.A.  A'ITORNEY AT LAW AVG 1 2 1996 Office of Desegregation Monijorin9 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKErr------ ---- ----- - RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. August 9, 1996 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Office of Oe~eg, cgation Monijorifl.n,, , , United States District Judge  . , ..._ _, United states Federal Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find our supplemental memorandum which supports our contention for compensation for work on behalf of particular class members relative to our motion for fees. Also enclosed are Attachments A, B, c, which address disparate discipline in the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts. I have also asked Ms. Springer, of my office, to give a supplemental affidavit contrasting the ODM and Joshua monitoring reports with respect to the North Little Rock School District. Attachment Dis a copy of an affidavit that I submitted to the Court in my motion for fees in the Day-Hollowell case which supports my request for $250.00. Finally, we further remind the Court of our enclosure one which was attached to our opposition to LRSD's request for release of federal court jurisdiction which also supports our position for fees in this matter. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown REcec~\"-D - AUG 1 2 1996 f'ol,\\;,~ij;:.s.s _c.!LcdIJN 01s1r.1ci p.. Office Of Deseg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I i\u003c' Q 9 i99o ragation M~RN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS P.,ul.l \\(  ........._________ WESTERN DIVISION cor-MP-C\\(, CLE.P,   M  , - JP-MES \\N_~:-~ .. ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Bf ~rtrc:,-~- v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS Joshua Intervenors' Supplemental Memorandum Regarding the Issue of an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs Decisions Recognizing as Compensable Work on Behalf of a Class Member(s) As Well As Preparation of a Report on Monitoring (1.) Brewster v. Dukakis, 544 F.Supp. 1069, 1072 (D.Mass. 1982), aff'd as modified on other issues, 786 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1986) In describing the \"vigorous and necessary role in implementation\" played by plaintiffs' counsel, in a case involving the deinstitutionalization of persons with mental disabilities, the district court includes in part \"report[ing] and vigorously press[ing] charges of client abuse or neglect both in the community and in the hospital [and] represent[ing] clients during hearings on the drafting of individual service plans called for in the Decree .... \" The court of appeals quoted with approval the district court's having distinguished the roles of the \"court-appointed monitor\" and plaintiffs' counsel by noting counsel's responsibility for \"advocating on behalf of plaintiff class 1 responsibility for \"advocating on behalf of plaintiff class members.\" See 786 F.2d at 19 n.5. (2.) Eirhart v. Libbey-Owens-Ford co., 996 F.2d 846, 850-51 (7th Cir. 1993) In case involving sex discrimination in employment where the court had earlier approved a consent decree, the court ruled that compensable \"post-decree work\" included work on \"a dispute over whether a class member had shown 'good cause' under the terms of the decree to delay the starting date of her employment with Libbey.\") (3.) McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1461 (8th Cir. 1988) In a case involving conditions and practices on death row in a Missouri penetentiary, the court's description of appropriate monitoring activities by counsel included \"interviewing prisoners [and] investigating complaints .... \" (4.) Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 856-57 (9th Cir. 1987) In a case involving compliance with the Constitution and federal and state law in the construction of a freeway, the court of appeals quoted with approval a list of postjudgment activities identified by the district court as compensable, including the following: \"[i]Tenant relocation issue: assisting Advocate's office in resolving disputes between Advocate's Office and Caltrans regarding orderly removal of remaining corridor residents. [ii] Housing priorities for displacees: mediating disputes between the Advocate's Office and Caltrans to ensure the preservation of priority for displacees who are forced out prior 2 to availability of housing .... [iii] status Conferences: preparation of quarterly reports for court's Quarterly Conference on staus of project.\" In an opinion addressing fees for a subsequent period, the district court described the quarterly reports as follows: \"providing quarterly comprehensive reports to the court which summarize the progress made in implementing their decree and draw to the court's attention potential areas of difficulty; ... \" See Keith, 644 F.Supp. 1312, 1314 (C.D.Cal. 1986). (5.) Duran v. Carruthers, 885 F.2d 1492, 1496 (10th cir. 1989) In approving fees for postjudgment services, the court quoted with approval the district court's description of compensable activities by counsel in Brewster v. Dukakis. supra, - including activities on behalf of class members. (6.) Alexander v. Hill, 625 F.Supp. 567, 568, 569 (W.D.N.C. 185) In case involving compliance with federal time limits for processing Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Medicaid applications, the court identified as compensable time spent by counsel in \"review[ing] thousands of documents and hundreds of files in ten counties across the state as well as Medicaid files 3 at the Disability Determination Section in Raleigh.\" ohn w. Walker# 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing supplemental memorandum was s~~~ via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~day of Aug\"M//,~,.., v6\"ohnw. Walker \\... 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER STATE OF ARKANSAS) SS) COUNTY OF ___ ) Comes now the affiant, Joy C. Springer, who after first being duly sworn, states as follows: 1. This affidavit supplements my affidavit dated November 21, 1995, in which I described work performed in this case totaling over 3100 hours. It is to give a contrast between the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors' monitoring reports with respect to the North Little Rock School District. 2. The Joshua reports for the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, which included the monitoring of the North Little Rock School District, differed from the reports of the Office of Des~gregation Monitoring in that the gathering of information for the Joshua reports included on-site visits to every school in the North Little Rock School District. The Joshua reports were 1 based, in part, upon information secured during these school - visits and interviews with the principals and other staff members. The Joshua reports also set forth anecdotal information from students, parents, and staff (a feature present in ODM reports to a lesser extent). Joshua's reports integrated statistical data from schools profiles. They further addressed more areas of operation of the NLRSD than the ODM has addressed in its reports concerning this district. Areas in the Joshua reports included curriculum, discipline, parental involvement, staffing, student enrollment by school and in particular programs, student participation in activities, and general areas of concern. The overall findings of the Joshua reports indicated that there was a substantial amount of noncompliance by each of the districts including North Little Rock regarding their - commitments to address achievement disparities, discipline disparities, integrated parental involvement, student assignments, integrated staffing, overrepresentation in special education, and underrepresentation in gifted and advanced placement classes. 3. I am familiar with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and its charge to monitor the settlement agreement for the Pulaski County school districts. I also have some knowledge of the ODM's areas of concentration for their monitoring activities in previous years after having met with members of the ODM, staff on several occasions. Moreover, I have read the reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring that have been 2 distributed for last five years. - 4. Based upon my recollection, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has produced written reports relating to five specific areas of .the North Little Rock School District over the last five years. These areas are racial balance, alternative schools, student participation in two of the many extracurricular activities, achievement disparity and buildings. 5. The ODM's first written published report on the North Little Rock School District was dated December 18, 1992. It was entitled 111991-92 Monitoring Report on the Alternative Schools: LRSD, NLRSD and PCCSD.\" The second written published report was dated February 26, 1993. This report was entitled \"NLRHS-West Campus 1992-93 Spirit Team Recruitment and Selection Process.\" It was completed, in part, as a result of a motion for - preliminary injunction by the Joshua Intervenors regarding the selection of cheerleaders and spirit team members at North Little Rock West campus. There have been at least two written published reports on Racial Balance dated January 12, 1994 and January 31, 1995. The next written published report was entitled \"Status Report on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD.\" The last written published report regarding North Little Rock was recently released on July 31, 1996 and was entitled \"Report on Elementary School Facilities in the North Little Rock School District.\" 6. This is not to say that the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has not been monitoring this District in other areas 3 since the settlement agreement simply because there is no written - report. Joshua has not completed a written monitoring report since its report of June 27, 1993, however, they have continued to monitor compliance with the settlement agreement in all three districts including North Little Rock . 7. I believe that there has been value to our monitoring every school in the three school districts. For at least two years straight, we visited every school in the North Little Rock School. I further believe that our frequent visits to these schools conveyed a sense that we would be vigilant about determining compliance with the agreements. Our visits also identified activities needed to improve compliance, not only in the North Little Rock School District, but in Little Rock and Pulaski County as well. We received feedback from principals and - staff regarding our findings in all three districts. I have read the foregoing affidavit and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __9 _d ay of August, 1996. Notary Public 1 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9-/7-~~3 4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES October 13, 1995 Ms. Joy Springer Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Springer: 2700 POPLAR Enclosed is a report of our disciplinary referral summary by action taken. The report is a cumulative record as of June 9, 1995 for the 1994-95 school year. - Suspensions are listed in the following areas: 09 Student Assignment Class (SAC) 10 Home Suspension 11 Boys/Girls Club Suspension ~z1o ~ff.1Iiff c~ Director of Student Affairs P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 B . ., .  Ref : , DI!JOl~ Fii .E YEAft : NLRBl\u003e9S CUML'l /\\TIVE 01~ NORTH 1.ITTLE ROCK HIGH EICHOOl. - i l/i2 R- f\u003cEFERR/\\LB - ---- - -- - - - TOTl'IL- - - - ----   - -  --.. EcLt\\CK -- -- ... - - -tc  -- --NON--llLhCI\u003c -- -  - - \" CODI:: 081.:RIPTION B...._o, lHIL ar UDE:NTQ 'Hll'Al-:c---LE- - Fl'~Al .. 6 .. l 'JlAl----HAl--.li- - - H:;.H..i . \u0026;..,:J'QT-.i.L.- - -lo--~iC .. --- - - - Ot Cun~rnc wl th Studn't R 201 181 20\" 143 130 i ~ tc ~ a ~ i 7 ~ B i~3 13~ i9  i06 94 l 2 \" 47 41 6 ~ 02 Cnnf'rance w I -th Pareni'  R - - -- -fi5------l2---f - -- -- --i:O-- -- - -- 'i\u003e --- t.- -  -- a - -----;J-----Q--------------- ------- B st to s  e 7 1\" 3 3 o K 03 Confrnc with Btudnt nd P r nt R 9 6 3 M 7 ~ 3 K 2 ~ 0  a a s 3  7 4 3  t s o  0-4  Fl   - .. 0 ---------- O  -- ~  --  -  -- - -- - - ---- - 0 - -- ---- 0-*--- -- 0 - -- --- -- 0 --~-- ------ - - - ---- - ------- 8 0 0 0 N O O O  0 0 0 015 R O O O w O O O  0 0 0 \" B O O O w O o o  0 0 0  --oe-O-tW'nt ton Hall ------ - - --- -  -  - - - - - R - ---l9? t 76--2f--l2\u0026----l ? ---- --...;,:;i . ___ _,r.-4 ___ _.._ ___ __________ _ 8 l~l 122 19  04 7 2 12   ~7 LO 7 ~ 07 8tudnt WI ll H~ Up Tim R O O o w O o O  0 0 o ~ B O O O w O o o  O O O  ---- 8tudnt Placwd c,n -P.-obat Ion --- -- - -- R ----45--- -- i!l-4----tcf- ----~---;;,,!,- - ---=.,..-. -- 4.:.! - - ---4o- ---4__..._ _____________ _ B 3B 28 10  ~7 20 7 * ii 9 3  09 R 203 2i8 6~ w 219 164 5 5  64 ~4 lO  B 172 123  9  129 07 42  43 ~6 7  ~ - -H.-- 1tuw .. wnw I cm---- - - - - - ---  --------i!I,;;. 29 2 N 22---- I ! i--- - - - ------s----- --\"\"----+--1---------------- , 13 2e 26 2 .. 20 t '.? 1 .. a 7 1 .. R 45 43 ~  43 4 1 2 - 2 2 0\" 8 25 23 2 M 23 2t 2 N 2 2 0  li flc:,y/Glrl Club Susp:nlan ---- - -- . ....... -----;----ft--0-- - ----- - ------ - -0-  - ---- 0 - - - -'--\u003ci,_ _ _ .... ,_ ________________ _ Bue au ... nlan lt--'t\"'r-ea~urdy ttct,aol--------- us Rco111 .. nded Expulwlan --;.-- - Ottnor -- ------ l7 11,.11llan a o o o .. o o o  o R 20 i9 i w i2 il 1  B 0 8 B 18 17 t  12 S\\ l\" 6 6 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. R 29-4 20!5 89  S.69 lt.i-!---1!Fl '---f,li!t!!l!5;.---~9'i'~-.;.---;,hi!--~------------- B 209 i36 73  1 2 0 ~i. -49  1~9 R 4 4 0 w  4 0 N 0 a 4 4 o \" 4 4 o  o o:S (\u003e 0 0 ., ---- - --- ---R---26--- 2l---6 ----  iii! a:'i~ --   -- ----- -2 - -----------i---------------- 0 24 19 ~  22 1~ 4  2 i l w A 4 4 0 w  4 0 N O O O tt 8 4 4 0 N 4 4 0 N O O O N - -   - - --- -- - ------------'l\"'O-- Rfi'.FERR,l,t;a-------'l'-,--- -95l-- - Q--\u0026f.15-----.....,.- - i....,_. _ .. - -~\\'!.,..__-.;,.. ,.. .::. .__ _. .,_..----------------- TOTAL STUDENTS---- 83~ 6~2 183 tt Si,6 ' 432 i ~ 'I \" ;;,9 ~~-o .. ,9 ... ---  - . . ------ -------------- ----------- - ---- - - -------- - - ----- - ---- -- -- --- -- ---------------------------- tt----- -- -- - -- - ----- ------------ - - - - - - ----------- - ------ - -------------- - --  ,, \"' ----------------------- ---- --------------- ------------------------------------------------ . ------ -- - ------ -- - ---------- - ---- - --- ----------- ---------------------------- - - - - ----------- ------- - -- ---- ---- ---- - - --------------- --- - -- -- -- ---------------------- - --- - - - -------------- ----  - ----........ -- --- ...,1----- ---- - ------------- --- ------------------------- - -------- - - --------- ------------ --------------  Ref, , DIU01 .5. F II. E r'EAF~ , NL.l~BlY~ CLIHUI..ATIVE 013 NORl.H l . ITlLE ROCK Hl~H 6CHOOL  \u003c\u003e9/10 F\u003c   REFl'RR/\\Lfl COl\u003ett hl!:8Cft I F-r I UN 8-... Cl UAt . f'I I UDl;.HTfJ 0l with Gtudnt 02 0:1 Con1'rnc wl th Studer,t and Pa, en1: 0-4 oa Detwntlr,n Hall 07 Student Will Hak Up 11~ oe  8tudnt Placed on  0Prohe  lan 09 Studnt \"'--nt ClaaaC\u0026IIIC\u003e 1--to - - - eu.,....,., \". ll B\u003ev  /Clr l Club Suepanlon R 97 63 34  66  6 2 0,. 31 9 86 ~5 31 tt ~9 40 J ,, N ',,,l.7 17 i. -4 .. l2 \" R - S\"' --- 10 --   .. .. -  ~2-----9---- -i'l---- 2 --- --i ~ ---if------- - ----- ----- 13 14 so 'I ,. 12 9 :J,. 2 1 i \" R  9 3B 11 ,. ~!5 ~6 9  \\  I ~ 2  B 44 34 10  31 23 a 13 11 2  R i'i. 14   -'?   ~.5 - - - --+-   \u003c!r- .., -----6- - --- S----l--------- - - -- ----------- - - -- 8 ~1 14 7 N ~~ 9 6 - 6 ~ i N R 64  7 17  47 39 12  17 12 l5  a 5a  s 1 7   i ~,;, 12  17 ~ l5  -Fe  .. 1.096-- .. ---13.5 3!ii'I - *   - ? ;\u003e-~ ----9\u0026---- ~------~--~ ~,._-______________ _ U ~92 31~ 180  339 203 136  J~3 109 ~~\" R 6 3 3  4 1 3  2 2 O \" B 6 3 3   ~ 3  2 2 0  A -- f'\u003eB  ,,, -  115  - . .. . ii() - - - - - -H--  --9--:;us-----9 .. ----4..-.. _ a ~- 39 1~  30 21 ,  2  1a R 669   7\"' 19~ tt tsO   I 3  11 lf;6 w 1-!.!5 ! l:;\u003e6 e 3~~ 232 li2  ~~7 \\ 1~? ea w ?7 7 3  - .... - - A -- -i4H - - -  87 --   -- f. - - -----  -----\u0026fl---+----.4-a------.'\"-,._ _ -;--.-- ------- ------ a 7:S 62 S.3  47 3 1 i O  2 8 ! 2!5 R 79 ~~ 24  67 ~lJ t9 ~ 12 ' 7 8 64. 4~ 22 N ~3 :56 17  11-~ 6 ::s \"  - --- - ----- A - -0 ---- -- \u003c\u003e --- - ----- ----- - ~\u003e- - --- - O-----O- --- -Q- ---\u003c\u003e_.~ - - - ----------- B O O O  0 U O  0 l:I 8uw Buepnalan R 13 11 2  10 9 1  3 B 12 iO 2 * 9 13 1 ~ 3 0 2 2 0 .. i .. i .. 1--,....---,alt  ~rd..., -tk:hoa l ----------     - - - -- -~- -- !5tcd - --- i5  '1-- --6,..__..._07 26!0 f.--2-- -~'6------'i~--..+.--------------- B 297 i9f l06  226 137 09\" 71 !;4 17  Ui R 2 2 0  2 ~ O  O O O M Q 2 2 0 M 2 ~ () - 0 0 0 M --;.-ath.r -- ----  - - - --- ---- --- -   - - - - - ---fl -  20'- --ti39 - --65   -  ib7- ----i0=! ----6-- 7 ;,.,_ _ ... ,...-_.. ______________ _ B 1153 100 153 tt 11.3 70 \u003c11 :s  ... 0 :JO 10 \" 17 EPullon R :J 2 1  2 .l I.  i .1 0 \"' B 3 2 1 N 2 1 l M l l O M t---  - - -  ---- -  - - ----T0TM;- ftt!:Fe:~--t:t---~'1'6---2066  --9f 1  -tt - 220-4 --1\\-- 'IA- --- '?5'6---lli! --- fSfl~.+.l-=s----- ------------ T01.AL STIIDENTel-- 17:,::s t.i-4? :\"17l, * 12:,10 7e1 ::.  'l:':i \" 4'1!5 3l,... 1., 1  - ----  -   - - - ----  ---- ----.. - - --... - - -- - - .. ... . .. ... - .... ----- --- - -- -- - - - - ------ - --- ------- --------------- 1------ - - - - - - ---- - ----------- - ------- ---- ----- - -- ---------  -- - - ---- - --- ---- - ------------------------- - - -- ----------- --- . - ..... -- - - - --------  . _ ,, -- -- --  - - ---- - -- ---------- .... ---- ------ - . .. - ---- - .. -- -   . - -- - - - ---- ---- -- ---- --- - ------ ---------- --------------- ------  - -- -- - - - - ---------- -- --- - ----------- - --- ----- - ----- --- - - --- - - - ---- - -------- ------ .. ---------------------- It----- --   --. -    - -- --- ---- ---  - ------ ---- ------  -\"-- -  -----  ----\"- - - - - - - - ---------- .. - . ---- --------  Rt : j OJHOj .J. FJI i;_ ,E. Af~ , \u003c811'15 CllHUL,,TIVE 020 ,,._ l\"l,RNATIVE CENTER - i::l.1:HE,~TA \u003c l' R-  REF HRF\u003cALB   - -- l oTAL--     - N      --  Etl.r.CI\u003c --  -  - --  - -NON EtL-.CI\u003c -- --\" COl\u003eE IIESC\"I,.TIUN e~AC;\"I UAI. STUDENTe TOTril. HfllL e - FE_H ... l.E*\"f O'f\"';---+fN-:E--f-r.H,t,LE\u003c\u003effH-.a.L Hi1lLE - -F:H,i,l:E=-- - - - ------------- 01 C1.,11 frnc with Ytudnt r~ o o 0 M O O O M O 0 6 .. a o o \" 02 C1.,n'frnc  WI th Prn1\" -  - - o  -- - -o - 0 M O ( ) 0 M O O ? M --o-,. - -\u0026- ---- 0---- - -0 ------~----e-1,..~-------------- B O 0 \u003c\u003e N O O OM O O O 4 03 Ct\u003enfrnc with l3tudent Htid Prnt R \u003c\u003e o () M O i) 0 M O O ()  t a o o 0 N O I) \\) H O {\u003e 0 .. o .. F-r lvl lv Denied  - R O  0   O  ,.  O --- --- -.:) ----  \u0026 --   0 ---------\u003e----- - ------------- a o o \u003c\u003e M O D O  0 0 0  OS Bhavlar Contract R 0 o 0 M O O \u003c\u003e M O O O \" 13 0 0 0 M O O O  0 0 0  - \"()6 - l)tntlon Hall  - -  R -    O -  O -- \u003c\u003e . ..   0-----~-----0----  0-----.... ---~----------------- ~) 0 0 0 N O () () M O () 0 M 07 8tudnt Will Hk Up 11~ R O 0 0  0 \u003c\u003e O  0 0 0  a o o (). 0 () 0 N O O Off 09 9tudnt Plcd on  ,...,.obatlon R   \u003c\u003e -  o - 0 ... - 0 --  - --0------0----.-   0- -- --0----0-------------------- B O 0 ()  0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 M 09 81udn't Alvn,...ni Cl\u003cBAC) R O 0 0 * 0 U O ,. 0 0 0  B o O \u003c\u003e  0 o O ,. 0 0 0  ~O-- 8uwpnlon--- -   --  --  ----- --- R - - le--  -\u003c   -   --- ... - - ~ - - - --.\u003e- --------- . 0 ---~----\u003ci------------------ B 1 0 1  1 0 l M O O 0 ll 8'\u003eys/Clrl Club l:luspnslon R O 0 0 M O O O N O O O tt 8 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 \" 0 0 0 N -t~ --1'lt School Sup  IC-6, R -   O  -o 0 * 0 ---- - --- -- - 0-  0 ------ - -0 ------- -....--0-----0--.----------------- B O \u003c\u003e 0 M O O O M O O O \" 13 811  auspenelon R o O \u003c\u003e w o n o  o o o B O 0 \u003c\u003e  o n o  o o o .. 1--1~--1_11.,tvrday Br.hoot ---   - --- - - -- - --- - - - - O -- -- -- O -\u003c -  - --  -\u0026 - - ------~- - - - - ~...------o - ---.-. ----------------------- a o o (1 M O O O ,. 0 0 0  lS Rac....,_ndd EPullon R O O 0 M O O O M O O O ff B O O () M 0 0 () M 0 0 0 tt -;-  Oth...-   - ---- -  ----- -- R - -   0 -- O - - -  0 - ...  \u003c\u003e-   - -- - ,\u003e---- -- 0 - - - --0 - ----~---~---------------- B o O 0 w O D O  0 0 0 ff 17 11!:pulslone R O 0 0 0 0 0 N O U O  0 0 0 \" 0 .. 0 0 6 .. 0 0 0 .. ------- TO\"I\",._._. ~f'-ll!:RR1'l:-- --- - - -t------- O - - 1 -tt --- ---------0 l 11 --- \u003c\u003e- ----\u003e---....._._ _______________ _ TOTAL BTUDENTB---- 1 O 1 M l O 1  0 0 0 .. I----- - - . - - -- . - - ------------- - . ---------- - ----- -- ----- - --- - ----- -------- --- ---------------------------- ,___ - - -- --- -  - -- ---- -- -------- - - --- ---------- - - . ----  - - . - -  -  .... -- - --- . -------- - --------- --- - - --------------- --- . - -- - ---------- ------ . -- ------------- ------- - -- -- -- . ----- --- - ---- - -- ---- -------------- -- - - - . -- --------- ------ ------ -- -- - '  - -- . - -- -  -----------------  ----------- ------- --- -.  ---- .. - ----- .... .. - --- -- -- --- - - - ----- --------- - - - __, _ .  - - - --- ----- - -- ------- ----- --- -- - - - --- --- -- -- - - - - Rw1 : OIHOS JSL DI ,.c Ip l In., y t\u003cwf.,.el fl umot y FJlE YEAR : NLRS095 Act lon rlcen CUHULATIVE 021 ALTCRNATIVE CEN.fEF\u003c BECONl\u003eAF\u003cY R- REFfcRRALS  --TOl AL.--- -----   -------- EoLACI\u003c - - - - - -- ----- --NON-ltLACI\u003c  - - ----,. COi'\u003e DESCRl~TION 8MAc,uAL t!ITUDt!.HT1S Tl]TAl_ - H ... Lt! l'E.HM:E..-'1-0TAL----HM..::E r1: 11. ..L Eto'FeTT'\"'\"'\"1L.c:---il~\"\"ML.::iEE..---FF.'tiEl::tt1.\" \".'=.L ::iEF---....- -------------- 0t 02 03 oa Cun'frnc wl th Stu.dnt Con'feruc Mith Utuden t nd P r nt ~rlvllev Denied R 5 a  3 2  3 3 2 l. l \" l 0 l .. .. l 0 i - -- R --- --~- --- -  1-- - - - - - ~ - ----1-----e..-..----\u0026-----~-----e ........ ---------------- 8 t s o t 1 0 .. 0 0 0 R t3 t2 1  9 0 ..  3 t .. e 1t 10 s ,. a 0  3 2 i .,  --- R  -- - 1 ---  t - -- ---O- - - - ----\u003e-- --,-.,,._--+---- --+-----e,-,,._--------------- B l l O ,. 0 R O o O ,. 0 S O O O N 0 0 0 () 0  0 .. 0 .. l 1. 0 . 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 .. --o - 1\u003etwntlon Hatt - -- ---- -------- ~ 07 cw it 115 l7 Studnt Will Hk Up Tlfflw t!J'tudwn1' r-tc:d an ,-raba  ton - u  pwnwt01-r------ Boy  /Glrle Club Bu Pnlon -l~\u0026chaal-a~fjlCf-,~llo+t--- - Bue Bu  Pnlon -1t~day ttchool---------- --  11,alelon B l l O ,. R o o o  B O O o ,. i 0 0 l () () 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 ..   - ----- R  t ---- ----0 -----+----+---e-.----\u0026-----~---.Q..---------------- B t l O ,. 0 .. 0 0 0 R 63  6 t7 tt 16 .. 6 !5 l .. B 46 32 t4,. 13  6 s i .. ----- - R 415 a~--f.------'---- -\u003e--~\u003c+--\u003e---''-------''----------------------- B :It 24 7  7 .. 3 3 0 .. R 6 5 S tt l. .. l l 0 .. a 6 ~ s ,. .. s. .. t l 0 .. - ------ -A----\u0026---- ~ - -----\u003c~-----Q--- ---0----~:\u003e------0----.Q..----------------- s 0 0 O ,. R 3 3 o tt B 3 3 o  0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 .. .. 0 t \" i 0 0 .. l 0 .. l 0 .. --------iRFt---t a---- -ta- ~-----H\u003e----+\u003ci\u003e----\u003co\u003e-.--- -31-----;a----\u003c-\u003e------------------ s 10 to o  a a 0  2 2 0 .. R   o  2 2 0  2 2 0 .. B   O  2 ~ 0 .. 2 2 0 .. - - - ---A-------- - - t ------c.  - - - -,--- --~ - --~ ... B l l Ott i l 0 .. 0 0 0 .. R e  t   3 1. .. i i 0 .. B 8  l  4 3 l  l l. 0 .. - - ---- --,-OT-.t- REFERftH::------wo-----~- -3-- - a4---!-.ta~\u003c!...---.~!W9 \u003e-4o\u003e---2-~- ---?-4.----.!li-o\"-------------- TOT ... L STUDENTS-- - - t2S 99 26  to  81 ::' :~ .. ::? i 19 3 .. --------- - - - ------- -- -- - ---- - --- - -- - - --- .. - ----- - - - --- --- ---- -- - -------- --- --- --- - ---- ,.... ________ . . - - -- - - -------- . -- --- ---- - -- - -------- ---- ---- . ------------ --- ----- - - --- --- -------- - - --- - . -- - - -- - - ----- ----- -- .. ------- - - - - ----  -------------------------------------- ----- - -------------- - ------ - - - R , , 01aot ~ FJI.E tEAn , ~Bb9S DI \"'c Ip l I nrv r-.cef.A l aununrv Et ,.. Act on--n CUHIJI \"TJVE 024 HIDGEf\u003cUAD HIDDLE GCHC.JOL R REFfi RRAL!3 -  - -  - -  rOTAL------ ----- - - r.L.ACI\u003c --- --- - -N -- --NONBLACI\u003c -  conE DF.BCAJ~TJON S-ACIU,..l, 9TUDP.:NT13 TOTAi, H/IILE FF.HAI Ettl\"OT~-tt11ot::E FCtl,.,I .. E..-'fG'f-M;---t-tM::E --~-t?H#'.t:l~-------------- Ol C,\u003enfrenc \"'I 'th Student R 1J\\ 48 36 M ~,9 :41 :.?l3 tt :.?S I 7 0 \" 8 64 30 34  4S 19 26 N 1.? fl 8  02 - ft'  -.- !, - -  -- 22 - - - 72 --- - !~?-------f\"\"l - - --,-a-.--- i.0------+1----e---------------- a ~IJ 19 iY tt ~~ 1~ 12 tt ~~ 7 7 ~ o::s R 17 9 a Ll \"' 7\" 6 ~ 1.  G 17 9 a tt ll 4 7  6 ~ l \" 04 I'\u003c l O :I   -t - t\"~ - - ---t----- -O------O------e----------------- S l o 1  l o 1  o o o  OS R 1 0 l  l O i  0 0 0  B 1 O IN l O 1N O O Ow :  !f~ 1.1; ---~:-: -- t~------~1- - - -;~-: --~:---....;,:;,w_3'l----tl-t63-.,.. ,_ _____________ 07 Eltudent WI ll Hake Up Tl11te R 2 2 O  2 ~ O  0 O O  B 2 ~ (}  2 2 0  0 0 0  -oa - etudent ~lcd un l\"\"rablan R  - -   0- -  0 ---0 ....... --$--- -  (  - ------- 4;9._----88---------------------- B O O O w O o O N O O O  09 R 436 2::13 183 tt :ns'I' 1.31 l~B \" 177 S22 !~S \" B 21B 126 B~  130 73 ~7 M 0::1 ~3 32  ------  --- A - -- Ul1   - 1.06- --?~---- :l-33 -----7.,;\u003e---\u003c\"rt--.... 1381------ac, _-+_,_ _____________ _ B 10? 60 4? N 79 4L 30 w 30 19 Ii ll R 3~ 26 \"/  22 IH 4 N 11 a 3  9 30 23 \"1 N 20 j6 4 N iO 7 ~\" ~-.-t 8choot  8u--it(-t  - - - - --     ---   - - - R - - -   O O -- -  0 . ... ____ ______ ___ ~\u003e - -----0- -- ----Q-\"---'--v----v-,_ _____________ _ B O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 \" t3 8u S\u0026\u0026Pnlan R 11 7 4  lO 7 3  l O l\" ~.--.-~urday echa~n-1.1--------- . _____- -=--t~~---S:--6:-:__a:_ ___ 3 ~---\",3_'-\u003c,.__ _ .,.a1----i~oe----P.i1.-.\". -------------- 8 106 '50 eit..  68 30 3B \" ~18 ;.\u003eO i 8 us Rcaa11tndd Expulsion R o O o  0 o O \" 0 0 0  S O O O  0 0 0 w O O O  --- - - ~ - ---tU- - - Si   ----El~    66 ---iilf.l  -- S-8-- H5----t-3-------\u003c--------------- S ~... 30 2~ .. 42 ::a\u003c, :?2  1.2 10 2 .. 17 Expulsions R i i O i 1 \u003c\u003e 0 0 ON B l 1 0  i 1 O  0 0 0  - --- - -- -- -------- - TOT.-.t- ftef't!:ftftH.;\u0026------1.-1. r?----685-- --49~- ---,''!f-9-----41 a --- 36-t:------398 267 TOT\"'L STUDENTS----- 7615 42\\5 ::S40 \" 15J 1 ' 270 241. \" 2~\u003c'1 1t,:5 i~------------------ '19 .. f--- - --- -  -------- --- - - ------- - - -- -  -------------- ------ -- -------- -- ---- - -------------------------------------- - -  ---- - --- ---- ------- ------- .. ------------- ----   .. ------------- a-----  --- - --- -------- - - ---  ------ --   - - - ---- ---- -  - -   - --- -- - --- -- - --------  -  -- -------------- -t------ -- ------------------------------ ------ - .. - -- -------------------------- . . --  .. --------- --- - -------- - -------- -    - . . - - - ----- --- ------------ ------- -------- ---- --- - --------- - - - - - - --- -- - ----- - Rf , D180S .58L Fll.E YEAR I NU~8D9:5 CUHULATIVE 02!3 I. AKEWODD HIDDLE\" SCHOi.iL -,1'09/9:S R- REFE,RRALB -  ---- --- TOTAL--- ---- -  - ----- -BLACl\u003c ----- - - --- -----NON- \u0026LACK- --- __ ,. CODE DESCRIPTION  \u0026ACTUAi:- STUD\"NTIS TMTl\\l~---HM:t!'\" ---- ~!:Hlllt:1! .. TOTnt;;---=:e--f\"eHnt:eto-'f'O'l''l'~,._,tL=--tl1ilAAtL:tE~---11f'-'f!E~l111,,,,,t:L:tE::-\"...------ ---------- 01 02 03 0:5 C~nfrnc Nlth Btudnt --oa- Detent Ian tta t t 07 --oe 09 ll Poys/C.lrls Club 8usplitnlon R 53 33 20  ::S9 2 :5 l .6  l\"' 10 .. .. a  6 29 17.. 3\"' 2t 13\" 12 ---- -- ft ---:s 2 ---t  . 2 e ~ .. :t B 3 2 l  l O 1  2 2 0 .. Parent R 2  B 6  1.0 5 ~ -  .J 1 a 1  a 6  ,o ~ 5\"  3 l \" .. - - ---  - --- ft -  - \"1.--- ---0 - - - t -- - ----1,------ -\u003c, -\u0026-._--- ----- ---,,._.---------------- 8 l O 1 M l O l  0 0 0 .. R 6 2   :5 1 4  i 1 0 .. B 6 2 4  :5 l 4  l l 0 .. -   '  -- -  - -- ft- - -T:?-----\"41!, .. -\"21!,(t -~.,\"1\u003e---~22'17'!~.,_-~2~(71'6-\"ilNt----5!2\".J-~0,-----1;~t---,M!.....,,._.-------------- 8 29:S l68 12~  11-11 ;\u003e1~ 93 ,. l 1.2 70 -42 M R 2 1 1  2 1 l  0 0 0 .. a 2 1 1 ,. 2 1 1 ,. o R -  - - 1.:t--- --  9  - .... -  -- 't.- ~ ----.+-.....-- -=.\u003c\u003e-- ----------0-- ------------- 8 13 9   ll ? 4 2 ~ 0 .. 2 0 .. R 187 138 49  144 97  7  43 .. , 2 .. e 110 e5 33,. 07 56 31.. 31 29 2 .. .. --- --- -- -ft--26----- -i: -- --------- l5 _____ __,-,-------------------------- s 19 l  5  12 a 4  7 6 S: .. R 29 15 l  M ~2 0 14 N 7 7 0 .. B 19 ll B  13 5 ~  6 \"' 0 .. l---t:::t--tt- -t1chaat-a-c1\u003c-a-,---- ------ --- - - - ------ R- ---~ --------o ---- e -- - ----0-------,~ \u0026-- ----e----\u0026------------------- e O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 .. R 27 17 lO  23 14 9 w 4 :1 l e 27 17 10,. 23 14 9  - \"' --------ta, da .,- 8chau 1- --------- -- - ------\"--t1 'l\"?-----85 49 - --_.!_, -,..-----a+----e\u0026------.1,-.--------------- 3 l .. B 9:5 :59 36  67 ~l 30  28 ::!2 6 .. UJ R 2 l lM 2 I l 0 0 0 .. S 2 l 1 w 2 l 1 ,. O 0 0  -- -- --   -  ft-  - -6~--- - - - -~4----lB ... -   49- ---- EIS.----1:,,._.-- .l a------1Hil-----t---o ..... -------------- S \"'\"' 32 12  3:5 2  11  9 e l .. 17 R O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 .. e o o o .. o o o ,. o 0 0 .. - - ----- - TOT~f\"t!:,-fttf'\"t.,._\"-ILL11111---- ---~2d'l\"---eso--.....a? - --'9\u0026o-- ___....s.,.~--aff--tt---l:!lot-------liets-----..:.,,,1,-..... ------------- TOTAL STUDENTS--- 702 438 264 t0 4fl'4 270 206 \" 218 l,',O :;a .. t------------------ -- ------------- t------------------------ - - --- --------------- ----- - - --------------------------------------------- ,_ __________ __ . --- ------ ----- - - ------------------- ---- ------ ---------------- -- -------------------------- --------- ------- --------------------------- --------- - - --- ----------------- ------------- - ------------- - --------- ---------- - - - ----- -------- ---------------. -- -------  ------ ----- ------ ---- ---- ------ - -- -- --  \u003e----------- --- -- - -- --- --- - ----- - -- - -- - ------------ ------ --- -- ----- - ----- - --- - - - ---- - - - -------------------- --------- - ----------- ----- - - - - ---------- - - - --- - -------------- --- ------- -------- - - --- - ------- - -- -- -- ------ ------ - ----- - ---------- ----- --- ------ ------------ -------------  ... ... --- --  - - --- - --. -- - ------- - -- - - ---  ------ ------- --- ----------------- .. .   - - --- --  ---------- ----- - - -- ---------- -- - -- ----- -- ----------- Ref : ' DlBOl- Fll E \u003cEAR : NU'\u003cSD9:S CUHULi\\TIVE 026 HOBE CITY HlVDLE SCHOOL CODE DESCR?PTtnN Ol 02 - cc,n'f'rnc wl th Prnt - -- c,,nfranc with atudent f\"rlvllv Dnld 9.t,avlor Contract - -oa---- Dtantlan Hll -------- 07 Student Will Hak Up lime Dt10c:lplln y R-nl !.um,narv ,,c i I on T. k ., .. f\"\u003c- r\u003cEFE:RRA "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_501","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive School Monitoring Report (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations''","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":["1996-07-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs","School integration","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive School Monitoring Report (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations''"],"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/501"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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\n12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1996-96) Summary of Recommendations 1 Little Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96), July 12,1996 Summary of Recommendations DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR NO 1 PG 6 _________________________________RliCOMMENDATIOM______________________ The incentive program Is successfully dosogrogatlng each Incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) Make recruiting white students to the incentive schools among district priorities, focusing the energy and resources necessary to ensure that the incentive schools become fully desegregated. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg^)____________________________________________________ The incentive program Is successfully dosogrogatlng oaclt Incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) Identify the factors that are working to mako Rockefeller a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them ___^rthe other Incentive schools. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 6)___ 28 28 Shidonts In grades 3-6 have access to either inohllo or pormnnont scloncn lat)s with ndnqtinlo materials Hint allow chikJien to oxocuto long-tonn oxpurlmunts end stuily sclonco In Itio fullest sense. (LRSD Plan, pQ. 153\nJuly 10, 1992 Court Order\nref. Juno 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 15) Schedule science inservice training for teachers who need or want help improving their science instruction. Principals should bo able to determine which teachers are not fully using the science labs and steer them to staff dovolopinont sessions devoted to enlivening science in the classroom. (ODM 1992-M Incentive Schools Monitoring Report,jjg. 49)____________________________________________ The curriculum at each school Incorporntos foreign language Instruction using the foreign language lab and the total physical response\"method of Instruction. Emphasis Is on l)nslc vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Each building operates (oroign language labs with appiopriato equipment and matoiials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) PERSON Rather Principals Gremllllon Gremllllon Pilnclpols Glasgow Gremllllon DONE 8/96 2 3 4 7 Capitalize on the district's resident expertise and experience to assist the Incentive schools In establishing a foreign language program as an Integral part of the overall school program. (ODM 1992- 93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. SI) RESPONSEtxQaniiParker gave court* WWpy th* foralgn lnouafiTproBram*n\u0026lt;iT^ probloim LR8D'facttcl. LR8D  coiitlnuo9 toTac9 Uio\nonm8 problems that wore outlined In Parkers Mtlmonxtolhicoiirtjhl^^ - Neodn t'.o bo done Denoton roconunendation apponrod in prior ODM Monitoring Roport I Tn Proni'onn * Coinpl otfd12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 2 DATE 7/12/96 DOC MR NO 5 PG 28 _________________________________RECOMMENDATION The curriculum at each school incorporates foreign language Instruction using the foreign language lab and the total physical response\" mothod of instruction. Emphasis Is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Each building operates foreign language labs with appropriate equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) PERSON Gremilllon Parker DONE 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR MR 6 1 8 28 28 28 Place as many qualified foreign language teachers as needed to provide Spanish instruction to incentive school students as part of the regular school day instructional program. Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 51) ODM 1992-93 Incentive RESPONSE: Gene Parker gave court testimony on the foreign tanguag* program arid the problems LRSD faced. LRSD continue# to face the aame problems that were outlined In Gene Parkers teatimoriytothe Courts^ The curriculum at each scliool Incorporates foreign language Instruction using the foreign language lab and the total ptiyslcal response\" method of instruction. Emphasis Is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Eacli building oporalos loroign language labs with appropriate equipment and malorials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) Encourage the Spanish teachers to develop a series of Spanish mini-lessons\" for each grade level to help the regular classroom teachers reinforce foreign language instruction across the curriculum. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 61) RESPONSE:'Goho Parker gavo' court 8-11-9(5, on the rdrolgF problems LRSD faced. LRBD rcontInuos to face the aame problems that were outlined In Gene Parker's testimony to thioi'cdurts. tho~curtlculum al each sciiool incorporates foreign language Instruction using the forolgn language lab and ttio total ptiyslcal response\" method of Instruction malorials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Emphasis Is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural Eucti building oporalos loioign langungo labs with appropilalo equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) Increase the amount and improve the quality of Spanish language materials available in each school. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 61) RESPONSEi Oorie Parkor gave court testimony 8\u0026gt;1198, oh the foreign longuap^p^^ problome LRSO faced. LRSD conttinies to face the samo problems that were outlined In Gene Parkers testimony to the courta.___________________________________________ Cumulnllvo records document both host and guest schools paillclpnllon In Snturdny programs. (ODM 1992 *!! Repoit, pg. 25) Satuidny programs will bo dovolopod Io onhanco loaming. Those programs will Include but shall not bo limited - Noodti t o be done Dnot recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report ! In Progronu  f.'oinplotod Gremilllon Parker Gromllllon Parker Gromllllon Principals +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendalions 3 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 71^2196 DOC MR MR MR MR NO 9 10 11 12 PG 29 29 29 40 _________________________________RECOMMENDATION_________________________________ to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, paronl/child mako-and-tako sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) Standardize the reporting process for Saturday school. Data should be cumulative and reflect race, gender, and grade of participating students. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 60) Cumulative records documont both host and guest scliool's participation in Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Saturday programs will bo developed to enhance loaming. Those programs will include but stiall not be limited to field trips, onrlchmont actlvitios, tutoring, paronl/child mako-and-tako sessions, book fairs, and physical education actlvitios. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) Perform annual evaluations of the Saturday programs, using the information to design programs that ai ppeal to the students and thek parents. (PPM 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 60)___ Cuniulatlvo records documont bolti liosl and giiosl school's paiticipniion In Saliirday proyrams. (ODM 1992 Ropoit, py. 25) Saturday programs will bo dovolopod to enhance lourniny. Those proyrams will Include but shall not bo llinitod to Hold trips, onrlchmont actlvltlos, tutoring, paront/ctilld mako-and-tako sessions, book lairs, and physical education nctlvIHos. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) Perform regular evaluations of the Saturday program, both during and at the end of the school year, asking staff, parents, and students for feedback. Use the garnered Information to design activities and events that coincide with the Interests of all participants. (ODM 1994-96 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 37 I W V * I ------------------- Cuimiinllvo racords docunioiiTijoHi liosl and ynost scliool's paillcipatlon In Salnrday proyrams. (ODM 1992 Ropoit, py. 25) Satuiday programs will bo dovolopod to enhanco loaininy. Tlioso proyrams will Include but stuill not bo limited to Hold tiips, enrichment aGtIvlllos, tutoriny, pnronl/clilld mako-and-tako sessions, book lairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, py. 179) Promote collaboration among the Incentive schools and between the Incentive schools and the district's area and magnet schools to plan Joint field trips and other collnborntlve activities during the regular academic wook. Tho district can thus do a bettor job of fulfilling its obligation to provide Incentive school studonts^tjHiioro opportunities lor desogrogatod louriiliig oxporloncos. fIto purposo~of the InconllvoTchool proyram Is io piomolo and onsiiio acadoinlc oxcollonco In scitools thnt have boon dilllcull to dosoyroyato. (LRSD plan, py. 149) Willi proper resources and oxpoctatloiis, Itio Incentive sctiool program will servo ns a model of oxcollonco lor the county, stalo, and the nation. (LRSD plan, (ly. 149) Base staff development activities on areas of domoiistratod need. Some tonchors many need more - Noodfi Io 1)0 (lone *DenotB rcomnu\u0026gt;ndtion nppenrod in prior ODM Monitoring Report I Ln Iroyi'onn  tronipl Rt.o(i PERSON Gremillion Principals Gremillion Principals Asst. Siipls. Principals Gremillion Pilnclpnls DONE + +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1996-96) Summary of Recommendations 4 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR *Danotea NO 13 14 15 PG 40 48 54 _______________RECOMMENDATION training than others in areas such as classroom management and organization and effective discipline. It is incumbent upon the building administrator and the individual teachers to identify areas of need and access the resources necessary to address them. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, ___________________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of the incentive scliool program Is to promote and ensure academic oxcollonco in sctiools that have been difficult to desegregate. (LRSD plan, pg. 149) With proper resources and expectations, the Incontivo school program will servo as a model of excollcnce for the county, state, and the nation. (LRSD plan, pg. 149) Better define the role of phonics Instruction in the Incentive schools and convene a meeting of those administrators in charge of the incentive schools and the reading supervisor and his staff to communicate that role to all teachers so that phonics instruction will conform to the board-adopted LRSD curriculutii\n_________________________________________________________________________ The schools use a Career Skills Development Program to develop career cholco.s using written information, guest speakers, films, and Interest Invonlorlos. (LRSD Plan, PG. 172, 180) Study skills training onhancos skills In test-taking, lisloning, and studying. Test-taking skills aro being taugtit and students practice lest taking. (LRSD Plan, pp. 153, 176, 183\nJuly 10, 1992 Couit Older ref. Juno 5, 1992 ODM Ropoil, pg. 32) Students receive Individual and group counseling and aro taught conflict resolution. Tho school uses poor facilitators. (LRSD Plan. Pp. 176, 184) Ttio stall has dovolopod wrilton building giildanco plan.s Io address personal growlli, social dovolopmont, caroor awnronoss, and educational dovolopmont. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ret: June 5, 1092 ODM Ropoil, pg. 27) Roquiro counselors to have bullding-lovol guidance plans that rolloct activities and projects for the current school year. I PERSON Gromllllon Principals Parker Elston DONE Clear guidance plans help teachers and administrators achieve school improvement goals, reflect an assessment of the schools^iildance noeds^and shov^how the counselor plans to address those needs. bisaggrogato data rblutod to studuni dlsclpliao anil rovlow stud'unt data to addioss Issuos of racial disparity. (Intordis. Plan. pg. 27) Carefully collect discipline data and closoly monitor Iho discipllno program to make modifications that are indicated by formative, as well as summativo, information. The district would bo wise to analyze Iho factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipllno problems and loss dispailly In discipline botwoon black and white students. Identifying and omulating those factors and closoly scrutinizing progress should result In interventions Hint roduco ltio number of students suspended or oxpollod, as woll as ttio disproportionate number of black students roforrod lor disciplinary action. (ODM 1992, Report, pg. 23) Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that aro staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184)________________________________________________________________________________ - Notulii I o bo doiio rocommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Ropoit I In IrcxjrtiiKi * Comp]oLud Gromllllon Principals Watson12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 5 DATE DOC I NO I PG RECOMMENDATION Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 19923 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. Policy enforcement is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for tho work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Hold periodic \"summits\" to develop a forum for an exchange of ideas and successful techniques for handling disciplinary problems. Incentive schools have similar characteristics and staff members who, along with parents and students, are valuable resources for ideas to combat problems. (ODM 1993-94 PERSON DONE 7/12/96 7/12/98 Donoteo MR MR 16 17 54 54 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 29)__ Disnggrogalo data related to student discipline and review student data to address issues of racial disparity. (Intordis. Plan. pg. 27) Carefully collect discipline data and closely monitor tho disclpllno program lo mako modifications that are indicatod by formative, os well ns summntivo, Information. Tho district would bo wise lo analyze tho factors Hint contribulo to sonio schools having fowor overall discipline problonis and loss dispailly In discipline between black and while students. Identifying and emulating those factors and closely scrutinizing progress should result In interventions that reduce the number of students suspended or expelled, as well as tho disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992, Ropoit, pg. 23) Attondanco and behavior guldollnos Includo limo-out rooms that are stalled with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 19923 Ropoil, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly Indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consoquoncos for Infractions. Policy onforcomont Is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Ropoit, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for tho work being done. (ODM 1992 Ropoit, pg. 32) Explore the feasibility of developing permanent alternative educational sites designed specifically for chronically disruptive students. Tho presence of chronically misbehaving and disruptive students in tho classroom hindors teaching and learning (or tho rost. (ODM 1993-94 Incontlvo Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 29) RESPONSE: ThpBssItttant Superlntentje^tover lncwW|iie\nft|o|8, IRSP Hearing oriicer, along with the Incentive SchooWlncIpals are currently^|seuaalria4bSi%nd BOnd exploring alternative educational sites ..... \"Disaggrogato data rolalod iirstu'd'oiit disclpllno and rovlow stuaoni gain lo nouioss Issiios of racial disparity - Noi'dii In be done roconintondation appoarad in prior ODM Monitoring Roport I Tn Progrenn * (\\)nipl etOit Gromillion Watson Gromillion12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendations 6 DATE /12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR I NO I PG 18 19 20 RECOMMENDATION (Interdis. Plan. pg. 27) Carefully collect discipline data and closely monitor tho discipline program to make modifications that are indicated by formative, as well as summativo, information. The district would be wise to analyze the factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipline problems and less disparity in discipline between black and white students. Identifying and emulating these factors and closely scrutinizing progress should result in interventions that reduce the number of students suspended or expelled, as well as ttie disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992, Report, pg. 23) Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 19923 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. Policy enforcement is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for tho work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Provide ongoing training in behavior management for school district employees who are responsible for supervising children for any period of time. The Assistant Superintendent over Incentive Schools^ LRSD Hearing Officer, Staff Oevttlopinont Supervisor, along with Incentive School Principals and teachers will be planning RESPONSE: 60 60 60 PERSON Watson DONE inservices for LRSb employeea responsiblefor cupervjslrifl children on bebavlof mahagement._________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Franklin - Investigate the cause of the failing paint and take corrective action.________________________ Tho district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho Incontivo scliools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven Incontivo schools would benefit aosthollcally from tho addition of attrnctivo landscaping. Once plantings are Installed, train tho custodial sluff In proper plant care Io provenl loss of plantings Io Improper pruning or undor-waloring. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Fraiikihi - Correct drainage problom^n all affected levels of tlio_buildjng.__________________________ The district wifi provide clean and safe facliitlos and rnako all repairs fundamental to malnialn tho Incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All sovon Incentive schools would bonofit aosthoticnily from tho addition of allractlve landscaping. Once - Needii t.o be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report I 111 Progreuf.) * Completed Eaton Eaton Eaton 8/96 8/96 12/9612/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 7 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR MR NO PG RECOMMENDATION plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) I PERSON DONE 21 22 23 24 25 60 60 60 60 60 Garland - Attend to the peeling paint on the exterior doors._______________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tire incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once Garland Principal plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant caro to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Garland - Improve cleanliness in the cafeteria and bathrooms._____________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train tho custodial staff in proper plant caro to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Garland - Correct the problems with floor tiles in the large downstairs bathrooms.__________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are Installed, train tho custodial staff In proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Mitchell - Replace the worn lunchroom tables.__________________________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All sovon Incontivo schools would bonofit nosthotlcally from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings aro Installed, train Iho custodial staff In proper plant caro to prevent loss of plantings to Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Mitchell - Remove or replace the malfunctioning urinal in the bathroom located on the second floor landing. The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All sovon Incontivo schools would bonofit aosthollcally from tho addition of atlrnctlvo landscaping. Once plantings aro Installod, train the custodial staff In proper plant caro to prevent loss of plantings Io Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) _________________________________________ - Needo to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreee * Completed Eaton Moran Eaton Eaton 8/96 8/96 ' 8/96 8/9612/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 8 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR NO I PG 26 27 28 29 60 60 60 60 RECOMMENDATION Mitchell - Replace or reattach the loose tiles in the hallways._______________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan. pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell -Determine the cause of the leaks found throughout the building and correct the problems. RESPONSE\nLRSD is committed to repairing leaks In the roof, but duo to the ago and condition of the building, leaks ara likely to be a reoccurring problerri untIt funds are available to replace the roof.  - The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Repair and repaint damaged ceilings._______________________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Assess water damage to carpets and replace as needed. RESPONSE: Malnfenance of the carpets will be acceseed by school personnel while roof repair Is in The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff In proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Repair any broken partitions and fittings in the bathrooms. PERSON Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton DONE 11/96 12/98 - Needa to be done Denotes reconunondation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreoo * Completed12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 9 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR MR NO I PG 30 31 32 33 34 60 60 60 RECOMMENDATION The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools v/ould benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. E Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Evaluate the school's plumbing needs and complete work needed to make all bathrooms fully functional. Tho district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven Incontivo schools would bonofit aosthotically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Onco plantings aro installed, train tho custodial staff In propor plant care Io provont loss of plantings Io Improper pruning or undor-watoilng. (ODM 1092 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Eliminate tho Insect Infestation._____________________________________________________ The district will provWo clean and safe facliitios and make all repairs fundamontai to maintain Iho Incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incontivo schools would bonofit aoslhofically from Iho addition of atlracllvo landscaping. Onco plantings aro installod, train tho custodial staff In proper plant care to provont loss of plantings to Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rockefeller - Repair the small area of damaged tile In the boys bathroom before the problem escalates. 60 Tho district will provide clean and sate lacilltlos and make all repairs fundamental to maintain Iho Incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All sovon incontivo schools would bonofit aosthotically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings aro Installod, train tho custodial staff In proper plant caro to provont los,s of plantings to Improper pruning or undor-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Before releasing as RFP, Rockefeller -Replace carpeting throughout all areas of the building, representatives from the plant services and tho purchasing departments should consult with tho principal and staff regarding details of carpet replacement, such as tho replacement schedule, the carpet color, and the areas to bo carpeted, including the carpot-covered furnishings. 78 RESPONSEnQurOTiaj^^ A Parent Center In each school provides resources and rnatorials, locommondod by a parent and staff commlltoo, that can bo lonnod to parents. A parent has boon triilnod Io opornto Iho contor, which Is to bo tho - Needo Co be done Denoteo recommondatlon appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report I In Proyreoo  Completed PERSON Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton DONE 11/96 8/96 8/96 +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendalions 10 DATE DOC I NO I PG ______________________RECOMMENDATION source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan. pp. 206. 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Keep more accurate and complete records of Parent Center use by consistently using sign-in sheets. PERSON DONE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR MR 35 36 37 78 79 79 (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 77) A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that Is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan. pp. 206. 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. Tho school documents the degree to which parents use Gremillion Principals the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Develop strategies and arrange events to encourage greater use of the Parent Center. For example, design boxes or bags containing materials on a certain topic that could be checked out. Highlight Parent Center Resources in the school newsletter, bulletin boards, and PTA meetings to heighten awareness and increase interest in the centers. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 77)________________________________________________________________________________:------- The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and cariying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of paiticipanls by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of tho potential helpfulness of tho training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Team with community organizations (such as churches and civic clubs) and other programs (such as HIPPY and New Futures) to explore ways to cooperate in offering parent training. Such collaboration can help coordinate and strengthen resources to focus on targeted audiences. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 79)____________________________________________-------------------- The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, lime management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, limo, and location along with Iho number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent mootings and actlvitios Is maintained, Including slgn-ln sheets that reflect Gremillion Principals Gremillion Principals  Ncodu to be done *Danote8 recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report I- Tn Proyveuo * Completed12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 11 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR NO I PG I' 38 39 40 79 79 79 RECOMMENDATION parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Offer sessions on timely and intriguing topics at times, dates, locations, and circumstances that haven't been tried before as a means to increase participation. (ODM 1994-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 79) _______________________________________________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, limo, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of tho training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent mootings and actlvitlos Is maintalnod, including sIgn-in shoots that reflect parents' race, gondor, and the school Ihoir ctilld attends. (ODM 1992 Roport, pg. 38) Ask workshop participants to evaluate each session at its conclusion and mako candid suggestions tor training improvements and future session topics. Then carefully analyze tho feedback to assess the quality and relevancy of tho training to make changes accordingly. (ODM 1994-96 Incontlvo Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 62)___________________________________________________________________ Tho schools offer parent workshops to assist paronts In understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workstiops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with tho number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on tiow well tho session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Evaluate the parent workshops offered to determine if they are meeting the goals of helping incentive school parents understand and carry out school expectations. Use the feedback to redesign offerings as necessary to ensure progress toward the goals. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, .31751 The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out scfiool expectations. The workshops includo such topics as study skills, discipline, time managomont, pre-reading skills, financial managomont, and dovolopmontal loaming skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, limo, and location along with tho numbor of participants by raco, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze pailicipants' feedback on how well tho session was conducted and their perception of tho potential helpfulness of tho training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complcto documentation of all parent mootings and activities Is maintained, Including sign-ln sticets that reflect - Needo l.o lio doiio Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Roport ( III Il tiqroiJU  Coinplotod PERSON Gremillion Principals Gromillion Principals Gremillion Principals DONE12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 12 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR NO I PG I 41 42 43 44 79 79 79 79 __________________________RECOMMENDATION parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) in order to standardize reporting and minimize the burden of documentation, schools could use a simple form identifying the contact date, type of contact (such as parent/teacher conference, home visit, interim or monthly report, phone call, success or alert card), which staff member contacted whom (parent, grandparent, guardian, or other), and a brief description of the results of the contact or any other pertinent information. (ODM 1992-93 hicentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 105) Develop and expand the parent volunteer programs and school/business partnerships. (LRSD Plan, pg. 132) Expand contacts with and widen access to the variety of community-based programs, designed to support children and families. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 78)_____________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school thoir child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Develop transportation policies and procedures, ensuring that principals are aware of this service, know how to identify parents' transportation needs, and understand how to arrange for it to support parent participation where needed. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 105)________ Each school provides community role models and a mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) The school maintains mentor-student records that include the race, gender, participation hours, and types of activities shared by the mentors and their students. Records of training participants by race, gender, and classification (i.e. student, mentor, parent, teacher) are also maintained. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 30) Consider having VIPS train incentive school principals to serve as instructors for new mentors so these building leaders can conduct their own streamlined, on-site mentor training. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive SchooI Monitoring Report, pg. 78)____________________________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213) - Needa to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + Ill Progreoo * Completed PERSON DONE Milam Cheatham Principals Milam Gremilllon Principals Ratherb, - INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) 13 Suiniiiary of Recommendations DATE I DOC I NO | PG | 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR MR 45 46 47 80 80 80 ____________RECOMMENDATION Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for using the services of the speakers bureaus and key communicators that includes specific goals, objectives, the persons responsible, and evaluation criteria to determine success and where changes need to be made. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 86)____________________________________________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213) Develop job descriptions for the speakers bureaus and key communicators that clearly identify the Job goal, qualifications, performance expectation, the participant and district responsibilities, and the amount of time that will likely be required to successfully perform each job. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 86)____________________________________________________________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quaiterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incontivo school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with tho expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management foam, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must bo Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitinonf assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Engage in a recruitment campaign that is broad and intense enough to ensure that the district can select a Biracial Committee membership that is racially balanced and also fully representative of the districts geography. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 26)____________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports - Needo to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreso * Completed PERSON Rather Supt. Supt. DONE +12,,.,- NCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 14 DATE DOC I NO PG ________________________________RECOMMENDATION________________________________ that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order\nref: Juno 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) PERSON DONE 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR 48 49 80 80 Define Biracial Committee goals and then develop and carry out specific objectives and timelines for reaching them. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 27) Tho dislrictwide Biracial Committee, whoso members represent various geographic areas of tho community, will monitor tho incontivo schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports ttiat summarize all monitoring visits. Tho superintendent will share tho PRE document witli the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of\nincentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. (LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Coordinate Biracial Committee monitoring activities with other internal district monitoring groups to eliminate duplication and ensure that no part of the desegregation efforts go unscrutinized. (ODM 1992- 92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees., pg. 28)________________________________________ The dislrictwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) - Needfj to be done Denotes roconunondation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreuo * Completed Supt. Supt. Jackson12/19/96 .INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 15 DATE I DOC I NO | PG RECOMMENDATION The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Design Biracial Committee monitoring instrument that correlate specifically with the desegregation plan provisions so each district can measure its progress in plan implementation. (ODM 1992-92 Monitoring PERSON I DONE 7/12/96 MR 50 80 Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 28) 7/12/96 MR 51 80 The districlwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with tho Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. Tho Associate Superintondont for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with tho advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school rocruitrnont reports from tho dosegregalion office, ovalirato tho program quarterly and recommend needed changes to tho Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with tho expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior managornent team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (Iwo of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Older: ref: Juno 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Regularly update Biracial Committee monitoring instruments to reflect all modifications to the desegregation plans. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 28)____________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will I monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225)__________________________ Supl. 8/96 - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreos * Completed Supt. Jackson12/1b,3. JCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendations 16 DATE I DO'C I NO I PG~~[ ___________________________RECOMMENDATION The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports PERSON DONE 7/12/96 MR 52 80 The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of that summarize all monitoring visits. ' Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board ot Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with tho expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of\nincentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order\nref\nJune 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Make evaluation an integral part of the Biracial Committee monitoring process so that conclusions and recommendations for improvement are used to both prevent and correct problems. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 29)_________________________________ Tt)o districtwido Biracial Committee, whoso members represent various geographic areas of tho community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) Tho Biracial Committoe will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. Tho Office of Planning, Rosoarch, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarizo all monitoring visits. Tho superintondont will share tho PRE document with tho Board of Directors al their regularly scheduled meetings. Tho Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committoo, with tho advice of marketing and advertising exports, will servo as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from tho desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of\nincentive school principals, tho superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order\nref\nJune 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Supt. Annually evaluate the role, operations, and accomplishments of the BIraclal Committee In relationship - Needa to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report h In Progreoa it Completed12/19/91 jCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summa, y of Recommendations 77 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I NO MR MR 53 54 PG 80 80 _________________________________RECOMMENDATION to specific settlement plan provisions and overall desegregation goals. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 29) I PERSON RESPONSE: An annual evaluation of the Biracial Committees role, operations, and accomplishments at the end of each fiscal year beginning with the 1996-97 school year. The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, witfi the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Regularly ask Biracial Committee members to review and rate the type and quality of support the district is furnishing them, and solicit suggestions for new or improved support services. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 29) RESPONSE: LRSD will develop a survey for KlrttcJa) Committee members to review and rate the quality of support LRSD is providing and asking for suggestions for new and Improved support services. This survey will be distributed to members during tho 3rd quarter of tho 1996*97 school year. Beginning with the 1997-98 school year LRSD will Survey members during the 1st end 3rd quarter of each school year. The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed DONE Supt. Gremillion Principals12/19/96 JCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendalions 18 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I NO I PG I MR MR 55 56 80 80 RECOMMENDATION parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Standardize the method staff uses to document and report home and school communication to promote data consistency and accuracy._______________________________________________________________ Each school provides community role models and mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Focus on the schools where community involvement is lagging and intensify efforts to increase volunteer support in those buildings. Pay particular attention to targeting those schools which fall far behind the others in volunteer activity._________________________________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Each school provides community role models and mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Strengthen the communication between school and community by considering placement of an outreach coordinator in each incentive school to function as a liaison. This position, which should require at lease half-tinie and preferably full-time attention, could be paid or voluntary and filled by an employee, a volunteer, or an intern. The outreach coordinator would be supervised by the principal and work closely with all aspects of the school, as well as the district's offices of student assignment and communications. Any funding necessary for such a position could be sought from a grant or come from the extra money provided through the schools' double funding. The outreach coordinator could perform a number of tasks that could include, but not be restricted to, the recommendations listed below. RESPONSE: LRSD is exploring the possibility of using a volunteer to serve as an outreach coordinator for each incentive schoot. - - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed PERSON Milam Gremillion Principals DONE12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 19 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I NO MR MR MR MR 57 58 59 60 PG IT 81 81 81 _________________________________RECOMMENDATION________ ___________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exist in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210,213) Develop a school communications plan that includes specific objectives as well as methods to measure results. Each school should write objectives that answer the following questions\nWho will benefit from this activity and how will they benefit from it? How will the activity be implemented, who will do the work, when will the work start, and what is the implementation schedule? When will the benefits be visible and what will they look like? How will we know if were successful? RESPONSE\nLRSD Assistant Superintendent for Incentive Schools, Parent Recruiters, Communications Director and Incentive School principals are currently working together to develop a communications A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exist in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210,213) Produce a monthly school newsletter that targets the community, with distribution to parents, volunteers, partners, and residents of the neighborhood. These neighbors would include churches, shops, fire stations, nursing homes, hospitals, professional offices, etc. The newsletter should stress the success of students and teachers, herald coming events, and highlight individuals who live or work in the community. Use the publication as a means to more broadly recognize students, teachers, parents, and volunteers. Students could write some of the articles, striving to create a friendly, chatty communiqud that conveys a positive and enthusiastic attitude, school pride. Make this publication a banner of The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) Work the territory by actively reaching out to the neighborhood and beyond. Instead of waiting for the community to come to the school, the school can energetically extend itself to the community. Contact local businesses and other organizations to explain the school and its place in the neighborhood. Personally extend an invitation to attend an open house or any other special function being held in the school. If a class is presenting a play, invite the neighbors in for the fun and assign student hosts to guests.____________________________________________________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, - Need.g to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progre.en * Completed PERSON I DONE Gremillion Principals Rather Gremillion Principals Vann Rather Gremillion Principals Vann Rather Rather Principals12/19/96 ir JENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 20 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I NO I PG I RECOMMENDATION PERSON DONE MR MR 61 62 81 82 213) Develop the speakers bureau into a proactive ambassadorship for the school. Members of the bureau can be parents, teachers, students, and community volunteers. Give the speakers a special title (such as Goodwill Ambassadors, Outreach Angels, etc.) and help them focus on a specific theme or point of school pride. Arrange for them to meet frequently with small groups at a well known nearby place, such as a church, fire station, or community alert center. Such experiences are prime learning opportunities for students, helping boost their self esteem while also polishing their schools image._______________ A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan. pp. 206. 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Gremillion Principals Actively manage the Parent Centers to become the catalyst and focal point of parent resources and services they were intended to be. Suggestions for strengthening the centers include the following: foster the ongoing involvement of a strong Parent Center Committee in each school, using the Committee to establish a means for determining what special parent needs exist, such as materials and equipment, home visits, extended center hours, etc.\nconsider relocating the centers to a place of prominence and easy access, where parents can meet and chat without fear of disturbing classes\ndevelop a monthly theme of parenting emphasis that is carried throughout the school in such way as a featured bulletin board and the school newsletter, then follow up with appropriate workshops on the themes\nequip the centers with welcoming and comfortable furniture that invites parents to linger awhile\nconsider the feasibility of merging the faculty lounge and the Parent Center into a combined building resource center to promote frequent and sustained interaction between teachers and parents._________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school, expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Each school provides community role models and mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Milam Principals - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed12/19/9G INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 21 DATE 7/12/96 DOC I NO MR 63 PG 87 ________RECOMMENDATION_________________________________ Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) PERSON I DONE Intensify efforts at the school level to coordinate the services of volunteers and school partners in the school, making them an integral part of the school family. Routine operation procedures should include follow-up to determine the degree of volunteer satisfaction, because these very important people need consistent guidance, support, encouragement, and thanks. Keep in contact with them through meetings, phone calls, and notes. Invite them to the special functions at the school and assign a student host to escort them. Spend time training the children who are selected as hosts, showing them how to be courteous and respectful. Make these students a part of the symbols of school pride. The district will inform the community about the incentive schools and their special features by providing informational sessions to special interest and community groups, including churches. Additional strategies will include conducting Saturday information booths at malls and neighborhood stores, securing special media coverage, and developing an incentive school telephone hotline. The district will distribute highlight sheets to all elementary parents and local businesses. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215, 218-219) Recruitment will be an ongoing process with each incentive school establishing a parent recruitment team to encourage voluntary assignments that enable the schools to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pp. 132, 135, 215\nInterdist. Plan, pg. 57) The districts recruitment strategies will include public service announcements, billboards, a media blitz, videocassette recordings, flyers, open houses, targeted neighborhood blitzes, small group tours, a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and celebrity endorsements. Each school will establish a speakers bureau and help the district develop a brochure highlighting their school. Meetings will be held with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers. (LRSD Plan, PG. 215- 216, 220-222) Parent recruiters will focus on recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools and conduct recruitment activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 216, 222) All parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregating the incentive schools. (May 1992 Order, pg. 29) The LRSD will establish a strategic plan, based on the recruitment section of the desegregation plan, that reflects a well-thought-out, interrelated process\npresent a firm timetable in its recruitment plan and strictly adhere to it\ndevelop a tracking system to determine the success of particular awareness and recruitment efforts, especially with identified geographic areas and specific groups\nincrease the number and variety of specifically targeted recruitment activities. (July 10, 1992 Courf Order\nref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pp. 4, 5) Gremillion Principals Rather Millhollen Establish a budget that is adequate to underwrite an aggressive and sustained recruitment program that encompasses the special needs of the incentive schools, investing that allotment in high-quality, high- energy strategies that result in steady progress toward the desegregation goals. - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + Tn Progress * Completedi| Little Rock School District  MEMORANDUM RECE^VSD 4 To: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring DEC 2 0 1996 From\nI Date: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent December 6, 1996 Office cf Desegregation Moniiortn^ Subject\nLRSD Responses to Incentive School Monitoring Report (1995-96),July 12, 1996 q q q Attached you will find a report stating the status of each recommendation the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring recommended in their 1995-96 Incentive School Monitoring Report, If you should have questions, please contact me. C-. Chris Heller. LRSD Aiiome\u0026gt;' q q q I I I I I q q\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_1353","title":"Proceedings: ''Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-05-31"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School administrators","School facilities","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools''"],"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/1353"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["159 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":16,"next_page":17,"prev_page":15,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":180,"total_count":419,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":418},{"value":"StillImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":60},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":42},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":23},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":5},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":3},{"value":"Ross, Steven M.","hits":3},{"value":"Arkansas Policy Foundation","hits":2},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":2},{"value":"Quality Education and Management Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Area School Advisory Committee","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":419},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":413},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":307},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":287},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":280},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":229},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":204},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":174},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":151},{"value":"Student assistance programs","hits":139},{"value":"School integration","hits":138}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Intervenors, Knight","hits":1},{"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":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":417},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":415},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":411},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":405},{"value":"United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Phillips County, 34.42829, -90.84802","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Connecticut, 41.66704, -72.66648","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Maryland, 39.00039, -76.74997","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Michigan, 44.25029, -85.50033","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Detroit, 42.33143, -83.04575","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":415},{"value":"New York","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Maryland","hits":1},{"value":"Michigan","hits":1},{"value":"Missouri","hits":1},{"value":"Texas","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1995","hits":88},{"value":"1993","hits":74},{"value":"1994","hits":74},{"value":"1996","hits":72},{"value":"1992","hits":64},{"value":"1999","hits":59},{"value":"2001","hits":59},{"value":"1997","hits":58},{"value":"1991","hits":53},{"value":"2003","hits":53},{"value":"2000","hits":52},{"value":"1990","hits":40},{"value":"1998","hits":40},{"value":"2004","hits":40},{"value":"2002","hits":38},{"value":"1989","hits":33},{"value":"2005","hits":31},{"value":"2006","hits":21},{"value":"1986","hits":10},{"value":"1988","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":8},{"value":"2007","hits":8},{"value":"2008","hits":8},{"value":"1987","hits":7},{"value":"2010","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":6},{"value":"2009","hits":6},{"value":"2011","hits":6},{"value":"1980","hits":5},{"value":"1981","hits":5},{"value":"1982","hits":5},{"value":"1983","hits":5},{"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":"2012","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":3},{"value":"1951","hits":3},{"value":"1952","hits":3},{"value":"1953","hits":3},{"value":"1954","hits":3},{"value":"1955","hits":3},{"value":"1956","hits":3},{"value":"1957","hits":3},{"value":"1958","hits":3},{"value":"1959","hits":3},{"value":"1960","hits":3},{"value":"1961","hits":3},{"value":"1962","hits":3},{"value":"1963","hits":3},{"value":"1964","hits":3},{"value":"1965","hits":3},{"value":"1966","hits":3},{"value":"1967","hits":3},{"value":"1968","hits":3},{"value":"1969","hits":3},{"value":"1970","hits":3},{"value":"1971","hits":3},{"value":"1972","hits":3},{"value":"1973","hits":3},{"value":"2013","hits":3},{"value":"2014","hits":3},{"value":"2015","hits":2},{"value":"2016","hits":2},{"value":"2017","hits":2},{"value":"2018","hits":2},{"value":"2019","hits":2},{"value":"2020","hits":2},{"value":"2021","hits":2},{"value":"2022","hits":2},{"value":"2023","hits":2},{"value":"2024","hits":2},{"value":"1910","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1910","max":"2024","count":1171,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":244},{"value":"reports","hits":71},{"value":"legal documents","hits":38},{"value":"judicial records","hits":36},{"value":"correspondence","hits":10},{"value":"handbooks","hits":9},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":7},{"value":"budgets","hits":6},{"value":"books","hits":2},{"value":"newspaper clippings","hits":2},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":419}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":417},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Photographs Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":419}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":418},{"value":"Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":419}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}