{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_847","title":"Court filings: District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990-03-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School improvement programs","School integration","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order"],"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/847"],"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  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1531","title":"\"Tri-District Desegregation Plan for the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special 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":["Reville, Eugene, 1932-1990"],"dc_date":["1990-01-02"],"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","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","School enrollment","School facilities","School employees","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Tri-District Desegregation Plan for the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special 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/1531"],"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":["77 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_345","title":"Curriculum","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/2003"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Educational planning","Education--Curricula","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Curriculum"],"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/345"],"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\n4 / ATTENTION PARENTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CURRICULUM AUDIT A curriculum audit ol the LRSD Is being conducted by the American Association ol School Administrators (AASA). This process Includes opportunities lor parents ol children In the district and other members ol the community to meet with the auditors to express their views and make comments. YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND AN ADDITIONAL OPEN MEETING FOR PARENTS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1990 4:00 - 6:00 P.M. OR 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM If you are unable to attend these meetings, you may express your comments in writing and send to: Dr. William K. Poston Iowa State University Dept, of Professional Studies N229 Lagomarcino Hall Ames, Iowa 50011 ATTENTION TEACHERS AND OTHER PERSONNEL A curriculum audit ol the Little Rock School District is scheduled ior September 17-21. 1990. The audit will be conducted by the American Association, ol School Administrators \u0026lt;AASA).- This process wiH Include an\" Independent, external analysts ol the design and delivery oi our school system's curriculum in attaining desired  results within the context and cost parameters which it iiio ono COST porometers must function. The auditors will be gathering data from multiple sources, including interviews. FOR INTERESTED PERSONNEL. WALK-IN TIMES ARE POSTED BELOW. TUESDAY. SEPTEMBER 18 3:00 - 5:30 P.M. ill WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19' 3:30 - 4:30 P.M. INTERVIEWS WILL BE HELD IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 810 WEST MARKHAMI ATTENTION TEACHERS AND OTHER PERSONNEL A curriculum audit of the Little Rock School District is scheduled for September 17-21, 1990. The audit will be conducted by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA). This process will include an independent, external analysis of the design and delivery of our school systems curriculum in attaining desired results within the context and cost parameters which it must function. The auditors will be gathering data from multiple sources, including interviews. For interested personnel, wsik-in times are posted below. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19 3:00-5:30 3:30-4:30 INTERVIEWS WILL BE HELD IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AT 810 WEST MARKHAM CURRICULUM AUDIT/REVIEW Reported by Sterling Ingram and Estelle Matthis (RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTED FROM NASE) RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Develop and adopt a comprehensive Board polity framework for curriculum management Action Taken\nThe LRSD Board of Directors created and adopted a comprehensive policy framework for curriculum management. 2. 3. To Be Completed: The development of a policy that establishes criteria for decisions on school facility remodeling, replacement, and closure. Reorganize the administrative structure for effective instructional management Action Taken: A. Partially implemented as supervision of the schools remains unevenly divided into three regions of approximately 17 schools each. LRSD has not added a fourth assistance superintendent position due to budgetary constraints and changes in administration. B. Separate and consolidate key curriculum and instruction operations from school operations. The Board approved the reorganization of the central administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development. Consolidate and restructure business services and support services. Action Taken: Partially completed. A director of human resources has been employed to provide appropriate control over persoimel hiring and to maintain overall supervision of key managerial functions in support services.Board labor relations responsibilities are no longer the responsibility of the director of human resources. 4. Establish administrative stability and integrity in management functioning. Action Taken: Improvements have been noted in this area. The district has employed two superintendents since the curriculum audit was conducted. With the employment of the current superintendent, the Board of Directors will need to review and address this recommendation. Noted improvements:  Board members professionally remind each other that they do not speak for them unless it has been authorized through action by the Board in legal sessions or as legally directed by the Board.  Limit Board authority to that stated in Board-adopted policies. Board members provide directives to the Superintendent\nstaff receives their directive from the Superintendent and/or their immediate supervisor. The chain of command is acknowledged by the Board through their actions and communications with staff.  Characterize relationships with administrators with respect and courtesy, both in public and in private. Some improvement has been made in this area. There may exist a need for this area to receive additional attention so that we are in compliance with LRSD policy BBA-R.  Develop a close-knit team with joint Board-Administration planning and collaboration. Beginmng with the 1993-94 school year, the Board, interim superintendent, and immediate staff entered into a very positive and productive relationship. Our superintendent and boards, work in harmony, both professionally and personally. A workshop to facilitate the initiation and accomplishment of this strategy will need to be scheduled and held within the very near future. 25. Adopt and follow a polity for improved Board governance. Action Taken: This recommendation has not been implemented. The Board of Directors has reduced the number of requests for information and is more sensitive to the working conditions of staff. 6. Purge the Professional Negotiations Agreement of provisions which unduly limit Board control of key educational programs and practices. Action Taken: Recommendation #5 has not been addressed. 7. Improve educational facilities based upon a district-wide needs assessment. Action Taken: A comprehensive facilities needs assessment conducted by an outside third party has not been completed. A facilities needs assessment has been recently completed by Plant Services. 8. Develop and implement functional curriculum documents. Action Taken: Functional and user-friendly curriculum and resource guides have been developed and have been utilized by staff for nearly two years. Teachers played a major role in the development of these curriculum documents. Teachers have a complete set of guides. Old guides were collected district-wide and disposed of to prevent confusion and misunderstanding regarding our Board-approved curriculum. T^e revised guides, customized test item bank, and the newly-installed instructional management system should facilitate the accomplishment of this recommendation. 9. Develop and implement a participative curriculum management process. Action Taken: A curriculum management process has been established in policy. Given the mandates from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) regarding the establishment of a new curriculum framework that determines the basis for district curriculum as well as the states 3initiatives regarding assessment, the district has aligned its curriculum development and assessment with the ADE. Recommendation #9 was utilized as the curriculum was revised. 10. Consolidate curriculum functions to facilitate curriculum planning, development, and delivery. Action Taken: The curriculum functions have been consolidated as of March, 1991 (refer to \"No More Excuses\"). Formation of a district-wide testing program has been delayed as the ADE is establishing a state-wide focus on assessment. The Program Planning and Budgeting Document presently serves as written procedures for course additions, deletions, or changes in curriculum. Quality staff development to support and enhance the newly-adopted programs of curriculum offerings remains a major concern that must be addressed by the district if we are to increase achievement for all students, which should result in the reduction of disparity between black and white students. 11. Establish a functional assessment program and expand testing. J Action Taken: A comprehensive plan to address expansion of district testing was developed during the 1992-93 school year. The decision was made to delay further development and/or expansion of tests pending the outcome of the ADEs initiatives regarding assessment. The district has developed and is using a customized test item bank and other authentic assessment measures to determine the effectiveness of our revised curriculum. See EPS codes IL and IM (also AFE). 412. Establish consistency and equity in educational programs. Action Taken: The issues raised in recommendation #12 are being addressed within the context of our court-approved desegregation plan. However, areas exist that have not been totally resolved and/or remediated. 13. Move toward greater involvement in budgeting with curriculum linkages. Action Taken\nThe development and utilization of the districts Program Planning and Budgeting Document affords us a mechanism for addressing this concern. The completion of Phase 11 of the Desegregation Audit, including non-desegregation programs, will establish curriculum linkages and allow district personnel to constructively monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of all of our programs. 14. Develop and use long-range strategic planning process. Action Taken: The Superintendent has committed to the districts development of a long-range strategic plan. A number of components needed in this process are currently in place. 5Ui, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 SEP 2 ?ssg OfffCEOf August 31, 1998 ' ^^^^SR^SATlONMOfjlTOnifjQ TO: Ann Brown, ODM FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent - Instruction SUBJECT: Promised Documents As I promised, I am sending to you a couple of documents: 1. A copy of the Executive Summary of the Kansas City, Kansas, Exit Plan 2. A copy of a draft of our Division 1998-99 Work Plan. Wed welcome your feedback. Im looking forward to our meeting at ODM and to my lunch with you and Liz. Thanks to for your Friday phone cal. I enjoyed the conversation! BAL/rcm1998-99 Work Plan for the Division of Instruction Little Rock School District SEP 2 iaL8 OFFICE OF OESEGREGATIOfJMOfilTORIFlG STANDARDS 1. Review and recommend revisions of the Boards Instruction policies. 2. Complete the 7-12 curriculum standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. April 1999 Bonnie Lesley Linda Young Report to Dr. Carnine of recommended changes. Board approval of recommended changes Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Jan. 1999 3. Review and revise elementary, middle, and high school Curriculum Catalog\nconduct orientation sessions for central office staff, principals, and counselors. 4. Begin implementation of K-6 curriculum standards in English language arts and social studies. .S. Implement new science curriculum in grades K-8. Dec. 1998 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. NSE Project. Goals 2000. 1998-99 1998-99 Gene Parker, Team Leader Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon ADE Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon Carol Green Jo Evelyn Elston Gene Parker Marie McNeal Pat Price Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Board approval of Standards documents. Publication of curriculum standards. Publication of new K-12 Curriculum Catalog. Agendas and meeting dates for orientation sessions. Professional development agendas and meeting dates. Publication of curriculum documents. Teacher familiarity with K-6 standards as measured on end-of-year survey. Professional development agendas and meeting dates. Publication of curriculum documoents. Teacher familiarity of K-8 standards as measured on end-of-year survey. 16. Implement new mathematics curriculum in grades K-8. NSF Project. Goals 2000.    / ''ilr i-'Hiu 1998-99 7. Complete plan for middle school curriculum for fall 1999. 8. Publish Middle and High School Student/Parent Curriculum Handbooks. 9. Define and establish Delivery Standards. 10. Align school schedules. Pre- K3 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/ coaching, and parent information/ education with Strategic Plan and Desegregation Plan. 11. Align school schedules, mathematics curriculum, and professional development with Strategic Plan and Desegregation Plan. \" Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Goals 2000. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 5.2.1,5.2.2, and 5.2.3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5. NSE Project. Oct. 1998 Jan. 1999 Jan. 1999 Nov. 1998 Nov. 1998 Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Linda Young Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacy Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Gene Parker Pat Price Linda Young Marion Woods ADE Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Pat Price Linda Young Marion Woods ADE Professional development agendas and meeting dates. Publication of cuniculum documoents. Teacher familiarity of K-8 standards as measured on end-of-year survey. Publication of committee recommendations. Board approval of recommendations. Publication of Curriculum Catalog and Middle School Student/Parent Curriculum Handbook. Publication of Middle and High School Student/Parent Curriculum Handbooks. Agendas and meeting dates for committee meetings. Publication of committee recommendations. Board approval of Delivery Standards. Agendas and meeting dates for professional development sessions for principals. Report on review of school schedules. Agendas and meeting dates for teacher training. Publication of curriculum documents. Board adoption of proposed Reading Curriculum goals. Report on review of school schedules. Agenda.s and meeting dates for teacher training. Publication of curriculum documents. Board adoption of proposed Reading Curriculum goals. 212. Develop in collaboration with Linda Watson a list of behavior standards\nadopt a discipline/ classroom management/ character education program and curriculum for teaching the behavior standards to all students. 13. Propose for Board adoption revised Graduation Standards and revision of tlie core curriculum requirements to align with new state requirements. 14. Implement Year One of NSF grant project: Extended Year Alg. 1\nAP examinations\nnew teacher training\nVital Link\nand Family MatlVScience programs. 5 . '(tiiiaii 15. Develop Early Childhood Education plan for fall 1999. 16. Develop plan to improve G/T, honors, and AP student enrollment and success (e.g., Project AVID). Strategic Plan: Strategy 10. Goals 2000 State law. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Goals 2000 NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy 8. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Goals 2000 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. NSF Project Mar. 1999 Jan. 1999 June 1999 Feb. 1999 Nov. 1998 Marie McNeal Jo Evelyn Elston Patty Kohler Terrence Roberts Kathy Lease Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacy Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Pat Price Marian Shead-Jackson Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Terrence Roberts ADE Agendas and dates of committee meetings. Board approval of Behavior Standards. Board approval of character education curriculum. Publication of curriculum documents. Agendas and dates of teacher training during summer 1999. Board adoption of new Graduation Standards. Publication of new requirements in Curriculum Catalog and in the Middle/lligh School Student/ Parent Curriculum Handbooks. Records relating to Extended Year Alg. 1. Board adoption of policy relating to AP examinations. Agendas and dates of teacher training. Agendas and dates of meetings with Vertical Teams. Agendas and dates of Family Math/Science meetings. Copy of report submitted to NSF. Report on current status of Early Childhood programs. Publication of Early Childhood Improvement Plan. Board adoption of Early Childhood Improvement Plan. Publication of reorganization of Early Childhood programs and services as per Plan. Agendas and meeting dates of committee. Publication of recommended revisions to current policies, procedures, and programs. Board adoption of recommended changes. 3PERSONALIZED EDUCATION 17. Review Title I programs and services to align with COE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Desegregation and Education Plan. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan NSF Jan. 1999 1S. Complete planning for middle schools and smooth transitions from elementary and to high schools._________________________ 19. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget._________________________ 20. Review special education programs, policies, and/or procedures to ensure no racial discrimination in referral and p I a e e me nt______________________ 21. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 State laws. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Arkansas initiative Dec. 1998 June 1998 Dec. 1998 March 1999 Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Steve Ross Phyllis McClure ADE___________ Kathy l.case Linda Young Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Leon Adams Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Publication of revised Quality Index that included requirements of Title I Publication of consolidated School Improvement Plan format to include requirements of Title I Report from consultant, Phyllis McClure Documentation of changes in Title I programs and services Publication of committee recommendations Board approval of committee recommendations Publication of report and improvement plan Copies of recommended changes in programs, policies, and/or procedures Board approval of recommended changes Publication of implementation plan Report to Board-minutes 4PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 22. Complete planning and begin implementation of middle school professional development program. 23. Conduct in collaboration with Sadie Mitchell the Year One training for Campus Leadership Plan. 24. Restructure the districts professional development program and services so that they build professional learning communities at the district and school levels. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Jan. 1999 June 1999 Linda Young Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Gene Parker I Publication of committee recommendations Agendas and meeting dates for professional development sessions Publication of training plan Agendas and meeting dates for sessions 25. Implement Year One of ASCD's UPDl project with focus on school change and improving achievment in reading and mathematics. 26. Provide training in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. 27. Consolidate COli, Campus Leadership, Title 1, and Instructional Technology planning requirements in collaboration with Sadie Mitchell\ndesign format and plaii'deliver training for Campus Leadership Teams. 28. Provide appropriate training for certified and clerical staff of Division of Instruction to improve productivity and communication. Strategic Plan: Strategy 7 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 2.6.1,2.12.1, 5.2.1j, 5.2.2g, 5.2.3e, 5.3.1 Campus Leadership Plan NSE ASCDs UPDI ASCDs UPDI Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. COE Campus Leadership Plan Title I Instnictional Technology Plan Strategic Plan Oct. 1998 June 1998 June 1999 Jan. 1999 June 1999 Bonnie Lesley Director, Professional Development Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Director, Professional Development Marion Woods Marion Woods Terrence Rnhertx Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell Leon Adams Lucy Lyon Director, Professional Development Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Lucy Lyon Agendas and meeting dates of team meetings Copy of restucturing plan Board approval of plan Agendas and dates of activities Copies of quarterly reports to ASCD Agcnilas and dates of sessions \u0026lt;?opics of new planning format and process Publication of training plan Agendas and dates of training sessions Copies of needs assessments Agendas and dates of training sessions 5BUILDING COMMUNITY SUPPORT 29. Restructure the districts parent/community programs and services to align with the Strategic Plan, the Desegregation and Education Plan, tlie Campus Leadership Plan, the NSF project, and the requirements of Title 1. Strategic Plan\nStrategy 2. Strategy 8. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Dec. 1998 Bonnie Lesley Debbie Milam Leon Adams Catherine Gill Linda Young Patty Kohler Pat Price Paulette Martin Marian Shead-Jackson Marian Baldwin Vanessa Cleaver Terrence Roberts Agendas and meeting dates of restructuring team Publication of reorganization and restructuring plan Board approval of reorganization and restructuring plan 6COMMUNICATION 30. Communicate curriculum standards so that all parents and students understand the expected knowledge and skills by grade level and course. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. May 1999 31. Communicate aspects of middle school planning to smdents, parents, and community for fall 1999. 32. Provide second-language translations of key documents for students and parents. 33. Implement From Inside the CIA,\" a weekly publication for principals from the Division of Instruction. 34. Conduct quarterly meetings of all clerical staff in the Division of Instruction. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goafs 2000______________ Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 May 1999 May 1999 September 1998 August 1998 June 1999 Bonnie Lesley Suellen Vann Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Maric McNeal Terrence Roberts Kathy Lease Linda Young Terrence Roberts Agendas and meeting dates of team Publication of communications plan Agendas and publications to implement plan Agendas and meeting dates of team Publication of communications plan Agendas and publications to implement plan Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Anita Gilliam Regina Moore Bonnie Lesley and designated staff Publication of documents in second languages Copies of weekly publications Agendas and dates of meetings 7ASSESSMENT 35. Design CRTs for fall 1999 in reading and mathematics. 36. Establish Perfonnance Standards in reading and mathematics. 37. Pilot HBJ CRTs in reading and mathenratics during 1998-99. 38. Reinvent PRE programs and services to support the Campus Leadership Plan. 39. Refine the Quality Index indicators and develop district and school profiles according to the proposed Quality Index. 40. Embed Title 1 and Smart Start accountability requirements into the Quality Index. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 5,2.1g. 5.2,2c. 5.2.3r, and 5.3.2 Campus Leadership Plan NSF Title I and Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Title 1 requirements Feb. 1999 Feb. 1999 May 1999 Dec. 1998 Dec. 1998 Dec. 1998 Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Kathy Lease Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Steve Ross Kathy Lease Steve Ross ADE Kathy Lease Leon Adams Steve Ross ADE Publication of CRTs Agendas and dates for training sessions Publication of communications plan for staff, parents, and students Agendas and date.s of team meetings Publication of proposed Performance Standards Board approval of proposed Performance Standards Copies of communication to teachers and principals (.'opies of assessments Summaries of results Copy of reorganization plan Copy of revised Quality Index Copy of revised Quality Index 841. Redesign the student grading and reporting system to reflect the standards-based focus of the district. May 1999 42. Design waiver form and process for schools seeking waivers from policy relating to Campus Leadership. 43. Redesign end-of-year climate suivey to include items relating to measuring progress of refonn. Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan October 1998 Feb.1999 Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Steve Ross Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Agendas and dates of team meetings Publication of report and recommendations Board approval of changes in grading system and reporting system Plan for teacher/principal training Budget for redesign of report cardselectronic and paper Copy of proposed waiver form and process Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell Copy of new survey instruments 97 i u PXg$^ J} LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 19, 1998 TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Dr. Bonnie Lesiey, Associate Superintendent for Instnjction Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Approval of Middle School Curriculum The staff recommends approval of the five attached documents: Area Middle Schools Curriculum and Parameters Dunbar Middle School Curriculum and Parameters Henderson Middle School Curriculum and Parameters Mann Magnet School Arts Curriculum and Parameters Mann Magnet School Science Curriculum and Parameters These course requirements for grades 6-8 were derived from and are aligned with the Middle School Program Standards\" adopted by the Board of Directors on October 22,1998. The process used to gather input on these documents included the following:  Initial proposal of course requirements and options developed by staff of the Division of Instruction and then review of drafts at each step of input.  Two reviews by the Superintendents Cabinet.  Three one-half day meetings with all eight middle school principals, Marian Lacey, and Linda Young to discuss and refine the initial drafts.  Input from counselors, teachers, assistant principals, and registrars as principals solicited feedback at the school level.  Presentation to all principals at their October meeting.  Meeting with and feedback from the Middle School Curriculum Committee, chaired by Gene Parker.  ODM was sent copies for review./\"hrrt LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 19, 1998 TO\nBoard of Directors FROM\nTHROUGH\nSUBJECT\nDr. Bonnie Lesley. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Les Gamine, Superintendent, Little Rock School District 1999-2000 High School Curriculum Board Policy IFD states the following\nChanges and improvements in curriculum offerings may be suggested and implemented administratively, as deemed necessary and educationally sound by the superintendent of schools but shall be reported to the Board prior to implementation. However, before new courses are added to the total offerings, such courses must be approved by the Board of Education. Courses may be dropped during one year because of few enrollees in the course, but reoffered and reinstated the following year by administrative action. This agenda item, then, does two things\n1. It reports on curriculum changes and improvements that are planned for fall 1999 implementation. 2. It requests the Board's approval of new courses added to the curriculum. The Division of Instruction has been engaged since August, in collaboration with school principals, counselors, and registrars, in a comprehensive review of the LRSD high school curriculum. We have examined and updated the 1991-92 curriculum catalog that was the last one published. We have made every effort to determine the list of all courses currently being offered and/or taught at each of the five high schools and Metropolitan. And we have given the curriculum supervisors, principals, and teachers the opportunity both to suggest new courses and to drop obsolete and unpopular courses. 14, New numbers have been assigned to make the numbers more meaningful. The first two digits designate the subject area. The third digit designates the first grade level at which the course may be taught (1= freshmen, 2= sophomore. 3= junior, 4= senior, and 5= advanced placement). The last digit is an odd number if the course is taught for only one semester and even if taught for a full year. 15. The Division of Instruction will publish soon a new edition of the High School Curriculum Catalog. It will include information on policy and regulations governing curriculum, graduation requirements, articulation agreements, course descriptions of all approved courses, and guidelines to advise students on course selection. When this publication is completed, the staff will provide copies to members of the Board. Request for New Course Approval The following twenty-two new courses are proposed for the Boards approval\nArt 1. Three-Dimensional Design (Sculpture) Grades: Credit\nSchool: 11-12 1 Parkview Magnet Business Education 2. Multimedia Applications in Business Grades: Credit: 11-12 3. Banking and Finance Principles Grades: Credit: 11-12 % 4. Banking and Finance Operations Grades\nCredit: 11-12 5. Banking and Finance Marketing Grades: Credit\n11-12 6. Banking and Finance Law Grades: Credit: 11-12One important source to examine was the IMS master course list. However, courses unique to one or two schools or courses added in fall 1998 did not necessarily appear on that list. Therefore, the attached tables do not always list a prior course number or title even though the course had prior Board approval. Information Report The attached report of high school courses for 1999-2000 allows the Board, staff, and others to see the following changes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Some regular-level courses previously open to only one or two schools are now open to high schools if recommended by the Campus Leadership Team and approved by the principal, if adequate funding is available for materials and equipment, and if adequate numbers of students enroll. All advanced placement courses offered by the District at any school are now available at five high schools to ensure equitable access to this valued curriculum. Previously designated honors/GT/enriched/Pre-AP/AP courses are now all consistently designated Pre-AP or AP. (AP is an abbreviation for Advanced Placement.) Some course titles changed, as the report shows, due either to a need for consistency, to an issue of clarity, to changes in the states vocational course titles, and/or to a need to align with standard course titles. Ninth-grade courses previously taught in the junior highs have been moved to high school, thereby requiring some re-numbering of course sequences. Adopted core curriculum courses for second-language students at Hall High have been clarified and listed both under ESL and the respective subject areas. Full-year courses in a sequence have been consistently titled as I, II III, etc. One-semester courses in a sequence have been consistently titled as A, B. In some cases, due to the new four-year high school, prior gradelevel designations have been changed to include freshmen. 10. The Rationale/Notes column indicates courses or special groupings that are being deleted. 11. One-quarter courses have been eliminated or changed to one- semester courses. 12. The new University Studies courses at Hall High have been designated as APU (in English, Social Studies, and Science). 13. Special Education course titles have been changed to reflect new regular education curriculum and sequences.Journalism 17. Journalism III Grades: Credit: 11-12 1 18. Journalism IV (to be implemented in fall 2000) Grades: Credit: 12 1 JROTC 19. Air Force JROTC IV Grades: Credit: School: 12 1 Central High 20. Naval Science JROTC IV Grades: Credit: School: 12 1 Parkview Magnet Mathematics 21. Calculus Grades: Credit: 12 1 Trades and Industry 22. Computerized Commercial Art III Grades: Credit: School: 12 1 Parkview Magnet Please note that many, many courses have been deleted. They are indicated at the end of each subject area. Attachments BAL/rcmCommunications 7. Debate II Grades: Credit\n11-12 8. Debate III (to be implemented in fall 2000) Grades: Credit: 12 1 Dance 9. Young Mens Dance \" Grades: Credit\nSchool: 9-12 1 Parkview Magnet Drama 10. Drama II Grades: Credit: 10-12 1 11. Drama III (to be implemented in fall 2000) Grades: Credit: 11-12 1 English 12. The Bible as/in Literature Grades: Credit: School: 10-12 Pilot at Hall High in 1999-2000\nthen open to all Family and Consumer Science 13. Managing Resources Grades: Credit: 9-12 14. Food Science Grades: Credit: 11-12 72 15. Child Care and Guidance Management Services Grades: Credit: 10-12 1 16. Parenting Grades: Credit: 9-12 72Art 020400 020500 020800 020900 020600 021100 021100 020525 020575 020675 020160 020260 020300 020301 020302 020350 020375 Xbbrey?Mi^ thia INTRO TO ART ARTDESIGN GFtAPHC DESGN INTRO PAINT ART WATERCOL GREAT ART 12 FNE ARTS\nART DRAWING l-PM DRAWING II STUDIO ARTAP LAB ART I 9 LAB ART II 9 ART I 9 ART II 9 ART III 9 LAB ART III SCI ILLUS 9 ilDMcriptloni'^'M^^SSW^ Introduction to ArtGrades 10, 11,12 ArtDesign - Grades 10,11, 12 Graphic DesignGrades 11, 12 Introduction to Painting Grades 11,12 ArtWatercolorGrades 11, 12 Creative ArtGrade 12 onlyfor Adv. Fine Arts SurveyArt, Grades 10-12 Drawing IParkview Magnet, Grade 10 Drawing IIParkview Magnet Studio Art APParkview Magnet Lab Art l-Grade 9 Lab Art ll-Grade 9 Art l-Grade 9 Art ll-Grade 9 Art Ill-Grade 9 Lab Art III Scientific Illustrations (Art Elective) High School Course Changes Little Rock School District iV9\n|2000$ 'Cburse^J 021000 022000 022002 022004 022006 024000 022001 021008 022008 025000 025002 Abbroy.^f^ Title M INTRO TO ART ARTDESIGN GRPHC DSGN PAINTING WATERCOLOR GREAT ART SURVEY ART DRAWING 1 DRAWING 2 STUDIO ART AP ART HIST AP ^piidriptloh'fifcf^,^ bd Introduction to Art ArtDesign Graphic Design Painting Watercolor Creative Art Survey of Fine Arts Drawing I Drawing II Studio Art AP Art History AP {f-V-:*'' Simplified title. Simplified title. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 1ArtParkview Magnet only LCpuree^ 020572 POTTRY I \u0026amp; II i*-*! '''W It 020585 020660 020555 020582 020590 020595 020700 022000 AV CRAFTS JL DRAWING III OILSPM CRAFTS FIBER PRINTMAKING ART HISTORY ART CRAFTS SCR PRNT AIR ^*99\u0026gt;2oqo.^ ,Cout i rseA t\"SitVy Pottery I \u0026amp; IIParkview Magnet 022003 023003 022010 ^Abbrev^ POTTERY A KM POTTERY B POTTERY Pottery A Pottery B Pottery Ratlofiiale/Ndtesls Advanced Crafts/ Jewelry- Parkview Drawing III (Comb)  Parkview Magnet OilsParkview Magnet- Semester Crafts FiberParkview Magnet 022012 024008 023002 022014 023004 JEWELRY DRAWING 3 OILS CRAFTS FIBER 3-D DESIGN Jewelry Drawing III Oils CraftsFiber PrintmakingSemester- Parkview Art HistoryParkview Magnet Art Crafts- Grades 11,12 Screen Printing/ /Mrbrush Techniques 022005 021010 PRINTMAKING ART HIST Three-Dimensional Design Printmaklng Art History Separate numbers required. Parkview Magnet only. Separate numbers required. Parkview Magnet only. Number to schedule fullyear course. Simplification of titles. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 2 Business Education 030500 030300 ^Description1^?j:?7^ [*99\n2000W 030425 030200 030455 030460 030800 030900 031175 032017 031200 031205 030700 031450 031600 031675 031650 KEYBOARDING KBD APP I 9 KEYBRD l/ll COMPUTER TI WORD PROC\nI WORD PROCJI COMP ACCT I COMP ACCT ii COMP APPL:DB CA\nSPRDSHEET SUPERWRiTE SUPERWRITE II BUSINESS LAW JREXECTRNG COE-RELATED COEEARLY COECOOP ii  - tv Keyboarding 9th__________ Keybbarding Applications I 9 Keyboarding and Keybbarding Applications I Computer Technology Introduction Word Processing I 11-12- Semester Word Processing II- Semester Computerized Accounting I- 10 Computerized Accounting II- -11 Computer Applications Data Base-Semester Computer Applications Spreadsheet Supenwrite-Semester Superwrite II (Magnet) 10 Business LawGrades 10, 11,12 Junior Executive Training Grades 11 Cooperative Office Education-Related Cooperative Office Education-Related Cooperative Office Education-Coop 031001 031003 031004 031019 031005 032005 032002 032004 033004 032007 032009 033002 032011 032013 033004 033006 033008 033010 033012 '\nAbbreV^SK' Is? Pescripllpn^ ^patlohBle/ ^btes^ KEYBOARDiNG KEYBD APPLS KEYBD/APPL COMPTECH INT WORD PROC A WORD PROC B WORD PRO A/B COMP ACCT 1 COMP ACCT 2 DATABASE MGT SPREADSHEETS OFFICE MGT RAPID WRTG A RAPID WRTG B BUSINESS LAW JR EXEC TRNG COE-RELATED COE-RELATED COE-COOP OJT Keyboarding________ Keyboarding Applications Keyboarding and Keyboarding Applications (full year) Computer Technology: Introduction Word Processing A Word Processing B Word Processing I Computerized Accounting I Computerized Accounting II Database Management Spreadsheet Applications Office Management Rapid Writing A Rapid Writing B Business Law Junior Executive Training Cooperative Office Education- Related Cooperative Office EducationRelated (Early Bird) Cooperative Office Education -OJT Word Processing A\u0026amp;B 3CT\" 030225 COMPUTER TBP 031100 COMP PG:AD B 030400 KEYBD:APP II Computer Technology Basic Programming_____________ Computer Programming: Advanced Basic___________ Keyboarding /Applications II- -Semester 032000 DESKTP PUBL 032005 Desk Publ II Computer Desktop Publishing-Semester Advanced Desktop Publishing (Magnet) ^T^31?AbbrwI^^^^Rbo5cHpti5ril .99-2000.? tCourseUi 1N^ 031015 032015 032006 031017 032017 033001 033003 033005 033007 033009 ^Abbrev.M V .W' PROGAMMING A PROGRAMMING B COMP BUS APPL DESKTOP PUB A DESKTOP PUB B MULTIMEDIA BANK/FIN PRIN BANK/FIN OPR BANK/FIN MKG BANK/FIN LAW Programming A Programming B 032040 032045 BUS ETIQUET INTR TO BUS Business Etiquette (Magnet) Introduction to Business (Magnet) 032019 032021 B ETIQUETTE INTRO TO BUS 032050 BUS FINANCE 032065 INT BANK II 032020 030100 ENTREPRNSHP CLERICAL REC 030450 030475 KEY/KEY APP I WRD PROCI/II Business Finance (Magnet)_______________ International Business and Banking II______________ Entrepreneurship (Magnet) Clerical Record Keeping, Grade 10 033014 034002 033011 032023 031050 OFC TECH LAB Word Processing l/ll Grades 10, 11,12_______________ Office Technology Lab Grades 10-12 ECONOMICS BUS FINANCE INTRN BUS ENTREPRNSHP Computerized Business Applications_____ Desktop Publishing A______________ Desktop Publishing J_______________ Multimedia Applications in Business Banking and Finance Principles Banking and Finance Operations Banking and Finance Marketing Banking and Finance Law______ Business Etiquette Introduction to Business Economics Business Finance International Business_______ Entrepreneurship Simplified title. Simplified title. New course New course. New course. New course. New course. McClellan High only. McClellan High only. McClellan High only McClellan High only. McClellan High only. McClellan High only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 4031150 032010 032015 171375 COMPTECH CP PROG: LOGO CP PROG:RPG GLOBAL ECON iL *7  ''u'Vv*- ** \"!(-f ,^'i S !if99-2000^ .Course^ 'NoS' Abbrey. f sif Title,' 5. i* - {DescHptldnr\u0026lt;W yS*.^ Computer Programming: Basii^Logo (Magnet) Computer Programming:RPG (Magnet) Global Economics-Central Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 5Communications ^CoUrse\u0026gt;^\nAbbrev.')\u0026gt;fS iij-r' SNo/t'Jij'iife' :\u0026lt;ntia j: TT * Description VeiVJtT^'^k^ ^^f\"J',' ' 99-^VW'f^ CourseW 052570 COMM/SPEECH9 JL. Communication/ Speech Grade 9 051100 COMMUNICA 1 Communication i 053000 053100 053400 055020 055030 051300 051102 ESL COMMON 1 ESL Communication i COMMUNCTR i COMMUNCTR it DEBATE PUB SPEAKiN GRP DYNAMiC COMMUNiCA il jRatldpaWNdt^l^'^ Hall High only\nfor second-language students Communications IGrades 10-12 Communications II Grades 11-12 DebateGrades 11-12 Public Speaking (Magnet), Grade 10 Interpersonal Skills and Group Dynamics 052100 053100 052102 053102 054102 052104 052106 COMMUNiCA 2 COMMUNiCA 3 DEBATE 1 DEBATE 2 DEBATE 3 PUB SPKG GRP DYNAMiCS Communication ii Communication lii Debate I Debate II Debate iii Pubiic Speaking Interpersonal Skills and Group Dynamics New course to build program. New course to build program\neffective fall 2000. Dupiication. Deieted. 6DanceParkview Magnet Fl 23498\nA-''\"'-'- '   No.  t\"*-^ TvvVtV''*''/,-. DANCE TECH I Dance Techniques I- 121000 DANCE TECH 1  ~ D^re %chnioues I ' ' 123505 123510 123520 123500 123487 123492 123495 123501 DANCE TECHII DANCE TCHIII DANCE ENSBLE HISTRY DANCE DANCE I 9 DANCE II 9 DANCE III 9 DANCE TECIII Park view___________ Dance Techniques II Park view___________ Dance Techniques III- Parkview Dance Ensemble^ Parkview History of Dance Parkview Magnet Dance I 9 Dance II 9 Dance III 9 122000 123000 124000 123002 122002 121002 DANCE TECH 1 DANCE TECH 2 DANCE TECH 3 DANCE TECH 4 DANCE ENSBLE HIST DANCE MEN'S DANCE Dance Techniques I Dance Techniques II Dance Techniques III Dance Techniques IV Dance Ensemble History of Dance Young Men's Dance Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. 1 n 7Drama WWW No. v?  053500 053510 053525 053550 053600 053300 DRAMA DRAMA IS DRAMA II DRAMA III STAGE CRAFT INTERP COMM DramaInternational StudiesCentral______ Drama IIGrades 10-12 Drama IIIGrades 11-12 Stage CraftGrades 10-12 Interpretation Communication 051200 051202 052200 053200 052202 052204 DRAMA 1__ DRAMA 1 IS DRAMA2 DRAMA 3 STAGE CRAFT INTERPCOMM Drama I Drama I International Central High only. Studies Drama II Drama III Stage Craft Interpretative Communication New course to build program.__________ New course to build program\neffective fall 2000. I I 8DramaParkview Magnet fmgoooWBBraOT^ 'Counsel 050720 MIMEPM 050750 CLASS SCENE 050715 ACTINGPM 050755 CHILD THEATR 050760 THEATR HIST 053460 053560 DRAMA 9 THEATR/ARTS MimeParkview Magnet full year Classic Scene Study Parkview ActingParkview Arts Magnet Children's Theater- Parkview Magnet Theater HistoryParkview Magnet DramaGrade 9 Theater and ArtsGrade 9 052206 052208 052210 052212 052212 MIME CLASSIC STDY ACTING CHILD THTR THTR HISTORY i'\n:' ** '**.\u0026lt;' Mime Classic Scene Study Acting Children's Theater Theater History Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. 9\nNoJ '?vt^' '''\" ' ' - noinnV '\" .tis jJoAii 081000 I DRIVER ED Driver Education Semester 081001 i DRiVER ED iS^ Driver Education IBSiSa Taught in summer school only. 10English 6CpU(ej 180709 180710 180711 180712 050302 050304 s3t\u0026gt;' y\nra y. f- ''Course\n^ .'.Title Idsa 050402 050406 050502 050504 050506 050602 050615 050605 050611 050603 050612 050700 055010 LANG ARTS-r LANG ARTS-rQ LANG PLUS 11 LANG PLUS 12 ENGLISH R 9 ENGLISH GT 9 ENGLISH 10 R ENG 10 GT/H ENGLISH 11 R ENG 11 GT/H ENGLISH GT ENGLISH 12 R ENG 12 REB ENGLISH GT ENG 12APEB ENGLISH IS R ENGLISH IS/G CREATIV WRIT TECH WRITING Language Arts -i- 9 Language Arts Plus 11 Language Arts Plus 12 English Regular 9 English GT/ Enriched 9 English Regular 10 English GT/ Honors Grade 10___________ English Regular 11 English GT/Honors Grade 11__________________ English GT 11 Hall, Fair_____________ English Regular 12_____ English 12 Regular (Early Bird) English GT/Honors Hall, Fair, Central_____ English 12 AP (Early Bird) 12 English/lntemational Studies Regular________________ English GT/Honors International Studies Creative Writing 12 (Magnej) Technical Writing (Magnet)______ No\n5?\" 051000 052000 053000 054000 051002 051004 052002 052004 053002 053004 055004 055006 054002' 054004 055008 055010 054006 055012 054008 053001 ww LANG ARTS 1 + LANG ARTS 2+ LANG ARTS 3-I- LANG ARTS 4+ ENG 1________ ENG 1 PRE-AP ENG 2_______ ENG 2 PRE-AP ENG 3_______ ENG 3 PRE-AP ENG 3 AP ENG 3 APU ENG 4 ENG 4 ENG 4 AP ENG 4 AP ENG 4 IS ENG 4 IS AP CRT WRTG/MAG TECH WRTG 21S Language Arts Plus I Language Arts Plus II Language /Vts Plus III Language Arts Plus IV English I___________ English I Pre-AP English II______ English II Pre-AP English III______ English III Pre-AP English III AP English III AP English IV_________ English IV (Early Bird) English IV AP English IV AP (Early Bird) English IV International Studies____________ English IV International Studies AP Creative Writing and Magazine Production Technical Writing 3 Pre-AP courses Include GT/EnrIched. Pre-AP courses include GT/Enriched. New Advanced Placement course. Hall High only, Dual CTedil with UALR. This number 1$ needed to schedule zero-hour course._____________ Pre-AP courses include GT/Enriched. This number needed to schedule zero-hour course. AP courses include GT/Enriched. Central High only._________ Course includes production of literary magazine._________ Course is open to all schools. 11mS}|B :ppur*ej\u0026lt;^ No.^a'vv isll 'Course'.\"-*' 053006 l^^sSOI RESEARCH 053008 052001 052003 MULTICUL LIT BIBLE AS/IN LIT ACT PREP ENG Research for the 21 Century fW- 4^ ROSS 180310 180410 180510 160610 180713 050310 050311 050315 050325 050406 050407 050505 050610 READING/ENG READ/ENG ASST READING/ENG READING/ENG LAP 12________ ENGLISH GT 9 I SKILLS GT9 ENGLISH EN 9 TECH WRIT 9 ENGLISH HONR ENGLISH GT ENGLISH HNRS ENG 12 GT/AP Reading/Engllsh Assistance Reading/Engllsh Assistance Reading/Engllsh Assistance English GT 9 Introductory Skills Seminar, Grade 9 English Enriched 9_______ Technical Writing9 Semester English Honors 10 Hall, Fair______________ English GT 10 Hall. Fair English Honors 11 Hall, Fair English 12 Adv. Placement, 12 Multicultural Literature The Bible as/ln Literature ACT Preparation Hall High only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted No longer taught. Duplication. Deleted Not taught at grade 9. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication, peleted. 12 IrWc^sw :ZiJ I Ol BR9'^P*'?V^i?^'????^t^5PU'W4000.*|JAbbr '4 .Course?^^ -Title 051500 052500 053500 054500 051502 052502 053502 054502 051102 151000 151002 152002 153002 154002 131000 132000 133000 bbrevj W ESL English 1 ESL English 2 ESL English 3 ESL English 4 ESL LA PLUS 1 ESL LA PLllS 2 ESL LA PLUS 3 ESL LA PLUS 4 ESL COMM 1 ESL INTRO SS ESL CIVICS ESL WRLD HIST ESL US HIST ESL US GOVT ESL PHYS I ESL BIOL I ESL CHEM I ESL English I______ ESL English II_____ ESL English III_____ ESL English IV_____ ESL Language Arts Plus I_____________ ESL Language Arts Plus II____________ ESL Language Arts Plus III __________ ESL Language Arts Plus IV___________ ESL CommunicaBon I ESL Introduction to Social Studies ESL Civics ESL World History ESL United States History_______ ESL United States Government ESL Physics I ESL Biology I ESL Chemistry I Hall High only Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. L't.vi.fcH \u0026gt; ? Hall High only. See also In Communications.* Hall High only. See also In \"Social Studies*_____ Hall High only. See also In Social Studies.*_____ Hall High only. See also in Social Studies.*_____ Hall High only. See also in *Social Studies.*_____ Hall High only. See also In *Soclal Studies.*_____ Hall High only. See also In *Science.*_________ Hall High only. See also In Science.*__________ Hall High only. See also In *Sclence.* i I 13Family and Consumer Science \u0026lt; 1999-^95'^1'\nCour\nivS  \u0026gt;Titi^\n^rf^\u0026gt; 090210 HOME EC 9 090500 HSE MANAGMT 090811 INTPERS REL 090810 090600 090900 090700 090650 090400 090655 090750 091000 FAMILY DYNAM FPS \u0026amp; NUTRI CHDVL/PRT-RE CLOTH \u0026amp; TEX FD PROD MGTI HUMAN DEVEL FD PRD MGTII CONSUMER ED CHDVL/PTG KG Description I \u0026lt;99-2000 f.\n-.' 1 Course i :_ Home Economics 9 No\nfi \u0026gt;4i' 091000 AbbrrW^ i FAM\u0026amp;CONSCI Housing Management- semester___________ Interpersonal Relations Family Dynamics Foods and Nutrition Child Development/ Parenting Related Clothing and Textiles Semester Ftxxl Production, Management, and Services____________ Human Development- Semester____________ Food Production/ Restaurant Management Consumer Education- Semester Child Development/ Parenting Kinder 091001 091003 091005 091002 091007 093007 091009 092010 091011 091013  093008 094008 H\u0026amp;INT DSN HUMAN REL MNG RSRC FAM DYNAMICS FD \u0026amp; NUTRI FOOD SCI CHILD DEVEL CHILD CARE PARENTING CLOTH MGT FD PROD MGT 1 FD PROD MGT 2 Family and Consumer Science Housing and Interior Design____________ Human Relations Managing Resources Family Dynamics Food and Nutrition Food Science______ Child Development Child Care and Guidance Management Services___________ Parenting__________ Clothing Management Food Production, Management, and Services I_______ Food Production, Management, and Services II______ McClellan High only. McClellan High only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 14Foreign Languages C*99-2p00T AJJirwk 061100 061200 FRENCH I 9 FRENCH II 9 Frenct) IGrade 9 French IIGrade 9 -Ul^ Course 'WSPittsa 061100 062100 FRENCH 1 FRENCH 2 s i* 061300 FRENCH III French IIIGrades 9-12 061401 FRENCH IV AP French IV APGrades 10- 12 063100 064100 065100 FRENCH 3 FRENCH 4 FRENCH 4 AP French I (Grade 9) French II (Grades 9- 12)______________ French III French IV________ French IV AP 061501 FRENCH V AP French V APGrades 10- 12 064102 065102 FRENCH 5 FRENCH 5 AP French V French V AP 061510 061750 061755 061760 062200 062210 062220 062265 062267 062270 062501 062601 060400 060500 FRENCH VI AP GERMAN I 8\u0026amp;9 GERMAN II GERMAN III GRMN GT/AP GRMN GT/AP GRMNVI GT/AP LATIN I 9 LATIN II 9 LATIN III 9 LATIN III AP LATIV/AP/VIR SPAN I 9 SPAN II 9 French VI APGrade 12 German I German II____________ German III Latin I 9 Latin II 9 Latin III 9 Latin III AP Latin IV GT/AP Spanish IGrade 9 Spanish IIGrade 9 064104 065104 061200 062200 063200 064200 065200 064202 065202 064204 065204 061300 062300 063300 065300 064300 065302 061400 062400 FRENCH 6 FRENCH 6 AP GERMAN 1 GERMAN 2 GERMAN 3 GERMAN 4 GERMAN 4 AP GERMAN 5 GERMAN 5 AP GERMAN 6 GERMAN 6 AP LATIN 1 LATIN 2 LATIN 3 LATIN 3 AP LATIN 4 LATIN 4 AP SPAN 1 SPAN 2 French VI French VI AP______ German I_________ German II_________ German III________ German IV________ German IV AP German V________ German V AP______ German VI________ German VI AP_____ Latin I____________ Latin II____________ Latin III___________ Latin III AP________ Latin IV___________ Latin IV AP________ Spanish I (Grade 9) Spanish II (Grades 9- J2) 15060600 SPANISH III Spanish IIIGrades 9-12 063400 SPAN 3 -Si t \\ * ) .p.' 060701 SPAN IV AP Spanish IV APGrades 10- 12 064400 065400 SPAN 4 SPAN 4 AP 060801 SPAN V AP Spanish V APGrades 10- 12____________________ 064402 065402 SPAN 5 SPAN 5 AP ! 060810 060125 061900 062000 062100 062300 062400 060190 062700 062800 062900 064020 064030 064035 065030 065040 065050 SPAN VI AP IN LANGLIAGE9 GERMAN I GERMAN II GERMAN III LATIN I_______ LATIN II______ SKLS SPANISH CLS GREEK I CL GREEK II CLS GREEKIII RUSSIAN III 9 RUSSIAN 18-9 RUSSIAN II 9 JAPAN I JAPAN II JAPANESE III Spanish VI APGrade 12 Introduction to Language/CulturesGrade 9 __________________ German I German II______________ German III_____________ Latin II Classical Greek I Classical Greek II Classical Greek III Russian III Russian I_______ Russian II______ Japanese I______ Japanese II_____ Japanese III_____ 064404 065404 SPAN 6 SPAN 6 AP Spanish III (Grades 9- 12)_______________ Spanish IV_________ Spanish IV AP (Grades 10-12)_____ Spanish V_________ Spanish V AP (Grades 10-12)_____ Spanish VI_________ Spanish VI (AP) Not taught. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. DupllcaUon. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 16J Health and Physical Education T  Ik .'  ' '  V -I ./ 080920 080500 080520 080800 080540 080550 080510 HEALTH SM PE 9______ PE 9-12 SM  'U'v. .i '! PE 9-12 PE ELEC GIRL PE ELEC BOYS INT SPORTS 9 Health-Semester________ Physical Education9 Physical Education- semester______________ Physical Education (Grades 9-12)_________ Physical Education Elective (Giris) Physical Education Elective (Boys) Intramural Sports-Semester Course/K  .. -No. '\u0026gt;\n-.i. '\u0026gt;,' 081001 081003 081005 081002 201000 202000 203000 204000 201002 202002 203002 204002\nii\u0026lt;\nHEALTH PHYS ED 1A PHYS ED IB PHYS ED 1 ATHLETICS G1 ATHLETICS G2 ATHLETICS G3 ATHLETICS G4 ATHLETICS Bl ATHLETICS B2 ATHLETICS B3 ATHLETICS B4 , ViC *ei.5ire\"r Health and Safety Physical Education lA Physical Education IB Physical Education I Girls Athletics I Girls Athletics II Giris AthleUcs III Girls Athletics IV Boys Athletics I Boys AthleUcs II Boys Athletics III Boys Athletics IV Wttdhel^Noi^^^ V* 1  V  1 Required course. Required course. Elective course. Full-year course No credit toward satisfaction of graduation requirements. No credit.________ No credit.________ No credit.________ No credit toward satisfaction of graduaUon requirements._____ No credit.________ No credit.________ No credit.________ Not taught. Deleted. 17Journalism/Writing 054000 054100 054200 054250 055000 055005 020560 JOURNALISM I JOURN II JOURN II YB JOURN II SP MASS MEDIA MS MEDIA II PHOTOG-PM :. jiifu Jourrfalism IGrades 10-12 JourrlBlism IIGrades 11- 12 Journalism II (Yearbook) Grades 11-12 Journalism II (School Paper) Mass Media (Magnet) Grade 11 Mass Media IIGrades 10- 12 PhotographyParkview Magnet-Semester *g9\u0026gt;?ooQX Course,^: 'iPtl 051400 052400 JOURN 1 JOURN 2 Journalism I Journalism II 052402 052404 053400 053402 053404 054400 054402 054404 053405 054405 051406 JOURN 2 YB JOURN 2 NP JOURN 3 JOURN 3 YB JOURN 3 NP JOURN 4 JOURN 4 YB JOURN 4 NP MASS MEDIA A MASS MEDIA B PHOTOGRAPHY Journalism II (Yearbook) Journalism II (Newspaper) Journalism III Journalism III (Yearbook) Journalism III (Newspaper) Journalism IV Journalism IV (Yearbook) Journalism IV (Newspaper) Mass Media A Mass Media B Photography Some schools schedule both yearbook and newspaper together. Number needed to schedule Yearbook dass. Number needed to schedule Newspaper class. Third-year course allows program growth. Effective fall 2000. Number needed to schedule Yearbook dass. Effective fall 2000. Number needed to schedule Newspaper dass. Effective fall 2000. Fourth-year course allows program improvement. Effective fall 2001. Number needed to schedule Yearbook dass. Effective fall 2001. Number needed to schedule Newspaper dass. Effective fall 2001. McClellan High only McClellan High, only. Parkview Magnet only 18JROTC 260200 260400 260600 260100 260300 260500 AF ROTC I 10 AF ROTC II AF ROTC III NS ROTC 10 NJ ROTC II NJ ROTC III Air Force ROTC ICentral Air Force ROTC IICentral Air Force ROTC IIICentral Naval Science ROTC Parkview Magnet Naval Science ROTC II Naval Science ROTC III W-2000,V Course ',  No. 261000 262000 263000 264000 'AbbreVj (Titled\n. AF JROTC 1 AF JROTC 2 AF JROTC 3 AF JROTC 4 Air Force JROTC I Air Force JROTC II Air Force JROTC III Air Force JROTC IV 261002 262002 263002 264002 NS JROTC 1 NS JROTC 2 NS JROTC 3 NS JROTC 4 Naval Science JROTC I Naval Science JROTC II Naval Science JROTC III Naval Science JROTC IV a Central High only. Central High only. Central High only. Central High only. Effective fall 2002. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only.___________ Parkview Magnet Q!)L___________ Parkview Magnet only. Effective fall 2002. 19Marketing Education aeicflptl^ \u0026lt;lJ 171500 MARKET REL I Marketing Education 173000 MARKET ED 1 Marketing Education I 171700 MRKTG COOP I Related I_______________ Marketing Education Coop I 171750 171600 MRKTG COOP lAFT________ MRKTG REL II 171800 MRKTG COOP II Marketing Education Coop I (afternoon) Marketing Education Related II  ________ Marketing Education Coop II 173002 173004 174000 174002 171850 MRKTG COOP IIAF Marketing Education Coop II (afternoon) 174004 032080 032085 032030 032035 032080 171510 MRKTG COOP 1 MRKTG COOP 1 MRKTG Ed'2 MRKTG COOP 2 MRKTG COOP 2 fashion MDS ADVERTISING RETAILING SALESMNSHIP INSURANCE MARKET REL I Fashion Merchandising (Magnet)________ _____ Advertising (Magnet) Retailing (Magnet) Grades 1011__________ Salesmanship (Magnet) Grade 10_____________ Insurance (Magnet)_____ Marketing Education Related I (Early Bird) 172001 172003 173001 172005 FASHION MDS ADVERTISING RETAILING SALESMNSHIP Marketing Education Coop I____________ Marketing Education Coop I___________ Marketing Education II (Management) Marketing Education Coop II (Management) Marketing Education Coop II (Management) Fashion Merchandising Advertising_______ Retailing Salesmanship Afternoon class. Afternoon class. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 20 Mathematics 110501 110900 110904 111000 111004 111010 111300 111100 111104 111200 111250 111301 111351 110400 181000 110401 110402 110850 ALG I 9 R ALG II ALG lIGT GEOMETRY R GEOM GT/HNRS CONCEPT GROM PRE-CALCULSU TRIG/A ALG R TRGALG GT/H STATISTICS STATIS AP CALCUL GT/AP CALCUL BC AP PR-ALGEBRA 9 GEOM R APP MATH I 9 APP MATH II INTM ALGEBRA Algebra I Regular Algebra II 9________ Algebra 11 GT/Honors Geometry Regular Geometry GT/Honors Concepts of Geometry Trigonometry/ Advanced Algebra Regular T rigonometry/ Advanced Algebra GT/Honors Statistics Statistics AP Calculus AB AP Calculus BC AP Pre-Algebra 9 Applied Mathematics I 9 Applied Mathematics II Intermediate Algebra 111000 112000 112002 112004 112006 112008 113002 113004 113006 113008 115000 114000 115002 115004 112001 ii ALG I_________ ALG II_________ ALG II PRE-AP GEOMETRY GEOM PRE-AP CONCEPT GEOM PRE-CALCULUS TRIG/ADV ALG TRIG PRE-AP STATISTICS STATS AP CALCULUS CALC AB AP CALC BC AP ACT PREPiMATH Algebra I_______ Algebra II_______ Algebra II Pre-AP Geometry______ Geometry Pre-AP Concepts of Geometry Pre-Calculus Pacesetter Mathematics Trigonometry/ Advanced Algebra Trigonometry/ Advanced Algebra Pre-AP_________ Statistics Statistics AP Calculus Calculus AB AP Calculus BC AP ACT Preparation: Mathematics iti 'gr-\nThis course can substitute for Geometry. Need regular level of course. Deleted. Deleted. Deleted.__________ Deleted.__________ Not taught. Deleted. 21Music (Vocal, Band, Orchestra) Bo5535Mi?iIhhn5SjTJS!?35T75Serinnnn^5\u0026gt;3^ 'Coui 'Xoiiras^ 123100 123200 123300 CHOIR III CHOIR II CHOIR I Choir III Choii II Choir I 122900 121500 MADRIGALS BG BAND I 9 121530 BG BAND II 9 121600 121550 INT BAND 9 BG BAND 1119 122400 122500 FIRST BAND JAZZ BAND Madrigals Beginning Band I Woodwinds Beginning Band II Brass Intermediate Band Beginning Band III Percussion First Band (Concert) Jazz Band 121000 121002 122002 123002 124002 122004 121100 121102 122102 123102 121800 121900 122000 BG ORCHESTRA INT ORCH 9TH ADV ORCH 9TH Beginning Orchestra 021101 FNE ARTS:MUS Survey of Fine Arts--Music 124102 122006 123006 121200 121202 122202 123202 124202 121001 122880 MUSIC APPRECI Music Appreciation 121006 NOVICE CHOIR CHOIR 1 CHOIR 2 CHOIR 3 CHOIR 4 MADRIGALS NOVICE BAND Novice Choir Choir I Choir II Choir III Choir IV Madrigals Novice Band Beginners section Beginners' section BAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3 BAND 4 JAZZ BAND 1 JAZZ BAND 2 NOVICE ORCH ORCHESTRA 1 ORCHESTRA 2 ORCHESTRA 3 ORCHESTRA 4 SURVEY MUS MUS APPREC Band I Band II Band III Band IV Stage Band I Stage Band II Novice Orchestra Orchestra I Orchestra II Orchestra III Survey of Fine Aris- Music Music Appreciation Beginners' section 22MusicParkview Magnet Si998:95^'1 i'Atbrev.-cwS^#\n Description' ' iCourseTitle': \\ s' tNo\nTitle: 35 jrs^^app^ 'CourseiS, :_ tNo? 122450 ENSEMBLE SM Small Ensemble Parkview Magnet 121300 122300 121302 122302 123302 124302 122304 123304 124304 121306 Abbrev -iiwjor Title , CADET BNP 1 CADET BNP 2 VARSITY BANP CONC BANP 1 CONC BANP 2 CONC BANP 3 SYMP BANP 1 SYMP BANP 2 SYMP BANP 3 INST ENSEM * pescrlp06n'j-\n| sgSilg^-w Cadet Band I Cadet Band II Varsity Band________ Concert Band I______ Concert Band II______ Concert Band III_____ Symphonic Band I Symphonic Band II Symphonic Band III Instrumental Ensemble Parkview Magnet only. 122870 123350 123325 123375 122865 120682 120685 121700 MUSIC THRY I MUSIC THRY II LAB SINGERS ARRANGING MUSIC HST AP PIANO I 9 PIANO II 9 ADV BAND 9 Music Theory IParkview Magnet Music Theory IIParkview Magnet Lab SingersParkview Magnet ArrangingParkview Magnet______________ History of Music AP Parkview Magnet Plano/Basic Musicianship I Piano/Basic Musicianship JI____________________ Advanced Band 122306 121400 122400 123400 125400 125402 123308 124308 VOC ENSEM MUSIC THRY 1 MUSIC THRY 2 MUSIC THRY 3 MUS THRY 3AP MUS THRY 4AP LAB SINGERS 1 LAB SINGERS 2 Vocal Ensemble Music Theory I Music Theory II Music Theory III Music Theory III AP Music Theory IV AP Lab Singers I Lab Singers II Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 23i 122050 122070 122080 122100 122200 122300 122800 122805 122810 123360 \u0026gt;  CHOIR 9 BOYS CHOIR 9 G B MUSIC III BAND III BEG BAND BAND II_______ ORCHESTRA INT ORCHESTR ADV ORCHESTR MUSIC T IIIAP Choir Boys 9_______ Choir Girls 9 Basle Musicianship III Band III Band II Interrliediate String Orchestra Advanced String Orchestra Music Theory III AP Coiiis* No. s S3^ Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 24I Science 'CptlrMf^ ' Counwiy'?^ No. 130600 130700 130401 130875 130500 130880 130801 130825 130901 130512 130750 130725 130861 PHYSICS UNIF PHYS I BIOLOGY BIOLOGY GT/H CHEMISTRY CHEM GT/HON UN PHYS II AP PHYSIOLOGY AV BIO GT/AP AP CHEMISTRY GEOLOGY/SCI ENVIRONM SCI AVSC T I GT Unified Physics I Biology_________ Biology GT/Honors Chemistry_______ Chemistry GT/Hon Unified Physics II AP Human Physiology- Semester Advanced Biology AP Advanced Placement Chemistry Physical Geology/Environ- mental Science Environmental Science AP Advanced Science Theoretical Research I 131000 131002 131004 132000 132002 132004 133000 133002 133004 135002 135004 133006 135006 ' 135008 134000 135010 133008 133010 X ESL PHYS I PHYSICS I PHYS 1 PRE-AP ESL BIOL I BIOLOGY 1 BIO 1 PRE-AP ESL CHEM 1 CHEMISTRY 1 CHEM 1 PRE- AP___________ PHYS 2 AP PHYS 2 APU ANAT\u0026amp;PHYS BIOL 2 AP CHEM 2 AP EARTH SCI ENV SCI AP ADVSCI RSRCH ARSRCH PRE- AP ESL Physics I________ Hall High only. Physics I________ Physics I Pre-AP ESL Biology I____ Biology I________ Biology I Pre-AP ESL Chemistry I Chemistry I______ Chemistry I Pre-AP Physics II AP Physics II APU Human Anatomy and Physiology Biology II AP Chemistry II AP Earth Science Environmental Science AP________________ Advanced Science/ Theoretical Research Advanced Science/ Theoretical Research Pre-AP Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. University course._____ Combined two semesters for a full-year course. New senior-level course. Only one level is taught. 25)wo?g\u0026lt;^ 130310 130315 130350 130351 130850 130862 130886 130887 I P SCI 9 GT I P SCI ENR 9 INT SCI 9R I PHYSCI M 9 SCIENCEZreCH ADVS T II GT APP BIO/CHMI APPBIO/CHMII Integrated Physical Science GT 9 Integrated Physical Science Enriched 9 Integrated Science Regular 9 . Integrated Physical Science Magnet 9 Science/ Technology_____ Advanced Science Theoretical Research II Applied Biology/ Chemistry I Applied Biology/ Chemistry II Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 26ScienceParkview M agnet xCouree'^i i'No.: 1*99-2000! Course J No. )\u0026lt; i TAbbrWi\ni APDfWiJv l^b^ptlb^ 130885 130895 130905 130896 130828 130897 130260 130265 130304 I MICR BIOLOGY QL ANALYSIS ST/WRITING ENV HEALTH PHYSIOLOGY ORG CHEMSTRY LB SCIENCE 9 LB SCIENCEGT INT SCI 9 GT Microbiology--Semester Qualitative Analysis- Semester Applied Statistics/ Technical Writing- Semester___________ Environmental Health- Semester___________ Physiology-Semester Organic Chemistry- Semester Lab Science 9 Lab Science GT/ Enriched 9____________________ Integrated Science GT/EnrIched 9 133101 133103 133105 133107 133109 133111 MICROBIO QUAL ANALY STATS/WRTG ENV HEALTH ANAT\u0026amp;PHYS ORG CHEM Miaobiology Qualitative Analysis Applied Statistics and Technical Writing Environmental Health Human Anatomy and Physiology Organic Chemistry Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 27Social Studies Coursesft No.y\n' 151000 Atbre'v? ESL INT SOCST 11 150300 150304 150502 150402 150401 150405 150412 150802 150750 150600 150875 150880 150975 150760 CIVICS 9 CIVICS 9 GT/E WLD HISTORY AM HISTORY AMER HIST EB AM HISTRY GT AM HST/AP EB AM GOVERNMEN GLBL STUDIES WLD GEOGRAPH PSYCHOLOGY SOCIOLOGY EUR HST AP/G WRLD CULTURE Civics 9 Civics GT/Enriched World History 151002 151004 151006 152002 152004 152006 153002 ESL CIVICS CIVICS CIVICS PRE-AP ESL WRLD HST WORLD HIST W HIST PRE-AP ESL US HIST American History________ American History Regular (Eady Bird) American History GT 11-12 American History AP Early Bird American Government Global Studies Worid Geography Psychology Sociology_________ European History AP World Cultures GT 153004 153006 155006 155008 155010 154002 154004 155001 155003 151008 151010 151012 153001 155012 153003 155014 154006 US HIST US HIST US HIST AP US HIST APU US HIST AP ESL US GOVT US GOVT GOV\u0026amp;POL AP COMP GVTAP GLBL STUDIES WRLD GEOG WRLD GEOG PRE-AP PSYCHOLOGY PSYCH AP SOCIOLOGY EURO HIST AP WRLD CULTURE ESL Introduction to Social Studies ESL Civics Civics Civics Pre-AP ESL Worid History World History______ World History Pre-AP ESL United States History United States History United States History (Early Bird) United States History AP United States History AP United States History AP (Early Bird) ESL United States Government United States Government US Government and Politics AP Comparative Government AP Global Studies Worid Geography World Geography Pre-AP Psychology_______ Psychology AP_____ Sociology_________ European History AP World Cultures iiali Elective credit only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. University course. Hall High only. One semester. One semester. 28'No.':sa,hK- 150215 150905 150340 150420 150225 150310 150315 150411 150420 150325 150327 150330 150505 150650 150805 150850 150860 150900 150950 AFR STUDIES9 ECONOMICS II GLBL STDS IS AM HIST IS ESL INTRO SOCST I SKILLS GT9 CIVICS GT9 CIVICS EN9 AM HIST GT/AP AM HIST IS UNITED NATNS INT ISS 9 LDS 20'\" CEN IS/AFRIC HST ARK STUDIES COMP GOVERMNT CT AM HISTRY INT RELATION ECONOMICS AM STUDIES African Studies 9-Dunbar Economics II (Maflnel) Global Studies IS American History GT AP O' hour ESL Introduction to Social Studies Introductory Skills Seminar GT 9 Civics GT9 Civics Enriched 9 American History GT 11-12 American History GT AP \"O' hour United Nations (1/2) International Issues 9 Leaders of 20'\" Century (1/2) Arkansas Studies Comparative Government Contemporary American History International Relations/ Contemporary Economics American Studies Seminar 152008 153008 153009 153010 151012 153012 X ?Abl^ Riisms^ a TWI*^ .V**\nAFR/AFR AM H ECONOMICS SERV LRNG PEER HELP GLBL STDS IS US HIST IS African/African American History Economics Service Learning Peer Helping and Facilitation Global Studies IS United States History IS McClellan High only. Hall High only. Central High only. Central High only. Changed to ESL Civics. Not taught. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught Defeted. 29Tracies and Industry 5 161460 170800 172300 172550 172400 172500 171000 171200 171250 171100 171300 171350 172600 172800 172850 172700 WRKPL READY CARPENTRY EX DRAFTING BAS AV MECH DRFT ARCH DRAFTING ENG DRAFTING CCE REL I CCE COOP I CCE CP AFT I CCE REL II CCE COOP II CCE CP HAFT ICT REL I ICT COOP I ICT COOP I AFT ICT REL II Workplace Readiness Carpentry Exploralion DraftingBasic Mechanical Drawing Advanced Mechanical Drafting Drafting-Architecture Drafting-Engineering Coordinated Career Education Related I Coordinated Career Education Coop I Coordinated Career Education Coop I- aftemoon Coordinated Career Education Related II Coordinated Career Education Coop II Coordinated Career Education Coop II- aftemoon Industrial Coop Training Related I Industrial Coop Training Coop I Industrial Coop Training Coop l-afternoon Industrial Coop Training Related II No., 172103 171100 172100 171001 172102 173102 173104 174104 173108 173110 173112 174108 174110 174112 173120 173122 173124 174120 WRKPL READY EXP IND TECH CARPENTRY EX EAST LAB BASMECHDRAW ADVMECHDRAW Af\\CH DRAFT ENGIN DRAFT CCE REL 1 CCE COOP 1 CCE COOP 1 CCE REL 2 CCE COOP 2 CCE COOP 2 ICT REL 1 ICT COOP 1 ICT COOP 1 ICT REL 2 Workplace Readiness Exploring Industrial Technology________ Carpentry Exploration Environmental and Spatial Technology Lab Basic Mechanical Drawing Advanced Mechanical Drawing___________ Architectural Drafting McClellan High only. Engineering Drafting Coordinated Career Education I_______ Coordinated Career Education Coop I Coordinated Career Education Coop I (afternoon) Coordinated Career Education II Coordinated Career Education Coop II Coordinated Career Education Coop II (afternoon) Industrial Coop Training I Related Industrial Coop Training I Coop Industrial Coop Training I Coop (afternoon) Industrial Coop Training II Related 30172900 ri' ICT COOP II ' \ni. ''r 172950 170250 170252 170251 170253 170900 160050 160055 160060 160401 160402 160705 161100 161200 ICT COOP HAFT GCE REL I GCE COOP I GCE REL II GCE COOP II CAREER ED EX AIR\u0026amp;HEAT TCI HEAT AIR EX AIR\u0026amp;HEAT TH APPL MATH 11 APPL MATH 11 COMM FOOD EX COMP TECH I COMP TECH II Industrial Coop Training Coop II Industrial Coop Training Coop ll-afternoon General Coop Education Related I General Cooperative Education Coop I General Cooperative Education Related 11 General Cooperative Education Coop 11 Coordinated Career Education Exploratory Air Conditioning and Heating Technology I Air Conditioning and Heating Technology II Applied Mathematics II Computer Technology I Computer Technology II '.Course yU 174122 lUbbi^ ICT COOP 2 174124 173126 173128 174126 174128 172130 173130 174130 ICT COOP 2 GCE REL 1 'AS GCE COOP 1 GCE REL 2 GCE COOP 2 COMM ART 1 COMM ART 2 COMM ART 3 3131 Industrial Coop Training 11 Coop Industrial Coop Training 11 Coop (afternoon) General Coop Education Related I General Cooperative Education Coop I General Cooperative Education Related 11 General Cooperative Education Coop II Computerized Commercial Art I Computerized Commercial Art II Computerized Commercial Art HI fol Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magriet only. Parkview Magriet only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 31Metropolitan Courses 1 Metropo SCourseTE  164360 ^Abbrsv??^ WRKP RDNS sa. 7 'CourseiTiiii '' No. niti* ss\n160100 160200 160300 160400 160700 160800 160550 160650 160900 161100 162150 162250 AUTO BODY I AUTO BODY II AUTO TECH I AUTO TECH II COM FOODS I COM FOODS II CMP GRAPIC I CMP GRAPH II COMP DRFTG I CMP DRFTG II COMP PRTG I COMP PRTG II Workplace Readiness- Metro Auto Body/Paint Techhology I Auto Body/Paint Techhology II Automotive Technology I Automotive Technology II Culinary /Vts I Culinary Arts II Computer Graphics/ Commercial Art I Computer Graphics/ Commercial /Vt II Computer-Aided Drafting I Computer-Aided Drafting II Computer Graphics/Printing Technology I Computer Graphics/Printing Technology II 162000 162100 163100 164100 162102 163102 163102 162104 163104 164104 162106 163106 164106 162108 163108 164108 162110 163110 164110 WRKP READY AUTO BODY 1 AUTO BODY 2 AUTO BODY 3 AUTO TECH 1 AUTO TECH 2 AUTO TECH 3 CULINARY ART1 CULINARY ART2 CULINARY ART3 COMMER ART 1 COMMER ART 2 COMMER ART 3 C-A DRAFT 1 C-A DRAFT 2 C-A DRAFT 3 PRINTING 1 PRINTING 2 PRINTING 3 Workplace Readiness Auto Body/Paint Technology I Auto Body/PaInt Technology II Auto Body/Paint Technology III Automotive Technology I______ Automotive Technology II Automotive Technology III_____ Culinary /Vts I_____ Culinary Arts II_____ Culinary Arts III Computerized Commercial Art I Computerized Commercial Art II Computerized Commerical Art III Computer-Aided Drafting I Computer-Aided Drafting II Computer-Aided Drafting III Computer Graphics/ Printing Technology I Computer Graphics/ Printing Technology II Computer Graphics/ Printing Technology III Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. 32No, 1 161300 161400 161700 161800 161900 163100 163200 162700 162800 162300 161400 162500 162600 162430 162440 161450 161500 161600 161850 162900 163300 '_A__M__\u0026gt;M COSMETOLOGY I COSMETOLOG II ELECTRONICS I ELECTRONIC II ELEC III HEALTH OC I HEALTH PC II WELDING I WELDING II RADIO BRD I RADIO BRD II CONSTRUCTN I CONSTRUCT II TV PROD I TV PROD II COSMETOL III COMP PROG I COMP PROG II INDS CONTRLS WORD PROC I I WORDPROCT Cosmetology I Cosmetology II_____ Electronics I Electronics II Electronics III Medical Professions I Medical Professions II Metal Fabrication I (Welding) Metal Fabrication II (Welding) Radio Broadcasting I Radio Broadcasting II Residential Construction I Residential Construction II TV Production I TV Production II Cosmetology III________ Computer Programming I Computer Programming II Word Processing I Word Processing II 1994000 '.Cot^y 162112 163112 164112 162114 163114 164114 162116 163116 164116 162118 163118 164118 162120 163120 164120 162122 163122 164122 162124 163124 164124 162126 163126 164126 rabBs i Title j i^  COSMTLGY 1 COSMTLGY 2 COSMTLGY 3 ELECTRONICS 1 ELECTRONICS 2 ELECTRONICS 3 MED PROFS 1 MED PROFS 2 MED PROFS 3 WELDING 1 WELDING 2 WELDING 3 RADIO BRDCT 1 RADIO BRDCT 2 RADIO BRDCT 3 CONSTRUCT 1 CONSTRUCT 2 CONSTRUCT 3 TV PROD 1 TV PROD 2 TV PROD 3 DIESEL TECH 1 DIESEL TECH 2 DIESEL TECH 3 Cosmetology I______ Cosmetology II_____ Cosmetology III_____ Electronics I Electronics II_______ Electronics III_______ Medical Professions I Medical Professions II Medical Professions III________________ Metal Fabrication I (Welding)__________ Metal Fabrication II (Welding) Metal Fabrication III (Welding) Radio Broadcasting I Radio Broadcasting II Radio Broadcasting III Residential Construction I_______ Residential Construction II Residential Construction III TV Production I_____ TV Production II TV Production III Diesel Technology Services I Diesel Technology Services II Diesel Technology Services III Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan orily. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Not taught. Deteted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 33 I- t 163055 163250 163260 163325 163350 163425 163450 163550 163575 I 1 AIR COND:EX HEALTH COOP HEALTH OC EX COSMO LEXNC COSMO LEXCR COSMO ILEXNC COSMO ILEXNC AUTO TECH:EX AUTO BODY:EX Air Conditioning Technology and Repair Extended Health Occupations _^ucation Coop Medical Professions ^Extended Day Cosmetology I Extended DayNo credit Cosmetology I Extended Day-Credit_________ Cosmetology II Extended DayNo credit_______ Cosmetology II Extended DayNo credit_______ Automotive Technology Extended Day Auto Body/Paint TechnologyExtended Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Day Not taught. Deleted. 34J 163625 i COMP ART:EX wo tlpa J. -No\nSi\njTKto 163650 163700 163705 163750 163800 163805 163810 163850 163900 163910 170675 170700 172200 COMP PRTG:EX COMP DRFT:EX COMM FDS:EX WORD PROC:EX COMP PROG:EX RES CONST:EX CP CONSTR:EX COMP ELEC:EX TV PROD:EX RADIO BRD:EX IND TECH II BUS/TYPWRITE COMM ART Computer Graphics/ Comrherical ArtExtended Day Computer Graphics/Printing Extended Day Computer-Aided Drafting Extended Day Culinary ArtsExtended Day Word Processing Extended Day Computer Programming Extended Day Residential Construction Extended Day Computerized Construction T echnologyExtended Day Computer Technology/ ElectronicsExtended Day TV ProductionExtended Day Radio Broadcasting- Extended Day Industrial Education Technology II Exploratory Business/ Typewriting Commercial Art Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught Deleted. Not taught Deleted. Not taught Deleted. 35Special EducationResource Room ^*99:20001!? 'Course Course' ^Abbre^J 190900 191400 191800 192200 190950 191750 192150 193000 191100 191600 192005 192405 191200 191700 192510 192050 191000 192320 191910 192300 192310 191300 191500 191510 191775 191900 192505 ENGLISH RR 9 ENG 10 RR ENG 11 RR ENG 12 RR READING RR 9 READING RR LEARNING RR LEARNING RR MATH RR 9 MATH RR BUS MATH RR BUS MATH RR PHY SCI RR 9 BIO RR HEALTH RR EARTH SCI RR CIVICS RR 9 WO HIST RR WO GEOG RR A HISTORY RR GOVERNMENTRR LRNG ST RR 9 AM GOVT RR AM HIST RR LRN STRAG RR A HISTORY RR PHYS SCI RR English RR 9________ English 10 RR_______ English 11 RR_______ . English 12 RR_______ Reading RR 9________ _ Reading RR 10_______ Learning Strategies RR 11 ' Learning Strategies RR 12 _______ Mathematics RR 9 Mathematics RR 10 Business Mathematics RR______________ Business Mathematics RR 12 _______ Physical Science RR 9~ Biology RR IQ________ Health RR___________ Earth Science RR Civics RR 9 World History RR 10 World Geography RR American History RR 12 American Government RR 12_______________ Learning Strategies RR 9 American Government RR American History RR Learning Strategies RR 10 US History RR-11 Physical Science RR No. Title ENG 1 RR ENG 2 RR ENG 3 RR eng 4 RR READ 1 RR READ 2 RR READ 3 RR READ 4 RR MATH 1 RR MATH 2 RR MATH 3 RR MATH 4 RR PHYS SCI RR BIOLOGY RR HEALTH SCI RR EARTH SCI RR CIVICS RR WRLD HIST RR W GEOG RR US HIST RR US GOVT RR i 36Special EducationSelf Contained M#98-99S|f, 'No.  I  Abbrey, '.Title\nVDescrfptlon^ 193900 194400 194800 195200 193950 194750 ENGLISH SC 9 ENGLISH SC10 ENGLISH sen ENGLISH SC12 READING SC 9 READING SC English SC 9 English SC 10 English SC 11 English SC 12 Reading SC 9 Reading SC 10 ' \n|i*9-2000!^  No. 194100 194600 MATH SC 9 G MATH SC 10 195000 G MATH 11 195505 G MATH SC 12 194200 194700 195510 PHY SCI SC 9 BIOLOGY SCIO HEALTH SC 12 Mathematics SC 9_____ General Mathematics SC 10__________________ General Mathematics SC 11__________________ General Mathematics SC 12 _______________ Physical Science SC 9 Biology SC 10_________ Health SC 12 191000 192000 193000 194000 191002 192002 193002 194002 191004 192004 2k^i ENG 1 SC ENG 2 SC ENG 3 SC ENG 4 SC READ 1 SC READ 2 SC READ 3 SC READ 4 SC MATH 1 SC MATH 2 SC 193004 194004 MATH 3 SC MATH 4 SC ^TMOeSefii - tfe- !.:i' 194000 195320 194910 195300 195310 CIVICS SC 9 W HISTORY SC GEOPHERAPHY SC____________ A HISTORY SC GOVERNMENTSC Civics SC 9__________ Worid History SC 12 World Geography SC 11 191006 192006 193006 194006 191008 192008 192010 PHYS SCI SC BIOLOGY SC HEALTH SCI SC EARTH SCI SC CIVICS SC WRLD HIST SC W GEOG SC 194220 194225 194230 194235 COM DOM 9 DOM DOMAIN 9 VOC DOMAIN 9 REC/LEISUR 9 American History SC 12 American Government SC 12 _____________ Community Domain CBI 9 Domestic Domain CBI 9 Vocational Domain CBI 9 Recreation/Leisure CBI 9 193008 194008 US HIST SC US GOVT SC 194825 COM DON CBI 194830 DOMES DN CBI _________ Community Domain CBI SC 11_______________ Domestic Domain CBI SC 11 191010 191012 191014 191016 192010 192012 192014 192016 193010 193012 COMM DOM 1 DOMT DOM 1 VOC DOM,1 REC/LEIS 1 COMM DOM 2 DOMT DOM 2 VOC DOM 2 REC/LEIS 2 COMM DOM 3 DOM DOM 3 37194835 '*.............. No. VOC DOMN CBI Vocational Domain CBI 194840 REC/LESR CBI SC 11______________ Recreation/Leisure CBI SC 11 193014 193016 VOC DOM 3 REC/LEIS 3 V^r Si \u0026gt;8i!i\u0026lt;i^*.'\u0026gt;*^A\n' 194900 195100 195500 194500 194510 A HISTORY SC SCIENCE sen P SCIENCE SC A HISTORY SC GOVERNMENTSC American History SC 11 Science SC 11_______ Physical Science SC 12 American History SC 10 American Government SC 10 194010 194012 194014 194016 COMM DOM 4 DOMT DOM 4 VOC DOM 4 REC/LEIS 4 38Non-Credit KCoureW BNo. 200100 200200 280100 220100 220150 270100 270300 270300 200400 200401 200309 STUD COUNCIL MONITOR MONITOR STUDY HALL STUDY HALL HOMEROOM HOMEROOM HOMEROOM ORN TCH PROF INTR EDUC LEARN FOUND9 V* Student Coungl MonitorLibrary____ MonitorOffice_____ Study Hallfull year Study Hall-semester HomeroomGrade 10 HomeroomGrade 11 HomeroomGrade 12 Orientation to the Teaching Profession Learning Foundations 9 Course' No.r . 201000 201002 201004 201006 201001 201008 202008 203008 204008 STDT COUN LIB MONITOR OFF MONITOR STDY HALL STDY HALL HOMEROOM1 HOMEROOM2 HOMEROOM3 HOMEROOM4 Student Council Library Monitor Office Monitor Study Hall Study Hall Homeroom I Homeroom II Homeroom III Homeroom IV Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 39F. MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUMLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 December 15, 1999 HE(^ TO: Dr. Terrence Roberts Dr. Steve Ross Ann Brown. ODM Clementine Kelly (CTA) John Walker DEC 1 6 V9S3 OFFiGEOF FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley .'Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Instructional Standards One of the major projects that we are working on currently is a definition of instructional standards. Such standards are called for in Strategy 2 of our Strategic Plan and are implicit in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan in several sections, as well as in the other critical planning/accountability documents that guide the Districts work. Few districts, if any, have adopted such a concept, but we are committed to doing so to provide a focus for professional development, to use as criteria in evaluating external instructional programs, to guide program evaluation, to provide criteria for teacher evaluation, and so forth. The standards that we adopt/adapt/create must be research-based and must attend to the needs of cultural minorities. We initially looked at the following models: 1. Dimensions of Leamina by Robert Marzano. et al 2. A Guide to Authentic Instruction and Assessment: Vision, Standards and Scoring by Fred Newmann. Walter Secada, and Gary Wehlage 3. Handbook of Reseach on Improvinci Student Achievement by Gordon Cawelti 4. Pedapoov Matters: Standards for Effective Teaching Practice by Stephanie Dalton 5. Educating Everybodys Children: Diverse Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners, edited by Robert Cole 6. Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching by Charlotte Danielson Instructional Standards December 15, 1999 Page Two We then added two more models to consider\n7. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children by Gloria Ladson-Billings 8. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, published by the National Research Council Finally, we are excited about some brand new researcha meta-analysis of studies on the effectiveness of instructional strategies by Robert Marzano. This study, available on the web at www.mcrel.ora. is the best research synthesis that I have seen on effect size and with correlations of specific strategies with instructional goals. You may want to read the entire study, but I am attaching only the summary chapter. Our goal is to either adopt, adapt, or create (synthesize) a set of instructional standards to be presented to the Board of Education by May. We will, of course, be consulting representative principals and teachers, once we on the committee fully understand the available research and our task. We invite your study of the accompanying documents and any advice you might have for us in the front end of completing this task. Please e-mail me, call, or write any suggestions or questions that you may have. Attachments cc: Dr. Les Carnine Junious Babbs Brady Gadberry Sadie Mitchell Dr. Marian Lacey Frances Jones Chris Heller Clay FendleyA.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge February 21, 2000 BECBVED Ms. Ann Brown ODM 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I am sending to you a bundle of recent LRSD publications that I know youll be interested in. Also, 1 hope youll share them with your staff. K-8 Refrigerator Curriculum (Grade-Level and Course Benchmarks for Parents) Middle School Curriculum Catalog Middle School Student/Parent Guide High School Curriculum Catalog High School Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements Please call if you have questions or feedback for improvement. Sincerely, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D /rem Cc\nJunious Babbs Brady Gadberry 810 W. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032) Kindergarten Standards, Benchmarks RECBVEO MAR 1 0 2000 November 1999 Dear Kindergarten Parents or Guardians: OfflCEOf DfSfSRffiATOKOJIfTOflj,S This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in kindergarten. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Profi- cienf level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your child's teacher or the principal of the school. Sinosrely, Dr. Bonnie A. Lesl^, Associate Superintendent for Instructionpt GRADE Standards, Benchmarks RECI U 1 Cft r 1 November 1999 Dear Grade 1 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in first grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the elementary school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Si rely, 7, Associate Superintendent for InstructionSR A DE Standards. Benchmarks RECSiV MAR 1 0 Office cf \u0026gt;*4 f: , 1 iJsia p[^.RGftriOHMOiTORi^S November 1999 Dear Grade 2 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in second grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not ail. students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9. a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic. Basic. Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Siricerely, Sirjcerely, Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley. 7. Associate Superintendent for InstructionNovember 1999 3\" SRAOE Standards, Benchmarks MAR i 0 .or *. J GFi'wH Cf KSESREGAWnyesr i5:5\u0026gt;5 Dear Grade 3 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in third grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know ifyour child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the elementary school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction 4*\" GRADE  3 November 1999 Standards, Benchmarks d. 'J Ji' OsSEGFiEGATiCil ijKiiinGaiiiu Dear Grade 4 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in fourth grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\nteacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the studentswill score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your child's teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Dr. Bonnie A. Lesl^, Associate Superintendent for InstructionS' GRADE Standards, Benchmarks November 1999 Dear Grade 5 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in fifth grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and homework together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\nteacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5: and LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient\" level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Dr. Associate Superintendent for Instruction6* GRAOE November 1999 Standards, Benchmarks MAS ] 0 ZGCil Office a? DESEGRE(3ATi0ijM0WT0fl|S Dear Grade 6 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in grade 6. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the middle school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher  teacher-made tests and examinations administration of the State Benchmark examinations in grades 6 and 8. administration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 7.  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades 6-8. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the studentswill score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Associate Superintendent for InstructionI'\" GRADE ,v.\u0026gt;. /SD Standards, Benchmarks \u0026gt;UJ Illi: ~ 'J DESEGSrGAiiCfl November 1999 Dear Grade 7 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in grade 7. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the middle school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher teacher-made tests and examinations administration of the State Benchmark examinations in grades 6 and 8. administration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 7.  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades 6-8. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Associate Superintendent for Instruction 8* GRADE BKES .1 Standards, Benchmarks !\u0026lt;iAR 1 ( GFr: 5^. November 1999 Dear Grade 8 Parents or Guardians\nThis publication includes the Little Rock School District's newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in grade 8. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the middle school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher teacher-made tests and examinations administration of the State Benchmark examinations in grades 6 and 8. administration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 7.  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades 6-8. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sinaerely, 5 A.. Lestev T. Bonnie A. Lesfey, Associate Superintendent for Instructionf-n-oc C.P-Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501 \u0026gt;371-0100 /i'Ct-lfd April 13, 2000 Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bonnie: This note is to let you know that we received your February 21, 2000 letter and attachments (various LRSD curriculum guides and catalogs) on March 10, 2000. We thank you very much for sharing the documents and inviting our feedback. Well be glad to look them over. As you know, I was involved in a car accident on March 1. I returned to work for the first time yesterday, so please forgive me for just now acknowledging your correspondence. I havent found the bottom of my desk yet and am slowing working my way through the accumulated piles. Please give me a call when you can and lets schedule some time,to spend together catching up. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Date: April 17, 2000 To: Gene, Horace, and Melissa From: Ann Re: Recent LRSD Publications Attached are some LRSD publications that Bonnie Lesley recently sent us, asking for our feedback. Please review each document individually according to the assignments below, answering the seven review questions in writing for each document. Note that these publications are the originals, so please dont mark them up. If youd like to jot notes on them (edits, etc.), work on a copy. Id like to have your reviews by this Thursday. April 20. Thanks. Gene: Horace: Melissa: High Schools:  High School Curriculum Catalog 2000-2001  Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 Middle Schools:  6* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  7* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  8* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  Middle School Curriculum Catalog 2000-2001  Guide to Learning in Middle School Elementary Schools:  Kindergarten Standards, Benchmarks  1 Grade Standards, Benchmarks  2\"' Grade Standards, Benchmarks  3\"* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  4\" Grade Standards, Benchmarks  S* Grade Standards, Benchmarks Review Questions 1. For which audience is the publication intended? 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? 6. What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? 7. Additional comments.at- Office of Desegregation Monitorinq United Stales District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 25, 2000 To: Bonnie Lesley From: Ann Bro\nRe: Feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents I took you at your word when you invited our feedback on the various curriculum documents you kindly sent us last month. I asked my staff to look them over, and their responses are attached Their consents ^e unvarnished and strictly FYI, so take them ofS^m, but please accept them in the spirit nt pnllpoiQiitxz of collegiality in which we offer them. Listed below are the questions I asked the staff to use as their guide in reviewing the documents. By the way, weve have gotten several calls from frustrated parents wanting to know, \"Whats a a Evidently that undefined phrase appears in a recent district publication on behalf of the millage, and perhaps elsewhere on parent-directed documents. We tell them refiigerator cumculum enables them to learn how to fix their refrigerator, or in the alternative we say It s a curriculum their refrigerator can study in order to become a smart refrigerator No we dont' (Just kidding.) Actually, we have to tell them the truth: In-house education-speak is one of lifes continuing mysteries, and none of us at ODM know what a refrigerator curriculum is either. is one of lifes Another point of bewilderment has knows, maybe teachers too) are come to our attention. Many parents and students (and who very confused about the difference between standards and benchmarks. We think we know how to define those words, but maybe the district needs to differentiate between the two terms and to widely broadcast definitions that will to work from the same understanding. to take care enable everyone Review Questions 1. For which audience is the publication intended? 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? 6. What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? 7. Additional comments.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 25, 2000 To: Bonnie Lesley From: Ann Bro\nRe: Feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents I took you at your word when you invited our feedback on the various curriculum documents you kindly sent us last month. I asked my staff to look them over, and their responses are attached. Their comments are unvarnished and strictly FYI, so take them or them, but please accept them in the spirit of collegiality in which we offer them. Listed below are the questions I asked the staff to use as their guide in reviewing the documents. By the way, weve have gotten several calls from fiustrated parents wanting to know, \"Whats a refrigerator curriculum?\" Evidently that undefined phrase appears in a recent district publication on behalf of the millage, and perhaps elsewhere on parent-directed documents. We tell them a refiigerator curriculum enables them to learn how to fix their refrigerator, or in the alternative we say its a curriculum their refiigerator can study in order to become a smart refrigerator. No, we dont! (Just kidding.) Actually, we have to tell them the truth: In-house education-speak is one of lifes continuing mysteries, and none of us at ODM know what a refiigerator curriculum is either. Another point of bewilderment has come to our attention. Many parents and students (and who knows, maybe teachers too) are very confused about the difference between standards and benchmarks. We think we know how to define those words, but maybe the district needs to take care to differentiate between the two terms and to widely broadcast definitions that will enable everyone to work from the same understanding. Review Questions 1. For which audience is the publication intended? 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? 6. What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? 7. Additional comments.Comments regarding LRSDs High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 1. For which audience is the publication intended? The guide is directed at high school students and their parents. Though the document does not explicitly say so, it would be useful also to middle school students as they decide whether or not to take high school courses as 8* graders. For example, students who wish to take calculus in high school must take algebra I in grade 8 as explained in the guide. 2. What is the stated purpose of publication? A convoluted sentence on page 2 in a section captioned Where do I start? says the guide is intended to assist students and parents by providing information that will help them to plan next years courses, meet graduation requirements, and to know college admission requirements. 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. It is complete. Few details regarding student placement have been omitted. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. The guide is not clear enough for its intended audience because the language is garbled and the layout is inconsistent. For example, the table of contents lists Purpose for Guide and indicates it is on page 1. No heading on page 1 says Purpose. Instead there is a two-paragraph section titled Where do I start? in which the first paragraph extols the quality of LRSD. The second paragraph contains three items, not parallel, in what could be called a statement of purpose. Language used in the curriculum discussions is often vague. For example, the Unconditional Admission section on page 2 does not state a requirement and then list the courses by number and title which could fulfill it. Instead, for example, the natural science admission requirement section says, Three units, with laboratories, chosen from Physical Science, Biology, Chemistry, or physics. Only one unit may come from a life science. Few students could complete the course selection sheet accurately from this information, and the guide is full of examples similar to this. Frequently, supplemental information is included with course requirement listings and is introduced by a question. Page five has the question, What may I take to satisfy the technology requirement? The first paragraph following explains that the keyboarding class will not count. The second paragraph explains that students can test out of keyboarding, and the third explains something else. Nowhere, in this section, is the question answered clearly.The document is sprinkled with items enclosed in boxes but the boxes do not signify a single and consistent purpose. Some enclose quotes while others enclose significant information in thumbnail fashion, but the reader cannot tell the difference without close reading. The layout should help the reader focus on the key elements quickly. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? If the guide fails to meet its purpose it will be because of the weaknesses described in section 4 above. As it is rewritten and republished the mistakes will be taken care of. 6. Suggestions! Clean up the language with clear declarative sentences that avoid ambiguity. Courses should be identified by name and number. The layout should help readers find information quickly and easily by using symbols consistently for information types. For example, if bold type indicates a particular meaning in one place, it should do the same in every place. Rhetorical questions used to draw attention to certain types of information should be answered directly and in sensible fashion. 1. Additional comments The guide is a useful publication that meets an important need. LRSD should be commended for the effort.Comments Regarding LRSDs High School Curriculum Catalog 1. For which audience is the publication intended? Apparently, the catalog is intended for staff use in assisting students with course selection. Some directives are clearly intended for staff, but students could use the catalog with little assistance from staff members. 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? The purpose is not explicitly stated, but its title. Curriculum Catalog, probably makes a statement of purpose unnecessary. J. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. The catalog is detailed. It includes information for every circumstance imaginable from specialty courses in unique schools to correspondence courses available for dual credit, high school credit, or college credit. The only observable omissions are the regulations for administration. These omissions are explained in a foreword. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. Other than the occasional typographical error or missed heading (Board Policy), the catalog appears to be accurate and to offer everything needed for general student assignment. It does not include special education student assignment procedures, but they probably should not be contained in this catalog. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? The Curriculum Catalog fulfills its purpose completely. Except for the omission explained in the foreword, it contains everything the school staffs need for student placement. 6. Suggestions! The format could be spiffed up with illustrations or humor. 7. Comments! LRSDs instructional department is making good progress in formalizing its curriculum. The ill-defined courses and arbitrary student placements seem to be disappearing.LRSD b\"\", 7\"', 8', Grade Standards, Benchmarks Audience: Parents or Guardians Purpose: To help parents or guardians to monitor student progress in learning and to help reinforce at home what the students are learning at school. Strengths: Various guides are color coded. For parents with more than one child, this makes it easier to differentiate the guides. The general layout of the document makes it easy to use and attractive without being overly simplistic or juvenile. The explanatory cover memo from Bonnie is detailed enough to clearly state the purpose of the document, but also avoids excessive details which might lose the attention of the reader. For the most part, the benchmarks within subject areas are brief and relatively self-explanatory to even the reader with a very basic level of knowledge in various curriculum areas. Weaknesses: I may be confused, but where are the standards? Somewhere, the documents need to differentiate standards and benchmarks. Some benchmarks are not clearly expressed. In some cases, I got the impression that some benchmarks were condensed in order to keep the documents brief. However, condensing seems to have made some statements confusing or tremendously vague. Fuifdls Purpose: Generally, these documents fulfill the purpose of being simple and informative. It is quite a task to write an informative document that will inform a broad spectrum of individuals without being either insultingly simplistic or confusingly pedantic. I feel that the writers avoided the extremes in most cases. Suggestions: Define and give examples of standards. Parenthetical examples would have helped clarify some of the benchmarks. Are the curriculum documents printed in any other language other than English?A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School LRSD 2000-2001 Audience: Purpose: Strengths: Weaknesses: Middle school students and their parents To explain the progression of required and elective middle school courses. The guide is less formally formatted than the curriculum catalog. The question and answer arrangement should make the guide more user-friendly. The pages aren t numbered! It seems that if you were discussing the content with a teacher or counselor, you would have difficulty with references. In reality, the question and answer format is not as effective as it should be. The guide should have followed the format consistently rather than varying off into specific course descriptions. The more specific descriptions might have been more appropria\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_406","title":"Early childhood","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Childhood development","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Early childhood"],"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/406"],"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\nFree Program For Four-Near Olds Applications Accepted April 29-May 10 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT First Class Schools For World Class Kids \\ /? A A Program Of Fun And Learning For Four-Year Olds  Certified early childhood education teachers  Ratio of two adults to every 20 students (1 teacher, 1 aide)  Structured learning environment  Developmentally appropriate curriculum and activities  Before- and after-school childcare available Tuition-Free Tuition-free program for children who will be four years old on or before October 1, 1991, is available at the following schools during the 1991-92 school year: X / ' I ^''A7 -1  Badgett  Franklin  Garland  Ish  Mitchell  Rightsell  Rockefeller  Romine  Stephens  Washington  Woodruff Applications will be accepted at these schools April 29-May 10. /\\ Selections will be by lottery whenever the number of applicants for the Program for Four-Year Olds exceeds the available seats. Enrollment preference is given to children who live within the school's attendance zone or have brothers/sisters enrolled at the requested school. Students selected for enrollment will be notified by May 23. Those who cannot be placed will be put on a waiting list. I I School Hours. The regular school hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except for regular school holidays. Childcare. Childcare for a fee is available from 2:30-5:30 p.m. For additional information. For more information about the Program for Four-Year Olds, call the Student Assignment Office at (501) 324-2272. \\ s \u0026gt; 3 K - ' /I -I / /! PUT YOUR 4-YEAR OLD ON THE RIGHT TRACK FOR SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL, PHYSICAL, AND COGNITIVE GROWTH. Enroll now for the Little Rock School Districts Special Program for Four-Year Olds. Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office (501) 324-2272 i I -f- X f SOH   G n ?r \u0026amp;: I \\  \"1 I  --1 '1  V \\ lx kJ 3  tZ5 X '\\ ' .ZX/ I t I t r I r Free Program For Four-Near Olds I\" \\ \\' A I I \\ - #* \\ I x. '' I - \\ .71 \\ \\ Applications Accepted April 29-May 10  r- 2 m o 3 3 2 \" i \u0026gt; -O o \" -T y n \u0026gt; Q D H (re  \u0026gt; g Os 73 R- m  o' X I LErCESB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT First Class Schools For World Class KidsLittle Rock School District March 20, 1990 TO: FROM: Downtown Early Childhood Committee James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation^^ Monitoring and Program Development SUBJECT: March 7 Minutes Members Present: Fatimah Akbar James Jennings Chip Jones Rachel Myers It was noted that Glenda Bean (Arkansas Early Childhood Commission) and Jack Turner (Domtown Partnership) could not attend the meeting. Both have had experience in developing a downtown early childhood program. The committee identified five planning areas for the downtown early childhood project: (1) Site Identification (2) Publicity (3) Licensing Requirements (4) Staffing (5) Support Services In regard to site identification, the next meeting will be used to discuss the site identification process. A prospective site should have at least three classrooms (20 students in each class) and outdoor space for play. Hie conmittee also agreed that the center should only enroll four-year old students. Other age groups can be considered after the center is in operation. Teacher representatives will be added to the committee. Also, respresen- tatives from the other districts in Pulaski County will be added to the committee. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-33612. 3. 4. DOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER COMMITTEE Site Selection Report Staffing and Program Report Publicity Needs Assessment AGENDA 4/17/90 1. 5. Additional Committee MembersDOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER COMMITTEE April 17, 1990 MINUTES Those attending were Jack Turner, Thelma Jasper, Cecil Talliaferro, Dorisen Hill, Michele French, Rachel Meyers, Fatimah Akbar. Mrs. Meyers opened the meeting. The minutes were read by Michele French and they were approved by the committee. a report on the task of the commission, were heard on the following: Mrs. Meyers gave Questions and discussion 1. 2 . 3. Including 3 year olds and 4 year olds Funding for 3 months beyond the regular school year Care during vacation days, summer and after school The site acquisition committee had several possibilities. searched and reported on A description was given on each, and Jack Turner was given the task of setting up an appointment to visit the Bushman Court Building at 6th \u0026amp; Pulaski and also the Cashion Company at 501 Sherman. of the exact date and time. All committee members will be notified The staff and A question was program committee presented two staffing plans. asked concerning North Central Association accreditation if the center is disassociated with the schools. Carver Magnet School was suggested as a possibility for associating the center with a school since there is no existing 4 year old program. suggested go to an affiliate Discussion on giving children a preference to Meyers was asked or to associating school was presented. check on requirements for the center and to North cost modified version of Plan 1 was recommended. Mrs. Central Association out both plans. A A vice principal was recommended instead of a full-time administrator. The curriculum completed by the Early Childhood Task Force recommended and would be programs in the District. consistent with other 4 year was old A question was asked about a theme in the center. Mrs. Meyer's committee was asked to check on possible schools the center could be attached to. Mr. Jennings asked that consideration be given to Thelma Jasper's program. A needs assessment established as follows: was asked for and a subcommittee was Glenda Beane Dorisene Hill Cecil Talliaferro Co-Chairman Co-ChairmanDOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER COMMITTEE May 3, 1990 MINUTES Those is attendance were Jim Moses, Michele French, Glenda Beane, T^my Jack Turner, Thelma Jasper, , Dorothea Davis, parent from the North Little Rock School District. and a Site selection sub-committee asked Mr. Moses to present facts about the Cashion Building and Bushman Courtyard Building. Moses reported the following: Mr. A. 6th Street. The Bushman Courtyard Building is located at 1300 West 1. 2 . 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. 11. 12 . 5500 sq. ft. of usable space $3,100 per month to lease Smaller spaces Sharp corners 3 major hallways Kitchen Parking spaces Intra structure work needed 35 years old Some remodeling has been done Previously a doctors' building Possible playground by using some parking area B. The Cashion Building is located at Sth and Sherman. 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. 11. 4,800 sq. ft. of usable space Larger spaces Large kitchen Parking spaces Full lot adjacent to building for playground For lease - $5,000 per month (including taxes \u0026amp; insurance) Will spend $15,000 for improvements 10 years old Excellent condition Circle driveway Parking Recommendation to have Jack Turner and the committee pursue the Cashion location. after the meeting. make an offer, frame to be used. Other committee members were excited to visit Mr. Turner proposed that the sub-committee Consideration for money, improvements and timeNew members were assigned to the sub-committees as follows\nDorothea Davis - Staffing Jack Turner - Publicity Glenda Beane NLR Parent - Site Selection The next meeting will be on May 10 at 1:30 p.m.ROCKEFELLER COOPERATIVE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION MAGNET PARENT-TEACHER PLANNING COMMITTEE ON STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND CURRICULUM PRELIMINARY RECDMMENDATIDNS March 20, 199D TRAINING AND STAFFING Thosa who care For young children must be well prepared and sensitively selected For their work. They must have Formal training in both child development and appropriate pedagogy, For quality training For all personnel who provide care and education For vary young children is a critical component in the success oF early education programs. Ongoing inservice education must be an integral part oF their training and growth as early childhood educators. ThereFore: Early childhood education curriculum and daily activities will be based upon young childrens interests and styles oF learning, emphasize developmentally appropriate learning, and appeal to childrens sense oF curiosity and eagerness in order to help them experience the joy oF learning. Thora will bo a Full spectrum oF activities to stimulate children at various levels oF development. A comprehensive curriculum and training approach is to ba collaboratively developed among the throe districts by those presently responsible For training and supervising HIPPY paraproFessionals, CARE employees Cor other beFore- and aFter- school day care programs), and teachers and aides who work These individuals in any aspect oF early childhood education. will utilize the expertise or professionals From local insti- tutions oF higher education in deaigning the training curri culum. A coordinated training approach among HIPPY, extended daycare, and early childhood education personnel will promote understanding, cooporatlon, and continuity among the programs. To promote understanding oF the total.school program, early childhood staFF should be given an overview oF the elementary curriculum and the elementary staFF should ba given an over- view oF the early childhood program. Thon appropriate in- aervica training should bo provided separately For early childhood staFF and elementary staFF. This approach to training should enhance cohesiveness oF staFF while allowing spaciFic targeting oF teaching levels and oFFicient utilization oF training time. # # # Z2 # Early childhood students should not attend school at least one week CpreFerably two weeks) beFore elementary school students return in the Fall oF each year to allow certiFied and non-certiFied staFF to attend the inservice training and prepare For the coming year. tha First # Early childhood teachers should meet during two weeks oF summer vacation with Dorothea Davis, Michelle r. a representative For Arkansas Baptist College and UALR (Tish Henslee, iF possible), and Marian Shead (HIPPY), This French, to continue work on the early childhood curriculum. could be coordinated with Systematic Training For EFFective Teaching with a halF-day oF curriculum reFining and a day oF S.T.E.T. halF- # The training outlined in the two previous paragraphs will provide one month oF training recommended For RockeFeller School StaFF. . , x IN-SERVICE TRAINING SHDULD INCLUDE\n* Human Relations workshops For entire school and perhaps some just For early childhood staFF to occur in August * Training For staFF about working with computers Viewing and discussion oF the videotape made to illustrate the NAEYC booklet on Developmentally Appropriate Practices For Young Children  Workshop presented by Dr. Anna Heatherly about what early childhood classes should provide to encourage language development and literacy \u0026gt;!= Training For staFF , in building conFlict resolution strategies in early childhood classrooms and playgrounds ! An inspirational speech by Dr. Bettye Caldwell in preparation For the school year 1990-91 * Training For instructional aides at RockeFeller to be required For continued employment and including: 1 . 2. Early Childhood Methods Child Development OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS + CertiFied early childhood staFF should not be required to Many extra hours aFter 3:DO P.M. work longer hours each day. are necessary to plan and prepare For optimal experiences daily For early childhood students and these hours are give IF teachers are n voluntarily by early childhood teachers. required to spend extra hours working with children, this voluntary preparation time will be reduced and program quality will suFFer. + Additional salary compensation should be provided For instructional aides who work longer hours at RockeFellor in tha early childhood classroom than instructional aides It is our at other Little Rock School District schools. understanding that tha promise oF extra pay worked has not been honored. For extra hours3 + Comprehensive developmental screening should be provided * 1. . A__II.. M4 1 rlrn * C3 for early childhood students. Arkansas Children's Hospital might be a resource for this need. + Regular observational assessment of all children should be provided + Foreign language instruction (ppench or Spanish] should begin in early childhood classrooms. ly childhood students should be paid + Field trips for early childhood students snouxc co paxu Little Rock School District Cat least one per for by the class per nine weeks]. + Several specially equipped vans with removable restraining Seats for -inf ants , - twov - and tbree-yeac. old.-studeots-pcovided to allow this age group of children transportation for field trips. to have state mandated + All children should not be required to stayuntil 5:00 P.M. as In f.hR Incentive School Plan. This should be Stated in the Incentive School Plan. voluntary. + More time should be allotted during the summer for teachers to work in their classrooms. AFTER SCHOOL CARE S HIPPY 0 To apply developmentally appropriate practicesfor young four-year-old students should be provided consistent and nurturing by the same staff, with the sama children, experiences group This does not occur of children throughout each day. enrolled in the CARE program after 2:30 daily, enrolled in our classes when they are Ten parents of four-year-old children at Rockefeller have their children picked up by a private bus and taken to a private after school program day care artar scnoox progi an- simply because of this inconsistency of care in this school. Consistency can be provided by having staggered schedules for instructional aides throughout the early childhood program. must receive careful @ Those employed in extended day programs training, supervision and support. As indicated in the section on Training and Staffing of the Early Childhood Plan for desegregation, daycare personnel must bo included in the early childhood education training program which is designed and implemented by the districts and are to members of the school faculty. to be be supervised and supported as @ There must be uniformity of quality among extended daycare programs regardless of the school at which they may be based. @ Activities provided during extended day hours should be sufficiently varied, appealing, and age-appropriate to sustain the interest of the children, 0 The Little Rock School District will consider mandating or strongly encouraging participation in HIPPY for all four- year-old students at the incentive schools.RECOMMENDATIONS should not bs required to + Early childhood children be remain in school until 5:00 p.m. It has worked well for those children not needing extended child care to bo picked up 2*30\n1 r-Hn not endoPBC voung children Qw C.C3. Child care experts do not endorse young attending preschool for long hours if child care is not necessary. Thev feel that the children should be with their Families. parents They feel that the =. A parent on this committee stated that many , including herself, would not enroll their children children were required to remain at Rockefeller if the for an extended day. + An assistant co-teacher is needed for the infant/toddler classroom because of the number of children in that area.OFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 E. MARKHAM, SUITE 510 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Hand Delivered Date\nMay 2, 1990 To: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent From: t^^Ann S. Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Subject: Progress Report on Desegregation Plan, Early Childhood Education Section As we discussed in our meeting last Friday, April 27, 1990, members of the Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education reported on April 26 that they have a number of concerns about the development and implementation of the early childhood education portion of the Desegregation Plan. They are aware that the Desegregation Plan requires the bi racial participation of parents, teachers, and representatives of UALR and the local black colleges, along with district administrators, throughout the planning and implementation of all programs which involve early childhood education and Rockefeller School. The concerns which these parents express relate to both communication and participation. To illustrate, the parents state that as members of the planning committees at Rockefeller, they have received no acknowledgment nor any sort of response regarding reports which they submitted to the District in late March. These reports contain suggestions on curriculum, training, and staffing. Without administrative response to their reports, the parents are uncertain how to proceed next in the development and implementation process. The parents al so say that they have not been consulted about the re-evaluation of Rockefeller's early childhood education policies as required in #6 on page 15 of the early childhood section of the Plan. There have also been complaints that the teacher interview committee at Rockefeller was decidedly racially imbalanced and that there was no representation from UALR or the black colleges. Previously, there have been other difficulties regarding the Little Rock School District's compliance with the early childhood education section of the Plan. In early March, you and I discussed the necessity of involving parents and representatives from the local university and colleges in interviewing the candidates for principal of Rockefeller. A March 5 memo, sent at the direction of Mr. Reville in order to insure compliance with the plan, plainly described and mandated what the composition of the Rockefeller principal interview committee was to be. Yet the procedure outlined in that communication was not followed. Apparently, corrective measures were not implemented until sometime after a March 22 memo which reiterated the necessity for following the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and the directives of the March 5 communication.May 2, 1990 Page 2 In order to assess compliance with the early childhood education section of the Desegregation Plan, and to prevent confusion or misunderstanding on the part of parents, teachers, administrators, or this office, a progress report seems in order. Therefore, by Monday, May 14, please provide the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor with information which clearly defines how the Little Rock School District is complying with the Desegregation Plan's provision that \"...the process of developing, modifying, or augmenting any early childhood education programs must be done in conjunction with biracial planning and oversight groups approved by the Metropolitan Supervisor and comprised of parents, teachers, representatives of area universities and colleges, and the districts' supervisors responsible for early education.\" This report must: --Contain an update on the progress made regarding all provisions of the early childhood section, including curriculum, staffing, training, the Downtown Early Childhood Education Center, interdistrict collaboration, etc. --Indicate how suggestions from parents, teachers, and representives from local institutions of higher education are being incorporated into program planning and implementation. --Include the names and race of the parents who have been added to the District's Early Childhood Education Task Force, the date they were added to this group, and the primary tasks this group is presently focusing upon. --Include a timeline which indicates key tasks and expected or actual start and completion dates, and the individuals or groups primarily responsible for each task. If there are problem areas or tasks which have not been undertaken, please briefly indicate what the difficulties have been and how and when you expect them to be overcome. I believe that a progress report at this time will help resolve questions, alleviate uncertainties, and uncover problems which must be resolved before they become major hindrances to the timely implementation of the Desegregation Plan. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you.OFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 E. MARKHAM, SUITE 510 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Date: May 2, 1990 To: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent From: 4^Ann S. Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Subject: Progress Report on Desegregation Plan, Early Childhood Education Section As we discussed in our meeting last Friday, April 27, 1990, members of the Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education reported on April 26 that they have a number of concerns about the development and implementation of the early childhood education portion of the Desegregation Plan. They are aware that the Desegregation Plan requires the biracial participation of parents, teachers, and representatives of UALR and the local black colleges, along with district administrators, throughout the planning and implementation of all programs which involve early childhood education and Rockefeller School. The concerns which these parents express relate to both communication and participation. To illustrate, the parents state that as members of the planning committees at Rockefeller, they have received no acknowledgment nor any sort of response regarding reports which they submitted to the District in late March. These reports contain suggestions on curriculum. training, and staffing. Without administrative response to their reports, the parents are uncertain how to proceed next in the development and implementation process. The parents al so say that they have not been consulted about the re-evaluation of Rockefeller's early childhood education policies as required in #6 on page 15 of the early childhood section of the Plan. There have also been complaints that the teacher interview committee at Rockefeller was decidedly racially imbalanced and that there was no representation from UALR or the black colleges. Previously, there have been other difficulties regarding the Little Rock School District's compliance with the early childhood education section of the Plan. In early March, you and I discussed the necessity of involving parents and representatives from the local university and colleges in interviewing the candidates for principal of Rockefeller. A March 5 memo, sent at the direction of Mr. Reville in order to insure compliance with the plan, plainly described and mandated what the composition of the Rockefeller principal interview committee was to be. Yet the procedure outlined in that communication was not followed. Apparently, corrective measures were not implemented until sometime after a March 22 memo which reiterated the necessity for following the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and the directives of the March 5 communication.May 2, 1990 Page 2 In order to assess compliance with the early childhood education section of the Desegregation Plan, and to prevent confusion or misunderstanding on the part of parents, teachers, administrators, or this office, a progress report seems in order. Therefore, by Monday, May 14, please provide the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor with information which clearly defines how the Little Rock School District is complying with the Desegregation Plan's provision that \"...the process of developing, modifying, or augmenting any early childhood education programs must be done in conjunction with biracial planning and oversight groups approved by the Metropolitan Supervisor and comprised of parents, teachers, representatives of area universities and colleges, and the districts' supervisors responsible for early education.\" This report must: Contain an update on the progress made regarding all provisions of the early childhood section, including curriculum, staffing, training, the Downtown Early Childhood Education Center, interdistrict collaboration, etc. --Indicate how suggestions from parents, teachers, and representives from local institutions of higher education are being incorporated into program planning and implementation. --Include the names and race of the parents who have been added to the District's Early Childhood Education Task Force, the date they were added to this group, and the primary tasks this group is presently focusing upon. --Include a timeline which indicates key tasks and expected or actual start and completion dates, and the individuals or groups primarily responsible for each task. If there are problem areas or tasks which have not been undertaken, please briefly indicate what the difficulties have been and how and when you expect them to be overcome. I believe that a progress report at this time will help resolve questions, alleviate uncertainties, and uncover problems which must be resolved before they become major hindrances to the timely implementation of the Desegregation Plan. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you.Little Rock School District May 11, 1990 V TO: FROM: Ann Brown, Prentice Dupins, and Arma Hart - Associate Metropolitan Supervi sors Chip Jones, Manager of Support Services __ James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation 03 Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH:lj^br. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools (?)^Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Downtown Early Childhood Center Site Selection The planning committee for the downtown early childhood center (the Center) has located a site that will be a showcase of the four-year old program in the Little Rock School District. The selected site is currently owned by Cashion and Company. The district has negotiated a price of $4,500 per month for the location contingent upon approval by the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Current cost estimates for the total program are as follows: Rent Utilities 3 teachers 3 aides 1 custodian 1 coordinator 1 secretary Benefits Food Service Material \u0026amp; Supplies Postage Furniture \u0026amp; Equipment Renovations Contingency $54,000 10,000 75,000 30,000 9,000 20,000 12,000 21,900 15,000 3,000 500 20,000 (Start-up) 20,000 (Start-up) 30,000 $320,400 The committee recommends that funding for the Center be similar to the Magnet Schools. Each participating district will be responsible for the costs of the Center based on seat allocation. It is further recommended that the partici-pating districts be allowed to use the Settlement proceeds to pay for the Center. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Downtown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page two In order for the District to open the Center for the 1990-91 school year, it must commit withing five working days (by May 18) to a lease agreement. The current occupant needs time to locate new space, remodel and move by August 6, 1990 to allow the district time to open the Center by the beginning of school. The building is well-suited for an early childhood program. Most of its wal1s are movable so that renovation requirements are minor\na separate lot will provide an outdoor play area\noff-street parking is generous\nand access to downtown and to the freeways is strategic. The total square footage of the building itself (not including play areas and parking) is 5,500 or $9.82 per foot, which is very competitive for downtown office space. The committee also considered: --Bushman Court Reporting Building (6th and Pulaski, $3,169 per month. 6,500 sq. feet). This was the committee's second choice\nhowever, in order to use the building for an early childhood program would require extensive and expensive remodeling, this expense would be prudent. The committee did not feel that --Olympia Publishing Building (900 West Fourth, $2,000 per month, 3,400 sq. feet). The committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center and that it would be difficult to occupy in time for the 1990-91 school year. --SE Corner (3rd and Ringo, $3,000 per month, 3,600 sq. feet). committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center. Again the Seat Allocation According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, II the districts will work together to establish a pre-kindergarten program in the downtown Little Rock business area. II As a result, seats will be allocated for downtown employees from each of the three districts in Pulaski County -- Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School Di strict. The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have three four-year old classes during the 1990-91 school year. Each class will have a maximum of 20 students. The seat allocation formula for the interdistrict magnet schools will be used to allocate the 60 four-year old seats among the three districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 45.6% 15.7% 38.7% 27 seats 10 seats 23 seats ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page three Assignment Process All assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. As stated in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center is specifically aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. in Pulaski County, Arkansas. However, the parent must reside in one of the three districts Act 609, Act 624, or legal transfers cannot be used for admission to the Downtown Early Childhood Center. Special publicity efforts will be used to inform downtown employees about the early childhood program. Special meetings will be held prior to the appli- cation period to inform downtown employees about the downtown early childhood program. city efforts. The three districts will work together to promote and support publi- As stated earlier, the downtown early childhood program is aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. The downtown area is defined as the Central Business District of Little Rock. The boundaries of this area are Interstate 30 on the east side, 15th Street on the south side, the State Capitol Mall on the west side, and Markham Street on the north side, parent's worksite must be located in this area in order for the parent to be classified as a downtown employee. The The Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will be responsible for processing all applications. In order to be eligible for admission, the child must be four years old on or before October 1, 1990. Parents must present a birth certificate and proof of address during the application process. A lottery will be conducted if demand exceeds the supply of seats for a parti- cular district. Students who are not selected will be placed on a waiting list for the remainder of the school year, each year. A new waiting list will be developed Hours of Operation The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have the same opening and closing time as a regular elementary school. In addition to the normal hours of operation, parents will have the option to participate in the before and after school care program. Office. The costs will be determined by the Little Rock School District CARE CARE services also will be provided during holidays. Transportation The three districts will not provide transportation. ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page four Curriculum The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and styles of learning which will guide daily acti- vities. The program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of young children. the joy of learning. It will appeal to young children an help them experience The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritages of children. to learn about themselves and other cultures. Young children need the opportunity An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in which the children are active learners. They will be given freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrum of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. Children will be offered choices and will select many of their own activities in learning areas: keeping, and music. children to explore and manipulate. blocks, science, math, games, puzzles, books, art, house- There will be many concrete materials in each area for Teachers are expected to facilitate the development of self-control in children by using positive guidance techniques. havior are a part of the classroom management program. Modeling and encouraging expected be- Children will have many opportunities to develop social skills such as cooperating, helping, and talking with other children, the staff, and resource persons. Children will be provided many experiences which lead to literacy: listening, drawing, and copying. and fine motor development. Such activities facilitate language talking. Listening to stories, telling about pictures. poetry, fingerplays, field trips, dictating stories, and participating in dramatic play all provide a foundation for beginning literacy. Formal reading and writing instruction is reserved for a more developmentally appropriate time. Implementation Plan Since the Center is required by the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District plans to implement the recommendations of the committee as described herein. Please advise us before May 18, 1990 if the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor is not in agreement with this decision so that other plans might be developed. The North Little Rock and the Pulaski County Special School Districts have been provided a copy of this memorandum. cc: Billy Bowles, PCSSD Bobby Acklin, NLRSD OLittle Rock School District r .f- - J*  May 11, 1990\nA TO: FROM: Ann Brown, Prentice Dupins, and Arma Hart - Associate Metropolitan Supervi sors Chip Jones, Manager of Support Services James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation \"753 Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH:iJ^Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools (?^Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools J SUBJECT: Downtown Early Childhood Center Site Selection The planning committee for the downtown early childhood center (the Center) has located a site that will be a showcase of the four-year old program in the Little Rock School District. The selected site is currently owned by Cashion and Company. The district has negotiated a price of $4,500 per month for the location contingent upon approval by the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Current cost estimates for the total program are as follows: Rent Utilities 3 teachers 3 aides 1 custodian 1 coordinator 1 secretary Benefits Food Service Material \u0026amp; Supplies Postage Furniture \u0026amp; Equipment Renovations Conti ngency $54,000 10,000 75,000 30,000 9,000 20,000 12,000 21,900 15,000 3,000 500 20,000 (Start-up) 20,000 (Start-up) 30,000 $320,400 The committee recommends that funding for the Center be similar to the Magnet Schools. Each participating district will be responsible for the costs of the Center based on seat allocation. It is further recommended that the parti ci- pating districts be allowed to use the Settlement proceeds to pay for the Center. O 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Downtown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page two In order for the District to open the Center for the 1990-91 school year, it must commit withing five working days (by May 18) to a lease agreement. The current occupant needs time to locate new space, remodel and move by August 6, 1990 to allow the district time to open the Center by the beginning of school. The building is well-suited for an early childhood program. Most of its walls are movable so that renovation requirements are minor\na separate lot will provide an outdoor play area\noff-street parking is generous\nand access to downtown and to the freeways is strategic. The total square footage of the building itself (not including play areas and parking) is 5,500 or $9.82 per foot, which is very competitive for downtown office space. The committee also considered: --Bushman Court Reporting Building (6th and Pulaski, $3,169 per month. 6,500 sq. feet). This was the committee's second choice\nhowever, in order to use the building for an early childhood program would require extensive and expensive remodeling, this expense would be prudent. The committee did not feel that --Olympia Publishing Building (900 West Fourth, $2,000 per month, 3,400 sq. feet). The committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center and that it would be difficult to occupy in time for the 1990-91 school year. --SE Corner (3rd and Ringo, $3,000 per month, 3,600 sq. feet). committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center. Again the Seat Allocation According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, \"the districts will work together to establish a pre-kindergarten program in the downtown Little Rock business area. II As a result, seats will be allocated for downtown employees from each of the three districts in Pulaski County -- Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School Di strict. The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have three four-year old classes during the 1990-91 school year. Each class will have a maximum of 20 students. The seat allocation formula for the interdistrict magnet schools will be used to allocate the 60 four-year old seats among the three districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 45.6% 15.7% 38.7% 27 seats 10 seats 23 seats ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page three Assignment Process All assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. As stated in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center is specifically aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. in Pulaski County, Arkansas. However, the parent must reside in one of the three districts Act 609, Act 624, or legal transfers cannot be used for admission to the Downtown Early Childhood Center. Special publicity efforts will be used to inform downtown employees about the early childhood program. Special meetings will be held prior to the appli- cation period to inform downtown employees about the downtown early childhood program. city efforts. The three districts will work together to promote and support publi- As stated earlier, the downtown early childhood program is aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. fined as the Central Business District of Little Rock. The downtown area is deThe boundaries of this area are Interstate 30 on the east side, 15th Street on the south side, the State Capitol Mall on the west side, and Markham Street on the north side, parent's worksite must be located in this area in order for the parent to be classified as a downtown employee. The The Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will be responsible for processing all applications. In order to be eligible for admission, the child must be four years old on or before October 1, 1990. Parents must present a birth certificate and proof of address during the application process. A lottery will be conducted if demand exceeds the supply of seats for a parti- cular district. Students who are not selected will be placed on a waiting list for the remainder of the school year, each year. A new waiting list will be developed Hours of Operation The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have the same opening and closing time as a regular elementary school. In addition to the normal hours of operation, parents will have the option to participate in the before and after school care program. Office. The costs will be determined by the Little Rock School District CARE CARE services also will be provided during holidays. Transportation The three districts will not provide transportation. ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page four Curriculum The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and styles of learning which will guide daily acti- viti es. The program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of young children, the joy of learning. It will appeal to young children an help them experience The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritages of children. to learn about themselves and other cultures. Young children need the opportunity An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in which the children are active learners. They will be given freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrum of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. Children will be offered choices and will select many of their own activities in learning areas: keeping, and music. children to explore and manipulate. blocks, science, math, games, puzzles, books, art, house- There will be many concrete materials in each area for Teachers are expected to facilitate the development of self-control in children by using positive guidance techniques. havior are a part of the classroom management program. Modeling and encouraging expected beChildren will have many opportunities to develop social skills such as cooperating, helping, and talking with other children, the staff, and resource persons. Children will be provided many experiences which lead to literacy: listening, drawing, and copying. and fine motor development. Such activities facilitate language talking. Listening to stories, telling about pictures. poetry, fingerplays, field trips, dictating stories, and participating in dramatic play all provide a foundation for beginning literacy. Formal reading and writing instruction is reserved for a more developmentally appropriate time. Implementation Plan Since the Center is required by the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District plans to implement the recommendations of the committee as described herein. Please advise us before May 18, 1990 if the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor is not in agreement with this decision so that other plans might be developed. The North Little Rock and the Pulaski County Special School Districts have been provided a copy of this memorandum. cc: Billy Bowles, PCSSD Bobby Acklin, NLRSD OPROGRESS REPORT ON DESEGREGATION PLAN, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SECTION May 14,1990 B JB A_C J[ A L._..RAjR I IC. IEAT-I-OjN The District will continue to have biracial participation throughout the planning and implementation of all programs, which involve Early Childhood Education and Rockefeller School. Rockefeller School. On March 21,1990 - The Planning Committee met at a) b) c) d) e) Represented were: The Metropolitan Supervisors' Office The Little Rock School District The Rockefeller Staff Parents The Local Colleges After a general meeting the group broke up into subcommittees in order to plan, organize and schedule their next meeting date. Rockefeller School. On March 28, 1990 - A general meeting was held at The following committees met : 1. 2. .3. 4. Public Relations, Recruitment, and Parent and Community Involvement Elementary Curriculum Early Childhood Education Policies and Procedures Staff Development and Curriculum Represented were: a) b) c) d) Little Rock School District Rockefeller Staff Parents Local Colleges CQMMUJSJLCAri.QH-..AND_JPAB.LKIEAIIGH A letter was sent to the Chairperson of the various committees from Mrs. Mangan on March 29, 1990, informing them their reports have been forwarded to the Central Office. These reports will be addressed beginning the third week of May by a District Committee comprised of the following: a) b) c) Rockefeller Parents, Teachers, and Administrators Little School District Administration College representatives The purpose of the District Committee is to review all recommendations and concerns and to make final recommendations to the Metropolitan Supervisors' Office. Page 1These recommendation: concerned. will then be made available to all parties EAP,LL_CHILtDHQQD...ED.UCAT LON _EQL LC.IES. The parent committee met on March 28,1990 and submitted a list of ten preliminary recommendations. These will be examined at the meeting scheduled for the third week of May and the above stated procedure will be followed. This committee will reconvene in order to develop specific recommendations regarding the following: 1. Infant Enrollment Age 2. Sick Days for Extended Illness The plan specifically state that these items \"must be evaluated by the parent committee on early childhood education.\" Childhood section, page 15, item 6) (Early T.EAC.HR.-.IN.TEm.EK_GQWMLTJrE The Teacher Interview Committee at Rockefeller School has been enlarged by representation from U.A.L. R. and Shorter College. The composition of the Interview Committee is as follows: 1. Ann Mangan Principal 2. Rachel Meyers Asst. Supt. B F 3. Rose Ivory Supervisor 4. Dorothy Daniels Parent 5. Evelyn Jackson Retired Teacher B F 6. Jaime Foster 7. Romona Clark U. A. L. R. Shorter W F B F B F W F B F These changes should adequately address any earlier concerns of imbalances. SIAEEIHG All of the applicants have been interviewed with the exception of two which are scheduled for an interview next week. The Director of Human Resources will begin staffing the school Thursday, May 10, 1990. TRABUMS A tentative outline of training is complete and will be addressed by the District Committee during the third week of May. DQWHTQHH...EARLY-.CHILDH.Q.QD...EDU.CAT.LQK..,CENTER Page - 2STATUS REPORT May 8, 1990 The Downtown Early Childhood Center Committee has met five time since its March 1 inception. According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center will be: 1. Of the same high quality as other early childhood education programs in the district. 2. Aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. 3. Racially integrated. The center is scheduled to open in 1990-91. In order to meet this deadline, the committee has agreed to place primary interest on selecting a site as soon as possible. A property search in the downtown area was conducted by committee member Jack Turner. Mr. Turner is employed by the Downtown Partnership, were reviewed during the April 17 meeting. Five sites On April 27, several of the committee members toured two of the facilities. and Pulaski Streets. The Bushman Reporting building is located at Sixth Fifth and Sherman Streets, for both buildings. The Cashion Company Building is located at Jim Moses is the real estate agent The building were evaluated on the basis of the following areas: Access ibility Condition Renovation Work Expansion Landscaping Attractiveness Playground Space Costs The committee agreed to pursue a lease arrangement on the Cashion Building. The site selection committee (Jack Turner, Chip Jones, and Amy Flynn) will make a recommendation to the committee at the May 10 meeting. Three subcommittees have been established. As already stated. the site selection committee is preparing a lease proposal, staffing and program subcommittee has recommended a staff of three teachers, one administrator, one secretary, and The paraprofessional support. The center will have three four-year- old classes (20 students each) during the first year of operation. The Little Rock School District four-year-old curriculum will be used at the downtown center. Subcommittee members are Rachel Myers-Jones (LRSD), Michelle French (PCSSD), Thelma Jasper (Educational Cooperative), and Doretha Davis Page - 3(Philander Smith College). The staffing and program subcommittee will develop plans for year-round service, extended day care, and holiday service. The publicity subcommittee is developing a needs assessment survey for downtown employees. Subcommittee members are Glenda Bean (Arkansas Early Childhood Commission), Fatimah Akbar (LR parent), and Monecia West (NLR parent). The publicity subcommittee also will develop plans for recruitment in the downtown area. INTERDISTRI.C.T...C.QLLAB.QRAT.,IQN. A comprehensive curriculum and training approach is to be collaboratively developed among the three districts by those presently responsible for training and supervising HIPPY paraprofessionals, CARE employees (or other before- and afterschool daycare programs), and teachers and aides who work in any aspect of early childhood education. The Little Rock School District Early Childhood Task Force will develop a training model for early childhood teachers and aides. The training model will focus on the delivery of the specific skills and objectives listed in the early childhood curriculum report. The training model will be completed prior to the end of the 1989-90 school year. In regard to training for CARE and HIPPY employees, Jo Evelyn Elston will be responsible for developing a tri-district committee to address this task. The Little Rock School District HIPPY program currently uses a training model that has been refined over the past five years. LRSD will explore the possibility of developing collaborative HIPPY training with PCSSD and NLRSD. two weeks. The tri-district committee will meet within the next INC0RP.QRATJNG_5JGGESTlQN.S_JKLQ_fR.Q.GRAM...-RLAN.N.IRa_AND IMPLEMENTATION The Little Rock School District is soliciting and collecting suggestions from a wide range of groups including patrons. employees and local colleges. These are collected by various committees such as the Parental Involvement and Public Relations Committee. The committees forward the reports to the Principal who sends them in turn to the Little Rock School District where they are analyzed and distilled by the District Committee comprised of various enabling groups. The results of the committee's decisions will be disseminated as timely and widely as possible through the following means: 1. District Cable T. V. 2. Press Releases Page 43. District Focus 4. P.T.A. 5. Personal Communications EARkyCmJL.DHQQI?._.EDD.QAIl^^ The following parents have been added to the Early Childhood Education Task Force as of March 22, 1990: Garland Georgia Rucker 5113 W. 29th St. Little Rock, AR 664-2856 (Home) Black Garland was unable to furnish a white parent. Franklin: Denise Northcutt 4320 Irwin Road Little Rock AR 455-3110 (Work) 821-3310 (Home) White 72210 Darlene Jones 9601 Nathan Hale Little Rock, AR 666-4665 (Home) 686-9103 (Work) Black 72209 In accordance to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Early Childhood Education Task Force is focusing on the continuation of high school kindergartens. UMEL INE.-_KEX-IASKS 1. Conduct an investigation of the continuation of high school kindergarten. Initiation - 12/89 Completion - 6/30/90 Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force 2. Re-evaluate early childhood policies now in existence and their impact on desegregation and educational goals. Initiation 3/21/90 Completion - 6/30/90 Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force, and selected Rockefeller Committee Members 3. Review and revise the comprehensive curriculum training and information document proposed by the Tri-District Early Childhood Task Force. Initiation 10/3/89 Completion - 8/27/90 (ongoing) Page - 5Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force, Pat Price, Selected Rockefeller Committee Persons 4. 5. Staff Development - Identify the Early Childhood components that are needed in the incentive Schools. Initiation - 3/29/90 Completion - 6/15/90 Persons Responsible - Pat Price, Marvin Zimmerman, Input Task Force, Rockefeller Committee, Incentive School Curriculum Committee Identify and secure reports and other relevant concerns. Initiation - 3/29/90 Completion - On-going Persons Responsible - Pat Price, James Jennings, Estelle Matthis Page - 6TO: FROM: Little Rock School District May 14, 1990 Ann S. Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Estelle Matthis, A.ssociate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development THROUGH: Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Progress Report on Early Giildhood Education Section of Tri-District Desegregation Plan -   W  A * Tne progress report on the early childhood education section of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan is attached for your review. The report contains all the information requested in your May 2 memo. Your May 2 memo begins with a reference to our meeting on April 27. How- ever, your memo does not give much detail about our discussion on 4/27. It is very important to review our discussion in order to establish the proper context for responding to other concerns listed in your May 2 memo. As you know, you stated that you met with a committee on April 26 about the Rockefeller program. You stated that the committee liad a number of concerns about the development and implementation of the Rockefeller early childhood program. You also stated that the committee was the Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education. The District was unaware of a meeting scheduled for April 26 with the Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education. In our meeting on April 27, you vzere unable to respond to our questions about the role of this committee and the relationship of this committee with the parent/ staff committee for Rockefeller. Rockefellers parent/staff committee was already in existence on April 26. At the time of your meeting on April 26, you were fully aware of the existence of the parent/staff committee for Rockefeller because you were instrumental in developing this committee. As you probably recall, we met with you on March 9 and discussed the letter you wrote and distributed to all Rockefeller parents without our knowledge or approval (see attacl'iment). You also addressed the parent/staff planning committees at the March 21 orientation meeting. - 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Memo to Ann Brown Early Childhood Progress Report page two Your May 2 memo specifically refers to the concerns of the Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education. Tne District is still interested in knowing about the role of this committee, in regard to Rockefeller, and the relationship between this committee and the parent/staff planning committees at Rockefeller. The District has met with the parent/staff planning committees on several occasions, and we are in the process of responding to their recommendations. It is somewliat confusing to now hear that another committee has some concerns. There are at least four early childhood committees presently in operation: LRSD Early Childhood Task Force, Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education, Downtown Early Childhood Committee, and the Rockefeller parent/staff planning committees. Communications have varied regarding the role that each of these committees should play in developing a comprehensive early childhood program. A meeting with the committee chairpersons, the Metropolitan Supervisor's office, and LRSD will help clarify the various roles and responsibilities. Once clarity is established, all committees should be able to complete the tasks iden- tified in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan. The ultimate goal is to develop and implement a quality early childhood education program that addresses the needs of all students whether they attend Rockefeller School or any other early childhood site in the district. The merging of strategies, philosophies, etc., and the cooperation of all parties will ensure the accomplishment of this goal. In regard to another matter, your May 2 memo also refers to \"other difficulties regarding the Little Rock School District's compliance with the early childhood education section of the Plan. It of your May 2 memo, you specifically state the following: In the third paragraph A March 5 memo, sent at the direction of Mr. Reville in order to insure compliance with the plan, plainly described and mandated what the composition of the Rockefeller principal interview committee was to be. Yet the procedure outlined in that communi- cation was not followed. Apparently, corrective measures were not implemented until sometime after a March 22 memo wliich reiterated the necessity for following the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and the directives of the March 5 conmunication. In your May 2 memo, you failed to mention why the \"procedure outlined in your March 5 memo was not followed. It Please be reminded that the following individuals met on March 7 to discuss your March 5 memo: Eugene Reville Arma Hart Ann Brown Prentice Dupins Dr. Ruth Steele Dr. Herb Cleek Estelle Matthis James Jennings Chip JonesMemo to Ann Brown Early Childhood Progress Report page three Ihe District reviewed your March 5 memo and outlined the procedure we wanted to use to interview for all incentive school principal positions, including Rockefeller. We specifically stated that the teacher committee members would be selected by the LRCTA, and the parent committee members would be selected by the Joshua Intervenors. We also noted that the first round of interviews would be used to develop a pool. The second round of interviews would be used to deal with possible assignments to particular schools. Mr. Reville approved our procedure. In our minds, llr. Reville's March 7 approval of our proposal for selecting interview team members superceded your March 5 memo. We regret that a memo was not written to confirm the decisions made in the March 7 meeting. In regard to the teacher interview committee at Rockefeller, please note in the progress report that the committee includes representatives from UALR and Shorter College. This information was shared with you during our April 27 meeting. Please refer to page two of the April 27 minutes prepared by your office. The minutes clearly indicate that the District \"rectified\" this problem. In regard to the principal interview committee at Rockefeller, the local universities were involved in the process after your March 22 memo. However, you must remember that the District pro- ceeded after the March 7 meeting with our understanding of Mr. Reville's approval. cc: Prentice Dupins Arma HartMarch 7, 1990 Dear Parent: Rockefeller School is growing! And we want you to be part of the exciting changes in store for the Rockefeller community of students, staff, and parents. The new Desegregation Plan enables Rockefeller to become a cooperative early childhood education demonstration magnet school next year. That means our school will become a model of creative and exciting ways to provide the very best care and education for children from infancy through grade six. Educators and college students from all over the county and the state will be able to visit Rockefeller to learn about early childhood education at its very best. And your child will be a student at this wonderful school! As a parent, your ideas about how our school will grow into an early childhood magnet are very important. Parents, teachers and other school staff, college It representatives, and administrators will all work together to make suggestions and decisions about what our \"new\" school will become, based on the framework of the Desegregation Plan. Attached is a A number of planning areas will be addressed through parent-staff committees, each of which will concentrate on certain aspects of the school. Attccf.cd i: c list of these committees and a brief description concentration. of each one's area of Will you become our planning partner and join us as a committee member? Please say \"yes!\" by filling out the enclosed Committee Volunteer Form and returning it to your child's teacher by this Friday, March 9, 1990. Then join your fellow parents, school staff, and the Metropolitan Supervisor, Mr. Eugene Reville, for one hour at Rockefeller on Thursday evening, March 15, at 5:00 p.m. for an orientation and the first meeting of each committee. Thank you very much. Sincerely, The Staff of Rockefeller School P.S. Remember these two important dates: Friday, March 9, 1990: return Volunteer Form to your child's teacher Thursday, March 15, 1990: orientation and committee meetings at RockefellerROCKEFELLER PLANNING COmiTTEES VOLUNTEER FORM Name Address ZIP Phone (day) (eveni ng) Please join us in planning for the Rockefeller Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet School. Below is a list of committees and the If you can think of types of topics that will probably be considered by each one. other planning areas you believe should be adclressed, please write your idea in the space marked \"Other suggestions.\" Then indicate your preferences for the conmittee you would like to join by placing a 1\" by your first choice, a 2 by your second choice and a \"3\" by your third choice. (You may serve on more than one committee but be careful not to over-commit your time!) Staffing: selection process\nstaff distribution\ncontract lengths\nresponsibilities\ncompensation\ncareer ladders\ninterfacing with colleges. Early childhood curriculum: emphasis on developmentally appropriate curriculum for infants through kindergarten\nhow to link early childhood and elementary curriculum\nspecial programs and events. Elementary curriculum: emphasis on grades one through six\nhow to build elementary curriculum upon that of early childhood\nspecial programs and events. ___Staff development: training programs and topics\ntrainers and trainees\nstaff development calendar. ___Scheduling and calendar: organization of the school day. week, and year. Policies and procedures: includes those of the early childhood program: infant enrollment ages\nvacation days, private pay and lunch rates for infants and toddlers\nschoolwide policies and procedures for staff, students and parents. Alternative education: al ternative classrooms and incentive and discipline programs. teaching methods\nPublic relations and recruitment: information dissemination\nschool racial balance. community outreach\ncommunication and strategies for student recruitment\nenhancing Parent and comunity involvement: types of involvement\nhow to promote. support, and sustain involvement\ntraining for parents. Student support systems: college scholarships\nmentoring\nservice learning (students as volunteers\n) peer and cross-age interaction. Other suggestions for committee topics: Please return this form to your child's teacher by Friday, March 9. Thank you!PROGRESS REPORT ON DESEGREGATION PLAN, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SECTION May 14,1990 EIBALIAIuJEAEXIlEmi^ The District will continue to have biracial participation throughout the planning and implementation of all programs, which involve Early Childhood Education and Rockefeller School. Rockefeller School. On March 21,1990 - The Planning Committee met at Represented were\na) b) c) d) e) The Metropolitan Supervisors' Office The Little Rock School District The Rockefeller Staff Parents The Local Colleges After a general meeting the group broke up into, subcommittees in order to plan, organize and schedule their next meeting date. Rockefeller School. On March 28, 1990 - A general meeting was held at The following committees met : 1. 2. 3. 4. Public Relations, Recruitment, and Parent and Community Involvement Elementary Curriculum Early Childhood Education Policies and Procedures Staff Development and Curriculum Represented were\na) b) c) d) Little Rock School District Rockefeller Staff Parents Local College A letter was sent to the Chairperson of the various committees from Mrs. Mangan on March 29, 1990, informing them their reports have been forwarded to the Central Office. These reports will be addressed beginning the third week of May by a District Committee comprised of the following: a) b) c) Rockefeller Parents, Teachers, and Administrators Little School District Administration College representatives e The purpose of the District Committee is to review all recommendations and concern\nand to make final recommendations to the Metropolitan Supervisors' Office. Page - 1These recommendations will then be made available to all parties concerned. The parent committee met on March 28,1990 and submitted a list of ten preliminary recommendations. These will be examined at the meeting scheduled for the third week of May and the above stated procedure will be followed. This committee will reconvene in order to develop specific recommendations regarding the following: 1. Infant Enrollment Age 2. Sick Days for Extended Illness The plan specifically states that these items \"must be evaluated by the parent committee on early childhood education. Childhood section, page 15, item 6) (Early The Teacher Interview Committee at Rockefeller School has been enlarged by representation from U.A.L.R. and Shorter College. The composition of the 'Interview Committee is as follows: F 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Ann Mangan Principal W Rachel Meyers Asst. Supt. B F Rose Ivory Supervisor Dorothy Daniels Parent Evelyn Jackson Retired Teacher B F Jaime Foster Romona Clark 0. A. L. R. Shorter B F B F W F B F These changes should adequately address any earlier concerns of imbalances. SIAELINfi All of the applicants have been interviewed with the exception of two which are scheduled for an interview next week. The Director of Human Resources will begin staffing the school Thursday, May 10, 1990. TRAIHIHG A tentative outline of training is complete and will be addressed by the District Committee during the third week of May. Page - 2STATUS REPORT May 8, 1990 The Downtown Early Childhood Center Committee has met five times since its March 1 inception. According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center will be: 1. Of the same high quality as other early childhood education programs in the district. 2. Aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. 3. Racially integrated. The center is scheduled to open in 1990-91. In order to meet this deadline, the committee has agreed to place primary interest on selecting a site as soon as possible. A property search in the downtown area was conducted by committee member Jack Turner. Mr. Turner is employed by the Downtown Partnership, were reviewed during the April 17 meeting. Five sites On April 27, several of the committee members toured two of the facilities. and Pulaski Streets. The Bushman Reporting building is located at Sixth Fifth and Sherman Streets, for both buildings. The Cashion Company Building is located at Jim Moses is the real estate agent The buildings were evaluated on the basis of the following areas: Acce ibility Condition Renovation Work Expansion Landscaping Attractiveness Playground Space Costs The committee agreed to pursue a lease arrangement on the Cashion Building. The site selection committee (Jack Turner, Chip Jones, and Amy Flynn) will make a recommendation to the committee at the May 10 meeting. Three subcommittees have been established. As. already stated. the site selection committee is preparing a lease proposal, staffing and program subcommittee has recommended a staff of three teachers, one administrator, one secretary, and The paraprofessional support. The center will have three four-year- old classes (20 students each) during the first year of operation. The Little Rock School District four-year-old curriculum will be used at the downtown center. Subcommittee members are Rachel Myers-Jones (LRSD), Michelle French (PCSSD), Thelma Jasper (Educational Cooperative), and Doretha Davis Page 3(Philander Smith College). The staffing and program subcommittee will develop plans for year-round service, extended day care, and holiday service. The publicity subcommittee is developing a needs assessment survey for downtown employees. Subcommittee members are Glenda Bean (Arkansas Early Childhood Commission), Fatimah Akbar (LR parent), and Monecia West (NLR parent). The publicity subcommittee also will develop plans for recruitment in the downtown area. A comprehensive curriculum and training approach is to be collaboratively developed among the three districts by those presently responsible for training and supervising HIPPY paraprofessionals, CARE employees (or other before- and afterschool daycare programs), and teachers and aides who work in any aspect of early childhood education. The Little Rock School District Early Childhood Task Force will develop a training model for early childhood teachers and aides. The training model will focus on the delivery of the specific skills and objectives listed in the early childhood curriculum report. The training model will be completed prior to the end of the 1989-90 school year. In regard to training for CARE and HIPPY employees, Jo Evelyn Elston will be responsible for developing a tri-district committee to address this task. The Little Rock School District HIPPY program currently uses a training model that has been refined over the past five years. LRSD will explore the possibility of developing collaborative HIPPY training with PCSSD and NLRSD. two weeks. The tri-district committee will meet within the next IHPiEMENTATKIH. The Little Rock School District is soliciting and collecting suggestions from a wide range of groups including patrons, employees and local colleges. These are collected by various committees such as the Parental Involvement and Public Relations Committee. The committees forward the reports to the Principal who sends them in turn to the Little Rock School District where they are analyzed and distilled by the District Committee comprised of various enabling groups. The results of the committee's decisions will be disseminated as timely and widely as possible through the following means: 1. District Cable T. V. 2. Press Releases Page - 43. District Focus 4. P.T.A. 5. Personal Communications The following parents have been added to the Early Childhood Education Task Force as of March 22, 1990\nGarland Georgia Rucker 5113 W. 29th St. Little Rock, AR 664-2856 (Home) Black Garland was unable to furnish a white parent. Franklin\nDenise Northcutt 4320 Irwin Road Little Rock AR 455-3110 (Work) 821-3310 (Home) White 72210 Darlene Jones 9601 Nathan Hale Little Rock, AR 666-4665 (Home) 686-9103 (Work) Black 72209 In accordance to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Early Childhood Education Task Force is focusing on the continuation of high school kindergartens. 1. Conduct an investigation of the continuation of high school kindergarten. Initiation - 12/89 Completion - 6/30/90 Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force 2. Re-evaluate early childhood policies now in existence and their impact on desegregation and educational goals. Initiation 3/21/9 0 Completion - 6/30/90 Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force, and selected Rockefeller Committee Members 3. Review and revise the comprehensive curriculum training and information document proposed by the Tri-District Early Childhood Task Force. Initiation 10/3/89 Completion - 8/27/90 (ongoing) Page - 54. 5. Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force, Pat Price, Selected Rockefeller Committee Persons Staff Development - Identify the Early Childhood components that are needed in the incentive Schools. Initiation 3/29/9 0 Completion - 6/15/90 Persons Responsible - Pat Price, Marvin Zimmerman, Input Task Force, Rockefeller Committee, Incentive School Curriculum Committee Identify and secure reports and other relevant concerns. Initiation 3/29/90 Completion - On-going Persons Responsible - Pat Price, James Jennings, Estelle Matthis Page 6 t Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p.a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501)375-1122 TELECOPIER (501) 375-1027 Nashville Office 1201 Sixteenth Avenue South P.O. Box 121114 Nashville, Tennessee 37212 (615) 329-4664 Telecopier: (615) 320-0115 May 15, 1990 Christopher J. Heller, Esquire FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 VA\"^ SAS'S RE\nDowntown Early Childhood'Center Dear Chris: Upon review of the Memorandum of May 11, 1990, from Chip Jones and James Jennings to the Associate Metropolitan \" Supervisors regarding the Downtown Early Childhood Center, I must infeorm you that the position of the North Little Rock School District is that the cost distribution provisions of that Memorandum violate the March, 1989, Pulaski County Case Settlement Agreement (as revised September I Desegregation 28, 1989). 1989, The May 11, Memorandum states at page 1, \"Each _ district will be responsible for the costs of the Center based on seat allocation.\" Thus, it anticipates that the Districts will have to provide funds for their respective students attending this Center. participating at page Thus, . _ ----- As you are aware Sectxon^II. D. of the Settlement Agreement at page 4 provides, \"The districts' obligation to contribute funds to Magnet Schools shall be limited to their paying their portions of the costs six existing Magnet Schools pursuant to the Court's Order of February 27, 1987.\" By agreement, the only funds to be provided to a host district for students attending new magnet schools is limited to the MtoM transfer payments The May 11 Memorandum suggests an obligation in addition to this which is in violation of the Settlement districts of the SIX from the State. Agreement. We note that the Memorandum also provides, _________ recommended that the participating districts be allowed to the Settlement proceeds to pay for the Center.\" \"It is further use _ _ As you are aware, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement all Settlement proceeds received by the NLRSD are restricted to providing compensatory education. See, Section VIII., B., C. and D. Thus, North Little Rock Settlement proceeds would not be available for this purpose even if we so desired. B. C.* - a Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p.a. Chistopher J. Heller May 15, 1990 Page 2 Also, you should be aware that the NLRSD is surprised by the proposed budget. Daycare centers in the Little Rock area, such the First United Method Church Child Development are able to provide an early childhood program for children ranging in ages from infants through four years of age for half of this cost. as Center, If we were expected to pay for such a program, we anticipate that we would be involved in the budget preparation and determination of program content. In any event, I hope that you will remind your clients about the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Hopefully, thro 13 simply an oversight and further proceedings regarding the Settlement Agreement will not be needed. this is Hopefully cc\nVery truly yours, Stephen W. Jones All counsel of record Office of Metropolitan Supervisor James Smith PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1500 Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 May 16, 1990 Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Prentice Dupins Ms. Arma Hart Associate Metropolitan Supervisors Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown, Ms. Hart and Mr. Dupins: The LRSD's memo to you dated May 11, 1990 regarding a proposed downtown early childhood center has been brought to my attention. This is the first time the PCSSD's Office of Desegregation has been notified of this proposal. The Court approved plan provides that the districts will work together to establish a pre-kindergarten program in the downtown Little Rock business area. II I certainly assumed that my office. which has direct line responsibility for desegregation, would have been at least notified of this decision prior to its submission to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Our district representative on the committee, Michelle French, is not aware of any discussions on funding formula or seating allocations during committee meetings she attended. While I have not had time to fully analyze the May 11, 1990 memo or to discuss it at all with the superintendent, the following objections have already occurred to me: 1. The proposed method for funding is directly contrary to the Court's Order of December 11, 1989 which accepted the alternative funding mechanism of M to M transfer monies as opposed to the funding method which has prevailed for the six existing magnet schools. funding \"similar to the magnet schools. The PCSSD is not agreeable to II 2. while the LRSD generously suggests that the PCSSD settlement funds be used to pay for this center, the fact remains that after several requests these funds have not been released to our District. May 16, 1990 Page 2 The proposed commitment It May 18, 1990 is simply unreasonable. of five working days ending 4. While you indicate that the seats will be populated pursuant to ratio that means. \"desegregation requirements\" I do not know what 3 . 5 . The late Metropolitan Supervisor, Mr. Eugene Reville, with Dr. Don Stewart, Mr. Bobby Lester and myself, in a meeting on January 16, 1990 responded to some questions and concerns that dealt specifically with funding interdistrict magnet and specialty schools. Note his response to questions number one and sixteen in the attached information. 6 . I have simply not had time to assess such important issues as access and whether or not the proposed starting time is reasonable for our patrons. Neither can I determine the racial composition that would be anticipated from PCSSD students. Because of all of the foregoing considerations, the PCSSD must, at this point in time, register its strong objections to the proposal as presently outlined. Sincerely, Bi y J. 'B Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation ch Attachments c Mr. Chip Jones Mr. James Jennings Dr. Herb Cleek Dr. Ruth Steele Mr. Bobby Lester PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 500 DixO': ' Liitie d 3 January 18, 1990 Mr. Eugene Reville Metropolitan Supervisor Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Reville: At our January 16 meeting you requested that notes be taken recording your responses to the questions and/or concerns regarding our District's desegregation plan. Enclosed is a copy of the questions and your responses, review this for verification. Please We are also enclosing our suggested changes in the wording of the tri-district desegregation plan. Sincerely, Bobby G. Lester Superintendent of Schools ps Enclosures  1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT QUESTIONS/CONCERNS AND MR. REVILLE'S RESPONSES REGARDING TRI-DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN January 18, 1990 Who will schools? RESPONSE: pay for new Little Rock School District magnet LRSD will pay for any new magnet schools located within their district. either Will the PCSSD have any financial responsibility for the construction, operation or maintenance of the new LRSD magnet schools beyond the M to M payments its students schools generate? RESPONSE: If the No, it will not. answer is PCSSD's responsibility? students, seat other arrangements? RESPONSE: yes,\" what will be the magnitude of the Will it be based on the number of allocations, Not applicable cost of the schools, or some extent that the money does not presently exist -in the PCSSD budget, where will it come from? Other than federal magnet school grants, new revenue  * If so, what do you propose? To the from? do you plan sources for our District? RESPONSE: Judge Woods cannot order a millage increase the school districts are unsuccessful in unless -- ----- their attempt to pass a increase. I suggest you seek and pass a millage increase. to millage how do you the PCSSD finance its obligations under your proposed plan? Do you believe the PCSSD should engage in - \" If so, what additional cuts do you If the PCSSD is unable to pass a new millage. propose Do you further budget cuts? propose? RESPONSE: First, its obiigat ions a we need to do everything we can to pass increase. If we run into financial millage increase. If we run problems after the millage fails. to the courts. then we\nan go (Page 17, LRSD Student Assignment) Transportation. The statement about the 8 a.m. school opening would_ create numerous problems transporting PCSSD's students. (--- ---- time be more flexible? 8:a.m., a .m. Can this RESPONSE: (8 : 20-8:30 m., etc.) This will be discussed with the LRSD. 17 . We have serious concerns that plans may be under way by the LRSD to establish a medical arts magnet (page 16, Interdistrict Schools and Programs) which would be duplicate of the program approved for Oak Grove High, you share these concerns or do you believe duplication is satisfactory? If you share how do you propose to resolve them? arts concerns, RESPONSE: This 8 . 9. 10 . 11. 12. and a Do that such IS not conf lict. laboratory interested believed to This area is in experience be a planned for the medical courses for credit. any of our problem or to those field, a provide students rather than The elimination of one-race classes by 1990-91 is not possible to accomplish, especially on the high school level This is something that will have blacks into advanced classes and one-race in some advanced courses. to be tied to phased in. employ to relaxed? RESPONSE: What getting accomplish specific this strategies goal and do can you propose we the timetable be Explain why this is not being done. Who will pay attending incentive schools? feasible and what is the scholarships for PCSSD and NLRSD students As this money is not present in the budget, where do you propose it be secured? RESPONSE: Has the The LRSD will pay for the scholarships. business community pledged a particular amount of level of support for the public money or schools? Have you obtained some firm commitment regarding a dollar figure they would raise or guarantee? RESPONSE: Some businesses have pledged their expertise and some money to Dunbar. There has been some support for the aerospace magnet, an especially large amount from a foundation. businesses to give more than their support--they pay their taxes. We cannot expect (Page 1,\" Extracurricular Activities) Is the director of activities appointed by the principal in each school, a new position or a new assignment for existing staff? Extracurricular Activities) RESPONSE: It could be a new assignment for existing staff. (Page 3, mean all Does this Standardized Eligibility Requirement) which have membership requirements? organizations RESPONSE: We should strongly consider this proposal. 213 . (Page 10 item 4, qualifications Early Childhood required for principals Education) make it The almost 14 . impossible to find applicants. Can the \"must be changed to II should\"? RESPONSE: Yes, it can be changed to \"should.\" (Page 10 item 5 Early Childhood Education) position or added responsibility for existing staff? Is this a new RESPONSE\nThis staff. responsibility can be added to existing 15. (Page 11 item 3 Early Childhood Education) PCSSD's program to be 60 percent black? Does this allow 16 . RESPONSE: No it does not. (Page 16, Early Childhood Education) Who will the downtown E.C.E. Center? What are the pay sites for under consideration? Where are they located? What do they cost? RESPONSE: The LRSD will pay for the downtown E.C.E. Center.- There was no response to the other parts of the- question. 17 . (Page 17 item 1 Early Childhood Education) Does this make 19. extended day mandatory for every school? RESPONSE: Are No, it is not mandatory that every school have the extended day program. recommendations\" going to be mandatory is accepted by the court? RESPONSE: if this plan In most cases they will be mandatory. If the court approves those things that have been \"strongly and we are not able to comply, will we be held recommended in contempt of court? RESPONSE: The court gets angry when the districts are not serious about what they are doing or have proposed to do. ignore the court order, comply. You get into trouble when you will not be able to If you see that you come to me and explain why. Then there is no real problem. Clarification is needed (Pages 31 and 35, Incentive School) on who will administer the trust fund--two groups are 18 . listed. RESPONSE: One group will manage the trust fund and the other group will oversee the program. 3RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 1991 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached \"Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan II as required by this Court's order of August 22, 1991. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ) BYT Christopher Hei^SrJCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following counsel of record by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of September 1991. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 BYl . -- Christopher Hell -2- FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM LONG-TERM PLAN Little Rock School District This report will outline the long-range plans for expanding the early childhood education program in the Little Rock School District. In particular, this report will address the demographic, instructional, and structural needs for expanding the current four-year-old program. The report will begin with a review of background information related to the expansion of the four-year-old program in the Little Rock School District. selecting program sites will be provided. Next, the objectives for The objectives will be followed by an analysis of demographic data related to the four- year-old population in the Little Rock School District, attention will be given to identifying the number of Special disadvantaged students to be served by the four-year-old program. A review of the instructional goals of the four-year-old program will be included. Finally, long-term recommendations for establishing new four-year-old classes will be presented. Background The Little Rock School District four-year-old program was started during the 1988-89 school year as a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Although Rockefeller Elementary School served four-year-old students prior to this time, the emphasis on using this program as a tool to desegregate schools started in the 1988-89 school year. Three schools participated in the four-year-old program during the 1988-89 school year: Ish, Rockefeller, and Stephens. In the following year (1989-90), four-year-old classes were added to Franklin and Washington. Four-year-old classes were added to Badgett and Garland in the 1990-91 school year and Mitchell, Rightsell, Romine, and Woodruff at the beginning of the current school year - 1991-92. As a result, eleven of the 36 elementary schools in the Little Rock School District have one or more four- year-old classes: Badgett - Franklin - Garland - Ish - Mitchell - Rightsell - Rockefeller 20 seats 60 seats 20 seats 20 seats 20 seats 20 seats 60 seatspage two Romine - Stephens - Washington - Woodruff - 20 seats 20 seats 40 seats 20 seats Total 320 seats Volume I of the long-term desegregation plan was drafted and submitted to the federal district court during the first semester of the 1988-89 school year. At that time, the Little Rock School district proposed to have a four-year-old program in all elementary schools by the 1993-94 school year. This goal included the provision that the \"scope of this program may be altered, affected and/or enhanced by the proposed assignment and construction proposals made in this plan. II The District still believes that early childhood education is a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Furthermore, we believe that effective early childhood programs will reduce, if not eliminate, the need for major remediation programs in the upper grades. For these reasons, the enhancement and expansion of the four-year-old program will continue to be a priority for the Little Rock School District. Objectives for Selecting Sites It has already been stated that the expansion of the four- year-old program in the Little Rock School District is related to two major objectives: (1) to meet the growing needs of disadvantaged students\nand (2) to improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. These objectives carry with them certain limitations in regard to the location of future four-year-old sites. The settlement plan emphasizes the ongoing collaboration between the Little Rock School District and other federally funded early childhood programs to meet the needs of inner city Little The District has worked closely with the Rock students. Head Start program operated by the Community Organization for Poverty Elimination (COPE). Since Head Start can only serve families below the poverty level. Head Start centers are typically found in areas that are easily accessible to this population. As a result, future four-year-old sites should be located in or near areas that will facilitate collaborative efforts between the District and Head Start.page three Another factor that should be considered in identifying future four-year-old sites is the number of disadvantaged students in a given area. Priority should be given to areas that have a very high concentration of low income students. The first objective cannot be accomplished without an estimate of the number of disadvantaged four-year-old students in the Little Rock School District. According to the settlement plan, 80% of the disadvantaged students in the city of Little Rock will be served by the citywide early childhood education program. The figures listed below represent the District's estimate of the number of four-year-old students who have been eligible for the free and reduced lunch program during the past four years: 1987 1988 1989 1990 981 1077 1237 1071 Using the long-range goal of sezrving 80% of the disadvantaged students, these figures will require the citywide program to have the capacity to be able to serve 785 to 990 disadvantaged four- year-old students. The remainder of this report will use the average of these four years, 1092 four-year-old students, for planning purposes. As a result, for planning purposes only, the long-range goal is to serve 874 disadvantaged students. The four Head Start centers currently serve 361 students. All of these students are below the poverty level. In addition. the Model Cities Program, operated by the City of Little Rock, can serve a total of 60 four-year-old children. The Model Cities Program has two centers: the East End Community Complex (near Carver Magnet School) and the South Little Rock Recreation Center (across the street from Washington Magnet School). There are no income eligibility requirements for the Model Cities Program. The second objective of the long-range plan for expanding the four-year-old program is to improve the racial balance in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The elementary school attendance zones were originally designed to establish a racial balance at each school of 55 5, variance of 5%. black and 45% white with a Demographic changes over the past two years have resulted in some attendance zones having a lower number of white students than anticipated. The District has been successful in using the four-year-old program, along with other voluntary desegregation measures, to attract white students to schools that fall in this category. For instance, the Romine area is experiencing a steady increase in its black population. The four-year-old program at Romine School, however, is 50% white.page four The use of the four-year-old program as a means to improve the racial balance at certain schools also implies that these classes cannot be placed in attendance zones that continue to remain racially balanced. A list of the attendance zones that are not in danger of becoming racially imbalanced is provided below. This restriction does not preclude the placement of four- year-old classes in satellite zones that have heavy concentrations of disadvantaged students. Attendance zones less than 55% black: Brady, Dodd, Fair Park, Forest Park, Fulbright, Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights, Terry, and Western Hills. In order to use the four-year-old program as means of improving the racial balance at a school it will be necessary to make provisions for both black and white students. This requirement must be addressed in calculating the number of additional four-year-old seats needed to meet the long-range goal. Demographics The purpose of this section is to review demographic data related to four-year-old children in the city of Little Rock, should be noted that the Little Rock School District has worked very closely with COPE to develop and maintain early childhood It opportunities for four-year-old students. As a result, some of the demographic information collected by COPE will be presented in this section. At present, COPE operates four Head Start centers within the boundaries of the Little Rock School District. Start center is at the old King/Oakhurst School, still owned by the Little Rock School District. The largest Head This site is The second largest center is in Hollingsworth Court (east Little Rock). addition, two buildings that were formerly Educare centers are In currently used at Head Start sites. The center on 65th Street will probably be vacated at the end of this school year, site in the southwest Little Rock area has already been Another identified for the 1992-93 school year. The center on Asher Avenue, directly across the street from Wilson School, opened at the beginning of this school year, classrooms that are not in use. This center has four Community Needs Assessment. was conducted by COPE in 1990. 523 families throughout Little Rock. A community needs assessment Interviews were conducted with pre-school children at the time of the interview, is a brief review of some of the findings: All of the families had The followingpage five A. More services are needed in the King School/Highland Court area, the John Barrow/Asher Avenue area, and in southwest Little Rock. B. All of the centers in the above areas have waiting lists. C. Children were identified in each area who are above the Head Start income guidelines, cannot be served by Head Start. Barrow/SWLR - 16 As a result, these children King/Highland - 25, D. Number of children in families inteirviewed\n0-2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years Total H.S. Eligible 275 233 377 72 957 508 E. 53 of the families interviewed are at the bottom of the economic ladder - less than $6,280. F. 77% (401) of the families interviewed are headed by single mothers. G. 65% of the families interviewed indicated a need for Head Start in the future. H. A substantial number of parents indicated that they would be willing to participate in the following parent programs: literacy, drug abuse prevention, self-improvement, parenting, self-sufficiency, parent support group (child abuse), parent support group (drug abuse), and adult education classes. LRSD Data. It is interesting to note that the demographic information compiled by the LRSD Student Assignment Office identifies two of the three target areas cited by COPE as areas of need. Attachment One shows the number of four-year-old students over the past four years who have enrolled in kindergarten. each geographic area. The schools are listed as a means of describing Areas A, B, H, J, L, and M have experienced increases over the past two years. The largest increase (50% growth) occurred in Area. H - the area around Parkview, Wilson, and Bale Schools. This area is referred to by COPE as the John Barrow area, growth in areas L (22% growth), A (21% growth), and B (14% The growth) is more likely to be the result of parents who decided toV page six choose public education, as opposed to a net increase in births. The fluctuations in these areas over the four-year period tend to confirm this assumption. The increase in Area M (7% growth) from 1989 to 1990 tends to confirm the finding by COPE in regard to the need for more early childhood services in southwest Little Rock. In addition to this finding, however. Area M is the only area that experienced a steady increase in the number of four-year-old children during the period of 1987-1990: 1987-1988 1988-1989 4 % growth 21% growth The findings for Areas H and M should be coupled with the trend in Area J - the area around Western Hills, Meadowcliff, and Dodd Schools. This area is contiguous to, and in some cases overlaps, what is generally considered to be the Barrow area and southwest Little Rock. Again, a steady increase in the number of four-year-old children is evident during the period of 1987-1990: 1987-1988 1988-1989 11% growth 14% growth The data supplied by both parties document the need for four-year-old services in the John Barrow Road area and southwest Little Rock. Although these areas continue to show growth. future services in the central Little Rock area should not be disregarded. Little Rock. COPE is interested in having a center in central Currently, Head Start students from central Little Rock must go to the King/Oakhurst site. Transportation from central Little Rock to King/Oakhurst is a serious problem for some of these parents. Attachment One indicates heavy concentrations of four-year-old students in Areas D and I, the areas which serve the Incentive Schools, even though both areas have experienced declines since 1988. Instructional Goals The whole thrust of the early childhood program has been to remedy the academic differences that our students are bringing into the school system. In the past, we have experienced low performance, retention, and dropouts. Significant amounts of time and money have been expended on remediation, special education, and on providing the basic level of preparation needed to succeed in school. Many of the problems of skills disparity that are chronic in the higher grades are lessened when all youngsters enter kindergarten with appropriate pre-school experiences. Thepage seven citywide early childhood programs are geared to providing the skills and experience that have often been lacking in lower income youngsters. This is tremendously important, not only to the parents, but to the self-image and self-confidence of the child. The number of students who will flourish, learn, and perform at grade level while building on a foundation of pride, achievement, and self-esteem is simply incalculable. The instructional goals of this program are to address the needs of at-risk students, at the earliest possible age, in a manner that ensures success in learning and diminishes the current disparity in performance between not only black and white children but economically advantaged and disadvantaged children. Philosophv/Ob~i ectives. The early years of life are critical for helping children realize their full developmental potential. Arranging experiences to enhance development is a task for the home, the school, and the community. The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and styles of learning which will guide daily activities. The program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of young children. It will appeal to young children and help them experience the joy of learning. The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and it will be sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritage of children. Young children need the opportunity to learn about themselves and other cultures. An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in which the children are active learners. They will be given freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about, and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrum of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. The Early Childhood Task Force has endeavored to structure a curriculum for four-year-old children that is multicultural and tailored to the individual needs and interests of the learners. In every instance, teachers of young children must be curriculum developers who are able to observe and talk with children to determine high interest areas. The specific skills taught in LRSD four-year-old classes can be found in the District's early childhood education handbook.page eight Parent Involvement. The active involvement of the family is critical to children's success in school. helps sustain the effects of school programs. It reinforces and Parents will be actively involved in the implementation of the program through: - Orientation Meeting and Make/Take Workshops - Parents will become acquainted with the program at Open House. Parents also will be provided a variety of activities and strategies to enhance achievement by their children. - Parent Participation - Parents will be invited to volunteer in the classroom, accompany the class on field trips, and observe the child in the classroom. - Advisory Committee - Parents will serve on the Early Childhood Advisory Committee. - Training Sessions - Principals and teachers will encourage parents to participate in training sessions so they can have a better understanding of the characteristics of children and how they grow. - Discussion Groups - Parent discussion groups with teachers and outside agency representatives will be scheduled as a means to improve parent effectiveness. - Parent Survey - Parents will help us evaluate the program in the school by completing a survey. A summary will be made from the responses to identify needs and provide better services for the children. Staff Development. The Little Rock School District is committed to providing continuous professional growth opportunities for all staff members. Major components of these opportunities are the districtwide training courses and minicourses which have been designed and scheduled to address staff development needs as reflected in the local schools' Annual School Improvement Plans. Also, in order to be in compliance with State Department Standards, LRSD certified staff members are required to complete a minimum of five (5) days or 27 1/2 hours of staff development training each year. Staff development activities for the four- year-old program will include but not be limited to the following areas: - Licensing Requirements - Classroom Managementpage nine - Child Development and Behavior - Learning Styles Parent Conferences - Developing Centers and Units - Transitional Activities - Prejudice Reduction - Behavior Management and Self-Esteem Instructional aides will receive child development associate training or early childhood education technical assistance depending upon individual needs. Program Evaluation. A longitudinal study of all students involved in the citywide early childhood program will be conducted. The information gained from this study will allow LRSD, and the other agencies, to make valid assessments of student achievement and program effectiveness. Recommendations The difference between the estimate for the long-range goal (874 disadvantaged children) and the number of children currently served by Head Start (361 children) is 513. The extent to which the Head Start program will expand over the next 3-5 years cannot be detennined at this time. long-range expansion planning. Head Start is currently involved in It will be necessary for the Little Rock School District to continue to work closely with COPE to determine the exact number of seats that can be provided by each agency to meet the long-range goal. The long-range goal will probably be modified as better information is acquired about the number of disadvantaged four-year-old students in Little Rock. In addition to determining the number of seats that must be provided by each agency, the Little Rock School District will have to provide enough seats at each new site to meet the desegregation requirements. The following recommendations are tentative pending the collection of additional details on demographics and expansion possibilities, and the finalization of agreements with COPE, citywide early childhood planning committee will be formed to A continue the process of studying these factors. The committeepage ten will consist of representatives from the Little Rock School District, COPE, Model Cities, the Housing Authority, related agencies. and other quarter. The committee will meet at least once each The nature of long-range planning to meet the growing needs of disadvantaged children is such that ongoing collaboration and planning is crucial. 1992-93 A. B. Open a class at Bale School - 20 seats Open 3 classes at the Asher Avenue Head Start Center C. D. (directly across from Wilson School) Open a class at Watson School - 20 seats Open a class at Geyer Springs - 20 seats 60 seats 1993-94 A. B. Open two classes at the new King School - 40 seats Convert Ish School to an early childhood center if the attendance zones for the new interdistrict schools will allow for accommodation of Ish students at nearby schools and place LRSD in a position to petition the court to authorize conversion of Ish to an early childhood center. The proximity of the new King School, Mitchell School, and Rightsell School, and the low enrollment at Ish are factors that will be considered in developing a proposal to submit to the court. C. Open at least one class at the new SWLR Head Start Center - 20 seats 1994-95 A. Open two classes at the new Stephens School - 40 seatsFOUR-YEAR-OLD DEMOGRAPHICS AREA DESCRIPTION 1987 1988 1989 1990 A Fulbright Terry 99 83 89 108 B Brady Fair Park Jefferson McDermott 130 125 138 157 C Pul. Hgts. Woodruff 83 105 119 95 D Rightsell Mitchell Rockefeller Ish 324 377 314 283 E Carver Mann 93 81 96 90 F Badgett 13 14 28 25 G Romine 131 161 135 116 H Parkview Wilson Bale 107 106 74 111 I Franklin Stephens Garland 324 318 313 285 J Western Hills Meadowcliff Dodd 73 81 92 93 K Geyer Springs Wakefield 73 81 100 96 L Otter Creek 24 28 23 28 M Cloverdale Mabelvale Watson Chicot 159 166 201 216 N Baseline 133 135 141 116For suspension of the rules at regular Board meeting on April 23, 1992. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEiyPO April 23, 1992 APR 2 2 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: istelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs THROUGH: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) Program Continuing Grant Application The Arkansas Department of Education recently aimounced the availability of Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) monies for second-year funding of developmentally appropriate early childhood education programs which identify and assist educationally-deprived children ages three (3) to five (5), as specified in the Arkansas Better Chance Program, Act 212 of 1991. The request for the Continuing Grant Application was released April 16, 1992, and the deadline for submission is May 8, 1992. The amount requested for second-year funding may not exceed the total amount of last years grant award, plus a five percent increase. 1991-92 Grant Allocation Center-based Four-Year-Old Program HIPPY Program Total Allocation Five percent increase $100,000.00 47.050.00 $147,050.00 + 7,352.50 Continuing Grant Request 1992-93 $154,402.50 It is recommended that you authorize the administration to submit an application for second-year funding in the amount of $154,402.50.ARKANSAS BETTER CHANCE ( STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES 1. The applicant has the necessary legal authority to apply for and to receive the proposed contract. (Attach a copy of the substantiating document.) 2. The applicant agrees to plan and implement a program in compliance with Act 212 of 1991, the Arkansas Better Chance Program, and to follow all applicable state and federal statutes and regulations. 3. If applicable, the applicant agrees to secure a license for a child care center under The Child Care Licensing Act, Ark Code Ann. 20-78-201 through 221 (1987 and Supp. 1989). 4. The applicant agrees to keep such records and provide such information to the Arkansas Department of Education and to the Arkansas Department of Human Services as reasonably may be required for fiscal auditing and program evaluation. 5. The applicant agrees to use funds provided under Act 212 of 1991 to supplement and not to supplant existing funds for early childhood programs. 6. The applicant agrees to participate upon request in an external annual evaluation of the project as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. 7. The applicant agrees to coordinate its efforts with other early childhood programs and service providers to provide a comprehensive, quality early childhood program. 8. The applicant agrees to prohibit discrimination and intimidation on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin in student selection and employment practices. 9. The activities and service.s under this proposed program will be admim'stered by or under the supervision of the applicant. 10. For operation of HIPPY Programs, a letter of authorization from HIPPY USA will be provided. 11. The filing of this application was authorized at the following official meeting: District Board of Education meeting Policy Board meeting--------------- Head of Administration________ President of Board ____________ Date Date Date Date Date Signature of Authorized Official TitleFOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM LONG-TERM PLAN Little Rock School District Ofiico (.\n? iiacj jUH 4 o{ Desegregation Moniw-3 This report will outline the long-range plans for expanding the early childhood education program in the Little Rock School District. In particular, this report will address the demographic, instructional, and structural needs for expanding the current four-year-old program. The report will begin with a review of background information related to the expansion of the four-year-old program in the Little Rock School District. selecting program sites will be provided. Next, the objectives for The objectives will be followed by an analysis of demographic data related to the four- year-old population in the Little Rock School District. A review of the instructional goals of the four-year-old program will be included. Finally, long-term recoiranendations for establishing new four-year-old classes will be presented. Background The Little Rock School District four-year-old program was started during the 1988-89 school year as a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Although Rockefeller Elementary School served four-year-old students prior to this time, the emphasis on using this program as a tool to desegregate schools started in the 1988-89 school year. Three schools participated in the four-year-old program during the 1988-89 school year: Ish, Rockefeller, and Stephens. In the following year (1989-90), four-year-old classes were added to Franklin and Washington. Four-year-old classes were added to Badgett and Garland in the 1990-91 school year and Mitchell, Rightsell, Romine, and Woodruff at the beginning of the current school year - 1991-92. According to the May 1 court order, the District must \"accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\" (page 16). in the Little Rock School District. There are 36 elementary schools This moans that the District must provide 648 four-year-old seats in order to comply with the desegregation plan. a four-year-old program in 1992-93. Figure One shows the schools which will have These schools will account for 378 of the 648 four-year-old seats needed by 1994-95.1992-93 Badgett Bale Cloverdale Franklin Garland Geyer Spgs. Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Washington Watson Wilson Woodruff 2 FIGURE ONE Ineligible 1993-94. 1994-95 Brady Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Moadowcliff Otter Creek Pul. Heights Terry Western Hills Baseline Chicot* King** Booker Carver Gibbs Williams * Under consideration - will need additional space (NOTE: Wakefield is eligible for a four-year-old program, but no space is available for an additional class.) ** If approved by the Court to open in 1994-953 Objectives for Selecting Sites It has already been stated that the expansion of the four- year-old program in the Little Rock School District is related to two major objectives: (1) to meet the growing needs of disadvantaged students\nand (2) to improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. These objectives are consistent with the terms of the May 1 court order to \"place four-year-old programs in locations which will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance\" (page 16). These objectives carry with them, however, certain limitations in regard to the location of future four-year-old sites. A factor that should be considered in identifying future four-year-old sites is the number of disadvantaged students in a given area. Priority should be given to areas that have a very high concentration of low income students. The second objective of the long-range plan for expanding the four-year-old program is to improve the racial balance in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The elementary school attendance zones were originally designed to establish a racial balance at each school of 55% black and 45% white with a variance of 5%. Demographic changes over the past two years have resulted in some attendance zones having a lower number of white students than anticipated. The District has been successful in using the fo\\ir-year-old program, along with other voluntary desegregation measures, to attract white students to schools that fall in this category. For instance, the Romine area is experiencing a steady increase in its black population. The four-year-old program at Romine School, however, is 50% white. The use of the four-year-old program as a means to improve the racial balance at certain schools also implies that these classes cannot be placed in attendance zones that continue to remain racially balanced. This restriction does not preclude the placement of four-year-old classes in satellite zones that have heavy concentrations of disadvantaged students. The attendance zones that are ineligible for a program because of racial balance Brady, Dodd, Fair Park, Forest Park, Fulbright, Jefferson, Mabelvale, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights, Terry, and Western Hills. balances that are less than 55% black. These attendance zones have racial are: In light of the information provided in Figure One, the District will need to open a total of 270 four-year-old seats by the 1994-95 school year in order to comply with the desegregation plan. This goal can be met by using area centers, opening programs at schools that are eligible, and/or adding one or more classes to schools with existing four-year-old programs.4 Demographics Attachment One shows the number of four-year-old students The over the past four years who have enrolled in kindergarten, schools are listed as a means of describing each geographic area. Areas A, B, H, J, L, and M experienced increases between 1989 and 1990. The largest increase (50% growth) occurred in Area H - the area around Parkview, Wilson, and Bale Schools. This area will be referred to as the John Barrow Road area. The growth in areas L (22% growth), A (7% growth), and B (14% growth) is more likely to be the result of parents who decided to choose public education, as opposed to a net increase in births. The fluctuations in these areas over the four-year period tend to confirm this assumption. The increase in Area M (7% growth) from 1989 to 1990 tends to suggest the need for more early childhood services in southwest Little Rock. In addition to this finding, however, Area M is the only area that experienced a steady increase of more than 1% growth in the number of four-year-old children during the period of 1987-1990: 1987-1988 1988-1989 1989-1990 4% growth 21% growth 7% growth The findings for Areas H and M should be coupled with the trend in Area J - the area around Western Hills, Meadowcliff, and Dodd Schools. This area is contiguous to, and in some cases overlaps, what is generally considered to be the Barrow Road area and southwest Little Rock. Again, a steady increase in the number of four-year-old children is evident during the period of 1987-1990\n1987-1988 1988-1989 1989-1990 11% growth 14% growth 1% growth These data document the need for four-year-old services in the John Barrow Road area and southwest Little Rock. Although these areas continue to show growth, future services in the central Little Rock area should not be disregarded. Attachment One indicates heavy concentrations of four-year-old students in Areas D and I, the areas which serve the Incentive Schools, though both areas have experienced declines since 1988. even Instructional Goals The whole thrust of the early childhood program has been to remedy the academic differences that our students are bringing In the past, we have experienced low into the school system. Significant amounts of performance, retention, and dropouts. time and money have been expended on remediation, special 5 education, and on providing the basic level of preparation needed to succeed in school. Many of the problems of skills disparity that are chronic in The the higher grades are lessened when all youngsters enter kindergarten with appropriate pre-school experiences. District's four-year-old program is designed to provide the skills and experience that have often been lacking in lower income youngsters. This is tremendously important, not only to the parents, but to the self-image and self-confidence of the The number of students who will flourish, learn, and child. perform at grade level while building on a foundation of pride, achievement, and self-esteem is simply incalculable. The instructional goals of this program are to address the needs of at-risk students, at the earliest possible age, in a manner that ensures success in learning and diminishes the current disparity in performance between not only black and white children but economically advantaged and disadvantaged children. The early years of life are critical Philosophv/Qbjectives, for helping children realize their full developmental potentxal. Arranging experiences to enhance develojxnent is a task for the home, the school, and the community. The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and The styles of learning which will guide daily activities. program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of It will appeal to young children and help them young children. experience the joy of learning. The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and it will be sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritage of children. Young children need the opportunity to learn about themselves and other cultures. An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in They will be given which the children are active learners. freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about, and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrxim of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. The Early Childhood Task Force has endeavored to structure a curriculum for four-year-old children that is multicultural and tailored to the individual needs and interests of the learners. In every instance In every instance, teachers of young children must be curriculum developers who are able to observe and talk with children to determine high interest areas. The specific skills taught in LRSD four-year-old classes can be found in the District's early childhood education handbook.6 Parent Involvement, The active involvement of the family is critical to children's success in school. It reinforces and Parents will be helps sustain the effects of school programs. actively involved in the implementation of the program through: - Orientation Meeting and Make/Take Workshops - Parents will become acquainted with the program at Open House. Parents also will be provided a variety of activities and strategies to enhance achievement by their children. - Parent Participation - Parents will be invited to volunteer in the classroom, accompany the class on field trips, and observe the child in the classroom. - Advisory Coirenittee - Parents will serve on the Early Childhood Advisory Committee. - Training Sessions - Principals and teachers will encourage parents to participate in training sessions so they can have a better understanding of the characteristics of children and how they grow. Discussion Groups - Parent discussion groups with teachers and outside agency representatives will be scheduled as a means to improve parent effectiveness. Parent Survey - Parents will help us evaluate the program in the school by completing a survey. A summary will be made from the responses to identify needs and provide better services for the children. Staff Development. The Little Rock School District is conmitted to providing continuous professional growth opportunities for all staff members. Major components of these opportunities are the districtwide training courses and minicourses which have been designed and scheduled to address staff developxnent needs as reflected in the local schools' Annual School Improvement Plans. Also, in order to be in compliance with State Department Standards, LRSD certified staff members are required to complete a minimum of five (5) days or 27 1/2 hours of staff development Staff development activities for the four- training each year. year-old program will include but not be limited to the following areas : - Licensing Requirements Classroom Management - Child Development and Behavior7 - Learning Styles Parent Conferences - Developing Centers and Units Transitional Activities - Prejudice Reduction - Behavior Management and Self-Esteem Instructional aides will receive child development associate training or early childhood education technical assistance depending upon individual needs. Program Evaluation. A longitudinal study of all students involved in the four-year-old program will be conducted. The information gained from this study will allow the District to make valid assessments of student achievement and program effectiveness. Long-Range Proposal - Structural Heeda As stated earlier, the District will need to open a total of 270 four-year-old seats by the 1994-95 school year in order to comply with the desegregation plan. This amount is equivalent to 15 four-year-old classes with a maximum capacity of 18 students in each class. It was also noted that future four-year-old programs should be located in the John Barrow Road area, southwest Little Rock, and/or the area around the incentive schools. In regard to future four-year-old sites, the Little Rock School District proposes the following: A. Chicot. In the 1993-94 school year, open a class at Baseline and The class at Chicot is contingent on the District's ability to free a classroom (e.g. eliminate a kindergarten cla\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_436","title":"Early childhood","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Childhood development","School improvement programs","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Early childhood"],"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/436"],"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'(I3/24-3S 13: 22 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMLNICATI fiDM @ 002.'1)03 Littie Rock School District For Immediate Release March 24, 199S For more information: SuelJen Vann, 324-2020 School District Opening Daycare Center Babies and toddlers will soon Join the ranks of students at a Little Rock high school. The Metropolitan Learning Opportunity Child Care Center will occuny a portion. of the Metropolitan Vocationai Techrdcal Center, located at 7701 Scott Hamilton Diive. Childcare Director Shirley Lewis is overseeing preparations for the April 1st opening of the facility. We are excited about ser''vtng young children from the age of six weeks to two and one-half years old in this center, levris said. We plan to provide childcare for any of our secondary students who may be young parents. The Metropolitan Learning Opportunity Child Care Center is funded by a $48,500 grant from the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission. The grant will fund materials and eqmpinent for the center, as well as paying the daycare costs for income-eligible students. In addition to providing daycare sendees., the center plans to teach appropriate parenting skills to teen parents in the fumre. ihe Center will be licensed by die .Arkansas Deparment of Human Sendees. We will work with infants and toddlers to improve tlieir developmental skdils by reading to them and providing age appropriate games, music and other activities, Lewis added,  i he center is open to anyone in the cornrauniry. Private pay enrollments will be accepted in addition to the children of Little Rock studente. (more) 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 \"os. 24.98 ^..11 324 2023 LRSI) COMMVMCATI OD.M @003.003 CAlIhfcMMlMni. tx. .\u0026lt;WU Metopohtan Child Care Center Page i of 2. Little Rock chool District Pupil Sendees Director Jo Eveljn Elston said that a survey of teen parents intiicated that some students, m ust leave school because they do not have childcare available. We believe the Center -w,!! help to keep some of our young female students in school by offering a daycare option for their infan.ts, Elston said. \"A CjUdlitv daycare program in an educational setting will meet this need . Metropolitan Learning Opportunity Child Care Center joins the Rockefe-Uer tarty L liildhooc Program in sernng infantB and toddlers. Ihs new center -^sdll be open from. S:00 a.m. until 4\n,30 p.m. Monday tliroug.h Friday. Parents ma'y visit the facility dlnng an open .house on Sunday, April 5, fioin. 2:00 un.til 4:00 p.m. Reggstration forms and additionaj ajiformation. m,a\\ be obtained by calling Ms. Le'ads at 324-216404. 21/199S 08: 19 501-.924-20 lRSD COMMLInICATIONS P.AGE 02.'02 Little Rock School District f ar Immediare P,.elease April 21, 1998 For more information\nSuellen Vann, 324-2020 Kindergiirten Students Celebrate National Kindergarten Day Thanks to YamelJs Ice Cream, kindergarten students in the Little Rock School Dismct ( LRSD) vnll enjoy ice cream parties today to cotnmsmorate National Kindergarten Day. Each kindergarten class in the LRSD received a Yarnells Ice Cream Party Kit winch included ice cream, scoops, bowls, spoons and napkins. We wanted tlie kids to have some fun vhile we took note of the significant contributions made by kindergarten programs and kindergarten teachers,\" said Doug Sanders. Yameils senior vice president. Early childhood education is the foundation for a successful, productive school experience. This is our way of encouraging the children, and saying dianks to the teachers, media NOTE: Janne Neals kindergarten class at Pulaski Heights Elementan' will have an outdoor celebration beginning at 1:30 p.m. today with huge bubbles and parachute activities as part of their National Kindergarten Day festivities. 810 West l^aTkham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: \\oard of Directors Boan From: es Gamine, Superintendent Date pril 23, 1998 Subject: April Desegregation Update The attached information represents the desegregation update for the month of April.Little Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting April 23, 1998 FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM A total of 990 applicants have applied for the four-year old program through April 1 1998. The Little Rock School District has seats for 720 four-year olds. Parents were notified by mail on April 17, 1998, regarding their placement in the program or on the waiting list. All unfilled seats are reserved for white/other students, with the exception of 12 seats at Badgett Elementary that are available for black students. All remaining vacant seats will be filled on a 1\" come basis.PRE-REGISTRATION JAN. 26-FEB. 6 1999 4-YEAR OLD APPLICATIONS [ Applications Filed ________________II________ Name of School \n Capacity BADGETT BALE BASELINE BRADY CHICOT CLOVERDALE FAIR PARK FRANKLIN GARLAND GEYER SPRING ML KING MABELVALE MITCHELL RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE WASHINGTON WATSON WILSON WOODRUFF CLINTON CRYSTAL HILL 36 36 36 18 36 36 36 72 18 36 72 18 18 18 54 36 54 36 18 36 26 30 NON- Black IBLK 6 23 27 30 27 28 18 37 24 36 102 20 15 23 35 39 27 36 30 18 26 51 0 5 4 25 13 2 18 6 1 9 40 12 1 3 26 15 31 0 8 10 0 0 Total 6 28 31 55 40 30 36 43 25 45 142 32 16 26 61 54 57 36 38 28 26 51 I TOTAL ASSIGNED INON- Black I Black 6 18 18 9 18 18 18 36 9 18 36 9 9 9 27 18 27 18 9 18 26 30 0 8 3 9 13 2 18 6 1 9 36 9 1 3 27 15 27 1 8 10 0 0 776 678 229 906 404 206 Total 6 26 21 18 31 20 36 42 10 27 72 18 10 12 54 33 54 19 17 28 26 30 610 Non-Black Assigned total represent some 2nd choices LRSD - STUDENT ASSIGNMENT ]To\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEJVED Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring APR 2 8 1998 From: Nancy Acre, Director Student Assignment Office OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING Date: ^April 27, 1998 Subj.: Movement of 4-year old class Mrs. Sadie Mitchell has asked me to notify you that Little Rock School District has decided to move one 4-year old class from Badgett to Dodd, effective August, 1998. Dodd has a strong interest in offering the 4-year old class. They have polled their community and have asked the superintendent to allow them to have the class. Due to the decrease in enrollment and difficulty in filling the 4-year old seats in two classes at Badgett, it is the decision of the district to move one class to Dodd. Please feel free to call if you have questions. Thank you. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 May 5, 1998 Nancy Acre, Director Student Assignment Office Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Nancy: Thanks so much for your April 27 memo informing me of the districts decision to move a four-year- old class from Badgett to Dodd next fall. It was good to hear from you, and I appreciate your keeping me posted. 1 would appreciate some further infonnation if you have it. WTiile I agree that it makes sense to move the four-year-old class in the instance you described, Id like to know what policies and procedures the LRSD has adopted that provide criteria and guidelines for changing the location of its four-year- old classes. As you know, the district had previously committed to locating the four-year-old program at specific schools. As a matter of fact, the LRSDs new desegregation plan contemplates that the four-year-old classes will remain at their present sites or in the same general location. While Im not suggesting that the district should not move a four-year-old class to a new location, I do want to understand the process the district follows to arrive at such decisions. Since your memo indicated that Sadie Mitchell had asked you to notify me about moving the Badgett class to Dodd, Ill send a copy of this letter to her. Tliank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Anns. Bro\\ S. Brown cc: Sadie MitchellRECBVF.e MAY 1 8 1993 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Date: May 15, 1998 mIB To: Re: Ann Brown. Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring John Walker, Attorney for the Joshua Intervenors Early Childhood Program: Pre-Kindergarten We currently have, as of May 4, 1998, a total of 574 children signed up for the districts four-year old classes. 358 155 61 574 Black White Other Total (62%) (27%) (11%) We have 146 openings to fill before we reach current capacity of 720 seats. Recommendation: The District shall release all seats to children on the waiting list except two seats per classroom. The result would be the release of 114 seats to children on the waiting list, reserving 32 seats for children who move into the district during the summer. The District would release 50% of any remaining seats on the Tuesday after Labor Day. I he uisirici wouid release aii remaining seats on October 1. We understand that this is substantially what the Court has previously approved. I will request the Boards approval regarding the recommendation on May 28, 1998. If you have modifications that you would like for us to consider, I look forward to hearing from you. Re^peraully, Leslie V.cSarnine Superinten^nt of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 e nuz.t4^ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: May 22, 1998 BY FAX To: Les Carnine From: Ann Bro Re: District Proposal for Releasing Four-Year-Old Seats Thank you for your May 15, 1998 memo about releasing empty seats in the LRSDs four-year-old program for 1998-99. I commend you for addressing this issue long before the start of the next school year. Im puzzled by your recommendation to release seats in increments and upon dates that bear no relationship to a district policy, procedure, guideline, or precedent of which I am aware. Nor do I agree that your recommendation is substantially what the Court has previously approved. Our records reflect no history of the district either proposing or implementing an incremental release of seats on a timeline such as that outlined in your memo. The districts practice has been to racially balance the initial spring enrollment of the four-year-old classes, reserve seats for white students in proportions that would preserve racial balance, hold those seats open until school is about to start (or actually has started), and then, citing the districts recruitment efiforts, ask the Courts permission to immediately fill the seats with black children from a waiting list. The LRSD has moved the Court for permission to release unfilled four-year-old seats on a timetable that was always the districts own (not that of the Court) and that also varied from year to year: the dates upon which the district filed its requests to fill vacancies were either in August or September as the new academic year was getting underway. The Court quickly responded to those motions, not wishing to delay childrens access to early childhood education. Because your recommendation represents a departure from the districts previous approach to releasing four-year-old seats, and because Im not aware of any district policies that guide its decisions on how and when to release four-year-old seats. Id appreciate an explanation of the process the district followed to arrive at the recommendation in your memo. As you requested, here are my suggestions: 1. Define the guidelines (policies, procedures, and timelines) for releasing early childhood seats, including an explanation of the reasons underlying the criteria. Make the guidelines sufficiently comprehensive to apply every year but flexible enough to allow for adaptation when special circumstances arise. I Page Two May 26, 1998 2. Use district records and consult with the parent recruiters to determine how many children usually move into the LRSD during the summer months and reserve seats accordingly. (I agree that it may be prudent to reserve some seats for new children, but how did the district arrive at 32 as the number of reserved seats needed for children moving into the district during the summer?) 3. Consider releasing vacant four-year-old seats before Labor Day and certainly well before October 1. Why wait to release half the remaining seats on the Tuesday after Labor Day (why 50% and why after Labor Day, which is September 7 this year)? Waiting until October 1, well into the school year, to release the remaining seats is a very lengthy delay. Its important for children to settle into their classes as early as possible in the new academic year. cc\nJohn WalkerC. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: May 28, 1998 BY FAX To: Les Carnine From: Ann BrowJ Re: Comments on Second Draft of LRSD Recommendation for Releasing Four-Year-Old Seats Glad we finally caught up with each other on the phone. We both agree with the districts objective of seating children in early childhood classes as soon as possible in any new school year. I also agree that specific wording of the guidelines for releasing seats can be worked out in the next few days. Evidently my fax to you this afternoon crossed with the second fax you sent me, which contained some revisions of the earlier fax (sounds like whos on first!). I still stand by my previous recommendations and now, as you requested, add these, which pertain to the most recent draft Ive seen. These suggestions are to correct errors or clarify wording: Page 1, paragraph 3: Correct the error that appears in the third paragraph, because the district hasnt always filed in August. Below are the dates on which the LRSD filed its requests to fill vacant seats and the date the court responded over the last four years: LRSD Motion September?, 1997 August 1, 1996 August 16, 1995 August 25, 1994 Court Order Septembers, 1997 August 27, 1996 September?, 1995 September 7, 1994 Page 1, paragraph 4, last sentence, last phrase: Specify which disparity is to be closed. (I presume the disparity is that in academic achievement between the races, but its always best to be clear.) Page 2, paragraph 1, item b: The district doesnt report its enrollment on October 1. Rather, October 1 enrollment is the official student count that the district reports to the Arkansas Department of Education. Page 2, #6: Why release all but two of the vacancies per class? This may be a perfectly reasonable number, but what is it based upon? Do district records of enrollment patterns show that two seats per classroom will likely yield the number of vacancies the district wants to preserve over the summer?Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: May 28, 1998 To: Les Carnine From: Ann Browi Re: Changes in LRSD Recommendation for Releasing Four-Year-Old Seats Thanks for faxing me a response to my recent memo about the districts proposal for releasing four- year-old seats. Your note asked me to give you a call today, which I did, but reached only recorded messages. I know that the Board meeting days are hectic, so Im faxing you this message in case we arent able to talk by phone today. The changes Pat Price suggested are reasonable and will help ensure better service to more children earlier in the school year. However, if the seven points in the proposed guidelines are to be consistently applied every year, as Ms. Price indicated, and are also to align with the districts desegregation goals, you may want to consider the points Ive listed below. (My intention isnt to edit your documents. Les, just to make suggestions that may head off some future confusion or problems.) 1. 2. 3. Because the whole idea behind reserving seats is to promote racially balanced enrollment, add a few words or a short sentence (perhaps to #1 on Pats list) to indicate that the districts goal is to racially balance its four-year-old program. In #4 on the list, it might be wise to clarify up front who is to be responsible for making the monthly assessment of vacancies. (Student Assignment?) In #5, change fill to read racially balance the vacancies that exist. (Thats what the recruiters will be trying to do in May and June: just filling the vacancies isnt usually the problem, but getting white children into them is.) 4. Because school starts on a different date each year, guideline #7 can become more generically useful if it doesnt include a specific date (like September 1), but rather a date in relationship to, say, the first day of school. Labor Day, or the month of September. For example, the wording might be during the second week of school or the day after Labor Day, or the first Monday in September. Just use which ever timeframe district records indicate is the best date for releasing seats to accommodate the after-Labor-Day deluge and give Student Assignment enough time to process the necessary paperwork to get the children into their classes as soon as possible.LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 925 P01 MAY 28 98 13:23 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 fax MJKIBER: (501) 324-2146 SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE Date\n/i To: '^rcixn-. n Telephone No,\nMESSAGE: lOz' 1) Number of Pages Sent To FAX Phone Number J* f  LRSD SUPTS OFFICE S25 P02 MAY 23 93 13:23 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO\nFROM: Dr. Les Carnine. Superintendent Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood Education DATE\nMay 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Response to Ann Browns Memo of May 22, 1998 Thank you for your suggestions regarding the memo of May 15, 1998, addressing the release of reserved seats in the LRSDs four year old program for the 1998-99 school year. The process that the district followed to arrive at the recommendation that was initially sent to you was: The Director of Early Childhood Education sent a memofeking what process was used for releasing the reserved seats under the revised Desegregation and Education Plan. She also asked that the issue be addressed as early as possible so that we could expedite the process and provide children 'with the opportunity to participate in the program at an earlier date. In addition, the director made a recommendation for releasing the seats. tn the past year (97-98) the request for a blanket release of reserved seats has been handled by the districts attorneys, after receiving the necessary information from student assignment, such as the number of seats available and the recruitment efforts of the district. The beginning of this process was initiated in late August. The time required for the filing process, a decision, and implementation of that decision resulted in a delay of children being able to participate in the program. It is the districts goal to streamline this process in an attempt to fill the vacancies in an appropriate manner while holding sufficient seats for new patrons and to help further racial balance. The proposal used 32 for the number of seats to be reserved for children moving into the district. This number was based on an approximation of the vacancies that existed in schools which had openings after releasing 50% of the reserved seats in all classes that had vacancies as of May 5, 1998. Please remember that this number will change on an ongoingLRSD SLIPTS OFFICE 925 P03 MAY 28 98 13:24 basis as children are assigned to the program from now until the end of June. The reasoning behind selecting the day after Labor Day and Octobei 1 as the days for releasing the reserved seats was\nJays tne reserveo was. The district usually has a number of children who wait until b. after Labor Day to register. The October 1 date is the official date that the district uses for student counts. r e The (istrict has no problem with releasing the seats at earlier dates and has r lade some adjustments in this area. The district expects these changes to provide the benefits of the program to more children, quickly. Now, seats in an effort to expedite and standardize the process for releasing the district is proposing the following procedures and timelines: 1. 2. Initial enrollment for the four year old program will be in January/Parents may enroll at the student assignment office or at th^ir attendance zone school. Notification of assignments to the four year old program will be mailed to parents in April. 3. Registration for the four year old program will reopen and parents may register at the student assignment office. 4.. After initial assignments are made, there will be-a monthly assessment to see where the vacancies exist in four year old classes and assignments made accordingly. 5. During the months of May and June, recruitment efforts will be made by parent recruiters in the student assignment office to frlfthe vacancies that exist. 6, 1. After recruitment efforts have been made, at the end of June, classrooms that have vacancies will release 50% of their vacancies to students who are on the waiting list. The remaining seats will be reserved to help^reat^ desegregated program. On September 1, all remaining vacant seats will be released and will be filled from the waiting list. ScA.Mi/5C\u0026lt;a Needless to say no system is perfect\nhowever, these procedures will , provide guidelines with time frames that can be consistently aoclied every year. The district intends to closely monitor the procedures to see if \"further changes will be necessary or advisable. I yiAjti,LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 927 P01 MAY 28 98 15:58 Date: To: From: Telephone No.: MESSAGE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 FAXNUMBER: (501)324-2146 SUPERlNTENDENrS OFFICE c Number of Eases Sent -3 To FxAK Phone Number -0 fO 0 LRSD SUPTS OFFICE LKou oinrr uc.vc.i.urric.i'i i rciA'QVA~..\u0026gt;..sujvo riciy zo 927 PQ2 MAY 28 98 15:57 r- 50 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO: FROM: Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood Education DATE: May 28,1998 SUBJECT: Response to Ann Browns Memo of May 22. 1998 Thank you for your suggestions regarding the memo of May 15,1998, addressing the release of reserved seats in the LRSDs four-year-old program for the 1998-99 schoc! year. The process that the district foilowed to arrive at the recommendation that was initially sent to you was: . The Director of Early Childhood Education sent a memo asking what process was used for releasing the reserved seats under the revised Desegregation and Education Plan. She also asked that the issue be addressed as early as possible so that we could expedite the process and provide chiidren witn the opportunity to participate in the program at an earlier date, in addition, the director made a recommendation for releasing the seats. Durinq the past three years the request for a blanket release of reserved seats has been handled by th districts attorneys, after receiving the necessary information from student assignment, such as the number of seats available and the recruitment efforts of the district. The ........... July by the Student Assignment Office and filed process was Initiated in July by the Student Assignment unice duu with the court in August. The time required for the filing process, a decision and implementation of that decision resulted in a delay of klCwlw'-wl I \u0026gt; Ml *W ._ I /I, chiidren being able to participate in the program. (X Traditionally two-thirds of at! four-year-oid applications are requesied for African American students. This results in a large number of these students being placed on waiting lists, while seats resented for nonAfrican American students remain vacant. It is the district s goal to streamiins this process in an attempt to fill the vacancies in an appropriate manner while holding sufficient seats for new patrons and to help further racial balance and close the disparity. The prcposal used 32 for the number of seats to be reserved for children moving Into the district. This number was based on an approximation of th vacancies that existed in schools which had openings after releasing 50% of the reserved seats in all classes that had vacancies as of May 5, 1998. Please remember that this number will change on an ongoingLRSD SUPTS OFFICE LRSD STAFF LtVtLUHMtNI FaxibUi-oz^-Loue Ilciy zo 927 P03 MAY\n8  98 15:5? basis as children are June. assigned to the program from now until the end of The reasoning behind selecting the day after Labor Day and October 1 as the davs for releasing foe reserved seats was: The district usually has a number of children who wait until a. b. after Labor Day to register. October 1 is foe date that the district reports fog gfficial student counts to the Arkansas Department of Education. The district has no problem with releasing foe has made some adjustments in this area. The distr.ct . i changes to provide foe benefits of the program to more children, quicKly. Now. in an effort to expedite and standardize the foj '^^^asing seats, the district is proposing the following procedures and timelines. 1, 2. 3. Initial enrollment for the four-year-old program will be during( foe districts regular registration period. Parents may enrc.l at the Student assignment office or at their attendance zone school, if applicable. Notification of assignments to ths four-year-oid program will be mailed to parents in April. Registration for the four-year-old program will reofer. and parents may register at foe student assignment office. 4.. After initial assignments are made, there will be a monthly assessment to see where foe vacancies exist m fou^ear-old classes and assignments will be made accordingly. 5. During the months of May and June recruitment ^ll be made by parent recruiters in the student assignment office to fs-l the vacancies that exist. 8. After recruitment efforts have been made, at Classrooms foat have vacancies will reiease^but^of foe^r vacancies to students who are on the waiting nst. the remaining seats will be reserved to help create a desegregated program. 7. On September 1, all remaining vacant seats will be released and will be filled from foe waiting list. Needless to say no system is perfect\nhowever, these procedures wl.l provide guidelines with time frames foat can be consistently applied every year. The district intends to closely monitor foe procedures to see if further changes will be necessary or advisable.* Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: June 3, 1998 To: Les Carnine line X From: Ann Bro Re: District Guidelines for Releasing Four-Year-Old Seats Thanks for the fax you gave me today, which contained Pat Prices updated guidelines for releasing four-year-old seats. The guidelines look fine to me. Good job!J_RSD STAFF DEOELOPMENT Fax:501-324-0508 Jun 3 98 11:03 p.02 MjtlTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO\nLes Carnine, Superintendent FROM: /Pat Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood Education DATE: June 3, 1998 SUBJECT: Response to Ann Browns Memo of May 28. 1998 The suggestions that Ms. Brown has made can be easily addressed\nand if these suggestionswill help head off. confusion or problems, then I recommend all of the underlined changes be made. The process that the district followed to arrive at the recommendation that was initially sent to you was\nThe Director of Early Childhood Education sent a memo asking what process was used for releasing the reserved seats under the revised Desegregation and Education Plan. She also asked that the issue be addressed as early as possible so that the district could expedite tfie process and provide children with the opportunity to participate in the program at an earlier date. In addition, the director made a recommendation for releasing the seats. During the past three years the request for a blanket release of reserved seats has been handled by the districts attorneys, after receiving the necessary information from student assignment, such as the number of seats available and the recruitment efforts of the district. The process was initiated in July by the Student Assignment Office and filed with the court in August or September. The time required for the filing process, a decision, and implementation of that decision resulted in a delay of children being able to participate in the program. Traditionally two-thirds of all four-year-old applications are requested for African American students. This results in a large number of these students being placed on waiting lists, while seats reserved for nonAfrican American students remain vacant. It is the districts goal to streamline this process in an attempt to fill the vacancies in an appropriate manner while holding sufficient seats for new patrons and to help further racial balance and close the disparity in academic achievement between the races...LRSD STAFF DEUELOPMENT Fax:501-324-0508 Jun 3 98 11:04 p.03 The proposal used 32 for the number of seats to be reserved for children moving into the district. This number was based on an approximation of the vacancies that existed in schools which had openings after releasing 50% of the reserved seats in all classes that had vacancies as of May 5, 1998. Please remember that this number will change on an ongoing basis as children are assigned to the program from now until the end of June. The reasoning behind selecting the day after Labor Day and October 1 as the days for releasing the reserved seats was: a. The district usually has a number of children who wait until after Labor Day to register. b. October 1 enrollment is the official student count that the district reports to the Arkansas Department of Education. The district has no problem with releasing the seats at earlier dates and has made some adjustments in this area. The district expects these changes to provide the benefits of the program to more children, quickly. Now, in an effort to expedite and standardize the process for releasing seats that are reserved to promote racially balanced enrollment, the district is proposing the followng procedures and timelines\n1. Initial enrollment for the four-year-old program will be during the districts regular registration period. Parents may enroll at the student assignment office or at their attendance zone school, if applicable. 2. Notification of assignments to the four-year-old program will be mailed to parents in April. 3. Registration for the four-year-old program will reopen and parents may register at the student assignment office. 4.. After initial assignments are made, Student Assignment will do a monthly assessment to see where the vacancies exist in four-year- old classes and assignments will be made accordingly, 5. During the months of May and June, recruitment efforts will be made by parent recruiters in the student assignment office to racially balance the vacancies that exist.^LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT Fax:501-324-0508 Jun 3 98 11:04 p.04 6. 7. After recruitment efforts have been made, at the end of June, classrooms that have vacancies will release ail but two of their vacancies to students who are on the waiting list. The remaining seats will be reserved to help create a desegregated program. These seats may or may not exist at the end of June, and it is true that two is an arbitrary number\nhowever, in an effort to help attain the goal to promote a racially balanced enrollment, the district feels that this is a reasonable request to reserve a minimum of two seats in every classroom that has vacancies, During the second week of school, all remaining vacant seats will be released and will be filled from the waiting list. Needless to say no system is perfect\nhowever, these procedures will provide guidelines with time frames that can be consistently applied every year. The district intends to closely monitor the procedures to see if further changes will be necessary or advisable., .LRSD STAFF DEyELOPMENT Fax:501-324-0508 Jun 3 98 11:03 P. 01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFF DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 S PULASKI LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 FAX (501) 324-0508 DATE TO  FROM ir 4  . SENDERS PHONE NO. 3^ V - SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of pages (include cover page) -S: FAX Phone Number Transmitted By C^^-, TrC5? Z Date Time ///\u0026gt;,\u0026lt; 09/17/1999 15:15 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS C! ' PAGE 02/02 810 West Markham UttleRock, AR 72201 sevann@Irsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us For Immediate Release September 17,1999 For more information\nPat Price, 324-0517 Suellen Vann, 324-2020 / New Pre-Kindergarten and Head Start Classes to Open Children who are 4-years-old may apply to attend one of two new pre-kindergarten classes that will open at Wakefield Elementary School. The new classes represent a collaboration between the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Head Start, according to LRSD Early Childhood Director Pat Price. Were pleased to welcome these 4-year-old children into the Wakefield program, Price said. This early start in their education will help these children succeed as they progress through elementary school. Parents may apply September 20-24,1999, by completing an application at the LRSD Student Registration Office, 501 Sherman Street. At that time parents should provide an original birth certificate for the child\nproof of address (utility bill, lease agreement, etc.)\nthe childs Social Security number\nand. only if interested in Head Start services, proof of income. Price said the partnership between Wakefield and Head Start will provide better service to families in Southwest Little Rock. Head Start services include health, vision and hearing screening\ndental screenings and follow-up visits to the dentist\nnutritional and developmental assessments\nservices for children with special needs\nand connections to community resources and family advocates. Date: July 26, 2000 To: Melissa From: Annj^ Re: New LRSD Four-Year-Old Sites Please contact Pat Price, asking her for the written criteria the district used to determine the placement of the three new four-year-old programs for the coming school year, as described in the July board agenda. Also, Id like an updated list of where all the four-year-old programs will operate next year, noting the number of classes at each school. Further, are these programs being funded on one-time or short-term money? Whats the districts plan for long-term funding to keep all of them up and running? The agenda item references adding a four-year-old program at Pulaski Heights Elementary in 2001-02, when space will be available. Since the proposal cites that space isnt available for the upcoming school year, find out whats going to change at the school to enable the addition of a program there. Thanks.I { ( ( Participants r Career-Tech Coordinators Coaching Staffs Secondary Content Teachers PRESCHOOL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JULY AND AUGUST. 2001 Date Time Location Topic 1 Department G a  G cr G G I July 20, 10:00-12:30 Metropolilan Principals, Directors, Counselors, Asst. Principals, Asst. Principals, Asst. Supt., Assoc. Supt. Middle/Senior High Department Chairs Career-Technical Ed ALL NEW TEACHERS 2001 July 30. 2001 Aug. 3, 2001 Aug. 6, 2001 8:30-12:00 8:30-4:00 10:00-12:00 Board Room J. A, Fair Peabody Hotel NEW Attendance and Elementary Secretaries All NEW Elementary Teachers All NEW Secondary Teachers Secondary and Elementary Teachers (5 years of teaching ________experience________ Elementary School Staffs Aug. 6, 2001 Aug. 6, 2001 Aug. 6, 2001 Aug. 7, 2001 Aug. 8, 2001 Aug, 9-10, 2001 8:30-12:30 8:30- 11:30 1:00-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 Metropolitan IRC IRC Computer Lab IRC IRC IRC 6 Grade Math Teachers b\" Grade Science Teachers 7* Grade Science Teachers Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13, 2001 Aug. 13, 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 Individual Elementary Schools Parkview Hall - Room 702 Hall - Room 701 1 Internships, Apprenticeships/J AG_ Coaches Orientation and Workshop ADE Content Workshop Advanced Placement Institute Career-Tech 324-4043 Johnny Johnson 324-2427 Gifted Program 324-2197 Gifted Program 324-2197 G LC (J cs I to hO I K) to Professional Development Planning for 2001-2002 Orientation Student Management ________System_________ Classroom Organizational _________Skills_________ Classroom Organizational _________Skills_______ Pathwisc Mentoring Training Elementary Building Leve ________Inservices_______ Module Training Bits A Pieces II New Science Curriculum Assessment/S A LI Career-Tech 324-4043 Pro. Dev. 324-0500 Mattie Ruth Tipton Pro. Dev. 324-0500 Pro. Dev. 324-0500 Pro, Dev, 324-0500 to register Individual Schools Math Dept, 324-0520 Science 324-0518 Science 7/30/01 w o co \u0026lt; Ci m tn \"D J\u0026gt; CD hO( ( ( I I Participants 7 \u0026amp; 8 Grade Math Teachers 8 Grade Science Teachers All Middle School English \u0026amp; Resource English Teachers All Middle and High School Foreign Language Teachers Middle and High School Band, Choir, and Orchestra Teachers Middle and High School Drama/St^eech Teachers Middle and High School Dance __________Teachers_________ Middle and High School Visual _______Arts Teachers_________ Secondary Librarians Secondary Library Secretaries 9-12 Grade Math Teachers All High School English \u0026amp; Resource English Teachers PRESCHOOL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JULY AND AUGUST, 2001 Date Time Location Topic department G 0  G O K G G 2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13, 2001 Aug. 13- 14.2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14, 2001 Aug. 13- 14.2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30 - 3:30 8:30 - 3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 Parkview Hall - Room 701 Cafeteria \u0026amp; Auditorium J. A. Fair Media Center J. A. Fair Parkview J, A. Fair Park view Metropolitan Library Central High Library Central High Park view Media Center Hall 2 Module Training Comparing and Scaling Assessment/lEY Refreshing the Curriculum Pacing the Curriculum and Materials Essential Elements of the Music Classroom Speech/Drama Workshop Dance Workshop Visual Arts Workshop Applications of Library Technology New Technologies for Secondary Libraries Standards-Based Lessons Six Traits of Writing Rubrics \u0026amp; Assessment 324-0518 Math Dept. 324-0520 Science 324-0518 English DepL Barbara Brandon 324-0510 English \u0026amp; For. Lang. Dept. 324-0510 Fine Arts Fine Arts Fine Arts Fine Arts Q l a G H I U I K K tJ Instructional Tech. 324-0577 Instructional Tech. 324-0577 Math Dept. 324-0520 Eng. Dept' 324-0510 7/30/01 to a I o p cn m c o m U) \"D m cs to! ( f ( PRESCHOOL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JULY AND AUeUST, 2001 ( ( I Participants Date Time Location Topic Department IS 00 cs cn hO CD cs\u0026gt; All High School Journalism Teachers__________ 9-12 Grade Science Teachers Career-Tech Teachers High School Counselors Indirect, HI, VI Teachers Early Literacy Teachers (Success for All Schools) 6\"* Grade Science Teachers ?\" Grade Science Teachers 8*' Grade Science Teachers Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13, 2001 Aug. 13, 2001_ Aug. 13, 2001 Aug. 13, 2001 Aug. 14, 2001 Aug. 14, 2001 Aug. 14, 2001 Aug. 14, 2001 8:30-3.30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-4:00 1:00-3:00 8:30-12:00 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 9-12 Grade Science Teachers Middle School Counselors Career-Tech Teachers Aug. 14, 2001 8:30-3:30 journalism Rm. Hall Parkview Greater Second Baptist Church Board Room Annex Conference ______Room IRC Hall - Room 702 Hall-Room 701 Hall - Room 701 Parkview Quality of Journalism Collaborative Learning and ______Pacing Guides_____ Curriculum Integration Guidance Program Planning____ Indirect Teachers Early Literacy Assessment Issues New Issues in SALl Training - lEY Aug. 14, 2001 Aug. 14, 2001 8:30-4:00 8:30-3:30 Board Room Greater Second Baptist Church Student Research Seminar, Textbooks and Other _______Topics_________ Guidance Program Planning________ Developing Guidelines for Collecting Required Student Data and Follow- up Policies_ 3 Eng. Dept. 324-0510 Science 324-0518 Career-Tech 324-4043 Pupil Services 324-2162 G. Smith 324-2177 BCE Dept. 324-0526 Science 324-0SI8 Science 324-0518 Science 324-0518 Science 324-0518 Pupil Services 324-2162 Career-Tech 324-4043 7/30/01 CD A UD UI CD I GJ A I bo bO to O) o I o o 01 m 7) \u0026lt; o m 01 T) Ki oI / / r 1 PRESCHOOL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JULY AND AUGUST, 2001 ( ( Participants date Time Location Topic department c 0 G o h G G Gifted Program Facilitators Aug. 14, 2001 12:30-3:30 Hall High Gifted Programs for Secondary Students Gifted Program 324-2197 a u Selected Regular Ed Teachers/ SpEd Teachers/Therapists/School Psychology Specialists Above by Invitation Only Sp Ed Para-Pros-Mandatory Middle and High School Staffs ALL Elementary Secretaries and Secondary Bookkeepers Prc-Kindergarlen Teachers Kindergarten Teachers Kindergarten Teachers First Grade Teachers Second Grade Teachers Aug. 14, 2001 Aug. 15- 16,2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-10:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-11:30 School for the Blind Individual Middle [ and High Schools Metropolitan North Little Rock East Campus 2400 Lakeview Rd. Western Hills Western Hills Washington Chicot Autism Middle and High School Building Level Inservices Purchasing and Activity Funds Strategies for Improving Behavior for Young ________Children________ Introducing the New Social Studies Curriculum Integrating Social Studies into the Literacy Block Math Investigation Training Integrating Social Studies into the Literacy Block 4 K. Burnette G. Smith 324-2177 Individual Schools Gail Hester Linda Shiflett ECEZLiteracy 324-0517 Social Studies 324- 0514 ECE/Literacy 324-0517 Math 324-0520 ECE/Literacy 324-0517 7/30/01 u G J a N 1 h\nK (n o I o o to m X \u0026lt; a m (0 -0 Q m o cnr I ( ( PRESCHOOL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JULY AND AUGUST, 2001 { I \\ G a G Participants Dote Time Location Topic Deportment (S Second Grade Teachers Third Grade Teachers ______Group A Third Grade Teachers ______Group B_______ Third Grade Teachers Group A_ Third Grade Teachers ______Group B______ Fourth Grade Teachers Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15. 2001 Aug. 15. 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 12:30-3:30 8:30-11:30 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 12:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 Chicot Washington Metropolitan Metropolitan Washington Fifth Grade Teachers Reading Recovery Teachers Elementary Music Teachers Elementary Visual Arts Teachers Gifted Program Specialists PreK Instructional Aides Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15- 16,2001 Aug. 15- 16,2001 Aug. 15- 16,2001 Aug. 15- 16.2001 Aug. IS, 8.30 - 3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 AR Slate Police Hdqtrs. - I Stale Police Plaza Dr. G. Springs Rd. Classroom C Metropolitan Activity Center IRC M. L. King M. L. King Williams Magnet M. L. King 5 Introducing the New Social Studies Curriculum Math Investigation Training Inquiry Learning and STC Training_______ Inquiry Learning and STC Training Math Investigation ______Training Writing in Fourth Grade Introducing the New Social Studies Curriculum Standards \u0026amp; Guidelines in Early Literacy Groups Curriculum Frameworks Orff Workshop Macmillan/Scolt Foresman Presentation Visual Arts Workshop Gifted Programming at Its _______Best___________ Managing People Skills Social Studies 324-0514 Math 324-0520 Science 324-0518 Science 324-0518 Math 324-0520 ECE/Literacy 324-0517 Social Studies 324-0514 ECE/Literacy 324-0517 Fine Arts Fine Arts Gifted Program 324-2197 ECE/Literacy 7/30/01 (S cn Gl H* I co to 1 hO ro to cn o I o o \u0026lt; o m to \"D O m cs 03( (. f { I Participants Para-Professionals Speech Pathologists Occupalional/Physical Therapists Mandatory Elementary Librarians Elementary Library Secretaries Computer Lab Attendants Instructional Aides (Grades K - 5 Only) Pre-Kindergarten Teachers ALL Kindergarten Teachers First Grade Teachers First Grade Teachers PRESCHOOL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JULY AND AUGUST, 2001 Dote Time Location Topic Deportment . Q a G cr G G 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug, 15, 2001 Aug. 15- 16, 2001 Aug. 15- 16,2001 Aug. 15- 16, 2001 Aug. 15- 16,2001 Aug. 16, 2001 Aug. 16, 2001 Aug. 16, 2001 Aug. 16, 2001 8:00-3:30 8:00-12:00 1:00-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 L J. A, Fair Auditorium Board Room M. L. King Elem. Media Center Booker Magnet Booker Magnet Carver Computer Lab Washington Media Center M. L. King Washington Western Hills Western Hills 6 Para-Professional Issues Speech Pallwlogisls Occupational/Physical Therapists Applications of Library Technology Whats New for Elementary Libraries Hands-On Software Learning to Cope with Differences ECERS \u0026amp; Licensing Requirements Math Investigation Training Introducing the New Social Studies Curriculum 324-0517 G. Smith 324-2177 C. Steele 324-2196 M. Clevenger 324-2180 Instructional Tech. 324-0577 Instructional Tech. 324-0577 Instructional Tech. 324-0577 Pro. Dev. 324-0500 ECE/Literacy 324-0517 Moth 324-0520 Social Studies 324-0514 Integrating Social Studies j Early Childhood into the Literacy Block Elementary Literacy 7/30/01 G tX cn G I CO to I to to co CO o I o p (n m \u0026lt; o m co T m CDMotion September 2, 1997 August 1, 1996 1^0 Order September 8, 1997 Aug. 27, 1996 August 16, 1995 September 7, 1995 August 25, 1994 September 7, 1994 1988-89 Classes 1 I Capacity 20 1989-90 Classes 1 Capacity 1990-91 Classes Capacity 1991-92 Classes Capacity 1992-93 Classes Capacity 1993-94 C 20 1 20 1 18 1 18 Classes Capacity 1994-95 C Classes Capacity 1995-96 c Classes Capacity 1996-97 C Classes Capacity 1997-98 C Classes Capacity 1998-99 C Classes Capacity 1999-2000 C Classes Capacity 2000-2001 C Classes Capacity LRSD FOUR-YEAR-OLD SITES AND CAPACITIES   8 IL w c  3 60 3 60 3 60 3 54 3 54 3 54 c  C 31 541 C 3 54 /JC 3! 54i [c 54i 3 54\nc 3! 54 2 36 2 J_iL i ts a D  JQ. D C    1 20   1 3 2 20 60 40 I 1 3 2 1 1 20 60 40 20 20 18 18 ll 18' I T 3I 541 3 2 1 54 36 18 18 3 2 1 1 54 36 18 18 3 2 1 54 36 18 181 4 3 2 1 72 54 36 18 4 3 72 54 2 36! 1 18 4 3 12y 54 2i 36! 1' 4| 4- 31 i 2! 11 721 I 4l 22 4? 72! 3! 54' 541 3^ 18i Z 3 iT 54 18 1 3 54 3  c e 3= 2 i  \u0026lt;0 A   s o lA O) _C   o M i S  .c  M  A 2 JB. 1 g \u0026lt;0 I 1 1 1 1 18 18 18 18 1 18 1 18 181 1 18  1 1 1 1 18 18 18 18 1 2 1 1 18 36 18 18  1 2 2 2 18 36 36 36 1 2 2 2 18 36 36 36 Si.  c  5  X  i o I  0 X z E SI lA  e-   - to I e i \u0026lt;2 I s Si.  o c o e t   3 1 I  o u o 5 100 T I I T T 1 1 1 10 200 18 18 18 18 3 1 1 1 54 18 18 18 3 54 2 36 Z 2 2 1 36 36 18 2 2 1 36 36 18 I I 2| 36? ..2\n, 361 2i 36l 1 1 18 18 1 1 18 18 li 2! + isi sei T 1 18  2 4 1 36 72 18 2 36 I I I I. 12 240 16 288 21 I 4 I T T I T 72 18| -----1 i I T T 378 28 504 40 _2L 18 1. 18 C _ [C^_ 54' I I I T 720 40 Zill- 181 Z I . -j 18 Z 11 181 18i 1' 18 Z I I I 720 1! 18l 2 2 1 18 2 36 2 36 2 36! 36 36 2 36| 2 36! 36, 2 1 2 2 2 2 36 36 36 2! 36l 2 36 2 2 2 2 2 36 36 36 36| 36 36 18 36 18i 2 II 2! 36 18: 361 2 11 2i 36 18 2 36 2! 36\"^ 2\\ 361 _2i 361 2' 36, 2 36! -A 36' 2 36 2i 361 3. 36! Z* s Operating program __2- 36' il 21 18 1' 36^ 18 2! ll 2i 1 36\n18, 36 18 2 4 1 -.L. .2 36 72 18 I --I  r 40 36l 2: 36! 2 36 \"21 36\n36\n1 I T 72 18 7 4i 1 72: 18 Z i 1i is\n_2l 36l 2 is 2- 36 C = closed school 18: 36! 2I 36i T  I 1 T I I T i 40 I 720 I r 41 738 4\n72? ZT ji' 181 18' 2! 2! 1 1' ll 36i 36 181 18 18\njr_ isj___ T I 49 882 72! 181 -21- 18\n-I- 2\\ 36\nI A 36! 1 1 1 18: 18 18! 18 1i 18| 1, 181 if 18' 51 918DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1992  7B LRSD plans to seat 648 4-year-olds by 94 BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-Gazelte Stall Writer The Little Rock School District has developed a long- range plan to expand its early- childhood education program for 4-year-olds from 378 seats next year to 648 seats by 1994- 95. The expansion would more than double the programs cost, from $502,973 in 1993-94 to $1.3 million in 1994-95. This years cost was $204,356. The district submitted the proposal to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright late Monday. Wright asked last month for details on how the district would comply with the early-childhood component of its court-approved desegregation plan. The program is meant to expose disadvantaged children to educational experiences and to improve the racial balances at hard-to-desegre- gate schools. In a May 1 court order, Wright said the district must design a program that will accommodate as many children as would be served if all 36 elementary schools in the district operated a 4-year-old program. The district determined that number would be 648 pupils. In selecting sites for an additional 270 seats in 15 classrooms by 1994-95, district officials said priority would be given to sections of the city with a high concentration of children from low-income families and where school attendance zones are more than 55 percent black. As a result of the criteria, 17 of the 36 elementary schools ineligible to house the are early-childhood programs. The district identified Southwest Little Rock, the around John Barrow area 'Road, and east and central Little Rock as areas in greatest need of the early-childhood programs. The proposal calls for:  Si.xteen schools to house early-childhood programs in 1992-93, compared with 11 this year.  Opening early-childhood classes at Baseline Elementary and Chicot Elementary in 1993-94. Space would have to be created for the room at Chicot. In addition, an early-childhood center with five or six classes would be opened.  Opening two early-childhood classes at the new King Elementary in 1994-95. In addition, another center housing six classes would be opened.Arkansas DemocratW'(5azelle FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1992 Critic is not impartial, teaches tennis for tots 5 In her May 23 Voices letter about the Little Rock School Districts Super Summer Enrichment Program, Lisa Gray suggested, without explaining what she meant, that my opinions on education are biased. From the letter, which wa.s replete with ad hominem insults but absent rebuttal of my column or documentation other expertise, and from the conversation that inspired her tirade, I deduced that it might be Lisa who had the bias. The way she signed the letter indicated strongly that she was not the impartial critic she presented herself to be. The letter carried her name, the notation Tennis for Tots and an address and telephone number. My curiosity aroused, I called the number. The person who answered said, Tennis for 'Tots. What do you do there? I asked. We teach tenni.s to children, the voice said. Aha! When I asked additional questions about the enterprise, the woman on the other end of the line asked who I was. Apparently she recognized my name. In any event, she wouldnt talk any more. I left word for Lisa. While I was wailing for Lisa to return the call, I called upon : I rDEAR READER  John R. Starr i my not often used but still considerable reportorial skills to do some checking. Tennis for Tots was not in please me, but because her busi- the latest Little Rock phone book, nor did directory assistance have such a listing, and the address Lisa gave was listed in the latest city directory as a private residence. A call to Arma Hart, the LRSD official responsible for psychology and almost an M.A. the Super Summer Enrichment in special education. Program, revealed that Lisa had talked with her about the possi- bility of teaching some of the young children aren't as good as proposed tennis courses. Lisa had accused me of bias. I had caught her in what ap- peared to me, in light of her call mentary and early childhood ed- to me, to be a cold-blooded conflict of interest. When Lisa returned my call, she confessed to being a tennis teacher. She confirmed that she her intelligence. had talked with Hart, but not, she said, until after she had talked with me. She said Tennis for Tots was a business, incorporated in another state, that she had owned for a number of years. Do you have a city privilege license? I asked. She said she didnt ha .-e one. Does that bother you?she asked. 1 said it did, and she said that if it bothered me, she would get a privilege license. Since her intentions seemed to be good, 1 passed up the chance to snidely suggest that she should get the license not to ness was most likely illegal without it. Lisa said she is 32, that she grew up in Hot Springs and that she has lived in and out of Arkansas during the last 11 years. She has a degree in child Sounds to me as if her qualifications to judge whats good for my wifes, whose expertise she debunked in her letter. My wife carried a double major of eleucation. In closing, because Lisa called me ignorant, stupid and foolish, I would like to assess Shes smart, but like almost everybody else, including me, shes not as smart as she thinks she is. Mniiiif'iiig Editor .lotin It. Stnrr's col II III II appears every day. .1^1Z'loCCPanel looks at age cutoff for schooling. Bill would move date  from Oct. 1 to Sept. 1 j BY LINDA SATTER ? Democral-GazeKe Staff Writer 1 Questions about when chil-  dren should enter kindergarten i and first grade dominated the' discussion in the Senate Edu- . cation Committee on Friday, j The topic was a bill by Rep. Greg Wren of Conway that would move the date by which children must be 5 years old to start kindergarten and 6 years old to start first grade. Wrens House Bill 2125 would require children to be 5 or 6 years old by Sept. 1 of the year of enrollment to get into kindergarten and first grade, respectively. Children now must be 5 or 6 by Oct. 1 of the year of enrollment, so the bill would cause\nsome children to wait another year. An amendment to the bill, however, would allow students who hadnt reached the age of 5 by Sept. 1 to enter kindergarten with parental approval and permission of the local school district. The same would be true for children not yet 6 years old seeking enrollment in first grade. Both provisions would take effect in the 1994-95 school i year. When voted as- amended, the bill failed, biitjhe vote was expunged so the matter could f be brought up again before the  legislative session ends. We all know someone whos been put in school too early and theyve been held back, Wren told the committee. He added that the national trend is to go i back to July 1. Dr. Burton Elliott, director of the state Department of Education, said: I think were putting a big burden on schools to make these determinations. There is a lot of subjective information that has to go into this. Elliott also noted that basically, everyone supports the idea that youngsters will do better in school if theyre a little older. Committee members also discussed whether many parents, thinking their children to be exSee SCHOOL, Page 3B Arkansas Democrat W gazette SATURDAY. APRILS, 1993 Copyright O 1993. LiWe Rock Newspapers. Inc. I School  Continued from Page 1B ceptionally bright, would be inclined to push their children into school prematurely. ,.7 Sen. Stanley Russ of Conway noted that study after study shows that when you push a gifted and talented child ...-you are raising the probability that child is going to encounter problems later on. ... Mttny . well-intentioned parents and educators are pushing chilcken into school too young. Sen. Bill Lewellen of Marianna disagreed, asserting, I think in 99 percent of cases we make the best decisions for our children. He favored the bill^as amended. Sen. George Hopkins*of Malvern said, If weve had it for 30 years and its not.ab- solutely broken. Im in favor of leaving it like it is.a Arkansas Democrat (gazette THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1993 Copyrfohl e 1993. LHUe Rock Newsoepen. Inc. Stange tor scfiboltos^Tta\u0026amp;nS Democrat-Gazette Capitol Bureau that ... Legislation that would i!!! thday cutoff for children attending kindergarten and the first grade was House Bill 2125 by Rep. Greg would have moved the birthdate requirement for those students fmm fw\" 1 t q\"\"? Students from Oct. 1 to Sept 1 of each year. hn '^^dren must be 5 . .\niiiusi oe 0 anH to enter kindergarten tJ rationale for  system that works right. Let s not fix something thats not broke, said Sen. Bill Lewellen of Marianna. Sen. Stanley Russ of Conway, who carried the bill in the Senate contendd that studies show that students meeting a Sept 1 cutoff are ready for school. Before defeating the bill, Sen. J erry J ewell of Little Rock unsuccessfully attempted to amend it to allow school districts to decide whether a child raching the applicable age after the cutoff date was ready to attend school. * Senate rejected a bill that would allow some medical records to be released without the patients con- sent. Senate Bill 648 by Sen. Bill Walters of Greenwood would define when a health-care provider could release medical records without permission irom the patient. were has already been approved by both the Senate and House. The bill was returned to the Senate to consider three amendments - two of which deal with patient records. All three House amendments rejected by the Senate. My advice to you is if you don t want your confidential medical records floating w  said Sen Wayne Dowd of Texarkana Also Wednesday, the Senate defeated a House amendmen to Senate Bill 260, which woulc have eliminated the printins clerks division in the state ditor s offices. au Senate Bill 260 is the annual appropriation bill for the state auditor s office. The printing clerks division has three Ployees and a $130,000 annual em to Rep. Jodie Mahony of El Do-  numerous times in the Joint Budget Committee to delete the reference to the printing clerks office Mahony has contended that office IS unnecessary because he claims the function is duplicated by other state agencies.Arkansas Democrat (fjazettc SUNDAY, JUNE 13,1993 Copyright O 1993, Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. 1 Registration is continuing for the Little Rock School Districts Early Childhood Education programs. Parents.may register their children weekdays through June 25 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the district student assignment office, 501 Sherman St. The early childhood pro- i lie Cdiijf vuuuuvvu v gram for 4-year-olds is avail- I able in five new locations for 1993-94:  Baseline Elementary, 3623 Base Line Road.  Brady Elementary, 7915 W. Markham St.   Chicot Elementary, 11100 Chicot Road.  Fair Park Elementary, 616 N. Harrison St.  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary, 907 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. Selections will be made by lottery whenever the number of applicants for the program exceeds available seats. Enrollment preference is given to children who live within the schools attendance zone | and/or who have siblings enrolled at the school. Parents may register their child by providing a birth certificate and verification of address (a current utility statement, lease agreement or personal property tax bill). Programs for 4-year-old children are also available at Bad- I gett. Bale, Cloverdale, Franklin, Garland, Geyer j Springs, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Romine, Stephens, Washington, Watson, Wilson and Woodruff elementary schools. ! I 1SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 5.1993  J ATTENTION!!!! PARENTS OF 4-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN Put your four-year-old on the right track for social. ' emotional, physical and academic growth. The Little Rock School District offers parents of four-year-old children a special opportunity to start the learning process in a quality integrated setting - before kindergarten. Seats for white students are available at the following schools: Badgett, Baseline, aoverdale, Romine, Mitchell, Garland, Stephens and Rightsell Efforts will be made to locate your child at the school of your choice. Application to this program does not guarantee placement. Call the LRSD Student Assignment Office at 324-2010 or return the following information to 501 Sherman Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 before September 15. Please Print and mail to the Student Assignment Office, 501 Sherman St, Little Rock, AR 72202 I I am interested in sending my child to a four-year-old class at--------------------------------- . School.\ni Name______ Address  Home Phone __ City___ Work Phone Zip I Aricansas Democrat TgrtCiazcttc TUESDAY, APRILS, 1994 LRSD adding classes to early childhood programs BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazeite Education Writer The Little Rock School District will expand its early childhood programs for 4-year-olds in several schools next fall, starting with a new program at an eighth school. Dr. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said one new section of the preschool program will be added at Fair Park, Watson, Geyer Springs, Bale, Woodruff, Badgett and possibly Stephens Incentive elementary schools. Those schools already have one class each of 4-year- olds. An eighth class will be added to Mabelvale Elementary, which has not had an early childhood education class. The additions will give the district 40 preschool classes in 21 of its 36 schools. Pre-registration for the classes will be April 18-29. Parents and guardians can register children in the districts student assignment office at 501 Sherman St., or at any of the 21 schools that have the preschool classes. Children must be 4 years of age on or before Oct. 1,1994 to be eligible for the program. The district started preschools in 1988-89 with three classes in three schools as a way to better prepare children for the upper grades and to improve the racial balance at schools that have been difficult to desegregate. Officials hoped to use the full-day, tuition-free preschool program to entice white families to remain in public schools as their children move through the grades. Each class of 4-year-olds is limited to 18 children and is staffed by a state-certified teacher and an instructional aide. The children also work with the physical education, art and music teachers as well as school counselors. Each class is supposed to have a 50-50 blackwhite balance. If that balance isnt achieved, some seats are left vacant to make it possible for pupils to move in later in tBe year. As of Oct. 1,1993, 58 percent of the children in the program were black and 42 percent were white. The districts preschool enrollment was 492, and the capacity was 576. The capacity will increase to 720 next year in compliance with the desegregation plan. Pat Price, early childhood education coordinator in the dis- tricL said efforts will intensify to recruit children to fill the seats for next year. The 4-year-old program has an annual budget of $1.7 million. which is about $3,500 per child. The Arkansas Better Chance program has granted the IK 0- gram about $183,000. The'ela'ss- es are licensed by the Arkansas Department of Human Services Division of Children and Family Services. The children are provided with two snacks a day and can participate in the school lunch and breakfast programs. Transportation for 4-year-olds generally is not provided by the district. \\ In addition to the schools that are getting new programs, next year, other schools preschool programs are Rockefeller, Ish, Franklin, WasSl'ng- ton. Garland, Mitchell, Righi^Il, Romine, Cloverdale, Wif^hri, Baseline,^rady, Chicot^fi'l King elemehtaries.[ Arkansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, AUGUST 20, 1994 Copyright e Uttio Rock Newspapors. Ine. I Aftansa# Democrat-^azeKWOavM.Qotttclulk GETTING READY FOR SCHOOL  Q!na Glover\naf Rockefeller Elementary School Tn Little Rock. prepares art supplies for her kindergarten classv  Glover is preparing for her fifth year at'tlie school. Kinde^atten or la^ Asses^g childs readiness helps parents make choice BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Claudia Smith wasnt sure whether her son would be ready for kindergarten this year because he had problems playing with other children. But Smith said 5-year-old There are advantages and ' lishedi , disadvantages to holding a-' The whole point of kinder-child back. z garten is readiness, McKin- Educators say most chil- ney said, dren need to attend kinder-?'\nSmith enrolled her son in a Spencer has made some garten even if they are imma-  program for 4-year-oIds l^t ture or developmentally slow-' year, and he has made signif-er than their peers. icant advances. Spencer If a child is: eligible for turned 5 on June 30\n' ' leant progress in a pre-kinder- kindergarten, I-believe the -H--e- -h-a--d- -n--o-t- -h-a-d-- p--l-a-y-m---a-t-e-s garten program, and she has child should have those expe- his own age, Smith said. We no intention of keeping him riences. If the child needs to had a very difficult year. But out of his kindergarten class repeat kindergarten* then so  he has improved a lot, and we that starts Monday, at Romine . be it said Mary K: McKinney, .hate to go back on the ad- Elementary School ' ' ' nf Him. 1*1a_ ' tinnnao wava maria alt*aaHv  Every year thousands of  De It, . saxu Kiary, i\\- mciuuuvy, uuie lu gu uu aw coordinator of the- state De- vances weve made already.\" parents in Ar^insas must de- partment of Educations' K-3 -A--r-k-a--n-s-a--s law -s-t-a-t-e-s that Initiative. children who are 5 years old cide whether their children _T_h_e_ K__-3_ I_n_i_ti_a_ti_ve- -p-r-o--g-r-a-m-- o--n- -o--r- -b--e-f-o-r-e Oct. 1 are eligi-are ready to attend kinder- is designed to help remedial ble to attend kindergarten, garten  especially, children  students ' in  kindergarten McKinney said she did not who will not turn* 5 before through third grade before know how the state designat-school starts. : See DECISION, Page 7B Decision  Continued from Page 1B ed Oct. 1 as the cutoff date. The date varies from state to state. The older they are, the easier time they have in kindergarten. But we wouldnt recommend holding them back just for that reason, said Glenda Bean, executive director of the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission. Schools are required to provide a full day of kindergarten, but parents can obtain a waiver if they do not want their child to attend. However, if the child will be 6 before Oct. 1, the state requires the child to be enrolled in either kindergarten or first grade. Liz Wright has worked as a kindergarten teacher in the Little Rock School District for 19 years. Wright said it is impor- Early Childhood Association, said that for children who are barely 5, as well as older children, the kindergarten class should fit them developmentally. Kindergarten should not be an abrupt change, Shores said. There should not be a dramatic difference in the kinds of activities from age 4 to 5. Its important for parents to ask if a kindergarten teacher is certified in early childhood rather than elementary teaching. The teacher needs to be able to recognize the childs needs and abilities and support the childs development. Shores said. If the learning plans include a lot of work sheets and paper activities, then a child who is slower developmentally may be better off waiting a yeaf, Shores said. Shores said many kinder^ should not assume children are ready for kindergarten just because they reach the appropriate age. Sometimes it may benefit a younger child to stay at home one more year, Shores said. The world is a learning environment for children of any age, Shores said. All of these learning experiences can occur at the home. It may be to a childs advantage  especially for boys or petite children  to wait another year before sending them to kindergarten. If parents decide to wait, then the child should attend pre-kindergarten classes to become familiar with the routine, Wright said. Wright said most children dont notice they are behind unless parents make an issue out of it. The way that you (parents) handle things is going to make a big difference, she said. Wright practices positive-.re-inforcement in the classroom to improve a childs self-esteem. She said parents who hav6 a positive attitude toward their child, regardless of their failures, will encourage the child to succeed. ' * I dont use the word ,no more than three times a year,' she said. The child has the opportunity for interaction but is not traumatized. tant that parents investigate garten teachers are under pres-kindergarten before they de- sure to prepare childrett^Toi* cide to delay it for a young first-grade work. child. Parents should visit st-gra The result of this is less of classes during different times of developmentally , appropriate  the year and talk to teachers be- learning activities, Shores-i fore their son or daughter is el- said. This is an insidious trend' igible for school, Wright said. Elizabeth F. Shores, publications editor of the Southern over the last couple of decades. Shores warned that parents. Arkansas Democrat '^(gazette J  FRIDAY, MAY 12, 1995 LRSD plans physicals for pre-kindergartners Little Rock Rockefeller incentive Fh free physi^fexamiLations Sta^'.SL??nnt Rockefeller Incentive Elemen- month for children who will c ter the districts kindergarten pre-kindergarten August. --------J Elementary, Franklin Incentive Elementary, Garland Incentive Elementary, King Magnet Ele- programs in mentary. Forest Height JuS High and Romine Interdistrict Elementary. en- or Appointments must be made by calling 324-2266 between a.m. and 4 p.m. Friday. The exams will be from 12:30 to 3 p.m. Tuesday and Wednes- day at the following schools: McClellan Community High, Washington Magnet Elementary, 9 Parents or guardians of children unable to take advantage of the exams should arrange for an exam by a private physician or the Arkansas Department of Health before the school year starts.Arkansag Democrat Tgr (gazette  SUNDAY, JULY 9, 2000  Preschool in LR district expanded to add 3 schools ARKANSAS DEMocRAT\u0026lt;iAZETTE {o Children of employees at the d^ 'The Little Rock School District sired school. has recently expanded its tuition- All but six of the districts ele- free preschool program for 4-year- mentary schools will offer the fuil- olds to three more schools\nJeffer- day preschool classes for 4-year son, McDermott and Fulbright ele- olds this year, bringing the total mentaiy schools. who will be served to about 1,000 Regikration for this coming year at children. (Registration for schools the three schools is under way and with established programs was held will conclude Friday. Children must earlier this year.) be 4 years old by Sept 15 to be eligible for the classes, which begin Aug. 21. Schools that do not offer thd classes yet are Pulaski Heights, Parents may apply by complet- Badgett, Williams Magnet, Carver ing an application at the districts Magnet, Booker Magnet and Gibbs Student Registration Office, 501 Magnet elementary schools. Super? Sherman St, which is just west of intendent Les Carnine said Friday the intersection ofEast Capitol Av- he is hopeful that the program can I enue and Interstate 30. be expanded again into the remain? Parents need to provide a copy ing schools as classroom space and of their childs birth certificate, ftmding becomes available. ' proof of address such as a utility Bus service is not provided for ' bill or lease agreement and their preschool children, childs Social Security number. Par- ents who do not wish to reveal the Social Security number will be pro- ' vided an alternative number for their child. I Children who live in the school I attendance zone and have siblings ! attending the school will be admitted first to a schools program. Second priority is given to children who live in the schools attendance zone but do not have older siblings at the school. Third priority is re- ' served for children who live outside the school zone but have siblings at ! the school. Fourth priority is given\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_453","title":"Extracurricular","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Student activities","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Extracurricular"],"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/453"],"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 FRIDAY. APRIL 29. 2005  1  ' ! LR board votes to cut athletics for 6th-graders ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Citing safety and academic concerns. Little Rock School Board members voted 7-0 Thursday to discontinue organized athletics and pep club for sixth-graders in the districts eight middle schools. District administrators had recommended the elimination of the sixth-grade activities earlier this month because the sports are typically coached\nby district employees such as security guards, custodians or teachers who dont hold state coaching credentials. The lack of any required certification or standardized training for the sixth-grade coaches raised administrative I concerns about the districts liability in the case of student injuries. Additionally. Superintendent Roy Brooks and his staff said the elimination of the activities would enable greater attention to be paid to academics by the sixth-graders who are making a big transition out of elementary school into middle school. All eight middle schools are on the states list of schools in need of improvement because of a history of low test scores earned by one or more subpopulations of students in the schools. Discontinuing the activities is expected to save the district about $80,000 in stipends for the coaches and in the costs of transporting students to and from games. In no way does this suggest that we dont support athletics.\" Brooks told the School Board on Thursday. Several board members urged that alternative afterschool activities or intramural sports be developed to replace the sixth-grade athletics. Seventh- and eighth-grade athletic programs will continue to operate in the middle schools.Vote planned on axing 6th-grade sports Lack of certified coaches, worries about liability among concerns in LR district I ! BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Athletics and spirit clubs in Little Rocks eight middle schools are headed out of bounds to sixth-graders because of a lack of certified coaches, concerns about liability in case of student injuries and the need to raise student achievement. The Little Rock School Board is scheduled to vote on I eliminating sixth-grade sports I for the 2005-06 school year at its regularly scheduled meeting April 28. The proposal would affect a few hundred students who par- I ticipate in sixth-grade football. track, volleyball and basketball, as well as Ln pep clubs. In the current 2004-05 school year, a total of 169 sixth-graders in the Little Rock School Districts eight middle schools participated in football, as did 132 in volleyball, 242 in basketball, 136 in soccer and 216 in track, according to district figures. Some students participated in multiple sports and as a result they were counted multiple times. Numbers were not available for the number of participants in sixth-grade pep clubs, which also would be discontinued, according to the proposal. If approved, the move would save the district about $80,000 a year  $40,000 for stipends to the coaches and $40,000 in transportation costs for the teams. But Johnny Johnson, the districts athletic director, said Friday that cutting costs is not the driving force behind the proposal. The biggest issue with us is that sixth-grade coaches only have to be employees of the school district, Johnson said. Weve had a number of sixth-grade coaches who were not [state] certified coaches, he said. They were either custodians or security guards or teachers who just wanted to do it. From a liability standpoint and from a certification stand point, those were big issues. The Arkansas Activities Association, which regulates athletics and other interscholastic programs starting with the seventh grade, requires coaches to have a degree in physical education or what is called a coaching endorsement from the state of Arkansas. Johnson said coaches in sixth-grade programs should meet those same state credentials. Adding to the concerns, Johnson said, is the fact that all eight of the districts middle schools are on the states list of schools in need of academic improvement because of chronically low standardized test scores. Schools that remain on that state list face increasingly severe penalties. That sixth grade is a big transition year, going from elementary school to middle school, he said. We felt the sixth-grade year ought to be used to get the students on stronger acadernic footing. Johnson also said that there are numerous athletic programs in the community tor sixth-grad- ers, particularly in football and basketball, and that those programs often give the students more games in a season than what the district can do. Superintendent Roy Brooks told School Board members at an agenda meeting Thursday that he agreed with the recommendation. We feel it would be in the best interest of the district to encourage our students to participate in athletics outside of the school day, Brooks said. Board members raised no objections to the proposal. Board member Sue Strickland said she was unaware that the sixth-graders were being coached by people who are not state-certified to coach. I think its a good idea, she said about eliminating the sports program. Board member Baker Kur- rus said there were some great people who work hard in the programs, but the lack of certification made him a little nervous. Kids have some fun, but it lacks structure, he said. My son is in the seventh grade and the seventh-grade program is excellent, but in sixth grade I wished he had focused on his work. Johnson said Friday he wished circumstances were different. If we had a perfect situation where we had plenty of coaches at each school and all of our coaches were certified. Id love to have sixth-grade athletics. Right now we struggle to keep our seventh-and eighth-grade staffs properly maintained. I Wednesday, August 22, Educators: Dont snub below-C students Keep sports open, state board is urged BY KIMBERLY DISHONGH ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Educators across Arkansas asked the state Board of Education on Tuesday to reconsider its proposal to eliminate a program that allows students to participate in sports and other extracurricular activities even if they dont have the required C average. The widely used program gives public school students struggling with class work a second chance to participate in nonacademic activities. About 160 of the states 310 public school districts use the program. Wiping out the supplemental instruction program would take away a strong incentive for many underachieving students to stay in school and out of trouble, school officials said during a public hearing. The program fell out of favor with several state educa- tion leaders when news reports revealed that the program lacked monitoring, which led to students not completing the required tutorials. Change it if you must, but do not eliminate it, said Gerald Fears, junior high school teacher and coordinator of the Pocahontas School Districts program. Fears and other educators said they would favor strengthening monitoring rather than disbanding the program. The Education Board is expected to make a final ruling Sept. 10. Robert Hackler of Mountain Home, chairman of the Education Board, said later Tuesday See GRADES, Page 9A Grades  Continued from Page 1A that calls hes taken about the issue have been fairly evenly divided between people wanting to retain the program and those wanting a strict compliance with the C-average requirement. I have had a few calls from groups or individuals, but not a lot, and I really didnt Imow what to expect from the public comment period, Hackler said. He added that although the board voted 5-1 earlier this year to put out for public comment the plan to eliminate the supplemental instructional program, no final decision has been made by the board. There never is a final board decision until after the public comment period, he said. Earlier this year, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette published stories about rule violations in the Little Rock School District athletic program. Little Rock Central Hi^s basketball team had to forfeit its AAAAA state basketball title because one player skipped several remedial classes that were part of the supplemental program. The articles also detailed how coaches knowingly played ineligible players and how the Little Rock district, the states largest, failed to report violations to the Arkansas Activities Association, the state's governing body for high school athletics. During an Aug. 13 meeting, Ed- while he understands there is po- ucation Board members ex- tential for abuse of the program, pressed concern that no one at he believes many students bene- the sate Department of Education fit from it. However, a section of was monitoring compliance. the policy that allows students to The Education Board creat- qualify for participation by scored the supplemental instruction ing at or above the 50th percentile program in 1997 to allow students on a standardized test, even if they with grade-point averages below dont maintain a 2.0 average, en- 2'0 to stay in extracurricular ac- courages laziness, Lievsay said, tivities if they take remedial class- Some students, he said, would es. The programs aim: To keep settle for lower grades  and less failing students in school. The homework  if they knew they students must attend the extra tu- could remain eligible by scoring toring classes. If they miss one a certain percentage on an exam, class without an excuse, they Jimmy Coats, executive direc- must be declared ineli^ble. tor of the Arkansas Activities As- Ray Kirkland, superintendent sociation, did not attend the hear- of the Barton-Lexa School Dis- ing, but he noted in a written trict, called the boards plan to statement that the suppiemen- eliminate the supplemental pro- tai program was embraced by gram a knee-jerk reaction. member schools as a way to as- It is indeed unfortunate that sist students who are struggling. The schools felt so good low the rules, Kirkland said. The about the new regulation that the Central High students did not fol- guilty parties were punished. We [association] membership vot- did the supplemental instruction ed to adopt these regulations as program right, and our students part of their bylaws for eligibiJi- should not be punished.\" ty, Coats wrote. To change the Representatives from the Lit- regulation now to a strict corn- tie Rock School District said they pliance 2.0 would eliminate any understand that the districts of- students, both athletic and non- fense has endangered the pro- athletic, from the opportunity gram statewide. to participate in programs that We were the ones who have proven to be effective in pro- messed up on this, said Little viding positive educational Rock School Board member Judy periences to young people. Magness. \"We stood up and said Johnny Johnson, the Little we messed up, and we took our Rock School Districts new ath- punishment.\" letic director, said the district is ex- In response to the Little Rock working to make sure the pro- violations, the Education Board gram's rules wont be violated considered two plans, one that again. The responsibilities have would dictate more stringent been more clearly defined and monitoring of the supplemental communication between school program and one that would do staff and his office has been em- away with it. The boards 5-1 vote phasized, he said, favored eliminating the program and mandating strict compliance the program is a good one, John- with a 2.0 grade-point average for son said. \"I think they make a participation in athletics or any valid point that just because one other after-school activity. district had a problem with the Fears, the Pocahontas school program is no reason to tie it official, said the program must be away from the rest of the state. saved because it keeps students in class when they might otherwise drop out. Any time a student is willing to come to 100 minutes of learning in an after-school program, that shows that learning is important to them, Fears said at a public hearing via a videoconference from the Education Department in Little Rock that linked sites at the states 15 education cooperative headquarters. Jon Watson, athletic director for the Bauxite School District, began his comment with a complaint. I think its in very bad taste that this meeting is being held on the second day of school, Watson said. Watson surmised that many of the people who might have commented couldnt because they were needed at school. Then he asked a question. If a child makes a D in math, why would you limit his success in another area? What does that do for the self-esteem that were constantly reminded to instill in our children? Dick Johnson, athletic director for the Fayetteville School District, said keeping students in school keeps them out of trouble. The reality is that playing football may not be the only game in town, he said. They will affiliate, and they a^e being lured by activities that are not as positive as those offered in public schools. Alvin Lievsay, co-principal at Huntsville High School, said that \"I think everyone agrees thatO 50 ff. 09 3 ^22\"  TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2001  3A I cro 2. FI919 vt msS 3 o M  g\nCM3*a2^5ftKGMft S S s I Grades  Continued from Page 1A because it would kill any hope of them ever participating, Howard said. I would say that in our quest to provide excellence that a standard must be set\nhowever, I would want us to use good judgment as it relates to providing some medium for motivation for students in or- said. In the second semester, eight athletes and five nonathletes were in the program. Of those 13, six raised their grades to meet the eligibility requirement. I think [those students] definitely had an incentive, but I give credit to the instructors, he said. They motivate the kids and get them back on track. Jerry Welch, director of student services and athletics with the Pu- iS? 09 5' :\u0026gt;5 CTO st 3 \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026lt;  sr I der that theyre successful not only laski County Special School Dis- in the athletic end but the acade-...............  ' c 3 B ScoSS ' 'S ?B ft ft 09 2 3i^3S- 2^r-ica.2'\u0026lt;ft 2.' SSsrU 2.^ -- ,, BO'ftBK 5-3'g' \u0026lt;2 o \u0026lt;s g   5: asa\" oS  5^ g.a s S' a S  s Slp.ggSg'S^ -s $ ft 3' ft *** B' 09 ft OwftYW - 3'\u0026lt;ftT09 e \" 5^\" \u0026lt; 3 EO M 09 571 09  (C ii. \u0026lt; ^3 \"^3 ft 3- 5 G s w (A B-^ 09 \u0026amp;-q,52. \"g.? ssg. CZi fp S 0^ 09  = s. 3 -5 SP 33\nft o oL* i faS | e 3 coS-S* (Q O O  Q c 09 O 3 - 3 3,5'? 3 sr Sa o mic end. Academics is a high priority. I think we should have high academic standards, but I think you can achieve those in a variety of ways. I dont think there should be a trict, said records on students participating in remediation programs are kept at individual ?D ' '2 5^ 5 '2 o a.. 52.3*tn 09 gj- 3-X0? ff B'SO r-h \" - SlS  S' O 5^H2COft_'CQ,,., ^G- EXB 3.' 2. p 2-3 \u0026amp; S.fte^5oE^CW r  fts-\" Sj a.\" ?6 3-3 g 1 I B - ' 3,5 3 S 2 s: S  3 09 3 g.\" St'c o-olsffgls'sS\u0026amp;S 33*\u0026lt; WgJ13\ngfto'3-33t S 3 o ft S- 09 s 3 ft 7* \u0026lt;.,3 5 Cl. V W lilies II bs.^s^ \u0026amp; 3S-S SS- 3 fl9 w-o 5  gS'3 - i-i 3 g-g-S 3'5^ Bags 1 ?s? o a 3 o 09 s. 3 fO 3 I v\u0026gt; to 3 a 3 =-S 0 3 C si o fO 3 w SS 2 3 S- In retrospect, that was the worst vote [ in favor death sentence, that we should say , . , .  , - . if you dont achieve a 2.0 grade- \u0026lt;?/ strict 2.0grode-pOlUt P\"f average, theres no hope for compliance] I ever made. Howard said he will speak out It did more harm tO against the proposed regulations if the opportunity arises. I think everyone is crying for an answer and an appropriate end to a serious problem, and I think all. opinions need to be heard and considered. Of course in doing that, you increase the chances of coming up with a workable solution. young people, and I dont think made any great difference academically.' ff  Skip Rutherford W Q,O,C!OOS?-s'l TO I O O 2 C 3  -'(S' S. 5'Q3.s.\n^'g.'B-S5.e j -t c 3,?. _ srS  3 S.Q'K 5 =io (A c o a ,S o o u fO 09 o - Pl c-. schools. However, he said, most of , those students pull up their grades Skip Rutherford, who served on after the first semester. a committee to investigate grade- \"If the supplemental instnic- questions about athlete tion program is carried out to the eligibility in Little Rock schools, letter, the way its supposed to be said he cast a vote in favor of strict then I think it serves a purpose  2.0 grade-point compliance while Welch said. he was on the Little Rock School Kids grades improve. Most of Board in the late 1980s and early the time, kids dont not make good 19^. grades because theyre not smart In retrospect, that was the enough. Ifyou make sure that kids worst vote I ever made, Ruther- go to class every time theyre supford said, adding the Little Rock posed to, do their work when board made the decision in a rush theyre supposed to, they do bet- to achieve higher standards. It ter. did more harm to young people, Mark Rush, boys baseball and and I dont think made any great basketball head coach and athlet- difference academically.... ic director in Concord (Cleburne Some people dont get it to- County), said the problem is tough gether until later in life, and some to call. ro 2. a a wi l 3 cr. Sic W* C M S 5 3 o (0 ft O'. 2.CB CD _o3:g o M'S ct.\" .. CZ3 S' a $ S' o-TO iv S.'S \u0026amp; e = 3 3 S -s:|gR2\u0026gt;gs 5. 2 s. I ci.'^  2 e- 9  3 ft o Ci fD Mark Rush, boys baseball and ^^5- ?53 3 \u0026lt;5 \u0026gt; \u0026amp; -3,.  S-' 'p  as-p* 09 3 ft *3 sr w en t s\no 3  3\"g r3 'a  Q- S S. 3- a pj O' n\u0026gt; 5S 5'sr2?'3'ft ^'^ft^ft P- a KOI iBhflhll I a!?3l0Kr.h:li.rK|  Ss peoples families make it difficult I can see both ends of the for them to study when they go spectrum, Rush said. I can see 2? ~ honie lives make it where athletes and all extra-cur- difficult in itself. Athletics for ricular participants should be many young people are the only passing. A 2.0  a C average  is way out of a difficult situation. not a whole lot to ask for. .. Suellen Vann, spokesman for u. muse the Little Rock district, said the people are not going to meet those number of students participating requirements. Thats just a fact, in supplemental instruction was And I hate to see those kids fall not immediately available. through the cracks because athlet- Gregg Thompson, principal at ics, in some cases, are all thats North Little Rock-West Campus, keeping those kids in school. I said 26 juniors and seniors there hate to think what might happen if participated in supplemental in- that was the case. struction. ___________________________ But you know some of those o ora - fc-1  _ S'- s.^  sf sag's.a Sil SB.\" Hl? \"!? aD.S.3S3  9  3* S. S.  o 3 ,5.^ I O' 09 'O n g 09 09 1-^3   go.\u0026gt;, -I ll'o .SrS.  3 rs n s w M  S \u0026gt;TO  \u0026lt;o C-.O, S' o o'o o S' C B O 3 g 1 U U CA 3 I'S jg. g'i's si 3 \u0026gt; !.?o'  o! I \u0026amp; S? S 5j w 'P B Q. a I think its real important to note that 10 were participating in athletic activities and 16 in nonathletic activities, like band, speech and drama, choir, Thompson said. Nineteen of those students raised their grade-point averages to 2.0 or better in first semester, herAoc. 01/ 01 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 For Immediate Release June 28,2001 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Little Rock School District Hires Athletic Director Johnny Johnson, Assistant Athletic Director and Mens BasketbaU Coach at the University of the Ozarks, will become the new Athletic Director for the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Tonight the LRSD Board of Directors hired Johnson after a committee interviewed applicants and recommended Johnson to Superintendent Ken James. I am pleased that Johnny Johnson has agreed to serve as Athletic Director and feel that he will provide strong administrative leadership to our athletic program, James said. Coach Johnson is well respected and will work closely with our coaches and principals to improve our sports programs. Johnson holds a Masters degree in Education from Arkansas Tech University and a Bachelors degree in Administration from the University of Arkansas. Johnson has served as head basketball coach at the University of the Ozarks since 1990, with an overall coaching record of 173 wins and 126 losses. During that period his graduation rate for senior basketball players is 80%. Johnson previously coached at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. He has earned several coaching honors and has been active for several years in the Special Olympics program June 12, 2 0 0 1 Wood quick study on, off playing field BY ROBERT YATES ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Perhaps the best illustration of Jason Woods athletic and academic resume is that Air Force tried to recruit the former Sheridan football standout. Former Yellowjackets football Coach Billy Dawson wasnt surprised. It was Woods combination of talent and wits that made him one of the states top players as a senior and attractive to a service academy. What made him a great football player tied straight into academics, said Dawson, who left Sheridan earlier this spring to become coach at Monroe (La.) Neville. Hes very intelligent Hes one of those guys, from a coachs standpoint, that once you told him one time it was done. Hes one of those kids you coach that hes special in the fact that he has a broad knowledge of the game. Hes a coach on the field. Wood, the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette's Male Academic Athlete of the Year, helped Sheridan to its first playoff berth in the states largest classification last fall with o 03 CO O .\u0026gt; 03 ra G a G G O o o 52 IS bS E SP 00 G G 3 G e* 5.5.5 a3 43j- flT zi co \u0026lt;\" t:' -H 4=eM M 0^ . cn Wl co 03 \u0026lt;1. 3 C-  d =3  J2 G  o x: '\"* 52 \u0026lt;13 O) \" ' OJ G \"*  o 03 03 G 3  C \u0026gt;\u0026gt;43 5 5*4= 0.^5 33 G  ,Wc:  03 O a co a G 03 G e: G G  os \"S \u0026gt;\u0026gt;. ** g 2 \u0026lt; -2  O K. G u. to G - C fc- o oo!r- IS' 03 G 43 3 rt O U, W co (4 o o o a monstrous numbers at wide receiver. Wood, 5-10, 180 pounds, earned All-Arkansas honors with a singleseason school record 74 receptions for 1,373 yards and 8 touchdowns. He rushed 7 times for 36 yards, returned 24 kickoffs for 532 yards, returned 11 punts for 180 yards and 1 touchdown and started at safety. At the same time. Wood scored 25 on the ACT and maintained a 3.91 grade-point average, graduating seventh in his class. Hes really a great kid, said Athletic Director Don Sharpe, Sheridans former football coach. Ive never heard anybody ever say anything bad about him at this school. A National Honor Society member, Wood also impacted the basketball and baseball programs. See WOOD, Page 3C Early rise has Gunn well, wise BY ROBERT YATES ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Late-night stu(J^3essions arent the norm around the Gunn household. Instead, oldest daughter Tiffany can be found hitting the books about the time the morning paper hits the front porch. Its an academic approach her father, David, used as a studentathlete at Arkansas in the mid- 1980s. It's an academic approach his daughter has grasped exceptionally well. On the heels of a record-setting spring in the hurdles, Tiffany Gunn, the Arlcansas Democrat- Gazettes Female Academic Athletic of the Year for a second consecutive time, scored 24 on the ACT and graduated from Little Rock McClellan with a 4.25 grade-point average. Im an early bird, said David 043 E 'O  to a J\n! \u0026lt;13 ,50 \u0026gt;, U fc, 2 OS 2 2^^ 03 5 C 03 o co 03 43 to Q.G fli-G - 5  -fl UO 03 Z OT G 2 2 -.2 g SS g sS?. o p.gT t, 2.S's^_-5-SS ______ g.S'g-S  S \" \u0026gt; 5b5sc gfeoa = BgKo,Z B  g \u0026gt; g = obS-'SE'-1'2'3 -g  g5'p ZG-3Gg^G43 SGG.GXJtoj-^cffljs-tSGu.  c: - x= J-** G^fc\n03 03  j ''g^ O3c::3-f343^^H-. G G-a G^S o S \u0026gt;^5355 w C 5? 2 s  p O tZ) S C tio o s g CT-e.M O E I fi. U3 S.2 o \u0026lt;0 ci: o o-\ns   cw\u0026lt; PE- = Ctfi o ,ffi C 0)  S\u0026gt;% o O 03 \u0026lt;y c \u0026lt;  S.S5 E'E O .G XT 03 i X G3 -cr G G S,4a G G X o 3  - - o o 4) a co g = S.313 _5 'I' 'll \"C \u0026lt; co C/3 5 G u ,03 O a JiOO'UWtLTO O a -.a O (U 2 2 u -s n, 6C o' G 9 a I 9! 3 C S2 O.-5 K S ^S.Sl3 0)5 \u0026gt;.=^  c S 3 S3-g'35 p'S s.s  co G.fcjj Sfe G 03 O 43 s -c a c5  wIS C3-S c c 3 o x: ra  *0  TJ G co 03 G o OU \u0026amp; 0) o.c3 5 iao03 \u0026amp; S3ti\"2 ^C4G.ErGG \u0026gt; o 43 G cu \" - o c c co .3 r.*a a\u0026gt; c 3 - S o -.5 o*^ o  \u0026lt;43c\n\u0026gt;.fc w ___ \u0026lt;D - \"O u o JU g cj  ca o co .03 rg O oi_'O \" 03 'O G 7? o 2 ~ tn \u0026lt;v CS TH c \u0026lt;u o CQ o  S  *' an 00  c csi _e O .5 co X o2 \"g 43 cfl\" co 03 45 e. o 03 G izi Q ' \"a O 03 3 8 I a\u0026gt; 8 E .X 4\u0026gt; co 3 a C/3 C  3 o tn (A ^X! a 40 o E -CJ g o 5 .3 3 G G  gj s:=\nc* e c O'.S  S S  5s a.2 = 'S--S.c . S 3  S 3'S2'^ 33 o  M \u0026lt;u - 3 o _ C4  03 o a_^.^ .SIP'S y \u0026lt;13 C flj r\na  : 5 \" G o J on 55 w c \"  G'a 3 X 03 2 5 ,5 2.2-E 2 G C .5 03 g 3'i o V Oi  E O O I J Gunn, who graduated from -O 0 O .g .3 C  C \u0026lt;.2 S S. Td 03 m c XJ . 0) 03 co Q u o 2 c G M OJ G G -O G co O '1 I 2 3 dj.Ti E-c \", 0)- G *0 __r, 03 c cj 'O't, oa o G M 03 CU3 Q, u\" \u0026lt;5 2 O .w (U a u\n3 Arkansas in 1987 with a degree in physical education/biological science after lettering at defensive back. Theres a lot of mornings where getting up at 4 oclock is no big deal for me. I can go to bed at 11, midnight and get back up at 4 a.m. Thats the way I studied in college. Thats one of the things I tried to instill in Tiffany. Youre in athletics, you come in a lot of times tired following a,very long day and arent as fresh and sharp as you need to be. After dinner, go to bed and get up early in the morning. Very early. Gunn said that if his daughter is still in bed at 5 a.m., then somethings wrong. Whats the old Army saying? David Gunn said. \"They do more before, what, 6 a.m., than most people do in the entire day. That may be true of Tiffany. In addition to being valedictorian, Tiffany Gunn was National Honor Society president, a Student Council representative and president of Future Business Leaders See GUNN, Page 3C C St3 S LS fD tS-S \u0026lt;D -O cc -S C0 I kJ cu \u0026lt;zi \u0026gt; \u0026lt; O \"a 2 C S 8 r .s O 03 3  O X o G 3 W G43 4*J to_\"0 . G^ O OflO ^OO S 'rt :\"! G G n co to 2 c--  .\u0026lt;9* 15 \"^-S 5 o .2 23, fe - s)Sffi  g gs g'S s s  Ja'g.\" .S S S   03 O Th ! G 03 0\u0026gt; co 43  C CO o gS^:^ 4) T-I e tn ?=! M e-S  8 o O O c tu) o 2 r- CJ -UA G tn . ^.S g 03 .ssg='55saS\u0026gt; c 5 I-  G  2  SgS gtLo\u0026lt;lJva  3 03 cBXI to 4) U o\u0026gt;2\n\u0026gt;Subi35B Uh Os_zSc0 G 03m43 *S 3 A *3 W -5 -s e -2 o\u0026gt; m 5 -' 3 C ti ra co o G oT ctO c \u0026gt; 2 -G co  S 03 S\nC3 03 so- 03 O s \u0026lt; o c .2 .. o  C 03 O .W C o \u0026lt;4 54^ 2 G co G co S 8- S O co jO h co 2 G 3 S 4G O' 2 = 03 O 4) .ts -n  n 43 I  G *4 S XJ co O 5  a  \u0026gt;? G E tn G \u0026lt;13 G 03  o 03 G C G U. 3  O .*-\u0026gt; Q3 ? S 61 4= 4\u0026gt; 3 G M to S .G 03 -r i3 to co -x t- co_ t- G 03 -S ZG 03 'G .\"2 c S =  -H  33 03 co a) B I oS'Sl .-sS I-Ei Ill's B'S o  - s 5? to c  3 co .. = ^'S o a \" 3 0) \u0026gt; 5 o * ^2^-Sg Is-2 2^ E 03 =^3!  43 G iZ co 5 G 03 \u0026gt; o5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 283 P02 SEP 12 00 15:32 John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile September 12, 2000 Dr. Leslie Gamine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Gamine: I am writing on behalf of Marcus Winston, a 9\"' grade student at Parkview High School and similarly situated students in the Little Rock District. Would you please direct my attention to the section of the Districts student handbook which states that 9* grade students cannot participate in varsity team athletics. It is my understanding that the practice of the District in previous years has been to allow these students to participate on varsity teams. By copy of this letter to Mr. James Washington, I am also requesting that he investigate this matter. I recommend that he identify all 9* grade students at the senior high level to determine the number, race and gender of the students who are being adversely affected by unwritten directive. As I review the Districts desegregation plan, I note in Section 2.6 of that plan that the District shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to panicipation by qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities.... Tt appears that the Districts refusal to allow 9* grade students to participate in athletics at the varsity level is contrary to plan commitments. This new practice is neither promoting nor ensuring participation. Prior to invoking the process regarding compliance issues, I ask that Mr. Washington provide to this office a report of his preliminaiy findings by September 20, 2000. Thank you for your attention to this matter.5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 283 P03 SEP 12 00 15:32 linccrelvf Joy C. Sprin^r H On Behalf of Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. James Washington, Ombudsman Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Mr. Ray Gillespie. Althletic Director Ms. Ann Brown5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 283 P01 SEP 12 00 15:32 I JOHN W. walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway , Lictle Rock,. AR 72206 501.374-3753 Fix: 501-374-4137 FAX COVER SHEET FAX WMBER TRA^S^HTTED TO To: L J Of. I From\nJ JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Client/Maner\nL J Date\nj . DOCUMENTS i number of Pages* . COMMENTS\nOriginal ( ] will ( ) wiHNOT follow. t kArkansas Democrat '^(Oazeltv |  WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, Schools to offer examinations for athletics - ARKANSAS DEMOCR-AT-G.AZETTE ?the Little Rock School Districts health services office will offer physical examinations for students planning to participate in football, basketball and volleyball during the 1997-98 school year. ' School district policy requires that each student athlete undergo a physical examination before participating in any sports activity, including athletic practice sessions.\nParents are asked to contact their childrens schools beginning Monday to get a parental consent form. Coaches must be present during examinations. l^ludents may receive exams from a private physician or at Arkansas Childrens Hospital under the following schedule:  Wednesday, July 23. Mann Magnet Junior High School students, 5:30 p.m. Cloverdale Junior High, 6 p.m. McClellan High School, football 'and basketball students only, 6:30 p.m.  Thursday, July 24. Henderson Junior High. 5:30 p.m. Southwest Junior High, 6ji.m. Forest Heights Junior High. 6:30 p.m.  Friday, July 25, Dunbar Junior High, 5:30 p.m. Mabelvale Junior High, 6 p.m. Pulaski Heights Junior High, 6:30 p.m. Make-up days are:  Monday, Aug. 25, Mann and Cloverdale, 5:30 p.m. Henderson and Mabelvale, 6 p.m.  Wednesday Aug. 27, Southwest and Forest Heights, 5:30 p.m. Dunbar and Pulaski Heights, 6:30 p.m. Physical exams for football and basketball participants have been held for Fair, Hall, Parkview and Central High schools. Volleyball participants at the high school level may have their examinations performed on Aug. 14 at Bowen Hefley Knee \u0026amp; Sports Medicine Clinic, 5 St Vincent Circle, Blandford Building, Suite 100, as follows: Hall and Parkview, 5:30 p.m. Central and Fair, 5:50 p.m. McClellan, 6:10 p.m. 12 96 10:48 !2l 002 003 l- : 1 \"V 1 . i'. '\n- i July 12,1996 301 324 2023 LRSD COMMl?vICATI ODM LimE Rock School District LRSD Coach Takes State Team to Belgium for more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020  1 tI I I The Central High School girls basketball coach will travel to Belgium later this month. Michael Green will accompany a team of eleven senior high girls to compete in an international basketball tournament from July 31 through August 8. Green, who also serves as head coach of Centrals girls track team and assistant boys basketball coach, was selected to serve as coach for the Arkansas team comprised of 10 Arkansas high school girls and one from Oklahoma. Green also teaches health and physical education at Henderson Health Science Magnet Junior High School. The games are sponsored by Sports Challenge International, Incorporated. The next team practices prior to their departure for Belgium will be at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., July 27, at Central High School. 810 West Markham Street  UtUe Rock. Arkansas 78301  (501)834-3000 lU. k/WWV W W J* W .W A . I ti.1 \\,  v, a 1 J ffcPSl * 12-96 10:50 LRSD COMIIVNICATI OHM  003 1103 i 501 324 2023 Little Rock School District LRSn Bus Drivers to Drive Olympic Game Participants I : July 12,1996 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Twenty Laidlaw bus drivers leave Little Rock Sunday, July 14, to travel to Atlanta for the Olympic Games, but they wont be there as competitors or spectators. The drivers have been invited to serve as coach bus drivers for the Olympic Games Committee. Laidlaw selected about 100 drivers from Memphis and 20 from Little Rock to provide this service at the Olympic Games. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 78S01  \u0026lt;501)324-2000 j Arkansas Democrat (gazette | SATURDAY. APRIL 20, 1996 Girl pops up in lineup after lawsuit Ajji^nsas Democral-Gazetle/BENJAMIN KRAIN Claiming sex discrimination, mom says damage is done BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Stalf Wiitei No. 34 played the second game of a doubleheader Friday between Parkview and Arkadelphia. That gave the second baseman two starts in the Parkview Patriots six games since Tuesday  the day she filed suit against the teams head coach and the Little Rock School District alleging se.x discrimination. Christi Jackson, 17, says that coach Terry Daniell limits her playing time because she is a girl. This season Jackson has been played in only two of the 12 Class AAAA conference games since Qlisti Jadson, who started for Parkview t-h-e-- -s--e-a--s-o--n started in March. In High Schools baseball team last year, both gmes, ^he todn t go m m si,,ts on.. .___I__k. _______ fho lucf iTinina Twn or tnS 2Hni6S cnoois uai\u0026gt;euail icaiii icuai yvai, --------- - T. the bench during a game Friday the last inning. Two of toe games a^nst Ariodetphia  a position she she sat out were played the day contends shes in far too often. the suit was filed. When the suit was filed, she had played in 56 of the teams 224 innings and had made stx errors. The lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court says Jackson, identified only as Jane Doe, was recruited to play second base on the baseball team for the 1995 season. She played for both varsity and junior varsity teams. Before the 1995 season. Jack-son starred at pitcher and right field for the Blazers, a girls independent softball team that has won three state championships and played in national and world competitions, Robert Clark, then Parkview's head coach, recruited Jackson last year. Neither Clark nor Daniell would comment on the lawsuit Last year the kids had fun, her mother said. \"They played baseball and they were a team. This is not a team. On Wednesday, the day after the suit was filed, Jackson started the game. Friday night she started the second game of a doubleheader. Neither contest was a conference game. According to the lawsuit when Jackson and other female students who attended a meeting for prospective baseball players, Daniell encouraged them to find a faculty sponsor and form a girls softball team. The suit cited federal Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX requires schools that receive federal money to equalize sports opportunities for men and women. Kathryn Gunzelman. advocacy See JACKSON, Page 5B Jacksori\"  Continued from Page 1B Tm just tired of not playing. All my coordinator for the Wonien s feammateS knOW I CUn Sports Foundation in Uniondale, . , N.Y., said Jackson will probably play better and I m tired win her lawsuit , of being treated Unfairly. going to ride the pine. One teammates parent, asking not to be named, viewed the discrimination lawsuit as legitimate. Were not the worlds greatest baseball team, but we have Gunzelmans nonprofit educa-tional organization was founded in 1994 to promote and enhance sports and fitness for women. Barbara Jackson said its been a horrible season for her daughter. Daniell has told Jackson that she wasnt ready and her timing is off, her mother said, Christi did everything in her power , but it wasnt good enough, Barbara Jackson said, She didnt want to play baseball last year and now she is wanting to play and this guy wont let her. good players and Christi is one of them, the parent said. Its un, II lfoonrtuunnaatiee tuhiaati tuhiec uLnitntlce uRuocvk. My self-esteem has really school District doesnt offer soft-been shot. ball. But the parent said not every- - Christi Jackson one supports Jackson. _____________ Larry Sipes, whose son Clay plays shortstop, doesnt think the arship offers from Oklahoma City Jacksons should sue. University and William Woods It was absolutely not neces- College in Fulton, Mo. sary. Its a bunch of baloney, I dont want this to happen to gipes said at the game Friday. any girl in any high school. Bar- Sipes said Jackson is good bara Jackson said. I want him to enough to be on the team, but know can't run or bat very well. Barknow what hes done and never Shes going to get to play now, but the damage has already been done, her mother said, He knew what he was doing. Hes made her life miserable and boys. ninvinv  destroyed her self-confidence. I tn just tired of not playing. do it again. She can field well and she's Her daughter, who is growing got a good arm, he said, But the tired of the media attention be- other player (who plays second cause of the lawsuit, said she just base) is better. Theyre making it wants to play as much as the She could have gotten so much more offers. The University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff has offered her a scholarship to play on the mens baseball team. Jackson said. She is also considering softball schol- Christi Jackson said. All my teammates know I can play bet-a girl-guy thing. Sipes said the team is still new, and he worries that the lawsuit will cause the coach to quit and destroy Parkviews fledgling ter and Im tired of being treated baseball program. unfairly. My self-esteem has real- He said the teams budget is ly been shot. $3,000, and there s not enough Most games, she wonders why money to also support a girls she should show up if shes just softball team. Letters FRIDAY, MAY 6.1994 Dont eliminate the coaches stipends The Little Rock School District is in a |7----------- . xuc xjiiue nocK acnooi District is in a financial quagmire due to the districts decade-long fight against the federal courts and the millions of dollars lost in the battle. Now the district is contem- ' plating elimination of coaches stipends which would ultimately result in the elimination of high school athletics in the district. This is ridiculous It needs to be recognized by the community that at the time many area athletic programs declined, gang activity grew into a community epidemic Few have recognized this parallel of trends. Coaches in this district... have chosen their profession out of love for the i games and for working with kids. We ' eliminate these stipends and we eliminate these coaches. Many will ultimately find work outside of teaching attempting to regain wages lost. As a substitute teacher in the Little Rock schools, I rarely filled in for coaches, they were always there. I cannot say the same for regular classroom teach- : er  I always had work. These men ' and women are dedicated to our chil- i dren and are the few positive role mod- i els many students have. ( Our community should be concerned ! for the status of these coaches and their J?h. Lamar Cole and the Arkansas Activities Association should fight this proposal. Jim Lynch (if he really cares) should fight this idea. Anyone who feels that athletics is better than gang banging should fight this idea. Athletics is school pride, individual pride and ultimately improved civic pride. MARK HOOPER Little Rock^07/19/95 10:36 501 324 2023 IJ^Sn COMMCNlCATf OD)I @002/005 :i 'i4r\u0026lt;4.x '* Little Rock Schooi 1 TRIC'I r' L L News Release I r Athletic Program Physicals Scheduled for Senior High School Students I I Jelly 19,1995 For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 I I LITTLE ROCK ~ Senior high school students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) who plan to participate in extra-curricular athletic programs this fall may take advantage of a limited number of physical examinations that will be provided tree of charge. All students must have \u0026lt;a physical examination before p^ticipating in athletic programs. Students who do not take advantage of the LRSD provided physicals may see a private physician for these examinations, but should obtain the appropriate forms from an LRSD high school for their physician to complete. Physicals for McClellan High School football and volleyball team members will be administered at the Arkansas Children's Hospital on July 24 beginning at 5:30 p.m. After school begins, all physicals for McClellan will be given at the McClellan Wellness Clinic. Students may contact the school nurse to make an appointment. ! J. A. Fair High School, Hall High School, and Parkview Arts and Sciences Magnet High School students who are interested in participating in football, volleyball, or basketball will be tested on July 27 at the l ittle Rock Orthopedic Clinic which is located at 13100 Chenal Parkway. Students should contact their schools for. I specific times and locations. (more) ( 810 West Markham Street  Llttle'Rock, Arkansas 72301  (501)324-3000 SSffi35^5SlK^K5S?^3BhfcMnat3.6 07/19/95 10:37 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMI?.'ICAT1 ODM 003/005 LiRSD High School Athletic Physicals July 19,1995 Page two of two 1 Centrai High School football and volleyball team members may contact the liittle Rick Central High Wellness Clinic after school begins on August 21 to schedule an appointment for a physical examination. j Physicals for spring sports and spirit groups will be provided by the Little Kock Sports Medicine Clinic. Dates and times will be posted in schools later in the school year. I' 1 ## r.?l- 'V: .  .1' 1 ! jE / - lyy, J. fe' 1- I 9^' * SL' ' I I I I . I { r t I I 4 i Add,.i 5!\" I .v f \u0026lt; 07/19/9.5 1 I 'I i I I I I  I' 10:37 ODM 004/005 July 19,1995 { 50l 324 2023 l.RSD COMllCMCATI a k. J Little Rock School District News Release LRSD Provides Physicals for junior High Athletic Programs For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 Lm LE ROCK  The Little Rock School District (LRSD) will provide a limited number of physical examinations for junior high school students interested in participating in extra-curricular sports programs during the 1995-96 school year. These physicals will be administered at the Arkansas Children's Hospital (ACH), and LRSD coaches tvili be present. AU athletes must have a physical examination before participating in athletic Students who do not take advantage of the LRSD provided physicals may see a private physician for these examinations, but should obtain the appropriate forms from an LRSD jumor high school for their physician to complete. j ACH requires that students provide a permission form signed by a parent guardian before an examination is administered. These forms are currently available at all LRSD junior high schools. or I Physicals for fall sports will be administered at ACH during the week of August 1 through 4 and are limited to 25 students per school. An additional round of physicals, also limited to 25 per school, will be administered on August 24. I I I (more) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rdck, .Vrkaasas 72201  (501)824-2000 Stipend flap angers LR coaches BY TIM COOPER Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Coaches in the Little Rock School District may be dismay^ with the recommendation to eliminate stipends, but most are still taking a wait-and-see attitude until a final decision is made. More than 400 school district employees were sent letters stating that their annual stipends are not automatic and that a recommendation from Superintendent of Schools Dr. Henry P. Williams will be made that they be discontinued. -----Arkansas Democrat (Bazctt^  One coach speaks out 4C If whats in this letter is true, there is no coaching staff, Little Rock Central football coach Bernie Cox said. There are no athletics in Little Rock. The letter I received said we would not receive any stipends. Obviously they dont want us to work for nothing. They havent volunteered to take any pay cuts. Stipends compensate teachers for extra duty such as coaching or sponsoring student activities. According to coaches the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette talked to Sunday and Monday, annual coaching stipends range from $1,000 to $6,000. The letter also states that after a review of the stipends, the need for the extra duty and the district budget is completed, the employees may be asked to perform the extra duties again. I think this is an effort to balance the budget and to see what kind of funds they have available, said Oliver Fitzpatrick, the girls basketball coach at Central. The first and foremost thing is to balance the budget. If they cant do that, theres not going to be any teaching going on. If theres no teaching, theres not going to be any coaching. I havent lost hope. Its just an effort on the districts part to ensure that theyre fiscally sound. Thats good business. In an effort to save more than $1.85 million in salaries next year, the district notified 80 teachers that it is eliminating their jobs. TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1994 Copyright  Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. It was the third consecutive year the district has had to eliminate jobs, but no coaching jobs were affected. However, the elimination of stipends would effectively force some coaches to seek coaching jobs elsewhere. I think theyre crazy if they think were going to coach for free, said Parkview assistant football coach Terry Daniell. I dont think anyone asked them to be administrators for free. Im See COACHES, Page 4CCoaches  Continued from Page 1C not going to go out there and coach for free. I'm not and I know the staff at Parkviews probably not. Frank Martin, an Arkansas Education Association staff member, said that under the Fair Dismissal Act, the removal of a stipend is seen as a reduction in compensation. This means folks have to be evaluated and observed ... be- i.fore they can be removed, said Martin, who is assigned to the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association as executive director. My initial reaction is there are going to be some serious questions whether the district is able to issue statements to these guys saying that they arent going to come back next year. Not unless they abolish this position. Williams said he did not think the re-evaluation of the stipends would hurt the sports programs in the district. I don't think it's going to affect it at all, Williams said. \"We have unilaterally given stipends to individuals over the years, and we're now looking at another way to do it.... We want to make sure that the people receiving stipends are the ones we want to do it. Williams said the district currently pays out more than $700,000 in stipends for coaches and teachers involved in extracurricular activities. But some coaches claim the letters only underscore the district's willingness to cut the athletic budget as much as possible. When the district spends $1,000 to send out certified letters notifying us there will be no stipends, they mean business, Cox said. T've been here 24 years, and I think its a slap in the face, Little Rock McClellan football coach Ellis Register said. Theres people who have worked in the district to make it better and they turn around and do that. Register said he was not shocked by the recommendation, but it hinders his staffs efforts to prepare for next season. Were making plans. Were working on schedules and our physicals for the summer, Register said. If we dont know something by Aug. 1. then we wont start practicing. Cox, who has been with the district 22 years, said it would not be fair for his team to start practicing later than other programs. Central is scheduled to open its season with defending Class AAAA champion Pine Bluff. Athletics in Little Rock has deteriorated over the past cou- I pie of years, Cox said. With all i the violence and murder in the t streets, it boggles my mind that ! theyre not putting more money into athletics and other extracurricular activities to get more young people going in a more positive direction. Athletics is a very small part of the school district in Little Rock, Daniell said. Thats evident by some of the fields we have and the crowds that come to the games. Our facilities are bad. They wont even buy the Coaches may avoid LRSD, Osmon says BY TIM COOPER Democrat'Qazetle Staff Writer Little Rock Central base- ball coach Scott Osmon, like many coaches in the Little Rock School District, does not agree with the.dis- tricts decision to re-evaluate coaching stipends. But he plans to remain with the district and has no plans to quit coaching whether stipends are eliminated or not. Personally, I will continue to coach, said Osmon, who commutes from Conway. \"I have several kids that dont play anything but baseball and we practice throughout the year. Now, there are coaches that might not be able to devote as much time to their sports. Stipends are paid to school employees who perform extra duties such as coaching or sponsoring student activities. Osmon said the elimination of the stipends will make it difficult to lure good coaches to the district and keep many of the ones they have now. Nobodys getting rich in coaching anyway and to take away the stipends is only another insult, Osmon said. As coaches, we may be the only father figures some of these kids have. A lot of those kids need us, and its a shame they may not be able to to find the money somewhere. The decision to eliminate The stipends came three days after Osmons team earned its first trip to the Class AAAA State Baseball Tournament in the programs three-year history. The Tigers (14-8) finished third in the AAAA-Central Conference and ended Conways 27-game conference winning streak. We were 4-12 our first year and 9-10 last year, Osmon said. The kids have been able to see all phases. The Tigers will play North Little Rock at Burns Park on Thursday in the AAAA-Central semifinals. The winner will play Conway for the districts No. 1 seed in the state tournament. kids a letter jacket. There is nothing prestigious about athletics any more. I guess the things that are prestigious now are having a lot of money and jewelry and being a gang leader. The letter said individuals would be afforded a hearing before the Board of Directors regarding Williams recommendation if they notified the board in writing within 30 days from the letters receipt. Democrat-Gazette Staff Writers Todd Traub and Pete Perkins contributed to this report.?VFD .J Un Vt If f' OCT 2 6 1993 Skip Rutherford 5604 Hawthorne Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Office of Desegregation Monitanny Personal Not For Publication October 25,1993 Mr. Kevin Freking Arkansas Democrat-Gazette P.O. Box 2221 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Kevin: I thought your and Grant's Sunday articles about football in the Little Rock School District were interesting. They were well-written. However, I do think you concentrated on the negative, and I wish you had been more balanced. Some observations: 1. Little Rock Hall is 5-0, leading the AAAA Central division and is play-off bound. You could have easily focused on the success of a team which was not projected to be a title contender. 2. Little Rock Parkview is having its best season in years and maybe - just maybe - football is on the way back. It could have been presented that way. 3. In your comments about the 2.0 grade point average, you could have noted that the Little Rock School District has approximately 5% of the State's students, but approximately 14% of the state's national merit semifinalists. Central itself has 18 national merit semifinalists - the most of any school in Arkansas. Like the majority on the State Board of Education, I don't believe the 2.0 GPA is driving students into gangs, and I am encouraged the rest of the state is finally following the example Little Rock pioneered years ago. After aU there has certainly been much concern voiced in your paper about college remediation costs and the poor graduation rates of college athletes.Mr. Kevin Freking October 25,1993 Page Two You could have pointed out these scores on the ACT, a respected college admission test: White Scores Black Scores United States Arkansas Little Rock 21.4 20.7 21.9 17.1 16.8 17.4 (Note that Little Rock is higher than both the state and nation.) Although the 2.0 standard may get the blame, the gangs, etc. are a result of what has been called the \"Hidden home curriculum\" exacerbated by a family environment of single parents, no parents, high divorce rates (Arkansas leads the nation) and concentrated urban poverty (while the nation has 20% of its students in poverty, cities have 40%). Inner-dty neighborhoods all across America have suffered from middle-class flight, business flight and religious flight, and since Pulaski Cotmty encompasses the only significant urban area in the state, it suffers the most. On another matter you raised, as a University of Arkansas alumnus, and former Fayetteville resident. I'm very sorry the Razorback football team has had a string of bad seasons. I'm also very sorry the LRSD (and apparently other Arkansas schools) is not providing the U of A with the \"stars of years past. I would note that one Central Arkansas star -- Catholic's Zach Adami  chose Michigan over Arkansas, and thus the problem may not only be quality athletes, but the quality of the U of A program. Although in fairness, there's stiU hope the Hogs will get a bid to the Poulan Weedeater Independence Bowl in Shreveport. (Since the U of A's current kicking game is poor at best, you might suggest that the recruiters take a look at Central's kicker, Matthew Mittelstaedt. He is being recruited by colleges for soccer.) Also, your photo of the security at the Central-Hall game should be put into context. The last-time I came to the Democrat-Gazette building. I noticed strong security. To get to the second floor of the Post-Office Building on Capitol Avenue you have to pass through a metal-detector as well as security guards. At Cranford Johnson Robinson Woods there is a security guard to walk people to their cars, and there are many more examples throughout the city. Finally, as you did on football, I hope you will do a series on LRSD basketball, and someone also will do a front page article on LRSD's academic achievements.Mr. Kevin Freking October 25,1993 Page Three In your basketball article, perhaps you will point out Charles Ripley's success rate at Parkview, including State Championships, national rankings, NCAA scholarships, 3.0 team grade point average and the 6'7\" junior guard which apparently Duke -- and most aU major colleges are coveting. In addition, you could feature Chris Williams, a scholar-athlete who starts for Central, and who is a first-class young man. Also, McQellan, Fair and Hall all have quality basketball programs. (You might even encourage people to come out and see some of the best high school - and junior high  basketball in the region.) Thank you for your consideration of a more balanced approach in your reporting. Sincerely, Rutherford SR:sw cc: Grant Tennille Walter Hussman Paul Greenberg Rex Nelson Cynthia HowellCc: Little Rock School District May 17, 1993 RECEIVED MAY 1 8 Office of DesegregaSon Mcniioricg Mr. John Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: In response to your letter regarding Gary Greenwood dated May 14, 1993 to Superintendent Mac Bernd, I am forwarding to you a copy of the investigative report completed by Sam Stueart, Assistant Superintendent, for the Superintendent. We collectively reached what we believe to be a fair and equitable resolution to the concerns. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Yours very truly, anet L. Bernard Associate Superintendent for School Operations and Climate JLB:nr c\nMrs. Dede Greenwood Mrs. Ann Brown Dr. Mac Bernd 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET To: From: Subject: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 17, 1993 72201 Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent for School Operations and Climate Sam Stueart, Acting Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools Tennis Tryouts at Pulaski Heights Junior High School As per your request at 7:45 a.m. this morning to investigate the matter at Pulaski Heights Junior High School pertaining to the selection procedure for the Pulaski Heights Jr. High tennis team, I am submitting the following information: Investigation After discussions with Janet Bernard, the patron, Ms. Greenwood and the principal of Pulaski Heights Jr. High, I find the following facts: 1. No \"try-outs\" were held to establish team members due to the fact that the teacher was sick and rain occurred on several days when the try-outs might have been scheduled. 2. Team members were chosen by taking those students who are ranked by the USTA. 3. No African-American team members were selected. One African- American student (Derrick Greenwood) expressed an interest, but was not ranked by the USTA and therefore was not selected. Solutions 1. In the future, state rankings by the USTA should not be used since the rankings are based on participation in tournaments requiring paid entrance fees. This works to exclude students who cannot afford to pay the fee. not to participate in the It also excludes students who did \"private tournaments\" because they preferred another activity or simply chose not to compete in those events. A student may be a very good tennis player and not be ranked by the USTA.Janet Bernard May 17, 1993 Page Two 2. In the future, round-robin try-outs are to be held so that a student has the opportunity to demonstrate tennis ability without USTA rankings being used or subjective judgements being made. In the future, 3. there should be a very serious effort to encourage participation in tennis by all members of the student body and opportunities to develop tennis skills should be given to students at Pulaski Heights. 4. To meet the immediate concern of.today, the principal will release students to play in try-outs for positions in tonight's tournament. today to \"earn position equally. One or two students should not be expected to play try-outs. a position\nall students should compete for a Two teachers will serve as line judges for the One teacher will be an African-American and one shall be of another race. A drawing will be held to determine opponents./\u0026lt; JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. ' AUSTIN PORTER, JR. * Also aiiinilhtl lo [raclin* in (U-nrgia \u0026amp; llv Dislrivl of ('obnnbia. John w. walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rook, Arkansas 722n6 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 rbceweo MAY 1 1 1993 QffC\u0026amp; of. DesegregaScn i'\u0026lt;\u0026lt;r icnitoring May 14, 1993 Delivered Via Fax \u0026amp; U.S. Hail Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Bernd\nIt has come to my attention that there may be problems at Pulaski Heights again involving the administration of Mr. Ralph Hoffman. Please check to see whether or not the tennis team was just selected and its racial composition. I am representing the interests of Mr. Gary Greenwood, a student there, and his mother, Ms. Dede Greenwood. My information is that Mr. Greenwood was effectively prevented from being a team member by subjective consideration. My further understanding of our plan is that every effort will be made to ensure that all extra curricular activities are racially inclusive. Time is of the essence in that the tournament that this youngster is concerned about begins on Monday and continues on Tuesday. Therefore, your urgent attention is requested and action is also requested this weekend. If you agree with my conclusion, please let the youngster know so that he will have preparation time, though a minimum. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John V W. Walker JWW:lp cc: Ms. Dede Greendwood Ms. Ann Brown28  THURSDAY, MARCH 18,1993   Pulaski Aikansas Democrat  azctte i  i I Grades sideline 4 % of basketball players in survey BY DANNY SHAMEER\nDemocrat-Gazette Education Writer . .' About 4 percent of the stu- . dents who played junior or se- . nior high school basketball in .1 ^Pulaski County public schools were ineligible in the second semester because of grades, an  . Arkansas Demoerat-Gazette survey found. The survey reveals no particular pattern, such as .whether younger junior high players struggled more than : older high school players to meet academic eligibility requirements. Also, the data does not in- f elude how many students may have simply stayed away from signing up for a basketball team because of the standards  a figure that would be impossible to compile, some coaches and principals said. But the survey does show that the Little Rock School District  which has had a tougher academic standard since 1988- 89  had a marginally smaller percentage of ineligible players than the other two Pulaski County public school districts. The survey found\n In the Little Rock district, the states largest in enrollment, 3 percent of 623 players from 13 schools lost their eligibility during the season. Twenty-two players ineligible the first semester regained eligibility the second semester.  The Pulaski County Special School District, the states second-largest in enrollment, had about 5 percent of 526 players from 13 schools lose eligibility during the season. Seventeen players ineligible the first semester regained eligibility for the second semester.  The North Little Rock School District had about 6 percent of 171 players declared ineligible. Students who quit the team or were kicked off for nonacademic reasons were not included in the numbers. Since 1988, the Little Rock district has required its players to have at least a C average, or 2.0 grade-point average. The North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special districts make their players earn at least a 1.6 grade-point average. Student athletes in all the states public school districts will be required to earn at least a 1.8 grade-point average in the fall semester to play on a publie school team. The minimum grade-point average increases to a 2.0 Little Rocks standard  in the 1994 fall semester. Not everyone is happy about that. I believe in letting all kids play and not excluding anyone, said Eugene Stuckey, boys basketball coach at Jacksonville South Junior High, echoing the views of many coaches. Im concerned that the Arkansas Activities Asso- we have a lot of kids who are just above the special ed line but are academically slow. We have programs for special ed and gifted students, but nothing for the kids in between. A whole group out there who need help and a little motivation will stay away from sports. These are the kids who end up in gangs. Some of these kids are going to be in someones gang  the street gang or the basketball team gang, Stuckey said. Statewide figures for basketball arent available from ciation, a governing body for interscholastic activities. Basketball is the only major sport in the schools that spans the first and second semesters.\u0026gt; P/XxcA-tCg- I ? AJO, lUjt\u0026gt; U'. I |^Ln\\-(oc l op - A \\oc Ao'P i^S 5^Lf-L \u0026lt; \\cc5'Act'\u0026lt;' dt\u0026gt;tA^ xQS\" - 4 A \u0026gt;\\ c^' 1 cx^ lo\u0026lt;xJi ftyn(X3fy^ \"\" 16\" p^ictoQOxs. (Gen 4c\\,(cC i  iq.bC iQAA SocKs f rijr , 1 \u0026lt;ppuf Cx-muCL - L-Ovn u ti n\\lAe on tiVA^ b\\cLQ_ . 434 .A'o OO LcUi^ X fYAcxi^ 2S\u0026gt; EKC^PTAOCfel o Afnc\u0026gt;\u0026gt;n43. 4\u0026gt;V10lQ5 a o 2]~~. V\u0026gt;o.oe_ o.*^ -Qu.vyy \u0026gt;1 ' Cx-^ AVvC- \\o Pcxf er\\'t ' ^r\u0026gt;oxA.\u0026lt; '^Ckx^U^A^'s 'O\u0026gt;ae_SCHOOL Central High Fair High Hall High McClellan High Parkview High Magnet Cloverdale Jr. High Dunbar Magnet Jr. Forest Heights Jr. Henderson Jr. Mabelvale Jr. Mann Magnet Jr. Pulaski Heights Jr. Southwest Jr. Jacksonville High Mills High North Pulaski High Oak Grove High Jr. \u0026amp; Robinson High Sylvan Hills High Fuller Jr. OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES ENROLLMENT September 28, 1990 CHEERLEADERS DRILL TEAM/PEP CLUB DIST LRSD PCSSD It It It tl It % BLK 59% 56% 57% 62% 55% 68% 63% 69% 73% 64% 58% 62% 75% 25% 44% 21% 21% 23% 22% 50% T W B % BLK T W B % BLK 19 10 9 47% 15 7 8 53% 17 14 3 18% 18 16 2 11% 12 17 16 16 12 12 12 10 16 12 16 13 14 11 22 10 12 15 9 3 25% 24 14 10 42% 13 4 24% 22 14 8 36% 6 10 63% 25 2 23 92% 13 3 19% 20 8 12 60% 1 7 2 11 5 8 2 Other 6 4 7 9 92% 42% 67% 40% 56% 17 20 23 24 21 0 3 6 15 5 17 17 17 9 16 8 8 4 7 1 Other 12 0 1 Other 13 11 19 9 11 11 1 0 3 1 1 4 100 85% 74% 38% 76% 33% 44% 0% 7% 0% 14% 10% 8% 27% 11 22 27 17 24 28 29 21 29 0 2 11 14 2 Other 25 2 7 10 20 22 27 11 13 4 6 2 10 16 100 64% 7% 59% 17% 21% 7% 48% 55% 1CHEERLEADERS DRILL TEAM/PEP CLUB SCHOOL DIST % BLK T W B % BLK T W B % BLK Jacksonville N. Jr. tl 24% 12 8 4 33% 19 15 4 21% Jacksonville S. Jr. (I 27% 11 10 1 9% 29 20 9 31% Northwood Jr. 21% 14 13 1 7% 27 22 5 19% Robinson Jr. II 24% 8 7 1 13% NA NA NA NA Sylvan Hills Jr. M 24% 12 11 1 8% 21 10 11 52% NLRHS West NLRSD 36% 16 12 4 25% 30 21 9 30% NLRHS East II 43% 35 32 3 9% 78 42 36 46% Lakewood Middle II 41% 31 25 6 19% 76 57 17 22% 2 Other Ridgewood Middle II 42% 19 12 7 37% 54 43 11 20% Rose City II 56% 30 12 18 60% 30 8 22 73% 2OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Hand Delivered May 31, 1990 TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for FROM: SUBJECT: lesegregation Monitoring and Program Development kirma Hart, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Purchase of Cheerleader Uniforms All districts are to provide transportation and uniforms for cheerleaders, pep club, and drill team on the same basis as those items are provided for athletic squads. the court-approved plan. This is a requirement ofHand Delivered TO: James FROM: SUBJECT: The OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 23, 1990 Jennings, Associate 72201 Superintendent Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Prentice Dupins, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Purchase of Cheerleader Uniforms Extracurricular Activities following summary should clear up any problems for of interpretation of the language concerning the extracurricular activities section of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan: Items That Are Required 1. Each secondary school will have a director of activities whose duties are specifically defined on pages one and two of the extracurricular activities section. 2. Transportation and uniforms for cheerleaders, pep club, and drill team members will be provided by the district on the same basis as those items athletic squads. are provided for 3. If the absence of transportation for other extracurricular activities serves as an impediment to desegregation, the district is to provide transportation for these activities. 4. The Little Rock Districts are to and Pulaski County Special School use the services of the Arkansas Department of Education to assess its extracurricular activities. program of The districts are to develop further plans to increase black student participation. It Items That Are To Be Considered But Not Stated as Requirements 1. 2. 3. 4 . is The districts are to consider the addition of acrobatics/gymnastics to the secondary curriculum. The districts are to consider sponsoring clinics and or mini-camps for sports and music activities. The districts are to consider the addition of a mentor program to assist at-risk youths in the school. The districts are to consider standardizing eligibility requirements for extracurricular participation within the three districts. my understanding that occurring in the near future, district's requirement to pay tryouts either have or will be If the information regarding the for uniforms for cheerleaders and drill teams was not advertised prior to tryouts or practice, it will be necessary to repeat the process used to select members for these squads. All students should be appraised of these facts prior to tryouts so that cost factors will not serve as a deterrent to participation. It is my hope that this will provide clarification for any points that may have appeared unclear. I am sure that this will help you in reaching the goals you have stated in your own plans for the removal of barriers extracurricular activities. for students who wish to participate inLittle Rock School District HAND-DELIVERED May 21, 1990 TO: Ann Brown, Arma Hart, and Prentice Dupins - Associate Metropolitan Supervisors FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH: 'ar. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent ^Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Purchase of Cheerleader Uniforms According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, \"nthe parent committee (on extracurricular activities) recommended that transportation and uniforms for cheerleaders, pep club, and drill team members be provided by the districts on the same basis as uniforms and transportation are pro-vided for athletic squads. II Since the court-approved plan refers to the purchase of cheerleader uniforms as a recommendation, rather than a requirement, it is conceivable that each district can decide whether or not to implement the parent committee's recommendation. The Little Rock School District would like for your office to interpret the language cited above. Some items in the plan are \"recomnended\" and some items are clearly required. If possible, please provide a written response to our concern on or before May 24. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 JUN 2 \u0026amp; W IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Oiiice of Desegrcg\nIE Son MonitoriH: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS I. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LIMITED INTERVENTION MUST BE AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS WHO ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PARTIES' FAILURE TO MEET THEIR DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS The Joshua intervenors and the applicants for intervention jointly seek permission from the court to join the additional named intervenors to this proceeding pursuant to Rule 24(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Throughout this litigation, the role of the Joshua intervenors has been to ensure that the remedy in this case resulted in enforceable commitments from the other parties on behalf of minority students in the three districts. That goal has been accomplished through the approval by the Court of the parties' settlement agreement and the three school districts' individual and joint plans for desegregation. These commitments are now enforceable by the Joshua intervenors through this court. enforcing the agreements. but in the real beneficiaries will often be individual students rather than the entire class of minority students. After all, individual students come into daily contact with the districts in entirely unique sets of circumstances. buteach student has a right to enforce the remedial obligations as it affects them in their daily interaction with the parties. Although the Joshua intervenors are diligent in their attempts to monitor the districts and to insist on compliance, ultimate responsibility for enforcement is in the court. Therefore, as the real beneficiaries of very specific remedial obligations, minority students in the district must have access to this court on their own behalf. Since it is actually the individual applicants' right to fair treatment under the parties settlements which the Joshua intervenors are seeking through this limited proceeding for preliminary injunction, the applicants for intervention should be allowed to intervene for the limited purpose of enforcing the settlement as it relates to their particular participation in extra-curricular activities at Pulaski Heights Junior High School. II. INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELIEF The present motion is styled \"Motion for Preliminary Injunction,\" but intervenors are essentially seeking enforcement of the parties' prior settlement agreements and desegregation plans. Consequently, this motion might also be considered a motion for contempt and enforcement. Either approach justifies a quick hearing on the claims raised. A. Preliminary Injunction Intervenors will be enjoined from implementing irreparably harmed if the LRSD is not the cheerleader selection results which intervenors claim are racially biased and out of compliance with the districts obligations for desegregation of extra-curricularactivities. The selection of cheerleaders for Pulaski Heights Junior High, PHJH, occurs once a year, usually in April. This selection process has occurred and it has presumably determined the cheerleader participation for the 1992-93 school year. That participation begins during the summer. however, through the summer training camps which the school sends its cheerleaders to. Only students that attend PHJH may participate. Consequently, the minor intervenors will be ineligible for participation in the summer cheerleading camps nor in the future because they will presumably move on to the next grade and a different school after the 1992 93 school year. Therefore, relief must come swiftly, if it is to come at all. The damage to the intervenors' self esteem and their disillusionment with the educational system that will result from their denial of fair participation will also irreparably harm them in their future educational processes. The benefits of fair and equitable participation are cumulative and cannot be restored after the fact. seek. Intervenors are likely to succeed in obtaining the relief they Pursuant to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, LRSD V.PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990), remedial orders have already been entered in this case pursuant to the parties \"settlement agreements\" and \"settlement plans\". The LRSD plan for desegregation has recently been resubmitted and represents enforceable commitments by LRSD to the intervenors. (See \"Desegregation Plan Little Rock School District April 29,19 9 2\nrelevant portions of which are Motion) attached to Intervenor's The intervenors reserved the right to seek enforcement of these plans through this court. (See Settlement Agreement, p. 19.) Under the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the District has committed to: tl E. of Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases school activities and operations (i.e. activities school, class and staff assignments\nparticipation in extracurricular activities\ndistribution of resources\netc.) [underlining class added for emphasis] Equity, tt in this situation, means \"participation. II in meaningful numbers, not merely the right to access. There should ordinarily be some semblance of proportional participation. at least proportional to the numbers that try out for a particular activity. Here the disparities in participation are so overwhelming as to be patently unfair and ludicrous. (Eleven out of seventeen white applicants were selected, while only one out of eleven black applicants were selected\nin the previous year. an even more disparate selection ratio occurred.) The district also has a binding commitment to: I. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, and other staff with the skills needed to administrators, achieve quality desegregation education, and\n(LRSD Plan, p. 1) c. Encourage positive attitudes and commitments to the desegregation plan by taking a team approach to promoting it, involving school staff,___administrators,___parfents,---and (INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN, p.65) volunteers. The district has failed to meet its obligation to develop these commitments in their staff and volunteers. Their failure is egregiously obvious in the disparities in these extra-curricularactivities. In addition, the ability to improve is built into the process through the school's participation in summer training camps for their cheerleading squads. Furthermore, the District has committed to a yearly \"analysis\" of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. These monitoring activities must occur in timely fashion so that they can be translated into corrective policies throughout the school year. Yet, nothing has been said or done by the administration to address the miscarriage of the district's obligations in regard to the extra curricular activities complained of herein\nnot even a response to the intervenors. The district has obligations in all of these areas pursuant to their own Desegregation Plan. There is little doubt that it has not met these obligations and that intervenors will secure the relief they seek. In contrast. there can be no injury to the defendants by enforcing their obligations under the settlement plans\nthey are already obliged to take these remedial steps. After providing the proper training to the staff and judges. the district will be obliged to contact all of the students who tried out. reschedule try-outs and remake these decisions. This can hardly be considered enough of a harm to counter-balance the harm to the intervenors. In contrast. the public interest will be best served by enjoining the district and enforcing the defendant's desegregation plan. The public interest is best served when the public seesactivities. In addition, the ability to improve is built into the process through the school's participation in summer training camps for their cheerleading squads. Furthermore, the District has committed to a yearly \"analysis of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. These monitoring activities must occur in timely fashion so that they can be translated into corrective policies throughout the school year. Yet, nothing has been said or done by the administration to address the miscarriage of the district's obligations in regard to the extra-curricular activities complained of herein\nnot even a response to the intervenors. The district has obligations in all of these areas pursuant to their own Desegregation Plan. There is little doubt that it has not met these obligations and that intervenors will secure the relief they seek. In contrast, there can be no injury to the defendants by enforcing their obligations under the settlement plans\nthey are already obliged to take these remedial steps. After providing the proper training to the staff and judges. the district will be obliged to contact all of the students who tried out. reschedule try-outs and remake these decisions. This can hardly be considered enough of a harm to counter-balance the harm to the intervenors. In contrast. the public interest will be best served by enjoining the district and enforcing the defendant's desegregation plan. The public interest is best served when the public seesfaithful adherence to the school's procedures and commitments to desegregation. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the LRSD has failed to meet it obligations to intervenors under the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and desegregation plans, and should be enjoined as intervenors have prayed for in the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 -2^ ), U i-1 Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 ? / O '222 !2:2. 1122 Wiley A. 'Brailton, Jr. Bar No-/ 90053 Norman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street Mew York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this 'O / day of /t't 19 J Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Mark Burnettefaithful adherence to the school's procedures and commitments to desegregation. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the LRSD has failed to meet it obligations to intervenors under the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and desegregation plans, and should be enjoined as intervenors have prayed for in the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 / // t' Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 Wiley A. Brarfton, Jr. Bar No-/ 90053 Norman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013\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_462","title":"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":null,"dc_date":["1990/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["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/462"],"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\n1 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS CHECKLIST SCHOOL CRITICAL TASKS IMPLEMENTED YES NO COMMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. *7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Parent Council Speakers Bureau Science Labs Computer Labs School Themes IEPs/ SEP'S Specialized state and federal mandated programs are available during the core instructional day, with reinforcement activities available through the extended day, week, or year programs. Incentive Programs to recognize student excellence. Effective Schools Model African Alnerican History Subject Area Emphasis Reading Components 1. Learning to Read Through Literature (K-6) 2. Classics used to augment basic textbooks (K-6) 3. Emphasis on critical reading skills (4-6) 4. Use of oral expression through reading (K-6) English/Literature Arts 1. Writing to Read (K-2) 2. Writing Across Curriculum (K-6, 3. Latin Program (5-6) 4. Oral Language Expression (K-6) 5. Penmanship (K-6) 6. Language Modeling (K-6) Social Studies 1. Emphasis on World, American and Ark. History (4-6) 2. Emphasis on introductory concepts in history, geography, civics (K-3) 3. Geography through active learning 4. Multi-ethnic curriculum (K-6) * remedial, special ed., gifted and talented) Page 2 CRITICAL TASKS IMPLEMENTED COMMENTS YES NO 5. Promote living social studies(K-6) 6. Emphasis on American \u0026amp; Arkansas history (4-5) 7. Emphasis on World History (6) 8. Celebrations/Ceremonies Mathematics 1. Emphasis on word or story problems (2-6) 2. Basic geometry and algebra (2-6) 3. Extensive use of manipulation (PreK-3) 4. Use of computers (5-6) 5. Critical thinking, methodology and results (K-6) Science 1. Hands-on discovery and exploration (K-3) 2. Demonstrations and experiments 3. Emphasis on life and physical sciences (4-6) 4. Culminate with annual projects 5. Information packets for students/parents Fine Arts 1. Basic concepts music and art 2. Instruction will be sequential and cumulative 3. Emphasis on enjoyment in music, painting and crafts(Pre K-3) 4. Understand cultural differences (4-6) 5. Performances, exhibits, field trips Foreign Language 1. Study foreign language 2. Total physical response approach 3. Basic vocabulary, conversational, cultural (K-3) 4. Foreign language laboratory 5. Transcribing and translating (4-6) 6. Interactions with native language user 7. Emphasis on vocabulary, grammar, reading, writing, cultural (4-6)Page 3 CRITICAL TASKS c IMPLEMENTED COMMENTS YES NO Physical Education/Health 1. Family Life Education (1-6) 2. Nifty Nutrition (1-6) 3. Emphasis on wellness - 4. Understanding and respect of the handicapped (5-6) 5. Team sports, leisure skills (K-6) Social Skill Development (Taught through Core Curriculum) 1. Family Folklore 2. Positive Imaging 3. Interpersonal Skills 4. Rites of Passage 5. Role Models Programs 6. Mentoring Programi Page 4 CRITICAL TASKS IMPLEMENTED COMMENTS YES NO SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION A B C D E F G H I J Homework Centers Homework Hotline Peer Tutoring Retired Teacher Mentors Instructional Aide Career Skills Development Program Year Round School Community Access/Field Trips a. local b. state c. national Community Involvement Special Skills Programs SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION A B C D Staff Recruitment 1. Nationwide search 2. Staff hired on one year basis Special Training Parental Involvement: sign daily homework Learning Time Schedulesm (Extended Day) E Home/School Communication: Monthly Interims F Extra Curricular Programs (at lunch or recess) G Attendance and Behavior Guidelines H Subject Related Extra Curricular Activities COUNSELING/SdCIAL WORK A Community Services Access B College/Post Graduation Awareness (mentoring) C Study Skills/ Test Taking/ Listening D Home/Neighborhood Meetings (partnership) E Individual and Group Counseling F Incentive/Recognition Programs G Wellness Program H Camp PfeiferHfiSiSS IlM! Op^WlCAL TASKS ' -r'^i a\n^-  I 1 't! ! lb IMPLEMENTED YES NO COMMENTS r EVALUATION 7^ Student Growth  S fV (lestitig dept) I) . 1* Regular TraCkiiig of Student Attendance, ^^Discipline/Behayior and Achievement f 5^ (class profiles) I S af\u0026gt; ' h '. . s -\u0026gt; d Involve Parents in the development of Student Educational Excellence Plans s^-r's i  Vi 3' i i c . !i' s b Quarterly Reports and Visitations E Student Evaluators .jfo Computerized Data Access I's,01 School Site Teams (program modification) SCHOOL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES A Flexible Programs (individualized instruction) 'Additional Items Recommended: ' \u0026lt; \"Is-  i .Permanent substitute r.'s  ji- 1 I:,4' J tH*. I X - . ^.Assistant principal 3. Uniforms 4. Staff dress code 5 i Required PTA 6. Student handbooks 7. Science lab 8. Computer lab 9. PE playground * r ^S\nWii p ^k'slf: *' ! ^\nv' ! Oil  t ? tV 1, J!\" lOi p * i' 1 fc ii\n?:} ! 'i: 1.1 S MI S sl y i'  iM. y 'i. L V li 1 ? i? ': 1 li'l ^1. \nill ( r ,ijr OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 23, 1990 Ruth Ragsdale 515 Beckwood Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Ms. Ragsdale: I am in receipt of your May 15, 1990, communication regarding your comments on the Incentive School submission of May 8, 1990, to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. As I expressed to you over the phone, the ideas and comments of all parents, either individually or collectively. are valued. appreciated, and will be carefully reviewed before this office makes final recommendations to the Court. Your deep interest and hard work in assisting in the work of the committee regarding what you think is best for the students of this district is commendable. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Arma Hart Associate Metropolitan Supervisor AH:par cc: Kenyon Lowe Dr. Doris Gardner James Jennings'T' JI (2 i't /^o /ii ' /-//^h/ /^- /A^ iJ.!, ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 TO: Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Magnet Incentive School Programs The attached document is a joint submission from the Little Rock School District, Joshua Intervenors, and Knight Intervenors. This submission should be regarded as a supplementary document to the incentive school plan included in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, January 2, 1990. The parties reached consensus in all areas except the scholarship program and staffing. Please note that the Little Rock School District provided separate recommendations for the areas of scholarships and staffing. The parties look forward to meeting with the Metropolitan Supervisor's office in order to discuss and resolve the areas of disagreement. OBJECTIVES AND GOALS The schools referred to heretofore as \"Incentive Schools\" shall be referred to and known as Magnet Incentive Schools. 1 They shall have two (2) primary objectives: 1) to effectively eliminate academic achievement disparities which exist between pupils who attend these schools as compared to those pupils whose academic achievement is the highest in the school system's \"best\" school\nand, 2) to be established simply as schools which are racially integrated and racially non-identifiable. IDENTIFICATION OF MAGNET INCENTIVE SCHOOLS The district presently operates six schools which, by court definition, must be classified as \"racially identifiable\". These schools are attended almost entirely by pupils of African American descent. Those schools and their respective locations and pupil capacities are as follows: SCHOOL ADDRESS CAPACITY 1. Garland 3615 W. 25th, LR, AR 300 2. Ish 3001 Pulaski, LR, AR 200 3. Mitchell 2410 Battery, LR, AR 280 4. Rightsell 911 W. 19th, LR, AR 240 5. Rockefeller 700 E. 17th, LR, AR 340 6. Stephens 3700 W. 185th, LR, AR 260 1,620 1 The term \"Magnet Incentive Schools\" was introduced by the Metropolitan Supervisor. office of Metropolitan Supervisor. The term is subject to change by the the jurisdiction of the Magnet Review Committee. These schools will not be underBASIC CONCEPT The children who attend the Magnet Incentive Schools have been, are being and are likely to be deprived of equal educational and other expected advantage due to the racial isolation of these schools. These schools are likely to remain one race schools until the Court approved plan herein has had a reasonable opportunity to work, i.e., to assist in relieving their \"one race\" character. This is expected to be achieved under the plan within six years. The pupils who attend these schools in the meantime must have basic, compensatory and other need related educational and support programs which exceed those available in other schools of the district if their chances for equal academic opportunity are to be maximized. Major incentives within these schools are therefore required. The objective is to provide the best basic skills programs and enrichment available as well as a full range extended day and Saturday programs which address individual needs and interests. The school district shall rely upon the strength of the core curriculum, strong teachers and administrators. enhanced programs and post high school graduation scholarship opportunities as factors through which to promote racial integration or desegregation of these schools. The school district shall also promote desegregation in these schools by establishing early childhood centers in each of them. Four (4) early childhood centers will be operative by August of 1990. The other two (2) will operative by August, 1991. The premise of these centers is that they can be racially integratedfrom the outset and that the students who begin their education therein will continue thereafter due to the strength of the varied programs offered. THE BASIC PROGRAMS OF THE MAGNET INCENTIVE SCHOOLS The Magnet Incentive Schools shall operate basic skills programs. The design of the Williams Magnet School curriculum shall be the model used. All classes of the school shall be inclusive and all pupils therein shall be mainstreamed. The special needs of pupils shall be addressed, pursuant to Student Education Plans (SEPs) for each pupil, both during the regular school day. in the time following the regular school day. on Saturdays and, if necessary, subsequent to the end of the regular school year. A major objective of the basic skills programs shall be to insure exposure of all children to the same course materials and instruction on an equal basis. Pupils shall not be assigned to classes or to groups within classes on the basis either of purported ability or race. The practice known as \"tracking\" shall have no place in these schools. Special attention to pupils with special needs either for remedial or advanced study - shall be addressed after the period of basic course instruction. There shall be no \"pull-out\" programs for individuals or small groups of students during the regular school day. Formative as well as summutive data will be gathered in order to determine: (1) effectiveness of the SEP\n(2) uniform implementation of magnet incentive curriculum\n(3) effectiveness ofoverall programs\nand (4) secure data for revision/expansions of the SEPs and magnet incentive school programs. DOUBLE FUNDING The Magnet Incentive Schools shall operate pursuant to a budget which is based upon \"double funding\". Double funding as used herein is a per pupil cost for Little Rock Pupils which is twice the per pupil costs for other non Magnet School pupils in the district. EXTENDED DAY PROGRAMS These schools shall operate extended day programs. Extended Day Programs are supplemental but essential to achievement of the primary objectives of the Magnet Incentive Schools. They shall operate from the end of the school day until 5:30 p.m., half days on Saturdays and for at least one and a half (1 1/2) months after the regular school year ends. The primary objectives of the extended day programs, as set for in respective SEP'S, are: (a) to promote interest in the concept of learning\n(b) to provide enrichment and remediation experiences\n(c) to improve and enhance the self esteem of all pupils\n(d) to improve the verbal, problem identification and problem solving skills of pupils\n(e) to improve the conflict resolution skills of pupils\n(f) to improve the social skills of pupils\nand (g) to enlarge their experiences within and outside the community by extensive, education related programs. personalities and field trips.AFTER CARE Any elementary school age pupil who would normally otherwise be within the attendance zone of a magnet incentive school or who has previously been assigned to a magent incentive school shall be eligible for the extended day, weekend and extended year programs offered at their incentive zone school. The Scholarship Trust Committee shall be authorized to consider these pupils for scholarship awards pursuant to funds available and other criteria approved by the Court. SCHOIiARSHIP PROGRAMS The Little Rock School District recommends approval of the scholarship program proposal submitted by the Trust Fund Committee. The Joshua and Knight Intervenors recommend approval of the following: a The Magnet Incentive Schools shall provide college scholarship program which shall be available to all pupils therein. Each minority student assigned thereto as of the 1989-90 school term and thereafter, who remains in and graduates from Little Rock School District schools, shall have an entitlement to receive such assistance for college as determined by the Scholarship Trust Committee. The Scholarship Trust Committee Was recommended by the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Non-minority and other pupils shall also be entitled to the same benefits as minority pupils. provided they are currently enrolled (as of 1989-90) ^For purposes of this provision, LRSD schools shall include County or NLR schools if a minority magnet incentive school pupil graduates therefrom as a part of the M to M program.therein or provided they live within the shadow of a Magnet Incentive School and elect to attend that school. Non-minority pupil shall be eligible to participate in the school's scholarship programs provided they meet the requirements otherwise set out below by the Scholarship Trust Committee. The scholarship fund shall be constituted by the allocation of twenty percent (20%) of the total budget for the magnet incentive schools each year for a period of six years. The scholarship program is intended to encourage minority students to complete high school and to enroll in and complete a regular 4 year college curriculum. It is also intended to increase the enrollment in the magnet incentive schools of a representative number of non-minority pupils and to promote their interest in completing high school and college as well. The exact scholarship amount per pupil shall be determined on the basis of the funds available and the demands thereon at the time the student qualifies. It is to be determined by the Scholarship Trust Committee upon notice to the parties. The scholarship funds shall be invested, with court approval, in interest bearing securities. The court approved Scholarship Trust Committee will administer the fund. The scholarships will be paid out beginning with the 1996-97 school term and will continue thereafter until either the funds are depleted or until the court establishes other requirements. It is anticipated that the interest yield of the scholarship fund will be sufficient to allow approximately one million dollars per year to be devoted to scholarships for pupils from the magnetincentive schools thereafter. This amount is sufficient to provide each student with scholarship funds of $4,000.00 per student. At the point that these schools become racially non identifiable, a report of same will be made to the court by the parties along with a recommendation regarding the disposition of any remaining funds in the scholarship trust fund. STAFFING The magnet incentive schools shall be staffed by the district with those administrators and teachers who are committed to the goals approved by the Court herein both in general and specifically. LRSD RECOMMENDATION: The incumbent teaching staff shall be vacated. The selection criteria, in addition to the appropriate certification or licensing requirements, are as follows: JOSHUA AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS RECOMMENDATION: The incumbent professional staff in those schools shall be vacated within one week of the Court's approval of this plan and placed into a general pool with other professional staff members.^ The district shall select from that pool, pursuant to court approved criteria. new staff to fill the magnet incentive school vacancies. The recommended criteria in addition to appropriate certification or licensure requirements submitted for approval by ^Support staff shall be afforded an option to remain at their present school assignment. They shall agree, however, to undertake the necessary training which is required for all staff to be successful in these schools. the court for the selection of magnet school professional staff are as follows: (a) racial balance\n(b) successful past experience in working with minority children and parents\n(c) sensitivity to cultural and racial differences between minority and majority pre-school and elementary pupils\nand (d) willingness to work in the communities where the magnet incentive schools are located at times other than during regular school hours. Staff members who are not selected or decline to participate in the program shall be transferred into comparable positions for which they qualify on the basis of the contract provisions, Articles XVI, XVIII. and XXXVIII. of the Professional Negotiating Agreement between Little Rock and the Little Rock Classroom Teacher's Association. The teachers who are selected to work in the magnet incentive schools shall be entitled to additional pay for the additional work and responsibilities they will have with the magnet incentive schools. A pay schedule for the additional work for teachers in the magnet incentive schools which is supplemental to the existing pay schedule. It shall be based upon a figure of not less than 20% of the base pay which each teacher earns pursuant to the regular salary schedule. This is consistent with present practice for additional time during the regular school day for which some teachers are presently paid. The contracts of magnet incentive school teachers during the 1990-91 school term shall be for ten and three fourths months withthe understanding that, by mutual agreement of the teacher and the district, the contract may be extended to the extent necessary for a period up to an additional one month. The reason for the contract period being ten and three fourths month for the 1990-91 school year is explained as follows. The district presently extends to all teachers a contract for nine and one fourth months or 192 days. The additional one and one half month takes into account approximately four weeks for magnet incentive school staff development and approximately two weeks for preparation of SEPs and for extended year programs which are not available in the other schools. It is not expected that all teachers will be employed on supplemental contracts during the 1991-92 and subsequent school years. The number of teachers necessary for the supplemental time requirements of the magnet incentive schools shall be determined by the district at the end of each school year beginning in June of 1991 and continuing each year thereafter at approximately that time. The district shall, of course, have the authority to extend contracts as necessary, on an objective, impartial basis, in order to meet the expectations of the court. For 1991-92 and thereafter the district shall be authorized to vary the length of contracts in *Each magnet incentive school teacher shall be required to spend at least seven (7) additional hours per week. While these seven (7) hours are fixed they are expected to be arranged to accommodate the individualized needs of the students to the extent necessary. It is expected, however, that absent compelling circumstances, each teacher shall spend two hours for each of three days and one Saturday per month for four hours. 4 Days deemed undesirable shall be adjusted so that they can be equitably distributed among staff by the associate superintendent. Fridays and Mondays shall be rotated among all staff.accordance with objectively determined needs and expectations. There shall also be an extensive teacher aide program. It's purposes shall be two fold: (1) to assist the teachers and the administrators in the classroom, with the extended day, Saturday and year programs\n(2) to supervise children in the lunch room, the playground and on field trips as necessary\nand (3) to help develop minority teachers for possible future placement in the district. There shall be at least one teacher aide for each teacher. There shall also be at least one person employed in a professional capacity to coordinate field trips so that there will be a correlation between those learning experiences and the expected learning experiences which occur within the classroom in particular and the school in general. An adequate number of student aides will be selected to perform this function. They will be paid as part time employees on an hourly basis which is commensurate with the local rate of pay for comparable work. In keeping with the recommendations of the Metropolitan Supervisor and for otherwise independent good reasons, the district shall arrange and pay for educational courses which facilitate the objectives herein for the teacher aides at any teacher training institution in Central Arkansas that is accredited by North Central Association. The courses shall be college degree oriented with an emphasis upon teacher preparation.TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools'^^^ Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Building Plan for Incentive Schools Please find attached the proposed plan for expanding the capacities of th  incentive schools.k. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREETS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 TO: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring Tj'S and Program Development SUBJECT: Building Plan for Incentive Schools According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District must submit a detailed plan for closing incentive schools with small capacities and enrollments and building larger schools in the approximate vicinity for the purpose of integregation. The plan must be submitted to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor by April 1, 1990. The District has discussed this matter with the Metropolitan Supervisor's office on several It is the Districts understanding that certain ice occasions. parameters must be followed in developing plans to close and rebuild incentive schools. First, the purpose of this plan is to increase the elementary building capacity in central and east Little Rock. Any school closings must be accompanied by a building expansion at some other school(s) and/or the construction of a new school building. The increase in building capacity will eventually help reduce the burden o busing on black elementary students. Second, in a case of a building expansion, the new capacity must yield enough seats to enable the school to meet desegregation requirements. The incentive schools must have enough space to obtain a racial balance of approximately 60-70% black. The same requirement applies to the construction of a new school building. Closing a school also involves reassigning students to either a new building, an expanded facility, or an existing school outside of the target area. Whatever the case, the reassignment process must comply with desegregation requirements. Another parameter involves the number of classes at each grade in a particular school. Each grade must have enough seats to accommodate the total capacity at the preceding grade. This factor is often overlooked in preparing for future capacity needs. For instance, some schools have three classes feeding into two classes at the next grade level. The only way to correct this problem without reassigning students is to move a teacher to the problem grade level, factor must be considered in developing plans to expand school buildings. This (1)The last factor for consideration relates to physical limitations at the school site and/or in the target community. In considering building expansions, attention must be given to the space limitations at the school site. Some of the incentive schools do not have enough space for extensive expansions. The District has observed these factors as an extensive search for a new school site in the target area has been underway since 1988. Real estate agencies and others who are familiar with availability of properties that might be suitable for a new school site have been engaged to assist in the identi- fication of potential sites. The old King School is the only site east of University Avenue that the District has been able to identify for new construction. I In addition to the mandate to close and rebuild/expand incentive schools, the Tri-District Desegregation Plan also directs the Little Rock School District to place four-year old programs in all incentive schools. The following is a plan which addresses the need to provide an early childhood education program in each incentive school as well as the closing and rebuilding/expansion of exist- ing incentive schools. The plan is based on the following assumptions: a. All sixth graders enrolled at the incentive schools in the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school year will be promoted. b. All K-5 students currently enrolled at the incentive schools will remain at these schools for the 1990-91 school year, in 1990-91 will remain at these schools in 1991-92. included for magnet transfers The K-5 students No projections are c. All K-5 incentive school students will be promoted in 1990-91 and 1991-92 to the next grade level at the end of the respective school year. d. Kindergarten seats in the incentive schools will be filled using a 60% black and 40% white ratio. ensure a 60/40 racial balance. If necessary, seats will be reserved to e. All assignments (including sibling preference transfers) to the incen- tive schools are subject to desegregation requirements. Seats will be reserved for white students to ensure compliance with desegregation requirements. f. All building expansions, if necessary, and construction will be com-^ pl eted before the beginning of the 1991-92 school year if the Little Rock School District is able to obtain long-term financing for construction costs. g. Meetings will be scheduled with parents and other community representatives to discuss plans for closing and/or expanding schools in their neighborhoods. (2)5' t T - h  /-I. t Ish Ish school will be closed at the end of the 1990-91 school year. Approximately 146 black students in grades 1-6 will be enrolled at Ish at the time of the school closing. The students at Ish will be reassigned to Rightsell and Mitchell for the 1991-92 school year. A site selection committee will be appointed to identify a site for a new school in the general proximity of Ish, Mitchell, and Rightsell. Within the allowable time frame, the District will use every legal means to acquire adequate property for a new school in this proximity (including the right of eminent domain) and will engage the assistance of professional real estate agents in its search. The committee will submit its findings to the Metropolitan Supervisor's office by May 15, 1990. If the District is unable to acquire a site for a new building, the District will proceed with the following plan to expand Mitchell and Rightsell. Mitchell Seven classrooms will be added to Mitchell: - one first grade - one second grade - one third grade - one fourth grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade - one four-year old class The first through sixth grade additions will change Mitchell's capacity from 280 to 400 students. The addition of 75 students from Ish will still enable Mitchell to obtain a 68/32 black/white racial balance if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. Rightsell The classroom presently in use for Rightsell's mass media specialty will become a fourth grade classroom. Also, six classrooms will be added to Rightsell: - one first grade - one second grade - one third grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade - one four-year old class The first through sixth grade additions will change Rightsell's capacity from 260 to 380 students. The addition of 71 students from Ish will still enable Rightsell to obtain a 70/30 black/white ratio if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. These plans are contingent upon adequate space at Rightsell to complete the proposed classroom additions. Rockefeller The CARE activity room will be used for an additional kindergarten class. will give Rockefeller a total of three kindergarten classes and will allow the This 60 four-year old students currently at Rockefeller to be able to remain for kindergarten. The G/T class will be moved to another area of the building. A new second grade class will be assigned to the room formerly used by G/T. At least four classrooms will be added to Rockefeller: - one third grade - one fourth grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade (3)The classroom changes and additions will change Rockefeller's capacity from 300 to 420 students. The new capacity will allow Rockefeller to obtain a 53/47 black/white ratio if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. (NOTE: Consideration will be given to adding a total of six new classrooms to Rockefeller to accommodate the relocation of the G/T class.) 01d King Site A new school will be constructed on the old King site. The school will offer the incentive school program and will have a capacity of approximately 700 students. The District will initiate discussions with city officials relative to improvement of street access to the old King site. Garland and Stephens will be reassigned to the new school, open in the 1991-92 school year. All students enrolled at The new school will Careful attention will be given to alternative educational/service uses for Ish, Garland, and Stephens. Contact has already been made with an agency that is interested using Ish. These closings will also require that the District give prompt attention to a new site for the IRC. In addition, the District will give special attention to maintaining the names o*' King, Ish, and Stephens. The individuals for whom these schools were named have made important contributions to the black community, and the District should continue to honor them with school names. Funding The District will use proceeds from the 8 mill tax increase to fund the incen- tive school building plan if approved by the voters. If the tax increase is not approved, the District will ask the Metropolitan Supervisor's Finance Committee to make the incentive school building plan a high priority from desegregation funds. If the Finance Committee disallows funds for the incentive school building plan, then the District will ask the Court for funding. (4)- 515 Beckwood Little Rock, AR May 15, 1990 72205 Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 To Whom it May Concern: Your office called together the original Incentive Schools parent committee for the purpose of reviewing and commenting the proposed Incentive School plan. on We met several times and generated reports which were given to your office. Your office then sent copies of this final report to the committee members. Our work (we thought) had been completed. We listened to Mr. Walker and Mr. Jennings speak Then your office called and summoned us for one more meeting, where we learned that the final report was supposedly just a draft. speak, then reaffirmed our support for the original recommendations that we had agreed upon. I have learned that another \"final\" report has been issued that purports to contain the recommendations of our committee. It claims that the Incentive School committee supports the closing of Stephens and Garland, and thus basically supports the LRSD proposed building plan. This is absolutely untrue! It was the concensus of the committee that all incentive schools should remain open and that a new King Elementary should also be built if there is a need for more capacity. We believed that the smaller schools served the needs of these children better, and that parents would be attracted to the smallness of the schools if the District would properly advertise their benefits. We were well aware that our recommendations would probably not get written into the plan, but we wanted to go on record that PARENTS disagreed with the closing of these three neighfc)orhood Now that the final report of our committee has been schools. LRSD's plan. altered, it gives a false impression that parents agree with the Tr\u0026gt;or-,i_ Mr. Jennings told me that there was no need to go into the affected community for a public debate because \"your committee represents the parents in that area and your committee endorsed our building plan.\"I request that you disallow the second \"final the first report be made the official one. report and that It is the responsibility of your office to be sure that what is released to the press and school officials is accurate. The final report should not have been released to anyone until the committee had seen and approved it. I haven't even received a copy of the second \"final\" report, and I suspect that others on the committee haven't, either. The greater questions are these: Who is trying to squelch the voices that cry out for fairness and equality for ALL of the children in Little Rock? valued equally by the LRSD? Are \"black\" and H white\" children How successful can a plan be when it is built on an unconstitutional elementary student assignment plan? (Just because it is \"popular\" doesn't make it right). there really any willingness on the part of administrators to allow community members to participate in meaningful decision Is making? What is the purpose of attracting more students to our district when we can barely afford to educate the ones we already have? When are we going to stop blaming others for our problems and recognize that the solutions are in our own hearts? If you don't stand up for the principles of fairness, honesty and equality, who will? Is your commitment simply to desegregate the schools or to stand uncompromisingly firm on ) I believe that if you do the latter, the former principles? will take care of itself. Sincerely,RECE5V^D Co P ? 2 WO BiU2cMKw'ttanS3sw-9P 515 Beckwood Little Rock, AR May 21, 1990 72205 Mr. James Jennings 8^0 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Jennings, Although you have included two parents (Mr. Lowe and me) on the Site Selection Committee for the Incentive Schools, I want to make it very clear that we have had no input whatsoever into your plans for the incentive schools. It appears that the only reason we were put on the committee is so that you can say you had parent involvement. I am fundamentally opposed to large elementary schools, especially in areas that have a large population of lower income families. I am strongly opposed to closing smaller schools within neighborhoods and funnelling those students into larger schools on the outer fringes of the neighborhoods. The parents on the Incentive School Committee (metropolitan supervisor's office) agreed with this and thought that school capacity should be kept at 350 or below for incentive schools, and building additional schools as necessary to increase capacity. (A second, false report was generated after our final report, original building subcommittee recommendations were the ones which the full committee supported). The I plead with you once again to go into the affected neighborhoods and have a public debate on where schools will be located and how large they will be. Give people in those areas the power to decide these issues that affect them. Did you read the article by Tom Peters in yesterday's Democrat? He stressed the importance of shrinking school size to improve the quality of education and discipline in the schools, recommends that schools have less than 250 students each! He If you generate any reports or summaries concerning the Site Selection committee, you do not have permission to include my name on them. If you are required to include my name, then you must attach a copy of this letter disclaiming my support for your decisions. Sincerely, Ruth Steele Judge Henry Woods Metropolitan Supervisor's Office Kenyon Lowe Willis Walker Bill Hamilton cc\nLittle Rock School District June 5, 1990 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Arma Hart, Associate Metropolitan Superintendent James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH:^! Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Site Selection for Incentive Schools The Little Rock School District submitted a building plan to your office on April 2. The plan included recommendations for closing and rebuilding (or expanding) certain incentive schools. In addition to possible building expansions, the District also decided to look for a new school site in the area of Rightsell, Mitchell, and Ish schools. The purpose of this report is to share the District's findings and make additional recommendations concerning Rightsell, Mitchell, and Ish Schools. The Little Rock School district recently entered into discussions with Philander Smith College concerning approximately six (6) acres of space on the west side of the campus. The site is between 13th Street, Chester Street, Interstate 630, and Izard Street. There are several collaborative efforts that can be developed between the District and Philander if this idea becomes a reality. The District will propose that the collaboration with Philander become a part of the overall University Lab School Program described in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan. The laboratory school arrangement is expected to have tremendous benefits for Philander's teacher education program, as well as for the District's efforts in the area of recruitment of minority teachers. Likewise, the District will benefit from the staff development opportunities that are expected to develop from this partnership. Please find attached several worksheets that have been developed to explain the plans and ramifications of the proposed project. It should be noted that this proposal is still at the point of mere discussion between the two parties. However, the District hopes to hear from Philander in the very near future concerning the likelihood of this proposal. It is possible that Philander may elect to consider a lease arrangement rather than the actual sale of the property. The building plan for the incentive schools is based on the following assumptions: a. All sixth graders enrolled at the incentive schools in the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school year will be promoted. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Site Selection page two b. All K-5 students currently enrolled at the incentive schools will remain at these schools for the 1990-91 school year. The K-5 students in 1990-91 will remain at these schools in 1991-92. projections are included for magnet transfers. No c. All K-5 incentive school students will be promoted in 1990-91 and 1991-92 to the next grade level at the end of the respective school year. d. Kindergarten seats in the incentive schools will be filled using a 60% black and 40% white ratio. reserved to ensure a 60/40 racial balance. If necessary, seats will be e. All assignments (including sibling preference transfers) to the incentive schools are subject to desegregation requirements. Seats will be reserved for white students to ensure compliance with desegregation requirements. f. All expansion and construction work will be completed before the beginning of the 1991-92 school year if the Little Rock School District is able to obtain long-term financing for construction costs. The Little Rock School District proposes the following: 1. Build a new school at the old King School site. This school will accommodate approximately 700 students. Students enrolled at Stephens and Garland during the 1990-91 school year will be reassigned to the new school at the old King School site. The attendance zones for Stephens and Garland will be combined to form the attendance zone for the new school. The District will initiate discussions with city officials relative to improvement of street access to the old King site. Careful attention will be given to alternative educational/service uses for Ish, Garland, and Stephens. Contact has already been made with an agency that is interested in using one of these school sites. These closings will also require that the District give prompt atten- tion to a new site for the IRC. The District also will give special attention to maintaining the names of King, Ish, and Stephens. The individuals for whom these schools were named have made important contributions to the black community, and the District should continue to honor these individuals with school names.Site Selection page three 2. Expand Mitchell School by adding seven classrooms. This expansion will allow Mitchell to comply with desegregation requirements, have a four-year old class, and enroll some students from Ish School (see worksheet 2). -one 1st grade -one 2nd grade -one 3rd grade -one 4th grade -one 5th grade -one 6th grade -one 4-yr. old Ihe first through sixth grade additions will change Mitchell's capacity from 280 to 400 students. 3. Expand Rockefeller School by adding at least four classrooms. This expansion will allow Rockefeller to comply with desegregation requirements. Hie CARE activity room will be used for an additional kindergarten class. This will give Rockefeller a total of three kindergarten classes and will allow the 60 four-year old students currently at Rockefeller to be able to remain for kindergarten. ' The G/T class will be moved to another area of the building. A new second grade class will be assigned to the room formerly used by G/T (Gifted and Talented). At least four classrooms will be added to Rockefeller: -one 3rd grade -one 4th grade -one Sth grade -one 6th grade The classroom changes and additions will change Rockefeller's capacity from 300 to 420 students. (NOTE: Consideration will be given to adding a total of six new classrooms to Rockefeller to accommodate the relocation of the G/T class.) 4. Build a new school at the Philander Smith College site. Students will be reassigned to this school from parts of the Rightsell, Mitchell, and Ish attendance zones. Students also will be reassigned to this school from part of the Jefferson satellite zone (see Worksheet 2). The school will accommodate at least 560 students. If the District is unable to secure an agreement with Philander, Rightsell School will be expanded. 5. Close Stephens, Garland, and Ish at the end of the 1990-91 school year. This proposal is referred to as \"Plan B\" on Worksheet 1. Plan A is the same proposal described in the April 2 submission to your office. Plan B does not include an expansion of Rightsell School. The adjustment of attendance zones and reassignment of students will create enough vacancies at Rightsell to comply with desegregation requirements. The adjustment of attendance zones and reassignment of students also will allow some students who currently attend school in west or southwest Little Rock to attend school in central Little Rock (new school at Philander). The transfer of students to the new school at Philander will create additional vacancies in other schools.WORKSHEET 1 SCHOOL Current Capacity 1989-90 Enrollment Plan A Capacity Plan B Capacity Garland 300 251 Stephens 260 212 700^ 700\u0026gt;' Ish 200 156 560^ Mitchell 280 222 400 400 Rightsell 240 206 380 240 Rockefeller 340 245 420 420 Total 1620 1292 1900 2320 Plan A - New school at old King site - Expand Mitchell - Expand Rightsell - Expand Rockefeller - Close Stephens, Garland, and Ish Plan B - New school at old King site - Expand Mitchell - Expand Rockefeller - New school at Philander site - Close Stephens, Garland, and Ish - Reassign all students in specified zone blocks to Philander site. -\u0026gt; New schoolWORKSHEET 2 Specified Zone Blocks 1. Move from Rightsell attendance zone to Philander site: 0439 0448 Total 71 students 68 students 139 (13 students currently at Rightsell) (24 students currently at Rightsell) 37 2. Move from Jefferson satellite to Philander site: 0434 0435 Total 31 students 20 students 51 3. Move from Ish attendance zone to Philander site: 0477 0485 0480 Total 32 students 54 students 42 students 128 (12 students currently at Ish) (17 students currently at Ish) (11 students currently at Ish) 40 4. Move from Mitchell attendance zone to Philander site: 0445 0446 Total 28 students 14 students 42 (5 students at Mitchell) (3 students at Mitchell) Other Changes 1. Move Ish attendance zone to Mitchell: 0476 0479 0473 38 students 29 students 54 students (9 students at Ish) (7 students at Ish) 0-6 students at Ish)School Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Garland Stephens New School Ish New School School Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Garland Stephens New School Ish New School -A^ith Expansion WORKSHEET 3 Kindergarten Capacity 40 40 60 100 80 Building Capacity 400'\" 240 420* 700 560 1st Grade Capacity 60 40 60 100 80 Kindergarten Atten. Zone Students 37 23 47 34 37 71 54 Atten. Zone Students 296 161 304 322 309 631 360EXPLANATION OF WORKSHEET 3 Ihe March 5 court order from Judge Woods raises concern about overcrowding in the Incentive Schools. The court's concern is related to the fact that the attendance zones developed by the Little Rock School District in March 1989 were based on a 1:25 teacher/pupil ratio. Ihe court noted that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals mandated a ratio of 1:20 in the virtually all-black schools. However, the attendance zones for the Incentive Schools have not been changed since March 1989. Worksheet 3 compares the total number of kindergarten attendance zone students to the kindergarten and first grade capacities for each Incentive School. Worksheet 3 also compares the total number of K-6 attendance zone students to the building capacity for each Incentive School. In both cases, the capacities are based on a teacher/pupil ratio of 1:20. The capacity figures listed on Worksheet 3 reflect the proposed expansions and new construction. The kindergarten comparison is important because the attendance zones only apply to kindergarten students. The 1989-90 kindergarten class will be in the sixth grade in 1995-96. Each kindergarten class between 1989-90 and 1995-96, inclusive, will be assigned by attendance zones. As a result, the attendance zone plan will be in full operation after the 1995-96 school year. Worksheet 3 clearly indicates that each Incentive School has enough capacity to accotimodate all kindergarten attendance zone students. Of course, it is possible that some kindergarten attendance zone students may not be able to attend a particular incentive school because of the desegregation requirements. If the desegregation requirements are not enforced, some of the kindergarten classes will exceed the desegregation requirements. The attendance zone figures listed on Worksheet 3 do not represent the actual number of students currently enrolled in the incentive schools, most cases, students who reside in the attendance zones of incentive In schools currently attend other schools. If these figures give any idea of the number of students in these zones by 1996-97, it is conceivable that the incentive schools will have adequate capacities to accommodate their attendance zone students. As stated in the District's April 2 report on attendance zones, additional information is needed to make student projections for the 1995-96 school year. Ihe construction of a new school at Philander will allow a large number of black students to be able to attend school in their neighborhood. The reassignment of these students also will help reduce the burden of busing on black students.WORKSHEET 4 Attendance Zone Students 1. Move from Rightsell attendance zone to Philander site: 0439 71 students  Bale (3) Badgett (2) Chicot (2) Dodd (8) (Boundaries: 12th, State, 16th, and High Streets) Fair Park (1) Forest Park (6) Franklin (1) Fulbright (3) Geyer Springs (1) Ish (4) Jefferson (1) Mabelvale (2) Meadowcliff (4) Mitchell (5) Otter Creek (1) Rightsell (13) Rockefeller (2) Romine (3) Stephens (1) Wakefield (1) Washington (3) Western Hills (3) Woodruff (1) 0448 68 students  Bale (1) Brady (2) Chicot (1) Cloverdale (2) (Boundaries: 16th, High, Wright Ave., State Streets) Dodd (1) Fair Park (1) Garland (1) Geyer Springs (6) Mabelvale (8) McDermott (1) Meadowcliff (4) Mitchell (8) Otter Creek (1) Pulaski Hgts. (1) Rightsell (24) Stephens (1) Wakefield (1) Washington (4)2. Move from Jefferson satellite to Philander site: 0434 31 students  Dodd (1) Fair Park (1) (Boundaries: State, Broad- way, 17th Streets, and Forest Park (2) 1630) Jefferson (1) McDermott (5) Meadowcliff (4) Otter Creek (1) Pulaski Hgts. (3) Rightsell (7) Rockefeller (2) Romine (1) Stephens (1) Washington (1) Western Hills (1) 0435 20 students  Badgett (2) Brady (1) Chicot (1) Dodd (1) Jefferson (3) Rightsell (3) Rockefeller (4) Stephens (1) Terry (2) Western Hills (2) (Boundaries: Broadway, Main, 17th Streets, and 1630) 3. Move from Ish attendance zone to Philander site: 0477 32 students  Bale (1) Dodd (1) Forest Park (1) (Boundaries: 28th, Ringo, 33rd, and High Streets) Geyer Springs (1) Ish r Sra (12) McDermott (4) Otter Creek (2) Pulaski Hgts. (2) Romine Hg (1) Washington (6) Wilson (1)0485 54 students  Badgett (1) Chicot (12) Dodd (1) Fair Park (1) Ish (17) Jefferson (5) McDermott (3) Otter Creek (3) Wakefield (1) Washington (4) Wilson (5) Woodruff (1) (Boundaries: Ringo, 28th, State, and 33rd Streets) 0480 42 students  Badgett (1) Chicot (2) Cloverdale (5) Dodd (1) Forest Park (1) (Boundaries: 33rd, State, High Streets, and 130) Geyer Springs (2) Ish r Spj (11) Mabeivale (8) McDermott (1) Meadowcliff (3) Mitchell (2) Rightsell (2) Washington (2) Wilson (1) 4. Move from Mitchell attendance zone to Philander site: 0445 28 students  Bale (2) Baseline (1) Dodd (1) (Boundaries: High, 16th, 18th, and Battery Streets) Fair Park (2) Forest Park (1) Fulbright (1) Geyer Springs (1) Jefferson (6) Mabeivale (1) Meadowcliff (2) Mitchell (5) Terry (1) Washington (1) Western Hills (1) Wilson (2)0446 14 students  Brady (5) Ish (1) Jefferson (1) Mitchell (3) Pulaski Hgts. (1) Rightsell (2) Romine (1) (Boundaries: Battery, 18th, High Streets, and Wright Avenue)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 7, 1990 TO: FROM: Incentive School Principals and Teachers QzRuth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: CONTRACTS FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL TEACHERS In recent days there has been considerable comment concerning incentive school teacher contracts and pay for the 1990-91 school year. Allegations that the District has \"reneged\" on its promise to incentive school teachers have been made. I have investigated these allegations and have held extensive conversations with all the administrators on my staff who were involved in the discussions of the incentive school programs. Based on my investigation, I have determined the following: 1) Earlier discussion that all teachers would receive a ten and three-fourths (10 3/4) month contract and 20 percent additional pay was based upon the supposition that all children in all incentive schools would participate fully in the Extended Day Program and the It has since been determined that Saturday program. not every child in every school will participate every The agreement day and every Saturday in this program, submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor's Office on April 2 states that a contract and pay schedule for additional work for teachers will be developed that is supplemental to the existing pay schedule and 9.25 contract. It shall be based upon a figure of not less than 20 percent of the teacher's base pay-. The 20 percent figure was used because that is the amount paid to teachers under present practice who work additional time during the regular school day (e.g., teach an This represents the equivalent of additional class). one extra day per week. Incentive school teachers will receive the 20 percent pay supplement for each additional O seven hours they work. If these additional hours are worked each week, the teacher will receive what amounts to pay for an extra day of work that week. That amount is 20 percent In fact, over what is normally earned is a week's time. whenever seven hours of additional work are completed, the teachers will receive the equivalent of an extra day's pay. This is how the 20 percent additional pay will be calculated.a Principals and Incentive School Teahcers August 7, 1990 Page Two 2) Teachers will receive their supplemental pay for an additional 20 days of work in two checks, one to be distributed around August 15 and the other to be distributed around September 15. S' worked the additional twenty days, teachers will Since not every teacher receive pay for the total number of days worked. Their compensation will be determined by multiplying the 1990-91 daily rate of pay times 20 days  or the number of days worked by the individual teacher. 3) The additional pay for incentive school teachers has been characterized by some as \"incentive pay, tl would receive additional pay simply because they i.e., teachers decided to work in an II incentive\" school. The language of the original statement reads, \"The teachers who are selected to work in the magnet incentive schools shall be entitled to additional pay for the additional work and responsibilities they will have with the magnet Nowhere has the additional pay incentive schools. II been based upon anything other than additional work and responsibilities. A few other points need to be made. First, District administrators and incentive school principals did not inform the incentive school teachers of exactly what they would be making when they were interviewed because we were not sure what the Court might ultimately approve. In fact, we were criticized We explained that we could not make for not being more specific. a firm commitment until we had a final ruling from the Court. We did tell teachers they would need to be prepared to work additional days and longer days although we could not be specific as to the precise amounts of time. We had been told, following the January 2 submission of our desegregation plan to the Court, that we needed to do more work At the Court's direction, we on the Incentive School Program. submitted a more detailed document to the Office of the As late as Metropolitan Supervisor's Office on April 2. June 12, 1990, revisions were still being made in the document, and as of this date, there is still no Court-approved Incentive School Plan, and we do not believe there will an approved plan until after the Eighth Circuit Court's final ruling. Second, rumors notwithstanding, teachers who work in the incentive schools will be compensated at a rate of pay based upon their contractual amount, not a stipend. cc: Board of Directors Dr. Herb Cleek Ms. Estelle Matthis Mr. James Jennings Mr. Chip Jones Ms. Margaret Greraillion Ms. Pat PriceI I TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 8)0 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 October 2, 1990 RE OCT 2 1990 Office of Mefpopaiifjn Sojisryfsop Arma Hart. Associate Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development TS-THR0U6H: T^'Or. Herb Cleek. Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: October 1 Request for Information In our phone conversation on October 1 , you requested the following information: A. The number of M-M students enrolled in incentive schools. B. The recruitment efforts at the incentive schools (Reference: Tri- District Desegregation Plan, Incentive School Section, pp.28-29). C. Bimonthly reports on recruitment. The information on Item A was given to you over the phone. Item B, please note the following: In regard to 1 . Place informat ion booths at prominent shopping centers and malls throughout Pulaski County. Information was distributed at Southwest City Mall and Park Plaza Mall. 2. Develop highlight sheets about the Incentive School Program to be displayed in local businesses inserted in utility bills . and distributed in ail RvIftaLA County elementary students. Incentive school highlight sheets were sent to students throughout Pulaski County. Incentive school brochure has been distributed through individual contacts and at Park Plaza Mall. sheets have not been inserted in utility bills, consideration for the future. Highlight This is under .X sga^ I I Memo to Arma Hart page two I 3. Conduct information sessions with special audiences such as the PTA Council . Junior League Commerce and Realtors Association League of Uomen iloters Chamber of Information sessions have been held with realtors, Chamber of Commerce, PTA Council, Southwestern Bell employees, and all LRSD principals, assistant principals, counselors, and secretaries. 4. Develop public service announcements (PSAs) for all media. along with billboards signs an EUiailS. benches  and other public adver- tlsements as part oX an ongoing media blitz to heighten public awareness of. and provide general information about the incentive schools Activities that have been done to date: Television interviews by Channels 4 and ?, Seven On Your Side program on incentive schools and back to school activities! promotion on district's cable channel, special articles in newspapers. 5. Produce short videocassette recordings for use at public presentations such as PTA meetings, realtor groups, and community organizations. To be developed in consultation with marketing expert. 6. Seek incentive school endorsements from local celebrities. To be developed in consultation with marketing expert. 7. Meet individually and in small groups with parents. Several individual and informal small group meetings have already occurred with parents. Building tours are ongoing. 8. Hire a marketing expert to develop and implement multi-year market inq cewpeiign- All interviews have been completed and a marketing team has been selected. of October 8. Contract negotiations will be conducted during the week 9. Conduct an ongoing media blitz that focuses on the positive aspects of the incentive school program. See Item 4. Also, a special issue of FOCUS (district newsletter) was sent to all parents in the Little Rock School District. News- letter sent during spring 1990. incentive schools. A special page was devoted to theMemo to Arma Hart page three 10. Highlight incentive schools in all district publications. See Item S. In regard to targeting specific neighborhoods throughout Pulaski County, Items 1,2.4. and 5 are underway. A meeting with NLRSD and PCSSD administrators was delayed because the incentive school plan had not been approved by May 1990. In regard to Item C, bimonthly reports on recruitment, please note the monthly updates on desegregation that are enclosed for your review. Recruitment reports from the school-based biracial committees will be included in the November update on desegregation. cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Chris HellerTO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 27, 1991 Board of Directors ^Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Incentive Schools - Update In order to provide you with information concerning efforts made by the administration to address issues related to incentive schools, the following report is provided. A Board of Directors' meeting was held on October 3, 1990, to share concerns from incentive school teachers and other staff members. The Board directed the adminis- tration to conduct similar meetings with individual schools and to work cooperatively to resolve issues that could negatively impact the implementation of our Incentive School Program. were recorded at each meeting. Meetings were held with each school and concerns and accomplishments Members of my senior management team shared these con- cerns with the deputy superintendent, other staff members, and with me. issues were resolved after our meetings with the incentive school staffs. A number of I have met with incentive school principals several times to secure their perspective of the operation of these programs. Joshua and Knight Intervenors to resolve these issues. As directed by you, we have tried to meet with the Chris Heller has scheduled several meetings with only the Knight Intervenors and district personnel attending such meetings. In December, we received the Eighth Circuit Court order approving the settlement plan. The order directed that all new and unresolved issues be referred to the parties for discussion and approval. We have indicated to the parties our need to quickly resolve some issues, both verbally and in several written requests through our attorney, Mr. Hei 1 er. Based on input from our incentive school teachers and principals, central office staff made written recommendations which have been submitted to the Joshua Intervenors. stating that Mr. Walker Chris Heller sent a written message via FAX cover page on February 18 11 called and approved the change. II On February 25, 1991, he stated in our desegregation planning meeting that the Joshua Intervenors had given verbal approval to our latest recommendations (see attachments) and advised us to move forward with the changes. To date, we have not received written approval but do pTan to advise staff of the verbal agreement that will provide more meaningful activities for extended day and week as well as some relief for our staff and students. Several of my senior staff members visited similar programs in Dallas, Texas, on February 12, 1991. The Charles Rice Learning Center was designed to accomplish the same type of goals as those of our incentive schools. John Walker visit this school with me in early March. be asked to join us on this trip. The team recommended that The Knight Intervenors will The information gained from one year of program implementation and on-site visits to the Charles Rice Learning Center in Dallas will assist us in revising our incentive school program. Provided is a chronology of activities, events, and communications that have taken place since our last meeting.DATE TIME SITE 10/3/90 5 p.m. INCENTIVE SCHOOLS CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS Board Room TYPE OF MEETING fWriCIPANTS Incentive School Staff Board, Administrators, Teachers 10/16/90 8:30 a.m. Board Room Incentive School Principals Principals, Dr. Steele, Administrators 10/22/90 10/30/90 11/1/90 11/5/90 11/8/90 All day 5:30 p.m. 7 p.m. 3:30 p.m. 5 p.m. 5:30 p.m. 1 :30 p.m. Ish Inservice Instructional aides 11/13/90 3:30 p.m. Board Room Board Room Curr. Center Curr. Center Rockefeller Board Room Frankli n Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Intervenors and LRSD Inservice 11/29/90 12/13/90 All day 1:45 p.m. Schools Conference Rm. Deseg Inservice Stephens 12/14/90 12/18/90 2:15 p.m. 3 p.m. 2:15 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 1 p.m. Conference Rm. Conference Rm. Conference Rm. Conference Rm. Conference Rm. Board Room Garland Mitchel 1 Rockefel1 er Rightsell Ish Intervenors and LRSD Garland Stephens Ish and Rightsell Mi tchel1 Rockefeller LRSD and Knight/ Joshua Intervenors Pre-school Teachers Incentive Schools Principal, Dr. Steele, Admi ni strators II 11 II II II II II II II 11 11 It II II II LRSD, Joshua/Knight Intervenors 1/8-10/91 1/29/91 2/12/91 2/14/91 2/25/91 Transition Parties All day 8 a.m. Schools 2:30 p.m. 8 a.m. Dallas, TX Supt's Office Schools Rockefeller Deseg/Staff Development Charles Rice Learning Ctr. Report on Dallas trip Deseg/Staff Development Inservice Incentive Schools Administrators Administrators Incentive Schools Pre-school Teachers and Aides (HIPPY Staff invited)DATE 12/5/90 12/11/90 1/17/91 1/22/91 1/22/91 2/8/91 2/18/91 CHRONOLOGY OF COMMUNICATIONS FROM Chris Chris Chris TO SUBJECT Heller Heller Heller Dr. Steele John Walker Chris Heller Chris Heller John John John Walker Walker Walker Chris Heller Chris Heller John Walker John Walker Requested meeting Announced meeting Proposed Extended Proposed Extended dates dates/times Day change Day chang Request for discussion Clarification of 1/22 letter Seeking responseHERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. B. S. CLARK ROBERT V. LIGHT, PA. WILLIAM H . SUTTON, P. A. GEORGE E. PIKE, JR.. P.A. JAMESW. MOORE Byron m. eiSCman, jr,, p. a. JOED. BELL, P. A. MICHAEL G. Thompson, p.a. JOHN c. ECHOLS, P A. JAMES A, BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. M T. LARZELERE, P. OSCAR E. OAVIS, J* R JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P Thomas p lCOOCTt, t. JOhM OCWCT WATSON, PAUL a. aCNHAM III, LARRTW. 8URKS, P. A. wvckliff Nisan J ft., P. JAMES COWARD HARRIS, P.A J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH p. Catlett, p.a. JAMES M, SAXTON, p.a. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL HI DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone 501-376-2011 December 5, 1990 ATTACHMENT 1 BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P. 4 Elizabeth j. robben, p./ CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M, GRIFFIN III. P. J THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. Michael a. hoore oiAN E S. MACKEY Cltoe 'tab' C A LVI N J. H, URNCR SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE M. OAYLE CORLEY ROBERT a. BEACH, JR. S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER, JR. M. CHARLES aSCHWENO, JR MARRY A. LIGHT SCOTT M. TUCKER JOHN Clayton Randolph MARY L. WISEMAN Guy ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. M I Ch a el PICK E N S WILLIAM A. ELOREOGE, JR., P L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR, P.A, telecopier (SOU 37a-2l4T TELECOPIER ISOU 37O-O3C Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Wiley Branton JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 370-1056 Re: Incentive School Program Dear John and Wiley: We would like to schedule a meeting as soon as possible among representatives of the Joshua Intervenors, the Knight Intervenors snd the Little Rock School District to resolve a number of issues concerning the Incentive Schools. Please provide a list of dates when you could be available for such meeting. meet at your office. We will be happy to Yours very truly, Christopher Heller CJH/k cc: Grainger Ledbetter Frank Martin James JenningsIK C'CC 11 '90 It': 45 FRi EJLO CLhRK (501 \u0026gt; H. FRIDAY, .A ROaCRT y. LIOMT, A A. WILLIAM W. BUTTON, R A OCORBK C. A.m, JR., 0.^ JAMra w MOORS BTRON M. BiBSmaN, JR  A JOB 0- BELL. MA. hiChabl 0. tmOmabon, ma. JOHNO. CChOlB, MA. JAMBB A. ButtAY, Ma. PRBOBRiCM a. URBBRY, R.A. N. T. LARBClBRS, ma. OBCaR (. BAVIB, JP. Z. CLARK, JR., 0 A. t**0mab m LtaafTT, r,a. f/OxN Otwev WATfiON, M. PAUL a. 9CNHAM III, Ma. 4- wvcruiff Niaacr, ., JAMtl BOWARO NARRIB, J- WALCOM, MA. JAMia H. fllUP^ON, P.A, mbrbbith m catlstt, ma. JAMBB M. Saxton, J- BHKPMCRO RUSfitLL III OONALO H. BACON, MA. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTCfl, MA. WALTBr a. PAULSON \u0026lt;1, MA. b-cl47 fhiday, eldhedoe a OLAHK A PARTNERSHIP OP INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONa ATTORNKYI at UAW lOOq FIRST commcrciau UlLOINa 400 W\u0026lt;T CAPITOL I.ITTLC ROCK, ARKANSAS 7iaorA34i Tclcrhonc 9Cl*37aOi| December 11, isgo P-.2 ATTACHMENT 2 lARRY c. corliN, a a  iCnarb d. Taylor, b,a. JOaiRH a. Hurst, jr., a CLIBAaCTM ROaiBN, R A A. CMRiarOBMfR HCUUtR, ha LAURA Ur^ai _________ ' * LAURA W^NBtCy A|4(TM Ma MSHPBT* WILLIAM M, ORif'PIN III ThOmaB N. Rose, MA. miChakl a. moorc O\u0026gt;ANC B. MACrky III, MA. WaLTBR M. Kcl III. MA MBVINA. CRABB WILLIAM A. WAOOILL. JR.. __________ * CuroB -tab- turnkr CALVIN 4. mall aCOTT J. LANOABTIR J BRRY L. MALONB M. CATLB eORLSr ROBBRT a. aCACH, JR. . RAHOOlRM LOONCY J. LCC BROWN jAMca c. iakba, UR. \u0026gt;*. CMARLta pscmwbno, HARRY A. LICmT . JR. aCOTT M. TUCKCR JOHN CLAYTON RANOOLRH L. WitCMAN OUT ALTON WAOI pRiei e. oaronbr THOMAS M MCSxa J. MICHASl pickkni eevMAek WILLIAM smith William a. l6rco, jr.. ma WILLIAU , ' WILLIAM L. TCRRY WILLIAM L. RATTON, JR. MA. TBlBCOPIBR (BOn BtcpBiat TCLCCOPIER IBOtl a7B\u0026gt;B Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Wiley Branton JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 370-1506 Re: Incentive School Program Dear John and Wiley\nRepresentatives of the Little Rock Knight Intervenors will meet at issues at 1:00 School District and the LRSD to discuss Incentive School , , , P'l\"* on Tuesday, December is, 1990. know if either or both of  . - - . meeting. that will be ,,, , . -------- Please let me  ,,, will be available to attend this We will be happy to move the meeting to your be more convenient for you. offices if CJH/k Yours very truly ChristopTCT Mileru u IJ i i\n0 U'OUi tKiUAl LAU l-iK.'ll L K bChOvi Dibt ua U U 2 \u0026gt; 1,11.1 ATTACHMENT 3 January 17, 1991 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: 370-1506 Incentive School Extended Day Program Dear John: I am writing to follow up on our discussion yesterday concerning the extended day program at the Incentive Schools, The extended day program is presently operated from 2:30 p.m. to 5:05 p.m. Monday through Friday at each of the Incentive Schools. This schedule does not leave time for regular staff meetings and extends the school day beyond the point which is productive for the students, The desegregation team at the Little Rock School District recommends that the schedule of the extended day program be changed to 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, beginning with the second semester of this school year. I believe that the LRSD desegregation plan is flexible enough to allow this change (see Volume II, p. 67, paragraph J.) Please let me know whether the ..Joshua Intervenors would have any objection to the described change of extended day program hours for the remainder of the 1990-91 school year. Yours very truly, Christopher Heller CJH/k cc: James Jenning:JhM 24 'SI 10:0'3 P.2 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. *Alu id.nlttai u PncdM In Gtoiili A the Oliulct cl Columbit. JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3768 FAX (501) 374-4187 ATTACHMENT 4 January 22, 1991 LAZAR M. PALNICK LAW a FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PTTIBBURGH, PA 16219 (412} 2S8-9220 Mr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little. Rock, AR 72201 Re: Incentive School Extended Day Program! Dear Chris\nIn reference to your letter of January 17 above, 7 ........................ uanuatj 1, 1991 regarding the I dont believe the Joshua Intervenors would have c objection to the change, however, I do suggest that we have comprehensive discussion about this matter. any Best regards, John W. Walker a JWW:lpTO: Chris Heller FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District January 22, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Proposed Incentive School Revisions ATTACHMENT 5 The incentive schools have been in operation using the new plan for one semester. We have experienced some success\nhowever, a review of the programs indicates a need to provide more time for teachers to plan instructional programs that are of high quality and reflect an integrated basic skills curriculum. The extended day and extended week activities are to be an integral part of daily instruction. The existing daily schedule does not contain adequate time to plan and implement these activities. more linkage between daily instruction and field trips. There must be These trips are an important component of the incentive schools. Students and parents are experiencing some difficulty in adjusting to such a lengthy school day and week. Parents are picking their children up from school before extended day activities are completed. Saturday is not encouraging at this time. After lengthy discussions with the principals, teachers, and some parents, we propose the following revisions be approved and become effective by the beginning of the second semester, February 4, 1991. Attendance on Proposed Schedule Changes 1. Extended Day - Time for Students and Teachers Currently - 2:35 - 5:05 p.m. Proposed - 2:35 - 4:30 p.m. (for students only) One day per month students will be dismissed at 2:35 p.m. Staff would remain until 5:05 p.m. This additional time would be used for staff development activities and faculty meetings. The district's CARE Program is open until 5:30 p.m. so parents and students would not be negatively impacted by this change. 2. Extended Day - Number of Days (for the remainder of the 1990-91 school year only. This will be reassessed before the beginning of the 1991-92 school year.) Currently - Five (5) days weekly Proposed - Four (4) days weekly The CARE Program will still be available for our students. 010 West NarRlmin Street I.illle (tock, Ark.Ttisns 72201 (Sn 1)574 \u0026lt;530 I Proposed Incentive School Revisions Page 2 3. Extended Week - Saturday Program Currently - All six schools now operate Saturday programs Proposed - The Saturday program will be on a bt-monthly basis at each school and one district-wide Saturday program that would include involvement of parents NOTE: 1. 2. Teachers would still v/ork two extended days a week. Before this goes into effect, time will be needed to coordinate activities with the Transportation Department and CARE. 3. Compensation to teachers and aides will be adjusted in accordance with the proposed changes in work schedules. Most of the proposed changes are listed or implied in the Incentive Section of the Settlement Plan. RSS/lksHERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. B 9. CLARK ROBERT V. LIGHT, P A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P A. GEORGE E. PIKE, JR., P.a. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ATTACHMENT 6 J am c 3 W. M oo A C BYRON M. CISCMA JOE O. BELL, P.A. N. JR.. P. MICHACLO. THOMPSON, P. JOHN c. ECHOLS, P A. JAMES A. BU TTRY, P. A. FREDERICK S. URSERy, P.A OSC a E. OAVlS, JR. JAMES C. CLARK, JR.. C Thomas P. LEGGETT, P. JOHN OtWET WATSON, MES COWAAO H ARIS, J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MtRCOiTH P. CATLETT, P. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL II OONA .O H. BACON, P A. M THOMAS BAXTER, P. R A. PAULSON II, P.A. 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telcphone 501-376 2011 February 8, 1991 BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. OlCHAOa.O. TAYLOR, P. \u0026lt; JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN, CHRISTOPHER HELLER, LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, ROBERT 9. SHAFER, P.A THOMAS N. ROSE, P. MICHAELS. MOORE DIAN e S. MACKEY KEVIN CLYDE \" C A LVI N SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE M, OAYLE CORLEY ROBERT a. BEACH, JR. S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER, JR. M. CH. RLCS O9CHWCNO, JA. MARRY A. LIGHT SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAXXON RANDOLPH MARY L. WISEMAN OUT ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS eouNicL Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 WILLI. WILLI. Wl M A. ELOREOOE, jn., p a M L. TERRY JAM U. PATTON, JR. P. TELECOPIER \u0026lt;SOI\u0026gt; 370*21X7 TELECOPIER \u0026lt;SOl\u0026gt; 370-0309 RE: Incentive School Extended Day Program wMtTCP's oecr .o. 370-1506 Dear John: I wrote you on January 17, 1991 to seek your approval of certain proposed changes to the Extended Day Program at the Incentive Schools. Your response on January 22 was that you did not believe the Joshua Intervenors would object to the change but you suggested a comprehensive discussion about the matter. Copies of both letters are enclosed for your convenience. My understanding of your position, which is based on our discussions as well as the letters is that you do not oppose implementation of the proposed change immediately, but that you intend at some point to have a comprehensive discussion with LRSD about all Incentive School issues. Please let me know whether I am correct so that I can advise LRSD whether or not to implement the proposed change. Your ry truly\nristopher Heller CJH/k cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Mr. James Jennings bcc: Enc.-o CCOAG o uO nJ- i$ /iH U'Ch OOAC xACL a. THOMPSON, N c. CCHQta. \" A. iA eeAiC* ahCS C. CI.A-P Oma6 p. VCG Omn OGWKt * AH III, r. \u0026lt;VA RO n A R R I d , MAVCOM, R A. JAMC6 M. S'HPaoi MCRteiTH P. CATt JAHCa M. SamTOn, J. BHCPRCRO HU3 \u0026lt;O I. BACO HOHAS ill AXTC 16:11 'fi'SiU 37621-17 FRIDAY L.-V'V FIRM L R .School Dl.st FRIDAY. ELDREDGE fi: CLAEK A RARTNenSHlA OF INOiVlOUAUS ANO PftOFeSSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS attohneys at Law 2OOq FIR3T COMweRCIAL BUILDING *OO V/C3T CAPITOu LITTUE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722QI-i Teucpkonc 501-376.2011 Fax No. 501-376.2|A7 03  @.00 2/Uij.3 ATTACHMENT 7a o TmO M M. GPirT. Ka H. rOSC. H(CHACL S. MOO*: CU III) P ru AN c A M. OaVV AoaeA '.NCAiTi A : cop'.ct a. B CaCh, jA . RahOOuPh uooncv I.CC BBQWN AMCS C. BakCA, jA. c vv XUTQN *A0C AICC C. OaAOnCR kOhaS i. h Cixb TONIA P. JONES Oavi  wiuaoN lANOaUPH dAAR AlCii\u0026lt; joae RO O. TAT1.QR. P. A. K B. HURBT, JR., P. \u0026gt;CTH J. ROBfiCN, P. lAM A. ELOACOOC, TELECOPY TO FOLLOWING NUMBER: 374-7609 THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR: TO: Or. Ruth Steele FIRM NAI4E: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM: Chris Heller MESSAGE: This letter was sent to John Walker today. He called and approved the change. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES\n2 THIS INFORMATION SHEET PLUS 1 PAGES DATE: February 18, 1991 TIME: A.M./P.M. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES PLEASE CALL 501/376-2011 ASAP  TRA.NSMITTING FROM: AUTOMATIC FAX RAPICOM 200 - 501/376-2147 TELECOPY OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: LT23_0________ CLIENT NUMBER 90_________ MATTER NUMBER NOTE' Th\u0026amp; infonj\\(i!ioi} jzi f/i/j Jiicsirnile trans/niiial is legally privileged confideadcil intended only Jor ihe use of ihe individual or entity named above. If the reader of fids message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby tiotified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transniiiial in eiror. pleivte imtnedialely notify us by telephone, and return A A ii'll 2  i S / II1 16 : l.'l 'Q'.'jlii .'(762 1.17 I'RID.AV LAW FIRM L R .School Dl.sc f2) 001/00.3 o. 6. Cl.*\"rt R06CRTV. 1. .ICh T, B. SUTTON, fElDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A Partnership of inoiviouals ano phofessionau associations ATTORN SYS AT LAW ATTACHMENT 7b UAVftA ncnGLCt aWIT-H,-** aqbcrts. awAreo, p. a OCOaOC C. PixC. . JAMCaV*. MOQXC R., P. A. riRST COWMeRClAL aUlUOiNO BTRON M. CiaCMAN, Jp., P.A ^OE a. BELL, p A. miCmaClO. TMOMPaoN, p, a JOHN C. ECHOlS, P. a, JAMES A. auTTRY, P, A. rpcoERiCK a. unsERT, p.a. M. T. LAREELCRE. A. 400 WEST CAPITOu LITTUE rock. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TcuCPhonc SOI-376\u0026gt;2OIi OSCAR C. OAW(8. . ^AMCS C. ClaAh, F^'ax No. 501-376.2147 A. THOMAS liooktt, p A. JOHN DEWEY WAl LCWlS MATHIS, P. On. P.a. LAOAV w. BUPK?. P.A. A. WVCXl.l^* NHOCT, JR.. P.A. JAMS 9 COWaBO HARRIS, RA. J. PKIUUIP MALCOM, P.A. JAHeS M. SIMPSON, P.A. MCRcoiTri p. Catlett, p.a. JAM C9 M. SAXTON, P A. J. 5MCPMCRO RU66CLL hl OOhALO N. BACON, R. A. william TmOmaS OaaTCA, P.a. WALTER A. RAULBON II, P.A. BAORV c. CORLIN. p.a, RIChASO O. TAYLON, p.a. JOGSPM a. HURST, JR., R.A. CUUHTM J, RQgaCN, P.A. CHRISTOPHCR HEULCR, P.A. TELECOPY TO FOLLOWING NUMBER\n374-7609 THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR: TO: James Jennincrs FIRM NAI-IE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM: Chris Heller MESSAGE: This letter was sent to John Walker today. He called and approved the change. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES: THIS INFORMATION SHEET PLUS DATE: February 18, 1991 TIME\nWILVIAM M. OPiPTIH III, THOMAS N. flOJH, P.A. \u0026amp;. MOORE oiANc a. hacxct WALTER M. CBCUiil, P.A 6S Cut or -t\u0026gt; Calvin .j, . WAOOELL, JP.. t kb TU R N E H SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONC M. QAYUE CORLEY ROBERT B. BCACh, JN. S. RANOOLRM LOONEY J. LE C BROW N JAMES C. aAKCA. jA. H. CHARLES OSChwend, j. HARRY A. LIOkT aCOTT H. TUCKER JOmn,ClaytOn Randolph Out ALTON WAOC PRICE C. OARONER TMOMAS P. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TO NIA P. J O N CS DAVID D. WILSON JCPFRET M. MOORE iduDttb WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. CLOREOqC. JR., WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTOn. JR., p.,1 PAGES A.M./P.M. \u0026lt;\u0026gt;AWt. . 9CHH 2 1 a A IP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES PLEASE CALL 501/376-2 011 -ASAP TRANSMITTING FROM: AUTOMATIC FAX RAPICOM 200 501/376-2147 telecopy OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: LI230________ CLIENT NUMBER 90__________ MATTER NUMBER CONPIDENTJ.ALITY f^OTE: The in/onnaiion in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential U\u0026gt;filiri7ia!ion intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Jfthe reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return02 - lS/91 16:11 mOl 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM L R School Diet @003/063 FKIDAY, ELDREDGE it CLARK mCOSChCL rl. r Nl DAY, P. A. AOBChT V. LIOrtT, P, A. WILLIAM M. SUTTON, P, A. Oioncc C. |NC, JR., J A hi C 6 w. hOOnc A pabtnership of individuals ano pbofcssional ASSOCIATIONS ATTACHMENT^c BYRON M. C\u0026gt;6Cm. JOe O. BCLL, P.A M, JR., / miCmaCu Q. tmOmb\njOinn c. eci\u0026gt;ioi.s, p. A. aUTTftV. P. coEniCKa. unsc ON, A. ATTORNEYS AT UAW 3000 FIRST COmMCIAL SUIUQinG *OO WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3^33 Tclcphone axnqy RICUARQ 0. TaVLOP, p.. JOSEPH B. hUHBt, JR.. CUIZAflCTH J. ROaaCN, Christopher heller, OaCAA C. SAVIS, JR. J AM C SOI 37S.2OII LAURA mcnslCt Smith, p nOBCRT 5. ShaFCR, r.A. WILUIAH M. GRirriN III, p. ThOmaM N. AOQC, p,x, KICMACL S. MOORE OiANC MACHCT WALTER M. EBEL \u0026lt;11, P.A. N. KEVIM Thomas r. lcOO in, b JOHN DESwCT WATSON, CRABfr CLYOC 'TAS TURNCR LAHHTW. aUPKS, P.A, A. WVCHLirr NISBET, JR,, JAMC5 EOWARQ HARRIS. A. A. J- PHILLIP MALCOM. H.A. JAMES M. SImPSOm. .a. MCRt^DlTH P. CaTlCTT, p a. JAMES M. SaXTON, P. a. J. JWKPhCRO HUaaCLL III OONALO H. raCOn. p a. February 18, 1991 WILLIAM TnOUAS SAXT WAlTtA A. PAULSON II, CALVIN J. HALL SCOTT J. LANCASTER JCAi^T L. HALONC M. OATLC CORLCT HOOCRT B. BSACH, JA. a. ranoolRH LOONk:T \u0026gt;\u0026gt;* 1-CC BROWN JAHC\u0026amp; C. SAKCR, JO. H. Charles oscnweno, ja HaRRT a. LIGHT SCOTT M. TUCACO JOHN CLAYTON RANOOlI'H MARV L. WI9CMAN GUT ALTON WAOC RHICE C. OAROnCR THOMAS F. MCCHS J- MICHAEL R-ICKENS eojNXt WILLIAM J. dMITM WILLIAM A. CI.CDOC,vH., B FAX L. RATTO M, J e. TCIECOPICB TCLECOPICA I69M ^\u0026gt;6*0303 Mr, John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 370-1056 Re: Incentive School Extended Day Program Dear John\nSeveral LRSD administrators , . - visited and were impressed bv the Rice Learning Center -   4* ^earning center at Dallas, Texas. Certain aspects of the Extended Day Program particularly interested the LRSD group. We would like for you to visit the school with you to visit the school with us to determine whether certain successful components of the extended day and other programs at the Charles L. Rice Learnino Center ran ho . X..,. .  Learning Center can be adopted for use in the Little Rock School District. ~ scheduled to be in Dallas on March 67, convenient time for us to visit the school. ,Dr. Steele and others are 1991, and that might be a me ome dates which would be convenient for If not, please provide you. other issue requires our immediate attention. My clients need to know as soon as possible your position concerning the Extended Day Program schedule proposed in my February 8, 1991 letter. Thank you for vour consideratinn. Incentive School our Thank you for your consideration. Yours very trul Christophe Halier CJH/k cc: Dr. Ruth Steele c5.!-03/06/91 16:02 501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 002/002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 6, 1991 TO: Chris Heller, Attorney FROM: ^^Zchip Jones, Manager of Support Services SUBJECT: Incentive School Facility Improvements The following j during the last three summarizes renovations at the incentive schools years\nMitchell $115,000 Renovations including air conditioning, carpeting, and playground equipment Franklin 1,330,000 Classroom addition, cafeteria remodeling, and furniture Rockefeller 176,000 Re-roofing, minor renovation Richtsell 178,000 Air conditioning, re-roofing, classroom conversion, painting Stephens 63,000 Air conditioning, painting, carpeting Ish 135,000 Renovation, re-roofing, playground equipment addition. 5\" currently, budgeted for additional renovations at the inventive schools in the amount of $180,000. funds are currently budgeted for cc: James Jennings^i. TRANSACTION REPORT \u0026gt; r * : * * P.Ol AUG-13-91 TUE I6:O7 DATE -START SENDER RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE AUG-13 16:05-.. 501 374 7609 V 42\" 2 RECEIVE OK * * * * * * * . [k- ' ?-'.A' . .'  Jfei.\nJ * '4^. . 1\u0026gt;S'.pa \u0026gt; 1- 081391 16:11 0301 374 7609 L R School Dlst OBM @001 Little Rock School District . . August 13, 1991 Mrs. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Building 201 East'Markham, Suite 510 Little AR 72201 Post-It'* brand fax transmittal memo 7671 [ Prem COJ Co. # Bl pages e DDeepstt.. * ^'^7PQI06 Phone # J Dear Ann: I have met with Donita Hudspeth, one of the Incentive School principals', to review a student_ daily schedule and see what impact the increase in instructional aides would have on adult-student interaction. What follows is an attempt to show the effect of one aide per classroom 'teacher -as well as our proposal to' have two aides for every three classroom teachers and a contingent of supervision aides to provide supervision at lunch, recess, and before school. ' As you probably are aware, there are 14 classroom teachers at Mitchell. aides. Underthe -1989 plan, there would be 14 instructional Under our proposed change, Ms, Hudspeth would have nine. .A school, day, for children, is 6 1/2 hours long. hour is spent for- lunch and recess, Of that time, one instructional time per day. leaving 5 1/2 hours of Of those hours, one hour per day is spent for special classes in art, music., computer lab, gifted and talented, and physical education. Thus, 41/2 hours of time remain each day -for regular classroom instruction in reading, language arts, math, social studies, and science. -Under the plan calling for-one aide -per classroom teacher, students would have two adults in their classroom every day but wo d still have only 4 1/2 hours of daily classroom instm- ion. rider this plan a student would interact with the following adults in a week's time. I Regular classroom teacher Instructional aide Art specialist Counselor Music specialist Nurse Computer lab attendant Gifted/talented specialist* (for those in the program) Physical education specialist I fl -a 810 West Markham Street  Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)524''2000 !set?T I 9 OS/13 '91 16:12 esoi 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 002 Mrs. Ann Brown August 13, 1991 Page 2 Including the auxiliary teachers in the list, as well as the principal and secretary, it is entirely conceivable, if not probable, that a youngster will.interact with up to twelve adults during a typical school week- Under our proposal of two aides tor every-three teachers, adultstudent interaction would not change significantly since all the specialists would continue to interact in the students. same way with slightly less. However, timeallocation for aides per student would be Assuming again that the amount of instructional time per teacher is 4 1/2 hours a day, the time needing to be covered for three teachers is 13 1/2 hours. Assuming that two aides work 4 1/2 hours each, the time they can \"contribute\" toward the 13 1/2 hours is 9 hours.\nThat-means that 4 1/2 hours will not be covered by instructional aides. However, that time, when spread among three teachers, amounts to only 1 1/2 hours per day. Given the level of services available to students in the incentive schools and the small-class size, T believe students^ educational needs can certainly be met in the \"2 for 3\" arrangement. 1 hope this explanation illustrates that we are not shortchanging the needs of students, nor would we ever do so.  Our proposal represents a thoughtful new analysis of this aspect of the incentive school prograTns and a better utilization of resources, our children's days in school are greatly enriched by specialists and instructional-aides. .It certainly does not seem unreasonable to have classroom teachers spend 1 1/2 hours per day alone with their.children. In fact, it is quite important that they do so. Thank you for considering this issue with us. if I can be of further assistance- Please let me know- .Sincerely, Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools bjf TO: FROM: THROUGH: lUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 September 13, 1991 Horace Smith, Associate Monitor CU'Ca Si? James, Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Instructional Aides in Incentive Schools Please find listed below the information you requested concerning the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools. In addition to the number of aides currently assigned to each incentive school, I have also included the number of positions that we of filling. are in the process SCHOOL NUMBER OF AIDES POSITIONS BEING FILLED \\ 5 W* C\\ 0^' Franklin 11 3 Garland 9 0 Ish 6 0 Mitchell 8 1 Rightsell 8 1 Rockefeller 8 2 Stephens 8 0 cc: Arma Hart Larry Robertson OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM STREET, SUITE 510 heritage west building LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 To: From: James Jennings, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Monitoring Team: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Connie Hickman, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Date: October 28, 1991 Subject: Additional Incentive School Documentation Needed Thank you for agreeing to meet with our staff on November 4, 1991. During further review of the Incentive School Monitoring Guide, it became evident that additional data would be needed to complete our reports. As we indicated during our conversation on October 28, 1991, obtaining this information will require the expertise of several of the district's central administrative staff. We will need the following information: - Incentive School Program Committee- membership list and minutes #2 - Incentive School Parent Council- membership list and minutes #3 - LRSD Definition of Criterion-Reference Testing #21 - Copy of District homework policy #20 - Homework Hotline- staff Ust, example of materials #32 - Update on year-round school #37, #92 - Staff recruitment procedures #40, #68 - Staff development records of training in the Incentive Schools #41 - Camp Pfeifer referral guidelines and procedures #55 - Procedure for monitoring SEP's - team list #56-59 i - Copy of Incentive School Staffing Needs Assessment/Recommendations #66 - Guidelines for Incentive School staff evaluation #70 - Staff Development Planning Committee - procedures/membership Ust #71 - Copy of Staff Development Needs Assessment - results /recommendations #72 - Status of the Incentive Schools Instructional Specialist #79 - Teacher Demonstration Committee - membership and current status #77 - Master Teacher Program Committee - membership and current status #78 - Copy of the Teacher Assistance Program Plan #80 - Copy and status of the reserved kindergarten seat poUcy #82 - Status of Adult/Parent/Community Education #64,83,92 - Status of Parent Intern Program #84 - Parent Workshops - Ust of dates/locations, topics, participants #87 - Copy of Parent Recruitment Plan, materials, current status #96 If you have any questions and/or concerns, please do not hesitate to call on us. cc: Dr. Ruth SteeleTO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 6, 1991 ^2 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs SUBJECT: ODOM 1. Sue Corker is the assigned specialist for our incentive schools\nJudy Milam helps in case of an emergency. Sue has spent and will continue to spend many hours in these schools. 2. Enclosed are the forms used by the reading specialists when providing technical assistance to teachers. If additional information is needed, please contact me. /IksLittle Rock School District Instructional Resource Center (IRC) TEACHER ASSISTANCE PLAN (TAP) SCHOOL READING SPECIALIST{S) PRINCIPAL TEACHER(S) DATE OF REQUEST DATE OF PLANNING VISIT Suggest!ons/P1anni ng IRC Staff Will Provide Assistance in Reading/Language Related To: Reading/Learning Activities Centers: Whole Language - Strategies: Use of Reading Materials/Records: Flexible Grouping: Special Testing/Assessment: Using Reading Multicultural Guide and Core Literature List: Reading/Writing Connection: Demonstration Teaching: Other: Comments: (Continue on back if needed.) SIGNATURES: Principal Date IRC Director/Reading Supervisor Date Reading Specialist Date Reading Specialist Date Date Assistance Begins LRSD Revised 10/89Little KOCK dcnooi L) I Str ICC Instructional Resource Canter (IRC) COMPLETION OF TEACHER ASSISTANCE SCHOOL SPECIALIST(S) PRINCIPAL TEACHER(S) DATE ASSISTANCE BEGAN DATE ASSISTANCE COMPLETED The following sarvices/assistance were provided. Date Assistance Comments (Continue on attachments if needed.) RECOMMENDATIONS: SIGNATURES: Specialist Data IRC Qi rector/Supervisor Data Specialist Date Principal Date LRSD 10/89623 Legato Drive Little Rock, Ar. 72205 December 12, 1991 Dear Ann, This is a follow-up to my concerns about the necessity for homework hotline for incentive schools. The following is an account of the calls received at the hotline during the four weeks that Rockefeller teachers were manning the phones. Oct. 28 Nov 29 30 456 11 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 1200 16 (Mrs. Mangan made every student 66 62 3 0 0 1 1 write the phone number and take it home that day!) There were no books for the teachers to use as referenceJust the phones. On most nights there were seven teachers assigned to answer phones. I have no idea what salaries were paid, but my guess is that each phone call was very expensive. I have read that a new will begin January 6. community/business sponsored hotline That coupled with the homework center offered eachday in extended day should give each student adequate help with dally homework. Cancellation of the incentive school homework hotline looks like an opportunity to save money. We would like this money to be applied to the establishment of an alternative classroom in each building. I hope all is well with you and that you and yours have joyous holiday. a Sincerely, V -t- TEL : Dec 17,91 11 28 No.002 P.Ol I' KtCBBS^ Little Rock School District ( 1 t DcceiiibeX' 13, I'* 91 TO: Rnn Brown Office ot DbKPfii'cgation Moniior.i \u0026gt;if\nFROM: uci.ne. kesooiate superintendent for Uecegregat ion Moul tor i ng und Ooimmunity ,.\u0026gt;6 \u0026gt; James Jonninc c. THROUGH: 01'. Ruth StBwle, Superintendent of School sA] .SUBJECT: Homework Hotline Log T find attachod the homework hotline loc for October. have the log for November to you before the end of ot Please hope to next week.I J V.'  1 ' S KdCDI'^'D ')CiiC^^S J { /\ne/C.^ZA5 1 STHK/i^'/G D-\u0026gt;lCrL!^ Fa t mr fn uHif Xs// f ' r FAiVK/.^// I! I -.J i / nOTLIWt pl Ifll \u0026amp; f I U/ ) '\\ ' / ki/ t /D I {D Hn nii U- IHi ff juti K /nr 11 ZTrJDtyyG S^ Srujjks l/rrHll \u0026amp; I'D -  // / Z7^ /^n nf/ W /I HI/ H} f It i! 1 i I D I II //fl U! 3 i J U^r f /? i G' \u0026lt;x ID ID HD 1^ ^7 G^. \u0026lt;) r^DDec 17,91 12:26 No .001 P.01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72202 FAX (501) 324-2281 DATE TO 4tz FROM \u0026lt;? SENDERS PHONE # 324-2271 SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Paget (include cover pa,\n- j  Fax Phone Number TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas December 16, 1991 72201 DEC 1 0 by I Office of Desegregakn Monitoring Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for W Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Jlecruitment in Incentive Schools I am providing my latest update on recruitment for the incentive schools. It should be noted, however, that most of the recruitment activities listed on the incentive school timelines (Re: or March. 02327-02333) are scheduled to begin in January, February, It would be counterproductive to implement all of these activities during the first quarter of school even if the recruitment timelines did not exist. recruitment is from January through April. The peak period for I will continue to keep you apprised of recruitment activities in the incentive schools by sending you a copy of my monthly updates on desegregation. Highlight Sheets The highlight sheets have been revised and reprinted. distributed as part of the KIDSFAIR activities. They will They were continue to be used on a routine basis as handouts or special mailouts. They are included in all packages sent to parents who request information about our schools. Incentive chool Video Our eight-week production schedule for completion of an incentive school video is on target. Video footage research is one-fourth complete and script development, tape logging, script writing and research is one-third complete. and assistance is being contributed by AP\u0026amp;L. Four days of editing facility completion date is still projected for January 10. Anticipated Incentive School Brochures Copy is due to the Communications Department from each incentive school January 10 for preparation of the individual school If cards.\" These will be prepared to supplement the overall incentive program brochure on which final artwork is being Recruitment page two completed presently. Each school will have the opportunity to offer its brochure with the overall brochure to provide the overview and specific information about incentive programs. At the end of the school term, an updated, expanded version of these individual materials can be produced that will further enhance the recruiting/awareness effort. Incentive school brochures will be distributed to target audiences including realtors, businesses, neighborhood areas, etc. KIDSF.AIR Over 500 parents visited the Little Rock School District incentive schools booth during KIDSFAIR at Barton Colieseum, November 1-3, 1991. The'booth was attractively set up with information about incentive schools' offerings, and students' work was neatly displayed. The art teachers, media specialists and regular classroom teachers did an outstanding job in helping to plan and set up the booth. Flyers and bookmarks with the incentive school logo were given to prospective parents. displayed was a bicycle which had been donated for a prize, bicycle was awarded to one of the parents that registered. Also This The parent recruiters will put the names and addresses of the parents on a database, set up parent meetings, and provide appropriate follow-up as indicated on the parent sign-up forms. . Neighborhood Blitz The Student Assignment Office is in the process of updating its database of private school students. This information will be used to send printed information to targeted neighborhoods. The speaker's bureaus in the incentive schools will also have access to mailing labels for targeted neighborhoods. In addition to the database for private school students, we will also use the names that were acquired at KIDSFAIR. Finally, we are in the process of attempting to purchase a pre-kindergarten database of white students in Pulaski County. Speaker's Bureau A speaker's bureau has been formed for each incentive school. A list of the members was sent to your office on an earlier date by Arma Hart. Inservice training for the speaker bureau members was provided by Julie Wiedower and Dianne Woodruff (11/25/91). members will be available to assist with school tours, help arrange recruitment meetings, and be involved in meetings in targeted recruitment areas. TheRecruitment page three Special Media Coverage Special public service announcements will coincide with the announcement of pre-registration for the 1992-93 school year. The State Press, the radio stations in the black community, the Quapaw Chronicle, the Maumelle Monitor, and others will also be asked to publicize the incentive school program. These announcements will be a part of an ongoing media blitz. Telephone Hotline The District expects to have a hotline for incentive and interdistrict schools operative by the end of January. ' The hotline will have a recorded message about the special programs offered in these schools. Tours The parent recruiters will schedule ongoing parent tours in the incentive schools cc: Arma HartTO : Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District Board of Directors J- ' RECEIVED MAR 3 0 1992 FROM: Office of Desegrsgaicn .Mchiicring Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Conimlttee RE : Incentive Schools In the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Desegregation Plan the Biracial Advisory Committee Is charged with the task of quarterly monitoring each Incentive School. (pp. 371 \u0026amp; 373) Incentive Schools have been called the most important element of the LRSD Desegregation Plan (p. 260), and the Biracial Advisory Committee is very concerned that the plan for the Incentive Schools is not being fully implemented, being changed, and is achievement. not resulting in improved student is continually We are Impressed administrators In the with Che dedication of the teachers and Incentive Schools. However, failure to Implement the entire Incentive School plan Is causing disappointment, - - - frustration and low morale of staff members. The Biracial Advisory Committee has compiled thl outlining concerns about the Incentive Schools. our follows the format of the monitoring Instrument used the Incentive Schools. Desegregation Plan.) (Page numbers refer to the LRSD s report The report to evaluate 1 . STAFFING-: A . B . C . D . E . More male teachers Better racial balance of support staff One instructional aide per classroom (p. 297E) Supervisory aides for playground/cafeteria (p. 293F) Fulltime *  ' 2 . F . H . students Full c Ime Full time Assistant NOTE: social worker (p. 323) counselor (p. 322) nurse (p. 304G) -- principal (pp. 307 \u0026amp; 323) one per 250  one per 250 students one per 250 students C thru H are in the LRSD Desegregation Plan, aren't these staff members in each school? Why CURRICULUM: A . (pp. 265-294) B . Teachers are concerned about the many pull out programs which interfere with classroom instruction. Multicultural curriculum -- 1 . 2 . 3 . visuals are good infusion Into instruction seems to be limited 4 . teachers often ask fo-.r more training on how to implement the multicultural curriculum. the public should be more Informed about multicultural curriculum to allay misgivings misunderstandings. and3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . C . D . E. F . More hands on equipment Is needed (p. 269) Special activities such as field trips seem to be available on a limited basis rather than as a supplement to enrich academics as specified in the LRSD Desegregation Plan (pp. 272 \u0026amp; 299) Very little evidence of peer tutoring (pp. 272 \u0026amp; 297C) Only one school has a science lab. equipment seen at other schools. Very little science (pp. 267 \u0026amp; 307) No evidence of foreign language program (p. 270) EXTENDED DAY: A . B. C . (Falls very short of Desegregation Plan) Needs more special skills offered (pp. 300 \u0026amp; 302) Bring In community people and karate, drama, etc. (p. 302) prog rams, I.e. dance , Programs are now based on talents of teachers In the schools but should be based available In the community. on the variety of activities STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: We are concerned that student achieve-' ment Is not Improving and cite these factors as possibly contributing to the the lack of Improvement: A. B . C. D. E . F. Teacher/pupil ratio is too large, originally set at 1/18, now 1/25 is acceptable, (p. 322) Instructional aides (2 per 3 classrooms) have very little time In the classroom because they are being used as supervisory aides. They have only a minimum amount of training, (p. 297E) Larger classroom sizes impede individualized instruction and cause more discipline problems Physical plant not stimulating Social problems -- (social worker will help) Too many pull-out programs Teachers express need for more training In different strategies to enhance achievement of diverse student populations. STAFF DEVELOPMENT: A . B . C . Bring In outside experts Offer professional training a s Is being done for staff In the New Futures junior high schools. New teachers In the Incentive Schools need additional assistance and support. (p 378) PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT: According to the Incentive School Plan (p. 263) \"The specific details and concerns for each Individual Incentive School must be developed by the local practltlone practitioners are the principals, r s . The local teachers, parents and community representatives In each Incentive School area. District firmly believes that the success of any program depends the opportunity for the practitioners to make The on o certain decisions at the local level.\" A . B , Very limited participation at most schools Need a full time social worker and a full time assistantC . D . 7 . 8 . the principal to help ensure who have been difficult to reach. more participation by parents (p. 307) Very little evidence of small group meetings with parents at community sites. (p. 303) Need more involvement of parents on school-based comm 1t tee s . DISCIPLINE: A . B . C . D . (pp. 263, 305, 329) Need alternative classroom with certified instructor in each school. Need strong mentoring programs such as retired teachers program (pp. 271 \u0026amp; 279 D) Need smaller classes to allow more Individualized attention. More community based programs, i.e. Boy and Girl Scouts, (pp. 299 \u0026amp; 300) BUILDINGS AND CAMPUSES: A . B . C . Incentive Schools should have extensive renovation or be replaced with new buildings, with exception of Rockefeller. New buildings should be built in the same areas of the community and should be state-of-the-art facilities. Playgrounds should be Improved and we 11-equ 1 pped. of the present playgrounds are unsafe. Franklin, Ish, and Stephens) (Mitchell, Some According to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, \"The purpose of Incentive School program Is to promote and ensure academic excellence In schools that have been difficult to desegregate.\" (p. 260) Members of the Biracial Advisory committee are very concerned that Che Incentive Schools are not accomplishing this purpose. If the Incentive Schools do not succeed, the LRSD Desegregation Plan will fall causing this district to continue to spend large amounts of time and resources in court. The possibility also exists that the State will have to be repaid millions of dollars in desegregation money. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE STUDENTS IN THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS WILL NOT HAVE BEEN THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES PROMISED BY THIS DISTRICT. IVEN cc : The Honorable Susan Weber-Wright Office of Desegregation Monitoring Joshua IntervenorsLittle Rock School District March 31, 1992 1 i\u0026gt;y2 n: TO: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Joy Springer, Joshua Intervenors Bennie Smith, LRSD Biracial Advisory Committee Sterling Ingram, LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation Department FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for \"^5^ Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services SUBJECT: Incentive School Parent Council The Incentive School Parent Council would like for one or two representatives from your office/organization to attend their next meeting on Monday, April 13, at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the employee lounge of the LRSD Administration Building, Markham and Izard Streets. The Parent Council would like to hear about your monitoring visits to the incentive schools. not be able to send a representative, end at 7 p.m. Please let me know if you will The meeting is expected to cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Arma Hart Catherine Gill Roxanne Hefley, Parent Council Chair 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 APa JI  Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 To: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Incentive School Principals From: ODM Monitors: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Connie Hickman, Bob Morgan, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Subject: Review of the Incentive School Monitoring Guides Date: May 29, 1992 I Attached you will find your advance copies of the Incentive School Monitoring Guides. These are being provided to allow you to review the information, alert our office if an error exists, and incorporate corrections. As you review the document, remember that the Guides reflect the situation that existed at each school at the time of our initial visit. Updates have been included at the end of each report. This updated information reflects our communications with you during the entire school year. Any corrections must be submitted in writing to our office no later than 5:00 p.m. Monday, June 1, 1992. If no corrections are needed, you may retain your copies of the documents. . Reports which have been changed will be reprinted and the corrected version furnished to you by Friday, June 5, 1992. We look forward to your reactions. Please remember that the deadline for changes is 5:00 p.m. Monday.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING REPORT Timeline - Task Deadline Monitoring 5-28-93 Gathering information 5-28-93 School Reports completed 6-04-93 Intro/Summary/Conclusion/Recommendations (1st Draft completed) 6-11-93 Begin Edit 6-14-93 Principals Breakfast 6-15-93 Edit completed 6-16-93 To Dr. Steve 6-21-93 From Dr. Steve 6-24-93 To Ann 6-26-93 Publication 7-02-93 Incentive Schools and Their Sending Schools Count of Studio Name Name Badgett____________ Bale_______________ Baseline____________ Brady______________ Chicot_____________ Cloverdale Elementary Dodd______________ Fair Park___________ Forest Park_________ Franklin____________ Fullbright___________ Garland____________ Geyer Springs_______ Jefferson___________ Legal Transfer______ M.L King___________ Mablevale Elementary McDermott__________ Meadowcliff_________ Mitchell____________ North Little Rock_____ Otter Creek_________ Pulaski County______ Pulaski Heights Int Rightsell____________ Rockefeller_________ Romine____________ Stephens___________ Terry______________ Wakefield__________ Washington_________ Watson____________ Western Hills________ Wilson_____________ Woodruff Grand total .c c J 0 14 5 6 3 1 1 9 2 194 5 7 3 1 0 3 0 7 20 5 0 6 1 4 0 4 3 3 9 2 9 3 2 3 0 335 o c C (0 CD 0 6 0 4 1 1 3 1 0 10 0 136 0 1 0 0 0 8 6 1 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 9 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 201 - 0) -c  0 1 0 3 3 0 4 2 3 5 2 6 1 6 0 1 1 3 3 109 0 20 0 1 8 3 2 1 0 0 11 3 0 4 2 2201 186 (1) c .D) (2 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 4 0 1 4 3 1 1 0 8 2 6 0 1 2 0 129 4 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 5 o o q\n8 14 9 1 12 6 3 2 8 4 12 1 6 39 7 2 2 6 7 7 7 6 13 6 7 118 3 1 8 4 31 5 1 4 10 380 w c (I) c 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 10 3 19 1 1 0 0 0 6 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 82 1 0 5 0 0 0 4 142 S a O c 2 (0 9 41 14 15 19 11 13 15 14 227 22 170 15 51 8 19 3 38 39 131 8 35 17 11 145 133 12 96 18 6 63 12 4 14 16 1464Incentive School Attendence Zones and Actual Schools Attended / 7^x3. Attending Incentive School School .c 5 c T3 c c Name Badgett_____________ Bale Baseline____________ Booker Brady______________ Carver______________ Central_____________ Chicot______________ Cloverdale Elementary Dodd_______________ Fair________________ Fair Park Forest Park_________ Franklin_____________ Fullbright___________ Garland_____________ Geyer Springs_______ Gibbs______________ Jefferson____________ M.L King___________ Mablevale Elementary McDermott__________ Meadowcliff Mitchell_____________ Otter Creek_________ Parkview Pulaski Heights Int Rightsell____________ Rockerfeller_________ Romine Stephens___________ Terry_______________ Wakefield___________ Washington_________ Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Grand total 2 26 3 10 15 4 1 5 0 0 1 14 18 194 16 10 8 1 20 1 2 35 30 5 1 2 18 4 4 7 10 12 1 3 0 11 12 11 10 539 (D 0 0 4 3 0 4 2 1 3 0 4 1 6 1 7 1 136 1 4 14 5 0 8 18 6 4 0 1 1 1 2 19 14 1 7 1 14 3 4 5 312 \"S c  3 6 4 7 8 6 11 9 3 5 0 3 10 5 5 1 4 9 6 12 5 15 14 109 1 1 7 6 1 0 3 2 4 0 0 2 9 1 318 0) 42 c .O) ( 0 3 2 8 3 6 3 6 1 3 0 1 5 0 2 1 6 31 13 4 2 3 11 8 3 0 9 129 7 0 0 6 6 29 1 2 1 1 4 320 \u0026gt;2 o o q: 4 4 2 8 4 3 6 6 3 6 2 0 1 4 0 4 6 7 1 2 2 4 3 3 1 1 3 4 118 1 0 6 3 20 0 1 1 3 4 251 C (1) c Q. -2 00 w o o c m k. O 0 1 0 0 9 0 3 2 1 1 0 8 5 3 2 9 0 2 15 5 0 11 7 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 82 12 2 3 0 5 3 1 5 200 9 44 14 33 43 21 25 31 8 19 4 32 52 213 26 161 25 60 69 35 11 76 83 132 16 4 39 144 138 10 114 53 15 66 2 33 22 29 35 1946Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 31,1993 For more information Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 INCENTIVE SCHOOL HOTLINE-QUTCK AND EASY INFORMATION. FOR PARENTS A hotline telephone number, 688-3085^1 Y school-age children with information assists parents/guardians of elemen school-\nabout Little Rock School DistricrT'seveirincentive schools. The hodine provides at taped message about special incentive school programs an benefits- A LRSD representative returns a call to those who leave their name and phone number requesting additional information. Incentive schools promote academic excellence in basic skills and provide enriched activities allowing children to receive unique opportunities to learn. Special incentive school benefits include: individual learning plans to meet each student's learning style, \"take home\" laptop computers, weekday and Saturday field trips, art and music theme specialists and full-time physical education. Incentive schools maintain the best pupil-to- staff ratio in the district and offer special parenting mareTiaLs and courses designed to assist parents in helping their children learn. The seven incentive schools are Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens. ### 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 OftCQ o' CAREER AWARENESS AND MASS MEDIA PROGRAM \"Reaching Out to Reach Our Children\" Tenative Implementation Plan (Rough Draft) a Our mission here at Rightsell Incentive School is to provide educational expenences that will help each child reach his/her potential. The development of i career awareness education proyam as an integral part of the social studies and lan^age arts curriculum will help today's student face the occupational choices and challenges of the future. Now,more than at any other time we must assist students in learning about these choices. Parent, teachers, administrator, and community volunteers selected the Career Awareness/ Mass Media theme to provide learning opp^nities that would foster positive social growth and produce responsible and productive citizens. The prog-am specialist will assist classroom teachers in infreg-ating Mass Media technology ^d Career Awareness Intruction through the language arts and social Studies curriculum by\nweekly planning session with classroom teachers, staff development /inservice training, developing a professional library focusing on personal and ^ofessional gowth, providing technical/instructional support, through the formation of a Parent Ai^isory Council and Parent Career Assistance Progams, provide detailed learning style invetories (CITE) to the student-parent-teacher, and by scheduling special events/site visits that reinforce student learning. Grade Level Career Awareness Clusters- Occupational Groups Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade 6th Grade Community Helpers Occupations Around the World (U.S,/ Africa/ Japan/Europe) Human/Public Service Occupations Enviromental, Science, \u0026amp; Agiculture Technolgy Cereer Occupation Exploration/Research Health Professions/ Arkansas Employment Opportunities Communication and Media Technology / Employability Skills EducationStudent at all grade levels will: Identify responsible and successful work behaviors. Acquire knowledge of economic/free enterprise principles. Acquire knowledge of diverse occupations. Apply basic skills to career decisions. Through involvement of the business community in provicfing students with practical experience, exposure, and information. Develop positive attitudes toward\nseif and others, learning, work, leisure, and indvidual and cultural cfifferences. Acquire knowledge about one's self: physical characteristics, interests, aptitudes abilities, and attitudes. Recognize that all educational experiences ere integ-ated with total career development and preparation. Develop an early and continuing awareness of career options and opportunities and explore them in relation to maturing personal values, interests, and aptitudes. Acquire decision making skills and apply them to personal career development. Become aware of competencies needed for entry into the next educational or occupational level. We hope that student will develop work attitude competencies that will: Encourage students to set personal, educational, and community goals. Demonstrate promptness by coming to school and class each day. Demonstrate responsibility by completing ther assignments. Strive to do their best. Demonstrate cooperation by participating in crouD tasks. Keep their work areas clean. Link basic skills to occupational areas(Rd, Math,SS,Sc). Ust education requirements for entry level employment. Identify social requirements to for employment. Define work ethic.Suggested Career Theme Club/ Activities Cereer Mentors Entreprenuership Club Young Pilots Club Just Say No Student Council or Cities in Schools Clubs 4-H Career Clubs Newspaper Staff Spanish Club Teacher Development Club Rightsell Young Broadcast Journalist Staff Planning Guide Week 1 I Introduction, orientation, and class visits. PTA Council Meeting - Theme Specials Meeting - Gibbs International Magnet School. Information Revest were mailed to institution/ agencies The respondents are listed below: ADVONET electronic mail network that the National Center for Research in Vocational Education and runs on VOCNET, which is an Internet Discussion Group - David Carlson John L Leinhardt, Extension Specialist-Com. Dr... Cooperative Extension Serv. Barbara Baer, Project Administrator, Project CERES, Ceres, CA Karen P. Heath, Asst. Dir., Career Planning, Transition and Intervention. Ohio Department of Education. Richard D. Pfister, Director of Magnet Schools, Utica City School District, NY Janice Hanlon, Proyam Manager, Career Orientation, AR Voc \u0026amp; Tech Educ Div Robert C. Sherer, Executive Coordinator, Michigan Occupational Information Coacfinating Committee Jo Cheek, State Coordinator, National Diffusion Network J.B. Robertson, Cereer Guidance Supervisor, State Department of Education Donna Grady Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Pat Nellor Wickwire, American Association for Career Education a Prog-am Theme Leadership Team Meeting- Davis, Williams, Blacknail met on week 2 to establish a working structure, articulate the desired proyam outcomes and a tenative staff involvement schedule. An invitation has been extended to each certified staff member to serve on the curriculum inflations committee. On June 15-30,1993 the curriculum committee workshop will begin on June 15 and end on June 30,1993. h/ks. Karen Campbell, Carver Magnet School Curriculum Specialist will serve as our^oject consultant. The Rightsell staff will return one week earlier in the fall to complete the project and participate in special staff inservices. The committee hopes to develop a proyam that will: Identify student goals and outcomes Develop career exploration concepts for youth. Provide Quality Career Counseling. Engage students in a process that will heighten their self-worth, self- awareness, and self-worth. Allow students to learn how their interests, educational goals and favorite subjects relate to career goals. Provide staff visits and summer experiences at local businesses and companies to help broaden teacher awareness of local industry needs. Assist in directing student thinking toward high school and higher education course offerings. EQUIPMENT The Mass Media component of the prog-am will place emphasis on written, oral, and communication skills through computer assisted instruction, video productions, student publications, creative hands-on activities, and public performances. Equipment assessments determined condtion, program application and replacement schedule of exsisting equipment. Faculty and staff inservices should be provided to ensure proper usage of available technololgical resources. They should include: Available Community Resources Instructional Television Cable In the Classroom Comf^er Data Bases Timelines of History and Science Library of Print, Media, and Film Higher Education Databases Recommended Program Improvements Equipment Storer Cable to install a closed-circuit system in Cable in 17 classrooms, the library and the office.  19 Video cassette recorders with locking wall mounts. 19 Color Televisions with locking wall mounts. F^toVix with 3x convertor - A High resolution Microscope with VH conversion capibility. IBM 386 Computer with HD, 14.4 modem installed, and laser printer to be linked with Fred-Mail and the cable system to recieve daily lesson plans to support Instruction TV and Cable in the classroom.Resource Materials Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Newspaper in Education Progam which will provide 2 copies of the newspaper per class at the rate of $.13 each on school calendar days. Expected Outcomes: Increased knowledge of current events... Enhanced student vacabulary, word recognition, and reading comprehension skills... A positive attitude toward readng among students. Cable in the Classroom Expected outcomes: Quality commercial-free educational progamming that includes news, documentaries, performing arts, and programs of educational value in math, English, the sciences, foreigi languages, health and technical studies........ Curriculum-based support materials at low-cost or free.. Copyright clearences so that progams can be taped and used later.... USA Today Visions of Exploration - Explorers Journal - Science and Space Exploration. Connect Reading, social studes, science, mathematics, and I language arts curricula. USA Today Careers Progam - CLASSLINE Today coffers free daily satelitte-transmitted teaming plans offering tips and classroom acitvities for social sciences, sdencehiealth, math, economics/business and language arts. 1. 2, 3. 4. E valuation/l mprovement Is the prog'am achieving the stated goals? Is the prog-am being implemented in accordance with LRSD and state guidelines. Are the students benefiting from the prog-am in terms of content, quality, and performance. Evaluations should be conducted to determine the level of impact of action to mission acco\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_476","title":"Incentive Schools: Budget and correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Budget and correspondence"],"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/476"],"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\nJohn w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE 'WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. *Admitted to Practice in Georgia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia only. March 13, 1,990 LAZAR M. PALNICK LAW \u0026amp; FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 (412) 288-9220 Ms. Arma Hart Assistant Metropolitan Supervisor Pulaski County School Systems Little Rock, AR Dear Ms. Hart: Enclosed is a copy of the letter which was sent to Beth Deere explaining the incentive school idea and proposed budget. I am still working on the draft which you and I discussed yesterday regarding refinement to the incentive school program. I appreciate our meetingj^ I feel that it was highly productive and that your insight was most helpful. Sincerely, Ji . Walker JWW:Ip Enclosure JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. Admitted to Practice in Georgia A the District of Columbia only. May 2, 1989 \\.KLKV. M. PALNICK LAW \u0026amp; FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 (412) 288-9220 Ms. Beth Deere United States District Court U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Deere: Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon has indicated that he intends to recommend the funding of the incentive schools as proposed by the parties and to recommend the appointment of a consultant or other person to develop the programs and incentives for those schools. The purpose of this letter is to: (1) request the Court to allow Little Rock and Joshua to have input into that process\nand (2) to suggest certain considerations that have been shared with our clients about what they may expect from those schools over the next five to seven years. The proposals that were submitted for the incentive schools were not completed as Mr. McCutcheon observed. Our expert witnesses advise us that many of the ideas that Mr. James Jennings and Ms. Beverly White shared verbally about the workings of the incentive programs appeared to be useful in achieving the objective of remediating achievement disparities. The district staff did not address the specifics of the incentive school program fully, in part, because of the extensive amount of lawyer time spent in negotiating and otherwise securing the parties' approval of the settlement with the State of Arkansas. I was, during that time, somewhat unaccessible to the district staff so that they did not secure my specific input into their planning. The incentive school program, while presented by me, was developed in consultation with black community leaders who were concerned about the disparate transportation burdens imposed upon black youngsters, the relative shortage of classroom space east of University Avenue, and the fact that black young people simply were not learning in the schools. The incentive school programPage Two Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 was designed to provide regular education from 8:00 until 3:00. During that time, there would be only limited attention given to the segregating programs such as gifted and special education classes. The 8:00 until 3:00 classes would be as rigorous as any in the school district. The special needs of the pupils in the incentive schools would be identified in the form of individual education plans similar to those developed for special students and would be addressed in the after school programs. The second part of the incentive school program would begin at 3:00 and extend at least until 5:30 each day, and would also continue on Saturdays as well. This part of the program would be devoted to the remediation and enhancement needs of each child and would be conducted in such a way as to promote each child's interest in being comfortable with a school setting most of the time. The third key part of the incentive school program would be the special role of the staff. Staff members would be expected to work approximately twenty percent more time than regular staff members. These staff members would have a specific commitment to the goals and objectives herein and would be capable of empathetic relationships with the students of these schools, their parents and the surrounding community. The fourth key part of the incentive school program would be the employment and utilization of aides and others who would supplement the teaching and professional certified staff. The aides would be recruited from parents and students in the higher grades and would work with the teachers, parents and professional staff to achieve the objectives of the plan. The aides would be selected in part because of their interest in education and in furthering their own education. The idea would be to develop, with district sponsorship, over a period of five to seven years, a number of aides as teachers or professionals who would be available for employment with in the district. The fifth part of the incentive school program provides scholarship assistance to the youngsters who are assigned or who choose to remain in those schools. The amount and terms of the scholarships have not been established, but it was contemplated by us that approximately twenty percent of the double funding would be placed into a trust fund for these youngsters. The total number of students assigned to the incentive schools or who remain there after having had a choice option for the next and succeeding years. The scholarship amounts contemplated would be set to ensure that between one and four years college tuition and costs would be made available to these students based upon the average cost of public higher education in Arkansas at this time.Page Three Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 The enhancement programs would be numerous and would require specially trained persons to develop and implement them. We have many ideas that we would share with the district or with such other person(s) that the Master may designate. These schools should logically begin by July 15 with summer enrichment programs which would continue through September 1 or thereabout. Regular School Programs would begin about September 5 and end as scheduled except that educational continuation programs would be extended as need until July 1 of the next school term. Moreover, assuming an approximately one to fifteen teacher pupil ratio for approximately 2,500 pupils, the minimum incentive staff would be: Regular Year Programs Total Assistant Superintendent and Staff Teachers Counselors Principals Teacher Aides Student Assistants (Part-time High School Students) Drama Specialists Music Specialists Drama \u0026amp; Music Aides Art Specialists Art Aides Grammar Specialists Field Trip Coordinator Field Trip Staff (Aides and Teachers) 4 166 8 8 166 83 3 6 12 6 12 12 18 1 The budget would be set and generally as follows: Total available revenue for the schools, not transportation and other special funding sources including 2,500 pupils X $6,000 per pupil = $15,000,000 Expenses Certified Staff 220 X average $24,000 = $5,280,000 Benefits $ 530,000Page Four Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 Aides (Full-time) 211 X $10,000 including benefits $2,111,000 $ Administrative Staff 100,000 Part-time Student Assistants 83 X $4,000 Continuation - 332,000 Summer School (extra staff?) 250,000 Programs Field Trips $100 per child 250,000 Activities in school $200 per child 500,000 Equipment, Instruments, Mise. $200 per child 500,000 Aide College Tuition 166 X $1,300 216,000 Parent Programs 1,000 - 1,500 parents at $100 per parent 125,000 Scholarships $600 X 2,500 (escrowed) $1,500,000 Materials and Supplies $50 per pupil 125,000 Testing and Evaluation $100 per pupil 250,000 Meals $250 per pupil 513,000 = $ $ $ $ $ = $ $ $ $ $Page Five Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 Miscellaneous $ 418,000 Total $15,000,000 Staffing Monitoring and general oversight would be at the top administrative level. These costs would be absorbed by the district's budget for administrative and evaluation. Staff criteria and the section process should be developed cooperatively with the parties, especially the teacher groups. This should be put into place at once if the incentive programs have a chance to effectively work this year, as it must in face of the recent MPT results.JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 RECEIVED OCT 2 6 1993 OHica of Desegregation Monitoring October 25, 1993 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 ttle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am advised that your office recently completed an analysis of the Incentive School budgets for the past several years, writing to request a copy of the same. I am Thank you for your attention to this request. Sjmcerely\nprin* er / JCS/ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District ot Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 27, 1993 Ms. Joy C. Springer 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Joy: I received your letter yesterday in which you stated that you had been advised that ODM recently completed an analysis of the incentive school budgets for the past several years. You also asked for a copy of such an analysis. Although we are certainly femiliar with the incentive school budgets, ODM has not done a written analysis of those budgets independent of the information we published in our 1992 monitoring report on the incentive schools. We are presently completing our 1993 report on the incentive schools which will include the same type of budgetary monitoring information that was in our last report. When we file that report with the Court, we will certainly forward a copy to your office. If you should need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely yours. in S. Brownirm ''G f J ' vjTJ FEB 1 1994 Office of Desegregation Moriitoii'tg January 27, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Larry Robertson and Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendents for the Little Rock School District, requesting explanation of the Budgeting process. This information is being forwarded to you at the suggestion of the Judge during yesterdays court hearing of the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. The questions concerning double funding was a coordinated effort with other Incentive School Principals (Encl. 2) and forwarded to Mr. Robertson's Office in October. Numerous phone calls were also made to both the Superintendent's Office and Financial Services Office with no answers. Any assistance provided reference the Incentive School's budgeting process will be appreciated. Sincerely, Robert L. Brown Principal RLBJ/dlj Enclosures:TO: October 12, 1993 Incentive School Principals FROM?^ Robert L. Brown, Jr. \u0026amp; Ann Mangan SUB J: Incentive School Double Funding Process We are questioning how the budget is determined for Incentive Schools. We would like to sit down with all Incentive School Principals on Monday, October 18, 1993 at 3.:30 p.m. We are asking you to complete the budget ledger enclosed for the last four years. An example budget is being provided for your review. Additionally, a copy of the ODM \"Incentive School Double Funding\" document Is enclosed. Your student enrollment for each year will be beneficial in helping us decipher some aspects of the budgeting process. We plan to ask Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Gremillion to meet with us to discuss our findings and concerns. Remember, we agreed to meet as a group on a regular basis to discuss common elements of operating Incentive Schools. We need to establish Monday's meeting will be held at regular meeting sites and dates. We look forward to your attendance at 3:30 p.m., October Rockefeller. 18, 1993. fOctober 19, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJ: Larry S. Robertson, Assistant Superintendent Margaret Gremlllion, Assistant Superintendent Incentive School Principals Budgeting Process - Explanation Request We are requesting your assistance in arranging a meeting with Mr. Mllhollen for Incentive School Principals. After discussing our present budgets, budget history, and documented guidelines for the budget process, we were left with more questions than answers, are some of the questions and concerns: These 1. What formula has been used for the last four years in developing the operating and desegregation budget? 2. How has the process met the guidelines established by the District in its oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21, 1990? 3. What are the reasons for multiple changes in budget codes and line items from year to year? 4. With a 6% Inflationary rate computed from the base funding year (1990-91), what factors have led to budget decreases for three consecutive years? 5. What Is the basis for the similarity in desegregation funding amounts among schools with significant enrollment differences? 6. What process was used to determine the Extended Year and Inservice allocations for the 1993-94 school year? 7. In the 02 account, the addition of custodial and library funds has Increased our overall allocation of resources. However, there has been a comparative decrease in the general amount of funds at our disposal. What variables are responsible for this decrease? Enclosed you will find a copy of the \"Incentive School Double Funding\" guidelines and a copy of a four year budgetary document as shown on business office forms. Please examine the documents and if you have any questions, please contact Robert Brown or Anne Mangan. A timely response Is requested.To: From: Incentive School Principals Robert L. Brown, Jr. Date: November 3, 1993 Subject: Incentive School Budgets The following table of figures represent past, current and proposed budgets for all incentive schools over a six year period starting with the 91-92 school year. 149 OlTice of Incentive Schools 91-92 261,482 '2-93 63,147 93-94 65,041 94-95 95-96 96-97 66,993 69,002 71,072 152 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 13,000 15,450 15,914 153 153 153 154 158 171 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program E.xtended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 1,096,148 172 Extended Year 176 190 193 194 153 Incentlve/R ecognition Starring StafT Development Teacher Stipends Other Academic Programs 1,291,786 Total - Incentives 2,649,416 CC: 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,391 16,883 16,883 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,600 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,765 7,725 3,150 888,890 38,625 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 61,285 231,750 56,650 7,957 5,305 915,557 39,784 21,218 583,171 275,834 22,809 970,535 63,124  \" 238,703 58,350 3,220,464 3,317,082 8,195 5,464 943,023 40,977 21,855 600,666 284,109 23,494 999,651 65,017 245,864 60,100 3,416,590 8,441 5,628 971,314 42,207 22,510 618,686 292,632 24,198 1,029,641 66,968 253,239 61,903 3,519,088BUDGEDS1.XLS Desegragatlon Budget (13) [student Enrollment Control Account 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 TOTAL 1101 -OOXX_____________ 410|Hm wrk/Tutorlal 1120-00XX 326 331 410 421 540 57-0380 65-0300 65-0300 75-0300 Repair Equip Transportation Supplies Textbook - Local Personal Prop/Eq Extended Wk/Food Extended Year Incentive Recog Other Activities 1129-OOXX____________ 1171 Food Services 1550-00XX 41O[ELE Supplies 3500-00XX 313[Pupll Supplies 1105-00XX 410 540 4 Yr-Old Supplies Equip Per Prog Teacher Expenses 1120-00XX 57-0300 73-0300 74-0300 1129-OOXX Extended Day Stall Development Inservice $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $42,000.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000^00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $6.00 $0.00 $0^00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $400.00 $400.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65,900.00 $0.00 $6.00 $6.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,730.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $12,150.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $400.00 $100.00 $27,230.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $30,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $92,500.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $6.66 $36,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,266.60 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,055.38 $2,060.35 $5,150.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $343.39 $343.39 $0.00 $25,609.99 $104,054.14 $7,463.85 * $11,189.38 Sr I 117 117 Stipends______ Additional Spent $88,000 00 $100,000.00 $188,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 _____^.00 $0.00 $130,000.00 _____^.00 $0.00 $122,707,37 fn 0 C\u0026gt;M other Expenses PJ 300 92-93 POs Theme Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,190.44 $45,000.00 $53,190.44 Grand Total I $253,900.00 Pago 1 $27,230.00 $187,500.00 $148,317.36I Sheet 1 Operating Budget (02) Klndergarden 1110-0026 410 412 Elementary 1120-0026 326 342 360 410 421 300 300 Repair Equip Postage________ Printing-Binding Supplies_______ Textbooks - Local Custodial General 2222-0026 410 2410-0026 410 90-91 $250.00 $150.00 $100.00 $4,044.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $3,450.00 $294.00 91-92 $400.00 $200.00 $200.00 $6,913.00 $446^00 $223.00 $223.00 $5,352.00 $669.00 92-93 $10,927.32 $1,743.00 $9,184.32 TOTAL Library Supplies Office of Principal 93-94 $360.00 $6,215.57 $2,000.00 $4,215.57 $2,242.00 $2,242.00 $2,237.00 $2,237.00 $2,246.00 $2,246.00 $100.00 $100.00 $223.00 $223.00 $6,636.00 $9,773.00 $10,927.32 $8,821.57 Page 1INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to \"double fund\" each of the incentive schools. The commitment to this enhanced financial support is made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans: Tunding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities.\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 4.) and \"...[T]he Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to...[i]mproving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified io the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/incentive schools.\" (Little Rock School District Desegregation Plarf, Ajiril 29, 1992, Page 1.) Neither plan specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, the LRSD lawyer explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per pupil expenditure in the district s area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD lawyer was firm in the districts commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the district s average per pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding the incentive schools. Since that time, there has been a substantial rise in the districts per pupil expenditure because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. In order to control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the \"base year\" of 1989-90. The base year average per pupil expenditure was established by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1,1989 total enrollment. This process yielded a base year per pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each year thereafter, the actual previous years per pupil expenditure is multiplied by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students according to the previous years October 1 enrollment data (not including the infant through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. I Page 44The LRSD double funds the incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, personnel, and equipment described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October 1 data used by the LRSD in the calculation of double funding, there were 976 more students in the Incentive schools during the 1991-92 school year than the previous year. (This number includes the 507 students at Franklin, which became an incentive school in 1991-92, plus the increased enrollment at the other six Incentive schools.) Consequently, spending for the incentive schools has soared because the funding obligation of the district is based on those schools enrollment. Increasing enrollment at the incentive schools not only impacts education and desegregation at these schools, it also pumps more double-funded dollars into the schools than may be necessary to adequately meet the children's needs and the provisions of the desegregation plan. It may be difficult to spend that additional money prudently and it will surely mean that less money will be available for the area schools. At the same time, there are many incentive school classrooms with very low enrollment, resulting in a per pupil cost that is higher than necessary. Adding students up to a regular classroom capacity does not tend to raise the actual cost of the classroom because a schools fixed costs are based on a standard class size. Using the formula devised by the LRSD, the district is meeting its obligations to double fund the incentive schools. However, since most of that money is spent on staff salaries, there is little physical evidence that the incentive school facilities have special attention because capital improvements and maintenance are not included in the provisions for the additional incentive school funds. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1992-93. Note that the obligation is based upon the previous years student enrollment because the budgeting process is completed before it is known how many students will actually be enrolled during the academic year the new budget will fund. Page 45LRSD PROCESS FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 Area School Actual Per Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) $1,887.46 $2:24924 (Projected) $2,449.08 Inflationary Adjustment X 6% X 5.8% X 6%  Projected Area School Per Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Per Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Minimum $ Amount to be Expended for Double Funding Incentive Schools Actual Expenditure in the Incentive Schools Over or Below LRSDs Minimum Incentive School Obligation $2,000.71 + $1,887.46 $3,888.17 X 1375 $5346233.75 $6,833,005.68 Over $1,486,771.93 $2379.70 $2,596.02  4- $1,887.46 $4267.16 X 1259 $5372354.44 (budgeted) $8223,093.15 -- $1,887.46 $4,483.48 X 2235 $10,020377.80 Page 46Recommendations 1. When making student assignments, keep in mind that there is a relationship between double funding and enrollment figures that represents the greatest return on investment. Class enrollment that Is below the fixed cost amount results in wasted dollars\nenrollment above that amount can result In exorbitant spending. The district courts May 1,1992 ruling regarding the relationship of class size to instructional aides at the Incentive schools has given the district a further incentive to contain class size to no more than 20 students in any classroom. The district is bound to keep its pledge to double fund each incentive school for six years or a long aj the ichool maintains an enrollment above 80% black. But the district must also keep in mind that the Incentive schools educate only a small portion of the class that prevailed in the desegregation law suit. (FuUy 80% of the districts black elementary students are educated In area schools, not incentive schools.) An overriding goal of the desegregation plan to is close the gap in academic achievement between black and white children. If the district fails to prudently manage student placement at the incentive schools, especially in relationship to the double funding obligation, there will be far fewer dollars to spend on the programs and strategies that target achievement in the area schools, thus jeopardizing the equity the desegregation plan is designed to achieve. Conceivably, in order to contain the base per pupil expenditure in the area schools upon which double funding is figured, the district could cut area school programs, personnel, materials, and facilities to the detriment of the majority of black students the settlement was designed to compensate. This possibility could become reality in the current financial deficit situation. Ultimately, the concerns the circuit court judges expressed in 1990 about the district's ability to afford double funding may have been tragically prophetic. 2. Ensure that a portion of the Incentive school funding fulfills the plan s commitment that \"the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities.\" Field trips taken during this school year coincidentally may have resulted in desegregated experiences, but there has been no evidence that incentive school staff planned trips to serve this function. Nor has there been any evidence of pairing incentive school student bodies with those of desegregated schools for racially integrated activities or special events. The best way to provide desegregated experiences for incentive school children is to racially desegregate their schools. 3. Give the Incentive schools priority in the district's sequencing of capital improvement projects since double funding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. If student enrollment at the incentive schools is to become desegregated, the buildings must be sound, attractive, and well-maintained. Page 47rrxa January 27, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: FEB 1 1994 Office of Desegregation Munibiitg Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Larry Robertson and Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendents for the Little Rock School District, requesting explanation of the Budgeting process. This information is being forwarded to you at the suggestion of the Judge during yesterdays court hearing of the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. The questions concerning double funding was a coordinated effort with other Incentive School Principals (Encl. 2) and forwarded to Mr. Robertson's Office in October. Numerous phone calls were also made to both the Superintendent's Office and Financial Services Office with no answers. Any assistance provided reference the Incentive School's budgeting process will be appreciated. Sincerely, Principal RLBJ/dlj Enclosures: October 12, 1993 TO: Incentive School Principals FROMRobert L. Brown, Jr. \u0026amp; Ann Mangan SUBJ: Incentive School Double Funding Process We are questioning how the budget is determined for Incentive Schools. We would like to sit down with all Incentive School Principals on Monday, October 18, 1993 at 3:30 p.m. We are asking you to complete the budget ledger enclosed for the last four years. An example budget is being provided for your review. Additionally, a copy of the ODM \"Incentive School Double Funding\" document is enclosed. Your student enrollment for each year will be beneficial in helping us decipher some aspects of the budgeting process. We plan to ask Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Gremillion to meet with us to discuss our findings and concerns. Remember, we agreed to meet as a group on a regular basis to discuss common elements of operating Incentive Schools. We need to establish regular meeting sites and dates. Monday's meeting will be held at Rockefeller. 18, 1993. We look forward to your attendance at 3:30 p.m., October fTO\nFROM: SUBJ: October 19, 1993 Larry S. Robertson, Assistant Superintendent Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent Incentive School Principals Budgeting Process - Explanation Request We are requesting your assistance in arranging a meeting with Mr. Mllhollen for Incentive School Principals. After discussing our present budgets, budget history, and documented guidelines for the budget process, we were left with more questions than answers, are some of the questions and concerns: These 1. What formula has been used for the last four years in developing the operating and desegregation budget? 2. How has the process met the guidelines established by the District in its oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21, 1990? 3. What are the reasons for multiple changes in budget codes and line items from year to year? 4. With a 6% inflationary rate computed from the base funding year (1990-91), what factors have led to budget decreases for three consecutive years? 5. What is the basis for the similarity in desegregation funding amounts among schools with significant enrollment differences? 6. What process was used to determine the Extended Year and Inservice allocations for the 1993-94 school year? 7. In the 02 account, the addition of custodial and library funds has Increased our overall allocation of resources. However, there has been a comparative decrease in the general amount of funds at our disposal. What variables are responsible for this decrease? Enclosed you will find a copy of the \"Incentive School Double Funding\" guidelines and a copy of a four year budgetary document as shown on business office forms. Please examine the documents and if you have any questions, please contact Robert Brown or Anne Mangan. A timely response Is requested.To: From: Date: Subject: Incentive School Principals Robert L. Brown, Jr. .November 3, 1993 Incentive School Budgets The following table of figures represent past, cunent and proposed budgets for all incentive schools over a six year period starting with the 91-92 school year. 149 Office of Incentive Schools 91-92 261,482 2-93 63,147 93-94 65,041 94-95 95-96 96-97 66,993 69,002 71,072 152 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 15,000 15,450 15,914 153 153 153 154 158 171 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 1,096,148 172 Extended Year 176 190 193 194 153 Incenlive/Recognition Staffing Staff Development Teacher Stipends Other Academic Programs 1,291,786 Total - Incentives 2,649,416 CC: 15,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,600 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,765 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,391 16,883 16,883 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 7,725 5,150 7,957 5,305 8,195 5,464 8,441 5,628 888,890 915,557 943,023 38,625 39,784 40,977 971,314 42,207 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 21,218 21,855 22,510 61,285 231,750 56,650 583,171 275,834 600,666 284,109 618,686 292,632 22,809 970,535 23,494 999,651 24,198 1,029,641 63,124   238,703 65,017 66,968 58,350 245,864 60,100 253,239 61,903 3,220,464 3317,082 3,416,590 3,519,088BUDGEDS1.XLS n Desegragatlon Budget (13) [student Enrollment Control Account 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 TOTAL 1101 -OOXX_____________ 4101 Hm wrkZT utorial 1120-00XX ______326 331 410 421 540 57-0380 65-0300 65-0300 75-0300 Repair Equip Transportation Supplies Textbook - Local Personal Prop/Eq Extended Wk/Food Extended Year Incentive Recog Other Activities 1129-OOXX 117|Food Services 1550-00XX 41O[ELE Supplies 3500-00XX 313 Pupil Supplies 1105-00XX 410 540 4 Yr-Old Supplies Equip Per Prog Teacher Expenses 1120-00XX 57-0300 73-0300 74-0300 1129-OOXX Extended Day Staff Development Inservice J- 117 117 Stipends______ Additional Spent Other Expenses 300 92-93 POs Theme Funds Grand Total $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $42,000.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $6.00 $0.00 $0^00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $400.00 $400.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65,900.00 $6.00 $0.00 $6.66 $88.000 00 $100,000.00 $188,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 I $253,900.00 Page 1 $0.00 $0.00 $26,730.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $12,150.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $400.00 $100.00 $27,230.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $0.00 $5,00000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $30,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $92,500.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $6.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $27,230.00 $30,000.66 _____$0.00 $0.00 $130,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $187,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,266.60 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,055.38 $2,060.35 $5,150.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $343.39 $343.39 $0.00 $25,609.99 $104.054J4 $7,463.85 * $11,189.38 _____^.00 $0.00 $122,707.37 $8,190'44 $45,000.00 $53,190.44 $148,317.36 tn 0 bM C-\"'I- -PJSheetl I Operating Budget 02) 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 Klndergarden 1110-0026 410 412 Elementary 1120-0026 326 342 360 410 421 300 300 Repair Equip Postage________ Printing-Binding Supplies Textbooks - Local Custodial General 2222-0026 410 Library Supplies TOTAL 2410-0026 410 Office of Principal $250.00 $150.00 $100.00 $4,044.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $3,450.00 $294.00 $2,242.00 $2,242.00 $100.00 $100.00 $6,636.00 $400.00 $200.00 $200.00 $6,913.00 $446.00 $223.00 $223.00 $5,352.00 $669.00 $2,237.00 $2,237.00 $223.00 $223.00 $9,773.00 Page 1 $360.00 $10,927.32 $1,743.00 $9,184.32 $10,927.32 $6,215.57 $2,000.00 $4,215.57 $2,246.00 $2,246.00 $8,821.57INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to \"double fund\" each of the incentive schools. The commitment to this enhanced financial support is made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans: Tunding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities.\" Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 4.) (Interdistrict and \"...[T]he Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to...[i]mproving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/incentive schools.\" (Little Rock School District Desegregation Plar#, ApJril 29, 1992, Page 1.) Neither plan specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, the LRSD lawyer explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per pupil expenditure in the district's area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD lawyer was firm in the districts commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the district s average per pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding the incentive schools. Since that time, there has been a substantial rise in the districts per pupil expenditure because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. In order to control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the \"base year\" of 1989-90. The base year average per pupil expenditure was established by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1,1989 total enrollment. This process yielded a base year per pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each year thereafter, the actual previous years per pupil expenditure is multiplied by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students according to the previous year's October 1 enrollment data (not including the infant through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. Page 44The LRSD double funds the Incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October I data used by the LRSD in the calculation of double funding, there were 976 more students in the Incentive schools during the 1991-92 school year than the previous year. (This number includes the 507 students at Franklin, which became an Incentive school in 1991-92, plus the Increased enrollment at the other six incentive schools.) Consequently, spending for the Incentive schools has soared because the funding obligation of the district Is based on those schools enrollment. Increasing enrollment at the incentive schools not only impacts education and desegregation at these schools, it also pumps more double-funded dollars into the schools than may be necessary to adequately meet the childrens needs and the provisions of the desegregation plan. It may be difficult to spend that additional money prudently and it will surely mean that less money will be available for the area schools. At the same time, there are many incentive school classrooms with very low enrollment, resulting in a per pupil cost that is higher than necessary. Adding students up to a regular classroom capacity does not tend to raise the actual cost of the classroom because a schools fixed costs are based on a standard class size. Using the formula devised by the LRSD, the district is meeting its obligations to double fund the incentive schools. However, since most of that money is spent on staff salaries, there Is little physical evidence that the incentive school facilities have special attention because capital improvements and maintenance are not included in the provisions for the additional incentive school funds. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1992-93. Note that the obligation is based upon the previous years student enrollment because the budgeting process is completed before it is known how many students will actually be enrolled during the academic year the new budget will fund. Page 45LRSD PROCESS FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 Area School Actual Per Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment Projected Area School I Per Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation  $1,887.46 X 6% $2,000.71 + $1,887.46 $274924 (Projected) $2,449.08 Incentive School Per Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Minimum $ Amount to be Expended for Double Funding Incentive Schools Actual Expenditure in the Incentive Schools Over or Below LRSD's Minimum Incentive School Obligation $3,888.17 X 1375 $5346733.75 $6,833,005.68 Over $1,486,771.93 X 5.8% $2379.70  + $1,887.46 $4767.16 X 1759 $5372354.44 (budgeted) $8723,093.15 X 6% $2,596.02 -I- $1,887.46 $4,483.48 X 2735 $10,020377,80 Page 46Recommendations 1. When making student assignments, keep in mind that there is a relationship between double funding and enrollment figures that represents the greatest return on investment. Class enrollment that is below the fixed cost amount results in wasted dollars\nenrollment above that amount can result In exorbitant spending. The district courts May 1,1992 ruling regarding the relationship of class size to Instructional aides at the Incentive schools has given the district a further Incentive to contain class size to no more than 20 students in any classroom. The district is bound to keep Its pledge to double fund each incentive school for six years or B long as the ichool maintains an enrollment above 80% black. But the district must also keep in mind that the incentive schools educate only a small portion of the class that prevailed In the desegregation law suit. (Fully 80% of the districts black elementary students are educated In area schools, not incentive schools.) An overriding goal of the desegregation plan to Is close the gap In academic achievement between black and white children. If the district fails to prudently manage student placement at the incentive schools, especially in relationship to the double funding obligation, there will be far fewer dollars to spend on the programs and strategies that target achievement in the area schools, thus jeopardizing the equity the desegregation plan is designed to achieve. Conceivably, in order to contain the base per pupil expenditure in the area schools upon which double funding Is figured, the district could cut area school programs, personnel, materials, and facilities to the detriment of the majority of black students the settlement was designed to compensate. This possibility could become reality in the current financial deficit situation. Ultimately, the concerns the circuit court judges expressed in 1990 about the districts ability to afford double funding may have been tragically prophetic. 2. Ensure that a portion of the Incentive school funding fulfills the plan s commitment that \"the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities.\" Field trips taken during this school year coincidentally may have resulted in desegregated experiences, but there has been no evidence that incentive school staff planned trips to serve this function. Nor has there been any evidence of pairing incentive school student bodies with those of desegregated schools for racially integrated activities or special events. The best way to provide desegregated experiences for incentive school children is to racially desegregate their schools. 3. Give the incentive schools priority in the districts sequencing of capital improvement projects since double funding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. If student enrollment at the incentive schools is to become desegregated, the buildings must be sound, attractive, and well-maintained. Page 471 Incentive Schools Function 1105 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1240 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Description Four Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Homebound and Hospital Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Budget $155,681.30 $84,758.85 $739,301.19 $30,434.21 $11,998.11 $35,479.57 $31,239.85 $0.00 $22,356.95 $23,490.61 $55,371.92 $27,795.75 $38,829.74 $131,589.47 $110,460.34 $1,000.00 $33,000.00 YTD TOTAL $165,106.19 $143,234.58 $588,438.05 $29,180.28 $114,394.57 $29,909.45 $42,861.14 $29,191.42 $37,641.16 $19,757.64 $74,882.01 $23,159.83 $36,767.92 $122,008.25 $91,332.91 $2,715.57 $0.00 1995-96 Budget $1,532,787.86 $1,550,580.97 $1,838,099.03 $1,838,099.03 1105 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1230 1240 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Four Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Special Class Homebound and Hospital Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child 1995-96 Budget $57,293.21 $40,892.74 $638,535.22 $14,702.75 $37,907.57 $18,331.68 $0.00 $77,847.35 $0.00 $10,005.99 $11,745.30 $38,923.68 $30,378.83 $48,765.33 $79,196.54 $76,996.09 $2,000.00 $15,000.00 $29,666.62 $55,139.77 $647,434.04 $24,042.48 $26,995.30 $15,417.73 $7,744.09 $34,176.15 $4,652.46 $8,231.58 $19,757.64 $32,825.57 $24,882.64 $25,416.68 $95,276.18 $65,539.54 $759.47 $0.00 1105 Four Year Old Program $1,198,522.28 $1,117,957.94 $1,246,992.88 $1,246,992.88 $41,192.09 $17,356.882 Incentive Schools Function 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1240 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Description Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Homebound and Hospital Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Budget $69,030.78 $608,632.57 $17,336.16 $12,295.12 $16,878.76 $21,887.04 $30,313.41 $17,067.64 $16,564.23 $33,757.52 $31,239.85 $47,306.77 $72,301.56 $93,305.91 $3,000.00 $25,000.00 YTD TOTAL $77,541.37 $560,197.42 $22,613.79 $5,489.64 $14,219.43 $0.00 $25,520.77 $2,900.03 $13,560.44 $0.00 $26,090.21 $43,789.31 $70,920.21 $75,225.16 $2,463.71 $0.00 1995-96 Budget $1,157,109.41 $957,888.37 $1,242,718.82 $1,242,718.82 1105 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 Four Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child $295,636.85 $80,577.35 $909,370.19 $34,511.32 $22,060.42 $19,848.40 $21,887.04 $25,601.45 $26,870.38 $35,479.57 $32,358.22 $55,929.17 $126,518.33 $176,906.14 $3,000.00 $49,000.00 $1,915,554.83 $229,172.73 $70,145.53 $907,920.51 $26,143.08 $23,659.30 $16,901.39 $26,982.55 $12,452.46 $22,338.39 $30,786.14 $27,043.83 $51,325.48 $106,635.37 $124,068.94 $3,991.72 $0.00 $1,679,617.42 9999 1995-96 Budget $1,955,387.43 $1,955,387.43 1105 Four Year Old Program $45,360.01 $37,254.453 Incentive Schools Function 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Description Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Budget $44,002.09 $593,342.61 $17,336.16 $66,208.50 $13,048.10 $19,612.50 $22,909.45 $17,771.95 $39,784.70 $46,600.48 $51,998.97 $80,710.54 $74,944.04 $2,500.00 $13,000.00 YTD TOTAL $55,142.42 $449,552.99 $30,752.92 $40,614.34 $10,806.25 $16,483.39 $13,751.20 $9,040.51 $33,516.85 $29,923.17 $42,022.29 $74,697.95 $57,832.46 $1,973.86 $0.00 1995-96 Budget $1,149,130.10 $903,365.05 $1,029,819.64 $1,029,819.64 $6,953,104.48 $6,209,409.75 $7,313,017.80 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSD 6/22/95\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_479","title":"Incentive Schools: Court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Court filings"],"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/479"],"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\n1 FILED .. ,lis DISTRICT COURT -aSi-:RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 2 \"I J990 CARL H. bhhj^TS/CLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR-Sv: ' 1 - f Z  f\nEASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82~866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Pending before the Court is a motion from Knight Intervenors seeking court approval of employmen' compensation and duration provisions of an agreement regarding incentive schools. This case is currently on appeal. Until the Court of Appeals issues its decision. this Court will not either approve or disapprove programs regarding incentive schools. Unless so ordered by the Court of Appeals, this Court will not approve or disapprove a school district's employment contracts. The Court denies the motion. DATED this 27th day of July, 1990. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN compliance with rule 33 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP OW BY i I FILE COPY I United States District Court for the Eastern District Arkansas July 27, 1990  mtmp * MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * * Re: 4:82-CV-00866 True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the following: Cliristopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Walter A. Paulson II, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 M. Samuel Jones III, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Philip K. Lyon, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Tcby Tower, Suite 3400 425 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201-3401 Stephen W. Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Tcby Tower, Suite 3400 425 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201-3401 Tim C. Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 H. William Allen, Esq. H. William Allen, P.C. 1200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201-3617 Stephen L. Curry, Esq. Ivester, Skinner \u0026amp; CampSuite 1200 111 Center Stree- Little Rock, AR ) 72201-2413 ) Samuel A. Perroni, Esq. Perroni, Rauls \u0026amp; Looney The Koger Center Drive, Ste. 215 10810 Executive Center Drive Little Rock, AR 72211-4354 William H. Trice III, Esq. Howell, Price, Trice, Basham \u0026amp; Hope 211 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2405 Robert C. Lowry, Esq. Mitchell \u0026amp; Lowry 905 Boyle Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201-3799 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. Mitchell \u0026amp; Roachell 1014 W. Third St. P.O. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 John W. Walker, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Otis H. Storey III, Esq. Hoover, Jacobs \u0026amp; Storey 111 Center Street Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-3521 John T. Lavey, Esq. Lavey, Harmon \u0026amp; Burnett 904 W. Second St. P.O. Box 2657 Little Rock, AR 72203-2657 9 t Carl R. Brents, Clerk Date: BY: \"cto (as in the case intervenors. ''J F./t-d Jtc. ZZ^ of other districts' plans) by the Joshua The plan was submitted in two volumes, one on January 31, 1989, 7 App. 1514-1703, and one on March 23, 1989, 10 App. 2196-2343. We confine our description of the plan to those features most relevant to the issues on appeal. Eight of the district's 31 non-magnet elementary schools, would be designated \"Incentive Schools. II They would be, at least initially, all black. or virtually so. These schools would receive special compensatory- education programs and markedly increased amounts of money. In fact, they would receive \"two times the level [of funding] for the Elementary Academies\" in LRSD. 8 App. 1722. The reference to II Elementary Academies\" describes 22 of the remaining 23^ elementary schools. These schools would have projected student ratios of between 50 and 62 per cent, black. Any white student could elect to attend an Incentive School, 10 App. 2199-200, and any student (and the reference here is principally to black students) living in an Incentive School attendance area could opt to attend one of the Elementary Academies, id. at 2199. The plan included a detailed and voluminous description of the kind of programs that would take place at the Incentive Schools. 10 App. 2233-334. A salient feature of these schools would be a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one. Id. at 2230. In addition to the individual desegregation plans submitted for each of the three districts. the parties submitted, on February 15, 1989, an II Inbsrdistrict Desegregation Plan.\" 8 App. 1716-1805. Again, we state those provisions of the Plan with particular relevance to the issues presently on appeal. Students were given the option to transfer from one district to another, with transportation at the expense of the State, if the transfers would promote desegregation. 8 App. 1735. Following our en banc decision in 1985, the parties had by stipulation established six school. ^One elementary school. 10 App. 2229. Romine, would be an interdistrict -26-I Jpvw LRSD to diminish efforts to recruit students into grades one through six and the four-year-old program in the incentive schools. Such a restriction would place a heavy burden for desegregating an entire school upon only one grade level. Given the plan's emphasis upon desegregating the incentive schools and the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit of the plan's automatic\" desegregation features, the Court does not approve restricting recruitment to potential kindergarten students. The Court IS mindful that all parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregation of the incentive schools. Although the Court will carefully monitor interdistrict collaboration in support of desegregation of all schools, it will pay close attention to the efforts directed toward the incentive schools and particularly scrutinize the LRSD's efforts to carry out diligently the incentive school recruitment activities as outlined in the plan and detailed in the LRSD Incentive School Marketing Plan, a strategic plan referred to by Mr. James Jennings at the hearing. The Court encourages the parties to implement any additional recruitment measures that will aid desegregation of the incentive schools as a whole. The Court is pleased to note that marked progress is being made in desegregating Rockefeller where the school's overall student enrollment is 31% white for the current year. Also encouraging is the present racial balance of the four- H year-old classes (48% white) at Franklin. Progress at these two schools holds forth promise that desegregation of the incentive -29-J: JUL OHfes De\n.' pTI\nn5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER filed U S. OISTRfCT COURT -----------vwuni eastern DISTRW ARKANSAS JUL 10 1992 CARL By--J. ' Sf^NTS, CLERK DEP PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On June 5, 1992, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring [ODM] filed its 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. The parties filed no objections, and on June 3 0 and July 1, 1992, the Court held hearings to discuss the report. No objections to the report were raised in the hearings. The Court hereby adopts the recommendations of the ODM contained in the Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. These recommendations, which are made in a spirit of support, should help the Little Rock School District achieve the goals of the desegregation plan. fZ- DATED this /() day of July, 1992. UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUD( JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP N___7:^ BY Br 1 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Vvsd  f AUG 4 1593 IN THE UNITED STATES .DISTRICT.. COURT EASTERN DISTRICT''OF' ARKANSAS-  Office Ct Desegrega'Jon Monitcti:!'?. WESTERN Diy.ISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF FINDING OF FACT OR CONCLUSION OF LAW AND MOTION FOR RULING ON REQUEST THAT INCENTIVE SCHOOL BENEFITS INCLUDING SCHOLARSHIP BENEFITS FOLLOW THE INCENTIVE SCHOOL CHILDREN The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for correction of finding of fact or conclusion of law and for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship commitments to incentive school children follow the incentive school children upon their reassignment to another virtually all black, school, to wit, the new King Elementary School. 1. The Court indicates that Joshua did not object to the Little Rock survey on a timely basis, i.e., within five days, and therefore, Joshua cannot complain about the manner in which the survey was carried out and/or interpreted and implemented. Joshua did not object to the survey at all before the fact. It only objected after the fact to the good faith of the defendants in the manner in which they conducted the survey and to the conclusion that students who did not affirmatively respond to attend Ish were to be regarded as affirmatively choosing or electing to attend King. Our position was that it was just as likely that the non-respondents would attend Ish in the same proportion as the respondents as it was for the district to conclude that all of the non-respondents would elect to attend King. We respectfully submit that no citation of authority is needed for that proposition. 2 . The Status Report of the district could not have been objected to until it was issued. The Status Report was filed on July 16, 1993. Our objection was to the manner in which the survey was conducted. We note that in the Affidavit from Ms. Marie Parker the district sets forth five separate events for which there are no dates other than June, 1993 and four separate dates for which there are no dates other than July, 1993. The absence of dates by the district is an indication that the district did not know when it did certain things or perhaps that it did not do them. It is for this reason. inter alia. that we requested a hearing. Our objection was not ripe until after the survey results were in and after the district submitted its Status Report if we had no objection to the announced process. What the Court appears to be saying is that if we do not object to the process on the front end, we cannot complain about the results on the back end. Denial of equal protection is the effect of the result of the process. 3. The Court has yet to rule upon our repeated requests for settlement plan implementation of the special benefits which were designed to flow to the Ish children because of its segregated character. The Court still does not rule. The Court has consistently ruled, however, and the evidence shows that the Little Rock School District has been absolutely derelict in seeking tochildren with benefits promised by the plan. The Court's ruling in closing Ish and in assigning the Ish children to another racially identifiable school, King, albeit a new school, is contrary to the settlement plan. . 4. The authority for the motions in this case is the Desegregation Plan itself and the various rulings of the Court of Appeals herein. 949 F.2d. 253 (Sth Cir. 1991). The fine tuning suggestions of the plan or of the Court of Appeals ruling are inapposite under the circumstances herein because the district itself IS responsible for the failure of desegregation and integration of Ish by its utter failure to enhance Ish and to provide it with the necessary \"incentives.\" The Court thus appears to reward the wrongdoer and to punish the children by the challenged school closure. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the district court to modify its opinion herein by rescinding its order to close the Ish incentive school. In the absence of modification. the Court is requested to issue an Order requiring that all incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits, follow the incentive school children wherever they may be assigned. Moreover, in the event that King opens as a racially identifiable school, Joshua further requests that it become an incentive school so that all children therein will have the benefit of incentive school programs including the promised scholarships. Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORSBy: I ^ohn W. Walker, Bar #64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record by U.S. Mail on this 2nd day of August, 1993. / C (. V. Ac/. John W. Walker / / t. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlICT? COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS'  WESTERN DIVISION'.- ... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. a I PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITY The authorities for the motion filed herewith are: The Desegregation Plans of the district\n2. The Court of Appeals opinions approving the settlement plans herein. See 949 F.2d. 253 (8th Cir. 1991)\nand The various Opinions and Orders of this Court finding the Little Rock. School District to be out of compliance with the Desegregation Plan. The proceeding before the court is an implementation one. We submit that no separate authority is required in implementation - the plan itself is the authority. Where the distric defaults in 1. 3 . its duty, the court is required to act to the benefit of the black. children herein. These children are not being benefitted by having their incentive school benefits withdrawn on the one hand and by their concomitant assignment to another virtually all black school on the other hand. (King will probably open as an eighty per cent or more black school\nit will thus be racially identifiable) Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORSL By: John W. Walker, Bar #64046 (JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record by U.S. Mail on this 2nd, .day of August, 1993. John'W. Walker IMAR-21-94 MON 15:45 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 19 (995 G. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS n V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. defendants i JOSHUA REQUESTS OF THE COURT REGARDING THE BUDGET PROCESS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request to address the following issues as it proceeds to consider the budget process before the Court. 1. Joshua requests that the Court specifically determine that the District is required to double fund the incentive schools\nthat pursuant to the double funding the Dstrict is required to provide scholarship incentives and awards to students who attend or have attended those schools since the settlement plan\nand to provide training and educational opportunities related to potential placement in teaching positions in the District to black parents and others who are placed as aides. 2. Joshua requests that the Court specifically determine whether Joshua counsel are . entitled to . be compensated for participating in the various proceedings required by the Court in the same manner as counsel for the respective districts are compensated. 3. Joshua requests that the Court specifically determine whether incentive school personnel who are required to work extended day and extended year programs are entitled to extra 4MAR-21-94 MON 15:45 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.03 compensation for that extra work. 4 . Joshua specifically requests that the Court determine whether the ish children are entitled to receive all their promised incentive school benefits when they attend King Elementary School. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ar (501) 374-3759 72206 of of )(X John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker,hereby certify that a true and correctjcopy foregoing document has been hand-delivered on this /^:?dav C\u0026amp;'f- . 1993. the foregoi ---1 John W. WalkerDate:  Ann [St Bill 'Ob Connie Horace inda Melissa Margie  Polly Return to:  RECEIVED DC 2 0 1993 OKico oi Du:3grsyation fZonionAa IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER  } ,'y PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On December 9, 1993, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring filed a report on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") incentive schools. A hearing on the incentive schools is hereby-scheduled for 9:00 a.m. Friday, January 14, 1994, and continuing on Tuesday, January 18, 1994 if necessary. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearing. and incentive school principals are encouraged to attend. If parties wish to present any written materials that they anticipate the Court will have read prior to the hearing, they must be delivered to the Court no later than January 7, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this of December 1993. JUDGE . HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON obcKET SHEET UN GOiMFLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 7C{a) FRCP BY 2 0 4 8 aS T X. FBIDAY, ELDBEDGE \u0026amp; CLABK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P. A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P. A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P. A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P. A. JOE D. BELL. P. A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P. A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P. A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P. A. H. T. LARZELERE. P. A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P. A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P. A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P. A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P. A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III. P. A. LARRY W. BURKS. P. A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR., P, A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P. A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P. A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P. A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P. A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P. A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P. A. DONALD M. BACON, P. A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P. A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P. A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P. A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P. A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P. A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P. A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P- P- LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P. A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P. A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P. A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P. A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL little rock, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone 501-376-2011 Fax No. 5OI-376-2ia7 December 21, 1993 is ci !. .J*-.-.. is- DEC 2 2 1993 MICHAEL S. MOORE. P. A. DIANE $. MACKEY, P. A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P. A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P. A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P. A. CLVDE -TAB\" TURNER. P. A. CALVIN J. MALL. P. A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P. A. JERRV L. MALONE. P. A. M. OAYLE CORLEY. P. A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P. A. J. LEE BROWN. P. A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P. A. M. CHARLES OSCHWEND. JR.. P.  HARRY A. LIOMT. P. A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P. A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P. A GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEPFREY M. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. QAAF PAMELA D. PERCEFULL CARLA a. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. PENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES aA22:EL R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN Ofic3 of Cessgregation Monitoring COUNSeL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P. B. S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P. A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P. A. wwRrrews oircct no. Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 370-1553 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD/Incentive School Hearings Dear Dr. Williams: Enclosed please find a file-marked copy of an Order entered by Judge Wright on Friday, December 17, 1993. Please take notice that this Order sets a hearing regarding the LRSD Incentive Schools for Friday, January 14 and Tuesday, January 18, 1994. this on your schedule to be in attendance. Please place By copy of this letter, I am requesting that all members of the LRSD Board of Directors make the necessary arrangements to be present on both days. I am also sending a copy of this letter and Order to the principals of Stephens, Garland, Franklin, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Mitchell Incentive Schools. It is my request that they also make the necessary arrangements to be available to attend this hearing. However, I do hereby request that they make contact with you and me to deteirmine whether or not they should actually attend. It is my request that each incentive school principal and each LRSD administrator receiving this letter review the incentive school report to determine their various areas of responsibility. Those problems identified by the monitors should be considered and any documentation or explanation available should be pulled wil-pcM.UDr. Henry Williams, Superintendent December 21, 1993 Page 2 together for review prior to court. It is my suggestion that we hold a meeting no later than Thursday, January 6, 1994, for purposes of determining our course of action and preparing for the hearing. Thereafter, we should then have sufficient time to pull the necessary information together and meet again on Wednesday, January 12, 1994. I have reserved the entire day on both days. Please let me know what time is most convenient. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely. Jerry L. Malone JLM/mr enc. cc: LRSD Board of Directors Estelle Mathis Sterling Ingram Dr. RUss Mayo Mark Milhollen Brady Gadberry wU-pCM.It p IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF / vs. No. LR-C-82-866 7^ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On December 9, 1993, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring filed a report on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") incentive schools. A hearing on the incentive schools is hereby scheduled for 9:00 a.m. Friday, January 14, 1994, and continuing on Tuesday, January 18, 1994 if necessary. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearing, and incentive school principals are encouraged to attend. If parties wish to present any written materials that they anticipate the Court will have read prior to the hearing, they must be delivered to the Court no later than January 7, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this ay of December 1993. ED STATES DIST :t judge . HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON obCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7C(a) FRCP OS' J 0-17-$3 BY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER The hearing on the incentive schools that scheduled for January 14, 1994, immediately following the FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 0 4 1994 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK Qy:__ts PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS is currently is hereby rescheduled to begin conclusion of the racial balance hearings, which are scheduled for January 25 and 26, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this '/ day of January 1994. TATES CT JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEBT IN OOMPIIWCE WIT! I RULE 53 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP TN JAf'ICEWr BY 2 0 6 2 E received JAN 5 1 1994 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegrogation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOINT NOTICE OF STIPULATION The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), and the Joshua Intervenors for their Joint Notice of Stipulation, state: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a stipulation agreed upon by the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 2. Joshua Intervenors, through their counsel, have joined in the filing of this stipulation. WHEREFORE, Little Rock School District and Joshua Intervenors submit this Joint Notice of Stipulation and request all other legal and proper relief to which they may be entitled.Joint Notice of Stipulation January 31, 1994 Page 2 Respectfully Submitted FRIDAY, ELDREDGE -\u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By\nJerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Stipulation has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on January otherwise indicated: 31, 1994, upon the following, except as Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone STIPULATION The LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors stipulate that some black students who live in Incentive School Attendance Zones were not allowed to attend Incentive Schools by the LRSD during the past school year and this year. The parents of some of those black students were advised that because the LRSD was holding seats for white students, the LRSD could not allow them to enroll in an Incentive School program that was above the racial balance goal established in the Court-approved desegregation plans. However, all of these seats were not filled by white students and have not yet been offered to these black children. The LRSD has been made aware of the problem and, as of August 1993, has taken, or will hereafter take, steps to correct it in the manner contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. Further the LRSD will otherwise continue to comply with its obligations as set out in that Agreement. The LRSD is mindful of the Court's requirement that it will require the LRSD to establish that its vigorous recruitment efforts have failed before those seats can be released in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Exhibit 1Stipulation Page 2 The parties, LRSD and Joshua, also stipulate the admission into evidence the following exhibits: 1. Addendum to Exhibit Number 208, Joshua's LRSD Elementary Schools (Incentive Schools) Monitoring Report, 1990-91\n2. Exhibit Number 209, Joshua's Preliminary Educational Equity, June 23, 1993, with Addendum pages 214 through 243\n3. Exhibit Number 210, Joshua's Preliminary Educational Equity Monitoring Report, May 28, 1992, with Addendum pages 000161 through 000189\n4. Exhibit Number 234, letter from Joy Springer to Bennie Smith dated April 17, 1992, with attached memo to Dr. Ruth Steele from LRSD Bi-Racial Advisory Committee. The LRSD does not, by agreeing to the admission of these documents into evidence, waive its right to challenge or otherwise contest the factual findings or assertions contained in the Joshua Monitoring Reports or other documents being admitted hereby\nthose rights are specifically and expressly reserved.Stipulation Page 3 Dated this 7^ day of January, 1994. Ji W. Walker orney for Joshua Intervenors Jerry L. Malone Attorney for LRSD \\ \u0026lt; 1 - f 3-96 MOH-.I3:54 r fe-. I I I. li h F t' R- SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 ntcD PASTERN Y.l%TaicV may 5 I 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DlSTRUA'WESm?cCORMACK CLERK eastern district of ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ARf\u0026lt;^5AS DE?CLt-'r, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS 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 INTERVENORS MOTION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS FOR RELIEF CONCERNING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of - regarding ths Incentive Schools, which among other things de for the designation of a well-qualified educate. independent of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), to direct the effort of employees of the LRSD to comply with* the provisions ci the settlement concerning the incentive schools. The orders ought by Joshua are described in full at the end of this motion. This motion is based upon the accompanying memorandum\nthe allegatfbns set forth in the motion.\nmonitoring reports prepared . and disseminated by the Joshua Intervenors and the office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)\nstatement by this court evidencing the LRSDa-inadequate implementation of the relevant portions of the plan\nand other aspects of the record of th\n\u0026gt;*1 a?. 3-96 MON 13:55 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 case. Joshua makes the following allegations\n1) LRSD voluntarily agreed in the court-approved settlement in this case to provide well-funded, exemi^ary educational programs at seven schools located in the black community in the LRSD, to be know as the \"incentive schools. \u0026gt;1 This element of the agreement, bottomed upon the commitment to \"double funding: of these schools, had (and has) multiple purposes: first, to attract white students to these schools voluntarily\nsecond, to promote academic excellence and to help compensate the victims of segregation\nand third, to promote equity and equality by increasing the number of instances in which desegregation occurs by white students attending schools in the African American community. See LRSD Plan, April 29, 1992, at 149. 2) As shown in detail in paragraph (4) of this motion. officials and employees of the LRSD have continued to implement a large number of the features of their own plan regarding the incentive schools in a grossly inadequate manner. Indeed, there is evidence that the quality of implementation declined in more recent times. See ODM, 5/l\"//95, at 33-36, 45-48. 3) The incentive schools are (and have been) racially segregated (e.g., ODM, 5/17/95, at 45), an entirely preoictaole result given the overall deficient implementation of the plan and There are now five incentive schools, following the closing of the Ish and Stephens schools. 2 1 I jI J!!N- 3-96 MON 13:55 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 the nature of the deficiencies (e.g., deficient staff and staff desegregation\ndeficient upkeep of facilities\ndeficient recruitment\ndeficient activation of programs\ndeficient activation of themes and approach to multicultural education\ndeficient parental involvement). 4) The elements of the plan which the LRSD defendants have implemented in a grossly inadequate manner include, hut are not limited to, the following: a) the provisions on upkeep of facilities\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, surom, at 40-43\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 35-38\nODM report a 12/21/94, at 35-36\nODM report 5/17/95, at 13-17\nJoshua Report, ii! s 6/5/92 at 174, 177-78\nI I i 1 'J I i= I It b) the provisions on steps to recruit desegregated student bodies\nsee ODM report 3/11/94, at 11\nODM report 12/21/94 at 91- 92\nODM report 5/17/95, at 67-68\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 1 (Recruitment)\nJoshua report 6/5/92 at 166, 171, 174, 177, 181, 183, 198\nJoshua report 6/27/93 at 233, 236, 242\nc) the provisions for staff desegregation\nsee ODM report 6/5/92, surom. at 6\nODM report 12/9/93, at 11-12\nODM report I 12/21/94, at 12-13\nODM report, 5/10/96, at 11-12 (including fact that four of five schools had one race staff at early childhood level)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 162,185\nd) the provisions for selecting and retaining high quarity faculties\nsee ODM report, 5/10/92, at 6-8\nsee also id., at 9-10 (selection of inexperienced principals and turnover of principals 3 ao JUN- 3-96 MON 13:56 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 in incsntive schools)\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2 (Staffing)\nJoshua report, 6/27/93 at 216\ne) the provisions for integrating of themes in school programs\nsee ODM report, 12/9/93, at 47\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 4 6\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 35\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 164, 182\nI I f) the provisions for multicultural education\nsee ODM report, 6/25/92, s'jrun at 12\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 64\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 39-40, 41-47\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 1 (curriculum)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 214,222\n6/27/93 at 214, 226, 231, 235, 237, 240\noshua report. g) the provisions on the foreign language program\nreport, 6/5/92, summ at 18\nODM report, 12/9/93 at 50\nsee ODM (\"deplorable state\")\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 48\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 22-23\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 164,172,175,179,182,187\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 214, 229\nh) the provisions on science education\nsee ODM report. 6/5/92, summ. at 14 (equipment availability varies)\nODM, 12/9/93, at 46, 49\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 21-22, 34\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 168, 172, 187\nsumm. i) the provisions for field trips\nsee ODM report, 6/4/92, at 19\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 34 (number diminished)\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228\n4  1 JB JUN- 3-96 MON 13:56 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 05 j) the provisions for the extended day prograin\nsee ODM report, 12/21/94, at 56 (documentation)\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 27-28\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92,, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228\nk) the provisions for the Saturday program\nsee ODM report. 12/21/94, at 57-60\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 29-30, 34 (\"The extended week program has evolved to little more than a monthly field trip...)\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228\n1) the provisions of the extended year program\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, sumiti at 24-25\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 67-68\nODM, 12/21/94, at 61-62, 64-65 (\"The district treats the incentive schools summer program like a necessary evil rather than a wonderful opportunity.\")\nODM, 12/1/95, at 11-12\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 1-2 (General Concerns), 2-3 (Staffing)\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 214, 226\nm) the provisions for individual student profiles\nsee ODM report, 12/9/93, 68-89, 80-85\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 69-70\nODM, 5/17/95, 30-31\nsee also re SEPs, ODM report, 12/21/94, at 64\nODM, 12/1/95, at 4\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2 (SEPs)\nJoshua report. 6/5/92, at 162, 173, 176, 180, 183, 187-88\nJoshua report. 6/27/93, at 216, 224\nn) the provisions on student and parent involvement in 5JUN- 3-96 HON 13:57 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 developing discipline policies\nsee ODM report, 12/21/94, at 25- 29\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 17, 11\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 169, 173, 179\no) the provisions on parent centers\nsumm. see ODMrepcrt, 6/5/92, at 37\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 95\nODM, 12/21/94, at 74-77\nODM, 5/17/5, at 59-60\nJoshua report, 6/91, at 1 (Parent Involvement)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 170-71\np) the provision on parents' signing homework\nsee ODM report, r) 6/5/92, summ. at 35\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 82 the provisions on the use of social workers\nsee ODM report 12/21/94, at 72\nODM report 5/17/95, at 31-32\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 162, 171, 174, 177, 184\ns) The provisions on home visits\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 34\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 102\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 80-81\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 60. 5) Representatives of the LRSD have been informed of these shortcomings, repeatedly, by Joshua intervenors, the ODM, and this court. Their continuing deficient perforrrtance demonstrates that they are either unwilling or unable to implement the features of the plan concerning the Incentive Schools in a satisfactory manner. See, for example, citations to Joshua and ODM reports set forth above and the statement of the court dated March 19, 1993. 6) In approving the settlement, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote as follows regarding the Incentive 6 9ERJUN- 3-96 MON 13:57 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576  P. 07 Schools and the authority and the responsibility of this court: It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to  and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools and it will be the job -of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties [Little do not live up to their commitments. 7) Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District, 921 f.2d 1371, 1386 (1990)\nsee also id., 921 F.2d at 1394, para. 8.]. In view of the relevant circumstances, this court has the responsibility and the authority to enter an order providing for the designation of a well-qualified educator, independent of the LRSD/ to direct the Incentive School program. This court also had the responsibility and the authority to enter the additional related relief requested in this motion. 6) Excerpts from the ODM Report regarding the Incentive Schools, dated May 17, 1995, provide clear evidence of the need for the relief sought in this motion by the Joshua. Intervenors. This year, we found none of the programs that we monitored being fully implemented at all five schools. Beginning with the first ODM Incentive Schools report in 1991-92, we have pointed to the glaring inconsistencies among the schools. As the number of Incentive schools has dwindled from seven to five, the inconsistencies have grown rather than diminished. With four of the five principals being newly assigned this year, and two of them being brand- new principals, it is no wonder that some programmatic offerings have been slighted as the new principals tried to deal with the challenges posed by incentive schools, while while adjusting to new jobs as well. In many areas, we were disheartened to see a retreat from the prior level of program implementation... [details re particular prograir.s omitted] [At 34] 7JUN- 3-96 MON 13:58 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 08 In many ways our fourth annual visit to the incentive schools was the discouraging review we have conducted. While we saw many positive and commendable aspects, we also saw problems and deficiencies that were entirely avoidable and correctable. The LRSD has had a sufficient amount of time to successfully implement the promised programs. These schools were designed co serve as models of instructional excellence, but that level of quality has not been realized throughout, Instead, too many aspects of these schools serve as an object lesson that promises made, but not kept. are meaningless. Successfully implementing the incentive School programs is not an impossible task by any means. With solid leadership, competent staff, consistent support, and the will and determination to 'be the best,' all these schools can be the high-quality centers of learning they i^re pledged to be? [At 36\nemphasis added] 9) The Incentive School portion of the court-approved settlement can not be deemed a failure\nits implementation in a meaningful manner has never been attempted. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court enter orders providing relief regarding the Incentive Schools portion of the court-approved settlement consistent with the following principles\na) there shall be a director of the Incentive Schools program, independent of the LRSD, who has final authority for (i) the adoption of any subsidiary policies necessary to implement the remedy, and (ii) the oversight, including the direction, of all district employees and agents engaged in the implementation of the incentive school remedies\nb) the director shall be selected by ODM in consultation with the Joshua Intervenors\nc) the director shall be paid by the LRSD at a rate 85 JUN- 3-96 NON 13:58 SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576  P. 09 suggested by ODM, subject to the approval of the court\nd) the LRSD shall provide the director an office and necessary support as designated by the director\ne) all officials, employees, and agents of the LRSD shall cooperate with the director in the fulfillment of his/her responsibilities\nf) the director shall have the right to communicate with and call any problem to the attention of ODM, the Joshua Intervenors, and/or the court (with notice to the parties)\nwhile the director shall be encouraged to attempt to resolve any problem(s) with officials or employees of the LRSD before such communication, the taking of this step shall be in his/her discretion\ng) the director shall make periodic reports regarding I implementation of the Incentive Schools features of the settlement, and any barriers to strong implementation\nh) the court acting sua sponte, at the request of the director, or on the motion of a party, not including NLRSD or PCSSD, may address any problems raised, and may amend or supplement its special orders regarding the Incentive Schools, including by terminating the position of director when there are grounds to find that the position is no longer needed\nprovided that the court shall provide an opportunity for the parties to be heard prior to any such amendment or supplementation of its orders\nand 9BH JUN- 3-96 MON 13:59 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 10 i) the entry of such other and further relief as the needs of justice may require. Respectfully submitted, J '. 5 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway  Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3738 i By:__ Jb W. Walker - #64046 iiI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this 31st day of May, 1996. 7 1 10 :w2^*iZii2js2sfflSS2SaSMHH '1 JUN- 3-96 MON 13:59 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 11 ,T usdieo fb]y I 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUHT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS In! CL WESTERN DIVISION CE? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL, PLAIxN'TiFFS y. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFExNDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W, KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR motion for relief REGARDING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS This memorandum supports the accompanying motion of the Joshua Intervenors for relief concerning the Incentive Schools. The LRSD defendants have had a full opportunity to implement the court-approved provisions concerning the Incentive Schools in a reasonable competent and adequate manner\nthey have failed miserably, patient. The Court and the Joshua Intervenors have .been The time has come when other approaches must be tried. Joshua's motion, including its record references established, inter alia, the following: i) are The incentive school provisions of the settlement a critically important element of the court-ordered agreement. ii) The LRSD defendants have for a lengthy period implemented the incentive school features of the settlement in a grossly inadequate manner, despite repeated notice of the shortcomings in their performances, and many recommendations for curative actions. iii) Ths LRSD defendants are in default with regard to their obligations to implement the incentive school remedies in a proper manner\nand there is no reasonable prospect of the.ir curing that default absent extra-JUN- 3-96 MON 14:00 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 12 ordinary intervention by the court. The authorities set forth in this memorandum establish that the court has the responsibility to approve steps reasonable likely to sure LRSD defendants' default\nand that the Joshua Intervenors seek, in their motion, appropriate relief. The time to implement these important remedies in a meaningful manner has arrived. The relief sought is supported by the following precedents. a) See Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special gchool District. 921 F,2d 1371, 1386 (8th Cir. 1990) (\"It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to- - and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schoolsand it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties o not live up to their commitments.\")\nid., at 1394 (\"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,\") b) See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 15, 16 (1971) (: \"if school authorities fail in their affirmative obligations under these holdings, judicial authority may be invoked. Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a districtJUN- 3-96 NON 14:00 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 13 court's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies In default by the school authorities of their obligation to proffer acceptable, remedies, a district court had broad power to fashion ! a remedy that will assure a unitary school 71 system. c) See Local 28, .ee 473 U.S. 421 (1986) (after finding that the union and the joint apprenticeship committee had engaged in a widespread pattern of racial discrimination in employment which a number of prior court decrees had failed to abate, the district court entered remedial orders, including appointment of an If administrator\"\nsee 401 F. Supp,. 467, 489-92 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)\nthe Supreme Court upheld this remedy \"in light of the difficult inherent in monitoring compliance with the court's orders, established record of resistance to especially petitioners' prior state and federal orders...\nit characterized the administrator as having \"broad powers to oversee petitioners' membership practices,\" which \"may substantially Interfere with petitioners' membership as a 11 necessary [step] to put an end to s I 1 i petitioners' discriminatory ways\", see 478 U.S. at 481-82\nan operations.. ., \" earlier Court of Appeals opinion noted that the administrator \"will serve as the superior of the [Joint Apprenticeship Committee] representatives\" I) i on the committee concerning apprenticeship\nsee 532 F.2d at 830), d) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Local 542, 619 F. Supp., 1273, 127Z-80 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (where union has failed after five IJUN- 3-96 NON 14:01 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 14 I purpose of [the] Order'\nthe membership was to be court-approved, after comment by the United States\nspecific functions to be fulfilled by the FHC included: developing advertising and I I I I I i educational programs, drafting a fair housing resolution, developing an outreach program, establishing within the city government a Housing Information and Referral Service, developing a program designed to foster an interest among housing developers in bringing low-income housing to Parma, and conducting a survey of vacant land suitable for low-income housing development. f) Turner v Goolsby. 225 F. Supp 724 (S.D. Ga. 196S) (3- I I judge court) (after a small majority black school system agreed to implement a desegregation plan, its officials assisted its white pupils to attend schools in neighboring districts, including by providing of bus transportation and then closed the one formerly white school as unneeded\nthis left the 87 black pupils who has chosen to attend the school without a desegregated i I I 355 S 3* option\nthe court placed the system in receivership, designated the Georgia State Superintendent of Schools as receiver \"operate the schools...,\" and charged him with the obligation \"to submit a plan..., whereunder the illegal expenditure of funds will be discontinued and the right of the 87 applicants for transfer will be accorded\" (at 730)\nthereafter, the receiver arranged for the interested black pupils to attend the schools of the adjoining counties\nand investigated why some black pupils were not accorded their first choices of schools, whether black pupils were subject to in-school segregation, and the need for remedial instruction\nthe receiver was discharged when the initial system IJUN- 3-96 MON 14:01 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 15 years to operate hiring hall in a racially nondiscriminatory manner, and is in contempt of orders re \"work levels for minorities\" court appoints \"Hiring Hall Monitor,\" pursuant to Rule 53, Fed. R. Civ. Procedure, , \"directly responsible to the court, who will be given the full authority to operate and oversee all features of the hiring hall\"\nthe monitor may \"appoint hiring hall leaders to run the day-to-day operations in the hiring halls d *  *\" in which the monitor will not be located\nwhere union is in contempt of orders that it \"present to the court for approval\" valid, job-related criteria for admission to the union for each method of entry through which membership can be attained...,\" court appoints an expert to do this work, with his fee to be paid by the union). e) United States v city of arma .OhiO/ 504 F. Supp. 913, 921-22 (N.D. Ohio 1980), affirmed, 661 F.2d. 562,577 (6th Cir. 1981) (after concluding that Parma officials had followed racially exclusionary policies and practices and had a reputation and image of being the Cleveland suburb most hostile to blacks, the district court entered a comprehensive order including in psrt the establishment of a \"Fair Housing Committee:\" \"within [the] city government\"\nthi.s fhc was to 11 to operate as the primary governmental agency in Parma responsible for developing remedial plan... [and} to ensure that, the provisions of [the} order [were] fully complied with...\", \"[membership on the FHC] shall consist of Parma citizens who are collectively knowledgeable in the fields of fair housing programs and other citizens who are sincerely interested in working to promote the aJUN- 3-96 HON 14:02 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 16 agreed to operate in a desegregated manner in 1966-67). s' 9) M,Ogg,an V McDonough, 540 F. 2d 527 (1st Cir. 1976), denied, 429 U.S, cert. 1042 (1977) (one Boston high school placed in receivership during the course of Boston school desegregation case as a result of extreme breakdown in implementation of desegregation plan there, lack of leadership by the principal, hostility by school's staff, and overall pattern of resistance by school board\ninitial receiver was area superintendent of Boston system in which th^j school w\u0026amp;s loc3ts\u0026lt;i/ thGircaftGir, th distirict^s supfiX'intsnd.siit wss the x'ccsivGx*\nthe receiver's duties included the replacement of the school's administrative staff and a review of \"all faculty and educational personnel\" to select a staff \"fit for the purposes of desegregation\"\nthe receiver reported directly to the district court). h) Perez y. Boston Housing Authority. 400 N.E. 2d. 1231 I I I J I I (Mass. 1980) (case involving unsanitary and otherwise unsatisfactory conditions in public housing\ncourt placed the Boston housing Authority in receivership\nthe orders appointing the receiver stated that he/she \"shall have the authority, to administer, manage, and operate the BHA\nhe/she shall have the powers of the Board of the BHA (including control of funds and revenues) and any additional powers that any be necessary or appropriate\nupon his/her appointment, the Board's powers shall be superseded\" [at 1245].). i! JS i) The Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit has twice cited wirh approval the opinion in Morgan v McDonough. S supra in jsubJissBm1 juN- 36 NON 14:02  SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576  P. 17 which the creation of a receivership to operate a high school wa approved. See Uttle , Rpck_scho.ol District v Pulaski\nounty 5 .Sp,eciai-^s^hooi pi^rlct, sii t.2d 1295, 1319 (3th cir. 1983) cited in support of authority of district court to create 1 a citizen monitoring committee)\nOmaha. Indemnity Co^y_.Wining, 949 F.2d 235, 239 (Sth Cir. 1991) (cited in upholding district court's creation of a receivership in a business case). CONCLUS.XON As the foregoing case summaries show, the court has more than ample authority to enter the relief sought by the Joshua Intervenors, Moreover, any suggestion by the Little Rock School District that these principles do not apply because of th settlement must be rejected. As our citations to ths opinion j Si approving ths settlement demonstrate, the Court of Appeals st expressly that this court retained authority with the settLex^nt. - to insure compliance Respectfully submitted, John W.-Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 501-374-3758 -^1 By: 72206 ^^^/^ohn W. Walker #6404$ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a  via t.s, mail to all counsel of record 1996. Copy of the foregoing was sent on this 31st day of'May, 1: i . /' \u0026gt; . i  J 1 FILED east'^eb^n aaassAs 0, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTy - EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WflI J-ifi ]996 Ottice WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. By\n, PLAINTIFFS utF cllh: V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET TkL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS FOR RELIEF CONCERNING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of orders regarding the Incentive Schools, which among other things provide for the designation of a well-qualified educator. independent of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), to direct the effort of employees of the LRSD to comply with the provisions of the settlement concerning the incentive schools. The orders sought by Joshua are described in full at the end of this motion. This motion is based upon the accompanying memorandum\nthe allegations set forth in the motion\nmonitoring reports prepared and disseminated by the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)\nstatement by this court evidencing the LRSD's inadequate implementation of the relevant portions of the plan\nand other aspects of the record of this 1 case. Joshua makes the following allegations: 1) LRSD voluntarily agreed in the court-approved settlement in this case to provide well-funded, exemplary educational programs at seven schools located in the black community in the LRSD, to be know as the \"incentive schools. 111 This element of the agreement, bottomed upon the commitment to \"double funding: of these schools, had (and has) multiple purposes: first, to attract white students to these schools voluntarily\nsecond, to promote academic excellence and to help compensate the victims of segregation\nand third, to promote equity and equality by increasing the number of instances in which desegregation occurs by white students attending schools in the African 7\\merican community. See LRSD Plan, April 29, 1992, at 149. 2) As shown in detail in paragraph (4) of this motion, officials and employees of the LRSD have continued to implement a large number of the features of their own plan regarding the incentive schools in a grossly inadequate manner. Indeed, there is evidence that the quality of implementation declined in more recent times. See ODM, 5/17/95, at 33-36, 45-48. 3) The incentive schools are (and have been) racially segregated (e.g., ODM, 5/17/95, at 4-5), an entirely predictable result given the overall deficient implementation of the plan and There are now five incentive schools, following the closing of the Ish and Stephens schools. 1 2the nature of the deficiencies (e.g., deficient staff and staff desegregation\ndeficient upkeep of facilities\ndeficient recruitment\ndeficient activation of programs\ndeficient activation of themes and approach to multicultural education\ndeficient parental involvement). 4) The elements of the plan which the LRSD defendants have implemented in a grossly inadequate manner include, but are not limited to, the following: a) the provisions on upkeep of facilities\nsee ODM report. 6/5/92, summ. at 40-43\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 35-38\nODM report 12/21/94, at 35-36\nODM report 5/17/95, at 13-17\nJoshua Report, 6/5/92 at 174, 177-78\nb) the provisions on steps to recruit desegregated student bodies\nsee ODM report 3/11/94, at 11\nODM report 12/21/94 at 91- 92\nODM report 5/17/95, at 67-68\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 1 (Recruitment)\nJoshua report 6/5/92 at 166, 171, 174, 177, 181, 183, 188\nJoshua report 6/27/93 at 233, 236, 242\nc) the provisions for staff desegregation\nsee ODM report 6/5/92, summ. at 6\nODM report 12/9/93, at 11-12\nODM report 12/21/94, at 12-13\nODM report, 5/10/96, at 11-12 (including fact that four of five schools had one race staff at early childhood level)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 162,185\nd) the provisions for selecting and retaining high quality faculties\nsee ODM report, 5/10/92, at 6-8\nsee also ^., at 9-10 (selection of inexperienced principals and turnover of principals 3in incentive schools)\nJoshua report/ 6/91 at 2 (Staffing)\nJoshua report, 6/27/93 at 216\ne) the provisions for integrating of themes in school programs\nsee ODM report, 12/9/93, at 47\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 46\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 35\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 164, 182\nf) the provisions for multicultural education\nsee ODM report, 6/25/92, summ at 12\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 64\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 39-40, 41-47\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 1 (curriculum)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 214,222\nJoshua report. 6/27/93 at 214, 226, 231, 235, 237, 240\ng) the provisions on the foreign language program\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ at 18\nODM report, 12/9/93 at 50\n(\"deplorable state\")\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 48\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 22-23\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 164,172,175,179,182,187\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 214, 229\nh) the provisions on science education\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 14 (equipment availability varies)\nODM, 12/9/93, at 46, 49\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 21-22, 34\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 168, 172, 187\nsumm. i) the provisions for field trips\nsee ODM report, 6/4/92, at 19\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 34 (number diminished)\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228\n4j) the provisions for the extended day program\nsee ODM report, 12/21/94, at 56 (documentation)\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 27-28\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228\nk) the provisions for the Saturday program\nsee ODM report, 12/21/94, at 57-60\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 29-30, 34 (\"The extended week program has evolved to little more than a monthly field trip...\")\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228\n1) the provisions of the extended year program\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ at 24-25\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 67-68\nODM, 12/21/94, at 61-62, 64-65 (\"The district treats the incentive schools summer program like a necessary evil rather than a wonderful opportunity.\")\nODM, 12/1/95, at 11-12\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 1-2 (General Concerns), 2-3 (Staffing)\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 214, 226\nm) the provisions for individual student profiles\nsee ODM report, 12/9/93, 68-89, 80-85\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 69-70\nODM, 5/17/95, 30-31\nsee also re SEPs, ODM report, 12/21/94, at 64\nODM, 12/1/95, at 4\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2 (SEPs)\nJoshua report. 6/5/92, at 162, 173, 176, 180, 183, 187-88\nJoshua report. 6/27/93, at 216, 224\nn) the provisions on student and parent involvement in 5developing discipline policies\nsee ODM report, 12/21/94, at 25- 29\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 17, 11\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 169, 173, 179\no) the provisions on parent centers\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 37\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 95\nODM, 12/21/94, at 74-77\nODM, 5/17/5, at 59-60\nJoshua report, 6/91, at 1 (Parent Involvement)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 170-71\np) the provision on parents' signing homework\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 35\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 82 r) the provisions on the use of social workers\nsee ODM report 12/21/94, at 72\nODM report 5/17/95, at 31-32\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 162, 171, 174, 177, 184\ns) The provisions on home visits\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 34\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 102\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 80-81\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 60. 5) Representatives of the LRSD have been informed of these shortcomings, repeatedly, by Joshua Intervenors, the ODM, and this court. Their continuing deficient performance demonstrates that they are either unwilling or unable to implement the features of the plan concerning the Incentive Schools in a satisfactory manner. See, for example, citations to Joshua and ODM reports set forth above and the statement of the court dated March 19, 1993. 6) In approving the settlement, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote as follows regarding the Incentive 6Schools and the authority and the responsibility of this court: 7) It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to  and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools and it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. [Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (1990)\nsee also id., 921 F.2d at 1394, para. 8.]. In view of the relevant circumstances, this court has the responsibility and the authority to enter an order providing for the designation of a well-qualified educator, independent of the LRSD, to direct the Incentive School program. This court also had the responsibility and the authority to enter the additional related relief requested in this motion. 8) Excerpts from the ODM Report regarding the Incentive Schools, dated May 17, 1995, provide clear evidence of the need for the relief sought in this motion by the Joshua Intervenors. This year, we found none of the programs that we monitored being fully implemented at all five schools. Beginning with the first ODM Incentive Schools report in 1991-92, we have pointed to the glaring inconsistencies among the schools. As the number of Incentive schools has dwindled from seven to five, the inconsistencies have grown rather than diminished. With four of the five principals being newly assigned this year, and two of them being brand- new principals, it is no wonder that some programmatic offerings have been slighted as the new principals tried to deal with the challenges posed by incentive schools, while adjusting to new jobs as well. In many areas, we were disheartened to see a retreat from the prior level of program implementation... [details re particular programs omitted] [At 34] 7In many ways our fourth annual visit to the incentive schools was the discouraging review we have conducted. While we saw many positive and commendable aspects, we also saw problems and deficiencies that were entirely avoidable The LRSD has had a sufficient amount of and correctable. time to successfully implement the promised programs. These schools were designed to serve as models of instructional excellence, but that level of quality has not been realized throughout. serve as an Instead, too many aspects of these schools are meaningless. object lesson that promises made, but not kept. Successfully implementing the incentive School programs is not an impossible task by any means. With solid leadership, competent staff, consistent support, and the will and determination to 'be the best,' all these schools can be the high-quality centers of learning they were pledged to be. [At 36\nemphasis added] 9) The Incentive School portion of the court-approved settlement can not be deemed a failure\nits implementation in a meaningful manner has never been attempted. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court enter orders providing relief regarding the Incentive Schools portion of the court-approved settlement consistent with the following principles: a) there shall be a director of the Incentive Schools program, independent of the LRSD, who has final authority for (i) the adoption of any subsidiary policies necessary to implement the remedy, and (ii) the oversight, including the direction, of all district employees and agents engaged in the implementation of the incentive school remedies\nb) the director shall be selected by ODM in consultation with the Joshua Intervenors\nc) the director shall be paid by the LRSD at a rate 8.Wb\n- .! suggested by ODM, subject to the approval of the court\nd) the LRSD shall provide the director an office and necessary support as designated by the director\ne) all officials, employees, and agents of the LRSD shall cooperate with the director in the fulfillment of his/her responsibilities\nf) the director shall have the right to communicate with and call any problem to the attention of ODM, the Joshua Intervenors, and/or the court (with notice to the parties)\nwhile the director shall be encouraged to attempt to resolve any problem(s) with officials or employees of the LRSD before such communication, the taking of this step shall be in his/her discretion\ng) the director shall make periodic reports regarding implementation of the Incentive Schools features of the settlement, and any barriers to strong implementation\nh) the court acting sua sponte, at the request of the director, or on the motion of a party, not including NLRSD or PCSSD, may address any problems raised, and may amend or supplement its special orders regarding the Incentive Schools, including by terminating the position of director when there are grounds to find that the position is no longer needed\nprovided that the court shall provide an opportunity for the parties to be heard prior to any such amendment or supplementation of its orders\nand 9i) the entry of such other and further relief as the needs of justice may require. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 501-374-3758 72206 By:_ Jd I. W. Walker - #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this 31st day of May, 1996. 10  ' -RECBVESS UUN 5 1996 uspLED Office of Desegregation Monitoring ^4? J JLiQQ/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SAMSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS'S W WESTERN DIVISION ''''^COR.VACK, CLERK 8w. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS^s- V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL, DEFENDANTS MRS, LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR RELIEF REGARDING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS This memorandum supports the accompanying motion of the Joshua Intervenors for relief concerning the Incentive Schools, The LRSD defendants have had a full opportunity to implement the court-approved provisions concerning the Incentive Schools in a reasonable competent and adequate manner\nthey have failed miserably. patient. The Court and the Joshua Intervenors have been The time has come when other approaches must be tried. Joshua's motion, including its record references established, inter alia, the following: i) are The incentive school provisions of the settlement a critically important element of the court-ordered agreement. ii) The LRSD defendants have for a lengthy period implemented the incentive school features of the settlement in a grossly inadequate manner, despite repeated notice of the shortcomings in their performances, many recommendations for curative actions. and iii) The LRSD defendants are in default with regard to their obligations to implement the incentive school remedies in a proper manner\nand there is no reasonable prospect of their curing that default absent extra-ordinary intervention by the court. The authorities set forth in this memorandum establish that the court has the responsibility to approve steps reasonable likely to sure LRSD defendants' default\nand that the Joshua Intervenors seek, in their motion, appropriate relief. The time to implement these important remedies in a meaningful manner has arrived. The relief sought is supported by the following precedents. a) See Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (Sth Cir. 1990) (\"It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to- - and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schoolsand it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties o not live up to their commitments.\")\nid., at 1394 (\"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.\") b) See Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. 402 U.S. 1, 15, 16 (1971) (: \"if school authorities fail in their affirmative obligations under these holdings, judicial authority may be invoked. Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a districtcourt's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies ....[]....In default by the school authorities of their obligation to proffer acceptable remedies, a district court had broad power to fashion a remedy that will assure system....\"). a unitary school c) See Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v E.E.O.C.. 478 U.S. 421 (1986) (after finding that the union and the joint apprenticeship committee had engaged in a widespread pattern of racial discrimination in employment which a number of prior court decrees had failed to abate, the district court entered remedial orders, including appointment of an \"administrator\"\nsee 401 F. Supp.. 467, 489-92 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)\nthe Supreme Court upheld this remedy \"in light of the difficult inherent in monitoring compliance with the court's orders, especially petitioners' established record of resistance to prior state and federal orders...\"\nit characterized the administrator as having \"broad powers to oversee petitioners' membership practices, substantially interfere with petitioners' membership operations...,\" which \"may II as a II necessary [step] to put an end to petitioners' discriminatory ways\". see 478 U.S. at 481-82\nan eai^lier Court of Appeals opinion noted that the administrator \"will serve as the superior of the [Joint Apprenticeship Committee] representatives\" on the committee concerning apprenticeship\nsee 532 F.2d at 830). d) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Local 542. 619 F. Supp. 1273, 1277-80 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (where union has failed after fivepurpose of [the] Order'\nthe membership was to be court-approved, after comment by the United States\nspecific functions to be fulfilled by the FHC included: developing advertising and educational programs, drafting a fair housing resolution, developing an outreach program, establishing within the city government a Housing Information and Referral Service, developing a program designed to foster an interest among housing developers in bringing low-income housing to Parma, and conducting a survey of vacant land suitable for lowincome housing development. f) Turner v Goolsby. 225 F. Supp 724 (S.D. Ga. 1966) (3- judge court) (after a small majority black school system agreed to implement a desegregation plan, its officials assisted its white pupils to attend schools in neighboring districts, including by providing of bus transportation and then closed the one formerly white school as unneeded\nthis left the 87 black pupils who has chosen to attend the school without a desegregated option\nthe court placed the system in receivership, designated the Georgia State Superintendent of Schools as receiver \"operate the schools...,\" and charged him with the obligation \"to submit a plan..., whereunder the illegal expenditure of funds will be discontinued and the right of the 87 applicants for transfer will be accorded\" (at 730)\nthereafter, the receiver arranged for the black pupils to attend the schools of the adjoining counties\nand investigated why some black pupils were not accorded their first choices of schools, whether black pupils were subject to in-school segregation, and the need for remedial instruction\nthe receiver was discharged when the initial systemyears to operate hiring hall in a racially nondiscriminatory manner, and is in contempt of orders re tl work levels for minorities\" court appoints \"Hiring Hall Monitor,\" pursuant to Rule 53, Fed. R. Civ. Procedure, fl directly responsible to the court, who will be given the full authority to operate and oversee all features of the hiring hall\"\nthe monitor may II appoint hiring hall leaders to run the daytoday operations in the hiring halls...,\" in which the monitor will not be located\nwhere union is in contempt of orders that it \"present to the court for approval\" valid, job-related criteria for admission to the union for each method of entry through which mAmh^T-ghip can be attained...,\" court appoints an expert to do this work, with his fee to be paid by the union). e) United States v City of Parma, Ohio. 504 F. Supp. 913, 921-22 (N.D. Ohio 1980), affirmed, 661 F.2d. 562,577 (6th Cir. 1981) (after concluding that Parma officials had followed racially exclusionary policies and practices and had a reputation and image of being the Cleveland suburb most hostile to blacks, the district court entered a comprehensive order including in part the establishment of a \"Fair Housing Committee:\" \"within [the] city government\"\nthis FHC was to II to operate as the primary governmental agency in Parma responsible for developing remedial plan...[and} to ensure that the provisions of [the} order [were] fully complied with...\", \"[membership on the FHC] shall consist of Parma citizens who are collectively knowledgeable in the fields of fair housing programs and other citizens who are sincerely interested in working to promote the aagreed to operate in a desegregated manner in 1966-67). g) Morgan v McDonough. 540 F. 2d 527 (1st Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1042 (1977) (one Boston high school placed in receivership during the course of Boston school desegregation case as a result of extreme breakdown in implementation of desegregation plan there, lack of leadership by the principal, hostility by school's staff, and overall pattern of resistance by school board\ninitial receiver was area superintendent of Boston system in which the school was located\nthereafter, the district's superintendent was designated the receiver\n' the receiver's duties included the replacement of the school's administrative staff and a review of It all faculty and educational personnel II to select a staff II fit for the purposes of desegregation\"\nthe receiver reported directly to the district court). h) Perez v Boston Housing Authority. 400 N.E. 2d. 1231 (Mass. 1980) (case involving unsanitary and otherwise unsatisfactory conditions in public housing\ncourt placed the Boston housing Authority in receivership\nthe orders appointing the receiver stated that he/she II shall have the authority to administer, manage, and operate the BHA\nhe/she shall have the powers of the Board of the BHA (including control of funds and revenues) and any additional powers that any be necessary or appropriate\nupon his/her appointment, the Board's powers shall be superseded\" [at 1245].). i) The Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit has twice cited with approval the opinion in Morgan v McDonough. supra inwhich the creation of a receivership to operate a high school was approved. See Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District. 839 F.2d 1296, 1319 (Sth Cir. 1988) cited in support of authority of district court to create a citizen monitoring committee)\nOmaha Indemnity Co. V Wining. 949 F.2d 235, 239 (Sth Cir. 1991) (cited in upholding district court's creation of a receivership in a business case). CONCLUSION As the foregoing case summaries show, the court has more than ample authority to enter the relief sought by the Joshua Intervenors. Moreover, any suggestion by the Little Rock School District that these principles do not apply because of the settlement must be rejected. As our citations to the opinion approving the settlement demonstrate, the Court of Appeals stated expressly that this court retained authority to insure compliance with the settlement. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 501-374-3758 By 72206 Walker #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1I adoo Hheerreebbyy cceerrttiiffyy tthhaatt a copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. mail to all counsel of record 1996. on this 31st day of May, 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 : RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL t UUN.2 4 1996 FSLSD u s DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS JUN 2 0 1996 JAMES W. McGQi By\nrmack, clerk V OEP cYerk PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICESQffice of Desegregation Monitoring A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Upon motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), the time within which the LRSD must respond to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for relief concerning the incen-tive schools is hereby extended to and including August 9, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of June 1996. UNI TED STA/TES DI STRI'CT^JUDGE ON rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BY 2 6 9' G.- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (ia22-iee4J WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL e. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 July 19, 1996 RECEIVED SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID O. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BOND DANIEL L. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL Jill 1 9 1996 Of COUNSCl WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. Office of Desegregation Monitoring WRITER'* DIRECT NO. (501) 370-3323 A Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the Little Rock School District's (1) Motion to Shorten Time to Respond to Discovery and (2) Motion for Extension of Time with regard to the abovecaptioned matter. Please file same and return a file marked copy of each to us. By copy of this letter we are serving all counsel of record. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. John Walker (w/encls.) Sam Jones (w/encls.) Steve Jones (w/encls.) Richard Roachell )(w/encls.) Ann Brown (w/encls.) Timothy G. Gauger (w/encls.)IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for Extension of Time states: 1. On July 2, 1996, LRSD was served with a Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). This motion overlaps substantially with the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools. 2. This Court has granted LRSD an extension of time until August 9, 1996, to respond to the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools. Because of the related nature of the two motions, LRSD request that it also be granted until August 9, 1996, to respond to the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that it be granted an extension of time until August 9, 1996, to respond to the Motion of the JoshuaIntervenors for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD Christopher ^f\u0026amp;ll^r Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been served on the following peo States mail on this i e ay depositing copy of same in the United ay of July, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr, Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 2Ms. Ann Brown 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 , istopher Heller, 3IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-'^6 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL AUG 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) LRSD for its Response states: 1. LRSD admits that it agreed to undertake many actions for the benefit of the class of African-American students represented by Joshua as part of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. LRSD further admits that the LRSD Desegregation Plan was intended to promote desegregation, to strengthen the educational opportunities of all students, and to complete the transition to a system of public education free from racial discrimination. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (1) of Joshua's motion to the extent they are inconsistent with the above. 2. LRSD admits that quoted language set forth in paragraph (2) of Joshua's motion is from the opinions of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case found at 921 F.2d 1371 and 949 F.2d 253. 3. With regard to paragraph (3) of Joshua's motion, LRSD admits that the Eighth Circuit required creation of an Office ofDesegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") and that ODM was created to monitor LRSD's compliance with the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. LRSD denies that this Court may rely on the findings of ODM to take remedial action. 4. LRSD admits that ODM has criticized LRSD's implementation of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and that ODM has included recommendations in its reports. LRSD denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph (4) of Joshua's motion. 5. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (5) of Joshua's motion. 6. LRSD admits this Court adopted the recommendations of ODM set forth in its June 5, 1992, Monitoring Report. LRSD denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph (6) of Joshua's motion. 7. LRSD denies that it should be ordered to implement any ODM recommendation and/or that LRSD bears the burden of making a particularized showing of impropriety as to specific a recommendation. LRSD further denies that it should be required to implement any of the recommendations referenced in subparagraphs (a) through (1) of paragraph (7) of Joshua's motion. 8. LRSD hereby incorporates by reference its Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools and LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). 9. LRSD affirmatively asserts that this Court has no 2jurisdiction to grant Joshua's Motion because the term of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan has expired. 10. LRSD affirmatively asserts that Joshua's Motion is untimely resulting in substantial prejudic^e to LRSD, and therefore, barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches and estoppel and by the applicable statute of limitations. 11. LRSD requests a hearing on Joshua's motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that Joshua's motion be denied\nthat LRSD be granted it costs and attorneys' fees expended herein\nand that it be granted all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD An Christopher Helper fj J Nn. Rinfi'i Bar No. 81083 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop]^ by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this _7^^ay of August, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; 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 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 :f^^stopher Heller (j C. 4FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1 922-1 984) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W.BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 August 9, 1996 Received SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BONO DANIEL L. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL Of COUNtCl WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. 4UG 9 1996  RlTEH'S OlAC T NO. (5011 370-3323 Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Office of Ossogregafion MonHowg Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the following pleadings which we would appreciate you filing of record and returning a file-marked copy of each pleading to us: (1) (2) LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)\nLRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools\nand (3) Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools and to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). By copy of this letter we are serving same on all counsel of record.Hon. James W. McCormack August 9, 1996 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ohn C. Fendley John Fendley, Jr. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker (w/encls.) Mr. Sam Jones (w/encls.) Mr. Steve Jones (w/encls.) Mr. Richard Roachell and Mr. Travis Creed (w/encls.) Ms. Ann Brown (w/encls.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encls.)IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL AUG 9 1996 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Monuonny INTERVENORS Office 01 00369'69^^\" LRSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUAS-MOTION* FOR RELIEF CONCERNING INCENTIVE SCHOOLS LRSD for its Response states: 1. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: The Little Rock School District will have seven (7) schools providing the incentive school program. Rockefeller may become an interdistrict school, but would continue to provide the incentive school program. The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. a LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 149. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (1) of Joshua's motion to the extent they are inconsistent with the express language of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. 2. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (2) of Joshua's motion. 3. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (3) of Joshua's motion. 4. LRSD denies that it has implemented any aspect of the LRSD Desegregation Plan in a grossly inadequate manner. LRSD will address each subparagraph of paragraph (4) of Joshua's motion below. 5. Upkeep of Facilities. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: The District will provide clean and safe facilities and make all schools, condition. repairs fundamental magnet schools. To this end. and to maintain area schools roofing repairs, incentive in good painting. plastering, recarpeting, and other needed repairs will be made. repair. Concrete walks and macadam drives will be in good LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 129. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 6. Recruit Deseqreqated Student Bodies. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. a LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 149. LRSD denies that this provision obligated LRSD to achieve specific racial balance at the incentive schools. LRSD admits that it was obligated to recruit both black and white students to attend incentive schools and affirmatively asserts that it has substantially complied with this obligation. Staff Desegregation. As ODM has recognized, \"The LRSD plan . . . makes only a philosophical commitment to 'equity' in 7. a 2staffing and reviewing staffing patterns. ODM Report dated H September 15, 1995, P. 9. Similarly, in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (\"Interdistrict Plan\"), LRSD committed itself to the \"principle\" that \"[sjtaffing and staff recruitment will reflect student needs for contact with minority teachers and a diversity in the racial makeup of support staffs consistent with applicable law. II Interdistrict Plan, p. 23. See also Interdistrict Plan, p. 25 (\"Goal II: To develop mutually supportive and equitable personnel and placement procedures. . . . The principals will be accountable to ensure equitable distribution of teachers by grade level and subject area.\")(emphasis supplied). In light of its commitment to this principle. LRSD agreed \"[t]o monitor distribution of staff across grade levels and support areas. tl Interdistrict Plan, p. 25. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 8. Selecting and Retaining a High Quality Faculty. As a part of opening the incentive schools. LRSD was obligated to \"establish a committee to assess staffing needs for Incentive Schools, to set criteria for staffing, to recruit quality staff members, and determine procedures for staffing.\" LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 190. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. Integration of Themes into School Programs. The LRSD Plan provides, \"School Themes will be developed at the local school level by parents and staff and are recommended to be integrated 9. into the total curriculum.\" LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 153. LRSD 3has substantially complied with this obligation. See ODM Report dated July 12, 1996, P- 25 (\"[W]e were gratified to see the coordination and vigor with which all five school worked to implement their themes.\"). 10. Multicultural Education. The LRSD Desegregation Plan requires that a \"multicultural approach\" be integrated into its curriculum and the total school environment. See LRSD Desegregation Plan, pp. 63-80. In February of this year, LRSD, Joshua and ODM agreed that LRSD had complied with the provisions of its desegregation plan relating to multicultural education and that LRSD should be released from Court supervision and monitoring related to those provisions. See Stipulation for Order filed February 9, 1996, p. 1-2 (Docket No. 2626) and Order dated March 27, 1996 (Docket No. 2648). Joshua alleges no facts which would support setting aside the Court's March 27, 1996, Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. 11. Foreign Language Program. LRSD admits that it has not fully implemented the provisions of its desegregation plan related to foreign language program. LRSD Desegregation Plan, pp. 153 and 156. A business case was submitted as a part of the LRSD FY 1995- 96 budget setting forth an evaluation of the foreign language program and concluding that the program should be discontinued. During the hearings on the FY 1995-96 budget. testimony was presented to support that business case. It was made known at the hearing that LRSD did not intend to fund the foreign language program in the future. Joshua has failed to raise a timely 4objection to LRSD discontinuation of the program, and accordingly, their motion should be denied based on the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches and estoppel. 12. Science Education. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: General Areas for Implementation - (subject to an annual assessment of the effectiveness thereof) *   10. Science Laboratories equipped with adequate equipment and materials and supplies, either mobile or permanent, will be available for students. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 153. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 13. Field Trips. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: Field Trips Field trips will be used to enhance learning, to broaden cultural experiences, to provide hands-on experiences for knowledge of the world, and to assist in the development of coping skills for students. Local field trips (see Support Programs) supplemented with a state or national trip. may be LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 158. See also LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 173. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 14. Extended Day Program. The LRSD Desegregation Plan requires extended day activities designed \"to provide enhanced n educational opportunities for all students. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 181. See also LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 173-74. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 15. Saturday Program. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: A. Additional Items It is recommended that each incentive school have:  * * Saturday programs will be developed to enhance learning. 5These programs will include but shall not be limited to: - field trips - enrichment activities - tutoring - parent/child \"make \u0026amp; take\" sessions - book fairs - physical education activities LRSD Desegregation Plan, P- 179 (emphasis supplied). This \"recommendation\" does not constitute an obligation on the part of LRSD. Even so, LRSD has implemented a Saturday program consistent with this recommendation. 16. Extended Year Program. LRSD denies that it has failed to substantially comply with its obligations related to the extended year program. See LRSD Desegregation Plan, pp. 172-73 and 180. Incentive school students are offered summer program for a remediation and enrichment free of charge. The program has been advertised and promoted at the incentive schools to encourage participation, and students who decided to participate have been instructed at their own academic levels rather than by means of a specifically identified grade designation. 17. Individual Student Profiles. A goal of the LRSD Desegregation Plan is \"[t]o more closely and thoroughly monitor Incentive Schools in order to develop a clearer picture of student achievement . . LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 186. Toward this H goal, LRSD is obligated to develop Student Education Plans (\"SEPs\") for incentive school students. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 186. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 18. Discipline Policies. With regard to discipline at the incentive schools, the LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: 6Attendance and Behavior Guidelines Attendance and behavior guidelines will provide unique opportunities to assist students and keep them in school. Time out areas staffed with trained personnel will help students with problem solving. Students will participate in the process of developing school-based management rules. Students and parents will sign a contractual agreement to be at school and on time each day. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 175. See also LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 182. LRSD has substantially complied with these provisions. The Interdistrict Plan contains similar requirements related to the goal of \"establish[ing] student discipline and attendance policies which address student needs as well as school climate concerns. II Interdistrict Plan, p. 27. LRSD has also substantially complied with these requirements. 19. Parent Centers. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: We are only beginning to understand which types, formats, frequencies and locations of parent involvement lead to specific student. parent. and teacher attitudes and behaviors. achievements, Principals can help teachers to successfully involve parents by coordinating, managing, supporting, funding, recognizing, and rewarding parent involvement, and by planning programs to strengthen that involvement. We expect the process of developing parental involvement activities to be on-going. suggested activities are listed below: Some * *  5. Establish a Parent Center in each school. * *  LRSD Desegregation Plan, P. 206 (emphasis supplied). This II suggestion\" does not constitute an obligation on the part of LRSD. Even so, LRSD has established a parent center at each school as suggested by the plan. 720. Signing Homework. As means to increase parent involvement, the LRSD Desegregation Plan provides that II [p]arents will sign homework. II LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 183. LRSD has a substantially complied with this obligation. 21. Use of Social Workers. There are no II provisions on the use of social workers II in the LRSD Desegregation Plan or the Interdistrict Plan. To be sure, LRSD has used social workers to meet certain obligations under the plans. If Joshua seeks to challenge LRSD's compliance with these obligations, it should raise them specifically. It is unclear from the citations in Joshua's Motion what obligations, if any, are at issue. 22 . Home Visits. As with parent centers, the LRSD Desegregation Plan merely suggests home visits as a means to develop parent involvement. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 206. This \"suggestion\" does not constitute an obligation on the part of LRSD. Even so, LRSD conducts home visits as circumstances permit. 23 . LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (5) of Joshua's Motion. 24. LRSD admits that the language quoted by Joshua in paragraph (6) of its Motion is from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion in this case found at 921 F.2d 1371. 25. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (7) of Joshua's Motion. 26. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (8) of Joshua's Motion. 27 . LRSD admits that the incentive school portion of the LRSD 8Desegregation Plan cannot be deemed a failure. LRSD denies that it has not implemented the incentive school portion of the plan in a meaningful manner. 28. LRSD hereby incorporates by reference its Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools and LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). 29. LRSD affirmatively asserts that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant Joshua's Motion because the term of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan has expired. 30. LRSD affirmatively asserts that Joshua's Motion IS untimely resulting in substantial prejudice to LRSD, and therefore, barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches and estoppel and by the applicable statute of limitations. 31. LRSD requests a hearing on Joshua's motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that Joshua's motion be denied\nthat LRSD be granted it costs and attorneys' fees expended herein\nand 9that it be granted all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD C. Christopher Heller/ Bar No. 81083 10CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 9^ day of August, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A, 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; 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 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 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-8^ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL AUG 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Deseflfegalion Monitoring INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LRSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR RELIEF CONCERNING INCENTIVE SCHOOLS AND TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) I. Jurisdiction. The LRSD Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (the \"Plans\") have expired by their own terms. See LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. Pursuant to the 1989 settlement agreement (\"Settlement Agreement\"), this Court's jurisdiction was limited to \"address[ing] issues regarding implementation of the Plans. If Since the term of the Plans has expired, this Court no longer has jurisdiction based on the Plans. See E.E.O.C. v. Local 40, 76 F.3d 76, 80 (2nd Cir. 1996) (\"A court does not have inherent power to enforce an order that has expired.\"). Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction to order the relief sought by Joshua. II. Burden on Joshua to Establish Noncompliance. Even assuming Joshua's motions were timely filed, Joshua bears the burden of establishing LRSD's noncompliance with the Plansregardless of how the motions are characterized. Joshua's motions could be construed one of three ways. First, the motions sound in the nature of motions for contempt. A party seeking a finding of contempt \"has the burden of proving a violation of the consent decree by clear and convincing evidence.\" Hazen v. Reagan, 16 F. 3d 921, 925 (Sth Cir. 1994). In addition, to support a finding of contempt, Joshua must establish that LRSD knowingly violated the Plans, see Mahers v. Hedgepeth, 32 F.3d 1273, 1275 (Sth Cir. 1994), and that LRSD is not acting with reasonable diligence to bring itself into compliance with the Plans. See Dunn v. New York Dept. of Labor, 47 F.3d 4S5, 490 (2nd Cir. 1995). The allegations set forth in Joshua's motions fail to establish the necessary elements for contempt. Second, the motions could be considered motions to modify the Plans. The Supreme Court has outlined the following process for modification of consent decrees: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. moving party meets this standard, the court If the should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Rufo V. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992) . In addition. \"[m]edification of a consent decree requires a complete hearing and findings of fact. tl Akers V. Ohio Dep't of Liguor Control. 902 F.2d 477, 479 (6 th Cir. 1990). Joshua's motions fail to allege facts sufficient to justify modification of the Plans. Finally, because \"consent decrees and orders have many of the 2attributes of ordinary contracts . . II Mahers, 32 F.3d at 1275- 76, Joshua's allegations of noncompliance could be construed as a claim for breach of contract. It is well established that a party alleging breach of contract bears the burden of proof. See Rabalaias v. Barnett, 284 Ark. 527, 683 S.W.2d 919 (1985)\nand Williams V. Fletcher. 267 Ark. 961, 644 S.W.2d 946 (Ark. App. 1980). Therefore, regardless of how Joshua's motions are construed, Joshua bears the burden of establishing LRSD's alleged noncompliance. To escape this burden, Joshua argues that ODM's monitoring reports establish \"a prima facie case\" of noncompliance. This argument is without merit. ODM's findings and recommendations are advisory in nature and not binding on LRSD or this Court. While Joshua is free to make ODM's reports a part of the record, due process requires that LRSD be given notice of the specific obligations that Joshua alleges LRSD has failed to comply. See Ferrell v. Pierce. 785 F.2d 1372, 1383 (7th Cir. 1986)(trial court abused its discretion in basing contempt finding on issues not raised in petition for contempt). Due process further requires that a full adversarial hearing be conducted before this Court makes findings of fact. See Akers, 902 F.2d at 479. Until LRSD has the opportunity to contest ODM's findings, this Court cannot enter further remedial order's based on those findings. Cf. Juan F. V. Weicker, 37 F.3d 874, 880 (2nd Cir. 1994)(court may accept monitor's findings of fact made after It lengthy evidentiary hearing\"). 3Joshua's argument should also be rejected because the assumption underlying its argument are false. Joshua's argument assumes that every ODM recommendation is based on a finding of noncompliance. This assumption is absolutely wrong. Many of ODM's recommendations are unrelated to any of LRSD's obligations under the Plans. For example, LRSD has recently implemented the phonics based \"Great Expectations\" instructional approach at two incentive schools. Although there is no requirement in the Plans related to Great Expectations, ODM in its most recent report recommended that LRSD tl [bjetter 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 curriculum. II ODM Monitoring Report dated July 12, 1996, p. 27-28. Similarly, ODM has recommended that LRSD II [t]earn 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. It ODM Monitoring Report dated July 12, 1996, p. 79. The merits of this recommendation aside, it has no relationship to any of LRSD's obligations' under 'plan obligations must be distinguished from plan goals. LRSD agreed to undertake certain limited obligations designed to achieve certain goals. every means to achieve a goal. LRSD did not agree to undertake any and Therefore, while ODM's recommendation may be a means to achieve a plan goal (strengthening parental involvement), it has no relationship to 4the Plans. To order LRSD to implement this recommendation (and many others like it) would impermissibly expand LRSD's obligations under the Plans. See Crumpton v. Bridgeport Educ. Ass'n, 993 F.2d 1023, 1028 (2nd Cir. 1993)(\"[A] court construing [a consent decree] is not entitled to expand or contract the agreement of the parties as set forth in the consent decree.\"). Thus, one cannot assume ODM's recommendations are based on a finding of noncompliance. As in any other case, Joshua bears the burden of proving in an adversarial hearing the allegations set forth in their motions. III. Least Intrusive Means to Ensure Compliance. Even assuming Joshua can establish LRSD's noncompliance, Joshua's motions should be denied. While this Court may order reasonable measures to ensure compliance with the Plans, considerations of comity and federalism require this Court to use the least intrusive means to bring about compliance. See U.S. V. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 167 (6th Cir. 1991) (\"[I]t was incumbent upon the district court in the action sub judice to impose the least intrusive remedies available in resolving the issues reviewed on appeal.\")\nMorgan v. McDonough, 540 F.2d 527, 533 (1st Cir. 1976) (\"To be sure, direct judicial intervention in the operation of a school system is not to be welcomed. and it should not be continued longer than necessary. But if in extraordinary circumstances it is the only reasonable alternative to noncompliance with the court's plan of desegregation, it may, with LRSD obligations under the Plans to achieve that goal. 5appropriate restraint, be ordered.\")(emphasis supplied). See also Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 439 (1984)(\"[T]he district court breached fundamental principles of federalism and exceeded its authority by enjoining Hendricks, Henderson and Ashley from performing certain responsibilities of employment which had been delegated to them by the state.\"). Moreover, upon a finding of noncompliance, LRSD should be given the opportunity to \"show that compliance with the full terms of the plan should not be required. If U.S. V. Michigan. 18 F.3d 348, 353 (6th Cir. 1994). Joshua's motions do not even allege facts sufficient for this Court to grant Joshua the relief it requests. As discussed above. the fact that ODM has made a recommendation provides no basis for ordering LRSD to implement the recommendation. Moreover, Joshua's allegations fall far short of establishing that receivership is the least intrusive means of ensuring LRSD's compliance with the Plans. See Glover V. Johnson, 855 F. 2d 277, 286 (6th Cir. 1988)(Appointment of administrator vacated where there was no evidence that II the defendants willfully disobeyed the court's order, violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and forfeited to the federal judiciary the defendants' constitutional authority to continue to administer all aspects of the Michigan correctional system.\"). The time has come for this Court's involvement with the operations of LRSD to end, not expand. See LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. In addressing Joshua's motions, this Court's inquiry is limited: 6[F]ederal-court decrees must directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself. Because of this inherent limitation upon federal judiciary authority, federal-court decrees exceed appropriate limits if they are aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate the Constitution or does not flow from such a violation .... Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II), 433 U.S. 267, 282 (1977). The Supreme Court in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991), stated that: From the very first federal supervision of local school systems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination. Brown considered the arising from the transition to a \"complexities education freed from racial discrimination system of public tl in holding that the implementation of desegregation was to proceed with all deliberate speed. Ct. , at 755-57 (emphasis added) . 349 U.S., at 299-301, 75 S. Green also spoke of the \"transition to a unitary nonracial system of public education. It 391 (emphasis added). U.S. , at 436, 88 S. Ct. , at 1693 Id., 498 U.S. at 247-48. After declaring that judicial supervision of local school systems was not intended to operate in perpetuity. the Court in Dowell recognized that: Local control over education of children allows citizens to participate in decisionmaking, and allows innovation so that school programs can fit local needs. omitted] . . [citations Dissolving a desegregation decree after the local authorities have operated in compliance with it for a reasonable period of time properly recognizes that II necessary concern for important values of local control of public school systems dictates that a federal court's regulatory control of such systems not extend beyond the time required to discrimination. remedy the effects of past See Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken III, 433 U.S., at 280-82, 97 S.Ct., at 2757-58.\" Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Education. 611 F.2d at 1245, (Kennedy, J., concurring). n. 5 Dowell. 498 U.S. at 248. In permitting district courts to return control to school districts in incremental stages, the Supreme Court in Freeman v. 7Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 489 (1992), stated: Partial relinquishment of judicial control, where justified by the facts of the case, can be an important and significant step in fulfilling the district court's duty to return the operations and control of the schools to local authorities. In Dowell, we emphasized that federal judicial supervision of local school systems was intended to be a \"temporary measure. II S.Ct. , at 636. -498 U.S. ___, 111 Although this temporary measure has lasted decades, the ultimate objective has not changed  to return school districts authorities. to the control of local Id., 503 U.S. at 489 (emphasis supplied). The court further noted, \"A court's discretion to order incremental withdrawal of its supervision in a school desegregation case must be exercised in a manner consistent with the purposes and objectives of its equitable power. II Id., 503 U.S. at 491. Therefore, this Court's consideration of Joshua's motions should by guided by its ultimate objective\" to return Little Rock's public schools to the control of local authorities. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. Joshua admits that the Plans were intended II to complete 'the transition to a system of public education freed of racial discrimination. III Joshua Motion Regarding ODM Recommendations, 5 1, quoting Brown v. Board of Education. 349 U.S. 294, 299 (1955). With the term of the Plans concluded, that transition is now complete. See LRSD Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. Accordingly, Joshua's motions should 8be denied, and this Court's jurisdiction over this case should be terminated. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD By: Christopher Bar No. 81083 H^l^ / 33 V 9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of August, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; 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 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 Cnr.istopher Heller j' H 10FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1822-1 9841 WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES w. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P. A . FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A, OSCAR E. OAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN OEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. OONALO H.'-BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH a. HURST, JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. OIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR.. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUAUS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL little ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376-20 1 1 FAX NO. 501 -376-2 1 47 August 9/ 1996 SCOTT J. UAMCA8TCR. P.A. M. CAYLC CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT 8. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LICHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. CUY ALTON WAOE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. OaVIO 0. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER OAVIO M. GRAF CARLA 0*. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR . ALLISON CRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BONO DANIEL L. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL Of COUNCEL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. due 9 ?996  HI TEA'S OIAECT tO. (5011 370-3323 Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 OWcs cf MonHcriiig Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the following pleadings which we would appreciate you filing of record and returning a file-marked copy of each pleading to us: (1) LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)\n(2) LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools\nand (3) Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools and to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). ^sscgregsiion By copy of this letter we are serving same on all counsel of record.Hon. James W. McCormack August 9, 1996 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, John y, Jr. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker (w/encls.) Mr. Sam Jones (w/encls.) Mr. Steve Jones (w/encls.) Mr. Richard Roachell and Mr. Travis Creed (w/encls.) Ms. Ann Brown (w/encls.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encls.)IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-TS6 RECEIWD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL AUG 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitcnng INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) LRSD for its Response states: 1. LRSD admits that it agreed to undertake many actions for the benefit of the class of African-American students represented by Joshua as part of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. LRSD further admits that the LRSD De\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_477","title":"Incentive Schools: Double funding","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Double funding"],"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/477"],"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\nHaney Before you start on that brief I understandings in respect to the ^4^ io f 9.^ would like incentive schools. my My understanding is that you have chose that there will be doublefunding for the incentive schools. Under the settlement agreement, is that four schools, six schools, or eight schools? That's my first question, mean by double funding? My second question is, what do we How much per pupil would that have been had that been in effect for the school year 1989? Heller The double funding provision applies to eight schools and the amount would be determined instruction... by the amounts spent for Haney ...There are two different statements in the briefs that reflect the average cost ...in the LRSD... thirty one hundred dollars and one was thirty six hundred dollars. assume that it IS three thousand dollars Let's just for easy multiplication and with eight schools there will be thirty eight hundred students under this figure you committed to. Heller There could be Haney Yes Heller At a maximum Haney Yes So that would mean that if that were the case in 1990 that these eight schools would receive an additional an additional sum of money. that double Now, what did you mean by double funding? the average cost of administrative Is and transportation costs or is it double the cost of other ... Heller Right. We are still Intervenors. discussing that with the Joshua At a minimum it is the instructional cost doubled without duplicating the administrative and transportation cost. Haney ...doubling instructional funds, using for that amount? What figures have you been Heller We have been using figures of approximately $2,000 per student. Haney $2,000 per student times 3,800 is 7 million 6 hundred thousand dollars a year. But yet in your budget that Little Rock School tentative budget they have two million dollars a year for the incentive schools. Now with 7 million its going to take approximately every dime that is available from the state. Inot objecting in the least about ... they get $2,000 per pupil additional if it really gives them an opportunity to really do something very significate ... but is the Little Rock Board of Education prepared to put $2,000 per pupil extra into those schools or are they going to be coming back and saying money. we would love to do but there just isn't the Heller During the settlement negotiations. Judge Haney, we recognized that we would be incurring an obligation of LRSD significantly in excess of the amount for which we were willing to settle with the state and we knew and we told the district court and all the parties from the beginning that it would require an increase in obligation. every millage rate in order to meet that And we have since increased the millage rate sufficiently to carry out the promise of the plans. Haney Who do you represent? Heller The Little Rock School District Haney And you're saying that you have enough money in your budget to reach that $2,000 per pupil extra for the eight incentive schools. Heller That's correct. Arnold If the budget only comes two million, how can that be enough? Heller Judge Arnold, I can't believe that a budget projection which included double funding which for our plan would do that. The budget projections before double funding for major enhancement schools could show something like that. Arnold Maybe that's the answer to that Haney That may be the answer Arnold ...the paper we have shows 2 million dollars. You're saying that you recognize that it can fulfill the legal obligations. Heller Yes sirArnold Two thousand dollar extra per pupil in the incentive schools Heller Yes sir. The only budget that I am aware on the record is a budget that was submitted by the LRSD to the Metropolitan Supervisor in furtherance of our requirement to cooperate with that planning process. And that was for the Tri-district plan. Haney And that shows that (inaudible)... Heller Right. That's the budget that was submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor for the Tri-district Plan. It showed that we could not afford the Tri-district Plan primarily because of the expenses associated with the construction of seven new magnet schools further down the line, to the desegregation of the incentive schools. With respect there is specific plan to market those attributes that are going to be in place as result of the increased funding and that marketing plan includes the use brochures. announcements, pursuant to i , billboards, this plan. public service two parent recruiters were hired There were celebrity announcements. going to be tours, a Speakers Bureau, and a general concentrated effort which is set out in our plan and timelines to market the incentive schools and the Washington School now. One of the reasons we didn't seek a stay for planning that was being done by the Metropolitan Supervisor's office is because a continuing planning process was contemplated by our plans. We were going to get the concerned patrons together with community leaders and the parents and develop themes for those schools. example. That process has continued at Washington School, for and as of June 18th the recruitment effort was resulted in the addition of 250 new white students to that school, so that... a a Haney I understand that even though you haven't completed that process by September of this year that these incentive schools if this court approves the settlement agreement would each receive $2,000... Heller That whatever the instructional amount is and my recollection is that... Haney ...yes, I understand that. Heller That's correct (32.16) There is also a plan to systematically assure that there is going to be space in those schools for any white students whomay choose to attend them. seats initially for each incoming class. By that plan reserves 50% of the And in each of these schools there is going to be an early childhood component. So for each pre-kindergarten and kindergarten class, seats will be reserved for white students. And as that class moves forward, a certain number of seats will continue to be reserved so that if no white students. for example in a worse case situation. have attended a school four years from now, there will be at least the district average of white students as a percentage of seats reserved in that school. So if a group can be convinced to choose an incentive school at that point there will be seats available. Of course, at the end of the six year period there should be seats available for white students by at least the average representation of white students in the elementary grades in each of the incentive schools. Results of the plan for recruiting Little Rock black students to interdistrict schools in Pulaski County and the plan particularly targets Little Rock black students who reside in incentive school zones or satellite zones for which they would otherwise be bused to schools in western Little Rock. And immediately available at the institution of the settlement plans there would be 200 seats at Harris Elementary which is in PCSSD and the Little Rock incentive school zone students would be targeted. Pulaski County is committed to provide an enhanced compensatory education at Harris. program and The theme as with all the incentive schools was left to be determined by the parties. Now the difference between our approach to interdistrict schools and the approach to magnet schools is we make an effort in the plans to specifically target the group who we want to move, whose moving encourages and ask them what programs would make them want to move to a school in the other district. And as Mr. Chachkin pointed out there is no reason to believe that the plans wouldn't be successful significant interdistrict movement to magnets. because we already have These schools would be special but in a way selected by the targeted people and Pulaski County has already posting 321 Little Rock black students on an M-to-M transfer basis without any specialized programs. can be successful. So there is no reason to believe that type of movingk /01Z92 16:33 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002-006 Process A nnTTnr.p FUNDING FOR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS: I. Commitment to double fund  Explanation of terms A. Double fund - a process by which incentive schools are funded in an amount that shall be two times the instructional costs per student in the area schools of the Little Rock School District for the previous school year. B. Instructional costs ~ these expenses are identified as instructional costs and are listed as follows: Regular Certificated Stipends Regular Non-Certificated Social Security Tax Public Employees Retirement Hospitalization Life Insurance Long Term Disability Dental Hospital Indemnity Short Term Disability Instructional Program Improvement Repairs-Equipment Pupil Transportation Travel Postage Printing \u0026amp; Binding-Internal Copier Lease Food Services Supplies Textbooks Library Equipment-Personal Property Dues and Fees\u0026gt;-01/92 16:53 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003-006 Double Funding Page 2 C. Enrollment Data - It is imperative that one consistent date be used from year to year so that a valid comparison can be made. The reason that October 1 of the previous year has been chosen is that this is the actual date used by the State Department of Education for certifying enrollment of all Arkansas school districts for accreditation purposes. D. Base Year 1989-90 shall be the base year for computation of cost per student in the area schools. E. Consumer Price Index - measure of change in consumer price, determined by monthly survey of U- S- Bureau of Labor Statistics, many pension and employment contracts are tied to changes in consumer prices. Application to double funding is to see that prior school year costs are increased in an amount equal to inflation- F. Spread Amount - the spread is a specific dollar amount that was established in 1989-90. This amount is the dollar figure that was required to achieve doubling of the amount per child in the area schools for that year. The amount will be a constant for all computation of double funding. The dollar amount is $1,887.46. II. Double Funding Process - 1990-91 School Year The criteria applied for determining that double funding is occurring in the incentive schools of the Little Rock School District shall be as follows\n(1) The comparison will be made to the area schools, of Little Rock School District that were operating in the 1989-90 school year on a per student expenditure basis (instructional expenditure). (2) For the 1990-91 school year, the amount of expenditure per child that is to be doubled is computed by taking the October 1, 1989 (10,752) enrollment of each area school of LRSD. The next step is to compute the actual expenditure for the 1989-90 school year in each area school. After computation of expenses (instruc- tional related) for each area school, these schools will have expenditures totaled and divided by total enrollment. expenditure. The process will yield a per pupil\n/01.'92 16:34 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 121004/006 Double Funding Page 3 The next step is to compute the inflationary adjustment to the prior year instructional related costs per child in the area schools by application of the Consumer Price Index. After this computation, the inflationary adjustment (dollar amount) will be added to the prior year area school expenditure. The total will then be added to the spread amount that was computed in the 1989-90 Base Year computation. The total will be the required expenditure per child that doubled. is to be The next step is to take this dollar amount and double it, then the doubled amount is multiplied by the October 1 child count of the preceding school year. (3) Example of process for 1990-91: October 1, 1989 enrollment - area schools - 10,752 Total expenditure 1989-90 school year area schools $20,293,917.95. $20,293,917.95 10,752 = $1,887.46 $1,887.46 X 6% = $113.25 Inflationary Adjustment Consumer Price Index - July 1, 1989 July 1, 1990 124.4 130.4 6% increase through this time period. $1,887.46 amount per child in area school - 1989-90 +$113.25 Inflationary Adjustment $2,000.71 Total amount required to be doubled. $2,000.71 X 2 = $4,001.42 The $4001.42 amount is then multiplied by the October 1, 1989 child count in the incentive school. October 1, 1989 - 1,461 studentsJ/01/92 16:33 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 003 '006 Double Funding Page 4 4 I $4,001.42 X 1,461 = $5,846,074.62 minimum amount that must be expended for double funding for 1990-91 school year. The actual expenditure in the incentive schools for the 1990-91 school year was $6,833,005.68 - please see attached pacXet for year ended June 30, 1991. 4. Example of process for 1991-92 October 1, 1990 enrollment - incentive schools 1,366 1989-90 Base Year Spread = $1,887.46 1990-91 expenditure per/pupil in the area schools - $2,249.24 Consumer Price Index adjustment from July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1991 equal 5.8% July 1, 1990 - 130.4 July 1, 1991 i 5.8% increase 136.2 The computation is as follows: $2,249.24 exp. per Child 90-91 in the area schools x5.8% C.P.I. adjustment factor $ 130.46 inflationary adjustment dollar amount $2,249.24 +S130.46 $2,379.70 Total $2,379.70 luA8.1--4.6. spread amount from 1989-90 Base Year $4,267.16 amount per pupil $4,267.16 ---Xl,366 (Oct. 1, 1990 child count) $5,328,940.56 minimum amount that must be expended for double funding. The actual budgeted expenditure in the incentive schools for the 1991-92 school year *$8,223,093.15. school is * Note this amount must be corrected to revision of budget or to actual year end expenditure 6-30-92 in the incentive schools.4 J/01/92 16:33 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @006/006 Double Funding Page 5 5. Example of process for 1992-93 October 1, 1991 enrollment - Incentive Schools 2,235 1989-90 Base Year spread = $1,887.46 1991-92 expenditure per pupil in the schools = $2,449.08 area Consumer Price Index adjustment from July 1, 1991 to July 1, 1992 equals 6% (this is estimate since July 1992 Consumer Price Index figures are not yet available). July 1, 1991 136.2 July 1, 1992 The computation is as follows: $2,449.08 exp. per child 1991-92 in the area schools $ x6% CPI adjusted factor 146.84 inflationary adjusted dollar amount $2,449.08 4-146.94 $2,596.02 Total $2,596.02 $1,887.46 spread amount from 1989-90 base year $4,483.48 Amount per pupil $4,483.48 1/ jc---2,235 (Oct. 1, 1991 child count) $10,020,577.80 minimum amount that must be expended for double funding-^.-01/92 16:32 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM  001. -006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324 - 2032 DAl E b-l'^iS-TO FROM 9 SENDERS 'IONE # SUBJECT Trsrjtr.i-cd 5y (tneJtiLde cc\\r. rOR DATA RROCDSSJSG CFRJCE USE ONLY .Dc:e S^iiiwr, i xsL ^/g//=o'x\u0026gt;zi'z\u0026gt;=\u0026gt;\u0026lt;s -f INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to double fund each incentive school. The commitment to this enhanced financial support was made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans. The explanation of incentive school double finding below is taken from the 1992 ODM Incentive School Monitoring Report with current year findings added. REQUIREMENTS Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences and activities. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 4) The Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the Court-approved desegregation plan as incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 1) BACKGROUND None of the desegregation plans nor the financial settlement agreement specifically define double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, counsel for LRSD explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per-pupil expenditure in the districts area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD attorney was firm in the districts commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the districts average per-pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding the incentive schools. Since that time, there has been a substantial rise in the districts basic per-pupil expenditure because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. In order to control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the \"base year\" of 1989-90. The base year average per-pupil expenditure was established by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1, 1989 total enrollment. This calculation yielded a base year per-pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each year thereafter, the district multiplies the actual previous years per-pupil expenditure by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per-pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students according to the previous years October 1 enrollment data (not including the children enrolled in classes for infants through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. This section of the monitoring report was finalized after the LRSD finalized its 1993-1994 budget, so we used the actual budgeted area school per-pupil expenditure instead of a projected expenditure in determining the districts 1993-94 double funding obligation. FINDINGS LRSD double funds the incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October 1 data used by the LRSD in calculating double funding, there were 298 fewer students in the incentive schools during the 1992-93 school year than the previous year. Despite the reduced enrollment, the actual total 1992-93 expenditures for all the incentive schools increased from 1991-92 expenditures by $176,517.94. This increase can be attributed to several factors: maintaining essentially the same number of classes in each school despite lower enrollment, a student-teacher ratio that was lower than that which is required, additional staff placed in support of the desegregation plan, and the normal inflationary or incremental costs of school operation. The most significant factor affecting incentive school costs during 1992-93 was the loss of students that left the schools underenrolled, with many classes falling far below the maximum allowable class size. This underenrollment resulted in increased costs for educating each child in the incentive schools for this reason: Every school has fixed costs that represent a sizable overhead, but at the incentive schools, desegregation plan staffing and program requirements impose an exceptionally high overhead burden that is not directly proportional to enrollment. If an incentive school operates at 75% of capacity, for example, the cost to the district is essentially the same as operating that school at 100% of capacity. This means that, by diligently recruiting eligible children to each incentive school up to the maximum permissable class size, there basically would be no increased cost to the system to have a fully populated school rather than one only three-quarters enrolled. Yet the LRSD has consistently failed to aggressively recruit to the incentive schools those children who are eligible for M-to-M or intradistrict transfers. Moreover, the district has also failed to made the hard decisions about whether to release or otherwise handle seats reserved for white children that remain empty after school is well underway each fall. As a result, hundreds of children are missing the special advantages that await them at the incentive schools at essentially no additional cost to the district.__Ajkansas Democrat ^C^azettc LRSD poured $2 million Schoois extra into incentive schools P,^CEMBER 22, 1994 e monitors noted that in  Continued from Page 1A BY CYNTHIA HOWELL emocrat-Gazatta Education Wntar during which enrollment i regular schools. attendance-zone ' In 1993-94. the district spent proved at the schools by 320 S5,918.55 per incentive-school The office of Desegregati child, 29 percent more than the The Little Rock School Dis- Office trict. in a time of budget prob- Monitoring submitted its th double-funding obligation. The annual report and recommi schools total cost was S8.6 mil- dations on the incentive scho fion. lems. spent S2 million more in 1993-94 than it was obligated to to U.S. District Judge Suj on its six double-funded incen- U,,,\\nn Brown, the federal de- tive schools at least partly be- 'Webber Wright, who is pres segregation monitor, said cause enrollment fell at each ing in the districts 12-year- Wednesday that while the six inschool, desegregation lawsuit, centive schools offer many good The incentive schools : programs, the report focuses on monitor, \"reui jary the district published its first districtwide recruitment plan, which should enable the district to better determi.ne recruitment strategies. The incentive schools are Rockefeller, Garland, Mitchell. Rightsell, Stephens and Franklin elementaries, all in east or central Little Rock. Enrollment at the incentive schools has fluctuated over the past five years. Only Rockefeller and Garland reported increases in white enrollment. In a 104-page report released The incentive schools : repon Wednesday, the federal Office of considered a key componeni problem areas. Desegregation Monitoring the districts desegregat When we visited the schools blamed the enrollment decline plan. The schools, five with f ^e saw bright buildings, happy, on the districts failure to re- dominantly black enrollmei well-adjusted children and car- cruit children, offer special pro^ams to Enrollment at the six schools ing staffs, Brown said. Garlands white enrollment fell by 483 pupils, from 1,937 to 1,454, between October 1992 and October 1993, Part of the drop stemmed from closing Ish School, which had 187 pupils. The report does not deal with Lsie 1994-95 school year. prove student achievement  attract white pupils to the ha there also is work to be done, to-desegregate buildings. The desegregation plan There are successes, but The district is not living up to all of its obligations, ligates the district to spe ___________________ _ twice as much per Jncenl centive schools results from school student as for childrei fixed costs that remain the The excess funding at the fn- . See SCHOOLS, Page same regardless of the enrollment size. The report criticizes the district for failing to evalu- inability grew by 41 percent over five years. Rockefellers grew by 186 percent between 1989-90 and 1993-94. Overall enrollment at all si.x schools dropped by 20 percent. At ail the schools but Rockefeller, black enrollment ranges from 87 percent to 97 percent of the student populations. At Rockefeller, its 71 percent. Fluctuating enrollment has created other problems for incentive schools, including the ate educational programs so those that don't help pupils can be eliminated. The district did not fill the to track student schools to capacity, neglected to demonstrated achievement over several years. Results on the Stanford Achievement Test showed that 1992 first-graders on average improved evaluate programs and adjust achievement levels as third- them accordingly, and failed to graders last year in all the incentive schools but Mitchell exercise stringent administrative oversight to contain costs, the report said. and Stevens. In all six schools, the 1992 Consequently, during a time fourth-graders showed higher of severe budget constraints, the district spent far more money in the incentive schools than it was obligated to invest The district had to cut S7 million in overall expenses, in- achievement levels as sixthgraders in 1993-94. The report included 65 recommendations for improvement. Other points in the monitor- eluding up to S2 million for the ing report included: incentive schools, this year and .  All six schools used theme is anticipating similar cutbacks specialists this year to imple- for the next school year, ment special academic emes, When the LRSD overspends such as computer science or ca- in the incentive schools, less money is available for other schools which serve the majorreer awareness.  Five of the six school buildings are more than 40 ity of LRSD black students, the years old and need mainte- class for whom the desegrega- nance programs.  Spanish instruction at the tion settlements were to specifically benefit, the report said. Desegregation monitors said incentive schools did not comply with the districts desegre- district officials did more re- gation plan.  At no time did monitors at cruiting for 1993-94 than in pre- ____ ___ vious years. But the recruiting the schools observe unruly or was inadequate. disruptive student behavior.* school to be constructed by a date approved by the Court at a site mutually agreed to by aU of the parties. Any school constructed in Chenal Valley will also be an Interdistrict School. The Interdistrict Schools shall be populated primarily by black students from LRSD and by white students from PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County. PCSSD and LRSD wiU engage in early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts designed to maximize participation in all Interdistrict Schools. ni. Incentive Schools There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years. sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending 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, RightseU, Rockefeller, and Stephens. The incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school\nany recruitment and/or any assignment shall be in accordance with each districts student assignment plan. Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities. To meet that goal, the parties shall utilize the services of a consultant who has demonstrable experience in developing and csuccessfully implementing such programs in a majority-black educational setting. IV. Magnet Schools The Little Rock District shall continue to operate the interdistrict magnet schools established in 1987-88. Those schools shall be raciaUy balanced to a point of between 50 percent and 55 percent black. They shall continue to be open to students of the three districts. PCSSD, NLRSD, and LRSD will engage in recruitment efforts designed to maximize participation in magnet schools up to the levels set forth in the Courts February 27, 1987 Order. Page 4 Field Trips - Field trips will be used to enhance learning, to broaaaOoTein cultural experiences, to provide hands-on experiences for knowledge of the world, and to assist in the development of coping skills for students. Local field trips (see Support Programs) may be supplemented with a state or national trip. Examples include the following: '4 Houston Space Center (Houston, Texas) Smithsonian Institute (Washington, D.C.) Martin Luther King Center (Atlanta, Georgia) George Washington Carver Museum (Tuskegee, Alabama) Gulf Shores (Gulfport, Mississippi) Each school will incorporate special activities into the total school program. Choices for each school will be determined by the needs/ interests at the building level. Staff and parents will determine when and how activities will be implemented. However, School Program Plans must be submitted to the Board and administration for approval on an annual basis. Documented school-based involvement in the needs/ interest assessment and planning process must accompany each School Program Plan. A projected budget must accompany each plan. * * Page 158 level but may also study at the fifth grade level in summer reading programs, regardless of his/ her actual designated grade level. 1. Community Access/Field Trips - A plan wiU be developed and implemented at each incentive school which provides for field trips and community access for students together with students from other LRSD schools. Field trips and access will include the opportunity for student experiences with: i events and displays  cultural events and exhibits  scientific/ mathematical events and exhibits to include both child-oriented activities such as the Arkansas Arts Center Children s Theater and also the opportunity to attend cultural events such as Arkansas Symphony Orchestra performances. Exhibits and performances will also be brought to the schools. Students will have the opportunity to visit industrial complexes to view the actual manufactunng process and to gain information relative to the world of work by means of visits to actual work sites and some shadowing experiences in the intermediate grades, i.e., fifth and sixth. Among opportunities in the community which exist are\n several major manufacturing corporations  a symphony  a repertory theater  an arts center  a ballet company  a museum of nature science and history  three previous state/ territorial capitols  a planetarium at UALR  a zoo  a lock and dam (part of the McCleUan-Kerr river project)  an inland sea port  a major research/ teaching medical center Among other opportunities for students including, but are stock/bond houses, hospitals and a law school. I not limited to, banks, tn K. Community Involvement - Opportunities to participate in both Boy Scouting and I Girl Scouting will exist at each incentive school with existing troops at each building.^ Special Skills Programs - During the 3:00 - 5:30 p.m. time period (or whatever the I designated time for extended day activities), scheduling should be provided not only for the Homework Center and Peer Tutoring activities but also for student to receive special skills training. Students finishing activities early shall report either to the Homework Center, to CARE or leave the campus at the request of a parent or guardian. Page 173INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING The following explanation of incentive school double funding is taken from the 1992 incentive school report with current year comments added. As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to \"double fund\" each of the incentive schools. The commitment to this enhanced financial support is made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans: \"Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities.\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 4.) and \"...[T]he Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to ... [ijmproving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/ incentive schools.' (Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 1.) II Neither plan specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, counsel for LRSD explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per pupil expenditure in the districts area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD attorney was firm in the districts commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the districts average per pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding the incentive schools. Since that time, there has been a substantial rise in the districts per pupil expenditure because of increases resulting largely If om the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. In order to control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the Ml 'base year\" of 1989-90. The base year average per pupil expenditure was established by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1, 1989 total enrollment. This process yielded a base year per pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each year thereafter, the actual previous years per pupil expenditure is multiplied by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students according to the previous years October 1 enrollment data (not including the children enrolled in classes for infants through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend This years report was prepared after the submission of the 1993-1994 budget so the Page cxxxiii budgeted area school per pupil expenditure is used instead of a projected expenditure in determining the obligation for 1993-94. The LR5D double funds the incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, personnel, and equipment described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October 1 data used by the LR5D in the calculation of double funding, there were 298 fewer students in the incentive schools during the 1992-93 school year than the previous year. Despite the reduced enrollment the actual expenditure for 1992-93 increased by $176,517.94. This can be attributed to the inability to reduce the number of classes based upon enrollment, the already low student teacher ratios, additional staff added in support of the desegregation plan and the normal inflationary or incremental costs of school operation. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1993-94. 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 Area 5chool Actual Per Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment $1,887.46 $2,249.24 $2,602.66 1993-94 (Budgeted) *$2,678.60 X 6% X 5.8% X 6% Projected Area 5chool Per Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation $2,000.71 + $1,887.46 $2,379.70 + $1,887.46 $2,758.82 4- $1,887.46 $2,678.60 + $1,887.46 Incentive 5chool Projected Per Pupil Expenditure $3,888.17 $4,267.16 $4,646.28 $4,566.06 Incentive 5chool Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment X 1,375 X 1,259 X 2,235 X 1,750 Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based upon Oct. 1 Enrollment $5,346,233.7 5 $5,372,354.4 4 $10,384,435.8 0 $7,990,605.00 1,259 2,235 1,937 $4,895,206.0 3 $9,537,102.6 0 $8,999,844.36 Page cxxxiv Actual Expenditure $6,833,005.6 8 $9,242,255.9 6 $9,418,773.90 Budgeted Amt: $8,767,378.79 Over or Under $1,937,799.6 5 ($294,846.64 $418,929.54 Based upon area school budget 1992-93 area school enrollment Per pupil expenditure (area school) * 1992-93 incentive school enrollment Ish enrollment Anticipated enrollment $27,394,050.32 10,227 $2,678.60 1,937 187 1,750 The interdistrict plan states \"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 (Interdistrict Plan page 4)\". The assumption of the above concept is that there are enough white students to fill the area schools and \"surplus\" black students would no longer be bussed out of the inner city but would attend their neighborhood schools which would be enhanced. By achieving these ratios the district would have achieved its desegregation goal and could seek unitary status. The plan would indicate that the outflow of white enrollment to private and out of county schools would be reversed by the attraction of desegregated area schools and double funded incentive schools and that there would be sufficient non-black enrollment to meet the maximum 60%-40% ratios in the plan. When blacks are the majority, in order to meet the ratios, a greater movement of blacks out of area schools is required. For example, if a school has 100 students balanced at 60% black and 40% white and ten white students leave, fifteen black students must be transferred to incentive schools in order to maintain the ratio. At this area school the instruction costs would remain the same but the enrollment would have dropped from 100 to 75\nthus raising the per pupil cost. Additionally possibly increasing the cost at the receiving incentive school. On June 23, 1992 a suit alleging voting rights violations by the LRSD for not reforming the composition of the electoral zones was filed on behalf of black citizens. The filing of the suit claimed correctly that zones one and two which are the inner city zones had lost 12,848 residents between the 1980 to 1990 census The loss represents twenty-five percent of the total zone population The incentive schools all are located in zones one and two so the natural population for those schools has decreased. The most western zones of the city (zones three, four and five) experienced the only growth in population. Forty percent of that growth was black indicating more black children Page cxxxv for the area schools in those zones. The southwest zones (six and seven) lost a total population of 4,013, however, the black population increased by 5,552 indicating a white loss of 9,565. With the exception of Mablevale which had a black student percentage of 56% in the 1992-1993 year, all the other schools in the two zones had black percentages between 62 and 74. To achieve the plan ratios, black students would have to be transported back to the inner city incentive schools. Many of these children would be from families that had moved out of those zones to get into what they thought were more desegregated area schools. The following are excerpts from the Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock, prepared by Tischler \u0026amp; Associates ,lnc February 1992 page 11-18 3. Projected Population Changes for Little Rock Vicinity only the far west, west, and northwest areas are anticipated as having a positive population change between now and 2010, with all other areas of the Little Rock vicinity losing population. The balance of the county, comprising mainly the rural west and the \"north-of-river\" portions, is expected to increase by 21,154 persons between 1990 and 2010. The eight analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity are, shown actually losing population from 192,192 in 1990 to 184,542 by 2000 but recovering slightly to 186,042 by 2010. page 11-26 II.C. RACE, AGE, AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Beyond the quantities of population and households are primary descriptive characteristics, including consideration of age, sex, racial distribution. The following data reviews changes which have occurred in these characteristics over the 1980-1990 decade. 1. Age and Sex Characteristics These data indicate that the population as a whole is aging. This is consistent with national trends as the \"baby boom\" generation advances into middle age. In 1980, Pulaski County population between the ages of 35-59 years, and 60 years and above comprised 25 percent and 13.7 percent of the population respectively. By 1990, the 35-59 age group had grown to 30 percent, and the 60 and over group had increased to 15.3 percent of total county population. As of 1990, Black children and teenagers comprised a higher than average percentage of these age groups in Pulaski County compared to the total population. While the county as a whole has approximately 35% Black population. Black female children and teenagers through age 19 comprise 37.4 percent, and Black male children and teenagers comprise 44.1 percent of this age bracket. Of particular note has been the apparent out-migration of younger white children (and their families) from Pulaski County. As of 1980, Pulaski County had 36,253 white children of 0 to 9 years of age. However, ten years later in 1990, this same population group, now aged 10-19 years, was only 29,359, a decline of 6,894, or about 19 percent of the corresponding 1980 population group. By contrast. Black children have maintained their relative total between 1980 and 1990. As of 1980, Black children aged 0-9 years were 19,237. As of Page cxxxvi1990, the corresponding age group, now 10-19 years old, was nearly the same at 19,034. This may be seen as another indication of the out-migration trends discussed earlier for the population as a whole. It is probably also indicative of the perception of lower quality of schools in Pulaski County and Little Rock, as white families with school age children have moved to other jurisdictions. 2. Racial Distribution As of the 1990 census, just over one-third of the entire Little Rock Area population was non-white. All but two of the analysis areas were at least 31 percent non-white, and four of the eight analysis areas had non-white majority populations. This comparison of 1980 and 1990 census data shows that non-white population has increased significantly in the southwest and western sectors, with the percent of non-white population increasing by over 18 percentage points in both of these areas. As of 1990, the midtown and central areas had 68.4 and 80.2 percent non-white population respectively. The lowest non-white population was just over seven percent in the northwest and far west areas. In both the far west and the eastern areas, the proportion of non-white population actually declined slightly, while increasing in all other areas. Of further note is the dramatic contrast between the areas of lowest concentration (northwest and far west) and all other areas which have at least 31 percent non-white population. These maps and data indicate that non-white population is also following the general east- to-west movement of general population, although to date it is primarily focussed towards the west and southwest sectors rather than the far west. As with total population, non- white population is declining and vacating the, eastern portions of the Little Rock vicinity, including the east, central, midtown and downtown sectors, and moving into the west and southwest sectors. The result has been a marked increase in the proportion of non-white population in the west and southwest areas. The northwest and far west areas remain predominantly oriented to white population. The document from which these comments were excerpted has many maps, charts and tables to support the narrative. It serves to illustrate the demographic changes that affect the schools and the difficulty of using the incentive schools as the vehicle to achieve racial balance in the area schools. Another major factor that has exacerbated the difficulty of achieving racial balance has been the increase in classroom seating capacity in the school district. Since 1988-1989 the LRSD has added 939 seats at Washington and 728 seats at King while taking 265 seats at Ish out of the total capacity. Both of the new schools are in the inner city area and have attendance zones for black students that would have been assigned to incentive schools. Both schools operate at below their capacity. The district also has seats built for black students at the PCSSD Crystal Hill School and at the Clinton School now under construction. The incentive school plan requires additional staff and programs to insure that children in \"racially isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities\". If a school is out of the agreed racial balance are those children also Page cxxxvii in a racially isolated setting, and how much opportunity is there for \"meaningful\" desegregated experiences? The desegregation plan says the district is \"committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources\" in incentive schools. If the financial resources of the district are put into the incentive schools and there is no discernable improvement in education quality and student academic performance, how can improvement be expected in the schools that do not have the advantage of the programs or even the minimum extras(academic achievement grants). In order to fully fund the incentive school financial obligation the promised $25,000 grants to area schools were cut to $10,000, and not all the schools received even that amount. The excess capacity in the system is reflected in the low incentive school enrollment. If there were seats taken out of the system the remaining schools would operate more cost effectively by reducing program and administrative staff, increasing individual class sizes and spreading program costs. The enrollment is not directly proportional to costs because of the plan staffing and program requirements that impose a tremendous overhead burden. If, for example, an incentive school operates at 50% of capacity the cost is the same as operating at 100% capacity. If children are added to the school there is no additional cost to the system. There is a potential savings if the seats the additional children gave up are taken out of the system. Page cxxxviiiRecommendations 1. Reduce the excess capacity in the system either by school closing or recruitment of private school students. The district could also encourage parents to keep their children in the public school system by stressing safety features of the elementary schools, the strong academic programs and the value received for their tax expenditures. 2. Develop a comprehensive plan for meeting childrens needs at all school locations instead of giving preference to schools in the inner city. 3. Encourage all parents in the district to take advantage of opportunities in desegregated schools. That would include attracting white patrons to King School remembering that for every two white children, three black children can be enrolled. Page cxxxix1 The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1993-94, all based on figures supplied by the LRSD. 199041 1991-92 1992-93 Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment $1,887.46 $2,249.24 $2,602.66 1993-94 (Budgeted) $2,678.60 X 6% X 5.8% X 6% Projected Area School Per-Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation $2,000.71 $2,379.70 $2,758.82 $2,678.60 + $1,887.46 -F $1,887.46 -F $1,887.46 $1,887.46 Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment $3,888.17 X 1,375 $4,267.16 X 1,259 $4,646.28 X 2,235 $4,566.06 X 1,750 Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based upon Oct. 1 Enrollment $5,346,233.75 1,259 $4,895,206.03 $5,372,354.44 2,235 $9,537,102.60 $10,384,435.80 1,937 $8,999,844.36 $7,990,605.00 Actual Expenditure $6,833,005.68 $9,242,255.96 $9,418,773.90 Budgeted Amt: $8,767,378.79 Over or Under $1,937,799.65 ($294,846.64) $418,929.54 Based upon area school budget 1992-93 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) 1992-93 incentive school enrollment Ish enrollment Anticipated enrollment $27,394,050.32 10,227 $2,678.60 1,937 187 1,750 RECOMMENDATIONS ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.The interdistrict plan states \"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\" (Interdis. Plan, pg. 4). The assumption of the above concept is that there are enough white students to fill the area schools and \"surplus\" black students would no longer be bussed out of the inner city but would attend their neighborhood schools which would be enhanced. By achieving these ratios the district would have achieved its desegregation goal and could seek unitary status. The plan would indicate that the outflow of white enrollment to private and out of county schools would be reversed by the attraction of desegregated area schools and double funded incentive schools and that there would be sufficient non-black enrollment to meet the maximum 60%-40% ratios in the plan. When blacks are the majority, in order to meet the ratios, a greater movement of blacks out of area schools is required. For example, if a school has 100 students balanced at 60% black and 40% white and ten white students leave, fifteen black students must be transferred to incentive schools in order to maintain the ratio. At this area school the instruction costs would remain the same but the enrollment would have dropped from 100 to 75\nthus raising the per pupil cost. Additionally possibly increasing the cost at the receiving incentive school. On June 23, 1992 a suit alleging voting rights violations by the LRSD for not reforming the composition of the electoral zones was filed on behalf of black citizens. The filing of the suit claimed correctly that zones one and two which are the inner city zones had lost 12,848 residents between the 1980 to 1990 census The loss represents twenty-five percent of the total zone population The incentive schools all are located in zones one and two so the natural population for those schools has decreased. The most western zones of the city (zones three, four and five) experienced the only growth in population. Forty percent of that growth was black indicating more black children for the area schools in those zones. The southwest zones (six and seven) lost a total population of 4,013, however, the black population increased by 5,552 indicating a white loss of 9,565. With the exception of Mablevale which had a black student percentage of 56% in the 1992-1993 year, all the other schools in the two zones had black percentages between 62 and 74. To achieve the plan ratios, black students would have to be transported back to the inner city incentive schools. Many of these children would be from families that had moved out of those zones to get into what they thought were more desegregated area schools. The following are excerpts from the Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock, prepared by Tischler \u0026amp; Associates Jnc February 1992 page 11-183. Projected Population Changes for Little Rock Vicinity only the far west, west, and northwest areas are anticipated as having a positive population change between now and 2010, with all other areas of the Little Rock vicinity losing population. The balance of the county, comprising mainly the rural west and the \"north-of-river\" portions, is expected to increase by 21,154 persons between 1990 and 2010. The eight analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity are, shown actually losing population from 192,192 in 1990 to 184,542 by 2000 but recovering slightly to 186,042 by 2010. page 11-26 ILC. RACE, AGE, AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Beyond the quantities of population and households are primary descriptive characteristics, including consideration of age, sex, racial distribution. The following data reviews changes which have occurred in these characteristics over the 1980-1990 decade. 1. Age and Sex Characteristics These data indicate that the population as a whole is aging. This is consistent with national trends as the \"baby boom\" generation advances into middle age. In 1980, Pulaski County population between the ages of 35-59 years, and 60 years and above comprised 25 percent and 13.7 percent of the population respectively. By 1990, the 35- 59 age group had grown to 30 percent, and the 60 and over group had increased to 15.3 percent of total county population. As of 1990, Black children and teenagers comprised a higher than average percentage of these age groups in Pulaski County compared to the total population. While the county as a whole has approximately 35% Black population, Black female children and teenagers through age 19 comprise 37.4 percent, and Black male children and teenagers comprise 44.1 percent of this age bracket. Of particular note has been the apparent out-migration of younger white children (and their families) from Pulaski County. As of 1980, Pulaski County had 36,253 white children of 0 to 9 years of age. However, ten years later in 1990, this same population group, now aged 10-19 years, was only 29,359, a decline of 6,894, or about 19 percent of the corresponding 1980 population group. By contrast. Black children have maintained their relative total between 1980 and 1990. As of 1980, Black children aged 0-9 years were 19,237. As of 1990, the corresponding age group, now 10-19 years old, was nearly the same at 19,034. This maybe seen as another indication of the out-migration trends discussed earlier for the population as a whole. It is probably also indicative of the perception of lower quality of schools in Pulaski County and Little Rock, as white families with school age children have moved to other jurisdictions.2. Racial Distribution As of the 1990 census, just over one-third of the entire Little Rock Area population was non-white. All but two of the analysis areas were at least 31 percent non-white, and four of the eight analysis areas had non-white majority populations. This comparison of 1980 and 1990 census data shows that non-white population has increased significantly in the southwest and western sectors, with the percent of non-white population increasing by over 18 percentage points in both of these areas. As of 1990, the midtown and central areas had 68.4 and 80.2 percent non-white population respectively. The lowest non-white population was just over seven percent in the northwest and far west areas. In both the far west and the eastern areas, the proportion of non-white population actually declined slightly, while increasing in all other areas. Of further note is the dramatic contrast between the areas of lowest concentration (northwest and far west) and all other areas which have at least 31 percent non-white population. These maps and data indicate that non-white population is also following the general east-to-west movement of general population, although to date it is primarily focussed towards the west and southwest sectors rather than the far west. As with total population, non-white population is declining and vacating the, eastern portions of the Little Rock vicinity, including the east, central, midtown and downtown sectors, and moving into the west and southwest sectors. The result has been a marked increase in the proportion of non-white population in the west and southwest areas. The northwest and far west areas remain predominantly oriented to white population. The document from which these comments were excerpted has many maps, charts and tables to support the narrative. It serves to illustrate the demographic changes that affect the schools and the difficulty of using the incentive schools as the vehicle to achieve racial balance in the area schools. Another major factor that has exacerbated the difficulty of achieving racial balance has been the increase in classroom seating capacity in the school district. Since 1988-1989 the LRSD has added 939 seats at Washington and 728 seats at King while taking 265 seats at Ish out of the total capacity. Both of the new schools are in the inner city area and have attendance zones for black students that would have been assigned to incentive schools. Both schools operate at below their capacity. The district also has seats built for black students at the PCSSD Crystal Hill School and at the Clinton School now under construction. The incentive school plan requires additional staff and programs to insure that children in \"racially isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities\". If a school is out of the agreed racial balance are those children also in a racially isolated setting, and how much opportunity is there for \"meaningful\" desegregated experiences? The desegregation plan says the district is \"committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources\" in ( incentive schools. If the financial resources of the district are put into the incentive schools and there is no discernable improvement in education quality and student academic performance, how can improvement be expected in the schools that do not have the advantage of the programs or even the minimum extras(academic achievement grants). In order to fully fund the incentive school financial obligation the promised $25,000 grants to area schools were cut to $10,000, and not all the schools received even that amount. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Reduce the excess capacity in the system either by school closing or recruitment of private school students. The district could also encourage parents to keep their children in the public school system by stressing safety features of the elementary schools, the strong academic programs and the value received for their tax expenditures. 2. Develop a comprehensive plan for meeting childrens needs at all school locations instead of giving preference to schools in the inner city. 3. Encourage all parents in the district to take advantage of opportunities in desegregated schools. That would include attracting white patrons to King School remembering that for every two white children, three black children can be enrolled.fl J ?- US FEB 1 1994 Office of Desegregation Mofiiieiitg January 27, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann\nEnclosed is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Larry Robertson and Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendents for the Little Rock School District, requesting explanation of the Budgeting process. This information is being forwarded to you at the suggestion of the Judge during yesterdays court hearing of the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. The questions concerning double funding was a coordinated effort with other Incentive School Principals (Encl. 2) and forwarded to Mr. Robertson's Office in October. Numerous phone calls were also made to both the Superintendent's Office and Financial Services Office with no answers. Any assistance provided reference the Incentive School's budgeting process will be appreciated. Sincerely, Robert L. Brown Principal RLBJ/dlj Enclosures\n04-04-1994 11:16AM FROM TO I - 3 / - fy 3710100 P.02 I i i I i I BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY I - INCENTIVE SCHOOLS t (Required - Double Funding) I i 1 I I i ! ! ! i I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SCHOOL Franklin Rockefeller Rightsell Mitchell Garland Stephens ITEM AMOUNT Theme 1.0 Spanish teacher ' $40,000 25,000 1.0 Aide - Alternative Classroom Specialist 1.0 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher No impact on Incentive School Budget. 12,000 25,000 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 I I io y IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES IV ^Pf^ 05 ]39i ^KANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER 'CJ clerk /ToeF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions which the Court now addresses: (1) motion by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits. follow the incentive school children clerk [doc.#1929]\n(2) motion by Joshua requesting the Court to address certain issues regarding the budget process of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") [doc.#1949]\n(3) motion by Joshua to require the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules [doc.#2051]\nand (4) motion by the LRSD for approval of Jefferson Elementary [doc.#2090]. I. Joshua moves for a ruling on their school construction at request that incentive school benefits. including scholarship benefits, follow the incentive school children [doc.#1929]. Joshua also requests the Court to address the following issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD [doc.#1949]: (1) whether the LRSD is required to double fund the incentive schools\n(2) whether, pursuant to the double funding, the LRSD is required to provide scholarship incentives and awards to students who attend or have attended those schools since the settlement plan\n(3) whether the LRSD is required to provide training and educational opportunities related to potential placement in teaching positions in the LRSD to black parents and others who are placed as aides\n(4) whether incentive school personnel who are required to work extended day and extended year programs are entitled to extra compensation for that extra work\nand (5) whether the Ish children are entitled to receive all of their promised incentive school benefits when they attend King Elementary School. The Court denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits. follow the incentive school children. Joshua's motion was filed on August 2, 1993. Ten days after filing the motion, at the August 12, 1993 hearing on the LRSD budget. counsel for Joshua requested that instead of a hearing on this matter, the parties should first be \"directed to sit and try to work this out. It Transcript, at 10. Joshua went on to state that it is important for Joshua to sit with the school district and in good faith try to resolve these issues without judicial intervention. Id. at 11. The Court agrees and will defer addressing the matters raised in Joshua's motion until such time as -2-the record reflects that the parties have unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the matter without court intervention. The Court likewise denies without prejudice Joshua's motion that the Court address certain issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD. The Court is currently addressing the budget process of the LRSD in an ongoing manner and will continue to do so on its own terms or that of the Eighth Circuit. Moreover, Joshua's motion consists of mere one and a quarter pages (four complete a sentences) and simply does not set forth sufficient grounds for granting the requested relief. II. Joshua moves for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules [doc.#2051]. Joshua states that the LRSD \"did not give the parents of the students recommended for expulsion either notice by certified U.S. mail or by hand delivery of the recommendation for expulsion and the reasons for it. Nor did the district give these parents the date, hour and place that the school board would consider and act upon the recommendation. Nor did the school district conduct a hearing within ten days of the suspension of the students\nnor was a list of witnesses who would furnish information supporting the principal's recommendation made available to the students at least forty-eight days before the ten day hearing period.\" Joshua contends that the LRSD has failed to follow its own rules regarding due process and that because of that -3-fact, the students are entitled to readmission immediately. As authority for this motion, Joshua cites this Court's previous orders and the desegregation plan. The LRSD has responded to this motion by asserting that the matter is now moot. Specifically, the LRSD states that on December 16, 1993, representatives of the LRSD and counsel for Joshua reached a negotiated settlement and all issues were resolved in accordance with the agreement among and between the parties. In this regard, the LRSD states that \"the students were not expelled from the LRSD\nany alleged rule violations were either waived or cured\nit was agreed that the students would remain suspended through the end of the first semester, but would be allowed to take semester examinations and return to school at the beginning of the second semester. H The LRSD states that the motion now before the Court apparently was filed prior to the settlement agreement. In light of the settlement agreement apparently reached between the parties, the Court finds that Joshua's motion for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules should be and hereby is denied as moot. Joshua may refile the motion if the matter is not moot, or if new and relevant circumstances have arisen that would give rise to any relief. III. The LRSD has filed motion for approval of school a construction at Jefferson Elementary [doc.#2090]. By order dated -4-April 29, 1993, the Court denied the request for approval of construction at Jefferson, stating that the LRSD may repetition the Court for approval of the Jefferson construction after the attendance zones for the King Interdistrict school are finn and court-approved. In addition, the Court requested the following information: the current capacity of Jefferson\nany changes in school capacity that will result from the proposed construction\nand the precise number of portable buildings that will remain at the school as a result of the proposed construction. The LRSD has provided the requested information in the motion now before the Court, Having carefully reviewed the information. the Court finds that LRSD's motion for approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary should be and hereby is granted. However, any new space generated by the construction must be dedicated to the use described in LRSD's motion. Any alternative use would have to be approved by the Court. IV. In sum, the Court denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits, follow the incentive school children, denies without prejudice Joshua's motion that the Court address certain issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD, denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD, and grants the -5-LRSD's motion for approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of April 1994. UTTITED states DISTBttCT JUDGE PHIS DOCUMEMT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE V/ITH RULE 50 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY -6- 4Rirs''S -A JUL 2 5 1994 Oifico of Dcssgregaiiori IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of its business case for Incentive School Plan Double Funding. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 isaa  'J . illUlli By:( Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 21st day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Heller LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING July 18, 1994 BUSINESS CASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District remains committed to the implementation of a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. This commitment includes the elimination of racially-isolated schools. One purpose of the incentive schools was to create schools that were comparable to the best in the District and the state. time, as well as today, At that Carver and Williams Magnet Schools and Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry Area Schools were/are viewed by their patrons as the premier schools that have established high academic standards and high expectations for students, staff, and parents, academic Incentive schools were designed to promote and excellence in ensure schools that have desegregate. The Incentive School Program been difficult is to not only to compensate the victims of segregation but also to serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in the Incentive Schools and in the three districts as a whole. The Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. classes. The district committed to double funding of these schools in order to provide the enriched program. At the time the settlement plan was finalized, \"double-funding\" was not clearly defined nor had the cost for implementing the plan been determined. The district developed a plan without regard to cost a factor which was to be considered at a later point. time, the district has developed a formula and funds the schools Since that according to this established criteria. \"Many, but not all of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive School section of the Desegregation Plan have been put in place, costing the District the amount of the double funding obligations\" (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report). obligations A. Background The racially identifiable schools have evolved from major and minor enhancement schools to Incentive Schools. The purpose of each change was to improve the quality of education. However, the shift in instructional emphasis upon becoming Incentive Schools has had limited success in reducing the academic disparities between black and white students in test scores. Further, no significant number of white students has enrolled in the Incentive Schools despite efforts, although limited, to recruit and serve them in the Incentive Schools.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 2 The district continues to cope with problems that are common to urban school districts. The severity of our financial problems has caused the district to focus its energies and resources on establishing a balanced budget each year. Greater emphasis must be placed implementing and evaluating quality integrated education for our community. on The District must operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of its' annual recurring revenues. Short-term remedies have only delayed the financial crises that we now face. B. Problem Definition programming has C. Current not resulted in either improved achievement or desegregated schools. A number of programs do have defined levels of focus and integration of content needed to optimize teaching and learning. Instructional time is Each facet of this district must assist in resolving its' financial problems. Over the years, the cost of funding incentive schools has more than tripled and current programming has not in improved achievement or desegregated schools. The District must now decide if it will continue to limited. resulted Instructional time triple fund Incentive School programs, while reducing the funding for Area Schools. Such reduced funding of Area Schools will have a negative impact and we run the risk of continued urban flight and aging buildings that need attention. are fifty schools There in the district and the children that populate all of these schools must be provided equitable opportunities and resources. Analysis of Alternatives Teaching and learning have not yielded the expected academic growth. Recruitment of white students to the Incentive Schools has resulted in little or no increase District is now asking the following questions: in enrollment. The  Are there programs currently being implemented in the District (or elsewhere) which could better ensure that the Incentive Schools' original goals are achieved?  Are there obligations that are questionable educational or some other standpoint? are from an  Should funding the Incentive School Program be brought in line with dollars generated through double-funding?Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 3  Can we demonstrate logically that the current program is not making the best use of time, effort, and money?  Are there relevant programs within the District that are achieving the objectives desired for the Incentive Schools? The alternatives at this time are:  Keep doing what we are doing.  Analyze current funding of Incentive Schools and double fund as previously committed.  Modify the Incentive School Program The most reasonable short term alternative is to double fund Incentive Schools without damaging the integrity and quality of programs committed to by the District. * '  Care must be taken to surgically reduce triple funding of the Incentive Schools, these schools remain an important and relevant component of Court approved desegregation plan. as our Minimum modification of extended day can provide a more focused school day, time for staff to focus, assess and plan more meaningful extended day activities. D. Recommendations The District recommends that it maintain its commitment as outlined in the settlement plan, to double fund the incentive schools. Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of District schools. Past and recent annual evaluation reports for the six stipulated magnets suggest that the students attending are achieving academically as well as or better than other students at the state level. The evaluation data for several area schools indicate our students are progressing academically. Achievement disparity still exists\nhowever, data show that African-American students in these schools achieve at a higher academic level than African-American students in non-magnet schools in the district and across the state. that The student enrollments at these schools have been stable over a period of time. There are waitino lists for oarents who wish to pnmi i their waiting parents enroll Financial excellence. students where resources educational alone will not excellence ensure prevails, educational There must be on-going monitoring of programs to ensure double funding is providing for the needs of the children attending these schools. ISIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 4 E. The^ District further recommends that extended day/week activities would be staffed in accordance with programmatic need. A review of current enrollment figures indicates that we need. may be able to eliminate some small classes. Although we are aware that students may enroll late, should the district staff these classes today, we could eliminate eight positions at cost savings of approximately $280,000.00 (eight teachers average salary of $35,000 = $280,000). Objectives a X The objective of this recommendation is to offer a quality Incentive School program at all incentive schools by utilizing the established double funding formula. Evaluation Criteria I The incentive evidenced by: school will be successfully operating as  Increased student achievement. Teaching and learning will improve as measured by projects, portfolio assessments, teacher-made tests. and  Improvement in standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from the bottom quartile to the next quartile and increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile.  Increased interest in the Incentive Schools by white families evidenced by more white students enrolling in these schools. Incentive  Grade distribution reports (by semester) ] SL 1 increase in letter grades of \"C\" or better in the core reflecting an for each student. areas  Increased activities. student participation in extended day/week Expected Benefits students. The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity between black and white students. Quality programs will be used as a recruitment tool to assist the District in desegregating the Incentive Schools. The District will operate and implement an effective and efficient incentive The District school program.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 5 P. Impact Analysis Quality desegregated education will be provided in environment that is attractive and conducive to learning, desegregation plan will not be negatively impacted. an The This recommendation will have a positive impact on the plan as teaching learning will be enhanced. Successful and implementation of this program will allow the District to replicate those factors that enhance and promote student learning and parent involvement. The District plans to provide early release time, one day each month for nine months, to provide quality staff development for all of its teachers including Incentive School teachers. Quality staff development will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers and support staff. Using early release time is an effective and extremely cost saving means of providing support for staff. Double funding of the Incentive Schools will provide for potential dollars for Area Schools. More than 80 percent of the district's students attend Area Schools. to \"doing more with less.\" Double funding of Incentive Schools will shift the emphasis ..J _ ,___Testimonies have suggested that the \"double funding\" intent has created a financial illusion of a \"cure all\" panacea for these schools. The district's program planning and budgeting document will allow us to monitor the impact of \"double funding\" on Incentive School programs on a regular basis, monitoring can ensure that the Incentive Schools do not Such suffer irreparable harm as we shift from triple funding to double funding. Start-up costs should decrease and/or be eliminated after several years of program implementation. Maintenance of programs is not as costly as start-up costs for Incentive School Programs. G. Resource Analysis Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way. Staff and students will benefit as we shift our priorities from implementing a multitude of independent activities to implementation of a more focused program\none that places high emphasis on maximizing people power in schools rather than dollar power.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 6 See attachments Incentive Schools. for analysis of current spending in the An analysis and comparison of 1992-93 and 1993-94 indicate substantial increase in spending, yet the budgets student enrollment was reduced and little, if any academic increases were noted by these schools, decreased. The number of white students  The projected reductions will bring Incentive School budgets in line with the established double funding formula.  Utilization of human resources will be emphasized as opposed to spending because there is a perceived \"pot of money.\" Staff would carefully scrutinize spending of fewer dollars.  The district needs to develop a technology plan to determine equipment needs. Such a plan will also include providing high quality hardware and software Incentive Schools. for the its'  Quality staff development will be provided during newly established early release days at no cost for stipends.  Stipends will be attached to meaningful activities rather than providing staff/utilities/transportation/services students. extended day too for much phantom  Staff would spend more time planning for quality integration of services to be more comprehensive and get the most for dollars expended.  Principals of Incentive Schools will have some flexibility in reallocating their budgets. Requests for budget increases will be handled through the use of business cases.  More students will engage in meaningful extended day/week activities.  Staff would have additional time to reflect and current program offerings. assess staff activities. to plan more Time would be available for effectively for extended day/week # Teachers would have an incentive to do a better job over a shorter period of time. Projected savings as we shift from triple funding to double funding is\nIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 7 SCHOOL FRANKLIN (25) BUDGET ITEM/ FUNCTION Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Music / 1124 Food Service / 0380 AMOUNT 70,657.00 10,272.00 72,615.35 TOTAL 6,965.97 $ 160,510.32 GARLAND (26) Stipends / 0117 Equipment / 0540 Music .05 / 1124 20,000.00 25,000.00 14,262.55 MITCHELL (34) RIGHTSELL (39) ROCKEFELLER (36) Art .05 / 0110 17,500.00 P. E. .05 / 0110 17,500.00 Social Work / 2113) Food Service / 0380 11,887.04 TOTAL 4,000.00 $110,149.59 Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 58,464.45 8,211.00 Music Art .05 / 1124 .05 / 0110 P. E. .05 / 0110 Social Work .05 / 0110 Food Service / 0380 TOTAL $ Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Food Service / 0380 Music .05 / 1124 TOTAL Stipends / 0117 20,864.18 17,500.00 17,500.00 17,500.00 4,000.00 144,039.63 $ $ $ Transportation / 0331 Supplies / 0410 TOTAL $ 57,336.00 2,000.00 4,000.00 17,500.00 80,836.00 40,044.28 7,500.00 2,500.00 50,044.28Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 8 START UP COSTS: PROGRAM AMOUNT Writing to Read Science Labs $ 6,000.00 12,000.00 Computer Labs 6,000.00 Computer Loan Program TOTAL 2,500.00 $ 26,500.00 Business Case Spanish Program $ 149,000.00 H. Field Trips Office of Incentive Schools SUMMARY SCHOOL/PROGRAM Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Start-Up Costs Spanish Program* Field Trips Office of Incentive Schools Staffing Efficiency TOTAL I $ 21,450.00 65,000.00 SAVINGS $ 160,510.32 110,149.59 144,039.63 80,836.00 50,044.38 26,500.00 149,000.00 21,450.00 65,000.00 280,000.00 $ 1/087,529.82 * See July 18, 1994 Court submission for business case. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be - - ------------ ---  Area School staffs, students, parents, community. Board of Directors, central office staff. The recommendation provides for the needs of students who will attend all of our schools and allows us to double fund our Incentive Schools. staffs. and parents. office staff. BoardIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 9 The primary detractors will be persons who believe that Incentive Schools should be triple funded regardless of the negative impact on teaching and learning in Area Schools in the District. Given the concerns expressed by a large number of our patrons and educators regarding the excessive funding of many programs in the Incentive Schools, the list of detractors should be small. These concerns can be eliminated by providing information to them regarding our emphasis on educational excellence and the need to implement quality programs within the established double funding formula. BUDGET IMPACT\nDepartment Function Obj ect 25, 26, I 1120, 0110, 0117, 0331, 0380, 34, 36, 39 1124, 2113 0410, 0540IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION c- '-^1 Z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of its business case for Incentive School Plan Double Funding. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 I Byd Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 ' RECEIVED JUL 25 1994 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 21st day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Ar-kansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher HellerLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING July 18, 1994 BDSINES8 CASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District remains committed to the implementation of a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all This students. commitment includes the elimination of racially-isolated schools. One purpose of the incentive schools was to create schools that were comoarable to the best in the District and the state. At that time. comparable as well as today. Carver and Williams Magnet Schools and Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry Area Schools were/are viewed by their patrons as the premier schools that have established high academic standards and high expectations for students, staff, and parents. academic Incentive schools were designed to promote and ensure excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The Incentive School Program is not only to compensate the victims of segregation but also to serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in the Incentive Schools and in the three districts as a whole. The Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. The district committed to double funding of these schools in order to provide the enriched program. At the time the settlement plan was finalized, \"double-funding\" was not clearly defined nor had the cost for implementing the plan been determined. The district developed a plan without regard to cost a factor which was to be considered at a later point. Since that time, the district has developed a formula and funds the schools according to this established criteria. tl Many, but not all of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive School section of the Desegregation Plan have been put in place, costing the District the amount of the double funding obligations\" (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report). A. Background The racially identifiable schools have evolved from major and minor enhancement schools to Incentive Schools. each change was to improve the quality of education. The purpose of However, the shift in instructional emphasis upon becoming Incentive Schools has had limited success in reducing the academic disparities between black and white students in test scores. Further, no significant number of white students has enrolled in the Incentive Schools despite efforts, although limited, to recruit and serve them in the Incentive Schools.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 2 The district continues to cope with problems that are common to urban school districts. The severity of our financial problems has caused the district to focus its energies and resources on establishing a balanced budget each year. must be placed Greater emphasis on integrated education for our community. implementing and evaluating quality The District must operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of its' annual recurring revenues. delayed the financial crises that we now face. Short-term remedies have only B. Problem Definition Current programming has not resulted in C. achievement or desegregated schools. either improved A number of programs do have defined levels of focus and integration of content needed to optimize teaching and learning. limited. Instructional time is Each facet of this district must assist in resolving its' financial problems. Over the years, the cost of funding incentive schools has more than tripled and current programming has not resulted in improved achievement or desegregated schools. The District must now decide if it will continue to triple fund Incentive School programs, funding for Area Schools. while reducing the Such reduced funding of Area Schools will have a negative impact and we run the risk of continued urban flight and aging buildings that need attention. are fifty schools in There the district and the children that populate all of these schools must be provided equitable opportunities and resources. Analysis of Alternatives Teaching and learning have not yielded the expected academic growth. Recruitment of white students to the Incentive Schools has resulted in little or no increase in enrollment. District is now asking the following questions: The Are there programs currently being implemented in the District (or elsewhere) which could better ensure that the Incentive Schools' original goals are achieved? Are there obligations that are educational or some other standpoint? questionable from an Should funding the Incentive School Program be brought in line with dollars generated through double-funding?Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 3  Can we demonstrate logically that the current program is not making the best use of time, effort, and money?  Are there relevant programs within the District that are achieving the objectives desired for the Incentive Schools? The alternatives at this time are: Keep doing what we are doing. Analyze current funding of Incentive Schools and double fund as previously committed. Modify the Incentive School Program The most reasonable short term alternative is to double fund Incentive Schools without damaging the integrity and quality of programs committed to by the District. Care must be taken to surgically reduce triple funding of the Incentive Schools, as these schools remain an important and relevant component of our Court approved desegregation plan. Minimum modification of extended day can provide a more focused school day, time for staff to focus, assess and plan more meaningful extended day activities. D. Recommendations The District recommends that it maintain its commitment as outlined in the settlement plan, to double fund the incentive schools. Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of District schools. Past and recent annual evaluation reports for the six stipulated magnets suggest that the students attending are achieving academically as well as or better than other students at the state level. The evaluation data for several area schools indicate that our students are progressing academically. Achievement disparity still exists\nhowever, data show that African-American students in these schools achieve at a higher academic level than African-American students in non-magnet schools in the district and across the state. The student enrollments at these schools have been stable over a period of time, their There are waiting lists for parents who wish to enroll Financial excellence. students where resources ensure double funding educational alone will not excellence ensure prevails, educational There must be on-going monitoring of programs to children attending these schools. is providing for the needs of theIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 4 The District further recommends that extended day/week activities would be staffed in accordance with programmatic need. A review of current enrollment figures indicates that we may be able to eliminate some small classes. Although we are aware that students may enroll late, should the district staff these classes today, we could eliminate eight positions at a cost savings of approximately $280,000.00 (eight teachers average salary of $35,000 = $280,000). E. Objectives X The objective of this recommendation is to offer a quality Incentive School program at all incentive schools by utilizing the established double funding formula. Evaluation Criteria The incentive school evidenced by: will be successfully operating as  Increased student achievement. Teaching and learning will improve as measured by projects, portfolio assessments, and teacher-made tests.  Improvement in standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from the bottom quartile to the next quartile and increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile.  Increased interest in the Incentive Schools by white families evidenced by more white students enrolling in these schools.  Grade distribution reports (by semester) reflecting an increase in letter grades of \"C or better in the core areas for each student.  Increased activities. student participation in extended day/week Expected Benefits The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction students. of disparity between black and white students. Quality programs will be used as a recruitment tool to assist the District in desegregating the Incentive Schools. The District will operate and implement an effective and efficient incentive school program.I Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 5 P. Impact Analysis Quality desegregated education will be provided in environment that is attractive and conducive to learning, desegregation plan will not be negatively impacted. recommendation will have a positive impact on the plan an The This teaching and learning will be enhanced. as Successful implementation of this program will allow the District to replicate those factors that enhance and promote student learning and parent involvement. months, The District plans to provide early release time, one day each month for nine to provide quality staff development for all of its teachers including Incentive School teachers. Quality staff development will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers and support staff. Using early release time is an effective and extremely cost saving means of providing support for staff. Double funding of the Incentive Schools will provide for potential dollars for Area Schools. More than 80 percent of the district's students attend Area Schools. to \"doing more with less.\" Double funding of Incentive Schools will shift the emphasis Testimonies have suggested that the \"double funding\" intent has created a financial illusion of a \"cure all\" panacea for these schools. The district's program planning and budgeting document will allow us Incentive to monitor the impact of School programs on \"double funding\" regular basis. on Such monitoring can ensure that the Incentive Schools do not suffer irreparable harm as we shift from triple funding to double funding. a Start-up costs should decrease and/or be eliminated after several years of program implementation. Maintenance of programs is not as costly as start-up costs for Incentive School Programs. 6. Resource Analysis Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way. Staff and students will benefit as we shift our priorities from implementing a multitude of independent activities to implementation of a more focused program\none that places high emphasis on maximizing people power in schools rather than dollar power.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 6 See attachments Incentive Schools. for analysis of current spending in the An analysis and comparison of 1992-93 and 1993-94 indicate substantial increase in spending, yet the budgets student enrollment was reduced and little, if any academic increases were noted by these schools, decreased. The number of white students The projected reductions will bring Incentive School budgets in line with the established double funding formula. Utilization of human resources will be emphasized as opposed to spending because there is a perceived \"pot of money.\" Staff would carefully scrutinize spending of fewer dollars. The district needs to develop a technology plan to determine its' equipment needs. Such a plan will also providing high quality hardware and software Incentive Schools. include for the Quality staff development will be provided during newly established early release days at no cost for stipends. Stipends will activities be rather attached to meaningful than providing extended day staff/utilities/transportation/services students. too for much phantom Staff would spend more time planning for quality integration of services to be more comprehensive and get the most for dollars expended. Principals of Incentive Schools will have some flexibility in reallocating their budgets. Requests for budget increases will be handled through the use of business cases. More students will engage in meaningful extended day/week activities. Staff would have additional time to reflect and current program offerings. assess staff activities. to plan more Time would be available for effectively for extended day/week Teachers would have an incentive to do a better job over a shorter period of time. Projected savings as we shift from triple funding to double funding is\n) Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 7 SCHOOL FRANKLIN (25) BUDGET ITEM/ FUNCTION Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Music / 1124 Food Service / 0380 AMOUNT 70,657.00 10,272.00 72,615.35 TOTAL 6,965.97 $ 160,510.32 GARLAND (26) Stipends / 0117 Equipment / 0540 Music .05 / 1124 20,000.00 25,000.00 14,262.55 MITCHELL (34) RIGHTSELL (39) ROCKEFELLER (36) Art .05 / 0110 17,500.00 P. E. .05 / 0110 Social Work / 2113) Food Service / 0380 TOTAL Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Music Art 17,500.00 11,887.04 4,000.00 $110,149.59 58,464.45 8,211.00 .05 / 1124 .05 / 0110 P. E. .05 / 0110 Social Work .05 / 0110 Food Service / 0380 TOTAL $ Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Food Service / 0380 Music .05 / 1124 TOTAL Stipends / 0117 20,864.18 17,500.00 17,500.00 17,500.00 4,000.00 144,039.63 $ $ $ Transportation / 0331 Supplies / 0410 TOTAL $ 57,336.00 2,000.00 4,000.00 17,500.00 80,836.00 40,044.28 7,500.00 2,500.00 50,044.28Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 8 START UP COSTS: PROGRAM AMOUNT Business Case Writing to Read Science Labs Computer Labs Computer Loan Program TOTAL Spanish Program Field Trips Office of Incentive Schools SUMMARY SCHOOL/PROGRAM Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Start-Up Costs Spanish Program* Field Trips Office of Incentive Schools Staffing Efficiency $ $ $ $ 6,000.00 12,000.00 6,000.00 2,500.00 26,500.00 149,000.00 21,450.00 65,000.00 SAVINGS $ 160,510.32 110,149.59 144,039.63 80,836.00 50,044.38 26,500.00 149,000.00 21,450.00 65,000.00 280,000.00 TOTAL $ 1/087/529.82 * See July 18/ 1994 court submission for business case. H. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be Area School Directors, staffs. students. and central office parents. staff. community. Board of The recommendation provides for the needs of students who will attend all of schools and allows us to double fund our Incentive Schools. our1 Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 9 The primary detractors will be persons who believe that Incentive Schools should be triple funded regardless of the negative impact on teaching and learning in Area Schools in the District. Given the concerns expressed by a large number of our patrons and educators regarding the excessive funding of many programs in the Incentive Schools, the list of detractors should be small. These concerns can be eliminated by providing information to them regarding our emphasis on educational excellence and the need to implement quality programs within the established double funding formula. BUDGET IMPACT\nDepartment Function 25, 26, Object 1120, 0110, 0117, 0331, 0380, 34, 36, 39 1124, 2113 0410, 0540LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING REVISED - AUGUST 4,1994 BUSINESS CASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District remains committed to the implementation of a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. This commitment includes the elimination of racially-isolated schools. One purpose of the incentive schools was to create schools that were comparable to the best in die District and the state. At that time, as well as today. Carver and Williams Magnet Schools and Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry Area Schools were/are viewed by their patrons as the premier schools that have established high academic standards and high expectations for students, staff, and parents. Incentive schools were designed to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The Incentive School Program is not only to compensate the victims of segregation but also to serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in the Incentive Schools and in the three districts as a whole. The Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. The district committed to double funding of these schools in order to provide the enriched program. At the time the settlement plan was finalized, \"double-funding\" was not clearly defined nor had the cost for implementing the plan been determined. The district developed a plan without regard to cost-a factor which was to be considered at a later point Since that time, the district has developed a formula and funds the schools according to this established criteria. \"Many, but not all of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive School section of the Desegregation Plan have been put in place, costing the District the amount of the double funding obligations\" (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report). A. Background The racially identifiable schools have evolved from major and minor enhancement schools to Incentive Schools. The purpose of each change was to improve the quality of education. However, the shift in instructional emphasis upon becoming Incentive Schools has had limited success in reducing the academic disparities between black and white students in test scores. Further, no significant number of white students has enrolled in the Incentive Schools despite efforts, although limited, to recruit and serve them in the Incentive Schools. The district continues to cope with problems that are common to urban school districts. The severity of our financial problems has caused the district to focus its energies and resources on establishing a balanced budget each year. Greater emphasis must be placed on implementing and evaluating quality integrated education for our community. The District must operate an efficient school districtIncentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 2 within the boundaries of its annual recurring revenues. Short-term remedies have only delayed the financial crises that we now face. B. Problem Definition Current programming has not resulted in either improved achievement or desegregated schools. A number of programs do have defined levels of focus and integration of content needed to optimize teaching and learning. Instructional time is limited. Each facet of this district must assist in resolving its financial problems. Over the years, funding incentive schools has exceeded the Districts double funding obligation and current programming has not resulted in improved achievement or desegregated schools. The District must now decide if it continue this practice of funding Incentive School programs, or should funding be realigned to our commitment The current practive has impacted the Districts ability to fund Area Schools. Such reduced funding of Area Schools will have a negative impact and run the risk of continued urban flight and aging buildings that need attention. There are 50 schools in the district and the children that populate all of these schools must be provided equitable opportunities and resources. A large we percentage of students attending our Area Schools are students who may live in the Incentive School attendance zones and/or have similar educational needs. C. Analysis of Alternatives Teaching and learning have not yielded the expected academic growth. Recruitment of white students to the Incentive Schools has resulted in little or no increase in enrollment The District is now asking the following questions:  Are there programs currently being implemented in the District (or elsewhere) which could better ensure that the Incentive Schools original goals are achieved?  Are there obligations that are questionable from an educational or some other standpoint?  Should funding the Incentive School Program be brought in line with the Districts commitment to double fund these schools?  Can we demonstrate logically that the current program is not making the best use of time, effort, and money?  Are there relevant programs within the District that are achieving the objectives desired for the Incentive Schools?Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 3 The alternatives at this time are\n Keep doing what we are doing.  Review programs and analyze current funding of Incentive Schools in order to realign funding as previously committed to by the District  Modify the Incentive School Program The most reasonable short term alternative is to double fund Incentive Schools without damaging the integrity and quality of programs committed to by the District Care must be taken to surgically realign funding of the Incentive Schools, as these schools remain an important and relevant component of our Court approved desegregation plan. Minimum modification of extended day can provide a more focused school day, time for staff to focus, assess and plan more meaningful extended day activities. D. Recommendations Number One The District recommends that it maintain its commitment as outlined in the settlement plan, to double fund the incentive schools. Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of District schools. Past and recent annual evaluation reports for the six stipulated magnets suggest that the students attending are achieving academically as well as or better than other students at the state level. The evaluation data for several area schools indicate that our students are progressing academically. Achievement disparity still exists\nhowever, data show that African-American students in these schools achieve at a higher academic level than African-American students in non-magnet schools in the district and across the state. The student enrollments at these schools have been stable over a period of time. There are waiting lists for parents who wish to enroll their students where educational excellence prevails. Financial resources alone will not ensure educational excellence. There must be on-going monitoring of programs to ensure the District maintains its commitment to provide for the needs of the children attending these schools. The District further recommends that extended day/week activities would be staffed in accordance with programmatic need. A review of current enrollment figures indicates that we may be able to eliminate some small classes. Although we are aware that students may enroll late, should the district staff these classes today, we could eliminate eight positions at a cost savings of approximately $280,000.00 (eight teachers x average salary of $35,000 = $280,000).Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 4 Number Two The Great Expectations Teaching Model, which encompasses the very best of what is known about teaching today, should be implemented in selected Incentive Schools. Successful implementation can enhance student achievement, promote a positive school climate, and increase the probability of attaining the goals of the Desegregation Plan. Successful implementation during the 1994-95 school year will ensure replication of this teaching model in the remaining Incentive Schools as well as Area Schools with similar nee^. (Refer to Business Case for Great Expectations) E. Objectives The objective of this recommendation is to offer a quality Incentive School program at all incentive schools by utilizing the funding that has been generated through our commitment to double funding. Evaluation Criteria The incentive school will be successfully operating as evidenced by\n Increased student achievement Teaching and learning will improve as measured by projects, portfolio assessments, and teacher-made tests.  Improvement in standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from the bottom quartile to the next quartile and increased numbers of students moving above the t percentile.  Increased interest in the Incentive Schools by white families evidenced by more white students enrolling in these schools.  Grade distribution reports (by semester) reflecting an increase in letter grades of \"C\" or better in the core areas for each student  Increased student participation in extended day/week activities. Expected Benefits The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity between black and white students. Quality programs and effective teaching strategies will be used as a recruitment tool to assist the District in desegregating the Incentive Schools. The District will operate and implement an effective and efficient incentive school program.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 5 F. Impact Analysis Quality desegregated education will be provided in an environment that is attractive and conducive to learning. The desegregation plan will not be negatively impacted. This recommendation will have a positive impact on the plan as teaching and learning will be enhanced. Successful implementation of this program will allow the District to replicate those factors that enhance and promote student leanung and parent involvement  The District plans to provide early release time, one day each month for nine months, to provide quality staff development for aU of its teachers including Incentive School teachers.  Quality staff development will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers and support staff.  Using early release time is an effective and extremely cost saving means of providing support for staff.  Double funding of the Incentive Schools will provide for potential dollars for Area Schools. More than 80 percent of the districts students attend Area Schools.  Double funding of Incentive Schools will shift the emphasis to \"doing more with less. Testimonies have suggested that the \"double funding\" intent has created a financial illusion of a \"cure all\" panacea for these schools.  Monthly monitoring and conference with principals will allow the District to track expenditures and ensure that the rate of spending is appropriate for programming needs.  The Districts program planning and budgeting document will allow us to monitor the impact of \"double funding\" on Incentive School programs on a regular basis. Such monitoring can ensure that the Incentive Schools do not suffer irreparable harm as we realign expenditures with the Districts commitment to fund the Incentive Schools.  Start-up costs should decrease and/or be eliminated after several years of program implementation. Maintenance of programs is not as costly as start-up costs for Incentive School Programs.  Implementation of the Great Expectations Teaching Model should provide the means for establishing the proper focus and connectivity needed to optimize student performance in the Incentive Schools. Incentive School componentsIncentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 6 (i.e., Reading Across the Curriculum, Oral Expression Across the Curriculum, Program for Effective Teaching, Cooperative Learning, Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement, heterogeneous grouping, learning styles, social skills, and incentive/recognition programs) can be implemented in a systematic manner. The model will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers by providing excellent support for delivery of the current curriculum. Strengthening the capacity of the staffs to enhance learning through staff development activities is extremely cost effective. The educational returns can be long lasting. The probability of attaining the goals of the Incentive Schools will be increased. G. Resource Analysis Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way. Staff and students will benefit as we shift our priorities from implementing a multitude of independent activities to implementation of a more focused program\none that places high emphasis on maximizing people power in schools rather than dollar power. See attachments for analysis of current spending in the Incentive Schools. An analysis and comparison of 1992-93 and 1993-94 budgets indicate substantial increase in spending, yet the student enrollment was reduced and little, if any academic increases were noted by these schools. The number of white students decreased.  The projected reductions will bring Incentive School budgets in line with the established double funding formula.  Utilization of human resources will be emphasized as opposed to spending because there is a perceived \"pot of money.\" Staff would carefully scrutinize spending of fewer dollars.  The district needs to develop a technology plan to determine its equipment needs. Such a plan will also include providing high quality hardware and software for the Incentive Schools.  Quality staff development will be provided during newly established early release days at no cost for stipends.  Stipends will be attached to meaningful extended day activities rather than providing too much staffZutilities/transportation/services for phantom students.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 7  Staff would spend more time planning for quality integration of services to be more comprehensive and get the most for dollars expended.  Principals of Incentive Schools will have some flexibility in reallocating their budgets. Requests for budget increases will be handled through the use of business cases.  More students will engage in meaningful extended day/week activities.  Staff would have additional time to reflect and assess current program offerings. Time would be available for staff to plan more effectively for extended day/week activities.  Teachers would have an incentive to do a better job over a shorter period of time.  No additional funding will be necessary to implement Great Expectations. Existing materials will be used. Any additional materials or supplies can be secured with existing funds. This teaching model will be funded by a private foundation. The District expects to develop the ability to support and sustain the model through existing personnel. The staff development specialist assigned to the incentive schools attended the Great Expectations Summer Institute and provide technical assistance and support to the school staffs. Information provided in the following charts will reflect the actual savings derived from realigning our current spending.SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING FRANKLIN INCENTIVE SCHOOL - 0025 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1105-0120 Reg. Non- Certified $ 36,794.05 $ 20,570.00 $ 16,224.05 1120-0117 Stipends $ 62,811.61 50,000.00 12,811.61 1120-0120 Reg. Non- Certified $ 146,368.56 137,205.56 9,163.00 1220-0110 Resource Room $ 61,485.75 28,104.00 33,381.75 1220-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 4,547.07 2,030.85 2,516.22 1220-0240 Insurance $ 2,234.80 1,105.00 1,129.80 $ 314,241.84 $ 239,015.41 $ 75,226.43SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 0026 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1110-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 39,833.31 $ 35,852.00 $ 3,981.31 1120-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 421,511.31 1120-0117 Stipends $ 127,351.41 1120-0130 Subst. Short $ 18,696.56 1120-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 52,942.48 1120-0331 Pupil Trans. 339,508.60 50,000.00 .00 37,682.25 82,002.71 77,351.41 18,696.56 15,260.23 $ 5,856.86 5,000.00 856.86 1120-0333 Travel $ 1120-0380 3,775.42 Food Service $ 12,467.20 1120-0410 Supplies .00 8,000.00 3,775.42 4,467.20 $ 12,851.74 8,700.00 4,151.74 1120-0416 Supply Center $ 1120-0540 6,246.39 Equipment $ 83,179.56 .00 25,000.00 6,246.39 58,179.561993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1124-0110 Reg. Ceirtif. $ 27,276.67 1220-0110 Reg. Certif. 12,235.45 15,041.22 $ 3,738.42 .00 3,738.42 2113-0120 $ 14,447.74 10,438.50 4,009.24 2410-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 59,995.14 56,078.38 3,916.76 2410-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 5,700.26 2542-0120 Reg. NonCert. 5,188.32 511.94 $ 3500-0313 38,908.00 Pupil Srvs. 36,962.60 1,945.40 $ 17,763.51 15,000.00 2,763.51 $ 952,541.98 $ 645,646.10 $ 306,895.88SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING MITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL - 0034 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1110-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 101,070.50 $ 62,049.00 $ 39,021.50 1110-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 7,536.03 4,483.78 3,052.25 1110-0240 Insurance $ 1120-0110 3,338.14 Reg. Certif. 2,210.00 1,128.14 $ 350,906.95 308,624.74 42,282.21 1120-0117 Stipends $ 100,856.17 50,000.00 50,856.17 1120-0120 Reg. NonCert. $ 157,057.46 134,584.20 22,473.26 1120-0331 Pupil Trans. $ 5,515.32 $ 5,000.00 515.32 1120-0416 Supply Center $ 6,026.87 947.00 5,079.87 1120-0540 Equipment $ 8,185.22 .00 8,185.22 1124-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 23,286.00 15,653.00 7,633.00 1124-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 2,902.79 1,131.08 1,771.71 $ 766,681.45 584,682.80 181,998.65SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL - 0039 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1120-0117 Stipends $ 91,361.59 $ 50,000.00 $ 41,361.59 $ 91,361.59 $ 50,000.00 $ 41,361.59SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL - 0036 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1105-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 93,677.09 $ 83,185.00 $ 10,492.09 1105-0120 Reg. Non- Certif. $ 186,166.39 173,610.22 12,556.17 1110-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 86,437.25 71,384.00 15,053.25 1110-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 6,472.67 5,158.38 1,314.32 1120-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 550,304.75 528,909.66 21,395.09 1120-0117 Stipends $ 105,960.94 70,000.00 35,960.94 1120-0120 Reg. NonCert if . $ 165,813.92 161,102.88 4,711.04 1120-0311 Instruc. Svcs. $ 38,136.77 .00 38,136.77 1120-0380 Food Services $ 31,013.40 20,000.00 11,013.40 1120-0410 Supplies $ 29,708.54 20,000.00 9,708.54 1120-0416 Supply Center $ 8,689.39 .00 8,689.391993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1120-0540 Equipment $ 44,595.14 .00 44,595.14 1120-0548 Equip. Supply Center $ 890.73 .00 890.73 $ 1,347,866.98 $ 1,133,350.14 $ 214,516.87Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 9 H. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be Area School staffs, students, parents, community, Board of Directors, and central office staff. The recommendation provides for the needs of students who will attend all of our schools and allows us to double fund our Incentive Schools. The primary detractors will be persons who believe that the current practice of funding Incentive Schools should be continued regardless of the negative impact on teaching and learning in Area Schools in the District Given the concerns expressed by a large number of our patrons and educators regarding current funding of many programs in the Incentive Schools, the list of detractors should be small. These concerns can be eliminated by providing information to them regarding our emphasis on educational excellence and the need to implement quality programs within the established double funding formula. BUDGET IMPACT: Department Function Object 25, 26, 34, 36, 39 1105, 1110, 1120, 1124, 2113, 2410, 2542, 3500 0110, 0117, 0331, 0380, 0410, 0540, 0120, 0210, 0240, 0130, 0333, 0416, 0313, 0311, 3548Arkansas Demcxxat 78?(gazette THUaSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1995  3B LR district exceeds spending on 5 schools to meet target\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_499","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District's Incentive Schools Mentoring Program,'' mentor handbook","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District's Incentive Schools Mentoring Program,'' mentor handbook"],"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/499"],"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\nLittle Rock School District's Incentive Schools Mentoring Program ERSD Incentives for Success Mentor HandbookLittle Rock School District Incentive Schools Mentoring Program Welcome Incentive Schools Mentoring Mentor Handbook Cultural Diversity Student Population Confidenti ality ORIENTATION AGENDA November 19, 1991 Catherine Gill, Incentive Schools Coordinator Arma Hart, Desegregation Facilitator Debbie Milam, VIPS/PIE Coordinator Valerie Hudson, VIPS Incentive School Coordinator Horace Smith, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Jo Evelyn Elston, Pupil Services Director Gwen Efird, Director of Health Services Power of Mentoring Allie Freeman, III Questions and Paperwork Debbie Milam and Leia Hodges DISTRICT GOALS 1. To increase educational achievement for all students with specific emphasis on closing disparities in achievement. 2. To establish climates of educational excellence in all schools through a) 1 providing equitable educational opportunities for ail students in a desegregated learning environment\nb) enabling all students to develop a for learning\nlifelong capacity and love c) teaching all students to be productive contributors in the school 5 the community. and the workplace\nand d) providing a disciplined, structured learning all students. environment for 3. To enhance human relations skills for principals, teachers, central office administrators. andThe Focus Fvinction, and Guiding Process of the Incentive Schools The focus, function, and guiding process of the Incentive Schools will be to provide excellence in an environment of academic support\nindivid ualized education and flexibility. Tlsese -.schools shall exemplify the close partnership between parents and the school community which is a motivational factor for students. The school program will address student success and development of potential from affective, skill based and academic perspec tives. Ilittle rock school district EPS CODE: ADA MISSION STATEMENT of the LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide an educational program that enables each child to achieve his/her highest potential. To that end, the Little Rock School District will provide: basic education for all students\n(2) programs that address the special needs of students (emotional, physical, and mental)\nand (3) enrichment opportunities such as art, music, and.athletics. 'Through an organized program of studies, each student will experience academic success and will learn and appreciate responsibility and productive citizenship. gram of studies Adopted 1-26-84 To (1) a program of 1. Goals The goals of this mentoring program are to see academic improvement, an increase in self-esteem in the participating students and increased awareness of career opportunities. 2. Recruitment Anyone may recruit mentors for the program. All mentors must complete the screening process before beginning work with a student. Many avenues will be used to recruit mentors, emphasizing a desire for diversity within our group of mentors. 3. Selection Process for Students The program is open to incentive school students in grades K-6. No more than 10% of the student population in each school may participate in the program. Students may be referred by the school pupil services management team. The team must be functioning and stay active during the school year for the school to participate in the program. monitoring. The team will be included in orientation and Family members, students and friends may recommend students for participation in the program to someone at the school. Parental involvement. essential to participation, may be confirmed through permission forms. Student participation in the program must be voluntary. Any of the following criteria may be used to refer students to the program\n  * *  moderate underachievement potential academic problems due to family crisis minor disciplinary difficulties social isolation dramatic shifts in behavior which cause concern Selection process for mentors Volunteers are responsible adults expressing the desire to extend their talents and services in a helping capacity with youth. While professional experience in dealing with youth may be helpful, it is not required or expected to be representative of the majority of prospective mentors. It is expected that volunteers will reflect the sampling of all socio-economic levels, ages, ethnic origins, physical challenges and professional/personal backgrounds. The only anticipated commonality among volunteers will be the sincere desire to responsibly contribute time to enrich the lives of youth. Mentors should be at least 21 years of age, responsible, respect alternative lifestyles and listen well. Screening process for mentors Potential mentors must complete an application which will provide needed information and give permission to check two references. driving record. police record and reported child abuse. After the application is reviewed, the A mentor may be scheduled for an interview.It is recommended that the mentor make a one-year commitment. This enables the students and mentor to feel comfortable committing the time, energy and trust necessary to make the relationship successful. Mentors may enter the program at the end of the first semester, remaining semester. Their commitment would be for the 4. Training Orientation will be conducted at least twice in the school year to accomodate the flow of program participants which includes mentors, students, parents, teachers, principals and the school pupil services teams. Orientation will serve to clarify program goals, policies and procedures, expectations, confidentiality and liability issues. Mentors will be assigned a student following training. Mentors must attend the first training session before making any contact with the student. Potential mentors must attend the orientation and first training session before mentoring. Topics that may be covered in the 2 hour sessions will include a discussion of a typical day in the life of a student at home and at school, tips on mentoring, enhancing good listening skills, techniques on how to read to students. confidentiali ty. accessing available ass i stance when needed, sensitivity to cultural diversity. goal setting and decision making with children, and Additional training will be offered once each nine weeks. Other sessions may cover topics such as improving academic skills, goal setting, understanding youth culture, communications skills, values, burnout and tips on tutoring. Mentor support will be included at the end of each training session to provide an opportunity for mentors to share concerns and accomplishments. 5. Monitoring and assessment The students' academic achievements will be monitored while they are matched with a mentor. Their grades and scores will be compared with a control group. Attendance and disciplinary actions will also be monitored. 6. Mentorship activities  In school reading to students * in class visits * visiting school library * playing games * helping with homework * talking together * sharing lunchIt is recommended that mentors and students stay in school for the first three months of their relationship. At the end of three months activities may move outside the school location with parental permission.   Out of school 200 telephone calls * historic area tours * dining out * circus * cultural events * athletic events 7. Recognition Mentors will be recognized at the district's annual volunteer recognition reception, Evening for the Stars, in April. A special graduation banquet will be held in May for mentors, students, parents and teachers. Badges will be made with the program logo and name for the mentors to wear when visiting their student.I n II MENTOR HANDBOOK II Table of Contents II II Pae Thank You 2 II What is Mentoring 3 Incentive School Programs 4 II Incentive School Listings 5 Little Rock School District Goals 6 II student Learning Outcomes 7 II Mentoring Program Outline 8-11 Mentor Job Description 12 II Mentor Roles and Responsibilities 13 student Attributes and Attitudes 14 II Benefits 15 II Mentor Strategies Tips for Writing 16-17 18 II Tips for Reading 19 Elementary Ideas 20 II2 I I Thank you for your interest in mentoring. As a mentor, you will not be required to know or teach \"new math\" skills. or computer You will simply share your wisdom and experience, ... ............. young people understand the connection between staying in and working hard'in school and getting a good job, '......................... You will help potholes on the road of life. You will be able to point out the pitfalls and And you will make a difference! ri Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation Incentive Schools (501) 324-2014 Volunteers in Public Schools (501) 324-2290 501 Sherman, Little Rock, AR 72202I 3 s. I LRSD Incentives for Success I What is Mentoring? I Attempts to arrive at a firm definition of \"mentoring\" are apt to leave one more than mildly confused. The reason for this is clear: Mentoring relationships are many things, more notable for their differences than for their commonalities. They are unique alliances, shaped by a particular mentor s talents and resources, and by a youth's equally unique needs. Mentoring is a particular kind of relationship in which a person with identified abilities or competencies enables another human being to develop his/her own abilities and talents. Mentoring is a close personal relationship, a process of working together to achieve agreed upon goals. Mentoring relationship, with mentors and mentees deriving satisfaction from their alliance. is also a mutual Acknowledging this kaleidoscope of meanings, the Little Rock School District Incentive Schools Mentoring Program has, initiative, chosen to view mentoring as: for the purpose of its own mentoring A supportive one-to-one relationship between an adult and a student, developed to facilitate the student's educational, social and personal growth. Mentors advise, coach, counsel, teach and model successful behaviors, roles vary depending on the abilities of the mentor and the needs of the mentee. These A mentor may help the mentee to: Translate his/her experiences into learning opportunities\n* Improve academic skills by helping with school projects, or encouraging the student to discover and use the resources of the public 1ibrary\nprojects, f Explore the world of employment. . , Mentors introduce students to the realities of the work place, introducing them to appropriate work habits and attitudes\n  Apply what he/she is learning in school to everyday life. II - -F / V 4 laeaalm hrf TIB 1 / Incentive School Programs  Student Education Plan An individual learning plan is developed to meet each student's learning style, interests, and needs. Exciting, Themed Focus Each school will have a theme that provides an exciting focus for solid basic skills results. ri Computer-Assisted Instruction Children learn computer-based instruction in elementary school reading, math, social studies and science. Writing to Read computer labs are available for kindergarten and first grade. Extended-Day, -Week, and -Year Learning Opportunities Classes after school (homework center, special skills, clubs and leisure activities) and on Saturday, as well as field trips, enhance learning. ri Parent Center Parents may obtain materials on parenting skills and other information at each school. student Homework Hotline A telephone hotline is available for students to call for assistance Monday through Thursday from 6 to 8 p.m. Best Pupil-to-Staff Ratio in the District This classroom ratio helps increase interaction between students and trained adults. Special Skills Programs Foreign language, free string program, band, choir, dance, gymnastics and aerobics are offered after school. Parent Council The Parent Council routinely visits the school and shares ideas with staff and administrators to accomplish model school results. Four-Year-Old Program The four-year-old program offers certified teachers, an instructional aide and an age-appropriate curriculum that prepares for kindergarten level learning. ri FOR MORE INFORMATION AND SCHOOL TOURS, CALL 324-2286 ri Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham SL Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I 5 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Incentive Schools I School Frankl in Gari and Ish Mitchell Rightsei 1 Rockefeller Stephens Principal Address Phone Franklin Davis Robert Brown Stan Strauss Donita Hudspeth Bobbie Goodwin Ann Mangan Lonnie Dean 1701 S. Harrison Rd, (04) 3615 W. 25th Street, (04) 3001 Pulaski, (06) 2410 Battery, (06) 911 W. 19th (06) 700 E. 17th (06) 3700 W. 18th (04) 671-6380 671-6275 324-2410 324-2415 324-2430 324-2385 671-6350 I ri to c u? \u0026lt;_ eg O o LRSD Incentives for Success 1 5? S? zI 6 4 4 LITHE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 GOALS 4 1990-91 4 4 in To increase educational achievement for all students with specific emphasis on closing disparities 4 achievement. To in establish climates of excellence all schools. 4 for principals, teachers, and central office administrators. To enhance human relations skills 4 4 44 I* I 7 N Student Learning Outcomes N Little Rock School District Student Learning Outcomes Arkansas Board of Education Learner Outcomes* N 4 4 The Board believes that students should leave school possessing the skills and knowledge they need to have successful experiences in higher education and in the workplace. These exit outcomes should be reflected in the goals and objectives established for each curricular program, level/course, unit, and lesson. The District has the following outcomes for all students by the time they graduate from the 12th grade. 4 Students will: 4 4 4 444 1. Adequately master reading, writing, speaking, listening (communication, critical and creative thinking, and mathematical skills sufficient for effective, efficient functioning. 1. 2. Locate and use needed informaiion from printed materials and/or other resources. Students will acquire core concepts and abilities from the sciences, the arts, humanities, mathematics, social studies,language arts, foreign languages,physicaVhealth education, practical living studies and existing/emerg-ing technologies. 2. 3. Identify problems and needs, apply problem solring strategies, and analyze information for meaning and,^or action. Students will apply various thinking/problem-solving strategies to issues related to all subject matter fields and to real-life situations. 4. Use tools of technology at an effective, efficient, flexible, and adapuble level. 5. Have knowledge of basic historical, geographic, political, literary, and scientific information, and use such knowledge in day-to-day decisions. 6. Appreciate and understand cultural dL''ferences. the arts and humanities, current happenings, and ways to predict or influence future events. 2. Establish and maintain effective and supportive intrapcrsonal. interpersonal, and cooperative relationships, and civic and social responsibility. 8. Demonstrate scif-direciion as an active life-long learner and demonstrate self-respect, self-esteem, sclf-undersi.anding, and a physically and men tally balanced healthy life. 3. Students will exhihit/demonstraie attitudes and attributes that will promote mental, physical and emotional health. 4, Students will demonstrate good citizenship and function as positive members of the local, national and world comunity. Tcniatively approved by ihc Ariarsor Hoard of Ediicalion June 19.19^1. 8 c LRSD Incentives for Success Little Rock School District's Incentive Schools Mentoring Program 1. Goal s 2. Recruitment 3. Selection Process for Students and Mentors d 4. Training 5. Monitoring and Assessment d 6. Mentorship Activities 7. Recognition d ri dI 9 1. Goals The goals of this mentoring program are to see academic improvement. an increase in self-esteem in the, participating students and increased awareness of career opportunities. 2. Recruitment Anyone may recruit mentors for the program. screening process before beginning work with a student. All mentors must complete the Many avenues will be used to recruit mentors, emphasizing a desire for diversity within our group of mentors. 3. Selection Process for Students The program is open to incentive school students in grades K-6. No more than ri 10% of the student population in each school may participate in the program. Students may be referred by the school pupil services management team. The team must be functioning and stay active during the school year for the school to participate in the program. monitoring. The team will be included in orientation and Family members, students and friends may recommend students for participation in the program to someone at the school. essential to participation, Parental involvement. may be confirmed through permission forms. ri Student participation in the program must be voluntary. Any of the following criteria may be used to refer students to the program\nri *   * moderate underachievement potential academic problems due to family crisis minor disciplinary difficulties social isolation dramatic shifts in behavior which cause concern Selection process for mentors Volunteers are responsible adults expressing the desire to extend their talents and services in a helping capacity with youth. experience in dealing with youth may be helpful, While professional it is not required or expected to be representative of the majority of prospective mentors. ri It is expected that volunteers will reflect the sampling of all socio-economic levels, ages, ethnic origins, physical challenges and professional/personal backgrounds. The only anticipated commonality among volunteers will be the ri sincere desire to responsibly contribute time to enrich the lives of youth. Mentors should be at least 21 years of age, responsible, respect alternative lifestyles and listen well. Screening process for mentors ri Potenti al i nformati on mentors must complete an application which will provide needed and give permission to check two references, driving record, police record and reported child abuse. After the application is reviewed, the mentor may be scheduled for an interview.I 10 It is recommended that the mentor make a one-year commitment. This enables the students and mentor to feel comfortable committing the time, energy and trust necessary to make the relationship successful. program at the end of the first semester, remaining semester. Mentors may enter the Their commitment would be for the 4. Training Orientation will be conducted at least twice in the school year to accomodate the flow of program participants which includes mentors, students, parents, teachers, principals and the school pupil services teams. Orientation will serve to clarify program goals, policies and procedures, expectations, confidentiality and liability issues. ri Mentors will be assigned a student following training. Mentors must attend the first training session before making any contact with the student. ri Potential mentors must attend the orientation and first training before mentoring. session Topics that may be covered in the 2 hour sessions will include a discussion of a typical day in the life of a student at home and at school, tips on mentoring, enhancing good listening skills, techniques on how ri to read to students, confi denti ali ty. accessing available goal setting assistance when sensitivity to cultural diversity. and decision making with children. needed, and ri Additional training will be offered once each nine weeks. Other sessions may cover topics such as improving academic skills, goal setting, understanding youth culture, communications skills, values, burnout and tips on tutoring. Mentor support will be included at the end of each training session to provide an opportunity for mentors to share concerns and accomplishments. 5. Monitoring and assessment The students' academic achievements will be monitored while they are matched with a mentor. Their grades and scores will be compared with a control group. Attendance and disciplinary actions will also be monitored. 6. Mentorship activities ri ri In school reading to students in class visits visiting school library playing games helping with homework * talking together sharing lunch ri    11 It is recommended that mentors and students stay in school for the first three months of their relationship. At the end of three months activities may move outside the school location with parental permission.   Out of school zoo telephone calls * historic area tours * dining out  circus * cultural events * athletic events 7. Recognition Mentors will be recognized at the district's annual volunteer recognition reception. Evening for the Stars, in April. A special graduation banquet will be held in May for mentors, students, parents and teachers. ri Badges will be made with the program logo and name for the mentors to wear when visiting their student. ri ri ri ri12 Volunteer Job Description a Title: Incentive School Mentor a Support Persons: Incentive School Coordinators Job Description: To spend one hour per week with an elementary student with the goal of helping that child improve academically and experience an increase in self esteem. a Major Responsibilities: To complete orientation prior to becoming a mentor, visit assigned student weekly, serve as a positive role model for the student, and attend additional support and training once per nine weeks. Experlence/Quallflcations Desired: Good communications skills, nonjudgmental attitude toward others and support of public education. Hours of CoMiltaent: Per Week 1 Per Month 4 a Days oTWeek: Your choice, Monday through Friday, during school hours 8:00- 4:30. 11:00 - 12:30 is preferred time at some schools. a Length of ComltBent: Commitment should be for at least one semester. A coimitment of one semester would involve approximately five hours of training and 20 hours of work with the student. a Training and Supervision Provided: Attendance at two hours of orientation is required to progress to training. times most convenient to the mentors. Four training sessions will be provided at the mentoring begins, needed. Orientation must be completed before Ongoing individual consultation will be provided as Address Where Volunteer Hill Report: Assigned Little Rock Incentive School a a For Biore InforiMtion contact: Valerie Hudson or Debbie Milam Volunteers in Public Schools Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 324-2292 or 324-2297 Catherine Gill Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 324-2014i 13 ri ri Mentor Roles \u0026amp; Responsibilities The most crucial role for a mentor is to be an adult who has time for a child, who cares about that child, who believes in that child. This relationship may provide the ONLY stability a student knows, and the only time anyone spends quality time with the mentee.  Keith Geiger                       A GOOD MENTOR Engages in a positive relationship with the child Gives attention to the mentee Has a positive self-esteem Reacts well to stressful situations Tolerates frustrating situations Does not engage in alcohol or drug abuse Listens well Communicates on a level the mentee can understand Is stable Provides leadership Respects alternate lifestyles Is a positive role model Meets on a weekly basis with the mentee Shows up on time for sessions Has no criminal record Is willing to serve a minimum of one year in the program Cares about helping a needy child Is not a judgmental person Is committed Nurtures a relationship that respects the men tees dignity Accepts responsibilities Reinforces students successes THE MENTORS ROLE IS NOT TO       Replace the role of parent/guardian Interfere with school policies and procedures Tutor the mentee in academic subjects as a means of improving grades Expect dramatic changes in attitude, self-esteem or attendance quickly Provide solutions to all the issues facing students today Break the trust they have established unless life threatening Alon\nThe ME^'TCR HAWSi?0k', Educn-t^ccnaZ Rczcu-lCW Inc., 1990 I I Student Attributes and Attitudes \u0026lt; A positive self-image and self-esteem are crucial to learning. These attributes determine goals, behaviors and responses to others. Furthermore, people depend on and influence one another. Therefore, it is important that students take responsibility for their lives and set appropriate goals for themselves. In doing so, they develop lifelong attitudes. POSITIVE SELF-CONCEPT Each student should be able to: K K HI  Appreciate his/her worth as a unique and capable individual and exhibit self- esteem\nDevelop a sense of personal effectiveness and a belief in his/her ability to shape his/her future\nDevelop an understanding of his/her strengths and weaknesses and the ability to maximize strengths and rectify or compensate for weaknesses. MOTIVATION AND PERSISTENCE Each student should be able to: Experience the pride of accomplishment that results from hard work and persistence\nAct through a desire to succeed rather than a fear of failure, while recognizing that failure is a part of everyones experience\nStrive toward and take the risks necessary for accomplishing tasks and fulfilling personal ambitions. RESPONSIBILITY AND SELF-RELIANCE M Each student should be able to: M Assume the primary responsibility for identifying his/her needs and setting reasonable goals\nIniuaie actions and assume responsibility for the consequences of those M actions\nDemonstrate dependability\nDemonstrate self-control. Bl (Source. Connecticut s Common Core of Learning. Connecticut State Board of Bl Education, January 1987) Taken THE ME^'TCR EdacattOnaZ Re.4cuTcc.i K'c(a\u0026gt;c.^.k, Jnc., 19^015 Benefits to Mentees I The Signs of Success Mentors frequently ask: Am I making a difference? What are the signs of progress that can be considered successful irt a mentor/mentee relationship? For some, it may be ten years before a former mentee looks back, in retrospect, and says  you know who made a difference in my life? My mentor...when I was in second grade. Below are the signs of success which mentors observe from mentees as a result of the relationship. Teachers notice the same improvement Remember the key  PATIENCE... Every relationship is different. 4  H H M M                   Improved attendance Improved eye contact Raising a hand more often in class Increased communication Taking more risks in class and with friends Smiling Improved interactions with peers Happier at school Improved appearance Increased consideration of others Decreased hostility More enthusiastic Fewer trips to the principals office Reduced detentions Improved attitude Improved academic performance Paying more attention Opening up to the mentor Benefits to Mentors M Mentors make a difference in the life of at-risk youth. There are personal benefits which mentors have shared. These are welcomed outgrowths of the one-to-one relationship established. M Mentors M Bl Appear happier when they return to the workplace Are fulfilled with their commitment as a volunteer in the community Have a greater understanding of the educational system in which they are w'orking and education-related issues. Have more appreciation for students of the same and other races Feel better about themselves for having impacted anothers life Get along better with their own families (spouse and children) Often become a better prepared workforce Tafcer\nTHE HAIWBOOK, Educai-^OnaX Reicu-icc-i HeTiw^ck, Enc., J990 I 16 Mentor Strategies That Work Mentors read with their mentees, take them to the school library, play games and talk. In addition, many of the mentors in the program offer the following activities and strategies which have worked successfully for them in their relationship with their mentee. The list is below in the hopes that others will be able to replicate some of these ideas. Listen, listen, and listen then add three times the patience you would use with your own children.\" Just be a friend and be available.  If a teacher tells you something in conversation (such as your mentee did this and it was not good\nor he! she missed an assignment)\ndont bring this up with the youngster. They feel thatyou re not their friend and that you are on the teachers side\nthen you begin to lose a little trust. Do not constantly ask questions about the students life with the hope thatyou are going to get to know that person better. With time, he!she will let you know EVERYTHING.  H M Hi Bi FROM A MENTOR There is nothing to compare with rich advicefrom a mentor working each week with a youngster in a school. The following was shared by one mentor for others to benefit. The most important thing I have learned is to communicate. Talk to your principal who will help you get set up in a quiet location where you can work with your student Introduce yourself to your students teacher. They are the people who know the student best and can help you arrange one or two goals to work toward with your mentee. They dont have to be academic goals either. They could be something like working on controlling a bad temper or being more verbal or sharpening listening skills. The teacher might tell you on what level the child is reading so the two of you could read library books together that are appropriate. If you feel comfortable with it, a review of a reading or spelling assignment would help reinforce new learning. Most importantly, communicate with your student. The first couple of meetings you may feel like you are doing all the talking, but once the child gets to know you and trust you, youll probably be doing all the listening. The first time I met my student, I brought along a small photo album of pictures of my family, pets and my house. It was just a mailer of time before I heard all about his family. Then we had lots to talk about. Taker. 0- m THE ME^'TCk HAWBOOK, EducaticnaJ Rucu.'ica inc., 199017 w N R R R R n You can also play games with your student. When I first started doing this I felt guilty playing games - that he should be 'learning' something instead. Several mentors were feeling the same way, so we brought this up at a group meeting. It was brought to our attention that a lot of learning does take place while playing games - such as learning to obey rules and good sportsmanship as well as the fact that this game time may be one of the only times the child has the undivided attention of an adult and thats real special to them, too. If you have a hobby or special interest, dont be afraid to share it with your student. My student told me two things he didnt like to do were music and art, which, of course, are my two favorite hobbies! So I stayed clear of those subject for most of the year. Then I decided to bring in my autoharp one day. I played and sang a few fam iliar songs for him, then I went to put it away. He asked if he could try. He looked like he was enjoying it, so I suggested he might learn a song to play for his class. Everyone gathered around him and watched as he played. Then they all clapped when he was done. His smile was a mile wide and he was so proud of himself. One other thing that I think is very important is making a real effort to meet with your student each week and to be on time. These kids, especially the older ones, seem so tough and act like nothing matters to them, but youd be surprised how much they look forward to your visits. If you have to be out of town one week, try to reschedule your time with your student. If thats not possible, maybe you can talk about it the week before, so the child isnt disappointed at the last minute. I  ve watched my little boy go from a very emotional, insecure child to a cheerful and confident boy who knows that things can be done if he tries hard.\"  Susan Corey, Mentor Pepperidge Farm, Inc. How To Spend One Hour 15 Minutes 15 Minutes 15 Minutes 15 Minutes Talk What happened in school this week? What do you need help with today? M Read Share a library book Have your mentee read to you Play a Game Bring one in from home Physical Activity Walk around the school grounds Play in the school gym Taker, facn THE MEKTOR H^h/VSOOK, EducateonaE RcicttlcCi Wc.Cwo\u0026lt;fc, Ir.c., 199018 I R TIPS FOR ENCOURAGING CHILDREN TOWRITE Mentors can encourage children to write for real purposes. In addition to the typical writing assignments given by the teacher, you can offer simple exercises to reinforce R R writing. These include: Notes to parents Notes to friends Notes to the teacher Thank you notes A letter to a storybook character Letters asking for advertised freebies Letters to the local newspaper R Letters to legislators Letters to an author Greeting cards (invent an occasion) Pattern books Keeping dialogue journals Keeping post-it notes while reading Creating lists (use your imagination) DISCUSSION QUESTIONS The Kids Book of Questions. Gregory Stock, Ph.D., offers some good discussion starters for youngsters. Some are funny while others are grown-up questions, issues that a child will face throughout life. Six examples follow:  R    J M  If you were alone and had only a few minutes to hide from crooks who were about to break into your house, where would you hide? What is the best hiding place in your house? Do you think you have too many chores? If you could assign the chores in your house, which ones would you take for yourself? Some adults have a lot of trouble enjoying themselves. If you were asked to give them some advice about how to play and have more fun, what would you say? What is the worst nighunare you can remember? Would you be willing to have the same dream tonight if it meant you could spend a weekend at Disneyland? If you liked someone who later turned out to be a liar, would you still want to be good friends? Did you ever stand up for something you thought was right even though a lot of people got upset with you? If not, do you think you would ever be strong enough to do so? 01 Take-f. j-tcm THE MEh'TCR t-iAKyBOOK, EducitticiiclE Rezicutce-5 ^eXivo-'ik, Inc.., 1990 I TIPS FOR READING TO CHILDREN 19 I Mentors can support teachers efforts to help students learn to read while having fun. Studies indicate that youngsters who are read aloud to and are coached become successful readers. When reading to your mentees, consider the following suggestions which have been prepared by the Language Arts Department of the Norwalk, Connecticut Public Schools.          H    M Select books and poems which you like and will read enthusiastically. For selections to choose from, use school list or check with mentee's teacher. Make certain you have read the whole story before you read it to the child. Practice reading the story aloud before you read it to the child. Read with plenty of expression. Try to vary your tone of voice when there is dialogue in the story. Vary the pace of your reading to fit the story. Read a fast-moving action scene quickly. Read a suspenseful part slowly, drawing out the words. Avoid long, descriptive passages. Before beginning the story', ask the child some questions which will help set the stage for the story. If the child needs background information in order to appreciate the story, spend a few minutes talking about it Have the child predict from the title, the pictures and/or the first paragraph what s/he thinks the story is about. Stop occasionally while reading the story and have the child predict what will happen next Many children have difficulty listening for any sustained length of time. If you find this happening, stop and have the child draw what has been going on in the story or retell the story to you. If you are reading a picture book, go back and talk about the details in the pictures and how they relate to the story. Are there clues to the storys content in the pictures? Talk about the story w'hen you have finished reading. Some questions you might ask are: ? I* a. b. c. d e. f. How do you feel about What do you think happens after the book has ended? If you could write a follow-up to the story, what would you put in it? Why do you think this story could or could not happen? What parts of the story dont you believe? g- Would you like to have he would get along in Whv do you think for a friend? How do you think s/ school? wrote this book? Could any of the events in the book have happened in the authors life? (Ask the child if s/he would like to read another book by the same author.) rfl Taf:cr. Ztom THE MEK'TOR HAfJVBCOK, EducaTxcnauE Re4cu.^Lce^ , Jnc., 7 990 I 20 ELEMENTARY IDEAS TO SHARE Mentors who are working with youngsters on the elementary level can help students to stretch their imaginations with activities that use old magazines. Here are a few ideas, suggested by Scholastic Pre-K Today Magazine.    A A  J Hl Me collage. Ask kids to cut out pictures and phrases that describe their personalities and interests, then glue them on poster board. Or, trace around a childs body while he or she lays on butcher-block paper. Ask children to cover their bodies with favorite pictures and phrases. Whos who? poster. Ask older children to cut out pictures of famous people (celebrities, political figures, etc.), Post a few at a time and encourage kids to find out who each mystery person is and why he or she is famous. Picture stories. Have children cut out a series of interesting pictures, mount each as a page in a picture book, and write lines to a story below. Or, ask children to create strange pictures by combining various ones from magazines. For example, someone might create a tree with jeweled rings hanging from its branches. Attach a sheet of paper and invite a child to write the beginning sentence of a story\npass the picture to another child to write a line, and so on, until everyone who wants, has added a sentence. The child who made the picture can then add the ending. Make time to share your stories. Silly ads. Invite children to come up with funny ads by mixing up pictures and phrases. Older children can work individually or in small groups to create advertising campaigns for new products. Stationery and greeting cards. Kids can create their own special stationery with magazine pictures or make personalized notecards by pasting down letters to spell their names. To make greeting cards, show children how to fold pieces of construction paper in half, then glue on favorite pictures. Suggest that kids cut out words and phrases to create messages inside.  Ciass magazine. For a fun group project, design your own class magazine. Use Hl cutout pictures, words, and phrases from magazines to supplement kids writing and illustrations. J 1 reasure hunt. Make a list of 10 things for kids to find in magazines, cutout and paste on paper. Some possible pictures to search for: something ugly, something old, an orange food, something that has a scent, a child with brown eyes. Hi Taken Tk/E ME^'T0R MWBOOK, Educai-conat Tuouaezi K/cXivc-ik, Ir.c., 1990\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_487","title":"Incentive Schools: Meetings and schedules","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Meetings and schedules"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/487"],"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\nSCHEDULE AND CALENDAR COMMITTEE The Schedule and Calendar Committee met on March 1990 and discussed the provisions of the Incentive School Plan relating to the committee title. The committee members offer the following suggestions and questions for consideration: 1. The extended school day would apply to Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of each week. This approach frees Monday for staff meetings and in-service programs for the staf f. Friday afternoons would be available for parent conferences and/or planning for the staff. The committee recommends one Saturday per month to be designated as an out-reach approach to the parents. The building would be available for meetings. parent conferences, parent study groups, related activities. parenting classes. and other parentThe committee recognizes the value of educational and entertaining field trips for the students. We would appreciate the opportunity and the funding to provide these opportunities to our students during the extended day on a regular basis. preferably once or twice per month. 1 i 1 4 3 4. The committee recommends that specialized activities during the extended day program be staffed by community personnel trained in providing quality education in the areas of gymnastics, appreciation, tennis, golf, arts and crafts, etc. art 5. Given that Rockefeller School will house the Early' Childhood Magnet for the Little Rock School District, it was felt by the committee that the offerings of the extended day program be limited to grades 2-6 and that participation in the program be voluntary as opposed to mandatory. Opposition to the inclusion of the younger children was based on the belief that organized curriculum after the regular school day could be stressful for the younger children and create an overwhelming planning burden on the staff. 11 is educationally recognized that the attention span of these younger children is considerably less than that of the older students. Further, family time for these younger students is critical to their development regardless of whether that family time is judged to be \"good II or \"bad\" by those in the educational etting. 6. Would personnel be provided for free play time during the I I Iextended day? Socialisation time is essential to child development and the committee for the children. trongly endorses recess time 7. Young bodies require food to concentrate on activities and academics. Is the District planning to fund snacks for the children in the extended day programs? responsible for preparation and serving? Who would be 8. The committee .recommends educational staff involvement in extended day activities to be scheduled on a rotating basis. This would allow certified personnel to participate in District in-service offerings and organizations beneficial to the educational and academic growth of the staff. The Schedule and Calendar Committee submits these proposals for your consideration. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this process. Respectfully Submitted, Martha Lowe Mary Kay Roe Almeda Giles Cindy Warren Ann Watson/ i? .V I SCHEDULE FOR PRESCHOOL INCENTIVE SCHOOL STAFF DEVELOPMENT July 23 - August 17, 1990 Date Monday, July 23 Time 8:30-10:00 ______Topic_________ \"Mission/Purposes of Incentive Schools\" Participants Staffs of all Place Parkview Responsibility Estelle Matthis six (6) schools Cafeteria Pat Price (175) 10:30-3:30 Initiating Staff Cohe- siveness and Developing Garland Ish Mission/Goals for Individ- Mitchell ual Incentive Schools\" Rightsei 1 Rockefeller Stephens PV 7-101 PV 7-102 PV 7-103 PV 7-104 PV 7-105 PV 7-106 Principals Tuesday, July 24 8:30-11:30 \"Curriculum Refinement: Identification of Desired Learning Outcomes (by grade-level/content 11 areas\nspecialists will K (25) 1 Reading (25) 2 Math (25) 3 Science (25) 4 Soc.St. (25) be assigned to a specific 5 Music (25) group by principal) 6 Art (25) PV 8-104 PV 7-101 PV 7-102 PV 7-103 PV 7-104 PR 7-105 PV 7-106 Pat Price Reading Supervis Math Supervisor Science Supervis Soc.St. Supervis Staff Dev. Spec. Art Teacher 12:30-3:30 continue above K (25) 1 English (25) 2 Reading (25) 3 Math (25) 4 Science (25) 5 Soc.St. (25) 6 Music (25) PV 8-104 PV 8-102 PV 7-101 PV 7-102 PV 7-103 PV 7-104 PV 7-105 Pat Price Eng/FL Supervise Reading Supervis Math Supervisor Science Supervis Soc.St. Supervis Staff Dev. Spec. Wednesday, 8:30-11:30 July 25 continue above K (25) 1 Art (25) 2 English (25) 3 Reading (25) 4 Math (25) 5 Science (25) 6 Soc.St. (25) PV 8-104 PV 7-106 PV 8-102 PV 7-101 PV 7-102 PV 7-103 PV 7-104 Pat Price Art Teacher Eng/FL Supervise Reading Supervis Math Supervisor Science Supervisi Soc.St. Supervis. 12:30-3:30 continue above K (25) 1 Music (25) 2 Art (25) 3 English (25) 4 Reading (25) 5 Math (25) 6 Science (25) PV 8-104 PV 7-105 PV 7-106 PV 8-102 PV 7-101 PV 7-102 PV 7-103 Pat Price Staff Dev. Spec. Art Teacher Eng/Fl Supervise Reading Supervis? Math Supervisor Science Supervise Thursday, July 26 8:30-11:30 continue above K (25) 1 Soc.St. (25) 2 Music (25) 3 Art (25) 4 English (25) 5 Reading (25) 6 Math (25) PV 8-104 PV 7-104 PV 7-105 PV 7-106 PV 8-102 PV 7-101 PV 7-102 Pat Price Soc.St. Supervise Staff Dev. Spec. Art Teacher Eng/FL Supervise! Reading Supervise Math Supervisor 12:30-3:30 continue above K (25) 1 Science (25) 2 Soc.St. (25) 3 Music (25) 4 Art (25) 5 English (25) 6 Reading (25) PV 8-104 PV 7-103 PV 7-104 PV 7-105 PV 7-106 PV 8-102 PV 7-101 Pat Price Science Supervise Soc.St. Supervis' Staff Dev. Spec. Art Teacher Eng/FL Supervise! Reading SupervisiDate Friday, Duly 27 Time 8:30-11:30 ___________Topic continue above Participants K (25) 1 Math (25) 2 Science (25) 3 Soc.St. (25) 4 Music (25) 5 Art (25) 6 English (25) Place PV 8-104 PV 7-102 PV 7-103 PV 7-104 PV 7-105 PV 7-106 PV 8-102 Responsibility Pat Price Math Supervisor Science Supervisor Soc.St. Supervisor Staff Dev. Spec. Art Teacher Eng/FL Supervisor 12:30-3:30 \"Extended Day Program (I Staffs of all six (6) schools (175) Parkview Cafeteria Pat Price 2 '550, through Tuesday, August 7, 1990, incentive school staff members to be paired according to the following schedule for the identified activities: are Date Participants Place Time Topic Responsibility Mondav, Duly 30 Garland \u0026amp; Ish staffs (55) Ish 8:30-11:30 \"Lesson Planning for Individ- Staff Dev. D ual Differences Within Whole Group\" 12:30-3:30 II Higher Order Thinking\" G/T Supervisor Tuesdav, 'uly 31 Wednesday, August 1 Mitchel 1 Stephens 0 Cl staffs (55) Rightsell \u0026amp; Rockefeller staffs (55) Garland \u0026amp; Ish staffs (55) Mitchell \u0026amp; Stephens staffs (55) Rightsell \u0026amp; Rockefeller staffs (55) Garland \u0026amp; Ish staffs (55) Mitchell \u0026amp; Stephens staffs (55) Rightsell \u0026amp; Rockefeller staffs (55) Stephens 8:30-3:30 \"Classroom/Di sci pli ne Management\" Staff Dev. A Rockefeller 8:30-3:30 \"Cooperative/Student Team Learning\" Staff Dev. 8 Ish 8:30-11:30 Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles II Staff Dev. C 12:30-3:30 Foreign Language Enrichment Stephens 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 II Application of Classroom/ Discipline Management\" II Review of PET\" Eng/FL Supervisor Principals Staff Dev. D Rockefeller Ish 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 Stephens 8:30-3:30 Rockefeller 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 \"Cooperative/Student Team Learning\" PAL to Reinforce Regular Program\" \"Classroom/Discipline Management\" II Cooperative/Student Team Learning II Higher Order Thinking\" II Foreign Language Enrichment Staff Dev. B Supervisors of Math \u0026amp; Reading Staff Dev. A Staff Dev. B G/T Supervisor Eng/FL SupervisorDate Participants Place Time Topic Responsibility Thursday, August 2 Garland 8 Ish Ish staffs (55) 8:30-11:39 \"Application of Classroom/ Discipline Management (I Principals 12:30-3:30 \"PAL to Reinforce Regular Program 11 Supervisors of Math \u0026amp; Reading Friday, August 3 Monday, August 6 Tuesday, August 7 Mitchell 8 Stephens staffs (55) Rightsell 8 Rockefeller staffs (55) Garland 8 Ish staffs (55) Mitchell 8 Stephens staffs (55) Rightsell 8 Rockefeller staffs (55) Garland \u0026amp; Ish staffs (55) Mitchell 8 Stephens staffs (55) Rightsell 8 Rockefeller staffs (55) Stephens 8:30-11:30 \"Cooperative/Student Team Learning\" staff Dev. B 12:30-3:30 \"Higher Order Thinking II G/T Supervisor Rockefeller Ish 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 \", Classroom/Discipline Management\" Staff Dev. A \"Cooperative/Student Team Learning\" Staff Dev. 8 Stephens 8:30-11:30 PAL to Reinforce Regular Program II Supervisors of Math \u0026amp; Reading 12:30-3:30 \"Community and Parent Involvement Principals/VIPS Rockefeller Ish 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 Stephens 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 Application of Classroom/ Discipline Management II Principals Rockefeller 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 \"Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles\" Cooperative/Student Team Learning\" II Community and Parent Involvement II II Lesson Planning for Individ- ual Differences Within Whole Group \"Foreign Language Enrichment\" \"Review of PET 'Media Program Staff Dev. C Staff Dev. B Pri nci pals/VIPS Staff Dev. C Eng/FL Supervisor Staff Dev. D Supervisor of Library Media Garland 8 Ish Ish staffs (55) 8:30-11:30 \"Media Program 12:30-3:30 II Review of PET\" Supervisor of Library Media Staff Dev. D Mitchell 8 Stephens staffs (55) Stephens 8:30-11:30 Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles II II Staff Dev. C 12:30-3:30 II Media Program tl Supervisor of Library Mei da Rightsell 8 Rockefeller staffs (55) Rockefeller 8:30-11:30 II Lesson Planning for Individ- ual Differences Within Whole Staff Dev. D Group II 12:30-3:30 \"Community and Parent Involvement\" Pri nci pals/VIPSFrom Wednesday, August 8, 1990, through Friday, August 17, 1990, incentive school staff members are to report to their assigned schools\nthe following schedule identifies the staff development activities for each school: Date Participants Place Time Topic Responsibili ty Wednesday, August 8 Garland staff Garland (30) 8:30-3:30 11 Computer Training II Computer Central/ Principal Ish staff (25) Ish 8:30-3:30 \"Computer Training tl Computer Central/ Principal Mitchell staff (25) Mitchel 1 8:30-3:30 \"Computer Training II Computer Central/ Principal Rightsei 1 staff (25) Rightsell 8:30-3:30 II Implementing Homework Center and Other Planning II Principal Rockefeller staff (30) Rocke- feller 8:30-3:30 II Implementing Homework Center and Other Planning It Principal Stephens staff (30) Stephens 8:30-3:30 \"Implementing Homework Center and Other Planning It Principal Thursday, August 9 Garland staff (30) Gari and 8:30-3:30 \"Implementing Homework Center and Other Planning\" Principal Ish staff (25) Ish 8:30-3:30 II Implementing Homework Center and Other Planning II Principal Mitchell staff (25) Mitchell 8:30-3:30 \"Implementing Homework Center and Other Planning Pri ncipal Rightsell staff (25) Rightsell 8:30-3:30 tl Computer Training II Computer Central/ Principal Rockefeller staff (30) Rocke- feller 8:30-3:30 \"Computer Training\" Computer Central/ Principal Stephens staff (30) Stephens 8:30-3:30 \"Computer Training II Computer Central/ Principal Friday, August 10 Garland staff (30) Garland 8:30-3:30 II SEP Training\" Special Education Supervi sor Ish staff (25) Ish 8:30-3:30 II SEP Training\" Special Education Supervisor Mitchell staff (25) Mitchell 8:30-3:30 \"SEP Training tl Special Education Supervi sor Rightsei 1 staff (25) Rightsell 8:30-3:30 SEP Training II Special Education Supervi sor Rockefeller staff (30) Rockefeller 8:30-3:30 \"SEP Training Special Education Supervi sor Stephens staff (30) Stephens 8:30-3:30 II SEP Training II Special Education Supervi sorDate Participants Pl ace Time Topic Responsibi1i ty Monday, August 13 Garland staff Garland (30) 8:30-11:30 \"SEP Training\" Supervisor of Special Educatioi 12:30-3:30 II SEP Writing II Principal Ish staff (25) Ish 8:30-11:30 II SEP Training\" Supervisor of Special Educatio: 12:30-3:30 II SEP Writing II Principal Mitchell staff (25) Mitchell 8:30-11:30 II SEP Training\" Supervisor of Special Educatior 12:30-3:30 \"SEP Writing Principal Rightsell staff (25) Rightsell 8:30-11:30 \"SEP Training II Supervisor of Special Educatior 12:30-3:30 \"SEP Writing\" Principal Rockefeller staff (30) Rockefeller 8:30-11:30 \"SEP Training II Supervisor of Special Educatior 12:30-3:30 \"SEP Writing\" Principal Stephens staff (30) Stephens 8:30-11:30 SEP Training Supervisor of Special Educatior 12:30-3:30 \"SEP Writing Principal Tuesday- Friday, August 14-17 A11 teachers remain in assigned local schools. 8:30-3:30 Teachers will write a SEP for each student. PrincipalsJuly 23 (Parkview) Mission/Purposes\nJuly 24 (Parkview) July 25 (Parkview) July 26 (Parkview) July 27 (Parkview) July 30 a.m. p.ra. July 31 a.m. p.m. August 1 a .m. p.m. August 2 a.m. p.m. August 3 a.m. p.ra. August 6 a .m. p.m. August 7 a.m. p.m. August 8 August 9 August 10 August 13 a.m. p.ra. August 14-17 OVERVIEW OF PRESCHOOL INCENTIVE SCHOOL STAFF DEVELOPMENT (Reflects Preceding Schedule) Initiating Staff Cohesiveness\nDeveloping Hission/Goals for Individual Schools Curriculum Refinement by Content Area and Grade Level It II II II Extended Day Program Garland/lsh at Ish Lesson Plans for Whole Group Higher Order Thinking II II II Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles Foreign Language Enrichment Classroom/Discipline Management conti nued Application of Classroom Management PAL to Reinforce Program Cooperative/Team Learning continued continued Community and Parent Involvement Media Program Review of PET Garland Ish 11 II Mitchel 1/Stephens at Stephens Classroom/Discipline Management continued Application of Classroom Management Review of PET Cooperative/Team Learning continued continued Higher Order Thinking X PAL to Reinforce Program Community and Parent Involvement S Lesson Plans for Whole Group Foreign Language Enrichment Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles Media Program Mitchell Rightsei 1 Rightsell/Rockefeller at Rockefeller Cooperative/Team Learning continued continued PAL to Reinforce Program Higher Order Thinking Foreign Language Enrichment Classroom/Discipline Management continued Application of Classroom Management Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles Review of PET Media Program Lesson Plans for Whole Group Community and Parent Involvement Rockefeller Stephens Computer Training Computer Training Computer Training implementing Homework Center/Other Planning Implementing Homework Center/Other Planning Implementing Homework Center/Other Planning Implementing Homework Center/Other Planning Implementing Homework Center/Other Planning implementing Homework Center/Other Planning Computer Training Computer Training Computer Training SEP Training SEP Training SEP Training SEP Training SEP Training SEP Training continued SEP Writing continued continued SEP Writing continued continued SEP Writing continued SEP Writing continued SEP Writing continued SEP Writing continued continued continued continuedTRAINING NKKDRD FOR PRINCIPALS_QP^HCEMTiyE_SCHQDLS (Prior to Preschool Incentive School Staff Development Workshops) 1. Building Staff Cohesiveness 2. Developing Mission/Goals 3. Application of Classroom/Discipline Management 4. Developing Parents as Partners 5. Implementing Homework Center 6. Community Involvement 7. Curriculum Refinement and Program Implementation (at local school level with emphasis on unique features of individual schools)PRESCHOOL INCENTIVE SCHOOL WORKSHOPS 1 . C1 nssroom Management (1 day) a. Implement the model developed by the State Department (approach as a review i-f many teachers have had the b. c. course) Provide each teacher a copy of the textbook Emphasize the following\n- classroom management as a component of the Total Teaching Act - characteristics of effective classroom management  use of space  developing and teaching rules and procedures - consequences behavior - beginning of for appropriate and inappropriate i: 1 lOo 1 - instructional clarity - maintaining good learning - organizing for instruction enviro l uient - strategies -for potential problems 2. Application of Classroom Management (1/2 day) a. b. Development procedures, Deve1opmen t procedures, of school rules, regulations, etc . of classroom rules, etc . c . and regulations, Expectations of principal concerning classroom management, discipline and student behavior Review of PET (1/2 day) a. Development of objectives b. with emphasis Lesson line - set _ explanation - questions - RLEL - activities  closure on 1 earning components: (parts of objective and behavior)4. Cooperative/Team Learning ( 1 1/2 days) a. Rationale for cooperative b. Principles of cooperative leaf ning learning c. Development of cooperative/team learning lesson d. Various cooperative learning approaches - Jigsaw - STAD - TGT  Coop Cards - other strategies e. Social Skills 5. Higher Order Thinking (1/2 day) a. b . Focus on upper level of Bloom's Ta 2nomy 6. 7. c . d . Incorporating higher order thinking in objectives, questions and activities Using G/T strategies for all students Writing across the curriculum e. Problem-solving Community and Parent Involvement \u0026lt;1/2 day) a. Communicating with parents b. Strategies for involving parents in school c . activities Approaches for using parents to reinforce instruction at home. Lesson Plans for Whole Group (1/2 day) a. b. c . d . Research and theory on whole group instrction From curriculum guide to lesson plans Individualizing lesson plans within the whole group Using textbooks as a resource, the curriculum not as 8. PAL to Reinforce Regular Program (1/2 day) a. Purpose of PAL b. Organization and logistics of PAL c . Classroom teachers role in relation to PAL 9. Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles (1/2 day) a. Research data on expectation theory b. Review of major components of 1 SA c. Teaching the at-risk student d . Different learning styles10 . Foreign Language Enrichment (1/2 cl\u0026lt;By) a. Program goals b . Implementation o-f program c . Role o-f the regular classroom t( '.her in the program 11. Media Program (1/2 day) a. Program goals b. Program design c . Classroom teacher's role in the program 12. Computer Training (1 day) a . Computer-based instruction in core content areas (available software) b. Keyboarding skills c. Programming skills d. Use o-f computer lab and roles o-f classroom teacher and computer aides 13. Homework Center and Other Planning (1 day) a. Organization, operations, and logistics o-f homework center b. Expectations -for teachers concerning homework and the homework center 14. SEP Training (1 1/2 days) a . Purpose o-f SEP b. Format of SEP c. Strategies for developing the SEP 15. SEP Writing (4 1/2 days) a. Development o-f SEP -for each student b. Expectations o-f principal concerning SEP* *f 'f v '- w '1' 1 i'  'A' 'i y I' x^ d' 1^ A ' w J/ T T' * T 4' 'P T T q A T 'T* * -T' T * 1 T V * * '^ T P * T 'T\" /T \u0026gt;T T A A r iT -T 'P A iT * '^ T A 'P -T- A T * X X, * * I * ' X nt' i: ',P START SENDER FEB-26 15:00 501 374 7609 ?\n? REPORT P.Ol FEB-26-91 TUE 15:01 RE ! !*' 46'- TYPE NOTE RECEIVE OK X X X X X X X X 1 I 'i' A* y A y y 4' y A y y y 4 \u0026lt; y y y y y y 4 y y y y y y y y y A y y y y 4 y y a y A a 4 a iy a a u 'L \u0026gt;i w A A A A A A A A A A * T. A A A A T' p * 'N A A A A A A A A A * A A A A A * A A A A A A A A A A A A * A n \u0026gt; * A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A^ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A. A- A * A A A A' A A A A A A A idtl_*\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026lt;. S'02-'26- 91 16:03 0501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 001 M Little Rock School District February 26, 1991 PRESS RELEASE SPECIAI, Board meeting Contact: Skye Winslow, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District KOCK bcnool District Board of Directorci win F,d=ruarY 21. 1991 at p.m. concerning Incentive School opportunity issues. The Board, will meet .=00 -- at meeting. 810 West Markham Street  Little Roch, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361f Office of Desegregation Monitoring Schedule of Formal Monitoring Visits to the Incentive Schools DATE SCHOOL TEAM LEADER Wednesday, October 30, 1991 Mitchell Connie Hickman Monday, November 4, 1991 Rightsell Connie Hickman Tuesday, November 5, 1991 Rockefeller Horace Smith Wednesday, November 6, 1991 Ish Melissa Guldin Tuesday, November 12, 1991 Stephens Margie Powell Wednesday, November 13, 19991 Garland Horace Smith Thursday, November 14, 19991 Franklin Melissa Guldin , The monitoring team will arrive at each school by 8:30 AM. Si F.Y.I. Date: II Bob Connie Horace zLinda Margie Meiissa 0^ Polly Return i- Little Rock School District November 20, 1992 RE iVSD Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring Heritage West Building NOV 2 5 19^2 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office cf Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ann: Thank you for inviting me to the meeting in your office to discuss matters related to the desegregation plan. Per our discussion, this letter is submitted to provide an update on the Staffing Committee for Incentive Schools that is required in the desegregation plan. At the inception of the Incentive Schools, the purpose of the staffing committee was to determine the staffing needs at each school and then develop criteria for principal and staff selection based on a needs assessment. An interview team was to have been selected from members of the staffing committee to interview and make recommendations to the principals. It is my understanding that although an interview team was established and recommendations were made by this committee, the contracted agreement actually dictated which teachers were placed in the schools. Therefore, at this time, Ms. Arma Hart will assist me in instituting a new staffing committee that will determine the present staffing needs at each of the schools and develop criteria for principal and staff selection needed in the future. Each principal has submitted names of patrons and staff personnel to serve on this committee. In the future, when positions become vacant, the interview team will be involved in the hiring process and will make recommendations to the principals, goal of this administration to have quality staff in the It is a Incentive Schools who are committed to the goals of the program. A District-wide Staffing Committee for Incentive Schools meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 9, 1992, from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. If you need additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, I, Janet Bernard Associate Superintendent cc: Marie Parker 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: May 24, 1993 To: From: Subject: Janet Bernard, Estelle Matthis, Marie Parker, and Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring Team Incentive School Monitoring Meeting This memo is to confirm the meeting scheduled on Friday, May 28, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. at ODM to continue incentive school monitoring. General discussion topics include, but are not limited to: program specialists and theme implementation, the incentive school staffing committee, foreign language, the computer instructional technology system, parent home study guides, parent and community involvement, and student test profiles. We will also need copies of certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to the meeting:  Comprehensive long-range incentive school strategic plan  Each incentive schools theme implementation plan including but not limited to, goals and objectives, a description of curriculum infusion, management timelines, persons responsible, proposed budget, and evaluation criteria  Description of the 1991-92 year round school, including class offered, enrollment and attendance data, and evaluation criteria and results  Description of how the district is equipping parents with job skills necessary for employment at the incentive schools, including program goals and objectives, the community needs assessment and results, a list of adult education opportunities, a description of the parent internship program, the number of parent interns at each incentive school, and an overview of teacher/ parent mentorships.Date: May 24, 1993 To: From: Subject: Janet Bernard, Estelle Matthis, Marie Parker, and Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring Team Incentive School Monitoring Meeting This memo is to confirm the meeting scheduled on Friday, May 28, 1993 at 9:(X) a.m. at ODM to continue incentive school monitoring. General discussion topics include, but are not limited to: program specialists and theme implementation, the incentive school staffing committee, foreign language, the computer instructional technology system, parent home study guides, parent and community involvement, and student test profiles. We will also need copies of certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to the meeting:  Comprehensive long-range incentive school strategic plan  Each incentive schools theme implementation plan including but not limited to, goals and objectives, a description of curriculum infusion, management timelines, persons responsible, proposed budget, and evaluation criteria  Description of the 1991-92 year round school, including class offered, enrollment and attendance data, and evaluation criteria and results  Description of how the district is equipping parents with job skills necessary for employment at the incentive schools, including program goals and objectives, the community needs assessment and results, a list of adult education opportunities, a description of the parent internship program, the number of parent interns at each incentive school, and an overview of teacher/ parent mentorships.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: June 2, 1993 From: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Margie Powell, Horace Smith, and Connie Hickman Tanner To: Incentive School Principals Subject: ODM Breakfast Meeting The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) will publish its 1993 incentive school monitoring report this summer. We would like to give you time to review a draft of your schools report before it is published. We will share these preliminary reports with you at a 9:00 a.m. breakfast meeting on June 15, 1993 in the private dining room of Cheers on Broadway (located on the first floor of the TCBY Building at Sixth and Broadway). At the meeting we will give each principal a draft of his/her school report to check for accuracy. Although we will edit the drafts further for format and syntax, the factual information in the reports is complete. An ODM associate will be available to discuss each draft before we collect them all at the end of the meeting. We hope you will attend this important meeting, which we will keep as brief as possible. If you are unable to attend, please call the ODM office so we can adjust our breakfast reservation. We look forward to seeing you on June 15. cc: Janet Berntird1996 ODM INCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING SCHEDULE Tuesday, April 2 - Rightseil Wednesday, April 3 - Garland Thursday, April 4 - Mitchell Monday, April 8 - Rockefeller Tuesday, April 9 - Franklin1995-96 ODM INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING INFORMATIONAL MEETING MARCH 5, 1996 AGENDA Introduction/Get Acquainted Monitoring Procedures: Incentive School Monitoring Guide Description of the Site Visit Financial Monitoring Documentation Needed: School-Based Documentation Documentation From the Central Administration Monitors Areas of Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Questions and Concerns ClosureMONITORS AREAS OF FOCUS Biracial Committee (Horace Smith) Discipline, Suspension, Expulsion (Margie Powell) Early Childhood Education (Melissa Guldin) Enrollment (Horace Smith) Extended Day \u0026amp; Week (Gene Jones) Facilities (Melissa Guldin) Field Trips (Skip Marshall) Finance and Budgeting (Skip Marshall) Guidance and Counseling (Margie Powell) Home Visits (Margie Powell) Mentor Programs (Skip Marshall) Parent Center (Horace Smith) Parent Contracts (Gene Jones) Parent Council (Skip Marshall) Parent Recruitment (Melissa Guldin) Parent Training \u0026amp; Meetings (Gene Jones) School Themes (Horace Smith) Speakers Bureau (Skip Marshall) Volunteer Programs (Skip Marshall)Date: March 5, 1996 To: From: Subject: Sterling Ingram, LRSD Director of Staff Development Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Gene Jones, Skip Marshall, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Documentation Needed for the 1995-96 Incentive Schools Monitoring While most of the documentation we need can be obtained from the building administrators, we will need the following information from the districts central administration. Please furnish the following documentation by March 29, 1996.  Description of the current incentive school parent program, including program goals, objectives, timelines, and the person responsible for this program  Documentation of parent workshops including the topic, date, time, location, evaluation results, and the number of participants by race, gender, and childs school  Volunteer documentation including the number of volunteers by race, gender, and the number of hours volunteered at each school  Documentation of the mentor program including a brief description of the types of activities shared by mentors and students, the number of participants by race and gender, and the number of hours volunteered  Records of training the district conducted for mentors  List of community meetings including time, location, and copies of sign-in sheets  List of identified parent pick-up points for school functions, and an explanation of how the district publicizes this service to parents  Current membership roster for the Parent Council with members identified by race, gender, and the organization each represents  Copies of the current Parent Council monitoring instrument (highlighting any revisions made since the 1994-95 school year), 1995-96 meeting minutes, and quarterly reports  List of the Biracial Committee members by race, gender, and high school zone  Copies of the Biracial Committee meeting minutes, and monitoring schedule for 1995-96 and the current monitoring instrument (highlighting any revisions made since the 1994-95 school year)Incentive School Documentation Cont.)  Copies of the 1995-96 Planning, Research and Evaluation quarterly reports of the Biracial Committees monitoring visits  A list of all recruitment activities planned and implemented for the 1995-96 school year, including copies of any printed material distributed, lists of meetings held, tours conducted, the persons responsible for each recruitment activity, cost of individual activities, and an explanation of how you are tracking the results of all recruitment effortsDate: March 5, 1996 To: Incentive School Principals From: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Gene Jones, Skip Marshall, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Subject: Documentation Needed During the ODM On-Site Monitoring Visits During our visit to your school, we will need to interview you and conduct some brief classroom visitations. We will also need a workspace and a copy of the following 1995-96 records that we can take with us.                  School Map (5 copies) Discipline, Suspension, and Expulsion data by race and gender Building-level discipline plan Parent Center Committee by race, gender, and position (e.g. parent, teacher) Parent Center recommendations and an indication of the suggestions incorporated into the center The name, race, gender, and position of the parent trained to operate the center List of parent meetings including topic, time, location, and sign-in sheets A description of the mechanism designed to ensure that parents regularly sign homework List of community meetings and activities by topic, time, location, and sign-in sheets List of three key communicators by race, gender, and position Speakers Bureau roster by name, gender, race, and position, along with a list of speaking engagements including the time, location, and participant sign-in sheets Recruitment Team roster by race, gender, and position Recruitment Plan, including a list of all recruitment strategies implemented and planned Copy of the parent and student extended day survey, and the results of the survey Extended day schedule Extended week schedule Data on Saturday program participation In addition, the following records should be available for our review the day of the monitoring visit. You do not need to copy these records since we wont need to take them with us.          Documentation of staff development activities related to classroom management approaches Theme implementation plan Field Trips Building-level guidance and counseling plan ?\\n example of the monthly communications packets distributed by the Parent Center The total number of home visits conducted as of March 1996 The number of signed contracts and a description of follow-up procedures Individual student and class test profiles 1995-96 Expenditure printout through February 29SI 1995-96 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING GUIDE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ann S. Brown, Federal MonitorENROLLMENT  The incentive school program is successfully desegregating each incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) 1DISCIPLINE, SUSPENSION, and EXPULSION  Data related to student discipline is disaggregated and reviewed to address issues of racial disparity. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 27)  Discipline data is carefully collected and the discipline program closely monitored in order to make modifications that are indicated by formative as well as summative information. The district analyzes the factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipline problems and less disparity in discipline between black and white students. The district identifies and emulates these factors and closely scrutinizes progress toward reducing the number of students suspended or expelled as well as the 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 1992 Report, pg. 23)  Discipline policies and procedures are well-publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23)  Classroom management approaches are appropriate for the work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32)  Regular tracking of student attendance, behavior, discipline, and achievement is systematic and assessed at least quarterly. Individual and class profiles are utilized. Individual student plans and interventions are based on needs determined through ongoing data review. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 186) 2GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING  Social skills are taught, when appropriate, through the core instructional program. The total school staff serves as models of positive social interaction. Social skills instruction includes such programs as Rites of Passage, Role Models, and Mentoring. (LRSD Plan, pp. 156-157)  The schools use a Career Skills Development Program to develop career choices using written information, guest speakers, films, and interest inventories. (LRSD Plan, pp. 172, 180)  Study skills training enhances skills in test-taking, listening, and studying. Test-taking skills are being taught and students practice test-taking. (LRSD Plan, pp. 153, 176, 183\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 32)  Students receive individual and group counseling and are taught conflict resolution. The school uses peer facilitators. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 184)  The staff has developed written building guidance plans to address personal growth, social development, career awareness, and educational development. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 27) 3FACILITIES  The district provides clean and safe facilities and makes all repairs fimdamental to maintaining the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129)  All of the incentive schools would benefit aesthetically fi-om 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 underwatering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) 4PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS  The four-year-old program uses High Scope or a comparable curriculum model, and a parent component is incorporated into the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 152)  Four-year-old enrollment is limited to 18 children per class. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 10)  The Early Childhood Education Task Force is an avenue for parent, teacher, and community input. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 17)  Parents and staff at each school develop school themes which are integrated into the curriculum. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Students in grades 3-6 have access to either mobile or permanent science labs with adequate materials that allow children to execute long-term experiments and study science in the fullest sense. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 15)  The curriculum at each school incorporates foreign language instruction using the foreign language lab and the \"total physical response\" method 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)  Parent Home Study Guides in each core subject area for each grade (1-6) will be available by the 1993-94 school year. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Physical education (PE) and health are included in the total elementary curriculum with emphasis on wellness, lifelong leisure skills, nutrition, and respect for those with disabilities. (LRSD Plan, pg 156)  The schools use local, state, and national field trips to enhance learning and broaden cultural experiences. Trips provide community access and racially desegregated experiences and activities for incentive school students together with other LRSD students. Exhibits and performances are also brought to the schools, and students participate in shadowing activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 158, 173, 181\nInterdis. Plan, pg. 4)  The schools schedule Special Skills Programs during the time designated for extended day activities. Scheduling for extended day meets the needs of students and includes the homework center, special skills training, and leisure time activities. Students finishing activities early report either to the homework center, CARE, or leave the campus at the request of a parent or guardian. (LRSD Plan, pp. 173, 174, 181, 184)  The district surveys parents and students to determine the most appealing extended day activities. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) 5 The extended day program, which is based on information gleaned from SEP's, school staff, parents, and students, reinforces and extends the SEP to meet individual needs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25)  Cumulative records document both host and guest schools participation in Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg.25)  Saturday programs are developed to enhance learning. These programs include but arent limited to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, parent/child make-and-take sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) 6PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT  A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials which are 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)  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)  Parent training activities are documented by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Participants feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training is regularly collected and analyzed. (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)  Parent volunteer programs and school/business partnerships are developed and expanded. (LRSD Plan, pg. 132)  Recognition is used as a tool for community and parent involvement. The school recognizes parents and the community at monthly PT A meetings, displays awards, gives school lunch vouchers to award winners, and involves students in the recognition selection process. (LRSD Plan, pp. 209-210)  The school makes parent and volunteer recognition an integral, ongoing, and highly visibly part of school life. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  At least two or more home visits are required. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 211)  The staff documents the number and date of visits to each student's home, along with who made the visit, to determine if each family is visited at least twice yearly. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  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) 7 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)  Parents sign contractual commitments prior to enrolling their child in an incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 211)  The schools have follow-up procedures to remind parents of the commitments they made in the contracts they signed at registration. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  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)  The Incentive School Program Parent Council functions as a districtwide council of incentive school parents. Membership includes two parents from each incentive school and four appointed by Joshua. The Council monitors all activities related to the incentive school program and reports quarterly to the LRSD Board of Directors and the Joshua Intervenors. (LRSD Plan, pg. 151)  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 furnishes copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) prepares quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent shares 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, serves as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment. The committee reviews bimonthly recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluates the program quarterly, and recommends needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223)  Before July 1 of each year, the district convenes 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 consists of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialists 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 includes a recruitment assessment. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 5) 8PARENT RECRUITMENT  The district informs the community about the incentive schools and their special features by providing informational sessions to special interest and community groups, including churches. Additional strategies include conducting Saturday information booths at malls and neighborhood stores, securing special media coverage, and developing an incentive school telephone hotline. The district distributes highlight sheets to all elementary parents and local businesses. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215, 218-219)  Recruitment is 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\nInterdis. Plan, pg. 57)  The district's recruitment strategies 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 establishes a speakers bureau and helps the district develop a brochure highlighting their school. Meetings are held with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215-216, 220-222)  Parent recruiters 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 maintains a strategic plan, based on the recruitment section of the desegregation plan, that reflects a well thought-out, interrelated process\npresents a firm timetable in its recruitment plan and strictly adheres to it\ndevelops a tracking system to determine the success of particular awareness and recruitment efforts, especially with identified geographic areas and specific groups\nincreases the number and variety of specifically targeted recruitment activities. (ODM 1992 Report, pp. 4, 5) 9ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD MAGNET SCHOOL  The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program is available to children from six weeks to four years of age. The program serves as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting white students to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  The early childhood program is an integral part of the whole school, not a separate or \"add-on\" program. It receives the same attention as to supervision, support, staff development, resource allotment, accountability, monitoring, and evaluation as grades K through six. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  The LRSD designated Rockefeller as a Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet between UALR and other area colleges. The district works cooperatively with local colleges and universities to enhance and support the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  At Rockefeller, the district gives special emphasis to developing and piloting innovative approaches to the education of young children. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  The county's teachers, administrators, aides, HIPPY (Home Instruction Program for Preschool youngsters), and daycare program workers use Rockefeller as a demonstration center for training. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  Parents and educational professionals from UALR and other area colleges advise the school and district staffs on all aspects of planning and implementation of the early childhood program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  Rockefeller's early childhood education policies are evaluated in terms of their impact on desegregation and educational goals. The parent committee on early childhood education evaluates policies (including private pay rates, lunch charges, vacation days, enrollment age, and sick days) for their impact on the early childhood program's viability as a desegregation tool, its competitiveness with private schools and daycares, and its ability to retain both its private paying and Title XX students. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  The district allows students who attend the Rockefeller three-year-old program to continue on into the four-year-old program and the grades beyond. Siblings of early childhood students may attend Rockefeller in order to help retain children in the school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  The district will explore developing Rockefeller as a year-round, frill-day school for children from infancy through sixth grade. A biracial group of teachers, parents, administrators, and experts from local universities and colleges works with the district to assess the feasibility of such a program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) 10FINANCE AND BUDGETING The district ensures that those who are responsible for managing programs and budgets have a working knowledge of the process and are completely involved in it throughout the year. (October 1994 Court Order, pg. 5) 11I-P 7- J err 1,7 IV-. 21 '97 S' R5*!fc 'S.-V' i UB LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRiCT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 ^4X (501) 324-2C32 : A Ti\nT . ?OM: I' r PVO, ?.'   SUBJECT\nSPECfA SNSTF?UCT50NS, NFunV r of Pac ' -.i t 1 . c Vd.lfe C ,6 /?llL.'.i\u0026gt; .'-{J k- \u0026lt; z1 . ^\"1  k. L\u0026lt; ?r f. n r i\u0026gt; F3x Phone *\u0026gt; oer .i \u0026gt;1 Ta IC F r. a  W-\n4^rl '\u0026gt;,'!^\n'7.^'^ ttH7\u0026lt;:E CI IHE ASSIST ANT SUrgRlNI'ENDENTS J Jttlc'Ro^k'Si^\u0026amp;ooIT^isM 'X' ii' y\u0026gt;' gw S^iyC \u0026gt;*''- y, '3'i .y Xil. 3 -ill,' i\n\"b *1\n? ji: 73. 'f\n.' ' TO. Ticeriviv'c School Work Team .Members A..! May 21, 1597 IKOM: Margaret Grem5il|ie\njtil^ A..\nU^^'adie Mitchell, Pvssistant Sijperinten.dent 'K.ssistant Snperinteridenr SUBJECT\nReiinnder ot Meeting Date and Time Friday. May 2J, 1997 a,fr, Board Ron tn. l.P.SD Mr. Chad 'A'oofey. Pre.sidenr.'\\.hiei Operating Officer, and .Shetr, f bxecum.-e Uireetor ot the Voyager mpei oundation will be presenting their program m '.1..5 on l-rjday. .May 23 as soon a.s rhev come in ftom t.he airport around 5:00 a.rn. .'. hey ivifl be a.vai!able to us for .approximately 214 .tours before leaving for lb . .0'.\np.U, Tiglit. nr . \u0026lt; .ne asking oiher LhstiiiC] personnel to attend this meetir-g whe- n -ay ha vs an rest ia VK\nv,'ma an e.xtended day propam, that is proving to b.? successfid. nt maii v other .iteas Pl e le\n:\ne kn.o.v that vi'e appreciate each ot y-JU tor the .suptport yon are giving to bt.s I. A'ork assignment and thepanence you (lavc demonstrated vher. liavirg tr. adjus msuPT' :. 0-^' : .1? C. 'r.k. ' i:\ni\nI2 hicendve Sehooi Won\nTeam rjeini' May 21. r:59' pace 2 thangtid dates, Vv e are making progTess. The Tnps and reports have beer: verv helrtui in slianug our ideas for a i innovatma school plan. FuLtowinfe the all ! :?m!' r pi'^isen-atior), we wil! have a wrap-up discussion to heai inpih from ttending. 'fit' w^Pieuse fZ^t^ tbfu' ch(t}s\n\u0026gt;e jroni 8:00 a.m. tv 8:00 u.m .  Ot. l,')o!i Roberts k- Fve vn Pl-ton M idha Rcgeis ?4t Price L.ecn .A I rns Incentive School Monitoring Schedule Date School Team Leader Friday, April 30 Mitchell Connie Wednesday, May 5 Rockefeller Melissa Friday, May 7 Stephens Margie Monday, May 10 Ish Margie Wednesday, May 12 Franklin Horace Friday, May 14 Garland Connie Monday, May 17 Rightsell Horace First Draft of the school reports is due Friday, June 18. Subsequent deadlines will be discussed at the April 23 meeting.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":31,"next_page":32,"prev_page":30,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":360,"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}}]}}