{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1155","title":"Little Rock School District, school profiles","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997-10-29"],"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","Badgett Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Hardin Bale Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Baseline Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Booker T. Washington Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Brady Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Carver Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Chicot Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Cloverdale Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School employees","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Students","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school profiles"],"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/1155"],"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\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nBadgett Elementary, Bale Elementary, Baseline Elementary, Booker Elementary, Brady Elementary, Carver Elementary, Central High, Chicot Elementary, Cloverdale Elementary\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nPOSITION CERTIFIED POSITIONS PRINCIPAL CLASSROOM TEACHERS COUNSELOR MEDIA SPECIALIST REMDL/COMP MATH GIFTED/TALENTED RESOURCE/TEACHER SPEECH THERAPIST MUSIC SUBTOTAL CERTIFIED SUBTOTAL PERCENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 BADGETT B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 POSITIONS 1 10 0 9 0 0 5.00 50.00 00 45.00 00 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 1 11 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 20 00 20 % BLACK 100.00 54.55 100.00 00 100.00 00 00 100.00 100.00 55.00 55.00 POSITION SUPPORT POSITIONS CAFETERIA WORKER CUSTODIANS MEDIA CLERK SECRETARY NURSE INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES SUPERVISION AIDES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 BADGETT B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL SUPPORT POSITIONS 4 9 0 2 0 0 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 26.67 60.00 00 13 .33 00 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 3 2 1 1 1 5 2 15 00 15 % BLACK 33.33 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 86.67 86.67 POSITION TOTAL PERCENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 BADGETT B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL M F M F M F 5 19 0 11 14.29 54.29 .oo 31.43 0 .oo 0 .oo 35 35 % BLACK 68.57 68.57 01 LRSD SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPROl PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class Black Black White White Other Other Total Black Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Percent K 15 20 4 1 0 0 40 87.5% P4 13 21 0 2 0 0 36 94.4% SP 6 2 0 0 0 0 8 100.0% 01 18 15 0 1 0 0 34 97 .1% 02 17 12 0 2 0 0 31 93.5% 03 12 9 0 1 0 0 22 95.5% 04 9 7 3 3 0 0 22 72. 7% 05 10 11 0 1 0 0 22 95.5% 06 13 10 0 0 0 0 23 100.0% Total 113 107 7 11 0 0 238 92.4% 47.5% 45.0% 2.9% 4.6% .0% .0% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 1 PAGE SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K PHILLIPS T. 1 7 9 3 1 20 80.0% K WILLIS C. 1 8 11 1 20 95.0% P4 GADDY G. 1 7 10 17 100.0% P4 TRAYLOR K. 1 6 11 2 19 89.5% 01 BROOKS D. 1 8 6 1 15 93.3% 01 MCGOWAN D. 1 10 8 18 100.0% 02 MCLENNAN A. 1 9 6 2 17 88.2% 02 SINGER P. 1 8 6 14 100.0% 03 CAMPBELL E. 1 12 9 1 22 95.5% 04 HESSELBEIN A. 1 8 7 3 3 21 71.4% 04 PRUITT G. 1 1 1 2 100.0% 05 ALBERT R. 1 10 11 1 22 95.5% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class Teacher 05 06 06 PRUITT G. PRUITT G. TRIMBLE 8. BM ******TEACHER****** BF WM 1 WF 1 1 OM OF SP 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 2 PAGE ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** BM 3 2 13 BF 1 10 WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 3 100.0% 3 100.0% 23 100.0% 01 LRSD SPECIAL ED STUDENTS 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO3 SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Mentally Retarded 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 100.0% Specific Learning Disability 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 100.0% Speech or Language Impaired 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 100.0% TOTALS 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 100.0% 01 LRSD GIFTED ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Gifted/Talented 6 3 1 2 0 0 12 75.0% 01 LRSD STUDENT RETENTION 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO4 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K 1 1 100.0% 01 1 1 100.0% 02 1 1 100.0% 01 LRSD EXTRACURRICULAR/EXTENDED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL MEMBERSHIP ADULT SPONSORS ACTIVITY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black PEER HELPERS 2 8 2 12 83.3% 1 1 100.0% AMBASSADORS 2 8 2 1 13 76.9% 1 1 100.0% JUST SAY NO CLUB 3 4 1 3 11 63.6% 1 1 100.0% CONFLICT MANAGER 4 3 2 1 10 70.0% 1 1 100.0% LIBRARY MONITORS 2 5 1 8 87.5% 1 1 .0% STUDENT COUNCIL 4 3 2 9 77. 8% 1 1 100.0% FIRE MARSHALLS 2 1 2 1 6 50.0% 1 1 100.0% TOTAL 19 32 8 10 69 73.9% 6 1 7 85.7% 01 LRSD SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS 10/29/97 PAGE 1 (FIRST SEMESTER) SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HONOR/AWARD GRADE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black CITZ OF WEEK K .0% CITZ OF WEEK 1 .0% CITZ OF WEEK 2 .0% CITZ OF WEEK 3 .0% CITZ OF WEEK 4 .0% CITZ OF WEEK 5 .0% CITZ OF WEEK 6 .0% HONOR ROLL K .0% HONOR ROLL 1 .0% - HONOR ROLL 2 .0% HONOR ROLL 3 .0% HONOR ROLL 4 .0% HONOR ROLL 5 .0% HONOR ROLL 6 .0% HONOR ROLL SC .0% PERFT ATTEND K .0% PERFT ATTEND 1 .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS (FIRST SEMESTER) SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HONOR/AWARD PERFT ATTEND PERFT ATTEND PERFT ATTEND PERFT ATTEND PERFT ATTEND PERFT ATTEND TOTAL GRADE BM BF WM WF 2 3 4 5 6 SC 10/29/97 OM OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% PAGE 2 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES PARENTS/PATRONS COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black BIRACIAL COMMITT 1 1 2 50.0% 1 1 2 4 50.0% P.T.A. BOARD MBR 1 3 4 25.0% 1 2 1 1 5 60.0% HANDBOOK 2 1 3 66.7% 1 1 100.0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 2 SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES PARENTS/PATRONS COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black PARENT WORKSHOPS 1 1 100.0% 1 1 2 50.0% SCHOOL IMPROV co 9 10 19 47.4% 1 2 1 2 6 50.0% RECRUITMENT 1 2 3 6 50.0% 2 3 1 6 33.3% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF TOTAL 1 16 18 OM OF Total % Black 35 48.6% BM 3 10/29/97 PAGE 3 PARENTS/PATRONS BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black 9 5 7 24 50.0% 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: PREJUDICE REDUC. TESA PET HUMAN RELATIONS COOP. LEARNING. TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 14 7 9 16 6 45 7 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DELIVERY SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 CULTURAL RELAT MULTICUL CURR. TOTAL 2 3 5 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 ASSERTIVE DISCIP 15 CLASSROOM MGMT. 8 CONFLICT MGMT. 5 TOTAL 28 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 OTHER STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 AT RISK TOTAL 6 6 PAGE 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT QUIZ:SSPLST STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 BALE POSITION BL A C K W H I T E 0 T H E R TOTAL % M F M F M F BLACK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFIED POSITIONS PRINCIPAL 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 0 5 1 11 0 0 17 29.41 COUNSELOR 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.00 MEDIA SPECIALIST 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 REMDL/COMP READING 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 REMDL/COMP MATH 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 GIFTED/TALENTED 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 RESOURCE/TEACHER 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 00 SPEECH THERAPIST 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 00 MUSIC 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 PE 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 00 SUBTOTAL CERTIFIED POSITIONS 0 6 2 22 0 0 30 20.00 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 00 20.00 6.67 73.33 00 00 30 20.00 POSITION SUPPORT POSITIONS CAFETERIA WORKER CUSTODIANS MEDIA CLERK SECRETARY NURSE INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES SUPERVISION AIDES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 BALE B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 0 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL SUPPORT POSITIONS 4 11 0 6 0 0 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 19.05 52.38 00 28.57 00 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 4 3 1 1 1 9 2 21 00 21 % BLACK 50.00 100.00 00 00 00 88.89 100.00 71.43 71.43 POSITION TOTAL PERCENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 BALE B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL M F M F M F 4 17 2 28 7.84 33.33 3.92 54.90 0 .00 0 .oo 51 51 % BLACK 41.18 41.18 01 LRSD SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPROl PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class Black Black White White Other Other Total Black Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Percent K 19 20 5 4 4 0 52 75.0% P4 7 10 6 3 8 2 36 47.2% SP 3 2 1 0 0 0 6 83.3% 01 14 25 6 0 2 2 49 79.6% 02 19 19 4 4 1 1 48 79.2% 03 15 18 3 3 1 1 41 80.5% 04 17 16 4 4 0 0 41 80.5% 05 19 14 8 8 1 2 52 63.5% 06 19 14 1 2 2 0 38 86.8% Total 132 138 38 28 19 8 363 74.4% 36.4% 38.0% 10.5% 7.7% 5.2% 2.2% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 1 PAGE SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K GENTRY-HEARD R. 1 1 1 100.0% K HUTTO M. 1 6 6 2 1 2 17 70.6% K LITTELL T. 1 7 7 3 17 82.4% K SEILER D. 1 1 1 100. 0% K SHUTE K. 1 6 6 3 2 17 70.6% P4 GEURIN R. 1 4 5 3 2 3 1 18 50.0% P4 JOHNSON c. 1 3 5 3 1 5 1 18 44 .4% 01 BALENKO M. 1 7 13 3 1 1 25 80.0% 01 BROWN C. 1 7 12 3 1 1 24 79.2% 02 CONLEY F. 1 10 9 1 2 1 1 24 79.2% 02 GENTRY-HEARD R. 1 1 2 1 4 75.0% 02 SEILER D. 1 1 1 .0% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 2 PAGE SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 02 TALLEY H. 1 9 10 3 1 23 82.6% 03 CUNNINGHAM L. 1 8 8 2 2 1 21 76.2% 03 FUNK P. 1 7 10 1 1 1 20 85.0% 03 GENTRY-HEARD R. 1 1 1 100.0% 04 FRANCIS L. 1 10 7 1 2 20 85.0% 04 UNDERWOOD-MOR L. 1 7 9 3 1 20 80.0% 04 SEILER D. 1 1 1 .0% 05 DOCKERY M. 1 10 6 4 4 1 25 64.0% 05 SEILER D. 1 1 1 .0% 05 TARKINGTON R. 1 9 7 4 3 2 25 64.0% 06 NELSON J. 1 10 8 2 20 90.0% 06 ROSBY K. 1 8 6 1 2 17 82.4% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 3 PAGE SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 06 SEILER D. 1 1 1 100.0% 01 LRSD SPECIAL ED STUDENTS 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO3 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Autism 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 .0% Hearing Impaired 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 50.0% Mentally Retarded 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 100.0% Multihandicapped 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 100.0% Orthopedically Handicapped 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .0% Other Health Impaired 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 33.3% Specific Learning Disability 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 100.0% Speech or Language Impaired 8 4 5 4 0 0 21 57.1% Visually Handicapped 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .0% TOTALS 14 7 10 6 0 0 37 56.8% 01 LRSD GIFTED ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Gifted/Talented 14 12 3 5 1 1 36 72.2% 01 LRSD STUDENT RETENTION 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO4 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K 1 1 100.0% 01 1 1 100.0% 02 1 1 100.0% 03 1 1 100.0% 05 1 1 100.0% 01 LRSD EXTRACURRICULAR/EXTENDED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL MEMBERSHIP ADULT SPONSORS ACTIVITY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black Just Say No 20 16 4 6 1 3 50 72. 0% 1 1 2 50.0% Peer Tutors 3 8 1 2 1 1 16 68.8% 1 1 100.0% Conflict Manager 11 4 1 2 18 83.3% 1 1 100.0% Sign-a-Thon 1 1 4 6 33.3% 1 1 2 50.0% 3 - H 1 2 1 2 6 50.0% 1 1 100.0% HOST \u0026amp; HOSTESSES 11 8 1 4 24 79.2% 1 1 100.0% RECORDER .0% 1 1 .0% TOTAL 47 39 8 20 2 4 120 71. 7% 6 3 9 66.7% 01 LRSD SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS (FIRST SEMESTER) SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HONOR/AWARD PERF ATT pERF ATT PERF ATT PERF ATT PERF ATT PERF ATT PERF ATT HIGHEST ACA HIGHEST ACA HIGHEST ACA Straight A's Straight A's Straight A's Straight A's Straight A's Straight A's HIGHEST ACA GRADE BM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BF WM WF 10/29/97 OM OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% PAGE 1 01 LRSD SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS (FIRST SEMESTER) SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HONOR/AWARD HIGHEST ACA HIGHEST ACA BEST CITIZEN BEST CITIZEN A/B AVERAGE A/B AVERAGE A/B AVERAGE A/B AVERAGE A/B AVERAGE A/B AVERAGE BEST CITIZEN BEST CITIZEN BEST CITIZEN BEST CITIZEN SUNSHINE SUNSHINE CITIZENSHI,P GRADE BM BF WM WF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10/29/97 OM OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% PAGE 2 01 LRSD SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS (FIRST SEMESTER) SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HONOR/AWARD CITIZENSHIP CITIZENSHIP CITIZENSHIP CITIZENSHIP CITIZENSHIP SUNSHINE SUNSHINE SUNSHINE SUNSHINE MOST IMPR LIFE PRIN AW TOTAL GRADE BM BF WM WF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10/29/97 OM OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% PAGE 3 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BIRACIAL COMMITT P.T.A. BOARD MBR G/T BM BF WM WF 1 2 1 1 1 2 OM OF Total 2 3 3 % Black 50.0% 66. 7% .0% BM 1 1 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BF WM WF 1 4 1 2 2 OM 1 OF Total 4 8 % Black 50.0% 62.5% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % SCHOOL IMPROV CO RECRUITMENT COMM DISCIPLINE HEAR! 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 5 3 3 Black 40.0% 33.3% 33.3% BM 1 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BF 2 2 WM WF 1 1 1 OM 2 OF Total % 3 5 Black 66.7% 60.0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE TITLE I PLANNING EMERGENCY CRISIS GREAT EXPECTATIO BM BF WM WF 2 2 2 6 3 5 OM OF Total % Black 8 25.0% 5 40.0% 7 28.6% 10/29/97 PAGE 3 PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BCC BLACK HISTORY PUPIL SERVICE TE BM BF 1 3 2 WM WF 2 1 5 OM OF Total 3 4 7 % Black 33.3% 75.0% 28.6% 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM 4 OF Total % Black .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 5 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES PARENTS/PATRONS COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black PARTNERS IN EDUC 2 2 4 50.0% 1 1 100.0% MEMBERSHIP 1 1 100.0% 1 1 2 50.0% ROOM MOTHERS 1 1 100.0% 1 1 100.0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 6 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES PARENTS/PATRONS COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black PTA COUNCIL 1 1 100.0% 1 1 1 1 4 50.0% HOSPITALITY 1 1 2 50.0% 2 2 100. 0% TOTAL 25 2 35 62 40.3% 4 15 3 8 30 63.3% 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 EDUCATIONAL EQUITY SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 PREJUDICE REDUC. 5 5 TESA 9 RACE RELATIONS 5 5 HUMAN RELATIONS 38 5 1 CULTURAL RELAT. 2 AT RISK 16 PRESCHOOL INSERV 22 OPEN COURT 24 GREAT EXPECTATIO 28 18 2 14 TOTAL 103 64 17 15 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DELIVERY SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 PET 12 CYCLE 1 5 CYCLE 2 2 CYCLE 3 1 COOP. LEARNING 1 1 ACADEMIC SUPPORT 4 NEW BRIDGE 28 TRAINER OF TRAIN 2 CURR COMPACTING 1 TRI-D GIT 1 ADADE COMP/ENRI 1 NATL FACU INSTIT 3 CRITICAL/CREATI 1 Reading/Spelling 24 TOTAL 62 24 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 ASSERTIVE DISCIP 5 CLASSROOM MGMT. 20 1 POS CLASS MGMT 14 VIOLENCE PREVEN 1 MANAGER CONFLICT 1 STRESS MANAGEMEN 28 CLASSROOM MODIF 23 PS GRADES 1-6 12 PS SUPPORT STAFF 11 COOP TEAM LEARN 1 SP ED DISCIPLINE 1 PLAYGRD DISC TOTAL 117 1 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 10 2 3 15 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 OTHER STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-..97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 LEARN DISABIL 26 2 GANGS 26 PORTFOLIO ASSESS 26 LEARNING STYLES 26 SELF ESTEEM/ELE 16 MOTIVATION 28 GREAT EXPECTATIO 28 33 3 READING/METRA 15 BEGIN YEAR STAFF 24 24 4 10 FRIST AID 4 1 PS K-12 INSTR A 7 2 ABACUS 27 2 LR-CDA TRAINING 2 G/E SP.EDU 22 INSTRU AIDES 4YR 2 2 INCLUSION (K) 3 SHURLEY 8 TEST DATA 15 New Teacher Trai 2 Marva Collins Se 5 TOTAL 242 116 19 18 BASELINE POSITION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 11/03/97 BASELINE B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL % BLACK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFIED POSITIONS PRINCIPAL 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.00 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 0 9 1 8 0 0 18 50.00 COUNSELOR 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 MEDIA SPECIALIST 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 REMDL/COMP MATH 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 50.00 GIFTED/TALENTED 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.00 RESOURCE/TEACHER 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 100.00 SPEECH THERAPIST 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.00 MUSIC 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 PE 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 00 SUBTOTAL CERTIFIED POSITIONS 0 15 2 12 0 0 29 51. 72 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 00 51.72 6.90 41.38 00 00 29 51. 72  POSITION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 11/03/97 BASELINE B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL % BLACK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUPPORT POSITIONS CAFETERIA WORKER 0 1 0 2 0 1 4 25.00 CUSTODIANS 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 100. 00 MEDIA CLERK 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.00 SECRETARY 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.00 NURSE 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES 1 9 0 0 0 0 10 100.00 SUPERVISION AIDES 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 100.00 SUBTOTAL SUPPORT POSITIONS 3 16 0 3 0 1 23 82.61 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 13.04 69.57 00 13 .04 00 4.35 23 82.61  POSITION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 11/03/97 BASELINE B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL % BLACK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL PERCENT 3 31 2 15 5.77 59.62 3.85 28.85 0 .oo 1 1. 92 52 52 65.38 65.38   01 LRSD SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 11/03/97 QUIZ:SCHPROl PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class Black Black White White Other Other Total Black Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Percent K 17 28 0 5 3 1 54 83.3% P4 11 16 4 2 1 1 35 77 .1% SP 2 4 1 0 1 0 8 75.0% 01 25 19 3 4 3 1 55 80.0% 02 16 16 1 2 0 1 36 88.9% 03 17 23 0 5 3 1 49 81.6% 04 14 7 3 2 0 0 26 80.8% 05 17 11 4 2 0 2 36 77.8% 06 15 13 0 1 1 0 30 93.3% Total 134 137 16 23 12 7 329 82.4% 40.7% 41. 6% 4.9% 7.0% 3.6% 2.1%  01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 11/03/97 QUIZ:SCHP 1 PAGE SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K CLEVENGER s. 1 5 7 12 100.0% K JAMES M. 1 5 5 3 1 1 15 66.7% K LOVE B. 1 3 7 1 l 12 83.3% K SELF E. 1 4 8 1 1 14 85.7% P4 HILL D. 1 6 8 2 1 17 82.4% P4 SMITH M. 1 5 7 2 1 1 1 17 70.6% 01 BELIN P. 1 1 2 1 4 75.0% 01 DEATON B. 1 10 7 2 1 20 85.0% 01 GARNER D. 1 7 5 3 1 1 17 70.6% 01 LAMB A. 1 8 7 1 1 1 18 83.3% 02 BELIN P. 1 2 1 3 66.7% 02 SHARP c. 1 8 6 1 2 17 82.4% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 11/03/97 QUIZ:SCHP 2 PAGE SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 02 THOMAS B. 1 8 9 1 18 94.4% 03 GLASON D. 1 8 12 2 2 1 25 80.0% 03 GRIMM B. 1 9 11 3 1 24 83.3% 04 BELIN P. 1 1 1 100.0% 04 HUFFMAN C. 1 14 7 3 2 26 80.8% 05 HOOVER P. 1 8 6 2 1 1 18 77.8% 05 TATUM V. 1 9 5 2 1 1 18 77.8% 06 BOWMAN R. 1 7 6 1 14 92. 9% 06 PEARSON M. 1 8 7 1 16 93.8%  01 LRSD SPECIAL ED STUDENTS 11/03/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO3 SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Mentally Retarded 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 100.0% Multihandicapped 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.0% Other Health Impaired 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 100.0% Specific Learning Disability 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 100.0% Speech or Language Impaired 5 3 0 2 0 0 10 80.0% TOTALS 12 4 0 2 0 0 18 88.9%  01 LRSD GIFTED ENROLLMENT 11/03/97 SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Gifted/Talented 4 11 0 1 0 0 16 93.8%  01 LRSD STUDENT RETENTION 11/03/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO4 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K 1 2 3 100.0% 01 1 1 100.0% 03 1 3 4 100.0% 05 2 2 4 100.0% 06 1 1 .0%  01 LRSD EXTRACURRICULAR/EXTENDED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 11/03/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL MEMBERSHIP ADULT SPONSORS ACTIVITY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black Safety Patrol 3 2 3 5 4 3 20 25.0% 1 1 .0% Tutors .0% .0% Morning Announce 2 1 3 66. 7% 1 1 100.0% Ambassadors 3 3 1 2 1 10 60.0% 1 1 .0% STOP Club 3 2 3 5 4 3 20 25.0% 1 1 .0% Honors Club .0% .0% Just Say No 13 7 3 1 1 25 80.0% .0% Fire Marshals 3 3 6 100.0% .0% Student Council 5 5 2 1 1 1 15 66. 7% 2 2 .0% Drill Team 1 17 1 19 94. 7% 1 1 100.0% Student Represen 17 2 1 20 85.0% 2 2 100.0% Dance Team Rep 7 16 3 2 1 29 79.3% 1 1 100.0% Choir .0% 2 1 3 66.7% TOTAL 40 72 15 19 10 11 167 67 .1% 7 1 5 13 53.8%  01 LRSD SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS 11/03/97 PAGE 1 (FIRST SEMESTER) SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HONOR/AWARD GRADE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black All A's K 4 2 6 100.0% A \u0026amp; B Honors K 5 7 12 100.0% All A's ls 2 10 1 13 92.3% A \u0026amp; B Honors ls 8 7 2 1 18 83.3% All A's 2n 2 1 3 66.7% A \u0026amp; B Honors 2n 2 5 2 1 10 70.0% All A's 3r 2 2 100.0% A \u0026amp; B Honors 3r 5 2 2 1 10 70.0% A \u0026amp; B Honors 4t 1 5 1 7 85.7% A \u0026amp; B Honors St 3 1 4 75.0% All A's 6t 2 1 3 100.0% A \u0026amp; B Honors 6t 4 2 6 66.7% TOTAL 31 48 3 10 2 94 84.0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black BIRACIAL COMMITT P.T.A. BOARD MBR VIPS 2 2 1 2 2 100.0% 4 50.0% 1 100.0% BM 1 1  11/03/97 PAGE 1 PARENTS/PATRONS BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black 1 3 2 2 3 6 33.3% 66.7% 1 100.0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE PARENT WORKSHOPS SCHOOL IMPROV CO Pupil Services BM BF 1 2 3 WM WF 2 2 2 OM OF Total 3 4 5 % Black 33.3% 50.0% 60.0% BM 11/03/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BF WM 1 WF 1 2 OM  2 OF Total 2 2 % Black 50.0% .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BCC Discipline Sunshine BM BF 2 3 3 WM WF OM 1 1 3 OF Total 3 % Black 66.7% 3 100.0% 7 42.9% 11/03/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM  3 OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE School Safety STUDENT COUNCIL FIELD DAY BM BF 5 2 4 WM WF 1 1 1 OM OF Total % 6 3 5 Black 83.3% 66.7% 80.0% 11/03/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM  4 OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE PROFESSIONAL GRO STOP COTILLION PROGR BM BF 1 1 2 WM WF 1 3 1 OM OF Total 2 4 3 % Black 50.0% 25.0% 66. 7% 11/03/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM  5 OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% .\u0026gt; 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BLACK HISTORY MO COE SCHOOL RECRUITME BM BF 2 1 2 WM WF 1 1 2 1 OM OF Total 4 3 3 % Black 50.0% 33.3% 66. 7% 11/03/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM 3  6 OF Total 3 % Black .0% .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM TOTAL 39 2 24 OF Total % Black 65 60.0% BM  11/03/97 PAGE 7 PARENTS/PATRONS BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black 2 5 10 17 41. 2% 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 PREJUDICE REDUC. TESA 13 RACE RELATIONS HUMAN RELATIONS CULTURAL RELAT. 20 Curriculum Study Leadership Acad 1 Mastery Learning Multi-C Counsel. Abacus 20 PET 25 WHOLE LANGUAGE 2 COOP LEARNING 15 SAT -8 TEST INTE 20 SDDI 20 COE 20 PATHWAYS TO EXCE 20 AR READING ASSO. 3 TOTAL 76 103  11/03/97 PAGE 1 SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 13 13 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 11/03/97 MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DELIVERY SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 PET 26 CYCLE 1 17 CYCLE 2 8 CYCLE 3 1 COOP. LEARNING 15 ACADEMIC SUPPORT CULTURAL DIVERS! 1 LEARNING STYLES 4 TOTAL 72  PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT 11/03/97 SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: ASSERTIVE DISCIP CLASSROOM MGMT. TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97  PAGE 1 Ba)KER -    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT QUIZ:SSPLST STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 BOOKER POSITION B L A C K W H I T E 0 T H E R TOTAL % M F M F M F BLACK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFIED POSITIONS PRINCIPAL 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 ASST PRINCIPAL 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.00 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 1 12 1 18 0 0 32 40.63 COUNSELOR 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 50.00 MEDIA SPECIALIST 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 REMDL/COMP READING 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 50.00 REMDL/COMP MATH 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 50.00 GIFTED/TALENTED 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 RESOURCE/TEACHER 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 SPEECH THERAPIST 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 00 MUSIC 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 33.33 ART 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 00 PE 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 00 SUBTOTAL CERTIFIED POSITIONS 1 17 6 26 0 0 50 36.00 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 2.00 34.00 12.00 52.00 00 00 so 36.00  POSITION SUPPORT POSITIONS CAFETERIA WORKER CUSTODIANS MEDIA CLERK SECRETARY NURSE INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES SUPERVISION AIDES OTHER LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 BOOKER B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 0 6 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SUBTOTAL SUPPORT POSITIONS 4 15 0 3 0 0 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 18.18 68.18 00 13. 64 00 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 7 4 1 2 1 1 5 1 22 00 22 % BLACK 85.71 100.00 00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 00 86.36 86.36  POSITION TOTAL PERCENT  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 BOOKER B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL M F M F M F 5 32 6 29 6.94 44.44 8.33 40.28 0 .OD 0 .oo 72 72 % BLACK 51.39 51.39    01 LRSD SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPROl PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Class Black Black White White Other Other Total Black Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Percent K 17 22 17 18 1 2 77 50.6% SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 01 20 26 12 13 2 1 74 62.2% 02 16 27 15 21 5 1 85 50.6% 03 23 22 20 17 1 2 85 52.9% 04 22 24 18 21 1 3 89 51. 7% 05 27 21 22 20 1 4 95 50.5% 06 29 20 19 25 2 1 96 51.0% Total 154 162 123 135 13 14 601 52.6% 25.6% 27.0% 20.5% 22.5% 2.2% 2.3%   01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 1 PAGE SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K BROWN M. 1 3 7 5 5 20 50.0% K HURST M. 1 4 6 4 4 1 19 52.6% K JEFFRIES v. 1 5 4 4 4 2 19 47.4% K WALLS B. 1 5 5 4 5 19 52.6% 01 FARLEY J. 1 6 5 3 5 19 57.9% 01 HESTIR J. 1 5 7 4 2 1 19 63.2% 01 JONES A. 1 5 6 1 4 1 17 64.7% 01 HARRIS K. 1 4 8 4 2 1 19 63.2% 02 FAIR D. 1 4 7 4 5 1 21 52.4% 02 GRAVES I. 1 4 7 4 5 1 21 52.4% 02 HIGDON T. 1 4 6 3 6 2 21 47.6% 02 TAGGART M. 1 4 7 3 5 2 21 52.4%   01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 2 PAGE SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 03 ELLINGTON L. l 6 5 5 4 l 21 52.4% 03 FUTRELL C. 1 6 5 5 5 1 22 50.0% 03 HALLUM A. 1 5 6 5 4 1 21 52.4% 03 TUCKER T. 1 6 6 5 4 21 57 .1% 04 AUSTIN C. 1 5 6 5 6 1 23 47.8% 04 ELLINGTON L. 1 1 1 .0% 04 HARDING C. 1 7 5 4 4 1 21 57 .1% 04 HAYDEN D. 1 5 6 5 5 1 22 50.0% 04 TAYLOR c. 1 5 6 3 6 1 21 52.4% 05 HIPPS D. 1 7 6 6 5 1 25 52.0% 05 JOHNSON M. 1 7 5 6 5 1 24 50.0% 05 KELLEY C. 1 6 5 5 5 1 2 24 45.8%   01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 3 PAGE SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 05 LEHNHOFF D. 1 7 5 5 5 22 54.5% 06 COLFORD S. 1 7 6 4 7 24 54.2% 06 HARRIS P. 1 7 5 5 5 1 23 52.2% 06 HARRIS K. 1 1 1 .0% 06 NEWCOMB D. 1 8 4 5 6 1 24 50.0% 06 WEIR N. 1 7 5 4 7 1 24 50.0%   01 LRSD SPECIAL ED STUDENTS 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO3 SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Mentally Retarded 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 100.0% Specific Learning Disability 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 66.7% Speech or Language Impaired 5 2 4 1 0 0 12 58.3% TOTALS 8 3 5 1 0 0 17 64.7%   01 LRSD GIFTED ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Gifted/Talented 13 15 31 23 2 4 88 31. 8%   01 LRSD STUDENT RETENTION 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO4 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Class BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K 3 1 1 5 80.0% 01 2 1 1 4 75.0% 02 1 1 .0% 03 2 1 3 66.7% 04 1 1 100.0%   01 LRSD EXTRACURRICULAR/EXTENDED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL TOTAL MEMBERSHIP ADULT SPONSORS ACTIVITY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black Just Say No 27 21 14 31 2 2 97 49.5% 1 1 2 50.0% Jazzy Jaguars 18 11 18 14 3 64 45.3% 1 1 2 50.0% Peer Helpers 6 10 7 10 1 1 35 45.7% 1 1 2 50.0% BAMBIS 12 12 12 12 48 50.0% 1 1 2 50.0% Student Council .0% 2 2 .0% Fire Marshal ls 1 2 2 1 6 50.0% 1 1 100.0% Flag Monitors 1 1 2 50.0% 1 1 100.0% DARE 24 28 20 20 2 1 95 54.7% 1 3 4 25.0% TOTAL 89 84 73 89 5 7 347 49.9% 1 6 9 16 43.8%  01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF BIRACIAL P.T.A. BOARD MBR Discipline Hear 1 1 3 WM WF 1 1 1 1 3 OM OF Total % 2 2 8 Black 50.0% .0% 50.0% BM 1 2  10/29/97 PAGE 1 PARENTS/PATRONS BF WM WF OM OF Total % 1 4 2 2 17 4 25 Black 50.0% 24.0% .0%  01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE Field Day Parent Involment Reading BM 1 BF 2 1 2 WM WF 3 4 1 OM OF Total 5 6 3 % Black 40.0% 33.3% 66.7% 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM 4 5  2 OF Total 9 % Black .0% .0% 44.4%  01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE Awards/Honors School Spirit Science Fair BM BF 2 1 1 WM 1 WF 2 5 2 OM OF Total % 5 6 3 Black 40.0% 16.7% 33.3% BM 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BF 7 3 WM 2 WF OM 4  3 OF Total % 11 5 Black 63.6% 60.0%  01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE Sunshine Behavior Mange. COE BM 1 1 BF WM 4 3 1 1 WF 3 2 2 OM OF Total % 7 4 7 Black 57 .1% 25.0% 57 .1% 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM 4 2  4 OF Total % 6 Black .0% 66.7% .0%   01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 5 SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL EMPLOYEES PARENTS/PATRONS COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black Partners In Ed 1 1 2 50.0% .0% School Safety 2 1 2 5 60.0% 1 1 2 50.0% TOTAL 6 22 5 32 65 43 .1% 7 20 7 28 62 43.5%  01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 PREJUDICE REDUC. 39 TESA 31 HUMAN RELATIONS 47 TEAM BUILDING 50 TOTAL 167  10/29/97 PAGE 1 SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 10 10  01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DELIVERY SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: PET CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 CYCLE 1 23 CYCLE 2 6 CYCLE 3 8 COOP. LEARNING 48 ACADEMIC SUPPORT 4 TOTAL 89  PAGE 1  01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 ASSERTIVE DISCIP CLASSROOM MGMT. 42 TOTAL 42  PAGE 1  01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 OTHER STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 Learning styles 48 Testing 50 TOTAL 98  PAGE 1 POSITION CERTIFIED POSITIONS PRINCIPAL CLASSROOM TEACHERS COUNSELOR MEDIA SPECIALIST REMDL/COMP READING GIFTED/TALENTED RESOURCE/TEACHER SPEECH THERAPIST MUSIC SUBTOTAL CERTIFIED SUBTOTAL PERCENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 BRADY B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 POSITIONS 0 8 1 18 0 0 00 29.63 3.70 66.67 00 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 1 18 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 27 00 27 % BLACK 100.00 33.33 00 00 100.00 00 00 00 00 29.63 29.63 POSITION SUPPORT POSITIONS CAFETERIA WORKER CUSTODIANS MEDIA CLERK SECRETARY INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES SUPERVISION AIDES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 BRADY B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL SUPPORT POSITIONS 2 12 1 2 0 0 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 11. 76 70.59 5.88 11. 76 00 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 4 2 1 1 5 4 17 00 17 % BLACK 50.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 82.35 82.35 POSITION TOTAL PERCENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 BRADY B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL M F M F M F 2 20 2 20 4.55 45.45 4.55 45.45 0 .oo 0 .oo 44 44 % BLACK 50.00 50.00 01 LRSD SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPROl PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class Black Black White White Other Other Total Black Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Percent K 19 17 5 10 1 2 54 66.7% P4 4 5 4 4 1 0 18 50.0% SP 6 0 1 1 0 0 8 75.0% 01 26 20 6 8 1 1 62 74.2% 02 21 16 11 10 3 2 63 58. 7% 03 21 15 9 2 1 1 49 73.5% 04 17 8 3 4 6 7 45 55.6% 05 18 9 4 8 3 2 44 61.4% 06 5 10 6 0 4 3 28 53.6% Total 137 100 49 47 20 18 371 63.9% 36.9% 27.0% 13.2% 12.7% 5.4% 4.9% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 1 PAGE SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K DUGAN F. 1 7 6 1 4 1 19 68.4% K JONES P. 1 5 4 4 3 16 56.3% K TOLBERT I. 1 7 7 2 1 1 18 77.8% K WASHINGTON M. 1 1 1 .0% P4 MCCLURKAN E. 1 4 5 4 4 1 18 50.0% 01 GOVAR M. 1 1 1 .0% 01 KOON B. 1 1 1 .0% 01 ROSE s. 1 9 7 2 1 1 20 80.0% 01 SCRUBBS v. 1 8 6 2 4 20 70.0% 01 WASHINGTON M. 1 9 7 1 2 1 20 80.0% 02 CROMEDY G. 1 6 5 3 2 2 1 19 57.9% 02 GOVAR M. 1 1 1 100.0% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 2 PAGE SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 02 HARROD A. 1 8 6 3 5 22 63.6% 02 KOON B. 1 7 4 5 3 1 1 21 52.4% 03 JOHNSON D. 1 13 9 2 1 25 88.0% 03 OLIVERS. 1 8 6 7 2 1 24 58.3% 04 GOVAR M. 1 8 3 2 3 5 21 52.4% 04 MCINTYRE G. 1 2 2 100.0% 04 YOUNGE. 1 9 5 1 1 6 2 24 58.3% 05 HANNAHS B. 1 10 4 2 2 2 20 70.0% 05 HIGHT R. 1 8 5 2 6 1 2 24 54.2% 05 MCINTYRE G. 1 2 1 3 66.7% 06 HANNAHS B. 1 1 1 100.0% 06 MCINTYRE G. 1 2 1 3 66.7% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 3 PAGE SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Count Black 06 VARDAMAN T. 1 5 9 6 4 3 27 51. 9% 01 LRSD SPECIAL ED STUDENTS 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO3 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Mentally Retarded 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 75.0% Multihandicapped 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 50.0% Other Health Impaired 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .0% Specific Learning Disability 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.0% Speech or Language Impaired 5 0 2 3 1 0 11 45.5% Visually Handicapped 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 100.0% TOTALS 10 1 3 5 1 0 20 55.0% 01 LRSD GIFTED ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Gifted/Talented 5 5 8 2 5 0 25 40.0% 01 LRSD STUDENT RETENTION 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO4 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K 2 2 100.0% 01 2 1 3 100.0% 05 1 1 100.0% 01 LRSD EXTRACURRICULAR/EXTENDED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL MEMBERSHIP ADULT SPONSORS ACTIVITY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black STUDENT COUNCIL 6 3 4 4 17 52.9% 2 2 .0% PEER FACILITATOR 10 9 2 3 1 3 28 67.9% 1 1 .0% JUST SAY NO CLUB 18 10 7 6 6 5 52 53.8% 1 1 .0% BRADY SCH.CHOIR 9 9 5 6 5 5 39 46.2% 1 1 .0% GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENT 5 5 8 2 5 25 40.0% 1 1 .0% DRILL TEAM 14 4 5 23 60.9% 2 2 100.0% CHAPTER I READIN 36 18 5 3 3 7 72 75.0% 1 1 2 50.0% CHAPTER I MATH 22 18 5 4 5 5 59 67.8% 1 1 2 50.0% PEER TUTORS 10 9 3 2 1 4 29 65.5% 1 1 .0% AMBASSADORS 7 5 4 4 1 1 22 54.5% 1 1 .0% CONFLICT MANAGRS 15 10 3 2 6 1 37 67.6% 1 1 .0% TOTAL 138 110 46 40 33 36 403 61.5% 4 11 15 26.7% 01 LRSD SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS 10/29/97 PAGE 1 (FIRST SEMESTER) SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HONOR/AWARD GRADE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Most Imp Aca K- 3 1 1 8 13 30.8% Prine. (A's) 1- 8 9 10 10 8 4 49 34.7% Hon.Rol(A/B) 1- 34 21 13 12 3 14 97 56.7% Citizenship P- 58 37 20 23 11 20 169 56.2% Attendance P- 30 25 12 9 8 17 101 54.5% Most Imp Cit K- 3 6 2 6 2 5 24 37.5% TOTAL 136 99 57 61 32 68 453 51. 9% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES PARENTS/PATRONS COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black BIRACIAL COMMITT 1 2 1 1 5 60.0% 1 1 2 4 50.0% P.T.A. BOARD MEM 1 1 1 3 6 33.3% 1 2 1 3 7 42.9% VIPS/P.I.E 1 1 2 4 25.0% 4 3 7 57.1% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE PARENT WORKSHOPS SCHOOL IMPROV CO SCH.RECRUIT TEAM BM BF 2 WM WF 1 2 OM OF Total % 5 Black .0% .0% 40.0% 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM 2 OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE TEXTBOOK SELECT BUILDING COORDIN STAFF DEV COMM BM BF 3 2 WM WF 1 1 3 2 OM OF Total % 1 7 4 Black 42.9% 50.0% 10/29/97 PAGE 3 PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE GUIDANCE COMM FIELD DAY MEDIA CONSULTANT BM BF WM WF 3 1 4 4 1 OM OF Total 7 5 1 % Black 42.9% 20.0% .0% 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM 4 OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE TALENT SHOW STUDENT COUNCIL PUPIL SERVICES BM BF WM WF 2 3 2 2 4 OM OF Total % 4 2 7 Black 50.0% .0% 42.9% BM 10/29/97 PAGE 5 PARENTS/PATRONS BF WM WF OM OF Total % 1 1 1 Black 2 50.0% 1 100.0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE SUNSHINE COMM DISCIPLINE MANAG GRANT WRITING BM BF WM WF 1 4 1 6 1 1 OM OF Total 7 6 1 % Black 14.3% 66.7% .0% 10/29/97 PAGE 6 PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 7 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES PARENTS/PATRONS COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black GRADE LEVEL CH 3 4 7 42.9% .0% MULTICULTURAL CM 2 6 8 25.0% .0% TOTAL 2 30 6 49 87 36.8% 2 9 1 9 21 52.4% 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 EDUCATIONAL EQUITY SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 PREJUDICE REDUC. 14 TESA 12 RACE RELATIONS 11 HUMAN RELATIONS 10 CULTURAL RELAT. 7 2 3 PRE SCHOOL INSER 12 15 SCHOOL LAW 12 COE 15 READING STYLES 13 MULTICULT ED 10 6 BRADY MISSION ST 11 EARLY CHILDHOOD 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 128 16 9 4 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DELIVERY SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: PET CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2 CYCLE 3 COOP. LEARNING WINNEBAGO COMPUTER PROGRAM LIBRARY IN SERV WINDOWS 95 WORDS 1 WORDS@ POWER POINT 1 POWER POINT 2 TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 14 10 6 2 12 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 49 9 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 ASSERTIVE DISCIP 14 CLASSROOM MGMT. 15 POSITIVE DISCIP. 4 SCHOOL LAW 12 SCHOOL WIDE DISC 9 6 6 CLASSROOM MANAG 15 TOTAL 65 4 6 6 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 OTHER STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 AT RISK 14 LEARNING STYLES 20 SELF ESTEEM 8 2 4 PORTOFOLIO ASSES 16 1 INTERGRAT CURRIC 12 ABACUS TRAINING 14 WINDOW ON SCIENC 8 2 PARENT INVOLVE 8 2 SIP 5 1 1 TEACHER EVALUAT 6 1 COMPUTER INSERV 10 9 1 2 MATH MANIULATIV 9 8 ESL/LEP 9 30 1 3 SELF ESTEEM 8 5 WRIT ACROSS CURR 9 REACH INSERVICE 12 SCIENCE HANDS-ON 13 2 AR K-4 CRUSADE 1 POLAROID CAMERA 2 EARLY CDLHD CONV 4 SOC STUD INSERV 25 26 SUCCESS FOR ALL 15 TOTAL 206 103 10 10 POSITION CERTIFIED POSITIONS PRINCIPAL ASST PRINCIPAL CLASSROOM TEACHERS COUNSELOR MEDIA SPECIALIST GIFTED/TALENTED RESOURCE/TEACHER SPEECH THERAPIST MUSIC ART PE CURRICULUM SPECIALIST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 CARVER B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 23 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 1 1 33 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL CERTIFIED POSITIONS 1 13 1 30 0 1 46 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 2.17 28.26 2.17 65.22 00 2.17 46 % BLACK 00 100.00 24.24 50.00 00 00 00 100.00 100.00 00 100.00 100.00 30.43 30.43 POSITION SUPPORT POSITIONS CAFETERIA WORKER CUSTODIANS MEDIA CLERK SECRETARY NURSE INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES SUPERVISION AIDES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 CARVER B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 SUBTOTAL SUPPORT POSITIONS 4 15 0 6 0 0 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 16.00 60.00 00 24.00 00 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 5 5 1 2 1 5 6 25 00 25 % BLACK 100.00 100.00 00 50.00 00 60.00 83.33 76.00 76.00 POSITION TOTAL PERCENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 CARVER B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 5 28 1 36 1 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 7.04 39.44 1.41 50.70 0 .oo 1. 41 71 71 % BLACK 46.48 46.48 01 LRSD SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPROl PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET Class Black Black White White Other Other Total Black Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Percent K 9 21 16 10 2 1 59 50.8% SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 01 21 16 19 11 1 1 69 53.6% 02 22 23 26 16 1 2 90 50.0% 03 29 19 19 19 3 1 90 53.3% 04 32 20 25 11 1 5 94 55.3% 05 31 19 25 21 2 2 100 50.0% 06 24 26 20 22 0 2 94 53.2% Total 168 144 150 110 10 14 596 52.3% 28.2% 24.2% 25.2% 18.5% 1. 7% 2.3% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 1 PAGE SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K DANIELS. 1 4 7 5 2 1 1 20 55.0% K DOYNE A. 1 3 7 6 4 20 50.0% K HOOKER M. 1 2 7 5 4 1 19 47.4% 01 GLENN L. 1 7 5 6 4 1 23 52.2% 01 HAMPTON H. l 7 5 7 3 1 23 52.2% 01 SKUBAL E. 1 7 6 6 4 23 56.5% 02 JOSEPH J. 1 6 6 7 4 23 52.2% 02 SMITH-MALLETT G. 1 6 7 6 2 1 22 59.1% 02 MCKENDRY S. 1 5 6 6 6 23 47.8% 02 YARBROUGH L. 1 5 4 7 4 1 1 22 40.9% 03 CARTWRIGHT J. 1 6 5 5 4 2 22 50.0% 03 HURD L. 1 7 5 5 5 1 23 52.2% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 2 PAGE SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 03 MUNNS P. 1 9 5 4 4 22 63.6% 03 PENN P. 1 7 4 5 5 1 22 50.0% 04 BUCK v. 1 9 5 6 2 1 23 60.9% 04 HARRISON K. 1 8 5 6 4 1 24 54.2% 04 JESTER J. 1 8 4 6 3 1 2 24 50.0% 04 MUNNS P. 1 1 1 100.0% 04 WASHINGTON K. 1 7 5 7 2 1 22 54.5% 05 BLANKENSHIP K. 1 8 4 6 5 1 1 25 48.0% 05 GLENN B. 1 8 4 7 5 1 25 48.0% 05 HARNESS E. 1 8 6 5 5 1 25 56.0% 05 PACE T. 1 7 5 7 6 25 48.0% 06 BYRD D. 1 6 6 5 5 1 23 52.2% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET Class Teacher 06 06 06 FLEMING L. SHIELDS H. THOMAS V. BM ******TEACHER****** BF WM 1 WF 1 1 OM OF SP 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 3 PAGE ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 6 6 5 6 23 52.2% 6 7 5 5 1 24 54.2% 6 7 5 6 24 54.2% 01 LRSD SPECIAL ED STUDENTS 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPR03 SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Autism 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 100.0% Specific Learning Disability 3 1 1 1 0 0 6 66.7% Speech or Language Impaired 7 0 1 0 0 0 8 87.5% TOTALS 11 1 2 1 0 0 15 80.0% 01 LRSD GIFTED ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Gifted/Talented 29 20 52 45 3 9 158 31.0% 01 LRSD STUDENT RETENTION 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO4 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET Class BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K 1 1 1 3 66.7% 01 1 1 .0% 02 1 1 1 3 33.3% 01 LRSD EXTRACURRICULAR/EXTENDED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 10/29/97 PAGE  1 SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET TOTAL MEMBERSHIP ADULT SPONSORS ACTIVITY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black FIRE MARSHALS 2 1 1 2 6 50.0% 1 1 100.0% JUST SAY NO 23 27 22 21 1 94 53.2% 1 1 2 50.0% YEARBOOK STAFF 1 2 3 7 1 14 21. 4% 1 1 2 50.0% PEER TUTORS 4 8 7 9 1 29 41.4% 1 1 2 50.0% AMBASSADORS .0% 1 1 2 50.0% MATH OLYMPAID .0% 1 1 .0% SCIENCE CLUB 4 3 3 3 13 53.8% 1 1 2 50.0% NEWS TEAM 4 5 5 4 1 19 47.4% 1 1 .0% ODESSY OF MIND .0% 1 1 .0% THINKING CAP QUI 2 2 3 5 1 2 15 26. 7% 1 1 .0% SUMMER READING 37 36 13 6 92 79.3% 2 1 5 8 25.0% MATH FAIR .0% 1 1 .0% INVENT AMERICA .0% 1 1 2 50.0% SCIENCE FAIR .0% 1 1 2 50.0% SPACE FAIR .0% .0% 01 LRSD EXTRACURRICULAR/EXTENDED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 10/29/97 PAGE 2 SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET TOTAL MEMBERSHIP ADULT SPONSORS ACTIVITY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black CARDINAL CLUB 9 8 6 23 39.1% .0% TOTAL 77 93 65 63 2 5 305 55.7% 10 1 17 28 35.7% 01 LRSD SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS 10/29/97 PAGE 1 (FIRST SEMESTER) SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET HONOR/AWARD GRADE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black COURT. KIDS K .0% COURT. KIDS 1 .0% COURT. KIDS 2 .0% COURT. KIDS 3 .0% COURT. KIDS 4 .0% COURT. KIDS 5 .0% COURT. KIDS 6 .0% A HONOR ROLL lS 9 7 15 10 1 1 43 37.2% A/B HONOR RL lS 8 9 3 1 21 81.0% A HONOR ROLL 2N 5 8 15 12 2 42 31.0% A/B HONOR RL 2N 11 7 1 3 1 1 24 75.0% A HONOR ROLL 3R 6 4 18 7 1 5 41 24.4% A/B HONOR RL 3R 9 7 3 4 23 69.6% A HONOR ROLL 4T 4 6 13 15 2 2 42 23.8% A/B HONOR RL 4T 12 7 10 4 33 57.6% A HONOR ROLL ST .0% A/B HONOR RL ST .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS 10/29/97 PAGE 2 (FIRST SEMESTER) SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET HONOR/AWARD GRADE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black A HONOR ROLL 6T .0% A/B HONOR RO 6T .0% TOTAL 64 55 78 56 7 9 269 44.2% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET EMPLOYEES PARENTS/PATRONS COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black BIRACIAL COMMITT 1 2 3 33.3% 1 1 1 1 4 50.0% P.T.A. BOARD MBR 1 2 3 33.3% 1 4 7 12 41. 7% VIPS 1 1 1 1 4 25.0% 2 2 .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % PUPIL SERV. TEAM LEADERSHIP COE RECRUITMENT TEAM 2 4 2 1 5 10 2 7 15 4 Black 28.6% 26.7% 50.0% 10/29/97 PAGE 2 PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF 1 1 1 1 2 1 OM OF Total % 3 4 Black .0% 33.3% 50.0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % STP CONSULT TEAM BCC HONORS COMMITTEE 5 2 2 1 2 7 2 3 1 13 7 5 Black 38.5% 28.6% 40.0% 10/29/97 PAGE 3 PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF 1 1 2 1 OM OF Total % 4 1 Black 50.0% .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % GIT SCH. COMMITT HEALTH ACTION TM COURT. KIDS 4 2 2 1 6 1 10 3 3 Black 40.0% 66.7% 66.7% BM 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BF WM WF 1 1 1 OM 4 OF Total % 2 1 Black .0% 50.0% .0%  01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black TOTAL 28 6 41 2 77 36.4% 10/29/97 PAGE 5 PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black 5 8 2 18 33 39.4% 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET CERTIFIED STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 PREJUDICE REDUC. 42 TESA 32 RACE RELATIONS 17 HUMAN RELATIONS 17 CULTURAL RELAT. 12 AT-RISK 25 TOTAL 145 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 6 3 3 3 15 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DELIVERY SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: PET CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2 CYCLE 3 COOP. LEARNING ACADEMIC SUPPORT TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 32 11 5 34 2 2 84 2 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 ASSERTIVE DISCIP 30 1 CLASSROOM MGMT. 33 GOALS OF MISBEHA 40 5 POSITIVE DISPLIN 40 5 GREEN CIRCLE 4 TOTAL 147 11 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 OTHER STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 LITERATURE BASED 22 BALANCED WRITING 2 WHOLE LANGUAGE 21 WRITE MORE LEARN 2 MAST/FOSS TRAIN! 20 WRITE GRP WKSP 7 LEARNING STYLES 8 ADD/ADHD 8 PORTFOLIO ASSESS 5 INTEGRATING CURR 29 HAT TRAINING 3 MATH/LANG ART PR 33 DEFIANT CHILD 46 SCHOOL IMPROVEME 48  MULTIPLE INTELLI 49 AETN-CRIT. VIEW! 45 ECOE INTRODUCTIO 40 TEACH SELF DISC! 45 MC RAT 5 3 DISCIPLINE MGMT 8 CMSIMON AWARD 2 EXPANING REACH 2 PATHWAY TO EXCEL 43 G/T IDENTIFICATI 40 LRSD SCIENCE 30 TOTAL 563 3    POSITION CERTIFIED POSITIONS PRINCIPAL ASST PRINCIPAL CLASSROOM TEACHERS VOCATIONAL TEACHERS COUNSELOR MEDIA SPECIALIST RESOURCE/TEACHER SPEECH THERAPIST MUSIC ART PE AUXILIARY TEACHER SUBTOTAL CERTIFIED SUBTOTAL PERCENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 CENTRAL B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 10 17 11 37 0 0 1 7 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 POSITIONS 16 31 21 47 0 0 13.91 26.96 18.26 40.87 00 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 2 1 5 75 10 6 2 4 1 3 3 1 2 115 00 115 % BLACK 100.00 100.00 60.00 36.00 80.00 33.33 00 50.00 00 33.33 00 00 50.00 40.87 40.87 NO\\I 4 i997 Qrr\\CE Of DtSEGl\\tGA110N MOtU10RING POSITION SUPPORT POSITIONS ATTENDANCE CLERK CAFETERIA WORKER CUSTODIANS MEDIA CLERK REGISTRAR SECRETARY SECURITY OFFICER SUPERVISION AIDES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 CENTRAL B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 2 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL SUPPORT POSITIONS 14 17 1 8 0 2 SUBTOTAL PERCENT QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 3 11 13 1 1 7 5 1 42 33.33 40.48 2.38 19.05 00 4.76 42 % BLACK 66.67 72.73 92.31 00 00 42.86 100.00 100.00 73.81 73.81 POSITION TOTAL PERCENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 CENTRAL B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 30 48 22 55 2 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 19.11 30.57 14.01 35.03 0 .oo 1. 27 157 157 % BLACK 49.68 49.68 01 LRSD SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPROl PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Class Black Black White White Other Other Total Black Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Percent K 20 12 0 0 0 1 33 97.0% SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 10 210 246 113 127 8 7 711 64 .1% 11 160 204 122 148 10 5 649 56 .1% 12 104 139 93 100 7 10 453 53.6% Total 494 601 328 375 25 23 1846 59.3% 26.8% 32.6% 17.8% 20.3% 1.4% 1. 2% LRSD SECONDARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT SECCLS 10/29/97 School: l - CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL - - -Term: ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black ADAIR G. 1 4 3 1 8 87.5% ATKINS L. 1 41 59 21 15 1 137 73.0% BECKER M. 1 15 38 37 53 1 144 36.8% BLAIR S. 1 5 1 2 8 62.5% BLEVINS P. 1 26 36 23 30 1 1 117 53.0% BOYETTE. 1 26 57 24 32 1 140 59.3% BRACK R. 1 28 72 5 16 2 1 124 80.6% BRANDON E. 1 44 43 12 5 4 108 80.6% BROADNAX-THRA B. 1 52 52 10 10 1 125 83.2% BROOKS S. 1 34 50 20 11 1 1 117 71.8% BROWN J. 1 9 12 37 45 5 5 113 18.6% CALDWELL s. 1 4 12 24 54 3 7 104 15.4% CALLAWAY N. 1 32 33 18 22 2 1 108 60.2% CARR P. 1 37 52 21 18 2 130 68.5% CARUTH P. 1 11 16 26 39 2 3 97 27.8% CHAMBLISS P. 1 12 17 14 38 3 4 88 33.0% LRSD SECONDARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT SECCLS 10/29/97 School: l - CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL - - -Term: ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black CHANDLER J. 1 40 44 12 10 2 108 77.8% COBB J. 1 4 10 35 52 6 9 116 12 .1% COLBURN M. 1 19 46 31 35 2 3 136 47.8% COLE J. 1 15 18 16 38 2 3 92 35.9% COLLINS R. 1 45 49 13 9 2 118 79.7% COONS. 1 39 17 35 45 2 138 40.6% COOPER V. 1 33 41 24 27 3 2 130 56.9% CORTINEZ K. 1 23 34 33 47 2 1 140 40.7% COX B. 1 40 49 21 22 132 67.4% DANIEL B. 1 7 6 44 19 5 7 88 14.8% DAVIS M. 1 48 33 6 6 3 96 84.4% DEITZ s. 1 19 17 24 19 2 8 89 40.4% DIXON s. 1 40 47 16 13 2 2 120 72.5% DONHAM M. 1 13 29 30 42 2 2 118 35.6% DUMAS E. 1 1 1 100. 0% EASTER M. 1 12 24 29 51 2 2 120 30.0% LRSD SECONDARY SCHOOL CW S ENROLLMENT SECCLS 10/29/97 School: l - CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL - Term: ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black EDWARDS J. 1 38 42 19 26 1 126 63.5% EVANS K. 1 25 33 18 12 88 65.9% FIELDS W. 1 21 31 7 1 1 61 85.2% FITZPATRICK Jo. 1 44 48 28 30 150 61. 3% FUTRELL B. 1 32 60 10 21 1 124 74.2% GADBERRY s. 1 6 15 37 69 3 4 134 15. 7% GADDY H. 1 25 11 1 1 38 94.7% GATES K. 1 18 36 33 47 3 137 39.4% GAY A. 1 39 45 21 21 4 130 64.6% GRAY J. 1 58 37 10 2 2 1 110 86.4% GUY K. 1 1 1 100.0% HALL-JONES B. 1 28 9 2 39 94.9% HAMMONS K. 1 41 30 8 8 2 89 79.8% HARDIN G. 1 13 18 30 33 4 3 101 30.7% HARGIS A. 1 9 18 36 69 1 2 135 20.0% HARRIS H. 1 44 32 17 29 3 3 128 59.4% LR~D ' SECONDARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT SECCLS 10/29/97 School: l- CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL - - Term: ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black HOFFMAN M. 1 27 37 21 19 1 3 108 59.3% HOLLADAY K. 1 28 37 24 36 125 52.0% HOWARD R. 1 8 3 11 100.0% HUFFORD G. 1 6 16 36 49 5 6 118 18.6% JAMES B. 1 1 1 100.0% JERNIGAN R. 1 31 47 21 24 1 124 62.9% KALB M. 1 33 33 23 29 1 3 122 54 .1% KEARNEY L. 1 11 11 39 24 3 1 89 24.7% LENIEAR H. 1 34 40 23 25 1 123 60.2% LIGON M. 1 11 16 31 24 1 2 85 31. 8% LOYA s. 1 23 43 20 30 1 117 56.4% MAYS G. 1 33 43 18 26 4 124 61. 3% MCDONALD D. 1 34 33 23 14 2 106 63.2% MCDONALD T. 1 2 12 11 14 39 35.9% MCLENDON J. 1 43 40 25 27 1 1 137 60.6% MCMURRAY v. 1 42 48 20 25 1 136 66.2% LRSD SECONDARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT SECCLS 10/29/97 School: l - CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL - - -Term: ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black MEADOWS M. 1 43 44 13 3 2 105 82.9% BARNUM R. l 3 12 3 18 83.3% BERRY D. 1 10 4 3 17 82.4% EACKLES v. 1 6 6 100.0% GRUMMER JR c. 1 7 2 2 2 13 69.2% BURCHETT s. 1 12 12 100.0% PERRY M. 1 11 9 3 23 87.0% SKIPPER J. 1 30 6 3 39 92.3% SODERLING L. 1 38 38 100.0% TENPENNY A. 1 6 14 20 100.0% MCCREE D. 1 3 3 100.0% MILES B. 1 6 3 9 100. 0% PRATHER L. 1 26 2 28 92.9% MILLER B. 1 51 41 12 11 1 1 117 78.6% MILLER R. 1 28 48 24 19 6 125 60.8% MOORE K. 1 32 50 23 27 1 133 61. 7% LRSD SECONDARY SCHOOL C'S ENROLLMENT SECCLS 10/29i School: l - CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL -Term: ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black MORRIS W. 1 1 1 100.0% NASH L. 1 41 45 15 4 1 106 81.1% NASH D. 1 33 41 27 23 124 59. 7% PAIGE JR w. 1 38 28 31 6 4 107 61.7% PAULS. 1 31 54 21 11 2 119 71. 4% PAXTON v. 1 40 53 12 10 2 117 79.5% PEYTON E. 1 27 39 26 6 98 67.3% PIERCE M. 1 40 45 15 15 1 116 73.3% PIERCE s. 1 49 44 8 7 1 109 85.3% PITTMAN c. 1 7 20 30 61 1 119 22.7% POST J. 1 62 29 2 1 94 96.8% REEDY J. 1 32 51 18 25 2 2 130 63.8% ROBERTSON JR T. 1 26 46 13 2 1 88 81.8% ROBINSON c. 1 17 30 12 5 1 65 72. 3% ROUSSEAU N. 1 3 4 5 3 15 46. 7% RUTLEDGE M. 1 34 52 20 21 2 1 130 66.2% LR$D  SECONDARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT SECCLS 10/29/97 School: l - CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL - - .Term: ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black SCHLESINGER D. 1 35 12 5 4 1 57 82.5% SEWARD D. 1 44 49 15 14 2 1 125 74.4% SHOFNER K. 1 43 44 15 18 1 121 71.9% SIEGEL L. 1 35 48 18 24 3 3 131 63.4% SIEGEL T. 1 3 1 4 .0% SNODGRASS A. 1 44 47 14 6 1 112 81.3% STAFFORD B. 1 27 51 19 24 3 2 126 61. 9% STEADMAN A. 1 14 32 29 44 2 4 125 36.8% TEETER E. 1 52 40 9 14 2 117 78.6% THOMAS A. 1 58 so 13 1 122 88.5% THOMPSON F. 1 56 47 3 2 6 114 90.4% THOMPSON J. 1 19 32 38 49 2 1 141 36.2% THOMPSON L. 1 11 41 32 46 2 4 136 38.2% THREATT c. 1 42 48 20 10 1 121 74.4% VENABLE G. 1 13 67 4 2 1 2 89 89.9% WALKER R. 1 30 49 14 27 2 1 123 64.2% LRSD SECONDARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT SECCLS 10/29/97 School: l - CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL - - .Term: ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black WATSON B. 1 8 15 37 54 4 3 121 19.0% WHISTLE V. 1 38 58 17 15 128 75.0% WHITEHORN D. 1 2 1 3 100.0% WILDER B. 1 22 37 18 23 2 1 103 57.3% WILLIAMS B. 1 1 1 .0% WILLIAMSON M. 1 22 8 2 32 93.8% WILLIAMS G. 1 20 11 2 33 93.9% WILLIS E. 1 37 34 18 11 100 71.0% WILSON C. 1 37 40 20 28 1 1 127 60.6% WILSON N. 1 34 22 23 40 2 3 124 45.2% 01 LRSD SPECIAL ED STUDENTS 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO3 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Mentally Retarded 11 5 0 0 0 0 16 100.0% Other Health Impaired 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .0% Seriously Emotionally Disturbe 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 100.0% Specific Learning Disability 35 25 9 4 0 0 73 82.2% Speech or Language Impaired 7 6 0 1 0 0 14 92.9% TOTALS 54 36 10 5 0 0 105 85.7% 01 LRSD GIFTED ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Gifted/Talented 78 136 119 163 10 6 512 41. 8% 01 LRSD STUDENT RETENTION 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO4 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Class BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 10 22 19 3 1 1 46 89 .1% 11 15 13 4 1 1 34 82.4% 12 3 2 5 100.0% 01 LRSD STUDENT GRADUATION DATA LAST YEAR 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 94 151 71 99 5 11 431 56.8% 01 LRSD SECONDARY SUBJECT AREA COURSES FAILED 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Class BM BF WM WF OM OF TM TF % Black ENGLISH 10 51 30 14 9 1 66 39 77 .1% 11 27 11 11 1 38 12 76.0% 12 13 10 2 2 15 12 85.2% MATH 10 41 24 8 2 49 26 86. 7% 11 21 21 8 3 1 30 24 77.8% 12 6 13 2 3 1 8 17 76.0% HISTORY/SOC STUDIES 10 47 30 11 2 1 59 32 84.6% 11 5 6 9 14 6 55.0% 12 13 4 3 3 16 7 73.9% SCIENCE 10 16 16 5 3 1 22 19 78.0% 11 15 14 7 1 22 15 78.4% 12 9 11 2 5 11 16 74 .1% 01 LRSD STAFF ASSIGNMENT FOR ADVANCED 10/29/97 PAGE 1 PLACEMENT/HONORS/GIFTED/ENRICHED Secondary Only SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC AREA BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black English 1 4 5 20.0% Math 1 1 3 5 40.0% Science 2 2 3 7 28.6% Social Studies 1 1 2 .0% Foreign Language 5 1 6 .0% TOTAL 1 4 3 16 1 25 20.0% 01 LRSD EXTRACURRICULAR/EXTENDED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL MEMBERSHIP ADULT SPONSORS ACTIVITY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black Football 53 17 70 75.7% 4 4 .0% Drill Team 26 26 100.0% 1 1 .0% Cheerleaders 1 7 10 18 44.4% 1 1 2 50.0% Student Govt 4 14 6 3 2 1 30 60.0% 1 1 .0% TAILS 10 39 2 11 62 79.0% 2 1 3 6 33.3% FCS 1 5 14 45 65 9.2% 1 1 . 0% German Club 7 10 25 13 2 2 59 28.8% 1 1 .0% Young Democrats 3 11 11 39 1 4 69 20.3% 2 2 .0% French Club 5 17 20 32 2 1 77 28.6% 2 2 .0% CCE 5 13 8 1 27 66.7% 1 1 100.0% DECA 4 15 4 23 82.6% 1 1 100.0% FBLA 21 44 5 1 71 91. 5% 3 1 4 75.0% Accpt No Bound 10 22 22 47 6 8 115 27.8% 1 1 2 .0% Rotary Interact .0% 1 1 .0% Ladies Club .0% 2 2 100.0% 01 LRSD EXTRACURRICULAR/EXTENDED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 10/29/97 PAGE 2 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL MEMBERSHIP ADULT SPONSORS ACTIVITY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black Gentlemen's Club 41 1 42 97.6% 1 1 100.0% Troubadours 10 23 22 30 2 4 91 36.3% 3 1 3 7 42.9% Beta Club 5 27 50 108 8 9 207 15.5% 2 2 .0% Basketball 27 21 3 3 54 88.9% 2 2 100.0% Volleyball 7 13 20 35.0% 1 1 .0% Baseball .0% 2 2 100.0% Soccer .0% 1 1 .0% Golf .0% 1 1 .0% Tennis .0% 1 1 .0% Track .0% 1 1 .0% Madrigals 7 6 3 16 81. 3% 1 1 100.0% Nat.Honor.Soc. 2 14 21 42 4 4 87 18.4% 2 2 .0% Science Club 1 4 12 31 5 3 56 8.9% 1 1 2 .0% Latin Club 1 4 9 13 1 28 17.9% 1 1 .0% VICA 6 8 7 1 22 63.6% 1 1 100.0% 01 LRSD EXTRACURRICULAR/EXTENDED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 10/29/97 PAGE 3 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL MEMBERSHIP ADULT SPONSORS ACTIVITY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black ASO 8 5 2 15 86.7% 1 1 100.0% TOTAL 232 342 251 454 33 38 1350 42.5% 8 13 12 24 1 58 36.2% 01 LRSD SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS 10/29/97 PAGE 1 (FIRST SEMESTER) SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL HONOR/AWARD GRADE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Supt. Honor 4 13 21 1 5 44 9 .1% A Honor Roll 1 9 36 64 7 10 127 7.9% B+ Honor 7 38 38 88 2 7 180 25.0% B Honor Roll 30 57 38 49 4 5 183 47.5% TOTAL 38 108 125 222 14 27 534 27.3% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL EMPLOYEES PARENTS/PATRONS COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black BIRACIAL COMMITT .0% .0% PTSA BOARD 1 2 3 6 50.0% 1 2 3 6 50.0% GIFTED/TALENTED 1 1 1 1 4 50.0% 1 1 1 1 4 50.0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BLDGS/GROUNDS HOSPITALITY LIBRARY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% BM 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BF 2 2 1 WM 1 WF 3 12 5 OM 2 OF Total 6 14 6 % Black 33.3% 14.3% 16.7% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE PROJECT GRAD. SENIOR ACTIV. TEACHER APPREC. BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% BM 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BF 6 3 6 WM WF 19 12 32 OM 3 OF Total % 25 15 38 Black 24.0% 20.0% 15.8% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE SCHOOL SAFETY HEALTH/WELLNESS AR/DRUG FREE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% BM 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BF 1 4 1 WM WF 3 3 5 OM 4 OF Total 4 7 6 % Black 25.0% 57 .1% 16. 7% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BOOSTER CLUB PUBLIC RELATIONS TOTAL BM 2 BF WM WF 3 1 OM OF Total % Black .0% .0% 4 10 50.0% BM 2 10/29/97 PAGE 5 PARENTS/PATRONS BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black 1 4 5 20.0% 1 6 7 14.3% 31 2 108 143 23.1% 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 PET 58 TESA 66 COOP. LEARNING 59 LEARN STYLES 3 VARIOUS OTHERS 8 TOTAL 194 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DELIVERY SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 AT RISK 38 CYCLE 1 9 CYCLE 2 7 CYCLE 3 7 VARIOUS COURSES 13 TOTAL 74 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 ASSERTIVE DISCIP 38 CLASSROOM MGMT. 61 ALT ASSESSMENT 18 CONFLICT MGMT. 35 VARIOUS COURSES 11 TOTAL 163 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 OTHER STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: Content Area TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 48 5 48 5 PAGE 1 ffiICXJI'    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT QUIZ:SSPLST STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 CHICOT POSITION B L A C K W H I T E 0 T H E R TOTAL % M F M F M F BLACK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFIED POSITIONS PRINCIPAL 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 ASST PRINCIPAL 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.00 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 0 8 2 14 0 0 24 33.33 COUNSELOR 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 50.00 MEDIA SPECIALIST 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.00 REMDL/COMP READING 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 00 REMDL/COMP MATH 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 50.00 GIFTED/TALENTED 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 RESOURCE/TEACHER 0 2 0 4 0 0 6 33.33 SPEECH THERAPIST 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 MUSIC 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 100.00 SUBTOTAL CERTIFIED POSITIONS 1 14 3 24 0 0 42 35.71 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 2.38 33.33 7 .14 57.14 00 00 42 35.71 POSITION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 CHICOT B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL % BLACK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUPPORT POSITIONS CAFETERIA WORKER 1 0 0 2 0 1 4 25.00 CUSTODIANS 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 100.00 MEDIA CLERK 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 SECRETARY 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 00 NURSE 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES 0 7 0 4 0 2 13 53.85 SUPERVISION AIDES 1 2 0 2 0 0 5 60.00 SUBTOTAL SUPPORT POSITIONS 4 11 0 12 0 3 30 50.00 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 13. 33 36.67 00 40.00 00 10.00 30 50.00 POSITION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 CHICOT B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL % BLACK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL PERCENT 5 25 3 36 6.94 34.72 4.17 50.00 0 .oo 3 4.17 72 72 41.67 41.67 01 LRSD SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPROl PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class Black Black White White Other Other Total Black Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Percent K 23 16 6 6 3 5 59 66 .1% P4 11 7 10 6 1 1 36 50.0% SP 7 6 4 2 1 0 20 65.0% 01 26 25 10 8 4 2 75 68.0% 02 21 30 7 6 5 5 74 68.9% 03 25 26 8 6 6 1 72 70.8% 04 28 19 8 9 3 0 67 70.1% 05 24 23 5 7 2 1 62 75.8% 06 27 21 11 4 4 3 70 68.6% Total 192 173 69 54 29 18 535 68.2% 35.9% 32.3% 12.9% 10.1% 5.4% 3.4% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 1 PAGE SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K ZINAMON B. 1 1 1 100.0% K KERR P. 1 8 4 2 2 1 3 20 60.0% K MURPH K. 1 8 6 2 2 1 1 20 70.0% K SABO D. 1 7 6 2 2 1 1 19 68.4% P4 BARRE F. 1 6 4 5 3 18 55.6% P4 MIMS S. 1 5 3 5 3 1 1 18 44.4% 01 DAVIS L. 1 9 9 3 2 1 1 25 72. 0% 01 ELLIS s. 1 7 9 4 4 1 25 64.0% 01 ZINAMON B. 1 1 l 100.0% 01 TEETER P. 1 10 7 3 2 2 1 25 68.0% 02 EANS s. 1 8 9 2 2 1 3 25 68.0% 02 NEAL L. 1 7 9 3 2 2 1 24 66.7% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 2 PAGE SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 02 WELLS J. 1 6 12 2 2 2 1 25 72.0% 03 HARDESTY s. 1 1 1 100. 0% 03 HOLLINGSWORTH J. 1 7 9 3 2 3 1 25 64.0% 03 ZINAMON 8. 1 1 1 1 1 4 50.0% 03 ROSES. 1 9 9 3 2 2 25 72.0% 03 WILLIAMS F. 1 9 8 2 2 1 22 77.3% 04 BEDOW L. 1 2 1 3 66.7% 04 HARDESTY s. 1 1 1 2 50.0% 04 ISBELL P. 1 11 5 2 3 21 76.2% 04 SHANKS B. 1 10 5 2 3 3 23 65.2% 04 WILLIAMS E. 1 7 9 4 3 23 69.6% 05 BEDOW L. 1 1 1 100. 0% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 3 PAGE SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 05 BRYANT G. 1 7 9 1 3 20 80.0% 05 GALYEAN N. 1 9 6 1 1 2 1 20 75.0% 05 HARDESTY S. 1 1 1 2 50.0% 05 JOHNSON J. 1 8 8 3 3 22 72. 7% 06 BEDOW L. 1 1 2 1 4 75.0% 06 CHILCOTE M. 1 8 10 4 1 23 78.3% 06 HARDESTY s. 1 1 1 .0% 06 MALLETT O. 1 9 5 3 2 2 1 22 63.6% 06 PETTUS I. 1 10 6 4 2 1 2 25 64.0% 01 LRSD SPECIAL ED STUDENTS 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO3 SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Autism 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 33.3% Mentally Retarded 3 2 1 1 0 0 7 71. 4% Multihandicapped 0 4 1 0 0 0 5 80.0% Orthopedically Handicapped 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .0% Other Health Impaired 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 100.0% Seriously Emotionally Disturbe 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .0% Specific Learning Disability 3 1 1 2 1 0 8 50.0% Speech or Language Impaired 9 9 6 3 1 0 28 64.3% Visually Handicapped 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 100.0% TOTALS  19 17 10 8 3 0 57 63.2% 01 LRSD GIFTED ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Gifted/Talented 9 22 9 7 0 0 47 66.0% 01 LRSD STUDENT RETENTION 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO4 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K 2 1 1 1 5 60.0% 01 1 1 2 2 1 7 28.6% 02 1 1 2 100.0% 03 1 1 100.0% 04 1 1 .0% 05 1 1 100.0% 01 LRSD EXTRACURRICULAR/EXTENDED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL MEMBERSHIP ADULT SPONSORS ACTIVITY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black Ambassadors 12 16 4 5 1 38 73.7% 1 l 2 50.0% Cafeteria Monit. 3 1 1 5 80.0% 1 1 2 50.0% Student Council 6 14 5 1 26 76.9% 1 2 1 4 8 37.5% Flag Monitors 1 1 2 50.0% 1 1 .0% Fire Marshall 6 3 2 4 15 60.0% 1 1 .0% Quiz Bowl Team .0% .0% Peer Tutor's 4 8 2 6 1 21 57 .1% 1 1 2 50.0% Broadcast Team 2 2 2 1 1 8 50.0% 1 1 2 50.0% Cheerleaders 7 2 1 10 70.0% 1 1 .0% Tchr of Tomorrow .0% 1 1 100.0% TOTAL 34 51 16 20 2 2 125 68.0% 1 7 1 10 1 20 40.0% 01 LRSD SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS 10/29/97 PAGE 1 (FIRST SEMESTER) SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HONOR/AWARD GRADE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black HONOR ROLL 59 113 34 39 6 251 68.5% PERFECT ATTE 76 88 29 22 4 219 74.9% TOTAL 135 201 63 61 10 470 71.5% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BIRACIAL COMMITT P.T.A. BOARD MBR VIPS BM BF WM WF 1 1 1 OM OF Total % 2 1 Black .0% 50.0% .0% BM 1 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BF WM WF 4 1 OM 4 1 OF Total % Black .0% 9 55.6% 1 100.0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE PARENT WORKSHOPS SCHOOL IMPROV CO Parent Recruit. BM BF 1 2 2 WM 1 WF 2 1 OM OF Total % 6 3 Black .0% 50.0% 66.7% BM 2 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BF WM 1 WF 1 1 OM 2 OF Total % 2 3 Black .0% 50.0% 66.7% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF TOTAL 1 5 1 5 OM OF Total % Black 12 50.0% 10/29/97 PAGE 3 PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black 3 6 6 15 60.0% 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: PREJUDICE REDUC. TESA RACE RELATIONS HUMAN RELATIONS CULTURAL RELAT. AUTISM WORKSHOP MATH TASK JOSTENS LG. ARTS TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 4 7 10 1 10 5 24 13 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DELIVERY SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: PET CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2 CYCLE 3 COOP. LEARNING ACADEMIC SUPPORT ESL METHODS TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 42 9 43 25 85 34 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: ASSERTIVE DISCIP CLASSROOM MGMT. TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 12 12 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 OTHER STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 SCH. IMPROVE. SCH. EMERGENCY 45 23 SCH. TESTING 23 1 COMPUTER TRAIN TOTAL 68 24 CLOVERDA1E POSITION CERTIFIED POSITIONS PRINCIPAL CLASSROOM TEACHERS COUNSELOR MEDIA SPECIALIST GIFTED/TALENTED RESOURCE/TEACHER SPEECH THERAPIST MUSIC SUBTOTAL CERTIFIED SUBTOTAL PERCENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 1 11 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 POSITIONS 3 14 1 14 0 0 9.38 43.75 3.13 43.75 00 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 1 24 2 1 1 1 1 1 32 00 32 % BLACK 100.00 50.00 50.00 00 00 100.00 100.00 100.00 53.13 53.13 POSITION SUPPORT POSITIONS CUSTODIANS MEDIA CLERK SECRETARY NURSE INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES SUPERVISION AIDES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 SUBTOTAL SUPPORT POSITIONS 3 9 0 3 0 0 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 20.00 60.00 00 20.00 00 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 3 1 1 1 5 4 15 00 15 % BLACK 100.00 100.00 00 100.00 80.00 75.00 80.00 80.00 POSITION TOTAL PERCENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL M F M F M F 6 23 1 17 12.77 48.94 2.13 36.17 0 .oo 0 .oo 47 47 % BLACK 61.70 61.70 01 LRSD SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPROl PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class Black Black White White Other Other Total Black Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Percent K 30 35 0 4 1 1 71 91. 5% P4 12 16 4 0 0 3 35 80.0% SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 01 43 35 2 4 2 3 89 87.6% 02 32 38 3 1 0 1 75 93.3% 03 39 24 2 1 0 1 67 94.0% 04 25 35 1 2 0 0 63 95.2% 05 27 24 3 2 0 0 56 91.1% 06 21 31 1 0 1 0 54 96. 3% Total 229 238 16 14 4 9 510 91. 6% 44.9% 46.7% 3.1% 2. 7% .8% 1.8% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 1 PAGE SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K EPPERSON B. 1 8 6 2 1 17 82.4% K HALLS. 1 7 9 1 17 94 .1% K MILLER G. 1 7 12 19 100.0% K ROLAX S. 1 8 8 2 18 88.9% P4 BUETTNER s. 1 9 6 1 2 18 83.3% P4 ROGERS C. 1 3 10 3 1 17 76.5% 01 COKELEY G. 1 12 6 1 1 1 1 22 81.8% 01 HENTHORNE M. 1 9 10 1 1 21 90.5% 01 SHUFFIELD K. 1 10 10 1 1 22 90.9% 01 SNOWDEN S. 1 1 1 100.0% 01 WALKERS. 1 11 8 2 1 22 86.4% 01 WINEK. 1 1 1 100.0% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 2 PAGE SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ******TEACHER****** ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** Class Teacher BM BF WM WF OM OF SP BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black 02 SNOWDEN s. 1 12 11 1 24 95.8% 02 VANECKO A. 1 10 14 1 25 96.0% 02 VINSON W. 1 1 1 100.0% 02 WINEK. 1 10 12 2 1 25 88.0% 03 MCCLAIN M. 1 12 8 2 1 23 87.0% 03 TRIPCONY w. 1 12 6 1 19 94. 7% 03 WHITED. 1 15 10 25 100.0% 04 MURDOCK S. 1 10 10 1 2 23 87.0% 04 STUART D. 1 11 11 22 100.0% 04 VINSON w. 1 4 14 18 100.0% 05 BANKS B. 1 15 10 1 2 28 89.3% 05 WILSON S. 1 12 14 2 28 92.9% 01 LRSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASS ENROLLMENT SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class Teacher 06 06 POSITION V. MILLS R. BM ******TEACHER****** BF WM WF OM OF SP 1 1 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHP 3 PAGE ****CLASS ENROLLMENT**** BM 12 9 BF 14 17 WM WF 1 OM 1 OF Total % Count Black 27 27 96.3% 96.3% 01 LRSD SPECIAL ED STUDENTS 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO3 SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Other Health Impaired 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 100.0% Specific Learning Disability 2 2 2 0 0 0 6 66.7% Speech or Language Impaired 7 7 1 1 0 0 16 87.5% TOTALS 10 10 3 1 0 0 24 83.3% 01 LRSD GIFTED ENROLLMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Program Black Black White White Other Other Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female Count Black Gifted/Talented 11 19 0 1 0 0 31 96.8% 01 LRSD STUDENT RETENTION 10/29/97 QUIZ:SCHPRO4 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Class BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Count Black K 6 3 1 10 90.0% 01 3 3 1 7 85.7% 02 3 3 100.0% 01 LRSD EXTRACURRICULAR/EXTENDED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL MEMBERSHIP ADULT SPONSORS ACTIVITY BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black PEER HELPERS 11 12 1 24 95.8% 2 1 3 66.7% AMBASSADORS 9 12 2 1 24 87.5% 1 1 100.0% JUST SAY NO CLUB 8 10 4 2 24 75.0% 1 1 2 100.0% CONFLICT MANAGER 10 11 1 1 1 24 87.5% 1 1 2 50.0% STRAIGHT TALK 70 8 1 79 88.6% 3 3 100.0% POP TALK 72 3 2 77 93.5% 3 3 100.0% BASKET BALL 10 3 13 76.9% 2 2 100. 0% GIFTED PROGRAM 11 18 4 1 34 85.3% 1 1 .0% M \u0026amp; M CLUB .0% 1 1 .0% TOTAL 129 135 22 8 2 3 299 88.3% 6 8 4 18 77.8% 01 LRSD SCHOOLWIDE STUDENT HONORS/AWARDS (FIRST SEMESTER) SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HONOR/AWARD ALL A's ALL A's \u0026amp; B PERFECT ATT CITIZENSHIP MOST IMPROVE TOTAL GRADE BM BF WM WF 10/29/97 OM OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% PAGE 1 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black SUNSHINE 1 5 6 16. 7% P.T.A. BOARD MBR 1 2 3 33.3% VIPS 1 1 100.0% 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM 3 1 1 OF Total % 4 Black .0% 75.0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 2 SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES PARENTS/PATRONS COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black HOSPITALITY 1 3 2 6 66.7% .0% SCHOOL IMPROV co 2 3 5 40.0% 2 1 3 66.7% DISCIPLINE 4 1 4 9 44.4% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 3 SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES PARENTS/PATRONS COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % Black Black STAFF DEVELOPMEN 1 1 3 5 40.0% .0% PARTNER IN EDUC 1 1 2 4 50.0% .0% POSITIVE ATTITUD 1 7 1 9 88.9% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE GRANT WRITING PRIN ROUND TABLE TALENT SHOW BM BF 1 6 3 WM WF 1 2 5 1 OM OF Total % 2 12 5 Black .0% 50.0% 80.0% 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM 4 OF Total % Black .0% . 0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE COTILLION BCC CARNIVAL BM BF 1 4 4 1 WM WF 1 1 OM OF Total % Black 4 100.0% 6 2 83.3% 50.0% 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM 5 OF Total % Black .0% .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total % SCIENCE FAIR SCHOOL PAPER BIRACIAL 1 2 1 2 2 Black .0% .0% .0% BM 1 10/29/97 PAGE 6 PARENTS/PATRONS BF WM WF 1 2 OM OF Total % Black 4 .0% .0% 01 LRSD SCHOOL COMMITTEES/PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE BM BF WM WF OM OF Total TOTAL 6 39 3 35 83 % Black 54.2% 10/29/97 PAGE PARENTS/PATRONS BM BF WM WF OM 1 6 4 7 OF Total 11 % Black 63.6% 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 PREJUDICE REDUC. 16 TESA 7 RACE RELATIONS 26 HUMAN RELATIONS 11 CULTURAL RELAT. 14 TOTAL 74 10/29/97 PAGE 1 SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 7 6 3 3 19 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT 10/29/97 SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPECIFIC TRAINING RELATED TO: ASSERTIVE DISCIP CLASSROOM MGMT. TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 15 1 15 1 PAGE 1 01 LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT 10/29/97 PAGE 1 OTHER STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF NUMBER COMPLETING NUMBER COMPLETING SPECIFIC TRAINING PRIOR TO DURING PRIOR TO DURING RELATED TO: 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 PORTFOLIO ASSESS 1 ABACUS TRAINING 18 PARRNT INVOLVEME 1 TOTAL 20 POSITION CERTIFIED POSITIONS PRINCIPAL CLASSROOM TEACHERS COUNSELOR MEDIA SPECIALIST REMDL/COMP READING GIFTED/TALENTED RESOURCE/TEACHER SPEECH THERAPIST MUSIC SUBTOTAL CERTIFIED SUBTOTAL PERCENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFFING/SCHOOL PERSONNEL AS OF 10/29/97 DODD B L A C K W H I T E O T H E R M F M F M F 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 POSITIONS 1 6 2 14 0 0 4.35 26.09 8.70 60.87 00 QUIZ:SSPLST TOTAL 1 12 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 23 00 23 % BLACK 00 33.33 00 00 00 00 25.00 100.00 100.00 30.43 30.43\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1670","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD approval of revised desegregation and education plan and PCSSD petition for release from federal court supervision","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Knight Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD approval of revised desegregation and education plan and PCSSD petition for release from federal court supervision"],"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/1670"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["29 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion for approval of revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' request for a hearing to develop procedures for the consideration of the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for the approval of a revised plan; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision; Court of Appeals, ruling; Court of Appeals, reply brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al.; District Court, Knight intervenors' response to motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to the Joshua intervenors' request for a hearing to develop procedures for the consideration of the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for the approval of a revised plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for an extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) petition for release from federal court supervision; District Court, three orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan  This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. O. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL . DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED OCT 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDA TS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Knight Intervenors, et al., by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM. for their Motion, state: 1. They were served with a copy of the Little Rock School District's Motion for Approval of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan on September 29, 1997. 2. Due to several of the leaders of the Knight, et al. Intervenors being out of town, there will be insufficient time to frame a response to its Motion. 3. Knight, et al., Intervenors should be granted an extension of ten (10) days in which to respond to the Motion. WHEREFORE, Knight, et al., Intervenors prays that it be granted an additional ten days or until October 19, 1997, to respond to the Motion for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and that they be granted all other relief to which they may be entitled Respectfully submitted, Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on October 6, 1997 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building. Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JE::-.iNJNGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roache!! .,- ----- .. - 'RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT !:ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - OCT 9 1997 OCT 7 1997 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, Cl.ERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR A HEARING TO DEVELOP PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF THE LRSD FOR THE APPROVAL OF A REVISED PLAN On November 30, 1995, the LRSD filed a motion for an order - dismissing this case retroactively. This court, which had by that time considerable knowledge about the quality of plan implementation efforts in the LRSD, denied the motion on March 11, 1996. This court reasoned in part (at 8): The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments (although some improvements have been made). Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years, the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. On September 26, 1997, the LRSD filed a brief motion and a short memorandum seeking \"approval of LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan.\" Despite the foregoing ruling, the memorandum, incorporated by reference in the motion (para. 1 - 10), asserts that \"LRSD has now substantially complied with its obligations under the plan for six years.\" AT 1. It also characterizes the new plan as one which \"leaves it to the district's professionals to determine the best means to fulfill each obligation.\" At 4. In brief, officials found to exhibit frequently \"indifference or outright recalcitrance toward (their] commitments\" asset that they are entitled to have the court approve a largely standardless plan. Put another way, LRSD asserts the right to have approved a plan under which a number of unidentified persons define the content of the district's obligations, as they go along. It is apparent that the motion of the LRSD presents - substantial questions, warranting careful consideration. The predicate for this view is not limited to the foregoing general observations about the past performance and the degree of discretion granted by the plan. First. LRSD cites the Supreme Court decision in Rufo v Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992), concerning modification of a consent decree. That decision holds that a party seeking modification of a consent decree \"bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.\" Id., at 383. It \"may meet it initial burden by showing a significant change either in factual conditions or in law.\" Id., at 384 . In considering factual matter, it is appropriate to evaluate whether a party \"made a 2 reasonable effort to comply with the decree .... \" Id., at 385. Second. Once a party has met its burden of showing a factual or legal matter warranting modification, the court \"should determine whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.\" Id., at 391. This can not be said is there is simply an effort \"to rewrite a consent decree so that is conforms to the constitutional floor.\" Id. Third. The Court of Appeals applied Rufo in this case to a proposal concerning the closing of Ish Incentive School. LRSD v PCSSD, 56 F3d 904, 912-15 (8th Cir. 1995). In approving that proposal, the court emphasized with regard to the replacement school for Ish students, \"King will be integrated.\" Id., at 914. In the light of the foregoing factors, including the - standards governing in the case of a request for modification of a consent decree, the Joshua Intervenors seek a hearing to discuss at least the following factors. (1.) An opportunity for intervenors to conduct discovery. The LRSD relies to a considerable extent on assertion. The plan refers to policies (unspecified) in many areas. The meaning of the educational component of the plan is not self-evident. The quality of implementation efforts is relevant under Rufo. The impact of the student assignment proposals on desegregation is significant in view of the appellate ruling in this case cited above. (2.) The need for a report or reports by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the nature and the quality of 3 LRSD implementation in key areas. The LRSD seeks to dilute its obligation to address achievement disparity, as wells racial disparity in other areas. Compare the initial portion of the Interdistrict Plan to the new plan. It is appropriate to request ODM to determine whether the LRSD made an organized effort to eliminate the achievement disparity and other racial disparities to the extent possible, before changing the plan. Rufo addresses the quality of implementation efforts, and cautions against efforts to move to the \"constitutional floor: -- from the provisions to which a party voluntarily agreed. (3.) The possibility of a delay in the consideration of the motion until the court of appeals reviews the denial of a fee award to intervenors' counsel. The parties should be on equal - footing when addressing such fundamental changes in the plans. That is not the case now. (4.) A time period for the intervenors to respond to the motion, whatever the court's reaction to these issues. District court decisions cited by the LRSD do not warrant the relief sought by the District. In the Denver litigation, the court found in 1987 that \"the defendants have made a sincere and strenuous effort to meet the requirements of the October 1985 Order.'' Keyes v School District No. 1, 653 F. Supp. 1536, 1540 (D. Colo. 1987); see also Keyes, 902 F. Supp. 1274, 1286 (D. Colo. 1995) (\"The District has complied in good faith with the Interim Decree entered by this Court in 1987.\"). The court in the Dallas case voted significant improvement in the district's 4 implementation efforts over time. Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F. Supp. 454, 457, 460, 477 (N.D. Tex. 1994). This case does not present a parallel situation. Here, the court has found implementation to be deficient. E.g., Order of March 11, 1996, at 8-9. (5.) The district's request that ODM monitoring continue to be restrained. In intervenor's view, as noted, ODM monitoring should focus on key elements of the current plan and that the ODM monitoring role should be consisitent with the one which the Court of Appeals established. (6.) The actions, advice and recommendations provided by the court or through the ODM to the school district which actions. advice and recommendations have not been otherwise shared with the intervenors. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the court to set a hearing for the purpose of developing procedures for the consideration of the motion of the LRSD for the approval of the revised plan. The Intervenors further respectfully request that ODM monitoring be resumed and continued in the interim and in the manner contemplated and directed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. With respect this requested relief, Joshua also respectfully requests that the court and the ODM disclose any and all information, assistance, advice and counsel which, it or anyone associated with the court, have provided to the Little Rock School District or any of its employees, board members or agents during the past year, during 5 - the time when monitoring was abated. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading was s~ry~ via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~ day of October, 1997. 6  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF ., V . NO . LR - C - 8 2 - 8 6.it. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL NECEn,m DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. DCi 14 1997 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT I ET AL. OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION INTRODUCTION The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. It asks this Court co examine the record that has been made, to hold a hearing on those issues, if any, which might be legitimately in controversy, and to ultimately enter its decree declaring that the PCSSD has earned unitary status and release it from further court supervision. In this peticion, the PCSSD will briefly revisit the background of this case, will set forth the controlling law, will examine the determinations of other courts from around the country which have declared other districts to be unitary, and will then apply the facts of this case to the controlling legal principles. BACKGROUND This action was filed on November 30, 1982 by the LRSD against the PCSSD and others. 1 Liability was adjudicated against the PCSSD and others on April 10, 1984 and a consolidation of the three school districts in Pulaski County was ordered. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (hereafter the Court of Appeals), en bane, affirmed mos~ of the findings of liability of the district court, but reversed the court ordered consolidation and prescribed a different remedy. The Court of Appeals ordered that the boundaries of the LRSD would become those of the city of Little Rock as they then existed. ~he Court of Appeals also ordered the transfer of the Granite Moun~ain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. As a result of these transfers, the PCSSD lost 36% of its tax base, one-third of its schools, and 25% of its students. In the same opinion, the Court of Appeals ordered all three districts t o develop desegregation plans that would distribute students in a way such that each school would have approximately the same racial balance as each district had as a whole. Significantly, the Court of Appeals specifically held that the remedy it then ordered was a comolete remedy for the constitutional violations of which the PCSSD had been found guilty; specifically those violations relating to annexations and deannexatior.s, segregated housing, school siting, student 1The LRSD supports the PCSSD in its petition for unitary status. assignments, special education, transportation, employment of faculty and administrators, and black participation in school affairs. Thereafter, o~her proceedings occurred, both before the district court and the Court of Appeals, culminating in 1989 in the Settlement Agreement and the agreed upon Desegregation Plan for each school district. While the present PCSSD Plan was not =inalized in all of its particulars until April, 1992, the PCSSD has operated since 1989 under substantially the same plan. Thus, the PCSSD will highlight for the Court its efforts and activities since 1989 which it believes warrant a finding of unitary status. THE APPLICABLE LAW In 1992, the United States Supreme Court discussed the issue of unitary status ~n Freeman v. Pitts, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992), explaining that: [A)s we explained last term in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. , , 111 S.Ct. 630, 636, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991), the term \"unitary\" is not a precise concept: \"[I)t is a mistake to treat words such as 'dual' and 'unitary' as if they were actually found in the Constitution .... Courts have used the term 'dual' to denote a school system which has engaged in intentional segregation of students by race, and 'unitary' to describe a school system which has been brought into compliance with the command of the Constitution. We are not sure how useful it is to define these terms more precisely, or to create subclasses within them.\" It follows that we must be cautious not to attribute to the term a utility it does not have. The term \"unitary\" does not confine the discretion and authority 3 of the District Court in a way that departs from traditional equitable principles. 112 S.Ct. at 1443-44. The Freeman court further explained that: [l] Proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of its facts. Green, supra, at 439, 88 S.Ct., at 1694. Here, as in most cases where the issue is the degree of compliance with a school desegregation decree, a critical beginning point is the degree of racial imbalance in the school district, that is to say a comparison of the proportion of majority to minority students in individual schools with the proportions of the races in the district as a whole. This inquiry is fundamental, for under the former de jure regimes racial exclusion was both the means and the end of a policy motivated by disparagement of or hostility towards the disfavored race. In accord with this principle, the District Court began its analysis with an assessment of the current racial mix in the schools throughout DCSS and the explanation for the racial imbalance it found. 112 S.Ct. at 1437. The PCSSD will comply with this requirement, as did the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1996 in the Wilmington case when it af:irmed the district court's declaration of unitary scatus in Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education of the State of Delaware, et al., 90 F.3d 752 (3rd Cir. 1996) : A critical starting point in identifying vestiges of discrimination is the degree of racial imbalance in the school districts. This inquiry is fundamental, because under the former de jure regime, a racial exclusion was both the means and the end of a policy motivated by disparagement of, and hostility towards, the disfavored race. The Court's 1968 opinion in Green squarely addressed this issue, noting that \"[t]he pattern of separate 'white' and 'Negro' schools ... established under compulsion of state laws is precisely the pattern of segregation to which Brown I and Brown II were particularly addressed.\" Green, 391 U.S. at 435, 88 S.Ct. at 1693. However, the Green Court also made clear that in examining the problem of racial imbalance in 4 our schools, we are to look \"not just to the composition of student bodies ... but to every facet of school operations - - faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities.\" Id.; see also Swann, 402 U.S. at 18, 91 S.Ct. at 1277 (the Green factors are \"among the most important indicia of segregated system.\") Because compliance with Green factors is a condition precedent to unitary status, we will survey each of those factors here. 90 F.3d at 760. The PCSSD will likewise assess the Green factors especially as each of them is addressed in its Desegregation Plan. The Wilminoton Court also commented upon federal court supervision in general. Addressing the Supreme Court's decision in Jenkins, the Wilminoton Court noted: Given the Court's recent assertion that federal supervision of local school districts \"'was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination,\"' Jenkins, U.S. , 115 S.Ct. at 2049 (quoting Dowell, 498 U.S. at:247, 111 S.C~. at 637), we underscore that the phrase \"to the extent praccicable\" implies a reasonable limit on the duration of that federal supervision. Indeed, to extend federal court supervision indefinitely is neither practicable, desirable, nor proper. 90 F.3d at 760. The Wilmington Court further explained that: This equitable remedy and, by definition, its jurisprudential legitimacy, were meant to have a limited lifespan. The remedy was designed to serve only as an implement for monitoring and guidance, not as a permanent substitute for state and local school boards, or [**84] indeed, for the state legislature. Thus in our zeal to insure maximum educational opportunities for all Delaware school students, the federal courts must bear in mind that the responsibility for administering the schools ultimately belongs to locally elected officials. Indeed, we must acknowledge that although it has been proper for us to supervise multiple generations of students in the service of unassailable ideals, in the process we have also denied multiple generations of elected officials the freedom to participate fully in representative government. 90 F.3d at 779 5 Additional legal principles and teachings from other cases will be set forth as appropriate infra as particular topics are addressed. THE LAW OF THIS CASE The Court of Appeals, in its 1990 decision, reaffirmed the 1985 en bane court's decision that the previously mandated territorial exchanges were the remedy for all of the interdistrict violations. It explained that: We also held, however, agreeing in this respect with the District Court, that interdistrict violations of the Constitution had occurred, and that an interdistrict remedy was accordingly required. We directed the District Court, on remand, to adjust the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD in two respects: (1 ) by transferring the Granite Mountain area from LRSD to PCSSD; and (2) by expanding LRSD so that the new boundary line becween it and PCSSD would be the city limits of the City of Little Rock, as they then existed. We further held--addressing the question of student attendance within each of the districts--that \"each school district as reconstituted shall be required to revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, supra, 778 F.2d at 435. Our opinion included a number of other directions with respect to magnet schools, student-attendance arrangements, and other matters. The District Court held that LRSD would automatically expand whenever the city annexed new territory, so that LRSD would always be contiguous with the city as it existed from time to time. We reversed. We held that the remedy contemplated by our en bane opinion was intended to be a complete cure for all interdistrict violations that we had found. The en bane opinion, we said, prescribed \"a full and sufficient correction of wrongs done in the past,\" including all interdistrict violations. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Circ. 1986) (per curiam) . Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1377 (8th Cir. 1990) 6 It is significant to note that many features of the PCSSD Plan, the Interdistrict Plan, and the Plans of the other school districts were not specifically mandated as remedial devices by the Court of Appeals. For instance, the six interdistrict schools, while subsequently embraced by the Court of Appeals, were never mandated as part of any prescribed remedy. For that matter, the Court of Appeals never specifically mandated that the PCSSD pursue affirmative action in hiring and in staffing its schools and other operations. Indeed, it held in 1985 that the territorial transfer was the remedy for, among other things, violations in the areas of special education, transportation, and employment of faculty and administrators. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Soecial School District, 778 F.2d 404, 434-435 (8th Cir. 1985 ) . To be sure, these topics and others are prominently featured in the Plan. Some are among the Green factors to be discussed later. However, because they were not specifically mandated as part of any remedy, issues arise such as burden of proof as to compliance and will be discussed fully infra. were 1985. THE GREEN FACTORS I. RACIAL BALANCE AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT The guidelines for racial balance in all three districts initially addressed and laid down by the en bane Court in It explained then that: In constructing a desegregation remedy, a court may not rigidly require a particular racial balance. Pasadena Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 436-38, 96 S.Ct. 2697, 2704-06, 49 L.Ed.2d 599 ((1976); 7 Milliken I, 418 U.S. at 739-40, 94 S.Ct. at 3124-25; Swann, 402 U.S. at 22-25, 91 S.Ct. at 1279-81. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the awareness of the racial composition of a school district or school districts is a useful starting point in developing an effective remedy, and thus the limited use of racial ratios is within the Court's equitable discretion. Swann, 402 U.S. at 25, 91 S.Ct. at 1280. Thus, the Supreme Court has approved a remedy imposed by the district court requiring that all schools in the school district be roughly within the same racial balance. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 455 n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 2945 n. 3, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); Swann, 402 U.S. at 23-25, 91 S.Ct. at 1279-80. Our Court has consequently approved the use of flexible ratios in desegregation remedies on numerous occasions ... In any event, in this case, we have closely tailored the remedy to the violations and we are not requiring a particular racial balance in each district (Citations omitted.) LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 433. The en bane Court then articulated the guideline applicable in this case: 4. After the boundaries between LRSD and PCSSD have been adjusted, each school district as reconstituted shall be required to revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district. Consistent with earlier district court orders with respect to these schools, school districts may, where necessary, be permitted to depart from this remedial guideline in that school enrollments may over- or underrepresent blacks or whites by as much as one-fourth of the remedial guideline for either race. We see no reason why, on this record, the variance should exceed this level. [Emphasis added.] 778 F.2d at 435. Ultimately, of course, the current PCSSD Plan was examined by the Court of Appeals which approved the student assignment goals agreed to by all of the parties. The Court of Appeals 8 explicitly approved the student assignment goals of the PCSSD and the other parties interpreting them as follows: So far as racial ratios were concerned, the Plan included the following goals: 13. With the exception of Bayou Meto, the goal of the plan shall be to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCSSD schools .... 14. With the exception of Bayou Meto, it is hoped that the dynamics of the plan will result, by the end of the implementation period, in all PCSSD schools being within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing district-wide average of blacks by organizational level. However, at a minimum, at the end of the implementation period, no PCSSD school shall have a black enrollment which exceeds the then prevailing black ratio, by organizational level, in the Little Rock School District. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d at 1378-79. - As will be explained further, the PCSSD believes it has satisfied, for a period of years, the racial balance and student assignment components of its Plan. Before specifically examining the racial balance outcomes in the PCSSD, it is useful to examine the racial balance outcomes that pertain in Freeman v. Pitts, in which a declaration of unitary status was affirmed even upon facts dramatically different than the outcomes found in the PCSSD. As the Supreme Court explained in Freeman: Racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake. It is to be pursued when racial imbalance has been caused by a constitutional violation. Once the racial imbalance due to the de jure violation has been remedied, the school district is under no duty to remedy imbalance that is caused by demographic factors. Swann, 402 U.S., at 31-32, 91 S.Ct., at 1283-84 9 (\"Neither school authorities nor district courts are constitutionally required to make year-by-year adjustments of the racial composition of student bodies once the affirmative duty to desegregate has been accomplished and racial discrimination through official action is eliminated from the system. This does not mean that federal courts are without power to deal with future problems; but in the absence of a showing that either the school authorities or some other agency of the State has deliberately attempted to fix or alter demographic patterns to affect the racial composition of the schools, further intervention by a district court should not be necessary\"). If the unlawful de jure policy of a school system has been the cause of the racial imbalance in student attendance, that condition must be remedied. The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation. 112 S.Ct. at 1447. It is instructive to set forth the outcomes of the DeKalb County schools as summarized by the United States Supreme Court. Concerned with racial imbalance in the various schools of the district, respondents presented evidence that during che 1986-1987 school year DCSS had the following features: (1) 47% of the students attending DCSS were black; (2) 50% of the black students attended schools that were over 90% black; (3) 62% of all black students attended schools that had more than 20% more blacks than the systemwide average; (4) 27% of white students attended schools that were more than 90% white; (5) 59% of the white students attended schools that had more than 20% more whites than the systemwide average; (6) of the 22 DCSS high schools, five had student populations that were more than 90% black, while five other schools had student populations that were more than 80% white; and (7) of the 74 elementary schools in DCSS, 18 are over 90% black, while 10 are over 90% white. Id., at 31a. 112 s.ct. ac 1438. Despite these statistical outcomes, the United States Supreme Courc found that the system was unitary with respect to student assignment and racial balance. As we will examine below, the track record of the PCSSD is far superior to that of the 10 schools in DeKalb County, Georgia, is in compliance with any and all tests which may be reasonably applied, and that the PCSSD has demonstrated its entitlement to unitary status. THE PCSSD OUTCOMES District-wide, the racial composition of the PCSSD since 1989 has been as follows: I I 89-90 I I Total I 21,607 I I % Black I 26 I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 90-91 I 91-92 I 92-93 I 93-94 I 94.95 21,597 I 21,062 I 21,633 I 20,426 I 20,417 26 I 27 I 28 I 30 I 31 I 95-96 I 96-97 I 20,534 I 20,295 I 32 I 33 Since 1989, the composition of the District's elementary schools has been as follows: School Adkins Elem Total % Black Arnold Drive Elem Total % Black Baker Elem Total % Black Bates Elem Total % Black Bayou Meto Elem Total % Black Cato Elem Total % Black Clinton Elem Total % Black College Station Elem Total % Black Crystal Hill Elem Total % Black PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON' 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93.94 371 360 352 420 411 40 36 39 36 37 387 411 408 390 348 18 16 14 18 23 294 291 268 283 294 27 30 25 27 25 698 638 737 680 599 47 46 47 45 45 602 596 611 648 649 2 2 2 1 1 656 655 663 650 569 21 24 21 21 22 242 279 310 326 277 40 38 34 33 40 776 746 40 43 94.95 95-96 96-97 397 343 312 39 36 38 375 380 381 25 24 22 304 318 318 24 27 24 550 485 464 53 56 54 639 635 628 1 2 3 523 552 542 23 22 22 661 661 739 49 50 47 316 309 323 43 41 41 791 790 778 45 46 46 21995-1996 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report: LRSD PCSSD Dated January 30, 1996, by Office of Desegregation Monitoring, Docket No. 2614 11 I I I School 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Dupree Elem Total 470 414 431 458 428 435 462 438 % Black 20 21 24 23 22 22 26 26 Fuller Elem Total 587 560 529 524 473 431 381 375 % Black 57 56 58 57 63 58 57 59 Harris Elem Total 633 616 605 546 479 331 325 303 % Black 31 32 34 40 47 44 50 53 Jacksonville Elem Total 796 817 844 847 763 759 752 731 % Black 32 28 27 27 31 37 41 42 Landmark Elem Total 563 566 522 518 498 499 484 504 % Black 47 46 44 46 46 43 41 43 Lawson Elem Total 334 345 331 321 304 305 308 294 % Black 19 15 16 14 16 23 19 16 Oak Grove Elem Total 572 573 515 469 438 435 451 421 % Black 12 14 13 24 24 22 23 24 Oakbrooke Elem Total 678 659 629 592 600 449 455 453 % Black 25 21 18 18 21 22 23 24 Pine Forrest Elem Total 625 677 658 518 434 455 498 456 % Black 14 14 15 20 21 19 20 21 Pinewood Elem Total 614 619 631 619 580 549 579 543 % Black 27 27 27 30 31 29 31 35 Robinson Elem Total 450 433 443 420 411 388 387 382 % Black 22 22 23 25 24 22 25 21 Scott Elem Total 203 207 205 191 147 158 136 127 % Black 37 34 34 35 34 32 36 35 Sherwood Elem Total 518 448 443 490 450 459 463 416 % Black 24 24 26 24 26 24 27 25 Sylvan Hills Elem Total 755 802 755 735 685 424 444 422 % Black 18 16 17 18 23 21 25 24 Taylor Elem Total 455 468 423 420 388 409 420 397 % Black 24 28 26 26 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1497","title":"Student handbooks, elementary school, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-07"],"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--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational innovations","School attendance","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","School discipline","Student suspension","Parents","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["Student handbooks, elementary school, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1497"],"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":["handbooks"],"dcterms_extent":["300 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1664","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to add parties; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, two orders; Court of Appeals, petition for rehearing by the panel","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1997-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School employees","School management and organization","Education--Economic aspects","Insurance","Student assistance programs","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to add parties; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, two orders; Court of Appeals, petition for rehearing by the panel"],"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/1664"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["119 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT R ECEIVEr.APPELLANT v. NO. 96-3333 APR 1 4 1997 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF.71CE OF DESEGREGArior~ MONJTORit,GAPPELLEE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD's deadline for filing a petition for rehearing by the panel is April 14, 1997. Because of the time necessary for a public body such as LRSD to determine a course of action, and because of the press of business, LRSD requires additional time within which to file its petition for rehearing by the panel. 2. Mr. Sam Jones, counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District, has stated that he does not oppose this motion. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests an order extending the time within which it may file a petition for rehearing by the panel of fourteen (14) days, to and including April 28, 1997. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 501/376-L.J.j-'T\"-- sas Ba CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time has been served on the following on this 11th day of April, 1997: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 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 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 l:lhomo~J.at ~ 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL APR l 1 1~~7 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ADD PARTIES For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The Joshua Intervenors have asked this court for permission to add as defendants the Little Rock Municipal Court and the Police Department of the City of Little Rock. Joshua has not provided the court any authority to support the proposition that these parties can be brought into this case at this time. This court has found that \"with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter.\" March 11, 1996 Memorandum and Order, p.a. The police department and the municipal court are not parties to the settlement agreement. Joshua has provided the court no basis for enforcing a consent decree against entities which are not parties to that decree. 2. Joshua has not even discussed the issues inherent in asking a federal court to interfere with the operations of another court or a police department. This court should not consider adding parties without requiring more from Joshua. 3. The primary basis for Joshua's motion was the issuance by the municipal court of a standard \"no contact order. \" Joshua complains that the no contact order \"effectively restrains a black school child from attending Hall High School.\" The no contact order has been amended to insure that the student who is the subject of the order will be able to attend classes at Hall High School without violating the order. Therefore, in addition to being unfounded, Joshua's motion is moot. 4 . A copy of the order amending the municipal court no contact order is attached to this response. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua's \"Motion to Add Parties\" should be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 B~~ Bar No. 81083 2 ------ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of Little Rock School District's Response to Motion to Add Parties has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 11th day of April, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 - Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher 3 Ll\u003cl'U UtltlJllVt UIV IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ST ATE OF ARKANSAS vs. NO. 97-2313 DANTE MILES ORDER TO AMEND NO CONTACT ORDER r. u~ l. It is ordered that the No Contact Order issued in the case of Dante Miles, defendant, in the name Patricia Bona, victim, be amended to state that Mr. !v1iles is authorized to go peacefully and directly past room 612 at Hall High School before and after third period in order to go to and from class. 2. This amendment does not alleviate Mr. Miles duty to refrain fro any contact with Patricia Bona. Approved as to Form and Acknowledged: Defense Attorney .. f':30 Time 04/02/97 WED 13:56 [TX/RX NO 6528) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK HUIICHIEL H , F\"IDAY (1822-1184. WILLIAM H. IUTTON, P . A . JAMEi W. MOOftE IY,.ON M . USEMAN. J\"   , . A . JOIE 0. IElL. r.A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN C , ECHOLS , , . A . JAMES A . IUTTRY, r . A .  ICIC 8 . U\"SIERY , , . A . \"ZELERE, r . A . C E. DAVIS, JR . P. A. , JA 8 C. CLA\"\"-  JR ,, , . A . THOMAS,. , LEGGETT, P .A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P . A . PAUL I . BENHAM Ill , P. A . LAftftY 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. JAMES M. SAXTON, l' . A. J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill , P. A . OONA.LOH . IA.CON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS IAXTER , P. A . WALTER A . PAULSON 11 , P. A . IA\"\"y E. COPLIN , P.A . IUCHARO 0 . TAYLOR , P. A . JOSEPH B. HURST , JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY , P. A . CHftlSTOrHER HELLER, P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P. A . ROBERTS . SHAFER, P. A. WILLIAM M . GRIFFIN Ill, P.A . MICHAELS . MOORE, P. A. DIANE 6 . MACKEY , P. A . WALTER M . EBEL 111, P.A. lEVIN A . CRASS , P. A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A . Mr. Michael E. Gans 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-37e-2011 FAX NO. 601-37e-2147 April 22, 1997 RECEIVED APR 2 3 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING United States Court of Appeals U.S. Court \u0026 custom House 1114 Market Street st. Louis, MO 63101 Re: Court of Appeals No. 96-3333 Dear Mr. Gans: SCOTT J , LANCASTER , P. A. M. GAYLE CORLEY , , . A . ROBERT 8 . IEACH, Jlll . , P . A . J . LEE BROWN, P, , A . JAMES C . BAICER , 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 . GARONE\", P. A . TONIA P. JONES , P. A . DAVID 0 , WILSON . P. A . JEFFREY H . MOORE. P. A . ANDREW T . TURNER, P. A . DAVID M . GRAF, P. A . CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR . ALLISON GRAVES JONA.NH C . ROOSEVELT R. CHllllSTOPHEfl LAWSON GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRANC . HIClMAN BETTY J. DEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH r CLIFFORD W. PLUHlETT DANIEL l. HERRINGTON ALLISON J . CORNWELL TOOO A. GREER ELLEN M . OWENS OF COUNHL WILLIAM J . SMITH 8.8 . CLARK WILLIAM l. TERRY . P. A . WILLIAM l. PATTON. JR , P. A . JUTEll\"S OI IIECT NO. (601) 370-1606 I have enclosed for filing the Little Rock School District's Motion For Extension of Time in the above-referenced matter. CJH/k Enc. Yours very t Christ er. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLANT V. NO. 96-3333 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD requested and was granted an extension of time of fourteen ( 14) days to April 28, 1997 within which to file its petition for rehearing by the panel. It has now become necessary for LRSD to seek an additional four (4) days, to and including May 2, 1997, within which to file its petition for rehearing. 2. This second request is necessary because of the unanticipated amount of time counsel has had to spend dealing with emergency issues which have arisen in the school desegregation case and due to the unanticipated amount of time counsel has lost in the aftermath of a traffic accident. 3. Mr. Sam Jones, counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District, has stated that he does not oppose this motion. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests an order extending the time within which it may file a petition for rehearing by the panel of four (4) days, to and including May 2, 1997. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 501/376-z.u,,H:--- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time has been served on the following on this 22nd day of April, 1997: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 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 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:lbcmc~\\3333.cxl 2 - FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. OIS,iliCT COURT EASTERN ~i:,TR iC 1 AA..; . .-,;.,SA:3 APR 2 2 1997 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 APR 2~ 1997 OFFICE oi:: DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District for summary judgment on the issues of state funding of the public school employee insurance program (health insurance matching), state funding for special education students, and loss funding. The State of Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Education, has responded to the motion, and other Arkansas school districts have joined in filing an amicus curiae response in opposition to the 2 9 6 7: motion. 1 Upon careful consideration of the motion, responses, statements of facts, briefs, and exhibits, the Court finds that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. I. In 1995, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Acts 917 and 1194, legislation that changed the method the State uses to distribute aid to school districts. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-301 et seq. (Michie 1995 Supp.) (\"Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995\"). Prior to 1996-97, the Arkansas Department of Education distributed the majority of state aid as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). In addition, the State funded other programs such as Transportation Aid and At-Risk Grants by formulas or based on need. The State also paid Teacher Retirement Matching and Health Insurance Matching on behalf of school districts. The calculation for MFPA included add-on weights for various categories such as Special Education, Isolated School Districts, Consolidation Incentives, Vocational Education and Centers, Gifted and Talented Students, and growth and loss funding. See Arkansas Budget System, Agency Program Commentary for the 1997-1999 Biennium(\" ABS\") [Doc. 2896, Ex. C, p. 29]. Under the new funding scheme, no school district will receive money from the State specifically earmarked for health insurance matching. Also, State Equalization Funds are now distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (\" ADM\"), 1In reply to the State's response, the Pulaski County Special School District filed an additional affidavit of Donald Stewart [ doc. 2950]. The State filed a motion to strike the affidavit and for leave to file a sur-reply [doc. 2954]. The Court finds that the motion to strike should be granted. The Stewart affidavit serves only to point out differing interpretations of the new funding formula and raise questions of how the formula will operate. The State's motion for leave to file a sur-reply is denied as moot. 2 equalized by the wealth of the district. Weighting for special education and loss funding is eliminated from the State Equalization funding formula. The three Pulaski County school districts urge the Court to find that these changes to the funding formula violate the desegregation Settlement Agreement. II. The Settlement Agreement obligates the State to continue to pay the settling districts \"[t]he State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding.\" See Settlement Agreement II, 1 E. The Agreement also provides that the \"State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate.\" See Settlement Agreement  II, 1 L. The Agreement goes on to state that \"[f]air and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts.\" Id. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit held that direct state funding of workers' compensation costs is a \"program\" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement. It further held that the State's decision to change the law to require individual school districts to provide their own coverage did not violate the Settlement Agreement because it was an equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. The appellate court held that the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, \"so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, 'fair and rational' and of 'general applicability.'\" Id. at 1018. \"So long 3 as that change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement.\" Id. The Eighth Circuit went on to hold, however, that when the State disbursed \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation insurance, the formula, which was based upon enrollment rather than number of employees, created a disparity between the Pulaski County school districts and other school districts. \"This results in precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It  funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner.\" Id. A. The three Pulaski County school districts move for summary judgment on the issue of state funding of health insurance, arguing that requiring them to pay health insurance costs from state equalization funding or local funds violates their desegregation Settlement Agreement with the State. For the same reasons the Court granted summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching, see doc. 2930, the Court grants the motion for summary judgment on the issue of funding of health insurance matching. This Court found that direct funding of teacher retirement matching contributions by the State was a program in existence at the time of the Settlement Agreement, and that funds for programs such as teacher retirement and health insurance, which under the old scheme were not a part of the funding formula but were distributed directly by the State, were included in state funds to be distributed according to the new formula. This Court further found that the distribution of teacher retirement contributions through the new funding scheme worked to, the detriment of the employee-heavy settling districts because they, to a certain extent, are not 4 in a position to control their teacher retirement costs due to the many added obligations under the settlement plans. Because of the settling districts' added obligations, this Court found that the new funding scheme, which does not consider the number of eligible employees, is not ufair and rational.\" While the State may contend that the settling districts will receive more formula money under the new funding scheme, the Court finds that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a ufair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula. B. Concerning the issues of funding for special education students and loss funding, the Court finds that summary judgment is not warranted. Under the old funding formula, the calculation for MFPA included add-on weights for various categories, including special education and loss funding. That weighting system has been eliminated and no district receives any identifiable money for special education or other high cost students or for loss funding'. The three Pulaski County school districts argue that because they have extraordinarily high special education expenses compared to other school districts, the new funding scheme is not fair and rational because it does nothing to recognize these costs or factor them into the formula. They also contend that they will suffer more from the elimination of loss funding because they lose students at a higher rate than other school districts. The settling districts argue that because the new funding scheme does not recognize . 5 the added costs of special education or loss funding, they are penalized unfairly and irrationally. The State says that under the new funding scheme, districts will continue to receive funding for the highest cost special education students, those requiring treatment at residential facilities. The State has historically reimbursed districts on a per diem basis equivalent to the actual charges made by these facilities. The new fund distribution method, the State says, as was the case under the distribution method in effect prior to the 1995 legislation, is a pure funding \"pass through\" in which residential treatment facilities do not bill school districts in excess of the amount of state funding provided to the district. The State, it appears, has determined to appropriate less money during the 1996-97 school year for this program, and has advised school districts that the reimbursement rate will be approximately $44.00 per day, down from average per diem reimbursement of $57.00 during the 1995-96 school year. The settling districts acknowledge that many institutions have reduced their charges to reflect this new rate; however, they express concern that this will be only a temporary arrangement and predict that the rate eventually will be raised. The Pulaski County districts also complain that elimination of weighting for special education students in determining formula funds violates the Settlement Agreement because they have a higher proportion of special education students. With regard to loss funding, depending on how the settling districts' M-to-M students are counted, which apparently has not been determined, the Pulaski County Special School District, for example, may or may not be eligible for growth funding. Student growth fundin\u0026 provides school districts additional funding for first quarter growth in the number of students 6 over the previous year's ADM. Act 917 retained student growth funding as a feature of state aid for districts with expanding enrollments. In addition, under Act 917, school districts' 1996-97 state aid is based upon the prior year's ADM, and thus there is a one-year adjustment period for districts with declining enrollment. See Wilhoit Dep., Ex. 2, ADE's Resp. Mot. Summ. J. Unlike teacher retirement and health insurance, where the costs for those programs are directly impacted by the obligations imposed by the desegregation settlement plans, the alleged disproportionately high number of special needs students in the settling districts is a circumstance that was not created by the settlement plans. Similarly, the loss or gain of students is not the result of obligations under the settlement plans. Further, it is unclear whether in these two areas the State has made an \"adjustmenf to the funding formula which has \"general applicability\" which is \"fair and rational adjustment. Even though the Settlement Agreement provides that the \"State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate, it also provides that \"[f]air and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. See Settlement Agreement  II, 1 L. Thus, the Court finds that the evidence indicates there are unresolved questions of interpretation as well as questions about how the new funding formula will operate and how the settling districts will be impacted. Because the Court finds that there remain genuine issues of material fact in dispute, the motion for summary judgment on the issues of special educatio~ and loss funding is denied. 7 III. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment [doc.# 2906] is granted as to health insurance and denied as to special education and loss funding. DATED this ~~ay of April 1997. ~ )Mi;;f~vr UNITED sii l)lsTRic 1unaE 8 ... ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT us~,{ktJlRr EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASH:,,\\; .::;s-:-;\"~ c, AR,-.;,,,c:, \"' WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 2 1997 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * QRDER OFFICE o:OESEGREGATIO:~ f!.OfJiTOh11 w.- Upon motion of the State of Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Education, the Court hereby orders that Special Assistant Attorney General Tim Humphries and Assistant Attorney General Timothy G. Gauger be, and are hereby substituted for Elizabeth Boyter Turner, as attorneys for the Arkansas Department of Education. Also before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors to add as defendants the Little Rock Municipal Court and the Little Rock Police Department to which the Little Rock School District has filed a response.  I t ,  I I I I t I  t   t 2 9 6 8 The Little Rock Municipal Court and the Little Rock Police Department are not parties to the settlement agreement and the Joshua Intervenors have provided the Court with no authority for enforcing a consent decree against entities which are not parties to that decree. 1 In addition, it appears that the issue behind the filing of the motion is moot. . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to substitute attorneys [doc. 2964] is granted and the motion to add parties [doc. 2962] is denied. ~ DATED this # day of April 1997. 1The Court points out that while ServiceMaster Management Services was not a party to the settleme~t agreement, it asked the Court for leave to intervene in order to protect its contract rights. See doc. 2547. 2 APR 2 2 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURffiMl:S w. i,1cu.Jrti,1ALr-., CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By: -------;::D-;:;EP:;-:.C;::;LcE\"RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF APPEAL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RECEive~. APR 2 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONliORf fJG Notice is hereby given that the Joshua Intervenors do hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's order, entered on March - 24, 1997 (DOCKET NO.2959). Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-37i,-37 _/) ~ j \" : By: \\ ~ ~jt,7)(7~ Walker - #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby acknowledge that a document was sent to all counsel of copy of the foregoing th's 22nd day of April, 1997. Ye~ I J UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk 600 West Capitol, Room 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 April 23, 1997 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Case No. LR-C-82-866 Re: LRSD vs. PCSSD Dear Sir: Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal [certified] Joshua Intervenor., Docket Entries [certified] Order filed 3/24/97 l\\lemorandum Opinion and Order filed 9/23/96 Sincerely, James W. McCormack, Clerk Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk cc: w/encs. All Counsel of Record Waunzell Petre - Court Reporter - APR 2 ~ 1997 Off\\CE Of DESEGREGA110N MONl10RING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION FILED UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER U 5 DISTRICT COURT .,.., EASTERN DISTRICT ARKAN-APR 2 8 t991 JAMES~ORMACK. ClERK By: U{.~- ' ~ DEP Cl.RK No. LR-C-82-866 Before the Court is the motion for reconsideration filed by the Joshua Intervenors on February 21, 1997 to which the Pulaski County Special School District has responded. The Joshua Intervenors seek reconsideration of the Court's Order dated February 20, 199:7, in which the Court dismissed the Joshua Intervenors' motions to require ODM monitoring or in the alternative for the Pulaski County Special School District to show cause concerning a teacher at Oak Grove Elementary School. Upon consideration of the motion and response, the Court finds that the motion should be denied. In support of their motion, the Joshua Intervenors submit an exhibit which contains a number of letters and memoranda which they contend support to their contention that there are serious problems regarding the discipline of minority students in the PCSSD. The Joshua Intervenors ask the Court to direct the ODM to monitor the PCSSD's compliance with its discipline plan or, in the alternative, hold the PCSSD in contempt for violating its student discipline plan. In its response, the PCSSD has demonstrated its attention to and resolution of the specific conflicts about which the Joshua Intervenors complain. As stated in the February 20, 1997 Order, the Court believes these are matters that should be and are being addressed by the PCSSD. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (doc. 2940) is hereby denied. DATED this ~y of April 1997. '.22~ Jtlf\u0026~ UNITED STADISCTGE 1141 m11EN'1 ENI ERED ON DOCKET a\u0026T _. Calll\"IJAIICE Willi AUlf 58 AN~ 7e{a) FRCP ~ - OM i--;; 8~qvz av ,~ \u003c.. 2 - FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 9 1997 JAMES_ \\fl. McCRRMACK, CLERK Br- v , Q:l~b I\\ W 1\\.. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * QRDER No. LR-C-82-866 RECE]VED APR 3 0 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OEl'CURI( Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors on September 27, 1996, requesting attorney's fees for the work of their counsel in successfully opposing the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to end federal court jurisdiction regarding the LRSD. In that motion filed on May 17, 1996, the LRSD argued that it had agreed to an implementation period of six years, that the six-year period had expired, and that it was in substantial compliance with the settlement plans. On September 23, 1996, the Court denied the LRSD's motion. The , Joshua Intervenors then filed their motion for attorney's fees. 2 9 7 0, The LRSD moved for reconsideration of the Court's September 23, 1996 Order denying its motion and also moved for an extension of time to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorney's fees. The LRSD asked that it not be required to respond to the motion for attorney's fees until after the Court ruled on its motion for reconsideration. The LRSD additionally stated that it should it not receive relief from this Court on its motion for reconsideration, it intended to appeal to the Eighth Circuit and requested that any response to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for fees be delayed until the issue was resolved, if necessary, by the appeals court. The Joshua Intervenors responded in opposition, arguing that the LRSD's requested extension was too long and that the LRSD should not be allowed to wait until after a ruling by the Eighth Circuit before responding to the attorney's fee motion. Subsequently, the LRSD filed a motion on December 6, 1996, asking the Court to approve a plan development period, during which time the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD could work together in preparing proposed plan modifications. The LRSD also filed a motion to withdraw its motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order regarding federal court jurisdiction. On December 27, 1996, the Court granted the motion for a plan development period and also granted the LRSD's motion to withdraw. The Court has determined that in the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorney's fees should be resolved. The Court is mindful that tire parties ..,._ are engaged in a period of discussion regarding proposed modifications to the settlement plans and the Court does not wish to place the parites in an adversarial position. However, the Court 2 finds that it is in the interest of justice to address the motion for attorney's fees. Therefore, the Court denies the motion for extension of time ( doc. 283 7) and directs the LRSD to respond to the motion for attorney's fees within ten days from the date of entry of this Order. 1 SO ORDERED this .,,2..i~ day of April 1997. n-ug DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPU~~ RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) f=ACP ON L 9J IY :et:: 1The resolution of the issue of attorney's fees will not defeat the LRSD' s right to refile its' motion for reconsideration as set forth in the Court's Order of December 27, 1996. 3 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY lt1221tl4J WILLIAM H. SUTTON, f' .A . JAMES W. MOOJU IYflOH M. EISEMAN. JR , , f' . A. JOE O. IELL, f' . A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, f' . A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JAMES A. IUTTflY . f' . A. FREOEIIICIC S. UflSEIIY, f' . A . H. T. LAIIZHERE. f' .A. OSCAR . OAVIS. Jfl ., f' . A . JAMES C . CLARK, Jfl . , f' . A . THOMAS f' . LEGGETT . f' . A . JOHN DEWEY WATSON, f' . A . f'AUL I , IENHAM Ill, f' .A. LAlllltY W. IUflCS , f' . A . A. WYCCUFF NISl(T. JR ., f' . A . JAMES (OWAIIO HAIIRIS. f' . A . J . ,.HILLlf' MALCOM . ,. A . JAMES M. SIM,.SON, f' . A . JAMES M. SAXTON , f'.A . J . SHEPHEIIO flUSS(ll Ill.  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1646","title":"Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to issues of health insurance, special education, and loss 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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-02-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees","Employee rights","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to issues of health insurance, special education, and loss 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/1646"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  .. RECE~VED FILED FEB 181997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~\"0AfJ~~~l./,~~,~::,c:A~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB '1 0 1997 DESEGREi~~: ~tNITOR!NG WESTERN DMSION JAr..'.[:i W. NICvlJrtMnul'\\, liL~RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL By: ____ -:;::;;-;:;-;;-;;;;- oEP CLERK FEB 1 ::- 10 OFFiC2 ..,, DESEGREGATIOt~ MONITORJNG DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD, LRSD AND NLRSD'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES OF HEALTH INSURANCE, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOSS FUNDING The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") responds to PCSSD, LRSD and NLRSD's \"Statement of Material and Undisputed Facts\" with respect to issues of health insurance, special education and loss funding as follows: Fact No, 1: State EquaHzation Funding - Act 917 of 1995 changed the method the State uses to distribute aid to school districts. Prior to 1996-97 the Department of Education distributed the majority of state aid as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). In addition, the state funded other programs such as Transportation Aid and At-Risk Grants by formulas or based on need. The ' I  State also paid Teacher Retirement Matching and Health Insurance Matching on behalf of school districts. The calculation for MFP A included add-on weights for various categories such as Special Education, Isolated School Districts, Consolidation Incentives, Vocational Education and (sic) Centers, Gifted and Talented Students, and growth and loss funding (Arkansas Budget System, Agency Program Commentary for the 1997-1999 Biennium, (\"ABS\") p. 29). Act 917 now requires State Equalization Funds to be distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (ADM), equalized by the wealth of the district. The purpose of this funding is to equalize the disparities of property wealth throughout Arkansas (ABS p. 29). ADE's Response: It is undisputed that the Districts have accurately quoted the ABS. However, the statement that the purpose of Equalization Funding is to \"equalize the disparities of property wealth\" between districts is an oversimplification. The formula for calculating Equalization Funding takes into account local assessed property values, miscellaneous funds, the amount of funds available for Equalization Funding, and the number of students in the State and in each district. See generally Sections 4(d), 4(n), 4(s) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-203(4), (14) and (19)). More precisely stated, the purpose of equalization funding is to reduce the disparity of total state and local funds available to school districts for the education of children. 2  I Moreover, the Districts inaccurately state that the quoted passage from ABS comes from the \"Agency Program Commentary\" section. In fact, the quoted passage comes from the section entitled \"Analysis of Budget Request,\" which is drafted by the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, and not ADE. Fact No. 2: Prior to this fiscal year, the _$tate distributed formula aid utilizing weighted average daily memberships (\"W ADM''). ADE's Response: It is undisputed that W ADM was one of several factors used in the calculation of Minimum Foundation Program Aid for school districts prior to fiscal year 1996-97. See generally Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-306 (b) (Michie 1995 Supp.) (Repealed effective July 1, 1996). Fact No. 3: The previous Arkansas school funding formula (Act 34) used W ADM to determine the amount of money a school district received. The formula added weights to account for the high cost of educating certain students and provided more money for those students. The add-on weights included: special education, gifted and talented, vocational education, isolated district, consolidation incentive funds, growing district, loss funding, and vocational centers. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 8) ADE's Response: It is undisputed that WADM was one of several factors used in the calculation of Minimum Foundation Program Aid for school districts prior to fiscal year 1996-97. See generally Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-306 (b) (Michie 3 - 1995 Supp.) (Repealed effective July 1, 1996). It is also undisputed that the calculation of W ADM included weights for special education, gifted and talented, vocational education, isolated district, consolidation incentive funds, growth funding, loss funding, and vocational centers. Fact No, 4: It was not clear that the add.-on weights that were assigned were sufficient to meet the needs of the students. For 1994-95, the W ADM was approximately 505,000, of which 435,000 was actual students and 70,000 was addon weights. The percentage of add-ons in districts ranged from 6% to 40%. There were some students who, because of their high need, generated three times the SBER (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 9) (Gooden p. 17). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 5: Any aid distributed for health insurance matching this fiscal year will be distributed on an \"equalized\" ADM basis and will not consider employee costs or numbers of employees. ADE's Response: Disputed. There is no appropriation for \"health insurance matching\" for school district employees in Act 1194 of 1995 for 1996- 97, and there are no identifiable or earmarked \"health insurance matching\" dollars distributed to school districts as state equalization funding. Rather, under Section 14 of Act 1194 of 1995 the responsibility for paying the health insurance contribution rate for eligible employees has now been shifted to school districts 4 throughout the State. A school district may satisfy this obligation in total or in part with moneys received from the State as state equalization funding, and it may satisfy this obligation in part or in whole with local revenue. Moreover, the statutory formula for the distribution of state equalization funding does not \"equalize\" ADM. Rather, the formula \"equalizes\" or \"adjusts\" the amount of money distributed per ADM to each district based upon a district's local wealth. See response to Fact No. 1. Fact No. 6: The State has terminated its payment of health insurance matching for the employees of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No. 7: The responsibility for funding health insurance matching for employees of the ODM has now become the responsibility of the three school districts in Pulaski County and their contributions to the budget of the ODM have been increased accordingly. ADE's Response; Disputed. The obligation for paying for health insurance matching for ODM employees now rests with ODM. The total ODM budget is funded by contributions from the three Districts and the State. Fact No. 8: For 1994-95, $36,315,000 was budgeted for public school employee insurance which was paid (by the State) to Blue Cross Blue Shield for insurance for teachers. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 24(8)). 5 ADE's Response: Disputed. The $36,315,000 budgeted for public school employee insurance was budgeted for the payment of health insurance matching for all eligible employees who elected to participate in the Public School Health Insurance program. The pool of eligible employees included teachers and other eligible \"non-teacher\" school district employees~ Fact No. 9: Public School Employee Insurance - provides for health insurance contributions for employees of the Cooperative Education Service Areas, Vocational Centers and the school operated by the Department of Correction. The priority request of$36,030 in FY98 and $74,222 in FY99 allows for a 6% growth in rates of employees (ABS p. 13). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 10: Public School Employee Insurance - This program pays the health insurance contribution rate established by the State Board of Education for employees of the Cooperative Education Services Areas, Vocational Centers, and the school operated by the Department of Correction (ABS p. 32). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No. 11: Any aid distributed and thus available for special education costs this fiscal year will be distributed on an \"equalized\" ADM basis and will not consider the costs of educating special education students. (Rossmiller, p. 99) 6 ADE's Response: Disputed. The cited testimony of Dr. Rossmiller concerned the formula for calculation of state equalization funding. While Act 1194 contains appropriations for 1996-97 for, e.g., Special Education Services and Early Childhood Special Education, there is no general \"special education\" appropriation for distibution to school districts, and there are no identifiable or eannarked \"special education\" dollars distributed to school districts as state equalization funding. School districts may fund special education programs in whole or in part with moneys received from the State as state equalization funding, from local revenue, or from federal funds. Moreover, the statutory formula for the distribution of state equalization funding does not \"equalize\" ADM. Rather, the formula \"equalizes\" or \"adjusts\" the amount of money distributed per ADM to each district based upon, among other things, a district's local wealth. See response to Fact No. 1. Fact No, 12: School districts located in urban centers with extensive medical services available can anticipate a high concentration of high cost special education students. (Gooden, p. 17) ADE's Response: Disputed. The Districts have not produced any evidence that they have such a \"high concentration\" of such \"high cost\" students. School districts with small enrollments may have a higher percentage or 7 - concentration of severely disabled students than school districts located in urban areas. Sydoriak Deposition at 62: 17-63 :8. Fact No, 13: At page 14 of the ABS, the ADE has commented in part concerning residential centers that: \"Students are the responsibility of the district where the facility is located.\" ADE's Response: It is undisputed that these Districts have accurately quoted page 14 of the \"ABS.\" However, the statement is not accurate. The District where the facility is located is responsible for the children if it is known at the time of placement that the placement will be for more than 60 days. If it is not known at the time of placement that the placement will be for more than 60 days, the district from which the child originated is responsible for the first 60 days, and the district in which the facility is located is responsible for the child beginning with day 61 of placement. Sydoriak Deposition (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) at 8:22-9:5. Fact No, 14: Residential Centers - This is a special education program to provide reimbursement to school districts for educational costs associated with students in approved residential tre.atment facilities. Prior to 1996- 97, the ABS asserts, the program was funded as an add-on weight through the minimum Foundation Aid program. The 1995-96 reimbursement of approximately 8 $6 million funded 710 beds in 8 approved residential treatment facilities. The Department has budgeted $6,512,000 for FY97 (ABS p. 27). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 15: The priority request of$856,662 in FY98 and $908,062 for FY99 is to provide additional funding for anticipated growth in student placement at approved residential treatment facilities and/or juvenile . detention facilities (ABS p. 27). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 16: For the 1996-97 school year, the special education specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education calculated that an appropriation in excess of $12,000,000 would be necessary to fund the costs for residential education. ADE's Response: Disputed. In May of 1996 the administrator for grants and data management for ADE's Special Education division calculated that approximately $12 million would be necessary for funding of students in residential treatment facilities under the fund distribution method that existed prior to the enactment of Act 917 of 1995. At the time the calculation was made, the individual who made the calculation was unaware that the method of distribution had been changed by Act 917. Sydoriak Deposition at 15:19-17:23. The new fund distribution method, as was the case under the distribution method in effect prior to 9 - the enactment of Act 917, is a pure funding \"pass through\" in which residential treatment facilities do not bill school districts in excess of the amount of state funding provided to the district. The amounts distributed under the prior and new law are therefore, by definition, \"adequate.\" Sydoriak Deposition at 39:11-40:12. Fact No, 17: For the 1995-96 school year, the State reimbursed school districts approximately $57 per child per day for treatment in residential treatment facilities. For this school year, those school districts, including the districts in Pulaski County, have been advised that this per diem reimbursement has been reduced to just over $44 per child per day for the same treatment. ADE's Response: Undisputed. It is also undisputed that no treatment facility, including the facilities located in Pulaski County, is charging any school district in excess of the state's current per diem reimbursement rate. ~ response to Fact No. 16. Fact No, 18: Pursuant to Act 1194, there was no line item appropriation for student growth funding for the previous fiscal year but the line item appropriation for this fiscal year is $29,000,000. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Under the school funding statutes in effect prior to July 1, 1996, student growth funding was not a separate line item appropriation but rather was generated through a ''weight\" as part of Minimum 10 -' . .1 Foundation Program Aid. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-302(1) (Michie 1995 Supp.) (Repealed effective July l, 1996). Fact No, 19: Student Growth - This provides school districts additional funding for first quarter growth in the number of students over the .. previous year's ADM. Prior to 1996-97, student growth was part of the Minimum Foundation Aid calculation (ABS p. 25). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 20: In 1995-96 the state funded growth of approximately 7,400 additional students times the State Base Equalization [sic] (SBER) of $2,754 for a total of $20.3 million. For 1996-97 growth funding is calculated as the Base Local Revenue Per Student (\"BLRPS\") (currently $3,759) times .4 plus $1,500 for a total of $3,003 per student This rate is then multiplied by the increase in the district's ADM for the first quarter over the previous year's ADM. For FY97 the Department has budgeted $22.6 million for Student Growth (ABS p. 25). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 21: Act 917 retained student growth funding as a feature of state aid for districts with expanding enrollments. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Student Growth funding for 1996-97 is provided from available funds in a line-item appropriation within the Public School Fund. See Sections 3(b )and 4(u) of Act 917 of 1995, Ark. Code Ann.  6- 11 - - 20-303(21), 6-2~307(a). All districts with inar.asing ADM, including PCSSD, LRSD and NLRSD, will receive growth funding for the 1996-97 school year. See Declaration of Tristan Greene in Opposition to 1his Motion (\"Greene Declaration\"), 12 and Exh. A Fact No, 22: Subsection (b )( 4) foDd that there were 24,166 students in kindergarten through Grade 12 in the state's largest school district. ADE's Response: As written, this \"f.acf' is unintelligible. Assuming the Districts are referring to Section 2(bX4) of Act 917 of 1995, it is undisputed. Fact No, 23: The state's largest school district is the Little Rock School District. ADE's Response: Assuming this .. fact' refers specifically to a comparison of school districts by the.ir Average Daily Membership, it is undisputed. If this \"fact\" refers to geographic area, it is disputed. FactNo.24: In fiscal year 1995 State funds for public schools totaled approximately $1.2 billion, of which $941 million was distributed through the Minimum Foundation Program Aid Formula (\"MFPA\") and approximately $300 million was distributed outside ofMFPA (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 6) ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 25: School districts received money outside the Act 34 MFPA formula to help offset the costs of transportation. The Act 34 formula took 12  into account the size of a district, the number of students to be transported and the age and size of the buses used. Under the Act 34 formula the state used to disburse transportation funds, some districts received more money than they actually spent on transportation and some districts did not receive enough money to cover their actual costs of transportation. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 28) ADE's Response: The school funding statutes in effect prior to July 1, 1995 contained no formula for distribution of transportation funds. Transportation funds were distributed based upon a formula contained in Rules and Regulations promulgated by the State Board of Education. With the foregoing qualification, Fact No. 25 is undisputed . Fact No, 26: Transportation aid was eliminated under Act 1194 as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula (ABS, p. 32). ADE's Response: It is unclear what is meant by the term \"incorporated into.\" It is undisputed that Act 1194 contains no specific line-item appropriation for Transportation Aid for 1996-97. It is also undisputed that Act 917 includes \"Transportation Aid\" in the definition of \"Student Needs Funding.\" See Section 4(v) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-303(22)). However, to the extent the Districts claim that there is some identifiable amount of\"Transportation Aid\" being distributed as state equalization funding, the fact is disputed. There are no 13 identifiable or earmarked \"transportation aid\" funds in state equalization funding. School districts may pay their transportation costs in whole or in part with funds received from the State as state equalization funding or in whole or in part with local revenue. See Section 3(a) of Act 917 (Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-309(a)). Fact No. 27: Page 14 of the ABS_contains a new request by the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") for $10,000,000 each fiscal year \"to assist districts with high cost transportation.\" This is a \"priority request\" of the Arkansas Department of Education. ADE's Response: Undisputed. ADE has requested an appropriation of $10 million for fiscal years 1997-98 and 1998-99 to assist districts with high transportation costs. The Executive Recommendation, however, is for a total of $10 million dollars for each year to be used for assisting districts with high transportation costs and for funding safety training for school bus drivers and mechanics. So that the Court will not be misled, \"priority request\" is a tenn of art that simply means a request for an appropriation that is in excess of Base Level. All such requests are called \"priority requests\" in the ABS. Fact No, 28: For 1994-95, the State of Arkansas forecasted general revenue at $2,527,765,452, including Education Excellence Trust Funds. Of that amount 48.8%, or $1,233,546,155, was spent on the Public School Fund. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 23). 14 -' -'  . 1 __ .. - .. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 29: The Public School Fund provides the primary state financial assistance to Arkansas public elementary and secondary schools. For FY97, the Public School Fund is projected to receive General Revenue funding of $1,261,159,912. The Educational Excellence Trust Fund forecast for the Public School Fund will provide an additional $142,454,921. For FY97, the Public School Fund will receive approximately 47% of the State's Revenue Stabiliz.ation allocations. With Educational Excellence included, the Public School Fund is scheduled to receive 49% of the State's General Revenues (ABS p. 23). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 30: Money is not the only factor which affects the quality of a student's education. Factors other than money which affect the quality of education include (1) the education level of the family, (2) the socioeconomic level of the community, (3) the curriculum, (4) the teachers, (5) the percentage of money going into the classroom as compared to other costs, such as administration and capital expenditures, and ( 6) the course-taken patterns of the students. The Arkansas school funding formula (Act 34) did not take these factors into account in determining the amount of aid available per student. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 130) 15 ADE's Response: Undisputed. While the formula for calculating MFPA did not take these factors into account for purposes of calculating MFP A, other statutes, funding programs and rules and Regulations of the State Board of Education took into account these factors. Fact No, 31: Neither Act 917 nor ,Act 1194 take into account the factors set forth in paragraph 31. ADE's Response: Disputed. Among other things, the new funding scheme includes teacher salary requirements that can affect the \"percentage of money going into the classroom.\" Moreover, because the distribution of equalization funding takes into account the local wealth of the district, it roughly takes into account the \"socioeconomic status of the community.\" Further, as was the case prior to July 1, 1995, there are other existing statutes and rules and Regulations of the State Board of Education that take into account the listed factors. Fact No, 32: There have been no studies to show how much it costs per pupil to provide a \"general, suitable and efficient\" educational opportunity to Arkansas school children. The amount of money spent on a student's education in Arkansas is directly related to the amount of money available to be spent. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 132) ADE's Response: Undisputed. 16 Fact No, 33: Equality does not necessarily mean equal dollars spent per student because some students have greater needs and require more money to educate. Equality means equal access to programs. Differences in money should depend on the cost and the need. High cost students should receive more money. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 133). ADE's Response: To the extent the third and fourth sentences of this \"fact\" are understood to be reffering to the total amount of state, local and federal funds available to and expended by school districts, it is undisputed. Fact No, 34: As part of Act 917, the three districts in Pulaski county will be required to expend state and local revenue on special education students \"in accordance with existing federal and state laws and department regulations\" and based further upon criteria including a formula derived from a three year average percentage. The three districts in Pulaski County have three year average special education expenditures which are more than double those required by Act 917. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 35: Neither the expenditure requirements of Act 917 for special education nor the distribution of aid that could be utilized for special education factor in the actual education expenditures of these three school districts. ADE's Response: This \"fact\" is unintelligible and is therefore disputed. 17 Fact No. 36: Act 917, at Section 3, established four categories of State funding. The first is State Equalization Funding for students. The last category, Category 4, is Student Needs Funding. Section 3 prohibits funding Category 4 until Categories 1, 2 and 3 are fully funded. ADE's Response: Undisputed. ... . Fact No. 37: During its last session, the Arkansas Legislature appropriated $250,000,000 for students (sic) needs funding. However, Section 29 of Act 1194 authorized the Director of the Department of Education to transfer funds from one category to another. The Director has transferred all $250,000,000 from Category 4 to Category 1. There will be no distribution of student needs funding during 1996-97. ADE's Response: Section 29 of Act 1194 authorizes the Director of ADE to request appropriation transfers and other budget-related adjustments with the approval of the Chief Fiscal Officer of the State and after review by the Arkansas Legislative Council. With that qualification, Fact No. 37 is undisputed. The transfer of $250,000 from Category 4 to Category 1 was done because Category 1 was not fully funded and, pursuant to Section 3(a) of Act 917, the $250,000 appropriated for Student Needs Funding could not have been distributed to school districts at all unless it was moved to Category 1. 18  Fact No. 38: Act 917, at Section 4( v) defines Student Needs Funding to include \"[T]he amount of state financial aid provided to each Local School District from available Special Education funding.\" ADE's Response: Undisputed. However, section 3(i) of Act 917 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-309(a)) expressly permits school districts to expend Category 1 funds for \"student needs funding.\" Fact No, 39: There are three ways to identify at-risk children within a district: (I) low test scores, (2) the number of children receiving free or reduced lunches within a district, and (3) the number of households below the poverty level within a district. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 137) ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No. 40: At page 13, the ABS contains the following commentary by the Arkansas Department of Education: \"State Equalization Aid the priority request of$79,255,218 in FY98 and $157,750,338 in FY99 provides for a 6% increase each fiscal year and for the continuation of $5,203,218 budgeted from FY97 fund balances for potential desegregation cost.\" ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 41: At-Risk Grants and Training - Act 917 of 1995 (The Equitable School Finance Act of 1995) and Act 1194 of 1995 (Appropriation Act for the Public School Fund) eliminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and 19 - combined approximately $30 million into the State Equalization Funding fonnula. The Department is requesting that this be established as a line item once more at $17,100,000 each year (ABS p. 23). ADE's Response: Disputed. While the Districts have accurately quoted page 11 of ABS, the statement is incorrect. There are no identifiable or earmarked \"At-Risk Grants and Training\" dollars distributed as state equalization funding. Fact No. 42: Acts 917 and 1194 for 1995 eliminated all at-risk funding from the Department of Education's budget and shifted approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization aid (ABS p. 11) ADE's Response: Disputed. While the Districts have accurately quoted page 11 of ABS, the statement is incorrect. There are no identifiable or eannarked \"At-Risk Grants and Training\" dollars distributed as state equalization funding. Fact No, 43: Act 1194, at Item 28, reflects a $30,000,000 appropriation for at-risk grants and training for 1995-96, the last year that Act 34 operated. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 44: Page 44 of the ABS reflects actual expenditures for at-risk grants and training in 1995-96 of $29,784,239. ADE's Response: Undisputed. 20 . - Fact No, 45: Act 917 defines at-risk funding as \"Financial aid provided to Local School Districts based upon the number of students with low test scores, the number of children receiving free or reduced price lunches, the number of households below the poverty level, or the number of children with limited English proficiency.\" ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 46: Act 1194 appropriated $34,000,000 for at-risk grants and training for 1995-96. There was no appropriation for this category for 1996- 97. ADE's Response: Disputed. See Section 1, Item (28) of Act 1194 of 1995. Fact No, 47: Grants to School Districts - These payments are made to Missouri for educating students in North Arkansas who can't get to their assigned district because Bull Shoals Lake separates them from their district, and it would require a round trip of more than 35 miles. This program was incorporated into the school funding formula, but the Department is requesting a separate line item of$27,000 for the 1997-99 biennium (ABS p. 34). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 48: In Act 1194, $27,000 was appropriated for \"grants to school districts\" for 1995-96, the last year of operation of Act 34. 21 . . # ' . - -- ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 49: Mr. Charles Dyer is Superintendent of the Alma School District. Mr. Dyer was Superintendent of the Alma School District when Alma v, Dupree was tried. It is Mr. Dyer's understanding that moneys previously distributed as MFP A, transportation funds, teacb\"er retirement payments, and health insurance payments, all as previously made under Act 34, were put into one large pool to be distributed pursuant to Act 917. ADE's Response: It is undisputed that Mr. Dyer testified that this is his \"understanding.\" Mr. Dyer's \"understanding,\" however, is incorrect. Moreover, because Mr. Dyer is not a legislator or a state official his ''understanding\" has no probative value concerning the intent of the Arkansas Legislature, and does not bind or estopp the State. Fact No. 50: It is Mr. Dyer's understanding that together with additional money of approximately $60,000,000, that all of this added up to the appropriation of $1,300,000,000. ADE's Response: It is undisputed that Mr. Dyer testified that this is his ''understanding.\" Mr. Dyer's ''understanding,\" however, is incorrect. Moreover, because Mr. Dyer is not a legislator or a state official his ''understanding\" has no probative value concerning the intent of the Arkansas Legislature, and does not bind or estopp the State. 22 Fact No, 51: It is the sworn testimony of Dr. Bobbie Davis that the total dollars that previously went to public schools under Act 34 were all consolidated into equalization funding under Act 917. (Davis deposition, pp. 6-7). ADE's Response: Disputed. The cited testimony related specifically to transportation aid, and Dr. Davis also testified iliat there are no specifically earmarked or identifiable funds for transportation being distributed as equalization funding. Davis Deposition, pp. 6-7. Fact No, 52: 1996 is accurate. Exhibit \"F\" to the Districts' reply dated December 23, ADE's Response: Disputed. See Greene Declaration,~ 2 and 7 and Exh.A. Fact No, 53: Even though the Newark School District will not receive state equalization funding, it will nevertheless receive State aid in the form of additional base funding so that its expenditures per student will be at the minimum level required by the State. ADE's Response: Disputed. The Newark school district will receive additional base funding for 1996-97 because, due to a \"quirk\" in Act 917, Newark's total state and local revenue per ADM for 1996-97 is less than the minimum state and local revenue per ADM as defined by Act 917. See Section 3(e) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-308). As a result of the 23  enactment of Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution, Newark will receive no additional base funding for 1997-98. See Greene Declaration, ,i 3. Fact No. 54: In terms oflocal wealth, Newark is either the richest or second richest school district in the state. ADE's Response: lfthe Districts are defining \"local wealth\" as base local revenue per student calculated at a millage rate of 25 mills, Fact No. 54 is undisputed. Fact No. 55: Newark votes a millage of23.6 mills. This millage rate does not result in an amount of money per student sufficient to satisfy present state expenditure per student requirements. ADE's Response: Disputed. Newark's millage for purposes of 1996-97 state funding was 19.28 mills, and as a result Newark's total state and local revenue per ADM for 1996-97 was less than the minimum state and local revenue per ADM as defined by Act 917. See Section 3(e) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-308). As a result of the ratification of Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution, however, Newark's maintenance and operation millage has been increased to 25 mills and it will receive no additional base funding for 1997-98. See Greene Declaration, ,i 3. Fact No. 56: The three Districts in Pulaski County all vote millages approximately 20 mills higher than the Newark School District. 24 ADE's Response; Disputed, particularly after the effect of millage rollbacks and Amendment 74 are taken into account. See Greene Declaration,, 4. Fact No, 57: The three Districts in Pulaski County vote millages that are among the highest in the State. Only four other districts exceed the millage rate voted in LRSD-and PCSSD. ADE's Response: Disputed. See Greene Declaration,, 4. Fact No, 58: The Umpire School District has one of the smallest student bodies in t "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1662","title":"Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, requiring the ODM Monitoring monitoring, NLRSD motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School, and LRSD 1996-97 second quarter status report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-02"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Joshua Intervenors","Seventh Street Elementary School, (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","School facilities","School buildings","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration","Teachers","Student assistance programs","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, requiring the ODM Monitoring monitoring, NLRSD motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School, and LRSD 1996-97 second quarter status report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1662"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["114 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) brief in opposition to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, declaration of Tristan Greene in opposition to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and NLRSD's motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School; District Court, memorandum; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, joint motion to postpone argument; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District?s (PCSSD's) request for extension of time; District Court, reply of the Joshua intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua intervenors' motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, alternatively, for the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, order; District Court, judgment; District Court, order; District Court, motion for reconsideration; Court of Appeals, motion to dismiss; Court of Appeals, opposition to motion to dismiss; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1996-97 first quarter status report addendum program planning and budget document for desegregation programs and Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1996-97 second quarter status report program planning and budget document for desegregation programs; District Court, two notices of appeal; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, further motion to enlarge time  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FEB 1 S 1897 FILED - - _JLS....OISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CMURllJ DISTRICT ARKANSAS Qfr1Cf. OF DESEGREGATiON MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB 1 O 1997 WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: PLAINTIFF DEP. CLERK v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. FEB 1 8 1997 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PCSSD, LRSD AND NLRSD's MOTIONOc\"EGREGAOFFJIOICtl N~FO NITO . FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUES OF 1.:i 1 1 RING HEALTH INSURANCE, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOSS FUNDING I. INTRODUCTION In their motion, which presumably relates solely to the \"issues\" of health insurance matching, special education and loss funding, the Districts level a broad, scattershot attack directed at Acts 917 and 1194 of 1995. These and other new statutes concerning school finance were designed to comply with a State Court's order that requires a funding system that reduces the disparity between the amount of combined state and local funds available to wealthy and poor school districts for the education of children. No matter how it is accomplished, compliance with the State Court's directive to reduce the disparity of available local and state resources between wealthy and poor districts necessarily requires, in one manner or another, that poor school districts be treated somewhat more advantageously in terms of state aid as compared to wealthy districts like the three districts in Pulaski County. As shown in ADE's response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the \"teacher retirement,\" issue, the State chose to enact a new funding system that ensured that all school districts, including the very poorest, had a minimum level of combined state and local funds for the education of children while, at the same time, leaving the three Pulaski County districts unscathed.1 Nonetheless, in what might be viewed by some as a pure \"money grab,\"2 these Districts now argue that while they are ''winners\" under the new funding statutes (in the sense that their total state aid for this year exceeds their total state aid for 1995-96) they deserve even more state aid for 1996-97 because poorer districts in the State got a larger relative increase in state aid than they did. The Districts press this argument without regard to the fact that the Settlement Agreement clearly contemplates that the State can make generally applicable changes to its funding statutes even if the changes 1 LRSD and NLRSD, in particular, have presented no evidence to indicate that they are receiving less state aid this year as compared to last year. Further, neither LRSD nor NLRSD has even argued that it would have received more total state aid for 1996-97 if the old \"Act 34\" funding scheme were still in place. Even if one were to accept the questionable method of comparison used in Exhibit \"F\" to PCSSD's December 23, 1996 Reply brief, PCSSD can only argue that it received $106,579 less state aid for this year as compared to last year. 2 These districts often complain that other school officials throughout the State view these Districts as \"greedy.\" These districts do little to discourage such a view when, as they have done here, they file motions asking this Court to force the State to (a) reimburse them for more than 100% of their actual teacher retirement costs, (b) provide them with the same percentage increase -in state funding as that received by poorer school districts, (c) reimburse them at a rate of$57 per day for students in residential treatment facilities when the facilities themselves will only bill the Districts $44 per day for such students; and ( d) reinstate \"loss funding\" for them when each of the Districts is eligible for and will receive growth funding for 1996-97. 2 - serves to \"reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts.\" Settlement Agreement,  ILL. The question of whether the Settlement Agre,ernent mandates the absurd result these Districts seek is for another day. For now, this Court must address the Districts' motion for summary judgment. As di~russed below, the motion cannot be granted. I. The Motion Must Be Denied Or, In The Alternative, This Court Must Again Abswn Pending Final Resolution Of The Lake View Case In response to the Districts' initial motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement, in which these Districts clearly argued that the new funding statutes - did not comply with the Lake View Court's 1994 orders, ADE requested that this Court abstain until a final judgment was rendered in Lake View. Thereafter, in a \"Preb.earing Brief' filed November 18, 1996, PCSSD essentially withdrew its state law and/or Lake View compliance claims, saying that the Districts only wished to pursue issues \"separate and distinct from the constitutional and compliance issues raised\" in Lake View. The Districts now appear to have changed their minds; they again ask this Court to intrude upon the Lake View court's jurisdiction and/or evaluate the new funding system under state law. See 1he Districts' Brief in Support of this motion at p. 5: \"[H]ad Judge Imber ruled on the new formula, she would have found the 3 - changes objectionable and neither fair, rational, nor reasonable under the State constitutional rational basis test.\" The Districts' attempt to litigate state law issues in this Court must be summarily rejected. Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution this Court lacks jurisdiction to fore~ state officials to comply with state law, even if the state law claim is pendent to a federal law claim. Pennhurst State School \u0026 Hosp. v. Halderman, 79 L.Ed.2d 67, 92 (1984). Moreover, even if this Court could exercise some concurrent federal jurisdiction over Lake View compliance issues, ADE renews its request that this Court abstain from considering the Districts' motions pending a final judgment in the Lake View case. II. Summary Judgment Is Inappropriate Because There Are Numerous Disputed Issues Of Material Fact In ruling on the Districts' motions for summary judgment this Court may not resolve disputed factual issues, but rather must simply determine as an initial matter whether any material facts are in dispute. As outlined more fully in ADE's response to the Districts' Separate Statement Of Undisputed Facts, there are numerous issues of material fact in dispute. Accordingly, the Districts' motion must be denied. 4 m. Health Insurance and Special Education For the same reasons the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement must be denied, this motion as it relates to health insurance and special education must also be denied. The Districts have failed to present any admissible evidence showing the effect, if any, that the elimination of the \"weighting\" system for special education funding has had on them, nor have they cited this Court to any provision of the Settlement Agreement that requires the State to maintain some form of''weighting\" system for special education students. Further, the District's newly-raised claim concerning the State's per diem reimbursement rate for children in residential treatment centers must be - dismissed for lack of a justiciable case or controversy. It is undisputed that all of the residential treatment facilities within the Districts have agreed to charge the Districts, at most, the per diem rate of reimbursement established by the State for 1996-97. In short, the State continues to fund 100% of the per diem rate for children in residential treatment centers as it did in 1995-96. Unless and until that situation changes, there is not even arguably a case or controversy for this Court to resolve. IV. Loss Funding The Districts' attempt to resurrect loss funding must fail for three basic reasons. 5 First, loss funding has not been completely eliminated. The new funding scheme has retained a \"loss funding\" feature. Under Act 917, a district's current year's equalization funding is based upon the prior year's ADM, thereby giving any district with declining ADM a one-year period of continued funding to enable it to \"adjust\" to the drop in enrollment. Second, the Districts, who bear the burden of proof, have supplied no evidence whatsoever to support their argument that the elimination of loss funding will cause their students to leave for adjoining school districts. There are many reasons why enrollment might decline in these Districts, reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with \"loss funding\" or \"growth funding;\" and not all students that leave the Pulaski County Districts go on to attend school in the surrounding counties. For example, parents may choose to move their children to private schools within the County when they become fed up with the effects of a teacher strike and a school district's inability to come to terms with its teachers. Enrollment may decline due in part to changing demographics, such as an increase in the average age of a district's inhabitants and a concomitantly lower birth rate. Some students leave when their parents move elsewhere in the State or even out of State to take advantage of lower crime rates or better job opportunities. The Districts' argument that the elimination of loss funding causes them to lose students is not only a non sequitor, it flies in the face of Dr. Don Stewart's 6 - testimony in September of 1994 that parents do not decide to take their students out of PCS SD schools based upon the existence or nonexistence ofloss funding or growth funding for PCSSD or any other district. Third, in a crowning bit of irony, all three of the Pulaski County Districts are eligible for and will receive growth funding for 1996-97. The Districts' argument that the Settlement Agreement requires the \"reinstatement\" ofloss funding under these circumstances is plainly frivolous. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, ADE respectfully requests that the Districts' motion be denied. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General BY:~ TIMO .GR,#95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed this 10th day of February, 1997 by first-class mail, to the following person(s): M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 8 John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. .J. 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. TIIO1\\.1PSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 FILED FEB 1 8 1997 OFflCE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING u.s OIHRICT cou~T EA~Tcou \"'C:Tn~T ~ ,,...,  .. ,c:,a.~ INTIIElJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F-B 1 O 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS t . \" WESTERN DMSION JM~[:; W. MClJUl'\\IVl\"\\JI\\, liL.:.RK. By: ___ --:::01'-::-, ::-:-CL;:;;-ER:;--~ LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS DECLARATION OF TRISTAN GREENE IN OPPOSITION TO PCSSD, LRSD AND NLRSD's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUES OF HEALTH INSURANCE, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOSS FUNDING I, Tristan D. Greene. declare as follows: 1. I have been the Assistant to the Assistant Director for Finance and Administration for the Arkansas Department of Education since April of 1995. During the course of my work for ADE, I have become familiar with the laws and regulations conrem.ing the system of public school finance in Arkansas, and, in particular, the operation of and calculation of state aid outcomes under the State's prior school funding statutes and under the school funding statutes enacted by the Arkansas General Assembly during the 1995 legislative session. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are ADE's December 27, 1996 printouts reflecting projected State Aid for LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD for 1996- 97, based on 1995-96 three quarter average ADM and adjusted for growth in the 1  - 1996-97 first quarter. Unless one of these Districts reports (a) a clerical error in its previous year's attendance reports, or (b) an error in its abstract of assessment, or (c) an error in its previous year's miscellaneous funds, or (d) a clerical error in its scheduled bonded debt payment or ( e) an error in its 1996-97 first quarter attendance report, the amounts reflected in the ~ecember 27, 1996 printouts will accurately reflect the amount of regular state aid distributed to the three Districts for 1996-97. Among other things, these printouts show: a. LRSD's 1996-97 first quarter ADM exceeds its 1995-96 three-quarter average ADM by 247.74, and LRSD will receive student growth funding in the amount of$ 744,183 for 1996-97; b. PCSSD's 1996-97 first quarter ADM exceeds its 1995-96 three-quarter average ADM by 27.02, and PCSSD will receive student growth funding in the amount of$ 81,165 for 1996-97; and c. NLRSD's 1996-97 first quarter ADM exceeds its 1995-96 three-quarter average ADM by 140.79, and NLRSD will receive student growth funding in the amount of$ 422,917 for 1996-97. 3. Due to a .. quirk\" in the new funding formula that did not require the Newark School District to raise its millage rate (Section 7(f) of Act 917), the Newark School District will receive approximately $27,000 in Additional Base Funding for 1996-97. However, because Newark's millage has now increased due 2  - to the enactment of Amendment 7 4 to the Arkansas Constitution, and assuming that the operative provisions of Act 917 are not materially altered during the 1997 legislative session, Newark will receive no Additional Base Funding for 1997-98. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a ranking of school districts by total voted millage on taxable real property, which repects such millage rates in effect in each district as of September, 1996. It shows that four districts have higher total voted millages on real property rates than LRSD. However, after the millage rollbacks pursuant to Amendment 59 of the Arkansas Constitution are taken into account, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will fall in the ranking. 5. Using information supplied by the Child Nutrition section of ADE - and October, 1996 ADM figures, I have prepared a table showing the number of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals in each school district in Arkansas ( as of October, 1996) and the concentration of such students in each district expressed as a percentage of October 1996 ADM. The table is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. Using information derived from the 1990 Federal Decennial Census, I have prepared a ranking of school districts by the percentage of households in each district that are below the 1989 poverty level. The ranking is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 3 7. I have reviewed Exhibit \"F' to the Districts' December 23, 1996 Reply Brief. It is incorrect Among other things, on the first page of Exhibit \"F\" the third column purports to show a \"1996-97 M-M adjustment\" of state aid that to my knowledge will not be made by ADE. Moreover, Exhibit F is methodologically unsound in that it purports to be a comparison of revenue PCS SD received from the State or paid by the State on behalf of PCS SD in 1995- 96 and 1996-97, and yet columns 2 and 3 of page l of Exhibit F purports to add a district cost into the equation. On page 2 of Exhibit Fan incorrect \"1995-96 3Q ADM'' figure is listed. 8. In my declaration filed December 13, 1996, I erroneously stated that - the Table Rate used to calculate M-M incentive funding for the three Districts for 1995-96 was: LRSD: $ 977.28; PCSSD: $ 1889.51; and NLRSD: $ 1686.21. While those were the correct Table Rates that were used to calculate ordinary state aid in 1995-96, the Table Rates used to calculate M-M incentive funding were as follows: LRSD: $ 1064.96; PCSSD: $ 1904.18; and NLRSD: $ 1695.42. 9. The photocopied table from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette attached to the Districts' brief does not contain accurate information. Assuming the newspaper accurately reported information that may have been provided by ADE, the table at best reflects 1996-97 state aid estimates made on or before the end of June, 1996. Actual 1996-97 state aid calculations differ. For example: 4 (a) Compare PCSSD's 1995-96 K-12 three quarter average ADM reflected on Exhibit A hereto (20,025.77) with the \"students\" figure for PCSSD in the newspaper table (20,080); (b) Compare the total ofNLRSD's 1996-97 Adjusted State Equalization Funding, General Facilities Funding, Debt Serv~e Supplement Payment and Growth Facilities funding as reflected on Exhibit A hereto($ 23,784,504) to the \"Projected 1996-97 State Aid\" figure in the newspaper table for NLRSD ($ 23,697,999); (c) Compare the total ofLRSD's 1996-97 Adjusted State Equalization Funding as reflected on Exhibit A hereto($ 41,530,927) to the \"Projected 1996-97 State Aid\" figure in the newspaper table for LRSD ($41,513,676); and (d) Compare the total of the Lake View School District's 1996-97 Adjusted State Equalization Funding, General Facilities Funding and Debt Service Supplemental Payment ($ 706,648) as reflected in Lake View's December 27, 1996 printout (attached hereto as Exhibit E) to the \"Projected 1996-97 State Aid\" figure in the newspaper table for Lake View($ 709,486). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 10th day of February, 1997, at Little Rock, Arkansas .. 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed this 10th day of February, 1997 by first-class mail, to the following person(s): M. Samuel Jones Ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY., ELDREDGE\u0026 CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 grccndc2.doc John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. -. 1723 Broadway -.. little Rock., AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504  Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O.Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 /e-~ - ' ~ ~ Timothy G.Qr 6 - (_ STATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 DECEMBER 27, 1996 LEA: 60-01 COUNTY: PULASKI l. 1995-96 ADM (K-12. 3 QTR AVG) 1996-97 ADM (K-12. 1ST QTR) 2. REAL PROPERTY AN S 1.185.286.533.00 75% MISC FUNDS $102.158.00 DISTRICT: Little Rock 22,231 .64 ~ 22,47938 . PERSONAL PROPERTY AN $444,714.987.00 M \u0026 0 MILLS AVAILABLE 39.82 3. 4. 5. TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR EQUALIZATION LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT .6. W7. ( . 8. 9. BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT (BLRPS) ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING PER STUDENT 1996-97 ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT 1996-97 ADJUSTED STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING \"\" 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. _18. 19. 20. 21. AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION FUNDING (7) THAT IS TRUST FUNDS GENERAL F ACILlTIES FUNDING STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING ISOLA TED AJD CONSOLIDATION AID DEBT SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT GROWTH FACILlTIES FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL ST A TE REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL \u0026 ST ATE REV. PER ADM FOR ADDITIONAL BASE MINIMUM TOT AL LOCAL \u0026 STA TE REV. PER ADM ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING  EXHIBIT ' ' A UTILITY PROPERTY AN $82.309.700.00 ST A TE WEAL TH INDEX -0.01259 $ s s s s $ s s s $ $ $ $ $ $ s s $ $ 42.053. 782.00 1.891.62 3.759.72 1.868.10 41.530.927.00 41.530.927.00 4.025.593.00 0.00 744.183.00 0.00 0.00 66.956.758.00 42.275. I I 0.00 4,859.20 3,887.36 0.00 STATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 DECEMBER 27, 1996 LEA: 60-02 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRlCT: N. Little Rock 1. 1995-96 ADM (K-12. 3 QTR AVG) 1996-97 ADM (K-12. 1ST QTR) 8.982.18 9..122.97 .. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. - 7. ( 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. REAL PROPERTY AN $301.59).503.00 75% MISC FUNDS $12.655.00 PERSONAL PROPERTY AN SI 00,003.317 .00 M \u0026 0 MILLS AV Al LAB LE 39.37 TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR EQUALIZATION LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT (BLRPS) ST ATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING PER STUDENT 1996-97 STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT 1996-97 ADJUSTED STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION FUNDING (7) THAT IS TRUST FUNDS GENERAL FACILITIES FUNDING STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING JSOLA TED AID CONSOLIDATION AID DEBT SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT GROWTH FACILITIES FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL ST A TE REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL \u0026 STA TE REV. PER ADM FOR ADDITIONAL BASE MINIMUM TOTAL LOCAL\u0026 STATE REV. PER ADM ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING UTILITY PROPERTY AN $23.8 I 6.6 79 .00 ST A TE WEAL TH INDEX 0.55281 s $ s s s $ $ s $ $ s $ $ s s s s s s I 0.435.236.00 1.161.77 3.759.72 2.597.95 .23.335.255.00 .23.335.255.00 .2.261.886.00 173.790.00 4::?2.917.00 190.733.00 84.726.00 16,430.355.00 13.931.962.00 4.424.25 3.887.36 0.00 ST ATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 DECEMBER 27, 1996 LEA: 60-03 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: Pulaski Co. Spec. 1. 1995-96 ADM (K-12. 3 QTR AVG) 1996-97 ADM (K-12, JSTQTR) 20,025.77 20,052.79  2. ... .J. 4. 5. 6. .7. (8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. REAL PROPERTY AN $558,008,639.00 75% MISC FUNDS $73.473.00 PERSONAL PROPERTY AN S 190.866. I 69.00 M \u0026 0 MILLS AV AI LAB LE 41.04 TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE FOR EQUALIZATION LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT (BLRPS) ST A TE EQUALIZA TJON FUNDING PER STUDENT I 996-97 ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT 1996-97 ADJUSTED ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION FUNDING (7) THAT IS TRUST FUNDS GENERAL F ACILITJES FUNDING STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING ISOLATED AID CONSOLIDATION AID DEBT SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT GROWTH FACILITIES FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL ST ATE REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOTAL LOCAL \u0026 ST ATE REV. PER ADM FOR ADDITIONAL BASE MINIMUM TOT AL LOCAL \u0026 ST A TE REV. PER ADM ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING UTILITY PROPERTY AN $3 7. 720.003.00 ST A TE WEAL TH INDEX 0.65422 $ s $ $ $ $ s s s $ s s $ $ s $ s s $ 19.345.045.00 966.01 3.759.72 2.793.71 55.946.194.00 55.946.194.00 5.422.865.00 458.544.00 81.165.00 614.706.00 0.00 31.734.178.00 56.485.903 .00 4,399.39 3.887.36 0.00 . ' \\ 1 HOWARD 2 UNION 3 UNION .t WASHINGTON \u0026 PULASKI 6 PULASKI 7. UNION t 8 DESHA 9 PULASKI 10 FAULKNER \\ 11 UNION 12 UNION 13 COLUMBIA 14 POINSETT 15 SEBASTIAN 16 GRANT 17 MILLER 18 IZARD 19 SEBASTIAN 20 MILLER 21 BOONE 22 FAULKNER - 23 FAULKNER 24 MILLER 25 BOONE 26 JEFFERSON 27 RANDOLPH 28 BAXTER 29 WASHINGTON 30 LONOKE 31 UNION 32 BENTON 33 SALINE 34 JACKSON 35 GARLAND 36 CLARK 37 HOT SPRING 38 SEBASTIAN 39 CRITTENDEN 40 HOT SPRING 41 SEBASTIAN 42 SALINE 43 FAULKNER 44 HOWARD 45 GARLAND 46 MARION 47 CRAWFORD -  48 BENTON 49 SEARCY 50 POPE 51 BENTON 52 BENTON , 33 JEFFERSON RANKING OF MILLAGES SEPTEMBER 1996 LARGEST TO SMALLEST UMPIRE 56.40 HUTTIG 34.30 MT HOLLY 44.00 FAYETTEVILLE 17.30 PULASKJ CO SPEC 34.00 LITTLE ROCK 27.80 UNION 21.80 ARKANSAS CITY ~ 35.00 NO LITTLE ROCK 29.40 GUY-PERKINS  6.40 SMACKOVER 24.70 STRONG 25.70 WALKER 8.10 WEINER 36.40 HARTFORD* 22.20 POYEN 36.20 GENOA CENTRAL 20.70 CALICO ROCK 21.00 HACKETT 13.00 TEXARKANA 16.30 OMAHA 24.60 VILONIA 25.90 MT.VERNON/ENOLA 33.00 FOUKE 12.10 LEAD HILL 32.00 WHITEHALL 24.90 BIGGERS-REYNO 28.00 COTTER 37.00 ELKINS 15.90 HUMNOKE 18.00 NORPHLET 10.20 PEA RIDGE 16.10 BAUXITE 26.50 SWIFTON 34.85 LAKESIDE 13.30 ARKADELPHIA 22.60 MAGNET COVE 28.00 FORT SMITH 33.30 EARLE 19.60 GLEN ROSE 20.30 GREENWOOD 14.90 HARMONY GROVE 10.40 CONWAY 14.80 DIERKS 24.60 HOT SPRINGS 8.20 MARION CO 19.60 VAN BUREN 13.60 SILOAM SPRS 16.30 WITTS SPRINGS  6.10 POTTSVILLE 35.70 BENTONVILLE 7.66 ROGERS 17.00 PINE BLUFF 13.10 Page 1 EXHIBIT B 2.00 58.40 19.30 53.60 5.80 49.80 3.00 23.70 44.00 9.90 43.90 1.00 15.10 43.90 0.00 21.20 43.00 1.00 6.50 42.50 3.00 9.50 41.90 3.00 31.60 41.00 16.30 41.00 15.20 40.90 31.90 40.00 3.50 39.90 17.10 39.30 3.00 39.20 18.50 39.20 18.00 39.00 26.00 39.00 3.00 19.60 38.90 2.00 11.50 38.10 12.10 38.00 5.00 38.00 2.00 23.90 38.00 6.00 38.00 12.80 37.70 3.00 6.50 37.50 37.00 1.70 19.40 37.00 19.00 37.00 2.00 24.80 37.00 20.90 37.00 10.30 36.80 1.80 36.65 2.00 21.30 36.60 2.00 11.90 36.50 8.50 36.50 2.50 0.70 36.50 3.00 13.60 36.20 15.80 36.10 21.20 36.10 25.60 36.00 21.20 36.00 2.00 9.40 36.00 27.80 36.00 16.30 35.90 22.30 35.90 1.50 18.00 35.80 3.00 26.70 35.80 35.70 28.00 35.66 1.00 17.30 35.30 I 1.00 21.20 35.30 54 BENTON 55 WASHINGTON 56 WOODRUFF 57 BENTON 58 DALLAS 59 WASHINGTON 60 PIKE 61 WASHINGTON 62 CRAWFORD 63 OUACHITA 64 NEVADA 65 ARKANSAS 66 YELL 67 INDEPENDENCE 68 LONOKE 69 CLEBURNE 70 SALINE 71 POPE 72 PIKE 73 POLK 74 DREW 75 PIKE - 76 CHICOT 77 COLUMBIA 78 GARLAND 79 CLEBURNE 80 CRAIGHEAD 81 INDEPENDENCE 82 POLK 83 OUACHITA 84 UNION 85 WASHINGTON 86 JOHNSON 87 JOHNSON 88 FRANKLIN 89 LOGAN 90 COLUMBIA 91 DREW 92 CLARK 93 YELL 94 LAFAYETTE 95 LINCOLN 96 UNION 97 FAULKNER 98 WASHINGTON 99 POLK 100 HEMPSTEAD - 101 LITTLE R.IVER 102 WASHINGTON 103. JEFFERSON 104 LOGAN 105 YELL 106 FULTot-: RANKING OF MILLAGES SEPTEMBER 1996 LARGEST TO SMALLEST DECATUR 19.00 SPRINGDALE 18.20 COTTON PLANT 20.00 GENTRY 18.70 SPARKMAN 33.60 WEST FORK 9.10 CENTERPOINT 6.70 LINCOLN .. 14.70 ALMA 14.20 BEARDEN 7.10 NEVADA CO 4.70 GILLETT 9.00 DARDANELLE 28.10 CUSHMAN* 9.80 LONOKE 13.35 QUITMAN 20.40 PARON 15.60 ATKINS 25.40  DELIGHT 13.36 ACORN 17.40 DREW CENTRAL 26.10 MURFREESBORO 23.90 LAKESIDE 20.80 EMERSON 19.10 LAKE HAMIL TON 32.40 HEBER SPRINGS 11.27 BROOKLAND 17.90 SULPHUR ROCK 14.70 HATFIELD 20.00 CAMDEN/FAIRVIEW 22.50 JUNCTION CITY 16.00 WINSLOW 31.00 CLARKSVILLE * 15.30 OARK* 9.90 PLEASANT VIEW 25.00 BOONEVILLE 17.00 TAYLOR 12.90 MONTICELLO 15.10 GURDON 20.00 OLA 24.50 LEWISVILLE 12.20 GRADY 21.80 PARKERS CHAPEL 26.70 GREENBRIER 21.60 GREENLAND 21.70 WICKES 14.30 SPRING HILL* 17.20 ASHDOWN 7.00 PRAIRIE GROVE 20.50 AL THEIMER UNIFIED 14.60 PARIS* 15.50 PLAINVIEW-ROVER 17.04 SALEM 16.23 Page2 16.20 35.20 16.90 35.10 15.00 35.00 16.30 35.00 1.40 35.00 25.90 35.00 28.30 35.00 3.00 17.30 35.00 20.80 35.00 27.80 34.90 30.20 34.90 25.80 34.80 3.00 3.60 34.70 24.70 34.50 3.00 18.05 34.40 14.00 34.40 3.00 15.70 34.30 8.80 34.20 3.00 17.80 34.16 3.00 13.60 34.00 7.90 34.00 3.00 7.10 34.00 2.00 11.20 34.00 14.80 33.90 1.50 33.90 3.00 19.53 33.80 1.00 14.80 33.70 18.90 33.60 13.40 33.40 3.00 7.70 33.20 17.00 33.00 2.00 33.00 1.40 16.30 33.00 2.00 21.10 33.00 8.00 33.00 16.00 33.00 20.10 33.00 1.00 16.90 33.00 1.00 12.00 33.00 8.50 33.00 3.00 17.60 32.80 11.00 32.80 6.10 32.80 2.00 9.10 32.70 11.00 32.70 1.20 17.20 32.70 3.00 12.50 32.70 25.60 32.60 2.00 10.10 32.60 17.80 32.40 16.90 32.40 15.30 32.34 16.00 32.23 RANKING OF MILLAGES SEPTEMBER 1996 LARGEST TO SMALLEST 107 LOGAN SCRANTON* 15.32 16.90 32.22 \\ 108 CRITTENDEN TURRELL 8.67 23.50 32.17 109 MARION YELLVILLE-SUMMIT 15.21 3.00 13.80 32.01 110 MONTGOMERY ODEN 21.60 10.40 32.00 111 CRAWFORD MOUNTAINBURG 19.60 2.00 10.40 32.00 112 HOWARD MINERAL SPRINGS 10.40 2.10 19.50 32.00 113 IZARD IZARD COUNTY 15.00 17.00 32.00 11, NEWTON DEER : 12.20 2.70 17.10 32.00 115 CONWAY NEMOVISTA 7.80 3.00 21.20 32.00 116 IZARD MELBOURNE* 5.80 2.00 24.20 32.00 117 WOODRUFF MCCRORY 32.00 32.00 118 BAXTER NORFORK 14.00 18.00 32.00 119 JOHNSON WESTSIDE 12.00 20.00 32.00 120 LINCOLN STAR CITY 19.20 2.00 10.80 32.00 121 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND 9.90 3.00 19.10 32.00 122 DALLAS CARTHAGE 32.00 32.00 123 CROSS WYNNE 9.90 3.00 19.10 32.00 124 GARLAND FT.LAKE 20.00 3.00 9.00 32.00 125 DESHA DUMAS 31.90 31.90 126 LAWRENCE LYNN 19.00 3.00 9.80 31.80 127 POLK VAN COVE 24.10 2.00 5.70 31.80 128 JEFFERSON WATSON CHAPEL 24.30 3.00 4.50 31.80 - 129 CARROLL EUREKASPR 11.25 0.50 20.00 31.75 130 CROSS CROSS COUNTY 8.90 2.00 20.80 31.70 131 CLEVELAND RISON 8.30 2.00 21.40 31.70 132 WHITE SEARCY 19.90 1.00 10.80 31.70 133 VAN BUREN SHIRLEY 12.00 0.00 19.60 31.60 134 INDEPENDENCE BA TES VILLE * 14.75 1.00 15.80 31.55 135 WASHINGTON FARMINGTON 13.90 17.50 31.40 136 CARROLL BERRYVILLE 25.50 5.90 31.40 137 HEMPSTEAD SARATOGA 10.20 1.42 19.70 31.32 138 PHILLIPS LAKEVIEW 8.30 23.00 31.30 139 BAXTER MT. HOME 16.20 15.10 31.30 140 STONE RURAL SPECIAL 23.20 8.10 31.30 141 CLEBURNE WILBURN 16.90 2.00 12.40 31 .30 142 HEMPSTEAD BLEVINS 12.40 18.90 31.30 143 JEFFERSON OOLLARWAY 11.38 19.90 31.28 144 FRANKLIN OZARK* 13.10 18.10 31.20 145 WHITE BALD KNOB 7.90 23.30 31.20 146 HOWARD NASHVILLE 23.00 0.50 7.70 31.20 147 GARLAND JESSIEVILLE 15.80 15.30 31.10 148 PHILLIPS HELENA W-HELE 9.55 21.50 31.05 149 LONOKE CABOT 9.30 1.00 20.70 31.00 150 GARLAND CUTTER MORNING 14.00 2.00 15.00 31.00 151 CHICOT EUDORA 14.50 3.00 13.50 31.00 152 LONOKE CARLISLE 20.40 2.00 8.60 31.00 153 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON 22.50 1.00 7.50 31.00  154 YELL WESTERN YELL 19.00 1.90 10.10 31.00 155 YELL DANVILLE 11 .00 20.00 31.00 156 LAWRENCE RIVER VALLEY 22.00 2.00 7.00 31.00 157 LONOKE ENGLAND 16.93 3.00 11.00 30.93 158 CRITTENDEN MARION 9.10 21.80 30.90 159 SHARP WILLIFORD* 17.00 3.00 10.90 30.90 Page 3 160 VAN BUREN 161 GARLAND 162 SEVIER 163 ASHLEY 164 INDEPENDENCE 165 MILLER 166 CONWAY 167 RANDOLPH 168 NEWTON 169 SEBASTIAN 170 RANDOLPH 171 CRAIGHEAD 172 POLK 173 SALINE 174 GRANT 175 CRAIGHEAD 176 POINSETT 177 ASHLEY 178 CRAWFORD 179 MADISON 180 CONWAY 181 CHICOT - 182 BOONE 183 CRAIGHEAD -- 184 GREENE 185 OUACHITA 186 WHITE 187 CLAY 188 CRAIGHEAD 189 MISSISSIPPI 190 POPE 191 HEMPSTEAD 192 PRAIRIE 193 PERRY 194 MONROE 195 GREENE 196 WHITE 197 MADISON 198 CLEBURNE 199 LOGAN - 200 CRAWFORD 201 VAN BUREN 202 DALLAS 203 POINSETT 204 GREENE 205 FRANKLIN 206 FAULKNER - "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_739","title":"Vital Links","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997/2000"],"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","Photographs","Student assistance programs","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Vital Links"],"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/739"],"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\nVital Link, the school district's program to help students and teachers make the link between classroom skills and work place success. The file includes correspondence, news clippings and student event photographs.\nt A t* C| ? tf\nt I U*1 lx 1 *1 ^9-' h' / I ' 13 J !\u0026lt; lJj \u0026gt;  f c\ni' 'r K*?-! ft \\ z 1 VI \nr J-I. 1 L La i \"'i -I- ' AVT i_y  J  '\u0026gt;  jfl fl fl fn ii )9 ? -Hil * 7 \\, .  '\u0026gt; q kt^ '1 * wjp i'lHi V. k f M     :' t .     1^ -T 'r-ii f c - :-Ml V S-^ I f\n*- '1 Lai f J*5M V.- I v\nJ X  M, La \u0026gt; B?I i  f i : J ' \\ O  . eV7 ,  7i I-. \u0026gt; ' e  *'* c / , 'tf.    I-  i-  s ' /' I \u0026gt;? ! 7 P21 , V \u0026lt;  'i' * , r 4 4   \u0026gt; 'v' *\u0026gt; vfy,- r j k 4 . \u0026gt; -  f* -H* k C II J - i a I I  ('  1 7 \u0026gt;  as .\\ ^7 7 l?l r i t It i'l f 7 '. f ^7 15^ % r) % I I \u0026gt; - * ?.*-l-f^y \u0026gt;: to\n.** O f\n\u0026lt;1 V-.-  ?? - t A- - -^\u0026lt;1 .f JI 1 -r AV ^i' S i IS 1 a^u*  ,v  A* '    A  w*. .i' \u0026lt;L V. \u0026gt; . tf t, '/ y. .: u* ( ' * * ' i' \u0026lt;  t i . '*.'^n -J * p r ii Au ' 0 A * .-rpJ .*'i^ '','  A, T 'i 'i V , yl r */ '* f  \u0026amp;r Cj  Os f3^ k'*' X cM-'' JL*' In^ 1/ V4- MbOui^ '^i t k C r i- co 3 -  IT 1  [r . '\u0026lt; ['i! '/J  1 * I 1 I  r t S. t 3, J V___ '\"rift\n\u0026lt; \"4 '\u0026lt;:: * i  ^ V ' -*v5 \u0026lt;* '^r V 4  Lqf, X** t* \u0026lt; * s  w _ 4 \u0026lt;    4* r\u0026lt;* \u0026lt; * i' lb o \"5 .M , 9 ''  *!  *'*\u0026lt;':\u0026gt; A*I ?: - */ w fc - 4 1 \"-Vy 1 Vj  ** y   * *1  l^.''7/ {f/\n' 1w t  4 V  V .V \u0026gt; I r \u0026gt;1  IS i t A ( I 5r VITAL LINK i1t-r\n- ALLAS TARS li^ m J ' a'-I a\u0026gt; i-\". -3^' t 5:5 p X^' .4 \nA. 4\u0026gt; F \u0026lt;\u0026lt;  tl iS- } i k. ^.. -. '' . .. :^'- :@: :^' ^: :@: t J \\^ ron l\u0026gt;\n^5 H.i AKD r .1\nO it izi I. C*- t t 'J f 1 \u0026gt;4 * i ,' i 7 '.' r- I I \"f  A i ! i\n( . I r ! I ! L^v ! t / i I i'fiS i' * 1 * L ' v\u0026lt;  \"'^jiVs  ^5 .f A \u0026lt; L4 * /*\u0026gt;.  t k. - - '' tJ *'  )' fr^. .S' */' ' 1^' i P' ( \u0026amp;E1UL VITAL LIS^ ^il.tSTARSi R 't jt * * r c \".)t 1 lau.\nfc- 1 A ,-v ^  MMR \u0026lt;***' .3 \u0026gt;\n.4 ? e  5?^ 1\u0026gt;' '', W^' * \\- ', 4  ,w k* V  fF t  -.\nS ( is a .O: 1 r * I ! t 'C *'* ?- H i L /yi I\" \u0026lt; f a''- Un R ' I \\O' h V. 18^1 ^/j  V-l r Sv 'i i II n 1\"^ :h /t _'^- ' \u0026lt;. j c eS i! A p\u0026gt;j '\u0026lt;ri ,\u0026lt;' (S 3 4L J t * y-iv'\\.*' 'ycs T yA 9^^ Su* -'\n\u0026gt; 1^  r,^ f'.- B \u0026gt;'f 1 ^0 i/'iAl f'^! II I i'! ^'/ ' o Smtr*^-.- ifct ti! (Dil t I Al\n 5^\n c i - *\\ cxa SMLUt \u0026lt;4\u0026gt;tM(KS I t I cao \u0026lt; l ARKsi  ( Hits SS II /I F^ .\u0026lt;/ 1 VV\\\"' A ?'V i.y . t 0 k I J^'' \\ 4' .^J \u0026lt;3C Wf*S! 1^ 7'.': \u0026gt;ji *   , * / I / 1 .Vv j ^?1 -\u0026lt; ::z *\nyv fj 'L-^ r fe' J r J r ^\u0026gt;^.1 I i A A i I I\" :iiJ ,9\u0026gt; FsjS^ J o 1/ N d ja 1 i\nV 'fl .\u0026lt;\u0026gt;1\n .-^ ALLIANCE FOR PUB. SOHO Fax:501' I I '4 Jan 21 '9? 14:19 P. 02 '06 MEMORANDUM TO: Debbie Milam LRSD - VIPS Hubert Barksdale Education Chairman - Greater LR Chamber Delia Moore Margie Powell Diane Vibhakar Marketing Chairman - LR Alliance Office of Desegregation Monitoring Executive Director - Parents for Public Schools FROM: Joe Swaty RE: Vital Link Attached is a copy of the itinerary in development for the Vital Link research trip to Ft. Worth. The trip has been scheduled for Wednesday, January 22, thru Friday, January 24. Please eat before we leave on Wednesday and plan to arrive at our departure gate by no later than 7:10 P.M. We will rent one large van for our transportation needs. Those attending are as follows: Debbie Milam Director LRSD  VIPS Program Hubert Barksdale Education Chairman Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce Delia Moore Marketing Chairman Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring Diane Vibhakar Executive Director Parents for Public Schools Joe Swaty Special Consultant Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools Gail Nickerson Administrative Assistant Little Rock Alliance For Our Public SchoolsVITAL LINK Attendance Chart Students Name Business Monday Tommy Boren Albert Ray Brown Tuesday I -11- Wednesday Thursday I Friday I Dasha Chambliss Joseph Dahms Latrice Duncan Gillian Glasco A^l c^. Sj ? L\u0026lt;- OWl Erica Hill Brandon Jones Sherica Merriweather Ar!\u0026lt; Azf\u0026lt; Amanda Rosebyt, ALLIANCE FOP P'JB. -'CHO F,? . :501~* 74 Ian 21 '97 14:19 P. 02/06 i, ' i'  \u0026lt;\n\u0026lt;ALLIANCE FOR PUB, SCHO F5 \u0026lt;:501??5P??d Jan 21 14:19 P.03/06 }- f fh p  , 'I I .\u0026lt;V i'.M P'vsi.ur: J'h\n! \u0026gt; H ic'   \ns'lP'ji^s'y .': ! \u0026lt;:ve i 4^ P. ii 1.\nLoiif^rmari-  it V  - i'{r Z  -(.iNALLIWCE r K Pi 'P. 'HO t 1 /I I P..05/06 rsN  Hv : -r-i^ -s. /jsjLrL \u0026gt;, SOUTHWt^STAIRUNES T\n.' V?* .1 , \u0026lt; r- ::b  . Oti \u0026lt;/:  'rt i\u0026gt; '50 apply tof it 0\u0026gt;S A?^D - O' .'y I\u0026gt;' fptvr  - ^xCnang 3: M 'X* 3\u0026lt;^-- -.-sset^ ' Suuinwest A,rl,nes Wl LU BeSeD to'wOCESS YOUR REFUND OR EXCHANGE KEQUES r  IMPORTANT w WZRVHA  IMPORTANT  FOB ftgSEBVATIOHS. CALL'F800t'n.Y-SWA (1-600-435-9?^^ PrinlArt 12/95ALLIANCE HR PUB. ECHO Fa\u0026gt;:501??58774 Ian 21 ?7 14: ?'1 P.06/06 Miinr.i i'lll ' C Sit (be A.,Ci- applied learning school wuh a very Jaige wa^rjng^ii,,   sl ?' -/\"er 'C l.\\' - '*''*1-! i\nnk\u0026gt;-1. IhNi pjp PHR. ZHC F-  :5C .i. .191-' I P. 04,''06Where Business Comes Together GREATER LITTLE ROCK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (TC'b A, 4 ( ~f Recejv^o 3 1 1997 January 29, 1997 OfFfCEOF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Education Committee Members Chamber Chair of Education Hubert Barksdale SUBJECT: February Committee Meeting Friday, February 7/11 a.m. Chamber Board Room Please note on your calendar our February meeting date - Friday, February 7 at 11 a.m. We are planning a full agenda of topics for discussion, including a report on the VITAL LINK program being developed for the Little Rock School District. We will also have updates on activities underway throughout all three school districts. As a special guest speaker for our meeting we are inviting Baker Kurrus, president of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, to give us an . overview of this organizations role in support of public education. Thank you in advance for attending this important second meeting of our Education Committee. We need your valuable input and participation. Please RSVP your attendance plans by calling Sandy Bradley today at 374-4871 at the Chamber. SERVING LITTLE ROCK, NORTH LITTLE ROCK AND CENTRAL ARKANSAS lOI S. SPRING ST.  SUITE 200  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2486  (501) 374-4871 Where Business Gimes TugeOier GREATER LITTLE RCX:K CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RECS5VSD MAR 3 1997 February 25, 1997 MEMORANDUM OFFICE Or desegregation monitoring TO: FROM: Education Committee Members Chamber Chair of Education Hubert Barksdale SUBJECT: March Committee Meeting Thursday, March 6/11 a.m. Chamber Board Room Please note on your calendar our March meeting date - Thursday, March 6 at 11 a.m. We are planning a full agenda of topics for discussion, including a report on the VITAL LINK program being developed for the Little Rock School District. We will also have updates on activities underway throughout all three school districts. Thank you in advance for attending this important second meeting of our Education Committee. We need your valuable input and participation. Please RSVP your attendance plans by calling Sandy Bradley today at 374^871 at the Chamber. SERVING LITTLE ROCK, NORTH LITTLE ROCK AND CENTRAL ARKANSAS 101 S. SPRING ST.  SUITE 200  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2486  (501) 374-4871 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1. n. m. IV. V. VI. VII. VITAL LINK A partnership program of the Little Rock School District, the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools Kick-Off Breakfast Friday, February 28, 1997 Holiday Inn Select AGENDA Welcome and Introductions / Hubert Barksdale, Chamber Chair of Education Video Presentation From ABC News How does it work? I Debbie Milam, Coordinator of VIPS ! Partners In Education Why should my business participate? I Guest Speakers from North Little Rock VITAL LINK A. B. C. Bob Majors, Southwestern Bell Buster Beardsley, Rainy \u0026amp; Beardsley Pam Jones, Express Human Resources Call to Action / Chamber Chairman of the Board Doug Buford The Districts Commitment To Success! Superintendent Dr. Don Roberts Closing Remarks / Baker Kurrus, Pres, of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools I 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 10, 1997 To: From: Heritage West Building Businesses Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Vital Link We have an opportunity to participate in an exciting program that will allow us to help our local schools prepare the students well be employing in the ne?rt century. Vital Link is the brainchild of Little Rock School District Superintendent Don Roberts. The program pairs students with businesses and other organizations to give the youngsters real life experiences in the world of work. Vital Link will cost us nothing more than some time and attention to one or two students for one week. Please take a few minutes to learn more about Vital Link and how you can join me, Jimmy Moses, and our other Heritage West colleagues in this program. Well meet next Tuesday, April 15, here in Suite 510 at 9:00 a.m.^PR-09? 0 2 5 0 RM MOSES N O S rt R I R , O 1 11\u0026gt; 0 August House I 90 Arkansas Internationa! /SO AMR Architects, Inc. (-75 Ron Srriith 8^ Associates 4? 0 0 ^Arkansas Times 9 7 Arkansos Business 300 Arkansas Securities Fettit \u0026amp; Pettit r/o Deseg. Monitoring 5 0 0 Thomas S-. Thom,as .1  i.iir'iurr I'll.  MOSES NOSARI Ki'.M. ILS'IAI'I-\nZOO (.nmirtrfal Hrukvrjvt  Mdimuonc'H  hvvv\u0026gt;\u0026lt;-\u0026gt;pirvn( HERITAGE WEST BUILDING CONTACT LIST Ted Parkhurst Evelyn Coppola Rick Redden Ron Smith Alan Leveritt Olivia Farrell Mac Dodson Sam Cummings Anne Brown\" Don Smith I' k Ark. :' l   r'l'l \u0026lt;\" 372-5450 375-3040 375-037Q 374-6694 375-2985 372-1443 324-9260 374-3731 376-6200 375-2025 Where Business Comes Tt\u0026gt;getiier GREATER LITTLE ROCK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE April 30, 1997 RECEIVBO k I *' MM! 1 1997 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ms. Arm Brown ODM 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: We are so very pleased that you will be hosting students during this summer's VITAL LINK program. Your participation, along with others, will enable over 550 students in the Little Rock School District to experience the \"link\" between classroom skills and future work place success. You, along with your organization's VITAL LINK coordinator, are invited to attend a special VITAL LINK orientation breakfast. The breakfast will be held on May 14 at 7:30 a.m. in the Chamber's Board Room. This orientation will provide you with full details about this summer's VITAL LINK program. We will have school district officials on hand to answer all your questions. They will also discuss the positive benefits your employees will experience as they see their jobs through the eyes of a young person. Please make plans now to attend this important breakfast. If you are unable to attend the breakfast meeting, we are also scheduling a reception on May 22 at 4:00 p.m. to cover the same information. Please call Sandy Bradley at the Chamber at 374-4871 and let her know which VITAL LINK orientation event you hope to attend. Thank you again for helping making the VITAL LINK program possible. Sincerely, ibert Barksdale Chair of Education cc. Dr. Don Roberts, Little Rock School District Superintendent Doug Buford, Chamber Chairman of the Board Baker Kurrus, Pres, of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools SERVING LITTLE ROCK, NORTH LITTLE ROCK AND CENTRAL ARKANSAS 101 S. SPRING ST.  SUITE 200  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2486  (501) 374-4871 Memo To: Business Hosts for Vital Link Students From: Margie Powell, Associate Monitor, ODM Subject: Special Presentation for Heritage West Date: June 10, 1997 On Wednesday, June 11, at 9:00 a.m., Debbie Milam, coordinator of the Vital Link Program for the Little Rock School District will be in Suite 510 to provide a special presentation for Vital Link host businesses. Ms. Milam will explain our responsibilities and the mechanics of providing job experiences for the students. She will describe the sequence of events and activities associated with the program, answer questions, and provide written instructions for those of you who were unable to attend any of the receptions. One of the Vital Link teachers dropped out of the program at the last minute, leaving the district short one teacher. Since we have several educators working at ODM, we have agreed to serve as the on-site teachers for our building. If you like, Ms. Milam will look at your facility and help you with logistics. Please try to attend, especially if you are still feeling a little uncertain about your participation in the program. This may be the last chance for a personal training session before the students arrive on Monday, July 7 (our week to host them). Call me at 376-6200, if you have any questions.Memo To: From: Business Hosts for Vital Link Students Margie Powell, Associate Monitor, ODM Subject: Special Presentation for Heritage West Date: June 10, 1997 On Wednesday, June 11, at 9:00 a.m., Debbie Milam, coordinator of the Vital Link Program for the Little Rock School District will be in Suite 510 to provide a special presentation for Vital Link host businesses. Ms. Milam will explain our responsibilities and the mechanics of providing job experiences for the students. She will describe the sequence of events and activities associated with the program, answer questions, and provide written instructions for those of you who were unable to attend any of the receptions. One of the Vital Link teachers dropped out of the program at the last minute, leaving the district short one teacher. Since we have several educators working at ODM, we have agreed to serve as the on-site teachers for our building. If you like, Ms. Milam will look at your facility and help you with logistics. Please try to attend, especially if you are still feeling a little uncertain about your participation in the program. This may be the last chance for a personal training session before the students arrive on Monday, July 7 (our week to host them). Call me at 376-6200, if you have any questions.(g\n14:24 501 524 2025 I.RSD COMAIiA'TCATI -4^^ ODM @002 005 Litue KocK SchooS Oistn'et Students Work in Loca! Bu!ii!ie.s.sps as Vital Link Frugrain Begins For Im.meqtate Release hne It), 1997 For more information: Suclten Vaim, 324-20.20 More than 150 sixth grade students joined the local work force today 35 the Vital Link program Racked off'its first week in thie Little Rock School District CLRSD'i. Students arrived on tire job at 'businesses ranging from banks to ani versifies to City government offices to learn skills students need to know when ihev sveniuaJly get a job. \"Vital Link is designed to demonstrate to students how their classroom lessons such as reading, writing and ir^iath are used every day m job situations, said Don R. Roberts. LRSD Superintendenl. \"The lessons that Vital Link students team during their one week on the job will help them to understand the importance of their education and now 1' will benefit them in tire fcture Students working at First Commerciai Bank are in teller maininc this week. Students assigned to The Janel Iones Coinpa-ny wl! atienc a sales meehne tomor-ow morning and a property' tour on Vv'ednesday. Students v/orking with J .a. Riggs Tractor Company will be given a aemonstration on hsaw equipment on Tuesday. X'ita'i i..ink par-.cipants at t.he Mitchel! Law Firm wiii go to tiie courthouse and listen to a trial on \\V c.jfiesdav. (ir.o-e! 810 Wf.st Markham Street tittle Rock, Arkansa-s 72201  {501)524-2000 OP IP 91 501 324 202.3 l.RSn rOMVl MCATI A. OD'I @1003 005 1 4 : 2,5 in . Vila\nLink is a three-week program with diiterent students ,anci Hu-sinesses Darticipatmg each week. More than 500 students have signed up to participate in the program, and 46 businesses are hosting sPadents. Among the businesses narticipatmg thi. week are First Commercial Bank, Th.e Janet Jones Company. University of .Arkansas at Linls Rock. Mitchell Law Firm. Boannens Bank, and J. A. Riggs Tractor Companv. Vital Linde is a partnership between the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock 4dliance For Our Public Schools, and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. rttrrfT MEDIA NOTE: See attached pages for compant and contact information.OR  18 97 14:26 501 324 2023 I.RSD CO'I'fl \\rCATT ODM  004, 005 1 I? I. PS? '71 S f, p!2 MOND AY, lUNE 16,1997 1st Commercial - Students will be in teller training (after orientation - possiblv around 9.30 a.m.). We m.u.st notify Charles Stewart before the Media comes. Air Force Base vzill take students on a driving tour of the base City Hall - 8:31) meeting with the Mayor. DALP. - 9'00 a.m. meeting with the Chantsllor L.RSD - morning meeting with the Superintendent. 8o.4 in's\" teller training CvESDAY, TUNE 17,1997 t3.nat Iones - students attend sales meeting. ,'A Kiggs - Students will be given a demonstration on heavy equipment. m.iiSt n'Otih/ Becky James before the MeJia comes. We UTPNESDAY, TUNE 18,1997 or THURSDAY, TUNE-19,1997 Ja-net jones will take students on a property tour. Mitchell Lav. Firm - Student will go to the court house and listen to a trial (they will notify us of the exact day). We must notify Bonnie Vickery before the Media comes. FSa3.AY, JUNE 20,1'997 The following will have their culminafcr.g activity on Fridav lune 20. 1997 from ll.OC'-11:45. 3E -VLtcheil law Firm VA Hospital JA E^ggs 1st Commercial Soafmen's (Capital Club fc.r sandwichesl Ciry^Hdll (River Market for barbecue) Ruiaski Tech (reception)H ?! 06 16 97 rj ^4 14:27 5111 S ?u 501 324 2023 SE I.RSI) conni xicATi odm 005 005 LPb VIPS F-ii'Sr I ^:r A,,. i I IV '^incent's { RSr? Hur Warr -het.,, 6^7 (pizz^) Hat! 1-19^ ^he hoard P- t I 5 I \u0026lt;-iL(b) erj connt) ! I! .  l 1 - I ! 'II  'o 06 '1 7. 97 11:01 ^501 324 202.3 ODM @002/005 W SIP 'fe I.RSO COMVl XTCATT Little Rock School District Students Work in Local Rii.sines,se.s as Vital Link Program Begins For Immediate Release June 16, 1997 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2C20 More tlian 150 sixth grade students joined the local work force today as the Vital Link program kicked off its first week in the Little Rock School Oistrict (LRSD). Students anived on the job at businesses ranging from banks to universities to city goverament offices to learn skills students need to know when they eventually get a job. Vital Link is designed to demonstrate to students how their classroom lessons sucn as reading, writing and math are used every day in job situation, said Don R. Roberts, LRSD Superintendent. 'Tne lessons that Vital Link\nstudents learn during their one week on the job will help them to understand the importance of their education and how it will benefit them in the future. Stuaents woiking at First Commercial Bank are in teller '.raining this week. Students as.signed to ITie .Janet Jones Company will attend a sales meeting tomorrowmorning and a property' tour on 'Aiednesday. Students working with J. A. Riggs Tractor Company will be given a demonstration on heavy equipment on Tuesday. Vital Link piuticipiints at the Mitchell Law Firm will go to the courthouse and listen to a trial on V\" ednesdav.  mtire) 810 West Markham Street Little Kock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 06.- 17/97 11:02 0501 324 2023 r.RSD COVMIAICATT OD'I 003/005 Vital Link Page 2 of2 Vital Link is a three-week program with different student? and businesses participating each week. More than 500 students have signed up to participate in the program, and 4o businesses are hosting students, /i.mong the businesses participating this w eek. are First Commercial Bank, The Janet Jones Company, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Mitchell Law Firm, Boatmens Bank, and J. A. Riggs Tractor Company. Viui Link is a partnership between the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, and the Cireater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. fr^ .MEDIA NOTE: See attached pages for company and contact information.06/17/97 11:03 501 324 2023 l.RSI) COWMCaTI ODA! @1004/005 IT\n59 501 LF'S? './IPS J MONDAY, lUNE. 16.1997 1st Commercial - Students will be in teller training (after orientation - possibly around 9:30 a.m.). We must notify Charles Stewart before the Media comes. Air force Base vdll take students on a driving tour of the base. Ci tv Hail - 8:30 rneeting with the Mayor. UAE.F - a.m meeting with the Chancellor LRSD - .morning meeting with thie Superintendent. Boatrrten's - teuer training TVBSPAX ItNE iZt 1997 janat Iones - aludenfcs attend sales meehng i JA Riggs - Students will be given a demonstration on heavy equipment, must nohfv BeoKv lames before the Media comes. We WTQNESDAY, IVNE18,1997 or THURSDAY. RTNI19,1997 ianet Iones will take students on a property tour. Mitchell Law Firm - Student will go to the court house and listen to a trial (they will notify us of the exact day). We must notUy Borme Vickerv before the Media comes. FRID AVi JUNE 20,1997 The'foUowing wili have their culminatng activity on Friday, June 20, 1997 from i: CO- 1145\n8EI MiWheh Law Firtr\nVA {-iospital JA Higgs 1st Commercia.' Boatmen's (Capital Club for sancv/iche'ij City'Hall (River Mark.t\ni: Puiaskj Tech (reception harbecue)06/17-97 11:04 .iOl .24 2023 I.RSD COVVU'MCATT ODM 005/003 S/ISS\n17 ??il /'J HI P-, I-' St I', fRo .................. -  Rtiady h'att count)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VITAL L I N K VITAL LINK is a partnership program of the Little Pock Sc/iocI D.st'st. tne Ljh e Pock Aji^a/Ke For Our Public Schools, and the Greater Little Pock Champ^r of Co June 26,1997 Office of DeseCTeo^'ation Monitoring 201 E. .Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 ^o 3 0 1897 OFFiCEOF OESEGREGATJON MO.NITOftW o Dear Margie: Your Willingness to participate in the Vital Link Program is greatlv appreciated. With this kind of support from the community, our students will have a meaningful learning experience. IVe ^vill not have a teacher assigned to your business full time during vour Vital Link week of July 7-11. I would like to meet with vou to go over the areas where you will need assistance from us to make your experience enjovable for both vour employees and the students. I vsnll be calling you to schedule an appointment.. \\ital Link is not intended for students to choose their life's vocation, but to cormect classroom learning with what is required in numerous Jobs in the workplace. Your participation in our first year of this program is appreciated. If you have any questions, concerns, or problems, please contact me immediatelv at 324-2297 or Deana Keathlev at 324-2408. Sincerely, iJ'eebbbbiiee Milam MPS Coordinator cc: Melissa Guilden Horace Smith Little Rock School District  501 Sherman  Little Rock. AR 72202  (501)324-2290 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VITAL LINK VITAL LINK IS a partnership program of the Little Flock School Dist^ct the Litt e A.''.a/Ke For Our Public Schools, and the Greater Little Pocn Chamce' June 26,199/ Office of Desegregation Monitoring 3 0 1897 201 E. Markham Uttle Rock, AR 72202 OFFiCEOF OESEGREGATiON MONITORING a o Dear Margie: Your willingness to participate in the Vital Link Program is greatlv appreciated. With this kind of support from the community, our students wiU have a meaningful learning experience. We ^^'ill not have a teacher assigned to your business full time during \\-our Vital Link week of July 7-11. 1 would like to meet with you to go over the areas where you Estill need assistance from us to make your experience enjovable for both vour employees and the students. 1 will be calling you to schedule an appointment.. Vital Link is not intended for students to choose their life's vocation, but to connect classroom learning with what is required in numerous jobs in the workplace. Your participation in our first year of this program is appreciated. If you have any questions, concerns, or problems, please contact me immediatelv at 324-2297 or Deana Keathlev at 324-2408. Sincerely, Fl/ ., iJebbie Milam MPS Coordinator cc\nMelissa Guilden Horace Smith Little Rock School District  501 Sherman  Little Rock, AR 72202  (501)324-2290 ,06/ 1 9/97 09:44 S'5fl I 324 2023 l.RSD COinilNICATt ODM @002/002 6: Little Kock School District Vital Link .Student Scrub at Coiurabia Doctors tkisf til I or Inioiediate Release June 19.1997 For more informaiion\nSuellen X'ann, 324-2020 Students pirticipathig in the Vital Link program will tour the outpatient surgery area at Columbia Doctors Hospital this morning. Students will scrub in and visit the IP outpatient surgerj- area at 10:00 a.m. Melissa Smith is the contact at Columbia Doctors Hospital: her number is 661-4585. t he ,tai Link program takes studenrs into local businesses to learn how their classroom lessons ,ire used o.n the job. diO tvest Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Memo To: ODM Co-workers From: Melissa Subject: Vital Link Date: July 2, 1997 As you know, our Vital Link students will be here next week. I am busy making the final preparations for their arrival. I may have to call on each of your to share some of the small tasks related to the program. I would also like for you to place two events on your calendars: the opening activity at 8:30 Monday morning and the culminating activity to be held at 10:00 on Friday. The culminating activity will be held at the Territorial Restoration, and our office will be coordinating the festivities. That will probably mean that we will need to do a bit of fetching and carrying I know I dont have to ask any of you to be fiiendly and helpful to our students, but I would like to ask that we all make every effort to be good examples to the students. Between now and Monday, lets make sure that our offices are tidy. Also while the students are here, we want to make sure that our conversation is G rated. And remember that the students are here to work not watch. If they are active participants, they will find this a much more rewarding experience. Thanks for all your help!Memo To: ODM Co-workers From: Melissa Subject: Vital Link Date: July 2, 1997 As you know, our Vital Link students will be here next week. I am busy making the final preparations for their arrival. I may have to call on each of your to share some of the small tasks related to the program. I would also like for you to place two events on your calendars: the opening activity at 8:30 Monday morning and the culminating activity to be held at 10:00 on Friday. The culminating activity will be held at the Territorial Restoration, and our office will be coordinating the festivities. That will probably mean that we will need to do a bit of fetching and carrying I know I dont have to ask any of you to be friendly and helpful to our students, but I would like to ask that we all make every effort to be good examples to the students. Between now and Monday, lets make sure that our offices are tidy. Also while the students are here, we want to make sure that our conversation is G rated. And remember that the students are here to work not watch. If they are active participants, they will find this a much more rewarding experience. Thanks for all your help!Little Rock School District VITAL LINK Development Meeting Monday, February 3, 1997 LRSD District Office ATTENDING: Dr. Don Roberts, LRSD Superintendent Baker Kurrus, President of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools Hubert Barksdale, Chair of Education, Greater Little Rock Chamber / Alliance VITAL LINK Chair Delia Moore, Alliance Board Member ! Alliance Marketing Action Team Chair Debbie Milam, VIPS/Partners In Education Coordinator Gail Nickerson, Administrative Assistant for Alliance Joe Swaty, Special Consultant to Alliance ! Staff support to Chambers Education Committee DISCUSSION OUTLINE: Formation of a VITAL LINK Executive Committee: Dr. Roberts, Debbie Milam, Baker Kurrus, Hubert Barksdale and Delia Moore Chamber / business community commitments: Recruitment of Businesses 50 to 70 targeted businesses through Chamber Education Committee effort Working list in development March 1 deadline for commitments North Little Rock VITAL LINK continuity for business community Size of program defined by number of businesses to participate Number of students! Lottery concept Number of teacher supervisors Number of buses Budget Issues ! Clarification of funding pledge from Alliance and grant status District Responsibilities Staffing of the VITAL LINK office ! VITAL LINK Coordinator (salary issue) Teacher and student recruitment and coordination Teacher stipend requirements Buses/Transportation issue Volunteers for additional staff support Public Relations ! Media Support jointly coordinated with Alliance and Chamber Coordination with VIPs Board Coordination with Partners In EducationMemo To: Vital Link Student Hosts From: Subject: Margie Powell, Vital Link Liaison First Day Activities Reminder Date: July 3, 1997 Just a note to remind you that Monday will be our first day host Vital Link students. Students will arrive at 8:30 a.m.\nplease be in suite 510 by 8:20. Our first activity will include a light breakfast and a brief presentation from each business representative. After which we will have the students fill out job applications, then we will interview them and assign them to each business. Please be prepared to give a brief description of your company (products, services, functions). Limit your presentation to three minutes or less. ODM, Arkansas Securities, Arkansas Times, and Petit and Petit will host two students each. The rest of you will be responsible for one student. See you Monday!Tommy Boren Junior Assistant Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring U.S. District CourtCertificate of Achievement awarded to: Tommy Boren Most Courteous Date SignedVITAL LINK HOSTS Agenda for Week of July 7, 1997 Monday. Julv 7 8:30 - 9:30 Students arrive and are esconed to Suite 510 where they will be served breakfast. During this time, representatives from the host businesses will provide a brief overview of their companies. 9:30-10:15 After the overviews and breakfast, students will fill out brief job applications and be interviewed for various jobs in the building. After the interviews, students will receive their job assignments and be escorted to the job sites. 10:15-11:15 Job site orientation 11:15-11:45 Return to Suite 510 for journal writing and snacks Tuesday S'*\", Wednesday 9^**, Thursday, 10' 8:30 -8:45 Students arrive, assemble in Suite 510 8:45-11:15 Students at job sites 11:15-11:45 Students assemble in Suite 510, have a snack, write journals, discuss days activities, and plan culminating activity Friday, July 11** 8:30-9:30 Students assemble in Suite 510, then go to job sites. 10:00 -11:45 Culminating activity - Students will present certificates of appreciation to their bosses and tell what they learned from their experiences. Host businesses will present certificates of completion to the students. Parents will be invited to attend the ceremony. ODM will provide certificates and invitations for parents to attend the culminating activity. Businesses will share in the expenses associated with the snacks and culminating activity.VITAL LINK - ODM AGENDA July 7-11, 1997 Monday July 11 8:45 -10:15 Opening activities (see Building Agenda) 10:15-11:15 After breakfast and first-day job selection activities, student will meet with individual staff persons to discuss their jobs and current projects. We will only have about an hour for this, because opening activities will take most of the morning. 11:15-11:45 Students will write in their journals, discuss the days activities, and plan culminating activities. They will be given an opportunity to select invitations to give their parents for the closing ceremony. Tuesday, July 8 Student will help prepare to monitor summer school: devise guide, discuss methods for monitoring construction in the districts. Student will organize and record data for a monitoring report. Wednesday, July 9 Student will go on monitoring visit to a summer program and a construction site. Upon return, student will write findings. Thursday, July 10* Student will work with support staff: order supplies, clip newspaper articles, make copies, FAX something, use postage meter. Later, when all of the students assemble for journal writing, they will be given an opportunity vote on awards for their peers, i.e., friendliest student, hardest worker, etc. They will also rehearse the thank you speeches they will give to employers. Friday, July 11 8:30 - 9:30 Student finishes any remaining job obligations. 9:30-11:45 Culminating activity (see Hosts Agenda)7 I A Certijuate oJ-S^^reciatwn Wit/i Spedaf ^rfian^ to p'i C^e ^eseareaatwn '^our partkipatwn Has Hc^e/ex^an/a cHidfs Mrizans. Dibdbin^ Shulmt Ditiifbin^ Siunt u, mrVITAL LINK - ODM AGENDA July 7-11, 1997 Monday July 11 8:45-10:15 Opening activities (see Building Agenda) 10:15-11:15 After breakfast and first-day job selection activities, student will meet with individual staff persons to discuss their jobs and current projects. We will only have about an hour for this, because opening activities will take most of the morning. 11:15-11:45 Students will write in their journals, discuss the days activities, and plan culminating activities. They will be given an opportunity to select invitations to give their parents for the closing ceremony. - \u0026gt;th Tuesday, July 8' Student will help prepare to monitor summer school: devise guide, discuss methods for monitoring construction in the districts. Student will organize and record data for a monitoring report. Wednesday, July 9* Student will go on monitoring visit to a summer program and a construction site. Upon return, student will write findings. Thursday, July 10* Student will work with support staff: order supplies, clip newspaper articles, make copies, FAX something, use postage meter.  Later, when all of the students assemble for journal writing, they will be given an opportunity vote on awards for their peers, i.e., friendliest student, hardest worker, etc. They will also rehearse the thank you speeches they will give to employers. Friday, July 11'\" 8:30 - 9:30 Student finishes any remaining job obligations. 9:30-11:45 Culminating activity (see Hosts Agenda)VITAL LINK HOSTS Agenda for Week of July 7, 1997 Monday. Julv 7 8:30-9:30 ' Students arrive and are escorted to Suite 510 where they will be served breakfast. During this time, representatives from the host businesses will provide a brief overview of their companies. 9:30-10:15 After the overviews and breakfast, students will fill out brief job applications and be \"interviewed for various jobs in the building. After the interviews, students will receive their job assignments and be escorted to the job sites. 10:15-11:15 Job site orientation 11:15-11:45 Return to Suite 510 for journal writing and snacks Tuesday 8\", Wednesday 9, Thursday, IO'\" 8:30 -8:45 Students arrive, assemble in Suite 510 8:45 -11:15 Students at job sites 11:15-11:45 Students assemble in Suite 510, have a snack, write journals, discuss days activities, and plan culminating activity Friday, July 11 th 8:30-9:30 Students assemble in Suite 510, then go to job sites. 10:00 -11:45 - Culminating activity - Students will present certificates of appreciation to their bosses and tell what they learned from their experiences. Host businesses will present cenificates of completion to the students. Parents will be invited to attend the ceremony. ODM will provide certificates and invitations for parents to attend the culminating activity. Businesses will share in the expenses associated with the snacks and culminating activity.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: From: AMR Architects, Inc. Arkansas Business Arkansas Securities Arkansas Times Moses Nosari Pettit \u0026amp; Pettit Margie Powell, Vital Link Coordinator Subject: Vital Link Expenses Date: July 16, 1997 Thanks again for your help, cooperation, and enthusiasm during our week of hosting Vital Link students. We received a double bonus from our experience: we got to know some wonderful children, and we got to know each other better. You have made a difference in the lives of at least 10 children, so lets get ready for the next batch in 1998! Below is an itemized list of the major expenses incurred for the Vital Link students. We have apportioned the amounts by dividing the total evenly among the seven businesses. Please make your payment to: Office of Desegregation Monitoring Thank you. Monday morning activities Donuts, juice, and paper products 31.82 Snacks 38.96 Twice a day, Tuesday through Thursday Fridays cumulating activity Cake, sandwiches, juice, and table accessories 127.73 Individual student pictures 44.60 Display board 18.00 Certificates Student, business, and teacher 7.00 Sub Total 268.11 Total due from each business S38.30LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VITAL LINK VITAL LINK Is a partnership program of the Little Flock School District, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. July 22, 1997 RECSn^D JUL 2 5 1997 Ms. Margie Powell and Ms. Melissa Guldin Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 OFfiCE OF desegregation MONITORING Dear Margie and Melissa, Thank you for hosting students during our first Vital Link program. We are pleased with how the program ran and with the students experiences. Our business community showed tremendous support for Vital Link. We know that coordinating the program took a lot of your time, and we are grateful for your enthusiastic participation. Please thank all of your employees who worked with our students. We have enclosed an evaluation for your input. Please let us know what worked well and what needs improvement. Your response is especially important since this was our first Vital Link experience. We are co-hosting a reception at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 5 for Vital Link business coordinators and CEOs so we can say thank you in person. Watch for your invitation in the mail. Your efforts with Vital Link provided new learning experiences for young people this summer. Thanks for caring enough to work with them. Sincerely. Debbie Milam Little Rock School District  501 Sherman  Little Rock, AR 72202  (501) 324-2290 VITAL LINK BUSINESS QUESTIONNAIRE Business: Person completing survey: 1. Were you satisfied with the program? ____No Somewhat Extremely Comments: 2. Do you feel the training you received from the Vital Link staff was: Very helpful Somewhat helpful Not helpful 3. Please rank the teacher assigned to your business: Excellent Good Fair Poor (If you had more than one teacher assigned to your business list the teachers names and rank them using the scale above.) Explain: 4. From your perspective, what was the most beneficial pan of the experience?5. Please point out any problems you may have encountered with the Vital Link program. 6. How can we improve the program? (Check all that apply) Longer days More days Better preparation for the business Better preparation for the teacher Better preparation for the students Improve transportation Inform business of any student learning disabilities Inform business earlier of students not attending Other 7. Please estimate the number of employees who worked with students in your business. 8. Please estimate the total number of hours spent on Vital Link by employees in your business. 9. Are you interested in participating in Vital Link again? Comments: Yes No 10, Did your Vital Link experience change your perception of the Little Rock School District? Yes, now it is better Yes, now it is worse No, it is the same as beforeI\" i: 07/2' 1997 IE: 06 5013242296 LRSD VIPS M PAGE 01 (1 FAX ) RANSM iTTAL S I Vbkinteers hi Rjl\u0026gt;licSdioc\u0026gt;L' .. 1- i S'  I ] 1 t: J I 501 Shennan, Little Rock, AK 72202 Phone 324-2290 iHii [ P'gfts (inducting cover): I t ru ok)p cy^.ft-fthed i C xar.pidOjy Fax'# i - u ) u 0 -II u Frijra\nFax  iQ'.to.e ft'Jam 3:/^ft:a5a0 ',6A'nr\\ -^in'5 7T.i CejCi^A h/V CftC'jCk ft k7.j/j (J-. V\".+\u0026lt;t! U\n\u0026lt;4\u0026lt; ' i-PiSb , \u0026amp;Lft: Vclk--3i\u0026lt;!Y' !:Tc f( . ci.*\u0026gt; -raK,/\u0026gt;- I i a ClVnriAv L'tk/' t-ft Al I C '-u.l ! r ^c.-^Z --K (fv\" L f'u.tU* \u0026lt; I \u0026gt;'/j '' 'nA Y-*\u0026lt; M.''Vi I . . -MW- - ' i 'cYSt '7 t, y 11 . .1 !S37 You are invited to a special reception in your honor. OrflCSOF You, along with representatives from other companies and organizations who participated in this summer's VITAL LINK program, are to be saluted at a reception. You helped us reach the \"pinnacle of success\" with VITAL LINK! Please make plans now to attend the reception on Tuesday, August 5, at 5:00 p.m. in the Pinnacle Room atop the Arkansas' Excelsior Hotel. R.S.V.P. today by calling 370'9300. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VITAL LINK unuMxx MH iS RMQORPUBUCSCaOOU t- Memo JUL 2 5 1997 To: Host Businesses-Vital Link Students From: Margie Powell, Vital Link Business CoordinatoTy^f^ OfflCfOF o OcSfGflEGATlOWMOlVirOfi/jVG Subject: Program Evaluation Date: July 25, 1997 The Little Rock School District sent the evaluation form for the Vital Link program to our office. They did not have a list of the business hosts in the building. The Vital Link coordinator asked me to distribute the evaluation forms to you, and she apologized for not getting in touch directly with each of you. I have forwarded the Vital Link office a list of host businesses and contact persons, so expect to hear soon about an upcoming reception for all of you. Our building had a unique situation with the way we were organized, but we did just fine, thanks to all of you. If you like, I can deliver your evaluations through the school mail system, or you can mail them to: VITAL LINK, Little Rock School District, 501 Sherman, Little Rock, AR 72202 If you want me to mail them, please return the evaluations by Tuesday, July 29.THE CHAMBER Where Business Comes Together GREATER LITTLE ROCK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RECEIV^r* AUG 5 133/ OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING August 4, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Chamber Education Committee Members Hubert Barksdale, Chamber Chair of Education SUBJECT: August Education Committee Meeting Thursday, August 14 - 10:00 a.m. Chamber Board Room Hope you enjoyed our committees break dming the summer months, but its back to school time! Please note on your calendar our next Education Committee meeting, scheduled for Thursday, August 14 at 10:00 a.m. in e Chambers Board Room. Education issues will continue to make headlines for the remainder of 1997 and our committee will be exploring the issues behind the headlines at our next meeting. We are planning a full agenda, including a video presentation of the Little Rock School Districts successful VITAL LINK program this summer\nan overview of the Chambers role in a major School To Work Federal grant proposal\na report on the Tri-district Parmers In Education annual breakfast event\nand reports from each of the districts on the excitement ahead for the new school year. Please make every effort to attend this important August meeting of our Education Committee. Call Sandy Bradley at the Chamber (374-4871) today to RSVP your attendance plans and to reconfirm your interest m serving on this important Chamber committee. SERVING LITTLE ROCK, NORTH LITTLE ROCK .AND CENTRAL ARKANSAS 101 S. SPRING ST.. SUITE 200, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2486  (501) 374-4871  E-MAIL: chambeT^litilerockchambeT.com  WEBSITE: http://www.littlerockchaniber.com C-: : A 50\n2z6 M PAGE 62 Vita) Link little Rock school District 501 Shef'man street Little Rock, Arkansas 72'202 TO\nPROM: '/Itai Link Advisors DePhie Milam ' DATE\nAugust 6, 1997 RE: Vital LinK Teacher Appreciation Reception weTfe having a teacher appreciation reception for our vital i ink teachers on Tuesaiy, August i2 from 4:00  5:5C p m in the LRSD Poaro room. Please come by and tell our teachers what a good job they did. Cali me at 2297 to let me know if you're coming, i hope YOU can Join us I , , rv f' A r \\\\  ' V-i 4- y V .iV- I* , i- L, k i? I H C  (h- i* A -1 I -1' r\u0026gt;i\u0026gt; .. V  V''' L 4 I''' ,t- ''Vv . Li ' ' 'ft . V' 14 ' i I 4^\" V  .'J' ALITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT tMH Zl  'A ^vi f - J^- 1 i3M t.  5 bEIl 9I Sli fl I4 V:. IS  r\nE I J ')-b r ip ac a  Cffi^nbh- 'y /\\il i\nJ is ! I i I '^-WL I I I*s, II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ^\u0026gt; /^}/3ya^a/ii-fti ^^Y-Zc  _ ~i,a'rl:\u0026gt; /) 't / (/ilci ^1/1 y /A ,// tuafif n n\u0026lt;03'704-98 19:11? 301 324 2023 LRSD COMMUMCATI ODM @002'0Ci3 Little Rock School District Vitiil Ixink Prepares for Evpanded Program In the Little Rock School. District For Im.mediare Release Mai'ch 4,1998 For mote information'. Debbie Milam, 324-2297 Suellen Vann, 324-2020 What happens when 500 sixth grade student\no to work in local businesses? Last summer business and student parhcipants in tb.e Vital Link program found out that a lot of learning and fun could take place when schools and businesses connect Vital Link gives sixth grade students a chance to intern for one week in a retail. production or service firm. A teacher supervises rhe students who spend five mornings on foe job. The job experience helps students understand how their reading, math and communication skills, among others, are actually used in business settings. They begin to sec the link between their classroom lessons and the workplace. Debbie Milam, Little Rock School District Vital Link coordinator, said this years Vital Link program will expand. We hope to place about 750 students in local firms this summer, Milam said. \"Our first year was extremely successful according to commenK we received from participating businesses, students and pajents. Lasr summer we placed ail of the students who applied for Vital l ,ink in Pulaski County business orgamzations. We are contacting businesses now for their commitment to host students and teachers this summer.  Milam, added.\nmore) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 '03\"04, 98 19:1T 301 324 2023 LRSD CO5nR:yiCATI ODM @003 .'003 LRSD Vita) Link Page 2 of 2 Cuireni sixJi grade students Vvill be eligible for this summers Vital Link program vvhicn is scneduied for The weexs of June 22. JuJ,v 6 and July 20, Parents are invited to ioformationai meetings that vd'J be held: Tuesday, M.arch 17, 5:00 p.m., Media Center Cloverdale .Eiementaiy School 6500 Hinltson Road Thursday, March 19, 8:00 -- 8:30 am., Media Center Fulbriglit Elementary School 300 Pleasant Valley Drive Fridav, March 20, 12:00- 12:30 p.m,, Multipuipose Room .Martin Luther King. Jr. interdistrict Masnet Eiementarv Schoo! 907 Martin L. King Blvd. Busiresses and pareu'ts may obtain more information on the Vital Link program by calling 324'2297.\ni If\ni03 04'98 17:59 501 324 2023 LRSD COM5IUNICATI ODM @001 '001 Little Rock .Schoo! .District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone\nFax\n(501),324-2020 (501)324-2032 DATE: March 4,1998 TO\nFROM: Central Arkansas Media Cymthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Special Board Meeting Situation MESSAGE: Two members of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors wilt have dinner together tonight, which is considered a special board meeting situation. Judy Magness and Dr. Katherine Mitchel! will dine at U.S, Pizza at 9300 N. Rodney Parham Road at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 4, 1998. # Pages (indud ng cover) 1 To Fax # Program Dial ol Preparing students for success every day RECEIVED Little Rock School District APR 2 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING March 31, 1998 Ms. Ann Brown ODM 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Its Vital Link time again in the Little Rock School District. Last year you were a part of our first year of Vital Link. We appreciated your willingness to be a part of a new and unknown program. We hope that you will be able to work with us again this year to provide this unique learning experience for a group of students, a teacher and your employees. We will be serving 750 students this year, an increase of 50% over last year. This means we will need even more business placements than we had last year. We hope that most businesses will be able to work out taking a group of 10 students so that we can hold down the costs of the program. We were creative last year and combined some placements of five students in the same building when possible. Well offer the program again during a three-week time period: June 22, July 6 and July 20. Businesses are welcome to host students for one, two or all three weeks of the program. Please complete the questions below and send us a copy of your response by April 10, 1998, so that we can plan our 1998 program. Call me at 324-2297 if you have questions. a,.. Sincerely, BebbieMilam Coordinator  Yes, I want my company to participate and will consider taking students the week(s) indicated below.  June 22-26  July 6-10  July 20-24  We have a new contact person (name) (phone)  No, we are not able to participate in the 1998 Vital Link program. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20007-2^' 9 7 BUSINESS PROFILES AMR (one student) '7 ''{cs cLe, / AMR is a firm of architects who have designed some of the most noteworthy projects in the central Arkansas area. Among their commissions are: the War Memorial Fitness Center, the River Market, and the Fletcher Branch Library. Arkansas Business (one student) Arkansas Business is an award-winning weekly newspaper that reports on statewide business and financial news. Arkansas Times (two students) ! The Arkansas Times is a weekly newspaper that reports on Politics and culture. Some of Arkansas best known columnists write regularly for the Times. Moses Nosari (one student) G' Cl n e:) This is a property management firm. The employees of Moses Nosari are responsible for many commercial buildings in the Little Rock area. They find tenants to lease the space, collect the rent paid by tenants, see to repairs and improvements, and see to the many details required to maintain a building. Both the Heritage Center West, where these offices are, and the Heritage Center East, which is across the parking lot, are managed by Moses Nosari. Office of Desegregation Monitoring (two students) ss^. ) The office was created by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to monitor the three school district in Pulaski county. It is their responsibility to report to the local federal district court on each of the districts adherence to the desegregation plans. Writing reports and keeping records of the court case are two major office responsibilities. The office has nine employees. Pettit and Pettit Consulting Engineers (two students) This engineering firm works on both private sector and public projects such as the Statehouse Convention Center expansion, the Arkansas museum of Science and History, and the River Market. Arkansas Securities Department (two students) C This state commission is charged with overseeing the security industry (stocks and bonds) in Arkansas. Both federal and state governments enact laws that control the trading of securities and protect investors. The commission investigates complaints regarding any securities dealers.Memorandum To\nHeritage West Hosts for Vital Link From: Melissa Guldin Subject: Vital Link Week Date: June 19, 1998 As you know, the Vital Link students will be here next week. Just as we did last year, we will begin the week with a brief orientation in the ODM conference room on fifth floor. Please send a representative to this meeting, which will be held at 8:30 Monday, June 22. Each business representative will be able to make a short statement explaining the type of work his/her company does. After this meeting, students will fill out a job application and participate in a brief interview before being placed in one of your businesses. On Monday, students will arrive at your office around 9:30 a.m.. On the other days, students will arrive around 8:30 or 8:45 and they will work with you until 11:00. Dont forget to mark your calendars to attend the culminating activity on Friday. We are planning to hold the reception at the Territorial Restoration at 10:30. We are also inviting each childs parents to this event, so you will get a chance to meet your students family members. Our office will take care of the snacks and the reception, and we will let you know your share of the costs. 4SCHEDULE FOR VITAL LINK AT ODM Nicole Snelling, teacher Melissa Guldin, business contact person Monday Students complete job applications and participate in interviews (Nicole and Melissa oversee applications\ninterviews conducted by Horace, Skip, Polly, Melissa, and Nicole) ODM students work to develop monitoring guide for summer school (Horace and Melissa) Students create their own badges (Polly) Tuesday Visit the Federal Court and conduct monitoring visit at Franklin (Margie, Horace, and Melissa) Wednesday Write up findings from monitoring visit (Margie and Melissa) Thursday Work with support staff on various tasks (Polly, Jackie, Linda) Friday Prepare for culminating activity assist ODM staff with set-up at Territorial Restoration (Melissa, Margie, Horace, Polly, Linda),?. e A- e \u0026lt; A \u0026lt; \u0026gt; A* \u0026gt; \u0026lt; e N? S!^- A \u0026lt; @  \u0026gt; * * A \u0026gt; , \u0026gt;  A  4  a 4 # \u0026gt; *x Sis' .|Sl r B '\u0026lt;  4 w \u0026lt; \\v:\\ '1 W (^ . w \u0026gt; \u0026lt;  s e A- e J I \u0026gt; 4 V \u0026gt; s.\u0026lt; 4\u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; e \u0026lt; $ \u0026lt; e \u0026gt; e w 1 \u0026gt; 4 ^4  9 4  \u0026gt; \u0026amp; 9 41^  \u0026lt; \u0026amp; 9 * A ^iufhin^ Ced^ratwn e ^HeK ^ne 16, 199S Time: \u0026gt;   a e @' \u0026lt; w \u0026lt; 10:00 - IMO a.M. . . f DJhfre: ^imtcrtal ^(stcratwn e iX n^i fsii \u0026gt; 2MTastJ Street '^hittle S^r^tisas SL '*'J/^-a)O 'fej^ 4 \u0026lt; A S.06/23/1998 16: 33 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 02/02 s Slowest Markham Street ~ Little Rock. AR 72201 ~ (5011324.2020 ~ FAX 1501.224-?O?.Dont Forget Vital Link Reception Friday, June 26 10:00 a.m. Arkansas Territorial RestorationUita! Link Cert^ati t^S^nievement Tresente/to Clarisse 'Otters recognition of nJo^ we(f/one. ^usituss Partner Tmclier 199Sl/ital link M^ate oJ-S^^reiiatum ^it/i Specidf Qiuin^ to '^our partuivatum ^as ex^atuf a cniQ's norizons. \u0026lt;Vitafin^ Stu/ent ^itaC jin(i TidcHcr Stu/entOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 June 26, 1998 Mr. Floyd Cooper, Supervisor LRSD Transportation Services 1001 E. 21 Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Mr. Cooper: On behalf of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the businesses in the Heritage West building who participated in the Vital Link Program, please accept our sincere thanks for sending Mr. Mike Campbell to transport the Vital Link students for our building. Mr. Campbell did an excellent job, not only delivering the students safely and on time, but also in transporting students and their supervisors on field trips. Mr. Campbell was courteous, friendly, and knowledgeable. He pointed out safety tips to the students on one of our field trips and explained the reasoning behind those tips. We inadvertently left Mr. Campbells certificate behind during our culminating activity and would appreciate it if you would see that he gets the enclosed certificate. Jncerely, largie L. Powell Associate Monitor .. . 07/08/1998 16:J.3 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS ' PAGE 01/01 I / tEC-Little Rock School District MEDU Al/ERI! Vital Link Students Active in Local Businesses For Immediate Release JulvM 1998 For more information: Suellen Vann. 324-2020 This week students paititipating in the Little Rock School District Vital Link program are learning about the world of work in local businesses. This is the second summer that sixth grade students have joined forces with the business community to learn how their .school lessons - such as reading, writing and mathematics - are used eveiy' day by local business employee.^. Tomorrow several Vital Link students will be on the move as follows\nStudents assigned to Sells/Clark advertising agency will travel to Soundscapes to produce a radio commercial that they have written. Students will arrive at Soundscapes, 3d2' Qid Cantrell Road, at about 9:00 a.m, and leave at 11\n00 a.m. Viral Link students assigned to the United Way will build a wheel chair ramp at i ,\n65 Purdue. Students will be at that location from about 9:15 until 11:00 a.m. Little Rock Wastewater students will tour the treatment plant at the Little Rock Port. They will arrive at the Port at about 9:00 a.m. and leave at 10:00 a.m. k-p- ### ft I 01O West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 tail ..T OS.03 as MON 10:33 FAX 501 S\"? 3453 :a' w Office STEPHENS INC, 0001 w ? IF Hl\n. ak. 1 Dote J z .1 Phone Rax Plionex ~ lj RR.MAUKS: Evonne EUer.': Stephens Inc n VrpeiH  roryovrivview Phuite Fax Phone 377.3700 377-3453 I-P Reply AS.4P Q Ptuafie Coinntent t n O ' / i. iI * d .'1 .  'aZiLs\"!'. S\u0026gt;,'? \u0026gt;'*\u0026gt; y 4 \u0026lt;-----f  .' / JA t. V'S r sa EVOMKeS CAKE DECOHATINjGn 7 07 iOUAJLLANE X AUEXANOER, AA 720C2 (SOI) 45S-12t7 o .( *j3 t ( ISP iMI H I* ! ,\u0026gt;An O! f .ajiz tDHKSs, I HV. SlAli, /IC o Tl ' StKOHV fASlI L.JX tU.-'Utjt fRiAt I Iy MOSr. f'Al.MHII Win CH o i cn ERS f \u0026lt;jUAN DI SrKli'TK )N z\\M\u0026lt;lUN I \u0026lt; : i 11 z  c c, lU 11 1? RECriVFDBY XJ Ot KEtP THIS SLIP FOR REFERENCF Li^azob tgawpBiBa^W'riiir^ TMaw o ro LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT / ?r t CL'}^ i-4v UiV CJw^clAUt Q/^id t 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: From: AMR Architects, Inc. Arkansas Business Arkansas Securities Arkansas Times Pettit \u0026amp; Pettit Margie Powell and Melissa Guldih, Vital Link Coordinators Subject: Vital Link Expenses Date: July 31, 1998 Thanks again for your help, cooperation, and enthusiasm during our week of hosting Vital Link students. Again this year, we got to know some wonderful children and became better acquainted among ourselves. You have made a difference in the lives of at least 9 children. We are looking forward to working with you again next year. Below is an itemized list of the major expenses incurred for the Vital Link students. We have apportioned the amounts by dividing the total evenly among the six businesses. Please make your payment to: Office of Desegregation Monitoring Thank you. Snacks $52.11 Twice a day, Monday through Thursday Fridays cumulating activity Cake, sandwiches, juice, table accessories, and student gifts 136.79 Display board and pictures 24.00 Sub Total 212.90 Total due from each business $35.48WORK EXPERIENCE EVALUATION Name: Job Site: Supervisor(s): 1. What did you like best about your job? Explain. 2. What did you like least about your job? Explain. 3. Did you get to do real work or did you spend more time watching? 4. After working this week, do you see more value in paying attention in school? Why? 5. Did you get an overall picture of what your business does? 6. Do you think you would like to work for this company when you finish school? Continued on back.7. What do you suggest for your business to do differently next year with their Vital Link students? 8. Did you find the time you spent in the ODM office in the early morning helpful? How? What about after work? 9. What would you change about the Vital Link program? 10. Overall, how would you rank your experiences in the Vital Link program? (Circle your choice.) 1 Poor 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GoodEMPLOYMENT APPLICATION Heritage West Building 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Name: School (6* grade): Teacher: School (7* grade): Favorite Subjects: Least Favorite Subjects: Have you ever worked before? Yes: No: If yes, where? What were your responsibilities? Do you have any illnesses or health problems? Yes: No\nIf yes, identify. What are your favorite hobbies? What are your career goals? I understand that the interviewer will make the decision which company in the Heritage West Building for which I will be assigned\nhowever, if given the choice, I would like to work for: Applicant's SignatureI I I want to participate in VITAL LINK or learn more about the program! Name Title Company Name Street Address City State Zip Phone Fax r~l I want to learn more about VITAL LINK and how my company might participate. Please have a representative contact me.!1 Q Yes, I want my company to participate and will consider taking students the week(s) indicated below. Please have a representative call me to discuss all the details.  Ilune 16-20  Jlune 23-27  July 7-11 Fax this completed form back today to 374-6018, or mail it to: VITAL LINK Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce 101 S. Spring St., Ste. 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2486 I I I I I 1 What is VITAL LINK? VITAL LINK is the Little Rock School Districts new program to help students and teachers make the link between classroom skills and work place success. Many young people enter the workplace unprepared. Either they have dropped out from school or have neglected basic academics that provide the necessary skills needed for success. Also, classroom teachers  often unfamiliar with the actual skills needed within the workplace  are constantly challenged to make students class work relevant to skills needed within the work force. How does it work? VITAL LINK will enable sixth grade students and teachers to participate in one-week internships with community businesses. By visiting businesses during the morning hours this summer, they will experience firsthand how the classroom subjects they are learning and teaching are used in the workplace. Working with professionals on the job, participants will-, - receive experience in such fields as banking, accounting, hotel management, non-profit agencies, retailing, printing, manufacturing, law enforcement, the legal profession and others. They will learn the importance of math and communication skills, problem solving, teamwork, computer literacy, creativity and originality. Whats involved? The Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, in partnership with the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, is asking area businesses to step forward and agree to allow students and teachers to visit their businesses this summer. Certified teachers will supervise groups of students who will participate in the one-week internships, scheduled for the weeks of June 16, June 23 and July 7. Every business is different. Some businesses may only choose to participate for one week, while others may want to host students and teachers for each of the three weeks. A teacher supervisor helps each business identify age-appropriate activities. A portion of each morning is spent as a group with discussion and journal writing to help students make the link between curriculum and the workplace. Why should my business participate? This is your opportunity to experience the personal satisfaction of being involved in a unique, new community program. In other cities that have VITAL LINK programs, businesses have gained tremendously through their participation. Employee morale will improve as employees see their jobs through the eyes of a young student. This is your opportunity to contribute ideas about teaching and motivation as a hands-on participant. You also will win recognition for yourself and your company for involvement in this important new program that has a proven track record in other school districts throughout the nation. To find out more details or commit your participation right now, complete the form on the back of this brochure and return it to the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VITAL L I N K is a partnership program of the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. UTTUROCK lAlliancEi FOR OUR PUBUG SCHOOLS When -afTineinefe -iTieinMnet' r o.i^ TO: FROM\nRE: DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 Vital Link Supporters Debbie Milam. Coordinator 1999 Vital Link Planning Cojmmmmiitttteeee February 3,1999 4 Its time to begin planning our 1999 Vital Link program. You are invited to attend a planning meeting to discuss last years program and any changes that need to be made to this years program. We will meet Monday, February 8 at 4:00 pm in the Student Registration Office. The group will meet a second time on Tuesday, February 16 at 4:00 pm to continue planning. You can reach me at 324-2297 if you have questions or to decline this invitation. Thanks for your past support of Vital Link. Without permanent staffing, it takes all of us to pull this off each year! CP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 FEB 2 4 1999 OFFICE OF OtSEBWEBW'OHWOWTOWHa TO\nFROM: RE: DATE: Vital Link Supporters Debbie Milam, Coordinator Interviewing Vital Link teacher applicants February 22, 1999 We have scheduled Vital Link teacher interviews for April 13 and 14, from 3:30 - 6:30 p.m. We want to have teams comprised of district and community representatives again this year. Please let me know by March 5 if you will be able to serve as an interviewer this year.Memorandum To: From: Heritage West Business Hosts for Vital Link 1*^ Melissa GuldinJ^sociate Monitor, ODM Subject: Vital Link 1999 Date: May 10, 1999 After last summers successful Vital Link program, our office is once again coordinating the Vital Link efforts for the Heritage West Building. Our building will host ten students during the week of June 14-18. We are hoping that each of you who participated in the program last year will want to take part this year as well. Attached you will find a brief form confirming your willingness to be a Vital Link partner for this year. Please be sure to indicate how many students you would like to have assigned to your business. We need to hear from you by May 26, 1999. Thank you for your interest in the program and Little Rock youth. We look forward to hearing from you, and we will be in touch with more details soon.Heritage West Business Hosts for Vital Link Page 2 May 15, 1998 Vital Link Survey Yes, we want to participate in the 1999 Vital Link Program No, we will not be able to participate in the 1999 Vital Link Program Please indicate the number of students your office would be willing to host: one student two students three studentsVITAL LINK BUSINESS QUESTIONNAIRE Business: Person completing survey: z^/zz- ^/^zcg\n1. Were you satisfied with the program? ____No ____Somewhat ^^^l^remely Comments: 2. Please list the kinds of activities the students were engaged in at your business: 3. Please rank the teacher assigned to your business: ^,J\u0026lt;^llent Good Fair Poor If you had more than one teacher assigned to your business list the teachers names and rank them using the scale above. Comments: 4. From your perspective, what was the most beneficial part of the experience? -77//I- /J /34/Z'VITAL LINK BUSINESS QUESTIONNAIRE Continued 5. Please point out any problems you may have encountered with the Vital Link program. 6. How can we improve the program? (Check all that apply) Longer days ____More days ____Better preparation for the business ____Better preparation for the teacher ____Better preparation for the students ____Improve transportation ____Inform business of any student learning disabilities ____Inform business earlier of students not attending Change the time the program is offered from summer to school year. Other Comments: 7. Please estimate the number of employees who worked with students in your business: 8. Please estimate the total number of hours spent on Vital Link by employees in your business: ~/ \u0026gt; 9. Are you interested in participating in Vital Link again? Yes No Comments: Please return by fax: 324-2044Office 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: From: WkMR Architects, Inc. vAfkansas Business -Arkansas Securities vAfkansas Times 'Moses, Nosari, Tucker \"Pettit \u0026amp; Pettit vTfhomas \u0026amp; Thomas Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Guldin, Vital Link Coordinator Subject: Vital Link Expenses Date: June 22,1999 Thanks again for your help, cooperation, and enthusiasm during our week of hosting Vital Link students. The experience was enhanced by getting to know each other better and having the opportunity to work with some wonderful children. You have made a difference in the lives of at least nine children, so lets get ready for the next batch in 2000! Below is an itemized list of the major expenses incurred for the Vital Link students. We have apportioned the amounts by dividing the total evenly among the eight businesses. Please make your payment to: Office of Desegregation Monitoring Thank you. Snacks 44,29 Cookies, juice, chips, etc. twice a day, Tuesday through Thursday Fridays cumulating activity Cake, sandwiches, juice, and table accessories 126.04 Pictures and display board 74.65 Sub Total 244.98 Total due from each business S30.62]//^^\\/ ^35 Q -f ^/. ??5 9.9S //.^^ 9.?- a5*('c/4.^r2iReminder To: Heritage West Hosts for Vital Link From: Melissa Suldin Subject: Vital Link Week bate: June 5, 2000 As you know, the Vital Link students will be here next week. Just as we did the past three years, we will begin the week with a brief orientation which will be held in the Office of Desegregation Monitoring conference room on the fifth floor. Please send a representative to this meeting, which will be held at 8:30 Monday, June 12. Each business representative should be able to make a short statement explaining the type of work his/her company does. After this meeting, students will fill out a job application and participate in a brief interview before being placed in one of your businesses. On Monday, students will arrive at your office around 9:30 a.m.. On the other days, students will arrive around 8:30 or 8:45 and they will work with you until 11:00. Don't forget to mark your calendars to attend the culminating activity on Friday at 10:30. We will let you know the location for the reception, as soon as plans are finalized. We are also inviting each child's parents to this event, so you will get a chance to meet your student's family members. Our office will take care of the snacks and the reception, and we will let you know your share of the costs.1 Vital Link: Passage to 00 Research Design Students participating in Vital Link, during the summer of 1999, were asked to complete a survey at the end of the Vital Link experience (see Appendix A). Vital Link is a one-week intern program where students received on-the-job experiences through actual work on the job. Vital Link motivates students to achieve in school through experiencing the connection between school, work, and achievement. In addition to the survey (N = 304) returned by students, all students (N = 394) who participated in Vital Link have been flagged on the AS400. Students who participated in Vital Link will be compared, at a later date, to students who did not participate on standardized test scores, number of honors or AP courses, number of courses above grade level, attendance, and graduation rates. Results Table 1 Gender: Male, N= 132 (43.4%) Female, N = 153 (50.3%) No Response, N = 19 (6.3%) Table 2 Race: Asian/Pacific Islander, N = 16 (5.3%) Black, N = 191 (62.8%) Hispanic, N = 5 (1.6%) Native American, N = 3 (1.0%) White, N = 66 (21.7%) Other, N = 2, No Response, N = 21 (6.9%) Table 3 Age: 11, N = 60 (19.7%) 12, N = 203 (66.8) 13, N= 18 (5.9%) Other, N= 1 (.3%) No response) N = 22 (7.2%)2 Table 4 School Attending this Fall, 99-00: Cloverdale, N = 32 (10.5%) Dunbar, N = 50 (16.4%) Forest Heights, N = 53 (17.4%) Henderson, N = 19 (6.3%) Mablevale, N = 14 (4.6%) Mann, N = 50 (16.4%) Pulaski Heights, N = 33 (10.9%) Southwest, N = 10 (3.3%) No Response, N = 47 (15.5%) Self Esteem Indicators Average scores (i.e.. Mean, 70 between 1 and 2 indicate that the statement is mostly true. Scores greater than 2 indicate that the statement is mostly false. The interpretation for all statements, except 13 and 14, is that the lower the score the greater the feelings of self-esteem. For questions 13 and 14, the higher the score the greater the feelings of self-esteem. Table 5 7. I am happy most of the time. X = 1.53 8. I am usually happy when I am at school. X = 2.21 9. Most of the time I am proud of myself. X=1.4 10. Other students see me as a good student. X=1.60 11. My grades at school are good. X= 1.27 12. I feel good about myself X = 1.81 13. Sometimes I feel bad about myself. X = 2.95 14. I often wish I were someone else. X = 2.97 Indicators of Future Performance Average scores (i.e.. Mean, X) between 1 and 2 indicate that students will very likely perform the behavior. Scores greater than 2 indicate that students are very unlikely to perform the behavior. The interpretation for all statements is that the lower the score the greater the likelihood that students will perform the various behaviors.3 Table 6 15, 16. I will work harder in school. X = 1-25 I will stay in school. X = 1.08 17. I will feel that school is important to me. X= 1.28 18. I will set goals and make plans for the future. X= 1.18 19. I will use the workplace skills that I learned during Vital Link in school. X = 1-32 Discussion Gender and ethnic demographics of students participating in Vital Link are consistent with LRSD wide demographics, with age 12 as the most common age. Students planning to attend LRSDs two magnet middle schools tend to enroll at a higher rate than non-magnet school bound students. Student self-report on indictors of self- esteem reflects generally high levels of self-esteem. The exception is the statement, I am usually happy when 1 am at school. Students tended to feel this statement as being mostly false (see Table 5). Students reported high levels of future performance levels (see Table 6). This survey was a post-test design. It was not known what student levels of self- esteem or future performance were prior to participating in Vital Link. Recommendations Emphasis should be placed on recruiting students who plan to attend or are attending Southwest, Mablevale, and Pulaski Heights Middle Schools. Students have indicated a low level of happiness while at school. Efforts should be initiated to demonstrate to students the benefits of attending and performing well in school. Successful programs in the District that encourage student attendance and achievement should be identified and implemented District wide. Finally, a pre/post-test design should be used to determine the affect of Vital Link on student self-esteem and future performance. Plans for Vital Link during the 99-00 school year is to administer the self- esteem and performance portion of the survey during March, 2000.4 .\\ Appendix A5 Vital Link Please respond on the attached answer sheet the appropriate response to the following questions. Please use a pencil and do not mark anywhere else on the answer sheet or tear the sheet. Thank you! 1. Gender A = Male B = Female 2. Race A = Asian/Pacific Islander B = Black C = Hispanic 3. Race (Cent.) A = Native American B = White C = Other 4. Age A= 11 B = 12 C= 13 D = Other 5. School attending this fall. A = Cloverdale B = Dunbar C = Forest Heights D = Henderson 6. School attending this fall (Cont.). A = Mable vale B = Mann C = Pulaski Heights D = Southwest6 Read the following statements. Think about each statement. Ask yourself is the statement mostly true or mostly false or somewhere in between. Then, on the attached Answer Sheet fill in the corresponding letter that reflects how you feel about each statement. Mostly True Mostly False 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. A B C D I am happy most of the time. I am usually happy when I am at school. Most of the time I am proud of myself. Other students see me as a good student. My grades at school are good. I feel good about myself Sometimes I feel bad about myself. I often wish I were someone else. Next, we would like to know how your Vital Link experience might affect you in the coming school year. Below is a list of statements. Read each statement. Think about whether each statement is very likely to happen, very unlikely to happen or somewhere in between. Read each statement and respond on the answer using the following key. Very Likely Very Unlikely 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. A B C D I will work harder in school. I will stay in school. I will feel that school is important to me. I will set goals and make plans for the future. I will use the workplace skills that I learned during Vital Link in school.7Office 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: From: IzAMR Architects, Inc. Arkansas Business Airkansas Securities Arkansas Times Moses, Nosari, Tucker Pettit \u0026amp; Pettit Thomas \u0026amp; Thomas Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Guldin. Vital Link Coordinator Subject: Vital Link Expenses Date: July 31, 2000 Thanks again for your help, cooperation, and enthusiasm during our week of hosting Vital Link students. The experience was enhanced by getting to know each other better and having the opportunity to work with some wonderful children. You have made a difference in the lives of at least eight children, so lets get ready for the next batch in 2001! Below is an itemized list of the major expenses incurred for the Vital Link students. We have apportioned the amounts by dividing the total evenly among the eight businesses. Please make your payment to: Office of Desegregation Monitoring Thank you. Snacks 59.85 Cookies, juice, chips, etc. twice a day, Tuesday through Thursday Fridays cumulating activity Cake, sandwiches, juice, and table accessories 122.59 Pictures and display board 82.51 Sub Total 264.95 Total due from each business $33.12WORK EXPERIENCE EVALUATION Name. Job Site\n, Supervisor(s): 1. What did you like best about your job? Explain. 2. What did you like least about your job? Explain. 3. Did you get to do real work or did you spend more time watching? 4. After working this week, do you see more value in paying attention in school? Why? 5. Did you get an overall picture of what your business does? 6. Do you think you would like to work for this company when you finish school? Continued on back.BUSINESS PROFILES AMR (one student) AMR is a firm of architects who have designed some of the most noteworthy projects in the central Arkansas area. Among their commissions are: the War Memorial Fitness Center, the River Market, and the Fletcher Branch Library. Arkansas Business (one student) Arkansas Business is an award-winning weekly newspaper that reports on statewide business and financial news. Arkansas Times (two students) The Arkansas Tinies is a weekly newspaper that reports on Politics and culture. Some of Arkansas best known columnists write regularly for the Times. Moses Nosari (one student) This is a property management firm. The employees of Moses Nosari are responsible for many commercial buildings in the Little Rock area. They find tenants to lease the space, collect the rent paid by tenants, see to repairs and improvements, and see to the many details required to maintain a building. Both the Heritage Center West, where these offices are, and the Heritage Center East, which is across the parking lot, are managed by Moses Nosari. Office of Desegregation Monitoring (two students) The office was created by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to monitor the three school district in Pulaski county. It is their responsibility to report to the local federal district court on each of the districts adherence to the desegregation plans. Writing reports and keeping records of the court case are two major office responsibilities. The office has nine employees. Pettit and Pettit Consulting Engineers (two students) This engineering firm works on both private sector and public projects such as the Statehouse Convention Center expansion, the Arkansas museum of Science and History, and the River Market. Arkansas Securities Department (two students) This state commission is charged with overseeing the security industry (stocks and bonds) in Arkansas. Both federal and state governments enact laws that control the trading of securities and protect investors. The commission investigates complaints regarding any securities dealers.Students Name Business Tommy Boren Albert Ray Brown Dasha Chambliss Joseph Dahms Latrice Duncan Gillian Glasco Erica Hill Brandon Jones Sherica Merriweather Amanda Roseby VITAL LINK Attendance Chart Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday FridayEMPLOYMENT APPLICATION Heritage West Building 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Name: School (6\"^ grade): Teacher: School (7' grade): Favorite Subjects: Least Favorite Subjects: Have you ever worked before? Yes: No: If yes, where? What were your responsibilities? Do you have any illnesses or health problems? Yes: No: If yes, identify. What are your favorite hobbies? What are your career goals? I understand that the interviewer will make the decision which company in the Heritage West Building for which I will be assigned\nhowever, if given the choice, I would like to work for: Applicants SignatureSUMMER SCHOOL MONITORING GUIDE School:. Grade: Subject: Date: Time: Monitor: 1. Displays are related to lessons. 2. Theme is evident. 2. Students are involved in lesson. 4. Instruction is teacher directed or interactive. 5. Student work is on display. 6. Seating is mixed by race and gender, traditional rows, etc.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Tommy Boren Junior Assistant Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100Parents of LRfiD 6th grade students should take a look at Vital Linkl ( Vital Link is an exciting new enrichment program which will be offered free of charge to 500 rising seventh grade students in the Little Rock School District. Vital Link will teach your child the relationship between his/her classroom studies and the future world of work. Plan to attend one of these informational meetings so you can learn how your child will benefit from spending a week this summer in a local business firm! Meetings for parents will be held: Tuesday, April 8, 5:00 - 5:30 p.m.. Media Center Geyer Springs Elementary School 5240 Mabelvale Pike Friday, April 11.12:00 -12:30 p.m.. Media Center Martin Luther King, Jr., High Intensity Learning Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School 907 Martin L. King Blvd. For more information, please contact your school counselor, or call Debbie Milam, 324-2297, or Deana Keathley, 324-2408.Title Company Name Street Address City State Phone Fax 16-20  J, I I n J^^ne une 23-27  July 7-11 Name I want to participate in VITAL LINK or learn more about the program!  1 want to learn more about VITAL LINK and how my company might participate. Please have a representative contact me! O Yes, I want my company to participate and will consider taking students the week(s) indicated below. Please have a representative call me to discuss all the details. Fax this completed form back today to 374-6018, or mail it to: VITAL LINK Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce 101 S. Spring St., Ste, 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2486 II What is VITAL LINK? VITAL LINK is the Little Rock School Districts new program to help students and teachers make the link between classroom skills and work place success. Many young people enter the workplace unprepared. Either they have dropped out from school or have neglected basic academics that provide the necessary skills needed for success. Also, classroom teachers  often unfamiliar with the actual skills needed within the workplace  are constantly challenged to make students class work relevant to skills needed within the work force. How does it work? VITAL LINK will enable sixth grade students and teachers to participate in one-week internships with community businesses. By visiting businesses during the morning hours this summer, they will experience firsthand how the classroom subjects they are learning and teaching are used in the workplace. Working with professionals on the job, participants will receive experience in such fields as banking, accounting, hotel management, non-profit agencies, retailing, printing, manufacturing, law enforcement, the legal profession and others. They will learn the importance of math and communication % 'i skills, problem solving, teamwork, computer literacy, creativity and originality. Whats involved? The Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, in partnership with the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, is asking area businesses to step forward and agree to allow students and teachers to visit their businesses this summer. Certified teachers will supervise groups of students who will participate in the one-week internships, scheduled for the weeks of June 16, June 23 and July 7. Every business is different. Some businesses may only choose to participate for one week, while others may want to host students and teachers for each of the three weeks. A teacher supervisor helps each business identify age-appropriate activities. A portion of each morning is spent as a group with discussion and journal writing to help students make the link between curriculum and the workplace. Why should my business participate? This is your opportunity to experience the personal satisfaction of being involved in a unique, new community program. In other cities that have VITAL LINK programs, businesses have gained tremendously through their participation. Employee morale will improve as employees see their jobs through the eyes of a young student. This is your opportunity to contribute ideas about teaching and motivation as hands-on participant. You also will win a recognition for yourself and your company for involvement in this important new program that has a proven track record in other school districts throughout the nation. To find out more details or commit your participation right now, complete the form on the back of this brochure and return it to the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. 4^ Lime ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VITAL LINK is a partnership program of the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. UTTUROCK FOR OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS iSsk Who* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VITAL LINK IS A PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM OF THE Little Rock School District THE Little Rock Alliance For our Public Schools, and THE Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce \u0026gt; UTTLEROCK FOROURPUBUC SCHOOLS k THE CHAMBER Where Business Comes Together Whats involved? During the weeks of June 16, June 23, and July 7, students and teachers will work during the mornings in local businesses. Students will discuss the relationship between what they learn and do at the business sites and their classroom lessons. Students will sign up for just one week. Transportation will be provided if you cannot get your child to the assigned workplace. What must you do? Fill out the attached application. 13 13 13 El Indicate your childs area of interest on the application. Check whether your child will need transportation. Rank the week that your child would like to attend\nmark in order of preference so that a one-week assignment will be made to fit your schedule. Sign the form and return it to your childs school. Because of limited space in this first year of the program, placement in the VITAL LINK program is not guaranteed. If your child is assigned to participate, please: 13 13 13 Be sure your child dresses appropriately for a business setting. Ensure that your child is at the pickup site on time if he/she needs transportation. Talk with your son/daughter about the program\nshow interest in what he or she is doing. S Plan to attend a parent function at the business at the end of the week.VITAL LINK STUDENT INTERNSHIP APPLICATION Directions: (Please type or print) Date Recd.: Rec'd. by: EJ S S Please read all information before completing this form. Completion of this application does not guarantee placement of an internship experience this summer. Return to your childs school by April 14,1997. Students Legal Name: Student I.D. # Current School Grade Circle Gender: Male Female Circle Race-. Black White Asian Hispanic Other Parent / Guardian Address City Zip Code Phone (home) (work) Person to contact if parents cannot be reached: (Name) (Phone), The following skills have been identified by employers as necessary for success in the workplace. Please place a in the box(es) of your childs interest(s): O Reading and Writing  Mathematics O Originality \u0026amp; Creativity O Speaking and Listening O Computer Literacy  Problem Solving  Other If your child is in need of assistance or accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please describe here:  I will provide transportation for my child to the business. DMy child will need transportation to the business. The three (3) schools nearest my home are: 1. 2. 3. Please rank your choices (1,2,3) next to the dates listed to indicate which week you prefer your child to participate this summer: __ June 16-20 __June 23 - 27 __ July 7-11 PARENTS PERMISSION. RELEASE AND II^DEMNITY FOR INTERNSHIPS I hereby certify that my child, _____________________________________ participate in the VITAL LINK Internship program for the LRSD. has my permission to To the best of my knowledge he/she is physically fit, with reasonable accommodation, to engage in such activity and is not suffering from any illness or injury that would prevent him/her from participating. I agree and do hereby waive and release all claims against the Little Rock School District and any teacher, employee or other person engaged in the activity in question and agree to hold them harmless from any and all liability relating to my son/daughter for any personal injury or illness that may be suffered and or any loss of property that may occur to my son/daughter. It is understood that no child will be allowed to participate in this activity until this form is signed by his/her parent or guardian. (signature of parent/guardian) (Address) (Date)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VITAL LINK LINK Your Child WITH THE World of Business This Summer Picture your sixth grade student working AS A BANK TELLER FOR A WEEK THIS SUMMER! Or as a pharmacy assistant! Or how about as an accountant? Could your child benefit from actually WORKING IN A LOCAL BUSINESS TO LEARN HOW SCHOOL LESSONS WILL HELP IN THE FUTURE? If the answer is yes THEN READ ON I J VITAL LINK is an exciting new program which links local businesses and the Little Rock public schools. Businesses have agreed to host students and teachers for one-week sessions this summer, and students will be assigned to work in fields such as accounting, banking, hotel management, hospitals, printing, law enforcement, the legal profession and others. Your child will discover the relationship between his/her classroom studies and the future world of work as well as the importance of math and communication skills, problem solving, teamwork, computer literacy, creativity and originality. VITAL LINK PARTICIPANTS FirstnameiLastname I Company Joe Robin Linus Robert Mike Rusty Russ Ron Gary Larry Jim Maura Vic MaryJane Cynthia Drake Rex Charles C.K.. Wally Ken John Dean Dale Bob Deborah Jack Bob Robert Maurice Ann Bill Buddy Ben Hubert Ford [ALLTEL CcTp Armstrong I Arkansas Children's Hcsj Raines Lee Means [Arkansas Excelsior Hotel [Arkansas Symphony Orch Arkla iAimstrongjArmstrono i earn Realtors Harrington Roberts Smith Berkley Dailey Walsh Snyder Rebick East Keith Eley Stewart Franke Allen Sullivan Rigg. IV Hinson Nicholson Donaldson Ledwell Holbein Birch Dineen Mitchell Brown Scholl Villines Wyatt ~t Barksdale Address Allied Dri SOO Mar 3 Staled 2417 N. 400 East 301 N. S CityiStateiZip 1Phone LittI Litt! LittI LittI LittI Baptist Health_____________ BEI Boatmen's CART! City Hall Columbia Doctor's Hcspital Congressional Offices CopySystems Cynthia East Fabrics |9501 Int Il 100 Mu [Post Offi St. Vince ' 500 Wes 6101 W. 11527 Fe 1121 S. 1523 Re LittI ' LittI Mau LittI LittI LittI LittI LittI LittI LittI AR 'ar 'ar ' AR AR lAR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR 722021651-5558 722021320-1100 722011575-5000 722071666-1761 722011577-4710 722111221-5485 722051202-2000 721131851-4000 I 72205{37S1656 I 722051295-3254 IStudent IDates IComp Contact i for June IE and 2GiJulianne Murphy 722011371-4510 722051561-4585 722011324-5541 722021377-2739 j 722021665-0460 | Comments 201 July 7-11 tOlJune 23-27 S i July 7-11 5iJune 16-20 5l July 7-11 I Robin Armstrono I Mary Kay_______ ILee Robert IGIenda Royal IRusty Armstong 3013 v/eeks. 10 each weeiKara Wade lOjJune 16-20 loljune 15-20 5|July 7-11 j Emily Potter/Bar iJohn Monroe/Donnie Cook Gai! to meet v/ith company on March 26 75 10 5 5 1 Entergy Express Human Resources First Commercial Bank Franke Cafeterias Goff \u0026amp; Assodates. Inc. ITT Technical Institute JA Riggs Tractor Company_________ 'kark KATV Laidlaw Little Rock Nationsi Airport \u0026amp; Midcoa LRAFB Mercantile Bank Mem'll Lynch Mitchell Law Firm ODM Pulaski Bank \u0026amp; Trust Pulaski County Administration Pulaski Tech Colleoe Ramsev. Krua. Farrell. Lensina I Post Offi I LittI lOne Fin LittI iPost OffilLittI '400W. iLittT 12250 CotiLittI 4520 S. |5125 Int Post Offi Post Offi 124 W. 1 Airport 1250 Th 1 Riverfr 425 W. 320 Wes 201 E. M 5800 R 2nd \u0026amp; Br 3000 We 5800 Ev LittI LittI LittI LittI LittI LittI LittI NLR LittI LittI LittI LittI LittI AR ' AR lAR lAR 'ar 'ar AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR NLR AR LittI AR 9 June 15. 1557 June 16. 1957 June 23-27 July 7-11 July 7-11 I Larry Berkley Bruce Moore Erin Vickers Debbie Broadwa MaryJane Rebick Terry Dilby Merge wrth St. Vincent's______ Memo attached for breakdown Left Message_________________ Left Message One girl only 722031377-4000 722111221-2503 722031371-7000 722011575-4500 722021654-5532 722021577-2755' 72205 72203 72205 72201 72202 7209S 72114 72201 72201 72201 72207 72201 72118 570-5100 376-4444 572-7777 570-4000 572-5435 588-6570 688-7932 370-2100 688-8838 376-6200 661-7700 340-8505 771-1000 722051664-7705 Page 1 50 5 15 5 3 wks_____ July 7-11 3 wks July 7-11 June 23-27 5j July 7-11 lOjJune 16-20 ___5 ___5 30 10 150 __4 __5 5 10 5 18 10 July 7-11 June 16, 1557 3 weeks______ July 7-11 3 weeks______ June 23. 1557 July 7-11 June 16. 1957 July 7-11 July 7-11______ July 7-11 June 16, 1957 5|June 23. 1957 lAlma Wiliiams Fam Jones Charles Stewart Chris Franke IShari Hoover Ken Sullivan Becky James iTerri Hendrix Cindy Murphy Bob Donaldson Philip Launius Dani Johnson 10 each week 5 each v/eek Co-Chair pending Meet with April 18 Debbie Sutherland Chuck Freeman Bonnie Vickery Ann Brown Karen Patrick Sherry King Julie Rhodes Fran Fields Info pending/Sharing with Jimmy Moses Memo attached for breakdownVITAL LINK participants Buster Tim Diana Ronnie Janet Charles Pat Robert Barbara Woodson Beardsley Hill Hueter Nichols Jones Hathaway Torvestad Gray Douglas Walker Raney \u0026amp; Beardsley Southwest Hosptial St. Vincent's Student Loan Guarantee The Janet Jones Company UALR UAMS V.A. Hospital Velvatex Walker Law Firm 3600 Ca I-30 \u0026amp; Ot Two St. 219 S. Vi 7915 Ca 2801 S. 4301 We 2200 For 1520 ML 217 Wes' LittI LittI LittI LittI LittI LittI LittI Nort LittI LittI AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR 72202 72209 72202 72201 72227 72204 72205 72114 72201 72201 665-4844 455-7073 50-3910 688-7611 224-3201 569-3200 685-5000 I 370-6665 372-9678 372-4623 TOTAL Page 2 5 10 30 10 5 10 30 15 5 5 July 7-11 July 7-11 3 wks June 23. 1997 June 16-20 June 16-20 3 wks 3 weeks July 7-11 July 7-11 a i Buster Beardsleyl I Stacy Robinson IChesler Cummin|10 each v/eek I Geneva Langford Isusan Marlowe I Karrie Brown I Liz Genz ILeah Porter I Will take two more weeks if needed IIP each week______________________ 15 each week I Barbara Douglas I Dana Fisher I Possible 5 more students 1VI TAL LIM K January 24,1997 United Way of Metropolitan Tarrant County Marketing/Comm. Division Our Visit to United Way Words that describe our week at United Way\nhelpful nice interesting excellent fun enjoyable Jobs we saw or jobs we did this week: raising money finance department internet and computers time cards e-mail team work helping people developing film print shop Skills we learn in school that we can use on the job: using computers math speaking reading and writing art for designing and printing CAHfRA ERfAKfRS J.P. ELDER'S FINEST VISIT UNITED WAY MARKETING/COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION Rey Reyes, Michael McCune, Ramiro Ramos (not pictured), Alondra Hernandez, Maria Hernandez, Erica delaPaz, Norma Salinas, Corrina Lopez I Seven Kids Blown Up in Darkroom (fictional example of a news story) FORT WORTH - Seven children from J.P. Elder Middle School were blown up under the photo enlarger at United Way of Metropolitan Tarrant County on Friday. Two of the children, who were not available for comment at press time, were misquoted as saying the blow up was overrated. \"It was really fun,\" one of them said. \"I didn't know making pictures could be so interesting.\" Following the trip to the darkroom and the rest of the Marketing/Communications Division, Elder students trav eled to their graduation. One student talked abou the visit to downtown For Worth. \"United Way of Metropoli tan Tarrant County is a fut place to visit. Next, I hope wi get to visit Disneyworld!\" Summer program to link students, businesses to lessons of the world BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEM0CRAT\u0026lt;3AZETTE Little Rock School District officials plan to place at least 500 sixth-graders into area businesses for one week this summer to show youngsters how their school lessons apply to the working world. Don Roberts, Little Rocks interim superintendent, believes the connections that young people make between lessons and work are critical to their success in school and in a career. The summer internship program, in fact, is called Vital Link. ployees who have less than a col- The program began with 40 stu- lege degree have experienced a dents working a week m four area decrease of up to 24 percent in hospitals. Its grown to 3,500 stu- real earnings, while college gradu- dent participants a year and 300 ates reported an 8 percent in- business hosts, said Stephanie crease, he said. We want students to have a Jackson, who coordinates the program in the Fort Worth district Every Fort Worth surth-grader Were not trying to train stu- ------------------- , . dents for a specific job, Roberts have to niake some go^d ^ades\nor said last week. We just want the tl.sir p''?*\"\" \" \" students to understand that what will be very slim. ................... chance early on to see a doctor, a Evety physical therapist or an accountant is now invited to participate in toe at work, Roberts said. If they internships, which are scheduled think they want to be a doctor, then throughout toe calendar ye^. Lo- toey have someone to help them cal businesses are proud of toeir translate what that means for them participation, noting toeir Vital in toe seventh grade and what it Link partnership in toeir advertis- means for toe ninth grade. It ing and newsletter, Jacteon said, means they will have to take a lot Vital Liito has been duplicated of math and science, and they will in other cities in Texas well uavc w uumv ovxxxv BvvJ lu Floiida, Califonua and Ohia In toeir chances of becoming a doctor Arkansas, North Little Roct  \u0026gt; Bluff, Watson Chapel, Fayetteville The national award-winning Vi- and Dumas are amo^ toe school tel Link program originated in toe districts operating Vital Link pro- they are doing in school relates to their ultimate choice of a career. ------ Roberts said those education Fort Worth (Texas) Independent *}, and career choices are more im- Scbnnl Distnct six wears aeo when The Little Rock djstoct, the portant *han before. Todays em- School District years ago Roberts was superintendent there. See STUDENTS, Page 6B6B  MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1997  Students  Continued from Page 1B school district to fund Vital Link . and to recruit business partici- | pants. Representatives of the two ! organizations said this week that ! largest in the state, has about 1,800 Vital Link will benefit businesses sixth-graders. District officials and teachers as well as the stu- hope to serve at least 500 over dents. three weeks this year and to serve The chamber plans a breakfast all interested sixth-graders in fu- for more than 100 of the citys ture years. businesses Friday at the Holiday For this initial year, students Inn West to introduce the program will be asked to volunteer for the and to get companies to commit to one-week internships in late April inviting adolescents into their of- or early May. The beginning dates Aces, for the three Vital Link sessions are June 16, June 23 and July 7. During their assigned weeks, youngsters will spend mornings in a loci business or agency, not just observing adults at wor^ but do- Hubert Barksdale, chairman of the chambers Education Committee, said at least 50  and maybe as many as 70  businesses are needed this summer to carry out ing some of the work themselves. A district teacher will accompany the students at the job site. We want the students to focus on reading, writing, problem-solving and relationships. Roberts said. The students will see that reading and writing are essential in every job. If they go to the Police Department, they will see a policeman with a computer in his car, and they will see people who I think the business community will endorse this wholeneart- write almost as much as reporters do. These are important skills edly, Barksdale said. I think they are ready for an opportunity like this to have students and teachers in their workplace. Some businesses have already conunitted. The Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools is conducting a fund-raising campaign to offset the districts cost for Vital Link, said Baker Kurrus, a Little Rock lawyer and chairman of the al-  , , , - , liances board of directors. Costs they need to understand are re- include stipends for the quired everywhere. teachers and student transportation. Vital Link will be a powerful Everywhere the students go they will see that one of the key toois is technolo^, Roberts lu^puauou uj uic muo mvuivcu, added. Another thing they will sajj Kurrus, the father of a sixth- see is that workers have to work - ........... inspiration to the kids involved, grade daughter. But the Alliance is even more interested in Vital few jobs in which there is no in- y.ink because of the partnerships teraction with others. it creates among the district, busi- An element unique in the LR- nesses and the community. Kurrus tie Rock Vital Link program will said he hopes the partnerships in be the inclusion of parents, this project will lead to similar Roberts said. Parents may be in- partnerships on other school dis- vited to meet with the business trict and city issues. people who supervise their chil- The alliance is committed un- with each other. There are very dren to discuss the skills and tai- conditionally to the program be- ents required for various posi- cause we are unconditionally tions. That way, parents will be committed to the health of the knowledgeable about the job de- community and the health of the mands as they guide their chil- district, Kurrus said. We are dren through high school. prepared to do whatever it takes The Greater Little Rock Cham- to get this program off the ber of Commerce and the Little ground. The alliance may be contacted Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools are working with the at 370-9300 1 r i 1Arkansas Democrat ^CjazclU' i  MONDAY,^FEWyARY_24,1997 ---------------- J X .Summer program to link students 9 businesses to lessons of the world The program began with 40 students working a week in four area hospitals. It's grown to 3,500 dent participants a year and 300 business hosts, said Stephanie Jackson, who coordinates the program in the Fort Worth distnct  Every Fort Worth sixth-grader think they want to be a doctor, then they have someone to help them translate what that means for them in the seventh grade and what it means for the ninth grade. It means they will have to take a lot of math and science, and they will have to make some good grades\nor their chances of becoming a doctor BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rock School District officials plan to place at least 500 sixth-graders into area businesses for one week this summer to show youngsters how their school lessons apply to the working world. Don Roberts, Little Rocks interim superintendent, believes the connections that young people make between lessons and work are critical to their success in school and in a career. 'The summer internship program, in fact, is ployees who have less than a college degree have experienced a decrease of up to 24 percent in real earnings, while college graduates reported an 8 percent in- crease, he said. We want students to have a chance early on to see a doctor, a called Vital Link. Were not trying to train students for a specific job, Roberts said last week. We just want the  students to understand that what wil^e very slim. Sey are doing in school relates to their ultimate choice of a career. Roberts said those education throu^outthe calendar year. Local businesses are proud of their participation, notiiig their Vital Link partnership in their advertising and newsletters, Jackson said Vital Link has been duplicated in other cities in Texas as well as in Florida, California and Ohio. In Arkansas, North Little Rock, Pine Bluff, Watson Chapel, Fayetteville and Dumas are amo^ the school districts operating Vital Link pro- and career choices are more important t^an before. Todays em- s The national award-winning Vital Link program originated in the Fort Worth (Texas) Independent grams^ School District six years ago when The Little ^K^incq in Roberts was superintendent there. . Sae STUDENTS, F ige eb Students  Continued from Page 1B largest in the state, has about 1,800 sixth-graders. District cfftcials hope to serve at least 500 over three weeks this year and to serve all, interested sixth-graders in fu- school district to fund Vital Link j and to recruit business partici- j pants. Representatives of the two organizations said this week that uut 1,803 Vital Link will benefit businesses officials and teachers as well as the stu- tuce years.  For this initial year, students will be asked to volunteer for the one-week internships in late April are June 16, June 23 and July 7. During their assigned weete, youngsters will spend mornings in a local business or agency, not just observing adults at work, but doing some of the work themselves. A district teacher will accompany dts. , , , The chamber plans a breakfast for more than 100 of the citys businesses Friday at the Holiday Inn West to introduce the program and to get companies to cominit to inviting adolescents into their of- the chambers Education Committee, said at least 50  and maybe as many as 70  businesses are needed this summer to carry out tlie program. I think the business communi- ty will endorse this wholeheartedly, Barksdale said. I think they are ready for an opportunity like this to have students and the students at the job site. .We want the students to focus _ on reading, writing, problem-sow- gi,grs in their workplace, ing and relationships,\" Roberts   said. The students will see that reading and writing are essential in every job. If they go to the Police Department, they will see a policeman with a computer in his car, and they will see people who Some businesses have already committed. The Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools is conducting a fund-raising campaign to offset the districts cost for Vital Link, ------------------- --------- . - said Baker Kurrus, a Little Rock write almost as much as reporters ia,^gr and chairman of the aldo. These are important nances board of directors. Costs they need to understand are re- include stipends for the quired everywhere.--------------------------teachers and student transporta- Everywhere the students go ^Qn. ................................Vital Link will be a powerful inspiration to the kids involved. do. skills they will see that one of the key tools is technology, Roberts ____ ------------------ added. Another thing they will said Kurrus, the father of a sixth- see is that workers have to work graje daughter. But the Alliance with each other. There are very  -.-j i- few jobs in which there is no interaction with others. --------------------------------- . An element unique in the Lit- nesses and the community. Kurrus tie Rock Vital Link program will said he hopes the partnerships in be the inclusion of parents, this project will lead to similar Roberts said. Parents may be in- partnerships on other school dis- vited to meet with the business trict and city issues. people who supervise their chil- m- dren to discuss the skills and tai- conditionally , ents required for various posi- cause we are unconditionally ' tions That way, parents will be committed to the health of the 1 knowledgeable about the job de- community and the health of the mands as they guide their chil- district, Kurrus said. We are dren through high school. prepared to do whatever 'Intakes The Greater Little Rock Cham- to get this program off the ber of Commerce and the Little ground. Rock Alliance for Our Public The alliance may be contacted Schools are working with the at 370-9300 is even more interested in Vital Link because of the partnerships it creates among the district, busi- nesses The alliance is committed unconditionally to the program be- cause we are *^Arkansas Democrat ^(FjazcUc WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2. 1997 6th-graders hear job program pays, but not in cash BA' CA'NTHLA HOWELL DEMOCRATAI VETTE The last question asked Tuesday morning at a Jefferson Ele- mentaiy sixth-grade assembly was one school district officials knew was coming. must be returned by April 14. The program will be offered at no charge to 500 children dur- j ing the weeks of June 16. June 23 j and July 7. Up to one-third of the sixth-graders at each school will be selected from the pool of ap- It was about a new summer plicants. That means 25 of the 75 program in which Little Rock sixth-graders at Jefferson may School District youngsters will spend a week working in local businesses. get to attend. Applicants not selected will be placed on a school waiting list and may be able to Will we get paid? one young participate later if another week girl at the front of the school library wanted to know as the assembly drew to a close. The answer is no. But developers of the Vital Link program expect other pay-offs for the children.  The district the Greater Little is added to the program. The district is hosting two par- : ent information sessions on Vital I. Link. The first will be from 5-5:30 p.m. April 8 at Geyer Springs El- i ementary School. 5240 Mabelvale ! Pike and noon April 11 at the Dr. i -Martin Luther King Jr. Magnet\nRock Chamber of Commerce and Elementary School. the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools are cooperating to give sixth-graders a chance to work in local businesses and see So far. about 40 area business- ' es have agreed to panicipate. ! and another 40 are considering ' it, Milam said. Representatives j how their school lessons apply to of the businesses, with support i' from district employees, will de- I the work place. Students who volunteer for the program will termine what they want the | spend five mornings in June or youngsters to do at their job ! July at an assigned business. Yes, you will be paid  in experience and in opportunity. sites. We tend to think 12-year-olds cant do much, but they can do a Principal Frances Cawthon told lot. Milam said. She told the Jef- the 75 Jefferson sixth-graders. ^The adults in these businesses'are willing to take time out from their jobs to work with ferson students they will be expected to work, not just observe. Jefferson pupils wanted to know the list of participating you.\" counselor Lucy Rhodes businesses and whether they will told the audience. In any other get to pick the sites where they situation you would have to pay will work. They won t. Students for the training that you will be will get to specify their areas of getting, she said. Debbie Milam, program coor- interest, though. A sample of the confirmed dinator for the district, told the business participants include pupils they are too young to be the University of Arkansas at Lit- legally employed and will be tie Rock, University of Arkansas considered interns at the business sites. They won't take home for Medical Sciences. -Arkansas Excelsior Hotel, the .Arkansas paychecks, she said, but they will Symphony Orchestra. Arkansas be able to list their Vital Link Department of Education, the\nparticipation on resumes. federal Office of Desegregation i Milam is leading a team that Monitoring, city and county gov- will visit evep' district elementary school this week and next to recruit sixth-graders for the pro- ernmental ? agencies. Cynthia East Fabrics and Frankes Cafeterias. Several area hospitals gram, which was started at the have been enlisted, as well as urging of Interim Superintendent Don Roberts. Roberts initiated a similar program when he was superintendent in Worth, Texas. Fort Students will be given an ap- banks. Jefferson students cheered when the banks were mentioned. Transportation will be provided to youngsters who need rides to the work sites. Students will plication to take home for their catch the buses at schools close parents to complete. The forms to their homes.Arkansas Democrat C^azctte  THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1999 City Hail briefs * ve'. BY JAKE Sandlin\" ARKANSAS DLMOCRAT-CAZETTE as program provider  Boanl of Directors approved two cohfracte on n^sd'av n^^th the Little Kock School District as sole provider for the Vital Li^ rnship program to help sixth-grade studentel^ were done separately because funding includes $15,000 from the cify E^cation Commissions 1998 budget and $20 000 from the contacts^^rtn i^! tetoli competitively bid for sendees de- tern^ed to bo available from only one source. xr* I T  1 tC-----v***/viic oviuvc. Ine Vital Link Program is a pre-employment training and business program to help students learn skills for obtaining jobs in the fu- ^fter employees when they enterT^orlrforee Di a co^llaborative effort between the Little Rock School DistncL the Greater Little Rock Chamb^ of Commerce, the Little Rock Al- if^blJtoi^^^hn Volunteers in PubUc SchooteB^ to both contracts tn mlpaco thp T---------rrclauses on DOUl COI to release the funds because the program runs through the summer.I i: 1 i   t: i a y^iKiUiSU.s I MCJllDAY, .IVHJr. BO, I'l'U Vital Link between workplace, school brought home to youths BY SUS.AN KOI II XRk WS.VS DI MOf R \\ I (iAZl.HI Twehc-ypur-old Akama Ngundue likc'l working in the collections department at Ihe Stiidi nl Loan Guaraiilce Komi dation  until he learned that people aren't always nice when loan officers call. They let me call people who were more than six months behind on their payments.\" Akama said. \"The last one wasn't so fun. Ho was really unfriendly. He said. 1'111 tired of you guys calling iny house. .My mother's sick. There were babies ciyiiig and someone yelling in the background. When 1 told him who I was and how old I was. he started to calm doim a little bit. He was out of college eight years and owed $156,001).\" It wa.s just one of many eye-openeis for .Akama and si.x other studeiiLs assigned to the foundation as part of the Little Rock School District'.s Vital Link program. Tliey also learned several new computer programs and used the telephones, postage and fa.x machines, scanners and copiers. Around the city, other students attended court hearings with attorneys\ndrafted letters for Mayor .lim bailey al City Hall: tended patients at hospitals: loaded C-130 cargo planes at Little Rock Air Force Base\nprepared lunch at the .Arkansas' E.x-celsior Hotel, and created their own newscast at Little Rock station K.ATV, Channel\". See LINK, Page 3A fa *\u0026gt;'1,. I A-St.' E.fts\u0026amp;'s/'.V'', I   1 vMi! Arkansas Democral GazattefSTATON BREIDENTHAL Recnada Johnson, 12. stirs a batch of cream of asparagus with roaslod chicken soup in the kitchen of Arkansas' Excelsior Hotel as executive sous-chef Ken Jones adds seasoning. Johnson is getting a firsthand look at the workplace under the Littfe Rock School District's Vital Link program. Link  Continued Iroin Page IA More than SiO students entering seventh grade  about .a third of district's seventh-grade clas.s  are getting .a taste of tlie workplace al 46 area businesses or government offices. The Vital Link program is a partnership of the school district, the Little Hock Alliance for Our rublic SchooLs and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. Outgoing Little Rock Superintendent Don Robei-ts started the program eight years ago while superin-tendenl of the Fort Worth school system. It has since been copied in North Lillie Rock and Pine Bluff. Robeils wanted to impress upon children the links between their education and file work force before they enter secondary school. We lose an awful lot of people who make bad decisions in those years and never overcome it\" Roberts said. If a student finds a reason to go to school at tliis age, he can take advantage of what we offer in school.\" Students had to apply to participate in the program but had no other selection criteria. When I was filling out the form to choose between home economics and computer technology class, 1 respiratory therapy department at St. Vincent Inliniiary Medical Center a week ago. said she saw .lessi-ca's self-esteem grow during the week. .lessica lia.s always been real focused. but she's probably even more detennined now.\" Spector said. It's one tiling for your parents to believe in you. but for someone else to believe in Llieii! really made tlieni feel '1 am valuable in this community.\" Robert.s said it was not dilficiilt to sell the merits of the program to busiiics.s leaders, none of whom seemed to mind having 11- and 12- year-olds underfoot each moniing for a week. It was .a natural match for Geneva Langford, persomui director of the student loan foundation. We are a service company.\" I.angford said. Since we guarantee Ioans for students to go to college, our main Uieiiie is to educate. We re showing llie skills we'd like to see when we hire. Each moniing. the students met tlieir supervising teachers at their neighborhood schools, where buses picked them up and dropped tliem off at their jobs. Those at the foun-dation met at Terry Elementary, though some of them had attended Williams Magnet Elementary. In tlie fall, Uiey will attend different junior high schools. The boys wore neat polo shills didn't think I'd like computer tech.\" witli slacks and shoes, and the girls. said Diane Reisler. But now, after dresses witli sandals. seeing a lot of lliese computers. I'm Bacon met with the students more interested.\" briedy each morning, then sent That dose of reality will help them to their various posts in the teacher:\nlike John Bacon, who dill'erent departments about 9 a.m. leaches computer technology and About 11:15, they gathered again career orientation al Iulaski Heights Junior High. It's great that the kids can see for themselves some of the things it takes to get a job, said Bacon, who supervised the students at the student loan foundation. It makes my job a whole lot easier.\" The fact that the students at the loan foundation and other businesses got to work ill several different departnieiiLs also showed thein the importance of each job in the whole perl'oniiance of the company. They saw that each job really does make a difference to everyone, not just you, said Deana Kealliley, a teacher supervisor who visited several ilill'erent businesses each day to make sure the program was running smoothly. Debi Spector, whose daughter, Jessica Slaughter, worked in the in a conference room to discuss the morning and write in journals what they had learned and how they felt about the experience before gelling back on the bus about noon. \"1 think it's nice that they're taking time out to teach kids what tliey do at Uieir job.\" said Marcel iers Hewett. Marceliers and the others agreed that the only problem with the program was that it was loo short. It's kind of upsetting.\" said Dwiglit Hall. If you have a job. you don't gel to finish it. We should be able to stay until 2 or 3 in the alter- 110011, and Vital Link should be two or three weeks.\" Or a month,\" said Parker Richard. I want to have a full-day job. said Akama.\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_1003","title":"\"Educational Equity Monitoring 1995-96, Second Semester Summary Report,\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Educational Equity Monitoring 1995-96, Second Semester Summary Report,\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1003"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1631","title":"Court Filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental memorandum regarding the issue of an award of attorneys' fees and costs","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Walker, John W."],"dc_date":["1996-08-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers","Court records","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School discipline","Student assistance programs","School improvement programs","Education--Evaluation","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental memorandum regarding the issue of an award of attorneys' fees and costs"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1631"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  Rece,,,En~~HN w. WALKER. P.A.  A'ITORNEY AT LAW AVG 1 2 1996 Office of Desegregation Monijorin9 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKErr------ ---- ----- - RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. August 9, 1996 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Office of Oe~eg, cgation Monijorifl.n,, , , United States District Judge  . , ..._ _, United states Federal Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find our supplemental memorandum which supports our contention for compensation for work on behalf of particular class members relative to our motion for fees. Also enclosed are Attachments A, B, c, which address disparate discipline in the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts. I have also asked Ms. Springer, of my office, to give a supplemental affidavit contrasting the ODM and Joshua monitoring reports with respect to the North Little Rock School District. Attachment Dis a copy of an affidavit that I submitted to the Court in my motion for fees in the Day-Hollowell case which supports my request for $250.00. Finally, we further remind the Court of our enclosure one which was attached to our opposition to LRSD's request for release of federal court jurisdiction which also supports our position for fees in this matter. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown REcec~\"-D - AUG 1 2 1996 f'ol,\\;,~ij;:.s.s _c.!LcdIJN 01s1r.1ci p.. Office Of Deseg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I i\u003c' Q 9 i99o ragation M~RN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS P.,ul.l \\(  ........._________ WESTERN DIVISION cor-MP-C\\(, CLE.P,   M  , - JP-MES \\N_~:-~ .. ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Bf ~rtrc:,-~- v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS Joshua Intervenors' Supplemental Memorandum Regarding the Issue of an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs Decisions Recognizing as Compensable Work on Behalf of a Class Member(s) As Well As Preparation of a Report on Monitoring (1.) Brewster v. Dukakis, 544 F.Supp. 1069, 1072 (D.Mass. 1982), aff'd as modified on other issues, 786 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1986) In describing the \"vigorous and necessary role in implementation\" played by plaintiffs' counsel, in a case involving the deinstitutionalization of persons with mental disabilities, the district court includes in part \"report[ing] and vigorously press[ing] charges of client abuse or neglect both in the community and in the hospital [and] represent[ing] clients during hearings on the drafting of individual service plans called for in the Decree .... \" The court of appeals quoted with approval the district court's having distinguished the roles of the \"court-appointed monitor\" and plaintiffs' counsel by noting counsel's responsibility for \"advocating on behalf of plaintiff class 1 responsibility for \"advocating on behalf of plaintiff class members.\" See 786 F.2d at 19 n.5. (2.) Eirhart v. Libbey-Owens-Ford co., 996 F.2d 846, 850-51 (7th Cir. 1993) In case involving sex discrimination in employment where the court had earlier approved a consent decree, the court ruled that compensable \"post-decree work\" included work on \"a dispute over whether a class member had shown 'good cause' under the terms of the decree to delay the starting date of her employment with Libbey.\") (3.) McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1461 (8th Cir. 1988) In a case involving conditions and practices on death row in a Missouri penetentiary, the court's description of appropriate monitoring activities by counsel included \"interviewing prisoners [and] investigating complaints .... \" (4.) Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 856-57 (9th Cir. 1987) In a case involving compliance with the Constitution and federal and state law in the construction of a freeway, the court of appeals quoted with approval a list of postjudgment activities identified by the district court as compensable, including the following: \"[i]Tenant relocation issue: assisting Advocate's office in resolving disputes between Advocate's Office and Caltrans regarding orderly removal of remaining corridor residents. [ii] Housing priorities for displacees: mediating disputes between the Advocate's Office and Caltrans to ensure the preservation of priority for displacees who are forced out prior 2 to availability of housing .... [iii] status Conferences: preparation of quarterly reports for court's Quarterly Conference on staus of project.\" In an opinion addressing fees for a subsequent period, the district court described the quarterly reports as follows: \"providing quarterly comprehensive reports to the court which summarize the progress made in implementing their decree and draw to the court's attention potential areas of difficulty; ... \" See Keith, 644 F.Supp. 1312, 1314 (C.D.Cal. 1986). (5.) Duran v. Carruthers, 885 F.2d 1492, 1496 (10th cir. 1989) In approving fees for postjudgment services, the court quoted with approval the district court's description of compensable activities by counsel in Brewster v. Dukakis. supra, - including activities on behalf of class members. (6.) Alexander v. Hill, 625 F.Supp. 567, 568, 569 (W.D.N.C. 185) In case involving compliance with federal time limits for processing Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Medicaid applications, the court identified as compensable time spent by counsel in \"review[ing] thousands of documents and hundreds of files in ten counties across the state as well as Medicaid files 3 at the Disability Determination Section in Raleigh.\" ohn w. Walker# 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing supplemental memorandum was s~~~ via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~day of Aug\"M//,~,.., v6\"ohnw. Walker \\... 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER STATE OF ARKANSAS) SS) COUNTY OF ___ ) Comes now the affiant, Joy C. Springer, who after first being duly sworn, states as follows: 1. This affidavit supplements my affidavit dated November 21, 1995, in which I described work performed in this case totaling over 3100 hours. It is to give a contrast between the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors' monitoring reports with respect to the North Little Rock School District. 2. The Joshua reports for the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, which included the monitoring of the North Little Rock School District, differed from the reports of the Office of Des~gregation Monitoring in that the gathering of information for the Joshua reports included on-site visits to every school in the North Little Rock School District. The Joshua reports were 1 based, in part, upon information secured during these school - visits and interviews with the principals and other staff members. The Joshua reports also set forth anecdotal information from students, parents, and staff (a feature present in ODM reports to a lesser extent). Joshua's reports integrated statistical data from schools profiles. They further addressed more areas of operation of the NLRSD than the ODM has addressed in its reports concerning this district. Areas in the Joshua reports included curriculum, discipline, parental involvement, staffing, student enrollment by school and in particular programs, student participation in activities, and general areas of concern. The overall findings of the Joshua reports indicated that there was a substantial amount of noncompliance by each of the districts including North Little Rock regarding their - commitments to address achievement disparities, discipline disparities, integrated parental involvement, student assignments, integrated staffing, overrepresentation in special education, and underrepresentation in gifted and advanced placement classes. 3. I am familiar with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and its charge to monitor the settlement agreement for the Pulaski County school districts. I also have some knowledge of the ODM's areas of concentration for their monitoring activities in previous years after having met with members of the ODM, staff on several occasions. Moreover, I have read the reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring that have been 2 distributed for last five years. - 4. Based upon my recollection, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has produced written reports relating to five specific areas of .the North Little Rock School District over the last five years. These areas are racial balance, alternative schools, student participation in two of the many extracurricular activities, achievement disparity and buildings. 5. The ODM's first written published report on the North Little Rock School District was dated December 18, 1992. It was entitled 111991-92 Monitoring Report on the Alternative Schools: LRSD, NLRSD and PCCSD.\" The second written published report was dated February 26, 1993. This report was entitled \"NLRHS-West Campus 1992-93 Spirit Team Recruitment and Selection Process.\" It was completed, in part, as a result of a motion for - preliminary injunction by the Joshua Intervenors regarding the selection of cheerleaders and spirit team members at North Little Rock West campus. There have been at least two written published reports on Racial Balance dated January 12, 1994 and January 31, 1995. The next written published report was entitled \"Status Report on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD.\" The last written published report regarding North Little Rock was recently released on July 31, 1996 and was entitled \"Report on Elementary School Facilities in the North Little Rock School District.\" 6. This is not to say that the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has not been monitoring this District in other areas 3 since the settlement agreement simply because there is no written - report. Joshua has not completed a written monitoring report since its report of June 27, 1993, however, they have continued to monitor compliance with the settlement agreement in all three districts including North Little Rock . 7. I believe that there has been value to our monitoring every school in the three school districts. For at least two years straight, we visited every school in the North Little Rock School. I further believe that our frequent visits to these schools conveyed a sense that we would be vigilant about determining compliance with the agreements. Our visits also identified activities needed to improve compliance, not only in the North Little Rock School District, but in Little Rock and Pulaski County as well. We received feedback from principals and - staff regarding our findings in all three districts. I have read the foregoing affidavit and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __9 _d ay of August, 1996. Notary Public 1 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9-/7-~~3 4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES October 13, 1995 Ms. Joy Springer Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Springer: 2700 POPLAR Enclosed is a report of our disciplinary referral summary by action taken. The report is a cumulative record as of June 9, 1995 for the 1994-95 school year. - Suspensions are listed in the following areas: 09 Student Assignment Class (SAC) 10 Home Suspension 11 Boys/Girls Club Suspension ~z1o ~ff.1Iiff c~ Director of Student Affairs P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 B . ., .  Ref : , DI!JOl~ Fii .E YEAft : NLRBl\u003e9S CUML'l /\\TIVE 01~ NORTH 1.ITTLE ROCK HIGH EICHOOl. - i l/i2 R- f\u003cEFERR/\\LB - ---- - -- - - - TOTl'IL- - - - ----   - -  --.. EcLt\\CK -- -- ... - - -tc  -- --NON--llLhCI\u003c -- -  - - \" CODI:: 081.:RIPTION B...._o, lHIL ar UDE:NTQ 'Hll'Al-:c---LE- - Fl'~Al .. 6 .. l 'JlAl----HAl--.li- - - H:;.H..i . \u0026;..,:J'QT-.i.L.- - -lo--~iC .. --- - - - Ot Cun~rnc wl th Studn't R 201 181 20\" 143 130 i ~ tc ~ a ~ i 7 ~ B i~3 13~ i9  i06 94 l 2 \" 47 41 6 ~ 02 Cnnf'rance w I -th Pareni'  R - - -- -fi5------l2---f - -- -- --i:O-- -- - -- 'i\u003e --- t.- -  -- a - -----;J-----Q--------------- ------- B st to s  e 7 1\" 3 3 o K 03 Confrnc with Btudnt nd P r nt R 9 6 3 M 7 ~ 3 K 2 ~ 0  a a s 3  7 4 3  t s o  0-4  Fl   - .. 0 ---------- O  -- ~  --  -  -- - -- - - ---- - 0 - -- ---- 0-*--- -- 0 - -- --- -- 0 --~-- ------ - - - ---- - ------- 8 0 0 0 N O O O  0 0 0 015 R O O O w O O O  0 0 0 \" B O O O w O o o  0 0 0  --oe-O-tW'nt ton Hall ------ - - --- -  -  - - - - - R - ---l9? t 76--2f--l2\u0026----l ? ---- --...;,:;i . ___ _,r.-4 ___ _.._ ___ __________ _ 8 l~l 122 19  04 7 2 12   ~7 LO 7 ~ 07 8tudnt WI ll H~ Up Tim R O O o w O o O  0 0 o ~ B O O O w O o o  O O O  ---- 8tudnt Placwd c,n -P.-obat Ion --- -- - -- R ----45--- -- i!l-4----tcf- ----~---;;,,!,- - ---=.,..-. -- 4.:.! - - ---4o- ---4__..._ _____________ _ B 3B 28 10  ~7 20 7 * ii 9 3  09 R 203 2i8 6~ w 219 164 5 5  64 ~4 lO  B 172 123  9  129 07 42  43 ~6 7  ~ - -H.-- 1tuw .. wnw I cm---- - - - - - ---  --------i!I,;;. 29 2 N 22---- I ! i--- - - - ------s----- --\"\"----+--1---------------- , 13 2e 26 2 .. 20 t '.? 1 .. a 7 1 .. R 45 43 ~  43 4 1 2 - 2 2 0\" 8 25 23 2 M 23 2t 2 N 2 2 0  li flc:,y/Glrl Club Susp:nlan ---- - -- . ....... -----;----ft--0-- - ----- - ------ - -0-  - ---- 0 - - - -'--\u003ci,_ _ _ .... ,_ ________________ _ Bue au ... nlan lt--'t\"'r-ea~urdy ttct,aol--------- us Rco111 .. nded Expulwlan --;.-- - Ottnor -- ------ l7 11,.11llan a o o o .. o o o  o R 20 i9 i w i2 il 1  B 0 8 B 18 17 t  12 S\\ l\" 6 6 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. R 29-4 20!5 89  S.69 lt.i-!---1!Fl '---f,li!t!!l!5;.---~9'i'~-.;.---;,hi!--~------------- B 209 i36 73  1 2 0 ~i. -49  1~9 R 4 4 0 w  4 0 N 0 a 4 4 o \" 4 4 o  o o:S (\u003e 0 0 ., ---- - --- ---R---26--- 2l---6 ----  iii! a:'i~ --   -- ----- -2 - -----------i---------------- 0 24 19 ~  22 1~ 4  2 i l w A 4 4 0 w  4 0 N O O O tt 8 4 4 0 N 4 4 0 N O O O N - -   - - --- -- - ------------'l\"'O-- Rfi'.FERR,l,t;a-------'l'-,--- -95l-- - Q--\u0026f.15-----.....,.- - i....,_. _ .. - -~\\'!.,..__-.;,.. ,.. .::. .__ _. .,_..----------------- TOTAL STUDENTS---- 83~ 6~2 183 tt Si,6 ' 432 i ~ 'I \" ;;,9 ~~-o .. ,9 ... ---  - . . ------ -------------- ----------- - ---- - - -------- - - ----- - ---- -- -- --- -- ---------------------------- tt----- -- -- - -- - ----- ------------ - - - - - - ----------- - ------ - -------------- - --  ,, \"' ----------------------- ---- --------------- ------------------------------------------------ . ------ -- - ------ -- - ---------- - ---- - --- ----------- ---------------------------- - - - - ----------- ------- - -- ---- ---- ---- - - --------------- --- - -- -- -- ---------------------- - --- - - - -------------- ----  - ----........ -- --- ...,1----- ---- - ------------- --- ------------------------- - -------- - - --------- ------------ --------------  Ref, , DIU01 .5. F II. E r'EAF~ , NL.l~BlY~ CLIHUI..ATIVE 013 NORl.H l . ITlLE ROCK Hl~H 6CHOOL  \u003c\u003e9/10 F\u003c   REFl'RR/\\Lfl COl\u003ett hl!:8Cft I F-r I UN 8-... Cl UAt . f'I I UDl;.HTfJ 0l with Gtudnt 02 0:1 Con1'rnc wl th Studer,t and Pa, en1: 0-4 oa Detwntlr,n Hall 07 Student Will Hak Up 11~ oe  8tudnt Placed on  0Prohe  lan 09 Studnt \"'--nt ClaaaC\u0026IIIC\u003e 1--to - - - eu.,....,., \". ll B\u003ev  /Clr l Club Suepanlon R 97 63 34  66  6 2 0,. 31 9 86 ~5 31 tt ~9 40 J ,, N ',,,l.7 17 i. -4 .. l2 \" R - S\"' --- 10 --   .. .. -  ~2-----9---- -i'l---- 2 --- --i ~ ---if------- - ----- ----- 13 14 so 'I ,. 12 9 :J,. 2 1 i \" R  9 3B 11 ,. ~!5 ~6 9  \\  I ~ 2  B 44 34 10  31 23 a 13 11 2  R i'i. 14   -'?   ~.5 - - - --+-   \u003c!r- .., -----6- - --- S----l--------- - - -- ----------- - - -- 8 ~1 14 7 N ~~ 9 6 - 6 ~ i N R 64  7 17  47 39 12  17 12 l5  a 5a  s 1 7   i ~,;, 12  17 ~ l5  -Fe  .. 1.096-- .. ---13.5 3!ii'I - *   - ? ;\u003e-~ ----9\u0026---- ~------~--~ ~,._-______________ _ U ~92 31~ 180  339 203 136  J~3 109 ~~\" R 6 3 3  4 1 3  2 2 O \" B 6 3 3   ~ 3  2 2 0  A -- f'\u003eB  ,,, -  115  - . .. . ii() - - - - - -H--  --9--:;us-----9 .. ----4..-.. _ a ~- 39 1~  30 21 ,  2  1a R 669   7\"' 19~ tt tsO   I 3  11 lf;6 w 1-!.!5 ! l:;\u003e6 e 3~~ 232 li2  ~~7 \\ 1~? ea w ?7 7 3  - .... - - A -- -i4H - - -  87 --   -- f. - - -----  -----\u0026fl---+----.4-a------.'\"-,._ _ -;--.-- ------- ------ a 7:S 62 S.3  47 3 1 i O  2 8 ! 2!5 R 79 ~~ 24  67 ~lJ t9 ~ 12 ' 7 8 64. 4~ 22 N ~3 :56 17  11-~ 6 ::s \"  - --- - ----- A - -0 ---- -- \u003c\u003e --- - ----- ----- - ~\u003e- - --- - O-----O- --- -Q- ---\u003c\u003e_.~ - - - ----------- B O O O  0 U O  0 l:I 8uw Buepnalan R 13 11 2  10 9 1  3 B 12 iO 2 * 9 13 1 ~ 3 0 2 2 0 .. i .. i .. 1--,....---,alt  ~rd..., -tk:hoa l ----------     - - - -- -~- -- !5tcd - --- i5  '1-- --6,..__..._07 26!0 f.--2-- -~'6------'i~--..+.--------------- B 297 i9f l06  226 137 09\" 71 !;4 17  Ui R 2 2 0  2 ~ O  O O O M Q 2 2 0 M 2 ~ () - 0 0 0 M --;.-ath.r -- ----  - - - --- ---- --- -   - - - - - ---fl -  20'- --ti39 - --65   -  ib7- ----i0=! ----6-- 7 ;,.,_ _ ... ,...-_.. ______________ _ B 1153 100 153 tt 11.3 70 \u003c11 :s  ... 0 :JO 10 \" 17 EPullon R :J 2 1  2 .l I.  i .1 0 \"' B 3 2 1 N 2 1 l M l l O M t---  - - -  ---- -  - - ----T0TM;- ftt!:Fe:~--t:t---~'1'6---2066  --9f 1  -tt - 220-4 --1\\-- 'IA- --- '?5'6---lli! --- fSfl~.+.l-=s----- ------------ T01.AL STIIDENTel-- 17:,::s t.i-4? :\"17l, * 12:,10 7e1 ::.  'l:':i \" 4'1!5 3l,... 1., 1  - ----  -   - - - ----  ---- ----.. - - --... - - -- - - .. ... . .. ... - .... ----- --- - -- -- - - - - ------ - --- ------- --------------- 1------ - - - - - - ---- - ----------- - ------- ---- ----- - -- ---------  -- - - ---- - --- ---- - ------------------------- - - -- ----------- --- . - ..... -- - - - --------  . _ ,, -- -- --  - - ---- - -- ---------- .... ---- ------ - . .. - ---- - .. -- -   . - -- - - - ---- ---- -- ---- --- - ------ ---------- --------------- ------  - -- -- - - - - ---------- -- --- - ----------- - --- ----- - ----- --- - - --- - - - ---- - -------- ------ .. ---------------------- It----- --   --. -    - -- --- ---- ---  - ------ ---- ------  -\"-- -  -----  ----\"- - - - - - - - ---------- .. - . ---- --------  Rt : j OJHOj .J. FJI i;_ ,E. Af~ , \u003c811'15 CllHUL,,TIVE 020 ,,._ l\"l,RNATIVE CENTER - i::l.1:HE,~TA \u003c l' R-  REF HRF\u003cALB   - -- l oTAL--     - N      --  Etl.r.CI\u003c --  -  - --  - -NON EtL-.CI\u003c -- --\" COl\u003eE IIESC\"I,.TIUN e~AC;\"I UAI. STUDENTe TOTril. HfllL e - FE_H ... l.E*\"f O'f\"';---+fN-:E--f-r.H,t,LE\u003c\u003effH-.a.L Hi1lLE - -F:H,i,l:E=-- - - - ------------- 01 C1.,11 frnc with Ytudnt r~ o o 0 M O O O M O 0 6 .. a o o \" 02 C1.,n'frnc  WI th Prn1\" -  - - o  -- - -o - 0 M O ( ) 0 M O O ? M --o-,. - -\u0026- ---- 0---- - -0 ------~----e-1,..~-------------- B O 0 \u003c\u003e N O O OM O O O 4 03 Ct\u003enfrnc with l3tudent Htid Prnt R \u003c\u003e o () M O i) 0 M O O ()  t a o o 0 N O I) \\) H O {\u003e 0 .. o .. F-r lvl lv Denied  - R O  0   O  ,.  O --- --- -.:) ----  \u0026 --   0 ---------\u003e----- - ------------- a o o \u003c\u003e M O D O  0 0 0  OS Bhavlar Contract R 0 o 0 M O O \u003c\u003e M O O O \" 13 0 0 0 M O O O  0 0 0  - \"()6 - l)tntlon Hall  - -  R -    O -  O -- \u003c\u003e . ..   0-----~-----0----  0-----.... ---~----------------- ~) 0 0 0 N O () () M O () 0 M 07 8tudnt Will Hk Up 11~ R O 0 0  0 \u003c\u003e O  0 0 0  a o o (). 0 () 0 N O O Off 09 9tudnt Plcd on  ,...,.obatlon R   \u003c\u003e -  o - 0 ... - 0 --  - --0------0----.-   0- -- --0----0-------------------- B O 0 ()  0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 M 09 81udn't Alvn,...ni Cl\u003cBAC) R O 0 0 * 0 U O ,. 0 0 0  B o O \u003c\u003e  0 o O ,. 0 0 0  ~O-- 8uwpnlon--- -   --  --  ----- --- R - - le--  -\u003c   -   --- ... - - ~ - - - --.\u003e- --------- . 0 ---~----\u003ci------------------ B 1 0 1  1 0 l M O O 0 ll 8'\u003eys/Clrl Club l:luspnslon R O 0 0 M O O O N O O O tt 8 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 \" 0 0 0 N -t~ --1'lt School Sup  IC-6, R -   O  -o 0 * 0 ---- - --- -- - 0-  0 ------ - -0 ------- -....--0-----0--.----------------- B O \u003c\u003e 0 M O O O M O O O \" 13 811  auspenelon R o O \u003c\u003e w o n o  o o o B O 0 \u003c\u003e  o n o  o o o .. 1--1~--1_11.,tvrday Br.hoot ---   - --- - - -- - --- - - - - O -- -- -- O -\u003c -  - --  -\u0026 - - ------~- - - - - ~...------o - ---.-. ----------------------- a o o (1 M O O O ,. 0 0 0  lS Rac....,_ndd EPullon R O O 0 M O O O M O O O ff B O O () M 0 0 () M 0 0 0 tt -;-  Oth...-   - ---- -  ----- -- R - -   0 -- O - - -  0 - ...  \u003c\u003e-   - -- - ,\u003e---- -- 0 - - - --0 - ----~---~---------------- B o O 0 w O D O  0 0 0 ff 17 11!:pulslone R O 0 0 0 0 0 N O U O  0 0 0 \" 0 .. 0 0 6 .. 0 0 0 .. ------- TO\"I\",._._. ~f'-ll!:RR1'l:-- --- - - -t------- O - - 1 -tt --- ---------0 l 11 --- \u003c\u003e- ----\u003e---....._._ _______________ _ TOTAL BTUDENTB---- 1 O 1 M l O 1  0 0 0 .. I----- - - . - - -- . - - ------------- - . ---------- - ----- -- ----- - --- - ----- -------- --- ---------------------------- ,___ - - -- --- -  - -- ---- -- -------- - - --- ---------- - - . ----  - - . - -  -  .... -- - --- . -------- - --------- --- - - --------------- --- . - -- - ---------- ------ . -- ------------- ------- - -- -- -- . ----- --- - ---- - -- ---- -------------- -- - - - . -- --------- ------ ------ -- -- - '  - -- . - -- -  -----------------  ----------- ------- --- -.  ---- .. - ----- .... .. - --- -- -- --- - - - ----- --------- - - - __, _ .  - - - --- ----- - -- ------- ----- --- -- - - - --- --- -- -- - - - - Rw1 : OIHOS JSL DI ,.c Ip l In., y t\u003cwf.,.el fl umot y FJlE YEAR : NLRS095 Act lon rlcen CUHULATIVE 021 ALTCRNATIVE CEN.fEF\u003c BECONl\u003eAF\u003cY R- REFfcRRALS  --TOl AL.--- -----   -------- EoLACI\u003c - - - - - -- ----- --NON-ltLACI\u003c  - - ----,. COi'\u003e DESCRl~TION 8MAc,uAL t!ITUDt!.HT1S Tl]TAl_ - H ... Lt! l'E.HM:E..-'1-0TAL----HM..::E r1: 11. ..L Eto'FeTT'\"'\"'\"1L.c:---il~\"\"ML.::iEE..---FF.'tiEl::tt1.\" \".'=.L ::iEF---....- -------------- 0t 02 03 oa Cun'frnc wl th Stu.dnt Con'feruc Mith Utuden t nd P r nt ~rlvllev Denied R 5 a  3 2  3 3 2 l. l \" l 0 l .. .. l 0 i - -- R --- --~- --- -  1-- - - - - - ~ - ----1-----e..-..----\u0026-----~-----e ........ ---------------- 8 t s o t 1 0 .. 0 0 0 R t3 t2 1  9 0 ..  3 t .. e 1t 10 s ,. a 0  3 2 i .,  --- R  -- - 1 ---  t - -- ---O- - - - ----\u003e-- --,-.,,._--+---- --+-----e,-,,._--------------- B l l O ,. 0 R O o O ,. 0 S O O O N 0 0 0 () 0  0 .. 0 .. l 1. 0 . 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 .. --o - 1\u003etwntlon Hatt - -- ---- -------- ~ 07 cw it 115 l7 Studnt Will Hk Up Tlfflw t!J'tudwn1' r-tc:d an ,-raba  ton - u  pwnwt01-r------ Boy  /Glrle Club Bu Pnlon -l~\u0026chaal-a~fjlCf-,~llo+t--- - Bue Bu  Pnlon -1t~day ttchool---------- --  11,alelon B l l O ,. R o o o  B O O o ,. i 0 0 l () () 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 ..   - ----- R  t ---- ----0 -----+----+---e-.----\u0026-----~---.Q..---------------- B t l O ,. 0 .. 0 0 0 R 63  6 t7 tt 16 .. 6 !5 l .. B 46 32 t4,. 13  6 s i .. ----- - R 415 a~--f.------'---- -\u003e--~\u003c+--\u003e---''-------''----------------------- B :It 24 7  7 .. 3 3 0 .. R 6 5 S tt l. .. l l 0 .. a 6 ~ s ,. .. s. .. t l 0 .. - ------ -A----\u0026---- ~ - -----\u003c~-----Q--- ---0----~:\u003e------0----.Q..----------------- s 0 0 O ,. R 3 3 o tt B 3 3 o  0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 .. .. 0 t \" i 0 0 .. l 0 .. l 0 .. --------iRFt---t a---- -ta- ~-----H\u003e----+\u003ci\u003e----\u003co\u003e-.--- -31-----;a----\u003c-\u003e------------------ s 10 to o  a a 0  2 2 0 .. R   o  2 2 0  2 2 0 .. B   O  2 ~ 0 .. 2 2 0 .. - - - ---A-------- - - t ------c.  - - - -,--- --~ - --~ ... B l l Ott i l 0 .. 0 0 0 .. R e  t   3 1. .. i i 0 .. B 8  l  4 3 l  l l. 0 .. - - ---- --,-OT-.t- REFERftH::------wo-----~- -3-- - a4---!-.ta~\u003c!...---.~!W9 \u003e-4o\u003e---2-~- ---?-4.----.!li-o\"-------------- TOT ... L STUDENTS-- - - t2S 99 26  to  81 ::' :~ .. ::? i 19 3 .. --------- - - - ------- -- -- - ---- - --- - -- - - --- .. - ----- - - - --- --- ---- -- - -------- --- --- --- - ---- ,.... ________ . . - - -- - - -------- . -- --- ---- - -- - -------- ---- ---- . ------------ --- ----- - - --- --- -------- - - --- - . -- - - -- - - ----- ----- -- .. ------- - - - - ----  -------------------------------------- ----- - -------------- - ------ - - - R , , 01aot ~ FJI.E tEAn , ~Bb9S DI \"'c Ip l I nrv r-.cef.A l aununrv Et ,.. Act on--n CUHIJI \"TJVE 024 HIDGEf\u003cUAD HIDDLE GCHC.JOL R REFfi RRAL!3 -  - -  - -  rOTAL------ ----- - - r.L.ACI\u003c --- --- - -N -- --NONBLACI\u003c -  conE DF.BCAJ~TJON S-ACIU,..l, 9TUDP.:NT13 TOTAi, H/IILE FF.HAI Ettl\"OT~-tt11ot::E FCtl,.,I .. E..-'fG'f-M;---t-tM::E --~-t?H#'.t:l~-------------- Ol C,\u003enfrenc \"'I 'th Student R 1J\\ 48 36 M ~,9 :41 :.?l3 tt :.?S I 7 0 \" 8 64 30 34  4S 19 26 N 1.? fl 8  02 - ft'  -.- !, - -  -- 22 - - - 72 --- - !~?-------f\"\"l - - --,-a-.--- i.0------+1----e---------------- a ~IJ 19 iY tt ~~ 1~ 12 tt ~~ 7 7 ~ o::s R 17 9 a Ll \"' 7\" 6 ~ 1.  G 17 9 a tt ll 4 7  6 ~ l \" 04 I'\u003c l O :I   -t - t\"~ - - ---t----- -O------O------e----------------- S l o 1  l o 1  o o o  OS R 1 0 l  l O i  0 0 0  B 1 O IN l O 1N O O Ow :  !f~ 1.1; ---~:-: -- t~------~1- - - -;~-: --~:---....;,:;,w_3'l----tl-t63-.,.. ,_ _____________ 07 Eltudent WI ll Hake Up Tl11te R 2 2 O  2 ~ O  0 O O  B 2 ~ (}  2 2 0  0 0 0  -oa - etudent ~lcd un l\"\"rablan R  - -   0- -  0 ---0 ....... --$--- -  (  - ------- 4;9._----88---------------------- B O O O w O o O N O O O  09 R 436 2::13 183 tt :ns'I' 1.31 l~B \" 177 S22 !~S \" B 21B 126 B~  130 73 ~7 M 0::1 ~3 32  ------  --- A - -- Ul1   - 1.06- --?~---- :l-33 -----7.,;\u003e---\u003c\"rt--.... 1381------ac, _-+_,_ _____________ _ B 10? 60 4? N 79 4L 30 w 30 19 Ii ll R 3~ 26 \"/  22 IH 4 N 11 a 3  9 30 23 \"1 N 20 j6 4 N iO 7 ~\" ~-.-t 8choot  8u--it(-t  - - - - --     ---   - - - R - - -   O O -- -  0 . ... ____ ______ ___ ~\u003e - -----0- -- ----Q-\"---'--v----v-,_ _____________ _ B O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 \" t3 8u S\u0026\u0026Pnlan R 11 7 4  lO 7 3  l O l\" ~.--.-~urday echa~n-1.1--------- . _____- -=--t~~---S:--6:-:__a:_ ___ 3 ~---\",3_'-\u003c,.__ _ .,.a1----i~oe----P.i1.-.\". -------------- 8 106 '50 eit..  68 30 3B \" ~18 ;.\u003eO i 8 us Rcaa11tndd Expulsion R o O o  0 o O \" 0 0 0  S O O O  0 0 0 w O O O  --- - - ~ - ---tU- - - Si   ----El~    66 ---iilf.l  -- S-8-- H5----t-3-------\u003c--------------- S ~... 30 2~ .. 42 ::a\u003c, :?2  1.2 10 2 .. 17 Expulsions R i i O i 1 \u003c\u003e 0 0 ON B l 1 0  i 1 O  0 0 0  - --- - -- -- -------- - TOT.-.t- ftef't!:ftftH.;\u0026------1.-1. r?----685-- --49~- ---,''!f-9-----41 a --- 36-t:------398 267 TOT\"'L STUDENTS----- 7615 42\\5 ::S40 \" 15J 1 ' 270 241. \" 2~\u003c'1 1t,:5 i~------------------ '19 .. f--- - --- -  -------- --- - - ------- - - -- -  -------------- ------ -- -------- -- ---- - -------------------------------------- - -  ---- - --- ---- ------- ------- .. ------------- ----   .. ------------- a-----  --- - --- -------- - - ---  ------ --   - - - ---- ---- -  - -   - --- -- - --- -- - --------  -  -- -------------- -t------ -- ------------------------------ ------ - .. - -- -------------------------- . . --  .. --------- --- - -------- - -------- -    - . . - - - ----- --- ------------ ------- -------- ---- --- - --------- - - - - - - --- -- - ----- - Rf , D180S .58L Fll.E YEAR I NU~8D9:5 CUHULATIVE 02!3 I. AKEWODD HIDDLE\" SCHOi.iL -,1'09/9:S R- REFE,RRALB -  ---- --- TOTAL--- ---- -  - ----- -BLACl\u003c ----- - - --- -----NON- \u0026LACK- --- __ ,. CODE DESCRIPTION  \u0026ACTUAi:- STUD\"NTIS TMTl\\l~---HM:t!'\" ---- ~!:Hlllt:1! .. TOTnt;;---=:e--f\"eHnt:eto-'f'O'l''l'~,._,tL=--tl1ilAAtL:tE~---11f'-'f!E~l111,,,,,t:L:tE::-\"...------ ---------- 01 02 03 0:5 C~nfrnc Nlth Btudnt --oa- Detent Ian tta t t 07 --oe 09 ll Poys/C.lrls Club 8usplitnlon R 53 33 20  ::S9 2 :5 l .6  l\"' 10 .. .. a  6 29 17.. 3\"' 2t 13\" 12 ---- -- ft ---:s 2 ---t  . 2 e ~ .. :t B 3 2 l  l O 1  2 2 0 .. Parent R 2  B 6  1.0 5 ~ -  .J 1 a 1  a 6  ,o ~ 5\"  3 l \" .. - - ---  - --- ft -  - \"1.--- ---0 - - - t -- - ----1,------ -\u003c, -\u0026-._--- ----- ---,,._.---------------- 8 l O 1 M l O l  0 0 0 .. R 6 2   :5 1 4  i 1 0 .. B 6 2 4  :5 l 4  l l 0 .. -   '  -- -  - -- ft- - -T:?-----\"41!, .. -\"21!,(t -~.,\"1\u003e---~22'17'!~.,_-~2~(71'6-\"ilNt----5!2\".J-~0,-----1;~t---,M!.....,,._.-------------- 8 29:S l68 12~  11-11 ;\u003e1~ 93 ,. l 1.2 70 -42 M R 2 1 1  2 1 l  0 0 0 .. a 2 1 1 ,. 2 1 1 ,. o R -  - - 1.:t--- --  9  - .... -  -- 't.- ~ ----.+-.....-- -=.\u003c\u003e-- ----------0-- ------------- 8 13 9   ll ? 4 2 ~ 0 .. 2 0 .. R 187 138 49  144 97  7  43 .. , 2 .. e 110 e5 33,. 07 56 31.. 31 29 2 .. .. --- --- -- -ft--26----- -i: -- --------- l5 _____ __,-,-------------------------- s 19 l  5  12 a 4  7 6 S: .. R 29 15 l  M ~2 0 14 N 7 7 0 .. B 19 ll B  13 5 ~  6 \"' 0 .. l---t:::t--tt- -t1chaat-a-c1\u003c-a-,---- ------ --- - - - ------ R- ---~ --------o ---- e -- - ----0-------,~ \u0026-- ----e----\u0026------------------- e O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 .. R 27 17 lO  23 14 9 w 4 :1 l e 27 17 10,. 23 14 9  - \"' --------ta, da .,- 8chau 1- --------- -- - ------\"--t1 'l\"?-----85 49 - --_.!_, -,..-----a+----e\u0026------.1,-.--------------- 3 l .. B 9:5 :59 36  67 ~l 30  28 ::!2 6 .. UJ R 2 l lM 2 I l 0 0 0 .. S 2 l 1 w 2 l 1 ,. O 0 0  -- -- --   -  ft-  - -6~--- - - - -~4----lB ... -   49- ---- EIS.----1:,,._.-- .l a------1Hil-----t---o ..... -------------- S \"'\"' 32 12  3:5 2  11  9 e l .. 17 R O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 .. e o o o .. o o o ,. o 0 0 .. - - ----- - TOT~f\"t!:,-fttf'\"t.,._\"-ILL11111---- ---~2d'l\"---eso--.....a? - --'9\u0026o-- ___....s.,.~--aff--tt---l:!lot-------liets-----..:.,,,1,-..... ------------- TOTAL STUDENTS--- 702 438 264 t0 4fl'4 270 206 \" 218 l,',O :;a .. t------------------ -- ------------- t------------------------ - - --- --------------- ----- - - --------------------------------------------- ,_ __________ __ . --- ------ ----- - - ------------------- ---- ------ ---------------- -- -------------------------- --------- ------- --------------------------- --------- - - --- ----------------- ------------- - ------------- - --------- ---------- - - - ----- -------- ---------------. -- -------  ------ ----- ------ ---- ---- ------ - -- -- --  \u003e----------- --- -- - -- --- --- - ----- - -- - -- - ------------ ------ --- -- ----- - ----- - --- - - - ---- - - - -------------------- --------- - ----------- ----- - - - - ---------- - - - --- - -------------- --- ------- -------- - - --- - ------- - -- -- -- ------ ------ - ----- - ---------- ----- --- ------ ------------ -------------  ... ... --- --  - - --- - --. -- - ------- - -- - - ---  ------ ------- --- ----------------- .. .   - - --- --  ---------- ----- - - -- ---------- -- - -- ----- -- ----------- Ref : ' DlBOl- Fll E \u003cEAR : NU'\u003cSD9:S CUHULi\\TIVE 026 HOBE CITY HlVDLE SCHOOL CODE DESCR?PTtnN Ol 02 - cc,n'f'rnc wl th Prnt - -- c,,nfranc with atudent f\"rlvllv Dnld 9.t,avlor Contract - -oa---- Dtantlan Hll -------- 07 Student Will Hak Up lime Dt10c:lplln y R-nl !.um,narv ,,c i I on T. k ., .. f\"\u003c- r\u003cEFE:RRA "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1641","title":"Court Filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats, court proceedings on settlement agreement, and incentive schools","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-08-02/1996-08-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Education and state","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats, court proceedings on settlement agreement, and 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/1641"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["24 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to clarify the court's orders of June 15, 1993, and July 14, 1993; District Court, response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to motion to intervene as defendants; District Court, separate response of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for abstention; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) brief in support of response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for abstention; District Court, amendment and supplement to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, three motions for extension of time; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for relief concerning incentive schools; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (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; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to modify desegregation plan dated July 30, 1996  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG ~ 1996 Office of Desegregation Moni1orm9 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS MOTION TO RELEASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN SEATS AND FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM SEATS The Little Rock School District (LRSD), for its Motion To Release Incentive School Kindergarten Seats and Four-Year-Old Program Seats, states: 1. The LRSD engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1995-96 school year as it prepared for registration for the 1996-97 school year. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a partial listing of those recruitment efforts conducted by the district. Additionally, the information contained in the district's quarterly program planning and budget document status reports and project management tools serve to supplement this listing . .. 2. Although the recruitment efforts yielded positive results, seats still remain vacant in the LRSD's four-year-old program as well as the kindergarten level in the incentive schools. 3. Taking into consideration the importance of reserving seats for the recruitment of white students, the LRSD made special efforts during the recruitment season to register as many new white students as possible into these programs. Since seats still remain vacant, LRSD submits that the vacant seats should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities which will be provided. By doing so, the district is not retreating from its obligation to continue to vigorously recruit white students into the designated schools. Rather, the LRSD is merely recognizing the importance of disparity elimination through early childhood educational opportunities. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the LRSD fouryear- old assignments and kindergarten assignments for the 1996-97 school year as of July 10, 1996. 5. The LRSD will continue its vigorous recruitment efforts and will determine what adjustments are necessary and appropriate to ensure that the impact of this action on future year enrollments can be minimized to the greatest extent possible. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves the court for an order permitting it to release the vacant seats at the kindergarten level in incentive schools as well as the vacant seats at the four-year-old program sits as reflected by the attached exhibit; that it be awarded all legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. btbyll.RSD-lac.Fau, 2 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ( 501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff Christopher He Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion To Release Incentive School Kindergarten Seats And Four-Year-Old Program Seats has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 1st day of August, 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 172 3 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 bllQ,ILRSD-Inc.F..., 3 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 bll,y\\LRSO.lnc.Four 4 November 1, 1995 To: From: Re: JULY Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather \u0026 Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment Report, 1st Quarter, 95-96 Developed ad for Kid's Directory featuring Incentive Schools, CARE, 4-year-old program and registration dates. Met monthly with PTA Council. Mailed letter to all white students on 4-year-old waiting lists offering available seats. Mailed 84 letters to ministers, including registration flyer. Sent memo to principals about open house dates. Sent memo to principals listing upcoming recruitment dates and opportunities. Participated in PTA Summer Leadership conference discussing public relations and newsletters. AUGUST Worked with Pat Price to develop, typeset and print new generic 4-year-old brochure. Spent two days placing registration posters throughout city at grocery stores, housing projects, medical offices. Department of Human Services, etc. Put individual school recruitment plan outlines on disks and offered to all schools who requested them. (Some wanted to continue using hard copy outlines and a typewriter.) Participated in Governor's Press Conference proclaiming Arkansas Public School's Week. Met with Quapaw Realty. Participated in PTA Council pre-schoo,l workshop. Met with McKay Realty. Gathered and delivered Parent Involvement information to five incentive schools. Participated in booth on LRSD at African American Heritage Celebration at Philander Smith College. Met with new magnet coordinator and principal at Henderson on recruitment ideas. Met with Rightsell on setting up Parent Involvement. Held Open Houses in all schools. Met with Franklin on recruitment. SEPTEMBER Held brainstorming/planning sessions ~ith new Director of Student Assignment. Secured home owners association lists from City hall. Sent memo to Principals on recruitment training session. Met with Geyer Springs recruitment ream. Gathered lists of names of recruitment team members from each school. Worked with Connie Whitfield, Advocates for Children, in identifying target neighborhood with low parental involvement and Kids at risk. Mitchell Incentive was selected. Worked with Rector, Phillips, Morris Realtors. Worked with ReMax Realty. Worked with Winrock Development Company, (Real Estate Developers) Worked with Janet Jones Realty Participated in two meetings with Pulaski County Parents (one South and one North of the river.) Revised Recruitment Timeline Calendar. Julie Wiedower represented office in Magnet meeting. Recruitment training meeting with principals (especially new principals) and recruitment team leaders. Met with Washington recruitment meeting. Met with Dodd recruitment team. Met with Parkview recruitment team. Revised recruitment timeline calendar. Conducted tours for 21 families from July through September. - - Jan. 5, 1996 To: From: Re: Oct. 2 Oct. 3 Oct. 3 Oct. 5 Oct. 5 Oct. 6 Oct. 10 Oct. 11 Oct. 11 Oct . 12 Oct. 16 Oct. 16 Oct. 16 Oct. 17 Oct. 17 Oct. 17 Oct. 18 Oct. 18 Oct. 19 Oct. 19 Oct. 20 Oct. 23 Oct. 24 Oct. 25 Nov. 6 Nov. 6 Nov. 7 Nov. 7 Nov. 9 Nov. 9 Nov. 10 Nov. 10 Nov. 14 Nov. 14 Nov. 15 Nov. 21 Nov. 27 Nov. 27 Nov. 30 Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment activities, second quarter 95-96 Assist Henderson recruitment team Work with Incentive schools on reports due Work with Rector Phillips Morse Realty Participate in Arkansas Business Expo Work with Central recruitment team Assist Baseline recruitment team Attend PTA Council at Bale Attend program at Rockeferler Attend meeting on pre-registration brochure All individual school recruitment plans due Contact Connie Whitfield for parent involvement at Mitchell Meet with Booker recruitment team Meet with Rockefeller recruitment team Meet with Franklin recruitment team Assist Otter Creek recruitment team Assist Badgett recruitment team Meet with Dodd recruitment team Memo to principals requesting private school directories . Attend team meeting at McClellan Deliver information to McKay Realty Mail letters/ flyers to Neighborhood Associations. Assist Cloverdale Junior High team Assist Gibbs team Attend meeting with Mabelvale Jr. team Attend Henderson team meeting Assist Adkins, McNeill, Smith and Assoc. King recruitment team meeting Presentation to the \"Good Ole Girls Ne.t work\" Assist Rector Phillips Morse Realtors Meet with Washington Team Assist Adkins, McNeill, Smith and Assoc. Assist Rector Phillips Morse Realtors Attend PTA Council at Forest Park Meet with J.A . Fair recruitment team Bi-monthly recruitment survey due from all schools Evening meeting with 6th grade parents at Second Presbyterian Church. Assist Henderson recruitment team Assist Mann recruitment team Meet with Melissa Guildin, ODM Dec. 1 Dec. 1 Dec. 4 Dec. 5 Dec. 6 Dec. 7 Dec. 8 Dec. 12 Dec. 12 Dec. 13 Dec. 19 Presentation to Secretaries meeting on Magnet schools Assist Charlotte John realty Assist with two special tours at Mann Assist with two special tours at Forest Heights Assist with two special tours at Dunbar Assist with two special tours at Henderson Assist with two special tours at Pulaski Heights Attend PTA Council Washington Report to Biracial committee Assist Garland team Prepared Open House flyer for Garland Provided tours to 46 families during this quarter. June 3, 1996 To: From: Re: Nancy Acre, Director of student Assignment Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment efforts for third quarter 95-96 Jan. 2 Held Registration training meetings with all school secretaries Jan. 8 Provided private school mailing labels to Magnet Review Committee, schools upon request. Jan. 9 Attend PTA Council at Mann Jan. 9 Participated in 6th grade recruitment for Junior High at Terry Jan. 9 Participated in 6th grade recruitment for Junior High at King. Jan. 12-13 Participated in Park Plaza Mall Show Jan. 15 Bi-Monthly recruitment survey due in from all schools. Jan. 16 encourage Jan. 16 the city. Mailed letters to all P-4s on waiting list to Kindergarten registration. Mail letters to churches and daycares throughout Jan. 16 Sent private school lists to all area schools. Jan. 16 Picked up PCSSD labels for incentive schools. Jan. 18 Held special tours for parents of 6th graders to Junior Highs. Jan. 19 Mailed 2,000 pre-registration brochures to private school students. Jan. 22 Open House, Incentive and Interdistrict Schools Jan. 22 Met with Early Childhood Advisory Committee. Provided pre-registration information and posters. Jan. 23 Presentation to Charlotte John Realtors Jan. 23 Mailed registration brochures to 25,000 LRSD households. Jan. 23 Presentation to HIPPY parents at McClellan Jan. 23 Open House, Elementary Magnets Jan. 24 Open House, Secondary Magnets Jan. 24 Assist Wilson School Recruitment teams. Jan. 24 Provide Assistance to Caldwell Banker Realtors Jan. 29-Feb. 2 CHECK US OUT WEEK! Jan. 29 Open House, Elementary Area Schools JAN. 29 Display posters throughout the city. Jan. 29 Assist Fair Park Recruitment Team Jan. 30 Open House Secondary Area Schools Jan. 30 Presentation to HIPPY Horne Visitors Jan. 31 Participated in Dunbar Recruitment Program Jan. 31 Display posters throughout the city in housing projects, grocery stores, day care centers, etc .. Feb. 1 Feb. 5 Iniervice Secretaries on pre-registration Pre-registration open through Feb. 16. Feb. 5 - Feb. 6 Feb. 12 Feb. 13 Feb. 14 Feb. 19 Feb. 19 Feb. 20 Feb. 27 Feb. 29 Mar. 1 Mar. 7 Mar. 11 Mar. 12 Mar. 12 Mar. 12 Mar. 14 Mar. 15 Mar. 26 Mar. 27 Provided quarter. Assist Caldwell Banker Realty Give Biracial report Meet with Wilson Recruitment Team Attend Open House at Metropolitan Assist Rainey Realty Participate in Early Childhood Meeting Attend Parent Involvement meeting Participate in PTA Founders Day program Speak at Bayou Mete in PCSSD Work with Mccaskell Realty Attend opening of Chicot School Parent Involvement meeting Participate in Early Childhood Fun Fest at King Attend PTA Council at Rockefeller Attend meeting of AllianFe for our Public Schools Attend program at Booker Assist national Early Childhood tour Rockefeller Bimonthly recruitment report due from all schools. Assist Wilson recruitment teams. Meet with Alliance for Our Public Schools 46 tours to individual families during this June 5, 1996 To: From: Re: Apr. 2 Apr. 3 Apr. 5 Apr. 9 Apr. 10 Apr. 1() Apr. 15 Apr. 15 Apr. 23 Apr. 24 Apr. 30 May 1 May 7 May 7\u00268 May 8 May 13 May 14 May 16 May 19 May 20 May 22 May 29 June 4 Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Fourth Quarter, 95-96, as of June 4, 1996 Recruitment report presented to Biracial committee Meet with Selma Hobby on obligations Notify 4-year-olds of assignments Attend PTA Council at Woodruff Assist Atkins, McNeil Realty . Attend meeting for Alliance for Our Public Schools Attend Early Childhood meeting Attend Parent Involvenent Meeting Participate in PBD audit Assist Rector Phillips Morse Realty Assist Dodd with recruitment Attend meeting for Alliance for Our Public Schools Assist Caldwell Banker Realty Show and Tell in all LR schools Provide 25 Realtor packets for Atkins, McNeil Attend Parent Involvement Meeting Attend PTA Council at Carver Attend reception at Mann HIPPY graduation Attend Early Childhood meeting Attend meeting for Alliance for Our Public Schools Assist Janet Jones Realty Make report to Biracial Committee Recruiters provided tours to 37 families during the first two months of this quarter. With each family the recruiters provide tours to an average of 3 to 4 schools, depending on the number cf children, grade levels, requests and time allowed. Most of our concentration is with residents moving into the city. Most local residents prefer to tour schools on their own time. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR YEAR OLD ENROLLMENT 1996-97 Enrolled Waiting List / TOTAL 360 242 6021 118 59. 80% 870 58 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ASSIGNMENTS AT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1996 -97 Enrolled Waiting Lis 18 18 ..  :5i4s 36 18 36 720 SCHOOL BL NBL TLT Vacancies %BLACK BL NBL CAPACITY FRANKLIN 70 5 75 25 93.33% 21 0 100 GARLAND 22 4 26 14 84.62% 11 0 40 MITCHELL 27 1 28 12 96.43% 12 0 40 RIGHTS ELL 24 2 26 14 92.31% 15 0 40 ROCKEFELLER 29 28 57 3 50.88% 44 0 60 TOTAL 172 40 212 68 81 .13% 103 0 280 - - - - -- - - HERSCHEL H . FRIDAY C1122 1114J WILLIAM H . SUTTON, P. A . JAMES W. MOORE IYRON M . EISEMAN , JR., P. A .  . BELL, P. A . C . ECHOLS , P. A . S A . BUTTRY, P.A . ERICKS . 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 Ill. 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 11, P. A . BARRY E. COPLIN, P. A. RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR, P. A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR ,, P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P. A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER , P .A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH , P. A. ROBERTS . SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill , P .A . THOMAS N. ROSE, P . A . MICHAELS. MOORE, P. A . DIANE S . MACKEY , P. A . WALTER M . EBEL 111, P. A . KEVIN A . CRASS , P. A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A . FRIDAY, ELDR'EDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3493 TELEPHONE 601 - 3782011 FAX NO. 601-3762147 August 2, 1996 RECEIVED AUG_, 1996 Office of Dase . gresation Monitorin9 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 ! /; SCOTT' J , LANCASTER , P. A . M . QA/'ILE COPILEY , P . A . ROIERT I. BEACH , JR . , P.A. J . LEE BROWN, P .A . JAMES C . IAKER, JR . , P. A . HARRY A . LIOHT , P. A . SCOTT H . TUCKER , P . A . JOH.N CLAYTON RANDOLPH , P. A . OUY ALTON WADE , P . A . PRICE C , GARDNER , P . A . J . MICHAEL r!CKENS , P. A . TONIA P. JONES, P. A. DAVID D . WILSON . P. A . JEFFREY H . MOORE , P.A . ANDREW T . TURNER DAVID M . GRAF CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C . FENDLEY, JR. ALLISON OR AVES JOHANN C . ROOSEVELT R . CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C . HICKMAN 9ETTY J . DEMORY IARBARA J . RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT WILL BONO DANIELL. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL o, COUNIH WILLIAM J. SMITH 8 . S . CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P. A . WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR ., P. A . un11 OlfllCT NO , (5011 370-3323 Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the Little Rock School District's Motion for Extension of Time with regard to the above-captioned matter. Please file same and return a file marked copy to us. By copy of this letter we are serving all counsel of record. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker (w/encl.) Mr. Sam Jones (w/encl.) Mr. Steve Jones (w/encl.) Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. Mr. Richard Roachell) (w/encl.) Ms. Ann Brown (w/encl.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encl.) Hon. Susan Webber Wright (w/encl.) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVIS-ION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 1996 RECEIVED t I ! AUG :5 1996 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL Off ice ot Desegregation Monitoring . ...:... -. DEFENDANTS ~ , , ~ .,. ..... MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ~  .\u003c1 ~ . - -.....~-,., INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for Extension of Time states: 1. On August 1, 1996, LRSD was served with Joshua's Response to LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (\"Joshua's Response\"). Because of the issues raised in Joshua's Response, it is necessary for LRSD to prepare a Reply thereto. 2. Due to other obligations of counsel for LRSD, including LRSD's Response to the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools due August 9, 1996, LRSD needs additional time to prepare its Reply. Accordingly, LRSD respectfully requests that it be granted leave to file its Reply to Joshua's Response on or before August 30, 1996. 3. Based on statements made by the Court in recent hearings related to the Court's docket, it appears this matter will not be scheduled for a hearing in the near future. Thus, the additional time requested by LRSD should not result in any prejudice to Joshua or undue delay of these proceedings . WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that it be granted leave to file its Reply to Joshua's Response to LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction on or before August 30, 1996. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John c. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial B.ldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD B Bar No. 81083 2 I I , i i .' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been served on the following peo~l~ 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 \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 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 Cistopher Heller 1 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRIG--T---l:JO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ij,O .. LR-C-82-866 AUG 2 1996 ~ : f'0,,,.,., Office of Desegregation Mornionuv PCS SD MOTION TO CLARI,B.Y-.!r,HE--,C..Q~'l'..-~)L 9~~RS OF JUNE 15, 1993 AND JULY 14, 1993 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On June 15, 1993 the Court approved the District's proposed restructuring of its bonded indebtedness and on July 14, 1993, the Court approved the District's plan for its early retirement incentive program. By approving the motions, the Court likewise approved the District's establishment of its desegregation contingency fund designed to help the PCSSD survive the loss of state settlement monies. The stream of payments from the State expired during the 1995-96 school year. In each order, the District Court included language, as requested by the PCSSD, exempting the savings from certain teacher salary requirements under Act 34. Act 34 was declared unconstitutional in the Lake View case and it was replaced with Act 917 of 1995 which contains new and different requirements concerning teacher salaries, including an amendment to the minimum salary law. By this motion, the PCSSD seeks clarification as to whether and to what extent the 1993 orders 1 - should exempt the savings generated by the Court approved plans from the operation of the new Act 917. The savings It is reasonably clear that the savings generated from these two court approved programs are earmarked substantially, it not exclusively, for the District's desegregation activities. It is reasonably clear that the Court did not intend for these savings to be used for increases in teacher salaries and it is reasonably clear that the District told the Court in 1993 that they would not be used to fund increases in teacher salaries. The savings are nonrecurring revenues and the District Court has admonished all three school districts against using nonrecurring revenues to fund recurring expenses. The New Law Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-1001 is the minimum base salary law as enacted by the Arkansas Legislature. Section 8 of Act 917 of 1995 amended the statute to require a minimum salary of $20,000 for employees holding a bachelor's degree with no experience and $23,000 for employees holding a master's degree and no experience. The Act further specified minimum salaries for these categories for each year ranging up to employees with 14 years or more experience. Further, the Act specifies minimum increments of $400 annually for teachers with between one and thirteen years of experience. If the PCSSD were to literally comply with these new statutory requirements, it would require an expenditure during 2 - 1996-97 of approximately $1,375,000 in additional funds for an average across the board raise for certified teachers only of 2.84%. The minimum salary law was part of Act 917, the principal feature of which was to provide the new state funding program to replace the system declared as unconstitutional in the Lake View case. Dr. Benny L. Gooden in his paper \"Arkansas School Funding Plan, An Analysis and Opinion\", dated June, 1996, has observed as regards these provisions that: In most cases, Act 917 expenditure requirements appear to be the result of a mathematically derived assumption regarding the level of expenditure which may be appropriate to support certain purportedly desired activities.  Unfortunately, there is probably little sound or reasonable basis for the expenditure levels which are contained in the act. Analysis at page 25. When the distribution of revenue earmarked for salaries was not part of the final provisions in the act, an expenditure requirement of the type found in Act 917 was retained. It is clearly inappropriate and will prove problematic if not impossible to evaluate for many school districts. In its present form, the provision is virtually meaningless and certainly bears no relationship to its purported purpose. It is clear that the salary provisions contained in this act are based upon objectives other than the equitable distribution of school funds and appear to transcend reason in an attempt to restrict the ability of local school districts in managing revenues and expenditures. Analysis at page 26. 3 The History On April 1, 1993, the PCSSD filed its motion seeking the court's approval of its early retirement program and a major restructuring of its bonded indebtedness. That motion stated at page 8 that: PCSSD needs to shield the savings in column 4 from the 56% clause in Act 34. It needs to use these savings instead as an additional source of funds to help compensate for the loss of settlement funds. At page 9 of the motion, the PCSSD promised the Court that: The money from the early retirement program and the savings from restructuring of the debt would be placed in a desegregation contingency fund to help PCSSD survive the loss of the settlement monies. on June 28, 1993, the PCSSD submitted a business case to the Court in support of the early retirement program headed: - \"Program Analysis for the Early Retirement Incentive Program\". The opening paragraph of the analysis stated in part that: The Early Retirement Incentive Program is designed to reduce personnel costs to reduce recurring expenditures. In its \"Forcefield Analysis\" section of the Business Case, the PCSSD first noted who the forces would be that would support the plan. In discussing the forces which might oppose the plan, the PCSSD observed to the Court that: Some employees may oppose the plan to the extent that it precludes application of the savings to salary increases. The District Court approved the PCSSD plan to refinance its current bonded indebtedness on June 15, 1993. In that order, the Court found that: \" the savings the PCSSD realizes from 4 - refinancing are exempt from the new revenue requirements of 1983 (Ex. Sess.) Ark. Acts 34; Ark. Code Ann. S 6-20-301, et seq. The District Court approved the early retirement incentive program on July 14, 1993 and likewise exempted the savings to be realized from it from the same statutory provisions. The clear import of this exemption is to restrict the PCSSD's use of those savings and to protect them from the operation of Act 34 which required that 56% of \"new revenues\" be paid out as teacher salaries. Of course, the Arkansas Legislature has replaced Act 34 with Act 917 of 1995. While Act 917 no longer contains the 56% \"new revenue\" provision, it has replaced that with different directives regarding the proportion of State aid that must be paid toward teacher salaries and has further amended the minimum - salary law to impose the new unfunded mandates as described above. Requested Relief To the extent that Act 917 should now be substituted for Act 34 as specified in the June 15, 1995 and July 14, 1995 orders, the PCSSD seeks the Court's clarification as to the effects of Act 917 upon the \"savings\" which the PCSSD has realized and has segregated. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this court amending and/or clarifying the June 15, 1993 and July 14, 1993 orders given the passage of Act 917 of 1995. 5 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 --..---7 ,,,---; ( ~ By ~'; 7 . . _,~-'(___ ~ M. Samuel Jones II (76060) Attorney , for Pulaski County s~~~School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August __2-_-- , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons: Mr. John w. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 w. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen w. Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard w. Roachell Roachell and street First Federal Plaza 410 w. Capitol, suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Sam el )Jones _, I I : __ / 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRYANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST MEMPHIS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ALTUS-DENNING SCHOOL DISTRICT; ASHDOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; BARTON-LEXA SCHOOL DISTRICT; BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BIGGERS-REYNO SCHOOL DISTRICT; BLACK ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRIGHT STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS AUG 2 1996 CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON Off SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; lCS of Dasegregaticn Monitoring CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; - ~- -- DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; --~.-- ~ ,,.  ~... .,....,. ..,_, ~ FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOUNTAIN LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GILLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT; GLEN ROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GUY-PERKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT; HOXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT; JONESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT; KIRBY SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAVACA SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEWISVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAGAZINE SCHOOL DISTRICT; MALVERN SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT; MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAYNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTHEAST ARKANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ODEN SCHOOL DISTRICT; OZARK SCHOOL DISTRICT; PLAINVIEW-ROVER SCHOOL DISTRICT; POCAHONTAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; PRAIRIE GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT; SOUTH CONWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; SPRING HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT; STAMPS SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEPHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT; TURRELL SCHOOL DISTRICT; VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT; WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WINSLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT; WONDERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT; and YELLVILLE-SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE OF PCSSD TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS 1 INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its response to motion to intervene states: 1. While the PCSSD could assert significant objections to and grounds to defeat the motion to intervene, it has elected to waive them. Accordingly, the PCSSD interposes no objection to the motion to intervene. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court which simultaneously grants the motion to intervene, designates the intervening districts as full-time defendants in this action, and which subjects the intervening defendants as appropriate to the outstanding and future orders of this Court. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ___ ?\"-_,,.----+--------- M. (76060) At ski County Sp col District 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On Au "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1649","title":"Court Filings: District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate response to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-08-02"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate response to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state"],"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/1649"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["92 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  ''  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRYANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST MEMPHIS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ALTUS-DENNING SCHOOL DISTRICT; ASHDOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; BARTON-LEXA SCHOOL DISTRICT; BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BIGGERS-REYNO SCHOOL DISTRICT; BLACK ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRIGHT STAR PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; AUG 2 1996 CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT;  .; :, C-p,/'\\-f ~ : CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; Office of Oesa~regat:on M01111or,n9 DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOUNTAIN LAKE - - - -- ~- ---- - ... ,,--~~,._,_J \" SCHOOL DISTRICT; GILLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT; GLEN ROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GUY-PERKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT; HOXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT; JONESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT; KIRBY SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAVACA SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEWISVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAGAZINE SCHOOL DISTRICT; MALVERN SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT; MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAYNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTHEAST ARKANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ODEN SCHOOL DISTRICT; OZARK SCHOOL DISTRICT; PLAINVIEW-ROVER SCHOOL DISTRICT; POCAHONTAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; PRAIRIE GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT; SOUTH CONWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; SPRING HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT; STAMPS SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEPHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT; TURRELL SCHOOL DISTRICT; VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT; WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WINSLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT; WONDERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT; and YELLVILLE-SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S SEPARATE RESPONSE TO THE ANSWER OF INTERVENOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS I. TO THE SECOND MOTION OF THE PCSSD TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE INTRODUCTION As will be more fully explained below, the PCSSD will demonstrate how many features of the new funding system are neither fair, rational, nor of general application when applied to it and therefore violative of the Settlement Agreement. In their response to the PCSSD motion, the Intervenors ask that the U.S. District Court specifically find: \"[T)hat the features of the new funding formula of which the PCSSD is critical are fair and rational, of general applicability, and equitably afford equal oportunities to the students of the respective districts to which the state aid is or will be distributed; ... (Answer, at page 6). The PCSSD interprets the Intervenors request to include a court finding that the new funding scheme comports with the Settlement Agreement as well as with the equity requirements of the Lake View decision. For reasons which the PCSSD will review in some detail, the new funding scheme violates both of these provisions. In his definitive work, \"Arkansas School Funding Plan, An Analysis and Opinion\" (hereafter \"Analysis\"), Dr. Benny L. Gooden1 has effectively highlighted and explained the shortcomings of the new system of funding public education in 1Dr. Gooden is Superintendent of schools of the Fort Smith School District. His analysis was published in June, 1996 or some several weeks before the filing of the motion to intervene, and is attached as Exhibit A. The Fort Smith School District numbers among the 52 school districts seeking intervention. 2 Arkansas. Dr. Gooden's analysis centers around the State constitutional concepts of adequacy, equity and efficiency, concepts, as the Court will see, that are closely related to and intertwined with the settlement agreement tests of fair, rational, and of general application2  At page 29 of his Analysis, Dr. Gooden explains: In order to determine the actual increase in state aid for public schools, it is necessary to combine all the categories of funding distributed during 1995-96 and to compare this number with the appropriated and distributed amounts for 1996-97. The 1995-96 categories will include not only those funds distributed directly to local school districts but those transferred directly to other agencies on behalf of school districts for functions which will become a local responsibility during 1996-97 .... It is therefore conceivable that the actual difference in distributed state aid will be consumed within added categories as opposed to providing an increase in the state portion of the Base Local Revenue per student which is of benefit to all districts. Thus, in the PCSSD, the increases in formula funding projected by the State, when considered in conjunction with the unfunded mandates the State has imposed upon the PCSSD, cause the PCSSD to come out worse under the new funding scheme than the old when the entire picture is examined. In his summary, Dr. Gooden concludes as regards the new funding scheme that: It is conceivable that when this methodology is followed and new categories are analyzed for items such as debt service buy-out, facilities, student growth, etc., little or no real increase in revenue from state sources will be realized. 2The PCSSD still relies upon the provisions of the Settlement Agreement which obligate the State to continue the funding of certain programs. Certain of Dr. Gooden's factual conclusions are supportive of this proposition as well. 3 In view of the total analysis of school finance and in consideration of the issues of equity, adequacy, and efficiency, it appears that none of these essential components will be achieved through Act 917:  Adequacy appears unlikely in consideration of the declining commitment of state funds to support education with the subsequent loss of comparative school funds relative to neighboring states;  Equity appears unlikely in view of the failure of Act 917 to consider student needs and school district demographics;  Efficiency may be possible through a streamlined process which mathematically distributes funds by reducing categories and standardizing a means of calculating, but any system which requires \"Additional Base Revenue\" supplements to more than 200 districts to reach an arbitrary level can hardly be called \"efficient\". Gooden, at pages 35 and 36. These and other of Dr. Gooden's conclusions will be more fully explored below. Dr. Gooden has advised each school district to make its own analysis to determine just how it is affected under the new regime. The PCSSD has taken the following Gooden advice to heart: Comparisons of actual changes in state aid between 1995-96 and 1996-97 will be somewhat complicated and will require careful analysis on the part of each individual school district. It is clear that when a listing of state aid for each district is published for 1996-97 and a comparison is made to total state aid distributed to local districts during 1995-96, a large increase will be evident. However in order to determine the real difference, it is necessary to compute the payments which become the responsibility of local districts during 1996-97 in areas which were paid directly during 1995-96. Failure to fully describe all funds distributed for use by local schools in combination with school related payments made directly by the state will distort the 4 true picture. It is important for each local district to analyze required payments as outlined in Act 917 and to make a complete summary of categorical revenues received during 1995-96 in order to determine changes in revenue resulting from the implementation of the act. Gooden, at page 35. Act 917 contains provisions which dramatically change the foundation formula concepts which govern state aid and the treatment of revenue and expenditure responsibilities for each school district and for the state as a whole. Each of these conceptual changes has an overall and specific effect on Arkansas school districts, their programs, and their students. (Emphasis supplied.) Gooden, at page 9. II. TEACHER RETIREMENT At the time of the settlement, the State paid 100% of PCSSD's teacher retirement costs. That money was not, and has - never been, part of any kind of formula, never flowed through any formula, and therefore could never have been subject to any changes or revisions in any formula. On the other hand, if in fact the State calculated a sum of money to include in the new formula by utilizing students as compared to actual individual district costs3 , the PCSSD will demonstrate that this change is neither fair, rational nor equitable. Teacher retirement costs are calculated as a percentage function of district salaries. In districts such as the PCSSD which has high employee costs, basing teacher retirement funds on a per student basis cheats the PCSSD. Under this method, the 3Dr. Gooden confirms that the state in fact utilized this approach. See Exhibit A, page 15 (box). 5 PCSSD will receive approximately only 85% of its actual teacher retirement costs for 1995-96 and, in contrast, the Bryant School District, one of the intervenors, will receive approximately 122% reimbursement or a bonus of 22% more than its actual teacher retirement costs. It is important to note that the teacher retirement program has not been eliminated. The only thing that has been eliminated is the State's direct payment of the school districts' costs. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has already made the finding that the Pulaski County districts are \"employee heavy\" and \"employee expensive\". The comparisons the Intervenors seek to make are thus both irrelevant and, at least in the case of the PCSSD, wrong. The use of certified staff comparisons necessarily fails to take into account that some of the expensive desegregation programs utilized by the PCSSD employ non-certified staff such as the home school counselors. Dr. Gooden has addressed this phenomenon of the change in teacher retirement as well as others. As he states: Some of the major changes in the manner of funding Arkansas schools will require considerable adjustment and will similarly exert a major impact on certain school districts. However, the effects will not be uniform throughout the state as the staffing patterns, demographic makeup of student population, and other factors are considered. [Emphasis added.] Gooden, at page 15. The PCSSD submits that if the effects are not \"uniform\" they cannot be regarded as \"general\" either. 6 In a provision which also substantially affects the PCSSD, Dr. Gooden has identified yet another problem: A significant and unanticipated problem associated with teacher retirement lies in retirement contribution for food service employees, adult education staff, and others who function in programs with a limited revenue source. No appropriation increase was provided for adult education in order to fund the required retirement match which was previously paid by the state nor was a line item appropriation provided for separate contributions. School food service employees participating in the retirement system will result in a 12 percent increased labor expense which should appropriately be borne by consumers of school lunches. In view of the fact that a significant number of school lunches are served free or reduced with no means of increasing income, (federal reimbursement is set at a fixed rate per lunch) it appears unlikely that the increased cost could reasonably be recovered through increased charges for paid lunches. Gooden, at page 15. Further, the conclusion he reaches as regards the Fort Smith School District applies to the PCSSD as well: The projected cost for making payments for the retirement matching on Fort Smith Public School employees during 1996-97 is projected to be $4,736,000. It is reasonable to assume that the pro-rated share of the total amount currently being appropriated statewide for retirement matching divided by ADM will result in proportionally less for Fort Smith than for many other districts. This is due in large measure to the higher salary levels enjoyed by our staff in comparison to their counterparts around Arkansas. Gooden, at page 15. III. SPECIAL EDUCATION The elimination of the weighting system for special education students unfairly penalizes the PCSSD for several reasons. It has proportionately more special education students than the state average and, therefore, appropriately received 7 - proportionately more state aid for their education under the old formula. In addition, the special education program of the PCSSD is superior, and more expensive, than the special education programs in most other districts. The PCSSD provides a more intensive level of physical therapy, a more intensive level of occupational therapy, a more intensive level of speech therapy than the average district and, pays these specialists more than does the average district. Thus, the elimination of the weights does not affect the Pesso \"to the same degree\" as other districts. Dr. Gooden apparently concurs with the position of the PCSSD on this issue. As he explains: Funding for special education has been distributed based upon the sum of pupil weights generated by the various categories of student placement. Students requiring services of high intensity have provided greater weights and subsequently more funding than those whose disabilities require a less intense service level. Beginning in 1996-97, funding to support special education is included in the base equalization amounts distributed on the basis of ADM without regard to the special education population or the level of services required in any individual school district. The great diversity between the composition of a disabled population among various school districts makes this category a great contributor to inequities resulting from provisions of Act 917. Districts with high concentrations of seriously disabled students will be at a distinct disadvantage when compared to districts whose student population does not include such severe disabilities. Gooden, at pages 18 and 19. IV. NEED BASED AID VERSUS HEAD COUNTS Basing State aid almost exclusively on a head count of students ignores reality. Such a system benefits districts that 8 pay low salaries because they will receive more money for teacher retirement than they actually pay. Such a system benefits districts which manage to avoid providing health insurance to large numbers of their employees as they will be paid more than their health insurance costs. Such a program benefits districts which are not desegregating or which otherwise do not transport large numbers of children because they will be paid more than their actual transportation costs. The new system also benefits districts which make little local effort to pass maintenance and operations millages because under the new system the State will come in and \"make up the difference\" to squeeze them within the equity guidelines. The new funding system ignores the high costs of special - education, ignores the high cost of desegregation, ignores the wide disparity among districts in salary requirements and, because of these reasons and others, cannot be regarded as fair and rational even if it is general. As Dr. Gooden explains: The first item requiring a paradigm shift for Arkansas educators lies in the dramatic departure of the school aid formula encompassed by Act 917 from an earlier format. Specifically, the prior formula distributed school aid to school districts in a large number of categories including general Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA) based upon the weighted number of students; special education aid determined by the cumulative pupil weights reflecting the intensity of service requirement; transportation aid based upon a formula reflecting routes, students, and density; vocational aid reflecting the sum of pupil weights determined by the assumed relative cost of providing vocational programs; gifted and talented aid determined by the number of students served up to an established limit; and specific categorical aid for alternative programs, 9 summer school, limited English proficient students, and compensatory education. The school aid formula reflected by Act 917 in effect combines all the current aid provisions detailed above into one item of aid-per-student which is calculated based upon the simplest factor: Average Daily Membership (ADM). The concept of varying needs based upon the composition of the student population, the program of instruction provided, the geographic terrain, or other factors is not considered under the new formula. School districts with high wealth and/or high-cost students with regard to special education, limited English proficiency, costly vocational offerings, or extensive transportation systems may be expected to be adversely affected using this methodology. Gooden, at pages 9 and 10. Specifically, attempts to meet the Court-adopted standard of the Federal Range Ratio have led to an exacerbation of prior formula provisions contained in the \"second tier\" equalization funding. By including an additional funding category of \"Additional Base Funding\" supported by a line-item appropriation, the departure from an orderly formula distribution based upon wealth, student needs, and district characteristics has been lost. An additional problem associated with the implementation of this formula characteristic lies in the provision of a disincentive for local districts to increase millage rates when revenue increased through local taxation would be deducted from Additional Base Funding provided to more than 200 Arkansas districts. This unanticipated consequence is a serious defect which can only depress support for Arkansas schools by making it unlikely that many communities will tax themselves in order to supplant state revenue. one subtle yet significant effect of using simple ADM as opposed to Weighted Average Daily Membership (WADM) in order to adequately reflect the student need/service composition of each school district is that this procedure creates an illusion of greater wealth in those districts with extensive special education services and vocational programs. The effect of this phenomenon is not dramatically evident in school districts with only limited special education and vocational services. However, for demographically 10 complex districts with extensive offerings and student needs, there is a significant shift in apparent local wealth. Gooden, at page 10. V. LOSS FUNDING AND DECLINING ENROLLMENT The state's decision to eliminate loss funding from the new funding system came about after the State was ordered by the District Court to recalculate the method by which it paid loss funding to LRSD and PCSSD and to reimburse them for the shortages. As Dr. Gooden has observed: The most adverse effect of this methodology will be experienced by districts losing student population. Whereas the earlier method averaged daily membership for a three-year period to allow a gradual adjustment in funding if enrollment declined, Act 917 provides for no gradual reduction in aid. The effective result will be a loss of an amount equal to the Base Local Revenue Per student immediately when student enrollment declines. School districts in portions of the state losing enrollment may not survive this dramatic loss. Gooden, at page 10. Dr. Gooden concludes at page 37 that the elimination of averaging annual ADM in district's losing enrollment prevents gradual funding reduction and that a solution may be to provide ADM averaging for districts losing enrollment, a matter that should be given priority consideration. Gooden, at page 38. In sharp contrast to the elimination of loss funding is the fact that a form of student growth funding is retained by Act 917. As Dr. Gooden explains: The current formula provides for an adjustment during the current school year when enrollment has increased. Act 917 continues this concept by providing for an adjustment in aid from a categorical set-aside when the student popultion increases above that of the prior 11 year. The amount of of funding equals approximately $3,000 per student. This factor will be beneficial to rapidly growing school districts. Gooden, at page 21. Upon information and belief, the only school districts in Arkansas that are experiencing rapidly growing enrollment are either overwhelmingly white or are all white. On the other hand, and upon further information and belief, a statistically significant number of the districts that are experiencing enrollment decline are majority black or have substantial black populations including the PCSSD. Thus, in combination, the elimination of loss funding coupled with the continuation of growth funding has a racially discriminatory effect and cannot be said to be either fair or rational or of \"general\" application when the disparate impacts are demonstrated. For instance, as previously pointed out, the Bryant School District will receive a bonus of funds in excess of its actual teacher retirement costs. The Intervenors' contend that the PCSSD enrollment decline should result in less state aid because: \"This condition is no different in Pulaski County than throughout Arkansas.\" This ignores the fact that the PCSSD loses students to the Bryant School District. By paying the Bryant School District a bonus while at the same time penalizing the PCSSD, the new funding scheme simply better positions the Bryant School District to continue to attract and host families which move from the PCSSD or which elect to locate initially in the Bryant School District even when they work in Pulaski County. 12 VI. THE NEW FORMULA OVERALL In his introduction, Dr. Gooden posits the following: Should an orderly formula distribution not address the varying needs of Arkansas' school districts; should the means of distributing revenues not be simple and clearly understood by educators and the public; and should the level of combined local and state funds be less than is required to meet the educational needs of Arkansas students, the formula must be found inadequate and less than acceptable. Gooden, at page 7. Dr. Gooden has also found that: Although Act 917 includes references to \"Student Classroom Teacher Funding, Student Unit Funding, and student Needs Funding,\" the subtle wording effectively precludes the allocation of any state aid for these categories in the foreseeable future. The threshold of equity funding (Student Equalization Funding) which must be achieved is so high as to make it doubtful that any of these categories will be funded in our lifetimes. They were obviously added to the formula to confuse and/or calm those who were attempting to understand its provisions. [Emphasis added.] Gooden, at page 11. Another feature of the new funding scheme which negatively impacts the PCSSD is explained by Dr. Gooden as follows: While Act 917 provides assistance in the payment of bonded indebtedness to districts by utilizing a wealth index and provides for a line item appropriation for this purpose, the act also allows millage rates dedicated to the retirement of debt to be calculated in such a way as to reduce the minimum required level of local support below the stated 25 mill minimum. This formula provision excludes from consideration that portion of the school millage required to make annual payments on bonded debt after applying state debt service supplement payments. This characteristic creates an illusion of less wealth for those districts who have chosen to incur significant bonded debt and have dedicated major portions of local millage for these purposes. 13 This status is in sharp contrast to those districts whose voters chose to dedicate a portion of total millage for capital outlay purposes. Act 917 attempts to categorize capital outlay millage along with maintenance and operation millage and attempts to treat revenues produced as equals. This is a clear misrepresentation of facility funding plans adopted by local voters consistent with applicable statutes authorizing capital outlay taxes. Capital outlay millages approved prior to 1995 are restricted by statute for certain purposes and are not the equivalent of maintenance and operation revenues. Gooden, at page 12. Increases in the charged local millage under the old system were to the benefit, not the detriment, of the PCSSD. VII. COMPENSATORY EDUCATION/SUMMER SCHOOL The PCSSD is also adversely impacted in these areas as explairied by Dr. Gooden: Funding for compensatory education/summer school programs for 1996/97 and thereafter is included in the state equalization funding, distributed on the basis of ADM to all school districts. This is a departure from the previous method of distributing funds which considered the at-risk student needs reflected by the Title I formula as well as student achievement in basic skills. Gooden, at page 16. The Settlement Agreement provides that the ADE shall monitor the districts' implementation of compensatory education programs. The Settlement Agreement further provides at page 13 that: If necessary as a last resort, ADE may petition the Court for modification or changes in such programs being implemented by the Districts (but not for a reduction in the agreed level of State funding). The State has not sought the permission of the District Court to reduce the level of compensatory education funding previously paid to the PCSSD, which reduction is prohibited by 14 the Agreement in any event. Rather, as part of the changes it has enacted, it has simply included these funds as part of the ADM driven formula and will disburse certain funds to the PCSSD without regard to its needs. This will result in a reduction in the amount of money the PCSSD receives for compensatory education for which the State has neither sought nor obtained Court approval. VIII. VOCATIONAL AID Vocational education is a component of the PCSSD Desegregation Plan. The impact of the new system is explained by Dr. Gooden as follows: Funding to support vocational programs in 1996-97 must be derived from state and local funds realized by school districts as Base Equalization Revenues. Unlike student-enrollment-based funding in the past, districts will receive the same amount of funding regardless of the number of vocational courses offered or the number of students enrolled in them. The previous system of providing state foundation funds relative to the weighted-pupil factors determined by the various vocational courses was repealed by Act 917. Gooden, at page 17. IX. MINIMUM SALARY LAW The new minimum salary requirements substantially interfere with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate and the state provides no funds to fulfill this unfunded mandate. Dr. Gooden has observed that: In most cases, Act 917 expenditure requirements appear to be the result of a mathematically derived assumption regarding the level of expenditure which may be appropriate to support certain purportedly desired activities. Gooden, at page 25. 15 It is clear that the salary provisions contained in this act are based upon objectives other than the equitable distribution of school funds and appear to transcend reason in an attempt to restrict the ability of local school districts in managing revenues and expenditures. Gooden, at page 26. x. CONCLUSION Dr. Gooden has concluded that: The true measure of effectiveness in this funding formula revision will lie in analyzing the degree to which the tests of adequacy, equity, and efficiency are met. If all of these characteristics are not satisfied, the formula revisions contained in Act 917 are little more than an exercise in futility. Gooden, at page 7. The dramatic conceptual changes in the method of financing public education in Arkansas were enacted in haste and apparently without careful consideration of the three imperatives of educational finance: Adequacy, Equity, and Efficiency Act 917 of 1995 represents an exercise in cost-shifting and moves from a funding scheme based on needs to one which attempts to consider certain aspects of wealth without a balancing need--driven resource component. Gooden, at page 37. The cost shifting components of the new system violate the Settlement Agreement because these are programs for which the State provided funding in the past and for which the Intervenors acknowledge the State will provide no funding in the future. The State is obligated under the Settlement Agreement to provide funding to the PCSSD for these programs. The underlying basis of State aid, which simply distributes pro-rata based on numbers of 16 students, is not fair and rational, especially when applied to the PCSSD, because it ignores the substantially higher costs of the PCSSD in areas such as teacher retirement costs, special education, vocational education, and desegregation related expenditures. The defects identified in the new system as identified by Dr. Gooden are the reasons why the formula as a whole cannot satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court should declare that the new State funding formula violates those provisions of the Settlement Agreement which require the State to continue funding the PCSSD for the programs described herein, that the changes wrought by the new system are neither fair, rational, nor of general application, that, at a minimum, the PCSSD programs should be funded at the percentage levels of the highest funded programs in other school districts in the state under the new system, for its costs and attorneys' fees and all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By __ .....,..'---',,---F\"\"'-'\"\"--------- M. I (76060) At laski County S ecial Sc oo District 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons of record:. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 18 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 w. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 AR NSAS School Fun~ing _Plan __ ;;:~ .. ~ ... \":1..: 2.1 . :. ... l  l I I  EXHIBIT 4 Arkansas School Funding Plan An Analysis and Opinion by Benny L Gooden, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools June 1996 1 tForl ~mith Public Schools \"Iii\\-_~,~, ~~~~~~F~ort~S~mith~,A~rka~nsas~ _  V V .J Foreword Dramatic chl111ges in Arkansas school finance resulting from the passage of Act 917 of 1995 have gencr:ued considerable discussion regarding the overall concept of the acL its impact upon school districts of all sizes, and its potential to solve or cx.accrbatc the financial challenges facing Arkansas educators. In an anempt to analyu: the plethora of components contained in the act and in the incerest of identifying potential problems and possible solutions, I have prepared this opinion paper regarding Act 917 and its impact upon Arkansas sdlools. While the :ictual effecu arc different for each of Arkansas' schools distticts, I have utilized data for the Fon Smith Public Schools to illusauc the immedia1e impact of Act 917 provisions. ll is imponant to note uw the impact upon an urban school district With a significant industrial w: base will be dramatically differcru than the impact upon rural school disuicL~ with an a~cullur~l or eitc::iusively residential taX base. I..ikcwise. the student demographics and district financial mucturc will affect tllc ultim:ite outcome. ~b school district must thoroughly analyze its own !iituation utilizing and interpreting the financial data provided by the Ark.in.sas Department of Education as well as other local daia. This position paper is intended only for infonnation purposes and will hopefully provoke discussion lo encourage improvements to the financing of schools in Arkansas for the benefit of :ill students. Benny L. Gooden I. II. Conceptual Chaages ,-------------------9 Need-Based vs. Equal Aid Equity Comp~ ADMvs. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1624","title":"Court filings: District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; District Court, memorandum brief in support of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; seventeen exhibits","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-05-17"],"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 and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","Educational statistics","Education--Standards","School enrollment","School improvement programs","Magnet schools","Student assistance programs","Student suspension","School discipline","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; District Court, memorandum brief in support of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; seventeen exhibits"],"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/1624"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["58 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":6,"next_page":7,"prev_page":5,"total_pages":15,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":60,"total_count":178,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":178}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":36},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":33},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":11},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":4},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":4},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":3},{"value":"Quality Education and Management Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Ross, Steven M.","hits":2},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":2},{"value":"Area School Advisory Committee","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Student assistance programs","hits":178},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":176},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":144},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":139},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":125},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":107},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":103},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":98},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":90},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":85},{"value":"School employees","hits":81}],"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":176},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":176},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":174},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":170},{"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, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":176},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Missouri","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1995","hits":34},{"value":"1994","hits":33},{"value":"1997","hits":31},{"value":"1992","hits":30},{"value":"1996","hits":29},{"value":"1993","hits":28},{"value":"1999","hits":28},{"value":"1998","hits":23},{"value":"2000","hits":22},{"value":"2001","hits":19},{"value":"1989","hits":18},{"value":"1991","hits":17},{"value":"1990","hits":14},{"value":"2003","hits":14},{"value":"2002","hits":10},{"value":"2004","hits":10},{"value":"2005","hits":8},{"value":"2006","hits":8},{"value":"2008","hits":6},{"value":"1984","hits":5},{"value":"1986","hits":4},{"value":"1987","hits":4},{"value":"1988","hits":4},{"value":"2007","hits":4},{"value":"1974","hits":3},{"value":"1975","hits":3},{"value":"1976","hits":3},{"value":"1977","hits":3},{"value":"1978","hits":3},{"value":"1979","hits":3},{"value":"1980","hits":3},{"value":"1981","hits":3},{"value":"1982","hits":3},{"value":"1983","hits":3},{"value":"1985","hits":3},{"value":"2009","hits":3},{"value":"2010","hits":3},{"value":"1950","hits":2},{"value":"1951","hits":2},{"value":"1952","hits":2},{"value":"1953","hits":2},{"value":"1954","hits":2},{"value":"1955","hits":2},{"value":"1956","hits":2},{"value":"1957","hits":2},{"value":"1958","hits":2},{"value":"1959","hits":2},{"value":"1960","hits":2},{"value":"1961","hits":2},{"value":"1962","hits":2},{"value":"1963","hits":2},{"value":"1964","hits":2},{"value":"1965","hits":2},{"value":"1966","hits":2},{"value":"1967","hits":2},{"value":"1968","hits":2},{"value":"1969","hits":2},{"value":"1970","hits":2},{"value":"1971","hits":2},{"value":"1972","hits":2},{"value":"1973","hits":2},{"value":"2011","hits":2},{"value":"2012","hits":2},{"value":"2013","hits":2},{"value":"2014","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2014","count":498,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":80},{"value":"reports","hits":45},{"value":"legal documents","hits":23},{"value":"judicial records","hits":20},{"value":"handbooks","hits":11},{"value":"prints (visual works)","hits":2},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":1},{"value":"booklets","hits":1},{"value":"books","hits":1},{"value":"brochures","hits":1},{"value":"budgets","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":178}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":177}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":178}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":177},{"value":"Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":178}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}