{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1005","title":"\"Arkansas School and Educational Service Cooperative, Financial Accounting Manual,\" Arkansas Department of Education","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","School management and organization","Accounting"],"dcterms_title":["\"Arkansas School and Educational Service Cooperative, Financial Accounting Manual,\" Arkansas Department of Education"],"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/1005"],"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\nLegal documents, correspondence, newspaper clippings, notes\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nI STATE OF ARKANSAS ARKANSAS SCHOOL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COOPERATIVE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING MANUAL ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY MAY1999 - Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction Development of School Accounting Development of Handbook II Revised Purpose and Benefits of this Manual ., Basis of Accounting ., Cash Basis Accounting ' Accrual Basis Accounting 3 Single Entry/Double Entry Accounting 3 Chapter 2 Account Classification Structure -+ Types of Accounting Transactions -+ Classifications of Expenditures and Other Uses of Funds ..1. Classifications of State Level Reporting - Required \u0026amp; Optional 5 Fund -- Table I: Fund Classifications 5 Source ofFund -- Table II: Source of Fund Classifications 6 Location11.EA )\number Classifications 13 Function --Table III: Function Classifications J..1 - Object -- Table rv: Object Classifications -,- Program and Subject Area Classifications 35 Re\\'enue -- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications 36 Balance Sheet -- Table VI: Balance Sheet Account Classifications 52 Chapter 3 Definitions of Account Classifications -6 Fund Definitions 56 Source ofFund Definitions 5- Location Definitions 5- Function Definitions 5- Object Definitions 81 Revenue Definitions 9-4 Balance Sheet Account Definitions 122 Chapter 4 A Guide for a :\\'tinimum Property Accounting System 129 Chapter 5 Glossary 135 -1- Denlopment of School Accounting Chapter 1 I~TRODl1CTIO~ In 1953. the U.S. Department of Education (CSDE) began work on a series 0r\"publicat1ons entitled the State Educational Records and Reports Senes. These publications too form as six handbooks designed to assist both state and local educational agencies in collecting. recording and reporting information about elementary and secondary school operations. Handbook II of the series, Financial A.ccounting for Local and State School S\\srems: Standard Receipt and Expendirure Accounts, was published in 1957. Since that time it has been the basis for development of most local and state school financial accounting systems. Several years after the handbooks initial publication, it became e\\'ident that a comprehensi\\'e teaching and reference guide and procedural manual for school accounting\\\\ as desirable. In cooperation with the Association of School Business Officials. CSDE published Handbook II-B. Principles of Public School Accounting, in 1967. Denlopment of Handbook II Revised In 19-3_ a nationwide cooperati\\'e effort by the educational community culr::inated in the - publication of Handbook II Revised. Financial Accountin2.: Classification 2.nd Standard Terminologv for Local and State School Svstems. A national steering comr:'.mee. under con:~::.c: with CSDE, developed the first draft of Handbook II Re,ised. A second contract was negotiated to conduct l O regional review conrerences and prepare additional drafts of the handbook. After it was reviewed by representati\\'es from the sponsonr.g associations in each region, a second draft was prepared. The second draft was sent to all state education agencies. approximately 2.000 large local education agencies, the national steering committee and selected consultants for extensive re\\iev,\nand testing. Suggestions for modifications and improvements were received and, when feasible. incorporated into the final publication. A number of related projects and conferences were incorporated into the final draft of Handbook II Revised. Handbook II Revised represented a significant departure from its predecessors in terms of the accounting theory it embodied. It recommended that, to the extent practicable, local school districts utilize accrual-based accounting techniques. -1- In 1990, the United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement modified Handbook II Revised and entitled the reYision. Handbook II R'. Handbook II R2 reflected changes and clarifications in generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The Arkansas Department of Education has developed its reYised financial accounting system for local school districts as an adaptation of Handbook II R2. Purpose and Benefits of this Manual A primary concern of a public agency is the ability to effectively manage their funds. This manual provides an accounting system to effectively manage local school district funds. Consistency in state and local reporting is another concern of public entities. The classifications contained in this manual provide mutually exclusive, discrete dimensions and categories to describe financial transactions. The logic of the classification system enhances coding and improves comparability. The adoption of the manual by Arkansas school districts \\vill provide consistency in local school district financial reporting throughout the state. This manual enables a school district to incorporate educational philosophy and management functions into its financial operation. It can be adapted to provide financial data for selfcontained classes or an open school program. It can account for a special education programs on the basis of type of service or on the type of disability basis. It can accommodate independent school or grade level budgeting as well as centralized budgeting. It is designed to assist in expanding rather than constraining the potential for innovative and effective educational program management. Basis of Accounting The basis of accounting refers to the point in time when revenues. expenditures or expenses (as appropriate), and the related assets and liabilities are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. The basis of accounting determines the timing \\Vith which the accounting system recognizes transactions. -2- Cash Basis Accounting Cash basis accounting recognizes transactions when cash is receiYed or disbursed. In a cash basis accounting system, the financial condition of the district is measured primarily by the size of the system's cash balance. All other assets and liabilities are recognized only to the extent they have arisen from prior cash transactions. )\nates and bonds payable and mterfund loan receivables and payables are recognized. but accounts receiYable and accounts payable :ire not. Cash basis accounting provides infonnation about the district's financial operations by repomng changes in their cash balance. A weakness of cash basis accounting is that it does not recognize accounts receivable. accounts payable and other accrued items. Cash basis accounting does not match resources used to resources provided and results in financial statements that do not represent a complete financial position. Financial statements prepared using cash basis accounting are not \\ery useful because it is difficult to ascertain whether or not the district is operating within their means. Accrual Basis Accounting The accrual basis of accounting is regarded as the superior method of accounting for economic resources. This method allows the district to detennine their financial position and results of operations by measuring economic resources and obligations. Changes in these factors can be measured as the changes occur, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Governmental Accounting. Auditing and Financial Reporting (G.-i...AFR) recommends the use of - accrual basis accounting to the fullest extent practicable. Governmental fund revenues and expenditures should be recorded on the modified accrual basis. Re\\enues should be recordec when they become available and measurable. Expenditures should be recorded when incurrec. if measurable. Single Entry/Double Entry Accounting A single entry accounting system is easily illustrated by the check registe:- in a checkbook. ..\\n entry is recorded for each cash receipt or cash disbursement. The cash account is increased or decreased by each transaction. Single entry accounting systems operate in a like manner. A double entry accounting system requires that for every entry made to the debit side of an account a corresponding entry must be-made to the credit side of another account. Double entry accounting involves maintaining a balance between assets and liabilities, reserves and fund equities. The double entry system has two advantages. The district can prepare a balance sheet which reports their financial status on a specific date, and the use of a double entry system provides a set of checks and balances within the accounting system. -3- Chapter 2 ACCOUJ\\'T CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE Types of Accounting Transactions The accounting classification structure provides the state guidelines for recording the three basic types of accounting transactions: revenues and other uses of funds\nexpenditures and other uses of funds\nand transactions that affect the balance sheet only. Each transaction is recorded using codes from a combination of classifications depending on the type of transaction. For each type of transaction. the classifications and codes \\\\ithin each have been selected to satisfy the following conditions. (I) The \\,ide variety of types and sizes of Arkansas school districts makes the use of the full charts of accounts impractical in many instances. A more streamlined and efficient \\ersion of the charts is required in these instances. (2) At the same time. certain minimum state and federal reporting requirements must be followed by all local and state school officials. The follov.ing chart of accounts offers the lowest level of detail and maintenance while still meeting minimum state and federal reporting requirements. Classification of Expenditures and Other Uses of Funds Expenditure classifications are divided into two groups: those required for state le\nel reporting\nand those provided as optional to allow more detailed reporting at the district le\\el. The state level reporting requirements for expenditures are comprised of the following: Fund\nSource of Funds\nFunction\nLocation\nand Object. Optional classifications provided for use at the district level include the following: Program: and Subject Area. -4- Classifications Required for State Level Reporting E1!ml Fund accounting is organized around a set of funds where each fund is cre:i.ted for :i. unique purpose. Each fund maintains a complete set of self-balancing accounts which show its assets. liabilities. reserves. fund balances and expenditures. Table I: Fund Classifications Dllk 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C)assjfication Teacher Salary Fund Operating Fund Building Fund Debt Service Fund Capital Outlay/Dedicated M\u0026amp;O Fund Federal Grants Fund Activity Fund Food Service Fund Fixed Asset Fund -5- - Source of Fund Source of fund allows the district to segregate revenues and expenditures by a specific funding source, authority or purpose. Source of fund is used to accumulate financial information for grants that require the funds to be accounted for separately because their use is restricted. This category of reporting may be used at the discretion of the district. If a district chooses to utilize this category, the district must use the source of fund codes specified below. Table II: Source of Fund Classifications 000 Unrestricted Revenue from Local Sources 001-199 Reserved for school district use 201-399 Restricted Revenue from State Sources Adult Education 201 32110 Adult Basic Education 202 32120 Adult General Education 203 32130 Workplace Adult Education 205 321-+0 Other Regular Education 211 32211 Reading Program Inservice (McRAT. Reading Recovery, ELLA) 214 32214 Computer Based Education Program (322-+) 219 32219 Math \u0026amp; Science Equipment Grant 220 32220 Curriculum Frameworks 221 32221 Writing Assessment 222 32222 Career Education 227 32227 College Prep Enrichment Program (CPEP) 228 32228 Economic Education 230 32230 Parents as Teachers (PAD Project 231 32231 Parents as Teachers (PAT) Training Center 234 32234 Distant Learning 237 32237 Match Math \u0026amp; Science 239 32239 State IMPACT Funding for Technology -6- Table II: Source of Fund Classifications (Continued) 240 250 255 260 265 270 271 275 276 277 278 279 280 291 295 300 305 307 310 315 320 ..,,,_.,..,, 325 330 335 340 342 344 345  346 350 355 32310 32330 32340 32350 3235: 32360 32361 32370 32371 32372 32374 32375 32380 32410 324:20 32430 32440 32442 32445 32450 32455 32458 32460 32470 32475 32480 32485 32488 32490 32491 32495 32520 32590 Special Education Children with Disabilities - Super,ision. Extd Ye:ir. Foster C:ire Children ,,ithout Disabilities - Residential Tre:1tment Children with Disabilities - Residential Treatment Early Childhood Special Education Special Education Catastrophic Loss Funding Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - AEGIS Progr:irn. Go,ernor s School Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - Advance Placement AlternatiYe Learning Environment Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Residential Centers/Juvenile Detention Intervention Prevention C:irnegie :'viath Based Education Aid to Human Development Centers Workforce Education Workforce Center Grant Workforce Capital Equipment Grant Coordinated Comp Workforce Education - Special ~eeds Technical Preparatory Coordination Technical Preparatory Learning Workplace Readiness Tech Prep Secondary Workforce Center Counseling Adult Center Suppon Shon-term Adult Skill Training Youth Apprenticeship Traditional Apprenticeship Arkansas Education Service Center Workforce New Program Start-up Teenage Outreach Parenting Program Principles of Technology Workforce Rehabilitation Workforce Education High Tech Training Center School Food Service State Matching (3250) Other -7- - Table II: Source of Fund Classifications (Continued) Educational Service Cooperatins 360 32610 Educational Sen-ice Cooper:iti\\'e Funding Early Childhood Programs 365 32710 Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) 366 32711 K-3 Summer School 367 32712 K-3 Regular School 368 32713 Early Childhood Curriculum Specialist 370 32720 K-3 At Risk 371 32725 Arkansas Crusade for Math \u0026amp; Science K-3 375 32730 Model Rural Consortium Grant 376 32735 Early Childhood - Parent In\\'olvement 380 32740 Infant/Toddler Program (DHS) 381 32745 Smart Start 385 32790 Other Magnet School Programs 386 32811 Pulaski County :\\ifagnet School Re,\ne:me - 387 32812 M-to-M Revenue 388 32813 Magnet \u0026amp; M-to-M Transponation Other Non-Instructional Programs 390 32910 Workers' Comp Funding 392 32912 General Facilities Funding 393 32913 Growth Facilities Funding 394 32915 Debt Service Supplement 395 32916 DHS Human Service Worker Initiative 396 32917 Department of Health 399 32990 Other Grants and Aid from the State -8- Table II: Source of Fund Classifications (Continued) Restricted Aid Direct from Federal Government Elementary/Secondary Education Programs -+05 -+3 l l 0 Artists in Residence 410 -+3120 Community Education 415 -+3130 Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse PreYention 4::!0 -+3140 ational EndO\\\\ment for the Humanities 4') - 43150 Bilingual Education _:, 430 43160 ROTC - Reserve Officers Training Corp 435 43170 Troops to Teachers 440 43180 Satellite Education Research Commission 445 43185 National Science Foundation 446 -+3190 Presidential A ward for Math \u0026amp; Science 447 43191 Community Service Learning Workers .-\\ssistance 448 43192 Math Crusade Indian Education Programs 449 43610 Indian Education (42-+2) Desegregation Programs - 450 43710 Magnet School ( 4::!21 ) 455 43720 Office of Civil Rights ( 422:2) Other Restricted Aid Direct from the Federal Government 460 43910 National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Title III. Parts 1 \u0026amp; ::! 465 43920 Major Disaster - Repair \u0026amp; Equipment 470 43930 Public Law 815 - Construction 475 43940 Federal Low Income Housing 477 43942 Housing \u0026amp; Community Development Act of 1974 480 43950 Resource Conservation \u0026amp; Development 485 43960 Exxon Energy Grant 490 43970 School Health \u0026amp; Nutrition 492 43972 Summer School Health \u0026amp; :-l'utrition Program 494 43974 Commodities 495 43975 Cash in Lieu of Commodities - Not Through State ( 4486) 496 43976 Rural Utilities Service Grant (USDA) -9- - - Table II: Source of Fund Classifications (Continued) 501 45110 502 45111 503 45112 504 45113 505 45114 506 45115 507 45116 508 45117 509 45118 510 45120 511 45121 512 45122 520 45130 521 45131 522 45132 530 J5140 540 45150 545 J5155 550 J5\\60 555 45165 560 45170 570 45310 571 45311 572 45312 573 45313 574 45314 575 45315 576 45316 577 45317 578 45318 580 45319 590 45320 591 45321 592 45322 595 45325 Restricted Aid from the Federal Government Through State Elementary/Secondary Education Act (ESEA) ESE:\\ Title I Regular - Comp Education ESE . .\\ Title I tv[igrant Education ESEA Title I Service Center\n-.iigrant Students ESEA Title I Program Improvement Grant ESEA Title I Capital Expenses - Grants to Pri\\ate Schools Even Stan Migrant Education Grant ESEA Title I Handicapped Elem \u0026amp; Secondary Act of 1965 Even Stan Family Literacy Program Learn and Serve America ESEA Title I Neglected \u0026amp; Delinquent Children Title I Summer Challenge Title I Comprehensive School Reform Development Program ESEA Title VI - At-Risk Students ESEA Title VI - Technical Assistance \u0026amp; Special Projects Title VI - Classroom Reduction Act of 1999 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance . .\\ct for Children Job Training Pannership Act. Title II. Section 123 Job Training Partnership . .\\ct. Title III Title XX: Social Security Act Education for Economic Security . .\\ct - Basic Skills Improvement DHS - Childcare Assistance Grant Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984 Basic Grant - Formula Grant Entitlement Leadership Projects - Competitive Awards Single Parents, Displaced Homemakers \u0026amp; Single Pregnant Women Sex Equity Programs for Criminal Offenders Vocational Education Suppon Programs - Comrnunit: -Based Consumer \u0026amp; Homemaking Education Technical Preparatory Education - Title III Part E Supplemental Grants for Improvement Activities - Title III Pan F Teenage Outreach Parenting Program Special . eeds Delta Initiative Strive Grant Technical Literacy Challenge Fund Grant - Title III Part A -10- Table II: Source of Fund Classifications (Continued) - Adult Education 600 45410 Direct \u0026amp; Equitable 605 45420 Demonstration Projects \u0026amp; Teacher Training 610 45430 Correctional Adult Education Program 615 45440 Model Resource Center 620 45450 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless A.ssistance .. .\\c t fo r .. \\dults 625 45460 Employment for Disadvantaged Youth - Stay-in-School Progr:!..':: 630 45470 Adult Basic Education 635 45480 Women's Educational Equity . .\\ct of 1988. Title IX School Food Services 640 45510 Lunch Reimbursement Through . ..\\DE 641 45511 Lunch Reimbursement Through DHS 645 45520 Breakfast Reimbursement Through . ..\\DE 646 45521 Breakfast Reimbursement Through DHS 650 45530 Special Milk Reimbursement Through ADE 651 45531 Special Milk Reimbursement Through DHS 655 45540 Snack Reimbursement Through . ..\\DE 656 45541 Snack Reimbursement Through DHS 660 45550 Food Service Equipment Assistance - 665 45560 Cash in Lieu of Commodities 670 45580 ~utrition Education \u0026amp; Training Program C',:ET) 671 45585 Comprehensive Health (HA T)C',:ifty Nutrition) 675 45590 Other Food Service Revenue Special Education 700 45610 IDEA Title VI-B Education of Handicapped 701 45612 IDEA Title VI-B Area Services 702 45613 IDEA Title VI-B Pass Through Funding 703 45614 IDEA Title VI-B Head Start 710 45630 IDEA Early Childhood, Section 619 715 45640 Title VI-B Special Education Transition Project 720 45650 Sliver Grant -11- Table II: Source of Fund Classifications (Continued) 750 753 755 760 765 770 775 780 781 785 786 787 790 45910 45915 45920 45930 45940 45950 45960 45970 45971 45980 45981 45982 45990 Other Restricted Federal Aid Through State Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act Adult Refugee Fund Eisenhower Math \u0026amp; Science Project Environmental Education Goals 2000 Home Instruction Program Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY)_ National Diffusion Network (NDN) State Facilitator Project Drug Abuse Prevention Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools \u0026amp; Communities. Title IV Comprehensive School Health - Aids Education Act Local Delinquency Prevention Title V School Health Program Coordinator Other Restrict Federal Grants Through the State -12- Location/I,EA Number The tenn location is used to denote the location of education acti\\'ities for org:inizational purposes. In most cases, location denotes individual schools, but it can be used to designate cost centers which will enable budgets and expenditures to be made for each school or location. Location coding is required for reporting purposes due to changes effected during the 1999 Legislative Session. Districts should use the last three digits of the school's LEA to specify the location for the transaction. -13- Function The function describes the activity being perfonned when a service is provided or a materio.l object is received. The functions of a district are classified into five broad areas: instruction: support services\noperation of non-instructional services: facilities acquisition and construction services: and other outlays. Items in italics denote additional detail for coding transactions which you may choose to incorporate into your system but is not required for state and federal reporting purposes. For reporting purposes, all districts must code to the lowest detail level not italicized. Table III: Function Classifications 1000 Instruction (100) 1100 Regular Programs/Elementary-Secondary ( 110) 1103 K-3 Summer School Remediation 1105 Preschool (115) 1110 Kindergarten (11 1) 1120 Elementary (112) 1130 Middle/Junior High (113) 1140 High School (1 !-!) 1150 Athletics ( 115) 1160 Student Activities (116) 1170 Summer School 1180 Teacher Bonus (One Time) (118) 1190 Other Regular (l_\nnderpayments) (119) -14- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 1000 Instruction (Continued) 1200 Special Education (120) 1210 Itinerant Instruction ( 121) 1211 Consulting Teachers 1212 Itinerant Speech Pathologist 1213 Braille lnsrructors 121-1 Home Bound 1215 Educational Interpreters for the Deaf 1220 Resource Room ( 122) 1230 Special Class - 1:15 Ratio (123) 1240 Special Class - I: 10 Ratio (124) 1250 Special Class - I :6 Ratio (125) 125 3 Integrated Classroom 1 :\n.:6 Regular Classroom 1260 Separate Day School - Private ( 126) 1265 Pre-referral 1266 Post dismissal 1267 Section 504 eligible 1270 Residential Day School - Private (127) 1280 Other - Private ( 128) 1290 Preschool - Special Needs (129) 1295 Separate Day School - Public ( 12A) 1299 Other - Special Education -15- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 1000 Instruction (Continued) 1300 Workforce Education Programs (130) 1310 Workforce Agriculture ( 131) 1320 Marketing and Distributive Education (13'.:) 1330 Business/Office Occupations (133) 1340 Health Careers/Occupations (134) 1350 Trade and Industrial ( including Industrial .~s) (135) 1360 Home Economics (136) 1370 Career Orientation (137) 1380 General Cooperative (138) 1390 Special Needs (139) 1395 Tech Prep 1596 Workplace Readiness 139- Regional Technical Coordination 1399 Other Workforce Projects 1400 Adult/Continuing Education Program ( 140) 1410 Adult Basic Education ( 141) 1420 Adult General Education (142) 1430 Adult Workforce Education (143) 1440 Special Projects (144) 1490 Other Adult/Continuing Education Programs (149) -16- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) - 1000 Instruction (Continued) 1500 Compensatory Education Programs ( 150) 1510 Basic Skills ( 151 ) 1515 School Improvement 1520 Dropout/Dropout Prevention (152) 1525 Technology 1530 Language Arts (153) 1535 Instructional \u0026amp; Educational Materials 1540 Educational Refonn 1545 At-Risk 1550 Eariy Childhood Education ( 15 5) - 1555 Literacy 1560 Reading ( 156) 1570 Mathematics/Science (157) 1590 Other Compensatory Education Programs ( 15 9) -17- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 1000 Instruction (Continued) 1900 Other Instructional Programs ( 190) 1910 Gifted and Talented Children ( 191) 1915 ~1usic 1920 Computers 1930 English as a Second Language 1950 Alternative Learning Environment 1990 Other Instructional Programs ( 199) 2000 Support Services (2 00) 2100 Support Se:,ices - Students (210) 2110 Attendance and Social Work Services (211) :: 111 Supervision of Auendance \u0026amp; Social Trork Sen-ices 211:: Atrendance : 113 Social Work : 11.1 Srudent Accounting 2119 Orher Auendance and Sociai Work Services 2120 Guidance Services (212) 2121 2122 2113 212-4 2125 2126 2129 Supervision of Guidance Services Counseling Appraisal lnformarion Record Maintenance Placemenr Orher Guidance Services -18- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 2000 Support Senrices (Continued) 2100 Support Services - Students (Continued) 2130 Health Services (213) 2131 Superrision o_( Healrh Senices 2132 .\\,fedical 2133 Dental 213-1 .Vursing 2139 Other Health Services 2140 Psychological Services (214) 21-11 Supervision of Psychological Sen-ices 21-12 Psychological Tesiing 21-13 Psychological Counseling 21-14 Psychorherapy 2149 Orher Psychological Sen'ices 2150 Speech Pathology and Audiology Services (: 15) 2151 Supenision o_f Speech Parhology \u0026amp; Audiology Sc..-.:ices 2152 Speech Parhology 2153 Audiology 215-1 Hearing Impaired lnrerprerer 2159 Or her Speech Pathology and Audiology Senices 2160 Physical and Occupational Therapy (216) 2190 Other Support Ser\\'ices - Students (219) 2200 Support Services - Instructional Staff ( 220) 2210 Curriculum Supervision (Improvement of Instructional Services) (221) 2211 Supervision of Improvement of lnsrructional Ser:ices 2212 lnsrructional and Curriculum Developmenr 2213 lnsrructional Staff Training 2214 lnsrructional Staff Advisory Services 2215 Drug Free Schools 2219 Orher Improvement of Instructional Services -19- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 2000 Support Services (Continued) 2200 Supp011 Services - Instructional Staff (Continued) 2220 Educational Media Services (222) 2221 2222 ''..., \"'I ___ ) 222-1 2225 2229 Supervision of Educational .\\fedia Senices School Library Audiovisual Educational Television Computer-Assisted Instruction Other Educational }vfedia Services 2290 Other Support Services - Instructional Staff (229) 2300 Support Services - General Administration (230) 2310 Board of Education Services (231 ) 23 11 Supervision of Board of Education Services 2 312 Board Secrerar:,,yClerk 2313 Board Treasurer :\n3  -I Elections 23 15 Legal 23 16 Sraff Relations and .\\\"egoriarion C 32 3) 2317 Audit Services 23 18 Reappraisal of Property 2319 Other Board of Education Services 2320 Executive Administration Sel\"\\'ices (23'.:) 2321 Office ofrhe Superinrendem or Educarionai Cooperati\\e 2322 Communiry Relations 232-1 Stare and Federal Relations 2329 Other Executive Administration Services 23 80 Office of Desegregation 2390 Other Support Services - General Administration -20- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 2000 Support Senices (Continued) 2400 Support Services - School Administration (240) 2410 Office of the Principal (241) 2490 Other Support Services - School Administration c:40) 2500 Support Services - Business (250) 2501 Supervision ofBusiness SerYices (251) 2510 Fiscal Services (252) 2 511 Supenision of Fiscal Services (: 5: I I 2512 Budgering (2522) 2513 Receiring and Disbursing Funds I :5 :3i 251-1 Payroll C52-I) 2515 Financiai Accounring (25251 ]516 Internal A.udiring (2526) 251- Properry Accounting (252-\n\") 2519 Other Fiscal Senices (2529) 2520 Purchasing Ser.ices (2572) 2530 Warehousing and Distributing Services (2573) 2531 Supenision of Warehousing and Disrribwing Services I: 5-1 J 2535 Warehouse Inventory Adjustment 2540 Printing, Publishing and Duplicating Ser\\'ices (257.1) 2590 Other Support Services - Business (259) -21- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 2000 Support Senices (Continued) 2600 Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services (254) 2610 Supervision of Operation \u0026amp; ~!aintenance of Plant Se:-ices (2541) 2620 Operation of Building Services (25-C) 2630 Care and Upkeep of Grounds Services (25-13) 2640 Care and Upkeep of Equipment Services (25-1-1) 2650 Vehicle Operation and Maintenance Services (Other than Student Transportation Vehicles) (25-15) 2660 Security Services (2546) 2690 Other Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services (25.19) 2700 Student Transportation Services (255) 2710 Supervision of Student Transportation Smices (255 ! ) 2720 Vehicle Operation (2552) 2730 Monitoring (2553) 2740 Vehicle Servicing and Maintenance (255-1) 2790 Other Student Transportation Services (25 59) 2800 Support Services  Central (260) 280 I Supervision of Central Support Services (2610) 2810 Planning, Research, Development and Eva! (PRD\u0026amp;E) Services (2620) 2811 Supervision of PRD\u0026amp;E Services (262 l) 2812 Development Services (2622) 2813 Evaluation Services (2623) -22- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 2000 Support Services (Continued) :?.800 Support SerYices - Central (Continued) 2810 Planning, Research. Development and EYal Ser.ices , C0minued) ] 1 ./ Planning Services (161./) ]815 Research Ser\\'ices (16::5) ]819 Other PRD\u0026amp;E Services (1619) 2820 Information Services (:?.630) 2821 Supervision of Information Services (::631 i 2822 Internal Information (2632) 2823 Public Information (2633) ]82./ Management Information (non -dara process:1:g ::63J) 2829 Other Information Services (]6391 2830 Staff Services c::640) 2831 Supenision of Staff Services (]6.!! 1 2832 Recruitment and Placement (26J:: ]833 SraffAccounring (26./3) 283./ lnservice Training (classified sral} C6J.!\n2835 Health (26./5) ]839 Other Sraff Senices (26./9) 2840 Data Processing - Administrative Services (2660) 2841 Supervision of Administrative Dara Process.1:g Services (2661) 28./2 Systems Analysis (2662) 28./3 Programming (2663) 284./ Operations (266./) 2849 Other Administrative Dara Processing Senices (2669) 2870 Technology Services -23- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 2000 Support Senrices (Continued) 2800 Support Ser\\'ices - Central (Continued) :?.880 Statistical Ser\nices (2650) 1881 Supervision of Statistical Sen'ices (:65 I) 288] Statistical Analysis (1651) 1883 Statistical Reporting Services (1653) 2889 Other Statistical Services (1659) 2890 Other Support Services - Central (2690) 2900 Other Support Services (290) 3000 Operation of Non-Instructional Services 3100 Food Services Operations (25 6) 3110 Supervision of School Food Services (2561) 3120 Food Preparation and Dispensing Senices t:56:?.) 3130 Food Delivery Services (2563) 3140 Food Management Contract Sen'ices 3190 Other Food Smices (2569) 3200 Other Enterprise Operations 3300 Community Services Operations (300) 3310 Supervision of Community Services (310) 3320 Community Recreation Services (320) 3330 Civic Services (330) 3340 Public Library Services (340) -24- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 3000 Operation of Non-Instructional Services (Continued) 3300 Community Services Operations (Continued) 3350 Custody and C:ire of Children Ser\\'ices (350) 33: 1 Welfare Activities (360) 3352 !\\'on-public School Public Sen:ice , r o) 3353 Parent Centers 335-1 Instruction Program (380) 3390 Other Community Services (390) 3400 Other Non-Instructional Services 4000 Facilities Acquisition \u0026amp; Construction Senices (253) 4100 Supervision of Facilities Acquisition \u0026amp; Construction Ser\\'ices t:531 ) 4200 Site Acquisition Services (253:) 4300 Site Impro\\'ement Ser\nices 4400 Architecture and Engineering Services (2533) 4500 Educational Specifications Development Services (:534) 4600 Building . .\\cquisition and Construction Services 4610 Instructional Areas (2535) 4620 Non-Instructional Areas (2536) 4700 Building Improvements Services 4 710 Instructional Areas 4720 Non-Instructional Areas 4900 Other Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services (2539) -25- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 5000 Other Uses (Governmental Funds Only) 5100 LEA Indebtedness (500) 5110 Bonded Indebtedness (510) 5120 Non-Bonded Debt (Revolving Loans) (5:0) 5130 Current Loans (530) 5140 Postdated Warrants (540) 5150 Installment/Lease Purchase Payments (5:0) 5160 School Board Association Anticipated Ta--. ~ote (560) 5190 Other Indebtedness 5200 Fund Transfers (430) 5300 Payment to Other LEA's (\\Vithin the State) (410) 5400 Payment to Other LEA's (Outside the State) c..1:0) 5 500 Indirect Costs ( 440) 5900 Other )ion-Programmed Costs ( 490) 5901 Payment to State for Overpayment of Funds -26- QbjW This classification is used to describe the service or commodity obtained as ::i. result of ::i. specific expenditure. The major categories of objects are further broken do\\\\TI into sub-objects to allO\\\\ for greater detail. The major category designation is often used as ::i. c::i.tegory summary that should not be used for posting purposes. Items in italics denote additional detail for coding transactions which you m::i.~ choose t0 incorporate into your system but is not required for state and fede,al reporting purposes. For reporting purposes, all districts must code to the lowest detail level not italicized. Table IV: Object Classifications 61000 Personal Senices  Salaries (100) 61100 Regular Employees ( 110) 61110 Certified (110) 61120 Classified (120) 61200 Temporary Employees 61210 Certified 61220 Classified 61300 Overtime 61400 Sabbatical Leave 61500 Workshops (150) 61510 Certified 61520 Classified 61700 Substitutes 61710 Certified ( 130) 61720 Classified 61800 Unused Sick Leave 6' 1810 Certified 61820 Classified -27- Table IV: Object Classifications (Continued) 61000 Personal Services - Salaries (100) 61900 Other 61910 Severance Certified 61920 Severance Classiried 61930 Early Retirement Incentive Certified 61940 Early Retirement Incentive Classified 61950 Annuity ff-Drop 62000 Personal Services - Employee Benefits 62100 Group Insurance (240) 62110 Certified 62120 Classified 62200 Social Security (210) 62210 Certified 62220 Classified 62250 y!edicare 62260 Certified 62270 Classified 62300 Teacher Retirement Contributions (220) 62310 Certified 62320 Classified 62400 Tuition Reimbursement 62410 Certified 62420 Classified 62500 Unemployment Compensation (250) 62510 Certified 62520 Classified -28- Table IV: Object Classifications (Continued) 62000 Personal Senices - Employee Benefits (Continued) 62600 Workers Compensation t260) 62610 Certified 62620 Classified 62700 Health Benefits 62710 Certified 62720 Classified 62800 Public Retirement Contributions (230) 62820 Classified 62900 Other Employee Benefits (290) 62910 Certified 62920 Classified 63000 Purchased Professional and Technical Senices (310) 63100 Official/ Administrative 63110 Staff Service (31 ..:J 63120 .\\1anagement Service - Consulting (315\n63130 Board of Educarion Services (31 8) 63200 Professional-Educational 63210 Instruction Services (311) 63220 Instructional Program Improvement Services (312) 63230 Consulting - Educational 63300 Other Professional 63310 Pupil Services (313) 63320 Engineering 63330 Accounting 63340 Legal -29- Table IV: Object Classifications (Continued) 63000 Purchased Professional and Technical Senices (Continued) 63300 Other Professional (Continued) 63350 ,\\fedical 63360 Information Technology 63370 Architectural 63400 Technical 63./10 Data Processing Services (316) 63410 Statistical Services (317) 63900 Other Purchased Professional and Technical Senices 64000 Purchased Property Services (320) 64100 Utility Services 6./1 JO Water-'Sewer (323) 6-C00 Cleaning Smices (324) 6-4110 Disposal,Sanitation (313) 6./230 Custodial 6./2./0 Lawn Care 64300 Repair and \\ifaintenance Services 6./310 Buildings and Grounds (315) 6-1320 Equipment and Vehicle (326) 64400 Rentals 64410 Rental of Land and Buildings (3 2 j 64420 Rental of Equipment and Vehicles (328) 64500 Construction Services 64900 Other Purchased Property Services (329) -30- Table IV: Object Classifications (Continued) 65000 Other Purchased Senices 65100 Student Transportation Services (330) 65110 Studem Transporrarion Purchast!d_fi\"om LE.-l 1111hlll 1\n1c Sra1e 65120 Srudent Transporrarion Purchasd_tiom LE.-l owsrd.: riw S1a1c 65190 Studenr Transporration Purchasedjiom Orher Sourc.:s 65200 Insurance Other than Employee Benefits (640) 65210 Property Insurance 65220 Liability Insurance 65230 Fidelity Bond Premiums 652./0 Fleet Insurance 65250 Accident Insurance 65290 Other Insurance 6:300 Communications (340) 65310 Telephone 653:0 Postage 65400 Advertising (350) 65500 Printing and Binding (360) 65600 Tuition (370) 65610 To Other LEA wirhin 1he Srare 65620 To Orher LEA oucside the Srate 65630 To Priva1e Schools 656./0 Educational Jnrermediate Agency within rhe State 65650 Educational Intermediate Agency outsra\"e the State 65690 Other 65700 Food Service Management (380) -31- Table IV: Object Classifications (Continued) 65000 Other Purchased Senices (Continued) 65800 Travel (332) 65810 Cerr(fied 65820 Classified 65830 Out of District Certified 658-10 Out of District Classified 65850 Out of State Certified 65860 Out of State Class((led 65870 Non-Employee 65880 .'vfeals 65890 Lodging 65900 Miscellaneous Purchased Services (390) 65910 Ser\\'ices Purchased Locally 65920 Services Purchased from LEA within the Stare 65930 Services Purchased from LEA outside the Stare 66000 Supplies and Materials (400) 66100 General Supplies and Materials (-n 0) 66:00 Energy ( 460) 66210 Natural Gas (31 1) 66~20 Electriciry (322) 66230 Butane/Propane (-163) 662-10 Oil (-162) 66250 Coal/Wood (-161) 66260 Gasoline/Diesel (J6-I) 66290 Other 66300 Food 66400 Books and Periodicals 66410 Textbooks (-120) 66420 Library Books (430) 66430 Periodicals (./40) 66440 Audiovisual Materials (450) -32- Table I\\': Object Classifications (Continued) 66000 Supplies and Materials (Continued) 66500 Technology Supplies 66510 Sofnrare 66520 Other 66600 Building Materials 66700 Warehouse Inventory Adjustment (-PO) 66900 Other Supplies and Materials ( 490) 67000 Property ( 500) 67100 Land and Improvements (510,530) 67200 Buildings (Existing Structures) (520/570) 67210 Library Books (\\ew Libraries only) (560) 67300 Equipment (540) 6-310 .'vlachinery (5-10) 67320 Vehicles (550) 6-330 Furniture and Fixtures (5.J O) 67390 Other Equipmenr (5-10) 67500 Technology Equipment -33- Table I\\': Object Classifications (Continued) 68000 Other Objects ( 600) 68100 Dues and Fees (630) 68200 Judgments against the LEA. ( 6.50) 68300 Interest (6:~0) 68400 Indirect Cost (670) 68800 Taxes 68810 Tax on Resale Items 68820 Improvement Tax (660) 68830 Property Tax 68900 Yiiscellaneous Expenditures 69000 Other lises of Funds 69100 Redemption of Principal ( 610) 69200 Housing Authority Obligations 69300 Fund Transfers (Pennanent) (710) 693 IO Transfer to Salary Fund 69320 Transfer to Operating Fund 69330 Transfer to Building Fund 69340 Transfer to Debt Service Fund 69350 Transfer to Capital Outlay Fund 69360 Transfer to Federal Grants Fund 69370 Transfer to Student Activity Fund 69380 Transfer to Food Service Fund 69400 Program Funding Return 69500 Transits ( Flow-Through Money) 69900 Loan Payments To -34- ~u\\,ject Are:i :ind Progr:im (Opt10nal classitications for use by districts) A subject area classification is used for local accounting purpos..:s .  -\\ny district choosing to 1 e this classification should develop subject area classiiication  m relation to their needs. The use of this classification is at the discretion of the district. A program is a plan of activities and procedures designed to accomplish an vbJective. The use: of this classification allo\\,s expenditures related to a specific prog~ammatic area to be dismbute.:: across the appropriate functional classiiications. TlHS is specirically releYant for progr:ims t!~3t relate to direct instruction as well as support serYicc:s. Any distri t choosing to use this classification should develop program classifi ation: in accord:mce \\\\ ith their needs. The use oi this classification is at the discretion of the district or cooperati\\e. The Arkansas Department of Education (Department) reserYes the right in the future to designate specific coding requirements. ii needed. to comply with reporting requirements imposed on :he Department. -35 - Revenue Classifications Revenue Revenue is defined as an increase in an asset ,vhich does not increase any liability, does not represent the recovery of any expenditure and does not represent the reduction of a liability that would result in a corresponding increase in another liability. This section of classifications includes \"Other Sources\" which are cash inflows but are not considered rewnue, e.g .. interfund transfers, bond proceeds, insurance proceeds, etc. The classifications required to meet state level reporting requirements for re\\'enue are comprised of the following: Fund Source of Fund Revenue Code Table V: Revenue Code Classifications 10000 Revenue from Local Sources (1000) I 1000 Taxes ( 1100) 11100 Property Taxes 11110 Property Taxes - Current ( 1111) 11120 Property Taxes - 40 Percent Pullback Recei,ed by June 30 (1112) 11130 Property Taxes - 40 Percent Pullback Recei\\'ed July I- Dec 31 (I I IA) 11140 Property Taxes - Delinquent (1113) 11150 Excess Commission ( 1181) 11 I 60 Land Redemption (Include State Land Sales) (I I 82) 11200 Sales and Use Tax 11300 Income Tax I I 400 Penalties and Interest on Taxes 11900 Other Taxes -36- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 10000 Revenue from Local Sources (Continued) 12000 Revenue From Local Governmental Units Other than LEAs t\\~00) 12100 Revenue in Lieu of Taxes 12900 Other 13000 Tuition (1300) 13100 School Tuition from Individuals 131 JO Tuition from Regular Day School (I 311) 13120 Tuition from Summer School (1331 ) 13130 Tuition from Adult Education (1321) 13i-!0 Tuitionfrom Day Care (1313) 13Jj0 Veterans Tuition (1323) 13190 Tuition from Other Programs (1319 1329 1339) 13200 Tuition from Other LE:\\.'s Within the State 13210 Tuition from Regular Day School (1312) 13220 Tuition from Summer School (133-:1 13230 TuitionfromAdulr Education (13221 132.JO Tuition from Day Care (1313) 132j0 Veterans Tuition (132 3) 13190 Tuition from Or her Programs (1319 1329 13391 13300 Tuition from Other LEA.'s Outside the State 13310 Tuitionfrom Regular Day School (1319/1329 1339) 13320 Tuition from Summer School (1339) 13330 Tuition from Adult Education (1329) 13340 Tuition from Day Care (1313) J 3350 Veterans Tuition (1323) 13390 Tuitionfrom Other Programs (1319/1329/1339) 13900 Tuition from Other Sources (1319/1329/1339) -37- Table\\': Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 10000 Revenue from Local Sources (Continued) 14000 Transportation Fees (1400) 14100 Transportation Fees from Individuals 1-1110 Feesfrom Regular Day School (I-Ill! I 4120 Fees from Summer School (1-12 I) 1-1130 Fees from Adult Education 141-10 Feesfrom Vocational Education 14190 Fees from Other Programs 14200 Transportation Fees from Other LEA's Within the State 1-12 JO Fees from Regular Day School (]-II 2) 1-1220 Fees from Summer School (1-122) 1-1230 Fees from Adult Education 1-12-10 Feesfrom Vocational Educarion 1-1290 Fees from Other Programs 1-1300 Transporration Fees from Other LEA s Owside rhc S1a1e 1-13 IO Fees from Regular Day School (1-111) 1-1320 Fees from Summer School (1-122) 1-1330 Fees from Adult Education 1-13-10 Feesfrom Vocational Educarion 1-1390 Fees from Other Programs 14900 Transportation Fees from Other Sources 15000 Earnings on Investments (1500) 15100 Interest on Investments ( 1510) 15200 Profits on Sale of Buildings (1520) 15900 Other Earnings on Investments (1590) -38- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 10000 Revenue from Local Sources (Continued) 16000 Food Service (1600) 16100 Daily Sales (1610) 16110 Daily Sales - School Lunch Program 16120 Daily Sales - School Brea~1ast Program 16130 Daily Sales - Special Milk Program 16200 Daily Sales - Non-Reimbursable Programs 162 JO Student(] 61 OJ 16215 A La Carte Income (161:) 16220 Adult (1620) 16300 Special Functions Contract Meals (1625) 16900 Other Food Service ReYenue (1690) 16910 Pepsi/Coke Fund 17000 Srudent ActiYities ( 1700) 17100 Admissions ( 1710) 17110 Athletics (1711 ) 17120 Other School - Sponsored Events ( 1712) 17130 Student Organizations - Sponsored hents 8.:. .-\\ctivities (l 713 ) 17200 Sales (1730) 17210 School Sponsored Sales (pictures, workbooks. etc.) (1731 ) 17220 Student Sponsored Sales (candy, candles, etc.)( 1732) 17300 Organization Membership Dues \u0026amp; Fees (1740) 17310 Student Organization Membership Dues (1741) 17320 Teacher Organization Membership Dues ( 1742) 17400 Fees Charged Students (Fines, etc.) (1720) -39- Table\\': Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 10000 Rcnnue from Local Sources (Continued) ! 7000 Student Activities (Continued) 17500 Contracted Services (1750) 17510 ArhleticGuaranrees(J-:51) 17590 Other Contracted Services (1-:59) 17900 Other Student Activity Revenue (1790) 18000 Revenue from Community Service Activities 18100 Athletic 18900 Other Community Service Activities 19000 Other Revenue from Local Sources ( 1900) 19100 Rentals (1910) 19110 16th Secrion Land Rent (1911) 19120 Other Rent Income From Land Owned b_i: the LEA ( 1911) 19130 LEA Buildings and Facilities (1913) 191-10 Rental of Equipment and Vehicles (191-1) 19200 Contributions and Donations From Private Sources (19:0) 19300 Sales of Supplies and Materials (1933) 19400 Textbook Sales and Rentals ( 1800) 19410 Secondary Sales (18100) I 9430 Secondary Textbook Rentals 19450 Elementary Sales (I 820) 19470 Elementary Textbook Rentals 19490 Other Sales/Rentals (I 890) -40- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 10000 Revenue from Local Sources (Continued) 19000 Other ReYenue from Local Sources (Continued) 19500 SerYices Provided LEAs (Other than tuition \u0026amp; transponation) ll940) 19510 Sen-ices Provided Other LEA s Trithin the State 19511 Test Scoring 19 512 Speech Therapist 19513 Equipment Repair 1951-1 Special Education Appraisal Senices 19515 LEA 's Supervisor Program 19516 Stajf De,elopment 1951- G[fted and Talented Reading Senice 19518 Print Shop 19519 lv!edia Services 19550 Transits (Flow-Through Yioney) 19580 SerYices ProYided Other LEA s Outside the State 19600 SerYices Provided Other Local GoYerrunental l:nits 19700 Services ProYided Other Funds ( e.g .. printing. etc.) 19800 Refunds of Prior Year Expenditures (1950) 19900 Miscellaneous Revenue from Local Sources (1990) 20000 Revenue from Intermediate Sources 21000 Unrestricted Revenue from the County (2100) 21100 County General Apportionment (2110) 11200 Severance Tax (2120) 21900 Other Revenue from County (2190) -41- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 30000 Revenue from State Sources (3000) 31000 Unrestricted Grants-in-Aid (3100) 31100 State Equalization Aid (3110) 31200 Additional Base Funding 313 00 Consolidation Incentive 31400 High Cost Transportation Aid (3140) 31450 Student Gro'wth Funding 31500 Isolated Aid 31600 Incentive Funding 31650 ReYenue Loss Funding (formerly Catastrophic Loss) 3 1900 Other (3190) 32000 Restricted Revenue from State Sources 32100 Adult Education 32110 Adult Basic Education 32120 Adult General Education 32130 Workplace Adult Education 32140 Other -42- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 30000 Revenue from State Sources (Continued) 32000 Restricted Revenue from State Sources (Continued) 32200 Regular Education 32211 Reading Program Inservice (McR...\\ T. Reading Reco,ery. ELL.\\) 32214 Computer Based Education Program 32219 Math \u0026amp; Science Equipment Grant 32220 Curriculum Frameworks 32221 \\\\'riting Assessment 32222 Career Education 32227 College Prep Enrichment Program (CPEP) 32228 Economic Education 32230 Parents as Teachers (P . .\\ T) Project 32231 Parents as Teachers (P . .\\ T) Training Center 32234 Distant Leaming 32237 Match Math \u0026amp; Science 32239 State IMPACT Funding for Technology 32300 Special Education : :3 IO Children with Disabilities - SuperYision. Extended Year. Foster Care (3231) 32330 Children without Disabilities - Residential Treatment (3233) 32340 Children with Disabilities - Residential Treatment (3234) 32350 Early Childhood Special Education 32355 Special Education Catastrophic Loss Funding 32360 Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - AEGIS Program. GoYemors School 32361 Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - Advance Placement : 23 70 Altemati ve Leaming Environment 323 71 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) 323 72 Residential Centers/Juvenile Detention 32374 Intervention Prevention 32375 Carnegie Math Based Education 32380 Aid to Human Development Centers -43- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 30000 Revenue from State Sources (Continued) 32000 Restricted Revenue from State Sources (Continued) 32400 Workforce Education 32410 Workforce Center Grant 32420 Workforce Capital Equipment Grant 32430 Coordinated Comp Workforce Education - Special Needs 32440 Technical Preparatory Coordination 32442 Technical Preparatory Learning 32445 Workplace Readiness Tech Prep 32450 Secondary Workforce Center Counseling 32455 Adult Center Support 32458 Short-term Adult Skill Training 32460 Youth Apprenticeship 32470 Traditional Apprenticeship 32475 Arkansas Education Service Center 32480 Workforce New Program Start-up 32485 Teenage Outreach Parenting Program 32488 Principles of Technology 3:2490 Workforce Rehabilitation 32491 Workforce Education 32495 High Tech Training Center 32500 School Food Service (3250) 32520 State Matching 32590 Other 32600 Educational Service Cooperatives 32610 Educational Service Cooperative Funding 32700 Early Childhood Programs 32710 Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) 32711 K-3 Summer School 32712 K-3 Regular School 32713 Early Childhood Curriculum Specialist 32720 K-3 At Risk 32725 Arkansas Crusade for Math \u0026amp; Science K-3 -44- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 30000 Revenue from State Sources (Continued) 32000 Restricted Revenue from State Sources (Continued) 32700 Early Childhood Programs (Continued) 32730 Model Rural Consortium Grant 32735 Early Childhood - Parent Involvement 32740 Infant/Toddler Program (DHS) 32745 Smart Start 32790 Other 32800 Magnet School Programs 32811 Pulaski County Magnet School Revenue 32812 M-to-M Revenue 32813 Magnet \u0026amp; M-to-M Transportation 32900 Other Non-Instructional Programs 32910 Workers' Comp Funding 32912 General Facilities Funding 32913 Growth Facilities Funding 32915 Debt Service Supplement 32916 DHS Human Service Worker Initiative 32917 Department of Health 32990 Other Grants and Aid from the State 40000 Revenue from Federal Sources (4000) 41000 Unrestricted Aid Direct from Federal Government (4100) I 41100 School Federal Assistance - M\u0026amp;O ( PL 81-874, 93-380) (4110) 41200 Wildlife Refuge (4120) 41300 Revenue in Lieu of Taxes (4130) 41900 Other Unrestricted Revenue ( 4190) -45- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 40000 Revenue from Federal Sources (Continued) 42000 Unrestricted Aid From the Federal Government Through the State ( 4200) 42100 Forest Reserve (4310) 42200 Flood Control (4320) 42300 Mineral Leases (4330) 42400 Federal Grazing (4340) 42500 Impact Aid (4350) 42900 Other Unrestricted Revenue (4390) 43000 Restricted Aid Direct from Federal Government (4200) 43100 Elementary/Secondary Education Programs 43110 Artists in Residence 43120 Community Education 43130 Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse Prevention 43140 National Endowment for the Humanities 43150 Bilingual Education 43160 ROTC - Reserve Officers' Training Corp 43170 Troops to Teachers 43180 Satellite Education Research Commission 43185 National Science Foundation 43190 Presidential Award for Math \u0026amp; Science 4~ 191 Community Service Leaming Workers Assistance 43192 Math Crusade 43600 Indian Education Programs 43610 Indian Education (4242) 43700 Desegregation Programs 43710 MagnetSchool(4221) 43720 Office of Civil Rights (4222) -46- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 40000 Revenue from Federal Sources (Continued) 43000 Restricted Aid Direct from Federal Government (Continued) 43900 Other Restricted Aid Direct from the Federal Government 439 IO National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Title III. Parts 1 \u0026amp; 2 43920 Major Disaster - Repair \u0026amp; Equipment 43930 Public Law 815 - Construction 43940 Federal Low Income Housing 43942 Housing \u0026amp; Community Development Act of 1974 43950 Resource Conservation \u0026amp; Development 43960 Exxon Energy Grant 43970 School Health \u0026amp; utrition 43972 Summer School Health \u0026amp; Nutrition Program 43974 Commodities 43975 Cash in Lieu of Commodities - Not Through State (4486) 43976 Rural Utilities Service Grant (USDA) 45000 Restricted Aid from the Federal Government Through State 45100 Elementary/Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 45110 ESEA Title I Regular - Comp Education 45111 ESEA Title I Migrant Education 45112 ESEA Title I Service Center Migrant Students 45113 ESEA Title I Program Improvement Grant 45114 ESEA Title I Capital Expenses - Grants to Private Schools 4511 S Even Start Migrant Education Grant 45116 ESEA Title I Handicapped Elem \u0026amp; Secondary Act of 1965 45117 Even Start Family Literacy Program 45118 Learn and Serve America 45120 ESEA Title I Neglected \u0026amp; Delinquent Children 45121 Title I Summer Challenge 45122 Title I Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program 45130 ESEA Title VI - At-Risk Students 45131 ESEA Title VI - Technical Assistance \u0026amp; Special Projects 45132 Title VI - Classroom Reduction Act of 1999 45140 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act for Children 45150 Job Training Partnership Act, Title II, Section 123 45155 Job Training Partnership Act, Title III 45160 Title XX Social Security Act -47- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 45000 Restricted Aid from the Federa.l Government Through State (Continued) 45100 Elementary/Secondary Education Act (Continued) 45165 Education for Economic Security Act - Basic Skills Improvement 45170 DHS - Childcare Assistance Grant 45300 Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984 45310 Basic Grant - Formula Grant Entitlement 45311 Leadership Projects - Competitive Awards 45312 Single Parents, Displaced Homemakers \u0026amp; Single Pregnant Women 45313 Sex Equity 45314 Programs for Criminal Offenders 45315 Vocational Education Support - Community-Based 45316 Consumer \u0026amp; Homemaking Education 45317 Technical Preparatory Education - Title III Part E 45318 Supplemental Grants for Improvement Activities - Title III Part F 45319 Teenage Outreach Parenting Program 45320 Special Needs 45321 Delta Initiative 45322 Strive Grant 45325 Technical Literacy Challenge Fund Grant - Title III Part A 45400 Adult Education 45410 Direct \u0026amp; Equitable 45420 Demonstration Projects \u0026amp; Teacher Training 45430 Correctional Adult Education Program 45440 Model Resource Center 45450 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act for Adults 45460 Employment for Disadvantaged Youth - Stay-in-School Program 45470 Adult Basic Education 45480 Women's Educational Equity Act of 1988, Title IX 45500 School Food Services 45510 Lunch Reimbursement Through ADE 45511 Lunch Reimbursement Through DHS 45520 Breakfast Reimbursement Through ADE 45521 Breakfast Reimbursement Through DHS -48- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 45000 Restricted Aid from the Federal Government Through State (Continued) 45500 School Food Services (Continued) 45530 Special Mille Reimbursement Through ADE 45531 Special Milk Reimbursement Through DHS 45540 Snack Reimbursement Through ADE 45541 Snack Reimbursement Through DHS 45550 Food Service Equipment Assistance 45560 Cash in Lieu of Commodities 45580 Nutrition Education \u0026amp; Training Program (NET) 45585 Comprehensive Health (HAT) (Nifty Nutrition) 45590 Other Food Service Revenue 45600 Special Education 45610 IDEA Title VI-B Education of Handicapped 45612 IDEA Title VI-B Area Services 45613 IDEA Title VI-B Pass Through Funding 45614 IDEA Title VI-B Head Start 45630 IDEA Early Childhood, Section 619 45640 Title VI-B Special Education Transition Project 45650 Sliver Grant 45900 Other Restricted Federal Aid Through State 45910 Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act 45915 Adult Refugee Fund 45920 Eisenhower Math \u0026amp; Science Project 45930 Environmental Education 45940 Goals 2000 45950 Home Instruction Program Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) 45960 National Diffusion Network (NDN) State Facilitator Project 45970 Drug Abuse Prevention -49- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 45000 Restricted Aid from the Federal Government Through State(Continued) 45900 Other Restricted Federal Aid Through State (Continued) 45971 Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools \u0026amp; Communities. Title IV 45980 Comprehensive School Health - Aids Education Act 45981 Local Delinquency Prevention Title V 45982 School Health Program Coordinator 45990 Other Restricted Federal Grants Through State 47000 Grants-In-Aid From Federal Government Through Intermediate Agency 48000 Revenue in Lieu of Taxes 49000 Revenue for/on Behalf of the LEA 49100 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) (4495) 49150 Federal Flood Control 50000 Other Sources - Nonrevenue 51000 Financing Sources (Nonrevenue) (1970) 51100 Proceeds from Sale of Bonds (1971) 51200 Revolving Loans (1972) 51300 Postdated Warrants ( I 973) 51400 Current Loans (1974) 51500 Installment/Lease Purchase 51600 Temporary State Loan (1975) 51700 School Board Association Anticipation Tax Note (1976) 51800 Refunding Savings 51900 Miscellaneous Nonrevenue Sources -50- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 52000 Interfund Transfers (Permanent Transfers) (1960) 52100 Transfer from Salary Fund (1961) 52200 Transfer from Operating Fund ( 1962) 52300 Transfer from Building Fund (1963) 52400 Transfer from Debt Service Fund (1964) 52500 Transfer from Capital Outlay Fund 52600 Transfer from Federal Grants Fund (1965) 52700 Transfer from Student Activity Fund ( 1966) 52800 Transfer from Food Service Fund (1967) 52900 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 52950 Other 53000 Gains or Losses on Sales of Fixed Assets (Nonrevenue) (1930) 53100 SaleofEquipment(l931) 53200 Sale of Building and Grounds (1932) 53400 Compensation for Loss of Fixed Assets (1934) Source of fund classifications for the revenue codes listed in Table V are detailed in Table II . -51- Table VI: Balance Sheet Account Classifications Assets and Other Debits Current Assets 01000 Cash 01010 Cash in Bank (101) 01020 Petty Cash (102) 01050 Cash with Fiscal Agents (104) 01110 Investments 01120 Certificates of Deposit 01140 Interest Receivable on Investments 01180 Accrued Interest on Investments 01210 Taxes Receivable (110) 01230 Tax Liens Receivable 01410 Intergovernmental Receivable ( 140) 01510 Loans Receivable 01530 Accounts Receivable ( 120) 01580 Bonds Receivable (121) 01600 Due from other Funds (130) 01680 Advances to other Funds ( 150) 01710 Inventories for Consumption ( 1 70) 01720 Inventories for Resale ( 171) 01810 Prepaid Expenses ( 192) 01850 Deposits (191) -52- Table VI: Balance Sheet Account Classifications (Continued) 01890 Other Current Assets 01910 Longterm Investments 01920 Unamortized Premiums on Investments 01930 Unamortized Discounts on Investments ( contra account) Fixed Assets (for use in the Fixed Asset Account Group) 02110 Sites (201) 02210 Site Improvements (203) 02310 Buildings \u0026amp; Building Improvements 02410 Machinery \u0026amp; Equipment (204) 02510 Construction-in-Progress (205) Budgeting Accounts \u0026amp; Other Debits 03040 Bonds Authorized - Unissued (303) 03050 Amount Available for Debt Service (304) 03060 Amount to be Provided for Retirement of Longterm Debt (305) Liabilities, Reserves \u0026amp; Fund Balances Current Liabilities 04000 Vouchers Payable (401) 04020 Accounts Payable ( 402) 04050 Taxes Payable 04060 Claims \u0026amp; Judgments Payable (403) 04070 Contracts Payable (404) -53- Table VI: Balance Sheet Account Classifications (Continued) 04080 Construction Contracts Payable (405) 04090 Construction Contracts Payable - Retainage 041 l O Intergovernmental Accounts Payable 04200 Due to Other Funds ( 411) 04280 Advances from Other Funds 04330 Due to Revolving Loan Fund (421) 04410 Matured Bonds Payable ( 441) 04420 Matured Bond Interest Payable ( 442) 04500 Interest Payable - Current (502) 04610 Salaries Payable 04711 Payroll Deductions \u0026amp; Withholding (450) 04712 State Withholding (451) 04713 Federal Withholding (452) 04714 Social Security Payable (453) 04715 Teacher Retirement Payable (454) 04716 Public Employee Retirement Payable (455) 04717 Medicate Payable 04718 Other Payroll Deductions (456) 04810 Deferred Revenue (473) 04920 Due to Fiscal Agent (471) 04930 Bonds Payable - Current (501) 04940 Notes Payable - Current 04990 Other Current Liabilities 05010 Unamortized Premiums on Bonds Sold (472) -54- Table VI: Balance Sheet Account Classifications (Continued) 05020 Unamortized Discounts on Bonds Sold ( 193) 05110 Bonds Payable - oncurrent 05120 Notes Payable - oncurrent Budgeting Accounts and Other Credits 06010 Appropriations (Expenditure Budget Control) (601) 06020 Expenditures (Expenditure Control) (602) 06030 Encumbrances (Encumbrance Control) (603) 06040 Payroll Encumbrance Control 06050 Estimated Revenues (301) 06060 Revenues (Credit) (302) Fund Equity 07110 Investment in General Fixed Assets (705) 07510 Reserved for Inventories (702) 07530 Reserved for Encumbrances (701) 07540 Payroll Reserve for Encumbrances 07600 Reserved - Fund Balance (703) 07700 Umeserved - Fund Balance (704) 07900 Fund Balance Budget -55- Chapter 3 DEFINITIONS OF ACCOUNT CLASSIFICATIONS This chapter consists of definitions of the account classifications and detailed descriptions of fund, location, function, object, revenue and balance sheet classifications. Fund Definitions Fund accounting is organized around a set of funds where each fund is created for a unique purpose. Each fund maintains a complete set of self-balancing accounts which show its assets, liabilities, reserves, fund balances and expenditures. Included in this section are fund definitions. 1 Teacher Salary Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures for payment of salaries for certified personnel, certified substitutes, tuition and fringe benefits as defined by statute 6-17-908. Certified personnel salaries from federal program funds are excluded. 2 Operating Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures for current operating expenses other than those that relate to the purposes set out for the other funds listed. 3 Building Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures of specific building projects. 4 Debt Service Fund. Set of accounts used to record local tax receipts and expenditures for the retirement of bonded debt. 5 Capital Outlay/Dedicated Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures of building projects funded by millages voted and passed specifically for capital outlay and dedicated M\u0026amp;O purposes. 6 Federal Grants Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures restricted to federally sponsored projects. 7 Activity Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures for pupil activities. 8 Food Service Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures of the food service operations. 9 Fixed Asset Fund. Set of self-balancing accounts indicating the investment in fixed assets. -56- Source of Fund Definitions This classification is used to identify expenditures in relation to specific revenue sources. Source A of fund codes should be used wherever specialized reporting and budgetary control are required. W A three digit code is used for source of fund classifications as specified in Table II. Where the need for separate source of fund codes ( e.g., building fund) are not necessary. the classification code will be 000. Source of fund code definitions are the same as their corresponding revenue code definitions which are listed later in this chapter. Location CLEA Number) Definitions The term location is used to denote the location of education activities for organizational purposes. In most cases, location denotes individual schools, but it can be used to designate cost centers which will enable budgets and expenditures to be made for each school or location. Districts should use the last three digits of the school's LEA to specify the location for the transaction. Function Definitions The function describes the activity being performed when a service is provided or a material object is received. The functions of a district are classified into five broad areas: instruction: support services\noperation of non-instructional services\nfacilities acquisition and construction services\nand other outlays. Included in this section are definitions of each function. 1000 Instruction. Instruction includes the activities dealing directly with teaching students or - interaction between teacher and pupils. Teaching may be provided for pupils in a school classroom, in a home or hospital and in other learning situations such as co-curricular activities. 1100 Regular Programs/Elementary-Secondary. Regular instruction activities designed for students preschool through high school. 1103 K-3 Summer School Remediation. Summer school for students kindergarten through grade 3. 1105 Preschool. Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) provides learning experiences for educationally deprived children ages 3-5. 1110 Kindergarten. Leaming experiences for students 5 and 6 years old. 1120 Elementary. Learning experiences generally for students in grades 1 through 6 but may include up to grade 8. -57- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1100 Regular Programs/Elementary-Secondary. (Continued) 1130 Middle/Junior High. Leaming experiences for grades 5 through 9. 1140 High School. Leaming experiences generally for grades 9 through 12 but may include grades 7 and 8. 1150 Athletics. Activities associated with the district's regularly organized sports programs. 1160 Student Activities. Co-curricular activities of the district which can be separately identified from other regular programs. 1170 Summer School. Leaming experiences supplemented in the summer for students that did not achieve a certain level of proficiency during the regular school year. 1180 Teacher Bonus. One time bonus to teachers and not subject to teacher retirement. 1190 Other Regular. Prior year underpayments and any other regular programs not classified above. 1200 Special Education. Instructional activities designed primarily to deal with special needs. The special program service area includes pre-primary, elementary and secondary students who are handicapped and in need of special education and related services as defined in program standards. 1210 Itinerant Instruction. Instruction provided by an educational specialist who serves handicapped children with disabilities and their teachers in generally more than one school, in their homes or in hospitals. 1211 Consulting Teachers. 1212 Itinerant Speech Pathologist. 1213 Braille Instructors. 1214 Home Bound. 1215 Educational Interpreters for the Deaf. -58- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1200 Special Education. (Continued) 1220 Resource Room. Services are provided by a resource teacher who works with students with disabilities assigned to the regular classroom more than halfof the school day. 1230 Special Class - 1: 15 Ratio. A student with a disability where the student is assigned to a special class for at least half of the school day. 1240 Special Class - 1: 10 Ratio. A severely impaired student with a disability where the student is assigned to a special class for at least half of the school day. 1250 Special Class - 1 :6 Ratio. A severely impaired student with a disability where the student is assigned to a special class at least half of the school day due to programming needs that necessitate a low pupil-to-teacher ratio. 1260 1253 Integrated Classroom. 1256 Regular Classroom. Separate Day School - Private. Purchased services only. A student with a disability who spends at least half of the school day in a private day school for contracted services since the student's needs cannot be met in a regular school. 1265 Pre-referral. 1266 Post dismissal. 1267 Section 504 Eligible. 1270 Residential Day School - Private. Purchased services only. A student with a disability who requires residential services in order to receive appropriate special education services where at least half of the school day is spent in a private residential school for contracted services. -59- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1200 Special Education. (Continued) 1280 Other Private. Purchased services only. A student with a disability who requires instruction provided by private agencies or individuals not specified above. 1285 Extended Year. Extension of special education programming beyond the regular school year. 1290 Preschool - Special Needs. A preschool student with a disability who receives special education instruction in a public or private preschool program. 1295 Separate Day School - Public. A preschool student with a disability who spends at least half of the school day in a public day school since their needs cannot be met in a regular school. 1299 Other Special Education. Special education instructional programs not included above. 1300 Workforce Education Programs. Learning experiences which will provide individuals with the opportunity to develop the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities needed for employment in an occupational area. 1310 Workforce Agriculture. Learning experiences that provide opportunities for students to prepare for or improve their competency in agricultural operations. 1320 Marketing \u0026amp; Distributive Education. Learning experiences that prepare students to enter or improve their competency level in distributive occupations. 1330 Business/Office Occupations. Learning experiences that allow students to gain an overall understanding of business principles and practices and prepare them for employment in office occupations. 1340 Health Careers/Occupations. Learning experiences that prepare students with the knowledge, skills and abilities required in health professions. -60- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1300 Workforce Education Programs. (Continued) 1350 Trade and Industrial (including Industrial Arts). Learning experiences that allow students to acquire an overall understanding of industry and technology or prepare students for entry into skilled or semi-skilled occupations in trade and industry. 1360 Home Economics. Learning experiences that prepare students with the requisite knowledge, understanding and skills for entry into home economic occupations. 13 70 Career Orientation. Learning experiences which provide students with sufficient knowledge and understanding of the workplace and occupational tracks to enable them to make intelligent career decisions. 1380 General Cooperative. Learning and working experiences which provide students with knowledge and skills in occupational programs and the opportunity to acquire on- the- job training experience. 1390 Special Needs 1395 Tech Prep. Learning experiences which provide a systematic A technical education between secondary and post secondary WI' institutions leading to two-year associate degrees, certificates or apprenticeship training programs. 13 96 Workplace Readiness. A one semester course designed to teach the skills and attributes needed to succeed in the changing workplace. 1397 Regional Technical Coordination. 1399 Other Workforce Projects. Other vocational education programs not described above. -61- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1400 Adult/Continuing Education Program. Learning experiences designed to develop knowledge and skills to meet educational objectives for adults. Programs include activities to foster the development of the fundamental tools of learning to prepare for a new or different career. 14 IO Adult Basic Education. Instructional services offered to adults, 16 years or older, that enable them to acquire the academic skills which are equivalent to an eighth grade graduate. Additionally, foreign-born adults can be extended the opportunity to learn English as a second language. 1420 Adult General Education. 1430 Adult Workforce Education. Vocational education programs for adults for the purpose of upgrading occupational skills. 1440 Special Projects. These are special grant programs that fund the development of innovations, demonstration, research and teacher training in adult education. 1490 Other Adult/Continuing Education Programs. Other adult and continuing - education programs not described above. 1500 Compensatory Education Programs. Those instructional activities designed primarily to meet the educational needs of pupils who are judged to be underachievers or educationally deprived. All compensatory education must be supplemental to the normal instruction in the areas covered. In cases of joint programs that substitute for normal instruction, only the excess cost may be charged to compensatory education. 15 IO Basic Skills. Special training in two or more of the basic skills of language arts, reading and/or mathematics given under a single set of coordinated instructional activities. 1515 School Improvement. 1520 Dropout/Dropout Prevention. Specialized instructional and support services designed to utilize cultural, ethnic, or vocational interests to encourage students to stay in school or to encourage re-entry of dropouts into educational activities. -62- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1500 Compensatory Education Programs. (Continued) 1525 Technology. 1530 Language Arts. Specialized instructional services in language to supplement the regular English or other language subjects. 1535 Instructional \u0026amp; Educational Materials. 1540 Educational Reform. 1545 At-Risk. 1550 Early Childhood Education. Specialized educational activities and services for students from preschool through the first grade. The program must be designed to compensate for the lack of early childhood learning opportunities arising from environmental constraints. 1555 Literacy. 1560 Reading. Specialized instruction services designed to meet the educational needs of educationally deprived children in conjunction with or in addition to regular reading programs. 1570 Mathematics/Science. Specialized instruction services designed to meet the educational needs of educationally deprived children in conjunction with or in addition to regular mathematics programs. 1590 Other Compensatory Education Programs. Other compensatory education programs not classified. 1900 Other Instructional Programs. Any instructional program not classified above. 1910 Gifted and Talented Children. Programs designed to meet the special educational needs of the gifted and talented at the elementary and secondary levels. 1915 Music. 1 920 Computers. -63- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1900 Other Instructional Programs. (Continued) 1930 English as a Second Language. Programs for students for whom English is not their first language. and those who need assistance in English to be successful in school. 1950 Alternative Learning Environment. 1990 Other Instructional Programs. Other programs not described above. 2000 Support Services. Services which provide administrative, technical and logistical support to facilitate and enhance instruction and community services and non-program charges. 2100 Support Services - Students. Activities designed to assess and improve the welfare of students and supplement the teaching process. 2110 Attendance and Social Work Services. Activities designed to improve student attendance at school and attempt to prevent or solve student problems involving the home, the school and the community. 2111 Supervision of Attendance and Social Work Services. The activities associated with supervising and managing attendance and social work. 2112 Attendance. The activities associated with identifying nonattendance patterns, promoting improved attitudes toward attendance, analyzing causes of nonattendance, acting early on nonattendance problems and enforcing compulsory attendance laws. 2113 Social Work. The activities associated with investigating and diagnosing student problems arising out of the home, school or community case work, group work services for the child and/or parent, interpreting the problems of students for other staff members, and promoting modification of the circumstances surrounding the student relating to the problem. -64- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2100 Support Services - Students. (Continued) 2110 Attendance and Social Work Services. (Continued) 2114 Student Accounting. Activities of acquiring and maintaining records of school attendance, home. family characteristics and census data, portions of which become a part of the student's cumulative record. 21 19 Other Attendance and Social Work Services. Attendance and social work services other than those described above. 2120 Guidance Services. Activities involving counseling students and parents, consulting with staff on learning problems. student evaluations, assisting with student educational and career plans, assisting in student personal and social development, providing referral assistance, and working with other staff members involving student guidance programs. 2121 Supervision of Guidance Services. Activities associated with directing, managing, and supervising guidance services. 2122 Counseling. Activities concerned with the relationship between A one or more counselors and one or more students. These activities W, are designed to help students: understand their educational, personal and occupational strengths and limitations\nrelate their abilities and aptitudes to educational and career opportunities\nutilize their abilities in formulating realistic plans\nand achieve satisfying personal development. 2123 Appraisal. Activities used in assisting students in assessing their progress in career development. 2124 Information. Activities for disseminating educational, occupational, and personal information to acquaint students with the curriculum and educational and vocational opportunities and requirements. 2125 Record Maintenance. Activities for compiling, maintaining and interpreting cumulative student records. -65- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2100 Support Services - Students. (Continued) 2120 Guidance Services. (Continued) 2126 Placement. Activities that help place students in appropriate situations while they are in school. 2129 Other Guidance Services. Guidance services which are not classified above. 2130 Health Services. Physical and mental health services which are not direct instruction. Included are activities that provide students with appropriate medical, dental and nursing services. 2131 Supervision of Health Services. Activities associated with directing and managing health services. 2132 Medical. Activities concerned with the physical and mental health of students. 2133 Dental. Activities associated with dental screening, dental care and orthodontic activities. 2134 Nursing. Activities associated with nursing, such as health inspection, treatment of minor injuries and referrals for other health services. 2139 Other Health Services. Health services not classified above. 2140 Psychological Services. Activities concerned with administering psychological tests and interpreting the results, gathering and interpreting information about student behavior, working with other staff members in planning school programs to meet the special needs of students as indicated by psychological tests\nand planning and managing a program of psychological services, including psychological counseling for students, staff and parents. 2141 Supervision of Psychological Services. Directing, managing and supervising the activities associated with psychological services. -66- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2100 Support Services - Students. (Continued) 2140 Psychological Services. (Continued) 2142 Psychological Testing. Activities concerned with administering psychological tests, standardized tests. and inventory assessments of ability, aptitude, achievement, interests and personality and their interpretation. 2143 Psychological Counseling. Activities that take place between a school psychologist or other qualified person as counselor and one or more students in which the students are helped to clarify and resolve adjustment problems and interpersonal relationships. 2144 Psychotherapy. Activities that provide a therapeutic relationship between a qualified mental health professional and one or more students in which students are helped to clarify and resolve emotional problems. 2149 Other Psychological Services. Other activities associated with psychological services not classified above. 2150 Speech Pathology and Audiology Services. Activities which identify. assess, and treat children with speech, hearing and language impairments. 2151 Supervision of Speech Pathology and Audiology Services. Activities associated with directing, managing and supervising speech pathology and audiology services. 2152 Speech Pathology. Activities that identify children with speech and language disorders\ndiagnosis and appraise specific speech and language disorders\nrefer problems for medical or other professjonal attention\nprovide required speech treatment services\nand provide counseling as appropriate. 2153 Audiology. Activities that identify children with hearing loss\ndetermine the range, nature and degree of hearing function\nrefer problems for medical attention\ninvolve auditory training, speech reading (lip reading) and speech conservation\nadminister programs of hearing conservation\nand provide counseling as appropriate. -67- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2100 Support Services - Students. (Continued) 2150 Speech Pathology and Audiology Services. (Continued) 2154 Hearing Impaired Interpreter. Activities associated with the interpretation and analysis of speech and hearing impaired students. 2159 Other Speech Pathology and Audiology Services. Other activities associated with speech pathology and audiology services not classified above. 2 I 60 Physical and Occupational Therapy. Services provided by a qualified physical therapist directed toward improving, developing or restoring function impaired or loss through illness, injury or deprivation. 2190 Other Support Services - Students. Other support services students not classified above. 2200 Support Services - Instructional Staff. Activities associated with assisting the instructional staff with the learning process. 2210 Curriculum Supervision (Improvement of Instructional Services). Activities consisting of assisting instructional staff in planning, developing and evaluating student learning experiences. 2211 Supervision oflmprovement oflnstructional Services. Activities associated with directing, managing and supervising the improvement of instructional services. 2212 Instruction and Curriculum Development. Activities that aid teachers in developing the curriculum, preparing and utilizing special curriculum materials, and understanding and appreciating the various techniques which stimulate and motivate students. 2213 Instructional Staff Training. Activities that contribute to the professional growth and competency of the instructional staff. 2214 Instructional Staff Advisory Services. Activities designed to aid teachers and program supervisors in developing, monitoring and evaluating curriculum and specialized learning experiences -68- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2200 Support Services - Instructional Staff. (Continued) 2210 Curriculum Supervision. (Continued) 2215 Drug Free Schools. 2219 Other Improvement of Instructional Services. Activities for improving instruction other than those classified above. 2220 Educational Media Services. Activities using all teaching and learning resources, including hardware and content materials. 2221 Supervision of Educational Media Services. Activities concerned with directing, managing and supervising educational media services. 2222 School Library. Activities such as: selecting. acquiring, preparing. cataloging and circulating printed materials\nplanning the use of the library by teachers and students\nand guiding individuals in their use of library books and materials. 2223 Audiovisual. Activities such as selecting. preparing, caring for and making available equipment, films, filmstrips, transparencies, tapes. - TV programs and other similar materials to staff members. 2224 Educational Television. Activities concerned with planning, programming, writing and presenting educational programs by closed circuit or broadcast television. 2225 Computer-Assisted Instruction. Activities concerned with planning, programming, writing and presenting educational projects which have been especially programmed for computer use as the principal medium of instruction. 2229 Other Educational Media Services. Educational media services other than those classified above. 2290 Other Support Services - Instructional Staff. Services supporting the instructional staff not classified above. -69- 2000 Support Senices. (Continued) 2300 Support Services - General Administration. Activities concerned with establishing and administering district policy. 23 IO Board of Education Services. The activities of the district board of education. 2311 Supervision of Board of Education Services. Activities concerned with directing and managing the general operation of the district board of education. 2312 Board Secretary/Clerk. The activities required to perform the duties of the secretary /clerk of the board of education. 2313 Board Treasurer. The activities required to perform the duties of treasurer of the board of education. 2314 Elections. Services rendered in connection with elections of officers and bond elections. 2315 Legal. Legal counseling provided to the board of education. 2316 Staff Relations and Negotiation. Activities concerned with staff relations and the responsibilities for contractual negotiations with both instructional and non-instructional personnel. 2317 Audit Services. Independent audit services provided to board of education. 2318 Reappraisal of Property. Services connected with the reappraisal of property within the school district. 2319 Other Board of Education Services. Board of education services which are not classified above. 2320 Executive Administration Services. Activities associated with the overall general administration of the district. 2321 Office of the Superintendent or Educational Cooperative. The activities performed by the superintendent and assistant superintendents in directing and managing the district. -70- . 2000 Support Seniices. (Continued) 2300 Support Services - General Administration. (Continued) 2320 Executive Administration Services. (Continued) 2322 Community Relations. The activities and programs developed and operated to improve school/community relations. 2324 State and Federal Relations. Activities associated with developing and maintaining good relationships with state and federal officials. 2329 Other Executive Administration Services. Other general executive administrative services not classified above. 2380 Office of Desegregation. 2390 Other Support Services - General Administration. Other support services for general administration not included above. 2400 Support Services - School Administration. Activities concerned with the administrative functions of a school. 2410 Office of the Principal. Activities concerned with directing and managing A school operations by the principal, assistant principals and other assistants. W, 2490 Other Support Services - School Administration. Other school administration services not classified above. 2500 Support Services - Business. Activities concerned with paying, transporting, exchanging and maintaining goods and services for the district. 2501 Supervision of Business Services. The activities of directing, managing and supervising areas of business services . 2510 Fiscal Services. Those activities concerned with the fiscal operations of the district. 2511 Supervision of Fiscal Services. The activities of directing, managing and supervising the areas of fiscal services. 2512 Budgeting. Activities concerned with budget planning, formulation, control and analysis. -71- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2500 Support Services - Business. (Continued) 2510 Fiscal Services. (Continued) 2513 Receiving and Disbursing Funds. Activities concerned with funds received and disbursed. 2514 Payroll. The activities associated with making periodically payments to employees for services rendered, including federal income tax withholding, retirement and social security. 2515 Financial Accounting. Those activities concerned with maintaining records of the financial operations and transactions of the district 2516 Internal Auditing. Those activities concerned with verifying the reliability of the accounting system, safeguarding assets and evaluating the adequacy of internal controls. 2517 Property Accounting. Those activities concerned with preparing and maintaining current inventory records of land, buildings and equipment. 2519 Other Fiscal Services. Includes fiscal services not classified above. 2520 Purchasing Services. Activities concerned with purchasing supplies, furniture, equipment and materials used in schools and school system operations. 2530 Warehousing and Distributing Services. 2531 Supervision of Warehousing and Distributing Services. The activities of directing and supervising the warehousing and distributing of supplies, furniture, equipment, materials and mail. 2535 Warehouse Inventory Adjustment. Adjustments to inventories due to consumption or loss. -72- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2500 Support Services - Business. (Continued) 2540 Printing, Publishing and Duplicating Services. The activities associated with printing and publishing administrative publications. 2590 Other Support Services - Business. Includes uther business related support services not included above. 2600 Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services. Those activities concerned with operating and maintaining the plant, grounds, buildings and equipment. 2610 Supervision of Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services. The activities of directing, managing and supervising the operations and maintenance of the school plant. 2620 Operation of Building Services. Activities concerned with the daily operation and maintenance of the plant and buildings. 2630 Care and Upkeep of Grounds Services. The activities of maintaining the grounds and improvements. 2640 Care and Upkeep of Equipment Services. The activities of maintaining the district's equipment. 2650 Vehicle Operation and Maintenance Services (Other than Student Transportation Vehicles). The activities of maintaining general purpose vehicles such as trucks, tractors, graders and staff vehicles. 2660 Security Services. Those activities concerned with maintaining order and safety in school buildings and on school grounds. 2690 Other Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services. Includes operation and maintenance of plant services not classified above. 2700 Student Transportation Services. Those activities concerned with the transporting students to and from school. 2710 Supervision of Student Transportation Services. Activities pertaining to directing and managing student transportation services. -73- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2700 Student Transportation Services. (Continued) 2720 Vehicle Operation. Activities of operating vehicles for student transportation purposes. 2730 Monitoring. Those activities concerned with monitoring pupils in the process of being transported. 2740 Vehicle Servicing and Maintenance. Those activities of maintaining and servicing student transportation vehicles. 2790 Other Student Transportation Services. Includes student transportation services not classified above. 2800 Support Services - Central. Activities, other than general administration, which support each of the other instructional and supporting services programs. 2801 Supervision of Central Support Services. Supervision of those activities concerned with directing and managing central support services. 2810  Planning, Research, Development and Evaluation (PRD\u0026amp;E) Services. Those activities associated with conducting and managing programs of planning, research development and evaluation of the district. 2811 Supervision of PRD\u0026amp;E Services. The activities involved in directing managing and supervising the programs of planning, research development and evaluation of the district. 2812 Development Services. Includes research and development for improving educational programs. 2813 Evaluation Services. Includes activities concerned with evaluating whether goals were achieved. 2814 Planning Services. Includes activities concerned with selecting or identifying long range goals and priorities and the methods for achieving them. -74- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2800 Support Services - Central. (Continued) 2810 Planning, Research, Development and Evaluation (PRD\u0026amp;E) Services. (Continued) 2815 Research Services. Includes activities concerned with the systematic study and investigation of various aspects of education. 2819 Other PRD\u0026amp;E Services. Includes planning, research, development and evaluation services not classified above. 2820 Information Services. Those activities concerned with writing, editing and other preparation necessary to disseminate educational and administrative information for students, staff or the public. 2821 Supervision of Information Services. The activities of directing and managing information services. 2822 Internal Information. Those activities concerned with wTiting. editing and providing administrative information to students and staff. 2823 Public Information. Those activities concerned with writing, editing and other preparation necessary to disseminate educational and administrative information to the public. 2824 Management Information (Non-data processing). Activities concerned with providing management with relevant information to enable effective decision making. 2829 Other Information Services. Those activities concerned with information services not classified above. 2830 Staff Services. Those activities concerned with staff services of the district. 2831 Supervision of Staff Services. The activities of directing and managing staff services. 2832 Recruitment and Placement. Those activities concerned with employing and assigning personnel. -75- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2800 Support Services - Central. (Continued) 2830 Staff Services. (Continued) 2833 Staff Accounting. Services provided in C')nnection with recording information regarding district employees. 2834 Inservice Training (Classified Staff). The activities developed by the district for providing training to classified staff. 2835 Health. Those activities concerned with medical, dental and nursing services provided to district employees. 2839 Other Staff Services. Staff services not included above. 2840 Data Processing - Administrative Services. Those activities concerned with maintaining and preparing information for reporting purposes. 2841 Supervision of Administrative Data Processing Services. Those activities concerned with directing and managing data processing services. 2842 Systems Analysis. Those activities concerned with the development of data processing procedures or application regarding computer applications and equipment. 2843 Programming. Those activities involved in the development of computer applications. 2844 Operations. Activities involving operating business and data processing machines. 2849 Other Administrative Data Processing Services. Those activities concerned with data processing not classified above. 2870 Technology Services. -76- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2800 Support Services - Central. (Continued). 2880 Statistical Services. 2881 Supervision of Statistical Services. Directing. supervising and managing the activities associated with statistical services. 2882 Statistical Analysis. Activities concerned with the use of statistical data to aid in decision making. 2883 Statistical Reporting Services. Activities concerned with assimilating statistical data and preparing reports for internal and external use. 2889 Other Statistical Services. Statistical services not classified above. 2890 Other Support Services - Central. Administrative services which support instructional and supporting services programs. 2900 Other Supporting Services. Supporting services not classified above. 3000 Operation of Non-Instructional Services. Activities concerned with providing noninstructional services to students, staff or the community. 3100 Food Services Operations. Activities concerned with preparing and serving meals. lunches, or snacks in connection with school activities and food delivery. 3110 Supervision of School Food Services. Directing, supervising and managing the activities associated with school food services. 3120 Food Preparation and Dispensing Services. Those activities concerned with preparing and serving regular and incidental meals. lunches or snacks to pupils and staff. 3130 Food Delivery Services. The activities concerned with delivering food to the school. 3140 Food Management Contract Services. Those activities concerned with a commercial enterprise or a non-profit organization which is contracted to manage an aspect of the school food service. 3190 Other Food Services. Includes food service activities not classified above. -77- 3000 Operation of Non-Instructional Services. (Continued) 3200 Other Enterprise Operations. Activities financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises. 3300 Community Services Operations. Activities concerned with providing community services to students, staff or other community participants. 3400 3310 Supervision of Community Services. Directing, supervising and managing activities associated with school and community activities. 3320 Community Recreation Services. Those activities concerned with providing recreation for the community. 3330 Civic Services. Those activities of providing services for civic affairs or organizations. 3340 Public Library Services. Activities related to the operation of the public libraries by a school district or through the district's library collection. 3350 Custody and Care of Children Services. Providing programs for children in residential day schools or childcare centers which are not part of or directly related to the district's instructional programs and the attendance is not included in the district's attendance figures. 3351 Welfare Activities. Providing for the personal needs of individuals who have been designated as needy by an appropriate governmental entity. 3352 Non-Public School Public Service. Activities concerned with providing instructional services, attendance and social work services. health services and transportation services for non-public school pupils. 3353 Parent Centers. 3354 Instruction Program. 3390 Other Community Services. Other community services not classified above. Other Non-Instructional Services. -78- 4000 Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services. Those activities concerned with site acquisition services, site improvement services, architectural and engineering services and A building construction and improvement services . W 4100 Supervision of Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services. Supervising, managing and directing activities concerned with acquisition and construction of district sites and buildings. 4200 Site Acquisition Services. Activities concerned with acquiring new sites. 4300 Site Improvement Services. Activities concerned with improving and maintaining existing site improvements. 4400 Architecture and Engineering Services. The activities of architects and engineers related to land acquisition and improvements to buildings. 4500 Educational Specifications Development Services. Those activities concerned with preparing and interpreting architectural and engineering specifications of buildings. 4600 Building Acquisition and Construction Services. Those activities concerned with building acquisition and construction for instructional and non-instructional areas. 4610 Instructional Areas. Those activities concerned with building acquisition and construction of instructional areas. 4620 Non-Instructional Areas. Those activities concerned with building acquisition and construction of non-instructional areas. 4700 Building Improvements Services. Those activities concerned with initial installation or extension of service systems, built-in equipment and additions to buildings. 4710 Instructional Areas. Those activities concerned with initial installation or extension of services systems, built-in equipment and additions to buildings of instructional areas. 4720 Non-Instructional Areas. Those activities concerned with initial installation or extension of service systems, built-in equipment and additions to buildings of non-instruqtional areas. 4900 Other Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services. Facilities acquisition and construction activities not classified above. -79- 5000 Other Uses. 5100 LEA Indebtedness. The servicing of the district's debt, including principal, interest and fiscal fees. 5110 Bonded Indebtedness. Debt retired by specific millages voted by the electorate. 5120 Non-Bonded Debt (Revolving Loans). Revolving Loan Fund debt and other non-bonded debt serviced from the operating fund. 5130 Current Loans. Indebtedness with a term of no more than one year. 5140 Postdated Warrants. Indebtedness incurred in the form of postdated warrants for a term of not more than eight (8) years unless for energy conservation measures. 5150 Installment/Lease Purchase Payments. Indebtedness not to exceed more than eight (8) years unless for energy conservation measures. 5160 School Board Association Anticipated Tax Note. A bank note borrowed from the State School Boards Association. 5190 Other Indebtedness. 5200 Fund Transfers. Money transferred from one fund to another fund. 5300 Payment to Other LEA's (Within the State). These are payments generally for tuition and transportation or other services provided to students from a district other than the resident district. 5400 Payment to Other LEA's (Outside the State). These are payments generally for tuition and transportation or other services provided to students from a district other than the resident district and outside the State. 5500 Indirect Costs. Costs incurred that are not directly attributable to a specific school or for a specific activity or function. 5900 Other Non-Programmed Costs. Costs not classified above. 5901 Payment to State for Overpayment of Funds. -80- Object Definitions Object classifications are used to describe a service or commodity obtained as a result of a specific - expenditure. The major categories of objects are broken down into sub-objec,s to allow for greater detail. The major category designation is often used as a category summary that should not be used for posting purposes. For posting purposes, the lowest level shown for a category heading or subheading should be used by the district or cooperative. The folloving definitions are provided for each object classification. 61000 Personal Services - Salaries. Compensation paid to permanent and temporary employees of the districts. 61100 Regular Employees 61110 Certified. Salary expenditures paid to certified employees from the teacher salary fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61120 Classified. Salary expenditures paid to noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61200 Temporary Employees. Salary expenditures for work performed on a temporary basis, excluding substitute teachers. 61210 Certified. Salary expenditures paid to certified employees from the operatir A fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. W, 61220 Classified. Salary expenditures paid to noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61300 Overtime. Amounts paid to permanent and temporary employees for work performed in addition to the normal work period for which the employee is compensated. 61400 Sabbatical Leave. Amounts paid by to employees on sabbatical leave. 61500 Workshops. 61510 Certified. 61520 Classified. -81- 61000 Personal Services - Salaries (Continued) 61700 Substitutes. Salary expenditures for work performed by substitute teachers. 61710 Certified. Salary expenditures for certified substitute teachers payable from the teacher salary fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61720 Classified. Salary expenditures for noncertified substitute teachers normally paid from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61800 Unused Sick Leave. Costs incurred due to an employee retiring, being terminated or as an benefit when an employee accumulates over the maximum amount eligible to be carried forward in a year. 61810 Certified. Expenditures paid to certified personnel from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61820 Classified. Expenditures paid to noncertified personnel usually from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61900 Other. The costs paid for severance or early retirement incentive. 61910 Severance Certified. 61920 Severance Classified. 61930 Early Retirement Incentive Certified. 61940 Early Retirement Incentive Classified. 61950 Annuityff-Drop 62000 Personal Services - Employee Benefits. Costs paid on behalf of employees not included as part of an employee's gross salary. 62100 Group Insurance. Employer's share of group insurance. 62110 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified employees from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62120 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. -82- 62000 Personal Services - Employee Benefits. (Continued) 62200 Social Security. Employer's share of Social Security of 6.2 percent, including the - amount reimbursed for employees assigned to federal programs. 622 l 0 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified employees from the operating fund. unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62220 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62250 Medicare. Employer's share of Medicare of 1.45 percent, including the amount reimbursed for employees assigned to federal programs. 62260 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified employees from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62270 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62300 Teacher Retirement Contributions. Employer's share of retirement payments, including the amount reimbursed for employees assigned to federal programs. 62310 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified personnel from the operating fund A unless funded by a federally sponsored program. W' 62320 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored. 62400 Tuition ReimbursemenL Amounts paid to employees qualifying for tuition reimbursement based upon district policy. 62410 Certified. Expenditures paid to certified employees from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62420 Classified. Expenditures paid to noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. -83- 62000 Personal Services - Employee Benefits. (Continued) 62500 Unemployment Compensation. Employer's cost of unemployment compensation. 62510 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified employees from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62520 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62600 Worker's Compensation. Employer's cost of worker's compensation for its employees. 62610 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified employees from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62620 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62700 Health Benefits. Employer's cost for health benefits for its employees. 62 710 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified employees from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62720 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62800 Public Retirement Contributions. Employer's share ofretirement payments. 62820 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating fund or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62900 Other Employee Benefits. Employer's cost of employee benefits not classified above. 62910 Certified. Expenditures for certified employees paid from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62920 Classified. Expenditures for noncertified employees paid from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. -84- 63000 Purchased Professional and Technical Services. Services performed by persons with specific expertise in a specialized field. 63100 Official/ Administrative. Professional services provided in order to assist in the district in business and financial management, elections and tax assessing and collecting services. 63110 Staff Service . Professional services performed in order to assist in employing and assigning staff. 63120 Management Service - Consulting. Professional services provided in order to assist management in board policy or the operation of the district. 6313 0 Board Of Education Services. Professional services provided in order to assist the local school board. 63200 Professional-Educational. Professional services supporting instructional programs and their administration. 63210 Instruction Services. Services provided by a professional directly engaged in providing learning experiences for students. 63220 Instructional Program Improvement Services. Professional services provided in order to assist teachers and supervisors in the teaching process. 63230 Consulting - Educational. Consulting services provided in educational fields. 63300 Other Professional. Professional services not classified above. 63 310 Pupil Services. Professional services provided in order to assist students and their parents in solving problems to supplement the teaching process. 63320 Engineering. 63330 Accounting. 63340 Legal. 63350 Medical. 63360 Information Technology. 63370 Architectural. -85- 63000 Purchased Professional and Technical Services. (Continued) 63400 Technical. Services provided which require specialized knowledge in a technical field. 63410 Data Processing Services. 63420 Statistical Services. Technical services perfonned to assist in providing statistical data and analysis. 63900 Other Purchased Professional and Technical Services. Professional and technical services not classified above. 64000 Purchased Property Services. Services purchased to operate, repair, maintain and rent property owned or used by the district. 64100 Utility Services. Expenditures for utility services, excluding energy and telephone services, from a private or public utility company. 64110 Water/Sewer. Expenditures for water and sewage services from a private or public utility company. 64200 Cleaning Services. Contracted services for sanitation, custodial and lawn care . 64210 Disposal/Sanitation. Expenditures for garbage collection services provided by an outside company. 64230 Custodial. Contracted expenditures for custodial services. 64240 Lawn Care. Contracted expenditures for lawn and grounds upkeep, minor landscaping and nursery services. 64300 Repair and Maintenance Services. Contracted expenditures for repairs and maintenance services, including contracts and agreements covering the upkeep of buildings and equipment. 64310 Buildings and Grounds. Contracted expenditures for repairs and maintenance services for preventive maintenance or restoring a building to its original condition. 64320 Equipment and Vehicle. Contracted expenditures for repairs and maintenance service for preventive maintenance or restoring equipment and vehicles to their original condition. -86- 64000 Purchased Property Services. (Continued) 64400 Rentals. Costs for renting or leasing land, buildings, equipment and vehicles. - 64410 Rental of Land and Buildings. Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for temporary and long-term use. 64420 Rental of Equipment and Vehicles. Expenditures for leasing and renting of vehicles and equipment for temporary and long-term use. 64500 Construction Services. Contracted services paid to contractors for constructing, renovating and remodeling. 64900 Other Purchased Property Services. Other services not classified above. 65000 Other Purchased Services. Contracted services not classified previously. 65100 Student Transportation Services. Contracted services for transporting children to and from school and other activities. 65110 65120 Student Transportation Purchased from LEA within the State. Expenditures incurred for services provided by another district to transport students to and from school and school-related events. Student Transportation Purchased from LEA outside the State. Expenditure~incurred for services provided by a district outside the state to transport students to and from school and school-related events. 65190 Student Transportation Purchased from Other Sources. Contracted services provided by persons or agencies other than school districts for transporting students to and from school-related events. 65200 Insurance Other than Employee Benefits. Expenditures for property, liability, fidelity, fleet and accident insurance coverage. 65210 Property Insurance. Expenditures for insurance on property owned or leased by the district: 65220 Liability Insurance. Expenditures for insurance coverage against losses or payments in lieu of insurance resulting from judgments awarded against the district with the exception of pupil transportation insurance. -87- 65000 Other Purchased Services. (Continued) 65200 Insurance Other than Employee Benefits. (Continued) 65230 Fidelity Bond Premiums. Expenditures for fidelity bonds or in lieu of fidelity bonds guaranteeing against losses resulting from the actions of the treasurer and district personnel. 65240 Fleet Insurance. Expenditures for insurance on pupil transportation vehicles whether owned by the district or the contractor. 65250 Accident Insurance. Expenditures for insurance on student activities. 65290 Other Insurance. Expenditures for insurance not classified above. 65300 Communications. Telephone and postage services provided to the district. 65310 Telephone. 65320 Postage. 65400 Advertising. Expenditures for printed or broadcasted material for recruitment purposes, posting of legal notices and the sale of equipment or other items. 65500 Printing and Binding. Expenditures for the design, printing and binding of district publications. 65600 Tuition. Expenditures to reimburse an educational agency for services provided to students of the district. 65610 To Other LEA within the State. 65620 To Other LEA outside the State. 65630 To Private Schools. 65640 Educational Intermediate Agency within the State. 65650 Educational Intermediate Agency outside the State. 65690 Other. -88- 65000 Other Purchased Services. (Continued) 65700 Food Service Management. Contracted services provided for the operation of the local food service facility. 65800 Travel. Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel and other expenses associated with business travel for the district. 65 8 IO Certified. 65820 Classified. 65830 Out of District Certified. 65840 Out of District Classified. 65850 Out of State Certified. 65860 Out of State Classified. 65870 Non-Employee. 65880 Meals. 65890 Lodging. 65900 Miscellaneous Purchased Services. Purchased services not classified. 65910 Services Purchased Locally. Expenditures for services not classified previously. 65920 Services Purchased from LEA within the State. Payments to another school district or cooperative within the State for services rendered, excluding tuition and transportation fees. 65930 Services Purchased from LEA outside the State. Payments to a school district outside the State for services rendered, excluding tuition and transportation fees. -89- 66000 Supplies and Materials. Expenditures for supplies and materials. 66100 General Supplies and Materials. Expenditures fot supplies and materials used in the operation of the district, including freight and cartage. 66200 Energy. Expenditures for natural gas, oil, coal, gasoline and electricity provided by a utility company or private entity. 66210 Natural Gas. Expenditures for natural gas provided from a private or public utility company. 66220 Electricity. Expenditures for electric services from a private or public utility company. 66230 Butane/Propane. Expenditures for butane or propane. 66240 Oil. Expenditures for oil used for heating and lubrication. 66250 Coal/Wood. Expenditures for coal or wood used for heating. 66260 Gasoline/Diesel. Expenditures for gasoline and diesel. 66290 Other. Expenditures for energy cost not classified above. 66300 Food. Expenditures for food used in the school food services program. 66400 Books and Periodicals. Expenditures for books, textbooks and periodicals prescribed and available for general use, including reference books. 66410 Textbooks. Expenditures for prescribed books and workbooks, including binding and repairs, which are purchased for students furnished free or resold. 66420 Library Books. Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use by students, including reference books. 66430 Periodicals. Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use by the school library. 66440 Audiovisual Materials. Expenditures for optical and electronic devices, including related supplies, which are designed to enhance learning through the combined senses of hearing and sight. -90- 66000 Supplies and Materials. (Continued) 66500 Technology Supplies. 66510 Software. Any administrative or instructional software. 66520 Other. Any supplies such as paper, ribbon, cables. 66600 Building Materials. 66700 Warehouse Inventory Adjustment. Expenditures which are the result of a deficit of items held in inventory. 156900 Other Supplies and Materials. 67000 Property. Expenditures for the acquisition ofland, buildings, improvements of grounds, construction of buildings, additions to buildings, remodeling of buildings, initial equipment and replacement of equipment. 67100 Land and Improvements. Expenditures for the purchase and improvement of the land consisting of landscaping, installing hydrants, and construction of sidewalks, 67200 sewers, storm drains, etc. Buildings. Expenditures for acquiring existing buildings included but not limited tr a installment or lease principal payments resulting in the acquisition of buildings\nW, building construction\nmajor structural alterations\nand initial or additional installation of heating and ventilating systems, fire protection systems and other service systems. 67210 Library Books (New Libraries only). Expenditures for the initial purchase of books for a new library or material acquisitions involving a major expansion of the library. 67300 Equipment. Expenditures for the initial, additional and replacement of equipment. furniture, fixtures and machinery. 67310 Machinery. Expenditures for machinery equipment. 67320 Vehicles. Expenditures for vehicles. -91- 67000 Property. (Continued) 67300 Equipment. (Continued) 67330 Furniture and Fixtures. Expenditures for furniture and fixtures. 67390 Other Equipment. Expenditures for equipment not classified above. 67500 Technology Equipment. 68000 Other Objects. Amounts paid for goods and services not otherwise classified above. This includes expenditures for the retirement of debt, interest on debt, dues and fees, and insurance premiums. 68100 Dues and Fees. Expenditures for memberships in professional organizations or payments to a paying agent for services rendered. 68200 Judgments against the LEA. Expenditures for current funds for judgments against the district as a result of a lawsuit and issued by a court of law, excluding judgments regarding delinquent debt, not covered by liability insurance but eligible for insurance coverage. 68300 Interest. Expenditures for interest due on serial bonds, Revolving Loan Bonds, certificate of deposit loans from the Revolving Loan Fund, postdated warrants and other negotiable instruments with financial institutions. 68400 Indirect Cost. Costs incurred that are not directly attributable to a specific school or for a specific activity or function. 68800 Taxes. Amounts levied/assessed by governmental agencies. 68810 Tax on Resale Items. 68820 Improvement Tax. 68830 Property Tax. 68900 Miscellaneous Expenditures. Amounts paid for goods or services not classified above. -92- 69000 Other Uses of Funds. These codes are used to classify transactions which are not recorded as expenditures to the district but require budgetary or accounting control, including but nora limited to retirement of principal and interest on long term debt. housing authority W obligations and fund transfers. 69100 Redemption of Principal. Expenditures of LEA funds to retire the principal on serial bonds, revolving loan fund bonds, certificate of deposit loans from the revolving fund, postdated warrants and school board anticipated tax notes. 69200 Housing Authority Obligations. Outlays from current funds to satisfy housing authority obligations of the district. 69300 Fund Transfers (Permanent). This category represents transactions conveying money from one fund to another. 69310 Transfer to Salary Fund. 69320 Transfer to Operating Fund. 69330 Transfer to Building Fund. 69340 Transfer to Debt Service Fund. 69350 Transfer to Capital Outlay Fund. 69360 Transfer to Federal Grants Fund. 69370 Transfer to Student Activity Fund. 69380 Transfer to Food Service Fund. 69400 Program Funding Return 69500 Transits (Flow-Through Money). This category represents transactions which convey money to the recipient (person or agency). This includes transactions which place grant-in-aid, stipends and transportation for other district use. 69900 Loan Payments To. This category is to be used for transfer transactions which are not classified above. -93- Revenue Definitions Revenue is defined as an increase in an asset which does not increase any liability, does not represent the recovery of any expenditure and does not represent the reduction of a liability that would result in a corresponding increase in another liability. The following definitions are provided for all revenue classifications. 10000 Revenue from Local Sources 11000 Taxes. Compulsory charges levied by a governmental entity for the purpose of financing services for the common benefit. 11100 Property Taxes. Taxes levied as a result of a vote by the electorate of a millage rate on personal property, real estate and utilities. 11110 Property Taxes - Current. Taxes received from the general levy for the current year. 11120 Property Taxes - 40 Percent Pullback Received by June 30. Forty percent of the net proceeds of local school taxes not dedicated to debt service received in January through June. 11130 Property Taxes - 40 Percent Pullback Received July 1- Dec 31. Forty percent of the net proceeds oflocal school taxes not dedicated for debt service received in July through December. 11140 Property Taxes - Delinquent. Taxes received during the current year from the general levy for prior years. 11150 Excess Commission. Amounts received from commissions in excess of the treasurer's salary for the cost of operating the treasurer's office. 11160 Land Redemption (Include State Land Sales). Amounts received from the sale of land on which delinquent taxes have not been paid. 11200 Sales and Use Tax. I 1300 Income Tax. 11400 Penalties and Interest on Taxes. Revenue from penalties and interest on delinquent taxes from the due date of actual payment. 11900 Other Taxes. -94- 10000 _Revenue from Local Sources. (Continued) 12000 Revenue From Local Governmental Units Other than LEA's. 12100 Revenue in Lieu of Taxes. Payments made by another local governmental unit to the district in lieu of taxes that the governmental unit would have had to pay if its property or other tax base were subject to taxation. 12900 Other. Amounts received from all other local governmental entitied not mentioned above. 13000 Tuition. Amount received from students, their parents, welfare agencies. pri\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1676","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1999-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","School discipline","Students","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1676"],"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":["36 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.  MAY 11 1999 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONlTORma IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, No. LR-C-82-866 ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY t O 1999 JAMES1W. M\\CORMACK, CLERK By: \\_ ,~ U ['\\ MO ,y' OEP CLERK Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") to increase the MRC office budget from $150,000 per year to $185,000 per year effective with the 1998-99 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated January 6, 1999 (attached). After reviewing the matter, the Court is inclined to approve the request. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals established the MRC in 1987 to supervise the operations of the six magnet schools in the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). The District - Court later allocated $150,000 per year to fund the operations of the MRC and its office. The 3261 Court determined that the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Education - (\"ADE\"), should pay $75,000 of that allocation and each of the three Pulaski County school districts should pay $25,000. The MRC has never presented its office budget to the Court for annual approval; instead, the MRC staff has reconfigured line item allocations each year to total $150,000 and the MRC members have approved that budget each year. In the letter submission, the MRC chair explained that, over the years, normal inflation in the price of goods and services has strained the committee's $150,000 budget. Additionally, notes accompanying the budget explain that the restructuring of LRSD schools to accommodate the middle school initiative has required some substantial changes in the magnet schools. These changes necessitate an increase in advertising and recruitment costs, because brochures and other recruitment materials must be redesigned, printed, and distributed. The MRC further requests that the budget increase to $185,000 be shared by the ADE and the three districts in the same proportions as in the past, increasing the state's share (which is one-half) to $92,500 and each district's share (which is one-sixth) to $30,833 .33. The letter submission asserts that four MRC members voted for the increase, one abstained, and one was absent. In August of 1998, the MRC approved a budget for the 1998-99 school year for the usual total of $150,000 in an apparent failure to foresee the need for increases in the same year. The need for additional funds to flow quickly to the MRC leads the Court to believe the request for a budget increase to $185,000 for 1998-99 should be approved. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to approve MRC' s request for an increase in its 1998- 99 budget from $150,000 to $185,000. The Court will allow the parties until and including May 2 24, 1999, in which to object to MRC's request. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order providing that within one week, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998-99 MRC budget hereby approved. IT IS SO ORDERED this J'-day of 1.--- 1999. IA?.,\"'~ '-BfIBFm(}\"\"\"-t UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET 1H XMPUA~ woi; ~if 58 ANDIOR ?9(1) fRCP )N b -I .. !Y .1C ~ 3 ?~{~j~~if~ .nna Grady Crear Executive Director ' C January 6, 1999 . 7 (501) 758-01156 ' , I\", r  I. ;~;~;.~~j~~~~tt~:: ~.-  ii; I _..\"S, , .,_~ ,./~--; ,.-- . :..- -:- -: .... :.\"'-~  .' *~ - ', -2- January 6, 1999 ~.. , I ~ :(.;'~ { - contribution $92,5001$7S,OOO, plus the additional $17,5001. The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 231. lnaeose in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. If you should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, ~~f Magnet ReYiew Committee .  . cc: ..;.,. ,. j J \"\\ .. , -~ : ;i  ? .; EXPENDITURES 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ AQ1.!AL ~ ~ 8MQUNT FRINGE BENERTS 9,500 14,173.16 12,800 20,819.94 lndudes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Dental tn the approved budget, this figure was Input at a lower rate, due to the anticipated changes in teacher retirement, insurance, etc. The new figure most accurately reflects the costs for this line item. PRQFES~IQNAL ~ TECHNI~ Sc\u0026Yl!:ES 11,800 16,925.68 12,000 1s.ooo Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category indudes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. - Because of additional professional services required as a resuh of providing updated recruiting tools /e.g., creative layout and design for brochures, radio/TV ads, etcJ and the Website master ad design which reflect changes in magnet schools, including new prindpals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expected. MAJNTENA~E QF tQUleMcNT ~ VEHICLES 1,600 733.45 1.400 l,650 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. Because of contrad cost increases since the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses is expected. - - MRC EXPENDITURES !Continued) Poge2 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ACIIJAI. ~ ~ ~Q!.!MI RENTAL QE LANO ANO ~!.!!LOI~ 14,256 14.256 14,256 14.256 Monthly rent for the MRC Office is Sl.188.0011.296 square feet) and will remain that amount. TRAVEL QUT OF [)ISJRICT 6,000 7,984.05 3,500 6.000 This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. The re~ amount is requested to bring travel funds back to the 1991-98 budgeted amount. POSTAGE 2.000 2,492.25 2,500 2,500 lndudes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries. bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other moilouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHONE 3,500 3,418.31 3,500 *4.225 lndudes monthly billings and long distance charges. Internet access monthly charges. and FAX expenses. The Internet access hos been added to the MRC's computer system. and the telephone/communication costs wil go up in this category. - MRC EXPENOOURES IContinuedl Poge3 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 \"1998-99 ~ ACil.!Al. aJ.!.C2QfI RfY!ill2 AMOUNI ADVERTISING 23,600 25,658 .35 23,595 36,900 The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. with new prindpals in place in several of the magnet schools. new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place. a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING ANO BINDING 2,800 2,560.25 1,200 3,200 This category ties in with - advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms for magnet schools for enroll-ment. ore handled by outside agencies. Again, this amount has been increased to handle large proieefs related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new prindpa/s, and curriculum changes. - MRC EXPENOOURES !Continued) Poge4 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ACil.!AI. .eJ.!.QQfI ~ AMQUNT QTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 3,000 5,025.68 2,000 4,000 lndudes any outside help necessary to finish a job for the MRC Office. This will also indude the cost for our fiscal agent. oue to increased meeting adiYities, Magnet Fair expenses. all other recruitment fundions, and contrad labor for incidental i\u003cJbs, this amount has been increased from the 1997-98 budget. SUPI\\IES 1,800 1,872.36 1,500 1.405.06 Materials necessary for the operation of the Magnet Review Committee Office. PERIQDICALS 616 604.78 500 595 Used to purchase media of interest to the MRC and its activities le.g .. Education Week. Arkan~s Democrat-Gazette, Arkan~s Times, Magnet Schools of America materials!. Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rote for the MSA Conference in the spring. The amount requested hos been adiusted to keep in line 'Mfh the 1997-98 actual expenses. MRC EX?ENQIIURB IConttnuedl 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 a.u..coo: ~ a.u..coo: CAPIT Al Olffi.AY 1,500 733.45 500 This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such OS a copier, computer. or office furniture. with the approved 1998-99 budget in August, the MRC was planning not to make any major purchases for the office. The copy machine and the telephone system are over ten years old. Some expenses are anticipated for this category. TOT AL EXPENDITURES 81,972 96,437 .77 79,251 SALARIES ~ ZQ.7~9,00 7Q749 TOTALS 150,000 167. 186.77 150,000 NOTE: Salary increases will be determined later in the year. ofter final negotiations ore completed. and district salary increases ore established. At that time, it will be determined if. and how much. an increase can be incorporated into the budget. Page5 1998-99 ~ AMO!.!NI *3,700 114,251 70,749 185,000 ... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STA TE RECEIVED MAY 1 2 1999 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES For their motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (the \"Districts\") state: 1. On February 18, 1997, this Court found that the state changed its method of funding the teacher retirement program to the detriment of the districts and in violation of the settlement agreement. This Court made the same finding with respect to the health insurance matching program on April 22, 1997. On July 1, 1998 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's decisions with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance and directed this Court to decide what relief would be appropriate for the districts. 2. After a hearing, all of the other parties agreed to accept the state's proposed methodology for calculating damages. That methodology is set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. See - Exhibit A to \"Motion for an Order Directing the State to Distribut the Districts' Undisputed Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Damages,\" filed February 9, 1999. 3. On February 9, 1999 the districts asked the Court to order the state to pay the undisputed amount shown in Exhibit 504 for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years. On March 4, 1999, this Court entered the requested order. The districts' efforts to reach an agreement with the state for payment for the 1998-99 school year and future years have been unsuccessful. The districts must therefore seek an order from this Court requiring those payments. 4. Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the state should be ordered to reimburse the districts each year on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in June of each year using current year actual participation numbers. - For the 1998-99 school year, the state should be ordered to immediately pay the districts the amount necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. The districts have agreed that the total amount of damages calculated according to the methodology set forth in Court's Exhibit 504 should be distributed each year as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and 10% to NLRSD. 5. There remain issues to be resolved by this Court, including the issue of prejudgment interest and the issue of whether the state should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by the other school districts in the state. It is not necessary for the Court to resolve those issues at this time in order to provide the relief the districts seek in this motion. 2 I , WHEREFORE, the districts pray that the state be ordered to immediately pay the districts' damages for the 1998-99 school year calculated in accordance with Court's Exhibit 504 subject to an adjustment in June, 1999; and, using the methodology in Court's Exhibit 504, to reimburse the districts in future years on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made each June based on current year actual participation numbers; and that the districts be awarded interest, costs, attorneys' fees and all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-371-0808 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-375-1122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 11 th day of May, 1999: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 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 4 1 Margie L. Powell Associate Monitor DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT M.i\\Y l ::J 1999 May 19, 1999 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Coun Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor 'A ' ;:- ... I\\' ., ... .J 1v,~~ ; ; ,. -~c0c., _. , ,....,, c -- .  - .. ~J7,:1 \\\\,,.1(\\ . -.\" , By: I - -  1(\\ Polly Ramer Office Manager IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et aL DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICTS' \"MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES\" In this motion the Districts ask for immediate payment of their teacher - retirement and health insurance damages for the 1998-99 school year. To date those payments have not been made, and no \"immediate\" payment should be ordered, for two reasons. First, no calculations for FY 1999 payments can be made, even under the meH1.0dology set fort.'h in Court's Exl-dbit 504, because the information necessary to calculate the retirement and health insurance \"remedy'\" for FY 1999 is not yet available and will not be available until at least the end of FY 1999. The methodology set forth in Exhibit 504 requires, among other things, each District's and the total statewide health insurance costs for all school districts for the entire fiscal year. For FY 1999, this information will not be available until some time after the fiscal year has concluded. Further, the methodology set forth in Exhibit 504 also requires that retirement and 1 health insurance costs attributable to ODM employees for the entire fiscal year be excluded from the calculation. To date LRSD has not provided that information to ADE for FY 1999, and that information will not be available until after the fiscal year has ended. Second, this Court has before it issues concerning the calculation of the appropriate \"remedy'' that should be resolved before any further payments to the Districts are ordered. In addition to the Districts' baseless claims that they are entitled to prejudgment interest and to \"damages\" that would result in payments to them in excess of 100% of their retirement and health insurance costs, the Districts are apparently still not satisfied with the source data that forms the basis of the calculations set forth in Exhibit 504. See the Districts' \"Motion for an Order Directing the State to Distribute the Districts' Undisputed Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Damages,\" filed February 9, 1999, in which the Districts state that they believe Exhibit 504 \"should be revised a second time to reflect better information obtained by the Districts concerning their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs.\" In short, the Districts continue to dispute various issues concerning the appropriate \"remedy'' and no further payments should be ordered until those issues have been resolved by this Court 2 Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant A y General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on May 25, 1999, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by first class U.S. Mail on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN l 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for May, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Att e General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arl\u003cansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month. August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 1999 Based on the information available at April 30, 1999, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 98/99, subject to periodic adjustments. 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.  This 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. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1501","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":["1999-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational innovations","Education, Elementary","School attendance","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","School discipline","Student suspension","Parents","Student expulsion"],"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/1501"],"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":["181 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0815","title":"Oral history interview with Mary T. Mathew, April 25, 1999","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Varma, Rashmi","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, 35.50069, -80.00032"],"dcterms_creator":["Mathew, Mary Thundyil"],"dc_date":["1999-04-25"],"dcterms_description":["Mary T. Mathew left her home near Kerala, India, for North Carolina in 1970, remembering that \"the second I disembarked in New York, I felt I had come home.\" After a period of adjustment, worrying about visas and financial stability, Mathew experienced four turning points that would define her life in the United States: she got her visa, began working, stopped wearing her traditional sari, and started to drive. Mathew and her husband embraced American culture, speaking English in the home and finding a place in a Christian community. As they formed new bonds, the ties with the fellow immigrants that had been so strong in their early days in America started to dissolve. In this interview, Mathew describes this transition and her forward-looking immigrant experience, one relatively unaffected by the pull of her homeland and marked by the release from the cultural norms and traditions of India. The most significant markers of this approach might be Mathew's children, whose desire to fit in with their American peers nudged Mathew and her husband toward reconsideration of the \"pre-established cultural-behavioral expectations\" they learned as Indians. The result, though it did not come without some anxiety, is a thriving family and a successful career. This interview will interest researchers concerned with immigration and assimilation.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["East Indian American women--North Carolina","East Indian Americans--Cultural assimilation--North Carolina","Americanization","East Indian Americans--Ethnic identity"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Mary T. Mathew, April 25, 1999"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0815/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Oct. 31, 2008).","Interview participants: Mary T. Mathew, interviewee; Rashmi Varma, interviewer.","Duration: 00:51:01.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Mathew, Mary Thundyil"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1686","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for extension of time by Knight intervenors to response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, reply of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1999-04"],"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","Knight Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for extension of time by Knight intervenors to response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, reply of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1686"],"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":["52 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.  ... 1q ... ,~ , , 1 \\':1  ' ' '  . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT}Df ~SAS WESTERN D~I't)i'r - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT gg APR -S lit1 I I '\"'.; PLAINTIFF JAME3 Vf. MCC~! ff:;~.r\u003e  .-1  .. VS. NO. J!;:i-~g:zls6~0fr, T. :::. BY- -0...,.E.,,..Pl.i.\",,i. ':' CU:b PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME BY KNIGHT INTERVENORS TO RESPONSE TO PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST APR UNITARY COMMITMENTS OFFICE OF . . . DESEGREGATION MONlTDRIMG Kathenne Knight, et al., Intervenors, by and through theIT attorneys, Roacheff - Law Firm, for their Motion, states: 1. The Motion of PCSSD for release from Federal Court supervision and post unitary commitments was received in this office on Tuesday, March 30, 1999. On that date and before the mail had run, counsel for these Intervenors had left for depositions in Helena, Arkansas on March 31 and April 1, 1999. Upon returning on April 2, 1999, Intervenors counsel actually received and read the PCSSD Petition. 2. All three Districts' employee organizations (LRCTA, NLRCTA and PACT) were off work\u003c April 2, 1999 through the Easter weekend. Therefore, it is impossible for these Intervenors to respond in the time allowed if they do so choose to respond. skp9 l 2.500.doc WHEREFORE, these Intervenors pray that the Court grant a seven (7) day extension of time, within which to file any response to the PCSSD Petition and for all other relief to which they be entitled. Respectfully submitted, :o, :_ ~ .Ct~..4u. ~ - - - - ---- --- Richard W. Roachell, #78132 Roachell Law Firm 504 Lyon Building 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following this 5th day of April, 1999. Mr. John Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 skp9 I 2.500.doc M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Ste 2200 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 -~-r ~kansas 72'f\\  ~ \\' --~ \" lc .. J..r..\\..\\- Richard W. Roachell FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS e omc1: 1J~ DESEGREGATION MOWOH\\NG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR O 6 1I \"'j'\"j'\"J JAMES w. ~AMACK, CLERK By: \\) \\ l,1,,J :\\ 1\\ C I ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL * DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * Defendants. * * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * * lntervenors, * * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., * * lntervenors, * ORDER The motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension oftime until and including April 20, 1999 in which to fiie a response to the PCSSD petition for reiease from federai court supervision is hereby granted. The Knight Intervenors' motion for an extension oftime to file a response to PCSSD's motion is likewise granted and they, too, shall have until and including April 20, 1999 in which to respond to PCSSD's motion. !TIS SO ORDERED this (;.Aday of cf 4, f_ I 999. ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPUANJE vm-~ RULE se AND/OR 79(a) FACP m :f: ~ ~ z:'.'.1' ev.-e_t:_ ___ DEP CLERK u.fo!bfcPuAr EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS APR 161999 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK ey: -------=~::-,-::-,,.,., LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAI~~~ilfAK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. , RECEIVED APR 19 19B~ omce=.o;r DfSf61111TJCN MO'Ntfffifll@ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors' Response to the PCSSD Petition for Release From court supervision and Post-unitary commitments The PCSSD has renewed its effort to secure the entry of an order \"declaring that the PCSSD has earned unitary status and releas[ing] [the district] from further court supervision.\" The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court: ( i) deny .. _ the specific relief sought by the PCSSD, (ii) treat the totality of the new PCSSD submission, in accord with its terms, as a request to substitute a new plan for the current plans, and (iii) declare that the new plan can be approved as a revised settlement agreement, except for its provisions defining the duration of the court's jurisdiction by reference to an arbitrary date rather than by reference to sustained, adequate compliance with the plan's terms. The current petition, of course, omits some important prior 1 I I I I I I I I I history. First. On October 14, 1997, the PCSSD filed an almost identical \"Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervi si on.\" l Secon d . . On Decem be r 2, 1997, th e Jos h ua Intervenors filed their opposition to the petition, setting forth the legal standards deemed to apply to its resolution and discussing the various facets of the system's operation, which the district had addressed. Third. The -Joshua Intervenors undertook written discovery and took numerous depositions. Fourth. The court conducted a three-day hearing on the petition in the period June 29 to July 1, 1998. Fifth. After the hearing, the Joshua Intervenors and the PCSSD each filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as comments on the submission of the other party. Sixth. On September 28, 1998, upon learning of renewed settlement discussions, the court denied the petition without prejudice, and cited the system's right to refile the petition should settlement efforts fail. Seventh. The system has refiled its petition. This history and the congruence of the two versions of the petition shed light on what need n2t: be done at this time. That is, there is no need to conduct new discovery, have a new evidentiary hearing, or file again contentions regarding the content of the 1998 hearing and relevant aspe~ts of th record. 1 The  current document differs in only two ways, substantively. The second paragraph and the attachment concerning the so-called post-unitary commitments are new. At pages 27-28, in the discussion on discipline, a chart which appeared in the first version of the petition has been omitted. The reason for this omission may be that the chart was deemed to depict the racial disparities in discipline too graphically. 2 Intervenors have already addressed the relevant legal standards and the evidence showing that due to inadequate implementation of the current plans, the PCSSD has 11 [not] earned unitary status [or] release ... from further court supervision. 11 Intervenors rely upon their prior submissions, filed on December 2, 1997 (opposition), September 1, 1998 (proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law), and September 16, 1998 (comments on PCSSD findings and conclusions). But for the PCSSD's inclusion in its Petition of what it labels \"Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments\" (March 9, 1999), Intervenors could rest on the foregoing argument. The commitments document requires a response, however. Indeed, it provides a vehicle to improve upon the poor record of implementation revealed by the proceedings following the filing of the first version of the petition. Provisions concerning the continuation of this court's jurisdiction are a central feature of the commitments document. The submission is~ a compilation of policies and practices to be followed after this court's jurisdiction ends. The language to which intervenors refer is as follows (at 8-9): A. scope of This Cominitment (1) This Commitment shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District with the following exceptions. (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case \"Settlement Agreement\" as revised on September 28, 1989; 3 (b) The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; (c) Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; (d) The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and (e) Orders of the district court and the court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections (a) through (d) above to the extent not inconsistent with this Commitment. N. continuing Jurisdiction (1) General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this commitment during its term, as described in Parts N, P and Q. Nothing in this Commitment shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Commitment in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. (2) Process for Raising compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the Joshua Intervenors shall follow the procedures set forth below. [Sub-parts (a) to (c) omitted] (d) If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by the Department of Justice, Community Relations S~rvice, the Joshua Intervenors may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. The court may fashion relief. (e) Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, PCSSD shall be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Commitment. o. The scope of compliance Issues The compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section N. shall include. the PCSSD's implementation of the terms of the Commitment, as well as the standards supplied in accordance with this Commitment ... 4 Q. unitary status The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. Upon execution of this Colllillitment, the PCSSD will petition the court for the district's immediate release from court supervision, subject however to the terms of this Commitment. Provided, however, that the PCSSD shall continue as a party litigant until its final claims against the state defendants and parties as well as those against LRSD have been fully and finally adjudicated. In short, the commitments document sets forth the anticipation of the PCSSD that the court's jurisdiction will continue and addresses the manner in which that jurisdiction will be invoked, as well as the types of compliance issues which may be raised. Furthermore, the substantive portions of the document further identify the areas of potential court activity by setting forth provisions addressing discipline (at 3), multicultural education (at 4), school facilities (at 4), school resources (at - 5), staff (at 6), personnel (at 6), student achievement (at 6 and attachment), etc. The court, intervenors respectfully submit, should treat the commitments document as what its terms show it to be -- a request by the PCSSD to substitute a new plan as the basis for the system's remedial obligations. Respectfully, the court should rule that the motion could be granted, if the terms of the commitments document (revised plan) were modified so that the duration of the court's jurisdiction depended upon the quality of implementation rather than an arbitrary time period. (This topic 5 is discussed below.) 2 Substitution of the new plan would be beneficial. A review of its substantive features reveals a focus upon areas shown by the hearings last summer to require a renewed and more-targeted emphasis, such as discipline, facilities and student achievement . 3 While briefer than the current plans, the plan identifies many specific remedial activities. The system would be required to focus its monitoring efforts on the steps required by the new plan, develop a plan to do so, and identify the persons responsible for implementation of particular features. See page 7, N.(l). There would be no impeding of ODM monitoring. The system would continue to provide the data which ODM has used for many of its reports. See pages 7-8, N.(3). ODM could also test compliance with the various specific activities promised by the district. Lastly, intervenors feel certain that the PCSSD would respond positively to ODM re~ests to participate in the various projects identified in the proposal. Intervenors' approach finds support in the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order in this case of April 10, 1998, approving the joint motion of the LRSD and these intervenors for a revised plan for the LRSD. At a general level, the order evidences that the earlier plans are not cast in concrete. 2 The need for approval by the court was and is obvious. The PCSSD could not expect to invest the court with jurisdiction and delineate the scope of that jurisdiction, unilaterally. 3 See \"The Joshua Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ... ,\" 9-1-98, at 8-14 (discipline), 14-18 (facilities), and 23-38 (student achievement). 6 This court approved the LRSD revision as \"an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua\" (at 3), or, alternatively, as \"a modification of the 1990 Plan\" (at 5). The former approach, relying upon the standard set forth in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990), may be deemed applicable here. See Mem. Opin. and Order at 3-5 (standard applied). The PCSSD has put forward a new consent decree or settlement agreement and the Intervenors have indicated, in this response, that they agree to its approval, with one exception dealing with the duration of the court's jurisdiction. This court, as explained in the opi nion last year dealing with the LRSD revision, can not pick and choose among the parts of the parties' proposal. Mem. at 4. It may identify those parts deemed to warrant approval, suggest modifications, and leave it to a party or the parties to demonstrate that the court's objections have been satisfi~d . .Ig. The reasons why the provisions with which each party agrees should be approved are as follows. The law strongly favors such agreements. Isl- at 3. ODM monitoring can continue unimpeded. Mat 5. The revised proposal \"is not manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face.\" Isl- at 5. Indeed, the revision \"furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties.\" .Ig. at 7. This leaves the matter of the duration of the commitment. The commitment provides in Part N.(l) that this court 7 shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this commitment during its tern, as described in Parts N, P and Q. (emphasis added). Part P. provides: The Term of the commitment The term of this conunitment shall begin upon court approval and shall terminate as of June 30, 2001. The last part of the agreement pertinent in assessing the duration of the court's jurisdiction, as proposed by the PCSSD, is Part N.(3), which reads: (3) Notwithstanding Part 2, invocation by June 30, 2001 of the process described in Part N shall be regarded as timely invocation of the entire process. Under these provisions, as a .totality, the term of the court's jurisdiction could extend beyond June 30, 2001, if the Joshua Intervenors had invoked the Part N.(2} process for raising compliance issues before that date. In this event, the term would depend on any period of relie_f., after June 30, 2001, entered by the court, to compensate for any earlier period of noncompliance. Nevertheless, the duration of jurisdiction would not necessarily be measured by the adequacy of compliance. And that is objectionable to intervenors. Three sources, two from this case, support intervenors' argument that the duration of jurisdiction should be geared to the attainment of sustained and adequate compliance. First. In LRSD v, PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th cir. 1990), in the opinion first approving the settlement, the court alluded to the need of the parties to \"scrupulously and diligently carry out the 8 ,---------------------- - - --- - - - ----- -- -- -- -- settlement plans and the settlement agreement .... \" Second. In the key decision addressing the duration of jurisdiction, outside the realm of agreed plans, the Supreme Court in Freeman y. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 134-35 {1992), identified one relevant factor as 0 whether there has been full and satisfactory compliance with the decree in those aspects of the system where supervision is to be withdrawn; ... \"Third.The revised plan for the LRSD allows the Joshua Intervenors to secure the continuation of the plan by demonstrating, before it expires, that the LRSD has not substantially complied with its terms. The LRSD is to submit a written report, addressing overall implementation, to facilitate consideration of the matter. In summary, in each instance, the focus is upon strong - compliance with substantive standards. Jurisdiction does not end - after an arbitrary time period, without regard to the quality of implementation. conclusion The Joshua Intervenors respectfully -request that the court: (1.) deny the petition of the PCSSD seeking a declaration of unitary status and a release from court supervision, for the reasons expressed by the intervenors in their submissions in response to the earlier version of the PCSSD petition; (2.) declare that the commitment document is acceptable as an amended settlement agreement, except for the provisions concerning the duration of the court's jurisdiction, to the extent that the duration of the court's jurisdiction does not 9 - . turn on the achievement of sustained, adequate compliance; and . ~ (3.) allow the parties to correct the defects in the commitment document (revised agreement) and refile it for approval. Rob rtPressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. # 405900 Respectfully submitted, Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ark. # 405900 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913 1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR . GORDON S. RATHER, JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M . POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JIit. PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBS ITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wr i ter's Oi recl Dial No . 501-2121273 mjones(l)wlj .com April 30, 1999 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J, SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKI NNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRI STI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 OFFICE OP DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed is a copy of Reply of PCSSD to the Joshua lntervenors' Response to the PCSSD Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervision and Post-Unitary Commitments which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 100174-v1 Cordially, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS REPLY OF PCSSD TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST-UNITARY COMMITMENTS UNITARY STATUS Several comments are in order concerning the Joshua response. In opposing a declaration of unitary status, Joshua asserts that it has \"[a]lready addressed the relevant legal standards and the evidence showing that due to inadequate implementation of the current plans, the PCSSD has [not] earned unitary status ... \" Joshua Response, page 3. (emphasis added). The PCSSD submits that this is not at all what the evidence showed. At most, the evidence showed that in certain areas the PCSSD had not achieved the ambitious statistical outcomes it sought through implementation of its plan. There was no showing of any material failure of implementation in any respect. Indeed, the Board member witnesses called by Joshua testified only generally that they did not believe the PCSSD 100117-v1 was \"ready\" for unitary status, but none testified concerning any specific failure of plan implementation. The statement quoted in paragraph 1 is at the least a tacit acknowledgment by Joshua that the focus of the Court's analysis is properly plan implementation, not statistical outcomes or statistical achievements, however important they are as educational and social issues. This is still a lawsuit which must be evaluated by legal standards. Indeed, all parties understood the role of the Court when they executed the releases of all claims which state in pertinent part that: \"This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" [Court Exhibit No. CX417 at pages 1 and 2] Joshua's acknowledgment, when coupled with another recent development, should make the legal path for this Court clear. This Court approved the \"new\" Little Rock plan in an order dated April 10, 1998. A portion of the Little Rock plan approved specifically states that: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD .shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. LRSD Revised Plan at page 14, note 2 Further, as part of the analysis the Court made to approve the revised Little Rock plan, this Court noted: More importantly, however, there are certain goals in the 1990 Plan which are out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan which expert testimony indicates may never be met, 2 regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. (Citing the goals concerning achievement disparity) Order at page 6. CONTINUING JURISDICTION Joshua presumes that unitary status will be denied, that the 1990 plan would continue in effect unless replaced by the \"Commitment\" and therefore this Court should treat the Commitment as a proposed new plan. On the other hand, the PCSSD is seeking a termination of federal court supervision except in the financial areas and as otherwise specified in the revised Little Rock plan and in the PCSSD Commitment. Of course, this Court could decline to exercise jurisdiction over the unilateral PCSSD Commitment if it so chooses. To the extent any party might urge such - relinquishment as a \"change\" in the PCSSD submission, it will agree to that change. Inviting the Court to retain jurisdiction was seen by the PCSSD as further evidence of its good faith view of desegregation issues and as such as a further matter for the district court to consider in assessing formal relinquishment of supervision, particularly as regards the 1990 plan and declaring the PCSSD unitary in respect of that plan. At the same time, the PCSSD Commitment would institute a new process of dispute and compliance resolution calculated to avoid the necessity of district court intervention except as a last resort. (Please see Commitment at pp. 8-9) THE DURATION OF THE COMMITMENT Again, in the context of asking the Court to treat the PCSSD as a plan - amendment, Joshua complains that the ending date of the PCSSD Commitment, June 30, 2001, is too brief and that the term of the Court's jurisdiction, as envisioned by Joshua, should not necessarily end when the Commitment expires. 3 The term of the PCSSD Commitment is identical to that of the LRSD Revised Plan, both ending at the end of the 2000-2001 school year. Indeed, the PCSSD Commitment is slightly longer extending until June 30, 2001, and, as observed by Joshua, susceptible to extension, as a practical matter, if Joshua demonstrates or claims non-compliance before June 30, 2001 . Interestingly, the April 10, 1998 order approving the Revised Plan of the ,LRSD is entirely silent as concerns the duration of that Plan and voices no concern about it whatsoever. Since the LRSD Revised Plan and the PCSSD Commitment operate basically in the same fashion as concern jurisdiction and the term of the Plan and Commitment, Joshua's arguments and concerns in this regard as respects the PCSSD - are simply unwarranted and unnecessary. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD should be declared unitary and its Commitment approved as part of that declaration and for all proper relief. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By_~~~:::J...~:...C==:=._--- 6060) County Special 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 3a , 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West 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 5 , e RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 Offif,HJ ~MUlfflRIIG ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS Mark Pryor Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 April 30, 1999 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR ;72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Spedal School District No. 1, et al, LR-C-82-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Brown: Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of the Notice of Filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 1999 that I have caused to be filed this date. Enclosure Sincerely ~~ Carol Robbins Secretary to Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ I - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 OffiCEOF DESf6REGATJON MDNfTDRJNB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for April, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education  This 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. "},{"id":"ere_c18_39732","title":"Oral History Interview with Dr. Andrew Best March 31, 1999","collection_id":"ere_c18","collection_title":"African American History","dcterms_contributor":["Moskop, Ruth"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, 35.50069, -80.00032"],"dcterms_creator":["Best, Andrew A., 1916-2005"],"dc_date":["1999-03-31"],"dcterms_description":["Oral history interview with Dr. Andrew Best, a longtime health care provider of Greenville, North Carolina. In this interview, Dr. Best discusses the importance of informing adolescent students about preventive care and communicable diseases. He also talks about several incidents that he witnessed during the Civil Rights era and his activity on local boards and councils during that time. The information covered in this interview is relevant to the years 1957 to 1972."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Medicine--Practice","Communicable diseases--Prevention","African American physicians--North Carolina--Greenville","School integration--North Carolina--Pitt County","Civil rights movements--United States--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Oral History Interview with Dr. Andrew Best March 31, 1999"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["J.Y. Joyner Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.lib.ecu.edu/39732"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This item has been made available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Researchers are responsible for using these materials in accordance with Title 17 of the United States Code and any other applicable statutes. If you are the creator or copyright holder of this item and would like it removed, please contact us at als_digitalcollections@ecu.edu."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0276","title":"Oral history interview with Jeff Black, March 29, 1999","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Grundy, Pamela","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, 35.22709, -80.84313"],"dcterms_creator":["Black, Jeff, 1981?-"],"dc_date":["1999-03-29"],"dcterms_description":["African American senior Jeff Black reflects on his experiences at West Charlotte High School. Black felt West Charlotte's ties to his community well before he set foot on the school's campus, and like many of his peers, he eagerly anticipated beginning school there. He was not disappointed: at West Charlotte, Black found an intellectually stimulating, socially energizing, and racially diverse environment that allowed him to commit himself both to reaching his individual goals and strengthening his community. But Black admits that West Charlotte is not immune to the legacies of segregation: students tend to self-segregate in the cafeteria, there are few minorities in advanced classes, and the administration limited marching band routines because, surmises Black, they reflect an aspect of black culture the school does not want to associate itself with. He nonetheless believes that West Charlotte's \"contagious\" sense of belonging outweighs racism. Black's experiences at West Charlotte have been so positive that he tells the interviewer that \"the race relations issue tends to be stressed a little bit too much.\" He believes that individuals have to choose to mingle with people from different backgrounds.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["School integration--North Carolina--Charlotte","Charlotte (N.C.)--Race relations","Schools--North Carolina--Charlotte","African Americans--North Carolina--Charlotte","African American students--North Carolina--Charlotte","African American students--North Carolina--Charlotte--Attitudes","West Charlotte High School (Charlotte, N.C.)"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Jeff Black, March 29, 1999"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0276/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Duration: 00:43:26"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Irons, Ned","Black, Jeff, 1981?-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0438","title":"Oral history interview with Leroy Magness, March 27, 1999","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Markey, Michelle","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Lincoln County, 35.48618, -81.22387","United States, North Carolina, Lincoln County, Lincolnton, 35.47375, -81.25453"],"dcterms_creator":["Magness, Leroy, 1920-2007"],"dc_date":["1999-03-27"],"dcterms_description":["Leroy Magness spent most of his life in Lincolnton, North Carolina, about thirty-five miles from Charlotte. A poet, and a man who \"didn't want to be a troublemaker,\" Magness has an easy relationship with his past as an African American in a segregated southern town. He did not participate in the civil rights movement, nor approve of those that did, believing that good behavior was a better catalyst for change than activism. This determination to avoid conflict lies at the heart of this interview, and, it seems, at the heart of Magness's character. He will not place blame for segregation, and his principal memory of desegregation was some trouble between white and black students.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American men--North Carolina--Lincolnton","African Americans--Segregation--North Carolina--Lincolnton","African American men--North Carolina--Lincolnton--Attitudes","Lincolnton (N.C.)--Race relations","Lincolnton (N.C.)--Social life and customs"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Leroy Magness, March 27, 1999"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0438/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Dec. 2, 2008).","Interview participants: Leroy Magness, interviewee; Michelle Markey, interviewer.","Duration: 01:21:45.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Magness, Leroy, 1920-2007"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_jad_456","title":"Program, 1999 Mar. 27, (Summerton, S.C.), Homegoing Services for the Late Mrs. Rebecca Richburg, Taw Caw Baptist Church","collection_id":"suc_jad","collection_title":"Rev. Joseph A. DeLaine Papers ca. 1918-2000","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Clarendon County, 33.66581, -80.2164"],"dcterms_creator":["Taw Caw Baptist Church"],"dc_date":["1999-03-27"],"dcterms_description":["Program (Taw Caw Baptist Church, Summerton, S.C.) on funeral services for Rebecca Richburg, a plaintiff in Clarendon County (S.C.) School Segregation Case [Briggs v. Elliott]; wife of John Hazel Richburg; includes obituary."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Legal size - 13439 - (Folder 25)","Joseph A. DeLaine Papers"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--South Carolina--Genealogy","Clarendon County (S.C.)--Genealogy","African Americans--South Carolina--Clarendon County","Obituaries--South Carolina--Clarendon County"],"dcterms_title":["Program, 1999 Mar. 27, (Summerton, S.C.), Homegoing Services for the Late Mrs. Rebecca Richburg, Taw Caw Baptist Church"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/jad/id/456"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright Not Evaluated. For more information contact the South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208."],"dcterms_medium":["programs (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Richburg, Rebecca, d. 1999"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_jad_jad456","title":"Program, 1999 Mar. 27, (Summerton, S.C.), Homegoing Services for the Late Mrs. Rebecca Richburg, Taw Caw Baptist Church","collection_id":"suc_jad","collection_title":"Rev. Joseph A. DeLaine Papers ca. 1918-2000","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Clarendon County, 33.66581, -80.2164","United States, South Carolina, Clarendon County, Summerton, 33.60822, -80.3512"],"dcterms_creator":["Taw Caw Missionary Baptist Church (Summerton, S.C.)"],"dc_date":["1999-03-27"],"dcterms_description":["Program from the March 27, 1999 funeral for Rebecca Richburg, held at Taw Caw Baptist Church in Summerton, South Carolina. Rebecca Richburg was the wife of John Hazel Richburg and a plaintiff in the Clarendon County, South Carolina school segregation case, also known as Briggs v. Elliott. The program includes an obituary.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Rev. Joseph A. DeLaine papers, ca. 1918-2000."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Legal size - 13439 - (Folder 25), Joseph Armstrong DeLaine papers, ca. 1918-2000,  South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbus, South Carolina."],"dcterms_subject":["Taw Caw Missionary Baptist Church (Summerton, S.C.)","Funeral rites and ceremonies--South Carolina--Summerton","Obituaries--South Carolina--Summerton","African American women--South Carolina--Summerton","African Methodist Episcopal Church","Death--South Carolina--Summerton","African American churches--South Carolina--Summerton","African American civil rights workers--South Carolina--Summerton","Civil rights workers--South Carolina--Summerton","Civil rights movements--South Carolina--Summerton","African Americans--Civil rights--South Carolina--Summerton","Civil rights--South Carolina--Summerton"],"dcterms_title":["Program, 1999 Mar. 27, (Summerton, S.C.), Homegoing Services for the Late Mrs. Rebecca Richburg, Taw Caw Baptist Church"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.tcl.sc.edu/digital/collection/jad/id/456"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["programs"],"dcterms_extent":["image/jpg","Manuscripts"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Richburg, Rebecca, 1915-1999","Richburg, Rebecca, 1915-1999--Death and burial"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1013","title":"\"A Management Study of the Little Rock School District,'' MGT of America, Incorporation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999-03-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock School District","Education--Finance","School management and organization","School administrators","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"A Management Study of the Little Rock School District,'' MGT of America, Incorporation"],"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/1013"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n- rica A MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Final Report March 25, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Study Methodology ............................................................................... 1-3 1.2 Current Environment in the Little Rock School District... ....................... 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ......................... 2-1 2.1 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation ............................. 2-1 2.2 Current Environment of the Little Rock School District... ....................... 2-6 2.3 Current Central Office Structure .......................................................... 2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS ........................................ 3-1 3.1 Community and Enrollment Characteristics .......................................... 3-2 3.2 Central Office Staffing ........................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Central Office Organizational Structure .............................................. 3-1 O 3.4 District Income and Expenditures ........................................................ 3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Central Office Administrator Survey Results ......................................... 4-1 4.2 Principal Survey Results ....................................................................... 4-7 4.3 Teacher Survey Results ..................................................................... .4-12 4.4 Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys ............................................................................... 4-1 6 4.5 Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems ................................................................... .4-29 5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ............................. 5-1 AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 Superintendent's Office .......................... : ............................................. 5-3 5.2 Division of School Services ................................................................. 5-1 O 5.3 Division of Instruction .......................................................................... 5-15 5.4 Operations Division ............................................................................. 5-30 5.5 Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .......... 5-35 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ................................................... 6-1 6.1 Financial Management and Organization .............................................. 6-1 6.2 Budget Processes and Financial Reporting .......................................... 6-8 6.3 Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data ............................................. 6-28 6.4 Assessment of Operating Costs .......................................................... 6-69 6.5 Assessment of Fund Balance ............................................................. 6-94 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 6.6 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes ........................................................................ 6-99 6.7 Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ............................................................................ 6-115 6.8 Chapter Summary ............................................................................. 6-116 7.0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR ...................... 7-1 7.1 lntroduction ........................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Funding for New Construction ............................................................... 7-4 7.3 Funding for Maintenance and Repair .................................................. 7-21 7.4 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............................................................................. 7 -25 8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ............................ 8-1 8.1 Technology Plan ................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Technology Committee ......................................................................... 8-5 8.3 Staffing ................................................................................................. 8-8 8.4 lnfrastructure ....................................................................................... 8-10 8.5 Hardware ............................................................................................ 8-11 8.6 Staff Development .............................................................................. 8-17 8. 7 Technical Support ............................................................................... 8-23 8.8 Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............. 8-27 8.9 Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance .............................................................. 8-30 9.0 NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES .............................................................. 9-1 9.1 Honors and Enrichment ........................................................................ 9-4 9.2 Improving Mathematics Achievement. ................................................... 9-9 9.3 Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY ..... 9-14 9.4 Reading/Language Arts ...................................................................... 9-17 9.5 English as a Second Language .......................................................... 9-22 9.6 Alternative Education: The New Accelerated Leaming Center .......... 9-26 9.7 Computer Literacy ............................................................................... 9-30 9.8 Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation .............................. 9-32 9.9 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............................................................................. 9-35 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Survey Instruments Survey Results TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1 1 .1 Study Methodology ............................................................................... 1-3 1.2 Current Environment in the Little Rock School District... ....................... 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ......................... 2-1 2.1 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation ............................. 2-1 2.2 Current Environment of the Little Rock School District... ....................... 2-6 2.3 Current Central Office Structure .......................................................... 2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS ........................................ 3-1 3.1 Community and Enrollment Characteristics .......................................... 3-2 3.2 Central Office Staffing ........................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Central Office Organizational Structure .............................................. 3-10 3.4 District Income and Expenditures ........................................................ 3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Central Office Administrator Survey Results ........................................ .4-1 4.2 Principal Survey Results ...................................................................... .4-7 4.3 Teacher Survey Results ..................................................................... .4-12 4.4 Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys ............................................................................... 4-16 4.5 Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems ................................................................... .4-29 5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ............................. 5-1 AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 Superintendent's Office ......................................................................... 5-3 5.2 Division of School Services ................................................................. 5-1 O 5.3 Division of Instruction .......................................................................... 5-15 5.4 Operations Division ............................................................................. 5-30 5.5 Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .......... 5-35 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ................................................... 6-1 6.1 Financial Management and Organization ....................................... ....... 6-1 6.2 Budget Processes and Financial Reporting .......................................... 6-8 6.3 Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data ............................................. 6-28 6.4 Assessment of Operating Costs .......................................................... 6-69 6.5 Assessment of Fund Balance ............................................................. 6-94 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 6.6 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes .............. ...... .................... ................................ 6-99 6.7 Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ................................. ........................................... 6-115 6.8 Chapter Summary ............................................................................. 6-116 7.0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR ...................... 7-1 7 .1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Funding for New Construction ........................................................... .. .. 7-4 7.3 Funding for Maintenance and Repair .................................................. 7-21 7 .4 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............................................................................. 7-25 8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ............................ 8-1 8.1 Technology Plan ................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Technology Committee ............................................... .......................... 8-5 8.3 Staffing ................................................................................................. 8-8 8.4 Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 8-1 O 8.5 Hardware ............................................................................................ 8-11 8.6 Staff Development ..... .. ................................ .. .. .... .. ............................. 8-17 8.7 Technical Support ............................................................................... 8-23 8.8 Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............. 8-27 8.9 Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance ................... .. ..... .. ......... .. ....................... 8-30 9.0 NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES .......... ........... ......................................... 9-1 9.1 Honors and Enrichment ........... .. .................................. ......................... 9-4 9.2 Improving Mathematics Achievement. ..... .. ................................. ..... ...... 9-9 9.3 Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY ..... 9-14 9.4 Reading/Language Arts ............................... .. ..................................... 9-17 9.5 English as a Second Language .......................................................... 9-22 9.6 Alternative_ Education: The New Accelerated Leaming Center .......... 9-26 9.7 Computer Literacy ............................................................................... 9-30 9.8 Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation .............................. 9-32 9.9 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ..................... .. ............................. .......................... 9-35 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Survey Instruments Survey Results EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSD's budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansas's largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working MGT of America, Inc. Page I Executive Summary employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. Charge for the Management Study The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instructional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study . MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This information was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report, Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page Ii Executive Summary including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district. Formal On-Site Review Du ring the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following:  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGT's Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Inc. Page Ill Executive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. Maior Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instructional and operational duties. Under the proposed organizational structure, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and noninstructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officer's position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page Iv Executive Summary a clearer focus for fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a \"management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position.\" The RFP asked the consultant to \"analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for the future.\" The LRSD's financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGT's recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships. Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding formula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-evaluation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page v Executive Summary should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGT's recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teacher's union for expected settlement revenues. AREA Ill: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastructure to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers' preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page vi Executive Summary The facilities study conducted by 3D\\lntemational in 1995 {which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities. In some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each school's ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL IN/TIA TIVES Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District {LRSD) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: ..... comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. At the time of MGT's December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place --- A Vision tor the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instructional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vii Executive Summary The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include:  Honors and Enrichment  Math Achievement  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education There is an enormous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instruction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSD's short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning --- support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each student's success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to determine. The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation.\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page viii Executive Summary allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. AREA V: FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for a/locating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and a minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Team's effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the district's various technology initiatives. The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being offered for these technical positions are not competitive. In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page Ix Executive Summary that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the district's obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LASO shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LASO schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of \"model\" technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the lower end of the technology scale. This strategy should be accomplished by incorporating the following:  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement\n annually evaluate the schools to determine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy for providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels pf technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology\nand  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MGT of America, Inc. Pagex Executive Summary The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Carnine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and l'v1arketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations finn, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliance's recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. Unfortunately, at the time of MGT's study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plan's objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xi Executive Summary The Importance of Implementation The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. MGT of America, Inc. Page xii Executive Summary EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE October 15, 1998 November 1998 November 2-6, 1998 December 7-11, 1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12, 1999 March 1 , 1999 March 1-24, 1999 March 25, 1999 MGT of America, Inc. Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSD's budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansas's largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working MGT of America, Inc. Page I Executive Summary employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. Charge tor the Management Study The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to detem1ine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instructional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This infom1ation was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report, Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page ii Executive Summary including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district. Formal On-Site Review Du ring the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following: I  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGT's Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Inc. Page Iii Executive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. Maior Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instructional and operational duties. Under the proposed organizational structure, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and noninstructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officer's position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page iv Executive Summary a clearer focus for fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. ,__ ___ . ___ AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a \"management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position.\" The RFP asked the consultant to \"analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for the future.\" The LRSD's financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGT's recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships. Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding fom,ula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-evaluation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page v Executive Summary should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGT's recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teacher's union for expected settlement revenues. AREA Ill: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCT/ON, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastructure to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers' preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page vi Executive Summary The facilities study conducted by 3O\\lntemational in 1995 (which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities. In some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each school's ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL IN/TIA TIVES Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District (LASO) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: ..... comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. At the time of MGT's December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place --- A Vision for the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instructional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vii Executive Summary The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include:  Honors and Enrichment  Math Achievement  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education There is an enonnous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instruction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSD's short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning --- support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each student's success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to detennine. The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation.\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page viii Executive Summary allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. AREA V: FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and a minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Team's effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the district's various technology initiatives. The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being ottered for these technical positions are not competitive. In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page Ix Executive Summary that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the district's obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LASO shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LASO schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of \"model\" technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the lower end of the technology scale. This strategy should be accomplished by incorporating the following:  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement\n annually evaluate the schools to determine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy for providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels of technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology\nand  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MGT of America, Inc. Pagex Executive Summary The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Carnine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliance's recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. Unfortunately, at the time of MGT's study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plan's objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xi Executive Summary The Importance of Implementation The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. MGT of America, Inc. Page xii Executive Summary EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE October 15, 1998 November 1998 November 2-6, 1998 December 7-11 , 1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12, 1999 March 1 , 1999 March 1-24, 1999 March 25, 1999 MGT of America, Inc. Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers. ..  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and infonnation collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted fonnal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page xiii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., received a contract to conduct a management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Schools, as well as the Little Rock School District and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in early March 1999. The study team adhered to the project schedule contained in Exhibit 1-1. During this period, every effort was made to minimize disruptions to schools and to the central office. Employee input was a major feature of the process for this management study. In Section 1 .1 , we describe the various mechanisms we used to maximize both internal and external stakeholder involvement. As stated in the Alliance's Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the study was to complete a comprehensive management review of the following areas, at a minimum:  the management structure\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives, and  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. We wish to thank Mr. Odies Wilson, President of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools, for his efforts in facilitating this study. We also wish to thank the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District, Superintendent Carnine, and the hundreds of LRSD employees and community residents who provided information to us as we prepared for and conducted the management study. Finally, we specifically express our gratitude to Dr. Victor Anderson who was appointed by the Superintendent to serve as our Project Manager for the management study. His assistance was invaluable throughout the entire project. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-1 Introduction EXHIBIT 1-1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE October 15, 1998 November 1998 November 2-6, 1998 December 7-11, 1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12, 1999 March 1 , 1999 March 1-24, 1999 March 25, 1999 Source: Created by MGT, 1999. MGT of America, Inc. ACTIVITY Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page 1-2 Introduction 1.1 Study Methodology This section of the introductory chapter describes the methodology we used to prepare for and conduct the management study. Our methodology primarily involved a focused use of MGT's audit guidelines following the analysis of both existing data and new information obtained through various means of employee input. Each of the strategies we used is described below. 1. 1. 1 Existing Reports and Data Sources During the period between project initiation and beginning our on-site review, we simultaneously conducted many activities. Among these activities were the identification and collection of existing reports and data sources that provided us with available recent information related to the various functions and operations we would study in the Little Rock School District. Examples of existing materials we obtained include:  Board policies and administrative procedures\n state-level reports\n comparative district, region, and state demographics, financial, and performance data\n A Plan for Success (1996 Report) of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools\n University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) Report entitled Plan Talk,  3D/lntemational Facilities Study\n documents form the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\n accreditation reports\n federal program and compliance reports\n annual performance reports\n independent financial audits\n several district plans for curriculum and instruction\n longitudinal test data\n communications and marketing plan\n school improvement plans\n facility needs assessment and plan\nMGT of America, Inc. Page 1-3 Introduction  annual budgets\n job descriptions\n salary schedules\n peIBonnelhandbooks\nand  agendas, minutes, and background materials for Board meetings. We analyzed data from each of these sources and used the information as a starting point for collecting additional data during our on-site visits in November and December. 1. 1.2 Diagnostic Review During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the school district. 1.1.3 Employee Surveys To secure the involvement of central office administrators, school principals, assistant principals, and teachers in the focus and scope of the management study, three surveys were prepared and disseminated in November 1998. Through the use of anonymous surveys, administrators and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the school system. These surveys were similar in format and content to provide a database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers vary. Survey results are discussed in-depth in Chapter 4 of this report. 1.1.4 Conducting the Formal On-Site Study During the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following:  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under Revised Desegregation Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGT's Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-4 Introduction Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, teachers, and students. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in The Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by one of nine members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. 1.2 Current Environment in the Little Rock School District The Request for Proposals (RFP) for this management study states that: In a positive spirit of cooperation, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools has assembled a coalition that includes the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, the Little Rock School District and others. This coalition has united to move our school district forward and improve the quality of education for all children served by the district. The coalition requests proposals for a management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position. The results of the study will be used by the coalition to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in our community. This spirit of cooperation between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local education agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources in support of its urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership is one that the Little Rock community can be proud of and one which should be emulated in urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified in the RFP. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs approximately 3,800 people. The LRSD budget is approximately $164,000,000. As a public school system, the district is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-5 Introduction who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. In 1996, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools prepared a report entitled A Plan for Success. The introduction of this report states that the LRSD is at a crossroads with continued declines in student enrollment, increased financial pressures, and the seeming inability by the LRSD leadership to work together. Despite those problems, the Little Rock community embraced the Little Rock School District and charged that the recommendations in A Plan for Success are based on shared goals between the community and the school district. . . . the Little Rock School District should strive for a high quality, integrated educational system with strong community support . . . . recommendations are offered with the intent of working with the Little Rock School District in any possible way to help identify problems as well as serve as problem solvers ourselves. We hope that the school administration, members of the LRSD School Board, the litigants, and other members of the Little Rock community will find new energy and a renewed sense of hope as we strive to help bring about an even more excellent public school system equipped to provide the highest quality education to every student in our district. Among the significant recommendations of the 1996 report were the following:  The LRSD must recognize the relationship between student enrollment and school finance.  Student enrollment can be increased through aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District.  Criteria must be developed for closing outdated and underutilized schools.  A new area elementary school should be constructed.  Racial balances should be relaxed to relieve the overcapacity in some schools.  Mediation between the Board of Directors and the district administration should be sought. MGT found that several of the above initiatives were underway when we commenced this management study. A new Board of Directors had been elected, a new Superintendent had been appointed, and, for the most part, the relationship among Board members and between the Superintendent and the Board of Directors was good. These 1996 Plan for Success recommendations relating to facilities, finance, and instructional initiatives will be addressed in the chapters which follow in this report as we respond to MGT's charge for this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-6 Introduction There is, however, one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in A Plan for Success and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has the following nine major objectives which, it accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliance's recommendation to market the Little Rock School District:  Objective 1 : Conduct ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families. Use the research results to improve the district.  Objective 2: Create a new image for the district that focuses on its strengths and offer those strengths to its students.  Objective 3: Establish a Communications Advisory Committee to provide professional advice and resources in communications and marketing activities.  Objective 4: Establish Marketing Teams within each school building.  Objective 5: Communicate regularly with LRSD families.  Objective 6: Establish regular and timely communications with all LRSD employees.  Objective 7: Establish a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families.  Objective 8: Develop and maintain relationships with the Central Arkansas news media.  Objective 9: Actively schedule LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-7 Introduction Unfortunately, at the time of MGT's study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plan's objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. Subsequent chapters in this report respond to each of the directives of the RFP:  Chapter 2 describes the management and organization structure, staffing patterns, and utilization of personnel in the LRSD.  Chapter 3 compares the management structure in LRSD to selected comparable urban school districts.  Chapter 4 provides the results of MGT surveys of LRSD employees.  Chapter 5 analyzes the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions in the Little Rock School District.  Chapter 6 assesses the current financial position of the district and the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives.  Chapters 7, 8, and 9 address the funding for facilities, technology, and institutional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation Plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-8 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Little Rock School District (LRSD) faces an array of challenging circumstances as it moves toward unitary status in the next two years. This chapter explores some of these circumstances, including the current environment of the district and the management structure of the central office. The major sections of this chapter are:  Historical Background and Future of Desegregation  Current Environment of the District  Current Central Office Organizational Structure 2.1 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation The Little Rock School District has a long history of desegregation, perhaps the longest of any school district. The desegregation process, out of which the Little Rock School District will soon emerge, began in 1954, when, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the United States Supreme Court found racially-segregated public schools to be unconstitutional. For many districts, the process of defining and enforcing integration continues even today and Little Rock is no exception. For three years after the Brown decision, the Little Rock School Board moved towards a phased integration - first the high schools, then the lower grades. Foreshadowing the current litigious environment, the NAACP filed suit, claiming the district failed to comply with the Court's order of \"all deliberate speed.\" The suit failed, but formed a precedent of all sides in the Little Rock school community stepping in with legal action at nearly every development in the district. Then, at the start of the 1957 school year, came the events that made Little Rock national news in the struggle for equal access to education. Television images from those tense days are replayed in American History classrooms and on websites across the country as nine African-American students were prevented from entering Central High School by the Governor of Arkansas and the Arkansas National Guard. President Eisenhower and the United States Army had to intervene, but it was not until 1959 that all legal maneuverings on the part of the segregationists failed and the Little Rock high schools reopened. In the 1970s, the federal courts finally settled on an acceptable framework for desegregation. They found in the 1960s that essentially voluntary integration was not achieving its goals, so the courts moved to desegregation plans that ordered school districts to achieve \"racial balance\" in each school. Thus, if a school district was 65 percent white and 35 percent African-American, each school within the district had to be 65 percent white and 35 percent African-American in its student composition. The concept of racial balance, as ordered by the courts, led to busing of students across towns and exorbitant costs for school districts. In many districts, racial balance became MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-1 Background on the Little Rock School District the only issue, as administrators and courts lost sight of the original goal of integration --- to ensure equal opportunity. The Little Rock School District has struggled with lawsuit after lawsuit and the subsequently altered pupil assignment plans as it has sought to achieve the mandated goal of racial balance. Until very recently, administrators had to contend with the legacies of the Clark case, the 1982 consolidation case, and the consent decree of 1989 as they sought to operate and manage a school district under the watchful eye of court supervision. And they had to deal with the reality of changing demographics, as the student population within the district boundaries has become increasingly more African-American, further removing the goal of racial balance. An end may be at hand to the friction born of integration and lately metamorphosed into the debate over busing versus neighborhood schools in Little Rock. As announced in the April 29, 1998 edition of Education Week, a new consent decree has replaced the 1989 decree. This decree \"does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan\" but will allow an end to judicial oversight in 2001 if the district upholds what is commonly called the \"Revised Plan.\" The Revised Plan supersedes and extinguishes all prior agreements and orders related to desegregation with these exceptions:  the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989\n the Magnet School Stipulation dated February 28, 1987\n the order dated September 3, 1986 pertaining to the Magnet Review Comf'T}ittee\n the M-to-M (Minority-to-Majority) Transfer Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand  orders interpreting or enforcing these agreements and stipulations, as long as they are not inconsistent with the Revised Plan. At the heart of the Revised Plan is a lack of over-prescription, which was cited by many as the major difficulty with previous plans. The Revised Plan opens the door to a return to neighborhood schools, because it \"recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced\" (Section 3.8, Revised Plan). This recognition should eventually lead to an end to all desegregation busing and allow students to attend the school of their choice, either a neighborhood school or one of the several different incentive, interdistrict, or magnet schools. The first obligation of the Little Rock School District under the Revised Plan is to: .. . in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against AfricanAmerican students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against MGT of America, Inc. Page2-2 Background on the Little Rock School District on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools (Section 2. 1, Revised Plan). In order to meet this obligation, the Revised Plan enumerates policies and programs the district must implement to ensure:  the hiring, assignment, and promotion of qualified AfricanAmericans\n an increased number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers, and secondary core subject teachers\n a uniform salary schedule\n desegregation of schools to the extent practicable through student assignment programs\n no racial discrimination in regard to special education referrals or student discipline\n the improvement and remediation in the academic achievement of African-American students\n improved student achievement through implementation of specific recommendations in the areas of early childhood education, reading/language arts, mathematics, computer literacy, incentive schools, alternative education, and scholarships\n parental and community involvement\nand  equitable maintenance and repair of facilities. The Revised Plan also allows the district attendance zones to be redrawn in accordance with these guidelines:  current satellite zones may be eliminated where the impact would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students\n students may attend neighborhood schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from 40 to 60 percent AfricanAmerican) as reasonably practicable\nand  students will attend high schools that are within 20 percentage points of the percentage of African-American students in the district as a whole and so that a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from the middle schools. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-3 Background on the Little Rock School District Within the return to neighborhood schools, the Revised Plan allows a great deal of student choice in the school they attend. The plan allows numerous types of voluntary student transfers:  desegregation transfers (students at schools where their race is more than 60 percent of the student population may transfer to a school where their race is less than 40 percent of the student population)\n racial isolation transfers (a student in an essentially one-race school may transfer to another school that is racially balanced)\n magnet program transfer (students may transfer to a magnet school)\n employee's child transfer (students may transfer to the school where their parent works)\nand  special circumstances transfer (students may transfer due to unique circumstances at the discretion of the district). As stated in Section 1 0 of the Revised Plan, the 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year were transition periods. Full implementation of the Revised Plan is to begin with the second semester of the 1998-99 year. The actions of the district under the Revised Plan will end after the 2000-01 school year, when:  the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings (Section 11.0, Revised Plan). The implications of the Revised Plan for the organization and operation of the Little Rock School District central office are many. Several positions within the central office have particular obligations to fulfill as a result of the Revised Plan and it is conceivable that, once unitary status is achieved in 2001, some central office restructuring will be desirable. As it relates to specific positions, the obligations of the Revised Plan are presented in Section 2.3 of this chapter. MGT of America, Inc. Page2-4 Background on the Little Rock School District 2. 1. 1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring As part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the three Pulaski County school districts and the State of Arkansas, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) was formed as an arm of the United States District Court. The ODM is vested with \"the authority to monitor the school district compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement, including any future modifications or additions to, such plans and agreements.\" The ODM is staffed with nine personnel - one monitor, five associate monitors, and three support personnel. The primary role of the ODM is to determine each party's compliance with both the letter and spirit of the Settlement Agreement. This role has grown to include monitoring the entire desegregation process in the three school districts. The ODM collects and analyzes information on the efforts each of the districts is making in reaching objectives specified in desegregation orders and court orders. 2.1.2 Joshua lntervenors Joshua lntervenors are advocates of African-American students, dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of minority students in all three Pulaski County school districts. The Joshua lntervenors are responsible for enforcing the lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan in the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. With respect to the Little Rock School District\nthe Joshua lntervenors have several responsibilities under the Revised Plan, including:  approving the desegregation and/or education expert to work with the district in the development of the programs, policies, and procedures t9 be implemented as part of the Revised Plan\n consulting to the district on the process or standard to be developed for assessing the equitable distribution of resources within the district's schools\nand  promoting, with the district, housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-5 Background on the Little Rock School District 2.2 Current Environment of the Little Rock School District This section provides an overview of four environmental aspects of the Little Rock School District (LRSD):  Community Environment  Fiscal Environment  Ongoing and Pending School Organizational Changes  Strategic Plan 2.2. 1 Community Environment The Little Rock School District is the largest district in Arkansas, with nearly 25,000 students and almost 4,000 employees. The district is one of the 10 largest employers in the state. Established in 1853, the district now encompasses 49 schools - 35 elementary, eight junior highs, five senior high schools, and one vocational-technical center. It is one of three schools districts in Pulaski County, the most populous county in the state. Statewide, the US Department of Education determined that K-12 enrollment increased by 5.0 percent from 1990 to 1996. The Department estimates that Arkansas K-12 enrollment will increase again by 1 .3 percent from 1996 to 2002, but will decrease by 2.4 percent from 2002 to 2008. Exhibit 2-1 details enrollment trends in the Little Rock School District. As can be seen, enrollment has generally declined throughout the 1990s, in contrast to the trend seen elsewhere in the state. However, these enrollment figures tell only a portion of the story. In 1958, student enrollment was 74 percent white and 26 percent African-American. In 1996-97, those figures have almost reversed - the district is 33 percent white and 67 percent AfricanAmerican. However, the general Little Rock population is 65 percent white and just 34 percent African-American. This situation has come about due to an aging of the total population and an actual decline in the proportion of the population that is school age, while the number of African-American children has grown. In general, the parents of Little Rock school children are well educated. Almost 82 percent of Little Rock adults have completed high school, compared with 75 percent in the nation and 66 percent in the state. Almost 58 percent of Little Rock adults have some college, compared with 42 percent in the nation and just 34 percent in the state. This level of education holds true across the races as well, as Exhibit 2-2 illustrates. As shown, both white and African-American adults in Little Rock are better educated on the whole than adults in the state and nation. MGT of America, Inc. Page2-6 27,000 26,500 26,000 \"' ~----~- 25,500 25,000 24,500 EXHIBIT 2-1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT FIGURES /------~ // , , \"\"\"-\" \"\"r~ \"'-,. ,, ''-....,,~~\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ ' \\ ' Background on the Little Rock School District t:o). I ... .......... ~-- ...... ~::i: I I ( I \\ l / 24,000 \\ '\\ / / 23,500 \\ '\\ I \\ , rc~ 23,000 22,500 22,000 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Source: Little Rock School District website,www.lrsd.k12.ar.us/enrlment.htm. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-7 Background on the Little Rock School District EXHIBIT 2-2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADULT EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT .. LITTLE ROCK STATE U.S . .. , RACE (%) {%) (%) African-American adults with some 43.1 24.5 35.1 college, a bachelor's, or an advanced degree White adults with some college, a 63.3 35.0 46.9 bachelor's, or an advanced degree Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. In general, Little Rock families are also fairly wealthy. The 1990 median family income in Little Rock was $34,347, just under the national median of $35,225, but far above the Arkansas median of $25,329. However, African-American families in Little Rock are earning much less than white families in the city, as illustrated in Exhibit 2-3. As the exhibit shows:  While African-American families in Little Rock did better than families elsewhere in the state, they still had median incomes less than the national median for their race. They earned just 94 percent of the national median for African-American families.  White families in Little Rock did far better than families elsewhere in the state and better than the national median for their race. They earned 11 0 percent of the national median for white families.  The income disparity between African-American and white Little Rock families is extreme. African-American families earned just 51 percent of white families in 1990. .. .. . ' RACE EXHIBIT 2-3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1990 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME LITTLE ROCK STATE African-American Families $21,103 $14 785 White Families $41,074 $26,939 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. MGT of America, Inc. U.S. .. $22,429 $37,152 Page2-B Background on the Little Rock School District Based on the results of a survey conducted by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in March and April of 1996, parents and community members in Little Rock support their public schools. Most African-American (66%) and white (72%) rated as excellent or good the school where their oldest child attends. In general, they believe that Little Rock schools are performing better than public schools across the nation. Most respondents, (52 percent of African-American families and 59 percent of white families), gave the Little Rock school buildings a grade of excellent or good. Perhaps most indicative of their level of support, most African-American (52%) and white (46%) families would vote for a tax increase to support the Little Rock School District. 2.2.2 Fiscal Overview of the Little Rock School District The total budget of the Little Rock School District in 1995-96 was approximately $141 million, divided over four major accounting funds - general, special revenue, debt service, and capital projects. The two main sources of funding for the district are local and state. However, the state funds come from three sources:  normal state appropriations\n an approximately $71 million settlement from the state as part of the 1989 desegregation litigation and resulting decree\nand  a loan of up to $20 million, also determined as part of the 1989 decree. These last two state funds are a source of financial concern. The final settlement payment of $683,125 from the $71 million was made in the 1996-97 school year. The $20 million in loan funds will shortly be exhausted, as these funds have been drawn from in 1991, 1992, 1993, and again in 1996, leaving just $5 million after the 1996-97 school year. There is currently no revenue source in sight that will begin to compensate for the loss of these fund sources. Exhibit 2-4 shows the recent trend in reliance on these funds. As the exhibit shows:  The Little Rock School District has substantially decreased its fund balances each school year, leaving little room for unexpected needs or contingency funds.  After three years without using them, the district was forced to utilize loan funds in 1996-97 to make up its budget shortfall.  The district has reduced its reliance on settlement and loan funds over the past four years, from over $9 million to $3.6 million. Doing so, however, has meant drawing from fund balances. MGT of America, Inc. Page2-9 Background on the Little Rock School District EXHIBIT 2-4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT USE OF NON-RECURRING REVENUE SOURCES BEGINNING SCHOOL FUND ENDING FUND SETTLEMENT LOAN FUNDS . YEAR BALANCE BALANCE FUNDS EXPENDED EXPENDED 1993-94 $6,019,557 $4,794,251 $8,094,112 $0 1994-95 4,794,251 3,645,739 6,042,591 0 1995-96 3,645,739 915,442 3,829,942 0 1996-97 915,442 942,644 683,125 3,000,000 (budgeted) Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. Exhibit 2-5 compares the sources of LRSD revenues with the sources of revenue all other districts across the nation having the same per pupil expenditures. As the exhibit shows:  The Little Rock School District receives more than the national average in percentage received from local sources.  State revenues to the district are over seven percentage points below the national average.  The Little Rock School District receives twice the percentage of revenue from federal and other sources that other districts receive. Viewed from another angle, local sources of revenue provided over 70 percent of Little Rock's operating funds in 1996-97, which is a steady increase from their former 50 percent mark in 1989-90. Exhibit 2-6 shows the local revenues estimated for 1996, collectable in 1997. The $74.7 million figure shown represents an increase of about $5 million over estimated tax collections for 1996 due to property value reassessments concluded in 1996. State law requires such reassessments every five years. In its May 1998 employee newsletter, the Superintendent's Notepad included the comment that the Board heard a 1998-99 budget report that \"basically includes no new revenues for the coming year.\" Additionally, the report identified facilities needs totaling more than $114 million in repair and renovation, well in excess of the $70 million identified in a 1995 facilities study. The only way to fund these capital improvement projects would be to fund them locally, through a bond initiative. So, clearly, the fiscal environment of the district is at least fragile and possibly precarious. MGT of America, Inc. Page2-10 Background on the Little Rock School District EXHIBIT 2-5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96 PERCENT OF REVENUES RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES Little Rock School District National Average Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. MGT of America, Inc.  Federal \u0026amp; Other  State  Local Page 2-11 Background on the Little Rock School District CATEGORY Real Estate Personal Utilities - Real Property @ 15% Utilities - Personal Property @ 85% TOTAL EXHIBIT 2-6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ESTIMATED 1997 PROPERTY TAX YIELD ..  MILLAGE TAX ASSESSMENT RATE CHARGE $1,401,195,338 0.0414 $58,009,487 468,027,843 0.0419 19,610,367 13,016,161 0.0414 538,869 73,758,248 0.0419 3,090,471 $1,955,997,590 $81,249,193 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. ESTIMATED COLLECTION (@92%) . $74,749,258 Complicating the fiscal environment of the Little Rock School District is the new state law, Act 915 of 1995. If a school district is determined to be in \"fiscal distress\" under this  law - having current year expenditures exceed current year revenues over a combined three-year period - the state could step in and take over the district. If a district in fiscal distress has no plans for correcting or is making insufficient progress in correcting the distress, the district will be taken over by the Arkansas Department of Education. Combined with the dwindling reserves of LRSD, this potential action could represent a real threat to the future local management of the district. 2.2.3 Ongoing and Pending School Organizational Changes As part of the Revised Plan, the district is moving from its current configuration of junior and senior high schools to middle schools for grades six through eight and high schools for grades nine through 12. This conversion will impact nearly every school, as some schools will need to become ninth grade only for a time, due to limited capacity at the high schools. Some schools will likely be closed as well, or converted to serve another grade sequence from its current sequence. Central office staff are assuming additional duties for the period of this conversion, including developing new middle school curricula, new administrative policies and procedures for the middle schools, and new student attendance zones. Also part of the Revised Plan, the district is undertaking the construction of two new elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens School. The new Stephens Elementary School will be completed first. Once it is ready for students, one of the district's older schools will be closed. While this may appear to be a simple issue, in Little Rock it will likely be a racially-charged issue as many of the most deteriorated schools are in traditionally African-American enclaves and they do not wish to lose their neighborhood school. The Revised Plan addresses this issue and forbids the district from closing \"schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area\" (Section 3.6, Revised Plan). MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-12 Background on the Little Rock School District In order to assist school leaders in increased school-based management opportunities, the central office staff are serving as \"brokers\" in addition to their regular positions. This program started in this school year, 1998-99, and will be fully implemented by the next school year. The purpose of the brokers is to provide technical assistance to school principals as they navigate the zoning and middle school changes, and as the emphasis in the district increases to more effectively empower school-based leadership. 2.2.4 Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District publication \"A Vision for the Future - Strategic Plan Update 1998\" is the guiding strategic plan for the district. It includes the district's mission statement, beliefs, objectives, parameters, and an action plan for each of its 11 strategies. These strategies are:  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_375","title":"A Management Study of the Little Rock School District,'' Final report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999-03-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["A Management Study of the Little Rock School District,'' Final 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/375"],"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\nA MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Final Report March 25,1999TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 1.2 Study Methodology...................................................... Current Environment in the Little Rock School District 1-3 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. .2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation.... Current Environment of the Little Rock School District. Current Central Office Structure.................................... ...2-1 ...2-6 .2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS 3-1 J 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Community and Enrollment Characteristics Central Office Staffing................................. Central Office Organizational Structure..... District Income and Expenditures............... I i ..3-2 ..3-5 3-10 3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS .4-1 5.0 6.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Central Office Administrator Survey Results........................... Principal Survey Results........................................................... Teacher Survey Results........................................................... Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys..................................................................... Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems......................................................... EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Superintendents Office........................,..................................... Division of School Services........................................................ Division of Instruction.................................................................. Operations Division..................................................................... Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ...4-1 ...4-7 .4-12 .4-16 .4-29 .5-1 ...5-3 .5-10 .5-15 .5-30 .5-35 6-1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Financial Management and Organization.... Budget Processes and Financial Reporting Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data.... Assessment of Operating Costs.................. Assessment of Fund Balance..................... ...6-1 ...6-8 6-28 6-69 6-94TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 1 1 6.6 6.7 1 6.8 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes................................................................... Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations.......................................................................... Chapter Summary........................................................................... 6-99 6-115 6-116 7.0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR 7-1 i 8.0 1 9.0 J 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Introduction.................................................................. Funding for New Construction..................................... Funding for Maintenance and Repair......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations....................................................... ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 Technology Plan...................................................................... Technology Committee........................................................... Staffing.................................................................................... Infrastructure............................................................................ Hardware................................................................................. Staff Development.................................................................. Technical Support.................................................................... Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance................................................. NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 Honors and Enrichment................................................................... Improving Mathematics Achievement.............................................. Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY Reading/Language Arts................................................................... English as a Second Language...................................................... Alternative Education: The New Accelerated Learning Center.... Computer Literacy............................................................................. Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations........................................................................... APPENDICES Appendix A: Survey Instruments Appendix B: Survey Results ...7-1 ...7-4 .7-21 .7-25 8-1 ...8-1 ...8-5 ...8-8 .8-10 .8-11 8-17 8-23 8-27 8-30 .9-1 ...9-4 ...9-9 .9-14 .9-17 .9-22 9-26 9-30 9-32 9-35J 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I i 1 J 1 J1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I Overview f In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school districts current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. t I I i In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSDs budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions\nInstruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansass largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. j Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. J Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working ! MGT of America, Inc. Page IExecutive Summary } employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. 1 Charge for the Management Study The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n4  a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\nI  the current financial position\nf \u0026gt;  the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instructional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. i The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study  MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This information was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several 1 recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report. Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page iiExecutive Summary including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review 1 a During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district.  Formal On-Site Review During the week of December 7-11,1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following: I  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan i } -i Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGTs Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Ina Page IIIExecutive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. Major Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION i Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. I i j One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. J The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instnjctional and operational duties. Under the proposed organizational structure, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and non- instructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officers position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page IvExecutive Summary a clearer focus for fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION '5 Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. i The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a management study and an evaluation of n the school district's current financial position? The RFP asked the consultant to 'analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the 1 I adequacy of the districts current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for Uie future. The LRSDs financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGTs recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships.  1 Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding formula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-evaluation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page vExecutive Summary i should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. i The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGTs recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teacher's union for expected settlement revenues. i AREA III: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR ' 9 I J J Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. 1 J Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastructure to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. I The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page vlExecutive Summary The facilities study conducted by 3D\\lntemational in 1995 (which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities. In some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each schools ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. i These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. 1 I AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: 1 .....comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. I 1 At the time of MGTs December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place  A Vision for the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instnjctional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vllExecutive Summary  1 The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. I The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include:  Honors and Enrichment Math Achievement I  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education 1 i 7 There is an enormous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instmction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSDs short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning  support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each students success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to determine. 1 The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation.\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page viiiExecutive Summary ) t i 1 allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. 1 In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. AREA V: FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND INSTRUCTIONAL i Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. a 1 i In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Teams effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the districts various technology initiatives. The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being offered for these technical positions are not competitive. In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page lxExecutive Summary 1 s that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the districts obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LFISD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LRSD schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of model technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. 1 A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the ] lower end of the technology scale, incorporating the following: This strategy should be accomplished by i  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement\n annually evaluate the schools to detenriine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy tor providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels of technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology: and J  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MGT of America, Inc. Page xExecutive Summary The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Gamine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District i There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. I ! The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. 1 1 j Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliances recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. ( J Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. I Unfortunately, at the time of MGTs study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plans objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xl1 Executive Summary The Importance of Implementation The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. i i 1 As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. 1 MGT of America, Inc. Page xii1 { i I I 5 i i 1 Executive Summary EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE\nACTIVITY October 15, 1998 November 1998 November 2-6,1998 December 7-11,1998 I December 1998 January 1999 February 12,1999 March 1.1999 March 1-24, 1999 March 25, 1999 MGT of America, Inc. Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings tor technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page xillTABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1 t ) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 1.2 Study Methodology....................................................... Current Environment in the Little Rock School District 1-3 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. .2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation.... Current Environment of the Little Rock School District. Current Central Office Structure.................................... ...2-1 ...2-6 .2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS .3-1 I 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Community and Enrollment Characteristics Central Office Staffing................................. Central Office Organizational Structure..... District Income and Expenditures............... 1 t r ...3-2 ...3-5 .3-10 3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS .4-1 5.0 6.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Central Office Administrator Survey Results........................... Principal Survey Results........................................................... Teacher Survey Results............................................................ Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys..................................................................... Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems.......................................................... EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Superintendents Office..........................\n.................................. Division of School Services......................................................... Division of Instruction.................................................................. Operations Division..................................................................... Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ...4-1 ...4-7 ,4-12 ,4-16 .4-29 .5-1 ...5-3 .5-10 ,5-15 .5-30 ,5-35 6-1 I 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Financial Management and Organization.... Budget Processes and Financial Reporting Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data.... Assessment of Operating Costs.................. Assessment of Fund Balance..................... ...6-1 ...6-8 6-28 6-69 6-94TABLE OF CONTENTS i PAGE 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 6.6 i 6.7 6.8 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes.................................................................... Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations.......................................................................... Chapter Summary........................................................................... 6-99 6-115 6-116 7.0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR .7-1 1 } X 8.0 1 J 9.0 i J 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Introduction................................................................... Funding for New Construction..................................... Funding for Maintenance and Repair......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations....................................................... ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 Technology Plan..................................................................... Technology Committee........................................................... Staffing.................................................................................... infrastructure............................................................................ Hardware................................................................................ Staff Development.................................................................. Technical Support................................................................... Obstacles to implementation of Chapter Recommendations Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance................................................. NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 Honors and Enrichment................................................................... Improving Mathematics Achievement.............................................. Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY Reading/Language Arts................................................................... English as a Second Language...................................................... Alternative Education: The New Accelerated Learning Center.... Computer Literacy............................................................................. Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations............................................................................ APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Survey Instruments Survey Results ...7-1 ...7-4 ,7-21 .7-25 .8-1 ...8-1 ...8-5 ...8-8 .8-10 .8-11 8-17 8-23 8-27 8-30 .9-1 ...9-4 ...9-9 ,9-14 .9-17 9-22 .9-26 9-30 9-32 9-35? \u0026gt; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i I I 1 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school districts current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, wzhere declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSDs budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansass largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working MGT of America, Inc. Page IExecutive Summary employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. Charge for the Management Study The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District:  the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instructional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This information was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report, Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page IIExecutive Summary including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review t .i During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district. I Formal On-Site Review 1 1 During the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following: J  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 1 s Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGTs Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Inc. Page HIExecutive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. i Major Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. i One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instructional and operational duties. Linder the proposed organizational stnjcture, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and non- instructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officer's position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page IvExecutive Summary a clearer focus tor fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. 1 i T AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION i 1 Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. 1 The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a management study and an evaluation of n the school districts current financial position. The RFP asked the consultant to \"analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the adequacy of the districts current and projected budget to fund new instnjctional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and n repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for the future. 1 J The LRSDs financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGTs recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships. I Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding formula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-evaluation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page vExecutive Summary 1 should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. * 1 The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGTs recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teachers union for expected settlement revenues. AREA III: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastructure to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. J The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc, Page vl1 Executive Summary The facilities study conducted by SDMntemational in 1995 (which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities. In some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each schools ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. j These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. 1 AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES J Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: .....comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discnminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. At the time of MGTs December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place ~ A Vision for the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instructional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vllExecutive Summary I The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include:  Honors and Enrichment Math Achievement  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education There is an enormous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instnjction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSDs short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning  support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each students success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. a In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to determine. a The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation.\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page vlllExecutive Summary allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. AREA V\nFUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and a minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Teams effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the districts various technology initiatives. The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being offered for these technical positions are not competitive. I In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page lxExecutive Summary 1 that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the districts obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LRSD schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of model\" technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the 1 ! lower end of the technology scale, incorporating the following: This strategy should be accomplished by  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement\n3  annually evaluate the schools to determine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy for providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels pf technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology\nand I i  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MG T of America, Inc. Page XExecutive Summary i The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Gamine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District X There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliances recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. J Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. Unfortunately, at the time of MGTs study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plans objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xlExecutive Summary The Importance of Implementation The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. 1 As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instmctional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. 1 1 i MGT of America, Inc. Page xllExecutive Summary 1 EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE ACTIVITY 1 October 15. 1998 November 1998 November 2-6,1998 December 7-11,1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12,1999 March 1, 1999 March 1-24, 1999 Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. I 4 Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. March 25,1999 Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. MGT of America, Inc. Page xlll1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 f 7 J J1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., received a contract to conduct a management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Schools, as well as the Little Rock School District and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in early March 1999. The study team adhered to the project schedule contained in Exhibit 1-1. During this period, every effort was made to minimize disruptions to schools and to the central office. Employee input was a major feature of the process for this management study. In Section 1.1, we describe the various mechanisms we used to maximize both internal and external stakeholder involvement. t As stated in the Alliances Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the study was to complete a comprehensive management review of the following areas, at a minimum\nJ  the management structure\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n1 .1  a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives, and  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. J wish to thank Mr. Odies Wilson, President of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools, for his efforts in facilitating this study. We also wish to thank the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District, Superintendent Gamine, and the hundreds of LRSD employees and community residents who provided information to us as we prepared for and conducted the management study. Finally, we specifically express our gratitude to Dr. Victor Anderson who was appointed by the Superintendent to serve as our Project Manager for the management study. His assistance was invaluable throughout the entire project. i MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-1Introduction EXHIBIT 1-1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE ACTIVITY October 15, 1998 Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines. November 1998  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. 1 November 2-6, 1998 Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing December 7-11,1998 Conducted formal on-site review. December 1998 Requested additional data from the school district. January 1999 Prepared the draft report. February 12,1999 Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. March 1, 1999 Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. March 1-24, 1999 Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. March 25, 1999 Source: Created by MGT, 1999. MGT of America, Inc. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page 1-2Introduction i 1.1 Study Methodology 1 This section of the introductory chapter describes the methodology we used to prepare for and conduct the management study. Our methodology primarily involved a focused use of MGTs audit guidelines following the analysis of both existing data and new information obtained through various means of employee input. Each of the strategies we used is described below. 1.1.1 Existing Reports and Data Sources During the period between project initiation and beginning our on-site review, we simultaneously conducted many activities. Among these activities were the identification and collection of existing reports and data sources that provided us with available recent information related to the various functions and operations we would study in the Little Rock School District. Examples of existing materials we obtained include: }  Board policies and administrative procedures\n state-level reports\n comparative district, region, and state demographics, financial, and performance data\n A Plan for Success (1996 Report) of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools\nI  University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) Report entitled Plan Talk-, 4 J  3D/lntemational Facilities Study\n documents form the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\n accreditation reports\n federal program and compliance reports\n annual performance reports\n1 J I  independent financial audits\n several district plans for curriculum and instruction\n longitudinal test data\n communications and marketing plan\n school improvement plans\n facility needs assessment and plan\nMGT of America, Inc. Page 1-3Introduction  annual budgets: 1  job descriptions\n salary schedules\n personnel handbooks\nand  agendas, minutes, and background materials for Board meetings. We analyzed data from each of these sources and used the information as a starting point for collecting additional data during our on-site visits in November and December. 1.1.2 Diagnostic Review 1 During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the school district. 1.1.3 Employee Surveys 1 4 To secure the involvement of central office administrators, school principals, assistant principals, and teachers in the focus and scope of the management study, three surveys were prepared and disseminated in November 1998. Through the use of anonymous surveys, administrators and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the school system. These surveys were similar in format and content to provide a database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers vary. Survey results are discussed in-depth in Chapter 4 of this report. 1.1.4 Conducting the Formal On-Site Study During the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following\n Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology 5  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under Revised Desegregation Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGTs Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-4? Introduction i f * Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, teachers, and students. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we inten/iewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in The Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by one of nine members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. 1.2 Current Environment in the Little Rock School District The Request for Proposals (RFP) for this management study states that: In a positive spirit of cooperation, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools has assembled a coalition that includes the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, the Little Rock School District and others. This coalition has united to move our school district forward and improve the quality of education for all children served by the district. The coalition requests proposals for a management study and an evaluation of the school districts current financial position. The results of the study will be used by the coalition to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in our community. This spirit of cooperation between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local education agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources in support of its urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership is one that the Little Rock community can be proud of and one which should be emulated in urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified in the RFP. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs approximately 3,800 people. The LRSD budget is approximately $164,000,000. As a public school system, the district is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-5Introduction j 1 who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions\nInstruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. In 1996, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools prepared a report entitled A Plan for Success. The introduction of this report states that the LRSD is at a crossroads with continued declines in student enrollment, increased financial pressures, and the seeming inability by the LRSD leadership to work together. Despite those problems, the Little Rock community embraced the Little Rock School District and charged that the recommendations in A Plan for Success are based on shared goals between the community and the school district. ... the Little Pock School District should strive for a high quality, integrated educational system with strong community support. 1 a . . . recommendations are offered with the intent of working with the Little Pock School District in any possible way to help identify problems as well as serve as problem solvers ourselves. We hope that the school administration, members of the LPSD School Board, the litigants, and other members of the Little Pock community will find new energy and a renewed sense of hope as we strive to help bring about an even more excellent public school system equipped to provide the highest quality education to every student in our district. Among the significant recommendations of the 1996 report were the following:  The LRSD must recognize the relationship between student enrollment and school finance.  Student enrollment can be increased through aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. i  Criteria must be developed for closing outdated and underutilized schools.  A new area elementary school should be constructed.  Racial balances should be relaxed to relieve the overcapacity in some schools. .i  Mediation between the Board of Directors and the district administration should be sought. MGT found that several of the above initiatives were underway when we commenced this management study. A new Board of Directors had been elected, a new Superintendent had been appointed, and, for the most part, the relationship among Board members and between the Superintendent and the Board of Directors was good. J These 1996 Plan for Success recommendations relating to facilities, finance, and instnjctional initiatives will be addressed in the chapters which follow in this report as we respond to MGTs charge for this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-6Introduction 1 There is, however, one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in A Plan for Success and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has the following nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliances recommendation to market the Little Rock School District: 4 .f  Objective 1: Conduct ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families. Use the research results to improve the district.  Objective 2: Create a new image for the district that focuses on its strengths and offer those strengths to its students. 1 t  Objective 3: Establish a Communications Advisory Committee to provide professional advice and resources in communications and marketing activities.  Objective 4: building. Establish Marketing Teams within each school  Objective 5: Communicate regularly with LRSD families.  Objective 6: LRSD employees. Establish regular and timely communications with all  Objective 7: Establish a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families. -j'  Objective 8: Develop and maintain relationships with the Central Arkansas news media. ! i  Objective 9: Actively schedule LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-7Introduction Unfortunately, at the time of MGTs study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plans objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. Subsequent chapters in this report respond to each of the directives of the RFP:  Chapter 2'describes the management and organization structure, staffing patterns, and utilization of personnel in the LRSD.  Chapter 3 compares the management structure in LRSD to selected comparable urban school districts.  Chapter 4 provides the results of MGT surveys of LRSD employees. 1 i  Chapter 5 analyzes the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions in the Little Rock School District.  Chapter 6 assesses the current financial position of the district and the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives.  Chapters 7, 8, and 9 address the funding for facilities, technology, and institutional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation Plan. 1 1 MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-82.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT J I 3 7 1 J 4 12.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 1 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) faces an array of challenging circumstances as it moves toward unitary status in the next two years. This chapter explores some of these circumstances, including the current environment of the district and the management structure of the central office. The major sections of this chapter are:  Historical Background and Future of Desegregation Current Environment of the District  Current Central Office Organizational Structure 2.1 Historical Background and Future of Desegreciation ! I The Little Rock School District has a long history of desegregation, perhaps the longest of any school district. The desegregation process, out of which the Little Rock School District will soon emerge, began in 1954, when, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the United States Supreme Court found racially-segregated public schools to be unconstitutional. For many districts, the process of defining and enforcing integration continues even today and Little Rock is no exception. i For three years after the Brown decision, the Little Rock School Board moved towards a phased integration - first the high schools, then the lower grades. Foreshadowing the current litigious environment, the NAACP filed suit, claiming the district failed to comply with the Courts order of all deliberate speed. The suit failed, but formed a precedent of all sides in the Little Rock school community stepping in with legal action at nearly every development in the district. Then, at the start of the 1957 school year, came the events that made Little Rock national news in the struggle for equal access to education. Television images from those tense days are replayed in American History classrooms and on websites across the country as nine African-American students were prevented from entering Central High School by the Governor of Arkansas and the Arkansas National Guard. President Eisenhower and the United States Army had to intervene, but it was not until 1959 that all legal maneuverings on the part of the segregationists failed and the Little Rock high schools reopened. In the 1970s, the federal courts finally settled on an acceptable framework for desegregation. They found in the 1960s that essentially voluntary integration was not achieving its goals, so the courts moved to desegregation plans that ordered school districts to achieve racial balance in each school. Thus, if a school district was 65 percent white and 35 percent African-American, each school within the district had to be 65 percent white and 35 percent African-American in its student composition. The concept of racial balance, as ordered by the courts, led to busing of students across towns and exorbitant costs for school districts. In many districts, racial balance became MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-1Background on the Little Rock School District the only issue, as administrators and courts lost sight of the original goal of integration  to ensure equal opportunity. The Little Rock School District has struggled with lawsuit after lawsuit and the subsequently altered pupil assignment plans as it has sought to achieve the mandated goal of racial balance. Until very recently, administrators had to contend with the legacies of the Clark case, the 1982 consolidation case, and the consent decree of 1989 as they sought to operate and manage a school district under the watchful eye of court supervision. And they had to deal with the reality of changing demographics, as the student population within the district boundaries has become increasingly more African-American, further removing the goal of racial balance. end may be at hand to the friction bom of integration and lately metamorphosed into the debate over busing versus neighborhood schools in Little Rock. As announced in the April 29, 1998 edition of Education Week, a new consent decree has replaced the 1989 decree. This decree does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan but will allow an end to judicial oversight in 2001 if n the district upholds what is commonly called the Revised Plan. 1 The Revised Plan supersedes and extinguishes all prior agreements and orders related to desegregation with these exceptions:  the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989\n the Magnet School Stipulation dated February 28, 1987\nT i 3  the order dated September 3, 1986 pertaining to the Magnet Review Comrpittee\n the M-to-M (Minority-to-Majority) Transfer Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand  orders interpreting or enforcing these agreements and stipulations, as long as they are not inconsistent with the Revised Plan. i I At the heart of the Revised Plan is a lack of over-prescription, which was cited by many as the major difficulty with previous plans. The Revised Plan opens the door to a return to neighborhood schools, because it recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced (Section 3.8, Revised Plan). This recognition should eventually lead to an end to all desegregation busing and allow students to attend the school of their choice, either a neighborhood school or one of the several different incentive, interdistrict, or magnet schools. I The first obligation of the Little Rock School District under the Revised Plan is to: ...in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discnmination by LRSD against African- American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-2Background on the Little Rock School District 1 on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LFtSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools (Section 2.1, Revised Plan). 1 t 1 In order to meet this obligation, the Revised Plan enumerates policies and programs the district must implement to ensure:  the hiring, assignment, and promotion of qualified African- Americans:  an increased number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers, and secondary core subject teachers\n a uniform salary schedule\n desegregation of schools to the extent practicable through student assignment programs\n no racial discrimination in regard to special education referrals or student discipline: J  the improvement and remediation in the academic achievement of African-American students\n1  improved student achievement through implementation of specific recommendations in the areas of early childhood education, reading/language arts, mathematics, computer literacy, incentive schools, alternative education, and scholarships\n parental and community involvement\nand  equitable maintenance and repair of facilities. The Revised Plan also allows the district attendance zones to be redrawn in accordance with these guidelines:  current satellite zones may be eliminated where the impact would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students\n1 ) 1  students may attend neighborhood schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from 40 to 60 percent African- American) as reasonably practicable\nand -I  students will attend high schools that are within 20 percentage points of the percentage of African-American students in the district as a whole and so that a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from the middle schools. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-3Background on the Little Rock School District Within the return to neighborhood schools, the Revised Plan allows a great deal of student choice in the school they attend. The plan allows numerous types of voluntary student transfers:  desegregation transfers (students at schools where their race is more than 60 percent of the student population may transfer to a school where their race is less than 40 percent of the student population)\n racial isolation transfers (a student in an essentially one-race school may transfer to another school that is racially balanced)\n magnet program transfer (students may transfer to a magnet school)\n employees child transfer (students may transfer to the school where their parent works)\nand  special circumstances transfer (students may transfer due to unique circumstances at the discretion of the district). i As Stated in Section 10 of the Revised Plan, the 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year were transition periods. Full implementation of the Revised Plan is to begin with the second semester of the 1998-99 year. The actions of the district under the Revised Plan will end after the 2000-01 school year, when: ...the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSDs compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSDs compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings (Section 11.0, Revised Plan). The implications of the Revised Plan for the organization and operation of the Little Rock School District central office are many. Several positions within the central office have particular obligations to fulfill as a result of the Revised Plan and it is conceivable that, once unitary status is achieved in 2001, some central office restructuring will be desirable. As it relates to specific positions, the obligations of the Revised Plan are presented in Section 2.3 of this chapter. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-4Background on the Little Rock School District 2.1.1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring j 1 J As part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the three Pulaski County school districts and the State of Arkansas, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) was formed as an arm of the United States District Court. The ODM is vested with the authority to monitor the school district compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement, including any future modifications or additions to, such plans and agreements. The ODM is staffed with nine personnel - one monitor, five associate monitors, and three support personnel. The primary role of the ODM is to determine each partys compliance with both the letter and spirit of the Settlement Agreement. This role has grown to include monitoring the entire desegregation process in the three school districts. The ODM collects and analyzes information on the efforts each of the districts is making in reaching objectives specified in desegregation orders and court orders. 2.1.2 Joshua Intervenors Joshua Intervenors are advocates of African-American students, dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of minority students in all three Pulaski County school districts. The Joshua Intervenors are responsible for enforcing the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan in the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. With respect to the Little Rock School District\nthe Joshua Intervenors have several responsibilities under the Revised Plan, including: i  approving the desegregation and/or education expert to work with the district in the development of the programs, policies, and procedures tp be implemented as part of the Revised Plan\n consulting to the district on the process or standard to be developed for assessing the equitable distribution of resources within the districts schools: and  promoting, with the district, housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. 5 J 5 MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-5Background on the Little Rock School District 2.2 Current Environment of the Little Rock School District This section provides an overview of four environmental aspects of the Little Rock School District (LRSD):  Community Environment Fiscal Environment  Ongoing and Pending School Organizational Changes  Strategic Plan 2.2.1 Community Environment The Little Rock School District is the largest district in Arkansas, with nearly 25,000 students and almost 4,000 employees. The district is one of the 10 largest employers in the state. Established in 1853, the district now encompasses 49 schools - 35 elementary, eight junior highs, five senior high schools, and one vocational-technical center. It is one of three schools districts in Pulaski County, the most populous county in the state. Statewide, the US Department of Education determined that K-12 enrollment increased by 5.0 percent from 1990 to 1996. The Department estimates that Arkansas K-12 enrollment will increase again by 1.3 percent from 1996 to 2002, but will decrease by 2.4 percent from 2002 to 2008. Exhibit 2-1 details enrollment trends in the Little Rock School District. As can be seen, enrollment has generally declined throughout the 1990s, in contrast to the trend seen elsewhere in the state. J .J However, these enrollment figures tell only a portion of the story. In 1958, student enrollment was 74 percent white and 26 percent African-American. In 1996-97, those figures have almost reversed - the district is 33 percent white and 67 percent African- American. However, the general Little Rock population is 65 percent white and just 34 percent African-American. This situation has come about due to an aging of the total population and an actual decline in the proportion of the population that is school age, while the number of African-American children has grown. J In general, the parents of Little Rock school children are well educated. Almost 82 percent of Little Rock adults have completed high school, compared with 75 percent in the nation and 66 percent in the state. Almost 58 percent of Little Rock adults have some college, compared with 42 percent in the nation and just 34 percent in the state. This level of education holds true across the races as well, as Exhibit 2-2 illustrates. As shown, both white and African-American adults in Little Rock are better educated on the whole than adults in the state and nation. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-6tw.iaiWit L...  i Background on the Little Rock School District EXHIBIT 2-1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT FIGURES 27.000 26,500 26,000 25,500 25,000 24,500 ____\\k ____ -------\\ / 24,000 \\ 23,500 \\ \u0026gt; \\ ! V 23,000 22,500 22,000 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 / 1996 1997 Source: Little Rock School District website, www.lrsd.k12.ar.us/enriment.htm. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-7 Background on the Little Rock School District i 1 i EXHIBIT 2-2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADULT EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 1 RACE African-American adults with some college, a bachelors, or an advanced degree White adults with some college, a bachelor's, or an advanced degree LITTLEROCK \u0026lt;%) 43.1 63.3 STATE 24.5 35.0 U.S. 35.1 46.9 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997.  ! In general, Little Rock families are also fairly wealthy. The 1990 median family income in Little Rock was $34,347, just under the national median of $35,225, but far above the Arkansas median of $25,329. However, African-American families in Little Rock are earning much less than white families in the city, as illustrated in Exhibit 2-3. As the exhibit shows: 1  While African-American families in Little Rock did better than families elsewhere in the state, they still had median incomes less than the national median for their race. They earned just 94 percent of the national median for African-American families.  White families in Little Rock did far better than families elsewhere in the state and better than the national median for their race. They earned 110 percent of the national median for white families.  The income disparity between African-American and white Little Rock families is extreme. African-American families earned just 51 percent of white families in 1990. EXHIBIT 2-3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1990 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME J sl:STATE LITTUEROGKSO U.S African-American Families $21,103 $14,785 $22,429 White Families $41,074 $26,939 $37,152 f .1 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-8Background on the Little Rock School District Based on the results of a survey conducted by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in March and April of 1996, parents and community members in Little Rock support their public schools. Most African-American (66%) and white (72%) rated as excellent or good the school where their oldest child attends. In general, they believe that Little Rock schools are performing better than public schools across the nation. Most respondents, (52 percent of African-American families and 59 percent of white families), gave the Little Rock school buildings a grade of excellent or good. Perhaps most indicative of their level of support, most African-American (52%) and white (46%) families would vote for a tax increase to support the Little Rock School District. 2.2.2 Fiscal Overview of the Little Rock School District The total budget of the Little Rock School District in 1995-96 was approximately $141 million, divided over four major accounting funds - general, special revenue, debt service, and capital projects. The two main sources of funding for the district are local and state. However, the state funds come from three sources: 1  normal state appropriations\n an approximately $71 million settlement from the state as part of the 1989 desegregation litigation and resulting decree\nand  a loan of up to $20 million, also determined as part of the 1989 decree. 1 These last two state funds are a source of financial concern. The final settlement payment of $683,125 from the $71 million was made in the 1996-97 school year. The $20 million in loan funds will shortly be exhausted, as these funds have been drawn from in 1991, 1992, 1993, and again in 1996, leaving just $5 million after the 1996-97 1 j school year. There is currently no revenue source in sight that will begin to compensate for the loss of these fund sources. Exhibit 2-4 shows the recent trend in reliance on these funds. As the exhibit shows\n The Little Rock School District has substantially decreased its fund balances each school year, leaving little room for unexpected needs or contingency funds.  After three years without using them, the district was forced to utilize loan funds in 1996-97 to make up its budget shortfall. 1  The district has reduced its reliance on settlement and loan funds over the past four years, from over $9 million to $3.6 million. Doing so, however, has meant drawing from fund balances. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-9Background on the Little Rock School District 3 EXHIBIT 2-4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT USE OF NON-RECURRING REVENUE SOURCES J 5 SCHOOL \"YEAR 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 (budgeted) BEGINNING FUND\nBALANCE $6,019,557 4,794,251 3,645,739 915,442 ENDING FUND BALANCE $4,794,251 3,645,739 915,442 942,644 SETTLEMENT FUNDS EXPENDED $8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 LOAN FUNDS EXPENDED $0 3,000,000 0 0 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. i Exhibit 2-5 compares the sources of LRSD revenues with the sources of revenue ail other districts across the nation having the same per pupil expenditures. As the exhibit shows\n The Little Rock School District receives more than the national average in percentage received from local sources. 1  State revenues to the district are over seven percentage points below the national average. J J  The Little Rock School District receives twice the percentage of revenue from federal and other sources that other districts receive. 7 Viewed from another angle, local sources of revenue provided over 70 percent of Little Rocks operating funds in 1996-97, which is a steady increase from their former 50 percent mark in 1989-90. Exhibit 2-6 shows the local revenues estimated for 1996, collectable in 1997. The $74.7 million figure shown represents an increase of about $5 million over estimated tax collections for 1996 due to property value reassessments concluded in 1996. State law requires such reassessments every five years. In its May 1998 employee newsletter, the Superintendents Notepad included the comment that the Board heard a 1998-99 budget report that basically includes no new revenues for the coming year. Additionally, the report identified facilities needs totaling more than $114 million in repair and renovation, well in excess of the $70 million identified in a 1995 facilities study. The only way to fund these capital improvement projects would be to fund them locally, through a bond initiative. So, clearly, the fiscal environment of the district is at least fragile and possibly precarious. J MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-10u. 1 J Background on the Little Rock School ct EXHIBIT 2-5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96 PERCENT OF REVENUES RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%  Federal \u0026amp; Other  Stale  Local 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Little Rock School District National Average Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-11 Background on the Little Rock School District 1 EXHIBIT 2-6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ESTIMATED 1997 PROPERTY TAX YIELD CATEGORY Real Estate Personal Utilities - Real Property @ 15% Utilities - Personal Property @ 85% TOTAL ASSESSMENT $1,401,195,338 468,027,843 13,016,161 73,758,248 $1,955,997,590 MILLAGE RATE 0.0414 0.0419 0.0414 0.0419 TAX CHARGE $58,009,487 19,610,367 538,869 3,090,471 $81,249,193 ESTIMATED COLLECTION (@92%) $74,749,258 Source\nUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. i Complicating the fiscal environment of the Little Rock School District is the new state law. Act 915 of 1995. If a school district is determined to be in fiscal distress under this law - having current year expenditures exceed current year revenues over a combined three-year period - the state could step in and take over the district. If a district in fiscal distress has no plans for correcting or is making insufficient progress in correcting the distress, the district will be taken over by the Arkansas Department of Education. Combined with the dwindling reserves of LRSD, this potential action could represent a real threat to the future local management of the district. 2.2.3 Ongoing and Pending School Organizational Changes 7 As part of the Revised Plan, the district is moving from its current configuration of junior and senior high schools to middle schools for grades six through eight and high schools for grades nine through 12. This conversion will impact nearly every school, as some schools will need to become ninth grade only for a time, due to limited capacity at the high schools. Some schools will likely be closed as well, or converted to serve another grade sequence from its current sequence. Central office staff are assuming additional duties for the period of this conversion, including developing new middle school curricula, new administrative policies and procedures for the middle schools, and new student attendance zones. J Also part of the Revised Plan, the district is undertaking the construction of two new elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens School. The new Stephens Elementary School will be completed first. Once it is ready for students, one of the districts older schools will be closed. While this may appear to be a simple issue, in Little Rock it will likely be a racially-charged issue as many of the most deteriorated schools are in traditionally African-American enclaves and they do not wish to lose their neighborhood school. The Revised Plan addresses this issue and forbids the district from closing schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area\" (Section 3.6, Revised Plan). MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-12Background on the Little Rock School District In order to assist school leaders in increased school-based management opportunities, the central office staff are serving as brokers in addition to their regular positions. This program started in this school year, 1998-99, and will be fully implemented by the next school year. The purpose of the brokers is to provide technical assistance to school principals as they navigate the zoning and middle school changes, and as the emphasis in the district increases to more effectively empower school-based leadership. 2.2.4 Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District publication A Vision tor the Future - Strategic Plan Update 1998 is the guiding strategic plan for the district. It includes the districts mission statement, beliefs, objectives, parameters, and an action plan for each of its 11 strategies. These strategies are:  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means for assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the SCf percentile on standardized tests of who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support.  We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning.  IVe will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives. i i *  We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan.  IVe will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-13Background on the Little Rock School District  We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district.  We will develop and implement plans to enhance public confidence in the safety and security of our schools and to ensure discipline and an orderly learning climate.  We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district. 2.2.5 Ongoing Pay and Classification Study The district is currently working with an outside consultant to complete an internal pay and classification study. The parameters of the study include:  reviewing current job descriptions\n evaluating job positions\n developing salary administrative policies and procedures\n completing a comparative study\n planning for transitions (including comparing old to new, creating a policy for over maximum and under maximum employees, setting a policy for grandfathering, and deciding on a policy for exceptional cases)\nand  establishing a review committee to ensure fairness, equity, and consistency. According to the schedule planned by the district, the study will be completed in May 1999. The study will review all central office and school positions, except teachers, aides, bus drivers, and custodians. 2.3 Current Central Office Structure One major requirement of the management study is for MGT to examine the current management structure and appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions. Therefore, this section reviews the current structure of the central office\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":148,"next_page":149,"prev_page":147,"total_pages":3369,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1764,"total_count":40428,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":307},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":37},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":34},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":23},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"worksheets","hits":5},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":4},{"value":"study guides","hits":4},{"value":"learning modules","hits":3},{"value":"slide shows","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"Sound","hits":1050},{"value":"StillImage","hits":803},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":213},{"value":"Collection","hits":10},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2076},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":1425},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":777},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":464},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":397},{"value":"AFL-CIO. Civil Rights Department","hits":326},{"value":"Hunter, Charles N., approximately 1851-1931","hits":323},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":289},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":244}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Race relations","hits":4661},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":3223},{"value":"People--Ethnic Groups--Hispanics","hits":2928},{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":2321},{"value":"African Americans","hits":1792},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":1747},{"value":"Civil rights--South Carolina","hits":1739},{"value":"Civil rights movements--Mississippi","hits":1550},{"value":"League of United Latin American Citizens","hits":1531},{"value":"LULAC","hits":1517},{"value":"Race","hits":1483}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1501},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1413},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":713},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":639},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":623},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":608},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":582},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":582},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":418}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2592},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1497},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":622},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":608},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":579},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":360},{"value":"De Laine, Joseph A. (Joseph Armstrong), 1898-1974","hits":345},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":315},{"value":"Samet, Seymour, 1919-2014","hits":279}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1567},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":663},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":386},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":299},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":188},{"value":"Birmingham Bombing (Sixteenth Street Baptist Church)","hits":125},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":104},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":83},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":68},{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":55},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":43}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":10939},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4304},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":3804},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":3648},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2519},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2032},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1863},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":1801},{"value":"United States, Texas, Harris County, Houston, 29.76328, -95.36327","hits":1564},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":1236},{"value":"United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729","hits":1198}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"South Carolina","hits":6466},{"value":"Georgia","hits":5551},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":3826},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":3452},{"value":"Texas","hits":3432},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":2359},{"value":"Alabama","hits":2352},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1657},{"value":"New York","hits":1561},{"value":"Florida","hits":1185},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":1167}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1962","hits":5885},{"value":"1964","hits":5684},{"value":"1963","hits":5401},{"value":"1965","hits":5249},{"value":"1966","hits":5016},{"value":"1961","hits":4941},{"value":"1968","hits":4914},{"value":"1967","hits":4901},{"value":"1969","hits":4708},{"value":"1960","hits":4681},{"value":"1957","hits":4182},{"value":"1958","hits":4010},{"value":"1977","hits":3976},{"value":"1959","hits":3971},{"value":"1971","hits":3904},{"value":"1970","hits":3870},{"value":"1976","hits":3790},{"value":"1955","hits":3718},{"value":"1974","hits":3664},{"value":"1972","hits":3650},{"value":"1975","hits":3649},{"value":"1956","hits":3611},{"value":"1973","hits":3461},{"value":"1994","hits":3357},{"value":"1995","hits":3332},{"value":"1950","hits":3315},{"value":"1978","hits":3266},{"value":"1954","hits":3261},{"value":"1979","hits":3249},{"value":"1996","hits":3225},{"value":"1980","hits":3158},{"value":"1948","hits":3126},{"value":"1953","hits":3050},{"value":"1997","hits":3036},{"value":"1949","hits":3022},{"value":"1998","hits":2990},{"value":"1999","hits":2983},{"value":"1952","hits":2967},{"value":"1947","hits":2958},{"value":"1951","hits":2907},{"value":"1981","hits":2856},{"value":"2000","hits":2833},{"value":"2001","hits":2792},{"value":"2002","hits":2693},{"value":"1982","hits":2691},{"value":"1946","hits":2690},{"value":"2003","hits":2675},{"value":"1983","hits":2652},{"value":"1945","hits":2610},{"value":"1985","hits":2584},{"value":"1943","hits":2578},{"value":"1944","hits":2577},{"value":"1984","hits":2573},{"value":"1942","hits":2499},{"value":"1941","hits":2473},{"value":"1940","hits":2447},{"value":"1986","hits":2438},{"value":"1939","hits":2375},{"value":"1930","hits":2352},{"value":"1938","hits":2341},{"value":"1937","hits":2323},{"value":"1936","hits":2303},{"value":"2004","hits":2296},{"value":"2005","hits":2270},{"value":"1931","hits":2252},{"value":"1990","hits":2186},{"value":"1987","hits":2183},{"value":"1991","hits":2181},{"value":"1935","hits":2174},{"value":"2006","hits":2165},{"value":"1934","hits":2161},{"value":"1933","hits":2160},{"value":"1932","hits":2150},{"value":"1992","hits":2139},{"value":"1993","hits":2123},{"value":"1989","hits":1879},{"value":"1929","hits":1874},{"value":"1988","hits":1753},{"value":"1928","hits":1509},{"value":"1921","hits":1393},{"value":"1925","hits":1275},{"value":"1927","hits":1272},{"value":"1926","hits":1266},{"value":"1924","hits":1263},{"value":"1923","hits":1208},{"value":"1922","hits":1188},{"value":"1920","hits":1187},{"value":"2007","hits":1029},{"value":"2011","hits":1029},{"value":"2008","hits":1017},{"value":"2010","hits":992},{"value":"2009","hits":980},{"value":"2012","hits":967},{"value":"2013","hits":965},{"value":"2014","hits":924},{"value":"2016","hits":876},{"value":"1919","hits":850},{"value":"1918","hits":849},{"value":"1900","hits":831},{"value":"2015","hits":826}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":301323,"missing":11},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"correspondence","hits":9610},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4200},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3564},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1925},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1690},{"value":"records (documents)","hits":1429},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":1385},{"value":"reports","hits":1362},{"value":"clippings (information artifacts)","hits":1156},{"value":"articles","hits":903},{"value":"transcripts","hits":816}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":13560},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":9168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8110},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6150},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1673},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":1494},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":40},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-NC/1.0/","hits":20},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":12},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-OW-EU/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3271},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1843},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1717},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":1696},{"value":"Memphis World","hits":1484},{"value":"James W. Silver Collection","hits":1430},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":1423},{"value":"Integration Correspondence","hits":1420},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":1403}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":3821},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":3419},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3316},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3287},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3250},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2174},{"value":"South Carolina Digital Library","hits":2167},{"value":"University of South Carolina. South Carolina Political Collections","hits":1793},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":1663},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":1641},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":1435}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":40191},{"value":"Collection","hits":237}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":40278},{"value":"true","hits":150}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}